Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:29:04.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commemorative Arches and City Gates in the Augustan Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

I. A. Richmond
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In three years' time, a hundred years will have passed since Luigi Rossini issued his series of plates illustrating Roman triumphal arches in Italy, delineations of interest not only for their accuracy and beauty, but also because Rossini made them the basis of the first detailed study of the Triumphal Arch as an artistic object in itself, treated apart from the surroundings which it embellished. All subsequent workers, Curtis, Nilsson, Loewy and Noack, took the same point of view: and the object of this study is to supplement their valuable research by reconstructing the surroundings of a group of arches connected with city gates, and seeing what light is shed by the relationship of the two structures upon the development of the decorative arch. It is not always possible to reconstruct the ancient grouping in full, nor can it be recovered so easily now as a century ago. But it will emerge that there is always something to be discovered which helps to determine the place of a given arch in the environment which it decorated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , 1933 , pp. 149 - 174
Copyright
Copyright ©I. A. Richmond 1933. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rossini, Luigi, Gli Archi trionfali onorari e funebri degli antichi romani, Roma, 1836.Google Scholar Hereafter abbreviated as Rossini.

2 Curtis, , ‘Roman Monumental Arches,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. ii, pp. 26–83.Google Scholar Hereafter abbreviated as Curtis.

3 Nilsson, , ‘Les bases votives à double colonne et l'arc de triomphe,’ Bulletin de correspondance bellénique, xlix, p. 143 sqq.Google Scholar Also, ‘The origin of the triumphal Arch,’ Corolla Archaeological, 1932, pp. 132–139.

4 Loewy, , ‘Die Anfänge des Triumphbogens,’ Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, New Series, vol. ii, 1928, pp. 1 sqq.Google Scholar

5 Noack, , ‘Triumph und Triumphbogen,’ Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1925–1926, pp. 147 sqq.Google Scholar

6 Curtis, no. 8, pp. 37–8. Rossini, pls. vii and viii.

7 CIL v, 50=ILS 2229: on the two side bases, (left) L. Sergius. C.f. │ aed. Ilvir, and (right) Cn. Sergius. C.f.│ aed. Ilvir. quinq.; on the central base L. Sergius L.f.│Lepidus. aed.│tr. mil. leg. xxix; between the left-hand and centre, Salvia Postuma Sergi. Curtis's note, that the arch was ‘probably enclosed,’ because unfinished at the back, is not sufficiently detailed. The rearward columns were fluted at the side and unfluted at the front: thus they were close up against a wall, and could only be seen from the side as folk passed the tiny gap between the two monuments.

8 Curtis, no. 19, p. 44. CIL v, 3464=ILS 7730, G. Gavio C.f. Stroboni (M. Ga)vio C.f. (Mac)ro: Gaviae M.f.: L. Vitruvius L.l. Cerdo architectus (bis).

9 See PBSR xii, p. 61 for a note upon these Augustan ateliers.

10 Orange, Curtis no. 17, pp. 42–3; the best work is Carístíe, , Les monuments antiques à OrangeGoogle Scholar. Also Revue archéologique, 1912, i. 338.

11 Noack, op. cit. p. 183.

12 Corolla Archaeologica, 1932, pp. 118–131Google Scholar; unfortunately, he bases the South-Gallic series upon the Maison Carrée, neglecting the evidence by which Espérandieu (Inscr. lat. de Gaule, p. 128, no. 418) dates that work to 27 B.C., the time when the town was being systematically laid out. But this is a side-issue.

13 CIL xii, 1230, 1231.

14 op. cit.

15 Couissin, Les ar mes romaines de l'arc d'Orange.

16 The accompanying plan is based upon a visit to the town by the writer, combined with M. Formigé's valuable work, Le prétendu cirque d'Orange.

17 Formigé, Jules, Les monuments romains de la Provence (Paris, 1924)Google Scholar, a most valuable little sketch. The reference is to p. 19, ‘Le radier des eaux y est encore visible près d'une ferme.’ The farm in question is at the east end of the monument, east of the railway-line, and the fragment is 2.50 m. high, at ninety-five paces west of the farm (fig. 3B).

18 Vitruvius, viii, 6; cf. Minturno, and references below, p. 155, notes 28–31.

19 Mérida, Arch. Journ. lxxxvii, p. 107.

20 Donnadieu, La Pompéi de la Provence, Fréjus (Paris, 1928), p. 179Google Scholar; also fig. 45, p. 90.

21 Forschungen in Salona, i, 132.

22 op. cit., p. 20.

23 e.g Curtis, p. 42.

24 Formigé, op. cit., p. 42.

25 The fabric is in early reticulate facing with stone quoins.

26 The fragments recovered were preserved in his garden, and I owe a photograph of them to the kindness of Dr. Johnson, now excavating the public buildings of Minturno, nearer the Liris.

27 These will be published by Dr. Johnson.

28 Donnadieu, op. cit., p. 177, fig. 83.

29 Vitruvius, viii, 6, cf. Frontinus, De aquis 19 (rivus Herculaneus) ‘finitur supra Portam Capenam’; and that is why the gate was madida Juvenal, Sat. iii, II.

30 For example, ‘Porta Tiburtina’ and ‘Porta Maggiore.’

31 Mérida, , Arch. Journ. lxxxvii, pl. v, b.Google Scholar

32 See Jones, Stuart, PBSR iii, 220.Google Scholar Detailed notes on the same point appear in Ashby's forthcoming work on the aqueducts of Rome.

33 For further details of its history, see Ashby, and Fell, , JRS xi, 188–9.Google Scholar

34 Vitruvius, v, 1, 6.

35 CIL v, 6232=ILS 104.

36 Rossini, text p. 2; also pls. ix–xi.

37 ibid. p. 2, pl. xi.

38 See Schultze, , Bonner Jahrhüch., Heft 118, pl. xiii.Google Scholar

39 Patsch, , ‘Zur Geschichte und Topographie von Narona,’ Schriften der Balkankommistion, Antiquarische Abteilung, vol. v, pp. 11–14, Taf. ii.Google Scholar

40 For Nîmes, see Blanchet, Les enceintes romaines de la Gaule, p. 258. At Saepinum (now Attilia) the wall of c. 2 B.C. measures 1.70 m. thick. CIL ix, 2443 =ILS 147.

41 Rossini, p. 2.

42 PBSR xii, 52–56.

43 Curtis, no I, p. 33: Rossini, pls. xii–xiii, text p. 3.

44 CIL xi, 365 = ILS 84. See above, p. 146, n. 8.

45 Cassius Dio, liii, 22.

46 This is the coin described by Mattingly, Coins of R.E. in B.M., p. 14, no. 77, pl. 3, no. 4.

47 ibid., p. 14.

48 For an illustration of this, see Pellati, , The latest archaeological discoveries in Italy (ENIT, Rome, 1932), p. 15.Google Scholar

49 Tonini, , Guida storico-artistica di Rimini p. 70Google Scholar; ‘I due bastioncelli dovettero essere innalzai qualche secolo dopo a difesa dell' ingresso anzidetto. Si credono del secolo iii: e l'imbasamento loro è sopra le testate del più antico cinto urbano, dalle quali sporge per quanto è l'angolo anteriore.’

50 Pellati, op. cit., p. 19.

51 Boll. Assoc. Internaz. Studi Mediterranei ii, 2, p. 21, Puerta de Cordoba.

52 See Rossini, pl. xiii which shows enough original stonework to demonstrate that the frontal inscription was not repeated on this side.

53 Laborde, , Les monuments de la France classés chronologiquement, vol. i, pls. xxiv–xxvGoogle Scholar; Curtis no. 24, p. 46. C. is wrong in stating that the arch lay at the end of the bridge, as at St.-Chamas: it was on the bridge, as at Alcántara and Martoreil. It is now on the bank.

54 One might compare the later triumphal gate at the end of the avenue approaching Hierapolis in Asia Minor, Jahrbuch d. k. D. Inst., Erganzungsheft iv, p. 8.Google Scholar

55 Assisi, personal observation.

56 N. d. Scavi 1903, p. 188, fig. I.

57 This much damaged frieze is finely illustrated in Lugli, , Forma Italian Reg. I, vol. i, fasc, I, p. 80Google Scholar, fig. 13: but I am indebted to the keen eye of Mr. C. E. Stevens, who accompanied me to the spot, for the observation that the weathered figures represent a harvest-home from the olive-yards. The course of the wall beyond the gate is not quite as marked on the map.

58 Livy, ii, 20.

59 Saeflund, Le mura di Roma repubblicana, p. 26, pl. 22, also figs. 10, II.

60 Ashby, , Röm. Mitteil. 1909, figs. 15, 16, 17.Google Scholar

61 For example, ‘Porta dei Volsci’ at Fondi, ‘Portae Romana’ and ‘Marina’ at Ostia, ‘Puerta de Sevilla’ at Carmona, and ‘Porta Herculanea’ at Pompeii.

62 NH xxxiv, 27.

63 See PBSR xii, p. 57. The ‘Porta Consolare’ (Rossini, pl, xxii) is a plain triple-entrance gate without towers, set in a zig-zag in the wall.

64 Rossini, pl. xxiv.

65 PBSR x, pls. vi–viii. The early date of these walls is sufficiently well-attested by the character of the opus reticulatum in the chambers attached to them, and of the concrete which forms their foundation.

66 Urbini, , Archivio storico dell' Arte, Ser. ii, 1896, p. 373Google Scholar, ‘da questa parte fu demolito nel 1864 un bel tratto di mura, ugualissimo a quello già descritto, dinanzi a Santa Ventura.’

67 Finely expressed by Schultze, , Bonner Jahrbüch., 118, p. 338Google Scholar ‘der künstlerische Character des ganzen Werkes ist entschieden der eines reichen mehrgeschossigen Palastes: dahinter tritt der bauliche Ausdruck des Stadttores, noch dazu des verteidigungsfähigen Festungstores vollständig zurück: der Künstler hat es also aufgegeben, dieses letztere Problem noch einmal selbständig zu lösen und hat aus einem anderen Kunstgebiet die Formensprache seines Werkes entlehnt.’

68 Frothingham, , Roman Cities of North Italy and Dalmatta, p. 255Google Scholar.

69 CIL v 3329=ILS 544.

70 By W. G. Holford, Rome Scholar in Architecture, and the writer, shortly to be published in PBSR, vol. xiii.

71 See Bendinelli, Torino romana, general plan: also Haverfield, Ancient Town-planning, p. 88. The town was 9 squares by 8 squares, of 240 feet apiece.

72 Pagano, Giornale d'Artiglieria e Genio, Parte 2a (1880–81), Tav. 2a, fig. I, from which the accompanying figure (fig. 9) is derived.

73 CIL v, 3400.

74 Sarama, De origine et amplitudine civitatis Veronae plates (unnumbered) between pp. 31 and 32.

75 This is the ultimate source of Frothingham's statements in Roman Cities of N. Italy and Dalmatia about the former existence of other arches in the town. Schultze (Bonner Jahrbüch., 118, p. 339) notes the existence here of ‘die Reste eines älteren mit Triglyphenfries geschmückten Torbaues.’

76 Saraina, loc. cit.

77 Seen by the writer on the apot.

78 Boll. Assoc. Internaz. Stud. Mediten, i, no. I, p. 21.

79 N. d. Scavi, 1915, p. 298.

80 Frothingham, Roman Cities of N. Italy and Dalmatia, p. 293.

81 Pellati, op. cit. p. 19.

82 Tac. Hist. iii, 8.

83 CIL xii, 1036.

84 The ‘Porte du Marché’ and the ‘Longeporte’; the former survives, but the latter was removed by Napoleon III, its entablature now surviving in the Langres Museum (Catalogue du Musée, nos. 354–7). By the kindness of M.J. Royer, Conservateur des Musées de Langres, I was shown a view of this arch (quoted by Blanchet, Les enceintes romaines de la Gaule, p. 23) in Mémoires de la Societé archèologique de Langres, vol. i (1847), pl. 21. This shows an arch of exactly the same character as the ‘Porte du Marché, with the main arches blocked and a late-Roman gateway-arch inserted into the east portal. The entablatures of the two arches are of the same size, and I do not know why Blanchet says that the ‘Longeporte’ was the larger. It is interesting to see how both arches inspired the clerestory of the stately Cathedral of Saint-Mammès, dedicated in 1196.

85 All local descriptions are hard to come by, the stock having been burnt during the War. Hence H. Menu, L'arc de triomphe gallo-romain de Reims, is unobtainable except at the local Carnegie Library. But a new description is about to appear. See also Laborde, , Monuments de la France, vol. i, pl. 110Google Scholar; Curtis, no. 67, pp. 74–5.

86 See Blanchet, Les enceintes romaines de la Gaule, pp. 102–3. The accompanying plan (fig. 10) is derived from a study of the town-plan, facilitated by the fine series of historical plans in the Musée du Vieux-Reims. The ditch of the Gallic oppidum is a well-authenticated ditch which has never yielded Roman material and which was clearly visible until Reims grew after 1870: see E. Cauly, Oppidum de Reims and Demitra, Autour de Reims antique.

87 Caesar, BG v, 54; vi, 4; vii, 63.

88 In 1844, see Menu op cit., p. 18. The present plan is the writer's own survey, rendered possible. by the kind permission of M. Bontran, Agent-Voies of the municipality of Reims.

89 Cf. Robertson, History of Greek and Roman Architecture, pl. vi.

90 Cf. Fagerlind, Corolla Archaeologica, pl. ii, 8; from the Regia, of 36 B.C.

91 Curtis, no. 3, p. 35, fig. 1: this point is noted by Curtis, but is unaccompanied by any detailed study of the architectural motifs.

92 e.g. St. Remy, I and II; Cavaillon; St. Chamas; Orange; Carpentras.

93 This monument, consisting of a double-arcaded podium, as at Aosta, has been recently discovered. Its mouldings and its concrete show it to be of really early date; one awaits an authoritative account with interest.

94 All the standard accounts accept them as such.

95 Schultze, Bonner Jabrbüch., n 8, pl. xiii, xviii, ‘Porta Praetoria’ this gate had an elaborate marble facing, of which fragments are in situ.

96 ‘Porta Gemina,’ a double gate, with attached Corinthian columns supporting an ornamental frame. No detailed account is known to the writer.

97 ‘Porta Torri di Properzio,’ PBSR xii, 59, showing fragments of marble facing. Rossini, pi. xvii.

98 Solin, , Forschungen in Salona, vol. i, p. 132Google Scholar, fig. 244.

99 Rossini, pl. iv, Curtis, no. 2, p. 34.

100 See above, p. 160, note 53.

101 In early Roman building the greatest care was taken to provide direct vertical support for extra weight: a notable example is the Mausoleum of Augustus, where the support for the central statue is carried right down through the monument. This is especially true with the stone ribs in concrete buildings, as at La Turbie.

102 See above, p. 149, note 3.

103 Corolla Archaeologica, 1932, pp. 132–139Google Scholar.