82 MICHAEL DEWAR
after all, is no model of perfect kingship in the Roman rhetorical and
literary tradition. In this context one might consider, for example,
Lucan’s hostile presentation of Caesar’s fascination with Alexander,
and how he shows Caesar rushing, when he reaches Egypt, to go and
gaze at the body of the Pellaei proles uaesana Philippi (“the crazed
offspring of Philip of Pella”), the felix praedo (‘”the lucky brigand”)
(Luc. 10.20–1).^22
At any rate, it seems clear enough that, between them, Julius and
Augustus had done almost as much as anyone could to make the Fo-
rum Romanum into Julian space. Domitian’s statue, however, by posi-
tion and size wrenched away the eye from their achievements. Its im-
portance and its unusualness alike are brought home to us not least by
the decision of Darwall-Smith to allocate space to it in a lengthy and
richly detailed book otherwise concerned wholly with Flavian archi-
tecture. As he explains: “This is the only non-architectural monument
which I discuss, but its prominent position in the centre of the Forum
makes it as much an architectural feature as, say, a triumphal arch.”
(Darwall-Smith 1996, 227) Indeed, we can go further and argue that it
can be seen to have functioned as the unifying element in an elaborate
series of architectural monuments laying emphasis on the dynasty’s
commitment to the maintenance of peace in Rome and her dominions
by the just reduction of superbi, a process of quasi-divine activity that
had, by the time the horse was erected, already shown two Flavian
emperors how to follow the path to the stars laid out by Caesar and
Augustus. That a third would follow that path in due course—but, it
was to be hoped, not yet, not yet!—was, for Statius, utterly certain:
certus ames terras et quae tibi templa dicamus
ip se colas, nec te caeli iuuet aula, tuosque
laetus huic dono uideas dare tura nepotes.
(Silv. 1.1.105–7)
May you with firm resolution love earth and yourself inhabit the tem-
ples that we dedicate to you. Let not heaven’s palace delight you, and
may you rejoice to see your grandsons offer incense to this gift.22 Denunciation of Alexander as a madman and a brigand who destroyed the lib-
erty of the world to satisfy his crazed ambition was a well-established theme in the
Roman tradition of declamatio: see Morford 1967, 13–9. For similarly sceptical or
hostile references to Alexander in Statius see Silv. 2.7.93–5, 4.6.59–74 and 106, and
to Pellaeus regnator at Silv. 4.6.59–60 compare Mart. 9.43.7 Pellaei ... tyranni.