Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Monuments and Inscriptions in Republican Rome: Linguistic Framework for Interpreting Art and Text LUCI, FABIO How to cite: LUCI, FABIO (2019) Monuments and Inscriptions in Republican Rome: Linguistic Framework for Interpreting Art and Text, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13047/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Fabio Luci Monuments and Inscriptions in Republican Rome: Linguistic Framework for Interpreting Art and Text ABSTRACT This dissertation focusses on the interaction between monuments and inscriptions in Republican Rome, by using a linguistic framework to demonstrate that a strong interconnection exists between them. The communicative power of Roman art was one of the most important way for ambitious men to self-present and to compete in the political arena in Rome, but only by combining the visual elements of their monuments with the language of inscriptions it was possible to make the most of its communicative power. In ancient Rome monuments had a significant role in all aspects of social and political life, but their visuality was only powerful inasmuch as its message could be understood by the audience. Inscriptions, in this sense, had an enormous role in guiding the viewers in understanding the significance of monuments’ messages. Inscriptions required the active participation of their audience in completing the meaning of the monuments and thus they were heavily used by dedicators to create specific strategies for their self-presentation. This dissertation develops a model that relies on linguistic semiotics to demonstrate how the mechanics of interaction between monuments and inscriptions, and between visual and textual compositions as a unique set and their audience work. Monuments and inscriptions are discussed as part of the same syntax, in which their visual and textual elements can be combined in a unique and consistent narrative. The series of observations that this model raises have a significant impact not only on the way ancient people approached inscribed monuments, but also on the way we understand and rethink them. It is argued that monuments now considered lost are only fragmentary, and their fragments are in fact their surviving inscriptions. Inscriptions as such participated in the stylistic and iconographic evolution that Roman self-presentative and celebrative art underwent from the Republic to the Principate. MONUMENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS IN REPUBLICAN ROME LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETING ART AND TEXT Fabio Luci Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics and Ancient History Durham University 2018 CONTENTS Contents I List of Figures III List of Abbreviations V Statement of Copyright VI Acknowledgements VII Introduction 1 Part I 8 Inscriptions and monuments as part of the same syntax 8 Introduction 8 Hölscher’s semantic system and the semiotic approach to Roman art 15 The language of inscriptions in Roman art 23 Die Macht der Wörter and Ma’s grammar interface 28 General premises of the syntactic model 35 The visual accusative as a syntactic strategy: the case of Marcellus 44 Three elements of the inscription 45 First line: the nominative and filiation 46 Second line: the apposition 50 Third line: verb and ablative 51 Conclusion 56 Visual accusative and the audience 57 Conclusion 64 Part II 67 The language of honour during the third and second centuries bc 67 Introduction 67 Divine ground for human competition: votive dedications of Roman commanders 70 Political rivalry of two dictators: Fabius Maximus and Minucius Rufus 77 Q. Fabius Maximus’ statuary group 83 Political ripostes by using text and image 88 Senatus aut Populi sententia 91 Awarding triumphs, creating memory. 92 Space control and honorific monuments 94 Awards for public service: from text to sculpture 99 Inscriptions as pathways to monuments 107 Monumenta gentium and their visual–textual strategies 110 Monumental complexes in Rome: Mummius’ temple and Metellus’ porticus 122 The ghost inscription of Metellus’ portico 123 The Res Gestae Mummi: the temple of Hercules Victor and Rome as its ‘portico’ 129 Conclusion 139 Part III 142 Towards a new figurative and textual language 142 I Introduction 142 Appropriating victory and monumentalisation 149 Sulla Felix: the imperator iterum 156 Between imperator and Felix: the genesis of Sulla’s figurative language 157 The Bocchus monument in Sullan Rome 180 The triumph of Sulla in the St Omobono reliefs 185 Conclusion 188 Pompeius Magnus Imperator and Hellenism in Rome 191 Caesar: Divine competition on human ground 207 A demi-god on the Capitoline: the statue of oikoumene and the Aρμα Καίσαρος 211 Caesar Imperator and the statues in the Forum Iulium 218 Deo invicto in the temple of Quirinus 227 Conclusion 234 Conclusion 236 Conclusion 239 Appendix 248 List of Figures 257 Bibliography 264 II LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. (Left) Doryphoros by Polykleitos 440 BC ca., Naple. (Right) Apoxyomenos by Lysippus 320 BC ca., Rome. (gettyimages.com) ......... 257 Figure 2. RRC 439. Denarius 50 BC Figure of M. Claudius Marcellus carrying trophy into the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius. (numismatics.org). ............ 257 Figure 3. RRC 461/1. Hercules and Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio 47–46 BC. (numismatics.org) .................................................................................... 258 Figure 4. RRC 293/1. Denarius by by L. Marcius Philippus 113–112 BC. (numismatics.org). ................................................................................... 258 Figure 5. Hypothetical reconstruction of the Tomb of the Scipios by Volpe (2014, 183). ............................................................................................. 258 Figure 6. Hypothetical reconstruction of the complex surrounding the Tomb of the Scipios, with the villa and the Temple of Tempestates. (Volpe 2014, 184). ......................................................................................................... 259 Figure 7. CIL I2 626, Inscription of Lucius Mummius in Rome. (Graham and Kamm 2015, 48). ..................................................................................... 259 Figure 8. RRC 367/1–5. Sulla, riding in a quadriga, crowned by a flying Victory (82 BC). (numismatics.org). ..................................................................... 260 Figure 9. RRC 368. Laureate head of Janus and Sulla on quadriga (82 BC). (numismatics.org). ................................................................................... 260 Figure 10. RRC 359. Head of Venus, wearing a diadem, cupid holding a palm- branch with the legend of Sulla. On right two trophies and the jug and lituus 84–83 BC. (numismatics.org). ....................................................... 261 Figure 11. RRC 374/2. Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, 81 BC. (numismatics.org). 261 Figure 12. RRC 381/1b. Sulla’s equestrian statue. Coin minted in 80 BC by A. Manlius A. f. quaestor. (numismatics.org). ............................................ 261 III Figure 13. RRC 3 426/1. Denarius struck by Faustus Cornelius Sulla in 56 BC. on the right the capture of Jugurtha by Sulla. (numismatics.org) ................. 262 Figure 14. RRC 293/1. Denarius struck by L. Marcius Philippus in 113–112 BC. (numismatics.org). ................................................................................... 262 Figure 15. RRC 326/1. C. Fundanius 101 BC. (numismatics.org). ..................... 262 Figure 16. Portrait of Pompey the Great: on the left the Copenhagen-type. (Wikimedia.org). ...................................................................................... 263 Figure 17. Portrait of Pompey the Great: on the right the Venetian-type. (gettyimages.co.uk). ................................................................................. 263 IV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AE L’Année épigraphique. Paris 1888–. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae editum. Berlin 1853–. FRH Cornell, T. J. (ed.) 2013. The Fragments of the Roman Historians. (Vol. 1-3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. HRR2 H. Peter 1914. Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae. Leipzig. IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin 1873–. ILLRP A. Degrassi 1957-63. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Florence: La Nuova Italia ILS H. Dessau 1892-1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. (Vol. 1– 3). Berlin: Weidmann. Inscr. It. A. Degrassi 1937. Inscriptiones Italiae. Rome: Libreria dello Stato IvO Inschriften von Olympia LTUR E. M. Steinby (ed.) 1993-2000. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Rome: Quasar MRR T.R.S. Broughton 1951–1986. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. New York RRC M. H. Crawford 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Syll3 W. Dittenberger 1917–1920. Sylloge Inscriptionum