Version classiqueVersion mobile

Reconsidering Roman power

 | 
Katell Berthelot

The dynamics of power

The (lost) Arch of Titus: the visibility and prominence of victory in Flavian Rome

Caroline Barron

Résumé

The Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum has long been held as the definitive illustration of Rome’s conquest of Judaea and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The relief decoration of the plundering of the Temple, Titus’s triumphal journey into Rome and his eventual apotheosis have become synonymous with our knowledge of events and the devastation wrought upon the city. However, the inscription from the lost Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus arguably contributes more to our understanding of how the Flavian dynasty themselves perceived their victory, and how they used it to advertise their military might and establish their rule as the rightful heirs to the Augustan legacy of conquest and dominion. This article considers the lost Arch of Titus and its inscription, and its role in the establishment of the Flavian legacy in Rome. It argues that the text must be read in conjunction with the other triumphal monuments of Vespasian and Titus – the Colosseum, Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum and the Temple of Peace – whose reality, visibility and prominence collectively gave strength to the claim that the lost Arch commemorated: the exceptional nature of the Roman victory in Jerusalem.

Note de l’auteur

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 614 424. It was part of the ERC Judaism and Rome, and has been realized within the framework of the CNRS and Aix-Marseille University, UMR 7297 TDMAM (Aix-en-Provence).

Texte intégral

  • 1 Suetonius, Vespasian 1.
  • 2 Tuck 2016, p. 109.
  • 3 Rosso 2005, p. 162.
  • 4 Mellor 2003, p. 74-75.
  • 5 Tuck 2016, p. 109. For the extent of Vespasian’s imitatio Augusti, see Rosso 2009, p. 209-242.
  • 6 Mellor 2003, p.  80.
  • 7 Tuck 2016, p. 111.

1When Vespasian was acclaimed emperor by his troops on 1st July 69 CE it marked the beginning of a new era in imperial Rome. Vespasian and his sons could not claim descent from the Julio-Claudian line and the humble origins of the Sabine gens Flavia revealed a certain ignobilitas that was at odds with the aristocratic ancestry that linked – socially and politically – many of the leading families of Rome.1 The Flavians represented a break away from the traditional ruling order, which had endured for almost a century by the year 69, leading to questions of plausibility and legitimacy.2 The question mark over their name was compounded by the fact that the new imperial family had emerged out of the chaos of the civil war, which served to emphasise their military, rather than political, connections. Their lack of prestigious family heritage and fortune meant that Vespasian and his sons were initially characterised rather by who they were not, rather than who they were;3 their dynasty was created in the military camps of the East and their consolidation of power was based upon their popularity with the soldiers that inhabited them, rather than with the senatorial elite in Rome.4 However, the comparisons that could be drawn between the new ruling family and the Julio-Claudians were undeniably striking, with the example of Augustus providing the political model at which the Flavians might aim: both imperial families arose from civil conflict, established dynasties and were charged with the political, social and moral consolidation of the state.5 Unlike Augustus, Vespasian "did not have to conceal his military base of power";6 his unquestionable ability and experience in battle, along with that of his sons, served as the ideological cornerstone around which the new Flavian dynasty could be built: the celebration of victory. Indeed, the notion of conquest was to become an integral element of Flavian ideology: it legitimated their hold on power and provided a "compelling demonstration of [their] martial virtus", which strengthened their individual and collective public image.7 Indeed, it is the argument of this paper that one victory in particular stood out for the Flavian emperors that articulated the process of their legitimation, which acted as the basis upon which their entire political strategy was founded: the subjugation of Judaea and the destruction of the Great Temple of Jerusalem.

  • 8 For discussion of the history and relief detail of the Arch of Titus, see Pfanner 1983; Ross Hollo (...)

2This strategy can still be seen in Rome today. The Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum has long been held as the definitive illustration of Rome’s conquest of Judaea and the destruction of Jerusalem. The relief decoration depicting the spoils seized from the Great Temple, Titus’s triumphal journey into Rome and his eventual apotheosis has become synonymous with our knowledge of events and the devastation wrought upon the city.8 The arch is often heralded as one of the most significant and evocative of the Flavian dynasty’s contributions to the monumental landscape of Rome, however, it was not the only arch dedicated to Titus in the city; a monumental triumphal arch was dedicated earlier, in 81 CE, at the eastern end of the Circus Maximus. Now lost, this arch also commemorated Rome’s victory against the Jews, with its dedicatory inscription arguably contributing more to our understanding of how the Flavian dynasty themselves perceived the significance of their victory in Judaea. The inscription of the lost arch advertised the military prowess of the new ruling family and sought to establish them as the rightful heirs to the Augustan legacy of conquest and dominion. In the following discussion, the inscription from the lost Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus and what it meant to the Flavians shall be considered, as well as its significance to the wider audience of the city of Rome, and beyond. The statement of victory made in the inscription on the lost Arch of Titus was intended to communicate the permanency of the conquest, and of the essence of Roman power itself which found a unique expression under the Flavian dynasty. The final part of this paper argues that the inscription and arch must be read in conjunction with the topography of the other triumphal monuments of Vespasian and Titus – the Colosseum, the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum and the Temple of Peace – whose reality, visibility and prominence collectively gave strength to the claim that the lost Arch commemorated: the exceptional nature of the Flavian victory in Jerusalem.

The Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus

  • 9 Marcattili 2009, p. 221-233; Lugli – Garcia Barraco 2016, p. 44-5, fig. 9a.
  • 10 Coletta – Pergola 2017, p. 201.
  • 11 Lugli – García Barraco 2016, p. 44-47. For a synthesis of the history of the rediscovery of the ar (...)
  • 12 Humphreys 1986, p. 97-100; p. 104, fig. 42.
  • 13 Humphreys 1986, p. 97.
  • 14 Humphreys 1986, p. 98.

3The ‘Arch of Titus’ in the Circus Maximus was dedicated in 81 CE by the Senate and the People of Rome, shortly before the death of the emperor Titus. It was a triumphal arch, commissioned to commemorate the tenth anniversary of his victory in the Jewish war, and stood in the centre of the eastern semi-circular end of the Circus,9 49 feet high and 56 feet wide.10 The arch appears to have stood until the Middle Ages, at which point it either fell or was taken apart for reuse as building material. Recent excavations by the Sovrintendenza Capitolina have identified more than three hundred fragments of the arch, including three plinths from the front and a part of a column.11 Prior to these discoveries, our understanding of the arch’s composition was dependent upon its depiction on fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae, coins from the Trajanic period, as well as in the early 4th century CE mosaic image of the circus from Piazza Armerina in Sicily and the 3rd century CE Foligno relief.12 The coin images of the arch suggest that it featured a single, central bay, above which was a tall attic, framed with mouldings and topped by a quadriga group and charioteer.13 However, the Piazza Armerina mosaic and the Foligno relief provide more detailed information, from which the arch can be reconstructed with three bays (one large, central bay, with a smaller one to each side), between which stand Corinthian capitals and bases.14

  • 15 Alföldy in CIL VI, 944.

4The inscription does not feature in any of these depictions, but is known from the 8th-9th century CE manuscript, the Codex Einsidlensis, which records its text in full. The inscription dedicates the arch to the emperor Titus, with the imperial titles awarded to him in it giving a secure date of January-mid-March 81 CE.15 The inscription read:

  • 16 Granino 2017, p. 229-235; this reconstruction has been proposed following the discovery of four ne (...)

Senatus
populusq(ue) Romanus
Imp(eratori) Tito Caesari divi Vespasiani f(ilio) Vespasian[o] Augusto
pontif(ici) max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) X imp(eratori) XVII [c]o(n)s(uli) VIII p(atri) p(atriae) principisuo
quod praeceptis patri<s> consiliisq(ue) et auspiciis gentem
Iudaeorum domuit et urbem Hierusolymam omnibus ante
se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut
omnino intemptatam delevit
16

The Senate and the people of Rome (set this up) for Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, son of the divine Vespasianus, pontifex maximus, with tribunician power for the tenth time, imperator for the seventeenth time, in his eighth consulship, father of the fatherland, to their own Leader because, by the orders and advice of his father he subdued/tamed the Jewish people and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, (a thing) either sought in vain by all generals, kings and peoples before him or untried entirely.

  • 17 Millar 2005, p. 120.
  • 18 Rosso 2005, p. 208.

5The inscription recorded the exact circumstances for which the arch was dedicated: Titus was honoured by the Senate and the People of Rome for having subdued the Jewish people and destroyed Jerusalem. Although we often describe the arches as ‘of’ the emperors they commemorate, as Fergus Millar has noted they are in fact monuments dedicated to them, by the Senate and the People of Rome in gratitude for particular acts.17 In the case of the particular act being celebrated here, the all important ‘quod’ clause, ‘because’ tells us that the arch was clearly intended to celebrate a very specific victory, that won by Titus over Judea.18 Together with the surviving Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum, the Temple of Peace and the Colosseum, the Arch in the Circus Maximus functioned as a physical memorialisation of the martial achievement of Titus – and by extension the Flavian dynasty – and the scale of destruction wrought upon the capital city Jerusalem.

  • 19 For similar usages, see e.g. Cicero: Laelius de Amicitia 3. 11; 4; Pro Sestio 26; Philippicae 1.1; (...)
  • 20 Rosso 2005, p. 177.

6However, the most striking feature of the inscription is found in the final lines, which state that the arch was dedicated to Titus in celebration of his subjugation of the Jewish people (gentem Iudaeorum…domuit) and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (urbem Hierusolymam…delevit). The emphatic placement of delevit at the end of the final line is a clear indication of the force with which it was intended; not only had the city of Jerusalem been laid siege to, but it had, quite literally, been brought to an end, or ‘terminated’.19 The finality with which the city had been destroyed was echoed by the order of the vocabulary in the inscription. Such violent language was extremely unusual in the context of official, state driven dedications, which typically made honorific statements with succinct formulae, such as in the inscription of the surviving Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum. The text here is closer to that of a panegyric, emphasising the achievements of the emperor.20

  • 21 Lavan 2013, p. 83 n. 34 for literary examples.
  • 22 Lavan 2013, p. 83. Lavan also notes that the animalising language of enslavement is paralleled in (...)

7The use of domuit, in line 6, is also significant; the inscription claims that Titus ‘subjugated’ or ‘tamed’ the gens Iudaeorum, using vocabulary that is consistent with the language used to describe the breaking of animals to harness. As Myles Lavan has demonstrated, the verbs domare and perdomare are commonly used both with regard to taming animals and also in the descriptions of the conquest of foreign peoples and Roman expansion.21 As slaves in the Roman world were often described in the same terms as domesticated animals, such use of "animalising metaphors resonate with the broader language of enslavement".22 The Jews are therefore presented in the inscription not only as conquered by Rome, but as her slaves. This enslavement was not limited solely to the Jews of Jerusalem either; the power of Rome had destroyed their capital city, but, as the inscription states, it extended over the entire gens Iudaeorum of the empire.

  • 23 CIL III, 14147 (= IGPhilae II 128): exercitu ultra Nili catarhacten transducto, in quem locum nequ (...)
  • 24 CIL V, 7817: gentes alpinae omnes quae a mari supero ad inferum / pertinebant sub imperium p(opuli (...)
  • 25 CIL VI, 40416 = VI, 920 = VI, 31203. For the history and archaeology of the arch, see Barrett 1991 (...)

8There was existing precedent for this kind of inscription, which celebrated and monumentalised the dominance of the populus Romanus over a conquered ‘Other’ in earlier victory monuments across the Roman World. The trilingual inscription honouring Cornelius Gallus that was erected in Philae in 29 BCE traversed the political boundaries of Egypt as it listed the new territory conquered by him in Augustus’s name; it claimed that Gallus had led his army over the "first cataract of the Nile, into which region arms had not previously been borne either by the Roman people or by the kings of Egypt".23 In 7/6 BCE the Tropeum Alpium, had commemorated Augustus’ conquest of the Western Alps; it recorded that: "all the peoples of the Alps who stretch from the Upper Sea (Adriatic) to the Lower (Mediterranean) were brought under the dominion of the people of Rome", with a list of the tribes’ names given below.24 Back in Rome, the Arch of Claudius that was dedicated in 51 CE to commemorate his conquest of the province of Britannia documented that "he first brought barbarian peoples across the Ocean into the dominion of the Roman people".25 The statements of these monuments commemorated and celebrated territorial gains: the Alpine regions and the land across ‘Ocean’ were areas outside of Rome’s geographical control, with their conquest and pacification representative of Rome’s expansion. A similar claim appears to be being made in the inscription on the lost Arch of Titus, but it goes several steps further than simply recording the acquisition of territory, celebrating rather the subjection of an entire people rather than land. 

  • 26 Millar 2005, p. 120.
  • 27 B.J. 1.141-154 and 345-357.
  • 28 B.J. 6.435-437. For these earlier instances of Jerusalem falling to enemy hands, see Smallwood 197 (...)
  • 29 Rosso 2005, p. 177.

9Titus’ subjugation of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem are described in the inscription as feats omnibus ante / se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut / omnino intemptatam ("either sought in vain by all generals, kings and peoples before him or untried entirely"). This was undeniably false.26 Although Fergus Millar has suggested that the Romans might be excused for their lack of knowledge of biblical history, he further noted that the narrative related by Josephus, under the benefaction of the Flavians, clearly recorded the taking of the city of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 BCE and Sosius in 37 CE,27 as well as referring to at least five further instances of the city falling to a foreign enemy.28 While it is unlikely that each of these instances represented individual conquests on a scale comparable with that of the Flavian onslaught, it is clear that Titus’ claim to be the first to subjugate the region was patently untrue. And yet there was a truth to be found in the inscription; Emmanuelle Rosso has proposed that the key to the text lies in that final delevit, which – when considered literally – was not quite the falsehood it initially appears to be. Although Pompey and Sosius had succeeded, along with several others before them, in taking the city, none but Titus had secured its total destruction.29

  • 30 Tacitus, Hist. 3.72; Noreña 2003, p. 31.
  • 31 Tuck 2016, p.  111-112; Rosso 2005, p. 164-172.
  • 32 Rosso 2005, p. 173-175. For full discussion of the Iudaea Capta coins, see Rosso 2005, p. 173-179; (...)

10What, then, does the inscription tell us about how the Flavians themselves perceived the nature of their victory? The bellicose tone and celebratory nature of the inscription is indicative of the importance of the victory for Vespasian and Titus; the commemoration of the events of 70 CE were a blatant act of self-assertion on the part of the new ruling dynasty, and of Domitian who dedicated the arch roughly ten years after the destruction. The language of the inscription was intended to communicate that the victory in Judaea was not motivated by simple territorial gain, but was rather an act of political strategy. Vespasian’s acclamation as emperor came at the end of the most turbulent period in Rome’s history since the civil wars that led to the fall of the Republic; the armed conflict between the different contenders for the principate had even affected the city of Rome, with Vitellius’s attack on the Capitol considered the worst event to have affected the Roman state since its foundation.30 For Vespasian, it was crucial not only to establish peace, but to assert his right to rule outside of the context of such disorder. By externalising the revolt in Judaea as a ‘foreign war’, the Flavians replaced the unsavoury memories of the civil war in which they had been involved with the unifying success of their victory against the Jews. Much in the same way that Augustus presented his victory against Mark Anthony and Cleopatra as a ‘war’ with Egypt rather than as an internal conflict with a member of the Roman senate, the destruction of Jerusalem was presented as an external conquest, won with the support of the Roman gods and in the name of the Roman people; the victory in Judaea was supposed to be a victory for Rome, not just the emerging Flavian dynasty.31 Coinage was minted with the legend Iudaea Capta imposed around images of submissive Jewish captives and trophies of arms, indicating that their ‘barbarian’ nature had only recently been contained by Rome’s civilising force, with the use of just one figure – rather than several Jewish captives – representing the personification of the province now brought under Roman control.32 To further emphasise the ‘foreign’ nature of the war, and in a further echo of Augustus, Vespasian ordered the doors of the Temple of Janus in Rome to be closed, indicating the pax that he had brought to the empire and the complete transformation of how 69 CE was to be remembered: the Flavian dynasty had come to power legitimately, and in the defence of the safety and security of the empire.

  • 33 Rives 2005, p. 146-151.
  • 34 Rives 2005, p. 150.
  • 35 Ibid. For the representation of the temple treasures as a substitute for a cult statue, see Schwie (...)
  • 36 For evocatio, see Beard, Price – North 1998, vol. I, p. 133-134; Le Gall 1976, p. 519-524.
  • 37 Josephus, B.J. 6.299-300; Rives 2005, p. 149.

11There is, however, another ideological aspect to the text of the inscription than simply attempting to echo the acts and language of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The populus Romanus and the gens Iudaeorum are presented in the inscription as being fundamentally opposed; the reference to the subjugation of a people and the destruction of the city was not just as a simple statement of conquest, but rather as the definitive record of the destruction of a rival ideological and political system. Unlike all other ‘generals, kings and peoples before’, whose attempts had failed, under the Flavian dynasty the conclusive decimation of the Jewish opposition was reached, and in such a way that served to highlight Rome’s past, present and future superiority. The fact that the siege of Jerusalem became synonymous with one particularly violent act, the destruction of the Second Temple, adds a further ideological dimension to Titus’ victory: the eradication of a rival religious system. By destroying the Temple he destroyed the right of the Jewish people to sacrifice to the Jewish God, essentially diminishing their religious practices and identity. The temple was understood, by both Rome and the Jews, as a religious symbol, the destruction of which represented the clear victory of one set of gods over another: Jupiter over the God of Israel. However, whether or not the destruction of the temple was a deliberate result of Vespasian’s religious policy or simply an act of war has been harder to establish. James Rives has written in detail on the subject, noting the problematic extent of Titus’ culpability presented by Josephus.33 Although he is spared responsibility for planning the Temple’s destruction, Josephus narrates that Titus ordered that its remains be demolished (B.J. 7.1-2), and that a painting of it burning was paraded during his triumph (B.J. 7.144); the destruction of the Temple was a "signal accomplishment" and one to which he returned during his Triumph, in the relief decoration of the arch built in the Roman Forum and in the text of the lost arch’s inscription.34 Whether or not the destruction of the Temple should be considered a deliberate act of religious policy is, however, a more complicated argument. On the one hand, Vespasian and Titus were clearly aware of the practice of Jewish sacrifice and the importance of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem; not only was the building in which the cult was celebrated destroyed, but the removal of the menorah and the offering table to Rome signified the deliberate despoliation of its religious architecture. As the Jews did not worship a cult statue, it has been suggested that the table and menorah were understood by the Romans as representing the religion as a whole, and were therefore central to the Flavians’ suppression of it.35 It is possible that the removal of the Temple treasures to Rome was made under the guise of evocatio, in which the victorious Roman general would ‘summon’ the conquered foreign god away from its defeated home, and offer it sanctuary amongst the Roman gods.36 The Jewish god was not ‘rehomed’ in the Roman pantheon however, and if the story related by Josephus that the Jews of Jerusalem believed the god to have already left the Temple was true, there would have been no need for Titus to ‘summon’ it out and recall it to Rome.37

  • 38 Rives 2005, p. 152-154. The temple in Leontopolis dated to c. 160 BCE and was established followin (...)
  • 39 Rives 2005, p. 153.
  • 40 Rives 2005, p. 155.
  • 41 Rosso 2005, p. 178.

12Vespasian also ordered the Jewish Temple in Leontopolis in Egypt to be closed, even though it had played no part in the revolt in Jerusalem, seemingly to ensure against the possibility that the centre of the Jewish cult might be transferred there.38 The introduction of the ‘Jewish tax’ also supports the argument for a specific Flavian religious policy in dealing with the Jews; previously offered by Jews across the empire to support the Temple, the two-drachma tax was now due annually at the Capitolium in Rome, where it was "symbolically held captive […] transferred from the Jewish god to the chief Roman god".39 However, whilst these actions clearly limited the Jewish population of the empire from fully practicing their religion, Vespasian and Titus did not ban other Jewish observances such as circumcision, dietary requirements or the Sabbath, in a paradoxical arrangement that appears at odds with the accusations of exclusivity often levied by Rome at the Jewish populations of the empire.40 The intention behind the destruction of Jerusalem described in the inscription was, then, to permanently remove one particular aspect of the Jewish cult: the right to sacrifice in their most holy Temple. By removing the very representatives of the Jewish god – the offering table and the menorah – and destroying its ‘home’, the Flavians asserted the dominance of the Roman gods over an ‘Other’. It was a clear message of defeat, that spoke of a "double destiny": Titus’s victory and the right to be acclaimed imperator, but also the fate of the Jewish people and their god to submit to the power of Rome.41

  • 42 Goodman 2007, p. 385. For the history of the Jews in the city of Rome, see Leon 1960; Rutgers, 199 (...)
  • 43 Goodman 2007, p. 385.
  • 44 For Domitian’s treatment of the Jews, see Smallwood 1956, p. 1-13; Keresztes 1973, p. 1-28.
  • 45 Goodman 2007, p. 466.

13It is worth considering how the language of the lost Arch of Titus’ inscription, might have been understood by the Jews of Rome; not only had their most sacred objects been paraded through the city in Titus’ triumph, along with vast numbers of Jewish slaves, but a decade after the devastation had occurred it was permanently memorialised in the form of monumental text in one of Rome’s largest congregational spaces, the Circus Maximus. Was this a deliberate provocation on the part of Domitian, intended as a reminder to Rome and the Jews of the state of affairs, or simply political propaganda? Jews had been present in Rome since the second century BCE, although their numbers had swelled most following the arrival of war captives from Pompey and Sosius’ campaigns.42 Of these captives a significant number will have later been manumitted and received their Roman citizenship, with any future children born of freeborn status. By 70 CE, some of the Jews in the capital city may well have had Roman citizenship for four generations, and have appeared – externally at least – as indistinguishable from any other Roman citizen in the city.43 The sudden appearance of the inscription on the lost arch that identified the Jews as a separate gens from the populus Romanus must have presented an uncomfortable new reality for the community in the city of Rome, particularly as it appeared so long after the conflict itself had occurred. Where previously it can be assumed that the Jews of Rome were integrated into some, if not all, aspects of daily life in the capital city (with the clear exception of religious practice), the inscription now singled them out as a population that Titus domuit – "tamed", or "mastered". The inferior status of the Jews in Rome, even of those who held Roman citizenship, had been definitively articulated. There were political and dynastic reasons to make such a statement about the victory in Jerusalem too, however; regardless of what motivated Domitian’s later maltreatment of the Jews,44 the inscription of the lost Arch of Titus connected Domitian with his brother and father’s victory, ten years after the fact. Domitian had not fought alongside them in Judaea, and so could not exploit the conquest or their triumph in his own image making, needing his own military successes and prestige in order to justify his rule.45 It was only by recalling the victory and utilising its dynastic implications that the conquest of Jerusalem gave him any political capital.

Rebuilding Jerusalem in Flavian Rome

14The lost Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus was not the only architectural work in the city of Rome through which the Flavian emperors expressed their political and dynastic ideology. Indeed, it formed part of a complex of structures that were inextricably linked to the conquest of Judaea and the imperial message of Vespasian and his sons. Their works were the first since the Augustan period to make a major and lasting impact on the city of Rome, which helped emphasise the permanence and legitimacy of their reign. 

  • 46 This was the first new building begun in the city by Vespasian; his first architectural work, foll (...)
  • 47 Noreña 2003, p. 26-27.
  • 48 Coarelli 2008, p. 12-126. For discussion of the history and archaeology of the Templum Pacis compl (...)
  • 49 Noreña 2003, p. 34-35.
  • 50 Noreña 2003, p. 34.
  • 51 Noreña 2003, p. 38.

15The first major new complex initiated by the Flavians was directly connected to Vespasian and Titus’ victory in Judaea: the Temple of Peace.46 Situated between the Basilica Aemilia and the Argiletum, the Temple of Pax incorporated an open square, surrounded by a colonnaded portico on all four sides, with a series of rooms facing the Velian hill (and eventually the Colosseum). The central apsidal hall of these rooms was separated from the square by a porch of six columns, of larger size than those in the surrounding porticus.47 The cult statue of Pax was likely placed in the apse of this hall, with the altar situated within the square, before the porch.48 It was no accident that the Temple complex echoed the behaviour of Augustus; just as the first princeps had dedicated an Altar of Peace, Vespasian dedicated a Temple to the same deity, reiterating the rhetoric of imperium, military power and resulting harmony that had characterised his reign. Like Augustus, Vespasian had closed the Gates of Janus following the victory in Judaea, but unlike his predecessor – whose Res Gestae emphasised the benefits of expansion and conquest won through military conquest (Res Gestae 13) – the victory had not added territory or brought new lands under Roman dominion. The victory did, however, allow the Flavians to make a statement about their relationship to pax; although their ascent to the principate had brought a kind of pax civilis to the empire, it had done so following a year-long civil war, the celebration of which in the form of a monumental architectural complex was unlikely to have appealed to an emperor so concerned with the legitimate nature of his rule.49 In the construction of the Templum Pacis, Vespasian again externalised the Jewish war in order to celebrate the kind of pax that could only be brought through the success of the Roman military, the kind that was imposed upon conquered peoples. This was quite distinct from the domestic peace that indicated civic concord, and although it derived from the ‘pact’ made between two sides in the conclusion of a war, it had come to signify the subjugation of ‘foreign’ lands and communities and their total capitulation to Roman virtus.50 This was almost certainly the kind of ‘peace’ to which Vespasian referred in his construction of the temple, and which found textual expression later in the inscription of the lost arch of Titus; the conquered peoples over whom his armies had extended ‘peace’ were the people of Judaea, and the destruction of Jerusalem was the particular military victory that the complex celebrated. The Temple of Peace did not stand, in a modern moral sense, in opposition to the arch in the Circus Maximus that glorified, in no uncertain terms, Titus’ achievements in war; they worked together in commemoration of the particular Flavian expression of Roman imperialism that the war in Judaea represented.51

  • 52 B.J. VII.158. For the order in which the Temple treasures were paraded in the triumph, see Östenbe (...)
  • 53 Noreña 2003, p.  35; Millar 2005, p. 101-128.
  • 54 CIL VI, 4045a = AE 1995, 111b.
  • 55 Millar 2005, p. 118-119.
  • 56 Taraporewalla 2010, p. 149.

16The decoration of the Templum Pacis complex is well known from Josephus’ description, in which he related that alongside the masterpieces of Greek art that Vespasian had ‘liberated’ from Nero’s private gallery were displayed the "vessels of gold from the temple of the Jews", the spoils of war taken from the Jerusalem Temple and paraded in the triumph of 71 CE.52 The very same treasures were again celebrated almost a decade later in the inner reliefs of the Arch of Titus from the Roman Forum, built after Titus’ death, in the conscious retelling of the war, the Flavian victory and the triumphal return to Rome that was emphasised by Domitian to assert his own legitimate right to rule. In this sense, the Temple of Peace was clearly conceived as a monumental celebration of the subjugation of a foreign people, and the "power of the Roman war machine under the guidance of the new Flavian dynasty".53 The most blatant assertion of the nature of Rome’s victory in Judaea was asserted in the space between the Temple of Peace and the two arches of Titus that were to follow later; the Colosseum, built through the funds raised by Titus’ sacking of Jerusalem and the vast quantity of Jewish slaves brought to Rome as captives, did not hide its origin as a permanent spoil of war. Its dedicatory inscription stated that it was built ex manubiis – from the spoils of war.54 Although the Colosseum’s inscription did not explicitly refer to the war in Judaea, no other external war had been fought between the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the inauguration of the amphitheatre in 80 CE, so the implied reference to the Jewish war must be understood as a statement of how these things – the construction of the amphitheatre – were done.55 When taken together, then, the building projects of the Flavian emperors were not ‘individual’ monuments, but rather parts of one programmatic whole; the area of the city that was transformed by their building became a mnemonic space that made clear the imperialist and triumphant nature of Flavian victory, and perpetuated the "construction of an enduring memory shared by the entire community".56 The constant repetition of the Jewish conflict in art, architecture and text further emphasised its scale and significance. Of course, the paradox of this was that alongside wiping out all trace of the Jews in Jerusalem, the monumentalisation of the victory by the Flavians also ensured a permanent record of the Jews in the capital city of the Roman empire; rather than minimising the presence of their community, every celebration of the Flavian victory elevated, in some way, the status of the gens Iudaeorum in parallel. 

  • 57 B.J. 7.123-157. For discussion of the Triumphal route, see Brilliant 1999, p. 221-229; Beard 2003, (...)
  • 58 B.J. 7.131.
  • 59 Millar 2005, p. 101-106. For discussion of the route between the ‘theatres’ described by Josephus (...)
  • 60 Beard 2003, p. 548-553.
  • 61 Taraporewalla 2010, p. 153.
  • 62 Ibid.

17Although the lost Arch of Titus certainly assisted in the commemoration of the Jewish war in the monumental centre of Rome, its placement along the conjectured triumphal route into the city was an arguably more significant role. Josephus’ description of the triumph celebrated upon Vespasian and Titus’ return to Rome in 71 CE, the most full description to have survived from the imperial period, has justifiably generated much discussion concerning their entrance, the route through the city and the structures that would have been visible as they passed.57 Although rich in detail, Josephus’ account does little to clarify this urban topography. Fergus Millar’s attempt to reconstruct the route suggests that one of the ‘theatres’ described by Josephus, from which the Roman people watched the spectacle, was the Circus Maximus itself, and that the route of the triumphal procession circled the entire Palatine, proceeded along the eastern edge of it to the Velian Hill.58 It descended then along the Via Sacra to the Forum, before culminating at the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter.59 If this route is correct, then the arch in the Circus Maximus marked the beginning of a route that represented the progressive investment by the Flavians in monuments that worked together cumulatively to constantly recall their victory and triumphal celebrations. When the triumph itself had taken place in 71 CE, the procession of soldiers, spoils and captives asserted the scale to which Jerusalem had been subdued by Rome and brought the spectacle of war before the eyes of the inhabitants of the capital city.60 However, the nature of this spectacle was transitory, and there was the very real risk that once the triumph had taken place, the Jewish war would have limited resonance for the people of Rome. The successive building projects that emerged in the following years ensured that the conquest remained in the public conscience, with the dedication of the Templum Pacis the ideal opportunity and space within which Vespasian and Titus’ victory could be presented as a restitution of peace to the empire as a whole. There they constructed a social memory of the peace of the empire through the conversion of military glory into political power and stability.61 The installation of the Temple treasures in the Templum Pacis complex made a public statement that placed the Jewish War firmly in the context of the wider empire, advertising the peace won there as a peace for all Romans. It created a "commemorative locus" for the Flavian victory in the city of Rome, which transported the military memories associated with Judaea from a foreign place to the imperial capital, "where their resonance would be more effective".62

  • 63 Östenberg 2009, p. 265.
  • 64 Humphreys 1986, p. 126.
  • 65 For the capacity of the Circus Maximus, see Humphreys 1986, p. 76.
  • 66 Östenberg 2009, p. 163.

18The erection of the arch, ten years later, was the definitive, final commemoration of the events of the war. The placement of the arch at the beginning of the triumphal route gave it a performative role that connected the Flavian victory to all future triumphs; the ritual of triumph created a "joint space of psychological participation", with the location of the arch in the Circus Maximus reiterating the communal and collective aspect of the celebration.63 As the largest venue for public gathering in the capital city, it was both fitting and practical that the inscription that gave the most full account of Titus’s successes should be recorded in the place where it would be seen by the greatest number of viewers.64 Although the inscription would certainly not have been visible to the 150,000 inhabitants of Rome that could fit in the Circus at any one time,65 its presence alone confirmed that the conquest had taken place; it was the monumental version of the painted tituli that named and identified the foreign spoils and captives of the triumph, which were almost certainly illegible to the majority of spectators but whose very existence announced the reality, in quantitative terms, of Roman victory.66


  • 67 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 183-191.
  • 68 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 188.
  • 69 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 190.
  • 70 The last recorded triumph in the Fasti Triumphales was awarded to L. Cornelius Balbus in 19 BCE, a (...)

19Robert Ross Holloway has suggested that the inscriptions from both Arches of Titus were intended to be read together, but not simply due to their placement along the conjectured route of the triumph.67 He proposed that the two inscriptions should be read as funerary elogia, which had, since the Republican period, served as monumental summaries of the orations presented at the funerals of important men.68 Furthermore, a comparison can be drawn between the two inscriptions dedicated here to Titus and the famous elogia of the statues of the summi viri in the Forum of Augustus, which were composed in two parts: a small tablet that briefly identified the statue surmounting the base, with a longer inscription describing their careers and successes beneath it. If the inscriptions dedicated to Titus are understood in the same way, the short text from the Arch in the Roman Forum acted as the tablet identifying whom the monument commemorated, and implied a longer accompanying text, which was fulfilled by the inscription from the Circus Maximus.69 Such a reading does not quite fit with the order in which they might be read according to Fergus Millar’s conjectured triumphal route, but the relationship between the two monuments should receive greater emphasis. The Circus Maximus inscription completed the biography of Titus, and described in textual form the same feats represented pictorially in the reliefs of the arch that stood in the Roman Forum. Although neither arch was in place when Vespasian and Titus celebrated their triumphal return to Rome, all future triumphs may well have passed under the commemoration of their singular victory.70 The arches physically worked together to commemorate the conquest of Judaea, with the inscriptions communicating in such as way as to fulfil a longstanding tradition of funerary practice, which was intrinsically connected with the most admired and celebrated men of Rome’s history. The inscription from the lost arch was a multi-layered text; an elogium, a panegyric celebration and a military document, all of which celebrated the single greatest achievement of the Flavian emperors, spreading their imperial message in textual media that could be disseminated amongst a variety of traditions. 

Conclusion

20The victory against the Jews and the destruction of their most holy city in 70 CE was the definitive military, political and ideological event of the Flavian dynasty, and the one that secured their ability to hold on to power following the civil war that had first made the principate available to them. Externalised as a ‘foreign war’, their ‘conquest’ of Judaea legitimised their actions both in Rome and abroad, and provided them with a suitable platform from which their claims of concern for the safety and security of the Roman res publica were justified and seemingly divinely ordained. However unfavourable their conflict with Vitellius had been, the Flavians had been supported by the Roman gods in their defence of the empire, as exemplified by the scale of the victory that they achieved. The defeat of Judaea had bigger, ideological implications too; Vespasian and Titus had destroyed the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and in so doing had weakened the Jewish religion irreparably by making it impossible for the Jews to celebrate their sacrificial cult. Whether or not the destruction of the Temple was more concerned with religious ‘policy’ than the historical sources have yet evidenced is perhaps uncertain, but the text of the inscription from the lost Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus certainly suggests that the gens Iudaeorum represented more than a minor, civic disturbance in the Flavian concept of their imperial power. Not only did they provide the political avenue from which Vespasian could consolidate his hold on power, but the defeat of the Jews and their god elevated the victory to an ideological level of an unprecedented scale.

21Inscribed text implicitly evokes a sense of audience; the events that they record – even in the case of simple funerary monuments – invite participation from those who view them. The form of lapidary inscriptions also make permanent the content of their text; in recording the destruction of Jerusalem in such strong and clear language, the arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus formalised it for posterity. The inscription was imbued with the Flavians’ own vision of their power, and was designed to imprint it on all who saw it. The reality, visibility and prominence of the arch and its inscription gave strength to the claim it commemorated: no emperor could assert the same historic victory as the Flavians. They alone achieved what no kings, generals or people had done before them. The text of the inscription related to the entire area of the city that now surrounded it; from the Templum Pacis to the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum and the Colosseum, the monumental landscape of Rome was permanently changed under the Flavians, and because of the specific reason laid out in the lost inscription from the Circus Maximus. It is no coincidence either that those very monuments built by the Flavians all spoke to the local population of the capital city: the lost arch was built in the largest chariot racing area in Rome, the Colosseum was the first permanent amphitheatre in the city, and the Templum Pacis ostensibly and symbolically made accessible the masterpieces of art, the works of paideia, that Nero had hidden away in the private galleries of the Domus Aurea. Vespasian, Titus and Domitian sought to share the entire world of Rome with the population of the capital, and by extension asked them to buy into their vision of the empire; an empire in which only one populus, one gens, one set of gods could claim preeminent superiority. 

22Although now lost from view, the Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus was, arguably, the most significant monument built by the Flavian dynasty that contributed to their own particular imperial message. It commemorated their extraordinary victory over Judaea and communicated their destruction of Jerusalem; when taken together with the imagery of the reliefs of the arch of Titus in the Roman Forum and the Templum Pacis, however, it is clear that this statement referred not simply to the destruction of a city, but to the eradication of the very foundations of the Jewish cult associated with the Jerusalem temple. With such a powerful ideological message the Flavians were able to assert the legitimacy of their new dynasty, and with the spoils of their victory able to establish a building programme in some of the most visible, and well-frequented areas of the city. From the Circus Maximus to the Oppian Hill, where the Colosseum now loomed, to the via Sacra and the Templum Pacis complex alongside the forum of Augustus – the Flavian victory in Judaea was everywhere in Rome. 

Bibliographie

Barrett 1991 = A.A. Barrett, Claudius’ British Victory Arch in Rome, in Britannia, 22, 1991, p. 1-19.

Bartoloni 2017 = V. Bartoloni, Saggi di scavo nel settore nord-ovest dell’Arco di Tito, in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, CXVIII, 2017, p. 189-200.

Beard 2003 = M. Beard, The Triumph of Flavius Josephus, in A.J. Boyle, W.J. Dominik (ed.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, Leiden, 2003, p. 543-558.

Beard 2007 = M. Beard, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge MA-London, 2007.

Beard – North – Price 1998 = M. Beard, J. North, S. Price (ed.), Religions of Rome, Cambridge, 1998.

Binninger 2009 = S. Binninger, Le Trophée d’Auguste à la Turbie, Paris, 2009.

Boucher 1966 = J.P. Boucher, Caius Cornelius Gallus, Paris, 1966.

Brandizzi Vittucci 1990 = P. Brandizzi Vittucci, L’Arco di Tito al Circo Massimo, in Archeologia Laziale, X, 1990, p. 68-71.

Brilliant 1999 = R. Brilliant, “Let the trumpets roar!” The Roman Triumph, in B. Bergmann, C. Kondoleon (ed.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle, Washington, 1999 (Studies in the History of Art, 56), p. 221-229.

Brin 1986 = H.B. Brin, Catalogue of Iudea Capta coins, Minneapolis, 1986.

Buonfiglio 2017 = M. Buonfiglio, L’Arco di Tito al Circo Massimo: dalle indagine archeologiche alla ricostruzione virtuale, in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, CXVIII, 2017, p. 163-188.

Ciancio Rossetto 1993 = P. Ciancio Rossetto, Arcus Titi (Circus Maximus), in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, I, Roma, 1993, p. 108-109.

Coarelli 2008 = F. Coarelli, Rome and its environs. An archaeological Guide, Berkeley, 2008.

Cody 2003 = J.M. Cody, Conquerors and Conquered on Flavian Coins, in A.J. Boyle, W.J. Dominik (ed.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, Leiden, 2003, p. 103-123.

Coletta and Pergola 2017 = A. Coletta and S. Pergola, Nuovi dati per una proposta di ricostruzione dell’Arco di Tito al Circo Massimo, in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, CXVIII, 2017, p. 201-228.

Cornwell 2013 = H. Cornwell, PAX TERRA MARIQVE: Rhetorics of Roman Victory 50 BC to AD 14, PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 2013.

Darwall-Smith 1996 = R.H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and architecture: a study of Flavian Rome, Brussels, 1996.

Formigé 1949 = J. Formigé, Le Trophée des Alpes: La Turbie, Paris, 1949.

Le Gall 1976 = J. Le Gall, Evocatio, in L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine. I. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon, Rome, 1976 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 27), p. 519-524.

Goodman 2007 = M. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem. The clash of ancient civilisations, London, 2007.

Granino 2017 = M.G. Granino, L’iscrizione dell’arco e l’Anonimo di Einsiedeln, in Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, CXVIII, 2017, p. 229-236.

Griffin 2000 = M. Griffin, The Flavians, in A.K. Bowman, P.  Garnsey, D. Rathbone (ed.), Cambridge Ancient History, XI, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 2000, p. 1-83. 

Højte 2005 = J.M. Højte, Roman imperial statue bases from Augustus to Commodus, Aarhus, 2005.

Humphreys 1986 = J. Humphreys, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, London, 1986.

Keresztes 1973 = P. Keresztes, The Jews, the Christians and the Emperor Domitian, in Vigiliae Christianae, 27, 1973, p. 1-28.

Lavan 2013 = M. Lavan, Slaves to Rome. Paradigms of Empire in Roman Culture, Cambridge, 2013.

Lehman-Hartleben 1934 = K. Lehman-Hartleben, L’Arco di Tito, in Bullettino della Commissone Archaeologica Comunale di Roma, LXII, 1934, p. 89-122.

Leon 1960 = H. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia, 1960.

Levick 1999 = B. Levick, Vespasian, London, 1999.

Lugli – Barraco 2016 = G. Lugli, M.E. Garcia Barraco, Il Circo Massimo e le strutture adiacenti (Mitreo, Portico e Collegium Praeconium), Rome, 2016.

Magi 1977 = F. Magi, Ancora sull’Arco di Tito, in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Roemische Abteilung, 84, 1977, p. 331-347.

Marcattili 2009 = F. Marcattili, Circo Massimo: architetture, funzioni, culti, ideologia, Rome, 2009.

Mellor 2003 = R. Mellor, The New Aristocracy of Power, in A.J. Boyle, W.J. Dominik (ed.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, Leiden, 2003, p. 69-101.

Millar 2005 = F. Millar, Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome, in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, J. Rives (ed.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford, 2005, p. 101-128.

Noreña 2003 = C.F. Noreña, Medium and Message in Vespasian’s Templum Pacis, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 48, 2003, p. 25-43.

Östenberg 2009 = I. Östenberg, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Procession, Oxford, 2009.

Packer 2003 = J.E. Packer, Plurissima et Amplissima Opera: Parsing Flavian Rome, in A.J. Boyle, W.J. Dominik (ed.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, Leiden, 2003, p. 167-198.

Pfanner 1983 = M. Pfanner, Der Titusbogen, Mainz, 1983.

Rives 2005 = J. Rives, Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, J. Rives (ed.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford, 2005, p. 145-166.

La Rocca 1974 = E. La Rocca, Un frammento dell'arco di Tito al Circo Massimo, Rome, 1974.

Ross Holloway 1987 = R. Ross Holloway, Some remarks on the Arch of Titus, in L’Antiquité classique, 56, 1987, p. 183-191.

Rosso 2005 = E. Rosso, Idéologie impériale et art officiel sous les Flaviens. Formulation, diffusion et réception dans les provinces occidentales de l’empire romain (60-96 ap. J.C.), PhD thesis, Université de Paris IV – Sorbonne, 2005.

Rosso 2009 = E. Rosso, Le thème de la ‘Res publica restituta’ dans le monnayage de Vespasien : pérennité du ‘modèle augustéen’ entre citations, réinterpretations et dévoiements, in F. Hurlet, B. Mineo (ed.), Le principat d’Auguste. Réalités et répresentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, 2009, p. 209-242.

Rutgers 1995 = L.V. Rutgers, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora, Leiden, 1995.

Schwier 1989 = H. Schwier, Tempel und Tempelzerstörung: Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66-74 n. Chr.), Göttingen, 1989.

Smallwood 1956 = E.M. Smallwood, Domitian’s Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism, in Classical Philology, 51-1, 1956, p. 1-13.

Smallwood 1976 = E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, Leiden, 1976.

Taraporewalla 2010 = R. Taraporewalla, The Templum Pacis: Construction of Memory under Vespasian, in Acta Classica, LIII, 2010, p. 145-163.

Tuck 2016 = S.L. Tuck, Imperial Image-Making, in A. Zissos (ed.), A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, New Jersey, 2016, p. 109-128.

Yarden 1991 = L. Yarden, The Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus, Stockholm, 1991.

Viscogliosi 1993 = A. Viscogliosi, Apollo, aedes in Circo, in E.M. Steinby, (ed.) Lexicon topographicum Urbis Romae, I, Roma, 1993, p. 49-54. 

Notes

1 Suetonius, Vespasian 1.

2 Tuck 2016, p. 109.

3 Rosso 2005, p. 162.

4 Mellor 2003, p. 74-75.

5 Tuck 2016, p. 109. For the extent of Vespasian’s imitatio Augusti, see Rosso 2009, p. 209-242.

6 Mellor 2003, p.  80.

7 Tuck 2016, p. 111.

8 For discussion of the history and relief detail of the Arch of Titus, see Pfanner 1983; Ross Holloway 1987, p. 183-191; Yarden 1991; J. Arce 1993, p. 109-111; Darwall-Smith 1996, p. 166-172; P.J. Davies 2000, p. 19-24 (history of the arch) and p. 142-148 (ideological implications); Millar 2005, p. 122-125; Rosso 2005, p. 209-216.

9 Marcattili 2009, p. 221-233; Lugli – Garcia Barraco 2016, p. 44-5, fig. 9a.

10 Coletta – Pergola 2017, p. 201.

11 Lugli – García Barraco 2016, p. 44-47. For a synthesis of the history of the rediscovery of the arch, see La Rocca 1974; Humphrey 1986, p. 97-100; Brandizzi Vittucci 1990, p. 68-71; Cianco Rossetto 1993, p. 108-109. For the most recent discussion of the new excavations and the proposed reconstruction of the archaeological finds, see the detailed reports in the Bullettino della Commissione Archaeologica Comunale di Roma CXVIII, 2017, esp.: Buonfiglio 2017, p. 163-187; Bartoloni 2017, p. 189-199; Coletta – Pergola 2017, p. 201-227.

12 Humphreys 1986, p. 97-100; p. 104, fig. 42.

13 Humphreys 1986, p. 97.

14 Humphreys 1986, p. 98.

15 Alföldy in CIL VI, 944.

16 Granino 2017, p. 229-235; this reconstruction has been proposed following the discovery of four new fragments of the inscription in the 2016 excavations. Through an analysis of the letter heights, Granino has demonstrated that unlike Mommsen’s reconstruction of the text, which placed them on a single line, the first line read only Senatus, with populusque Romanus appearing on the second. Granino noted also that the height of the lettering of Senatus measured 23.4 cm, with populusque Romanus measuring only 21 cm, indicating a diminishing scale of letter height in each line. She notes that the larger size of the lettering of Senatus was intended to emphasise the positive rapport between the senatorial body and the princeps (p. 234).

17 Millar 2005, p. 120.

18 Rosso 2005, p. 208.

19 For similar usages, see e.g. Cicero: Laelius de Amicitia 3. 11; 4; Pro Sestio 26; Philippicae 1.1; Horace, Odes 4; 9; 10; Livy, 39.30; Lucretius, 5.748; Vergil, Aeneid 11.898.

20 Rosso 2005, p. 177.

21 Lavan 2013, p. 83 n. 34 for literary examples.

22 Lavan 2013, p. 83. Lavan also notes that the animalising language of enslavement is paralleled in the material record, where images of captives are frequently presented as ‘yoked’ in chains, see p. 87.

23 CIL III, 14147 (= IGPhilae II 128): exercitu ultra Nili catarhacten transducto, in quem locum neque populo Romano neque regibus Aegypti arma sunt prolata. For Gallus’ inscription, see Boucher 1966; Cornwell 2013, p. 125-141.

24 CIL V, 7817: gentes alpinae omnes quae a mari supero ad inferum / pertinebant sub imperium p(opuli) R(omani) sunt redactae. Re-published by Formigé 1949. For an updated history of the monument and its archaeology, see Binninger 2009.

25 CIL VI, 40416 = VI, 920 = VI, 31203. For the history and archaeology of the arch, see Barrett 1991, p.  1-19; Steinby 1993, p. 85-86.

26 Millar 2005, p. 120.

27 B.J. 1.141-154 and 345-357.

28 B.J. 6.435-437. For these earlier instances of Jerusalem falling to enemy hands, see Smallwood 1976, p. 1-4.

29 Rosso 2005, p. 177.

30 Tacitus, Hist. 3.72; Noreña 2003, p. 31.

31 Tuck 2016, p.  111-112; Rosso 2005, p. 164-172.

32 Rosso 2005, p. 173-175. For full discussion of the Iudaea Capta coins, see Rosso 2005, p. 173-179; 2009, p. 209-242; Cody 2003, p. 103-123. Brin 1986 provides a full catalogue of known Iudaea Capta coin types.

33 Rives 2005, p. 146-151.

34 Rives 2005, p. 150.

35 Ibid. For the representation of the temple treasures as a substitute for a cult statue, see Schwier 1989, p. 324.

36 For evocatio, see Beard, Price – North 1998, vol. I, p. 133-134; Le Gall 1976, p. 519-524.

37 Josephus, B.J. 6.299-300; Rives 2005, p. 149.

38 Rives 2005, p. 152-154. The temple in Leontopolis dated to c. 160 BCE and was established following the exclusion of the Oniads from the high priesthood at the Jerusalem temple. It is not clear how closely it was connected with the cult in Judaea, if at all, but there is some evidence in the rabbinic texts (e.g. Mishnah, Menaḥot 13.10) that some offerings were made there. Josephus relates that after the fall of Masada a group in Alexandria attempted to retaliate against Rome with disturbances there, leading to the order to remove the Temple treasures and close its doors (B.J. 7.409-419).

39 Rives 2005, p. 153.

40 Rives 2005, p. 155.

41 Rosso 2005, p. 178.

42 Goodman 2007, p. 385. For the history of the Jews in the city of Rome, see Leon 1960; Rutgers, 1995.

43 Goodman 2007, p. 385.

44 For Domitian’s treatment of the Jews, see Smallwood 1956, p. 1-13; Keresztes 1973, p. 1-28.

45 Goodman 2007, p. 466.

46 This was the first new building begun in the city by Vespasian; his first architectural work, following the damage done during the civil war by Vitellius’ troops, was the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol and the restoration of the temples of Honos and Virtus, and the stage of the Theatre of Marcellus. He had all inscribed with the names of their original founders, rather than his own, thereby appearing twice as respectful and benevolent, see Levick 1999, p. 126.

47 Noreña 2003, p. 26-27.

48 Coarelli 2008, p. 12-126. For discussion of the history and archaeology of the Templum Pacis complex, see Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, IV.67-70; Darwall-Smith 1996, p. 56-71; Noreña 2003, p. 25-43; Millar 2005, p. 109-112; Taraporewalla 2010, p. 145-163.

49 Noreña 2003, p. 34-35.

50 Noreña 2003, p. 34.

51 Noreña 2003, p. 38.

52 B.J. VII.158. For the order in which the Temple treasures were paraded in the triumph, see Östenberg 2009, p. 111-119.

53 Noreña 2003, p.  35; Millar 2005, p. 101-128.

54 CIL VI, 4045a = AE 1995, 111b.

55 Millar 2005, p. 118-119.

56 Taraporewalla 2010, p. 149.

57 B.J. 7.123-157. For discussion of the Triumphal route, see Brilliant 1999, p. 221-229; Beard 2003, p. 543-558; Beard 2007, p. 93-101, 151-153; Millar 2005, p. 101-128; Östenberg 2009.

58 B.J. 7.131.

59 Millar 2005, p. 101-106. For discussion of the route between the ‘theatres’ described by Josephus see also Rosso 2005, p. 231-236.

60 Beard 2003, p. 548-553.

61 Taraporewalla 2010, p. 153.

62 Ibid.

63 Östenberg 2009, p. 265.

64 Humphreys 1986, p. 126.

65 For the capacity of the Circus Maximus, see Humphreys 1986, p. 76.

66 Östenberg 2009, p. 163.

67 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 183-191.

68 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 188.

69 Ross Holloway 1987, p. 190.

70 The last recorded triumph in the Fasti Triumphales was awarded to L. Cornelius Balbus in 19 BCE, after which the number celebrated, to whom they were awarded and the frequency with which they occurred fell dramatically. From Augustus on, only the emperor himself, and his closest family members could triumph; the writings of Orosius calculate that only five triumphs were celebrated in the centuries after 19 BCE: Domitian in 89 CE against the Chatti; Trajan in 102 and 105 CE, against the Dacians, and again posthumously in 117-118 CE following the Parthian war; Marcus Aurelius in 166 CE also for his campaigns against the Parthians. See Beard 2007, p. 61-71.

Auteur

CNRS / Aix-Marseille University, caroline.2.barron@gmail.com

© Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2020

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search