Provincial Patrons and Commemorative Rivalries: Rethinking the Roman Arch Monument

Cassibry, Kimberly

doi:10.1353/mou.0.0081

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…39 M. Beard has shown just how tenuous is our knowl-37 Recent proponents of this argument include: Kleiner 1985, 14-15;1989c, 89-90;1991a, 205;and 1992, 167;De Maria 1988, 262, nos. 49-50;Cassibry 2008, 424-25. Calabi Limentani (1982 suggested that the two fornices were constructed to replace the donaria (buildings that housed votive offerings) originally constructed by M. Fulvius Flaccus in 264 after his victory over Volsinii.…”

Section: Locating the Fornices Of Republican Romementioning

confidence: 99%

“…32. 57 E.g., Kleiner 1989c, 89-90;1991a, 203;Cassibry 2008, 425. Even Calabi Limentani (1982 neglects this monument in favor of the two fornices in the Forum Boarium.…”

Section: Locating the Fornices Of Republican Romementioning

confidence: 99%

“…62. 190 Throughout the Imperial period free standing arches would be used for a much broader range of functions, including as votive monuments, popular in the provinces: see Cassibry 2008;Kleiner 1989cKleiner , 1991aKleiner , and 1992. For other functions, see Frothingham 1915;Kleiner 1991b. and meanings were both more complex and more varied.…”

Section: Conclusion: From Fornix To Arcusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reconsidering the arches (fornices) of the Roman Republic

Kontokosta¹

2013

J. Roman archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under the empire, the freestanding arch became one of the most widespread of Roman monuments, with a total that once must have far surpassed the 800+ examples known to us today. 1 This building type, which is equally ubiquitous in the capital, Roman East and West, and which came to represent both an efficient tool of Roman urbanism and a coherent emblem of imperial order and rule, has been the subject of many comprehensive studies, 2 yet, despite a scholarly focus on particular imperial arches, 3 relatively little attention has been given to the early development of the type. Many recognize the importance of the arch in the building program of Augustan Rome and the prominent rôle it played in the urban landscape of the 1st c. A.D., 4 but there has been scant interest in the poorlyknown Republican arches that preceded them. The arches of the Republic, prior to Augustus termed fornices, have normally been considered only as a preface to the Imperial era. 5 The earliest fornices have been widely labeled "votive" monuments, which implies that Republican arches had religious associations and were "set up not to glorify emperors or other mortals but to honor divine beings". 6 As a result, the monument type is conventionally divorced from the discourse on Roman military commemoration and the competitive environment of personal self-aggrandizement that manifested itself in the built environment of Republican Rome. The purpose of this article is to look at the evidence for the earliest known Roman arches in order to reconsider the "votive" classification, and then situate them more precisely within the context of the architectural development of the city and the political, economic and social realities of the 2nd and 1st c. B.C. It will also consider to what degree Imperial arches continued the traditions (functional, decorative, urbanistic, symbolic) established in the fornices of the Republic, and whether the Augustan arch represents a new direction for the architectural type. 7 1 In addition to extant monuments, this includes arches known from archaeological, literary, epigraphical and pictorial evidence. Fähndrich (2005, 3 n.18) suggests that 200 arches be added to the 630 catalogued by H. Kähler in 1939.

show abstract

Section: Locating the Fornices Of Republican Romementioning

confidence: 99%

“…32. 57 E.g., Kleiner 1989c, 89-90;1991a, 203;Cassibry 2008, 425. Even Calabi Limentani (1982 neglects this monument in favor of the two fornices in the Forum Boarium.…”

Section: Locating the Fornices Of Republican Romementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion: From Fornix To Arcusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconsidering the arches (fornices) of the Roman Republic

Kontokosta¹

2013

J. Roman archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The architecture of memory and commemoration: the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial Arch, Brooklyn, New York and the reception of classical architecture in New York City

Macaulay-Lewis¹

2016

Classical Receptions Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A New Examination of the Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea

Meyers

2017

Journal of Ancient History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The arch dedicated to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea was an important component in that town’s building activity. By situating the arch within its socio-historical context and acknowledging the political identity of Oea and nearby towns, this article shows that the arch at Oea far surpassed nearby contemporary arches in style, material, and execution. Further, this article demonstrates that the arch was a key element in Oea’s Roman identity. Finally, the article bridges disciplinary boundaries by bringing together art historical analysis with the concepts of euergetism, Roman civic status, and inter-city rivalry in the Roman Empire.

show abstract

Provincial Patrons and Commemorative Rivalries: Rethinking the Roman Arch Monument

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Reconsidering the arches (fornices) of the Roman Republic

Reconsidering the arches (fornices) of the Roman Republic

The architecture of memory and commemoration: the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Memorial Arch, Brooklyn, New York and the reception of classical architecture in New York City

A New Examination of the Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About