The Fame of Trajan: A Late Antique Invention

Introduction

In his panegyric on the fourth consulship of Honorius (398 C.E.), Claudian explicitly put forward Trajan as the major model for the boy emperor. The idea is flagged from the start of the poem: “Not unworthy of reverence nor only just acquainted with war is the family of Trajan and that Spanish house which has showered diadems upon the world”.^[1] It reaches a climax towards the middle of the poem, in the form of an imagined speech of advice to the young emperor Honorius from his father Theodosius:^[2]

“The fame of Trajan will never die, not so much because thanks to his victories on the Tigris conquered Parthia became a Roman province, not because he broke the might of Dacia and let their chiefs in triumph up the slope of the Capitol, but because he was kindly to his country. Fail not to make someone like him your example, my son.”^[3]

Trajan’s status as a model emperor is perhaps most famously expressed in Eutropius’ catchphrase “More fortunate than Augustus, better than Trajan”. In fact, the Roman historian continues: “To such an extent has the reputation of his goodness lasted that it provides those who either (wish to) flatter or to praise him sincerely with the opportunity to use him as the most outstanding model.”^[4] It was hardly surprising that authors like Claudian and Eutropius used earlier Roman emperors to praise their contemporary ruler. The importance of exemplarity in Roman society meant that emperors were often compared against their predecessors. Behaviour of some of the earlier emperors was evaluated so positively that it became normative for the behaviour of consequent rulers.^[5] Those earlier emperors were the cornerstones against which later emperors were measured. By the fourth century, Trajan was clearly among this group of model rulers.^[6] Modern scholarship often assumes that Trajan’s virtues were already a point of departure to measure second- and third-century emperors.^[7] This article challenges that notion. Instead, it argues that Trajan’s status as a model emperor was a late-antique literary construct. Trajan was not a model emperor from the word go; rather, he only entered the repertoire of exemplary emperors during the course of the fourth century, to become the model emperor in the very late-fourth and early-fifth century. This development depended on the historical context and ideological demands of the late-fourth century, as well as on the availability of the then-existing material discussing and depicting the historical Trajan.

In order to analyse to what extent, when, why and to whom Trajan became a model emperor, this article traces references to Trajan in different literary and material sources. Importantly, it distinguishes between two different types of references. On the one hand are explicit references to Trajan as an exemplary ruler, on the other more implicit references to historical presentations of Trajan in his role of emperor. For instance, mentions of the title optimus princeps are often taken as evidence for Trajanic exemplarity but are much more ambiguous than directly naming the emperor. Similarly, continuation of the use of specific Trajanic iconographies or reuse of Trajanic elements may sometimes have referred to Trajan, but need not always have done so. This article will focus on the different sources that testify to Trajan’s posthumous reputation. The first section will focus on ancient literary evidence, in particular on panegyric and historiography. This is the material in which explicit references are most pronounced. They show clear attempts to establish Trajan as a model emperor during his reign, which were only properly taken up in the fourth century. Even then, it seems Trajan was not the model emperor per se, but part of a larger group of exemplary leaders. The second part of the article focuses on references to the emperor in material sources, particularly inscriptions, coins, portraits, and monuments. These are characterised by implicit references to Trajan. They show a similar pattern as the literary evidence does: Trajan only entered the repertoire of exemplary leaders in the fourth century, specifically under Constantine, and his exemplary status was further boosted during the reign of Theodosius.

Literary sources

The idea that Trajan would become a model for future emperors was there from the start of his reign. In his famous Panegyricus addressed to Trajan on 1 September 100 C.E., Pliny the Younger made explicit that with his speech he intended “good rulers to recognize what they have done and bad ones learn what they ought to do”^[8]. Or, as he phrased it in one of his “Letters”: “to encourage our emperor in his virtues through sincere praise”, and, in doing so, “to advise future emperors by means of example”.^[9]

Setting up Trajan as a role model for his successors seems not to have been immediate successful. This becomes clear from the historiographical accounts published in the century after his death. For example, in the preface to the history of the Parthian wars that Fronto started to write around 165 C.E. in order to celebrate the exploits of Lucius Verus, the author is rather ambivalent about Trajan. Not only does Fronto note that Trajan’s “own glory was likely to have been more important to him than the blood of his soldiers”, he also points out that, in terms of justice and clemency, “Trajan was not equally cleared in the eyes of all”^[10]. Similarly, in the second-century historiographical accounts of Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Herodian, Trajan appears far from universally positive: there is much implied criticism on Trajan’s rule in Tacitus’ writing; Herodian mentions the emperor only twice (as often as Nero and Domitian who figure as explicitly negative examples for bad emperors); instead Herodian refers five times to Augustus as a positive example of imperial rulership and is focusing on Marcus as an exemplary ruler. Dio’s presentation of Trajan is ambivalent and portrays the emperor as paying respect to elite classes and being generous to the people, but with an affinity for wine and boys. Because Dio’s “Roman History” survives only incompletely, comparison of Dio’s image of Trajan to that of other emperors is possible only to a limited extent, but again it seems that other emperors such as Augustus and Marcus Aurelius played a more important role as positive examples of imperial rulership.^[11]

Even as late as the fourth century, Trajan is hardly the most used model to parallel reigning emperors with. The use of Trajan as an exemplary emperor in late-antique imperial panegyric seems to consist of two phases: there are implicit references to the emperor in the first half of the fourth century and explicit references in the second half of the fourth century.

Implicit references encompass thematic similarities between the early fourth-century speeches and Pliny’s Panegyricus and, as the intertextual record has established, are the consequence of the availability of Pliny’s speech in Gaul at that time.^[12]

“Plinian strategies’ can be seen at work in Pan. VII(6) to Maximian and Constantine 307 C.E. Pliny’s speech may be recalled in the orator’s use of two father-figures for Constantine: his real father Constantius and his father-in-law Maximian, who mirror Trajan’s biological father Trajan and adoptive father Nerva.”^[13]

Similarly, in the fragmentary speeches of Symmachus, Valentinian’s characterization of a skilled soldier before he became an emperor may recall Pliny’s Trajan.^[14]

Although the orators may have been familiar with Pliny, the influence of his Panegyricus remained relatively minor in their speeches. Selected themes and adapted phrases of his speech are joined and often outnumbered by those of other writers. Moreover, Pliny is never mentioned, in contrast to Cicero, Virgil and Fronto.^[15] As pointed out by Gavin Kelly: “the Panegyricus is an intertext for use rather than ostentation […] it is easier to see its techniques […] being followed and adapted than […] an allusion summoning up a comparison to Trajan.”^[16]

This generic use of Pliny’s Panegyricus seems to have turned to a more political use in the middle of the fourth century in the schools in Gaul. It has been argued that with the rise of a new senatorial class in the provinces, Pliny’s speech became the subject of renewed appreciation, in particular because it praised a pro-senatorial emperor.^[17] Such political use of the Panegyricus is reflected in Panegyricus III(11) from 362 C.E. by the orator Claudius Mamertinus and II(12) from 389 C.E. by Pacatus. Speaking before senatorial audiences, both orators made a particular play of their emperors’ ciuilitas, a virtue which had not been praised in extant panegyric since Pliny’s Panegyricus. Like Trajan, Julian and Theodosius’ ciuilitas was mainly demonstrated by means of their attitude towards the senatorial elite, and in particular by their decision to walk alongside the consuls unprotected during public events.^[18]

From the time of Constantine onwards, Pliny’s writings seems to have influenced the image of Trajan in the emerging genre of Christian historiography. Eusebius set the tone by pointing out that, following Pliny’s observation that Christians did “nothing wicked or illegal except that they rose at dawn to sing to Christ as though a God”, Trajan had put an end to the persecutions.^[19] Such idiosyncratic readings of Pliny’s “Letters” allowed Christian historiographers to integrate Trajan into a Christian narrative by presenting him as an emperor who, although being a pagan, at least showed sound judgement.^[20]

In the first half of the fourth century, however, references to Trajan remained mostly implicit. Additionally, a survey of explicit references to Roman emperors in fourth-century panegyrics shows that comparisons with Augustus are made much more frequently. Trajan is used as an example about as often as Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus Pius and (in the negative sense) Nero (Table 1):^[21]

The first explicit reference to Trajan in fourth-century panegyric appears in a Greek literary context, in the speeches of Themistius. In his 364 C.E. speech in praise of Jovian, for example, Themistius celebrates the restoration of philosophy under that emperor, drawing attention to previous emperors who had promoted the discipline, including Trajan:

“So too the fathers of your rule promoted my predecessors in this discipline – Augustus the famous Arius, Tiberius Thrasylus, the great Trajan, Dio the Golden-Tongued, the two Antonines Epictetus – I omit the others save him who long ago took his name from the same deity as you and the founder of my house. By adopting philosophy in the sight of all, you [Jovian] follow in these men’s footsteps.”^[22]

This is typical for the use of Trajan in Themistius’ panegyrics. Trajan is primarily remembered for promoting philosophy and philosophers (in particular Dio Chrysostom), and, more importantly is always named together with other emperors, most notably Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.^[23] This is also the case in the two occasions at which Trajan is named explicitly in the Latin panegyrics. In 379 C.E., Ausonius praised Gratian for his remission of debts in the provinces, drawing attention to similar financial measures undertaken by Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.^[24] Similarly, praising Theodosius in 389 C.E., Pacatus includes Trajan in an even longer list of emperors:

“Are these the thanks you give me for longing for you even when I was in a flourishing state, for thinking, when gentle Nerva, Titus, the darling of the human race, and Antoninus, memorable for his piety, were in charge of me, when Augustus was adorning me with walls, Hadrian instructing me in the law, and Trajan extending my frontiers, that my happiness was less than complete because I was not yours?”^[25]

Interestingly, this is the first time that Trajan’s military exploits are explicitly mentioned in fourth-century panegyric, which mainly focused on his civil qualities. In contrast to the panegyrics, the emperor’s military reputation provides the main way through which he is remembered in fourth-century historiography.^[26] But in these, too, Trajan remains ‘a’ model emperor rather than ‘the’ model emperor. This is clear, for instance, from the more extensive descriptions of Julian’s Caesares (362 C.E.) or Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae (390s C.E.).

In his satirical Caesares, Julian describes a contest between Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the Roman emperors Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Constantine, before the assembled Olympian gods. As all six were deemed exemplary leaders, the contest allowed Julian to pass judgement on his predecessors and reflect on what ideal emperorship constituted in his period.^[27] Trajan is described as constantly carrying around the trophies of his wars with the Dacians and the Parthians. Additionally, it was his virtue of clemency that the gods found most favourable, but he is also mocked for his love of wine and young boys, and his inability to speak eloquently.^[28] In the end, Trajan finishes near the top, but he does not win. Rather, it is the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius, whom Julian most admired, who wins the contest.^[29]

Ammianus’ account of Trajan’s reign has unfortunately been lost, so his attitude towards the optimus princeps can only be observed through references to Trajan in his later books. These include fifteen references to Trajan, most of which appear in his narrative of Julian, and chiefly deal with his military reputation.^[30] Similar to panegyrics, Trajan is named together with other emperors.^[31] At one point, the similarity between the list of good emperors mentioned by Ammianus and by Pacatus is striking:

“For with rapid strides he grew so conspicuous at home and abroad that in his foresight he was esteemed a second Titus, son of Vespasian, in the glorious progress of his wars as very like Trajan, mild as Antoninus Pius, and in searching out the true and perfect reason of things in harmony with Marcus Aurelius, in emulation of whom he moulded his conduct and character.”^[32]

Trajan was the model emperor in the fifth century. But the image of Trajan followed different trajectories in different sorts of literary sources. In panegyrics, the military image of the emperor solidified. Claudian’s version of Trajan is extremely military. Claudian explicitly recommends Honorius to follow Trajan’s example, primarily because of his wars against the Parthians and the Dacians (the Goths in Claudian’s time).^[33] Similarly, in his praise of Avitus, Sidonius Apollinaris selects Trajan as the ultimate model to live up to. The Gallic orator depicts a scene in which the goddess Roma seeks out Jupiter in an attempt to regain her former glory. Roma recounts a long list of Roman emperors from the past, and explicitly stops at Trajan. Jupiter then gives her Avitus, who is explicitly cast as a new Trajan:

“Then came Trajan, by whose doing Agrippina became a terror to the Sygambrians, an emperor gallant, faithful, righteous and vigorous. In my captivity I pray for such another. I know not if anyone can match Trajan – unless perchance you, Gaul, should once more send forth a man who should even surpass him.”^[34]

As an interim conclusion it can be stated that panegyric and historiography tell a straightforward story of Trajan’s posthumous popularity. There was no instant notion of his idealised emperorship. Rather, Trajan featured only minimally up to the fourth century, when he became integrated into a group of exemplary emperors. Trajan became the emperor to look up to only in the very late fourth or early fifth century. This is a markedly different trajectory than one in which second- and third-century emperors were deemed to follow in Trajan’s footsteps as a matter of course. Material sources such as coins, inscriptions, portraits and monuments support the interpretation that Trajan featured as exemplary ruler only from the fourth century onwards.

Material sources

Material sources come with their own set of obstacles when dealing with the question to what extent Trajan served as a model for later emperors. In contrast to panegyric and historiography, material culture could hardly make the relationship between Trajan and his successors explicit. Epigraphic sources present Trajan as an imperial ancestor without assigning a particularly prominent role to him. Interestingly, a closer look at material sources reveals that there were relatively few posthumous dedications to Trajan throughout the Roman Empire.^[35] His presence in Roman imperial statue groups, for instance, pales in comparison to that of Alexander the Great, Augustus, or Hadrian. A similar pattern emerges when looking at explicit references to Trajan on coins. Only at the earliest stage of Hadrian’s rule does Trajan’s name appear explicitly on imperial coins.^[36] These coins were meant to convey the transition of power that occurred in 117 C.E., thereby legitimising Hadrian’s claim to the emperorship. Just like in imperial statue groups, Trajan’s posthumous presence in imperial coinage was short-lived.

Explicit references to Trajan would not return until more than a century later. These belong to the reign of the emperor Decius (249–51 C.E.), who even went as far as to adopt Trajan’s name.^[37] Decius’ choice to associate himself with this particular second-century predecessor was made early in his reign, with IMP TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG already appearing on his coins struck in 249 C.E. The association was strengthened by having the imperial formula appear in the dative on some of his bronzes.^[38] The dative was more often used on coins struck for divi and members of the imperial family. For living emperors, however, it had only been common practice for coin legends of Trajan.^[39] Trajan Decius was the first emperor to be styled in the dative again. The adoption of the name and the use of the dative in coin legend, then, are likely to be seen as following this emperor’s emulation of the optimus princeps.^[40]

Other references to Trajan found in Decius’ coinage were more implicit. A substantial number of types bear the legend DACIA (FELIX) and show an image of the personification of this province together with a military standard (Fig. 1).^[41] These coins might reflect a motive of Decius for closely associating himself with the emperor who won two successful battles against the Dacians: by means of indirectly referring to Trajan’s military successes through this DACIA propaganda on his coins, which is difficult to explain otherwise, Decius surrounded himself with an aura of victory in a period characterized by continuous military strife, in particular in the lower Danube region. Additionally, the fact that the legions stationed in Moesia and Pannonia, regions which were also important for Trajan, hailed Decius emperor might have played a role in his decision to directly connect himself with Trajan.^[42]

Fig. 1:

Silver Antoninianus of Trajan Decius, Rome, 249–51 C.E. RIC IV, Trajan Decius 37B. ©American Numismatic Society.

In Decius’ coinage we thus find clear examples of how Trajan’s military reputation could resonate in ideological expressions of his successors. Nevertheless, this was a rather isolated case. Literary sources do not note a particular Trajanic exemplarity for the third-century emperors and in material sources there is otherwise a near absence of explicit references to Trajan. Even Decius’ own consecration coins attest to the fact that Trajan was among a number of emperors who were worthy of memory.^[43] In the following section we largely focus on implicit references to Trajan in material sources. Since inscriptions, coins, portraits, and monuments relied on the ancient viewers’ knowledge of the attributes, titles, and symbols that were associated with Trajan, we also open up the question to what extent implicit references to Trajan would have been intended and recognized as such.

Perhaps the most obvious implicit reference to Trajan would be by referring to him as optimus. The epithet optimus princeps was granted to Trajan by the Roman senate in 100 C.E. Although Trajan remained the only emperor officially honoured by that title, a survey of epigraphic and numismatic sources shows that the epithet did not turn into a reference to exemplary emperorship before the fourth century. On the contrary, the use of the epithet optimus princeps was anything but innovative even in the second century. Referring to a prominent and powerful person as optimus princeps was based on a much older tradition going back to the late Roman Republic.^[44] Even in Trajan’s own time, Pliny was well aware of the fact that the epithet was used earlier on and he himself addressed Trajan as optimus princeps and optimus imperator even before the epithet was officially granted to the emperor by the senate.^[45]

When scanning epigraphic material for the use of the epithet optimus princeps, Trajan’s reign appears as a watershed. The epithet was already used to address various emperors during the early Principate, although compared to Trajan only in relatively small numbers.^[46] After Trajan, it appears very frequently in inscriptions, for some emperors in even higher numbers than for Trajan, but was extended by other epithets soon after Trajan’s reign (Fig. 2). The underlying reference to Trajan may still have been perceived by later generations, but became increasingly blurred over time.^[47] On coins, later emperors would abstain from using the epithet optimus princeps in a similarly emphatic way. Nevertheless, a few emperors had a couple of coin types issued that used this title along with a reverse image that had also appeared for Trajan before, yet which otherwise featured no references to Trajan.^[48]

Fig. 2:

Overview of Roman emperors referred to as optimus princeps in inscriptions. The diagram is drawn up on the basis of the data gathered in the Appendix (total no. of 206 inscriptions).

In the second half of the third century the epithet temporarily disappeared from coins and inscriptions, but the title optimus saw a revival under Constantine. Not only was Constantine addressed as rerum humanarum optimus princeps in inscriptions, his coinage also clearly borrowed Trajanic messages.^[49] His coins showed three military standards surrounded by the legend SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI. This reverse type had not appeared for about two centuries and was part of other Constantinian attempts to emulate Trajan.^[50] They undoubtedly meant to reminisce of the original optimus princeps as the legend SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI had appeared in a sloganesque way on the reverse of Trajan’s coins between 103/104 and 114 C.E. (Figs. 3 and 4).^[51]

Fig. 3:

Gold Aureus of Trajan, Rome, 112–4 C.E. RIC II, Trajan 296. ©American Numismatic Society

Fig. 4:

Gold Solidus of Constantine I, Trier, 310–3 C.E. RIC VI Treveri 815. ©American Numismatic Society

As the Trajanic models had long disappeared from circulation, the SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI coins of Constantine should be seen in the context of the political climate of the day, perhaps as reaction to the tendency of Constantine’s rival Maxentius to call himself princeps – in unprecedented fashion – in his official media.^[52] In this respect it is notable that references to Trajan date to the period around the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and are restricted to western mints. As soon as Constantine moved away from the West to settle in the eastern part of the empire, these references to Trajan disappeared.

A similar emphasis on implicit references to Trajan, which only became more pronounced in late antiquity, can be observed in imperial portraiture and monumental art. Trajan’s portraiture situated the emperor in line with the early Julio-Claudians. Trajan is presented in his portraits as a mature man in his early thirties, with comma-shaped locks of hair on his forehead. Interestingly, imperial portraiture changes rather significantly after Trajan’s reign. The coiffure of his successor Hadrian is characterized by short, wavy, curling locks of hair. Moreover, Hadrian’s numismatic and sculpted portraits present the emperor with a short, curly beard, consistently throughout his reign, in contrast to Trajan’s beardless appearance. Although both Trajan and Hadrian exerted substantial influence in the realm of private portraiture, it was Hadrian who made a lasting impact on the visual appearance of Roman emperors thereafter.^[53] All of Hadrian’s successors until Caracalla chose to follow the general characteristics of the portraits of Hadrian.^[54] Trajan’s portraiture, in contrast, marks the end of the characteristic portrait style of the early Principate.

It is only at the time of Maxentius at the beginning of the fourth century that Trajanic influences resurface again in imperial portraiture. On Maxentius’ preserved portraits, comma-shaped locks are visible which are reminiscent of those of Trajan (Figs. 5 and 6).^[55] Maxentius’ classicizing image was meant to deviate from the abstract, cubistic style of the Tetrarchs. Like Maxentius, Constantine is presented with the comma-shaped locks on his forehead. Moreover, Constantine’s portrait was clean-shaven, which was the first time an adult emperor presented himself without a beard since Trajan (Fig. 7).

Fig. 5:

Portrait head of Trajan. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo, Sala III 15, inv. 438. © G. Fittschen-Badura, https://arachne.dainst.org/entity/138103

Fig. 6:

Portrait head of Maxentius. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. Nm Sk 106. ©Nationalmuseum Stockholm

Fig. 7:

Portrait head of Constantine. Grottaferrata, Abbazia Greca di San Nilo, inv. 1149. ©D-DAI-ROM-38.578

However, it is important to emphasize that the classicizing style of Maxentius and Constantine’s portraiture was not explicitly Trajanic. It shared features with Julio-Claudian/Augustan, and – in the case of Constantine – Maxentian portraiture as well.^[56] The first time Constantine appeared as his younger, beardless self, was, after all, in the build-up to the final confrontation with Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 C.E.). The portrait style of Maxentius and Constantine was part of a complex program of political rhetoric that only implicitly referred back to Trajan as part of a series of Rome-centred emperors. In the period thereafter, Constantine’s classicizing image set the norm for the portraiture of most of his successors. As recently argued by Guidetti, it is especially in the portraiture of the Theodosian Age that the classicizing style of Constantine resurfaces.^[57] However, the lack of individual imperial portrait types and the absence of more explicit references to Trajan, for example via coiffure patterns, make it difficult to accept that these portraits were meant to evoke an association with Trajan in particular. Like in the example of Constantine above, it probably positioned Theodosius in a certain tradition of emperorship, which in Theodosius’ case was more likely to evoke a connection with Constantine. In short, if Trajan’s portrait served as an example for later emperors it was only during a brief period in the time of Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century.

The Constantinian age is also marked by a resurfacing of implicit references to Trajanic modes of representation in monuments and architecture. In fourth-century Rome, the outcomes of the heavy monumentalisation undertaken during Trajan’s rule still dominated the city.^[58] The resilience of Trajan’s memories in the cityscape of Rome even influenced the production of new fourth-century monumental landmarks in Rome and Constantinople.

The Arch of Constantine in Rome, for instance, included recycled reliefs and sculptures taken from monuments of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 8).^[59]

Fig. 8:

Arch of Constantine: reused elements in different colors. Image by Marsyas. Shared under CC BY-SA 2.5 license, reworked by Mike Glüsing.

The interpretation of these spolia as ideological allusions can be nuanced by several considerations.^[60] First of all, the presence of multiple hints to earlier rulers in the visual language of the Arch makes Trajan less of a specific point of reference.^[61] The Arch, instead, seems to be positioned within a longer tradition of imperial monumentality, aimed at presenting the Roman emperor in his different canonical roles.^[62] Secondly, the reuse of earlier sculptural decorations was not necessarily intended as a conscious attempt to refer to the ‘good emperors’ of the past.^[63] Beside the desire to present iconographical continuity, external factors such as the need to rapidly build an arch and the fourth-century artistic taste for eclectism could have motivated the choice to integrate spolia in the sculptural décor of the Arch.^[64] The aforementioned large availability of Trajanic monuments, rather than the status of Trajan, may have been a factor behind which material was to be recycled. Furthermore, the heterogeneity and pristine conditions of the recycled sculptural elements seem to indicate their provenance from storage, which will have loosened the association of these materials with Trajanic monumentality.^[65] Also, different audiences of the monument will have looked at the monument with very different cultural backgrounds, creating very diverse experiences and perceptions.^[66] It is unlikely that they (all) recognised Trajanic imagery. Trajanic, Hadrianic and Aurelian pieces were decontextualized from their original settings and placed at approximately eleven meters of height, re-carved and therefore not displaying previous emperor’s likenesses. These will not have been immediate clear references for most passers-by.^[67] The question whether implicit references to earlier rulers and to Trajan in particular were recognized as such by contemporary viewers of the Arch remains open.

In the age of Constantine, attention to Trajan’s monumentality was not confined to Rome. Most notably, in Constantinople, Constantine’s circular forum included some visual allusions to Trajanic monuments, such as a colossal Column.^[68] Before assuming that Constantine’s porphyry Column specifically referred to that of Trajan in Rome, the creation of such a monument needs to be understood within broader trends in fourth-century Constantinopolitan monumentality. Under the Tetrarchy, the tradition of dedicating columns in honour of emperors knew a significant revival with the creation of monuments such as the colossal column in honour of Diocletian in Alexandria, the so-called “Fünfsäulendenkmal” on the forum Romanum in Rome, and the Column of Constantine in Constantinople itself.^[69] The creation of the Column of Constantine, moreover, was part of a larger urbanistic program. Aiming at legitimizing the new status of Constantinople as capital of the empire, this restyling of the city entailed the replication of iconic imperial monuments of Rome, among which were the colossal columns honouring Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.^[70] Once again, the Trajanic example seems to have been part of a larger set of models.^[71]

The analysis of the possible presence of implicit references to Trajan in the material record is troubled by important methodological limitations. The motivations behind the re-use of Trajanic iconographies and/or architectonical solutions, together with the ancient viewers’ perception and level of understanding of these references, remain elements difficult to disentangle. Differently from previous periods, however, during the Theodosian age, the citations of Trajanic monumentality seem to thicken. Considered in tandem with the explicit appreciation of Trajan attested in the contemporary literary evidence, the higher frequency of implicit references to this emperor in late-fourth and early fifth-century monumentality seems to point to a significant increase of Trajan’s model popularity.

Under Theodosius, the monumentalisation of Constantinople recovered momentum, following on trends previously set by Constantine. Redesigned and dedicated to the new emperor, the forum Tauri was dominated by a colossal Column recalling the similar monument at the centre of Constantine’s forum.^[72] Even more than the Column of Constantine, the monument of Theodosius closely resembled the columnae historiatae and cochlides of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius in Rome.^[73] Beside the Column, Theodosius’ plaza featured other elements also present in Trajan’s forum in Rome, like a large basilica, imperial equestrian statues and a massive arch characterized by iconographic references to Hercules, patron deity of Trajan and Hadrian (Fig. 9 and 10).^[74] The forum was framed by arches surmounted by statues of the emperor’s sons Honorius and Arcadius, which were placed at its western and eastern sides.^[75] Focusing on the commemoration of the Theodosian dynasty, the monumental display at Theodosius’ forum incorporated implicit visual references to monuments marking the cityscape of imperial Rome, and to Trajanic monuments in particular.^[76]

Fig. 9:

Reconstruction of the plan of Trajan’s forum in Rome. From: Bauer 1996, 80, fig. 34, reworked by Mike Glüsing.

Fig. 10:

Reconstruction of the plan of Theodosius’ forum in Constantinople. From: Bauer 1996, 194, fig. 63, reworked by Mike Glüsing.

Implicit references to Trajanic monumentality recurred at other sites of Theodosian Constantinople. Similarly to the forum Tauri, Arcadius’ forum featured a colossal Column. As for the case of Constantine’s and Theodosius’ monuments, the Column of Arcadius took inspiration from those of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius.^[77] Even more, like the Column of Trajan, Arcadius’ Column also functioned as imperial burial site.^[78] Moreover, several Byzantine literary accounts make reference to the display at the Milion of a now lost statue group featuring bronze likenesses of several members of the Theodosian imperial family as well as of Trajan and Hadrian.^[79] It is important to notice, however, that the mention of the statues of Trajan and Hadrian in these later sources could have been the result of a misunderstanding of likenesses of the Theodosian lineage with those of earlier emperors.^[80] Nevertheless, this indication attests to at least a later idea of some connection between the Theodosian family and Trajan and Hadrian as central to the Theodosian propaganda. Outside Constantinople, at Ephesus, a statue group was set up at the Curetes street during the Theodosian age. This was a site of major local importance for the commemoration of the most relevant institutions and personalities. The group included twelve reused bronze statues of Nike, a bronze likeness of the empress Aelia Flacilla, a statue of the emperor’s father Flavius Theodosius, and probably an equestrian monument of Theodosius I. This statue group was placed in front of the so-called ‘temple of Hadrian’, thereby turning a site previously dedicated to the honouring of Trajan and Hadrian into a ‘lieu de mémoire’ of the Theodosian dynasty.^[81] Meanwhile, in Rome, statues of Theodosius I and his son Honorius were built at the forum of Trajan and this site was reactivated as a space for imperial commemoration.^[82]

Conclusion

By the time of Claudian, it was safe to state that Trajan’s fame would never die. The emperors Honorius and Arcadius seem to have appreciated the reference to their famous predecessor. In return, they commanded that a statue for Claudian was erected in Trajan’s forum, on the pedestal of which the poet is compared to Virgil and Homer.^[83] These were individuals that had been exemplary for centuries. The same cannot be said for Trajan. Although Pliny’s Panegyric already aimed to raise Trajan to the level of a model emperor, this was initially without result. There is a conspicuous absence of posthumous positive references to Trajan in second- and third-century literature. This somewhat shifts in the first half of the fourth century, but explicit comments on Trajan as an exemplary ruler only surface properly in the second half of that century. Other evidence does not alter that trajectory, and often confirms it. Only Trajan Decius uses Trajan as an explicit reference.

Still, modern scholarship has often assumed immediate popularity of Trajan as a (if not ‘the’) model ruler. One reason for this is his immense late-antique popularity, which is assumed to have been a continuous phenomenon from his death onwards, as Pliny had intended. More importantly, implicit references that seem to refer to Trajan are assumed to have systematically done so. The best point in case is the use of optimus princeps, which is often considered as a Trajanic title. Yet numismatic and especially epigraphic evidence makes clear that the title was in use well before Trajan, gained prominence under Trajan, and remained in use after his death, only to fall out of use in the second half of the third century. A direct link to Trajan often cannot be established. There are, moreover, pronounced regional and medial differences, making it almost impossible to relate emperor and title directly. Even the use of optimus in fourth-century panegyric need not always refer to Trajan.^[84]

Under Constantine and his opponent Maxentius matters seem to have shifted. From 306 C.E. onwards, a series of implicit references to Trajan re-appear after a long period of absence. A return to Trajanic portraiture, and to iconographic choices on coins and historical reliefs that were specific to Trajan’s reign, coincide with an increased use of optimus princeps, in the very specific setting of Constantine as the sole ruler of the West. This seems to have been the tipping point for Trajan’s posthumous popularity. During the Constantinian dynasty, Trajan became part of a fixed set of ideal emperors, alongside Augustus, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Constantine’s portraits and monuments in Rome and Constantinople are exemplary in this regard. They contained implicit references to Trajan, but did so as part of much larger field of references that included other exemplary rulers. From the late-fourth century onwards, Trajan’s exemplary status seems to have solidified, as indicated prominently by Theodosius’ Forum in Constantinople which refers to Trajan at several levels, though only implicitly and through the mediation of Constantine’s echoing of second-century monumentality.

Noticeably, Trajan’s civil qualities are emphasized as often as his military accomplishments. Over time, a remarkable shift can be observed and his military accomplishment became dominant, perhaps unsurprisingly in a time at which the Roman Empire had to fight Trajan’s wars over again, with less success than in the second century. The need to absolve Trajan for persecuting Christians is another indication of his risen status as model emperor. By this stage, implicit and explicit references to Trajan as exemplary emperor cohere closely. This makes it likely that contemporary audiences will have understood implicit references to Trajan. Trajan had risen beyond most of his fellow-emperors, much like Pliny had intended. It had, however, taken two and a half centuries – probably more than Pliny had expected.

Appendix