Provenance and location

Ancient city: Roma
Modern city: Rome (Italy)
Province: Urbs
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Rome, found in 1546 during the excavations convened by the Pope Paul III in the Baths of Caracalla
Current location: Musei Capitolini, ground floor, II room on the right, NCE 2472
Ancient location: public space

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Building inscription

Latin text

Critical edition

Edition based on EDR 121816.

1: Dd(omini) nn(ostri): CIL 06, 01170; Valentin[ianus]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
2: [et]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168; Au[gusti]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
3: [or]natui: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
4: co[nstitui l]ocarique: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
5: iusseru[nt]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
6: Rufio: CIL 06, 01170a
7: pra[ef(ecto)]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
8: [prae]t(orio): CIL 06, 01170a; iu[d(ice)]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168
9: [i]terum s[acrar(um)]: CIL 06, 01170a; cogn[it(ionum)]: Ferrua 1975, p. 168

Translations

English

“Our masters Valentinian and Valens ordered that (this statue) was placed and set up for the public embellishment under the supervision of Rufius Volusianus, man of clarissimus rank, former praetorian prefect, urban prefect, judge with the faculty to institute sacred trials for the second time”.

French

“Nos seigneurs, Valentinien et Valens Augustes, ont ordonné que (cette statue) soit élevée et disposée pour le décor publique, sous le contrôle du clarissime Rufius Volusianus, ancien préfet du prétoire, préfet urbain, juge avec pouvoir d’instituer des procès à la place de l’empereur pour la deuxième fois”.

Italian

“I nostri signori, Valentiniano e Valente Augusti, ordinarono che (questa statua) fosse innalzata e disposta per il pubblico decoro, sotto la supervisione del chiarissimo Rufius Volusianus, ex prefetto del pretorio, prefetto urbano, giudice con la facoltà di istituire processi in vece dell’imperatore per la seconda volta.”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

This marble slab, originally joined to a statue base, is broken into two contiguous fragments with a flat listel moulding. Its epigraphic field, rough and irregular, evidently bore an earlier inscription that was erased in order to receive the present text. During the 17th Century the historians and collectors Macquard Gude, Raffaele Fabretti and Francesco Bianchini noted that on the right and left side (the left one appears only in Gude’s manuscript) of the statue base traces, that currently cannot be seen, of an incomplete dedication dating to 248 AD could be discerned (see CIL 06, 01170b and EDR 121816: (right side) [Imp(eratore) M(arco) Iulio Philippo Aug]usto I̅I̅I̅, / [Imp(eratore) M(arco) Iulio Philippo Au]g(usti) f(ilio) iterum co(n)s(ulibus)/ [--- dedica]vit / [---]LET; (left side) [---]N / ------ / Sex(tus) M[---]/ pri[---]). E. Bormann and W. Henzen in CIL 06, 01170, then G. Alföldy and A. Scheithauer (CIL 06, p. 4332) have argued that these excerpts carved on both sides of the base belong to the earlier erased inscription on the front and are a continuation of it.

The monument was found in 1546 in the Baths of Caracalla (where other dedications by Volusianus also come: CIL 06, 00794; CIL 06, 01171; CIL 06, 01172; CIL 06, 01173a, see PPRET 38) during some excavations convened by Pope Paul III (Lanciani 1903, pp. 180-181, rist. 1990, p. 197). Later it was moved to the Gregorian chapel of Saint Peter’s in Rome, where Francesco Maria Torrigio and Giovanni Battista Doni recorded it in 1626 (Ferrua 1975, p. 168). Currently, the marble slab, the only part which has survived, is exhibited at the Musei Capitolini of Rome.

The roughly carved inscription preserves the dedication of a statue to an unknown personage that was moved and re-employed as part of the ornamental restoration of the Baths of Caracalla commissioned by the emperors Valentinian I and Valens.

During the 4th Century the maintenance of crumbling public monuments and spaces was so urgent that it took priority over any new building project (for other restorations, see PPRET 30, PPRET 42, PPRET 44, PPRET 69, by Lampadius see PPRET 39, PPRET 41). Thus, Valentinian and Valens did not build their own thermae, which would have been a colossal undertaking, but instead made their own personal contribution to the Baths of Caracalla on the Aventine, embellishing it with a number of recycled statues. The latter consisted perhaps of «honorary portraits lacking the usual inscription or [...] ancient works brought from earlier locations and re-erected» (Marvin 1983, p. 369).

In this context, the spoliation of the architectural and sculptural decorations from older abandoned structures in order to reuse the building material for spaces still in use, became a widespread operation requiring central planning (Machado 2019, p. 235). Indeed, more than one imperial law (CTh 15, 01, 01: 357 AD; CTh 15, 01, 14: 365 AD; CTh 15, 01, 19: 376 AD) reveals concerns over the increasing pillage and condemned the officials who took it upon themselves to move columns or other architectural elements from crumbling buildings or began new building projects without imperial permission (Chastagnol, 1960, p. 347; Thomas 1998; Marano 2020). The aim of such measures was, as Machado (2019, p. 75) states, to better «control the expenses and prevent embezzlement», particularly with regard to the urban prefects, who were often responsible for urban building projects. All too often the latter were able to exploit the renovation of monuments and spaces, for which the state made funds and materials available, in order to improve their own social status at the expense of the city itself. These works indeed offered to the officials the opportunity to publicize their association with the monuments of the city as a personal instrument of propaganda (Colombo 2008, p. 203, Machado 2019, p. 75).

The case of the urban prefect Ceionius Rufius Volusianus signo Lampadius, under whose supervision the works in the Baths of Caracalla were carried out, is a good example. During his tenure of office in 365 AD (see PPRET 36) Volusianus handled the highest number of renovations of which records have been kept (see also PPRET 39 and PPRET 41); even Ammianus remarked upon his intense building activity, albeit disparagingly (Amm. 27, 03, 07-09). The historian informs us that his ambitious and incessant yearning to build earned him the enmity of the plebs, most likely those providing the construction materials, who Volusianus enraged with unpaid requisitions, so much so that he caused an insurrection (Amm. 27, 03, 07-09, see PPRET 36). Indeed, for inscribing his name on buildings not as their restorer but as their founder (non ut veterum instaurator sed conditor), the urban prefect received the nickname herba parietina (Amm. 27, 03, 07), “parasitic plant” (for a deeper study on this wording cf. Colombo 2008, pp. 201-203, Den Boeft et alii 2009, p. 57). Volusianus certainly could not present himself as conditor, since he did not erect any new building, in adherence to the law of the emperor Valentinian, issued in May 364 AD (CTh 15, 01, 01) that expressly forbade it.

More likely, as the epigraphic evidence suggests, the urban prefect took full advantage of the prominence that such building activity provided him with, almost as if he really was the founder. Furthermore, Volusianus underlined in these texts the position of praetorian prefect that he had held ten years before (ex praefecto praetorio). Indeed, he intentionally made this the key note of his career even though it had nothing to do with his role in the building works as praefectus urbi, exhibiting his own standing in the city even in the context of an imperial dedication, despite the emperor’s attempt to limit investments in public structures (Matthews 1975, p. 22; Machado 2019, pp. 130-131), a fact that can also be observed in the inscription for the restoration of the Castellum of the Aqua Claudia (PPRET 39) and for the maintenance of the thirteen bridges at Ostia (PPRET 41).

Bibliography

Chastagnol A., La préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris 1960.

Chastagnol A., Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire, Paris 1962.

Colombo M., Annotazioni esegetiche ad Amm. 27, 3, WS, 121, 2008, 189-225.

Den Boeft J., Drijvers J.W., den Hengst D., Teitler H.C., Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXVI, Leiden – Boston 2009.

Ferrua A., Iscrizioni antiche viste dal Torrigio, RSA, 5, 1975, 161-171.

Lanciani R., Storia degli scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezioni romane di antichità, II. Gli ultimi anni di Clemente VII e il pontificato di Paolo III (A. 1531-1549), Roma 1903 (rist. Roma 1990).

Machado C., Urban Space and Aristocratic Power in Late Antique Rome, AD 270-535, Oxford 2019.

Marano Y.A., Teoria e pratica del reimpiego in età romana. Fonti scritte ed evidenza archeologica, in Culasso-Gastaldi E. (a cura di), La seconda vita delle iscrizioni e molte altre ancora, Alessandria 2020, 107-132.

Marvin M., Freestanding Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla, AJA, 83, 3, 1983, 347-384.

Thomas Y., Les ornements, la cité, le patrimoine, in Auvray-Assayas Cl. (éd.) Images romaines (Actes de la table ronde, Paris, École normale supérieure 24-26 octobre 1996), Paris 1998, 263-284.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit