Contents
Preface ...................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 4
Introduction – the Republican Forum? ..................................................................... 5
Approaching the Forum ........................................................................................ 9
1: Topography .................................................................................................. 9
2: The imperial Bildprogram .......................................................................... 13
3. Writing Rome ............................................................................................. 15
Preliminary note: what did the Romans call the Forum? ................................... 19
1.1 – Rewriting the Republican Forum (44 BC – AD 14). ..................................... 23
Livy and Labienus: how and how not to collaborate .......................................... 29
Foundation .......................................................................................................... 33
The First Civil War ............................................................................................. 40
Curtius ................................................................................................................ 50
The Cloaca Maxima ........................................................................................... 54
The sacrifice of the ex-magistrates ..................................................................... 67
The Forum Augustum......................................................................................... 74
The scandal of 2 BC ........................................................................................... 77
1.2 – The Forum and the Princeps (AD 14 – 117).................................................. 89
Where do Roman monarchs live? ....................................................................... 92
AD 69 ............................................................................................................... 113
Return of the Horseman, Part 1: The Murder of Galba .................................... 115
The Abdication of Vitellius .............................................................................. 126
Retuὄὀ ὁf the ώὁὄὅemaὀ, ἢaὄt ἀμ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ Equeὅtὄiaὀ ἥtatue ....................... 132
Removing the hill ............................................................................................. 154
Intermezzo – St Silvester and the Dragon ............................................................ 159
2.1 – Reviving the Republican Forum (1798-1870). ............................................ 171
The Republican Forum, 1798-9 ........................................................................ 173
The Portico of the Dei Consentes – a case study .............................................. 184
The Republican Forum, 1848-9 ........................................................................ 188
Aftermath.......................................................................................................... 194
2.2 – A Forum for Italy (1870-1945). ................................................................... 197
Deconsecrating the Forum ................................................................................ 200
A regal Forum? ................................................................................................. 206
The Fascist Forum, 1920-1945 ......................................................................... 211
The last imperial forum? ...................................................................................219
Afterword ..............................................................................................................223
Bibliography .........................................................................................................227
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................227
Primary Sources to Part 2 & Intermezzo ..........................................................227
Archives and Databases ................................................................................227
Books and Academic Journals ......................................................................228
Papal & Political Decrees .............................................................................230
Newspapers & Periodicals ............................................................................230
Secondary Sources to Parts 1 & 2. ....................................................................232
Image Sources ...................................................................................................255
2
Preface
This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is
the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface
and specified in the text.
It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being
concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the
University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution
except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that
no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is
being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other
qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University of
similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text.
It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree
Committee. The total length is 79,256 words.
3
Acknowledgements
This work would have been impossible without the financial support of Trinity
College, Cambridge and the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, who also enabled me
to spend an enlightening three months at the British School at Rome.
My supervisor, Prof. Mary Beard, is owed more thanks than I can adequately
express here.
I am very grateful to the following members of the Faculty of Classics for their
guidance and support: Prof. Robin Cormack, Dr Ingo Gildenhard, Dr Emily
Gowers, Dr Neil Hopkinson, Mr Henry Hurst, Prof. Martin Millett and Dr Carrie
Vout.
Also to Dr Ailsa Hunt and Dr Kate Beats for their encouragement, the Library
team for their help and patience, and Mr Tony Brinkman, who never fails to cheer
me up. My College Tutor Dr Arthur Norman and Tutorial Secretary Mrs Rosemary
Jolley have been a fantastic support for the past eight years.
At the BSR, Prof. Christopher Smith, Dr Robert Coates-Stephens and Sophie Hay
were extremely generous with their time and expertise.
Ben Harriman and Max Leventhal read the whole dissertation. I still owe them a
drink.
I have been very lucky to have John Price, Hayley Rose Price, Laila Tims and
Michael Withey cheering me on.
4
Introduction – the Republican Forum?
On this spot, March 44 BC
The Forum was packed, echoing with shouting and wailing and
above it all the roar of a fire as the mortal remains of Gaius Julius Caesar,
Perpetual Dictator of the Roman Republic, crumbled on an impromptu fire.1
Since his assassination the public mood had been divided, and many in the
Senate – and the assassins themselves – had fervently hoped that the funeral
would bring closure, and that rather than being praised, Caesar could be
well and truly buried. But the funeral oration delivered from the Rostra by
the pὄeὅiἶiὀg ἵὁὀὅul, ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἵlὁὅeὅt ally εaὄk χὀtὁὀy, haἶ ὅὁ ὅtiὄὄeἶ up
the crowd that it prevented the funeral cortège from making its way out of
the city, seized the corpse, and turned the proceedings into a riot.
χfteὄwaὄἶὅ, it waὅ ὅaiἶ that the gὁἶὅ’ haὀἶὅ weὄe at wὁὄk iὀ the
madness. Some had wanted to burn Caesar at the site of the murder,
ἢὁmpey’ὅ ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe ὁὀ the ἑampuὅ εaὄtiuὅέ ἡtheὄὅ felt it waὅ ὁὀly
right to climb the Capitoline and cremate him at the feet of Jupiter himself.
ἦheὀ, ‘twὁ ἶiviὀe fὁὄmὅ ὅuἶἶeὀly appeaὄeἶ, twὁ javeliὀὅ iὀ theiὄ haὀἶὅ aὀἶ
swords at their thighs, and set fire to the funeral couch with torches.
Immediately the spectators assisted the blaze by heaping on it dry branches
aὀἶ the juἶgeὅ’ ἵhaiὄὅ aὀἶ the ἵὁuὄt ἴeὀἵheὅ, with whateveὄ elὅe ἵame tὁ
haὀἶέ’2 As the mourners, men and women alike, hurled their costumes and
jewels onto the pyre, the smoke spiralled up past the Temple of Castor and
Pollux where, on this spot five hundred years earlier, the divine twins had
appeared in the Forum and announced the newly-fὁuὀἶeἶ Repuἴliἵ’ὅ
victory over tyranny. Were they bringing about a similar victory again? Or
had they come to welcome Caesar to their ranks, to declare the Republic an
experiment that was over? As the entire Forum seemed to be fuelling
ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ pyὄe it waὅ ἶiffiἵult tὁ ὅayέ
1
Ancient accounts of the funeral: Plut. Ant. 13.3-4, Brut. 20.2-7; Suet. Iul. 84; App. B.C.
2.143-47; Dio 44.36-49; modern accounts: Weinstock 1971:346-64; Flower 1996:125-26;
Sumi 2005, 2011; Osgood 2006:12-14.
2
Suet. Iul. 84.
5
The Roman Forum lies at the centre of a famously hilly city (fig. 2).3
Tucked in the valley between the Capitoline and Palatine Hills, it was for
millennia a natural meeting place. For a few centuries, it was the political
ἵeὀtὄe ὁf the Rὁmaὀ Empiὄeμ fὁὄ faὄ lὁὀgeὄ, itὅ iἶeὁlὁgiἵal ἵὁὄeέ It’ὅ ἴeἵὁme
a tὄuiὅm that ‘Rὁme iὅ ὀὁt juὅt a ἵityέ It iὅ aὀ iἶea, a myth at the heaὄt ὁf
Ἡeὅteὄὀ ἵultuὄeέ’4 The Forum is at the centre of both the physical city and
the idea of Rome. As such, it has been continually fought over, sometimes
with the ὅwὁὄἶ ἴut mὁὅtly iὀ mὁὄe ὅuἴtle wayὅμ with the ὁὄatὁὄ’ὅ vὁiἵe, the
pen of the writer and architect, and, most recently, with the aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiὅt’ὅ
trowel.
χὅ ὁὀe authὁὄ putὅ it, ‘a gὄeat ἶeal ὁf hiὅtὁὄy haὅ ἴeeὀ maἶe iὀ the
ἔὁὄumέ’5 Because it was central to the daily workings of the ancient city, on
thiὅ ὅpὁt Rὁme’ὅ ἵὁlleἵtive memὁὄy waὅ (aὀἶ iὅ) at itὅ mὁὅt ἵὁὀἵeὀtὄateἶέ6
History was monumentalised in the temples and civic buildings crammed
around the edges of the open space and the shrines dotted over its pavement.
Marble heroes of the past glowered down from every available vantage
point. This past was enacted by those who wrote about the place, by rituals
that took place there, and by the orators who spoke in the law courts and
fὄὁm the Rὁὅtὄaέ Ἡheὀ they ἵlimἴeἶ the ὅpeakeὄ’ὅ platfὁὄm, they ὅtὁὁἶ
above the ancient beaks of long-destroyed enemy ships and shared the stage
with a thicket of statues.
This discussion begins wheὄe the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὅtὁὄy uὅually eὀἶὅέ The
site is often called the ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum’, aὅ ἶiὅtiὀguiὅheἶ fὄὁm the
‘Impeὄial ἔὁὄa’, the aἶjaἵeὀt ἵὁmplexeὅ ἵὁὀὅtὄuἵteἶ uὀἶeὄ the patὄὁὀage ὁf
Caesar, Augustus, Nerva and Trajan. This is the place most famous for the
gory drama of the Late Republic, fodder for eye-catching titles like Daggers
in the Forum and Blood in the Forum7, and the era that modern visitors to
the site have tended to want to see there.8 Edwaὄἶ ἕiἴἴὁὀ’ὅ famὁuὅ
reminiscence sets the tone:
Vout 2012 examiὀeὅ the iἶea ὁf the ‘ἥeveὀ ώillὅ’.
Caldwell & Caldwell 2010:1.
5
Grant 1974:24.
6
ἦhe ἵὁὀἵept ὁf ‘ἵὁlleἵtive memὁὄy’ iὅ iὀteὄὄὁgateἶ ἴy papeὄὅ iὀ ἕaliὀὅky ἀί1ἂν ἵfέ
Hölkeskamp 2006, 2005; below, p. 25-6, n.65.
7
Riἵhaὄἶὅὁὀ 1λἅἄ ὁὀ the ἕὄaἵἵhi aὀἶ εaὄiὀ’ὅ ἀίίλ geὀeὄal hiὅtὁὄy ὁf the Repuἴliἵέ
8
It was the typical focus of Victorian and early 20 th c. visitors: Price 2011.
3
4
6
After a sleepless night I trod with lofty step the ruins of the Forum; each
memorable spot where Romulus stood, or Tully spoke or Caesar fell was
at once present to my eye.9
The Forum that Gibbon saw in 1764 was almost entirely a figment of his
imaginatiὁὀέ ‘Eaἵh memὁὄaἴle ὅpὁt’ was submerged beneath several metres
of accumulated soil and debris (figs. 43, 44), and the valley was now known
to locals as Campo Vaccino¸ ‘ἑὁw ἔielἶ’έ ἥὁ ὅtrongly did he associate the
ἔὁὄum with the eὄa ὁf ‘ἦully’ that ἕiἴἴὁὀ ὀatuὄally piἵtuὄeἶ aὀ eveὀt that
had never happened there. The ultimate Repuἴliἵaὀ kὀifiὀg, ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ
aὅὅaὅὅiὀatiὁὀ, happeὀeἶ ὀὁt iὀ the ἔὁὄum ἴut half a mile away at ἢὁmpey’ὅ
Senate House on the Campus Martius. The myth continues to be
embroidered by Forum tour guides.10
ἑὁὀtempὁὄaὄy ἵὁὀἵeptualiὅatiὁὀὅ ὁf the ἔὁὄum aὅ a ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’
ὅpaἵe ἶepeὀἶ, like ἕiἴἴὁὀ’ὅ, ὁὀ ὁὀe majὁὄ ὅὁuὄἵeέ ἦhaὀkὅ tὁ ἑiἵeὄὁ, we
have a first-hand account of political life there in the Late Republic. The
ὁὄatὁὄ’ὅ ἵὁὄpuὅ haὅ ἴeeὀ wiἶely ἶὄawὀ ὁὀ iὀ ἶeἴateὅ aἴὁut the ἶyὀamiἵὅ ὁf
Republican politics (how democratic was the Republic?), in which the
Forum has come to play a central role.11 Oratory and popular assemblies are
important to this model; Fergus Millar has even (provocatively) distilled the
eὅὅeὀἵe ὁf the Repuἴliἵ aὅ ‘aὀ ὁὄatὁὄ aἶἶὄeὅὅiὀg a ἵὄὁwἶ iὀ the ἔὁὄumέ’12
More generally, the Forum is seen as the centre of daily life in the
Republican period, bustling with shoppers, businesspeople aὀἶ ‘iἶleὄὅ’έ ἦhe
waὄἶὄὁἴe maὅteὄ’ὅ ὅpeeἵh fὄὁm ἢlautuὅ’ Curculio is traditionally brought
out in this context.
[…] qui peὄiiurum conuenire uolt hominem ito in Comitium;
qui medacem et gloriosum, apud Cloacinae sacrum,
dites, damnosos maritos sub basilica quaerito.
ibidem erunt scorta exoleta quique stipulari solent;
symbolarum conlatores apud forum piscarium.
in foro infumo boni homines atque dites ambulant;
9
Gibbon 1897:267; see Edwards 1996:8-10.
See below, p.223.
11
See especially Millar 1986, 1995, 1998; Hölkeskamp 1995, 2000; Mouritsen 2001:38-62
(contra Millar); Morstein-Marx 2004; Patterson 2010 for summary.
12
Millar 1986:1.
10
7
in medio propter canalem, ibi ostentatores meri [...]13
[...] Anyone who wants to meet a perjurer should go to the Comitium.
Anyone who wants to meet a liar and a boaster must look for him at the
shrine of Cloacina, and anyone who wants to meet rich and married
wasters should look below the basilica. In the same place there will also be
grown-up prostitutes and men who ask for formal guarantees from
prospective debtors. Those who contribute to shared meals are on the fish
market. At the lower end of the Forum decent and wealthy people stroll
about; in the middle of the Forum next to the open drain are the mere
show-ὁffὅ […]έ
This speech has encouraged scholars to make some extremely specific
statements about who could be found where in the second century BC.14
Whether or not we should read this comic text as an eyewitness account
(fig. 4), it has greatly coloured reconstructions of a Forum teeming with life
during the Republican period.
χgaiὀὅt thiὅ ἴaἵkἶὄὁp, ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὄegime aὀἶ the fuὀeὄal iὀ the ἔὁὄum
becomes a major turning point. Antony on the Rostra embodies Fergus
εillaὄ’ὅ Repuἴliἵaὀ ὁὄatὁὄέ χnd yet his oratory sets the crowd against any
hopes for a resolution, and drives it ultimately into the arms of another
Gaius Julius Caesar and a world in which oratory has lost its power and the
Forum any real life and purpose. A general history of the Forum puts it like
thiὅμ ‘χlthὁugh the law-courts, like the shops, were still crowded, they were
no longer political battlegrounds. No one dared any more to make a rabblerousing speech in the Forum: the only funeral oration likely to be heard was
one glorifyiὀg the impeὄial ὄegimeέ’15 Once the Forum had to compete – the
argument implies – with the majestic new imperial fora and other public
facilities, there was no longer any reason for people to go there:
‘ὁveὄὅhaἶὁweἶ ἴy Rὁme’ὅ ὀew impeὄial ἵeὀtὄeὅ, the ἔὁὄum became an area
ὁf ὅeἵὁὀἶaὄy impὁὄtaὀἵe […] ἶὄaiὀeἶ ὁf ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄy impaἵtέ’16 The two
majὁὄ wὁὄkὅ ὁf ἔὁὄum ὅἵhὁlaὄὅhip, aὅ we’ll ὅee ἴelὁw, ἵὁὀἵluἶe with the
13
Plaut. Cur. 470-6. The whole speech: 462-86.
E.g. Grant 1974:18; Richardson 1979; Claridge 2010:65; Morstein-Marx 2004:41; on the
basis of line 485 De Melo 2011:283 infers the existence of an actual brothel owned by
‘δeuἵaἶia, fὄeeἶwὁmaὀ ὁf ἡppiuὅέ’
15
Grant 1974:21.
16
Favro 1988:20.
14
8
ὄeigὀ ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ heiὄ ἡἵtaviaὀ χuguὅtuὅ, aὀἶ atteὀtiὁὀ ὅhiftὅ tὁ the
imperial fora.
In fact, when it comes to evidence matters are not so clear cut. Aside
fὄὁm ἢlautuὅ aὀἶ ἦeὄeὀἵe, all ὁuὄ hiὅtὁὄiἵal ὅὁuὄἵeὅ fὁὄ thiὅ ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ
ἔὁὄum’ weὄe wὄitteὀ eitheὄ ἶuὄiὀg ὁὄ afteὄ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ lifetime, aὀἶ the ἔὁὄum
the present-day visitor sees dates predominantly to the turn of the fourth
century AD – not when Tully spoke. My description ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ fuὀeὄal iὅ
based not on an eyewitness account, but the narrative penned in the secondcentury AD by Suetonius, secretary to the emperor Hadrian. For Suetonius
and his contemporaries, the Forum was far from being ‘drained’ of
‘impact’. In the past century, it had witnessed the slaughter of two
emperors, the pomp and posturing of two imperial dynasties, the rioting of
Rὁme’ὅ ἵitiὐeὀὅ, the ὄiὅe ὁf ὀew mὁὀumeὀtὅέ Ἡheὀ ἥuetonius described the
tuὄmὁil ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ fuὀeὄal, then, he had a range of more recent dramas
available to inform his narrative (see Chapter 1.2). When, at the turn of the
fourth century, Diocletian and his three co-emperors proclaimed a new era
of harmony after the fire and destruction of civil war, they devoted much of
their efforts on restoring the Forum to its former glory.17 Nevertheless, the
twὁ majὁὄ wὁὄkὅ ὁf ἔὁὄum ὅἵhὁlaὄὅhip, aὅ we’ll ὀὁw ὅee, do not venture
beyond the Augustan period.
Approaching the Forum
1: Topography
The Forum’ὅ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgy has traditionally been an archaeology of
named places. Topographers scour literary texts and epigraphic evidence for
ancient toponyms and attempt to apply them to the physical remains. Once
the larger monuments had been identified in the mid-nineteenth century,
topography developed into something of an art, requiring erudition, logic,
aὀἶ a ἵeὄtaiὀ amὁuὀt ὁf myὅteὄiὁuὅ ‘iὀtuitiὁὀ’έ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ mὁὅt impὁὄtaὀt
excavator, Giacomo Boni (1859-1925), cut a mystical, almost prophetic
figuὄe, ὅeeiὀg the ὄemaiὀὅ ὁf the ἔὁὄum aὅ a text, ‘the gὄeateὅt ἴὁὁk ὁf
humaὀ hiὅtὁὄy, the ὅtὁὄy ὁf the life ὁf Rὁme’, whiἵh lay ἵὁmplete ‘page
17
See Kalas (forthcoming, 2015).
9
upὁὀ page aὅ it waὅ wὄitteὀ’έ ‘ώitheὄtὁ uὀἶeἵipheὄaἴle’, it waὅ ὀὁw a ὅtὁὄy
that could be understood by those who had the skills.18
ἐὁὀi’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀ ἵampaigὀ waὅ a fiὄὅt ὄevὁlutiὁὀ iὀ ἔὁὄum
topography; his discovery and identification of archaic remains in particular
waὅ ὅeeὀ aὅ aὄὄiviὀg ‘like a thuὀἶeὄἵlap iὀtὁ the leaὄὀeἶ quietuἶe ὁf ἕeὄmaὀ
aὄἵhaeὁlὁgy’, whiἵh haἶ maiὀtaiὀeἶ that δatiὀ authὁὄὅ’ ὅtὁὄieὅ aἴὁut eaὄly
Rome were pure legend.19 ἐὁὀi’ὅ legaἵy laὅteἶ uὀtil the 1λκίὅ whiἵh, iὀ the
wὁὄἶὅ ὁf σiἵhὁlaὅ ἢuὄἵell’ὅ 1λκλ ὄeview, saw ‘a ὄevὁlutiὁὀ ἵὁmpaὄaἴle tὁ
that of the last decades of the 19th century. We can see suddenly how much
of the interpretation of the great excavations of Boni was based on
miὅleaἶiὀg pὄeὁἵἵupatiὁὀὅ […] aὀἶ hὁw thὁὅe iὀteὄpὄetatiὁὀὅ have fὁὄmeἶ
aὀ ὁὄthὁἶὁxy whiἵh iὅ ὁpeὀ tὁ queὅtiὁὀ iὀ a gὄeat vaὄiety ὁf wayὅέ’20
‘δa ὄévὁlutiὁὀ ἵὁaὄellieὀὀe’ ἴegaὀ with the 1λκἁ-5 publication of
ἔilippὁ ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ immeὀὅely iὀflueὀtial Il foro romano.21 While Boni had
been predominantly concerned with identifying the monuments he’ἶ
uncovered, Coarelli went further, aiming to bring the textual and
aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal eviἶeὀἵe tὁgetheὄ iὀ ὁὄἶeὄ tὁ aἵἵeὅὅ the hiὅtὁὄiἵal ‘ὄeality’
ἴeὀeathμ ‘[uὀe] ἵὁὀἵeptiὁὀ “ὅtὄatigὄaphique” ἶe la tὄaἶitiὁὀ ὅἵὄiptuaiὄeέ’22
ἦhiὅ waὅ ὀὁt the hiὅtὁὄiἵal ‘ὄeality’ ὁf ‘wheὄe ἦully ὅpὁke, ὁὄ ἑaeὅaὄ fell’ –
that is, connected to specific historical events – but of long term social and
political development.23
ἑὁaὄelli pὄὁviἶeἶ ‘ἴὄilliaὀt ὅὁlutiὁὀὅ’ tὁ pὄὁἴlemὅ that eaὄlieὄ
scholars had not considered.24 Particularly influential and imaginative was
his work on the early Republican Comitium. Based on a study of preexisting excavations, and comparison with the fora of Republican colonies
and literary sources, Coarelli argued that the curved shape of the extant
Republican Rostra comprised part of the circumference of a round, tiered
18
Boni, foreword to Burton-Brown 1904:vi. See below, p.207-9.
British Architect 62:10. For more about Boni, see Capodiferro & Fortini 2003. The work
of B.G. Niebuhr in particular had been very influential in setting a sceptical tone. See
below, chapter 2.2.
20
Purcell 1989:156-7.
21
Coarelli 1983, 1985. For the ‘ὄévὁlutiὁὀ ἵὁaὄellieὀὀe’ ὅee ἢieὄὄe ἕὄὁὅ’ὅ ὄeview ὁf Foro
romano II (Gros 1986:63).
22
Gros 1986:63.
23
See, e.g. Storey 1999:218.
24
Wiseman 1985:228.
19
10
seating area.25 This hypothesised set-up echoed the form of a Greek
ekklesiasterion, posited as the equivalent of Latin comitium, as seen in
Greek settlements in Sicily and Latin towns.26 He was even able to associate
its construction with a famous name, εέ Valeὄiuὅ εeὅὅalla, ‘the ἵὁὀqueὄὁὄ
ὁf ἑaὄthage aὀἶ ἥyὄaἵuὅe’έ27
ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ aὄgumeὀtὅ, whiἵh ὁfteὀ ὄequiὄe jumpὅ ὁf lὁgiἵ, weὄe
intended to be provocative. However, as his books have acquired classic
status and become the go-to reference point for non-specialists, they have
hardened into the same kind of orthodoxy that Purcell identified with Boni.
Iὀ 1λλκ, ἑaὄafa’ὅ ὅtuἶy ὁf the ὅtὄatigὄaphy maἶe the ‘Rὁuὀἶ ἑὁmitium’
theory untenable.28 Deὅpite thiὅ, ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ ὄeἵὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὁὀ ἵὁὀtiὀueὅ tὁ
appear uncritically in recent publications: see, for example, Hölkeskamp
(2001), Corbeill (2002) and Neudecker (2010), and reference works
including the Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae and popular
guidebooks.29
In fact, there were more similarities between Coarelli and Boni than
were acknowledged in the 1980s. Praise for Coarelli echoed praise for Boni
eighty yeaὄὅ eaὄlieὄέ ἐὁὀi haἶ ἴeeὀ ἵeleἴὄateἶ fὁὄ hiὅ ‘iὀteὄeὅtiὀg aὀἶ
aὄἶeὀt’ miὀἶν ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ waὅ ‘ἵὄeative’ aὀἶ ‘aἵutely ὁὄigiὀal’έ 30 The aim of
the game was still to apply the correct label to the relevant piece of
archaeology. The difference was that Coarelli then used his identifications
to think about long-term historical implications, building houses of cards
based on a single, unprovable hypothesis and what a critic called his
‘iὀtuiὐiὁὀe filὁlὁgiἵa’έ31 Purcell sounded a note of caution in 1989,
ὁἴὅeὄviὀg that ἑὁaὄelli teὀἶeἶ tὁ emplὁy ‘a ἵὁὀfiἶeὀἵe ὁf tὁὀe whiἵh ἵaὀ at
Coarelli 1983:119-99, 1985:11-1ἀἁέ ἦhe ‘Rὁuὀἶ ἑὁmitium’ ἴuilt ὁὀ a pὄὁpὁὅal ἴy
Krause 1979.
26
Coarelli 1983:146-53. For provincial fora: Lackner 2008.
27
Coarelli 2007:53. This is more tentative than the discussion in 1985:20, where
‘pὁὅὅeἶiamὁ altὄi iὀἶiὐi ἵhe ἵὁὀfeὄmaὀὁ uὀ iὀteὄveὀtὁ ὀel ἑὁmiὐiὁ ἶi εέ Valeὄiuὅ
εaximuὅ εeὅὅalla’έ Cf. 1983:150-1.
28
Carafa 1998:150-155. There is no archaeological evidence for a 3 rd-c. transformation of a
square Comitium to a round tiered structure, or the demolition of that structure under Sulla
or Caesar. See also Morstein-Marx 2004:45-50.
29
Hölkeskamp 2001:9; Corbeill 2002:198; Neudecker 2010:186. ἦhe ‘Rὁuὀἶ ἑὁmitium’ iὅ
iὀἵluἶeἶ iὀ Riἵhaὄἶὅὁὀ’ὅ tὁpὁgὄaphiἵal ἶiἵtiὁὀaὄy (1λλἀμλἅ) aὅ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal faἵt ὄatheὄ
than hypothesis. Many guidebooks were published after Carafa 1998: see, e.g. the official
archaeological guidebook published by the Soprintendenza (La Regina 2007:18).
30
Lee 1906:50; Wiseman 1985:229, 1986:307.
31
Giuliani & Verduchi 1980:11.
25
11
timeὅ ἴe miὅleaἶiὀgέ’32 Veὄὀὁὀ δee’ὅ ὄefleἵtiὁὀὅ ὁὀ a viὅit tὁ the ἔὁὄum
with Boni in 1902 have a certain resonance here:
I felt veὄy keeὀly that the paὅt iὅ ὁὀly a ἵὄeatiὁὀ ὁf the pὄeὅeὀtέ ἐὁὀi …
showed us things not really of this earth, not really laid bare by the spade,
but existing in realms of fantastic speculation, shaped by argument,
faultlessly cast in logical moulds.33
ἢeὄhapὅ mὁὅt pὄὁἴlematiἵally, tὁpὁgὄapheὄὅ’ fὁἵuὅ ὁὀ ‘kὀὁwὀ
uὀkὀὁwὀὅ’ (iέeέ, tὁpὁὀymὅ withὁut plaἵeὅ) meaὀὅ they teὀἶ ὀὁt tὁ aἶmit the
pὁὅὅiἴility ὁf ‘uὀkὀὁwὀ uὀkὀὁwὀὅ’μ that theὄe might ἴe ὅὁme
archaeological evidence that is simply not referred to in the texts. For some
archaeologists, the only solution is to eschew textual evidence altogether: so
ἕiuliaὀi aὀἶ Veὄἶuἵhi’ὅ ὅtuἶy ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἵeὀtὄal aὄea ἴegaὀ with the
ὅtaὄk miὅὅiὁὀ ὅtatemeὀt that ‘δa ὅὁla ὁὄtὁἶὁὅὅa ἶa ὅeguiὄe puntigliosamente
resta quella per cui se si deve studiare un edificio, anche se in rovina, le
ὄegὁle ἶel giὁἵὁ ὅὁὀ ὅὁlὁ quelle ὄiἵhieὅte ἶall’aὄἵhitettuὄaέ’34 As T.P.
Ἡiὅemaὀ ὁἴὅeὄveὅ, ‘the ἔὁὄum iὅ aἴὁve all a historically important site, and
the evidence fὁὄ itὅ iὀteὄpὄetatiὁὀ iὅ ὀὁt ὁὀly aὄἵhiteἵtuὄalέ’35
The list of authors marshalled by Coarelli in support of the ‘Rὁuὀἶ
ἑὁmitium’ iὅ ὄevealiὀgμ Vaὄὄὁ, ἑiἵeὄὁ, Diὁἶὁὄuὅ ἥiἵuluὅ, δivy, ἢliὀy the
Elder, Suetonius, Plutarch, Festus, Asconius, Censorinus. None were
wὁὄkiὀg ἴefὁὄe ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ lifetime, ἴut the ‘ὅtὄatigὄaphiἵ appὄὁaἵh’ tὁ the
textual tradition means that these predominantly imperial sources can be
used, more-or-less unproblematically, as evidence for the mid-Republican
Forum centuries earlier. A rough analogy might be attempting to reconstruct
ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe’ὅ ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅ aὅ it waὅ iὀ the twelfth ἵeὀtuὄy uὅiὀg ὁὀly ὅixteeὀth
to eighteenth-century sources, as if nothing had happened in the intervening
32
Purcell 1989:166, 157.
Lee 1906:50.
34
Giuliani & Verduchi 1980:9. This leads to oddities like Trifilò 2011, which attempts to
reconstruct patterns of movement in the Basilica Julia without mentioning what it was
historically used for.
35
Wiseman 1990:245. A number of topographical debates continue: e.g., the precise route
of the Sacra Via (summarised in Steinby 1995); the location of the Temple of Jupiter Stator
(Ziolkowski 1992:87-90) and other literary toponyms. Digital mapping and modelling (e.g.,
Uἑδχ’ὅ Digital ἔὁὄum pὄὁjeἵt http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Forum; Haselberger &
Humphrey 2006) ἵὁὀtiὀue the pὄeἵeἶeὀt ὅet ἴy δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ Forma Urbis Romae (18931901).
33
12
ἵeὀtuὄieὅ tὁ ὅhape the ὅὁuὄἵeὅ’ (aὀἶ our) ideas and memories about the
basilica.
2: The imperial Bildprogram
A second approach haὅ ἴeeὀ thὄὁugh the ἔὁὄum’s (reconstructed)
aὄἵhiteἵtuὄe aὀἶ aeὅthetiἵ pὄὁgὄammeέ ἢaul Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ Forum Romanum: die
Neugestaltung durch Augustus was published in 1972, the follow up to his
ground-ἴὄeakiὀg ὅtuἶy ὁf the ‘ἐilἶpὄὁgὄam’ ὁf the ἔὁὄum ὁf χuguὅtuὅέ36
Ἡheὄe ἑὁaὄelli examiὀeὅ ὅeveὄal ἵeὀtuὄieὅ ὁf ἶevelὁpmeὀt, Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ ὅhὁὄt
ἴὁὁk fὁἵuὅeὅ ὁὀ the χuguὅtaὀ ὄegime’ὅ iὀteὄveὀtiὁὀὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄum in the
late first century BC. He describes how it was transformed architecturally
fὄὁm aὀ iὄὄegulaὄ ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ ὅpaἵe iὀtὁ a haὄmὁὀiὁuὅ ‘ὅhὁwplaἵe’ fὁὄ the
Julian family. These ideas were further developed in Augustus und die
Macht der Bilder (1987, published in English as The Power of Images in the
Age of Augustus, 1988), in which the Forum is discussed during a wider
explὁὄatiὁὀ ὁf χuguὅtaὀ viὅual ἵultuὄeέ Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ χuguὅtuὅ ἶiὄeἵtὅ with the
lightest of touches: his Augustan cultural revolution is a collaborative
project between princeps, artiὅt aὀἶ vieweὄμ ‘theὄe waὅ ὀὁ maὅteὄ plaὀ
ὁutliὀiὀg ὅὁme ὅὁὄt ὁf pὄὁpagaὀἶa ἵampaigὀ […]έ εuἵh happeὀeἶ aὅ if ὁf
itὅ ὁwὀ aἵἵὁὄἶέ’37 The Neugestaltung of the Forum is, in a sense, a
deliberate collective amnesia, a way to bury the civil wars and tell a new
story of Augustan stability – the res publica not just restored, but perfected.
Zanker studies the Forum as a complete architectural unit. This
necessarily entails a lot of mental reconstruction: arguably easier to do for
the Forum Augustum, a space that was designed as a single architectural
whole, but more difficult for the older space given its inconsistencies,
enduring topographical mysteries and the sheer amount of time it took to
realise the Neugestaltung building by building. Effectively, this privileges
the end result over the process: there is no sense here of how the Forum was
perceived in transition, or whether that transition was universally approved.
36
37
Zanker 1968.
Zanker 1988:101.
13
Furthermore, although Zanker 1987/8 denied the existence of a
‘maὅteὄ plaὀ’, the iἶea ὁf a Bildprogram implies a master designer, a single,
guiἶiὀg viὅiὁὀέ χὅ ἢatteὄὅὁὀ ὀὁteὅ, it’ὅ thaὀkὅ tὁ Zaὀkeὄ that ‘ὅtuἶieὅ ὁf
topographical and iconographical issues are now central to studies of the
fiὄὅt ἢὄiὀἵepὅέ’38 This is just as true in reverseμ Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ appὄoach has
plaἵeἶ ‘the ἢὄiὀἵepὅ’ at the ἵeὀtὄe ὁf tὁpὁgὄaphiἵal aὀἶ iἵὁὀὁgὄaphiἵal
studies. The concept of the Bildprogram has been enduringly popular, and
muἵh ὁf Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ ὀuaὀἵe haὅ ἴeeὀ lὁὅt iὀ the ὅuἴὅequeὀt ὅtuἶieὅ ὁf
‘ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁgὄammeὅ’ ὁf ὅpeἵifiἵ emperors or dynasties.39 These studies
have been resolutely top-down, tracing architectural conversations between
dynasties and their predecessors, or dynasties about themselves. Their
versions of the Forum are rather empty of ordinary people, and there is little
space for dissent.
ἦhe ‘emptiὀeὅὅ’ ὁf the impeὄial-era ἔὁὄum iὅ peὄhapὅ Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ mὁὅt
subtle legacy. It is hard not to sense nostalgia in Zanker 1972, which sees
the χuguὅtaὀ peὄiὁἶ aὅ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἵὁἶa, ὄatheὄ thaὀ the ἴegiὀὀiὀg ὁf a
new movement. ἦhe ‘autheὀtiἵ’ Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum iὅ that ὁf the Repuἴliἵaὀ
peὄiὁἶ, aὀἶ ἴuὅtliὀg with lifeέ Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum iὅ a meὅὅy aὀἶ
ἵhaὁtiἵ
hive
ὁf
aἵtivity,
tὄaὀὅfὁὄmeἶ
ἴy
χuguὅtuὅ
iὀtὁ
‘eiὀeὀ
Repräsentationsplatὐ ἶeὅ ἢὄiὀἵepὅ uὀἶ ὅeiὀeὄ ἔamilie’μ ὄegulaὄiὅeἶ, ordered,
beautified, purged.40 ‘ἦhe pὄeὅeὀἵe ὁf Repuἴliἵaὀ mὁὀuments was [now]
only incidental’ (see fig. 5).41 Zanker then catalogues the amendments made
to the Augustan layout by successive generations of emperors. His imperial
Forum is crowded, but with cold marble bodies, as if the centre of Rome is
ossifying.42 The implication, never explicitly stated, is that the
Neugestaltung initiated a long and inevitable process of decline ending with
that distasteful relic of the decadent Byzantines, the Column of Phocas, the
ὅtake thὄὁugh the alὄeaἶy uὀἶeaἶ ἵity’ὅ heaὄt.43
38
Patterson 2010:215.
When it comes to the Forum, Domitian and the Flavians have been particularly popular
(already featuring in Zanker 1972:26): e.g., Anderson 1981, 1982, 1983, Darwall-Smith
1996, Thomas 2004, Dewar 2008.
40
Zanker 1972:5-6, 25.
41
Zanker 1988:82.
42
Zanker returns to this image in 2000:35; cf. Zanker 1994:61 ff.
43
Ibid. 28.
39
14
3. Writing Rome
ἐy tὄaἵiὀg the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ‘impeὄial’ hiὅtὁὄy, ἴegiὀὀiὀg wheὄe Zaὀkeὄ
and Coarelli end, we can see that the sources traditionally mined for details
aἴὁut the ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum’ iὀ fact reveal a more complicated story.
Rather than falling into comfortable obsolescence, the Forum remained an
ideological battleground. Its very history (the history of Romulus, and
Tully, and Caesar) made it an active power source. Those ancient
‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ ὅiteὅ weὄe ὀὁt ‘iὀἵiἶeὀtal’, ἴut continued to be contested: their
memories suppressed or embraced, put into the service of the ruling power,
or used to undermine it. This was a process that continued not just into late
antiquity, but was revived in the modern era.
This study is structured around two slices of time: 44 BC – 114 AD
(Part 1), and 1798-1945 (Part 2). Both were transitional periods for Rome,
when this process of contestation can be seen in particular focus. In Part I,
we will explore the ideὁlὁgiἵal uὀἶeὄpiὀὀiὀgὅ, aὀἶ ὄeἵeptiὁὀ, ὁf χuguὅtuὅ’
Neugestaltung, and the long and difficult process through which the
‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ ἔὁὄum waὅ iὀἵὁὄpὁὄateἶ iὀtὁ the iἶeὁlὁgy ὁf impeὄial pὁweὄέ
In Part II, we will see how this power was reawakened during the Italian
Risorgimento, and how the idiosyncrasies of the present-day Forum site are
the result of a fierce and sometimes bloody three-way ὅtὄuggle ὁveὄ Rὁme’ὅ
ancient heritage.
In combining ancient and modern interpretations of the space, I have
been inspired ἴy ἑathaὄiὀe Eἶwaὄἶὅ’ Writing Rome (1996). This influential
ὅtuἶy ‘[explὁὄeὅ] the ὄelatiὁὀὅhip ἴetweeὀ wὄitteὀ Rὁmeὅ aὀἶ mateὄial
Rὁme’, the ἵity’ὅ ‘metaphyὅiἵal tὁpὁgὄaphyέ’44 Edwards presented
ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ tὁpὁgὄaphiἵal wὁὄk aὅ one of Writing Rome’ὅ foundations.45
Coarelli observes that monuments like the Comitium statues would have
accrued many ideas and associations which were now lost.46 The
metaphysical topographer attempts to glean these lost connotations,
44
Edwards 1996:2, using a phrase coined by Vasaly 1993:41. Barnes & Duncan 1992 has
also been particularly influential in this field. For a discussion of the influence of
psychogeography, see Larmour & Spencer 2007:4-6.
45
Edwards 1996:2.
46
Coarelli 1983:90.
15
primarily through the study of literary texts, though it is often presented as
an interdisciplinary endeavour.47 Despite the broad scope of Edwards 1996,
its legacy has been particularly felt in studies of individual authors rather
than sites.48
In the discussion that follows, I aim to combine a close reading of
the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ‘metaphyὅiἵal tὁpὁgὄaphy’ with itὅ mateὄial eviἶeὀἵeέ It’ὅ
become a cliché (going back to Freud) to liken Rome, and the Forum, to a
palimpsest.49 By aἶὁptiὀg a iὀteὄἶiὅἵipliὀaὄy appὄὁaἵh, we’ll ὅee that the
layers of its history, concentrated unevenly in different places, are far more
ἵὁmpliἵateἶ thaὀ ὅupeὄimpὁὅeἶ layeὄὅ ὁf legiἴle textὅέ It’ὅ mὁὄe ὁf a
patchwork quilt, a monument made up of dozens of smaller monuments,
each with its own range of meanings, and with hundreds of possible
connections and conflicts between them.50
Although this study is organised chronologically, it would have been
equally possible to approach the Forum through these individual
monuments. Many sites and themes will reappear throughout. The Lacus
Curtius, for example, alὄeaἶy aὀἵieὀt iὀ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἶay, ἴeἵame paὄtiἵulaὄly
connected with the good health of Augustus, the self-proclaimed saviour of
the Republic. But, at the same time, it became in literature a symbol of the
difficulty ὁf uὀἶeὄὅtaὀἶiὀg aὀἶ ‘fixiὀg’ the paὅt, aὅ well aὅ a mὁὀumeὀt that
questioned what it meant to save Rome – and for Rome to be saved (pp. 504, 145-8, 119-24). By the early medieval period, it was transformed into a
monument of Christian salvation, and of papal authority over the ancient
empire (pp. 159-62).
One story associated with the Lacus tells of a mystical chasm that
opened up in the ground: in fact the Forum valley is repeatedly
conceptualised as an unstable place liable to flood and fracture. This is
ἦhe ‘iὀteὄἶiὅἵipliὀaὄity’ ὁf δaὄmour & Spencer 2007, for example, seems to be referring
to the inclusion of papers from scholars working in various areas of reception studies,
rather than the material, which is overwhelmingly textual.
48
See, e.g. Jaeger 1997 and Bonfante 1998 on Livy; Fantham 1997 and Welch 2005 on
Propertius; Boyle 2003 on Ovid; Larmour 2007 on Juvenal; Rodríguez Almeida 2003 and
Roman 2010 on Martial.
49
ἔὄeuἶ’ὅ 1λἁί eὅὅay ‘ἑiviliὅatiὁὀ aὀἶ itὅ ἶiὅἵὁὀteὀtὅ’ (1λκημἀηἅ) iὅ ἶiὅἵuὅὅeἶ ἴy Eἶwaὄἶὅ
1996:28; recent users of the metaphor: Bosworth 2011:1-3 (with a further discussion of
Freud); Jenkyns 2013:15, 257-74; Cloud 2013:187; Russell 2014:501; Kallis 2014:2-4.
50
Cf. Edwards 1996:42-3.
47
16
partly because of the aὄea’s natural geology as a low-lying, marshy area, but
partly because the Forum comes to represent the health of the Roman state
in microcosm. In times of disaster for Rome, the Forum may fracture
(literally or metaphorically) (pp. 41-2, 65-7, 151-61, 123); it has untapped
depths, representiὀg the ἵity’ὅ lὁὀg hiὅtὁὄy (pp. 33-40, 73-4, 210), and may
at times spew up unexpected (and inconvenient) figures, bones or memories
(pp. 47-50, 54-9, 85-6, 131-2, 202-3, 209).
The Forum is also constantly reinvented. After the ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ funeral,
his followers quickly made the site of the cremation into a spot sacred to
him, with an altar and column. This was incorporated by Octavian into a
Temple to his deified adopted father.51 The Temple of Divus Julius became
a touchstone for thinking about the nature of imperial rule (pp. 124-5, 130,
143-5). Rediscovered in 1899 and its altar restored, its cult was
‘ὄeawakeὀeἶ’ ἴy ἐeὀitὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi, whὁ iὀviteἶ paὄallelὅ ἴetweeὀ himὅelf
and Caesar, and, through his triumphant pietas at the ἦemple, ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ heir
Augustus (pp. 211-3). Auguὅtuὅ, hὁweveὄ, (aὅ we’ll ὅee iὀ ἑhapteὄ 1έ1), had
had to work hard to situate himself in a Forum associated with the expulsion
of tyranny and the establishment of a free Republic. The statue of the satyr
Marsyas, like the Lacus Curtius an already ancient monument, was
associated in particular with libertas (liberty) and appears to have been a
focal point for dissent against Augustus (see pp. 80-6). A century later,
however, it was employed by Trajan to pὄὁjeἵt a ὀew impeὄial ‘ὅettlemeὀt’
that incorporated the principle of libertas into imperial rule (pp. 153-4).
Aἴὁve all, we’ll ὅee hὁw χuguὅtuὅ’ aὀἶ ὅuἴὅequeὀt geὀeὄatiὁὀὅ
have piἵkeἶ thὄὁugh the ἔὁὄum’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy aὀἶ emphaὅiὅeἶ the eὄaὅ mὁὅt
conducive to their own ends. We can detect a pressure in the Augustan era
to look past recent Republican history to the deep past, regal Rome and the
foundation of the city (Chapter 1.1). A century later, Suetonius and his
contemporaries looked to the Julio-Claudian period in order to understand
the ἢὄiὀἵipate’ὅ ὄeἵeὀt iὀὅtaἴility aὀἶ affiὄm the ὀew ἵὁὀὅeὀὅuὅ eὅtaἴliὅheἶ
by Nerva and his successors. Legends of Constantine and Silvester
reinforced the medieval ἢὁpeὅ’ impeὄial aὀἶ tempὁὄal authὁὄity, while theiὄ
51
Sumi 2011:212-3.
17
Renaissance successors mined the buildings of imperial Rome for the raw
mateὄialὅ tὁ ὄaiὅe σew ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅ on an imperial scale (Intermezzo). In
reaction, the revolutionaries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
turned back to Republican Rome. Memories of Tully, Caesar, Brutus and
Cassius inspired theiὄ ‘ὄevival’ of a homegrown Republican political
tradition (Chapter 2.1). However, as the Forum was excavated under the
kiὀg ὁf uὀiteἶ Italy, pὄimὁὄἶial ἴegiὀὀiὀgὅ aὀἶ the lὁὅt ‘ὄegal’ peὄiὁἶ agaiὀ
came to the fore when archaeologists dug past the Republican Forum into
the valley’ὅ pὄehiὅtὁὄiἵ ἶepthὅέ ἔiὀally, ἐeὀitὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi at the ἦemple ὁf
Divus Julius attempted to revive the charisma of military dictatorship and
the glories of the Roman Empire.
In other words, ὄatheὄ thaὀ ‘ἶyiὀg’ with the Repuἴliἵ, with ἑiἵeὄὁ
and Caesar, the Forum continued to be actively politicised, and, since
εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ impeὄial iὀtὁxiἵatiὁὀὅ eὀἶeἶ iὀ the ἥeἵὁὀἶ Ἡὁὄlἶ Ἡaὄ ὅἵhὁlaὄὅ
have ἴeeὀ mὁὄe ὅtὄὁὀgly iὀveὅteἶ iὀ the iἶea ὁf a ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum’ thaὀ
they have aἵkὀὁwleἶgeἶέ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ aὀἵieὀt aὀἶ mὁἶeὄὀ hiὅtὁὄy ἵaὀὀὁt
be separated: the modern archaeological site has been influenced by a series
ὁf iἶeὁlὁgiἵal ‘feeἶἴaἵk lὁὁpὅ’, aὅ the concept of the Forum is remade by
successive eras. The same message, however, is repeatedly stressed by
Romans ancient and modern: what happens in (and to) this tiny space
matters.
18
Preliminary note: what did the Romans call the Forum?
ἦhὄὁughὁut thiὅ wὁὄk I’ll ἴe ὄefeὄὄiὀg tὁ the ‘Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’, the
standard English translation of Forum Romanum (as Italian il Foro
Romano, French le Forum Romain; German prefers Forum Romanum). The
modern archaeological site now known as the Foro Romano does not
exactly fit geographically with the ancient Forum. Stretching from the Arch
of Titus to the Capitoline, it corresponds with the larger area and environs
of the medieval Campo Vaccino. Foro Romano did not fully supersede
Campo Vaccino for the name of the area until well into the nineteenth
century (see chapter 2.1).
‘Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’ iὅ the English standard, but does it reflect ancient
usage?52 There were, of course, many fora in Rome, each with its own
epithet (Boarium, Holitorium, Transitorium and Traianum are examples).
Some of these seem to have had a more commercial and others (the
‘impeὄial fὁὄa’) a mὁὄe ‘ἵivil’ fuὀἵtiὁὀέ53 It seems, however, that our Forum
–the oldest of all – waὅ geὀeὄally ὄefeὄὄeἶ tὁ ὅimply aὅ ‘the ἔὁὄum’ (iὀ
ἕὄeek, the ‘χgὁὄa’), ‘Romanum’ added only in need of clarity. Ancient
Romans never referred to it aὅ ‘the Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum’ (thὁugh ἥtὄaἴὁ ἵallὅ
it the ‘aὀἵieὀt ἔὁὄum’ (
[έέέ]
α αῖα)έ54 The Forum was too old and
important to be challenged. A better translation of Forum Romanum might
be on analogy with the institutions that met in it, the Senatus Populusque
Romanusμ ‘the ἔὁὄum ὁf Rὁme’έ χὅ ἑaὅὅiuὅ Diὁ wὄὁte iὀ the thiὄἶ ἵeὀtuὄy
AD,
Caesar had constructed the Forum called after him, and it is distinctly
more beautiful than the Roman Forum; yet it had increased the reputation
of the other so that it was called the Great Forum.55
ἦhe ἵὁὀveὀtiὁὀal Eὀgliὅh uὅe ὁf ‘fὁὄum’ uὀtὄaὀὅlateἶ haὅ ὁὀly ἴeeὀ standard practice
since the 18th ἵέ ἥhakeὅpeaὄe ὅetὅ ‘ἔὄieὀἶὅ, Rὁmaὀὅ, ἵὁuὀtὄymeὀ’ iὀ the ‘maὄket-plaἵe’έ
53
ἦὁ the ἴeὅt ὁf my kὀὁwleἶge the ἶiὅtiὀἵtiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ ‘fora civilia’ aὀἶ ‘fora venalia’,
whiἵh ἵaὀ ἴe fὁuὀἶ iὀ ὁlἶeὄ ἴὁὁkὅ, iὅὀ’t aὀ aὀἵieὀt ὁὀeέ
54
Strab. 5.3.8.
55
Dio 43.22.
52
19
20
PART 1
ibam forte via Sacra, sicut meus est mos,
nescio quid meditans nugarum, totus in illis.
Horace, Satires 1.9.
21
22
1.1 – Rewriting the Republican Forum (44 BC –
AD 14).
On this spot, December 43 BC.
The head and hands of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Father of His
Country, former consul, senator, philosopher, onetime poet, and – above all
– orator, were fixed to the Rostra. The horror of the sight was hard to
articulate, even a few decades later. Livy writes,
uix attollentes lacrimis oculos humentes intueri truncata membra ciues
poterant.
The citizens could scarcely bear to lift their tearful eyes to look upon his
butchered body.
Nearly a century after the event, Bruttedius Niger affirms that,
nulla non pars fori aliquo actionis inclutae signata uestigio erat [...]
There was no part of the Forum not marked with the memory of his
actions.
If the Republican system of government can be characterised, in
εillaὄ’ὅ wὁὄἶὅ, ἴy ‘the ὁὄatὁὄ aἶἶὄeὅὅiὀg the ἵὄὁwἶ iὀ the ἔὁὄum’, then
there can be no more potent symbol of its end.56 The Rostra had been the
platfὁὄm fὁὄ ὅὁme ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ gὄeateὅt ὅpeeἵheὅμ ὀὁw hiὅ heaἶ lay
gὄὁteὅquely ὀeaὄ the feet ὁf χὀtὁὀy’ὅ ὅtatue ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ, hiὅ elὁqueὀἵe ἵut
off.
When the elder Seneca collected these and other extracts in his
rhetorical handbook Suasoriae (probably in the 20s and 30s AD), ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ
heaἶ haἶ ἴeἵὁme a ὅymἴὁl ὁf ‘ὅileὀἵiὀg’έ57 His death was seen as the
moment when true libertas, the ἵitiὐeὀ’ὅ fὄeeἶὁm tὁ ὅay aὀἶ wὄite what he
wanted, and to live within the laws without interference from a higher
authority, was extinguisheἶέ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ heaἶ ὁffeὄeἶ a way to think about the
very meaning of libertas uὀἶeὄ the ἢὄiὀἵipateέ ἔὁὄ ὅuὄe, the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ
authority guaranteed the citizen freedom from civil strife, but not from
56
57
See above, p.7.
Richlin 1999; Roller 1997. The extracts: Sen. Suas. 6.16-27.
23
ὅuffeὄiὀg a ὅimilaὄ fate tὁ ἑiἵeὄὁέ Ἡhat waὅ the pὁiὀt ὁf the elite’ὅ exteὀὅive
rhetorical training if the Rostra was too dangerous to climb?
Iὀ ἂἁ, hὁweveὄ, ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ heaἶ waὅ paὄt ὁf a muἵh mὁὄe immeἶiate
problem. He was one of more than two thousand citizens lost in the
ὅlaughteὄ fὁllὁwiὀg ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὅὅaὅὅiὀatiὁὀέ58 ἦhe Diἵtatὁὄ’ὅ ἵlὁὅeὅt allieὅ,
Mark Antony, Marcus Lepidus, and his freshly-adopted son Gaius Julius
Caesar (Octavian), had christened their Triumvirate with a wave of
proscriptions. Whitened boards were set up in the Forum, displaying the
names of political enemies, those with tempting riches and even some of
their own relatives. Their deaths were up for sale, and fragments of their
bodies were deposited on the Rostra. Such a wholesale butchering of
ἵitiὐeὀὅ haἶ ὀὁt ἴeeὀ ὅeeὀ ὅiὀἵe ἥulla’ὅ ἶayέ59 The triumvirs portrayed this
meaὅuὄe aὅ juὅt ὄeveὀge fὁὄ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ muὄἶeὄέ ἑaὅὅiuὅ Diὁ wὄiteὅ,
π
ὶ ὲ
αῖ
α
ὰ
αῖ
αὶ π ὸ
πὶ ὸ
π ῖ
ῖ
α
ῖ
π
π
αα
αὶ
πὸ
ὶ ὲ αὶ
π
, αὶ ὰ
υ
αῖ
υ
πὰ
ῖ
αῖ
, αὶ α
φα αὶ
α α ὰ ὲ α
, ὰ ὲ
ὸ π α ὸ
έ
60
Many were killed in their houses, many even in the streets and in the fora
and around the temples; the heads of the victims were once more set upon
the Rostra and their bodies were either allowed to lie where they were, to
be devoured by dogs and birds, or else cast in the river.
Ἡith ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὅὅaὅὅiὀὅ elimiὀateἶ, and the empire divided between them,
the triumvirs inevitably turned on each other. By 30 BC Octavian was the
last man standing.
The Forum Octavian returned to after Actium was a battered
building site (fig. 7)έ ἦhe ἵity’ὅ heaὄt, thiὅ waὅ wheὄe the ἶay-to-day
ἴuὅiὀeὅὅ ὁf ὄuὀὀiὀg Rὁme tὁὁk plaἵeέ Itὅ ἵὁὀἶitiὁὀ ἶiἶὀ’t juὅt ὅymἴὁliὅe ὁf
the tuὄmὁil ὅiὀἵe ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἶeath; it was also a real practical hindrance.
58
App. BC 4.5 gives this number of equestrians proscribed, but the figure has been
questioned. Hinard 1985:264-49 argues that only about 300 were actually proscribed;
Osgood 2006:63 n.6 suggests that this is closer to the number that were actually killed. At
aὀy ὄate, we ἵaὀ ἴe ὅuὄe that a ὅigὀifiἵaὀt ὀumἴeὄ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ elite lὁὅt theiὄ liveὅέ
59
The major study of proscription remains Hinard 1985; see alὅὁ ἑaὀfὁὄa 1λκίέ ἔὁὄ ἥulla’ὅ
proscriptions in particular see Flower 2006:90-6; for the triumviral proscriptions, Gowing
1992 and Osgood 2006:62-82.
60
Dio 47.3.1-2.
24
Octaviaὀ haἶ ἴeguὀ tὁ piἵk up hiὅ fatheὄ’ὅ aἴaὀἶὁὀeἶ ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁjeἵtὅ aὅ
tὄiumviὄ iὀ the ἁίὅμ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ temple waὅ ἶeἶiἵateἶ iὀ ἀλ ὁὀ the ὅite ὁf hiὅ
cremation.61 Now the physical scars of the years of upheaval were covered
up. Grey tufa, terracotta and (famously) brick gave way to marble.62
Octavian himself was transfigured from bloodstained triumvir to Augustus,
the benevolent princeps. By the time of his death in AD 14, every major
Forum building had been rebuilt or restored (figs. 8, 5). As Zanker writes,
‘Eὅ kam Augustus darauf an, gerade auf dem Forum Romanum, das neue
ἕeὅiἵht ἶeὅ ἥtaateὅ ὐu ὐeigeὀέ’63 Inspired by Zanker 1972, the Augustan
resdesign of the Forum has been examined in detail.64 ἐut it’ὅ ὀὁt the whὁle
story.
As the Romans knew, architecture alone does not make a
‘mὁὀumeὀt’μ it’ὅ the memὁὄieὅ aὅὅὁἵiateἶ with a locus that makes it a
monumentum; a building is not a monument without the oral tradition that
gives it meaning.65 Cicero touches on this in an often-quoted passage of De
Finibus, written in 45 and dedicated to Marcus Brutus.66 Iὀ the ἶialὁgue’ὅ
final book, set in 79 when Cicero and his friends were young students in
Athens, Piso explains how inspirational he finds simply being in the
Academyέ ἦheὄe, he’ὅ aἴle to picture Plato and other great philosophers as
if they were present before his eyes. He continues,
‘equiἶem etiam ἵuὄiam ὀὁὅtὄam (ώὁὅtiliam ἶiἵὁ, ὀὁὀ haὀἵ ὀὁuam, quae
minor mihi esse uidetur posteaquam est maior) solebam intuens
Scipionem, Catonem, Laelium, nostrum uero in primis auum cogitare;
61
Dio 47.18.4, 51.22.2; Aug. RG 19.
Suet. Aug. 29.
63
Zanker 1972:24.
64
The bibliography on Augustus, Augustan culture in general and building at Rome in
particular is vast; this chapter is informed by a number of fundamental works which for
reasons of clarity will only be specifically referenced in the text in the case of discussion or
disagreement: Arena 2012; Brunt 1988; Coarelli 1983, 1985; Eck 1998; Edwards 1996;
Favro 1996; Fox 1996; Galinsky 1996; Gallia 2012; Gowing 2005; Gros 1996-2001;
Haselberger 2002; Lobur 2008; Millar & Segal 1984; Raaflaub & Toher 1990; WallaceHadrill 1982, 2008; Wirszubski 1950; Woodman & West 1984; Yavetz 1988; Zanker 1968,
1972, 1988. For topographical details I have relied on LTUR and Richardson, 1992.
65
This so-called ‘metaphyὅiἵal’ aὅpeἵt ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ἴuilἶiὀgὅ iὅ explὁὄeἶ ἴy Vaὅaly 1λλἁ
(with particular reference to Cicero) and developed by Edwards 1996. An important
discussion of the relationship between memory and monuments in the Republican period is
Hölkeskamp 2006; see now the papers collected in Galinsky 2014. For discussions of the
term monumentum with particular reference to Livy, see Jaeger 1997:15-29 and Miles
1995:16-19.
66
Other discussions of this passage: Vasaly 1993:29-33; Edwards 1996:17; Gallia 2012:5760; Jenkyns 2013:15-16.
62
25
tanta uis admonitionis inest in locis; ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae
ἶuἵta ὅit ἶiὅἵipliὀaέ’67
‘It’ὅ the ὅame with ὁuὄ ὁwὀ ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe – the Hostilia, I mean, not the
new one, which seems to be smaller after being enlarged – which used to
bring to mind Scipio, Cato, Laelius, even my own grandfather, so strong is
the pὁweὄ ὁf ὅuggeὅtiὁὀ ὅuἵh plaἵeὅ haveν it’ὅ ὀὁt withὁut ὄeaὅὁὀ, afteὄ all,
that memὁὄy tὄaiὀiὀg iὅ ἴaὅeἶ ὁὀ plaἵeὅέ’
Piso refers to the extension of the Senate House which had been built a year
earlier by the dictator Sulla in order to accommodate his enlarged senate.68
Stone and mortar are easy to manipulate, but the history and meaning of a
space that give it its ideological power are created by its users and gradually
accumulate. The former building might have been cramped, but it was
magnified by its ability to invoke within Piso the very personal memory of
these great Republican heroes. Compared to this, the new building is
essentially blank, devoid of any memories to give it power.
The Forum of 30 BC might have been battered, but its buildings
recalled the history of Rome even beyond its foundation (fig. 7). It was
pὁὅὅiἴle tὁ ὅtaὀἶ iὀ the ὅquaὄe aὀἶ ὄeaἶ yὁuὄ ὁwὀ veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf the ἵity’ὅ ὅtὁὄy
from the buildings. At their core the most ancient sites were said to date to
the deep past, when Rome was ruled by kings and tyrants. Predominantly,
hὁweveὄ, the ἔὁὄum’ὅ mὁὀumeὀtὅ ὄeἵalleἶ the hiὅtὁὄy ὁf the Repuἴliἵ aὀἶ
its stories emphasised an ideal res publica and what it wasn’t – one man
rule. That ideal was expressed by Cicero at the beginning of his first speech
from the Rostra in 66:
[…] mihi ὅempeὄ fὄequeὀὅ ἵὁὀὅpeἵtuὅ ueὅteὄ multὁ iuἵuὀἶiὅὅimuὅ, hiἵ
autem locus ad agendum amplissimus, ad dicendum ornatissimus est uisus,
ἣuiὄiteὅ […]69
Fellow citizens, it has always been my greatest joy to watch your crowded
assembly, and this place in particular has seemed to be the most suited for
aἵtiὁὀ, aὀἶ mὁὅt ἶiὅtiὀguiὅheἶ fὁὄ ὅpeakiὀg …
67
Cic. Fin. 5.2. Cf. Cic. Epist. Ad Caes. Fr. 7.
Plin. NH 34.26. Cicero, in fact, saw four incarnations of the Senate House in his lifetime:
the ἑuὄia ώὁὅtilia ἢiὅὁ ὄefeὄὅ tὁ heὄeν ἥulla’ὅ ἑuὄia ώὁὅtilia ὁf κί ἐἑν the ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ ὁf
ἥulla’ὅ ἑuὄia ἴy hiὅ ὅὁὀ ἔauὅtuὅ afteὄ it waὅ ἶeὅtὄὁyeἶ iὀ ηἀ ἴy the fuὀeὄal pyὄe ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁ’s
nemesis P. Clodius; and the Curia Julia begun by Caesar in 44 BC.
69
Cic. Imp. 1.
68
26
Or, as his brother Quintus put it more pithily:
prope cotidie tiἴi hὁἵ aἶ fὁὄum ἶeὅἵeὀἶeὀti meἶitaὀἶum eὅtμ ‘ὀὁuuὅ ὅum,
ἵὁὀὅulatum petὁ, Rὁma eὅtέ’70
Eveὄy ἶay ὁὄ ὅὁ wheὀ yὁu gὁ ἶὁwὀ tὁ the ἔὁὄum ὅay tὁ yὁuὄὅelfμ ‘I am a
ὀew maὀ, I ὅeek the ἵὁὀὅulὅhip, thiὅ iὅ Rὁmeέ’
ἦhe memὁὄy ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ heaἶ ὄὁttiὀg ὁὀ the Rὁὅtὄa and of the other
atrocities committed by Octavian haunted the Forum. Cicero, after all, was
not ὅileὀἵeἶμ aὅ ἐὄutteἶiuὅ σigeὄ putὅ it, ‘theὄe waὅ ὀὁ paὄt ὁf the ἔὁὄum ὀὁt
marked with a uestigio (memὁὄy, ὁὄ eveὀ fὁὁtpὄiὀt) ὁf hiὅ aἵtiὁὀὅ’έ ἦheὅe
uestigia prompted the weeping crowds to recall his deeds, much as Piso
ὄeἵalleἶ ἥἵipiὁ aὀἶ ἑatὁέ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ἶeath ἴegaὀ tὁ ἴe mythὁlὁgiὅeἶ almὁὅt
immediately, and he was just one of the two thousand.71 His uestigia could
ἴe ὅeὀὅeἶ tὁὁ iὀ ἡἵtaviaὀ’ὅ ὀew pὁὅt-war policy of concordia and
consensus.72
According to the logic of De Finibus, χuguὅtuὅ ἵὁulἶὀ’t juὅt gὄaft a
‘ὀew faἵe’ ὁὀtὁ the ὅtate withὁut kὀittiὀg it tὁ the uὀἶeὄlyiὀg tὄaἶitiὁὀὅ ὁf
the place: it would simply wither. Or, to take aὀὁtheὄ metaphὁὄ, he ἵὁulἶὀ’t
concrete over the uestigia of the past and expect the Romans to continue to
fiὀἶ the plaἵe meaὀiὀgfulέ ἦhey wὁulἶ iὀὅteaἶ, aὅ ἢiὅὁ ἶὁeὅ, ‘uὀἶeὄmiὀe’
the new building by comparing it unfavourably to the old.73 The Forum was
so significant because it was the place where great history had happened.
But the same time, that history – recent and ancient – threatened to expose
the fragile new concordia for what it was: autocracy. The Forum was
traditionally inimical tὁ ὁὀe maὀ ὄuleέ χὅ we’ll ὅee, time aὀἶ time again this
was the place where the libertas of the Roman people was confirmed and
reasserted. The memory of the proscriptions preserved how the newly
benign princeps had come to power. Most problematically, the ancient
structures of earlier eras were proof of a stable and successful Republic that
had endured for centuries. They challenged the consensus underpinning
χuguὅtuὅ’ pὁὅitiὁὀ, that ‘the gὁveὄὀmeὀt waὅ ἵhaὀgeἶ at that time fὁὄ the
ἴetteὄ […] fὁὄ it waὅ ὀὁ ἶὁuἴt impὁὅὅiἴle fὁὄ the peὁple tὁ ἴe ὅaveἶ uὀἶer a
70
Q. Cic. Com. Pet. 2.
See Wright 2001.
72
Lobur 2008:37-58.
73
Sil. It. Pun. 1.617-29, e.g., lovingly re-imagines the Republican Curia Hostilia.
71
27
ἶemὁἵὄaἵyέ’74 ἦὁ put it aὀὁtheὄ way, ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ heaἶ waὅ pὄὁὁf that exἵeὅὅive
libertas had led to civil disaster, and so his death needed to be
ἵὁmmemὁὄateἶέ ἦhe ἵivil waὄ ὀeeἶeἶ tὁ ἴe ὄememἴeὄeἶ, ‘it haἶ tὁ ἴeν it
justified the autocratic form of governmeὀt whiἵh [the Rὁmaὀὅ] aἵἵepteἶέ’75
Yet ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ἶeath aὀἶ ὁtheὄ ‘iὀἵὁὀveὀieὀt’ ἔὁὄum memὁὄieὅ ἵὁὀtiὀually
threatened (if looked at too closely) to expose the government for what it
was.
Recent tragedy needed to be commemorated and old traditions
nuanced and redirected. As this chapter will show, we can trace this
wὁὄkiὀg iὀ a ὀumἴeὄ ὁf wayὅέ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ Repuἴliἵaὀ hiὅtὁὄy waὅ ὅuἴtly
downplayed in favour of a focus on mythical prehistory; civil conflict was
‘mythὁlὁgiὅeἶ’, itὅ pὄeὅeὀἵe at Rὁme fὄὁm the ἴeginning acknowledged,
but its positive outcomes emphasised. Augustan writers see the Forum as
the key unifying element that makes Rome a ciuitas. The message (again
echoing Cicero) is that this is the place of consensus, unity, concord, where
the disparate elements of the city come together.76 It’ὅ a ἵὁὀἵὁὄἶ ἴὁὄὀ ὁut ὁf
conflict. The mythical Forum has a tendency to crack down the middle
(sometimes geologically) but conflict and resolution are presented as a
complete package by the myths. The libertas that had characterised the
speech of the Forum under the Republic, but led to civil disaster, was
downplayed in favour of concordia.
Behind this we can see an attempted process of standardisation that
parallels the way the architectural Forum was transformed from an irregular
space to an ordered precinct: a movement from a diffusion of different and
eveὀ ἵὁὀtὄaἶiἵtὁὄy tὄaἶitiὁὀὅ aἴὁut ὅiteὅ tὁ a ὅiὀgle ὅtaὀἶaὄἶ ‘ὅtὁὄy’έ Ἡe
saw that in De Finibus, ἢiὅὁ’ὅ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe waὅ ὅuἴjeἵtive
and personal: another visitor might well invoke a different set of names.
The Augustan version of the Forum ideally required everyone to respond to
the ὅite iὀ the ὅame way, theὄeἴy elimiὀatiὀg ὅuἴveὄὅive ‘ὄeaἶiὀgὅ’έ χt itὅ
root, this is about historical authority. The process is particularly raw here
because the Forum was traditionally the place of free speech. Now the
74
Dio 53.19.1.
Osgood 2006:403 cf. Eck 2003:5.
76
For Cicero, see Asmis 2005:406.
75
28
princeps assumed ultimate authority over its history. He required the
collaboration of writers, historians and viewers on the project: and at times,
as we will see, some were reluctant.
Livy and Labienus: how and how not to collaborate
In the following chapter, we will be relying on the work of Augustan
writers, particularly the historian Livy. In his Ab Urbe Condita we can see a
tension between the Augustan pὄeὅὅuὄe tὁ fὁἵuὅ ὁὀe’ὅ gaὐe ὁὀ a ὅpeἵifiἵ
veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf a mὁὀumeὀt, aὀἶ the hiὅtὁὄiaὀ’ὅ ἶuty tὁ ὄeἵὁὄἶ all the
alternatives. In his preface, however, he effectively explains his decision to
collaborate.
The preface was published in 26, but Livy may well have begun
writing it before Actium.77 The past century of civil war looms large, and he
iὅ ὀὁt aὅhameἶ tὁ aἶmit that the ὅtuἶy ὁf aὀἵieὀt hiὅtὁὄy iὅ aὀ eὅἵapeέ ‘I […]
shall seek a great reward for my labours, in being able to avert my gaze
from the evils we have watἵheἶ fὁὄ ὅὁ maὀy yeaὄὅ […]έ’78 The troubles of
the pὄeὅeὀt ‘eveὀ if they ἵaὀὀὁt ἶiveὄt [the hiὅtὁὄiaὀ] fὄὁm the tὄuth,
ὀeveὄtheleὅὅ ἶiὅtuὄἴ hiὅ peaἵe ὁf miὀἶέ’79 We might put this another way:
it’ὅ difficult to write emotionlessly about the recent past, even if it does not
(implied: although it sometimes can) affeἵt ὁὀe’ὅ aἴility tὁ wὄite the tὄuthέ
ἦhe ‘uὀἵὁὄὄupteἶ mὁὀumeὀtὅ’ ὁf the ἶeep paὅt (incorruptis rerum gestarum
monumentis) provide a more wholesome sight than the present.
ἦhiὅ iὅ δivy’ὅ justification for striking out on his own into the
relatively untrodden territory of ancient history. His illustrious predecessors
have aὀatὁmiὅeἶ ὄeἵeὀt hiὅtὁὄy aὀἶ the ἶeἵliὀe ὁf a ‘lὁὀg ἶὁmiὀaὀt ὀatiὁὀ’
and Livy has no doubt that his readers expect this of him, too.80 Moreover, a
study of Rome’ὅ ὁὄigiὀὅ opens up a methodological question: this is, after
77
Burton 2000 summarises recent debates: he prefers 33 as the date for Book 1.
Livy Praef. ηέ ‘egὁ ἵὁὀtὄa hoc quoque laboris praemium petam, ut me a conspectu
malorum quae nostra tot per annos uidit aetaὅ […]’
79
Livy Praef. ηέ ‘ὁmὀiὅ expeὄὅ ἵuὄae quae ὅἵὄiἴeὀtiὅ aὀimum, etὅi ὀὁὀ fleἵteὄe a ueὄὁ,
ὅὁlliἵitum tameὀ effiἵeὄe pὁὅὅetέ’
80
Livy Praef. 3-4. Livy describes his predeἵeὅὅὁὄὅ aὅ the ‘taὀta ὅἵὄiptὁὄum tuὄἴa’ aὀἶ
anticipates that his readers will huὄὄy thὄὁugh tὁ mὁὄe ὄeἵeὀt hiὅtὁὄyμ ‘et legeὀtium
plerisque haud dubito quin primae origines proximaque originibus minus praebitura
uoluptatis sint, festinantibus ad haec noua quibus iam pridem praeualentis populi uires se
ipsae ἵὁὀfiἵiuὀtέ’
78
29
all, the traditional preserve of poets. A description of the early days of
Rome necessarily entails a cast of nymphs and demigods: he draws a careful
distiὀἵtiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ theὅe ‘fabulae’ and hard evidence (the incorruptis […]
monumentis). But, of ἵὁuὄὅe, maὀy ὁf the ἵity’ὅ monumenta preserve such
fabulae, and he is studiedly ambivalent about including them in the
narrative. Embracing the supernatural makes hiὅ hiὅtὁὄy ‘augustior’ (mὁὄe
August(an)?). Besides, he adds, the Romans have won the right to claim
ἶiviὀe paὄeὀtage thὄὁugh theiὄ pὄὁweὅὅ iὀ ἴattle, ὅὁ whὁ iὅ he tὁ aὄgueς (It’ὅ
hard not to detect a sly glance at the diui filius here.)81 Ultimately, this is a
methodological quibble he will rise above. Rome is suffering from a
sickness for which the study of history and the exempla it provides can be
the only medicine.82 To that end, he will contribute his History to the
collaborate project, to provide an augustior history in order to inspire the
present.
This was a high stakes game. Seeing the wrong monuments,
recalling the wrong memories, and identifying too closely with the
‘hiὅtὁὄiἵal’ ὄeἵeὀt paὅt – allὁwiὀg yὁuὄ juἶgemeὀt tὁ ἴe affeἵteἶ, aὅ δivy’ὅ
preface says – could be fatal. Amy Richlin observes the literary world after
ἂἁ waὅ ‘a wὁrld conditioned by proscription’ iὀ whiἵh ‘the tresuiri
capitales, whose chief duty was to supervise executions, were the ones put
iὀ ἵhaὄge ὁf ἴὁὁk ἴuὄὀiὀgὅέ’83 Those writers who refused to yield to
χuguὅtuὅ’ imperium over the Past faced the burning of their works and
wὁὄὅeέ ἦhe fiὄὅt viἵtim waὅ δivy’ὅ ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄy ἦituὅ δaἴieὀus. His fate is
recounted by Seneca the Elder:
libertas tanta ut libertatis nomen excederet, et quia passim ordines
hominesque laniabat Rabienus uocaretur. animus inter uitia ingens et ad
similitudinem ingeni sui uiolentus et qui Pompeianos spiritus nondum in
tanta pace posuisset. in hoc primum excogitata est noua poena; effectum
Livy Praef. ἅέ ‘ἶatuὄ haeἵ ueὀia aὀtiquitati ut miὅἵeὀἶὁ humaὀa ἶiuiὀiὅ pὄimὁὄἶia
urbium augustiora faciat; et si cui populo licere oportet consecrare origines suas et ad deos
referre auctores, ea belli gloria est populo Romano ut cum suum conditorisque sui
parentem Martem potissimum ferat, tam et hoc gentes humanae patiantur aequo animo
quam impeὄium patiuὀtuὄέ’ ἔὁὄ δivy’ὅ ἶiὅtiὀἵtiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ ‘ὄeliaἴle’ monumenta and
‘ἵὁὄὄuptiἴle’ fabulae/fama in the preface, see Miles 1996:14-19.
82
Paraphrasing Livy Praef. 8-11: the ὅtuἶy ὁf Rὁme’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy allὁwὅ the ὄeaἶeὄ tὁ
understand its recent (moral) decline, but also provides from its glorious, more distant past
any number of models to imitate and so restore the nation.
83
Richlin 1999:200, 206.
81
30
est enim per inimicos ut omnes eius libri comburerentur: res noua et
inuisitata supplicium de studiis sumi.84
His freedom [of speech] was so great it exceeded the limits of freedom,
and because he used to savage all ranks and men alike he was called
Raἴieὀuὅ [‘εaὀiaἵ’, a puὀ ὁὀ rabies + Labienus]. Among these faults he
had a great spirit, violent like his great genius, which could not lay down
its devotion to Pompey even in such an established peacetime. It was for
him that a new punishment was first devised: his enemies brought about
the burning of all his books. It was a strange and unheard of thing to enact
punishment on scholarship.
δaἴieὀuὅ ὄeὅiὅteἶ the pὄevailiὀg mὁὁἶέ Deἵaἶeὅ afteὄ ἥextuὅ ἢὁmpey’ὅ
downfall he kept the Pompeian fire burning, and worse refused (to echo
Livy) to be diverted from the truth as he saw it. His speeches in the Forum
targeted all indiscriminately; he perversely chose to take the much vaunted
restoration of the Republic at face value. The Forum too was likely the
location of the book-burning.85 Labienuὅ ἶiἶὀ’t wait tὁ ἴe exeἵuteἶ, ἴut
entombed himself alive with his ancestors. There was no more shocking
way tὁ ὅhὁw hiὅ iἶeὀtifiἵatiὁὀ with the ‘tὄue’ paὅtέ86 Yet Seneca recalled
that there were some portions of work even Labienus believed too
dangerous to ἴe ὄeleaὅeἶ uὀtil afteὄ hiὅ ἶeathέ Iὀ thiὅ light, χuguὅtuὅ’ ‘little
jὁke’ with δivy about the historian’ὅ ‘ἢὁmpeiaὀ’ sympathies acquires a
sting.87
When writers did commit to the project, the results could be
startling. Cornelius Severus, a contemporary of Ovid, wrote the sight of
ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ heaἶ iὀ hexameteὄὅέ
informes uoltus sparsamque curore nefando
canitiem sacrasque manus operumque ministras
tantorum pedibus ciuis proiecta superbis
proculcauit ouans nec lubrica fata deosque
84
Sen. Controv. 10.praef.5.
Given the highly traditional trappings of his trial before the Senate and the senatus
consultum issued against him, it seems likely that the traditional place of public punishment
would be used. Cramer 1945:172.
86
Sen. Controv. 10.praef.7.
87
ἦhe ‘jὁke’ iὅ at Tac. Ann. 4.34. Miles 1995:48-50 for Labienus and Cassius Severus. He
argues that Livy was too low-ὅtatuὅ tὁ ἴe a ὄeal thὄeatμ ‘χuguὅtuὅ’ allegeἶ ἵὁὀἶeὅἵeὀὅiὁὀ
toward Livy is a reaἵtiὁὀέ It iὅ a ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ the ὅuἴveὄὅive pὁὅὅiἴilitieὅ ὁf δivy’ὅ
narrativeέ’ (pέηἂ)
85
31
respexit. nullo luet hoc Antonius aeuo.88
His disfigured face, and white hair wickedly
splattered with blood and his sacred hands, the ministers
of such great works – a fellow citizen hurled them down
and trampled on them with arrogant feet
glorying, respecting neither slippery fate nor the gods.
Forever will not be long enough for Antony to atone.
Someone is suspiciously absent from this account. Antony here not only
shoulders sole responsibility for the crime but plays the role of hubristic
tyrant to the full. A certain young colleague of his has been carefully
omitted.
σὁt all the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὅtὁὄieὅ weὄe ὅὁ eaὅily ὄewὄitteὀέ ‘ἐeἵauὅe
ἵultuὄal memὁὄy […] iὅ iὀὅἵὄiἴeἶ iὀ mὁὀumeὀtὅ aὀἶ textὅ, it ὁfteὀ pὄeὅeὀtὅ
the rememberer with certain fixed points that are difficult to tamper with or
ὄeἶefiὀe, hὁweveὄ iὀἵὁὀveὀieὀt it may ἴeέ’89 χὅ we’ll ὅee the χuguὅtaὀ
rewriting of the Forum was only a partial success. Forum and Principate
could not be entirely reconciled, and the space remained ideologically
charged – aὅ χuguὅtuὅ’ ὁwὀ ἶaughteὄ wὁulἶ demonstrate.
88
89
Sen. Suas. 6.26.
Gallia 2012:7.
32
Foundation
Before the city, there was water. In Roman legend, the landscape
before the foundation of the city is hard to put a shape to: formless, porous,
not quite land, not quite water, stretches of marsh from the valley between
the hills to the Tiber. On the hilltops cling tiny villages, unconnected,
separated from one another. The Forum, the shared space that unites the
villages into a city, does not yet exist. Where it will be lies a marshy
mὁὄaὅὅέ It’ὅ ὀὁt ὅuὄpὄiὅiὀg, theὄefὁὄe, that ὁὀe ὁf Rὁme’ὅ fὁuὀἶatiὁὀ legeὀἶὅ
is essentially about drainage. The development of the city is paralleled by
and visualised as the slow reclamation of the Forum landscape from the
water.90
Varro records that the Aventine was once an island. The early
Romans would be ferried between the hills on rafts (uelabra), the traces of
which (uestigia) were left in the place name Velabrum, for the valley that
ἵὁὀὀeἵtὅ the ἔὁὄum tὁ the ὄiveὄ, aὀἶ the ‘ἥhὄiὀe ὁf the ἔeὄὄieὅ’ at the ἴὁttὁm
of the Nova Via.91 Tibullus develops this ideal into an elegiac idyll in the
ἶayὅ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ὄuὅtiἵ pὄehiὅtὁὄyμ
Romulus aeternae nondum formauerat urbis
moenia, consorti non habitanda Remo;
sed tunc pascebant herbosa Palatia uaccae
et stabant humiles in Iouis arce casae. […]
at qua Velabri regio patet, ire solebat
exiguus pulsa per uada linter aqua.
illa saepe gregis diti placitura magistro
ad iuuenem festa est uecta puella die,
cum qua fecundi redierunt munera ruris,
caesus et niueae candidus agnus ouis.92
Romulus had not yet traced the walls of the eternal city,
90
Many scholars have used the foundation myths to reconstruct the historical reality of
Rὁme’ὅ ὁὄigiὀὅμ ὅee, eέgέ, Carandini & Capella 2001; Fraschetti 2005; Carandini 2011;
contra ἑὁὄὀell 1λληέ ώeὄe I’m ὁὀly concerned with what they can tell us about the time in
which they were written down.
91
Varro Ling. 5.43: ‘ὀam ὁlim paluἶiἴuὅ mὁὀὅ eὄat aἴ ὄeliquiὅ ἶiὅἵluὅuὅέ itaque eὁ ex uὄἴe
aduehebantur ratibus, cuius uestigia, quod ea qua tum <aduectum> dicitur Velabrum, et
unde escendebant ad <in>fimam Nouam Viam locus sacellum <Ve>labrumέ’ ἦhe urbs is
pὄeὅumaἴly Rὁmuluὅ’ ὅettlemeὀt ὁὀ the ἢalatiὀe, while the σὁva Via (althὁugh itὅ exaἵt
location remains unclear – see Wiseman 2004) was the road running along the Forum on
the slope of the Palatine. For more boats, see Ovid Fast. 2.389-92.
92
Tib. 2.5.23-6, 33-8.
33
no home for his brother Remus,
but cattle still grazed on the grassy Palatine
aὀἶ humἴle hutὅ ὅtὁὁἶ ὁὀ Jupiteὄ’ὅ heightέ […]
But where the Velabrum region now spreads,
a little boat used to scull through the shallow waters.
There often a girl, pleasing to some rich owner of a herd,
was ferried on a festival day to her young man,
and with her returned the gifts of a thriving farm,
ἵheeὅe aὀἶ a ὅὀὁwy ewe’ὅ white lamἴέ
Tibullus spreads his pastoral scene over the contours of the modern city,
hiὀtὅ ὁf whiἵh peep thὄὁughέ ἦheὄe iὅ ὀὁt a pὁlitiἵiaὀ’ὅ toga candida to be
seen: the only bright white here belongs to the fleece of a lamb. The grand
houses of the Palatine are covered with grass, the valley with water. Here
Tibullus brings into elegy a topos first and most famously used by Virgil in
Aeneid 8.93
ἦiἴulluὅ’ pὄὁtὁ-Rὁme iὅ a gὄeeὀfielἶ ὅite, ἴut Viὄgil’ὅ iὅ alὄeaἶy
occupied by ruins. In Aeneid 8, Evander takes Aeneas and the reader on a
trip down memory lane: a tour of the little village of Pallanteum and the
future site (sight?) of Rome, which is littered with ruined cities. Virgil
ἶὁeὅὀ’t tell uὅ if ὁuὄ ὄeἶὁuἴtaἴle heὄὁ waὅ troubled by ‘the ὄuiὀeἶ wallὅ ὁf
twὁ tὁwὀὅ, […] the mὁὀumeὀtὅ ὁf the meὀ ὁf ὁlἶ’ afteὄ eight ἴὁὁkὅ ὅpeὀt
escaping the smouldering wreckage of his home.94 The tour affirms that
there is something special about this particular location but also that cities,
eveὀ thὁὅe fὁuὀἶeἶ ἴy the gὁἶὅ, aὄe fὄagile thiὀgὅέ ‘ἦhe laὀἶ ὁf Saturn lost
itὅ ὀame maὀy timeὅ,’ Evaὀἶeὄ muὅeὅέ95 They continue on:
talibus inter se dictis ad tecta subibant
pauperis Euandri, passimque armenta uidebant
Romanoque foro et lautis mugire Carinis.96
Talking in this way they were coming up to
Evaὀἶeὄ’ὅ humble home, and they saw cattle everywhere
93
Murgatroyd 1994:183.
Virg. Aen. 8.355-ἄέ ἦhe ἵitieὅ aὄe ὀameἶ ἴy Evaὀἶeὄ ‘Jaὀiἵulum’, fὁuὀἶeἶ ἴy Jaὀuὅ, aὀἶ
‘ἥatuὄὀia’, fὁuὀἶeἶ ἴy ἥatuὄὀέ χἵἵὁὄἶiὀg tὁ Vaὄὄὁ (Ling. ἂἀ) ἥatuὄὀia’ὅ ὄuiὀὅ weὄe
believed to have topped what was later known as the Capitoline Hill; the Janiculum
ὅuppὁὅeἶly pὄeὅeὄveἶ the ὀame ὁf Jaὀuὅ’ ἵityέ ἑfέ ἡviἶ Fasti 1.235-46.
95
Virg. Aen. 8. 329.
96
Virg. Aen. 8.358-61.
94
34
lowing in the Roman Forum and the luxurious Carinae.
Viὄgil’ὅ text peelὅ ἴaἵk the ἵity layeὄ ἴy layeὄέ ἐeὀeath the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum, a
pastoral landscape; beneath the pasture, long-dead cities poke ruins through
the gὄaὅὅέ χll aὄe ὅimultaὀeὁuὅly viὅiἴle tὁ the miὀἶ’ὅ eyeέ ἡὀ χeὀeaὅ’
arrival, the poet invites us to blend past and present: now (nunc) the ‘pὁweὄ
ὁf Rὁme’ haὅ maἶe ὄὁὁfὅ that tὁuἵh the ὅkyν tum (theὀ) it waὅ the ‘meagὄe’
land of Evander.97 And in this Rome-before-Rὁme, χeὀeaὅ’ aὀἶ ὁuὄ fiὄὅt
glimpse of Evander and his community is of a model of Augustan
consensus under a benevolent pater patriae:
forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem
Amphitryoniadae magno diuisque ferebat
ante urbem in luco. Pallas huic filius una,
una omnes iuuenum primi pauperque senatus
tura dabant, tepidusque cruor fumabat ad aras.98
It happened that on that day the Arcadian king was paying homage
to the mighty son of Amphitryon and to the gods
in a grove before the city, together with him his son Pallas,
together with him all the foremost of his young men and humble senate
were offering incense, and the warm blood smoked on the altars.
Here we see rex and senatus co-existing in a way only possible in this
prehistory – or the present day.99 A direct line is drawn between the rustic
viὄtue ὁf ἢallaὀteum aὀἶ the ὅὁaὄiὀg gὄeatὀeὅὅ ὁf Rὁmeέ Viὄgil’ὅ
imaginative mingling of past and present exploits the power of place
discussed by Cicero. However, in De Finibus ἢiὅὁ’ὅ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ the Senate
House is personal and subjective. The building evokes his grandfather, and
the heroes he names are those especially significant for himself. Here, the
poet does the imaginative heavy lifting for us. The associations of the place
are already chosen. Our responses have already been conditioned.
ἦhe ὄuiὀeἶ ἵitieὅ, aὄe, aὅ Eἶwaὄἶὅ wὄiteὅ, ‘ὅuὄely a ἶeὅtaἴiliὅiὀg
presence […] in tension with the urge to celebrate the golden city of
χuguὅtuὅ’έ100 They bring into the idyll the recent past: within the world of
97
Virg. Aen. 8.99-100.
Virg. Aen. 8.102-6.
99
ἢeteὄὅὁὀ 1λἄ1 ὅeeὅ a ἵὁmpaὄaἴle alluὅiὁὀ at wὁὄk iὀ δivy’ὅ pὄeὅeὀtatiὁὀ ὁf Evaὀἶeὄέ
100
Edwards 2011:649. Cfέ ώaὄἶie 1λλἀμἄίμ ‘ἵitieὅ have ἴeeὀ fὁuὀἶeἶ heὄe before, and
decayed – ὅuggeὅtive peὄhapὅ ὁf what may happeὀ tὁ ὀew ἵitieὅέ’
98
35
the Aeneid, the ruins of Troy; in the Augustan present, the ruins that littered
Italy in the wake of the civil war – like those of Perusia – and Rome
itself.101 But they also destabilise on a more fundamental level. Just as
Virgil curates a reconstruction of proto-Rome, within the poem Evander
does the same, acting as custodian and curator of the ancient cities. Aeneas,
and the reader, relies on Evander for the identification of the ruined walls.
It’ὅ the ὁlἶ kiὀg whὁ explaiὀὅ theὅe monumenta as those of the ueterum
uirorum, and links them with Janus and Saturn. Within the text, the memory
ὁf the paὅt iὅ iὀ the kiὀg’ὅ haὀἶὅ, aὀἶ althὁugh the glὁὄy ὁf Jaὀiἵulum aὀἶ
Saturnia is memorialised, the circumstances of their ruin are not revealed to
uὅέ Evaὀἶeὄ’ὅ version of the past is deceptively selective. In a sense, the
warning note sounded by the ruins is as much about recreating the past as it
is about the future. The cities destabilise not just the promise of modern
Rome, but the value of the idyll itself.
Ovid, while lampooning the piety of Tibullus and seriousness of
Varro, is just as aware of the ambivalence of reconstruction. He refloods the
Forum in Fasti ἄ, aὀἶ hiὅ tὄeatmeὀt ὁf the ὁlἶ wiveὅ’ tale ὁf ἥwamp Rὁme
is narrated by an old wife from the neighbourhood (anus uicina). Spotting a
barefoot matron of the present day picking a hazardous way towards the
Temple of Vesta, the poet wonders why she decided to leave her shoes
behind. Up pops the old lady to helpfully explain:
‘hὁἵ, uἴi ὀuὀἵ fὁὄa ὅuὀt, uἶae tenuere paludes;
amne redundatis fossa madebat aquis.
Curtius ille lacus, siccas qui sustinet aras,
nunc solida est tellus, sed lacus ante fuit;
qua Velabra solent in Circum ducere pompas,
nil praeter salices cassaque canna fuit;
saepe suburbanas rediens conuiua per undas
cantat et ad nautas ebria uerba iacit.
nondum conueniens diuresis iste figuris
nomen ab auerso ceperat amne deus.
hic quoque lucus erat iuncis et harundine densus
101
For the impact of the Perusine War see Osgood 2006:163-73.
36
et peἶe uelatὁ ὀὁὀ aἶeuὀἶa paluὅέ …’102
‘ώeὄe, wheὄe the fὁὄumὅ ὀὁw aὄe, theὄe uὅeἶ tὁ ἴe ἶamp ὅwampὅν a ἶitἵh
was drenched with water overflowing from the river. At the Lake of
Curtius there, which supports dry altars, the ground is now solid, but in the
past it really was a lake. Where now processions usually lead through the
Velabrum to the Circus, there was nothing but willows and hollow reeds;
often the guest returning from a party over the suburban waves would sing
and cast drunken words at passing sailors. The god there had not yet
derived a name matching his diverse shapes from the turning back of the
river. Here, too, there was a grove overgrown with bulrushes and reeds,
aὀἶ a maὄὅh ὀὁt tὁ ἴe ἵὄὁὅὅeἶ ἴy feet iὀ ὅhὁeὅέ’
In this passage Ovid enjoys invoking, and overdoing, the trope. He drowns
χuguὅtuὅ’ maὄἴle ἔὁὄum aὀἶ Viὄgil’ὅ iἶylliἵ ἵattle paὅtuὄe iὀ the ὅwampέ
The calm uada aqua of Tibullus becomes exaggerated into full-scale yet
ἶeliἵiὁuὅly ἴaὀal ‘ὅuἴuὄἴaὀ waveὅ’, aὀἶ the feὄὄymeὀ have ἴeeὀ pὁmpὁuὅly
promoted to the status of real maὄiὀeὄὅέ ἦiἴulluὅ’ ὅtaiἶ maiἶeὀ haὅ ἴeen
replaced by tipsy partygoers who hurl abuse as they bob their way home.
Virgil, however cautiously, selectively blended past and present to evoke an
ideal. Ovid leaves in all the unsavoury details. The old woman taking the
part of Evander makes sure nothing is neglected: hoc, ille, hic, iste, hic.
How much has changed! – and how little. ἦhe aὄtifiἵiality ὁf thiὅ ‘iἶylliἵ’
past is exposed.103
Fasti 6 uses the Forum swamp to show how there are many ways to
read the myth. The Forum marsh, and the deep past itself, is difficult to fix.
The old lady points to a bronze statue on the edge of the Forum. This is the
shape-ὅhiftiὀg gὁἶ Veὄtumὀuὅ, ὀameἶ, aὅ ἡviἶ ὅayὅ, ‘fὁὄ the tuὄὀiὀg ἴaἵk
ὁf the ὄiveὄ’ (nomen ab auerso … amne).104 When Propertius resolves to
write about the early history of Rome in Elegies 4, he has Vertumnus
address the reader:
qui mirare meas tot in uno corpore formas,
102
Ovid Fasti 6.401-12.
See also Ars Am. 3.113-28, where the poet mocks the all-pervasive nostalgia. The
paὄὁἶiἵ ὀatuὄe ὁf thiὅ paὅὅage haὅ ἴeeὀ teὀtatively iἶeὀtifieἶ ἴy Eἶwaὄἶὅ 1λλἄμἄίμ ‘it iὅ
tempting to read this episode as a deliberate absurdity. We might also wonder whether the
purpose of the aetiology is not to parody the repeated evocations of early Rome found in
ὁtheὄ χuguὅtaὀ pὁetὅέ’
104
Ovid Fast. 6.410.
103
37
accipe Vertumni signa paterna dei.
[…] haeἵ me tuὄἴa iuuatν ὀeἵ templὁ laetὁὄ eἴuὄὀὁμ
Romanum satis est posse uidere forum.105
You who marvel that my single body can take so many shapes,
Learn about the ancestral statue of the god Vertumnus.
[…] ἦhiὅ ἵὄὁwἶ ἶelightὅ meν ὀὁὄ iὅ it aὀ ivὁὄy temple I ὄeliὅh,
It’ὅ eὀὁugh that I ἵaὀ ὅee the Roman Forum.
Veὄtumὀuὅ iὅ a veὄὅatile gὁἶμ ‘ἦuὄὀ me tὁ aὀythiὀg yὁu waὀt, I’ll play the
paὄt peὄfeἵtlyέ’106 He playfully brags about the number of different guises he
can take: woman, citizen, fisherman, farmer, pedlar, charioteer, soldier,
hunter, musician – he embodies the population of Rome himself.107 With his
amἴiguὁuὅ fὁὄm aὀἶ eὀἶleὅὅ pὁteὀtial tὁ take ὁὀ ὀew ὄὁleὅ, he’ὅ a fittiὀg
witness to the transformation of the marshy valley.108 As Welch observes,
‘ἦhe meaὀiὀg ὁf the mὁὀumeὀt lieὅ with the viewer as much as the
makeὄέ’109 ἡviἶ’ὅ Veὄtumὀuὅ, iὀ Metamorphoses 14, is a trickster and
amator. His shape-changing abilities give him an advantage over the other
suitors of the beautiful nymph Pomona. Disguised as an old woman
(adsimulat anum), he gives himself a gὁὁἶ ὄefeὄeὀἵe aὀἶ ὅὁ wiὀὅ ἢὁmὁὀa’ὅ
heart.110 We never learn the identity of Fasti ἄ’ὅ anus uicina, who is so
knowledgeable about the Forum swamp. Could she be the god in disguise –
or just another doddery and unreliable narrator?111 Like mythic Rome,
Vertumnus can be whatever we want. We can make him recall any
memories we wish.
Propertius has his god recall a long-agὁ waὄέ ώe aὄὄiveὅ iὀ Rὁme ‘iὀ
the ἶayὅ ὁf ἴattle’ (inter proelia), and gives us an eyewitness account of the
fighting that would eventually lead to the joining of the Romans and
105
Prop. 4.2.1-2, 5-6. Edwards 1996:60 suggests that Fasti 6 deliberately evokes this
passage.
106
Prop. 4.2.21-ἀμ ‘iὀ quamἵumque uὁleὅ ueὄte, ἶeἵὁὄuὅ eὄὁέ’
107
Appropriately, the aἵtual appeaὄaὀἵe ὁf Veὄtumὀuὅ’ ὅtatue like iὅ aὀyὁὀe’ὅ gueὅὅμ
Richardson 1992:363. Vertumnus also had a temple on the Aventine (Richardson
1992:433).
108
ώe tὁὁ haὅ uὀἶeὄgὁὀe a ‘ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ’έ ἡὀἵe a ὅtatue ὁf maple wὁὁἶ, he haὅ ἴeeὀ ὄemaἶe
in bronze. It is this remaking by the skilful craftsman Mamurius that has fitted him for
‘ὅuἵh ἵhaὀgeful uὅe’ (tam dociles … usus). Eveὀ aὅ εamuὄiuὅ ‘fixeἶ’ him iὀ a mὁὄe gὄaὀἶ
and durable form, Vertumnus gained the ability to transform.
109
Welch 2005:54.
110
Ovid. Met. 14.656.
111
Barchiesi 1994:175-8, Edwards 1996:61. Myers 2009:192 suggests another pun here:
‘uert-anus’…
38
Sabines into one people: a proto civil war. His train of thought shifts from
ancient conflict to modern peace.
uidi ego labentes acies et tela caduca,
atque hostes turpi terga dedisse fugae; [...]
sed facias, diuum Sator, ut Romana per aeuum
transeat ante meos turba togata pedes.112
I saw the breaking ranks and the falling weapons,
And the enemy turning his back in shameful flight. […]
But, Father of the Gods, grant that forever the Roman
toga-clad crowd may pass before my feet.
Just like everyone else in Rome’ὅ eaὄly ἶayὅ, the god was an immigrant,
brought like the Palladium from his native hometown, the Etruscan Volsinii,
to a new destiny.113 ἔὁὄ Ἡelἵh theὄefὁὄe he’ὅ a ‘peὄfeἵt example ὁf the
ἵity’ὅ iὀtegὄatiὁὀ ὁf ὁtheὄ peὁple aὀἶ theiὄ gὁἶὅέ’114 Yet Vertumnus is an
outsider – his statue stands not in the Forum, but on its edge.115 Although
the god can disguise himself as a toga-clad citizen, he does not consider
himself to be truly part of the turba Romana. He stands perpetually on the
thὄeὅhὁlἶ lὁὁkiὀg iὀέ ώὁw might we ὄeaἶ thiὅς Veὄtumὀuὅ’ pὁὅitiὁὀ iὅ
liminal not just spatially, but temporally. He arrives with the Etruscans, who
ἵame tὁ Rὁme’ὅ aiἶ iὀ the ἥaἴiὀe waὄέ ἦhat iὅ, before the joining of the
Romans and Sabines, the founding of the Forum, and any sense of Roman
ἵitiὐeὀὅhipέ
δeft
ἴehiὀἶ
ἴy
hiὅtὁὄy,
he’ὅ
a
peὄpetual
ὁutὅiἶeὄ,
commemorating an era before Rome, before different people united to
112
Prop. 4.2.53-6.
Veὄtumὀuὅ’ temple ὁὀ the χveὀtiὀe waὅ likely ἴuilt ἴy εέ ἔulviuὅ ἔlaἵἵuὅ afteὄ hiὅ
victory over Volsinii in 264 (Richardson 1992:433). Various attempts have been made to
uὀἵὁveὄ the gὁἶ’ὅ ὁὄigiὀὅ, fὁllὁwiὀg Vaὄὄὁ (Lit. 5.46), who describes him as the deus
Etruriae princeps. Can we identify him with the Etruscan Velthume? Or is the name IndoEuropean, not Etruscan? See Welch 2005:37 for a survey; also Marquis 1974. It’ὅ a
mystery not likely to be solved.
114
Welch 2005:36-7.
115
ἡ’σeill ἀίίί aὄgueὅ that Veὄtumὀuὅ ὅtὁὁἶ ὁὀ the eἶge ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ‘ὄeἶ light ἶiὅtὄiἵt’μ
Propertius is therefore using the topography to make a statement about geὀὄeμ ‘ἐy
explicitly rejecting a more respectable location […] Vertumnus enters the world of amatory
elegy’ (ἀἀἂ)έ ἦhiὅ ὄeaἶiὀg, however, rests heavily ὁὀ ἢlautuὅ’ Curculio, which we should
be wary of treating as a historical source (see above, pp. 7-8).
113
39
become Romans. Enough for him to see the Roman Forum and what it has
become, and remember what it was before.116
The ἔὁὄum’ὅ muὄky ὁὄigiὀὅ, theὀ, affirm, but also question, the new
order. While the princeps reshapes the Forum with stone and mortar, poets
reverse the process, emptying the busy square into a wild landscape. The
swamp evokes the blending of people and setting. Unlike the hilltops, the
valley is neutral, unclaimed space, free from ancient ruins, rituals, or the
thundering of as- yet-unnamed gods.117 It will be transformed into a forum
only by human effort, and what will emerge from the depths will be far
stronger for its difficult beginnings. It also indicates the difficulty of looking
back in time. This formless space, like Vertumnus, can be portrayed in any
way the wὄiteὄ ἵhὁὁὅeὅέ It’ὅ ὅimultaὀeὁuὅly the humἴle paὅtuὄe ὁf Evaὀἶeὄ’ὅ
cattle, and a lake echoing with the bellows of drunken revellers. Beneath
χuguὅtuὅ’ ἵity lieὅ a ἶeὅtaἴiliὅiὀg mὁὄaὅὅέ
The First Civil War
Legend has it that the first king of Rome was discovered with his
twin in the Tiber marsh. At the end of his life, he vanished from another, the
Palus Caprae, ‘ἕὁat εaὄὅh’, on the Campus Martius.118 Continuing the
theme, aὀὁtheὄ ‘ὁὀe ὁf Rὁme’ὅ gὄeat fὁuὀἶatiὁὀ mythὅ’ plaἵeὅ him iὀ the
marsh of the Forum valley, in the middle of the battle witnessed by
Vertumnus.119 We begin this conflict as bronze-armoured warriors locked in
an epic struggle over stolen women, and end it as citizens in the Roman
ἔὁὄum, withὁut mὁviὀg iὀ ὅpaἵe at allέ χὀἶ, with Rὁmuluὅ’ fiὄὅt attempt tὁ
drain the Forum marsh, we leap the gulf between a past of swampy myth
and one far more recognisable as the Roman present. The story is told most
fully by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and begins like this:
116
The statue itself, or at least its position, may have predated the Cloaca Maxima, which
curves awkwardly at that point, perhaps to respect the sacellum, and so the historical
draining of the Forum.
117
For the hilltops: Vout 2012, especially chapters 3-4.
118
Livy 1.16.1.
119
Jaeger 1997:30.
40
Rὁmuluὅ’ plὁughiὀg ὁf the pomerium and excavation of the Mundus
in the Forum valley marks a ἴegiὀὀiὀg fὁὄ the ἵity, ἴut δivy’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt
makeὅ it ἵleaὄ that the ἵὁmmuὀity waὅ ὀὁt viaἴleμ ‘withὁut wὁmeὀ, heὄ
gὄeatὀeὅὅ waὅ likely tὁ laὅt ὁὀly a ὅiὀgle geὀeὄatiὁὀέ’120 As they have no
right of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples, the new Romans decide
to take wives by force from their Sabine neighbours.121 Titus Tatius, the
Sabine king, leads an army to Rome to reclaim the stolen wives and
daughters. The Romans fortify both the Palatine and Capitoline hills, but the
Sabines – through the treachery of Tarpeia – seize the Capitoline stronghold
(Arx).122 Tarpeia is killed for her betrayal, giving the Tarpeian Rock its
etymology. Battle commences in the Forum valley. 123
Livy and Dionysius conceive of the episode in terms of a series of
oppositions: the Romans versus the Sabines; King Romulus and King
Tatius; their proxies on the battlefield, Hostus Hostilius and Mettius
Curtius; Tarpeia, the Roman traitor, and Hersilia, the Sabine wife (of
Romulus, in some versions) who leads her compatriots to force the peace.
ἦὁpὁgὄaphiἵally ὅpeakiὀg, it’ὅ the ἢalatiὀe ώill veὄὅuὅ the ἑapitὁliὀe, aὀἶ
lying between them the marshy valley, the potential Forum for which, as
much as for the Sabine women, the battle is being fought. This civilian
space – indeed, the place where Roman citizenship begins – is created by
militaὄy ἵὁὀfliἵt, iὀ whiἵh ‘aὀ impὄeὅὅiὁὀ ὁf ἵὁmplete ὄeἵipὄὁἵity [iὅ
δivy 1έλέ1έ ‘ὅeἶ peὀuὄia mulieὄum hὁmiὀiὅ aetatem ἶuὄatuὄa magὀituἶὁ eὄat’έ The
Mundus was said to be a circular trench, into which Romulus threw a handful of earth from
Alba Longa. His companions then contributed earth from their own places of origin.
Plutarch sites the Mundus in the Forum. Ovid gives no location for it. (Plut. Rom. 11.2,
Ovid Fast. 4.820-4). There was another monument known as the Mundus, described by
Festus (144 L) relying on Cato, which had in its base a lower part dedicated to the Di
Manes, opened up on three days each year. The location of this Mundus is unclear. Boni
thought he had identified it on the Palatine under the House of Augustus in 1904
(Richardson 1992:260). Coarelli (1983:214-226) suggests that (based on a long chain of
reasoning) the Mundus is the circular brick structure behind the imperial rostra also
identified as the Umbilicus Urbis, and that the two names refer to the same monument. The
bottom line is that, although it would be satisfying to positively identify a later monument
with the Romulean Mundus in the Forum, the evidence is insufficient.
121
The Sabine rape has traditionally received the most attention. See, e.g. Vandiver 1991;
Arieti 1997; Dougherty 1998; Beard 1999.
122
Her motives are variously described: it was a failed plan to deprive the Sabines from
their weapons (Dionysius); she was in love with Titus Tatius (Propertius); she was greedy
for their gold jewellery, which she demanded as her price (Livy and Ovid). At any rate, she
is killed by the Sabines hurling their shields at her.
123
Iὀ δivy’ὅ veὄὅiὁὀ (1έ11-13), there is a single, decisive battleν iὀ Diὁὀyὅiuὅ’ (ἀέἁί-47) the
struggle is protracted and neither side takes a clear victory. Other accounts: Cic. Rep. 2.1214; Ovid Ars 1.101-34, Fast. 3.167-258; Plut. Rom. 14-19.
120
41
created], as if these events were made for such a landscape and this
laὀἶὅἵape fὁὄ ὅuἵh eveὀtὅέ’124
Dionysius draws the conflict out into a mini-war, fought according
to an epic warrior code as the armies engage in a series of inconclusive
battles with space allotted for the honourable recovery of the wounded and
dead.125 The swampy valley is dominated by larger-than-life warrior
figures, Romulus, Tatius, Curtius, Hostilius, as if we are suddenly back on
the plain at Troy: a rematch, between Trojans and Greeks over Helen, and
Trojans and Rutulians over Lavinia.126 ἦhe Rὁmaὀὅ, whὁ have ‘ὄeἵeὀtly’
been foreign aggressors in Italy, are now defending their own turf. In this
version, though, there are two rival citadels – Palatine and Capitoline – two
pὁteὀtial ‘Rὁmeὅ’έ χὀἶ, if we ὄeaἶ thiὅ with Aeneid 8, in this place lie the
ὄuiὀὅ ὁf twὁ ὁἴliteὄateἶ ‘ἦὄὁyὅ’έ ἦhe whὁle ἴitteὄ ἵyἵle has devolved on this
one narrow valley; iὀ δivy’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt, a ὅiὀgle ἴattleέ
The success of the Romans is partly down to the landscape itself.
Both Livy and Dionysius agree that the conflict turned on the aristeia of the
Sabine Mettius Curtius. Livy portrays him as a hubristic Mezentius-type,
grievously underestimating the Romans; for Dionysius he is a stalwart Ajax,
singlehandedly holding back the Romans in order to allow his comrades to
retreat:
α ὸ
ὰ
α
α
αὶ ὸ Ῥ
υ π
π
α
α
αὶ α ὸ
,
α
έ
127
For he himself stood his ground fighting and waited for Romulus as he
approached; and there followed a great and glorious contest between the
leaders themselves as they fell upon each other.
χὅ δivy tellὅ it, the maὄὅh itὅelf iὀteὄveὀeὅ iὀ the
α
αὶ α ὸ
,
ἴlὁἵkiὀg ἑuὄtiuὅ’ eὅἵape ὄὁuteμ
Mettius in paludem sese strepitu sequentium trepidante equo coniecit;
auerteratque ea res etiam Sabinos tanti periculo uiri.128
124
Jaeger 1997:35.
At, e.g. 2.42.1: ‘ἡὀ the fὁllὁwiὀg ἶay they ἴuὄieἶ their dead, took care of the wounded
and reinforced their armies; then, resolving to engage in another battle, they met again in
the ὅame plaiὀ aὅ ἴefὁὄe aὀἶ fὁught till ὀightfallέ’
126
Ovid emphasises this even further by giving Tatius and the Sabine Women the epithet
Oebalius: as the Romans claim descent from Troy, so the Sabines from King Oebalus of
Sparta, the grandfather of Helen. (Fast. 1.261, 3.201.)
127
Dion. Hal. 2.42.5.
125
42
Mettius, his horse terrified by all the din, was thrown into the swamp; and
the Sabines were distracted from the job in hand by the danger to such a
great man.
χὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ’ hὁὄὅe ὅtὄuggleὅ agaiὀὅt the ἵliὀgy muἶ, the Rὁmaὀὅ take
advantage of the diversion. The valley itself buys them time.129 For
Dionysius, the lacus iὅ mὁὄe ὁf a teὅt ὁf the ἥaἴiὀe’ὅ wὁὄth aὀἶ ἶaὄiὀgέ
Backed up against it by Romulus, Curtius takes the plunge, a move so risky
that Romulus assumes he will drown; instead the marsh allows him to
escape to his own camp.130
But the conflict could have continued indefinitely, the two armies
bogged down in the impulses of an all-but-bygone era. The epic cycle is
broken only by the intervention of the Sabine women, who refuse the roles
of Helens and Lavinias allὁtteἶ tὁ them ἴy the lὁgiἵ ὁf the ὀaὄὄativeέ δivy’ὅ
women rush fearlessly into the battle carrying their children, an abrupt
intrusion of the domestic, the peaceful, into the valley full of war. They are
ὀὁt ἵὁὀteὀt tὁ juὅt ὅit aὀἶ watἵh the ὅlaughteὄμ ‘ἦurn your anger on us! We
ἵauὅeἶ thiὅ waὄ!’131 Diὁὀyὅiuὅ’ wὁmeὀ eveὀ mὁὄe emἴὁἶy peaἵeέ Ἡith
Hersilia as their spokeswoman, they act as ambassadors, receiving the
ἥeὀate’ὅ peὄmiὅὅiὁὀ tὁ ὅue ἦatiuὅ fὁὄ peaἵeέ132 It’ὅ aὄguaἴly the pὄeὅeὀἵe ὁf
the women that turns the battlefield into a forum. Their words rephrase the
conflict from a foreign to a civil one. This is not (just) a battle between
enemy nations, but between family members. The women rush across the
Forum
hinc patres, hinc uiros orantes, ne se sanguine nefando soceri generique
respergerent, ne parricidio macularent partus suos, nepotum illi, hi liberum
progenium.133
128
Livy 1.12.10.
Jὁὀeὅ ἀίί1μἂ1 ὁἴὅeὄveὅ that iὀ ἢlutaὄἵh’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt (Rom 18.3) the role of fortune is
further emphasised. The lacus is explicitly the result of a chance flood three days earlier.
Curtius has to escape so that he can take part in the reconciliation later.
130
A further example of the waters of the city coming to its defence iὅ fὁuὀἶ iὀ Jaὀuὅ’
narration in Ovid Fasti: Janus prompts the waters of the Capitoline to gush down, blocking
the Sabines in their attempt to take the Arx. (1.267-74.)
131
Livy 1.13.3. ‘iὀ ὀὁὅ ueὄtite iὄaὅν ὀὁὅ ἵauὅa ἴelliέ’
132
Wiseman 1983 summarises all the vaὄiatiὁὀὅ ὁf ώeὄὅilia’ὅ ὅtὁὄyέ Iὀ ὅὁme aἵἵὁuὀtὅ (eέgέ
Ovid Met. 14.829-51; Sil. It. 13.811-5) she undergoes apotheosis alongside Romulus,
jὁiὀiὀg ἣuiὄiὀuὅ aὅ hiὅ ἵὁὀὅὁὄt ώὁὄa ἣuiὄiὀiέ ἡviἶ aἵtually ἶevὁteὅ mὁὄe liὀeὅ tὁ ώeὄὅilia’ὅ
apotheosis than to Romuluὅ’έ
133
Livy 1.13.2.
129
43
begging on one side their fathers and on the other their husbands not to
bring down a curse by scattering the blood of sons- and fathers-in-law, not
to pollute their children and grandchildren with the crime of parricide.
These children are the first to be born Roman.134 In a sense the women are
begging that the horrific legacy of civil war not be written into the Roman
citizen body from the very beginning. There is an echo here, as Brown
observes, of the war between Caesar and Pompey, his son-in-law,
something that Ovid and Lucan make explicit.135 Ovid in fact makes this
definitively the first ἵivil waὄμ ‘fὁὄ the fiὄὅt time a fatheὄ-in-law waged war
on his son-in-lawέ’136 δivy’ὅ alluὅiὁὀ iὅ ὀὁt ὅὁ ὅpeἵifiἵ, ἴut ὅuὄely had the
power to evoke recent memories. On this spot during in the proscriptions,
Roman women found themselves pleading for the lives and liberty of
husbands and family members, as did the unnamed dedicatee of the
Laudatio Turiae, a funerary inscription from the last decade BC:
scerbissmum tamen in ui[ta] mihi accidisse tua uice fatebo[r, reddito me
iam] ciue patriae beneficio et i[ud]icio apsentis Caesaris Augusti, [quom
per te] de restitutione mea M. L[epi]dus conlega praesens interp[ellaretur
et ad eius] pedes prostrata humi [n]on modo non adlevata, sed tra[cta et
seruilem in] modum rapsata, liuori[bus c]orporis replete, firmissimo
[animo eum admone-]res edicti Caesaris cum g[r]atulatione restitutionis
me[ae auditisque uerbis eti-] am contumeliosis et cr[ud]elibus exceptis
uolneribus pa[lam ea praeferres,] ut auctor meorum peric[ul]orum
notesceret – quoi no[cuit mox ea res.]137
But I must say that the bitterest thing that happened to me in my life befell
me through what happened to you. When thanks to the kindness and
judgement of the absent Caesar Augustus I had been restored to my
country as a citizen, Marcus Lepidus, his colleague, who was present, was
confronted with your request concerning my recall, and you lay prostrate
at his feet, and you were not only raised up but were dragged away and
134
Macrobius 1.6.16 records a version in which Hersilia (married to Hostus Hostilius)
ἴeἵὁmeὅ the mὁtheὄ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ fiὄὅtἴὁὄὀ ἵitiὐeὀ, the fatheὄ ὁf the futuὄe kiὀg ἦulluὅ
Hostilius. He is presented with the toga praetexta and a golden bulla by Romulus.
135
Brown 1995:217: Ovid at Fast. 3.202 and Lucan at 1.118 when describing the death of
Julia. Cf. Jaeger 1997:33.
136
Fast. ἁέἀίἀμ ‘tum pὄimum geὀeὄiὅ iὀtulit aὄma ὅὁἵeὄέ’
137
CIL VI 1527, 31670, 37053. Text and translation Wistrand 1976. The Laudatio is
discussed most recently by Osgood 2006:67-73; Lobur 2008:77-9. See now the new study
of Turia by Osgood 2014.
44
carried off brutally like a slave. But although your body was full of
ἴὄuiὅeὅ, yὁuὄ ὅpiὄit waὅ uὀἴὄὁkeὀ aὀἶ yὁu kept ὄemiὀἶiὀg him ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ
edict with its expression of pleasure at my reinstatement, and although you
had to listen to insulting words and suffer cruel wounds, you pronounced
the word of the edict in a loud voice, so that it should be known who was
the cause of my deadly perils. This matter was soon to prove harmful to
him.138
In 42, not long after the heroine of the Laudatio Turiae was dragged from
δepiἶuὅ’ feet, Hortensia led a protest of the women of Rome to the
tὄiumviὄὅ’ tὄiἴuὀalμ iὀ χppiaὀ’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt, they ὅpeak thὄὁugh heὄ, aὅ ἶὁ the
Saἴiὀeὅ thὄὁugh ώeὄὅilia, aὅ a ἵὁlleἵtiveμ ‘χlὄeaἶy yὁu have takeὀ away
from us our fathers, our sons, our husbands, and our brothers, whom you
accused of haviὀg wὄὁὀgeἶ yὁuέ […] δet theὄe ἴe waὄ with the Gauls or the
Parthians; we shall not be inferior to our mothers in working for the
common safety, but we will never contribute to civil wars, nor ever assist
yὁu agaiὀὅt eaἵh ὁtheὄ!’139
The leap from foreign to civil war is further reinforced by the
laὀἶὅἵape ὁf the valleyέ Ἡe’ve alὄeaἶy ὀὁteἶ the ὅymmetὄy ὁf δivy’ὅ ὅeὄieὅ
of oppositions, between the two armies and the two hills. Now the women
ὄuὅh aἵὄὁὅὅ the valley flὁὁὄμ they ‘tὄaὀὅveὄὅe’ (transuerso) the distance and
eliἶe itέ ‘δivy haὅ ἵὄeateἶ aὀ image that ὅhὁwὅ twὁ aὄmieὅ at waὄ ἴeἵὁmiὀg
two warring factions in one city, one that shows the blurring of the
ἴὁuὀἶaὄy ἴetweeὀ fὁὄeigὀ waὄ aὀἶ ἵivil waὄέ’140
At this moment of mythical female intervention, the Forum pulls the
narrative in two directions: forward, to the civil wars of the recent past –
and backwards, to the battlefields of epic, even to Troy. Livy builds a
moment of silence into his narrative:
mouet res cum multitudinem tum duces; silentium et repentina fit quies
…141
This may well be another after-the-eveὀt ὅimplifiἵatiὁὀ aὅ with ἑὁὄὀeliuὅ ἥeveὄuὅ’
account of the death of Cicero above: Caesar Augustus takes the role of saviour, while the
now-deceased Lepidus is cast as villain.
139
Appian 4.32-3.
140
Jaeger 1997:45.
141
Livy 1.13.4.
138
45
The sight moved first the crowd, then the commanders; a sudden silence
and hush fell…
In this moment, when the whole valley holds its breath, we might ask: is
this it, then? Is civil war built into Rome from the very beginning? Is the
recent disaster an inescapable legacy from the foundation, doomed to recur,
a cycle of self-destructive conflict going back to Troy? Is this what the
Forum really is and always has been – a battlefield?
[…] iὀἶe aἶ fὁeἶuὅ faἵiendum duces prodeunt. nec pacem modo sed
ciuitatem unam ex duabus faciunt.
[…] theὀ the ἵὁmmaὀἶeὄὅ ἵame tὁgetheὄ tὁ make a tὄeaty. They did not
just make peace, but one community out of two.
The Romans and Sabines choose to make not just peace, but that crucial
Augustan concordia.142 The warring hills, rather than obliterating each
other, are joined to form one city, and the Forum, the meeting place of the
citizens of the new ciuitas, now exists in concept. Romulus and Tatius begin
a joint project to transform it, and a proto-forum begins to emerge from the
marsh.
ὸ
'
π
Καπ
π φυ υῖα
π
υ
α
ῖ
α
υ
π α
αὶ
υ
ῳ π
,
ὴ
α
α
ὰ ὸ
ῖ
α , ὰπ
α
, ᾗ αὶ
Ῥ
α α π
φα
υ
ὴ
α
ὰ
αῖ
α
α
α
α
ὸ
ὰ
, αὶ ὰ
ὸ
έ143
Cutting down the wood that grew on the plain at the foot of the Capitoline,
and filling up the greatest part of the marsh, which, since it lay in a hollow,
was kept well supplied with the waters that came down from the hills, they
converted the plain into a forum, which the Romans continue to use even
now; there they held their assemblies, transacting their business in the
temple of Vulcan, which stands a little above the Forum.
142
Brown 1995:303.
Dion. Hal. 2.50.3. Oddly enough, this story is in tally with current thinking about the
archaeology. In his study of the geology of the Forum basin Ammerman 1990:641-2
ἵὁὀἵluἶeἶ that itὅ ἶὄaiὀage waὅ aἵhieveἶ thὄὁugh a ‘majὁὄ puἴliἵ wὁὄkὅ pὄὁjeἵt’ iὀ the
seventh century BC.
143
46
The Forum begins here, then, as the physical manifestation of the joining of
the two peoples, prefigured by the mixing of earth in the Mundus.144 It was
neutral, communal space between the hills, which were traditionally
identified with the different immigrant groups that settled on them: Sabines
on the Capitoline, Albans on the Caelian, Latins on the Aventine etc., but all
Romans in the Roman Forum.145
Plutarch writes that,
π υ
Ῥ
αῖ
ὲ
α α
ὸ υ
υ
Κ
ῖ
α
α ῖ α·
ῖ
ὰ
έ146
The place where these agreements were made is to this day called
‘ἑὁmitium’ν fὁὄ the Rὁmaὀ wὁὄἶ fὁὄ ‘ἵὁme tὁgetheὄ,’ comire. [sic.]
Strikingly, this is an etymology for ‘Comitium’ that neither Livy nor
Dionysius giveέ ἢlutaὄἵh’ὅ ἵhὁiἵe here marks a victory of one version of the
foundation legend over the other. The Comitium area in front of the Senate
House was, as we saw above, one of the fὁἵal pὁiὀtὅ ὁf ἡἵtaviaὀ’ὅ Forum
redevelopment. This space between the Republican Rostra and the Curia
Hostilia was distinct from the Forum in the Republican period and the
location of a cluster of ancient monuments.147 The origins of most of these
monuments were unclear by the Late Republic, and were buried under a
black pavement (figs. 11-12) in the first half of the first century BC, perhaps
iὀ ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὁὀ with ἥulla’ὅ eὀlaὄgemeὀt ὁf the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe.148 Finally,
caught between the Caesarian/Augustan resiting of the Forum and
redevelopment of the Rostra, the ancient character of the site was obscured;
in ἑaὄafa’ὅ wὁὄἶὅ, ‘iὀ queὅto quadro di frenetica attività edilizia, il Comizio
144
As Feldherr 1997:414-5 notes, the idea that civic loyalty is a natural extension of
familial affection echoes Cic. Off. 1έηἅμ ‘lὁve ὁf ἵhilἶὄeὀ aὀἶ wiveὅ ἴiὀἶ ἵitiὐeὀὅ tὁ ὁὀe
aὀὁtheὄέ’ δateὄ we will ὅee the Repuἴliἵ ἴeἵὁmiὀg ἶeaὄeὄ thaὀ family iὀ the ὅtὁὄieὅ ὁf
Brutus and his sons, Verginius and his daughter – and, below, Augustus and his daughter.
145
Livy 1.33.1-2.
146
Plut. Rom. 19.7.
147
Cicero, for example, often refers to the Comitium in his speeches as part of a pair with
the Forum (‘forum comitiumque’, Verr. ἀέηκ, ἂέλ) ὁὄ aὅ the tὄiaἶὅ ‘ἔὁὄum, ἑὁmitium,
ἑuὄia’ (Sest. ἅλέλ) ὁὄ ‘ἔὁὄum, ἑὁmitium, Rὁὅtὄa’ (‘non in foro, non in comitio, non in
rostris’, Verr. 6.170.)
148
Carafa 1998:151-5. In 1899 Boni began to excavate beneath the black pavement (below,
pp. 207-8), and discovered the archaic stele, tufa cone and u-shaped altar; Dion. Hal. 1.87.2
describes a stone lion on the spot, but this had not been uncovered.
47
veὀὀe ἶefiὀitivameὀte ἵaὀἵellatὁέ’149 Varro, who would almost certainly
have seen the Comitium’ὅ ὅeveὄal fiὄὅt-century iterations, gives it a more or
less Republican, political heὄitageμ ‘ἑὁmitium fὄὁm the faἵt that peὁple
used to come together (coibant) there for the curiate assemblies (comitia
curiata) aὀἶ fὁὄ lawὅuitὅέ’150 Livy describes its founding by Titus and
Romulus at 1.13.6-8, but, significantly, he does not link it, or the treaty
itself, with the present day Comitium. His narrative, in other words,
contains all the elements that Plutarch picks up for his etymology, but draws
back from making the connection explicit.
Of course, there was another memory associated with the Comitium:
a locus funestus, the lὁἵatiὁὀ ὁf ὅὁmeὁὀe’ὅ gὄaveέ ἢὄeἵiὅely whose grave
was not agreed, though it was always someone connected with the life of
Romulus. Dionysius records in Book 1 that ‘ὅὁme ὅay’ that ‘the ὅtὁὀe liὁὀ
which stood in the principal part of the Forum near the Rostra was placed
ὁveὄ the ἴὁἶy ὁf ἔauὅtuluὅ’, the fὁὅteὄ-father of Romulus and Remus.151
However, in Book 3 he wὄiteὅ that ‘ὅὁme ὅay’ that the ὅpὁt (iὀ the ὅame
plaἵe, the ‘pὄiὀἵiple paὄt ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ –
α
ῳ
ὰ
πῳ)
was actually the grave of Hostus Hostilius, who was honoured with a stele
commemorating his valour.152 ώὁὄaἵe’ὅ ὅἵhὁliaὅtὅ, iὀ the third century,
ἶeὅἵὄiἴe the plaἵe aὅ the ‘tὁmἴ ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’έ153 Perhaps most interestingly,
Festus (in a much- reconstructed passage) writes:
niger lapis in Comitio locum funestum significat, ut ali, Romuli morte
ἶeὅtiὀatum, ὅeἶ ὀὁὀ uὅu ὁἴ iὀξfeὄiaὅ … ἔauρὅtulum nutri<cium eius aut
ali, Hostum Hos>tilium auum Tu<lli Hostilii, Romanorum regis cuius
familia e Medullia Romam uenit post destruc>tionem eius.154
The black stone in the Comitium indicates the site of a burial, as some say,
the place where Romulus intended to be buried on his death, but not used
ἴy him … ξἴut ἴy hiὅ fὁὅteὄ fatheὄ ἔauὅtuluὅ, ὁὄ aὅ ὁtheὄὅ ὅay, ώὁὅtuὅ
Hostilius> the grandfather of <Tullus Hostilius, the king of the Romans
whose family came to Rome from Medullia after> its <destruction>.
149
Carafa 1998:158.
Vaὄὄὁ δiὀgέ ηέ1ηημ ‘ἵὁmitium aἴ eὁ quὁἶ ἵὁiἴaὀt eὁ ἵὁmitiiὅ ἵuὄiatiὅ et litium ἵauὅaέ’
151
Dion. Hal. 1.87.2.
152
Dion. Hal. 3.1.2: possibly the archaic stele discovered by Boni, which would have been
uὀiὀtelligiἴle iὀ Diὁὀyὅiuὅ’ ἶayέ
153
Hor. Ep. 16.13, Ps. Acronius, Porph. ad. l.
154
Fest. 184L.
150
48
So we have at one end of the Forum an area solidly connected with the life
of the first king of Rome: possibly his intended burial place. At the other
end, a new temple to the first Caesar: but not the place where he had
intended to be buried.
Ἡhy ἶὁeὅὀ’t Livy emphasise the Romulean origins of the
Comitium? After all, the life of Romulus was depicted on a magnificent
Late Republican frieze inside the Basilica Aemilia. The frieze portrays
scenes from the life of Romulus – including the Rape of the Sabines and the
punishment of Tarpeia – and links them to the present-day religious
festivals they were associated with (figs. 9-10). As with accounts of the
Sabine battle, the frieze stresses the positive outcome of conflict. Romulus
here is founder of the state religion, a role traditionally given to his
ὅuἵἵeὅὅὁὄ σuma ἢὁmpiliuὅέ ἦhiὅ iὅ a Rὁmuluὅ fὁὄ the fiὄὅt ἵeὀtuὄy ἐἑμ ‘the
perfect monarch, not a fratricidal tyrant, [serving] the political aims of
Julius Caesar and Octavian, who fostered this ideal image of Rome’ὅ fiὄὅt
kiὀg tὁ ἴὁlὅteὄ theiὄ ὁwὀέ’155
Uὀfὁὄtuὀately, the ἑὁmitium’ὅ Rὁmuleaὀ aὅὅὁἵiatiὁὀὅ weὄe
pὄeἵiὅely thὁὅe ὁf the ‘fὄatὄiἵiἶal tyὄaὀt’έ ἢeὄhapὅ it waὅ the tὁmἴ ὁf hiὅ
foster-fatheὄ, the tὄagiἵ ἵὁllateὄal fὄὁm hiὅ ἴὄὁtheὄ’ὅ murder, buried, as
Dionysiuὅ ὅpeἵifieὅ, iὀ the plaἵe wheὄe he’ἶ falleὀ.156 This was where
Romulus had fought and killed his twin and Faustulus was killed
accidentally as he attempted to intervene. It marked, therefore, the first
Rὁmaὀ fὄatὄiἵiἶeέ Ratheὄ thaὀ the ὄeὅὁlutiὁὀ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ first civil war, the
ἑὁmitium evὁkeἶ a ὅtὁὄy ὁfteὀ ὅeeὀ aὅ ‘aὀ aition for the origins of political
ὅtὄife iὀ Rὁmeέ’157 Even the very name of Hostus Hostilius (Enemy
McEnemy) preserved the memory of the discordant, brutal life of an earlier
version of the first king. And if we recall that final appearance of marshland
iὀ Rὁmuluὅ’ ὅtὁὄy, it ἴeἵὁmeὅ even clearer why, in the Augustan period, a
Tomb of Romulus himself would be better off buried. Livy writes that the
army had been assembled for review on the Campuὅ εaὄtiuὅ, ὀeaὄ ‘ἕὁat
155
Albertson 1990:808-9.
Dion. Hal. 1.87.2.
157
Wiseman 1995:143; he notes that this theme is conspicuous in Dionysius especially at
1.85.4-6 and 86.1, 87.1-ἀέ ἔὁὄ χuguὅtuὅ’ attempt tὁ uὅe the Remuὅ legeὀἶ pὁὅitively, ὅee
Wiseman 1995:144-9.
156
49
εaὄὅh’, wheὀ Rὁmuluὅ ἶiὅappeaὄeἶ iὀ a ἵlὁuἶέ It waὅ ἵὁὀἵluἶeἶ that
Romulus had been taken into the sky as a god, especially after the testimony
of one Proculus Julius, who claimed to have been visited by the newly
divine king. Divus Julius himself could have not asked for a better
precedent. But, Livy continues,
fuisse credo tum quoque aliquos qui discerptum regem patrum manibus
taciti arguerent; manauit enim haec quoque sed perobscura fama; illam
alteram admiratio uiri et pauor praesens nobilitauit.158
I believe there were some who even then secretly argued that the king had
been ripped to pieces by the hands of the senators, for this rumour too was
known; the other version [that Romulus had been divinised] was more
popular because of the admiration held for the man and the encompassing
panic.
Livy personally intervenes here to tell us the other veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf the kiὀg’ὅ
disappearance, his murder by the senators.159 In the marshy past, either is
possible. But the existence of a Tomb of Romulus, the all-too mortal king,
directly across the Forum from the gleaming new temple of the divinized
dictator, threw up some uncomfortable parallels. When attending meetings
of the Senate, Augustus often wore a breastplate.160
Curtius
The Lacus Curtius, a site we have already touched upon, repays a
closer look. Like the statue of Vertumnus, it is one of a very few features of
the Augustan Forum that was said to have its origins in the murky preForum landscape. At the end of the first century BC, it was a trapezoid
monument paved with tufa, containing a twelve-sided plinth, and, possibly,
four rectangular altars (figs. 13-15).161 Livy and Dionysius, in their
narratives of the Sabine battle, present us with quite different versions of a
158
Livy 1.16.4.
Plut. Rom. 27.5 gives the story that the senators tore him apart in the Temple of Vulcan,
which scholars have conneἵteἶ with the ἑὁmitium aὄea, aὅ well aὅ the ‘ἕὁat εaὄὅh’-Julius
Proculus story. This is discussed by Sailor 2006:345-8.
160
Dio 54.12.3, Peterson 1961:443.
161
Richardson 1992:229-30; Steinby 2000:166-7.
159
50
story which itself is only one of three aetiologies put forward to explain the
ὅtὄaὀge ‘ἶὄy lake’έ162
1) Mettius Curtius, the Sabine warrior, who plunges or trips into the
pool during the battle with Romulus.163
2) Marcus Curtius, a young Roman from the early Republic. When
a chasm yawns open in the middle of the Forum, an oracle says
that it will only close if the Romans throw into it the source of
their greatest strength. The horseman leaps into the pit and
closes it up.164
3) A consul called Curtius, whὁ ἵὁὄἶὁὀὅ ὁff the aὄea afteὄ it’s
struck by lightning.165
The monument was now particularly connected with Augustus. Suetonius
tells us that it had become a custom to throw a coin into the Lacus to wish
the princeps good health.166 With that being the case, agreement on the
mὁὀumeὀt’ὅ ὁὄigiὀὅ ἴeἵὁmes important. One Curtius is clearly augustior
than the others, the only one Valerius Maximus thinks worth recording:
Marcus Curtius, who displays the perfect Augustan combination of uirtus
and pietas. What could be more Roman or admirable than the young maὀ’ὅ
self-sacrifice?
magna postea decora in foro Romano fulserunt, nullum tamen hodieque
pietate Curtii erga patriam clarius obuersatur exemplum.167
Great splendours have since blazed in the Roman Forum, but even today
no more shining example confronts us thaὀ ἑuὄtiuὅ’ patὄiὁtiἵ pietyέ
162
Ovid Fast. 6.403-4.
Livy 1.12.9-10; Dion. Hal. 2.42.5-6, cf. Plut. Rom. 18.4.
164
Varro Lat. 5.149; Livy 7.6; Dion. Hal. 14.11.3-4; Val. Max. 5.6.2.; Plin. NH 15.78; Dio
fr. 30.1-2; Ps. Plut. PM 5. This version of the story is very similar to a Greek myth
recorded by Ps-Plutarch in Parallela Minora 5, which he places in parallel with it. An
oracle tells King Midas that an abyss which has opened at Kelainai in Phrygia will not
close until he throws in hiὅ mὁὅt pὄeἵiὁuὅ pὁὅὅeὅὅiὁὀέ Ἡheὀ gὁlἶ aὀἶ ὅilveὄ ἶὁὀ’t wὁὄk, his
son Anchurus, reasoning that nothing is more precious than human life, rides into the
chasm and closes it up. Poucet 1967:255 argues that the Marcus Curtius story is just a
Roman version of, or at least is very heavily influenced by, this myth, and that therefore the
Mettius Curtius version is the older aetiology. Oakley 1998:97 notes the twelfth-century
veὄὅiὁὀ iὀ εaὅteὄ ἕὄegὁὄy’ὅ Narracio de mirabilibus urbis Rome, in which Curtius is
replaced by a king Quintus Quirinus.
165
Only by Varro Lat. 5.150.
166
Suet. Aug. 57.
167
Val. Max. 5.6.2.
163
51
Livy, however, hesitates to write out the alternative Curtii. Here is a
teὀὅiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ the hiὅtὁὄiaὀ’ὅ iὀὅtiὀἵtὅ tὁ pὄeὅeὄve eveὄythiὀg aὀἶ the
pressure to present the most inspiring version. In Book 1, it seems that
Marcuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ haὅ wὁὀ the ὁwὀeὄὅhip ὁf the δaἵuὅέ εettiuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ’ paὄt
in the battle is narrated without reference to the present-day monument: the
word lacus is not even mentioned and he jumps into the palus (marsh). The
etymology is detached from the incideὀt itὅelfέ It’ὅ ὁὀly afteὄ the tὄeaty haὅ
been established that Livy tells us the connection between Mettius and the
present day Lacus Curtius.168
When we reach Book 7 and the self-sacrifice of Marcus, Livy
appears to give us clear authorial direction:
lacumque Curtium non ab antiquo illo T. Tati milite Curtio Mettio sed ab
hoc appellatum. cura non deesset, si qua ad uerum uia inquirentem ferret:
nunc fama rerum standum est, ubi certam derogat uetustas fidem; et lacus
nomen ab hac recentiore insignitius fabula est.169
The Lacus Curtius takes its name from this Curtius, not from Mettius
Curtius, the long-ago warrior of Titus Tatius. No care would be lacking if
the truth could be assessed by research: but now the fame of the matter
must stand, when time makes certainty possible; and the name of the pool
is better known from this more recent legend.
In other words, the correct response to the monument, when dropping in a
coin for the emperor, is not to remember a warrior from a civil war, but the
time when one man saved the state. However, the whole episode begins
with an anecdotal dicitur (‘it iὅ ὅaiἶ’), ἶiὅtaὀἵiὀg the hiὅtὁὄiaὀ fὄὁm what
follows, and is concluded with a complaint about the reliability of all the
sources. Most revealingly, the specus – ‘ἵhaὅm’, ὁὄ eveὀ ‘ἵave’ – into
which Curtius leaps is not a lacus, and Livy gives us no explanation of the
odd name. Effectively, Livy reveals his discomfort with the pressure to
select one particular view over another, especially without a methodological
reason for doing so. Mystical ἵhaὅmὅ might ἴe aἵἵeptaἴle iὀ Rὁmuluὅ’
Rome, but this great rupture in the fabric of the historical Forum supposedly
At Livy 1.1ἁέηέ χὅ εileὅ 1λλημἁἅ ὁἴὅeὄveὅ, theὄe’ὅ ὀὁ meὀtiὁὀ ὁf εaὄἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ at thiὅ
point.
169
Livy 7.6.5.
168
52
took plaἵe iὀ ἁἄἀ ἐἑέ It’ὅ a mythiἵ interruption in his historicising account
of the early Republic.170
Livy uses the same taἵtiἵ wheὀ ἶeὅἵὄiἴiὀg Rὁmuluὅ’ myὅteὄiὁuὅ
fate. We are presented with two versions of events, a supernatural
occurrence and a more mundane alternative. The historian directs us to
prefer the supernatural (and therefore, going back to the Preface, the
augustior) explaὀatiὁὀ ἴeἵauὅe ὁf itὅ ‘pὁpulaὄity’, ἴut ὀeveὄtheleὅὅ iὀἵluἶeὅ
the mὁὄe ‘plauὅiἴle’ explaὀatiὁὀ alὁὀgὅiἶeέ ἦhe ὄeaἶeὄ iὅ left to make up
their own mind. The effect is that while the writer ostensibly papers over the
inconsistencies in the tradition, he draws attention to the possibility of
alternative histories and reveals the ἶiffiἵultieὅ ὁf ἶefiὀiὀg ὁὀe ‘ὁffiἵial’
version of a monument.171
That Curtius was not easily pinned down is perhaps suggested by the
Republican relief discovered near the monument in 1553: a replica is on
now display at the site (fig. 16). Traditionally identified as Marcus, on a
closer look it does not clearly represent one Curtius over the other. It shows
a Roman horseman, his spear pointing downwards into the depths, as if
about to plunge into the chasm. But the fronds of vegetation at the left and
beneath the horse, and the soft but uneven shape of the terrain, suggests the
Forum marsh.172
Eveὀ εaὄἵuὅ’ ὅtὁὄy iὅ ὀὁt the ὅimple faἴle it ὅeemὅέ His selfsacrifice is ofteὀ iὀteὄpὄeteἶ aὅ a fὁὄm ὁf ‘deuotio’, a ritual dedication and
sacrifice of oneself to the gods as seen in the sacrifice of the consul Decius
Mus at 8.9-10 and described by Macrobius in Saturnalia 3.9.10-13, though
170
Cf. Miles 1995:35-9. Unlike Poucet (above, n. 98), Miles sees Mettius as a
‘ὄatiὁὀaliὅatiὁὀ’ ὁf the ὅupeὄὀatuὄal ὅtὁὄy ὁf εaὄἵuὅ, ὅimilaὄ tὁ δivy’ὅ tὄaὀὅfὁrmation of the
she-wolf (lupa) into Larentia the prostitute (lupa) (Livy 1.4.7).
171
ἦhe ὅtὄὁὀgeὅt paὄallel iὅ fὁuὀἶ iὀ δivy’ὅ tὄeatmeὀt ὁf the spolia opimia of Cornelius
Cossus at 4.20.5-11έ χuguὅtuὅ haἶ ὄeἵeὀtly maἶe a ‘hiὅtὁὄiἵal ὄuliὀg’, after his own
examination of the spoils in the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, that Cossus had dedicated the
spoils as consul; not, as Livy would have it, as military tribune. The issue was important
because it was on this basis that the princeps denied M. Cornelius Crassus, who had
defeated and despoiled an enemy commander in battle, the right to dedicate his own spolia
opimia. Such an honour would have impinged on the princeps’ own prestige. See Sailor
2006; Miles 1995; Harrison 1989.
172
Interestingly, depictions of Curtius’ὅ leap fὄὁm the Reὀaiὅὅaὀἵe ὁὀwaὄἶὅ have mὁὄe
often than not added flames to the chasm (perhaps influenced by the idea of a fiery Hell):
ὅee, eέgέ, ἐaἵἵhiaἵἵa’ὅ Marcus Curtius (c.1520-ἁί, σatiὁὀal ἕalleὄy, δὁὀἶὁὀ)ν ἐeὄὀiὀi’ὅ
Equestrian Statue of Louis XIV as Curtius (1665-κἂ, Veὄὅailleὅ)ν ἕéὄôme’ὅ Leap of Marcus
Curtius (c.1850, Canton Museum of Art, Ohio). See p. 120, n.458, 159, n.596.
53
ἡakley ὄeἵὁmmeὀἶὅ ἵautiὁὀμ ‘ὅtὄiἵtly ὅpeaking our tale should not have
ἴeeὀ ἵὁὀὀeἵteἶ with … deuotio pὄὁpeὄ’.173 Diana Spencer has recently read
δivy’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt aὅ a mὁὄal leὅὅὁὀ ὁὀ the impὁὄtaὀἵe ὁf ἵὁὀtrolling the ‘hὁtheaἶeἶ Rὁmaὀ yὁuth’ aὀἶ ἵhaὀὀelliὀg its energies into the support of the
State.174 But if we take into account the setting we can see Livy wrestling
with a wider problem. The Roman Forum has cracked down the middle,
signalling the suspension not just of the rules of geology but the steady
civilian peace of the space. Only this broken Forum provides the armed
horseman with his opportunity for supreme gallantry. Does the story of
Curtius suggest that Roman virtus can only reach its full potential in a world
where the Forum can crack open? To put it another way: does this rupture in
the fabric of Rome release creative energy? From an extraordinary disaster
an extraordinary solution, an extraordinary saviour is found, but one cannot
exist without the other.
The Cloaca Maxima
The difficulty of writing an Augustan Forum lay not just with
choosing between (or omitting) multiple versions of a monument. It was
also created by the ambivalence built into the accounts themselves. An
Augustan focus on the past could inadvertently draw attention to this
ambivalence rather than concealing it. The Great Dὄaiὀ, ‘ὁὀe ὁf Rὁme’ὅ
mὁὅt ὅὁliἶ ἴut ἶuἴiὁuὅ glὁὄieὅ’, ὄuὀὅ ἴeὀeath the ἔὁὄum ἶὁwὀ tὁ itὅ ὁpeὀiὀg
into the Tiber.175 ἦhe phὄaὅe iὅ Emily ἕὁweὄὅ’, whὁὅe 1λλη aὄtiἵle
examiὀeὅ the Rὁmaὀὅ’ ‘mixeἶ feeliὀgὅ’ aἴὁut the ἑloaca. As a feat of
engineering it was believed to be one of the marvels of the world, but its
pὁὅitiὁὀ aὅ the ἵity’ὅ ‘gutὅ’ ‘waὅ alwayὅ theὄe tὁ iὀteὄfeὄe with [itὅ] glὁὄiὁuὅ
aὅpeἵtὅέ’176 The ancient sewage system, usually buried out of sight and
mind, was briefly exposed to the public eye by Agrippa’ὅ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ wὁὄk
in 33. This was completed with some fanfare, and the aedile himself
173
See e.g. Scott 1968:58; Versnel 1976, 1981; Joseph 2012:98-4; R. Edwards 2012
(discussed pp. 120-1); Oakley 1998:99.
174
Spencer 2007:88.
175
Gowers 1995:24.
176
Ibid. 26.
54
reportedly voyaged through the cleared sewer by boat. 177 ἦhe ἑlὁaἵa’ὅ
physical scale was undoubtedly impressive, especially now it had been
carefully restored. But written into it was an unsavoury memory of another
ruler with a passion for building.
Iὀ legeὀἶ, it’ὅ the exἵavatiὁὀ ὁf thiὅ vital ἴut ἶiὅtaὅteful ἶὄaiὀ that
completes the gradual transformation of marsh into Forum. This
development takes place over the two ἵeὀtuὄieὅ ὅiὀἵe Rὁmuluὅ aὀἶ ἦatiuὅ’
first drainage attempt. During this time Rome acquires a religious tradition,
military success, and political institutions like the Senate, tribes, voting in
centuries familiar from the present day. Indeed, Livy argues at the opening
of Book 2 that the monarchy was crucial for the development of the young
ἵityέ Ἡhat wὁulἶ have happeὀeἶ, he aὅkὅ, if Rὁmuluὅ’ ὅhepheὄἶὅ haἶ
fὁὄmeἶ a Repuἴliἵ ὅtὄaight awayς ‘ἦhe ὅtate wὁulἶ have ἴὄὁkeὀ up iὀ
discordia before it had reached matuὄityέ’ It tὁὁk time aὀἶ peaἵe fὁὄ the
ἶiὅpaὄate paὄtὅ ὁf Rὁme tὁ kὀit tὁgetheὄ, uὀtil the ἵity waὅ ‘matuὄe’ eὀὁugh
tὁ ‘ἴὄiὀg fὁὄth the gὁὁἶ fὄuit ὁf libertas.’178 We might say, what use would
be a Republic without a finished Forum?
Iὀ δivy’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy, it takeὅ Rὁme’ὅ laὅt aὀἶ most disreputable king to
construct the Cloaca and complete the draining of the Forum.179 Tarquinius
Superbus murdered his predecessor, Servius Tullius, by hurling him down
the steps of the Senate House. He then embarked on an enormous series of
building projects – the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the Circus
Maximus and the Cloaca – and compelled the citizens to work as his
labourers. Being hardy, pious Romans of the old school, the citizens had
taken on the honourable task of the temple with good spirits, but the Cloaca
was a step too far.180 Perhaps tellingly Livy draws back from giving us a
full description of the conditions, which is supplied by Pliny the Elder:
[…] eὅὅetque labor incertum maior an longior, passim conscita nece
Quiritibus taedium fugientibus, nouum, inexcogitatum ante posteaque
177
Dio 49.31; Plin. NH 36.104.
δivy ἀέ1έἄμ ‘ἶiὅὅipatae ὄeὅ ὀὁὀἶum aἶultae discordia forent, quas fouit tranquilla
moderatio imperii eoque nutriendo perduxit ut bonam frugem libertatis maturis iam uiribus
ferre possetέ’
179
Livy 1.47-κέ δivy ὅpeἵifiἵally ἵhὁὁὅeὅ ἦaὄquiὀiuὅ ἥupeὄἴuὅ aὅ the ἑlὁaἵa’ὅ ἴuilἶeὄέ
Diὁὀyὅiuὅ attὄiἴuteὅ it tὁ hiὅ fatheὄ, ἦaὄquiὀiuὅ ἢὄiὅἵuὅ, alὁὀg with the ἔὁὄum’ὅ fiὄὅt ὅhὁpὅ
and porticos (3.67.4-5).
180
Livy 1.56.1-3.
178
55
remedium inuenit ille rex, ut omnium ita defunctorum corpora figeret cruci
spectanda ciuibus simul et feris uolucribusque laceranda.181
[…] it waὅ ἶὁuἴtful whetheὄ the tὁil waὅ ὀὁtaἴle mὁὄe fὁὄ its intensity or
its duration. Since swathes of citizens were attempting to escape from their
exhaustion by committing suicide, the king devised a strange solution that
was never thought of except on that one occasion. He crucified the bodies
of all those who had died by their own hands, leaving them to be gazed at
by their fellow citizens and torn to pieces by wild animals and birds of
prey.
The sight of the corpses filled the citizens with fear and shame: the shame
of seeing their friends and relatives so exposed and abused, and the fear that
such shame might happen to their own bodies if they tried to escape – and
thiὅ kept them alive aὀἶ wὁὄkiὀgέ ἢliὀy’ὅ ἑlὁaἵa with itὅ maὀgleἶ ἵitiὐeὀ
bodies almost echoes a description of the Forum after civil violence in 57:
meministis tum, iudices, corporibus ciuium Tiberim compleri, cloacas
refarciri, e fὁὄὁ ὅpὁὀgiiὅ effiὀgi ὅaὀguiὀem […]182
You remember, judges, the Tiber was then full of citizen corpses, the
sewers were stuffed, and blood was removed from the Forum with
sponges.
The orator who spoke these words would – of course – himself end up as a
ἴutἵheὄeἶ ἵὁὄpὅe iὀ the ἔὁὄumέ ώeὄe iὅ the ἶaὄk ὅiἶe ὁf δivy’ὅ theὅiὅ that
kings were necessary for the development of the Roman citizenry. The same
protective power he praises could also be shockingly abused. The monarch
who brought peace and concordia had also in his time brought about the
slaughter of citizens.
The sewer was arguably an act not just of tyranny but of hubris. For
two hundred years the Forum had developed gradually, the space, like the
Roman constitution, the result of long processes, of the city settling into the
laὀἶὅἵapeέ ἦaὄquiὀ’ὅ ὅeweὄ fὁὄἵeὅ thiὅ evὁlutiὁὀ, leaviὀg a ὅἵaὄ iὀ the
landscape and a pile of dead citizens in the fully drained Forum. A
topographical counterpart to the rape of Lucretia, it pushes the Roman
people into a situation where they are compelled to take action – and expel
181
182
Plin. NH 36.107.
Cic. Sest. 77, discussed by Gowers 1995:28.
56
the king. The development of the Forum and the Republic itself are
therefore inextricably linked.
At the same time, the Cloaca is portrayed as the work of a visionary,
only made possible by the driving will and resources of a single man.
Strabo sees the sewer system as an example of prudent Roman
‘fὁὄeὅight’έ183 ἔὁὄ Diὁὀyὅiuὅ, it waὅ ‘a wὁὀἶeὄful wὁὄk ἴeyὁὀἶ all
ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀέ’184 And Livy comments, perhaps more sardonically, that the
ὅἵale ὁf the pὄὁjeἵt ἵὁulἶ ‘ὅἵaὄἵely ἴe equalleἶ eveὀ ἴy a wὁὄk ὁf ὁuὄ ὁwὀ
time’μ a time wheὀ laἴὁuὄeὄὅ weὄe ἴuὅily tὄaὀὅfὁὄmiὀg the ἵityέ 185 The king,
Pliny records, made the sewer large enough to allow the passage of a
waggon fully loaded with hay, a kind of publicity statement recalling
χgὄippa’ὅ aὀeἵἶὁtal vὁyage ἴy ἴὁat iὀ ἁἁέ186 It’ὅ eveὀ ἴeeὀ aὄgueἶ that the
Rὁmaὀὅ felt the ὅeweὄ tὁ ἴe ‘hallὁweἶ’έ187 However, even setting aside the
casualtieὅ, the veὄy aἵt ὁf ‘laὀἶὅἵapiὀg’, ὁf ἶiveὄtiὀg the wateὄὅ, ἵὁulἶ
easily be read as the hallmark of a tyrant, however visionary. 188 Ἡe ἶὁὀ’t
have to go as far as the Hellespont to find a Xerxes: one of the last plans
made by Caesar before his murder was to drain the Pontine Marshes and
redirect the Tiber.189 Both projects would not be fulfilled until the twentieth
century, under Mussolini.190
χ ὄevealiὀg ‘ὄegal’ paὄallel iὅ pὄὁviἶeἶ ἴy the ὅtὁὄy ὁf the ἴuilἶiὀg
of the Pons Sublicius, the first bridge across the Tiber. Livy and Dionysius
attribute this bridge tὁ χὀἵuὅ εaὄtiuὅ, the thiὄἶ kiὀg ὁf Rὁmeέ It’ὅ ὅeeὀ aὅ a
ὀatuὄal aὀἶ pὄuἶeὀt ἵὁὀὅequeὀἵe ὁf Rὁme’ὅ expaὀὅiὁὀέ Duὄiὀg thiὅ ὄeigὀ,
the hills with their different communities were beginning to be deliberately
joined up by the settlement of new citizens.191 As a defensive measure, the
kiὀg ἶeἵiἶeἶ tὁ iὀἵluἶe the Jaὀiἵulum iὀ the ἵity, ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὀg it ‘fὁὄ eaὅe ὁf
183
Strab. Geog. 5.3.8.
Dion. Hal. 3.67.4.
185
δivy 1έηἄέἀέ ἐuὄtὁὀ ἀίίίμἂἂί aὄgueὅ that δivy iὅ makiὀg a ἶiὄeἵt ὄefeὄeὀἵe tὁ χgὄippa’ὅ
work here, and this forms the basis of his dating Book 1 to 33.
186
Plin. NH 26.24.108; Dio 49.43.1, cf. Strab. 5.3.8.
187
Hopkins 2012:82-90, drawing on Holland 1961.
188
Vout 2012:91-4 discusses this problem with a focus on the hills.
189
ώeὄὁἶέ ἅ fὁὄ Ἢeὄxeὅ at the ώelleὅpὁὀtν Jὁὅephέ 1λέ1 ἑaligula’ὅ imitatiὁὀ at ἐaiaeμ ἥuetέ
Gai. 19; Dio 57.17. Caesar: Suet. Iul 45. He also planned to dig a canal through the isthmus
at Corinth.
190
See below, chapter 2.2.
191
χὅ at eέgέ δivy 1έἁἁέη, wheὄe huὀἶὄeἶὅ ὁf ὀew δatiὀ ἵitiὐeὀὅ aὄe ὅettleἶ ‘iὀ the aὄea ὁf
the altaὄ ὁf εuὄἵia’ iὀ ὁὄἶeὄ tὁ ἵὁὀὀeἵt the communities of the Palatine and Aventine.
184
57
crossing with a bridge of piles [ponte sublicio], the first bridge ever built
ὁveὄ the ἦiἴeὄέ’192 Like the Cloaca, the bridge was something of a marvel,
built entirely out of wood, and piously reconstructed in the same fashion on
the number of occasions it was destroyed.193 Unlike the Cloaca, the bridge
was constructed with all religious reverence. It was itself considered a
sacred structure, and the college of pontifices was said to have its origin in
the priests who cared for it.194 Adapting the landscape was a hazardous
pursuit. It was impossible to tame the Tiber and dangerous to try, hence the
careful observanἵeὅ ὁf χὀἵuὅ εaὄtiuὅ’ pὄieὅtὅέ ἦaὄquiὀ, hὁweveὄ, ὄeἵkleὅὅly
weὀt aheaἶ with hiὅ pὄὁjeἵt aὀἶ ἶeἶiἵateἶ it with hiὅ ὁwὀ ὅuἴjeἵtὅ’ ἴlὁὁἶέ
Ἡhat χgὄippa’ὅ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ uὀiὀteὀtiὁὀally expὁὅeἶ, theὀ, waὅ a
monument to the instability of monarchy. The myth of the Cloaca creates
more questions than it answers. Can we rejoice in the engineering marvel
given the torments of the citizens compelled to excavate it? Are such works
only possible under a sole ruler? Does having a city of marble compensate
for rule by a Superbus? Is transforming the city in such a significant way a
maὄk ὁf huἴὄiὅ ὁὄ ὁf viὅiὁὀς ἦhiὅ iὀὅtaἴility iὅ ἶiὅἵuὅὅeἶ iὀ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ De Re
Publica. Scipio Africanus explains,
uidetisne igitur ut de rege dominus exstiterit, uniusque uitio genus rei
publicae ex bono in deterrimum conuersum sit? hic est enim dominus
populi, quem Graeci tyrannum uocant. nam regem illum uolunt esse, qui
consulit ut parens populo, conseruatque eos quibus est praepositus quam
optima in condicione uiuendi: sane bonum, ut dixi, rei publicae genus, sed
tamen inclinatum et quasi pronum ad perniciosissimum statum. simul
atque enim se inflexit hic rex in dominatum iniustiorem, fit continuo
tyrannus, quo neque taetrius neque foedius nec dis hominibusque inuisius
animal ullum cogitari potest; qui quamquam figura est hominis, morum
tamen immanitate uastissimas unicit beluas.195
Do you not see, therefore, how a king was transformed into a despot, and
how a good form of government was changed into the worst possible form
through the fault of one man? For here we have a master over the people,
192
Livy 1.33.6.
Dion. Hal. 3.45.2; Plin. NH 36.100.
194
ώὁllaὀἶ 1λἄ1μἀἁλέ ἢlutaὄἵh attὄiἴuteὅ it tὁ χὀἵuὅ’ pὄeἶeἵeὅὅὁὄ σuma ἢὁmpiliuὅ, the
legeὀἶaὄy fὁuὀἶeὄ ὁf maὀy ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ὄeligiὁuὅ iὀὅtitutiὁὀὅ (Numa 9.3-4).
195
Cic. Rep. 2.47-8.
193
58
whom the Greeks call a tyrant; for they say that a ruler is only a king who
cares like a father for the welfare of his people, and maintains the best
quality of life for those he rules over. This kind of government, as I have
said, is truly a good one, but nevertheless it inclines and almost tends
towards the condition which is most depraved of all. For as soon as this
king turned to a more severe mastery, he instantly became a tyrant, no
creature more despicable or vile, or more hateful to gods and men, than
which can be imagined. For although he appears to be a man, he
nevertheless surpasses the most monstrous wild beasts in his cruel nature.
The problem with kings, Scipio says, is that they are unstable; the whole
prosperity of the state is dependent on the character of a single man. And
how can you spot a tyrant when he looks just like everyone else (figura est
hominis)? Even a good king, who, say, develops the city and constructs
public facilities for the benefit of his people, has the potential in him to
become a tyrant. We might be lucky and get an Ancus Martius; or we might
end up with a Tarquin. With one hand, the monarch gives beautiful
buildings and public amenities. With the other, he takes away the liberty of
the people. The myths overwrite the physical buildings, turning them into
challenges to those who walked past them every day: were they worth it?
If the logic of the story is that the completed draining of the Forum
marks the foundation of the Republic, then what are we to make of the
epiὅὁἶe iὀ ἑaὅὅiuὅ Diὁ, that, iὀ ἀἅ ἐἑ, ὁὀ the ἶay ἡἵtaviaὀ ‘ἴeἵame’
Augustus, the waters returned? The Republican Forum was submerged
beneath the suburban waves. Dio writes,
υ
ὸ
ὴ
ὲ
ὴ
ὺ
υ ὸ
ῖ π
Ῥ
πὶ
π
Καῖ α […] π
π
α
, αὶ α
·
ὰ Τ
α
αα
αὶ
π
π
α
ῖ
π α
α π
α
α , αὶ π' α
ὴ π
π
α
α έ
196
ἑaeὅaὄ ὄeἵeiveἶ the ὀame ὁf χuguὅtuὅ […], aὀἶ a ὅigὀ ὁf ὀὁ little
significance for him occurred that very night, for the Tiber overflowed and
covered all of Rome that was on low ground, so that it was navigable for
boats. From this sign the soothsayers prophesied that he would rise to great
heights and hold the whole city under his sway.
196
Dio 53.20.1.
59
Overnight the city returned to its prehistoric form and was, in a sense,
defounded. What better omen for Augustus than the opportunity to begin
Rὁme aὀewς χ ὅeἵὁὀἶ Juliuὅ ἑaeὅaὄ haἶ ‘ἶieἶ’μ the Repuἴliἵ ἵὁulἶ ἴe
renewed.197 But this day, Dio says, changed the meaning of history itself.
Without the cycle of Republican magistrates and without the traditional
public records, the historian has little option but to accept the myth
propagated by the regime.198 Dio essentially experiences the same problem
Livy had when writing about the early days of the city: he too is writing
aἴὁut a haὐy, uὀἵleaὄ ‘ὄegal peὄiὁἶ’έ ἔὁllὁwiὀg the lὁgiἵ ὁf the ὅtὁὄieὅ tὁ
their conclusion, if the reversion of the Forum to floodplain means the
defounding of the city, then we have truly reverted to a landscape of kings.
ἦhe pὄὁἴlem with ὅeeiὀg Rὁme with ‘χuguὅtaὀ’ viὅiὁὀ waὅ that ὅὁmetimeὅ,
when you looked back into the past, you might not like what you saw. And,
as Ovid hints in Fasti 6, things might not look so different after all.
The fact remained that the development of the Forum and of the
ἵity’ὅ iὀὅtitutiὁὀὅ weὄe ὅtὄὁὀgly ἵὁὀὀeἵteἶ iὀ the tὄaἶitiὁὀέ χὅ we ὅaw
above, Livy describes the regal period as a kind of civic gestation. The story
has one irreversible trajectory towards the eradication of monarchy and the
achievement of liberty. We could phrase the problem like this: the downfall
of the Tarquins brings about the ‘ὁpeὀiὀg up’ of Rome. The display of
δuἵὄetia’ὅ ἴὄὁkeὀ ἴὁἶy tὁ the ὁutὄageἶ ἵitiὐeὀὄy iὀ the ἔὁὄum iὀitiateὅ the
transformation of Rome from regnum to res publica, the ‘puἴliἵ thiὀg’, the
‘ἵὁmmὁὀwealth’έ
ἦhe ἦemple ὁf ἑaὅtὁὄ aὀἶ ἢὁllux, fuὄtheὄmore, is
effectively its stamp of divine approval. The gods themselves appeared in
the ἔὁὄum tὁ heὄalἶ the Repuἴliἵ’ὅ viἵtὁὄy ὁveὄ the tyὄaὀtὅέ In stark
contrast, the Augustan Neugestaltung waὅ effeἵtively a ‘closing off’, eveὀ if
ὁὀe ἵaὄὄieἶ ὁut with geὀeὄal ἵὁὀὅeὀtμ ‘tὁut passant, debout au centre du
fὁὄum, pὁuvait, ἶ’uὀ ὄegaὄἶ ἵiὄἵulaiὄe, liὄe le ὀὁm ἶeὅ Iulii ὅuὄ leὅ quatὄe
197
Ahl 1984:46.
Dio 53.19.1-ἄμ ‘ἦhe eveὀtὅ ὁἵἵuὄὄiὀg afteὄ thiὅ time ἵaὀὀὁt ἴe ὄeἵὁὄἶeἶ iὀ the ὅame
maὀὀeὄ aὅ thὁὅe ἴefὁὄe […] χfteὄ thiὅ time mὁὅt thiὀgὅ that happeὀeἶ ἴegaὀ tὁ ἴe kept
secret and concealed, and even though some things may be made public, they are distrusted
ἴeἵauὅe they ἵaὀὀὁt ἴe veὄifieἶέ […] ἦheὄefὁὄe, iὀ my ὁwὀ ὀaὄὄative ὁf lateὄ eveὀtὅ …
everything I will say will be according to the reports given out, whether or not they are
really reliable. Additionally I will give my own opinion as far as possible, from the mass of
evidence I have gathered in my research, from hearsay, and from what I have seen myself,
tὁ fὁὄm a juἶgemeὀt that ἶiffeὄὅ fὄὁm the ἵὁmmὁὀ ὄepὁὄtέ’
198
60
ἵôtéὅ ἶe la plaἵeέ’199 ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ aὀἵieὀt mὁὀumeὀtὅ, eveὀ the ἔὁὄum
itself, were therefore pointing the city in the wrong direction. Although they
pὄὁviἶeἶ ὀaὄὄativeὅ that ‘χuguὅtuὅ’ ἵὁulἶ ὅlὁt iὀtὁ veὄy eaὅily, fὄὁm aὀὁtheὄ
angle they revealed alternatives that were less congenial.
ἦhe ἶiffiἵulty iὅ ὅigὀalleἶ ἴy the faἵt that the ὀame ‘Rὁmuluὅ’ haἶ
been considered and rejected as an alternative for ‘χuguὅtuὅ’έ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ
tellὅ uὅ that ‘ὅὁme ὅeὀatὁὄὅ wiὅheἶ him tὁ ἴe ἵalleἶ Rὁmuluὅ, aὅ the ὅeἵὁὀἶ
fὁuὀἶeὄ ὁf the ἵity’, ἴut ‘χuguὅtuὅ’ wὁὀ the ἶayέ200 Actually, another
prototype for the princeps had evolved in the figure of the great general and
dictator Marcus Furius Camillus, whose salvation of Rome in her moment
ὁf gὄeateὅt ἵὄiὅiὅ fὁὄmὅ the ἵlimax ὁf δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt peὀtaἶέ201 Camillus did not
only drive out the invading Gauls, but resolved the Conflict of the Orders
and established civil concord. For his role iὀ thiὅ aὀἶ Rὁme’ὅ ὅuἴὅequeὀt
recovery, δivy ἶeὅἵὄiἴeὅ him aὅ the ἵity’ὅ conditor alter, ‘ὁtheὄ fὁuὀἶeὄέ’202
Iὀ the ὀaὄὄative ὁf the ἕalliἵ ἥaἵk, aὀἶ Rὁme’ὅ ὅuἴὅequeὀt
‘ὄefὁuὀἶatiὁὀ’, all the themeὅ we have ἴeeὀ ἶiὅἵuὅὅiὀg ἵὁme tὁgetheὄ at thiὅ
crunch point when Rome is forced to decide what kind of city it wants to be.
The Sack is an epoch-ἶefiὀiὀg mὁmeὀtμ Rὁmaὀ ‘hiὅtὁὄy’ ἴegiὀὅ iὀ ἁκλέ
Livy argues this point at the beginning of his second pentad. Before this
time, he has been sifting through vague, ancient memories, but now we are
on solid ground. The destruction of the city by fire (incensa urbe) forms the
ἶὄamatiἵ ὄuptuὄe ἴetweeὀ the ‘mythiἵ’ aὀἶ ‘hiὅtὁὄiἵal’ paὅtέ It maὄkὅ the
beginning of the city as Livy knew it:
clariora deinceps certioraque ab secunda origine uelut ab stirpibus laetius
feraciusque renatae urbis gesta domi militiaeque exponentur.203
ἔὄὁm ὀὁw ὁὀ a ἵleaὄeὄ aὀἶ mὁὄe ἵeὄtaiὀ aἵἵὁuὀt ὁf the ἵity’ὅ militaὄy aὀἶ
domestic deeds can be set out, from its second beginning when it was
reborn richer and more daring from old roots.
199
Corbier 1987:47.
Suet. Aug. 7.
201
The development of the myth of Camillus: Späth 2001. Feldherr 1996:48-50 sees
Camillus operating also as a model for Livy himself.
202
Livy 5.49.7.
203
Livy 6.1.3. Gaertner 2008:37 notes that this idea of rupture and refoundation almost
certainly predates Livy and may have originated in the second century BC.
200
61
As we saw above, Cassius Dio and, above all, Tacitus would close off this
era with the advent of Augustus, after whose reign historical events became
murkier.204
χὀἶὄew ἔelἶheὄὄ wὄiteὅ, ‘ἦhe pὁὅitiὁὀ ὁf ἑamilluὅ’ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ of
the ἵity, ἴὁth withiὀ δivy’ὅ ὀaὄὄative at the eὀἶ ὁf the fiὄὅt peὀtaἶ, aὀἶ
withiὀ the ἵὁuὄὅe ὁf the ἵity’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy, at the halfway pὁiὀt ἴetweeὀ Rὁme’ὅ
ὁὄigiὀal fὁuὀἶatiὁὀ iὀ ἅηἁ ἐἑE aὀἶ ἀἅ ἐἑE, […] ὄὁughly the time wheὀ
the first portion of the History was published, makes the parallels between
past and present almost inescapable. The necessity for the reconstruction of
the Rome, the narrow escape from the danger that Rome herself would be
supplanted by a foreign capital – here, Veii; in the rhetoric of the ἁί’ὅ,
Alexandria – and above all the insistence that the physical restoration of
Rome is inextricably bound up with the restoration of her religious and
moral traditions, all speak directly to contemporary concerns that Augustus
had and would address iὀ the yeaὄὅ afteὄ χἵtiumέ’205 But, as we shall see,
the parallels in this story again sound a more questioning note. Here, the
Forum acts not just as a monument to but an argument for Rὁme’ὅ ὅuὄvival
from crisis. But it also acts as a memorial to what is lost in the cataclysm.
δet’ὅ ὄetuὄὀ, ἴὄiefly, tὁ Aeneid κ aὀἶ the gὄaveyaὄἶ ὁf ἵitieὅέ ‘ἦhe
laὀἶ ὁf ἥatuὄὀia haὅ lὁὅt itὅ ὀame maὀy timeὅ,’ Evaὀἶeὄ tellὅ χeὀeaὅ,
ominously, as they stroll through the ruins. The ghost cities haunt the events
in the climax of δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt peὀtaἶέ σὁt juὅt ἦὄὁy (aὅ Christina Kraus has
shown), but also those closer to home: Saturnia, Janiculum, and Veii, the
old enemy, sacked by the Romans.206 By the end of Book 5, Rome itself is
in ruins, reduced to a tiny, desperate garrison on the Capitoline. Through
theὅe alteὄὀativeὅ, we ὅee the uὀlikeliὀeὅὅ, ἴut alὅὁ the ὅtὄeὀgth ὁf Rὁme’ὅ
ἶeὅtiὀyέ ἦhiὅ ὅtὄeὀgth iὅ ἶὄawὀ fὄὁm the veὄy laὀἶὅἵape itὅelf, aὅ the ἵity’ὅ
alter conditor, Camillus, has the vision to see. But they offer a disquieting
glimpse into what might have been.
The Romans were not prepared for the Gauls. They were too
pὄeὁἵἵupieἶ with the glὁὄy ὁf Veii’ὅ ὁἴliteὄatiὁὀ afteὄ a teὀ yeaὄ ὅiege, aὀἶ
204
Tac. Ann. 1. Bonfante 1998:488-9.
Feldherr 1996:48-9.
206
Kraus 1994.
205
62
squabbling over the spoils. With the Romans for the first time playing the
Greeks rather than the Trojans, the Homeric flavour of the Veii narrative
allows the Gallic Sack to be constructed as the inevitable outcome of
Rὁme’ὅ huἴὄiὅ at Veiiέ207 ‘χ ὅtὄaightfὁὄwaὄἶ uὅe ὁf a hiὅtὁὄiἵal
exemplum’ς208 Actually, if we look more closely, the struggle between the
two cities is more nuanced. In power and influence they are evenly
matched, but Veii has adopted an opposite constitution. This is republic v.
monarchy, in a fight to the death.
pace alibi parta Romani Veiique in armis erant tanta ira odioque ut uictis
finem adesse appararet. comitia utriusque populi longe diuersa ratione
facta sunt. Romani auxere tribunorum militum consulari potestate
numerum; octo, quot numquam antea, creati [...]. Veientes contra, taedio
annuae ambitionis quae interdum discordiarum causa erat, regem
creauere.209
With peace elsewhere, the Romans and Veii came into conflict, and so
great was their anger and hatred that it was clear that the conquered side
would be obliterated. The assemblies of the people made the enormous
diffeὄeὀἵe ἴetweeὀ the twὁ ἵitieὅ’ appὄὁaἵheὅ ὁἴviὁuὅέ ἦhe Rὁmaὀὅ
increased the number of military tribunes with consular power: eight were
appὁiὀteἶ, mὁὄe thaὀ eveὄ ἴefὁὄeέ […] ἦhe Veieὀteὅ, ὁὀ the ὁtheὄ haὀἶ,
tired of the annual scramble for power which was the cause of discord for
the rest of the year, had made themselves a king.
χὀἶ it’ὅ the Veieὀteὅ’ appὁiὀtmeὀt ὁf theiὄ kiὀg, whὁ, aὅ kiὀgὅ tend to do,
turns into an irreligious tyrant, that ultimately ensures their downfall.
Alienated by regal misbehaviour the other Etruscan cities refuse to come to
their aid.210 Propertius emphasises the disastrous monarchy in his lament to
the ruins:
heu Vei ueteres! et uos tum regna fuistis,
et uestro posita est aurea sella foro:
nunc intra muros pastoris bucina lenti
cantat, et in uestris ossibus arua metunt.211
Alas for old Veii! You too once ruled widely,
207
This is argued by Kraus 1994. See also Jaeger 1996:10-11.
Kraus 1994:272.
209
Livy 5.1.1-3.
210
Ibid. 5.1.3-7.
211
Prop. 4.10.27-30.
208
63
and in your forum stood a golden throne.
Now within your walls the lazy shepherd plays his pipe,
and harvests are gathered among your bones.
‘Aurea sella in foro’ haὅ ἴeeὀ takeὀ tὁ ὄefeὄ ὅimply tὁ Veii’ὅ lὁὅt pὁweὄέ χὅ
Eἶwaὄἶὅ wὄiteὅ, ‘ἦhiὅ pὁigὀaὀt ὅἵeὀe ἵὁὀfiὄmὅ the lethal ὅupeὄiὁὄity ὁf
Rὁme’ὅ pὁweὄ ἴut may alὅὁ have impliἵatiὁὀὅ fὁὄ Rὁme’ὅ futuὄeέ Rὁme aὀἶ
Veii were once equals. May they not be so again? Rome is different. Or is
itς’212 ἐut we ἵaὀ aἵtually ὄeaἶ it mὁὄe ὅtὄὁὀglyέ ἦhe ‘gὁlἶeὀ thὄὁὀe’ iὀ
Veii’ὅ ἔὁὄum waὅ aὀ iὀvitatiὁὀ tὁ a fallέ χt Rὁme, thὄὁὀeὅ ἶὁ ὀὁt ὅit well iὀ
the Forum, and with those who sit on them – from Tarquin to Caesar – are
inevitably thrown down.213 ἦhe Rὁmaὀὅ’ tὄiumph ὁveὄ Veii, iὀ ὁtheὄ wὁὄἶὅ,
iὅ a viἵtὁὄy fὁὄ the Repuἴliἵ, aὀἶ Juὀὁ Regiὀa’ὅ ἶefeἵtiὁὀ giveὅ it ἶiviὀe
approval.214
However, the Veientes did get one thing right. Although their
chosen solution was ill-judged, they (unlike the Romans) understood the
corrosive dangers of civic discordia. In Rome, the spoils of Veii and the
sacked city fuel the antagonism between Senate and People known as the
‘ἑὁὀfliἵt ὁf the ἡὄἶeὄὅ’έ Ἡhat ὅhὁulἶ ἴe ἶὁὀe with the empty ἵityς χ
radical proposal is made by the tribune of the plebs, Titus Sicinius, to split
the Roman ciuitas in two, and send one half to repopulate Veii. The
patricians react furiously, accusing Sicinius of setting himself up as
‘conditor Veiorum’, the ‘founder of Veii’: a sacrilegious assault on the
pὁὅitiὁὀ ὁf ‘the gὁἶ Rὁmuluὅ, the dei filius, the fatheὄ aὀἶ ἵὄeatὁὄ ὁf Rὁme’,
whom they will never abandon.215 ἡὀ the ἶay ὁf the vὁte, ὁὀ ἑamilluὅ’
advice, the Senate goes to the Forum to show a united front, and they use
the Forum itself as their argument:
212
Edwards 2011:651.
ἦaὄquiὀ’ὅ uὅuὄpatiὁὀ iὅ tὄiggeὄeἶ ἴy hiὅ ὅittiὀg ὁὀ ἥeὄviuὅ ἦulliuὅ’ ἵhaiὄ iὀ the
Comitium: he then hurls the protesting king to his death at the bottom of the steps (Livy
1.48.1, cf. Dion. Hal. 1.4.38); Appius Claudius the decemvir notably dominates the Forum
from his tribunal (Livy 3.48, Dion. Hal. 11.28-38). Caesar famously upset the Senate by
refusing to rise to greet them from his throne in the Forum Julium; his golden chair was
normally set up in the Senate House, but he presided over the Lupercalia of 44 sitting in it
on the Rostra.
214
Camillus brought the wooden cult statue from Veii to her new temple on the Aventine.
Livy 5.21.3, 22.6-7, 23.7, 31.3, 52.10. Cf. Dion. Hal. 13.10, Plut. Cam. 6, Val. Max. 1.8.3.
215
Livy 5.24.10-11.
213
64
his adhortantibus principes concitati, patres, senes iuuenesque, cum
ferretur lex, agmine facto in forum uenerunt, dissipatique per tribus, suos
quisque tribules prensantes, orare cum lacrimis coepere ne eam patriam
pro qua fortissime felicissimeque ipsi ac patres eorum dimicassent
desererent, Capitolium, aedem Vestae, cetera circa templa deorum
ostentantes; ne exsulem, extorrem populum Romanum ab solo patrio ac dis
penatibus in hostium urbem agerent, eoque rem adducerent ut melius fuerit
non capi Veios, ne Roma desereretur.216
Stirred up by the princeps’ words, on the day of the vote, the Senate, old
and young alike, went to the Forum in a column. They dispersed through
the tribes, and when they found their fellow tribesmen began to implore
them, with tears in their eyes, not to desert their fatherland for which they
and their fathers had fought so bravely and with such great success, and
drew their eyes to the Capitoline and the Temple of Vesta and the other
surrounding temples of the gods. They begged that the people of Rome
should not be banished and exiled from its homeland and driven with its
household gods to an enemy city: the idea made one wish that Veii had
never been captured, as then Rome would not be deserted.
The sight of the ἑapitὁliὀe aὀἶ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ templeὅ ὅtiὄὅ the peὁple’ὅ
consciences. The Senate is successful this time, but soon even Camillus, the
true conditor tὁ ἥiἵiὀiuὅ’ falὅe ὁὀe, retreats into self-imposed exile.217 The
bitterness of the internecine struggles makes the Romans oblivious to
repeated warnings about the approaching cataclysm.218
Under the Gallic threat, the Forum cracks again. Not literally this
time, but in the panic what little remains of the concordia that binds the
ciuitas together shatters, and this is expressed spatially as the city retracts to
the Capitoline and finally sacrifices the Forum valley altogether.219 δivy’ὅ
account subtly reverses the events of the foundation: this is Rome
defounded. In the confusion after the terrible rout at the Allia, half the army
gives up on Rome altogether. The soldiers flee to Veii, rather than to Rome
216
Livy 5.30.4-6.
Livy 5.32.8-9.
218
Before the Allia, e.g. a warning voice is heard in the Forum area, on the Nova Via (Livy
5.33.1).
219
Jaeger 1997:57-63.
217
65
and their wives and children, and once there they send no message home.220
It’ὅ aὅ if the ἵitiὐeὀὅ aὄe ὄegὄeὅὅiὀg tὁ the ὅtate ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’ ἴaὀἶ ὁf
fugitives, without wives, children or the means to found a city. Back at
Rome, as the Gauls approach, the remaining soldiers and able-bodied
senators garrison the Capitoline, and the rest of the population – women,
children, the elderly, even the Vestals – breaks up and flees. The women, in
a reversal of the Sabine story, are faced with a terrible choice:
[…] ἵum ipὅa res speciesque miserabilis erat, tum muliebris fletus et
concursatio incerta nunc hos, nunc illos sequentium rogitantiumque uiros
natosque cui se fato darent […]221
[The moment of separation] itself was cruel, but more pitiful were the tears
of the women as they rushed uncertain, following now husbands, now
sons, asking them what fate they were consigning them to.
The majority of the population streams towards the Janiculum – location of
another dead city – ‘withὁut aὀy leaἶeὄ ὁὄ agὄeemeὀt’έ222 They return, in
other words, to the diaspora from which the city was formed. The Roman
population is therefore divided between the sites of three ruined cities: Veii,
Janiculum, and Saturnia.
Only the elderly and infirm are left in Rome, and in the spirit of
solidarity the elderly senators refuse the safety of the Arx:
et quo id aequiore animo de plebe multitudo ferret, senes triumphales
consularesque simul se cum illis palam dicere obituros, nec his corporibus,
quibus non arma ferre, non tueri patriam possent, oneraturos inopiam
armatorum.223
In order to make it easier for the plebs to bear, the old men who had once
celebrated triumphs or served as consuls said that they would die alongside
them, so that their bodies, which could no longer bear arms or defend the
fatheὄlaὀἶ, ὅhὁulἶ ὀὁt ἴe a ἴuὄἶeὀ ὁὀ the gaὄὄiὅὁὀ’ὅ ὅἵaὀty ὅtὁὄeὅέ
ἦheὅe ageἶ meὀ emἴὁἶy the ἵity’ὅ ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὁὀ with the paὅtέ Ἡe ὅaw them
earlier reminding the people ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ὅaἵὄeἶ ἴuilἶiὀgὅ, aὀἶ ὀὁw they tell
the yὁuὀg meὀ, aὅ they paὅὅ up tὁ the ἑapitὁl, ὁf the ἵity’ὅ illuὅtὄiὁuὅ
220
Livy 5.38.5.
Livy 5.40.3.
222
Livy 5.40.5-6: ‘ὅiὀe ullὁ ἶuἵe aut ἵὁὀὅeὀὅu’έ
223
Livy 5.39.13.
221
66
history, that Rome had not been beaten for three hundred and sixty years. 224
They are the guardians of that era since Romulus, and with them the city is
lost. Although the rudiments of the Republic survive on the hill, that is all
they are.225 It’ὅ ὁὀly thaὀkὅ tὁ ἑamilluὅ’ laὅt miὀute ὄeὅἵue that the gaὄὄiὅὁὀ,
rendered unviable, is not forced to surrender to the Gauls.
The sacrifice of the ex-magistrates
Livy and Plutarch tell slightly different versions of this story. Both
describe the old magistrates dressing in the special garments that signify the
high rank attained in their careers, and then sitting in their curule chairs to
await the Gauls.226 Livy then shows the barbarian invaders entering at the
Colline Gate. They make straight for the Forum. As they walk through the
deserted city, they goggle at the magnificent buildings.227 Transformed into
a terrible symbol of invasion, the Forum Romanum is now the Forum
Gallorum, where the enemy gathers together.228 In the great houses around
the Forum, the old magistrates sit in their atria, like the gods in their
temples.229 There they are slaughtered by the Gauls. The barbarians are so
ignorant of civiliὅatiὁὀ that they ἶὁὀ’t uὀἶeὄὅtaὀἶ that the ἵity iὅ ὀὁt its
buildings but its people, and waste several days attacking brick and mortar
while the Capitoline garrison digs in.230 By murdering the senators, they kill
the very people who could explain the city to them.
Iὀ ἢlutaὄἵh’ὅ ὅimplifieἶ veὄὅiὁὀ, the magiὅtὄateὅ gatheὄ iὀ the ἔὁὄum,
and both the memory and the monuments of the Republic are lost at the
same time:
α α ὼ
π
ὲ
,
ὴ
α ὸ
᾿
ὲ
ὲ
α α α
224
'
Καπ
ῳ φ υ ὰ
α
α
ὺ
Livy 5.40.1.
That the Capitoline can never be the ciuitas iὅ maἶe ἵleaὄ ἴy the fate ὁf the gaὄὄiὅὁὀ’ὅ
heὄὁ, εaὄἵuὅ εaὀliuὅέ χfteὄ Rὁme’ὅ viἵtὁὄy, he becomes so associated with the hill that he
adds its name to his own. A powerful demagogue, he is convicted of aiming at tyranny and
hurled from the Tarpeian Rock. See Jaeger 1997:74-93 for Manlius; also Wiseman 1979
fὁὄ εaὀliuὅ’ tὄialέ
226
Livy 5.41.3; Plut. Cam. ἀ1έἀέ Diὁὀyὅiuὅ’ aἵἵὁuὀt iὅ lὁὅtέ
227
δivy ηέἂ1έἂμ ‘ἵiὄἵumfeὄeὀteὅ ὁἵulὁὅ aἶ templa ἶeum aὄἵemque ὅὁlam belli speciem
teὀeὀtemέ’
228
Livy 5.41.5-6, also at 5.43.2 before the attack on the Arx.
229
Livy 5.41.8: ‘maieὅtate […] quam uὁltuὅ gὄauitaὅque ὁὄiὅ pὄae ὅe feὄeἴat ὅimillimὁὅ
ἶiὅέ’ Ogilvie 1965:725 observes the senators are arrayed as if for burial.
230
Livy 5.43.1.
225
67
π
α
υ
π α
α
α
π
ῳ
π
α
απ
ὴ
φα ὴ α
ὴ
π
α α
π
έ
α
υ έ
π
π ὶ
π
α
ὲ
ὴ
υ
έ
ὲ
ὲ
ὲ
, αὶ
ῖ Γα
α π ὸ
ὴ
υ ,
ῖ
ὡ
αὶ π
α
υ αὶ
απ
αὶ
αὶ
ὺ πα
α
α
υ
ὰ
φ
ῖ απ
,
α ,
α
α ,
'
,
α
α
α α ὼ
α ῖα
πα
α
α
ῳ Μα ῳ αὶ π
α
π
αὶ π ὺ
π
, ὡ
α
ῖ
π
πα ,
π
'
αὶ
π
αὶ
ῖ
πα
ὺ
π
ὴ
π ὺ
υ
έέέ
231
Brennus, after taking possession of Rome, posted a force to watch the
Capitol, and went down to the Forum, and marvelled at the men who sat
there silent in all their finery: they did not rise up from their seats at the
approach of the enemy, or change colour, but sat leaning on their staffs
with fearless confidence, quietly looking at one another. The Gauls were
astonished at so strange a sight, and for a long time they hesitate to
approach and touch them, as if they were superior beings. But when one of
them dared to come near to Manius Papirius and gently stroke his long
beard, Papirius struck him on the head with his staff. In response the
barbarian drew his sword and killed him. Then they attacked the rest and
killeἶ them, with aὀy ὁtheὄ Rὁmaὀὅ they ἵὁulἶ fiὀἶ…
The grand old men in the Forum, dressed in their ceremonial robes, become
a living tableau, a vision of the stern values and successes of the Republic
so far. They sit so still they could almost be ἔὁὄum ὅtatueὅμ they ἶὁὀ’t eveὀ
change colour. For the Gaulὅ, thiὅ iὅ a α
α indeed. As the barbarian hand
ὅtὄetἵheὅ ὁut tὁ tὁuἵh ἵitiὐeὀ ἴeaὄἶ, it’ὅ ὀὁt ἵleaὄ – to them, or us – whether
they aὄe fellὁw meὀ ὁὄ tὄuly ὅupeὄiὁὄ ἴeiὀgὅ (
)έ ἐut ὁf ἵὁuὄὅe they
die like other men the moment Papirius breaks the spell. What makes the
difference is the illustrious garments they wear and the Forum around them
– the trappings of civilization. These can be taken away.232
231
Plut. Cam. 22.4-6.
The theme of identity reversal in Book 5 is explored by Luce 1971: at a number of
pὁiὀtὅ the Rὁmaὀὅ aὄe pὁὄtὄayeἶ aὅ ‘ἴaὄἴaὄiἵ’ while the ἕaulὅ aἶὁpt Rὁmaὀ ἵhaὄacteristics:
eέgέ ηέἁἄέ1μ ‘mitis legatio, ni praeferoces legatos Gallisque magis quam Romanis similes
habuisset.’
232
68
As most studies of the narrative focus on Camillus, this episode has
not received much attention. It’ὅ geὀeὄally ὅeeὀ aὅ a pὁὅitive ὅtatemeὀt
aἴὁut the Rὁmaὀὅ’ will tὁ ὅuὄvive, a ὅtὄaightfὁὄwaὄἶ exemplum of Roman
uirtus.233 Jaeger, for example, argues that, althὁugh theiὄ ἶeathὅ ‘ὄepὄeὅeὀt
aὀ eὀὁὄmὁuὅ ὅaἵὄifiἵe ὁf aἵἵὄueἶ ἵiviἵ memὁὄy’, ‘δivy makeὅ it quite clear
that the city can afford to lose the old ex-magiὅtὄateὅέ’234 Only thanks to the
last minute intervention of the princeps, who rushes with his army into the
Forum just as the garrison hands over ransom money to the Gauls.235 Both
Livy and Plutarch make it clear that the loss of the old senators, and the
Forum and city in the sack, is catastrophic for Rome. This is the moment
when the Gauls make the Romans strangers to their ὁwὀ paὅtέ It’ὅ ὀὁt juὅt
that (as Livy says at the beginning of Book 6) the ἵity’s records are
destroyed in the fire. The story of the senators has its own contemporary
echo.
In 45 BC, at the beginning of his Academica, Cicero had paid tribute
to the antiquarian Varro:
nam nos in nostra urbe peregrinantis errantisque tamquam hospites tui libri
quasi domum deduxerunt, ut possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus
agnoscere.236
For when we were strangers in our own city and wandered around like
visitors, your books led us home, so that we could understand who and
where were.
By the Late Republic time had (as it were) made Gauls of the Romans, and
only Varro’ὅ ὅἵhὁlaὄὅhip had made the city comprehensible again. Not long
afteὄ, iὀ ἂἂ, ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ fὄieὀἶ εatiuὅ ‘jὁkeἶ’ iὀ a letteὄ that, with ἑaeὅaὄ ἶeaἶ,
the Gauls would invade again.237 Cicero and Varro were both proscribed in
43, when the Senate again underwent a culling.238 In δivy’ὅ text, the
Republic’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy is reduced to whatever hurried snatches could be
233
Ogilvie 1965:725 suggests this is another example of deuotio, perhaps originating in the
tradition of the Papirian family. Cf. pp. 53-4, 120-1.
234
Jaeger 1997:61, 74. Cf. Luce 1971:279-80.
235
Livy 5.49.
236
Cic. Acad. 1.3.
237
Cic. Att. 14.1.2.
238
Varro seems to have been targeted more for his vast estates, and, unlike Cicero,
survived thanks to the protection of his friend Fufius Calenus, a follower of Antony: see
Osgood 2006:208-9.
69
imparted to the soldiers as they climbed up to the Arx, and the Gauls
senselessly slaughter precisely the men who would be able to explain the
city to them.
At the root of this story is the transfer of authority from the Senate to
its princeps, ἑamilluὅέ It’ὅ pὄeἵiὅely the ὅaἵὄifiἵe ὁf the paὅt that makeὅ the
grander refoundation possible. With the remnants of the Senate bottled up
ὁὀ the ἑapitὁliὀe, it’ὅ ἑamilluὅ whὁ ὄallieὅ the Rὁmaὀ ἶeὅeὄteὄὅ iὀtὁ aὀ
army to drive out the Gauls. χὀἶ, iὀ δivy’ὅ ὁwὀ twiὅt ὁὀ the ὅtὁὄy, ἑamilluὅ
rescues Rome in the Forum itself.239 He draws up his battle-line in the ruins:
suos in aceruum conicere sarcinas et arma aptare ferroque non auro
reciperare patriam iubet, in conspectus habentes fana deum et coniuges et
liberos et solum patriae deforme belli malis et omnia quae defendi
repetique et ulcisci fas sit.240
He ordered his men to throw their packs into a heap and make ready their
weapons to win back their country with iron not gold, with the temples of
the gods and their wives and children and their fatherland disfigured by
war before their eyes and all that fate called upon them to defend, recover,
and avenge.
ώeὄe agaiὀ it’ὅ ἑamilluὅ whὁ ἶiὄeἵtὅ the ἵitiὐeὀὅ’ gaὐe, whὁ giveὅ the
ἴuilἶiὀgὅ meaὀiὀgέ If the ἵity haἶ ἴeeὀ ‘ἶefὁuὀἶeἶ’ iὀ paὀiἵ, the tieὅ that
bind it together are reasserted by Camillus in the same place where they
were established by the Sabine treaty.
And, with the Gauls expelled, it’ὅ ἑamilluὅ whὁ fightὅ tὁ pὄeveὀt the
Romans abandoning these ruins. Rome has been so devastated that it seems
Rὁmuluὅ’ ἵity iὅ fiὀiὅheἶέ χgaiὀ, the pὁpulaὄ faἵtiὁὀ iὅ ἶὄawὀ tὁ the empty
city of Veii. It would be much easier, they argue, to move the population
there than to rebuild.241
Camillus addresses the assembly in the Forum, and uses the very
landscape as an argument for staying put. He takes on the role previously
held by the Senate and draws their attention to the sacred powers that
occupy the site of Rome:
239
Luce 1971:292: the earlier version had Camillus seize the gold as the Gauls were taking
it north.
240
Livy 5.49.3.
241
Livy 5.49.8-50.
70
‘uὄἴem auὅpiἵatὁ iὀauguὄatὁque conditam habemus; nullus locus in ea non
religionum deorumque est plenus; sacrificiis sollemnibus non dies magis
stati quam loca sunt in quiἴuὅ fiaὀtέ’242
‘Ἡe have a ἵity fὁuὀἶeἶ with auὅpiἵeὅ aὀἶ auguὄyν theὄe iὅ ὀὁt a ὅiὀgle
plaἵe iὀ it that iὅ ὀὁt ὅaἵὄeἶ ὁὄ ἴelὁὀgὅ tὁ the gὁἶὅν aὀἶ it’ὅ ὀὁt juὅt the
days of our sacrifices that are fixed but the places where they are to be
peὄfὁὄmeἶέ’
The gods of Rome cannot be uprooted. Camillus elaborates the idea,
showing the Assembly the absurdity of trying to perform Roman religious
observations in Veii.243 Moving towards his conclusion, he shifts from the
sacred loci of the present day – which the citizens can see all around them
in the Forum – tὁ the almὁὅt ‘χuguὅtaὀ’ viὅiὁὀ ὁf the pὄimitive laὀἶὅἵape ὁf
Rome:
‘maiὁὄeὅ ὀὁὅtὄi, ἵὁὀueὀae paὅtὁὄeὅque, cum in his locis nihil praeter siluas
paludesque esset, nouam urbem tam breui aedificarunt: nos Capitolio atque
arce incolumi, stantibus templis deorum, aeἶifiἵaὄe iὀἵeὀὅa pigetς […] ὀὁὀ
sine causa di hominesque hunc urbi condendae locum elegerunt –
saluberrimos colles, flumen opportunum, quo ex mediterraneis locis fruges
deuehantur, quo maritimi commeatus accipiantur, mare uicinum ad
commoditates nec expositum nimia propinquitate ad pericula classium
externarum, regionem Italiae mediam – ad incrementum urbis natum unice
locum. argumento est ipsa magnitudo tam nouae urbis. […] quὁἶ ἵum ita
sit quae, malum, ratio est expertis <talia> alia experiri, cum iam ut uirtus
ueὅta tὄaὀὅiὄe aliὁ pὁὅὅit, fὁὄtuὀa ἵeὄte lὁἵi huiuὅ tὄaὀὅfeὄὄi ὀὁὀ pὁὅὅitς’244
‘ἡuὄ aὀἵeὅtὁὄὅ, ὄefugeeὅ aὀἶ ὅhepheὄἶὅ, at a time wheὀ theὄe waὅ ὀὁthiὀg
in this place except woods and marsh, quickly built a new city: are we to
shrink from rebuilding what has been destroyed by fire while the
Capitoline and the Arx are untouched, and the temple of the gods still
ὅtaὀἶς […] It waὅ ὀὁt withὁut ὄeaὅὁὀ that gὁἶὅ aὀἶ meὀ ἵhὁὅe thiὅ plaἵe tὁ
found a city – with its health-giving hills, well-placed river which brings
us produce from inland regions and commerce from the sea, the sea itself,
near enough for our advantage but not so close as to expose us to danger
Livy ηέηἀέἀέ Jaegeὄ 1λλἅμλ1 ἵὁὀὀeἵtὅ thiὅ tὁ Rὁmuluὅ’ ὅpeeἵh iὀ the ἥaἴiὀe ἴattleέ
Edwards 1996:45-49 sees this passage contributing to the Camillus-Augustus analogy
through its emphasis on the princeps’ ὄeligiὁuὅ authὁὄityέ
244
Livy 5.53.8-9, 5.54.4-6: there are echoes of Cic. Rep. 2.3-6. Gaertner 2008:42-ημ ‘it
ὅeemὅ likely that δivy ἵὁὀὅἵiὁuὅly iὀὅeὄteἶ the ἑiἵeὄὁὀiaὀ ὄefeὄeὀἵeὅ […] iὀ a way that
refleἵtὅ hiὅ eὅteem fὁὄ ὁὀe ὁf the leaἶiὀg ὅtateὅmeὀ ὁf the late Repuἴliἵέ’
242
243
71
from foreign fleets, its location in the heart of Italy – the site was uniquely
made for the growth of a city. The proof of this is the greatness of this city
whiἵh iὅ ὅtill yὁuὀgέ […] Ἡhat ὄeaὅὁὀ ὁὀ eaὄth, theὀ, iὅ theὄe fὁὄ tὄyiὀg
somewhere else, when you can take your courage elsewhere but not the
fortune of this place?
It’ὅ ὀὁw ἑamilluὅ, aὀἶ ὀὁt the ἥeὀate, whὁ ὄemiὀἶὅ the peὁple the uὀique
fortuna loci. The decimated Senate, meanwhile, is a pale imitation of its
former self: hesitant, iὀἶeἵiὅive, aὀἶ williὀgly giviὀg way tὁ ἑamilluὅ’
auctoritas. In a way, this narrative questions not only what Rome is, but the
role of the Senate within it.
The danger that Rome would be supplanted by a foreign capital,
χlexaὀἶὄia, waὅ a pὁteὀt paὄt ὁf ἡἵtaviaὀ’ὅ ὄhetὁὄiἵ agaiὀὅt χὀtὁὀy iὀ the
30s.245 But there was another recent memory at work. The Senate had, after
all, aἴaὀἶὁὀeἶ the ἵity ἴefὁὄe, iὀ ἂλέ Ἡith ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὄmy ὁveὄ the Ruἴiἵὁὀ
and moving with frightening speed down the spine of Italy, Pompey led the
Senate’ὅ taἵtiἵal withἶὄawal from Rome. χppiaὀ’ὅ Pompey presents almost
the opposite argument to δivy’ὅ ἑamilluὅ iὀ favὁuὄ ὁf gὁiὀg, that ‘ἢlaἵeὅ
and houses are not strength and freedom to men, but men, wherever they
may be, have these qualities within themselves, and by defending
themselves will recover their homes alὅὁέ’246 But, as Cicero, an increasingly
uὀhappy ἵampeὄ with ἢὁmpey’ὅ aὄmy, wὄὁte tὁ χttiἵuὅμ
‘ὀὁὀ eὅt’ iὀquit ‘iὀ paὄietiἴuὅ ὄeὅ puἴliἵaέ’ at iὀ aὄiὅ et fὁἵiὅέ247
‘ἦhe Repuἴliἵ ἶὁeὅὀ’t ὄeὅiἶe iὀ wallὅ,’ he ὅaiἶέ ἐut it ἶὁeὅ iὀ altaὄὅ aὀἶ
pyres.
ώὁweveὄ, it’s not ἑamilluὅ’ ὅpeeἵh that ἶeἵiἶeὅ Rὁme’ὅ fate, ἴut a
voice from the Forum.
cum senatus post paulo de his rebus in curia Hostilia haberetur
cohortesque ex praesidiis reuertentes forte agmine forum transirent,
ἵeὀtuὄiὁ iὀ ἵὁmitiὁ exἵlamauitμ ‘ὅigὀifeὄ, ὅtatue signum; hic manebimus
245
Ceausescu 1976; Feldherr 1996:48-9.
App. BC ἀέἁἅμ ‘
ὰ ὰ
α αὶ ὰ
ῖ
,
ὰ ὺ
α, π π '
1.14 describes the Senate deserting in panic.
247
Cic. Att. 7.11.3 (134 SB).
α α ὴ
,
246
72
α
ὴ
υ
α
α
α α ὺ αυ ῖ ’έ ἑaeὅέ BC
ὁptimeέ’ qua uoce audita, et senatus accipere se omen ex curia egressus
conclamauit et plebs circumfusa adprobauit.248
Ἡheὀ the ὅeὀate a ὅhὁὄt time afteὄ [ἑamilluὅ’ ὅpeeἵh] weὄe ἶeἴatiὀg theὅe
matters in the Curia Hostilia, a cohort of soldiers returning from guard
duty happened to march through the Forum, and in the Comitium their
ἵeὀtuὄiὁὀ ὁὄἶeὄeἶ, ‘ἥtaὀἶaὄἶ-bearer, set up the standard. This is the best
plaἵe fὁὄ uὅ tὁ ὅtayέ’ ώiὅ vὁiἵe waὅ heaὄἶ iὀ the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe aὀἶ the
senators rushed out crying that they accepted the omen, and the people
nearby gave their approval.
The refoundation of Rome, then, was an act of perfect concordia, the Senate
and People in agreement in the open air of the Forum. The alternative future
for Rome in Veii, a city tainted by monarchy and haunted by the memory of
Troy, is shut down.249 Thanks to the intervention of the heroic Camillus,
who dedicates a Temple of Concordia in the Forum, the Republic enters the
historical era in the spirit of optimism and co-operation.250
In some ways, this is an overwhelmingly positive narrative. The
Romans come through the greatest disaster in their history and are stronger
for it. But Rome rejects the monarchy of Veii in favour of – what? A partlyobliterated Senate, and the Dictator Camillus? And while Camillus – as
Augustus – recognises the true fortuna loci and initiates the refoundation,
the sacrifice of the old senators sounds a dissonant note. Here the Forum
becomes a reminder of what had been lost, and even questions the nature of
Rὁme’ὅ ὅuὄvivalέ εaὀy ὁf the ἴuilἶiὀgὅ iὀ the fiὄὅt peὀtaἶ, iὀἵluἶiὀg the
Curia Hostilia itself, did not survive the crises of the first century BC.
ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ tὄiἴute tὁ Vaὄὄὁ atteὅtὅ that while the Repuἴliἵ may exiὅt iὀ ‘altaὄὅ
aὀἶ pyὄeὅ’, the meaning of many of these ancient cults had been obscured.
χὀἶ althὁugh Rὁme haὅ ὄiὅeὀ ‘fὄὁm ὀew ὄὁὁtὅ’, itὅ ὀew iὀἵaὄὀatiὁὀ iὅ ὁut ὁf
joint with the old. The rebuilding after the disaster was so hurried it
scrambled the street plan:
248
Livy 5.55.1-2.
The centurion would have finally received his recognition in the form of a late
nineteenth-century bronze portrait statue had proposed plans for the Ministero della
Finanze been carried out; Beard 2004:19.
250
The original Temple of Concord is attributed to Camillus by Ovid Fast. 1.641-44 and
Plut. Cam. 42.3-ἂ, ἴut theὄe iὅ ὀὁ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal eviἶeὀἵe fὁὄ itέ χὅ Riἵhaὄἶὅὁὀ wὄiteὅ, ‘it
pὄὁἴaἴly waὅ ὀeveὄ ἴuilt’ν ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶia’ὅ ἑamillaὀ ὁὄigiὀ waὅ likely a lateὄ faἴleέ
249
73
ea est causa quod ueteres cloacae, primo per publicum ductae, nunc priuata
passim subeant tecta, formaque urbis sit occupatae magis quam diuisae
similis.251
It’ὅ fὁὄ thiὅ ὄeaὅὁὀ that the aὀἵieὀt ὅeweὄὅ, whiἵh ὁὄigiὀally fὁllὁweἶ the
public streets, now run in many places under private houses, and the
appearance of the city is like one which has been appropriated rather than
divided.
With this disquieting reminder of the Cloaca and image of an urbs
occupata, Livy closes his account of early Rome. The stirpes of the modern
Forum fed from the buried waters of the Forum marsh. Despite all
χuguὅtuὅ’ effὁὄtὅ tὁ ὅhape a ὀew Rὁme, the aὀἵieὀt paὅt ἵὁulἶ ἴe fὁuὀἶ
underfoot. This was a challenging, and even subversive thought.
From 20 BC onwards, therefore, work began on a different site,
histὁὄiἵally if ὀὁt liteὄally ‘gὄeeὀfielἶ’έ χuguὅtuὅ ἴegaὀ hiὅ ὁwὀ aὀὅweὄ tὁ
the Forum problem: a new Forum whose history began and ended with
himself: the Forum Augustum.
The Forum Augustum
χuguὅtuὅ’ ὀew fὁὄum waὅ ὀὁt uὀpὄeἵeἶeὀteἶέ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἔὁὄum
Iulium had been dedicated in 46.252 It was initially conceived of as an
extension to, rather than a rival of, the Forum proper, with which it was
connected with the new Curia Iulia as a kind of pivot (fig. 17).253 We can
see in the Iulium a distillation of some of the ἔὁὄum’ὅ impὁὄtaὀt elemeὀtὅ.
Instead of the jumble of temples, that of Venus Genetrix holds our focus.254
In place of the scattering of equestrian statues, just one: the Dictator
mὁuὀteἶ ὁὀ χlexaὀἶeὄ’ὅ hὁὄὅeέ
251
Livy 5.55.5.
There is debate about whether this was after its completion, or whether Octavian
fiὀiὅheἶ the ἔὁὄum Iulium afteὄ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἶeathέ ἡὀ the ἔὁὄum Iuliumμ χmiἵi 1λλ1ν Ulὄiἵh
1993; Maiuro 2010.
253
ἦhiὅ iὅ Ulὄiἵh’ὅ ἵὁὀteὀtiὁὀμ he ὅuggeὅtὅ that the ἔorum Iulium ‘ὅtaὄteἶ ὁut aὅ ὁὀe pὄὁjeἵt
and ended up aὅ aὀὁtheὄέ’ ἡὀἵe ἑaeὅaὄ aἵquiὄeἶ aἴὅὁlute pὁweὄ it ἴeἵame ‘a ἵὁmplex
intended to challenge directly if not supplant the civic functions of the original Forum
Romanumέ’ 1λλἁμη1
254
Its architecture was inspired by the Temple of Castor: Ulrich 1993:74.
252
74
χuguὅtuὅ’ ἔὁὄum fὁllὁwὅ the ὅame ‘ὅtὄeamliὀiὀg’ principle.255
However, here there is an extra, temporal dimension. If the Iulium was (in
conception at least) an extension to the Forum, then the Augustum,
connected to the Iulium but not directly to the Forum, is in many ways its
attempted replacement. Ἡhat χuguὅtuὅ’ ὅpaἵe pὄeὅeὀtὅ iὅ a ἔὁὄum ὀὁt juὅt
architecturally tidied-up, but historically too. The Temple of Mars Ultor was
a new foundation point, vowed by Octavian at Philippi. A number of rituals
were transferred there from the Forum and even from the Capitoline.256
More fundamentally, it united the Forum and the Forum Iulium by
gathering their cult statues – of Divus Julius and Venus – together with
Mars under the same roof.
χuguὅtuὅ’ pὁὅitiὁὀ ὄeὅteἶ ὁὀ at least two ideological bases. First,
that it was actually essentially traditional. The appearance of an exceptional
man at a time of crisis had many precedents in Roman history; the presence
ὁf ‘χuguὅtuὅ’ (iὀ ὅtaὄk ἵὁὀtὄaὅt tὁ the ἢeὄpetual Diἵtatὁὄ) waὅ eὀtiὄely iὀ
harmony with the mos maiorum. Secondly, that his pre-eminence was by
virtue of his ability to re-establish concord after the civil wars (and thereby
transform himself from a civil war general among many to the saviour of
the state). Monuments had to serve these two needs: to evoke a glorious
ἶiὅtaὀt paὅt, aὀἶ tὁ ἵὁmmemὁὄate ἴut ‘ὀeutὄaliὅe’ ὄeἵeὀt hiὅtὁὄyέ χὅ we ὅaw
above, the Forum was rewritten to meet this brief, but with limited success.
The multiplicity of conflicting and divergent memories made it impossible
to write out alternatives. Too much had happened there.
The Forum Augustum presented a version of Roman history that
was as harmonious as its architecture, uniting the deep and recent past. In
fact, we might see it as the rewritten Forum that should have been. If we
were to stand facing the Temple of Mars Ultor (fig. 18) with its three cult
statues, in the left-hand exedra we would see Aeneas, the son of Venus,
255
The crucial work on the Forum Augustum is Zanker 1968; see esp. also Zanker
1988:210-215; Favro 1996; Galinsky 1996:127-213; Gowing 2005:132-145; Geiger 2008;
Shaya 2013.
256
Dio 55.10.2-ηέ χmὁὀg the ὄitualὅ tὄaὀὅfeὄὄeἶμ yὁuὀg meὀ’ὅ ἵὁmiὀg-of-age ceremonies;
the departure of magistrates to their provinces or military commands; the voting of
triumphs by the senate. Those celebrating a triumph would dedicate their sceptre and crown
to Mars here; military standards recovered from the enemy were to be deposited in the
temple. Censors were to drive a nail into the temple at the end of their terms of office.
75
with Anchises and Iulus; opposite, in the right-hand exedra, Romulus, the
son of Mars. In the most prominent position – the open space in front of the
temple – stood a quadriga driven by Augustus, the son of Divus Julius (fig.
19). The Forum χuguὅtum’ὅ ὅἵulptuὄal ἶeἵὁὄatiὁὀ ἵὄeateὅ ὅuἵh a
‘mythὁlὁgiἵal’ (we might ὅay august) atmosphere that this deeply radical
innovation, the inclusion of the deified dictator alongside Venus and Mars
and the primacy of Augustus over Romulus and Aeneas, seems the natural
order of things. The distance between the princeps and the gods is just a few
metres, and a single generation. The princeps (as Camillus in Livy 5) had
aὅὅumeἶ the ὄὁle ὁf gὄeateὅt authὁὄity ὁὀ Rὁme’ὅ hiὅtὁὄyέ
In this version of Roman history, the historical figures of the
Republic, although included, are relegated to the supporting cast. If we
fὁllὁw ἡviἶ’ὅ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ, they aὄe allocated the same amount of space as
the Julian family alone, even though it seems that Augustus was struggling
to make up the Julian numbers.257 ἦhiὅ heὄὁeὅ’ galleὄy ὅtὄeὅὅeὅ ἵὁὀἵὁὄἶέ ἦhe
presence of Sulla and Marius, bitter enemies in life, evokes civil war while
reinforcing that it is now concluded, a historical fact rather than a present
tὄὁuἴleέ χuguὅtuὅ’ ἵὁὀἵiliatὁὄy pὁweὄὅ exteὀἶ iὀtὁ the paὅt ἴefὁὄe hiὅ ὁwὀ
ἴiὄth, aὀἶ weὄe iὀteὀἶeἶ tὁ laὅt lὁὀg iὀtὁ the futuὄeέ χὅ ἐeaὄἶ wὄiteὅ, ‘Ἡheὀ
the expertly reticent elogium ὁf εaὄiuὅ waὅ lauὀἵheἶ […] maὀy ὁf thὁὅe
who chose to read it must have been all too aware quite how reticent it was;
twὁ huὀἶὄeἶ yeaὄὅ lateὄ […] the tὄaὀὅfὁὄmatiὁὀ ὁf εaὄiuὅ fὄὁm ἴutἵheὄ ὁf
the civil war to hero of the Republic [was] taken fὁὄ gὄaὀteἶέ’258 It’ὅ likely
(though not certain) that this impression of consensus was one achieved by
excluding the recent past in the figures of Antony, Brutus, Cassius, Cicero
et al.259 This was impossible to do in the original Forum, and only possible
here through omission. A further telling absence, as noticed by Geiger, is
that of Tarquinius Superbus.260 ἦhiὅ iὅ a veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf hiὅtὁὄy iὀ whiἵh Rὁme’ὅ
ἶeὅtiὀy iὅ paὅὅeἶ ἶὁwὀ ἴy ‘gὁὁἶ’ kiὀgὅμ ὁὀ the left, the kiὀgὅ ὁf χlἴa
257
Ovid at Fasti 5. The Julii, despite their divine ancestry, had not produced many
celebrated figures. The inclusion of the obscure C. Julius Caesar Strabo smacks of
desperation.
258
Beard 1998:88.
259
‘χ ἶeliἴeὄate memὁὄy-effaἵiὀg mὁve’, aὅ ἕὁwiὀg ἀίίημ1ἂη putὅ itέ
260
Geiger 2008:126-ἅμ thiὅ wὁulἶ ὄefleἵt the ὅtatuaὄy ὁὀ the ἑapitὁliὀe, wheὄe ἥupeὄἴuὅ’
place among the seven kings was taken by Titus Tatius.
76
Longa, on the right, the kings of Rome. In other words, the Augustum
aἶὁptὅ δivy’ὅ veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf the ‘pὄὁteἵtive’ ὄegal peὄiὁἶ, ἴut ὄemὁveὅ the ὅtiὀgέ
Again, this was impossible to do in the Forum Romanum.
Because the Forum Augustum contained no ‘organic’ memories of
its own – nothing had happened there yet – they were written in, in the form
of a biography beneath each portrait. These texts provided the approved
veὄὅiὁὀὅ ὁf eveὀtὅ (ἶiffeὄiὀg, iὀ a ὀumἴeὄ ὁf plaἵeὅ fὄὁm δivy’ὅ)έ 261 Each
inscription follows a uniform style. They represent a direct attempt to
ἵὁὀἶitiὁὀ the vieweὄ’ὅ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ Rὁme’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy, tὁ evὁke the right
memory, the right version of the story; to ensure later generations received
the right message. But for all the conspicuous honouring of the past,
ultimately each individual text on display was subsumed into the larger
ὅtὁὄy ὁf Rὁme aὅ the Juliaὀ family’ὅ paὄtiἵulaὄ ἶeὅtiὀyέ Ἡhat waὅ iὀἵluὅive
was also homogenising. Many citizens who walked in the Forum
Augustum, after all, may have been illiterate. The visual impression they
would have carried away was of a parade of similar statues, forming the
ἴaἵkἶὄὁp tὁ χuguὅtuὅ’ quaἶὄigaέ Rὁmaὀ hiὅtὁὄy, iὀ the ἔὁὄum χuguὅtum,
had been made well and truly augustior. χὅ ἕeigeὄ wὄiteὅ, ‘ὅuὄely ὀὁ ἴetteὄ
way to teach Roman history could have ἴeeὀ iὀveὀteἶέ’262
The scandal of 2 BC
The Forum Augustum was formally inaugurated on 12th August, 2
BC, by the princeps. The celebrations reinforced the message that this new
puἴliἵ ὅpaἵe waὅ a family affaiὄέ χuguὅtuὅ’ gὄaὀἶὅὁὀὅ ἕaiuὅ aὀἶ δuἵiuὅ
presided over games in the Circus, and their younger brother Agrippa took
part in the equestrian display known as the Troy Game.263 In Fasti Ovid
imagines Mars himself descending from the sky to look upon his temple,
whiἵh ἴeἵὁmeὅ a mὁὀumeὀt tὁ the ἢὄiὀἵipate’ὅ ὁὄigin story.
uouerat hoc iuuenis tum cum pia sustulit arma:
261
As Luce 1990 shows, the fragments of the elogia show that the history they told were
ὅtὄikiὀgly at vaὄiaὀἵe with δivy’ὅμ he eveὀ ὅuggeὅtὅ that ‘ὁὀ paὄtiἵulaὄ pὁiὀtὅ the elogia
may have ἶeliἴeὄately ἴeeὀ makiὀg ἵὁὄὄeἵtiveὅ ὁὄ ὄipὁὅtὅ tὁ δivy’ὅ veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf eveὀtὅέ’
(137).
262
Geiger 2008:304.
263
Dio 55.10.6.
77
a tantis Princeps incipiendus erat.264
[Augustus] vowed it as a young man, when he took up arms for the sake of
duty:
ἔὄὁm ὅuἵh gὄeat ἶeeἶὅ, the ἢὄiὀἵepὅ[’ ὄeigὀ] ἴegaὀέ
Here Ovid alludes to, but does not name, Philippi. Although crucial to both
the ἢὄiὀἵepὅ’ aὀἶ the temple’ὅ ἴegiὀὀiὀgὅ, the ἑivil Ἡaὄ iὅ quiἵkly paὅὅeἶ
over in these two lines, and the majority of the passage is devoted to the
recovery of the arms lost to the Parthians, now deposited in the temple.265
History was now secure, and it was time to look to the future. While his
adopted sons Gaius and Lucius were taking on an increasingly prominent
role, Augustus himself was formally granted the title of Pater Patriae –
‘ἔatheὄ ὁf the σatiὁὀέ’266 This was inscribed on the wall of the Senate
House, and also below the quadriga in the new forum.267 Acclaimed by
ἴὁth ὅeὀate aὀἶ peὁple, χuguὅtuὅ’ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe ὅtὄeὅὅeἶ the impὁὄtaὀἵe ὁf
unity:
‘ἵὁmpὁὅ faἵtuὅ uὁtὁὄum meὁὄum, pέἵέ, quiἶ haἴeὅ aliuἶ ἶeὁὅ immortales
precari, quam ut hunc consensum uestrum ad ultimum finem uitae mihi
peὄfeὄὄe liἵeatς’268
‘σὁw that I have aἵhieveἶ my gὄeateὅt hὁpeὅ, ἵὁὀὅἵὄipt fatheὄὅ, I have
nothing left to ask from the immortal gods except that I may keep this
consensus of youὄὅ uὀtil the veὄy eὀἶ ὁf my lifeέ’
But later in that same year of triumph a scandal erupted within the
Julian family itself and drew all eyes back to the original Forum. A quaestor
was dispatched to the Senate to read out a letter from Augustus. Seneca
writes,
Diuuὅ χuguὅtuὅ […] flagitia pὄiὀἵipaliὅ ἶὁmum iὀ puἴliἵum emiὅitμ
admissos gregatim adulteros, pererratam nocturnis comissationibus
ciuitatem, forum ipsum ac rostra, ex quibus pater legem de adulteriis
tulerat, filiae in stupra placuisse, cotidianum ad Marsyam concursum, cum
264
Ovid Fast. 5.569-70.
Ovid Fast. 5.579-94.
266
Dio 55.10.10, Suet. Aug. 59.
267
Eck 1998:66.
268
Suet. Aug. 58. The consensus is similarly highlighted by Ovid Fast. 2.127-32.
265
78
ex adultera in quaestuariam uersa ius omnis licentiae sub ignoto adultero
peteret.269
ἦhe ἶeifieἶ χuguὅtuὅ […] maἶe puἴliἵ the ὅἵaὀἶalὅ ὁf the impeὄial hὁuὅeμ
that [Julia] had been available to droves of lovers, that she had wandered
through the city in nocturnal gatherings, that the Forum itself and the
Rostra from which her father had proposed his law on adultery she, his
daughter, had chosen for her shamelessness, that she had gone daily to the
statue of Marsyas and had turned from adultery to prostitution, seeking
every kind of depravity even with an unknown partner.
Julia waὅ χuguὅtuὅ’ ὁὀly biological child and the mother of Gaius
and Lucius, married to Tiberius who was currently enjoying his selfimpὁὅeἶ ‘ὄetiὄemeὀt’ ὁὀ Rhὁἶeὅ without her. She was almost immediately
banished to the island of Pandateria in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Velleius
Paterculus lists five senators by name as her lovers. Sempronius Gracchus,
T. Quinctius Crispinus (an ex-consul), Appius Claudius Pulcher (the
grandson of Clodius) and Cornelius Scipio were all exiled. The fifth, Iullus
Antonius, the son of Mark Antony, was executed.270
χὅ ἥyme wὄiteὅ, ‘ἦhe whὁle epiὅὁἶe iὅ myὅteὄiὁuὅέ’271 Was
Augustus really not aware until this moment that Julia had been
‘miὅἴehaviὀg’ς (ἑὁὀveὀieὀtly, the ὅἵaὀἶal ἶiἶ ὀὁt ἴὄeak uὀtil afteὄ the
inauguration of the Forum.272) But if Julia had simply been taking lovers,
why ἶiἶὀ’t χuguὅtuὅ ἶeal with the matteὄ pὄivatelyς 273 This is the course of
action Seneca says he should have taken, partly tὁ pὄeveὀt Julia’ὅ ἶiὅgὄaἵe
from reflecting badly upon himself.274 ἐut theὀ, aὅ ἔaὀtham pὁiὀtὅ ὁut, ‘aὄe
we to believe that Julia would hold a drunken party in the Forum, when she
haἶ a ὀumἴeὄ ὁf hὁuὅeὅ iὀ whiἵh tὁ ἴe ἶeἴauἵheἶ iὀ ἵὁmfὁὄtς’275 And, we
might add, how would it possibly have remained a secret if she had? Julia
was, after all, the second-most prominent woman in Rome.
269
Sen. Ben. 6.32.1. The story is also told by Vell. Pat. 2.100, Plin. NH 21.8-9, Suet. Aug.
65.2, Tac. Ann. 53. Dio 55.10.12-16. As Fantham 2006:86 notes, scholars have assumed
that theὅe ἶetailὅ (ἵὁmmὁὀ tὁ all the ὅὁuὄἵeὅ) ἶeὄive fὄὁm χuguὅtuὅ’ ὁὄigiὀal letteὄ, aὅ
mentioned by Pliny.
270
Vell. Pat. 2.100. The deaths in exile of Julia and Sempronius Gracchus are described in
Tac. Ann. 53.
271
Syme 1939:425.
272
Fantham 2006:87.
273
Syme 1939:426.
274
Sen. Ben. 6.32.6.
275
Fantham 2006:87.
79
The oddities led Syme and others to infer a political conspiracy on
the paὄt ὁf Julia, χὀtὁὀiuὅ aὀἶ the ὁtheὄ ‘lὁveὄὅ’έ276 Should we understand
Julia’ὅ ὀὁἵtuὄὀal aἵtivitieὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄum aὅ pὁlitiἵally mὁtivateἶς ἡὄ iὅ thiὅ
meὄely a ‘faὀἵiful theὁὄy’ς 277 The conspiracy theory hinges in part on the
mention of the statue of Marsyas in the Forum, which we will now look at
in greater detail.278 The affair of 2 BC illustrates the continued symbolic
impὁὄtaὀἵe ὁf the ἔὁὄum ἶeὅpite the ἶevelὁpmeὀt ὁf the impeὄial fὁὄaέ It’ὅ
an example of the way even a small monument in the Forum could be
loaded with meaning.
Like the statue of Vertumnus, Marsyas the satyr was an old
landmark in the Forum of the first century BC.279 The sculpture itself did
not survive antiquity, but we have a fairly good idea of its appearance from
two depictions and a comparative example: a pot-bellied satyr, bearded and
carrying a wineskin.280 According to legend, Marsyas, like the people of
Aeneas, was originally from Phrygia. By the Augustan period, it was
unclear how a Phrygian river deity had come to Rome, or why the statue
had been set up in the Forum in the first place.281 Scholars have attempted
to shed some light on the matter. Jocelyn Penny Small has looked for his
roots in Etruscan myth, while T.P. Wiseman places him in the context of
Rὁme’ὅ eaὄly theatὄiἵal feὅtivalὅέ282 Two points are known. Firstly, that
Marsyas had made his way from Rome out to the coloniae of the Empire,
where he stood in their fora, a link back to the mother Forum. Secondly, and
ἵὄuἵially fὁὄ Julia’ὅ ἵaὅe, that he ὅtὁὁἶ fὁὄ libertas. As Servius explains (in a
gloss on Liber), Marsyas was the servant of Liber-Dionysos:
276
This takes its cue partly from a passing comment by Pliny, at NH 7.149, that Augustus
was grieved by the ‘adulterium filiae et consilia parricidae palam facta’.
277
Ferrill 1980:345.
278
See, e.g. Carcopino 1958:129; Levick 1972:799-801; Bauman 1992:117-118 saw
εaὄὅyaὅ aὅ a geὅtuὄe tὁ χuguὅtuὅ’ lawὅν Ἡiὅemaὀ ἀίίκ takeὅ εaὄὅyaὅ as a symbol of
libertasν ἥaὀἶeὄὅὁὀ & Keegaὀ ἀί11 ὅee Julia’ὅ ἵὄὁwὀiὀg ὁf εaὄὅyaὅ aὅ a geὅtuὄe ὁf
liἴeὄty’ὅ ‘viἵtὁὄy’έ
279
It’ὅ meὀtiὁὀeἶ iὀ paὅὅiὀg, eέgέ, by Horace, Sat. 1.6.119-121. His commentator PsAcronius (ad loc.) tells us that it was a convenient meeting point for lawyers.
280
It’ὅ ἶepiἵteἶ ὁὀ the χὀaglypha ἦὄaiaὀi (ὅee ἴelὁw), aὅ well aὅ a late Repuἴliἵaὀ
denarius of L. Marcius Censorinus. A similar statue has been recovered from the forum at
Paestum.
281
If it was known, none of our sources say.
282
Small 1982; Wiseman 1988, 2000.
80
in liberis ciuitatibus simulacrum Marsyae erat, qui in tutela Liberi patris
est.283
There was a statue of Marsyas, who is under the protection of Father
Liber, in the free cities.
One of these simulacra has been recovered from the forum at Paestum (fig.
22). The Paestum bronze is shackled around his ankles, and so too, if we
fὁllὁw ἑὁaὄelli’ὅ ὄeaἶiὀg ὁf the tὄaἵeὅ viὅiἴle ὁὀ the χὀaglypha ἦὄaiaὀi,
was the Marsyas at Rome.284 This statue type would have been familiar to
anyone in the Roman Empire who had noticed it in the various fora.285 But
far more often Marsyas was to be found in a different, gruesome posture:
strung up, and at the mercy of a vengeful Apollo.
The story went that Marsyas challenged the god to a musical
competition on the newly invented flute. But the contest was at best
unequal, aὀἶ at wὁὄὅt ὄiggeἶέ ἦhe εuὅeὅ, χpὁllὁ’ὅ eὀtὁuὄage, weὄe
appointed judges, and awarded the god the victory. The agreement was that
the winner could do whatever he liked to the loser. Apollo strung up the
satyr and flayed him alive for his impudence. This is the moment depicted
by the ‘ώaὀgiὀg εaὄὅyaὅ’ ὅἵulptuὄe type (fig. 22) and narrated by Ovid in
Fasti and Metamorphoses.286 As Feldherr observes, at the time Ovid was
writing, the gory story about the flayed satyr resonated with deeper
anxieties. How could the poet produce his art when the game was always
rigged by Apollo – a god particularly favoured by the princeps?287
iamque inter nymphas arte superbus erat:
prouocat et Phoebum. Phoebo superante pependit;
caesa recesserunt a cute membra sua.288
And now he bragged about his art to the nymphs;
Serv. Aen. 3.20; cfέ ἂέηκμ ‘δYχEἡ ἶiἵtuὅ ‘δyaeuὅ’ πὸ
, quὁἶ ὀimiὁ uiὀὁ
membra soluantur; qui, ut supra diximus, apte urbibus libertatis est deus; unde etiam
Marsyas, minister eius, per ciuitates in foro positus uel libertatis indicium est, qui erecta
manu testatur nihil urbi deesseέ’ ἥee alὅὁ εaἵὄὁἴέ Sat. 3.12.
284
Coarelli 1985:100. Contra Small, who sees them as the turn ups of boots: 1982:71.
285
Aside from the Paestum example, there are a number of imperial coins, catalogued by
Small 1982:132-8, that depict Marsyas from as far apart as Thessaloniki and Bostra.
286
The Hanging Marsyas often formed a group with Minerva and/or Apollo. Weis 1992
provides an overview; see also Rawson 1987:140-53. Nearly 400 representations of the
Marsyas story are known from antiquity (LIMC VI.1.368-76 for catalogue), but at Rome
the Hanging and Forum types were most popular.
287
Feldherr 2004:85.
288
Ovid Fast. 6.706-8.
283
81
he even challenged Phoebus. Vanquished by Phoebus he was hanged;
his sliced skin was cut away from his limbs.
Are we being invited to draw a parallel ἴetweeὀ εaὄὅyaὅ aὀἶ ἡviἶ’ὅ ὁwὀ
pὄeἶiἵameὀtς ἡviἶ’ὅ ἶὁwὀfall waὅ ἴὄὁught aἴὁut ἴy aὀ Ars.289 Exiled from
Rome by a vengeful Princeps, the poet might as well have been flayed. In
the Metamorphoses the tortured Marsyas cries out:
‘a! piget! a! ὀὁὀ eὅt’ ἵlamaἴit ‘tiἴia taὀti!’290
‘χh! I’m ὅὁὄὄy! χh!’ he ὅἵὄeameἶ, ‘the flute iὅὀ’t wὁὄth thiὅ!’
A self-ὄeἴuke, ὁὄ a ἵὄitiἵiὅm ὁf the gὁἶ’ὅ ἵὄuel ὁveὄὄeaἵtiὁὀς χt aὀy ὄate,
thiὅ iὅ ‘what ἵὁulἶ happeὀ wheὀ aὄtiὅtiἵ pὄiἶe ἵὁlliἶeἶ with ὅupeὄiὁὄ
fὁὄἵeέ’291 It was not just Ovid who made the connection. In a story told by
Suetonius, during the triumviral period the young Octavian dressed up as
Apollo for a lavish and badly-timed banquet while a grain shortage was
ἶὄiviὀg the peὁple ὁf Rὁme tὁ ὅtaὄvatiὁὀέ ‘Yeὅ, he’ὅ χpὁllὁ all ὄight!’ they
ὅhὁuteἶ, ‘χpὁllὁ the ἦὁὄtuὄeὄ!’292
With this in the background, it is possible to read a striking interplay
ἴetweeὀ the twὁ typeὅέ ἦhe ώaὀgiὀg εaὄὅyaὅ’ ἶefeat iὅ aἵteἶ ὁut
graphically on his body, his arms twisted above his head, his ribs exposed
ὄeaἶy fὁὄ the tὁὄtuὄeὄ’ὅ kὀifeέ ἐut the ἔὁὄum εaὄὅyaὅ pὄὁviἶeὅ a ἶefiaὀt
counterpart. His shackles are broken (thanks to his patron Liber?), and his
arms are free. Rawson notes that the wineskin (
to the skin (
) he ἵaὄὄieὅ may ὄefeὄ
) flayeἶ ἴy χpὁllὁέ293 We could give it a stronger
emphasis. The pot-bellied satyr of the Forum is happily carrying this skin –
his skin? – tὁ keep wiὀe iὀ! ‘I’m ὅtill ὁὀ my feet,’ he ὅayὅ, iὀ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ the
Hanging Marsyas (fig. 23).
It’ὅ ἴeἵauὅe ὁf thiὅ aὅὅὁἵiatiὁὀ with libertas that εaὄὅyaὅ’ ὄὁle iὀ
Julia’ὅ ὅtὁὄy iὅ ὅὁ iὀtὄiguiὀgέ ἢliὀy tellὅ uὅ that Julia actually crowned the
statue with a wreath. In itself, that gesture seems to have been
incriminating, and in fact her father and the other triumvirs had one P.
289
As Newlands 1995:201-2 suggests.
Ovid Met. 6.386.
291
Boyle 2003:32, cfέ ἔelἶheὄὄ ἀίίἂμκἂμ ἡviἶ’ὅ χpὁllὁ ‘ἵaὀὀὁt ἴe ὄeaἶ iὀ iὅὁlatiὁὀ from
χuguὅtuὅ’ὅέ’
292
Suet. Aug. 70, discussed by Feeney 1991:220-1 and Newlands 1995:202.
293
This was supposedly preserved in the agora at Kelainai, his hometown in Phrygia.
Rawson 1987:12. (σέἐέ thiὅ waὅ alὅὁ the ὅite ὁf Kiὀg εiἶaὅ’ aἴyὅὅ, aἴὁve ὀέ1ἄἂέ)
290
82
Munatius put in chains for wearing a wὄeath he haἶ takeὀ fὄὁm εaὄὅyaὅ’
head.294 That Marsyas ἵὁulἶ ἴe giveὀ a ‘tὄiumviὄal’ ὄeaἶiὀg, ὄeἵalliὀg
memories that in 2 BC were better passed over, seems pretty clear. The
concept of libertas haἶ ἴeeὀ iὀtegὄal tὁ the iἶeὁlὁgy ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ
assassins.295 At Philippi, the battle that Ovid passes over so quickly but
wheὄe the ἢὄiὀἵepὅ iὀ a ὅeὀὅe ‘ἴegaὀ’, ‘δiἴeὄtaὅ’ waὅ the paὅὅwὁὄἶ ἵhὁὅeὀ
ἴy ἐὄutuὅ aὀἶ the ‘δiἴeὄatὁὄὅ’μ ἡἵtaviaὀ ἵhὁὅe ‘χpὁllὁ’έ296 The presence in
2 BC of a second Antonius, whose father had adopted Liber/Dionysos as his
particular patron, could only have reinforced this.297 If Julia did intend to
make a political gesture, it was one that could potentially fracture the Forum
once again. The use of Marsyas as a focal point had the potential to expose
the fragility of the concord her father had so emphasised at the beginning of
the year: the scars from the civil war were still not healed. After all, it was
not long before (in 8 BC) that Titus Labienus, who had refused to let the
ἢὁmpeiaὀ flame ἶie, haἶ walleἶ himὅelf up iὀ hiὅ aὀἵeὅtὁὄὅ’ tὁmἴέ
It was not just the recent past that was uncomfortable. The story of
Marsyas could unlock a cluster of legends about the early Republic. In these
stories the appearance of a chained or enslaved body in the Forum acts as a
trigger for the reassertion of libertas. In the story of Verginia, for example,
the tyranny of the decemvir Appius Claudius is made manifest by his lustdriven enslavement of the beautiful plebeian.298 Appius is essentially a
lawgiver gone bad, a classic example of the kind of tyrant Cicero discusses
above in the Republic. He has perverted the Forum, sitting alone on the
Rostra dispensing justice. Verginia, the wronged girl who never speaks but
is tugged and pulled this way and that across the Forum, both alive and as a
corpse, by the men who are fighting over her, is less a person than a body,
and (as scholars have noted) embodies the struggling res publica, abused
and all but raped by the tyrant.299 It is only by killing Verginia that her
father Verginius is able to assert his identity as a free man, and Appius is
294
Plin. NH 21.5. He begged for the assistance of the tribunes but they refused to intercede.
See Arena 2012.
296
Wiseman 2008:129.
297
Wiseman 2008:131, Sanderson & Keegan 2012:3.
298
Livy 3.44-58; Dion. Hal. 11.28-44.
299
See e.g. Joplin 1990; Joshel 2002. Joplin connects this story with that of Lucretia.
295
83
overthrown.300 A further example is the rioting of the debt-slaves, the
plebeian debtors who had been chained up by their patrician creditors. The
appearance of an emaciated old veteran triggers a riot:
φυ
π ὸ
π ῖ
α
α
ὴ
, ' '
α
,
υ
ὸ
α
ὰ
α
αὶ π α ,
α ὸ
φυ
ὰ
α
,
,
ὸ
α
α
ῳ
α πα α
υέ
α ῖ , αὶ
ὰ π ὺ
έ.301
Out of the houses of the money-lenders ran all those who had been
enslaved for their debts, with their hair grown long, most of them in chains
and fetters. No one dared to lay hold of them, and if anyone so much as
touched them he was torn to pieces. Such was the frenzy which gripped the
people at that time, and soon the Forum was full of debtors who had
broken their chains.
Diὁὀyὅiuὅ’ aἵἵὁuὀt iὅ laἵeἶ with ἐaἵἵhiἵ laὀguageμ
ἴὄὁught ὁὀ ἴy the gὁἶὅν
α πα α
α, a maἶὀeὅὅ
υ, a ὄaὄe wὁὄἶ fὁuὀἶ iὀ Euὄipiἶeὅ’
Bacchae to describe Pentheus ripped apart by the Maenads.302 It’ὅ aὅ if the
people of Rome, inspired by this Marsyas-like survivors, have become
inspired by Liber. In all these stories the Forum is the place where libertas
is asserted and affirmed. They also recall a legendary time of civil discord,
the so-called Conflict of the Orders: utterly the opposite of the consensus so
ἵὄuἵial tὁ χuguὅtuὅ’ ὁwὀ pὁὅitiὁὀέ
But what did libertas mean in 2 BC? Arena sums up the libertas of
the late Repuἴliἵμ ‘Libertas at Rome was understood as a status of nondomination, that is, a status where one was free qua living in a condition
devoid not of actual interference, but rather of the possibility of
interference. The individual could never be free while in a state of
ἶὁmiὀatiὁὀ, hὁweveὄ kiὀἶ hiὅ maὅteὄ might ἴeέ’303 In the autumn of 2 BC,
however, Rome had recently acquired a pater and libertas had been
χὅ Diὁὀέ ώalέ 11έἁἅέἂ putὅ itμ ‘Veὄgiὀiuὅ thὁught ὁf a ἶeeἶ that waὅ gὄievὁuὅ aὀἶ ἴitteὄ
iὀἶeeἶ tὁ a fatheὄ, yet ἴeἵὁmiὀg ὁf a fὄee maὀ ὁf lὁfty ὅpiὄitέ’
301
Dion. Hal. 6.26.2-3.
302
Both words are found in Bacchaeμ
α at liὀe κη1, α πα α
υ at 1ἀἀίέ
303
Arena 2012:29.
300
84
harnessed to the service of concordia.304 ἥeὀeἵa’ὅ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ ὁf δaἴieὀuὅ
‘Raἴieὀuὅ’ is striking in this respect:
libertas tanta ut libertatis excederet
His libertas was so great that it exceeded libertas.
Augustan libertas waὅ limiteἶ, eveὀ fὁὄ the ‘εaὀiaἵ’, whὁ ὄeἵὁgὀiὅeἶ that
some of his writings were not safe for publication except after his death.
Too close a focus on the past could expose what a cipher Augustan libertas
ὄeally waὅέ χὄguaἴly, ‘theὄe waὅ ὀὁ ὅuἵh thiὀg aὅ a puὄely “χuguὅtaὀ”
fὄeeἶὁmέ ἐὄutuὅ’ libertas would always be somewhere in the frame as
wellέ’305
Iὀ thiὅ ἵὁὀtext, Julia’ὅ iὀteὀtiὁὀs are almost a moot point. The very
nature of the space made it impossible for a gesture (however it was
intended) to be understood apolitically.306 The old statue of Marsyas in
particular could form a powerful intersection between the new and the old
res publica, between new and old libertas. Julia’ὅ geὅtuὄe haἶ the pὁteὀtial
to show that these old memories were not so remote after all. Even the rollcall of senators involved (whether or not they were her lovers) reads like the
gallery of heroes in the Forum Augustum, in which their ancestors were
included, only this Scipio, Claudius, Sempronius was not mutely testifying
to Julian triumph but active figures in their traditional Forum. In this light,
the timing of the scandal seems unfortunate at best for the Princeps. The
crowning of Marsyas, the involvement of Antonius, everything exposed the
cracks in the new Forum Augustum and the restored res publica’ὅ peὄfeἵt
faὦaἶeέ ἦhe ἔὁὄum χuguὅtum ἵeleἴὄateἶ the Juliaὀ family’ὅ uὀique ἶeὅtiὀy,
and Augustus had just been acclaimed Father of the Nation. But if the pater
patriae could not control his own daughter, what hope was there for Rome?
What we ὅee iὀ χuguὅtuὅ’ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe – the damning letter, the sudden
reprisals – is damage limitation. In writing to the Senate, the Princeps was
essentially exercising his role as the most authoritative interpreter of
304
Augustus famously joked that he had two wayward daughters, Julia and the Republic:
Macrob. 2.5.4.
305
Gallia 2012:45.
306
Perhaps suggested by the anecdote of the Second Punic War preserved at Plin. NH. 21.6,
of the unfortunate L. Fulvius who looked down from his window into the Forum while
wearing a rose wreath on his head. The Senate ordered him imprisoned until the end of the
war.
85
Rὁme’ὅ mὁὀumeὀtὅέ Juὅt aὅ δivy ἶiὄeἵtὅ ὁuὄ atteὀtiὁὀ iὀ the ἑuὄtiuὅ
episode, here Augustus instructs the Senate to read Marsyas as a symbol of
Bacchic revelry, of licentia, not libertas.307 ἦhe Rὁὅtὄa ὅuἴveὄteἶ ἴy Julia’ὅ
activities was the Rostra of the adultery laws – not that symbol of
Republican free speech. Certainly not the scene of carnage perpetrated by
himὅelf aὀἶ Iulluὅ χὀtὁὀiuὅ’ fatheὄέ
Eveὀ χuguὅtuὅ’ veὄy severity
(however regretted later) could be sanctioned by the stories of Brutus and
Verginius, who put the safety of the Republic before their own offspring.
χ ἴuilἶiὀg ὅite fὁὄmeἶ the ἴaἵkἶὄὁp tὁ Julia’ὅ aἵtivitieὅ iὀ the
Forum, where the new Temple of Concordia Augusta was going up on the
site of the old Temple of Concordia. The project was sponsored by her
absent husband Tiberius, who had vowed it before leaving for Rhodes.308
Julia would never see the finished temple, which was dedicated in AD 12.
The new Augustan Concord was to be all-embracing, unlike its previous
incarnation. χlthὁugh ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶia’ὅ ὅaἵὄeἶ ὅite waὅ ὅaiἶ tὁ have ἴeeὀ
dedicated by Camillus, the present temple was very much a product of civil
strife, dedicated in 121 BC after the death of Gaius Gracchus by the
patrician consul L. Opimius. The concord restored on that occasion was so
ἵὁὀteὀtiὁuὅ that the temple waὅ gὄaffitieἶμ ‘Diὅἵὁὄἶ ἴuilt thiὅ ἦemple ὁf
ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶ!’309 ἦhe ἡpimiaὀ temple waὅ the ‘fiὄὅt temple that ἵὁulἶ ἴe
associated with an armeἶ viἵtὁὄy ὁveὄ fellὁw ἵitiὐeὀὅ withiὀ the ἵityέ’310 It
was also last major monument of the Forum with any connection to civil
upheaval that haἶ ὄemaiὀeἶ iὀ itὅ ὁὄigiὀal fὁὄmέ ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ ὄeplaἵemeὀt
therefore completed the Augustan redevelopment. Inside, the hatchet was
symbolically buried with statues of both Apollo and Liber. There also
featured a famous painting by Zeuxis of Marsyas – hanging.311
χὅ the ‘Julia affaiὄ’ illuὅtὄateἶ, the χuguὅtaὀ ἵὁὀἵὁὄἶ waὅ a fὄagile
thing: in spite of all the attempts to reshape it, the Forum remained a site of
aἵtive iἶeὁlὁgiἵal pὁweὄέ χuguὅtuὅ’ attempt tὁ ὅtaὀἶaὄἶiὅe Rὁme’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy
307
I have borrowed this wording from Wiseman 2008:133-4.
Dio 55.8.2; see also Kellum 1990.
309
Plut. C. Grac. 1ἅέἀμ ‘
π
α αὸ
α π ῖέ’
310
Flower 2006:78-9.
311
Plin. NH 35.66.
308
86
was only partially successful. To reiterate a point made in the introduction,
even in the third century AD, a senator could write defiantly,
ὴ
π
αὶ
ὰ
α
ὰ
α
α ὴ
ὴ
π' α
Ῥ
α
αα , ὸ ὲ
α ὸ
α
· αὶ
π
ὲ
,
α έ312
Caesar had constructed the forum called after him, and it is distinctly more
beautiful than the Roman Forum; yet it had increased the reputation of the
other so that it was called the Great Forum.
It was a difficult legacy to leave to his successors.
312
Dio. 43.22.
87
88
1.2 – The Forum and the Princeps (AD 14 – 117).
On this spot,
sometime in the early first century AD, Marcus Terentius Corax
paused, began to jot something down in his notebook, and then suddenly
and inexplicably collapsed and died.
We know nothing about the unfortunate Corax: when he was born,
who he was, what he was writing down. Even his unlikely demise would
have ἴeeὀ fὁὄgὁtteὀ if it haἶὀ’t ἴeeὀ ἵὁlleἵteἶ ἴy that ὅὀappeὄ-up of
unconsidered trifles, Pliny the Elder, and added to his list of spontaneous
deaths.313 Ἡe’ὄe ὀὁt eveὀ ὅuὄe wheὀ he ἶieἶέ
That said, M. Terentius Corax has played a role in the standard
narrative of the post-Augustan Forum. His death with tabellae in hand has
ἴeeὀ ὅeeὀ aὅ emἴlematiἵ ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἶeἵliὀe – ‘the expeἶieὀt
trivialisation of the public tasks of the still-viὅiἴle elite’έ Iὀ the impeὄial
period the ἔὁὄum, ‘the fὁὄmeὄ ὅtage ὁf theiὄ pὄeὅtigiὁuὅ aἵtivitieὅ, ἴeἵame a
plaἵe ὁf muὀἶaὀe aἶmiὀiὅtὄatiὁὀ’ν ‘the puἴliἵ life ὁf the ἵeὀtὄe ὁf the ἵity
waὅ ὄὁutiὀiὐeἶέ’314 Now excluded from any meaningful role in the
governance of Rome, the heirs of Cicero whiled away their time with
bureaucratic trivialities – when not paying court to the emperor on the
Palatine. Without a Republic, the centre of Republican government
descended into a quiet, be-marbled obsolescence. Augustus found a Forum
of brick and covered it with pinstripes:
The Roman Forum itself, of course, was the most potent symbol of the
Republic, and it would not have gone unnoticed that with each successive
emperor it became less and less a focal point of political activity.315
Of course, the Forum now had to compete with the new imperial fora, not to
mention the other great public facilities provided by the emperors:
The Forum Romanum was reduced to being a venerable and grand
forecourt to the new heart of the city.316
313
Plin. NH 7.54.
Purcell 1995:340.
315
Gowing 2005:132.
316
Purcell 1995:339.
314
89
For Zanker, this is an inevitable consequence of the imperial system,
mirrored in fora throughout the provinces. Fallen from its democratic
origins,
the forum became increasingly a place where the state and its officials
could display their power and the citizens their rank and status. The
remaining space was filled with statuary and other monuments.317
ἐy the lateὄ empiὄe, the ἔὁὄum haὅ aἵtually ἴeeὀ ‘killeἶ’μ
This little, cramped area had ceased to be a living nucleus and had become
a closely packed collection of museum pieces.318
This narrative of the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἶeἵliὀe aὀἶ fall, ὁf impeὄial Rὁme
slowly dying from the inside out is understandably compelling. It fits
mὁἶeὄὀ Ἡeὅteὄὀ iἶeaὅ aἴὁut the ὄelative meὄitὅ ὁf ‘ἶemὁἵὄaἵy’ aὀἶ
‘autὁἵὄaἵy’ aὀἶ ὁuὄ ὅtὄiἵt peὄiὁἶiὐatiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ ‘Repuἴliἵ’ aὀἶ ‘Empiὄe’έ
It’ὅ haὄἶ ὀὁt tὁ ὄeaἶ a value juἶgemeὀt iὀ ἵὁmmeὀtὅ like ἢuὄἵell’ὅ that
‘[χuguὅtuὅ] haἶ ἴeeὀ tὄaἶitiὁὀal eὀὁugh tὁ ὄetaiὀ a tὁpὁὀym Comitium (if
only as a place for display for wonders such as a giant serpent)έ’319 More
problematically, it takes the idea ὁf a ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ ἔὁὄum’ at faἵe value,
when, as we saw in Chapter 1.1, it is highly coloured by the Augustan era.
The practical upshot is that the Forum in this period has been much less
studied, and two points have been obscured. Firstly, museum piece or not,
the Forum continued to be used.320 Second, as this chapter will show, it
continued to be ideologically crucial.
The story of Corax, above anything else, illustrates that life and
death continued in the Forum under the Principate as during the first century
BC.321 In some ways, not all of them superficial, little had changed. The
elite still gathered an entourage to descend from the Palatine and make their
entry into the Forum. The Senate continued to meet in the Curia.
Magistrates – and emperors – presided over the courts.322 Merchants set up
their stalls around the edges. The temples anchored the worship of the
317
Zanker 2000:35, cf. Zanker 1994:261 ff.
Grant 1970:23.
319
Purcell 1995:339.
320
Köἴ ἀίίί pὄὁviἶeὅ aὀ ὁveὄview ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ fuὀἵtiὁὀὅ iὀ the impeὄial peὄiὁἶέ
321
Plin. NH 7.54: M. Terentius Corax was not the only person to spontaneously die in the
Forum: Pliny rounds off his ἵatalὁgue with the ὀὁte that ‘juὅt laὅt yeaὄ’ a ὅimilaὄ ἶeath had
occurred in the Forum Augustum.
322
See Babliz and other papers in De Angelis 2010.
318
90
Rὁmaὀ gὁἶὅ iὀ the ἶeep paὅt, while Juliuὅ’ temple waὅ jὁiὀeἶ ἴy
Veὅpaὅiaὀ’ὅ aὀἶ, eveὀtually, ἔauὅtiὀa’ὅέ323 Slaves were bought and sold by
the Temple of Castor, where a barber-surgeon had his shop.324 Coins
clinked ὁὀ the ἴaὀkeὄὅ’ desks.325 The crowd of citizens that features so
prominently in accounts of the Late Republic is still here; we just have to
work harder to find it. We glimpse the people pressing up to the Senate
House threshold during debates; thronging the Basilica Julia’ὅ ἴalἵὁὀieὅ at a
controversial trial; lining the routes of imperial funerals and triumphs,
packing out the terraces and rooftops or grasping at gifts scattered by an
emperor from an upper floor.326 Aὀἶ, aὅ we’ll ὅee below, the Forum
remained the place where Romans ran at times of crisis, where rumours
would start and rapidly spread.
This chapter looks back at the first century AD from the vantage
point of its conclusion, and of writers active during the reigns of Trajan and
Hadrian: Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. As in Chapter 1.1, I am
interested in these texts more as products of their eras than for the historical
veracity of their subject matter. Just as our Augustan writers were looking
back (and forward) after the Civil War, so too these writers portray
themselves as having finally arrived at a moment of stability after a long
ἵὄiὅiὅέ ἦhe theme iὅ eὀἵapὅulateἶ iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ famὁuὅ ὅtatemeὀt,
[…] σeὄua ἑaeὅaὄ ὄeὅ ὁlim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac
liἴeὄtatem […]327
Nerva Caesar has united concepts once incompatible, the Principate and
Liberty.
In the accounts of these writers, the disjuncture between Principate and
libertas iὅ expὄeὅὅeἶ ὅpatiallyέ χuguὅtuὅ’ legaἵy left impeὄial Rὁme with ‘a
twiὀ ἵeὀtὄe, paὄt ὄepuἴliἵaὀ aὀἶ paὄt autὁἵὄatiἵέ’328 The post-Augustan
tension between the Palatine Hill, the home of the princeps, and the Forum
323
Veὅpaὅiaὀ’ὅ waὅ ἶeἶiἵateἶ ἵέ χD κἅν ἔauὅtiὀa’ὅ iὀ 1ἂ1, ὄeἶeἶiἵateἶ tὁ ἴὁth heὄὅelf aὀἶ
her husband Antoninus Pius in 161.
324
Slaves: Sen. Dial. 2.13.4 (cf. Tib. 4.5.52); barbershop: Bilde & Poulson 2008:301 ff.
325
E.g. Juv. 10.24-5; Mart. 1.76; 8.44 (see Roman 2010).
326
Debates: Herod. 7.11.3; Basilica Julia: Plin. Ep. 6.33, the case of Accia Variola in the
centumviral court; imperial pageantry: e.g. the arrival of Tigranes in 66 (Plin. 33.54; Suet.
Nero 13; Dio 63.3.4-5.4); Caligula scattered coins from the roof of the Basilica Julia (Suet.
Gaius 37, Joseph. 19.11.1.11); the funeral of Pertinax is described in detail at Dio 75.4.
327
Tac. Agr. 3.1.
328
Wallace-Hadrill 1982:33.
91
valley, the traditional base of the Senate and People, is used to reinforce the
ὀew ἵὁὀὅeὀὅuὅ uὀἶeὄ σeὄva aὀἶ ἦὄajaὀέ ἦhe ὅuἵἵeὅὅful ‘ὄeἵὁὀἵiliatiὁὀ’ ὁf
the two is presented as one of the great achievements of the regime. While
there was no question that political power was now held by the emperor on
the ἢalatiὀe, thiὅ ‘ὄeὅtὁὄeἶ ἢὄiὀἵipate’ plaἵeἶ the ‘iἶeal’ ὁf the ἔὁὄum at the
centre of its ideology of imperial power, as the place where the princeps’
respect for the traditions of Roman (Republican/Augustan) government was
expressed. Even at the turn of the third century, when Septimius Severus
was given a vision of his rise to power it was not of the Palatine, but the
Roman Forum.329
Where do Roman monarchs live?
Roman tradition is clear on the subject. Above, we saw that legends about
the ἵity’ὅ fὁuὀἶatiὁὀ ὅet up a ὅtὄὁὀg ἶiἵhὁtὁmy between the Forum valley
and the fortified heights around it (fig. 25)έ ἔὁὄ ὁὀe example, ἢlutaὄἵh’ὅ
ninety-first Roman Question asks:
Δὰ
ῖ πα
π ὶ ὸ Καπ
α
ῖ ν330
Why were the patricians not permitted to live around the Capitoline?
The answer is that living on a hill above the Forum was viewed as a
pretension to tyranny. One notable resident, Marcus Manlius, known as
Capitolinus, had tried to make himself king.
πα α ὸ
πα
ὴ
α
φ
ν
α
α α ὸ
π
ὲ
α
α
α
υ α ὶ
π
ῖ
α
α
'
α
π
,
α .331
Or is this an ancient worry? After all, although Publicola was a vehement
ὄepuἴliἵaὀ the ὀὁἴleὅ ἶiἶὀ’t ὅtὁp vilifyiὀg him nor the masses fearing him
until he himself razed his house, the position of which was thought to
threaten the Forum.
Livy gives us the background to this question.332 Publius Valerius was
Rὁme’ὅ thiὄἶ ἵὁὀὅul, alὁὀgὅiἶe δuἵiuὅ ἐὄutuὅέ ώiὅ ἵὁlleague waὅ killed
Dio 75.3.3, Herod. 2.6.5-6. Cf. Hist. Aug. Alexander 1ἂ, wheὄe χlexaὀἶeὄ ἥeveὄuὅ’
father has a dream of being carried into the sky on the wings of the Senate House Victory.
330
Plut. RQ λ1έ ἦhe π ὶ heὄe ὅeemὅ tὁ iὀἶiἵate ‘ὁὀ ὁὄ ὁὀ the ὅlὁpeὅ aὄὁuὀἶ the Capitoline’,
as at, e.g. T. & G. Gracch. 17.3.1; Fort. Rom. 324d 5.
331
Ibid.
329
92
fighting the Tarquins at the Silva Arsia. Ominously, instead of immediately
holding elections to replace him, Valerius began to build a house on the
Velia, ὁveὄlὁὁkiὀg the ἔὁὄumέ ἦhe hὁuὅe’ὅ pὁὅitiὁὀ waὅ mὁὄe ὅiὀiὅteὄ
because, like all the hills, it had the potential to be turned into a fortress.333
ἔὁὄἵeἶ tὁ explaiὀ himὅelf tὁ the peὁple, δivy’ὅ Valeὄiuὅ ἶὄawὅ ὁὀ the
connection between the hilltop and tyranny:
‘egὁ me, illum aἵerrimum regum hostem, ipsum cupiditatis regni crimen
subiturum timerem? ego si in ipsa arce Capitolioque habitarem, metui me
ἵὄeἶeὄem pὁὅὅe a ἵiuiἴuὅ meiὅς’334
‘ώὁw ἵὁulἶ I, the ἴitteὄeὅt eὀemy ὁf the mὁὀaὄἵhy, eveὄ have feared that I
should face a charge of desiring the throne? If I lived in the fortress on the
Capitol itself, could I ever have thought that my own fellow citizens would
ἴe afὄaiἶ ὁf meς’
The situation was not resolved until Valerius demolished the offending
house, a gesture that he placed the good of the Forum above his own domus
– or rather, that he would not place his own domus above the Forum.
εὁviὀg hiὅ hὁme tὁ the valley, he ἴeἵame the peὁple’ὅ heὄὁ, eaὄὀiὀg the
name Publicola. Eventually, he was buried there.335 The open, shared space
of the Forum in a sense represented the freedom of every citizen: only
tyrants would choose to isolate themselves on the hilltops above the rest of
the city. At Rome, libertas and tyranny were set on a vertical axis.336
χὅ ἢlutaὄἵh ὅayὅ, thiὅ waὅ aὀ aὀἵieὀt feaὄ (πα α ὸ
φ
),
and an antiquarian inquiry. By his day, around the turn of the second
century AD, the Roman Forum had become dominated by an imperial house
that had spread over the entire Palatine Hill, so that hill and house had come
to share the same name (figs. 25-6). ἥeὀeἵa’ὅ ἦhyeὅteὅ (doomed to eat his
own sons) rejoices in not being king:
332
Livy 2.7.5-6. See also Plut. Pub. 10.2.4: Publicola is explicitly likened to Tarquin by the
people (cf. Dion. Hal. 5.39.4).
333
Livy ἀέἅέἄμ ‘iἴi altὁ atque muὀitὁ lὁἵὁ aὄἵem iὀexpugὀaἴilem fieὄiέ’
334
Livy 2.7.9-10.
335
Plut. Pub. 23. Plut. RQ 79 attests that this privilege was extended to a number of great
men and their descendants (cf. Dion. Hal. 5.48.3).
336
This idea is briefly discussed by Jenkyns 2013:184-5. That the topos was active in the
fiὄὅt ἵeὀtuὄy ἐἑ iὅ ὅhὁwὀ ἴy the ἵaὅe ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ἢalatiὀe hὁuὅe, whiἵh waὅ ‘in conspectu
prope totius urbis’ (ἑiἵέ Dom. 100) and declared a temple of Libertas by P. Clodius during
ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ exileέ ἡὀ hiὅ ὄetuὄὀ, Cicero turned the tables on Clodius, accusing him of
acquiring the property to create his own gigantic tyrannical house (Dom. 108). See Cerutti
1997.
93
non uertice alti montis impositam domum
et immiὀeὀtem ἵiuitaὅ humiliὅ tὄemit […]337
No house of mine is set on a high hilltop
And, threatening, makes the city tremble.
Iὀ the wὁὄkὅ ὁf ἢlutaὄἵh’ὅ ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄieὅ, we ἵaὀ ὅee the ‘ἢuἴliἵὁla
paὄaἶigm’ wὁὄkiὀg aὅ a way tὁ aὄtiἵulate the conflict between the
principatus (hill) and the libertas of the traditional Republic (forum). The
tyrannical domus on the hilltop, imminens foro, looms over first-century
Rome, testifying to the all-too-frequent slippage between princeps and
tyrant.
It begins with Caesar. In 44 BC, Cicero delivered an oration on
behalf of the Celtic king Deiotarus. Normally, such a debate would have
been held in the Forum, but Cicero found himself speaking inside the
Diἵtatὁὄ’ὅ hὁuὅeέ ώe attempteἶ, iὀ wὁὄἶὅ, tὁ ἴὄiὀg the ἔὁὄum iὀὅiἶeμ
hanc enim, C. Caesar, causam si in foro dicerem eodem audiente et
disceptante te, quantam mihi alacritatem populi Romani concursus
adferret! [...] spectarem curiam, inuterer forum, caelum denique testarer
ipsum.338
If only, Gaius Caesar, I were pursuing this case in the Forum, with you
looking on and judging, what excitement I would draw from the assembled
thὄὁὀg ὁf the Rὁmaὀ peὁple! […] I wὁulἶ lὁὁk ὁὀ the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅeν I
would gaze upon the Forum; finally, I would call upon heaven itself.
χὅ Vaὅaly ἵὁmmeὀtὅ, ‘ἦhe paὅὅage illuὅtὄateὅ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ὄealiὅatiὁὀ that gὄeat
ὁὄatὁὄy, like gὄeat ἶὄama, ἶemaὀἶὅ ἴὁth aὀ auἶieὀἵe aὀἶ a ὅtageέ’339 It’ὅ
more than that, though. Cicero evokes the Forum of the traditional
Republic, from which his oratory draws its force. By doing so, in this
setting – iὀὅiἶe the Diἵtatὁὄ’ὅ hὁuὅe – he (inadvertently or not) reveals the
recent shift of power. The populus Romanus haὅ ἴeeὀ ὅhut ὁutέ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ
oratory, and the Forum itself, have diminished relevance. Power rests with
the Dictator alone.
337
Sen. Thy. 455-6.
Cic. Reg. Dei. 6.
339
Vasaly 1993:34; cf. Jenkyns 2013:34.
338
94
Pliny writes that Caesar, during his dictatorship, covered the Forum
with a linen awning.340 The enormous tent stretched from his own house on
the Sacra Via all the way to the foot of the Capitoline. The miraculous
tὄaὀὅfὁὄmatiὁὀ ὁf the ὁpeὀ ἔὁὄum iὀtὁ aὀ iὀteὄiὁὄ ὅpaἵe waὅ ὄepὁὄteἶly ‘a
ὅight mὁὄe wὁὀἶeὄful thaὀ the ὅhὁw ὁf glaἶiatὁὄὅ’ whiἵh tὁὁk plaἵe ἴeὀeath
the ἵaὀὁpyέ ἦheὀ, ‘at a ὅtill lateὄ peὄiὁἶ, aὀἶ not upon the occasion of public
gameὅ’, χuguὅtuὅ’ ὀephew εaὄἵelluὅ, ἶuὄiὀg hiὅ aeἶileὅhip, ὄepeateἶ the
feat in the heat of midsummer to protect the Forum courts from the glare of
the sun. For Pliny, this makes a telling illustration of the decline in Roman
moral fibre. He wheels out Cato, that most austere of forebears, for the old
chestnut about the Censor wishing that the Forum be paved with sharp
stones to prevent loitering.341 Taken together, the two awnings reveal a
further shift in Roman culture.
Caesaὄ’ὅ tὄaὀὅfὁὄmatiὁὀ ὁf the space was a statement of his unique
authority. The logistical achievement in itself proclaimed the Diἵtatὁὄ’ὅ
pὁweὄέ ἥtὄetἵhiὀg the awὀiὀg ‘ab domo sua’ was even more daring; in a
grand gesture of possession, Caesar effectively extended the roof of his own
domus to cover the entire Forum.342 ἦhe ‘ὁpeὀiὀg’ ὁf the Diἵtatὁὄ’ὅ hὁuὅe
to the people of Rome at festival time (or the appropriation of the Forum for
his front room) was surely intended as an expression of the parens patriae’ὅ
love for his children, who suddenly found themselves, like it or not, inside a
Julian domus. (Valerius Publicola would be turning in his suddenly overshaded grave.) Such metamorphoses were typical of Caesar, whose more
gὄaὀἶiὁὅe, ‘tyὄaὀὀiἵal’ pὄὁjeἵtὅ iὀἵluἶeἶ the ὄeἶiὄeἵtiὁὀ ὁf the Tiber, the
draining of the Pontine Marshes, and the conversion of the Forum into a
theatre.343 He was assassinated before any were achieved.
When Marcellus repeated the same feat, however, he was a mere
aedile. As Pliny says, ‘quantum mutati’! Caesar had the justification of
feὅtival time fὁὄ hiὅ ἶiὅplay, ἴut εaὄἵelluὅ’ awὀiὀg waὅ put up ‘sine ludis’έ
χuguὅtuὅ’ heiὄ-apparent enfolded everyday business within a Julian tent: an
Plin. NH 1λέἄμ ‘muὀeὄe ipὅὁ glaἶiatὁὄiὁ miὄaἴiliuὅ uiὅum’ν ‘ἶeiὀἶe e ὅiὀe luἶiὅ’έ
This has been taken as evidence for an actual gravel pavement by Cato in 184/3 BC, but
there is no archaeological evidence for it: Giuliani 1995:343.
342
The domus in question is most likely ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὄeὅiἶeὀἵe iὀ hiὅ ἵapaἵity aὅ ἢὁὀtifex
Maximus, located along the Sacra Via behind the Regia and Temple of Vesta.
343
Listed at Suet. Iul. 44.
340
341
95
achievement and expression of possession that no other aedile could
compete with.
ἦhe awὀiὀgὅ’ impaἵt was softened by their temporary nature.
εaὄἵelluὅ’ uὀἵle waὅ well awaὄe ὁf the ‘ἢuἴliἵὁla paὄaἶigm’έ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ
tells us that, in those first blood-ὅὁakeἶ yeaὄὅ aὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ heiὄ,
habitauit primus iuxta Romanum Forum supra scalas annularias.344
ώe liveἶ at fiὄὅt ὀext tὁ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum at the tὁp ὁf the Riὀgmakeὄὅ’
Stairs.
Afterwards, he moved up to the Palatine into a house that was ostentatiously
austere, and, crucially, not imminens foro.345 Unlike his colleague Antony,
who was enjoying the decadent trappings of Hellenistic royalty in Egypt,
Octavian had chosen to live in the traditional heartland of the Republican
aristocracy, in the house formerly owned by the orator Q. Hortensius.346
There he kept the same bedroom all year round for forty years and wore
clothes woven for him by his female relatives.347
As princeps, he went one step further than Cato (who had only
‘wiὅheἶ’ tὁ ὄepave the ἔὁὄum) aὀἶ ἑaeὅaὄ (whὁ haἶ ὄὁὁfeἶ it) ἴy attemptiὀg
to control what the citizens of Rome actually wore there.
etiam habitum uestitumque pristinum reducere studuit, ac uisa quondam
pro contione pullatorum tuὄἴa iὀἶigὀaἴuὀἶuὅ et ἵlamitaὀὅμ ‘eὀ “Rὁmaὀὁὅ,
rerum domiὀὁὅ, geὀtemque tὁgatam!”’ ὀegὁtium aeἶiliἴuὅ ἶeἶit, ὀeἵ quem
posthac paterentur in foro circaue nisi positis lacernis togatum
consistere.348
He even set himself to restoring the traditional style of dress, and once, on
seeing a group of men in dark cloaks among the assembly, indignantly
quὁteἶ Viὄgil, ‘ἐehὁlἶ, “the Rὁmaὀὅ, the maὅteὄὅ ὁf the wὁὄlἶ, the people
ὁf the tὁga!”’ aὀἶ iὀὅtὄuἵteἶ the aeἶileὅ that ὀὁ ὁὀe ὅhὁulἶ eveὄ agaiὀ ἴe
admitted to the Forum or its environs unless he wore a toga and no cloak.
344
Suet. Aug. 72.
ἥee Ἡiὅemaὀ ἀί1ἀ fὁὄ the ὄeἵeὀt ἶeἴateὅ aἴὁut the lὁἵatiὁὀ ὁf χuguὅtuὅ’ hὁuὅeέ ώe
suggests the move was made in 39, the year Augustus maὄὄieἶ δivia, ἴut the ἶate iὅὀ’t
certain. ἡf ἵὁuὄὅe, the ὀew hὁuὅe waὅ alὅὁ ἵὁὀveὀieὀtly ἵlὁὅe tὁ the ‘ώut ὁf Rὁmuluὅέ’
346
Possibly seized when ώὁὄteὀὅiuὅ’ ὅὁὀ waὅ pὄὁὅἵὄiἴeἶ (Wiseman 2012:665). Dion. Hal.
5.48.3 notes that Publicola too possessed a house on the Palatine, built for him at public
expense.
347
Suet. Aug. 72-3.
348
Ibid. 40.5.
345
96
ἥὁme have takeὀ thiὅ ὅtὁὄy at faἵe value, ἴut it’ὅ ἶiffiἵult tὁ imagiὀe hὁw
the dress code was supposed to have been enforced.349 (Were the aediles to
station fashion police at every point of entry?) Apocryphal or not, this story
ἶeὅἵὄiἴeὅ a ὅtatemeὀt ὁf pὄὁpὄietὁὄὅhip aὅ ὅtὄὁὀg aὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὀἶ εaὄἵelluὅ’
awnings – but clothed in the toga of conservatism. The princeps tried to
impose his vision of Rome onto the Forum, shining pure white with citizen
togas, by controlling who should be admitted, ostensibly to enhance its
‘tὄaἶitiὁὀal’ ἶigὀity: a measure worthy of Cato.
It’ὅ tὁ Rὁme’ὅ ὅeἵὁὀἶ empeὄὁὄ that ἦὄajanic historians attribute the
great imperial domus that loomed over the Forum from the edge of the
Palatine.350 Iὀ the ἦaἵiteaὀ glὁὁm ὁf ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ ὄeigὀ, the ἔὁὄum iὅ gὄaἶually
abandoned by all sides. The reclusive emperor does not pass the Palatine
gates for two years after his accession and eventually abandons Rome
altogether.351 Senators threaten to withdraw in protest from a Forum and
Senate House they believe have become little more than a sham; the people
abandon them after disasters like the death of Geὄmaὀiἵuὅέ ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’
aἴὅeὀἵe fὄὁm the ἔὁὄum ὅigὀalὅ hiὅ failuὄe tὁ live up tὁ the ‘ὄὁle’ ὁf
princeps aὅ eὅtaἴliὅheἶ ἴy χuguὅtuὅέ χὅ Vὁut wὄiteὅ, ‘χuguὅtuὅ wὄiteὅ the
script for the part of princeps’μ the ἔὁὄum ὄemaiὀὅ the pὄiὀἵipal ὅtage fὁὄ hiὅ
actions.352 ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ ὄefuὅal tὁ perform reveals the inauthenticity, and
theatricality, of the Restored Republic.
By AD 16, the senator Lucius Calpurnius Piso had had enough.
inter quae L. Piso ambitum fori, corrupta iudicia, saeuitiam oratorum
accusationes minitantium increpans, abire se et cedere urbe, uicturum in
aliquo abdito et longinquo rure testabatur; simul curiam relinquebat.353
At this meeting [of the Senate], L. Piso denounced the canvassing in the
Forum, the corruption of the courts, the savagery of orators with their
continual threats of prosecution; he said that he himself was going to
E.g. Newsome 2011:293; Wallace-Hadrill 2008:50 has Augustus back it up ‘with the
fὁὄἵe ὁf law’έ
350
The name Domus Tiberiana is used by Tacitus (Hist. 1.27), Suetonius (Vit. 15.3) and
Plutarch (Galb. 24.3) to describe this part of the imperial residence. Winterling 1999:60-5;
Zanker 2002:106.
351
Suet. Tib. 38.
352
Vout 2013:59.
353
Tac. Ann. 2.34.
349
97
withdraw from the city and retire to some remote, inaccessible country
place. Then he left the Senate House.
Walking out was now the only way for a senator to express his
inἶepeὀἶeὀἵe fὄὁm the impeὄial ὄegimeέ χὅ ἥailὁὄ wὄiteὅ, ‘iὀ eὅὅeὀἵe, hiὅ iὅ
the choice of Camillus, who, because he had been treated disrespectfully by
his fellow Romans – who were already itching to discard their Romanness
by moving to Veii – went into exile, takiὀg “Rὁme” with himέ’354 But Piso
is not permitted to go; aὀ upὅet ἦiἴeὄiuὅ ‘peὄὅuaἶeὅ’ him tὁ remain.
Remaining in Rome, he further exposes the reality of the imperial regime –
that the libertas of the Forum is menaced by the Julio-Claudian domus – by
attemptiὀg tὁ ὅummὁὀ tὁ ἵὁuὄt Uὄgulaὀia, ‘whὁὅe fὄieὀἶὅhip with [δivia]
χuguὅta plaἵeἶ heὄ aἴὁve the lawέ’355 Rather than to the Forum Urgulania
ἶὄiveὅ ὅtὄaight ‘in domum Caesaris’ tὁ appeal tὁ δivia, whὁ ἶeἵlaὄeὅ the
summons a personal insult. The ensuing deadlock is only resolved when
Livia herself agrees to pay the money sued for. Tacitus continues,
ceterum Vrgulaniae potentia adeo nimia ciuitati erat ut testis in causa
quadam, quae apud senatum tractabatur, uenire dedignaretur: missus est
praetor qui domi interrogaret, cum uirgines Vestales in foro et iudicio
audiri, quotiens testimonium dicerent, uetus mos fuerit.356
Uὄgulaὀia’ὅ iὀflueὀἵe ὄemaiὀeἶ ὅὁ exἵeὅὅive that ὁὀ ὁὀe ὁἵἵaὅiὁὀ, wheὀ
she was summoned to the Senate as a witness in a case, she refused to
attend. A praetor was dispatched to interrogate her at her home – though
even Vestal Virgins traditionally attend legal proceedings in the Forum to
give evidence.
Ἡe ὅee the ὅame ‘ὅlippage’ heὄe aὅ iὀ ἢliὀy’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt ὁf the awὀiὀgὅέ
Caesar had subverted tὄaἶitiὁὀ ἴy hὁlἶiὀg Kiὀg Deiὁtaὄuὅ’ heaὄiὀg iὀ hiὅ
house – but he, at least, waὅ Diἵtatὁὄ ὁf Rὁme! ἦaἵituὅ’ ἶiὅguὅt iὅ palpable:
a woman holds court to a praetor in her house, her authority based solely on
fὄieὀἶὅhip with the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ mὁtheὄέ ἦhe ἶiὅtiὀἵtions between public and
private, forum and domus, have shifted. When the Forum is an appendage
of the imperial house, even a woman can defy the Senate if she has the
354
Sailor 2008:31.
Tac. Ann. 2.34.
356
Ibid.
355
98
support of the imperial family. Meanwhile, Piso is trapped in a sham
Senate, unable to uphold tradition, or even to leave.
The confusion of public and private is startlingly apparent when
ὀewὅ ὁf ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ’ ἶeath aὄὄiveὅ iὀ Rὁme iὀ χD ἀίέ All the fora are
deserted by the people.
hos uulgi semones audita mors adeo incendit ut ante edictum
magistratuum, ante senatus consultum sumpto iustitio desererentur fora,
clauderentur domus.357
This sort of popular talk [about murder] was so inflamed by the news of
his death that without an edict from the magistrates or a senatorial decree
all business was suspended, the fora were deserted, and houses were shut
up.
In Livy, such a deserted city is only seen at times of grave military threat:
we saw an example in Chapter 1.1, with the Gallic invasion imminent.358
For Tacitus, things are not so simple. The death of an imperial family
member has become a catastrophe (blown out of all proportion?) on the
ὅἵale ὁf a δiviaὀ ἶiὅaὅteὄέ Iὀ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ veὄὅiὁὀ, the ὅhὁἵkwaveὅ ὄeaἵh eveὀ
far-away Parthia, where the King of Kings cancels his entertainments as a
mark of respect.359 Ἡhile, iὀ δivy’ὅ ὀaὄὄative, the ageἶ ὅeὀatὁὄὅ make theiὄ
last dignifieἶ ὅaἵὄifiἵe, ἦaἵituὅ’ Senate has no role to play. The magistrates
have lost all initiative. As far as Tiberius and Livia are concerned,
ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ’ ἶeath iὅ a pὄivate matteὄ fὁὄ the imperial family alone. They
remain closeted on the Palatine, while the Forum, the conventional focal
point of collective mourning, is neglected: Germanicus is not even given a
traditional fuὀeὄalέ ἦhiὅ waὅ a peὄveὄὅe ὄefuὅal tὁ fὁllὁw χuguὅtuὅ’ ὅἵὄiptέ
As the people complain, χuguὅtuὅ haἶ giveὀ ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ’ fatheὄ Dὄuὅuὅ a
splendid funeral in the Forum, but ‘ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ haἶ ὀὁt eveὀ ὄeἵeiveἶ the
hὁὀὁuὄὅ ἶue tὁ aὀy ὀὁἴlemaὀέ’ Ἡheὄe weὄe the teaὄὅ, ‘whiἵh at leaὅt
ὅimulateἶ ὅὁὄὄὁw’ς360 Death in the imperial domus is a death in every
domusέ ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ, ἶeὀieἶ hiὅ laὅt mὁmeὀt ‘ὁὀὅtage’ – ‘pro rostris’ – is
treated by his uncle as if he never had a public role to play. Tiberius and
357
Tac. Ann. 2.82.
Livy 5.39-40.
359
Suet. Gai. 5 also records popular hysteria, including the stoning of temples and
overthrowing of altars.
360
Tac. Ann. ἁέημ ‘laἵὄimaὅ uel ἶὁlὁὄiὅ imitameὀta’.
358
99
Livia refuse to play their parts: to pander to the people and cry crocodile
tears.361
χfteὄ ἕeὄmaὀiἵuὅ’ fuὀeὄal, the pὄime ὅuὅpeἵtὅ fὁὄ the ὄumὁuὄeἶ
murder, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso and his wife Plancina, arrive in Rome
wearing smug grins. They decorate their house with festive garlands and
hold a celebratory banquet. The location of the house? ‘Foro imminens’.362
Knowing the trope, we (think we) know how this drama will play out. So do
the peὁple ὁf Rὁmeέ ἢiὅὁ’ὅ ἴehaviὁuὄ ἶὄiveὅ the ἥeὀate tὁ lauὀἵh aὀ
enquiry, but Germanicus will not even be granted a public inquest in the
Forum. While Piso stands trial in the Senate House, a mob gathers in the
ἔὁὄum ὁutὅiἶe ὅhὁutiὀg that ‘if he eὅἵapeἶ ὅeὀteὀἵiὀg ἴy the ἥeὀate, they
wὁulἶ lyὀἵh himέ’363 ἢiὅὁ’ὅ statues are dragged to the Gemonian Steps to be
smashed. But the tyrant-slaying narrative is halted ἴy ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ iὀteὄveὀtiὁὀ.
ἢiὅὁ’ὅ ὅtatueὅ aὄe ὄeὅἵueἶέ ἢiὅὁ eὅἵapeὅ ἴὁth the ἥeὀate aὀἶ the ἢeὁple tὁ
ἵὁmmit ὅuiἵiἶe ὁὀ ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ teὄmὅέ364 Tacitus refuses to endorse (but
nevertheless includes) the rumour that Piso died with a letter from Tiberius
in his hand which contained the instruction to murder Germanicus.365 In
ἦaἵituὅ’ text, the ὁlἶ (Repuἴliἵaὀ) (δiviaὀ) ὀaὄὄativeὅ ὀὁ lὁὀgeὄ wὁὄkέ ἦhiὅ
tyrant was just a puppet: the puppet master remains, as always, in the
shadows.
Ἡhile ἦaἵituὅ’ ἦiἴeὄiuὅ ὄeὅpὁὀἶὅ tὁ the Augustan problem by
despising the Forum and eventually abandoning the city altogether,
ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ ἕaiuὅ eὀteὄὅ ὁffiἵe ‘with a ἵὄὁwἶ ὁf ἵitiὐeὀὅ flὁὁἶiὀg iὀtὁ the
ἥeὀate ώὁuὅeέ’366 At first, Suetonius writes, he was eager for public
support.367 Although the Senate had transferred imperial power to him
immediately, thiὅ waὅ ἵὁὀtὄaὄy tὁ ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ will, and so he ἶevὁteἶ ‘aὀ
eὀὁὄmὁuὅ effὁὄt tὁ iἶeὀtify himὅelf with χuguὅtuὅ […] tὁ ἵὁὀfeὄ a
δeviἵk 1λἅἄμ1ἀἂμ ‘the ἵὁmmὁὀ peὁple haἶ ὀὁ time fὁὄ the aὄiὅtὁἵὄatiἵ aὀἶ ἥtὁiἵ
restraint that Tiἴeὄiuὅ haἴitually ὅhὁweἶ iὀ faἵe ὁf gὄiefέ’
362
Tac. Ann. ἁέλέ ἔὁὄ Jeὀkyὀὅ ἀί1ἁμ1κί thiὅ iὅ ‘ὀὁt a phὄaὅe ὁf gὄeat ὅigὀifiἵaὀἵe iὀ itὅelf’μ
although he discusses imminens at some length, he misses the existence of the trope.
363
Iἴiἶέ ἀέ1ἂμ ‘ὀὁὀ tempeὄatuὄὁὅ maὀiἴuὅ ὅi patὄum ὅeὀteὀtiaὅ euaὅiὅὅetέ’
364
Though possibly part of his domus was destroyed: Patterson 2010:223-4.
365
Tac. Ann. 3.16.
366
Suet. Gai. 14. The Forum had been a focal point for support for his parents Germanicus
and Agrippina: at Tac. Ann. 5.4 a crowd rallies round the Senate House in their support,
carrying statues of them.
367
Suet. Gai. 1ημ ‘iὀἵeὀἶeἴat et ipὅa ὅtuἶia hὁmiὀum ὁmὀi geὀeὄe pὁpulaὄitatiὅέ’
361
100
legitimaἵy ὁf ὅὁὄtὅ ὁὀ hiὅ ὄeigὀέ’368 He dedicated the Temple of Divus
Augustus in 37, and made the Forum the backdrop fὁὄ hiὅ ‘χuguὅtaὀ’
activities; notably the public burning of all the records related to the trials
and condemnation of his mother and brother in a gesture of general
amnesty.369 Tiberius was given a grand funeral, and Caligula delivered the
customary funeral oration from the Rostra with copious crocodile tears.370
ἥὁme ὁf ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ mὁὄe autὁἵὄatiἵ legiὅlatiὁὀ waὅ ὄeveὄὅeἶ, paὄtiἵulaὄly
laws which restricted freedom of speech. Exiles were recalled and the
charge of maiestas was abolished. Caligula even went further than
Augustus: the books of T. Labienus, Cremutius Cordus and Cassius Severus
were rehabilitated.371 But, as Suetonius famously goes on to say, this was
all to change.
ἐy ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ ἶay, tradition had shaped Caligula into the prototype
super-tyrant, the mad emperor presiding over a perverted Saturnalian
nightmare in which honest citizens were summoned from the Forum and
other public spaces to a brothel on the Palatine staffed by their own
wives.372 In a mockery of his previous constitutional deference, Caligula
climbs to the top of the Basilica Julia and showers down gold on the
crowd.373 The facts behind the myth are difficult to ascertain.374 However,
the characterisation of Caligula as the prototype mad emperor draws on a
ὀumἴeὄ ὁf familiaὄ tὄὁpeὅ, iὀἵluἶiὀg the ‘foro imminens’ mὁtifέ375
ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ ἑaligula iὅ a tyὄaὀt whὁ eὀjὁyὅ the ὁpeὀ aὀἶ expliἵit
exercise of autocratic power. Thὁugh χuguὅtuὅ’ blood descendent, he
subverts – or rather, makes overt – all of the fiὄὅt empeὄὁὄ’ὅ pὄeἵeptὅέ Ratheὄ
than masking himself as a just Republican magistrate, he gloats about his
368
Barrett 1993:69.
Suet. Gai. 15.4 (though he later claimed to have copies of the same documents).
370
Ibid. 15.1.
371
Ibid.: exiles: 15.4, historians 16.1. Cf. Barrett 1993:64.
372
Suet. Gai. 41.
373
Ibid. 37.
374
ἦhe taὅk iὅ mὁὄe ἶiffiἵult ἴeἵauὅe we laἵk ἦaἵituὅ’ veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf eveὀtὅ fὁὄ ἵὁmpaὄiὅὁὀέ
ἦhe ὀatuὄe ὁf ἕaiuὅ’ ἢὄiὀἵipate ὄemaiὀὅ a matteὄ ὁf ἶeἴate: see Winterling 2011, Barrett
1λκλέ χὅ Elὅὀeὄ 1λλἂμ11ἅ wὄiteὅ, ‘haἶ ἑaligula pὄὁveἶ wὁὄthy tὁ ἴe a divus at his death,
hiὅ ἴuilἶiὀg amἴitiὁὀὅ iὀ the heaὄt ὁf Rὁme wὁulἶ ὀὁt have ἴeeὀ the aἵtὅ ὁf a mὁὀὅteὄέ’
Building was necessary for a princeps, but it could also be a morally ambiguous activity
open to criticism.
375
See Dunkle 1971.
369
101
pὁweὄ ὁveὄ life aὀἶ ἶeath (‘I wiὅh yὁu all haἶ ὁὀe ὀeἵk!!!’376). In many
instances, he simply takes the next logical step from an Augustan starting
poiὀtέ ώe exhiἴitὅ the tyὄaὀt’ὅ tὄaἶitiὁὀal luὅt fὁὄ ἵὁὀtὄὁl ὁveὄ the laὀἶὅἵape
(and the women) of Rome. Like Augustus, he builds extravagantly. He
ἴὁaὅtὅ that, like χuguὅtuὅ, he haὅ takeὀ aὀὁtheὄ maὀ’ὅ wife aὀἶ maὄὄieἶ
her.377 His insistence on divine honours is only the next logical step from
diui filius. If Tiberius was unwilling to play the role of emperor, Caligula
inhabits it totally until it loses all nuance. For him, the distasteful pretence is
that he is anything other thaὀ aὀ autὁἵὄatέ ‘[He gave] the political paradox
of the age, the contradictory combination of republic and monarchy, its real
ὀame, aὀἶ ἶeἵlaὄeἶ himὅelf fὁὄ ὁὀe ὅiἶe ὁὀly, the mὁὀaὄἵhyέ’378
No pretence of an austere house, respectfully out of sight of the
Forum. In a chapter beginning with the famὁuὅ liὀe ‘ἥὁ muἵh fὁὄ the
Empeὄὁὄ, the ὄeὅt ὁf thiὅ hiὅtὁὄy muὅt ἶeal with the mὁὀὅteὄ’, ἥuetὁὀiuὅ tellὅ
ὁf ἑaligula’ὅ divine pretensions and his outrageous house.
[…] paὄtem ἢalatii aἶ ἔorum usque promouit, atque aede Castoris et
Pollucis in uestibulum transfigurata, consistens saepe inter fratres deos,
medium adorandum se adeuntibus exhibebat.379
He extended the Palatine as far as the Forum and converted the Temple of
Castor and Pollux into its vestibule; and he would stand between the divine
brethren to be worshipped by all who came.
Caligula eventually announces that Capitoline Jupiter has invited him to
share his home, so:
super templum Diui Augusti ponte transmisso Palatium Capitoliumque
coniunxit. mox, quo proprior esset, in area Capitolina nouae domus
fundamenta iecit.380
He connected the Palatine and Capitoline with a bridge across the top of
the Temple of Divus Augustus. Soon after, in order to be closer, he laid the
foundations for a new house in the area Capitolina.
Not content with one house imminens foro, he starts work on a second!381
376
Suet. Gai. 30.
Ibid. 25.
378
Winterling 2011:99.
379
Suet. Gai. 22.
380
Ibid.
381
Though, as Elsner 1994:117 observes, Caligula had a solid Augustan precedent in the
Temple of Palatiὀe χpὁllὁ, whiἵh waὅ iὀἵὁὄpὁὄateἶ iὀtὁ χuguὅtuὅ’ hὁuὅeέ
377
102
ἦheὅe ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁjeἵtὅ have puὐὐleἶ ὅἵhὁlaὄὅέ It’ὅ pὁὅὅiἴle that
ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ aἵἵὁuὀt ὄefleἵtὅ the aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal ὄemaiὀὅ, at leaὅt ὄegaὄἶiὀg
the Temple of Castor. It seems that an extension of roughly the right date
did come close to the back of the temple. Perhaps a door was cut from this
complex into the cella’ὅ ὄeaὄ wall, but as this does not survive we are none
the wiser.382 The bridge is more contentious. There is no (clear)
archaeological evidence for its existence, leading to the ingenious
suggestion that it must have been made of wood.383 Other, more historical
appὄὁaἵheὅ, have fὁἵuὅeἶ ὁὀ the ὄeligiὁuὅ ὅigὀifiἵaὀἵe ὁf ἑaligula’ὅ aἵtiὁὀὅ,
seeing his posturing among the gods as a remaking of his Principate into a
Hellenistic-style monarchy after the fashion of his other great-grandfather
Antony.384 These readings overlook the crucial point that in Latin
historiography, topographical details are as much (if not more) about
supporting the narrative as about accurately reflecting place. Whether or not
the ἴὄiἶge exiὅteἶ, it fuὀἵtiὁὀὅ iὀ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ text aὅ a traditional symptom
ὁf the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ tyὄaὀὀyέ Of course Caligula has a shocking house and
attemptὅ tὁ appὄὁpὄiate the ἑapitὁliὀeμ that’ὅ what Rὁmaὀ tyὄaὀtὅ do.
Here, it symbolises his graduation from the Augustan programme.385
ἑaligula’ὅ palaἵe ἶὁeὅ ὀὁt juὅt thὄeateὀ the Forum, it invades it. As we
know, the Temple of Castor and Pollux had stood for time out of mind as a
monument to the twin gods who had brought the Forum news of the victory
at δake Regilluὅέ Ἡhile it waὅ ‘pὄὁὁf’ ὁf the exiὅteὀἵe ὁf ἶemigὁἶὅ iὀ
Rὁme, it waὅ alὅὁ a mὁὀumeὀt tὁ the Repuἴliἵ’ὅ viἵtὁὄy ὁveὄ autὁἵὄaἵyέ
Caligula had appropriated this ancient monument for his uestibulum: a place
for his clieὀtὅ tὁ waitέ ἦὁ ἴe aὀ empeὄὁὄ’ὅ ἵlieὀt, he implieἶ, waὅ ὀὁ
different from worshipping a god. It was the next logical step. He goes
fuὄtheὄέ ἡὀe hilltὁp iὅ ὀὁt eὀὁughέ ώe’ll ἴe ἴὁth Rὁmuluὅ and Tatius.
382
Hurst 1995, cf. 1988.
Riἵhaὄἶὅὁὀ 1λλἀμἀλἅέ χὅ theὄe’ὅ ὀὁ meὀtiὁὀ ὁf it iὀ lateὄ authὁὄὅ it haὅ ἴeeὀ aὅὅumeἶ it
waὅ ἶiὅmaὀtleἶ immeἶiately afteὄ ἑaligula’ὅ ἶeathέ
384
This is an old theory: Willrich 1902, Momigliano 1932: the issue is discussed by Barrett
1989:218-9. Ferrill 1991:136-λ ἵhὁὁὅeὅ a tὄaἶitiὁὀal theὁὄyμ ‘ὀὁt aἵtually the ὄeὅult ὁf
ἵalἵulateἶ pὁliἵy […] ώe waὅ ἵὄaὐyέ’ ἔὁὄ Ἡiὀteὄliὀg ἀί11μ1η1-162, argues against a
‘ὄeligiὁuὅ pὁliἵy’, ὅees it as a calculated attempt to humiliate the senate – to put the
senators in their place.
385
Though see Wiseman 1994:110-11 who suggests Caligula was simply realising a
scheme envisaged by Augustus in the 30s BC but then put on hold.
383
103
Joining the Palatine and Capitoline hills is a job that Livy gives to the
Forum. Caligula bypasses the valley altogether. No more Augustan playing
at being an ordinary senator, descending to business in the Forum. Like
Jupiter, he rarely, if ever, comes down from the heights. Appropriately
eὀὁugh, he’ll tὄample on Divus Augustus as he goes. Down in the valley,
theὄe will ἴe ὀὁ eὅἵapiὀg the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ gaὐeέ
ἢeὄhapὅ ἑaligula’ὅ ultimate aἵt ὁf huἴὄiὅ iὅ tὁ thiὀk that he ἵaὀ
escape the fate that met his predecessors, from Caesar back into legend. No
amount of posturing or adaptation could erase the memory preserved by the
Temple of Castor – the abolition of tyranny. But, when the assassination
takes place, the Senate and consuls are just as deluded, believing themselves
to be in the Rome of the first Brutus.386 As if they are still taken in, despite
everything, by Augustan rhetoric, they take control of the Forum and
Capitoline only: a ὅὁliἶ, tὄaἶitiὁὀal ‘δiviaὀ’ aἵtiὁὀέ387 But this is the first
century AD, and their neglect of the Palatine and Praetorian Camp proves
fatalέ ἢὄaetὁὄiaὀ guaὄἶὅ iὀ the palaἵe ἶiὅἵὁveὄ ἑaligula’ὅ uὀἵle hiἶiὀg
behind a curtain, and the Julio-Claudian show is back on the road.388
ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ Caligula became a hilltop dweller, but his Claudius
spends too much time in the valley.389 Oblivious to the intrigue and
corruption within his own domus, he spends unseemly amounts of time in
the ἔὁὄumέ ώe takeὅ χuguὅtuὅ’ legaἵy iὀ the opposite direction,
emphaὅiὅiὀg the ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ ὀatuὄe ὁf the ὅpaἵeέ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ ἶepiἵtὅ him aὅ
a keen antiquarian. As a young man he was a friend of Livy, and could
almὁὅt ἴe ὅaiἶ tὁ iὀhaἴit a ‘δiviaὀ’ wὁὄlἶμ
quaedam circa caeremonias ciuilemque et militarem morem, item circa
omnium ordinum statum domi forisque aut correxit aut exoleta reuocauit
aut etiam noua instituit.390
Regarding religious ceremonies and civil and military customs, as well as
the conditions of all classes at home and abroad, he corrected various
abuses, revived some old customs and even established new ones.
The consuls famously gave the watἵhwὁὄἶ ‘libertas’ (Jὁὅephέ JA 19:186).
Suet. Claud. 10.3; cf. Joseph. JA 19:162-6; Dio 59.30.3.
388
Suet. Claud. 10.1-2.
389
ἦhe mὁὅt ὄeἵeὀt ὅtuἶy ὁf ἑlauἶiuὅ’ life iὅ ἴy δeviἵk 1λλίέ
390
Suet. Claud. 22.
386
387
104
εaὀy ὁf ἑlauἶiuὅ’ ‘tὄaἶitiὁὀal’ aἵtivitieὅ weὄe peὄfὁὄmed in the Forum. He
would, for example, conclude treaties with foreign rulers there, sacrificing a
pig and reciting the ancient words of the fetial priests.391 ἐut theὄe’s an
element of ridiculousness in some of Suetonius’ ἶetailὅ. Who would know
which customs were authentic but obsolete and which were new unless they
were, like the emperor, a self-ὅtyleἶ aἵaἶemiἵς ἑlauἶiuὅ’ authὁὄity puts him
in sole control of tradition, just as Augustus was previously, but many of his
revivals seem out of place. Take the case of a bird of ill-omen landing on
the Capitoline. ‘Custom’ obliged Claudius to supplicate the gods from the
Rὁὅtὄa ‘afteὄ all the ὅlaveὅ aὀἶ ἵὄaftὅmeὀ haἶ ἴeeὀ ὁὄἶeὄeἶ tὁ withἶὄawέ’392
It’ὅ ὀὁt haὄἶ tὁ imagiὀe the gὄumἴliὀg ὁf the turba as ordinary business was
suspended for the scrupulous empeὄὁὄέ ἥὁme ‘tὄaἶitiὁὀὅ’ aὄe openly
ridiculed. The summons to the Saecular Games is greeted with laughter,
because some of the elderly citizens have already participated in this
supposedly once-in-a-lifetime event. Suetὁὀiuὅ’ ἑlauἶiuὅ iὅ so keen to
emulate Augustus that he contradicts the results of his own historical
research.393
In the Forum, Claudius receives unruly and uncontrolled expressions
of popular support. Rumours of his assassination draw a mob there
screaming that the troops and senators are traitors, only appeased when the
magiὅtὄateὅ ἴὄiὀg witὀeὅὅeὅ tὁ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ ὅafety up tὁ the Rὁὅtὄa.394
However, in times of need, popularity turns instantly to derision.
artiore autem annona ob assiduas sterilitates detentus quondam medio Foro
a turba conuiciisque et simul fragminibus panis ita infestatus, ut aegre nec
nisi postico euadere in Palatium ualuerit …395
When there was a grain shortage because of long droughts, he was once
stopped in the middle of the Forum by an angry mob and so pelted with
abuse and stale pieces of bread that he was barely able to make his escape
to the Palace by a back door.
ἑlauἶiuὅ’ pὄeἶeἵeὅὅὁὄὅ ἶiἶ ὀὁt ἶeigὀ tὁ even descend to the Forum: he is
driven out of it by an angry mob.
391
Suet. Claud. 22.
Ibid.
393
Ibid. 21.2.
394
Ibid. 32.3.
395
Ibid. 18.2.
392
105
ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ ἑlaudius takes his judicial role very seriously – too
seriously. He sits in the fora even on birthdays, holidays or days of ill
omen.396 Even the positive gains from such excessive legalism are
sabotaged by his inconsistent sentencing and his own uncontrolled
behaviour. On one occasion, sniffing food being prepared by the priests in
the Temple of Mars, he abandons a trial in the Forum Augustum to go and
eat. At other times, he falls asleep in court.397 χll thiὅ puἴliἵ ὅeὄviἵe ἶὁeὅὀ’t
eaὄὀ him the puἴliἵ’ὅ ὄeὅpeἵtέ ‘δitigaὀtὅ impὁὅeἶ ὅὁ ὄuἶely ὁὀ hiὅ gὁὁἶ
nature that they would not only call him back after he had closed the court,
but would catch at the hem of his toga, and even at his foot, in their efforts
tὁ ἶetaiὀ himέ’398 Though he tolerates such lèse-majesté in court, he
nevertheless never attends a banquet without a full cohort of armed
guards.399
The picture painted is of an emperor who could not get his
behaviour in the Forum quite right. Suetonius feels it would have been
better for Claudius to keep his weakness behind closed doors, rather than
‘aἶveὄtiὅiὀg hiὅ ὁwὀ ὅtupiἶity’έ400 Meanwhile, his Forum efforts are
undermined by his lack of control over his own household and adulterous,
scheming wives.401 Like the Senate at the beginning of his reign, he
misunderstands from where his authority really derives, foolishly neglecting
the ἢalatiὀe iὀ favὁuὄ ὁf the ἔὁὄumέ ἦaἵituὅ’ ἑlauἶiuὅ ἵὁmeὅ ὅtὄaight fὄὁm a
tὄagiἵὁmeἶyμ hiὅ igὀὁὄaὀἵe ὁf εeὅὅaliὀa’ὅ aἶulteὄy wὁulἶ ἴe humὁὄὁuὅ, if
it waὅὀ’t ὅὁ tὄagiἵέ εeὅὅaliὀa’ὅ aἶulteὄy with G. Silius leaves the imperial
domus literally emptied of its furnishings, while Claudius plays at Cato the
Censor.
at Claudius matrimonii sui ignarus et munia censoria usurpans, theatralem
pὁpuli laὅἵiuiam ὅeueὄiὅ eἶiἵtiὅ iὀἵὄepuit…402
396
Suet. Claud. 14.
Ibid. 33.
398
Ibid. 15.
399
Ibid. 35.
400
Ibid. 33; cf. Sen. Apoc. 7.4-5.
401
E.g. Suet. Claud. 15.5.
402
Tac. Ann. 11.13.
397
106
Claudius, meanwhile, ignorant of his own marriage and engrossed in his
censorial functions, reprimanded in obscure edicts the licence shown in
theatὄeὅ ἴy the pὁpulaἵe…
Claudius is oblivious; the ὀewὅ ὁf εeὅὅaliὀa’ὅ maὄὄiage tὁ ἥiliuὅ ἵauὅeὅ the
imperial domus to quake with fear: igitur domus principis inhorruerat…403
Suetonius narrates that, as the conspiracy is uncovered, Claudius is bundled
off to the Praetorian Camp for safekeeping: utterly bewildered, his mental
map of the city is out-of-date, and the Camp is not marked on it as a site of
power. Removed from the Capitol and Forum he is not even sure if he
remains emperor, even as he moves closer to one of the real sources of his
authority.
…ὀihil tὁta uia quam eὅὅetὀe ὅiἴi ὅaluum impeὄium ὄequiὄeὀὅέ404
He did nothing along the way except ask if he was still emperor.
χfteὄ εeὅὅaliὀa’ὅ ἶὁwὀfall, ἑlauἶiuὅ’ ὄeὅpὁὀὅe tὁ the ἵὄiὅiὅ iὅ tὁ
marry within his own domus, hiὅ ὀieἵe χgὄippiὀa, ἑaligula’ὅ ὅiὅteὄ, with
fatal consequences for himself and his children.
For Tacitus and Suetonius, ἑlauἶiuὅ’ weakὀeὅὅ as emperor is
ἶiὄeἵtly ἵὁὀὀeἵteἶ tὁ hiὅ iὀaἴility tὁ ἵὁὀtὄὁl the ‘affaiὄὅ ὁf hiὅ ὁwὀ
hὁuὅe’έ405 If ἑaligula haἶ thὄὁwὀ ὁff ‘χuguὅtaὀ’ fὁὄmὅ altὁgetheὄ, theὀ
Claudius had become engrossed in them, following out-of-date, quasi- or
even faux-Republican practices so assiduously he made them seem
ridiculous. From Tacitus and Suetoniuὅ’ vaὀtage pὁiὀt, forty years after
χuguὅtuὅ’ ἶeath no successor had yet managed to replicate his balancing
aἵtέ χὅ ἥeὀeἵa wὁulἶ aἶviὅe ἑlauἶiuὅ’ aἶὁpteἶ ὅὁὀ, ‘Yὁu ἵaὀὀὁt waὀἶeὄ
from your fortune; it besets you, and whenever you go down (to the Forum:
descendis), it fὁllὁwὅ with all thὁὅe tὄappiὀgὅέ’406
Suetonius writes that in AD 47, L. Annaeus Seneca was appointed
tutὁὄ tὁ ἑlauἶiuὅ’ teὀ-year-old nephew, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. The
fὁllὁwiὀg ὀight, ‘the ὅtὁὄy gὁeὅ’, ἥeὀeἵa ἶὄeameἶ that hiὅ ὀew pupil waὅ
403
Tac. Ann. 11.28.
Suet. Claud. 36.
405
Tac. Ann. 11έἀημ ‘iὅque illi fiὀiὅ iὀὅἵitiae eὄga ἶὁmum ὅuam fuitέ’
406
Sen. Clem. 1.8.2: Jenkyns 2013:173.
404
107
really Gaius Caligula.407 With relish, Suetonius adds that the future emperor
σeὄὁ ‘ὅὁὁὀ maἶe ὅeὀὅe ὁf the ἶὄeamέ’ ἦhe ἶay ὁf σeὄὁ’ὅ aἵἵeὅὅiὁὀ,
however, was carefully stage-maὀageἶέ ἔὁὄ the fiὄὅt time, a ὀew empeὄὁὄ’ὅ
movements acknowledged the realities of power while paying homage to
tradition: from the Palatine steps, to the Praetorian Camp, and finally to the
Forum. Nero was ferried from venue to venue to be exhibited before each
appropriate backdrop:
proque Palati gradibus imperator consalutatus lectica in castra et inde
raptim appellatis militibus in curiam delatus est discessitque iam uesperi,
ex immensis, quibus cumulabatur, honoribus tantum patris patriae nomine
recusato propter aetatem.408
After being hailed emperor on the Palatine steps he was carried in a litter
to the Praetorian Camp to give a short speech to the troops; from there he
was carried to the Senate House, and did not leave until evening. Out of
the vast number of honours which were heaped on him he refused only
one, the name of Father of the Country, which was because of his age.
The traditional procession would have been down the Palatine steps to the
Forum and Senate House.409 Instead, in a frank acknowledgement of the
true basis of his power, Nero is acclaimed on the steps and then whisked
away to the Camp to speak to the troops, all before visiting the Senate and
ἢeὁpleέ ἦhe ἥeὀate’ὅ ὄelegatiὁὀ iὅ maἶe fuὄtheὄ eviἶeὀt ἴy the heap ὁf
meaningless honours they pile on the seventeen-year-old. Nero, meanwhile,
already an aspiring performer, modestly admits that there is actually only
one role beyond his talents, that of pater patriae, better befitting an older
actor: even this he will hopefully grow into.
Despite being weighed down with titles, he promises that his
peὄfὁὄmaὀἵe will ὀὁt ἴe expeὄimeὀtal, ἴut fὁllὁw χuguὅtuὅ’ ὅἵὄiptέ ἦaἵituὅ
has him aὅὅuὄe the ἥeὀate that ‘hiὅ domus and the Republic would be
ὅepaὄate’έ410 Yet thiὅ ‘χuguὅtaὀ’ pὁὅitiὁὀ iὅ paὄt ὁf a ὄὁle play, aὅ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’
language suggests:
407
Suet. Nero 7.
Suet. Nero 8.
409
Jenkyns 2013:181-3.
410
Tac. Ann. 1ἁέἂμ ‘ἶiὅἵὄetam ἶὁmum et ὄem puἴliἵamέ’ The speech was likely written by
Seneca.
408
108
atque ut certiorem adhuc indolem ostenderet, ex Augusti praescripto
imperaturum se professus ...411
To show off his good intentions even more he promised to rule according
to the precepts of Augustus.
Like a latter-day Vertumnus, this most theatrical of emperors is happy to
play any part on any stage, whether that be grieving stepson on the Rostra,
soldier on the Campus Martius, poet in the theatre, orator in the Forum, or
bride at her wedding.412 Claudiuὅ’ fuὀeὄal iὀ the ἔὁὄum iὅ aὀ ὁppὁὄtuὀity tὁ
make a ‘ἶiὅplay’ ὄatheὄ thaὀ a tὄue expὄeὅὅiὁὀ ὁf gὄief (pietatis
ostentatione). Like Caligula, Nero is happy to turn on the waterworks. In
the Neronian meta-theatre of Rome, senators and equites are compelled to
play their roles – as gladiators in the arena – and the audience must always,
always be captivated.413 At a time when ex-consuls preside not over
provinces but theatrical games, the Forum finally becomes the facility
Caesar intended: a theatre.414
Caligula had discarded the layers of pretence around the imperial
position, while Claudius had responded by playing Augustus’ paὄt
assiduously and poorly. Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudians, again throws
away χuguὅtuὅ’ ὅἵὄipt aὀἶ tuὄὀὅ hiὅ peὄfὁὄmaὀἵe ὁf ‘tyὄaὀt’ up tὁ eleveὀέ
Eventually, he treats the whole city as if it were his stage or his home (the
possessor of a domesticam scaenam, his own personal theatre, he makes
little ἶiὅtiὀἵtiὁὀ)μ ‘totaque urbe quasi domo uti.’415 It all ends in AD 64 in
fire, into which vanishes monuments preserving Servius Tullius, Evander,
Romulus, Numa and Aeneas, all those very Augustan prototypes of the
‘gὁὁἶ mὁὀaὄἵh’, aὀἶ out ὁf whiἵh ὄiὅeὅ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ eὀὁὄmὁuὅ,
outrageous, utterly tyrannical Domus Aurea – ‘ἕὁlἶeὀ ώὁuὅe’.416
411
Suet. Nero 10.
Suet. Nero λ (ἑlauἶiuὅ’ eulὁgy)ν Nero 10 (exercises on the Campus, declamation,
poetry, theatre); Tac. Ann. 15.37 (bride).
413
Suet. Nero 12 (senators as gladiators); Nero 23 (theatrical performances in Greece).
ἐaὄtὅἵh 1λλἂμἀἀμ ‘iὀ a veὄy ὄeal ὅeὀὅe [σeὄὁ’ὅ] auἶieὀἵe iὅ ἵὁmpelleἶ tὁ fὁllὁw a script
ὁveὄ whiἵh the empeὄὁὄ haὅ tὁtal ἵὁὀtὄὁlέ’
414
Suet. Iul. 44.1.
415
Tac. Ann. 15.37-9.
416
The lost monuments are listed by Tacitus at Ann. 1ηέἂ1έ ἦhey pὁὅὅeὅὅ ‘uetuὅtiὅὅima
ὄeligiὁὀe’μ ἥeὄviuὅ ἦulliuὅ’ ἦemple ὁf the εὁὁὀ, Evaὀἶeὄ’ὅ χὄa εaxima aὀἶ ἦemple of
ώeὄἵuleὅ, Rὁmuluὅ’ ἦemple ὁf Jupiteὄ ἥtatὁὄ, σuma’ὅ Regia, aὀἶ the ἦemple ὁf Veὅta,
containing the Penates brought to Rome by Aeneas. Cf. Keitel 2010:351.
412
109
In his narrative of the fire, ἦaἵituὅ tὄeaἶὅ veὄy ἵlὁὅely iὀ δivy’ὅ
footsteps.417 The fire is said to have happened on the very anniversary of the
Gallic Sack.418 Iὀ paὄtiἵulaὄ, hiὅ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ ὁf the ὄeἴuilἶiὀg eἵhὁeὅ δivy’ὅ
account of the rebuilding at 5.40.2-ηέ χὅ we ὅaw, δivy ἴlameὅ Rὁme’ὅ
scrambled street plan on the indiscriminate haste to rebuild. But Tacitus
writes that,
ceterum urbis quae domui supererant non, ut post Gallica incendia, nulla
distinctione nec passim erecta, sed dimensis uicorum ordinibus et latis
uiarum spatiis cohabitaque aedificiorum altitudine ac patefactis areis
additisque porticibus, quae frontem insularum protegerent.419
The areas of the city that had not been covered by the Domus Aurea were
not, as after the Gallic fire, rebuilt indiscriminately or piecemeal, but in
measured lines of streets, with broad streets, buildings of restricted height,
and open spaces, with colonnades added as a protection to the front of
tower blocks.
δivy’ὅ ὄeἴuilἶiὀg, thὁugh huὄὄieἶ, ἵame at a ἵὄitiἵal mὁment in the ἵity’ὅ
destiny, when the Romans decided to remain in Rome. Encouraged by
ἑamilluὅ’ pὁweὄful aὄgumeὀt that theὄe waὅ ὀὁ ὅpὁt iὀ the ἵity ‘ὀὁt ὅaἵὄeἶ
ὁὄ [ἴelὁὀgiὀg] tὁ the gὁἶὅ’, they weὄe ἵὁὀviὀἵeἶ ἴy a pὄὁpitiὁuὅ vὁiἵe fὄὁm
the Forum.420 Rὁme’ὅ uὀlovely appearance and cramped streets thereby
became a source of pride, a testament to native piety and grit. Let the Forum
ἴe paveἶ with ὅhaὄp ὅtὁὀeὅ! ἔὁὄ ἦaἵituὅ, σeὄὁ’ὅ fiὄe ὅeveὄὅ that liὀkμ ‘σeὄὁ
took advantage of the ruin of his fatherland and built himὅelf a hὁuὅeέ’421 If
there is no place in Rome not occupied by the gods then the Domus Aurea
buries a vast number of them. It is the ultimate domus foro imminens,
stretching from Palatine to Esquiline: its entrance precinct oriented towards
the Forum.422 How can a few well-designed streets expiate that? Although
417
Rouveret 1991:3067-8; Edwards 1996:56; Champlin 2003:194-200; Edwards 2011:652-
6.
418
Tac. Ann. 15.41.
Ibid. 15.4ἁέ ἥhὁtteὄ ἀίίκμ1ἀἂμ ‘it waὅ a ὀew, ὅafeὄ ἵity that emeὄgeἶ fὄὁm the ὄuiὀὅ ὁf
the Fire, one that was in every way fit fὁὄ puὄpὁὅeέ’ ἑhampliὀ ἀίίἁμ198-9 suggests that
σeὄὁ’ὅ ἵὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὁὀ ὁf ὁὄἶeὄeἶ ὅtὄeetὅ waὅ aὀ attempt tὁ ‘ὁutἶὁ’ ἑamillus.
420
Livy 5.52.2, 5.55.1-2.
421
Tac. Ann. 1ηέἂἀμ ‘ἵeteὄum σeὄὁ uὅuὅ eὅt patὄiae ὄuiὀiὅ exὅtὄuxitque ἶὁmum […]’
422
Zanker 2002:106. The actual size of the Domus Aurea is debated: Champlin 2003:205,
ἶὄawiὀg ὁὀ σeὄὁ’ὅ ὀame fὁὄ it, the Dὁmuὅ ἦὄaὀὅitὁὄia, ὅuggeὅts that it lay between the two
hillὅέ εalitὐ ἀίίημἅἄ ὅuggeὅtὅ ‘the mὁὅt ἵautiὁuὅ eὅtimate iὅ aἴὁut the ὅiὐe ὁf tὁἶay’ὅ
Vatiἵaὀ ἑity’έ
419
110
Rome did not become Veii, it now becomes Neropolis.423 Not even that; the
vast landscape garden of the domus in a way de-founds the city altogether.
As the popular joke recorded by Suetonius has it:
Roma domus fiet; Veios migrate, Quirites,
Si non et Veios occupant ista domus.424
Rome is becoming one house; Quirites, move to Veii!
If that hὁuὅe ἶὁeὅὀ’t ὁἵἵupy Veii aὅ wellέ
ἡὄ, iὀ Rὁἴeὄt ἕὄaveὅ’ veὄὅiὁὀμ
The Palace is spreading and swallowing Rome!
Let us all flee to Veii and make it our home.
Yet the Palace is growing so damnably fast
That it threatens to gobble up Veii at last.425
Nero has become the anti-Camillus: a de-conditor.
As the rising Domus Aurea displays his power spread from hilltop to
hilltὁp, the ἔὁὄum ἴeἵὁmeὅ little mὁὄe thaὀ σeὄὁ’ὅ (ὅeἵὁὀἶ) pὄivate
theatre.426 In AD 66, the Armenian king Tiridates arrives in Rome, and the
Forum is transformed into an arena for a carefully choreographed
performance. Suetonius includes this in his ἵatalὁgue ὁf σeὄὁ’ὅ ὅpeἵtaἵleὅέ
Armeniae regem […] produxit quo opportunissime potuit, dispositis circa
fori templa armatis cohortibus, curuli residens apud rostra triumphantis
habitu inter signa militaria atque uexilla. et primo per deuexum pulpitum
subeuntem admisit ad genua aduelatumque dextra exosculatus est, dein
precanti tiara deducta diadema imposuit, uerba supplicis interpretata
praetorio uiro multitudini pronuntiante; perductum in theatrum ac rursus
supplicantem iuxta se latere dextro conlocauit. ob quae imperator
423
Tac. Ann. 15.40.
Suet. Nero 39.2.
425
Graves 1957:238. See also Edwards 1996:52. Champlin 2003:197, 202 sees the joke as
eviἶeὀἵe that ‘the eveὀtὅ ὁf ἁλί weὄe ὁὀ peὁple’ὅ miὀἶὅ’ ἴut ἶὁeὅ ὀὁt puὄὅue the
connection.
426
Attempts have been made to put a positive spin on the Domus Aurea: Elsner 1994:112
aὄgueὅ that ‘σeὄὁ’ὅ veὄy ὀeeἶ tὁ ὅuὄpaὅὅ hiὅ aὀἵeὅtὁὄὅ iὀ impeὄial aὄἵhiteἵture primed the
guὀὅ ὁf thὁὅe hiὅtὁὄiaὀὅ whὁὅe pὄὁjeἵt waὅ tὁ ἵὁὀἶemὀ him’ν hiὅ ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁjeἵtὅ have
ἴeeὀ juἶgeἶ ‘tyὄaὀὀiἵal’ ὁὀly ἴeἵauὅe he himὅelf waὅ pὁὅthumὁuὅly juἶgeἶ a tyὄaὀtέ
ἑhampliὀ ἀίίἁμἀίλμ ‘It waὅ iὀἶeeἶ a pὄivate hὁuὅe, ἴut it waὅ the hὁuὅe of the Roman
peὁple aὅ wellέ’ ἥhὁtteὄ ἀίίκμ ‘σeὄὁ iὀteὀἶeἶ that hiὅ ὀew hὁuὅe aὀἶ the ὄeἴuilt ἵity ὁf
Rome should be one – the home of the people and of himself, their Emperor, Protector and
Entertainer’; cf. Malitz 2005:75-ἄμ ‘Ἡhat iὀ ὄetὄὁὅpeἵt iὅ a ἶaὄing architectural design of
the avant-gaὄἶe, whiἵh ἵὁulἶ have giveὀ σeὄὁ’ὅ pὄeὅeὀἵe iὀ Rὁme a veὄy ἶiffeὄeὀt
ἵhaὄaἵteὄ, waὅ ἶiὅmiὅὅeἶ ἴy ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄieὅ ὅimply aὅ aὀ example ὁf the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ
exἵeὅὅiveὀeὅὅέ’
424
111
consalutatus, laurea in Capitolium lata, Ianum geminum clausit, tamquam
nullo residuo bello.427
He produced the king of Armenia at the earliest possible opportunity. The
armed cohorts were drawn up around the temples of the Forum while Nero
occupied his curule chair on the Rostra, wearing triumphal dress and
surrounded by military insignia and standards. Tiridates had to walk up a
ramp and then prostrate himself in supplication, and then Nero stretched
out his hand, drew him to his feet, kissed him, and took the tiara from his
head and replaced it with a diadem. His words of supplication were
translated and announced by a man of praetorian rank for the crowd. He
was then escorted to the theatre, where he made a further supplication, and
was offeὄeἶ a ὅeat ὁὀ σeὄὁ’ὅ ὄightέ ἦhe peὁple theὀ haileἶ σeὄὁ aὅ
imperator and, after dedicating a laurel wreath in the Capitol, he closed the
double doors of the Temple of Janus, as a sign that all war was at an end.
First we should note that the occasion hardly deserved the triumphal
elemeὀtὅ it waὅ giveὀέ ἦiὄiἶateὅ’ appeaὄaὀἵe iὀ Rὁme waὅ ὀὁt the ὄeὅult ὁf
Roman victory in Parthia, but rather a compromise hammered out after an
inconclusive campaign. According to Tacitus, the Roman troops found
ἦiὄiἶateὅ’ agὄeemeὀt tὁ ‘make aὀ iὀteὄὀatiὁὀal ὅpeἵtaἵle ὁf himὅelf’ (ostenti
gentibus) deeply satisfying.428 ώe ἶepὁὅiteἶ hiὅ ἵὄὁwὀ at the feet ὁf σeὄὁ’ὅ
statue, to collect it later from the emperor in Rome.429 However, at the
ἢaὄthiaὀ kiὀg’ὅ ὄequeὅt ἦiὄiἶateὅ iὅ ὅpaὄeἶ all the outward signs of
subordination. When in Rome, he receives equal distinction with the
ἵὁὀὅulὅέ ἦaἵituὅ’ iὄὁὀy iὅ ἴitteὄμ
scilicet externae superbiae sueto non inerat notita nostri apud quos uis
imperii ualet, inania tramittuntur.430
Clearly, being accustomed to foreign arrogance, [the king of Parthia] did
not understand how we Romans prize the force of power and not its
vanities.
Far from it, the Parthians had realised that Neronian Rome was obsessed
with the inania imperii. To secure his position all Tiridates needed to do
was peὄfὁὄm iὀ ὁὀe ὁf σeὄὁ’ὅ pὄὁἶuἵtiὁὀὅ. This was a fresh novelty for the
427
Suet. Nero 13.
Tac. Ann. 15.29.
429
Ibid. 15.21.
430
Ibid. 15.31.
428
112
empeὄὁὄ, ἴut the laὅt laugh iὅ the ἢaὄthiaὀὅ’μ the ὄeal ὀὁvelty iὅ thiὅ ‘empty’
triumph. At its core will be a barbarian king who has chosen to be there.
ἦheὄe’s no longer any distinction between Roman force and Eastern
decadence. Consuls and barbarian kings alike are subordinate to the
emperor. The actor-tyrant, willing to expose himself to all eyes, is little
different from a Parthian tyrant after all. The verb ostendo, marking the
kiὀg’ὅ ὅuppὁὅeἶ ὅhame iὀ ἦaἵituὅ, iὅ the ὅame veὄἴ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ uὅeὅ
repeatedly of Nero.
The Forum setting underscores the hollowness of the ritual. Nero
makeὅ himὅelf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ fὁἵal pὁiὀtέ Ἡith the ἑapitὁliὀe behind him and
the Palatine rising to one side all the cumulative associations of a thousand
years of Roman history are concentrated on him. But Nero has turned the
Rostra into a dais for his throne.431 A ramp (pulpitum) is provided to ensure
that even while down on his knees Tiriἶateὅ (the ἵὁὀὅulὅ’ equal) iὅ viὅiἴle tὁ
the crowd. Nero is dressed in triumphal costume, surrounded by standards,
playing the role of Camillus or Scipio: but these most Republican generals
would never have lined the Forum and surrounded its temples with massed
ranks of the Praetorian Guard. An ex-praetor is reduced to the role of the
ἴaὄἴaὄiaὀ kiὀg’ὅ mὁuthpieἵe aὀἶ amplifieὄέ ἦhe ἕateὅ ὁf Jaὀuὅ aὄe ὅὁlemὀly
closed, but no war has actually been won. The pretence is underscored by
the next venue on the itinerary, the theatre, of course, where Tiridates
redundantly repeats his supplication. Both king and emperor play their
respective roles. Both ostendant. For Tacitus, the Forum itself is just a
theatre now. 432
AD 69
We have seen, then, that one of the ways Trajanic writers
differentiate and characterise the Julio-Claudian emperors is by their
awareness of the topography of power. None are seen to have successfully
431
Another echo of Veii (see pp. 63-4).
My reading here is strongly influenced by Bartsch 2006, who argues that in the imperial
period the Republican distinction between the (deviant) actor on stage and (exemplary)
orator on the Rostra begin to break down. Here we see not just a blur between different
kinds of performer but different kinds of venue. (Though, of course, in the Republican
period the Forum also acted as a venue for theatrical performances.)
432
113
maiὀtaiὀeἶ χuguὅtuὅ’ ἵaὄeful ἴalaὀἵe ἴetweeὀ the ἔὁὄum aὀἶ the ἢalatiὀe,
while the Praetorian Camp has developed into a further destabilising
element. All of this mapping has been concentrated on the city of Rome.
Tacitus opens his Histories, however, with a fact only now revealed.
euulgato imperii arcano posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri.433
The secret of empire was now disclosed, that an emperor could be made
elsewhere than at Rome.
It seems that we, like the people of Rome, have been dazzled by JulioClaudian spectacle and blinded to the truth that the city itself truly is a
meaningless stage-set that no longer matters when it comes to the transfer of
power. We are like the Parthians at Annals 15.31, valuing the inania
imperii, not the uis. Rome is, as L. Calpurnius Piso and Thrasea Paetus
recognised, a sham. Sailor picks up this theme:
In the surviving books of the [Histories], the meaning of the city is in a
sense the central question to be answered: is there still to be a Rome, sited
at a particular place, a community of Romans with a cultural hearth at that
place, and an empire centred on that ἵity, ὁὄ iὅ the wὁὄlἶ […] to be broken
finally into incoherence, or, after the upheaval, re-centred around some
other place?434
This is, of course, the same difficulty that we saw Augustan writers
exploring in the previous chapter: how does Rome survive, and at what
cost? Do we/can we/should we mὁve tὁ Veiiς ἦaἵituὅ’ aὄgumeὀt iὅ the ὅame
aὅ δivy’ὅμ Rὁme matters. Two of the four emperors in the year 69 –
although their reigns begin elsewhere – meet their end in the Forum. We
will be looking at these moments closely. It may now be possible to be
proclaimed emperor outside the city, but to become emperor still requires
Rome.
Tacitus threads many of the same themes through the Histories that
he later exploits in the Annals. The breakdown of 69 is seen as an inevitable
collapse of the unstable Principate. Without the inherited kudos of the Julian
line to prop it up, the system folds. Civil war resumes, as if the Principate
waὅ aὅ tempὁὄaὄy aὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ awὀiὀgέ χὅ a ὀumἴeὄ ὁf ὅἵhὁlaὄὅ have
observed, Tacitus uses the urban topography to explore this instability and
433
434
Tac. Hist. 1.4.
Sailor 2008:189.
114
question its permanence.435 We hear little about the imperial fora in
Histories. ‘Juliaὀ’ ὅpaἵeὅ have ἵeaὅeἶ tὁ ὅigὀify muἵhέ ἦhe ὅtὄuggle iὅ agaiὀ
for that core nucleus, the symbolic centre of Rome as it iὅ iὀ δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt
pentad: Capitoline-Forum-Palatine. The Julio-Claudian legacy is felt instead
in the intimidating presence of the Praetorian Camp, always threatening to
shift the centre of gravity north-east.
Such a tight focus allows Tacitus to exploit the historical resonances
ὁf the ὅpaἵeέ Ἡe ὅaw hὁw χuguὅtaὀ wὄiteὄὅ playeἶ with the ἔὁὄum’ὅ time
to spring between the present and the mythical landscape, a mingling of
now and then. ἦaἵituὅ’ ἔὁὄum iὅ almὁὅt eὀtiὄely ὁὀe-directional. It reveals
the past, and thereby undermines the present.436 Its monuments – physical,
and textual – reveal that this struggle is the same struggle that has been
fought time and time again throughout Roman history.437
This contributes to the all-pervasive sense of theatricality. As
ἢὁmeὄὁy wὄiteὅ, ‘ἦhe ἶiὅὁὄἶeὄ ὁf ἄλ is organised by [Tacitus] to no small
ἶegὄee ἴy ἵὁὀἵeὀtὄatiὀg ὁὀ the empeὄὁὄὅ’ ἵὁmpeteὀἵe tὁ play theiὄ ὄὁleὅ
ὅuἵἵeὅὅfully aὅ fὁἵi ὁf the aὅpiὄatiὁὀὅ ὁf the ὅtateέ’438 If the actors of 69 are
merely reviving a classic production – ‘The Civil Wars’ – on the same set,
they are all unequal to the demands of the scriptέ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὄὁle iὅ tὁὁ ἴig tὁ
fill, for anyone except perhaps Vespasian. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius selfconsciously try to activate paradigms that no longer work in the postCaesarean world. The Rome they struggle over is not the Republican city,
but one half swallowed by an imperial palace: debased and desecrated. The
people of Rome must be content to be audience and chorus.
Return of the Horseman, Part 1: The Murder of Galba
Servius Sulpicius Galba was a Roman of the old school. 73 years of
age in AD 69, he was a living link to the Rome of Augustus and the
Republican nobility. He had outlived all five Julio-Claudian emperors, a
reminder of how young the Principate still was – but also of how times had
435
E.g. Edwards 1996:75; Sailor 2008:191.
Sage 1991:3398.
437
See e.g. the digression at Tac. Hist. 2.38, where, in what might be a potted version of
Livy and Sallust, the Forum and city are seen as the cradle of civil war.
438
Pomeroy 2006:180.
436
115
changed. Galba rose to power on the back of this connection with the past,
an ability to evoke a sense of traditional Roman austerity.439 He continued
the customs of his ancestors by opening up his domus for a morning
salutatio.440 His adoption of L. Calpurnius Piso as his heir was similarly
mὁtivateἶ ἴy ‘tὄaἶitiὁὀal’ ἵὁὀἵeὄὀὅέ δike ἕalἴa, ἢiὅὁ counted great
Republicans among his ancestors.441 The advice to Piso that Tacitus puts in
ἕalἴa’ὅ mὁuth fὄaὀkly aἵkὀὁwleἶges the realities of the Augustan system,
ἴut alὅὁ affiὄmὅ itμ ‘ἔὁὄ with uὅ theὄe iὅ ὀὁt, aὅ amὁὀg peὁple wheὄe theὄe
are kings, a fixed domus of rulers while all the rest are slaves, but you are
going to rule over men who can endure neither complete slavery nor
complete liberty.’442 With his soldiers he was a stern disciplinarian not
averse to a laconic turn of phrase. His notorious response to the man who
ἵlaimeἶ tὁ have killeἶ the uὅuὄpeὄ ἡthὁ waὅ ‘Ἡhὁ gave yὁu yὁuὄ ὁὄἶeὄὅ,
ὅὁlἶieὄς’443
But Galba was no Scipio. Born in Augustus’ reign he could not be
aὀ autheὀtiἵ hὁaὄy ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’, hὁweveὄ glὁὄiὁuὅ hiὅ aὀἵeὅtὄyέ ἦhat auὄa
was really a façade, disguising a weak old man.
maior priuato uisus dum priuatus fuit, et omnium consensus capax imperii
nisi imperasset.444
He seemed too great to be a private citizen as long as he was one, and all
would have agreed that he was equal to the imperial role if he had never
filled it.
χὅ σeὄὁ’ὅ ὄeigὀ luὄἵheἶ tὁwaὄἶὅ itὅ ἵὁὀἵluὅiὁὀ, the aὄmy aὀἶ ἥeὀate haἶ
searched around for an emperor and found him in Galba. He seemed to fit
the part, but was actually a poor imitation.
ἦaἵituὅ’ ἕalἴa iὅ a maὀ ὁut ὁf time, aὀ inualidus senex too
ἶepeὀἶeὀt ὁὀ the ἴaἶ aἶviἵe ὁf ὁtheὄὅν he waὅ ‘alὄeaἶy ὁlἶ’ wheὀ he
Wellesley ἀίίίμἄν aὀἶ, aὅ εὁὄgaὀ ἀίίἄμἁί putὅ it, ‘almὁὅt ἴy a ἵhapteὄ ὁf aἵἵiἶeὀtὅ’έ
Tac. Ann. 3.55.2; Suet. Galba 4.4.
441
Gallia 2012:43.
442
Tac. Hist. 1έ1ἄμ ‘ὀeque eὀim hiἵ, ut geὀtiἴuὅ quae ὄegὀaὀtuὄ, ἵeὄta ἶὁmiὀὁὄum ἶὁmuὅ et
ceteri serui, sed imperaturus es hominibus qui nec totam seruitutem pati possunt nec totam
liἴeὄtatemέ’
443
Tact. Hist. 1έἁημ ‘ “ἵὁmmilitὁ quiὅ iuὅὅitς”’ χt 1έη, the ὅtὄiἵtὀeὅὅ that iὀitially eὀἶeaὄeἶ
him to his soldiers becomes offensive to them.
444
Ibid. 1.49.
439
440
116
became governor of Spain in 61.445 More than his aged appearance (mocked
ἴy the peὁple ‘aἵἵuὅtὁmeἶ tὁ σeὄὁ’ὅ yὁuth’), hiὅ attituἶeὅ aὄe ὁut ὁf ἶateέ 446
Much like Claudius, he misunderstands the nature of his role. His downfall
is triggered by his refusal to pay the troops their expected bonus. ‘I will
ἵhὁὁὅe, ὀὁt ἴuy my ὅὁlἶieὄὅ,’ waὅ hiὅ mὁttὁ, wὁὄthy ὁf ἑamilluὅ,
‘hὁὀὁuὄaἴle aὅ ὄegaὄἶὅ the ὄepuἴliἵ’, ἴut fὁὁliὅhέ447
nocuit antiquus rigor et nimia seueritas, cui iam pares non sumus.448
He was killed by his antiquated discipline and excessive severity, which
we can no longer stand.
Galba was murdered in the Forum on 15th January 69.
ἦaἵituὅ’ aἵἵὁuὀt ὁf the ἶay ὁf the muὄἶeὄ ἴegiὀὅ ὁὀ the ἢalatiὀe, ἴut
shuttles between the ancient city centre and the Praetorian Camp. Galba is
sacrificing in front of the Temple of Apollo. A bad omen for Galba
persuades Otho that the time has come to launch his plot. Making his
excuses, he goes down to the Forum. There, twenty three guards hail him as
emperor. Their voices echo: there is no sign of the vast throng of supporters
that would guarantee success. Otho, unnerved, is hurried away in a sedan
chair to the Praetorian Camp, where the frightened tribune lets him in.
[ἢalatiὀeμ] ἕalἴa ἵὁὀtiὀueὅ with the ὅaἵὄifiἵe uὀawaὄe that ‘he waὅ
wearying the ears of the gods ὁf aὀ empiὄe whiἵh waὅ alὄeaἶy aὀὁtheὄ’ὅέ’449
Rumours of a revolt reach the Palatine. Piso addresses the troops on the
ἢalatiὀe ὅtepὅέ ώe iὅ well awaὄe ὁf the ὄeal lὁἵatiὁὀ ὁf pὁweὄμ ‘If the
Republic and Senate and People are just empty names, then it is your
concern, comrades, that the emperor should not be made by the worst
ἵitiὐeὀὅέ’450 Acknowledging this before the troops is essentially admitting
his own irrelevance. Many soldiers across the city join the revolt.
[Camp:] The tribunes sent by the palace to assess the situation are attacked
and threatened.
445
Tac. Hist. 1.6.
Ibid. 1έἅμ ‘aἶὅuetiὅ iuueὀtae σeὄὁὀiὅ’έ
447
Ibid. 1έημ ‘pὄὁ ὄe puἴliἵa hὁὀeὅta, ipὅi aὀἵepὅέ’
448
Ibid. 1.18. Morgan 2006:72-3.
449
Tac. Hist. 1έἀλμ ‘fatigaἴat alieὀi iam impeὄii ἶeὁὅ’έ
450
Ibid. 1έἁίμ ‘ “ὅi ὄeὅ puἴliἵa et ὅeὀatuὅ et pὁpuluὅ uaἵua ὀὁmiὀa ὅuὀt, ueὅtὄa,
ἵὁmmilitὁὀeὅ, iὀteὄeὅt ὀe impeὄatὁὄem peὅὅimi faἵiaὀtέ”’
446
117
[Palatine:] Seemingly the entire body of plebs fills the palace. They call for
executions, as if in the circus or theatre. Galba dithers. The dilemma is
topographical. Should he barricade himself in the Palatine? Or go down to
deal with the revolt swiftly? Those arguing for a quick response stress that
the ἶelay ὁὀly allὁwὅ ἡthὁ time tὁ ‘leaὄὀ tὁ play the empeὄὁὄέ’451 If they
hold back, Otho will play the emperor by invading the Forum and ascending
the Capitol. Piso is sent to the camp, but turns back, afraid of the noise.
Then, Otho is rumoured to be killed. Clamouring with joy, the mob breaks
down the doors of the imperial domus to congratulate Galba. Julius Atticus
claims tὁ ἴe ἡthὁ’ὅ aὅὅaὅὅiὀ.
[Camp:] The ὅὁlἶieὄὅ ὄeplaἵe ἕalἴa’ὅ ὅtatue with the liviὀg ἡthὁέ ἡthὁ
paiὀtὅ ἕalἴa aὅ a ἵὄuel, miὅeὄly tyὄaὀtμ ‘[ἕalἴa’ὅ] domus alone is equal to
paying the donative which is never given to you, but daily thrown in your
teethέ’452
[Forum:] Piso catches up with Galba on his way down to the Forum. Galba
is bewildered by advice sending him in all directions: back to the Palatine,
down to the Rostra, up to the Capitol. Utterly directionless, he is swept to
and fro in his chair by the mob as if adrift at sea. Crowds fill the Forum, the
temples and basilicas in deathly silence as ears strain to hear.
[Camp:] Otho receives a false report that the crowd in the Forum is being
armed. He dispatches cavalrymen.
[ἔὁὄumμ] ἡthὁ’ὅ meὀ ἴuὄὅt iὀ at full gallὁp, tὄampliὀg ὁὀ aὀyὁὀe iὀ their
way. Galba is thrown from his chair at the Lacus Curtius and abandoned by
everyone. He is decapitated and butchered. His associate Titus Vinius is
killed in front of the Temple of Caesar. Piso reaches the Temple of Vesta,
but is slaughtered on the threshold. The Senate assembles and votes Otho
the title of Augustus. He is carried through the piles of bodies in the Forum,
up first to the Capitol and then, finally, to the Palatine. Only then are the
corpses given up for burial and burning.
This split focus mirrors the split down the fabric of the Principate
between the Palatine and the Camp. The Forum becomes the central
battlegὄὁuὀἶ, with ἵὁὀtὄὁl ὁf it eὅὅeὀtial fὁὄ viἵtὁὄyέ ἦaἵituὅ’ ἵὁmmeὀt at
451
452
Ibid. 1έἁἁμ ‘… imitaὄi pὄiὀἵipem ἶiὅἵat’
Ibid. 1.37.
118
Annals 1ηέἁ1 agaiὀ ἵὁmeὅ tὁ miὀἶέ Eaἵh ‘ὅἵeὀe’ might ἴe ὅaiἶ to stand for
an ingredient essential to the survival of the Empire, none of which works
without the other. Otho seizes the naked uis imperii, but his soldiers,
ἵhaὄgiὀg iὀ fὄὁm the ἵity’ὅ ὁutὅkiὄtὅ, seem more like barbarians than
Romans: they do not see Rome, but an enemy city.453 It waὅὀ’t hiὅ ὁὄigiὀal
plan. He hoped at first to take control of the Forum and be acclaimed by the
peὁpleέ Iὀὅteaἶ, it’ὅ ὀὁt uὀtil he ‘iὀvaἶeὅ the ἔὁὄum aὀἶ aὅἵeὀἶὅ the
ἑapitὁl’ that he ἵaὀ tὄuly ἵlaim tὁ have takeὀ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ role.
εeaὀwhile, ἕalἴa, the ‘legitimate’ empeὄὁὄ, ὁἵἵupieὅ the impeὄial domus,
but his old-fashioned attitude breaks the usually close relationship between
the domus and castra. Ἡithὁut the tὄὁὁpὅ he’ὅ juὅt aὀ ὁlἶ maὀ on the hill,
powerless to do anything except look down and watch.454 As in Livy, the
Forum valley becomes a microcosm of the contested city.
Both actors are to some degree aware of the symbolic charge of each
place and try to use it for their own advantage, but the ‘gὄὁuὀἶ ὄuleὅ’ limit
what they can do. Despite all the bad advice that he should barricade
himself up on the Palatine (which he does temporarily do), Galba knows
that eventually he must go down to the Forum. Remaining within the
imperial domus would be casting himself too closely in the role of tyrant,
giving Otho something of the revolutionary legitimacy of a Brutus.455
ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶelay gives Otho all the more time at the Camp to set the emperor
up iὀ the tyὄaὀt’ὅ ὄὁleέ ώe ὄeminds the soldiers that Galba climbed to power
over the bodies of ‘maὀy thὁuὅaὀἶὅ ὁf iὀὀὁἵeὀt ὅὁlἶieὄὅ’μ ‘“Ἡhat pὄὁviὀἵe
is there anywhere, what camp, that is not bloodstained and defiled, or as
ἕalἴa wὁulἶ ὅay, puὄgeἶ aὀἶ ἶiὅἵipliὀeἶς”’456 ἕalἴa’ὅ domus alone would
ἵὁveὄ the ἵὁὅt ὁf the ὅὁlἶieὄὅ’ ἴὁὀuὅ. The Senate and People are onside.
This is not a usurpation, but a liberation. And yet the setting of his speech
ἦaἵituὅ haὅ alὄeaἶy giveὀ uὅ aὀ impὄeὅὅiὁὀ ὁf theiὄ ‘fὁὄeigὀὀeὅὅ’ ἴy ἶeὅἵὄiἴiὀg the
attitudes of the various auxiliary cohorts (Hist. 1.31). The Germans were friendly to Galba
and hesitated for a long time before switching sides; the Illyrians turned against him
immediately.
454
Tac. Hist. 1.33.
455
Cfέ Diὁ’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ muὄἶeὄ iὀ ἐὁὁk ἂἂέ χfteὄ the aὅὅaὅὅiὀatiὁὀ, ἐὄutuὅ aὀἶ
ἑaὅὅiuὅ’ flight to the Capitoline allowed Antony and Lepidus to take the Forum, the
initiative, and ultimately control of the situation.
456
Tac. Hist. 1έἁἅμ ‘“quae uὅquam pὄὁuiὀἵia, quae castra sunt nisi cruenta et maculata aut,
ut ipse praedicat, emendata et correctaς”’
453
119
belies his words. While an emperor can be made outside the city, one
cannot become emperor except in the centre of Rome.
The critical moment, then, takes place in the very centre of the
Forum at the Lacus Curtius. Galba is cut down by armed cavalrymen at the
shrine of the armed cavalryman. An emperor is murdered at the place where
pὄayeὄὅ aὄe ὅaiἶ fὁὄ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ gὁὁἶ healthέ
εὁὅt iὀteὄpὄetatiὁὀὅ ὁf ἦaἵituὅ’ account of the murder take their cue
from the 1968 study by R.T. Scott.457 ἥἵὁtt ὅeeὅ iὀ ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath a
‘pὁὅὅiἴle’ aὀalὁgy with the ‘deuotio’ ὁf εaὄἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅέ ώe wὄiteὅ,
The self-immolation of Curtius closed the chasm that threatened the
destruction of Rome, but the murder of Galba can only symbolise its reopening, pinpointing as it does the beginning of a year of Roman selfdestruction.458
ἦhe iἶea that ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath ἵaὀ ἴe ὄeaἶ aὅ a kiὀἶ ὁf deuotio,
straightforwardly or inverted, has been very fruitful. Most recently, the
intertextual references that connect Histories with the leap of Marcus
Curtius at Livy 7.6 have been discussed by Joseph.459 Rebecca Edwards
takeὅ ἥἵὁtt’ὅ teὀtative ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὁὀ tὁ deuotio and runs with it.460 Her
argument hinges on the existence of a broadly-encompassing Roman
concept of deuotio, an idea that may well be more modern than ancient.461
Uὅiὀg the ὁὀe ‘uὀaὄguaἴle’ example ὁf deuotio, the ἵὁὀὅul ἢέ Deἵiuὅ εuὅ’ὅ
charge into the enemy battle lines in 340 BC, together with the leap of
Curtius and the much more contentious example of the self-sacrifice of the
ageἶ ὅeὀatὁὄὅ ἶuὄiὀg the ἕalliἵ ἥaἵk, ὅhe ὅuggeὅtὅ that ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath tὁὁ
457
Benario 1972; Greenhalgh 1975:50-2; Walker 1976:115-6; Wellesley 2000:26-7;
Damon 2003:184, Keitel 2006:234-8; Morgan 2006:70-1; Power 2007; Sailor 2008:196-9;
Edwards 2012; Joseph 2012:79-84.
458
Scott 1968:58. Note Scott seems to have been influenced by post-antique depictions of
Curtius leaping into a fiery chasm.
459
Joseph 2012:90.
460
Edwards 2012.
461
Eἶwaὄἶὅ ἀί1ἀμἀἁλμ ‘Iὀ itὅ mὁὅt ἴaὅiἵ fὁὄm, a deuotio is performed when a magistrate
has someone consecrated, usually himself, as an expiatory sacrifice to avert disaster and
eὀὅuὄe Rὁmaὀ ὅupὄemaἵyέ’ ἥhe iὅ ἶὄawiὀg ὁὀ ἔelἶheὄὄ ἀίίκμ85-92, who stresses, however,
that only three examples are known, all regarding members of the same family, and one of
them iὅ ἶuἴiὁuὅέ Ἡhetheὄ we ὅhὁulἶ extὄapὁlate a wiἶeὄ ‘ὄitual’ ὁf ‘deuotio’ from these
clearly exceptional cases is debatable, though Versnel 1976, 1981 has posited a wider
tὄaἶitiὁὀ ὁf iὀvὁkiὀg the pὁweὄ ὁf the gὁἶὅ ἴy ἶevὁtiὀg the pὄὁpeὄty ὁf ὁὀe’ὅ eὀemy tὁ
them.
120
can be considered a straightforward deuotio.462 ‘If δivy’ὅ ὄeaἶeὄὅ ἵὁulἶ
conceive of two very different kinds of self-sacrificial acts as both being
deuotiones, then there is evidence for a more flexible definition of the
term.463 But equally a specific Roman term may have been stretched by
scholars to fit, thereby losing its original meaning. For Edwards,
Tacitus, ἴy aὅὅὁἵiatiὀg the δaἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ with the ὅite ὁf ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath,
allὁwὅ ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath tὁ have ὅὁme meaὀiὀgέ Iὀ faἵt, the δaἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ
ἴeἵὁmeὅ the ὅymἴὁl ὁf ἕalἴa’ὅ ὅelf-sacrifice.464
By this point, her chain of reasoning has led her a long way from Tacitus’
text, as we shall see.
A further trend, with a pedigree almost as long, has been to identify
Galba with Priam. The suggestion is that Tacitus uses particular details,
ὅuἵh aὅ ἕalἴa’ὅ aὄmiὀg, tὁ evὁke Viὄgil at Aeneid 2.465 Jὁὅeph wὄiteὅ, ‘ἦhe
impression that Viὄgil giveὅ […] iὅ that ἢὄiam’ὅ ἶeath meaὀὅ ὅὁmethiὀg
quite ἶiffeὄeὀt, aὀἶ wὁὄὅe, wheὀ it iὅ ὄepeateἶ…’466 We could, however,
equally see a parallel with the murder of the frail Servius Tullius.467
The problem with all these approaches is that by focusing on a
ὅpeἵifiἵ ‘iὀteὄtext’, whetheὄ that ἴe the δaἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ iὀ δivy ἅέἄ ὁὄ Aeneid
2, the wider ambiguities of the passage are obscured. The power of the
ἔὁὄum, aὀἶ the δaἵuὅ, aὅ the ὅite ὁf ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath ἶeὄiveὅ fὄὁm itὅ aἴility tὁ
throw up competing and often contradictory messages, something that Livy
recognises in his own treatment of the Lacus Curtius and which Tacitus
keenly exploits here.468
Despite Rebecca Eἶwaὄἶὅ’ aὀalyὅiὅ, ἦaἵituὅ pὄeἵiὅely ἶὁeὅ not
pὁὄtὄay ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath aὅ aὀ expliἵit, ὅtὄaightforward deuotio. Some may say
that Galba in his last words may have offered up his life for the res publica,
but there is no clear record of what actually happened at the Lacus Curtius.
462
Livy 8.9-10 (Decius Mus); for the aged senators, see above, pp. 66-68. Her
ἵlaὅὅifiἵatiὁὀ ὁf the ὅeὀatὁὄὅ’ ἶeathὅ iὅ ἴaὅeἶ ὁὀ δeveὀe 1λλἁμ1λἄ, ἴut ὅee contra Ogilvie
1965:725.
463
Edwards 2012:240.
464
Ibid. 247.
465
Joseph 2012:79-84; Power 2007; the original identification is by Benario 1972.
466
Joseph 2012:82.
467
Livy 1.48.
468
See above, pp. 52-55.
121
iuxta Curtii lacum trepidatione ferentium Galba proiectus e sella ac
prouolutus est. extremam eius uocem, ut cuique odium aut admiratio fuit,
uarie prodidere. alii suppliciter interrogasse quid mali meruisset, paucos
dies exsoluendo donatiuo deprecatum: plures obtulisse ultro percussoribus
iugulum: agerent ac ferirent si ita e re publica uideretur. non interfuit
occidentium quid diceret. de percussore non satis constat: quidam
Terentium euocatum, alii Laecanium; crebrior fama tradidit Camurium
quintae decimae legionis militem impresso gladio iugulum eius hausisse.
ceteri crura brachiaque (nam pectus tegebatur) foede laniavere; pleraque
uulnera feritate et saeuitia trunco iam corpori adiecta.469
It was near the Lacus Curtius that Galba was thrown from his chair and
rolled on the ground by his terrified carriers. His last words have been
variously reported according to the hatred or admiration of individuals.
Some say that he asked in a supplicating tone what harm he had done, and
begged for a few days to pay the donative; many report that he voluntarily
offered his throat to the assassins, telling them to strike quickly, if it
seemed good for the Republic. His words made no difference to his killers.
Nothing certain is known about the actual assassin: some name a certain
Terentius, others Laecanius; a more common story is that Camurius, a
soldier of the fifteenth legion, pierced his throat with a thrust of his sword.
The rest shamefully mutilated his legs and arms, for his chest was
protected, and in their cruel savagery they continued to inflict many
wounds on his body even after it was decapitated.
Compare this with the much simpler account given by Plutarch:
ὸ
ὲΓ
α , π
,
υ
φα ὴ π
έ" π
π
φ
α
α
α , "Δ
ὰ
ὲ
π φα
ὲ α
α
υ
,"
α
, ὡ
α
υπ ὶ ὸ Κ υ
υπ
π
π ,"
π
ὰ
π ῖ
ὰ
υ α
α
·
ῳῬ
α
αὶ
ὺ
ὲ ὴ
α
α,
υ , Κα
.470
The litter was upset at the place called Lacus Curtius, and there Galba
tumbled out and lay in his corselet while the soldiers ran up and struck at
himέ ἐut he meὄely pὄeὅeὀteἶ hiὅ ὀeἵk tὁ theiὄ ὅwὁὄἶὅ, ὅayiὀg, ‘Dὁ yὁuὄ
wὁὄk, if it iὅ ἴeὅt fὁὄ the Rὁmaὀ peὁpleέ’ ἥὁ theὀ afteὄ ὄeἵeiviὀg maὀy
469
470
Tac. Hist. 1.41.
Plut. Galba 27.1-2.
122
wounds in his legs and arms, he was killed by a certain Camurius of the
fifteenth legion.
Tacitus lays out alternative versions of the death of Galba. His studied
ambiguity is made plain on comparison with Plutarch (who does mention
the names of the other soldiers, but in an aside). For sure, Galba may have,
at the very last moment, taken up the role of Marcus Curtius by the Lacus.
But he may also have begged for his life. There are no witnesses to tell us:
his assassins were indifferent, and even their identities are uncertain.
Nothing is fixed, except the location of his death.
But the location itself is the most unstable point in the Forum, both
physically (the legendary chasm/swamp) and in terms of the contradictory
ὅtὁὄieὅ tὁlἶ aἴὁut itέ It’ὅ temptiὀg tὁ fὁllὁw ἑathaὄiὀe Eἶwaὄἶὅ and see
Tacitus reflecting this: theὄe ἵaὀ ἴe ὀὁ ‘ὄight’ way tὁ ὄeaἶ aὀ eveὀt at the
Lacus Curtius.471 While scholars have generally concentrated on Marcus
Curtius, the monument equally and simultaneously can transport us back to
Rὁme’ὅ veὄy fiὄὅt ἵivil waὄ, aὀὁtheὄ ἴattle iὀ the valleyέ ἦhe Rὁmaὀήἥaἴiὀe
conflict is precisely what this scenario is not. Not a conflict between two
heroic kings, but the slaughter of a feeble old man by the assassins of an
opponent too cowardly to appear in person. Mettius does not escape the
Lacus. There is no hope of reconciliation. Rome is not (re)founded. The
primal swamp yawns.
However, the Curtius paradigm operates just as, if not more, closely
with the ‘uὀὅtaἴle’ equeὅtὄiaὀ aὅὅaὅὅiὀ aὅ it ἶὁeὅ with ἕalἴaέ ἦhe ἔὁὄum haὅ
ἵeὄtaiὀly ‘ὅplit’ν it haὅ ὄetuὄὀeἶ tὁ a pὄimitive ἴattlegὄὁuὀἶέ ἦhe ὅὁlἶieὄὅ
ἶὁὀ’t even recognise it as Rome. They are temporally and spatially
confused.472
milites Romani, quasi Volgaesum aut Pacorum auito Arcasidarum solio
depulsuri ac non imperatorem suum inermem et senem trucidare pergerent,
disiecta plebe, proculcato senatu, truces armis, rapidi equis forum
inrumpunt.473
Eἶwaὄἶὅ 1λλἄμἅἅμ ὅhe wὄiteὅ ‘the pluὄality ὁf pὁὅὅiἴilitieὅ [aἴὁut ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath] might
ἴe ὅeeὀ aὅ ὄefleἵtiὀg the ὅeveὄal veὄὅiὁὀὅ ὁf the legeὀἶ’ ὁf ἑuὄtiuὅ’, ἴut ἶὁes not pursue the
point further.
472
Sailor 2008:196-7.
473
Tac. Hist. 1.40.
471
123
Roman soldiers rushed on as if they were going to drive a Vologaesus or a
Pacorus from the ancestral throne of the Arcasidae and were not hurrying
to butcher their own emperor – an unarmed old man. Throwing aside the
plebs, trampling down the senators, terrifying with their weapons, they
burst into the Forum at full gallop.
The SPQR is literally ridden down474, crushed into the ground of the Forum
ἴy theὅe ἑuὄtii withὁut a ἵauὅeέ ἥailὁὄ ὁἴὅeὄveὅ that ‘the way iὀ whiἵh the
solἶieὄὅ tὄeat the ἵity […] iὅ a ἶiὄeἵt ἵὁὀὅequeὀἵe ὁf the ὁutlὁὁk with whiἵh
[ἡthὁ] haὅ equippeἶ themέ’475 They have been led to believe they are saving
themselves and Rome (in that order) from the tyrant. Leaders on both sides
have been repeatedly telling the tὄὁὁpὅ that they aὄe the Rὁmaὀὅ’ gὄeateὅt
strength – the ὀew ἑuὄtiiέ χὅ ἡthὁ tellὅ them, ‘“ἦhe ἥeὀate aὀἶ ἢeὁple ὁf
Rome are of one mind, they look for your strength (uirtus) […]”’476 But
they are no more equipped to convincingly play the role of Curtius than
ἕalἴa iὅέ χὅ Jὁὅeph ὅhὁwὅ, ἦaἵituὅ’ laὀguage at thiὅ mὁmeὀt aἵtually
inverts that of Livy at 7.6.477 Before his leap, Marcus Curtius lifts his eyes
to the temples of the Forum and the gods of the Capitol.478 ἡthὁ’ὅ ὅὁlἶieὄὅ
ἶὁὀ’t eveὀ ὄegiὅteὄ that they’ve reached the Forum.
nec illos Capitolii aspectus et imminentium templorum religio et priores et
futuri principes terruere quo minus facerent scelus cuius ultor est quisquis
successit.479
Neither the sight of the Capitol, nor the sanctity of the looming temples,
nor former and future emperors could deter them from committing a crime
which any successor to the imperial power must punish.
The allusion to Livy allows Tacitus to emphasise how much the Forum has
changed. The Republican Curtius had only the gods to worry about, but this
is the post-Augustan Forum. Caesar himself watches the action from the
ultimate domus imminens, hiὅ temple, wheὄe ἕalἴa’ὅ ἵlὁὅeὅt ἵὁuὄtieὄ ἦituὅ
I echo ἥailὁὄ ἀίίκμ1λἅμ ‘the tὄampleἶ ἥeὀate aὀἶ viὁleὀtly ἶiὅplaἵeἶ plebs together
ὄeἵall the fὁὄmulatiὁὀ “ἥeὀate aὀἶ ἢeὁple ὁf Rὁme” (ἥἢἣR)έ’
475
Sailor 2008:196.
476
Tac. Hist. 1.38: ‘“iἶem ὅeὀatuὅ, iἶem pὁpuli Rὁmaὀi aὀimuὅ eὅtμ ueὅtὄa uiὄtuὅ expeἵtatuὄ
[…]έ”’ Cfέ 1έἀλ, wheὀ ἢiὅὁ tellὅ them, ‘“ἦhe fate ὁf ὁuὄ hὁuὅe aὀἶ the ὄepuἴliἵ aὄe iὀ yὁuὄ
haὀἶὅ”’ (‘ “quὁ ἶὁmuὅ ὀὁὅtὄae et ὄei puἴliἵae fatὁ iὀ ueὅtὄa maὀu pὁὅitum eὅt”’)ν
477
Joseph 2012:92, cf. Ash 2007:228.
478
Livy ἅέἄέἂμ ‘[…] silentio facto templa deorum immortalium, quae foro imminent,
Capitoliumque intuentem et manus nunc in caelum, nunc in patentes terrae hiatus ad deos
manes porrigentem, se deuouisse […]’
479
Tac. Hist. 1.40.
474
124
Vinius is about to be struck down. Ultor too taps into a Caesarian narrative.
The Temple of Divus Julius is almost a monument to the changed rules.
ἦheὄe iὅ ὀὁthiὀg tὁ ἴe gaiὀeἶ fὄὁm playiὀg ἐὄutuὅ’ paὄt ὀὁwέ ἥiὀἵe
Augustus, the roles of princeps and ultor go hand in hand.
The Forum setting, then, allows Tacitus to transform the murder of
Galba into an ever-mutating spectacle. The people watch, but not passively.
ἦhey ὄepeateἶly ὄefuὅe tὁ play the paὄt ὁf δiviaὀ ‘-ἢἣR’έ ἦhey aὄe
conspicuously absent from the Forum when Otho tries to have himself
hailed emperor. Instead, they mob Galba on the Palatine, breaking down the
doors of the imperial domus. When they are in the Forum, they gawp and
get iὀ the way, hiὀἶeὄiὀg ἕalἴa’ὅ mὁvemeὀt, preventing him from reaching
a fixed destination or addressing them from the Rostra, and blocking the
gallop of the assassins. In this city covered by the Domus Aurea, the
movement of the crowd across all boundaries evokes not just the confusion
ὁf ἵivil waὄ ἴut the ἵὁllapὅiὀg iὀ ὁf the ἢὄiὀἵipate’ὅ ἶefuὀἵt aὀἶ ὅupeὄfiἵial
distinction between public/forum/SPQR and private/domus/princeps. If the
ἢalatiὀe aὀἶ the ἑamp have uὅuὄpeἶ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ pὁweὄ, theὀ the mὁἴ
rightfully surges over their thresholds. Piso, the adopted son/Caesar is
muὄἶeὄeἶ at the ἦemple ὁf Veὅta, Rὁme’ὅ heaὄthέ ἡthὁ, the pὄὁpheὅieἶ
‘domesticus hostis’, takeὅ hiὅ pὁweὄ fὄὁm the ἑampέ480
At the end of the episode, Otho does in a sense get his acclamation –
from a Forum full of corpses. As he ascends the Capitol, the Forum is left as
a battleground.
Otho cruento adhuc foro per stragem iacentium in Capitolium atque inde
in Palatium uectus concedi corpora sepulturae cremarique permisit.481
Otho was carried through the bloodstained Forum over the heaps of dead
bodies to the Capitoline and then to the Palatine; then he allowed the
bodies to be given up for burial and burning.
ἦhe lὁgiἵ ὁf the ἔὁὄum legeὀἶὅ iὅ iὀeὅἵapaἴleέ If εaὄἵuὅ’ ἵhaὅm ὄemaiὀὅ
unplugged, and Mettius was slaughtered before his marsh could be drained,
and the Forum is left as a battlefield reeking with citizen bodies while Otho
claims both hilltὁpὅ, theὀ Rὁme iὅ ‘ἶefὁuὀἶeἶ’έ
Umbὄiἵiuὅ’ pὄὁpheἵy at ἦaἵέ Hist. 1.27.
Tac. Hist. 1έἂἅέ ἦhὁugh εὁὄgaὀ ἀίίἄμἅἀ ὅuggeὅtὅ that ἡthὁ ἶiὅplayeἶ ‘ὄeὅtὄaiὀt’ heὄe
ἴy leaviὀg the ἴὁἶieὅ aὀἶ ὀὁt ἴὄiὀgiὀg ὄepὄiὅalὅ ὁὀ the viἵtimὅ’ familieὅέ
480
481
125
Which is exactly what happens as Otho prepares to march out
against his new rival Vitellius. The Tiber floods.
sed praecipuus et cum praesenti exitio etiam futuri pauor subita
inundatione Tiberis, qui immenso auctu proruto Ponte Sublicio ac strage
obstantis molis refusus, non modo iacentia et plana urbis loca, sed secura
eiuὅ mὁἶi ἵaὅuum impleuit […]482
The chief anxiety which was connected with both present disaster and
future danger was caused by a sudden flood of the Tiber, which, swollen to
a great height, broke down the Pons Sublicius and then was thrown back
by the ruins of the bridge which dammed the stream, and overflowed not
only the low-lying level parts of the city but also areas normally free from
such disasters.
The flood unusually engulfs not just the low-lying valleys but also
residential areas, as if it too is indifferent to traditional boundaries. Its
suddenness and spread cause it to be proclaimed an omen. Just a few
chapters before, Otho had made a ringing faux-Pompeian speech to the
ὅὁlἶieὄὅμ ‘“Dὁ yὁu thiὀk thiὅ mὁὅt ἴeautiful ὁf ἵitieὅ ἵὁὀὅiὅtὅ ὁf hὁuὅeὅ aὀἶ
ἴuilἶiὀgὅ aὀἶ heapὅ ὁf ὅtὁὀeς […] ἦhe eteὄὀity ὁf ὁuὄ ὅtate aὀἶ the peaἵe ὁf
the world and mine and your safety is secured by the welfare of the
Senateέ”’483 As apartment blocks collapse and the people starve, these
sentiments sound rather hollow. Otho, the anti-Camillus, abandons the ruins
and rides out against Vitellius, taking the Senate with him.
The Abdication of Vitellius
Within a short space of time, Otho is dead, and yet another Caesar
marches on Rome. The increasingly debased cycle of Roman history is
witnessed not just by the monuments but also the people of Rome, who
discuss it as chorus. We saw, in Chapter 1.1, a pὄeὅὅuὄe iὀ δivy’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy to
elide present and prehistoric Rome, writing out the Late Republic. In
ἦaἵituὅ’ text, it’ὅ the Juliὁ-Claudians who are forgotten.484 The populus
Romanus recalls the Civil Wars: Caesar, Pompey, Brutus and Augustus;
482
Tac. Hist. 1.86.
Tac. Hist. 1έκἂμ ‘ “uos pulcherrimum hanc urbem domibus et tectis et congestu lapidum
ὅtaὄe ἵὄeἶitiὅς […] aeteὄὀitatiὅ ὄeὄum et pax geὀtium et mea ἵum ueὅtὄa ὅaluὅ iὀἵὁlumitate
ὅeὀatuὅ fiὄmatuὄέ”’ See pp. 71-2.
484
Gallia 2012:52.
483
126
Pharsalia, Philippi, Perusia and Mutina. At least in those days something
was at stake, the form of the Roman state, Republic or Principate. But
nunc pro Othone an pro Vitellio in templa ituros? utrasque impias preces,
utraque detestanda uota inter duos, quorum bello solum id scires,
deteriorem fore qui uicisset. 485
Now were they to go to the temples to pray for Otho or Vitellius? Prayers
for either would be impious and vows for either detestable when, in the
struggle between the two, the only thing that was certain was that the worst
would be the one who won.
‘δiviaὀ’ mὁἶeὅ ὁf ἴehaviὁuὄ ἶὁὀ’t wὁὄk aὀymὁὄeέ ἦhe ἢὄiὀἵipate, whiἵh
waὅ ὅuppὁὅeἶ tὁ guaὄaὀtee ὅtaἴility, ‘itὅelf pὄὁviἶeἶ the veὄy ἵauὅe ὁf the
fightiὀgέ’486 And if Galba had been unsuited to the role of emperor, and
Otho less so, then Vitellius loses the script altogether. In fact, his arrival in
Rome is preceded by a Gallic invasion in miniature.
in urbe tamen trepidantum praecurrentibus passim militibus; forum
maxime petebant, cupidine uisendi locum in quo Galba iacuisset. nec
minus saeuum spectaculum erant ipsi, tergis ferarum et ingentibus telis
hὁὄὄeὀteὅ […]έ487
In Rome no less alarm was caused by the soldiers everywhere preceding
the main army; these headed for the Forum first of all, wanting to see the
plaἵe wheὄe ἕalἴa’ὅ ἴὁἶy haἶ laiὀέ ἦhey were themselves a spectacle no
less savage, dressed in shaggy animal skins and brandishing enormous
ὅpeaὄὅ […]έ
χὅ faὄ aὅ theὅe ὅὁlἶieὄὅ aὄe ἵὁὀἵeὄὀeἶ, ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath haὅ ὁveὄwὄitteὀ ὀὁt
just the Lacus Curtius but the whole Forum. Tacitus repeatedly stresses the
Vitelliaὀὅ’ almὁὅt ἴaὄἴaὄiἵ igὀὁὄaὀἵe ὁf Rὁmaὀ tὄaἶitiὁὀ, theiὄ failuὄe tὁ ὅee
monuments signifying anything other than very recent history. When
Vitelliuὅ aὄὄiveὅ, hiὅ ὅpeeἵh might aὅ well have ἴeeὀ aἶἶὄeὅὅiὀg ‘aὀὁtheὄ
ἵity, ἥeὀate aὀἶ ἢeὁpleέ’488 Worse, he holds public ceremonies on the dies
Alliensis, the aὀὀiveὄὅaὄy ὁf the ἶefeat at the χlliaέ ώe iὅ ‘whὁlly igὀὁὄaὀt
ὁf lawὅ ἴὁth ἶiviὀe aὀἶ humaὀέ’489 The Camp overflows, and the soldiers
485
Tac. Hist. 1.50.
Gallia 2012:54.
487
Tac. Hist. 2.88.
488
Tac. Hist. ἀέλί, ‘alteὄiuὅ ἵiuitatiὅ ὅeὀatum pὁpulumque’έ
489
Tac. Hist. ἀέλ1, ‘aἶeὁ ὁmὀiὅ humaὀi ἶiuiὀique iuὄiὅ expeὄὅ’έ
486
127
spill out in the public areas of the city as if the pomerium did not exist.
Vitellius, happy to play at imperator when marching on his own city, allows
the campaign against the Flavians to slip out of his control. By the end,
‘ὅuἵh a lethaὄgy haἶ falleὀ ὁὀ hiὅ ὅpiὄit that, ἴut fὁὄ ὁtheὄὅ ὄememἴeὄiὀg that
he was emperoὄ, he wὁulἶ have fὁὄgὁtteὀ himὅelfέ’490
When it becomes apparent that Flavian victory is all but inevitable, a
peaἵe tὄeaty iὅ ἴὄὁkeὄeἶ ἴetweeὀ Vitelliuὅ aὀἶ Veὅpaὅiaὀ’ὅ ἴὄὁtheὄ ἔlaviuὅ
Sabinus in the Temple of Apollo. Then, down in the Forum, Vitellius makes
aὀ uὀpὄeἵeἶeὀteἶ attempt tὁ ὄeὅigὀέ I’ll quὁte the paὅὅage iὀ fullέ
XV kalendas Ianuarias audita defectione legionis cohortiumque, quae se
Narniae dediderant, pullo amictu Palatio degreditur, maesta circum
familia; ferebatur lecticula paruulus filius uelut in funebrem pompam:
uoces populi blandae et intempestiuae, miles minaci silentio.
nec quisquam adeo rerum humanarum immemor quem non commoueret
illa facies, Romanum principem et generis humani paulo ante dominum
relicta fortunae suae sede per populum, per urbem exire de imperio. nihil
tale uiderant, nihil audierant. repentina uis dictatorem Caesarem
oppresserat, occultae Gaium insidiae, nox et ignotum rus fugam Neronis
absconderant, Piso et Galba tamquam in acie cecidere: in sua contione
Vitellius, inter suos milites, prospectantibus etiam feminis, pauca et
praesenti maestitiae congruentia locutus – cedere se pacis et rei publicae
causa, retinerent tantum memoriam sui fratremque et coniugem et
innoxiam liberorum aetatem miserarentur –, simul filium protendens,
modo singulis modo uniuersis commendans, postremo fletu praepediente
adsistenti consuli (Caecilius Simplex erat) exolutum a latere pugionem,
uelut
ius
necis
uitaeque
ciuium,
reddebat.
aspernante
consule,
reclamantibus qui in contione adstiterant, ut in aede Concordiae positurus
insignia imperii domumque fratris petiturus discessit. maior hic clamor
obsistentium penatibus priuatis, in Palatium uocantium. interclusum aliud
iter, idque solum quo in sacram uiam pergeret patebat: tum consilii inops
in Palatium redit.491
On the 18th December, when Vitellius heard of the defection of the legion
and cohorts that had given themselves up at Narnia, he put on mourning
clothes and came down from the Palatine surrounded by his sorrowful
490
491
Tac. Hist. 3.63.
Tac. Hist. 3.67-8.
128
family; his tiny son was carried in a litter as if in a funeral procession. The
voices of the people were flattering and inappropriate, and the soldiers
kept a menacing silence.
There was no one so indifferent to human fortunes as not to be moved by
this sight, a Roman emperor, a short time before the master of all mankind
– now giving up the seat of his fortune and going through the people and
city to give up his power. They had never seen or heard such a thing
before. A sudden violent act had crushed the dictator Caesar, a secret plot
Gaius; night and rural anonymity had concealed the flight of Nero; Piso
and Galba had fallen, as it were, on the battlefield. But now Vitellius, in
his own assembly, among his own soldiers, with even women watching,
spoke a few words appropriate to his current sadness: he said that he
withdrew for the sake of peace and the republic, and asked for pity on his
own memory, and on his brother, wife and innocent young children. As he
spoke he held his son, commending him now to individuals, now to the
whole assembly. Finally, when tears cut him off, he drew a dagger from
his side and offered it to the consul Caecilius Simplex beside him, as if
returning his power of life and death over the citizens. When the consul
refused it, and the assembly protested, Vitellius left, intending to deposit
the imperial insignia in the Temple of Concord and after that to go to his
ἴὄὁtheὄ’ὅ hὁuὅeέ ἐut theὄe waὅ a gὄeat upὄὁaὄ pὄὁteὅtiὀg agaiὀὅt him gὁiὀg
to a private house and calling for him to go to the Palatine. Every way was
blocked, all but the Sacra Via. Then, with no other option, he returned to
the Palatine.
This unsuccessful ceremony does not fail to move its spectators, partly
ἴeἵauὅe it’ὅ ἵὁἴἴleἶ tὁgetheὄ fὄὁm a number of traditional elements: the
funereal procession of the familia down to the Rostra; Vitellius’ bedraggled
clothes, like a defendant’ὅ on trial; the political contio summoned by the
princeps, with the consul in attendance.492 But none of the elements works
as it should. This is a funeral procession without a corpse (although there
will be one soon); the condemned defendant is acquitted. Combined, they
make a ἴiὐaὄὄe ὅpeἵtaἵleέ It’ὅ ὀὁt juὅt pity that mὁveὅ the ἵὄὁwἶ ἴut
confusion.493
492
Helped by the presence of his infant son; Ash 1999:121 notes the similarity to
courtroom scenes in Cic. Sull. 31.89 and Quint. 6.1.30.
493
The theme of pity here is discussed by Levene 1997:224; cf. Ash 2007:222.
129
Vitelliuὅ’ aἴἶiἵatiὁὀ iὅ, afteὄ all, playeἶ ὁut iὀ the ἔὁὄumέ Ἡe have
seen throughout the Principate so far how Forum spectacles were designed
to reinforce the power and prestige of the protagonists, whether they were a
Nero or Tiridates, or the power of Rome itself, acted out on the bodies of
condemned criminals or defeated enemies. But an emperor does not
deliberately subjugate himself in the Roman Forum. Vitellius may be acting
ὁut a mὁviὀg tὄageἶy, ἴut it’ὅ ὀὁ ὅuὄpὄiὅe that the consul Caecilius Simplex
refuses to play along.494
The people again act as chorus. Attempting to make sense of what
they ὅee, they ὄemiὀἶ uὅ that thiὅ withἶὄawal ‘pacis e re publica causa’ iὅ
takiὀg plaἵe ὁὀ the veὄy ‘ἴattlefielἶ’ wheὄe ἢiὅὁ aὀἶ ἕalἴa were
slaughtered. Vitellius is attempting to use the Forum to reinforce the
‘χuguὅtaὀ’ ὀatuὄe ὁf hiὅ ὅurrender to the consul, standing with the Senate
House and Temple of Concord behind him. But the Lacus Curtius, lying just
a few feet away in the audience, affirms that there can be no peaceful
resolution while the Forum remains a battlefield. Though Vitellius makes
for the ἦemple ὁf ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶ iὀ ὁὄἶeὄ tὁ ‘heal the ὄift’ (aὅ it weὄe), the ἵὄὁwἶ
forces him away from Concord towards the Sacra Via – aὀἶ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ
Temple. His attempt to return power to the Forum a failure, Vitellius returns
to the Palatine.
That night, a skirmish leads Flavius Sabinus to occupy the
Capitoline. With a leader on each hill, there is arguably only one way this
can now end. Defending his decision, Sabinus writes to Vitellius on the
Palatine accusing him not just of being an actor, but an unconvincing one.
Ἡhat ἴetὄayeἶ the ἵeὄemὁὀy aὀἶ the peaἵe tὄeaty aὅ a pὄeteὀἵeς Vitelliuὅ’
planned destination. Sabinus activates the old paradigm:
cur enim e rostris fratris domum, imminentem foro et inritandis hominum
oculis, quam Auentinum et penatis uxoris petisset? ita priuato et omnem
principatus speciem uitanti conuenisse. contra Vitellium in Palatium, in
ipὅam impeὄii aὄἵem ὄegὄeὅὅum […]495
Ἡhy haἶ he maἶe fὁὄ hiὅ ἴὄὁtheὄ’ὅ house which threatened the Forum and
ἶὄew peὁple’ὅ eyeὅ, iὀὅteaἶ ὁf the χveὀtiὀe aὀἶ hiὅ wife’ὅ hὁmeς ἦhat
494
495
On the symbolism of the dagger, see Shaw 2001.
Tac. Hist. 3.70. See Haynes 2003:108.
130
would have been the appropriate thing for a private citizen who wished to
avoid all the show of the Principate. But on the contrary, Vitellius had
ὄetuὄὀeἶ tὁ the ἢalatiὀe, the veὄy ἵitaἶel ὁf impeὄial pὁweὄ […]έ
Sabinus was defending himself and his nephew Domitian from the tyrant in
the only way he could: Vitellius should face Vespasian in the field if he
wishes to fight it out. ἦhe paὄaἶigm iὅ ὅὁ pὁweὄful that ἥaἴiὀuὅ ἵaὀ ‘ἵὄeἶit
Vitellius with far more cunning than Tacitus has presented the emperor as
pὁὅὅeὅὅiὀgέ’496 ἐut Vitelliuὅ iὅ ὀὁ lὁὀgeὄ iὀ ἵὁὀtὄὁl ὁf eveὀtὅμ ‘ὀὁ lὁὀgeὄ aὀ
emperor, but more a ἵauὅe ὁf waὄέ’497 Following the ancient pattern, but
without their Romulus, his soldiers attack the enemy hill. The Capitol burns.
Flavius Sabinus is killed in the chaos and his body is exposed on the
Gemonian Steps, overlooking the Forum.498
The burning of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the
Capitoline has been thoroughly discussed; I pass over it here, but we should
note that the temple’ὅ ὁἴliteὄatiὁὀ maὄkὅ the laὅt ὅtep iὀ the ὅequeὀἵe ὁf
Rὁme’ὅ ἶe-foundation begun, arguably, with the Great Fire in 64. 499 The
history it embodies vanishes into the flames. The memorials of the kings of
Rome are torn from their pedestals and used as barricades. The Gauls could
ὀὁt aἵhieve thiὅ, ἴut Rὁmaὀὅ themὅelveὅ haveέ It’ὅ aὅ if ἦaἵituὅ haὅ takeὀ
hiὅ ὅἵὄὁll ὁf δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt peὀtaἶ aὀἶ ὅhὄeἶἶeἶ itέ500 The Vitellians have
control at the end of the day, but nobody wins.
The final battle for Rome becomes the ultimate (un)real spectacle.
ἦhe peὁple watἵh the ὅὁlἶieὄὅ ‘aὅ if at a ἵὁὀteὅt at the ἕameὅ’ ἵheeὄiὀg eaἵh
side indiscriminately.501 χὅ afteὄ ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeath, it makeὅ ὀὁ ἶiffeὄeὀἵe tὁ
them whoever wins.502 χὅ ώayὀeὅ putὅ it, ‘theiὄ ὄeaἵtiὁὀ tὁ this battle
instantiates what Tacitus often describes as the alienation of the people from
theiὄ pὁlitiἵal ἵὁὀἶitiὁὀ’μ the ὅame ὀihiliὅm that peὄvaἶeἶ theiὄ attituἶe
496
Ash 1999:123.
Tac. Hist. ἁέἅίμ ‘ὀὁὀ iam impeὄatὁὄ ὅeἶ taὀtum ἴelli ἵauὅa eὄat’έ
498
Tac. Hist. 3.74.
499
Edwards 1996:74-82; Gallia 2012:47-85
500
Keitel 2008 hears echoes here not of Livy but of Aeneid 2: Rome becomes Troy again.
501
Tac. Hist. ἁέκἁμ ‘utque iὀ luἶiἵὄὁ ἵeὄtamiὀe’έ
502
Tac. Hist. 1.50.
497
131
towards Otho and Vitellius above. The contest is essentially meaningless,
aὀἶ ‘theiὄ paὄtiἵipatiὁὀ iὅ ὀeitheὄ ὄequiὄeἶ ὀὁὄ ἶeὅiὄaἴle’έ503
Vitellius makes an escape to the Aventine, but is drawn back to the
Palatine, where he is discovered hiding, like Claudius: a foedum
spectaculum.504 Dragged out into the light, he is forced at swordpoint to
gaze at the ἔὁὄumμ tὁ ὅee hiὅ ὅtatueὅ falliὀg, aὀἶ tὁ lὁὁk ‘ὁveὄ aὀἶ ὁveὄ
agaiὀ at the Rὁὅtὄa aὀἶ the plaἵe wheὄe ἕalἴa waὅ killeἶέ’505 It’ὅ a ἵὄuel
mὁἵkeὄyέ ἦhe δaἵuὅ ἑuὄtiuὅ haὅ ἴeeὀ ὁveὄwὄitteὀ iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ text ἴy
ἕalἴa’ὅ ἶeathέ ἦhe ὁlἶ empeὄὁὄ haὅ, iὀ a peὄveὄὅe way, ‘maἶe it’ iὀtὁ
Roman history by virtue of his exceptionally bloody murder. The Rostra,
which Vitellius had tried to turn into the dignified scene of the end of his
own reign, suggests the failure and futility of his attempt to withdraw: the
failure which, as his statues crash to the ground, will lead to his historical
oblivion. He is dragged through the Forum and half-way up the Gemonian
Steps, where he is denied even an exceptional death. Stretched out on the
steps, he has to share his deathplace not just with Flavius Sabinus, but also
with eveὄy fὁὄgὁtteὀ ἵὄimiὀal iὀ the ἢὄiὀἵipate’ὅ hiὅtὁὄyέ506
Histories 3, then, concludes with Flavian victory – but at the cost of
the ἵity’ὅ ὅymἴὁliἵ aὀἶ almὁὅt aἵtual ἶe-foundation. The senators have
scattered, fleeing the city or hiding themselves in the homes of their clients.
The Capitol is a burnt-out wreck, the Forum strewn with broken bodies,
both marble and flesh. And, ominously, out of the chaos emerges
Veὅpaὅiaὀ’ὅ ὅὁὀ Dὁmitiaὀ, tὁ ἴe eὅἵὁὄteἶ iὀ tὄiumph tὁ hiὅ family’ὅ
ancestral domus.507
Return of the Horseman, Part 2: Domitian’s Equestrian Statue
Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ domus finally completed the occupation of the Palatine
ἴy the impeὄial ὄeὅiἶeὀἵeέ ‘ἔὄὁm eveὄy aὀgle, ὁὀe lὁὁkeἶ up at
substructures, buildings, temples and gardens, and everyone, senators and
503
Haynes 2003:109.
Tac. Hist. 3.84.
505
Tac. Hist. ἁέκημ ‘pleὄumque ὄὁὅtὄa aut ἕalἴae ὁἵἵiὅi lὁἵum ἵὁὀtueὄiέ’
506
There is no record of the Gemonian Steps before the reign of Tiberius: they seemed to
have performed a similar function to the Tarpeian Rock. Richardson 1992:345.
507
Tac. Hist. 3.86.
504
132
common folk alike, had to make their way up the hill whenever they were
ὅummὁὀeἶ ὁὄ ὅὁught the favὁuὄ ὁf the empeὄὁὄέ’508 Its dining hall alone was
nearly 100 feet long.509 Iὀ liteὄatuὄe pὄὁἶuἵeἶ afteὄ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἶὁwὀfall this
house casts a long shadow. Distinctions between public and private were
utterly blurred: in foro and in domo, everywhere was vulnerable, any words
could be the wrong ones, anyone could be an enemy. 510 Only the reclusive
emperor was safe from prying eyes.
So powerful is this idea of the Forum subjugated by the Palatine that
it has exerted a strong influence on our own understanding of the space.
χfteὄ all, fὁὄ ἢuὄἵell, aὅ fὁὄ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ ἑaligula, the ἔὁὄum iὅ little mὁὄe
thaὀ aὀ impeὄial ‘fὁὄeἵὁuὄt’.511
The dynamic has been visualised in
reconstruction drawings: see overleaf an example from 1910 (fig. 27). Here
we ὅee a ἔὁὄum ὅquaὄe that’ὅ expaὀὅive, ἵleaὀ, aὀἶ ὅuὄpὄiὅiὀgly emptyέ512
The citizens that are visible are utterly dwarfed by the architecture around
them. The skyline is filled by the great bulk of the imperial domus (which,
with its two square blocks flanking a platform, incidentally looks not unlike
the modern Vittoriano (below, p.211)). The foreground is dominated by an
implausibly large equestrian statue, casting a deep shadow over the
pavement. The imperial domus imminens is indebted to the accounts of
imperial writers, but there is no sign of the chaotic Tacitean crowd or the
hints of bustle and drama in the works of other writers. Come to that, the
numerous other statues, equestrian and otherwise, that filled the Forum are
not depicted. Our gaze is drawn to that ominous figure on horseback,
presiding over the empty square. Although the statue is not labelled, it is
clearly inspired by Domitiaὀ’ὅ equeὅtὄiaὀ ὅtatue, whiἵh ἴὄiefly ὅtὁὁἶ iὀ the
middle of the Forum in the 90s AD.
This statue today exists more as a modern concept than an ancient
monument. It makes a good case study of the ways in which the scholarship
of the Forum has been shaped, both consciously and unconsciously, by
508
Zanker 2002:119. Cf. Stat. Silv. 4.
Fredrick 2003:215.
510
Tac. Ann. 6.7.
511
Purcell 1995:339 (see above).
512
For a contemporary critique of this kind of reconstruction, see Dunn 1915.
509
133
ancient rhetoric. Open a topographical dictionary and you will find it listed
under Equus Domitiani, with a description.
The statue faced east and showed the heavily muscled horse striding
forwards. The princeps was in military dress, with paludamentum and
sword. On his left hand was poised a figure of Minerva, evidently facing
forwards and lifting the aegis; with an extended right hand the princeps
made a gesture of peace.513
This comprehensive description is, in fact, based on only three fragments of
information: an outline in the Forum’ὅ pavement; a single coin; and a poem.
ἡf the thὄee, ὁὀly ὁὀe, ἥtatiuὅ’ Silvae 1.1, is incontrovertibly linked to the
statue itself. Just as the fragments of ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ εaὄὅyaὅ have been glued
together with imagination, our ‘Equus Domitiani’ is heavily indebted to a
reading of Statius and our own preconceptions about the imperial Forum.
ἥtatiuὅ ἶeὅἵὄiἴeὅ aὀ ‘Ecus Maximus Domitiani’, a gigaὀtiἵ hὁὄὅe aὀἶ ὄiἶeὄ
ὅtaὀἶiὀg ‘emἴὄaἵiὀg the δatiὀ ἔὁὄum’.514 From this starting point we can
trace the evolution over the twentieth century of two different incarnations
of the Equus, an ‘archaeological’ statue, and a ‘literary’ one.
Archaeological evidence for the Equus is tentative at best. In 1903,
Giacomo Boni was investigating the subterranean galleries running under
the central area of the Forum. Partly breaking into one of the galleries from
above was a large block of foundation, with three travertine holes or sockets
in its upper face. This massive base (12 m x 6 m) was bigger, Boni
observed, than the foundation of Tiberius’ triumphal arch, and an obvious
identification sprang to mind.515 He wrote, ‘ἑὄeἶὁ ὄeggeὅὅe la ὅὁὅtὄuὐiὁὀe,
ὄeἵeὀtemeὀte ἵhiamata iὀ luἵe, l’equeὅtὄe ὅtatua ἶi Dὁmiὐiaὀὁ ἵon tanta
miὀuὐiὁὅità ὀelle ‘ἥelve’ ὄitὄatta, e valevὁliὅὅima peὄ la tὁpὁgὄafia ἶel ἵuὁὄe
ἶi Rὁmaέ ἑὁὀfeὄma l’ipὁteὅi il luὁgὁ ὁve ἵὁllὁἵa ἥtaὐiὁ la ὅupeὄ impὁὅita
mὁleὅ gemiὀata ἵὁlὁὅὅὁ […]’516 A statue belonging to this base, it was
estimated, would be about six times life-size.517 If the rider were to stand
up, he would be over 10 m tall. (For comparison, the Colossus of Nero is
estimated to have been 30 m tall.) The Director of the British School at
513
Richardson 1992:145; see also Giuliani 1995:228-9.
Stat. Silv. 1έ1μ ‘δatium ἵὁmplexa fὁὄum’έ
515
Boni 1904:574.
516
Ibid. 575.
517
Stuart Jones 1903:15.
514
134
Rome reported to The Times that not everyone was convinced. Of particular
ἵὁὀἵeὄὀ waὅ exaἵtly hὁw the pὄὁpὁὅeἶ ὅtatue’ὅ legὅ ὄelateἶ tὁ the ὅὁἵketὅ iὀ
the base, and the fact that the foundation did not seem to tally with the
surviving example of a bronze equestrian statue, that of Marcus Aurelius in
the Campidoglio.518 ώὁweveὄ, he haἶ tὁ ἵὁὀἵeἶe that ‘ἦheὄe ἵaὀ, at aὀy
rate, be no question that the base occupies precisely the position assigned to
it ἴy the pὁet […] ἦhe ἵὁὄὄeὅpὁὀἶeὀἵe with the pὁὅitiὁὀ ὁf the ὀewly
discovered base is so exact that it is difficult to escape from the conclusion
ἶὄawὀ ἴy ἑὁmmέ ἐὁὀiέ’519
The proof for Boni and his contemporaries lay in the poem, and his
identification stood until the 1980s, when Giuliani and Verduchi published
their analysis of the central area of the Forum. They found that ἐὁὀi’ὅ ἴaὅe
ἵὁulἶ ὀὁt ἴelὁὀg tὁ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ὅtatueμ it predated the Augustan repaving of
the Forum in 12 BC.520 They proposed an alternative site, a rough rectangle
ὁf ἵέ κ m x 1ἀ m viὅiἴle iὀ the pavemeὀt ἶiὄeἵtly tὁ the ὀὁὄth ὁf ἐὁὀi’ὅ
base.521 This rectangle (fig. 28) is on the level of the Augustan pavement,
where paving slabs were removed, presumably to accommodate some kind
of structure, and the hole patched up with an assortment of different slabs
afteὄ the ὅtὄuἵtuὄe’ὅ ὄemὁval. The whole area was covered by the thirdcentury pavement, so we have a terminus ante quem of AD 203έ ἦheὄe’s
nothing archaeological to tie this patch to the Equus other than the same
evidence Boni used, that is, ἥtatiuὅ’ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ ὁf the ὅtatue’ὅ lὁἵatiὁὀέ
However, their identification has received general, if not wholehearted,
acceptance.522
Recent work has continued in the same vein, attempting to deduce
the ὅtatue’ὅ lὁἵatiὁὀ iὀ the area of the Forum. ἔὁὄ example, ἦhὁmaὅ’ ἀίίἂ
article ἴuilἶὅ ὁὀ the iἶea ὁf ‘ὅightliὀeὅ’ liὀkiὀg aὄchitecture. Combining this
with ώeὄὁἶiaὀ’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt ὁf the dream of Septimius Severus (which explains
why that emperor came to set up his own equestrian statue in the Forum) he
518
Stuart Jones 1903:6.
Ibid. 15.
520
Giuliani & Verduchi 1987:133-9.
521
Ibid. 118-22.
522
Coarelli, though sparring with them over the dating of the various pavements, accepts
their argument for the Equus (1985:211-3).
519
135
proposes an alternative site for the Equus. The position is now occupied by
the Column of Phocas and impossible to investigate.523
One pὄὁἴlem iὅ that ἥtatiuὅ’ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ iὅ aἵtually faὄ fὄὁm detailed.
He simply names some of the monuments framing the Forum square:
par operi sedes. hinc obuia limina pandit
qui fessus bellis adscitae munere prolis
primus inter nostris ostendit in aethera diuis;
[…]
at laterum passus hinc Iulia tecta tuentur,
illinc belligeri sublimis regia Pauli,
terga pater blandoque uidet Concordia uultu.524
The setting matches the work. Here opens wide his facing threshold he that
weary of wars first showed our divinities the way to heaven by the gift of
hiὅ aἶὁpteἶ ὅὁὀέ […] ἐut the ὅpὄeaἶ ὁf the flaὀkὅ iὅ ὅuὄveyeἶ fὄὁm ὁὀe
side by the Julian structure and from the other by the palace of martial
Paullus. The back your father beholds, and Concord with her smiling face.
In other words, the statue faces the Temple of Caesar, with the two
Basilicas, Julia and Aemilia, on either side; behind it are the Temples of
Vespasian and Concord. If our sole purpose for consulting the poem is to
find out the location of the statue, then all Statius really tells us is that it
stood in the Roman Forum.
Ἡhy iὅ the ὅtatue’ὅ pὄeἵiὅe lὁἵatiὁὀ ὅὁ impὁὄtaὀtς ἦhe iἶea that we
need to look for a statue base that is truly maximus is not just based on
ἥtatiuὅ, ἴut the aὅὅumptiὁὀ that we aὄe ἶealiὀg with a ‘tyὄaὀt’ὅ’ mὁὀumeὀt,
the ἑὁlὁὅὅuὅ ὁf σeὄὁ’ὅ little ἴὄὁtheὄέ χὅ ὅuἵh, discovering its location will
ὅheἶ fuὄtheὄ light ὁὀ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ‘ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁgὄamme’έ525
The study of the statue in literature runs on parallel tracks to the
archaeological-architectural one, but makes little reference to it. Early
twentieth-century readings of Silvae 1.1. understood it meὄely aὅ a ἵὁuὄtieὄ’ὅ
tὁaἶyiὀg up tὁ a ἶeὅpὁtiἵ empeὄὁὄέ ‘ἦhe pὁet, aὀ aὅpiὄaὀt tὁ pὁlitical favour,
523
Thomas 2004:41-2.
Stat. Silv. 1.1.22-4, 29-31.
525
See pp. 13-14. ἦhe ἵὁὀἵept ὁf ‘impeὄial ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁgὄammeὅ’ ἶateὅ ἴaἵk tὁ the eaὄly
1900s, but the idea seems to have really taken off in the 1940s and 50s with the work of
John Ward-Perkins.
524
136
is abandoned in hiὅ flatteὄy,’ waὅ Scott’ὅ veὄἶiἵt in 1933.526 The gigantic
Equus was a symbol of an era wheὀ ‘aἴὅὁlutiὅm waὅ veὄy pὄὁὀὁuὀἵeἶ’, an
over-the-tὁp mὁὀumeὀt tὁ aὀ uὀwὁὄthy empeὄὁὄ, juὅt like ἥtatiuὅ’ ‘ἴaὄὁque’
verse.527
Later, attempts were made to rehabilitate both poet and emperor. In
1λκἂ (ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄy with ἕiuliaὀi aὀἶ Veὄἶuἵhi’ὅ ὅtuἶy ὁf the pavemeὀt),
Ahl attempted to restore some poetic integrity to Statius. All that hyperbole
that had previously been found so distasteful – ‘uix sola sufficient,
insessaque pondere tanto | subter anhelat humus’, etἵέ – should not be taken
at face value. Its bombast was entirely ironic.528 ‘Iὀ ὅum,’ he wὄiteὅ, ‘[…]
the pὁem iὅ flatteὄy withὁut ἴeiὀg flatteὄiὀgέ χἴὁve all it iὅ a game […] iὀ
which the poet fulfils his obligations – since Domitian ordered him to write
it – aὀἶ yet iὀἶulgeὅ iὀ hiὅ ὁwὀ ὅeὀὅe ὁf pὄivate amuὅemeὀtέ’529 Put another
way, ἥtatiuὅ’ statue is monstrous because Domitian is a monster.
By the 1990s historians were re-evaluating Domitian himself and the
overwhelmingly hostile ancient accounts of his life. Biographies by Jones
(1992) and Southern (1997) aimed to rescue the emperor from the supposed
hatchet jobs done by Tacitus and Suetonius. They prompted a reevaluation
ὁf Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἴuilt legacy in terms of political motivation rather than
personal failings. The Equus was thereby transmuted from a symptom of
despotic excess to an emblem of Flavian pragmatism. One of the most
recent studies, by Dewar, reads the poem in the context of the ἔlaviaὀὅ’
building projects. He argues that Statius, by repeatedly referring to the
ἔὁὄum’ὅ Juliaὀ mὁὀumeὀtὅ, presents the statue as a Flavian stamp on the
‘Juliaὀ’ ἵeὀtὄe ὁf Rὁmeέ ‘Julius and Augustus had done almost as much as
anyone could to make the ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀum iὀtὁ Juliaὀ ὅpaἵeέ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ
statue, however, by position and size, wrenched away the eye from their
aἵhievemeὀtὅέ’530
Meanwhile, literary critics, responding to Ahl, and attempting to
rehabilitate the reputation of panegyric as a genre, have tried to reposition
526
Scott 1933:247.
ἔὁὄ ἥἵὁtt’ὅ ὁwὀ eὀἵὁuὀteὄ with aἴὅὁlutiὅm, ὅee pέἀ1κέ
528
Statius Silv. 1.1.56-ἅμ ‘ὅἵaὄἵe ἵaὀ the ὅὁil hὁlἶ ὁut, the gὄὁuὀἶ paὀtὅ ἴeὀeath the
pὄeὅὅuὄe ὁf ὅuἵh a weightέ’
529
Ahl 1984:100.
530
Dewar 2008:82.
527
137
Statius not as a covert dissenter but as a willing participant in thiὅ ‘ἔlaviaὀ
pὄὁjeἵt’, ἶevelὁpiὀg a ὀew fὁὄm ὁf pὁetὄy fὁὄ the ὀew eὄaμ ‘Dὁmitiaὀ
received from Statius panegyrics more complex and elaborate than any
previous subject ὁf eὀἵὁmiumέ’531 It remains, therefore, possible to study
the Equus of Silvae 1.1 as an entirely literary creation, with only a passing
reference to the physical monument. The most recent study of the poem, by
Marshall, disregards the ‘political’ nature of the poem (and thereby the
statue as statue) to focus on how it operates within the literary tradition of
ecphrastic writing.532 It’ὅ haὄἶ ὀὁt tὁ ὅympathiὅe with σewlaὀἶὅ’ milἶ
exaὅpeὄatiὁὀ wheὀ ὅhe wὄiteὅ that, ‘I wὁulἶ like tὁ mὁve ἴeyὁὀἶ [the
ἶeἴateὅ] […] ἴy ὅuggeὅtiὀg that […] the equeὅtὄiaὀ ὅtatue iὅ itὅelf
amἴiguὁuὅ
aὀἶ
iὀviteὅ
a
vaὄiety
ὁf
iὀteὄpὄetative
ὄeὅpὁὀὅeὅέ’533
Acknowledging the difficulties of accessing the historical reality of
Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ Rὁme, ὅhe tuὄὀὅ heὄ examiὀatiὁὀ ὁf the Silvae back onto Statius
aὀἶ ἶiὅἵuὅὅeὅ hὁw the liteὄaὄy ὅtatue ‘pὄὁviἶeἶ ἥtatiuὅ with aὀ appὄὁpὄiate
tool for engaging the reader in his celebration and exploitation of the
extὄavagaὀἵe ὁf ἔlaviaὀ ἵultuὄe aὀἶ hiὅ ὁwὀ pὁetiἵ aὄtέ’534
Iὀteὄeὅtiὀgly, the pὄὁpὁὅeἶ ὅiὐe ὁf the ‘textual’ ὅtatue gὄὁwὅ ὁὄ
shrinks according to the attitude of each scholar. So, for Geyssen, who is at
pains to paint a sympathetic Domitian and a ὅiὀἵeὄe ἥtatiuὅ, ‘it iὅ
improbable that the Equus Domitiani waὅ ὁf ἵὁlὁὅὅal ἶimeὀὅiὁὀὅέ’535 Dewar
is much less forgiving: the Equus ‘wὄeὀἵheἶ away the eye’ fὄὁm the ὄeὅt ὁf
the ἔὁὄumέ ‘It may iὀἶeeἶ,’ he ὅayὅ, ‘have ἴeeὀ the ἵaὅe that the Equus was
ill-suited to its locale, that it overpowered its surroundings, and that the
visage of the emperor was not easily seen frὁm gὄὁuὀἶ levelέ’536 Such
reconstructions are made without any reference to the proposed remains on
the ground or the Forum itὅelfέ χ ἴaὅe the ὅiὐe ὁf ἕiuliaὀi aὀἶ Veὄἶuἵhi’ὅ
patch, while large, would not be able to support an equestrian statue with
the rideὄ’ὅ heaἶ ὁὀ a level with the ἐaὅiliἵa χemilia’ὅ ὄὁὁfέ
531
Geyssen 1996:11.
Marshall 2011.
533
Newlands 2002:48.
534
Ibid. 40.
535
Geyssen 1996:25.
536
Dewar 2008:82.
532
138
Does the third piece of evidence, the coin, help us? Given the lack of
unambiguous evidence for the Equus, a lot has been invested in this little
sestertius, dated COS XVII (AD 95) (fig. 29, overleaf). If the tantalising
image of horse and rider on the reverse can be shown to corroborate the
ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ iὀ ἥtatiuὅ’ text, theὀ the pὁem upὁὀ whiἵh all the aὄgumeὀtὅ
about the Equus are founded suddenly becomes a much more reliable
historical source and the search for the statue’ὅ base is not in vain. The
identification of this coin type with the Equus was first made by F.
Castagnoli in 1953. ώe wὄὁte that ὅtatue aὀἶ ἵὁiὀ ‘haὀὀὁ iὀὁltὄe pὄeἵiὅe
ἵὁὄὄiὅpὁὀἶeὀὐe’, aὀἶ that ‘ὀella mὁὀeta è viὅiἴile, ὅὁttὁ la ὐampa sollevata,
una testa, che è da identificarsi con la personificazione del Reno di cui parla
Stazio (crimen tegit ungula Rheni).’537
ἦhe ‘heaἶ ὁf the peὄὅὁὀifieἶ Rhiὀe’ uὀἶeὄ the hὁὄὅe’ὅ ὄaiὅeἶ fὄὁὀt
hoof is the crucial detail. ἑaὅtagὀὁli’ὅ iἶeὀtifiἵatiὁὀ of the coin has been
widely, even eagerly, accepted. Darwall-Smith even sees, as well as the
heaἶ ὁf the Rhiὀe, a tiὀy ἢallaἶium iὀ the ὄiἶeὄ’ὅ haὀἶέ538 Geyssen has been
the only writer to pour cold water on this idea of precise corrispondenze,
pointing out that the ὄiἶeὄ’ὅ ὄight aὄm appeaὄὅ tὁ ἴe ὄaiὅeἶ, ὄatheὄ thaὀ
holding the Palladium.539 I would add that eveὀ the ‘heaἶ ὁf the Rhiὀe’ –
actually to the naked eye an amorphous blob – is not clearly a head even at
high magnification. Its shapelessness is especially striking in an image
whiἵh iὅ ὁtheὄwiὅe ὅὁ ἶetaileἶ, ἶὁwὀ tὁ the ἶὄapeὄy ὁf the ὄiἶeὄ’ὅ ἵlὁak, the
haiὄὅ ὁf the hὁὄὅe’ὅ tail, aὀἶ the muὅἵulatuὄe ὁf itὅ legὅέ It’ὅ ὀὁt ὄeally ἵleaὄ
whetheὄ the hὁὄὅe’ὅ hὁὁf iὅ aἵtually ὄeὅtiὀg ὁὀ anything.540 And with no
obvious base depicted on the coin (as with some other coin images of
equestrian statues), we can’t be entirely sure whether we see a
representation of a bronze or a flesh-and-blood rider.541 This particular
pὄὁἴlem ὄegaὄἶiὀg Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ὅeὅteὄtius is brought up by Burnett as an
example ὁf the ἵiὄἵulaὄ ὀatuὄe ὁf the aὄgumeὀtὅμ a ‘ἵaὅe iὅ pὄὁviἶeἶ ἴy the
537
Castagnoli 1953:109.
Darwall-Smith 1996:227.
539
Geyssen 1996:24.
540
And one might argue that if a detail on a coin can only be seen with close magnification
(unavailable to the Romans) then the purpose of the image has failed!
541
For comparison see Hill 1989:66-71.
538
139
rare coins depicting Domitian on horseback; in this case we have a poem by
Statius about such an equestrian statue, the Equus Maximus of Domitian in
the Forum Romanum (Silvae 1.1), thereby making the identity of coin
ἶeὅigὀ aὀἶ mὁὀumeὀt ὅeem plauὅiἴleέ’542 Later, however, he emphasises
the pὄὁἴlematiἵ ὀatuὄe ὁf ἵὁiὀ ἶepiἵtiὁὀὅ ὁf mὁὀumeὀtὅμ ‘the ἶepiἵtiὁὀ ὁf a
structure on a coin cannot be regarded as proof that it existed at that time or
iὀἶeeἶ that it eveὄ exiὅteἶ’ν ‘ἵὁiὀ ὄepὄeὅeὀtatiὁὀὅ ἵaὀὀὁt ὄeally ἴe uὅeἶ aὅ
ὄeliaἴle guiἶeὅ tὁ the ὄeἵὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὁὀὅ ὁf aὀἵieὀt ἴuilἶiὀgὅέ’543 In the
scramble to corroborate Silvae 1.1 the usual caution about numismatic
evidence has been forgotten, or the coin has not been approached with a
sufficiently critical eye.
It’ὅ ἵleaὄ that wheὀ it ἵὁmeὅ tὁ the Equus, ὁὀly ἥtatiuὅ’ pὁem iὅ
secure evidence. There are a number of assumptions at work behind these
various approaches, which ultimately derive from the portrayal of the
ἔὁὄum ἴy wὄiteὄὅ afteὄ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἶeath, the kiὀἶ ὁf pὁweὄful image that
we see in Figure 27.
The first assumption is that the Equus is exceptional. In fact, it’ὅ
exceptional only by virtue of having a panegyric written about it. All
current work on the statue begins with the premise that the statue was, if not
gigaὀtiἵ, theὀ a ὅiὐeaἴle aὀἶ ὅigὀifiἵaὀt impeὄial ὅtatemeὀtέ It’ὅ the ὁὀly
statue included, for example, in Darwall-ἥmith’ὅ ἵatalὁgue ὁf ἔlaviaὀ
architectuὄe at Rὁmeέ ώiὅ juὅtifiἵatiὁὀ iὅ that ‘itὅ pὄὁmiὀeὀt pὁὅitiὁὀ iὀ the
Forum makes it as much an architectural feature as, say, a triumphal
aὄἵhέ’544 As neither the scale nor the position of the statue can be fixed, it
seems misguided to evaluate the Equus alongside the Arch of Titus rather
thaὀ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὁtheὄ ὅtatuaὄyέ ἑeὄtaiὀly theὄe iὅ ὀὁthiὀg unusual in an
emperor receiving a statue in the Forum. The first equestrian statue in the
Forum was of Q. Marcius Tremulus, cos. 306 BC. Septimius Severus and
Conὅtaὀtiὀe’ὅ equi fὁllὁweἶ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅέ545 The final monument to an
emperor was dedicated in AD 608. In fact it would be unusual if Domitian,
542
Burnett 1999:139-40.
Ibid. 146; 148.
544
Darwall-Smith 1996:227.
545
Richardson 1992:144-5.
543
140
who reigned for a comparatively long time, had not received a substantial
monument.
The second assumption is that the setting up of such a statue in the
Forum should be understood as a tyrannical act and would have been
iὀteὄpὄeteἶ aὅ ὅuἵh ἴy Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄieὅ. Because we tend to code
the ἔὁὄum aὅ (ultimately) ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ (ο ‘ἶemὁἵὄatiἵ’), and everything
else afteὄ it ‘impeὄial’ (ο ‘autὁἵὄatiἵ’) it ἵaὀ’t be otherwise. At the very
least, it symbolises how far Domitian has departed from the Principate
founded by Augustus and ‘re-founded’ by his father Vespasian. In other
words, by developing the Argiletum (the area leading into the Forum, later
known as the Forum of Nerva or Forum Transitorium) and placing his
equeὅtὄiaὀ ὅtatue ὄight iὀ the ἵeὀtὄe ὁf the ὅquaὄe (juὅt aὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἔὁὄum
ὄevὁlveἶ aὄὁuὀἶ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὅtatue, aὀἶ χuguὅtuὅ’ hiὅ quadriga), Domitian is
attempting to turn the Forum Romanum into the Forum Domitianum.
ἥtatiuὅ muὅt theὄefὁὄe ἴe eitheὄ ‘aἴaὀἶὁὀeἶ iὀ hiὅ flatteὄy’ ὁὄ a ἵleveὄ
satirist.
However, if we put Silvae 1.1 in the context of other writing about
the Forum we can see that Statius explores the same concerns that Tacitus
aὀἶ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ will wὄite aἴὁut a few yeaὄὅ lateὄέ ώὁw ἶὁeὅ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ
(immense) power fit into the Forum? Can it co-exist without dominating it
(from the hill)? Is imperial activity in the Forum always just lip service?
The Equus can be seen, therefore, as Domitian’ὅ attempt tὁ ὄeὅὁlve the
pὄὁἴlem that leἶ tὁ the ἵataὅtὄὁphe ὁf ἄλέ χὅ we’ll ὅee, ἥtatiuὅ leaveὅ the
question of his success open.
Silvae 1.1 begins with Statius taking the role of an eye-witness
standing in the Forum. He looks up at the statue and attempts to
comprehend what he sees. We are already in the realm of Forum theatrics.
quae superimposito moles geminata colosso
stat Latium complexa forum? caelone peractum
fluxit opus?546
What is this mass that stands embracing the Latin forum, doubled by the
colossus on its back? Did it glide from the sky, a finished work?
546
Stat. Silv. 1.1.1-3.
141
At first it appears to be a shapeless mass (moles), and only gradually comes
into focus as a horse. The bystander finds its origins almost impossible to
guess, and he runs through a number of mythological precedents (8-21).
Later, however, he reveals the scaffolding and workmen as they hammer
away.
ἥtatiuὅ’ ἶeὅἵὄiptiὁὀ ὁf the ‘δatiὀ fὁὄum’ at ἀἀ-35 is in fact one of
only two descriptions of the Forum’ὅ ἴuilἶiὀgὅ in Latin, along with the
wardrobe-maὅteὄ’ὅ ὅpeeἵh fὄὁm Curculio (fig. 30)έ ἥtatiuὅ’ ἔὁὄum, ὁὀ fiὄὅt
glance, is much emptier thaὀ ἢlautuὅ’, but far more magnificent:
hinc obuia limina pandit
qui fessus bellis adscitae munere prolis
primus inter nostris ostendit in aethera diuis;
discit et e uultu quantum tu mitior armis
qui, nec in externos facilis saeuire furores,
das Cattis Dacisque fidem. te signa ferente
et minor in leges gener et Cato Caesaris iret.
at laterum passus hinc Iulia tecta tuentur,
illinc belligeri sublimis regia Pauli:
terga pater blandoque uidet Concordia uultu.
ipse autem puro celsum caput aere saeptus
templa superfulges et prospectare uideris,
an noua contemptis surgant Palatia flammis
pulchrius, an tacita uigilet face Troicus ignis
atque exploratas iam laudet Vesta ministras.547
The setting matches the work. Here opens wide his facing threshold he that
weary of wars first showed our divinities the way to heaven by the gift of
his adopted son. From your countenance he learns how much gentler in
arms are you, that find it hard to rage even against foreign fury, giving
quarter to Cattians and Dacians. Had you borne the standard, his lesser
son-in-law aὀἶ ἑatὁ wὁulἶ have ὅuἴmitteἶ tὁ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὁὄἶiὀaὀἵeὅέ ἐut the
spread of the flanks is surveyed from one side by the Julian structure and
from the other by the palace of martial Paullus. The back your father
beholds, and Concord with her smiling face.
547
Stat. Silv. 1.1.22-31.
142
The comparison set up by Statius between Domitian and Caesar has
ὁἵἵupieἶ muἵh ἵὄitiἵal atteὀtiὁὀέ δet’ὅ igὀὁὄe that fὁὄ ὀὁw aὀἶ fὁἵuὅ ὁὀ the
background.548 Statius shows us Caesar’ὅ ἦemple; the Basilica Paulli
(Aemilia); and, opposite it, the Basilica Julia; the new addition, the Temple
of Vespasian; the Temple of Concord; and the Temple of Vesta. But this
iὅὀ’t juὅt a ὄὁll ἵall ὁf the ὅtὄuἵtuὄeὅ ὁf ἥtatiuὅ’ ὁwὀ ἶayέ Eaἵh ἴuilἶiὀg iὀ
turn brings with it memories of a different era ὁf Rὁme’ὅ paὅtέ ἥὁme have
several different layers of resonance. So our eye, following Statiuὅ’, ὅeeὅ the
Temple of Concord restored by Tiberius, but (knowing our Roman history)
sees through memory the Temple built by L. Opimius in 121 and the defeat
of the Gracchi; even the temple vowed by Camillus in the early days of the
Republic. When we come to the Basilica Paulli we see the building as
restored by M. Aemilius Lepidus in 54, but behind it the memory of
buildings by the Aemilian family going back to 179 BC. The memory is
exteὀἶeἶ eveὀ fuὄtheὄ ἴaἵk ἴy ἥtatiuὅ’ (ἶeliἴeὄateς) ἵὁὀfuὅiὁὀ ὁf L.
Aemilius Paullus with his ‘waὄlike’ aὀἵeὅtὁὄ ὁf the ὅame ὀame, the viἵtὁὄ ὁf
the Second Macedonian War. ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἦemple aἵtivateὅ the comparison
between the dictator and Domitian, but also the memory of his proles
Augustus. The Temple of Vespasian commemorates more recent (family)
history, while the Temple of Vesta houses an unbroken link all the way
back to Troy, the Troicus ignis itὅelfέ ἥtatiuὅ’ ἶeὅἵὄiption of the Forum
invites us to recall a history of Rome through its buildings: we view it with
the same kind of diachronic vision that Augustan poets use in the previous
chapter. Through his statue, Domitian interacts with the great figures of
Roman history.
By alluding to these buildings and their builders Statius repopulates
the Forum with historical heroes. Domitian, on top of his Equus, is not
alone. Here in the same place Statius creates a poetic equivalent of the
statues in the Forum Augustum: Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Paullus (and the
Aemilian family), Camillus, Augustus, Tiberius, Vespasian, Titus –
Domitian. Even Aeneas is invoked by the reference to the Trojan flame.
Viewed with this diachronic vision, Concordia smiles down not just on the
548
E.g. Geyssen 1996; Dewar 2008:73.
143
present, but peaἵe thὄὁughὁut Rὁmaὀ hiὅtὁὄyέ ἑὄiὅiὅ pὁiὀtὅ, like ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ
civil war, or the civil war of 69 that brὁught Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ fatheὄ tὁ pὁweὄ, aὄe
always resolved. The juggernaut of Roman history rolls on.
Bearing this in mind – the ἔὁὄum’ὅ pὁweὄ tὁ ὄeἵall the gὄeat ὅweep
of Roman history – when Statius says ‘par opere sedes’ he makes a bold
statement. ‘ἦhe ὅettiὀg matἵheὅ the wὁὄk’ν Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ὅtatue stakes a claim
to the same historical power and significance as the Forum itself. This is
what the comparison with Caesar actually hinges on –it’ὅ aὅ muἵh a
comparison between the two fora as the two men. Both squares are now
completed by an equestrian statue. But, as Statius says,
cedat equus Latiae qui contra templa Diones
Caesarei stat sede Fori, quem traderis ausus
Pellaeo, Lysippe, duci; mox Caesaris ora
mirata ceruice tulit: uix lumine fesso
explores quam longus in hunc despectus ab illo.
quis rudis usque adeo qui non, ut uiderit ambos,
tantum dicat equos quantum distare regentes?549
δet that hὁὄὅe whὁ ὅtaὀἶὅ iὀ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἔὁὄum ὁppὁὅite δatiaὀ Diὁὀe’ὅ
temple, whὁm yὁu, δyὅippuὅ, ἶaὄeἶ make fὁὄ ἢella’ὅ ἵaptain; soon it
looked over its shoulder aὀἶ maὄvelleἶ tὁ ὅee ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ faἵe. Examine until
your eyes are tired, at how far this horse looks down on the other. Who is
so unschooled as, seeing both, not to declare the horses as far apart as their
riders?
Caesar, this suggests, tried to harness history by ὄeplaἵiὀg χlexaὀἶeὄ’ὅ faἵe
ὁὀ δyὅippuὅ’ ὅtatue with hiὅ ὁwὀέ ἐut the gὄaft ἶὁeὅὀ’t ὄeally take, aὀἶ his
forum ἶὁeὅὀ’t have aὀy Rὁmaὀ hiὅtὁὄy tὁ ἵall ὁn apart from that of its
founder; its uis admonitionis is far weaker than that of the Roman Forum.
When Statius says, in lines 93-4,
stabit, dum terra polusque,
dum Romana dies550
it’ὅ haὄἶ tὁ ignore the irony that stings with hindsight. But, in a way, Statius
is right. If the Forum can be read as a monumental history book, then he has
written the Equus into it. With this gift from the Senate and People,
549
550
Stat. Silv. 1.1.84-90.
‘It shall stand as long as earth and heaveὀ aὀἶ Rὁmaὀ ἶay’.
144
Domitian has reconciled Forum and Palatine.551 His statue embraces the
Forum, and all of Roman history: does not write it out, but writes him in.
Put another way, the statue is only so big because the Forum is so
significant. His answer to the ‘ἢuἴliἵὁla problem’ is to place a version of
himself in the Forum, where all can see it, permanently.
Ἡhetheὄ we aὄe takeὀ iὀ ἴy ἥtatiuὅ’ peὄfὁὄmaὀἵe iὅ aὀὁtheὄ matteὄ,
and he allows for other readings. This is the Forum, after all. That vast
weight of the imperial genius, all that power crammed into the mass of
bronze and iron, causes the always-unstable Forum to groan.
uix sola sufficient, insessaque pondere tanto
subter anhelat humus; nec ferro aut aere: laborant
sub genio […]552
The soil can barely hold out, the ground pants beneath the pressure of such
a weightν ἴut it iὅὀ’t iron or bronze but your genius that ὁveὄlὁaἶὅ it…
After all, by taking up that central position, Domitian competes with the
iconic Forum cavalryman. The Forum cracks open, and Curtius himself
emerges from the depths of the past, roused by the hammerings and
clangings of the workmen.
ipse loci custos cuius sacrata uorago
famosique lacus nomen memorabile seruant,
innumeros aeris sonitus et uerbere crudo
ut sensit mugire Forum, mouet horrida sancto
ora situ meritaque caput uenerabile quercu.
ac primum ingentis habitus lucemque coruscam
expauit maioris equi terque ardua mersit
colla lacu trepidans; laetus mox praeside uiso:
‘ὅalue, magὀὁὄum pὄὁleὅ geὀitorque deorum,
auditum longe numen mihi ! nunc mea felix,
nunc ueneranda palus, cum te prope nosse tuumque
immortale iubar uicina sede tueri
concessum. semel auctor ego inuentorque salutis
Romuleae: tu bella Iouis, tu proelia Rheni,
tu ciuile nefas, tu tardum in foedera montem
longo Marte domas. quod si te nostra tulissent
551
552
Stat. Silv. 1.1.99-100.
Ibid. 56-8.
145
saecula, temptasses me non audente profundo
ire lacu; ὅeἶ Rὁma tuaὅ teὀuiὅὅet haἴeὀaὅέ’553
The very guardian of the place, whose name the sacred chasm and the
famous pool preserve in memory, hears the countless clashes of bronze
and the Forum resounding with harsh blows. He lifts a holy decaying face
and a head made venerable by a well-earned wreath of oak. At first he took
fright of the huge gear and flashing light of a mightier horse [than his
own], as three times trembling he sank his towering neck into the pool.
Soon he rejoiced at the sight of the ὄuleὄμ ‘ώail, ἶeὅἵeὀἶaὀt and sire of
great gods, deity known to me from afar. Now my swamp is blessed, now
it should be revered, as it is permitted me to know you close at hand and
behold your immortal radiance. Only once was I the source and creator of
salvation for the people of Romulus; whereas you in lengthy fighting
subdue the wars of Jupiter, the battles of the Rhine, the civil outrage, the
mountain slow to treat. But if my time had given you birth, you would
have tried to plunge into the deep pool when I dared not venture, but Rome
wὁulἶ have helἶ yὁuὄ ὄeiὀὅέ’
After hundreds of years, Curtius is not a pretty sight. With horrida sancta /
ora, eveὀ hiὅ appeaὄaὀἵe iὅ amἴiguὁuὅμ ‘ὀeitheὄ iἶealiὅeἶ ὅpiὄit ὀὁὄ ἴaὄe
ἴὁὀe, ἴut a ἵὁὄpὅe whiἵh, thὁugh veὀeὄaἴle, iὅ ὄὁttiὀgέ’554 Three times he
retreats back into the lacus ἴefὁὄe aἶἶὄeὅὅiὀg Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ὅtatue. Which
Curtius we are dealing with is also deeply ambiguous. Statius refers to both
the ‘ὅaἵὄeἶ ἵhaὅm’ (sacrata uorago) aὀἶ the ‘famὁuὅ pὁὁl’ (famosi lacus) in
one breath; Curtius wears a mouldering corona ciuica – suggesting Marcus
– but refers to his swamp (palus) – ὅuggeὅtiὀg εettiuὅέ ώe tellὅ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ
ὅtatue that ‘ὁὀly ὁὀἵe ἶiἶ I make aὀἶ fiὀἶ ὅalvatiὁὀ fὁὄ the peὁple ὁf
Rὁmuluὅ’ (ἅκ-9) and yet the epic flavour of Romuleae and the sounds of
clashing bronze and harsh blows (68-9) evoke the memory of the Sabine
and the din of the battle in the valley. This ambiguous Curtius invites us (as
he always does) to pay close attention to the cracks in the façade of this
panegyric poem, to allow multiple interpretations to exist simultaneously.
What might we uὀἶeὄὅtaὀἶ, theὀ, wheὀ ἑuὄtiuὅ ὅayὅ ‘ἡὀly ὁὀἵe ἶiἶ
I make aὀἶ fiὀἶ ὅalvatiὁὀ fὁὄ the peὁple ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’, wheὀ ὁὀe ὁf hiὅ
553
Stat. Silv.1.66-83.
Ahl 1984:97. As Marshall (2011:340) notes, the emergence of Curtius here echoes the
appeaὄaὀἵe ὁf ἔatheὄ ἦiἴeὄ iὀ χeὀeaὅ’ ἶὄeam, Viὄgέ Aen. 8.31-4.
554
146
incarnations fought Romulus as an enemy and only saved the Romans by
accident? Curtius seems almost aware that he is a creation of myth: we
might read a double meaning in auctor and inuentor, ὀὁt juὅt ‘ὅὁuὄἵe’ aὀἶ
‘ἵὄeatὁὄ’ ἴut ‘authὁὄ’ aὀἶ ‘iὀveὀtὁὄ’έ ώe ὄeὅἵueἶ the Rὁmaὀὅ – in fable –
just once, but Domitian has been the auctor and inuentor of four notional
rescues. However, in listing them, Curtius draws our attention both to the
destruction of the Capitol (bella Iouis) and the civil war of 69 (ciuile nefas).
He praises Domitian for resolving these terrible conflicts, for, essentially,
closing up the Lacus. And yet the din of the rising statue has brought battle
sounds back to the Forum, reopened the chasm, even roused ἑuὄtiuὅ’
mouldering corpse. It takes three attempts before Curtius recognises
Domitian as an ally. After all, the most recent cavalrymen in the Forum
were enemies. Ciuile nefas hints at what we all remember about the Lacus,
ἴut ἶὁ ὀὁt ὅayέ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ὅtatue may gὄaὀt the δaἵuὅ ὅaὀἵtity ἴy itὅ
proximity (nunc mea felix, / nunc ueneranda palus), but the repetition of
nunc invites us to wonder what had been so infelix before. The locus that
Curtius protects iὅ the ὅite ὁf aὀ empeὄὁὄ’ὅ muὄἶeὄέ
We ἵὁulἶ eveὀ gὁ fuὄtheὄέ ‘If my time haἶ giveὀ yὁu ἴiὄth,’ ἑuὄtiuὅ
says to Domitian, via the ὅtatue, ‘yὁu wὁulἶ have tὄieἶ to plunge into the
deep pool, when I dared not to, but Rome wὁulἶ have helἶ yὁuὄ ὄeiὀὅέ’555 A
refleἵtiὁὀ ὁf the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ importance to the city, certainly; but by holding
the reins, Rome prevents Domitian from making the ultimate sacrifice. If
allowed to jump, he would actually be Curtius, the nullum clarium
exemplum to history that Valerius Maximus extols.556 But Rome holds him
back. He would not be allowed to close the chasm with his bones, to
become part of the fabric of the Forum. The implication? He is not worthy
of burial within the Forum itself, something reserved only for the greatest
heroes, those who truly understand Rome: Marcus Curtius, Valerius
ἢuἴliἵὁla…
The Equus is a powerful reminder of how ancient rhetoric continues
tὁ iὀflueὀἵe ὁuὄ ὄeἵὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὁὀ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ phyὅiἵal laὀἶὅἵapeέ It’ὅ ὀὁt
555
556
Stat. Silv. 1.1.81-3.
Val. Max. 5.6.2.
147
surprise that getting a fix on the statue is so difficult, as posthumous
condemnation of Domitian is all but universal – thanks, in no small part, to
hiὅ ὅuἵἵeὅὅὁὄὅ σeὄva aὀἶ ἦὄajaὀ, whὁ ‘eὀἵὁuὄageἶ ὀegative pὁὄtὄayalὅ […]
tὁ ἴeὀefit fὄὁm the ἵὁὀtὄaὅt they pὄὁviἶeἶέ’557 The removal (we assume) of
the Equus ὁὀ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἶeath iὀ λἄ waὅ fὁllὁweἶ ἴy σeὄva’ὅ ἶeἵlaὄatiὁὀ
that the imperial domus waὅ ὀὁw the ‘Aedes Publicae’, the ἢeὁple’ὅ
House.558 ἦhe geὅtuὄe haὅ ἴeeὀ ἶiὅmiὅὅeἶ aὅ ‘ὀὁὀὅeὀὅiἵal’έ559 Iὀ faἵt, it’ὅ
part of the same pheὀὁmeὀὁὀ we’ve ἴeeὀ tὄaἵiὀg. By rebranding the
tyὄaὀὀiἵal hὁuὅe ὁὀ the hill the ‘puἴliἵ’ hὁuὅe, σeὄva ὀὁt ὁὀly distanced
himself from Domitian but staked his claim to have resolved χuguὅtuὅ’
legacy once and for all. In ἦaἵituὅ’ wὁὄἶὅ,
[…] Nerua Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac
liἴeὄtatem […]560
Nerva Caesar has combined things once incompatible, the Principate and
liberty.
This is a major theme in Pliny the Younger’ὅ Panegyricus, delivered before
Trajan in the Senate House in AD 100, fὁuὄ yeaὄὅ afteὄ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ
downfall.
Pliny conjures up a vision of Domitian as Minotaur lurking in his
labyrinthine Palatine, the definitive reclusive tyrant. The imperial domus
contorts into a maze of narrow, twisted corridors and barricades, and in the
mὁὅt ὅeἵὄet ὄeἵeὅὅeὅ luὄkὅ ‘the mὁὅt thὄeateὀiὀg ἴeaὅt ὁf all’ (immanissima
belua), whὁ ‘[liἵkὅ] up the ἴlὁὁἶ ὁf hiὅ muὄἶeὄeἶ ὄelativeὅ’, emeὄgiὀg ὁὀly
‘tὁ plὁt the maὅὅaἵὄe aὀἶ ἶeὅtὄuἵtiὁὀ ὁf hiὅ mὁὅt ἶiὅtiὀguiὅheἶ ὅuἴjeἵtὅέ’561
Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ domus reflected itὅ ὁἵἵupaὀt’ὅ paὄaὀὁia, ἴut ὀὁthiὀg ἵὁulἶ ὅave
him fὄὁm hiὅ juὅt ὄewaὄἶ, ‘ὀὁt hiὅ ἶiviὀity, ὀὁὄ thὁὅe ὅeἵὄet ἵhamἴeὄὅ, thὁὅe
cruel haunts where he was driven by fear and pride and hatred of
557
Gallia 2012:89.
Plin. Pan. ἂἅέἂέ Jeὀkyὀὅ ἀί1ἁμηίμ ‘ἦhe liteὄal tὄaὀὅlatiὁὀ […] ‘puἴliἵ hὁuὅe’ wὁulἶ be
pὄefeὄaἴle ἴut fὁὄ a uὀluἵky aἵἵiἶeὀt ὁf Eὀgliὅh uὅageέ’
559
Grainger 2003:55.
560
Tac. Agr. 3.1. This sentence has generated much debate: was it really true? Did Tacitus
himself believe it? Hammond 1963; Liebeschuetz 1966; Shotter 1978 – ἴut we ἶὁὀ’t
necessarily have to be convinced by this claim to appreciate its force. Libertas here has the
muἵh the ὅame fὁὄἵe aὅ iὀ ἥeὀeἵa’ὅ Suasoriae, that is, the freedom of the senatorial class
fὄὁm ἶeὅpὁtiὅm, ὀὁt ‘ἶemὁἵὄaἵy’μ ὅee Ἡiὄὅὐuἴὅki 1λἄίμ1ἁηέ
561
Plin. Pan. 48.3.
558
148
maὀkiὀἶέ’562 ἐut that’ὅ all iὀ the paὅtέ ‘ώὁw muἵh ὅafeὄ iὅ that same domus
today, and how much more secure, now that its occupant [Trajan] finds
protection in popularity instead of cruelty, and not in solitude and seclusion
ἴut iὀ the lὁve ὁf the ἵitiὐeὀὅ!’563
ἦhὄὁughὁut the ὅpeeἵh, the ἵity’ὅ ὅpaἵeὅ ἴluὄ tὁgetheὄ, but here,
uὀlike iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories, the development is positive. Under Trajan, the
Palatine and the Forum are no longer in opposition; in fact, ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ
Palatine is even more forum-like than the Forum:
quod enim forum, quae templa tam reserata? non Capitolium ipsaque illa
adoptionis tuae sedes magis publica magis omnium. nullae obices nulli
contumeliarum gradus superatisque iam mille liminibus ultra semper
aliqua dura et obstantia. magna ante te, magna post te, iuxta te tamen
maxima quies: tantum ubique silentium, tam altus pudor, ut ad paruos
penates et larem angustum ex domo principis modestiae et tranquillitatis
exempla referantur.564
For what forum, what temple is so free of access? Not even the Capitol
and the very site of your adoption are more public and open to all. There
are no obstacles, no grades of entry to cause humiliation, nor a thousand
doors to be opened only to find still more obstacles barring the way. No,
everything is peaceful before reaching you and on leaving you and above
all in your presence; such deep silence, such great reverence, that from the
princeps’ house an example of calm and moderation returns to every
humble hearth and modest home.
ἢliὀy’ὅ ὅpeeἵh tuὄὀὅ the ‘ἢuἴliἵὁla pὄὁἴlem’ ὁὀ itὅ heaἶέ ἦheὄe aὄe ὀὁ
gradus, grades of entry, or more literally stairs or steps to climb to reach the
empeὄὁὄμ it’ὅ aὅ if the hill haὅ ἴeeὀ levelleἶ, muἵh aὅ the ἣuiὄiὀal will ἴe
mὁveἶ ἴaἵk tὁ make way fὁὄ the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ ὁwὀ aἶἶitiὁὀ tὁ the impeὄial
fora. Here, the ideal of the Forum is transplanted into the imperial domus.
Pliny imagines the house of the emperor opening without a threshold into
the house of every citizen, with an openness that turns the whole city into a
562
Ibid. 49.1. In Suet. Dom. 14 it even has reflective walls to reveal would-be assassins; cf.
Fredrick 2003:210-13.
563
Plin. Pan. 49.2.
564
Ibid. 47.5-6.
149
forum – or removes the need for a forum at all. The senators linger on the
Palatiὀe aὅ if it’ὅ a ‘ὅhaὄeἶ hὁuὅeέ’565
ἦhiὅ ἴὄeakἶὁwὀ ὁf ὁlἶ ἴaὄὄieὄὅ ὄeiὀfὁὄἵeὅ ἢliὀy’ὅ meὅὅage that
Trajan has not so much returned to the Augustan model of the Principate,
but superseded it. This is what the Principate should have been in the first
place. ἦὄajaὀ iὅ mὁὄe thaὀ ‘χuguὅtuὅ’, he iὅ ‘ἡptimuὅ’, ἵὁmἴiὀiὀg the
decorum of a Roman magistrate with the benign authority of Jupiter
himself.566 Where before the Principate was held together with artifice,
Trajan is the real deal.567 This principatus restauratus, unlike the res
publica restaurata, is not an illusion but a meaningful reconciliation of the
best elements of the Republic (i.e.: the authority of the Senate) and of
χuguὅtuὅ’ legaἵy (the princeps that guarantees the libertas of the Senate).
For Pliny, as for Tacitus and Suetonius, an all-pervasive theatricality
ἵhaὄaἵteὄiὅeὅ the pὄeviὁuὅ ἵeὀtuὄy’ὅ ἵὁὄὄuptiὁὀέ The city of Rome was no
more than a theatre, in which consuls played alongside pantomime actors.568
Pliny, now consul himself, is not acting. Like Trajan, he is (acting) genuine.
The people too have finally kicked the addiction to games that has enslaved
them ὅiὀἵe the ἶayὅ ὁf σeὄὁ, the ‘aἵtὁὄ-empeὄὁὄ’ (scaenici imperatoris).569
ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ spectaculum is not the effeminate gyrations of actors, the debased
posturings of a tyrant, or the murders of falsely-accused citizens, but the
cleansing of the Forum: the drama of the operating theatre:
at tu Caesar, quam pulchrum spectaculum pro illo nobis exsecrabili
reddidisti! uidimus delatorum agmen inductum, quasi grassatorum quasi
latronum. non solitudinem illi, non iter sed templum sed forum insederant
[…]έ aἶueὄtiὅti ὁἵulὁὅ atque ut aὀte ἵaὅtὄiὅ, ita pὁὅtea paἵem fὁὄὁ
reddidisti; excidisti intestinum malum et prouida seueritate cauisti, ne
fundata legibus ciuitas euersa legibus uideretur.570
But what a splendid spectacle you showed us, Caesar, in contrast to that
hateful scene! We saw the informers marched in, like a band of robbers or
brigands – only their haunts had not been at the roadside or in lonely spots,
Plin. Pan. ἂκέἁμ ‘ut iὀ ἵὁmmuὀi ἶὁmὁ’έ
Ibid. κκέἂέ ἔὁὄ a ἶiὅἵuὅὅiὁὀ ὁf ‘ἡptimuὅ’ ὅee ἐeὀὀett 1λλἅμ106-7.
567
Pliny goes to extreme lengths to stress this: Pan. 11, 16.3, 17, 21.3, 93.
568
Ibid. 54.1.
569
Ibid. 46.4.
570
Plin. Pan. 34.1-2.
565
566
150
but iὀ temple aὀἶ fὁὄumέ […] Yὁu tuὄὀeἶ yὁuὄ atteὀtiὁὀ tὁ the pὄὁἴlem,
and peace was restored to the Forum, as it had been to the Camp; you cut
out the tumour in our midst, and your stern wisdom ensured that a state
founded on laws should not be seen to perish thὄὁugh the lawὅ’ aἴuὅeέ
Before, a spatial confusion, with barriers in the wrong places. Palatine and
Forum were out of joint, and the public heart of the city became a theatre, or
a wasteland haunt of robbers and brigands. Now Trajan restores order and
succeeds in striking that elusive but crucial balance:
ciuile hoc et parenti publico conuenientissimum nihil cogere, semperque
meminisse nullam tantam potestatem cuiquam dari posse, ut non sit gratior
potestate libertas.571
To use no force, to remember at all times that whatever the powers anyone
iὅ gὄaὀteἶ, liἴeὄty will alwayὅ ἴe ἶeaὄeὄ tὁ meὀ’ὅ heaὄtὅ – this is indeed
citizenly and appropriate for the father of us all.
Here Pliny describes a vision of the Principate in which, rather than
oppressing it, the princeps guarantees the libertas of the citizens.572 From
the vantage point of the twenty-first century, the paradox is very obvious.
It’ὅ ἵleaὄ that, ὁὀ ὁὀe level, that ‘wheὀ all iὅ ὅaiἶ aὀἶ ἶὁὀe, the Rὁmaὀ
people had been the victims of a well-managed confiἶeὀἵe tὄiἵkέ’ 573 Gallia
writes,
The fact remained that, on a basic level, freedom was conceptually
iὀἵὁmpatiἴle with the fetteὄὅ that aὀ empeὄὁὄ’ὅ pὁweὄ impὁὅeἶ ὁὀ
contemporary political life. These senators may have been more willing to
accept such contradictions than M. Brutus or Cato the Younger had been,
ἴut thiὅ ἶὁeὅ ὀὁt meaὀ that the pὄὁἴlem ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ὄelatiὁὀὅhip tὁ liἴeὄty
went away.574
Ἡiὄὐὅuἴὅki’ὅ pὁὅitiὁὀ iὅ eveὀ ἴleakeὄμ ‘It wὁulἶ take mὁὄe thaὀ ἢliὀy’ὅ
rhetoric to conceal the fact that his Panegyric marked the surrender of
ἵὁὀὅtitutiὁὀal fὄeeἶὁmέ’575 Of course, this contributes to the idea that the
ἔὁὄum ὁf ‘εέ ἐὄutuὅ aὀἶ ἑatὁ the Yὁuὀgeὄ’ waὅ ὄeἶuἵeἶ tὁ ‘a veὀeὄaἴle
aὀἶ gὄaὀἶ fὁὄeἵὁuὄt’ tὁ the ὀewly ‘puἴliἵ’ impeὄial domus.576 Whether or
571
Ibid. 87.1.
Gowing 2005:125.
573
Bennett 1997:208.
574
Gallia 2012:248.
575
Wirszubksi 1960:171.
576
See p.89.
572
151
not Trajan really could resolve the paradox (and the evidence suggests that
hiὅ pὁliἵieὅ weὄe ὀὁ leὅὅ autὁἵὄatiἵ thaὀ Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ) hiὅ laὅtiὀg legaἵy waὅ
tὁ peὄmaὀeὀtly fix ‘ὄeὅpeἵt fὁὄ the tὄaἶitiὁὀal ἥἢἣR’, aὄtiἵulateἶ iὀ the
Roman Forum, as one of the standard expectations of imperial behaviour.
Ratheὄ thaὀ ἴeiὀg eliἶeἶ ὁut ὁf ὅigὀifiἵaὀἵe ἴy the ὀὁw ‘puἴliἵ’ ἢalatiὀe,
the Forum remained a crucial site fὁὄ expὄeὅὅiὀg the ‘optimus principatus’.
Visually, the message is conveyed by the two second-century reliefs known
as the Anaglypha Traiani.
Roughly 5.5 m long and 2 m high, these reliefs were discovered near
the Senate House in 1872.577 (Visible in situ in figs. 65 and 72.) They
appeared to have been incorporated into the foundations of a medieval
tower. What they were for, exactly, is unclear, although their upper surfaces
contain holes, perhaps for balustrades.578 Their size and weight makes it
unlikely that the medieval builders moved them far, so we can assume they
originally stood in the Forum. (We met them briefly in Chapter 1 when
discussing the statue of Marsyas.) They have not been much discussed since
ἦὁὄelli’ὅ ὅtuἶy iὀ 1λκἅ – odd, as they provide a rare depiction of an emperor
in the Forum.579
Following Torelli, we can interpret the two reliefs as showing the
Fὁὄum’ὅ weὅteὄὀ flaὀk, the fiὄὅt (fig. 31) from the Rostra in front of the
Temple of Divus Julius, across the Temple of Castor and halfway down the
façade of the Basilica Julia, the second (fig. 32) continuing the Basilica
Julia’ὅ faὦaἶe tὁ the ἦempleὅ ὁf ἥaturn, Vespasian and (probably)
Concord.580 The statue of Marsyas and the ficus Ruminalis (sacred fig tree)
appear at the right and left ends of each relief respectively, forming a pivot
linking the two. The architecture is stylised but each building is
recognisable from telling details, such as the Ionic capitals of the Temple of
Saturn. On the reverse of both panels are depicted the animals of the
suovetarilia – a sacrificial pig, sheep and bull.
577
First published by Henzen 1872. The most detailed discussion remains Torelli 1987.
Torelli 1987:108 suggests that they enclosed the ficus Ruminalis and the statue of
Marsyas.
579
E.g., the 2010 volume The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation and Ritual – for
which they might have been designed – does not feature them (or Trajan) at all.
580
Concord is reconstructed by Torelli 1987:96, as the frieze is damaged at this end.
578
152
If we fὁἵuὅ ὀὁw ὁὀ the ‘left haὀἶ’ paὀel (fig. 31) – with Marsyas on
the right – what we ὅee, aὄguaἴly, iὅ the viὅual ἵὁmplemeὀt tὁ ἢliὀy’ὅ
speech: a Roman princeps getting the Forum right. The panel has
tὄaἶitiὁὀally ἴeeὀ kὀὁwὀ aὅ the ‘alimentaria’ ὄelief, ἴut eveὀ withὁut
knowledge of the specific occasion depicted (if there is one) the relief has a
strong visual impact. We see, on the left, the emperor addressing a crowd of
citizens. Right of centre appears to be a statue group, and on the far right
stands Marsyas and the ficus.
On first glance, with all we already know about Marsyas and the
grief he brought Augustus, there is a certain paradoxical quality to the
satyr’ὅ pὄὁmiὀeὀἵe at the opposite end of the scene to Trajan. But then we
realise that the emperor may well appear twice. On the left, he addresses the
Senate and People from the Rostra by the Temple of Divus Julius.581 Right
of centre, he seems to appear seated next to a female figure as part of the
statue group on a large base. (Hammond suggested this was a sculpture
group representing the institution of the alimenta (grain dole), hence the
traditional explanation of the scene.582) The position of this group perhaps
roughly corresponds to that of Statius’ Equus. In place of the tyrant isolated
on horseback, the famously pedestrian Trajan is not alone here or on the
Rostra.583 His prominence is enhanced by the traditional Forum landscape.
Aside from the Rostra, the Julio-Claudian elements (the Arch of Augustus,
the Basilica Julia) are present but relegated to backdrop, and the monuments
emphasised are either originally ancient (Marsyas and the ficus, the Temple
of Castor) or very new (the statue group). No other Forum furniture is
shown.
As in Silvae 1έ1, a veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy ἵaὀ ἴe ὄeaἶ fὄὁm the
Forum here. The ficus Ruminalis takes us back to Romulus, the Temple of
Castor to the foundation of the Republic. Julio-Claudians are present but
downplayed; the Flavians are conspicuous by their absence. Trajan on the
ἦὁὄelli 1λκἅμλί wὄiteὅ that ‘we aὄe iὀ fὄὁὀt ὁf aὀ aὄὄaὀgemeὀt ὁf the populus according
to the status of its members, where the two rows of togati represent senators and knights
and the rest of the people wearing the humble paenula [cloak] are the plebs.’ χuguὅtuὅ
would not be impressed by this plebeian dress-code infringement.
582
Hammond 1956.
583
Pliὀy ὅtὄeὅὅeὅ ὀὁt juὅt ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ fὁὀἶὀeὅὅ fὁὄ walkiὀg (Pan. 14.3, 22.1, 24.1) but his wife
ἢlὁtiὀa’ὅ tὁὁ (κἁέἂέκ)έ
581
153
Rostra is framed by the portico of the Temple of Castor, which links him
subtly to the expulsion of the Tarquins and foundation of the Republic as (in
ἢliὀy’ὅ wὁὄἶὅ) ‘a ὅtate fὁuὀἶeἶ ὁὀ lawὅ’έ If εaὄὅyaὅ, theὀ, waὅ the
guarantor of traditional libertas, he is balanced by Trajan, the guardian of
the ‘ὀew’ libertas, whiἵh ‘ὀὁt ὁὀly aἵἵὁmmὁἶateὅ, ἴut requires the presence
ὁf the ὅiὀgle leaἶeὄέ’584 Marsyas appears again on the second panel (fig. 32,
which perhaps represents the burning of debts), this time balanced by the
Temple of Concord. From the left, soldiers bring tabulae to the centre
where they are piled up, watched by a senator and plebeian. These are not
unruly civil warriors, but Roman soldiers serving the state. On the far right,
just at the point where the relief is damaged, we see the beaks of the Rostra
and possibly a hint of a figure on it. ἦhe flatteὀiὀg ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὀὁὄth
weὅteὄὀ ἵὁὄὀeὄ ὁὀ thiὅ ὄelief eὀἵὁuὄageὅ uὅ tὁ ‘ὄeaἶ’ the paiὄ fὄὁm left tὁ
right: princeps – senatus – populus – libertas – libertas – milites – SPQR –
princeps? – concordia. ἦhe ‘optimus principatus’ wὁὄkὅ iὀ peὄfeἵt harmony
with the most traditional and Roman of settings.
Removing the hill
ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ὁwὀ ἔὁὄum, ἶeἶiἵateἶ iὀ 11ἁ, waὅ ἵelebrated by ancient
visitors as one of the wonders of Rome (figs. 34-5).585 It was largest
imperial forum (185 x 300m); many parts are still unexcavated and some
very basic points remain unclear: where was the main entrance? Was the
‘liἴὄaὄy ἵὁmplex’ with ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἑὁlumὀ paὄt ὁf the ὁὄigiὀal plaὀς Diἶ
Hadrian add a Temple to Trajan, or was it integral to the initial design?586 A
detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this project, but in the context of
the material already covered we can shed light on two of its elements: the
Basilica Ulpia and the Column.
584
Gowing 2005:125.
Dedication: Dio 68.16.3; visitors: Paus. 5.12.11; Amm. Marc. 16.10.15; Cassiod. Var.
7.6.1.
586
The most recent major publicatiὁὀ ὁf the ἔὁὄum ἦὄaiaὀum iὅ ἢaἵkeὄ 1λλἅ, with aὀ ‘iὀ
ἴὄief’ veὄὅiὁὀ, Packer 2001; see also Zanker 1970. Claridge 1993 suggests that Hadrian
added the Temple and also the frieze on the Column; the case for the whole complex being
ώaἶὄiaὀ’ὅ aἶἶitiὁὀ iὅ ὅuggested by the large number of Hadrianic brick stamps in that area
(Richardson 1992:178); Jenkyns 2013:347 favours the whole complex. Minimal
archaeological evidence of a Temple of Trajan survives.
585
154
Looking at the Forum ἦὄaiaὀum’ὅ gὄὁuὀἶ plaὀ, it’ὅ appaὄeὀt that the
architect, Apollodorus of Damascus, produced an innovative design. Unlike
all its predecessors, the Forum Traianum is a square, a Vitὄuviaὀ ‘agὁὄa’
ὄatheὄ thaὀ a ὄeἵtaὀgulaὄ ‘fὁὄum’έ587 In place of a dynastic temple, one side
of the Traianum’ὅ ὅquaὄe iὅ ὁἵἵupieἶ ἴy the length of the enormous Basilica
Ulpia.588 ἢaἵkeὄ ὅuggeὅtὅ thiὅ waὅ iὀflueὀἵeἶ ἴy the ἶeὅigὀ ὁf Veὅpaὅiaὀ’ὅ
Temple of Peace; a more popular explanation is that Apollodorus was
inspired by the plan of a Roman military headquarters – appropriate for a
complex funded by the spoils of Dacia.589
In fact, including a basilica at all was an innovation for the imperial
fora: this was an architectural feature unique to the Roman Forum. If we
tuὄὀ ἴaἵk tὁ the χὀaglypha, we ὅee that the ὄeliefὅ’ ἴaἵkgὄὁuὀἶ iὅ paὄtly
formed by the façade of the Basilica Julia, viewed face-on. We tend to think
ὁf the twὁ ἐaὅiliἵaὅ aὅ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ flaὀkὅ, fuὀὀelliὀg uὅ up tὁ the
Capitoline, but in the Anaglypha the ἐaὅiliἵa Julia’ὅ faὦaἶe leaveὅ aὀ
impression not unlike that of the Basilica Ulpia in the Forum Traianum. Put
aὀὁtheὄ way, χpὁllὁἶὁὄuὅ haὅ takeὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’ὅ mὁὅt ἶiὅtiὀἵtive
architectural form and made it the focal point of his new square. Instead of a
ἶyὀaὅtiἵ temple, ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἔὁὄum iὅ ἶefiὀeἶ ἴy a ἴuilἶiὀg ἶevὁteἶ tὁ the
workiὀgὅ ὁf a ‘ὅtate fὁuὀἶeἶ ὁὀ lawὅ’, guiἶeἶ ἴy a princeps who had
received his position through legal adoption, not inheritance. The very
mechanism of adoption was presented by his contemporaries as a further
safeguard for libertas and a way of avoiding the civil wars that had engulfed
Rome at the end of the two previous dynasties.590
ώὁweveὄ, iὀ tὄue ἦὄajaὀiἵ ὅtyle, the ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ ὅigὀalὅ aὄe
iὀteὄtwiὀeἶ with ‘χuguὅtaὀ’ ὁὀeὅμ the hemiἵyἵleὅ evὁἵative ὁf the ἔὁὄum
Augustum, portraits of former emperors and members of the imperial
family, and the equestrian statue of Trajan himself. Architecturally, the
587
Vitruv. 5.1.1.
Claridge 2012:186.
589
Packer 2001:174-5; Bennett 1997:154. σέἐέ ἢaἵkeὄ ὄefeὄὅ tὁ the ‘ἔὁὄum’ ὁf ἢeaἵe, ἴut
this name appears only in late antiquity.
590
Plin. Pan. κέ1ν thiὀk ὁf ἕalἴa’ὅ aἶmiὄaἴly mὁtivateἶ ἴut ultimately faileἶ aἶὁptiὁὀ ὁf
Piso at Histories 1 (above pp. 111-12). Morford 1991:3440 makes adoption a crucial part
ὁf ἦaἵituὅ’ thiὀkiὀg aἴὁut libertas.
588
155
ἵὁmἴiὀatiὁὀ ὁf hemiἵyἵle with ἴaὅiliἵa ὄeiὀfὁὄἵeὅ itὅ ἴuilἶeὄ’ὅ ἵlaim tὁ ἴe
the ‘optimus princeps’έ
On the other side of the Basilica Ulpia from the open space stands
ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἑὁlumὀέ Itὅ ἶeἶiἵatὁὄy iὀὅἵὄiptiὁὀ (fig. 35) ἶὁeὅὀ’t mention the
Dacian campaigns depicted in the spiralling frieze, but directs us to
remember an engineering miracle:
SENATVS POPVLUVSQVE ROMANVS
IMP CAESARI DIVI NERVAE F NERVAE
TRAIANO AUG GERM DACICO PONTIF
MAXIMO TRIB POT XVII IMP VI COS VI P P
AD DECLARANDVM QVANTAE ALTITVDINIS
MONS ET LOCVS TANT<IS OPER<IBVS SIT EGESTVS 591
Dio supplements the inscription with the note that Trajan intended the
Column to be his tomb ( αφ ).592 The removal of the mons and the αφ
both, tantalisingly, tie in to the legend of a familiar figure as told by one of
ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄieὅ, ἢlutaὄἵhμ Valeὄiuὅ ἢuἴliἵὁlaέ Ἡe ὅaw iὀ ἑhapteὄ
1.1 how the Roman Forum was believed to be built on the bones of heroes –
Romulus, Hostilius, Curtius and Publicola himself was said to have been
buried in the valley. Burial within the pomerium had been granted
(aἵἵὁὄἶiὀg tὁ ἢlutaὄἵh) ὁὀly tὁ Rὁme’ὅ gὄeateὅtέ If the ἑὁlumὀ ὄeally waὅ tὁ
ὅeὄve aὅ ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ αφ , then the Senate and People had granted him an
honour that was as (purportedly) ancient as it was exclusive.
In the context of this chapter, the very removal of the hill is revealed
tὁ ἴe ἶeeply ὅymἴὁliἵέ ἢliὀy’ὅ ἦὄajaὀ haἶ levelleἶ the hill metaphὁὄiἵally in
the Panegyricus, and now it was achieved for real, in order to create a new,
open forum. This is not the tyrannical earth-shaping of a Tarquin or
Caligula, but a process carefully presented as the work of a Roman state in
harmony. With its traditional dedicatory inscription, military frieze and
emperor-sculpture, the Column unites the elements that Trajanic historians
had described in conflict over the previous century: Senate, People,
princeps and troops. Now the SPQR acclaimed the hard work of the army,
591
592
CIL 6.960.
Dio 68.16.
156
under the benign leadership of the optimus princeps. All could now climb
the ἑὁlumὀ’ὅ ὅpiὄal ὅtaiὄἵaὅe, aὀἶ lὁὁk aἵὄὁὅὅ the ἔὁὄum valleyέ
That said, from the ground level, looking up at the great Basilica,
one would be able to see high above Trajan himself, perpetually looking
down (imminensς) fὄὁm the ἑὁlumὀ’ὅ piὀὀaἵleέ ἦhe hill waὅ ὄemὁveἶ, ἴut
the height remained.
157
158
Intermezzo – St Silvester and the Dragon
On this spot, during the reign of the Emperor Constantine.
A terrible dragon lived in a pit beneath the Forum and belched out
noxious fumes until the whole city was suffering from its poison. It seemed
that nothing could be done. Then Pope Silvester took divine advice. He
ἶeὅἵeὀἶeἶ iὀtὁ the pit aὀἶ ὅealeἶ the ἶὄagὁὀ’ὅ mὁuth with the ὅigὀ ὁf the
Cross. Rome was saved, and its people turned to Christ in great numbers.
This version of a story dating back to the late fourth century was
recorded by the architect Andrea Palladio (1508-1580) in his 1554
description of the antiquities of Rome.593 He located the pit beneath the
church of S. Maria, whose epithet, ‘Liberatrice’, supposedly referred to
Rὁme’ὅ ἶeliveὄaὀἵe fὄὁm the ἶὄagὁὀέ594 Dὁeὅ ἥilveὅteὄ’ὅ ἶeὅἵeὀt iὀtὁ the pit
sound familiar? Before S. Maria Liberatrice, the church was named S.
Silvestro in Lacu.595 An earlier version of the legend, recorded in the
twelfth-century guidebook Mirabilia Urbis Romae, mentions Silvester, the
dragon and the leap of Marcus Curtius in almost a single confused breath.
[…] eὅt lὁἵuὅ qui ἶiἵituὄ Iὀfeὄὀuὅ, eὁ quὁἶ aὀtiquὁ tempore ibi eructuabat
et magnam pernitiem Romae inferebat; ubi quidam nobilis miles, ut
liberaretur civitas, responso suorum deorum armatus proiecit se, et clausa
est terra, sic ciuitas liberata est. ibi est templum Vestae, ubi dicitur inferius
draco cubare, sicut legimus in uita beati Siluestri.596
[...There] is a place which is called Hell, because in ancient times it
erupted there and brought great harm to Rome; where a certain noble
soldier, in order to save the city, responded to their gods by arming himself
and throwing himself into the pit, and the ground closed up; so the city
was saved. There is the Temple of Vesta, below which a dragon is said to
sleep, just as we read in the life of Saint Silvester.
593
Palladio 1554. The first version of the Acts of Silvester dates from the late 4th c. AD,
with a second closely related version dating to AD 500: Ogden 2013:221 discusses the
textual history. There is some confusion in the earliest versions about the exact location of
the dragon. Acts of Silvester B (Duchesne), c.500, puts it under the Tarpeian Rock, so on
the boundary between the Capitoline and Forum, but later iterations settle on the Forum
proper. Other studies of the legend: Loenertz 1975, Pohlkamp 1983; Canella 2006.
594
Watkin 2009:115.
595
Lanciani 1988:152.
596
M.U.R. ἀηέ ἦhiὅ iὅ likely the eὄa wheὀ ἑuὄtiuὅ’ ἵhaὅm aἵquiὄeἶ itὅ flameὅέ
159
It’ὅ temptiὀg tὁ ὅee the ὅtὁὄy ὁf Silvester as a Chὄiὅtiaὀ ‘alteὄὀative’ ὁὄ
‘aὀὅweὄ’ tὁ the ὅtὁὄy ὁf ἑuὄtiuὅ – though of course both legends existed
simultaneously.597 We know little about the historical Silvester; a
contemporary of Constantine, he predeceased the first Christian emperor by
two years.598 Early-medieval legend weaves him into the story of
ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe’ὅ ἵὁὀveὄὅiὁὀ tὁ ἑhὄiὅtiaὀityέ
The fullest account of the dragon legend, from the thirteenth-century
Vita Silvestri iὀ Jaἵὁἴuὅ ἶe Vὁὄaigὀe’ὅ Legenda Aurea, plaἵeὅ ἥilveὅteὄ’ὅ
saving of the Forum in the context of the transfer of power from Roman
emperor to Roman pontiff. In this version, Silvester cures the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ
divinely-induced leprosy by baptising him. The narrative proceeds from
ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe’ὅ ἵὁὀveὄὅiὁὀ to the conversion of all Rome, culminating in the
Forum episode.
In this account, the dragon is not a sudden pestilence but a habitual
feature of the Forum. The Vestal Virgins have traditionally kept it happy by
feeding it cakes every five years. But now the pagan priests inform the
newly-converted empeὄὁὄ that ‘ὅiὀἵe yὁu aἶὁpteἶ the ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ faith the
dragon in the pit [fouea] has killed more than three hundred people a day
with itὅ ἴὄeath!’599 Constantine consults Silvester, who promises to stop the
dragon. In turn, the pagans (confident in his failure) promise to believe in
Christ if he succeeds. Silvester descends forty feet into the pit, accompanied
by two presbyters. He speaks to the dragon and ties up its roaring mouth.
On the way back up, they stumble over two magicians (magos) who had
followed them down to check that they had done what they promised; they
aὄe almὁὅt ἶeaἶ fὄὁm the ἶὄagὁὀ’ὅ ἴὄeathέ
Charles Hemans wrote in hiὅ ἔὁὄum guiἶeἴὁὁk ὁf 1κἅἂμ ‘ἦheὄe aὄe twὁ legeὀἶὅ, the
scene of both which is here before us, and whose contrasted characters well serve to
illustrate the spirit of Heathen and Christian times. Classic legend presents to us the
yawning gulf, the self-devotion of Curtius, valour and patriotism personified in him whose
sublime self-sacrifice delivers Rome from disaster and danger; and on the same spot
Christian legend imagines the mystic triumph of the saintly Pope Sylvester over the
peὅtileὀtial ἶὄagὁὀ […] – a picturesque allegory of the overthrow of Paganism through
Christian faith, the purifying of a corrupt social state through virtue of doctrines and
iὀflueὀἵeὅ that emaὀate fὄὁm the ἑὄὁὅὅ!’ pp. 240-1.
598
Ogden 2003b:222.
599
De Voraigne Vita Silvestri 9.
597
160
etiam eos secum adduxit incolumes atque sanos, qui statim cum
multitudine infinita conuersi sunt sicque Romanorum populus a duplici
morte liberates, scilicet a cultura daemonis et ueneno draconis.600
He brought them out with him unharmed, and at once they were converted
alongside a countless multitude. And so the Roman people were delivered
from a double death: that is, from the worship of the Devil and the
ἶὄagὁὀ’ὅ pὁiὅὁὀέ
χὅ ἡgἶeὀ ὁἴὅeὄveὅ, ἥilveὅteὄ’ὅ ἶefeat ὁf the ἶὄagὁὀ ‘ostentatiously
appropriates the imagery of Revelation, in which St Michael does the same
thing to the Revelation ἶὄagὁὀέ’601 The presence of the Vestal Virgins and
pagan priests makes this a story of the triumph of Christianity over
paganism.602 But its setting gives it a wider significance, as we can see by
considering it alongside two other depictions of the Life of Silvester.
In the church of Ss. Quattro Coronati in Rome, the thirteenthcentury Oratorio di S. Silvestro (roughly contemporary with the Legenda
Aurea) is decorated with frescoes (dating to c.1248) showing the story. Its
political undercurrents are here made overt (fig. 36). Constantine, in
gratitude to Silvester, presents him with the imperial tiara and insignia, and
ὁὀ fὁὁt leaἶὅ the ἢὁpe’ὅ hὁὄὅe thὄὁugh the ἵityέ ἥἵhὁlaὄὅ have ὅeeὀ heὄe a
reference to the so-ἵalleἶ ‘Dὁὀatiὁὀ ὁf ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe’, the ὀὁtὁὄiὁuὅ eighthcentury forgery of an imperial decree granting Pope Silvester authority over
the Western Empire. 603 In the mid-thirteenth century, when the papacy was
entangled in a struggle for supremacy with the Holy Roman Emperors, the
Donation was a trump card, legal proof that the Pope was the true heir to the
temporal authority of the ancient empire. It would not be conclusively
exposed as a fraud for another century.604
The story of Silvester and the dragon was depicted again in around
1340 by Maso di Banco in a fresco series for the Bardi di Vernio chapel in
the church of Santa Croce, Florence. Again, the Forum episode forms the
ἵulmiὀatiὁὀ ὁf the ὀaὄὄative, ἴut εaὅὁ, whὁ ‘aἶheὄeὅ ὄigiἶly tὁ […] the
600
Ibid.
Ogden 2013b:223.
602
There are two other references in much earlier texts to the Vestal Virgins keeping a
dragon: Tert. Ad. Ux. 1.6.3 and Paulinus Carm. 32.143-6. Ogden 2013:225 sees echoes in
the story of a historical snake cult.
603
Marcone 2008; Mitchell 1980.
604
ἦhe hiὅtὁὄy ὁf the ‘Dὁὀatiὁὀ’ iὅ tὄaἵeἶ ἴy ἔὄieἶ ἀίίἅέ
601
161
liteὄaὄy ὅὁuὄἵeὅ’ ὁmitὅ the ‘Dὁὀatiὁὀ’έ605 Ἡaὅ thiὅ ἶue tὁ the aὄtiὅt’ὅ ἶeὅiὄe
tὁ avὁiἶ ἵὁὀtὄὁveὄὅyν ‘aὀ uὀwilliὀgὀeὅὅ tὁ eὀteὄ ἵuὄὄeὀt ἶeἴateὅ’ς606 Lavin
ὅeeὅ thiὅ aὅ a puὄely ὄeligiὁuὅ ὀaὄὄative iὀ whiἵh ‘the eὄaἶiἵatiὁὀ ὁf pagaὀ
ὅupeὄὅtitiὁὀ iὅ liteὄally iὀ the haὀἶὅ ὁf the ὁffiἵial Rὁmaὀ pὁὀtiff, whὁ […]
thὄὁttleὅ the ἶὄagὁὀ ὁf ὄeligiὁuὅ igὀὁὄaὀἵeέ’607 Actually, we can see that this
paὀel ὅuἴtly ἵaὄὄieὅ the ὅame meὅὅage aὅ the ‘Dὁὀatiὁὀ’ (fig. 37).
On the left, Silvester, wearing the papal tiara, descends into the pit
to tame the dragon, past a lone column evocative of the Column of Phocas.
On the right, Constantine watches as the saint revives the two magicians.
The scene is a stylised Forum ruined not by the dragon, but by time.608
Weeds grow over the ruins and the ground is strewn with rubble. In other
words, this is the Forum as it appeared in the fourteenth century, not the
fourth.609 This is the pagan city wrecked, and only the miracle of the saint
promises rebirth. Maso here shows us the moment of transition. The Pope,
with the empeὄὁὄ’ὅ ἴleὅὅiὀg, ἶὁmiὀateὅ the ὅἵeὀe. The raising of the
doubting magi is as crucial here as the dragon: ἥilveὅteὄ’ὅ miὄaἵleὅ pὄὁve
that Constantine has made the right decision. In the Forum, Silvester can be
understood both mystically, as a Curtius-like saviour of the city in crisis,
and politically, as main actor at the epicentre of the ancient empire. He
assumes spiritual and temporal authority as Constantine looks on. This is
the birth of papal Rome, out of the ruins of the pagan empire.
In other words, both stories – the ‘Donation of Constantine’ and the
defeat of the Forum dragon – affirm Silveὅteὄ’ὅ aὅὅumptiὁὀ ὁf authority
over Rome. The story of Silvester and the dragon, retold for many centuries,
uses the Forum to express the moment when Rome passed from the
authority of the old empire to the papacy. Historically, of course, there was
no single transformative moment for the Forum. From the fifth century AD
onwards, however, we can see that the Forum became less of an explicitly
605
Lavin 1994:68.
Ibid. 312.
607
Lavin 1994:69.
608
Though cf. Lavin 1994, who identifies the scene as the Capitoline, presumably on the
basis of variants of the story.
609
We have no record of whether Maso visited Rome, but this may be one of the earliest
depictions of the Forum in ruins. This story reveals 14th c. anxieties thrown back into the
4th.
606
162
political space; that is, it ceased to be particularly associated with specific
political power until the turn of the nineteenth century. As such, I will
ἴὄiefly ὅketἵh the ἔὁὄum’ὅ hiὅtὁὄy iὀ the iὀteὄveὀiὀg peὄiὁἶμ it’ὅ a tὁpiἵ
which would reward further investigation, but is beyond the scope of the
present study.
ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ lὁὅὅ ὁf pὁlitiἵal ὅigὀifiἵaὀἵe waὅ gὄaἶual. In AD 500,
for example, the Ostrogothic king Theoderic is recorded addressing the
Senate and People at the Rostra, bolstering his authority in the tradition of
the Roman emperors.610 When direct imperial rule was restored after the
Gothic War (535-54), the Eastern Emperor’ὅ ὄepὄeὅeὀtativeὅ maintained
their Palatine headquarters until the mid-eighth century.611 The Column of
Phocas (fig. 38) was dedicated AD 608, an existing column remodelled to
commemorate the consecration of the Pantheon, the first temple converted
into a church. It was dedicated to a usurping Eastern Emperor who never
visited Italy, by an exarch, Smaragdus, based in Ravenna; nevertheless, at
the turn of the seventh century it still meant something to dedicate a
monument – even if just a recycled column – in the Roman Forum, and
fuὄtheὄmὁὄe tὁ gὁ tὁ the tὄὁuἴle ὁf eὄaὅiὀg ἢhὁἵaὅ’ ὀame fὄὁm the
inscription after his fall. The iὀὅἵὄiptiὁὀ’ὅ vὁἵaἴulaὄy echoes the
conventions of the earlier empire: like Trajan, Phocas is praised for
‘ἵὁὀὅeὄviὀg libertas’έ612
Simultaneously, with the permission of the Eastern Emperor a
number of Forum buildings were converted into churches with an Eastern
flavour: S.S. Cosmas e Damiano, dedicated to two Cilician martyrs, was
established on the Via Sacra in the 520s, and S. Maria Antiqua followed in
590. In 625, the Curia Julia was dedicated to the Nicomedian S. Adriano.613
At the end of the seventh century these churches became part of a Christian
processional network connected to the great basilicas: the oldest route
linked S. Adriano with Sta. Maria Maggiore on the Feasts of the Virgin
610
Anon. Val. 12.65-66.
Coates-Stephens 2011:390-401.
612
The inscription is at CIL 6.1200.
613
This point is stressed by Humphries 2007. The conversion of the Curia is often seen as a
turning point, but as Humphries emphasises, it would not have seemed so at the time; the
Senate had declined as an institution. It does not mean that they necessarily stopped
meeting there either.
611
163
Mary.614 We see a glimpse of daily life in the late-antique Forum in the
legend recounted by Bede and much loved by the writers of Victorian
guidebooks, that Pope Gregory I (590-604) encounted some golden-haired
Anglo-Saxon slaves on sale there, quippeἶ ‘Non Angli, sed angeli!’ aὀἶ
dispatched missionaries to Britannia.615 The last recorded political assembly
in the Forum in late antiquity can be dated to 1st August 768, when the
heavily-contested election of Pope Stephen III was secured by a voting
assembly of the Roman clergy, army and people in front of S. Adriano.616
Christian legend brought not just Silvester but the apostles
themselves into the Forum. The apocryphal Acts of Peter, which is probably
as early as third-ἵeὀtuὄy iὀ ἶate, plaἵeὅ the ‘fiὄὅt pὁpe’ ὁὀ the Via ἥaἵὄa iὀ
battle with the false prophet Simon Magus.617 ἥimὁὀ’ὅ attempt tὁ aὅἵeὀἶ tὁ
glory over the centre of Rome is brought crashing down by ἢeteὄ’ὅ pὄayeὄὅ
(or, in some versions, by Peter and Paul together).618 On the other side of
the Forum, Peter was said to have been imprisoned in the Carcer, where a
spring miraculously arose to allow him to conduct baptisms.619
The traditional picture of the Forum in the early Middle Ages is
rather bleak.620 Certainly by the ninth century the imperial fora were more
or less ruined, their open spaces filled with small-scale housing and
workshops. Eventually, the blockage of the long-neglected cloacae allowed
the natural bog to creep back and the area was abandoned. However, the
Roman Forum continued to be a viable part of the city, an open space
surrounded by churches. The establishment of many of these churches as
diaconae (welfare centres) – as well as archaeological evidence – suggests
614
Baldovin 1987:122: 2nd Feburary (Hypapante); 25th March (Annunciation); 15th August
(Dormition of the Virgin); 8th September (Nativity of the Virgin).
615
‘σὁt χὀgli ἴut aὀgelὅ!’ν Bede Hist. Ang. 2.2.
616
Torelli 1982:89 makes the tantalising suggestion that the Anaglypha Traiani may have
still been in situ in the Comitium area at this time: were the Romans of 768 able to see their
2nd-c. predecessors?
617
Elliott 1993:390-426.
618
Acts of Peter 32. The oratory of SS. Pietro e Paolo was founded on the site in the mid-8th
c.; the church no longer exists, but S. Francesca Romana, on the site, holds an indented slab
from the Via ἥaἵὄa with the ‘knee prints’ of Peter and Paul where they knelt to pray. For
the Acts of Peter see the papers in Bremmer 1998; Thomas 2003 puts the work in the
context of ancient pagan literature.
619
Watkin 2009:128.
620
See, e.g. Krautheimer 1980; contra Humphries 2007; see also Magnuson 2004.
164
that it was still in daily use (fig. 39).621 Life continued: if the ancient
monuments were neglected, it was a practical neglect. Many were adapted
to new purposes. In the thirteenth century, for example, part of the Arch of
Septimius Severus was consecrated as the church of SS. Sergio e Bacco,
while the Cimini family used the other half, topped with a tower, as their
stronghold.622 The animating spirit of the medieval Forum was the Christian
liturgy that gathered the Roman people in front of its ancient churches: this
waὅ the ‘meaὀὅ ὁf makiὀg the mὁὀumeὀtality [ὁf the ἵity] liveέ’623
While the Forum had gained a Christian meaning alongside its
ancient history, its political significance was more or less dormant. When,
in 1144, the newly-eὅtaἴliὅheἶ ἵiviἵ gὁveὄὀmeὀt ‘ὄeviveἶ’ the ἥeὀate aὀἶ
the formula SPQR (in self-conscious opposition to papal autocracy), it
chose the Capitoline as its headquarters, not the Forum.624 The popular
politics of Cola di Rienzo (1313-1354) focused on the Campidoglio, and by
the time of Palladiὁ’ὅ viὅit iὀ the miἶ-sixteenth century the orientation of
εiἵhelaὀgelὁ’ὅ complex made the axis of political power explicit. The
piazza of 1536-1546 is oriented not towards the Forum, but north towards
the Vatican (fig. 40)έ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὄuiὀὅ weὄe ἴeiὀg miὀed not for their
memories of ancient Roman power, but for valuable lime and masonry to be
tὄaὀὅpὁὄteἶ tὁ the ἴuilἶiὀg ὅite ὁf σew ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅέ625
Just as the ruins were vanishing into the lime kilns, they began to
attract the attention of humanist scholars, including Poggio Bracciolini and
χleὅὅaὀἶὄὁ D’χleὅὅaὀἶὄὁ, whὁ attempteἶ tὁ put tὁgetheὄ the ἵὁὀfuὅiὀg
621
See Niederer 1953 for a discussion of the pagan buildings transformed into diaconiae.
Although evidence for the early medieval period is scanty (due in part to the disinterest of
the early archaeologists), evidence from medieval wells and rubbish deposits has shed
some light on life in the Forum at this time. Excavations by the Fountain of Juturna in 1900
uncovered thousands of pieces of 8th-10th c. pὁtteὄy ὁf a type ἵhὄiὅteὀeἶ ‘ἔὁὄum Ἡaὄe’,
including over fifty complete vessels: see Whitehouse 1965, Christie 1987.
622
Brilliant 1993:104. Both church and tower were removed in the 16th c. by Paul III.
623
Baldovin 1987:256. For Christian Rome in the medieval period, see Partner 1972;
Brentano 1974; Birch 1998; papers by McKitterick, Bolgia, Campanelli and Osborne in
Bolgia et al 2011.
624
Karmon 2011:36-7.
625
The 16th c. is usually seen as the time of greatest catastrophe for the Forum, when many
ancient remains that had survived up until that point were lost: the idea is at least as old as
Lanciani 1898; see also Weiss 1969, Moatti 1989. Much was destroyed in the big clean-up
for ώὁly Rὁmaὀ Empeὄὁὄ ἑhaὄleὅ V’ὅ tὄiumphal eὀtὄaὀἵe iὀ 1ηἁἄέ Kaὄmὁn 2011 (see
especially 7-11) argues that the process was much more controlled than previously
believed, with greater care to preserve complete monuments.
165
fragments of ancient inscriptions and architecture.626 For these antiquarians
the surviving texts proved more enduring than the rapidly-vanishing
monuments. The fifteenth-century historian Flavio Biondo wrote,
Next to the Capitolium and opposite the Forum stands the portico of a
Temple of Concord that I saw nearly intact when I first came to Rome,
lacking only its marble revetment. Subsequently, the Romans reduced it
entirely to lime and demolished its portico, tearing down the columns.627
However, the lasting impression left by images of the Forum at this time is
of everyday life proceeding incongruously amongst the enormous ruins in
what εὁatti teὄmὅ ‘a sort of contented nonchalance’ (fig. 42).628
In the seventeenth century, as Jasmine Cloud has shown, the
ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἵhuὄἵheὅ weὄe ὁveὄhauleἶ iὀ aὀ eaὄly example ὁf uὄἴaὀ
regeneration. Under Pope Alexander VII, the cattle market was exiled and a
wide avenue of trees planted (visible in figs. 31, 33). The effect was to
‘[ἴὄiὀg] tὁgetheὄ the aὀἵieὀt ὄuiὀὅ, the ἑiὀqueἵeὀtὁ gaὄἶeὀὅ ὁf the ὄeἵeὀt
paὅt, aὀἶ ἵὁὀtempὁὄaὄy ἵhuὄἵh pὄὁjeἵtὅ’έ629
Although the Campo Vaccino was not without its cattle market for
very long, by the turn of the eighteenth century, the Roman Church was
promoting a ‘pὄὁviἶeὀtial ἵὁὀtiὀuity’ ἴetweeὀ the pὄeὅeὀt ἶay aὀἶ the eὄa ὁf
Silvester. The ἔὁὄum’ὅ ruins affirmed the Pope’ὅ pὁὅitiὁὀ aὅ heiὄ aὀἶ
proprietor of the classical antiquity that papal Rome was built on. An
example of this can be seen in the 1721 celebrations for the accession of
Pope Innocent XIII (1721-1724). In the afternoon of the 22nd November, the
Pope proceeded from the Vatican to St John Lateran via the ancient centre
of Rome as part of the ritual known as the possesso. The procession was a
vision of the vivid majesty of the papal monarchy. Innocent was surrounded
by sixty noble pages dressed in silver brocade and black velvet cloaks lined
626
See Muecke 2003, who begins her study with a quotation from Bracciolini describing
his time iὀ the ἔὁὄum iὀ the 1ἂἀίὅμ ‘ώere I very often take myself, dumbfounded with
amazement, in imagination carrying myself back to the times when senatorial speeches
were delivered there, and pretending that I am listening to Lucius Crassus, Hortensius or
ἑiἵeὄὁ ὁὄatiὀgέ’ (De Varietate Fortunae 1)έ It’ὅ iὀteὄeὅtiὀg tὁ ὀὁte the ὅimilaὄity ἴetweeὀ
thiὅ aὀἶ ἢiὅὁ’ὅ ὅpeeἵh at ἑiἵέ De Fin. – though, as Muecke observes, Bracciolini was in
the wrong place at the time! ἔὁὄ ἐὄaἵἵiὁliὀi’ὅ ἶiὅἵὁveὄy ὁf the text ὁf Vitὄuviuὅ, ὅee ἑhὁay
2001:31.
627
Quoted from Choay 2001:34; see ibid. fὁὄ the humaὀiὅtὅ’ fὁἵuὅ ὁὀ textὅ ὁveὄ ἴuilἶiὀgὅέ
628
Moatti 1989:56-7.
629
Cloud 2013:208.
166
with cloth-of-silver. He was preceded by the Roman nobility on horseback;
the Officers of the Palace and the palace servants; the Gentlemen of the
ἐeἶἵhamἴeὄ ἵaὄὄyiὀg ‘emἴὄὁiἶeὄ’ἶ ἢὁὄtmaὀteauὅ’ν the Rὁmaὀ ἥeὀate iὀ
long black velvet gowns; the three Conservators in gold brocade surcoats;
four chamberlains, each carrying a pike topped with a crimson velvet hat;
ἢὄelateὅ, the ἕὁveὄὀὁὄ ὁf Rὁme, aὀἶ the ἢὁpe’ὅ ἴὄὁtheὄ the Duke ὁf ἢὁli
Conti. He was followed by twenty-four cardinals mounted on mules,
accompanied by their footmen; eighty-six archbishops and bishops; and the
pontifical guard. On the Campidoglio he was presented with the Keys of the
City by one of the senators. The parade then descended to the Campo
Vaccino and passed under a triumphal arch erected by the Duke of Parma
and so on to St John Lateran.630 The triumphal arch in the Campo Vaccino
was so essential a part of the ceremony that in 1769 it was reported that a
ὅuἴὅequeὀt pὄὁἵeὅὅiὁὀ, ἑlemeὀt ἪIV’ὅ, wὁulἶ ἴe ‘peὄfὁὄmeἶ ὁὀ the 1λth, if
the arch can be made by that time, otherwise the ceremony will be deferred
until the 26thέ’631
Despite the papal pageantry, for the eighteenth-century Grand
ἦὁuὄiὅt, familiaὄ with the ‘iἶeal’ ὁf the ἔὁὄum fὄὁm the liteὄaὄy textὅ we
discussed in Part I, arrival in the Campo Vaccino could be a horrifying
disappointment: they saw Rome, as it were, fall before their eyes.
What! The Forum, formerly filled with temples, palaces, and triumphal
arches, heretofore the centre of Rome and consequently of the world, the
theatre of so many revolutions, can that be it?632
Naturally some grasped, even unwittingly, at their Aeneid 8:
Were an antiquarian to lament any fall, any metamorphosis of ancient
Rome, it might be the present state of the Forum, where now there is,
every Thursday and Friday, a market for cows and oxen, on the very spot
where Roman orators were accustomed to thunder out their eloquence in
the cause of their clients, their country, and their gods.633
630
The reporter for the Daily Journal, 6th December 1721, was appropriately overawed.
Independent Chronicle, 8th-11th December 1769. For the possesso, see now Russell
2014:493-4.
632
Dupaty 1785:150.
633
Anon. 1767.
631
167
This disjuncture is still to some extent entrenched in scholarship: we must
make a choice, as it were, between Curtius and Silvester.634 This can be
seen clearly in contemporary responses to perhaps the most influential
imageὅ ὁf the ‘papal’ ἔὁὄum ἴefὁὄe itὅ exἵavatiὁὀ, eὀgὄaveἶ iὀ the miἶeighteeὀth ἵeὀtuὄy ἴy ἕiὁvaὀὀi ἐattiὅta ἢiὄaὀeὅiέ ἢiὄaὀeὅi’ὅ Vedute give us
the response of a trained architect and antiquarian.635 Many have seen in his
ἶepiἵtiὁὀὅ ὁf the ὄuiὀὅ ‘the tὄagiἵ ὄemaiὀὅ ὁf a ἵataὅtὄὁpheέ’636 Piranesi,
hὁweveὄ, ὄaὄely uὅeὅ the wὁὄἶ ‘rovine’ – ruins, preferring the more neutral
‘avanzi’, ὄemaiὀὅέ637 His depiction of the Temple of Vespasian
(misidentified as the Temple of Jupiter Tonans) (fig. 43), for example,
challenges the viewer to look both backwards and forwards in time. The
Corinthian pillars burst from the earth like massive tree trunks, dwarfing the
figures around it: how big must be the masonry still buried! Again, in a
view of the whole Forum (fig. 44), the emphasis is on the massive solidity
of the ancient buildings, especially the Arch of Septimius Severus in the
foreground, in contrast to the modern people and structures. Piranesi
emphasises the earth with lines that give the soil a viscous quality. The
monuments are engulfed and yet endure, testament to the Rὁmaὀὅ’
architectural genius. The potential of these avanzi remains to be awakened.
The sentiment is an old one: as Hildebert of Lavardin wrote in the twelfth
century:
par tibi Roma, nihil, cum sis prope tota ruina
quam magni fueras integra, fracta doces.638
Nothing, Rome, is equal to you; even when you are nearly all in ruins
you teach us how great you would be if your fragments where whole.
In Part II, we will examine the bitter struggle that raged from the end of the
18th ἵeὀtuὄy ἴetweeὀ vaὄiὁuὅ faἵtiὁὀὅ tὁ ὄevive the ἔὁὄum’ὅ avanzi.
634
A recent writer on the Forum eye-poppingly declares that the view of the current site is
‘aἴὁut aὅ attὄaἵtive aὅ lὁὁkiὀg iὀtὁ the hὁle maἶe iὀ σew Yὁὄk ὁὀ λή11έ’ Ἡatkiὀ ἀί09:5.
635
Scott 1975:127.
636
Kantor-Kazovsky 2007:52.
637
Wilton-Ely 1978:7.
638
‘ἢaὄ tiἴi’ (‘Rὁmaὀ Elegy’) liὀeὅ 1-2; in Raby 1959:20-221.
168
PART 2
O Italia, o Roma! quel giorno, placido
tὁὀeὄà il ἵielὁ ὅu’l Fòro, e cantici
di gloria, di gloria, di gloria
ἵὁὄὄeὄaὀ peὄ l’iὀfiὀitὁ aὐὐuὄὁέ
Giosuè Carducci, Nell’annuale della fondazione di Roma, 1877.
169
170
2.1 – Reviving the Republican Forum (17981870).
On this spot, 15th February 1798
The Populus Romanus assembled for the first time in a thousand
years to acclaim the re-foundation of the Roman Republic. They set up a
liberty tree, painted in the white, red and black of the Roman tricolore and
topped with a Phrygian cap, to symbolise their rejection of the tyranny of
Pope Pius VI. Rome was reborn; the Forum was again used for its ancient
purpose – at least, according to the first issue of the revolutionary
newspaper, the Monitore di Roma:
Circa le ore dieci di Francia un immensità di popolo il più culto, e più
ragguardevole si adunò nel Foro Romano alle falde del Campidoglio.
Questo luogo, che servì nelle più remote età alle adunanze del Popolo, e
del Senato, quando doveasi deliberare degli affari più gravi della
Repubblica, ora è chiamato Campo Vaccino, e serve ai mercati di
ἴeὅtiameέ Iὀ queὅtὁ ἵiὄἵὁὀὅtaὀὐa feliἵe fu ὄipὄiὅtiὀatὁ all’aὀtiἵὁ uὅὁ, e vi
accorsero i più rispettabili Giureconsulti, i più venerandi Ecclesiastici, varj
Principi, e molti facoltosi possidenti per ricuperare gli usurpati loro
diritti.639
Of course, this effervescence of democracy through the rocks of the Forum
was not as spontaneous and natural as the writer wished to imply. Note,
first, that the triumphant rhetoric conceals a helpful explanation of where
and what the Foro Romano is: at the foot of the Campidoglio, at Campo
Vaἵἵiὀὁ, the ἵattle maὄketέ χὅ we’ll ὅee, the Popolo Romano was less than
ideally versed in antiquarian matters. Second, for all the stress on homegrown Republican tradition, even the time of day is expressed alla francese
(rather than from sunrise, as it had been since antiquity). The liberty tree is
ὀὁt paὄt ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ὀative flὁὄaέ χὀἶ wheὀ the Rὁmaὀ peὁple jὁyfully
processed along the old triumphal route up to the Capitoline, they were
addressed by General Alexandre Beὄthieὄ ὁf the χὄmée ἶ’Italie, whὁὅe
forces had imprisoned Pius VI in Castel S. Angelo and were soon to carry
him off into exile. Berthier gave a speech draped with classical allusions:
639
MR 1:7.
171
‘εaὀeὅ ὁf ἑatὁ, ὁf ἢὁmpey, ὁf ἐὄutuὅ, ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁ, aὀἶ ὁf ώὁὄteὀὅiuὅ!
receive the homage of free Frenchmen, in that capitol where you have so
often defended the rights of the people, and reflected a lustre on the
Roman Republic! The descendants of the Gauls enter this august place,
bearing the altar of peace in their hands, to re-establish the altars of
Liberty, erected by the first Brutus. And you, Roman people: who are
about to resume your legitimate rights, recollect the blood which runs in
your veins – regard the monuments of glory by which you are surrounded
– resume your aὀἵieὀt gὄaὀἶeuὄ, aὀἶ the viὄtueὅ ὁf yὁuὄ aὀἵeὅtὁὄὅέ’640
As his words show, Berthier was well aware that in this place he risked
being perceived as a Gallic invader. He seemed to almost relish being a
Gallic soldier on the Capitoline, the place where the Gauls never reached,
leἵtuὄiὀg the Rὁmaὀὅ ὁὀ hὁw tὁ ἴe Rὁmaὀν ὁf geὅtuὄiὀg tὁ the ἵity’ὅ aὀἵieὀt
mὁὀumeὀtὅ tὁ ὅtiὄ up itὅ ἵitiὐeὀὅ, like δivy’ὅ ὅeὀatὁὄὅ ἴefὁὄe the ἕalliἵ
Sack. To many in the Forum who had watched the French march into the
city the previous day, the sudden revival of Republican spirit might have
seemed more like an invasion (fig. 45).
In London, where events in Italy were being anxiously monitored,
the Times was sniffy:
The ὁὀly ὅimilituἶe […] which appears to us to exist between the ancient
and modern Republic of Rome, is, that they have both been founded by
bands of robbers.641
15th ἔeἴὄuaὄy 1ἅλκ maὄkeἶ a tuὄὀiὀg pὁiὀt iὀ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ fὁὄtuὀeὅ,
when it became again a site of political activity – however contrived those
activities might be – and was particularly connected with Republican
government. In this chapter, we will look at how, from 1798 onwards,
vaὄiὁuὅ attemptὅ weὄe maἶe tὁ ‘ὄevive’ the ‘tὄaἶitiὁὀὅ’ ὁf the aὀἵieὀt
Republican Forum against the background of the Risorgimento; and how
the ἢapaἵy ὄeὅpὁὀἶeἶ tὁ thiὅ ἵhalleὀge tὁ itὅ aὀἵieὀt ὁwὀeὄὅhip ὁf Rὁme’ὅ
heritage.642 1798 marks the first attempt to reinvent the idea of the Forum
640
As reported in the Whitehall Evening Post 8001.
The Times 4136.
642
This narrative is iὀἶeἴteἶ tὁ ἥpὄiὀgeὄ 1λκλν I’ve also drawn on Bosworth 2011;
Stramaccioni 2011; Caffiero 2005; Formica 1994. Capra 1978 continues the Repuἴliἵ’ὅ
history into the Napoleonic era; see also the 1988 survey by Donato & Boutier.
641
172
Romanum – the gathering place of the citizens of the ancient Republic –
and unite it with the geographical reality of the Campo Vaccino.
The Republican Forum, 1798-9
Iὀ ὅpite ὁf the ὄhetὁὄiἵ ὁf maὀifeὅt ἶeὅtiὀy, the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’ὅ
return to the surface was rather unlikely. The eighteenth century had seen
the growth of the great papal collections, but this was due in no small part to
the ὁὀgὁiὀg exἵavatiὁὀ ὁf ώaἶὄiaὀ’ὅ villa at ἦivὁli fὄὁm the 1ἅἁίὅ aὀἶ ὁtheὄ
excavations around Rome, not to work in the Campo Vaccino area.643 At the
Vatican, Clement XIV (1769-1774) laid the foundation for the PioClementine Museum; its treasurer, Giangelo Braschi, succeeded him as Pius
VI and lavishly extended it.644 The antiquities gathered in the Vatican did
ὀὁt ἵhalleὀge ἴut ὄatheὄ ὅuppὁὄteἶ the ἢὁpe’ὅ pὁὅitiὁὀ aὅ guardian of
Rὁme’ὅ paὅt aὀἶ futuὄeμ the theme adopted by Ennio Quirino Visconti for
hiὅ ἵeleἴὄatὁὄy pὁem ὁὀ ἢiuὅ’ aἵἵeὅὅiὁὀμ
Vide il gran foro, il colli ameni, e tutte
Nuone aspetto di pace avean le cose
Su i Teatri, e le Terme arsi, a distrutte
Cento la fronte ergean moli famose
Non più ai fieri spettacoli ridutte
Vide esaltar le genti bellicose,
εa ὅugl’ Iἶὁli iὀfὄaὀti, e i maὄmi ὅpati
ἥὁὄgeὄe la pietà, ὄiὀaὅἵeὄ l’χὄtiέ645
The ‘gὄeat ἔὁὄum’ ὁf the pὁem waὅ mὁὄe a pὄὁἶuἵt ὁf aὀtiquaὄiaὀ
imagination than physically visible, as the Campo Vaccino remained largely
uὀexplὁὄeἶέ χlthὁugh the ἔὁὄum’s general location was remembered, its
precise orientation would not be correctly ascertained for several more
ἶeἵaἶeὅέ It waὅὀ’t eὀtiὄely ἵleaὄ what a ἔὁὄum eveὀ lὁὁkeἶ likeέ646
643
Haskell & Penny 1981:64-5. It can be paralleled with the Neapolitan excavations at
Herculaneum; see below, n.646; for excavations in Rome see Pietrangeli 1958, with
summary in Ridley 1992:28-31.
644
Collins 2004 for ἢiuὅ VI’ὅ patὄὁὀage of the arts and Vatican Museums.
645
Viὅἵὁὀti, ‘ἡttavὁ ὅu pὁὅὅeὅὅὁ ἶi σὁὅtὄὁ ἥigὀὁὄe ἢIἡ ἥEἥἦἡ ἢέεέ’ ἦhiὅ pὁem aὀἶ the
theme of archaeology in papal encomium is discussed by Springer 1987:42-57.
646
Clear from the 18th-c. excavations at Herculaneum, where three areas were successively
iἶeὀtifieἶ aὅ ‘the fὁὄumέ’ Iὀ the miἶ-1730s, R.J. de Alcubierre (the first director of the
excavations) and his assistant Karl Weber identified it with the open area outside the
theatre. In 1748 D’χὄtheὀay pὄὁpὁὅeἶ the (ὀὁw-reburied) structure now known aὅ the ‘ὅὁ-
173
A few years into ἢiuὅ’ ὄeigὀ, in the 1780s, the Swedish ambassador
Carl Fredrik von Fredenheim funded a speculative exploration around the
church of S. Maria Liberatrice, and unearthed the ἐaὅiliἵa Julia’ὅ pavement.
His behaviour was considered sufficiently eccentric to be reported in British
newspapers, where this notice appeared in March 1789:
A Swedish gentleman having obtained permission to dig in the Campo
Vaἵἵiὀὁ […] haὅ fὁuὀἶ a gὄeat pieἵe ὁf pὁὄphyὄy, vaὄiὁuὅ ἵapitalὅ aὀἶ
cornices in marble, some pieces of metal and small medallions. But what
has much encouraged him in prosecuting his enterprize, is, the having
found two white marble pavements under which he hopes to find things of
higher value.647
In no sense was von Fredenheim looking for the ancient Forum, Republican
or otheὄwiὅeέ ώὁpiὀg tὁ fiὀἶ aὀtiquitieὅ fὁὄ hiὅ peὄὅὁὀal ἵὁlleἵtiὁὀ, he’ἶ
prudently chosen S. Maria Liberatrice as a starting point because it was an
obviously ancient Christian building.
While the Swedish ambassador was peacefully digging in Rome, in
Paris Republican sentiment was boiling over. That year, Jacques-Louis
David painted a work that playὅ with δivy’ὅ iἶea ὁf the Republican Forum
(although the Forum itself is not quite visible). Livy and Dionysius tell the
story that in the very early days of the ancient Republic, the sons of Lucius
Brutus joined their Tarquin cousins in a failed uprising in support of the
exiled tyrants. Brutus had them both executed in the Forum in front of the
whole populace.648 In Les licteurs rapportent à Brutus les corps de ses fils
(fig. 46), David continues the story, giving us a window into the domus
Iunia as the bodies of ἐὄutuὅ’ ὅὁὀὅ are returned. But, although we are in the
house, the Forum is still present, suggested by the stern lines of the formal
pillars, and the ἵὁmpὁὅitiὁὀ’ὅ division between the women – ἐὄutuὅ’
grieving wife and daughters – deeper in the house on the right, and the men
– Brutus, the lictors, and the just visible corpse – by the threshold on the
left. The sunlight from the entrance, and the half-visible body illuminated in
ἵalleἶ ἐaὅiliἵa’ ὁὄ ‘ἢὁὄtiἵuὅ’έ (D’χὄtheὀay 1ἅἂκμἀί-24; Najbjerg 2002). Finally, Paderni
suggested a long square near the Villa of the Papyri in 1754 (Paderni 1754:821).
Herculaὀeum’ὅ fὁὄum haὅ ὀeveὄ ἴeeὀ ἶefiὀitively identified; the tiny town may not have
possessed one. Pompeii’ὅ ἔὁὄum was the first to be fully uncovered in the Napoleonic
period, sponsored by Queen Caroline Bonaparte of Naples.
647
General Evening Post 8640.
648
Livy 2.5.7; Dion. Hal. 5.8-6.
174
it, invites us to imagine the scene outside, before. Brutus, sitting in the
shadows grimly contemplating the necessity of his actions, is altogether
separated from the domestic grief. He holds the crumpled death warrant in
his hand. In his mind he is still in the Forum, the site of his finest and his
darkest hour. In an illustration of the adaptability of classical stories, the
painting was a royal commission from Louis XVI, but as 1789 turned into
1ἅλί ‘aἵquiὄeἶ a tὁpiἵality that [David] could not have foreseen.’649
The papal government watched aghast as the French Revolution
progressed, and condemned the revolutionaries in increasingly shrill terms
as Napoleon Bonaparte’ὅ aὄmy tramped south towards Italy. Papal officials
attempted to turn the force of Roman civilisation against the oncoming
‘ἕaulὅ’ aὀἶ theiὄ Italiaὀ ὅympathiὅeὄὅ, ‘Huns, Goths, Vandals, Emli, who
come not from the north nor the Black Sea but are found among usέ’650 The
population of Rome itself seemed to be solidly ‘Rὁmaὀ’μ Louis XVI’ὅ
execution was answered by a popular assault on the Ghetto, and as the
French approached Catholic sentiment and popular piety reached almost
fever-pitch.651
In June 1796 it seemed that the Papal States might be granted a
reprieve. An armistice was agreed between Bonaparte and Pius VI, but the
war for antiquity continued. The French demanded the surrender of a large
number of ancient artworks, two specified by name: a bronze bust and
marble head, identified as portraits of Lucius Brutus and his descendent and
emulator Marcus.652 While the images were of paramount importance to the
Frenἵh Repuἴliἵ’ὅ ὅelf-conception, they were artefacts Pius could arguably
afford to lose. What was the narrow slice of Roman time favoured by the
French compared with the universality of Christian history (which, as in
Viὅἵὁὀti’ὅ pὁem, iὀἵὁὄpὁὄateἶ aὀἶ ὅupeὄὅeἶeἶ pagaὀ aὀtiquity) aὀἶ the
potent relics of the saints?
The fragile peace was shattered in December 1797 when the French
commander Léonard Duphot was killed in a skirmish between papal guards
649
Lee 1999:127.
Pignatelli 1974:37; Bosworth 2011:47.
651
Miracles and prodigies were attested; people prayed for forgiveness in the streets: see
Pignatelli 174-6.
652
Haskell & Penny 1981:163-4.
650
175
and Roman revolutionaries. The papal government was blamed and, at the
beginning of January, the Directory ordered General Berthier to sieze
Rome. He marched his troops from Milan to the Papal States and waited for
Rome’s revolutionaries to invite them in. The terrified Pope, accompanied
by vast crowds, criss-crossed the city along the sacred processional routes
carrying the holiest relics. It was a gesture of defiance and supplication, to
heaven, and to the Catholic powers, especially the Neapolitans. The
pὄὁἵeὅὅiὁὀὅ fὁllὁweἶ the ἵὁὀtὁuὄὅ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ geὁgὄaphy that haἶ ἴeeὀ
established for over a thousand years, in which the Campo Vaccino had
always been prominent.
When the Roman people assembled on the 15th February 1798, then,
their new consuls (including Ennio Quirino Visconti) were faced with an
immense task. They needed to negotiate a way through the French and
papal conceptions of ancient Rome – and the political tradition of the
Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum that they pὄὁpὁὅeἶ tὁ ‘ὄevive’ haἶ ὀὁ viὅiἴle aὀἵieὀt ἔὁὄum
to work in. As the Monitore reveals, it was not obvious to most of the
Rὁmaὀ pὁpulatiὁὀ wheὄe aὀἶ what the ‘Foro romano’ was (fig. 47). The
Campo Vaccino had a more immediate practical appeal because it was an
open space on the ὁppὁὅite ὅiἶe ὁf the ἵity fὄὁm ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅ, wheὄe the
twenty-thiὄἶ aὀὀiveὄὅaὄy ὁf ἢiuὅ VI’ὅ aἵἵeὅὅiὁὀ waὅ ἴeiὀg ἶὁggeἶly
ἵeleἴὄateἶ ἴy ὅeveὀ ἵaὄἶiὀalὅ iὀ the ἢὁpe’ὅ aἴὅeὀἵeέ653 Together with the
Campidoglio, the home of the medieval civic government, the Campo
Vaἵἵiὀὁ fuὀἵtiὁὀeἶ ‘ἵὁme ὀuἵleὁ peὄ la ὀuὁva ἵittà laiἵaέ’654 But the
Roman Forum of the new Republic was essentially an ideal cobbled
together from ancient texts, dressed up as a folk memory.
The Romanification of the Romans took two broad approaches. The
first was more literary. Revolutionary publications chronicled the history of
the Republic as it progressed, and aimed to exhort and educate its
readership in its classical destiny. A self-consciously Augustan institution,
the covers of the Monitore’s first issues juxtaposed the Virgilian mottos
‘Libertas quae sera tamen respexit inertes’ aὀἶ ‘GENUS UNDE LATINUM’
653
654
Springer 1989:68: they were arrested at the ἵeὄemὁὀy’ὅ conclusion.
Formica 1994:36.
176
with the French-iὀὅpiὄeἶ ὅlὁgaὀὅ ‘Liberta’’ aὀἶ ‘Egualiganza’ (fig. 48).655
ἥἵhὁlaὄly aὄtiἵleὅ explaiὀeἶ hὁw the mὁἶeὄὀ ‘comizj’ (ἶemὁἵὄatiἵ
aὅὅemἴlieὅ) weὄe iὀὅpiὄeἶ ἴy aὀἵieὀt ‘comitia’, aὀἶ patὄiὁtὅ weὄe ὄallieἶ tὁ
arms with improvisations on a theme of Horace.656 Later, these usually
opened each edition uὀἶeὄ the heaἶiὀg ὁf ‘Istruzione Pubblica’, taking the
form of a sermon-like improvisation around a point of ancient history. The
issue of 24th Brumale (October), for example, mused on how the new
Repuἴliἵ waὅ tὁ avὁiἶ falliὀg iὀtὁ the ‘decadenza’ of its predecessor. (The
aὄtiἵle’ὅ well-meaning hymning of the Oppian sumptuary laws and the
virtues of poverty would likely have been difficult reading for those
ὅuffeὄiὀg fὄὁm the Repuἴliἵ’ὅ ἵataὅtὄὁphiἵ effeἵt ὁὀ the Rὁmaὀ eἵὁὀὁmyμ
many of the poorest citizens starved to death, despite the distribution of
subsidies.657)
The Monitore’ὅ puἴliἵ iὀὅtὄuἵtiὁn was, however, only able to reach a
limited audience. A substantial proportion of the popolo Romano was
illiterate. With the Pope in exile, the familiar patterns of religious pomp
ceased. The Republic ὅteppeἶ iὀtὁ the ἴὄeaἵh tὁ pὄὁviἶe ‘ὅtὄeet pageaὀtὅ aὀd
feὅtivalὅ ἶeὅigὀeἶ tὁ ὄepὄeὅeὀt [it] tὁ itὅ ἴewilἶeὄeἶ ἵὁὀὅtitueὀἵyέ’ 658 On 21st
February 1799, the memorial parade for the unfortunate General Duphot
gave a taste of things to come.659 The route began at Porta del Popolo, with
the procession gathering at the Campo Vaccino before returning north via
ἢὁὀte ἥέ χὀgelὁ aὀἶ ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅ, wheὄe a liἴeὄty tὄee haἶ ἴeeὀ eὄeἵteἶέ660
This pattern was followed in subsequent celebrations which reinforced
Rὁme’ὅ ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὁὀὅ with ἴὄὁaἶeὄ Revὁlutiὁὀaὄy hiὅtὁὄyμ the feste di
Rigenerazione, della presa della Bastiglia, del Nuovo Anno.661
Other pageants were based entirely in the Campo Vaccino, where
the ideal of the ancient Forum was revived among the ruins using papier655
Virg. Ec. 1έἀἅ pluὄaliὅeἶ tὁ iὀἵluἶe the eὀtiὄety ὁf Rὁmeν ‘ἕEσUἥ UσDE δχἦIσUε’
(Aen. 1.6) accompanied an image of the Capitoline She-Wolf.
656
Topics of issue 1 (21st February 1798) and 2 (24th February 1798).
657
Bosworth 2011:52.
658
Springer 1987:66.
659
Although the author of the popular Ode aux mânes des héros morts pour la liberté,
Duphὁt ἵaὀ’t have imagiὀeἶ that he wὁulἶ iὀ ἶeath be acclaimed héro of the Republic and
given a monument on the Capitoline.
660
Formica 1994:416 provides a fuller account of the proceedings.
661
Formica 1994:453.
177
mâché, cardboard, wood, canvas, classical symbolism and a liberal dollop
of imagination.662 The use of temporary festival structures at Rome was not
ὀewν we’ve alὄeaἶy ὅeeὀ aὀ example iὀ Iὀὀὁἵeὀt ἪIII’ὅ triumphal arch
(above, pp. 166-7). The most elaborate festa in the Campo Vaccino was
held on the first anniversary of the foundation of the Republic, 15th
February 1799. The Monitore urged the people:
Riἵὁmiὀἵia peὄ vὁi l’aὀtiἵὁ ὁὄἶiὀe ἶe’ ἔatiν l’età ἶe’ vὁὅtὄi maggiὁὄi ὅi
ricongiunge con quella dei loro Nepoti, e la libertà dei Bruti, e dei
Publicola diviene la nostra.663
The newspaper also provided the programme for the upcoming festivities,
and ensured that no symbol should go misunderstood by explaining what its
readers would see. At noon on the 14th, cannonfire at Castel S. Angelo
marked the beginning of the celebration, and that afternoon a subsidy was
distributed to the poorest citizens. After sunset the city was illuminated.
The next morning at 8, the consuls and ministers in their finest dress
gathered at the consular headquarters on the Quirinal (the co-opted papal
palace), together with twenty-four young women in white and twenty-four
yὁuὀg meὀ ‘vestiti all’uso antico Romano’ ἵὄὁwὀeἶ with ὁak leaveὅέ ἦhe
group proceeded downhill behind the massed Republican troops to the Foro
Romano (again glὁὅὅeἶμ ‘(detto Campo Vaccino)’έ)
There they found the Forum as decorated by Citizen Paolo Bargigli,
the ἵὁὀὅulὅ’ aὄἵhiteἵtέ664 The Arches of Septimius Severus and Titus were
gaὄlaὀἶeἶ with flὁweὄὅ ‘in the style of the χὀἵieὀtὅ’έ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ twiὀ
avenues were transformed into a triumphal display area, their trees
festooned with flowers and hung with military trophies and banners.
ἡὄἵheὅtὄaὅ ὁf ‘waὄlike iὀὅtὄumeὀtὅ’ played continuously among the trees.
Over by the Basilica of Maxentius – still wrongly identified as the Temple
of Peace – a ‘ἥaὄἵὁphaguὅ’ (pὄeὅumaἴly a ἵeὀὁtaph) was surrounded by
‘mὁuὄὀful tὁὄἵheὅ’ iὀ hὁὀὁuὄ ὁf the ἔὄeὀἵh aὀἶ Rὁmaὀ patὄiὁtὅ whὁ haἶ
died for Liberty.
662
See Formica 1994 and Springer 1987 for the feste. The tradition of papier-mâché
structures went back (as we saw previously) well into the 18 th c. and continued after the
ἢὁpe’ὅ ὄetuὄὀέ σὁtaὄὁ 1λλἂμἀί ὅhὁwὅ, e.g., the triumphal arch contructed for Pius VII in
Piazza Venezia.
663
MR 45:1.
664
Bargigli organised many of the Republican celebrations.
178
The display’ὅ ἵeὀtὄepieἵe – the ‘Macchina’ (fig. 49) – began at
ground level with a pedestal flanked by lighted altars, from which rose a
‘majeὅtiἵ ὅtaiὄἵaὅe’ designed to support bas-ὄeliefὅ ἵὁmmemὁὄatiὀg ‘twὁ ὁf
the most memorable actions carried out by the French in Italy’ (theὅe aὄe
unspecified). At the top of the staircase stood a Dὁὄiἵ ἵὁlumὀ (‘simbolo
della solidità’) topped with a statue of Liberty.665 The column was inscribed
in gold with the names of the most famous French generals. The whole
structure was adorned with the flags of the French and daughter-Republics,
and, inevitably, the busts of Brutus and Cassius.666
The consular party’ὅ aὄὄival at the Macchina was signalled by the
firing of blanks, the shots answered by musical flourishes from the
orchestra. They were greeted by a child, a young man and an old man
ἶὄeὅὅeἶ iὀ ‘the costume of the ancieὀt Rὁmaὀὅ’ tὁ ὅymἴὁliὅe ‘the thὄee ageὅ
ὁf maὀ’έ ἦhey pὄeὅeὀteἶ the ἵὁὀὅulὅ with ἵὄὁwὀὅ ὁf gὁlἶ (‘simbolo della
gloria’) aὀἶ ὁf ὁak (the corona civica, which we last saw mouldering on
ἑuὄtiuὅ’ heaἶ)έ Iὀ ὄetuὄὀ, they each received a specially-minted silver
medal. The Monitore eveὀ ἵaὄefully ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ the meἶal’ὅ ἶeἵὁὄatiὁὀ: on
ὁὀe ὅiἶe, aὀ eagle with the iὀὅἵὄiptiὁὀ ‘Repubblica Romana’; on the other,
‘Giorne che vale di tanti anni il pianto, 27 Pivoso.’ ἦhe old man gave a
short speech reminding the consuls ὁf theiὄ ἶuty tὁ the ‘ἔatheὄὅ ὁf the
σatiὁὀ’ aὀἶ the impὁὄtaὀἵe ὁf the lawέ ἦhe ἢὄeὅiἶeὀt ὁf the ἵὁὀὅulate
ὄeἵeiveἶ a ‘fὄateὄὀal emἴὄaἵe’ fὄὁm all thὄee figuὄeὅ, aὀἶ the ὅhὁtὅ aὀἶ
flourishes were repeated. Then, the President climbed onto the first level of
the Macchina to remind the People of all the benefits that Liberty brought
them.
The ceremony continued with the twenty-four young women
presenting the French Ambassador and the Consuls with laurel branches
tied with tricolour ribbons, receiving a silver coin in return; the procedure
was repeated by the twenty-four young men but this time with branches of
oak. The sonic flourishes were repeated, and all forty-eight young people
and the consuls laid their wreaths at the Sarcophagus by the Basilica of
665
Springer 1987:72 notes that in the event Liberty was toppled the day before by bad
weather, and replaced with a sphere.
666
MR 45:2. ἐaὄgigli haἶ maὀageἶ tὁ ὄepliἵate the ‘ἴuὄieἶ ἴaὅe’ ὁf the ἑὁlumὀ ὁf ἢhὁἵaὅ
without having seen it.
179
Maxentius. The procession then left the Campo Vaccino through the Arch
of Septimius Severus and ascended the Campidoglio to pay tribute at the
monument of General Duphot. The day concluded with fireworks in the
Forum, while the dignitaries enjoyed a celebratory dinner.
Is there a note of desperation in these proceedings? Springer writes,
‘ἦhe dramatic repertory seemed to be growing thin; or perhaps the
ὄeἶuὀἶaὀἵy waὅ ἶeliἴeὄate, aὀ exaggeὄateἶ ἶiὅplay ὁf the gὁveὄὀmeὀt’ὅ
control
over
an
external
situation
that
had
almost
hopelessly
ἶeteὄiὁὄateἶέ’667 In a few weeks (April-May 1799), the French would be
driven out of Naples; not long after that, Neapolitan forces would crush the
Roman Republic permanently. Bosworth condemns the ceremony as
‘ἶeὅpeὄate effὁὄt tὁ ὅummὁὀ the ghὁὅtὅ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ past behind the
aἶmiὀiὅtὄatiὁὀ’ν it waὅ interrupted by protesters who were starving.668 The
Republic could not survive on a diet of reconstituted Livy and papiermâché.
It’ὅ eaὅy (and perhaps right) to be cynical about this French-imposed
Republic. In the context of this study, however, the anniversary festa
appears to be more than a French puppet show. It represents the first real
reinvestment not just in the concept of the Forum as a political space but in
reconnecting that idea with the Campo Vaccino. The Republic tried to use
the Forum to recreate (a very particular version of) ancient Rome, viewing
the site as a political resource in and of itself.669 Even though the regime
ἶiἶ ὀὁt ὅuὄvive 1ἅλλ, itὅ legaἵy waὅ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ fiὄὅt ἴὁut of sustained
archaeological activity, and ultimately, the shifting of Rome’ὅ ἵeὀtὄe back
from the Vatican to its ancient heart.
Thanks to the Neapolitan army, in 1800, Pius VII – who (crowned
with a papier-mâché tiara) had succeeded Pius VI in exile – entered the
city.670 The restoration papacy looked on the Campo Vaccino and other
667
Springer 1987:77.
Bosworth 2011:52.
669
We can see a roughly contemporary parallel in the inauguration of the Acropolis at
Athens in August 1834 (see Beard 2002:99-102), when a classically-inspired ceremony
(complete with maidens in white, carrying laurel and myrtle) welcomed King Otto to the
Parthenon. The ceremony had been organised by the Bavarian architect Leo von Klenze
(who delivered his speech in German); it was not the native Greeks who needed to stress
theiὄ ἵlaὅὅiἵal ‘ἕὄeekὀeὅὅ’ ἴut the ὀewly aὄὄiveἶ ἕeὄmaὀ aὄiὅtὁἵὄaἵyέ
670
He reigned 1800-1823.
668
180
ancient monuments with fresh eyes. As France mutated from Republic to
Empire, Pius seized the archaeological initiative and stamped his name
(literally) on the Forum. The Republic had aped the architecture of antiquity
with flimsy models; the Pope focused his care and attention on the
monuments themselves. An edict of 1802 prohibited the export of
antiquities, and in the same year excavations began at the Arch of Septimius
Severus.671
The Arch was still buried in a 4m layer of soil and debris, and its
outer piers were used as commercial premises. In 1802 and 1803 gangs of
convicts were forced to excavate around it down to the ancient pavement
level. They built a retaining wall, on which was proudly inscribed:
PIVS
VII
P.M.
RESTITVENDVM
MDCCCIII.
RVDERIBVS
ET
MVRO
CIRCVM
SEPIENDVM
EGESTIS
CVRAVIT
ARCVM
ANNO
672
The implications of such work were clear, however trivial the
commemoration of a retaining wall might seem. Care for archaeology was
ὅtὄiἵtly the ἢὁpe’ὅ pὄeὅeὄve, paὄt ὁf hiὅ ὁveὄaὄἵhiὀg guaὄἶiaὀὅhip ὁf Rὁmeέ
He, not the republicans, nor the French, was the first to officially excavate
in the Campo Vaccino.
His speed paid off, because 1808 saw the return of the French in
new, imperial style. In 1809 Pius was removed and sent into exile, Rome
waὅ ὁffiἵially iὀἵὁὄpὁὄateἶ iὀtὁ σapὁleὁὀ’ὅ ἔὄeὀἵh Empiὄe, aὀἶ aὀ
extensive programme of excavations was launched. As Ronald Ridley
discusses, between 1810-1814 modern buildings around S. Lorenzo in
Miranda (the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina) and the Temples of Saturn
and Vespasian were demolished.673 A new road up to the Capitoline was
built in front of the Temple of Saturn.674 The Basilica of Maxentius (still
identified as the Temple of Peace) was cleared. Working conditions were
671
Pius VII, Chirografo of 2nd October 1802; see also Springer 1987:75-6. Outside the
Campo Vaccino Pius VII sponsored restorations at the Colosseum and excavations around
the χὄἵh ὁf ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe, the ἢaὀtheὁὀ, aὀἶ the ‘Rὁuὀἶ ἦemple’ iὀ the ἔὁὄum ἐὁaὄiumέ
The inscription commemorating the construction of the great buttress in 1806-7 is still
promiὀeὀt ὁὀ the ἑὁlὁὅὅeum’ὅ faὦaἶeέ χttemptὅ tὁ fὄee the ἢaὀtheὁὀ ὁf itὅ aἶjaἵeὀt fiὅh
market were less successful. Ridley 1992:36-46
672
Ridley 1992:37. The inscription would have been removed after 1870 during the
excavation of the surrounding area.
673
Ridley 1992:60.
674
Ibid., 189-93.
181
difficult and pay was low. In October 1813, the diggers in the Basilica were
driven to riot, but were successfully pacified.675
It should be stressed that neither Pius VII nor the French
administrators were excavating ‘the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’έ In 1809 it was still not
clear what a Forum actually looked like, or precisely where it lay beneath
the soil. Well into the 1830s, it was argued that the Forum must have been
positioned more neatly between the Capitoline and Palatine, as in Carlo
ἔea’ὅ plaὀ ὁf 1κἀἅ (fig. 50)έ It’ὅ aὀ eaὅy aὅὅumptiὁὀ tὁ make, aὅ the mὁἶeὄὀ
aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal ὅite that we ἵall (afteὄ the Repuἴliἵaὀὅ ὁf 1ἅλκ) ‘the ἔὁὄum’
corresponds with medieval Campo Vaccino and includes areas beyond the
ancient Forum’ὅ limits: the Via Sacra, the Basilica of Maxentius and the
Arch of Titus (fig. 47). But it obscures a striking difference between Pius
VII and the Napoleonic administration on the one hand, and the
Republicans on the other. While the Republicans attempted to revive the
‘Foro Romano’ as site and institution, the subsequent excavators were
concerned more with the monuments still visible: to free them from later
accretions, and open up vistas between them. Ultimately, the French goal
was to create an archaeological park, the ‘Jardin du Capitole’, stretching
from the Capitoline to the Colosseum through the Campo Vaccino – not to
exἵavate the pὁlitiἵally ἵὁὀteὀtiὁuὅ ‘Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum’έ676 ἡὀe aὄἵhiteἵt’ὅ
sycophantic plans to transform the Forum into the internal courtyard of a
massive palace for Napoleon (one final tyrannical domus) never progressed
further than the drawing board.677
Pius VII returned to Rome shortly after Waterloo. In further gesture
of archaeological one-upmanship, he retained many of the French-employed
antiquarians to continue their projects, on which he left his own name, in
the manner of Roman emperors. In the Vatican, his activities were
ἵὁmmemὁὄateἶ iὀ a ὀumἴeὄ ὁf fὄeὅἵὁeὅέ Iὀ ἢiuὅ’ εuὅeὁ ἑhiaὄamὁὀti,
Filippo Agricola decorated the Hall of the Tributes with lunettes depicting
675
Ibid., 99-109.
For the first plans for the Jardin du Capitole see Ridley 1992:64 ff. The hope was that
Napoleon would process in his own triumph through the Arches of Titus and Septimius
Severus and up to the Capitoline; in the end he never came to Rome. Springer 1987:82.
677
Bosworth 2011:54.
676
182
his antiquarian pursuits (fig. 51).678 In fig. 52, the Pope converses with an
antiquarian (possibly Camille de Tournon) by the Temple of Castor and
Pollux. In the foreground, humble diggers look up in love and awe. Behind
them, the Campo Vaccino is busy with excavations; S. Lorenzo in Miranda
is clearly visible.
Pius VII arguably established archaeology as a new papal dogma,
followed by all his successors until 1870. Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
combined archaeological enthusiasm with conservative measures attempting
to reinforce papal authority. Forbidding the introduction of gas lights and
railways throughout the Papal States, he stridently asserted the value of the
past. ώiὅ aὀtiquaὄiaὀiὅm waὅ ὅatiὄiὅeἶ iὀ ἕiuὅeppe ἕiὁaἵἵhiὀὁ ἐelli’ὅ
Roman dialect poems of the 1830s. The most well-known is Papa Grigorio
a li scavi, in which Gregory and his subjects admire meaningless heaps of
rubble. The narrator is the only one who sees through the sham.
«Bbene!», disceva er Papa in quer mascello
De li du' scavi de Campo-vaccino:
«Ber búscio! bbella fossa! bber grottino!
Bbelli sti serci! tutto quanto bbello!
E gguardate un po' llí cquer capitello
Si mmejjo lo pò ffà uno scarpellino!
E gguardate un po' cqui sto peperino
Si nun pare una pietra de fornello!»
E ttrattanto ch'er Papa in mezzo a ccento
Archidetti e antiquari de la corte
Asternava er zu' savio sintimento,
La turba, mmezzo piano e mmezzo forte,
Disceva: «Ah! sto sant'omo, ha un gran talento!
Ah, un Papa de sto tajjo è una gran zorte».679
‘ἕὄeat!’ ὅaiἶ the ἢὁpe iὀ that meὅὅ wheὄe they’ὄe ἶiggiὀg up ἑampὁ
Vaccino:
‘ἕὄeat hὁle! ἕὄeat ἶitἵh! ἕὄeat little ἵave! ἕὄeat little paviὀg ὅtὁὀeὅ! χll ὁf
it – great!
And have a look at that ἵapital, ὅee if ὁuὄ ὅἵulptὁὄ ἵaὀ’t ἶὁ ἴetteὄ!
678
679
The lunettes are discussed in more detail by Springer 1987:86-88.
Belli 1960: For recent scholarship on Belli see the essays collected in Onorati 2010.
183
χὀἶ lὁὁk at thiὅ tufa, ἶὁeὅὀ’t it lὁὁk juὅt like a ὅtὁὀe fὄὁm ὁuὄ ὁveὀὅ!’
And while the Pope in the middle of a hundred court architects and
antiquarians
Continued his wise observations,
The crowd, half quiet aὀἶ half lὁuἶ, ὅaiἶ, ‘ἡh! ἦhiὅ hὁly maὀ, what a gὄeat
genius!
ἡh, we’ὄe ὅὁ luἵky tὁ have a ἢὁpe like thiὅ ὁὀeέ’
ἦhe pὁem iὅ ἶateἶ εaὄἵh 1κἁἄ, ὅὁ it’ὅ juὅt pὁὅὅiἴle that the ἢὁpe waὅ
visiting excavations at the Clivus Capitolinus, where, two summers earlier,
fragments of an ancient structure had been discovered. These pieces were
soon to be reconstituted into a new monument, the Portico of the Dei
Consentes, which serves as a useful case study for papal archaeology in the
Forum at this time.
The Portico of the Dei Consentes – a case study
Visiting the present-day Forum, no one would describe the Portico
of the Dei Consentes as one of its major monuments, and certainly not one
of its highlights (fig. 53, overleaf). Long, asymmetrical and awkward, it
stands tucked under the Tabularium on the slope of the Clivus Capitolinus,
ὁὀ the veὄy eἶge ὁf the tὁuὄiὅtὅ’ ἔὁὄumέ It’ὅ ὅepaὄateἶ fὄὁm the ὄeὅt ὁf the
site by a chain blocking the road up to the Campidoglio, and the best view
of it is from the viewing platform by the Palazzo Senatorio on the modern
Via Monte Tarpeio, where people stop to enjoy the panoramic view of the
valley and toss coins onto its architrave.
ἦhe ἢὁὄtiἵὁ haὅὀ’t ὄeἵeiveἶ muἵh atteὀtiὁὀ fὄὁm ὅἵhὁlaὄὅέ ἦhe
structure was published by Giuseppe Nieddu in 1986 and its fourth-century
origins have been mentioned in passing by a number of historians.680 Its
nineteenth-century context, however, has been little exploredέ ‘χ ἴiὐaὄὄe
little ὅtὄuἵtuὄe’, aὅ ὁὀe wὄiteὄ putὅ it, iὅ the pὄevailiὀg judgment.681 In fact,
the Portico marks a turning point in the ἔὁὄum’ὅ history. By tracing its
story, we can see how the Forum was approached in the last few decades of
papal rule.
680
Nieddu 1986; for the 4th c., see Kahlos 1995 and 2002; Cameron 2011. An analysis of
the stone was conducted by Tucci et al 2002.
681
Watkin 2009:79.
184
As is true for many parts of the Forum, ancient evidence for a
‘ἢὁὄtiἵὁ ὁf the Dei ἑὁὀὅeὀteὅ’ iὅ ὅἵaὀtyέ Iὀ faἵt, theὄe’ὅ ὀὁ eviἶeὀἵe at all
that an ancient Roman would have referred to a Porticus Deum
Consentium.682 To take our material chronologically, the first suggestion of
a ὅpὁt ὅaἵὄeἶ tὁ the ‘ἑὁὀὅeὀtiὀg ἕὁἶὅ’ ἵὁmeὅ fὄὁm Vaὄὄὁ, at the beginning
of De Re Rustica:
et quoniam, ut aiunt, dei facientes adiuuant, prius inuocabo eos, nec, ut
Homerus et Ennius, Musas, sed duodecim deos Consentis; neque tamen
eos urbanos, quorum imagines ad forum auratae stant, sex mares et
feminae totidem, sed illos XII deos, qui maxime agricolarum duces sunt.683
And since, as they say, the gods help those who act, I call on them first:
not just the Muses, like Homer and Ennius, but the twelve Consenting
Gods; not those city-dwellers whose gilded images stand in the Forum, six
male and the same number female, but those twelve gods who are the
faὄmeὄὅ’ pὄefeὄὄeἶ guiἶeὅέ
Here Varro draws a parallel between his own literary endeavour and those
of the poets, but the Muses are not qualified to give the more practical help
ὄequiὄeἶ fὁὄ ἶealiὀgὅ with agὄiἵultuὄal matteὄὅέ Vaὄὄὁ’ὅ quiὀteὅὅeὀtial ἵity
gods (deos […] urbanos) – no use either – are, naturally, found ad forum.
ἔὄὁm thiὅ paὅὅage, theὀ, we ἵaὀ iὀfeὄ that iὀ Vaὄὄὁ’ὅ ἶay at leaὅt twelve
gilded statues of the ‘ἑὁὀὅeὀtiὀg ἕὁἶὅ’ ὅtὁὁἶ iὀ or near the Forum. These
probably represented (though not certainly) Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres,
Diana, Venus, and Jupiter, Vulcan, Mercury, Neptune, Apollo and Mars.684
Still, there is no mention of a portico. In fact, the only other literary mention
of a place dedicated to the Twelve is again by Varro, and refers to an aedes.
cur appellant omnes aedes deum consentum et non deorum consentium?685
Why does everyὁὀe ἵall it the ‘ἑὁὀὅeὀtiὀg ἕὁἶ ἥhὄiὀe’ aὀἶ ὀὁt the
‘ἑὁὀὅeὀtiὀg ἕὁἶὅ’ ἥhὄiὀe’ς
ἦhiὅ iὅ ὄefleἵteἶ ἴy the ὀame’ὅ ὁmiὅὅiὁὀ fὄὁm the LTUR.
Varro Rust. 1.1.4.
684
The list is given by Ennius, quoted by Apuleius in De deo Socratis 2.121. Livy 22.10.9
records a lectisternium of 217 BC, for these twelve gods, in six pairs, after the Roman
ἶefeat at δake ἦὄaὅummeὀuὅέ χὅ Eὀὀiuὅ’ liὅt ὄefleἵtὅ the twelve canonical Greek
ἡlympiaὀὅ, it’s been hypothesised that this lectisternium was an import of the Greek cult at
this moment of national disaster. At any rate, 217 BC is the first instance of these twelve
gods as a group in Roman history.
685
Varro Ling. κέἅηέ ἦhe mὁἶeὄὀ equivaleὀt might ἴe ‘Ἡhy iὅ it ἵalleἶ ἐaὄὁὀὅ ἑὁuὄt ὀὁt
ἐaὄὁὀ’ὅ ἑὁuὄtς’
682
683
185
As there was nothing in ancient literature to tie this part of the Forum to the
XII Gods, after antiquity their aedes languished in obscurity, relegated to a
grammatical quibble.686
In 1834, however, it resurfaced in the form of an architrave
inscription (CIL 6, 102) discovered with the remains of some columns.
‘ἦhe εὁὅt Illuὅtὄiὁuὅ Vettiuὅ ἢὄaetextatuὅ, Uὄἴaὀ ἢὄefeἵt, ὄeὅtὁὄeἶ the
sacred images of the Consenting Gods along with the whole area, having
returned the embellishment of the cult to its aὀἵieὀt fὁὄmέ’
The next year, Kellerman published the discovery and a reconstructed
inscription text. He reported that ten column bases were found in a line
forming an obtuse angle, four on the side of the Temple of Saturn and six on
the other, along with the inscription in two parts (figs. 43-44).687 The
inscription was something of a coup: this prefect must be the famous
Vettiuὅ ἢὄaetextatuὅ ὁf the fὁuὄth ἵeὀtuὄy, familiaὄ fὄὁm εaἵὄὁἴiuὅ’
Saturnalia. Although it made no reference to a porticus, one was inferred
from the scanty remains of the columns (figs. 54-55). A proposal was made
to restore the so-ἵalleἶ ‘Portico al Clivo Capitolino’, alὁὀgὅiἶe ὀeἵeὅὅaὄy
maintenance work to stabilise the Napoleonic road supported by the walls
of the ancient rooms behind the portico.688 Although nothing systematic was
done at that time, a prominent new inscription appeared on the back wall:
ἕREἕἡRIἡ • ἪVI • ἢἡσἦ • εχἪ
PERMVLTA MONVMENTA VETERVM
AD TABVLARIVM ET AD FORVM
IN APRICO POSITA
PONS SVBSTRVCTVS VIAE
QUAE A FORO DVCIT IN CAPITOLIVM
VT DEORSVM ADITVS PATEAT
χὀἶ, giveὀ that ὁuὄ ὄefeὄeὀἵeὅ aὄe limiteἶ tὁ Vaὄὄὁ, theὄe’ὅ ὀὁ ὄeaὅὁὀ tὁ ὅuppὁὅe that it
was a prominent monument in the imperial period; at the very least we can say that it was
not worth mentioning.
687
Kellerman in the Bullettino dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica of 1835,
quoted by Nieddu 1986:38-9.
688
Nieddu 1986:39.
686
186
AD PORTICVM ET SCHOLAM RVDERIBVS EDUCTAS
χ • ε • Dἑἑἑ ἪἪἪV • ἢἡσἦ • V
CVRANTE ANT TOSTIO PRAEF AER
Today, the white semicircle of this inscription is still visible even from
down in the Forum square (fig. 56). As with the Arch of Septimius Severus,
this was a grand commemoration of a simple excavation job. But, by
placing his name here, Gregory inserted himself into a tradition now known
to stretch back to Praetextatus. There was to be no doubt about who owned
the ‘permulta monumenta ueterum’.
For nearly twenty years the ὅite ὄemaiὀeἶ ἕὄegὁὄy ἪVI’ὅ ὄuiὀέ ἦheὀ,
in 1856, a new monument appeared: the Portico of the Dei Consentes had
been invented (figs. 57-58). The ancient columns were restored and reerected, and linked with a new architrave incorporating the ancient
inscription. Praetextatus was not the focus of the work, however. The
inscription was left unrestored, less prominent than the third and final
inscription at the monument, topped with the papal crest.
PIVS IX P M
PORTICVM ET SCHOLA
VETUSTATE AUT VASTATIONE COLLAPSAS
VT CLIVI TOPOGRAPHIAE CONSVLERET
COLVMN BASIB EPISTYLIO IN LVCEM PROLATIS
INSTAVRANDAS SERVANDASQUE
CVRAVIT
PER IOSEPHVM MILESI OP PVBL PRAEF
ANNO MDCCCLVIII
It was not by chance that Pius IX (1846-1878) chose this time to make such
a dramatic interventionέ χὀἶ the ἢὁὄtiἵὁ’ὅ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ was dramatic, perhaps
more than is now appreciated. In the 1850s, there were still only a few
large-scale monuments prominent in the Forum, and these had always been
visible. Restoration work (as on the Arch of Titus) had concentrated on
ὄeplaἵiὀg a ἴuilἶiὀg’ὅ miὅὅiὀg paὄtὅέ The Portico was a radical development
in papal archaeology: a completely new structure pieced together from
fragments. Here, again, we see the concept of the ancient monument as
public amenity, given by a generous pontiff to a grateful city. According to
187
the inscription, it was envisaged as an addition that would improve the
character of the Clivus; adornare was the verb used in the governmental
papers of 1856, which noted that
Per non lasciare più in lungo giacere in terrae in pezzi un monumento che
può aἶὁὄὀaὄe l’altὁ ἶel ἑlivὁ, ὅi è ἵὁmiὀἵiatὁ il ὄiὅaὄἵimeὀtὁ ἶelle ἵameὄe
sueriori, della platea e delle camere inferiori appellate da qualcuno Schola
Xantha e poscia tornate ad innalzare le colonne di marmo caristio sulle
loro basi vi saranno sovrapposte le cornice di marmo, sulle quali è
tὄaἵἵiata l’iὅἵὄiὐiὁὀeέ689
εὁὄe thaὀ that, the ἢὁὄtiἵὁ waὅ a teὅtameὀt tὁ the papaἵy’ὅ tὄaὀὅfὁὄmative
pὁweὄὅέ ἦhiὀk ἴaἵk tὁ the ὅeὀtimeὀt ὁf Viὅἵὁὀti’ὅ 1ἅἅη pὁem, ὁὄ eveὀ the
imageὄy ὁf εaὅὁ ἶi ἐaὀἵὁ’ὅ fὄeὅἵὁὅ iὀ ἥaὀta ἑὄὁἵe (pp. 161-2)έ ἢiuὅ’
inscription describes how the columns and epistyle of the pagan monument
haἶ ἵὁllapὅeἶ ‘thὄὁugh ἶevaὅtatiὁὀ ὁὄ gὄeat age’έ σὁw, they have ἴeen
‘ἴὄὁught iὀtὁ the light’, re-erected. The rhetoric of the reconstruction is
strident because this is the work of another pope who had returned from
exile: 1848 had seen the declaration of a new republic.
The Republican Forum, 1848-9
In the first years of his papacy (1846-7), ἢiὁ σὁὀὁ’ὅ pὁliἵies had
been relatively liberal, compared with Gregory XVI’ὅ. They brought the
new pontiff great admiration from foreign visitors and prompted some
Italians, most prominently the Piedmontese writer and priest Vicenzo
Gioberti, to hope that the burgeoning movement for Italian unification
might find its figurehead in the Pope as leader both of the universal church
aὀἶ ὁf a Rὁme whiἵh ‘fiὀally uὀἶeὄὅtaὀἶ thὄὁugh the paὅt aὀἶ the pὄeὅeὀt
the ὀatuὄe ὁf the futuὄeέ’690 It waὅὀ’t tὁ ἴe, eveὀ if ἢiuὅ haἶ ἴeeὀ williὀgέ Iὀ
the upheaval that spread through Europe in the 1840s he was exiled from
Rome and forced to watch from Naples as another Roman Republic was
689
Acts of the Pontifical Government, 1856.
Gioberti 1847:3.163-6; Bosworth 2011:79-81. For an admiring account of Pius by a
foreigner, see Fuller 1991. Not everyone was convinced; the future American ambassador
George Perkins Marsh wrote in 1847, ‘Dὁ ὀὁt [...] commit yourself to the belief in a liberal
Pope! It is a contradiction in terms – an impossibility in the very nature of things.
Whatever Pius IX may think now, he will fiὀἶ that he ἵaὀ’t ἴe ἴὁth ἢὁpe aὀἶ patὄiὁtέ’
Marsh 1888:1.116.
690
188
proclaimed, this time at the instigation not of the French, but his own
subjects.691
As in 1798, revolution was triggered by an assassination. This time
it waὅ the ἢὁpe’ὅ unpopular Minister of the Interior, Pellegrino Rossi,
stabbed on the steps of the Palazzo della Cancellaria on 15th November by
Luigi Brunetti, the son of the revolutionary Angelo, nicknamed
‘ἑiἵeὄuaἵἵhiὁ’έ692 The American journalist Margaret Fuller described the
stabbing, which the crowd outside the Palazzo watched in silence:
The sense of the people was certainly that it was an act of summary justice
on an offender whom the laws could not reach, but they felt it to be
indecent to shout or exult on the spot where he was breathing his last.
Rome, so long supposed the Capital of Christendom, certainly took a very
pagan view of this act, and the piece represented on the occasion at the
theatὄeὅ waὅ ‘ἦhe Death ὁf σeὄὁ’έ693
As Giuseppe Garibaldi recalled in his memoirs,
[Rossi] had faithfully served the interests of tyranny and in getting rid of
him the ancient metropolis of the world showed itself worthy of its
illustrious past. A young Roman had wielded anew the sword of Brutus
aὀἶ ἶὄὁwὀeἶ the maὄἴle ὅtepὅ ὁf the ἑapitὁl with the tyὄaὀt’ὅ ἴlὁὁἶ!694
On the 24th, Pius IX fled in disguise to Gaeta, just over the border in
Naples-Sicily. Revolutionaries flocked to Rome. Giuseppe Garibaldi and his
Italian legion arrived in December. The Republic was formally proclaimed
on the 8th February 1849. Margaret Fuller self-consciously relished the
opportunity to move through Rome like an ancient Roman:
χt ὁὀe ὁ’ἵlὁἵk ὁὀ the mὁὄὀiὀg ὁf the λth February, the Republic was
resolved upon and the crowd rushed away to ring all the bells. Early next
morning I rose and went forth to seek the Republic. Over the Quirinal I
went, through the Forum to the Capitol.695
ἦhe ‘ἔuὀἶameὀtal Deἵὄee ὁf the ἑὁὀὅtitutiὁὀal χὅὅemἴly’ waὅ ὄeaἶ ὁut that
ἶay ὁὀ the ἑapitὁliὀe ἴy a ἶeputy iὀ ‘a ἵleaὄ, fὄieὀἶly vὁiἵeέ’ It pὄὁἵlaimeἶ
691
Baldoli 2009:192.
Bosworth 2001:91 writes ‘hiὅ ὅὁuἴὄiὁquet ἵuὄiὁuὅly ἶemὁὀὅtὄateἶ hὁw the ὁὄatὁὄy ὁf
ἑiἵeὄὁ haἶ ὀeveὄ ἴeeὀ quite fὁὄgὁtteὀ iὀ the ἵity’ – but others derive it from a childhood
nickname, ‘ἵiὄuaἵἵhiὁttὁ’, Rὁmaὀ ἶialeἵt fὁὄ ‘ἵhuἴἴy’ (‘ἐὄuὀetti, χὀgelὁ’, Dizionario
Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 14).
693
Fuller 1991:240-1.
694
Garibaldi, tr. Parkin 2004:19.
695
Fuller 1991:256.
692
189
the eὀἶ ὁf the ἢὁpe’ὅ tempὁὄal pὁweὄ, ἴut aἵkὀὁwleἶgeἶ hiὅ ὅpiὄitual
authority and concluded
Art. 3. La forma del governo dello Stato Romano sará la democrazia pura,
e prenderà il glorioso nome di Repubblica Romana.
χὄtέ ἂέ δa Repuἴἴliἵa Rὁmaὀa avὄà ἵὁl ὄeὅtὁ ἶ’Italia le ὄelaὐiὁὀi ἵhe
esigge la nazionalità comune.696
Garibaldi was elected deputy of Macerata. Many years later, he reminisced,
This was a truly impressive sight – to see the sons of Rome called once
again to the comitia after centuries of servitude, of prostration to the
atrocious yoke of empire and the even more shameful burden of papal
theocracyέ […] I waὅ a witὀeὅὅ tὁ the ὄeἴiὄth ὁf the gὄeateὅt ὁf all
republics, the Roman Republic, in the city which had been the greatest in
the world! What a vision of the future, what hopes!697
His sentiment here echoes the words of Giuseppe Mazzini, who arrived in
March and was voted Triumvir of the Roman Republic. In his first speech to
the Chamber of Deputies on the 6th, he proclaimed,
After the Rome of the Emperors and the Rome of the Popes, now is
coming the Rome of the People.698
The next month, Pius IX in exile delivered an allocution (‘Quibus
quantisque’) tὁ hiὅ ἵaὄἶiὀalὅέ εaὐὐiὀi’ὅ viὅiὁὀ ὁf pὄὁgὄeὅὅ waὅ ὀὁthiὀg
more than regression. Snatched from the hands of the Holy Father, Urbs had
become Anti-Urbs. In sonorous Latin, he lamented that the revolutionaries
haἶ tuὄὀeἶ Rὁme iὀtὁ the ‘nationibus tantorum malorum auctrix’έ ώeὄe iὅ a
ἵleaὄ expὄeὅὅiὁὀ ὁf the ἢapaἵy’ὅ viὅiὁὀ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ miὅὅiὁὀμ
Who does not know that in the city of Rome, the principal seat of the
Catholic Church, is at present – alas! – been transformed into a forest of
raging beasts, since it is filled with men from all nations, apostates,
heretics, or followers of so-called communism or socialism, and animated
with enormous hatred for Catholic truth are with their voices, and writings,
and all other methods trying to teach and spread all kinds of pestilent
errors, and to corrupt the minds of all, so that in the city itself, as if it were
696
Decree, 9th February 1849. Cf. Fuller 1991:256-7.
Garibaldi, tr. Parkin 2004:22-4.
698
Ibid. 1991:263.
697
190
possible! the holiness of the Catholic religion and the unchangeable rule of
faith may be depraved? 699
ἢiuὅ’ problem was that, despite the papacy’s best efforts, the idea of
Republican Rome reawakened in 1798-9 had never been quashed. The
Forum remained central to the Republican vision, and while the popes had
succeeded in shaping the ἑampὁ Vaἵἵiὀὁ’ὅ phyὅiἵal laὀdscape the concept
of the place remained beyond their control.
Iὀ 1κἂκ, tὁ take ὁὀe example, a ὀew eἶitiὁὀ ὁf ἑhaὄleὅ Diἶieὄ’ὅ
1833 novel Rome Souterraine waὅ puἴliὅheἶέ Deἶiἵateἶ ‘au Pape’, it
imagines a revolutionary uprising in papal Rome. Facing defeat, the
revolutionaries decide to make the Forum the scene of their final stand:
« χu ἔὁὄum! ὅ’éἵὄia le εὁἶeὀaiὅν ὅ’il faut à la liἴeὄté italieὀὀe uὀ ἴûἵheὄ,
ἵ’eὅt là que ὀὁuὅ le lui ἶὄeὅὅeὄὁὀὅέ δe lieu eὅt ἶigὀe ἶ’elleέ »700
S. Lorenzo in Miranda is the movemeὀt’ὅ headquarters, and the Carbonari
retreat there. The final battle, in which they sacrifice themselves for la
liberté italienne, is described with a dramatic blending of ancient and
modern:
En ce moment, la porte de la rue Salaria fut vaincre par la sape et tomba.
ἑ’était le ὅigὀal ἶe la ὅὁὄtie ; elle fut efroyable : on eût dit la phalange de
εaἵéἶὁiὀe eὀfὁὀὦaὀt leὅ hὁὄἶeὅ ἶ’χὅieέ δa mὁuὅqueteὄie ἵeὅὅa, ὁὀ ὅe pὄit
corps à corps, on lutta homme à homme, et, pour ajouter au tumulte, la
masure, au même inὅtaὀt, ὅ’aἴîma ἶaὀὅ uὀ tὁuὄἴillὁὀ ἶe feuέ Jamaiὅ le
Forum, ce vieux champ de bataille des Gracques, des Barbares et des
gueὄὄeὅ ἵivileὅ ἶu mὁyeὀ âge, jamaiὅ il ὀ’avait vu uὀe ὅi épὁuvaὀtaἴle
mêlée.701
Iὀ thiὅ light, it’ὅ ὅigὀifiἵaὀt that the Rὁmaὀ Repuἴliἵ was influenced
most profoundly by two men who were not native Romans. Garibaldi had
visited Rome only once, twenty years earlier. Mazzini had never visited
Rome before 1849; his familiarity with the city was entirely through texts,
as he told the Chamber in the same speech of 6th March:
Rome was always a sort of talisman for me; a youth, I studied the history
of Italy, and found that while all the other nations were born, grew up,
ἢiuὅ IἪ, ‘ἣuiἴuὅ quaὀtiὅque’έ
Didier 1848:250.
701
Didier 1848:262.
699
700
191
played their part in the world, then fell to reappear no more in the same
power, a single city was privileged by God to die only to rise again greater
than before, to fulfil a mission greater than the first.702
Here Mazzini hijacks the papal ὄhetὁὄiἵ ὁf Rὁme’ὅ ὄeἴiὄth fὄὁm ὄuiὀέ The
Popes were missing the point. Commemorative inscriptions on ancient
monuments were mere petty scratchings on the surface. Far more important
was what those monuments represented: potential, and proof. The potential
for a united Italy to become great under a Republican government; the proof
that it had been done before, and could be done again. That was not to deny
the importance of the monuments themselves. Large-scale excavations for
the Forum were announced by decree of the Constituent Assembly on 24th
March 1849:
[…] δ’χὅὅemἴlea ἑὁὅtitueὀte
Considerando che lo scavamento del Foro Romano, mentre accrese lustro
alla ἑittà, ὄiἵhiamaὀἶὁ alla luἵe mὁltὁ ὅpleὀἶiἶὁ ὄeliquie ἶell’aὀtiἵa
Roma, somministra occasione di lavoro e di necessaria sussistenza a molti
cittadini, che non potrebbo utilmente impiegarsi nella milizia,
DECRETA
1. Il ἔὁὄὁ Rὁmaὀὁ, ὁveὀaἵque e pὄὁὅpeὄò l’aὀtiἵa Repuἴἴliἵa Rὁmaὀa,
sarà sgombrato dalle terre, che lo ricuoprono. […]703
As the announcement made clear, the works had a practical as well as an
ideological purpose, to provide employment for those citizens who were not
eligible for military service.
The reference to the militia in this decree reminds us that the
Republic had not many months to live. While there was no time to
physically extract the ancient monuments, they were transformed with lightshows. The Birthday of Rome was celebrated in April 1849. At nightfall on
the 22nd the Colosseum’ὅ iὀteὄiὁὄ was illuminated with Bengal lights and
flickering torches. After midnight, the Roman people took their torches and
processed en masse through the Forum and up to the Campidoglio.704
702
Fuller 1991:263.
‘σὁtifiἵa’, ἀηth March 1849.
704
Nasto 1994:59-60. Illuminations could be subversiveμ ὁὀ the ἢὁpe’ὅ ὄetuὄὀ iὀ 1κηί,
citizens were ordered to light their windows on pain of punishment; many chose to light
lamps in republican colours. Marraro 1944:504.
703
192
By June, the French would retake Rome. Iὀ ἕaὄiἴalἶi’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀt, the
tension between himself and Mazzini in May 1849 is palpable. Faced with
the choice between allowing the Repuἴliἵaὀ tὄὁὁpὅ (ἕaὄiἴalἶi’ὅ meὀ amὁὀg
them) to cut their losses and escape to fight another day, or recalling them
to Rome, Mazzini and the other triumvirs decided instead on a symbolic last
stand around the Eternal City. When the Republican forces began to flag
after desperate fighting around the walls, he agaiὀ ὄefuὅeἶ ἕaὄiἴalἶi’ὅ
proposal that they should withdraw to the Appenines.705 ἕaὄiἴalἶi’s
resentment is still felt:
If ὁὀly εaὐὐiὀi […] haἶ ἴeeὀ aὅ pὄaἵtiἵally miὀἶeἶ aὅ he waὅ pὄὁlix iὀ
thiὀkiὀg up mὁvemeὀtὅ aὀἶ pὄὁjeἵtὅέ […] χὅ faὄ aὅ the individuals were
concerned, this was a courageous resolution and to their honour, but it was
a pὁὁὄ ἶeἵiὅiὁὀ fὁὄ ὁuὄ ὀatiὁὀ’ὅ ἶigὀity aὀἶ itὅ futuὄe iὀteὄeὅtὅέ706
Mazzini, however, so steeped as he was in the classical past, could no more
abandon Rome to the Gauls than the Capitoline garrison in Livy 1.
Reflecting on his decision to send many men to their deaths in defence of
the Republic, Mazzini wrote,
With those who have said or written that the resistance of Rome to her
French invaders was an error, it were useless to discuss. To the many other
causes which decided us to resist, there was in my mind added one
intimately bound up with the aim of my whole life – the foundation of our
ὀatiὁὀal uὀityέ […] It waὅ ὀeἵeὅὅaὄy that all ὅhὁulἶ leaὄὀ hὁw pὁteὀt waὅ
the immortality stirring beneath those ruins of two epochs, two worlds. I
did feel that power, did feel the pulsations of the immense eternal life of
Rome through the artificial crust with which priests and courtiers had
covered the great sleeper, as if with a ὅhὄὁuἶέ I haἶ faith iὀ heὄέ […]
Strategically I was aware that the struggle ought to have been carried on
out of Rome [...]. But victory, unless we were to receive assistance from
the other provinces of Italy, was equally impossible within and without the
walls; and since we were destined to fall, it was our duty, in view of the
future, to proffer our morituri te salutant to Italy from Rome.707
There is a painting now in the Museo del Risorgimento of the 1849 siege
(fig. 60), the work of an unknown artist not long after the event. The line of
705
Garibaldi tr. Parkin 2004:35.
Ibid., 34-5.
707
Mazzini 1890:5.201-2.
706
193
the walls, location of the fighting, is shadowed; the view is dominated by
the Forum area, the heart of Rome and rallying point for the whole of Italy –
the ideal they were defending. As Garibaldi would write in the 1860s,
ἐe hὁpeful, my ἵὁuὀtὄy! […] Yὁuὄ ἴὄave yὁuὀg meὀ aὄe ὀὁt yet all gὁὀeμ
the men who stood on the barricades in Brescia, Milan, Casale, on the
bridge over the Mincio, on the bulwarks of Venice, Bologna, Ancona,
Palermo, in the streets of Naples, Messina, Livorno, on the Janiculum Hill
aὀἶ iὀ the ἔὁὄum ὁf the aὀἵieὀt ἵapital ὁf the wὁὄlἶ…708
Aftermath
The rhetoric of the Portico of the Dei Consentes appears not so
much strong as strained against this backdrop. It should be seen as a direct
response to the experience of the Republic. When Pius IX returned in 1850
he attempted to reclaim the ideological ground lost to the revolutionaries.
Again, a pope took over excavations ordered by his rivals. Under papal
patronage, the architect Luigi Canina established the correct names of the
Temples of Vespasian and Saturn and continued excavating the Basilica
Julia. The Portico was reconstructed in 1855-6 with a triumphant flourish,
ἴut ἢiuὅ’ heaὄt waὅ ὀὁ lὁὀgeὄ iὀ itέ When Canina died in 1856 he was not
replaced. The Basilica Julia excavations were abandoned (fig. 61-62).709
It seemed that the revolutionaries had won the battle for pagan
antiquity. Abandoning the Forum, Pius concentrated on Christian
archaeology in the ancient catacombs.710 ‘ἦhe ὅaὄἵὁphagi, iὀὅἵὄiptiὁὀs and
frescoes retrieved from the catacombs conveyed a clear and unambiguous
message to nineteenth-century Europe: the survival of the faith despite all
pὁlitiἵal peὄὅeἵutiὁὀέ’711 Meanwhile, his attitude to the modern world
hardened. The Syllabus Errorum of 1864 repudiated a number of earlier
liberal measures and bitterly rejected the idea that
708
Garibaldi tr. Parkin 2004:22.
Springer 1987:189.
710
Others continued to excavate in the area. Napoleon III purchased the Farnese Gardens in
1860 and ordered excavations on the Palatine as he composed his biography of Julius
Caesar. These were open to the public on payment of an admission fee. See Dyson
2006:40-41.
711
Springer 1987:169-70.
709
194
The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms
with progress, liberalism and modern civilisation.712
Pius VII left the Vatican decorated with scenes of his archaeological
pursuits; Pius IX is commemorated in the Pinacoteca by a great mural
celebrating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, formally
established in 1854.713
However, the irony of the Portico of the Dei Consentes is that it was
the ἔὁὄum’ὅ laὅt pagaὀ mὁὀumeὀt, ὄeὅtὁὄeἶ ἴy the laὅt ὄeigὀiὀg ἢὁpe-King.
In the 1860s, the armies of the Risorgimento finally marched towards the
Papal States: Victor Emmanuel and the army of Piedmont from the north,
aὀἶ ἕaὄiἴalἶi’ὅ ἥiἵiliaὀ Expeἶition from the south. United Italy would
claim Rome with or without the Pope. In 1869-70, the First Vatican Council
confirmed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but the collapse of Napoleon
III’ὅ ὄegime iὀ 1κἅί prompted the withdrawal of the French troops that
fὁὄmeἶ Rὁme’ὅ laὅt ἶefeὀἵeέ
Despite the ideological struggles of the nineteenth century so far, the
Forum would be excavated not under a papal or a republican government,
but by a constitutional monarchy.
712
713
Syllabus Errorum 80.
In the Room of the Immaculate Conception.
195
196
2.2 – A Forum for Italy (1870-1945).
On this spot, October 1888
Crowds packed into the Forum, jostling, cheering, gazing at the
brilliantly illuminated monuments (fig. 63, overleaf). To celebrate the visit
of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Kingdom of Italy was shining a spotlight on its
own imperial heritage. The symbolism was unambiguous. Across the Tiber,
the Vatican lay in shadows, its temporal power eclipsed. Italy derived her
national pride from this bright strip of antiquity from the Capitoline to the
Colosseum. With the evidence of her old glory brought to light, she took her
rightful place among the great nations of Europe.
In May 1938, the Forum was illuminated again for the arrival of
another German leader. Adolf Hitler arrived at Ostiense railway station on
the evening of the 3rd, and was escorted into the city by King Victor
Emmanuel III in a horse-drawn carriage. 45,000 sets of lamps linked by 100
miles of cabling electrified Rome in a ‘ὅymphὁὀy ὁf lightὅ’έ714 This time the
people were not gathered in the Forum but lined Via ἶell’Impeὄὁ, the great
new highway that had been driven through the ancient centre of the city to
link the Colosseum to Palazzo Venezia. Looking from left to right, the
Führer saw the monuments of ancient Rome exposed at the command of
Italy’ὅ Duἵe, ἐeὀitὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi, and the Colosseum bathed in the blood red
of the Nazi flag (fig. 64, overleaf). Over the next few days, the foundations
were laiἶ fὁὄ the ‘paἵt ὁf ὅteel’ bonding Italy and Germany in the Second
World War.
The technological shift from Bengal lights to electricity illustrates
how much the city had changed over the half-century of unification. In
1870, Rome was still physically the baroque city of the Popes, home to a
population of just 300,000, but its new status triggered a construction and
demographic boom.715 ‘Rὁma ἑapitale’ exploded from the shrunken papal
city into a sprawling modern capital, complete with railways and traffic.
714
715
Watkin 2009:211.
Rhodes 1983:27.
197
The Forum, too, was transformed between 1870 and 1945 into the
archaeological site familiar today.
1888 was not the first time the Forum had been illuminated; in fact,
in March 1811 the Napoleonic administrators had put on a similar display to
ἵeleἴὄate the ἴiὄth ὁf the Empeὄὁὄ’ὅ ὅὁὀέ ἦhe iὀteὀὅity ὁf the ὅpὁtlightὅ ὁὀ
all three occasions simply cast into relief the absence of a crucial figure –
the Pope. Rὁme’ὅ capture in 1870 put Church and State into immediate
deadlock. ἢiuὅ IἪ ἶeἵlaὄeἶ himὅelf a ‘ἢὄiὅὁὀeὄ iὀ the Vatiἵaὀ’έ ἦhe ἴull
‘Quanta cura’, issued 1st November 1870, was unambiguous:
We declare openly, mindful of our office and of our oath, that we will
never assent to a conciliation or an agreement which in any way may
destroy or diminish our rights and therefore those of God and the Holy
See.716
Although his temporal power had evaporated, the Pope refused to quit
Rome or negotiate with the Kiὀg (‘the Italiaὀ uὅuὄpeὄ’, the ‘ὅὁὀ ὁf
ἶaὄkὀeὅὅ’)έ Iὀ practice, his obstinacy had little effect on the arrangements of
the new government, but it denied the monarchy and united Italy vital
legitimacy, and left the Roman people in a long-lasting quandary not
resolved until 1929.717 Oscar Wilde lightly satirised the experience in 1900.
χfteὄ aὀ emὁtiὁὀal eὀἵὁuὀteὄ with the ἢὁpe (ἢiuὅ’ ὅuἵἵeὅὅὁὄ δeὁ ἪIII,
1878-1903), he was passed by King Umberto in his car.
I at once stood and made a low bow, with hat doffed – to the admiration of
some Italian officers at the next table. It was only when the King was
passed that I remembered I was Papista and Nerissimo! I was greatly
upὅetέ ώὁweveὄ, I hὁpe the Vatiἵaὀ wὁὀ’t heaὄ aἴὁut itέ718
Again, the classical past seemed to provide the answer, a unifying
ideology for all Italians that supported the message that the Kingdom of
Italy was the natural outcome of the Risorgimento – not of a conquest by
Piedmont engineered by Victor Emmanuel and his Prime Minister Cavour.
Under the watchful eye of Guido Baccelli, the Minister of Public
Instruction, the Roman remains were to become monuments to the Italian
ἢiuὅ IἪ Eὀἵyἵliἵal ‘ἣuaὀta ἵuὄa’, 1 σὁvemἴeὄ 1κἅίέ
χlὄeaἶy iὀ 1κἄκ he haἶ iὅὅueἶ tὁ the ἶeἵὄee ‘σὁὀ expeἶit’, fὁὄἴiἶἶiὀg ἑathὁliἵὅ eitheὄ
tὁ vὁte ὁὄ ἴe vὁteὄὅέ ἐὁltὁὀ 1λἅίμλ1 ὀὁteὅ that ‘ἦhe pὁlitiἵal elite ὅὁὁὀ leaὄὀeἶ how to be
ἑathὁliἵ with the ἢὁpe aὀἶ liἴeὄal with the ἥtateέ’
718
Wilde, letter to Robbie Ross, 21st April 1900.
716
717
198
ὀatiὁὀ’ὅ mighty paὅtέ719 As early as 1870, plans were made to revive the
σapὁleὁὀiἵ ‘Jaὄἶiὀ ἶu ἑapitὁle’ iὀ ὁὄἶeὄ tὁ preserve the Forum, Palatine
and Capitoline from developers. The park would serve an explicitly didactic
purpose, educating the next generation of Italians in their unique history.
The excavation of the Forum went some way towards achieving this goal
(fig. 65).
The Italian government faced the same problem as Augustus had in
30 BC. The Forum of 1870 was full of churches, many built into and around
the ancient structures, witnesses to over a millennium of Christian history at
the site: SS. Sergio e Bacco, S. Adriano, S. Lorenzo in Miranda, SS. Cosma
e Damiano, S. Francesca Romana, S. Maria Liberatrice. 720 Various papal
names were stamped all over the area. Meanwhile, the Forum still echoed
with more recent Republican memories. The lack of a papal blessing was
felt mὁὄe ὅtὄὁὀgly ἴy Viἵtὁὄ Emmaὀuel’ὅ gὁveὄὀmeὀt ἴeἵauὅe, while some
Risorgimento leaders, Garibaldi in particular, had been willing to
compromise their democratic dreams in order to achieve a united Italy, rule
by the Royal House of Savoy was not the visiὁὀ εaὐὐiὀi’ὅ 1849 Roman
Republic had died for.
Iὀ thiὅ ἵhapteὄ, we’ll see how the modern Forum was shaped in
response to these two pressures. In the process of excavation, almost all of
the ἑampὁ Vaἵἵiὀὁ’ὅ late-antique and medieval Christian heritage was
ὅtὄippeἶ away tὁ ἵὄeate the ὄeὅὁlutely ‘pagaὀ’ ὅite we viὅit tὁἶayέ
Simultaneously, in an eἵhὁ ὁf χuguὅtuὅ’ pὁliἵy aὀἶ iὀὅpiὄeἶ ἴy the textὅ
ἶiὅἵuὅὅeἶ iὀ ἢaὄt 1έ1, the ‘Repuἴliἵaὀ’ elemeὀtὅ ὁf the ἔὁὄum weὄe
downplayed and its archaic archaeology, including new evidence for a
‘hiὅtὁὄiἵal’ Rὁmaὀ ὄegal peὄiὁἶ, weὄe emphaὅiὅeἶέ ἦhe ‘ὄegal’ ἵὁὀὀeἵtiὁὀ
was reinforced by frequent appearances onsite by King Umberto, Queen
Margherita and King Victor Emmanuel III. During the Fascist era,
εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ ὄegime alὅὁ explὁiteἶ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ impeὄial aὅὅὁἵiatiὁὀὅ, with
the figures of Caesar and Augustus in particular incorporated into the
Baccelli embodied the ὀew ‘ἵlaὅὅiἵal veὄὀaἵulaὄ’έ ἡὀe ὀewὅpapeὄ ὄepὁὄteἶ iὀ 1κκλ that,
aἵἵὁὄἶiὀg tὁ hiὅ fὄieὀἶὅ, he ἵὁulἶ ὄeaἶ aὀἶ wὄite δatiὀ ‘with ἵlaὅὅiἵ eaὅe’ν hiὅ eὀemieὅ ὅaiἶ
that he introduced to Latin ‘wὁὄἶὅ aὀἶ phὄaὅeὅ whiἵh wὁulἶ ἵauὅe ἑiἵeὄὁ tὁ tuὄὀ iὀ hiὅ
gὄaveέ’ (Freeman’s Journal, 10th October 1889).
720
Ἡatkiὀ ἀίίλ pὄὁviἶeὅ aὀ ὁveὄview ὁf all the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἵhuὄἵheὅν hiὅ dour feelings about
the archaeological excavations should be apparent from the outset.
719
199
Duἵe’ὅ ὅelf-presentation. Restoration work built on what had already begun
aὀἶ emphaὅiὅeἶ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ‘Julian’ heritage.
All these developments took place before a watching world. In an
era when archaeology was a form of international competition, the Forum
excavations were Italy’ὅ flagὅhip pὄὁjeἵt, pὄὁἵlaimiὀg the kiὀgἶὁm’ὅ
unrivalled antiquity but also its modernity in the use of the most up-to-date
scientific methodologies. The opening of the Mont Cenis railway tunnel
through the Alps in 1871 meant that thousands more international visitors
came to Rome every year; the Forum was becoming a tourist destination in
the modern sense. Although the Roman past was for Italians alone to
excavate, a growing number of international scholars and visitors also
helped to shape the new Forum.721 The excavations were therefore part of a
three-way dialogue between Italy, its citizens, and the international
community.722 χὅ ὁὀe Italiaὀ ὅἵhὁlaὄ wὄὁte pὄὁuἶly, ‘ἥtuἶeὀtὅ ὁf Rὁmaὀ aὄt
and archaeology must prepare themselves for a campaign of unprecedented
activity and importance. I do not think I exaggerate in declaring at the
present moment no other capital in Europe can be compared to Rome as
regards the extent and importance of public works closely followed by
pὄivate eὀteὄpὄiὅeέ’723
Deconsecrating the Forum
Before Roma Capitale, it was possible for a visitor to the Campo
Vaccino to write an account of the area that focused entirely on its churches.
In the 1860s Frances Elliot carried away precisely the impression that Pius
IX would wish, that of the equal greatness and essential continuity between
the First and Second Romes:
If the heroic deeds of Roman history rendered this ground and these ruins
famous, Christian fortitude and heavenly virtues have also set on them an
indelible and immortal imprint.724
Like the Colosseum, it was a place to contemplate the sufferings of the
Christian martyrs. But by 1912 a book purporting to be a guide to The Ideal
721
Dyson 2006:99.
Price 2011.
723
Lanciani 1988:143.
724
Elliot 1871:2.17.
722
200
Italian Tour was able to discuss the Forum in several detailed paragraphs
withὁut a ὅiὀgle meὀtiὁὀ ὁf itὅ ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ mὁὀumeὀtὅέ ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ
Christian history had been almost completely excluded. Over three decades
of intense digging between 1κκί aὀἶ 1λ1ί the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ hiὅtὁὄy
was excavated away.725
The aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiὅtὅ’ aὄὄival iὀ 1κἅί effeἵtively maὄkeἶ aὀ end for the
Church in the Forum, although, for a few years, it seemed that there was
little archaeology left to fiὀἶέ ἢietὄὁ Rὁὅa’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀὅ ἵὁὀἵeὀtὄateἶ (aὅ
had all excavations previously) on structures still visible, and by the mid1870s the Column of Phocas, the Basilica Julia and the Temple of Castor
were completely freed. On 21st April 1882 the Birthday of Rome was
celebrated with a lightshow attended by King Umberto and Queen
Margherita.726 But nothing startlingly new had been uncovered.727 The
archaeologists had to wait until 1883 for their first coup.
The House of the Vestal Virgins was discovered when excavations
around the Temple of Castor were extended. It was a long-awaited publicity
triumph, helped by the fact that Rodolfo Lanciani, who had taken over as
director in 1878, was the most prominent Italian scholar communicating the
discoveries in English.728 In December 1883 King Umberto paid a visit and
– in shades of Papa Grigorio – ὅpeὀt ‘ὁveὄ aὀ hὁuὄ aὀἶ a half examiὀiὀg
eveὄythiὀg with the gὄeateὅt iὀteὄeὅt’έ729
A stronger aὀἵieὀt aὀtiἶὁte tὁ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἑathὁliἵ ὅhὄiὀeὅ aὀἶ
convents could not have been foundέ δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ 1883 report breathed to the
English-speaking world:
725
For details of the excavations I have relied heavily on the contemporary reports
published in Notizie degli Scavi, as well as Sisani 2004. The Acropolis at Athens again
provides a parallel. From 1835 the Acropolis was excavated with an exclusive focus on the
5th ἵέ ἐἑέ εeἶieval mateὄial waὅ ὅtὄippeἶ away aὅ eviἶeὀἵe ὁf ἕὄeeἵe’ὅ ἦuὄkiὅh
‘ὁἵἵupatiὁὀ’έ χὄguaἴly the effect on the Acropolis has been much more extreme than on
the Forum. See Hurwit 1999:298-302.
726
Lanciani 1988:108.
727
Ibid. 66 (28th June 1879) describes the Forum’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀ aὅ a ‘matteὄ ὁf ἶuty’ rather
than passion as it had already been raked over.
728
The Athenaeum puἴliὅheἶ hiὅ ὄegulaὄ ‘σὁteὅ fὄὁm Rὁme’, full ὁf ὅἵieὀtifiἵ faἵtὅ aὀἶ
figures, from 1876 to 1913. Lanciani played to his British readership by describing in detail
the hoard of Anglo-Saxon coins found in the House. One journalist enjoyed speculating
that, as in the 19th century, there would have been many Englishmen at Rome in the 9th:
Daily News 25th December 1883.
729
The Standard 18529.
201
We have just entered the threshold of the most mysterious house in which
spotless patrician maidens, perfect in body and pure in soul, for centuries
performed their sacred duties.730
δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ highly romanticised Vestal Virgins were the embodiment of
pagan virtue, the guardians of the flame that Italy was attempting to
reignite. His discussion absorbed Christian terminology – the Chief Vestal
waὅ the ‘aἴἴeὅὅ’ ὁf the ‘ὁὄἶeὄ’ ὁὄ ‘ὅiὅteὄhὁὁἶ’, aὀἶ he dwelt at length on the
Veὅtalὅ’ ‘ὅiὀὅ aὀἶ expiatiὁὀὅ’ – ἴut ‘the hiὅtὁὄiἵal aἵἵὁuὀtὅ ὁf that lὁvely
ὅiὅteὄhὁὁἶ have a ἵhaὄm ὁf theiὄ ὁwὀέ’731 He also placed them in a tradition
stretching back into the prehistoric era, before the founding of Rome, a
pedigree that nothing else in the 1883 Forum could compete with.732
Lanciani and his team endeavoured to display the House to best
advantage, providing the ἔὁὄum’ὅ viὅitὁὄὅ with a ὀew fὁἵal pὁiὀtέ ἦhe falleὀ
portrait statues of Vestals discovered were re-erected in the atrium (figs. 667). His report continues, with a shot of acid, that they stood
ὄeaἶy tὁ welἵὁme the viὅitὁὄὅ, […] glaἶ tὁ have ὄeἵὁveὄeἶ pὁὅὅeὅὅiὁὀ ὁf
the house which for eleven centuries has been the witness of their joys and
sorrows, the depository of their secrets, and from which they were brutally
expelled in AD 394.733
One mysterious find was a statue base with a mutilated inscription,
decipherable as belonging to the ἑhief Veὅtal ὁf ἁἄἂέ Iὀ 1κλλ, δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ
successor Giacomo Boni unearthed from beneath the House a headless and
footless Vestal statue; the pavement had been broken to allow its burial (fig.
68, overleaf). In the climate of 1890s Rome there was only one conclusion
to draw: the statue must represent a disgraced Vestal who had converted to
Christianity. Lanciani pictured a hushed-up scandal:
It is probable that the conversion of a Virgo Vestalis Maxima in the most
famous stronghold of polytheism would have been proclaimed to the four
winds by contemporary Christian disputants, which is not the case; but we
have just gained evidence that the matter was kept strictly secret, and the
news of her apostasy was not allowed to leak out of the Atrium.734
730
Lanciani 1988:149-50.
Ibid.135.
732
Ibid.
733
Ibid. 151.
734
Lanciani 1988:279-80.
731
202
He continued carefully, lest the reader get carried away,
There is no need of supposing that the unfortunate abbess was murdered or
poisoned by the high priests because she may, after all, have embraced the
new faith on her deathbed.735
The story again made it into the British press, where the statue’ὅ ὅuἴjeἵt was
described (without apparent iὄὁὀy) aὅ ‘aὀ uὀwὁὄthy ἶaughteὄ ὁf Veὅta whὁ
haἶ ἴeἵὁme a peὄveὄt tὁ ἑhὄiὅtiaὀityέ’736 The struggle between Romanità
and Cristianità had a long history.
Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, more of the ἑampὁ Vaἵἵiὀὁ’ὅ
modern buildings were purchased and scheduled for demolition. Across the
city, Church buildings were requisitioned to accommodate government
departments.737 ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὄeligiὁuὅ ὁὄἶeὄὅ weὄe uὀἶeὄὅtaὀἶaἴly jittery;
there was no obvious place for them in the envisaged archaeological park.
Lanciani soundeἶ a waὄὀiὀg ὀὁte, ὁἴὅeὄviὀg that ἐaἵἵelli’ὅ ‘ὅἵheme ἵaὀὀὁt
ἴe ἵaὄὄieἶ iὀtὁ exeἵutiὁὀ withὁut ἵὁὀὅtaὀt fightiὀg aὀἶ exeὄtiὁὀέ […] ώeὄe
are shrines and chapels and churches owned by corporations, which fight, of
ἵὁuὄὅe, fὁὄ ἶeaὄ lifeέ’738 They were right to be worried, as the process of
archaeologisation saw a purge of churches.
SS. Cosma e Damiano was founded in AD 527, when King
Theoderic donated part of the Temple of Peace and the small, round, fourthcentury building conventionally known as the Temple of Romulus to the
Church.739 Jὁiὀeἶ tὁgetheὄ, the ‘ἦemple ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’ fὁὄmeἶ a veὅtiἴule fὁὄ
the Christian basilica (figs. 69-70). In the seventeenth century, the Campo
Vaἵἵiὀὁ’ὅ ὄiὅiὀg gὄὁuὀἶ level ὀeἵeὅὅitateἶ the ἵὁὀὅtὄuἵtion of a new, higher
floor inside the church. The fourth-century temple door was moved up the
façade to accommodate this new floor (fig. 58).740 The excavations of 1879
left the vestibule in a difficult position. Did it belong to the church? Or was
it part of the ‘aὀἵieὀt’ ἔὁὄumς δaὀἵiaὀi was uncompromising. He reported
in 1880 that,
735
Ibid.
Morning Post 39738.
737
Eέgέ, ἐaἵἵelli’ὅ heaἶquaὄteὄὅ at the εiὀiὅtὄy ὁf ἢuἴliἵ Iὀὅtὄuἵtiὁὀ waὅ hὁuὅeἶ iὀ the
former Dominican Monastery of the Minerva.
738
Lanciani 1988:146.
739
As with many Forum mὁὀumeὀtὅ the iἶeὀtifiἵatiὁὀ ὁf the ‘ἦemple ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’ iὅ ὀὁt
secure.
740
Tucci 2004:108.
736
203
The Temple of Romulus, son of Maxentius, on the Sacra Via, has been
excavated down to the old level; all the houses, granaries, and churches
surrounding the temple have been demolished. The architecture of the
building is rather peculiar, its decoration tasteless and poor.741
‘ἦaὅteleὅὅ’ ὁὄ ὀὁt, the ‘ἦemple’ waὅ ἵlaimeἶ fὁὄ ‘aὀἵieὀt Rὁme’έ
Excavations reached Roman street level in 1879, and the doors were
restored to their original position, disjointing the temple-vestibule from the
rest of the church. It was now impossible to enter the basilica from the
Forum (fig. 71). In the 1930s, the lower (fourth-century) floor level of the
temple was converted into a museum, while the upper (seventeenth-century)
floor level remained part of the church. The visitor could therefore walk on
the aὀἵieὀt flὁὁὄ level, ἴut waὅὀ’t aἴle tὁ lὁὁk up at the ἶὁmeέ Reὅtὁὄatiὁὀὅ
in the late 1990s-eaὄly ἀίίίὅ, ὀeἵeὅὅaὄy ἴeἵauὅe δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀὅ haἶ
ἵὁmpὄὁmiὅeἶ the ἴuilἶiὀg’ὅ ὅtὄuἵtuὄe, ὄemoved the seventeenth-century
flὁὁὄέ ἦhe ‘ἦemple’ we viὅit tὁἶay, therefore, is completely separated from
the ἵhuὄἵhέ χ view iὀtὁ the ἴaὅiliἵa’ὅ uὀἶeὄἵὄὁft ὁpeὀὅ ὁppὁὅite the ἶὁὁὄ,
but is barred and unlabelled, while a glass window above, installed in 2000,
allows a view from the church down into the temple, but more or less
conceals the interior of the church from the viewer looking up (fig. 72). The
ὅepaὄatiὁὀ ἴetweeὀ ‘Rὁmaὀ’ aὀἶ ‘ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ’ levelὅ iὅ ὄeiὀfὁὄἵeἶ ἴy the wall
decoration: stripped brick up to the level of the seventeenth-century floor,
and whitewashed above up to the dome.
A fresh offensive was launched with the appointment of Giacomo
Boni as director in 1898. Boni, an architect who had worked on the
ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ ὁf the Dὁge’ὅ ἢalace in his native Venice, brought a
revolutionary stratigraphic approach to the Forum excavations.742 He was
also ὄuthleὅὅly ἶiὅmiὅὅive ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ pὁὅt-antique levels. The medieval
pavemeὀtὅ haἶ ‘aὅ muἵh hiὅtὁὄiἵ value aὅ the whitewaὅh ὁὀ ἵeὄtaiὀ ἵhuὄἵh
walls, which records indeed the pestilence of the sixteenth century, but
hiἶeὅ the fὄeὅἵὁeὅ ὁf ἕiὁttὁέ’743 This focus on the classical at the expense of
741
Lanciani 1988:80.
Tea 1932:180-λίν fὁὄ ἐὁὀi’ὅ legaἵy ὅee the papeὄὅ gatheὄeἶ iὀ ἔὁὄtiὀi ἀίίκέ
743
Boni, preface to Burton-Brown 1904:vi.
742
204
other strata was by no means unusual, but here it reflects Italian priorities.744
ἦhe ἔὁὄum’ὅ ἵleὄgy ὀὁw felt besieged. Rumὁuὄὅ ἵiὄἵulateἶ that the ‘maligὀ
iὀflueὀἵeὅ ὁf aὀἵieὀt ἵὄimeὅ’ weὄe ὄiὅiὀg ὁut ὁf the ὅὁil, ἵὁὄὄuptiὀg the
excavators.745 In the late 1890s, a monk from S. Adriano accused Wellbore
St Clair Baddeley, the Dr Ἡatὅὁὀ tὁ ἐὁὀi’ὅ ώὁlmeὅ, ὁf ἴeiὀg ‘aὀ ὁut-andout ἢagaὀ’ whὁ wὁulἶ make ὁtheὄὅ ὅὁ aὀἶ “ὅpὄeaἶ the ἢὁiὅὁὀ eveὄywheὄe
ἴy meaὀὅ ὁf a vaiὀ eὀthuὅiaὅmέ Yὁu’ll waὀt ἥέ δὁὄeὀὐὁ iὀ εiὄaὀἶa ὀext, ὁὄ
ἥέ εaὄia δiἴeὄatὄiἵe!”’746 His fears were realised in 1900, when S. Maria
Liberatrice, dismissed by Lanciani as beiὀg ‘ὁf ὀὁ aὄtiὅtiἵ value
whatὅὁeveὄ’, was entirely demolished by Boni (figs. 74-75, p.206).747 As for
S. Lorenzo in Miranda, better known to us as the Temple of Antoninus and
Faustina, the excavation of its ancient pronaos and the drop in ground level
on the Forum side compelled the church, like SS. Cosma e Damiano, to
reverse its entrance, making access from the Forum impossible (fig. 76).
For the while the monks of S. Adriano had been protected,
incongruously, by the electric tramway that ran in front of their church and
between the Temples of Vespasian and Saturn (figs. 77-78).748 In 1899,
however, Baddeley received ἐὁὀi’ὅ exἵiteἶ meὅὅageμ ‘I am ὀὁw ἵuttiὀg ὁff
the tὄam tὁ exἵavate the ἑὁmitium, aὅ yὁu hὁpeἶ wὁulἶ ἴe ἶὁὀeέ’749
Tenacious digging in the Comitium area and the north end of the Basilica
Aemilia brought Boni right up to the side of S. Adriano and down through
its graveyard.750 (The papal city’ὅ ἶeaἶ were not spared: centuries of
Christian burial in the Campo Vaccino meant the excavators were forced to
plough through vast numbers of graves. Lanciani recalled seeing twelve
thousand cubic feet of human bones removed from the Basilica Julia
744
Lanciani, chronicling the various archaeological layers lost in the area of S. Maria
Antiqua, was unapologetiἵμ the uppeὄ ὅtὄata haἶ ἴeeὀ ‘ὅaἵὄifiἵeἶ tὁ the ἶeὅiὄe ὁf ἴὄiὀgiὀg
into evidence one period only - the ἵlaὅὅiἵέ’ (δaὀἵiaὀi 1κλκμἀἂἂ)έ
745
Baddeley 1904:vii.
746
Ibid. ἀ1έ χὅ Ἡiὅemaὀ 1λλἀμ1ἁἅ ὁἴὅeὄveὅ, ἐaἶἶeley haὅ ‘impὄὁveἶ’ thiὅ ὅtὁὄy iὀ the
retelling, as S. Maria Liberatrice had already been prepared for demolition at the time of
the eὀἵὁuὀteὄέ ἐaἶἶeley haὅ ἴeeὀ ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ aὅ the peὄiὁἶ’ὅ aὀὅweὄ tὁ aὀ eὀthuὅeἶ ἦV
presenter (Hurst 2008:77); for a detailed study of his role in the Forum excavations and
friendship with Boni see Wiseman 1992.
747
Lanciani 1988:113.
748
The tram ran between 1899-95 from Piazza Venezia to S. Paulo fuori le mura; this was
along the same route that horse buses had transported pilgrims since 1845: Murray
1899:28. It vividly illustrates how the ἑampὁ Vaἵἵiὀὁ’ὅ daily life continued.
749
Baddeley 1904:19.
750
De Ruggiero 1913:345-6.
205
excavations in 1871.751) Finally, the archaeologists broke through the infill
ὁf the ἑuὄia’ὅ ὁὄigiὀal ἶὁὁὄway ὁὀtὁ the Roman pavement, far below the
mὁἶeὄὀ level ὁf the ἶὁὁὄέ ἦhe mὁὀkὅ weὄe aghaὅtμ ‘ὀὁw theiὄ veὄy ἵhuὄἵh
ὅeemeἶ tὁ ἴe uὀἶeὄmiὀeἶέ’ ἐὁὀi waὅ waὄὀeἶ ὁff ἴy the ἑaὄἶiὀal Viἵaὄέ752
But, as we will see, the Senate House was too powerful a symbol for the
reprieve to last.753
The only Christian buildings excepted by Boni were the tiny Oratory
of the Forty Martyrs, an eighth-century chapel behind the Fountain of
Juturna, and the little sixth-century church of S. Maria Antiqua, which lay
(along with a corner of the House of the Vestals) beneath S. Maria
Liberatrice (figs. 73, 79). As S. Maria Liberatrice was owned by the
ὀuὀὀeὄy ὁf ἦὁὄὄe ἶe’ ἥpeἵἵhi, independent of the Papal government, it was
exempt fὄὁm the gὁveὄὀmeὀt’ὅ secularisation legislation. The nuns put up a
fierce fight in the 1880s, demanding so exorbitant a price that the
government temporarily withdrew.754 Finally, Baccelli managed to purchase
it for 230,000 lire, less than half the asking price, and S. Maria Liberatrice
was demolished (fig. 75).755 Both ancient churches were ruined and tucked
behind the Temple of Castor, away from the Forum proper. They can be
ὅeeὀ aὅ aὀ attempt tὁ play the ἑhuὄἵh’ὅ palaeὁἵhὄiὅtiaὀ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiὅtὅ at
their own game. The oldest church in Rome dedicated to the Virgin Mary –
so dear to Pius IX – had been excavated by the Kingdom of Italy.
A regal Forum?
ἐὁὀi’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀὅ ὁpeὀeἶ up a vista of Roman history not
previously imagined. The knee-prints of Saints Peter and Paul might be
preserved in S. Francesca Romana, but in January 1899 Boni unearthed the
Tomb of Romulus himself. Baddeley gives us an emotional account of the
751
Lanciani 1988:17.
Baddeley 1904:20. A similar struggle had been fought over the Colosseum in the 1870s,
as archaeologist Pietro Rosa removed Christian chapels and symbols. Ferdinand
ἕὄegὁὄὁviuὅ ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ iὀ 1κἅἂ hὁw ‘ἦhe ἑaὄἶiὀal Viἵaὄ laiἶ the Diὄeἵtὁὄ Rὁὅa uὀἶeὄ the
ban; processions daily wound their way to the Colosseum to pray. Digging was
iὀἶuὅtὄiὁuὅly ἵaὄὄieἶ ὁὀέ’ ἣuὁteἶ iὀ εὁatti 1λκ1μ1λ1έ
753
SS. Sergio e Baccὁ, whiἵh haἶ ἴeeὀ ἥέ χἶὄiaὀὁ’ὅ ὀext ἶὁὁὄ ὀeighἴὁuὄ, waὅ (like the
other surviving churches) now cut off from the Forum by this excavation.
754
Lanciani 1988:160. That an earlier church lay beneath it had been known since the 16th
century.
755
Lanciani 1988:293 (February 3rd 1900).
752
206
ἶiὅἵὁveὄy ὁf the ἴlaἵk pavemeὀt ‘like a mὁuὄὀiὀg veil’έ756 Left until early
summer, it seemed as if the valley’ὅ very earth was heralding the relics
within: beneath the ground, something was being reborn.
[…] thὄὁugh all the ἵὄaἵkὅ aὀἶ jὁiὀtὅ ὁf the ἴlaἵk ὅtὁὀeὅ aὄὁὅe a peὄfeἵt
embroidery of the small convolvulus, or bindweed, the long, white, cordlike roots of which were presently found starting from deep layers of
sacrificial and other strata covering the various early monuments to be
revealed below. Those who saw it will not forget the sight.757
ἐὁὀi waὅ uὀἵὁveὄiὀg the ὅeeἶὅ ὁf Italy’ὅ gὄeatὀeὅὅ, ὅὁwὀ lὁὀg ἴefὁὄe the
foundation of the Church. He (immediately, according to Baddeley)
connected the pavement with the passage of Festus that we discussed in Part
1.1: this was surely the locus funestus itself (figs. 80-81).
The discovery of the Niger Lapis provided the Italian state with its
ὁwὀ ‘ὄeliἵ’μ the archaic stele beneathέ ἐὁὀi’ὅ aἵἵὁuὀtὅ ὁf the ἶiὅἵὁveὄy weὄe
heightened, dramatic, mystical affairs. (As Wiseman notes, at the moment
he excavated the stele he was running a high fever and dosed up on
quinine.758) There was no doubt in his mind what had been uncovered:
To reach the ‘ἦὁmἴ ὁf Rὁmuluὅ’ I ὅeem tὁ have ἴeeὀ ὀavigatiὀg fὁὄ five
months on the high seas with no compass but that of faith.759
This quasi-religious fervour unsettled many of his colleagues, including
Lanciani, who commented, ‘ἡὀe ἵaὀὀὁt ἴut ὄegὄet thiὅ maὀia of applying
high-ὅὁuὀἶiὀg ὀameὅ tὁ eveὄy ὅtὁὀe uὀeaὄtheἶέ’760 Boni was furious, raging
to Baddeley,
They even denied that the niger lapis was marble, they called my belief
‘aὀ eὀtiὄely uὀteὀaἴle ὁpiὀiὁὀ’ – like a sick hallucination, they mocked me
as the arἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal ‘meἶium’ ὁf the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum […]ν they have tὄieἶ
to remove me from the monuments I love more than myself. But as long as
I live I shall remember that while the academies were academizing, while
the scholarly mob was making mischief, Minister Baccelli used to grasp
my hand and say: Courage!!761
756
Baddeley 1904:9.
Ibid.10.
758
Wiseman 1992:128.
759
June 1899, tr. Wiseman 1992 ibid.
760
Lanciani 1988:247.
761
Part of the same letter (n.44).
757
207
Baccelli, of course, recognised a publicity triumph when he saw it. The
scholarly controversy rumbled on, with such unexpected luminaries as the
Egyptologist Flinders Petrie having their say; but the mere suggestion of the
presence of Romulus had ἵaught the puἴliἵ’ὅ imagiὀatiὁὀέ762 Lanciani
ὄepὁὄteἶ that ‘χ ἴewilἶeὄeἶ ἵὄὁwἶ fὄὁm all ἵlaὅὅeὅ ὁf peὁple ἵὁὀgὄegateὅ
eveὄy ἶay at the “ἴlaἵk ὅtὁὀeὅ”έ’763 Many Italian and foreign scholars
followed Boni in viewing the find as proof of the great antiquity of Rome,
and of the reliability of Livy and other ancient historians, which had been
‘impugned’ by German scholarship.764 ἐaἵἵelli’ὅ message to the world was
that transmitted by this Irish newspaper:
It is well known that the legends surrounding the foundation of that vast
institution, the Eternal City, have been relegated to the region of myths by
German historians. That there was a kernel of truth in the stories of
Romulus and Remus and the wondrous surroundings of the origin of the
Roman state may be accepted.765
Italian science – not German philology – was uncovering the truth about
Rome’ὅ ὁὄigiὀὅέ Juὅt aὅ his contemporaries at Ninevah and Jericho were
revealing the historical ‘veracity’ of the Bible, ἐὁὀi’ὅ wὁὄk ‘pὄὁveἶ’ that
the ancient foundation stories were not legend but fact.766 The soil could be
read like a text:
It had seemed to me for many years that the greatest book of human
history, the story of the life of Rome, must still lie buried, page upon page
as it was written, within the small half square mile of the Forum, which
was hitherto the most famous spot of the ancient world.767
Petrie (1899) suggested in the Athenaeum that the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe waὅ the ‘ὅuἵἵeὅὅὁὄ ὁf
an open-aiὄ plaἵe ὁf aὅὅemἴly, whiἵh iὅ the ἵeὀtὄe ὁf life iὀ χὄyaὀ ἵὁmmuὀitieὅ’ν the ἴlaἵk
pavement might mark the sacred site of the old assembly place. Ettore Pais, e.g., favoured a
5th-or even 4th c. date.
763
Lanciani 1988:247.
764
Moatti 1993:124-7 desἵὄiἴeὅ thiὅ aὅ ‘patὄiὁtiἵ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgyέ’
765
Freeman’s Journal, 25th January 1899.
766
Cf. ἥelliὀ & Ἡaltὐiὀgeὄ’ὅ excavations at Jericho (1907-λ) aὀἶ Kiὀg’ὅ ἐὄitiὅh εuὅeum
team at Ninevah (1903-η)έ ἦhe mὁὅt ὅalieὀt paὄallel iὅ iὀ χegeaὀ pὄehiὅtὁὄyμ ἥἵhliemaὀὀ’s
exἵavatiὁὀὅ at ἦὄὁy iὀ the 1κἄίὅ aὀἶ Evaὀὅ’ at Kὀὁὅὅὁὅ (beginning in 1900) were seen to
ὄeveal the hiὅtὁὄiἵal ‘faἵtὅ’ ἴehiὀἶ the ώὁmeὄiἵ legeὀἶὅέ Iὀ thiὅ ἵὁὀtext it’ὅ leὅὅ ὅuὄpὄiὅiὀg
that ἐὁὀi’ὅ ἅth-c. date was supported by an unlikely coalition of nationalist and Catholic
historians, who saw this confirmation of the traditional text as a way to push against the
ὅtate’ὅ mὁὄe pὄὁgὄeὅὅive viewὅμ ἑuἴἴeὄley 1λκκμixέ
767
Boni, preface to Burton-Brown 1904:vi.
762
208
In 1900 Baccelli presented Queen Victoria with an exact facsimile of the
stele: her reaction is not recorded.768
ἦhiὅ ‘ὄegal’ ἶiὅἵὁveὄy reinforced a subtle ὅhift iὀ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ
presentation. The idea of the ‘Republican’ Forum, so successfully revived in
the early nineteenth century, was being replaced, as in the Augustan period,
by one that stressed its connections with the dawn of Roman history – a
Roman history that had been, at its beginning, a monarchy. For sure, the
increased interest in prehistory was part of a broader movement in European
culture, but here it had an urgent political aspect.769 This was the Forum of
Romulus, not of Brutus and Cassius. In 1878, King Umberto survived one
assassination attempt, by anarchist and Mazzinian Giovanni Passannante. In
1900, at a public event in Monza, he was shot three times in the chest by
Gaetano Bresci, in revenge for the bloody suppression of a strike in Milan
in 1898. Though British and American tourists might linger by the Temple
of Caesar contemplating Shakespeare, for the Italian government the Forum
of Brutus and Cassius remained a political liability. 770
ἐὁὀi’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀὅ aὄὁund S. Lorenzo in Miranda further
contributed to the shift. His discovery that year of a cemetery containing
graves that were believed at the time to perhaps be as early as 1000 BC was
ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ aὅ ἵὁmiὀg ‘like a thuὀἶeὄἵlap iὀtὁ the leaὄὀeἶ quietuἶe ὁf
German archaeologyέ’771 This goes some way towards explaining why when
the ‘ὅὁ-ἵalleἶ Equuὅ Dὁmitiaὀi’ waὅ ἶiὅἵὁveὄeἶ iὀ 1λίἂ it waὅ
overshadowed by the ancient vessels found in one of its blocks. In fact the
recovery of the vases in March 1904 was witnessed by a royal guest.
768
British Architect 53.2. Boni was also simultaneously excavating the bases of
contemporary huts on the Palatine.
769
The turn-of-the-century interest in prehistory was part of a larger zeitgeist, as Gere 2009
shows. The regal colouring of antiquity can also be seen at the Pantheon, where an attempt
was made to appropriate the church of S. Maria ad Martyres for the royal mausoleum for
Victor Emmanuel II (and later Umberto I and Queen Margherita): see Tobia 1991:118-142.
770
Richard Norton, the Director of the School of Classical Studies in Rome, wrote to The
Times (35721)μ ‘It waὅ a veὄy ὅtiὄὄiὀg ὅeὀὅatiὁὀ that ὁὀe expeὄieὀἵeἶ, ὅtaὀἶiὀg ὁὀ thὁὅe
stones the day they came to light – thὁὅe ὅtὁὀeὅ ἴeὀeath whiἵh Impeὄial ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὅheὅ ὅtill
seemed to glow – mine the first Anglo-Saxon feet that had ever trod so close to the
pὄeὅeὀἵe ὁf the gὄeateὅt Rὁmaὀ ὁf them allέ’
771
ἐaἶἶeley 1λίἂμἅἀν they’ὄe ὀὁw geὀeὄally ἶateἶ tὁ the ἅ th-6th c. BC; the quotation is
from the British Architect 62:10.
209
‘Ἡe ἶiἶ ὀὁt kὀὁw that Kiὀg Viἵtὁὄ Emmaὀuel waὅ tὁ ἴe pὄeὅeὀt,’
writes Baddeley wide-eyed.772 Five vases were brought up from the deep
tὄeὀἵh iὀtὁ the eaὄly mὁὄὀiὀg ὅuὀὅhiὀeέ χὅ the Kiὀg lὁὁkeἶ ὁὀ, ‘highly
iὀteὄeὅteἶ’, the vaὅeὅ weὄe ὅhὁwὀ tὁ matἵh thὁὅe fὄom the Sepulcretum
(figs. 82-83)έ It ὅeemeἶ that the mὁἶeὄὀ Rὁmaὀὅ’ piὁuὅ ὄeὅpeἵt fὁὄ theiὄ
ancestors was matched only by those of their ancient counterparts.
Digging down to the earliest foundational levels was, therefore, a
way to leap over the contested recent history of the Forum (which itself was
inspired by the history of ancient contestations in the Forum) and
ἵὁὀἵeὀtὄate ὁὀ Rὁme’ὅ eteὄὀal ἶeὅtiὀyέ Portentously (to us) Boni interpreted
the finds in the Sepulcretum as eviἶeὀἵe ὁf the Rὁmaὀὅ’ Aryan origins.773
The Forum Antiquarium, established in the convent of S. Francesca
Rὁmaὀa, ὄeiὀfὁὄἵeἶ the iἶea ὁf a ‘pὄehiὅtὁὄiἵ fὁὄum’ with a gὄὁuὀἶ flὁὁὄ
display devoted entirely to the prehistoric and archaic finds (fig. 84).774
These, so unlike the art of imperial Rὁme, teὅtifieἶ that the ἵity’ὅ ἶeὅtiὀy
stretched back to the dawn of time. However, the depths of the Forum
valley were as murky and waterlogged as they had been portrayed two
thousand years earlier, and flooded frequently (fig. 86).775
The Italian state treated the Forum essentially as a quarry, for
prestige, justification, kudos; for scientific facts and national pride. As
Italian scholars were keen to remind their readers, the papacy had ransacked
the Forum and quarried its precious marble in order to ἴuilἶ ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅέ776
The Christian history of the Forum was that of a bastardisation, the decline
before the fall. Though opinions have become more balanced, the
Reὀaiὅὅaὀἵe papaἵy’ὅ ὄeputatiὁὀ fὁὄ vaὀἶaliὅm haὅ ἴeeὀ haὄἶ tὁ ὅhake
772
Baddeley 1904:49-50.
Boni was not alone. The prehistorian Luigi Pignorini, e.g., posited at this time that the
cultural development of prehistoric Italy was prompted by the southbound migrations of
more technically advanced northern Italians – a prehistoric precedent for Piedmont’ὅ
annexation of southern Italy (Trigger 1989:250).
774
Jacopi 1976:3-ἂηέ ἦhe χὀtiquaὄium’ὅ majὁὄ fiὀἶὅ have ὅiὀἵe ἴeeὀ ἶiὅpeὄὅeἶέ
775
Lanciani 1988:66 wrote in 1879 that the ruins of the Temple of Vesta and the Regia
were flooded several times a year.
776
See, e.g., the lengthy tirade by Lanciani 1898:245-ηίμ ‘ἥeὀtence of death on the
monuments of the Forum and of the Sacra via was passed on July 22 nd, 1ηἂί’ (ἀἂλ)ν alὅὁ
his The Destruction of Ancient Rome (Lanciani 1889).
773
210
off.777 The archaeologists themselves were quarrying the Forum, but for
something less tangible, the spiritual materials tὁ ἴuilἶ δiἴeὄal Italy’ὅ
ἵhalleὀge tὁ ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅέ ἦhe Vittὁὄiaὀὁ, ἵὁὀἵeiveἶ aὅ a mὁὀumeὀt tὁ Italy’ὅ
first king, is built from bright Brescian marble (fig. 87-88). Today,
typewriter and dome face off across the Roman skyline: both bombastic
marble manifestoes.778 Its construction on the slopes of the Capitoline
ἶeὅtὄὁyeἶ maὀy aὀἵieὀt ὄemaiὀὅ ἴeὀeath, ἴut it’s nevertheless the clearest
statement of what the archaeology in the Forum below was all about.
Crowning the hill like a modern Temple of Jupiter, it tipped the political
centre of Rome away from the Vatican. From the foundations of the old, a
new Rome was rising.
However, the Vittoriano is oriented away from the Forum, and turns
its back on Piazza del Campidoglio. The centres of Republican revival are
excluded, and Piazza Venezia becomes the centre of modern Rome. The
Forum belongs to Romulus, the king and founder of Rome, who had come
by destiny to unite disparate peoples into a common state.
The Fascist Forum, 1920-1945
In 1923, the sixty-four-year-old Boni became a Senator of the
Kingdom of Italy. He had already contributed to the design of the new
twentieth-century fasces.779 In July that year he wrote to Prime Minister
Benito Mussolini, offering some ideas for incorporating the Forum into the
ceremonies celebrating the first anniversary of the March on Rome. 780 His
proposal, a commemorative excavation of the Lupercal on the Palatine and
a ‘ἢaὄk ὁf Rememἴὄaὀἵe’ ὅtὄetching to the banks of the Tiber, was rejected
on the grounds of expense. However, he was assured that Mussolini was
‘ἵὁὀviὀἵeἶ that, with the ἵὁ-operation of all patriots, the festivities
themselves would assume equal importance for romanità as the events
[ἐὁὀi] wiὅheἶ tὁ ἵὁmmemὁὄateέ’781 σeveὄtheleὅὅ, maὀy ὁf ἐὁὀi’ὅ
777
Though see, e.g. Karmon 2011 & Cloud 2013.
The significance of the Vittoriano is explored by Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998, Notaro
2000, and Petter 2000.
779
As illuminated by Salvatori 2012.
780
Tea 1932:559 ; Salvatori 2012:432-3.
781
Salvatori 2012:433.
778
211
ὅuggeὅtiὁὀὅ weὄe iὀἵὁὄpὁὄateἶ iὀtὁ the ἶay’ὅ pὄὁgὄammeμ the fὁἵal pὁiὀt ὁf
the day was the Roman Forum.
On 31st October 1923, the first year of the Fascist era concluded
with a symbolic retraciὀg ὁf εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ jὁuὄὀey ὅὁuthέ ἦhiὅ ὄemaἶe the
ἢὄime εiὀiὅteὄ’ὅ iὀἵὁὀtὄὁveὄtiἴly ἵiviliaὀ tὄaiὀ jὁuὄὀey fὄὁm εilaὀ tὁ Rὁme
into an epic sweeping of the Fascist legions into Rome under their new
Caesar.782 The journey culminated in the Forum in front of the Temple of
Caesar, its altar adorned with fasces. Mussolini lay a laurel wreath on the
‘lὁἵalità ὁve fu aὄὅὁ ἕiuliὁ ἑeὅaὄeέ’ The art historian Giulio Giglioni gave a
speech explaining the ἵeὄemὁὀy’ὅ ὅymἴὁliὅm tὁ the watἵhiὀg crowd. He
negotiated around the uncomfortable fact that the temple’ὅ discovery in
1899 had been underplayed: he suggested that the scholarly and popular
‘apathy’ waὅ a ὄeὅult ὁf the Italiaὀ ἵὁlὁὀial ἶefeat at χἶwaέ 783 Where
Liberal Italy had failed at imperial conquest, Fascist Italy would succeed.
Boni assisted in the ceremony, but, as his biographer put it, ‘iὀ all the
commotion lost his ability to speak’ (fig. 89).784
The next morning, Boni composed for Mussolini a letter crusted
with allusion and worthy of a Caesarian Senator. The bizarre but
characteristically Boniesque blend of prehistory, occultism and classical
allusion in this text suggests the surprising ease with which a new,
‘ἑaeὅaὄiaὀ’ ἔὁὄum waὅ aἴle tὁ ἶevelὁp fὄὁm the prehistoric focus of the
previous decades:
Eccellenza,
La voce del Cielo non ha suono, pensava un antico filosofo,
ἶell’Eὅtὄemὁ ἡὄieὀte, ὁὅὅeὄvaὀἶὁ ἵὁme la maggiὁὄe iὀflueὀὐa ἶei più
grandi uomini venga esercitata in silenzio. I più esperti maestri della parola
fuὄὁὀὁ, iὀ ὁgὀi tempὁ, i meὀὁ ἵapaἵi ἶ’iὀtuiὄe il valore di veri artefici del
peὀὅieὄὁ e ἶell’aὐiὁὀeέ ἑiἵeὄὁὀe viveva iὀ ὅὁὅpettὁ ἶi ἑeὅaὄe,
interpretando quale malvagità la deferente cortesia del suo gesto e
paὄagὁὀaὀἶὁὀe l’affaἴile ἵὁὀἶὁtta pὁlitiἵa alla ἵalma ἶel maὄeέ
782
Falasca-Zamponi 1997:2; Bosworth 2011:137-8; Wyke 2007:82-3; Arthurs 2012:28.
Tea 1932:558
784
Ibid.
783
212
La sublimità del silenzio è propria di chi troppe cose avrebbe da
ἶiὄe, ἶi ἵhi ὁpeὄa peὄ l’aὐiὁὀe ἶi fὁὄὐe miὅteὄiὁὅe ἵhe gli ἶieἶeὄὁ vita ὀel
mὁmeὀtὁ iὀ ἵui all’umaὀità ὁἵἵὁὄreva l’iὀteὄveὀtὁ ἶiviὀὁέ
δ’aὀimὁ gὄaὀἶe ἶi ἑeὅaὄe, eὄeἶe ἶi eὅpeὄieὀὐe ὅalite peὄ i ὄami
millenari della gens Julia, le cui radici si approfondivano nei terreni eroici
ἶell’età ἶel ἴὄὁὀὐὁ, al peὄiὁἶὁ migὄatὁὄiὁ ἶelle ὅtiὄpi aὄiaὀὁ-euricefale –
ormai prossime a fiorire – aἵἵὁglieva le viἴὄaὐiὁὀi ἶell’iὀfiὀita aὀima
universale che le giungevano da costellazioni lontane ed obbediva a tali
messaggi e poteva trasmettere ordini di comando, perchè possedeva la
ὅἵieὀὐa ἶell’uἴἴiἶiὄeέ
Un sublimo spirito di sacrificio animava Giulio Cesare; un senso
di verità concreta era in ogni suo atto e, dopo la sua morte, continuava a
manifestarsi nel pensiero e nelle opere del figlio adottivo. [...]785
In this missive Boni not only promotes the Julian family to the master-race
ἴut tὄaὀὅfὁὄmὅ Juliuὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ aὅὅaὅὅiὀatiὁὀ iὀtὁ a myὅtiἵal ὅaἵὄifiἵeέ
Finding himself in the role of Cicero, the man of thought unable to
comprehend the man of action, he is mute and accepting rather than vocal in
ὁppὁὅitiὁὀέ ἐetteὄ tὁ hὁὀὁuὄ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ‘ὅuἴlime ὅpiὄit’, ‘maὀifeὅteἶ iὀ the
thὁught aὀἶ ἶeeἶὅ ὁf hiὅ aἶὁpteἶ ὅὁὀ’, iὀ ὅileὀἵeέ786
Other scholars, removed fὄὁm the immeἶiate ὄeality ὁf εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ
Rome, made the comparisons much more baldly. In 1928 an American
historian wrote in the Classical Journal,
[…] ἑiἵeὄὁ witὀeὅὅeἶ the ὁveὄthὄὁw ὁf ὄepuἴliἵaὀ gὁveὄὀmeὀt ἴy a mὁἶel
politician and dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar. We are watching the
supersedence of constitutional government in Italy by the domination of
one particular group. […] [Mussolini] is putting into practice many of the
pὁliἵieὅ ὁf the impeὄial ὅyὅtemέ […] Iὀ the light ὁf itὅ hiὅtὁὄiἵal
background we ask ourselves whether for Italy Fascism was not inevitable
and justified.787
In this thoughtworld, the Roman Republic is only important inasmuch as it
was unstable and weak – making Caesar-Mussolini’ὅ unconstitutional
intervention patriotic and necessary.
785
Tea 1932:559-60.
In the light of our readings of Statius and Pliny it’ὅ veὄy temptiὀg tὁ ἶeἵὁὀὅtὄuἵt ἐὁὀi’ὅ
words here.
787
Pelzer Wagener 1928:668,677.
786
213
εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ personal and profound admiration of Caesar was
frequently broadcast. In an interview with the German author Emil Ludwig,
the Duce seems to have absorbed the sentiment of ἐὁὀi’ὅ letteὄμ ‘I lὁve
Caesar. He was unique in that he combined the will of the warrior with the
genius of the sage. At bottom he was a philosopher who saw everything sub
specie eternitatis. It is true that he had a passion for fame, but his ambition
ἶiἶ ὀὁt ἵut him ὁff fὄὁm humaὀkiὀἶέ’788
If Mussolini was animated by the sublime spirit that had possessed
Caesar and Augustus in turn, then Fascism was animated by the same spirit
– romanità – that had powered the Roman legions. Already in April 1922,
at the celebration of the Birthday of Rome, he had told the crowds:
Rome is our point of departure and reference; it is our symbol, or, if you
wiὅh, ὁuὄ mythέ Ἡe ἶὄeam ὁf a Rὁmaὀ Italyέ […] εuἵh ὁf what waὅ the
immortal spirit of Rome resurges in Fascism: Roman is the Lictor, Roman
is our organisation of combat, Roman is our pride and courage. Civis
Romanus sum.789
As is well kὀὁwὀ, Rὁme’ὅ ἴuilἶiὀgὅ haἶ theiὄ paὄt tὁ play iὀ thiὅ
ὄeὅuὄgeὀἵeμ ‘the liviὀg ὄeality ὁf the aὀἵieὀt faἴὄiἵ muὅt ἴe ἶiὅeὀgageἶ fὄὁm
the environmental obfuscation of the irrelevant years and made to breathe
and funἵtiὁὀ agaiὀέ’790 In the Forum, this was felt most strongly in an
attempt to restore the extant ancient buildings to something approximating
theiὄ ‘ὁὄigiὀal’ fὁὄmν aὀ appὄὁaἵh ἵὁmplemeὀteἶ ἴy ceremonies like the
anniversary of the March on Rome, which encouraged them tὁ ‘fuὀἵtiὁὀ’
again.
As we know, restoration in the Forum area was nothing new. The
earliest examples are ἥteὄὀ aὀἶ Valaἶieὄ’ὅ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ ὁf the χὄἵh ὁf ἦituὅ,
at the top of the Sacra Via, completed under Pius VI, and the Portico of the
Dei Consentes in the 1850s. And, as we saw, Lanciani and Boni had tidied
up as they went along. The House of the Vestals, the ‘Temple of Romulus’,
the Rostra (restored in the 1910s), aὀἶ ἐὁὀi’ὅ ὅtὄategiἵ plaὀtiὀg ὁf tὄeeὅ aὀἶ
flowers are all examples that smootheἶ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ ὄὁugh eἶgeὅέ ἦhe
Fascist restorations were in this tradition. Carried out under the directorship
788
Ludwig 1932:65.
Mussolini 1956:18:160-1.
790
Kostof 1973:30.
789
214
of Alfonso Bartoli (1925-45), they added definition and emphasis to
specific areas of the excavations: principally the Temple of Vesta, the
Temple of Caesar and (most radically) the Senate House. Essentially, the
Forum of Caesar and Augustus.791
The first major restoration was carried out on the Temple of Vesta in
the 1λἀίὅέ ἦhe elegaὀt ‘ὄuiὀ’ familiaὄ tὁἶay waὅ assembled from the
fragments of the Severan temple under the direction of Alessandro
Carettoni, following plans laid by Boni (who died in 1924) (figs. 91-92).792
The Times puἴliὅheἶ a laὄge phὁtὁgὄaph uὀἶeὄ the heaἶliὀe ‘REἥἦἡRIσἕ
ἦώE χσἑIEσἦ ἕδἡRIEἥ ἡἔ RἡεE’έ793 Lugli stresses the conservators’
care to distinguish old and new, but is forced to admit that the lower part of
the faὦaἶe haἶ ἴeeὀ ὄeἶuἵeἶ tὁ ‘piἵἵὁli fὄammeὀti’έ794 Rather than
improvise a complete structure (as with the Portico of the Dei Consentes),
the temple was reconstructed, disingenuously, as a ruin. The lasting and
misleading impression was ὁf Veὅta’ὅ ὅuὄvival agaiὀὅt the ὁἶἶὅ – of an
eternal flame that never quite went out. At roughly the same time, the
Temple of Caesar underwent similar treatment, with the podium’ὅ fὄὁὀt
given greater definition with blocks of tufa.795
1930 saw the most dramatic development yet: the Senate House’ὅ
rise from the rubble of S. Adriano. We last saw this church in 1900, when
the Cardinal Vicar secured a reprieve. The monks had clung on while the
Forum was excavated around them. Unfortunately, nothing, not even a
rapprochement between Church and State, seemed to be beyond the Duce.
One of the lesser known consequences of the Lateran Accords of 1929 was
the ἑhuὄἵh’ὅ sacrifice of S. Adriano. From the Vaticaὀ’ὅ peὄὅpeἵtive, the
building was valuable for its complex history, rather than its origins: in
1933, the Bishop of Luni, Giovanni Costantini, ‘[ὄeἵὁuὀteἶ] how he had
tried to convince the Ministry of National Education that the church
791
Of course, apart from the Temple of Caesar none of these structures were the JulioClaudian versions. Under Antonio Muñoz, the façade of the Tabularium and the Portico of
the Dei Consentes were modified in the 1940s.
792
Lugli 1946:206-7; Carettoni 1960:193-4; Caprioli 2007:284. For recent excavations at
the Temple see Scott 2009.
793
The Times 45559. The Temple appeared alongside a photo of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
who had died the day before.
794
Lugli 1946:207.
795
Sisani 2006:31.
215
symbolised the victoὄy ὁf ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ thὁught ὁveὄ pagaὀiὅmέ’796 But the
prospect of a restored Senate House was too tantalising for the government
to agree with him.
S. Adriano’ὅ ἵὁὀἶitiὁὀ pὄe-demolition can be seen in contemporary
photographs (fig. 93). ἐὁὀi’ὅ ἑὁmitium exἵavatiὁὀὅ haἶ left the ἵhuὄἵh’ὅ
door suspended in the façade, with the position of the ancient entrance
obvious in the wall beneath it. The façade itself was scarred by the
rectangular hollows of medieval burials. The rear of the building had been
incorporated into the convent. The interior remained the rich Baroque
scheme executed by Martino Longhi in 1653-6 (fig. 94).797 The restoration,
overseen by Antonio Muñoz, began with an exploration beneath the
seventeenth-ἵeὀtuὄy flὁὁὄ, wheὄe the ὅtepὅ fὁὄ the ὅeὀatὁὄὅ’ ὅeats and part of
the ancient pavement were discovered in situ. The three ancient windows in
the front façade were reopened, and replicas of the ancient doors (the
bronze originals are now at St John Lateran) were installed in the correct
position. In October 1932, the façade’ὅ ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ ἴegaὀ iὀ eaὄὀeὅtέ
Between 1936 and 1938 the church and convent of S. Adriano was ripped
out. The scale of the destruction was enormous; much of the building was
demolished (figs. 95-96). The seventeenth-century interior was removed;
the eighth-century paintings discovered underneath were taken to the Forum
Antiquarium.798
In the present building, less than half of the rear and only two-thirds
of the front façade is ancient. A new wooden ceiling and marble floor were
installeἶέ ἦhe pὄeὅiἶeὀt’ὅ platfὁὄm, suggested by a pile of rubble, was
constructed from scratch. Scars in the façade were filled in. A new staircase
was built up to the door, but the job was left unfinished, without the portico
at the front visible on ancient coins. As with the Temple of Vesta, the
impression created was of implausible survival: a massive chunk of Roman
masonry that had endured millennia battered but essentially unchanged.
796
Baxa 2010:131.
Watkin 2009:117-8.
798
Jacopi 1976:81. They are now in the Museo Nazionale Crypta Balbi.
797
216
The Curia Julia was inaugurated on 9th May 1939 with an
appropriately grand ceremony (figs. 97-99).799 Senators of the modern
Italian Senate assembled in the Forum; the Duce and Fascist leaders, all in
military uniforms, posed for photos on the steps and attended a ceremony
inside. The interior was decked out with drapery and hung with a wreath.
Impeὄial Rὁme’ὅ aὀἵieὀt glὁὄy had been reclaimed. Italy stood ready for
whatever the future would bring.
The Duce was not coy about which version of Rome he wished
mὁἶeὄὀ Italy tὁ emulateέ χὅ he tὁlἶ δuἶwig, ‘ἦhe will tὁ impeὄialiὅm iὅ ὁὀe
ὁf the elemeὀtaὄy fὁὄἵeὅ ὁf humaὀ ὀatuὄe, like the will tὁ pὁweὄ […]έ’800
Ancient remains were relevant only inasmuch as they spurred Italy onwards
towards grandeur at home and colonial wars in Ethiopia. One admiring
American journalist, χὀὀe ἡ’ώaὄe εἵἑὁὄmick, put her finger on the issue
when she described in 1935 a concert in the Basilica of Maxentius.
ἦhe hὁllὁw waὅ the ἔὁὄum […] ἴy ὀight ὄetuὄὀeἶ tὁ a ὅemἴlaὀἵe ὁf the
Civic Centre it used to be when disputatious gentlemen in togas paced the
pavement of the ἥaἵὄeἶ Ἡayέ […] Ἡe sat close together, mostly on
ἴaἵkleὅὅ ἴeὀἵheὅ, ἴlaἵk ὅhiὄtὅ, white ὅhiὄtὅ, wὁὄkeὄὅ’ ἴlὁuὅeὅ, ὅὁlἶieὄὅ’
tunics, light frocks of Roman girls, all part of the pageant of the Rome of
Mussolini, in which the past is not only unearthed, magnificently framed,
but used, made to work, tapped to feed the national pride and energy as
literally as the sources of the Tiber and the Arno are transmuted into
eleἵtὄiἵal pὁweὄ fὁὄ mὁἶeὄὀ iὀἶuὅtὄyέ […] It waὅ ὀὁt ἶὁὀe fὁὄ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgyν
that’ὅ the pὁiὀtέ […] It waὅ a pὄὁjeἵt tὁ ἵὁὀὅtὄuἵt a ὀew ὀatiὁὀ ὁὀ the
stones of the old.801
McCormick was, of course, not alone in admiring ‘the Rὁme ὁf εuὅὅὁliὀi’έ
The Classical Journal – for example – published the intoxicated writings of
Anglophone classicists who were perhaps more susceptible than most to the
pὄὁpagaὀἶa ὁf ‘aὀ eὀlighteὀeἶ ἶiἵtatὁὄὅhip [whiἵh] peὄmitὅ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgy aὀἶ
ἵiviἵ impὄὁvemeὀtὅ tὁ gὁ haὀἶ iὀ haὀἶέ’802 Kenneth Scott, a scholar from
799
Reflecting the international mood, by this point British newspapers fell silent; rising
tensions meant that that The Times devoted patriotic space to the excavation of the Roman
Forum at Leicester.
800
Ludwig 1932:57.
801
NYT, 25 August 1935.
802
Sener Rusk 1936:149.
217
the American Academy at Rome and Yale University, fully succumbed to
Mussolini-mania:
2000 years [after Augustus] a young intellectual, the son of a blacksmith
from Forli, and, like Octavian, a leader of men and a lover of his country,
was called by destiny as that other Italian had been so long before him.
[…] Perhaps Fascist theory is correct, and the Roman Empire never really
died but goes on in the New Italy and its premier.803
In 1938, Eugenie Strong waὄmly ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ hὁw ἐaὄtiὁli ‘ὅuἵἵeeἶeἶ iὀ ὄeeὄeἵtiὀg the faὦaἶe ὁf the ἑuὄia […] with the help ὁf aὀἵieὀt fὄagmeὀtὅ ἴuilt
iὀtὁ ὅὁὄἶiἶ hὁuὅeὅ ὀὁw ἶemὁliὅheἶ’ aὀἶ how the ‘magὀifiἵeὀt thiὄἶ-century
pavemeὀt iὅ ἴeiὀg ὅkilfully ὄeὅtὁὄeἶέ’804 This rear façade, now facing onto
the Via ἶell’Impero, linked the restored Senate House with the excavations
in the imperial fora beyond it. This programme has been well covered by
Insolera and Perego, so I will simply note that, no sooner had the
seventeenth-century neighbourhood
above
the
imperial
fora
been
demolished, the fora themselves were partially destroyed by the Via
ἶell’Impeὄὁ, whiἵh shoots over them from the Vittoriano and Piazza
Venezia to the Colosseum.805 ‘ἦhe mὁὅt ἴeautiful ὄὁaἶ iὀ the wὁὄlἶ,’ aὅ it
waὅ ἶeὅἵὄiἴeἶ iὀ the week leaἶiὀg up tὁ ώitleὄ’ὅ aὄὄival, waὅ (aὀἶ ὅtill iὅ)
lined with the portraits of Roman emperors (fig. 100).806 Neither papal nor
ancient Rome would hold back the dynamic Fascist future.807 In fact, in
1934 it was envisaged that the grand new highway would be completed by a
new headquarters for the Fascist Party, the Palazzo del Littorio, and
preparatory demolition works were carried out on the corner of Via
Cavour.808 The new building would stand roughly between the Vittoriano
and the Colosseum, opposite the Basilica of Maxentius, in a site that
ἵὁmἴiὀeἶ ‘paὅt aὀἶ pὄeὅeὀt, hiὅtὁὄy aὀἶ myth iὀ ὁὀe imageέ’809
As always, however, it proved rather more difficult to overwrite the
centre of Rome than the regime had envisaged. The Palazzo Littorio
803
Scott 1932:649, 651, 657. He produced the study of Silvae 1.1 mentioned above, p.137.
TLS 1904:508.
805
Insolera & Perego 1999 (new edition); Russell 2014:498-500.
806
Observer, 1st May 1938, p. 19.
807
Mussὁliὀi ἴὁὄὄὁweἶ εaὐὐiὀi’ὅ ὄhetὁὄiἵ ὁf the ἦhiὄἶ Rὁmeέ
808
Kallis 2012:75; id. 2014:134-44..
809
Nelis 2007:408.
804
218
concept, after some controversy, was abandoned with no real explanation
given.810 The architect Giuseppe Pagano declared a modern building in that
setting impossible. The ancient ruins were so dominant that any attempt to
ἴuilἶ aὀew wὁulἶ ἴeἵὁme a ‘game ὁf ἵaὄἶὅ ὁveὄ the ἴelly ὁf a ἵὁὄpὅeέ’ 811
The government turned to the creation of new monuments and planted them
on the edges of the city.812 These self-consciously replicated the icons of
ancient Rome in Fascist form. In the brand new EUR district rose il
Colosseo quadrato, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana. And, as every good
emperor should, Mussolini founded his own Forum, where the Palazzo del
Littorio was eventually built, downstream from the Milvian Bridge.813
The last imperial forum?
The fifteenth anniversary of the March on Rome, in 1937, was
celebrated not in the Roman Forum, but in the Stadio dei Cipressi at Foro
Mussolini. Designed to impress a visiting party of Nazi officials, and to
show the world a vision of Italian-German solidarity, blackshirts were
martialled into the stadium en masse.
This was the climax to a parade of 100,000 Hierarchs from every town
and commune of Italy, who had been pouring into Rome all yesterday in
motor-coaches and special trains, and had been accommodated in camps
round the city. From 8 a.m. to-day till nearly 11.30 a.m. they had been
filiὀg iὀtὁ the ὅtaἶiumέ […] Little room was left for the mere public, but
several thousands had collected on the slopes of the hill overlooking the
arena. The whole assembly, it is claimed, approached 150,000.814
The spectacle presented here was the military might of Italy united under
Fascism. If the Vittoriano is emblematic of δiἴeὄal Italy’ὅ appὄὁaἵh tὁ the
Forum, then Foro Mussolini responds to the Fascist era’ὅ. This monumental
area in the north-east of Rome was constructed between 1928 and 1938, and
inaugurated in 1932. At first glance the name is misleading. If anything,
810
Kallis 2012:73-4.
Ibid.76.
812
ἦhὁugh the ἑiὄἵuὅ εaximuὅ waὅ uὅeἶ aὅ aὀ ‘exhiἴitiὁὀ ἵity’ ἴetweeὀ 1λἁἄ-9: see Stone
1998:227-252.
813
The Milvian Bridge haἶ ἴeeὀ ἴlὁwὀ up ὁὀ ἕaὄiἴalἶi’ὅ ὁὄἶeὄὅ ἶuὄiὀg the 1849 defence
of the Roman Republic, but was restored by Pius IX. The Palazzo del Littorio meanwhile
was not completed by the outbreak of war, and never served as Fascist HQ.
814
The Times 47834, 16.
811
219
Foro Mussolini is a descendant of the imperial baths: a sports complex with
two stadia, a swimming pool and other facilities, with the Fascist Academy
of Physical Education and a branch of Rome University next door. The
Times reported, on its inauguration on 4th σὁvemἴeὄ 1λἁἀ, that ‘the ἔὁὄὁ
Mussolini will be one of the finest, if not the finest sports grounds in the
wὁὄlἶέ’815
Foro Mussolini, however, was not just a sports ground. Its
conceptualisation developed fὄὁm the ὁὄigiὀal ‘ἔὁὄὁ ἶellὁ ἥpὁὄt’ ὁf 1928,
via ‘ἔὁὄὁ ἥpὁὄtivὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi’ tὁ the ὅimple, Rὁmaὀ-ὅtyle ‘ἔὁὄὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi’
in 1932. By this time, it was billed by its architect Luigi Moretti as ‘ἦhe
ὀew mὁὀumeὀtal ἵeὀtὄe ὁf the εuὅὅὁliὀiaὀ Rὁmeέ’816 As the venue for
Fascist parades and many of Mussoliὀi’ὅ puἴliἵ aἶἶὄeὅὅeὅ, it waὅ a ὄealiὅtiἵ
response to the problem of gathering large crowds in one space: neither the
Roman Forum nor Piazza Venezia had the capacity to match it (figs. 90,
101, 103). ώaἶ εὁὄetti’ὅ plaὀὀeἶ ‘Arengo delle Nazioni’ ἴeeὀ ἴuilt, the
ὅite’ὅ ἵapaἵity wὁulἶ have ἴeeὀ ἀίί - 300,000.817
ἦhe ὀew ‘fὁὄum’ was, furthermore, provided with an inspirational
aesthetic that glorified the regime. In this sense, it was very much in the
spirit of the imperial fora. While δaὀἵiaὀi’ὅ geὀeὄatiὁὀ haἶ seen ancient
Rome as a lost past to be uncovered, for Mussolini’ὅ it had, ‘iὀ a
fuὀἶameὀtal ὅeὀὅe, ὀeveὄ ἶieἶέ’818 ‘ἔὁὄ uὅ,’ the Duἵe ἶeἵlaὄeἶ, ‘Juliuὅ
ἑaeὅaὄ waὅ ὅtaἴἴeἶ yeὅteὄἶayέ’819 The Stadio dei Cipressi married the
ἔὁὄum’ὅ fuὀἵtiὁὀ (maὅὅ ὁὄatὁὄy) tὁ the form of the Colosseum (arguably the
most iconic symbol of imperial Rome.) Ratheὄ thaὀ aὀ ‘iὀaἵtive’
monument, ἔὁὄὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ working facilities and aesthetic programme
would train young Italians to govern a new Roman Empire. Leading
Fascists were required to do their fitness tests there (fig. 104). In an echo of
the Forum of Augustus, it was also the venue for the Leva Fascista, the
admittance ceremony of young members into the Party.
The Times 47828, 10.
Kallis 2014:167, 170.
817
Ibid.169 notes Moretti planned a complex to rival the Nazi party complex at
Nuremberg.
818
Kostof 1973:30.
819
Mussolini 1960:31.49.
815
816
220
Today, Foro Italico (as it was renamed) has a weedy and unkempt
appearance, not dissimiliar to the Foro Romano. Despite being adapted as
part of the 1960 Olympic Park, its Fascist elements remain essentially
unchanged. The architecture and decoration of Foro Mussolini evokes a
Fascist Italy united behind its Duce, and refers to both ancient and papal
Rome. Mussolini is impossible to escape. The focal point, dominating the
appὄὁaἵh fὄὁm the ἢὁὀte Duἵa D’χὁὅta, iὅ the eὀὁὄmὁuὅ ὁἴeliὅk iὀὅἵὄiἴeἶ
with hiὅ ὀameέ χt juὅt ὁveὄ ἁἄm it’ὅ ὁveὄ 1ίm taller than the obelisk of
Sixtus V iὀ fὄὁὀt ὁf ἥt ἢeteὄ’ὅ, and perhaps a challenge to it. Along Piazzale
ἶell’Impeὄὁ mosaics underfoot educate the visitor in Fascist triumphs, while
along the sides the great events of Fascist history are counted off. The
crowd continues to chant from the mosaics: DVCE DVCE DVCE (fig. 105).
In the Stadio dei Marmi, the Fascist crowd was faced with the highly
idealised statues of athletes with Mussolinian pouts – so beloved of Giorgio
Armani – of gigantic proportions. The ideal Italian, fed from birth a diet of
Classics, fascism and physical exercise, is an elite, hyper-masculine athlete.
(To find a woman you must look for the mosaics on the wall of the
swimming pool.) Each statue, representing a different sport, is inscribed
with the name of an Italian province. Ranged around the stadium, they are
an army of giants glaring down at the track: the supermen of the future
carved in a visual language evoking the Roman past.
Taken as a whole, Foro Mussolini aims to offer a deceptive
hiὅtὁὄiἵal aὀἶ uὀifyiὀg ‘ἵὁmpleteὀeὅὅ’, juὅt aὅ the ἔὁὄum χuguὅtumέ It waὅ
a place above all designed to be animated by – and condition – crowds. In
thiὅ ὅeὀὅe it ἵὁὄὄeὅpὁὀἶὅ exaἵtly with the ἔaὅἵiὅt ‘iἶea’ ὁf the ἔὁὄum
encapsulated in the film Scipione l’Africano (1937 – executive producer
Vittorio Mussolini).820 In an early scene, Scipio, played by Annibale Ninchi
in heavy shades of the Duce, is granted the command against Hannibal by
the Senate. As he exits the Senate House into the crowded Forum with his
lictors, the people of Rome salute him (figs. 106-108). The Forum set here
iὅ ὀὁt paὄtiἵulaὄly memὁὄaἴleμ it’ὅ ἶeὅigὀeἶ ὁὀly tὁ aἵἵὁmmὁdate the vast
number of extras. This is Fascist ideal of the Forum monumentalised at
820
I am indebted to Watkin 2009 for this reference.
221
Foro Mussolini: as the space where the Roman masses interact with their
Duce, who leads them to imperial glory.
222
Afterword
On this spot, July 2013
ἡὀe ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ maὀy tὁuὄ-guides marshals her group of
American visitors, sweltering in the late-afternoon sun, into prime position
in front of the Temple of Caesar.
‘ώere we are in the Roman Forum, at the very centre of ancient
Rὁmeέ σὁw yὁu’ve ὅeeὀ the impeὄial fὁὄa ὁveὄ theὄe while we waiteἶ tὁ ἴe
aἶmitteἶ, ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἔὁὄum with the ἑὁlumὀ… well, thὁὅe impeὄial fὁὄa weὄe
built for the emperors, Trajan, Augustus, Caesar, not for the people. This
one was built for the people. We can compare it to modern city squares,
where every single person goes, eveὄy ὅiὀgle ἶay…’ ἥhe ὅeὀὅeὅ ὅhe may ἴe
lὁὅiὀg heὄ auἶieὀἵeέ ‘σὁw ὁveὄ theὄe, that’ὅ the ἥeὀate ώὁuὅe, wheὄe Juliuὅ
Caesar was killed – aὀἶ if yὁu fὁllὁw me juὅt thiὅ way, yὁu’ll ἴe aἴle tὁ ὅee
ὅὁmethiὀg veὄy ὅpeἵialέ’821
She leads her group up to the wall behind them, and instructs them
tὁ ὅqueeὐe thὄὁugh the ὀaὄὄὁw gap tὁ ὅee what’ὅ ἴeiὀg pὄὁteἵteἶ ἴy the
modern roof. Once inside, the visitors are startled to find a heap of gently
disintegrating flowers and shredded cellophane wrappers (fig. 109). It looks
like – well, ὀὁt quite a gὄave, ἴut the ἵlὁὅeὅt thiὀg tὁ itέ ἦhe guiἶe’ὅ vὁiἵe
can still be heard outside, explaining that thiὅ iὅ Juliuὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ templeέ
ἔlὁweὄὅ aὄe ὅtill left ὁὀ the altaὄέ It’ὅ ὅtaὄtliὀg, aὅ if ὅὁmethiὀg that ὅeemeἶ
so dead has suddenly taken a breath.
ἦhe flὁweὄὅ ὁὀ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ altaὄ illuὅtὄate the ἵὁmpliἵatiὁὀὅ ὁf ἔὁὄummemory. Some lay flowers as a way of keeping faith with the Fascist
movement: they proliferate on days of Fascist significance, as followers
emulate Mussolini, as Mussolini emulated the young Octavian. In a sense,
εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ iἶeὀtifiἵatiὁὀ with ἑaeὅaὄ haὅ haἶ ὅtayiὀg pὁweὄμ iὀ ἶeath
ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ monument has become, to some, a memorial for himself and for
the Fascist era. Of course, most of those visitors who squeeze in under the
821
Transcribed by me at the time.
223
pὄὁteἵtive ὄὁὁf aὄe uὀawaὄe ὁf the flὁweὄὅ’ pὄὁveὀaὀἵeέ ἦhey might leave
an offering remembering Caesar as a tragic figure, because it allows them to
participate in something that feels like a living tradition. Many assume it
goes back directly to 44 BC.822 ἔὁὄ ὁtheὄὅ it’ὅ ὀὁ ἶὁuἴt juὅt a thiὀg tὁ ἶὁ,
like leaviὀg a paἶlὁἵk ὁὀ the ἢὁὀte εilviὁέ χὀἶ, ὁf ἵὁuὄὅe, ὁὀe peὄὅὁὀ’ὅ
memὁὄial iὅ aὀὁtheὄ’ὅ welἵὁme mὁmeὀt iὀ the ὅhaἶeέ
It’ὅ pὁὅὅiἴle tὁ ὅit iὀ the ἔὁὄum, theὀ, aὀἶ heaὄ it ἴeiὀg ‘ὄemaἶe’
every day as its monuments are explained by tour guides and visitors in an
oral tradition not dissimilar from that of the citizens of ancient Rome two
thὁuὅaὀἶ yeaὄὅ pὄeviὁuὅlyέ ἦhe tὄaἶitiὁὀ ὁf pὁiὀtiὀg tὁ the ἔὁὄum’ὅ
monuments and explaining them, connecting them with memories of human
aἵtiὁὀ, gὁeὅ at leaὅt aὅ faὄ ἴaἵk aὅ ἢlautuὅ’ Curculio; it was pinned down,
reshaped, and sometimes mocked by ancient authors like Livy, Varro and
Ovid; recorded by the authors of medieval guidebooks; and used by the
political actors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to shape a new
vision of Rome. Our tour guide was sharing a Forum story that goes back at
least to Edward Gibbon, that this was the Senate House in which Caesar
was murdered.
Many regimes have used and developed this tradition to reinforce
their position. We might think of Innocent XIII and his glittering procession
through the Campo Vaccino, the image of Trajan poised on the Rostra
carved on the Anaglypha Traiani, or Victor Emmanuel III peering into the
trench at the Sepulcretum. But it has also been a political liability. The
ἔὁὄum’ὅ mὁὀumeὀtὅ have ἴeeὀ maἶe iὀtὁ witὀeὅὅeὅ ὁf a paὅt ἴetter
fὁὄgὁtteὀ, ὁὄ pὄὁphetὅ ὁf a ‘ἴetteὄ’ futuὄeέ Ἡe’ve ὅeeὀ that, faὄ fὄὁm ἴeiὀg a
fait accompli, χuguὅtuὅ’ ὄeὅhapiὀg ὁf the ἔὁὄum waὅ a ἶiffiἵult pὄὁἵeὅὅ left
unfinished at his death and arguably never fully completed. The Republican
memories reasserted by the revolutionaries of the nineteenth century
eventually caused the papacy to abandon the Forum altogether and a
heaἶaἵhe fὁὄ Italy’ὅ ὀew mὁὀaὄἵhyέ ἔightiὀg aὀ iἶeὁlὁgiἵal waὄ ὁὀ twὁ
χὀ (uὀὅἵieὀtifiἵ) ὅeaὄἵh ὁf tὁuὄiὅtὅ’ ὄeviewὅ ὁὀ tὄipaἶviὅὁὄέἵὁm, fὁὄ example, ὄevealὅ
ἵὁmmeὀtὅ like uὅeὄ jkί1’ὅ (a memἴeὄ fὄὁm εiὀὀeapὁliὅ)μ ‘εὁἶeὄὀ tὄaveleὄὅ ὅtill leave
meὅὅageὅ aὀἶ flὁweὄὅ ὁὀ the ὅite ὁf ἑaeὅaὄ'ὅ ἵὄematiὁὀέ’
822
224
fronts, it excavated the Forum out of the living city for the first time in its
history.
The legacy of those nineteenth- and twentieth-century excavators is
still very evident today even if not officially acknowledged. Although S.
Maria Antiqua has just re-opened to the public after a number of years, the
Forum Antiquarium remains closed and partially dismantled. There is still
no real sense iὀ tὁἶay’ὅ ἔὁὄum of its Christian history except a scattering of
papal inscriptions, as on the Portico of the Dei Consentes, which, as we
noted above, is fenced off from the main site). For late-antique finds,
visitors must go to the Museo Nazionale Crypta-Balbi, and surviving
medieval elements like the Porticus on the Sacra Via remain unexplained.
ώiὀtὅ ὁf the ἔὁὄum’ὅ mὁὄe ὀatiὁὀaliὅtiἵ paὅt aὄe weatheὄeἶ, ὅuἵh aὅ the ὅtele
inscribed with ἑaὄἶuἵἵi’ὅ ὁἶe Nell’annuale della fondazione di Roma
(1κἅἅ)ν itὅ ἶeἶiἵatiὁὀ ἴy the ‘ἥtuἶeὀtὅ ὁf Italy’ iὅ ὀὁ longer clearly legible
(fig. 110).
It’ὅ not ὅuὄpὄiὅiὀgέ Ἡith εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ impeὄial ἶὄeamὅ eὀἶiὀg iὀ
ἵataἵlyὅm aὀἶ the Duἵe ὅuffeὄiὀg ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ fate, the Kingdom of Italy did
not survive 1946; it was reborn by public referendum as a Republic on the
13th June that year, as the sun began to set on the British and other European
empires. The experience of Fascism has profoundly informed subsequent
approacheὅ tὁ Rὁme’ὅ mὁὀumeὀtὅ, aὅ ἢaul Zaὀkeὄ aἵkὀὁwleἶgeὅμ ‘Ἡeὄ ἶie
Baupolitik der Nazionalsozialisten und Fascism erlebt hat, weiß, daß man
ἶie emὁtiὁὀelle Ἡiὄkuὀg vὁὀ ἐaugeὄüὅteὀ kaum üἴeὄὅἵhätὐeὀ kaὀὀέ’823 The
deep ambivalence with which the Augustan and post-Augustan Roman
Forum is regarded is arguably a consequence ὁf thiὅέ Zaὀkeὄ’ὅ impeὄial-era
Forum is ossified and empty because – in a sense – this saves the ancient
Romans from the culpability of the masses that packed out Foro Mussolini
and Piazza Venezia: it’ὅ more comfortable to think of the Forum populated
with statues than the ἴὄutaliὅeἶ ἵὄὁwἶὅ ὁf ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories.
We have come full circle to 1798. It’ὅ the Repuἴliἵ that we ἵhὁὁὅe
tὁ ὄememἴeὄμ a Repuἴliἵ with ‘aὀ ὁὄatὁὄ, aἶἶὄeὅὅiὀg a ἵὄὁwἶ’, not a Duce
strutting before an adoring audience, or a Roman emperor showering gold
823
Zanker 1987:159.
225
on the plebs, but a dynamic group of citizens participating in something that
looks like a democracy. At the same time, ongoing excavations in the
Comitium led by Patrizia Fortini have dug past the Forum itself to continue
where Boni left off; to investigate the seeds of the Roman Republic and the
city itself.
The history of the Forum raises broader questions about the
transmission of ancient sites, especially those that seem (deceptively)
familiar. Without taking into account the processes that have shaped the
monument we study today, we lose sight of its mutability, the fact that we
are dealing not with a fossil but a still-active site of ideological negotiation.
As Livy and his contemporaries knew, an ancient monument can never –
and is never – tὄuly ‘fixeἶ’έ Ἡhile itὅ phyὅiἵality ἵaὀ ἴe ὅhapeἶ ἴy pὁlitiἵal
motivations (true as much of archaeological sites as ancient spaces), its
‘metaphyὅiἵality’ ὄemaiὀὅ ὀegὁtiaἴleέ ἦhe ‘ἵὁὀἵeptual’ ἔὁὄum, geὀeὄateἶ
by historical memory and tradition, is constantly adapted over time by each
generation and even each visitor. It is inextricably connected with what we
waὀt ‘Rὁme’ aὀἶ ‘Rὁmaὀ ἵultuὄe’ tὁ ὅtaὀἶ fὁὄμ we all make ὁuὄ ὁwὀ
Forum.
226
Bibliography
Abbreviations
Ancient authors and their works are cited according to the abbreviations of
the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed., ed. S. Hornblower and A.
Spawforth).
ANRW
CAH
CIL
ILS
LTUR
MR
NYT
TLS
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
Cambridge Ancient History
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1983 –)
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ed. H. Dessau, 1892-1916).
Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (Steinby 1993-2000)
Monitore di Roma
New York Times
Times Literary Supplement
Primary Sources to Part 2 & Intermezzo
Archives and Databases
British Library 17th-18th century Burney Collection Newspapers.
British Library 19th Century Newspapers.
British Periodicals 1 and 2
(libsta28.lib.cam.ac.uk:2079/britishperiodicals)
British School at Rome Archive.
Guardian (1821-2003) & Observer (1791-2003)
(http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/guardian/advancedsearch.html).
Illustrated London News Historical Archive
(find.galegroup.com/iln)
Monitore di Roma 1798-1799, archive at
www.monitorenapoletano.it.
New York Times Historical Archive
(http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/nytarchive.html)
La Repubblica Romana del 1849 (www.repubblicaromana-1849.it) –
archive website run by the Ministero per i beni e le attavità culturale
and Biblioteca di storia moderna e contemporanea.
The Times Digital Archive (www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/archive)
227
The Times Literary Supplement Historical Archive.
(find.galegroup.com/tlsh)
Books and Academic Journals
Baddeley, W.S.
1904. Recent Discoveries in the Forum 1898-1904. London.
Bartoli, A.
1963. Cura Senatus: lo scavo e il restauro. Rome.
Belli, G.G.
1960. The Roman Sonnets of G.G. Belli, translated by Howard
Norse. Highlands, NC 1960.
Boni, G.
1κλλέ ‘Iὅἵὄiὐiὁὀe latiὀa aὄἵaiἵa ὅἵὁpeὄta ὀel ἔὁὄὁ Rὁmaὀὁέ’ NSc
1899, 151-58.
1λίίέ ‘Exἵavatiὁὀὅ iὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum,’ Nineteenth Century
47:278, p637-651.
1λίίἴέ ‘Eὅplὁὄaὐiὁὀe ὀel ἑὁmiὐiὁέ’ NSc 1900, 295-340.
1λίἂέ ‘ἔὁὄὁ Rὁmaὀὁέ’ ἂλἁ-584 in Atti del Congresso Internazionale
di Scienze Storiche, vol. 5. Rome.
Bunsen, CKJ.
1835. Le Forum Romanum expliqué selon l’état des fouilles,
le 21 Avril 1835. Rome.
Burton-Brown, E.
1904. Recent Excavations in the Roman Forum, 1898-1904: A
Handbook. London.
Cassanelli, R.
1999. Fragments de la Rome antique: dans les dessins des architects
français vainquers du Prix de Rome 1784-1929. Paris.
Didier, C.
1848. Rome Souterraine. Paris.
Dupaty, l’χἴéeέ
1785. Travels Through Italy, in a Series of Letters. Dublin.
Elliot, F.
1871. Diary of an Idle Woman in Italy. London (2 vols).
Fea, C.
1827. Indicazione del Foro Romano, e sue principali adjacenze,
relative alla contemporanea tavola incisa a Roma … Rome.
Forman, H.J.
1912. The Ideal Italian Tour. London.
Fuller, M.
1991. ‘These sad but glorious days’: dispatches from Europe, 18461850, edited by Larry J. Reynolds and Susan Belasco Smith.
New Haven.
Garibaldi, G.
1930. My Life. Tr. S. Parkin, London, 2004.
Gibbon, E.
1907 (1796). Autobiography of Edward Gibbon. Oxford.
Gioberti, V.
228
1847. Il gesuito moderno. Losanna.
Hemans, C.I.
1874. Historic and Monumental Rome. London.
Lanciani, R.
1888. Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries. London.
1889. The Destruction of Ancient Rome: A Sketch of the History of
the Monuments. London.
1893-1901. Forma Urbis Romae. Mediolani.
1902-1912. Storia degli scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezioni
romane di antichità. Rome.
1910. The Roman Forum: A Photographic Description of its
Monuments. Rome.
1988. Notes from Rome. Ed. A.L. Cubberley. London.
Lee, V.
1906. The Spirit of Rome: Leaves from a Diary. London.
Ludwig, E.
1932. Talks with Mussolini. London.
Lugli, G.
1946. ‘Reἵeὀt aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal ἶiὅἵὁveὄieὅ iὀ Rὁme aὀἶ Italyέ’ JRS
36, 1-17.
Mazzini, G.
1864. Life and Writings of Joseph Mazzini. London.
Murray, J.
1899. A Handbook of Rome and its Environs. London.
Mussolini, B.
1951-1980. Opera Omnia, a cura di Edoardo e Duilio Susmel.
Florence.
Negro, S.
1943. Seconda Roma, 1850-1870. Milan.
Nibby, A.
1838. Roma nell'anno MDCCCXXXVIII. Rome.
Palladio, A.
2006. tr. V. Hart & P. Hicks. Palladio’s Rome: a translation of
Andrea Palladio’s two guidebooks to Rome. New Haven.
Pelzer Wagener, A.
1λἀκέ ‘χ ἵlaὅὅiἵal ἴaἵkgὄὁuὀἶ fὁὄ ἔaὅἵiὅmέ’ CJ 23, 668-677.
Perkins Marsh, G.
1888. Life and Letters of George Perkins Marsh. New York.
Petrie, F.
1κλλέ ‘δetteὄὅ tὁ the eἶitὁὄ’έ Athenaeum 3727 (1 April 1899).
De Ruggiero, E.
1913. Il Foro Romano. Rome.
Scott, K.
1λἁἀέ ‘εuὅὅὁliὀi aὀἶ the Rὁmaὀ Empiὄeέ’ CJ 27, 645-57.
Sener Rusk, W.
1λἁἄέ ‘ἦhe ἕlὁὄy aὀἶ ἕὄaὀἶeuὄ that Ἡeὄe, II’έ CJ 32, 133-152.
Stuart Jones, H.
1903. ‘δetteὄὅ tὁ the Eἶitὁὄμ Exἵavatiὁὀὅ iὀ Rὁmeέ’ The Times
37242:15.
1λίἂέ ‘δetteὄὅ tὁ the Eἶitὁὄμ Reἵeὀt Diὅἵὁveὄieὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄumέ’ The
229
Times 37402:6.
de Voraigne, J. tr. W.G. Ryan.
1969. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Vol. 1. Princeton.
Wilde, O.
1928. A Collection of Original Manuscripts, Letters and Books of
Oscar Wilde... London.
Papal & Political Decrees
Pius VII
Chirografo 2 October 1802.
Pius IX
‘ἣuiἴuὅ quaὀtiὅque’, allὁἵutiὁὀ ἀί April 1849.
Acts of the Pontifical Government, 1856.
‘ἣuaὀta ἵuὄa’, eὀἵyἵliἵal κ Deἵemἴeὄ 1κἄἂέ
‘ἥyllaἴuὅ Errorum’, κ Deἵemἴeὄ 1κἄἂέ
‘σὁὀ expeἶit’, decree 29 February 1868.
Repubblica Romana, 1848-9
‘Deἵὄetὁ ἔὁὀἶameὀtale’, λ ἔeἴὄuaὄy 1κἂλέ
‘Il ἑὁmitatὁ Eὅeἵutivὁ ἶella Repuἴἴliἵa σὁtifiἵa…’, ἀη εaὄἵh
1849.
Newspapers & Periodicals
Details of specific issues cited in text, with issue number where applicable.
British Architect (Manchester)
53.2
12 January 1900.
62.10 2 September 1904.
Daily Journal (London)
272
6 December 1721.
Daily News (London)
11762 25 December 1883.
Freeman’s Journal (Dublin)
-
10 October 1889.
-
25 January 1899.
General Evening Post (London)
230
8640
12-14 March 1789.
Independent Chronicle (London)
32
8-11 December 1769.
Monitore di Roma (Rome)
1
21 February 1798.
45
14 February 1799.
The Morning Post (London)
39738 14 October 1899.
The New York Times (New York)
-
25 August 1935.
The Observer (London)
-
1 May 1938.
The Standard (London)
18529 5 December 1883.
The Times (London)
4136
6 March 1798.
35721 9 January 1899.
37242 19 Nov 1903.
37402 4 May 1904.
45559 8 July 1930.
47828 5 November 1932.
47834 29 October 1937.
The Times Literary Supplement (London)
1904
30 July 1938.
Whitehall Evening Post (London)
8001
3 March 1798.
231
Secondary Sources to Parts 1 & 2.
---1960. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Rome.
---1999. Mostra storica nella Repubblica Romana del 1849: Museo
Centrale del Risorgimento, Vittoriano, 10 febbraio – 4 luglio.
Accame, M. & Dell’ἡὄὁ (eds.)
2004. Mirabilia Urbis Romae. Rome.
Agnew, J.
1998. ‘ἦhe impὁὅὅiἴle ἵapitalμ mὁὀumeὀtal Rὁme uὀἶeὄ liἴeὄal aὀἶ
fascist regimes, 1870-1λἂἁέ’ Geografiska Annaler, Series B:
Human Geography 80, 229-240.
Ahl, F.
1λκἂaέ ‘ἦhe aὄt ὁf ὅafe ἵὄitiἵiὅm iὀ ἕὄeeἵe aὀἶ Rὁmeέ’ AJP 105,
174-208.
1λκἂἴέ ‘ἦhe ὄiἶeὄ aὀἶ the hὁὄὅeμ pὁlitiἵὅ aὀἶ pὁweὄ iὀ Rὁmaὀ pὁetὄy
from Horace tὁ ἥtatiuὅέ’ ANRW 2.32.1, 40-124.
Albertson, F.
1λλίέ ‘ἦhe ἐaὅiliἵa χemilia fὄieὐeμ ὄeligiὁὀ aὀἶ pὁlitiἵὅ iὀ late
Repuἴliἵaὀ Rὁmeέ’ Latomus 49, 801-15.
Ammerman, A.J.
1λλίέ ‘ἡὀ the ὁὄigiὀὅ ὁf the ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀumέ’ AJA 94, 627-45.
1λλἄέ ‘ἦhe ἑὁmitium iὀ Rὁme fὄὁm the ἴegiὀὀiὀgέ’ AJA 100, 121136.
Amici, C.
1991. Il Foro di Cesare. Florence.
Anderson, J.
1981. ‘Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁgὄamμ ἔὁὄum Julium aὀἶ εaὄket ὁf
ἦὄajaὀέ’ Archaeological News 10, 41-48.
1982. ‘Dὁmitiaὀ, the χὄgiletum, aὀἶ the ἦemple ὁf ἢeaἵeέ’ AJA 86,
101-10.
1λκἁέ ‘χ tὁpὁgὄaphiἵal tὄaἶitiὁὀ iὀ fὁuὄth ἵeὀtuὄy ἵhὄὁὀiἵleὅμ
Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ ἴuilἶiὀg pὄὁgὄamέ’ Historia 32, 93-105.
1984. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora. Brussels.
Arena, V.
2012. Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman
Republic. Cambridge.
Arieti, Jέ 1λλἅέ ‘Rape aὀἶ δivy’ὅ view ὁf Rὁmaὀ hiὅtὁὄyέ’ ἀίλ-29 in S.
Dearcy & K. Pierce (eds.) Rape in Antiquity. London.
Arthurs, J.
2012. Excavating Modernity: The Roman Past in Fascist Italy.
Cornell.
Ascoli, A.R. & von Hennburg, K. (eds.)
2001. Making and Remaking Italy: The Culture of National Identity
around the Risorgimento. Oxford.
Ash, R.
1999. Ordering Anarchy: Armies and Leaders in Tacitus’ Histories.
London.
ἀίίἅέ ‘Viἵtim aὀἶ vὁyeuὄμ Rὁme aὅ a ἵhaὄaἵteὄ iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories
232
ἁέ’ ἀ11-37 in Larmour & Spencer (2007).
ἀίίλέ ‘ἔiὅὅiὁὀ aὀἶ fuὅiὁὀμ ὅhifting Roman identities in the
Histories.’ κη-99 in Woodman (2009).
Ash, R. (ed.)
2012. Oxford Readings in Tacitus. Oxford.
Asmis, E.
ἀίίηέ ‘χ ὀew kiὀἶ ὁf mὁἶelμ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ Rὁmaὀ ἵὁὀὅtitutiὁὀ iὀ De
Repuἴliἵaέ’ AJP 126, 377-416.
Atkinson, D & Cosgrove, D.
1998. ‘Uὄἴaὀ Rhetὁὄiἵ aὀἶ Emἴὁἶieἶ Iἶeὀtitieὅμ ἵity, ὀatiὁὀ aὀἶ
empire at the Vittorio Emanuele II Monument in Rome, 18701λἂηέ’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88,
28-49.
Atkinson, D., Cosgrove, D. & Notaro, A.
1λλλέ ‘Empiὄe iὀ mὁἶeὄὀ Rὁmeμ ὅhapiὀg aὀἶ ὄememἴeὄiὀg aὀἶ
imperial city, 1870-1λ11έ’ 40-63 in F. Driver & D. Gilbert (eds.)
Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity. Manchester.
Baldoli, C.
2009. A History of Italy. London.
Baldovin, J.F.
1987. The Urban Character of Christian Worship: the origins,
development, and meaning of stational liturgy. Rome.
Baldwin, D.
1λλίέ ‘ἦhe ἶate, iἶeὀtity aὀἶ ἵaὄeeὄ ὁf Vitὄuviuὅέ’ Latomus 49, 425434.
Barchiesi, A.
1994. Il poeta e il principe: Ovidio e il discorso augusteo. Rome.
Barnes, T.J. & Duncan, J.S. (eds.)
1992. Writing Worlds: Discourse, text and metaphor in the
representation of landscape. London.
Barrett, A.
1989. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London.
Bartoli, A.
1963. Curia Senatus: lo scavo e il restauro. Rome.
Bartsch, S.
2006. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the
Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago.
Bauman, R.
1992. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London.
Baxa, P.
2010. Roads and ruins: the symbolic landscape of fascist Rome.
Toronto.
Beard, M.
1λκἅέ ‘χ ἵὁmplex ὁf timeὅμ ὀὁ mὁὄe ὅheep ὁὀ Rὁmuluὅ’ ἴiὄthἶayέ’
PCPhS 33, 1-15.
1λλκέ ‘Vita Iὀὅἵὄiptaέ’ 83-114 in S. Maul, W. Ehlers & O. Reverdin
(eds.) La Biographie Antique. Geneva.
1λλλέ ‘ἦhe eὄὁtiἵὅ ὁf ὄapeμ δivy, ἡviἶ aὀἶ the ἥaἴiὀe Ἡὁmeὀέ’ 1-10
in P. Setälä & L. Sanuven (eds.) Female Networks and the
Public Sphere in Roman Society. Rome.
233
2002. The Parthenon. London.
ἀίίἂέ ‘χὄἵhaeὁlὁgy and collecting in late nineteenth-ἵeὀtuὄy Rὁmeέ’
18-21 in F. Friborg & A. Stevens (eds.) Ancient Art to Post
Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Ny Carlsburg Glyptotek.
Copenhagen.
Beck. H.
ἀίίλέ ‘ἔὄὁm ἢὁpliἵὁla tὁ χuguὅtuὅμ ὅeὀatὁὄial hὁuὅeὅ iὀ Rὁmaὀ
pὁlitiἵal ἵultuὄeέ’ Phoenix 63, 361-84.
Bellanca, C.
2003. Antonio Muñoz: la politica di tutela dei monumenti di Roma
durante il Governatorato. Rome.
Benario, H.
1λἅἀέ ‘ἢὄiam aὀἶ ἕalἴaέ’ CW 65, 146-7.
Bennett, J.
1997. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times. London.
Bennett, T.
1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory and Politics.
London.
Bignamini, I. (ed.)
2004. Archives and Excavations: Essays on the History of
Archaeological Excavation in Rome and Southern Italy from the
Renaissance to the nineteenth century. Rome.
Bilde, P. & Poulson, B. 2008. Temple of Castor and Pollux II.1: The Finds.
Rome.
Birch, D.J.
1998. Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages: Continuity and
Change. Woodbridge.
Boatwright, M.T.
1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton.
Bolgia, C., McKitterick, R. & Osborne, J. (eds.)
2011. Rome Across Time and Space, c.500-1400: Cultural
Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas. New York.
Bolton, G.
1970. Roman Century: 1870-1970. London.
Bonfante, L.
1λλκέ ‘δivy aὀἶ the mὁὀumeὀtὅέ’ 480-92 in M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb
& S. Keller (eds.) Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern
World: A tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon. Sheffield.
Bosworth, R.
2002. Mussolini. London.
2006. Mussolini’s Italy: life under the dictatorship, 1915-1945.
London.
2011. Whispering City. Rome and its Histories. New Haven.
Bowman, A., Cotton, H., Goodman, M., & Price, S.
2002. Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean
World. Oxford.
Boyle, J.
1993. Ovid and the Monuments: a Poet’s Rome. Bendigo, Victoria.
Bremmer, J. (ed.)
1998. The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and
234
Gnosticism. Leuven.
Brentano, R.
1974. Rome Before Avignon: A Social History of Thirteenth-Century
Rome. London.
Brilliant, R.
1967. The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. Rome.
1λλἁέ ‘χὄἵuὅμ ἥeptimiuὅ ἥeveὄuὅ (ἔὁὄum)’, iὀ LTUR I, 103-5.
Brint, S. & Salzman, M.
1λκκέ ‘Refleἵtiὁὀὅ ὁὀ pὁlitiἵal ὅpaἵeμ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁrum and Capitol
ώill, Ἡaὅhiὀgtὁὀ Dἑέ’ Places 5.
Brixa, P.
2010. Roads and Ruins: The Symbolic Landscape of Fascism.
Toronto.
Brown, R.
1λληέ ‘δivy’ὅ ἥaἴiὀe Ἡὁmeὀ aὀἶ the iἶeal ὁf ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶiaέ’ TAPA
125, 291-319.
Brunt, P.
1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic: and related essays. Oxford.
Burnett, A.
1λλλέ ‘ἐuilἶiὀgὅ aὀἶ mὁὀumeὀtὅ ὁὀ Rὁmaὀ ἵὁiὀὅέ’ 137-164 in G.
Paul & M. Ierardi (eds.) Roman Coins and Public Life Under the
Empire. Michigan.
Burton, P.
ἀίίίέ ‘ἦhe laὅt Repuἴliἵaὀ hiὅtorian: a new date for the composition
ὁf δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt peὀtaἶέ’ Historia 49, 429-446.
Caldwell, D. & Caldwell, L. (eds.)
2010. Rome: Continuing Encounters Between Past and Present.
Farnham, Surrey.
Caffiero, M.
2005. La repubblica nella città del papa: Roma 1798. Rome.
Cameron, A.
2011. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford.
Canella, T.
2006. Gli Acti Silvestri: Genesi di una leggenda su Costantino
imperatore. Spoleto.
Canfora, L.
1λἅἄέ ‘ἑlaὅὅiἵiὅmὁ e faὅἵiὅmὁ’έ Quaderni di Storia 2, 139-82.
1λκίέ ‘ἢὄὁὅἵὄiὐiὁὀi e ἶiὅὅeὅtὁ ὅὁἵiale ὀella ὄepuἴἴliἵa Rὁmaὀaέ’ Klio
62, 425-438.
Caniffe, E.
2008. The Politics of the Piazza: the history and meaning of the
Italian square. Aldershot.
Cantilena, R. & Rubino, P. (eds.)
1987. Domiziano/Nerva: La Statua Equestre da Miseno: una
proposita di recomposizione. Naples.
Capodiferro, A. & Fortini, P. (eds.)
2003. Gli scavi di Giacomo Boni al Foro Romano. Rome.
Capra, C.
1978. L’età rivoluzionaria e napoleonica in Italia 1796-1815. Turin.
235
Caprioli, F.
2007. Vesta aeterna: l’Aedes Vestae e la sua decorazione
architettonica. Rome.
Caracciolo, A.
1974. Roma Capitale: dal Risorgimento alla crisi dello Stato
liberale. Rome.
Carafa, P.
1998. Il Comizio di Roma dalle origini all’età di Augusto. Rome.
Carandini, A. & Capella, R. (eds.)
2000. Roma: Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città. Milan.
Carandini, A. & Carafa, P. (eds.)
2013. Atlante di Roma antica: biografia e ritratti della città. Milan.
Carandini, A.
2006. Remo e Romolo: dai rioni dei Quiriti alla città dei Romani.
Turin.
2011. Rome: Day One. Princeton.
Carcopino, J.
1958. Passion et politique chez les Césars. Paris.
Carettoni, G.
1960. ‘Exἵavatiὁὀὅ aὀἶ ἶiὅἵὁveὄieὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀum aὀἶ ὁὀ
the Palatiὀe ἶuὄiὀg the laὅt fifty yeaὄὅέ’ JRS 50, 192-203.
Castagnoli, F.
1ληἁέ ‘σὁte ὀumiὅmatiἵheέ’ Archeologia Classica 5, 104-9.
Ceausescu, P.
1λἅἄέ ‘χlteὄa Rὁmaμ hiὅtὁiὄe ἶ’uὀ fὁlie pὁlitiqueέ’ Historia 25, 79108.
Cerutti, S.M.
1λλἅέ ‘ἦhe Location of the Houses of Cicero and Clodius and the
Porticus Catuli on the Palatine Hill in Rome.’ AJP 118, 417-426.
Champlin, E.
2003. Nero. Cambridge, MA.
Chenault, R.
ἀί1ἀέ ‘ἥtatueὅ ὁf ἥeὀatὁὄὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄum ὁf ἦὄajaὀ aὀἶ the Rὁmaὀ
Forum iὀ δate χὀtiquityέ’ JRS 102, 103-132.
Choay, ἔέ tὄέ δέεέ ἡ’ἑὁὀὀellέ
2001. The invention of the historic monument. Cambridge.
Christie, N.
1λκἅέ ‘ἔὁὄum Ἡaὄe, the Duἵhy ὁf Rὁme aὀἶ iὀἵaὅtellameὀtὁμ
problemὅ iὀ iὀteὄpὄetatiὁὀέ’ Archeologia Medievale 14, 451-466.
Claridge, A.
1λλἁέ ‘ώaἶὄiaὀ’ὅ ἑὁlumὀ ὁf ἦὄajaὀέ’ JRA 6, 5-22.
2010. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford.
Cloud, J.R.
ἀί1ἁέ ‘ἔὄὁm ἑattle εaὄket tὁ ἢuἴliἵ ἢὄὁmeὀaἶeμ remaking the
ἔὁὄum iὀ the ὅeveὀteeὀth ἵeὀtuὄyέ’ 187-209 in Smith & Gaydene
(2013).
Coarelli, F.
1λἅἅέ ‘Il ἑὁmiὐiὁ ἶalle ὁὄigiὀi alla fiὀe ἶella ὄepuἴἴliἵaέ’ PP 32,
166-238.
1λκἀέ ‘ἦὁpὁgὄaphie aὀtique et iἶéὁlὁgie mὁἶeὄὀeμ δe ἔὁὄum ὄὁmaiὀ
236
ὄeviὅitéέ’ Annales 37, 724-40.
1983. Il Foro Romano I: Periodo arcaico. Rome.
1985. Il Foro Romano II: Periodo repubblicano e augusteo. Rome.
ἀίίηέ ‘ἢitὅ aὀἶ fὁὄaμ a ὄeply tὁ ώeὀὄik εὁuὄitὅeὀέ’ PBSR 73, 23-30.
2007. Rome and Environs: An Archaeological Guide. Berkeley.
Coarelli, F. (ed.)
2004. Gli Scavi di Roma 1878-1921. Rome.
2006. Gli Scavi di Roma 1922-1975. Rome.
2009. Divus Vespasianus: il bimillenario dei Flavi. Rome.
Coates-Stephens, R.
ἀί11έ ‘ἦhe ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀum iὀ the ἐyὐaὀtiὀe ἢeὄiὁἶ’ ἁκη-408 in O.
Brandt & P. Pergola (eds.) Marmoribus Vestitia: Miscellanea in
onoro di Federico Guidobaldi. Vol. 1. Città di Vaticano.
Cooper, K. & Hillner, J. (eds.)
2007. Religion, Dynasty and Patronage in early Christian Rome,
300-900. Cambridge.
Collins, J.
2004. Papacy and Politics in Eighteenth Century Rome: Pius VI and
the Arts. Cambridge.
Corbier, M.
1λκἅέ ‘δ’éἵὄituὄe ἶaὀὅ l’eὅpaἵe puἴliἵ ὄὁmaiὀέ’ 27-60 in C. Pietri
(ed.) L’Urbs. Rome.
Corbeill, A.
ἀίίἀέ ‘ἢὁlitiἵal εὁvemeὀtμ Ἡalkiὀg aὀἶ Iἶeὁlὁgy iὀ Repuἴliἵaὀ
Rὁmeέ’ 1κἀ-215 in D. Fredrick (ed.) The Roman Gaze.
Baltimore.
Cornell, T.
1λλἂέ ‘Rὁmeμ the hiὅtὁὄy ὁf aὀ aὀaἵhὄὁὀiὅmέ’ 53-70 in A. Mohlo, K.
Raaflaub & J. Emlen (eds.) City States in Classical Antiquity and
Medieval Italy: Athens and Rome, Florence and Venice. Ann
Arbor.
1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age
to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264 BC). London.
ἀίί1έ ‘ἑiἵeὄὁ ὁὀ the ὁὄigiὀὅ ὁf Rὁmeέ’ BICS supp. 76, 41-56.
Curran, J.
2000. Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth
Century. Oxford.
Damon, C.
2006. ‘Potior utroque Vespasianus: Vespasian and his predecessors
iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories.’ Arethusa 39, 245-79.
Darwall-Smith, R.
1996. Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome.
Brussels.
Davis, J.A. (ed.)
2000. Italy in the Nineteenth Century, 1796-1900. Oxford.
De Angelis, F. (ed.)
2010. Spaces of Justice in the Roman World. Leiden.
De Melo, W.
2011. Plautus. Cambridge, MA. (vol. 1).
237
Dewar, M.
ἀίίκέ ‘ἦhe equiὀe ἵuἵkὁὁμ ἥtatiuὅ’ Ecus Maximus Domitiani
Imperatoris aὀἶ the ἔlaviaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’ 65-84 in Smolenaars et al
(2008).
Díaz-Andreu, M. & Champion, T.
1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London.
Donato, M.P. & Boutier, J.
1998. ‘δa Répuἴlique ὄὁmaiὀe ἶe 1ἅλκ-1799. Panorama des études
ὄéἵeὀteὅέ’ Revue d’histoire modern et contemporaraine 45, 13440.
Dougherty, C.
1λλκέ ‘ἥὁwiὀg the ὅeeἶὅ ὁf viὁleὀἵeμ ὄape, wὁmeὀ aὀἶ the laὀἶέ’
267-84 in M. Wyke (ed.) Parchments of Gender: Depicting the
Body in Antiquity. Oxford.
Dunkle, J.
1λἅ1έ ‘ἦhe ὄhetὁὄiἵal tyrant in Roman historiography: Sallust, Livy
aὀἶ ἦaἵituὅέ’ CW 65, 12-20.
Dunn, F.S.
1λ1ηέ ‘Rὁme, the uὀfiὀiὅheἶ aὀἶ uὀkemptέ’ CJ 10, 312-332.
Dyson, S.
2006. In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical
Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Yale.
Eck, W.
1λλἅέ ‘Cum dignitate otium: senatorial domus iὀ Impeὄial Rὁmeέ’
SCI 16, 162-90.
1998. The Age of Augustus. Malden, MA.
Edwards, C.
1996. Writing Rome. Cambridge.
ἀί11έ ‘Imagiὀiὀg ὄuiὀὅ iὀ χὀἵieὀt Rὁmeέ’ ERH 18, 645-661.
Edwards, C. (ed.)
1999. Roman Presences: Receptions of Rome in European Culture,
1789-1945. Cambridge.
Edwards, R.
ἀί1ἀέ ‘Devotio, disease, and remedia in the Histories.’ 237-59 in
V.E. Pagán (ed.) A Companion to Tacitus. Malden, Mass.
Elliott, J.K. (ed.)
1993. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford.
Elsner, J.
1λλἂέ ‘ἑὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὀg ἶeἵaἶeὀἵeμ the image ὁf σeὄὁ aὅ impeὄial
ἴuilἶeὄέ’ 11ἀ-127 in J. Elsner & J. Masters (ed.) Reflections of
Nero: Culture, History and Representation. London.
Ewald, B. & Noreña, C. (eds.)
2010. The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation and Ritual.
Cambridge.
Falasca-Zamponi, S.
1997. Fascist Spectacle: the aesthetics of power in Mussolini’s Italy.
Berkeley.
Fantham, E.
1λλἅέ ‘Imageὅ ὁf the ἵityμ ἢὄὁpeὄtiuὅ’ ὀew-ὁlἶ Rὁmeέ’ 1ἀἀ-35 in T.
238
Habinek & A. Schiesaro (eds.) The Roman Cultural Revolution.
Cambridge.
2006. Julia Augusti: the Emperor’s Daughter. London.
Favro, D.
1λκκέ ‘ἦhe Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum aὀἶ Rὁmaὀ εemὁὄyέ’ Places 5.
1996. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge.
Favro, E. & Johansen, C. 2010.
‘Death iὀ mὁtiὁὀμ fuὀeὄaὄy pὄὁἵeὅὅiὁὀὅ iὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 69, 12-37.
Feeney, D. 1991.
The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition.
Oxford.
1λλἀέ ‘ἥi liἵet et faὅ eὅtμ ἡviἶ’ὅ ἔaὅti aὀἶ the pὄὁἴlem ὁf fὄee ὅpeeἵh
uὀἶeὄ the ἢὄiὀἵipateέ’ 1-25 in A. Powell (ed.) Roman Poetry and
Propaganda in the Age of Augustus. Bristol.
Feldherr, A.
1λλἅέ ‘δivy’ὅ Revὁlution: civic identity and the creation of the res
puἴliἵa’, 1ἁἄ-157 in T. Habinek & A. Schiesaro (eds.) The
Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge.
1998. Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History. Berkeley.
Feldherr, A. & James, P.
2004. ‘εakiὀg the mὁὅt ὁf εaὄὅyaὅέ’ Arethusa 37, 75-103.
Ferrill, A.
1λκίέ ‘χuguὅtuὅ aὀἶ hiὅ ἶaughteὄμ a mὁἶeὄὀ mythέ’ ἁἁἀ-346 in C.
Deroux (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History.
Coll. Lat. 168. Brussels.
Flower, H.
1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman
Culture. Oxford.
2006. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman
Political Culture. Chapel Hill.
Fogu, C.
2003. The Historic Imaginary: Politics of History in Fascist Italy.
Toronto.
Formica, M.
1994. La città e la rivoluzione: Roma, 1798-1799. Rome.
Forsythe, G.
1999. Livy and Early Rome: A Study in Historical Method and
Judgement. Stuttgart.
Fortini, P. & Taviani, M. (eds.)
2014. In Sacra Via: Giacomo Boni al Foro Romano. Gli Scavi nel
documenti della Soprintendenza. Milan.
Fox, M.
1996. Roman Historical Myths: The regal period in Augustan
literature. Oxford.
Fraschetti, A.
2005. The Foundation of Rome. Edinburgh.
Fredrick, D.
ἀίίἁέ ‘χὄἵhiteἵtuὄe aὀἶ ὅuὄveillaὀἵe iὀ ἔlaviaὀ Rὁme’έ 1λλ-228 in
A.J. Boyle & W.J. Dominik (eds.) Flavian Rome: Culture,
239
Image, Text. Leiden.
Gaertner, J.
ἀίίκέ ‘δivy’ὅ ἑamilluὅ aὀἶ the pὁlitiἵal ἶiὅἵὁuὄὅe ὁf the δate
Repuἴliἵέ’ JRS 98, 27-52.
Galinsky, K.
1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretative Introduction. Princeton.
Galinsky, K. (ed.)
2014. Memoria Romana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory.
Ann Arbor.
Gallia, A.
2012. Remembering the Roman Republic. Cambridge.
Geiger, J.
2008. The First Hall of Fame: A Study of the Statues in the Forum
Augustum. Leiden.
Gentile, E.
1λλίέ ‘ἔaὅἵiὅm aὅ ἢὁlitiἵal Religiὁὀέ’ Journal of Contemporary
History 25, 229-51.
Gere, C.
2009. Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism. Chicago.
Geyssen, J.
1994. Imperial Panegyric in Statius: A Literary Commentary on
Silvae 1.1. New York.
Giuliani, C. & Verduchi, P.
1987. L’area central del Foro Romano. Florence.
1λληέ ‘ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀum (δaὅtὄiἵati)’έ ἁἂἁ-4 in M. Steinby (ed.)
LTUR II. Rome.
Gowers, E.
1λληέ ‘ἦhe aὀatὁmy ὁf Rὁme, fὄὁm ἑapitὁl tὁ ἑlὁaἵaέ’ JRS 85, 2332.
Gowing, A.
1992. The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio. Ann
Arbor.
2005. Empire and Memory: the Representation of the Roman
Republic in Imperial Culture. Cambridge.
Grainger, J.
2003. Nerva and the Succession Crisis of AD 96-99. London.
Grant, M.
1974. The Roman Forum. London.
Graves, R.
1957. Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars. London.
Green, S.
ἀίίἂέ ‘ἢlayiὀg with maὄἴleμ the mὁὀumeὀtὅ ὁf the ἑaeὅaὄὅ iὀ ἡviἶ’ὅ
Fastiέ’ CQ 54, 224-239.
Greenhalgh, P.
1975. The Year of the Four Emperors. London.
Griffin, J.
ἀίίλέ ‘ἥhakeὅpeaὄe’ὅ Juliuὅ ἑaeὅaὄ’έ 379-98 in M. Griffin (ed.) A
Companion to Julius Caesar. Chichester.
Gros, P.
1λκἄέ ‘Il fὁὄὁ ὄὁmaὀὁ’έ Gnomon 58, 58-64.
240
1996-2001. L'architecture romaine : du début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.
à la fin du Haut-Empire. Paris.
Hales, E.
1956. Pio Nono: a study in European politics and religion in the
nineteenth century. London.
Hammond, M.
1ληἁέ ‘χ ὅtatue ὁf ἦὄajaὀ ὄepὄeὅeὀteἶ ὁὀ the “χὀaglypha ἦὄaiaὀi”έ’
MAAR 21, 125-83.
1λἄἁέ ‘Reὅ ὁlim ἶiὅὅὁἵiaἴileὅμ pὄiὀἵipatuὅ aἵ liἴeὄtaὅέ’ HSCP 67, 93113.
Haselberger, L.
2002. Mapping Augustan Rome. Portsmouth, R.I.
Haselberger, L. & Humphrey, J. (eds.)
2006. Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation-VisualisationImagination. Portsmouth, RI.
Haskell, F. & Penny, N.
1981. Taste and the Antique. New Haven.
Haynes, H.
2003. The History of Make-Believe: Tacitus on Imperial Rome.
Berkeley.
Hardie, P.
1λλἂέ ‘χuguὅtaὀ pὁetὅ aὀἶ the mutaἴility ὁf Rὁmeέ’ ηλ-82 in A.
Powell (ed.) Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of
Augustus. London.
Harris, J.
2007. Pompeii Awakened. London.
Harrison, S.
1λκλέ ‘χuguὅtuὅ, the poets, and the spolia opima.’ CQ 39, 408-414.
Hill, P.
1989. The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types. London.
Hinard, F.
1985. Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine. Paris.
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T.
1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge.
Holland, L.
1961. Janus and the Bridge. Rome.
Hölkeskamp, K-J.
1λληέ ‘Oratoris maxima scaena: Reden vor dem Volk in der
pὁlitiὅἵheὀ Kultuὄ ἶeὄ Repuἴlikέ’ 11-45 in M. Jehne (ed)
Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der
römischen Republik. Stuttgart.
2000. ‘ἦhe Rὁmaὀ Repuἴliἵμ ἕὁveὄὀmeὀt ὁf the ἢeὁple, ἴy the
ἢeὁple, fὁὄ the ἢeὁpleς’ SCI 19, 203-33.
ἀίί1έ ‘ἑapitὁl, ἑὁmitium uὀἶ ἔὁὄumέ Öffeὀtliἵhe Räume, ὅakὄale
Topographie und Erinnerungslandschaften der römischen
Republikέ’ λἅ-132 in S. Faller (ed.) Studien zu antiken
Identitäten. Würzburg.
2005. ‘Imageὅ ὁf pὁweὄμ memὁὄy, myth aὀἶ mὁὀumeὀtὅ iὀ the
Rὁmaὀ Repuἴliἵέ’ SCI 24:249-71.
ἀίίἄέ ‘ώiὅtὁὄy aὀἶ ἵὁlleἵtive memὁὄy iὀ the εiἶἶle Repuἴliἵέ’ 478241
496 in N. Rosenstein & R. Morstein-Marx (eds.) A Companion
to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA.
Hopkins, Jέ ἀί1ἀέ ‘ἦhe ὅaἵὄeἶ ὅeweὄμ tὄaἶitiὁὀ aὀἶ ὄeligiὁὀ iὀ the ἑlὁaἵa
εaximaέ’ κ1-102 in M. Bradley (ed.) Rome, Pollution and
Propriety. Cambridge.
Humphries, M.
ἀίίἅέ ‘ἔὄὁm empeὄὁὄ tὁ pὁpeς ἑeὄemὁὀial, ὅpaἵe, aὀἶ authὁὄity at
Rὁme fὄὁm ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe tὁ ἕὄegὁὄy the ἕὄeatέ’ 21-58 in Cooper
& Hillner 2007.
Hurst, H.
1λκκέ ‘σuὁvi ὅἵavi ὀell’aὄea ἶi ἥaὀta εaὄia χὀtiquaέ’ Quaderni del
Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica, Atti degli
incontri del studio del Comitato per l’archeologia laziale 9, 1317.
1995. Domus Gai. LTUR 2, 106-108.
2008. ‘ἕiaἵὁmὁ ἐὁὀi ὅeeὀ fὄὁm a ἐὄitiὅh viewpὁiὀtμ theὀ aὀἶ ὀὁwέ’
72-78 in P. Fortini (ed.) Giacomo Boni e le Istituzioni Straniere.
Rome.
Hurwit, J.
1999. The Athenian Acropolis: history, mythology, and archaeology
from the neolithic era to the present. Cambridge.
Insolera, I & Perego, F.
1999. Storia moderna dei Fori di Roma. Rome.
Jacopi, I.
1976. The Antiquarium of the Forum Romanum. Rome.
Jaeger, M.
1997. Livy’s Written Rome. Ann Arbor.
Jenkyns, R.
2013. God, Space and the City in the Roman Imagination. Oxford.
Jones, B.
1992. The Emperor Domitian. London.
Jones, P.
ἀίί1έ ‘ἥaviὀg wateὄμ eaὄly flὁὁἶὅ iὀ the ἔὁὄum’ ἁη-46 in S.
Asirvatham, C. Pache & J. Watrous (eds.) Between Magic and
Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean
Religion and Society. Oxford.
Joplin, P.
1λλίέ ‘Ritual wὁὄk ὁὀ humaὀ fleὅhμ δivy’ὅ δuἵὄetia aὀἶ the ὄape ὁf
the ἴὁἶy pὁlitiἵέ’ Helios 17, 51-70.
Joseph, T.
2012. Tacitus the Epic Successor: Virgil, Lucan and the Narrative of
Civil War in the Histories. Leiden.
Joshel, S.
ἀίίλέ ‘ἦhe ἴὁἶy female aὀἶ the ἴὁἶy pὁlitiἵμ δivy’ὅ δuἵὄetia aὀἶ
Vergiὀiaέ’ 380-408 in J. Chaplin & C. Kraus (eds.) Livy. Oxford.
Kahlos, M.
1995. ‘ἦhe ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ pὁliἵy ὁf Vέ χέ ἢὄaetextatuὅέ’ Arctos 29, 3947.
2002. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus. Rome.
242
Kalas, G.
2015. The Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity:
Transforming Public Space. Austin.
Kallis, A.
ἀί1ἀέ ‘ἦhe “ἦhiὄἶ Rὁme” ὁf ἔaὅἵiὅmμ ἶemὁlitiὁὀὅ aὀἶ the ὅeaὄἵh
fὁὄ a ὀew uὄἴaὀ ὅyὀtaxέ’ Journal of Modern History 84, 40-79.
2014. The Third Rome, 1922-1943: The Making of the Fascist
Capital. London.
Kantor-Kazovsky, L.
2006. Piranesi as Interpreter of Roman Architecture and the Origins
of his Intellectual World. Florence.
Karmon, D.
2011. The Ruin of the Eternal City: Antiquity and Preservation in
Renaissance Rome. Oxford.
Keitel, E.
ἀίίκέ ‘ἦhe Viὄgiliaὀ ὄemiὀiὅἵeὀἵeὅ at ἦaἵituὅ Histories ἁέκἂέἂέ’ CQ
58, 705-8.
ἀί1ίέ ‘ἦhe χὄt ὁf δὁὅiὀgμ ἦaἵituὅ aὀἶ the Diὅaὅteὄ σaὄὄativeέ’ 331352 in C.S. Kraus, J. Marincola & C. Pelling (Eds.) Ancient
Historiography in Context: Studies in Honour of A.J. Woodman.
Oxford.
Kellum, B.
1λλίέ ‘ἦhe ἵity aἶὁὄὀeἶμ pὄὁgὄammatiἵ ἶiὅplay at the χeἶeὅ
ἑὁὀἵὁὄἶiae χuguὅtaeέ’ ἀἅἄ-296 in K. Raaflaub & & M. Toher
(eds.) Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of
Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley.
Köb, I.
2000. Rom, ein Stadzentrum im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur
Funktion und Nutzung des Forum Romanum und der Kaiserfora
in der Kaiserzeit. Hamburg.
Kohl, P. & Fawcett, C. (eds.)
1995. Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology.
Cambridge.
Kostof, S.
1973. The Third Rome: 1870-1950: Traffic and Glory. Berkeley
Kraus, C.
1λλἂέ ‘“σὁ ὅeἵὁὀἶ ἦὄὁy”μ tὁpὁi aὀἶ ὄefὁuὀἶatiὁὀ iὀ δivy, ἐὁὁk ηέ’
TAPA 124, 267-89.
Krause, C.
1λἅἄέ ‘Zuὄ ἴauliἵheὀ ἕeὅtalt ἶeὅ ὄepuἴlikaὀiὅἵheὀ ἑὁmitiumὅέ’ RM
83, 31-69.
Krautheimer, R.
1980. Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308. Princeton.
1983. Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics. Berkeley.
La Regina, A.
2007. Archaeological Guide to Rome. Milan.
Lackner, E-M.
2008. Republikanische Fora. Munich.
Larmour, D.
ἀίίἅέ ‘ώὁleὅ iὀ the ἴὁἶyμ ὅiteὅ ὁf aἴjeἵtiὁὀ iὀ Juveὀal’ὅ Rὁmeέ’ 1ἄκ243
210 in Larmour & Spencer (2007).
Larmour, D. & Spencer, D. (eds.)
2007. The Sites of Rome: Time, Space, Memory. Oxford.
Laurence, R. & Newsome, D. (eds.)
2011. Rome, Ostia, Pompeii: movement and space. Oxford.
Lavin, M.A.
1994. The Place of Narrative: Mural Decoration in Italian
Churches, 431-1600. Chicago.
Lee, S.
1999. David. London.
Levene, D.S.
1993. Religion in Livy. Leiden.
1λλἅέ ‘ἢity, feaὄ aὀἶ the hiὅtὁὄiἵal auἶieὀἵeμ ἦaἵituὅ ὁὀ the fall ὁf
Vitelliuὅέ’ 1ἀκ-49 in S. Braund & C. Gill (eds.) The Passions in
Roman Thought and Literature. Cambridge.
Levick, B.
1λἅἀέ ‘ἦiἴeὄiuὅ’ ὄetiὄemeὀt tὁ Rhὁἶeὅ iὀ ἄ ἐἑέ’ Latomus 31, 770813.
1990. Claudius. London.
Lowenthal, D.
1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge.
Liebeschuetz, W.
1λἄἄέ ‘ἦhe theme ὁf liἴeὄty iὀ the Agricola ὁf ἦaἵituὅέ’ CQ 16, 12638.
Liffran, F. (ed.)
1991. Rome 1920-1945. Le modèle fasciste, son Duce, sa
mythologie. Paris.
Lobur, J.
2008. Consensus, Concordia and the Formation of Roman Imperial
Ideology. London.
Luce, T. & Woodman, A.J. (eds.)
1993. Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton.
Luce, T.
1λἅ1έ ‘Deὅigὀ aὀἶ ὅtὄuἵtuὄe iὀ δivyμ ηέἁἀ-ηηέ’ TAPA 102, 265-302.
1977. Livy: the Composition of His History. Princeton.
1λλίέ ‘δivy, χuguὅtuὅ, aὀἶ the ἔὁὄum χuguὅtumέ’ 1ἀἁ-38 in K.
Raaflaub & M. Toher (eds.) Between Republic and Empire:
Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley.
Machado, C.
ἀίίἄέ ‘ἐuilἶiὀg the paὅtμ mὁὀumeὀtὅ aὀἶ memὁὄy iὀ the ἔὁὄum
Rὁmaὀumέ’ 157-194 in W. Bowden, A. Guttridge & C. Machado
(eds.) Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity.Leiden, 2006.
MacKendrick, P.
1983. The Mute Stones Speak: The Story of Archaeology in Italy. 2nd
edition. New York.
Magnuson, T.
2004. The Urban Transformation of Medieval Rome, 312-1420.
Stockholm.
Maguire, J.F.
1870. Pontificate of Pius the Ninth. London.
244
Maiuro, M.
ἀί1ίέ ‘Ἡhat waὅ the ἔὁὄum Iulium uὅeἶ fὁὄς ἦhe ἔiὅἵuὅ aὀἶ itὅ
jurisdiction in first-ἵeὀtuὄy ἑE Rὁmeέ’ 1κλ-222 in F. de Angelis
(ed.) Spaces of Justice in the Roman World. Leiden.
Malitz, J.
2005. Nero. Tr. A. Brown. London.
Marcone, A.
ἀίίκέ ‘ἕli affreschi costantiniani nella chiesa romana di Quattro
ἑὁὄὁὀati (ἪIII ὅeἵὁlὁ)έ’ ἀλη-318 in G. Bonamente, G. Cracco &
K. Rosen (eds.) Costantino il grande tra medioevo ed età
moderna. Bologna.
Marin, P.
2009. Blood in the Forum: The Struggle for the Roman Republic.
London.
Marquis, E.C.
1λἅἂέ ‘Veὄtumὀuὅ iὀ ἢὄὁpeὄtiuὅ ἂ,ἀέ’ Hermes 102, 491-500.
Marraro, H.R.
1λἂἂέ ‘χmeὄiἵaὀ tὄavelleὄὅ iὀ Rὁme, 1κἂκ-1κηίέ’ Catholic
Historical Review 29, 470-509.
Marshall, A.
ἀί11έ ‘Spectandi voluptas: ecphrasis and poetic immortality in
ἥtatiuὅ’ Silvae 1έ1έ’ CJ 106, 321-347.
Martindale, C. & Taylor, A.
2004. Shakespeare and the Classics. Cambridge.
Mattingly, H.
1976. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, volume 2:
Vespasian to Domitian. London.
Mayer, R.
ἀίίλέ ‘Impὄeὅὅiὁὀὅ ὁf Rὁmeέ’ G&R 55, 156-177.
McEwen, K.
2003. Vitruvius. Writing the Body of Architecture. Cambridge, MA.
Miles, G.
1λκἄέ ‘ἦhe ἵyἵle ὁf Rὁmaὀ hiὅtὁὄy iὀ δivy’ὅ fiὄὅt peὀtaἶέ’ AJPh
107, 1-33.
1995. Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome. Ithaca, NY.
Millar, F.
1λκἂέ ‘ἦhe pὁlitiἵal ἵhaὄaἵteὄ ὁf the ἵlaὅὅiἵal Rὁmaὀ Repuἴliἵ, ἀίί1η1 ἐἑέ’ JRS 74, 1-19.
1λκἄέ ‘ἢὁlitiἵὅ, ἢeὄὅuaὅiὁὀ aὀἶ the ἢeὁple ἴefὁὄe the ἥὁἵial Ἡaὄ
(150-λί ἐἑ)έ’ JRS 76, 1-11.
1λκλέ ‘Political power in mid-Republican Rome: Curia or
ἑὁmitiumς’ JRS 79, 138-50.
1λληέ ‘ἢὁpulaὄ pὁlitiἵὅ iὀ Rὁme iὀ the δate Repuἴliἵ’έ λ1-113 in I.
Malkin & Z.W. Rubisohn (eds.) Leaders and Masses in the
Roman World: Studies in Honor of Zvi Yavetz. Leiden.
1998. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Ann Arbor.
Millar, F. & Segal, E. (eds.)
1984. Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford.
Mitchell, J.
1λκίέ ‘ἥtέ ἥilveὅteὄ aὀἶ ἑὁὀὅtaὀtiὀe at the ἥὅέ ἣuattὄὁ ἑὁὄὁὀati’ 1η245
32 in A. Romanini (ed.) Federico II e l’arte del duecento
italiano. Rome, vol. 1.
Moatti, C.
1989. The Search for Ancient Rome. London.
Moore, T.
1λλ1έ ‘ἢalliata tὁgataμ ἢlautuὅ, Curculio 462-κἄέ’ AJP 112, 343-62.
Morford, M.
1λλ1έ ‘ώὁw ἦaἵituὅ ἶefiὀeἶ liἴeὄtyέ’ ANRW II.33.5, 3420-50.
Morgan, G.
2006. 69 AD: the year of four emperors. Oxford.
Morstein-Marx, R.
2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Roman Republic.
Cambridge.
Mott, G.
2003. Foro Italico. Photographs by George Mott; essays by Giorgio
Armani, Michelangelo Sabatino, Luigi Ballerini. New York.
Muecke, F.
ἀίίἁέ ‘ώumaὀiὅtὅ iὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’ PBSR 71, 207-233.
Mouritsen, H.
2001. Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge.
Murgatroyd, P.
1994. Tibullus, Elegies II: translated with an introduction and
commentary. Oxford.
Murison, C.
1993. Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies. New
York.
Myers, K.
1λλἂέ ‘Ultimuὅ aὄἶὁὄμ ἢὁmὁὀa aὀἶ Veὄtumὀuὅ iὀ ἡviἶ’ὅ εetέ
14.623-ἅἅ1’, CJ 89, 225-50.
2009. Ovid. Metamorphoses Book XIV. Cambridge.
Nasto, L.
1994. Le feste civili a Roma nell’Ottocento. Rome.
Nelis, J.
ἀίίἅέ ‘ἑὁὀὅtὄuἵtiὀg faὅἵiὅt iἶeὀtityμ ἐeὀitὁ εuὅὅὁliὀi aὀἶ the myth
of romanità.’ CW 100, 391-415.
Nelson, R. & Olin, M.
2003. Monuments and Memory, Made and Unmade. Chicago.
Neudecker, R.
ἀί1ίέ ‘ἦhe ἔὁὄum ὁf χuguὅtuὅ iὀ Rὁmeμ δaw aὀἶ ἡὄἶeὄ iὀ ὅaἵὄeἶ
ὅpaἵeὅέ’ 1ἄ1-188 in F. de Angelis (ed.) Spaces of Justice in the
Roman World. Leiden.
Newlands, C.
1995. Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti. Ithaca, NY.
2002. Statius’ Silvae and the Politics of Empire. Cambridge.
Newsome, D.
ἀί11έ ‘εὁvemeὀt aὀἶ ἔὁὄa iὀ Rὁme (the δate Repuἴliἵ tὁ the ἔiὄὅt
ἑeὀtuὄy ἑEέ’ ἀλί-312 in Laurence & Newsome (2011).
Nicassio, S.V.
2005. Imperial City: Rome, Romans and Napoleon, 1796-1815.
Welwyn Garden City.
246
Nieddu, G.
1λκἄέ ‘Il pὁὄtiἵὁ ἶegli ἶei ἵὁὀὅeὀtiέ’ Bollettino d’Arte 71, 37-52.
Niederer, F.J.
1953. ‘ἢagaὀ mὁὀumeὀtὅ ἵὁὀveὄteἶ tὁ ἑhὄiὅtiaὀ uὅeμ the Rὁmaὀ
Diaἵὁὀiaeέ’ JSAH 12, 3-6.
Nora, P. 1989. ‘ἐetweeὀ εemὁὄy aὀἶ ώiὅtὁὄyμ leὅ δieux ἶe εémὁiὄeέ’
Representations 26, 7-24.
North Hopkins, J.
ἀί1ἂέ ‘ἦhe ἵὄeatiὁὀ ὁf the ἔὁὄum aὀἶ the makiὀg ὁf mὁὀumeὀtal
Rὁmeέ’ ἀλ-61 in E.C. Robinson (ed.) Papers on Italian
Urbanism in the First Millennium BC. Portsmouth, RI.
Notaro, A.
ἀίίίέ ‘ἦelliὀg impeὄial hiὅtὁὄieὅμ ἵὁὀtextὅ ὁf ὀaὄὄativity aὀἶ
representation in post-Unification Rome 1870-1λ11έ’ Paisano,
June 2000.
Oakley, S.
1997-2005. A Commentary on Livy: Books VI-X. 4. vols. Oxford.
20ίλέ ‘Res olim dissociabiles: empeὄὁὄὅ, ὅeὀatὁὄὅ, aὀἶ liἴeὄtyέ’ 1κἂ94 in Woodman (2009).
Ogden, D.
2013a. Drakon: Dragon myth and serpent cult in the Greek and
Roman worlds. Oxford.
2013b. Dragons, Serpents and Slayers in the Classical and Early
Christian Worlds: A Sourcebook. Oxford.
Ogilvie, R.
1965. A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5. Oxford.
ἡ’σeill, K.
ἀίίίέ ‘ἢὄὁpeὄtiuὅ ἂέἀμ ἥlummiὀg with Veὄtumὀuὅς’ AJP 121, 25977.
Onorati, F.
2010. Belli da Roma all’Europa: i sonetti romaneschi nelle
traduzioni del terzo millennio. Rome.
Osgood, J.
2006. Caesar’s Legacy. Cambridge.
2014. Turia: A Woman’s Civil War. Oxford.
Packer, J.
1λκλέ ‘ἢὁlitiἵὅ, uὄἴaὀiὅm aὀἶ aὄἵhaeὁlὁgy iὀ “Rὁma ἑapitale”μ χ
troubled past and a controveὄὅial futuὄeέ’ AJA 93, 137-141.
1λλἀέ ‘ἦὄajaὀ’ὅ ἔὁὄum iὀ 1λκλέ’ AJA 96, 151-62.
1997. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments.
Berkeley.
2001. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in
Brief. Berkeley.
Painter, B.
2007. Mussolini’s Rome. Rebuilding the Eternal City. New York.
Panella, R.
2013. Roma la città dei Fori: progetto di sistemazione dell’area
archeologica tra Piazza Venezia e il Colosseo. Rome.
Partner, P.
1972. The Lands of St Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages
247
and the Early Renaissance. London.
Patterson, J.
1λλἀέ ‘ἦhe ἵity ὁf Rὁmeμ fὄὁm Repuἴliἵ tὁ Empiὄeέ’ JRS 82, 186215.
2000. Political Life in the City of Rome. Bristol.
ἀί1ίέ ‘ἦhe ἵity ὁf Rὁme ὄeviὅiteἶμ fὄὁm miἶ-Republic to midEmpiὄeέ’ JRS 100, 210-232.
Percival, J.
1λκίέ ‘ἦaἵituὅ aὀἶ the ἢὄiὀἵipateέ’ G&R 26, 119-33.
Peterson, H.
1λἄ1έ ‘δivy aὀἶ χuguὅtuὅέ’ TAPA 92, 440-452.
Petter, H.
ἀίίίέ ‘ἐaἵk tὁ the ἔutuὄeμ χὄἵhaeὁlὁgy aὀἶ iὀὀὁvatiὁὀ iὀ the
building of Roma Capitale’ 332-353 in J. Coulston & H. Dodge
(eds.) Ancient Rome: the archaeology of the eternal city. Oxford.
Pignatelli, G.
1974. Aspetti della propaganda cattolica a Roma da Pio VI a Leone
XII. Rome
Pohlkamp, W.
1λκἁέ ‘ἦὄaἶitiὁὀ uὀἶ ἦopographie: Papst Silvester I (314-335) und
ἶeὄ Dὄaἵhe vὁm ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀumέ’ Romische Quartalschrift für
Christliche Arltertumskunde Freiburg 78, 1-100.
Pomeroy, A.
ἀίίἁέ ‘ἑeὀtὄe aὀἶ peὄipheὄy iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ὅ Histories.’ Arethusa 36,
361-74.
ἀίίἄέ ‘ἦheatὄiἵality iὀ ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories.’ Arethusa 39, 171-91.
Poucet, J.
1967. Recherches sur la légende sabine des origines de Rome.
Louvain.
Pouthier, J-L.
1λλ1έ ‘δe ἔὁὄὁ italiἵὁ’. In Liffran (ed.) 1991, p. 75-8.
Power, T.J.
ἀίίἅέ ‘ἢὄiam aὀἶ ἢὁmpey iὀ ἥuetὁὀiuὅ’ Galba.’ CQ 57, 792-6.
Price, H.L.
ἀί11έ ‘ἕὄeat ὁὀly iὀ ὄuiὀὅς’μ the exἵavatiὁὀ ὁf the ἔὁὄum
Rὁmaὀumέ’ εἢhil theὅiὅ, Uὀiveὄὅity ὁf ἑamἴὄiἶgeέ
Purcell, N.
1λκλέ ‘Reἶiὅἵὁveὄiὀg the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’ JRA 2, 156-66.
1λλἀέ ‘ἦhe ἑity ὁf Rὁmeέ’ ἂἀ1-454 in R. Jenkyns (ed.) The Legacy
of Rome: A New Appraisal. Oxford.
1λλἂέ ‘ἦhe ἑity ὁf Rὁme aὀἶ the plebs urbana in the Late
Repuἴliἵέ’ CAH 9, 644-88.
1995. ‘ἔὁὄum Rὁmaὀum (ἦhe Impeὄial ἢeὄiὁἶ)’ iὀ LTUR 2, 336342.
1λλἄέ ‘Rὁme and its development under Augustus and his
ὅuἵἵeὅὅὁὄὅ’, CAH 10, 782-811.
Quartermaine, C.
1λλἁέ ‘ἥlὁuἵhiὀg tὁwaὄἶὅ Rὁmeμ εuὅὅὁliὀi’ὅ Impeὄial Viὅiὁὀέ’ ἀίἁ216 in T. Cornell and K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman
Italy. London.
248
Raaflaub, K.A. & Toher, M. (eds.)
1990. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus
and his Principate. Berkeley.
Raby, F.J.E. (ed.)
1959. The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse. Oxford.
Ramsey, P.A. (ed.)
1982. Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the Myth.
Binghamton.
Rawson, P.
1987. The Myth of Marsyas in the Roman Visual Arts: An
Iconographic Study. Oxford.
Rhodes, A.
1983. The Power of Rome in the Twentieth Century: The Vatican in
the Age of Liberal Democracies 1870-1922. London.
Richardson, K.
1976. Daggers in the Forum: the revolutionary lives and violent
deaths of the Gracchus brothers. London.
Richardson, L.
1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore.
Richlin, A.
1λλλέ ‘ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ώeaἶ’, iὀ 1λί-212 in J. Porter (ed.) Constructions of
the Classical Body, Michigan.
Ridley, R.
1992. The Eagle and the Spade. Cambridge.
2000. The Pope’s Archaeologist. The Life and Times of Carlo Fea.
Rome.
Roche, P.
ἀί11έ ‘ἦhe Panegyricus aὀἶ the mὁὀumeὀtὅ ὁf Rὁmeέ’ ἂη-66 in P.
Roche (ed.) Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman
World. Cambridge.
Rodríguez-Almeida, E.
2003. Terrarum dea gentiqumque: Marziale e Roma: un poeta e la
sua città. Rome.
Roller, M.
1λλἅέ ‘ἑὁlὁὄ-ἐliὀἶὀeὅὅμ ἑiἵeὄὁ’ὅ ἶeath, ἶeἵlamatiὁὀ, aὀἶ the
pὄὁἶuἵtiὁὀ ὁf hiὅtὁὄyέ’ CP 92, 109-130.
2001. Constructing Autocracy: aristocrats and emperors in JulioClaudian Rome. Princeton.
Roman, L.
ἀί1ίέ ‘εaὄtial aὀἶ the ἑity ὁf Rὁmeέ’ JRS 100, 88-117.
Rossi, A.
2001. Pio IX e la distruzione della repubblica Romana: 1849: una
pagina nera nella storia del papato. Rome.
Rossi, L. (ed.)
2011. Un laboratorio politico per l’Italia: La repubblica Romana
del 1849. Rome.
Russell, A.
ἀί1ἂέ ‘εemory and movement in the Roman Fora from Antiquity to
εetὄὁ ἑέ’ JSAH 73, 478-506.
249
Sage, M.
1991. ‘ἦhe tὄeatmeὀt iὀ ἦaἵituὅ ὁf Rὁmaὀ Repuἴliἵaὀ hiὅtὁὄy aὀἶ
aὀtiquaὄiaὀ matteὄὅέ’ ANRW 33:5, 3385-3419.
Salvatori, P.S.
ἀί1ἀέ ‘δituὄgie immagiὀateμ ἕiaἵὁmὁ ἐὁὀi e la ὄὁmaὀità faὅἵitaέ’
Studi Storici 53, 421-438.
Sailor, D.
ἀίίἄέ ‘Diὄty liὀeὀ, faἴὄiἵatiὁὀ, aὀἶ the authὁὄitieὅ ὁf δivy aὀἶ
χuguὅtuὅέ’ TAPA 136, 329-388.
2008. Writing and Empire in Tacitus. Cambridge.
Sanderson, B. & Keegan, P.
ἀί11έ ‘ἑὄὁwὀiὀg εaὄὅyaὅμ the ὅymἴὁliὅm iὀvὁlveἶ iὀ the exile ὁf
Juliaέ’ Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 12.A.2.
Santangeli Valenziani, R.
ἀίίἄέ ‘ἦhe ὅeat aὀἶ memὁὄy ὁf pὁweὄμ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ ἑuὄia aὀἶ ἔὁὄumέ’
85-94 in Wyke 2006.
Scott, K.
1933. ‘ἥtatiuὅ’ χἶulatiὁὀ ὁf Dὁmitiaὀέ’ AJP 54, 247-59.
Scott, R.T.
1968. Religion and Philosophy in the Histories of Tacitus. Rome.
1λκκέ ‘χὄἵhaeὁlὁgy aὀἶ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’ Places 5.
Scott, J.
1975. Piranesi. London.
Sevenni, M.
2011. La repubblica Romana del 1849. Venice.
Severy, B.
2003. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire.
London.
Shaw, B.D.
ἀίί1έ ‘Raiὅiὀg aὀἶ killiὀg ἵhilἶὄeὀμ twὁ Rὁmaὀ mythὅέ’ Mnemosyne
54, 31-77.
Shaya, J.
ἀί1ἁέ ‘ἦhe puἴliἵ life ὁf mὁὀumeὀtὅμ the summi viri of the Forum
ὁf χuguὅtuὅέ’ AJA 117, 83-110.
Shotter, D.
1λἅκέ ‘ἢὄiὀἵipatuὅ aἵ liἴeὄtaὅέ’ Ancient Society 9, 235-55.
2008. Nero Caesar Augustus: Emperor of Rome. London.
Sisani, S.
2004. ‘Il ἔὁὄὁ Rὁmaὀὁ’έ ηλ-68 in Coarelli ed. 2004.
Small, J.
1982. Cacus and Marsyas in Etrusco-Roman Legend. Princeton.
Smith, G. & Gadeyne, J.
2013. Perspectives on Public Space in Rome, from Antiquity to the
Present Day. Farnham, Surrey.
Smolenaars, J., van Dam, H. & Nauta, R. (eds.)
2008. The Poetry of Statius. Leiden.
Southern, P.
1997. Domitian: Tragic Tyrant. London.
Spagnesi, G.
2000. L’architettura a Roma al tempo di Pio IX, 1830-1870. Rome.
250
Späth, T.
ἀίί1έ ‘Eὄὐählt, Eὄfuὀἶeὀμ ἑamilluὅ, δiteὄaὄiὅἵhe Kὁὀὅtὄuktiὁὀ uὀἶ
ὅὁὐiale σὁὄmeὀ’, ἁἂἄ-9 in M. Coudry & T. Späth (eds.)
L’invention des grands hommes de la Rome antique. Paris.
Spencer, D.
ἀίίἅέ ‘Rὁme at a gallὁpμ δivy, ὁὀ ὀὁt gaὐiὀg, jumpiὀg, ὁὄ tὁppliὀg
iὀtὁ the vὁiἶέ’ ἄ1-101 in D. Larmour & D. Spencer (eds.) The
Sites of Rome: Time, Space, Memory. Oxford.
Springer, C.
1987. The Marble Wilderness. Ruins and Representation in Italian
Romanticism, 1775-1850. Cambridge.
Stone, M.S.
1998. The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy.
Princeton.
Storey, G.
1999 ‘χὄἵhaeὁlὁgy aὀἶ Rὁmaὀ ἥὁἵietyμ iὀtegὄatiὀg textual aὀἶ
aὄἵhaeὁlὁgiἵal ἶataέ’ JAR 7, 203-248.
Stramaccioni, A.
2011. La rivoluzione francese e le repubbliche d’Italia 1789-1799:
lo stato della Chiesa, Perugia e i giacobini. Perugia.
Sumi, G.S.
2005. Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome Between
Republic and Empire. Ann Arbor.
ἀί11έ ‘ἦὁpὁgὄaphy aὀἶ Iἶeὁlὁgyμ ἑaeὅaὄ’ὅ mὁὀumeὀt aὀἶ the
χeἶeὅ Divi Iulii iὀ χuguὅtaὀ Rὁmeέ’ CQ 61, 205-229.
Syme, R.
1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford.
Talbert, R.
1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton.
Tea, E.
1932. Giacomo Boni: nella vita del suo tempo. Milan.
Thomas, C.
2003. The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature and the Ancient Novel:
Rewriting the Past. Oxford.
Thomas, M.
ἀίίἂέ ‘(Re)lὁἵatiὀg Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ hὁὄὅe ὁf glὁὄyμ the “Equuὅ
Dὁmitiaὀi” aὀἶ ἔlaviaὀ uὄἴaὀ ἶeὅigὀέ’ MAAR 49, 21-46.
Thornton, A.
1977. Rome in Early Photographs: the age of Pius IX: photographs
1846-1878 from Roman and Danish collections. Copenhagen.
Tobia, B.
1991. Una patria per gli Italiani. Rome.
Torelli, M.
1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs. Ann
Arbor.
Trevelyan, G.M.
1901. Garibaldi’s Defence of the Roman Republic, London.
Trifilò, F.
ἀί11έ ‘εὁvemeὀt, gamiὀg, aὀἶ the uὅe ὁf ὅpaἵe iὀ the fὁὄumέ’ ἁ1ἀ331 in Laurence & Newsome (2011).
251
Trigger, B.
2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge.
Trouillot, M-R.
1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
Boston.
Tucci, P., Morbidelli, P., Pensabene, P., Azzaro, E., Mongillo, M.
2002. ‘The Portico degli Dei Consenti (Roman Forum).
Archaeometric study of a late ancient colonnade made of
“ἑipὁlliὀὁ veὄἶe” maὄἴleέ’ Periodico di Mineralogia 71, 247263.
Tucci, P.
ἀίίἂέ ‘ἦhe ὄevival ὁf aὀtiquity iὀ meἶieval Rὁmeμ the ὄeὅtὁὄatiὁὀ ὁf
the Basilica of SS. ἑὁὅma e Damiaὀὁ iὀ the twelfth ἵeὀtuὄyέ’
MAAR 49, 99-126.
Turelietti, R.
ἀίίἂέ ‘ἕiaἵὁmὁ ἐὁὀi’ὅ exἵavatiὁὀὅ iὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄum aὅ ὅeeὀ iὀ
the phὁtὁgὄaphὅ ὁf ἦhὁmaὅ χὅhἴyέ’ 1ἄη-185 in Bignamini 2004.
Ulrich, R.
1λλἁέ ‘Juliuὅ ἑaeὅaὄ aὀἶ the ἵὄeatiὁὀ ὁf the ἔὁὄum Iuliumέ’ χJχ λἅ,
49-80.
Vandiver, E.
1λλλέ ‘ἦhe fὁuὀἶiὀg mὁtheὄὅ ὁf δivy’ὅ Rὁmeμ the ἥaἴiὀe Ἡὁmeὀ
aὀἶ δuἵὄetiaέ’ ἀίἄ-232 in F. Titchener & R. Moorton (eds.) The
Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity.
Berkeley.
Varner, E.
ἀίίίέ ‘ἦyὄaὀὀy aὀἶ the tὄaὀὅfὁὄmatiὁὀ ὁf the Rὁmaὀ viὅual
laὀἶὅἵapeέ’ λ-26 in E. Varner (ed.) From Caligula to
Constantine: Tyranny and Transformation in Roman
Portraiture. Atlanta.
Vasaly, A.
1993. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory.
Berkeley.
Versnel, H.S.
1λἅἄέ ‘ἦwὁ typeὅ ὁf Rὁmaὀ ἶevὁtiὁέ’ Mnemosyne 29, 365-410.
1λκ1έ ‘ἥelf-sacrifice, compensation, aὀὁὀymὁuὅ gὁἶὅέ’ Entretiens
Fondation Hardt 27, 135-194.
Vout, C.
ἀίίλέ ‘Repὄeὅeὀtiὀg the empeὄὁὄέ’ ἀἄ1-75 in A. Feldherr (ed.) The
Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. Cambridge.
2012. The Hills of Rome: Signature of an Eternal City. Cambridge.
ἀί1ἁέ ‘ἦiἴeὄiuὅ aὀἶ the iὀveὀtiὁὀ ὁf ὅuἵἵeὅὅiὁὀέ’ ηλ-77 in A. Gibson
(ed.) The Julio-Claudian Succession: Reality and Perception of
the ‘Augustan Model’. Leiden.
Walker, B.
1λἅἄέ ‘χ ὅtuἶy iὀ iὀἵὁheὄeὀἵeμ the fiὄὅt ἴὁὁk ὁf ἦaἵituὅ’ Histories.’
CP 71, 113-118.
Wallace-Hadrill, A.
1λκἀέ ‘Civilis princepsμ ἴetweeὀ ἵitiὐeὀ aὀἶ kiὀgέ’ JRS 72, 32-48.
1983. Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars. London.
252
1λκλέ ‘Rὁme’ὅ ἑultuὄal Revὁlutiὁὀέ’ JRS 79, 157-64.
2008. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge.
Watkin, D.
2009. The Roman Forum. London.
Weinstock, S.
1971. Divus Julius. Oxford.
Weis, A.
1992. The Hanging Marsyas and its Copies: Roman Innovations in a
Hellenistic Sculptural Tradition. Rome.
Weiss, R.
1969. The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity. Oxford.
Welch, T.
2005. The Elegiac Cityscape: Propertius and the Meaning of Roman
Monuments. Columbus.
Wellesley, K.
2000. The Year of the Four Emperors. London.
Whitehouse, D.
1λἄηέ ‘ἔὁὄum Ἡaὄeμ a ἶiὅtiὀἵtive type of early medieval glazed
pὁtteὄy iὀ the Rὁmaὀ ἑampagὀaέ’ Medieval Archaeology 9, 5563.
Wilton-Ely, J.
1978. The Mind and Art of Giovanni Battista Piranesi. London.
1994. Giovanni Battista Piranesi: The Complete Etchings. San
Francisco.
Winterling, A.
2011. Caligula: A Biography. Berkeley.
Wirszubski, C.
1950. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic
and the Early Principate. Cambridge.
Wiseman, T.
1λἅλέ ‘ἦὁpὁgὄaphy aὀἶ ὄhetὁὄiἵμ the tὄial ὁf εaὀliuὅέ’ ώiὅtὁὄia 28,
32-50.
1λκἁέ ‘ἦhe wife aὀἶ ἵhilἶὄeὀ ὁf Rὁmuluὅέ’ CQ 33, 445-52.
1985. ‘Il ἔὁὄὁ Rὁmaὀὁμ ἢeὄiὁἶὁ χὄἵaiἵὁ ἴy ἔilippὁ ἑὁaὄelliν ἦhe
Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora by James C.
χὀἶeὄὅὁὀ, Jὄέ’ JRS 75, 229-232.
1λκἄέ ‘εὁὀumeὀtὅ aὀἶ the Rὁmaὀ aὀὀaliὅtὅέ’ κἅ-101 in I. Moxon, J.
Smart & A. Woodman (eds.) Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek
and Roman Historical Writing. Cambridge.
1λκἅέ ‘Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo: The public image of
aristocratic and imperial houses in the late Republic and early
empiὄeέ’ in L’Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire. Rome
1λκκέ ‘ἥatyὄὅ iὀ Rὁmeς ἦhe ἴaἵkgὄὁuὀἶ tὁ ώὁὄaἵe’ὅ χὄὅ ἢὁetiἵaέ’
JRS 78, 1-13.
1λλίέ ‘ἦhe ἵeὀtὄal aὄea ὁf the Rὁmaὀ ἔὁὄumέ’ JRA 3, 245-7.
1λλἀέ ‘Ἡith ἐὁὀi iὀ the ἔὁὄumέ’ 111-148 in id. Talking to Virgil: A
Miscellany. Exeter.
1λλκέ ‘Ἡhat ἶὁ we kὀὁw aἴὁut eaὄly Rὁmeς’ JRA 9, 310-5.
ἀίίἀέ ‘δiἴeὄμ εyth, Dὄama aὀἶ Iἶeὁlὁgy iὀ Repuἴliἵaὀ Rὁmeέ’ ἀἄη-
253
300 in C. Bruun (ed.) The Roman Middle Republic: Politics,
Religion and Historiography in Mid-Republican Rome. Rome.
2004. The Myths of Rome. Exeter.
2008. Unwritten Rome. Exeter.
ἀί1ἀέ ‘Ἡheὄe ἶiἶ they live (eέgέ ἑiἵeὄὁ, ἡἵtaviaὀ, χuguὅtuὅ)ς’ JRA
25, 656-72.
ἀί1ἁέ ‘ἦhe ἢalatiὀe, fὄὁm Evaὀἶeὄ tὁ Elagaἴaluὅέ’ JRS 103, 234268.
Wistrand, E.
1976. The So-Called Laudatio Turiae: introduction, text,
translation, commentary. Gothenburg.
Wood, N.
1λλἂέ ‘εemὁὄy’ὅ ὄemaiὀὅμ leὅ lieux ἶe mémὁiὄeέ’ History and
Memory 6, 123-49.
Woodman, A.J. & West, D. (eds.)
1984. Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus. Cambridge.
Woodman, T. = A.J.
1λλἀέ ‘σeὄὁ’ὅ χlieὀ ἑapitalμ ἦaἵituὅ aὅ paὄaἶὁxὁgὄapheὄ (Annals
15.36-7) 173-188 in T. Woodman, A.J. & Powell, J. (eds.)
Author and Audience in Latin Literature. Cambridge.
Woodman, A.J. (ed.)
2009. The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus. Cambridge.
Woolf, S.
1979. A History of Italy 1700-1860: the social constraints of
political change. London.
Wright, A.
ἀίί1 ‘ἦhe ἶeath ὁf ἑiἵeὄὁέ ἔὁὄmiὀg a tὄaἶitiὁὀμ the ἵὁὀtamination
ὁf hiὅtὁὄyέ’ Historia 50, 436-52.
Wyke, M. (ed.)
2006. Julius Caesar in Western Culture. Malden, Mass.
Yavetz, Z.
1988. Plebs and Princeps. New Brunswick.
2007. Caesar: A Life in Western Culture. London.
Zanker, P.
1968. Forum Augustum: das Bildprogramm. Tubingen.
1972. Forum Romanum: die Neugestaltung durch Augustus.
Tubingen.
1987. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder. Munich.
1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor.
ἀίίἀέ ‘Dὁmitiaὀ’ὅ palaἵe ὁὀ the ἢalatiὀe aὀἶ the impeὄial image’ iὀ
Bowman et al. 2002.
Zevi, F. 1977.
‘Equeὅtὄiaὀ ὅtatue ὁf σeὄva fὄὁm εiὅeὀὁέ’ ἂἂ-7 in The Horses of
San Marco, Venice. Milan.
Ziolkowski, A.
1992. The Temples of mid-Republican Rome and their Historical
and Topographical Context. Rome.
254
Image Sources
Unless otherwise specified, all photographs and diagrams are my own; I
have indicated the sources of my sketch plans.
Figure
2
3
5
8
11
13
17
19
21
23
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
54
55
57
58
61
62
63
www.thecampvs.com
Aerial photograph taken from maps.google.com
Zanker 1972:49.
Sketch plan based on Claridge 2010:62.
Sketch plan based on Claridge 2010:76.
Sketch plan based on Claridge 2010:90.
Sketch plan based on Carandini & Carafa 2013, vol. 2, tav. 30.
Sketch plan based on Carandini & Carafa 2013, vol. 2, tav. 30, with
iconographic programme reconstructed by Zanker 1969, 1989.
Sketch plan based on Claridge 2010:89.
Wikimedia Commons.
Sketch plan based on Carandini & Carafa 2013, vol. 2, tav. 40.
Lanciani 1910.
Aerial photograph taken from maps.google.com.
www.britishmuseum.org
Detail of fig. 25.
Wikimedia Commons.
Wikimedia Commons.
Detail of fig. 25.
Magnuson 2004:72.
Detail takeὀ fὄὁm the Uὀiveὄὅity ὁf ἡὄegὁὀ’ὅ iὀteὄaἵtive veὄὅiὁὀ ὁf
σὁlli’ὅ map (ὀὁlliέὁὄegὁὀέeἶu)έ
As fig. 40.
Wikimedia Commons.
Wilton-Ely 1994.
As fig. 43.
www.histoire-image.org (L’Histoire par l’image, sponsored by the
Réunion des Musées Nationaux and the Ministère de la Culture.)
Wikimedia Commons.
As fig. 40.
Monitore di Roma archive at www.monitorenapoletano.it.
Springer 1987.
Fea 1827 (British School at Rome).
Cassanelli 1999.
As fig. 54.
Thornton 1977.
As fig. 57.
As fig. 57.
As fig. 57.
The Graphic, October 1888.
255
64
66
68
69
73
74
75
77
80
81
82
83
85
86
89
90
91
93
94
95
97
98
99
101
102
103
104
106-8
The Times Digital Archive.
Coarelli (ed.) 2004.
As fig. 66.
Lanciani 1894.
Sketch plan based on original in NS June 1900.
Lanciani 1988.
Baddeley 1904.
Lanciani 1894.
Baddeley 1904.
Baddeley 1904.
Coarelli (ed.) 2004.
As fig. 82.
Archivio Luce.
Archivio Luce.
Tea 1932.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (www.ushmm.org).
Coarelli (ed.) 2004.
As fig. 91.
www.sacredarchiteture.org
Archivio Luce.
As fig. 95.
As fig. 95.
As fig. 95.
As fig. 95.
www.metalocus.es
Baxa 2010.
As fig. 103.
Archivio Luce.
256
Keep reading this paper — and 50 million others — with a free Academia account
Used by leading Academics
Alejandra B Osorio
Wellesley College
J. H. Chajes
University of Haifa
Michaela Valente
Università degli Studi "La Sapienza" di Roma
Daniel Hershenzon
University of Connecticut
