hadrian and

Hadrian and Lucius VerusAuthor(s): T. D. BarnesSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), pp. 65-79Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/299345 .Accessed: 01/04/2013 05:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:03:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS By T. D. BARNES*

At the age of sixty the emperor Hadrian cast about for a successor. His first choice was L. Ceionius Commodus, his second T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus. Both being adopted in turn by the ailing emperor, the former died before Hadrian while the latter survived to succeed him. Modern scholarship has indulged in long speculations about the motives of Hadrian and the political intrigues of his final years.1 This paper will not attempt to add to such speculations but will examine the precise details of the dynastic settlements of 136 and 138 upon which they are based. For due weight has not been given to certain relevant and important statements in the Historia Augusta, and as a result the facts have been misrepresented. Moreover, since some of these statements occur in the Vita Veri, the excellent worth of which has too often been denigrated, an analysis of that will be necessary. The partial interdependence of the historical and the literary problems dictates the separate yet combined treatment adopted here. The first part of this paper will discuss the biography of Lucius Verus in the Historia Augusta, the second the dynastic plans of Hadrian. The evidence and arguments employed in each part will, it is hoped, both confirm and be confirmed by the thesis advanced in the other.

I. THE VITA VERI Is the Vita Veri a valuable historical source ? The modern verdict has tended to be

very unfavourable.2 Mommsen drew a sharp distinction among the vitae down to the Diadumenus between the nine lives of recognized emperors (i.e. of Hadrian, Pius, Marcus, Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Macrinus) and the seven lives of joint emperors (i.e. Verus, Geta), Caesars (i.e. Aelius Caesar, Diadumenus) and usurpers (i.e. Avidius Cassius, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus). The former, Mommsen declared, are ' echte allerdings vielfach zerriittete ,Geschichtsquellen ', the latter ' enthalten wenig oder gar kein eigenes wirklich geschichtliches Material und sind wesentlich entweder aus jenen der ersten zusammengestoppelt oder gefllscht '. Schulz, asserting that the Vita Veri was not one of the notorious secondary lives (or Nebenviten), argued that it derived ultimately from a biography of the early third century whose author was' ein Historiker, der an Scharfblick und Einsicht den vielgeriihmten Dio weit iibertrifft '. Indeed he was even able to print the original text of this author.5 Schulz's work, however, does not inspire confidence: his criteria were purely formal 6 and led him to believe in 'eine primaire Heliusvita '.7 Weber attacked both the methods and the conclusions of Schulz. The vita, he maintained, was the work of a compiler who used an annalistic source to compose biographies: since there was little in it, if anything, which need come from a reliable monograph on Lucius, therefore there was no monograph.8 But Weber's method too raises serious doubts. It is only by starting from the assumption that a biographer cannot have described the adoptions of 138 in the lives of all the emperors concerned in

* I am grateful to Professor Syme and Dr. F. G. B. Millar for their help and criticisms throughout and to Professor Bowersock for reading the first part of this paper. The following abbreviations will be used: Birley A. R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (i966); Lecrivain= Ch. Lecrivain, Jitudes sur l'Histoire Auguste (1904); Lessing = K. Lessing, Scriptorum Historiae Augustae Lexicon (I9oI-6); Schwende- mann = J. Schwendemann, Der historische Wert der Vita Marci bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae (I923); BMC (simp.) = H. Mattingly, BMC Roman Empire IV (I940).

1 To cite only two fairly recent articles, J. Carco- pino, 'L'h6redit6 dynastique chez les Antonins ', R1TA LI (I949), z6z ff., esp. 285-32I = Passion et politique chez les C6sars (1958), 143 ff., esp. 173-222; and H.-G. Pflaum, 'Le Reglement successoral d'Hadrien', Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Bonn 1963 (I964), 95 ff.

2 And still is: e.g. Birley 3I2 'the so-called

" minor lives "-those of " Helius Verus ", L. Verus ... are virtually worthless as independent sources'.

3 Th. Mommsen, Hermes xxv (I890), 246 = Ges. Schr. VII, 319.

4 0. Th. Schulz, Das Kaiserhaus der Antonine und der letzte Historiker Roms (1907), 3 (the passage quoted), 56 ff. (on the Vita Veri).

6 Op. cit. ZI5 ff. 6 This, the standard objection to Schulz, was first

formulated by K. Honn, Deutsche Literaturzeitung I908, I002 ff. and by W. Weber, Gott. Gel. Anz. 170. Jhrg. (I908), 945 ff.

7 op. cit. 57, 224; Leben des Kaisers Hadrian (1904), I25 ff., 142. That one did not exist is a certain deduction from Aelius 2, 9 f. and the Historia Augusta's ignorance of Aelius' birthday (known to Philocalus (CIL I2, p. 255) and perhaps appearing in the Feriale Duranum (col. i, i i/iz) * see The Excava- tions at Dura-Europuls, Final Report v. i, The Parch- ments and Papyri (i959), 205 f.).

8 Weber, op. cit. 957 ff., esp. 971.


66 T. D. BARNES them that he reaches the conclusion that the Historia Augusta employed an annalistic source which narrated the settlement of that year once only.9 Lambrechts, writing more than twenty years later, accepted the opinion then prevailing that for the second century the Historia Augusta had both a biographical source, which was to be identified as Marius Maximus, and an annalistic source, from which derived almost all that was of historical value.10 Since Marius did not write a life of Lucius,"1 and the annalistic source cannot have described the reign of Lucius separately from that of Marcus, the Vita Veri must come entirely from the pen of its author. Hence it is, in essence, ' un developpement de certaines phrases de la Vita Marci qui ont servi de substrat 'a une vaste amplification o "u l'imagination de l'auteur avait libre jeu '.12 Lambrechts pronounced the life to be of exiguous historical value and dismissed the last seven chapters with an exclamation mark.13 But whence on this view come such valuable and authentic details as the title Medicus (7, 2) and the names of Martius Verus (7, i) and Apolaustus (8, iO) or the sneer at Panthea (7, IO) ? Moreover, Marius Maximus is not the principal source of those sections of the early part of the Historia Augusta which are admitted by all to be biographical. Although many still continue to ignore his conclusions,14 Barbieri has shown that Marius is never the main source for any vita: wherever he is cited it is to confirm or to supplement.15 It is consequently necessary to discard the assumption of an annalistic and a biographical source which provided respectively political narrative and personalia.16

Let us postulate instead one main source-an unknown biographer, writing perhaps in the reign of Severus Alexander and composing sober, factual lives of the legitimate emperors, among whom will be classed Lucius Verus.17 This hypothesis (it is no more than that) can be tested by an analysis of the Vita Veri which not only employs formal and stylistic criteria but also examines its historical accuracy. As there is extant no other ancient account of the life and reign of Lucius with which the vita can be compared as a whole, the evidence and arguments relevant to each section must be set out for the most part sentence by sentence.18 A full discussion will be given only where it seems unavoidable: otherwise the annotation is as brief as possible.

1,1-5 Introduction 1,1/2 Perhaps the polemic is directed at the main source; for Eutropius (VIII, io), Aurelius

Victor (i6, 3-9) and the Epitome (i6, 5 f.) narrate Lucius' life within rather than before their accounts of Marcus.

9 Ibid. 959 ff. 10 P. Lambrechts, ' L'Empereur Lucius Verus:

Essai de rehabilitation', Ant. Cl. III (I934), I73 ff. The theory of an annalistic source, held by Weber, loc. cit., by E. Hohl, Bursians Jahresber. CLXXI (I915), ioi f. and by N. H. Baynes, The Historia Augusta; its date and purpose (I926), 67 ff., was propounded at length by J. M. Heer, 'Der historische Wert der Vita Commodi in der Sammlung der Scriptores Historiae Augustae', Philol. Suppl. ix (I90I), i f., and by Schwendemann, and seemed to acquire implicit confirmation from the purely historical investigation of J. Hasebroek, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus (i92I). The critique of G. Barbieri, Ann. della R. Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa2 III (I934), 525 ff. fails to distinguish this theory from the view that the main source for the second century was biographical (as postulated here and argued by L6crivain I03 ff., esp. I9I f.).

" Marius certainly wrote a life of Elagabalus (Elagabalus i i, 6), but not a life of Alexander: Alexander 5, 4; ZI, 4; 30, 6; 65, 4 all refer to Marius on earlier emperors, while from 48, 6 f. it follows that the author of the Historia Augusta knew of no biography of Alexander by him. It is tempting to suppose that he wrote precisely of those twelve Caesars listed by Ausonius, Caesares xiii-xxiv (compare also Quadrigae Tyrannorum I, 2). If so, he wrote no life of Verus.

12 Lambrechts, loc. cit. I78. 13 Ibid. i8o: 'Mais la vita Veri est un ceuvre de

maigre valeur historique. Elle ne present quelque interet documentaire que jusqu'en 4, 4, et encore ! '.

14 See A. D. E. Cameron, Hermes XCII (I964), 373 ('clearly his (sc. Marius') work formed the basis of the Historia Augusta up to Elagabalus and perhaps Alexander '), A. R. Birley, Historia xv (I966), 249 (' I must confess to a predilection for the view that the major source for the lives of the emperors from Hadrian to Elagabalus was L. Marius Maximus '), H.-G. Pflaum, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1964/1965 (I966), I52 (' La source (sc. of the Pius), sans doute Marius Maximus '), and W. Seston, ibid. 2i8 ('Rien ne nous garantit formellement qu'elle (sc. the main source of the Pertinax) soit la Vita Pertinacis qu'6crivit Marius Maximus; mais rien ne s'y oppose '). Cf. also E. Hohl, Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia (I950), 287 ff.; 'Kaiser Commodus und Herodian', SDAW, Klf.Ges., I954, I, 3 f.

1" G. Barbieri, RFIC xxxii (I954), 36 ff., 262 ff.; the point had already been made by Lecrivain I93 ff.

16 It was already admitted by Hohl, loc. cit., Lambrechts, op. cit. I77, and Baynes, loc. cit., that the two strands could no longer be disentangled.

17 Cf. R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (forthcoming).

18 The style of treatment adopted here differs from that of W. H. Fisher in his analysis of the Vita Aureliani (JRS xix (1929), 125 ff.). This is partly for the reason stated in the text, partly because there is a comparative wealth of widely scattered evidence which bears upon the Vita Veri.


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 67

1,3a Born L. Ceionius Commodus and presumably becoming L. Aelius Commodus in I36 (see below), Lucius was from 138 L. Aelius Aurelius Commodus and from i6i Imp. Caes. L. Aurelius Verus Augustus (PIR2C 6o6). He never bore the name Antoninus, which also appears at Eutropius VIII, 9/IO; HA, Pius 10, 3; Diadumenus 6, 6.

1,3b/4a The categorization of emperors as boni or mali is a constant theme of the author, and constat almost invariably introduces an assertion of his own (see Lessing, s.v. princeps, constat).

1,4b/5 The difference between the divi fratres is expressed accurately and concisely: secta and adumbrare are found here only in the Historia Augusta.

Whatever the intention of the author (cf. Marcus 29, 6) I, 5 ought to apply to Marcus, of whom Dio (LXXII (LXXI), 34, 5) says orrsco cbs &X-qec5s ayace6S ayvrlp i`v Kai oUEV TrpOO7rOI1TOV EIXE. What Marcus says of Lucius in his Meditations is revealing: he does not thank the gods for giving him a good brother (i, I7, i), but for giving him a brother whose character made him mindful of himself and who honoured and loved him (i, 17, 4: 8UVa ?VOU p?v Si& iTOou& ?reyelpaf "? ip6s ?rrw?Asiav ?aU, &ala 8? Kai TU11 Kai cTOppy1 Ev'ppaivovros PE). Does the ambiguous compliment mask disapproval ?

1,6-4,3 Lucius' family, upbringing and life until 162 With the exception of two short passages and two textual difficulties (2, 6-8; 3, 6/7; and

3, I ; 4, 3) all is in order. In particular, genuine names are given. 1,6 Though the words may be the author's own (note statio: cf. Lewis and Short, s.v.), the

facts are correct (PIR2C 605), except that Aelius was hardly the first Caesar (cf. PIR2F 399) and he was never called Verus.

1,7 The grandfathers are L. Ceionius Commodus (ord. io6) and C. Avidius Nigrinus (suff. iiO). The great-grandfathers are L. Ceionius Commodus (ord. 78) and Avidius Nigrinus (PIR2A 1407; E. Groag, Die romischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia (1939), 42: there is no other evidence that he became consul), together with a Fabius and a Plautius (inferred from the names of Lucius' sisters, Ceionia Fabia and Ceionia Plautia (PIR2C 6I2, 614)). Eligible consular Fabii and Plautii can be found, and hence consular maiores plurimi including the illustrious Plautii of Tibur (R. Syme, Athenaeum xxxv (3957),306 ff., Pflaum, op. cit. (n. i), 99 ff.).

1,8 The place of Lucius' birth follows from his being born in his father's praetorship: the year of his birth is given by the Historia Augusta as 130 (2, IO; Pius 4, 6), while for the praetorship, though it gives an unusually long gap between praetorship and consulate for a patrician, 130 is not impossible (cf. J. Morris, Listy Filologicke 87 (I964), 3 i6 ff.). The day of Lucius' birth is confirmed by inscriptions (W. F. Snyder, YCS VII (1940), 252 f.).

The words ' qui rerum potitus est' are a scholiastic addition by the author which perhaps also embraces the words ' quo et Nero ' : Nero's birthday was to be found at Suetonius, Nero 6, I.

1,9 For the truth of this see Syme, loc. cit. 315. 2,1-3 See the second part of this paper. 2,4a This seems to be out of its correct place and reappears at 7, 7: perhaps the source

mentioned the marriage twice. 2,4b Antoninus and his family when in Rome lived in the domus Tiberiana: HA, Pius IO, 4,

Marcus 6, 3 ; Dio LXXII (LXXI), 35, 4. 2,5 All the teachers of Lucius except two are well documented: Telephus (P-W V A, 369),

Hephaestio (PIR2H 84), Harpocratio (PIR2H i9), Caninius Celer (PIR2C 388), Herodes Atticus (PIR2C 802), Cornelius Fronto (PIR2C 1364), Apollonius the philosopher (PIR2A 929) and Sextus (P-W IIA, 2057). Scaurinus (PIR1T 70) and Apollonius the rhetor present some difficulty. Scaurinus' father is well attested (P-W V A, 672), but this is the sole mention of the son, apart perhaps from HA, Alexander 3, 3, which produces a fictitious ' Scaurinus, Scaurini filius, doctor celeberrimus'. The invention of a second Scaurinus counts for the genuineness of the first rather than against it but proof is impossible. There are several possible identifications of Apollonius:

(i) PIR2A 93Ia (= ii, p. xiv) is too late and a grammaticus. (2) Aurelius Apollonius, procurator Augusti in Asia and procurator Augustorum of Thrace

(PIR2A 1454): the procuratorships seem to be of the wrong type for a rhetor (cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Les procurateurs equestres (I950), i8i).

(3) the son of the philosopher Apollonius (PIR2A 930: known only from Fronto, Ad M. Caes. V, 5I 8I Hout) .

(4) Flavius Apollonius, a pinacothecis before 153 (PIR2F 211). (5) Aelius Apollonius, a procurator in Crete about i68 (PIR2A 143): surely too humble a post

for the tutor of an emperor. (6) the assumed father and (7) the assumed grandfather of P. Aelius Apollonius, the Athenian

sophist of the age of Severus (PIR2A I42). The most likely of the suggested identifications is with (v), but Apollonius can be historical without being otherwise known.


68 T. D. BARNES

2,6-8 Apart from a, 7 ' amavit autem in pueritia versus facere, post orationes ' (compare Epitome i6, 6 'carminum, maxime tragicorum, studiosus '), this section arouses grave suspicions. First on formal grounds: 2, 9a belongs with the list of Lucius' teachers in 2, 5. Next on stylistic grounds: amare unice occurs in the Historia Augusta in six other passages, five of which are fiction (see Lessing, s.v. unice). Thirdly, the content. The aim is to disparage the emperor's achievements and to emphasize his respect for scholars: his talents are belittled (2, 6 ' nec tamen ingeniosus ad litteras') and what merit there is in his writings is ascribed to the diserti et eruditi with whom he surrounded himself (2, 8). Now, if there is a Tendenz in the Historia Augusta (and many have been imagined), it is surely the value, and the parody, of scholarship.

2,9a Chance has preserved an acephalous inscription which perfectly fits Nicomedes: '[... qui et] Ceionius et Aelius vocitatus est, L. Caesaris fuit a cubiculo et divi Veri imp. nutr[itor]' (ILS 1740, cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Carrieres procuratoriennes (I96o-I), no. I63).

2,9b This seems in character (cf. I, 4b; 3, 6; 6, 9; 8, 7 ff.; I0, 8/9), but ' iocis decenter' is suspect (cf. 7, 4; Lessing, s.v. iocus). The initial ' fuit' does not condemn the sentence (as held by Lambrechts, op. cit. I79): cf. io, 6, Lessing, s.v.

2,10a Compare Marcus 5, 5; the phrase 'in (familiam) Aureliam ' puts Antoninus' adoption of Lucius and Marcus before his own adoption by Hadrian.

2,10b Cf. 2, gb 2,11 Lucius lived in the emperor's house (2, 4b) and was conspicuously deprived by Pius of

any share in the glory of the imperial family (PIR2 II, p. I39: the coins of Alexandria, on which Lucius does not appear until i6o/i (J. Vogt, Die Alexandrinischen Miinzen (I924), I, III ; 2, 62 ff.), are typical).

3,1/2 ' Qua die togam virilem Verus accepit, Antoninus Pius ea occasione, qua patris templum dedicabat, populo liberalis fuit, mediusque inter Pium et Marcum idem se resedit, cum quaestor populo munus daret.'

The passage is confused, with difficulties both linguistic and historical. ' Qua die' is a relative without an antecedent, since ' ea occasione ' is qualified by ' qua patris templum dedicabat'. The clause ' mediusque . .. idem se resedit ' carries the implication that the preceding clause has the same subject; but in the transmitted text it is different. The coherence of the whole sentence is historically impossible. Lucius probably assumed the toga virilis in 146 (cf. J. Marquardt-A. Mau, Das Privatleben der Romer 2 (i886), 127 ff.). But whatever its date Antoninus could never have celebrated Lucius' arrival at man's estate as a public festival (cf. 2, II; 3, 4): and in fact the occasion can be assigned no liberalitas Augusti (BMC XLVI, cf. FO xxvii).19 There was a distribution to the populace of Rome (Pius' third) about 142 (BMC XLVI, LVII, 33), one in I45 to celebrate the marriage of Faustina to Marcus (BMC XLVI, 78 f., cf. LXIV f.; FO xxvii; HA, Pius I0, 2), another in 148 to commemorate the nine-hundredth anniversary of Rome and Antoninus' decennalia (BMC XLVI, 78, 90, cf. FO xxviii) and one in 151 (BMC I05, 309 f., 313 ff., FO xxix) which could mark the dedication of the temple of Hadrian (BMC XLIV, LXIX). Hence it becomes necessary to conjecture careless abridgement of a fuller source (note the very late usage se resedit: E. L6fstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (I9iI), I41 f.), and that the source originally ran

(i) when Lucius assumed the toga virilis there was no liberalitas; (2) at the distribution of largesse to celebrate the dedication of the temple of Hadrian Lucius

appeared with Antoninus and Marcus; (3) when giving games as quaestor Lucius sat between his father and brother. Of these (3) alone is reproduced undistorted in the Historia Augusta. 3,3 Lucius' quaestorship and immediate consulship appear also at Pius IO, 3, cf. 6, io. His

colleague holding the fasces was T. Sextius Lateranus (PIR1S 468). The manuscript reading ' Sextilio ' perhaps preserves a mistake of the author himself (cf., e.g., Pius I, 7; 8, 8; A. R. Birley, Historia xv (I966), 249). CIL XVI, I04 makes a contrary mistake, having Statio for Statilio. Lucius' second consulate, and Marcus' third, fall in i6i.

3,4 Compare 2, I I: if both come from the main source, then that was concerned to emphasize that all Lucius' honours before the death of Pius had been catalogued.

3,5 While Pius was alive, Lucius was officially neither Augustus nor Caesar (PIR2 II, p. 139); the rest is unverifiable but bears the stamp of verisimilitude.

3,6/7 Lucius' love of the circus and of gladiatorial displays is genuine enough (cf. 4, 8; i0, 9), and the last sentence of 3, 6 rings true. Yet the hand of the author too is easily discernible. The clause ' quod eum pater ita in adoptionem Pii transire iusserat ut nepotem appellaret' is nonsense.

19 D. van Berchem, Les Distributions de bld et d'argent ai la plebe romaine sous l'Empire (I939), I54 does, it is true, assign Pius' liberalitas III to the tirocinium of Lucius, citing the passage under discussion and RIC III (I930), 2I, 35, I09. But he

assumes that the date can be I44: against which there are purely numismatic arguments, viz. that the coins of liberalitas III ought to belong to 142 (BMC xlvi).


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 69 Lucius' simplicitas ingenii seems to derive from a misunderstanding of the source of I, 5 ; and if he were simple and pure, why (or how) should he be exhorted to imitate his brother ? 20

3,8/4,1 If the words 'participatu etiam imperatoriae potestatis' be excepted (the phrase belongs to the author: H. Dessau, Hermes xxiv (I889), 389), there is no repetition. The facts which can be checked are all correct (Schwendemann iz8 ff.).

4,2 Something similar is recorded by Marcus himself (Meditations I, I7, 4: TOIl a8?XoL. -rii" Kad o'ropyfi E*ypaivoVTos I-E).

'Vel praeses imperatori' spoils an apt simile and is the author's infelicitous addition to bring it up to date.

4,3 U. Obrecht, Historiae Augustae Scriptores Sex (I677), Notae z8 f., plausibly argued that there was a lacuna in the text: comparison with Marcus 7, 9 suggested some such supplement as ' et pro consensu imperii < vicena milia nummum singulis promisit. Lucius principio > graviter se et ad Marci mores egit '. But, as in 3, I/2, the trouble may lie rather in hasty and careless composition by the author himself. For the donative see further BMC CXVI, 387 ff.

4,4-6,6 The profligacies of Lucius The whole section is an insertion into the main source which breaks up the narrative: compare

4, 4 ' ubi vero in Syriam profectus est ' with 6, 7 ' profectum eum ad Parthicum bellum '. It is almost entirely the author's own composition: note, for example, the illogicality of describing Lucius' debaucheries at Rome (4, 5 ff.) in this context, the high rhetorical style at 5, 2-4 (' donatos . . . donatos ... donata ... donatos . . . data . . . data ... data . .': cf. the examples discussed by H. L. Zernial, Uber den Satzschluss in der Historia Augusta (I956)) and the pseudo-scholarly aetiology at 6, 5. Nonetheless, the style and content of some sentences look genuine (viz. 4, 8; 4, IO; and perhaps 5, 7). The germinal ideas were provided by the sober biographical source: 4, 8 'amavit et aurigas prasino favens' and io, 9 'Volucrem ex equi nomine quem dilexit' lie behind 6, z-6, while io, 8 'vitae semper luxuriosae atque in pluribus Nero praeter crudelitatem et ludibria ' provided both the comparison to other 'bad emperors' at 4, 6 and the impetus to employ Suetonius. The use which is made of this author can best be seen in tabular form.

Suet., Cal. i : ganeas atque adulteria capil- Verus 4, 6: in tantum vitiorum Gaianorum... lamento celatus et veste longa noctibus obiret fuisse aemulum ut vagaretur nocte per tabernas

ac lupanaria obtecto capite cucullione vulgari viatorio

Cal. 55, 3: Incitato equo . . . praeter equile Verus 6, 3 f.: nam et Volucri equo prasino marmoreum et praesepe eburneum praeterque aureum simulacrum fecerat, quod secum purpurea tegumenta ac monilia e gemmis portabat; cui quidem passas uvas et nucleos in domum etiam et familiam et supellectilem dedit vicem hordei in praesepe 21 ponebat, quem

consulatum quoque traditur destinasse sagis fuco tinctis coopertum in Tiberianam ad se adduci iubebat, cui mortuo sepulchrum in Vaticano fecit

Nero z6, I: post crepusculum statim adrepto Verus 4, 6: in tantum vitiorum . . . Neroni- pilleo vel galero popinas inibat circumque vicos anorum .. fuisse aemulum, ut vagaretur nocte vagabatur ludibundus nec sine pernicie tamen, per tabernas ac lupanaria obtecto capite cucul- siquidem redeuntis a cena verberare ac repug- lione vulgari viatorio et comisaretur cum nantes vulnerare cloacisque demergere assuerat, triconibus, committeret rixas, dissimulans quis tabernas etiam effringere et expilare; . . . ac esset, saepeque efflictum livida facie redisse et saepe in eius modi rixis oculorum et vitae peri- in tabernis agnitum, cum sese absconderet culum adiit, a quodam laticlavio ... prope ad necem caesus Nero 27, 2: epulas a medio die ad mediam Verus 4, 9: trahens cenas in noctem noctem protrahebat Nero 30, 3: numquam minus mille carrucis Verus 5, 4: data et vehicula cum mulabus et fecisse iter traditur, soleis mularum argenteis, mulionibus cum iuncturis argenteis canusinatis mulionibus Vit. 13: nec cuiquam minus singuli apparatus Verus 5, 5: omne autem convivium aestimatum quadringenis milibus nummum constiterunt dicitur sexagies centenis milibus sestertiorum

Of the pairs of parallel passages only one shows indubitable imitation by the Historia Augusta: at 5, 4 mulionibus is meant to mean 'male mules' (which is impossible) through an easy misunder-

20 Lecrivain 24i branded the passage as ' pleine de contradictions '.

21 Praesepe occurs elsewhere in the Historia

Augusta only at Elagabalus 21, 2 ' misit et uvas Apamenas in praesepia equis suis ', which is modelled on Verus 6, 4.


70 T. D. BARNES

standing of Suetonius, Nero 30, 3.22 In all the other cases Suetonius seems to have furnished not the words, but an idea to be copied or a story to be outdone. A complex example of the author's method can be discovered or conjectured. io, 9 calicem crystallinum provided the calices . . . crystallinos of 5, 3, while Marcus I7, 4 (from Eutropius VIII, I3, 2 or his source) gave the combination myrrinos et crystallinos and the epithet Alexandrinos might come from Suetonius, Aug. 7I 'cum et Alexandria capta nihil sibi praeter unum myrrinum calicem ex instrumento regio retinuerit et mox vasa aurea assiduissimi usus conflaverit omnia' (cf. Verus 5, 3 ' data et vasa aurea').

4,8 Perhaps implicit criticism of Lucius is to be found on the first page of Marcus' Meditations (I, 5: frap6c TOil TpOqEkos TO [JTjTE FTpaacavXos [J1Q'TE BEVETiaV0& IXflTE TTa?1o'a'pio5 F EKovTappos yevEcaeal). Though the vices were common enough, Lucius was notoriously addicted to them: cf. Fronto, Principia Historiae i8 I99 Hout: ' Ipsa haec cum prioris vitae non nullis detrectationibus lacessunt. Ex summa civilis scientiae ratione sumpta videntur, ne histrionum quidem ceterorumque scaenae aut circi aut harenae artificum indiligentem principem fuisse, ut qui sciret populum Romanum duabus praecipue rebus, annona et spectaculis, teneri.' Lucius' support of the Greens appears also in a confused form at Malalas 28z Bonn: 6 8'E acCors M&pKoS 'Av-rcovivos Pacl?E>Ov gXahpE T- lTpaalvco pep?t.

4,10 This is the sole occurrence of permodicus in the Historia Augusta. 5,1 Perhaps proverbial (A. Otto, Die SprichaOrter und sprichwortliche Redensarten der Rlimer

(I890), 9I); but possibly intended explicitly to cap Ausonius, Ephemeris 5, 5 f.: quinque advocavi; sex enim convivium cum rege iustum; si super convicium est.

Varro had permitted any number from three to nine (Aulus Gellius xiii, II).23 6,4 Suetonius, Claud. 2I, 2 recorded horse-races on the Vatican, but something different may

have been in the author's mind. Can it be ridicule of the Christians' holy basilica ? Compare Tyranni Trzginta 29: ' novo iniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata persultante vulgo, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur adfixus '. Is this an over-subtle allusion to the Christological wrangles of the fourth century ? If there is an anti-Christian strand in the Historia Augusta, it consists in such parody and in fictions like Hadrian's letter to Servianus (Quadrigae Tyrannorum 7/8) and Alexander's private chapel (Alexander 29, z) rather than in Geschichtsapologetik (as J. Straub, Heidnische Geschichtsapologetik in der christlichen Spatantike (I963)). But the idea of the horse's grave probably comes from Hadrian 20, 12 ' equos et canes sic amavit, ut eis sepulchra constitueret ': cf. also Elagabalus 23, i ' elefantorum quattuor quadrigas in Vaticano agitasse, dirutis sepulchris quae obsistebant '.

6,5 Brabium appears to be an almost exclusively Christian word, at least outside the glosso- graphers (TLL II, 2I53). 6,7-8,5 Lucius in the East

6,7-7,10 The relationship of this passage to Marcus 8, IO-9, 6 deserves at least a very short discussion. This contains facts not in Marcus 8, Io-9, 6: therefore not merely a development of it (as Lambrechts, op. cit. 179 ff.). Marcus 8, Io/II contains facts not in Verus 6, 7: hence that is not merely an expansion of this. Now Marcus 8, I2 et Verus quidem begins with almost the same words as 8, IO et Verum quidem; 8, 12 has the inaccurate apud Antiochiam et Daphnen (cf. Verus 7, 3) and the perhaps improbable ' armisque se gladiatoriis exercuit'; 8, 14 asserts implausibly Marcus' complete control of the war and produces a very late usage, Romae positus meaning ' residing at Rome ' (cf. A. Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin (I949), 3 iO). Hence both Marcus 8, io/i i; 9, i-6 and Verus 6, 7 if. come from the main source: Marcus 8, I2-I4 is the author's own and based on the Verus.

6,7 Coins of i62 advertise Lucius' profectio (BMC CXVIII, 4II f.) and give prominence to Salus Augustorum (BMC 409 if.). (Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. Ii, 6 2 I26 Hout does not belong in i62 but after Lucius' return in I66, as Mommsen saw (Hermes VIII (I873-4), 2I5 f. Ges. Schr. IV, 485 f.).)

22 Elsewhere the Historia Augusta uses mulio in its correct sense five times (Lessing, s.v.).

23 There are other possible echoes of Ausonius in the Historia Augusta. The story at Hadrian zo, 8 is patently modelled on Ausonius, Epigrammata xxxvii (xvTI)-unless both are translating indepen- dently from a lost Greek original. For the ioca and the anecdote interrupt the description of Hadrian's feats of memory (2o, 6/7; 20, 9-12), while ' patri negavi iam tuo ' said by Lais has far more point than 'iam hoc patri tuo negavi' in the mouth of Hadrian. Macrinus ii, 6 ('gabalus iste fuit') may be inspired by the lost second distich of Caesares

xxiv (if Fragmenta Poetaram Latinorum (ed. W. Morel), Incerti fr. 58 really is from Ausonius), and Macrinus 14, 2 by the first pentameter of the same poem: for Macrinus 7, 7 ('versus extant cuiusdam poetae, quibus ostenditur Antonini nomen coepisse a Pio et paulatim per Antoninos usque ad sordes ultimas pervenisse ') seems to be an explicit allusion to Ausonius' Caesares. It is also possible that Hadrian z5, 9 imitates Parentalia xxvii, though both may derive separately from Septimius Serenus. I have made only a very cursory search: others may well be able to add far more convincing examples than those collected here.


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 7I

It is probably no more than coincidence that the only two surviving inscriptions which can certainly be referred to L. (Aelius) Aurelius Apolaustus (see on 8, io) were erected at Capua and Canusium (ILS 5188/9), or that Herodes Atticus 'colonized' Canusium and attended to its water- supply (Philostratus, VS, p. 55I). (The twin inscriptions from Hydruntum (ILS 359) need imply neither that both the emperors were close at hand (which is implied to be false here and at Marcus 8, iO) nor that Lucius set sail from that town instead of Brundisium.)

Lucius' journey. That Lucius travelled the whole way by sea is confirmed by Pausanias viii, 29, 3: 'OV99EV 6 Pco paicov pcataES avT?Adat vavaUiv K'E OaXaaaTS 'ES 'Av'AvTt6XEtaV TrO6xtv EAUTpOV OiJV

VUV i'JOVCA TE Kca 8ca(aVT Ep1 V 6p ?VOS ?TrtfTr8ETOV 'S TOV aV6XOUV ?E'TpEpV EV TOUTO TOV ToTaiov.24 No record remains of his stay in Corinth, but his visit to Athens was marked by the appearance

of a shooting star which is duly recorded by pious chroniclers (Eusebius, Chronicon, GCS 20, 222; 47, 204; Cassiodorus, Chronicon, PL 69, 1233 = MGH Auct. Ant. XI, I43; Syncellus, 664 Bonn: always under the year i62). When Herodes Atticus was accused before Marcus at Sirmium he retorted angrily 'rTaurca pot P AouKov tEVica Ov aCi pot ErrEpyas ' (Philostratus, VS, p. 56I). Lucius, presumably on account of his illness, arrived too late for the mysteries at Eleusis: they were repeated so that he could be initiated (Sylloge3 869, ef. 872). Direct proof of the stately progress 25 along the Asian coast exists for Ephesus alone. There P. Vedius Antoninus was honoured by ot ?1Ti T0 yEiu,a TrpayCCTrEVuoPEVOt (cf. Forsch. in Ephesos ii (i9I2), I83, no. 76: Iuvepyac ispou y2CriucTos) especially for 'yuvpvatapX1laavTa 8? Kic ?V -raTS 'rt8iTdcatS -roT PEYTUOU acv-roipa&opos AovKioU ACvpTIAiou OnIpou cVEV8ECS TrraatS adS hTrE8?IT)aEV jpcatS TToAAXoS Kca PEy&AotS 'pyOtS KEKOUrPT

72 T. D. BARNES

7, IO 'unde in eum a Syris multa sunt dicta', and has the two motifs of ioca and works still extant so dear to the writer of the Historia Augusta (see Lessing, s.v. iocus, exsta(n)t).

7,6 A statue of Lucius erected at Dura-Europus by AopiAXtos 'HXAo'8pos o E'rrio-r&r-s (SEG II, 8I7) is not proof of an imperial visit, nor is Lucius' crowning of Sohaemus proof of his presence in Armenia (as Birley I75, n. 2, sees). But Eutropius (viii, I0, 2) says that Lucius was 'Antiochiae et circa Armeniam agens '.

7,7 Lucius' return to Ephesus appears to be attested by the inscription quoted above (on 6, 9) in I63 (the title Armeniacus appears about September (Dodd, loc. cit.)). The date is normally assumed to be I64 (H.-G. Pflaum, J. des Savants I961, 32; Birley i74). But the only explicit evidence (Vita Abercii 44 ff.) seems to point to i66, since Lucilla was born in I49 (cf. FO xxviii). Nothing forbids assigning the marriage to I63, even if Lucilla was born in I49 or I50 (M. K. Hopkins, Population Studies XVIII (I965), 309 if.). Medio belli tempore at Marcus 9, 4 cannot be pressed to mean i 64 precisely.

7,8 Sohaemus was left as king of Armenia (P-W IIIA, 798 f.), Avidius Cassius as governor of Syria (PIR 2A I402) and Martius Verus as governor of Cappadocia (P-W XIV, 2024 ff.).

7,10 No statue shows Lucius beardless as emperor, but that does not necessarily disprove the story. Yet even if it is only rumour, it may be contemporary: for the vulgaris amica is real enough. She was Panthea of Smyrna, whose beauty Lucian suggested surpassed that of the goddesses (Imagines, esp. io, Pro Imaginibus; cf. Scholia in Lucianum (ed. H. Rabe), 207). Her devotion to Lucius outlasted his death (Marcus, Meditations VIII, 37). The tone of vulgaris amica may be a clue to the attitude of the postulated third-century biographer. Lucius had the reputation of being KixTayv'va1o0 5ro2X according to Malalas (282 Bonn).

8,1-4 For the plague see J. F. Gilliam, AJP LXXXII (I96I), 225 ff., whose salutary attack on exaggerations of the importance of this epidemic perhaps goes too far. The legions from the Danube (P-W XII, I296 ff.) returned overland through Asia Minor (cf. OGIS 5 II (Aezani), JOAI xv (I9I2), Beiblatt, I64 f. (Ephesus)).

8,3 The sack of Seleucia by Avidius Cassius (Dio LXXI, 2, 3) occurred very soon after December I65 (R. H. McDowell, Coin,s from Seleucia on the Tigris (I935), 85 ff., 234). The temple of Apollo appeared also in the narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus (cf. xxiii, 6, 24).

8,4 Asinius Quadratus (PIR2A I245; FGH 97) lived in the middle of the third century. His XlurT-Ip{s ought to end in 247: perhaps he never finished it (cf. FGH 97 T I). His flapewa& did not deal just with the war of I6i to i66 (cf. F 28), but will have included at least Severus Alexander's Persian expedition. (For the development of a different view see F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (I964), 6I f., 192.)

8,5 For the imperial titles see Dodd, loc. cit. The triumph was celebrated on the twelfth day of October I66 (HA, Marcus 12, 8; Commodus II, 13). The Misenum fleet (or at least part of it) was still at Seleucia Pieria at the end of May (FIRA2 III, 132). Lucius seems to have returned to Rome by late August (ILS 366).

8,6-9,11 Lucius after his return to Italy in I66. The necessary evidence is now lacking to confirm much of this section, which will in consequence

be left unannotated. There is, however, something which may be held to corroborate its general accuracy. Even the panegyrist Fronto was unable to ignore Lucius' fondness for actors: ' illud etiam opprobrio ductum bello < incipiente > histriones ex urbe in Suriam accisse ' (Principia Historiae I8 - I99 Hout). His reply to the accusation is not convincing: ' sed profecto sicut arborum altissimas vehementius ventis quati videmus, ita virtutes maximas invidia criminosius in< sect > atur'.

8,7 Paris seems to appear on a mutilated inscription from Nemausus (ILS 5203: 'd. [m.] Afrodis ... symmele . . . grex Ga[ll.] Memphi et Paridis, P.M. et Sextis administrantibus '). But, since actors' names are few and often repeated, this Memphius and Paris need have nothing to do with Lucius.

8,8/9 The first clause of 8, 8 is plain in style and content: the rest of 8, 8/9 is suspect-it is too long and fluent for the postulated source.

8,10 Two Apolausti are to be distinguished (they are conflated in PIR2A 148). The one, L. (Aelius) Aurelius Apolaustus, was in Rome before the Parthian war (Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. I, I= -III Hout; for the date see Th. Mommsen, Hermes VIII (I873-4), 213 f. Ges. Schr. iv, 483 f.): he was a libertus of Lucius (ILS 5I88) and is, perhaps significantly (cf. 6, 7), honoured at Capua and Canusium (ILS 5188/9). The other, L. Aurelius Apolaustus Memphius (ILS 5i87, 5190/I), iS the pantomimus brought back from Syria; who was therefore named after Lucius' former favourite.

8,11 The words et Alexandria are the author's addition: he has forgotten to change the


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 73 singular pascitur. He has a prejudice against Egyptians: see especially Tyranni Triginta 22, Quadrigae Tyrannorum 7/8.

9,2 Libo's mission is not elsewhere recorded (PIR2A 668), but is without doubt historical. Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 17 (PIR2C 287) is a close and unfortunate precedent; and M. Vettulenus Civica Barbarus (PIR2C 602, with AE 1958, I5 SEG XVI, 257) was also sent as ovvcTrorios Owo O4pou ?i napetdlcKp v a-TpaEiVa, perhaps to replace him (cf. Marcus 9, 4).

9,3-6 Of the freedmen of Lucius, Geminus (PIR2G i62) appears only here and at Marcus 15, 2 (derived from this passage ?), Agaclytus (PIR2A 452) in the same two passages and at Verus Ic, 5, and Coedes only here (A. Stein, PIR2C I236 considers the name corrupt), while Eclectus is compara- tively well attested (PIR2E 3).

There is no other evidence for Agaclytus' marriage to Libo's widow, but his son married Vibia Aurelia Sabina (G. Barbieri, NdS I953, 157; Pflaum, loc. cit. 39 f.).

9,7-9,11 The chronology of the northern expedition of the divifratres and the barbarian attack on Aquileia is much disputed: see now J. Fitz, Historia xv (I966), 336 if. The salient facts which confirm the accuracy of this passage are as follows. Trouble had begun before Lucius' return from the east (HA, Marcus I2, I3) and the emperors' departure was delayed by the plague (ibid. I2, I4 ff.). On a diploma dated 5th May I67 (CIL xvi, 123) the emperors are accorded a fifth imperatorial salutation which first appears on the coins of the second issue of I68 (BMC cxxii, 448 ff.). Some time after May I67 there were incursions into Roman territory on the Danube (cf. CIL III, pp. 921 ff. (Verespatak, Dacia)). Marcus and Lucius were still in Rome in January i68 (Fragmentum Vaticanum 195), and set out later in the same year (BMC ibid.). They crossed the Julian Alps and conducted an expedition into Pannonia or beyond (ILS I098; IIOO, which calls it a bellum Germanicum), returning to Aquileia for the winter of i68/9 (Galen xiv, 649 f.; xIx, 17 f. Kuhn). Before the end of I68 (if reliance be placed on an inscription of a proc. Aug. (sic) in I68: R. Egger, Friihchristliche Kirchenbauten im siidlichen Noricum (I9I6), 98, quoted by Fitz, loc. cit. 340) the emperors set off for Rome (implied by Galen xix, i8 Kuhn) and Lucius died of a stroke 28 at Altinum. (The whole Latin chronographical tradition mentions Altinum, usually in the phrase inter Concordiam et Altinum; the Chronographer of 354 (MGH Auct. Ant. IX, I47) and Aurelius Victor (i6, 9) give Altinum as the exact place of Lucius' death).

9,9 Cf. Marcus 14: the words are the author's own (cf. Lessing, s.v. disputare). That, however, is no proof that the source failed to describe the war here as well as in its account of Marcus.

10/11 Appendix: personalia and rumours 10,1-5 Speculation on the source or sources used for this section is probably not profitable;

but for iO, 2 see note 88. The stories had at least some contemporary basis. Marcus suspected Herodes Atticus of being a guilty accomplice of Lucius, but Philostratus does not specify any details (VS, p. 560). And Dio reported a plot by Lucius which was forestalled by his being poisoned (LXXI, 3, I': ?EEyETaU yap vETra TcaTa Kic TI -rrvevrpa MapKp ?lErp3ovXExKCbs, fpiw tI Kac spaata, (appIxKp Sta(peapivat). Perhaps the temporary disfavour of P. Helvius Pertinax (HA, Pertinax 2, 4) is also relevant.

10,1 Julian records Faustina's infidelity to Marcus as an accepted fact (Caesares 3I2B, o*SE iKoapiav o6i5aav), as does Ausonius (Caesares xvii).

10,6 The author (and possibly his source) put fuit as first word in the sentence for preference, whereas Suetonius had favoured the second place: compare the physical descriptions at Aug. 79, Tib. 68, Cal. 50, Nero 5I, Galba 2I, Vesp. 20, Dom. i8. The known statues and busts of Lucius tally with the description here, even down to the details of the almost frowning brow and the ' barba prope barbarice demissa' (see M. Wegner, Das romische Herrscherbild II, 4: Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (I939), Tfln. 39-46). Lucius' dislike of close cropping of hair is mentioned by the contemporary Galen (xvii, 2, I50 Kuhn).

10,7 Golden hair is a divine attribute (cf. A. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt. L (I935), I42 f.): Caligula had often appeared with a golden beard, holding a thunderbolt or a trident or a caduceus, all symbols of divinity (Suetonius, Cal. 52).

10,8/9 The evidence cited above on 4, 8; 8, 6 ff. suggests that 'vitae semper luxuriosae' is not far from the truth, and 'in pluribus Nero praeter crudelitatem et ludibria' is merely an apt and pointed form of the statement which appears in the Epitome as 'ingenii aspern atque lascivi' (i6, 6), and in Eutropius as 'ingenii parum civilis' (viii, i0, 8).

11,1 This necrological notice is correct on Lucius' place of burial (ILS 369) and on his father's (ILS 329). The length of his life and his reign are both wrong: he lived almost exactly thirty-eight years and was emperor less than nine (see PIR2 II, p. I4I). A very similar mistake about his reign

28 For an earlier illness of the same type see Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. iI, 6 -I26 Hout and for

its date see above on 6, 7.


74 T. D. BARNES is made by Eutropius (VIII, 10, 4) and the Epitome (i6, 5), both having his death ' undecimo imperii anno'. The length of Lucius' life could have been deduced from the reign-length and 2, io/Ii.

11,2-5 ii, 2 seems to be the result of the author's own hasty revision (compare io, 2); the bogus address to Diocletian was therefore an afterthought.

From this investigation of the Vita Veri, incomplete though it is, three important results emerge. First, the value of the vita itself: not one of the inferior lives in the Historia Augusta, the Verus will stand comparison with any of the lives of legitimate emperors from Hadrian to Caracalla. If there is undue concentration on Lucius' delinquencies, that is surely because the emperor really was something of a playboy. Secondly, the analysis is powerful support for the theory that the main source for the second century was a biographer. An annalist and Marius Maximus have already been excluded as the principal source. But, if those parts of the life of Lucius which have been shown by independent evidence to be sound-viz. i, 6-4, 3 (except 2, 6-8; 3, 6/7); 6, 7-9, ii (except 7, 4/5; 8, 4 (since though sound it is the author's addition); 8, 8/9; 9, 9) and io, 6-I, I-are selected and placed together, they will form a sober biography which, although it has few pretensions to gracefulness of style, is recognizably on the Suetonian model.29 The theory is strengthened by an examination of other vitae.30 The Pius,31 the Pertinax 32 and the Didius Julianus 33 are as simple in structure as the Verus, while the lives of Marcus,34 of Commodus,35 of Septimius Severus 36 and of Caracalla 37 are only slightly more complex, and even in the more complicated Hadrian 38 the same biographer can be discerned. In all these cases the assumption that the Historia Augusta has largely drawn on a series of rather humble and factual imperial biographies 39 will readily explain the facts: can the same be said of any other theory ?

Finally, the analysis will justify the reliance placed upon the Historia Augusta in the second part of this paper. For it has shown that the context in which Lucius' part in the dynastic settlements of 136 and 138 is described is a reliable one. Although the two halves of the argument are interdependent, the whole is not thereby rendered circular: an escape from circularity has been provided by the citation of additional evidence to establish the value of the Vita Veri as a historical source.

II. HADRIAN AND THE CEIONII IN 136 AND 138 That the main purpose of Hadrian, when he made the dynastic settlements of 136 and

138, was to ensure the ultimate succession of M. Annius Verus, the future emperor Marcus

29 Cf. F. Leo, Die griechisch-romische Biographie (190I), 272 if.

30 For all the vitae mentioned see the extremely brief analyses by Lecrivain 103 ff.

31 Cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Bonner Historia-Augusta- Colloquium 1964/1965 (I966), 143 ff.

32 Cf. R. Werner, 'Der historische Wert der Pertinaxvita in den Scriptores Historiae Augustae ', Klio xxvi (1933), 283 ff.; H. Kolbe, Bonn. Jhrb. CLXII (I962), 407 if.

33 Cf. PIR2D 77; 0. Th. Schulz, Beitrdge zur Kritik unserer litterarischen Uberlieferung fiur die Zeit von Commodus' Sturze bis auf den Tod des M. Aurelius Antoninus (1903), 26 ff.

34 Schwendemann obfuscates a simple matter by his assumption about the sources (n. io): I-14, 20, Ib-27,9(?) with some subtractions form a Suetonian biography.

3"Heer, op. cit., had produced the same obfusca- tion as Schwendemann: there is no reason why one main (biographical) source should not be the basis of 1-17.

36 Cf. Hasebroek, op. cit. ; T. D. Bames, Historia XvI (i967), 87 ff. The greater part of 1-17, 4 and I9, i-5 is factually accurate.

37 Cf. W. Reusch, 'Der historische Wert der Caracallavita in den Scriptores Historiae Augustae' Klio, Beiheft xxiv (I 93 I). 38 Especially in I-14.

39 Where did the series end ? None will question that it included Caracalla (cf. Reusch, op. cit.; E. Hohl, Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia (i950), 287 ff.). L6crivain I8z ff. thought that it included a life of Macrinus. But that is explicitly denied by the preface to the ]M'Iacrinus (I, I): ' vitae illorun * . .qui non diu imperarunt in obscuro latent . . .: nos tamen ex diversis historicis eruta in lucem proferemus'. The problem concentrates, therefore, on the Geta. The only possible trace of the postulated biographer is at 3, I (for the rest see Schulz, op. cit. I14 ff.; L6crivain z26o f.). The consular date has recently been argued to be correct, except that Vitellio is a perversion of Vettuleno (A. R. Birley, Historia xv (I966), 251 if.) ; but the day and the place of Geta's birth both seem to be wrong (cf. Passio Perpetuae 7; HA, Severus 4, 2; and the examples of variatio of facts in the Historia Augusta collected by LUcrivain 396). A. von Domaszewski, ' Die Personennamen bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae ', Heidelberger SB, Phil.-hist. Ki., I9I8, I 3, 6z pointed out a possible resemblance to Suetonius, Cal. 8, I ' C. Caesar natus est patre suo et C. Fonteio Capitone coss. ubi natus sit incertum diversitas tradentium facit '-and a page later a letter contains the date ' xv Kal. lun ' (ibid. 8, 4). See further R. Symne, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, ch. xxi.


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 75 Aurelius, is both asserted by ancient authors 40 and believed by many modern scholars.4' But is this view of Hadrian's intentions, which are not open to direct scrutiny, justified by the facts, which are ?

Late in 136 Hadrian adopted L. Ceionius Commodus, a consul ordinarius of that year,42 to whose daughter Ceionia Fabia Marcus had already been betrothed in accordance with his wishes. 43 Ceionius became L. Aelius Caesar and received tribuniciapotestas and imperium proconsulare, and almost at once entered upon a second ordinary consulate. He had a son of his own, and he was not compelled by Hadrian to adopt another. Prima facie therefore the line of succession is Ceionius, followed by his son, with Marcus in third place only. The position of Marcus is made clear by an analogous case. Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix married Antonia, a daughter of the emperor Claudius: 5 but that had given him little claim to the succession in 54.46

Perhaps, however, the adoption of Ceionius was no more than a stratagem. Hadrian (it has been alleged) would have adopted Marcus, had he been old enough: Ceionius was merely intended to hold his position until the youth was of a suitable age.47 In support of this view two arguments are invoked: that Ceionius' children were expressly excluded from the succession, and that Hadrian adopted Ceionius in the firm belief that he would soon perish.48 If both arguments are valid, it follows that Hadrian had in mind some successor other than Ceionius, who must be Marcus. Conversely, if they are unfounded, Ceionius himself was the destined heir.

The precise legal details of the adoption of Ceionius Commodus are nowhere fully on record. A priori, the children ought to follow the paterfamilias into his new gens.49 It had been thus in A.D. 4. Ti. Claudius Nero had a son of his blood, Nero Claudius Drusus, and was forced to adopt his nephew, who was probably called Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus.50 Tiberius was then adopted by Augustus, becoming Ti. Julius Augusti filius Caesar; 51 and, no further legal act being performed or needed, both his sons passed automatically into the family of Augustus. Drusus Caesar and Germanicus henceforward bore the names Drusus Julius Ti. f. Augusti nepos Caesar 52 and Germanicus Julius Ti. f. Augusti nepos Caesar.53 In 136 Ceionius' young son ought similarly to follow his father. But a form of adoption could undoubtedly be discovered or invented which would prevent this. Neither Trajan in 97 54 nor Hadrian in I17 55 had been adopted according to the due form of law. All that was necessary was to know the wishes of a childless princeps: if it was expedient, they could be given the force of law.56

40 Eutropius viii, ii; HA, Marcus i6, 6 f. 41 For example, A. Stein, P-W iII (I898), I833 f.;

A. von Domaszewski, Geschichte der romischen Kaiser iI (I909), 2II ; H. Saekel, Klio xii (I9I2), I23 ff.; W. Hiuttl, Antoninus Pius I(I936), 41 f.; W. Weber, CAH XI (1936), 322 f.; E. Homo, Le Haut-Empire (I93I), 530 f.; A. Solari, L'Impero Romano iII (I945), 155; A. S. L. Farquharson, Marcus Aurelius (I95I), 24 ff.; A. Piganiol, Histoire de Rome5 (I962), 293; Pflaum, op. cit. (n. i); Birley 45 ff. There has also been explicit dissent: e.g. B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian (I923), 26I ; A. Garzetti, L'Impero da Tiberio agli Antonini (I960), 689.

42 In general see PIR2C 605. 43 HA, Marcus 4, 5. 44 The evidence is collected at PIR2C 60o. 45 PIR2C I464, A 886. 46 Sulla is not mentioned by Tacitus in his narra-

tive of the year 54. In 55, however, it was plausible to accuse Pallas and Burrus of plotting to elevate him to be emperor, and it was Nero's fear which led to his exile in 58 and death in 62 (Tacitus, Ann. Xiii, 23, 47; XIV, 57).

47 So most of the scholars cited in note 41. 48 The case is put most clearly and effectively by

Pflaum, op. cit. (n. I), 103 ff. 49 Cf. M. Kaser, Das r6mische Privatrecht i (I955)

290 ff. 50 For the order of events see H. U. Instinsky,

Hermes xciv (I966), 324 ff. The original name of

Germanicus must be inferred from that of his father (see PIR21 zzl) it is nowhere on epigraphic record.

51 ILS 107 ; PIR2C 94I- 52 ILS 107, I66 etc.; PIR'I 2I9. 53 ILS 107, 173 etc.; PIRI 22I. 54 Trajan was 'absens et ignarus' (Pliny, Pan.

9, 3): Nerva's calling of a ' contio hominum deorurmque ' (ibid. 8, 3) is a dubious appeal to a 'higher legality' (cf. Kaser, op. cit. 292 f.).

55 S. Brassloff, Hermes XLIX (1914), 590 ff. argued that Hadrian's adoption was testamentary. M.-H. Pr6vost, ' Les Adoptions politiques 'a Rome', Publications de l'Institut de Droit Romain de 1'Univer- site' de Paris v (I949), 5I f., develops this theory by claiming that the adoption derived its validity from that of Trajan's will, which was itself valid as being a ' testament militaire que Trajan lui-m8me, precise- ment, avait rdglement6 '. But Hadrian received litterae adoptionis on the ninth day of August I 7 and ordered that day to be celebrated as the natalis adoptionis (HA, Hadrian 4, 6), while his natalis imrperii was the eleventh, on which he heard of Trajan's death (ibid. 4, 7; W. F. Snyder, YCS vii (I 940), 243 f .) .

"I The principle 'quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem ' (Ulpian, Digest I, 4, ; cf. Gaius, Inst. I, 5) is no harsh imposition from above: the initiative to enhance the emperor's powers almost invariably comes from below (cf. A. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt. XLIX (I934), I ff. ; L (1935), 1 flf.)


76 T. D. BARNES

What cannot be decided on a priori grounds can, however, be decided on the evidence. The Historia Augusta asserts three times that the young Lucius entered the family of Hadrian.57 Although two of the passages concerned may easily be set aside, there is one which occurs in a reliable context, and the statement must therefore be accepted unless controverted by other evidence. Apparent contrary evidence has been produced, namely a stamp on some tiles, dated by the consuls of I38, which reads ' ex pr(aediis) L. Ceio(nii) Com(modi) C(aesaris) f(ili) .58 Is this not proof that Lucius' name, and therefore his legal position, remained unaltered in I36 ? 59 But the relevance and cogency of an argument based on a tile-stamp are highly dubious. The stamp may belong after Lucius' adoption by Antoninus, or even after the death of Hadrian.60 More important, tile-stamps are no evidence for precise nomenclature. If a man's name has changed, there is no guarantee that the change will appear there. Legal niceties are not observed, indeed they are often trans- gressed. In I48 Lucius is styled' L. Ael(ii) Caes(aris) 61 and about the same year some tiles bear the stamp ' L. Aeli Caes(aris) Com(modi) f(ili) 62 yet no-one would conclude from these either that Lucius could legitimately be called Caesar before i6I 63 or that his father never became L. Aelius Caesar. Again, many fragments of wine-jars from the Monte Testaccio carry the names of the ordinary consuls of I54: while on the great majority they appear as ' Commodo et Laterano ', twice it is as ' Commodi filio et Laterano '.64 At least as late as I54, therefore, L. Aelius Caesar was commonly called Commodus. Hence the persistence of his son's old name after I36 is neither surprising nor relevant to deter- mining what name he was legally entitled to bear.

Nevertheless, even if Ceionius Commodus' son became a member of the imperial family in I36, might not the father still have been adopted precisely because he was mortally ill ? On general grounds it seems unlikely. Hadrian himself was gravely sick at the time,65 and so could feel no certainty of outliving even one who was declining fast. And if both he and his adoptive son were to die together-or if the Caesar died and Hadrian were unable to make a fresh disposition before his own death-his legacy would be an infant heir and civil war. The mission to Pannonia was not a subtle device to hasten the end of a man with a lung disease.66 The Quadi were giving trouble and some show of force was necessary to cow them.67 Ceionius, so far from being familiar to the troops on whom his power was to depend, had probably never seen an army in his life.68 The future emperor ought therefore, at whatever cost, to show himself an imperator and win cheap glory.

The sources too lend little support to the view that Hadrian expected his Caesar to die. Dio related that it was because he had despaired of his own life that Hadrian adopted Ceionius although he was vomiting blood.69 A year later, according to Dio, Ceionius was suddenly carried off by a severe haemorrhage: 70 by implication, therefore, he had recovered fully from his earlier illness. Dio also put into Hadrian's mouth, when he declared his intention to adopt Arrius Antoninus, a conventional speech entirely of his own composition which implies that Ceionius was sound of mind and body: 71 and Dio is not the historian

57Aelius 7, 2; Verus I, 3 ; 2, I. On the last two see above: the Aelius consists entirely of fiction and of material drawn from other parts of the Historia Augusta (E. Hohl, ' Ober die Glaubwurdigkeit der Historia Augusta', SDAW, Ki. f. Ges., 1953, 2, 23 ff.).

58 CIL xv, 732. 5 The argument was first stated by Th. Momm-

sen, Ramisches Staatsrecht II3 (I889), 1I39, Anm. I : 'iubrigens muss er (sc. Lucius) vor der Adoption des Vaters emancipirt worden sein, da er auf einem vor seiner Adoption durch Pius geschriebenen Ziegel sich L. Ceio(nius) Com(modus) C(aesaris) f(ilius) nennt '.

60 Hadrian died on the tenth day of July 138 (HA, Hadrian 25, 6).

6' CIL xv, 733. 62 CIL xv, 734. Note also CIL xv, 735 : 'L. Aeli

Aug(usti) Pii f(ili) '. H. Dressel, ad loc., punctuates after 'Aeli'. But it is easier to take 'Augusti' with what precedes. If so, that gives another example of an error.

63 See above, on Verus 2, I i ff.

64 CIL xv, 3695 ff. passim, esp. 4294-4338. Dis- counting those where the form of Lucius' name is not certain, two (4302, 4308) unmistakably have ' Commodi filio', four (3807, 4294, 4330, 4337) 'Commodo Augusti filio', the rest plain 'Com- modo'.

65 Dio LXIX, 17, I ; HA, Hadrian 23, 7. 66 So Pflaum, op. cit. 104. Cf. MAMA VI, 3

(Laodicea in Phrygia): 1TpEapv-w

HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 77 deliberately to introduce a speech at variance with the facts.72 The Historia Augusta has two accounts of the adoption in I36. The more sober, in the Vita Hadriani, implies that Hadrian came to know of his son's illness after the adoption, not before.73 It also relates that Hadrian was accustomed to say ' I have leant upon a collapsing wall': if true, does that not entail that at the time Hadrian thought the wall was sound ? It is only in the Vita Aelii that Ceionius' illness assumes an important role.74 Hadrian (it is alleged) changed his mind at once and could have removed Aelius from the imperial family had he lived. For careful writers told how Hadrian knew his horoscope, and some even spoke of a secret compact. It was, moreover, common knowledge that the emperor often applied to his son certain verses originally used by Virgil of Marcellus. Yet even here, where so many of the details must be the author's invention,75 there is no hint that Hadrian expected Ceionius' death at the time of his adoption.

In 136, therefore, Hadrian adopted L. Ceionius Commodus in the hope that he would be his successor, and by that adoption Commodus' son became the emperor's grandson. M. Annius Verus was no more than Commodus' destined son-in-law.

On the Kalends of January 138 Aelius Caesar died. On the twenty-fifth day of February Hadrian adopted Arrius Antoninus, who, as a condition of his own adoption, adopted Lucius, the young son of Aelius Caesar, and Annius Verus, the nephew of his own wife. 76 In addition, Antoninus' daughter Annia Galeria Faustina was betrothed to Lucius, while Marcus' engagement to Ceionia Fabia stood unaltered.

Two aspects of this second settlement deserve emphasis. First, Lucius seems in some vague and undefinable way to be given precedence over Marcus. The epitome of Dio is quite explicit: 'Hadrian made Antoninus adopt Commodus' son Commodus and also in addition M. Annius Verus '.77 The same fact is perhaps reflected in a confused sentence in the Historia Augusta: Hadrian adopted Antoninus on the condition that he should adopt as his sons Annius Verus and M. Antoninus.78 By the latter Marcus must be meant: hence ' Annius Verus ' means Lucius.79 Secondly, Lucius had the better of the proposed dynastic matches. The Vita Marci and the Vita Veri, both in reliable contexts,80 record respectively the breaking off of Marcus' betrothal to Ceionia Fabia after Hadrian's death and the engagement of Lucius to Faustina.81 It appears, therefore, that the youth whom Hadrian had determined should eventually succeed to the throne of the Caesars was not Marcus: it was Lucius.

The intentions of Hadrian can not only be inferred from what he did: they were portrayed in stone by an artist at Ephesus. A relief discovered in I903 near the library of Ephesus,82 and long supposed to depict the imperial family of the i6o's,83 is now generally recognized to depict the imperial family in I38, between the adoption of Antoninus and

72 Millar, op. cit. 78 if. On the other side it may be urged that Dio did not always harmonize his speeches with their context.

13 Hadrian 23, I0 ff., partly developed at Aelius 6, I ff. with a typical variatio of the amount of the donative (compare Hadrian Zx, 4 with Aelius 5, 4 f.; Maximini I2, I, with I2, 6).

74 Aelius 3, 7 if- " The bogus 'careful writers' and the use of

Aeneid vi are both stigmata of the author (as was pointed out by H. Dessau, Hermes XXIV (I889), 382 if.; Hermes xxvII (I892), 582 if.).

76 Marcus' name is wrongly given prior place at Aelius 6, 9; Pius 4, 5. The error is natural: cf. J. Linderski, Historia xiv (i965), 423 ff., for a similar distortion of the order of the consuls of 59 B.c. The inversion is reproduced by the scholars cited in note 41, and by H. Schiller, Geschichte der ro'mischen Kaiserzeit (I883), 628; P. von Rohden, P-W I (i894), 2283 ; P-W ii (I896), 2497; H. M. D. Parker, A History of the Roman World, I38-337 (I935), 4 ; E. Albertini, L'Empire Romain (I938), 194; B. Orgeval, L'Empereur Hadrien (1950), 33. Not however by R. Sy ne, Tacitus (1958), 6oI.

7I Dio LXIX, 21, I : ET?i 8& E nV -rrals &pptvcov rTai8cov,

T v T? Kopp68ov u vi K6ojobov keno r ?ijav a0~ Kxal 9ri p' TO,fTlc M&pKov 'Avviov OvQijpov.

78 Hadrian 24, I. 79 Eutropius VIII, 9, i calls him Lucius Annius

Antoninus Verus; the Epitome I6, 5, L. Annius Verus; at HA, Pius 6, Io he is Annius Verus, while his brother is M. Antoninus in 6, 9.

80 See respectively Schwendemann II8 ff., and above, pp. 67-9.

81 Marcus 6, 2; Verus Z, 3. (Aelius 6, 9 clearly depends upon one or both of these passages: cf. note I9.) Marcus 6, z is now disfigured by a lacuna: almost certainly there originally stood there a refer- ence to Lucius' betrothal to Faustina (cf. Verus 2, 3).

82 First published by R. Heberdey, YOAI vii (I904), Beiblatt, 49 ff. (with photographs). Reproduc- tions are to be found also at Rom. Mitt. XLVIII (1933), Tfl. 5o; J. M. C. Toynbee, Art of the Romans (I965), pl. 4z; R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (I963), fig. 3.83.

83 E.g. by E. Strong, Roman Sculpture (1907), 295; La Scultura Romana ii (I926), Z58. That interpretation is impossible: with Lucius Verus still alive, Commodus and Annius Caesar must appear in the family group either together or not at all (cf. PIR2A 698).


78 T. D. BARNES the death of Hadrian.84 The relief shows the young Lucius standing between Anltoninus and Hadrian. Antoninus is flanked by Marcus on the left, and on the right a girl's head (it must be Faustina the younger) peeps over Hadrian's shoulder. The emperor's hand rests, palm upwards, upon the boy's shoulder, by which Antoninus is clasping him to his side. In the middle and above Lucius' head there appears a sceptre, symbol of imperial majesty.85 The purport of the relief is manifest: the throne is destined to pass to Lucius, who, however, needs a guardian-and the guardian is to be Antoninus assisted by Marcus.

The favours shown by Hadrian to Marcus are often adduced as proof that the youth was especially dear to the emperor, and hence that he was picked out as future emperor.86 Another view is possible. Perhaps what favours there were given had to be forced on Hadrian by Marcus' social standing and relatives. For it is far from improbable that the influential nobles to whom Marcus was linked by ties of blood had renounced their own conflicting claims to the empire in order to put their hope in such a high-born and well- connected young man.87

Eutropius states outright that Hadrian had had plans to leave Marcus his successor had he been old enough; and Eutropius, or else his source, is copied by the Historia Augusta.88 But in both authors this assertion appears as an inference from the fact that Hadrian had chosen Marcus as Antoninus' son-in-law. Since the premise is false, the conclusion has no value as evidence.

Xiphilinus' epitome of Dio speaks of Hadrian's favouring Marcus. Hadrian (he writes) kept urging Antoninus to adopt Lucius and Marcus, but preferred the latter because of his kinship and his age, and because he was already displaying great strength of character. Accordingly he punningly called him 'Verissimus '.89 But in this passage has Xiphilinus perhaps abbreviated too carelessly ? There is no other evidence that Marcus was related to Hadrian; and, though some distant link may be deduced from the existence of a L. Dasumius Hadrianus,90 and from Marcus' mythical ancestor Dasummus,91 the degree of kinship seems too remote to count for very much. Antoninus on the other hand was Marcus' uncle and later conspicuously favoured his nephew above Lucius.92 Moreover, the logic of the passage requires that it should be Antoninus who is said to favour Marcus. If both Antoninus and Hadrian favour Marcus, there is no need of long exhortations: but if Hadrian favoured Lucius (as has already been argued), the reluctance of Antoninus is understandable.93 The hypothesis seems inevitable that Dio in the original recorded that Antoninus (not Hadrian) favoured Marcus. And that would be consonant with a statement Dio makes when delivering his final verdict on Marcus: he was adopted by Hadrian because of his numerous, wealthy and influential relatives.94

It was surely Marcus' relatives who secured for him two marks of distinction at a very early age. When he was six he was granted the equus publicus, an exceptional but not unparalleled honour for one so young.95 At the age of seven Hadrian made him a salius

84 The correct date was first perceived by F. von Lorentz, Ram. Mitt. XLVIII (1933), 308 ff. For a select bibliography see J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor (I966), 71. Inan and Rosenbaum follow F. Eichler, Bericht uiber den VI. Internationalen Kongress fur Archdologie, Berlin 21.-26. August 1939 (1940), 488 if., in assigning the series of reliefs to which this belongs to a monument commemorating the Parthian War of i62-6, though they do not deny that the relief's ' dramatic date ' is 138. But is there really anything which compels the late dating ? Toynbee, op. cit. 65 f., evidently does not think so.

85 Cf. A. Alf6ldi, Rom. Mitt. L (I935), 124 f.; Lewis and Short, s.v. sceptrum.

86 See the works cited in note 41. 87 Cf. Hadrian 24, 6 f. For Marcus' relatives see

the sterrimata facing PIR2 I, p. II8; Pflaum, op. cit. 122; and Birley 3I8 ff.

88 Eutropius viii, ii ; HA, Marcus i6, 7. The Historia Augusta refines the reasoning behind Eutropiias' statement, which perhaps indicates the use of him as a source (H. Dessau, Hermes xxiv

(1889), 367 ff.). But Marcus 15, 5 contains a story not in Eutropius, but found in Aurelius Victor (I 6, 7). Use of a common source is, therefore, at least an equal possibility.

89 Dio LXIX 21, 2: Kal 6p:p-OTEpOUS p?v ?0aTroticaa0at -@ 'AvrCvivc,? ?KEvE, TrpoeTiUpflaE U TO V OUTi1pov Si& -rT? -rv aUyyiv?1av aOcToO Kal St& -r?Av fKi'av, Kal OT6 qp%awv ypvXilS ?ppco,U?vrcaT&-rv 1r5rI iTr?':rracvEv, d()p' o;i Kal OIP:I'paalpov c)Torv, Yrp6O-ThV TOO 'PCOtIaOkO PpaT-roSgvvoiav KIopywOwI?VOS, &arw&xt. 90 Syme, op. cit. 794; PIR2H 5. 91 HA, Marcus I, 6.

92 See above cn Verus 2, II ff. 93 Hadrian declared Antoninus as his heir on 23

January (HA, Hadrian I, 3; 26, 6; cf. PIR2 I, p. 28), a full month before the actual adoption (Pius 4, 6).

94 Dio LXXII (LxxI) 35, 2/3: TOiS T? yap oUyy1Ev?ct Tr&aci, 1ToMoTS Kai 8UVaTOTS 1r?vOUCiOtS T? OCJoctV, O0TCO -rTI gr waTS &v tp??V CbaO' Or6 YT&vrcov c?rT65v 6.yarTriG?ivat, Kai St& -roO-ro iT 6 -roiD 'A8ptavo OrT p&atora s -r6 y6voS rTotTEiS . . .

95 HA, Marcus 4, I. Cf. ILS 6305: 'honorato equo publ. ab imp. Antonino Aug. cum ageret aetatis an. V '; also ILS 13 I 6/7.


HADRIAN AND LUCIUS VERUS 79 Palatinus.6 Such signs of imperial favour were easy to bestow and need signify nothing about Hadrian's real intentions. The nickname 'Verissimus' was double-edged.97 Ostensibly it denoted honour: but what could be better as well-disguised ridicule of the priggish darling of high society who in his twelfth year assumed the garb of a Cynic philosopher ? 98 Moreover, propaganda may soon have obfuscated the truth about Hadrian and Marcus. It is related that Marcus was brought up ' in Hadriani gremio '.99 Now that must be false, since Marcus lived his early life in Rome 100 at the time when, except for the years I25 to I28, Hadrian was travelling throughout the empire.'0' In Hadrian's autobiography, and on the arch at Beneventum, the impression was carefully fostered that the emperor had always been marked out as Trajan's successor; 102 in the I40's it would have been politic to create a similar illusion about Marcus.103

To recapitulate, Marcus was not Hadrian's chosen heir. It was a Ceionius whom Hadrian was determined to install as emperor. With the passing of the years his intentions were not entirely frustrated. For twenty-three years Antoninus gave precedence to Marcus and kept Lucius in a position of unmistakable inferiority. But he did not murder him, and that was justification enough for his own adoption by Hadrian. In i6i Marcus alone was saluted emperor by the army and the Senate. Yet he knew the truth about the dynastic compact of I38, and his philosophy would not allow him any longer to delay the fulfilment of Hadrian's wishes.

The Queen's College, Oxford.

96 Marcus 4, 2. The case of Marcus is unique according to R. Cirilli, Les pr4tres danseurs de Rome (I913), 59 f., followed by P-W I A, i88z f. But M. Annius Flavius Libo (PIR2A 648) was a salius Palatinus twenty-six years before his consulship in 204; as an imperial relative he may have been consul at about thirty-three (cf. Syme, op. cit. 653 f.; J. Morris, Listy Filologicke 87 (I964), 3I6 ff.). Others too may have been salii in their boyhood: perhaps C. Bruttius Praesens, salius in I99, if he is indeed the consul of 2I7 (PIR2B I66). There is little enough evidence for the membership of the collegium-only the fragmentary CIL vi, I978-84.

97 Cf. Hohl, op. cit. (n. 57) 37: 'Da dieser Superlativ im Munde eines Hadrian ein von Ironie nicht ganz freies Lob dargestellt haben diirfte, k6nnte man den Necknamen mit " Wahrheits- fanatiker" zu verdeutschen suchen'. Verissimus appears in all seriousness, however, on an Ostian inscription of I43 (AI I940, 62) and in the Apology of Justin.

98 HA, Marcus 2, 6. 99 Marcus, 4, I. 100 Marcus I, 7; I, I0; 2, I ff.; Marcus, Med.

1, 4. 101 See W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (I 907), I 97 ff. In I2 5 Hadrian had returned to Rome some time before mid- September (E. Bourguet, De Rebus Delphicis Im- peratoriae Aetatis (I905), 82 f.) ; in iz8 he was at Lambaesis on the first day of July (ILS 9I33).

102 HA, Hadrian 3, 3 ; 3, 5 ; 3, IO f.; Weber, op. cit. 20 ff. F. J. Hassel, Der Trajansbogen in Benevent (I966), contends that the arch was com- pleted in II I4 (not early in the reign of Hadrian), but he brings no real argument apart from the date on the dedicatory inscription which it bears.

103 Marcus was, it is true, designated quaestor on the proposal of Hadrian (Marcus 5, 6). Again, that need not denote especial favour: the consulate, though easy to give (cf. Res Gestae I4), was withheld.

Corrigendum. Frl. H. Temporini of Tiibingen has kindly pointed out to me that neither Marcus 6, 2 nor Versus 2, 3 (cited in n. 8I, above) necessarily implies that the betrothal of Lucius to Faustina was ever a fait accompli. Nevertheless, my thesis (I believe) still stands unimpaired, since both passages (on any interpretation) state that it was Lucius, not Marcus, whom Hadrian desired as the future son-in-law of Antoninus.


Article Contentsp. [65]p. 66p. 67p. 68p. 69p. 70p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75p. 76p. 77p. 78p. 79

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1967), pp. i-xiv+1-312Volume Information [pp. 303-312]Front Matter [pp. i-xi]Harold Idris Bell, 1879-1967 [pp. xiii-xiv]The Treaty of Apamea (188 B.C.) [pp. 1-8]Emperors at Work [pp. 9-19]M. Aurelius Atho Marcellus [pp. 20-22]The Dies Imperii of Tiberius [pp. 23-30]Rutilius Namatianus, St. Augustine, and the Date of the De Reditu [pp. 31-39]Choma in Lycia [pp. 40-44]The Religious Position of Livy's History [pp. 45-55]Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Quaestiones in the Severan Age [pp. 56-60]The Division of Britain [pp. 61-64]Hadrian and Lucius Verus [pp. 65-79]Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome [pp. 80-95]The Chronology of Polybius' Histories, Books I and II [pp. 96-108]The Speech of Curtius Montanus: Tacitus, Histories IV, 42 [pp. 109-114]The Authorship of the Historia Augusta [pp. 115-133]Philippus Arabs and Egypt [pp. 134-141]Hastiferi [pp. 142-160]The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry [pp. 161-173]Roman Britain in 1966: I. Sites Explored: II. Inscriptions [pp. 174-210]Reviews and DiscussionsReview: untitled [pp. 211-216]Review: untitled [pp. 216-222]Review: untitled [pp. 223-230]Review: untitled [pp. 230-234]Review: untitled [pp. 234-238]Review: untitled [pp. 238-242]

Reviews and Notices of PublicationsReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 243-244]Review: untitled [pp. 244-246]Review: untitled [p. 246]Review: untitled [pp. 246-247]Review: untitled [pp. 247-248]Review: untitled [pp. 248-249]Review: untitled [pp. 250-251]Review: untitled [pp. 251-252]Review: untitled [p. 252]Review: untitled [p. 253]Review: untitled [pp. 253-254]Review: untitled [pp. 254-256]Review: untitled [pp. 256-257]Review: untitled [pp. 257-258]Review: untitled [pp. 258-259]Review: untitled [pp. 259-260]Review: untitled [pp. 260-261]Review: untitled [pp. 261-262]Review: untitled [pp. 262-263]Review: untitled [p. 264]Review: untitled [p. 265]Review: untitled [pp. 265-266]Review: untitled [pp. 267-268]Review: untitled [pp. 268-269]Review: untitled [pp. 269-270]Review: untitled [pp. 270-271]Review: untitled [pp. 271-272]Review: untitled [pp. 272-273]Review: untitled [pp. 273-274]Review: untitled [pp. 274-275]Review: untitled [pp. 275-276]Review: untitled [pp. 276-277]Review: untitled [pp. 277-278]Review: untitled [pp. 278-280]Review: untitled [pp. 280-281]Review: untitled [pp. 281-282]Review: untitled [pp. 283-284]

NoticesReview: untitled [p. 284]Review: untitled [pp. 284-285]Review: untitled [p. 285]Review: untitled [p. 285]Review: untitled [pp. 285-286]

The Following Works Have Also Been Received [pp. 287-293]Correction [p. 293]Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1966-67 [p. 294]Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies: Report of the Council for 1966 [pp. 295-302]Back Matter

hadrian and

Documents