SOURCE: Birley, Anthony R. “Epilogue: Animula vagula blandula.” In Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, pp. 301-07. London: Routledge, 1997.

[In the following essay, Birley summarizes Hadrian's accomplishments and reviews his reputation.]

animula vagula blandula,
hospes comesque corporis,
quo nunc abibis? in loca
pallidula rigida nubila—
nec ut soles dabis iocos.

Few short poems can have generated so many verse translations and such copious academic debate as these five lines—a mere nineteen words—of the dying Hadrian, quoted in the Historia Augusta. Even their authenticity has been questioned. But that, at least, seems to have been settled, with the observation that the quality is evidently ‘beyond the powers of the author of the HA’. There is also dispute over the meaning: in particular, whether the adjectives in the fourth line go with the animula or with the loca, and how the third line should be punctuated. The text here given depends on a variant reading of the third line and incorporates a conjecture, nubila for nudula, in the fourth. This produces the following sense:

Little soul, little wanderer, little charmer,
body's guest and companion,
to what places will you set out for now?
To darkling, cold and gloomy ones—
and you won't make your usual jokes.

It seems only fitting that the great traveller, who had so often accepted hospitality and who had taken a train of comites with him, should at the last have thought of his soul as a wanderer, ready to take off, this time for the underworld, his soul that had been his body's hospes and comes. The key to understanding Hadrian's view of his soul's destination came when an echo was detected of Ennius' lines on the realms of the dead, the ‘Acherunsia templa alta Orci’, ‘the lofty temples of Orcus by the river of Acheron’, ‘pallida leto, nubila tenebris loca’, ‘places deathly pale, gloomy in their darkness’. Ennius was, after all, a favourite poet of Hadrian's. The third and fourth lines, so punctuated, form question and response.¹

Hadrian's character was baffling and contradictory: ‘in one and the same person stern and cheerful, affable and harsh, impetuous and hesitant, mean and generous, hypocritical and straightforward, cruel and merciful, and always in all things changeable’. So the HA—and the Epitome de Caesaribus has a similar version, clearly drawn from the same source, the biographer Marius Maximus.² Hadrian's portraits scarcely offer a clue to his inner being: they ‘show no aging or development. In what sense can one speak of his real nature? … Was he one of those characters that remain to some extent consistent or was his character what he did or what happened to him?’ This was the verdict of a specialist on Hadrian's iconography.³

As for Hadrian's innermost beliefs, here too one is on uncertain ground: ‘those who endeavour to reconstruct Hadrian's religion directly from his own statements, scant as they are, arrive at diametrically opposite results.’⁴ His initiation at Eleusis—and the cistophorus coin with the legend ren(atus), ‘reborn’, which was issued soon after he entered the higher grade—might speak for some kind of mysticism. His adventure with the Egyptian wonderworker Pachrates, the death of Antinous and its aftermath, and the strange coin-issue depicting him as a twenty-year old, point in an even more disturbing direction. In truth, his real religion had perhaps been Hellenism (beard and all), but at the last, his dying poem may suggest, he returned to a sceptical, almost Epicurean position, influenced by the old poet.⁵

The symptoms of his fatal illness—haemorrhaging, breathing difficulties, wasting and dropsy—combined with what is known of his character and behaviour, allow an easy diagnosis: coronary atherosclerotic heart disease.⁶ If his portraits for the most part show no signs of change, of one at least, the latest, it has been said that it is ‘not so much the depiction of an old man, rather it shows the effect of a catastrophe’⁷—by which one may understand the cumulation of blow after blow in his last years, Antinous' death, the Jewish revolt, the succession crisis.

Hadrian's favourite Marcus, when he reflected over thirty years later on those to whom he had a debt of gratitude, totally omits the man to whom he owed the throne.⁸ Fronto, Marcus' teacher, in an early letter to his pupil, conceded that he had praised Hadrian often enough in speeches in the senate, inpenso et propenso quoque, ‘earnestly—and willingly too’. Yet ‘I wanted to propitiate Hadrian, like Mars Gradivus or Jupiter, rather than loved him … I lacked the confidence—him whom I so greatly revered I did not dare to cherish.’ He was later to wax sarcastic on Hadrian's travels, ‘a princeps energetic enough at touring the armies and haranguing them eloquently’, monuments to whose journeys can be seen in many cities of Europe and Asia—but who preferred to abandon what Trajan had conquered and to train the troops with wicker weapons instead of setting them to fight with shield and sword.⁹

Six years after Hadrian's death Aelius Aristides, the young orator from Hadriani, one of the cities founded by Hadrian a decade or so earlier in Mysia, came to the capital and delivered a festive speech ‘In praise of Rome’. Much of the piece can be taken as a tribute to Hadrian's work, not least the claim that the whole world was now like one single city-state and that war was a thing of the past. The empire's constitution embodied the best elements of democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy and monarchy. Its greatest ‘work of perfection’ was the army: in method of recruitment, conditions of service, deployment, training and discipline. In one particular respect the orator offered implied criticism of Antoninus' restless predecessor. The smooth functioning of the vast world-state could be seen in the regular succession of governors for its peoples. Their orderly conduct was ensured by their overwhelming respect for ‘the great governor, for him who presided over all’. There was ‘no need for him to wear himself out travelling round the whole empire, nor now in one place now in another to check on every detail in person’. This was an unmistakable contrast between the placid Antoninus—who was never to leave Italy throughout his reign—and the perpetually travelling Hadrian. The same point had already been made by Aristides in his mockery of the Persian King Cyrus, who had been obliged to wander all round his domains in perpetual motion.¹⁰

Nearly one hundred years after Hadrian's death, Cassius Dio, in spite of his criticisms, summed up the reign as having been ‘in general excellent’. Among the positive aspects which he had earlier praised, the ‘training and disciplining of the entire army throughout the whole empire’ are emphasised: ‘What he laid down is still the basis for military regulations today.’ The author of the Epitome de Caesaribus, writing at the end of the fourth century, goes further: ‘He established the public and palace appointments (officia), and those of the military, on that model, which—with a few changes made by Constantine—still exists today.’ This judgement is clearly exaggerated. Hadrian's ‘army reforms’ were of limited scope. To be sure, he laid great stress on training and discipline, and it may be that this is what Dio and the author of the Epitome had in mind. There is also some evidence for him making concessions to soldiers in the legal sphere. Some tightening up of the issuing of the so-called diplomas, mainly to auxiliary veterans, can be detected: the home town of the veteran's commanding officer is specified from about 129 onwards, and a few years later the order of the seven witnesses for each diploma was regularised. One small innovation seems to be that he regraded the prefecture of the ala milliaria as a ‘fourth militia’.¹¹

Other things aside, Hadrian's revision of imperial foreign policy and his establishment of fixed frontiers had a corollary. It became increasingly seldom for legions to be transferred from one province to another. The armies began to settle down in their bases even more than they had before, with, no doubt, effects on recruitment, which must have become more localised. Whether Hadrian's frontier policy was really an innovation has been disputed. But the symbolic effect of constructing even the palisade beyond Upper Rhine and Upper Danube and the fossatum Africae, let alone the elaborate and expensive set of works known as ‘Hadrian's Wall’ is undeniable. Only the HA, it is curious, specifically refers to these frontier works in connection with Hadrian. But Aelius Aristides had some lofty allusions to them six years after Hadrian's death.

To place walls round the city itself as if you were hiding or fleeing from your subjects you considered ignoble. Nevertheless, you did not forget walls, but these you placed around the empire, not the city … Beyond the outermost ring of the civilised world, you drew a second line … An encamped army like a rampart encloses the world in a ring … as far as from Ethiopia to the Phasis and from the Euphrates to the great outermost island towards the West; all this one can call a ring and circuit of the walls. They have not been built with asphalt and baked brick, nor do they stand there gleaming with stucco. Oh—but these ordinary works too exist at their individual places, ‘fitted close and accurately with stones and boundless in size and gleaming more brilliantly than bronze’, as Homer says of the palace wall.

Ironically, just at the time Aristides delivered these sentiments, work was in full swing on a new frontier work in Britain, more modest in its construction: Hadrian's Wall had been abandoned, southern Scotland reoccupied and the Antonine Wall between Forth and Clyde erected. It is difficult not to see the decision as, among other things, a studied insult to Hadrian's memory.¹²

As to the way the empire was ‘run’—its ‘administration’—Hadrian made a striking innovation in Italy, creating in effect four provinces in the peninsula with four men of consular rank as their governors. The system was abolished by his successor. It may be argued that the senatoríal cursus honorum settled down into a regular pattern under Hadrian, which lasted throughout the next reign and beyond. The tenure of only two posts, a legionary command and an imperial province or its equivalent (for example one of the treasuries), between praetorship and consulship, seems to have been a sign that a senator was on his way to govern one or more of the major military provinces after being consul. The HA mistakenly attributes to Hadrian a policy of extreme lavishness with third and second consulships. In fact only two men benefited from a third tenure of the fasces and only five second consulships are known. Despite his pronounced philhellenism, Hadrian's treatment of Greeks or easterners might seem at first sight less generous than that of Trajan; and more Greeks became consul ordinarius under Antoninus than under Hadrian. Still, Hadrian was evidently the first to be able to persuade Greeks of old Greece to enter the Senate; and under him Greeks are found for the first time governing provinces in the Latin west. As far as the equestrian career is concerned, the new grading of the praefectus alae milliariae has already been mentioned. Former holders of this post were clearly destined for important procuratorships. The HA attributes to Hadrian the ‘innovation’ of appointing equites rather than freedmen to be ab epistulis and a libellis, which is clearly mistaken. On the other hand, the earliest record of an advocatus fisci comes from Hadrian's reign and he may have instituted the post—as the HA claims—which, as a substitute for military service, was to afford entry into the procuratorships. In general, Hadrian's role as a reformer of the ‘administration’ seems to have been exaggerated.¹³

It is also questionable whether Hadrian really altered the nature of the consilium principis, or whether he made such an impact on Roman law as is often asserted. To be sure, he did entrust the young senator Salvius Julianus with the ‘codification’ of the praetorian edict. There are also a good many more of his rescripts in the Digest than there are of his predecessors, which may not be an arbitrary choice of the compilers: it has indeed been argued that ‘rescripts intended to have permanent validity’ were first issued by Hadrian. The HA places great stress on his innovative activity as a law-giver. One potentially far-reaching measure was the extension of ius Latii. The grant of Latium maius meant that not merely the magistrates but all members of the council of a Latin community gained full Roman citizenship. The measure must have been intended to spread Roman citizenship more widely in the western provinces, even if there is very limited evidence for its use.¹⁴

It is above all the provinces of the empire that were affected by Hadrian's reign. ‘He aided the allied and subject cities most generously’, Dio stresses. ‘He had indeed seen many of them, more than any other emperor, and he assisted all of them, one might say, giving some a water supply, others harbours, food, public buildings, money and various honours.’ Dio later adds that ‘he also built theatres and held games as he travelled about from city to city.’ The HA makes the same point: ‘In almost all the cities he built something and gave games’, and the Epitome de Caesaribus, with its story of the team of craftsmen organised on military lines that he took with him, talks of him ‘restoring whole cities’. Even Fronto, in a basically hostile comment, notes that ‘you can see monuments of his travels in a great many cities in Asia and Europe.’ Dio and the HA stress, in particular, what he did for Athens, as does Pausanias; and the HA has at least a list, however incomplete, of his building at Rome.¹⁵

How many cities Hadrian actually founded is difficult to calculate, given that a great many eastern communities took his name. He must at least be given credit for the colonia of Mursa in Pannonia, evidently the last veteran colony of the traditional type in the west, for Hadrianopolis in the Cyrenaica, for Hadrianutherae, Hadriania and Hadriani in Mysia, Antinoopolis in Egypt, and Aelia Capitolina in Judaea. The last two foundations epitomise Hadrian's Hellenism, carried to extremes. His passion for the beautiful Bithynian may, to be sure, have been the reason for no more than the name of the new city on the Nile. The cult of the god Antinous which he created, for all the enthusiasm with which the Greeks took to it, seemed to Romans in the west, at least, a little bizarre. As for Hadrian's New Jerusalem, the decision to create a pagan city there and to prohibit circumcision, which together provoked the desperate last Jewish revolt, surely indicate that his Hellenism had blinded him to reality.¹⁶

Tertullian obviously thought Hadrian's restless travelling was prompted by his insatiable inquisitiveness—meaning a desire to know what should not be known. Julian the Apostate likewise accused Hadrian of having been ‘a meddler in the mysteries’. The HA, too, comments that ‘he was so fond of travelling that he wanted to learn further, at first hand, about everything that he had read on different parts of the world.’ His ‘souvenir’ sections of the great Villa, recalling Athens above all, point in the same direction. A modern observer is prepared to see in Hadrian's journeys round the provinces a systematic programme: to get to know the empire at first hand and put the provinces on to a new footing. But in the last analysis the complex personality and thus the motivation eludes us, as it did Marius Maximus—for it must be his verdict that is reproduced in the Epitome de Caesaribus:

changeable, manifold, fickle, born as if to be a judge of vices and virtues, controlling his passionate spirit by some kind of artifice, he expertly concealed his envious, unhappy and wanton character, immoderate in his urge for display; feigning self-restraint, affability and mildness and disguising his burning desire for glory.

Dio credits Hadrian with ‘mildness’ (apart from the executions at the beginning and the end of the reign), but stresses the ambition and jealousy and notes that fault was found with his ‘great strictness, inquisitiveness and meddling’. Yet he was prepared to conclude that Hadrian ‘balanced and made up for these defects by his careful oversight, prudence, generosity and skill’—and for his policy of peace. As for ‘artifice’ in Hadrian's character, one might argue that in a sense he was acting out a kind of charade during his extended presence in the east—playing the part of a reborn Pericles and trying to recreate the world of the fifth century bc.¹⁷

In the early fifth century ad Synesius of Cyrene wrote in a letter to a friend, that

as for the Emperor and the Emperor's friends, and the dance of fortune—certain names shoot up like flames to a great height of glory and are then extinguished. But there is utter silence about such things here, our ears are spared from news of that sort. Maybe people know well enough that there is an Emperor still alive—because the tax-collectors remind us of this every year. But who the Emperor is, that is not so clear. In fact some of us think that Agamemnon is still on the throne.

Synesius could make a joke to his friend about the remoteness of the empire's ruler. But as shown by his essay On Kingship, ostensibly directed to Arcadius, he strongly disapproved: an emperor should lead his armies in person, tour the provinces to see his subjects for himself and to be seen by them. Whatever else Hadrian achieved, his restless touring round the provinces made him the most visible monarch the Roman empire ever had.¹⁸

Notes

1. The poem is given in HA Had. 25.9. Its authenticity was authoritatively defended by Cameron, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 84 (1980) 167 ff. (here quoted). I have elaborated my interpretation in Laverna 5 (1994) 176 ff., giving particular weight to Sajdak, Eos 20 (1914-15) 147 ff. (in Polish), summarised in Berl. Ph. Woch. 36 (1916) 765 ff. Sajdak first spotted the echoes of Ennius, from a fragment attributed to his Andromache, O. Ribbeck, Tragoediarum Romanorum Fragmenta (Berlin 1907) I 27, and thus took the adjectives in the fourth line with loca, not animula. This had already been done by another Polish scholar, K. Morawski, Dwaj cesarze rzymscy: Tyberyusz i Hadryan (Cracow 1883), 96, whom he cites (I am grateful to E. Dabrowa for procuring a copy of the relevant part of this work). This interpretation was first given general currency, independently (it seems), by T. Birt, Römische Charakterköpfe (Leipzig 1913) 329. Birt's translation provoked a debate which still goes on.—For Hadrian's love of Ennius: HA Had. 16.6.—The text and punctuation of lines 3-4 was, convincingly in my view (except that he retained nudula in line 4), established by Mariotti, Studia Florentina (1970) 233 ff. (cf. also id., Scritti in Memoria di A. Ronconi II (Florence 1988) 11 ff.). I have given an almost complete bibliography in the Laverna article and therefore refrain from further references here. I there overlooked V. Bejarano, ‘El emperador Adriano ante la tradición romana’, Pyrenae 11 (1975) 81-98, at 94 with note 71, the only author apart from myself to accept Sajdak's hesitant conjecture nubila for nudula.

2. HA Had. 14.11 (retaining Hohl's emendation; cf. Callu et al., in their edition, n. 143, and Baldwin, Gymnasium 101 (1994) 445 f. for alternatives); Epit. de Caes. 14.6.

3. Wegner, Hadrian (1956) 72 f.

4. Den Boer, Mnemosyne 8 (1955) 123.

5. Cf. further A. R. Birley, Laverna 5 (1994) 202 ff., citing among others André, ANRW 2.34.1 (1993) 607.

6. Thus the medical man Petrakis, W. Journ. Medicine 132 (1980) 87 ff., who draws attention to the diagonal earlobe creases visible in Hadrian's portraits, evidently a symptom of heart disease; further to what is known as ‘Type A behavior’, of which the characteristics are being ‘competitive, achievement-oriented, involved in multiple activities with deadlines, impatient with slowness in others, [liking] to set a rapid work pace, and [tending] to be hostile and aggressive.’ (I owe this reference to the late Dr D. A. Dixon.)

7. Wegner, Hadrian (1956) 72, cf. 25 f., on the latest portrait-type.

8. In other words, Hadrian does not feature in Book 1 of the Meditations. There are not many references elsewhere in the work. 8.25, mentioning that Celer survived Hadrian, may refer to the ab epistulis Caninius Celer; 8.37 names two men called Chabrias and Diotimus, probably freedmen, who mourned Hadrian. Other mentions are very impersonal.

9. Fronto, Ad M. Caesarem 2.4.1, p. 25 van den Hout; Princ. Historiae 11, pp. 208 f. van den Hout (I accept the emendation salicibus by Davies, Latomus 27 (1968) 75 ff.).

10. Ael. Aristides, Or. 26 K: the passages cited are Chapters 31-3 and 18 (the Persian king). On the speech, Swain, Hellenism and Empire (1996) 274 ff., sees less genuine enthusiam for Rome on the author's part than commonly held. Cf. also id. 256 n. 10 on the birthplace (Hadriani rather than Hadrianutherae).—Another speech preserved in the works of Aristides, Or. 35 K, addressed to the Emperor himself, has generally been supposed to be the work of an unknown orator from the next century. A case has been argued for it being by Aristides himself, and in praise of Antoninus, making repeated hostile comparisons, scarcely veiled, with his predecessor. Thus C. P. Jones, ‘Aelius Aristides EIS BASILEA’, JRS 62 (1972) 134-52; id., ‘The EIS BASILEA again’, Classical Quarterly 31 (1981) 224-5. For example, the ruler who is addressed had refrained unlike ‘previous emperors’ from ‘accusing people of plotting and punishing them with death or exile’ (Chapter 9); and he ‘checked … the irrational and violent lunges’ in the body of empire (Chapter 13). Still, although Hadrian's behaviour towards the Greeks was erratic, Jones exaggerates Hadrian's harsh treatment of some of them, JRS 62 (1972) 145: the philosopher Euphrates was not ‘ordered’, but permitted, to commit suicide; that Apollodorus was ‘put death’ and Favorinus ‘relegated to an island’ is far from certain (cf. pp. 112, note 51; 281, note 11; 341, note 10, above). The attribution has been supported, e.g. by Champlin, Fronto (1980) 83 ff., 165 and A. R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1987) 87 f., 227—but the weight of scholarly opinion against now seems decisive: Swain, Hellenism and Empire (1996) 266 note 50, cites relevant contributions.

11. Dio 69.23.2; 69.9.4; Epit. de Caes. 14.11.—training and discipline: cf. Chapters 10 and 11, above.—concessions: J. B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 bc-ad 235 (Oxford 1984) 214, 231 ff., 277 f., 285 f., 310—diplomas: G. Alföldy, ‘Die Truppenkommandeure in den Militärdiplomen’, in W. Eck and H. Wolff (eds), Heer und Integrationspolitik (Cologne-Vienna 1986) 385-436 = id., Römische Heeresgeschichte (1987) 89 ff., at 400 ff. = 104 ff., discusses naming of officers' origo. J. Morris and M. Roxan, ‘The witnesses to Roman military diplomata’, Arheoloski Vestnik 28 (1977) 299-333, find that from ad 133 onwards the order of witnesses went by seniority.—militia quarta: E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953) 149 = Roman Army Papers (1988) 158 f.—G. Wesch-Klein, ‘Hadrian, der exercitus Romanus und die pax Romana’ (forthcoming), offers more on army matters. I am grateful to the author for letting me see her paper in typescript.

12. Few further transfers of legions: cf. E. Ritterling, RE 12.1 (1924) 1293.—HA on frontier-works: Had. 11.2; 12.6.—Aristides: Or. 26 K. 80 ff.—Antonine Wall: W. S. Hanson and G. S. Maxwell, Rome's North-West Frontier. The Antonine Wall (Edinburgh 1986).—studied insult: cf. A. R. Birley, Trans. Durham and Northumberland 3 (1974) 15 ff.—On Hadrian's frontier policy as a whole, I still find much to be said for the view of E. Birley, in Carnuntina (1956) 25 ff., repr. in id., Roman Army Papers (1988) 12 ff. That the artificial running barriers owed something to Greek traditions of ‘walling out the barbarians’ is convincingly stressed by Crow, in Stud. Militärgrenzen Roms III (1986) 724 ff. Three ambitious works, two very recent, have a lot to say about Roman frontier policy: E. N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (Baltimore-London 1976); B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East (Oxford 1990); Whittaker, Frontiers (1994). Only the last offers much on Hadrian and I am not particularly convinced. Cf. further E. L. Wheeler, ‘Methodological limits and the mirage of Roman strategy’, Journal of Military History 57 (1993) 7-41, 215-40, a detailed review of Isaac and Whittaker (in the first, French, edition), and comparison with Luttwak. Whittaker offers a partial reply in Kennedy (ed.), Roman Army (1996) 25 ff. Cf. also above, notes 10 and 18 to Chapter 11.

13. On the consular ‘governors’ in Italy, Eck, Historiae Aug. Coll. n.s. I (1991) 183 ff.—cursus honorum: thus Syme, ‘Hadrian and the Senate’, Athenaeum 62 (1984) 31-60 = RP IV (1988) 295 ff., at 51 ff. = 316 ff. Two other men seem to have been intended as cos. II ord., P. Metilius Nepos for 128 (PIR² M 545) and C. Julius Proculus, perhaps for 134, above, note 22 to Chapter 12, note 4 to Chapter 21. And on the question of ‘eastern’ consuls, A. R. Birley, ‘Hadrian and Greek senators’ ZPE 116 (1997) 225 f.—equestrian ab epist. etc.: HA Had. 22.8, cf. Callu et al., ad loc.—advocatus fisci: HA Had. 20.6; AE 1975. 408.—Hadrian as ‘reformer’: e.g. Hirschfeld, Kais. Verw. (1905) 476 ff.

14. Cf. the judicious restraint of Crook, Consilium (1955), Chapter 5 and App. 3.—Edict: ILS 8973; Victor, Caes. 19.2; Eutropius 8.17, etc.—HA: especially Had. 8.8-9; 18.1-11; 22.1-8.—rescripts: F. Pringsheim, ‘The legal policy and reforms of Hadrian’, JRS 24 (1934) 139-53, at 146. Pringsheim's paper is one of a good many which attribute far-reaching legal initiatives to Hadrian. Cf. especially d'Orgeval, Hadrien (1950) and (more restrained) A. d'Ors, ‘La signification de l'oeuvre d'Hadrien dans l'histoire du droit romain’, in Les empereurs romains d'Espagne (Paris 1965) 147-68. Note the critical review of d'Orgeval by W. Kunkel, Gnomon 24 (1952) 486-91 (repr. in id., Kleine Schriften (Weimar 1974) 602-7). Kunkel likewise, in his Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (Weimar 1952) 291 ff., denies the great significance attached to a ‘reform’ of the consilium principis, to the Edict and to rescripts.—Latium maius: Gaius, Inst. 1.96; attested by ILS 6780 (Gigthis) and by implication 6781 (Thisiduo), from the reigns of Pius and Hadrian respectively; cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship (1973) 255 f. Cf. also pp. 207, 342 (note 7), above.

15. Dio: 69.5.2-3; 10.1.—HA: 19.2 cf. 20.4-5.—Epit. de Caes.: 14.4-5.—Fronto: Princ. Historiae 11, p. 209 van den Hout.—Athens: Dio 69.16.1-2; HA Had. 13.6; 19.3; 20.4; Pausanias 1.3.2.—Rome: HA Had. 19.9-13. Dr Susan Walker informs me that M. T. Boatwright is planning a monograph on Hadrian's building in the provinces, a colossal undertaking. Such a work would nicely complement Boatwright's Hadrian and the City of Rome (1987). On one aspect of Hadrian's activity as restorer or ‘founder’ of Greek cities, cf. Follet, in Létoublon (ed.), Colloque Chantraine (1992) 241 ff.

16. Cf. above all the various contributions by Zahrnt, especially ANRW 2.10.1 (1989) 669 ff. and in Olshausen and Sonnabend (eds), Kolloquium (1991) 463 ff.

17. Tertullian: Apol. 5.7, omnium curiositatum explorator. curiositas has a pejorative sense, cf. Tertullian, Idol. 9; 10.9.—Julian: Caes. 311 C-D.—HA: Had. 17.8; 26.5.—Epit. de Caes. 14.6, of which HA Had. 14.11 is surely another version.—Dio: 69.2.5 (mildness); 3.2-3 (ambition, jealousy); 5.1 (strictness … skill).

18. Synesius, Ep. 148; De Regno, especially 13 f.—A travelling emperor with a large entourage of course imposed heavy expenses on all the places he visited. But in effect this no doubt meant that the rich spent on public works, to the general benefit. In any case, Hadrian certainly disbursed from imperial funds in many cases. Whether this—and for example his tax remission of ad 118, cf. above pp. 97 f. and note 16, or his measures on use of imperial domain, cf. above p. 208—can be called ‘Hadrianic economic policy’ is another matter. A good many aspects which could be discussed under this rubric have had to be omitted from the present study—e.g., not a word on the lex metallis dicta of Vipasca (Sm. 439 f.). There are, after all, limits to what can be covered in a biography.

Works Cited

Alföldy, G. Die Legionslegaten der römischen Rheinarmeen (Epigraphische Studien 3, Graz-Cologne 1967)

———Fasti Hispanienses. Senatorische Reichsbeamte und Offiziere in den spanischen Provinzen (Wiesbaden 1969)

———Noricum (London 1974)

———Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn 1977)

———Römische Heeresgeschichte. Beiträge 1962-1985 (Amsterdam 1987)

———Tarraco (Tarragona 1991)

———‘La Pannonia e l'Impero Romano’, in: G. Hajnóczi (ed.), La Pannonia e l'Impero Romano (Rome 1994) 25-40

André, J.-M. ‘Hadrien littérateur et protecteur des lettres’, ANRW 2.34.1 (1993) 583-611

Baldwin, B. ‘Hadrian's death in the Historia Augusta', Gymnasium 90 (1983) 546

———‘Hadrian's character traits’, Gymnasium 101 (1994) 455-6

Birley, A. R. ‘Roman frontiers and Roman frontier policy: some reflections on Roman imperialism’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland 3 (1974) 13-25

———Lives of the Later Caesars. The First Part of the Augustan History, with Newly Compiled Lives of Nerva and Trajan (Harmondsworth 1976)

———The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford 1981)

———Marcus Aurelius. A Biography (2nd edn, London 1987)

———‘Hadrian's farewell to life’, Laverna 5 (1994) 176-205

———‘Indirect means of detecting Marius Maximus’, Historiae Augustae Colloquia, n.s. III, Colloquium Maceeratense 1992 (Bari 1995) 57-74

———‘Marius Maximus the consular biographer’, ANRW II.34.3 (1997) 2678-757

———‘Hadrian and Greek senators’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 116 (1997) 209-45

Birley, E. Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal 1953)

———‘Hadrianic frontier policy’, in: E. Swoboda (ed.), Carnuntina (Graz-Cologne 1956) 25-33

———Research on Hadrian's Wall (Kendal 1961)

———The Roman Army. Papers 1929-1986 (Amsterdam 1988)

Boer, W. den ‘Religion and literature in Hadrian's policy’, Mnemosyne 8 (1955) 123-44

———‘Trajan's deification and Hadrian's succession’, Ancient Society 6 (1975) 203-12

Bollansée, J. ‘P. Fay. 19, Hadrian's Memoirs, and imperial epistolary autobiography’, Ancient Society 25 (1994) 279-302

Cameron, Alan ‘“Poetae novelli”’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 84 (1980) 127-75

Champlin, E. ‘Hadrian's heir’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 21 (1976) 78-89

———Fronto and Antonine Rome (Cambridge, Mass. 1980)

———‘Figlinae Marcianae’, Athenaeum 71 (1983) 257-64

———‘The glass ball game’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60 (1985) 151-63

Crook, J. A. Consilium principis (Cambridge 1955)

Crow, J. G. ‘The function of Hadrian's Wall and the comparative evidence of Late Roman Long Walls’, in: Studien zur Militärgrenzen Roms III (13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983) (Stuttgart 1986) 724-9

———‘Construction and reconstruction in the central sector of Hadrian's Wall’, in: V. A. Maxfield and M. J. Dobson (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1989 (Exeter 1991) 44-7

———‘A review of current research on the turrets and curtain of Hadrian's Wall’, Britannia 22 (1991) 51-63

Davies R. W. ‘Fronto, Hadrian and the Roman army’, Latomus 27 (1968) 75-95

Eck, W. ‘Hadrian als pater patriae und die Verleihung des Augustatitels an Sabina’, in: G. Wirth (ed.), Romanitas-Christianitas. Festschrift J. Straub (Berlin 1982) 217-29

———‘Jahres-und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/9’, Chiron 12 (1982) 281-362; 13 (1983) 147-237

———Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen (Bonn 1985)

———‘Die italischen legati Augusti pro praetore unter Hadrian und Antoninus Pius’, Historiae Augustae Colloquia, n.s. I Coll. Parisinum 1990 (Macerata 1991) 183-95

———‘Q. Marcius Turbo in Niedermösien’, in: Klassisches Altertum, Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Festschrift A. Lippold (Würzburg 1993) 247-55

———(ed.) Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie. Kolloquium Köln 24.-26. November 1991 (Cologne 1993)

———‘Überlieferung und historische Realität: ein Grundproblem prosopographischer Forschung’, in: Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte (1993) 365-96

Eck, W. and Roxan, M. M. ‘Two new military diplomas’, in: R. Frei-Stolba and M. A. Speidel (eds), Römische Inschriften—Neufunde, Neulesungen und Neuinterpretationen. Festschrift H. Lieb (Basel 1995) 55-99

Follet, S. Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle. Etudes chronologiques et prosopographiques (Paris 1976)

———‘Hadrien ktistès kai oikistès: lexicographie et realia’, in: F. Létoublon (ed.), La langue et les textes en grec ancien: actes du colloque Pierre Chantraine (Amsterdam 1992) 241-54

Jones, C. P. Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971)

———The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass. 1978)

———‘The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 113 (1993) 149-52

———‘The Panhellenion’, Chiron 26 (1996) 29-56

Kennedy, D. L. (ed.) The Roman Army in the East (Ann Arbor 1996)

Mariotti, I. ‘Animula vagula blandula’, in: Studia Florentina … A. Ronconi (Rome 1970) 233-49

———‘Nota in margine ai poeti novelli’, in: Munus amicitiae. Scritti in memoria di A. Ronconi II (Florence 1988) 11-21

d'Orgeval, B. L'empereur Hadrien. Oeuvre législative et administrative (Paris 1950)

Petrakis, N. L. ‘Diagonal earlobe creases, Type A behavior, and the death of Emperor Hadrian’, Western Journal of Medicine 132 (January 1980) 87-91

Saidak, J. ‘Spór o Hadryanowe zegnanie ze swiatem’, Eos 20 (1914-15) 147-58

———‘Hadrians Abschied vom Leben’, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 36 (1916) 765-7

Sherwin-White, A. N. The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966)

———The Roman Citizenship (2nd edn, Oxford 1973)

Sijpestein, P. J. ‘A new document conerning Hadrian's visit to Egypt’, Historia 18 (1969) 109-18

Swain, S. ‘Favorinus and Hadrian’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989) 150-8

———‘Plutarch, Hadrian and Delphi’, Historia 40 (1991) 318-30

———Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World ad 50-250 (Oxford 1996)

Wegner, W. Das römische Herrscherbild II 3. Hadrian Plotina Marciana Matidia Sabina (Berlin 1956)

Wheeler, E. L. Flavius Arrianus. A Political and Military Biography (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor 1977)

———‘The occasion of Arrian's Tactica’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19 (1978) 351-66

Whittaker, C. R. Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore 1994)

Zahrnt, M. ‘Die Hadriansstadt in Athen’, Chiron 9 (1979) 393-8

———‘Antinoopolis in Ägypten’, ANRW 2.10.1 (1988) 669-706

———‘Vermeintliche Kolonien des Kaisers Hadrian’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 71 (1988) 229-49

———‘Zum römischen Namen Augsburgs’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 72 (1988) 179-80

———‘Die frühesten Meilensteine Britanniens und ihre Deutung’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 73 (1988) 195-9

———‘Zahl, Verteilung und Charakter der hadrianischen Kolonien (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Aelia Capitolina)’, in: E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (eds), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 2-3 (1984-7) (Bonn 1991) 463-86