Greece & Rome, Vol. 57, No. 1, © The Classical Association ... · Special thanks go to Kathleen Coleman for generously sharing her expertise ... Critical Theory Since 1965, (Tallahassee,

Greece & Rome, Vol. 57, No. 1, © The Classical Association, 2010. All rights reserveddoi:10.1017/S0017383509990295

A HEALING TOUCH FOR EMPIRE

A HEALING TOUCH FOR EMPIRE: VESPASIAN’S WONDERS IN DOMITIANIC ROME*

Before Vespasian returned to Rome to take up the reins of imperial government, he reportedly had a vision in the Serapeum of Alexandria and, as the New Serapis, healed two men.1 These wonders came to defi ne Vespasian’s time in Egypt and yet, for modern readers, their prominence in the story of the emperor’s rise to power creates an apparent inconsistency. The same man who on his deathbed joked about his impending divinization also apparently played the part of a god at the beginning of his reign.2 Such contradictions are to be expected in the colourful accounts of emperors’ lives, but this particular one invites further investigation because of its signifi cance to the historical development of the conception of the emperor’s divinity. Through detailed consideration of the prospects for reception of these wonders both during and after the Flavian dynasty, this article seeks to demonstrate the predominance of Domitianic infl uence on the story of Vespasian’s wonders.3 Domitian’s reign saw a new emphasis on the living emperor’s divinity, which diminished again under Trajan. Nevertheless, wonders were a means through which the charisma of the emperor was manifested in Flavian Rome and later.

Although space does not permit a thorough discussion of imperial wonders, it should be noted that before Vespasian, no emperor – that

* I would like to thank Herbert Benario, Francis Cairns, Nancy de Grummond, Laurel Fulkerson, Miriam Griffi n, Julie Langford, John Marincola, Aislinn Melchior, Chris Pfaff, Daniel Pullen, Allen Romano, Brent Shaw, Jim Sickinger, Svetla Slaveva-Griffi n, David Stone, and Tony Woodman. Special thanks go to Kathleen Coleman for generously sharing her expertise and to the anonymous reviewer for enlightening and insightful comments. Any errors are my responsibility alone. All unattributed translations are also my own.

1 Suet. Vesp. 7; Tac. Hist. 4.81–2; Dio Cass. 65.8.1–2. Dio only reports the healings.2 On his deathbed, the emperor reportedly said, vae,…puto deus fi o (‘Alas, I think I am

becoming a god’). See Suet. Vesp. 23.4; Dio Cass. 66.17.3.3 H. R. Jauss, ‘Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory’, trans. T. Bahti, in H.

A. Adams and L. Searle (eds.), Critical Theory Since 1965, (Tallahassee, FL, 1986), 171: ‘The method for historical reception is indispensable for the understanding of literature from the distant past. When the author of a work is unknown, his intent undeclared, and his relationship to the sources and models only indirectly accessible, the philological question of how the text is “properly” – that is, “from its intention and time” – to be understood can best be answered if one foregrounds it against those works that the author explicitly or implicitly presupposed his contemporary audience to know.’ In this particular case, the works in question are broadly conceived as the narratives, performances, rituals, monuments, and ideologies of the period under investigation.

use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 28 Apr 2020 at 06:12:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295

https://www.cambridge.org/core

78 A HEALING TOUCH FOR EMPIRE

we know of – had been depicted as personally engaged in working wonders.4 Then four of the subsequent eight emperors either were credited with such wonder-working or were at least thought capable of so doing.5 The development of the story of Vespasian’s wonders during the reign of Domitian was critical in ensuring that, in spite of Domitian’s personal unpopularity, post-Flavian emperors could also be conceived of as wonder-workers.

Vespasian’s healings in Vespasianic Rome

Vespasian arrived in Alexandria late in November 69 CE, perhaps for the purpose of securing the grain supply as leverage against the Vitellian regime or to avoid the stain of Roman blood, while his allies led the military assault on the Vitellians in Italy.6 During Vespasian’s ten-month stay in Egypt, a variety of wonders reportedly occurred. These wonders have received ample scholarly attention, much of which has focused on the historical signifi cance of these events in the context of Vespasian’s rise to the Principate.7 Unfortunately, both the chronological distance between our extant sources and the wonders and the inevitable reshaping of memory in the intervening time

4 Philo (Leg. 2.9) credits Augustus with putting an end to plagues, but there is no suggestion that he actively participated in the cures. Suetonius (Aug. 94) lists other miracles, but these occurred before Augustus’ adulthood.

5 Titus attempted to end a plague (Suet. Tit. 8.4). Pliny the Younger (Pan. 22.3) writes of sick people’s belief in Trajan’s healing power. Hadrian ended drought in Africa (SHA Hadr. 22.14) and healed two people (ibid. 25.1–4). Marcus Aurelius was credited with lightning (SHA Marc. 24.4) and rain miracles (Dio Cass. 71.8.10; SHA Marc. 24.4). The latter case, which appears in multiple versions appealing to different constituencies, shows how susceptible these stories were to partisan remolding.

6 B. Levick, Vespasian (London, 1999), 46–52; M. Griffi n, ‘The Flavians’, in A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History XI. The High Empire, 70–192, second edition (Cambridge, 2000), 6, states that it was Vespasian’s desire not to incur invidia by participating in the bloodbath at Rome that prompted him to stay in Alexandria until it was over.

7 Levick (n. 6), 68, sums up the situation well: ‘Few events of Vespasian’s life have attracted more attention than his dealings with Alexandrian deities.’ See also S. Morenz, ‘Vespasian, Heiland der Kranken: Persönliche Frommigkeit im antiken Herrscherkult?’, WJA 4 (1949/50), 370–8; P. Derchain and J. Hubaux, ‘Vespasian au Sérapéum’, Latomus 12 (1953), 38–52; K. Scott, The Imperial Cult Under the Flavians (New York, 1975), 1–19; A. Henrichs, ‘Vespasian’s Visit to Alexandria’, ZPE 3 (1968), 51–80; G. von Ziethen, ‘Heilung und römischer Kaiserkult’, SudArch 78 (1994), 171–91; S. A. Takács, Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (Leiden, 1995), 96–8; T. tam Tinh, ‘Les empereurs romains versus Isis, Sérapis’, in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler. The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, JRA Suppl. 17 (Ann Arbor, MI, 1996), 220–1; Levick (n. 6), 68–9, 227–8; M. Clauss, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich (Stuttgart, 1999), 113–15, 346–7; B. W. Jones, Suetonius, Vespasian (London, 2000), 52–6; E. Gunderson, ‘The Flavian Amphitheater: All the World as a Stage’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text (Leiden, 2003), 640–1.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295


A HEALING TOUCH FOR EMPIRE 79

problematize the historical discussion. For these reasons, the present examination will largely forego the question of what happened in Egypt in 69–70 CE in favour of a detailed consideration of the Flavian reception of the wonders.

Although the narrative of these wonders is well known, it bears repeating. Tiberius Julius Alexander, who had led the province of Egypt in proclaiming Vespasian emperor on 1 July 69 CE, prepared a lavish adventus reception for him in Alexandria.8 Vespasian was received in the city as the New Serapis.9 Two Alexandrians – one blind, the other lame – approached the emperor at the tribunal seeking healing at Serapis’ command.10 Vespasian at fi rst rebuffed them but they persisted, so the emperor, with the encouragement of those around him, made the attempt:

A certain commoner, who was deprived of his sight, and another who was lame, together approached [Vespasian] while he was sitting at the tribunal, imploring him for the cure for their illness that had been shown them by Serapis as they slept, saying that if Vespasian should spit upon the one, his sight would be restored, and if he should deign to touch the other with his heel, his leg would regain strength. Although Vespasian could scarcely believe that it would succeed by any means, to the point that he dare not even try, at last, with his friends urging him on, he made the attempt publicly before the assembled crowd and he was not unsuccessful. Suet. Vesp. 7.2–3.11

Attached to Suetonius’ and Tacitus’ accounts of these healings is a second Alexandrian wonder. Vespasian spent time alone in the sanctuary of Serapis and there saw in a vision a man named Basilides, who, being detained by illness, was supposedly miles away. Basilides conferred upon Vespasian certain objects – loaves, crowns, and boughs

8 Joseph BJ 4.618–19. On the date of the proclamation, see Suet. Vesp. 6.3; Tac. Hist. 2.79; Dio Cass. 65.8.2.

9 P Fouad 8; A. D. Nock, ‘Deifi cation and Julian: I’, JRS 47 (1957), 118 n. 28; Henrichs (n. 7), 59 n. 24; O. Montevecchi, ‘Vespasiano acclamato dagli Alessandrini’, Aegyptus 61 (1981), 155–70.

10 Suet. Vesp. 7.2–3; Tac. Hist. 4.81.1. A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Middletown, CN, 1987), 106, rightly places Vespasian’s dealings with Serapis within the context of his imperial adventus.

11 e plebe quidam luminibus orbatus, item alius debili crure sedentem pro tribunali pariter adierunt, orantes opem valitudini demonstratam a Serapide per quietem: restituturum oculos, si inspuisset; confi rmaturum crus, si dignaretur calce contingere. cum vix fi des esset ullo modo successuram ideoque ne experiri quidem auderet, extremo hortantibus amicis palam pro contione utrumque temptavit; nec eventus defuit.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



– that were associated with Ptolemaic royalty.12 The experience appears to have been a kind of miraculous coronation ceremony.13

One of the key problems in understanding extant narratives of these wonders is accounting for their development from events of a largely local (Eastern) signifi cance to pivotal events in the narration of the Vespasian myth at Rome.14 Vespasian’s motivation for participating in the cult of Serapis at the time will have been, at least in part, to continue garnering support from the gods and priesthoods of the East.15 It was anticipated that these gods and their priests would throw their lot in with the usurper and even produce some signs predicting his victory.16 At the same time, it is doubtful that the approval of Serapis in Alexandria would have had much immediate impact on the political situation in Rome, a fact that raises questions about the nature and extent of the wonders’ reportage in the direct aftermath of their occurrence. Suetonius’ statement that the healings imparted to the emperor an auctoritas et quasi maiestas quaedam that he had previously lacked must thus be carefully interpreted.17 Indeed, it is unlikely that the emperor’s healing of provincial commoners by personal touch in the manner of a magician or holy man – persons of dubious reputation in Rome – would have inspired other Romans, particularly the elite, to attribute greater auctoritas and maiestas to him.18

12 Suet. Vesp. 7.1; Henrichs (n. 7), 61 n. 30.13 Levick (n. 6), 69, writes, ‘The implication of the episodes turn out the same: Vespasian

was the legitimate King of Egypt, and one favoured by and intimately associated with Serapis.’14 Levick (ibid.) focuses on the local signifi cance: ‘All classes in a diffi cult city alien to

Vespasian were being won over. The vision legitimated him as the protégé of a deity once of particular importance to upper-class Greeks, while the miracles had an instant effect on a mixed crowd like the audience assembled for Ti. Julius Alexander’s speech’. Griffi n (n. 6), 5, sees the wonders as targeted at ‘Egyptian and eastern consumption’. The Egyptologist Robert Ritner, in ‘Egypt under Roman Rule: The Legacy of Ancient Egypt’, in M. W. Daley and C. F. Petry (eds.), The Cambridge History of Egypt, Volume 1. Islamic Egypt, 640–1517 (Cambridge, 1998), 14, agrees: ‘The identifi cation [of Vespasian] with the Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis…catered to more local and contemporary taste.’ The wide dissemination of Serapis, however, recommends envisioning a somewhat broader appeal.

15 Vespasian consulted an oracle at Mount Carmel (Suet. Vesp. 5.6), while Titus consulted the oracle of Aphrodite at Paphos (Suet. Tit. 5.1).

16 Local gods’ predictions of Roman victory long predate Vespasian. G. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), 9, discusses the role of Julius Caesar’s Eastern partisans in manufacturing divine wonders in sanctuaries. See Caes. B Civ. 3.105.

17 Suet. Vesp. 7.1: auctoritas et quasi maiestas quaedam ut scilicet inopinato et adhuc novo principi deerat; haec quoque accesit (‘Infl uence and a certain majesty, so to speak, were lacking in this unexpected and as yet new emperor: these also he acquired’). Jones (n. 7), 55, sees the common soldiery as the intended audience that needed convincing.

18 M. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London, 2001), 192–201, documents the periodic expulsions of magicians from Rome and the group’s generally low social standing. See also R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order. Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, 1967), 95–127.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



The silence of Josephus suggests that these wonders were not prominent in early Flavian propaganda. Josephus is the earliest extant source for Vespasian’s sojourn in Egypt.19 Since he accompanied Vespasian and Titus to Alexandria, he should have been present to see or at least hear of these wonders, but he does not mention them.20 Others have ascribed this omission to Josephus’ reticence to report events that confl icted with his religious scruples or his self-interest, but another equally viable explanation is that the wonders were not publicly emphasized in the early years of Flavian rule.21

If the Alexandrian wonders were not of great contemporary signifi cance in Rome, they were nevertheless later drawn into the Roman narrative of Vespasian’s rise to power from a vibrant tradition about the fi rst Flavian emperor. Indeed, the explicitly Hellenistic elements of the accounts of Vespasian’s stay in Alexandria point to the development of a Philhellenic Vespasian myth that stressed echoes of Alexander the Great’s exploits and the royal theology of the Ptolemies in the fi rst Flavian’s rise to power.22 The impact of such a tradition on extant Latin accounts is apparent at both the lexical and narrative levels. In Tacitus, the desire (cupido) that spurs Vespasian to visit the sanctuary of Serapis alludes to Alexander’s famous pothos (‘a yearning always to do something new and extraordinary’) and the visit itself parallels Alexander’s visit to the oracle of Ammon, where the young conqueror is identifi ed as the son of Zeus Ammon.23 Such parallels owe

19 Joseph BJ 4.656–7.20 Joseph Vit. 415–16; Ap. 1.48.21 Henrichs (n. 7), 79, argues that Josephus elides the wonders because he credits troops in

Judea with fi rst proclaiming Vespasian emperor. Levick (n. 6), 69, suggests that Josephus would have found this manipulation of religion repugnant, and that he would not have wanted it to overshadow his own prediction. Josephus may have omitted the wonders because he did not consider the material appealing to his patron or consistent with the public image of the Flavians. Griffi n (n. 6), 6, proposes that the Flavians may have been reluctant to see Vespasian’s advent at Rome overshadowed.

22 Henrichs (n. 7), 55–60. ‘These similarities [between Suetonius’ and Tacitus’ accounts of Vespasian in Egypt] entitle us to assume that the common source from which [they] are derived had embellished its narrative by borrowing highlights from the story of Alexander’s visit to the oracle of Ammon’ (ibid. 57).

23 Tac. Hist. 4.82.1: altior inde Vespasiano cupido adeundi sacram sedem, ut super rebus imperii consuleret: arceri templo cunctos iubet (‘Thenceforward there was a greater longing in Vespasian for approaching the sacred seat so that he could consult the god concerning matters of empire. He ordered all to be kept away from the temple’). This passage clearly alludes to Curtius Rufus’ description of Alexander’s yearning to visit Ammon at Siwah (4.7.8): haec Aegyptii vero maiora iactabant; sed ingens cupido animum stimulabat adeundi Iovem, quem ge neris sui auctorem haud contentus mortali fastigio aut credebat esse aut credi volebat (‘The Egyptians in fact exaggerated these obstacles; but a powerful yearning roused his mind to approach Jupiter, whom he, scarcely content with the pinnacle of mortal rank, either believed or wished to believe was the progenitor of his line’). Curtius translates pothos, which he encountered in the same sources that Arrian



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



much to ex post facto literary fashioning; the wonders, however, have no close parallel in the Alexander tradition.24 They instead suggest the assertion of a link between Vespasian and the Ptolemies. The visionary Basilides’ gifts to Vespasian attest to this aim in that they are emblems associated with Ptolemaic kingship.25 Tacitus further emphasizes the Ptolemaic connection by recounting Vespasian’s vision of Basilides and Serapis’ epiphany to Ptolemy Soter together.26 Thus, in his interaction with Serapis, Vespasian is cast as much as a successor to the Ptolemies as a new Alexander. In reviving the image of the old Hellenistic dynasty, Vespasian may also have been seen as fulfi lling messianic expectations such as those expressed in the Sibylline prophecy of Egyptian renewal under a ‘seventh king’.27 Indeed, Eastern predictions that Vespasian purportedly fulfi lled point to the development of a Vespasian myth that was cast in Eastern terms and in response to Eastern interests.28

Whatever its merits in the East, Vespasian’s inheritance of the Ptolemaic mantle would not have been particularly attractive to many elite Romans. This conclusion is diffi cult to avoid, especially if one takes seriously the recurring theme of Roman elite anxiety about the relationship between its powerful men and the Ptolemies and Alexandria. In the Augustan Age, Cleopatra, the New Isis, represented all that was deplorable about the Ptolemies as dangerous but defeated enemies of Rome.29 Also, beginning with Julius Caesar, numerous

used, as ingens cupido. He is drawing on Nearchos of Lato’s defi nition of Alexander’s pothos as preserved in Arrian’s Indica (20.3): αὐτῷ τὴν ἐπιθυμίην τοῦ καινόν τι αἰεὶ καὶ ἄτοπον ἐργάζεσθαι (‘his continual yearning to perform some novel and extraordinary deed’). For Nearchos as Arrian’s source, see A. F. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley, CA, 1993), 13. Hammond, The Genius of Alexander the Great (Chapel Hill, NC, 1997), 44, attributes it to Aristobulus. Both were contemporaries of Alexander.

24 The closest parallel is Alexander’s friends’ petition to Serapis to allow the dying king to enter his sanctuary at Babylon. See Plut. Vit. Alex. 76.4; Arr. Anab. 7.26.2. The obvious inference is that the duration of the empire is related to the life of the king, which relates well to the relationship in Roman ideology between the salus of the emperor and the welfare of the empire.

25 Suet. Vesp. 7.1; Henrichs (n. 7), 61.26 Tac. Hist. 4.82–3.27 Or. Sib. 3.192–3. See R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sybilline Oracles and its Social Setting

(Leiden, 2003), 126–9. 28 Josephus (BJ 3.399–408) claims to have predicted Vespasian’s Principate as early as

the summer of 67, but Levick (n. 6), 43, rightly concludes that this is not credible. See also Suet. Vesp. 5.6. Other, pre-existing messianic prophecies were claimed to have been fulfi lled by Vespasian, particularly one that both Suetonius and Josephus state that the Jews had wrongly expected to be fulfi lled by someone among them: Joseph BJ 6.312–314; Tac. Hist. 5.13.2; Suet. Vesp. 4.5.

29 Hor. Carm. 1.37; Verg. Aen. 8.688, 696–8. In Vergil, Cleopatra is depicted bearing the sistrum, an implement often borne by Isis in cult representations. On the sistrum, see J. G. Griffi ths, The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI) (Leiden, 1975), 184. For further discussion and bibliography on Cleopatra as Isis, see F. E. Brink, ‘Antony-Osiris, Cleopatra-Isis: The End



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



Roman dynasts and emperors were reported to have desired or threatened to move the capital of the empire to Alexandria.30 Octavian played on fears that Antony had abandoned Rome for Alexandria and was taking up the role of Hellenistic monarch.31 Later, this fear was transferred to ‘bad’ emperors. Caligula’s and Nero’s prospective Eastern travels excited much worry.32 It was even prophesied that Nero would lose the empire and regain it in the East.33 Such prophecies were one basis for the emergence of numerous Nero impostors – the fi rst of whom was active in late 69 or early 70 CE.34 A usurper in the East was thus not an obviously appealing notion in fi rst-century Rome, and any story that emphasized Vespasian’s special relationship with Alexandria or the Ptolemaic tradition would probably have engendered suspicion and fear.

It is therefore surprising that accounts of Vespasian in Alexandria do not address concerns about an Eastern usurper. One likely explanation for this silence is that, while Vespasian had actually played up the role of Eastern champion in the early stages of his bid for the throne, he deliberately downplayed that image upon his return to Rome. In describing Vespasian’s arrival in Alexandria, Josephus calls him ‘the emperor of the East’, a description that alludes either to Eastern hopes or to Flavian civil-war propaganda tying the new emperor closely to his Eastern supporters.35 Still, Vespasian did not come to Rome in 70 as the emperor of the East. During the joint triumph in the summer of 71, he and Titus instead portrayed themselves as conquerors of the Jews.36 The Jewish victory would be referenced further in the templum Pacis, where the golden vessels from the Jerusalem Temple were put

of Plutarch’s Antony’, in P. A. Stadter (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (London, 1992), 159–78.

30 Suet. Iul. 79.3; Calig. 49.2. D. Wardle, Suetonius’ Life of Caligula. A Commentary (Brussels, 1994), 341, sees the claim that Caligula planned to move to Alexandria as part of a tradition of invective about Romans in the East. For evidence of this tradition, see Cic. Leg. agr. 1.18, 2.86–7; Cic. Leg. Man. 64–7; Dio Cass. 50.4.1, 63.27.2; Plut. Vit. Galb. 2.1; Hdn. 4.3.5–7.

31 M. P. Charlesworth, ‘Some Fragments of the Propaganda of Mark Antony’, CJ 27 (1933), 175; K. Scott, ‘Octavian’s Propaganda and Antony’s De Sua Ebrietate’, CPh 24 (1929), 133–7.

32 Suet. Calig. 49.2; Suet. Ner. 47.2.33 Suet. Ner. 40.2.34 Tac. Hist. 1.2.1, 2.8–9; Suet. Ner. 57; Dio Cass. 63.9.3, 66.19.3; FHG fr. 104. See also A.

E. Pappano, ‘The False Neros’, CJ 32 (1937), 385–92; P. A. Gallivan, ‘The False Neros: A Re-Examination’, Historia 22 (1973), 364–5; C. Tuplin, ‘The False Neros of the First Century A.D.’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V (Brussels, 1989), 354–404.

35 Joseph BJ 4.618.36 Levick (n. 6), 71: ‘Probably the suppression of the Jewish Revolt was the main theme,

for Suetonius, Dio, and the coins refer to Vespasian’s triumph as being “over the Jews” (DE IVDAEIS)’. See Suet. Vesp. 8.1; Dio Cass. 65.12.1; Mattingly–Sydenham, RIC 301.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



on display, and in multiple coin issues featuring conquered Judea.37 This focus on the pacifi cation of Judea would naturally have fi tted the Roman tradition of the victor of a civil war celebrating his triumph over a foreign enemy.38 The new emperor’s sole nod to Egypt’s role in his ascent was the night that he and Titus spent in the Iseum Campense before their triumph.39 While not negligible, the visit was not an entrée to a thoroughgoing orientalizing cultural programme. The Iseum Campense did appear on early Flavian coinage, but Serapis would not follow until the reign of Domitian.40

For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that Vespasian, once established as emperor in Rome, framed his Eastern exploits in terms that would have inspired the proliferation of miracle-laden accounts of his time in Alexandria. Josephus’ version in the Jewish War, which makes no mention of Vespasian’s miracles, better represents the kind of material that circulated in the early years of the Flavian dynasty. This is not to say that such stories did not circulate early. Depending on the degree of their foundation in actual events, they may have started to spread in Alexandria in the year 69.41 Little can be said, however, of the reception of these wonders at Rome in a climate that does not seem to have facilitated their transmission, which the evidence suggests were the conditions that prevailed in the fi rst years after Vespasian’s return to the city. Not only did the conquest of Jerusalem overshadow other events in the East, but Vespasian’s interest in portraying himself as the antithesis of the Philhellenic Nero would have militated against promoting an image of the emperor as successor to the Ptolemies and the chosen of Serapis.42

37 Joseph BJ 7.5.7.38 The triumphs of Sulla, Caesar, and Augustus emphasized victories over foreign powers

to mask more problematic success in civil war. See G. S. Sumi, Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome Between the Republic and the Principate (Ann Arbor, MI, 2005), 176, 216.

39 Joseph BJ 7.123.40 Mattingly–Sydenham, RIC 204, pl. v 85b; BMC 659, 788, pl. 35, 3; P. V. Hill, Monuments

of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London, 1989), 28–9. Serapis started regularly appearing on Alexandrian coins in association with the emperor under Nero. See J. G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford, 1933), 7ff. Domitian issued coins at Rome bearing the image of Serapis seated in his temple in 95/96 CE: See BMC 238, pl. 67, 4; J. D. Grainger, Nerva and the Roman Succession Crisis of AD 96–99 (London, 2003), 38.

41 Tacitus (Hist. 4. 81.3) claims to have consulted eyewitness accounts.42 On Vespasian and Nero, see J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters

on the History of Art (London, 1991), 225–9. Vespasian preferred to hark back to Galban conservatism: see Levick (n. 6), 72–3, 229 n. 23.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



Titus and the Alexandrian wonders

Stories of Vespasian’s wonders would have found the Rome of Titus’ day a more congenial environment. Titus’ attempt to end the plague of 80 seems to presuppose the son’s awareness of the father’s miraculous exploits. Unfortunately, we know little about that event. Suetonius writes that Titus used all means to end the plague at his disposal, which could mean that, among other methods employed, he took up his father’s mantle as the New Serapis and attempted to cure by touch.43 If this were the case, then Titus’ healing efforts would have refl ected a very literal reading and (re)presentation of his father’s cures. Unfortunately, Suetonius’ account is too vague to identify precisely all of the methods that Titus employed. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the phrase ops humana (‘human means’) appears in both Tacitus’ account of the Alexandrian healings and Suetonius’ mention of Titus’ attempt to end the plague. Just as Vespasian sought an ops humana to help the Alexandrians before he miraculously healed, Titus prohibited neither ops divina nor ops humana in his quest to heal.44 The linguistic and thematic similarities suggest some interaction between these accounts or a shared source. Also, it should be noted that miraculous events were associated with Titus as early as Josephus’ account of the Jewish War. Josephus reports that, in Palestine, Titus and his troops enjoyed a miraculous abundance of water, while springs dried up for their Jewish foes.45 Later, the poet Martial represents Titus as a source of miraculous occurrences in the Flavian amphitheatre.46 Thus, witnesses contemporary to Titus demonstrate a willingness to view him as a focal point for wonders. Other than Titus’ own attempts to end the plague, however, there is little evidence of the development of the story of Vespasian’s Alexandrian wonders during Titus’ brief reign.47

43 Suet. Tit. 8.4: medendae valitudini leniendisque morbis nullam divinam humanamque opem non adhibuit inquisito omni sacrifi ciorum remediorumque genere (‘He employed any means, divine or human, to cure the sick and alleviate illness, after every kind of sacrifi ce and remedy had been inquired into’).

44 See above, n. 43, and cf. Tac. Hist. 4.81.2.45 Joseph BJ 5.409–11.46 See below, n. 131.47 Titus did, however, visit Egypt and oversee the installation of a new Apis bull. See Suet.

Tit. 5.3.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



The Domitianic context

The evidence examined thus far does not support either Vespasian’s or Titus’ cultivation of the story of the Alexandrian wonders. Still, the narrative’s purpose of legitimizing Vespasian’s reign strongly recommends Flavian origins. Domitian’s reign is replete with evidence indicating that he created an environment in which the story of the Alexandrian wonders could fl ourish. Under Domitian, Vespasian’s Alexandrian healing wonders were accorded a startling prominence, especially given their explicit cultural hybridity, which stands in stark contrast to Vergil’s depiction of Roman dominance over Egypt at Actium.48 In the former narrative, Serapis acted as a divine partner in bringing Rome’s new emperor to power. This embracing of hybridity was consistent with Domitian’s Philhellenism and Egyptomania, which provided a cultural space in which Vespasian’s wonders resonated and interacted with Domitian’s political, religious, architectural, and ideological efforts. It is necessary, therefore, to consider briefl y a representative sample of evidence for Domitian’s Philhellenism and Egyptomania.

Domitian’s interest in Hellenism and the East was perhaps one reason that he came to be seen as a second Nero, an association that Vespasian vigorously avoided and Titus narrowly dodged.49 Domitian established the Capitoline Games on the Panhellenic model.50 More importantly, he brought twenty-four Easterners into the Roman Senate, a number far exceeding the Eastern additions of both Vespasian and, later, Trajan.51 He was the fi rst emperor to appoint an Eastern senator to a military province of consular rank: Ti. Julius Candidus;52 two other Eastern senators were appointed to military provinces at the same time. Jones argues that it was the revolt of Saturninus that inspired

48 Of course, culture itself is hybridity (mixing) in process, of which even Vergil’s Actium partakes. The difference in the narrative of Vespasian’s Alexandrian wonders is their more cooperative stance, which contrasts starkly, at least on the surface, with the oppositional stance of the Actium scene. The difference between cooperation and opposition should not, however, be overstated. On hybridity, see H. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York, 2004), 1–27.

49 Juv. Sat. 4.38; Plin. Pan. 53.3–4. See B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London, 1992), 110–12, for an overview of Domitian’s Eastern policy. On predictions that Titus would prove to be a second Nero, see Suet. Tit. 7.1.

50 Suet. Dom. 4; Dessau, ILS 5177. See also Jones (n. 49), 103–4.51 J. Devreker, ‘La composition du Sénat romain sous les Flaviens’, in W. Eck, H. Galsterer,

and H. Wolff (eds.), Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff (Cologne, 1980), 496–8; Jones (n. 49), 172.

52 PIR2 J 241.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



Domitian to seek loyal support from a block of Eastern senators.53 Another likely scenario is that the false Nero of 88 motivated Domitian to strengthen Roman ties with the East by bringing in and promoting Eastern senators.54 The elevation of some Easterners may also not have been as sudden as it appears. Candidus, hailing from western Asia Minor, was the fi rst suffect consul of Eastern origin in 86.55 He appeared among the Arval Brethren in 81.56 The rising prominence of Hellenic culture and Eastern senators under Domitian’s regime would have encouraged the emperor and his supporters to emphasize the dynasty’s debt to the East and its deities in precisely the manner in which the stories of Vespasian’s wonders do.

Domitian also had a penchant for aegyptiaca that far outstripped either that of his father or his brother.57 He was purportedly indebted to Isis because he had evaded Vitellian forces by hiding among the goddess’s priests.58 If the story is true, Domitian must have been especially gratifi ed by the opportunity to rebuild the Iseum Campense.59 He erected in the courtyard of the restored Iseum an obelisk with hieroglyphic inscriptions acclaiming him pharaoh in the customary Egyptian manner.60 He also rebuilt or expanded the temple of Isis at Beneventum in 88, placing obelisks there along with a statue of himself arrayed as a pharaoh; this statue was perhaps the fi rst Egyptian-style statue of an emperor displayed in Italy.61 The Serapeum fi rst appeared

53 Jones (n. 49), 147, 170–2, after arguing that the Senate played almost no role in the revolt of Saturninus, suggests that Domitian looked to Eastern senators as a source of support from ‘non-traditional areas’ because of the revolt.

54 For false Neros, see above, n. 34. R. Syme (CAH2 xi.597) hypothesized that the elevation of Eastern senators to the consulate in the 90s was intended to counteract the popularity of the false Nero. It might also be that such rewards were in recognition of loyalty during the crisis or were an investment against the possibility of a similar incident in the future.

55 R. Syme, So me Arval Brethren (Oxford, 1980), 51.56 Ibid., 32. L. Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex, fi rst attested among the Brethren in 91,

may have come from Syria. See J. Scheid, Le Collège des Frères Arvales. Étude prosopographique du recrutement (69–304) (Rome, 1990), 10 no. 75. Two other Brethren during the reign of Domitian hailed from the East: Ti. Iulius Candidus Marius Celsus (Scheid no. 60); C. Antius A. Iulius Quadratus (Scheid no. 67).

57 The term aegyptiaca here follows the meaning employed by M. Swetnam-Burland, ‘Egyptian Objects, Roman Contexts: A Taste for Aegyptiaca in Italy’, in L. Bricault, M. J. Versluys, and P. G. P. Meyboom (eds.), Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World (Leiden, 2007), 119, as ‘things or matters related to Egypt’.

58 Suet. Dom. 1.2; Tac. Hist. 3.74.1.59 R. H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture. A Study of Flavian Rome (Brussels, 1996),

142–5.60 This is the Pamphili Obelisk. See ibid., 145–50.61 H. W. Müller, Der Isiskult im antiken Benevent und Katalog der Skulpturen aus den ägyptischen

Heiligtümern im Museo del Sannio zu Benevent (Berlin, 1969), 17–21; R. E. Witt, Isis in the Greco-Roman World (Ithaca, NY, 1971), 234. Darwall-Smith (n. 59), 151, questions the identifi cation of



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



on Roman coinage in the last years of Domitian’s reign.62 The emperor’s Egyptianizing taste also left its mark on his villa at Monte Circeo, where both an Osiris Canopus and a statue of a pharaoh have been found.63 Domitian’s private and public use of aegyptiaca speaks to both his personal taste and his eagerness to appropriate Egyptian power symbols in publicly emphasizing the genesis of Flavian power in Egypt.

One must exercise great care, however, in assessing the signifi cance of Domitian’s Philhellenism and Egyptomania within the context of larger political and cultural developments in the empire. Before the Flavians, Rome was already the capital seat of a ‘global’ empire in the sense that it spanned the Mediterranean and consisted of multiple cultures, languages, and ethnicities.64 Roman imperial identity emerged in the process of interaction with its ‘non-Roman’ neighbours, and the degree to which an emperor suppressed or emphasized ‘Greekness’ or ‘Egyptian-ness’, as well as the manner in which authors depicted emperors’ involvement with these cultures, had as much to do with timing and context as it did with the actual predilections of the individual emperor.65 That Domitian came to be seen as a second Nero may refl ect his later unpopularity as much as his cultural proclivities.66 Furthermore, whereas Vespasian’s and Titus’ humble background and ties to the East necessitated that they behaved more circumspectly where Eastern matters were concerned in order to establish their ‘Roman-ness’, Domitian may have had to err in the other direction in order to cultivate Eastern support in times of Eastern instability.67 Nevertheless, the evidence that points to Domitian’s cultivation of ‘Eastern’ men and culture in Rome is useful

the statue as Domitian, but it is consistent with Egyptian representations of the emperor on the Pamphili Obelisk. The choice of Beneventum as the focus of Domitian’s construction efforts is signifi cant because it is there that Domitian fi rst greeted Vespasian on his return from Alexandria (see Dio Cass. 65.9.3).

62 BMC 238, pl. 67, 4.63 A. Roullet, The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome (Leiden, 1972),

97–8, 101–2.64 On the perception of Rome as a global empire, see W. E. Murray, Geographies of Globalization

(Oxford, 2006), 74; R. Hingley, Glo balizing Roman Culture. Unity, Diversity and Empire (Oxford, 2005), 4–6.

65 On culture as process, see above, n. 48.66 The only emperor of the period directly after Nero who seems to have avoided any possible

suspicion of being another Nero was Galba.67 When the false Nero of 88 CE appeared, the Parthians offered him support. See Suet. Ner.

57.2; Jones (n. 49), 157–9.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



for establishing the relative prospects for the reception of the tradition of Vespasian’s Alexandrian wonders under his reign.

Suetonius’ Vita Vespasiani and Domitian’s Campus Martius

Domitian’s building projects in the Campus Martius provide a con-venient locus for exploring the monumental aspect of the Domitianic narration of Vespasian’s rise in the East and for demonstrating how Vespasian’s wonders resonated with the Domitianic landscape of Rome. In 80 CE, a fi re swept through Rome, while Titus was visiting the devastated Pompeii.68 The fi re damaged or destroyed many structures in the Campus Martius, and Titus’ early death left Domitian the opportunity to transform its topography. He constructed or restored numerous buildings on the Campus Martius, including his Odeum, Stadium, temple of Fortuna Redux, the Iseum Campense, the temple of Minerva Chalcidicia, and the templum Divorum (henceforth, Divorum).69 It is the latter three structures with which the present discussion is concerned.

Suetonius’ account of Vespasian’s wonders and his subsequent return to Rome uncannily parallels the arrangement of the adjoining Domitianic projects of the restoration of the Iseum Campense with its new, commanding obelisk and the new structures of the Minerva Chalcidicia and the Divorum. Starting with the Alexandrian miracles, Suetonius proceeds, for reasons formerly inscrutable, to recount a miracle in which Tegean priests located by divination and excavated vases with a Vespasian-like visage on them within a sacred precinct, most likely that of Athena Alea.70 From there he briefl y recounts Vespasian’s return and triumph as an entrée to the emperor’s Res Gestae, in which the accomplishments that restored order to the empire are recounted in some detail.

The Marble Plan suggests an intriguing rationale behind the arrangement of Suetonius’ narrative, most particularly the inclusion of the Tegean wonder.71 If one begins by correlating Vespasian’s Serapic

68 Suet. Tit. 8.3; Dio Cass. 66.24.1–3.69 Jones (n. 49), 84–94 provides a convenient list of Domitian’s known building efforts.70 Suet. Vesp. 7.3: Per idem tempus Tegeae in Arcadia instinctu vaticinantium effossa sunt sacrato

loco vasa operis antiqui atque in iis assimilis Vespasiano imago (‘About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, vases of ancient workmanship bearing an image similar to Vespasian were located by the divine inspiration of prophets and dug out of a sacred place’).

71 FUR, pl. 31.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



wonders with the Serapeum of the restored Iseum Campense, Suetonius’ report of the miracle in Tegea, which most probably occurred in the sanctuary of Athena Alea, suddenly makes sense.72 Domitian built the temple of Minerva Chalcidicia within 25 meters south-east of the main entrance to the Iseum Campense, and its close association with the Iseum Campense is evident in the identifi cation of its entrance arch by the name Arcus ad Isis.73 The goddess Isis was, in fact, often associated with Minerva, and Domitian felt equally comfortable attributing his success to either goddess.74 It appears that Suetonius’ account of the Tegean wonder was inspired by the Domitianic landscape or that he was relying on a prior account that was.

Directly south of the Minerva Chalcidicia and connected to it by a staircase was the triple-arched north entrance of the Divorum, built directly atop the site of the destroyed Villa Publica, where generals had awaited the Senate’s approval for the granting of a triumph.75 The interior of the Divorum was fl anked by twin prostyle tetrastyle temples to Vespasian and Titus, and at the south end of its large inner courtyard was a large platform with columns at each of its four corners.76 The famous Cancellaria reliefs, which depict Vespasian’s return to Rome and a profectio of Domitian in the company of his fellow gods, once graced the north entrance to the Divorum. On the profectio relief, Domitian appears as a god departing in the company of his comrades Minerva, Mars, and Virtus. This divine Domitian complements the image of the Egyptian deities making obeisance to him on the pyramidion atop his obelisk in the Iseum Campense.77

72 The relating of the Iseum Campense to events in Alexandria required little imagination, since the sanctuary was so different from Greco-Roman temples and was thoroughly decorated with aegyptiaca. See M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, The Religions of Imperial Rome, Vol. 1. A History (Cambridge, 1998), 264. Roullet’s reconstruction (Roullet [n. 63], 26, fi g. 352), which places the Serapeum on the south side of the Iseum in agreement with the Marble Plan, is the one generally preferred here. It differs signifi cantly from the one shown in Beard, North, and Price (265, fi g. 6.2), which describes the south apse of the Iseum as the ‘Sanctuary of Isis’.

73 Roullet (n. 63), 25, identifi es this arch, which is depicted on the sarcophagus of the Haterii, as the entrance to the Minerva Chalcidicia. As the sarcophagus shows, Minerva appears on the arch.

74 Isis is depicted crowning Domitian on a Beneventum obelisk. See J. H. W. G. Liebeschutz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford, 1979), 186.

75 L. Richardson, ‘The Villa Publica and the Divorum’, in L. Bonfante and H. von Heintze (eds.), In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel. Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities (Mainz, 1976), 159–72. E. M. Steinby (LTUR ii.2, 20) appears not to be fully confi dent about Richardson’s placement of the Divorum on the site of the Villa Publica: ‘È stato proposto, con buoni argomenti (Richardson), che il Divorum occupasse il luogo dove sorgeva in origine la Villa Publica, nell’area interposta tra i Saepta (v.) e l’ara Martis (v.).’

76 LTUR ii.19–20.77 Darwall-Smith (n. 59), 149. C. Newlands, Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire (Cam-

bridge, 2002), 13–14, discusses the relationship between these images.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



Thus, from chapter seven to the beginning of chapter eight of the biography of Vespasian, Suetonius’ account takes his reader on a religio-historical journey from the Iseum Campense to the Divorum by way of the temple of Minerva Chalcidicia, with the wonders and return to Rome each being tied to a monument. Naturally, this journey can only refl ect a vision of Vespasian’s rise as seen through Domitianic or post-Domitianic eyes, since it was only after Domitian’s building projects on the Campus Martius that the appropriate topography existed. This Domitianic topography would have been ideal for celebrating the emergence of the Flavian dynasty in three stages as represented by the three structures, all of which would have exaggerated the importance of Domitian in that narrative. The Serapeum brought the Alexandrian wonders to mind, but it was Domitian’s obelisk that dominated the courtyard in front, not unlike Augustus’ quadriga in the Forum Augusti.78 The temple of Minerva Chalcidicia raised the memory of the Tegean miracle, but both temple and miracle accentuated the role of Domitian’s tutelary goddess in signalling the successful rise of his father.79 The Cancellaria reliefs on the Divorum depicted Vespasian being received in Rome by Domitian. Thus, although Suetonius makes no mention of Domitian in his narrative of Vespasian’s stay in Alexandria and return to Rome, Domitian’s Campus Martius points to the crucial role that Domitian played in shaping it.

Vespasian’s healings in Domitianic Rome

The correspondence between Suetonius’ account of the rise of Ves-pasian and the cultic landscape of the Domitianic Campus Martius raises the question of whether the story of Vespasian’s healings was refl ected in some way in the practices of an imperial healing cult in Rome. Certain characteristics of the Latin accounts of Vespasian’s

78 Indeed, the dominating effect of Domitian’s obelisk was much more pronounced than that of Augustus’ quadriga, since the courtyard of the Iseum in which it was located was cut off from the rest of the sanctuary by interior walls and the rest of the sanctuary was accessible only through two relatively narrow doorways. See Beard, North, and Price (n. 72), 264. E. Iverson, Obelisks in Exile. Vol. I. The Obelisks of Rome (Copenhagen, 1968), 60, suggested the obelisk’s original location in the Iseum Campense. J.-C. Grénier, ‘Obeliscus Domitiani’, LTUR iii.357–8, places the obelisk on the Quirinal. For a detailed discussion, see Darwall-Smith (n. 59), 145–50, who stipulates that its precise origin before Maxentius removed it to his Circus is still uncertain. The Iseum Campense remains the most logical location for it.

79 For Domitian’s interest in Minerva-Athena, see Jones (n. 49), 100, and Darwall-Smith (n. 59), 127–9.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



healings in fact recommend attributing cultic origins to it. Unlike any other reference to an emperor’s healing power, including claims concerning Augustus, Titus, Trajan, and Hadrian, the depiction of Vespasian’s healings is technically precise.80 Pyrrhus of Epirus’ healings share this characteristic but lack the individualized treatment methods of Vespasian’s. Pyrrhus apparently always sacrifi ced a white rooster to Asclepius and placed his foot on the affl icted: the king’s toe was the locus of his healing power.81 Vespasian’s healings were tailored to the specifi c needs of the individual patient and thus their best parallel is not to be found in Pyrrhus but instead in the corpus of Asclepian cure inscriptions (iamata), whose structure closely mirrors the account of Vespasian’s healings.82

These Asclepian cure inscriptions often include: a description of the affl iction; a reference to the dream, vision, or epiphany through which the cure was revealed; a detailed description of the cure; and a declaration of the cure’s success.83 In the extant accounts of Vespasian’s healings, one fi nds corresponding reference to: the nature of the affl ictions of the two men (one blind, one lame); the revelation of the cure (monitu dei Serapidis); a description of the cure (spit rubbed on eyes and cheeks; foot placed on limb); and a declaration of Vespasian’s success.84 Vespasian’s initial refusal to attempt the healing is reminiscent of another theme in Asclepian inscriptions, that of unbelief overcome, the chief difference being that in this case the unbelief belongs to the healer (Vespasian) instead of the affl icted.85 Finally, Vespasian’s consultation of physicians before the healing wonder is consistent with

80 Philo (Leg. 2.9) describes Augustus as one who put an end to plagues. Titus (Suet. Tit. 8) reportedly used all means at his disposal to end the plague that struck Rome. As in the case of Vespasian’s healings, Hadrian’s involved touch but the details of the procedure are less specifi c (SHA Hadr. 25.1–4).

81 Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 3.4.82 For healing inscriptions, see E. J. L. Edelstein and L. Edelstein, Asclepius. A Collection and

Interpretation of the Testimonies (New York, 1975); M. Guarducci, Epigrafi sacre pagane e cristiane (Rome, 1978), 143–66.

83 IG2 4.1, 121–22; Edelstein and Edelstein (n. 82), T423.84 The commands (κελέσθαι) of Asclepius are frequently referred to in the Epidauran cure

inscriptions. See R. Herzog, Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medezin und der Religion (Leipzig, 1931), 10, line 50; 28, line 31; H. W. Pleket, ‘Religious History as the History of Mentality: The “Believer” as Servant of the Deity in the Ancient World’, in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope, and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden, 1981), 158–9.

85 Ambrosia of Athens (Edelstein and Edelstein [n. 82], T423.4) mocked the cures of Asclepius but, while she incubated, the god appeared to her and commanded her to dedicate a silver pig to him as a testimony to her ignorance. Kaphisias (Edelstein and Edelstein, T423.36) mocked the god for not healing Hephaestus, for which offence he was kicked by a horse and driven to seek Asclepius’ healing power.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



the coexistence of medical procedure and miracle in Asclepian cult.86 These parallels constitute persuasive evidence that the extant Latin accounts of Vespasian’s healings were informed by a healing cult.

The story of Vespasian’s healings also shares a basic aretalogical function with the Asclepian healing inscriptions. The Asclepian healing inscriptions are, fi rst and foremost, aretalogies of the deity.87 Such descriptions of the wonders of the deity infl uenced imperial cult. Augustus crafted an aretalogy for himself in his Res Gestae, but the accomplishments recounted therein were not obviously miraculous in a supra-mundane sense.88 This implicit reserve was in keeping with the strictures of Roman sensibilities concerning the emperor’s divinity. In provincial imperial cult such strictures did not necessarily apply, and so more frank attributions of miraculous power to the emperor could be found in provincial sources. Traditional divine aretalogies probably appeared in imperial cult and may have been used in the prose eulogy delivered by the sebastologos.89 The story of Atia’s conception of Octavian with the god Apollo in the form of a snake comes from Asclepiades of Mendes’ book, Theologumena, whose title suggests that the book was a repository of stories about gods and probably included items drawn from cult.90 Indeed, the various stories of Augustus’ miracles would have been more at home in private or provincial cult than in the public performance of imperial cult in Rome while the fi rst princeps was alive.91

The epigraphic records of two second-century associations lend weight to the argument that the story of Vespasian’s healings developed in the context of healing cult and, if so, further connect that

86 V. Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London, 2004), 110–12, demonstrates the close relationship between physicians and Asclepius. In Edelstein and Edelstein (n. 82), T423, Asclepius is depicted performing surgery.

87 M. P. J. Dillon, ‘The Didactic Nature of Epidaurian Iamata’, ZPE 101 (1994), 257–8.88 For a discussion of the Res Gestae as an expression of ruler cult, see A. B. Bosworth,

‘Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic Theories of Apotheosis’, JRS 89 (1999), 1–18.89 For the sebastologos in imperial cult, see L. Robert, ‘Le cult de Caligula à Milet et la

province d’Asie’, Hellenica 7 (1949), 210; H. W. Pleket, ‘An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries’, HThR 58 (1965), 340. A. Chaniotis, ‘Der Kaiserkult im Osten des Römischen Reiches im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Ritualpraxis’, in H. Cancik and K. Hitzl (eds.), Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen (Tübingen, 2003), 14, suggests that the sebastologoi were modelled after theologoi and aretalogoi.

90 Suet. Aug. 94. This chapter is practically an infancy gospel of Augustus. Not only is his miraculous birth recounted but the text also includes his ascent to the top of a column as an infant and his silencing of frogs as a youth. The latter has a clear parallel in Hercules’ silencing of the crickets. For this miracle, see Diod. Sic. 4.22.5.

91 This is not to suggest, however, that cult was the only context in which these stories were transmitted. Nevertheless, aretalogies and other cult texts would have been an excellent source for authors such as Suetonius.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



cultic activity to Domitian’s Divorum. By the middle of the second century, the Divorum was an important focal point for the activities of two groups with obvious healing associations: the Paeanists of Zeus Helios Great Serapis and the Divine Augusti, and the Collegium of Aesculapius and Hygia. An inscription of the Paeanists, recording the honouring of their prophet Embes on 6 May 146, was found not far from the Divorum and the Iseum Campense at Santa Maria in Via Lata.92 Moretti assigned the Paeanists to the cult of the Iseum Campense, but their name also points to their connection with the cult of the divine Flavians at the Divorum.93 The inscription, written in Greek and dated according to both the Roman and Alexandrian systems, suggests an Alexandrian cult tradition. Indeed, Paeanists of the Great Serapis and Augustus appear in a graffi to at Karnak.94 The paean was a song traditionally offered in honour of Apollo and Asclepius. In an especially pertinent example, Demetrius of Phalerum composed a paean in honour of Serapis for curing his blindness.95 Given the association’s name and the propinquity of this inscription to both sanctuaries, Rome’s Paeanists of Serapis probably performed cultic functions involving both the Iseum and the Divorum.

The College of Aesculapius and Hygia, a burial club consisting of imperial freedmen, their family, and associates, left its own record connecting it to the Divorum. An inscription dating seven years after that of the Paeanists (153 CE) documents a meeting of the College at the aedes divi Titi in the Divorum to draw up a new lex.96 According to this lex, one of the group’s distributions of sportulae (modest cash handouts) was to take place in the aedes divi Titi on the birthday

92 IG 14.1084 = IGRom 1.114 = IGUR 77.93 Ibid. For a detailed discussion of the connection of the Paeanists to the cult of the divine

Flavians at the Divorum, see R. E. A. Palmer, ‘Paean and Paeanists of Serapis and the Flavian Emperors’, in M. Ostwald, R. Rosen, and J. Farrell (eds.), Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann Arbor, MI, 1993), 355–65.

94 J. H. Oliver, ‘Paean istae’, TAPhA 71 (1940), 314; SGUA 1.5803: τὸ προσκύνημα τῶν παηανιστῶ[ν] τοῦ μεγάλου Σερᾶπις καὶ θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ παρὰ τοῖς θεοῖς τοῖ[ς] εἰς Διοσπόλεις πάσας (‘The adoration of the Paeanists of the Great Serapis and the god Augustus before all the gods in Thebes’). This transcription follows I. Rutherford, ‘Paeans at Ptolemais?’, ZPE 135 (2001), 41 n. 2. The graffi to documents a pilgrimage of the Paeanists to Karnak. On the issue of its orthography, see M. N. Tod, ‘Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. B. Inscriptions (1914)’, JEA 2 (1915), 110. A conventional proskynema (adoration of the gods) before Serapis appears in many letters sent from Alexandria. For the signifi cance of proskynema in pilgrimage and in letters, see R. S. Bagnall, R. Cribiore, and E. Ahtaridis, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC–AD 800 (Ann Arbor, MI, 2006), 89. See also J. Bingen and R. Bagnall, H ellenistic Egypt. Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture (Berkeley, CA, 2007), 261.

95 Diog. Laert. 5.5.76.96 CIL 6.10234 = Dessau, ILS 7213 = AE 1937:161.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



of the living emperor, Antoninus Pius.97 These facts point to the participation of this society in a form of imperial cult that was specifi c to the aedes divi Titi and probably involved healing. If the cult of Titus had not been uniquely appropriate for the group, then surely it would have elected to meet at a cult site more closely connected to the current regime.98 The group instead chose an aedes of the divine Titus, who had followed his father’s example in attempting healings shortly before his death and consecratio. A Flavian connection is also evident in the identity of one of the group’s members. The principal patron of the society, Salvia Marcellina, made her donation in honour of a deceased procurator and freedman of a Flavian emperor, Flavius Apollonius, whose former master, as Palmer correctly surmised, must have been Domitian.99 In short, the epigraphic evidence for these two associations points to their connection to the Divorum based partly on a healing cult of the divine Flavians and, in the case of the Collegium, perhaps also on personal ties to Domitian.

Armed with a hypothesis that brings together the cultic origins of the story of Vespasian’s healings and a likely location for that cult, one may further extrapolate, based on the healing accounts, a model for the experience of those who would have sought healing through the cult of the divine Flavians. Such a method has already been usefully employed by Dillon, who used the Asclepian iamata in conjunction with other evidence to get a feeling for worshippers’ experience of healing cult.100 This method will be used here to add further depth to the present exploration into how accounts of Vespasian’s healings would have resonated with the proposed Divorum setting for Flavian healing cult.

One observes that the sick Alexandrians in the healing story probably came from the Serapeum, where, during incubation, they received dreams instructing them to seek out Vespasian (monitu dei Serapidi). If one takes this story as representative of the pattern of activity in the healing cult of the divi, then it suggests that those who

97 CIL 6.10234, l. 9–10.98 i.e. the divine Hadrian. Two of the group’s offi cers, P. Aelius Zeno (lines 10, 17) and P.

Aelius Onesimus (line 24), appear to have been freedmen of Antoninus Pius and perhaps also Hadrian. Zeno’s brother, M. Ulpius Capito (lines 2, 18), another one of the group’s deceased honourands, was probably a freedman of Trajan.

99 Palmer (n. 93), 361.100 Dillon (n. 87), 243: ‘In fact, these iamata can be taken as indications of the beliefs held

about Asklepios, and they can be used, in conjunction with other evidence, to describe the experiences which individuals underwent at Epidauros and other healing sanctuaries.’



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



sought healing at the Divorum were directed there by Serapis from the nearby Serapeum in the Iseum Campense. If this was the usual practice, then it is likely that the divi did not require personnel and space for incubation, since those services may have been provided at the Serapeum. Also, one notes that the Alexandrians approached Vespasian at the tribunal. This arrangement resonates with the Divorum cult in at least three different ways. First, the emperor is situated on a raised platform and available to the touch of the sick. The aedes of the Divorum were prostyle tetrastyle temples on raised platforms with cult statues of the divi inside, which were accessible to the touch of those seeking healing.101 Furthermore, the fact that the healer Vespasian is seated on a tribunal relates healing power to the image of the traditional Roman magistrate in a manner that would have appealed to Domitian, the censor perpetuus. The Divorum, located on the site of the old Villa Publica, inherited the latter’s functions, which included the taking of the census. Finally, it is crucially important to recognize that the people who seek Vespasian for healing are e plebe Alexandrina, that is, Alexandrian commoners. The identifi cation of these sick persons as commoners nicely accommodates Roman concerns about the participation of the elite in public rituals to the divine emperor. It may also refl ect the status of participants in the Divorum healing cult, who may have come from the same pool as the members of the Paeanists of Great Zeus Helios Serapis and the College of Aesculapius and Hygia, the loftiest of whom seem to have been imperial freedmen.102

The evidence adduced here strongly favours the possibility of an imperial healing cult with Alexandrian elements established at Rome during the reign of Domitian. This healing cult would have been unique in its representation of emperors as divine healers much like the gods Asclepius and Serapis. The fact of the existence of such an imperial healing cult, however, is less important than the obvious effectiveness of Domitian’s use of religion, topography, and propaganda in leading others to build on what he had rather unsubtly suggested about the miraculous power of the divine Flavians. The epigraphic records of

101 These temples with their seated statues may be represented on two coins dating to 95/96 (BMC 229, 476), roughly the same date as a coin depicting the temple of Serapis with its seated statue (BMC 238). For doubts about their authenticity, see I. Carradice, ‘Coins, Monuments, and Literature: Some Important Sestertii of Domitian’, in T. Hackens and R. Weiller (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Numismatics (Louvain and Luxembourg, 1982), 379–80; idem, Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96 (Oxford, 1983), 42–3.

102 See above, n. 98.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



the Paeanists of Serapis and the College of Asclepius and Hygia provide evidence of private associations making use of this Domitianic religious landscape. The resulting phenomena need not have been the tightly controlled product of the emperor’s mind but may rather have been a bricolage of objects, narratives, social networks, rituals, and cultures that emerged organically and synergistically in conjunction with his deliberate efforts. This bricolage would have constituted a unique hybrid that, while unpalatable to some, would not necessarily have transgressed the boundaries of traditional imperial cult.103 At the same time, Domitian, through such cult, would have benefi ted from the fuzzy distinction between public and private in all things related to the emperor by the resulting enhancement of his divine stature.

Evidence in Tacitus’ account of Vespasian’s healings attests to this religious bricolage that emerged in connection with Domitian’s use of the Campus Martius to mythologize the rise of the Flavian regime. The language of Roman public cult practice appears in the text when the Alexandrians redouble their efforts to persuade Vespasian to perform the healings. The two men approach him in prayer (obsecratio).104 The word choice is unusual, since obsecratio was ordinarily used of a formal, written prayer as dictated by magistrates after consultation of the Sibylline Oracles and recited by a group.105 Its purpose was to propitiate the gods in order to stave off disasters, particularly pestilence.106 The antiquarian emperor Claudius held an obsecratio when a bird of ill omen perched on the Capitol.107 It is hardly the term that one would expect to fi nd used to describe an unrehearsed petition, such as the one directed to Vespasian by the two Alexandrians.108 Furthermore, its use here is the only time that

103 On hybridity as the normal state of affairs in Roman religion, see C. Ando, ‘Introduction to Part V: Roman and Alien’, in C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion (Edinburgh, 2003), 196–8. The classic example of this hybridity is the cult of Magna Mater in Rome, which preserved the activities of the ‘alien’ Phrygian priests and added new facets of distinctly Roman observance: see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.19.4–5.

104 TLL s.v. obsecratio.105 See Plin. HN 28.10–11. On obsecratio in general, see R. Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome.

Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to Imperial Times (New York, 2000), 89. C. Schulz, Women’s Religious Activity in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill, NC, 2006), 163, rightly differentiates between supplicatio and obsecratio, but the words still belong to the same semantic cluster.

106 Livy 4.21.5 relates an early occurrence of the practice. When pestilence struck Rome in 436 BCE, the duumviri led the people in an obsecratio.

107 Suet. Claud. 22.1.108 Even in the Cupid and Psyche tale of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, obsecratio, though used

of Psyche’s private prayer, is nevertheless a premeditated, prepared act to propitiate Venus and stave off destruction. See. Apul. Met. 6.5.15: sic ad dubium obsequium, immo ad certum exitium praeparata principium futurae secum meditabatur obsecrationis (‘In this way, prepared to risk the



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



obsecratio or any word based on obsecrare appears in Tacitus.109 For this reason, one can fairly conclude that Tacitus imported this word from his source, which employed the language of public cult. It is also possible to infer an allusion to Titus’ attempts to end the plague, which may have included a public obsecratio.

Obsecratio belongs to a cluster of Roman religious terms that includes the practice of supplicatio, a ritual in which Romans visited a circuit of shrines to pray and prostrate themselves before certain gods.110 The importance of supplicatio in imperial cult is revealed in the Feriale Cumanum, a sacrifi cial calendar for the civic cult of Augustus at Cumae.111 Most of the calendar’s rituals are supplicationes to the gods on days marked by the birthdays and other commemorative events associated with the emperor. On the day for commemorating the conferral of the name Augustus upon Caesar (16 January), a supplicatio to Augustus appears. The prostration of Alexandrians before Vespasian may thus allude to one aspect of imperial cult at the Divorum. The relationship between obsecratio and supplicatio also suggests the author’s association of these Roman practices with the Egyptian practice of adoration of the gods, or proskynema.112 Letters from Alexandria include a formula in which the writer claims to have performed proskynema before the god Serapis for the recipient’s wellbeing.113 The practice of proskynema on behalf of others probably originated in prostrations before the god for one’s own health.114 Accordingly, when the blind man makes a petition (obsecratio) to Vespasian in Tacitus, he begins by falling at the knees of the god (ad genua advolvitur).115 This language is what one would expect in a Latin account of Serapic healings. In a healing cult of the Flavian divi, the same language would have applied both to public obsecratio of the divine Vespasian and Titus

uncertain consequences of compliance – or rather sure destruction – she pondered how she should begin her appeal’ (J. A. Hanson [trans.], Metamorphoses, Books I–VI [Cambridge, MA, 1989]).

109 R. Syme, Tacitus, ii (Oxford, 1958), 713, 715.110 J. Scheid and J. Lloyd, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington, IN, 2003), 109; E.

M. Orlin, Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic (Leiden, 1997), 17, 93–6.111 A. Degrassi (ed.), Fasti et Elogia (Rome, 1963), 278–80. For discussion, see I. Gradel,

Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford, 2002), 96–7.112 This association springs from the performance of adoratio to the gods (proskynema) during

an obsecratio or supplicatio. See Apul. Met. 4.28 for adoratio as prayer to a young girl believed to be Venus.

113 See PMich. VIII 475, 514, 517; XV 751. For a brief discussion of the relationship between the formula and the physical practice, see Bagnall, Cribiore, and Ahtaridis (n. 94), 89–90.

114 Worshippers left proskynema inscriptions at Saqqara: see G. Geraci, ‘Ricerche sul proskynema’, Aegyptus 51 (1971), 5–8.

115 Tac. Hist. 4.81.1.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



and to private individuals prostrating themselves (proskynema) before the divi in a way that fostered an associative crossover between the public and private spheres. This connection was reinforced by the web of associations built into the landscape, architecture, and imperial cult of Domitianic Rome.

Vespasian’s healings and Domitianic ideology

Under Domitian, there were developments in public imperial cult and Flavian ideology that harmonized well with the emergence of the concept of emperor as both personal and imperial healer in the story of Vespasian’s wonders. Domitian reinitiated the worship of the Genius Augusti in Rome after his father had returned to Augustan norms by abandoning this somewhat provocative form of imperial cult.116 Shortly after Domitian’s accession, the Arval Brethren sacrifi ced to the emperor’s genius on the Capitol ob votorum [co]mmendandorum causa pro salute et incolumitate…Domitiani Aug[usti] (‘for the sake of entrusting vows for the welfare and safety of…Domitian Augustus’).117 This amplifi cation of Domitian’s divinity is consistent with his divine stature on the Cancellaria reliefs and the Pamphili Obelisk, and with the evidence that he was addressed as dominus et deus.118 From the institution of vota of the Arval Brethren for the salus of the emperor under Augustus, the salvation of the emperor and the well-being of the state became increasingly interrelated in Roman thought and practice.119 By the time of Galba, Salus Augusti was inextricable from the person of the living emperor. After Domitian’s reinstitution of the Arval Brethren’s sacrifi ces for the Genius Augusti, the conceptual potency of his offi cial divinity surpassed that of previous emperors, since the practice now underlined both the increasingly personal nature of the emperor’s salus and his claims to divinity through the cult to his genius. Domitian may have encouraged the notion that he

116 See Gradel (n. 111), 189–90, on Vespasian’s discontinuance of the cult.117 CIL 6.2060.38ff.; J. Scheid, Romulus et ses frères. Le collège des Frères Arvales, modèle du culte

public dans la Rome des empereurs (Rome, 1990), 344–6; Gradel (n. 111), 190–1.118 Scott (n. 7), 102–12.119 J. Moralee, For Salvation’s Sake. Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic

Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East (New York, 2004), 24–7. The Arval Brethren sacrifi ced for the safety of the reigning emperor because, as an inscription states, the emperor was he ex cuius incolumitate omnium salus constat (‘from whose safety the welfare of all is established’). See W. Henzen (ed.), Acta Fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt (Berlin, 1874), 114. For Augustus on the practice, see RG 9.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295


100 AHEALINGTOUCHFOREMPIRE

wasakindofpignus imperii,or‘sacredpledgeofempire’,meaningthatthefutureofthestatewasdependentuponhisdivineperson.120

Vespasian’s Alexandrian healings would have furnished an idealillustrationofDomitian’sformulationofthenexusofsalutaryideologyand the divinity of the living emperor. Salus not only referred togeneralwell-being; italsocametomean‘physicalhealth’.121Romanssaw a close relationship between the physical welfare of membersof the imperial family and the well-being of the state.This is welldemonstrated by the shout of joy that followed the erroneous newsthat Germanicus had recovered from illness: ‘salva Roma, salva patria, salvus est Germanicus!’ (‘Rome is saved, safe is the fatherland,Germanicus is saved!’).122 UnderVespasian, the specific associationof Salus Augusti with physical health found new expression in theiconographyofimperialcoinagewhereonSalusAugustiwasdepictedin the form of Hygia, goddess of health and daughter ofAsclepius.AureusanddenariustypesfromthereignofDomitianrepresentSalusAugusti as Hygia in the form of a young goddess wearing a chitonandholdingaserpentassheleansonanaltar.123Theserpentwasalsoprominent in the iconography of both Serapis and the genius.TheappearanceofSalusAugusti in the guise ofHygia could easily havebeen interpreted as an allusion toVespasian’shealings inAlexandriaandperhapstheirritualcommemorationintheDivorum.Conversely,one might say that, under Domitian, theAlexandrian healings wereexploited in a manner that contributed effectively to the emperor’slarger religio-ideological programme. In Domitian’s Rome, SalusAugustibecametheactivepowerofthedivine,livingemperortohealboththeinstitutionsoftheempireanditsindividualinhabitants.124

120As M. P. Charlesworth, ‘Providentia and Aeternitas’, HThR 29 (1936), 128, wrote,‘Domitian’s is the life on which the safety of all hangs, on Domitian’s safety depends theeternityofempire.’Vesta’sHearth,thePalladium,thePenates,andtheshieldofNumawereallconsideredpignora imperii.Tacitus(Hist.3.72.1)refers tothetempleofCapitolineJupiterasapignus imperii.

121 It has been suggested thatTiberius issued Salus Augusta coinage bearing the image ofLiviatocelebrateherrecoveryfromillnessin22ce.SeeE.Bartman,Portraits of Livia. Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome(Cambridge,1999),112,114–15;D.E.E.Kleiner,Roman Sculpture(NewHaven,CT,1992),77.

122 Suet.Calig.6.1.Theconceptthatthewelfareofthestatedependeduponthepersonofaparticular individualhaditsroots intheRepublic.Cicero(Rep.6.12)wroteofthesalus ofthestatedependingontheyoungerScipio.

123 L. Winkler, Salus. Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee. Eine archäologische Untersuchung(Heidelberg,1995),97,pl.4,5.

124 N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus, 1988), 140–1, argues thatDomitianic coins, art, architecture, and literature promoted the emperor’s divinity to an



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



The language of salutary ideology permeates Suetonius’ brief account of Vespasian’s time in Alexandria and return to Rome. Suetonius places his description of the restoration of the empire almost immediately after the healings. His development of this theme, however, is much more nuanced than one of simple juxtaposition. Indeed, the theme of illness and healing binds both the Alexandrian wonders and the restoration of the empire together in such a way that the ability to rule well and the power to heal are inextricably connected. In Suetonius’ account, Vespasian approaches the sanctuary of Serapis to inquire after the fi rmitas (‘endurance’) of the empire. Firmitas was also associated with health, the metaphor that the author clearly had in mind.125 Once inside, the emperor sees in vision Basilides, a man whose poor health (valetudo) has detained him far from Alexandria. This vision reveals the power of Serapis as patron of Vespasian to overcome the impediments caused by illness. Later, two men approach Vespasian for healing at the admonition of Serapis. The healing of these two men sets the stage for the new emperor to heal an affl icted (affl ictam) and tottering (nutantem) Roman state.126 Thus, in Suetonius’ account, the restoration of the empire is a continuation of the emperor’s miraculous power to heal, and the healing wonders bear ideological signifi cance.

Vespasian’s healings, Domitian’s divinity, and Flavian spectacle

The wonders of Vespasian also stand out for the novel way in which they represent the emperor’s divinity. Unlike Augustus, whose very

unprecedented degree. The Pamphili Obelisk in referring to his divine birth declared that he was a living god: see Newlands (n. 77), 12.

125 Suet. Vesp. 7.1: hic cum de fi rmitate imperii capturus auspicium aedem Serapidis summotis omnibus solus intrasset… (‘Here when, after everyone had been sent away, he had entered the temple of Serapis alone to take the auspices concerning the endurance of his empire…’). See also OLD s.v. fi rmitas.

126 Suet. Vesp. 8.1: per totum imperii tempus nihil habuit antiquius quam prope affl ictam nutantemque rem p. stabilire primo, deinde et ornare (‘For the duration of his reign he considered nothing more important than fi rst to stabilize the almost thrust-down and teetering Republic and then to adorn it’). Nutare can also mean ‘assenting’, which suggests the image of Roma the goddess nodding in agreement that Vespasian should be her healer. Such language also calls to mind the Flavian ‘Roma Resurgens’ coinage whereon Vespasian is depicted lifting up the prostrate Roma. Griffi n (n. 6), 14, associates this type with Vespasian’s building programme, one of the key topics of chapter eight of Suetonius’ biography. See Mattingly–Sydenham, RIC 310, 407, 445, 735; BMC 565, pl. 21, 9 and 566, pl. 22.1. Nutare is related to the word numen, which denotes not only divinity but also a nod of the head. One implication of Roma’s nod to Vespasian is that he is being recognized as a divinity (OLD s.v. numen).



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



existence is a source of healing and prosperity, Vespasian is depicted performing his divinity as an embodied actor.127 Whereas Roman tradition favoured postponing miraculous depictions of the exalted emperor until his consecration, Vespasian frankly exhibits his divinity as the New Serapis by performing miraculous deeds suitable for commemoration in a divine aretalogy.128 This wondrous depiction of Vespasian accords well with Flavian spectacle, which includes performances of the emperor’s divinity that are described in Martial.129 These miracles supposedly occur in the amphitheatre in the emperor’s presence, the tautological implication being that the presence of the divine emperor is what makes miracles testifying to the emperor’s divinity possible.130 Dogs chasing an antelope refuse to attack their victim when it prostrates itself before Titus.131 This display reveals, among other things, that animals respect the emperor’s divinity: numen habet Caesar, sacra est haec, sacra potestas (‘Caesar possesses divinity: this thing is sacred, a sacred power’). Martial describes other similar animal miracles at the amphitheatre in the presence of Domitian, such wonders highlighting the divine emperor’s virtues as refl ected in the animal’s actions.132 One sequence of poems shows lions allowing hares to play harmlessly in their jaws.133 The divine clementia of Domitian inspires the clemency of the lions: ‘Such clemency does not come by training, the lions know whom they serve’.134 The divinity of the

127 Philo Leg. 2.9.128 Gunderson (n. 7), 640–2, discusses Vespasian’s healings as a kind of prelude to the

‘society of the spectacle’ that will characterize the full advent of Flavian rule in Rome. Following Suetonius’ mention of auctoritas et quasi maiestas quaedam, Gunderson (640) sees the healings as the ‘compelling illusion that argues that greater power has gone to he of greater deserts’.

129 The spectacles of the Flavian amphitheatre are, in fact, held to be a divine creation because of the wonders that occur therein: see Mart. 1.104.11: quis spectacula non putet deorum? (‘Who would not think that these spectacles are of the gods?’). This exclamatory question follows a list of astonishing feats of skill in the arena.

130 Clauss (n. 7), 350–1; U. Riemer, ‘Miracle Stories and their Narrative Intent in the Context of the Ruler Cult of Classical Antiquity’, in M. Labahn and B. J. L. Peerbolte (eds.), The Wonders Never Cease. The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and its Religious Environment (London, 2006), 33–6.

131 Mart. Sp. 30.1–4. The question of the precise identity of the intended recipient of each epigram in the Liber Spectaculorum (Titus or Domitian) is diffi cult, if not impossible, to determine. See K. M. Coleman, Martial. Liber Spectaculorum (Oxford, 2006), xlv–lxiv. Here numbers for Martial follow W. M. Lindsay, M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata (Oxford, 1902).

132 An elephant performs proskynesis before Domitian (Mart. Sp. 17). For the signifi cance of elephants in ruler cult see Coleman (n. 131), 156–8.

133 Mart. 1.6, 14, 22, 48, 51, 60, 104.134 Mart. 1.104.21–2: haec clementia non paratur arte, / sed norunt cuï serviant leones (D. R.

Shackleton Bailey [trans.], Martial Epigrams I [Cambridge, 1993]).



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



emperor and the surpassing virtues that go along with it are thus evoked as a part of the spectacle.

Both Suetonius and Dio report omina imperii for Vespasian (omens that signal a person’s fated rise to the Principate) that fi t quite comfortably alongside the animal wonders depicted in Martial. In one anecdote, a stray dog brings a hand from the crossroads to Vespasian as he is breakfasting.135 On another occasion an ox shakes off its yoke and prostrates itself before the dining emperor.136 Such omina imperii probably came to the fore because they accorded well with the animal wonders of the Flavian amphitheatre. Vespasian’s healing miracles belong in this same tradition of omina imperii. The key similarity is in miraculous acts of public submission to the emperor that affi rm his imperial divinity. The sick Alexandrians submissively approach Vespasian, elevated on tribunal, in a manner that is reminiscent of animals miraculously performing their deference to the divinity of Titus or Domitian in the imperial box at the amphitheatre. Indeed, Serapis’ command, the humble petition of the affl icted, and the healing itself are all part of a spectacle that establishes Vespasian’s divinity and thus his adequacy for the burden that the gods have thrust upon him.

The image of Vespasian’s participation in this healing spectacle, as commemorated in healing cult at the Divorum, nevertheless differs from the wonders in Martial in that it is not restricted to the confi nes of the Flavian amphitheatre. In Alexandria, Vespasian himself becomes the locus of the spectacle. If the emperor performs his divinity wherever he is present, then the Flavian amphitheatre does not bound the spectacle of godhead. This development may help further our understanding of the signifi cance of references to Domitian as the deus praesens.137 The description of Vespasian’s healings also goes an important step further than any other description of imperial wonders under the Flavians. In Alexandria, Vespasian’s body actively makes the wonder happen.138 He is both divinity and thaumaturge.

To appreciate fully the deifi ed Vespasian’s bodily participation in the healings spectacle, it is important to consider how closely Vespasian is identifi ed with Serapis in the extant descriptions of his performance of

135 Suet. Vesp. 5.4; Dio Cass. 65.1.1–2.136 Dio Cass. 65.1.1–2.137 Scott (n. 7), 107; Stat. Silv. 1.1.62, 1.6.39–40, 5.1.74, 5.2.170; Quint. Inst. 4.138 Riemer (n. 130), 37, highlights the passivity of imperial divinity in other Flavian wonders:

‘It is striking that in all these accounts the emperor is passive; there is no record of his active involvement. He neither rises to tame the lions, nor raises his hand at the circus to summon snow. His presence alone…is suffi cient to work the miracle.’



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



the healing wonders. Indeed, the two are practically interchangeable. Henrichs has noted the special signifi cance of Serapis’ instruction for Vespasian to heal the lame man with Caesar’s foot.139 As in the case of Asclepius, the powers of the god Serapis are particularly associated with his foot, a phenomenon that is refl ected in the many Serapis images that are little more than a small bust on a giant foot.140 King Pyrrhus of Epirus used his foot to heal the splenetic for Asclepius.141 He thus serves as a precedent for imitation of the god through the use of its potent body part in the performance of a wonder. Vespasian, acting as the New Serapis, likewise used his Serapic foot to heal the lame.

Tacitus’ account of the healing miracles goes further in emphasizing the identifi cation of the emperor with the god. If one examines the Tacitean period that introduces the reader to the fi rst of the two affl icted Alexandrians, the author’s deliberate identifi cation of Serapis with Vespasian emerges as a striking feature.142 We see the blind man fall at the knees (genua eius advolvitur) of someone of ambiguous identity (Vespasian or Serapis). Then, by order of Serapis (monitu dei Serapidis), whom the Alexandrians worship before all other gods (ante alios), he beseeches the emperor (precabaturque principem) to spit on his cheeks and eyes. The centre section of the period brings Serapis, the fi rst god of the Alexandrians, together with Vespasian, the future princeps (fi rst man) of Rome. The confl ation of Serapis and Vespasian is deliberate and accords with the identifi cation of Vespasian as the New Serapis in 69 CE.143

139 Henrichs (n. 7), 69–71.140 For the prominence of the god’s foot in Serapis’ cult, see S. Dow and F. S. Upson, ‘The

Foot of Sarapis’, Hesperia 13 (1944), 58–77, fi gs. 1–7. For spells referring to the foot of Serapis, see Ziethen (n. 7), 183 n. 71, 72. For the importance of the foot of the god in the cults of Isis and Asclepius, see N. Belayche, ‘Les dévotions à Isis et Sérapis dans la Judée-Palestine Romaine’, in Bricault, Versluys, and Meyboom (n. 57), 466–7.

141 See above, n. 81.142 Tac. Hist. 4.81.1: e plebe Alexandrina quidam oculorum tabe notus genua eius advolvitur,

remedium caecitatis exposcens gemitu, monitu Serapidis dei, quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit, precabaturque principem, ut genas et oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento (‘From among the Alexandrian commoners, a man, known to be suffering a wasting disease of the eyes, threw himself at the emperor’s knees, pleading with a groan a cure for his blindness, in accordance with the command of Serapis, whom this nation, having surrendered to its superstitions, worships before all others. And he prayed that the emperor would moisten his cheeks and eyes with spit from his mouth’).

143 There may still be, however, a suggestion that Serapis, being the greatest god of the Alexandrians, is superior to the emperor. If one considers this image in the context of the representation of Domitian receiving the obeisance of the Egyptian gods on the pyramidion of the Pamphili Obelisk, then the clear inference is that Domitian is far greater than his father. This suggestion is also consistent with the representation of Domitian as a god in the company



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



Navigating the healing emperor after Domitian

The evidence adduced in this argument points to the signifi cance of Vespasian’s Alexandrian wonders in promoting a Domitianic conception of the living emperor’s divinity. Pliny’s Panegyricus offers a glimpse into the post-Domitianic backlash against that conception in its careful construction of Trajan as a man favoured by the gods instead of being a living god.144 Pliny refers specifi cally to Trajan’s refusal to institute the worship of his genius.145 He also shows Trajan avoiding direct participation in healings. Pliny writes that, when Trajan entered Rome for the fi rst time in 99, the sick dragged themselves out of their beds against the advice of doctors, believing that Trajan’s mere presence could heal them.146 Trajan’s adventus at Rome could have taken him close to the Divorum, where, in accordance with its healing cult, the sick would naturally have been prompted by Serapis to seek out healing from the arriving emperor. The cult at the Divorum was, because of its location and the Cancellaria reliefs, strongly associated with the profectio, adventus, and triumph rituals; and the fi rst advent of Trajan at Rome would have raised the issue of how he would deal with Flavian tradition. The omission of any attempt by the new emperor to heal makes eminent sense in the context of the Panegyricus as yet one more way in which Pliny underscores Trajan’s rejection of Domitianic practices. Perhaps one may also infer that Trajan’s omission is to be contrasted with possible attempts at personal healing by Domitian upon his entries into Rome.

The signifi cance and shape of the story of Vespasian’s dealings with Serapis, which was ultimately rooted in his initial adventus at Alexandria and was commemorated in his triumph at Rome in 71, was greatly affected by Domitianic efforts to facilitate the enshrinement of those dealings in the landscape, ruler cult, and literature of imperial Rome.147 The irony of this is that the one Flavian who was absent from the East in 69 and who played only a minor role in the triumph of 71 had the greatest impact on post-Flavian versions of the story.

of the gods of Rome in the Cancellaria reliefs. In contrast, Vespasian appears as a mortal on the same reliefs.

144 D. N. Schowalter, The Emperor and the Gods. Images from the Time of Trajan (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), 71–5.

145 Plin. Pan. 52.6.146 Ibid., 22.3: aegri quoque neglecto medentium imperio ad conspectum tui quasi ad salutem

sanitatemque prorepere.147 See M. Beard ‘The Triumph of Flavius Josephus’, in Boyle and Dominik (n. 7), 556, for

the Flavian triumph as advent.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295



The prominence accorded to the Alexandrian wonders was the product of Domitianic Rome but it nevertheless survived Domitian’s death, thanks in part to the survival of Flavian cult at the Divorum. Domitian fostered an environment in which certain Eastern concepts associated with divine rule were able to fl ourish in the city of Rome. While his own pretensions to a greater divine stature were a failure, subsequent emperors would nevertheless be faced with a choice of how to navigate this new religious territory, and subsequent authors would have a new topos through which to offer their assessment of emperors. Pliny suggests that Trajan wisely avoided the performance of the emperor’s divinity in healing. Hadrian, by contrast, seems to have embraced his role as healer, although he was criticized for so doing.148 Indeed, the connection between salus and the gods of Egypt that took shape under Domitian would last into the Late Empire. Vota publica coins bearing the images of Egyptian gods, including Serapis, were distributed in January, when imperial subjects prayed for the salus of both emperor and empire.149 Without Domitian’s efforts, such a tradition might never have taken root.

TREVOR S. [email protected]

148 Consider the unfl attering portrait of Hadrian’s healings at SHA Hadr. 22, in which the emperor is the passive recipient of the touch of the sick. Serapis is not mentioned, but he is most probably the god who ordered them to seek out Hadrian.

149 See A. Alföldi, ‘A Festival of Isis under the Christian Emperors of the Fourth Century’, Dissertationes Pannonicae, ser. II, fasc. 7 (Budapest, 1937), 5–95; idem, ‘Die alexandrinischen Götter und die Vota Publica am Jahresbe ginn’, JAC 8–9 (1965/66), 53–87; Takács (n. 7), 123–4.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383509990295


Documents

Greece & Rome, Vol. 57, No. 1, © The Classical Association ... · Special thanks go to Kathleen Coleman for generously sharing her expertise ... Critical Theory Since 1965, (Tallahassee,