Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture. a Case From the Roman Republic

7/28/2019 Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture. a Case From the Roman Republic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aqueduct-as-hegemonic-architecture-a-case-from-the-roman-republic 1/45

Part II Ideas of Social Uses of Water

06c Idea of Water 147-191 2/9/09 18:10 47



06c Idea of Water 147-191 2/9/09 18:10 Page 148



6 The Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture: A Case from the Roman Republic

Rina Faletti

Each man is the architect of his own fortune.

Appius Claudius Caecus (350–271 BCE)1

Attributed by Sallust (Sallustius, Speech to Caesar , i.1.2)

I ask you! Just compare with the vast monuments of this vital

aqueduct network those useless Pyramids, or the good-for-nothing

tourist attractions of the Greeks!

Sextus Julius Frontinus, Water Commissioner of Rome, De

Aquaeductu, I, 16. (97 CE) (trans. Trevor Hodge 2002: 1)

Granted [the Romans’] outlook, it is idle to consider whether they

could have solved a problem to which they had not applied their

minds.

Thomas Ashby 1935: 36

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the roles Rome’s first two aqueducts played inRoman political, military and economic development during the four decades from 312 to 272 BCE.2 At the early end of this timeline, 312BCE, the famed censor Appius Claudius Caecus initiated a practice of building eponymous public works projects: he contracted the Aqua Appia, the first Roman aqueduct, and his Via Appia was Italy’s firstpaved highway. During the Roman Republic (c. 509–27 BCE), asRomans were intensifying their drive to conquer the Italianpeninsula, roads and aqueducts strengthened the central urbanfabric as Romans exerted material claims outward into territoriesbeyond the city walls. The endpoint of this essay’s timeline,




150 A History of Water

272 BCE, marks initial construction of Rome’s second aqueduct, the Aqua Anio Vetus. The project was made possible by the defeat of

King Pyrrhus of Greece, an event which played a pivotal role inRome’s eventual conquest of Italy by 264 BCE. Unlike the firstaqueduct, for which censors procured financing from the Romantreasury, the second aqueduct gained funds exclusively from theprofits of a single war.3

Roman demonstration of power through architecture further materialized during this period, in part through monumental-scalelinear works – specifically, aqueducts and roads. The first aqueductand road, the Aqua Appia and Via Appia of 312 BCE, initiated aRoman cultural practice of censor-sponsored major public worksbuilding. The second water-works project, the Aqua Anio Vetus of

272 BCE, was the first aqueduct to be funded by military profits.These first two aqueducts initiated economic, political, architecturaland engineering innovations that served as solid precedents for future Roman aqueducts (Harris 1979; Hodge 2002) – this chapter bears in mind that they were precedents, not prototypes.Monumental-scale water-works structures began to play an importantpart in a characteristic Roman use of architecture not only to create aunique urban image, but also to promote broad goals and toconsolidate strategic successes. Aqueducts and the continuous water supply they delivered made an increasingly pronounced statement of Roman identity that communicated wealth, prestige, technologicaladvancement, military power and territorial dominion.

Of parallel historical interest to this cultural development is thecontinuous presence of the statesman Appius Claudius Caecus, whose political career was concurrent with the period under discussion, from 312 to 272 BCE. In the course of this chapter, Idiscuss his role in establishing and promoting the precedent of censor-sponsored monumental public building, and argue that hisinvolvement in aqueducts suggests multiple overall motives: toempower his voting base, to revive his family name for posterity, tostrengthen Rome’s economy, and to quicken a Roman drive towardterritorial expansion.

A NOTE ON SOURCES: ROMAN AQUEDUCTHISTORIOGRAPHY

The single surviving ancient source on aqueduct history andadministration for the city of Rome was written by Sextus JuliusFrontinus, Rome’s curator aquarum, or imperial water administrator,in 97 CE. At first glance, Frontinus’ work, De aquaeductu urbis Romae




( On the Water Supply of the City of Rome ), serves as a straightforwardhistorical overview and technical description of Rome’s aqueducts,

topography and distribution system.4 Yet features of aqueductarchitecture on the two earliest aqueducts, which are the topic of thisessay, had changed dramatically over the centuries before Frontinus’lifetime – and Frontinus penned his document four centuries after thefirst two aqueducts were built in Rome. In the century before Frontinus was writing, aqueduct renovation, rebuilding and additions had takenplace multiple times. Additionally, Frontinus’ role as an imperialadministrator, and therefore as a politician, also bears on the reliability of the information he presents about aqueduct history: we can assumehe was writing for several purposes and audiences (e.g. Bruun 1991:10–19, 174–89, 381–4; Evans 1994: 1–12, 63; Blackman and Hodge

2001: 137–50; Rodgers 2003; Peachin 2004: 12–35).5 Despite theseprovisos, scholars agree that Frontinus is an indispensible startingpoint for aqueduct studies: his work furnishes the only ancient sourcespecifically focused on aqueduct history and water administration inthe city of Rome. We can question but not dismiss him.

Archaeologists and historians have interpreted Frontinus’ text within a range of aqueduct studies, from the seventeenth century onward. The earliest modern investigation of aqueduct ruins wasRaffaello Fabretti’s 1680 study, in Latin, of the aqueducts of Rome – afacsimile was published in 1788 and most recently reprinted in 1972;in 2002 Harry Evans produced the first English translation of Fabretti’s text, with commentary. After Fabretti, the four mostprominent scholars in aqueduct archaeology, working in Rome in thelate nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were John Henry Parker, Rodolfo Lanciani, Esther Van Deman and Thomas Ashby. Eachpresented a comprehensive analysis of Roman aqueduct remains in1867, 1881, 1934 and 1935, respectively.

In 1899, Clemens Herschel published a commentary on Frontinusin English, including with his volume a photographic reproduction of a Latin manuscript copy of Frontinus’ text, the Montecassino MS(Herschel 1913: xxv–xlviii). In 1944, French scholar Pierre Grimalfocused on Frontinus in his study of the Roman aqueducts. In 1982,German engineering historian Günther Garbrecht contributed a brief interpretation of Frontinus, and within two years Pietrantonio Pacefollowed with an Italian commentary. Two monographs on Frontinusappeared in the early 1990s, both in English: Christer Bruuncompared Frontinus’ claims about Roman water distribution withmaterial remains of imperial lead distribution pipes in 1991, andHarry Evans provided translation and interpretation within a broadanalysis of Roman aqueduct history in 1994. Most recently, three works on Frontinus have followed in quick succession, all in English:

The Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture 151





a 2001 essay collection edited by Blackman and Hodge; Peter Rodgers’ translation and commentary of 2003; and Michael Peachin’s

2004 critical analysis of Frontinus’ text, audience, contexts andhistoriography.

Additional aqueduct sources of importance to scholars include atwo-part series, Il Trionfo dell’acqua, which followed museumexhibitions in Rome in 1986, with essays and historical illustrationscovering various aspects of Roman water and aqueduct history (Esposito 1986; Pisani Sartorio 1986). In 1992, classical engineeringhistorian Trevor Hodge published a comprehensive history of Romanaqueduct engineering, in English, that covers water worksthroughout the Roman Empire; it was revised in 2002. In 1995, Peter Aicher wrote a historical overview and guide for locating and visiting

existing ancient aqueduct remains for the city of Rome.In this chapter I will also discuss the political career of Appius

Claudius Caecus, a continuous presence in the history of the first twoaqueducts and the subject of extensive historical writing since theancient period. Scholars throughout history have judged him indramatically different ways, and never ambivalently. Concreteevidence of his status in antiquity comes in the form of a plaquelisting his life achievements, which was displayed in the Forum of Augustus. Historical assessment of the Claudian censor runs thegamut from the ancient period forward: Appius Claudius Caecus wasa conniving elitist struck blind in old age by vengeful gods; a shrewdbut practical demagogue; a tireless, self-serving networker; or aforward-thinking, revolutionary reformer (Staveley 1959; Palmer 1965;Ferenczy 1967; MacBain 1980; Cornell 1995: 373–7). Overridingpersonal characteristics are undisputed: forceful charisma, politicaladeptness, legal prowess, and enterprising drive.6 Michel Humm’s2005 monograph on Appius Claudius Caecus’ political role in definingthe Republic presents a comprehensive overview of all writing,ancient and modern, on the statesman. Stephen P. Oakley’s astute, if briefer, judgment of Appius Claudius also appeared in 2005 within hiscommentaries on ancient historian Livy. No historian has examined Appius Claudius Caecus’ actions in relation only to aqueduct building.

ROME’S FIRST AQUEDUCT: THE COURSE OF THE AQUA APPIA

At the mention of ancient aqueducts in the city of Rome, we imaginelofty arcades defining the Roman skyline or running for miles alongthe countryside on the outskirts of the city (Figure 1). Soaringarcades represent an apex of Roman aqueduct architecture: Roman




engineering attained these heights during Empire. The Aqua Claudia,for example, whose tall running arcades exemplify my description, was Rome’s eighth aqueduct, built between 38 and 52 CE – theaqueduct was completed at about the time of Frontinus’ birth, and yet 300 years after Appius Claudius Caecus was born. Kilometers of extant imperial arcades have taught modern viewers – includinghistorians since antiquity, including Frontinus – to expect that every Roman aqueduct had running arches. Frontinus in fact claimed thatan arcade existed on the first aqueduct, the Aqua Appia. I will arguethat this is improbable in 312 BCE when that first aqueduct was built;Rome’s first aqueduct was probably invisible on the surface, as itmost likely ran entirely underground (Figure 2). In form, the earliestaqueducts of the Republic were distinct from the imperial aqueducts we tend to identify as a universal and timeless ancient Roman type.The early examples did not feature long and lofty aqueduct arcadesor high bridges; this feature developed over time.

Nothing remains to be seen of the original Aqua Appia; its exactorigins, route and terminus are impossible to verify. Clues fromFrontinus and other ancient writers, and from modern archaeologistsand scholars, permit one to reconstruct parts of the route withconfidence, while leaving other parts open to reasoned speculation.Frontinus’ description of the overall route of the Aqua Appia hasbeen accepted by modern scholars: the aqueduct tapped a deep


Figure 1. Aqua Claudia arcade (52 CE) in the campagna outside Rome. Atop thearcade rides the channel, or specus, through which the water flowed. Piggybackingthe Aqua Claudia channel is a second contemporaneous specus, that of the Aqua Anio Novus. (Photograph by Rina Faletti, 2005).





Figure 2. Interior of underground specus of imperial-era Aqua Traiana (109 CE).Subterranean segments of Republican-era Aqua Appia and Aqua Anio Vetus wouldhave been of roughly the same dimensions (spacious enough for a man to standnearly upright), but vaulting would appear angular rather than arched, with cutmasonry blocks exposed rather than smooth-lined. (Photograph by Rina Faletti,2008).




spring about seven Roman miles south-east of the city, from wherethe waterway ran for about 15km from source to terminus. From the

initial spring at a depth of 15–20m, the Aqua Appia’s water supply ran in its specus, or underground channel, adjacent to the ancient ViaPraenestina as it approached the Porta Esquilina in the Republican(or Servian) city wall, outside the juncture of the Via Praenestina andthe Via Labicana where the roads entered the city (Figures 3 and 4). 7

Frontinus referred to this spot as Spes Vetus or Ad Spem Veterem,after a Temple of Hope from the Republic that had disappearedbefore his time, though the area retained its name. Today this area isnamed for the Porta Maggiore, the prominent double gate incor-porated into the Aurelian city wall during Empire. The imperial-era Aqua Claudia articulated the topography of this area prominently

with the high arches that held the aqueduct channel aloft as the water supply entered the city; the Claudia, like aqueducts before it, was further elevated when a second aqueduct specus was added atopthe first (Figure 1). By the time the imperial Aurelian Wall went up inthe third century CE, seven major aqueduct lines crossed the spot where the Porta Maggiore stands today. Five of these ran aboveground; the two underground lines were the Aqua Appia and Aqua Anio Vetus, the aqueducts under discussion in this chapter. Asaqueduct arcades developed into taller architectural forms over thecenturies – from the underground channels of the Aqua Appia in 312BCE to the soaring Aqua Claudia in 52 CE – this point in the city gained increasing visual prominence. Today, the aqueductintersection encased in the walls and gates at the Porta Maggiore isrecognized as a remnant of ancient architecture that exemplifies thedizzying heights Roman aqueduct engineering attained.

But centuries before this imperial apex, when the first and secondaqueducts of Rome were built in 312 and 272 BCE, these later architectural features did not exist. Both the Aqua Appia and the Aqua Anio Vetus ran underground as they neared the city wall andthe area of the Porta Maggiore – which, to be more accurate for theRepublic, should be referred to as Spes Vetus or Ad Spem Veterem,and which I remind readers lay well outside the Republican wallcircuit. The fourth-century BCE Republican wall made a muchsmaller circuit around the city than the imperial Aurelian Wall did; infact, the nearest gate to Ad Spem Veterem in the Republican wall wasthe Porta Esquilina, located near the spot where the church of SantaMaria Maggiore stands today. This is much closer in to the center of the city than the later aqueduct crossings that defined the PortaMaggiore in the imperial Aurelian Wall (Figures 3 and 4).

In 312 BCE, then, the Aqua Appia, still deep underground, veeredfrom Ad Spem Veterem westwards to traverse the southern slope of






F i g u r e

3 .

P l a n o f P o r t a M a g g i o r e ( ‘ A d S p e m V e t e r e m ’ t h r o u g h

t h e t i m e o f F r o n t i n u s ) w i t h i t s j u n c t i o n o f m u l t i p l e a q u e d u c t a r c a d e r u i n s

i n t h e i m p e r i a l A u r e l i a n W a l l .

L a n c i a n i t r a c e s t h e u n d e r g r o u n d

s p e c u s o f t h e A q u a A n i o V e t u s ( ‘ D u c t u s A n i o n i s V e t e r i s ’ ) a p p r o a c h i n g f r o m

t h e s o u t h - e a s t . A t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i r s t t w o a q u e d u c t s , n o n e o

f t h i s a r c h i t e c t u r e a t P o r t a M a g g i o r e e x i s t e d

. T h e n e a r e s t c i t y g a t e

i n t h e

R e p u b l i c a n W a l l w a s t h e P o r t a E s q u i l i n a ( F i g u r e 4 ) , l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h i s m a p a l o n g t h e a n c i e n t r o a d m a r k e d a s i f w i t h p a v i n g s t o n e s

a t t h e

t o p l e f t . L a n c i a n i 1 8 8 1

.





F i g u r e

4 .

P l a n o f t h e E s q u

i l i n e .

A t t h e f a r r i g h t l i e s t h e P o r t

a M a g g i o r e / A d S p e m

V e t e r e m

a r e a w i t h i t s j u n c t i o n o f m u l t i p l e a q u e d u c t

a r c a d e r u i n s i n t h e i m p e r i a l A u r e l i a n W a l l . A t t h e l o w e r c e n t e r , L a n c i a n i i d e n t i f i e s t h e P o r t a E s

q u i l i n a ( ‘ P . E s q u i l i n a ’ ) i n t h e R e p u

b l i c a n

( S e r v i a n ) W a l l , j u s t i n s i d e o f

w h i c h t h e A q u a A n i o V e t u s ( ‘ D u c t u s A n i o n i s V e t e r ’ ) t e r m i n a t e d

. L a n

c i a n i 1 8 8 1

.





the Caelian Hill, still outside the Republican city wall. At the westernmost slope of the Caelian Hill, outside the Republican gate

Porta Caelimontana, or Arch of Dolabella, near St Stefano Retondochurch from late anqiquity, the hillside topography descended to theshallow valley between the Caelian and Aventine hills, southeast of the Circus Maximus’ curve (Figure 5). Here, near the current-day intersection of the Via Cerchi, the Via di San Gregorio and the Via Appia, stood the Porta Capena in the Servian Wall, and it was at thisspot that the Via Appia began with the paving and naming of theroad in 312 BCE. The shallow valley inside the Porta Capena was animportant juncture point in the route of the Aqua Appia, a crossingI believe Appius Claudius Caecus designed for effect. Stillunderground, the aqueduct most likely crossed under the Via Appia

and the Republican (Servian) Wall at this point. This intersectioncertainly played a symbolic role at the time of construction, focusingintense attention on the architectural juncture so that it began toconvey new and heightened meaning.

One point of confusion in aqueduct history has been Frontinus’statement that the Aqua Appia traversed the Porta Capena valley on ashort arcade just inside the city wall, a depiction he based on a smallarcade – or the ruins of one – that ran there in his day. 8 Anabove-ground aqueduct structure is difficult to recreate reasonably for 312 BCE. With other scholars, I am convinced that the original Aqua Appia ran entirely underground (e.g. Ashby 1935: 49–54; Evans1994: 15, 66–7; Taylor 2000: 30; Hodge 2002: 47). My brief overview of Roman water engineering history later in this chapter discussesthis point in light of the fact that an arcade was an architectural formthe Romans had almost certainly not yet begun using.

After the aqueduct crossed underground beneath this shallow valley – and beneath the Porta Capena, the city wall and the Via Appia – the channel then veered south-westward toward the Tiber outsidethe southernmost side of the curve of the Circus Maximus’foundations (Figure 1). It continued along the slope of the AventineHill, running parallel to the south side of the Circus Maximus,reaching its riverside terminus near the foot of the Clivus Publicius atthe Forum Boarium. Frontinus describes the terminus of the Aqua Appia as being located between the Porta Trigemina in theRepublican wall and the Clivus Publicius, the main road that climbedthe Aventine Hill upward from the Forum Boarium and the Circus.9




Figure 5. Plan of Rome (monuments are listed for topographical reference; many

post-date the timeline covered in this chapter). Solid dark line tracing the Republican(Servian) Wall indicates openings roughly where Republican-era gates were located.The dotted line through the city traces a typical triumphal commem-oration parade route. The Porta Capena (just east of the Circus Maximus’ curve)marked the beginning of the Via Appia and its approximate ‘junction’ with theunderground Aqua Appia. Traveling due west from outside the Republican (Servian) Wall, the Aqua Appia ‘entered’ the city near or ‘through’ the Porta Capena, then joggedaround the southernmost foundations of the Circus Maximus to head north-west, stillunderground. It paralleled the south-west side of the Circus to its riverside terminusnear the Forum Boarium. Note that the Republican city gate shown nearest the river may actually have been located farther to the north-east, nearer the Forum Boarium.There are no physical remains of the Aqua Appia. After Richard H. Abramson.





WHY BUILD AN AQUEDUCT IN 312 BCE?

Just as the standard assumption for the form of ancient Romanaqueducts has been that it included an arcade, modern historianshave also generally assumed that the primary purpose of aqueducts was to bring a fresh drinking water supply to a growing domesticpopulation (e.g. Staveley 1959: 430; Ferenczy 1967: 36; Cornell1995: 373).10 By contrast, I follow scholars who doubt that a need for fresh drinking water was the primary motivation for the firstaqueduct, and who reason that Rome’s high water table and anample system of wells successfully supplied the city population withits domestic water supply, before and after aqueducts came into thecity (e.g. Evans 1994: 65–74; Hodge 2002: 5–7).11 Trevor Hodge

argues that

… Roman aqueducts were not built to provide drinking water, nor topromote hygiene. Nearly all Roman cities grew up depending for their water on wells or cisterns in the individual houses, and some cities(like London) got through their entire existence without ever havinghad an aqueduct at all … . The aqueducts, then, were not built to fill abasic human need. They were in fact a luxury. The normal reason anaqueduct was built was to supply the baths. (Hodge 2002: 5–6)

While the last part of Hodge’s thesis – regarding luxury of water supply to the baths – certainly applies to later aqueducts built after large public baths came into operation, it cannot apply during thetime of the first two aqueducts: nothing like late Republican andimperial bath complexes existed as early as the fourth and thirdcenturies BCE. Large public baths did not become regular urbanfeatures until two centuries after the two aqueducts that center thischapter; the same is true with water-dependent gardens, fountains,latrines and indoor plumbing, which developed later (Fagan 1999:48–50, 73; Taylor 2000: 154; Hodge 2002: 5–6, 48–66).12

If Rome needed neither supplemental drinking water nor adedicated supply for baths in 312 BCE, then several basic questionsneed to be reexamined: Why did Appius Claudius Caecus build the Aqua Appia? What factors played into its route and terminus? To whatkinds of problems did the aqueduct respond? And whatconsiderations about the second aqueduct of Rome, the Aqua Anio Vetus of 272 BCE, might shed light on Roman aqueductarchitecture’s initial form, purpose and function? The remainder of this chapter will examine political, economic, social and culturalaspects of contemporary mid-Republican Rome in search of coherentanswers to these questions.




THE AVENTINE HILL AND FORUM BOARIUM: ZONEOF PLEBEIAN INDUSTRY IN THE REPUBLIC

The period known as the Roman Republic was founded in 509 BCEand ended with shifts toward what we now call Empire, in c. 27 BCE.Its political system was designed to replace regal rule by the Tarquinkings with a constitutional government based on representative,senatorial decision-making; political offices shared betweenpatricians and plebeians; and egalitarian voting rights. During themiddle Republic, one of Rome’s first plebeian office-holders, in fact, was a mentor of Appius Claudius Caecus.13 During Appius’ early career, political issues concerning plebeians featured a special focuson voting rights and on other issues of law and practice, all of which

were changing for plebeians during the Republic.14 Increased wealthand economic power on the Aventine combined with social andpolitical change for plebeians prompt one to consider issues of plebeian commerce as driving motives for Appius’ new aqueductproject. I will discuss these topics in more detail later in this chapter.

Mercantile plebeians had historically settled on the Aventine Hillso that by the middle Republic plebeian classes were concentratingsocial, political and economic clout at and around the port of Romeat the Forum Boarium, Rome’s livestock market. The Aventine Hill’s‘proximity to the river and port facilities had no doubt contributed toits growth as a commercial district’ (Evans 1994: 123). So the Aqua Appia could have addressed a variety of problems for plebeians wholived on the Aventine Hill and worked near the Appian aqueductterminus during the middle Republic (Stambaugh 1988: 16–18).Several controversies surrounding religious institutions in this area of the city during Appius’ censorship seem to point toward commerceand industry as underlying motives for delivering the city’s firstsupplemental water supply here (Palmer 1965: 293–324; Coarelli1988: 111, note 6). Evans (1994: 70, note 22) points out that ‘thenearby Ara Maxima was also a factor in Appius Claudius’ decision tointroduce the aqueduct. During his censorship the cult of Herculesat the Ara Maxima was transferred from private to public control, …an action not inconsistent with efforts to develop the nearby area of the port.’15

Religious buildings nearby serve as evidence for the commercialcharacter of the area. [T]he number of cults of divinities withcommercial character, such as Portunus, Fortuna, Mater Matuta,Hercules, Diana, and Ceres, Liber and Libera, points to its role as aport and marketplace. It therefore seems likely that Appius Claudius’aqueduct was brought specifically to the district to meet pressing …






commercial … needs that could not be supplied by existing wells or cisterns. (Evans 1994: 69–70)

From the standpoint of labor, Oakley (2005: 367 and note 7) addsthat ‘the construction of the Appian aqueduct and road would haveprovided paid labor for the poor … ; it should not be doubted that inthis period, in which the city was growing, the urban poor compriseda significant number’, and that labor force may have lived in andaround the Aventine.

Industrial pressures the Aqua Appia’s water supply might haverelieved near the Forum Boarium and Aventine port were possibly related to large-scale water needs tied to commercial enterprises,production, or maintenance in the port and market there (Evans 1994:

67–9). Watering animals brought to market, for example, mightpreviously have required hauling large quantities of water from existing wells and cisterns, or from the river itself, whose swift current andtendency to flood were a nemesis for Romans in the ancient period.Frontinus’ mention of the area called the Salinae near the aqueductterminus may refer to a salt industry or market nearby, which wouldcertainly have required a supplemental water supply. Ashby (1935) alsopoints out that since a standard feature of Rome’s gravity-flow aqueducts was constant overflow, which flushed streets and drains, theaqueduct would have eased or initiated a large-scale cleaning function.Mignone (2010: forthcoming) underscores the possibility of anunderground confluence with the Circus Cloaca, serving to flush thedrain. I wonder if the aqueduct might also have had associations withthe Cloaca Maxima, which terminated at the Tiber after runningbeneath the Forum Boarium and the Republican temples there.

PORTA CAPENA: POINT OF JUNCTURE FOR AQUEDUCT, ROAD, WALL AND TRIUMPHAL WAY

Before the aqueduct reached the Aventine, it passed throughanother significant location: the Porta Capena in the Republican(Servian) Wall (Figure 5). As I have mentioned, the Porta Capena waslocated southeast of the curve of the Circus Maximus, and it was thelocation of the gate in the Republican wall that marked the beginningof the aqueduct’s co-project, the Via Appia.16 Contextual analysis of this location and of the monumentality of early Roman public worksarchitecture reveals interesting possible motives for the route of thefirst aqueduct.

DeLaine (2002: 205) notes that for ancient Rome, monumentalarchitecture – what she calls ‘exceptional construction’ – ‘alerts us to

06c Idea of Water 147-191 2/9/09 18:10 2



the moral tension that such feats … embody, by setting up their human creators in competition with, or in opposition to, the power

of Nature’. The Roman state’s control and domestication of a basicnatural resource – water – eventually rendered the populacedependent for water upon the system and the institution thatcreated it, rather than on Nature and the Gods. DeLaine argues that,in Rome, state architecture eventually became a replacement for natural and divine providence. Building activity served to equate or identify administrative institutions and resource provision withdivinity. This made the administrative institution, therefore, theindispensable usurer of cultural power. In the middle Republic, theRoman state began to expand and fortify its repertoire of ways in which it could protect and broaden its power and influence beyond

its walls. One of those strategies was to fashion identifiable visualstatements in monumental architectural terms, which the city later exported into its colonies to signify the city’s extended wealth,supremacy and permanence.

The monumental nature of the public works projects of 312 BCEcertainly endowed them with this type of prestige. That status wouldnot only have come from the cultural connotations DeLainedescribes above, but would also have been associated with theimportance of the city wall, which highlights the importance of thePorta Capena in the scheme. Oakley (2005: 355, citing Livy: vi. 32. 1n.) assesses the joint aqueduct and road project as a major, historicaccomplishment, ‘the magnitude of which was paralleled in earlier Roman history only by the construction of Rome’s own walls’. Theproject of the Repubican city circuit – later named the Servian wall – had begun in about 377 BCE, within 20 years of two significant eventsfor Romans. First had been Rome’s hard-won defeat and annexationof the Etruscan city of Veii in 396 BCE; next came the tumultuousGallic invasion of Rome in 390. Some historians have interpreted the wall’s construction to have been a defensive move in reaction to theGallic ‘sack’ of the city, which many scholars contend leveled Rome.Others interpret the monumental wall project, on the other hand, asan offensive strategy, reasoning that the Gauls had not razed the city but only invaded and threatened it, and that with the wall Romans were making a material statement of their invincibility. This argumentholds that the earlier Veii victory had bolstered Romans far morethan the Gallic sack had beleaguered them.

Cornell (1995: 317–20) is a proponent of this point of view. Heargues that the Romans’ ‘aggressive and expansionist policy, whichbecame evident in the 420s and was most clearly seen in theannexation of Veii, continued after the departure of the Gauls’.Cornell (1995: 198–202) articulates Roman motives in terms of






growing rather than diminishing confidence, proposing that the city may actually have emerged from the Gallic invasions less damaged

and demoralized than many scholars have contended.17 Moreover,during this same period, Rome’s aggression against nearby regionsincreased, suggesting a city poised on the offense. With their massivenew city circuit – 11km long, 10m high in places, and 4m thick atthe base – Romans self-assuredly and perhaps even insolently offsetthe inadequacy of their prior city defenses (Cornell 1995: 331;Claridge 1998: 59). Cornell (1995: 320) argues that ‘only a powerfuland well-organized city-state could have contemplated’ building sucha monumental work of architecture.18 Moreover, Italian archaeologistCoarelli reminds us that Romans used Grotta Oscura stone for the wall blocks, which they quarried and transported 15 km from the

defeated city of Veii. Given the fact that higher-quality stone wasavailable nearer to Rome, Coarelli proposes that special stone from Veii ‘was chosen deliberately in order to advertise the fact of Veii’ssubjugation’, and to underscore Rome’s expanding controlof the region (Coarelli, in Momigliano and Schiavone 1988: 328;Cornell 1995: 331 and 320, note 73). The facts of the wall’s massivesize and the decades it took to complete urge us to interpret therepublican city wall as a gesture motivated by confidence rather thanfear. By the time the wall was under construction after 377 BCE,Rome had become the largest urban center in central Italy. At thesame time, Roman power elites had begun setting their sights uponeventual domination of the entire Italian peninsula. Nearly 40 yearsafter the wall’s completion, in 312 BCE, the structure marked a new and advanced generation of monumental building.

This reasoning also applies to roads and aqueducts. Surveying,constructing and paving the long Via Appia to Capua transformedthat first highway into monumental linear architecture – a work of ‘exceptional construction’. From its beginning point at the PortaCapena gate, the highway was surveyed in a straight line southwardfor more than 50 Roman miles through the campagna. Substantialroad beds were inlaid with giant stone pavers that have never wornout, and in areas of irregular terrain the road bed was elevated andbolstered upon a solid masonry structure of cut stone blocks. Anexample at Ariccia in photographs by nineteenth-century archaeologist Esther Van Deman shows a roadbed substructurenearly identical in form and construction to the Roman city wall. Thethird-century BCE Via Flaminia was raised on similar elevated ‘bridge’structures.19 This new road architecture, identified physically withthe Republican city wall and the Porta Capena gate, where the Via Appia both began and ended, served to emphasize the dual purposeof the wall and the city it inscribed: the fortification’s inside face




defined the city as a contained and protected entity, while the wall’soutside surface offered the city as a bounded but outward-focused

center.20 After 312 BCE, arriving travelers (or rivals) faced the reality of a city prepared both to receive and to deliver force, on her ownterms. With the Via Appia serving as a solid precedent, constructionof paved roads immediately became a constant feature of Romanmonumental public-works building. Appius Claudius Caecus’immediate successors, the censors of 306 BCE, took up roadbuilding, following directly upon Appius’ precedent (Livy: IX.43.25 n;Oakley 2005: 356, note 1).

Cornell reasons that post-war confidence impelled city wallconstruction, and DeLaine concludes that large-scale constructionsignaled a powerful sense of identity; Hodge contributes to the idea

of an elevated cultural self-concept when he refers to Roman ‘civicpride’ as a primary impetus behind construction of aqueducts:

[A]queduct building was incredibly, even ruinously, expensive, and whole cities had been known to go bankrupt over building even quitea small one. To possess an aqueduct was thus an outward mark of prestige and prosperity that none could mistake. (Hodge 2002: 6)

Hodge here refers to the aqueduct form’s eventual effect; that is, its visual impact of the running arcade on the urban or suburbanlandscape throughout the Roman provinces. But even before arcadesbecame a familiar feature, the high expense of building an aqueduct was certainly an issue from the start, for underground segmentsinvolved manual tunneling and excavation, as well as hand-cuttingand setting of masonry blocks. Moreover, concrete was not in wideuse until after the third aqueduct, the Aqua Marcia, of 144 BCE. Appius Claudius Caecus was criticized for the great cost of the firstaqueduct, accused by some ancient writers of subverting the Senateand beginning the project without approval, and chastised by othersfor having forced an extension of his term in office so that he couldcomplete and name the aqueduct. To pay for the second aqueduct,Romans diverted the entirety of the spoils from a major military victory, which I will discuss later in this chapter. Eventually it becamecommonplace for statesmen to sponsor their own public-worksprojects, sometimes in conjunction with private wealth, butaqueducts were always major financial undertakings. Perhaps giventhe intricacy and complexity of the architectural planning andengineering required for massive water diversion, aqueducts initially developed more slowly than roads.21

Before the 312 censorship placed Appius Claudius Caecus in theposition to undertake such large projects, he had certainly






deliberated upon the power of the Porta Capena juncture of road, wall and aqueduct, and on the strategies of the terminus near the

Aventine Hill and the Forum Boarium. Ferenczy (1967: 36) suggeststhat Caecus had begun to conceptualize his public works plan whilehe was still holding an earlier office as aedilis curulis. Limitations toa politician in the aedilis precluded access to financial resources andthe power to gain approvals for large-scale building projects. Butonce in the higher office of censor, Appius was able to implement hisgrand-scale program quickly.

We can imagine that when building on both aqueduct and highway began, work was extensive and urgent. Quantities of equipment,materials and debris along the route staged impressive constructionsites. A massive workforce added to the activity.22 Defying or

appealing an 18-month censorial term limit, Appius extended hiscensorship to four years, to complete and name his projects in about308 BCE. Then, in the following year, 307 BCE, he left the censorshipto take the office of consul, and in 306 BCE the successors to thecensorship followed his public works precedent with the idea of creating another road (Livy IX.43.25 n; Oakley 2005: 356, note 1). By this time, the Porta Capena junction point for the city’s threemonumental public works projects – wall, road and aqueduct – hadbeen integrated into a new urban image of Rome as a well-definedcity with substantial fiscal and territorial means.

This new city entrance announced forceful designs on broadeningterritorial expansion to the south. The Porta Capena intersectioncreated the major gateway into the city from the south, and within afew years both sides of the Appian Way were lined with funerary monuments of wealthy Roman families, who grounded suchbuilding activity in a tradition of family aggrandizement andcommemoration rooted in the early Republic (Harris 1979: 27–8;Holliday 2002: 31). After passing through miles of such monumentsclosely lining the road on the approach to Rome, travelers passedthrough the Porta Capena gate to enter the city. The curve of theCircus Maximus came into view, with the stadium lined on two sides,by patrician structures on the Palatine Hill to the north and plebeianmansions on the Aventine to the south. The combined effect of thejoint project of road and wall, along with improvements to thesurrounding areas, heightened the visual character and status of thisregion of the city, not to mention that of the Claudian clan, whosestatus Appius Claudius’ actions also elevated considerably during hiscensorship.




APPIUS CLAUDIUS CAECUS AS INNOVATOR OFCENSORSHIP

Appius Claudius Caecus launched his political career during a periodof unrest, reorganization, and solidification of Rome under theRepublic. During this period of transition, the offices of both censor and senator were plastic, and Appius apparently shaped his owncensorial terms within that climate of change. Scholars agree that thefirst example of censor-sponsored building appears in 318, just six years before Appius’ censorship, with the construction in the Forumof an eponymous column, the Columna Maenia or the Maenianabuilt by the censor C. Maenius (MacBain 1980: 361, note 29; Humm2005: 484; Oakley 2005: 355–6). Appius Claudius built on this

precedent, but he ensured his own works would set a more dramaticand lasting impression by creating not a single, isolated monument,but a pair of public works projects on a monumental scale.

In addition to introducing these architectural public worksinnovations, Appius Claudius instituted several major, controversialpolicy innovations as censor, in an attempt to permanently redesign parts of the city’s political armature. In his first year ascensor, he carried out a constitutional reform that altered the criteriafor senatorial appointment, or senatus lectio, by permitting theaddition of libertini, or freed slaves, to the list of eligible senators.This policy broadened socioeconomic and class diversity amongsenatorial candidates. Appius was perhaps the first censor toinstitute such senatorial changes, which had been permitted under an earlier law, the Lex Ovinia, but which no leader had yet enacted(Ferenczy 1967: 41–2). Another reform Appius imposed – whichscholars view as more important than the senatus lectio because itremained in effect long after Appius left office – was hisreorganization of voter distribution within fixed electoral districts, or tribes, to reflect ‘a strong democratic tendency’ that intensified voting power among plebeians in tribal assemblies (Ferenczy 1967: 51). This reform involved redistributing the populace – including the humiles, lower-class men with no landed property who often made fortunes as merchants and contractors. Sincemany rich and politically active plebeians lived on the Aventineand worked in or near the Forum Boarium, the location for the Aqua Appia’s outlet suggests that Appius Claudius’ aqueduct was invested in plebeian commerce and industry, as I havementioned. Ferenczy goes further, making a direct connectionbetween Appius’ censorial reforms, aqueduct building, and military activity:23






The supply of the city with … water was necessary also from the viewpoint of war, even if the military importance is not so obvious.

Since the great internal political reforms of Appius Claudius were intheir final conclusion also to strengthen Rome strategically, and their realization was carried out by the change or transgression of theprescriptions of the old constitution just like that of the public works,it is obvious that there must be a relationship between the public works and the political reforms. (Ferenczy 1967: 37).

From this and other evidence regarding the Claudian censorship of 312 BCE, Oakley concludes that Appius’ ‘success in his censorship was the single most important factor in the rise in prestige of thatoffice in the third century’ (Humm 1996: 731–2; Ryan 1998: 141–3;

Oakley 2005: 356).

AQUEDUCT AND ROADS AS TOOLS FOR EXPANSION

Appius Claudius appears, then, to have considered not only politicaland economic realities inside the city, but also broader regional forcesaffecting Rome’s military and economic strategies from outside her city walls. Staveley (1959) points to several areas of economic growth anddiversification for fourth-century Republican Rome: immigration of businessmen and artisans into the city for commerce; coinage andattendant increases in speculative debt and usury; and increasedshipping activity due to colonial expansion and other military interests.Staveley also characterizes Appius as a kind of spokesman and mediator in an uncomfortable and unresolved Roman identity conflict regarding‘the question as to whether or not Rome was to retain an essentially agrarian economy’ (Staveley 1959: 423). The scholar argues that

Appius’ censorship could … be interpreted as a realistic, if perhapssomewhat premature, attempt, backed by friends within the nobility and presumably by a section of the electorate, to prepare the way for aradical change in the balance of the state’s economy, and for theeventual transformation of an essentially agrarian community into onein which agriculture and commerce played at least an equal part.(Staveley 1959: 419)

Harris warns against accepting uncritically the idea that Romansrelied on a mercantile economy to speed territorial conquest,arguing that Romans of all classes in this time period valued property and military profits above the profits of mercantile investmentoutside Rome, and even above currency:




Much of Italy was not yet in any full sense a money economy … .[T]he economic ambitions of most Romans, aristocrats as well as

ordinary citizens, were limited to land and plunder … . Mercantileinterests, on the other hand, seem unlikely to have played any important part in driving Rome onwards to the conquest of Italy … .The Via Appia was an investment in political and military control, but it was hardly likely to bring direct profits to Roman aristocrats. (Harris1979: 61–2)

As far as the concept of private property intersects with aqueductbuilding and the easements required, several scholars remind us thatprivate land ownership was considered an unimpeachable right inancient Rome: ‘acquisition of private land for public roads and

aqueducts was a matter of persuasion and influence, but never of legally sanctioned compulsion’ (Taylor 2000: 12, 53–127). Thisimplies that statesmen contracting projects needed the nod of property owners whose land lay in the path of aqueduct projects. Anexample in which persuasion evidently did not prevail is provided by Livy (XL.51.7), who recounts a situation from the Republic in which alandowner halted an aqueduct project in advanced stages of construction by denying access through his lands; we do not know his reasons, but the aqueduct was abandoned in a state of partialcompletion (Ashby 1935: 39).24 It seems unlikely that the same would have occurred during construction of the Aqua Appia, as anunderground aqueduct only 15km long would not have altered thesurface in 312 BCE as an arcade would have done centuries later.

Nonetheless, the example from Livy indicates that persuasion andinfluence carried weight not only in the completion of public worksprojects, where property easements were literally crucial, but also ingeneral political success, where ‘gaining ground’ socially wasessential. Along these lines, MacBain (1980) suggests that economicand political conflicts during Appius’ career should be interpreted inlight of a decline in political influence among the Claudii – that is, inthe history of the Claudian clan – which created difficulty for AppiusClaudius as censor in 312 BCE. His clan had allowed social andpolitical relationships among amici and clientele (i.e. the ‘friends’and ‘clients’ making up his economic and political support base) tolapse gradually over several generations, which required AppiusClaudius to re-forge ties with Capuan nobility and other powerfulgroups to the south of Rome. Building this foundation of support was indispensable for political achievement: ‘in the late fourthcentury the political system was already based on competitionamong aristocrats, in which personal and family reputation, as well asclientela, inevitably weighed heavily’ (Harris 1979: 29). Many of the






old Claudian alliances spanned territories along the route of the Via Appia, so a motivating force for Appius Claudius, then, would be

‘competition for the clientele of both Romans and Campanians wholived in the territories through which Appius built his road’ (MacBain1980: 62–3).25 Reflecting on the same censorial policy changes I haveoutlined, historian Lily Ross Taylor (1960: 137) comments that‘freedmen and other lowly men added to the rural tribes through Appius’ influence would have increased the great bands of clients for which Appius was famous, and would have given him specialstrength in the country districts’.

The example from Livy above reminds us that aqueduct buildingclaimed high political stakes. Appius Claudius Caecus’ road andaqueduct routes seem clearly to have intersected with the social

necessity of creating patronage and friendship relationships. One fedthe other. The first aqueduct project can be assigned directly to anagenda of broader economic motives, and to an Appian politicalprogram that ‘points to an interest in implementing social andeconomic changes necessary to permit Rome to assume a moreimportant position in Italian commerce. Construction of the Aqua Appia was certainly consistent with such goals; indeed it appears tohave played a large part in achieving them’ (Evans 1994: 69–70).

APPIUS CLAUDIUS CAECUS AND THE CLAUDII:REINVIGORATING THE FAMILY NAME

The above argument implies that one of Appius Claudius Caecus’principal political motives for large-scale building projects was toreturn the Claudian clan to its historical prestige and influence, andto heighten the name for posterity. The fourth-century censor didhail from one of the oldest patrician family names in Rome, the only one whose founding date was written into Roman lore. In L. R.Taylor’s (1960) history of the voting districts of the Republic, sherecounts that the Claudia gens – that is, family, clan or tribe – was oneof ‘the six great houses known as the gentes maiores’:

Only for the Claudia is there a specific record of the time of institution. During a Sabine war of 504 BCE, Attius Caesar, later knownas Appius Claudius, reputed founder of the Claudian house, is said tohave left his Sabine home and to have settled in Rome with a band of five thousand men. According to Livy and Dionysius, Appius receivedpatrician status (with land for himself in the city, Dionysius adds) andland outside the city for his clients. This land became the Claudiatribus … . The consulship of Appius Claudius in 495 … was perhaps




the date of the organization … of the Claudia … . The date of theorganization of the Claudia was probably preserved in the records,

and the suggestion that this date led to the tradition that Appius hadcome to Rome during the Sabine War of 504 is very likely. (Taylor 1960:35–6)

The name ‘Claudius’, and especially the name ‘Appius Claudius’,carried substantial historical and social weight during the Republic(Taylor 1960: 270–1, 284–6). Yet, by 312 BCE, despite his name’shistorical prominence, Appius Claudius found himself to be a‘member of a great house recently in eclipse’ (Taylor 1960: 133).26

MacBain summarizes the century of Claudian influence surrounding Appius Claudius’ lifetime:

The gens Claudia, for whatever reason, had not held its own amongnoble families of the first rank for several generations. They had faredpoorly between 444 and … 403. Subsequently, they could claim adictatorship in 362 and a consulship in 349. Both of these offices, andthe tribunate of 403, were held by Appius’ grandfather, Ap. ClaudiusCrassus Inregilensis. His consulship was undistinguished; he died inoffice of old age. Appius’ father, C. Claudius Inregilensis, is knownonly to have been appointed to a dictatorship in 337 from which posthe immediately abdicated on being declared vitio creatus. (MacBain1980: 360–1)27

Palmer (1965: 319) argues that when Appius Claudius became censor in 312, he could bank on no prestige but his family name, ‘yet thereis no denying the ambition and the energy of the patrician’.

Appius Claudius Caecus remedied this lowered family prestige inseveral ways, one of which was his strategic cultivation of amici andclientele, as mentioned above. Another was in the number of offspring he generated. Appius had many children – four sons andfive daughters – which ultimately enhanced the political power andfortunes of the family, for centuries to come. Three of Appius’ sonsreached the office of consul, and ‘his descendants remained at, or near, the summit of Roman politics until the death of Nero in 68[CE]’ (Oakley 2005: 357, notes 1–3).28

The accomplishment for which Appius is best known, of course, was his censorial program of commemorative public-worksarchitecture. As I have noted, he extended his time in the censorshipto four years in order to complete and to give his name to the roadand aqueduct in 308 BCE. Why did he name his works with his givenname, or praenomen, ‘Appius’, rather than with his family name, thenomen ‘Claudius’?29 This action may have served two historically






significant purposes. First, ‘Appius Claudius’ would have been a well-known name in Roman history, since it named a legendary

founder of the Republic and the father of the Claudian clan, but while all of the censors’ ancestors had carried the nomen ‘Claudius’,not all had carried the full name of the family clan’s originator,‘Appius Claudius’. We can imagine that at the time the praenomen‘Appius’ would nonetheless immediately have suggested the nomen‘Claudius’. In choosing his praenomen over his nomen for his public works projects, then, Appius Claudius fused the two names. At thesame time, he created a new Roman brand from that name, andimmediately put it to use not only for the projects but to secure theposterity of the Claudii. The specificity of the new, stand-alone term‘Appius’ worked together with the larger historical weight of the

Claudian nomen. The name proved to be a boon for the Claudianclan. It linked the fourth-century public works projects to apresumed continuum of Claudian family aggrandizement over several centuries of Republican past history, and it ushered the clan’sprestige toward the possibility of continued historical fame.30

On the historical weight of Appius Claudius’ public-works projectnames, Humm (2005: 484–5, note 9) notes that ‘the fact that amember of the Roman aristocracy had been able, for the first time, togive his nomen (as well as his praenomen ) to the public monumentshe built reveals both the strength of his personality and theintroduction of new political mores to Rome’. Humm believes thatthe future identification of the Claudian name directly with AppiusClaudius Caecus proves ‘the prestige and charisma he had succeededin embodying’.31 To highlight the historical prestige the name ‘AppiusClaudius’ carried throughout the Republican era, Humm refers to acorrespondence between ancient historian Cicero ( Ad.Fam. III.7.5)and Appius Claudius Pulcher in the middle of the first century BCE.In a letter to Cicero, Pulcher has objected that Cicero has notdeigned to meet him on a recent occasion, complaining that thehistorian has insulted the entire Claudian clan, down to its nobledescendant (and Pulcher’s namesake), Appius Claudius Caecus. Inhis reply to Pulcher, Cicero treats the Claudian’s chauvinism withirony, and, in referring to the Claudii, he coins a new word inLatin, ‘Appietatem’, based on the name ‘Appius’. Cicero means thisterm ironically to refer to any Claudian, that is, to any one of AppiusClaudius Caecus’ descendants. In referring to any Claudian by thegeneral term ‘Appietatem’ – translated as ‘Appiusism’ in Englishby Shuckburgh (1909) – Cicero reveals his acknowledgement(underscored by his irony) that the Claudian clan continued to restupon Appius Claudius Caecus’ historical laurels, so to speak. Pulcher insisted in the extreme, as Cicero would have it, on bearing the




fourth-century censor’s name and the prestige it continued toconnote, more than two centuries after Caecus’ death.32

All of this suggests that Appius Claudius Caecus’ actions wereconsistent with Roman traditions of self and family promotion, as were his descendants’: ‘families preserved the memory of their earlier members’ deeds (with embellishments naturally)’ (Harris1979: 27–9). Ways in which Appius Claudius banked on naming as atool take on further implications with a discussion of the Claudianclan’s role in the history of triumphal commemoration in Rome, which follows.

TRIUMPHAL COMMEMORATION AND THE CLAUDII

Appius’ placement of the first aqueduct and paved highway inconjunction with the Porta Capena in the city wall may have beendesigned to associate his works with the triumphal parade routethrough the city (Figure 5). The triumphal commemoration routethrough Rome was the famed public course for parading war spoilsand captives through the city. Triumphal parades followed aprescribed circuit. Insufficient evidence exists to substantiate a singleset route; scholars rather suggest an approximate and typical course(Favro 1994: 151–64; Holliday 2002: 23, 22–30).33 Typically, acommemorative triumph began in the Campus Martius. From there,the procession paraded southeast through the Forum Boarium tothe Circus Maximus, continuing alongside or directly down thecentral axis of the Circus. This part of the procession traced the

pomerium, or ancient sacred city boundary, that ran along the baseof the Palatine Hill; today the Via dei Cerchi approximates thatboundary line. As the parade neared the curved end of the CircusMaximus, it made a sharp left uphill around the foot of the PalatineHill, as it veered away from the Circus and proceeded up today’s Viadi San Gregorio. In the course of this pivot to the north, we canimagine the fourth and third century procession naturally to haveslowed or even stopped, with the Republican wall, the Porta Capena,and the Via Appia in clear view. Then, the parade marched uphillbetween the Palatine and Caelian hills until it reached the Via Sacra atthe entrance to the Roman Forum. There, the commemorativecelebration proceeded through the Forum, finally ascending theCapitoline Hill, the sacred city center, with the spoils of victory Romehad wrested from the conquered.

The Porta Capena’s location just southeast of the curve of theCircus Maximus, in clear view of the triumphal procession route, isconsistent with ancient historian Polybius’ observation that in a






commemorative parade a victorious general ‘brought the actual sightof his achievements before the eyes of his fellow-citizens’ (Polybius:

VI.15.8; Harris 1979: 26). This emphasis on the visual exhibition of objects as an indispensible symbolism of Roman achievement appliesdirectly not only to the objects on display in a triumph. It can alsoapply to Appius Claudius Caecus’ decisive placement of hismonumental architectural achievements – the Via Appia and the Aqua Appia – at the Porta Capena in the Republican wall, within sightof the triumphal parade route. The fact that the aqueduct route‘intersected’ the road at the same city gate – even if the aqueduct were underground – coordinates the censorial building projects inphysical and geographical space, and strategically associates theaqueduct not only with the Porta Capena and the Via Appia but also

with the commemorative parade route. Through that strategicplacement, Appius created a sight line between the triumphalprocession and the Via Appia at the Porta Capena, which served visually to commemorate and glorify his family, the Claudii.

These projects were innovative in many ways, but they were notthe Claudian clan’s first legendary accomplishments, where the visualaspects of public commemoration are concerned. Ancient historianPliny ( N.H. 35. 12) attributes the debut of commemorative portraitsto the consulship of the first Appius Claudius. After he founded theClaudian clan, in 495 BCE, the first Appius Claudius set up portraitshields representing his ancestors in the temple of Bellona. There, Appius ordered that the portraits be ‘viewed in an elevated positionand that inscriptions stating their honors be read …’ (Holliday 2002:15). Appius Claudius Caecus, too, vowed a temple to Bellona fromthe battlefield in 296 BCE (Livy: X.19.17–19), a date that would haveserved to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the forefather’sBellona Temple vow.

Several purposes for Roman triumphal processions existed: tocleanse the city of the stain of war, to please the gods, to justify military campaigns, and to honor military success. Holliday views themilitary functions as ‘most crucial for the development of historicalcommemorations’ (Favro 1994: 152–6; Holliday 1997: 130–1, 2002:23). Commemoration in fact increased in practice and importanceduring the middle Republic as Romans invested and concentratedtheir efforts toward external military conquests. By 264 BCE, they had succeeded in controlling the entire Italian peninsula.34




THE AGED CAECUS’ SPEECH TO THE SENATE: WARSPOILS AND AQUEDUCT FUNDING (272 BCE)

Ancient historians laud another of Appius Claudius Caecus’ actions,one that occurred at the end rather than at the beginning of hispolitical and military career. I will propose that this event may suggest his involvement in planning for Rome’s second aqueduct,the Aqua Anio Vetus of 272 BCE. Historians report that when Caecus was an elder statesman of 77 years old, he delivered a speech to theSenate in which he argued vehemently that Rome should refuse atruce offered by King Pyrrhus of Greece, a successor to Alexander the Great. For years, Pyrrhus had been defending Greek cities near Italy against Roman occupation. In Caecus’ speech of 279 BCE, the

Claudian senior statesman exhorted the Senate to deny King Pyrrhusthe armistice he offered to Rome. Appius Claudius Caecus urged thesenate instead to defeat Pyrrhus and thereby to usher Rome ahead inits drive to dominate the Italian peninsula. Ancient sources recountthat when Caecus left the Senators later that day, he had convincedthem to reject the Greek offer and to push for Roman victory.35

Rome did deny the truce, and within four years, by 275 BCE,Romans had defeated King Pyrrhus in the Tarentine War. Led by the victorious triumphator , general and censor Curius Dentatus,Romans celebrated with a triumphal procession, parading thecaptives, riches, and spoils from the Pyrrhian victory along thecommemorative parade route. Ancient writer Florus (I.13.26–7)described the triumph:

Scarcely ever did a fairer or more glorious triumph enter the city. Upto that time the only spoils which you could have seen were the cattleof the Volscians, the flocks of the Sabines, the wagons of the Gauls,the broken arms of the Samnites; now if you looked at captives, they were Molossians, Thessalians, Macedonians, Bruttians, Apulians, andLucanians; if you looked upon the procession, you saw gold, purplestatues, pictures and all the luxury of Tarentum. (Holliday 2002: 31)

The victorious general, Curius Dentatus, was then appointed as anaqueduct commissioner for the building of Rome’s second aqueduct,the Aqua Anio Vetus, which, as I have mentioned, was funded thespoils from the Pyrrhian victory.36

It is well established that Appius Claudius Caecus is best knownfor building Rome’s first major public works projects during hiscensorship of 312 BCE, but his reported speech to the senate in 279and its role in the Pyrrhian victory and the subsequent triumphalcommemoration is treated by ancient writers as another essential






part of Caecus’ historical prominence.37 The speech and itsconsequences open an inquiry into the Claudian statesman’s

possible involvement in planning for Rome’s second aqueduct. It iscertainly improbable to suppose his speech to the senate to havebeen calculated specifically to secure funding for a future aqueductfounded on a victory that had not yet occurred. Be that as it may, I dopropose that Caecus’ speech and the subsequent use of the war booty for the second aqueduct signal his likely involvement in theselection of strategies that could assist Roman domination of theItalian peninsula. Given the success of his past public-works projects,it may be that cumulative boons – economic, technological, socialand political – brought by the Aqua Appia over the course of 35 yearsdemonstrated to Roman decision-makers (of whom Caecus was one)

that an aqueduct served Rome’s political, territorial and military missions.

Oakley (2005) argues that Appius Claudius Caecus’ prestige inancient history cannot be judged exclusively by standard criteria for Roman distinction, in particular by the benchmark of a military triumphal parade. Appius never triumphed in this way, but thespeech to the senate has associated him with a pivotal triumph of theRepublic. This narrative commemoration is consistent with acultural focus on military commemoration, in that it lauds him,albeit indirectly, for delivering that victory. Oakley argues it this way:

In her national myth Rome came to cherish the notion that, althoughshe had lost some battles, she had never lost a war (see 19.9 n.), anotion which arose primarily because of her victories over Pyrrhus andHannibal. Victory over Pyrrhus was possible only because in 279 BCE Appius had persuaded the senate not to make peace with him. Thisspeech therefore gave him a special place in Roman history that wasdenied to others who had led Rome during the Samnite Wars. (Oakley 2005: 357)

Such narrative commemoration also does something else: it tiesCaecus to the new practice of funding public works through war spoils, and in particular it connects him with the secondaqueduct, which represents considerable advancement for Rome over the first, which Appius Claudius Caecus instigated. The ancientsources, writing after Caecus’ time, retrospectively give him a pivotalrole in this development, and at the same time they paint him as amodel public figure for their own time. In 272 BCE, directing war profits into a public works project was a new practice. Ashby (1935:40–1) notes that funding the ambitious second aqueduct frommilitary spoils ‘is one of the earliest examples of a system of public




finance which deliberately embellished the Roman State, and moreparticularly the City itself, by means of war booty’. While this was new

in the middle Republic, it would eventually become requisite practice:

[W]hat began as a boon became a fixed policy, … of expecting spoils or gifts to pay for public works, and thereby slowly imposing an obligationupon successful public men to build such things. The making of aqueducts was kept in the hands of the State, but the ultimate sourceof the funds was in every case the same. (Ashby 1935: 41)

In 272, the same year in which construction on the Aqua Anio Vetusbegan, another innovation in commemoration took place, during thetriumphal parade celebrating victory over the Samnites and

Tarentines. The triumphator , victorious general T. Papirius Cursor,presented an early example of historical painting as military commemoration, a gesture that demonstrated ‘a characteristically Roman crossing of private ambition with public action’ (Holliday 2002: 30). Public commemorative triumphs held deep cultural andritual significance for Romans – this extended not only to thetradition of the triumphal parade itself, but also to the specific kindsof objects paraded and the ways in which those objects wereexhibited after the triumph:

The paintings might prove useful in contemporary electoralcampaigns, but their presence in temples donated by thetriumphatores ensured that their achievements would beremembered as notable exempla by future generations. The theme of the triumph was consonant with the mentality of Romans to securethe record of victory in both its civic and religious exaltations. … Theriches of war booty, … and works of art displayed in the processions,struck the Romans with wonder and filled them with pride: Romanmight had conquered these older civilizations, and their wealth andrefinement would now serve Roman needs. (Holliday 2002: 31)

One can infer from these traditions that politicians designedcommemorative practices to achieve multiple benefits. I suggest thatinnovations in commemorative practices during this time extendedtoward architecture in Rome’s second aqueduct, the Aqua Anio Vetus. As aqueduct building was thus directly linked with military victory, the aqueduct functioned symbolically as a monumentalcommemorative object in itself. In this way, Romans broughtaqueduct architecture into their arsenal of long-term military andpolitical strategies. The aqueduct began to function as a symbol of victory and of the growing power of the state, and, as I have






discussed above, historians implicated Appius Claudius Caecus, the‘inventor’ of the form, as a model player in that process. Taken

together, the complex circumstances surrounding the appearance of the Aqua Anio Vetus support Holliday’s notion (2002: 31) that ‘thetheme of the triumph was consonant with the mentality of Romansto secure the record of victory in both its civic and religiousexaltations’. We might consider the developing aqueduct form, then,to be a form of civic exaltation.

ROME’S SECOND AQUEDUCT, THE AQUA ANIO VETUS: HISTORY AND CONTEXT

War funding was not the only feature that made the second aqueduct worthy of trophy status. The second of ancient Rome’s 11 aqueducts,the Aqua Anio Vetus also demonstrated a significant achievementtechnologically, architecturally, and in engineering advancement over the Aqua Appia. First, the Anio Vetus was about four times the lengthof the Aqua Appia, beginning at least 50km from Rome. Compare thisto the Appia’s distance of 15km. What’s more, the second aqueducttapped the Anio River, the principal natural source of water in theregion, for the first time. From that time on, the Anio was the fontfrom which all of Rome’s major aqueducts would subsequently draw.Third, the elevation of the second aqueduct’s Anio River intake,located near Subiaco in the Alban Hills beyond Tivoli, permitted theaqueduct to terminate at a higher elevation once it reached the city.The Aqua Anio Vetus ended near the Porta Esquilina in the Republican wall, on the opposite, and uphill, side of town from the low riversideoutlet of the Aqua Appia (Figure 4). Evidence suggests that the Aqua Anio Vetus’ terminus ‘was originally planned to complement theearlier line, to increase the supply of water available in the center of Rome, and to furnish … water to those higher areas in the easternpart of the city that the Appia could not serve’ (Evans 1994: 82). It isdifficult to argue that the second aqueduct, any more than the first,provided Romans with a fresh drinking water supply; no evidencepoints to the Aqua Anio Vetus as a source for consumption, as its water was famous in antiquity for being muddy and hard to filter (e.g.Evans 1994: 81–2). Nonetheless, the second aqueduct’s terminus, which may also have included a castellum (underground settling tankand reservoir), reveals that distribution throughout the city, which the Aqua Appia’s low riverside terminus was unable to address, permittedmajor innovations in city water delivery.

Despite differences between the two, the Aqua Appia and the Aqua Anio Vetus shared several features that we can say typify them




as early, Republican-era aqueducts. Both were essentially subterranean lines. Scholars often discuss the underground

segments of Roman aqueducts as a military imperative: underground water lines prevented sabotage of the city’s water supply becausethey were difficult to cut. The argument goes that, as Romantechnology and territorialism advanced, fears of vulnerability tosabotage lessened, enabling construction of above-ground aqueductarchitecture in the form of substructures and arcades. While theremay be times in history when aqueduct lines were cut in military offensives, it seems unlikely that this was the motivating factor for the subterranean character of the first two aqueducts in Rome. Itseems to me to be more fruitful to consider contemporary water engineering history for developments in the initial aqueduct form.

The Roman innovation that created the first aqueduct was one of function, not form. Aqueduct technology in Rome most certainly derived from neighboring Etruscan precedents in water architectureand engineering technology. The Etruscan cuniculus, like the ancientPersian qanat , was a well-known water engineering technology thatrelied on tunneling and served a drainage function. The Persian qanat drained underground springs, most often as a way to clear miningsites of constant seepage, while the cuniculus diverted surface supply or runoff, usually for erosion control, irrigation, or to clear a low pointin a road or pathway (Hodge 2002: 19–49). The Aqua Appia and the

Aqua Anio Vetus very naturally borrowed and innovated the Etruscanprecedent, and may also have borrowed from developments in thecity’s main drain, the Cloaca Maxima, whose initial purpose was tochannel natural runoff and only later became a sewer (Hopkins 2007).The Cloaca had probably been lined with masonry and vaultedsometime in the fourth century BCE. So the architectural form of theaqueduct was not new; it borrowed from local precedents. Theinnovation that created the Roman aqueduct, then, was one of function – that is, the inversion of the drainage function. Rather thandraining an underground water source outward and redirecting it toareas outside an urban center, as the cuniculus generally did, or directing excess surface water out of the center, as the Cloacafunctioned, the aqueduct drained an underground water source intothe city, creating an urban water supply line. We might retrospectively define the Aqua Appia, then, as a ‘transition’ work: between drainageand delivery in purpose; between Etruscan and Roman in buildingstyle; and between a deep tunnel and (eventually) a surface channelin form.

By the same token, we can classify the developments that tookplace between the first and second aqueducts as defining a uniquetype of ‘exceptional’, monumental construction: a grand-scale water






supply line, what we immediately recognize today in such imperialexamples as the Aqua Claudia as a ‘Roman’ style aqueduct (Figure 1).

As I have noted, several features of the Aqua Anio Vetus set new andlasting precedents for the great aqueducts to follow – even if arunning arcade bridge was not yet among those features. Trevor Hodge (2002) points out that, considering the Etruscan precedent, we can conclude that early aqueduct builders of the middle Republic were skilled tunnelers, but that they were not yet bridge-builders.38

Rabun Taylor (2000) also argues that archaeological evidence revealsthe fourth and third centuries BCE to have been far too early for Roman arcade bridge engineering. To the point, Ashby (1935: 36)issues a general caution to historians, to consider the contemporary ‘Roman outlook’, and to remember that ‘it is idle to consider whether

[Romans] could have solved a problem to which they had not appliedtheir minds’. For the first and second aqueducts, the problems thatrequired the arcade bridge as a solution did not yet exist.

CONCLUSIONS

When Appius Claudius Caecus began his censorship in 312 BCE,Rome’s colonizing effort was particularly great; the city wasadvancing aggressive military efforts in the Italian peninsula (Oakley 2005: 665). Roman leaders were developing material means by whichto articulate, formalize and export Rome’s identity to outlyingterritories. By the time building had begun on the second aqueduct, which incidentally was followed a year later by Appius ClaudiusCaecus’ death, Romans were driving toward annexation of coloniesinto an ever-expanding ‘Rome’.

During this period, boundaries were changing, in many different ways. Social and political changes brewing when Appius took thecensorship altered the scope of boundaries inscribing politicaloffices. Appius exploited the plastic nature of these changing politicalboundaries, creating new ways to enter and activate political andpower structures successfully. His impulse to change the body politicby repositioning the arms of censorship, Senate, and voting districts,for example, had the effect of drawing different kinds of boundaries.His acts forced new class structures by manipulating those already inexistence. Since literal tribal boundaries were unlikely to be changed, Appius’ measures instead reorganized ways in which the populacepositioned itself within those tribes. The censor’s reforms shuffledthe classes, prompting new ways for people to behave politically, andthereby interrupted sociopolitical boundaries. This formal alterationof class structures could not help but spur economic change and




incite political shifts – people at several social levels must have feltpressured to act in response to a new momentum of change.

Motivation to act in new ways perhaps came through fear, on thepart of a patrician ruling class desperate not to lose its grasp, or perhaps it came through opportunity, on the part of plebeian classesreaching for new footholds.

In architectural terms, monumental linear structures from thefourth century BCE – wall, road and aqueduct – served simul-taneously to delineate Rome as a bounded and desirable center. The wall literally inscribed that center. The road strengthened the pulltoward that center at the same time that it drew out from it, definingthe urbis Romae not as one destination, but as the destination. Intraversing the countryside, the long, paved highway created a double

bind, tying the resistant Campanian territories more closely to Rome,and ultimately contributing to a readier colonial annexation. Throughits delivery of water to the plebeian Aventine, the aqueduct definedand heightened class and economic distinctions, and in turnsubstantiated censorial policy reforms. It also created a new water resource for the city, which began to alter cultural behavior intransformative ways – socially, politically, militarily and architec-turally. Within the city, Appius Claudius’ tripartite architecturalintersection of wall, road and aqueduct at the Porta Capena amplifiedand dramatized the gate in the city wall as a commemorative locale.Later, the second aqueduct’s funding with war profits coincided witha dramatic increase in Roman road building and a rapid settlement of colonies. By then, possibilities for limitless expansion were fortified by the Roman city’s new identity as the center of a larger, and possibly unbounded, Roman state, and also by a new cultural concept of alimitless water supply. The ‘exceptional’ nature of Roman identity – toreturn to DeLaine’s term – was symbolized in monumentalarchitectural forms that were eventually exported in order to‘Romanize’ new provinces. Specific types of architecture becameprimary, visual, identifying marks for new Roman territories. Amongthem, the paved highway and the aqueduct were essential.

Appius Claudius Caecus, the statesman whom history holdsresponsible for these two new forms of public works architecture,exemplifies a type of mid-Republican Roman politician who calculatedlong-term ways to drive specific goals. In the final analysis, it is notpossible to assess with real accuracy the degree to which AppiusClaudius Caecus’ contributions should be lauded as individualachievements. As always in history, what historical writers report to betrue falls somewhere on a continuum defined by action, intention andhindsight. In an examination of several subtexts in ancient literary andmodern historical accounts regarding Appius Claudius Caecus and the






gens Claudia, Oakley (2005: 350–89, esp. 665–7) discovers noconsensus. Evidence shows that Appius Claudius and the Claudian

clan have drawn both fire and praise throughout history. Regarding Appius Claudius Caecus himself, Oakley underscores the statesman’suncommon historical prestige in this way: ‘Livy describes no other censorship at such length, nor do sources for early Roman history suggest that in the period before 293 any other censorship was of comparable significance’ (Oakley 2005: 353–5). He continues:

[C]onventional criteria do not suffice for judging the career of Appius.Unusually for a Roman, his main claim to fame and significance comesfrom neither a consulship nor a dictatorship nor from exploits on thefield of war, but from an extraordinary censorship in which he far

surpassed what any contemporary achieved in internal politics … . Itsfame rested primarily on two works of civil engineering, the con-struction of the Via Appia and the construction of the Appian aqueduct,the magnitude of which was paralleled in earlier Roman history only by the construction of Rome’s own walls. (Oakley 2005: 355)

Appius never triumphed, and thus he failed to meet one of theprincipal criteria for historical Roman glory. Yet, as I have pointed out,ancient historians laud Caecus’ speech to the Senate duringthe Pyrrhian war, thereby allying him to one of the major commemorative triumphs in Roman history. In so doing, they associate him with the decision to devote profits from that victory toRome’s second aqueduct project. I suggest that the Pyrrhian victory’sconnection to aqueduct history adds not only to Caecus’ distinctionin the historical record, but, more importantly, it highlights thesignificance of the aqueduct’s connection to the history of Romanconquest, commemoration and expansion during this period. AppiusClaudius Caecus comes to be credited directly with the first aqueduct,and indirectly with the second. He is tied historically not only to thesingle set of architectural precedents which carry his name, the Aqua Appia and the Via Appia, but also to a developing tradition, of usingaqueducts as political, economic, military and commemorative toolsin Rome’s growing territorial conquest. He emerges as a prototypicalRoman politician. His actions, to whatever degree historians havereported and understood them, created a corpus of public worksinnovations that ultimately were fitted like cultural keystones into anoverarching middle- Republican ideology of territorial and culturaldominion. Developments in Roman aqueduct innovation over timecontributed to a political culture that came to value the control of water and of space, and that laid claims on Nature and humanmovement in monumental-scale, architectural terms.





NOTES

1. Attributed to Sallust or a pseudo-Sallust, in Ad Caesarem Senem de Republica Oratorio ( Speech to Caesar, in his old age, on the state ),i. I. 2.

2. The ideas in this chapter originated in an Art History and Classicsgraduate seminar on the Roman Republic, directed by Dr Penelope J. E.Davies at the University of Texas at Austin during Fall 2003. I havereported on the work previously in two conference papers: ‘Water andPower in Ancient Rome: Aqueduct as Intervention in a RisingHegemonic State’, presented at the 4th International Water History Association Conference of the UNESCO International HydrologicalProgramme at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France (December 2005);and ‘Rome’s First Aqueduct Reconsidered: Appius Claudius Caecus and

the Aqua Appia of 312 BC’, presented at the 108th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, California (January 2007). I thank Penelope J. E. Davies, John R. Clarke, Rabun Taylor,Garrett Fagan, Christer Bruun, Andrew Riggsby, Donald C. Jackson,Christopher Littlefield, John N. N. Hopkins, Lisa Marie Mignone, DylanSailor, Robert R. Chenault, Eleanor M. Rust, Sania Shifferd, PhaedraSiebert and David Huang for generous assistance during research and writing. I am indebted to Classics and Interlibrary Loan librarians at UT Austin, to the library staff at the American Academy in Rome, and toeditors Terje Tvedt and Terje Oestigaard. I completed research for thisproject as a Visiting Scholar in residence at the American Academy inRome in 2008. My article title reflects a general scholarly debt toBentmann and Muller, The Villa as Hegemonic Architecture for theformation of some of my ideas and approaches.

3. No contract for any water works project survives. For a discussion of public administration and private contractors for ancient Rome’s water supply, see Bruun (2003). For water management in the Republic, seePeachin (2004: 97–102).

4. Bruun (1991: 14) reports that Frontinus ‘has been regarded as quite anunusual senatorial official, since normally senators did not bother toachieve personal expert knowledge of the administrative fields they were allocated’. Peachin (2004: 1–2) accepts the preference of Rodgers(2003: 15–20) to define Frontinus’ treatise as an ‘administrative guide’rather than a ‘technical handbook’, remarking that Frontinus’ book‘provides nothing like a comprehensive treatment of Rome’s water supply, or its management; and beyond that, there are varioustroublesome errors, inconsistencies and discrepancies embodied by thetreatise’.

5. For assessment of Frontinus’ reliability, of literary traditions pertainingto reading his text, and of water administration in antiquity, see Bruun(1991: 10–19), Evans (1994: 63), Blackman and Hodge (2001: 137–50)and Peachin (2004: 1–2). For examination of Roman writing onadministrative subjects, see Peachin (2004: 12–35). For Frontinus’sources and the history of his manuscript, see Bruun (1991: 381–4). For





a historical examination of the office of curator aquarum, see Bruun(1991: 174–89).

6. At his worst, modern scholars assess him to be an ‘officious andinsolent patrician’. At his best, he is characterized as ‘prolific andindefatigable’, as ‘the dominant figure in Roman public life in the yearson either side of 300 BCE’, and as ‘the first “personalità viva” to beencountered in Roman history’. Respectively: MacBain (1980: 360),citing both classical tradition and modern scholarship; Cornell (1995:373); and Staveley (1959: 410, citing de Sanctis: O.C. II, 229). Oakley (2005: 366–7) concludes, after analyzing modern scholarly assessmentof Appius Claudius in light of ancient annalistic tradition (357–75, esp.665–75), that ‘on the interpretation of [Appius’] censorship noconsensus has emerged’.

7. The wall built during the Republic is generally referred to as the

‘Servian’ wall by ancient writers, though it was not built during the timeof Servius Tullius, which the name meant to imply (Livy: 6.32.1; Cornell1995, 198–9). I will use the terms ‘Republican’ and ‘Servian’interchangeably when I refer to the city wall of the Republic. Thesecond complete wall circuit of Rome, the Aurelian Wall, of whichsignificant portions still remain today, was built during Empire, andcircumscribes an area much larger than the Republican wall, whosegates and remains are almost completely obliterated.

8. According to Frontinus, the aqueduct crossed the valley between theCaelian and Aventine hills on 60 passus (about 300 Roman feet) of ‘substructures and arcade’, then went back underground through the Aventine to where it began distribution ‘at the bottom of the Clivus

Publicii at the Porta Trigemina’.9. Scholarship is inconclusive on this final segment of the aqueduct’s

route, and it is not the aim of this chapter to examine this question fully.See Mignone (2010: forthcoming) for a closer examination of theevidence; our conclusions concur (personal communication). Mostmaps tracing the route of the Aqua Appia show a westward turn farther to the south of the Circus, directly beneath the Aventine Hill, with theaqueduct terminating at the Tiber near the foot of the Clivus dellaRocca Savello. This placement is probably signaled by Frontinus’ claimthat the aqueduct’s terminus was near the Porta Trigemina, which hascommonly been assumed to have been near the current-day foot of theancient Clivus della Rocca Savello. Mignone argues persuasively for theplacement of the Porta Trigemina farther north, nearer the CircusMaximus and the Forum Boarium, which places the terminus of the Aqua Appia in closer range to the Forum Boarium with ample space andbustling mercantile activity. By contrast, the cramped riverside cliffsnearer the foot of the Clivus della Rocca Savello argue against thedelivery of a large-scale water supply here. Figuring the outlet to be inor near the Forum Boarium also conjoins the aqueduct with the terminiof Rome’s drains from this period, the Cloaca of the Circus Maximusand the Cloaca Maxima, whose outlets empty directly into the Tiber after flowing beneath the Forum Boarium and the Republican temples




there (Mignone 2010: forthcoming). The Forum Boarium placementalso concurs with Ashby’s (1935) insistence that one necessary end-use

for ancient aqueduct lines, which by nature were in a constant state of overflow, was street and sewer flushing. A further point to consider infuture research is that of religious practices involved in human water diversion. Hopkins (2007) argues that during the Republic religiousimplications informed the diversion of natural waters into the CloacaMaxima. The terminus of the Appian aqueduct may have concurred with certain religious or other cultural practices regarding the diversionof sacred water. This and other related points await future study.

10. Ferenczy (1967: 36–7), for example, declares the aqueduct to bemeeting ‘hygienic demands’ for ‘healthy water’; Cornell (1995: 373)says the aqueduct ‘brought fresh water into the city’; and Staveley (1959: 430) makes an unelaborated comment that the aqueduct was

needed to meet ‘the increased demand’ for water. The likelihood thatthis water may have been used for large-scale commercial or industrialpurposes is mentioned by a few scholars, whom I cite within thischapter when appropriate, but the point of end-use for the Aqua Appia’s water supply is often assumed to be domestic and hygienic, andhas not been discussed in depth.

11. Frontinus: I. 4. For discussion of Rome’s water table and local culturalpractices regarding water in antiquity, see, Herschel (1913: 130–40).

12. Early or modest bathing complexes could function without aconnection to an aqueduct, but in any case, not until the mid-firstcentury BCE had baths ‘become a familiar fact of life at Rome’ (Fagan1999: 48–50, 73). The earliest aqueduct able to supply a significant

water source to baths, then, would have been Rome’s third aqueduct,the Aqua Marcia of 144 BCE – and the first two aqueducts might thenhave been put to expanded uses after this time, since Marcius was giventhe task not only to build a new aqueduct but to renovate the existingones. The luxury argument for aqueducts applies, as well, to the later development of large elite villas and gardens: ‘The task of providingaqueduct-fed irrigation, fountains, and baths to suburban villas andgardens probably began with Agrippa’ (Taylor 2000: 154). The first twoaqueducts of Rome, then, served some other purpose than water provision for baths, gardens, fountains or villas.

13. Scholars conflict on exact dates and offices. Cornell (1995: 340–4)summarizes generally that ‘a system of power-sharing began in 342BCE’. Starr (1980: 2) contributes: ‘The last plebeian success was thepassage of the lex Hortensia in 287, which gave the citizen assembliesunfettered powers in election, legislation, and the declaration of war or acceptance of peace. Thenceforth Rome was technically a democracy.’ Appius Claudius Caecus’ mentor was P. Publilius Philo.

14. Significantly, however, on the issue of Appius’ disposition towardplebeians, Oakley (2005: 366–7) proposes that ancient references(specifically Livy IX) to ‘Appius’ inherited superbia and anti-plebeianfeeling … should be regarded as unhistorical’. Oakley here also notesthat ‘modern scholars almost invariably reflect those parts of Livy’s






account of the censorship which portray Appius as anti-plebeian’. Inother words, Appius Claudius’ political support for plebeians during the

312 censorship may be regarded as authentic, and my argumentsupposes this to be so.15. See also Coarelli (1988: 111, note 6) and Ferenczy (1967: 37). For a

discussion of Appius and Plautius’ handling of the nationalization of thetemple of Hercules and of the Flutists strike of 311 and the censors’ rolein religious matters, see Palmer (1965). Harris (1979: 62, note 3) differs,citing Cassola on this matter, arguing that ‘Ap. Claudius Caecus’intervention as censor in the cult of Hercules ad Aram Maximumsimply does not “prove his interest in commercial activities” … muchless that his views about external policy were determined by thisinterest’. Regarding the Via Appia (but failing to mention the aqueduct),Cassola (1962: 129) does conclude that the censor’s eponymous road

‘was destined to facilitate political, economic and military rapportbetween the two cities’ of Rome and Capua (my translation).

16. Italian archaeologist Lanciani ([1881] 1975) located the Porta Capenagate at the foot of the Caelian hill just above the valley floor south of theCircus Maximus’ curve; Lanciani followed Parker’s suggestion that hehad found the gate’s ruins in 1867. Parker’s vintage photograph of theexcavated arch he identified at excavations in the area of the PortaCapena is held in the photographic archives at the American Academy inRome; his reconstructive drawings are included in his 1867 publication.

17. See Cornell’s discussion (1995: 198–202) of the assumptions historianshave made regarding city walls over time, especially his interpretation of what he considers ‘well founded’ and ‘unfounded’ historical prejudices.

18. Also refer to Hodge (2002: 6).19. Esther Van Deman’s photographs of the Via Appia’s viaduct bridge at

Ariccia are located in the photographic archives at the American Academy in Rome. This section of the Via Appia may not becontemporary with the initial construction of the Via Appia as VanDeman’s notes on the photographs appear to imply; Adam (1994: 284)gives it a second century BCE date, which, though later, still providesevidence that arcade bridges were not in regular use during the middleRepublic.

20. I am adapting an idea of ancient boundaries from Izzet (2000: 34–53).Thanks to Sania Shifferd for drawing my attention to it.

21. The second aqueduct was built in 272 BCE, within 40 years of the first.The third aqueduct, the Aqua Marcia, was not begun for another 130 years, in 144 BCE. In all, 11 aqueducts were built in the ancient periodin the city of Rome.

22. ‘The construction of Appius’ road and aqueduct would have providedpaid labor for the poor … ; it should not be doubted that in this period,in which the city was growing, the urban poor comprised a significantnumber’ (Oakley 2005: 367, note 7).

23. Despite Ferenczy’s mistaken assumption, as I have discussed above,that a need for ‘healthy’ water was a motive for the aqueduct, I concur with his assessment of the censor’s broader motives.




24. Also see Ashby (1935: 39): ‘There was no means of compelling arecalcitrant proprietor to sell. Neither in [aqueducts] nor in other

public works were there rights of expropriation.’ See also Taylor (2000),especially chapters titled ‘Aqueduct Planning and the Law’, and‘ Dominum vs. Imperium: Was Expropriation by Reason of Public Utility Possible Under Roman Law?’ See also Robinson (1980: 50–2) for a brief summary of property law in relation to aqueduct building.

25. See also Humm (2005: 134–46).26. The Claudii figure prominently in Taylor’s ‘List of Republican Senators

with Tribes’, where she discusses at some length evidence for thecomplicated strategic registration of Claudii into tribes such as thePalatina and Quirina, presumably moves that aimed to enhance thefamily’s status and expand and extend its political influence. Judgingfrom Taylor’s thorough study, the gens Claudia, and specifically the

name of Appius Claudius, carried a good deal of historical and social weight during the Republic (Taylor 1960: 35–6, 133, 270–1, 284–6).Substantiating this is Cornell’s index (1995: 495), for example, whichcontains eight entries for Claudian names. Five of those entries listmultiple page references for men named Appius Claudius; all five of them served as consul, over three centuries during the Republic. Another entry refers to Claudius the emperor.

27. See also Oakley (2005: 350–7) and Humm (2005: 5–12).28. MacBain (1980: 360–1) argues that ‘it is due … to the long career of the

prolific and indefatigable Appius Caecus … that the gens Claudia risesto the prominence which it will maintain in the following centuries of the Republic and Principate’. See the family tree for the Claudii in

Humm (2005: 662–3).29. Thanks to Lisa Marie Mignone for her suggestions on the development

of this question.30. Moreover, recall that during the time of his censorship, Appius Claudius

did not yet carry his cognomen ‘Caecus’, meaning ‘blind’, which wasadopted after he lost his sight as an aged man; see also Humm (2005:484–5). Humm (2005), Taylor (1960) and Cornell (1995), among others,trace the incidence of the name ‘Appius Claudius’ through ancientRoman history, particularly after the death of Appius Claudius Caecus.

31. Thanks to Phaedra Siebert for translation assistance from the French. Any errors arising from adjustments and paraphrasing are my own.

32. See also a discussion by Humm (2005: 483–540) of Hellenisticinfluences during this period, with a particular focus on AppiusClaudius, in a chapter titled ‘L’Hellénisme d’Appius Claudius Caecus’.Examination of Hellenistic traditions in Rome falls outside the purview of the present chapter.

33. For discussions, descriptions and maps of triumphal procession routesand their variations through Roman history, see Favro (1994: 151–64).See also Holliday (2002: 22–30) in a section titled ‘The Development of the Triumph during the Republic’.

34. See Harris (1979) and Gruen (1992), and their sources, for example, on war and identity during the middle Republic.






35. Plutarch ( Pyrrhus: 19), and Appian ( Samnite History: 10.2). For ancientreports of Caecus’ speech, Oakley (2005: 353) also cites, for example

Enn. Ann. 199–200, Cic. Cat. Mai. 16, Brut. 61, Plut. Pyrrh. 18. 1–19.5,Pompon. Dig. i.2.2.2.37, among others. Also refer to Humm (2005: 6,note 7) for ancient references to the speech. Regarding the Romans’drive to expand during the middle Republic, see Polybius: i. 6.6, wherethe ancient historian describes Roman attacks on Italian territories after 280 BCE and reports that the Romans ‘attacked the rest of Italy not as if it were a foreign country, but as if it rightfully belonged to them’. Harris(1979: 105–7) understands ancient reports of Caecus’ speech toindicate that by this time ‘Romans had a clear notion of the power they exercised over their Italian allies, and … by the last stage of the Italian wars they regarded all of Italy, in Polybius’ phrase, as their privateproperty. For a long time the res Romana grew with relatively little use

of annexation, and when provinces began to be created beyond Italy,there were always states outside their boundaries which were more or less under Roman power … . Those who have denied that there wasany real drive at Rome to increase the size of the empire have very often claimed to settle the issue by arguing that the Senate did not planthe expansion of the empire over long periods … . What is in dispute isnot whether there was planning of strategy over long periods – for which no ancient state was equipped – but whether there was a strongcontinuing drive to expand. These non-existent Roman plans are anartificial target … . We should turn our attention instead to the directevidence concerning Rome’s drive to expand’ during the Republic.

36. Frontinus, 6. Frontinus reports that, two years later, the senate

re-appointed Curius Dentatus, who had contracted the aqueductoriginally, as joint aqueduct commissioner with Flavius Flaccus, tocomplete the two-year-old project. Five days after this appointment,Dentatus curiously died, leaving Flaccus to receive credit for thefinished project, according to Frontinus. Ashby reports that ‘after Curius’ death, a fresh pair of censors was appointed in 269’, but he doesnot name them. (Ashby 1935: 54–5; 54, note 7. Note that Ashby correctsFrontinus’ mistaken identification of Lucius Papirius Cursor as thecensor who contracted the Anio Vetus with Curius Dentatus. Thecensor with Dentatus when he let the first contracts to begin the Aqua Anio Vetus was Papirius Praetextatus. Lucius Papirius Cursor was consulat this time, not censor. Thanks to Penelope Davies for helping me toclarify this point.) Flaccus went on to become triumphator over the Volsinii in 264 BCE; in the same year he served as consul with AppiusClaudius Caudex, grandson of Appius Claudius Caecus (Harris 1979:184–5; Cornell 1995: 388; Holliday 2002: 31). Clarification of the playersin the building of the Aqua Anio Vetus awaits further research.

37. Oakley (2005: 353) discusses ancient source accounts of the speech, warning that they may not be reliable, and even that the speech may have been ‘bogus’. Whether or not Appius Claudius Caecus’ speechoccurred in fact does not alter the importance to aqueduct history of the related events that took place in 271 and 272 BCE – the Roman





victory over Pyrrhus, the triumphal procession that celebrated that victory, inversion of that war’s profits into the second aqueduct’s

construction, and the fact that Caecus was still alive and influential.38. ‘The Aqua Appia was itself entirely underground and in engineering, if not in purpose or function, can have differed but little from an Etruscancuniculus’ (Hodge 2002: 47).

REFERENCES

Adam, Jean-Pierre 1994. Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, trans. Anthony Mathews. Indiana University Press. Bloomington.

Aicher, Peter J. 1995. Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome.Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc. Wauconda, IL.

Ashby, Thomas 1935. The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome. Clarendon Press.Oxford.

Bentmann, Reinhard and Müller, Michael 1992. The Villa as Hegemonic Architecture. (Originally published in 1970 as Die Villa als Herrschaftsarchitektur , Frankfurt am Main, 1970.) Trans. Tim Spenceand David Cravin. Humanities Press International. Atlantic Highlands.New Jersey.

Blackman, Deane R. and Hodge, Trevor 2001. Engineering Practice:Planning. In Blackman, D. R. and Hodge, A. T. (eds), Frontinus’ Legacy: Essays on Frontinus’ de aquis urbis Romae. University of MichiganPress. Ann Arbor: 27–38.

Bruun, Christer 1991. The Water Supply of Ancient Rome: A Study of Roman

Imperial Administration. Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters(Societas Scientiarum Fennica). Helsinki.

Bruun, Christer 2003. ‘Medius fidius … tantam pecuniam Nicomedensesperdiderint!’ Roman Water Supply, Public Administration, and PrivateContractors. In Aubert, J. J. (ed.), Tâches publiques et enterprise privée dans le monde romain. Université de Neuchâtel. Geneva.

Cassola, Filippo 1962. I gruppi politici Romani nel III secolo A.C. Universitédegli Studi di Trieste. Trieste.

Claridge, Amanda 1998. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide to Rome.Oxford University Press. New York.

Coarelli, Filipo 1988. Il Foro Boario: dale origini alla fine della Repubblica.Quasar. Rome.

Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars, c. 1000–264 BC. Routledge. New York.

DeLaine, Janet 2002. The Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus and Roman Attitudesto Exceptional Construction. Papers of the British School at Rome. Vol.70: 205–30.

Esposito, Carla 1986. Il trionfo dell’acqua: immagini e forme dell’acquanelle arti figurative (exh. cat., Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica,Calcografia). Roma Paleani. Rome.

Evans, Harry B. 1994. Water Distribution in Ancient Rome: The Evidence of Frontinus. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.





Evans, Harry B. 2002. Aqueduct Hunting in the Seventeenth Century: Raffaello Fabretti’s De aquis et aquaeductibus veteris Romae. University

of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.Fabretti, Raffaello 1972 [1788/1680]. De aquis et aquaeductibus veteris Romae: dissertations tres. In Besterman, T. (ed.), Printed Sources of Western Art (3). Collegium Graphicum. Portland, OR.

Fagan, Garrett G. 1999. Bathing in Public in the Roman World. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.

Favro, Diane 1994. The Street Triumphant: The Urban Impact of RomanTriumphal Parades. In Celik, Z., Favro, D. and Ingersoll, R. (eds), Streets:Critical Perspectives on Public Space. University of California Press.Berkeley: 151–64.

Ferenczy, E. 1967. The Censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus. Acta Antigua: Academiae Acientiarum Hungaricae. Vol. XV: 27–61.

Garbrecht, Günther 1982. Wasserversorgung im antiken Rom: Sextus Iulius Frontinus, Curator Aquarum. Munich.

Grimal, Pierre 1961 [1944]. Les aqueducs de la ville de Rome. Sociétéd’éditión ‘Les Belles Lettres’. Paris.

Gruen, Erich S. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome.Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Harris, William V. 1979. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 BC. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

Herschel, Clemens 1913 [1899]. The Two Books on the Water Supply of theCity of Rome of Sextus Julius Frontinus. (Includes ‘a photographicreproduction of the sole original Latin manuscript’.) Lomans Green &Co. New York.

Hodge, A. Trevor 2002 [1992]. Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply.Duckworth Press. London.

Holliday, Peter J. 1997. Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function,Development, and Reception. The Art Bulletin. Vol. 79, No. 1:130–47.

Holliday, Peter J. 2002. The Origins of Roman Historical Commemorationin the Visual Arts. Cambridge University Press.

Hopkins, John N. N. 2007. ‘The Cloaca Maxima and the MonumentalManipulation of Water in Rome’. The Waters of Rome. No. 4 (January 2007). Online at Aquae Urbis Romae: The Waters of the City of RomeProject, ed. Katherine Wentworth Rinne, University of Virginia:Charlottesville. www.iath.virginia.edu/rome (accessed 30 April2009).

Humm, Michel 1996. Appius Claudius Caecus et la Construction de la Via Appia. Mélages de L’Ecole Français de Rome (Antiquité): MEFRA. Vol.108, No. 2: 693–746.

Humm, Michel 2005. Appius Claudius Caecus: La République accomplie.École Française de Rome. Rome.

Izzet, Vedia 2000. Tuscan Order: The Development of Etruscan Sanctuary Architecture. In Bispham, E. and Smith, C. (eds) Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy. Edinburgh University Press. London:34–53.




Lanciani, Rodolfo 1975 [1881]. Topografia di Roma antica. I commentarii diFrontino intorno le acque e gli acquedotti. MemAccLind. Vol. 3, No. 4:

213–616.MacBain, Bruce 1980. Appius Claudius Caecus and the Via Appia. TheClassical Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 2: 356–72.

Mignone, Lisa Marie, 2010 forthcoming. The Aventine Hill in the Roman Republic. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Momigliano, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds) 1988–93. Storia di Roma. Vol. 1–4.Giulio Einaudi. Torino.

Oakley, Stephen P. 2005. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI – X: Volume III, Book IX. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

Pace, Pietrantonio 1983. Gli Acquedotti di Roma e il De aquaeducto di Frontino: Con testo critico versione e commento. Art Studio S. Eligio.Rome.

Palmer, Robert E. A. 1965. The Censors of 312 BC and the State Religion. Historia. Vol. 14, No. 3: 293–324.

Parker, John Henry 1867. The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, Traced fromtheir Sources to their Mouths, Chiefly by the Work of Frontinus; Verified by a Survey of the Ground. John Murray. London.

Peachin, Michael 2004. Frontinus and the curae of the curator aquarum.Franz Steiner Verlag. Stuttgart.

Pisani Sartorio, Giuseppina, 1986. Il trionfo dell’acqua: acque e acquedotti a Roma, IV sec. a.C. – XX sec. (exh. cat. Museo della Civiltà Romana).Roma Paleani. Rome.

Robinson, Olivia 1980. The Water Supply of Rome. In Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris. Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis. Rome: 44–86.

Rodgers, Robert H. 2003. Frontinus: De aquaeductu urbis Romae.Cambridge University Press. New York.

Ryan, Francis X. 1998. Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate.Steiner. Stuttgart.

Shuckburgh, Evelyn (ed.) 1909. Letter to Appius Claudius Pulcher CCXLIII(F III, 7). In M. Tullius Cicero: Letters, ed. Gregory R. Crane. Online atPerseus Digital Library Project, Tufts University, Boston. www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Cic.+Fam.+3.7 (accessed7 March 2008).

Stambaugh, John E. 1988. The Ancient Roman City. Johns HopkinsUniversity Press. Baltimore, MD.

Starr, Chester G. 1980. The Beginnings of Imperial Rome: Rome in the Mid-Republic. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.

Staveley, E. Stuart 1959. The Political Aims of Appius Claudius Caecus. Historia. Vol. 8, No. 1: 410–33.

Taylor, Lily Ross 1960. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic. American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs 20. Rome.

Taylor, Rabun 2000. Public Needs and Private Pleasures: Water Distribution, the Tiber River and the Urban Development of Ancient Rome. L’Erma di Bretschneider. Rome.

Van Deman, Esther Boise 1934. The Building of the Roman Aqueducts.Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington, DC.



Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture. a Case From the Roman Republic

Documents

Transcript of Aqueduct as Hegemonic Architecture. a Case From the Roman Republic