76 MICHAEL DEWAR
original ideas,^14 while we might add that they too might perhaps have
relied too much on the vague phrasing of Statius. Thomas proceeds to
offer an exellent argument for an alternative position whereby the
equestrian statue would have taken advantage of the well-established
interest of Roman architects in sightlines.^15 While scrupulously ac-
knowledging that his suggestion is speculative and that it has not been
verified by archaeological investigation,^16 he argues cogently for the
possibility that the statue once stood on a site later occupied by the
most prominent of the series of honorary columns erected in the time
of the Tetrarchs, namely the column which is now known as the Col-
umn of Phocas and which perhaps originally bore a statue of Dio-
cletian. This location fits Statius’ description very well, since it was
also, in broad terms, one from which the statue, in addition to being
close to the Lacus Curtius, could ‘embrace’ the whole Forum. More
significantly for the purposes of the present paper, this location also
commands the sightline from the Forum Transitorium in such a way
that anyone walking south from that great monument to Flavian power
and ideology would enter the Forum Romanum through the old Ar-
giletum, and would therefore have the equestrian statue constantly in
full view. Moreover, as Thomas argues, it is clear from Statius’ de-
scription that the statue faced east and that the left hand of the em-
peror, the one that bore the smaller image of the goddess Minerva,
would therefore be the one nearer to such a pedestrian. That being so,
the goddess might surely be interpreted as welcoming him from the
Forum Transitorium, over which she presided from the new temple
raised for her by her favoured son Domitian, into the Forum Ro-
manum where, in company with that same favoured son, she extended
her protection over the ancient heart of the state by means of the Me-
dusa’s head.^17 Seen this way, the equestrian statue thus functioned as
the physical and ideological pivot of the entire Flavian reconfiguring
of the Fora-complex as a whole.
Thomas’ argument is very persuasive in its own right. It is also
naturally attractive to anyone arguing, as we are here, that the position
14 Thomas 2004, 32. Another of my debts must here be gratefully acknowledged,
that to Professor K.M. Coleman, who not only drew Thomas’ article to my attention
but with great kindness provided me with a copy.
15 Thomas 2004, 32–35.
16 Thomas 2004, 43.
17 Thomas 2004, 35–40.