VIAE
VIAE In legal Latin the word
via
signifies (1) a rural servitude, (2) a regularly made street or road. In the
first sense it is distinguishable from the servitudes of i. e. and
actus Iter is the right of walking or passing along
a road;
actus is the right of walking or
passing and driving cattle or vehicles (exclusive of heavy traffic) along a
road.
Via includes both i. e. and
actus, and is the right of walking or passing and
driving cattle, vehicles, or traffic of any description along a
via properly so called, i. e. a regularly made
street or road (Ulpian,
Dig. 8,
3,
1,
7; and cf.
Isidor.
Orig. 15.16;
SERVITUTES). By the laws of the Twelve Tables (
Dig. 8,
3,
8) the minimum width of a
via was fixed
at 8 feet where it was straight, and 16 feet where it turned. Hence
via differs in this sense also from
actus and
iter, which
denoted smaller or rougher roads, bridle-paths, drifts, and tracks. As
regards the actual width of the different classes of roads, see Burn,
Rome and the Campagna, Introd. p. liii. note 2;
Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1888, p. 478.
Ulpian (
Dig. 43,
8,
21,
22,
23) distinguished three kinds of
viae:--
- 1. Viae publicae, consulares,
praetoriae or militares:
public high or main roads, constructed and maintained at the public
expense, and with their soil vested in the state. Such roads led
either to the sea, or to a town, or to a public river (i. e. one
with a constant flow), or to another public road (Dig. 43, 7, 3). [p. 2.947]Siculus Flaccus, who lived
under Trajan (A.D. 98-117), calls them viae
publicae regalesque, and describes their characteristics as
follows (de Cond. Agr. p. 9, ed. Goesius, 1674):--(1)
They are placed under curatores
(commissioners), and repaired by redemptores (contractors) at the public expense; a fixed
contribution, however, being levied from the neighbouring
landowners: (2) they bear the names of their constructors (e.g.
Via Appia, Cassia, Flaminia). With
the term viae regales compare the
ὁδοὶ βασιλήιαι of the Persian
kings (who probably organised the first system of public roads: see
Hdt. 5.52, 53), the term ὁδὸς
βασιλικὴ in Numbers (LXX.) 20.17, and Plutarch, Plut. Demetr. 46, and our own
“royal road” and “king's highway.”
With the term via militaris compare the
German Heerstrasse, and the A.-S.
Here-straet. So Guest (Origines
Celticae, 2.228) identifies the Icknield Way as the
Icen-hilde-weg, or War-way of the Iceni.
- 2. Viae privatae, rusticae, or
agrariae: private or country roads,
originally constructed by private persons, in whom their soil was
vested, and who had the power of dedicating them to the public use.
Such roads were subject to a right of way, in favour either of the
public or of the owner of a particular estate. Under the head of
viae privatae were also included
roads leading out of the public or high roads to particular estates
or settlements. These Ulpian considers to be public roads themselves
(Dig. 43, 8,
23).
- 3. Viae vicinales: village, district,
or cross-roads, leading through or towards a vicus or village. Such roads ran either into a
high-road, or into other viae
vicinales, without any direct communication with a
high-road. They were considered public or private, according to the
fact of their original construction out of public or private funds
or materials (Dig. 43, 8, 22). Such a road, though
privately constructed, became a public road when the memory of its
private constructors had perished (Dig. 43,
7, 3).
Siculus Flaccus (
l.c.) describes
viae vicinales as roads “de publicis quae divertunt in
agros et saepe ad alteras publicas perveniunt.” The repairing
authorities, in this case, were the
magistri
pagorum or magistrates of the
pagus
or canton. They could require the neighbouring landowners either to furnish
labourers for the general repair of the
viae
vicinales, or to keep in repair, at their own expense, a certain
length of road passing through their respective properties.
An attempt will be made in this article to state the main facts concerning
the
viae publicae of the Roman Empire under the
heads of I. History; II. Materials and Methods of Construction. Rival
theories and minute points of information must be sought for in the list of
authorities given below, under the head of III. Literature. It comprises the
principal works dealing with the history, construction, and topography of
the Roman roads, in four divisions, thus: 1. General Information; 2.
Viae Publicae in Rome and Italy (within the
Eleven Regions of Augustus); 3.
Viae Publicae
in Britain; 4.
Viae Publicae in the other
provinces of the Empire.
I. HISTORY.
The public road-system of the Romans was thoroughly military in its aims
and spirit: it was designed to unite and consolidate the conquests of
the Roman people, whether within or without the limits of Italy proper.
Dr. Guest, in commenting on the Itinerary of Antoninus (
Origines Celticae, 2.102), describes the system
as follows: “With the exception of some outlying portions, such as
Britain north of the Wall, Dacia, and certain provinces east of the
Euphrates, the whole Empire was penetrated by these
iters. There is hardly a district which we
might expect a Roman official to be sent to, on service either civil
or military, where we do not find them. They reach the Wall in
Britain; run along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates; and
cover, as with a network, the interior provinces of the
Empire.” See also Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung,
1.559. The following illustration represents part of a magnificent Roman
 |
|
Part of a Roman road in Lancashire.
|
road which is still to be seen on a hill-side at Blackstone
Edge, in Lancashire.
A similar policy, attended by similar success, has been repeatedly
followed in more modern days. We need only refer to the roads made by
General Wade and Captain Burt in the Scottish Highlands, after the
Jacobite rising of 1715 (see Burton,
History of Scotland,
1689-1748, 2.246-256, and Burt,
Letters, ed. Jamieson,
1818); to the Simplon, Cornice, and other military roads of Napoleon I.;
and finally to the road-systems of our military engineers and Public
Works Department in India.
It is evident that the construction of some visible presentment of this
huge network of communications would soon become a practical necessity.
A review of the authorities seems to warrant the statement that, in the
time of Augustus, a map or chart, founded on the geographical statistics
contained in the
Commentarii of Agrippa,
and engraved on marble, was exhibited bited for public reference in the
Portico of Polla or Pola, Agrippa's sister, which was erected in the
Campus Martins between B.C. 12 and A.D. 7 (
Plin. Nat. 3.17). It was probably very similar in
construction to the marble map of Rome divided into Regions, now known
as the Capitoline Plan. It is certain that geographical measurements
took place under Augustus; but the story that they were merely
completions of a survey originally ordered about 44 B.C. by Julius
Caesar, rests on more doubtful authority (see Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, 2.207 ff.). Vegetius alludes to the
early possession of maps by military commanders: “Usque eo ut
sollertiores duces itineraria provinciarum . . . non tantum adnotata
sed etiam picta habuisse
[p. 2.948]firmentur”
(
R. M. 3.6). Moreover, a book, perhaps bearing the
name of
Chorographia (it is quoted by
Strabo as
ὁ χωρογράφος), was
constructed from the same
Commentarii of
Agrippa, whose measurements are constantly referred to as authoritative
by Pliny.
The marble map which has been mentioned was, most probably, the original
authority on which the Antonine and other Itineraries, and the ancient
map or chart of the Roman dominions, known as the Peutinger Table, were
founded. The Peutinger Table has by some been identified with a copy,
made in 1265 by a Dominican monk of Colmar, from a certain original
Mappa Mundi. Miller, however, whose
works on the Peutinger Table are cited below, considers it to be two
centuries earlier in date, and to be based on an original constructed in
the fourth century A.D., and probably in the
reign of Valentinian II. (375-392 A.D.). The remarks of Vegetius, who
lived under this emperor, on the use of
itineraria
picta, have already been quoted. The Table was discovered
in 1507 by Conrad Celtes (1459-1508) in a German monastery. Celtes
bequeathed it by his will (in which he described it as
Itinerarium Antonini) to Conrad Peutinger, a
scholar of Augsburg (1465-1547), for eventual publication. After many
vicissitudes, it was bought for 100 ducats, in 1720, by Prince Eugene,
and passed, after his death, into the possession of the Imperial Library
at Vienna. In the modern sense of the word, the Peutinger Table is not a
map at all. It observes neither latitude nor longitude. All the
territories and seas depicted on it are drawn out into a continuous
narrow strip, almost regardless of their true geographical conformation
and relative position. It runs east and west, and its existing remains
comprise all the known world between the east coast of Britain and the
limits of Alexander's Indian conquests. The westernmost part has been
lost. The Table shows the course of the public roads of the Empire, and
gives the distances from station station in miles. Its peculiar shape
may perhaps be accounted for by a passage in which Merivale (
H.
R. c. xxxix.) comments on the original marble map:
“Its extension along the walls of a gallery or cloister was
meant to keep all its parts nearly on the same level.” A
large globe or circular map, constructed like the
Mappa Mundi at Venice, would have been more accurate in
form, but less easy to consult.
The construction and care of the public roads, whether in Rome, in Italy,
or in the provinces, was, at all periods of Roman history, considered to
be a function of the greatest weight and importance. This is clearly
shown by the fact that the censors, in some respects the most venerable
of Roman magistrates, had the earliest paramount authority to construct
and repair all roads and streets. Indeed, all the various functionaries,
not excluding the emperors themselves, who succeeded the censors in this
portion of their duties, may be said to have exercised a devolved
censorial jurisdiction (see Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.428
if., 451 ff.). This devolution early became a practical necessity,
resulting from the growth of the Roman dominions and the multifarious
labours which detained the censors in the capital city. Hence, in Rome
and the immediate neighbourhood, as we shall presently see, certain
special official bodies successively acted as constructing and repairing
authorities. In Italy, the censorial responsibility passed to the
commanders of the Roman armies, and, later on, to special commissioners
(
curatores), and, in some cases
perhaps, to the local magistrates. In the provinces, the consul or
praetor (hence the terms
via consularis, via
praetoria = via publica) and his legates received
authority to deal directly with the contractors (
Cic. Font. 4, § § 7, 8).
The systems successively pursued in Italy may be illustrated from Livy,
who tells us (39.2) that C. Flaminius (consul 185 B.C.), in his campaign
against the Ligurian Friniates, “ne in otio militem haberet, viam
a Bononia duxit Arretium.” Moreover, his colleague, M.
Aemilius Lepidus, made another road, the earlier
Via
Aemilia, from Placentia to Ariminum, where it joined the
Via Flaminia (Livy,
l.c.; and Strabo, 5.1, 11=p.
217). In 21 A.D. Cn. Domitius Corbulo complained to Tiberius that
numerous roads in Italy had become impassable, “fraude mancipum et
incuria magistratuum” (
Tac. Ann.
3.31). It is uncertain whether the neglectful magistrates
here alluded to were the permanent
curatores of the roads in question, or the municipal
magistrates. (See the notes of Lipsius and Orelli in their respective
editions of Tacitus.)
But there were many other persons besides the special officials, who from
time to time, and for a variety of reasons, sought to connect their
names with a great public service like that of the roads. Caius
Gracchus, when Tribune of the people (123-122 B.C.), paved or gravelled
many of the public roads, and provided them with milestones and
mountingblocks for riders (Plut.
C. Gracchus, 100.7).
Again, C. Scribonius Curio, when Tribune (B.C. 50), sought popularity by
introducing a Lex. Viaria, under which he was to be chief inspector or
commissioner for five years (Appian,
B.C. ii, 27;
Cic. Fam. 8.6). Dio Cassius (47.17)
mentions as one of the forcible acts of the triumvirs of 43 B.C.
(Octavianus, Antony, and Lepidus), that they obliged the senators to
repair the public roads at their own expense. There is little doubt that
such a measure would be popular with all but the direct sufferers.
The care of the streets and roads within the Roman territory was, as we
have already stated, committed in the earliest times to the censors. An
ancient enactment (ap.
Cic.
Legg. 3.3. 1) prescribed
thus:--“Censores . . . . urbis templa vias aquas aerarium
vectigalia tuento.” Appius Claudius Caecus (censor 312 B.C.)
paved the Appian Way (
Liv. 9.29); C. Junius
Bubulcus and M. Valerius Maximus (censors 307 B.C.) made roads in the
country districts at the public expense (
Liv.
9.43); C. Flaminius (censor 220 B.C.) “viam Flaminiam
munivit” (Liv.
Epit. xx.). The censorship (174
B.C.) of Q. Fulvius Flaccus and A. Postumius Albinus was marked by an
important step in advance. They made contracts for paving the streets
inside Rome, including the Clivus Capitolinus, with lava, and for laying
down the roads outside the city with gravel. Side-walks were also
provided (
Liv. 12.27). M. Aemilius Scaurus
(censor 109 B.C.) paved the later of the two roads known as
Via Aemilia from Pisae to Dertona.
[p. 2.949](Aurelius Victor,
de Viris Ill.
100.72; Strabo, 5.1, 11 = p. 217.)
The aediles, probably in virtue of their responsibility for the freedom
of traffic and the police of the streets (
Dig.
43,
10), co-operated with the censors
and the bodies that succeeded them. Cn. and Q. Ogulnius (aediles 296
B.C.) laid down a pavement on the path or track (
semita) from the Porta Capena to the Temple of Mars
(
Liv. 10.23). Again, Agrippa, when he
voluntarily became aedile (33 B.C.), spent largely of his own money on
the roads.
It would seem that in the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) the quaestors
had become responsible for the paving of the streets of Rome, or at
least shared that responsibility with the
quatuorviri
viarum, who will presently be mentioned. Suetonius (
Suet. Cl. 100.24) states that the
Emperor “Collegio Quaestorum pro stratura viarum gladiatorium
munus injunxit.” It has been suggested that the quaestors
were obliged to buy their right to an official career by personal outlay
on the streets (Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. p. 534). There
was certainly no lack of precedents for this enforced liberality, and
the change made by Claudius may have been a mere change in the nature of
the expenditure imposed on the quaestors.
The official bodies which first succeeded the censors in the care of the
streets and roads were two in number, viz. (1) the
Quatuorviri
viis in urbe purgandis, with jurisdiction inside the walls
of Rome; (2) the
Duoviri viis extra urbem
purgandis, with jurisdiction outside the walls. Both these
bodies were probably of ancient origin, but the true year of their
institution is unknown. Little reliance can be placed on Pomponius
(
Dig. 1,
2,
28-
30), who states that
the
quatuorviri were instituted
eodem tempore with the praetor peregrinus (i. e.
about 242 B.C.) and the
Decemviri Stlitibus judicandis
(time unknown). The first mention of either body occurs in the Lex Julia
Municipalis of the year 45 B.C. (A.U.C. 709).
The
quatuorviri were afterwards called
Quatuorviri viarum curandarum. Pomponius (
l.c.) terms them
Quatuorviri qui curam
viarum gererent, and Dio Cassius (54.26)
οἱ τέσσαρες οἱ τῶν ἐν τῷ ἄστει ὁδῶν
ἐπιμελούμενοι. The extent of jurisdiction of the
Duoviri is to be gathered from the same
Lex, which gives their full title as
Duoviri viis
extra propiusve urbem Romam passus mille purgandis. Their
authority extended over all roads between their respective gates of
issue in the city wall and the first milestone beyond. Dio Cassius
(54.26) simply calls them
οἱ δύο οἱ τὰς ἔξω
τοῦ τείχους ὁδοὺς ἐγχειριζόμενοι (Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.603 ff., 668).
The next change was made by Augustus. In the course of his reconstitution
of the urban administration he created new offices in connexion with the
public works, streets (Mommsen here reads
viarum
variarum), and aqueducts of Rome (Sueton.
Aug. 100.37). He found the
quatuorviri and
duoviri forming part
of the body of magistrates known as.
vigintisexviri. These he reduced to twenty members (
vigintiviri), but retained the
quatuorviri among them. The latter were
certainly still in existence under Hadrian (117-138 A.D.: see an inscription ap. Bergier,
Grands
Chemins, i. p. 7). Augustus abolished the
duoviri, no doubt because the time had come for dealing
comprehensively with the superintendence of the roads which connected
Rome with Italy and the provinces. Dio Cassius relates (54.8) that
Augustus personally accepted the post of
προστάτης or superintendent
τῶν
περὶ τὴν Ρώμην ὁδῶν. In this capacity he represented
the paramount authority which belonged originally to the censors.
Moreover, he appointed men of praetorian rank to be
ὁδοποιοὶ or road-makers, assigning to each
of them two lictors (
C. I. L. 6.1501). Lastly, he made
the office of curator of each of the great public roads a perpetual
magistracy, instead of a special and temporary commission, as had been
the case hitherto.
The previous state of things seems to have been this. In case of an
emergency in the condition of a particular road, men of influence and
liberality were appointed, or voluntarily acted as
curatores or temporary commissioners to superintend the
work of repair. The dignity attached to such a curatorship is attested
by a passage (
Epp. ad Att. 1.1) in which Cicero says that
one Thermus should have the best chance of becoming Caesar's colleague
in the consulship,
propterea quod curator est Viae
Flaminiae (compare also Plin.
Epp. 5.15).
Among those who performed this duty in connexion with particular roads
was Julius Caesar, who became curator (67 B.C.) of the Via Appia, and
spent his own money liberally upon it (
Plut.
Caes. 5). Certain persons appear also to have acted as
Viarum curatores e lege Visellia. The inscriptions
which contain the little that is known about them have been collected by
Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.668 ff.
It was not as curator but as consul that Augustus (27 B.C.) restored the
Via Flaminia, a road essential to his military expeditions (
D. C. 53.22). He has himself recorded the
fact in the
Monumentum Ancyranum as follows (ed. Mommsen,
pp. 86-87, Berlin; Weidmann, 1883): CONSUL .
SEPTIMUM . VIAM . FLAMINIAM . AB . URBE . ARIMINUM . FECI . ET .
PONTES . OMNES . PRAETER . MULVIUM . ET . MINUCIUM.
A passage from Suetonius (
Suet. Aug. 30）
is here in point: “Quo autem facilius undique urbs adiretur,
desumpta sibi Flaminia Via Arimino tenus munienda, reliquas
triumphalibus viris ex manubiali pecunia sternendas
distribuit.”
Dio Cassius (
q. v. supra) states that Augustus
assigned the great roads, other than the Flaminian, to certain of the
senators to be repaired
at their own expense,
and adds that it was almost impossible to tell who really paid for these
repairs. The senators, he says, grudged any expenditure of their own
money, and the Emperor's privy purse was practically indistinguishable
from the public treasury. Indeed, the concurrent outlay of public and
private moneys on the public roads, which so constantly took place,
presents a perpetual obstacle to any clear distinction of the two
sources.
Plutarch (
Quaest. Rom. 66) apparently
suggests that the Via Flaminia was first paved out of the annual profits
of an estate given to the city by
Flaminius
quidam. M. Fonteius, when praetor of Gallia Narbonensis (76-73
B.C.), raised money for repairing the roads by imposing a due on wine
(
portorium vini,
Cic. pro Font. 5) Agrippa repaired all the public roads,
according to Dio Cassius (49.43),
μηδὲν ἐκ τοῦ
δημοσίου λαβών, an expression which probably covers not
[p. 2.950]only his private munificence, but the
personal outlay imposed on the senators, and the
pecunia manubialis mentioned by Suetonius (
Suet. Aug. 30). In the country districts,
as has been stated, the
magistri pagorum
had authority to maintain the
viae
vicinales. In Rome itself each householder was legally
responsible for the repairs of that portion of the street which passed
his own house (
Dig. 43,
10,
3). It was the duty of the aediles
to enforce this responsibility. The portion of any street which passed a
temple or public building was repaired by the aediles at the public
expense. When a street passed between a public building or temple and a
private house, the public treasury and the private owner shared the
expense equally. (See the municipal law quoted by Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.505 ff.) No doubt, if only to secure
uniformity, the personal liability of householders to execute repairs of
the streets was commuted for a paving rate payable to the public
authorities, who were responsible from time to time.
We have already said that Augustus, in his capacity as supreme head of
the public road-system, converted the temporary
cura of each of the great roads into a permanent magistracy.
The persons appointed under the new system were of senatorial or
equestrian rank, according to the relative importance of the roads
respectively assigned to them. It was the duty of each curator to issue
contracts for the maintenance and repairs of his road, and to see that
the contractor who undertook the work performed it faithfully, both as
to quantity and quality. Moreover, he authorised the construction of
sewers and removed obstructions to traffic, as the aediles did in Rome.
It was in the character of an imperial curator, though probably of one
armed with extraordinary powers, that Corbulo (as has been already
mentioned) denounced the
magistratus and
mancipes (
ἐκείνους τε [τοὺς ἐπιστάτας] καὶ τοὺς ἐργολαβήσαντάς τι
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν,
D. C. 59.15) of the Italian roads to
Tiberius. He pursued them and their families with fine and imprisonment
for eighteen years (21-39 A.D.), and was rewarded with a consulship by
Caligula, who was himself in the habit of condemning wellborn citizens
to work on the roads (
Tac. Ann. 3.31;
D. C. 60.27; Suet.
Calig. 27). It is noticeable that Claudius brought
Corbulo to justice, and repaid the moneys which had been extorted from
his victims.
Special
curatores for a term seem to have
been appointed on occasion, even after the institution of the permanent
magistrates bearing that title. According to an inscription subsequent
in date to A.U.C. 731 (23 B.C.), one P.
Paquius Scaeva was appointed
Viarum curator extra urbem Romam ex
senatusconsulto in quinquennium (
C. L. L.
9.2845; and see
ibid. 6.1501; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.669). It is possible that Scaeva was
one of the
ὁδοποιλὶ appointed by
Augustus in A.U.C. 734 (20 B.C.). (
D. C. 54.8,
q. v.
supra.）
The Emperors who succeeded Augustus exercised a vigilant control over the
condition of the public highways. Their names occur frequently in the
inscriptions to restorers of roads and bridges collected by Gruter
(
Corpus Inscrr. pp. cxlix.-clxiii.). Thus, Vespasian,
Titus, Domitian, Trajan, and Septimius Severus were commemorated in this
capacity at Emerita; Nero at Corduba; Trajan at Asculum, Augustobriga,
and Arganda; Hadrian and Septimius Severus at Braccara; Hadrian at
Suessa; Marcus Aurelius at Capua; Caracalla at Malaca. Trajan's care for
the communications of his Empire received the following elaborate
panegyric from Galen (
Method. Med. 9.8):
ἀμέλει ταῦτ᾽ ἐχούσας ἁπάσας τὰς ἐπὶ τῆς
Ἰταλίας ὁδοὺς ὁ Τραϊανὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐπηνωρθώσατο: τὰ μὲν
ὑγρὰ καὶ πηλώδη μέρη λίθοις στρωννὺς ἢ ὑψηλοῖς ἐξαίρων
χώμασιν: ἐκκαθαίρων δὲ τά τε ἀκανθώδη καὶ τραχέα καὶ
γεφύρας ἐπιβάλλων τοῖς δυσπόροις τῶν ποταμῶν: ἔνθα δὲ
ἐπιμήκης οὐ προσηκόντως ὁδὸς ἦν ἐνταῦθα σύντομον ἑτέραν
τεμνόμενος: ὥσπερ καὶ εἰ δι᾽ ὕψος λόφου χαλεπὴ διὰ τῶν
εὐπορωτέρων χωρίων ἐκτρέπων.
The Itinerary of Antoninus, which was probably a work of much earlier
date, republished in an improved and enlarged form, under one of the
Antonine emperors, remains as standing evidence of the minute care which
was bestowed on the service of the public roads (Guest,
Origines Celticae, 2.101-118). On the
probability of a connexion between the Itinerary and the Peutinger Table
(
q. v. supra), see the works of Bergier
(1.354-359) and Miller cited below.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION.
Viae are distinguished not only according to
their public or private character, but according to the materials
employed and the methods followed in their construction. Thus we have
(Ulpian,
Dig. 43,
11,
2)--
(1)
Via terrena, a plain road of levelled
earth.
(2)
Via glareata, glares strata, an earthen road with a
gravelled surface (
Liv. 41.27).
(3)
Via munita, lapide quadrato strata, silica strata, a
regular metalled road, paved with rectangular blocks of the stone of the
country, or with polygonal blocks of lava.
The construction of
viae munitae is said by
Isidorus to have been borrowed by the Romans from the Carthaginians:
“Primum Poeni dicuntur lapidibus vias stravisse: postea Romani
per omnem paene orbem disposuerunt, propter rectitudinem itinerum et
ne plebs esset otiosa” (
Orig. 15.16, 6). In
course of time, the terms
via munita and
via publica became identical, but Livy
mentions some of the most familiar roads near Rome, and the milestones
on them, at periods long anterior to the first paved road--the Appian.
Unless these allusions be simple anachronisms, the roads referred to
were probably at the time little more than levelled earthen tracks. Thus
the Via Gabina is mentioned in,
Liv. 2.11
((
temp. Porsena, about 500 B.C.); the Via
Latina in 2.39 (
temp. Coriolanus, about 490
B.C.); the Via Nomentana or Ficulensis in 3.52 (449 B.C.); the Via
Labicana in 4.41 (421 B.C.); and the Via Salaria in 7.9. (361 B.C.).
Our best sources of information as regards the construction of a
regulation
via munita are: (1) The many
existing remains of
viae publicae. These
are often sufficiently well preserved to show that the rules of
construction were, as far as local material allowed, minutely adhered to
in practice. (2) The directions for making pavements given by Vitruvius
(
7.1). The pavement and the
via munita were identical in
[p. 2.951]construction, except as regards the top layer, or surface.
This consisted, in the former case, of marble or mosaic, and, in the
latter, of blocks of stone or lava. (3) A passage in Statius (
Stat. Silv. 4.3,
4) describing the repairs of the Via
Domitia, a branch road of the Via Appia, leading to Neapolis.
The general construction of a
via munita is
shown in the following woodcut.
 |
|
Via Munita.
|
A. Dorsum or
agger viae (hence the phrases
agger
publicus = via publica; Aurelius Agger = via Aurelia:
Sidon. 24, 5): the elliptical surface or crown of the road (
media stratae eminentia, Isidor.
Orig. 15.16, 7), made of polygonal blocks of
silex (basaltic lava) or rectangular blocks of
saxum quadratum (travertine, peperino,
or other stone of the country). The upper surface was designed to cast
off rain or water like the shell of a tortoise. The lower surfaces of
the separate stones, here shown as flat, were sometimes cut to a point
or edge in order to grasp the
nucleus, or
next layer, more firmly.
B.
Nucleus: kernel or bedding of fine cement
made of pounded potsherds (
testae tusae:
cf.
Vitr. 7.1,
17) and lime.
C.
Rudus: rubble or concrete of broken
stones and lime.
D.
Statumen: stones of a size to fill the hand.
E. Native earth, levelled and, if necessary, rammed tight with beetles.
F.
Crepido, margo or
semita: raised footway, or sidewalk, on each side of the
via. It was strengthened by
umbones or edge-stones (G), and
gomphi or kerb-stones of greater size and
height, which were placed at intervals in the line of
umbones.
Crepido seems also to denote the mounds of earth or rubbish
on the sides of an unpaved road (Petron.
Sat. 9: “Vidi Gitona in crepidine semitae
stantem” ). The general appearance of such a metalled road and
footway is shown in the following illustration of an existing street in
Pompeii.
The directions given by Vitruvius (
l.c.) are as
follows: “If the bedding is to be laid flush with the ground
(instead of on wooden joists), it must first be ascertained whether
the ground be thoroughly sound. If it is found to be so, it should
be levelled, and then the courses of stones (
statumen) and rubble mixed with lime (
rudus) should be successively laid on. But if the
ground consist wholly or partly of made or loose earth, it should be
very carefully rammed tight with beetles . . . next should come a
layer of stones large enough to fill the hand (
statuminetur), and over them should be laid a course
of rubble of stones and lime (
rudus).
If the rubble be new, the proportion of stone to lime should be as
3: 1. If it be old, as 5 : 2. When the rubble has been laid, it
should be thoroughly rammed down with wooden beetles, by gangs of
men, to a final thickness of not less than 9 inches. Over the rubble
should be laid a course of pounded potsherds, mixed with lime
(
nucleus), in the proportion of 3:
1, and at least six fingers (=4 1/2 inches) in thickness. The
pavement,
 |
|
Street in Pompeii. (Mazois.)
|
whether consisting of cut slabs or mosaic cubes, should be
well and truly laid, by rule and level, on the top of the
nucleus.”
In another passage (5.9, 7) Vitruvius gives directions for constructing
ambulationes or gravel paths for
walking on. Such a path consisted of a firm foundation of earth, with a
layer of charcoal (
carbones) next to it,
and a top-layer or surface of levelled gravel (
sabulo). It was drained by earthenware pipes (
tubuli) passing into a covered drain on either
side.
Statius (
l.c.) epitomises the whole process of
road-making. “The task,” he says, “is first to cut
(parallel) trenches, to mark the limits of breadth of the road, and
next to carry the excavations deep into the ground. Next, to fill
the empty ditch with new materials, and to prepare a bed for the
surface of the road: lest the ground give way and afford but a
treacherous support to the pavement when weighted. Next, to confine
the roadway with edge-stones fixed on each side and with numerous
kerb-stones.”
In this passage,
fossa denotes the ditch
made by the removal of the earth between the two parallel
sulci, down to the point at which a firm earthen
foundation can be obtained;
gremium the
three courses below the
Dorsum or
agger viae--viz.
statumen,
rudus, and
nucleus.
As has been said, the methods of construction already detailed were
followed wherever the soil was of an ordinary character. Where, however,
the foundation was of rock, the
statumen and
rudus were dispensed with, and the
nucleus and
dorsum sufficed. This is the case with an existing portion of
the Via Appia near Albano (Burn,
Introd. p. liv.; Mazois,
Pompéi, 1.26).
Caius Gracchus was the first to provide the public roads systematically
with milestones (Plut.
C. Gracchus, 7), though Livy, as
we have stated above, refers to milestones as existing on certain roads
at periods much earlier than the time of Gracchus [
MILLIARE]. It is now
practically certain that the distances recorded on the milestones of
each road were measured
[p. 2.952]from the gate by which
that road issued from Rome. The first milestone on the Via Appia was
found
in situ at a distance of exactly a
thousand paces from the reputed position of the Porta Capena in the line
of the Servian wall (Burn, pp. 49, 432; Middleton,
Ancient Rome
in 1888, pp. 67, 496). In 28 B.C. Augustus erected in the
Forum and at the foot of the Capitol the celebrated
Milliarium Aureum or Golden Milestone (
τὸ χρυσοῦν μίλιον κεκλημένον,
D. C. 54.8; “Milliarium aureum sub
aede Saturni,”
Tac. Hist. 1.27;
Suet. Otho 6; “a milliario in capite Romani fori
statuto,”
Plin. Nat. 3.66). It was, properly
speaking, not a milestone, but an Imperial Itinerary or Table of
Distances. It bore a gilt tablet, on which were recorded the distances
from Rome to which the public roads reached from their respective gates
of issue in the city wall. Of these gates there were thirty-seven in
Pliny's time (Plin.
l.c.).
Travelling on the public roads was facilitated by the establishment of
(1)
mutationes (
ἀλλαγαὶ) or posting-houses, where horses were changed
and vehicles were obtainable if required; and (2)
mansiones (
katalu/seis),
stations, khans, caravanserais, or resting-places, where the journey
could be conveniently broken. [MANSIONES.] The
towns and places where a halt on one ground or the other could be made,
are frequently detailed in the Antonine Itinerary. For an account of the
Postal or Despatch system created by Augustus, and developed by his
successors, see Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2.1029-1031;
Marquardt,
Staatsverwalt. 1.558 ff.; and a note to
Merivale (
H. R. c. xxxiv.).
The following illustration of a part of the Via Stabiana at Pompeii shows
some of the stepping-stones which have puzzled some antiquaries.
 |
|
Via Stabiana at Pompeii, with stepping-stones. (From a
photograph.)
|
They are to be found in nearly every street in the town, whatever its
breadth. The narrower streets are practically blocked by single large
stones in their centres; the broader streets are crossed by rows,
containing from two to five stones. Their shape is, generally, a
flat-topped oval: larger and smaller stones lying side by side. They
measure, very commonly, about 3 feet by 18 inches, and have their longer
axis parallel to the footway on either side of the street. The height of
the footway ranges from 12 to 18 inches above the carriageway, and the
particular height is, in most cases, that of the stepping-stones also.
The surface of the street being elliptical, the stone on the centre
stands slightly higher than those at the sides. Many streets are marked
with wheelruts, some of them deeply cut. They are found both in the
interstices between the steppingstones and elsewhere. The distance from
rut to rut measures, as a rule, one yard, which was, accordingly, the
gauge of the ordinary vehicles. Such being the facts, three points
demand attention: first, the nature and conditions of traffic in a Roman
provincial town like Pompeii; secondly, the reasons for erecting
stepping-stones of great size in the centre of the carriage-way; and,
lastly, the probable mode in which draught animals and carriages passed
these stones.
Until the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) riding and driving,
both in Rome and in the provincial towns, were closely restricted, and
at times forbidden, by law. (Lex Julia Municipalis, ap. C. I. L. 1.206;
Marquardt,
Privatleben, 2.727-738; Friedländer,
Sittengeschichte, i.5 60 ff.).
Claudius (41-54 A.D.: some twenty-five years
before the destruction of Pompeii) forbade travellers to drive in
carriages through provincial towns (Sueton.
Claud.
100.25). Seneca, it is true, who died in 65 A.D., still nearer to the catastrophe, speaks of the noise of
essedae transcurrentes at Baiae
(
Epp. 56). But these may have plied principally on the
roads to the neighbouring towns, of which Pompeii was one, and Seneca
states that the noise did not disturb his studies. Marcus Aurelius
(161-180 A.D.) again forbade riding and driving in provincial towns
(
Vit. c. 23; and compare Galen, xi. p. 301, ed.
Kühn, for the practice in Rome). Under Severus carriages, in
Rome at least, seem to have been more commonly used (
D. C. 64.4). But, as late as the reign of
Aurelian (270-275 A.D.), we find the emperor preferring to ride into
Antioch “quia invidiosum tunc erat vehiculis in civitate
uti” (
Vit. 100.5).
Thus the street-traffic of the ordinary Roman provincial town seems to
have resembled that of the Tangier or Tetuan of to-day. Heavy burdens
were carried on the backs of horses, mules, or cattle. Walking was the
rule, riding on horseback or in a litter was the exception, driving
almost unknown. Before the date of the edict of Claudius, and perhaps
later, the law was probably indulgent to towns such as Baiae and
Pompeii. Thither came the “carriagecompany” of Rome to seek
health and spend money. In the case of Pompeii carriages and horses
were, beyond a doubt, confined to certain streets. An extant inscription
shows that the station of the
cisiarii was
not even within the town walls. [See
CISIUM] Other streets were always reserved for
foot-passengers, and possibly for litters. Others, again, once open to
all traffic, and still bearing the marks of wheels, were afterwards
closed to all but foot-passengers by huge stepping-stones or iron
gratings.
The deep ruts already mentioned were the natural result of confining the
traffic to a few streets. None of these were broad enough to allow of
any considerable variation of the track, even had the fixed
stepping-stones presented no additional difficulty. Moreover, there is
evidence that some of the existing pavements bore traffic for at least
120 years. In one street the edge of the footway bears the inscription
EX. K. QVI. (
ex kalendis
Quinctilibus); in another the inscription K. Q. Now the
month Quinctilis was renamed Julius in 44 B.C., and Pompeii perished in 79 A.D. It is not surprising that
[p. 2.953]even a small amount of wheeled traffic,
unrelieved by the use of springs, and acting on the same stones for so
many years, should have left deep traces behind.
The reasons for the erection of very large stepping-stones were, no
doubt, at once local and practical. Pompeii occupies the summit and
slopes of a small hill. Hence the lower streets, according to the
drainage level of the ground, received the rain-water and refuse of the
upper. In times of heavy rain the lower streets “must” in
Dyer's words “have flowed like a torrent or a Welsh cross-road”
(Pompeii, 100.3). No sewerage-system could
have at once mastered the downward rush of the water. Indeed a similar
sight may now be witnessed, during the winter rains, in the
heavily-paved streets of Florence, where stepping-stones of the largest
size would not be out of place. At Pompeii, where the lie of the ground,
together with the close-set stone surface and sides of the streets,
provided a ready-made watercourse, sidewalks of substantial height were
absolutely necessary to foot-passengers. The means of crossing from one
side-walk to another, in any weather, were naturally provided by
steppingstones of corresponding size.
Lastly comes the question of the manner in which draught animals and
carriages passed the stepping-stones. The wheels passed between the
stones, as is shown by the many ruts found
in
situ. A vehicle with wheels three feet apart, and raised on
them, say, two feet above the ground, could easily pass over a stone
eighteen inches wide and from twelve to eighteen inches high. In the
case of vehicles drawn by two animals, it may be conceived that the
latter were harnessed loosely and moved in front of the wheel on each
side. This arrangement would enable each animal to precede a wheel of
the carriage through one and the same interstice of the stepping-stones.
The operation must of course have been performed at a very slow walk,
and its repetition would soon have become intolerable had the
carriage-traffic been large or constant. The case of vehicles drawn by
one animal presents more difficulty. It has been held that whilst the
wheels passed, as before, on either side of a stone, the animal stepped
on or over it. This view can hardly be treated with gravity, even if it
be conceived that the surface of the street was somewhat raised by
accumulated rubbish. It has been already stated that the stepping-stones
often attain a height of eighteen inches and measure three feet in the
longer axis which lay along the path of an approaching animal's feet.
The better opinion is that carriages drawn by one animal were not
admitted into the town at all. [See on the whole question, Dyer,
Pompeii, Lond. 1868; Mazois,
Pompéi, Paris, 1824-1838 (with plans);
Overbeck,
Pompeii4
(with illustrations); and the works of Presuhn (Leipzig, 1881) and
Schöner (Stuttgart, 1877) on the same subject.]
III. LITERATURE.
1. General Information on the subject of Roman Roads.
Archaeologia: see Index to vols. 1-50, s. v.
“Roads,” pp. 583-584, London, 1889. Bergier:
Histoire des Grands Chemins de l'Empire Romain,
Bruxelles, 1736. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna. Ersch
und Gruber:
Allgemeine Encyclopädie, s. v.
Peutingeriana Tabula. Gruter:
Corpus Inscriptionum, vol. i. pp. cxlix-clxiii.
Guest:
The Itinerary of Antoninus, in
Origines Celticae, vol. ii. pp. 101-118,
London, 1883. Hirschfeld:
Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
Römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. i.
Berlin, 1877. Marquardt and Mormmsen,
Handbuch =
Mommsen,
Staatsrecht (see index); Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, 2.90 ff.,
Privatleben, pp. 727 ff. Miller:
Weltkarte des
Castorius, genannt die Peutingersche Tafel; Id.
Die Weltkarte des Castorius, genannt die Peutingersche
Tafel--Einleitender Text. Nibby:
Delle vie degli
antichi dissertazione ap. Nardini, Roma antica,
1818-1820. Parthey et Pinder:
Itinerarium Antonini et
Hierosolymitanum, Berlin, 1848. Rich:
Dict. of
Roman and Greek Antiq., s.vv.
agger,
crepido, fistuca, gomphus, mansiones, mutationes, semita, silex,
via.
2. Authorities on Viae Publicae in Rome and Italy (within the
Eleven Regions of Augustus).
Archaeologia, l.c. Becker-Göll,
Gallus, i. 77. Bergier,
op. cit. Burn,
op. cit. Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum: vol. v. parts i. (1872) and ii. (1877), pp.
934-956, ed. Mommsen (with maps), Viae Publicae Galliae Cisalpinae
(i. e. Regionum Italiae ix. x. xi.).
Ibid. vol. ix.
pp. 580-602, ed. Mommsen, 1883 (with maps): Viae Publicae Regionum
Italiae ii. iv. v.
Ibid. vol. x. parts i. and ii. pp.
45*-46*, 683-712 (ed. Mommsen), 1883 (with maps): Viae Publicae
Regionum Italiae i. iii. (including those of Corsica, Sardinia, and
Sicily).
Ibid. vol. xiv. pp. 456-457, 500, ed.
Dessau, 1887: Aquae Viae Urbis Romae. Gruter,
op.
cit. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1888. Nibby,
op. cit. Parthey et Pinder,
op.
cit. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. ii.
pp. 1286-1307.
3. Authorities on Viae Publicae in Britain.
Archaeologia, l.c. Bergier,
op.
cit., vol. i. pp. 113-116; vol. ii. pp. 88-94.
C. I.
L. vol. vii. pp. 206-214, ed. Hübner, 1873
(with map). Elton:
Origins of English History, 1890.
Guest:
The Four Roman Ways (with map) in
Origines Celticae, vol. ii. pp. 218-241; The
Itinerary of Antoninus,
ibid. pp. 101-118.
Parthey et Pinder,
op. cit. Pearson,
Hist. of England, i. ch. 3. Id.,
Roman
Britain in Historical Maps of England, pp. 6-17. W. T.
Watkin,
Roman Lancashire. Id.,
Roman Cheshire.
Note. It will often be necessary to consult, in
addition, the standard county histories and the proceedings of local
antiquarian societies. Ferguson's
Histcry of
Cumberland (1890) may be specially mentioned.
4. Authorities on Viae Publicae in the other Provinces of the
Empire.
Archaeologia, l.c. Bergier,
op. cit. C. I.
L., vol. ii., ed. Hübner, 1869 (with maps):
Viae,Publicae Lusitaniae (pp. 619-625); Baeticae (pp. 626-632);
Tarraconensis (pp. 632-656).
Ibid., vol. iii., parts
1 and 2, ed. Mommsen, 1873 (with maps): Viae Publicae Syriae
Palaestinae (p. 21); Syriae Littoralis et Mediterraneae (pp. 35-40);
Cypri. (pp. 42, 43); Ciliciae (p. 44); Cappadociae et Galatiae (pp.
56, 57); Ponti et Bithyniae (p. 61); Asiae Minoris (pp. 87-90);
Achaiae (p. 111); Macedoniae (pp. 127, 128); Daciae (p. 256);
Moesiae Superioris (p. 269); Dalmatiae (pp. 406-408); Pannoniae
Inferioris (pp. 464-471); Pannoniae Superioris (pp. 572-577); Norici
(pp. 692-702); Raetiae (pp. 735-740).
Ibid., vol.
viii., parts 1 and 2, pp. 859-910, ed.
[p. 2.954]Wilmanns, 1881 (with maps): Viae Publicae Provinciarum
Africanarum.
Ibid., vol. xii., pp. 632-682, ed.
Hirschfeld, 1888 (with maps): Viae Publicae Galliae Narbonensis.
Fustel de Coulanges:
La Monarchie Franque, pp.
254-256, Paris, 1888. Lenthéric:
Les Villes Mortes
du Golfe de Lyon, 3rd edition, Paris, 1879. Id.:
La Provence Maritime, Paris, 1880. Parthey et
Pinder,
op. cit. Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography, l.c.
[
H.A.P]
