PONS
PONS (
γέφυρα), a bridge. One
central idea, round which many curious beliefs and pieces of ritual are
grouped, is that the erection of a bridge is an impious act--an injury done
to the god of the river, who, by the substitution of a safe method of
crossing instead of the primitive fording or swimming, is robbed of a
certain number of victims--travellers who without a bridge would have been
drowned. This belief has existed among many different races at an early
stage of their religious development, and, vaguely understood, still
survives in many parts of Europe and Asia. In Greece, Albania, and other
countries traditions even now exist of the offering of human sacrifices at
the founding of a new bridge; and in many parts of the Moslem world the
inhabitants look upon the erection of a bridge as an extremely impious act.
Mr. J. G. Frazer, in the
Journal of Philology, xiv. pp.
156-7, has collected a curious list of examples of this wide-spread belief.
Thus, in Germany, when a man is drowned the people say, “The
[p. 2.457]river-spirit is getting his annual
victim” (see Grimm,
Deutsche Mythologie, p. 499); and
in part of England the superstition exists that the spirit of the Ribble
receives and is satisfied with a human victim every seven years (see
Henderson,
Folk-lore of the Northern Counties, p. 265). Thus,
in ancient Rome, the most primitive duty of the
pontifex or bridge-builder was to propitiate Father Tiber by
regular annual sacrifices; and also by special extra sacrifices whenever the
one early bridge of Rome, the Pons Sublicius, required repairs (see Varro,
L. L. 5.15;
Dionys. A. R.
3.45; and
Plut. Num. 9). In early
times human victims were offered annually by being flung into the Tiber from
the Sublician bridge; but in later times thirty figures or dummies called
ARGET, made of rushes, were solemnly thrown
into the Tiber by the Pontifices and Vestal Virgins on the Ides of May, as
is recorded by Ovid (
Ov. Fast. 5.622):
Tune quoque priscorum virgo simulacra virorum
Mittere roboreo
scirpea ponte solet.
Another notion, connected with the same class of ideas, is that a light and,
as it were, temporary structure is less offensive to the rivergod than a
more permanent bridge. Hence the primitive reason for building the Sublician
bridge of wood, not fastened together with iron in any form, having, as
Pliny records, its “contignatio sine ferreis clavis” (
H.
N. 36.100). Dionysius (
3.45）
goes further, and speaks of it as
τὴν ξυλίνην
γέφυραν, ἣν ἄνευ χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου θέμις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν
διακρατεῖσθαι τῶν ξύλων: but in sacred matters the use of
iron was often specially prohibited, as being a more recent invention than
bronze, and therefore devoid of its hieratic associations (cf. Plutarch's
Life of Numa). Thus the college of the Fratres Arvales were obliged to offer
an expiatory sacrifice if ever an iron tool were used within the precincts
of their sacred grove, near Rome (see Marquardt,
Römische
Staatsverwaltung, iii. p. 459; ARVALES). In a similar way the use of flint knives for sacrificial
purposes survived long ages after the Stone period had passed away.
It should be observed that the Romans themselves had, by the first century
B.C., forgotten what appears to be the main
reason for the rules and ritual connected with their ancient bridge, and
explain its unsubstantial character by the risk of attack; as had happened
when Horatius Cocles with so great difficulty held the Etruscan army at bay
while the bridge was being demolished. And this may possibly have been at
one time a secondary reason for the same thing, though not the chief one.
The oldest bridge of which we have any record, that at Babylon, was also of
wood, though built on stone piers. This, according to Herodotus (
1.178-
186), was built
across the Euphrates to unite the two portions of Babylon by Queen Nitocris,
c. 606 B.C. The piers were of large blocks of
stone fixed with iron clamps, run with lead; and the river is said to have
been temporarily diverted from its course during their construction. The
superstructure was of wood, part of which was arranged so as to be removed
every day at nightfall. The same queen also built a massive river embankment
made of burnt brick.
Temporary floating bridges (
σχεδίαι) for
military operations appear to have been used in very early times, boats
being used for the points of support, with cables of twisted flax (
λευκολίνου) and papyrus (
βυβλίνων), tightly strained by the help of windlasses, to
support the intermediate planking. A bridge of this kind was thrown across
the Thracian Bosporus by Darius; its engineer being a Samian Greek, named
Mandrocles (see
Hdt. 4.83,
85,
87, and 88). A similar bridge,
constructed for Xerxes across the Hellespont between Sestos and Abydos, was
immediately destroyed by a storm (
Hdt. 7.34,
35). Xerxes decapitated its constructors, and
ordered another bridge to be made of more careful construction. This was
done by the help of 674 triremes and penteconters, moored by anchors, and
united by six strong cables tightly strained from ship to ship. On these
cables the roadway rested, made of thick planks covered with brushwood and
earth beaten down. On each side was a high bulwark to prevent the horses
from being frightened at the sea (see
Hdt. 7.36).
The Persian army crossed safely on this second bridge; and thus Xerxes was
enabled to accomplish, for a time, his projected invasion of European
Greece.
In Greece, partly owing to the insignificant size of the rivers, permanent
bridges do not appear to have been constructed till after the Roman
conquest. No remains now exist which can be attributed to the period of
Hellenic autonomy. And yet it appears probable, from the mention of bridges
by various Greek writers, that in some form wooden structures for crossing
streams when swollen by rain were of no uncommon occurrence. Simple trestles
with movable boarding are even now used in some parts of Italy for temporary
emergencies; and most of the Greek bridges were probably structures of this
light and unsubstantial class. The religious ideas already described may
have tended to prevent any more solid structures from being erected in
Greece during its most flourishing period.
Throughout the Roman dominions, especially during the Imperial period, stone
bridges with wide-spanning arches of the most massive kind were erected in
great numbers. Many of these bridges were of remarkable size, and show in a
very striking way the great constructional skill of the Roman engineers. The
bridge over the Acheron, which was a thousand feet in length (
Plin. Nat. 4.1), and that which united the
island of Euboea to the mainland, must have been striking examples of this.
The Roman bridges were as a rule rather narrow in proportion: the central
roadway for horses and vehicles was called the
iter; at the sides were slightly raised foot-paths (
decursoria), defended on the outside by a low
parapet wall. In the more handsome bridges, such as the Pons Aelius in Rome,
pedestals for statues or honorary columns were set at regular intervals
along the parapet. The main arches were decorated with simple mouldings
adapted from Greek buildings; and between them, over each pier, a smaller
arch was very frequently introduced to relieve the pressure of water during
flood-time. Rows of corbels were very commonly inserted at the springing of
each arch, the use of which was to support the wooden centering while the
arch was being
[p. 2.458]built; thus doing away with the
necessity of tall supports resting in the water. In most cases these corbels
were not cut away at the completion of the bridge, but were left, so that
repairs or rebuilding could be easily carried out. This very useful system
was applied not only to bridges, but to all lofty arched structures, such as
aqueducts or tall palaces, like that of Severus on the Palatine hill in
Rome. In many cases a gate-tower was built as a defence at each end of the
bridge: this was the case with more than one of the bridges in Rome, though
no remains of these towers now exist.
The chief Roman bridges were built either of brick and concrete, or of solid
stone masonry, carefully fixed with iron clamps and lead. In many cases, as
for example in Rome itself, a hard “weather stone” was used for
the facing, the inner masonry being of some softer and less expensive stone.
Under the later Roman Empire the city of Rome possessed the following
bridges:--
- 1. The Pons Sublicius, so called from the sublicae or wooden beams of which it was
constructed. Till the second century B.C. this was the only bridge
in Rome: some of the sacred rites which were connected with it have
already been described. According to tradition, the Sublician bridge
was originally erected by Ancus Martius, its special purpose being
to connect the main city with the long walls which led from the
right bank of the river up to the isolated fortress on the Janiculan
hill, where the church of S. Pietro in Montorio now stands. The
approach to the bridge on the other side was close by the Porta
Trigemina, just inside the line of the Servian wall. No traces of it
now exist: the ruined piers visible in dry summers by the
Marmoratum, under the Aventine hill, belong most probably to the
“bridge of Probus,” the last mentioned in the
Catalogue of the Curiosum. The epithet
roboreo, used by Ovid in the
passage quoted above, shows that even in the time of Augustus the
bridge was still of oak. In A.D. 69 it was carried away by a flood
(Tac. Hist. 1.86), and appears
not to have been rebuilt. The mistaken notion that the Pons
Sublicius was identical with that known as the Pons Lapideus or
Aemilius arose from the misunderstanding of a passage in Plutarch
(Plut. Num. 9), and from the
statement of the spurious Publius Victor, whose catalogue is a
mediaeval forgery. The Roman bridges appear to have been a favourite
resort for beggars (see Senec. de Vita
beata, 15): hence Juvenal (14.134) uses the phrase
aliquis do ponte, as meaning a
beggar (cf. Juv. 4.116).
- 2. The first stone bridge in Rome, called on that account the
Pons Lapideus, was also known as the Pons
Aemilius. It was begun in 179 B.C. by M. Fulvius
Nobilior and the censor M. Aemilius Lepidus, when the conquest of
Etruria and the defeat of Hannibal had put an end to all fears of
invasion. It was not, however, completed till the time of the
censors Publius Scipio Africanus and L. Mummius (Achaicus): see
Liv. 40.51; Juv.
6.32; and Plut. Num. 9. The
Fasti Capranici describe it as being “ad
theatrum Marcelli;” and the Cosmographia
of Aethicus as “ad Forum Boarium.” These indications,
and the recent discovery of an ancient basalt-paved road leading up
to the mediaeval Ponte Rotto, show that the last-named bridge
occupies the site of the Pons Aemilius. The three arches which still
exist of the “broken bridge” appear not to be older
than the thirteenth century; the present bridge having been mainly
rebuilt after its destruction by a flood during the pontificate of
Honorius III., 1216-1227. In 1598 about half was swept away by
another flood, and the gap is now bridged over by a modern iron
structure. The name Palatinus, as
applied to the Pons Aemilius, appears to be a mediaeval invention.
- 3. The Pons Fabricius, which unites the Insula
Tiberina to the left bank of the river, was built in 62 B.C. by L.
Fabricius, one of the curatores viarum,
as is recorded in inscriptions deeply cut in large letters across
the face of its arches. Part is now illegible, but the full
inscription (repeated over both arches) is given by Pirro Ligorio in
his MS. notes on Ancient Rome, c. 1570
(Bodleian, Cod. Canoniciani Ital. 138): L. FABRICIVS C. F. CVR. VIAR. FACIVNDVM
COERAVIT EIDEMQVE PROBAVIT; and in smaller letters over the
intermediate arch for stormwater, Q. LEPIDVS M.
F. M. LOLLIVS M. F. COS. S. C. PROBAVERVNT. This last
inscription records its restoration by the consuls Q. Aemilius
Lepidus and M. Lollius in 21 B.C. Like the other existing bridges of
Rome, this is built of peperino and tufa, faced on both sides by
massive blocks of travertine, which is also used for the corbels at
the springing of each arch. A fragment still exists of the parapet
namely, a marble pilaster crowned by a quadruple head, Janus
quadrifrons, from which the bridge takes its modern name
of the Ponte dei quattro capi. The pilaster is
grooved to receive an open bronze screen or cancellus, which formerly filled up the intermediate
spaces between the pilasters. This bridge is shown on the reverse of
a contemporary denarius, c. 62 B.C., with the legend
L. FABRICIVS, and a snake to indicate the
proximity of the Temple of Aesculapius on the Tiber island. It is
also represented on a bronze medallion of Antoninus Pius (see
Froehner, Med. Rom. p. 52; also D. C. 38.45). During the Middle Ages this
bridge was often called the Pons Judaeus, from its
proximity to the Ghetto or Hebrew quarter.
- 4. The Pons Cestius, which joins the Insula
Tiberina to the right or Janiculan side of the Tiber, was probably
built by L. Cestius, Praefect of the City in 46 B.C. (see D. C. 37.45). On one of the large marble
slabs which form the parapet is a long inscription recording the
restoration of the bridge in A.D. 370 by Valentinianus, Valens, and
Gratian. The Pons Cestius consists of one arch only, with an opening
for flood-water on each side of it. At present it is called after
the adjacent church of S. Bartolommeo, which probably stands on the
site of the Temple of Aesculapius.
- 5. The Pons Aelius, modern Ponte di S.
Angelo, was built in A.D. 135 by Hadrian to connect his
mausoleum and circus with the Campus Martins (see D. C. 69.23; and Spartian,
Hadr. 19). It is shown on bronze coins of Hadrian
dated from his third consulship. The Einsiedeln MS. gives its
dedicatory inscription, which is now lost, IMP.
CAESAR DIVI TRAIANI PARTHICI FILIVS DIVI NERVAE NEPOS TRAIANVS
HADRIANVS AVG. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. XVIIII.
[p. 2.459](A.D. 135) COS. III.
P. P. FECIT. The name of the bridge was derived either from
Hadrian's family name Aelius, or else from his son Aelius Caesar,
who died before his father. The five arches of this noble bridge are
of peperino faced with travertine; near it, along the left bank, are
extensive remains of the ancient embankment wall, built of massive
blocks of peperino, now doomed to destruction for the sake of the
new quay. This is the bridge mentioned by Dante, Infer. 18.28-33, as being thronged with pilgrims in
the Jubilee year 1300.
- 6. The Pons Aurelius, mentioned in the Notitia, was probably on the site of the
modern Ponte Sisto. The date of its foundation is not known, but
Marlianus (Topogr. Rom. cap. cxxi.) gives an
inscription (now lost) which recorded its restoration in the reign
of Hadrian. The names Janicularis and
Antoninianus, which are sometimes
given to this bridge, appear to be inventions of the mediaeval
topographers. This is possibly the bridge which, in a recently
discovered inscription, is called the Pons Agrippae;
see Bull. Com. Arch. Rom. 1888, p. 92.
- 7. The Pons Neronianus or Vaticanus was begun by Caligula and completed by
Nero, to give access to the Horti
Agrippinae and the great circus which stood by the present
Basilica of St. Peter. The foundations of its piers still exist, and
are visible in summer a little way below the Pons Aelius. It is
probable that this is the bridge to which the title Pons
triumphalis was sometimes applied.
- 8. The Pons Mulvius, modern Ponte Molle, is about a mile and a half outside the
Aurelian wall of Rome, higher up the river, where the Via Flaminia
crosses the Tiber. It was built by the censor M. Aemilius Scaurus,
109 B.C. (see Aur. Victor, de Viris illust. 27.8). It
was on this bridge that Cicero arrested the ambassadors of the
Gaulish Allobroges during the Catiline conspiracy (Cic. in Cat. 3.2). And
in A.D. 312 it was the scene of the utter defeat of Maxentius by
Constantine. As at the present day, the Pons Mulvius was under the
Empire a favourite pleasure resort for the lower classes of Rome
(see Tac. Ann. 13.47).
A very large number of fine stone bridges still exist throughout the greater
part of the Roman empire, in various states of preservation. One of the most
perfect in Italy is that at Ariminum (modern Rimini), consisting of five
massive stone arches, as is shown in the annexed cut. An inscription on it
records that it was begun by Augustus and completed by Tiberius.
The bridge over the Nera, at the modern town
 |
|
Bridge at Rimini.
|
of Narni, to the north of Rome, though partly destroyed, is still
a very noble piece of engineering. The arches are more than 100 feet high,
and their spans are of unusual width. The combined aqueduct and bridge which
crosses the river Gard near Nîmes (Nemausus), commonly called the
Pont du Gard, is remarkable for its size and stately
height, consisting of three superimposed tiers of arches, still well
preserved, to a height of 190 feet. Another fine Roman bridge still exists
near Brioude, over the Allier; it consists of one arch with a very wide
span, and 70 feet high from the water to the soffit of the arch.
In Spain remains exist of a very magnificent bridge across the Tagus at
Alcantara, which when perfect consisted of six arches, reaching nearly 200
feet in height and 670 feet in length.
The temporary bridges of the Romans, built for military purposes, were no
less remarkable for the engineering skill shown in their construction.
Julius Caesar describes (
Bell. Gall. 4.17) a wooden bridge
which he constructed across the Rhine in the almost incredibly short space
of ten days. It was supported on a series of double piles, formed of two
baulks of timber, each 18 inches square (in section), pointed at one end,
and driven into the bed of the river by machines called
fistucae; they were set in a sloping direction, so as to
resist the force of the current. A corresponding parallel row of piles was
driven in at a distance of 40 feet, thus forming a very wide roadway for the
Roman army. The crosspieces were 2 feet thick, and were supported by cross
struts so as to diminish the bearing. A
 |
PLAN
Caesar's Bridge over the Rhine.
（a) Rough joists.
（b) Wattle-work.
（c) Roadway of earth.
|
 |
|
TRANSVERSE SECTION
|
[p. 2.460]little higher up the stream a third row of piles
was fixed to support “fenders,” to secure the main structure
from injury in case the enemy set heavy trees to float down the river and
strike
 |
|
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
|
against the supports of the bridge. Fra Giocondo of Verona,
Palladio, and other architect-scholars of the sixteenth century have
published drawings of this bridge, devised from Caesar's description; but
not as a rule with much success (see Giocondo's edition of the
Commentaries, dedicated to Giuliano de' Medici in 1510;
and Palladio,
Architettura, Venice, 1570, lib. iii. cap. 6).
Other temporary bridges were supported on floating casks (
dolia or
cupae): see Herodian,
8.4, 8; and
Lucan 4.420. Vegetius (3.7) states
that it was customary for the Roman army to carry with them small boats or
“dug-outs” (
monoxyli), hollowed out
of a tree-trunk, together with planks, ropes, and nails to form the roadway.
During the Mithridatic war Pompey crossed the Euphrates on a bridge of this
kind (Florus,
3.5). [
RATIS]
The annexed woodcut, from a relief on Trajan's Column, shows the construction
of this sort of
 |
|
Bridge on boats. (From Trajan's Column.)
|
floating bridge. Another relief on the same column shows a more
permanent kind of military bridge, which was constructed by Trajan across
the Danube (Dio Cass. lxviii. p. 776, and
 |
|
Part of the Bridge across the Danube. (From Trajan's
Column.)
|
Plin. Ep. 8.4). This bridge consists of stone
piers supporting very skilfully designed trusses of wood, framed like a
low-pitched roof. Much ingenuity is shown by the way in which the engineer
has spanned wide spaces with short pieces of timber. The engineer who
designed this bridge was the celebrated Apollodorus of Damascus, whose
criticism on Hadrian's design for the Temple of Venus and Rome by the Sacra
Via is said to have irritated the emperor so much that he put the critic to
death (see
D. C. 69.4).
There appears to be no truth in this story: on the contrary, it is evident
that Hadrian had the good sense to adopt the suggestions of Apollodorus.
According to Dio Cassius, Hadrian demolished Apollodorus' bridge on the
pretence that it might facilitate the incursions of the barbarians into the
Roman provinces, but really from jealousy at the success of so great an
undertaking. This latter supposition is probably quite untrue.
The reverses of many
first brasses of the Empire have
representations of important bridges: as, for example, one of Gordianus III.
with the bridge over the Maeander at Antiochia ad Maeandrum in Caria (see
Head,
Num. Hist. p. 520).
The word
pons was also applied to any sort of wooden
gangway, such as the
pons suffragiorum by which the
file of voters at the Comitia passed into the enclosure (
ovile or
saepta); and also to
the movable gangway used to give access to the deck of a ship: hence in
modern Italian
ponte has come to mean the deck
itself. (See Mayerhöfer,
Die Brücken in alten
Rom, 1884; Zippel,
Jahrbücher für klass.
Phil. 1886, p. 481; Becker,
De Romae vet. muris,
&c., 1842; Jordan,
Topog. der Stadt Rom, 1875-80;
Piale,
Antichi Ponti in the
Atti d. Pont.
Acad. 1831. Urlichs,
Codex Rom. topog. 1871, gives
the various
Regionary Catalogues, with lists of the bridges
in Rome.
[
J.H.M]
