Santa Maria Maggiore: A Brief History

Davey Williams
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005
small presentation

I. Historical Background of the Site or Topic

Santa Maria Maggiore is proclaimed by most scholars as the second most beautiful church in Rome. Only St. Peter’s Basilica itself is said to be more grandiose. One of the four major basilicas in Rome, it was the first church to be dedicated to the Virgin Mary and possesses a rich history. Pope Sixtus III built the present church in 431 AD to honor Mary, but two significant buildings preceded it at the site. Interestingly, they too were built to honor great women. The first building at the site stood in honor of the Roman goddess Juno. Built in 375 BC, it served as a pagan site of worship for hundreds of years before its destruction.

http://tesoridiroma.altervista.org
Santa Maria Maggiore

Much more is known of the second temple at the site. In 358 AD, a wealthy, heirless patrician decided to donate his fortune to the church. After informing Pope Liberius of his intent, the two were visited by the Virgin Mary in their sleep that evening, who informed them that she would give them a sign. The next morning, August 5th, Pope Liberius woke up to find snow fallen on the Esquiline Hill. Taking the snow in the heat of the summer to be the promised sign, Pope Liberius drew a plan for the church in the miraculous snow. Later, he used the donated money to build a church on the site dedicated to Mary. It stood for less than 80 years, after which it was replaced by Pope Sixtus III’s present church.

Santa Maria Maggiore complex structure represents every major time period between the 5th and 13th centuries. The first feature which stands out prior to entry of the basilica is the bell tower. Built in the 1370’s, its height of 75 meters makes it the highest in all of Rome. Standing on top of the Esquiline Hill, the tower overlooks all of Rome. The façade was designed in 1743 by Ferdinando Fuga, which covers a 14th century mosaic which was part of the previous entrance to the church. Also included in the entryway to the church is the Holy Door, its use reserved strictly for holy days.

Upon entry of the church, the expansive central nave stretches out in front of the viewer. Its ceiling was decorated in the 1400’s with the first gold brought back to Europe from the New World. Lining the nave are beautiful mosaics dating back to the 400’s when Pope Sixtus III built the church. They depict Old Testament stories of the history of the Israelites and are arranged chronologically from the front of the church to the rear. Dominating the front side of the nave is a triumphal arch covered with intricate mosaics arranged in four rows which depict scenes from Jesus’ childhood. Beneath the triumphal arch, is the high altar which is above a relic which contains five pieces of wood said to be from the manger in which Christ was laid in Bethlehem.

www.wga.hu/ html/p/pannini/
Central Nave

Behind the triumphal arch is the central apse, whose mosaic, dating to the late 13th century, is absolutely incredible. Mary and Jesus sit together at the center of the half-dome enthroned. Below the mosaic are four pointed windows, which are the earliest examples of gothic architecture in Rome.www.euxus.com/ rom-kirchen.html
Triumphal Arch and High Altar

Lining the central nave are the Sistine Chapel, the Pauline Chapel, and the Sforza Chapel. The Sistine, or Holy Sacrament, Chapel was built in the 16th century, and each year, on August 5th to honor the miracle of the snow, white rose petals are showered from its ceiling. It contains a statue depicting St. Cajetan holding the Holy Child by Bernini, whose tomb is also in the church. The Pauline Chapel lies on the left side of the central nave, and was built by Pope Paul V in 1611. It contains an icon of the Virgin Mary said to be carried by Pope St. Gregory through the city to drive out the plague in 593. It was last used in a procession to battle a deadly outbreak of disease in 1837 when Pope Gregory XVI carried it to drive cholera out of the city. The Sforza Chapel was designed by Michelangelo in the 16th century and is adjacent to the Pauline Chapel.

www.nietvervelen.nl/ Rome/Rome2.htm
Sistine Chapel Ceiling

www.romanhomes.com
Apse Mosaic

II. Bibliography
http://roma.katolsk.no/mariamaggiore.htm

Bovini, Giuseppe. “Rome Guide to Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.” Rome, 1996

The Four Styles of Roman Wall Paintings

Nina Miller
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005

Historical Background of the Site or Topic

In ancient Rome, domestic interiors were often small and claustrophobic. Some Roman houses were very dark and didn’t even have windows. Romans used wall paintings as a way to open up and lighten their space. More specifically, they used frescoes. A fresco is made by first preparing the wall with 1-3 coats of mortar (a lime and sand mix), then covering that with 1-3 coats of lime mixed with finely powdered marble. While this plaster is still wet, pigments are applied in the desired design so as to create a painting that is actually part of the wall. The majority of ancient Roman frescoes are found in Pompeii and surrounding cities thanks to the preserving effect of Mount Vesuvius’ eruption. From excavations of such frescoes, art historians have defined four styles of fresco wall paintings. The four styles are divided both chronologically and according to certain defining traits.

The first of the four styles is called Incrustation and dates back from 200 to 60 B.C. This style is identified by colorful blocks painted on the wall to resemble large marble slabs. Often, the plaster on the wall is molded into raised backs, adding to the so-called “marbleizing” effect. The idea of faux-finishes is something that has traversed the ages and is still a popular decorating technique in today’s houses. Although this style was often eye-catching and colorful in ancient Rome, it could often seem claustrophobic in the small rooms of Roman houses.









The second style, Architectural, dates from around 60 to 20 B.C. and serves to open up the limited space of Roman houses. This style has a distinctly realistic feel and tends to reflect everyday objects and scenery as they actually appear. Often times, illusions of windows and covered walkways lined with columns that looked onto imaginary scenes were framed by painted columns. Objects of daily life were depicted in such a way as to seem real, with metal and glass vases and shelves, and tables appearing to project out of the wall. A shift from public, realistic architecture to more private decoration is made as the third style develops.




The third style, Ornamental, dates from 20 B.C. to 20 A.D. In it, there is a closing up of space. Illusion is rejected in favor of ornamentation. Largely monochromatic walls were often painted with a few pieces of architecture. For instance, candelabra or slender columns were used to divide the wall into separate sections. These sections then supported smaller, framed paintings, set up in the fashion of an art gallery. One benefit of this style of wall paintings was that it gave artists and patrons more flexibility to change their designs. Instead of having to re-paint the entire wall, an artist could decide to just change one of the framed pictures if he so desired. As time progressed, the style of wall paintings became even less architecturally realistic and more of a mixture of styles.

The fourth style, Intricate, dates from around 20 A.D. to the fateful year of 79 A.D. when Mount Vesuvius erupted. This style incorporates all the elements of the earlier styles. It doesn’t resemble any believable space, but instead consist of a variety of architectural elements arranged in an unrealistic manner with unrealistic perspective, set against a flat background. Unlike the clarity of the third style “galleries,” fourth style rooms appear chaotic and filled to excess.

Roman houses often made use of a mixture of the different styles of wall paintings. Besides opening and lightening the walls, these types of frescoes served other important functions. For a contemporary visitor, the decoration allowed a social orientation of two types. First, it acted as a guide around the house. The distinguished guests would follow the fancy, colorful decoration, while the slaves and servants would stay towards the dark corridors. Second, the frescoes acted as a type of social orientation within the community. Both the number of frescoes and their quality indicated the level of resources and also the social aspirations of the household. The art of frescoes, as practiced over 2,000 years ago, proves to be both stylistically interesting and practically significant. Roman wall paintings developed into distinct styles over the years, recognizable by viewers today.


Bibliography

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Review Press, 1994.

Sergius, Tanaquil. “Roman Wall Painting and Pompeii.” Ancient Worlds. 4 October 2004. http://www.ancientworlds.net.

The Evolution of a Monumental Space: The Baker's Tomb and Porta Maggiore

Peter Berberian
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005

I. Introduction

Reflecting upon his first journey to Rome in 1786, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe proclaimed, “even in Rome, too little provision is made for the person who seriously wants to study the city as a whole. He is compelled endlessly to piece it together from fragments, though these are certainly superabundant” (164). Porta Maggiore and the Baker’s Tomb represent two of these many fragments.

During the middle of the first century B.C., the commercial baker and bread contractor Marcus Vergilius Eurysaces constructed his own sepulchral monument known today as the Baker’s Tomb. The box-shaped structure was erected in an area well populated by funerary monuments. Eurysaces, who amassed his fortune through the production and distribution of bread, is believed to have been a Roman citizen of freedman status. His name indicates that he was an ex-slave of Greek origin. Eurysaces’ belonging to this monument is evident by two inscriptions bearing his name on the tomb’s exterior.

The missing east façade of tomb has permitted a plethora of speculation regarding the domestic standing of the baker. A nearby marble relief portrait accompanied by its own respective epitaph suggests that the wife of Eurysaces, Asistia, is also buried within the tomb (Petersen 232). Although the figures in the piece are not touching, their postures indicate marital status. Luigi Camina, a professional excavator, put forth a detailed reconstruction of the tomb that shows the marble relief mounted on the mysterious wall (234).

Relief Sculpture of Eurysaces and Asistia

A hundred years after the arrival of the Baker’s tomb, Claudius began improving the Roman water supply immediately upon taking power in 41 AD. After completing the advancement of two of Rome’s most important aqueducts—Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus—the emperor constructed his massive Porta Maggiore to mark the entrance of the waterways into the city. The total cost of the double aqueduct extension and Porta Maggiore came to represent nearly 50 percent of the yearly taxes collected by the government (131). Nearly 250 years later, Aurelius incorporated the structure and the respective above ground aqueducts into his ambitious city wall. Another gate, referred to by some as Porta Praenestina, was built to accompany the existing structure.

Pope Gregory XVI demolished Porta Praenestina in 1838 in an effort to liberate the older, more impressive Porta Maggiore. The long-forgotten Tomb of the Baker also benefited from the excavation, resulting in the existing site of Porta Maggiore.


II. Description

Originally categorized as freedman art, the inventive design of the Baker’s Tomb has been frequently dismissed as a consequence of its owner’s predictable need to show his wealth. While this view permits classification of the non-traditional monument as garish and even obnoxious, a more general analysis of the structure fosters an appreciation of its refreshing idiosyncrasies.

The Baker’s Tomb sits against Porta Maggiore, directly east of the gate, between its two main arches. The first of the 30-foot-tall tomb’s three stories is a three-course foundation of blocks laid in the stretcher arrangement.

The Baker's Tomb

Vertical cylinders make up the second story. These stubby paired columns, which are separated by squared pilasters, are believed to represent stacks of the kneading devices used in early bread making. Horizontal epitaphs bearing the baker’s name and profession reside between the second and third stories. The most prominent element to the monument’s design is the third story, whose three existing façades hold lattices of doughnut-shaped indentations. The missing east façade may have once held a large relief sculpture of Eurysaces and his wife, spanning the entire third story. A frieze sits between the third story and the cornice, which exhibits prominent dental molding. The small relief sculpture narrates the art and industry of baking, thus complementing the epitaph.

Rendering of the Complete Tomb

At the dawn of the twentieth century, Porta Maggiore was one of only four out of the sixteen original Aurelian gates still in use (Platner 120). The masterful Porta Maggiore has been lauded for its breathtaking craftsmanship since the year of its dedication in the first century. Pliny the Elder, a prolific encyclopedist, observed the “high standard of work, which supplied all seven hills of Rome, and claims that there was none more remarkable in the entire world” (Levick 111).

The monstrous, travertine double arch stands 80 feet tall and more than 100 feet wide. The twin arches are 45 feet tall and 20 feet wide, and each of the three piers that support the arches contains a door that is framed by columns with Corinthian entablature and slanted Ionian cornices. Above the portals is a three-course attic. The inscription on the top register credits Claudius as responsible for introducing Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus into Rome in 52 AD. The middle register describes the restoration of 71 AD by Vespasian, and the lower register describes that done ten years later by Titus.

Porta Maggiore

III. Function
The Baker’s Tomb was intended to serve a variety of different functions both proximate and ultimate. As a funerary monument, the short-term purpose of the Baker’s Tomb was to honor Eurysaces through the remembrance of his achievement as a provider of bread. The tomb’s location is in close proximity to the intersection of the Via Labicana and the Via Praenistina, two ancient roads. Although no wall originally towered over the tomb, it was surrounded by a multitude of other tombs and an above ground aqueduct.

Eurysaces’ tomb competed a great deal, therefore, with neighboring tombs, some of which were large enough to house the remains of hundreds of individuals (Petersen 241). His tomb was most definitely designed to captivate onlookers (242). Despite its ancient identity, the tomb was rich with features pleasing to the eye. The frieze provided an alternative way of knowing Eurysaces’ story to illiterate viewers, while the three-name inscription reveals—even boasts—his status as a Roman citizen (245). Bread making represented an integral part of Roman society for its products were the staple of the people (249). The circular forms most likely represent the kneading machines used by bakers, perhaps the actual tools Eurysace utilized in his business. The monument in no subtle way would have revealed Eurysaces’ profession.

Petersen comments on the emotional reaction of viewers evoked by the tomb as they pass it. While the elite may have been disgusted by its garish style and obnoxious declaration of new money, non-elite witnesses may have appreciated its celebration of an ex-slave’s ability to achieve greatness through veritable hard work (248). One probable function of the tomb was to inform the public of Eurysaces’ enterprise and thereby ensure the reputation of his descendents. The author quotes art historian Penelope Davies when she says that this funerary monument “ ‘has meaning only through those who look at it. It may speak, but is always dependent on the passerby to read it aloud’ ”(241).

Porta Maggiore was also built for a variety of functions. The most obvious function of the gate was to proclaim the grand entrance of two of the world’s greatest aqueducts into Rome. The arrival of water from remote locations was a true cause for celebration, as it would accommodate Rome’s growing population. The double triumphal arches would easily inspire awe in the viewer as he or she may have once strictly associated such a structure with emperors. Another service provided by the gate was to acknowledge Claudius as a dependable ruler who took seriously the needs of the people. After contemplating the amount of thought and energy invested in the provision of clean water, citizens of Rome would be assured of their emperor’s devotion.


IV. Patron

The Baker’s Tomb successfully honors and celebrates the life and work of Marcus Virgilius Eurysaces. Baking in Rome between the late Republican and early Imperial periods was considered a trade suitable for slaves and ex-slaves alike; and Eurysaces’ tomb shows signs of the gaudy taste typical of freedmen and those of new money. Slaves had neither voting rights nor the right to marriage, and freed slaves were unable to attain elite status in Roman society. Eurysaces’ primary concern would have been to establish himself as an admirable member of Roman society in spite of his unflattering past. As an ex-slave bread maker, this achievement came with the cost of building for vindication rather than following traditional elite style. His employment of the freedman architectural style was required for such vindication.

Most scholarly investigations of freedmen allude to Petronius’ literary character Tramalchio, a successful ex-slave who invests heavily in his own funerary monument in order to assert his credibility as a member of society (238-9). Although there are no established parameters governing the freedman style, deviations from mainstream design as demonstrated by Eurysaces’ tomb are typical. Caution must be observed, however, when describing the monument as belonging to the freedman style. Petersen explains that the category has hindered the study of Roman culture because it does not permit a comparative approach integrating all forms of art (235). Elements of the tomb may be written off as freedman adornments when they are in fact wonderful innovations.

Claudius’ need to be esteemed by the common people of Rome motivated his construction of Porta Maggiore. His desire for the acceptance of the hoi polloi rose from his social ineptitude that destroyed any chance of winning the approval of his elite peers. Cluadius, who was noted for his speech impediment, suffered from either juvenile paralysis or cerebral palsy (Levick 13-15). His own mother rejected him and publicly described him as being only part human. The man did not even possess sufficient funds required to be a member of senate, and thus was forced to sell property in order to become emperor (28). Claudius eventually found solace in the community of wealthy freedmen, who became his loyal supporters.

Claudius’ pragmatic approach to building projects helped him win over the people of Rome (108). Rather than build for the nobility (e.g. luxurious theaters), he built for the common man (e.g. water works). Soon after taking power in 41 AD, Claudius began his efforts to make both food and water more accessible to his people. First, he added nearly 400 square miles of fertile land to the greater Rome area by draining Fucine Lake. He then extended two highly important aqueducts into the city using his own personal funds (111).

Claudius was a staunch micromanager and employed allied freedmen as directors of a broad range of government projects, most notably the aqueducts (82). Perhaps this alliance with freedmen is linked to his preservation of Eurysaces’ tomb. His reign coincides with the era noted for the great honor awarded to freedmen (47).

Porta Maggiore thus achieved its purpose of assuring the people of their emperor’s concern for them and thereby winning their admiration. The gate attested to the high efficiency of Cluadius’ managerial ability as he killed two birds with one stone, so to speak, by implementing the same work force for both the aqueducts and the lake drainage (132). The monument also immortalized Claudius as a conscientious emperor.


V. Conclusion
The success of the Baker’s tomb is not only demonstrated by its two thousand years of survival, but also by its influence in the construction of more recent tombs. One of the greatest examples of funerary monuments with similar advertising strategies is the Column of Trajan. Penelope Davies, in her investigation into the role of the great column, continually refers to the tomb of Eurysaces as a provocative “record of things achieved, for the viewer’s entertainment, thus perpetuating interest in their lives” (51). The long, winding narrative relief sculpture spanning the Column of Trajan serves the same purpose as the simple frieze found just below the cornice of the Baker’s Tomb. Each aims at earning the focus of the passerby and searing a lasting impression into his or her mind. The effectiveness of Eurysaces’ tomb continues today as visitors are still attracted to its innovative style and unsolved history.

Porta Maggiore is recognized as an amazing achievement as it serves as the face of the aqueducts, one of Rome’s most ambitious developments. The meaning of the Porta was so significant that a Pope completely destroyed another entryway for the sole purpose of liberating the great old monument. The allure of this structure persists because it represents the legacy of the emperor that built it. Claudius’ double arch convinces the contemporary viewer of his faithful service to a furiously growing city.


VI. Personal Observations

Riding into Rome on the smooth tracks leading to Stazione Termini, I saw Porta Maggiore and the Baker’s Tomb for the first time. Immediately, what had always been just fragments in my mind began to take solid form. Goethe captured my state of mind well when he wrote, “Now I have arrived, I have calmed down and feel as if I have found a peace that will last for my whole life. Because, if I may say so, as soon as one sees with one’s own eyes the whole which one had hitherto only known in fragments and chaotically, a new life begins” (129).

I was then better able to speculate as to how people venturing into Rome would have felt as they were bombarded by the two monuments on the eastern border of the great city. Describing the experience, I would later write the following piece in my journal:

You are nearly assaulted by the massive Porta Maggiore, boasting its provision of precious, life-giving liquid to the world’s greatest city. But then you are surprised as your attention is suddenly grabbed away by this strange, proud tomb sitting in its shadow, whose walls promise a loaf of bread to accompany the water already flowing into your now-Roman cup.


VII. Bibliography
Davies, Penelope. “Trajan’s Column and the Art of Commemoration.” American Journal of Archaeology. 101 (1997): 41-65.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang Von. Italian Journey. Trans. W. H. Auden and Elizabeth Mayer. 1962. London: Collins; London: Penguin Classics, 1970.

Levick, Barbara. Claudius. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1990.

Petersen, Lauren Hackworth. “The Baker, His Tomb, His Wife, and Her Breadbasket: The Monument of Eurysaces in Rome.” Art Bulletin 85 (2003): 230-57.

Platner, Samuel Ball. The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1904.

Todd, Malcom. The Walls of Rome. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978.

Christian Relics

Nicole Day-Bazhaw
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005
small presentation

I. Historical Background of the Site or Topic

Saints held an extreme importance to the Catholic Church. Carrying enormous power, many Christians believed that with divine assistance, saints were capable of performing miracles. The only connection between the saints residing in heaven and the living Christians were relics. The word relic is derived from the Latin reliquiae, meaning remains. Quite often it was the remains of a saint that Christians used to seek help.

There are three specific categories of relics set by the Catholic Church. First-class relics are divided into two categories: physical remains of a saint, or items directly associated with the events of Christ’s life. Second-class relics were items that a saint either wore or possessed during his life. Third class relics are also divided into two categories: a piece of cloth touched to the saint’s body after his death, or a piece of cloth brought to the saint’s shrine. It is interesting to note that not all relics in each class had equal significance. Relics associated with a martyr were prized more highly than another saint, and parts of a saint that were significant to that person were more highly prized as well.

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/ Religion/Projects/Reln91/Power/ Relicsmainpage.htm
St. Therese's Hair
Hair from Sait Therese of Lisieux in a reliquary

Before Christianity was “legalized” by Constantine in the early fourth century CE, Christians had to venerate the relics in secret; this veneration began very early on in the history of Christianity. In a letter regarding the martyrdom of St. Polycarp in approximately 150 CE, a Christian writes: “We took up the bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.” Once the threat of persecution was lifted from the Christians by Constantine, they were able to venerate the relics publicly. They opened tombs of saints and dispersed pieces to various reliquaries.

In the fourth century the veneration of these relics grew so strongly that it became known as the cult of relics. Miracles produced by such relics reinforced the cult following. Churches were built on or around the site of relics and Christians were often buried near the tombs of martyrs. Relics became so coveted by Christians that an abuse of this veneration developed. As authenticity of a relic was often difficult to verify, false relics were often sold to unsuspecting people, fulfilling the greed of the seller. As a demonstration of the perversion of the distribution of relics, John Calvin once remarked that there were enough pieces of the True Cross to fill a ship. In response to this abuse, it is now prohibited by the Catholic Church to divide relics into small unrecognizable parts, or to sell first or second class relics. These provisions were declared in 1563 by the Council of Trent, and stated in the Canon Law.

The veneration of relics does still continue today, though not to the extent of the past. Relics can still be found in altars in churches today. Some of the other notable relics that are found throughout the world include: Jesus’ baby blanket, Jesus’ foreskin, Jesus’ loincloth worn on the cross, pieces of the True Cross, Mary’s cloak and remains of various saints. In fact, St. Peter’s remains are at the St. Peter basilica in Vatican City.

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/ Religion/Projects/Reln91/Power/ Relicsmainpage.htm
St. Simon's Skull
The skull of Saint Simon being transported in its reliquary.

II. Bibliography

Catholic Encyclopedia. "Relics." 30 August 2005.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm

Religion Facts. "Relics in Christianity." 28 August 2005.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/relics.htm

Wikipedia. "Relic." 28 August 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic

Trajan's Column and Forum: Immortality and Memory

Shivali Agnani
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005

I. Introduction

www.moyak.com/.../resume/ papers/roman_art.html
Column of Trajan
The Column of Trajan currently stands in the heart of Rome.

After two successful wars against the Dacians, the Emperor Trajan presented the Roman people with a grand reward- the Forum of Trajan and the Column of Trajan. Built from 112-113 CE, the Forum and Column are an enduring example of military propaganda and artistic achievement which remain in the heart of present-day Rome. The Forum offered the Roman people new facilities in which to conduct business and legal affairs. The Column, which stands in the middle of the Forum, is covered with scenes depicting Trajan's account of the two glorious wars fought against the Dacians from 101- 106 CE.

Emperor Trajan was born Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trajanus in 53 CE in Spain. Because the previous Emperor, Nerva, was extremely unpopular with the soldiers, he chose Trajan as his adoptive son and heir. Trajan, at the time, was well known for his military skill and valor. With Nerva's adoption of Trajan began the Roman tradition of “succession by adoption.” Later Emperors "used sucession by adoption" to name the heirs to the throne. Trajan's rule was marked by peace and prosperity for the Romans; he freed slaves and returned property that had been seized by Nerva. Furthermore, Trajan expanded the Roman Empire with a series of conquests, most notably the Dacian Wars. During his reign, Trajan brought Rome to its greatest size.

Through Trajan's Forum and the Column of Trajan, Trajan hoped to commemorate his victories in the two Dacian Wars. Before Trajan came into power, Nerva had been removing gold from the gold coins used for the Roman currency, which destabilized the economy. Rome's neighbor, Dacia, located in current-day Romania was known to be rich with gold mines. It was the perfect opportunity for Trajan, an able solider, to aid the Roman economy while displaying his military abilities. In 101 C.E, Rome invaded Dacia with blessings from the Senate. As the Roman soldiers moved into the interior of Dacia, they built forts and bridges as well burning down Dacian villages. At the Battle of Tapea in 102 C.E, the Dacians were forced to surrender. King Decebalus was allowed to stay in Dacia to guarantee gold production for the Romans. However, by 105 C.E, the Dacians had reorganized under King Decebalus. During the second Dacian War, the Romans suffered higher causalities and the war lasted longer. The decisive Roman assault occurred in the Dacian capitol of Sarmizegethusa; the city was burned to the ground and King Decebalus committed suicide rather than be humiliated by the Romans. Dacia was incorporated into the Roman Empire with Romans leaving the walled-city to colonize the new territory. Upon returning to Rome, Trajan ordered 123 days of celebration and Dacian riches of gold, bronze, and marble were marched into the city. With the war spoils, Trajan financed the building of his Forum and the Column.


II. Description

http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/smr04/101910/Slide8.27.jpg
Trajan's Forum
Trajan's Forum include the Basilica, the Piazza, two libraries,
the Temple of Trajan, and the Trajan's Column (upper).
The grandeur of the interior of the Basilica includeds its marble floors and walls (lower).

An ancient Roman would enter the Forum and the large Piazza through an elegant archway. The Piazza was eighty meters by a hundred and twenty meters; it could fit the entire Forum of Augustus. The Piazza was the center of ceremony and business. In the center of the Piazza stood an equestrian statue of Trajan which is currently being excavated. The horse and Trajan alone are rumored to be over twelve meters tall! Beyond the Piazza was Trajan’s Market, which is well-preserved and compared to the rest of the Forum stands as solid brick-work. The market was the equivalent to the modern shopping mall, rich with spices and clothes for sale. Moving passed the Piazza was the Basilica Ulpia. The Basilica had marble floors and walls and was sheltered by a bronze-tiled roof. It functioned as the center for legal affairs as well as a location to display the spoils of the war. Along the interior were statues of Dacians, displaying not only their integration into the Empire, but also their subjugation to the might of the Roman military. After moving through the Basilica was an opening into a small courtyard which contained the Column of Trajan, two libraries, and Temple of Divine Trajan which was built by Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, after his death. East and west of the Column are the Greek and Latin libraries, known together as the Bibliotheca Ulpia. The Column of Trajan itself stands approximately forty-four meters tall and is over three meters in diameter. It was designed by Apollodrus and is made from eighteen solid blocks of marble imported from the Greek island of Paros. Careful construction obscures the joints between the blocks of marble, though the sections are visible from the interior. On the interior is a staircase leading to the upper viewing platform. On the exterior, the bands that outline the history of the Dacian War gradually increase in height from .9 meters to 1.25 meters at the top. The upper carving of the Column are difficult to see from the ground, although balconies in the libraries planking the Column could have been used a viewing stations. When the Column was originally built, color was added with metal accessories. The Column presently stands as a white marble monolith with only ruins representing the remainder of the Forum.


III. Function

http://www.honors.umaine.edu/images/hon111/forum/Trajan's%20Forum.jpg
The Glory of Trajan's Forum
When the Forum was orginally built, it functioned as the center of commerce and politics for the Roman Empire.

Trajan's intentions were clear: he wanted to be remembered for his contribution to the Roman Empire. In all its glory, the Forum was richly decorated with the spoils of the Dacian Wars. By offering the Roman people the Forum, Trajan displayed sympathy for their needs, because it was the people who used the Forum regularly. In addition, the opulence and richness of the Forum was used to remind the Romans of Trajan's might and valor as an Emperor and solidier. The Forum glittered with both subtle and more obvious reminders of Trajan and the Dacian conquest. Therefore, a major function of the Forum was propaganda for the Dacian Wars. The statues of the Dacians and reminders of the War were incorporated into the design of the Forum and acted to commemorate the Roman success. Even by current standards, the largeness of the marble floors and grandness of the Basilica's interior would be awe-inspiring. A Roman entering the Basilica would feel physically small in comparison to the vastness of the space, reinforcing the grandness of Trajan's contribution to the Empire. If there were any skeptics at the onset of the Wars, the grandeur of the Forum would have removed any doubts.

For years, scholars have debated other possible functions of the Column of Trajan. When experiencing the Column from the inside, the viewer must first climb the steep, helical staircase. The inside of the shaft is dim; only a few small windows line its height. Before the viewer enters the bright light of the viewing station at the top of the Column, most people are thoroughly disorientated. From the viewing station, one would observe the glittering bronze roof of the Basilica Ulpia, the Capitol, and Campus Martius. If any viewer doubted the merit of the Wars against the Dacians, their fear about the costs and loss of human life would be quickly subdued by the magnificent sight. The Column's interior reinforced the Trajan's themes of propaganda for the Dacian Wars and commemoratation the Roman Empire under his reign.


How would an average Roman experience the exterior of the Column of Trajan? The detailed frieze, which covers the entirety of the Column, recounts each phase of the war from building forts and Trajan addressing the troops to battle scenes with the Dacians. The Column has been a source of military history and topographical information about the Roman Empire. Because the Column served as military propaganda, there is no blood-shed or other gruesome realities of war depicted. Also, Trajan and his soldiers are shown as brave and triumphant in their conquest of Dacian. The exterior of the Column, then, also emphasizes Roman superiority and Trajan's military successes.


IV. Patron

http://student-kmt.hku.nl/~joost1/forumtrajani/Plaatje%20-%20zuil%20omhoog.jpg
Viewing the Column
Viewing Trajan's Column was especially difficult from the small courtyard.

There are several architectural difficulties to overcome to view the Column of Trajan. To read the story, the viewer must physical circle the Column, making following the narrative quite difficult. First, it is often tricky to keep one's place in the story horizontally. Secondly, the carvings become increasingly difficult to view as one moves up the Column. Finally, the size of the courtyard would have prevented the viewer from moving backward far enough to view the Column in its entirety. Scholars have been unable to determine why such inextricably detailed story would be told in a manner which would be largely unappreciated by the viewer. Some believe that in ancient times, viewers would have used the balconies of the flanking libraries to see the upper portions of the Column. Other historians believe that the primary function of the Column of Trajan was accomplished by the viewing station. They believe that the Roman public at the time would have be informed about the events of the war and visualizing the details of the narrative would have been secondary to the view of city.

Recent academic dialogue and the Column’s architectural design suggests that Trajan may have intended the Column to function as a funerary monument as well. Memory in Roman history offers man immortality. Through sculptures, monuments, and great works of art, exceptional artists and leaders are remembered by citizens with each viewing of the piece. In order to understand the freize of the Column, a viewer must know Trajan and his military feats. Because Trajan's ashes were placed at the base of the Column, scholars like Penelope J. Davies believe that it was meant to serve as a funerary monument. Common Roman procedure denied an Emperor the right to a public burial until the Senate decreed it after his death. Therefore, it is interesting to consider whether Trajan could have anticipated and planned for his burial at the site of the Column. In Davies essay entitled, “Trajan's Column and the Art of Commemoration,” she states that the original design of the Column has a chamber at the base specifically made to house Trajan's ashes. If the Column was intended to serve as a funerary monument, circumambulation is appropriate. Consider that in Ancient Roman, encircling the funeral pyres was an essential part of the burial ritual. Therefore, it is possible that Trajan intended to use the Column as his burial site as well as for propagandistic and commemorative purposes. Davies says a tomb, “ may be monumental and unusual, but it has meaning only through those who look at it; it may speak, but it is always dependent on the passerby to read it aloud, and in a glance or the voice of the living lies perpetuation through memory…” To have no lasting monument which bears his name and records his feats would have meant a truly finite death of Trajan to future generations. But to understand the intricate details of the frieze which surrounds the Column requires an understanding of Trajan and the War. To read the story, the viewer must move around the Column. By controlling the viewer's physical movement, the Column forces active participation. Encirclement of the Column has a dual meaning: it essentially forces viewer reenactment of the ancient burial processions in addition to acting a military propaganda. Thus, the Column of Trajan is memorable to each of its viewers. It is a distinct piece of art amidst the more commonplace statues and monuments.

V. Conclusion

Trajan's Column and Forum
The Forum lies mostly in ruins, while much of the Column is well-preserved.

Despite its splendor, only weathered ruins of Trajan's Forum have survived centuries of destruction. The Forum was pillaged for the building of the Arch of Constantine in the 4th Century. Then, a series of earthquakes caused further destruction. In the Middle Ages, much of the marble of the Basilica and the Piazza was removed. However, in 1162, a decree was issued that preserved only the Column; punishment for destroying it was death. Major excavations were conducted by Napoleon from 1811-1814 and Mussolini in 1932. Although Mussolini covered half the Forum with the Via dell Impero, some of the ruins are now visible. The original statue of Trajan which surmounted the top of the column was replaced by Pope Sixtus V in 1588 with a statue of Saint Peter. The column was so unquie that it served as the prototype for a similar column erected for Antoninus Pius and for Marcus Aurelius. Also, the Vendome Column built by Napoleon in Paris to memorialize the Grand Army of France uses the Column of Trajan as a model. The column of Trajan is considered to be one of the most outstanding works of Roman art and historical documentation of military history.



VI. Personal Observations

http://gate.cia.edu/cbergengren/arthistory/rome/small/image70asm.jpg
The Frieze of Trajan's Column

Pictures do no justice to the intricate details of the frieze that encircles the Column of Trajan. Though I had seen various depictions of the carvings, nothing compared to standing before the Column itself. It is an amazing work of art for each detail of each scene to the very top of the Column is carefully carved. I was astounded by the artistic skill it displays. Also, I now appreciate the details of artistic meaning and intent. I was surprised to learn about the Column's interactive qualities. It was ingenious of Trajan to build a monument that so successfully requires each of its viewers to remember his reign and the glory of the Roman Empire under his rule. It is impossible to understand the frieze without such information. To view the frieze requires encircling the Column. In doing so, each viewer participating gives Trajan the immortality he craved. Imagine almost two centuries later, a group of Honors students from Seattle has a fuller appreciate of Trajan's life and triumphs. Because of this, Trajan's Column is a successful tribute to Trajan's life and memory.

VII. Bibliography
Butz, Patricia A. "Public and Private Transformation in The Art Of The Trajan Inscription" American Journal of Archaeology. 2001,292.

Coarelli, Filippo. The Column of Trajan. Colombo : German Archaeological Institute, 2000.

Davies, Penelope J. E. "The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan's Column and the Art of Commemoration" American Journal of Archaeology. 1997, 41-65.

Lancaster, Lynne C. "Building Trajan's Column" American Journal of Archaeology 1999,419-39.

Munro, Richard K. "The Last Great Roman Conqueror: Emperor Trajan's brilliant campaigns against King Decebalus were among the final bloody scenes in the drama of Roman conquest." Military History. Feb 2002, 23.

Campo dei Fiori

Patricia Voll
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005
small presentation

Historical Background of the Site or Topic

The Campo dei Fiori has been a significant meeting place in Rome for generations. The origins of its name, “field of flowers,” are not known for certain, but two different theories shed light on its history. Part of Pompey’s theater was located where the Palazzo Pio now stands, on one side of the Campo dei Fiori. The Campo could have been named after one of Pompey’s lovers, Flora, or for the fact that for many years it was neglected and became a grassy field filled with flowers.

The Campo dei Fiori was paved in 1456 by Pope Callixtus III as part of his greater project to improve the Rione Parione. This improvement increased the real estate value around the Campo and lead to important buildings being erected around it, including one of the Orsini palaces. An inscription at the beginning of the Via dei Balestrari commemorates Pope Sixtus V, who further increased the value of the Campo when he built the Ponte Sisto Bridge in 1473 in preparation for the 1475 jubilee. A few years later, continued improvements were conducted under the orders of Pope Alexander V, including the enlargement of Via del Pelegrino, which linked the Campo dei Fiori with Ponte S. Angelo. Alexander V’s coat of arms on the Piazza della Cancelleria commemorates this act.

Alexander V’s motives for improving the area were probably influenced by the fact that his lover, Vannozza Cattanei, lived in Via del Pelegrino. Vannozza had four children with the Pope when he was still a cardinal, of which two have become famous in their own right. Cesare was the commander of the papal armies while his father was Pope and Lucrezia became famous for her beauty and allegedly poisoning her husband. In 1500 Vannozza bought an inn on what is now one of the corners of Campo dei Fiori. There she put up a complex coat of arms that incorporated symbols from her family and those of both her third husband and her lover, the Pope. The cow from Alexander V’s coat of arms gave the inn its name, Albergo della Vacca.

The most basic concepts of life and death have a long tradition of being powerfully displayed in the Campo dei Fiori. At one time the location of a popular horse market and the gallows, the Campo is now home to a large vegetable market and a statue of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy in the center of the Campo in 1600. The market began in 1869 and the statue was erected in 1883 by Ettore Ferrari.


A fountain called La Terrina used to reside in the Campo, but was moved in 1924 to the Piazza della Chiesa Nuova and replaced by a similar fountain. Several madonnella can be found around the Campo. They are Catholic descendents of a practice that developed around lares, or tutelary spirits of a house, in ancient Rome. Small statues used to be placed in high places on buildings to represent the lares. Now madonnella can be found all over Rome, especially at intersections, where they guard dangerous transitions in life. One final note of interest about the Campo dei Fiori is that many of the streets around it are named after the artisans that traditionally occupied them, including the Via dei Cappellari (hatters), Via dei Baullari (trunk makers), Via dei Chiavari (key makers), and Via dei Giubbonari (jacket makers).


Bibliography

“Campo de’ Fiori.” Wikipedia. 20 August 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_de%27_Fiori.

“Campo di’ Fiori: a Lovely Piazza.” RomaClick. 20 August 2005. http://www.romaclick.com/Pages/Roma/Vedere/defiori.htm.

Moore, Rosamie. "Piazza di Campo dei Fiori." Rome: in the Footsteps of an XVIIIth Century Traveler. 22 July 2005. http://www.romeartlover.it/Vasi28.html.

The Pantheon

Zinnia Zheng
Honors in Rome - Summer 2005

I. Introduction
Standing in the Campus Martius, the Pantheon remains to date as the single intact edifice that has come down to us from the Greco-Roman period; it is also the only such temple that has been in continuous use up to our present time. Prior to being the rotunda as we see now, the Pantheon was originally a rectangular structure facing south, built during the Roman Republic by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in 27 B.C.E. The temple was dedicated in particular to patrons of Caesar and Augustus (Julio-Claudian family), Mars and Venus. It was burned in a great fire in 80 C.E. and reinstated by Emperor Domitian. Thirty years later in 110 C.E., the temple was struck by lightning and flamed to the ground. It was during Hadrian’s reign (117-38 C.E.) that the Pantheon was completely reconstructed to its current form. The emperor intended this sanctuary to “reproduce the likeness of the terrestrial globe and of the stellar sphere” with the open cupola as center so “prayers would rise like smoke toward that void where we place the gods”.

http://harpy.uccs.edu/roman/html/hadrian2.html
The Pantheon
The building with its remarkable design and influential status, was one of the first temples to be converted to a church.

Architectural Plan of the Pantheon
http://www.romeguide.it/MONUM/AR CHEOL/pantheon/the_pantheon.htm

Roman masonry dome culminated with the Pantheon. Designed by an architect unknown in 120 C.E., the Pantheon is composed of three components: a colonnaded pronaos (entrance portico) – facing north – that reminisces the front of a customary Greek temple, an intermediate junction connecting it to the last element, and the close domed rotunda with an oculus admitting the only light. On the proch’s entablature bears the inscription M•AGRIPPA•L•F•COS•TERTIVM•FECIT in bronze letters, which Hadrian copied from Agrippa’s Pantheon. It translates to “Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul for the third time, built this”. This common practice by Hadrian – to omit the use of his own name on buildings he’d commissioned, was done in similar reconstruction projects throughout Rome – caused great confusion in determining the time range of Pantheon’s construction. The issue was resolved by epigraphers (1892) through studying tile-shaped bricks from the building. These ancient Roman bricks were systematically stamped with information regarding brickyard, current consul and the like in abbreviated Latin. As it turns out the majority of the Pantheon’s brick stamps are of the early 120s.

After a final renovation by Septimius Severus in 202 C.E., the Pantheon persevered through four centuries of flux and neglect. Despite the capital’s move to Constantinople and flooding from the Tiber river, the Pantheon remained intact while countless buildings nearby fell to rubble. In 609 C.E., Byzantine emperor Phocas gave it to Pope Boniface IV. The building was consecrated and converted to a church dedicated to Mary and All Saints. In the early 1600s, Pope Urban VIII stripped and melted ~200 tons of bronze roof trusses from the porch roof for fortification use in Castel Sant’Angelo. According to the Pope, the metal was far better used to “defend the Holy See than to keep the rain out of the Pantheon porch”. This act led to the quip “quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini” which translated means “what the barbarians did not do, the Barberinis [Urban VIII’s family name] did”.

More recently, the Pantheon was used as a tomb. The famous artist Raphael was buried in the rotunda in 1520; in 1878, King Vittorio Emmanuele II of United Italy in the great west niche; and King Umberto I in 1900.

II. Description
The splendor and longevity of the Pantheon never ceases to fill those that gaze upon it with awe; as Michelangelo acclaimed it as “angelic and not of human design”. Erect and completed in less than ten years, it has withstood ravages by both men and nature for nearly two millennia and continuing. Although the building’s survival owes a fair amount to its reconsecration as Santa Maria ad Martyres, the ingenious design and lasting materials nevertheless plays an important role. Made of pozzolana cement (mixture of lime and volcanic ash from Pozzuoli, Italy), the Pantheon is entirely concrete without any steel underpinning. The pronaos and connector have rectangular trenches as their foundation; a circular foundation measuring 7.3m wide and 4.5m deep is laid for the rotunda.

http://www.danheller.com/images/Italy/ Rome/Landmarks/Slideshow/img13.html
The Oculus
The Pantheon has an opening, the oculus, that is the only source of light entering into the temple

Originally, five marble steps led from the square in front of the Pantheon onto the entrance portico, so that the building ascended to a podium and orientation was given to the rotunda; the concepts of orientation and landscape were traditional in Roman design. Over the years, as nearby archcitecture fell to ruins, the Pantheon’s surrounding ground level rose and buried the steps. The portico also has 16 Corinthian granite columns supporting a gable-styled roof. Measuring exactly 40 feet (12.2m) in height, each monolithic shaft (part of the column, 48 feet) weighs 60 tons and was made and shipped from Mons Claudianus in Egypt. The majority of transportation back then was done via water route, which was efficient, albeit very costly. They were transported to the Nile River on sledges and then boated to Alexandria. There they crossed the Mediterranean to the port of Ostia and barged down the Tiber River. This façade effectively conceals, but not completely blocks from sight, the grandiose dome behind.

Through the 6.4m double bronze doors one enters the rotunda. Still the grandest in Rome, the dome is made of an immense cylinder surmounted by a hemisphere, with an overall inner span of 43.2m and equivalent height that would enclose a perfect sphere. Although now covered with sheets of lead, the dome’s exterior was at first entirely covered with bronze tiles, however it was stripped away in 663 C.E. by emperor Constans II. This dome is made up of superposing masonry masses in concentric tapering steps; heaviest masses (basalt) were used for the 20 feet base and lighter aggregate such as pumice were put on top. This system of design offsets the tendency of the dome to push outward and rupture. In addition, numerous niches honeycomb the cylinder portion of the rotunda, each with relieving arches to divert pressure from the superstructure to eight masonry piers concealed within the circular drum. At the cupola of the rotunda there is an aperture, the oculus, measuring 8.2m in diameter. This circular opening serves as the only source of light into the dome. The oculus also acts as a compression ring that properly distributes compression forces.

http://forum.aceboard.net/5397-1479-49870-0-Pantheon-Domaine-Bleu.htm
Interior Painting
Painted by Giovanni Panini, the painting illustrates the interior of the Pantheon in the 18th century.

Because of its uninterrupted space, a single glance encompasses the entire interior of the Pantheon. Unlike other cathedrals or churches, the inner rotunda is exceptionally simple, with no stairs to climb and no corners to turn. It is precisely because of this simplicity that enables one to perceive of the rotunda’s vast and openness and naturally, be dumbfounded. Along the continuous cylindrical wall there are eight large niches. Directly opposite the entrance is the exedra/main apse, and the remaining six are axisymmetrically situated about the fourfold axis; the six distyled niches are adorned with two marble columns. Also along the curving wall, in between each of the great niches, are eight aediculae (temple-front) with alternating (in twos) triangular and arched pediments. Albeit redone in the 19th century, the paving of the floor is an accurate representation of the Hadrianic original. The floor rises slightly toward the center, patterned into a grid of sizeable squares and circles in squares made of colored marbles, granites, and porphyry; to note is the claret colored porphyry, which back then was the color reserved for royalty.

Triumph of Rome or triumph of compromise? It is unfathomable that even a feat like the Pantheon fails to reach perfection under the scrutiny of modern commentators. Davies’ article brings up several imperfections about the architecture. As it stands today, the Pantheon carries two gabled roofs. The portico has a lower one, one that a normal viewer would see when standing in front, and behind it is the less obvious yet taller pediment of the transition block. In addition, the columns that support the portico seem undersized because of the unusual largeness of the porch’s pediment; their spacing is also more disperse than is usual during the Imperial period. Davies hypothesized that the inconsistencies are due to an abrupt change in design during the midst of construction. The present shafts used for the portico columns differ from what was originally intended. 50 feet shafts (rather than 40 feet) were supposed to be used; this way, the portico would rise to the same height as the transition block with the two roofs merged to become one, thus eliminating the awkwardly dual stacked together. Moreover, the increased height of the shaft would also demand for a base wider in diameter, thereby conforming to the conventional spacing of that time. It is conjectured that the Pantheon settled for smaller columns because of the limited availability of 50 feet columns. With the 10 feet increase in height, each shaft would weigh 100 tons due to the proportional widening of the base; this increased weight would make transportation even more difficult. Alternatively, because the construction of Temple of Trajan occurred in concurrence with the Pantheon, Hadrian may have used the larger monoliths to build the temple, as a gesture of respect to his predecessor.

III. Function
The name Pantheon translates to “temple of all the gods”. During Roman times, the building functioned as a temple for all the gods under the Roman religion. When Hadrian rebuilt the temple, he continued the original purpose but aggrandized its all encompassing grandeur. In his eye, the sanctuary was an epitome of the earth and heavens. When standing in the center of the Pantheon directly beneath the oculus, the position was and still is comparable to the pivot of the universe, around which everything dutifully revolves.

In the 7th century the Pantheon was reconsecrated as a church. Subsequently amendments were made to parts of the interior; among other things, numerous pieces of religious art as well as tombs currently reside in the Pantheon. Within the central apse is a choir designed by Luigi Poletti in 1840. When standing at the entrance bay and facing the interior, the first chapel on the right is the Chapel of the Annunciation, which holds the fresco that gave the chapel its name, Annunciation. In the west niche lies the tomb of the first king of united Italy, King Victor Emmanuel II. The Madonna of the railing, formally known as The Madonna of Mercy between St Francis and St John the Baptist sits in the third chapel; the epithet of the painting came from its former position, as it was suspended in a niche left of the portico and protected by a railing. The Chapel of St. Joseph in the Holy Land is the first one left of the rotunda entrance. This is the chapel of the Confraternity of Virtuosi in the Pantheon. The group was established by Desiderio da Segni in the 16th century. The society continues today as the Academia Ponteficia di Belle Arti. In the next chapel dwells the tomb of King Umberto I and his wife Margherita di Savoia. Before his death, the great artist Raphael had requested that he be interred in the Pantheon, and so he was. The third niche holds Raphael’s ancient sarcophagus as well as Maria Bibbiena, his fiancée. The inscription on his sarcophagus reads ILLE HIS EST RAPHAEL TIMUIT QUO SOSPITE VINCI / RERUM MAGNA PARENS ET MORIENTE MORI, “here lies Raphael, by whom the mother of all things (Nature) feared to be overcome whilst he was living, and whilst he was dying, herself to die”.

IV. Patron
Of Hadrian’s many accomplishments during his reign, the most notable were his conclusion of the Roman Empire’s expansion, and his avid fascination for Greek civilization that earned him the name “Greekling”. Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus (76 - 138 C.E.) – he bared the name Publius Aelius Hadrianus before coming to throne – known to us as Emperor Hadrian, was the third of the Five Good Emperors. In Italica, Hispania, 76 C.E., Hadrian was born the son of Publius Hadrianus Afer. When his father passed away in 85 C.E., Hadrian was entrusted to Trajan and Acilius Attianus. Despite the lack of military conflict during his rule, Hadrian nonetheless gained plenty of military experience in his early years. In 95 C.E. Hadrian became the tribune of Legion II Adjutrix, located in Upper Moesia on the Danube River. Afterwards he was transferred to Legion I Minervia of Lower Moesia (present day Germany). In 98 C.E., with the death of Nerva, Trajan succeeded as emperor and Hadrian’s career began to advance. Because of his success in the Dacian wars, Hadrian was appointed quaestor (101 C.E.), praetor(106 C.E.), and consul(108 C.E.). In the ten years prior to his enthronement, Hadrian was more or less politically inactive, during which he became an archon in Athens (112), perhaps to devote his attention to the Greek culture that he was so fond of.

http://www.the-colosseum.net/ita/ history/imperatores.htm
Emperor Hadrian
Third of the Five Good Emperors, Hadrian was most notable for putting end to the
Roman Empire's expansion and his admiration for Greek civilization.

After coming to power, Hadrian quickly abandoned Trajan’s conquests in Armenia and Mesopotamia. Despite frequent resistances from high government officials, Hadrian decidedly concluded the expansion of the Roman Empire. He believed that further broadening of the empire was unnecessary, and it would be implausible to defend such a vast frontier. Hadrian strengthened the empire’s existing borders by erecting artificial fortifications along boundaries that lacked natural ones; among which the most famous is Hadrian’s Wall in Britain. His strive towards peace is also evident through his effort in reconciliation with Parthia when they were on the brink of war.

With his hair curled on a comb and wearing a full beard, Hadrian was extremely fond of Hellenistic culture. He typified Hellenistic culture on the Romans. Hadrian was the first Roman emperor to wear a full beard and moustache. While men of Greek almost always wore beards, the Romans were most commonly clean shaven. This attribute most definitely demonstrates his ardor for Greece. Moreover, the several construction projects in Greece reflect Hadrian’s admiration for the Greeks. In regards to his personal life, Hadrian is widely known for his relationship with the Greek youth Antinous. Antinous was born in Bithynia and met Hadrian in his teens. In 130 C.E., Antinous mysteriously drowned in Nile while they were touring Egypt. His sudden death left Hadrian stricken with grief. In memory of Antinous, Hadrian founded the Egyptian city Antinopolis and made him the last new god of antiquity.

http://ladyhedgehog.hedgie.com/ antinous.html
Beloved Antinous
involved in a forbidden relationship with Hadrian, Antinous was a Greek youth
from Bithynia. After his mysterious death, Hadrian diefied him as the last god of antiquity.
Many statues of the Greek boy survived up to this day. Hadrian never recovered from the loss of Antinous,
he died 8 years later in 138 C.E.

V. Conclusion
PANTHEON AEDIFICIVM TOTO TERRARVM ORBE CELEBERRIMVM
“The Pantheon, the most celebrated edifice in the whole world”

The inscription by Urban VIII is by no means an exaggeration. It is without a doubt one of the most well known pieces of architecture of antiquity. With its innovative design, monumental scale, and most unusual durability, the Pantheon is studied by architects throughout time, especially during the Renaissance period, and buildings similar in style can be seen allover Europe: Hedwigskirche in Germany, the Possagno in France, the Monticello by Jefferson, and many more. It is important to point out, however, that even though much architecture was designed by drawing inspiration from the Pantheon, there has yet to be one that exactly copied the Pantheon. Whether the lack of such a replica is out of respect for the monument or inapt technology we do not know. But its effect will always linger on in past, present and future architectural style.

St. Hedwigskirche

VI. Personal Observations
The Pantheon was my first choice when we picked out research topics for the class. Although my initial interest for taking on this project was neither about the edifice’s design nor its history, through more and more exploration into these aspects I’ve found the knowledge very remarkable. Through understanding the architectural aspect of the Pantheon, I became appreciative of the monument in its full significance physically and symbolically. I am very amazed with the building’s unprecedented circular design, as well as its implication of the Roman people’s willingness in disregarding the status quo. I am enthralled by their ability to create mammoth structures which stand the test of time. The feeling of awe that you get with that first glance stepping into the Pantheon – to perceive the space’s vastness and continuity, a rarity when combined together – never goes away no matter how many first glances you’ve enjoyed.

VII. Bibliography
Brown, F. E. “Roman Architecture”. 1979: George Braziller Inc., New York.

Davies, P. “The Pantheon: Triumph of Rome or Triumph of Compromise”. Jun. 1987: Art History, vol. 10.

MacDonald, W. L. “The Pantheon”. 1976: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

MacEwen, I. K. “Hadrian’s Rhetoric I: The Pantheon”. 1993: RES, vol. 24.

“Pantheon”. 2005: Encyclopedia Britannica Online. .

Scherer, M. R. “Marvels of Ancient Rome”. 1955: Phaidon Press, London.

Testa, J. “Rome is Loved Spelled Backward: Enjoying Art and Architecture in the Eternal City”. 1998: Northern Illinois University Press, Dekalb.

Ward-Perkins, J. B. “Roman Architecture”. 1974: Harry N. Abrams Inc., New York.

Grundmann, S. “The Architecture of Rome”. 1998: Axel Menges, Stuttgart.

Other Sources:
http://www.romanconcrete.com
http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/pantheon/