Claudius' British Victory Arch in Rome Author(s): A. A. Barrett Source: Britannia, Vol. 22 (1991), pp.

1-19 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

Claudius'

British Rome*
By A.A.

Victory

Arch

in

BARRETT

lavish and extensive triumph in Rome in the following year. Moreover, as a more permanent and visible reminder of the emperor's successes, two victory arches, one in Gesoriacum (Boulogne), his embarkation point, and the other in Rome, were decreed by the Senate.' No trace of the Boulogne structure has survived; the Roman arch, on the other hand, is one of the most intriguing monuments of the Julio-Claudian period, presenting scholars with a series of epigraphic and architectural problems. The purpose of this paper is primarily to attempt to throw some light on the epigraphic issue, but since, as will become clear, any discussion of the arch's inscriptions must take place within the context of its architecture and decoration, the latter will be considered first.
COIN EVIDENCE

he victories that followed Claudius' invasion of Britain in A.D.43 were celebrated by a

Only fragments of the Roman arch have been found, not sufficient in themselves to permit any serious reconstruction; but its general appearance may be reflected indirectly in another contemporary medium, Claudius' coinage. Beginning apparently in 46/47 we find the familiar series of aurei and denarii bearing the image and legend of Claudius on the obverse, and on the reverse an arch with a single wide span and two pairs of columns. The arch is surmounted by a rider with a sword or parazonium in one hand and with the other hand raised; on either side trophies are arranged with two pairs of shields. The arch's association 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 clearly inspired 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 arch not only for his achievements in Britain but for the splendid victories over the Chatti and Chauci on the German frontier, won by Galba and Gabinius shortly after his accession.2 Such, however, is almost certainly not the case. There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence 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 London in February 1987, and I am most grateful for the useful observations made on that occasion. In of addition, I wish to thank my colleagues James Russell, Duncan Fishwick, and Trevor Hodge for their helpful suggestions, and Stephen Copp for the drawing of FIG.5. Italy from Tiberius through the Flavians (1959), 25.
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 Construction in

A.A. BARRETT

~'Ooj~n~S~000O~~p00 ~kd~
0

FIG.I.

Aureus of Claudius (Cohen 16).

FIG.2.

Sestertius of Claudius (Cohen 48).

similar to a series of undated aurei and denarii (BMC 95-103) with the victory arch on the reverse, inscribed De Germanis, and on the obverse the legend not of Claudius but of his father Drusus, who achieved remarkable feats of arms in Germany, and died there on campaign in 9 B.C.,bequeathing the cognomen 'Germanicus' to his descendants. A Claudian sestertius, 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 cum tropaeis via Appia ('a marble arch with trophies on the Appian Way').4 There can surely be little doubt that the German arcus cum tropaeis depicted on Claudius' coins is meant to represent his father's, and that Claudius sought extra glory through the association of his British arch with Drusus' German victories.
LOCATION

The German arch of Drusus, which has not survived, was thus built to the south of the city on the Via Appia. It can be no accident that his son built his British arch over the main artery that led north from the city, the Via Lata, which was the continuation of the Via Flaminia 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 the north and the south, travellers would constantly be reminded of the great victories of the Claudian 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, the Aqua Virgo, in what was later known as the Piazza de Sciarra. That the arch was no longer standing by the ninth century is known from the account of the peripatetic monk of Einsiedeln, who tells of seeing broken arches, clearly of the Aqua Virgo, only to the east of the Via Lata. F. Castagnoli notes also that no trace of Claudius' arch is found in topographical 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 coin commemorating 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 "De Germanis" 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 piece illustrated 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 per cura 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.

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH LIGORIO'SRECONSTRUCTION

The first recorded excavation of the site took place in 1562 (although there is some tentative evidence that pieces had been discovered earlier).' The exact year is provided in a manuscript of Paolo Manuzio (Manutius), where it is noted that 'nella piazza di Sciarra fu ritrovato un arco di Claudio imp. I'anno 1562 . .'8 It was no doubt as a result of these excavations, the purpose of which is not known, that the Neapolitan architect and antiquarian Pirro Ligorio was able to provide an elevation of the arch, and a more detailed elevation Ligorio indicates by letters of the alphabet where the inscriptions and sculpture were located, describing the arrangement as follows: 'Spaces marked ABCD on the arch [that is: (A) on the attic, flanking the inscription, (B) on the architrave, (C and D) on the piers between the columns] were adorned with sculptured figures; the space marked E [beneath the column bases] had inscriptions with the genealogy of the relations of Claudius and their offspring.' 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 was excavated and its remains sold to the people, while some parts were saved and placed in the house of the Fabii. " Ligorio was born in the early ISoos. The draft of his study of the antiquities of Rome was in fact completed by 1558, four years before the excavation, but he continued to add additional information up to 1564." He is an authority who must generally be treated with caution, especially in the epigraphic sphere, since he would sometimes invent inscriptions and sometimes add imaginary readings to real inscriptions. T. Ashby observed that his figments of his too fertile brain.'2 But Ashby does concede that his information is often accurate; and where it is known that he had actually seen the object that he is describing, as he claims in the case of the Claudian arch, he can be of great value. Indeed, some of the inscriptions recorded by him and once considered spurious have subsequently turned up. It will 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 a pier 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 late fifteenth century, Castagnoli, 6o, n. 8, to the early sixteenth. Manutius gives the location of the excavation as opposite the house of Marsilio Cafano, 8 Vat. Lat. 5237.141. Ligorio as between the palace of Alessandro Colonna and the house of the Fabii, Martin Smetius (d. 1578) as in front 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 fragments of large marble slabs with fine sculptures seen by Ulisse Aldrovandi, Statue de Roma (1567), 230-1: 'vi sono due frammenti 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 di Sciarra was mentioned by Beatricetto (see A. Bartsch, Le Peintre-graveur (1813), vol. 15, 267, n. 97), and its owners noted as Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Vincenzo Fabii. Also, Aldrovandi's notice belongs to 1558, four years 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. The completed 18 volumes are now preserved in the Royal Archives in Turin, and a copy intended for Queen Christina of 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 record see F.F. Abbott, 'Some Spurious Inscriptions and their Authors', CP iii (90o8), 27-30.

drawing of part of it, showing it as incorporated

into the Aqua Virgo (PL. IA).9 In the

'Neapolitan

mind . . . could hardly distinguish between the evidence of his eyes and the

A.A. BARRETT

arch, even though he did transcribe them incorrectly. The mouldings below the architrave in his detailed drawing are not dissimilar to those that appear on a later drawing of Pierre Jacques that is generally attributed to this arch (see below); also, in its basic structure the arch in Ligorio's drawing seems to reflect the general design that appears on Claudius' coin issues (architectural designs 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 to see 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 of the 1562 excavation is provided by the sculptor Flaminio Vacca, who was born in Rome in reports that historical reliefs, including a depiction of Claudius, were bought by Giorgio Cesarino and displayed in his garden near S. Pietro in Vincoli. Vacca acquired the remaining fragments (136 cartloads!). The pieces were in fine marble (confirming Ligorio's description), except for the tufa column bases.'" The pieces bought by Giovanni Cesarino were probably sold when the collection was dispersed in 1585 to meet the debts incurred by Giovanni's profligate son, Giuliano. The later whereabouts of these items are unkown,14 but in a study of the sculpture attributed to this arch,'5 H. Stuart Jones argued that three of the reliefs found in 1562 are represented by drawings made by the Reims artist Pierre Jacques, who seems to have resided in Rome from 1572 to 1577.16 Given the dates when he made the drawings in question (1576/77), it is tempting to think that those associated with the Piazza di Sciarra are based on the discoveries made there in 1562. This notion is given some support by the fact that one of them was drawn also by Onofrio Panvinis, which must have happened before 1568, the date of his death.'7 That particular drawing (Reinach 29) is entitled by Jacques in piace dy Sciar 1576 and depicts a combat between Romans and barbarians; below is an architrave and a griffin's head (PL.IB). The scene certainly qualifies for Ligorio's description of 'historical' and the Celtic character of the barbarians appears to confirm the attribution. If the identification is correct, the frieze represents one of the very few war-scenes surviving from public monuments in Rome during the Julio-Claudian period.18 A second Pierre Jacques drawing (Reinach 30), Sciara, 1577, depicts the bearded head of a signifer, facing left and decorated with a lion's muzzle, and a large acanthus leaf at the left
13 Flaminio Vacca, Memorie di varie antichitattrovate 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 passed into the collection of the Villa Borghese, a claim refuted by Jones, op. cit. (note I5). Two reliefs, depicting (a) a barbarian head and (b) a barbarian and head, have been traced to the Borghese collection and have been attributed 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. 16 S. Reinach, L'album de Pierre Jacques (1902), pls. 29, 30, 63. The link between the Pierre Jacques drawings and the arch was previously suggested by A. Geoffroy, 'L'Album de Pierre Jacques, de Reims', MEFRA x (1890), On p. 209 Geoffroy states, of the soldier playing the tuba: 'on souhaiterait de pouvoir constater si les 150-215. marbres 6tudids par Pierre Jacques dependaient en quelque faqon de l'ancien arc de triomphe'. 17 Vat. Lat. 3439 f. 65. 18 See 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, and the arch at Orange.

1538 and died some time under Clement VII (1592-1605).

On the Piazza di Sciarra Vacca

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH (PL. IIA).

The third (Reinach 63), Sciara, represents the laureated head of a tubicen facing with the instrument traced in very faintly (PL.IIB). The two figures are drawn on a right, much larger scale than the frieze, and clearly represent a different series; they seem to have belonged to figures that once occupied large panels. At the time of his article (1905), Jones was not aware of any sculpture that might have survived to his own day from the sixteenth-century excavations. Since then two pieces have been assigned to the arch by G.M. Koeppel.'9 One of these is a frieze (PL. at one time part IIIA), of the Giustiniani collection in Rome, passing some time after 1903 to Hever Castle.21 It depicts a procession. Two tubicines are visible, their heads held back as on the Pierre Jacques drawing. Koeppel also attributes to the arch a relief in the Louvre depicting five helmeted soldiers (possible praetorians) in formal poses (PL.IIIB).In the background is seen the head of a man with a hood made from an animal skin, resembling the head drawn by Jacques. If the panel does belong to the arch and the soldiers depicted are indeed praetorians, it might indicate that Claudius gave a place of honour in his triumph to this unit, a detachment of which had accompanied him to Britain.21 Also usually dated to this 1562 excavation is the base found in the piazza di scara drawn by A. Albertini (whose other dated drawings all belong to this general period).22 The only possible location for the base would be at the foot of the columns on the facade of the arch. It differs from the design of the base depicted by Ligorio, 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 whereabouts of the sculpted fragments unearthed in 1562 is impossible, we do have secure knowledge of the contents (CIL vi 920 bcd, 921 bc) and, in one case, the whereabouts (921a) of the inscriptions discovered on that occasion (of which more will be said below). No further notices appear before 1641,23 when important excavations took place at the corner of the Piazza Sciarra and the Via de Caravita, bringing to light the largest known fragment of the main attic inscription (CIL vi 920a) and also fragmentary inscriptions with dedications to Germanicus and Britannicus (920, 922, 923). The inscriptions were apparently not the only discovery. Cassiano dal Pozzo, the famous patron of the arts, states in his unpublished diary that at the corner house of the Via de Caravita fragments of bas reliefs were found that stood on the pier of the arch, and that further excavations produced more belonging to the same series.24 This receives some confirmation from the seventeenthcentury scholar and antiquarian Giacinto Gigli, who tells of sculptures and fluted columns of giallo antico (a rich yellow marble identified by some with the ancient marmor Numidicum) discovered 5 m below the ground level.25
'Two Reliefs from the Arch of Claudius in Rome', Rom. Mitt. lxxxx (1983), 103-9. EA 2034 (1913); D.E. Strong, 'Some Unknown Classical Sculpture', Connoisseur clviii (1965), 216, fig. 9; Statuaryand Sculpture at Hever (1969), no. 122. Hever Castle gardens were laid out by Baron Astor, who is known to have acquired pieces from the Villa Borghese. Strong notes that their style is close to the Ara Pietatis Augustae. 21 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 di Sciarra on 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 and columns of granite. Ashby, op. cit. (note io), 179 cites for this information Ferrucci's L'Antichititdi Roma (I588), the Italian translation of Andrea Fulvio's Antiquitates, published in 1588; I was unable, however, to locate 115, the passage at the place cited. 24 Cassiano dal 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. Roma anno vol nell' Nibby, MDCCCXXXVIII (1838), 1.44i.
1

2o

A.A. BARRETT

In 1869 a house at the corner of the Piazza de Sciarra was demolished. Excavations produced a fragment of a booted leg and, on a different scale, a small rider. These pieces have since disappeared. There were also fragments of fluted columns in giallo antico and plain 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 a warrior's head in high relief and a relief of a temple, were at the time of their discovery attributed 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 aspect of the arch, its inscriptions. Enough of them have been preserved, or recorded in copies, to give us a considerable insight into how Claudius wanted his victory to be remembered. The most familiar feature of the arch is its main attic inscription, discovered in 1641, a significant section 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 attic inscription. His version reads (see PL.IA): T. Claudius Drusi f. Augustus Germanicus Pontifex Maximus trib. pot. vii. imp. xi. P. P. cos. v Aquae Vi rginis 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 are useful clues to indicate that he must at least have seen the inscription (thus also confirming his 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. 3). It would have been a remarkable coincidence if Ligorio's Neapolitan imagination had invented these correct readings out of the blue. Indeed, his errors elsewhere in the transcription are hardly surprising, since he remarks on the difficulty of reading the script because of the poor condition of the stone: 'ma tutte erano malamente trattati i caratteri et dall'antica rovina 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 are highly suspect. It is quite clear from his illustration that in the lower register the text had become almost illegible. Ligorio did not realize that the arch had anything to do with Claudius' 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) adds details. 27 G. Mancini, Not. Scav. i (1925), 292 230; S. Bocconi, Musei Capitolini, Pinacoteca e Tabularium (1925), (Room 7, no. 9). On the attributions, see Koeppel, op. cit. (note 19), n. 41, H.P. Laubscher, 'Arcus Novus und Arcus Claudii, Zwei Triumphbogen an der Via Lata in Rom', Nachrichten der Adademie der Wissenschaften in Gittingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1976), 96-7.

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH

tempted to read a reference to the Aqua Virgo in the obliterated text. His transcription of this inscription is thus unreliable, and affected by his imagination, but this presents no serious problems, since the material is known from elsewhere. What is noteworthy is the simple fact that Ligorio had clearly seen the inscription in 1562, even though its first discovery is not apparently recorded until 1641. This discrepancy, as will be shown below, is of considerable importance. Of the other inscriptions that came to light during the 1562 excavations, the only piece whose present whereabouts are known is a marble slab (CIL vi 921a, ILS 222), which has been in the Capitoline museum since 1750.28Its provenance is confirmed by Ligorio and by Manuzio, who specifically assigns it to the excavation of 1562. The surviving section measures 0.7 by 2.2 m. Three dedications have survived, almost in their entirety, to (left to right) Claudius' mother Antonia, his wife Agrippina, and his adopted son Nero. The slab is broken away on the left, where the final letters of a dedication remain. There is a break on the right also, but without any evidence of further dedications at this position. ]O ]F ]N ]N ]UG ANTONIAI AUGUSTAI DRUSI SACERDOTI DIVI AUGUSTI MATRI TI CLAUDI CAESARIS AUG P P IULIAE AUG AGRIPPINAI GERMANICI CAESARIS F TI CLAUDI CAISAR AUGUSTI PATRIS PATRIAE NERON[i CLAUDIO AUG F CAISAR[i DRUSO GERMANIC[o PONTIF AUGURI XV S[f VII VIR EPULON COS [des PRINCIPI IUVENTUT[is

The inscription was drawn by Nicolaus Florentius of Haarlem, who was in Rome between 1558 and 1567. His drawing is preserved by Torrentius (Laeven van der Brecken, Bishop of tius sent copies.29 Since the original slab has survived, these drawings (also in Manuzio) are not important. Fortunately, however, Florentius also made copies, preserved in van der Brecken and Pighe, of two other fragments that clearly belong to the same group of dedications (921 bc), as well as three fragments of the main attic inscription (920 bcd). All of 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 the dedication slab that survived: g]ERMANIC[o (Antonia) CAISARI t]I AUGUSTI [f d]IVI AUGUSTI [I d]IVI IULII PRO[n a]UGURI FLAM A[ug COS II IMP II (Agrippina) (Nero)
Antwerp, 1520-1595) and Pighius (Stephan Wynants Pighe, 1520-1604), to whom Floren-

The dedication in this fragment is to Claudius' brother Germanicus, producing dedications to (at least) four family members in one grouping.30 The other lost fragment relating
For a description of this inscription see A. Gordon, Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions (1958), no. Io3, 101-2. 29 Torrentius, 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, Hans Jucker, 'Die Prinzen auf dem Augustus Relief in Ravenna', in Mdlanges Paul Collert (Cahiers d'archdologie romane) v (1976), 237 assigns to the Claudian arch a relief head of Germanicus in the Adolphseck, previously attributed to the Neronian period.
2"

A.A. BARRETT (92Ic)

to the imperial family drawn by Florentius Claudius' daughter: o]CTAVIAI ti] CLAUDII CAESARIS AUGUSTI PP FILIAI

involved a dedication to Octavia,

This last might have belonged on the same slab as the earlier group of four. The five together, however, would produce a disproportionately wide arrangement. It is more likely that 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 two dedications (CIL vi 922 and 923). These two dedications are known from drawings kept in the Barberini library.31 Because of their similarity to the dedications described above, they can, with confidence, be ascribed to Claudius' arch. The first (922) is to Claudius' son Britannicus: ti] CLAUDIO C[aesari NERONI[s claudi CAESARI[s fratri bri] TANNIC[o The second (923) is to Germanicus and bears a marked similarity to the copy of Florentius' drawing of 921b: GERMANCICO CAISARI TI AUGUSTI An important point must be made at this stage. Despite the identity of the two Germanicus dedications (923 and 92Ib) they cannot be transcriptions of the same stone, since they were found on separate occasions. The significance of this will be pursued below. Castagnoli has suggested that the slabs honouring Claudius' family were located at either side of the main attic inscription with its dedication to the emperor. But their vertical dimension is not the same as that of the main inscription. Also we should note Ligorio's claim 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 of all three fragments by W. Henzen in CIL, we would have one complete inscription with a single 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 slab approximately 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, the bases could easily accommodate a slab of this size. One would assume that on the opposite
31 Codex barberinus 30. 136 f. 53: 'in arcu Claudii qui erat in via lata iuxta palatium ducis Carbognani eruta dum eiusdem palatii fundamenta iacerentur'.

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH

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

DUPLICATED INSCRIPTIONS

There is sufficient circumstantial evidence relating to the discovery of the inscriptions to lead us to some surprising conclusions about their arrangement on the arch. Ligorio clearly saw (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 has noted, and this impressive slab would have been eagerly sought after. It is almost impossible to believe that it could somehow have been reburied, to re-emerge some eighty years later (and in much better condition than it had been when Ligorio saw it!). What is more, Ligorio provided transcriptions of dedications to Agrippina and Britannicus (921 fin.): agrippinail germanici.caesaris/ filiai/ ti. claudi. caisaris/ augusti.p.p. uxor/ neroni claudi/ matri . .. and caesari . .. britannico/ ti. claudi. caesaris/ augusti p.p./ filio. The Agrippina inscription need not surprise us, since it appeared (in almost identical form) on the surviving dedication slab that we know was found in 1562. More important, the Britannicus 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, and the natural inference to be drawn is that two sets of inscriptions are involved, fragments of which were discovered (and drawn) at different times. This thesis is supported not only by Ligorio's testimony. As noted above, the dedication to Germanicus found in 1562 (92Ib) and drawn by Florentius before its loss is clearly the same 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. But the cumulative evidence of both the Britannicus and Germanicus fragments, and the apparent reappearance of the main attic inscription, suggests that the whole series was in fact duplicated. This is not so startling as it may at first sight appear. The victory arch of Claudius 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 as an architectural unity, Claudius' arch consists of two distinct faces, only one of which would be seen by the traveller entering or leaving Rome on any single occasion. It would thus have been totally appropriate to have had parallel sets of inscriptions on both the north and south sides. One cannot, of course, be dogmatic, but the arrangement does accommodate the available evidence, and there are enough parallels to suggest that it was not uncommon for triumphal arches (including even free-standing examples) to bear duplicated sets of

More or less contemporary with the victory arch is an inscription found in the grove of Diana at Aricia (ILS with a similar group of four names, in honour of Claudius and three members of his family, Agrippina minor, Britannicus and Nero.
32 220),

IO0

A.A. BARRETT

inscriptions. Examples can be cited from several parts of the Roman world.33The triumphal arch of Tiberius at Leptis Magna, dated to A.D.35/36, had the same dedicatory inscription on both its north and south face.34 The monumental three-arched gateway, flanked by towers, that stood at the north end of the main street of the city of Hierapolis in Phrygia (some 150 m outside the city wall proper, in which stood simpler gates) bore identical sets of inscriptions, already duplicated by a bilingual Latin/ Greek text, on both its north and south walls. The dedication, made by Frontinus (governor of Britain A.D.73/4-77), can be dated to A.D.84-86 by the references to Domitian's offices.35 This scheme was followed also on several of Trajan's arches, for instance those at Timgad (CIL viii 17842/3, ILS 6841), at Alcantara on the Tagus (CIL ix 1558, ILS 296).36 The practice continued until at least the end of the second century, as evidenced by the arch of Caracalla at Volubilis, dedicated in
216/7.37

Because of the scarcity of surviving structures, it is not possible to cite an example from a Claudian triumphal arch. But there is at least one duplicated inscription known from the Claudian period, from perhaps the most convincing of sources, the Aqua Virgo itself. At the Via del Nazareno, where the aqueduct crossed an ancient road branching left from the Via Lata, and thus not far from the victory arch, an ornate archway was constructed (or restored by Claudius), and the work recorded by identical inscriptions that can still be seen on 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, ILS 216) was discovered in the excavations of 1641 under the foundations being dug for the gate of the palace of the Duke of Bassanello.38 Until the present century it was built into a wall of the garden of the Barberini palace, and is now housed in the Museo Nuovo of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. The first recorded attempt to restore the missing section was made within a year or two of the initial discovery by the antiquarian Gauges de Gozze, who echoed the curious claim of Eutropius that Claudius conquered the Orkneys:39 TI. CLAV[dio Drusi f. Caesari AVGV[sto Germanico Pio PONTIFIC[i Max. Trib. Pot. IX. COS. V. IM[peratori XVI. Patri Patriai SENATVS. POPV[lusque Romanus quod REGES. BRIT[anniai perduelles sine
are even found in Britain (although there is not, of course, any evidence of their use on 33 Duplicate inscriptions victory arches), as at Milecastle 38 (Hotbank); see RIB 1637-38. 34AE 1948.1. Scuola 35 G. Monaco, 'Sull' Iscrizione della Porta Onoraria Nord di Herapolis di Frigia', Annuario della Archaeologica di Atene et della Missione Italiane in Oriente NS xxv-xxvi (1962-4), 409-10o. W. Eck, Senatoren von at Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970), 79 dates the inscription to A.D. 86 precisely. A similar monumental tower stood the south end of the main N-S street through Hierapolis. in Benevent (1966), 1. 3 F.J. Hassel, Der Trajansbogen du Maroc (II. Inscriptions Latines) (1982), 390, 37 M. Euzennat, J. Marion and J. Gascou, Inscriptions Antiques 391i- Cassiano dal Pozze, op. cit. (note 24). 'quasdam insulas etiam ultra Britannias in Oceano positas imperio Romano addidit, quae 3' Eutropius 7-13: Ligorio's transcription was, of course, of the other copy of the same inscription. appellantur Orchades.'

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH

II

VLLA. IACTV[ra celeriter caeperit GENTESQ. E[xtremarum Orchadum PRIMUS. INDICIO [facto R. Imperio adiecerit ('The senate and Roman people [dedicated this] to Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Pius, son of Drusus, Pontifex Maximus, during his ninth tenure of Tribunicia Potestas, Consul five times, hailed as Imperator sixteen times, Pater Patriae, because he quickly captured the enemy kings of Britain without any loss, and as proof was the first to add to the Roman 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. In particular, he assigned Claudius his correct tribunican year (XI), and his new readings for these lines have generally stood the test of time. For the remainder of the inscription he was still indebted to de Gozze, but dropped the colourful allusion to the Orkneys: TI. CLAV[dio Drusi F. Caisari AVGV[sto Germanico PONTIFIC[i Maximo Trib. Potest. XI. COS. V [ (Impr. XXIIII.) Patri. Patriai SENATVS POPV[lusque Romanus quod REGES BRIT[anniai perduelles sine VLLA IACTV[ra suorum captivos habuerit GENTESQ. E [barbaras ultra Oceanum PRIMUS INDICIO [indicto bello Imperio adiecerit (beginning at line 6: '. .. he took captive the enemy kings of Britain without any loss of his own men, and in proof was the first, having declared war, to add the barbarian peoples across the Ocean to the Empire').41 J.C. Orelli accepted Fabretti's reading of the first seven lines in his ILS of 1828, and offered for the last two lines: GENTESQ. E[xtremas orbis terrarum PRIMVS INDICIO [in ditionem P. Ro. redegerit ('. .. and by way of proof first brought the barbarian peoples across the Ocean under the authority of the Roman people').42 The text now generally familiar derives from the one published by W. Henzen in 1876 in CIL vi on the basis of suggestions of Mommsen. The main deficiency of the supplements offered 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 drawings made by Florentius. While Mommsen owes much to Orelli (dicionem is simply an alternative spelling of ditionem), his incorporation of the lost fragments has a dramatic effect on line 6:

40 De Gozze's transcription was published by Fioravante Martinelli, Roma ricercata nel suo cito (1644, and several 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.

12

A.A. BARRETT

TI. CLAV[dio drusi f. cai]SARI AVGV[sto germani]CO PONTIFIC[i maximo trib. potest]TAT. XI COS V IM[p xxi (?) patri pa]TRIAI SENATVS. PO[pulusque.] RO[manus q]VOD REGES. BRIT[anniai XI devictos sine VLLA.IACTVR[a in deditionem acceperit GENTESQVE.B[arbaras trans oceanum PRIMVS.IN DICI[onem populi romani redegerit43 A redrawing to scale was published by G. Gatti in 1942, with the addition of the title of Censor, suggested by A. DeGrassi (see CIL vi 918, 1231) and the reading of Britannorum instead of Mommsen's Britanniae.44 The new restorations and drawing provide us with an approximate size for the whole inscription (3 by approximately 6 m), and thus in turn of the central section of the attic (FIG.3):

J..
--

V
~ ~
Eli
==

AN"

a
,
;

II

0,- N..7

OOtPTF

II ii !??A~ A: 'I~flT A.Il~

afIi.J

ce~ ~'-": .../r . ....

1*
, --.f.

M.f..
rrrp

IL

.
,N

I 'II,

i!

. , ...

Z J I ~ ~Ce.t. i. ,-, ~ ~ ~ ~ '*IM , J ...:,='." g.....a t./ ,...: Lrq~-,: J..,I', .,...+ . +.. ' +..:,.,: 1' 2=:~ .# , ,: ,, ,". :,.:4 ,:,, : . ." :. t
'7r:%

.Ili

.- .,z :....'.;. ..1. ..

%.
.:' ,
1

II

7,

4-

t?

rpzj

17%

.,

I J r ,
II

, ? ? ., , == -,1O.! I --"+" " 4

?
. .-

. :-.
-.,p .

,,,, . ,,,
-. ,. =

-t-., 9I'.; + . ..,

A
o

,.+,,,..-.--...

~
_,o

, _!
settm tu

,+

NDI 1

.....=~.-~""
.._

_~

,,+
.. ..--:;

,
e

0too00

450

too

*so

Sao

FIG.

3.

CIL 920 (after G. Gatti).

'The senate and Roman people [dedicated this] to Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Drusus, Pontifex Maximus, during his eleventh tenure of Tribunicia Potestas, 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 and he first brought the barbarian peoples across the Ocean under the authority of the Roman people'. This inscription is clearly echoed in Cyzicus in Asia where the local population and resident Roman citizens set up an arch to Claudius as 'conqueror of (eleven kings)' (CIL iii 7061, ILS 217):
13

of CIL vi 92I b andc was not significant. See EE I, 220. The previousdisregard 92Id is the crucial fragment. 11 Gatti's drawing is taken from Castagnoli, op. cit. (note 6), 71.

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH

13

DIVO 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 been very anxious to curry favour with Claudius by celebrating his British victory. Only the left hand side of the text survives, but it shows that it almost certainly belonged to an arch and the structure might well represent a local attempt to replicate on a smaller scale the arch decreed by the Senate in Rome.45 Unfortunately, none of the dating indicators has survived. The first five and last two lines of the Rome inscription are almost certainly formulaic and the loss of the major portion of the slab, while epigraphically regrettable, is probably of little historical consequence at those points. Lines six and seven, however, have rightly attracted much scholarly attention. There has been considerable speculation about the eleven kings supposedly mentioned in the Rome inscription and attempts are often made to identify them. It must, however, be recognized that it is a dangerous procedure to base any historical discussion on what is, in the final analysis, a restoration, no matter how inspired it might be. Henzen (in CIL) does observe with reference to the crucial line that 'coniectura si non certa tamen probabili explevit Mommsen' ('Mommsen restored [the line] with a conjecture which while not certain was nevertheless probable'), expressing an appropriate reservation that has tended to go unheeded by commentators. It should be noted that the reference to eleven kings restored in the Cyzicus inscription is defended on the analogy of the Rome inscription, in other words, a restoration supported by a restoration. Mommsen's reconstruction, as noted, was dependent on the three fragments found in 1641 and preserved only in drawings. Two of these are not difficult to read and present no historical 4) is fragmentary indeed, especially in the bottom problems. But the third (CIL 92od, FIG. register. This in fact makes it impossible to know the number of kings involved. The figure of XXI is in fact as epigraphically convincing as XI especially if we revert to Mommsen's original Britanniae for Britannorum. Indeed, the original reading of Britanniae is given some support by Suetonius, who when describing a re-enactment in Rome of the very event

RO

vlr
FIG. 4.

CIL VI 920d in the copy of Florentius' drawing.

" G. Perrot, 'Une Inscription de Cyzique', RA xxxi (1876), Ioo reads aram instead of arcum, but without discussion.

14

A.A. BARRETT

reported by the inscription, the surrender of the British kings, tells how Claudius presided over the submission of the Britanniae regum (Claud. 21.6). The language might well have been suggested by the inscription.46 A 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 in the final analysis an expression of opinion, and that the quest for the elusive eleven kings may be directed towards a historical mare's nest. An even more interesting, and problematic, aspect of the inscription is the use of the phrase sine ulla iactura. These words seem to imply that Claudius claimed that he had won his victory without sustaining any losses. Indeed, this notion seems to be echoed by the claim of Suetonius (Claud. 17.2), 'sine ullo proelio aut sanguine intrapaucissimos dies parte insulae in deditionem recepta' ('the submission of part of the island having been received within a few days without battle or bloodshed'), where the same emphatic phrase sine ullo reappears, and by Josephus' assertion (BJ 111.4)that Claudius owed the conquest of Britain to Vespasian, and thus secured his triumph without any personal exertion. For a hostile source to imply that Claudius fought a bogus military campaign and that there was no loss of life in those phases where he took part is not especially surprising. For Claudius to have claimed this himself, on a victory arch, would on the surface seem designed to invite ridicule and to cheapen his own military successes by downgrading the odds that he faced. To obviate this difficulty, D. Dudley argued that iactura could be used of a shipwreck, and that on grounds of Latinity it could mean that there were no losses on the Channel crossing.47 But it does not seem likely that the public would be expected to make a natural association between the sea voyage and the surrender, and in any case iactura technically is not a loss of ships 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 an servuli vilis' ('Hecaton asks, if a loss must be sustained at sea, would he rather sustain the loss of a valuable horse or a cheap slave'). Dudley suggests also that the term would appear to be deliberately chosen as a word of wide meaning, to imply that Claudius' conduct of the operation met with no serious setback or loss. But again, sine ulla iactura means 'without any loss', not 'without serious loss'. Moreover, in the context of a triumphal arch it must surely refer to military losses. It is indeed twice used by Caesar with reference to a loss of honour, but in both cases he makes the meaning clear by the addition of the words honoris or honoris et dignitatis.48 In the one instance where Caesar used a grammatically parallel phrase, the negative nullam iacturam, the reference is clearly to loss of men.49 The record of the kings, however many there might have been, surrendering without loss must be meant to extol some sort of diplomatic triumph, possibly intended to show that Claudius 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 Suetonius common might have taken his phrase from the arch. A misunderstanding of this reference in Suetonius (or of a source) may explain the confused allusion in Dio LXI.30 (epitome), under A.D.47, to the use by Claudius of British captives (along with freed men) in gladiatorial shows. Another example of Suetonius' apparent use of inscriptions is provided by ILS 2I8, on the Porta Maggiore. The record of repair to aqueducts bears a striking resemblance to Suetonius' account of the same event (Claud. 20. I). I am grateful to my student Bruce Robertson for drawing this to my attention. Historical Journal vii 47 D. Dudley, 'The Celebration of Claudius' British Victories', University of Birmingham G. Webster). Britain The Roman (with 185-6 (1965), and 43-77 A.D. of Conquest briefly) (more (1959), I2, of honour in Caesar are noted by G. Webster, The 48 Caesar, Bell. Civ., 1.9.3, 32.4. The references to loss Roman Invasion of Britain (1980), 170. 41 Bell. Gall. VII.77.6. Critognatus, an Arvernian chief at Alesia says: 'si nullam praeterquam vitae nostrae iacturam viderem' ('if I could see no loss except that of my own life . .').

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH

15

earlier decisive military victory. Its intended positive message may well have been misrepresented by Suetonius and Josephus, or their source(s), to make Claudius seem foolish. Devictos might seem too strong to use of a diplomatic settlement (although possibly not, since it would provide a nice emphatic paradox to have a complete victory without loss). But here again we must pay close attention to the surviving text. Devictos in this position is for all intents and purposes a total restoration, based on the apparent presence of the upper part of 'D'. The reading is far from certain, since only a small part of the letter remains, in what is in any case not the original inscription but essentially a copy made of a copy (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 know from the secondary sources, followed an earlier battle, and the inscription could be restored to show that a large number of kings flocked to Claudius' side after the decisive military victory that he secured in person. Thus the surrender of the kings SINE ULLA IACTURA might be followed by a phrase like POST VICTORIAM PRAECLARAM ('after his splendid victory') or POST PROELIUM ACERRIMUM ('after a very bitter battle'). Alternatively, the line might have referred specifically to the kings previously defeated. We do not know how many these were, but it would clearly be a useful propaganda message if it could be claimed that a large number surrendered after a small number had been so soundly crushed. Thus we might expect a phrase like, for example, [n] ANTEA PROELIO DEVICTIS ('since he had previously defeated [number lost] in battle'). Or we might have an echo of Virgil's famous dictum (Aen. vi.854): 'parceresubiectis et debellare superbos' ('to spare the defeated and smite the arrogant'), with a phrase like: [n] OMNINO VI DEBELLATIS ('since he had completely crushed [number lost] others with force'). The supposed configuration of the slab does not, unfortunately, allow a precise letter count, and as should be apparent, these musings are offered, not in the expectation of producing a definitive text (impossible in the absence of the crucial part of the inscription), but rather to demonstrate how tenuous the epigraphic evidence is, and to suggest that we give some thought to the possibility of restoring the inscription in such a way as to accommodate both the military and diplomatic achievements. Such a distinction between two classes of defeated enemy is, in fact, exactly that made by Dio in his description of Claudius' British campaign (LX.21.4). He states that Claudius defeated the British in battle and captured Camulodunum, 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, like Suetonius', may well have been inspired by the inscription itself. Nor should it surprise us that Claudius might choose to make reference to diplomatic as well as to military successes on the victory arch. The problems of the northern frontier needed to be solved initially by military means, and Claudius needed the prestige of a triumph. But he perceived that the Roman state would grow as it absorbed within itself conquered territory, as evidenced in the famous speech on the notables of Gallia Comata (ILS 212). There he pointed out that the Gauls had opposed Julius Caesar, but had shown themselves loyal ever since. The British 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 the arch, since Claudius' titles indicate that the structure was not dedicated until A.D. 51 (or early 52), some eight years after the actual victory, and this date is supported by Nero's title

16

A.A. BARRETT

of consul designate in the dedication slab, since the designatio must have followed his adoption by Claudius in 50."o Now we should expect some gap between the original senatorial decree and the completion of the building. The Ara Pacis, for instance, was constituted in 13 B.C.and not completed until 9 B.C.51But if this victory arch is the one voted by the Senate in 43, eight years for its completion seems an unduly protracted period.52 Traditionally, the delay has been explained by Claudius' desire to 'complete' his British campaign by the capture of Caratacus, which took place in A.D. 50.53 But this is not convincing. The dramatic military achievement of the British campaign was the initial victory and the surrender of numerous tribes. It was, after all, on the basis of this victory that 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 more important, it was a defeat in which Claudius played no personal part. There can be no question of the emperor's planning quietly to drop the idea of an arch, if he should fail to defeat Caratacus. After all, he had kept the idea of the British arch constantly in the public mind 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. Its location, as described by Ligorio and others, was on the line of the Aqua Virgo, and there is general agreement that it was built as an organic part of the aqueduct. Because of the conversion of much of the Aqua Virgo to modern use, less is known about it than about the other major Roman aqueducts.54 First completed by Agrippa in 19 B.C., its springs were situated at the eighth mile of the Via Collatina. It ran almost entirely underground until it reached the Horti Lucullani on the Pincian. From this point it ran south, then a little before the Via Salaria Vetus turned SW and began to run on arches for some 700 metres. It crossed the Via Lata, where four arches were discovered in 1887 under the courtyard of the Palazzo Sciarra, and its arches ended after passing along the north facade of the Saepta Julia. Claudius became involved in a major programme to extend the aqueducts of Rome, and we know that he had been anticipated in this policy by Gaius. Frontinus speaks of Gaius beginning two aqueducts in the second year of his reign, the Aqua Claudia and the Anio Novus, to be finished magnificently by Claudius. A contemporary inscription on the Aqua Claudia shows that he had completed that structure by A.D. 52/53.' What of the Aqua Virgo? We have evidence of work there three years after the British Victory. After its arches begin on the Pincian they cross the Via del Nazareno; at this point there is an archway of travertine marble projecting slightly from the aqueduct on each side.56 This we

5s Claudius assumed his fifth consulship in A.D. 51, and held the eleventh award of tribuniciapotestas from late January 51 to the same date in 52. Des in the inscription is a restoration, but on historical grounds some abbreviation of designato is certain (Gordon, loc. cit. (note 28), believes that he can see the s). 175-6, Hassel, op. cit. (note 36), 7-9. 51 On the general problem see D. Fishwick, Britannia iii (I972), 52 L. Keppie, in his forthcoming book on inscriptions, makes the interesting suggestion that two arches might have been involved, one constructed soon after 43 and this second, separate, structure on the Aqua Virgo (I am grateful 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 second triumph 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. 55 CIL 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 way completed 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.

CLAUDIUS' BRITISH VICTORY ARCH

17

know was built, or more properly restored, by Claudius in A.D. 46, as shown by the duplicated inscription (mentioned earlier): TI.CLAUDIUS DRUSI F. CAESAR AUGUSTUS / 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 in building the Saepta.57 But this arch is nowhere near the Saepta; moreover, the expression 'disturbatosper C. Caesarem a fundamentis novos fecit ac restituit'suggests much more than a minor repair. If Gaius damaged the aqueduct, he did so probably as a preliminary to major construction, which was in fact undertaken and completed by Claudius. This leaves us with the curious circumstance that Claudius was apparently carrying out work on the minor arches of the Aqua Virgo within at least three years of the British campaign at the cost of completing his victory arch. But this may cease to be a problem, if we keep in mind the unique form that the arch took. It was not to be freestanding, but rather an integral part of a much larger structure. Claudius may have viewed as his monument to the British triumph, not only the victory arch proper, but the whole architectural structure of the Aqua Virgo, restored in splendid style, with the arch as its final crowning embellishment. Indeed, of the lavishness of the reconstruction of the Aqua Virgo we have evidence from a Jesuit priest, Alessandro Donati, who made a detailed description of the arches found in the seventeenth century when laying the foundations of the church of S. Ignazio. The lower parts were built with travertine, faced with slabs of marble, decorated with marble columns and statues.58 It is fair to surmise that the Aqua Virgo was not completed until A.D.51, and the completion of the victory arch deliberately postponed until then. As the restoration of the aqueduct progressed Claudius kept the notion of the arch in the public mind by his coin issues. The work came to a climactic conclusion in A.D.51/52 with the dedication of the final stage of the aqueduct, in the form of the 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 drawing offered here is to some degree impressionistic (FIG.5). From later accounts it seems that its base and the core were of peperino or tufa, while the rest was of fine Numidian marble. The piers were almost certainly flanked by pairs of columns, indicated by Ligorio and suggested both by Claudius' sestertiu's issue and the effort of the engraver of some of the smaller coins to cram two pairs of columns into the scant space available. At their bases, the piers probably displayed pairs of slabs, with dedications to the imperial family. These, as well as the main attic inscription, would have appeared on both the north and south faces. The battle frieze drawn by Pierre Jacques, depicting the defeat of the barbarians by the Romans, can with some confidence be placed on the architrave, and identified as the 'historical' scene mentioned by Ligorio. We should be more hesitant about locating the relief mentioned by Cassiano del Pozzo, possibly depicting a victory procession, to which the standard-bearers and musicians of the Pierre Jacques drawings presumably belong (and, if Koeppel is correct, the reliefs in Hever Castle and the Louvre also), and which might have contained the likeness of Claudius mentioned by Vacca. This frieze could have belonged in the lower register between the columns. But it could also have been on the inside of the arch. The intercolumniations might well have contained likenesses of the imperial family, as suggested by 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).

:~~

t:

al:Z'--S \; 7 7

-;? ?

-.

rf?-

FIG. 5.

Claudius' Victory Arch. (Drawn by Stephen Copp)

CLAUDIUS'BRITISHVICTORYARCH

19

wonderif the reliefs, like the inscriptions,would have been repeatedon both sides of the arch.But the possibilityof their presencemust at least remainopen, and becauseof this the space in question on the reconstructeddrawingprovidedhere (FIG. 5) has been left blank. The attic carriedthe main inscription,flankedby reliefs, and on its top (on the basis of the coin evidence), we can fairlyconfidentlyplace an equestrian betweena pair group,probably of trophies,a featurethat Claudiusmighthave borrowedfromthe archof his fatherDrusus. Picard points out that the motif of the rider between trophies is unparalleledin lateiconography.Its prevalenceon the Claudiancoinscan thus hardly republican/early-imperial be arbitrary.59 We can gain an idea of some of the dimensionsof the archfromthe surviving inscriptionslabs. Unfortunately, there is no certainty about its height. This cannot be with anyconfidenceby the level of the surviving calculated archesof the aqueductbecauseof the uncertaintyover the ground level of the Piazza di Sciarrain Claudius'time. In the reconstruction the heightis based essentiallyon aestheticconsiderations, and maywell have to be adjustedshould furtherdiscoveriesbe made.60 The resultingstructure,a victoryarchbuilt into an aqueduct,is by no meansunique, and is totally in keeping with Claudius' view that architecturecould be grandiloquentyet functional.61 This principle is stated by Suetonius, Claud. 20.1: 'opera magnapotiusque necessaria quam multaperfecit;'the text is not certain, and does not translateeasily, but it 'he did not completemanystructures, but madeup for this sincethose mightbe paraphrased that he did complete were both monumentaland useful'. The descriptionsuits Claudius' Britishvictory arch perfectly.
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 drawing of the arch, based on the conclusions that he reaches there, is in my opinion virtually impossible on hydrological grounds. 61 For parallels to the structure of Claudius' arch, see I.A. Richmond, 'Commemorative Arches and City Gates in the Augustan Age,' JRS xxxiii (1933), 149-74.

PLATE I

en

0,

it,

Wilt

. ...

'k

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

:?

1~~PiSN
~"
91

4"~S-:

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

PLATE II

~W's

134-

.. .

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

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

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)