DOI issue:
Ashby,T.: The classical Topography of the roman campagna. The via latina. Introduction
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70348#0023
Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna.—III.
7
Labicana being mentioned first, as also in the fragmentary inscription
Eph. Epigr. iv. p. 223 (a Greek inscription from Hierocaesarea of the end
of the third century A.D.). On the other hand, where one road only is
mentioned (not counting the mention of Vitorius Marcellus in Stat. Silv. iv.
4. 60) the Via Latina is given in eleven cases, and the Via Labicana in two
only. It seems unlikely that the cura of the one road did not include, in
any of these cases, that of the other, inasmuch as they were so closely
connected.
Mommsen (C.l.L. x. p. 696) considers the first point decisive:
‘ Labicanam curatores hi non adscripsissent, multo minus priore loco
collocavissent, vel adeo solam nominavissent, nisi prior pars viae primariae
sibi commissae proprie Labicana fuisset. Accedit quod secundum itineraria
Latina intrat in Labicanam, non Labicana in Latinam : contrarium quod
apud Strabonem (l.c.) legitur, scilicet Labicanam intrare in Latinam, ex
nomine excusationem habet.’ He may have been to some extent misled
by the belief that the Labicana was five miles shorter than the Latina, and
that the milestones beyond their junction followed the numeration of the
former, and not of the latter : whereas there is less than a mile of difference
between them at Ad Bivium.
The fact that the Antonine Itinerary states that the Via Latina
‘intrat in Lavicanam ’ (at Compitum Anagninum) must be discounted, if
we are to accept Kubitschek’s very plausible theory that this is merely an un-
skilful excerpt from an actually existing map (_/ahreshefte des Oesterr. Arch.
Institute, v. (1902) 33). He points out that it makes the Via Praenestina
the chief road, the stations from Rome to Beneventum being attributed to
it, the Labicana a branch of it, and the Latina a branch of the Labicana1:
whereas the relations between the three were, he maintains, entirely different,
the Via Latina being the principal road, while the Via Praenestina was
personification of the road, a recumbent female figure holding a wheel (now built into the entrance
of the Columbarium of Pomponius Hylas: Matz Duhn, 4101), above which is the inscription Viae
Latinae Gr. The meaning of the last two letters is obscure : Tomassetti, who (p. 5) gives an
illustration of the relief, would make it depend on the rest of the inscription, the first line being,
according to him, lost (there is no doubt that there was nothing more at the end of the inscription),
but Hiilsen (C.I.L. vi. 29811) follows Von Duhn, who maintains that the inscription is complete.
1 His contention that the junction between the two roads is wrongly given as being at
Compitum Anagninum instead of ad Pittas is not necessarily correct for the time at which the
Itinerary was compiled. As a fact the two roads are connected both at ad Pittas and ad Bivium :
but it is only at Compitum Anagninum that they cease to have a separate existence. At ad Bivium
indeed it seems clear that it is a branch from the Via Latina that falls into the Via Labicana, and
not vice versa. {Papers, i. 218.)
7
Labicana being mentioned first, as also in the fragmentary inscription
Eph. Epigr. iv. p. 223 (a Greek inscription from Hierocaesarea of the end
of the third century A.D.). On the other hand, where one road only is
mentioned (not counting the mention of Vitorius Marcellus in Stat. Silv. iv.
4. 60) the Via Latina is given in eleven cases, and the Via Labicana in two
only. It seems unlikely that the cura of the one road did not include, in
any of these cases, that of the other, inasmuch as they were so closely
connected.
Mommsen (C.l.L. x. p. 696) considers the first point decisive:
‘ Labicanam curatores hi non adscripsissent, multo minus priore loco
collocavissent, vel adeo solam nominavissent, nisi prior pars viae primariae
sibi commissae proprie Labicana fuisset. Accedit quod secundum itineraria
Latina intrat in Labicanam, non Labicana in Latinam : contrarium quod
apud Strabonem (l.c.) legitur, scilicet Labicanam intrare in Latinam, ex
nomine excusationem habet.’ He may have been to some extent misled
by the belief that the Labicana was five miles shorter than the Latina, and
that the milestones beyond their junction followed the numeration of the
former, and not of the latter : whereas there is less than a mile of difference
between them at Ad Bivium.
The fact that the Antonine Itinerary states that the Via Latina
‘intrat in Lavicanam ’ (at Compitum Anagninum) must be discounted, if
we are to accept Kubitschek’s very plausible theory that this is merely an un-
skilful excerpt from an actually existing map (_/ahreshefte des Oesterr. Arch.
Institute, v. (1902) 33). He points out that it makes the Via Praenestina
the chief road, the stations from Rome to Beneventum being attributed to
it, the Labicana a branch of it, and the Latina a branch of the Labicana1:
whereas the relations between the three were, he maintains, entirely different,
the Via Latina being the principal road, while the Via Praenestina was
personification of the road, a recumbent female figure holding a wheel (now built into the entrance
of the Columbarium of Pomponius Hylas: Matz Duhn, 4101), above which is the inscription Viae
Latinae Gr. The meaning of the last two letters is obscure : Tomassetti, who (p. 5) gives an
illustration of the relief, would make it depend on the rest of the inscription, the first line being,
according to him, lost (there is no doubt that there was nothing more at the end of the inscription),
but Hiilsen (C.I.L. vi. 29811) follows Von Duhn, who maintains that the inscription is complete.
1 His contention that the junction between the two roads is wrongly given as being at
Compitum Anagninum instead of ad Pittas is not necessarily correct for the time at which the
Itinerary was compiled. As a fact the two roads are connected both at ad Pittas and ad Bivium :
but it is only at Compitum Anagninum that they cease to have a separate existence. At ad Bivium
indeed it seems clear that it is a branch from the Via Latina that falls into the Via Labicana, and
not vice versa. {Papers, i. 218.)