Tracing the Antinous Cult
Explaining the Success and Spread of the Cult of Hadrian’s Favorite
Carl Verbruggen | 5954614 | Master’s Thesis | Ancient History | University of Amsterdam Supervisor Prof. Dr. Emily Hemelrijk | Second Assessor Dr. Lucinda Dirven
Contents
Introduction [1-2]
1 | Unto the Nile – a God is Born. Tracing the Antinous Cult [3-17]
The Story [3-7]The Sources [7-13] The Sites [13-17]
2 | Sexuality and Culture in the Greek East and the Latin West [18-33]
Cultural Interactions between East and West [18-21]Proto-racism and the Roman Distinction between Old and New [21-23] Hadrianus 'Graeculus', the Traveler in the East [23-27]
Zeus and Ganymede, or the Greek Tradition of Boy-Love [28-33]
3 | A Star Rose up to the Sky. Antinous and the Flexibility of his
Religious Image [34-45]
Osirantinous [34-39] The Imperial Cult [39-42] The Divine Ephebe [42-45]
Conclusion [46-47]
Bibliography [48-52] List of illustrations [53]
Table II: List of Images [54-59]
Introduction
The face of Antinous is still as recognizable today as it was in the second century CE, when his fame was spread throughout the Roman Empire. The eromenos of the emperor Hadrian, who died in the Nile in 130 CE, became a deity, an event of epic proportions unprecedented in Roman history for persons outside of the imperial family. From Antinoopolis in Egypt, a new city founded in his honor, his cult spread quickly throughout the eastern part of the empire, with especially strong presences in Bithynion, the Pontic hometown of Antinous, and Mantineia, its mother city in Greece. As a credit to his popularity, his likeness is only the third most commonly encountered among ancient statues in our own age (with the emperors Augustus and Hadrian filling the respective first and second places).1 Besides statues and
busts, his likeness can be encountered on coins, cameos, amulets and even his name became a popular choice to give to children, by parents who were apparently inspired by the young Bithynian. Furthermore, games and mysteries were devoted to Antinous in several places, such as in Athens and Argos. Perhaps the most striking evidence for the popularity of Antinous’ cult is its longevity: whereas most of the cults connected with the imperial house disappeared after the death of its recipient, the cult of the young ephebe very likely outlived that of Hadrian himself, ending only in the fourth century CE as one of paganism's last great symbols in the struggle with Christianity.2
In the West, however, a very different picture emerges. With the exception of Rome, there are hardly any remains to be found of cults dedicated to Antinous. This fact often surfaces in the secondary literature regarding the history of Hadrian and Antinous, yet it is never fully explained. Often, the focus is on a single peculiarity of one of these two ancient celebrities, such as the disputed nature Hadrian’s pro-Hellenic policies, his harsh treatment of the Jews, Antinous as the champion of paganism in Late Antiquity and, of special interest, the exceptional relationship between Hadrian and Antinous, and its status within Roman culture.3
Yet though often mentioned, a thorough explanation for the unequal spread of the Antinous cult is never fully explained. The main goal of this investigation will thus be to analyze the extent of the Antinous cult in the Roman Empire, comparing its presence in the two halves of the empire, in order to answer the question why his cult appears to have been much more widespread in the eastern than in the western part.
Furthermore, special attention will be given to explaining the success of Antinous’ cult. Taking as its god a hitherto unknown boy from a rural backwater in the Roman Empire, the Antinous cult at first sight does not appear to fit within the parameters of a standard religious cult in Antiquity. As we will see, the success of his image cannot be explained
1 C. Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 2007) 53. 2 R. Lambert, Beloved and God (London 1984) 220-221.
3 Pro-hellenic policies: M. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton 2000); Jews: A. Birley, Hadrian. The Restless Emperor (London 1997); Antinous as champion and lover: Lambert (1997).
merely by his link with the emperor or his remarkable beauty, but instead originated from a multitude of elements, all of which contributed to the success of his cult.
For this purpose, this thesis will tackle the main premise in three broad parts: first of all the lives of Hadrian and Antinous will be reconstructed with the purpose of ascertaining the nature of their relationship as precisely as possible. Furthermore, the first chapter will also provide an overview of all the sites where the worship of Antinous can be identified, linking many of them with the physical presence of Hadrian, who had a special relationship with the Hellenistic East. The second chapter will delve deeper into the sexual and cultural norms of both halves of the empire in order to find out whether possible differences in culture and sexuality between the Latin West and the Greek East influenced the distribution of the Antinous cult in these respective spheres of the Roman Empire. Lastly, the third chapter will analyze the religious nature of Antinous’ images, revealing the pluralistic message his image conveyed to the Roman believers, in some cases revealing a link with Hadrian’s emperor cult. Each section will make use of primary and secondary literature, supplemented by images of Antinous
1 | Unto the Nile – a God is Born. Tracing the Antinous Cult
The Story
The story of Hadrian and Antinous is clad in mystery. None of the sources mention Antinous before his death in October 130, nor can any of his images be dated from before this event. This mysterious anonymity was completely shattered, however, upon the young ephebe’s demise. As the cult spread throughout the empire and statues were produced at a high rate, while numerous authors commented on Hadrian’s grief and relayed the beauty of Antinous. Also, they engaged in gossip and speculation: doubt was expressed whether the emperor’s favorite really was killed in an accident, as stated by the authorities, or that perhaps the beautiful Bithynian had been offered up as a human sacrifice in some dark ritual, either out of his own accord or against his will. These wagging tongues, however, did not impede the massive production of Antinous’ imagery, as statues, coins, cameos and busts found their way to all corners of the empire, to public temples and altars, as well as private homes and
collegia. Yet despite this remarkably high number of objects produced in Antinous’ honor
and the lavish attention given to his person in ancient sources, the interpretation of the extant sources that have survived up until now is highly problematic.
First of all, the written sources that talk about Antinous are relatively few in number, as much has become lost during the ages, such as the autobiography of the emperor Hadrian himself. Also, the sources that did survive are from a later period and are far from objective, as many were written by Christian Romans inherently hostile to the deification of the male lover of a pagan emperor. Another problem is that, even in the twenty-first century, some conservative historians avoid the topic of Antinous in their studies of Hadrian, thus censoring the historical truth.4 Furthermore, the material sources pertaining to Antinous and his cult are
far less in number than they were in the second century AD, when, according to estimates by historians, more than 2000 sculptures of Antinous were produced.5 Much has been lost
through destruction in war and ignorance, either purposefully by invaders and iconoclast Christians or, rather more mundane, purely out of practical reasons, as the great city of Antinoopolis, for example, completely disappeared during the nineteenth century as, little by little, Egyptian peasants burned up the marble city and its objects in their lime kilns.
Moreover, those object lucky enough to have been preserved often pose a challenge to interpret, as it is not always clear whether they had a religious function or rather a purely decorous one.
Faced with this relative poverty of sources and their dubious nature, the goal of this chapter will thus be to reconstruct the story of Hadrian and Antinous as accurately as possible, using all the available sources, literary as well as material, in an as thorough and structured manner as possible. An overview of all the objects and sites that could have had a
4 See: J. Blázquez, Adriano (Barcelona 2008); In his biography of Hadrian, the now 88-year-old Spanish historian José María Blázquez barely devotes any attention on Antinous, limiting himself to two pages, mostly on his sculptures, during which he throws in three words saying Antinous probably was Hadrian’s lover. 5 Lambert (1984) 3; A. Everitt, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (New York 2009) 293.
religious function will be presented; coupled with their place of discovery, the pattern of their distribution will provide this investigation with a framework upon which the further
arguments of the second and third chapter can be built. But before engaging in this
reconstructive enterprise, we must begin with the personal histories of Hadrian and Antinous themselves, as the very reason for the existence of the cult lies within the intimate
relationship between these two protagonists.
They probably met each other in either 123 or 124, when Hadrian’s frequent travelling brought him to the territory of Bithynia, which at the time formed part of the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus. These forested mountains were home to Antinous, who, according to our sources was born in Bithynion-Claudiopolis6, and at the time must have been
a young boy. Although no source mentions Antinous’ date of birth, historians have made an attempt to assess his age by analyzing his non-idealized imagery. For example, the tondi on the arch of Constantine in Rome depicting hunting scenes with Hadrian are thought by some to depict him as a young man of about twenty years old (Images 1-3).7 Counting back from
his time of death, one might thus conjecture that the boy had been with Hadrian for seven years, making him around thirteen years old at the time of Hadrian’s visit to Bithynia.8 How
exactly they met is unknown, though there is a good chance the young boy could have joined the vast crowd of Hadrian’s imperial entourage, which included huntsmen, or the emperor might have had the chance to lay his eyes upon him during some kind of public event, such as an athletics competition. Regardless of the exact circumstances, it is highly plausible that this is where the emperor and his favorite first met, since the sources do not mention Hadrian visiting this region a second time.
As a native from Bithynia, Antinous would have been considered Greek by Roman standards. Before Nikomedes IV of Bithynia left his realm to the Roman Republic in 74 BCE, Bithynia had existed as an Hellenistic kingdom, its lands mainly populated by settlers from Greece’s mainland and Thrace’s shores. Though Bithynia lay outside of the Greek heartland and its cultural realm also comprised eastern cultural elements, in Hadrian’s age it was recognized as belonging to the Greek cultural sphere. In fact, Antinous’ native city of Bithynion claimed descent from the Arcadian city of Mantinea, hereby actively constructing a Greek identity for itself.9 Also, men of great learning such as Dio of Prusa, Arrian, Quirinus
and Cassius Dio of Nicaea, famous exponents of Greek language and thought, were notable compatriots of Antinous, sharing the same cultural heritage.10
In regard to his legal status, it can be safely assumed Antinous was not a Roman citizen. Although Bithynia belonged to the Roman Empire, the vast majority of its inhabitants were not Roman citizens, as only in 212, during the reign of the emperor Caracalla, Roman citizenship would be conferred on all freemen of the empire. Furthermore, to be admitted as a
6 Dio LXIX.11.
7 Lambert (1984) 118; Although almost all historians agree that Antinous is shown on several of the tondi, such as the one depicting the boar hunt, there is debate concerning his presence on the lion hunt tondus; as such, the identification of an adult Antinous is uncertain; for the debate see: Turcan R., ‘Les Tondi d’Hadrien sur l'Arc de Constantin’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Issue 1 (1991) 56-7. 8 Lambert (1984) 19; Birley (1997) 158.
9 Everitt (2009) 238. 10 Lambert (1984) 15.
Roman citizen was an honor usually granted only to certain members of the provincial local elite.11
There have even been voices claiming Antinous was a slave, a tradition which became commonplace during the Renaissance and which was based on only one single ancient reference designating Antinous as such.12 This source from 310, from the hands of the church
historian Eusebius, mockingly refers to “Antinous the slave () of Hadrian Caesar”.13
Rather than based upon facts, as there is no evidence to support this claim, the assumption that Antinous must have been a slave originated from the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, where by the fourth century Hadrian and his homosexual practices were considered anathema to Christian norms and values. Furthermore, none of the other Christian authors mention Antinous’ status as a slave, neither would this have been likely, since the
divinization of a slave would have been completely reprehensible in a society were slaves were generally regarded as sub-human, personal possessions.14 As such, the most logical
conclusion would be to treat Antinous as a free non-Roman citizen of Bithynion, a legal status which will play an important role further down this investigation.15
Another historiographical tradition that until the twentieth century had been copied persistently was that of Antinous as Hadrian’s illegitimate son. Stemming from the same prejudice towards homosexuality in puritan Christian morality, which dominated western culture at the time and thus also the historical discipline, these scholars did their best to avoid the topic of Hadrian’s sexuality: “Whether the relations between the emperor Hadrian and his beautiful young favorite were carnal or not, we cannot be sure. But what we can be certain of is this: […] that many people did suppose that their association was based on a physical relationship, and that they did not reprobate it in the least, particularly in the Hellenic world in which Hadrian was most at home. However much we may deplore this fact, it simply is not possible to equate ancient and modern canons of morality.”16 When even that was no longer
possible, they downplayed and rejected all ancient sources referring to Antinous as Hadrian’s lover.17 A convenient alternative for an “improper” love affair, the illegitimate son theory
tried its best to present the relationship between Antinous and Hadrian as acceptable to the social values of the time but was not based on any evidence and was rather constructed wholly on conjecture and speculation.
11 Everitt (2009) 239.
12 The most recent repetition of the claim that Antinous was a slave (“l’esclave bithynien”) was made by M. Malaise in: Les conditions de penetration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie (Leiden 1972) 422-3. 13 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. IV.8.2.
14 Lambert (1984) 21.
15 It is completely unknown to which social class Antinous belonged. Lambert suggests he “came from lower down the social scale of Claudiopolis – perhaps peasant farmers or small business men, free and respectable enough, owning slaves of their own perhaps, but socially undistinguished”. Though plausible, as Lambert bases his argument on the fact that if Antinous were from a prominent family, hostile sources surely would have mentioned it, this assumption is purely based on conjecture and will thus be left open; see: Lambert (1984) 22. 16 S. Perowne, Hadrian (London 1960) 100; See also: R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 249; Regarding the topic of Hadrian’s sexuality this scholar restricts himself to the mysterious remark: “some of his habits are known”.
17 See: Perowne (1960) 157; Perowne tries his best to revision Antinous as Hadrian’s beloved adoptive son, since “there were some things that neither Greece nor Rome would tolerate […] Hadrian, whatever may have been his private tastes, would be the last to flaunt a connection of this sort, nor would Rome have tolerated him had he done so”.
As a matter of fact, all the evidence in the ancient sources points to a homosexual love affair between the emperor and the young ephebe. Pagan and Christian sources alike mention the exceptional beauty of the Bithynian and the attraction it held for Hadrian.18 Furthermore,
Hadrian was said to hold a reputation for promiscuity with boys: according to some sources, Hadrian was “lascivious”19 and “sensual”.20 His predilection for youths was not exceptional,
as his predecessor and great-uncle, the emperor Trajan, himself had been notorious for his fornications with young males. In his fourth-century biography of the previous emperors, the pagan emperor Julian even noted, imagining the deified Trajan’s ascent to Olympus, that “From now on Zeus, our master, had better look out if he wants to keep Ganymede for himself”.21
Finally, the absence of any sexual relationships between Hadrian and a woman in the ancient sources points to a lack of interest of the emperor towards the female sex. Although Hadrian was married to Sabina, the grand-niece of Trajan, their marriage did not produce any children and appears to have been a ‘marriage blanc’, an unconsummated union.22 Moreover,
their mutual dislike for each other surfaces in two important sources, the HA and the Epitome
de Caesaribus, both fourth-century sources which were based on the lost Vita Hadriani by
Marius Maximus, who wrote at the beginning of the third century. In these works the cold and distant relationship between both individuals forms a recurrent theme. 23 Though the
validity of these claims cannot be proven by any other sources, the lack of children, Hadrian’s reputation for loving boys and his subsequent deification of Antinous all point towards Hadrian being predominantly, if not exclusively, homosexual and thus supporting the claim that Antinous can only have been Hadrian’s lover and nothing else.
After their encounter in Bithynia, Antinous might have joined Hadrian’s entourage and accompanied the emperor on his extensive travels throughout the empire. However, he might also have been sent to Rome to attend the imperial paedagogium, where he would be trained as a court page, receiving a thorough education in preparation for a career in the civil service.24 Continuing his travels, Hadrian participated in the festival of the Eleusian Mysteries
as an initiate in 124. Since the emperor was reputed to have had an inclination towards magic, divination and astrology, a visit to the mystery cult of Eleusis fitted well with his personality and, furthermore, followed the lead of famous persons such as the legendary Hercules and, more within the realm of reality, the emperor Augustus.25 In September 128, five years after
his first initiation, Hadrian again partook in the Mysteries of Eleusis, perhaps together with Antinous26 – who either had remained part of the imperial retinue or might have rejoined
18 Pausanias, 8.9.7-8; Clem. Alex. Protrep. IV.111. 19 Victor, Caes. 14.5-7.
20 HA Had. XIV.2-7. 21 Julian, Caesars 35.406-7. 22 Everitt (2009) 102.
23 HA Had. XI.3-4; “And, as he was himself wont to say, he would have sent away his wife too, on the ground of ill-temper and irritability, had he been merely a private citizen”.
24 Lambert (1984) 61-2; Lambert argues in favor of Antinous’ sojourn in Rome, as “it is unlikely that the untrained and provincial boy would have been added to the deliberately lightweight entourage which travelled over Asia Minor”.
25 J. Blázquez, Adriano (Barcelona 2008) 35-36.
26 Several scholars have speculated about the presence of the emperor’s favorite during the Eleusian mysteries. Although there is no proof, Antinous’ initiation also cannot be refuted and perhaps should not surprise, since
Hadrian in 125 or 128 during one of the emperor’s visits to Rome – and was the first emperor to obtain the status of epoptes, or complete initiate.27 This symbolic event was memorized by
the issuing of a coin depicting Hadrian with a corn-sheaf in his hand, representing his rebirth through the power of Demeter, the goddess upon whom the Mysteries were centered.28 Again,
no direct reference is made of Antinous, yet his participation can be suspected, since evidence for his cult would also surface later on at Eleusis, where he was perhaps syncretized with Iakchos, a deity of that played an important role in the mysteries there.29
After seven years of travelling incessantly to all the corners of his empire, Hadrian decided to visit Egypt; he would sail the Nile with the royal flotilla, allegedly intent on founding another new city named after himself.30 Yet something happened which altered
these plans and would have a lasting impact on the course of history. Little is known of what actually occurred but what is certain is that Antinous died. More precisely, he drowned in the Nile in the month of October in the year 130. Countless of theories regarding the exact circumstances of the young Bithynian’s demise were, and still are, offered, of which only three are to be considered as possible explanations. For the investigation these three will be detailed and analyzed in order to see whether one of them can be singled out as the most likely possibility, not so much out of a need to fully reconstruct the true story of Hadrian and Antinous itself, as this would be an impossible task, but rather because the nature of the young Bithynian’s death might explain the success of the cult itself.31 Also, the three main
literary sources will provide clues to the reception of Antinous’ cult in the empire, as they contain valuable information of vital importance for the continuation of this investigation.
The Sources
1. Cassius Dio“He fell into the Nile”. With these words Hadrian is said to have announced his beloved’s death, at least according to Cassius Dio, whose portrait of Hadrian in his Roman History is thought to have used the lost autobiography of the emperor himself as a source, only fifty-five years after the events.32 Hadrian’s claim of an accidental death, however, seems to have
been widely disbelieved, as none of the primary sources endorsed Hadrian’s proclamation. Modern historians also have regarded Hadrian’s declaration with suspicion: how could the imperial favorite, holding a central and guarded position within the imperial retinue, just slip
Antinous was part of the inner circle of the imperial court; see: D. Geagan, ‘Hadrian and the Athenian Dionysiac Technitai’, TransActAmPhilAss Vol. 103 (1972) 149.
27 Geagan (1972) 149. 28 Birley (1997) 215.
29 Other possible syncretisms are with Dionysus-Zagreus or Asclepius. For the debate, see: H. Meyer,
Antinoos. Die Archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehung des Numismatischen und Epigrafischen Materials sowie der literarischen Nachrichten (München 1991) 39-42.
30 Everitt (2009) 284; Hadrian had during his travels already founded several “Hadrianopoleis” as new centers of Roman civic life.
31 This will be further discussed in the third chapter. 32 Birley (1997) 248.
and fall unnoticed from one of the boats of Hadrian’s flotilla?33 Although the possibility of an
accidental death cannot be ruled out, as inexplicable mishaps do occur, it would have been a prosaic death for one whose image became so incredibly popular in the empire and “whose cult would not have spread so far and lasted so long if it had not been rooted in some belief about Antinous himself”.34
Dio certainly did not believe Hadrian and states that:
“Hadrian was always very curious and employed divinations and incantations of all kinds. Accordingly, he honored Antinous, either because of his love for him or because the youth had voluntarily undertaken to die – it being necessary that a life should be surrendered freely
for the accomplishment of the ends Hadrian had in view – by building a city on the spot where he had suffered this fate and naming it after him; and he also set up statues (), or rather sacred images (ἀ) of him, practically all over the world. Finally, he declared that he had seen a star which he took to be that of Antinous, and gladly
lent an ear to the effect that the star had really come into being from the spirit of Antinous and had then appeared for the first time. On this account, then, he became the object of some
ridicule, and also because at the death of his sister Paulina he had not immediately paid her any honor”.35
From this passage we learn many things. First of all, he believes that Antinous’ death was given in by voluntary sacrifice during some magical ritual designed to restore Hadrian’s apparent failing health. In fact, it appears Hadrian had been suffering since 127 from a mysterious and grave illness36, and which with hindsight appears to have been tuberculosis.37
If we are to believe the sources regarding Hadrian’s leanings toward superstition, it seems at least an option that Antinous participated in some sort of rejuvenation ritual. Although this does sound implausible to modern ears, in Hadrian’s age the ancient belief that life could be transferred to another person was generally accepted.38 Precedents from myth as well as
actual history were known to Hadrian and Antinous and could have served as a template for Antinous’ altruistic self-sacrifice.39
Furthermore, the text offers two explanations for the rise and spread of the Antinous cult. On the one hand, the relationship between Hadrian and his favorite appears to have been one of love, superseding a relationship fueled by lust. On the other hand, the possibility that Antinous willingly gave up his life for his older lover could have kindled Hadrian’s patronage of the ephebe’s cult, either out of guilt or gratitude. Either way, both possible motives point
33 Lambert (1984) 132. 34 Lambert (1984) 139.
35 Dio LXIX.11.3; Dio here implies that the ailing Hadrian found a volunteer in Antinous to restore him to health.
36 Lambert (1984) 71; Victor Caes. 14.9; “Overcome by a subcutaneous disease which he had long endured placidly, burning and impatient with pain, he destroyed many from the Senate”.
37 Everitt (2009) 312. 38 Lambert (1984) 134.
39 A. Van Hooff, ‘Paetus, It Does Not Hurt: Altruistic Suicide in the Graeco-Roman World’, Archives of
to an active role taken by the emperor in the diffusion of the cult, leaving us with the impression that the Antinous cult was imposed on the empire by Hadrian himself. In a final remark, Dio further fuels the theory that the cult was imposed top-down on the empire, by stating that the emperor was faced by ridicule because of his actions. Although Dio does not say by whom Hadrian was mocked, apparently at least some people did not take Antinous’ rise to godhood very seriously. However, a clue to the origin of this derision can be found in Dio’s own background: as a proud member of the senatorial class40, Dio would have been
naturally hostile towards Hadrian, as the Senate and the wayward emperor had a long history of mutual enmity.41 Therefore, we might deduce that the scorn mentioned by Dio came from
the senatorial order and, rather than opposed to the deification of an imperial favorite, was directed against the agency of Hadrian himself.
2. The Historia Augusta
The Historia Augusta is a collection of imperial biographies, now believed to have been written at the end of the fourth century by a single author, although the text itself claims multiple authors writing at the time of Diocletian and Constantine.42 Although the Historia Augusta ,due to its unknown provenance, imperfect transmission, and unclear dating, should
be considered a problematic source43, it is one of the few sources that recounts in great detail
the time of Trajan and Hadrian, thus making it one of our preciously few sources of information. Despite the many doubts surrounding this literary work and its far removal in time from the events of Hadrian’s age, it is suspected that the HA is based upon several other, now unfortunately lost, second-century sources, such as Hadrian’s autobiography and Marius Maximus’ biography of the emperor.44 Therefore, the information provided by the HA cannot
be justifiably ignored and must be taken into account in this investigation.
Though far removed in time from Dio’s account, the HA largely corroborates his version of the events and also advances a noble self-sacrifice as a possible cause of death:
“During a journey on the Nile he lost Antinous, his favorite, and for this youth he wept like a woman.45 Concerning this incident there are varying rumors; for some claim that he had
devoted himself to death for Hadrian, and others – what both his beauty and Hadrian’s sensuality suggest. But however this may be, the Greeks deified him at Hadrian’s request,
40 Dio was born around 155 in Nicaea, where he belonged to one of the few Greek families who had acquired both Roman citizenship and inclusion in the senatorial order, a position of which he was very proud.
41 Birley (1997) 95; During his reign Hadrian had four members of the Senate executed after swearing never to condemn a senator to death at his accession as emperor. Combined with the general favor shown throughout his reign towards the order of the equites to the detriment of the senatorial one, Hadrian’s relationship with the Senate was likely problematic.
42 H. Benario, A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Michigan 1980) 1-2; Although the debate is still ongoing and there is thus no certainty regarding the provenance of the source, this investigation will follow the mainstream opinion as advanced by H. Benario.
43 Birley (1997) 4. 44 Benario (1980) 4.
45 The exact wording is “quem muliebriter flevit”; a thoroughly negative association, as in Roman culture female traits were associated with molitia: softness, or an “inability to act in a forceful ‘manly’ way”; see: C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality (Cambridge 1993) 64.
and declared that oracles were given through his agency, but these, it is commonly asserted, were composed by Hadrian himself."46
Though the HA expresses doubt concerning the exact nature of Antinous’ death, two theories are given: one that agrees with Dio, claiming self-sacrifice, and another that points to suicide, driven by desperation. As for the possibility of suicide, historians have forwarded the
arguments that Antinous was becoming too old for the relationship to continue, as he would have been around the age of twenty at the time of his death; a watershed marking the
difference between a youth and an adult male. As such, the continuation of this relationship would have been degrading for Antinous, a situation from which suicide might have offered an escape.
Besides pointing to two possible scenarios, the HA reveals some interesting clues. The first, striking reference is to Hadrian’s reaction to Antinous’ death: the fact that he “wept like a woman” is highly significant, because it infers that the emperor truly cared for his favorite and, because of the author’s choice of words, it also means that Hadrian’s show of grief was considered improper for a man of his station, a breach of cultural values on which the second chapter will further elaborate.
Furthermore, the source specifically tells us that it were the Greeks who deified Antinous at the emperor’s request, and not the Romans. Apparently, the cult was only received by the Greek-speaking part of the empire and, moreover, this was not done out of their own initiative, but was ordered by Hadrian himself. Going even further, the HA claims that Hadrian himself devised the oracles connected to the cult, although unfortunately we cannot tell whether this was an opinion professed by Hadrian’s contemporaries or that it was only later asserted by the author(s), who wrote in an age when the empire was heavily influenced by Christianity and thus becoming less tolerant of any expression of pagan religion. Regardless of these doubts, it is significant that the HA confirms that oracles were part of the Antinous cult. This is proof, therefore, for Antinous’ divine function as an intermediary deity47, a building block in explaining the success of the cult, which the third
chapter will further develop.
3. Aurelius Victor
Aurelius Victor, a pagan Roman historian and politician of the fourth century, supposedly also based his imperial history on the same, now lost, second-century sources as the HA. His very brief account of Hadrian’s rule relays us that:
46 HA Had. XIV.2-7; The phrase “what […] suggest” refers to the sexual aspect of their relationship and the shame it would have brought on Antinous, as he was by then no longer an ephebe, but an adult male,
transforming their liaison into an unacceptable union by Graeco-Roman standards, as will be discussed further in the second chapter.
“As a result of Hadrian’s devotion to luxury and lasciviousness, hostile rumors arose about his debauching of adult males and his burning passion for his notorious attendant Antinous; and that it was for no other reason that a city was founded named after Antinous, or
that Hadrian set up statues (statua)48 of the ephebe. Some indeed maintain that this was done
because of piety or religion: the reason being, they say, that Hadrian wanted to extend his own lifespan, and when the magicians demanded a volunteer to substitute for him, everybody
declined, but Antinous, it is said, offered himself up, hence the aforementioned honors done to him. We will leave the matter undecided although, in the case of an indulgent personality,
we regard the association between persons of disparate age as suspicious.”49
Again, the text confirms the existence of rumors concerning Antinous’ cause of death: a voluntary sacrifice, with the aim of extending Hadrian’s life. In addition, the initiative for the distribution of images of the young ephebe once again comes from Hadrian, out of his
“burning passion” for his Bithynian lover. This induced the emperor to set up a city and statues for his favorite, which the other sources state were religious in nature, placing the agency for the rise of the cult firmly in the emperor’s hands. In fact, Aurelius Victor argues that the institution of honors for Antinous was motivated directly by the young ephebe’s self-sacrifice; in other words, his deification was to be seen as the reward for his noble death. Finally, the author reveals a negative attitude towards relationships between men of different ages, an opinion unsurprising for a fourth-century Roman, even a pagan one, as norms and values were by then different from those in Hadrian’s age.50
As we have seen, the sources provide us with three possible causes of death: accident, suicide and self-sacrifice. Although the possibilities of suicide and accident cannot be ruled out, due to a general lack of sources, the third, and much more tantalizing explanation is offered not only by Cassius Dio, but by both of the other primary sources that talk about the young ephebe’s death: Dio, the HA and Victor all suggest that Antinous’ life may have been taken during a magical ritual, which was designed to revitalize Hadrian.51 Regardless of the
true nature of the Bithynian’s demise, it is at least a genuine possibility that the rumors concerning Antinous’ death by themselves played their part in the success of the cult. Since Dio wrote in the same century and the other authors are thought to have based their works on earlier sources closer to the events, we can safely assume that Antinous’ death was talked about in public circles and elicited great interest. As a god who dies and is resurrected, beautiful Antinous became a celebrity in the empire, and, from the banks of the river Nile, his cult quickly spread.
48 The term statua is a general term for statues and does not automatically imply a connection to religion. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the other sources do mention the spread of religious statues, it is a possibility that Victor here also is referring to religious statuary, yet in an unspecified manner.
49 Victor, Caes. 14.5-7.
50 And even then, not every Roman in Hadrian’s age accepted this kind of relationship. This will be further unfolded in the second chapter.
51 A conclusion, moreover, which most historians who examined Antinous’ death tend to follow: Birley, Everitt, Lambert, Perowne and Vout all regard the scenario of a ritual self-sacrifice as the most plausible one.
4. The Christians
The success of the cult itself can be derived from the fact that, even more than two centuries after the young ephebe’s demise in the Nile, Christian writers still devoted their attention to the subject of Hadrian’s lover. In their invectives, they attacked the cult of Antinous and evaluate it from their religiously exclusive, Christian perspective. The first literary assault on Antinous came from Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165), an early Christian apologist from Judaea, who, discussing the sin of promiscuousness, thought it expedient to mention Antinous, “who was alive until recently, and whom everyone reverently began to worship as a god, even though they all knew who he was and whence he came”.52 Apparently Antinous did not need
an introduction, as Justin assumed his readers would be familiar with the background story of the young emperor’s favorite. Some years later, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), a theologian, provided a detailed account of the Antinous cult:
“Another fresh divinity was created in Egypt – and very nearly among Greeks too, – when the Roman king [Hadrian] solemnly elevated to the rank of god his favorite whose beauty was unequalled. He
consecrated Antinous in the same way that Zeus consecrated Ganymedes. For lust is not easily restrained, when it has no fear; and today men observe the sacred nights of Antinous, which were really shameful, as the lover who kept them with him well knew […] But now we have a tomb of the
boy who was loved, a temple and city of Antinous”.53
Through his references to the connection between sexual activities and the Antinous cult and the parallel between Hadrian – Antinous and Zeus – Ganymede, Clement unveiled the continued existence of the Antinous cult through rites and festivals, centered upon the city of Antinoopolis.54
In the course of time, the tone against Antinous hardened: Tertullian of Carthage and Origen of Alexandria both revisited the topic of Hadrian’s beloved, comparing him with a public harlot, a corrupted Ganymede and in general ridiculing the Bithynian’s cult.55 Thereafter, this
hostile tone became a common trait of Christian sources concerning the young god and even more than a century after Tertullian and Origen’s death, several Christian writers still
concerned themselves with the second-century deity. In fact, the Christian saint and historian Jerome, writing around 380, mentioned that until recently one of the cities in Egypt was “called Antinous after Hadrian's favourite”.56 The last Christian writer from Antiquity to
mention Antinous was Prudentius (348 – c. 413), a poet from Hispania who later joined the court of Theodosius I. In the following poem he looked back on the divine ephebe, who, after centuries of worship, had almost completely disappeared from Rome’s religious domain:
There is Antinous too, set in a heavenly home, he
who was the darling of an emperor now deified and in the imperial embrace was robbed of his manhood,
52 Justin Martyr, Apol. I.29. 53 Clem. Alex. Protrep. IV.111.
54 Clement’s remark that Antinous was made a god “very nearly among Greeks too” does not fit with other sources and the archaeological evidence that the cult most certainly was also adhered to in Greece. As such, it is unknown what he means by this.
55 Tertullian, Apol. 13.1f; Ad Nat. 11.10.1f; Adv. Marc. 1.18; Origen, Contra Celsum 3.36-8. 56 Jerome, Adv. Iov. II.7.
the god Hadrian's Ganymede, not handing cups to the gods, but reclining with Jupiter on the middle couch and quaffing the sacred liquor of ambrosial nectar, and listening to prayers in the temples with his husband!57
The Sites
Without a doubt, the image of Antinous was one of the most successful in Antiquity.58
Numerous statues, busts, altars, coins, medallions, cameos, temples and images associated with his person have been found throughout the ancient Roman world. What follows is a list of the most important sites and material objects that are very likely to have had a religious role. Though this list is unavoidably incomprehensive, as sometimes it is impossible to ascertain whether an object was religious or merely aesthetic in nature, this list nevertheless aims to create a framework for the further analysis of the spread of the cult. By the ordering of all religious sites and objects, a pattern of geographical distribution will emerge that will help in answering the main premise for this investigation, namely the question why the cult of Antinous did not spread equally throughout the empire.
Table I: Antinoan Cult Locations
59Location60 Type61 Private or Public62 High likelihood of
Hadrian’s presence63
Alexandria Priest Public Y
Antinoopolis Centre of cult, two temples, priests,
festival, games, mysteries, oracle,
district names64,
Public Y
57 Prudentius, Contra Symm. I.273-277.
58 Lambert (1984) 189; To be more precise, Antinous’ image takes third place, behind that of Augustus and Hadrian, as the most numerous extant image from pagan Antiquity, an impressive feat for one so young and low-born.
59 Only those locations have been included in this table that are certain to have held religious activities dedicated to Antinous, omitting those whose nature is uncertain, as sometimes the distinction between aesthetic devotion and religious meaning is unclear.
60 Major centers are shown in bold writing.
61 Sources: Lambert (1984); Meyer (1991); Birley (1997); Vout (2007) and R. Turcan, Hadrien. Souverain de
la Romanité (Dijon 2008).
62 Public religion is “performed on behalf of the whole individual city and all its citizens, by city magistrates and at public expense. Private religion is “performed for one or more individuals by private individuals at their own expense”. See: I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002) 9-11.
63 Source: R. Syme, 'Journeys of Hadrian', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 73 (1988), 158-170. 64 The deme names of Antinoopolis (Hermes – one of the original gods of Arcadia – , Bithynia, Kleitor and Parhasos – the latter two mythical brothers of the founder of Mantinea) were carefully selected with the goal of
coins, statues, grave or cenotaph65
Aquileia Belenos), terracottaBust
(Antinous-plaques Private N
Argos Games Public Y
Athens Two chapels, festival, games, district names (demos Antinoeis), statue, collegium (Dionysiac technitai)66 Public Y
Bithynion Altar, priest, games,mysteries, coins Public Y
Caesarea Palaestina Statue Unknown N
Corinth Temple (Antinous-Hermes), priest Y N
Dardania Temple67 Private Y
Delphi Statue (HerosPropylaios) Y Y
Eleusis AsclepiusStatue (Antinous-68), festival Private Y
Ephesus Coins, statue
(Antinous-Androcles69) Unknown Y
Hermopolis Magna Temple Y Y
Lanuvium Temple, collegium70 Private N
Leptis Magna Statue, dedication Public N
conveying an ideological and religious message. By connecting Antinoopolis with all these thoroughly Greek places, Antinous was forged as a deity both Egyptian and Greek; see: Lambert (1984) 152.
65 There is debate whether Antinous was buried in Antinoopolis or in Hadrian’s villa at Tibur, as at both locations evidence for a burial site of Antinous has been found. Thus, one of the two sites must have been a cenotaph, but which one contained the real grave is still subject to further investigation; see: Turcan (2008) 169. 66 This Athenian guild of artists connected to the cult of Dionysus was revived through a direct intervention of Hadrian himself after two hundred years of neglect, “a direct reflection of Hadrian’s philhellenism and his great benefactions aimed at restoring Greek cultural life”. Out of gratitude, they adopted Antinous as their patron deity; see: Geagan (1972) 148-149.
67 The silver mines of Dardania in Moesia Superior were imperial property and thus directly under Hadrian’s command, making it very likely the miners founded their temple to the hero Antinous acting on the emperor’s orders.
68 Antinous’ statue has been found there with an omphalos, an attribute which is usually associated with Eleusinian Dionysus, but which, according to Clairmont, more likely here indicates the syncretism between Antinous and Asclepius, one of the most popular divinities in Antiquity. Furthermore, the presence of the Bithynian god at Eleusis suggests a connection between the Eleusian mysteries and Antinous’ identity as an intercessor deity, a link which will be further explored in the third chapter; see: C. Clairmont, Die Bildnisse des
Antinous: ein Beitrag zur Porträtplastik unter Kaiser Hadrian (Rome 1966) 14.
69 The legendary founder of Ephesus
70 This collegium, dedicated both to Antinous and Diana, was founded in 133 and is known to have offered wine and incense to the deified ephebe in their guild temple. In fact, the Antinous temple (tetrastyle) in Lanuvium is the only known temple devoted to the young Bithynian in the entire western half of the Roman Empire; see: F. Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des Römisches Reiches (Frankfurt 1982) 27, 52.
Lugdunum Statue71 Private N
Mantinea games, mysteries,Temple, chapel,
coins Public Y
Neapolis Phratria EurostidaeAntinoitae Private N
Olympia
Statue (Antinous-Alpheios72) , festival,
coins Public Y
Ostia Statues, head73 Unknown N
Palestrina Statue (Antinous-Dionysus74) Unknown Y
Praeneste Statue (Antinous-Dionysus75) Unknown Y
Rome Hadrianic-AntinoanStatues, “Sacred
Synodos” Private Y
Tarraco Head Private N
Tarsus Temple Public Y
Tibur, Hadrian’s villa Temples (Antinoeion76), statues (Osirantinous, Antinous-Hermes a.o.), Pincio obelisk77 Private Y
Trapezus Temple Public Y
From the overview above we can derive a number of conclusions. First of all, it is immediately obvious that the great majority of sites honoring the Bithynian were located in the Greek east. Only a few sites for the worship of Antinous could be found in the West, and then still almost exclusively in Italia, of which Hadrian’s villa at Tibur unsurprisingly
constituted the major center.78 As far as we can tell, all cult locations in the western provinces
71 There is debate whether this small, bronze statue is an image of Antinous; see: Lambert (1984) note 5, 270. 72 A local river god.
73 A sculpted head of Antinous was found in a sanctuary of the “mother of the sea”, a local goddess, wearing a crown with very likely the effigies of Hadrian and Zeus, linking the statue to the imperial cult; see: Turcan (2008) 170; further elaborated in chapter III.
74 The statue was found in a villa known to have been built during Hadrian’s reign (in 134). 75 The statue was found in a villa which very likely belonged to Hadrian himself.
76 Recent excavations at Hadrian’s villa have uncovered the remains of a temple complex devoted to Antinous, as well as his possible grave site.
77 Now decorating the public space of Rome, the obelisk was long thought to have been brought from Egypt only in the first half of the third century; see: W. MacDonald and J. Pinto, Hadrian’s Villa and Its Legacy (London 1995) 149. However, due to new archaeological research, and the fact the inscriptions refers to it having stood in the “garden of the emperor”, it is now believed to have originally formed part of the Antinoeion at Hadrian’s villa at Tibur (Image 4); see Turcan (2008) 169-170, Everitt (2009) 292 and C. Jones, New Heroes
in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos (Cambridge 2010) 76.
78 Moreover, at least one of the sites in the West, Neapolis, was known for its substantial Greek population, as it had originally been founded by Greek colonists.
belonged to the domain of private religion, as they were run by private groups instead of civic institutions. In contrast, the majority of sites in the eastern provinces, all of which the
emperor visited during his incessant travels, boast some form public worship, in the form of temples, mysteries or public events, such as games and festivals. Due to their public nature, the religious sites of the East were of a much larger scale than the more modest, private sites of the West and, as such, clearly functioned as the main centers of the Antinous cult.
Moreover, our sources tell us that Hadrian actively ordered the foundation of religious institutions for his deified favorite, as in Antinoopolis and Athens, for example. As the establishment of public works depended on the cooperation of the local civic elite, we can deduce that the Greek nobility reciprocated and probably imitated Hadrian’s initiative, resulting in a flourishing of the Antinous cult, at least in the East.79 The cities of the western
provinces, however, had been bereft of the emperor’s physical presence since 12380, and thus
had little or no impetus for actively promoting the Bithynian’s cult, partially explaining the lack of public spaces of worship.81
Moreover, almost all of the cult sites in Italia were connected to maritime trade with the East, as Ostia, Neapolis and Aquileia were major ports that received many goods from the eastern Roman Empire. Along with these wares came Greek traders and immigrants, who formed communities in these cities, introducing their cultural and religious influence to their environment.82 In fact, the pattern of distribution of Antinous’ worship matched that of an
eastern cult that had penetrated the Italian peninsula earlier on: during the early Principate the Isis cult, that previously had been adopted by the Greeks in its Hellenized form, first made its appearance in exactly the same cities.83 As such, it is very likely the existence of the Antinous
cult in these locations was due to the presence of Greek immigrants, who gathered in these port cities, as these maritime hubs were connected to a network of shipping lanes with the East, and were therefore directly exposed to Greek cultural and religious influence.
A final point of interest which the sites reveal is the longevity of the Antinous cult. While the vast majority of Antinous’ images have been dated to the couple of years from his death in 130 to the passing of Hadrian in 13884, there are many historians who believe the cult
knew ongoing success.85 The last issue of coins depicting the divine Antinous, for example,
came from Bithynion during the reign of Caracalla (died 217), decades after Hadrian’s death. Also, it is a fact that many cities continued to uphold the cult of Antinous long after
Hadrian’s demise: in Mantinea and Bithynion it was still famous in the early third century and at Athens and Eleusis it lasted at least until 266/7, while the one in Argos lasted even longer, until the reign of the emperor Julian. But the most loyal city was unsurprisingly that
79 Gordon, R., “The Veil of Power, Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors.”, in: M. Beard and J. North (ed.),
Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (New York 1990) 222-223.
80 Syme (1988) 160-163.
81 As traces of private religion are much harder to detect than public religion, it is hard to say how many private religious institutions dedicated to Antinous existed in the West. Perhaps the cult was more popular there than we now think, yet without proof this cannot be proven.
82 C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (London 2008) 102. 83 R. Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1996) 95.
84 Meyer (1991) 15.
85 Vout, for example, believes a number of sculptures, such as the Olympian one, were made after 138, indicating the sustained success of the Antinous cult; see: Vout (2007) 89.
of Antinoopolis, where the cult continued up until the ban on pagan religions in 391/2 by Theodosius II.86
Finally, a number of fourth-century contorniates87 invoked Antinous as the champion
of paganism (Image 5). Many ancient and modern authors saw these contorniates as proof of Antinous’ prominence within pagan religion at the time, and even compared his figure with that of Jesus Christ.88 Yet these claims are highly controversial, as recently modern historians
have begun to rejected the contorniates as pagan propaganda, even stating that the pagan revival of the fourth century, a movement first described by historians at the beginning of the twentieth century, never took place.89 Instead, they regard the use of Antinous’ image as a
mere coincidence and claim that, rather than containing a religious message, the figure of Hadrian’s favorite, along with other pagan themes, now belonged to the Graeco-Roman classical heritage of the fourth-century Christians.90 Thus, although it is unclear whether the
Antinous contorniates prove the continuity of his cult into the fourth century, they do represent the solidity and flexibility of the Bithynian’s image, an icon of Graeco-Roman antiquity that survived even the demise of the pagan religions.
In this chapter it has become clear that Hadrian’s own agency and patronage played a very important part in the founding and distribution of the Antinous cult. Yet our main question still has not been fully answered: though it is now clear that without the emperor the cult of Antinous would have never flourished, the question still stands why the cult’s spread was so unequal throughout the empire. Also, if Hadrian’s agency had been so important, why didn’t the cult disappear after the death of its greatest proponent, yet remained visible until well into the fourth century? In the following chapters, we will first consider the cultural and sexual spheres of the Greek and Latin halves of the empire in order to see whether these might have influenced the uneven distribution of the Antinous cult. Finally, the third chapter will try to explain the apparent longevity of the cult by focusing on the religious impact of the young ephebe’s divine image on the Roman people.
86 Lambert (1984) 195.
87 Contorniates are medallions with deep indentations within the rim.
88 A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons in neuer Bearbeitung (Berlin 1976-1990) 25. 89 Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (London 2008) 102; A. Cameron, The
Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford 2011) 691; J. O’Donnell, “The Demise of Paganism”, Traditio Vol. 35 (1979) 78;
the debate between some of the proponents (Alföldi and McMullen) and opponents (Ando, Cameron and O’Donnell) of a pagan revival is now predominantly in favor of the opponents, who, in my opinion, rightly state that “the most that pagans could hope for by the second half of the fourth century was toleration” (Cameron (2011) 694).
2 | Sexuality and Culture in the Greek East and the Latin West
Cultural Interactions between East and West
In order to ascertain why the cult was unevenly spread throughout the empire, we must, first of all, try to better understand the cultural environment of the Roman empire of the second century. Among a vast range of cults for gods, heroes and deified emperors,
Antinous’ worship found itself entering a religious world which was far from empty. By comparing the cultural spheres of the Latin west and the Greek east, it will become clear that Greek culture, albeit no longer in control of its own lands, was more compatible with the Antinous cult than the Latin and Romanized cultures of the West. In the second halve of this chapter we will try to ascertain whether possible differences between Greek and Roman sexual norms influenced the spread of the Bithynian’s cult, especially since its patron deity, as beloved of the emperor, had been a highly visible representative of a same-sex
relationship.
As cultural identity is actively constructed, based on subjective criteria, the formation of this identity entails a process of self-definition in opposition to other cultural identities.91
Nevertheless, identity is never singular, as it is really made up by a collection of multiple identities, each dependent on such external factors as environment and language.92
Conservative Roman politicians such as Cato the Elder and Romanized Greeks such as Plutarch are good examples of this pluralistic cultural interaction. With his self-imposed monolithic identity Cato exemplifies the Roman reactionary living in a time when foreign influences first touched Rome’s doorstep, as he called all Greeks nequissimum et indocile , “utterly vile and unruly”.93 Plutarch’s profile, however, fits rather more within the
multifaceted reality of second-century Graeco-Roman culture. A contemporary of Hadrian, Plutarch flaunted his adherence to traditional paideia as well as his personal status as a Roman citizen within the empire’s society.94 As there existed many shades of grey between
figures as Cato and Plutarch, it is, however, a much more challenging engagement to comprehend how the majority of people from these two cultural spheres negotiated their identities and interacted with one another; a highly relevant question, as the local elites of the Roman empire were the guardians of civic religion and it was their decision whether or not Antinous would receive a place among the official city gods.95
First of all, the question is raised whether we can still talk about Greek cities in the old Greek heartland after the Roman conquest. A better, more nuanced, approach would be to
91 B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (London 2006) 5-6.
92 R. Preston, ‘Roman Questions, Greek Answers: Plutarch and the Construction of Identity’, in: Goldhill (ed.),
Being Greek under Rome. Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge
2001) 88.
93 Plutarch, Cato Maior 23. 94 Preston (2001) 117. 95 Vout (2007) 39.
call them “Graeco-Roman” cities instead.96 This better reflects the altered reality of Greek
cities that, in Hadrian’s age, had been incorporated into the Roman Empire for more than a century. Through its coins, physical remains and inscriptions an image arises of cities whose leading families gradually acquired Roman citizenship, whose public space was marked by the presence of the emperor through the imagery of statues and cult, and whose festivals reminded these noble Greeks of their duties to Rome, by honorific functions such as
priesthoods.97 There was, however, no suppression of Greek culture in favor of that of Rome;
Greek language, culture and traditions were respected and increasingly adopted by the Roman elite, evidenced by the emperors of the first century, who often spoke Greek fluently and, in the case of Nero, even took to the stage as performers of Greek music and poetry.
Rather, instead of a loss of Greek culture after the Roman conquest, it seems Greece exerted a greater influence on its conqueror than the other way around. The influx of Greek culture, beautifully rendered in the well-known expression “Graecia capta ferum victorem
cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio”98, penned down by the first-century Roman writer Horace,
brought about a “Graecomania” among many Roman families, resulting in the introduction of Greek cults, works of art and literature, and even people, as educated Greek slaves were highly sought after, serving as symbols of status among the Roman elite. Although very proud about their military prowess and their vaunted religious piety, one could say that regarding their cultural achievements, however, they suffered from a kind of inferiority complex, always overshadowed by the earlier works of Greek civilization.99 Even Cicero, one
of Rome’s greatest writers, stated that “we cannot pretend to ourselves, however much we would like to, that we are superior to the Hispani in number, to the Gauls in strength, to the Phoenicians in cleverness, to the Greeks in the arts […]; it is by our piety and religion […] that we have triumphed over all peoples and nations”.100 Though never unopposed, it is
certain that Greek culture settled permanently into the western Latin cultural sphere, culminating even in the shift of the empire’s capital from Rome to the Greek east, where Graeco-Roman Constantinople would outlast the Latin west for centuries to come.
This interconnectivity of the Latin and Greek cultural spheres of the Empire would suggest that Antinous’ cult would have found equally favorable conditions for its success in both halves of the empire. Yet all of the material evidence proves otherwise. An explanation for this can be found in the fact that the reception of Greek culture in the Roman west was not unconditional, but should rather be seen as a selective and partial process, where some elements were included, whereas others were rejected. One key aspect of the investigation suggests a very straightforward answer to the question why the cult was less eagerly received in the Latin west: Hadrian was said to be a lover of all things Greek and was therefore very popular in the eastern part of his dominion, earning him the pejorative nickname of
'Graeculus', or 'Greekling' by some Romans from the west who disapproved of the emperor’s
96 F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol.3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East (Chapel Hill 2006) 135.
97 Millar (2006) 126-127. 98 Horace, Ep. 2.1.156-7.
99 C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in ancient Rome (Cambridge 1993) 95. 100 Cicero, De haruspicum responsis 19.
infatuation with Greek culture.101 Apparently, a portion of the Roman elite wanted to limit
Greek influence on Roman culture.
The conservative response of the Roman elite to Hadrian’s involvement with Hellenism had a history which went back to the first contacts Romans had with their Greek neighbors in the early days of the Republic and stemmed from fears that contact with Greek culture would somehow contaminate Roman values and traditions.102 In the works of Lucian
of Samosata, a Hellenized Syrian who was born around 125 CE, we get a taste of cultural prejudice in Hadrian’s age, something which apparently was common enough to be written about by this clever writer of satire. From the works Nigrinus and De Mercede Conductis a reciprocal prejudice surfaces that was present in both cultural spheres of the empire. On the one hand, they show Greek prejudice towards Rome as a “modern Babylon”, corrupted and impure, run by a gang of uncultured nouveaux riches.103 On the other hand, and more
important for his investigation, the theme of Greeks as servile and greedy tricksters, as seen by the Roman characters, can be noted throughout the De Mercede Conductis, where Lucian makes his Greek protagonist say the following:
“They [the Romans] think this of us all because many Hellenes come to their houses, with big beards and coarse cloaks, who practice the black arts, promising their patrons success in love affairs and spells to ruin their enemies. Knowing the servile tricks and greed
of these types, they think we are all the same”.104
Juvenal, a Roman satirist from the second century, states it in a more forward manner: “I cannot endure a Rome that is full of Greeks” 105. Centuries before the former authors, the
Roman Plautus already reflected Roman attitudes by the use of newly wrought verbs such as
congraecari and pergraecari in his comedies; attributing Greeks with the natural capacity for
debauchery and revelry.106 Although passed on through the medium of satire and comedy,
101 Not all scholars agree on the nature of Hadrian’s philhellenic identity, however. Caroline Vout, for example, argues that Hadrian’s supposed philhellenism is often too easily claimed, as she demonstrates that his beard, a possible marker of Greekness, for instance, did not automatically refer to an identity of a Greek philosopher-king, but could just the same have been a claim on divinity or a reference to Hadrian’s military exploits. She also does not categorize Hadrian’s relationship with Antinous as just another example of
philhellenic propaganda, but instead emphasizes its complexity and the importance of other elements, such as a divine parallel with Zeus and Ganymede. Although Vout rightfully problematizes the cliché of Hadrian’s philhellenism (since the sources are never foolproof), she does not deny that Hadrian and Hellenism are too often found in each other’s company for this to have been a coincidence, as we will see further down this chapter. In short, we know Hadrian was definitely interested in Hellenism, though it remains unknown what other elements, such as politics and power, influenced his undertakings in the Greek part of the empire; for Hadrian’s beard and Hellenism see: C. Vout, ‘What’s in a Beard? Rethinking Hadrian’s Hellenism’, in: S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2006) 96-123; for political philhellenism, see: Preston (2001) 85-6; Spawforth (2012) 242 ;for personal philhellenism see: G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969) 15; Meyer (1991) 207; Lambert (1984) 36; Birley (1997) 187; A. Karivieri, ‘Just One of the Boys. Hadrian in the Company of Zeus, Dionysus and Theseus’, in: Ostenfeld, E. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks (Aarhus 2002) 40; Turcan (2008) 22-3; 102 Isaac (2004) 384.
103 A. Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 1967) 66-68. 104 Lucian, De Mercede Conductis 40.
105 Juvenal, Sat. III.60-61. 106 Isaac (2004) 384.
these anti-Greek sentiments reflected the bias that existed in at least some strata of Roman society and, as such, cannot be ignored.
Another source of Roman discontent concerning their Greek counterparts might have stemmed from rivalry within the Roman political hierarchy. During the second century the number of men of eastern Greek origin in the procuratorial service rose steadily. As Greeks and Romans jostled for appointment in the imperial administration tension and competition could have grown between these both elites, as they both sought the same, limited number of official functions available in the Empire.107 Internal quarrels and feuds could result in
measures taken by the emperors, as happened in the second century when philosophers were banned from the Roman city. 108 As the empire grew and the intricacy if its bureaucracy
increased, Graeco-Roman competition must have followed in its wake, accompanied by career-related political xenophobia, probably for the greater part from the dominant party, the western Roman elite.
Proto-racism and the Roman Distinction between Old and New
However, political tensions were probably not the only cause of anti-Greek sentiments among the Romans. The theory of proto-racism, which goes even further than cultural
prejudice, might provide more clues for explaining the lesser distribution of Antinous’ cult in the Latin West. Proto-racism sets itself apart from racial prejudice by the fact that it is not based on conditions that can still be changed, such as language or religion, as does cultural prejudice, but rather wields hereditary, fixed qualities as the base for its discrimination.109
Intrinsically linked with the environmental theory and the belief in the heredity of acquired traits, as developed in ancient Greek literature, proto-racism views race as “group of people who are believed to share imagined common characteristics, physical and mental or moral which cannot be changed by human will, because they are thought to be determined by unalterable, stable physical factors: hereditary, or external, such as climate or geography”.110
Within this framework, the Greeks of the Roman empire could be regarded as a separate people, and thus subject to proto-racism from Roman society.
107 Sherwin-White (1967) 80-82; Juvenal Sat. 7.13-16, “I cannot swear in court that I have seen what I have not seen, like a knight of Asia or Bithynia, Cappadocia or Galatia”. Although these lines were penned down by Juvenal, a well-known Roman satirist, the fact that he utilizes the Greek knight as the prime example of a lack of integrity, a cliché which he expected his audience must have recognized, they support Sherwin-White’s theory that Greek newcomers were in competition with the established Roman elite in the political arena, causing tension between these two groups of nobles.
108 Suet., Domitian 10; The last banishment of philosophers from Rome before Hadrian’s rule occurred under the emperor Domitian.
109 To illustrate this, a simple example will follow here: If we would state that people from region X are stupid because they are uneducated, that would constitute cultural prejudice on our part. However, if we would hold that these same people are stupid because they are all born that way, that would be a racist remark, since the last statement is based on the premise that these people’s stupidity is unalterable, whereas in the first comment it is not: when educated, they will no longer be stupid and will become like one of us.
