This is a mini-post. Not a true post in nature but an excuse to make a short point about the Pantheon that pertains to the themes of this Blog.
Readers will remember that the Pantheon, as we see it today, was built by Hadrian around 125 CE. Nevertheless, it bears the inscription that was placed onto the original structure and that names Agrippa as the builder. This was not the only time Hadrian refused to monumentalize his name either. The Imperial Lives states:
Readers will remember that the Pantheon, as we see it today, was built by Hadrian around 125 CE. Nevertheless, it bears the inscription that was placed onto the original structure and that names Agrippa as the builder. This was not the only time Hadrian refused to monumentalize his name either. The Imperial Lives states:
“In Rome,
Hadrian rebuilt the Pantheon, the Saepta, the Basilica of Neptune, many
temples, the Forum of Augustus, and the Baths of Agrippa. He dedicated all of
these buildings in the names of their original builders.”
The question presents itself: why would Hadrian not monumentalize his name on these structures as the re-builder? Surely, since we find inscriptions naming re-builders all around Rome, this would have been the expectation.
Herein lies what I think is the solution to this problem.
The Pantheon. Photo by Jack Hase.
As this blog has discussed, public writing 'did things' in Rome. It was a vehicle for power; it contextualized spaces; it functioned as social contracts. The presence of inscriptions in the urban setting made the use of inscriptions an expectation. Therefore, the refusal to use inscriptions to monumentalize one's name was also a statement. Inscriptions on monuments 'did things'; they served functions. So, then, what does it say about an emperor when they do not do this?
If the use of an inscription with one's own name is an action that performs a function, then the refusal to use an inscription is the opposite of an action. It is continuity.
This is what I think the purpose of Hadrian's non-action was: the emphasis of continuity of his own reign with that of previous imperial powers. If Hadrian would have replaced Agrippa's name (a name closely tied to Augustus' imperial rule) he would have presented the public with a schism between earlier power and his own. Instead he chose to emphasize continuity. Since he was expected to place his name on the buildings he repaired, this non-action would have rang loud and clear throughout the city. Hadrian, thus, made himself a part of the institution of the Emperor.
Bibliography:
Aicher, Peter J. Rome Alive: A Source-Guide to the Ancient City. Vol. 1. Mundelein: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2004.
Claridge, Amanda. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Comments
Post a Comment