Art and Propaganda in Ancient Rome
Ara Pacis, south side, detail: Imperial Family
I.
Introduction
The Republican period of Roman history began in 509 BCE after the expulsion of the last of the Etruscan kings. The Republic was controlled by the Senate, which was an assembly of 300-900 elders dominated by the upper-class families. This dominance by the aristoracy led to tensions between the social classes, especially among the lower classes who fought for equality in both the economy and the government. Despite these inner struggles, Rome's military power strengthened throughout the 5th and 4th centuries BCE and by 270 BCE they commanded the entire penisula. 264 BCE brought the beginning of the three Punic Wars fought against Carthage over control of the western Mediterranean. These resulted in victories for Rome which granted them access to the wealth of Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor. Rome then began to establish protectorates in the East, Africa, Sicily, Spain, and Gaul and these takeovers resulted in the Roman generals' acquisitions of large amounts of works of art. Greek art, especially, began to influence the tastes of the Romans because it was brought back in such large quantities. The Generals brandished their plunder during triumphal processions through the city and senators and wealthy Romans displayed works of art to show their status and to promote themselves.
In spite of these successes, the growing struggles between the classes and the burden of administering to the accumulated land strained the Roman government and began to weaken the Senate. This loss of power brought about a series of civil wars fought among generals with the backing of their distinct armies. Julius Caesar eventually prevailed when in 49 BCE he rode into Italy with his army against the orders of the Senate. In 44 BCE he declared himself dictator for life, but was murdered by a crew of strict republicans on the Ides of March 44 BCE. This once again plunged Rome into civil war and while Caesar's heir, his grand-nephew Octavian, and Marc Antony initially joined sides to avenge his death, they soon turned against each other and Octavian eventually triumphed over Antony and his ally, Cleopatra. Octavian was given the honorific title 'Augustus' in 27 BCE and ruled Rome for the next 40 years. While he claimed to have restored the Republic, Augustus held many important administrative and religious positions simultaneously and so, in fact, became the first emperor. He attempted to maintain control over the Empire by improving road systems and augmenting town growth. He also united the Empire through his use of the arts as a form of self-promotion and to promote the themes of his administration, such as peace, allegiance to Rome, and respect for tradition. He visually improved the city by constructing new buildings that were worthy of the powerful Empire. He made art into the materialization of Roman government which was an idea continued by his descendants and was declared a god-- as had been his father, Julius Caesar-- at his death in 14 CE.
The following Julio-Claudian emperorsn continued the expansion of the Empire into the East while maintaining the land that they already had in the West and North. Vespasian (69-79 CE) succeeded Nero (54-68 CE), the last of the Julio-Claudians, and created the Flavian line with his two sons, Titus (79-81 CE) and Domitian (81-96 CE). This lineage maintained popularity through their patronage of large entertainment buildings, like the Colosseum. The Empire continued to prosper under subsequent emperors like Trajan (98-117 CE), who continued to expand its borders, and Hadrian (117-138 CE). The Empire ruled such a great mass of land that it became hard for the following emperors to govern it all. Threats began to break out at the borders and rebellions persisted in places like Germany and Britain. Thus, some temporary capitals had to be formed near the frontiers. Diocletian (284-305 CE) divided the Empire into Eastern and Western halves and shared power with a co-augustus in an attempt at stabilization. Constantine the Great (306-337 CE) brought the Empire back under a single imperial rule and tried to further unite it through his recognition of Christianity in 313 CE. He began to convert Rome into a Christian city by building large churches near the borders. He created a Christian capital in the East in 324 CE by founding Constantinople and calling it the 'new Rome'. Constantine's three sons divided the territories among themselves after their father's death in 337 CE while Christianity continued to flourish and gain power. The Church became the patron of the majority of large-scale commissions and many pagan statues were destroyed or carried off by Vandals (a goup of Germanic people that held a kingdom in North Africa from 429 until 534 CE and successfully sacked Rome in 455 CE) in the succeeding years. The Visigoths captured Rome in 410 CE and the end of the Empire came with the dethroning of Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE.
II. Republican Rome
A. The Amphitheater, Pompeii 70 BCE
Amphitheater, Pompeii
This sort of large-scale, entertainment structure was new at the time so the architect had no preexisting model from which to work. He built the floor of the arena and part of the building below ground level in order to avoid having to create an elaborate foundation. It was built in the southeastern corner of the town so that the city wall could help support it and so that it could more easily facilitate the arrival and departure of large groups of people from within Pompeii and from surrounding areas. It was sponsored by Quinctius Valgus and Marcus Porcius, two local men who were then at the height of their careers in local government. Some 2,000 veterans and their families had colonized Pompeii after the town had fallen to Rome in 89 BCE and this type of building would probably have appealed to them because of its entertainment involving gladiators. It was built so that the people of Pompeii could pride themselves on being among the first to have such a magnificent structure. It was also dedicated to the colonists and the inscriptions on it emphasize what a blessing the founding of the colony was for the city.
The political instability of the time somewhat led to a loosening of class distinctions that had previously been very rigid. Therefore many leading men from other cities in Italy attempted to gain social recognition and political power in Rome. Thus, it is probable that the two patrons of the Amphitheater were, through this gift, trying to gain the greatest possible backing for a political career in Rome.
Do you think that these two wealthy men were trying to promote themselves in the same way the senators and generals did when they would display the plunder that they had taken from conquered lands?
The image on the right is a painting from Naples depicting an actual historical event in which a riot broke out at the Amphitheater between the people of Pompeii and those of a nearby town, which caused the closing of the theater. In an article on Roman Triumphal Painting by Peter J. Holliday
the author says that "History is a cultural product whose narrative alters depending on who writes it. How events and actions are perceived and remembered can be as important as the incidents themselves" (Holliday, 131). Do you agree with this statement and, if so, do you think that it can be applied to art? Do you think that the artist of the image above could have had propagandistic motives for his/her work?
III. Augustus and the Early Empire
A. Ara Pacis 13-9 BCE
Ara Pacis
Ara Pacis, east face, detail: Tellus
This 'altar of peace' was erected in the Campus Martius. The Campus Martius, or the Field of Mars, was, in ancient Roman times a floodplain of the Tiber river and the site of the altar of Mars. It was originally used as an area for military excercise, but by the first century CE was covered with public buildings. It was founded by the Senate in 13 BCE in honor of Augustus' safe return from his campaigns in Spain and Gaul and dedicated in 9 BCE. Both the foundation and the dedication of the Ara Pacis were celebrated annually in a procession to the altar and a sacrifice. The Ara Pacis consisted of a raised sacrificial altar surrounded by walls with two doorways along an east-to-west axis. The main entrance was on the west side from the Campus Martius. The religious processions probably approached the east entrance from the city along the Via Flaminia and circled around to enter the main entrance. Both the interior and exterior walls are decorated with reliefs. The long friezes on the exterior north and south walls depict the sacrificial procession, complete with individual portraits of Augustus and his dignitaries in a documentary-like fashion. Thus the reliefs show a historical event-- the actual founding of the altar after Augustus' return to Rome-- that nevertheless recurs every year. The relief program gives mythic qualities to the historical event through the placement of the 4 reliefs on the east and west exterior walls. These four reliefs, like the one shown above which scholars believe to portray Tellus, the earth, are analogies which provide a context for the commemorated event. The Tellus panel describes the peace that the Julian line was able to establish for the people of Rome through the images of fertility and balance seen through the mother figure as well as the two children in her lap and the two maidens that flank her. These two women could be seen as personifications of the sea wind and the land wind. The sea wind, on the right, shows Rome's, and thus Augustus', power over the Mediterranean, while the land wind, on the left, shows the fertility and prosperity of Rome itself.
The Ara Pacis originally stood on the east edge of the Campus Martius and was located between the obelisk of Augustus, which was the the needle for his enormous sundial and the Via Flaminia. Thus, along with the mausoleum of Augustus on the opposite side of the obelisk, it was related to the lines of the equinox and the winter solstice. This fascination with the passage of time seems to have been of great interest to Augustus. It could be that he situated the constructs in their respective places in order to perpetuate himself so that on at least the days of the equinox and of the solstice, and probably everytime anyone consulted his sundial, they would be reminded of him and thus promote his immortality.
Although the Ara Pacis clearly shows an actual event it also contains many metaphorical references like the one above. Do you think that the average Roman citizen would have understood these references?
Augustus seemed to have had quite an obsession with the concept of time. Do you think that this was solely a way for him to achieve immortality or do you think that he had other propagandistic motives?
Augustus also employed poets and other writers so that his propaganda could be more widely dispersed. Vitruvius wrote his ten-volume "On Architecture" under the patronage of Augustus. While Vitruvius wrote on technology, city planning, acoustics, and engineering as well as architecture, there are also hints of imperial propaganda in his works. For example, in his discussion on the effects of climate on architecture Vitruvius writes:
IV. Later Imperial
A. Trajan's column and forum
Column of Trajan
Discussion of Article "The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan's Column and the Art of Commemoration"by Penelope J.E. Davies
In this article Davies looks at the Column of Trajan in relation to other funerary monuments in order to better understand how it functioned for its average viewer during Roman Imperial times. In particular, she discusses the narrative frieze that wraps around column and how it has long been seen as awkward and not very functional to most historians. She compares the Column of Trajan to the Mausolea of Augustus and Hadrian and how all three manipulate the viewer into active participation with the monument in order to maintain interest in the emperors and their deeds and thus immortalize them. This participation, which in all three monuments involves encircling the remains of the emperors, also forced the viewer into a reenactment of the rituals of honor for the deceased and helped commit them to their resting place.
Davies also discusses the monument in relation to its interior and its surroundings. The tower at the top of the column functioned as a belvedere in order to further engage the viewer and as a place from which the viewer could see all that Trajan had created and recognize him as a great benefactor of Rome. The forum that surrounds the column was based on a ground plan of a military camp and the sculpture on the column illustrated the successes of Trajan and his troops so that the whole complex can be seen as a victory monument. This was an important idea that Trajan needed to convey because the Empire had fallen on financial difficulties and Trajan sought to remedy the problem through the acquisition of more land, while many people thought war would only further drain their resources. Trajan erected the forum in order to show that all the plunder he had gained from his military campaigns was sufficient to create a new urban center for the people and to illustrate Rome's superiority. The reliefs on the column downplay the horrible reality of war and show peaceful, constructive scenes with the Roman army completely in control. So the column, its relief program, and the complex in which it is placed all worked together to create a space in which the emperor was actively commemorated and immortalized after his death and that during his life acted as a form of propaganda to further his military campaigns.
Forum of Trajan
Do you think that for many of the emperors propaganda and commemoration went hand-in-hand?
V. Constantine and the Late Empire
A. The Arch of Constantine
http://www.ntimages.com/Rome-tns.htm
The Arch of Constantine was erected between 312 and 315CE by the Senate in honor of his military triumph over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. A substantial portion of the decoration on the Arch of Constantine was taken from other earlier monuments in an attempt to liken Constantine to his great predecessors, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. In the detail shown above the freize-like panel dates from Constantine's reign and depicts him giving his first speech to the people after triumphing over Maxentius. He visually places himself within the lineage of great emperors through the figures of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius that flank his figure in the relief. The two roundels above are from a Hadrianic monument. The first shows the emperor sacrificing to Apollo before a hunt and the second shows him hunting boar. This may have been an attempt by Hadrian to show both his peity and his prowess and by replacing Hadrian's head on the relief with his own portrait, Constantine does the same.
The stylistic differences between the reliefs of Constantine and those of the preceding emperors are quite pronounced. What do you think was the cause of such artistic changes?
Constantine had credited Christianity with helping him defeat Maxentius and the Edict of Milan was issued during this time (313 CE). Do you think, then, that this Arch could be considered a Christian monument?
Discussion of Article "Livia: Portrait and Propaganda" by Rolf Winkes.
This article first discusses one particular head bust in the Walters Art Gallery over which there is a debate on whether it is a depiction of Livia, the wife of Augustus, or Octavia, her sister-in-law. Winkes addresses the fact that it is hard to identify many of these portrait heads because ancient sources say only that Livia was very beautiful. Furthermore, its members officially approved all portraits made of the imperial family so in fact we do not know what the imperial family actually looked like, but instead see only what they wanted to look like. Thus, Winkes attempts to identify the bust by comparing it to other "types"of Livia portraits. Winkes compares various hairstyles which only serve to illustrate the difficulty in dating them and thus establishing a chronology.
Livia was born in 58 BCE and had definitely had a portrait made by 35 BCE, when she was twenty-three. By that time she would have already been married to Claudius Nero (43 BCE) and would have had a son Tiberius, the future emperor. She was remarried to Octavian in 38 BCE and in 35 BCE was declared sacrosanct. We do not know what the portrait of 35 BCE looked like, but based on a cameo that can be dated to the late Augustan period that displays her with a more elaborate early Republican hair style, Winkes believes that Livia was deliberately using the out-of-date hair style in order to portray herself as the perfect matron.
In the year 4 CE Augustus adopted Livia's son Tiberius as his heir. This led to the adoption of a new hairstyle for Livia as the mother of the emperor. This type shows Livia with fuller features that fit well with her motherly image. This portrait, like the majority of her portraits, was certainly meant to be seen as part of a group. According to the imperial propaganda Livia held a distinct role within an imperial group portrait, here probably that of a pious mother figure, as did her son and husband.
Following her husband's death Livia's hairstyle changes again, this time to promote her role as priestess of Augustus. This style was an imitation of images of Greek goddesses, which was appropriate considering her new role would liken her to that of the goddess Ceres and would remind the Roman people of the fertility of Rome. The next significant image change of Livia's iconography occurred when Claudius declared her a diva and her statue was placed next to that of the Divine Augustus in their temple on the Palatine hill.
Winkes believes that the Walters portrait belongs to the beginnings of the principate of Tiberius and because of its large size was probably part of a group that also contained a portrait of Augustus. Although Winkes believes that portraits of Livia greatly impacted the image making of later empresses, her portrait types were not, in fact, greatly copied. The most popular type, according to statistics, seems to be the latest one that associated her most clearly with goddesses.
Portrait of Livia. First century.
Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery.
Portrait of Octavian. (portrait bust from forum- Arles)
ca. 39 BCE
Augustus of Primaporta. Early 1st century CE.
Musei Vaticani, Rome
Why do you think that it was necessary that empresses consistently changed their images? Do you think that the same was true of emperors? Do you think that it can be likened to the way fashions change today?
Do you think that women played an important part in the art of Ancient Rome?
VI. Conclusion
Propaganda was without a doubt an important part of ancient Rome. It is through it that we see how art was manipulated by the ruling body in order to entertain, to revive traditional values, to gain support for military campaigns, to encourage unity, and above all to portray not only the emperor, but the imperial family as strong, moral leaders that are faithful to the people. From sculpture to architecture, the Romans left behind a legacy of art both intricate and monumental, peaceful and courageous mostly in an attempt to gain the love and support of the masses. We can only hope that the television commercials of John Kerry, the billboards of Howard Dean, and the photographs of President Bush will one day do the same.
The Republican period of Roman history began in 509 BCE after the expulsion of the last of the Etruscan kings. The Republic was controlled by the Senate, which was an assembly of 300-900 elders dominated by the upper-class families. This dominance by the aristoracy led to tensions between the social classes, especially among the lower classes who fought for equality in both the economy and the government. Despite these inner struggles, Rome's military power strengthened throughout the 5th and 4th centuries BCE and by 270 BCE they commanded the entire penisula. 264 BCE brought the beginning of the three Punic Wars fought against Carthage over control of the western Mediterranean. These resulted in victories for Rome which granted them access to the wealth of Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor. Rome then began to establish protectorates in the East, Africa, Sicily, Spain, and Gaul and these takeovers resulted in the Roman generals' acquisitions of large amounts of works of art. Greek art, especially, began to influence the tastes of the Romans because it was brought back in such large quantities. The Generals brandished their plunder during triumphal processions through the city and senators and wealthy Romans displayed works of art to show their status and to promote themselves.
In spite of these successes, the growing struggles between the classes and the burden of administering to the accumulated land strained the Roman government and began to weaken the Senate. This loss of power brought about a series of civil wars fought among generals with the backing of their distinct armies. Julius Caesar eventually prevailed when in 49 BCE he rode into Italy with his army against the orders of the Senate. In 44 BCE he declared himself dictator for life, but was murdered by a crew of strict republicans on the Ides of March 44 BCE. This once again plunged Rome into civil war and while Caesar's heir, his grand-nephew Octavian, and Marc Antony initially joined sides to avenge his death, they soon turned against each other and Octavian eventually triumphed over Antony and his ally, Cleopatra. Octavian was given the honorific title 'Augustus' in 27 BCE and ruled Rome for the next 40 years. While he claimed to have restored the Republic, Augustus held many important administrative and religious positions simultaneously and so, in fact, became the first emperor. He attempted to maintain control over the Empire by improving road systems and augmenting town growth. He also united the Empire through his use of the arts as a form of self-promotion and to promote the themes of his administration, such as peace, allegiance to Rome, and respect for tradition. He visually improved the city by constructing new buildings that were worthy of the powerful Empire. He made art into the materialization of Roman government which was an idea continued by his descendants and was declared a god-- as had been his father, Julius Caesar-- at his death in 14 CE.
The following Julio-Claudian emperorsn continued the expansion of the Empire into the East while maintaining the land that they already had in the West and North. Vespasian (69-79 CE) succeeded Nero (54-68 CE), the last of the Julio-Claudians, and created the Flavian line with his two sons, Titus (79-81 CE) and Domitian (81-96 CE). This lineage maintained popularity through their patronage of large entertainment buildings, like the Colosseum. The Empire continued to prosper under subsequent emperors like Trajan (98-117 CE), who continued to expand its borders, and Hadrian (117-138 CE). The Empire ruled such a great mass of land that it became hard for the following emperors to govern it all. Threats began to break out at the borders and rebellions persisted in places like Germany and Britain. Thus, some temporary capitals had to be formed near the frontiers. Diocletian (284-305 CE) divided the Empire into Eastern and Western halves and shared power with a co-augustus in an attempt at stabilization. Constantine the Great (306-337 CE) brought the Empire back under a single imperial rule and tried to further unite it through his recognition of Christianity in 313 CE. He began to convert Rome into a Christian city by building large churches near the borders. He created a Christian capital in the East in 324 CE by founding Constantinople and calling it the 'new Rome'. Constantine's three sons divided the territories among themselves after their father's death in 337 CE while Christianity continued to flourish and gain power. The Church became the patron of the majority of large-scale commissions and many pagan statues were destroyed or carried off by Vandals (a goup of Germanic people that held a kingdom in North Africa from 429 until 534 CE and successfully sacked Rome in 455 CE) in the succeeding years. The Visigoths captured Rome in 410 CE and the end of the Empire came with the dethroning of Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE.
II. Republican Rome
A. The Amphitheater, Pompeii 70 BCE
Amphitheater, Pompeii
This sort of large-scale, entertainment structure was new at the time so the architect had no preexisting model from which to work. He built the floor of the arena and part of the building below ground level in order to avoid having to create an elaborate foundation. It was built in the southeastern corner of the town so that the city wall could help support it and so that it could more easily facilitate the arrival and departure of large groups of people from within Pompeii and from surrounding areas. It was sponsored by Quinctius Valgus and Marcus Porcius, two local men who were then at the height of their careers in local government. Some 2,000 veterans and their families had colonized Pompeii after the town had fallen to Rome in 89 BCE and this type of building would probably have appealed to them because of its entertainment involving gladiators. It was built so that the people of Pompeii could pride themselves on being among the first to have such a magnificent structure. It was also dedicated to the colonists and the inscriptions on it emphasize what a blessing the founding of the colony was for the city.
The political instability of the time somewhat led to a loosening of class distinctions that had previously been very rigid. Therefore many leading men from other cities in Italy attempted to gain social recognition and political power in Rome. Thus, it is probable that the two patrons of the Amphitheater were, through this gift, trying to gain the greatest possible backing for a political career in Rome.
Do you think that these two wealthy men were trying to promote themselves in the same way the senators and generals did when they would display the plunder that they had taken from conquered lands?
The image on the right is a painting from Naples depicting an actual historical event in which a riot broke out at the Amphitheater between the people of Pompeii and those of a nearby town, which caused the closing of the theater. In an article on Roman Triumphal Painting by Peter J. Holliday
the author says that "History is a cultural product whose narrative alters depending on who writes it. How events and actions are perceived and remembered can be as important as the incidents themselves" (Holliday, 131). Do you agree with this statement and, if so, do you think that it can be applied to art? Do you think that the artist of the image above could have had propagandistic motives for his/her work?
III. Augustus and the Early Empire
A. Ara Pacis 13-9 BCE
Ara Pacis
Ara Pacis, east face, detail: Tellus
This 'altar of peace' was erected in the Campus Martius. The Campus Martius, or the Field of Mars, was, in ancient Roman times a floodplain of the Tiber river and the site of the altar of Mars. It was originally used as an area for military excercise, but by the first century CE was covered with public buildings. It was founded by the Senate in 13 BCE in honor of Augustus' safe return from his campaigns in Spain and Gaul and dedicated in 9 BCE. Both the foundation and the dedication of the Ara Pacis were celebrated annually in a procession to the altar and a sacrifice. The Ara Pacis consisted of a raised sacrificial altar surrounded by walls with two doorways along an east-to-west axis. The main entrance was on the west side from the Campus Martius. The religious processions probably approached the east entrance from the city along the Via Flaminia and circled around to enter the main entrance. Both the interior and exterior walls are decorated with reliefs. The long friezes on the exterior north and south walls depict the sacrificial procession, complete with individual portraits of Augustus and his dignitaries in a documentary-like fashion. Thus the reliefs show a historical event-- the actual founding of the altar after Augustus' return to Rome-- that nevertheless recurs every year. The relief program gives mythic qualities to the historical event through the placement of the 4 reliefs on the east and west exterior walls. These four reliefs, like the one shown above which scholars believe to portray Tellus, the earth, are analogies which provide a context for the commemorated event. The Tellus panel describes the peace that the Julian line was able to establish for the people of Rome through the images of fertility and balance seen through the mother figure as well as the two children in her lap and the two maidens that flank her. These two women could be seen as personifications of the sea wind and the land wind. The sea wind, on the right, shows Rome's, and thus Augustus', power over the Mediterranean, while the land wind, on the left, shows the fertility and prosperity of Rome itself.
The Ara Pacis originally stood on the east edge of the Campus Martius and was located between the obelisk of Augustus, which was the the needle for his enormous sundial and the Via Flaminia. Thus, along with the mausoleum of Augustus on the opposite side of the obelisk, it was related to the lines of the equinox and the winter solstice. This fascination with the passage of time seems to have been of great interest to Augustus. It could be that he situated the constructs in their respective places in order to perpetuate himself so that on at least the days of the equinox and of the solstice, and probably everytime anyone consulted his sundial, they would be reminded of him and thus promote his immortality.
Although the Ara Pacis clearly shows an actual event it also contains many metaphorical references like the one above. Do you think that the average Roman citizen would have understood these references?
Augustus seemed to have had quite an obsession with the concept of time. Do you think that this was solely a way for him to achieve immortality or do you think that he had other propagandistic motives?
Augustus also employed poets and other writers so that his propaganda could be more widely dispersed. Vitruvius wrote his ten-volume "On Architecture" under the patronage of Augustus. While Vitruvius wrote on technology, city planning, acoustics, and engineering as well as architecture, there are also hints of imperial propaganda in his works. For example, in his discussion on the effects of climate on architecture Vitruvius writes:
Since,
therefore, the disposition of the world is such by Nature, and all
other nations differ by their unbalanced temperament, it is in the true
mean within the space of all the world and the regions of the earth,
that the Roman people holds its territories. 11. For in
Italy the inhabitants are exactly tempered in either direction, both in
the structure of the body, and by their strength of mind in the matter
of endurance and courage. For just as the planet Jupiter is
tempered by running in the middle between the heat of Mars and the cold
of Saturn, in the same manner Italy presents good qualities which are
tempered by admixture from either side both north and south, and are
consequently unsurpassed. And so, by its policy, it curbs the
courage of the northern barbarians, by its strength, the imaginative
south. Thus the divine mind has allotted to the Roman state an
excellent and temperate region in order to rule the world.
(Vitruvius, On Architecture, Book VI, 17-19)
What do
you think this says about Augustus' propagandistic plans?
IV. Later Imperial
A. Trajan's column and forum
Column of Trajan
Discussion of Article "The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan's Column and the Art of Commemoration"by Penelope J.E. Davies
In this article Davies looks at the Column of Trajan in relation to other funerary monuments in order to better understand how it functioned for its average viewer during Roman Imperial times. In particular, she discusses the narrative frieze that wraps around column and how it has long been seen as awkward and not very functional to most historians. She compares the Column of Trajan to the Mausolea of Augustus and Hadrian and how all three manipulate the viewer into active participation with the monument in order to maintain interest in the emperors and their deeds and thus immortalize them. This participation, which in all three monuments involves encircling the remains of the emperors, also forced the viewer into a reenactment of the rituals of honor for the deceased and helped commit them to their resting place.
Davies also discusses the monument in relation to its interior and its surroundings. The tower at the top of the column functioned as a belvedere in order to further engage the viewer and as a place from which the viewer could see all that Trajan had created and recognize him as a great benefactor of Rome. The forum that surrounds the column was based on a ground plan of a military camp and the sculpture on the column illustrated the successes of Trajan and his troops so that the whole complex can be seen as a victory monument. This was an important idea that Trajan needed to convey because the Empire had fallen on financial difficulties and Trajan sought to remedy the problem through the acquisition of more land, while many people thought war would only further drain their resources. Trajan erected the forum in order to show that all the plunder he had gained from his military campaigns was sufficient to create a new urban center for the people and to illustrate Rome's superiority. The reliefs on the column downplay the horrible reality of war and show peaceful, constructive scenes with the Roman army completely in control. So the column, its relief program, and the complex in which it is placed all worked together to create a space in which the emperor was actively commemorated and immortalized after his death and that during his life acted as a form of propaganda to further his military campaigns.
Forum of Trajan
Do you think that for many of the emperors propaganda and commemoration went hand-in-hand?
V. Constantine and the Late Empire
A. The Arch of Constantine
http://www.ntimages.com/Rome-tns.htm
The Arch of Constantine was erected between 312 and 315CE by the Senate in honor of his military triumph over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. A substantial portion of the decoration on the Arch of Constantine was taken from other earlier monuments in an attempt to liken Constantine to his great predecessors, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. In the detail shown above the freize-like panel dates from Constantine's reign and depicts him giving his first speech to the people after triumphing over Maxentius. He visually places himself within the lineage of great emperors through the figures of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius that flank his figure in the relief. The two roundels above are from a Hadrianic monument. The first shows the emperor sacrificing to Apollo before a hunt and the second shows him hunting boar. This may have been an attempt by Hadrian to show both his peity and his prowess and by replacing Hadrian's head on the relief with his own portrait, Constantine does the same.
The stylistic differences between the reliefs of Constantine and those of the preceding emperors are quite pronounced. What do you think was the cause of such artistic changes?
Constantine had credited Christianity with helping him defeat Maxentius and the Edict of Milan was issued during this time (313 CE). Do you think, then, that this Arch could be considered a Christian monument?
Discussion of Article "Livia: Portrait and Propaganda" by Rolf Winkes.
This article first discusses one particular head bust in the Walters Art Gallery over which there is a debate on whether it is a depiction of Livia, the wife of Augustus, or Octavia, her sister-in-law. Winkes addresses the fact that it is hard to identify many of these portrait heads because ancient sources say only that Livia was very beautiful. Furthermore, its members officially approved all portraits made of the imperial family so in fact we do not know what the imperial family actually looked like, but instead see only what they wanted to look like. Thus, Winkes attempts to identify the bust by comparing it to other "types"of Livia portraits. Winkes compares various hairstyles which only serve to illustrate the difficulty in dating them and thus establishing a chronology.
Livia was born in 58 BCE and had definitely had a portrait made by 35 BCE, when she was twenty-three. By that time she would have already been married to Claudius Nero (43 BCE) and would have had a son Tiberius, the future emperor. She was remarried to Octavian in 38 BCE and in 35 BCE was declared sacrosanct. We do not know what the portrait of 35 BCE looked like, but based on a cameo that can be dated to the late Augustan period that displays her with a more elaborate early Republican hair style, Winkes believes that Livia was deliberately using the out-of-date hair style in order to portray herself as the perfect matron.
In the year 4 CE Augustus adopted Livia's son Tiberius as his heir. This led to the adoption of a new hairstyle for Livia as the mother of the emperor. This type shows Livia with fuller features that fit well with her motherly image. This portrait, like the majority of her portraits, was certainly meant to be seen as part of a group. According to the imperial propaganda Livia held a distinct role within an imperial group portrait, here probably that of a pious mother figure, as did her son and husband.
Following her husband's death Livia's hairstyle changes again, this time to promote her role as priestess of Augustus. This style was an imitation of images of Greek goddesses, which was appropriate considering her new role would liken her to that of the goddess Ceres and would remind the Roman people of the fertility of Rome. The next significant image change of Livia's iconography occurred when Claudius declared her a diva and her statue was placed next to that of the Divine Augustus in their temple on the Palatine hill.
Winkes believes that the Walters portrait belongs to the beginnings of the principate of Tiberius and because of its large size was probably part of a group that also contained a portrait of Augustus. Although Winkes believes that portraits of Livia greatly impacted the image making of later empresses, her portrait types were not, in fact, greatly copied. The most popular type, according to statistics, seems to be the latest one that associated her most clearly with goddesses.
Portrait of Livia. First century.
Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery.
Portrait of Octavian. (portrait bust from forum- Arles)
ca. 39 BCE
Augustus of Primaporta. Early 1st century CE.
Musei Vaticani, Rome
Why do you think that it was necessary that empresses consistently changed their images? Do you think that the same was true of emperors? Do you think that it can be likened to the way fashions change today?
Do you think that women played an important part in the art of Ancient Rome?
VI. Conclusion
Propaganda was without a doubt an important part of ancient Rome. It is through it that we see how art was manipulated by the ruling body in order to entertain, to revive traditional values, to gain support for military campaigns, to encourage unity, and above all to portray not only the emperor, but the imperial family as strong, moral leaders that are faithful to the people. From sculpture to architecture, the Romans left behind a legacy of art both intricate and monumental, peaceful and courageous mostly in an attempt to gain the love and support of the masses. We can only hope that the television commercials of John Kerry, the billboards of Howard Dean, and the photographs of President Bush will one day do the same.
Bibliography
Created by Elsbet Smith
Sweet Briar College
Art History Senior Seminar 452
February 8, 2004
Created by Elsbet Smith
Sweet Briar College
Art History Senior Seminar 452
February 8, 2004