« ZurückWeiter »
trophies chiefly composed of maritime subjects, with implements of sacrifice between. Above the two lesser arches are military trophies with standards and flags, on which are the figures of a wild boar.
On one of the bucklers in the trophy are traced the letters “ISVIJVS," and on another the word “beve;" also the letters “ DOD VACVS” and “SRE.” The south front is so much dilapidated that the bassirelievi are nearly defaced. On some of the bucklers, however, we were able to decipher the following words, “ Sacrovir, Mario, Dracono, Vd ill V S, Av. Ot.:" many of the bucklers have the letters “SRE.” The frieze, which is very fine, represents the combats of gladiators, and beneath the trophies are figures of captives. On each side of the pediment are Nereids, and on the centre is the Sun, with the Cornucopia of Abundance. The interior of the arches are decorated in
square compartments, with garlands of roses; and the arcades are bordered with wreaths of
and vine-leaves, mixed with other fruit and flowers.
On the south front of the arch is a female figure, with the head resting on her hand; and as this is one of the emblems of Marseilles, it is supposed by some to represent that ancient city awaiting the result of the battle. Other writers assert that it is meant to personify Marthe, a sybil of Syria, who was a sort of tutelary guardian to Marius, and who, it is said, held her finger to his ear, thereby enabling him to be victorious over his enemies. Plutarch mentions that Marius had with him a woman of Syria, who passed for a great prophetess, who was borne on a litter, and treated with great respect and honour. Marius never made a sacrifice except when she ordered it; and she might be seen carried through the camp daily. When she assisted at a sacrifice she wore a splendid mantle of purple, fastened at the throat with rich clasps, and held in her hand a staff covered with wreaths and coronets of flowers.
The eastern side has been repaired, and bears an inscription stating that the repairs were carried into effect by the contributions of the corps of cross-bow men of Orange, in the year 1706. It is generally believed that this arch was erected to Marius; but this conjecture admits of much doubt, as in the ornaments there is not a single eagle to be found; and as Marius was the first
who introduced that ensign for his legion,* it is probable that it would not be omitted in a monument erected to him. The principal reason for attributing it to Marius is, that his name was inscribed on a buckler in one of the trophies. But this argument is futile, as several other names are also inscribed ; whereas, had it been erected solely to him, his name would have been the prominent one.
Pontanus, in his Voyage, declares his conviction that the arch was dedicated to Domitius Ænobarbus; and states, that the name of Boduacus, visible on the east side of it, ought to be read in Titus Livy instead of Bituitus, or Bétultus. The learned Peiresc has followed the same opinion ; Mandajors, in his “ Histoire Critique de la Gaule Narbonnaise," page 96 ; Spon, in his “ Voyage en Dalmatie, tom. i., page 9;
• Plin. Hist. Nat, lib. X., cap. 4.
and Guibs, in his “ Journal de Trévoux,” published in 1729, have arrived at the same conclusion; and have brought to the support of their opinions no little erudition. This arch has also been attributed to Julius Cæsar ; and Letbert, abbé de St. Ruf, in Avignon, in his work entitled “ Fleurs des Pséaumes," says that it was erected in honour of Julius Cæsar, conqueror of Marseilles.
This hypothesis, if well founded, might explain the introduction of naval trophies on the arch; but others assert that they bore allusion to the victory of Actium. Le Baron de la Bastie states, in “Le Journal de Trévoux," in 1730, pp. 12–14, his conviction that it was raised in honour of Augustus; but this assertion is only founded on the circumstance of Augustus having caused monuments to be erected to his glory in different points of his empire. Maffei, in his “ Galliæ Antiquitates," p. 157, states his belief that this monument is of the time of Adrian. But it were equally useless as fatiguing to enumerate the various opinions of the numerous writers who have attempted to conjecture the founder of this arch, which stands a beautiful specimen of art, as well as a striking lesson to human vanity, when even the name of the individual to whose honour it was erected remains a question never likely to be solved. Some antiquarians have maintained that the names on the bucklers were those of the chiefs of the vanquished barbarians; and that Mario, the name inscribed, was one of them.
History tells us that Marius served his first campaign under Scipio Africanus, at the siege of Numantia, in the year 133 before the Christian era. The exact date of his election to be tribune of the soldiers is not known; but he was tribune of the people in the year 120 before Christ.* The battle of Ouindalon was fought twelve years before that era, and as many authors assert that Marius was constantly engaged in the wars, it is probable that he fought under Domitius, as tribune of the soldiers, and that for his valuable services he was next year elected tribune of the people.
It has been asserted by some that this beautiful arch was erected to perpetuate the victory of Domitius, at Ouindalon; and if this be true, it would not be surprising that the name of Marius, who so greatly distinguished himself under his banner, should be inscribed on this monument. But, say the antiquarians,
“ How are we to account for the omission of the name of the brave Marcellus, who performed so brilliant a part in that action ?” Grave and Reverend Signors, I cannot furnish you with a single elucidatory conjecture on this subject, notwithstanding I have carefully perused your learned researches, and dullified myself, and will my readers-should I ever find any -by the epitome I have given of your lucubrations.
It is strange how soon the mind turns with new interest to pursuits that had previously engaged little of its thoughts! This mobility of the intellect-this power of directing it to new objects, is one of the manifold proofs of the wisdom and mercy of the Creator ; as without this facility life would soon become wearisome, and we should lose that sense of enjoyment now derived from it. It is the novelty of all that strikes the senses, which renders youth the peculiar season of delight. How happy is it then for us to retain the enviable power of finding pleasure in objects that, when in the heyday of life, might have failed to amuse or interest. I can now peruse with interest antiquarian researches which some years ago I had turned from with distaste; and, idle as the occupation may by many be deemed, it has beguiled many miles of a journey, and evenings at a comfortless inn, which might without this resource have hung heavily on my hands. No sooner do I see a fine piece of antiquity but I long to become acquainted with all that is known of it: nay, even before I behold it, I prepare myself for the view, by a diligent perusal of the works that refer to it.
* Valerius Maximus, vi. 19.
18th.-The ruins of the ancient theatre here have greatly interested me. The principal walls are still in good preservation, and enable one to judge of the building in its original state. It has been by some supposed to have been a circus: but this opinion is erroneous, as its form is a semi-circle, whereas amphitheatres were always oval. The Romans wisely took advantage of the declivities of mountains for erecting their theatres and amphitheatres, as they saved considerable expense and labour, the seats for the audience being raised in rows, one over the other, on the side of the mountain, which offered a natural site. The circular part of the theatre at Orange, in which were the seats for the audience, is still visibly marked in the mountain, and the two extremities of the semicircle which were united by the stage. The portion of this building which joined the stage and semicircle still exists, and has a noble appearance.