The Beauty of Banking and Villa Farnesina

Nicole Draney
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006

As you walk through the halls of Villa Farnesina in Trastevere, you are immediately led to the conclusion that the resident of this house must have been a great man, a patron of luxury and elegance, a man unafraid to dazzle his guests with lavish opulence. The vivid frescoes on every wall and ceiling draw the visitor into other worlds, suggesting that he or she is amidst a heavenly realm here on earth. This was no villa for casual tea or low-key gatherings – this was a palace away from home, a place for Agostino Chigi to show the world the wonders he had received from his grand successes in banking and his convenient relationship with the most powerful institution at that time – the Holy Roman Catholic Church.


The Earliest Bankers in Rome
Italy is well known as the birthplace of modern banking. The oldest forms of banking trace back to ancient Chinese pawnbroking, or lending money in exchange for the physical pledging of household items. Pawnbroking was not organized, however, until the practice became more prevalent for trading purposes during the Middle Ages. The word “pawn” probably comes from the Latin word “pannus,” which means cloth; in the earliest times, people borrowed money by pawning clothes.

The Jewish community has commonly been associated with pawnbroking and moneylending. Because of the essential services the Jewish population provided to the community, the Catholics have historically tolerated their presence in Rome. Jewish moneylending originated in the 11th and 12th centuries during the urban and commercial revolution. As population density dwindled following the Plagues in Europe, money actually became more concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and private wealth shot up, bringing with it demands for investment and financing opportunities. Jewish pawnshops and moneylending brought huge benefits to the economy. The presence of credit helped economic growth and prosperity, especially as cities accumulated private wealth. There was a catch to their lending practices, however, that would become the center of a huge debate over the next hundred years or so: the Jews charged interest, called usury, which was a complicated issue in the eyes of the Catholic Church. As usurers, they helped to stimulate the economy, yet the idea of interest went against some very clear rules laid out in the Bible. Luke 6:35 states, “Lend freely, hoping for nothing thereby.” However, the Church became divided over this seemingly clear statement because of its apparent conflict with an earlier passage in Deuteronomy, which forbids usurious lending “to thy brother” but permits it in dealings with “strangers.” It became difficult for the church to reconcile “strangers” with Christ’s new covenant of universal Christian brotherhood. The two mendicant orders of Christianity, the Franciscans and the Dominicans, took opposing sides of the issue. The Dominicans strictly believed all lending was bad – the passage from Luke should be understood literally, surpassing the earlier writings of Deuteronomy. As such, interest of any kind was wrong. The Franciscans, however, took a slightly different angle: they believed that charging interest for the sake of profit was a sin, but they understood that it was necessary to charge reasonable interest at times to cover general costs. They believed that the Jewish lending practices of charging exorbitant interest were unacceptable, but lending at “reasonable rates” could be acceptable under the laws of the Catholic Church.

Prior to the 14th century, Christians were permitted to lend money with interest, and actually rivaled the Jewish community as far as their success in banking. Soon after, a shift in the church back to a more Christian lifestyle increased criticism from religious leaders and led to an enforcement of the usury ban for Christians. Jewish moneylenders, however, were exempt from this ban, since they were non-Christians. Christians began to despise the Jews as they continued to charge exorbitant interest, sometimes up to 60% of the loan, and amassed huge fortunes. Christians started to hold the belief that the Jews “trafficked in other people’s misfortunes,” despite the fact that until recently, they had been allowed to charge interest as well.

Franciscan leaders tried to keep Christians away from Jewish lenders because lending at an interest rate was a mortal sin and an insult to the ideals of charity, brotherhood, and economic justice. One monk preached, "[I]f this concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is dangerous to the health of the city, it is even more dangerous when this wealth and money is concentrated and gathered into the hands of the Jews. For in that case, the natural warmth of the city – for that is what its wealth represents – is not flowing back the heart to give it assistance but instead rushes to an abscess in a deadly hemorrhage, since all Jews, especially those who are moneylenders, are the chief enemies of all Christians" (Katz, The Art Bulletin. 2003). Other preachers also spoke out violently against the Jews. The common belief among the Franciscans was that Jews were the “enemies of Christianity, and robbers of Christians through usury.” For a while, the Papacy spoke strongly in defense of the Jews, and issued letters in the early to mid-1400s denouncing the accusations on the part of the Franciscan preachers.

Pope Leo X, the Medici pope, was a strong supporter of moneylending. This makes sense, given that he came from a banking family. His policy towards the Jews, then, was decidedly less forceful than later popes. Even as he received criticism from various Franciscan leaders, Leo employed Jewish physicians and granted them the right to hold teaching positions at various universities. Two Franciscan monks in particular prodded Leo to implement a stronger strategy for converting Jews, including prohibiting them from charging interest. They suggested that Jews should be “handled with bitter and harsh measures” so that “they will be more easily incited… to seize the way of truth and of life” (Stow, Catholic Thought and Papal Jewry Policy. 1977). Pope Leo did not adopt these policies, but later popes did.

The tide turned in the mid-1500s when Paul IV issued a bull forcing all Jews to live in the gated Ghetto and restricting them to work only in used clothing sales and moneylending. Venice had created the first Jewish ghetto in 1516, but Paul IV’s order was still a surprise to the Roman Jewish community. It meant a shift from tolerating Jews solely for reasons of Christian piety or charity, to tolerating them in the hopes of converting them. The Jewish ghetto was not as successful as Paul IV had hoped, however. The Jewish community stayed vibrant within the ghetto, and even as other banking institutions were created in response to their moneylending practices, the Jewish consistently had to “bail out” troubled banks and indebted popes.


Monte di Pieta: The Church’s Response to Jewish Lending
In response to the Church’s issues with Jewish moneylending, the “monte di pieta” were introduced throughout the late-14th and 15th centuries. “Monte di pieta” roughly translates to mean “mounds of pity or charity,” which refers to the piles of donations and funds collected by Tuscan clerics to be used for charitable works. Originally, any profits received by such an organization would be used to pay employees and extend the scope of charitable works. As described by Federico Arcelli in Banking and Charity in Fourteenth Century Italy, "The monti di pieta... sought to bring together solicitude for the poor and the needs of the economy, the objectives of politics and the resources of finance – all this with the explicit blessing (and implicit approval) of the Catholic Church, which continued to wield major influence in economic affairs."

Supported by the Franciscans, the Italian monte di pieta were expected to not only replace Jewish moneylenders but to also set up the conditions for their expulsion. Though the monti had many internal problems (frequently relying on the Jewish moneylenders to bail them out), they represented a symbolic attack against the protections given to the Jews throughout the Middle Ages.

From 1462 to 1515, several monti were founded by the Church. The Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, considered the oldest bank in the world still in existence and the 6th largest bank in Italy today, was founded in 1472. Because the monti operated as “pawnshops” in the beginning, only later changing to “banks,” the Catholic Church supported them for charging reasonable interest. In addition, the monti also provided foundations for mass propaganda against the Jews.

During these times of harsh Jewish criticism, the propaganda against them was fierce. Near the end of the 15th century, artwork occasionally depicted the expulsion of the Jews and their villainous practices from Roman society. Altarpieces depicted Jews burning at the stake, showing usurers as evil, decrepit, Godless characters and casting the main members of that profession in an unfavorable light. Portrayals like these simply perpetuated Christian fear of Jewish violence and supported the Pope’s decision to place all Jews in the ghetto where they could be monitored. Often, altarpieces like these sparked rumors of Jewish violence in regions where such accusations had not existed previously. Jews were implicated in usury charges while Christians were spared, since their use of interest in lending was “charitable” and “justified.”

Any opposition to the Monte itself was not based on the idea of the institution but on the particular necessity of interest. The employees of the monti needed to be paid. Strict followers of the Dominican order argued that the use of interest to maintain the charity did not justify the usury, since a good end could not justify evil means. Supporters of the monte di pieta, however, argued that their loans consisted of two contracts: one concerning the loan, which should be gratuitous, and one concerning the custody of the object pawned and the use of space and personal responsibility to take care of it, which should not be gratuitous. While the Monte di Pieta originally existed solely to receive donations, requests in wills, and to distribute charitable funds, eventually the funds received were inadequate to meet demands, and so they had to start accepting deposits on a commercial interest-bearing basis. This required papal permission, which was achieved through Leo X in 1515 in a papal bull that declared the institutions in no way illicit or sinful, but on the contrary, beneficial and worthy of praise, such that whosoever preached or wrote against them in the future would incur excommunication. This was a powerful statement of support from the papacy, legitimizing the use of interest within certain bounds, and establishing a connection between the papacy and the banking institutions now rapidly on the rise.

The Monte di Pieta in Rome moved to its present location in 1604, a palace built by Pope Clement VIII on one side of a square filled with tiny jewelry shops. Catholic cardinals directed the bank until the unification of Italy in 1870, and it has since then merged with Banca di Roma. The cardinal connection explains the small oval chapel inside the bank – a showcase of Baroque art with statues of Faith, Hope, Charity, and Mercy and bas-reliefs depicting the abolishment of usury. Valuable paintings and antique furniture decorate the marble-tiled halls. Throughout the years, the bank has collected its share of valuable art and treasure. One Monte di Pieta commissioned a fresco to be done by Giovanni dei Guasta of the Madonna della Misericordia, which now hangs in the bank. Other works have also been commissioned to various artists to commemorate stages in the bank’s history.

Italian bankers became key figures in Rome after the 15th century. They were responsible for a variety of services, including managing the deposits and affairs of the papal offices, farming taxes in Rome and throughout the papal states, dealing with international exchange and the transfer of money, contracting to provide Rome with grain, and acting as principal lenders to the pope and funders of the church debt. Cardinals and popes were expected to be patrons of the arts, and thus often needed help funding artistic commissions. This close connection to papal financial affairs meant that the presence of bankers in the papal court was not unusual. It was a new development of the 15th century to have such frequent acquisition of the cardinal office by members of prominent banking families. While it could be useful to have a cardinal member in your banking family, patronage and nepotism worked both ways. When popes brought pressure on bankers for huge loans to fund their massive art commissions, how could they refuse? One banking family “practically ruined themselves” through unsecured loans to Pope Leo X. To ensure continued prosperity for your family in Rome, a cardinal’s hat or an election to the papacy was the most useful position to obtain, and becoming the pope’s banker was the best place to start.


Banking and Patronage of the Arts: Agostino Chigi
As banking rose in importance during the 15th and 16th centuries, the rise in the patronage of artists was growing as well. The extravagance of popes like Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X led to the need for huge loans to support their patronage of the arts. As such, they often developed personal relationships with trusted banking families, such as the Chigi family in Rome.

Agostino Chigi, born in Siena in 1466, was often called “Il magnifico” because of the grandeur he displayed in every aspect of his life. His success and prosperity were known throughout Europe as he lent money to princes and cardinals and conducted business with the Kings of Spain, France, and England. Chigi especially prospered under the papal rule of Alexander VI, the Borgia pope. The Sultan of Turkey once called him “the great merchant of Christendom.” By assisting in the election of Julius II, a Della Rovere pope, Julius accepted him into the papal familia in 1509 and allowed the Chigi arms (6 hills crowned with a star) the honor of adding the Della Rovere name and oak symbol.

Using money borrowed from Chigi banks, Pope Leo X certainly supported well-known artists, such as Michelangelo, but he was also a great patron of the newcomer, Raphael. Raphael was willing to do anything, profound or trivial, for his patron, from painting portraits to painting pictures of Baraballo’s elephant. Because of this, Leo X openly preferred Raphael for many of his projects, and this support was mirrored by Agostino Chigi when he was deciding who should decorate his grand vacation villa.

In 1505, Chigi purchased land on the Tiber River that was full of vineyards and gardens. He commissioned Baldassare Peruzzi in 1510 to build his new house on the property. The house was designed to portray luxury and elegance, and as such, was lavishly decorated and furnished. The construction was meant to be seen as a re-evocation of the classical world, with rare plants, marble fragments, and antique statues. Chigi commissioned some of the most famous artists of the time, including Baldassare Peruzzi, Sebastiano del Piombo, Sodoma, and Raphael, to decorate the villa. These artists created frescoes based almost entirely on classical mythology, much of it taken from Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.” Inside the house, Chigi eventually received artists, poets, princes, cardinals and the Pope himself. Chigi had plays performed in gardens, and his court met there to read classical poetry and discuss philosophy and astrology in rooms where classical myths and gods were painted on the walls. The villa was intended to display Chigi’s own personality and high culture, clearly showing his great wealth and success to all who were invited to view his lavish lifestyle.

In the first and most important room of Chigi’s Villa, visitors will find the Triumph of Galatea, located in the loggia at the east side of the villa facing the Tiber. Raphael’s fresco was inspired by a verse from a poem by the Florentine Angelo Poliziano, the same poem that inspired Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus.” The poem describes how the clumsy giant Polyphemus sings a love song to the fair sea-nymph Galatea, and how she rides across the waves in a chariot drawn by two dolphins, laughing at his foolish song in the company of other sea-gods and nymphs. Some scholars believe Polyphemus was intended to symbolize Chigi and his futile love for a wealthy countess, Margherita Gonzaga, who refused to marry him despite his offers to give up all of his business interests. In the loggia, Raphael was responsible for the drawing of Galatea and her companions, while the giant depicted in the fresco to the left was done by Sebastiano del Piombo. In the vault of the Loggia di Galatea, Peruzzi translated Agostino’s own horoscope into images, organizing the arrangement of constellations, divinities, and signs of the zodiac into a complex, airy design. The work of these three great artists with their respective special talents amazed and dazzled Chigi’s distinguished guests, aiding in his mission to impress society with his grandeur.

There are several other rooms in the Villa open to the public, and all were completed by the same group of artists, giving the building a consistent theme and design all the way through. In the Loggia of Cupid and Psyche, located at the back of the villa, Raphael depicted a continuous narrative alluding to Chigi’s upcoming marriage. In the Hall of the Perspective Views, Baldasarre Peruzzi created illusions of columns dividing the apparently open walls in a truly Renaissance style, framing landscapes of quiet, detailed villages, groups of houses, ruins of aqueducts, and a view of Rome. Peruzzi uses a milieu of Renaissance techniques to accomplish this perspective, including shading, vanishing points, and the extension of room features like the tile floor out into the picture. A fresco cycle of the wedding of Alexander the Great to his bride, Roxana, were chosen for the bedroom upstairs, perhaps in an attempt to compare Agostino “Il Magnifico” to Alexander the Great.

Upon completion of all the decorations in his villa, Chigi could finally impress all his guests, and wasted no time in doing so. Chigi was well known for his “eccentricities,” which were most evident in the ridiculously lavish banquets he held at his villa. At one banquet, Chigi had his guests dine on fine china to live music, surrounded by golden tapestries on every wall. At the end of the meal, when the Pope asked why Chigi was treating his guests so lavishly, Chigi pulled down the draperies to reveal the naked walls and stables behind them, replying that he had felt that he was being too bold when he asked his holiness to dine in a stable. At another banquet, Chigi had his guests throw their gold and silver dishes in to the Tiber at the end of the meal to spare his servants from having to clean them. This blatant lavishness actually disguised the shrewd businessman, who is said to have had nuns from across the river spread nets underneath the water to catch the precious dishes and pull them up after his guests had all left. Chigi’s most lavish recorded banquet was held on the Day of St. Augustine, August 28, 1519, where his distinguished guests were served rare birds or fish from their own countries on silver dishes decorated with their respective coats of arms. At the end of the banquet, Agostino surprised his guests by celebrating his second marriage, blessed by the Pope himself, to a modest young Venetian woman named Francesca.

Raphael’s last great work done for Agostino was the completion of the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo. Agostino died on April 20, 1520. Following a string of various owners, the villa was purchased by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who already owned a piece of land in the area and wished to turn the villa into an annex of their palazzo. Thereafter, the villa was known as Villa Farnesina, or “Little Farnese.” The building underwent many attempts at restorations, and sadly, many alterations. The Villa Farnesina is currently owned by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

As you walk through the rooms of Villa Farnesina, it is impossible to ignore the message behind the great works of these artists: ancient gods, symbols and myths, all imitating the greatest patrons of antiquity. Chigi’s magnificent personality shines through this return of classical art, making it impossible to deny the extent of his great wealth and embodying the essence of the Renaissance in one exquisite villa. Chigi’s goal, like that of so many other great patrons during the Renaissance, was to protect his artists while they built his grand villa, creating exquisite art to astonish his guests and display his magnificence. With the advent of modern banking, it became possible to continue this patronage tradition on a much grander scale, both in public villas and in papal splendor. The Monte di Pieta in Rome helped to usher in the new era of artistic spending and extravagance that really captured the “rebirth” of culture in Renaissance Rome.

Bibliography
Arcelli, Federico. Banking and Charity in XVI Century Italy; The Holy Monte di Pieta of Rome (1539-84). Leicestershire: Upfront Publishing, Ltd., 2003.

Fremantle, Richard. God and Money: Florence and the Medici in the Renaissance. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2005.

Gerlini, Elsa. Villa Farnesina alla Lungara, Rome. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1990.

Hallman, Barbara McClung. Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as Property. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985.

Katz, Dana E. “The contours of tolerance: Jews and the Corpus Domini Altarpiece in Urbino.” The Art Bulletin. Dec., 2003. .

Malafarina, Gianfranco. Ed. The Villa Farnesina in Rome. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini Editore Spa, 2003.

Menning, Carol Bresnahan. Charity and State in Late Renaissance Italy: The Monte di Pieta of Florence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Stow, Kenneth R. Catholic Thought and Papal Jewry Policy 1555-1593. NY: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1977.

Stow, Kenneth R. Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the Sixteenth Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001.

Vaughan, Herbert M. The Medici Popes. London: Methuen & Co., 1908.

Aqueducts, Piazza Navona and Bernini’s Fountain of the Four Rivers

Julia Troutt
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006



Water, to the ancient Romans, was more than just an ingredient for survival. It was an essential part of social life, an element of political sway, and a symbol of the great power of the city. Water shows its significance in Rome quite early on. Even in the story of the founding of the city water plays a major roll; Romulus and Remus float to safety on the Tiber where they were supposed to be drowned. There is also a large amount of evidence, both through documentation and physical ruins, to describe just how much the Romans loved their baths and fountains. At its peak, Rome supposedly contained over 1200 fountains. At Ostia Antica, the ruins of the huge bathing complexes demonstrate that the average Roman spent a large portion of his day bathing, doing business and exercising at the baths. On top of this, it has recently been proven that there could indeed have been mock naval battles held in the Coliseum for the entertainment of the populous. Clearly, water was essential to the ancient Roman on many levels.

Because of this perceived necessity of great amounts of water, Romans were very proud of their ability to bring water to their city, sometimes from over sixty miles away. They considered it a right to make lavish use of their laboriously obtained water. At the height of the Roman Empire, the people of Rome were using 250 million gallons of water a day. That is roughly 150 gallons of water per person per day; a large number compared to the 100 gallons used by the average American in a day. Such an end obviously required great means.

Great means (Roman style) consist of sophisticated structures called aqueducts. The Romans have used aqueducts since the 4th century B.C. to bring water into the city to augment the supply from the Tiber and Rome’s underground springs. At one point there were eleven aqueducts servicing the city, with a total length of 260 miles. Despite the modern notion of aqueducts consisting of giant stone arches supporting miles of waterslide-like conduits, only thirty miles of these ancient aqueducts were above ground. Because it was more cost-effective, the pipes carrying the water from fresh sources outside the city were built largely underground. The water was moved without pumps or any outside energy, letting gravity do all the work. Even in moving water up hills, gravity-created water pressure was used. These simple, majestic devices went from being a luxury to being a necessity in the mind of the average Roman, and the indulgent bond between Romans and water caused water displays to become a symbol of status. It became a trend for powerful people in Rome to build aqueducts for their city to solidify and legitimize their standing. People who built aqueducts (Marcus Agrippa, Emperor Augustus, Emperor Claudius and Emperor Trajan are a few examples) made sure that the structures appeared above the ground as they neared the city so they could be seen by the people and connected to their creator. What better gift could one give a populous so enamored with water?

Unfortunately this time of luxury did not last for Rome. Nearly all of the Roman aqueducts were left to fall into disrepair or were cut by the Goths during the Sack of Rome in the early 5th century. The one remaining aqueduct, the Aqua Vergine, supplied the entire city, or what was left of it, up until the end of the Middle Ages. The remaining people of Rome, who had been a million strong in the days of the Empire, retreated to a bend in the Tiber, repairing the Aqua Vergine just often enough to supply their sadly reduced population. In the words of Hibbard, Rome was “shrunken like a nut within the shell of her ancient walls.”

This lamentable water situation lasted until the fifteenth century when, finally, Rome’s savior arrived. Ironically this knight in shining armor came in the form of the church. The papacy had been at odds with the people of Rome throughout the medieval years, with popes being sought out and expelled from the country. However, there came a change in the Roman attitude toward the papacy with the election of Pope Nicholas V in 1453. At the time of his rule, the people of Rome had an idealized image of the grandeur of antiquity. They wished Rome to regain something of her old dignity and power. Thus, in the same year he came to power, Pope Nicholas V began the process of Rome’s journey into the Renaissance by repairing and extending the Aqua Vergine, the lifeblood of Rome. This allowed the population to expand and grow within the walls of the city. Yet this expansion was not the only effect of the restored aqueduct. A change was beginning to be made in the minds of the Roman people. The connection between water and power, which had been so strong in antiquity, was suddenly being used within the context of Christianity. This transition was a smooth one. Through bible stories like Noah’s Ark and the Baptism of Christ, Christianity itself uses water as a powerful symbol. Catholics everywhere use water to cleanse themselves as they enter churches, giving water a connotation of purification. The papal building of the aqueduct was therefore an ingenious move on the part of Nicholas V. The new abundance of water made accessible to the common people through fountains along the new aqueducts effectively connected Christianity and the papacy to the grandeur of ancient times. The Pope looked like a savior to the people of Rome.

Thus began a new age of papal rule in the Eternal City. Popes would use an association with water to win the favor of the people time and time again. Pope Sixtus V, Pope Paul V and Pope Pius IX all built aqueducts during their respective reigns, and the six aqueducts that are still in use in Rome today were built or refurbished by popes. One of these, the Aqua Paola, feeds what has been called the most famous fountain in Rome, Bernini’s Fountain of the Four Rivers.

This fountain was commissioned by Pope Innocent X, another pope who wanted to create a display of water to benefit the people of Rome. He chose to place his fountain in the middle of one of Rome’s oldest and most popular secular meeting places, Piazza Navona. The site of the piazza has been used as an assembly area since 86 A.D. when it became Emperor Domitian’s stadium. Outside of the normal races and games held in such a stadium, Domitian put on mock sea battles because the area was easily flooded. Being built directly on top of its ruins, the current piazza takes the shape of the ancient stadium. From the late 1400’s to the late 1800’s there was a daily open market that filled Piazza Navona with people, and beginning in the 1600’s there was a summer weekend tradition of flooding the Piazza and allowing all of the prominent families in Rome to splash through the water in carriages. By the time Pope Innocent X came to power in 1644, this was the most important assembly space in Rome. It was an ideal place for his family, the Pamphili, to have their palazzo, and the perfect place to erect a monument rife with meaningful symbols and propaganda.

Such a project would require a skilled architect to complete. Gianlorenzo Bernini, the most prominent sculptor at the time, would normally have been the obvious choice for such a project. However, Bernini had fallen from favor with the death of his principal patron, Pope Urban VIII. Pope Urban had been quite unpopular toward the end of his reign because of some questionable habits concerning overspending, and the new pope wanted nothing to do with him or his favorite architect. Thus when Pope Innocent began looking at designs by various architects for his fountain, Bernini was conspicuously left out of the running. Obviously the wily architect did manage to become the sole designer for the fountain. There are several distinct stories regarding Bernini’s eventual success at getting the commission, but all accounts agree on the basics. It seems Bernini made a beautiful design for the fountain, perhaps of solid silver, which was spirited into the palazzo by a member of the Pamphili family and placed somewhere where the pope would see it. The pope is reputed to have said upon seeing the statue; “If one does not wish to carry out Bernini’s designs, one must not see them.”


The design which so amazed the Pope is said to be one of Bernini’s finest works for several reasons. The fountain is adorned with statues depicting four reclining river gods set up at equal intervals around the circumference of the structure, forcing the viewer to walk all the way around the fountain to see all the figures. The four rivers represented signify the four continents known to geographers of the time. Around the base below the gods are carved animals and plants to help the viewer identify the continents represented.

Europe is represented by the Danube River, who twists in toward the fountain to support a large papal coat of arms displaying the Pamphili family iconography with his hand. This symbolizes Europe being the support and home base of the Catholic Church. There is a horse beside this god to help identify it with Europe.


Asia is associated with the Ganges river god, who is seen here holding an oar to demonstrate the navigability of the river. An exquisite palm tree, one of the only figures on the fountain actually carved by Bernini himself, helps to identify this god with Asia. A serpent beneath the feet of the river god further represents the Ganges.


The Nile, the main river of Africa, is symbolized by this statue, whose head is covered by a cloth. The statue is said to be portrayed in this way to signify the unknown whereabouts of the source of the Nile at this time. There is a lion below this statue to help associate it with Africa.


The Rio De la Plata is the river that represents the New World. Not much was known about this area of the world at the time, so the river god is depicted as a bald black man, with an armadillo as a defining animal. The armadillo looks a lot like a spiky teenage mutant ninja turtle because in Europe at the time not much was known about what the animal might look like. The river god is shown clutching a bag of gold coins to symbolize the riches that were being found in the Americas at the time.

Another reason the fountain has been hailed as Bernini’s best work is the striking feature in the center of the four statues. The fountain is surmounted by a 54 foot Egyptian obelisk of red granite, taken from Circus Maximus. Pope Innocent X had the obelisk brought to be a part of the fountain because obelisks were a popular symbol of the triumph of Christianity over Paganism. Obelisks also were used in monuments as symbols of the sun or holy light, because of their tendency to look as though they reached infinitely into the sky. This highly meaningful piece sits upon a chunk of local travertine rock cut to look like raw stone from which all of the figures on the fountain are carved. Bernini was such a talented architect, though, that he added a twist to this travertine base. The middle of the rock underneath the obelisk is carved out in two intersecting arches, leaving the obelisk looking as though it is suspended almost unsupported in the air. Bernini’s technique caused quite a sensation when the fountain was unveiled. Being the jokester that he was, Bernini’s response to the criticism that the fountain was unstable was to tie four strings to the top of the obelisk and attach them to the surrounding buildings for “added support.” Publicity stunts of this nature helped rocket Bernini back into the position of popularity as papal architect that he had enjoyed under the last pope.

On top of being a means of regaining favor for Bernini, the fountain was also a powerful tool of propaganda for the Pamphili Pope. The Pamphili family was the clear patron of the project because atop the obelisk, in the place of the most prestige, Bernini placed a single dove. This was the symbol of Pope Innocent’s family, as well as the symbol of the Holy Spirit and the symbol of peace. This extra tool, taken with all of the other aspects of the fountain, would have been a very potent symbol to the Roman people. The four continents of the world were united in one monument beneath a symbol of triumphant Christianity surmounted by the Holy Spirit and the family of the leader of Christendom. The overall effect of the fountain would have been one of triumph for Rome and for Christianity, especially over Paganism. The people of Rome would have recognized the symbols of the power of the Pamphili family through the use of the dove and the coat of arms. Pope Innocent was very pleased with the fountain, and rightfully so, because it sent such a strong message for his family, for the Church, and for Rome.

Today the fountain still has a strong impact on those who see it, even without the context of the politics of the 1600’s. It is heralded as one of the must-see monuments of Rome, because of this power to transcend time. The fountain is fascinating to viewers still because it remains in one of the most popular piazzas in Rome. Today Piazza Navona is a place for tourists and locals alike to stroll day and night, get a bite to eat, and perhaps buy a watercolor painting of the fantastic Fountain of the Four Rivers. The fountain also has a tendency to come alive to the viewer, engaging them. To see the fountain, a viewer must walk all the way around it, and each figure that they come across is full of life. Each of the four river gods are twisted and full of action. The horse seems in the middle of a panicked escape, startled perhaps by the lion that is leaning down to drink. Even the palm tree exudes life, seeming to sway in the wind. Although the political context of the fountain is fascinating and enlightening, I think the fountain stands on its own exceptionally well, heedless of time.

Bibliography

Chessen, Kaia. Piazza Navona: Palaza of Rome. http://depts.washington.edu/hrome/

Authors/kaiac/PiazzaNavonaMallofRoma/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html

Evans, Harry B. Water Distribution in Ancient Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1994.

Flood, Sara. Aqueducts and the Trevi Fountain. http://depts.washington.edu/hrome/

Authors/floods/TheTreviFountain/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html

Hibbard, Howard. Bernini. Penguin, 1965.

Mac Veigh, Mrs. Charles. The Fountains of Papal Rome. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1915.

Morton, H.V. The Fountains of Rome. The MacMillan Co.: New York, 1966.

Taylor, Rabun. Public Needs and Private Pleasures: Water Distribution, the Tiber River, and the Urban Development of Ancient Rome. Rome: Via Cassiodoro, 2000.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Bernini: the sculptor of the Roman Baroque. London: Phaidon Press, 1997.

A Political Agenda Through Images - The Age of Augustus

Shayla Miles
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006


The age of Augustus was one of the most successful, innovative and interesting time periods in the history of the world. The political genius of Augustus brought about a golden age in Rome, combining the best elements from Greek and Hellenistic imagery as well as Roman res publica values and mythology. The peace and security that Augustus brought about did not come overnight, however. Battles using images and swords, in and out of the political arena arose, as well as the struggle to restore traditional Roman values to a society that had been focusing more and more on their private lives in the late republic. Octavian had to find a new way to appeal to the Roman people, a populus that had been struggling amidst the corrupt and immoral workings of the late Republic. From his genius usage of political images and portrayal of himself to his “healing” of Roman society through building projects, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus lead Rome from the turbulent end of the Republic to the age of empires, which would forever affect and shape the course of Roman history, and always be looked back
upon as the Golden Age.

Before one can examine Augustus and the great things he did for Rome, and how he went about it, the events that led up to it all have to be examined. The decline of the Republic, starting with the dichotomy of a Roman public life and Hellenistic private life, as well as the murder of Julius Caesar, Octavian’s great uncle, can be said to have put the cry for a new age in motion. As mentioned before, there were distinct values in Roman society, namely virtue, piety, and duty to the state. Luxury and frivolity in public life was not tolerated. However, towards the late Republic, many citizens (especially the wealthier or politically powerful patricians, who could get away with it) would lead dutiful public lives, and then leave the city to go to their country villas to pursue a more Hellenistic, that is to say, artistically and pleasure focused, private life. Here, villas would be decorated with Greek statuary, and Greek gala events would take place. Symposiums and parties in a Dionysitic manner - wine drinking, games of passion, love between men, philosophical talks - the kind of excess that was regarded as immoral and unjust in public life, would fill the private lives of well off patricians, even lower class citizens to an extent. This immoral behavior was often blamed for the turbulent end of the Republic, as senators became more focused on personal wealth and glory, fueling corruption. Augustus would later use this in his campaign for “healing” Roman society to reinforce the idea of piety and a disdain for excess, for it was these traits that were necessary to have a successful state blessed by the Gods.

The instability that wracked the last few years of the Republic culminated with the murder of Julius Caesar. Brutus and Cassius, members of the senate, reflected the people’s fear of a tyrant, and together with other senators, murdered Caesar in the theater of Pompey. Marc Antony gained power of the senate after this, but Octavian when he was only 19 raised an army and defeated him in 43 B.C. An agreement was reached between the two, and along with Marcus Lepidus, they formed the second triumvirate. Together they lead an army against Brutus and Cassius and defeated them in 42 B.C., avenging Julius Caesar’s death, and gaining territory which they divided amongst themselves. Eventually, Lepidus lost his land to Octavian, leaving him to control the Western territory (Italy, Gaul, etc.), and to Antony the east (Asia Minor, Egypt), (World book).

Trouble, however, began brewing between Antony and Octavian. At this time, Antony ruled from the east, and in the meantime, had fallen in love with Cleopatra, an Egyptian queen who eventually bore him sons, while Octavian ruled actually in Rome. The two men, hoping to gain sole power of Rome, launched a political war against each other, using mythology and images as their ammunition. For example, Antony chose to portray himself as Dionysus or Bacchus, the god of wine, and this choice shaped not only the public’s image of him, but how Antony saw himself. Thus, the image that he used began to shape his actions. He lived a life of luxury in the exotic east with his Egyptian mistress (who would later become his wife), throwing large feasts and parties, while treating himself like a God. This gave Roman citizens the impression that Antony was squandering his wealth, rather than helping to strengthen Rome and do something for the people, as Octavian was clearly doing, (Zanker, Images).

Antony did not chose his image wisely, for his “Dionysiac revels” were denounced by Octavian in his shrewd political campaign as corrupt, godless, and associated with spiritual weakness - all of the characteristics the Roman people associated with the moral decay and thus problems with the late Republic. Antony finally crossed the line when he gave a number of Rome’s eastern provinces to Cleopatra and their children. Octavian called this unpatriotic and went to war with him and Cleopatra. They were defeated in 31 B.C. in the naval battle at Actium, which Octavian later uses as propaganda to validate his reign and rule.Octavian, however, made a much wiser choice as to which God to align himself with. He chose Apollo, the youthful and beautiful God of sun, music, and the arts, and Apollo, from this point on, always played a huge role in Octavian’s images of himself. From a historical point of view, however, Apollo was a very fitting God in terms of symbolism. The Roman people, in the midst of political unrest and uncertainty, began to have this irrational longing for a savior. Thus, any man who was to ascend to the emperor’s throne had to be able to fill this godlike role of savior. Octavian, throughout his political campaign, aligned himself with the god Apollo, as already mentioned, but from his very birth he was said to have godlike powers. For example, Suetonius writes in his “Life of Augustus Caesar” in the 1st century referring to Octavian’s mother Attia in the temple of Apollo, “a serpent glided up, entered her, and then glided away again. On awakening she purified herself...and the birth of Augustus nine months later suggested divine paternity,” (Testimonia). As a boy too, he was said to have superhuman powers - frogs obeyed his command (Zanker, Images). However, the most blatant form of propaganda was his use of sun and star images on coins and the like, which not only associated himself with Apollo, but were used as omen signs to show the populus he was the blessed new ruler sent by the Gods. Now that one understands the historical context and the foundations of Augustus’imagery and mythology, the monuments visited in the presentation of Augustus can now be examined. First was the remains of the Temple of Mars Ultor, located in the Forum of Augustus. This monument really marks the beginning of Octavian’s building campaign (although most of the actual temple building went on a lot later in his rule). This temple was Octavian’s statement that he had avenged the death of Julius Caesar.

In Octavian’s earlier years, his political agenda was not so much promoting himself, but promoting the image of the late Caesar and associating himself with that image of Caesar. In this way, the Roman people would be sure to look back upon Caesar fondly, as well as associate Octavian most closely with this beloved, wrongfully murdered man. The temple of Mars Ultor, in is prime, would of had a large cult statue of Mars (the God of war) as well as many statues of Julius Caesar in godlike poses (Zanker, Images). This temple was one of the 80 or more temples erected during the rule of Augustus. The focus on architecture and building projects during the first part of his reign was the centerpiece of the religious renewal program. “Only the best for the Gods,” was Octavian’s ultimate motto (Zanker, Images). Thus the focus turned away from Hellenistic private life, and towards a renewed sense of religious duty. Pride as well, played a lot into this, as so many glorious new temples were being erected, a Roman citizen couldn’t help but feel proud at the sight of his beautified city as well as a sense of responsibility to live up to these new standards that were graciously being instilled by the new emperor.

We then examined the copy of the Prima Porta statue of Augustus as well as the pater patrae, which displays the maturation of Augustus’s use of imagery and symbolism to appeal to the Roman people. This turning point in Octavian’s image happens after the battle of Actium, which marks the new age of Augustus. There is a significant change of focus after the political and military battle with Marc Antony. Up to this point, the statuary depicting the young Octavian captured a ambitious and power hungry young man, and used Hellenistic imagery style to depict him as godlike. It was merely for self-glorification, because at this point, Octavian had not done much for Rome, only asserted that he was the only one capable of changing things. However, in 27 B.C., the senate renames Octavian “Augustus”, a name that has a broad range of meanings, including “stately”, “dignified”, and “holy,” giving Augustus the ability to completely changes his image (Zanker, Images). We don’t actually get very many earlier images of Octavian to compare his newer one to, for after his shift in images, he had them all removed from around the city and melted them down, and gave them as a votive offering to Apollo (Galinsky, Culture). This dramatic move, though, tells just how large the shift in images was, and how important his new image would be for his political agenda. So what was this new image and why was it so important? Why change every single portrait, statue or bust of yourself in the entire kingdom just because of a name change? It has already been mentioned the emphasis placed on religious revival, duty to the gods, etc. With this in mind, it was impossible for Augustus to have these statues of himself around, asserting this arrogant claim to all encompassing power and God ship. Thus, “in place of the bony and irregular features of Octavian’s portraiture, the new type is marked by a harmony of proportions, inspired by the classical canon...[the face’s] earlier arrogance are now done away with. The face is now characterized by a calm, elevated expression...and timeless and remote dignity,” (Zanker, Images). He is dignified and virtuous. Powerful yet pious. His new image was not an outright claim to power, but a calm assertion that he was the only one capable of leading Rome into a glorious new era. The symbols on the Prima Porta statue are good examples of the mythology and imagery that Augustus wanted to associate himself with. He stands next to a statue of Eros riding a dolphin, claiming his divine ancestry (for Aeneas, the traditional founder of what today is known as Rome is the son of Venus, who is mother to Eros in most myths). His attire, which consists of military attire is, however, without shoes, which was a Classical way of depicting a God, elevating him onto a plane that transcends mortality. His breastplate is full of imagery of his connection between heaven and earth that he forges, as well as symbols of victory from the barbarians he has defeated. The pater patrae statue as well, depicts Augustus in a godlike manner - “the humble image of Augustus as the togatus making a sacrifice...does nothing to conceal the notion that he enjoyed divine powers,” (Zanker, Images). Though this statue was dedicated when Augustus was around 60 years old, versus the Prima Porta statue, dedicated almost 30 years prior, the serene, pious gaze is unchanging permanently fixed in a Classical youthful manner, reminiscent of portraitures of Alexander the Great - young but wise, humble, strong, and recalling of the youthful valor and glory Alexander achieved, conquering and unifying most of the known world. Augustus did not conquer and unify the known world at the time, but he did indeed expand Rome's territory holdings and undoubtedly conquered any opposition to his new reign as Emperor.

The legacy of Augustus was to be remembered and revered by forthcoming generations as a time of greatness. After his death, Augustus was in fact worshiped like a God. Temples were dedicated to him all over the empire, and emperors after him tried to live up to the standard that he had set. The imagery that he used - the youthful, Classical style of his statues - was used for centuries to recall the Godlike powers that Augustus employed and the new age that he brought about. The architecture used to stress the importance on religion, too, carried onto future generations as the temples that Augustus built became the centerpieces of the lives of Roman citizens until the beginning of Christianity (and some temples remained, transformed into Christian churches). Augustus’s political maneuvers were so tactical and fascinating - emperors from Trajan to Constantine tried to emulate his powerful uses of imagery, attempting to recall this glorious age. People nowadays still visit the temple of Mars, though its now in ruins, and marvel at its sheer size; we look at the copy of the Prima Porta statue on the via Imperiale and are blown away at all the intricate imagery; we stumble upon the Mausoleum or see images from the Ara Pacis (hopefully one day we will get the chance to actually see the real thing) and cannot even begin to comprehend the impact Augustus made on the Roman people. We are still interested in going to see his buildings or statues today because, I think, there is something eternal about what Augustus did and stood for. He was a man that lead a people out of war, instability and chaos, into one of the most prosperous and innovative periods in ancient history.

Hadrian's Building Program: The Pantheon

Schuyler Dunphy
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006


It is easy to be overcome by the Pantheon’s immense rotunda and beautiful design when strolling through the interior for the first time. But with a close study of the history of the building’s design, a coherent meaning behind its design becomes apparent. The Roman Emperor Hadrian incorporated many elements of design that reflect the historical context of the 2nd century A.D. as well as the emperor’s background. I will survey the opinions of two critics and argue that the Hadrian designed The Pantheon in order to reconcile the complaints of the Gods and to make a political appeal to the citizens of the Roman Empire. Further, Hadrian’s universal design of The Pantheon has proved not only appealing to the Gods and the citizens of the Roman Empire, but to future generations as well.

Before diving into the question of meaning, it is necessary to understand Hadrian’s background and the historical context. The following passage from Elizabeth Speller’s Following Hadrian introduces this topic succinctly and thoroughly:

He traveled his empire, assiduously as he believed, recreating a lost Hellenistic earthly paradise, where his buildings stood not only as a Reminder to his subjects after he had gone but as a memorial to his Beloved Greece, to exceed his predecessors and as a legacy to the Posterity which would judge him. He used art to bind his empire with his Own past and an unknown future.
(56)

Publius Hadrianus (known in English as Hadrian) was born in 76 A.D. in a small Roman settlement in Spain. Although surrounded by Spaniards and North Africans Hadrian began to love Greek and Roman culture at a young age and received the moniker the “Greekling.” He admired Greek art, language, and science and studied it extensively. His understanding of the Greeks fell under a broader context. Hadrian was well read and had a strong sense of Mediterranean history—he even lived through five Roman emperors prior to his ascension to Roman Emperor.

When Hadrian’s cousin and close friend Trajan became emperor, it thrust Hadrian into elite Roman circles and onto a path destined for prominence in Roman public service. Hadrian was appointed general and led several military expeditions in Northern and Eastern Europe. He was also appointed governor of Syria. After a long and suspenseful wait, Trajan appointed Hadrian the Emperor of the Roman Empire in 117 A.D.

Hadrian’s ascension to the throne signaled a new direction for the Roman Empire. Unlike Trajan, Hadrian sought to consolidate the empire’s borders. He feared that the administration and defense of the massive empire exacted an unbearable financial and human onus. He also had a unique relationship with the empire’s client states. Hadrian conceived of himself as more of a father of the empire’s foreign land and people, as opposed to its master (Speller 77). He traveled the empire extensively. Hadrian spent 12 of his 21 years as emperor traveling, more than any other emperor. The travel was not solely for military purposes, but Hadrian also had an interest in interacting and connecting with people--likely for both political and personal reasons.

The emperor’s attitude towards empire manifested itself in his extensive building projects. In Athens, Hadrian built a library and several other monuments. The Greeks respected Hadrian and reciprocated his generosity by constructing and dedicating a triumphal arch to the Emperor. Hadrian understood the importance of traveling to Greece. There was much to learn from their rich culture (language, arts) and knowledge base (philosophy and sciences). Furthermore, over half of the people enveloped by the Roman Empire spoke Greek as their native language and to ignore their heritage would have been a political disaster.

The emperor also left his mark in many regions outside of Greece. In 122 A.D. Hadrian constructed the 73 mile long wall, spanning west/east across England, that is known as “Hadrian’s Wall.” This structure marked the northernmost boundary of the Empire as well as a boundary between the Romans and their enemies. Hadrian also constructed a lavish villa in Tivoli (near Rome). The grounds cover over one square kilometer and house over 30 buildings. Hadrian’s eclectic style manifests itself in his re-creation of a garden and reflecting pool reminiscent of an ancient Alexandrian resort (about 200 BC) . Hadrian also built a number of monuments in Rome, including one known as “The Temple of the Deified Trajan,” that honors his cousin and predecessor.

None of Hadrian’s building projects, nor those of other designers, attract as much veneration and scrutiny as the Pantheon. Pantheon means “all the Gods” and is located in the Campus Martius, the ancient and present-day heart of Rome. The original Pantheon was not built by Hadrian but by Marcus Agrippa, the son-in-law and minister of Emperor Augustus, in 27 B.C. Agrippa sought to honor Augustus and did so by creating a large rectangular structure (unlike the present structure). Inside, statues of Mars (the God of War), Venus (the God of Love), Caesar, Augustus, and Agrippa adorned the building. Augustus felt that placing a statue of himself alongside the Gods was disrespectful to the divine order. He felt that the Roman Gods should be symbolically venerated at a higher level than a living human, even if he was the Roman emperor. Agrippa accepted the plea and placed the statues of himself and Augustus outside of the Pantheon.

Not long after the construction of the Pantheon several bad omens struck. Agrippa’s building was destroyed in a fire in 80 A.D. Domitian, who became emperor in 81, restored The Pantheon in order to display his loyalty to the popular age of Augustus. A lightning strike in 110 A.D. incinerated Domitian’s newly restored building. The lightning interpreters (Fulgatores—part of the Etruscan beliefs) must have subscribed a certain meaning to these events but they were not recorded for our knowledge.

What is certain however, is that Hadrian’s construction of the new Pantheon (120-124 A.D.) was entirely different from that of previous designs. According to Indra McEwen, a contributor to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, the new design reflected Hadrian’s desire “to prove that the Imperial order, with its rule of law and its care for the republic, was part of the divine order, initiated by it and subsumed to it” (60).

McEwen’s article “Rhetoric of the Pantheon, is an analysis of the meaning of The Pantheon. Her fundamental argument is that Hadrian hoped to reconcile the imperial order (emperors) with the divine order (gods). The Gods were unhappy with Agrippa’s placement of a living emperor alongside deities and their displeasure manifested itself in the two aforementioned fires as well as a lightning strike the jostled the spear from the arms of Augustus’ statue. Hadrian sought to vindicate Rome from the wrath of the Gods and prove once and for all Augustus and Agrippa were right to build The Pantheon.

Hadrian incorporated a number of new design aspects to the Pantheon. Firstly and most significantly, Hadrian reversed the direction of The Pantheon 180 degrees so it now faces north. In the center of the porch, a frieze of Hadrian showed the Emperor dispensing gifts. The intermediate block is decorated with various religious rituals, including augurs (foretellers). Following the rectangular porch and intermediate block is the rotunda. It is a cylinder with a 43 meter diameter with a 9 meter oculus that permits the entrance of sunlight. The interior wall of the Rotunda has eight apses (arched recessions), including the entrance. There are also eight piers (arched protrusions), thereby creating 16 divisions. Behind the rotunda Hadrian constructed a rectangular basilica for Neptune, God of the Sea.



As McEwen explains, Hadrian’s new design reflected his desire to pay homage to the Gods and avoid their onslaught of fires. The 16 divisions of The Pantheon are a significant design component because of their connection to the Etruscan Discipline. Part of this discipline includes the 16 divisions of the Etruscan Sky (and all regions contain connections to deities). The first region is located in the north, just as The Pantheon is oriented. Janus, the guardian of entrances has his realm in the northern sky. Furthermore, 16 columns form the vertical support for the porch of Pantheon. Therefore Hadrian’s “plea” to the gods is that the imperial order must be vindicated because the number of divisions and columns of the Pantheon corresponds to the 16 parts of the Etruscan Sky.

As Emperor, Hadrian would have sat at the southern apse facing north with Neptune at his back. Hadrian used The Pantheon to write laws, govern and judge. From his imperial seat, Hadrian must have looked upwards through the oculus and pondered the Gods and endless sky. McEwen believed that since the width of this main apse (in the southern end) is 9 meters, the same as the oculus, Hadrian would have become Neptune (ruler of the sea) who’s brother is Jupiter (ruler of the sky).

William MacDonald is another critic who offers an explanation for the meaning behind the Pantheon’s design. In his book entitled The Pantheon: Design, Meaning and Progeny, MacDonald explains that The Pantheon was likely a dedication to wider audiences which included Augustus, the empire and the Gods. He believes that it was a dedication to Augustus because Hadrian kept the inscription above the porch that boldly states “Agrippa, son of Lucius, three times consul, built this,” despite the fact that it was undoubtedly Hadrian that built this reconstruction. The structure of the building is also reminiscent of the forum of Augustus. For instance, both monuments have large rectangular forecourts preceding immense temples.
MacDonald believes several pieces of evidence support his argument that the Pantheon is a dedication to the Roman Empire. The large rotunda is a bold declaration of the empire’s authority. At the time of its construction, it is unlikely that any rotunda challenged its grandiosity. The Gods, especially Zeus (the Sky God) overlook this symbol of empire from their heavenly position.

In analyzing these critiques of the Pantheon as a whole, it becomes clear that although both authors touch on similar issues, there are important differences between the two viewpoints. McEwen is convinced that Hadrian deeply desired to reconcile the divine order with the imperial order and attempted to do so by creating divisions and columns reminiscent of the Etruscan Sky, reorienting the entrance to the north, and building a temple for Venus. MacDonald on the other hand, feels that Hadrian was more concerned with appealing to the golden Augustan Age. This is evidenced by the fewer explicit design connections to the Gods. MacDonald also sees the Pantheon as being a tribute to the Roman empire’s extensive size.

It is hard to determine exactly what the Emperor had in mind when he began the reconstruction of The Pantheon only three years after his ascension to power. The two most striking points about Hadrian’s background, when considering his vision for the Pantheon’s design, is his understanding of how the Gods operate and his self-consciousness of legitimizing his rule. Being well-read, he had a strong sense that the gods required reverence and the best way to demonstrate this was through incorporating design elements in the Pantheon from the Etruscan Discipline. Considering that Hadrian’s building still stands nearly two millennia later, he succeeded in his new design.

With regard to legitimizing his rule, I believe that the appeal to the age of Augustus is a very important point. Not everyone easily accepted his rise to power. Elite circles in Rome whispered that conspirators had forged the letter from Trajan in which he appoints Hadrian as his successor. Although no evidence so supports such a conspiracy, it must not have escaped the new emperor’s mind. Most people living under the Roman Empire understood the glory associated with Augustus’s rule. Under Augustus, commerce thrived and peace prevailed. One testament to this is the Ara Pacis (Altar of Peace) built for Augustus by the Roman Senate. By bridging the connection with Augustus, Hadrian could legitimize his rule with the people of the Roman Empire.

Thus, McEwen and MacDonald both make valid points, but for different reasons. I agree with McEwen because the design is motivated by Hadrian’s personal desire to appeal to the Gods. MacDonald makes a valid point because Hadrian is motivated to make a political appeal (by way of Augustus) to those living in the Roman Empire (and thereby legitimizing his rule).
Hadrian’s design of the Pantheon was conceived nearly two millennia ago, yet its design has endured because of its universality (MacDonald). As the critic states, the design “made it possible for the building to be meaningful in different ways in different historical periods” (94).

This has proved itself true over the duration of The Pantheon’s existence as people from many other countries in different time periods have used The Pantheon’s design and legacy for local projects. In the 2nd century A.D. it was copied as a victory shrine in Scotland and during the Renaissance, it was studied for inspiration and education. In the 1700s and 1800s, similar structures were built in Paris, Berlin, and on a wealthy estate in London. In the U.S., Thomas Jefferson apparently had an affinity for The Pantheon; Monticello and several structures at the University of Virginia harken back to this monument. At the U.S. Capitol, statuary hall has a Pantheon-like Rotunda and interior.

My personal experience at the Pantheon confirms this analysis. I have found it to be my favorite monument in Rome, for unique reasons. When I first entered the rotunda I felt dwarfed by this gigantic structure surrounding me in all directions. But as I looked up to the sky I saw light and a sense of endlessness. I got the sense that while we should be humble on earth, there are unlimited possibilities for humans. I suspect many people are impressed so vividly with the imposing rotunda and the small yet dramatic opening of the sky.



Works Cited
Adembri, Benedetta. Hadrian's Villa. Milan: Electa, 2002.

"The Ancient Roman Builders: Builders of Empire." (VHS). Chatworth, CA: Chathworth Multimedia, 2002.

Benario, H.W. A Commentary on the ‘Vita Hadriani’ in the ‘Historia Augusta’. Chico, CA: 1980.

"Hadrian." Grove Art Online. 12, Nov 2005. http://www.groveart.com/shared/views/article.html?from=search&session_search_id=806011108&hitnum=1§ion=art.036033

Henderson, B.W. Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian . London: 1923.

MacDonald, William L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University, 1965.

MacDonald, William L. The Pantheon: Design, Meaning and Progeny. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1976.

Speller, Elizabeth. Following Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University, 2003.

Syme, R. Tacitus. 2 vols . Oxford, 1958.

Renaissance Love of Ancient Art

Ema Land
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006

“The Renaissance…which was only one of many results of a general excitement and enlightening of the human mind…the care for physical beauty, the worship of the body, the breaking down of those limits which the religious system of the middle age imposed on the heart and the imagination…”
~Walter Pater, The Renaissance

The period of the Renaissance was a rebirth of classical culture and a return to artistic ideals of ancient Greece and Rome. The Renaissance emerged out of the ashes of the Middle Ages where art and architecture was commissioned strictly for the glorification of God. Art in the Renaissance period was intended to invoke memories of ancient art and sculptures. Artists during this period focused on the technique of ancient sculptures and art and mimicked the ancient figures in their own paintings. Giorgio Vasari, in his book Lives of the Artists, explains that the “arts of antiquity provided a model of excellence which had been debased by what he referred to as the ‘barbarian’ style of the Middle Ages” (Paolett 26). Vasari thought perfection in art occurred when one could reproduce forms in a natural manner, similar to the art of ancient Greece and Rome. The return to natural depictions of humans and landscapes was at the heart of the Renaissance.

Before the Renaissance classical art was neither appreciated nor revered. Much of the ancient art we see today littered Rome, but instead of being glorified the art was considered simply ruins. The idea that some of the pieces, such as the Apollo Belvedere, Belvedere Torso and possibly the Laocoön, were above ground before they were taken by the papacy and displayed is remarkable (Barkan 1-2). What about the 16th century ignited this desire to glorify ancient art? During the Renaissance the display of ancient artwork by the papacy was a symbol of the Church’s rise over paganism as well as a symbol of the imperial nature of the papacy. The idea of using art as a tool of propaganda occurred during the Baroque period as well when the Popes incorporated ancient obelisks into their fountains and statues as a symbol of the Church overthrowing pagan values.

The Renaissance flourished in Rome because of the papacy. Popes during the Renaissance were among Italy’s largest patrons of the arts and hoarded all of the rediscovered art as well as commissioned some of the finest artists of that period. 1420, papacy of Pope Martin V, marked the beginning of Rome as a Renaissance city and of absolute papal rule. Pope Martin V was not a patron of the arts, but laid the government structure, authoritarian papal rule, that made Rome the capital of the Renaissance. After Pope Martin V came Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) then Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) both known for their renovation of the city of Rome. Under their papal rule the medieval streets of Rome were widened and crumbling buildings restored in the Renaissance style. During the renovation, many ancient monuments were torn apart and reused as building materials (“Rome" Encyclopædia Britannica). The destruction of ancient monuments can clearly be seen when viewing the remains of the Roman Forum. At the same time that many sites were being destroyed the upheaval of the land meant that many ancient statues were unearthed. Under the papal rule Pope Julius II, a patron of the arts, many of the unearthed statues were given a home in the Vatican.

Pope Julius II was a patron of the arts before he became Pope, but as Pope he was able to use art as part of his reform platform, opposing the self-indulgent lifestyle of the previous Pope, Alexander IV. Julius II chose his papal name, Julius, to invoke memories of Julius Caesar and the Roman imperial model of rule. His first action was to focus on transforming the Vatican (Paolett). One of his first renovations was to bring together the medieval living quarters with the summerhouse, the area that merged the two is called the Cortile del Belvedere. The Cortile del Belvedere acted as a formal garden, a place to show art, as well as a space for theatrical displays. Today the Cortile del Belvedere consists of two courtyards, the Cortile dello Pigna and the Cortile delle Statue. .The Cortile delle Statue, a small octagonal courtyard, has been remodeled by Simonetti, but still fulfills its original purpose which was to display Pope Julius II’s collection of Roman and Hellenistic statues (Hersey, 97-101). Among the collection of statues are the Laocoön, Apollo Belvedere, and the Belvedere Torso. In addition to housing these statues, the Cortile delle Statue acts as an entrance to the Villa Belvedere Bramante. During his papacy, Pope Julius II, tore down the Old St. Peter’s Church and created the new St. Peter’s as well as commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel. Renaissance art flourished because of art patrons like Pope Julius II (Paolett).

During the Renaissance there was a return to the study of ancient art. The Renaissance was a response to the Medieval period of art where bodies could not be seen and the imagination was stifled. When Pope Julius II began to collect ancient art it signaled that antiquity could not only be studied, but also copied. Some of the most skilled Renaissance artists studied pieces like the Laocoön, Apollo Belvedere, and the Belvedere Torso and depictions of these sculptures appear in Renaissance art.

The Apollo Belvedere was glorified because of his incredible angelic beauty and softness. Artists, such as Michelangelo and Bernini (later on), modeled some of their sculptures and paintings after Apollo. The Apollo Belvedere is a second century AD Roman copy of a fourth century BC bronze sculpture done by the Greek sculptor Leochares. The sculpture is thought to have been found near the San Pietro in Vincoli and when Guiliano della Rovere was cardinal of that church, the Apollo Belvedere was housed in the gardens there (Brown, 236). The statue was moved to the Cortile delle Belvedere, in 1511 AD, by Pope Julius II. The Apollo Belvedere is a sculpture of the young God Apollo, nude with a chlamys hanging about his neck. His leg is resting against the trunk of a tree, which would not have been there in the original bronze, and he has a quiver of arrows on his back. In his hand is what appears to be the remains of the bow he was probably holding when he was first sculpted. His body is not muscular, there is only minimal muscle definition attributed to the time period he was replicated from (Havelock). Apollo’s face is beautiful, unlined and serene, framed by a mass of perfectly arranged curls.

The Apollo sculpture is one of the most revered antique sculptures because of the sheer beauty of the piece. Schiller describes the piece as indescribable by any mere mortal because of its “celestial mixture of accessibility and severity, benevolence and gravity, majesty and mildness” (Hersey 103). J.J. Winckelmann has a similar comment about the Apollo Belvedere “Here is the consummation of the best that nature, art and the human mind can produce” (Havelock). When this statue was moved to the Vatican it was viewed and replicated by many artists of the time. The Apollo in Raphael’s Stanza della Segnatura is modeled after the Apollo Belvedere. In Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne, Apollo is modeled after the Apollo Belvedere. The beauty of the Apollo Belvedere drew many artists to him, but the anguish of the Hellenistic period, the Laocoön era, had a great effect on many artists of the time.


The Laocoön was one of Pope Julius II’s last additions to the Cortile delle Statue, first of July 1506, but became of the most popular pieces to live there. The statue was unearthed 14 January, 1506 above the ruins of the Golden House of Nero in Rome and may have been a piece in Nero’s collection after it was brought to Rome. When the Laocoön was unearthed in 1506 artists of that time, including Michelangelo, came to watch it being unearthed The Laocoön is a Greek sculpture from the Hellenistic period that depicts the priest Laocoön and his twin sons, Antiphantes and Thembraeus, being strangled by sea serpents. Pliney the Elder attributes the Laocoön to three sculptors from Rhodes: Agesander, Athenedoros and Polydorus. The sculpture is the original piece, not a Roman copy, and dates somewhere between 42 and 20 BC, the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period is known for its vivid depictions of pain and suffering (Harkan 2).

The story of the tragic death of Laocoön has been debated. There are two stories to explain the death of Laocoön: either the Laocoön angered the God Apollo by breaking his oath of celibacy and while preparing to sacrifice a bull on the altar of the God Poseidon (another God he had offended), he and his sons were strangled by the sea serpents, Porces and Chariboae, sent by Apollo. The other story is that Laocoön offended Poseidon by warning the Greeks of the strategy of the Trojan horse and Poseidon punished him for speaking. The Hellenistic piece received much attention because of the expert marble work and the horrific emotions portrayed by the statue. In Virgil’s story the Aeneid he describes the death of Laocoön and his sons:

“and first each serpent enfolds in its embrace the youthful bodies of Laocoön’s twin sons and with its fangs feeds upon the hapless limbs. Then [Laocoön] himself, as he comes to their aid, weapons in hand, they seize and bind in mighty folds; and now, twice encircling his waist, twice winding their scaly backs around his throat, they tower above with head and lofty necks. He meanwhile strains his hands to burst the knots, his fillets steeped in gore and black venom as he lifts to heaven hideous cries (Hersey, 105).”

When viewing this piece, the agony described by Virgil is etched in every line of the work.

The Laocoön piece sparked much discussion because the right arms of Laocoön and one of his sons’ were missing. Pope Julius II wanted a new arm to be made in order to complete the statue. He attempted to convince Michelangelo to create the arm, but Michelangelo refused. The first known restoration of the statue was done by Giovanni Angelo Montorsoli, who chose to model the arm in a triumphal position reaching up towards the heavens (Hersey, 105-107). In 1957, the arm was found in a field and reattached (Vatican Tour Guide). The original arm was not in the position Montorsoli thought, but actually similar to that of Michelangelo’s musings: the arm positioned with the hand resting behind the head as a sign of death. During the Renaissance the idea of repairing ancient sculptures was common and the decision to “fix” or “finish” a piece occurred frequently.

The body of the Laocoön’s can be seen in the artwork of important Renaissance painters like Michelangelo and Titian. Michelangelo mimics many of the characteristics of this piece in his paintings and sculptures. He used the Laocoön in his works: Saint Matthew, the Sistine ignudi and in later works of the crucified Christ. Titian is another artist who depicts the Laocoön in his works: Crowning with Thorns, Christ is depicted as Laocoön (Hersey). The sculpture of the Laocoön sculpture appealed because of the raw emotion and horror depicted through the marble. The pain and anguish could be used in depictions of Christ and martyrdom in order to appeal more to the pathos of the viewer.

The Belvedere Torso is another piece housed in the Cortile del Statues that received a plethora of attention during the Renaissance because of the muscular sculpting of the body and the fact that the only remains of the statue is the torso. The Belvedere Torso was found in the Campo dei Fiori in the workshop of a cobbler, who is said to have been using the torso as part of his workbench. When the torso was found, it was immediately taken by Pope Julius II to the Vatican. “The Torso Belvedere, sublime in its fragmentariness, has stood as the (literal) embodiment of an art based on inward struggle” (Barkan 2). Because this piece was incomplete, it sparked the desire in some to figure out who the torso belonged to. On the Belvedere Torso’s left leg there is a fur with two paws showing. Hercules is always depicted with fur and therefore there is a general consensus that the torso belongs to Hercules. Because the fur appears to be leopard some have speculated that it might be the god Dionysus, but Dionysus was never depicted as a muscular God and therefore the theory of Hercules seems to ring true. The Belvedere Torso was appreciated because of the unanswerable questions about its past as well as a beautiful depiction of a muscular male torso.

One of the aspects of the Renaissance that is very interesting is their desire to piece together antiquities by restoring, copying and studying ancient art. Not only was art restored and copied, but verses and books were written about the pieces, discussions held, all to understand more about these works. Today I do not think that we would choose to add an arm to a work where it was missing or reattach a nose unless the original piece was present or there was a drawing of the original. By choosing to complete a piece the artist is giving new meaning to the sculpture. The idea that this was not only allowed, but encouraged by the papacy, may give one the impression that the Church wanted to push their own agenda on a sculpture. Not only could they turn an ancient piece into a symbol of the Church, the papacy could also add to the sculpture and make it their own.

During the Renaissance the appreciation and study of classical art was revived. The papacy collected and showed the classical art, their control over antiquity meant that art that was once hedonistic could be appreciated. Without the Church classical art could not have been viewed or replicated, but by using ancient art as a symbol of the power of the Church over paganism and the non-Christian past, antiquities were given a new propagandistic power.


Bibliography
Barkan, Leonard., “Unearthing the Past: Archeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture”. New Haven, 1999.

Brown, Deborah. “The Apollo Belvedere and the Garden of Giuliano della Rovere at SS. Apostoli.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 49 (1986): 235- 238.

Havelock, Christine M. “Hellenistic Art: The Art of the Classical World from the Death
of Alexander the Great to the Battle of Actium.” W.W. Norton & Company. New York, 1981.

Hersey, George. “High Renaissance Art in St. Peter’s and the Vatican.” The University of
Chicago Press. Chicago, 1993.

Paolett, John T. and Radke, Gary M., “Art in Renaissance Italy.” Laurence King
Publishing. London, 1997.

"Rome." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 29 Jan. 2006.

Tansey, Richard G., “Art through the Ages, 6th Edition.” Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Inc. San Francisco, 1975.

The Roman Triumph

Kristin Storaasli
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006


Imagine yourself in the Roman Forum. Everyone in the city has turned out to fill the theaters and scaffolds erected for the big ceremonies. Three days of festivities welcome the victorious general from his military campaigns abroad. The victor himself appears finally in the long triumphal procession, pulled in a chariot by four horses, and dressed in the most magnificent purple robe. The tune of trumpets, screams, and claps fill your ears as you strain to see one of the many carts fills with glimmering treasure pass by. To the ancient Romans, huge public spectacles such as the triumphs uplifted public morale and glorified Rome and her citizens. Hundreds of such triumphs occurred in Rome between 220 and 70 B.C. and continued into the years of the Empire and even into modern times.

Legend has it that Romulus, the founder of Rome, first instituted the triumph, marked by the carrying of trophies and concluding with a sacrifice. Romulus was said to have dressed in a purple robe with a wreath of laurels around his head. He rode in a chariot drawn by four horses to retain his royal dignity. Although these beginnings are attractive, it is more likely that the Roman triumph was a product of the Etruscan kings of the sixth century B.C. The Etruscan word triumpe is derived from Greek thriambos which can be equated with the Latin tripudium, meaning a musical beat or dance (interestingly observed frequently in the tombs of Tarquinia). Even the triumphal arches derived their architectural shape from the Etruscan portals.

Over the years the route, dress, and significance of the triumphal processions didn’t changed much. The triumphal procession was originally a king’s victorious return from a military campaign with his army to give thanks to the gods. The purposes of the Roman triumph were to acknowledge the power and victories of the Rome army, purify the victor, soldiers, and city of blood and guilt associated with war, appease and honor the gods for their role in the victory, and justify the military campaigns to the senate and people of Rome. A triumph could only be granted by the Senate following certain criteria. First, the general must be a magistrate with the right of command. Second, he must have defeated a foreign enemy in a just war. Third, it was necessary for the general to bring back prisoners and trophies of the defeated city. He must also have killed at least 5000 men. Lastly, the war must have been brought to an end so the army could take part in the ceremony. The Senate also voted for the grant of public money for the expenses of the triumph.

The triumphal procession commonly took longer than one day, and closer to three. It began when the Senate and magistrates met the general and his army in the Campus Martius where the soldiers laid down their weapons before entering the city. The procession entered the city through the Porta Triumphalis, and advanced counterclockwise past the Forum Boarium and Circus Maximus, around the Palatine Hill,
along the Via Sacra, through the forum, and up the Capitoline to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

At the front of the procession marched the magistrates and members of the senate as a reminder of the state’s approval of the event. Next came the trumpeters and carts filled with the spoils of the victory such as armor, gold, silver, and art. Carts displaying re-enactments of the battles followed. Laurel or gold crowns presented to the victorious general by the defeated towns came next followed by white oxen with gilded horns, covered in garlands, with attending priests. The chief captains of the defeated army and hostages preceded the appearance of the general himself who rode in a chariot drawn by four horses. He was dressed in a silk purple toga with intricate gold thread designs. He wore a laurel wreath and carried in his right hand a laurel branch and in his left an eagle-topped ivory scepter. Following the triumphator were Roman citizens who had been rescued from slavery and lastly came the soldiers of the army. Interestingly enough, for a procession so magnificent and splendid, a slave held above the triumphator’s head a golden crown while whispering into his ear, “Look behind you and remember that you are a man” to remind him that he was mortal. When the procession reached the Capitoline Hill the chief captains of the defeated army were executed. The general ascended to the Capitol where he laid his laurel branch and wreath on the lap of the statue of Jupiter and the white oxen were sacrificed. A feast for the Senate followed while the troops were entertained in the temple of Hercules.

Other forms of triumphs did exist. An ovatio could be granted by the Senate to those whom it wished to honor but whose victories didn’t meet all the criteria for a triumph. It was first held in 503 B.C. In an ovation the triumphator proceeded on foot or horseback instead of by chariot and was preceded by flute players instead of trumpeters. He wore a crown of myrtle, held no scepter, and offered a sheep to Jupiter. An individual could also use his own expenses for a triumph if the Senate didn’t approve of one. These triumphs did not occur in Rome, but rather at the Temple of Jupiter on the Alban Mount, the first being in 231 B.C.


The emblem of the splendor of the triumph and power of Rome was the triumphal arch. Arches were significant and immediately recognizable. Their decorations commemorate and celebrate the triumph and triumphator and often depict the triumphal procession itself. One such arch, the Arch of Titus, was erected in 81 A.D. by Titus’ brother, Domitian, in celebration of Titus’ victory over the Jewish revolt. In the right inner portal Emperor Titus is standing and driving his chariot. He is followed by winged victory who crowns his head in laurel. He is led by the personification of the goddess Roma. This illustrates the first time real figures along with divine and allegorical ones appear on a single monument. On the left inner portal soldiers parade by with the spoils of war, including the seven-branched golden menorah from the Temple of Jerusalem. The soldiers appear too big to fit through the arch projected in the background, making it seem as if they have to turn to get there and that we are spectators watching the procession. The movement also portrays the actual direction the procession would move through the arch. The empty background of the portals gives the feeling of atmosphere and the shallow background figures give the illusion of deep space. The Victories that appear in the spandrels and the inner decorations of the arch are in great shape, although the arch has been restored, especially after being incorporated into a medieval fortress of the Frangipani family.

Much of the imagery on the three-bay Arch of Septimius Severus is descended from the Arch of Titus. The victories in the spandrels of the central arch carry trophies on long sticks. Their body, drapery, and wings are less gently modeled in the old classical style and are more harsh and linear, representing a change in the artistic style of the time. River gods fill the spandrels of the side arches. The square area over the side arches depicts narrations of exploits of the emperor. The inscription on the attics records that he fought against Arabs and the Parthians. Severus is depicted on the arch with his sons, Caracalla and Geta, and the style of the figures is shorter and stubbier and the folds are more schematic.


A third arch belongs to Constantine, who is best known as the first Christian emperor who, as legend has it, converted to Christianity after seeing a cross cast across the sun before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 A.D. His triumph commemorated the victory over the tyrant and usurper Maxentius. The Arch of Constantine was begun in 312 A.D. and actually incorporated pieces of many of Maxentius’ monuments after the Senate passed a damnation memoriae (eternal damnation) on Maxentius. The Arch of Constantine is located where many of Maxentius’ monuments were clustered. The theme of the arch is a celebration of the decennalia or ten-year rule of Constantine, even though he was only yet in power for three. Constantine’s arch is architecturally similar to the Arch of Septimius Severus. Victories are in the spandrels of the main arch and river gods are in the spandrels of the side arches. Both are descended from the Arch of Septimius Severus, but they are flatter and rather unattractive. More interesting is the use of spolia, or bas reliefs carved several centuries earlier and used to adorn the monuments of other emperors. Some heads were recut to represent contemporary figures. Constantine used these spolia from monuments of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. He believed that he embodied the ideals, reputation, and virtues of these great leaders. He also believed the celebration of their deeds matched his own.

Flanking the inscription on the attic of this arch are panels illustrating the success and formal military role of the emperor that came from a monument of Marcus Aurelius. The standing figures are of Dacian prisoners from a Trajanic monument. The roundels are from Hadrian and refer to abstract qualities to be associated with Constantine. Below the roundels are panels showing the events leading to Constantine’s victory and his first official acts in Rome. One act, the oratio, was a public speech Constantine gave in the Forum. He stands on the raised Rostra in the Roman Forum surrounded with ministers and members of the imperial party dressed in togas. Two seated statues of Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian flank him and stare straight ahead. Romans in short tunics stand on the side with heads turned. In the background stand the five-columned monument of the Tetrachs, the Basilica Julia, the Arch of Tiberius, and the Arch of Septimius Severus. The other panel portrays the donatio, or a gift of money to the people of Rome at the Emperor Constantine’s expense. Constantine is raised and surrounded by ministers. The Roman people turn to him adoringly and the four scenes above depict someone distributing money while another with a scroll keeps records.

Of particular importance are the many depictions of Sol Invictus, the sun god, whose characteristic gesture is an outstretched right hand, on the arch. Constantine’s father worshipped the sun god and it is possible Constantine believe Christ was behind sun-worship, evidenced by the fact that he was supposedly converted by an image in the sun. There was constant tension between Constantine and the Senate due to his religion. For the first few years of his reign, Constantine abided by the old traditions and laws. He even participated with the sacrifice at the temple of Jupiter during his triumph. Although there are no recognizable Christian symbols on the arch, depictions of Sol were used as a bridge between paganism and Christianity. Early Christian art depicts a man on a chariot drawn by white horses, beams of light emanating from his head, with a raised right arm. This is a depiction of Christ with symbols associated with Sol. December 25th is the birthday of both Sol Novus and Christ, and the church often compared Christ to the sun.

Even today, hundreds of years later, arches still survive and celebrate the deeds and achievements of the ruler and perpetuate in the public consciousness the memory of an emperor. Although the triumphal arch represented victory in war, there are many other monuments in Rome that represent other aspects of Roman virtues. It is interesting to observe other examples of the Roman desire of spectacle and memory throughout history. Why has the route, order, and dress of triumphal processions remained relatively similar over the centuries? What kind of similarities exist between the Roman triumphs and tombs and sarcophagi of the Etruscans, from whom the triumph was likely originated? Roman triumphs and ceremonies were performed for centuries and were an important part of Roman life. With a history rife with wars, the triumphs were a powerful symbol of the glory of Rome.

Bibliography

Kleiner, Fred. The Arch of Nero in Rome: A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch Before and Under Nero. Rome: Girgio Bretschneider Editore, 1985.

Payne, Robert. The Roman Triumph. New York: Abelard-Schuman, Ltd., 1962.

Peirce, Philip. “The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art.” Art History 12 (1987).

Ramage, Nancy, and Andrew Ramage. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc., 2001.

Scullard, H. H. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Touati, Anne-Marie. The Greak Trajanic Frieze: The Study of a Monument and of the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art. Stockholm: Bohusläningens Boktryckeri AB, Uddevalla, 1987.

Ostia Antica: A Glimpse at Ancient Roman Housing

Mandy Tollefson
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006

The city feels like a ghost town, but without the cowboy themes of a stereotypical Midwestern settlement. Foundations and walls line where homes and public buildings once stood, but the derelict structures are crumbling at the edges. Anyone today can still see where merchants touted their wares and where the common person went to worship the gods. Such contractions – what obviously once happened there contrasted with how it appears today – are at the heart of Ostia’s charm.

History of Ostia
Most scholars today agree that the Roman port city of Ostia was founded around 630-620 BC by Ancus Marcius, the Roman king at the time. The location, now sixteen miles from Rome, had several benefits. Because the area was located on the mouth of the Tiber River, leading to Rome, it was the perfect place to provide protection to Rome. Attacking fleets would have to go through Ostia to get to Rome, which allowed it to be a buffer zone as well as give Ostia time to warn Rome about the attack. Its location also allowed for ease of transporting goods. Smaller ships were able to travel the river right to Rome, but larger ships could not fit. Instead, they would go to Ostia, unload their goods onto barges, and then bring the load to Rome. Also, Ostia was located on and near some very valuable salt mines, providing the empire with a steady supply of salt. When the city became larger, the Ostians used huge warehouses to store Sicilian and Egyptian grain, which would then be taken upriver and distributed through the empire. Ostia was invaluable to Rome.

Ostia experienced slow growth from its founding until the expansion of the Republic. However, by the Punic War era (264 BC to 146 BC), Ostia was gaining importance and was even protected by a wall. A pirate attack in 67 BC scared some of the Roman citizens away from living in such an exposed location. However, once the threat of pirates was gone, the city became a kind of resort town for wealthy Roman merchants. The merchants built many large villas, and it quickly became a desirable place to reside. While the most ancient remains of the city come from the second half of the 4th century BC, many of the important and well-preserved buildings come from the beginning of the AD era. This is because of the interest Imperial emperors took in Ostia, particularly Augustus and Hadrian. Augustinian renovations began right around the change from BC to AD. Hadrian took it upon himself to continue these improvements in his reign, and under his rule the town truly changed into a prosperous city.
Like so many great cities, however, Ostia eventually declined. “This shift began in the 4th century when the imperial seat was moved from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD. For years, it rode a rollercoaster: the city experienced renewal, downfall, revival, neglect, rebuilding, and disregard. Sacks by the Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals of Genseric in 455 made the city very undesirable. The final blow came with the shifting of sand dunes in the 5th century. Not only did these shifts make the city removed from its direct contact with the sea, but the shallow waters bred malarial mosquitoes. The city had to be abandoned to avoid the disease – one variation of what is now called Roman Fever.

What distinguishes this city from other ancient Roman cities is how well preserved it is today. It was not covered in ash, such as Pompeii, yet many of the buildings (particularly the first floors) remain today. The city, after its abandonment in the 5th and 6th centuries, remained largely untouched until the end of the 19th century. Visitors can still see homes, temples, theatres, and other important areas of public concern. Most of what remains dates from the Imperial period, but certain areas (including the necropolis outside of the landward gate) date from the Republican era. Such preservation provides significant insight into the forms and functions of Roman housing.

Form of Roman Atrium Housing

The upper classes lived in homes called domus (Appendix 1). These homes were used as a way to display the wealth and luxury of the upper class. Usually rectangular or square, in the most basic form they were similar to the houses of today. The residential areas fit into the symmetrical, regular, and planned aura of Ostia. Only the temples and other unusual buildings, such as theatres or baths, did not follow this format.

In the Roman atrium house itself, the home would be grouped around two different parts, the atrium and the peristylium. The atrium was the front section of the house. Visitors would walk through the vestibulum, the small corridor from the front door that led into the main section of the home. Here, they would find themselves standing in the atrium.

The atrium was a kind of receiving room, meant to show the riches of the family as the guests were moved into whatever room they were intended for. A pool in the center, called the impluvium, collected rainwater that came through the hole in the roof of the house. Nearly always ornately decorated, the impluvium would drain rainwater into an underground water tank. Some scholars believe that a bed would be placed opposite of the main entrance. This was meant as a symbol of the sanctity of marriage, because the atrium was originally the bedroom of the mother of the family. Also, busts of the patriarch of the family and ancestors would be displayed in the atrium.

There were five main types of atriums in Roman housing. The first, atrium tuscanium, had no columns; the weight of the ceiling would be carried by the rafters. This appears to be the most popular type of atrium, despite its greater cost. Atrium tetrastylums had one column at each corner of the impluvium. The atrium corinthium was similar to this, but the hole in the roof was larger and supported by more columns. The atrium displuviatum had a roof that sloped toward the side walls instead of the middle, and so a large amount of rainwater had to run off other outlets than the impluvium. Finally, the atrium testudinatum was the lowest quality type of atrium. There was no opening in the roof at all, so an impluvium or columns were not necessary. This type was only seen in very small and unimportant houses.

To the sides of the atrium were the alae, small rooms off to either side, which do not seem to serve a purpose. Early homes had covered atriums and light would enter through the windows of the alae. Even after the invention of open atriums, the alae were still included, most likely out of tradition instead of practicality.

A cubiculum was a Roman bedroom. There would be several around the atrium as well as around the peristylium, although they would be larger in the latter. The bedrooms seem to have a much lower importance in the Roman house than the common rooms. Because they were on the edge of the house, they had low ceilings and were often stuffy and cramped. Sometimes, a small antechamber called the procoeton would be located in the front of the bedroom, where a personal servant would sleep. Excavators continually find floor mosaics that clearly mark where the bed should be placed.

The culina, the kitchen, was where the family servants or slaves would cook for everyone. They were often hot in the summer, because of the cooking fires. There would be a small entranceway from the side of the house leading to the kitchen, so that the slaves would not have to use the front entrance. This entrance was also used by the master of the house, on occasion, in order to discreetly enter or leave the home.

Behind the atrium was the tablinium, which served as a reception room, office, and study. Business would be conducted in this room. On the other side of the tablinium was the peristylium. A curtain would separate the atrium from this room, and doors or a screen would cut it off from the peristylium. On hot days, ventilation would be increased by opening all passageways.

The tablinium led into the peristylium, one of the most important areas of the home. It was the garden; it was a place for the family to sit, entertain, and enjoy themselves. Columns supported the open roof, herbs and flowers (especially roses, violets, and lilies) were grown in the open air, and statues, artwork, and furniture littered the room. On sunny days, the room would be used as an outside dining area. This area was more private, because it was away from the immediate public eye.

The triclinium was the official dining room. Earlier, the Romans would eat in the atrium, tablinium, or other rooms. However, when the tradition of reclining while eating became popular, a certain room was constructed to eat in. Some homes even had more than one triclinia so that the family could choose where to eat each day. The dining room, as the center for a very important social activity to the Romans, was vital; often ornately decorated, it was one of the central rooms in the home as well. The exedra, a room located behind the peristylium, was another type of informal dining room or lounge. It was treated as a garden room and was another place for friends to gather.

Located in the front of the house but without any entrances to the interior, the taberna were used as shops. Usually owned by the inhabitants of the house, these rooms had brick counters near the entrance to display goods and one or more back rooms for storage. Often, the tall ceilings of these rooms would be split into two floors. While the bottom floor would be the selling area, the top would either be storage or could be used as housing for a very poor family that was loyal to the home’s owners.

Each room in a Roman atrium-style house had a very specific purpose, and was not only located in its position for a reason, but also was decorated according to its purpose. The types of rooms in the home and what the rooms were used for did not vary greatly from house to house; the personal home was used to display power, prestige, and personal wealth. Even the Romans tired of such extravagance, however, and decided to make their homes more of a personal space. Each room was utilized for one or two particular uses, and when the Roman idea of housing changed, the rationale behind certain rooms shifted as well.

Function of Roman Atrium Housing
Two homes located in Ostia, the House of Fortuna Annonaria and the House of Amor and Psyche, provide clear examples of the shifting Roman mentality toward the function of their homes. In the early houses, the atrium was the most important room. Front doors would be left open, and anybody walking by would be able to see the ornate richness of this room. However, as can be seen by these two homes, by the later period of building, Romans valued their privacy much more.

The house of Fortuna Annonaria has many innovations that set the home apart as a very wealthy residency. The raised floor in the sitting room is the earliest known example of radiant heat at Ostia. Significantly, the atrium is no longer used as the open courtyard that it once was. It is still located in the front of the house, but not as ostentatiously as it once was. This shift is most likely indicative of an increased value placed upon privacy. The wealthy owner of this home is still involved in public life, most likely as a merchant or politician, but he is able to enjoy his wealth without having to constantly feel like he needs to impress his neighbors.

Likewise, the house of Amor and Psyche shows this same feeling of a shift toward emphasizing family life as opposed to public life. This home is the completion of the atrium house cycle. Actually built into the walls of an older building, it is laid out in a manner that shows how important privacy had become. The attention is not on the atrium, but on the inner garden, the peristylium. The rooms are not as numerous but they are larger than before, and the artwork that survives is better and more intricate. Very tellingly, the front door does not lead into a common room but into a right angled corridor. One cannot walk by the home, even if the front door is open, and see directly into the house. This further decline in community life and even greater focus on self and the family ends the cycle of Roman atrium housing, showing how personal privacy had become a respected and desired quality for homes and as a lifestyle.

Insulae
Unlike the wealthy patricians, the lower classes did not live in such splendor. They inhabited insulae, or apartments. The number of people living in these apartments greatly outnumbered those in private homes. While Ostian records are not available, a 4th century AD record from Rome lists 46,602 insulae, compared to 1,797 private homes. Ostia has some of the best remaining insulae in Italy, particularly because of Nero’s fire in 64 AD that destroyed much of Rome and the apartments within that part of the city. These cramped quarters were very important to how the city worked because so many of the laborers in the area lived in them.

Usually between three and five stories high, insulae were not usually structurally sound buildings. They were mostly framed with timber, which made fire a constant threat. However, Ostian insulae were made of brick-faced concrete, which is one of the reasons that we can still see them today. The bottom floor would be a store, and the store owners and other tenants would live in the floors above. The lower an apartment, the more desirable it became, and stone staircases led to upper rooms.

The presence of insulae led to a group living atmosphere. There were no cooking facilities in individual rooms, and only the ground floor had bathrooms. Sometimes there would be no bathrooms in the building altogether, and they would be located outside. A common area would usually be provided for cooking. A central courtyard was in nearly every insulae, which not only provided light and ventilation to the rooms, but also houses a common cistern for the upper stories. Some of the buildings housed between 100 and 300 tenants. These very different forms of living did not allow the privacy that the domus did, and sharply contrasted the upper class against the lower one.

One of the major differences in Ostian times and today is is that only poor people would live in apartments in that day. Now, an apartment can be a very desirable place to live, particularly in a big city. Also differing, the higher apartments are currently popular, and penthouses are on the top floor. Without having to walk up flights of stairs with water for the family, the view outweighs the height.

Conclusion
The way that housing has, paradoxically, changed so much and yet remained the same over thousands of years is stunning. Because the city is so well-preserved, visitors today can wander its streets and easily envision what the city was once like. The abandoned city, virtually forgotten for hundreds of years, still has similar housing shapes, road patterns, and public areas to the cities of today. I found myself continually astonished by how I felt as though at any turn, I could walk into a house and almost find myself living exactly as the Ostians did in their day. Having such a spectacular example of Roman housing from thousands of years ago truly brought the Roman people to life in my eyes.


Bibliography

Aldrete, Gregory S. Daily Life in the Roman City : Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia. Berkeley: Greenwood Press, 2004.

Gazda, Elaine K. Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Harsh, Philip Whaley. The origins of the Insulae at Ostia. Rome: The American Academy in Rome, 1935.

Packer, James E. The Insulae of Imperial Ostia. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1971.

Stambaugh, John. “Ostia.” Chapter 18 in The Ancient Roman City. John Hopkins University, 1988.

Stambaugh, John. “Households and Housing.” Chapter 10 in The Ancient Roman City. John Hopkins University, 1988.

Packer, James E Title The insulae of imperial Ostia by James E. Packer Pub info [Rome] American Academy in Rome, 1971