No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
VESPASIAN'S AQVAE DVCTVS IN OSTIA AND OSTIA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ROME
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 April 2018
Extract
In Ostia, Rome's harbour-town, several parts of an inscription which reveals that the Emperor Vespasian promoted the town's water supply were found in 1983. Eventually references to the text began to circulate, then one more fragment turned up and in 2006 the formal and official publication of the text took place, for which the scholarly world is grateful to Alfredo Marinucci.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2018
References
1 Marinucci, A., ‘L'iscrizione dell'acquedotto ostiense’, MEFRA 118 (2006), 509–10Google Scholar = AE 2006, 262. I am not aware of any other discussion of the inscription after the editio princeps appeared, although it has been referred to on several occasions, for example, in Bukowiecki, É., Déssales, H. and Dubouloz, J., Ostie, l'eau dans la ville. Chateaux d'eau et réseau d'adduction (Coll. ÉFR 402) (Rome, 2008), 57Google Scholar; cf. note 3.
2 An account in Marinucci (n. 1), 509 n. 122; in addition, for instance, see Horster, M., Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser. Untersuchungen zu Inschriftenpraxis und Bautätigkeit in Städten des westlichen Imperium Romanum in der Zeit des Prinzipats (Stuttgart, 2001), 270Google Scholar. For understandable reasons many of these early reports did not transmit the correct reading.
3 See Marinucci (n. 1), 509 n. 124 for the following description and measurements of the inscribed plaque, preserved in the Lapidario Ostiense at Ostia Antica (inv. 44139): plaque of white marble bordered by a frame, overall width and height 188.5 x 75 cm, thickness 9.2 / 10.9 cm. Width and height of the inscribed area inside the frame: 170.5+ x 57 cm. It needs to be stressed that, as is also clearly seen on the photo (Fig. 1), the right side of the plaque is lost, wherefore the original width of both plaque and inscription is unknown. The original presentation was repeated in Marinucci, A., Disiecta membra. Iscrizioni latine da Ostia e Porto 1981–2009 (Ostia, 2012), 53Google Scholar. In the following, references are given only to the ed. princeps, unless Marinucci's later treatment brings novelties.
4 ILS 218 = CIL 6.1257 = CIL 6 part 8.2 page 4365.
5 This number is based on a study of the photo in Marinucci (n. 1), 510 fig. 49 and the measurements given at page 509 n. 124, cited above in n. 3. The smaller font size here used for line 3 attempts to replicate the realities of the inscription.
6 Marinucci (n. 1), 510 n. 131, based on Zanovello, P., ‘Le fonti epigrafiche’, in Riera, I. (ed.), Utilitas necessaria. Sistemi idraulici nell'Italia romana (Milan, 1994), 99–143Google Scholar, especially 115. Though that work is rather impressionistic and based on only a handful of examples, the conclusion seems by and large warranted.
7 Marinucci (n. 1), 510 n. 131, with reference to a previous view expressed by Fausto Zevi; but see now Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M., Caldelli, M.L., Zevi, F., Epigrafia latina. Ostia: cento iscrizioni in contesto (Rome, 2010), 147–8 no. 27Google Scholar, especially 148: ‘costruì, o ricostruì’.
8 One such assumption would be that ductus is an error for the accusative ductum. AE 1982, 153a–b = AE 1989, 144–5, two identical Imperial inscriptions from Minturnae, of Severan date, contain an object error: … uia … sua peq(unia) strauer(unt). There are two intervening lines between object and verb, however. For the ablative, and the possibility that in colonia could be used to denote ‘goal of motion’, no such case is cited in Mackay, C.S., ‘Expressions to indicate goal of motion in the colloquial Latin of the early Empire’, ZPE 136 (1999), 229–39Google Scholar. In addition, we can expect the Vespasianic text to contain anything but colloquial Latin. Cf. n. 42 below.
9 Sometimes, though, the dative occurs. Thus we find urbi restituit and urbi restitutas, respectively, in the inscriptions on the Porta Maggiore commemorating the activities by Vespasian and Titus (CIL 6.1257–8 = ILS 218, quoted below in the text); aquam ciuitati Sardianorum … [adduxit] in CIL 3.409 = CIG 3454; aqua uic[o] Augustor[um] Verecundens(ium) perducta est in CIL 8.4205 = 18495.
10 See Gildersleeve, B.L. and Lodge, G., Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar (New York, 1895 3, repr. Wauconda IL, 2003), 246–8 §385Google Scholar; Menge, H., Burkard, T., Schauer, M., Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik (Darmstadt, 2000), 519 §389 4aGoogle Scholar; Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C., Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Satzlehre (Darmstadt, 1962 4), 1.348–54, cf. 559–60Google Scholar; Hofmann, J.B. and Szantyr, A., Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Handbuch d. Altertumswissenschaft II 2.2) (Munich, 1965), 145–8Google Scholar.
11 Gildersleeve and Lodge (n. 10), 247 point out that ‘Verbs of Placing and kindred significations take the Abl. with in, to designate the results of the motion’. Of the examples cited—ponere, locare, collocare, statuere, constituere, considere, defigere, demergere, imprimere, insculpere, inscribere, incidere, includere—the verb constituere would in fact be a possibility for our Ostian inscription; similarly Menge et al. (n. 10), 527–9 §393.
12 Compare the expression used in a senatus consultum from 11 b.c.e.: de numero publicorum salientium qui in urbe essent (Frontin. Aq. 104.1).
13 See CIL 14.5309.9 for a lead pipe naming the Emperor Gaius, which is the earliest datable source; cf. Bruun, C., The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration (Helsinki, 1991), 285Google Scholar; Bruun, C., ‘L'amministrazione imperiale di Ostia e Portus’, in Bruun, C. and Zevi, A. Gallina (edd.), Ostia e Portus nelle loro relazioni con Roma (Acta IRF 27) (Rome, 2002), 161–92, at 170–3Google Scholar for the dated Imperial lead pipes; Cébeillac-Gervasoni et al. (n. 7), 147. The suggestion that the first aqueduct be dated to the reign of Augustus seems somewhat uncertain, for the only evidence adduced is a water pipe, apparently without text, in an allegedly Augustan archaeological stratum; see Schmölder, A., ‘Ravitaillement en eau’, in Descoeudre, J.-P. (ed.), Ostia port et porte de la Rome antique (exhibition catalogue Musée Rath) (Geneva, 2001), 101–7Google Scholar, especially 101 n. 12; ead., Brunnen in den Städten des westlichen römischen Reichs (Palilia 19) (Wiesbaden, 2009), 89 n. 43Google Scholar. The date may be correct, but there is nothing to show that the fistula was conveying water from an aqueduct. In Tata, M. Bedello and Bukowiecki, E. et al. , ‘Le acque e gli acquedotti nel territorio Ostiense e Portuense’, MEFRA 118 (2006), 463–526, at 485Google Scholar there is a reference to aqueduct remains of Augustan date, but the evidence is ambiguous: cf. ‘comunque nei primi decenni del I secolo d.C.’. Bukowiecki et al. (n. 1), 56 date the first aqueduct to the period 30–50 c.e.
14 See the various reports in Bedello Tata et al. (n. 13), with page 465 for a convenient table of the dated remains. The first castellum aquae by the Porta Romana is dated to the reign of Domitian by Bukowiecki et al. (n. 1), 56.
15 Marinucci (n. 1), 510.
16 Marinucci (n. 1), 509 n. 124 gives the following measurements of the letter size: 9.7 cm in line 1, 10.1–10.4 cm in line 2, and 7–7.2 cm in line 3. The preserved inscribed space measures 57 cm in height and 170 cm in width, and thus the original total width of the inscription must have been some 3 metres at least, to judge from how much is missing of line 1.
17 Marinucci (n. 3), 54.
18 Gaius’ official name as emperor was C. Caesar Augustus Germanicus. His gentilicium was Iulius, a name which he inherited from his father Germanicus (adopted by Tiberius in 4 b.c.e.) and which he shared with his siblings; see Kienast, D., Eck, W. and Heil, M., Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt, 2017 6), 74–5, 78Google Scholar. Thus ‘Claudia’ was not a name that Gaius would ever have chosen for a public construction project that he promoted.
19 See below, nn. 26 and 27, for references.
20 Rodgers, R.H., Frontinus, De Aquaeductu Vrbis Romae (Cambridge, 2004), 121–2Google Scholar.
21 Del Chicca, F., Frontino De Aquae Ductu Vrbis Romae (Rome, 2004), xxxiv–xxxvGoogle Scholar.
22 See TLL 2.364.53–365.7 s.v. aquae ductus I.
23 The expression aquae ductus occurs frequently in the Digest in connection with servitudes; see Dig. 8.1.14.2, 8.1.17, 8.2.28, 8.3.1 pr., etc. On the concept, Colognesi, L. Capogrossi, Ricerche sulla struttura delle servitù d'acqua in diritto romano (Milan, 1966)Google Scholar is a classic treatment; cf. Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Transactions of the Amer. Philos. Soc. n.s. 43.2) (Philadelphia, 1953, repr. 1991), 703Google Scholar.
24 These four rights are specifically mentioned in Dig. 8.1.5 (Gaius); 8.3.1 pr. (Ulpian); cf. Johnston, D., Roman Law in Context (Cambridge, 1999), 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Most of the material comes from Italy and N. Africa, which is unsurprising considering the richness of inscriptions in these regions. The precise writing has been controlled in the original publications throughout; no secondary source avoids errors in the issue of concern here. This includes the Epigraphic Database Clauss Slaby (www.manfredclauss.de), which is mistaken on whether to divide or not in a handful of cases. Besides the database, which contains almost all the instances listed above, one finds collections in De Ruggiero, E., ‘Aqua – Aquae ductus’, DizEpi 1 (1895), 537–65Google Scholar (somewhat unreliable); TLL 2.364.32–6 s.v. aquaeductium and 2.364.53–65 s.v. aquae ductus I; Faida, A. Bel, ‘Les aqueducs de l'Afrique romaine’, in Controle et distribution de l'eau dans le Maghreb antique et médiéval (Coll. ÉFR 426) (Rome, 2009), 123–41Google Scholar (the writing of the term is often erratic). Useful material is also collected in the doctoral dissertation by L. De Rosa, ‘Da Acelum a Volsinii: gli acquedotti romani in Italia: committenza, finanziamento, gestione’ (Diss., Naples, 2009). The word aqueductium appearing on the Forma Vrbis of Rome (CIL 6.29844.28) may have a different meaning: see C. Bruun, ‘Aqueductium e statio aquarum. La sede della cura aquarum di Roma’, in Leone, A., Palombi, D., Walker, S. (edd.), ‘Res bene gestae’. Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby (Rome, 2007), 1–14Google Scholar.
26 The words are separated in CIL 3.12, 3.568, 3.2909, 6.19012, 7.142 = RIB 430, 8.2658, 8.2660, 8.2728, 8.4766, 8.8809, 8.17520, 9.3308, 9.5681, 10.4842 (twice), 10.4860, 10.7227, X12.4388, 14.2797, 14.4147 (Ostia); IRT 143.
27 Aquaeductus as one word in CIL 3.549, 3.709, 3.8088, 8.2572, 8.7029, 8.23888, 8.27818, 9.3922, 11.4582, X12.6, 12.4355, 13.11759; AE 1934, 133 (aquiducti), AE 1939, 151 (twice), AE 1942–1943, 93 = AE 1973, 646, AE 1975, 261. CIL 8.120, 8.8393, 8.15204 and 11.3922 are fragmentary and/or do not allow one to determine whether the term is spelled as one word or two. A number of even more fragmentary instances are not listed here.
28 Leigh, S., ‘A survey of the early Roman hydraulics in Athens’, in Koloski-Ostrow, A.O. (ed.), Water Use and Hydraulics in the Roman City (Colloquium and Conference Papers of the Archaeological Institute of America 3) (Dubuque, IO, 2001), 65–82Google Scholar, especially 78 interprets the passage as referring to ‘the public water supply system’.
29 On the site of the fountain and the inscription, see Ricciardi, M.A. and Scrinari, V. Santa Maria, La civiltà dell'acqua in Ostia antica (Rome, 1996), 2.84–5 no. 75Google Scholar. They do not present the inscription in full.
30 See, for example, De Ruggiero (n. 25), 562; Marinucci (n. 1), 510 n. 126. Puteus in connection with an aqueduct also in CIL 9.3018 (Teate Marrucinorum): adiecta structura specus et puteorum.
31 Interestingly enough, a somewhat similar enigmatic marker from Rome was recently published, carrying the text iter hortorum Pisonianorum p. p. p. p. (AE 2010, 226); see Barbera, R. in Filippi, G. (ed.), Il Chiostro di San Paolo fuori le mura. Architettura e raccolta archaeologica (Vatican City, 2010), 156–7Google Scholar. Many suggestions for expanding the abbreviations were made, perhaps most promisingly as p(er) p(raedium) p(riuatum) p(erduxit), although the passive voice p(erductum) would fit better, giving ‘the route of the Horti Pisoniani was brought over private land’.
32 Marinucci (n. 1), 510. The verb concedere is common in connection with water rights; see, for example, Solazzi, S., ‘Un editto del pretore sulla servitù di acquedotto?’, Festschrift Fritz Schultz (Weimar, 1951), 2.380–7Google Scholar, especially 381–2; see also Frontin. Aq. 107.2.
33 Frontin. Aq. 23.1, 64.3, 74.1, 74.3, 87.1, 89.1, 93.1, 93.4, 98.2.
34 See also Saastamoinen, A., The Phraseology of Latin Building Inscriptions in Roman North Africa (Helsinki, 2010), 183 and 516Google Scholar; cf. Bel Faida (n. 25), 133.
35 Corsi, M.F., ‘Modus seruitutis’. Il ruolo dell'autonomia privata nella costruzione del sistema tipico delle servitù prediali (Naples, 1999), 1–27Google Scholar; see, for example, Dig. 8.1.4.7 (Papinian) intervalla dierum et horarum non ad temporis causam, sed ad modum pertinent iure constitutae servitutis.
36 The instances are too numerous to list here; see, for example, Frontin. Aq. 64.4: sed longe, id est circiter quinariis decem milibus, ampliorem quam in commentariis modum inueni; 65.1: Appiae in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum octingentarum quadraginta unius.
37 Rodgers (n. 20), 134.
38 In a late antique inscription from Thignica in Africa Proconsularis, CIL 8.15204, one finds the phrase [aquae]ductos taetra ac deformi caligine mersos et nullo felici aspect[u gaudentes ?…]; cf. Saastamoinen (n. 34), 518. It seems that the term (one word or two?) is employed in the more common meaning of ‘physical construction’. One may note that in CIL 2.4509 = 6145 = ILS 1029 (also in the Epigraphic Database ClaussSlaby) the accusative object is restored as du[ctus aquae], which is accusative plural, though quite conjectural.
39 A survey of the examples from Italy presented by Horster (n. 2), 253–341 showed that in about twenty-five cases there was a clean division between imperial names + titles and the deed + verb. Included were only inscriptions taking up at least three lines, which contained not just a verb (such as fecit) but also named an object. Conjectural fragmentary cases were not considered. However, in eight cases (some twenty-five per cent of the total) the ordinatio did not adhere to this strict scheme, and thus the actual deed was introduced on the last line containing the titles: CIL 14.3485 (Vespasian), AE 1994, 404 (Domitian), CIL 10.1640 (Pius), AE 1902, 40 (Titus), AE 1968, 157 (Caracalla), CIL 9.5294 (Hadrian), CIL 5.854 (Trajan).
40 The text is quoted, with some discussion, in Bianco, A.D., Aqua ducta, aqua distributa. La gestione delle risorse idriche in età romana (Turin, 2007), 121–4, 143–4, 146–8Google Scholar.
41 NSc 1953, 153 no. 4 = AE 1954, 170. For a discussion and a photo, see G. Barbieri, ‘Ostia. Fistole acquarie inedite o completate’, NSc 1953, 151–89, especially 153–4 with fig. 2 no. 4 = id., Scritti minori (Vetera 3) (Rome, 1988), 285–323Google Scholar, especially 287–8; mentioned in Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia (Oxford, 1973 2), 75Google Scholar; Cébeillac-Gervasoni et al. (n. 7), 241.
42 It is also one of the relatively few examples of a stamp containing a grammatical error, in castris instead of in castra. I cannot see how this would have bearing on the present discussion, even though the expression in colonia in Vespasian's monumental inscription is an important element in my argument. Surely no one could entertain the idea that Ostians regularly used in + abl. when the meaning required in + acc.
43 See Bruun (n. 13 [1991]), 245–6 for all the relevant lead pipe stamps. The two stamps with an emperor's name in the genitive (Caracalla and Macrinus respectively) and the text Castris praetoris are CIL 15.7237–8.
44 For the inscribed fistulae from Ostia, see Bruun (n. 13 [1991]), 285–303, 324–8. A number of more recent discoveries, immaterial in the present context, merely underline Ostia's special character in this regard.
45 An example is provided by CIL 15.7738α (= CIL 14.5309.1): Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Traian(i) Hadriani Aug(usti) / sub cur(a) Hylae Aug. lib. proc.
46 For the lead pipes naming emperors, whether accompanied by imperial officials or not, see Bruun (n. 13 [2002]), 169–73; cf. Bruun (n. 13 [1991]), 26–30, 210–13. For an overall survey of emperors in lead pipe stamps in Italy, see Bruun, C., ‘Imperial water pipes in Roman cities’, in Koloski-Ostrow, A.O. (ed.), Water Use and Hydraulics in the Roman City (Colloquium and Conference papers of the Archaeological Institute of America 3) (Dubuque, IO, 2001), 51–63Google Scholar.
47 See Bruun (n. 13 [2002]), 176–9. The only person known to have been involved in the town's cura aquarum is the prominent C. Nasennius Marcellus, of local origin, who was duouir for the third time in 111 c.e. and patronus coloniae, as well as curator operum publicorum et aquarum perpetuus, sometime in the Trajanic-Hadrianic period.