Trajan Essay

Julie Tea
Honors in Rome - Summer 2006

I. Introduction
The Column of Trajan continues to stand today as one of Rome’s most well-preserved historical documentation of military history. It stands today next to the Fori Imperiali, adorned by a statue of St. Peter. The four buildings of Trajan’s forum that had once surrounded the Column are now only weather ruins; pillaged for building materials for the Arch of Constantine in the 4th century and churches later on. Who is Trajan and why did he decide to build this large complex for the people of Rome? What message was he trying to send to the Roman people and visitors? These questions will be answered as we discover the true meaning of commemoration as exemplified by Trajan’s Column.

Marcus Cocceius Nerva served as Emperor of Rome from A.D. 96 to A.D. 98. He named Marcus Ulpius Trajanus as his successor in the summer of A.D. 97 to win the support of the Roman army who celebrated Trajan’s previous military victories. Trajan was a Spanish-born Senator and General and is the first-recorded non-Italian to head the state of Rome.
Both northern Thracians and Germans inhabited Dacia, a prosperous neighboring country to the north of Rome. The Dacians were seen as a threat to the Roman Empire. Ambitious, Trajan launched two vengeful campaigns against the Dacians in A.D. 101. He selected two different pontoon-bridge crossings, one across the Tibiscus River and the other across the Danube crossing. Apollodorus of Damascus was chosen to design a permanent bridge crossing, which has been described as a “marvel of engineering.” The Roman army then, led by Trajan, separated into two groups and took two different routes to Sarmizegestusa, the Dacian capital. They then attacked Sarmizegestusa from two separate angles and were able to penetrate past the hillforts protecting the capital. Decebalus then surrendered to Trajan, ending the first of the Dacian wars in A.D. 102. The second of the Dacians wars began anew in A.D. 105 when the Dacians re-assembled an army to attack the Roman “bridgehead.” This second war quickly ended in A.D. 106 when Trajan used tactics similar to the first war to surround Sarmizegestusa. Trajan’s actual account of the Dacian Wars has never been recovered. However, to commemorate Trajan’s victory in the Dacian Wars, the Trajan forum, market, and column were built. These were commissioned by Trajan and designed by Apollodorus of Damascus. They were finally completed in A.D. 113 and must have been a magnificent sight to behold. Trajan funded the construction of the Trajan forum, market and column with the spoils of war and purposefully created a grandeur, artistic achievement. The forum became a center for Roman daily activity. The column is covered with iconographic scenes, depicting the Roman victory in the Dacian war. These served as forms of military propaganda and justified Trajan’s campaign against their neighbors along the Danubian river. They also served to commemorate Trajan’s militaristic achievements. However, archaeologists now speculate that Trajan’s column was not only a commemorative monument, but possibly a funerary monument. There are several lines of evidence that suggests that Trajan may have intended to use the Column as his final burial site from the outset.

II. Description
Currently, only the Markets of Trajan and the 140 foot-tall Trajan column are still intact. 140 feet is equal to the height of the mound that was removed to build the Trajan forum. An inscription on the pedestal of the Trajan columns reads, “ad declarandum quantae altitudinis/mons et locus tant(is ope) ribus sit egestus,” which translates to “in order to show how lofty had been the mountain- and the site for such mighty works was nothing less- which had been cleared away.” Although the rest of the forum lay in ruins, 3-D modeling has been used to assess what the forum and column would have looked like in Trajan’s era (Fig 1). To the south of the column would have stood the Basilica Ulpia, to the north the Temple of Divine Trajan, and to the east and west Greek and Latin libraries. This was not an innovative concept by any means; by Trajan’s era, Rome already had several forums. However, the Trajan Market soon became one Rome’s most famous shopping malls and the forum was soon filled with the bustle of daily Roman activity. Interestingly, in Trajan’s era, entrance to the forum was only viable through a single passageway under a triumphal arch. Through the arch lay a large central plaza paved with slabs of neutral white marble. In the middle of the piazza, there stood a 12-meter tall equestrian statue of Trajan made of bronze. Beyond the statue was the grandest of the forum’s buildings, the Basilica Ulpia, a law court named after Trajan’s family. This two-story building boasted of both Corinthian and Ionic columns. Giallo antico, a golden and purple-veined Tunisian marble, lined the steps to the Basilica Ulpia and the other Trajan structures. Beyond the Basilica Ulpa is the Trajan Column, a 140-foot tall structure covered in spiraling friezes. The column is made up of 17 marble drums, all placed atop one another. The iconographs run continuously counterclock-wise on the column, there is only one break that symbolizes the time lapse between the first and second Dacian war. The reliefs depict Trajan’s account of the Dacian wars. The first half of the column illustrates the small battles, while the second half of the column depicts the burning of the Dacian capital and the suicide of King Decebalus and his loyal followers (Figure 4). The scenes etched into the Column read like a script and run continuously in chronological order. The base of the column is a cube made up of square slabs of marble 17 feet in length. One side of the base has a door that leads into an opening; this used to hold the urn of Trajan and his wife Potina until it was stolen in the Middle Ages (Figure 6).

(photo missing)

Figure 1: Here is a photo of the layout of Trajan's Forum. Notice the size of the courtyard in which Trajan's Forum stood. The piazza upon entrance into Trajan's Forum measured 80 meters by 120 meters, this is large enough to hold the entire Forum of Augustus. The piazza was covered in beautiful slabs of a neutral white marble, imagine the richness and opulence of this grandeur public space.

(photo missing)

Figure 2. An alternative view of Trajan's Forum.

(photo missing)

Figure 3. A drawing of the Trajan's Column. Standing over 140 feet tall, Trajan's Column is one of the most well-preserved historical documentation of military history. The scultural friezes wrapping around the Column are etched in incredible detail.

Figure 4. 3-D modeling has allowed us to envision what the Forum of Trajan must have looked like to ancient Romans. An aerial view would have shown us Trajan's 12-foot bronze equestrian statue centered in the opulent piazza.

(photo missing)

Figure 5. This figure shows us an enlargement of the base of Trajan's Column which held a chamber. The chamber features a double door opening adorned by an inscription and friezes of eagles, victories, and weaponry.

Figure 6. A modern day view of the Forum of Trajan. Although Trajan's Column

 and the Market of Trajan remain intact, the rest of the Forum lay in ruins. The only reminders of the Basilica Ulpia 

are the column in the foreground of the picture. The Forum lay about 15 feet below street level 

and are a daily reminder to Romans about the contrast of new and old and their ever evolving identity in the world today. 

III. Function
The intended function of Trajan’s column is still debated today. After Trajan’s death on August 8th of A.D. 117, his body was cremated and his ashes returned to Rome in a golden urn where it was placed in the chamber of Trajan’s Column. Although ancient Roman’s accepted the column as an honorary monument commemorating Trajan’s victory over the Dacians, analysis of the spiraling friezes and the structural design of the base suggests that Trajan’s column itself may be a burial chamber of historic proportions. The column may have been built as Trajan’s sepulcher and as an imperial funerary monument.

Several lines of evidence support this claim. The first is that a chamber was built into the Column’s base. This chamber would have presented several engineering complications considering the sheer size of the Column. Furthermore, Marcus Aurelius’s Column is a commemorative column that does not include a chamber. Secondly, there is a structural similarity between the design of the Column’s base and a funerary altar commonly seen in Trajan’s era. This altar features a double door opening, an inscription, and representation of eagles, victories and weaponry. These symbols suggest the original purpose of the Column, to glorify Trajan’s victory over their Danubian neighbors and his victory over death in apotheosis. Futhermore, columns had previously been used as a type of funerary monument. One such example is the column Numerius Erennius Celso assembled for his wife, Esquilla Polla. This particular funerary column is located near Porta di Nola. As a result, historians have suggested that Trajan superimposed these two different funerary monuments and intentionally designed the Column for use as his final resting place.

Upon inspection, the iconographs located throughout the forum suggest Trajan’s intentions from the outset. Griffins located on the spiraling frieze of the Column and the forum entrance symbolized military power. However, Griffins were also associated with the two gods Apollo and Dionysos, the two gods who ruled over the dead and controlled apotheosis.

Romans were pessimistic about the existence of an afterlife so they believed that the best way to commemorate a person after death was by rituals and maintenance of the tomb. It has been suggested that the spiraling frieze on the Column was purposefully designed to force the onlooker to interact with the Column by encircling it in a counterclockwise fashion. Coincidentally, this is similar to an ancient Roman ritual used to commemorate the dead, known as “active memory perpetuation.” This rite had previously been used by Augustus’s mausoleum. Both the Mausoleum of Augustus and Trajan’s Column force onlookers to circumambulate the tomb. The Romans associated the circle with magical properties and they believe that circumambulating the tomb concentrated power at the middle of the circle. This defined the area of the tomb, protecting it and it had a cathartic effect. If this was the case, then Trajan had perfected the forum to a tee. The market would attract shoppers daily, while the Basilica Ulpia would create the need for court visitors so Trajan’s remains would be actively commemorated daily.

Also, inside the Column is a helical staircase that continuously winds up the length of the Column. Inside, there are 43 small windows and little light but at the top of the Column, onlookers are greeted by the magnificent sight of the forum. The juxtaposition of darkness inside the staircase and the brightness at the end was possibly meant to disorient viewers. Once outside again, onlookers are forced to acknowledge Trajan’s greatness as they stare in awe at the forum.

IV. Patrons Goals/Concerns
Trajan wanted there to be no question as to his contribution to Rome’s success. It was under his reign that Rome climaxed; its borders extended from the Lower Rhine to the Black Sea. He wanted to be remembered as a great benefactor of Rome and built the forum as a commemorative monument. Trajan justified to the Romans the need for the Dacian War through political propaganda. He built a grandeur public space to illustrate the profitability of the Dacian War. Trajan may have designated the Column from the outset as his final resting place. It is debatable whether the Column is a primary funerary monument but the iconographs on the frieze support this argument. The depiction of priestesses sacrificing bulls hints at Trajan’s victory over death, therefore symbolizing his divinity. Also, the portico around the Column has two griffins; this is depicted many times and it represents “divine vengeance.” Sphinxes are etched inside of the colonnade to protect the dweller from evil and are usually connected with a hero’s burial. Trajan’s use of sphinxes in the Column emulates Augustus, whose favorite symbol was also the sphinx.

Trajan would not have been able to public declare the Column as his funerary monument because the ancient Romans would have considered this too presumptive. The Column is located within the pomerium, or the sacred boundary of the city of Rome and Julius Caesar’s assassination may have been connected to his declaration of a funerary monument inside the pomerium. Therefore, the spiraling frieze causes the onlooker to take an active role in commemorating Trajan by circumambulating the Column counterclockwise. The circumambulation directs power to the center of the circle and protects the tomb. Trajan felt that, by having a funerary monument in such a public space, he would continue to be commemorated for his contribution to Rome long after his death. You never truly die if you continue to live on in other’s memories so having this beautiful column made him immortal in a way. His name and life became immortalized, no longer a man, but a deified hero.

V. Conclusion
Trajan’s Column is still studied today by visitors from all over the world. Visitors come to gawk at the sheer size of the column and the iconographic representation etched into the Column in spiraling friezes reveal Trajan’s account of the Dacian Wars. Although we do not know to what extent Trajan’s account influenced the portrayal of these etches, this Column reveals to modern Romans and visitors alike the lifestyle of ancient Roman warriors. On the Columns, the Dacians are depicted as submissive, their heads are held low as they admit defeat to the Romans and as they watch their beautiful capital, Sarmizegestusa burn to the ground and their beloved King commit suicide. The Dacians were well-known for their prosperous economy, which included the mining of precious stones. Trajan used this to his advantage and brought beautiful supplies of purple, white and gold-veined marble as well as gold to erect a forum, market, and Column in his honor. The forum would become filled with activity daily, as the market was comparable to a modern-day shopping mall where ancient Romans would purchase household materials, spices, and rich clothing. Even the steps of the Forum were paved with the most beautiful of marble and it has never been rivaled in size. By offering the Forum as a public space to all Romans, Trajan showed his concern for all Roman citizens. Visitors still continue to circumabulate the Column today. The pictures tell us the story of Trajan and his Roman warriors and their militaristic victory. One author described the Column as history in pictures. There is no historical writing documenting Trajan’s Dacian War. From studying the etches in detail, we can presume what kind of armor the Romans wore and even daily activity in preparation for battle. The sculptured frieze contain incredible detail and are placed to suggest abstract ideas. This type of “commemorative language” was commonly used by Romans in ancient times. Trajan’s Column was later emulated by Hadrian, who built a Mausoleum with a square base and two circular drums. Through the vestibule, into a square atrium, visitors move in a counterclockwise rotation throughout the tomb.

Today, visitors continue to awe at the engineering marvel of Trajan’s tomb. Recent papers have proposed possible mechanisms by which ancients Romans could have superimposed 17 blocks of Luna marble, but it was no easy task. Each block weighed between 25 to 77 tons. This monument continues to influence modern Romans to commemorate Trajan’s victory. Now sitting 15 feet below street level, the contrast of old and new sheds light into Rome’s evolving identity.


VI. Surprises/Interesting Facts
An interesting fact that I learned was that fornix in Italian actually refers to an arch-like structure. However, the term “fornication,” which means sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other” is derived from fornix. The term is first recorded in the dictionary in Middle English in 1303. This is because unmarried couples in Rome often went beneath arches for sexual activity.

Rome is now a smog-filled city, struggling to deal with the pollution that has resulted from its high population density. The chemical pollution increases the deterioration of lime and marble, of which Trajan’s column is composed. However, investigation has shown that lichens also contribute to the decomposition of these two stones. Ironically however, lichens no longer grow on Trajan’s column because of Rome’s pollution.


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

Packer, James. “Trajan's Glorious Forum.” Archaeology Jan./Feb. 1998:32-41.

Meneghini, Roberto. "The Imperial Forums and Trajan Market." Rome: F.lli Palombi, c1993.

Coarelli, Filippo. "The Column of Trajan." Rome : Colombo : German Archaelogical Institutde, c2000.

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

Rossi, Lino. “Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars.” New York: Cornell Univerity Press, 1971.

Richmond, Sir Ian. “Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column.” London: The British School at Rome, 1982.

The Arch of Titus

Laura Eiford
Honors in Rome - Summer 2006

The Arch of Titus stands across the summit of the Via Sacra, looking down on the Forum Romanum, was built as a celebration of the victory of then-legate Titus (later emperor) in the 70 AD campaign in Jerusalem. The triumphal arch commemorates in stone relief the capture of Jerusalem and the spoils of the Temple, as well as Titus’ postmortem deification. However, the once-detailed stonework of the sections of the Arch of Titus, the details of the Arch’s founding, its builder, when it was built, even what exactly is represented on the reliefs of the Arch have been lost in the nearly two millennia since the Arch’s inception, leaving its scholars undecided as to whether the Arch’s depictions may used as veritable pieces of historical evidence.

DESCRIPTION
The similarity of the present Arch to the original is singularly important in the consideration of the Arch of Titus as historical evidence. The Arch of Titus, as it stands now, with a simple podium on each side rooted in a base strengthening the overall arch design, has a single opening flanked by columns on either side. These columns are the first known example of the Composite Order, used widely in triumphal arches or other architectural celebrations of imperial power, perhaps because it was the only order originating in Rome (see Figure 1.G). However, this order may have been invented as much as a century earlier, during the Augustine era. The Order itself is a combination of the Corinthian order with two lower rows of acanthus leaves and four decorated volutes of the Ionic order as well (Adam 98). These columns are connected at the top by a soffit, the inner surface just below the arch, decorated by deeply recessed coffers and the apothesis of Titus, an engraved image of Titus flying to the sky on an eagle’s back. Above the soffit, rests the keystone, top and center, beautifully carved with the figures of Roma and Fortuna (see Figure 1.A). The area with the dedication, the attic story, is engraved “SENATATVS POPVLVS QVE ROMANVS DIVO TITO DIVI VESPASIAN F. VESPASIANO AVGVSTO,” roughly translated from Latin “The Senate and the People of Rome to the Divine Titus, son of the divine Vespasian.” Also engraved, though further down on the columns, are two friezes, on one side, the Emperor Titus in a triumphal car, and on the other, the representation of the spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem.

Figure 1: The Arch of Titus architectural layout as sketched in Boethius’ History of Architecture. 

The arch as it stood, roughly two millennia ago is not so straightforward. In more recent times, we know that the dedication we read today was originally filled with bronze letters, and the arch was topped with bronze quadriga though these precious metals were likely melted down (See Figure 1.F). In the Middle Ages, the fornix of the arch was incorporated into the Frangipane Castle, allowing better preservation of the remaining portions of the Arch, though many pieces from the edges of the Arch were lost. In 1822, the architect Valadier restored portions of the Arch using travertine, to distinguish restoration from the Pentelic marble original (Batsford 83). Some of the heads on the figures in high relief were lost as well, though scholars have attempted to visualize the figures due to replications in paintings such as a drawing at Windsor of the frieze of the arch of Titus (Frothingham 479).

FUNCTION: TRIUMPHAL ARCHES IN ROME
In examining the friezes and depictions of the Arch, its original function and motives, including those of its builders, must be considered. Traditionally, triumphal arches were used as part of the grand procession of the triumphal general and his soldiers to enter Roma, sans weapons, which allowed the victors to cleanse themselves of the muck of war—physically and spiritually, to honor the gods and acknowledge the heaven’s contribution to Rome’s victory, and to popularize the war by literally parading its success. Due to the risk inherent in ‘inviting’ an armed mass into the city, the army camped instead in the Campus Martinus, until formally invited by the Senate to parade into the city, carrying with them the spoils, as shown on the Arch itself. Uniquely, the Arch of Titus depicts the procession, with the characters facing same direction they would have faced when entering the city, Titus in his chariot on one side, his spoils carried by conquered slaves on the other. This depiction allowed, and continues to allow, viewers and any who walk the Via Sacra, to ‘participate’ in the now-ancient procession and glorification as well.

The Arch’s deification of Titus is unquestionable, from the inscription dedicating the Arch to “Divot Tito,” the divine Titus, to the relief of the Triumph of Titus, illustrating Titus in a chariot, center of a triumphal procession, with Victory riding the chariot beside him and wreathing him in laurels, and a goddess (though now missing a head, identifiable as either Roma or Valor) leading the horses. Following the chariot is a young man, representative of the Roman people, and an older man, representative of the Senate. Also, a small relief shows the apotheosis of Titus, as he flies to the heavens on the back of an eagle; depicting him joining the gods in the heavens. The Arch celebrates Titus as a deity, in the presence of goddesses, at the summit of the road through the Roman Forum, placing Titus and his arch on high.

As mentioned, Titus is not the only one glorified by the Arch. The most controversial relief is the Relief of the Spoils of the Jerusalem (70 AD), depicting the triumph that was thought to have culminated the Jewish Wars (66-73 AD). The relief shows the sacred treasures being brought in procession: the sacred seven-branched Menorah, the sacred Table, two receptacles, and two trumpets. There is controversy over whether the Menorah and Table shown are the sacred Jewish artifacts which, according to rabbinical teachings, were prescribed by God to Moses to be placed in the Temple of Jerusalem, and were so holy that it was forbidden, again by God, to make seven-branched Menorahs or copies in gold or any form of metal (and in some sects even in wood). Whether the relief is historically accurate is beside the point, at least as far as glorification of the Romans goes, the ability of the Roman army to carry treasures from the interior of the Temple, which were requested to be left in the Temple by God according to the Jewish, signifies a decisive victory of the Romans militarily and spiritually. Historically, the Roman Empire demonstrated an amazing ability to triumph militarily and hold land by cultural/spiritual assimilation. During this particular time, the conflict between the Jewish and Romans was still brewing, making Roman triumph, especially over the Jewish of emphatic significance in the Arch of Titus.

Perched as it is, atop the Roman Forum, at the crest of the Via Sacra, the triumphal procession, as described by Josephus, a Roman historian who accompanied Titus during the sacking of Jerusalem, was allowed to enter the skirts of the city, and wind its way through the Porta Triumphalis, then the Forum Boarium, Circus Maximus, and three theaters, acquiring a large crowd to view the captured golden table and menorah, as well as other spoils of the war, before cresting the hill, where all the most important buildings and citizens of Rome could clearly view the gathered mass. Thus, the arch served as a portal for Titus and the imperium to remind the populace, and in all likelihood the Senate as well, of the greatness of his accomplishments, and cement them in stone in perpetua.

PROBABLE PATRONS
The original builders and date of the Arch of Titus is much debated. Many of the hints of its date of origin come from the form of the Arch itself. This specific evidence narrows the date slightly:

I. The Arch was completed after the death of Titus himself, as he is referred to on the inscription as divus, god, and traditionally Roman emperors were deified only after death. Additionally, McFayden postulates that the ascent into heaven is the subject of the relief on the inner vault of the arch (131).
II. The Arch was completed after the creation of the “tomb of the Haterii” as the Arch is represented on one of the reliefs. However the fragments in the Lateran Museum cannot be accurately dated, though their artistic style suggests not earlier than Trajan and possibly as late as 135 A.D.

Figure 2: A Comparative Timeline of the Emperors of Rome and Jewish-Roman Conflicts.

Arguments for building of the Arch are largely based motives for building: either pro-Titus or pro-Roman/anti-Jewish time periods. These include directly after Titus’s or Domitian’s deaths (pro-Titus) and after Jewish defeats or rebellious outbursts in Jerusalem. (81-135 AD: Range of Potential Times for Arch Completion)


In addition to form, the motive for building is largely used to aid in arguments for or against a certain builder. Titus, for instance, likely did not finish the building of the arch, not only because of the time crunch before his death, but because to deify himself, as a Roman, was just not done.

As the argument goes, his brother and successor, Domitian, another candidate as a builder, likely built the Arch as glorification of Titus would have been at a peak directly after Titus’ death and architectural style is similar to early Domitian architecture, including the completion of the Colosseum and the Temple of Vespasian, restoration after the fire of 80AD on the Temple of Jupiter, and the original building of the Flavian Palace and the Piazza Navona, much of which was built by his favored architect, Rabirius (Sear 145, McFayden 122, Boethius 227). However, Domitian was questionable due to his notorious jealously of his brother especially of Titus’ military triumphs, according to McFayden (122). In the case of the sacking of Jerusalem, Titus completed the work his father and emperor, Vespasian, had half finished, with Vespasian’s legatus and according to constitutional law, Titus had no formal glory for Jerusalem during his own time though his father allowed him to share in the triumph, a fact his brother would be unlikely to overlook. However, Domitian did allow Titus’ deification, though this is dismissed by McFayden as following the traditional deification that had occurred during the time of his father and brother (135). This deification emphasized the merits and imperial dignity of the Flavian family who had been Italian tradesmen until Vespasian and his brother attained senatorial rank, and some believe that the previous emperor, paranoid Nero, only allowed Vespasian to attain rank due to the unlikeliness that a commoner would ever be a contender for the throne. Since unlike father and brother, Domitian had no military triumphs to back his claim to the throne, only his descent placed him as emperor; better descent from deities than from merchants.

Domitian, unlike his militarily-talented brother, was not as popular with the nobility. His attempts to deify his entire family, from aunt to young son, and increase his own dignity only served to alienate the nobility. When aristocrats participated in a series of conspiracies, Domitian responded with repressive measures, confiscations, exiles, and executions; the last years of his reign were spent in persecution of the senatorial class, until his assassination in 96 A.D.

After Domitian, the Senate elected M. Cocceius Nerva as emperor. To placate the Flavian-loyal soldiers, the emperor associated with M. Ulpius Trajanus, the most honored general of his day. Both men are also candidates for builders of the Arch. After Domitian’s death, at the first Senate meeting, his statues and triumphal arches were demolished, his name erased from inscriptions, and most of his policies were reversed. As part of this anti-Domitian outlash Titus’s memory was exalted. Though previously an unpopular emperor due to his harshness and merchant-descent, during this period, Titus was used by historians as a contrast to the harsher Domitian; his virtues were emphasized. Colleges and the temples changed to incorporated him further, one even designates itself as “the college that worships Titus and the other Flavians” (McFayden 141). For these reasons, McFayden strongly postulates that the Arch of Titus was not built during Domitian's time, but during the period of late Nerva or early Trajan reign.
However, whichever builder decided to build the arch, its majestic 15m were built to honor and glorify Titus, to make the viewer look up in awe at the accomplishments of Titus in Jerusalem, and by extension, Rome.


CONCLUSION
The Arch of Titus, especially its reliefs, has echoes in artwork throughout Western history and the history of Jerusalem. Surprisingly, much of the scholarship about the Arch of Titus is based in part on artwork from the Renaissance and earlier, featuring the Arch.

Figure 3: The Spoils of Jerusalem Relief as depicted by Yarden. Note the prominence of the menorah and other sacred Jewish artifacts from the Temple.

Though the Arch is the most preserved ‘premier’ of the Composite Order, which dominated the style of triumphal arches through the Renaissance, surprisingly, it is the Relief of the Spoils of the Temple of Jerusalem which is one of the most discussed aspects of the Arch. The Arch of Titus possibly shows one of the most longstanding and apparent histories of the lost menorah from the Temple of Jerusalem, a holy object that many Jewish still wish to recover. Some, like H. Strauss in Encyclopaedia Judaica, believe that “The most important testimony for the form of the Temple menorah is the candelabrum on the Arch of Titus…which ought to be considered in conjunction with Josephus’ description” (Yarden 38). Though there are many doubts as to whether the Arch shows the actual menorah in question, due to slight variants in its form from the Biblical prescription and the account of historian Josephus. However, despite questionable identification, this lost Jewish treasure appears to have been captured by Titus, and then placed in the Temple of Peace in Rome till 190, when the temple burned down, though treasure was recovered and replaced in 408 till when the building was destroyed by lightening or earthquake. Afterwards, 455 saw the sack of Rome, wherein a menorah was carried off by the Geiseric the Vandal to Carthage, followed by Justinian’s conquering of the Vandal kingdom in 533, whereupon he reportedly moved the “treasures of the Jews” to Constantine. In 614 it may have been returned to Jerusalem by the Sassanians, or may have been moved from Rome to Constantinople with the transfer of the capital in 330. The relief of the menorah is the only evidence of the artifact so permanently displayed correctly situated to be the correct menorah (the prominent appearance of the menorah on the relief with the spoils so neatly colludes with the loss of the golden menorah at the Temple that it is easy to believe that the two menorahs are one and the same) and so remains of central significance to many Jewish. Recently (2003) President of Israel, Moshe Katzav, requested that the Prime Minister of the Vatican, Cardinal Angelo Sudano, prepare a list of the treasures held in the Vatican, in hopes of recovering the golden seven-branched menorah, though as of yet the Vatican has not returned any artifacts, predominately the golden menorah which once graced the Second Temple or Temple of Jerusalem.

In a way, the symbolism of the menorah has already returned to Israel. Directly after the formation of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, E.L. Sikenik was asked to suggest a suitable state emblem. In answer, he created a coat of arms which consists of a shield with the menorah, as it appears on the Arch of Titus, in the center of a field with an olive branch on both sides and the word “Israel” in Hebrew connecting the branches. Ironically, the Arch’s relief, which once celebrated the defeat of the Jewish now, is proudly displayed on their national flag, as a celebration instead of the formation of a nation.

Figure 4: The menorah from the Arch of Titus, Spoils of Jerusalem relief as depicted by Yarden (left) as compared with the menorah on the original flag of the State of Israel (right).

The Arch of Titus, though nearing its second millennia, is still discussed as a point of heated debate, especially whether such a monument could be used as historical reference. In many of the points of controversy: who built the arch, when it was built (though the textbook-attributed date is often 81-2 AD), whether the menorah shown is the sacred menorah whose unique building was decreed to the Jewish specifically by God according to rabbinical teachings, and what the Arch looked like before rains, wind, and time washed many of the figure’s faces from the stone, all tie into this theme. The Arch has collected its own history of preservation throughout the years, and continues to do so, as Valadier began, and M. Chiara Metallo and team continue as they research the effects of pollution on the marble-faced Arch of Titus and surrounding area. But what are they preserving—a testimony to triumph certainly, a piece of a procession probably, and perhaps even a depiction of historical fact. The surviving controversies, as well as the marble, still concern us today, as Israel reminds us, especially in light of the central roll of religious conflicts still going on around the world, now between Christianity and Islam. The keys to the controversies of the Arch, like the Temple menorah are lost to us today, either eroded or yet to be discovered, buried under ruins, leaving us to wonder and conjecture at their answers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Robert. Classical Architecture: A Complete Handbook. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1990.

Axel Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins. Etruscan and Roman Architecture. Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd., 1970.

Frothingham, A.L. “A Lost Section of the Frieze of the Arch of Titus.” American Journal of Archaeology. 18. 4 (1914): 479-483.

Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Titus. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984.

McFayden, Donald. “The Date of the Arch of Titus.” The Classical Journal, 11.3 (1915): 131-141.

Sear, Frank. Roman Architecture. London, England: Batsford Academic and Educational Limited, 1982.

Yarden, Leon. The Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus: A Reinvestigation. Stockholm, Distributor Paul Astroms forlag, 1991.

The Most Celebrated Edifice in the World

Julia Schwartz
Honors in Rome - Summer 2006

A photo of the Pantheon at night.

The Roman Civilization has undoubtedly impacted how people experience their lives today. But nowhere is this impact stronger than in the buildings and art that we see. One particular building has had a profound influence on such monumental structures such as St. Peter’s building in Rome and the capitol building in America: the Pantheon. A monument in itself, the Pantheon is the best preserved of all ancient Roman structures. It is a cultural, architectural and engineering icon. So, why do people like the Pantheon so much? Because people’s tastes are so different, there cannot be one absolute explanation. But perhaps understanding one possible purpose of the pantheon might enable us to discern some basic principles that drive the pantheon’s appeal. One purpose of the Pantheon is to represent authority. By demonstrating power, relating the Roman Empire to the heavens and combining both Greek and Roman architecture into one building, Hadrian built the Pantheon as a representation of Rome’s universal authority over the Roman Empire.

However, before I begin, I’d like to define what I’m arguing about. Many disagreements arise between two parties because they are using different definitions for their terms, and so before we begin I’d like to explain what I mean by “authority”. I define authority as the ability of someone to easily extract obedience from others based off of others’ belief that this person is for some reason allowed to command them. Hadrian would certainly need as much authority as possible in order to execute his orders with minimal resistance.

Photo of a bust of Hadrian

Now that we know what we’re arguing about, let us all play a quick game of catch-up as we review the Pantheon’s dramatic history. The emperor who first built the pantheon was actually Marcus Agrippa. Agrippa built the Pantheon in 25 BC., but after burning down, being restored, and again being struck down by lightning, the Pantheon could hardly be called a building when Hadrian came to power (DuTemple 9). Recognizing that this charred rubble might not reflect well on the glory of the Roman empire, Hadrian decided to redesign and rebuild the Pantheon from the foundation up. Nobody knows the details of who designed the Pantheon, or when exactly building began, but it is generally agreed that the idea of the Pantheon was Hadrian’s, and that building started around 118 AD and ended around 128 AD (MacDonald 12)(DuTemple 24). Time passed, and eventually the Pantheon fell into disrepair along with the Roman Empire. The flooding of the Tiber river raised the ground around the pantheon, and the rain through the oculus combined with the soil that somehow was deposited in the dome nurtured a small forest within the pantheon’s heavenly confines (DuTemple 58). The Pantheon was finally saved when in the year 609 Emperor Phocas (the emperor of Byzantium) gave permission for Pope Boniface IV to consecrate the Pantheon as a church (MacDonald 14). This helped greatly to preserve the Pantheon until a few decades ago when it was restored to its current state. Thanks to looters and the Tiber’s regular flooding, the pantheon today is significantly less decorated and sits much lower than it did during Hadrian’s rule, but except for these minor differences, the Pantheon is essentially the same as it was almost 2000 years ago.

A marked floor plan of the Pantheon

The Pantheon itself is made up of three distinct sections: the porch, the domed rotunda, and the intermediate block which connects the two. The Pantheon was originally situated on top of a flight of steep stairs, which led to the front porch. This flight of stairs gave the ancient roman viewer quite an imposing impression of the Pantheon. The Pantheon’s front porch is similar to a traditional Roman temple borrowed from the Greek form. In front are eight gigantic marble monolithic columns which carry a triangular stone pediment. Behind the first row of columns are two additional rows of four columns each which form three aisles leading up to the temple front (MacDonald 28). The marble monoliths represent immense power because of their size, which only a very powerful and wealthy empire could afford to quarry, carve, and then roll on logs all the way from Egypt.

The Pantheon's porch, and Agrippa's inscription

The front of the stone pediment bears its founder’s signature: “M AGRIPPA LF COS TERTIUM FECIT (Marcus Agrippa, consul for the third time, built this)” (Macdonald 13). Why Hadrian chose Agrippa’s name instead of his own is a mystery. One scholar argues that “[Hadrian] wanted it understood as a restoration of Agrippa’s building is in keeping with his intention of vindicating the Imperial order” (McEwen 60). Because Marcus Agrippa was a close friend of Octavian Augustus, Rome’s first and greatest emperor, putting Agrippa’s name on the Pantheon connects the Pantheon to the Roman Emperor, and where he resided: Rome. This, combined with the Pantheon’s location (it is in the very center of Rome) made the Pantheon a building closely connected to the heart of the Roman Empire: Rome.

One other interesting fact about the Pantheon’s porch is that Hadrian made a special effort to turn the Pantheon’s porch around to make it face north, which in the Etruscan sky system is where Janus, the god of doorways, resides (McEwen 62). To ancient Romans, for whom the Etruscan sky system was quite important, this coincidental cardinality served to intimately connect the Pantheon with the sky and thus the gods.

Two of the best ways to demonstrate authority are to demonstrate power and a connection to the gods, because both imply control over others. Because the Pantheon’s porch demonstrates both of the above aspects and connects itself to Rome, the porch is a very strong demonstration of authority of Rome over the Empire.

But the most amazing part of the Pantheon is the domed rotunda that the porch leads into. From the outside, the rotunda is a cylindrical wall of brick with openings strewn here and there, and a bowl-shaped dome (MacDonald 33). A little more than half of the dome is made up of step-like circular rings, which was yet another engineering trick used in the Pantheon to support the massive dome. (MacDonald 33). At the very top of this dome is a giant hole called an oculus 30 feet in diameter which leads inside.

A painting of the Pantheon's dome (interior).

The dome’s modest bowl-shaped exterior completely belies the spherical dome inside. The rotunda itself is a behemoth of a structure “The rotunda of the Pantheon rests of a large circle of concrete There are, by calculation about 10,000 metric tons of it”(McEwen 63). These 10,000 metrics tons were needed simply as a foundation to hold up the building. The rotunda itself was 147 feet in diameter, and was as tall as it was wide. The large proportions of the building are yet another display of the Empire’s vast resources and power.

The pantheon's spherical dome with its square recesses (called coffers)

The spherical dome, tiled with small square recesses, is awe-inspiring. During Hadrian’s time, building such a perfectly shaped dome must have been an incredible challenge, and would only have been done for a very good reason. One possibility for making the dome spherical was to connect the Pantheon more closely with the heavens, which the Romans believed to be spherical at the time (DuTemple 6). Cassius Dio, a historian who lived about 100 years after Hadrian, says, “[the Pantheon’s] vaulted roof resembles the heavens” (McEwen 65). Some scholars have even gone as far as arguing that there are sixteen divisions in the Pantheon which correspond to the 16 parts of the Etruscan sky, which was the celestial world in which the gods resided (McEwen 61). The oculus in the very center of the dome is another costly design choice (it necessitated a drainage system for when it rained) which probably was meant to connect the Pantheon to the heavens. “The sun, said the ancients, is the eye of Zeus, and in Hadrian’s Pantheon the greatest of gods was epiphanized in light.” (MacDonald 91). Including the oculus brought the greatest of the gods down to earth in an almost tangible form. The Pantheon’s dome, like the porch, represents power and again links the Roman Empire to the omnipotent gods watching over. The size and spherical dome give such a strong impression that again the power and gods the dome represents make it a very strong symbol of authority.

A diagram of the Pantheon (side view) with the intermediate wall marked

The third and most intriguing portion of the Pantheon is the intermediate block which connects the porch to the Rotunda. It is a rectangular block with some stairs and two rooms. What is fascinating though, is what this connection of the porch and dome implies. By combining the more roman dome with the Greek temple entrance, Hadrian was blending the two greatest civilizations together to create the most symbolically powerful building in Rome. “Hadrian’s Pantheon stood at the center, the symbol above all others of that lost age when Mediterranean lands and Europe were united”(MacDonald 24). The Pantheon is a symbol for not one but two empires, and whenever people look at it now, or then, they relate the building to these Empires, and to the power and authority that goes with them.

Of course, the Pantheon wasn’t just a monument for ancient Romans to look at; it was actually used by both Hadrian and the public for many purposes. Ostensibly, the Pantheon is a Roman temple. In fact the etymology of the word ‘pantheon’ means ‘all gods’, and it was, as its name suggested, a temple for all the gods (DuTemple p9). However, “the Pantheon also served as one of the emperor’s official places of business. “Hadrian wanted to see the heavens and the Roman Empire represented in the same place” (DuTemple 6). The Pantheon was used (and some scholars even argue it was meant) as an audience hall, and “Cassius Dio tells us that Hadrian used to hold court [in the Pantheon]”(McEwen 57)(Leacroft 45). Today the Pantheon is still a Catholic church, holding services on Sundays and holidays, but most of the time it is filled with wide-eyed people of all religions, from all around the world. Even though the Pantheon was a temple, it was still very much a place for people. Not only did Hadrian hold court here, but Raphael, King Victor Emmanual II (the first king of Italy), and Umberto I were actually buried underneath the Pantheon (MacDonald 18). The Pantheon was a place for the people and for the gods, further connecting Rome with the gods. Once again, because the gods have control over the people, and the Rome is related to the gods, citizens would see in the pantheon a reminder that just like the gods, the empire is something that needs to be unequivocally obeyed. Even in its use the Pantheon represented (and still represents) authority.

However, Hadrian probably wouldn’t spend so much of Rome’s effort on a building that represented authority if he didn’t need it in the first place. But Hadrian did need a building which represented universal authority. Despite his genius, Hadrian was an unpopular emperor for several reasons. First, Hadrian did not want to continue expanding Rome as his predecessor Trajan had done. Hadrian ruled in the heyday of the Roman Empire, and “He had already made it clear that he favored a policy of ‘peace retrenchment and reform’”(Perowne 47). Hadrian built structures such as the Roman wall in England to mark off his borders and keep the barbaric Europeans from coming in. This was an incredibly unpopular decision because Romans didn’t see progress in an Empire that wasn’t expanding its borders. Also, some people doubted the legitimacy of Trajan’s adoption of Hadrian as emperor, and thought he was a fake. In fact, four senators even plotted to assassinate Hadrian. These popular senators were quickly put to death after news of the plot got to Hadrian, which created even more resentment for the emperor (DuTemple 14).

To maintain power, Hadrian needed a building to demonstrate that he was still incredibly powerful and should be obeyed. And since “the Roman Empire was at the height of its powers…A newly designed Pantheon, perfect in its construction and stunning in its beauty, could reflect the symmetry and power of the Roman Empire”(Dutemple 9).

One final motivation for building the Pantheon as a symbol for authority was that Hadrian needed to support his view of Rome as the supreme authority over the entire empire. “Hadrian was an innovator…he had conceived a new form of polity, namely the empire as a family of provinces, the happy the prosperous children of the mother City, and of himself as its lord, should be the spiritual bond of the empire” (Perowne 67). Furthermore, Hadrian believed that the provinces of Rome should all be equal, and should “all be bound to the emperor not as to a master by fear, but as to a father by love” (Perowne 54). The Pantheon, powerful yet divine, was the exact awe-inspiring structure Hadrian needed. When he came to power, “Hadrian…knew well that is his idea of empire was to prevail, it must be demonstrated on the spot” (Perowne 67). One of the first buildings Hadrian built was the Pantheon, and it very likely that he built it for the purpose of demonstrating his idea of Rome as the supreme authority.

A photo of Urban VIII's inscription

At the back of the Pantheon’s porch, just to the right of the great bronze doors is an inscription made in 1632, created by Urban VIII, which reads, “The Pantheon [is] the most celebrated edifice in the world” (MacDonald 94). This statement can be confirmed with a quick glance at the illustrations of any book on the history of architecture to see the countless domed rotundas with temple-front porches (MacDonald 94). “It is one of the few archetypal images in Western culture” (MacDonald 94). Why has it been so influential? Nobody knows for sure, but we do have a few hints. First, “the Pantheon motif can be seen wherever authority, ecclesiastical or political demand a recognizable, stately architectural imagery” (MacDonald 131). Second, that by connecting the Greek and Roman cultures, and Rome with the Gods, Hadrian built the Pantheon as a symbol of authority to support the autority of the Roman Empire. The Pantheon was built for the gods, but its real audience was the people. It was built as a symbol not of the glory of Rome, but of the Roman Empire’s authority. Perhaps this might explain why we use this temple-front dome so much.

Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. Can you see the resemblence?

Works Cited
Davies, Paul, David Hemsoll, and Mark Wilson Jones, “The Pantheon: Triumph of Rome or Triumph of Compromise”, Art History, v. 10, June, 1987.

DuTemple, Lesley. The Pantheon. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 2003.

Leacroft, Helen and Richard. The Buildings of Ancient Rome. Leicester: Brockhampton Press, 1969.

MacDonald, William. The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

McEwen, Indra Kagis, "Hadrian's Rhetoric I: The Pantheon", RES, vol. 24, Autumn, 1993.

Perowne, Stuart. Hadrian. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.

Mussolini: Power, Propaganda and the Revival of the Roman Empire

Daniel Neuman
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006



Almost exactly 2000 years after the start of Roman Empire Mussolini sought to reestablish the same ideals, power, and patriotism of Ancient Rome. It was a meteoric rise to power for the shrewdly opportunistic Benito Mussolini, as well as the newly united country as a whole. He ascended to become “Il Duce” by capitalizing on the fears and instabilities of a depressed population. This was possible only through his iron fisted will and control of the media. His public displays, speeches, and propaganda had two core purposes, which he very skillfully achieved. The first was the to unite a factionalized and divided country under the patriotic ideals of romanita’, which was the greater culture and heritage of Ancient Rome. The second was complimentary, to fully restore the Rome to its “rightful” world empire. Fascism developed as a means to this end. Under Mussolini’s tutelage and shear will, fascism became a miraculous success story as a powerful rival to capitalism. Mussolini was hailed as a savior, even outside Italy in the US and Europe. This was especially true during the destitution of the Depression in the US. In this sense, fascism was seen as an attractive alternative to the failures of liberal democracy in stemming the tide of economic ruin. Mussolini ultimately was a master communicator, who was the right man to connect, unite, and uplift a struggling nation. He portrayed himself as the successor of Augustus, another master of propaganda, who was also a true provider for his citizens. Much like Augustus, Mussolini ventured upon a grand public building program, including the Via dell‘Impero and the city of EUR, which symbolically embodied and connected the ideals of the Ancient Empire to the Modern Empire. To better understand these symbols with their permeations of propaganda it is important to also understand the background to his rise to power.

The makings of the man were very humble to start. His father was a blacksmith and a fervent socialist, his mother a schoolteacher. He was a troubled youth, expelled from school several times, despite his good grades. He was quite brilliant, but rebellious and a bully much like his father. After school he returned as a schoolmaster himself, but was promptly fired for his controversial style. A voracious reader of Marx, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche, he soon gained prominence locally as an impressive orator. He then worked in propaganda for a trade union, proposing strikes and advocating violence as a means to enforce demands. A pacifist, he moved to Austria to avoid the draft, but was arrested for vagrancy and deported.

Upon return he moved to Forli to work as the editor of the Socialist newspaper La Lotta di Classe, “The Class Struggle.” His background here in media, combined with a forceful personality and a potent rhetorical voice later formed the basis of his highly successful propagandistic campaigns. He called himself the “antipatriotic,” preaching against and imprisoned for opposing Italy’s invasion of Turkey in 1911 with pacifist propaganda. Restless, he moved to Milan to become editor of the official Socialist newspaper, Avanti!, as well as becoming a powerful labor leader. As Italy approached entry into WWI , he became more outspoken, calling for the proletariat to unite into “one formidable fascio” in preparation to seize power, saying the only acceptable war was a class war to overthrow the government. With this in mind, and swayed by Marx’s teaching that class revolution usually follows war, he abruptly polarized his stance and openly advocated war. This prompted his resignation and expulsion from his editorship and the Socialist party.

From here he began his steep rise to power and gave birth to fascism. He started Il Popolo d’Italia in 1914 to advocate the prewar cause and the virtues of nationalism and militarism. His inner hope was that war would lead to the collapse of society and government, that would ultimately cede power to him. To organize this ambition, he founded the political movement of the Fasci di Combattimento in March 1919. His plan to win the prime minister post failed that year, but he did enter Parliament to posture for the future. With a crippling nationwide labor strike in 1922, time was ripe for Mussolini to make his move. He assembled 40,000 belligerent Blackshirts, his Fascist disciples in Naples with the intent of leading a March on Rome. With the parallel rise of anarchism and communism, combined with the failure of the liberal government, the shrewdly calculated Mussolini made a bold gamble. He threatened a violent coup with the March on Rome. Stuck between the crumbling of the existing democratic government and more radical threats of anarchism and communism, King Vittorio Emanuele III had no choice but to invite Mussolini to form a new government. The March on Rome now became a celebratory entry of propaganda displaying the destiny of Italy. Its significance is not to be disseminated from the triumphal entrances back into the capitol by victorious ancient emperors.


Mussolini was the right man at the right time for Italy. His rise was the product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle-class of postwar Italy, arising out of a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. He was an imposing charismatic leader and a revolutionary agitator:
“His physique was impressive, and his style of oratory, staccato and tautophonic, was superb. His attitudes were highly theatrical, his opinions were contradictory, his facts were often wrong, and his attacks were frequently malicious and misdirected; but his words were so dramatic, his metaphors so apt and striking, his vigorous, repetitive gestures so extraordinarily effective, that he rarely failed to impose his mood,” (Britannica).
For the depressed Italian people, these were the necessary qualities to impel change, especially in light of the “mutilated victory” at the hands of the Versailles Treaty, where the great Allied powers shamefully disregarded Italy. Despite “winning” WWI, the political climate was much the same as in destitute Germany. It is then not hard to see how authoritative charismatic leaders like Mussolini and Hitler could captivate a nation with promises of grandeur.

With the national humiliation from this, Mussolini sought to make a statement the world would not forget. He envisioned the literal rebirth of the glorious Roman Empire. His dream was the “Mare Nostrum,” “Our Mediterranean,” to extend from Palestine to Egypt, sweeping across Africa to Libya and Kenya. Although never fully realized, this rhetoric of empire building reawakened an aggressive nationalism that fueled Italy’s growth and restored dignity. Fervent nationalism led to blind following of Mussolini, as he was free to cultivate his own legend of “Il Duce.” Self proclaimed, “ Il Duce was a man who was always right and could solve all the problems of politics and economics,” while also being, “Italy’s man of destiny,” (Lazzaro). His background in media here was vital. With absolute, yet secretive control of the media to give the impression of a free press, Italians wholeheartedly followed him. However, his building plans, like the Master Plan of 1931, and economic revitalization were so successful that the US and Europe hailed him as a genius.

However, the world stared in horror as Mussolini finally acted on his promise to bring empire to Italy. In 1935 Mussolini invaded Ethiopia The League of Nations responded in unusual cohesion to impose sanctions on Italy’s resources. This was eventually the a major factor in Italy’s downfall as it was ill equipped and unprepared for a large scale modern war. Mussolini gave little care to world opinion and viewed sanctions as a slap on the wrist. If this was the worst the world could do to stop him, then a dominant Roman Empire was not just a dream. With the conquering of Ethiopia the following year, Mussolini in fact did declare the reestablishment of the Empire. This was commemorated by the monumental construction of the Via dell’Impero.


The Via dell’Impero was built in the feverish pace of 11 months to establish a direct link between the Ancient Empire and Modern Empire. The broad thoroughfare physically connected the most identifiable ancient symbol of the Coliseum with Mussolini’s Fascist headquarters in Piazza Venezia. More importantly it was a figurative symbol to seamlessly show the continuance of the Roman Empire. Dedicated in 1936 to a raucous crowd of 400,000, on the anniversary of the March on Rome, Mussolini declared:

“A great event has taken place…the fate of Ethiopia has been sealed. Our gleaming sword has cut through all the knots, and our African victory now shines with a pure light…Italy at last has her Empire, the Fascist Empire.”
These powerful words were enough to heal the wounds of a fractious and needy nation, as he commenced a revival of the mythical nation it once was. His vision of pan-romanita’ across Italy was realized with the inauguration of the Via dell’Impero accompanied by his speech. Romanita’ now was the “spirit of neither ancient nor modern Roman civilization, but rather uninterrupted continuation of glory through the centuries,” (Lazzaro). Furthermore though, “the endgame of romanita’ was empire,” as the “mission to spread Roman virtues and values throughout the world,” (Lazzaro).

Construction of the Via dell’Impero had drastic consequences, however. Mussolini’s propaganda machine had an affinity for inaugurating works on meaningful anniversaries, such as the March on Rome or Augustus’ birthday. With this, construction occurred with great haste and negligence towards ancient ruins with little documentation. The Via dell’Impero highlighted this, as Mussolini unearthed and carved out a vast swath of the Forum. The wanton demolition destroyed ruins, 8th century BC tombs, churches, and a Renaissance garden. This destruction was not controversial though because of his all consuming propaganda which permeated every aspect of culture. Mussolini used language to diminish the significance of the destroyed ruins, calling them “huts and tiny churches” (Lazzaro). Despite this horrific negligence in caring for the ancient past Mussolini was a major patron and propagator of archaeology, exhibitions, and scholarship of Ancient Rome. His main purpose, here, was to unite the people with images of, again, past and present.

Visual imagery substituted for a common language and culture. The She-wolf was a favorite symbol that recalled the mythical foundations of Rome and nurtured its destiny. Italians were to identify with Romulus and Remus, as they were too her offsprings, and thus equivalent to people of destiny. Mussolini even started the Fascist Youths, who were “sons and daughters of the She-wolf.” The other most recognizable symbol was undoubtedly the fasces, which are a bundle of rods that are much stronger when fastened together. The fasces represented strength in numbers, unity, authority and the exercise of power. They were plastered everywhere: architecture, art, stamps, toys, furniture, and other everyday items. In 1926 the fasces became the official emblem of the Fascist regime. To underscore their importance Mussolini erected the Victory Monument in Bolzano to resemble the classical triumphal arch with giant fasces in place of columns.


Another grand symbol of Mussolini’s historical propaganda was the rebuilding of the Ara Pacis, which was Augustus’ “visual message of peace and prosperity to celebrate the establishment of empire and dynasty,” (Lazzaro). The Ara Pacis was a vital to Mussolini’s own legend. He did all in his power to emulate Augustus. Thus, restoring a monument that stood for all of his ideals placed Mussolini closer to Augustus’ deified status.


The restoration was also a rushed event, as its completion was to honor the bimillenium of Augustus’ birthday. To bridge the two Empires, the Ara Pacis was then encased with a modern fascist arch complete with monumental fasces. In effect, Mussolini saw this to symbolically suggest he was Augustus’ successor. Through the early years Mussolini actually did an admirable job at this. Much like Augustus, he initiated a massive building program for public use. Of course it had just as much to do with propaganda as welfare, though. The effect was profound. It gave the people a sense of pride and patriotism to him and the state. This included city beautification, excavations, construction of piazzas, university campuses, highways, and even the entire city of EUR. Combined, these appropriations served “to express imperial power and to mark the past, define the present, and inspire the future,” (Lazzaro). The understanding of this never failed to impress as no public work was accomplished subtly.

The Via del Mare certainly does not differ. This last visual image shows the full circle nature of Mussolini. He constructed this highway as a direct physical link, connecting the capitol of Rome to EUR and eventually Ostia Antica. Here, he again overlays the past, present, and future, symbolized by the modernist EUR. The Espsizione Universale di Roma was ordered to be made in an “audaciously modernist design” with “arches and columns so heavily encoded with social and political meaning,” (Lazzaro). Here, classicism is melded with modern form and function, to create an awkward juxtaposition of stark, militant facades and classical arches and columns. The satellite city was in construction for a 1942 world exposition that never came because of WWII. The expo was to highlight and celebrate the values of fascism for the entire world. It seemed like a good idea as Mussolini transformed and reinvigorated Italy with a military-industrial complex economy in the 1930s while the rest of the West was mired in the Depression. However, the lofty goals of fascism’s “excellence” could not be showcased as it crumbled in the war. Today EUR is still a highly functioning center. It houses many government offices and is an upper-middle class neighborhood. Its importance to the future is parallel to the past of Ostia.

Ostia Antica was the port city and virtual lifeblood for Rome at the delta of the Tiber. Connecting Ostia to EUR and Rome was a pinnacle accomplishment for Mussolini. It was under his reign that Ostia took on new significance and excavations were reenergized with great zeal. This was all part of Mussolini’s plan to create scholarship and national interest in the Ancients. Always close to his heart, though, were the ulterior motives of preaching the Fascist doctrine simultaneously. The importance of uncovering the hidden treasures of Ostia was to emphasize the great culture and heritage of the Ancients, which the Italian people now have the responsibility to carry on. The Via del Mare well served and fostered this focus.



The Via del Mare shows how Mussolini came full circle in transforming Italy by revitalizing the past to propel the future. He wanted to make history now: make history relevant and make history himself. Victors always write the history books. Had Mussolini succeeded in securing the empire he envisioned, we too would view him as a deity that surrounds Augustus. With his rhetorical and media savvy skills anything is possible. Everything had a well calculated propagandistic purpose to create an all consuming culture, lifestyle and heritage that was the fluid continuance of Augustus’s Empire to Mussolini’s Fascist Empire.

Caravaggio was a Rock Star: The controversies and challenges behind his first public commissions in the Contarelli and Cerasi Chapels.

Whitney Frank
Honors in Rome - Winter 2006

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio’s biographer, Giovanni Bellori criticized the artist for “lacking in invention, [being] destitute of ideal beauty and grace, decorum, of architecture and perspective and other desirable elements” and on the whole, he was correct (Hinks 29). Examining Caravaggio’s entire oeuvre directly reveals a radical departure from these artistic conventions Bellori—an “extreme Classicist”—listed as vital to laudable painting. It may seem rather strange to hear such harsh words said of the man whom today we typically consider the inventor of modern painting. But in the thick of the confining Counter-Reformation, Caravaggio worked in a controversial and ground-breaking group of very few artists. Influenced by northern Italian artists and his contemporaries—not antiquity or Quattro cento academics like Raphael—he stood out against his competitors as he disregarded Classical canon and adhered to an unprecedented naturalistic and expressionistic form. His first public commissions in the Contarelli and Cerasi Chapels in Rome are monumental and demonstrate the evolution of a young and experimenting student of nature a master of color, dramatic ingenuity, and realism—despite what Bellori said.

Caravaggio is renowned for his brash and rowdy lifestyle filled with brawls and a few law suits—and the infamous murder over a tennis match that prompted him to leave Rome for the south. However, he did not exactly set out to become a bombastic revolutionary (in artistic style at least); rather he pieced together appealing influences of his youth and reacted against his rather narrow training. In 1571, Michelangelo Merisi was born in Caravaggio, a small town close to Milan. He had a relatively comfortable childhood; his father owned a good-sized amount of land and worked for the Marchese of the town. At thirteen he was apprenticed to Simone Peterzano, but the most formative period in Caravaggio’s life was arguably his twenty-odd years in Lombardy, the region surrounding Milan. Lombardy had a heritage of naturalistic art.

image 1

Artists of this school, like Giovanni Savoldo (image 1) and the Campi brothers, utilized effects of “natural light and the communication of intense human expression” to create a heightened sense of drama (Puglisi 8). Caravaggio rejected the Mannerist tendencies Peterzano employed, like exaggerated forms and keen elegance, in favor of these Lombard qualities, making expression, light, and color the fundamental elements of his work (image 2). 

image 2

Venetian art was also an influence—there was much communication between Venice and Lombardy before and during his youth and artists brought back ideas and art from painters like Titian and Tintoretto. For Romans (including Bellori), Caravaggio’s early works recalled too many northern Italian characteristics and they often joked that they were too “Giorgionesque: pure coloring, tempered shadows, and use of a few tones to render natural form” (Puglisi 38) (image 3). 

image 3

Departing from the typical painting doctrine, he also utilized the Venetian tradition of roughing out the plans on the canvas and correcting them as needed, forgoing preliminary sketches (Bayer 67).

Caravaggio arrived in Rome around 1590 and worked in the studio of Giuseppe Cerasi, mostly refining his hand at still lives for which he had talent. Painting flowers and fruit in addition to working for someone only a few years his elder did not satisfy Caravaggio’s “independent spirit” and after a short stint of unemployment, he was introduced to Cardinal del Monte, “an enthusiastic amateur and patron of young artists” (Hinks 21). Not only did del Monte let Caravaggio live in his palace, but he even secured him his first public commission: the altarpiece (and eventually two side panels) for Cardinal Matteo Contarelli’s chapel in San Luigi de’ Francesi, the French National Church in Rome. Before he died in 1585, Contarelli had commissioned a sculptor, Cobaert, to create an altarpiece of his name saint and the Angel but it was not satisfactory. It needed to be replaced, but a law suit over Contarelli’s donation to the church kept the clergy so occupied that the chapel remained closed for more than five years. 

image 4

Caravaggio’s replacement altarpiece, Saint Matthew and the Angel, also showed the Angel imparting the scripture to Matthew, but his first version was rejected (image 4). This commission presented Caravaggio with unprecedented challenges as these were the largest canvases he had attempted thus far. The monumental scale strained his technical powers since he was still relatively inexperienced and had not fully undergone intense training at an Academy like many of his peers. He also must have felt pressure to please from the fact that these large devotional works would be viewed by a diverse public forum. This fairly embarrassing situation was resolved by the Marchese Vincenzo Giustiniani, an admirer of the young artist who purchased the rejected piece and arranged for him to create a new one, The Inspiration of Matthew, that was installed not long after the side panels in 1602.

The clergy rejected the first piece on the premise that the depiction of Saint Matthew was highly indecorous. In response to the troubles brought on by the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church made some modifications to revitalize and strengthen itself. One aspect of the Counter-Reformation was to emphasize high spirituality of the leaders of the church, which included saints. Devotional art was a direct way to assert the Church’s ideals and the standards for religious art were dictated at the Council of Trent in 1563:

“Religious images should teach the faithful how to invoke saintly intercession and to
honor and venerate saints. They are reminders of God’s grace and are virtuous
exemplars of pious conduct and devotion to God; representations must not be lewd
or unbecoming, irreverent or disrespectful” (Hinks 54).

Religious art must move the faithful, impassion and provoke them to desire to be saintly and therefore, saints should be pristine and beautiful. In the case of Saint Matthew and the Angel, showing Matthew’s thick, ruddy legs naked below the knees with his large foot projecting out at the viewer was not going to inspire the masses to lead lives of utmost piety. Indeed, Matthew looks much less like a saint to be venerated and more like a common field-worker one might pass on the street: his big bulbous head sans halo, heavy body, and brow wrinkled with the strain of concentration are a stark contrast to the angel’s softness and majesty. One can even go as far to call Matthew slow-witted because the Angel actually must guide his hand across the page while Matthew seems utterly astonished that he can form the letters, let alone that he is writing Holy Scripture.

image 5

Though the subject is still the same, Caravaggio made many compromises for The Inspiration of Matthew to the clergy’s delight. The most striking difference between the two is the new arrangement of figures into a hierarchical form: the angel in a swirl of white drapery gracefully floats above Matthew’s head while he kneels at his desk, looking up at the angel (image 5). Matthew listens to the review of Jesus’ genealogy and his gaze draws viewers upwards towards the angel. The viewer is situated below the picture, completing this hierarchical system; the faithful are supposed to attempt to be like Matthew as he is the intermediary between the world and heaven, represented here by the angel. It is easier and more proper to venerate a saint when he looks the part and in this work, Matthew looks immaculate; he is dressed in a stunning orange garment that immediately catches the viewer’s eye and he is clean and would probably have a high social standing in actuality. He looks intently at the saint but he understands what he is doing as he grasps the pen himself, unlike the dumbfounded Matthew in the first version. However, the bench he kneels on leans out somewhat precariously towards the chapel as if to remind the viewers that although he is a saint, he was not a perfect person; he is learning in this picture but is still intelligent and faithful.


The panel on the left is The Calling of Matthew, a relatively subtle depiction of conversion to Christianity. Jesus and Peter enter Levi’s tax-collecting office (after conversion he will be known as Matthew) and Jesus points at Levi, calling him to leave behind the momentary material world and follow him to eternity by joining his disciples. Matthew is surprised that he is chosen and points to himself to make sure he is the one whom Jesus means. The setting, rumored to be based on Caravaggio’s studio in del Monte’s palace, is musty and dark; the only light comes in from a mystery window behind Jesus’ head. Jesus strides forward with the light (as he is called “the light of the world”) and it hits Levi’s face, symbolizing his conversion as he will soon become “enlightened.” Caravaggio used tenebrism, or powerful contrasts of large shadowy areas and piercing light, to separate the realm of the believers from sinners: the two men to the left of Levi do not even notice Christ’s presence and they continue to count their money, emphasizing the focus of non-believers on material matters. Christ’s gaze is intent on Levi and his gesture, remarkably similar God’s hand giving life to Adam in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling, heightens the sense of drama as it invokes the viewer to make the connection of eternal life with following Jesus. Caravaggio further delineates between sinners and saved by dressing all the men at the table in contemporary costume while Jesus and Peter wear Biblical robes. The classic dress reveals that they and their beliefs belong to eternity while those in modern dress represent the unbelieving humanity who will not be saved. Even if this story from the Bible took place outdoors, the simple interior wall in the dim background is a perfect setting for the scene to take place as a setting in nature might detract from the subtle but intense internal drama of Matthew’s conversion.


The third painting on the right wall is the Martyrdom of Saint Matthew, which gave Caravaggio the most trouble. Contarelli requested that Matthew’s execution be shown in a gloriously chaotic scene with witnesses, some feeling content and others compassionate and frightened while Matthew was to be shown beaten to the ground but not yet dead, the executioner about to strike the fatal blow (Puglisi 154). Such an intricate and action-filled scene placed much strain on the young artist as this was unlike any other work he had yet completed. He did paint a first version of the piece but was completely dissatisfied with it and started over. The work currently in place is his second attempt and it fits well with the Cardinal’s requests, for the Martyrdom is an immediately frightening and chaotic scene. The scene takes place on a dark baptismal font where Matthew was in the process of baptizing several men. In the center, a shaft of light illuminates both the executioner and Matthew who has fallen to the ground. At first he reaches up to defend himself, but Caravaggio depicts him acquiescing because he sees an angel handing him a palm frond, the symbol of martyrdom. The light cuts diagonally to the lower left of the painting but it becomes fragmented and lights up various faces, backs, and hands (principal body parts) to increase overall energy and intensify the chaos. From farther away, the work looks like a centrifuge of figures spinning out from the central two but all are projected onto the frontal plane—a definite break from the Classical school of composition. This forces the viewer into the middle of the violent commotion affronting his or her senses with the calamity of martyrdom. The emotion of this piece is represented by the face of the young boy to the right of Matthew, his terrified acolyte who is about to flee. He is an expressive study of emotion—much like his Head of Medusa, but this study is of sheer panic. On the left are four witnesses in modern dress who are meant to represent the world: two are indifferent and two are aghast, but all four are useless (Hinks 60). Again in this work, the Biblical dress emphasizes the idea that they and the Christian faith are eternal and the juxtaposition of it with modern dress serves as a reminder that the past remains in the present. Viewers are called to bear witness to such divine revelations and Caravaggio brings them as close as possible to the events.

The paintings from the Contarelli Chapel, often called the “del Monte group,” characterize Caravaggio’s early works. They show the beginning of his combination of reality and myth that creates a kind of new form of history painting where past events are brought into the perspective of the present. With this first public commission, he breaks from Classical and also current painting techniques by using models to achieve a naturalistic effect and earth tones and tenebrism to create heightened drama—subtle or outstanding. Though they can be considered a triumph over great difficulties, his two paintings in the Cerasi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo epitomize the height of Caravaggio’s career as they demonstrate his artistic maturity. Marchese Giustiniani probably secured him this commission while he was working on the Contarelli Chapel and yet again Caravaggio’s first submissions were rejected (this time they were purchased by Cardinal Sannesio). The two works currently in place were his second attempts and they are quite different from the Contarelli pieces indicating this shift in Caravaggio’s style.


The right panel is the Conversion of Saint Paul, which rival artist Giovanni Baglione sardonically called a “portrait of a horse” (Hinks 69). Saul (eventually Paul) was heading to Damascus to persecute Christians when all of the sudden the voice of Jesus called out to him, asking him to convert and join him and his disciples. The voice was so powerful that it knocked Saul off of his horse and blinded him for three days until he converted. Indeed, the horse in Caravaggio’s depiction takes up much of the canvas and there is a noticeable lack of action in the piece as Saul has already fallen to the ground and his elderly servant has tamed the reeling horse. Caravaggio used a limited narrative, retaining only necessary elements to create a dramatic effect. All action is contained in Saul who is utterly stunned, his arms reaching up and out towards the skies. The viewer should reflect on Saul’s internal conflict as the drama of his conversion is the focus of the story and this is clear because there are few distracting elements in the painting: the scene is shrouded in a mysterious darkness and there are only three figures involved. Once again Caravaggio uses light as a holy transmitter: in the top right corner light beams shoot down towards Saul, symbolizing Christ’s voice. Caravaggio’s rather understated take on the story is an unprecedented conception of conversion as his focus is on the saint’s response to the transcendental experience.


The Crucifixion of Saint Peter on the opposite wall also relies on “minimal means” to achieve a poignant and meaningful portrayal of the crucifixion (Hinks 67). Like the Conversion, there is an absence of any descriptive setting as the background is very dark and light shines diagonally from the right mostly onto Peter’s face. The black rock in the background probably represents Peter, for he is the rock on which the Church was founded (Puglisi 172). There is a great contrast of action and emotion seen between the workers lifting the cross and Peter: all action takes place in the men lifting the cross. They are anonymous workers doing their everyday job; they are dirty and straining hard and we never see their entire bodies because we view them from angles. Peter on the other hand, is in full view and Caravaggio paid careful attention to his body: it truly is the body of an old man, with thin skin, a flabby torso, and a balding and wrinkled head. He has a look of despair laced with insolence on his face as he gazes towards his nailed hand. He contemplates his imminent death and seems slightly uncertain of the last few hours of his life. Peter’s story is about humiliation as he thought it wrong to be crucified in the same manner as Christ, insisting that he be crucified upside down. The poor, ugly workers and Peter’s miserable countenance reminds the congregation that this was not a heroic execution but a wretched and humiliating crucifixion.

The Cerasi Chapel is small and visitors have to view Caravaggio’s paintings at oblique angles. Annibale Carracci’s altarpiece of the Assumption was in place before Caravaggio completed the side panels and although the two artists worked in very different styles, it seems like Caravaggio designed his pieces to work with Carracci’s. Saul’s arms reach out towards the altar and the light source comes from the area of the altarpiece. The diagonals in the Crucifixion plunge towards the altar and Peter also gazes in its direction. If the cross were set in place, he would be facing it. These pieces may be very different stylistically and in subject matter, but Caravaggio’s clever techniques help unify them almost as a narrative for the viewer to contemplate: the first step is to believe in Christ, then to reach salvation in heaven one must have faith and make sacrifices. These paintings are a triumph of not only Caravaggio’s mastery of technique and form, but his of his poetic talents, making the Cerasi Chapel a stunning setting for prayer and personal reflection.

Caravaggio depicts these scenes from the lives of saints in a way previously unseen. He employs strong lighting and dark shadowy areas to enhance drama and highlight important features like faces or hands. He creates a new kind of history painting by mixing the historical story with the mythological tale but has a naturalistic approach to make the scene relatable to life at the time. By moving the action completely into the foreground and limiting the narrative to only necessary elements, he affronts viewers with dramatic, emotional, and sometimes gruesome Biblical accounts. In this sense, Caravaggio responds to the ideas of Counter Reformation art; the intense drama (internal or explicit) of the moments he chooses to depict forces the worshipper to reflect on these scenes, compelling them to venerate and imitate the lives of the saints. But Caravaggio responds in an unprecedented and unmatched manner that spurs countless followers, none of whom can match his technique, originality, or intensity.

Clearly Caravaggio is still admired and loved today—there were tons of tourists swarming the churches just to get a quick glimpse of his works! He was part of the great debate of design versus color, later epitomized by the Poussinistes who drew their inspiration from Carracci and of course, Raphael, and the Rubenists who followed Correggio and Titian. I was surprised to learn of how much some of his contemporaries harshly criticized his work and I found it curious that some of them became his biographers. Out of everyone we have thus far studied, I am most drawn to Caravaggio—the controversy and drama of his rowdy lifestyle and artistic style move and excite me. It does not matter that I do not attend church because his works hit me with a wave of such intense emotion that I feel as if I have witnessed the crucifixion in person. The revolutionaries are always the most interesting ones and they produce everlasting art.

Bibliography
Bayer, Andrea. Painters of Reality: The Legacy of Leonardo and Caravaggio in

Lombardy. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004.

Hinks, Roger. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: His Life—His Legend—His Works. London: Faber and Faber, 1953.

Puglisi, Catherine. Caravaggio. London: Phaidon Press Limitied, 1998.

Voss, Hermann. Baroque Painting in Rome, vol. 1. San Fransisco: Alan Wofsy Fine Arts, 1997.