THE ARCH OF HADRIAN AT ATHENS

ALISON ADAMS

The Arch of Hadrian in Athens appears much as it did when observed by early travellers (Fig. 1). Already missing in the mid-eighteenth century were the free-standing columns which decorated the lower and upper stories and the co1um.n bases on the east side. We owe this restoration of the east faqade to Stuart and Revett who made the only detailed measurements and drawings of the arch published to date (Fig. 2).’ My examination of the arch will concentrate on the archaeological evidence for its function and meaning. I would like to consider previous interpretations which have commonly seen the arch as a gate in a city wall or a boundary marker serving, in either case, to divide an older section of Athens from a Hadrianic one. Then evidence will be offered to show that the monument is a Roman honorary arch of a type found in the eastern part of the empire and erected by the Athenians to commemorate Hadrian and his benefactions.

Previous interpretations derive in the first place from the way the inscription has been read. It is carried in two parts on the architrave of the east and west faqades and the usual translation is: on the west - (a) This is Athens the ancient city of Theseus; and on the east - (b) This is the city of Hadrian and not of Theseus.* Translation of 4 npiv n o h ~ as “the ancient city”, the physical separation of the two verses, and the fact that the western line mentions only Theseus while the eastern mentions Hadrian have led to the conclusion that the arch designated and set off from Athens a Hadrianic q ~ a r t e r . ~ Judeich expressed an opinion which is still held by some scholars when he wrote, “The general direction of the city’s enlargement to the south-east and east is made certain by the Arch of Hadrian with its inscription” (Fig. 3).4 This interpretation is supported by the fact that the inscription must recall a stele inscribed and set up at the Isthmus by Theseus to mark the boundary between the Peloponnese and Ionia after he had incorporated Megara into Attic territory. Plutarch’s Theseus records the pair of iambic trimeters placed on the stele.5 Scranton argued that, just as the arch’s inscription was modelled on Theseus’ stele, the arch imitated its function as a horos stone dividing two regions.6

I I wish to thank Dr Judith Binder, Professor John McK. Camp, Professor T. L. Shear, Jr., and Professor R. R. R. Smith for their comments and suggestions. Photographs of the Arch of Hadrian were taken by Timothy DeVinney. J. Stuart and N. Revett, The Antiquities ofAthens 111, ch.3 (London, 1794). No thorough study of Hadrian’s Arch has been undertaken. The monument is discussed by W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen 2nd ed. (Munich, 1931), 163, 381-2; P. Graindor, AthPnes sous Hadrien (Cairo, 1934), 228-9; A. Kokkou, “Hadrianeia erga eis tas Athenas”, ArchDelt. 25 (1970), 167-9; J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary ofAthens (London, 1971), 253; and J. B. Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture (Hardmondsworth, 198 l), 268-9.

* IG 112 5185: (a) ay6’ &to’ xfifivat OqoEoq fi xpiv nohi<. (b) a‘i6’ Eio’ x6piavo6 K a i 06ii @llo&o~ xohtq. The most recent treatment of the inscription is SEG 29 (1979) no. 198. Travlos (n.1) and M. Zahmt, “Die ‘Hadriansstadt’ von Athen”, Chiron 9 (1979), 393, have recently translated fi npiv nohi< as “the ancient city”.

So Zahmt (n.2), 393.

Judeich (n.l), 163; Zahmt (n.2); and D. J. Geagan, “Roman Athens I”, ANRW I1 7.1 (Berlin, 1979), 397.

Plutarch, Theseus 25.3.

R. L. Scranton, “The Fortifications of Athens at the Opening of the Peloponnesian War”, AJA 42 (1938), 535.

10

A. ADAMS 11

Others believe that the arch was a gate in the city wall which, again, served to set off Theseus’ Athens from Hadrian’s. Graindor suggested that the arch replaced a gate in a circuit which marked the boundary of the Thesean city, while Judeich believed that it was set into a pre-Themistoklean wall.7 These interpretations are based on a scholiast’s comment to Aristeides’ Panathenaikos 328 which, if it does refer to the arch, is the only ancient source to do SO.^ The passage places garbled versions of the arch’s inscriptions on a wall which it says Theseus built and Hadrian enlarged.

That a Hadrianic section of Athens existed is assumed on the basis of the arch’s eastern inscription, “This is the city of Hadrian and not of Theseus”, and a statement in the SHA Life of Hadrian which says that “Hadrian called many cities Hadrianopolis including Carthage and a part of at hen^".^ Sporadic archaeological finds dating to the Roman period in the area east of the arch are believed to provide evidence for Athens’ expansion in that direction beginning in the time of Hadrian.

Objections can be raised to the interpretations outlined above. In the translation of the western inscription, .;1 xpiv xoht5 should be rendered as “the former city” not “the ancient city” giving “This is Athens the former city of Theseus”. Read this way the two verses say almost the same thing; two distinct entities - a city of Theseus and a city of Hadrian - cannot be inferred from them. The inscription has been translated correctly by J. H. Oliver and most recently by Professor C. P. Jones in an unpublished paper entitled “Hadrian’s New Athens”.’O Jones argued that the verses refer not to old and new sections of Athens but to the replacement of Theseus by Hadrian as the city’s founder. Through his benefactions Hadrian brought about a renewal of Athens, creating a “New Athens” and was hailed as its new ~ d o q 5 or founder. Jones also demonstrated that the arch does not exactly parallel the Isthmus stele either in the content of its inscription or in its function.

Nor can the arch be shown to have served as a gate in a city wall. Excavations carried out by Travlos in the area of the Olympieion proved that the arch did not stand in the line of an ancient wall (Fig. 4): not in a purely hypothetical Thesean wall, nor in the Themistoklean circuit which the excavations located to the east of the arch, nor in the Roman wall attributed by Judeich to Hadrian but later shown by Thompson to have been erected in the third century, probably at the time of the Herulian attack in AD 267.” Neither a physical limit in the form of a city wall nor a symbolic boundary like a pomerium existed at the point where the arch stands. The arch was incorporated into a Turkish wall built in 1788 and the gate created in the arch called the “Porta tis Basilopoulas” (Fig. 5).12 This almost certainly encouraged the idea that the arch served as a

Villas and baths are thought to have filled this “suburb”.

Graindor (n.l), 228. Judeich (n.l), 163, thought that the arch was associated with the construction of a Hadrianic wall which formed an extension to the existing city wall. Schol. Aristeid. Panath. I11 p.201, 32ff. Dind. SHA Hadrianus 20.4-5:et cum titulos in operibus non amaret, multas civitates Hadrianopolis appelavit, ut ipsam Carthaginem et Athenarum partem. aquarum ductus etiam infinitos hoc nomine nuncupavit. Most scholars use this as evidence that the area east of the arch including the Olympieion is Hadrianopolis. Zahmt (n.2), 393, is the most recent to do so. For a description of “Hadrianopolis” see Graindor (n.l), 226-8; and Geagan (n.4), 397.

lo The west inscription (see n.2a) was translated correctly by Stuart and Revett (n.l), 19, but this, as well as their observation that the arch originally was unconnected with a wall or any other structure, has been largely ignored by modem scholars: J. H. Oliver, “The Athens of Hadrian”, Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (Paris, 1965), 124. Jones’ paper was delivered at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton in 1981. I wish to thank Professor Jones for generously allowing me to read it and for discussing aspects with me.

I’ For the results of Travlos’ excavations see E. Vanderpool, “Archaeology in Greece”, AJA 64 (1960), 267; G. Daux, “Chronique des Fouilles 1959”, BCH 84 (1960), 631-7; and Kokkou (n.l), 167. For the “Hadrianic” wall see Judeich (n.l), 163, and H. A. Thompson, “Pnyx and Thesmophorion”, Hesperia 5 (1936), 198. K. Biris discusses the Turkish wall, known as the Xaseki wall, in Ai Athenai apo tou 19ou eis ton 20on Aiona (Athens, 1966), 10-16. See p.13 for the “Porta tis Basilopoulas”.

12 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

gate in antiquity. The scholiast’s statement that Hadrian placed inscriptions in a wall which Theseus built and the emperor extended makes little sense when we know that Athens had neither a Thesean nor a Hadrianic wa11.I3 In the face of such strong evidence for the absence of ancient walls where the arch stands we are not compelled to construct them on the basis of the scholiast’s remark.

Archaeological evidence is slight for the baths and villas believed to have filled a Hadrianic quarter. None of the remains assigned to it can be dated with certainty to the time of Hadrian. There are houses along the road leading past the Olympieion and to the north but they were constructed in the classical period and continued in use into imperial times. Other remains are fragmentary and cannot be dated more closely than to the Roman period.I4 In some cases material uncovered east of the arch has been tentatively assigned, by Graindor for example, to the Hadrianic period in the belief that “Hadrianopolis” was located in that area.15

It seems impossible at present to reconcile the evidence cited above with the statement made in the Life ofHadriun that a part of Athens was named after the emperor. Jones suggested that ancient confusion about the arch’s inscription may have led the biographer to believe in a Hadrianic quarter as it led the scholiast to his error, and Jones must be correct. The passage in the Life goes on to state that many aqueducts were called by this name - “Hadrianopolis”, and that is certainly confused; there is something wrong with the entire statement.16 Many more cities added the honorary appellation Hudriane to their names than actually changed them to “Hadrianopolis”: Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Smyrna are examples, and it is possible that Athens, too, honoured the emperor in this way.”

Stripped of its former interpretations our monument can be correctly identified as a Roman honorary arch (Fig. 6) . It has a single arched passageway framed by two piers, an attic - those elements placed above the cornice of the first story, and the customary position spanning a road. There are no exact parallels for its design and it is not included in many studies of honorary arches, perhaps because it bears little resemblance to the traditional western form.I8 The Arch of Hadrian is of a type more commonly found in the eastern part of the empire.

l 3 See above n.8. l4 For the classical houses see Daux (n.1 I), 635, and Travlos (n. I), 289. One bath building was found north of the

Olympieion, see Praktika (1888), 15-19, and plan for the initial publication. Daux (n.ll), 637, reports on additional excavations of the complex which were undertaken by Travlos. It is dated no more precisely than to the Roman period. Other material is associated with a Hadrianic quarter on even slighter grounds - for example a hypocaust assigned to a bath under a section of Leophoros Amalias. The location of the ruin is no longer known. See “Chronique des Fouilles”, BCH 49 (1925), 440; and Travlos (n.l), 18 I , J.

I s Graindor (n. l), 228; and “Chronique des Fouilles”, BCH 49 (1 925), 440. l 6 See above n.9.

Cities frequently appended emperors’ names to their own, especially to honour the rulers for benefactions or at the time of an imperial visit. These names appear on coins and inscriptions. For Nicomedia: CIG 1720; IGRR 111 6. For Cyzicus: IGRR IV 154; CIG 3688. For Smyma: B . M . Cat. Ionia 257 no. 184.

l8 General studies of arches include: C. D. Curtis, “Roman Monumental Arches”, Suppl. Papers ASCS Rome I1 (1908), 26-83; H. Kahler, RE S.V. Triumphbogen, 373-493; M. Pallottino, “Arco onorario e triumphale”, Enciclopedia Dell’ Arte Antica (Rome, 1958), 588-98; L. Crema, “Monumenti Onorari”, Enciclopedia Classica Ser. I11 v01.12.1 (Rome, 1959), 100-4. Neither Kahler nor Pallottino mention Hadnan’s arch at Athens. A typical western arch has an attic in the form of a low plinth, serving as a base for the sculpture carried by the monument. Kahler, 485-6, illustrates a series of western arches. It is incorrect to call honorary arches by the term “triumphal” as is sometimes done. Honorary arches did not derive from the Porta Triumphalis and they were not used interchangably with it in the celebration of a triumph. Calledfornix or arcus, the honorary arch was in its origin a glorified statue base. There were a wide range of occasions for which the arches were set up; see Kahler, 470-2. For the names given to the honorary arch and the relation of the arcus to the Porta Triumphalis see Kahler, 464-5; the very interesting study, with detailed dicussion of earlier scholarship, by H. S. Versnel, Triumphus (Leiden, 1970), 132-163, and particularly 134-7; and G. A. Mansuelli, “Fomix e arcus”, Studi sull’ arco onorario roman0 (Rome, 1979). 15-17.

A. ADAMS 13

These eastern arches usually have a second storey different in form from the low, solid attic characteristic of the western arch; and they often lack the sculpture and the formulaic Latin dedicatory inscription common on their western co~nterparts.’~

The most striking feature of Hadrian’s Arch, and the one which contrasts most with the traditional western arch, is its attic (Fig. 7). This spans the area between the now-missing columns of the first storey and has the form of a colonnade with three bays. Originally, free- standing columns projecting over the ones below stood in front of the piers which form the end of the colonnade and carry the entablature of the second storey. The central bay is framed by piers and engaged columns which carry a pediment on a projection of the architrave. The closest parallel to this arrangement is a late Trajanic arch at Ephesus (Fig. 8) which stands over a road branching off from the lower end of the Marble Street.20 In the upper storey there are five bays with a pediment over the central one. There is an intermediate storey below the attic, also columnar, but with the space between the columns blocked. This resembles the central bay of the Athenian arch which was originally filled in with a marble slab (Fig. 9).21 Dr Hilke Thiir is preparing for publication a study of the Trajanic arch and her reconstruction demonstrates more clearly than the preliminary drawing how the Athenian arch resembles it.

The combination of columns and pediments found on these arches link them to eastern gateways and propylaea, whose features were often adopted for use in Roman honorary arches introduced from the west during the late Republic.22 Both arches give the appearance of being screens or isolated building faqades because of their colonnaded attics. In this they resemble other monuments which are essentially faGades: nymphaea, propylaea, and the scaenae frons of theatres.

Hadrian’s arch has other architectural features which show its debt to Asia Minor. The free- standing pedestal base appears in the first century after Christ at Aphrodisias in the western line of the Tiberian portico. Second-century examples include the faqade of the Trajanic Library of Celsus at Ephesus and the Arch of Hadrian at Antalya, built ca. AD 130.23 An architrave of two fasciae rather than the usual three appears sporadically in the Hellenistic period and becomes common by Roman times.” It can be seen in the Baths of Capito and the Trajanic nymphaeum, both at Miletus. On the Athenian arch the architrave is crowned by cavetto, ovolo, and astragal, and an ovolo rather than the usual cyma reversa separates the geison from the sima (Fig. 10). By the second century these features were fairly common in Asia Minor.25 The exact

19For eastern arches see E. Weigand, “Propylon und Bogentor in der Ostlichen Reichkunst, Ausgehend vom Mithridatestor in Ephesos”, Wiener Jahrbuchfiir Kunstgeschichte 5 (1928), 71-1 14.

2o See W. Alzinger, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (Berlin, 1972), 77-8. I wish to thank Dr. Hilke Thiir for taking the time both at the Institute for Advanced Study and at Ephesus to discuss with me the results of her work on the Trajanic arch and to share her expertise on arches in general.

21 The upper part of the marble slab is still preserved in place. It appears that the rest of the piece was broken away deliberately. Drawings of the arch by eighteenth-century travellers, for example Stuart and Revett (n.l), p1.1, do not show the slab intact. The presence of Christian frescoes on the outer, north side of the central bay suggests that a small chapel was placed on the second story of the arch. See A. Orlandos, “Ai Agiographiai tes en Athenais Pyles tou Hadrianou”, Platon 20 (1968), 248-255. There was a similar chapel atop the Olympieion in the Byzantine period. Professor S. Cur% suggested to me that the slab might have had relief sculpture on it; the presence of pagan sculpture on a monument taken over by Christians would explain the chopping away of the slab. The colonnades of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias offer a parallel for relief sculpture on slabs which were set between the columns of the second storey: see now R. R. R. Smith, “Simulacra Gentium: the Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias”, JRS 78 (1988), 50-77.

22 Weigand (n.19), 71.

23 J. B. Ward-Perkins, “Severan Art and Architecture at Lepcis Magna”, JRS 38 (1948), 70-1. 24 D. Strong, “Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in Rome”, PBSR 21 (1953), 136.

25 Strong (n.24), 136.

14 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

scheme of two-fascia architrave with crowning mouldings of cavetto, ovolo, and astragal appears on the Trajaneium at Pergamon and on Hadrian’s Arch at Antalya. At Athens the Library of Hadrian has these details.

There were no prescribed locations where an arch could be erected. In general they were conspicuous in their settings - for example at the entrance to a forum, over roads leading out of a city, or at cross roads.26 Hadrian’s arch at Athens was placed near the north-west corner of the Olympieion temenos on a long-established road leading toward the heart of the city (see Figs. 3 and 4). Jones has noted the close topographical connection between arch and sanctuary and suggested that the arch’s east inscription, which mentions Hadrian, deliberately faced the monument which was the emperor’s greatest contribution to Athens. The proximity of arch and temple must have significance, since in theory the arch could have been placed elsewhere: at the Dipylon gate on the road to Eleusis or in front of Hadrian’s Library, for example. The position of the arch, set at an oblique angle to the temple’s enclosure wall, puzzled Stuart and Revett among others, yet it should not be seen as the result of poor plannir~g.~’ On a plan, the arch’s angle continues to be troubling. However, when it is viewed from along the road or from the Acropolis the significance of its position and design can be discerned (Fig. 11).

Approaching on the road from the west, the arch acts as a fagade placed at the very point along the road where the temenos is encountered (Fig. 12). Moving in the opposite direction from the entrance of the Olympieion toward the centre of the city, the identical east fagade stands with the Acropolis visible behind it (Fig. 13). It is the placement of the tripartite colonnade and pediment above the archway which creates the effect of an ornamental propylon. The resemblance of the arch’s second storey to propylaea and other fagade-type buildings was noted earlier. Propylaea are, in effect, fagades of the sanctuaries, markets and gymnasia to which they give access. An example which our arch resembles rather closely in outline is the Hellenistic propylon to the Temple of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon.28 Free-standing columnar structures serve in the same way. The Trajanic nymphaeum at Miletus presents an elaborate screen to the open public space bounded on other sides by the market and bouleuterion. In Rome, the Septizodium, dedicated in 203, created a monumental fagade in front of the buildings on the Palatine for those who approached it by the Via A ~ p i a . ~ ~ Hadrian’s Arch is, in fact, a double fagade and as such can stand as a decorative propylon to both the Olympieion and Acropolis as described above. Further, the position of the arch, set obliquely to the temenos of the Olympieion, is consistent with the common Greek practice of providing a three-quarter view of a temple from the propylon or other entryway which gives access to it.3o

26The placement of arches and its significance is discussed by Kahler (n.18), 472-4; I. A. Richmond, “Commemorative Arches and City Gates in the Augustan Age”, JRS 23 (1933), 149-74; and D. Corlaita, “La situazione urbanistica degli archi onorari nella prima et8’ imperiale”, Studi sull’arco onorario romano (Rome, 1979), 29-72.

27 Stuart and Revett (n.l), 20. 28For a photograph of the gate, now in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin, see J. Charbonneaux, R. Martin, and F.

Villard, Hellenistic Art (New York, 1973), 58, fig. 55. 29 For a discussion of the placement of the nymphaeum at Miletus see Ward-Perkins (n.l), 299, fig.192, and V. M.

Stocka, Der Markttor von Milet, 128 (Winckelmannsprogram der archaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Berlin, 1981), 37-8, fig. 2, 3. For the Septizodium see S. Platner, A Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome (London, 1929), 473-5, and E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome I1 (New York, 1962), 302-5.

30 Among the many examples are the precinct of Poseidon at Isthmia, the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, and the Heraion at Sarnos. For plans of these sites see G. Gruben, Die Tempe1 der Griechen (Munich, 1966), figs. 91, 115,259 respectively.

A. ADAMS 15

Although no source tells us who erected the arch, it was surely the demos. That Hadrian did not commission it is certain. Until the fourth century honorary arches were dedicated to emperors by the Senate at Rome, by cities in the provinces, and occasionally by guilds and individuals. The arch’s inscription offers additional evidence that the monument was not an imperial gift and it may be contrasted with the dedicatory inscription on the aqueduct begun by Hadrian and completed in 140 by Antoninus P~us .~ ’ There the dedication is in Latin and begins with the imperial title in offical form - the usual way imperial donations are dedicated.

Athens’ resources continued to be limited, even as it enjoyed the benefactions of Hadrian, and signs of this are seen in the arch itself. Poor quality Pentelic marble was used and large green inclusions are visible in the surface of the anta blocks and pedestal bases. This contrasts to the fine Pentelic of the Olympieion and the Karystian and eastern marbles used in the library - both paid for out of the imperial treasury. Yet some care was taken in the planning and execution of the arch -just as its position and design were carefully worked out. The blocks of the piers were laid so that the free-standing columns masked the joints in each course, and the quality of carving on the Corinthian piers and capitals is high. There is a very close correspondence of the arch’s architectural features to those on the west faqade of Hadrian’s Library which suggests that workmen and possibly even an architect for the imperial project were also hired by the Athenians for the arch.

It seems likely that the arch was erected during Hadrian’s reign and it was probably intended that the emperor actually pass through it. Honorary arches were almost always built while an emperor was In its location on the road between the Acropolis and the Olympieion Hadrian would have encountered it as he made his way to the temple he was completing. Thus the two functions of the honorary arch in imperial times, to provide a point of passage and to commemorate the honorand permanently, were served by the arch in Athens.33

In a sense, Athens became an active member of the imperial Greco-Roman world only when Hadrian placed the city at the head of the Panhellenic League.34 The Arch of Hadrian at Athens, Roman in origin, eastern in form and symbolism, Greek in material and setting, is a product of that world.

Princeton University

31 CIL I11 549. For the aqueduct see Stuart and Revett (n.l), ch.IV, and Travlos (n.l), 242-3. 32 The Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum is an exception. An inscription found in Spain in 1982 lists honours to be

paid to Germanicus after his death; among them is the order to erect arches to him at Rome, along the Rhine, and in Syria. See J. Gonzhlez, “Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et Municipia Ciuium Romanorum”, ZPE 55 (1984), 55-100. Most arches, however, were set up to honour the deeds of a living person.

33 See Versnel (n.18), 134-7. 34 Athens’ role at this time is analysed by A. Spawforth and S. Walker in “The World of the Panhellenion. I. Athens

and Eleusis”, JRS 75 (1985), 78-104.

16 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

Fig. 3. Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13.

Illustrations (Plates 2-5)

The Arch of Hadrian from the west. The Arch of Hadrian, restored east fagade. J. Stuart and N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens I11 ch. I11 (London, 1794), pl. IV. Model of Athens in the Roman imperial period. Plan of area north of the Olympieion. E. Vanderpool, “Archaeology in Greece”, M A 64 (1960)’ 267 111. 1. The Arch of Hadrian incorporated into the Turkish wall. K. Biris, Ai Athenai (Athens, 1966), 14. View of the Arch of Hadrian from the north-east. The Arch of Hadrian, view of the attic from the east. The late Trajanic arch at Ephesus, restored elevation. W. Alzinger, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (Berlin, 1972), 77. The Arch of Hadrian, detail of the attic’s central bay showing where the marble slab has been broken away. The Arch of Hadrian, detail of the first storey entablature. The Arch of Hadrian and the Olympieion from the Acropolis. The Arch of Hadrian and the Olympieion from the Acropolis. The Arch of Hadrian from the east.