Succeeded by Elagabalus

The ancient documents seem to argue over whether, when or by whom, both Macrinus and Diadumenian acquired certain titles, including Antoninus, Pius and Felix. An inscription at Ostia shows us at least that Diadumenian used the title Antoninus and that his father used Pius and Felix (photos 2, 3). In this inscription, Diadumenian appears only as Caesar, not Augustus, showing that the title of Augustus was not bestowed on him (by senate, soldiers, or Macrinus) at the same time as Caesar, proving (a rare thing for Roman history studes) Eutropius wrong and Victor right on at least this count.

It reads and expands as follows:

The inscription, found at the firehouse at Ostia (Inv. 19787), is interesting in its own right. The appearance of the words Marcus, Antonino, and Severus, along with the the obliteration of a short word before Severi has led many scholars to conclude that this is evidence of the damnatio of Geta by Caracalla. However, close inspection reveals that it it is instead Diadumenian and Macrinus who got the chisel here.

This inscription must date to late May of the year 218, when, after Julia Maesa had succeeded in spreading the rumor that Elagababus was in fact Carracalla's son, and thus could claim to be emperor, when Macrinus and Diadumenian were executed, and the obliteration of their names was likely ordered by the Severan women.

The primary sources disagree on whether Macrinus and Diadumenian were executed together or in different places at slightly different times. More significant to identification of any existing portraits of Diadumenian, they disagree on his age. Analysis of the text favors Dio, who says Diadumenian was eight years old in April, 217. Thus an imperial portrait could show a boy no older than nine.

An unusually wise museum curator once noted that the identification of subjects of Roman portraits, an old and and harmless sport, is incurably unscientific and downright silly. Even more so for portraits of children, who have not yet developed facial features that can be emphasized or exaggerated by sculptors aiming to create memorable imagery. Two portrait busts in the Vatican have variously been accepted and rejected as portraying Diadumenian. One has been mutilated to the point that facial features can barely be discerned (Vatican inv. 10075). The other, shown below (photos 1, 2 - inv. 648/Sala dei Busti 345), seems to show a slightly younger boy with longer hair. Most scholars see this as an imperial portrait based on dress; he wears a military cuirass, paludamentum, and sash of an officer. This bust was identified by B.M. Felleti-Maj as Saloninus, by Helga von Heintze as Gordian III, and by others Diadumenian. The boy shown here is far too young to be Saloninus, who was old enough to perform political duties for Gallienus in Gaul. Von Heintze, who is particularly reckless in her identifications, seems to ignore the fact that in addition to radically different face shapes, none of the characteristic Gordian markers, e.g., beaked upper lip, bulbous forehead, hair style, and extremely steep nasofrontal angle (although the restorer may have not had sufficient basis to accurately assess the original nose shape), are present in this portrait. Readers can assess similarities between this sculpture and coins showing Diadumenian for themselves (photos 5-7).

Both Klaus Fittschen and Frederik Poulsen argue for this portrait's being Diadumenian by process of elimination. Who else could it be, in the early third century period that its artistic styling indicates? Susan Wood proposes a simple solution - no one of importance. She notes that in funerary contexts, young boys of non-imperial status are occasionally seen wearing military uniforms, perhaps indicating hopes the parents once had for the child. True, but there is little here to indicate funerary context, though one can't rule it out. Given the poor match between numismatic images and other emperors where portrait identifications are secure, along with poor matches between coin images of the same emperor, I'll offer that the likeness between the coins shown here and the sculpture is good enough to support a tentative identification with the young emperor, considering the other features of the sculpture.

            Large images