Chapter ----: Defining Rome: The Arch of Trajan at Beneventum Elizabeth Wolfram Thill Draft chapter from manuscript under contract with Oxford University Press The Trajanic period saw drastic changes in the use of architectural depictions in monumental reliefs. Suddenly depicted architecture was everywhere. The traditional triumphal processions that wrapped their way around the friezes of honorary arches now marched towards miniature temples. Sweeping battle scenes took place in front of exotic-looking foreign buildings. The elaborately detailed individual buildings seen on the Valle-Medici Reliefs gave way to generalized architectural backdrops that surrounded the human figures with uninterrupted urban trappings. The Arch at Beneventum presents an intriguing point of departure for an exploration of these Trajanic changes. At first glance, the depicted architecture of the arch seems to demand little explanation, and indeed the arch’s eight depicted buildings have seen almost no scholarship devoted specifically to them. The general picture presented by the depictions fits well within the same tradition as the Valle-Medici Reliefs, with the emperor represented among major buildings in Rome. Despite obvious compositional differences between the monuments, the overall approach and message appears to be the same. An analysis of the depicted architecture in the context of the arch as a whole, however, reveals a very different situation. Gone is a concern with showing the emperor performing actions in front of particular historical buildings. Instead, the arch deals in broader conceptions of Rome as the embodiment of urbanity, and it does so by drawing contrasts between the Roman world and the world outside the empire. The Beneventum Arch demonstrates several important concepts for the study of architectural depictions in relief. The first is the need to question building identifications that have become ingrained in the literature, despite resting on little to no direct evidence. This leads more importantly to the need to question the very assumption that all depictions were meant to be identifiable. The second concept demonstrated on the arch is the importance of studying architectural depictions within the context of the entire monument, rather than restricting their import to a single panel. Finally, the third concept is the evidence that even generic buildings can be crucial players in forming the thematic messages of a monument. Introduction: The Beneventum Arch Towards the end of Trajan’s reign, a large arch was erected outside the ancient city of Beneventum, along the newly constructed Via Traiana that ran from Beneventum to Brundisium.1 Today the arch is still preserved in situ. The attic inscription records that the arch was dedicated by the Senate and People of Rome to the Emperor Trajan.2 The inscription of the arch does not mention the occasion for its erection, but traditionally scholars have connected the arch to Trajan’s renowned promotion of the alimenta program3 or the recent construction of the new major road. The inscription is dateable by imperial titulature to 114 CE. There has been debate, however, as to whether this date refers to the laying of the foundation stone or the completion of the arch. Some scholars have identified two bearded figures in the attic as Hadrian, and have suggested that Hadrian completed the attic or made other modifications.4 F. Hassel has pointed out, however, that the dates of the inscriptions for the Column of Trajan and the Aqua Traiana match the inauguration dates recorded in the Fasti Ostienses; he argues that a similar situation should be assumed for the Beneventum Arch.5 This argument seems reasonable. The identifications of Hadrian, furthermore, are far from certain, and it seems unnecessary, in the absence of hard evidence, to introduce extensive Hadrianic influence to what appears prima facie to be a firmly Trajanic project. The Beneventum Arch therefore is dated here to the Trajanic, not the Hadrianic, period. 1 For the Arch at Beneventum, see e.g. Petersen 1892; Domaszewski 1899; Hassel 1966; Richmond 1969; Fittschen 1972; Rotili 1972; Lorenz 1973; Gauer 1974; Simon 1979-80; Molin 1994; Torelli 1997; Simon 1998; Quante- Schöttler 2002, 114-36; Heitz 2005-06; Speidel 2005-06; Töpfer 2008. Scholars debate many of the figures and subjects of the various panels on the arch. For my current purposes, it is sufficient to refer to those identifications that, at this time, have earned the widest consensus. Different interpretations will be cited only where the interpretation of the architecture is intimately dependent upon the reading of the overall scene. The nomenclature employed here for the panels is my own. 2 CIL IX.1558, reproduced in Hassel 1966, 1. 3 Possibly introduced under Nerva but greatly expanded under Trajan, the imperial alimenta program was intended to support the children of Italy. The program arranged for one-time loans to landed estates of Italian towns, with the interest on the loans providing income (in perpetuity) for the distribution of funds to a select group of children. While the exact purpose and workings of the alimenta are debated, what does appear clear from two fragmentary tablets is that a certain number of children were enrolled in each town, with different rates of payment for boys and girls, and legitimate and illegitimate children. For background on the alimenta, see e.g. Duncan-Jones 1964; Garnsey 1968; Patterson 1987; Bossu 1989. For a convincing argument that the alimenta should not be connected to modern concepts of poverty relief, see Woolf 1990. 4 For identifications of the bearded figures in the Consuls and Bridge Crossing Panels as Hadrian, see Petersen 1892, 252; Domaszewski 1899, 184-86; Strong 1907, 216, 218; Hamberg 1945, 66, 70-1; Hassel 1966, 18-19; Richmond 1969, 231; Rotili 1972, 79; Gauer 1974; Kleiner 1992, 228; Molin 1994, 720. For arguments against, see esp. Fittschen 1972, 743, 762-64, 776-77, also Koeppel 1969, 168; Simon 1979-80, 10; Torelli 1997. For Hadrianic interventions, see Richmond 1969; Gauer 1974; Kleiner 1992, 228. Richmond (1969) has suggested, based on his interpretation of the overall program of the arch, that the entire monument has Hadrianic themes. For a refutation of a Hadrianic date for any part of the arch, see Hassel 1966; Fittschen 1972; Simon 1979-80, 3; Molin 1994; Torelli 1997; Simon 1998, 189. 5 Hassel 1966, 7-9; see also Hamberg 1945, 68. The most striking features of the Beneventum Arch are its large figurative panels. Each main face of the arch features six panels: two on each pier and two in the attic (figs. 1-2). Additional figural scenes are found in the smaller Triumphal Frieze that runs below the attic, and in the two larger reliefs in the passageway of the arch; one depicts a sacrifice, and the other commemorates the alimenta program. A final figural panel is found at the center of the passage vault, where a Victory crowns a squatly-rendered Trajan. Four panels and the Triumphal Frieze incorporate depictions of architecture. Scholarship on the arch as a whole has taken little interest in these architectural depictions, treating them primarily as a means to indicate the location, and therefore the subject, of the various events presented in the panels. Targeted studies of architectural depictions in monumental reliefs have also adhered to the idea that the identifications of the buildings were integral to their purpose. For example, although both D. Quante-Schöttler and M.G. Sobocinski suggest that not all buildings may have been meant to have been identifiable, they ultimately conclude that the identity of the majority of the buildings was critical to their intended effect, namely to clarify the topics of the various panels.6 Sobocinski’s brief analysis does move beyond identifications within each panel of the arch, arguing that the presentation of the emperor against a backdrop of known buildings in Rome emphasized the emperor’s relationship to the capital city (and by extension the senate), especially in the context of his frequent travels.7 Her analysis, however, still presumes that the identification of the buildings would have been crucial for their significance. When the monument as a whole is considered, the distribution of the architectural depictions is revealed as significant beyond any specific identifications. In particular, the depictions help illustrate contrasts between urban/Roman and rural/provincial on the arch. These contrasts have long been recognized as one of the most important themes of the arch, even driving the arrangement of the reliefs themselves. The topics of the reliefs on the urban (southwest) side of the arch, closest to Rome and Beneventum, deal with the emperor’s interactions with cities (fig. 1). The topics of the rural (northeast) side deal with the emperor’s interactions with Italy and the provinces (fig. 2). Nevertheless, the depicted architecture has not been fully explored within this context, an oversight that I intend to remedy here. Depicted Architecture on the Beneventum Arch Architecture is depicted in three out of six main panels on the urban side of the arch. The single passageway arch in the Adventus Panel has no identifying features (figs. 3-5). As such, it generally has been unidentified or seen as symbolic, one of the typical accoutrements of the adventus scene type, where the emperor returns to the capital. In the Reception Panel, a series of personifications stand in front of a columned building decorated with a weapons frieze (figs. 6- 6 Grunow 2002, 42 n. 68, 59, 112 n. 36; Quante-Schöttler 2002, 114-36. 7 Grunow 2002, 108-13. 8). Since E. Petersen’s 1892 identification, there has been wide (albeit not complete) consensus that this building represents the Curia in the Forum Romanum. This theory, however, is based exclusively on the identifications of the figures in front of the building, specifically a bearded figure as the Genius Senatus.