8/13/2019 Helmbold-The Complexion of Domitian

1/3

8/13/2019 Helmbold-The Complexion of Domitian

2/3

J=r-_. =-_.i-_%a- r_a: m ; a- La %C, ' % : e 0Contributionso this departmentn the form ofbriefobjectivenotes shouldbe sent directto theeditor,OscarE. Nybakken,State UniversityofIowa, nI Schaeffer all, owaCity, Iowa.

THE COMPLEXION OF DOMITIANT HERELEVANT passagesconcerningthe very general. Though in the first ore noncomplexionof Domitianare four: rubenti s not, it may be held either that inPliny, Paneg. 48: A.D. 89/90 (when Martial's fifth book was

femineusallorn corore, ore mpuden published)Domitianhad not yet acquiredhismultoruboreuffusa. naturalflush to such a degreethat it pro-vokedcomment;or that, since duringDomi-Tacitus, Agr. 45: tian's lifetime2no one would have venturedsaevusllevultus trubor, uo econtra udorem to lampoonhis appearance, e was not sensi-muniebat. tive to the markedcoloringof his face andMartialmight well allow himself to use oreTacitus, ist. Iv, 40: non rubenti metaphoricallywithout fear ofignotisadhucmoribusrebra risconfusioro offending.modestiaccipitur. The first of these explanationscannot be

Suetonius,Dom. i8: maintainedunless we impugn he evidenceofTacitus, Hist., Iv. 40 cited above,which de-vultu odestouborisqueplenares expressly that this characteristicwasThe countenanceof Domitian,then, had a alreadyremarkablen Domitian'syouth (spe-natural flush, or a recurrent and physical cifically n A.D.69-70). Unless, indeed, we arerush of blood to the face, which saved him to distinguishtwo physiognomonical eriodsfrom the blushes of the spirit, as Hutton in Domitian's life: his early days, when hewould have it. So muchwe seemto have se- blushedfrequently(crebraorisconfusio),andcurely on contemporary, f prejudiced,evi- his later years, when (with too frequentdence. It is all but inconceivablethat these blushing?)his face had permanently cquiredthree authors should have told the same a deep red which saved him from thefalsehood,either in collusion, or independ, blushesof the spirit. 3ently. Yet what arewe to think when we read Against this in itself not very probablein Martial: hypothesisone must urge againthat if Domi-tian blushed repeatedlyand markedly,or ifquintuscum domino liber ocatur;.r L 1 n L * u 1uintusumdomino iber catur;,his face had a peculiar lush,it would be cer-quamGermanicusre nonrubentiqcoam Cecropiaega puella.nonu2i tain to arouse commentin court,circlesandwould reach the attentive ears of Martial,4Sic me fronte egatdominus, austine,erena even if the poet hadnot observed t for him-excipiatquemeos qua solet aureiocus, self. Martial would be the last person tout meanec ustequosoditpaginaaesit emphasizeany matter which mightdraw theet mihide nullo ama uboreplacet. unfavorableattention of the emperorupon(7. 12. I-4) himself and his works.5Can we believe that Martial of all people Must we, then reject the combinedevi-would address hese lines to Domitianif the denceofTacitus,Pliny,andSuetonius,aswellsensitive emperor's ace was alreadyruboris as the later and derivedcommentsof Philos-plenum? tratus6and Procopius?7 nother way of ap-Many will doubtless urge that we can. proachhas been suggested by Miss E. C.Martial's words in the second passageare Evans' work on the physiognomonical

388

8/13/2019 Helmbold-The Complexion of Domitian

3/3

qualitiesrather than the reverse,and agreeswith the Polemo-Adamantiuseadingof char-acter, though of course he may have beenaware of the other, and if he was, his choiceis even moresignificant.Whatmaybe conclude romall this?In thepresentstate of ourknowledge,thoughMissEvans has added an immense amount toformerinvestigations,no conclusioncan becertain.The line of thought suggestedby thepassagesof Martial has apparentlynot beenhelpful; houghPlinyand Tacitusexaggerate,Suetonius'more mpartial,f formal,evidencemakesit very unlikely that the famousde-scription is wholly wrong. Were physiog-nomonical theories of use to Tacitus, con-sciously or not, in his notoriousdistortionsof character, f not of fact?Adhuc sub iudicelis est.

W. C. HELMBOLDUniversityof CaliforniaBerkeley

NOTES1 LoebClassicalLibrary, d. of Agricola, . 249,

n. 2.2 It shouldbe rememberedhat all ourauthorities,exceptMartial,publishedfterDomitian'seath;Sue-tonius,ourmostnearlympartialuthor, considerabletime hereafter.3H. V. CanterStud.Phil.,xxv,1928,p. 389)agreeswith this view: facemodestand with a tendencyoblush,of whichhe wasvain .. in lateryears xhibitedpallor f body,bloated heeks,anda haughty, avage,terror-inspiring,hameless ountenance. his is arhetoricalompilationrom ll heauthorities,o matterhowexaggerated;venTacitusmightnotpass uchade-scription.4 ItwouldhavebeendangerousorMartialosupposethat,whilewellaware funflatteringemarksbout heemperor'somplexion,emightorestallnfavorablecrit-icismby a casual nd nnocent llusion.5Theslipshodactlessnessf ahastywriter, sMar-tialonly oo oftenwas,cannotbe ruledout. Morecare-fulauthors avebeenguilty;at leasteditors fProper-tius,beforeandafterBroekhuyzen,ho readmollis tIII. 9. 57, appear o believe so.6 Vita Apoll., VII. 28.7 Anec., vIII. 12 if. This passageshows clearly thatDomitian's complexion, as described by Tacitus, be-cameproverbial.8 Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., XLVI. 43-84, where the bibli-ographyup to I935 is carefullycollected.9 N.H., xi. 273-276, and Evans,op. cit., 59 f.10Cf. Miss Evans'(65 ff.)excellenttabulationsof thetraits borrowed from animals n Suetonius' magines.

writers.8She points out that handbooksonphysiognomy,such as those of the pseudo-Aristotle and Polemo,enjoyed a far greaterpopularitywith the writers of the RomanEmpirethan has been grantedthem. It isevident that Suetonius was familiar withhandbooksof the kind and used themfreely.It is also clear hat the elderPliny9was awareof the existenceof such treatises;he had readthe pseudo-Aristotleand quotes a relevantpassage romTrogus.But we maynot, at thepresentstate of investigation,go further hanto suggest that physiognomonicalnterpreta-tion may possibly have had some influenceon Tacitus' and Pliny's descriptionof Domi-tian's complexion.When we turn to the authoritieson faceand feature, we find Polemo (38, in Script.Physiogn.I, 246 ed. Firster), Adamantius(35, ibid., I, 389), and the Anon. Lat. (ibid.,ii. io8) all makingstatements which may besymmarizedn the wordsof the last:cum vul-tus rubet,aut verecundum ut vinolentumde-clarat.On the other hand, pseudo-Aristotle(812 A) says that too ruddy a hue marksarogue, as in the case of the fox... ,10a redhue indicates hastiness. A flamingskin de-notes mania ;and the Epit.Matr. (23= F6r-ster i, 389) declares that red countenancesindicate ierceandcruelmen,orwine-bibbers.Not, be it noted,modestandretiringpersons.There appear to have been, then, twoschoolsof physiognomonicalnterpretation fa permanentlyred face. One school saw inmen so coloredonly shyness or alcoholism;the other took them to be crafty, sly, andcruel. Now, while it would be too much tosuggest that Pliny and Tacitus show tracesof the secondinterpretation thoughif theyhad known of it, it would have suited themwell), it is quite likelythat Suetoniusknewofthe first.Note the juxtapositionof words andideas: vultu modestoruborisque leno, gran,dibus oculis, verum acie hebetiore;praetereapulcherac decens,maxime in iuventa,et qui-dem totocorpore, xceptispedibus .... Hav-ing just mentioned the redness of the em-peror's face, Suetonius proceeds to classifyDomitian as pulcherac decens.He interprets,then, the color of his face to indicatepleasant

NOTES 389