Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Imperial Roman Art: Art of the State
Introduction and Overview of the Roman Empire
Gaius Julius Caesar was a Roman general, statesman, consul, and notable author of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. In 60 BCE, Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) formed a political alliance, known as the First Triumvirate, that was to dominate Roman politics for several years. Caesar made the initial overtures that led to the informal alliance. An acclaimed military commander who had also served in a variety of political offices, Caesar sought election as consul in 59 BCE, along with two other candidates. The election was particularly contentious, with corruption occurring on all sides. Caesar won, as well as conservative Marcus Bibulus, but saw that he could further his political influence with Crassus and Pompey. Their attempts to amass power through populist tactics were opposed by the conservative ruling class within the Roman Senate, among them Cato the Younger and Cicero. Meanwhile, Caesar’s victories in the Gallic Wars, completed by 51 BCE, extended Rome’s territory to the English Channel and the Rhine River. Caesar became the first Roman general to cross both when he built a bridge across the Rhine and conducted the first invasion of Britain.
These achievements granted Caesar unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing of his colleague, Pompey, who had realigned himself with the Senate after the death of Crassus in 53 BCE. With the Gallic Wars concluded, the Senate ordered Caesar to step down from his military command and return to Rome. Caesar refused and marked his defiance in 49 BCE by crossing the Rubicon (shallow river in northern Italy) with a legion. In doing so, he deliberately broke the law on imperium and engaged in an open act of insurrection and treason. Civil War ensued, with Pompey representing the Roman Senate forces against Caesar, but Caesar quickly defeated Pompey in 48 BCE, and dispatched Pompey’s supporters in the following year. During this time, many staunch Senate conservatives, such as Cato the Younger, were either killed or committed suicide, thereby greatly decreasing the number of optimates in Rome.
Caesar as Dictator
Bust of Julius Caesar: Gaius Julius Caesar was a Roman general, statesman, consul, and notable author of Latin prose.
After assuming control of the government upon the defeat of his enemies in 45 BCE, Caesar began a program of social and governmental reforms that included the creation of the Julian calendar. He centralized the bureaucracy of the Republic and eventually proclaimed himself “dictator in perpetuity.” It is important to note that Caesar did not declare himself rex (king), but instead, claimed the title of dictator. Contrary to the negative connotations that the modern use of the word evokes, the Roman dictator was appointed by the Senate during times of emergency as a unilateral decision-maker who could act more quickly than the usual bureaucratic processes that the Republican government would allow. Upon bringing the Roman state out of trouble, the dictator would then resign and restore power back to the Senate. Thus, Caesar’s declaration ostensibly remained within the Republican framework of power, though the huge amounts of power he had gathered for himself in practice set him up similar to a monarch.
Caesar used his powers to fill the Senate with his own partisans. He also increased the number of magistrates who were elected each year, which created a large pool of experienced magistrates and allowed Caesar to reward his supporters. He used his powers to appoint many new senators, which eventually raised the Senate’s membership to 900. All the appointments were of his own partisans, which robbed the senatorial aristocracy of its prestige and made the Senate increasingly subservient to him. To minimize the risk that another general might attempt to challenge him, Caesar passed a law that subjected governors to term limits. All of these changes watered down the power of the Senate, which infuriated those used to aristocratic privilege. Such anger proved to be fuel for Caesar’s eventual assassination.
Despite the defeat of most of his conservative enemies, however, underlying political conflicts had not been resolved. On the Ides of March (March 15) 44 BCE, Caesar was scheduled to appear at a session of the Senate, and a group of senators led by Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus conspired to assassinate him. Though some of his assassins may have had ulterior personal vendettas against Caesar, Brutus is said to have acted out of concern for the Republic in the face of what he considered to be a monarchical tyrant. Mark Antony, one of Caesar’s generals and administrator of Italy during Caesar’s campaigns abroad, learned such a plan existed the night before, and attempted to intercept Caesar, but the plotters anticipated this and arranged to meet him outside the site of the session and detain him him there. Caesar was stabbed 23 times and lay dead on the ground for some time before officials removed his body.
A new series of civil wars broke out following Caesar’s assassination, and the constitutional government of the Republic was never restored. Caesar’s adopted heir, Octavian, later known as Augustus, rose to sole power, and the era of the Roman Empire began.
Founding of the Roman Empire
Augustus rose to power after Julius Caesar’s assassination, through a series of political and military maneuvers, eventually establishing himself as the first emperor of Rome.
Augustus is regarded by many scholars as the founder and first emperor of the Roman Empire. He ruled from 27 BCE until his death in 14 CE.
Rise to Power
Augustus was born Gaius Octavius, and in his early years was known as Octavian. He was from an old and wealthy equestrian branch of the plebeian Octavii family. Following the assassination of his maternal great-uncle, Julius Caesar, in 44 BCE, Caesar’s will named Octavian as his adopted son and heir when Octavian was only 19 years old. The young Octavian quickly took advantage of the situation and ingratiated himself with both the Roman people and his adoptive father’s legions, thereby elevating his status and importance within Rome. Octavian found Mark Antony, Julius Caesar’s former colleague and the current consul of Rome, in an uneasy truce with Caesar’s assassins, who had been granted general amnesty for their part in the plot. Nonetheless, Antony eventually succeeded in driving most of them out of Rome, using Caesar’s eulogy as an opportunity to mount public opinion against the assassins.
Mark Antony began amassing political support, and Octavian set about rivaling it. Eventually, many Caesarian sympathizers began to view Octavian as the lesser evil of the two. Octavian allied himself with optimate factions, despite their opposition to Caesar when he was alive. The optimate orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, began attacking Antony in a series of speeches, portraying him as a threat to the republican order of Rome. As public opinion against him mounted, Antony fled to Cisalpine Gaul at the end of his consular year.
Octavian further established himself both politically and militarily in the following months. He was declared a senator and granted the power of military command, imperium, in 43 BCE, and was further able to leverage his successes to obtain the vacant consulships left by the two defeated consuls of that year.
Octavian eventually reached an uneasy truce with Mark Antony and Marcus Lepidus in October 43 BCE, and together, the three formed the Second Triumvirate to defeat the assassins of Caesar. Following their victory against Brutus at Phillipi, the Triumvirate divided the Roman Republic among themselves and ruled as military dictators. Relations within the Triumvirate were strained as the various members sought greater political power. Civil war between Antony and Octavian was averted in 40 BCE, when Antony married Octavian’s sister, Octavia Minor. Despite his marriage, Antony continued a love affair with Cleopatra, the former lover of Caesar and queen of Egypt, further straining political ties to Rome. Octavian used Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra to his own advantage, portraying Antony as less committed to Rome. With Lepidus expelled in 36 BCE, the Triumvirate finally disintegrated in the year 33. Finally, disagreements between Octavian and Antony erupted into civil war in the year 31 BCE.
The Roman Senate, at Octavian’s direction, declared war on Cleopatra’s regime in Egypt and proclaimed Antony a traitor. Antony was defeated by Octavian at the naval Battle of Actium the same year. Defeated, Antony fled with Cleopatra to Alexandria where they both committed suicide. With Antony dead, Octavian was left as the undisputed master of the Roman world. Octavian would assume the title Augustus, and reign as the first Roman Emperor.
Augustus of Prima Porta: The statue of Augustus of Prima Porta is perhaps one of the best known images of the Emperor Augustus. It portrays the emperor as perpetually youthful, and depicts many of the key propaganda messages that Augustus put forth during his time as emperor.
The Pax Romana
The Pax Romana, which began under Augustus, was a 200-year period of peace in which Rome experienced minimal expansion by military forces.
Augustus’s Constitutional Reforms
After the demise of the Second Triumvirate, Augustus restored the outward facade of the free Republic with governmental power vested in the Roman
Senate, the executive magistrates, and the legislative assemblies. In reality, however, he retained his autocratic power over the Republic as a military dictator. By law, Augustus held powers granted to him for life by the Senate, including supreme military command and those of tribune and censor. It took several years for Augustus to develop the framework within which a formally republican state could be led under his sole rule.
Augustus passed a series of laws between the years 30 and 2 BCE that transformed the constitution of the Roman Republic into the constitution of the Roman Empire. During this time, Augustus reformed the Roman system of taxation, developed networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard, created official police and fire-fighting services for Rome, and rebuilt much of the city during his reign.
First Settlement
During the First Settlement, Augustus modified the Roman political system to make it more palatable to the senatorial classes, eschewing the open authoritarianism exhibited by Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony. In 28 BCE, in a calculated move, Augustus eradicated the emergency powers he held as dictator and returned all powers and provinces to the Senate and the Roman people. Members of the Senate were unhappy with this prospect, and in order to appease them, Augustus agreed to a ten-year extension of responsibilities over disorderly provinces. As a result of this, Augustus retained imperium over the provinces where the majority of Rome’s soldiers were stationed. Augustus also rejected monarchical titles, instead calling himself princeps civitatis (“First Citizen”). The resulting constitutional framework became known as the Principate, the first phase of the Roman Empire.
At this time, Augustus was given honorifics that made his full name Imperator Caesar divi filius Augustus. Imperator stressed military power and victory and emphasized his role as commander-in-chief. Divi filius roughly translates to “son of the divine,” enhancing his legitimacy as ruler without deifying him completely. The use of Caesar provided a link between himself and Julius Caesar, who was still very popular among lower classes. Finally, the name Augustus raised associations to Rome’s illustrious and majestic traditions, without creating heavy authoritarian overtones.
By the end of the first settlement, Augustus was in an ideal political position. Although he no longer held dictatorial powers, he had created an identity of such influence that authority followed naturally.
Second Settlement
In the wake of Augustus’s poor health, a second settlement was announced in 23 BCE. During this time, Augustus outwardly appeared to rein
in his constitutional powers, but really continued to extend his dominion throughout the Empire. Augustus renounced his ten-year consulship, but in return, secured the following concessions for himself.
A seat on the consuls’s platform at the front of the Curia
The right to speak first in a Senate meeting, or ius primae relationis
The right to summon a meeting of the Senate, which was a
useful tool for policy making
Care of Rome’s grain supply, or cura annonae, which gave him sweeping patronage powers over the plebs
Augustus was also granted the role of tribunicia potestas, which enabled him to act as the guardian of the citizens of Rome. This position came with a number of benefits, including the right to propose laws to the Senate whenever he wanted, veto power of laws, and the ability to grant amnesty to any citizen accused of a crime. Though the role of tribunicia potestas effectively gave Augustus legislative supremacy, it also had many positive connotations hearkening back to the Republic, making Augustus’s position less offensive to the aristocracy. Beyond Rome, Augustus was granted maius imperium, meaning greater (proconsular) power. This position enabled him to effectively override the orders of any other provincial governor in the Roman Empire, in addition to governing his own provinces and armies.
Augustus and the Pax Romana
The Pax Romana (Latin for “Roman peace”) was a long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military forces experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Since this period was initiated during
Augustus’s reign, it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its span was approximately 206 years (27 BCE to 180 CE).
The Pax Romana started after Augustus, then Octavian, met and defeated Mark Antony in the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Augustus created a junta of the greatest military magnates and gave himself the titular honor. By binding together these leading magnates into a single title, he eliminated the prospect of civil war. The Pax Romana was not immediate, despite the end of the civil war, because fighting continued in Hispania and in the Alps.
Despite continuous wars of imperial expansion on the Empire’s frontiers and one year-long civil war over the imperial succession, the Roman world was largely free from large-scale conflict for more than two centuries. Augustus dramatically enlarged the Empire, annexing Egypt, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia, expanded possessions in Africa as well as into Germania, and completed the conquest of Hispania. Beyond Rome’s frontiers, he secured the Empire with a buffer region of client states, and made peace with the troublesome Parthian Empire through diplomacy.
Augustus closed the Gates of Janus (the set of gates to the Temple of Janus, which was closed in times of peace and opened in times of war) three times. The first time was in 29 BCE and the second in 25 BCE. The third closure is undocumented, but scholars have persuasively dated the event to 13 BCE during the Ara Pacis ceremony, which was held after Augustus and Agrippa jointly returned from pacifying the provinces.
Augustus faced some trouble making peace an acceptable mode of life for the Romans, who had been at war with one power or another continuously for 200 years prior to this period. The Romans regarded peace not as an absence of war, but the rare situation that existed when all opponents had been beaten down and lost the ability to resist. Augustus’s challenge was to persuade Romans that the prosperity they could achieve in the absence of war was better for the Empire than the potential wealth and honor acquired from fighting. Augustus succeeded by means of skillful propaganda. Subsequent emperors followed his lead, sometimes producing lavish ceremonies to close the Gates of Janus, issuing coins with Pax on the reverse, and patronizing literature extolling the benefits of the Pax Romana.
The Ara Pacis Augustae
The Ara Pacis Augustae, or Altar of Augustan Peace, is one of the best examples of Augustan artistic propaganda and the prime symbol of the new Pax Romana. It was commissioned by the Senate in 13 BCE to honor the peace and bounty established by Augustus following his return from Spain and Gaul. The theme of peace is seen most notably in the east and west walls of the Ara Pacis, each of which had two panels, although only small fragments remain for one panel on each side. On the east side sits an unidentified goddess presumed by scholars to be Tellus, Venus, or Peace within an allegorical scene of prosperity and fertility. Twins sit on her lap along with a cornucopia of fruits. Personifications of the wind and sea surround her, each riding on a bird or a sea monster. Beneath the women rests a bull and lamb, both sacrificial animals, and flowering plants fill the empty space. The nearly incomplete second eastern panel appears to depict a female warrior, possibly Roma, amid the spoils of conquest.
The Tellus Mater Panel of the Ara Pacis: The eastern wall of the Ara Pacis, which depicts the Tellus Mater surrounded by symbols of fertility and prosperity.
Augustus died in 14 CE at the age of 75. He may have died from natural causes, although unconfirmed rumors swirled that his wife Livia poisoned him. His adopted son (also stepson and former son-in-law), Tiberius, succeeded him to the throne.
The Julio-Claudian Emperors
The Julio-Claudian emperors expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire and engaged in ambitious construction projects. However, they were met with mixed public reception due to their unique ruling methods.
Tiberius
Tiberius was the second emperor of the Roman Empire and reigned from 14 to 37 CE. The previous emperor, Augustus, was his stepfather; this officially made him a Julian. However, his biological father was Tiberius Claudius Nero, making him a Claudian by birth. Subsequent emperors would continue the blended dynasty of both families for the next 30 years, leading historians to name it the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. Tiberius is also the grand-uncle of Caligula, his successor, the paternal uncle of Claudius, and the great-grand uncle of Nero.
Tiberius is considered one of Rome’s greatest generals. During his reign, he conquered Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and temporarily, parts of Germania. His conquests laid the foundations for the northern frontier. However, he was known by contemporaries to be dark, reclusive, and somber—a ruler who never really wanted to be emperor. The tone was set early in his reign when the Senate convened to validate his position as Princeps. During the proceedings, Tiberius attempted to play the part of the reluctant public servant, but came across as derisive and obstructive. His direct orders appeared vague, inspiring more debate than action and leaving the Senate to act on its own. After the death of Tiberius’s son in 23 CE, the emperor became even more reclusive, leaving the administration largely in the hands of his unscrupulous Praetorian Prefects.
When Tiberius died on March 16, 37 CE, his estate and titles were left to Caligula and Tiberius’s grandson, Gemellus, with the intention that they would rule as joint heirs. However, Caligula’s first act as Princeps was to to void Tiberius’s will and have Gemellus executed. When Tiberius died, he had not been well liked. Caligula, on the other hand, was almost universally heralded upon his assumption of the throne. There are few surviving sources on Caligula’s reign. Caligula’s first acts as emperor were generous in spirit, but political in nature. He granted bonuses to the military, including the Praetorian Guard, city troops, and the army outside of Italy. He destroyed Tiberius’s treason papers and declared that treason trials would no longer continue as a practice, even going so far as to recall those who had already been sent into exile for treason. He also helped those who had been adversely affected by the imperial tax system, banished certain sexual deviants, and put on large public spectacles, such as gladiatorial games, for the common people.
Although he is described as a noble and moderate ruler during the first six months of his reign, sources portray him as a cruel and sadistic tyrant immediately thereafter. The transitional point seems to center around an illness Caligula experienced in October of 37 CE. It is unclear whether the incident was merely an illness, or if Caligula had been poisoned. Either way, following the incident, the young emperor began dealing with what he considered to be serious threats, by killing or exiling those who were close to him. During the remainder of his reign, he worked to increase the personal power of the emperor during his short reign, and devoted much of his attention to ambitious construction projects and luxurious dwellings for himself.
In 38 CE, Caligula focused his attention on political and public reform. He published the accounts of public funds, which had not been done under Tiberius’s reign, provided aid to those who lost property in fires, and abolished certain taxes. He also allowed new members into the equestrian and senatorial orders. Perhaps most significantly, he restored the practice of democratic elections, which delighted much of the public but was a cause for concern among the aristocracy.
By 39 CE, a financial crisis had emerged as a result of Caligula’s use of political payments, which had overextended the state’s treasury. In order to to restock the treasury, Caligula began falsely accusing, fining, and even killing individuals in order to seize their estates. He also asked the public to lend the state money, and raised taxes on lawsuits, weddings, and prostitution, as well as auctioning the lives of gladiators at shows. Wills that left items to Tiberius were also reinterpreted as having left said items to Caligula. Centurions who had acquired property by plunder were also forced to turn over their spoils to the state, and highway commissioners were accused of incompetence and embezzlement and forced to repay money that they might not have taken in the first place. Around the same time, a brief famine occurred, possibly as a result of the financial crisis, though its causes remain unclear.
Despite financial difficulties, Caligula began a number of construction projects during this time. He initiated the construction of two aqueducts in Rome, Awua Claudia and Anio Novus, which were considered contemporary engineering marvels. In 39 CE, he ordered the construction of a temporary floating bridge between the resort of Baiae and the port of Puteoli, which rivaled the bridge Persian king Xerxes had constructed across the Hellespont. Caligula had two large ships constructed for himself that were among the largest constructed in the ancient world. The larger of the two was essentially an elaborate floating palace with marble floors and plumbing. He also improved the harbors at Rhegium and Sicily, which allowed for increased grain imports from Egypt, possibly in response to the famine Rome experienced.
During his reign, the Empire annexed the Kingdom of Mauretania as a province. Mauretania had previously been a client kingdom ruled by Ptolemy of Mauretania. Details on how and why Mauretania was ultimately annexed remain unclear. Ptolemy was had been invited to Rome by Caligula and suddenly executed in what was seemingly a personal political move, rather than a calculated response to military of economic needs. However, Roman possession of Mauretania ultimately proved to be a boon to the territory, as the subsequent rebellion of Tacfarinas demonstrated how exposed the African Proconsularis was on its western borders. There also was a northern campaign to Britannia that was aborted during Caligula’s reign, though there is not a cohesive narrative of the event.
In 39 CE, relations between Caligula and the Senate deteriorated. Caligula ordered a new set of treason investigations and trials, replacing the consul and putting a number of senators to death. Many other senators were reportedly treated in a degrading fashion and humiliated by Caligula. In 41 CE, Caligula was assassinated as part of a conspiracy by officers of the Praetorian Guard, senators, and courtiers. The conspirators used the assassination as an opportunity to re-institute the Republic, but were ultimately unsuccessful.
Caligula: Emperor Caligula, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.
Claudius
Claudius, the fourth emperor of the Roman Empire, was the first Roman Emperor to be born outside of Italy. He was afflicted with a limp and slight deafness, which caused his family to ostracize him and exclude him from public office until he shared the consulship with his nephew, Caligula, in 37 CE. Due to Claudius’s afflictions, it is likely he was spared from the many purges of Tiberius and Caligula’s reigns. As a result, Claudius was declared Emperor by the Praetorian Guard after Caligula’s assassination, due to his position as the last man in the Julio-Claudian line.
Despite his lack of experience, Claudius was an able and efficient administrator, as well as an ambitious builder; he constructed many roads, aqueducts, and canals across the Empire. His reign also saw the beginning of the conquest of Britain. Additionally, Claudius presided over many public trials, and issued up to 20 edicts a day. However, in spite of his capable rule, Claudius continued to be viewed as vulnerable by the Roman nobility throughout his reign, forcing Claudius to constantly defend his position. He did so by emphasizing his place within the Julio-Claudian family, dropping the cognomen, Nero, from his name, and replacing it with Caesar.
Nonetheless, his appointment as emperor by the Praetorian Guard caused damage to his reputation, and this was amplified when Claudius became the first emperor to resort to bribery as a means to secure army loyalty. Claudius also rewarded the Praetorian Guard that had named him emperor with 15,000 sesterces.
Claudius: Bust of Emperor Claudius.
The Last Julio-Claudian Emperors
Nero’s consolidation of personal power led to rebellion, civil war, and a year-long period of upheaval, during which four separate emperors ruled Rome.
Nero
Nero reigned as Roman Emperor from 54 to 68 CE, and was the last emperor in the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. Nero focused on diplomacy, trade, and enhancing the cultural life of the Empire during his rule. He ordered theaters to be built and promoted athletic games. However, according to Tacitus, a historian writing one generation after Nero’s rule, Nero was viewed by many Romans as compulsive and corrupt. Suetonius, another historian writing a generation after Nero’s rule, claims that Nero began the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE, in order to clear land for a palatial complex he was planning.
Nero: A marble bust of Nero, at the Antiquarium of the Palatine.
Early Rule
When Claudius died in 54, Nero was established as the new emperor. According to some ancient historians, Agrippina the Younger, Nero’s mother, poisoned Claudius in order to make Nero the youngest Roman emperor (at the age of 17). Very early in Nero’s rule, problems arose due to Agrippina’s competition for influence with Nero’s two main advisers, Seneca and Burrus. For example, in the year 54, Agrippina caused a scandal by attempting to sit with Nero while he met with the Armenian envoy, an unheard of act, since women were not permitted to be in the same room as men while official business was being conducted. The next year, Agrippina attempted to intervene on behalf of Nero’s wife, Octavia, with whom Nero was dissatisfied and cheating on with a former slave. With the help of his adviser, Seneca, Nero managed to resist his mother’s interference yet again.
Sensing his resistance to her influence, Agrippina began pushing for Britannicus, Nero’s stepbrother, to become emperor. Britannicus was still shy of 14 years old, and legally still a minor, but because he was the son of the previous emperor, Claudius, by blood, Agrippina held hope that he would be accepted as the true heir to the throne. Her efforts were thwarted, however, when Britannicus mysteriously died one day short of becoming a legal adult. Many ancient historians claim that Britannicus was poisoned by his stepbrother, Nero. Shortly thereafter, Agrippina was ordered out of the imperial residence.
Consolidation of Power
Over time, Nero began minimizing the influence of all advisers and effectively eliminating all rivals to his throne. Even Seneca and Burrus were accused of conspiring against, and embezzling from the emperor; they were eventually acquitted, reducing their roles from careful management of the government to mere moderation of Nero’s actions on the throne. In 58 CE, Nero became romantically involved with Poppaea Sabina, the wife of his friend and future emperor, Otho. Because divorcing his current wife and marrying Poppaea did not seem politically feasible with his mother still alive, Nero ordered Agrippina’s murder the following year.
Nero’s consolidation of power included a slow usurpation of authority from the Senate. Although he had promised the Senate powers equivalent to those it had under republican rule, over the course of the first decade of Nero’s rule, the Senate was divested of all its authority, which led directly to the Pisonian Conspiracy of 65. Gaius Calpurnius Piso, a Roman statesman, organized the conspiracy against Nero with the help of Subrius Flavus, a tribune, and Sulpicius Asper, a centurion of the Praetorian Guard, in order to restore the Republic and wrest power from the emperor. However, the conspiracy failed when it was discovered by a freedman, who reported the details to Nero’s secretary. This led to the execution of all conspirators. Seneca was also ordered to commit suicide after he admitted to having prior knowledge of the plot.
Vindex and Galba’s Revolt
In March 68, Gaius Gulius Vindex, the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, rebelled against Nero’s tax policies and called upon the support of Servius Sulpicius Galba, the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, who not only joined the rebellion, but also declared himself emperor in opposition to Nero. Two months later, Vindex’s forces were defeated at the Battle of Vesontio, and Vindex committed suicide. The legions that defeated Vindex then attempted to proclaim their own commander, Verginius, as emperor, but Verginius refused to act against Nero. Meanwhile, public support for Galba grew despite his being officially declared a public enemy. In response, Nero began to flee Rome only to turn back when the army officers that were with him refused to obey his commands. When Nero returned, he received word that the Senate had declared him a public enemy and intended to beat him to death—although in actuality, the Senate remained open to mediating an end to the conflict, and many senators felt a sense of loyalty to Nero, even if only on account of him being the last of the Julio-Claudian line. However, Nero was unaware of this and convinced his private secretary to help him take his own life.
Year of the Four Emperors
The suicide of Emperor Nero was followed by a brief period of civil war. Then, between June 68 and December 69, four emperors ruled in succession: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
Galba was recognized as emperor following Nero’s suicide, but he did not remain popular for long. On his march to Rome, he either destroyed or took enormous fines from towns that did not accept him immediately. Once in Rome, Galba made many of Nero’s reforms redundant, including ones that benefited important people within Roman society. Galba executed many senators and equites without trial, in a paranoid attempt to consolidate his power, which unsettled many, including the Praetorian Guard. Finally, the legions of Germania Inferior refused to swear allegiance and obedience to Galba, instead proclaiming the governor Vitellius as emperor.
This caused Galba to panic and name Lucius Calpurnius Piso Licinianus, a young senator, as his successor. This upset many people, but especially Marcus Salvius Otho, who had coveted after the title for himself. Otho bribed the Praetorian Guard to support him and embarked upon a coup d’etat, during which Galba was killed by the Praetorians. Otho was recognized as emperor by the Senate the same day and was expected by many to be a fair ruler. Unfortunately, soon thereafter, Vitellius declared himself Imperator in Germania, and dispatched half his army to march on Italy.
Otho attempted to broker a peace, but Vitellius was uninterested, especially because his legions were some of the finest in the empire, which gave him a great advantage over Otho. Indeed, Otho was eventually defeated at the Battle of Bedriacum, and rather than flee and attempt a counterattack, Otho committed suicide. He had been emperor for little more than three months. Vitellius was recognized as emperor by the Senate. Very quickly thereafter, he proceeded to bankrupt the imperial treasury by throwing a series of feasts, banquets, and triumphal parades. He tortured and executed money lenders who demanded payment and killed any citizens who named him as their heir. He also lured many political rivals to his palace in order to assassinate them.
Meanwhile, many of the legions in the African province of Egypt, and the Middle East provinces of Iudaea and Syria, including the governor of Syria, acclaimed Vespasian as their emperor. A force marched from the Middle East to Rome, and Vespasian traveled to Alexandria, where he was officially named Emperor. From there, Vespasian invaded Italy and won a crushing victory overVitellius’s army at the Second Battle of Bedriacum. Vitellius was found by Vespasian’s men at the imperial palace and put to death. The Senate acknowledged Vespasian as emperor the next day, marking the beginning of the Flavian Dynasty, which was to succeed the Julio-Claudian line. Vespasian remained emperor for the rest of his natural life.
Vespasian: A plaster cast of Vespasian in the Pushkin Museum, after an original held in the Louvre.
Introduction to Roman Religion during the Imperial Period
The Imperial Cult
The idea of deification of the emperor came during the time of Emperor Augustus. He resisted the Senate’s attempts to name him a god during his reign as he thought himself the son of a god, not a god. Upon his death, the Roman Senate rewarded him with deification which was an honor that would be bestowed upon many of his successors. Often, an emperor would request his predecessor to be deified. Of course, there were a few exceptions, notably, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Domitian, who were considered too abhorrent to receive the honor. Caligula and Nero believed themselves living gods while Domitian thought himself the reincarnation of Hercules.
As Imperial cult developed over time, the worshipper would receive a libellus, or certificate of proof that certified that the worshipper had sacrificed to the Roman Emperor (more affectionately known as the “Son of God”). As the proliferation of private religions began to spring up throughout the Roman Empire promising personal salvation in exchange for fidelity to the cult, proof of sacrifice developed as a way to identify Roman citizens whose allegiance were not with the Roman state. (76)
Private Cults
Private religious cults — or “Mystery Religions” as they have come to be called — that appeared throughout the Roman Empire were often imported from areas taken over by the Roman state. As “foreign religions’ they gained in popularity because they offered a religious experience that was personalized, unlike the religion promoted by the Roman state. Indeed, whereas the religion of the state promised only solidarity at the level of citizenship, mystery faiths thrived because they provided a sense of solidarity between likeminded believers. That they often addressed individualized matters such as forgiveness, salvation, and personal identification with the Divine made them even more attractive to persons living in the Roman Empire. (1)
Mithraism
The Mithraic Mysteries, also known as Mithraism, were a mystery cult in the Roman world where followers worshipped the Indo-Iranian deity Mithras (Akkadian for “contract”) as the god of friendship, contract and order. The cult first appeared in the late 1 st century CE and, at an extraordinary pace, spread from the Italian Peninsula and border regions across the whole of the Roman empire.
The cult, like many others, was a secret one. The most important element of the myth behind the Mithraic Mysteries was Mithras’ killing of a bull; this scene is also known as “tauroctony”. It was believed that from the death of the bull — an animal often seen as a symbol of strength and fertility — sprung new life. Rebirth was an essential idea in the myth of Mithraic Mysteries. The sacrifice of the bull established a new cosmic order and was also associated with the moon, which was also associated with fertility.
What is special about the Mithraic Mysteries is its visuality. The sacrifice of the bull was depicted in a stone relief that had a central place in nearly every cult temple. In the relief, Mithras is often shown as he wrangles the bull to the ground and kills it. In a typical example, such as the celebrated sculpture from the Roman-Germanic Museum in Cologne, Mithras looks away from the dying bull, up to the moon. In addition, Mithras has a few helpers that assist him in taking the bull’s fertility: A dog and a snake drink from the bull’s blood, and a scorpion stings the bull’s scrotum. Also, a raven sits on the bull’s tail that typically ends in ears of grain. The raven could have played the role of a mediator between Mithras and the sun god Sol invictus, with whom Mithras will share the meat of the bull.
The bull sacrifice relief was typically placed at the end of the temple, which was essentially built like a stretched-out Roman dining room — an aisle flanked by two broad, raised benches. However, the sacrifice of the bull was rarely enacted by the worshippers themselves. Worshippers did imitate how Mithras shared the bull’s meat with Sol, as fragments of dishes and bones of animals that have been found in these temples testify. High-quality pork, chicken and a large quantity of wine were consumed in high-spirited cultic feasts that connected the worshippers to each other and to Mithras.
The Mithraic Mysteries were not just about fun and games, however. There were strict rules as to how the feasts were organised, for example, regarding hygiene. What is more, there were seven degrees of initiation, ranging from “corax” (raven) to “pater” (father), of which each had its own type of clothing. The other degrees were “nymphus” (bridegroom), “miles” (soldier), “leo” (lion), “perses” (Persian), and “heliodromus” (sun-runner). Each degree of initiation had a different task to fulfill, e.g. a “raven” had to carry the food, while the “lions” offered sacrifices to the “father”. Also, the initiates had to take part in tests of courage. The paintings in the temple of Mithras at Santa Maria Capua Vetere show us different scenes of this ritual.
An initiate, blindfolded and naked, is led to the ceremony by an assistant. Later, the initiate has to kneel before the “father”, who holds a torch or a sword in his face. Finally, he is stretched out on the floor, as if he had died. This probably was a ritual “suicide” in which the initiate was “killed” with a non-lethal theatre-sword, and was then reborn. (77)
Isis Cult
Isis is an ancient Egyptian goddess, associated with the earlier goddess Hathor, who became the most popular and enduring of all the Egyptian deities. Her name comes from the Egyptian Eset, (“the seat”) which referred to her stability and also the throne of Egypt as she was considered the mother of every pharaoh through the king’s association with Horus, Isis’ son. Her name has also been interpreted as Queen of the Throne, and her original headdress was the empty throne of her murdered husband Osiris. Her symbols are the scorpion (who kept her safe when she was in hiding), the kite (a kind of falcon whose shape she assumed in bringing her husband back to life), the empty throne, and the sistrum. She is regularly portrayed as the selfless, giving, mother, wife, and protectress, who places other’s interests and well-being ahead of her own.
She was also known as Weret-Kekau (“the Great Magic”) for her power and Mut-Netjer, “Mother of the Gods” but was known by many names depending on which role she was fulfilling at the moment. As the goddess who brought the yearly inundation of the Nile which fertilized the land she was Sati, for example, and as the goddess who created and preserved life she was Ankhet, and so on.
In time, she became so popular that all gods were considered mere aspects of Isis and she was the only Egyptian deity worshiped by everyone in the country. She and her husband and son replaced the Theban Triad of Amon, Mut, and Khons, who had been the most popular trinity of gods in Egypt. Osiris, Isis, and Horus are referred to as the Abydos Triad. Her cult began in the Nile Delta and her most important sanctuary was there at the shrine of Behbeit El-Hagar, but worship of Isis eventually spread to all parts of Egypt.
Both men and women served Isis as clergy and no doubt rituals concerning her worship were conducted along the lines of other deities: a temple was built as her earthly home which housed her statue and this image was reverently cared for by the priests and priestesses. The people of Egypt were encouraged to visit the temple to leave offerings and make supplications but no one except the high priest or priestess was allowed into the sanctuary where the statue of the goddess resided. Beyond this, however, little is known of the details of the rituals surrounding her worship. Like the Eleusinian Mysteries, the Cult of Isis grew into a Mystery Religion promising the secrets of life and death to initiates, who were then sworn to secrecy. It is known that the cult promised eternal life to those who were admitted to its secrets. The people who worshiped her throughout Egypt may or may not have been full initiates into her cult and, either way, left no record of how the goddess was honored.
It was not until Isis was worshiped in Rome that people wrote about the cult to any great degree and by then it was clear that knowledge of the rituals involved was only for initiates. Her temple on the island of Philae in Upper Egypt would remain an active pilgrimage site for thousands of years until closed in the 6 th century CE by the Christian emperor Justinian. In her role as “throne goddess”, she was considered the mother of all kings, but her benevolence was not limited to royalty. Isis dominated the religious sensibilities of the people at the same time that Christianity was taking form through the evangelical missions of St. Paul c. 42–62 CE. The concept of the Dying and Reviving God which had long been established through the Osiris myth was now made manifest in the figure of the son of God, Jesus the Christ. In time, epithets for Isis became those for the Virgin Mary such as “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven” as the new religion drew on the power of the older belief to establish itself. The worship of Isis was the most stubborn of pagan beliefs to rival the new faith and continued longer than any other. (78)
Bacchus Cult
Dionysus (Roman name: Bacchus) was the ancient Greek god of wine, merriment, and theatre. Being the bad boy of Mt. Olympus, he was perhaps the most colorful of the Olympian Gods. In Greek mythology, despite being the son of Zeus and Semele (the daughter of Kadmos and Harmonia), Dionysus did not receive the best start in life when his mother died while still pregnant. Hera, wife of Zeus, was jealous of her husband’s illicit affair and craftily persuaded Semele to ask Zeus to reveal himself to her in all his godly splendour. This was too much for the mortal and she immediately expired; however, Zeus took the unborn child and reared him in his thigh.
Dionysus travelled widely, even as far as India, and spread his cult throughout Greece, indeed he was known as being of an eastern origin himself. Orgiastic rituals were held in his honor, where the participants were taken over by a Dionysian frenzy of dancing and merriment to such a degree that they transcended themselves. It is believed that theatre sprang from this activity as, like Dionysus’ worshippers, actors strive to leave behind their own persona and become one with the character they are playing. Indeed, priests of Dionysus were given seats of honor in Greek theatres. (79)
As the Romans incorporated Greek culture into itself, so also came the worship of Dionysus. The appearance of Greek culture had been, for the most part, positive. Under this Greek influence, the Roman gods became more human, exhibiting such diverse characteristics as jealousy, love, and hate. However, unlike in Greece, in Rome an individual’s self-expression of belief was not considered as important as adherence to ritual. In an effort to avoid religious zeal, the state demanded a strict adherence to a rigid set of rituals. While this integration of the Greeks gods was never seen as a viable threat — they easily fit into the existing array of gods — some cults proved to be something completely different: a genuine danger to the prevailing state religion.
In 186 BCE the Roman Senate, recognizing a potential menace, suppressed the worship of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus, known to the Romans as Bacchus. His worship is best remembered for its intoxicating festival held on March 17, a day when a Roman male youth would supposedly become a man. The cult was viewed as being excessively brutal, supposedly involving ritual murder and sexual excess. As a result, many of its adherents were either imprisoned or executed. It should be noted, however, that the authority’s fear of this cult was largely generated, not from first-hand experience (the cult’s rituals were always conducted in secret) but from the writings of the historian Livy (c. 64 BCE–17 CE) who consistently portrayed the cult as a dangerous menace to social stability and characterized adherents as little more than drunken beasts. (80)
Figure 6-7: Cybele by Dave & Margie Hill / Kleerup is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Cybele Cult
Originally, the Cybelean cult was brought to Rome during the time of the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE). At that time the Carthaginian general Hannibal was wreaking havoc in Italy, posing a serious threat to the city of Rome. The Sibylline Books, books of prophecy consulted by the Roman Senate in times of emergencies, predicted that Italy would be freed by an Idaean mother of Pessinus; to many, this meant Cybele. A black meteorite, representing the goddess, was brought to Rome from Asia Minor in 204 BCE. Miraculously, Hannibal and his army left shortly afterwards to defend Carthage against the invading Romans; a temple honoring Cybele would be built on Palatine Hill in 191 BCE.
The cult eventually achieved official recognition during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41–44 CE). Ultimately, her appeal as an agrarian goddess would enable her to find adherents in northern Africa as well as Transalpine Gaul.
Due to its agricultural nature, her cult had tremendous appeal to the average Roman citizen, more so women than men. She was responsible for every aspect of an individual’s life. She was the mistress of wild nature, symbolized by her constant companion, the lion. Not only was she was a healer (she both cured and caused disease) but also the goddess of fertility and protectress in time of war (although, interestingly, not a favorite among soldiers), even offering immortality to her adherents.
She is depicted in statues either on a chariot pulled by lions or enthroned carrying a bowl and drum, wearing a mural crown, flanked by lions. Followers of her cult would work themselves into an emotional frenzy and self-mutilate, symbolic of her lover’s self-castration.
Important to the worship of Cybele was Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation, also considered a resurrection god (similar to the Greek Adonis). Supposedly, Attis was Cybele’s lover, although some sources claim him to be her son. Unfortunately, he fell in love with a mortal and chose to marry. According to one story, on the day of their wedding banquet, the irate and jealous goddess apparently struck panic into those who attended the wedding. Afraid for his own safety (no mention is made of his bride), the frightened groom fled to the nearby mountains where he gradually became insane, eventually committing suicide but not before castrating himself. Regaining her own sanity, the remorseful Cybele appealed to Zeus to never allow Attis’s corpse to decay. Myth claims that he would return to life during the yearly rebirth of vegetation; thus identifying Attis as an early dying-and-reviving god figure.
Cybele was one of many cults that appeared in Rome. Some were considered harmless, the Cult of Isis for example, and allowed to survive while others, like Bacchus, were seen as a serious threat to the Roman citizens and was persecuted. Of course, almost all of these cults disappeared with the arrival of Christianity when Rome became the center of this new religion. The Cult of Cybele lasted until the 4 th century CE, at which time Christianity dominated the religious landscape and pagan beliefs and rituals gradually became transformed or discarded to suit the new faith. (80)
CC licensed content, Original
Authored by: Florida State College at Jacksonville. License: CC BY: Attribution
Nothing was more important to a Roman emperor than his image.
Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E. (Vatican Museums)
Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Augustus and the power of images
Today, politicians think very carefully about how they will be photographed. Think about all the campaign commercials and print ads we are bombarded with every election season. These images tell us a lot about the candidate, including what they stand for and what agendas they are promoting. Similarly, Roman art was closely intertwined with politics and propaganda. This is especially true with portraits of Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire; Augustus invoked the power of imagery to communicate his ideology.
Augustus of Primaporta
One of Augustus’ most famous portraits is the so-called Augustus of Primaporta of 20 B.C.E. (the sculpture gets its name from the town in Italy where it was found in 1863). At first glance this statue might appear to simply resemble a portrait of Augustus as an orator and general, but this sculpture also communicates a good deal about the emperor’s power and ideology. In fact, in this portrait Augustus shows himself as a great military victor and a staunch supporter of Roman religion. The statue also foretells the 200 year period of peace that Augustus initiated, called the Pax Romana.
Detail, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Recalling the Golden Age of ancient Greece
Doryphoros (Spear Bearer), Roman copy after an original by the Greek sculptor Polykleitos from c. 450–440 B.C.E., marble, 6’6″ (Archaeological Museum, Naples) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
In this marble freestanding sculpture, Augustus stands in a contrapposto pose (a relaxed pose where one leg bears weight). The emperor wears military regalia and his right arm is outstretched, demonstrating that the emperor is addressing his troops. We immediately sense the emperor’s power as the leader of the army and a military conqueror.
Delving further into the composition of the Primaporta statue, a distinct resemblance to Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, a Classical Greek sculpture of the fifth century B.C.E., is apparent. Both have a similar contrapposto stance and both are idealized. That is to say that both Augustus and the Spear-Bearer are portrayed as youthful and flawless individuals: they are perfect. The Romans often modeled their art on Greek predecessors. This is significant because Augustus is essentially depicting himself with the perfect body of a Greek athlete: he is youthful and virile, despite the fact that he was middle-aged at the time of the sculpture’s commissioning. Furthermore, by modeling the Primaporta statue on such an iconic Greek sculpture created during the height of Athens’ influence and power, Augustus connects himself to the Golden Age of that previous civilization.
The cupid and dolphin
So far the message of the Augustus of Primaporta is clear: he is an excellent orator and military victor with the youthful and perfect body of a Greek athlete. Is that all there is to this sculpture? Definitely not! The sculpture contains even more symbolism. First, at Augustus’ right leg is cupid figure riding a dolphin.
Cupid on a dolphin (detail), Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The dolphin became a symbol of Augustus’ great naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, a conquest that made Augustus the sole ruler of the Empire. The cupid astride the dolphin sends another message too: that Augustus is descended from the gods. Cupid is the son of Venus, the Roman goddess of love. Julius Caesar, the adoptive father of Augustus, claimed to be descended from Venus and therefore Augustus also shared this connection to the gods.
The breastplate
Finally, Augustus is wearing a cuirass, or breastplate, that is covered with figures that communicate additional propagandistic messages. Scholars debate over the identification over each of these figures, but the basic meaning is clear: Augustus has the gods on his side, he is an international military victor, and he is the bringer of the Pax Romana, a peace that encompasses all the lands of the Roman Empire.
Detail of the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
In the central zone of the cuirass are two figures, a Roman and a Parthian. On the right, the enemy Parthian returns military standards. This is a direct reference to an international diplomatic victory of Augustus in 20 B.C.E., when these standards were finally returned to Rome after a previous battle.
Detail of Sol and Caelus on the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Surrounding this central zone are gods and personifications. At the top are Sol and Caelus, the sun and sky gods respectively. On the sides of the breastplate are female personifications of countries conquered by Augustus. These gods and personifications refer to the Pax Romana. The message is that the sun is going to shine on all regions of the Roman Empire, bringing peace and prosperity to all citizens. And of course, Augustus is the one who is responsible for this abundance throughout the Empire.
Detail of Tellus on the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E., marble, 2.03 meters high (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Beneath the female personifications are Apollo and Diana, two major deities in the Roman pantheon; clearly Augustus is favored by these important deities and their appearance here demonstrates that the emperor supports traditional Roman religion. At the very bottom of the cuirass is Tellus, the earth goddess, who cradles two babies and holds a cornucopia. Tellus is an additional allusion to the Pax Romana as she is a symbol of fertility with her healthy babies and overflowing horn of plenty.
Not simply a portrait
The Augustus of Primaporta is one of the ways that the ancients used art for propagandistic purposes. Overall, this statue is not simply a portrait of the emperor, it expresses Augustus’ connection to the past, his role as a military victor, his connection to the gods, and his role as the bringer of the Roman Peace.
John Pollini, From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012).
Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990).
Realism, ideal beauty, and military might—explore the evolution of Roman portraits and political imagery.
Portrait of a Man, late 1st century B.C.E., marble, 31.5 x 19.7 x 19.7 cm.; portrait bust of the emperor Gaius, known as Caligula, 37-41 C.E., marble, 50.8 x 18 cm; bust of the emperor Hadrian, 118-120 C.E., marble; and portrait of the emperor Caracalla, 212-17 C.E., marble, 36.2 cm high (The Metropolitan Museum of Art). Speakers: Dr. Jeffrey Becker and Dr. Beth Harris
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Rome’s history in four faces at The Met,” in Smarthistory, April 28, 2018, accessed April 26, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/roman-busts/.
Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, Italy)
Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, Italy) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Roman state religion in microcosm
The festivities of the Roman state religion were steeped in tradition and ritual symbolism. Sacred offerings to the gods, consultations with priests and diviners, ritual formulae, communal feasting—were all practices aimed at fostering and maintaining social cohesion and communicating authority. It could perhaps be argued that the Ara Pacis Augustae—the Altar of Augustan Peace—represents in luxurious, stately microcosm the practices of the Roman state religion in a way that is simultaneously elegant and pragmatic.
Portrait of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus from the Via Labicana, after 12 B.C.E. (Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome)
Vowed on July 4, 13 B.C.E., and dedicated on January 30, 9 B.C.E., the monument stood proudly in the Campus Martius in Rome (a level area between several of Rome’s hills and the Tiber River). It was adjacent to architectural complexes that cultivated and proudly displayed messages about the power, legitimacy, and suitability of their patron—the emperor Augustus. Now excavated, restored, and reassembled in a sleek modern pavilion designed by architect Richard Meier (2006), the Ara Pacis continues to inspire and challenge us as we think about ancient Rome.
Augustus himself discusses the Ara Pacis in his epigraphical memoir, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) that was promulgated upon his death in 14 C.E. Augustus states “When I returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, having successfully accomplished deeds in those provinces … the senate voted to consecrate the altar of August Peace in the Campus Martius … on which it ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal virgins to offer annual sacrifices” (Aug. RG 12).
An open-air altar for sacrifice
The Ara Pacis is, at its simplest, an open-air altar for blood sacrifice associated with the Roman state religion. The ritual slaughtering and offering of animals in Roman religion was routine, and such rites usually took place outdoors. The placement of the Ara Pacis in the Campus Martius (Field of Mars) along the Via Lata (now the Via del Corso) situated it close to other key Augustan monuments, notably the Horologium Augusti (a giant sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus.
Illustration showing the likely original placement of the Ara Pacis Augustae (far right) in proximity to the Horologium Augusti (sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus in the background. (source)
The significance of the topographical placement would have been quite evident to ancient Romans. This complex of Augustan monuments made a clear statement about Augustus’ physical transformation of Rome’s urban landscape. The dedication to a rather abstract notion of peace (pax) is significant in that Augustus advertises the fact that he has restored peace to the Roman state after a long period of internal and external turmoil.
The altar (ara) itself sits within a monumental stone screen that has been elaborated with bas relief (low relief) sculpture, with the panels combining to form a programmatic mytho-historical narrative about Augustus and his administration, as well as about Rome’s deep roots. The altar enclosure is roughly square while the altar itself sits atop a raised podium that is accessible via a narrow stairway.
The Outer screen—processional scenes
Processional scene (south side), Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Processional scenes occupy the north and south flanks of the altar screen. The solemn figures, all properly clad for a rite of the state religion, proceed in the direction of the altar itself, ready to participate in the ritual. The figures all advance toward the west. The occasion depicted would seem to be a celebration of the peace (Pax) that Augustus had restored to the Roman empire. In addition four main groups of people are evident in the processions: (1) the lictors (the official bodyguards of magistrates), (2) priests from the major collegia of Rome, (3) members of the Imperial household, including women and children, and (4) attendants. There has been a good deal of scholarly discussion focused on two of three non-Roman children who are depicted.
A member of the Priestly college (association) of Septemviri epulones, carries an incense box, processional scene (north side), Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The north processional frieze, made up of priests and members of the Imperial household, is comprised of 46 figures. The priestly colleges (religious associations) represented include the Septemviri epulones (“seven men for sacrificial banquets”—they arranged public feasts connected to sacred holidays), whose members here carry an incense box (image above), and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis (“fifteen men to perform sacred actions”— their main duty was to guard and consult the Sibylline books (oracular texts) at the request of the Senate). Members of the imperial family, including Octavia Minor, follow behind.
Augustus (far left) and members of the imperial household, Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (source)
A good deal of modern restoration has been undertaken on the north wall, with many heads heavily restored or replaced. The south wall of the exterior screen depicts Augustus and his immediate family. The identification of the individual figures has been the source of a great deal of scholarly debate. Depicted here are Augustus (damaged, he appears at the far left in the image above) and Marcus Agrippa (friend, son-in-law, and lieutenant to Augustus, he appears, hooded, image below), along with other members of the imperial house. All of those present are dressed in ceremonial garb appropriate for the state sacrifice. The presence of state priests known as flamens (flamines) further indicate the solemnity of the occasion.
Processional scene (south side) with Agrippa (hooded), Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
A running, vegetal frieze runs parallel to the processional friezes on the lower register. This vegetal frieze emphasizes the fertility and abundance of the lands, a clear benefit of living in a time of peace.
Mythological panels
Accompanying the processional friezes are four mythological panels that adorn the altar screen on its shorter sides. Each of these panels depicts a distinct scene:
a scene of a bearded male making sacrifice (below)
a scene of seated female goddess amid the fertility of Italy (also below)
and a fragmentary panel showing Roma (the personification of Rome) as a seated goddess.
Sacrifice Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Since the early twentieth century, the mainstream interpretation of the sacrifice panel (above) has been that the scene depicts the Trojan hero Aeneas arriving in Italy and making a sacrifice to Juno. A recent re-interpretation offered by Paul Rehak argues instead that the bearded man is not Aeneas, but Numa Pompilius, Rome’s second king. In Rehak’s theory, Numa, renowned as a peaceful ruler and the founder of Roman religion, provides a counterbalance to the warlike Romulus on the opposite panel.
Tellus (or Pax) Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The better preserved panel of the east wall depicts a seated female figure (above) who has been variously interpreted as Tellus (the Earth), Italia (Italy), Pax (Peace), as well as Venus. The panel depicts a scene of human fertility and natural abundance. Two babies sit on the lap of the seated female, tugging at her drapery. Surrounding the central female is the natural abundance of the lands and flanking her are the personifications of the land and sea breezes. In all, whether the goddess is taken as Tellus or Pax, the theme stressed is the harmony and abundance of Italy, a theme central to Augustus’ message of a restored peaceful state for the Roman people—the Pax Romana.
The Altar
The altar itself (below) sits within the sculpted precinct wall. It is framed by sculpted architectural mouldings with crouching gryphons surmounted by volutes flanking the altar. The altar was the functional portion of the monument, the place where blood sacrifice and/or burnt offerings would be presented to the gods.
View to the altar, Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace) 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Implications and interpretation
The implications of the Ara Pacis are far reaching. Originally located along the Via Lata (now Rome’s Via del Corso), the altar is part of a monumental architectural makeover of Rome’s Campus Martius carried out by Augustus and his family. Initially the makeover had a dynastic tone, with the Mausoleum of Augustus near the river. The dedication of the Horologium (sundial) of Augustus and the Ara Pacis, the Augustan makeover served as a potent, visual reminder of Augustus’ success to the people of Rome. The choice to celebrate peace and the attendant prosperity in some ways breaks with the tradition of explicitly triumphal monuments that advertise success in war and victories won on the battlefield. By championing peace—at least in the guise of public monuments—Augustus promoted a powerful and effective campaign of political message making.
Rediscovery
The first fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged in 1568 beneath Rome’s Palazzo Chigi near the basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina. These initial fragments came to be dispersed among various museums, including the Villa Medici, the Vatican Museums, the Louvre, and the Uffizi. It was not until 1859 that further fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged. The German art historian Friedrich von Duhn of the University of Heidelberg is credited with the discovery that the fragments corresponded to the altar mentioned in Augustus’ Res Gestae. Although von Duhn reached this conclusion by 1881, excavations were not resumed until 1903, at which time the total number of recovered fragments reached 53, after which the excavation was again halted due to difficult conditions. Work at the site began again in February 1937 when advanced technology was used to freeze approximately 70 cubic meters of soil to allow for the extraction of the remaining fragments. This excavation was mandated by the order of the Italian government of Benito Mussolini and his planned jubilee in 1938 that was designed to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Augustus’ birth.
Mussolini and Augustus
Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, Ara Pacis Pavillion, 1938 (photo: Indeciso42 CC BY-SA 4.0)
The revival of the glory of ancient Rome was central to the propaganda of the Fascist regime in Italy during the 1930s. Benito Mussolini himself cultivated a connection with the personage of Augustus and claimed his actions were aimed at furthering the continuity of the Roman Empire. Art, architecture, and iconography played a key role in this propagandistic “revival”. Following the 1937 retrieval of additional fragments of the altar, Mussolini directed architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo to construct an enclosure for the restored altar adjacent to the ruins of the Mausoleum of Augustus near the Tiber river, creating a key complex for Fascist propaganda. Newly built Fascist palaces, bearing Fascist propaganda, flank the space dubbed “Piazza Augusto Imperatore” (“Plaza of the emperor Augustus”). The famous Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) was re-created on the wall of the altar’s pavilion. The concomitant effect was meant to lead the viewer to associate Mussolini’s accomplishments with those of Augustus himself.
The Ara Pacis and Richard Meier
Richard Meier and Partners, Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, 2006
The firm of architect Richard Meier was engaged to design and execute a new and improved pavilion to house the Ara Pacis and to integrate the altar with a planned pedestrian area surrounding the adjacent Mausoleum of Augustus.
Between 1995 and the dedication of the new pavilion in 2006 Meier crafted the modernist pavilion that capitalizes on glass curtain walls granting visitors views of the Tiber river and the mausoleum while they perambulate in the museum space focused on the altar itself. The Meier pavilion has not been well-received, with some critics immediately panning it and some Italian politicians declaring that it should be dismantled. The museum has also been the victim of targeted vandalism.
Enduring monumentality
The Ara Pacis Augustae continues both to engage us and to incite controversy. As a monument that is the product of a carefully constructed ideological program, it is highly charged with socio-cultural energy that speaks to us about the ordering of the Roman world and its society—the very Roman universe.
Augustus had a strong interest in reshaping the Roman world (with him as its sole leader) but he had to be cautious about how radical those changes seemed to the Roman populace. While he defeated enemies, both foreign and domestic, he was concerned about being perceived as too authoritarian–he did not wish to be labeled as a king (rex) for fear that this would be too much for the Roman people to accept. So, the Augustan scheme involved a declaration that Rome’s republican government had been “restored” by Augustus and he styled himself as the leading citizen of the republic (princeps). These political and ideological motives then influence and guide the creation of his program of monumental art and architecture. These monumental forms, of which the Ara Pacis is a prime example, served to both create and reinforce these Augustan messages.
The story of the Ara Pacis becomes even more complicated since it is an artifact that then was placed in the service of ideas in the modern age. This results in its identity becoming a hybridized mixture of Classicism, Fascism, and modernism—all difficult to interpret in a postmodern reality. It is important to remember that the sculptural reliefs were created in the first place to be easily legible so that the viewer could understand the messages of Augustus and his circle without the need to read elaborate texts. Augustus pioneered the use of such ideological messages that relied on clear iconography to get their message across. A great deal was at stake for Augustus and it seems, by virtue of history, that the political choices he made proved prudent. The messages of the Pax Romana, of a restored state, and of Augustus as a leading republican citizen, are all part of an effective and carefully constructed veneer.
David Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Diane A. Conlin, The Artists of the Ara Pacis: the Process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).
Nancy de Grummond, “Pax Augusta and the Horae on the Ara Pacis Augustae,” American Journal of Archaeology 94.4 (1990) pp. 663–677.
Karl Galinksy, Augustan Culture: an Interpretive Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
Karl Galinksy ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Peter Heslin, “Augustus, Domitian and the So-called Horologium Augusti,” Journal of Roman Studies, 97 (2007), pp. 1-20.
P. J. Holliday, “Time, History, and Ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae,” The Art Bulletin 72.4 (December 1990), pp. 542–557.
Paul Jacobs and Diane Conlin, Campus Martius: the Field of Mars in the Life of Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Diana E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).
Gerhard M. Koeppel, “The Grand Pictorial Tradition of Roman Historical Representation during the Early Empire,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.12.1 (1982), pp. 507-535.
Gerhard M. Koeppel, “The Role of Pictorial Models in the Creation of the Historical Relief during the Age of Augustus,” in The Age of Augustus, edited by R. Winkes (Providence, R.I.: Center for Old World Archaeology and Art, Brown University; Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium: Institut Supérieur d’Archéologie de d’Histoire de l’Art, Collège Érasme, 1985), pp. 89-106.
Paul Rehak, “Aeneas or Numa? Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae,” The Art Bulletin 83.2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 190-208.
Paul Rehak, Imperium and Cosmos. Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius, edited by John G. Younger. (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2006).
Alan Riding, “Richard Meier’s New Home for the Ara Pacis, a Roman Treasure, Opens,” The New York Times April 24, 2006
John Seabrook, “Roman Renovation,” The New Yorker, May 2, 2005 pp. 56-65.
J. Sieveking, “Zur Ara Pacis,” Jahresheft des Österreichischen Archeologischen Institut 10 (1907).
Catherine Slessor, “Roman Remains,” Architectural Review, 219.1307 (2006), pp. 18-19.
M. J. Strazzulla, “War and Peace: Housing the Ara Pacis in the Eternal City,” American Journal of Archaeology 113.2 (2009) pp. 1-10.
Stefan Weinstock, “Pax and the ‘Ara Pacis’,” The Journal of Roman Studies 50.1-2 (1960) pp. 44–58.
Rolf Winkes ed., The age of Augustus: interdisciplinary conference held at Brown University, April 30-May 2, 1982 (Providence, R.I.: Center for Old World Archaeology and Art, Brown University; Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium: Institut Supérieur d’Archéologie de d’Histoire de l’Art, Collège Érasme, 1985).
Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. D. Schneider (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987).
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Ara Pacis Augustae,” in Smarthistory, October 4, 2020, accessed April 26, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/ara-pacis/.
These awe-inspiring public complexes were built to reinforce the imperial family’s political message.
View of the Forum of Trajan, c. 112 C.E. Later medieval walls can be seen amidst the grass on the left; the upright columns of the Basilica Ulpia can be seen on the right in front of the larger Column of Trajan (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
For centuries, the Roman Forum (Forum Romanum) was the civic, juridical, and social heart of the ancient city of Rome, a place where civic buildings, sacred buildings, and monuments were to be both found and admired. Beginning in the first century B.C.E., a new series of public spaces, also dubbed as fora (fora being the plural form of the Latin noun forum), began to be created. These fora (called Imperial fora since they were built by Roman emperors during the Roman imperial period) would eventually number five in all and were important public spaces that relied upon the visual potential of monumental art and architecture to reinforce ideological messages.
The Imperial fora are located in an area bounded on the southwest by the Capitoline Hill, on the northeast by the Quirinal Hill, and extending toward the Esquiline Hill to the east. The fora were initially built between c. 54 B.C.E. and 113 C.E., with continuing additions, restorations, and modifications through late antiquity. In the middle ages, the fora were spaces re-used for building materials, housing, industry, and burials. Gradually these spaces faded from view, buried beneath the medieval and modern city of Rome. A massive campaign of excavation in the twentieth century on the orders of the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini returned large areas of the fora to view. Ongoing archaeological investigation continues to reveal additional elements of the fora and to provide additional data that allow for their contextualization.
Forum of Julius Caesar
Temple of Venus Genetrix (plan), Forum of Caesar
The Forum of Julius Caesar (also known as the Forum Iulium or Forum Caesaris) was the first of the imperial fora complexes to be built. Pompey the Great, a political rival of Caesar, had dedicated a monumental theater and portico complex in the Campus Martius in 55 B.C.E., and this perhaps spurred Caesar’s ambition to construct a new forum complex.
Caesar’s project required the acquisition of land at the flank of the Capitoline Hill, and he was aided in this early on by political allies, including Cicero, with the initial land purchased at a cost of sixty million sesterces (Cic. ad Att. 4.16.9). Additional land acquisition may have ballooned the total cost to one hundred million sesterces (Suetonius Divus Iulius 26; Pliny the Elder Natural History 36.103). The construction of Caesar’s forum resulted in significant reorganization of the northwest corner of the Forum Romanum.
Cupids, frieze-architrave, Temple of Venus Genetrix, Forum of Julius Caesar, 113 C.E., marble (Mercati di Traiano Museo dei Fori Imperiali; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Forum of Caesar takes the form of a rectangle measuring 160 by 75 m. The centerpiece of the complex was the Temple of Venus Genetrix, dedicated to the goddess that Caesar celebrated as his distant ancestor. The octastyle temple was made of solid marble and sat atop a high podium. The long sides of the forum square, flanking the temple, housed two stories of rooms that may have served political and/or mercantile functions. The complex was dedicated during the festivities surrounding Caesar’s triumph in September of 46 B.C.E.
Forum of Augustus
The Forum of Augustus (known as the Forum Augustum or Forum Augusti) followed the Forum of Caesar as the second of the imperial fora. At the Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C.E., Augustus vowed a temple to Mars in exchange for help in avenging the slain Caesar (Suet. Aug. 29.2), but the temple and forum complex would not be dedicated until 2 B.C.E. (Res Gestae 21). The Forum of Augustus provided additional room for the meeting of law courts and was built on land acquired by Augustus.
The temple at the center of the Forum Augusti was sacred to Mars Ultor (“Mars the Avenger”), and was surrounded by a portico that defined the forum space and played a key role in the visual narrative of the public art program installed in the forum. As Augustus had emerged as the sole leader of the Roman state, it was important for him to create and display messages of continuity and stability. Left: view of the ruins of the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augusti, c. 2 B.C.E.; the stairs to the temple platform are visible (left), and the paving stones of one portico can be seen at the lower right (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0); right: model of the Temple of Mars Ultor between twin porticoes, Forum Augusti (Mercati di Traiano Museo dei Fori Imperiali, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
This drawing shows an ancient sculpture now in Tunis that may be a depiction of the actual pedimental group from Mars Ultor (possible identifications left to right: Venus, Cupid, Mars, and Divus Iulius). From Charles Daremberg and Edmond Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, d’après les textes et les monuments, (Paris: Hachette, 1873), p. 734
The visual program in the Forum of Augustus is complex. The architectural sculpture adorning the Temple of Mars Ultor inserts Augustus into the Julian family (gens Iulia) by portraying Augustus in the context of divinities (Mars, Venus, and Cupid) and the deified mortal—Julius Caesar (divus Iulius). Flanking the temple in the exedrae of the porticoes were sculptural groups depicting both Romulus and Aeneas, thus connecting Augustus to Rome’s two legendary founders (Ovid Fasti 5.549–570).
To complete the narrative cycle, statues of famous Romans of the Republican period adorned the attic of the porticoes. These famous men (summi viri) were portrayed alongside small, inscribed plaques (tituli) bearing their political and military accomplishments. In this way, Augustus portrayed himself as the ideal man to lead the Roman state; he was connected to Rome’s divine origins, and he represented continuity with its republican tradition. This powerful visual narrative represents an important early use of public art to transmit ideological messages in the western world.
View of the capitals of the Temple of Mars Ultor, Forum Augusti, c. 2 B.C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Subsequent emperors continued to elaborate upon the Forum of Augustus. The emperor Tiberius added two arches in 19 C.E. meant to honor the German victories of Drusus and Germanicus (Tacitus Annales 2.64; CIL 6.911) and the emperor Hadrian restored the forum complex in the second century. Pliny the Elder deemed the Forum of Augustus one of three most beautiful monuments in the city of Rome (Pliny the Elder Natural History 36.102.5).
Templum Pacis / Forum of Vespasian
The next imperial forum to be built was commissioned by the emperor Vespasian following the suppression of the Great Jewish Revolt Vespasian came to power following civil chaos in 69 C.E. and, together with his eldest son, Titus, suppressed the revolt and sacked the city of Jerusalem. During the summer of 71 C.E. Vespasian and Titus jointly celebrated a lavish triumph at Rome—an ancient ritual celebrating significant military victories. One of the key tenets of Vespasian’s new administration was the restoration of the city, including the construction of new buildings and monuments. He dedicated a forum complex that housed a temple dedicated to Peace (Pax) in 71 C.E., completing it by 75 C.E. (Flavius Josephus Jewish War 7.5.7). This innovative complex was deemed one of Rome’s most beautiful monuments by Pliny the Elder and housed not only significant spoils from Jerusalem but also masterworks of Greek art that had previously been hoarded by the emperor Nero.
Restored plan, Temple of Peace
The Temple of Peace (Templum Pacis) stands out among the imperial fora for its innovative architectural design. Rather than featuring a central temple seated atop a prominent podium, the Templum Pacis complex consists of a square portico (dimensions 110 x 135 m) with the temple itself set within the eastern side of the portico, flanked by ancillary rooms. This left the square itself open for the installation of decorative water features and plantings, which are seen both archaeologically and on fragments of the Severan marble plan of the city of Rome (forma urbis Romae) that was mounted in the forum complex in the third century C.E. The fragments of the Severan plan provide valuable information about the design of this architectural complex and has led scholars to speculate that the inspiration for its design may have been the great market (macellum magnum) of the city that had likely been destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. It is especially significant to note that this is a public space and that Vespasian’s generosity granted the populace of Rome access not only to a beautiful, monumental square, but also to art and the spoils of military victory (including spoils from the Temple in Jerusalem).
Columns and relief sculpture, Forum Transitorium (Forum of Nerva), c. 97 C.E. (photo: José Luiz, CC BY-SA 4.0)
Forum Transitorium
The Forum Transitorium, also referred to as the Forum of Nerva, was begun by Domitian, the younger son of Vespasian. Incomplete at the time of Domitian’s assassination in 96 C.E., the complex was completed by Nerva in 97 C.E. This is a narrow forum complex that abuts both the Forum of Augustus and the Templum Pacis and is constrained by these pre-existing structures (dimensions: 131 x 45 meters); as well as the Argiletum, a street that ran the length of the forum. The Forum Transitorium’s temple was sacred to Minerva, who had been a patron divinity of Domitian, and the architectural sculpture that decorated the porticoes featured imagery connected to Minerva and scenes from the private lives of women.
Plan of the Imperial fora showing a freestanding Temple of the Deified Trajan at the western end of the Forum of Trajan (photo: Samanthamalgieri, CC BY-SA 4.0)
Forum of Trajan
The Forum of Trajan (Forum Traiani), the final imperial forum, was both the largest and the most lavish. Inaugurated in 112 C.E., the architectural complex relied upon imposing architectural and sculptural features to glorify the accomplishments and principate of the emperor Trajan. The elaborate forum complex has a vast footprint, measuring 200 x 120 meters. The open square of the forum is flanked by porticoes that contain exedrae and point viewer’s attention toward the main structure, the massive Basilica Ulpia. The architect, Apollodorus of Damascus, was responsible for the innovative design. On the western side of the basilica was another courtyard, flanked by two libraries (one Greek and one Latin), that contained a monumental honorific column, known today as the Column of Trajan.
View of the Forum of Trajan, c. 112 C.E., the Column of Trajan can be seen behind the columns of the Basilica Ulpia (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Column of Trajan, Carrara marble, completed 113 C.E., Rome; dedicated to Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus) in honor of his victories over Dacia (now Romania) 101–02 and 105–06 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Column of Trajan, inaugurated in 113 C.E., is a main feature of the Forum of Trajan and is, in its own right, a masterwork of Roman art. The column carries a helical frieze of historical relief that provides a pictorial narrative of the events of Trajan’s wars in Dacia, culminating with the death of the enemy commander, Decebalus. The column stands 38 meters tall and its frieze wraps around the column shaft 23 times, with a total length of roughly 190 meters. Carved in bas relief, the exquisite frieze carefully narrates Trajan’s campaigns and its level of detail is simply astounding.
The column’s frieze may draw inspiration from earlier Roman triumphal art, the tradition of which was inclined to depict scenes from the foreign campaigns and, in so doing, glorify the accomplishments of the commander and his soldiers. Throughout the Forum of Trajan, the theme of military victory, and its celebration, permeate the monumental decorative programs.
Pontoon bridge with Roman soldiers (detail), Column of Trajan, Carrara marble, completed 113 C.E., Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
When Trajan died in 117 C.E., sources tell us that the Roman Senate allowed a special dispensation whereby Trajan’s cremated remains could be deposited in the base of the column and that a temple to his cult (Templum Divi Traiani et Plotinae) was added to the forum complex between 125 and 138 C.E. (Historia Augusta – Hadrian 19.9). An ongoing point of scholarly contention is the position and appearance of this plan. Traditional reconstructions favor a free-standing temple at the western end of the forum, while more recent reconstructions instead favor a shrine positioned against the western exedra of the Forum of Augustus. Ongoing archaeological fieldwork may yet shed light on this contentious topographical debate.
Interpretation
The Imperial fora represent important architectural landscapes in the city of Rome. They demonstrate the efficacy of public art and architecture with respect to creating collective identity and communicating clear messages that both disseminate and reinforce ideology. The strength and accomplishments of the Roman state, not to mention its stability, are key themes in any such program of message-making. We should also not underestimate the psychological effect of these grandiose, soaring, bedecked complexes, based around massive open plazas, on the minds and experiences of city dwellers (many of whom lived in crowded squalor). The Imperial fora demonstrate that within the mechanisms of Roman urbanism, civic architecture occupies a crucial role. We are reminded of this efficacy by an ancient example that is perhaps no different from the reaction of a modern visitor to the city of Rome. The emperor Constantius II, visiting Rome in the mid-fourth century C.E., was amazed by the Forum of Trajan, something he considered “a construction unique under the heavens” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15).
J. Anderson, The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Collection Latomus; 182) (Brussels: Latomus, 1984).
S. Baiani et al., Crypta Balbi-Fori imperiali: archeologia urbana a Roma e interventi di restauro nell’anno del Grande Giubileo (Rome: Kappa, 2000).
A. Carandini and P. Carafa, editors, Atlante di Roma antica: biografia e ritratti della città (Milan: Electa, 2012).
A. Claridge, Rome: an Archaeological Guide, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
F. Coarelli et al., The Column of Trajan (Rome: Colombo, 2000).
R. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: a Study of Flavian Rome (Collection Latomus; 231) (Brussels: Latomus, 1996).
J. Geiger, The first hall of fame: a study of the statues in the Forum Augustum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008).
E. La Rocca, I Fori Imperiali (Rome: ENEL, 1995).
T. J. Luce, “Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum,” Between Republic and Empire, edited by K. Raaflaub and M. Toher (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 123–38.
R. Meneghini, “Templum Divi Traiani,” Bullettino Della Commissione Archeologica Comunale Di Roma, volume 97 (1996), pp. 47–55.
R. Meneghini and R. S. Valenzani, Scavi dei Fori imperiali: il Foro di Augusto: l’area centrale (Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2010).
J. E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan in Rome: a Study of the Monuments (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
J. E. Packer, “Trajan’s Forum Again: The Column and the Temple in the Master Plan Attributed to Apollodorus (?),” Journal of Roman Archaeology, volume 7 (1994), pp. 163–82.
S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929).
L. Richardson, Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).
R. Ulrich, “Julius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum Iulium,” American Journal of Archaeology, volume 97, number 1 (1993), pp. 49–80.
L. Ungaro, Il Museo dei Fori Imperiali nei mercati di Traiano (Milan: Electa, 2007).
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Imperial fora,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed April 26, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/imperial-fora/.
The heart of ancient Rome, the Forum Romanum was the monumental center of religious, political, and social life.
Ruins in Modern Imagination: The Roman Forum (part 1), an ARCHES video. Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker
Ruins in Modern imagination: The Roman Forum (part 2)
Ruins in Modern imagination: The Roman Forum (part 3)
View of the Forum from the slope of the Capitoline to the Palatine Hill (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
In his play Curculio, the Latin playwright Plautus offers perhaps one of the most comprehensive and insightful descriptions of the Forum Romanum ever written (ll. 466-482). In his summary, Plautus gives the reader the sense that one could find just about every sort of person in the forum—from criminals and hustlers to politicians and prostitutes. His summary reminds us that in the city of Rome the Forum Romanum was the key political, ritual, and civic center. Located in a valley separating the Capitoline and Palatine Hills, the Forum developed from the earliest times and remained in use after the city’s eventual decline; during that span of time the forum witnessed the growth and eventual contraction of the city and her empire. The archaeological remains of the Forum Romanum itself continue to provide important insights into the phases and processes associated with urbanism and monumentality in ancient Rome.
Situated astride the Tiber river, the site of Rome is noted for its low hills that are separated by deeply cut valleys. The hilltops became the focus of settlement beginning in the Early Iron Age; the development of the settlement continued during the first millennium B.C.E., with the traditional Roman account holding that the city herself was founded in 753 B.C.E. (Livy 1.6)
The traditional foundation narrative holds that one of the first acts of Romulus, the city’s eponymous founder, was to establish a fortification wall around the Palatine Hill, the site of his new settlement. The Capitoline Hill, opposite the Palatine, emerged as the city’s citadel (arx) and site of the poliadic cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, among others (poliadic: the chief civic cult of an ancient city, derived from the Greek word “polis”).
Iron Age populations had used the marshy valley separating the Palatine and Capitoline hills as a necropolis (a large ancient cemetery), but the burgeoning settlement of archaic Rome had need of communal space and the valley was repurposed from a necropolis to a usable space. This required several transformations, both of human activity and the natural environment. Burial activity had to be transferred elsewhere; for this reason the main necropolis site shifted to the far side of the Esquiline Hill.
View of the Forum Romanum toward the Palatine Hill (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Addressing the problems of seasonal rains and flooding proved more challenging—the valley required a landfill project as well as the construction of a drainage canal to manage standing water. Since the Tiber river tended to leave its banks regularly, the valley was prone to significant flooding, as a low saddle of land known as the Velabrum connects the forum valley to the riverine zone. As coring studies conducted by Albert J. Ammerman have shown, a deliberate landfill project deposited fill in the forum valley in order to create usable, dry levels during the sixth century B.C.E. Twentieth century excavators, including Giacomo Boni and Einar Gjerstad, revealed important remains of Iron Age burials that pre-dated the establishment of the forum valley as a civic space; in particular the necropolis in the area known as the Sepulcretum along the Sacra Via (“Sacred Way,” the main sacred processional road of the city) has been extensively studied and published. The investigations of the burials themselves, and the patterns they followed, have allowed archaeologists to understand not only funeral customs but also social dynamics during Rome’s proto-urban phases.
A view of the Via Sacra, with the Artium Vestae in the foreground
This major investment in the creation of civic space and the organization of labor also provides important information about the socio-economic structure of early Rome (Livy 1.59.9). The drainage canal eventually came to have a vaulted covering and was known as the Cloaca Maxima or “Great Drain.” One of the clear outcomes of these civic investments was the creation of a usable space that came to be a civic focus for activities in many spheres, especially political and sacred functions.
Temples and sacred buildings
From the Early Republican period the forum space saw the construction of key temples. One of the most prominent early temples is the Temple of Saturn (often considered the earliest of the temples in the Forum Romanum), the first iteration of which dates c. 498 B.C.E. The temple was dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and housed the state treasury. The temple was rebuilt in 42 B.C.E. and again after 283 C.E. Another early Republican temple is the Temple of the Castors (a.k.a. Temple of Castor and Pollux) that was completed in 484 B.C.E. and was dedicated to the Gemini who had aided the Romans at the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 B.C.E. The temple had several construction phases. The Sacra Via passed along the forum square en route to the Capitoline Hill and the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. This sacred route was used for certain state-level ceremonies, especially the celebration of the victory ritual known as the Roman triumph.
Temple of Vesta, rebuilt many times, most recently in the 1930s (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Two other early, sacred buildings are important to note. These are the Regia or “king’s house” and the Temple of Vesta, both located on the downward slope of the Palatine Hill near the point where it reaches the edge of the Forum Romanum proper. Both of these sacred buildings are quite ancient and had many building phases, making it difficult to refine the chronology of the earliest phases. The Regia served as a ceremonial home for the king—later passing into the ownership of the pontifex maximus (principal state-level priesthood) once the kings had been expelled—and consisted of an irregularly planned suite of rooms surrounding a courtyard. The sixth century B.C.E. phase was decorated with painted plaques of architectural terracotta, clearly indicating both elite function and investment. Across the way was the Temple of Vesta, focused on the maternal elements of the archaic state as well as safeguarding the cult of Vesta and the sacred, eternal hearth flame of the Roman people. Both the Regia and the Temple of Vesta developed from crude structures in earlier phases to stone-built architecture in later phases. The Severan family carried out the final significant restoration of the Temple of Vesta in 191 C.E.
Meeting spaces
Important meeting spaces for political bodies emerged at the northwest side of the forum, namely a pair of complexes known as the Curia and Comitium. The Curia served as the council house for the Roman Senate, although the Senate could convene in any inaugurated space (i.e. a space ritually demarcated by Roman priests). The Curia emerged perhaps in the seventh century B.C.E., although little is known about its earliest phases. The surviving Curia is an imperial rebuilding of the Late Republican phase known as the Curia Julia, since Julius Caesar was its architectural patron. The Comitium was a tiered space that lay in front of the Curia that served as an open-air meeting space for public assemblies. Little of the Comitium remains today but it was a key architectural complex for political and sacred events during the time of the Roman Republic.
Curia Julia (Senate House)
From Republic to Empire
During the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. the Forum Romanum certainly continued to develop, but material remains of large-scale architecture have proven elusive and thus our understanding of the space during those centuries is less clear than in other periods. One middle Republican development is the continued elaboration of the Rostra, the platform from which orators would speak to those assembled in the forum square. This monument would continue to develop over time and took its name from the prows (rostra) of defeated enemy warships that were mounted on its façade.
The Forum Romanum in the Late Republican period: 1) Tabularium; 2)Temple of Concord; 3) Basilica Opimia; 4)Tullianum; 5) Basilica Porcia; 6) Curia and Comitium; 7) Temple of Saturn; 8) Senaculum; 9) Volcanal; 10) Lacus Curtius; 11) Basilica Sempronia; 12) Basilica Fulvia; 13) Shrine of Venus Cloacina; 14) Temple of the Castors; 15)Fountain of Juturna; 16) Temple of Vesta; 17) Regia (Source image, CC BY-SA 3.0)
The later second and first centuries B.C.E., the Late Republican period, witnessed many changes in the city and in the Forum Romanum. The successes of Rome and her growing empire during the second and first centuries B.C.E. led to a great deal of monumental construction in the city, including in the Forum Romanum itself. It was during this Late Republican phase that Rome became a metropolitan center, equipped with the monumental architecture that could compete with—if not eclipse—that of the foreign powers Rome had tamed during the Punic Wars and those against the Hellenistic kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean. In particular the Romans established a tradition of constructing monuments commemorating famous men who had achieved great success in military and public careers. The first of these was the Columna Rostrata that marked the naval victory of Caius Duilius at the naval battle of Mylae in 260 B.C.E. The Roman interest in monumental, commemorative monuments, now referred to as triumphal arches, would soon follow. The first of these, the Fabian arch (fornix Fabianus), was dedicated on the Sacra Via toward the eastern end of the Forum Romanum in 121 B.C.E., commemorating the military victories (and family) of Quintus Fabius Allobrogicus (Cicero pro Planc. 17). While the Fabian monument is no longer extant, its construction established a tradition (and a traditional form) for official commemorative and honorific monuments in the context of Roman public art.
The Basilica
The second century B.C.E. saw the creation and introduction of a unique Roman building type, the basilica. The basilica was a columnar hall that often had a multi-purpose use—from law courts to commerce to entertainments. Roman planners came to prefer them for lining the long sides of open squares, in a way not dissimilar from the Greek stoa. The sources claim that the Basilica Porcia (c. 184 B.C.E.) was the first basilica built at Rome, although no trace of it remains. The Basilica Porcia served as an office for the tribunes of the plebs. Other, more elaborate basilicae were soon to be built, including the famous Basilica Aemilia, first built in 179 B.C.E., and remodeled from c. 55 to 34 B.C.E. as the Basilica Paulli. Restored again after a fire in 14 B.C.E., the famous basilica was deemed by Pliny the Elder to be one of the three most beautiful monuments in Rome (Plin. HN36.102.5)
The advent of the principate of Augustus (27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) brought about additions and renovations to the Forum Romanum. With the deification of Julius Caesar, Augustus’ adoptive father, a temple dedicated to Caesar’s cult (templum divi Iulii) was constructed on the edge of the forum square (15 in the diagram below).
The Forum Romanum in the Imperial period: 1)Tabularium; 2) Tullianum; 3) Temple of Concord; 4) Temple of Vespasian; 5) Portico Dii Consentes; 6) Arch of Septimius Severus; 7) Umbilicus Urbis; 8) Rostra; 9) Temple of Saturn; 10) Curia Julia; 11) Lacus Curtius; 12) Basilica Julia; 13) Basilica Aemilia; 14) Shrine of Venus Cloacina; 15) Temple of Divus Julius; 16) Arch of Augustus; 17) Temple of the Castors; 18) Temple of Ant0ninus and Faustina; 19) Regia; 20) Temple of Vesta; 21) Fountain of Juturna (source image, CC BY-SA 3.0)
Augustus restored existing buildings, completed incomplete projects, and added commemorative projects to celebrate his own accomplishments and those of his family members. In this latter group, the Arch of Augustus (#16 above) and the Porticus of Caius and Lucius are notable. The former was a triumphal arch celebrating significant military and diplomatic accomplishments of the emperor, while the latter honored the emperor’s grandsons.
Augustus also followed Julius Caesar in creating yet another new forum space beyond the Forum Romanum that was named the Forum of Augustus. (dedicated in 2 B.C.E.). These new Imperial Fora in some cases provided additional space and, in turn, shifted attention away from the Forum Romanum.
During the Imperial period the Forum Romanum itself saw only sporadic new construction, although the maintenance of the existing structures would have provided a pressing and ongoing obligation. Just beyond the limit of the forum proper the second century C.E. temple of Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina was constructed in 141 C.E. (and then modified in 161 C.E. following the emperor’s death).
Arch of Septimius Severus, 203 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Coming to power at the end of the second century C.E., the Severan family erected a triple-bay triumphal arch commemorating the victories of emperor Septimius Severus (reigned 193-211 C.E.) at the northwestern corner of the forum square. The third century C.E. saw rebuilding of structures and monuments that had been damaged by fire, including the rebuilding of the Curia Julia by the emperor Diocletian in the late third century C.E. following a fire in 283 C.E.
Decline
View of the Roman Forum (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Declining imperial fortunes led inevitably to urban decay at Rome. After the Severan and Tetrarchic building programs of the third century C.E. and Constantinian investment in the early fourth century C.E., the forum and its environs began to decline and decay. Constantine I officially relocated the administrative center of the Roman world to Constantinople in 330 C.E. and Theodosius I suppressed all “pagan” religions and ordered temples shut permanently in 394 C.E. These changes, coupled with population decline, spelled the gradual demise of spaces like the Forum Romanum. Roman monuments were cannibalized for building materials and open, unused spaces were re-purposed—sometimes as ad hoc dwellings and other times for the deposition of rubbish and fill. Thus the forum slowly yielded its sacro-civic functions to more mundane concerns like pasturage—in fact it eventually came to be known as the “Campo Vaccino” (cow field).
The beauty of the ruins
The monument that is considered to be the final ancient structure erected in the Forum Romanum is a re-purposed monumental column set in place by the emperor Phocas in August of 608 C.E. The anonymous Einsiedeln itinerary, written in the eighth century C.E., mentions a general state of decay in the forum. A major earthquake in 847 C.E. wreaked considerable damage on remaining Roman monuments in the forum and in its environs. During the Middle Ages ancient structures provided reusable buildings materials, as well as reusable foundations, for Medieval structures.
The ruins themselves provided endless inspiration for artists, including painters the likes of Canaletto who became interested in the romanticism of the ruins of the ancient city as well as for cartographers and engravers the likes of G. B. Piranesi and G. Vasi, among others, who created views of the ruins themselves and restored plans of the ancient city.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, “Veduta di Campo Vaccino,” Views of Rome, plate 82, 18 x 27.75 inches, etching, 1772
Interpretation
The Forum Romanum, despite being a relatively small space, was central to the function and identity of the city of Rome (and the wider Roman empire). The Forum Romanum played a key role in creating a communal focal point, one toward which various members of a diverse socio-economic community could gravitate. In that centralized space community rituals that served a larger purpose of group unity could be performed and observed and elites could reinforce social hierarchy through the display of monumental art and architecture. These devices that could create and continually reinforce not only a sense of community belonging but also the existing social hierarchy were of vital importance in archaic states. Even as the Forum Romanum changed over time, it remained an important space. After a series of emperors chose to build new forum complexes (the Imperial Fora) adjacent to the Forum Romanum, it retained its symbolic importance, especially considering that, as a people, ancient Romans were incredibly loyal to ancestral practices and traditions.
Recent excavation at the northeast corner of the Palatine Hill (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Rediscovery and excavation
Many of the monuments of the Forum Romanum, along with ancient occupation levels, gradually disappeared from view. Systematic exploration and study began under archaeologist Carlo Fea who started to clear the area near the Arch of Septimius Severus in 1803. Study continued during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with prominent scholars including Rodolfo Lanciani, Giacomo Boni, Einar Gjerstad, and Andrea Carandini, among others, leading major campaigns. Study and excavation—as well as the hugely important obligation of preservation—continue in the Forum Romanum today. The bulk of the forum is accessible to visitors who have the opportunity to experience one of the great documents of urban archaeology.
Additional resources:
A. J. Ammerman, “On the Origins of the Forum Romanum,” American Journal of Archaeology vol. 94, no. 4, 1990, pp. 627-45.
A. J. Ammerman, “The Comitium in Rome from the Beginning.” American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 100, no. 1, 1996. pp. 121-36.
P. Carafa, Il comizio di Roma dalle origini all’età di Augusto (Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1998).
A. Carandini and P. Carafa, eds., Atlante di Roma antica: biografia e ritratti della città, 2 v. (Milan: Electa, 2012).
A. Claridge, Rome: an Archaeological Guide 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
F. Coarelli, Il foro romano, 2 v. (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1983-1992).
F. Coarelli, Rome and Environs: an Archaeological Guide, trans. James J. Clauss and Daniel P. Harmon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).
E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, 7 v. (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1953-1973).
C. Hülsen and J. B. Carter, The Roman forum: its history and its monuments, 2nd ed. (Rome: Stechert, 1906).
R. Krautheimer, Rome, profile of a city, 312-1308 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).
R. Krautheimer, Three Christian capitals: topography and politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
G. Lugli, Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes. Colligendos atque edendos curavit Iosephus Lugli, 8 v. (Rome: Università di Roma, Istituto di topografia antica, 1952-1965).
G. Lugli, The Roman Forum and Palatine (Rome: Bardi, 1961).
S. B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929).
L. Richardson, jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).
J. Sewell, The formation of Roman urbanism, 338-200 B.C.: between contemporary foreign influence and Roman tradition (Journal of Roman archaeology Supplementary series; 79), (Portsmouth RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2010).
J. E. Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988).
E. M. Steinby, ed., Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 6 v. (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1993-2000).
D. Watkin, The Roman Forum (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009).
A. Ziółkowski, Sacra Via: twenty years after (Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Supplement; 3), (Warsaw: Fundacja im. Rafała Taubenschlag, 2004).
Views of Rome have long fired human imagination, eliciting reactions that lead to contemplation and argue for conservation.
Apollodorus of Damascus, Basilica Ulpia, dedicated 112 C.E., Rome
Views of Rome
The Roman emperor Constantius II (the second son of Constantine the Great) visited Rome for the only time in his life in the year 357 C.E. His visit to the city included a tour of the usual monuments and sites, but the majesty of the Basilica Ulpia still standing in the forum built by the emperor Trajan arrested his attention, causing him to declare that the monument was so grand that it would be impossible to imitate it (Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum Gestarum 16.15). From a certain point of view, any visitor to Rome can share the experience and reaction of Constantius II.
Reconstruction of the Basilica Ulpia, Julien Guadet, “Memoire de la restauration du Forum de. Trajan,” manuscript No. 207 dated 1867, Ecole des Beaux-Arts,. Paris 21-23
The city’s monuments (and their ruins) are cues for memory, discourse, and discovery. Their rediscovery and subsequent interpretation in modern times play a key role in our understanding of the past and influence the role that the past plays in the present. For these reasons, among others, it is crucial that we think critically about fragmented past landscapes and that any reading of fragments is contextualized, nuanced, and transparent in its motives. The physical presence of fragments raises the question of whether or not the past is knowable. Tangible ruins and artifacts suggest that it is, but whose story are we telling when we analyze and interpret these remains? If we consider a quintessentially famous and evocative archaeological landscape like the Forum Romanum (Roman Forum) in Rome we have an opportunity to examine a fragmented past landscape and also to explore the question of what role archaeology plays in understanding and interpreting the past.
Detail, Giovanni Paolo Panini, The Archaeologist, 1749, oil on canvas, 123 x 91 cm (National Academy of San Luca, Rome)
From heart of empire to pasturage for cows
The story of the Forum as an important node of cultural significance was central to ancient Roman ideation about their city and even themselves. Romans could define themselves in relation to the places where they believed key past events had occurred. The fact that this tradition provided the backdrop for the Forum’s activities works to heighten the efficacy and the value of constructing collective identity and memory. In ways both practical and symbolic the cramped space sandwiched between the Capitoline and Palatine hills was the heart of the Roman populace.
View of the Roman Forum, with the Arch of Septimius Severus, left, and the Column of Phocas at center (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
The Forum witnessed many of the city’s key events. It began as a central point of convergence in the landscape for sacred and civic business and, over time, became a sort of monumentalized and petrified museum of the offices of state and the promotion of state ideology. With the decline of the western Roman empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E., the relevance and importance of the forum square receded. Its structures fell into disuse, were stripped of usable building materials, and repurposed for other uses.
The last purposefully erected monument of the forum is the so-called Column of Phocas, a cannibalized column (it was originally made for another monument). It was erected on August 1st of 608 C.E. in honor of the Eastern Roman Emperor Phocas. Its inscription (CILVI, 01200) speaks of eternal glory and lasting recognition for the emperor (a statement on monumentality that had long echoed in Latin literature, for instance, Horace Odes 3.30). It is not insignificant that in a much diminished city of Rome it was nonetheless worthwhile to create a new monument (even if using repurposed materials) in the once thriving sacred and civic center of the city.
Joseph Mallord William Turner, Modern Rome—Campo Vaccino, 1839, oil on canvas, 91.8 x 122.6 cm (The J. Paul Getty Museum)
A ninth century guide for Christian pilgrims in Rome (known as the Einsiedeln Itinerary) notes that the forum had decayed from its former glory. It is likely that, as a landscape of disuse and re-use, the forum had by that time morphed into a form that perhaps would be scarcely recognizable today. The central square came to be used as grazing land, earning it the nickname “Campo Vaccino” or “cow field” by the Middle Ages.
This broken landscape of abandoned and discarded structures and monuments evoked the past and provoked the fancy and imaginations of viewers. It appealed particularly to artists who were keen to craft a romantic vision of the broken pieces of the past set amid the contemporary world. This romantic movement produced a genre of art in various media in the eighteenth century that is often referred to as vedute or “views”.
Giovanni Paolo Panini, Modern Rome, 1757, oil on canvas, 172.1 x 233 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Painters the likes of Giovanni Paolo Panini produced vedute of ancient and contemporary Rome alike, often enlivening his canvases with contemporary human figures and their activities. In these “views” one can appreciate the creation of an assemblage, one that juxtaposes ancient elements with contemporary elements and human figures. The work of Panini and his contemporaries creates a romantic view of the past without being concerned overly with objectivity.
In the same century the artist and engraver Giovanni Battista Piranesi was also active. Piranesi’s approach to the ruins of Rome alters the course of the field, not only in terms of artistic representation but also in terms of how we approach the ruins of past civilizations. One part of his oeuvre focuses on renderings of the ruins of Rome set amidst contemporary activity. The fragments of the past are very much the focus—their massive and monumental scale cannot help but capture the viewer’s attention. Despite the expert draughting of Piranesi, the ruins—being incomplete—remain a topic worthy of inquiry, as something of them is unknown.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Vaccino, from the capitol, with the Arch of Septimus Severus in the foreground left, Temple of Vespasian right, and the Colosseum in the distance (Veduta di Campo Vaccino), c. 1775, etching (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
The work of Panini, Piranesi, and others in the eighteenth century shows us that views of Rome are not just flights of fancy or imagination, but rather they are connected to memory. Piranesi was influenced in his early years by mentors interested in the revival of the ancient city as well as by others (namely Giambattista Nolli), who aimed to record the ancient remains in fine-grained detail. Piranesi, then, brings an expertise born from the school of the Renaissance architect Andrea Palladio that is combined with an enthusiasm for Rome as the locus classicus of “old meets new.” The curation of views of the ancient remains not only reinforced shared memories of a past time but, also reinforced memory in contemporary terms.
Depicting ruins as fragile yet once powerful monuments might suggest that lessons derived from the past might help one to avoid the collapse and decay that is of course inevitable. These depictions of Rome’s past, encoded with memory, are important to the artistic culture of the eighteenth century and foreshadow what the nineteenth century will bring.
A disciplinary revolution
The nineteenth century witnesses a number of changes that in some cases move the conversation away from subjective romanticism and toward a more methodological approach to science and natural science. The discipline of archaeology emerges from this movement and, as with any new undertaking, the discipline needed to sort itself out in order to embrace a set of practices and norms. Antiquarians abounded but archaeologists were relatively new, even though early pioneers like Flavio Biondo (15th century) likely numbers among the first archaeologists.
The nineteenth century was a momentous time for archaeology at Rome. The archaeologist Carlo Fea began an excavation in the Roman Forum to clear the area around the third century C.E. triumphal arch of the emperor Septimius Severus. Fea’s work ushers in a new era of what would become archaeological practice in the valley of the forum, as well as at other sites of the ancient city. Interest grew in decluttering or isolating the ancient moments. As the methods of archaeology developed, more scientific rigor could be observed.
Detail, Rudolfo Lanciani, Sheet 29: Forma Urbis Romae, 1901 (1990 reprint)
The Roman topographer Rodolfo Lanciani was a disciplined and active excavator at Rome. His magnum opus was the Forma Urbis Romae (1893–1901), a map at a scale of 1:1000 of the city of Rome, noting both ancient and modern features. It evoked earlier maps of Rome (for example the 1748 map produced by G. Nolli), but also reached back to the Severan marble plan of the third century C.E. in representing in detail the city and its monuments. One might see Lanciani’s Forma Urbis as a development that grew from the same tradition in which artists like Panini and Piranesi had worked—one could appreciate views of Rome, and, in so doing, gain a command of the sites and the memories linked to them.
Giacomo Boni in the Roman Forum in front of the Arch of Titus, Rome, Italy, from L’Illustrazione Italiana, Year XXXIV, No 7, February 17, 1907
At the turn of the twentieth century the excavations of Giacomo Boni in the Roman Forum were transformational, not only because they represented an enormous methodological advance for the time but also because they set the tone for archaeology in the forum thereafter. Boni’s stratigraphic excavations sampled previously unexplored layers of the city’s past and exposed the Roman Forum not just as a cow pasture with a few random columns protruding from the ground but as a complex cultural and chronological laboratory.
Some of the trends established in Boni’s time continued in the period of Italian Fascism (1922–1943) when archaeology showed a clear bias for the late Roman republican period and the principate of the emperor Augustus (31 B.C.E–14 C.E.). It was hoped that these earlier periods of perceived cultural, legal, and moral greatness would be examples that a modern Italian state could emulate. For this reason those archaeological strata were privileged, while others that were deemed unworthy were haphazardly destroyed in order to reach the preferred time period. In many ways these disciplinary choices were unfortunate and they do not find a place in twenty-first century archaeological practice. Nonetheless they shaped the landscape of the Forum valley that confronts us still day—one that is incomplete, at times chronologically incongruous, and evocative of an obviously complex past.
Contextual landscapes and fragments
Today the Roman Forum is part of a protected archaeological park that includes the Palatine Hill and the Colosseum. It is a site of significant popular interest and is visited by millions of tourists annually (7.6 million in 2018). It is also the site of ongoing archaeological research and conservation. The Forum is a challenging site to understand, both in terms of its chronological breadth and in terms of the processes of its formation (including archaeological excavation) that have shaped it.
The Forum should make us think about the goals of archaeology and the importance of archaeological context. One of the alluring things about the Forum is that it is fragmentary and incomplete. Latin authors were wont to mock the futile vanity of the potentates who sought to achieve immortality through the construction of monuments since those same monuments would inevitably decay. Their critique touches on a point that is central to a consideration of a fragmentary landscape like the Roman Forum, namely that the development of the space over time represents not just multiple time periods and historical actors but also multiple conversations between the space and the viewer.
The discipline of archaeology, in some respects, seeks to reassemble the past and it can only do this via contextual information. This means that the archaeological record needs to be preserved to the extent possible and then be interpreted in a rigorous and objective fashion. The impetus to reassemble what is broken informs our practice in many ways. It certainly influenced Lanciani’s plan of the city of Rome and Italo Gismondi’s model of the same. Scholars in the later twentieth and twenty-first centuries have similar motives, whether architect’s reconstruction drawings (see Gorski and Packer 2015), or a new archaeological atlas of the city inspired by Lanciani (see Carandini et al. 2012) or even 3D virtual renderings as in the case of the “Rome Reborn” project.
Our conversation with the Forum Romanum continues. In early 2020 there was a great deal of excitement about a re-discovery in the area of Giacomo Boni’s early twentieth century excavations. The site, perhaps connected with the cult of Rome’s traditional founder Romulus, provided an opportunity for a conversation that was both new and old at the same time.
Our views of the fragmented landscapes of the past are vital to our understanding not only of the humans who went before us but also, importantly, ourselves.
Additional Resources
ANSA news agency. “Hypogeum with sarcophagus found in Forum. Near Curia, dates back to sixth century BC.” February 19, 2020.
Ferdinando Arisi, Gian Paolo Panini e i fasti della Roma del ’700 (Rome, 1986).
J. A. Becker, “Giacomo Boni,” in Springer Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith (Berlin, Springer, 2014). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1453
Mario Bevilacqua, Heather Hyde Minor, and Fabio Barry (eds.), The serpent and the stylus: essays on G.B. Piranesi, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome,
Supplementary volume 4, (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Published for the American Academy in Rome by the University of Michigan Press, 2007).
Mario Bevilacqua, “The Young Piranesi: the Itineraries of his Formation,” in Mario Bevilacqua, Heather Hyde Minor, and Fabio Barry (eds.), The serpent and the stylus: essays on G.B. Piranesi, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Supplementary volume 4, (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Published for the American Academy in Rome by the University of Michigan Press, 2007) pp. 13-53.
R. J. B. Bosworth, Whispering City: Rome and Its Histories (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
Alessandra Capodiferro and Patrizia Fortini (eds.), Gli scavi di Giacomo Boni al foro Romano, Documenti dall’Archivio Disegni della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma I.1 (Planimetrie del Foro Romano, Gallerie Cesaree, Comizio, Niger Lapis, Pozzi repubblicani e medievali). (Documenti dall’archivio disegni della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma 1). (Rome: Fondazione G. Boni-Flora Palatina, 2003).
Andrea Carandini et al. Atlante di Roma Antica 2 v. (Milan: Electa, 2012).
Filippo Coarelli, Il foro romano 3 v. (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1983-2020).
Catherine Edwards and Greg Woolf (eds.) Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Don Fowler, “The ruin of time: monuments and survival at Rome,” in Roman constructions: readings in postmodern Latin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 193-217.
Gilbert J. Gorski and James Packer, The Roman Forum: a Reconstruction and Architectural Guide (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Rodolfo Lanciani, Forma Urbis Rome reprint ed. (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1990).
Samuel Ball Platner and Thomas Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929). Preface
Ronald T. Ridley, The Pope’s Archaeologist: the Life and Times of Carlo Fea (Rome: Quasar, 2000).
Luke Roman, “Martial and the City of Rome,” Journal of Roman Studies 100 (2010), pp. 88-117.
Grotesque, “Chamber of The Sphinx,” Domus Aurea, 65–68 C.E. (photo: Parco archeologico del Colosseo)
Gold aureus of Nero, 66–67 C.E., 1.9 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Hidden below the modern ground level of Rome lies the palace of the Emperor Nero (known as the Domus Aurea, the Golden House), one of the largest and most complicated Roman imperial complexes ever constructed. Roman emperors traversed its labyrinthine rooms and passageways, and centuries later the ruins were explored by renaissance artists. Today, excavations continue, and tourists can visit.
Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), became the fifth Roman emperor in 54 C.E. at the age of sixteen. Following the model of emperors who reigned before him, Nero quickly engaged in building projects. This included public works projects, like his bath complex (the Thermae Neronis) in Rome, as well as the construction of numerous personal villas and palaces across Italy.
Decorative fresco from the Domus Transitoria on the Palatine Hill, Rome c. 60–64 C.E. (photo: dalbera, CC BY 2.0)
The Domus Transitoria
Prior to this time, the imperial residences within the city of Rome were located only on the Palatine Hill in the heart of the city overlooking the Roman Forum, the key political, ritual, and civic center of the Empire. In fact, the modern term “palace” derives from the Latin name for the hill (collis palatium). Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, and his wife Livia both had houses on the Palatine. The second emperor, Tiberius, is said to have created a new residence, the so-called Domus Tiberiana, which was also used by the third and fourth emperors, Caligula and Claudius. These palaces were not originally connected to one another.
Around 60 C.E., Nero began to construct the Domus Transitoria, which means “house of transition,” a project which would connect all of the existing imperial buildings into one large, continuous structure. The goal of this project was also to extend the boundaries of the palace down into the valley just east of the Roman Forum (in Latin, the Forum Romanum) and across to the Esquiline Hill (see map below), where there were expansive and opulent imperial gardens (horti).
The great fire
Construction was well underway when, on the night of July 18th 64 C.E., a massive fire broke out in the valley of the Circus Maximus in Rome. The fire raged for approximately 10 days, destroying many areas of the city. The worst damage occurred in the center of the city where everything from homes to temples were destroyed. Most of Nero’s Domus Transitoria was lost in the blaze.
Nero helped to organize numerous relief efforts, such as providing funds for the removal of destroyed structures, coordinating food and temporary lodgings for those who were displaced, and enacting safety reforms and new fireproofing laws to attempt to prevent or limit further tragedies. Though he was staying at a seaside villa at the time of the fire (and not playing the fiddle in Rome as has often been incorrectly stated), he did capitalize on the fire and used it as an opportunity to purchase large quantities of public land in the city center.
With this new land under his control, Nero began construction of his golden palace, the Domus Aurea. As Nero had always hoped, the palace and its associated gardens stretched from the Palatine Hill, across the valley, and up onto the Esquiline Hill, spanning at least 50 hectares in the city center. The result was the most opulent imperial palace constructed at the time, with approximately 300 rooms, manicured gardens, a private bath complex, and even an artificial lake. In addition, there was a 120-foot colossus of the emperor in sparkling, gilded bronze in an entrance vestibule to the complex. The complex also included expansive parklands which were open to the public. This sprawling compound profoundly altered the landscape of the city center.
Location of the Esquiline wing excavations indicated in red within some of the areas of the Domus Aurea, Rome. The palace also extended onto the Palatine Hill, but the exact borders are unknown.
Cryptoporticus, Domus Aurea, 65–68 C.E. (photo: Jessica Mingoia, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The most substantial archaeological evidence of the Domus Aurea today is found on the Esquiline Hill. This portion of the complex contains over one hundred rooms including a grotto, multiple dining rooms, a long cryptoporticus (covered corridor), and two large courtyards, one of which was pentagonal. The surviving remains of the Esquiline wing only provide hints of the original grandeur of the complex. The upper levels of this wing were intentionally leveled after Nero’s death, so the rooms that remain include only the lower floors and service levels. However, even these areas express the lavish design of the project and the attention to detail which was paid to all areas of the complex.
The painter Famulus and his team of assistants painted much of the vast complex in what we now call the Fourth style of Roman wall painting. Pliny the Elder wrote that the project was so consuming that Famulus was not able to work elsewhere. The majority of these frescoes had white backgrounds, though the background color used seems to have depended in part on the importance of the room. The painted compositions were often divided into different panels, sometimes enclosed by delicate floral frames, other times with thicker architectural features containing figures or smaller illusionistic panels free-floating in the central space. Some of the most opulently decorated rooms had walls clad in marble instead of fresco. Most of the ceilings were finished in stucco that was then painted or gilded.
The architects for the palace were Severus and Celer. With so much land to work with and Nero’s seemingly endless funds, they had the ability to be inventive and created a grand complex worthy of an emperor.
Severus and Celer, Octogonal Room, Domus Aurea, 65–68 C.E. (photo: Parco archeologico del Colosseo)
The Octagonal Room
One of Severus and Celer’s greatest architectural achievements and likely the most recognizable room in the Domus Aurea today is the Octagonal Room. As its modern name suggests, the room starts as an octagon at the bottom of the walls before transitioning into a hemispherical dome above. Three sides of the octagon face the exterior of the structure, overlooking the gardens in the valley below the hill, while five rooms radiate off of the other sides of the octagon.
oculus (detail), Severus and Celer, Octagon Room, Domus Aurea, Rome, 65–68 C.E. (photo: Fred Romaro, CC BY 2.0)
Light entered the space through an oculus (an opening) in the center of the dome. The architects also created gaps on the side of the hemispherical dome which were open to the sky and allowed light to stream into the neighboring rooms. Incredibly, the weight of the dome above is supported only by piers between each of the doorways. This room is a prime example of innovative Roman architecture. The use of concrete instead of stone allowed for the construction of the broad open spaces of the Octagonal Room. This structural concrete was hidden behind decorative marble or it was painted.
What remains today is only a shell of the former room. In antiquity, the walls and floor were clad in marble, and the dome plastered with stucco decorations and painted. The architectural ingenuity that made the vast open space of the Octagonal Room possible was hidden from view, so that guests were left only with the impression of a grand dining room seemingly unencumbered by columns or other supports.
Often called the Nymphaeum of Polyphemus, the Domus Aurea also contained an intimate barrel-vaulted grotto (cave-like) space, which offered a more intimate dining alternative to the Octagonal Room. The concrete walls and floor were clad in marble and the corners of the side walls and lunette (the semi-circular space at the end of the vault) were lined with seashells. Water sparkled as it fell over a staircase on the back wall and fed into a small horseshoe shaped water-basin in the center of the room. The walls contained niches for statuary.
Medallion showing a scene from The Odyssey, Nymphaeum of Polyphemus, Domus Aurea, 65–68 C.E. (photo: Jessica Mingoia, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The barrel-vaulted ceiling was covered in reddish-brown pieces of pumice, designed to look like small stalactites, inserted into stucco. This is interrupted only by five mosaic medallions, the center of which featured a scene from The Odyssey of Homer, depicting the Greek hero Odysseus serving wine to Polyphemus (the cyclops son of Poseidon in Greek mythology who lived in a cave), a theme often found in dining grottos and nymphaea. The room was quite dark, with the only light source coming from a hallway open to the sky just outside the room. The overall effect was that of a seaside cave with a waterfall and pool, providing a cool, dark retreat from the heat of the Roman summer.
Rotating dining room
The most infamous room within the Domus Aurea is Nero’s rotating dining room, which was described by Suetonius, a Roman historian and biographer:
There were dining-rooms with fretted ceilings of ivory, whose panels could turn and shower down flowers and were fitted with pipes for sprinkling the guests with perfumes. The main banquet hall was circular and constantly revolved day and night, like the heavens.Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Nero, 31
In 2014, the location of this famed room was found on the Palatine Hill, hidden inside a platform constructed by Nero’s successors. Though the dining room itself no longer exists, the 12-meter high tower structure made up of pillars and arches that once supported the room does. Excavations also show that the tower was powered by water-driven mechanisms and gears which allowed the room to gently rotate while diners were treated to a panoramic view of Rome. It, too, spoke to the advanced architectural and engineering skills of Severus and Celer and to Nero’s desire to create the grandest palace Rome had ever seen.
Suetonius claimed that Nero stated he at last felt like he could live like a human being in this palace.
The palace destroyed
Work on the Domus Aurea was never completed. In 68 C.E., Nero elected to commit suicide rather than be condemned to death by the Roman Senate, bringing the Julio-Claudian dynasty to an end. What followed was the so-called “year of the four emperors,” some of whom lived in the Domus Aurea. However, once the dust settled and the Flavian dynasty was established, they immediately sought to distance themselves from Nero, whose megalomania had grown prior to his death.
This political strategy included destroying the Domus Aurea. Although the Palatine Hill remained the preferred site for imperial palaces, the land in the valley reverted to the public. The Flavians filled in Nero’s artificial lake and constructed the Colosseum (known at the time as the Flavian amphitheater) on top of it. The rotating dining room was razed and a retaining wall was built to enclose the remaining portions of the structure.
View of the unexcavated “Chamber Of The Sphinx,” rediscovered in 2019 (photo: Parco archeologico del Colosseo)
The remains of the palace on the Esquiline Hill were also abandoned. The upper portion of the structure was destroyed and the lower level rooms were filled in with soil. These later formed the foundation of the Emperor Trajan’s bath complex built in the early 2nd century C.E. This portion of the Domus Aurea remains the best preserved thanks to the baths above, containing a porticoed garden and more than 100 rooms, including the Nymphaeum of Polyphemus and the Octagonal Room.
Rediscovery and today
Much of the memory of the Domus Aurea faded over time. In fact, its rediscovery was completely accidental. Around 1480, a young boy fell through a hole on the Esquiline Hill into the structure and saw what he described as painted caves. Though no one yet knew that this was the Domus Aurea, it quickly garnered attention and led to many exploring the labyrinthine structure, including the artist Raphael, who is often credited with correctly identifying the structure as the remains of Nero’s golden house. Because the frescoes and stuccoed ceilings had been underground and cut off from air for so long, they were remarkably well-preserved.
Today, due to the intense humidity underground in the structure, many of the frescoes have since faded. Scientific archeological excavations did not begin in earnest until the late 20th century and the Esquiline site officially opened to visitors in 1999. Many more rooms have since been uncovered, with the latest discoveries occurring in 2019. Most of the current work on the site is focused on conservation of the archaeological remains.
The structure is under immense strain from the weight of the earth, trees, gardens, and other structures atop it. Some of the roots of the trees above have weakened the structural integrity of many of the ceilings, making it impossible to remove them without damage. One of the goals of the “Colosseum Archaeological Park,” the cultural heritage agency which now manages the structure, includes working to lessen the weight of the park above to limit the chance of collapse of the structure below.
Larry F. Ball, The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Heinz-Jürgen Beste, and Henner von Hesberg. “Buildings of an Emperor—How Nero Transformed Rome,” in A Companion to the Neronian Age, edited by Martin T Dinter and Emma Buckley (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), pp. 314–31.
Axel Boëthius, The Golden House of Nero; Some Aspects of Roman Architecture, Jerome Lectures 5 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960).
Filippo Coarelli, Rome and Environs: An Archaeological Guide (University of California Press, 2007).
Frank Sear,Roman Architecture 418–21 (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 163–72.
Michael Squire, “Fantasies so Varied and Bizarre: The Domus Aurea, the Renaissance, and the Grotesque,” in A Companion to the Neronian Age, edited by Martin T. Dinter and Emma Buckley (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), pp. 444–64.
Maria Antonietta Tomei and Rossella Rea edd., Nerone (Milan: Electa, 2011).
P. Gregory Warden, “The Domus Aurea Reconsidered,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 40, no. 4 (1981): 271–278.
Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater, or Amphitheatrum Flavium), c. 70-80 C.E., Rome, an ARCHES video
Cite this page as: Dr. Bernard Frischer and Dr. Steven Zucker, “The Colosseum,” in Smarthistory, July 19, 2020, accessed August 5, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-colosseum-rome/.
At the end of a Roman triumph, the defeated general was murdered. The victim was marched under this triumphal arch.
Relief panel with The Spoils of Jerusalem Being Brought into Rome, Arch of Titus, Rome, after 81 C.E., marble, 7’10” high
Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, The Triumph of Titus: AD 71, The Flavians, 1835 oil on panel, 44.3 x 29 cm (The Walters Art Museum); “The artist shows Titus returning to Rome in triumph following his capture of Jerusalem….His father, Emperor Vespasian…leads the procession. Titus comes next, holding the hand of his daughter, Julia, who turns to address her father’s younger brother and successor, Domitian…Alma-Tadema depicted these events by drawing on classical sources…and on the latest 19th-century scholarship regarding everyday life in Rome.” (source)
The Roman triumph
The Roman triumph was an ancient martial tradition—a parade so riotous that its symbolic culmination involved catapulting the victorious general (triumphator) to quasi-divine status for a single, heady day. The Romans marked his status by staining his face red using the mineral pigment cinnabar (Jupiter’s countenance was said to have the same ruddy hue).
The Romans traced the traditions of the triumph back to their own beginnings. Rome’s legendary founder, Romulus, was the first to celebrate the rite when he defeated and killed Acron, the king of Caenina.
Victory in Judea
In the summer of 71 C.E. the Roman emperor Vespasian and Titus, his eldest son, had quelled a dangerous revolt in the Roman province of Judeaand returned to Rome to celebrate this major accomplishment. Not only that, but the Flavian dynasty (Vespasian and his two sons Titus and Domitian) had succeeded in winning the throne during the year 69 C.E.—a time of bloody civil turmoil known as the “Year of the Four Emperors.”
A great deal was at stake for Vespasian and Titus, both relative political newcomers from a family line (Flavius) that was not particularly illustrious. The honor of the triumph was accorded to them jointly, and the spectacle (as described by Flavius Josephus in his text known as The Jewish War)rivaled anything that Rome had ever seen before: spoils, prisoners, pictorial narratives in abundance. All this was meant to awe the spectators and to transport the viewers to the battlefields of the war in the east. But the ritual of the triumph, its parade—even the semi-divine status accorded the triumphator—was ephemeral. For this reason, the later construction of permanent monuments (like the Arch of Titus) served to make an impact on the urban landscape (and the collective memory of city dwellers) that lasted far longer than the events of the day itself.
Arch of Titus and the Colosseum, Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The tradition of triumphal monuments connects the Flavians to the traditions of the Roman Republic. Early monuments included columns—for instance the rostrate column (columna rostrata) of Caius Duilius (c. 260 B.C.E.)—and the early triumphal arch prototype known as the fornix Fabianus erected in the Forum Romanum by Q. Fabius Allobrogicus in 121 B.C.E. The emperor Augustus continued the use of the triumphal arch, even though he restructured the institution of the triumph itself. Since the Flavians were relative newcomers to the Roman power structure, they needed as much legitimization as they could find, and thus participating in the time-honored traditions of the triumph and its stock monuments made a good deal of sense.
Topography and the triumph
View across the Roman Forum (Forum Romanum) to the Arch of Titus (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Arch of Titus is located in Summa Sacra Via, the highest point of the Sacra Via, Rome’s “Sacred Way” that served as its main processional street. Furthemore, the Arch of Titus commands a key point along the triumphal route (via Triumphalis)—one that visually links the valley of the Flavian amphitheater (known to us as the Colosseum) to the valley of the Forum Romanum and the Capitoline Hill beyond. Many triumphal parades had passed along this route for many centuries, thus the choice to place a permanent triumphal monument astride the route was not accidental but, rather, deliberately evocative of the fact that the triumph as a ritual both created and reinforced collective memory for Romans. This arch, built as an honorific monument, honored Titus posthumously and was a project executed by his younger brother and imperial successor, Domitian (emperor, 81-96 C.E.). Another arch dedicated to Titus, triumphal in its nature, was located in the valley of the Circus Maximus—but this arch only survives in the form of scattered sculptural fragments and a Medieval transcription of its dedicatory inscription. Recent archaeological excavations (2015) in the Circus Maximus have revealed previously unknown remains of this “lost” arch, including elements of its foundations.
The attic inscription
Attic inscription, Arch of Titus, after 81 C.E., Rome (photo: Dr. Steven Fine, used by permission)
The surviving ancient attic inscription (above) records the dedication of the monument to Titus. Given that Titus is identified as having been deified (divus), we learn that the monument’s completion can only have occurred after Titus’ death in September of 81 C.E.
The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian
The inscription makes the dedication a public one—undertaken on the part of the Senate and the Roman People (Senatus Populusque Romanus), and reminds viewers of Titus’ link to his likewise deified father, Vespasian, who had died in 79 C.E. This dedication is an example of shrewd power politics on the part of the Emperor Domitian—he had been too young to take part in the military glory enjoyed by his father and brother. Perhaps he sought to bask in the generally favorable public opinion they enjoyed as he himself made the transition to power.
Relief sculpture
View of the vault of the arch’s passageway, with a relief of the apotheosis of Titus (photo: Dr. Steven Fine, used by permission)
Two panel reliefs flank the single passageway of the arch, and a third adorns the vault (the vault relief is above). The subject matter of the flanking reliefs draws upon the 71 C.E. triumph of Vespasian and Titus, depicting key triumphal episodes following the fall of Jerusalem. In one scene (below) Romans carry spoils from the Temple in Jerusalem, including a Menorah, sacred trumpets and the showbread table. Recent studies have shown these items were painted with yellow ochre.
Relief panel showing The Spoils of Jerusalem being brought into Rome, Arch of Titus, Rome, after 81 C.E., marble, 7 feet,10 inches high (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The triumph panel opposite depicts Titus in a triumphal four-horse chariot (quadriga) followed closely by the goddess of Victory (Victoria), preceded by official attendants known as lictors, and accompanied by symbolic representations (genii) of the Senate, the Roman people, and Virtus (manly virtue) (below).
Relief panel showing Titus in a triumphal four-horse chariot, Arch of Titus, Rome, after 81 C.E., marble, 7 feet,10 inches high (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Since the triumphal parade would have passed through the very spot on which the arch was constructed, these images serve as powerful evocations of collective memories shared and held by the Roman people. The depiction in the reliefs echoes the riotous parade described by Flavius Josephus. The program of Flavian architecture largely transformed the physical landscape of Rome; this program was replete with visual cues and reminders of Flavian success, all of which stemmed from and centered around the great triumph at the culmination of the Jewish War.
Restoration and current state
Canaletto, The Arch of Titus in Rome, 1742-44, oil on canvas, 38 x 28 cm (Galleria dell’Accademia Carrara, Bergamo)
During the eleventh century the arch was incorporated into a fortress built by the Frangipani family in Rome, resulting in damage to the panel reliefs that is still visible today. In 1821, during the pontificate of Pope Pius VII, Giuseppe Valadier undertook a major restoration of the surviving structure. In order to identify those portions that had been restored, Valadier employed travertine as opposed to the original marble. The western side of the attic received a new inscription at the time of this restoration. Canaletto’s famous painting of the arch grants a view of the monument’s condition prior to Valadier’s restoration.
Paul Philippe Cret, The National Memorial Arch In Valley Forge Park in Pennsylvania, erected 1917
Influence
The Arch of Titus has long provided a source of artistic inspiration. Leon Battista Alberti was inspired by its form as he designed the facade of the basilica of Sant’Andrea in Mantua, Italy, after 1472. The Arch of Titus has inspired many modern commemorative arches, notably the Arc de Triomphe in Paris (1806), Stanford White’s Arch in Washington Square Park in New York City (1892), the United States National Memorial Arch in Valley Forge National Historical Park designed by Paul Philippe Cret (1917), and Edward Lutyens’ India Gate in New Delhi (1921).
Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2009).
A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, Flavian Rome: culture, image, text (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003).
F. Coarelli, Divus Vespasianus. Il Bimillenario dei Flavi (Milan: Electa, 2009)
R. H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: a Study of Flavian Rome (Latomus, 1996).
J. C. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. B. Rives, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
R. Ross Holloway, “Some Remarks on the Arch of Titus,” L’antiquité classique 56 (1987) pp. 183-191.
M. Pfanner, Der Titusbogen (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1983).
L. Roman, “Martial and the City of Rome.” The Journal of Roman Studies 100 (2010) pp. 1-30.
H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: an inquiry into the origin, development and meaning of the Roman triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).
L. Yarden, The spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus: a re-investigation (Stockholm : Svenska Institutet i Rom; Göteborg : Distributor, P. Åströms, 1991).
Marcus Ulpius Traianus, now commonly referred to as Trajan, reigned as Rome’s emperor from 98 until 117 C.E. A military man, Trajan was born of mixed stock—part Italic, part Hispanic—into the gens Ulpia (the Ulpian family) in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (modern Spain) and enjoyed a career that catapulted him to the heights of popularity, earning him an enduring reputation as a “good emperor.”
Trajan was the first in a line of adoptive emperors that concluded with Marcus Aurelius. These emperors were chosen for the “job” based not on bloodlines, but on their suitability for rule; most of them were raised with this role in mind from their youth. This period is often regarded as the height of the Roman empire’s prosperity and stability. The ancient Romans were so fond of Trajan that they officially bestowed upon him the epithetical title optimus princeps or “the best first-citizen.” It is safe to say that the Romans felt Trajan was well worth celebrating—and celebrate him they did. A massive architectural complex—referred to as the Forum of Trajan (Latin: Forum Traiani or, less commonly, Forum Ulpium) was devoted to Trajan’s career and, in particular, his great military successes in his wars against Dacia (now Romania).
Unique under the heavens
The Forum of Trajan was the final, and largest, of Rome’s complex of so-called “Imperial fora”—dubbed by at least one ancient writer as “a construction unique under the heavens” (Amm. Marc. 16.10.15). Fora is the Latin plural of forum—meaning a public, urban square for civic and ritual business. A series of Imperial fora, beginning with Iulius Caesar, had been built adjacent to the earlier Roman Forum by a series of emperors. The Forum of Trajan was inaugurated in 112 C.E., although construction may not have been complete, and was designed by the famed architect Apollodorus of Damascus.
View from the Markets of Trajan of the remains of the eastern exedra and the eastern portico of the main square of the Forum of Trajan, looking toward the Basilica Ulpia (in the upper left) (photo: MM, CC BY-SA 3.0)
The Forum of Trajan is elegant—it is rife with signs of top-level architecture and decoration. All of the structures, save the two libraries (which were built of brick), were built of stone. There is a great deal of exotic, imported marble and many statues, including gilded examples. The forum was composed of a main square (measuring c. 200 x 120 meters) that was flanked by porticoes (an extended, roofed colonnade), as well as by exedrae (semicircular, recessed spaces) on the eastern (above) and western sides.
Plan of the Forum of Trajan. Note that the traditional site of the temple of the deified Trajan is shown, but is replaced by a shrine located at the southern side of the forum’s main square (following R. Meneghini) (image: Slånbär, CC BY-SA 3.0, annotated by Smarthistory)
A contested element of the reconstruction of the forum complex is a temple dedicated to the deified Trajan (the deceased emperor had been declared a god). Traditional reconstructions place this temple behind the column, although a recent reconstruction favored by Dr. Roberto Meneghini does not agree with this conjecture, instead preferring to place a shrine to the deified Trajan at the southern end of the forum abutting the retaining wall of the neighboring Forum of Augustus. Scholars continue to debate the nature and position of this temple.
The main structure at the center of the forum complex is the massive Basilica Ulpia, and beside that stood two libraries that flanked the Column of Trajan, an honorific monument bearing an elaborate program of sculpted relief.
Remains of the Basilica Ulpia (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Paved in white marble: The forum square (Area Fori)
The main square of the forum was once a vast space, screened by architecture on all sides and paved in white marble. Several rows of trees, and perhaps rows of statues, ran parallel to the porticoes. Entry to the forum square was from the south, by way of a triumphal arch surmounted by a statue of Trajan riding in a triumphal chariot. Although the arch itself is no longer extant, it is depicted on a coin issued c. 112–115 C.E. (below).
Gold coin (aureus) struck at Rome c. 112–115 C.E. (19 mm, 7.13 g, 7h). The legend reads “IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P (“To the emperor Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, Pontifex Maximus, [holder of] tribunician power, in his sixth consulship, father of his country.” The coins depicts a laureate Trajan (draped, and cuirassed bust right) seen from behind on the observe side. On the reverse the Arcus Traiani of the Forum of Trajan is seen. This is presented as a hexastyle building facade, crowned by a frontal chariot drawn by six horses. Three figures stand to the left and right, while four statues occupy niches in the arches below. The reverse legend reads “FORVM TRAIAN[A]” (image)
Captured Dacian, 106–112 (Vatican Museum; photo: F. Tronchin, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The forum square (116 x 95 meters) has an overriding martial theme, reminding viewers and visitors that the forum was constructed from the proceeds (manubiae) of Trajan’s successful military campaigns against the Dacians (101–102, 105–106 C.E.). The porticoes were decorated with statuary and military standards (official emblems of the legions), as described by the ancient author Aulus Gellius: “All along the roof of the colonnades of the forum of Trajan gilded statues of horses and representations of military standards are placed, and underneath is written Ex manubiis [from the spoils of war] …” (Attic Nights 13.25.1).
The decorative program also included statues of captured Dacian prisoners (left) and, it seems, statues of notable Roman statesmen and generals that were set in the intercolumnar spaces of the porticoes.
At the center of the Forum square stood a bronze equestrian statue of Trajan, the Equus Traiani. While the statue itself does not survive, the occasion of a visit to Rome by Constantius II (in 357 C.E.) preserves a mention of the famous equestrian: “So he [Constantius II] abandoned all hope of attempting anything like it, and declared that he would and could imitate simply Trajan’s horse, which stands in the middle of the court with the emperor on its back.” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15) We also see the equestrian statue depicted on a silver denarius struck at Rome c. 112–114/5 C.E. (below).
Silver coin, Denarius (19mm, 3.35 g, 7h), struck 112–114/115 C.E IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P, laureate bust right, drapery on far shoulder S P Q R OPTIMO PRINCIPI, equestrian statue of Trajan facing left, holding spear and sword (or small Victory) (image: Cristiano64, CC BY-SA 2.5)
The massive Basilica Ulpia
As an architectural type, the basilica is uniquely Roman and served various civic and juridical purposes. The habit of planners from the first century B.C.E. onwards had been to prefer to use the basilica as a framing device, so as to have it communicate with the flanks of a forum square. We see this in many cases, although with some variation. In the case of the Forum of Trajan the massive and monumental Basilica Ulpia is constructed at the northern edge of the open courtyard. It thus serves to bisect the complex, with the portico-lined courtyard lying to its east and the libraries and the Column of Trajan to its west.
Remains of the Basilica Ulpia in the foreground, and the Column of Trajan in the middle ground (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Artist’s view of exterior elevation (J. Gaudet, 1867; image: Joris)
The basilica is massive—its overall length is some 169 meters and the interior nave is 25 meters wide. It is apsidal at both ends, with a raised central floor, and the main hall has a double surround of columns (96 in total) that were probably of white or yellow marble, in the Corinthian order. The basilica was also famous in antiquity for its gilded bronze roof tiles, as commented on by Pausanias, who remarked that the building was “worth seeing not only for its general beauty but especially for its roof made of bronze” (Description of Greece 5.12.6).
Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan, 112 C.E. the Militia Tower is visible in the center, rising above the markets (photo: Jebulon, CC0 1.0)
The Markets of Trajan (dedicated c. 110 C.E.)
Adjacent to the Forum of Trajan is a separate architectural complex attributed to Trajan that is commonly referred to as the Markets of Trajan. This multi-level commercial complex was built against the flank of the Quirinal Hill which had to be excavated for the purpose. The complex of the markets takes its planning cue from the eastern hemicycle of the Forum of Trajan. The ruins of the markets today preserve 170 rooms and the complex covers a space of approximately 110 by 150 meters; its walls stood to 35 meters above the level of the pavement of the Forum of Trajan. The original extension is hard to ascertain, based in part upon subsequent re-use and construction in the Medieval period (and later). The archaeologist Corrado Ricci (1858–1934) cleared the ruins in the twentieth century, but the markets themselves have received comparatively less attention than the adjacent forum.
Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan, 112 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The function of the markets was mercantile—indeed the markets may have been designed to relocate shops (tabernae) and offices that were displaced by the Trajanic building project. The ground floor offices (at the forum level) were likely occupied by cashiers of the imperial treasury (arcarii caesariani), while upper level rooms may been leased out or used by imperial officials associated with the grain dole (annona).
Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan (Market Hall), 112 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The great, vaulted market hall (above) is an ambitious and brilliant design—just as with the rest of the complex, reflecting the skills of the designer / architect who executed the project. The medieval Militia Tower (Torre delle Milizie) (12th century) and the now-demolished convent of Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli utilized portions of the structure of the market’s buildings.
Plan of the Markets of Trajan (in relation to the Forum of Trajan) (image: 3coma14; annotated by Smarthistory)
The architect—Apollodorus of Damascus
Portrait considered to be that of Apollodorus of Damascus (Munich Glyptothek; photo: Butko, CC BY-SA 2.0)
Apollodorus of Damascus was a military engineer and architect who was active during the first quarter of the second century C.E. He accompanied the emperor Trajan on his campaigns in Dacia and is famous for building a bridge across the Danube river that was both described by ancient authors and depicted in art. The relief from the Column of Trajan depicts the bridge in the background (see below). Built c. 105 C.E., the segmental arch bridge was the first across the lower Danube and allowed Roman soldiers to cross the river easily. Apollodorus, who is described as “the master-builder of the whole work” is credited with the project (Procopius, Buildings, 4.6.11–14; tr. H.B. Dewing). Upon return from the Dacian Wars, Apollodorus is thought to have been the architect behind the project that produced the Forum and Column of Trajan, as well as the adjacent markets. A textual tradition is preserved by Cassius Dio that has Apollodorus running afoul of (and being executed by) Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, although it is unclear whether credence should be given to this story (Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.4; tr. Cary).
Relief from the Column of Trajan, Carrara marble, completed 113 C.E., showing the bridge in the background and in the foreground Trajan is shown sacrificing by the Danube river (photo: Gun Powder Ma)
Significance of the “construction unique under the heavens”
The Forum of Trajan earned a great deal of praise in antiquity—and it has been the focus of scholarly study perhaps since 1536 when Pope Paul III ordered the first clearing of the area around the base of the Column of Trajan. Paul III would then protect the column itself in 1546 by appointing a caretaker to look after it. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw various artists and architects produce renderings and plans of the forum and its monuments. Among the most famous of these are those of Dosio (c. 1569) and Etiénne Du Pérac (1575). In terms of public architecture in Imperial Rome, the Forum of Trajan complex is a crowning achievement in its vast monumentality. The execution of its sophisticated and elegant design surpassed all of its predecessors in the complex of forum spaces in the city. The value of vast public spaces in the city of Rome cannot be underestimated. For the average city dwellers accustomed to narrow, dim, crowded streets the soaring, the gleaming open space of the forum, bounded by elaborate architecture and sculpture, would have had a powerful psychological effect. The fact that the monuments glorified a revered leader also served to create and reinforce important ideological messages among the Romans. Overall the role of public architecture in the Roman city, and the Roman consciousness, is an important reminder of the ways in which Romans used built space to establish and perpetuate messages about identity and ideology.
Vestigi delle antichita di Roma, Tiuoli, Pozzuolo et altri luochi, 1680 (Hier. Ferri copy of Aegidius Sadeler II engravings of reduced copies of Du Pérac’s Vestigi dell’antichità di Roma) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)
The enduring ruins, in this case cleared initially by the excavations sponsored by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini, stand as strong, and stark, reminders of these Roman realities. Modern viewers still extract and reinforce ideas about identity based on looking at and visiting the ruins. Even with these ruins we still come away with an idea about Trajan’s greatness and his martial accomplishments. We might, then, judge the architectural program to be a great success—so successful that a great many of our own public monuments still operate on the basis of conventions established in antiquity.
J. C. Anderson, Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Brussels: Latomus, 1984).
R. Chenault, “Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity,” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 102 (2012), pp. 103–132.
P. Gros, L’architecture romaine du début du 3e siècle av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire 1. Les monuments publics (Paris: Picard, 1996).
L. Lancaster, “Building Trajan’s Markets,” American Journal of Archaeology 102.2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 283–308.
L. Lancaster, “Building Trajan’s Markets 2: The Construction Process,” American Journal of Archaeology 104.4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 755–785.
R. Leone, et al. Fori imperiali: demolizione e scavi: fotografie, 1924–1940 (Milan: Electa, 2007).
W. L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire 2 vols. (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1982–1986).
R. Meneghini, L. Messa, and L. Ungaro, Il foro di Traiano (Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 1990).
R. Meneghini, Il Foro e i Mercati di Traiano: Roma (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1995).
J. E. Packer, K. L. Sarring, and R. M. Sheldon, “A New Excavation in Trajan’s Forum,” American Journal of Archaeology 87.2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 165–172.
J. E. Packer, “The West Library in the Forum of Trajan: The Architectural Problems and Some Solutions,” In Eius virtutis studiosi : classical and postclassical studies in memory of Frank Edward Brown (1908–1988) (Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 43, Symposium Papers XXII), edited by A. R. Scott and R. T. Scott, 420-444. (Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1993).
J. E. Packer, “Trajan’s Forum again: the Column and the Temple of Trajan in the master plan attributed to Apollodorus(?),” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7 (January 1994) pp 163–182.
J. E. Packer, “Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a Retrospective,”American Journal of Archaeology 101.2 (April 1997), pp. 307–330.
J. E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan in Rome: a study of the monuments. 2 v. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
J. E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan in Rome: a study of the monuments in brief (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).
J. E. Packer and J. Burge, “Templum Divi Traiani Parthici et Plotinae: a debate with R. Meneghini,” Journal of Roman Archaeology (January 2003) pp. 103–136.
Platner, S. B. and T. Ashby. 1929. “Forum Traiani.” In A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press) (Perseus Project)
L. Ungaro et al. The Museum of the Imperial Forums in Trajan’s market (Milan: Electa, 2007).
P. H. von Blanckenhagen, “The Imperial Fora,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13.4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 21–26.
A. Uggeri, Della Basilica Vlpia nel Foro traiano: istoria e ristaurazione agli amanti delle antichita romane (Rome, 1830) (viewable online via Arachne)
M. Waelkens, “From a Phrygian Quarry: The Provenance of the Statues of the Dacian Prisoners in Trajan’s Forum at Rome,” American Journal of Archaeology 89.4 (Oct., 1985) pp. 641–653.
G. Wightman, “The Imperial Fora of Rome: Some Design Considerations,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56.1 (March 1997) pp. 64–88.
Trajan expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest extent, celebrating his victories with this monumental column.
Column of Trajan, Rome, completed 113 C.E., Luna marble, dedicated to Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus b. 53 , d. 117 C.E.) in honor of his victory over Dacia (now Romania) 101–102 and 105–06 C.E. Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker
Column of Trajan, Luna marble, completed 113 C.E., Rome, dedicated to Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus b. 53 , d. 117 C.E.) in honor of his victory over Dacia (now Romania) 101–02 and 105–06 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The Triumph
The Triumph was a riotous military ritual celebrated by the Romans over the course of centuries—whenever their commander had won a spectacular victory. On the appointed day (or days) the city would be overflowing with crowds, pageantry, spoils, prisoners, depictions and souvenirs of foreign lands—but then, just as quickly as it began, the glorious tumult was over. The spectacles and the echoes of glory entrusted to the memory of those who had witnessed the event. Was the parade and its giant city-wide party enough to commemorate the glorious deeds of Rome’s armies? Or should a more permanent form of commemoration be adopted? Being pragmatists, the Romans enlisted both means of commemoration—the ephemeral and the permanent. The Column of Trajan (dedicated in May of 113 C.E.) might be the crowning example of the inborn need to commemorate—in more permanent form—historical deeds that dominates the psyche of Roman art and artists.
Returning from Dacia triumphant—100 days of celebrations
The emperor Trajan, who reigned from 98–117 C.E., fought a series of campaigns known as the Dacian Wars. Dacia (modern Romania), was seen as a troublesome neighbor by the Romans and the Dacians were seen to pose a threat to the province of Moesia, along the Danube frontier. In addition Dacia was rich in natural resources (including gold), that were attractive to the Romans. The first campaign saw Trajan defeat the Dacian leader Decebalus in 101 C.E., after which the Dacians sought terms from the Romans. Renewed Dacian hostilities brought about the second Dacian War that concluded in 106 C.E. Trajan’s victory was a substantial one—he declared over 100 days of official celebrations and the Romans exploited Dacia’s natural wealth, while incorporating Dacia as an imperial province.
Denarius (Roman coin), obverse: Trajan in profile; reverse: Dacian seated right on pile of arms, his hands bound behind him, silver, c. 103–11 (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, CM.BU.240-R)
After the first Dacian war Trajan earned the honorary epithet “Dacicus Maximus” (greatest Dacian) and a victory monument known as the Tropaeum Traiani (Trophy of Trajan) was built at Civitas Tropaensium (modern Adamclisi, Romania). Coins issued during Trajan’s reign (as in the image above) depicted the defeated Dacia.
Iconography and themes
The iconographic scheme of the column illustrates Trajan’s wars in Dacia. The lower half of the column corresponds to the first Dacian War (c. 101–102 C.E.), while the top half depicts the second Dacian War (c. 105–106 C.E.). The first narrative event shows Roman soldiers marching off to Dacia, while the final sequence of events portrays the suicide of the enemy leader, Decebalus, and the mopping up of Dacian prisoners by the Romans.
The crossing of the Roman Army over the Danube River in the first Dacian War (the large figure is a personification of the Danube) (detail), Column of Trajan, dedicated 113 C.E., Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The execution of the frieze is meticulous and the level of detail achieved is astonishing. While the column does not carry applied paint now, many scholars believe the frieze was initially painted. The sculptors took great care to provide settings for the scenes, including natural backgrounds, and mixed perspectival views to offer the maximum level of detail. Sometimes multiple perspectives are evident within a single scene. The overall, unifying theme is that of the Roman military campaigns in Dacia, but the details reveal additional, more subtle narrative threads.
One of the clear themes is the triumph of civilization (represented by the Romans) over its antithesis, the barbarian state (represented here by the Dacians). The Romans are orderly and uniform, the Dacians less so. The Romans are clean shaven, the Dacians are shaggy. The Romans avoid leggings, the Dacians wear leggings (like all good barbarians did—at least those depicted by the Romans).
Battle between Romans and Dacians (detail), Column of Trajan, dedicated 113 C.E., (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Combat scenes are frequent in the frieze. The detailed rendering provides a nearly unparalleled visual resource for studying the iconography of the Roman military, as well as for studying the actual equipment, weapons, and tactics. There is clear ethnic typing as well, as the Roman soldiers cannot be confused for Dacian soldiers, and vice versa.
The Emperor (fifth from the lower right) oversees construction (detail), Column of Trajan, dedicated 113 C.E., (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The viewer also sees the Roman army doing other chores while not fighting. One notable activity is building. In numerous scenes the soldiers may be seen building and fortifying camps. All of the Roman edifices depicted are solid, regular, and well designed—in stark contrast to the humble buildings of the Dacian world. Roman propaganda at work.
Trajan addresses troops holding spear (detail), Column of Trajan, dedicated 113 C.E., (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Base (detail), Column of Trajan, dedicated 113 C.E. (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The emperor Trajan figures prominently in the frieze. Each time he appears, his position is commanding and the iconographic focus on his person is made clear. We see Trajan in various scenarios, including addressing his troops (ad locutio) and performing sacrifices. The fact that the figures in the scenes are focused on the figure of the emperor helps to draw the viewer’s attention to him.
The base of the column eventually served as a tomb for Trajan’s ashes. He died while returning from foreign campaigns in 117 C.E. and was granted this unusual honor, in keeping with the estimation of the Roman people who deemed him optimus princeps or “the best first citizen”.
The column itself is made from fine-grained Luna marble and stands to a height of 38.4 meters (c. 98 feet) atop a tall pedestal. The shaft of the column is composed of 19 drums of marble measuring c. 3.7 meters (11 feet) in diameter, weighing a total of c. 1,110 tons. The topmost drum weighs some 53 tons. A spiral staircase of 185 steps leads to the viewing platform atop the column. The helical sculptural frieze measures 190 meters in length (c. 625 feet) and wraps around the column 23 times. A total of 2,662 figures appear in the 155 scenes of the frieze, with Trajan himself featured in 58 scenes.
The construction of the Column of Trajan was a complex exercise of architectural design and engineering. As reconstructed by Lynne Lancaster, the execution of the column itself was an immense engineering challenge that required complex lifting devices and, no doubt, careful planning to execute successfully. Materials had to be acquired and transported to Rome, some across long distances. With the appropriate technology in place, the adept Roman architects could carry out the project. The successful completion of the column demonstrates the complex tasks that Roman architects could successfully complete.
Significance and influence
The Column of Trajan may be contextualized in a long line of Roman victory monuments, some of which honored specific military victories and thus may be termed “triumphal monuments” and others that generally honor a public career and are thus “honorific monuments”. Among the earliest examples of such permanent monuments at Rome is the rostrate column (column rostrata) that was erected in honor of a naval victory celebrated by Caius Duilius after the battle of Mylae in 260 B.C.E. (this column does not survive). During the Republican period, a rich tradition of celebratory monuments developed, best known through the fornices (honorific arches) and triumphal arches. This tradition was continued in the imperial period, with both triumphal and honorific arches being erected at Rome and in the the provinces.
Gold aureus showing Trajan’s Column, Roman, early 2nd century C.E. (The British Museum)
The idea of the honorific column was carried forward by other victorious leaders—both in the ancient and modern eras. In the Roman world immediate, derivative monuments that draw inspiration from the Column of Trajan include the Column of Marcus Aurelius (c. 193 C.E.) in Rome’s Piazza Colonna, as well as monuments like the now-lost Column of Arcadius (c. 401 C.E.) and the Column of Justinian at Constantinople (c. 543 C.E.). The idea of the narrative frieze applied to the Column of Trajan proved influential in these other instances.
Aegidius Sadeler, view of the column of Trajan, shown with its pedestal dug out from the earth, surrounded by buildings at the base of the Quirinal Hill, Rome, from the series “Ruins of the antiquity of Rome, Tivoli, Pozzuoli, and other places,” 1606, etching and engraving, plate 31 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Honorific or triumphal columns inspired by that of Trajan were also created in honor of more recent victories. The column honoring Admiral Horatio Nelson in London’s Trafalgar Square (c. 1843) draws on the Roman tradition that included the Column of Trajan along with earlier, Republican monuments like the columna rostrata of Caius Duilius. The column dedicated to Napoleon I erected in the Place Vendôme in Paris (c. 1810) and the Washington Monument of Baltimore, Maryland (1829) both were directly inspired by the Column of Trajan.
G. A. T. Davies, “Topography and the Trajan Column,” Journal of Roman Studies, volume 10 (1920), pp. 1–28.
G. A. T. Davies, “Trajan’s First Dacian War,” Journal of Roman Studies, volume 7 (1917), pp. 74–97.
P. Davies, “The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan’s Column and the Art of Commemoration,” American Journal of Archaeology, volume 101, number 1 (1997), pp. 41–65.
M. Henig, editor, Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: Distributed by Oxbow Books, 1990).
T. Hölscher, The Language of Images in Roman Art, translated by A. Snodgrass and Annemarie Künzl-Snodgrass (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
N. Kampen, “Looking at Gender: The Column of Trajan and Roman Historical Relief,” in Domna Stanton and Abigail Stewart, eds. Feminisms in the Academy (Ann Arbor 1995), pp. 46–73.
G. M. Koeppel, “Official State Reliefs of the City of Rome in the Imperial Age. A Bibliography,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II,12,1 (1982), pp. 477–506.
G. M. Koeppel, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit VIII, Der Fries der Trajanssäule in Rom, Teil 1: Der Erste Dakische Krieg, Szenen I-LXXVIII,” Bonner Jahrbücher, volume 191 (1991), pp. 135–97.
G. M. Koeppel, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit IX, Der Fries der Trajanssäule in Rom, Teil 2: Der Zweite Dakische Krieg, Szenen LXXXIX-CLV,” Bonner Jahrbücher, volume 192 (1992), pp. 61–121.
G. M. Koeppel, “The Column of Trajan: Narrative Technique and the Image of the Emperor,” in Sage and emperor: Plutarch, Greek intellectuals, and Roman power in the time of Trajan (98–117 A.D.), edited by Philip A. Stadter and Luc Van der Stockt (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), pp. 245–58.
Lynne Lancaster, “Building Trajan’s Column,” American Journal of Archaeology, volume 103, number3 (1999), pp. 419–39.
E. La Rocca, “Templum Traiani et columna cochlis,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Römische Abteilung, volume 111 (2004), pp. 193–238.
F. Lepper and S. Frere, Trajan’s Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates (Gloucester U.K.: Alan Sutton, 1988).
S. Maffei, “Forum Traiani: Columna,” in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, volume 2, edited by E.M. Steinby (Rome: Quasar, 1995), pp. 356–59.
C. G. Malacrino, “Immagini e narrazioni. La Colonna Traiana e le sue scene di cantiere,” Storia e narrazione. Retorica, memoria, immagini edited by G. Guidarelli and C.G. Malacrino (Milan: B. Mondadori, 2005), pp. 101–34.
A. Mau, “Die Inschrift der Trajanssäule,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 22 (1907), pp. 187–97. [accessible via Google Books].
J. E. Packer, “Trajan’s Forum again: the Column and the Temple of Trajan in the master plan attributed at Apollodorus (?),” Journal of Roman Archaeology, volume 7 (1994), pp. 163–82.
I. A. Richmond and M. Hassall, Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column ( London: British School at Rome, 1982).
L. Rossi and J.M.C. Toynbee, Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971).
E. Togo Salmon, “Trajan’s Conquest of Dacia,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, volume 67 (1936), pp. 83–105.
S. Settis et al., La Colonna Traiana (Turin: G. Einaudi, 1988).
H. Stuart-Jones, “The Historical Interpretation of the Reliefs of Trajan’s Column,” Papers of the British School at Rome, volume 5 (1910), pp. 433–59.
E. Wolfram Thill, “Civilization under Construction: Depictions of Architecture on the Column of Trajan,” American Journal of Archaeology, volume 114, number 1 (2010), pp. 27–43.
M. Wilson Jones, “One Hundred Feet and a Spiral Stair: Designing Trajan’s Column,” Journal of Roman Archaeology, volume 6 (1993), pp. 23–38.
M. Wilson Jones, “Trajan’s Column,” chapter 8 in Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 161–76.
The Pantheon has one of the most perfect interior spaces ever constructed—and it’s been copied ever since.
The Pantheon, Rome, c. 125. Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris
The eighth wonder of the ancient world
The Pantheon in Rome is a true architectural wonder. Described as the “sphinx of the Campus Martius”—referring to enigmas presented by its appearance and history, and to the location in Rome where it was built—to visit it today is to be almost transported back to the Roman Empire itself. The Roman Pantheon probably doesn’t make popular shortlists of the world’s architectural icons, but it should: it is one of the most imitated buildings in history. For a good example, look at the library Thomas Jefferson designed for the University of Virginia.
The Pantheon, Rome, c. 125 (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
While the Pantheon’s importance is undeniable, there is a lot that is unknown. With new evidence and fresh interpretations coming to light in recent years, questions once thought settled have been reopened. Most textbooks and websites confidently date the building to Emperor Hadrian’s reign and describe its purpose as a temple to all the gods (from the Greek, pan = all, theos = gods), but some scholars now argue that these details are wrong and that our knowledge of other aspects of the building’s origin, construction, and meaning is less certain than we had thought.
Pantheon Elevation
Whose Pantheon?—the problem of the inscription
Archaeologists and art historians value inscriptions on ancient monuments because these can provide information about patronage, dating, and purpose that is otherwise difficult to come by. In the case of the Pantheon, however, the inscription on the frieze—in raised bronze letters (modern replacements)—easily deceives, as it did for many centuries. It identifies, in abbreviated Latin, the Roman general and consul (the highest elected official of the Roman Republic) Marcus Agrippa as the patron: “M[arcus] Agrippa L[ucii] F[ilius] Co[n]s[ul] Tertium Fecit” (“Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, thrice Consul, built this”). The inscription was taken at face value until 1892, when a well-documented interpretation of stamped bricks found in and around the building showed that the Pantheon standing today was a rebuilding of an earlier structure, and that it was a product of Emperor Hadrian’s patronage, built between about 118 and 128. Thus, Agrippa could not have been the patron of the present building. Why, then, is his name so prominent?
The conventional understanding of the Pantheon
A traditional rectangular temple, first built by Agrippa
The conventional understanding of the Pantheon’s genesis, which held from 1892 until very recently, goes something like this. Agrippa built the original Pantheon in honor of his and Augustus’ military victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E.—one of the defining moments in the establishment of the Roman Empire (Augustus would go on to become the first Emperor of Rome). It was thought that Agrippa’s Pantheon had been small and conventional: a Greek-style temple, rectangular in plan. Written sources suggest the building was damaged by fire around 80 C.E. and restored to some unknown extent under the orders of Emperor Domitian.
The Pantheon, Rome, c. 125 (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
When the building was more substantially damaged by fire again in 110 C.E., Emperor Trajan decided to rebuild it, but only partial groundwork was carried out before his death. Trajan’s successor, Hadrian—a great patron of architecture and revered as one of the most effective Roman emperors—conceived and possibly even designed the new building with the help of dedicated architects. It was to be a triumphant display of his will and beneficence. He was thought to have abandoned the idea of simply reconstructing Agrippa’s temple, deciding instead to create a much larger and more impressive structure. And, in an act of pious humility meant to put him in the favor of the gods and to honor his illustrious predecessors, Hadrian installed the false inscription attributing the new building to the long-dead Agrippa.
New evidence—Agrippa’s temple was not rectangular at all
Today, we know that many parts of this story are either unlikely or demonstrably false. It is now clear from archaeological studies that Agrippa’s original building was not a small rectangular temple, but contained the distinctive hallmarks of the current building: a portico with tall columns and pediment and a rotunda (circular hall) behind it, in similar dimensions to the current building.
Giovanni Paolo Panini, Interior of the Pantheon, Rome. c. 1734, oil on canvas, 128 x 99 cm (National Gallery of Art)
And the temple may be Trajan’s (not Hadrian’s)
More startling, a reconsideration of the evidence of the bricks used in the building’s construction—some of which were stamped with identifying marks that can be used to establish the date of manufacture—shows that almost all of them date from the 110s, during the time of Trajan. Instead of the great triumph of Hadrianic design, the Pantheon should more rightly be seen as the final architectural glory of Emperor Trajan’s reign: substantially designed and rebuilt beginning around 114, with some preparatory work on the building site perhaps starting right after the fire of 110, and finished under Hadrian sometime between 125 and 128.
Lise Hetland, the archaeologist who first made this argument in 2007 (building on an earlier attribution to Trajan by Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer), writes that the long-standing effort to make the physical evidence fit a dating entirely within Hadrian’s time shows “the illogicality of the sometimes almost surgically clear-cut presentation of Roman buildings according to the sequence of emperors.” The case of the Pantheon confirms a general art-historical lesson: style categories and historical periodizations (in other words, our understanding of the style of architecture during a particular emperor’s reign) should be seen as conveniences—subordinate to the priority of evidence.
Pantheon Plan
What was it—a temple? A dynastic sanctuary?
It is now an open question whether the building was ever a temple to all the gods, as its traditional name has long suggested to interpreters. Pantheon, or Pantheum in Latin, was more of a nickname than a formal title. One of the major written sources about the building’s origin is the Roman History by Cassius Dio, a late second- to early third-century historian who was twice Roman consul. His account, written a century after the Pantheon was completed, must be taken skeptically. However, he provides important evidence about the building’s purpose. He wrote,
He [Agrippa] completed the building called the Pantheon. It has this name, perhaps because it received among the images which decorated it the statues of many gods, including Mars and Venus; but my own opinion of the name is that, because of its vaulted roof, it resembles the heavens. Agrippa, for his part, wished to place a statue of Augustus there also and to bestow upon him the honor of having the structure named after him; but when Augustus wouldn’t accept either honor, he [Agrippa] placed in the temple itself a statue of the former [Julius] Caesar and in the ante-room statues of Augustus and himself. This was done not out of any rivalry or ambition on Agrippa’s part to make himself equal to Augustus, but from his hearty loyalty to him and his constant zeal for the public good.
A number of scholars have now suggested that the original Pantheon was not a temple in the usual sense of a god’s dwelling place. Instead, it may have been intended as a dynastic sanctuary, part of a ruler cult emerging around Augustus, with the original dedication being to Julius Caesar, the progenitor of the family line of Augustus and Agrippa and a revered ancestor who had been the first Roman deified by the Senate. Adding to the plausibility of this view is the fact that the site had sacred associations—tradition stating that it was the location of the apotheosis, or raising up to the heavens, of Romulus. Even more, the Pantheon was also aligned on axis, across a long stretch of open fields called the Campus Martius, with Augustus’ mausoleum, completed just a few years before the Pantheon. Agrippa’s building, then, was redolent with suggestions of the alliance of the gods and the rulers of Rome during a time when new religious ideas about ruler cults were taking shape.
By the fourth century C.E., when the historian Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned the Pantheon in his history of imperial Rome, statues of the Roman emperors occupied the rotunda’s niches. In Agrippa’s Pantheon, these spaces had been filled by statues of the gods. We also know that Hadrian held court in the Pantheon. Whatever its original purposes, the Pantheon by the time of Trajan and Hadrian was primarily associated with the power of the emperors and their divine authority.
Pantheon dome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The symbolism of the great dome adds weight to this interpretation. The dome’s coffers (inset panels) are divided into 28 sections, equaling the number of large columns below. 28 is a “perfect number,” a whole number whose summed factors equal it (thus, 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28). Only four perfect numbers were known in antiquity (6, 28, 496, and 8128) and they were sometimes held—for instance, by Pythagoras and his followers—to have mystical, religious meaning in connection with the cosmos. Additionally, the oculus (open window) at the top of the dome was the interior’s only source of direct light. The sunbeam streaming through the oculus traced an ever-changing daily path across the wall and floor of the rotunda. Perhaps, then, the sunbeam marked solar and lunar events, or simply time. The idea fits nicely with Dio’s understanding of the dome as the canopy of the heavens and, by extension, of the rotunda itself as a microcosm of the Roman world beneath the starry heavens, with the emperor presiding over it all, ensuring the right order of the world.
The Pantheon, Rome, c. 125 (photo: Alex Ranaldi, CC BY-SA 2.0)
How was it designed and built?
The Pantheon’s basic design is simple and powerful. A portico with free-standing columns is attached to a domed rotunda. In between, to help transition between the rectilinear portico and the round rotunda is an element generally described in English as the intermediate block. This piece is itself interesting for the fact that visible on its face above the portico’s pediment is another shallow pediment. This may be evidence that the portico was intended to be taller than it is (50 Roman feet instead of the actual 40 feet). Perhaps the taller columns, presumably ordered from a quarry in Egypt, never made it to the building site (for reasons unknown), necessitating the substitution of smaller columns, thus reducing the height of the portico.
Pantheon, Rome, c. 125 C.E. (photo: Darren Puttock, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The Pantheon’s great interior spectacle—its enormous scale, the geometric clarity of the circle-in-square pavement pattern and the dome’s half-sphere, and the moving disc of light—is all the more breathtaking for the way one moves from the bustling square (piazza, in Italian) outside into the grandeur inside.
One approaches the Pantheon through the portico with its tall, monolithic Corinthian columns of Egyptian granite. Originally, the approach would have been framed and directed by the long walls of a courtyard or forecourt in front of the building, and a set of stairs, now submerged under the piazza, leading up to the portico. Walking beneath the giant columns, the outside light starts to dim. As you pass through the enormous portal with its bronze doors, you enter the rotunda, where your eyes are swept up toward the oculus.
The structure itself is an important example of advanced Roman engineering. Its walls are made from brick-faced concrete—an innovation widely used in Rome’s major buildings and infrastructure, such as aqueducts—and are lightened with relieving arches and vaults built into the wall mass. The concrete easily allowed for spaces to be carved out of the wall’s thickness—for instance, the alcoves around the rotunda’s perimeter and the large apse directly across from the entrance (where Hadrian would have sat to hold court). Further, the concrete of the dome is graded into six layers with a mixture of scoria, a low-density, lightweight volcanic rock, at the top. From top to bottom, the structure of the Pantheon was fine-tuned to be structurally efficient and to allow flexibility of design.
Who designed the Pantheon?
Pantheon, Rome, c. 125 C.E. (photo: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0)
We do not know who designed the Pantheon, but Apollodorus of Damascus, Trajan’s favorite builder, is a likely candidate—or, perhaps, someone closely associated with Apollodorus. He had designed Trajan’s Forum and at least two other major projects in Rome, probably making him the person in the capital city with the deepest knowledge about complex architecture and engineering in the 110s. On that basis, and with some stylistic and design similarities between the Pantheon and his known projects, Apollodorus’ authorship of the building is a significant possibility.
When it was believed that Hadrian had fully overseen the Pantheon’s design, doubt was cast on the possibility of Apollodorus’ role because, according to Dio, Hadrian had banished and then executed the architect for having spoken ill of the emperor’s talents. Many historians now doubt Dio’s account. Although the evidence is circumstantial, a number of obstacles to Apollodorus’ authorship have been removed by the recent developments in our understanding of the Pantheon’s genesis. In the end, however, we cannot say for certain who designed the Pantheon.
Why Has It Survived?
We know very little about what happened to the Pantheon between the time of Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century and the early seventh century—a period when the city of Rome’s importance faded and the Roman Empire disintegrated. This was presumably the time when much of the Pantheon’s surroundings—the forecourt and all adjacent buildings—fell into serious disrepair and were demolished and replaced. How and why the Pantheon emerged from those difficult centuries is hard to say. The Liber Pontificalis—a medieval manuscript containing not-always-reliable biographies of the popes—tells us that in the 7th century Pope Boniface IV “asked the [Byzantine] emperor Phocas for the temple called the Pantheon, and in it he made the church of the ever-virgin Holy Mary and all the martyrs.” There is continuing debate about when the Christian consecration of the Pantheon happened; today, the balance of evidence points to May 13, 613. In later centuries, the building was known as Sanctae Mariae Rotundae (Saint Mary of the Rotunda). Whatever the precise date of its consecration, the fact that the Pantheon became a church—specifically, a station church, where the pope would hold special masses during Lent, the period leading up to Easter—meant that it was in continuous use, ensuring its survival.
Sanctae Mariae Rotundae (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Yet, like other ancient remains in Rome, the Pantheon was for centuries a source of materials for new buildings and other purposes—including the making of cannons and weapons. In addition to the loss of original finishings, sculpture, and all of its bronze elements, many other changes were made to the building from the fourth century to today. Among the most important: the three easternmost columns of the portico were replaced in the seventeenth century after having been damaged and braced by a brick wall centuries earlier; doors and steps leading down into the portico were erected after the grade of the surrounding piazza had risen over time; inside the rotunda, columns made from imperial red porphyry—a rare, expensive stone from Egypt—were replaced with granite versions; and roof tiles and other elements were periodically removed or replaced. Despite all the losses and alterations, and all the unanswered and difficult questions, the Pantheon is an unrivaled artifact of Roman antiquity.
Mary T. Boatwright, “Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of the Pantheon,” in Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy, edited by Thorsten Opper (London: British Museum, 2013), pp. 19–30.
Paul Godfrey and David Hemsoll. “The Pantheon: Temple or Rotunda?” in Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, edited by Martin Henig and Anthony King (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1986), pp. 195–209.
Gerd Graßhoff, Michael Heinzelmann, and Markus Wäfler, editors, The Pantheon in Rome: Contributions (Bern: Bern Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 2009).
Robert Hannah and Giulio Magli. “The Role of the Sun in the Pantheon’s Design and Meaning,” Numen 58 (2011), pp. 486–513.
Lise M. Hetland, “Dating the Pantheon,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 20 (2007), pp. 95–112.
Mark Wilson Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000).
Tod A Marder and Mark Wilson Jones, editors, The Pantheon from Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Gene Waddell, Creating the Pantheon: Design, Materials, and Construction (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2008).
Cite this page as: Dr. Paul A. Ranogajec, “The Pantheon (Rome),” in Smarthistory, December 11, 2015, accessed April 26, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-pantheon/.
Lateran Obelisk, c. 1400 B.C.E., originally erected at the temple of Amun, Karnak by Thutmose III and Thutmose IV at a height of 32 meters; now roughly 4 meters shorter), monolith of red granite, 28 meters high (moved to Alexandria by Constantine, and later erected in the spina of the Circus Maximus in Rome by Constantius II in 357 C.E., re-erected at the Lateran in 1587 by Domenico Fontana for Pope Sixtus V). A conversation with Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker.
How do you represent one of the world’s most famous cities? Giovanni Panini’s solution was to create a painting full of paintings. His Modern Rome presents views of this Italian city as it appeared in the 1750s, yet not all of the monuments that he depicts were originally made in Europe.
Painting of the Piazza del Popolo (detail), Giovanni Paolo Panini, Modern Rome, 1757, oil on canvas, 172.1 x 233 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
If you look closely, you will find that six of the views feature tall, pointed pillars in the middle of Rome’s public squares. These monuments are ancient Egyptianobelisks, each made of a solid granite stone narrowing to a pyramidal tip.
In one of his views, an obelisk casts a long shadow across the Piazza del Popolo. Panini emphasizes the pillar’s height as it soars above pedestrians and domed churches. He also captures the contrast between the square’s white buildings and the obelisk’s distinctive reddish stone. In other framed views, similar ancient obelisks appear in the Piazza di San Giovanni in Laterano, Piazza San Pietro, Piazza della Minerva, and Piazza Navona (shown twice).
How did all of these monuments from Egypt end up in Rome? When were they transported and why? Answering these questions takes us into the realm of ancient Mediterranean empires and highlights the long history of looted antiquities and rededicated monuments. We should also ask how often these monuments have been moved around the city of Rome. Their current locations would baffle not only Egypt’s kings, but also Rome’s emperors.
Obelisks dedicated in Egypt
Obelisk of Queen Hatshepsut, New Kingdom, 29 meters tall, 328 tons, the Karnak Temple Complex, Luxor, Egypt (photo: Elias Rovielo, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
By the time Rome annexed Egypt in 30 B.C.E., obelisks had been standing at temples along the Nile River for thousands of years. Egyptians had invented obelisks during the Old Kingdom period (c. 2649–2150 B.C.E.). Rulers typically dedicated these prestigious pillars to sun gods. The monuments’ pyramidal tips, usually encased in reflective metal, referred to the first mound of earth touched by the sun’s rays at the beginning of creation.
In 10 B.C.E., the Roman emperor Augustus began transporting these religious offerings to Italy to adorn his imperial capital. He did so in order to commemorate Rome’s control of Egypt, a place considered ancient even in antiquity.
What sets obelisks apart from other plundered treasures is their immense height and weight: the solid stones could soar several storeys tall and weigh several hundred tons. Transporting them required special boats, and hoisting them upright required extraordinary technical skills. Scholars still debate how ancient engineers accomplished these feats.
Obelisk in Piazza del Popolo (Flaminian Obelisk), Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
An obelisk rededicated in Rome
Augustus is the emperor who seized the obelisk that Panini would later paint in the Piazza del Popolo. Rising 67 feet tall and weighing over 200 tons, the solid pillar initially stood at the temple of Ra-Atum at Heliopolis (near modern Cairo). The pillar’s inscribed hieroglyphs record that the Egyptian king Seti I and his successor Ramses II dedicated the offering. This is one of many obelisks dedicated during the New Kingdom period, when Egypt was at the height of its power and possessed an empire stretching from Libya to Syria.
Obelisk in the Piazza del Popolo (Flaminian Obelisk),, with red granite base added by Augustus, white travertine base added by Sixtus V, and water basins and lions added in the 19th century, Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Hieroglyphs (detail), obelisk in Piazza del Popolo (Flaminian Obelisk), Rome (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Over 1,300 years later, Augustus had the obelisk of Seti I and Ramses II shipped across the Mediterranean Sea and up the Tiber River to Rome. There, he had the monolith set back up, but with a new base made of Egyptian stone. Red granite, quarried at Aswan in southern Egypt, had long been popular for the obelisks dedicated by Egypt’s kings. Augustus’s new base matched the stone of the plundered pillar.
Latin inscription on the base of the obelisk in Piazza del Popolo (Flaminian Obelisk), Rome (photo: Biser Todorov, CC BY 4.0)
Augustus had a Latin dedication carved onto this new pedestal. The inscription recorded that Egypt had been brought under the dominion of the Roman people and that Augustus had rededicated this obelisk to Sol, the Roman sun god. The Latin on the base and the Egyptian on the pillar combined to create a bilingual monument, even if not all viewers were literate and few could read Egyptian.
The emperor installed this monument in the Circus Maximus, ancient Rome’s premier venue for chariot races. The racetrack stood in the city center, about two miles south of the Piazza del Popolo. At the track, the obelisk joined political and religious monuments from different eras to form a central axis, and spectators became used to seeing chariots race around them. [1]
Lamp, Roman, 2nd half of the 1st century, terracotta, 13.2 cm long and 2.9 cm tall (Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin), view an annotated version
Views of the obelisk that Augustus rededicated here survive in ancient Roman art. On one terracotta oil lamp, we see a contestant driving a four-horse chariot around the Circus Maximus. The monuments on the track’s central axis are behind him: a column monument with a statue on top, the obelisk with hieroglyphs, a lap counter with seven dolphins, another column monument with a statue, an observation platform for judges, and three posts marking the turning point for the next lap. Such images reveal how an obelisk from Egypt became a familiar part of Rome’s cityscape.
Obelisks in the Piazza di San Giovanni in Laterano (left), Piazza Navona (center), and Piazza San Pietro (right), Rome (photos: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
New Roman settings
By 400 C.E., emperors had set up over a dozen major obelisks in Rome. A few stood in circuses, others were installed at temples and tombs, and one formed part of a solar calendar that you could walk through. [2] Most of these obelisks were transported from Egypt, but some were newly created in the same style. [3]
As Rome suffered natural disasters and invasions in subsequent centuries, obelisks fell, broke into pieces, and became covered by debris. A millennium later, they were rediscovered, repaired, and moved to new public squares being developed by Rome’s Catholic popes, who were eager to showcase the engineering expertise of their own eras. [4] Many ancient obelisks can still be seen in these piazzas, where they are not only far from Egypt, but also removed from the places where Roman emperors had set them up.
The obelisk that Augustus had rededicated in the Circus Maximus was rediscovered in the 1580s. Pope Sixtus V had it transported two miles north to the Piazza del Popolo, where it was installed near a small fountain. He added yet another base to the obelisk, this one made of white stone taken from an ancient Roman monument (the Septizodium). He also placed a Christian cross at the top, to update the monument’s religious affiliation. The Flemish engraver Nicolaus van Aelst was quick to record this new installation, and the obelisk still appeared this way when Panini painted Modern Rome in the 1750s. By the early 1800s, the Italian architect Giuseppe Valadier had added an elaborate fountain with four lions on stepped pyramids (the Fontana dei Leoni), which can still be seen today. The other obelisks in Panini’s Modern Rome have similar stories of relocation and refashioned bases, some of which were quite extravagant. [5]
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, The Piazza del Popolo (Veduta della Piazza del Popolo), c. 1750, etching, 38 x 54 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Obelisks as global monuments
Rome’s emperors, beginning with Augustus, established a precedent for including obelisks in the planning and design of cities outside of Egypt. [6] Rome’s popes built on this precedent by moving the same obelisks to newly defined public squares during the Renaissance and Baroque eras. As a result, residents and tourists became used to seeing obelisks in Rome again. When later artists such as Nicolaus van Aelst, Giovanni Panini, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi recorded these new settings in works that circulated far and wide, viewers abroad became accustomed to seeing obelisks in Rome, too.
Left: Cleopatra’s Needle, Westminster, London (photo: Ethan Doyle White, CC BY-SA 4.0); center: Luxor Obelisk, Place de la Concorde, Paris (photo: Jebulon, CC0); right: Cleopatra’s Needle, New York City (photo: Kimberly Cassibry, CC BY-SA 4.0)
Rome is not the only foreign city to possess these ancient skyscrapers. In the 19th century, as Egyptians contended with the British, French, and Ottoman empires, obelisks were once again transported from their homeland and can now be seen in London, Paris, and New York. Architects have also constructed new versions all over the world. The colossal obelisk known as the Washington Monument is so tall that it has an elevator inside and is so prominent that it serves as a symbol of the capital city of the United States.
Robert Mills and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Lincoln Casey, Washington Monument, completed 1884, granite and marble, Washington, D.C.
Ancient obelisks still remain in temple complexes along the Nile River, and the Egyptians of ancient Africa deserve credit for inventing a monument that now adorns so many of the world’s cities. Egypt’s pyramids may be more famous, but obelisks have been just as influential on the history of art and architecture.
Notes:
[1] Following this monument’s installation here, it became common to put obelisks in Roman circuses.
[2] The obelisk now in St. Peter’s Square once stood in the Circus Vaticanus. The obelisk now in the Piazza Navona once stood at the circus of the Villa of Maxentius. The obelisk now in front of the Lateran Palace once stood in the Circus Maximus, as did the obelisk brought by Augustus and now in the Piazza del Popolo. The obelisk now in the Piazza Minerva is thought to have been installed at a temple (perhaps for Isis). The obelisk now installed behind Santa Maria Maggiore and the one now installed on the Quirinal Hill once stood at Augustus’ mausoleum. The obelisk now on the Pincian hill has hieroglyphs naming Antinous and is thought to have been set up at his memorial complex at Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli. The obelisk now in front of the Montecitorio Palace once stood within a solar calendar set up by Augustus. These last four obelisks are not shown in Panini’s Modern Rome, which also omits other obelisks in the city.
[3] The obelisk now in the Piazza Navona, for instance, has hieroglyphic inscriptions naming the Roman emperor Domitian and may date to his reign.
[4] The architect Domenico Fontana (1543–1607) wrote a book about successfully moving the obelisk from the Circus Vaticanus to St. Peter’s Square.
[5] The Baroque sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini added an extraordinary fountain beneath the obelisk in the Piazza Navona and sculpted an elephant base for the obelisk in the Piazza Minerva, both visible in Panini’s Modern Rome.
[6] The Byzantine emperor Theodosius built on this precedent by setting up an Egyptian obelisk in the racetrack at Constantinople (Istanbul) around 390 C.E.
Grant Parker, “Monolithic Appropriation? The Lateran Obelisk Compared,” in Rome, Empire of Plunder: The Dynamics of Cultural Appropriation, edited by Matthew Loar, Carolyn MacDonald, and Dan-el Padilla Peralta (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 137–59.
Grant Parker, “Obelisks in Exile: Monuments Made to Measure?,” in Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World, edited by Laurent Bricault, M. J. Versluys, and P. G. P. Meyboom (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 209–22.
Susan [Fern] Sorek, The Emperors’ Needles: Egyptian Obelisks and Rome (Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press, 2010).
Due to a fortunate case of mistaken identity, this commanding statue was saved from destruction. The original location of the sculpture is unknown, though it had been housed in the Lateran Palace since the 8th century until it was placed in the center of the Piazza del Campidoglio by Michelangelo in 1538. The original is now indoors for purposes of conservation.
Equestrian Sculpture of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome) Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris
In ancient Rome, equestrian statues of emperors would not have been uncommon sights in the city—late antique sources suggest that at least 22 of these “great horses” (equi magni) were to be seen—as they were official devices for honoring the emperor for singular military and civic achievements. The statues themselves were, in turn, copied in other media, including coins, for even wider distribution.
Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Few examples of these equestrian statues survive from antiquity, however, making the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius a singular artifact of Roman antiquity, one that has borne quiet witness to the ebb and flow of the city of Rome for nearly 1,900 years. A gilded bronze monument of the 170s C.E. that was originally dedicated to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, referred to commonly as Marcus Aurelius, the statue is an important object not only for the study of official Roman portraiture, but also for the consideration of monumental dedications. Further, the use of the statue in the Medieval, Renaissance, modern, and post-modern cities of Rome has important implications for the connectivity that exists between the past and the present.
Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Description
The statue is an over-life-size depiction of the emperor elegantly mounted atop his horse while participating in a public ritual or ceremony; the statue stands approximately 4.24 meters tall. A gilded bronze statue, the piece was originally cast using the lost-wax technique, with horse and rider cast in multiple pieces and then soldered together after casting.
The horse
The emperor’s horse is a magnificent example of dynamism captured in the sculptural medium. The horse, caught in motion, raises its right foreleg at the knee while planting its left foreleg on the ground, its motion checked by the application of reins, which the emperor originally held in his left hand. The horse’s body—in particular its musculature—has been modeled very carefully by the artist, resulting in a powerful rendering. In keeping with the motion of the horse’s body, its head turns to its right, with its mouth opened slightly. The horse wears a harness, some elements of which have not survived. The horse is saddled with a Persian-style saddlecloth of several layers, as opposed to a rigid saddle. It should be noted that the horse is an important and expressive element of the overall composition.
Horse and rider (detail), Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The horseman
The horseman sits astride the steed, with his left hand guiding the reins and his right arm raised to shoulder level, the hand outstretched.
There are approximately 110 known portraits of Marcus Aurelius and these have been grouped into four typological groupings. The first two types belong to the emperor’s youth, before he assumed the duties of the principate.
In the Roman world, it was standard practice to create official portrait types of high-ranking officials, such as emperors, that would then circulate in various media, notably sculpture in the round and coin portraits. These portrait types are vital in several respects, especially for determining the chronology of monuments and coins, since the portrait types can usually be placed in a fairly accurate and legible chronological order.
Marcus Aurelius, type I portrait, ca. 140 C.E. (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Marie-Lan Nguyen); center: Marcus Aurelius, type II portrait, c. 147 C.E. (Antiquarium of the Palatine; photo: Jastrow); right: Marcus Aurelius, type IV, 170–180 C.E. (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)
The interpretation of these portraits relies on various key elements, especially the reading of hairstyle and the examination of facial physiognomy. In the case of the equestrian statue, the portrait typology offers the best means of assigning an approximate date to the object since it does not otherwise offer another means of dating. The earliest portrait of Marcus Aurelius dates to c. 140 C.E. and is best represented by the Capitoline Galleria 28 type (type I portrait), where the youth wears a cloak fastened at the shoulder (paludamentum); this portrait was widely circulated, with approximately 25 known copies.
The second portrait type was made when Marcus was in his late 20s, c. 147 C.E., and shows a still youthful type, although Marcus now has light facial hair (type II portrait).
Marcus Aurelius became emperor in 161 C.E. when he was forty years of age; this was the occasion for the creation of his third and most important portrait type. This mature type shows the emperor fully bearded with a full head of tightly curled, voluminous hair; he retains the characteristic oval-shaped face and heavy eyelids from his earlier portraits. His coiffure forms a distinctive arc over his forehead. This third type is known from approximately 50 copies.
The emperor’s fourth portrait type, created between 170 and 180 C.E., retains most of the features of the third type but shows the emperor slightly more advanced in age with a very full beard that is divided in the center at the chin, showing parallel locks of hair.
Portrait head (detail), Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The statue of the horseman is carefully composed by the artist and depicts a figure that is simultaneously dynamic and a bit passive and removed, by virtue of his facial expression. The locks of hair are curly and compact and distributed evenly; the beard is also curly, covering the cheeks and upper lip, and is worn longer at the chin. The pose of the body shows the rider’s head turned slightly to his right, in the direction of his outstretched right arm. The left hand originally held the reins (no longer preserved) between the index and middle fingers, with the palm facing upwards. Scholars continue to debate whether he originally held some attached figure or object in the palm of the left hand; possible suggestions have included a scepter, a globe, a statue of victory—but there is no clear indication of any attachment point for such an object. On the left hand, the rider does wear the senatorial ring.
The rider is clad in civic garb, including a short-sleeved tunic that is gathered at the waist by a knotted belt (cingulum). Over the tunic, the rider wears a cloak (paludamentum) that is clasped at the right shoulder. On his feet, Marcus Aurelius wears the senatorial boots of the patrician class, known as calcei patricii.
Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome; photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Interpretation and chronology
The interpretation and chronology of the equestrian statue must rely on the statue itself, as no ancient literary testimony or other evidence survives to aid in the interpretation. It is obvious that the statue is part of an elaborate public monument, no doubt commissioned to mark an important occasion in the emperor’s reign. With that said, however, it must also be noted that scholars continue to debate its precise dating, the occasion for its creation, and its likely original location in the city of Rome.
Starting with the portrait typology, it is possible to determine a range of likely dates for the statue’s creation. The portrait is clearly an adult type of the emperor, meaning the statue must have been created after 161 C.E., the year of Marcus Aurelius’ accession and the creation of his third portrait type. This provides a terminus post quem (the limit after which) for the equestrian statue. Art historians have debated whether the portrait head most resembles the Type III or the Type IV portrait. Recent scholarly thinking, based on the work of Klaus Fittschen, holds that the equestrian portrait represents a unique variant of the standard Type III portrait, created as an improvisation by the artist who was commissioned to create the equestrian statue. In the end, the precise chronology of the portrait head—and indeed the typology—remains a matter of scholarly debate.
Adventus of Marcus Aurelius, a relief from honorary monument to Marcus Aurelius, 176–180 C.E., marble, 350 cm height (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome; photo: Jean-Pol Grandmont)
The pose of the horseman is also helpful. The emperor stretches his right hand outward, the palm facing toward the ground; a pose that could be interpreted as the posture of adlocutio, indicating that the emperor is about to speak. However, more likely, in this case, we may read it as the gesture of clemency (clementia), offered to a vanquished enemy, or of restitutio pacis, the “restoration of peace.” Richard Brilliant has noted that since the emperor appears in civic garb as opposed to the general’s armor, the overall impression of the statue is one of peace rather than of the immediate post-war celebration of military victory. Some art historians reconstruct a now-missing barbarian on the right side of the horse, as seen in a surviving panel relief sculpture that originally belonged to a now-lost triumphal arch dedicated to Marcus Aurelius. We know that Marcus Aurelius celebrated a triumph in 176 C.E. for his victories over German and Sarmatian tribes, leading some to suggest that year as the occasion for the creation of the equestrian monument.
History
The original location of the equestrian monument also remains debated, with some supporting a location on the Caelian Hill near the barracks of the imperial cavalry (equites singulares), while others favor the Campus Martius (a low-lying alluvial plain of the Tiber River) as a possible location. A text known as the Liber Pontificalis that dates to the middle of the tenth century C.E. mentions the equestrian monument, referring to it as “caballus Constantini” or the “horse of Constantine.” According to the text, the urban prefect of Rome was condemned following an uprising against Pope John XII and, as punishment, was hung by the hair from the equestrian monument. At this time, the equestrian statue was located in the Lateran quarter of the city of Rome near the Lateran Palace, where it may have been since at least the eighth century C.E. Popular theories at the time held that the bearded emperor was, in fact, Constantine I, thus sparing the statue from being melted down.
In 1538 the statue was relocated from the Lateran quarter to the Capitoline Hill to become the centerpiece for Michelangelo’s new design for the Campidoglio (a piazza, or public square, at the top of the Capitoline hill). The statue was set atop a pedestal at the center of an intricately designed piazza flanked by three palazzi. It became the centerpiece of the main piazza of secular Rome and, as such, an icon of the city, a role that it still retains. The equestrian statue still plays a role as an official symbol of the city of Rome, even being incorporated into the reverse image of the Italian version of the € 0.50 coin. The statue itself remained where Michelangelo positioned it until it was moved indoors in 1981 for conservation reasons; a high-tech copy of the original was placed on the pedestal. The ancient statue is now housed within the Musei Capitolini where it can be visited and viewed today.
The equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius is an enduring monument, one that links the city’s many phases, ancient and modern. It has borne witness to the city’s imperial glory, post-imperial decline, its Renaissance resurgence, and even its quotidian experience in the twenty-first century. In so doing, it reminds us about the role of public art in creating and reinforcing cultural identity as it relates to specific events and locations. In the ancient world, the equestrian statue would have evoked powerful memories from the viewer, not only reinforcing the identity and appearance of the emperor but also calling to mind the key events, achievements, and celebrations of his administration. The statue is, like the city, eternal, as reflected by the Romanesco poet Giuseppe Belli who reflects in his sonnet Campidojjo (1830) that the gilded statue is directly linked to the long sweep of Rome’s history.
J. Bergemann, Römische Reiterstatuen: Ehrendenkmäler im öffentlichen Bereich (Mainz am Rhein: Ph. von Zabern, 1990).
A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius: a Biography (London: Routledge, 2002).
P.J.E. Davies, Death and the emperor: Roman imperial funerary monuments, from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004)
P. Fehl, “The Placement of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius in the Middle Ages.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37, 1974, pp. 362–67.
K. Fittschen and P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. 3v. (Berlin: P. von Zabern, 1983-2010).
D. E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).
M. Nimmo, Marco Aurelio, mostra di cantiere: le indagini in corso sul monumento (Rome: Arti grafiche pedanesi, 1984).
C. P. Presicce, and A. M. Sommella, The Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius in Campidoglio (Milan: Silvana, 1990).
I. S. Ryberg, “Rites of the state religion in Roman art” (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome; 22) (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1955).
I. S. Ryberg, Panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (New York: Archaeological Institute of America, 1967).
K. Stemmer, ed. Kaiser, Marc Aurel und Seine Zeit: Das Römische Reich im Umbruch (Berlin: Abguss-Sammlung Antiker Plastik, 1988).
D. E. Strong, Roman Art (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).
A. M. Vaccaro, et al., Marco Aurelio: storia di un monumento e del suo restauro (Milan: Silvana, 1989).
M. van Ackeren, ed., A Companion to Marcus Aurelius (Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).
The Baths of Caracalla, Rome, view from the south-west of the caldarium (hot baths). Construction on the Baths of Caracalla (known in the ancient world as the Thermae Antoninianae), may have begun under Emperor Septimius Severus. However, most of the work was completed under his son, the emperor Lucius Septimius Bassianus (known as Caracalla) between 212–17 C.E. Due to the size and lavish decorations of the complex, it was not fully completed until 235 C.E. (photo: Ethan Doyle White, CC BY-SA 4.0)
The remains of broken vaults, towering arches, and expansive walls soar into the air, some as high as 130 feet. Rooms now lie open to the sky above while colorful mosaics still remain underfoot. Although the Baths of Caracalla retain only a fraction of their former opulence, the sprawling complex, the second largest ancient baths in Rome, is still impressive today.
The coffers in the barrel vault of the Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine (c. 306–12) likely resembled the ones at the Baths of Caracalla.
Expansive public bathing complexes like the Baths of Caracalla were made possible thanks to the extensive aqueducts that the Romans constructed to supply water to cities like Rome. A new aqueduct, the Aqua Antoniniana (a branch of the earlier Aqua Marcia), was constructed to transport water to the baths. The Via Nova (New Road), was also created to provide access to the structure. This new construction, as well as the structure itself and the decorations within it, were paid for from imperial funds.
The structures were comprised of brick-faced concrete, which was once hidden under marble, mosaics, and decorative stucco work, topped with enormous vaults covered with polychrome glass mosaic. These vaults contained coffers that helped reduce their weight. Today, much of the decoration is gone, leaving the brick-faced concrete exposed.
The importance of bathing
Bathing was an essential part of ancient Roman urban life and spending the afternoon in the baths was a normal occurrence. The ancient Romans believed that daily exercise and bathing were necessary components to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which is not so different from us today. The baths were also places to socialize and even conduct business.
The baths were a place where all levels of Roman society could mix. While some elite ancient Romans did have small baths in their homes and villas, even they would sometimes frequent public baths. Because the baths were free and open to the public, the non-elite peoples of Rome could also enjoy these lavish facilities.
Marcus Agrippa, the best friend and son-in-law of Augustus (the first emperor of Rome), is credited with building the city’s first permanent public bathing complex in the Campus Martius in 25 B.C.E. Over the next three centuries, various emperors of Rome constructed their own bath complexes. This not only helped serve the growing population of Rome, but also allowed emperors to leave a lasting legacy. Baths were not only found in the capital city, but in cities across the empire. However, even though imperial bath complexes (thermae) had existed for as long as the empire had, Caracalla’s baths dwarfed all the others.
More than just baths
Though today we label the structure as “baths,” the bathing rooms make up only one portion of these large complexes. Located near the Aventine Hill in Rome, the complex sprawls across an area of approximately 27 acres. It was surrounded by a large perimeter wall, and public shops lined the entire northeast wall as well as portions of the northwest and southeast walls.
Plan, Baths of Caracalla, Rome
The main entrance into the complex was in the center of the northwest wall. Upon entering, visitors would be confronted with extensive, manicured gardens beyond which rose the walls of the bath building. The gardens surrounded the entire bath building within the precinct walls and included plants, walking paths, and fountains.
Part of the southeast and northwest precinct walls were designed as large exedrae (the semicircular areas) containing additional rooms such as gymnasia, lecture halls, and nymphaea (monumental fountains or grottos).
Floor covered in opus sectile, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: Mikael Korhonen, CC BY-NC 2.0)
Columns, Santa Maria Trastevere, Rome (photo: Dave Simpson, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Other rooms in the precinct walls include two large libraries, one for Greek texts and one for Latin. Only one of the libraries remains today, heavily damaged but still recognizable. Within it are 32 large niches which once held wooden shelves on which papyrus scrolls had rested. A monumental niche topped with a half-dome in the center of the wall opposite the entrance originally held a sculpture. The floor was covered in opus sectile (cut stonework) made up of expensive marbles. Masonry benches running the interior perimeter of the room provided seating. Many of the marble columns in the library survived for centuries but were removed in the 12th century and reused in the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome.
On the far side of each library were two large staircases which linked the southwestern side of the complex with the neighboring Aventine Hill. Between the two libraries was a stadium for athletic events which also functioned as a running track, surrounded on three sides with a seating area. Behind that was a large, two-story reservoir connected to the Aqua Antoniniana. Water was also held in various cisterns around the property and transported to the baths and fountains through underground pipes.
The bathing block
The changing room
The design of the baths was symmetrical on the central axis, with male-only rooms on one side, female on the other, and the bathing rooms in the middle. Every bather’s first stop was the male or female apodyterium (changing room). Here, visitors could store their clothes in individual cubbies. Many wealthy Romans would bring an enslaved person with them to watch over their belongings, as items were sometimes stolen from the changing rooms. Their next step was to oil their bodies prior to exercise and, if wanted, they could either purchase a massage or be massaged by someone they enslaved.
Western Palaestra exedra looking into frigidarium, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: Ethan Doyle White, CC BY-SA 4.0)
Palestrae (open-air exercise areas) and steam rooms
After this, guests would head to one of the two palestrae (open-air exercise areas). In these spaces they could stretch, lift weights, play ball, and in the case of the men, wrestle, or box. Some visitors would also run in the stadium. Post-exercise, the next stop was the steam rooms. The baths are thought to have offered both wet steam rooms (sudatoria) and dry heat rooms (laconica). Visitors (or an enslaved person) would then scrape away the oil on their bodies to cleanse themselves with an item known as a strigil, or scraper. This would help remove the dirt and sweat from their bodies before entering the pools.
Caldarium with a view toward the tepidarium and frigidarium beyond, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0)
Hot baths
After this, it was time to move to the hot baths. In this complex, the caldarium was a large circular room topped with a 130-foot dome, which is nearly as large as the Pantheon. However, unlike the Pantheon, which had an oculus or open window in the center of the dome, the caldarium was lit by three-tiers of large glass-covered windows which faced onto the gardens outside. The windows of both the caldarium and steam rooms faced the southwest where they could receive the most sunlight, and therefore additional warmth throughout the day, consciously employed by the architects. One bathing pool was in the center of the caldarium (“A” on the plan) under the dome while seven others were in rectangular niches encircling most of the room.
Warm baths
Once finished, one would proceed to the tepidarium (warm baths). This was a smaller space with only two pools and served as a transitionary area between the hot and cold baths. Some Romans would even use this bath twice: both before and after the hot baths to help make the transition between the different temperature pools easier. The warm and hot baths were both heated by underground furnaces which would circulate hot air beneath the floors and in the walls.
Cold baths, fountains, and pools
Lysippos, Farnese Hercules (also Weary Hercules), 4th century B.C.E., later Roman copy signed “Glykon of Athens” (in Greek letters), c. 216 C.E., 10 feet 5 inches high, found in the ruins of the Baths of Caracalla in Rome in 1546 (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples)
The frigidarium (cold baths) was located in the grandest hall of the complex. The rectangular hall was topped by three massive groin vaults more than 100 feet tall. Both the walls and floor were clad in expensive marble, and there were four colossal marble columns on each of the short ends of the hall. A pathway was left open between the middle two columns on each end of the room, but sculptures were placed between the others, including a marble copy of Lysippos’s Weary Herakles statue, known today as the Farnese Herakles.
Additionally, the hall contained fountains and pools, two of which are now located in fountains in the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (with later additions) and one of which is now at the National Archaeological Museum of Naples. Clerestory windows helped to light the vast space. Four plunge pools were located in the corners of the room, but the hall also served as a meeting place and main passageway to other areas of the baths. The two pools closest to the natatio (swimming pool), were separated from it only by waterfalls which created a glistening wall between the two spaces. The natatio could be entered between columns located beneath a monumental archway on the northeast side of the frigidarium.
Natatio (swimming pool), Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: ctj71081, CC BY-NC 2.0)
Unlike the other bathing areas, the natatio was open to the sky. It was surrounded on four sides by walls approximately 65 feet tall. The pool itself was approximately 164 feet long and 72 feet wide, nearly identical to the size of Olympic swimming pools today. The southwest wall was mostly open to the frigidarium, but the northeast wall was divided into three sections separated by colossal gray granite columns. Part of the wall functioned as a nymphaeum, creating the effect of a waterfall. The areas in between were filled with niches and statuary and clad in marble in a way that resembled the scaenae frons (architectural stage façade), of a Roman theatre. The pool itself was approximately three feet deep and was a place for both exercise and socializing. There was even a game board carved into the marble of one of the blocks surrounding the pool where people could sit and play together.
The baths were said to accommodate 1,600 bathers at one time and up to as many as 8,000 each day. There was once a second story over some parts of the building, as evidenced by staircases, but the remains at this level are so incomplete that the function of the upper story is unknown.
Mosaic floor, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: Carole Raddato, CC BY-SA 2.0)
The grandest baths in the city
At the time when they were constructed, the Baths of Caracalla were the largest and grandest in the city. Caracalla spared no expense with the decorations. There were precious imported marble columns and slabs to cover the floors and walls, extensive (and expensive) marble sculptures, and colorful mosaics. Some of the vaults were covered in glass-paste mosaics, others in decorative stuccowork. Very little of the marble decoration survives, though some small pieces can still be seen on the walls. Many of the floor mosaics are still on site today including colorful geometric patterns, black and white seascapes. Mosaics of athletes originally in the palestrae are now located in the Vatican Museums.
Mosaics of athletes in the palestrae, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (Vatican Museums)
The overall design of the building was one of opulence, from the soaring vaults to the marble covered walls and colored mosaics. Sunlight streaming through the windows once reflected off the pools and fountains, sending sparkles dancing across the highly polished marble and glittering glass mosaics. The public areas of the complex were meant to dazzle, but a large portion of the structure was actually hidden from view.
The service areas
Subterranean chambers, Baths of Caracalla, Rome (photo: Victor Andrade)
The Baths of Caracalla sit atop a large series of subterranean chambers. These rooms and hallways were like a small city all by themselves. Together, the known tunnels are more than a mile in length, though there are others still unexcavated. The barrel-vaulted halls were wide enough for horse-led carts to transport wood to the approximately 50 underground furnaces. One tunnel connected directly to the Via Antonina to allow carts to enter the underground areas easily and out of sight of the guests. The furnaces consumed approximately 10 tons of wood each day, fires that were stoked all day long by enslaved people to keep the caldarium and steam rooms hot. Hot air from the furnaces would circulate through a hypocaust system, an open space a few feet high located above the underground rooms, but below the flooring of the bathing rooms. This space contained rows of stacks of bricks known as pilae. Air would circulate between them at this level and move upwards through pipes in the walls. This was aided by a hydraulic system which permitted a controlled distribution of air through the pipes.
In addition, there were large storage rooms for wood, linens, oil, and other supplies. Staircases led from the underground areas into the baths themselves so enslaved people could supply the visitors with linens and oil. Hidden corridors and stairs were located in many of the walls and piers (large, rectangular supports) out of view of the bathers. There was also an underground Mithraeum, a sanctuary dedicated to the god Mithras.
Later History
The baths served as inspiration for other structures such as the Baths of Diocletian and the Basilica of Maxentius in Rome and even more modern buildings like the old Pennsylvania Station in New York City. The baths remained in operation until 537 C.E. when Ostragoths destroyed the aqueduct leading to the structure during a siege of Rome, ending the water supply and leading to its abandonment. Over the years, the complex fell into disrepair due to earthquakes and was later used as a quarry for building materials in the late medieval and Renaissance periods.
During the Italian Renaissance, the structure was excavated with the intention of obtaining sculptures and other finds for private and the papal collections. Scientific excavations did not begin until the 19th century. Though little to none of the grand marble revetment remains and most of the vaults and ceilings no longer exist, you can still get a sense of massive scale when visiting the baths today.
Filippo Coarelli, “Forum Holitorium, Forum Boarium, Circus Maximus, and the Baths of Caracalla,” In Rome and Environs: an archaeological guide. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), pp. 307–31.
Janet DeLaine, “Roman Baths and Bathing.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 6 (1993): 348–58.
Janet DeLaine, The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the Design, Construction, and Economics of Large-Scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome (Portsmouth, RI: JRA, 1997).
Garrett G. Fagan, Bathing in Public in the Roman World. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002).
Maryl B. Gensheimer, Decoration and Display in Rome’s Imperial Thermae: Messages of Power and Their Popular Reception at the Baths of Caracalla. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).
Fred S. Kleiner, A History of Roman Art. (Victoria; Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007), pp. 242–45.
Miranda Marvin, “Freestanding Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla.” American Journal of Archaeology 87, no. 3 (1983): pp. 347–84.
Roman Baths and Bathing: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths Held at Bath, England, 30 March-4 April 1992. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary Series No. 37. Portsmouth, R.I: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999.
Frank Sear, Roman Architecture. (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 257–59.
Fikret K. Yegül, “Chapter 16: Roman Imperial Baths and Thermae.” In A Companion to Roman Architecture, edited by Roger B. Ulrich and Caroline K. Quenemoen. (Oxford, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2013), pp. 299–323.
The Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was a period of relative peace in the Roman Empire for a period of about 200 years—from the time of Augustus until the political instability of the 3rd century C.E.
![Gold coin (aureus) struck at Rome c. 112–115 C.E. (19 mm, 7.13 g, 7h). The legend reads “IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P (“To the emperor Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, Pontifex Maximus, [holder of] tribunician power, in his sixth consulship, father of his country.” The coins depicts a laureate Trajan (draped, and cuirassed bust right) seen from behind on the observe side. On the reverse the Arcus Traiani of the Forum of Trajan is seen. This is presented as a hexastyle building facade, crowned by a frontal chariot drawn by six horses. Three figures stand to the left and right, while four statues occupy niches in the arches below. The reverse legend reads “FORVM TRAIAN[A]” (image)](https://smarthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TrajansForumCoins.jpeg)
