Skip to main content

Writing (and Rewriting) Rome

This blog has demonstrated the importance of Roman public writing along a number of lines. Inscriptions were vehicles of power. They defined and contextualized spaces. They functioned as records of social contracts, especially between patrons and clients. In all of these ways public writing served important functions in the Roman World.

This last post will emphasize how important these functions of public writing were to the Romans by discussing restoration inscriptions. All around Rome this type of inscriptions can be seen. Usually these take the formula 'X person rebuilt this building after it was destroyed by Y'. For example, the Temple of Saturn states that the Senate and People of Rome Rebuilt it after it was burned in a fire.
The Temple of  Saturn in the Roman Forum. Photo by Jack Hase.

It is possible to understand these inscriptions with the approaches used throughout this blog: in terms of power, space, and social contract. However, these restoration inscriptions also provide a new wrinkle of interpretation.

Not all buildings with restoration inscriptions show archaeological evidence of restoration.

When we start looking at different buildings with restoration inscriptions in this way we find that Rome is scattered with buildings that only show signs of minor or superficial renovations. This is not true for all buildings that are inscribed as being rebuilt; often the sites show indications that some amount of work coincides with the text. However, we are still left with many inscriptions that make misleading claims about restoration. Why?
The Porticus of Octavia bearing a restoration inscription. Photo by Jack Hase.

For the careful reader of this blog this is not a hard question. Inscriptions were important in the Roman world. They served a function. But even as Rome became packed full of buildings with inscriptions, the functions that they served continued. Therefore it makes sense that those who occupied positions of patronage in society would use any reason they could to publish a new inscription. Was an important building a little damaged in a fire? Maybe that is a good opportunity to give the whole site a little face-lift and a new inscription. Trying to legitimize yourself as an imperial patron? Maybe there is a temple that has seen better days and could use a nice clear inscription with your name.

This blog has repeatedly discussed how Roman public writing served important functions. By looking at restorations inscriptions in this way we can see just how important these functions were to Romans. Romans needed to write, read, and live in settings with inscriptions. They relied upon them in daily life. As is evident by less-than-necessary restoration inscriptions, Romans believed public writing was necessary. As we look back on the Roman World, we should strive to see the same necessity in the inscriptions they left behind.

Vltime Valete.

Bibliography:

Fagan, Garret G. "The Reliability of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions." Papers of the British School at Rome 64 (1996): 81-93.

Thomas, Edmund and Christian Witschel. "Constructing Reconstruction: Claim and Reality of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions from the Latin West." Papers from the British School at Rome 60 (1992): 135-177.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing a Family: The Temple of Isis and Numerius Popidius Celsinus

72 CE: a massive earthquake shakes Pompeii. A temple to an exotic goddess crumbles to its foundations. But from the rubble a new temple is built. It is above the doorway that the name of this benevolent civic patron is written for all to see: Numerius Popidius Celsinus, now the only six-year-old boy given a place in the local senate. Scale model of the rebuilt Temple of Isis in Pompeii in the  Museo Archiologioco Nazionale di Napoli. Photo by Jack Hase. Let's rewind. Under the empire in the 1st century CE the Popidius family was active in local Pompeiian politics. This was a leading family in the community that participated in common aspects of Roman aristocratic life, including the owning and freeing of slaves. One of these freedman slaves was named Numerius Popidius Ampliatus; the fact that he bared the name of his previous master's family was a sign of his freedman status while 'Ampliatus' is related to the Latin word denoting increasing wealth. This name was a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Writing an Audience, Part 3: The Pantheon

I want you to just look at the following picture for a few seconds. This is the Pantheon. What you see was built around 125 CE by the emperor Hadrian after fire destroyed the previous iteration. In its day the building was in the heart of a high traffic area; porticoes, basilicas, baths and other temples surrounded it. While its own function as a atypical temple is up for debate, its grandeur tells us it was an important site. Look up at the inscription. The letters are the same height as the people walking below. These words were meant to be read. The Pantheon in Rome. Photo by Jack Hase. Here, in part 3 of this series, we will look at the the readability of the inscription adorning the front of the Pantheon. As with the previous post, three aspects of this inscription made it easily readable to a broad 'less-literate' audience. The inscription reads: M. AGRIPPA. L. F. COS. TERTIVM. FECIT (Marcus Agrippa, Son of Lucius, Built This in his Third Consulship) [Transl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pantheon Mini-Post: Inscription In Absentia

This is a mini-post. Not a true post in nature but an excuse to make a short point about the Pantheon that pertains to the themes of this Blog.  Readers will remember that the Pantheon, as we see it today, was built by Hadrian around 125 CE. Nevertheless, it bears the inscription that was placed onto the original structure and that names Agrippa as the builder. This was not the only time Hadrian refused to monumentalize his name either.  The Imperial Lives states: “In Rome, Hadrian rebuilt the Pantheon, the Saepta, the Basilica of Neptune, many temples, the Forum of Augustus, and the Baths of Agrippa. He dedicated all of these buildings in the names of their original builders.” The question presents itself: why would Hadrian not monumentalize his name on these structures as the re-builder ? Surely, since we find inscriptions naming re-builders  all around Rome, this would have been the expectation. Herein lies what I think is the solution to this problem....
Post a Comment
Read more