barret 1991 claudius british victory arch in rome.pdf

7/22/2019 BARRET 1991 Claudius British Victory Arch in Rome.pdf

1/23

Claudius' British Victory Arch in Rome

Author(s): A. A. BarrettSource: Britannia, Vol. 22 (1991), pp. 1-19Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/526627.

Accessed: 29/06/2011 13:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toBritannia.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/526627?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/526627?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs


2/23

Claudius B r i t i s h V i c t o r y A r c h i nR o m e

By A.A. BARRETT

heictories that followed Claudius' invasion of Britain in A.D.43 were celebrated by alavish and extensive triumph in Rome in the following year. Moreover, as a morepermanent and visible reminder of the emperor's successes, two victory arches, onein Gesoriacum (Boulogne), his embarkation point, and the other in Rome, were decreed bythe Senate.' No trace of the Boulogne structure has survived; the Roman arch, on the otherhand, is one of the most intriguing monuments of the Julio-Claudian period, presentingscholars with a series of epigraphic and architecturalproblems. The purpose of this paper isprimarilyto attempt to throw some light on the epigraphic issue, but since, as will becomeclear, any discussion of the arch's inscriptions must take place within the context of itsarchitecture and decoration, the latter will be considered first.

COINEVIDENCEOnly fragments of the Roman arch have been found, not sufficient in themselves to permitany serious reconstruction; but its general appearance may be reflected indirectly in anothercontemporary medium, Claudius' coinage. Beginning apparently in 46/47 we find thefamiliar series of aurei and denarii bearing the image and legend of Claudius on theobverse, and on the reverse an arch with a single wide span and two pairs of columns. Thearch is surmounted by a rider with a sword or parazonium in one hand and with the otherhand raised; on either side trophies are arranged with two pairs of shields. The arch'sassociation with the British campaign is shown by the legend that runs across the architrave(in various abbreviated forms) De Britannis (BMC 29; FIG. I). This reverse type is clearlyinspired by an almost identical series dating from the very beginning of Claudius' reign,with a similar arch but with the inscription (sometimes abbreviated) De Germanis (BMC 2).One might be tempted to conclude from these coins that Claudius was granted an archnot only for his achievements in Britain but for the splendid victories over the Chatti andChauci on the German frontier, won by Galba and Gabinius shortly after his accession.2Such, however, is almost certainly not the case. There is neither archaeological nor literaryevidence for a German triumphal arch. Moreover, the Claudian De Germanis series is very

* This paper is a revised version of one first presented to the Society of Antiquaries of London in February 1987,and I am most grateful for the useful observations made on that occasion. In addition, I wish to thank mycolleagues James Russell, Duncan Fishwick, and Trevor Hodge for their helpful suggestions, and Stephen Coppfor the drawing of FIG.5.Suet., Claud. 7; Dio LX.22.I.

2 Suet., Claud. 24; Dio Lx.8.7. The notion of a German arch is defended by M.E. Blake, Roman ConstructioninItalyfrom Tiberius through the Flavians (1959), 25.


3/23

2 A.A. BARRETT

s

FIG.I. Aureus of Claudius (Cohen 16).0

~'Ooj~n~S~000O~~p00kd~

FIG.2. Sestertius of Claudius (Cohen 48).similar to a series of undated aurei and denarii (BMC 95-103) with the victory arch on thereverse, inscribed De Germanis, and on the obverse the legend not of Claudius but of hisfather Drusus, who achieved remarkable feats of arms in Germany, and died there oncampaignin 9 B.C.,bequeathing the cognomen 'Germanicus' to his descendants. A Claudiansestertius, dated possibly to A.D. 41 (BMC 121-3; FIG.2), similarly bears a victory arch(uninscribed) with mounted rider on the reverse and the legend of Drusus.3 After Drusus'death, the Senate had honoured him with, among other things, a marmoreum arcum cumtropaeisvia Appia ('a marble arch with trophies on the Appian Way').4 There can surely belittle doubt that the German arcus cum tropaeis depicted on Claudius' coins is meant torepresent his father's, and that Claudius sought extra glory through the association of hisBritish arch with Drusus' German victories.

LOCATIONThe German arch of Drusus, which has not survived, was thus built to the south of the cityon the Via Appia. It can be no accident that his son built his British arch over the mainartery that led north from the city, the Via Lata, which was the continuation of the ViaFlaminia through the Campus Martius. This road had close associations with Augustus,since a little further north stood the Ara Pacis and the Mausoleum. But far more important,the arrangement meant that on the two main arteries leading from the city, both to thenorth and the south, travellers would constantly be reminded of the great victories of theClaudian house over Rome's enemies. Claudius' arch, as made clear from later accounts,was located at the point where the Via Lata was crossed by the important aqueduct, theAqua Virgo, in what was later known as the Piazza de Sciarra.That the arch was no longerstanding by the ninth century is known from the account of the peripatetic monk ofEinsiedeln, who tells of seeing broken arches, clearly of the Aqua Virgo, only to the east ofthe Via Lata. F. Castagnoli notes also that no trace of Claudius' arch is found intopographical writings before 1562, or in medieval plans of the city.6

3A.D. 41 would represent the fiftieth anniversary of Drusus' death and would be an appropriate date for a coincommemorating him; see C.H.V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy 31 B.C. to A.D. 68 (1950), 126, n.2; M. Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues (1950), 73. On the different arches, see Philip V. Hill, 'The "DeGermanis" Arches on the Coins of Claudius I', The Numismatic Circular lxxxvi (1978), 122-3. On the 'Drusus"coins the rider faces right. On Claudius' de Britannis issues he invariably faces left; the de Britannis pieceillustrated by Cohen (FIG.2) is anomalous in that he faces right.4 Suet., Claud. 1.3 (cf. Dio LV.2.3).5 R. Lanciani, 'L'itinerario di Einsiedeln e l'ordine de Benedetto Canonico', Monumenti Antichi publicato percura della Reale Accademia dei Lincei i (1889), 467.6 F. Castagnoli, 'Due archi trionfali della Via Flaminia presso Piazza Sciarra', Bull. Com. lxx (1942), 58.


4/23

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH 3LIGORIO'SRECONSTRUCTION

The firstrecorded excavation of the site took place in 1562 (although there is some tentativeevidence that pieces had been discovered earlier).' The exact year is provided in amanuscriptof Paolo Manuzio (Manutius), where it is noted that 'nella piazza di Sciarra furitrovato un arco di Claudio imp. I'anno 1562 . .'8 It was no doubt as a result of theseexcavations, the purpose of which is not known, that the Neapolitan architect andantiquarianPirro Ligorio was able to provide an elevation of the arch, and a more detaileddrawing of part of it, showing it as incorporated into the Aqua Virgo (PL. IA).9 In theelevation Ligorio indicates by letters of the alphabet where the inscriptions and sculpturewere located, describing the arrangement as follows: 'Spaces marked ABCD on the arch[thatis: (A) on the attic,flanking the inscription, (B) on the architrave, (C and D) on thepiersbetween the columns] were adorned with sculptured figures; the space marked E [beneaththe column bases] had inscriptions with the genealogy of the relations of Claudius and theiroffspring.' Area 'B' on the architrave is marked as historical. Ligorio reports that the arch,which he described as 'tutto di marmo', initially lay buried in a heap of ruins, but that it wasexcavated and its remains sold to the people, while some parts were saved and placed in thehouse of the Fabii."

Ligorio was born in the early ISoos. The draft of his study of the antiquities of Rome wasin fact completed by 1558, four years before the excavation, but he continued to addadditional information up to 1564." He is an authority who must generally be treated withcaution, especially in the epigraphic sphere, since he would sometimes invent inscriptionsand sometimes add imaginary readings to real inscriptions. T. Ashby observed that his'Neapolitan mind . . . could hardly distinguish between the evidence of his eyes and thefigments of his too fertile brain.'2 But Ashby does concede that his information is oftenaccurate; and where it is known that he had actually seen the object that he is describing, ashe claims in the case of the Claudian arch, he can be of great value. Indeed, some of theinscriptions recorded by him and once considered spurious have subsequently turned up. Itwill become apparent that Ligorio had in fact seen the inscriptions on the British victory

7 Giovanni da Verona (Fra Giocondo), an architect of some distinction, who died in 1515, drew the base of apier identified (in indistinct lettering) 'questo basmete fu trovato piaz dee Ssara' (illustrated at Castagnoli, op. cit.(note 6), 68) and its details seem to be confirmed by the very similar drawing made some years later by A.Albertini; A. Bartoli, I monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni degli Uffizi di Firenze (1914-22), tav. xliii, fig. 71;tav. xliv, fig. 72 (Uffizi I25). R. Lanciani, Storia degli scavi iii (1907), 125 dates Giocondo's drawing to the latefifteenth century, Castagnoli, 6o, n. 8, to the early sixteenth.8 Vat. Lat. 5237.141. Manutius gives the location of the excavation as opposite the house of Marsilio Cafano,Ligorio as between the palace of Alessandro Colonna and the house of the Fabii, Martin Smetius (d. 1578) as infront of the palace of Colonna (all citations are from CIL vi 921)."The detailed drawing is illustrated at Castagnoli, op. cit. (note 6), 69."' T. Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (1935), 178, identifies the 'Fabian' pieces with the two fragmentsof large marble slabs with fine sculptures seen by Ulisse Aldrovandi, Statue de Roma (1567), 230-1: 'vi sono dueframmenti di tavole grandi marmoree antiche con belle iscolture.' But the house seen by Aldrovandi belonged to'M. Bernadino de Fabii.' As Castagnoli, op. cit. (note 6), 2, points out, the house of the Fabii by the Piazza diSciarra was mentioned by Beatricetto (see A. Bartsch, Le Peintre-graveur(1813), vol. 15, 267, n. 97), and itsowners noted as Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Vincenzo Fabii. Also, Aldrovandi's notice belongs to 1558, fouryears before 1562, the year of the excavation.11The first recension is now in Naples (in MS form) and is very incomplete. Shortly before his death (in 1583)Ligorio entered the service of Alfonso d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, to whom he dedicated the second recension. Thecompleted 18 volumes are now preserved in the Royal Archives in Turin, and a copy intended for Queen Christinaof Sweden is in the Vatican, Cod. Taur. xiv (Turin), Ottob. 3373.16 (Rome).12 'The Bodleian MS. of Pirro Ligorio', JRS ix (1919), 170. On the unreliability of Ligorio's epigraphic recordsee F.F. Abbott, 'Some Spurious Inscriptions and their Authors', CP iii (90o8), 27-30.


5/23

4 A.A. BARRETTarch, even though he did transcribe them incorrectly. The mouldings below the architravein his detailed drawing are not dissimilar to those that appear on a later drawing of PierreJacques that is generally attributed to this arch (see below); also, in its basic structure thearch in Ligorio's drawing seems to reflect the general design that appears on Claudius' coinissues (architecturaldesigns on coins must, of course, be treated with considerable caution).Finally, he was surely right in showing the arch as part of the Aqua Virgo. It is difficult tosee how any other arrangement would have been possible in the space available.

LATER HISTORY OF THE FRAGMENTS

The fullest account of the fragmentary remains of the arch discovered during the course ofthe 1562 excavation is provided by the sculptor Flaminio Vacca, who was born in Rome in1538 and died some time under Clement VII (1592-1605). On the Piazza di Sciarra Vaccareports that historical reliefs, including a depiction of Claudius, were bought by GiorgioCesarino and displayed in his garden near S. Pietro in Vincoli. Vacca acquired theremaining fragments (136 cartloads ). The pieces were in fine marble (confirming Ligorio'sdescription), except for the tufa column bases.'" The pieces bought by Giovanni Cesarinowere probably sold when the collection was dispersed in 1585 to meet the debts incurred byGiovanni's profligate son, Giuliano.The later whereabouts of these items are unkown,14 but in a study of the sculptureattributed to this arch,'5 H. Stuart Jones argued that three of the reliefs found in 1562 arerepresented by drawings made by the Reims artist Pierre Jacques, who seems to haveresided in Rome from 1572 to 1577.16 Given the dates when he made the drawings inquestion (1576/77), it is tempting to think that those associated with the Piazza di Sciarraare based on the discoveries made there in 1562. This notion is given some support by thefact that one of them was drawn also by Onofrio Panvinis, which must have happenedbefore 1568, the date of his death.'7 That particular drawing (Reinach 29) is entitled byJacques in piace dy Sciar 1576 and depicts a combat between Romans and barbarians;below is an architrave and a griffin'shead (PL.IB). The scene certainly qualifies for Ligorio'sdescription of 'historical' and the Celtic character of the barbariansappears to confirm theattribution. If the identification is correct, the frieze represents one of the very fewwar-scenes surviving from public monuments in Rome during the Julio-Claudian period.18A second Pierre Jacques drawing (Reinach 30), Sciara, 1577, depicts the bearded head of asignifer, facing left and decorated with a lion's muzzle, and a large acanthus leaf at the left

13 Flaminio Vacca, Memorie di varie antichitat rovate in diversi luoghi della cittaldi Roma (1594), section 28;Vacca's text is provided in F. Nardini, Roma Antica (1771), vol. iv, revised by A. Nibby (1818-20).14 A. Nibby, Monumenti scelti della Villa Borghese (1832), 14, 25, states that some of the Caesarini items passedinto the collection of the Villa Borghese, a claim refuted by Jones, op. cit. (note I5). Two reliefs, depicting (a) abarbarian head and (b) a barbarian and head, have been traced to the Borghese collection and have beenattributed to the Claudian arch, but on rather flimsy grounds (see Castagnoli, op. cit. (note 6), 6o-i).15 'Notes on Roman Historical Sculptures', PBSR iii (19o6), 221.16S. Reinach, L'album de Pierre Jacques (1902), pls. 29, 30, 63. The link between the Pierre Jacques drawingsand the arch was previously suggested by A. Geoffroy, 'L'Album de Pierre Jacques, de Reims', MEFRA x (1890),

150-215. On p. 209 Geoffroy states, of the soldier playing the tuba: 'on souhaiterait de pouvoir constater si lesmarbres 6tudids par Pierre Jacques dependaient en quelque faqon de l'ancien arc de triomphe'.17 Vat. Lat. 3439 f. 65.18See D.E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture (1961), 29, and 'The Temple of Castor in the Forum Romanum',PBSR xxx (1962), 30. Similar battles between Romans and Celts are known from the famous Mantua frieze, andthe arch at Orange.


6/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH 5(PL. IIA). The third (Reinach 63), Sciara, represents the laureated head of a tubicen facingright, with the instrument traced in very faintly (PL. IB). The two figures are drawn on amuch larger scale than the frieze, and clearly represent a different series; they seem to havebelonged to figures that once occupied large panels.At the time of his article (1905), Jones was not aware of any sculpture that might havesurvived to his own day from the sixteenth-century excavations. Since then two pieces havebeen assigned to the archby G.M. Koeppel.'9 One of these is afrieze (PL. IIA), t one time partof the Giustiniani collection in Rome, passing some time after 1903 to Hever Castle.21 Itdepicts a procession. Two tubicines are visible, their heads held back as on the PierreJacquesdrawing. Koeppel also attributes to the arch a relief in the Louvre depicting five helmetedsoldiers (possible praetorians) in formal poses (PL. IIB). n the background is seen the headof a man with a hood made from an animal skin, resembling the head drawn by Jacques. Ifthe panel does belong to the arch and the soldiers depicted are indeed praetorians, it mightindicate that Claudius gave a place of honour in his triumph to this unit, a detachment ofwhich had accompanied him to Britain.21 Also usually dated to this 1562 excavation is thebase found in the piazza di scara drawn by A. Albertini (whose other dated drawings allbelong to this general period).22 The only possible location for the base would be at the footof the columns on the facade of the arch. It differs from the design of the base depicted byLigorio, with torus, cyma reversa and ovolo, as opposed to Ligorio's torus, ovolo, torus,and it is possible that Ligorio embellished his reconstruction where the details were missing.It should finally be noted that while absolute certainty about the character and whereaboutsof the sculpted fragments unearthed in 1562 is impossible, we do have secure knowledge ofthe contents (CIL vi 920 bcd, 921 bc) and, in one case, the whereabouts (921a) of theinscriptions discovered on that occasion (of which more will be said below).No further notices appear before 1641,23 when important excavations took place at thecorner of the Piazza Sciarra and the Via de Caravita, bringing to light the largest knownfragment of the main attic inscription (CIL vi 920a) and also fragmentary inscriptions withdedications to Germanicus and Britannicus (920, 922, 923). The inscriptions were appar-ently not the only discovery. Cassiano dal Pozzo, the famous patron of the arts, states in hisunpublished diary that at the corner house of the Via de Caravita fragments of bas reliefswere found that stood on the pier of the arch, and that further excavations produced morebelonging to the same series.24 This receives some confirmation from the seventeenth-century scholar and antiquarian Giacinto Gigli, who tells of sculptures and fluted columnsof giallo antico (a rich yellow marble identified by some with the ancient marmorNumidicum) discovered 5 m below the ground level.25

1 'Two Reliefs from the Arch of Claudius in Rome', Rom. Mitt. lxxxx (1983), 103-9.2o EA 2034 (1913); D.E. Strong, 'Some Unknown Classical Sculpture', Connoisseur clviii (1965), 216, fig. 9;Statuaryand Sculptureat Hever (1969), no. 122. Hever Castle gardens were laid out by Baron Astor, who is knownto have acquired pieces from the Villa Borghese. Strong notes that their style is close to the Ara Pietatis Augustae.1 CIL xI 395.22 The base is similar to the one drawn earlier by Fra Giocondo (see note 7). It is illustrated at Castagnoli, op.cit. (note 6), 68.23 Further discoveries may have been made in 1587, seemingly located by Girolamo Ferrucci in the Piazza diSciarraon the way to the Portico of Antinous (the Hadreanum). He apparently saw blocks of marble excavated,and also, in the basement of a corner shop, identified traditionally as the site of the arch, saw piers of peperino andcolumns of granite. Ashby, op. cit. (note io), 179 cites for this information Ferrucci's L'Antichititdi Roma (I588),115, the Italian translation of Andrea Fulvio's Antiquitates, published in 1588;I was unable, however, to locate thepassage at the place cited.24 Cassianodal Pozze, cod. Neap. V.E. lo.f.12; see G. Lumbroso,Notizie sulla vitadi Cassianodal Pozzo (1875), 52.25 Giacinto Gigli, Memorie di Giacinto Gigli di alcuni cose giornalmente accadute al suo temp, found in A.Nibby, Roma nell' anno MDCCCXXXVIII (1838), vol 1.44i.


7/23

6 A.A. BARRETTIn 1869 a house at the corner of the Piazza de Sciarra was demolished. Excavationsproduced a fragment of a booted leg and, on a different scale, a small rider. These pieceshave since disappeared. There were also fragments of fluted columns in giallo antico andplain columns of granite.26 Two fragments found among rubbish on the Corso Umberto I

near the Bank of Rome in 1923, and now in the Capitoline Museum, consisting of awarrior's head in high relief and a relief of a temple, were at the time of their discoveryattributed to the Claudian arch, attributions now generally discarded.27

THE SECONDARY INSCRIPTIONS

It is within the context of these discoveries that we can consider the most interesting aspectof the arch, its inscriptions. Enough of them have been preserved, or recorded in copies, togive us a considerable insight into how Claudius wanted his victory to be remembered. Themost familiar feature of the arch is its main attic inscription, discovered in 1641, a significantsection of which has survived (CIL vi 920a; ILS 216): TI CLAU[ / AUGU[ / PONTIFIC[ /COS V IM[ / SENATUS PO[ / REGES BRIT[ / ULLA IACTUR[ / GENTESQUE B[ /PRIMUS IN DICI[. In his restoration of the arch Ligorio also provided the text of an atticinscription. His version reads (see PL.IA):

T. Claudius Drusi f.Augustus GermanicusPontifex Maximustrib. pot. vii. imp. xi. P. P.cos. v Aquae Virginis public(ae) commod(ditati)[two? illegible lines]Ligorio's transcription must clearly be in error, as his dates are inconsistent. Claudius'seventh tribunician award began in January 41, his fifth consulship fell in 51. But there areuseful clues to indicate that he must at least have seen the inscription (thus also confirminghis identification of the arch that he drew as that of Claudius). One of the dates is correct(cos. V, A.D.51). Also the first words of four of the lines Ti. Claudius / Augustus / Pontif/and Cos V match exactly, as will be seen, the text found in the surviving inscription (FIG. ).It would have been a remarkable coincidence if Ligorio's Neapolitan imagination hadinvented these correct readings out of the blue. Indeed, his errors elsewhere in thetranscription are hardly surprising, since he remarks on the difficulty of reading the scriptbecause of the poor condition of the stone: 'ma tutte erano malamente trattati i caratteri etdall'anticarovina et da quelli che l'anno cavate da sotto terra', which is a clear warning to us

not to expect precision. But the reference to the Aqua Virgo and the words that follow arehighly suspect. It is quite clear from his illustration that in the lower register the text hadbecome almost illegible. Ligorio did not realize that the arch had anything to do withClaudius' British victories, and saw it simply as part of the aqueduct; he would have been

26 R. Lanciani, Bull. d.Inst., 1869, 222 lists the discoveries; A. Pellegrini, Bull. d.Inst. 1870, 122 (cf. p. 179) addsdetails.27 G. Mancini, Not. Scav. i (1925), 230; S. Bocconi, Musei Capitolini, Pinacoteca e Tabularium (1925), 292

(Room 7, no. 9). On the attributions, see Koeppel, op. cit. (note 19), n. 41, H.P. Laubscher, 'Arcus Novus undArcus Claudii, Zwei Triumphbogen an der Via Lata in Rom', Nachrichten der Adademie der Wissenschaften inGittingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1976), 96-7.


8/23

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH 7tempted to read a reference to the Aqua Virgo in the obliterated text. His transcription ofthis inscription is thus unreliable, and affected by his imagination, but this presents noserious problems, since the material is known from elsewhere. What is noteworthy is thesimple fact that Ligorio had clearly seen the inscription in 1562, even though its firstdiscovery is not apparently recorded until 1641. This discrepancy, as will be shown below, isof considerable importance.Of the other inscriptions that came to light during the 1562 excavations, the only piecewhose present whereabouts are known is a marble slab (CIL vi 921a, ILS 222), which hasbeen in the Capitoline museum since 1750.28Its provenance is confirmed by Ligorio and byManuzio, who specifically assigns it to the excavation of 1562. The surviving sectionmeasures 0.7 by 2.2 m. Three dedications have survived, almost in their entirety, to (left toright) Claudius' mother Antonia, his wife Agrippina, and his adopted son Nero. The slab isbroken away on the left, where the final letters of a dedication remain. There is a break onthe right also, but without any evidence of further dedications at this position.]O ANTONIAI IULIAE AUG NERON[iAUGUSTAI AGRIPPINAI CLAUDIO AUG F CAISAR[i]F DRUSI GERMANICI DRUSO GERMANIC[o]N SACERDOTI DIVI CAESARIS F PONTIF AUGURI XV S[f]N AUGUSTI TI CLAUDI CAISAR VII VIR EPULON]UG MATRI TI CLAUDI AUGUSTI COS [desCAESARIS AUG P P PATRIS PATRIAE PRINCIPI IUVENTUT[is

The inscription was drawn by Nicolaus Florentius of Haarlem, who was in Rome between1558and 1567. His drawing is preserved by Torrentius (Laeven van der Brecken, Bishop ofAntwerp, 1520-1595) and Pighius (Stephan Wynants Pighe, 1520-1604), to whom Floren-tius sent copies.29 Since the original slab has survived, these drawings (also in Manuzio) arenot important. Fortunately, however, Florentius also made copies, preserved in van derBrecken and Pighe, of two other fragments that clearly belong to the same group ofdedications (921 bc), as well as three fragments of the main attic inscription (920 bcd). Allof these disappeared soon after being drawn. The lettering of one of the fragments (921 b),as was pointed out by Mommsen, would have fitted precisely at the broken left hand of thededication slab that survived:g]ERMANIC[o (Antonia) (Agrippina) (Nero)CAISARIt]I AUGUSTI [fd]IVI AUGUSTI [Id]IVI IULII PRO[na]UGURI FLAM A[ugCOS II IMP II

The dedication in this fragment is to Claudius' brother Germanicus, producing dedi-cations to (at least) four family members in one grouping.30 The other lost fragment relating2" For a description of this inscription see A. Gordon, Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions(1958), no. Io3, 101-2.29Torrentius, Brux f. 1; Pighius, Berol. f. 103.3) On the basis that the dedication to Germanicus on the arch suggests the presence of his statue also, HansJucker, 'Die Prinzen auf dem Augustus Relief in Ravenna', in Mdlanges Paul Collert (Cahiers d'archdologieromane) v (1976), 237 assigns to the Claudian arch a relief head of Germanicus in the Adolphseck, previouslyattributed to the Neronian period.


9/23

8 A.A. BARRETTto the imperial family drawn by Florentius (92Ic) involved a dedication to Octavia,Claudius' daughter:o]CTAVIAIti] CLAUDIICAESARISAUGUSTI PPFILIAI

This last might have belonged on the same slab as the earlier group of four. The fivetogether, however, would produce a disproportionately wide arrangement. It is more likelythat Octavia was included with three others in a separate group.In 1641 the Via del Caravita, leading from the Piazza di Sciarra towards the Pantheon,was opened. During the work the main attic inscription was discovered, along with twodedications (CIL vi 922 and 923). These two dedications are known from drawings kept inthe Barberini library.31 Because of their similarity to the dedications described above, theycan, with confidence, be ascribed to Claudius' arch. The first (922) is to Claudius' sonBritannicus:ti] CLAUDIO C[aesariNERONI[s claudiCAESARI[s fratribri]TANNIC[oThe second (923) is to Germanicus and bears a marked similarity to the copy of Florentius'drawing of 921b:GERMANCICOCAISARITI AUGUSTIAn important point must be made at this stage. Despite the identity of the two Germanicusdedications (923 and 92Ib) they cannot be transcriptionsof the same stone, since they werefound on separate occasions. The significance of this will be pursued below.Castagnoli has suggested that the slabs honouring Claudius' family were located at eitherside of the main attic inscription with its dedication to the emperor. But their verticaldimension is not the same as that of the main inscription. Also we should note Ligorio'sclaim that he marked the letter E at the bases of the columns where the names of Claudius'family were found. If we assume that the grouping of Germanicus (921b), Antonia,Agrippina and Nero (921a) did not include Octavia (92Ic) also, despite the combination ofall three fragments by W. Henzen in CIL, we would have one complete inscription with asingle group of four names. What is more, when the dimensions of the surviving piece(921a) are projected to include the text as drawn in 921b, we have a notional slabapproximately 0.7 by 3 m. Now each base of the piers in Ligorio's reconstruction is 4.21 m(19 palms) wide. If we assume that these dimensions are at least approximately correct, thebases could easily accommodate a slab of this size. One would assume that on the opposite

31Codex barberinus30. 136 f. 53: 'in arcu Claudii qui erat in via lata iuxta palatium ducis Carbognani eruta dumeiusdem palatii fundamenta iacerentur'.


10/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH 9pier there would be another dedication slab to balance this one, with a similar set of fourdedications, to Britannicus (922), Octavia (92Ic) and two others. Claudius' father, Drusus,would almost certainly have been there, and the fourth person honoured might have beenhis grandmother Livia (producing two pairs of males and females on each slab). It may atfirstsight seem curious that on an arch intended to celebrate his victory in Britain Claudiuschose to put such emphasis on his family. But this is totally consistent with the associationthat he chose to establish between himself and his father Drusus in his overall concept of thearch.32

DUPLICATED INSCRIPTIONS

There is sufficient circumstantial evidence relating to the discovery of the inscriptions tolead us to some surprisingconclusions about their arrangementon the arch. Ligorio clearlysaw (even though he transcribed only partly correctly) the main attic inscription in 1562.But the remains from the excavations of that year were removed by collectors, as Vacca hasnoted, and this impressive slab would have been eagerly sought after. It is almostimpossible to believe that it could somehow have been reburied, to re-emerge some eightyyears later (and in much better condition than it had been when Ligorio saw it ). What ismore, Ligorio provided transcriptions of dedications to Agrippina and Britannicus (921fin.): agrippinail germanici.caesaris/ filiai/ ti. claudi. caisaris/ augusti.p.p. uxor/ neroniclaudi/ matri . .. and caesari . .. britannico/ ti. claudi. caesaris/ augusti p.p./ filio. TheAgrippina inscription need not surprise us, since it appeared (in almost identical form) onthe surviving dedication slab that we know was found in 1562. More important, theBritannicus dedication drawn by Ligorio is not on that surviving 1562 slab, and similarly,did not re-emerge until 1641. Two extraordinary coincidences can surely be ruled out, andthe natural inference to be drawn is that two sets of inscriptions are involved, fragments ofwhich were discovered (and drawn) at different times.This thesis is supported not only by Ligorio's testimony. As noted above, the dedicationto Germanicus found in 1562 (92Ib) and drawn by Florentius before its loss is clearly thesame as the smaller one excavated in 1641 (923) and preserved in the Barberini library.Henzen (in CIL) suggested that perhaps (fortasse) 923 appeared elsewhere on the arch. Butthe cumulative evidence of both the Britannicus and Germanicus fragments, and theapparent reappearance of the main attic inscription, suggests that the whole series was infact duplicated. This is not so startling as it may at first sight appear. The victory arch ofClaudius is unusual in that it comprises an element of another structure, the Aqua Virgo.Unlike a freestanding arch, which might be intended to be seen from different directions asan architecturalunity, Claudius' arch consists of two distinct faces, only one of which wouldbe seen by the traveller entering or leaving Rome on any single occasion. It would thus havebeen totally appropriate to have had parallel sets of inscriptionson both the north and southsides.One cannot, of course, be dogmatic, but the arrangement does accommodate theavailable evidence, and there are enough parallels to suggest that it was not uncommon fortriumphal arches (including even free-standing examples) to bear duplicated sets of

32 More or less contemporary with the victory arch is an inscription found in the grove of Diana at Aricia (ILS220), with a similar group of four names, in honour of Claudius and three members of his family, Agrippina minor,Britannicus and Nero.


11/23

IO0 A.A. BARRETT

inscriptions. Examples can be cited from several partsof the Roman world.33The triumphalarch of Tiberius at Leptis Magna, dated to A.D.35/36, had the same dedicatory inscriptionon both its north and south face.34 The monumental three-arched gateway, flanked bytowers, that stood at the north end of the main street of the city of Hierapolis in Phrygia(some 150m outside the city wall proper, in which stood simpler gates) bore identical sets ofinscriptions, already duplicated by a bilingual Latin/ Greek text, on both its north and southwalls. The dedication, made by Frontinus (governor of Britain A.D.73/4-77), can be datedto A.D.84-86 by the references to Domitian's offices.35This scheme was followed also onseveral of Trajan's arches, for instance those at Timgad (CIL viii 17842/3, ILS 6841), atAlcantara on the Tagus (CIL ix 1558, ILS 296).36 The practice continued until at least theend of the second century, as evidenced by the arch of Caracalla at Volubilis, dedicated in216/7.37Because of the scarcity of surviving structures, it is not possible to cite an example from aClaudian triumphal arch. But there is at least one duplicated inscription known from theClaudian period, from perhaps the most convincing of sources, the Aqua Virgo itself. Atthe Via del Nazareno, where the aqueduct crossed an ancient road branching left from theVia Lata, and thus not far from the victory arch, an ornate archway was constructed (orrestored by Claudius), and the work recorded by identical inscriptions that can still be seenon either side of the arch (CIL vi 1252, discussed below).

THE MAIN INSCRIPTION

The extant slab of the main attic inscription of the British victory arch (CIL vi 92oa, ILS216) was discovered in the excavations of 1641 under the foundations being dug for the gateof the palace of the Duke of Bassanello.38 Until the present century it was built into a wallof the garden of the Barberini palace, and is now housed in the Museo Nuovo of the Palazzodei Conservatori. The first recorded attempt to restore the missing section was made withina year or two of the initial discovery by the antiquarian Gauges de Gozze, who echoed thecurious claim of Eutropius that Claudius conquered the Orkneys:39TI. CLAV[dio Drusi f. CaesariAVGV[sto Germanico PioPONTIFIC[i Max. Trib. Pot. IX.COS. V. IM[peratori XVI. Patri PatriaiSENATVS. POPV[lusque Romanus quodREGES. BRIT[anniai perduelles sine

33 Duplicate inscriptions are even found in Britain (although there is not, of course, any evidence of their use onvictory arches), as at Milecastle 38 (Hotbank); see RIB 1637-38.34AE 1948.1.35 G. Monaco, 'Sull' Iscrizione della Porta Onoraria Nord di Herapolis di Frigia', Annuario della ScuolaArchaeologica di Atene et della Missione Italiane in Oriente NS xxv-xxvi (1962-4), 409-10o. W. Eck, Senatoren vonVespasianbis Hadrian (1970), 79 dates the inscription to A.D.86 precisely. A similar monumental tower stood atthe south end of the main N-S street through Hierapolis.3 F.J. Hassel, Der Trajansbogen in Benevent (1966), 1.37 M. Euzennat, J. Marion and J. Gascou, InscriptionsAntiques du Maroc (II. Inscriptions Latines) (1982), 390,391-i- Cassiano dal Pozze, op. cit. (note 24).3' Eutropius 7-13: 'quasdam insulas etiam ultra Britannias in Oceano positas imperio Romano addidit, quaeappellantur Orchades.' Ligorio's transcription was, of course, of the other copy of the same inscription.


12/23

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH I IVLLA. IACTV[ra celeriter caeperitGENTESQ. E[xtremarum OrchadumPRIMUS. INDICIO [facto R. Imperio adiecerit

('The senate and Roman people [dedicated this] to Tiberius Claudius Caesar AugustusPius, son of Drusus, Pontifex Maximus, during his ninth tenure of Tribunicia Potestas,Consul five times, hailed as Imperator sixteen times, Pater Patriae, because he quicklycaptured the enemy kings of Britain without any loss, and as proof was the first to add to theRoman empire the peoples of the most distant Orkneys')."At the end of the same century R. Fabretti refined the first five lines of de Gozze. Inparticular, he assigned Claudius his correct tribunican year (XI), and his new readings forthese lines have generally stood the test of time. For the remainderof the inscription he wasstill indebted to de Gozze, but dropped the colourful allusion to the Orkneys:TI. CLAV[dio Drusi F. CaisariAVGV[sto GermanicoPONTIFIC[i Maximo Trib. Potest. XI.COS. V [ (Impr. XXIIII.) Patri. PatriaiSENATVS POPV[lusque Romanus quodREGES BRIT[anniai perduelles sineVLLA IACTV[ra suorum captivos habueritGENTESQ. E [barbaras ultra OceanumPRIMUS INDICIO [indicto bello Imperio adiecerit

(beginning at line 6: '. .. he took captive the enemy kings of Britain without any loss of hisown men, and in proof was the first, having declared war, to add the barbarian peoplesacross the Ocean to the Empire').41J.C. Orelli accepted Fabretti's reading of the first seven lines in his ILS of 1828, andoffered for the last two lines:GENTESQ. E[xtremas orbis terrarumPRIMVS INDICIO [in ditionem P. Ro. redegerit

('. .. and by way of proof first brought the barbarian peoples across the Ocean under theauthority of the Roman people').42The text now generally familiar derives from the one published by W. Henzen in 1876 inCIL vi on the basis of suggestions of Mommsen. The main deficiency of the supplementsoffered before that date was that they were all made without regard to the three fragments(CIL vi 921 b, c, d) recovered in 1562, and now known only from the copies of the drawingsmade by Florentius. While Mommsen owes much to Orelli (dicionem is simply analternative spelling of ditionem), his incorporation of the lost fragments has a dramaticeffect on line 6:

40 De Gozze's transcription was published by Fioravante Martinelli, Roma ricercata nel suo cito (1644, andseveral later editions) and the text recorded there reprinted in 1771 by Nardini, op. cit. (note 13), vol. 3, 989.41 R. Fabretti, Inscriptionum Antiquarum Explicatio (1702), 446, 728. I do not understand Fabretti's reading of'E' in line 8.42 J.C. Orelli, Inscriptionum Latinarum Selectarum Amplissima Collectio (1828), No. 715.


13/23

12 A.A. BARRETT

TI. CLAV[dio drusi f. cai]SARIAVGV[sto germani]COPONTIFIC[i maximo trib. potest]TAT. XICOS V IM[p xxi (?) patri pa]TRIAISENATVS. PO[pulusque.] RO[manus q]VODREGES. BRIT[anniai XI devictos sineVLLA.IACTVR[a in deditionem acceperitGENTESQVE.B[arbaras trans oceanumPRIMVS.IN DICI[onem populi romani redegerit43

A redrawing to scale was published by G. Gatti in 1942, with the addition of the title ofCensor, suggested by A. DeGrassi (see CIL vi 918, 1231) and the reading of Britannoruminstead of Mommsen's Britanniae.44The new restorations and drawing provide us with anapproximate size for the whole inscription (3 by approximately 6 m), and thus in turn of thecentral section of the attic (FIG.3):

J.. VM.f..II II - %.fIi.J 'II,; ce~ ~'-- ~ ~ ==

0,- Ili

-- AN" a , Eli IL .,N I

7 r : r p z j

O t P T ii ??A~:I~flT .Il~ 1* II

A A

NDI 10too00 450 too *so Sao

Ce.t.- .. ,

ON..7 i ": . ....../r ..1.i .- .,z :....'.;. rrrp, --.f. . ... .:' ,J ,*IM I i. ,-, ...:,='." g.....a t./ J..,I',J~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ZLrq~-,:, ...: .,...+ +..:,.,:+.. . I, , ,:,- 2=:~:,.:4 ,, ,". : . ." . , ' 1' .# ,: :. t ., .? ? ,., == -- ? . :-. ,,,, . ,,, , -t-., 9-

I II

,1O.- --"- +" " 4 ,.+,,,..-.--... . .- -.,- p . -. ,. = I'.; + . ..,

o~ ~ ,_,o _ ,+ _~ ,+ ,settm tu

.....=~.-~"" e.._ - .. ..--:;

FIG. 3. CIL920 (after G. Gatti).'The senate and Roman people [dedicated this] to Tiberius Claudius Caesar AugustusGermanicus, son of Drusus, Pontifex Maximus, during his eleventh tenure of TribuniciaPotestas, Consul five times, hailed as Imperator twenty-two times, Censor, Pater Patriae,because he received into surrender eleven kings of the Britons conquered without loss andhe first brought the barbarian peoples across the Ocean under the authority of the Romanpeople'.This inscription is clearly echoed in Cyzicus in Asia where the local population andresident Roman citizens set up an arch to Claudius as 'conqueror of (eleven kings)' (CIL iii7061, ILS 217):

13 See EE I, 220. The previousdisregard f CIL vi 92I b andc was notsignificant. 2Id is the crucial fragment.11Gatti's drawing is taken from Castagnoli, op. cit. (note 6), 71.


14/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISHVICTORYARCH 13DIVO AUG. CAESARI TI. AU[g. divi Aug. f.]IMP. TI. CLAUDIO DRUSI F. [Caesari Aug. Ger]MANICO PONT. MAX. [tr. pot. xi]P.P. VIND. LIB. DEVI[ctori regum xi]BRITANNIAE AR[cum posuerunt]C.R. QUI CYZICI [consistunt]ET CYZICENI

The city of Cyzicus, which had lost its freedom under Tiberius in A.D.25, would have beenvery anxious to curry favour with Claudius by celebrating his British victory. Only the lefthand side of the text survives, but it shows that it almost certainly belonged to an arch andthe structure might well represent a local attempt to replicate on a smaller scale the archdecreed by the Senate in Rome.45 Unfortunately, none of the dating indicators hassurvived.The first five and last two lines of the Rome inscription are almost certainly formulaic andthe loss of the major portion of the slab, while epigraphically regrettable, is probably oflittle historical consequence at those points. Lines six and seven, however, have rightlyattracted much scholarly attention. There has been considerable speculation about theeleven kings supposedly mentioned in the Rome inscription and attempts are often made toidentify them. It must, however, be recognized that it is a dangerous procedure to base anyhistorical discussion on what is, in the final analysis, a restoration, no matter how inspired itmight be. Henzen (in CIL) does observe with reference to the crucial line that 'coniecturasinon certa tamen probabili explevit Mommsen' ('Mommsen restored [the line] with aconjecture which while not certain was nevertheless probable'), expressing an appropriatereservation that has tended to go unheeded by commentators. It should be noted that thereference to eleven kings restored in the Cyzicus inscription is defended on the analogy ofthe Rome inscription, in other words, a restoration supported by a restoration. Mommsen'sreconstruction, as noted, was dependent on the three fragments found in 1641 andpreserved only in drawings. Two of these are not difficult to read and present no historicalproblems. But the third (CIL 92od, FIG. ) is fragmentary indeed, especially in the bottomregister. This in fact makes it impossible to know the number of kings involved. The figureof XXI is in fact as epigraphically convincing as XI especially if we revert to Mommsen'soriginal Britanniae for Britannorum. Indeed, the original reading of Britanniae is givensome support by Suetonius, who when describing a re-enactment in Rome of the very event

R Ov l r

FIG. 4. CIL VI 920d in the copyof Florentius' drawing.

" G. Perrot, 'Une Inscription de Cyzique', RA xxxi (1876), Ioo reads aram instead of arcum, but withoutdiscussion.


15/23

14 A.A. BARRETTreported by the inscription, the surrender of the British kings, tells how Claudius presidedover the submission of the Britanniae regum (Claud. 21.6). The language might well havebeen suggested by the inscription.46A figure of XXI does seem high on historical grounds,but then so does XVI. In the final analysis we cannot be certain what figure, if any,appeared in the text at this point. This should caution us to remember that a restoration is inthe final analysis an expression of opinion, and that the quest for the elusive eleven kingsmay be directed towards a historical mare's nest.An even more interesting, and problematic, aspect of the inscription is the use of thephrase sine ulla iactura. These words seem to imply that Claudius claimed that he had wonhis victory without sustaining any losses. Indeed, this notion seems to be echoed by theclaim of Suetonius (Claud. 17.2), 'sine ullo proelio aut sanguine intrapaucissimos dies parteinsulae in deditionem recepta' ('the submission of part of the island having been receivedwithin a few days without battle or bloodshed'), where the same emphatic phrase sine ulloreappears, and by Josephus' assertion (BJ 111.4)that Claudius owed the conquest of Britainto Vespasian, and thus secured his triumph without any personal exertion. For a hostilesource to imply that Claudius fought a bogus military campaign and that there was no loss oflife in those phases where he took part is not especially surprising. For Claudius to haveclaimed this himself, on a victory arch, would on the surface seem designed to invite ridiculeand to cheapen his own military successes by downgrading the odds that he faced. Toobviate this difficulty, D. Dudley argued that iacturacould be used of a shipwreck, and thaton grounds of Latinity it could mean that there were no losses on the Channel crossing.47But it does not seem likely that the public would be expected to make a natural associationbetween the sea voyage and the surrender, and in any case iacturatechnically is not a loss ofships but rather the throwing away of goods to prevent sinking, as in Cicero (Off. 111.89):'quaerit Hecaton si in mari iactura facienda sit equine pretiosi potius iacturam faciat anservuli vilis' ('Hecaton asks, if a loss must be sustained at sea, would he rather sustain theloss of a valuable horse or a cheap slave'). Dudley suggests also that the term would appearto be deliberately chosen as a word of wide meaning, to imply that Claudius' conduct of theoperation met with no serious setback or loss. But again, sine ulla iactura means 'withoutany loss', not 'without serious loss'. Moreover, in the context of a triumphal arch it mustsurely refer to military losses. It is indeed twice used by Caesar with reference to a loss ofhonour, but in both cases he makes the meaning clear by the addition of the words honorisor honoris et dignitatis.48In the one instance where Caesar used a grammatically parallelphrase, the negative nullam iacturam, the reference is clearly to loss of men.49The record of the kings, however many there might have been, surrendering without lossmust be meant to extol some sort of diplomatic triumph, possibly intended to show thatClaudius received their submission without the need for further warfare, following an

46 R.G. Collingwood, Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1937), 85, n. 2, suggested that Suetoniusmight have taken his phrase from the arch. A misunderstanding of this reference in Suetonius (or of a commonsource) may explain the confused allusion in Dio LXI.30 (epitome), under A.D.47, to the use by Claudius of Britishcaptives (along with freed men) in gladiatorial shows. Another example of Suetonius' apparent use of inscriptionsis provided by ILS 2I8, on the Porta Maggiore. The record of repair to aqueducts bears a striking resemblance toSuetonius' account of the same event (Claud. 20. I). I am grateful to my student Bruce Robertson for drawing thisto my attention.47D. Dudley, 'The Celebration of Claudius' British Victories', University of Birmingham Historical Journal vii(1959), I2, and (more briefly) The Roman Conquest of Britain A.D.43-77 (1965), 185-6 (with G. Webster).48 Caesar, Bell. Civ., 1.9.3, 32.4. The references to loss of honour in Caesar are noted by G. Webster, TheRoman Invasion of Britain (1980), 170.41 Bell. Gall. VII.77.6. Critognatus, an Arvernian chief at Alesia says: 'si nullam praeterquam vitae nostraeiacturam viderem' ('if I could see no loss except that of my own life . .').


16/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH 15earlier decisive military victory. Its intended positive message may well have beenmisrepresented by Suetonius and Josephus, or their source(s), to make Claudius seemfoolish. Devictos might seem too strong to use of a diplomatic settlement (although possiblynot, since it would provide a nice emphatic paradox to have a complete victory withoutloss). But here again we must pay close attention to the surviving text. Devictos in thisposition is for all intents and purposes a total restoration, based on the apparent presence ofthe upper part of 'D'. The reading is far from certain, since only a small part of the letterremains, in what is in any case not the original inscription but essentially a copy made of acopy (FIG. 4). It could be part of an 'R', for example, and RECEPTOS (or RECEPIT)might be possible here. Recipio does not need to suggest the winning of something 'back' -it can be used of a technical receipt of surrender. The submission of the kings, as we knowfrom the secondary sources, followed an earlier battle, and the inscriptioncould be restoredto show that a large number of kings flocked to Claudius' side after the decisive militaryvictory that he secured in person. Thus the surrender of the kings SINE ULLA IACTURAmight be followed by a phrase like POST VICTORIAM PRAECLARAM ('after hissplendid victory') or POST PROELIUM ACERRIMUM ('after a very bitter battle').Alternatively, the line might have referred specifically to the kings previously defeated. Wedo not know how many these were, but it would clearly be a useful propaganda message if itcould be claimed that a large number surrendered after a small number had been so soundlycrushed. Thus we might expect a phrase like, for example, [n] ANTEA PROELIODEVICTIS ('since he had previously defeated [number lost] in battle'). Or we might havean echo of Virgil's famous dictum (Aen. vi.854): 'parceresubiectis et debellaresuperbos' ('tospare the defeated and smite the arrogant'), with a phrase like: [n] OMNINO VIDEBELLATIS ('since he had completely crushed [number lost] others with force'). Thesupposed configuration of the slab does not, unfortunately, allow a precise letter count, andas should be apparent, these musings are offered, not in the expectation of producing adefinitive text (impossible in the absence of the crucial part of the inscription), but rather todemonstrate how tenuous the epigraphic evidence is, and to suggest that we give somethought to the possibility of restoring the inscription in such a way as to accommodate boththe military and diplomatic achievements. Such a distinction between two classes ofdefeated enemy is, in fact, exactly that made by Dio in his description of Claudius' Britishcampaign (LX.21.4). He states that Claudius defeated the British in battle and capturedCamulodunum, and afterwards won over numerous tribes, 'some by voluntary submission,and some also by force' (tous men homologiai, tous de kai biai). Dio's source, likeSuetonius', may well have been inspired by the inscription itself. Nor should it surprise usthat Claudius might choose to make reference to diplomatic as well as to military successeson the victory arch. The problems of the northern frontier needed to be solved initially bymilitary means, and Claudius needed the prestige of a triumph. But he perceived that theRoman state would grow as it absorbed within itself conquered territory, as evidenced inthe famous speech on the notables of Gallia Comata (ILS 212). There he pointed out thatthe Gauls had opposed Julius Caesar, but had shown themselves loyal ever since. TheBritish victory inscription might have been meant to suggest similar views of statesmanship,although expressed within a military context.

THE DATE OF THE ARCH

Another major problem raised by the main inscription is the date that it provides for thearch, since Claudius' titles indicate that the structure was not dedicated until A.D.51 (orearly 52), some eight years after the actual victory, and this date is supported by Nero's title


17/23

16 A.A. BARRETTof consul designate in the dedication slab, since the designatio must have followed hisadoption by Claudius in 50."o Now we should expect some gap between the originalsenatorial decree and the completion of the building. The Ara Pacis, for instance, wasconstituted in 13 B.C.and not completed until 9 B.C.51But if this victory arch is the one votedby the Senate in 43, eight years for its completion seems an unduly protracted period.52Traditionally, the delay has been explained by Claudius' desire to 'complete' his Britishcampaign by the capture of Caratacus, which took place in A.D. 50.53 But this is notconvincing. The dramatic military achievement of the British campaign was the initialvictory and the surrender of numerous tribes. It was, after all, on the basis of this victorythat Claudius celebrated his magnificent triumph, was given the title of Britannicus, and,indeed, was voted his victory arch. The defeat of Caratacus, while no insignificant event,would nevertheless have seemed anticlimactic after the events of A.D.43. Perhaps moreimportant, it was a defeat in which Claudius played no personal part. There can be noquestion of the emperor's planning quietly to drop the idea of an arch, if he should fail todefeat Caratacus. After all, he had kept the idea of the British arch constantly in the publicmind by depicting it on coins issued right up to the year of its dedication.

The answer to the problem may lie in the arch's overall structure and function. Itslocation, as described by Ligorio and others, was on the line of the Aqua Virgo, and there isgeneral agreement that it was built as an organic part of the aqueduct. Because of theconversion of much of the Aqua Virgo to modern use, less is known about it than about theother major Roman aqueducts.54 First completed by Agrippa in 19 B.C.,its springs weresituated at the eighth mile of the Via Collatina. It ran almost entirely underground until itreached the Horti Lucullani on the Pincian. From this point it ran south, then a little beforethe Via SalariaVetus turned SW and began to run on arches for some 700 metres. It crossedthe Via Lata, where four arches were discovered in 1887under the courtyardof the PalazzoSciarra, and its arches ended after passing along the north facade of the Saepta Julia.Claudiusbecame involved in a major programme to extend the aqueducts of Rome, and weknow that he had been anticipated in this policy by Gaius. Frontinus speaks of Gaiusbeginning two aqueducts in the second year of his reign, the Aqua Claudia and the AnioNovus, to be finished magnificently by Claudius. A contemporary inscription on the AquaClaudia shows that he had completed that structure by A.D.52/53.' What of the AquaVirgo? We have evidence of work there three years after the British Victory. After itsarches begin on the Pincian they cross the Via del Nazareno; at this point there is anarchwayof travertine marble projecting slightly from the aqueduct on each side.56This we

5s Claudius assumed his fifth consulship in A.D. 51, and held the eleventh award of tribuniciapotestas from lateJanuary 51 to the same date in 52. Des in the inscription is a restoration, but on historical grounds someabbreviation of designato is certain (Gordon, loc. cit. (note 28), believes that he can see the s).

51 On the general problem see D. Fishwick, Britannia iii (I972), 175-6, Hassel, op. cit. (note 36), 7-9.52 L. Keppie, in his forthcoming book on inscriptions, makes the interesting suggestion that two arches mighthave been involved, one constructed soon after 43 and this second, separate, structure on the Aqua Virgo (I amgrateful to Dr Keppie for communicating this information).

53 Tac., Ann. x1i.35. The association was first suggested by Henzen (in CIL). Koeppel cites Tac., Hist. III.45:'[Cartimandua] instruxisse triumphum Claudii Caesaris videbatur,' as proof that Claudius celebrated a secondtriumph in A.D.51. It would be risky, however, to press too technical an interpretation on Tacitus at this point.54 See E.B. Van Deman, The Building of the Roman Aqueducts (1934), 167-78; Ashby, op. cit. (note io),167-82.55CIL VI 1256;Frontinus, Aq. 13-14; Suet., Claud. 20, Cal. 21. The comment of Tac., Ann. xI. I3 (dated to A.D.47): 'fontesque aquarum Simbruinis collibus deductos urbi intulit' might indicate that Claudius had in some waycompleted a form of water supply by A.D.47.56 Illustrated in a Piranesi print (Antichita pl. 12); see Van Deman, op. cit. (note 50o),xxvll1.


18/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH 17know was built, or more properly restored, by Claudius in A.D.46, as shown by theduplicated inscription (mentioned earlier): TI.CLAUDIUS DRUSI F. CAESARAUGUSTUS / GERMANICUS PONTIFEX MAXIM. TRIB. POTEST V. IMP. XI P.P.COS. DESIG. IIII. / ARCUS DUCTUS AQUAE VIRGINIS DISTURBATOS PER C.CAESAREM / A FUNDAMENTIS NOVOS FECIT AC RESTITUIT (CIL vi 1252).Ashby argued that this work had to do with the restoration of the damage done by Gaius inbuilding the Saepta.57 But this arch is nowhere near the Saepta; moreover, the expression'disturbatosper C. Caesarem afundamentis novos fecit ac restituit'suggests much more thana minor repair. If Gaius damaged the aqueduct, he did so probably as a preliminary tomajor construction, which was in fact undertaken and completed by Claudius.This leaves us with the curious circumstance that Claudius was apparently carrying outwork on the minor arches of the Aqua Virgo within at least three years of the Britishcampaign at the cost of completing his victory arch. But this may cease to be a problem, ifwe keep in mind the unique form that the arch took. It was not to be freestanding, butrather an integral part of a much larger structure. Claudius may have viewed as hismonument to the British triumph, not only the victory arch proper, but the wholearchitectural structure of the Aqua Virgo, restored in splendid style, with the arch as itsfinal crowning embellishment. Indeed, of the lavishness of the reconstruction of the AquaVirgo we have evidence from a Jesuit priest, Alessandro Donati, who made a detaileddescription of the arches found in the seventeenth century when laying the foundations ofthe church of S. Ignazio. The lower parts were built with travertine, faced with slabs ofmarble, decorated with marble columns and statues.58 It is fair to surmise that the AquaVirgo was not completed until A.D.51, and the completion of the victory arch deliberatelypostponed until then. As the restoration of the aqueduct progressed Claudius kept thenotion of the arch in the public mind by his coin issues. The work came to a climacticconclusion in A.D.51/52 with the dedication of the final stage of the aqueduct, in the form ofthe splendid triumphal arch, at the point where it crosses its most important intersection,the Via Lata.A precise reconstruction of the victory arch is, naturally, impossible, and the drawingoffered here is to some degree impressionistic (FIG.5). From later accounts it seems that itsbase and the core were of peperino or tufa, while the rest was of fine Numidian marble. Thepiers were almost certainly flanked by pairs of columns, indicated by Ligorio and suggestedboth by Claudius' sestertiu'sissue and the effort of the engraver of some of the smaller coinsto cram two pairs of columns into the scant space available. At their bases, the piers probablydisplayed pairs of slabs, with dedications to the imperial family. These, as well as the mainattic inscription, would have appeared on both the north and south faces. The battle friezedrawn by Pierre Jacques, depicting the defeat of the barbariansby the Romans, can withsome confidence be placed on the architrave, and identified as the 'historical' scenementioned by Ligorio. We should be more hesitant about locating the relief mentioned byCassiano del Pozzo, possibly depicting a victory procession, to which the standard-bearersand musicians of the Pierre Jacques drawingspresumably belong (and, if Koeppel is correct,the reliefs in Hever Castle and the Louvre also), and which mighthave contained the likenessof Claudius mentioned by Vacca. This frieze could have belonged in the lower registerbetween the columns. But it could also have been on the inside of the arch. Theintercolumniations might well have contained likenesses of the imperial family, as suggestedby the inscriptions at their bases. This seems strange for a triumphal arch, and one would

"7Suet., Cal. 21; Dio LIX.io; Ashby, op.cit. (note io), 175.8 Alessandro Donati, Roma Vetus ac Recens (1648).


19/23

~ ~ t

al:Z ---r f ?; ? ? ? ?7 7 S 7 ;

FIG. 5. Claudius' Victory Arch.(Drawn by Stephen Copp)


20/23

CLAUDIUS' BRITISHVICTORYARCH 19wonder f the reliefs, like the inscriptions,wouldhave been repeatedon bothsides of thearch.But the possibilityof theirpresencemustat least remainopen, andbecauseof thisthespacein questionon the reconstructeddrawingprovidedhere (FIG. ) has been left blank.The atticcarried he maininscription, lankedby reliefs,andon its top (on the basis of thecoinevidence),we canfairlyconfidentlyplaceanequestrian roup,probablybetweena pairof trophies,a featurethatClaudiusmighthaveborrowed romthearchof hisfatherDrusus.Picardpoints out that the motif of the rider between trophiesis unparalleled n late-republican/early-imperialconography. tsprevalenceon the Claudian oinscanthushardlybe arbitrary.59Wecangainan idea of someof the dimensionsof the arch romthe survivinginscriptionslabs. Unfortunately,there is no certaintyabout its height. This cannot becalculatedwithanyconfidencebythe levelof thesurviving rchesof theaqueductbecauseofthe uncertaintyover the groundlevel of the Piazza di Sciarra n Claudius' ime. In thereconstructionhe heightis basedessentiallyon aestheticconsiderations, ndmaywellhaveto be adjustedshould furtherdiscoveriesbe made.60Theresulting tructure,a victoryarchbuilt into an aqueduct, s byno meansunique,andis totally in keeping with Claudius' view that architecturecould be grandiloquentyetfunctional.61This principleis stated by Suetonius,Claud. 20.1: 'operamagnapotiusquenecessariaquammultaperfecit;' he text is not certain,anddoes not translateeasily, but itmightbe paraphrasedhedid not completemanystructures, utmadeupforthissincethosethat he did completewere both monumentaland useful'.The description uits Claudius'Britishvictoryarchperfectly.Department of Classics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

* G. Charles-Picard, Les trophies romains (1957), 232.6o The problem of the ground level is discussed at Castagnoli, op.cit. (note 6), 72-3. Castagnoli's drawingof thearch, based on the conclusions that he reaches there, is in my opinion virtually impossible on hydrological grounds.1 For parallels to the structure of Claudius' arch, see I.A. Richmond, 'Commemorative Arches and City Gatesin the Augustan Age,' JRS xxxiii (1933), 149-74.


21/23

PLATE I

n . ...

k

A. Ligorio's reconstruction of Claudius' Victory Arch. (p. 3)

1~~PiSN~" 914"~S-:

B. Battle scene by Pierre Jacques. (p. 4)


22/23

PLATE II

~W's134-

...

A. Signifer by Pierre Jacques. (p. 4)

B. Tubicen by Pierre Jacques. (p. 5)


23/23

PLATE III

A. Procession frieze (reproduced by kind permission of Hever Castle, Edenbridge, Kent). (p. 5)rn2%'"

B. Soldier frieze (reproduced by kind permission of the Mus6es du Louvre, Paris). (p. 5)

barret 1991 claudius british victory arch in rome.pdf

Documents