Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape

the Sun: The Arch
Framing
Roman
Cityscape
tan tine and
of Cons
the
Elizabeth Marlowe
illustrate some of the key paradigm shifts of their disci
pline, art historians often point to the fluctuating fortunes of
the Arch of Constantine. Reviled by Raphael, revered by Alois
To
anew
condemned
Riegl,
son and conscripted
chi
their
Time
spoliated,
ganic,
and
reliefs
methodology
has persisted
critics
has
particularly
Colosseum
Valley.
advanced
work
of
amputation
densely
This
religious
actually
like his
to
the
too
the
southern
reconstruction
relation
Such
among
the
of
and
the
passing
between
of
visual
personal,
an
ap
interests
local
specific,
in
his
through
reveals
the
Colosseum
arch
from
the dynamic
and
the
a
ancient,
ap
spectator
the Via Trium
spatial and
colossal
visual
statue
of
the sun god Sol that stood 353 feet (108 meters) behind it.
While a handful of scholars has noted Constantine's
interest
in the cult of Sol,5 they have relied primarily on numismatic
and
the important monumental
data, missing
epigraphic
evidence. Indeed, when religion has been brought into dis
cussions
tion
of
of
how
monument
study offers
the
the
arch,
focus
much
Christian
(and,
in
content
particular,
an alternative
has
always
can
into
its
understanding
been
on
be
read
inscription).
of
been
emperor's
setting
military
victory
god.6
the
the
This
the Arch
triumphal
straddled
the (relatively
Constantine's
procession.7
rather
limited
of
for
estate,
the
Constantine's
by
options
the
along
route,
into
area
the
of
left,
valley
the
Forum,
its
centrality,
and
hills,
of
Palatine
wend
there
in
to
the
Arch
heavily
trafficked
in the city.8
space
end
the
on
Constantinian
no
prominence
would
of
edge
and from
location
the
its
straightest
southern
situation
its
entrance
the main
around
the
on the
of Jupiter Optimus Maximus
several
by
over
pass
the Roman
its
Given
between
from
running
monu
The
day.
to the piazza by the Flavian Amphithe
(Fig. 1). At this point, the triumphal
turn
would
procession
along
term but a handy one) must
(amodern
the Circus Maximus
ater (the Colosseum)
Hill
real
prime
doubt
nevertheless
an
arterial
the
piazza
the
amphitheater,
must
have
enhanced
have
one
been
of
its attractiveness,
considerable
posed
topo
to the fourth-century
challenges
designers. Most
the
of
orientation
the
ancient
strikingly,
triumphal road and
graphical
of
that
the
newer
comparatively
structures
in
the
Colosseum
Valley did not match up, being off by about seven degrees
(Fig. 2). The road dated back at least to the time of Augustus
(late first century BCE to early first century CE) .9 Its course,
determined by the contours of the Palatine and Caelian Hills,
does not appear to have been altered during the rebuilding
of
area
the
rated
the
the
by
road
Nero
emperor
into
the Domus
the new
line,
to
just
the
seven
angled
structures
were
north
of
not
to
degrees
east,
vast
scale
Palatine
existing
of
demolished
the
Domus
nevertheless
axes
117-38),
taking
or Esquiline Hills. Given
which
Aurea,
its constituent
among
of
the
extended
great
Flavian
the
from
and
amphitheater
The
preserved.
half
was
dynasty,
a
century
constructed
Nero's
parts.
the
Domus
over
piazza
successors,
or
transformed
radically
parts of the despised
many
commissioned
(r.
valley
were
they
their orien
to the Esquiline Hills and incorporated many pre
structures into its fabric, it is not
surprising to find
divergent
the emperors
built
the
in the
it. Rather,
perhaps
palace,
the ancient
Aurea
with
incorpo
new
lavish
preserved
the Domus
aligned
the
his
Nero
tation from the encircling Velian
who
(r. 54-68),
Aurea,
after the fire of 64 CE. Although
the valley.10 But the Neronian
ques
into
the
was built at the end of one of the
longest,
stretches
road
to the work. The
of
experience
the arch
have
ment
the
competing
the monument-rich
layers of signification
of
occupied
While
in turn defined
and which
war,
the most
Christianity,
from
sun
the
the "ViaTriumphalis"
zone
Constan
a
act.8
Constantine's
civil
the emper
been
negotiations
route
fixed)
Capitoline.
the
Arch
on
assumes
of
the
The Position of the Arch
In Rome, triumphal arches usually
dominated
scholarship
have
favor
itsway up to the Temple
theoretically
traditions, and political
process.4
often
divorced
edge
to the south
phalis
and
the
in the years immediately following his
in 312. To begin with, the siting of the
Valley added multiple
proaching
as
known
to redress
some
of the imbalances
attempts
on Constantine's
on
Arch
and, by extension,
literature
at
now
Constantine's
routinely
it was created
for which
religious inclinations
defeat of Maxentius
arch
the
the
in
is all
arch,
on
Christianity
and
unambiguous
complex
urban
larger
seen
have
been
of Rome.2
to
cultural
a
interpretative
in
environment
its
literature
of
influential
the
perpetuates
which
(r. 306-37),
meaning.
This
article
the
arch
aspects
ideologies,
contexts
its
cityscape
inherent
or
less
the
these
of
in the area
setting
recent
the most
antique
of the
parallels
of
it would
from
obscures
the monument's
to
the
between
Arch, built between 312 and 315 to celebrate his victory over
the Rome-based
in a bloody
(r. 306-12)
usurper Maxentius
decorative
of any analysis of
part
how
structure
motivated,
proach
as
arch
the
"conversion"
internally
of
None
the
late
ways
arch's
compared
on
characteristic
tine himself
or's
the
flashy
Even
built-up
in many
context.
to understand
tried
in its
the
at the expense
its urban
considered
or
ensemble
is
Bian
Despite
agendas.1
these
scholars
all
the
active
in
of
logic
naturalism
and
the ways its topographical
by considering
a relation
articulates
Beren
Out
of that
fourth-century
carvings.
or
theories
of
decline
regrettable,
passive
are
transformation
constructed.
This
sweeping
structure
many
however,
the
again,
meaningful,
the
served
internal
second-century
hieratic
style of
contrast,
has
conclusions,
widely
divergent
a focus
on
share
the
program.
Bernard
reactionary
by the openly Marxist Ranucchio
arch
the
Bandinelli,
the
by
Constantine
Aurea
and
its remains
in
axis in this part of the city was
Temple
later
directly
of Venus
by
the
atop
and
emperor
the
Roma,
Hadrian
substructures
ART BULLETIN
224
LXXXVIII
VOLUME
2006
JUNE
Om
1 Plan
the monuments
of
Circus
of
Sol
Ultor,
Invictus/Jupiter
from
Rome,
1) Circus
Amphitheater:
the
3) road ("ViaTriumphalis"), 4)
of the Deified Claudius, 6) Temple
Maximus, 2) Septizodium,
Acqua Claudia, 5) Temple
of
2
100m
early-4th-century
to the Flavian
Maximus
NUMBER
of Venus
7) Temple
and
of
2 Plan
the seven
Roma,
8) Arch of Constantine, 9) Meta Sudans, 10) Colossus of Sol,
11) Flavian Amphitheater
(Colosseum) (plan by the author)
Constan
Constantine,
(beneath
the monuments
degrees
tine differs
of
2) Meta
the Flavian
Sudans,
paving),
5) Flavian Amphitheater
of
the
Flavian
The
thus
piazza,
enormous
statue
and
temple
on
vestibule
palace
the
the Velian,
to
just
the west
the Neronian
reestablishing
that Hadrian
installed
base
for
amphitheater
the
of
the
by
the
the Colosseum
the orientation
by which
from
that of the Neronian
3) Neronian
4) Temple
(Colosseum),
Valley,
showing
of the Arch
of
grid:
foundations
of Venus
1 ) Arch
and
Roma,
6) Colossus of Sol (plan
author)
orientation.
between
relocated
the
Colossus
of
Sol (see below) was also positioned
along the Neronian
grid.
The misalignment
the Via Triumphalis
between
and the
monuments
valley
For
centuries.
the
any monument
marking
it led was
to which
Constantinian
the
thus
designers,
arrival
of the
over
preserved
this meant
road
in
the
the
that
piazza
be off axis with one or the other
(or both). This
problem had already been addressed by the Flavians, who
would
a
installed
cleverly
at
dans,
round
this juncture,
(Figs. 3, 4).11 The Meta
further
presented
since
ners,
meant
that
would
perforce
was
an
Sudans
ban
its direct
any
amenity,
making
itself, however,
for
complications
arch
front
center
on
elegant
it lacked
and
of
the
no
the
fountain.
Su
of axes
would
fourth-century
it, astride
doubt
have
plan
road
triumphal
that
While
same
the
road,
Meta
ur
appreciated
and
gravitas,
much
connotations
military
it inappropriate
the
with
alignment
in
the Meta
the divergence
masking
Sudans
as
known
fountain,
thereby
as the focal point
of a triumphal
monument.
The
the
new
solution
Constantinian
monument
north,
beyond
piazza
proper.12
to these topographical
the
The
point
challenges
is ingenious.
the
road
but
designers
not
over
where
location
the
of
the
First,
a bit
rather
road
arch
gave
in
achieved
they
this
way
open
set
by
the
further
to
the
space
of
3 Coin from the reign of Titus depicting the Meta Sudans
in the
fountain (object in the public domain; photograph
public domain)
THE
ARCH
AND
OF CONSTANTINE
THE
ROMAN
CITYSCAPE
225
i
:;::
-PPB13i?e?sZ??6lai?$i?"''?""":'-':"?i
-2?
3Y:
i::
Y
?i_:`"
,, ;.
4 Arch
of Constantine
(heavily restored)
core
of
the
north,
the Meta
not
to
necessity
monument
center
the
the road
the
arch
that
the
on
arch
the
some
had
designers
and orientation.
sits atop
the Flavian
itself, this displacement
to
noticeable
very
on the
effect
meant
road
Freed
road,
of
shifted
they
spatial
the
the
of
the
than
the
ground,
was
valley
atop
not have
probably
on
observer
configuration
rather
paving
would
but
its
profound.
It solved the problem of how to put an arch along this stretch
of the triumphal route without having the Meta Sudans fill its
central
cone of the fountain
the
arch's
to
thanks
passageway:
second
the
was almost
This
pier.
two-meter
hidden
completely
is clear
from
the
shift,
tall
behind
taken
photographs
before the 1936 demolition
of the remains of the Meta Su
dans (Fig. 5).
The clever choice to orient the arch with the triumphal
road but not to center it on it had an additional benefit, for
two-meter
the
eastward
a
framed
passageway
Colosseum
the
Valley:
the
Valley,
that
the
arch's
different
ancient
monument
(now-lost)
colossal
bronze
sun god Sol.14 Although
which was oriented with
seum
meant
shift
long
central
statue
in
the
of
the
the arch was off axis with the statue,
the old Neronian
grid of the Colos
distance
separating
two
the
monu
the oblique, seven
(353 feet, or 108 meters) masked
in
degree angle (Fig. 2). Indeed,
early photographs
(Fig. 5),
the base of the colossus
bulldozed
(also subsequently
by
Benito Mussolini)
appears to be squarely framed through the
arch's
central
these
The position
ber
of
passageway,
structures.
illusion
of
It created
of Constantine
the
appearance
of
in the
design
monuments
whose
Valley,
disparate,
misaligned
a number
in Rome's
of key moments
represented
tural history.
from
the point
of view
Furthermore,
following
south,
the
apparent
peared,
triumphal
at least
route
alignment
architec
of
and approaching
of
the
road,
the
arch,
a natural
suggested
as
temporarily,
the
notion of a close relation
triumph would have underscored
The
stantinian
propaganda.
belonged
to an established
and
Augustus
under
ors
the
were
Nero,
of
attributes
Although
the Tetrarchs,
emperor.17
decessors,
from
adherent
the material
of
evidence
portraits
fully
and
sun,
sources)
him
three-quarters
But
the most
with
the
a
been
least
the
pre
wor
and
particu
to
judge
(as opposed
to the
.18A number
of his
Sol's
the legend soli
important
of
imperial
in solar
sun-?at
the
of his reign
[of
companion
of Constantine's
317.19
to have
of
written
depict
raised right hand, while
cult
god's
over
the
the figure
interest
and
sun
state gods Jupiter
seems
the
Christian
overwhelmingly
numismatic
little
being
emper
by civil wars
immediate
traditional
to
the Uncon
Invictus,
for
god
back
as
the
neighbors,
and
dominion
showed
Constantine
instead,
fervent
larly
Sol
racked
Constantine's
the more
ship, favoring
Hercules
with
eternity,
sun
the
represented
third
century,
the
as a model
irresistible
of
tradition going
often
Eastern
invincibility,
East became
Sol and imperial
key themes in Con
many
the empire
powerful
ap
between
In
Apollo.15
associated
frequently
by
were
Sol
have
destination.
worship
of
tutelage
threatened
route's
imperial
who
between
even
would
Constantine's
Sun.16 With
quered
relation
statue
the
ritual;
rayed
crown
invicto comiti
(to the
on
appears
emperor])
coinage
evidence
and
between
for
this
313
emper
or's special relationship with the sun god is his arch in the
Colosseum Valley, in both its adornment
and its location.
axiality
thus had a num
Colosseum
the triumphal
the
have
The Colossus
of the Arch
advantages.
an
presenting
and
invincible
ments
between
would
colossus
the
about 6V? feet (2meters; equal to about a tenth of
to the east, while still orienting
it with the road.13
its width)
been
the
in its positioning
flexibility
from
in the public domain)
atop
Because
the
viewed
Sudans,
20th
century
early
(photograph
and
and
remains of the brick
travelers
from
and
Created
by
from the First to the Fourth Centuries
the
sculptor
Zenodorus
for Nero's
Domus
Aurea,
the Colossus of Sol originally stood in the palace vestibule on
the Velian Hill.20 The emperor Hadrian
had the statue
moved down the hill toward the Flavian Amphitheater
and
onto
the
Roma.21
the
base
a new
The
to make
base,
site
and
room
dimensions
(whose rubble core is visible
for
his
of
of Venus
Temple
the Hadrianic
and
statue
in Fig. 5) are today marked
ART
226
5 Arch
BULLETIN
LXXXVIII
2006 VOLUME
JUNE
NUMBER
2
in the central
the south,
the extant
remains
of the base
of the Colossus
of Sol framed
showing
the other
is almost
the second
Sudans
hidden
behind
(cf. Fig. 4, a view from
completely
pier
on the arch. The
seen here,
like the present-day
ancient
road
Note
that the roadway
is centered
line, by
road,
arch).
ran
to the west
in the public
in the public
6V? feet
domain;
domain)
(2 meters)
(artwork
roughly
photograph
of Constantine,
viewed
The
19th century.
from
Meta
passageway,
side of the
contrast,
by an elevated, grassy island in the piazza (Fig. 6) ,22Ancient
images of the statue on coins (Fig. 7) and a gem (Fig. 8) show
a nude
male
leans
crown,
hand;
mann
her
the
figure
on a
rudder
combined
excellent
Although
in a contrapposto
pillar,
rests
and
these
wears
He
ship's
or
sphere
globe.
various
representations
(Fig.
drawing
of the statue's
9).23
a
reconstruction
ancient
stance.
a
rudder
on
holds
reports
a radiate
in his
Marianne
to
(also
to
dedicated
ancient
world.24
archaeological
unit
cialty)
sun
god),
for
calculates
one
of
the
Combining
data about
of measurement
,Albertson
the
right
Berg
generate
incon
that
statues,
the
statue
wonders
testimony
literary
the Rhodian
colossal
seven
ever,
cubit
(the standard
Zenodorus's
was
of
with
60
cubits
the
excluding
statue
base.
(By
the
comparison,
ad
is 159 feet, or 48.5 meters, tall.)
jacent Flavian Amphitheater
Whom did the colossus represent? Both Pliny and Sueto
nius describe the image as a "likeness [simulacro]" or "effigy
of
[effigie]"
are
height
the
(31.5 meters). With the long rays of the figure's
the total height is estimated at roughly 125 feet (38
crown,
meters),
sistent, Fred Albertson has recently proposed that itwas likely
made to match
the proportions
of the Colossus of Rhodes
the
or 103 feet
the
dispute
emperor
this
Nero.
Some
which
identification,
recent
they
scholars,
see
as an
sion of the hostility on the part of the Roman
Nero and his distasteful megalomania;
they
statue
that
instead
the
been
as
statue's
unheard
spe
although
tall,
also allegedly
Pliny
of
the
sun
nudity
in an
mentions
god
and
Sol,
Nero's
120 feet tall, painted
expres
elite
toward
identify the
protector.25
scale would
extraordinary
of a living
emperor
image
another
colossal
portrait
how
It is true
have
in Rome,26
of Nero,
on linen and on display
in
THE ARCH
OF CONSTANTINE
AND
THE
ROMAN
CITYSCAPE
227
?,a?'?*-*
i.
-?
: r?
;-???
r-r: <?
:
:
6 The Piazza del Colosseo,
century.
follows
The
the
base
contours
of
colossal statue base
the
21st
tree
the
below
the
ancient
by
(photograph
author)
of Gordian
7 Gold multiple
the Colosseum
III, depicting
left:
from
Valley,
Sudans, and the Flavian Amphitheater
domain;
from
photograph
the monuments
of
the Colossus
of
the Meta
Sol,
(object in the public
Der Koloss
Bergmann,
Neros,
2.1)
pi.
8 Gem possibly depicting
century
CE.
domain; photograph
a
private
garden
by lightning
statue
for
on
complex
and destroyed.27
or
Nero
depicted
Roman
emperors
Sol
were
the
question
is, at any
frequently
it was
until
Esquiline
The
rate,
represented
portraits
or,
on
embroidered
curtains
at
misguided,
in
the
in the public
(artwork
by Ingo Pini)
the
the
guise of their patron deity. Nero in fact did much to meld his
own identity with that of the sun god, maintaining
that he was
at
in
touched miraculously
the
sun's
birth, competing
rays
by
contests
like
and
lyre-playing
Apollo Citharoedus,
having
himself shown with the deity's radiate crown in his numis
matic
Berlin
struck
of whether
largely
late 1st
the Colossus of Nero,
Museum,
Pergamon
theater,
a chariot
driving
statue
thus
could
guise-of-Sol
Zenodorus's
way,
our
or
concerns;
against
have
a
of
background
been
conceptualized
stars.
golden
The
as Nero-in-the
Either
Sol-with-the-portrait-features-of-Nero.
are not
for
intentions
relevant
particularly
statue
is that
the
bore
the
what
is certain
attributes of Sol and was widely believed to represent Nero.
one. Pliny
This belief seems to have been a disturbing
informs
us
that
the
statue
was
rededicated
to
the
sun
god
ART BULLETIN
228
JUNE
VOLUME
2006
LXXXVIII
2
NUMBER
to
Perhaps
and
all,
Hadrian
down
pin
to
also
intended
was
never
facial
of Nero),
attributes
seems
nearby,
the
statue's
associa
to have
it with
replacing
been
later
matches
represent
biography
his
had
the
the
altered
also
states
on
inscription
achievements
patron
end
Of
greatest
statue.33
predecessor
alteration
civil
rival,
by
three
deceased
its
by Lucius
the time.
at
of
his memory.
the most
occurred
its
emperor
Cornelius
The
from
Bergmann,
DerKohss
Neros,
10, provided
fig.
by Bergmann)
dedicatory
inscription
replaced)
of Constan
"after
the
of his
successor,
of
that
the
This
also
reports,
statue
sian may
over
resembled
that
Titus,
the
the
during
Vespasian's
facial
believed
son
and
statue.
of Nero.
Nero,
so
the
transformation
more
later,
symbolic
Hadrian
felt
than material.
it necessary
under
Dio
the
Vespa
Indeed,
just
to consecrate
in the fourth
the statue to Sol yet again. His biography
states
that
he
removed the
Historia
century
Augusta
explicitly
features
of
Nero,
"to whom
it was
previously
dedicated."31
colossus
us's
many
in
may
the
early
opaque,
entius)
period
The
through
Hill
the Velian
interpretation
cited above isweighted
litura
of
of Maxentius
from
the
century.
statues
321,
a
clue
to
the
and
meaning
the
the
series
to
just
in 312,
colossus
fortunes
ugly
proclaims:
the violent
erasure
of
the
is somewhat
showed
tan tine
of Cons
of
Maxenti
passage
that Maxentius
statues
a
in honor
speech
Describing
the orator
city,
of
con
the
aggression,
he
(Max
that
in Rome during the
would have set up previously
of their short-lived alliance
(307-8) .37 This is the
common
should
another
possible
toward
reign,
in
in the attic of the new
of
the
un
rededication
sense
removed
and buried
fourth
in
of Sol in
(words come with difficulty),
venerable
visage."36
it is
but
in his
late
was
letters
new
this
makes
transformation,
of
depredations
of
the
located on a base
unattested)
provide
"Behold, for sorrow!
divine
al
that
the
of
Presumably,
monument.
victory
in Nazarius's
Panegyric
tine,
overthrow
heir.30
were
features
a
report
that at the
observers
statue's
reign
this
echoes
presumably
portrait
to believe
that some
continued
though,
years
some
was
what
represented
have
been
fifty
Suetonius
rededication,
indicate
to erase
tered,
crimes,"
Cassius Dio notes
of Vespasian.29
Vespasian's
colossus
may
and
Vespasian,
in his biography
time
of Nero's
condemnation
enormous
a governor
scale
extraordinary
radical
(and no doubt
emperor's
A passage
The
in the attic of
Fortunatianus,
a rededication
of Maxentius's
the
(by Marianne
an
of
in the mid-1980s
(otherwise
Such
his
Maxentius.
fragments
of major
architectural
of
commissions,
the west.35
After
Constantine's
defeat
of Nero
recent
under
installed on the base of the Colossus
with
conjunction
der Maxentius.
vio
a Col[os
mentions
apparently
to Divus
Maxentius's
Romulus,
to a colossal
scription was
the
Commodus's
is such that the panels could only have been
proportionate
of
text
The
rededication
son,
Sardinia
occa
separate
tine was
the
the
adaptations
after
which
war
may
plausibly,
twelve
damnation
colossus,
Arch.34
and
on
These
undone
discovered
inscription,
with
to Constan
is attested
Constantine's
more
that
thus
the dedicatory
replaced
one
his own
honoring
text boasted
The
that
gladiator.
men
subsequent
and
which
colossus,
left hand.
is prob
some
of
report
on
images
of Hercules
Perhaps
base
statue's
significance
of
the
transformation
sum]
the
presumably
the
Commo
image.
The
statue
that Commodus
only his
and
marble
of
champion
one
thousand
were
a
show
pose
the
defeated
monument
the Colossus
Corn
emperors.
own
his
deity.32
reverse
the
as a
sions, using
of
to
irresistible
to the statue a club and a lion, the
added
of Hercules,
closely
9 Reconstruction
to
source)
Luna
of Rome's
ably
apocryphal,
although
Commodus's
medallions
text
Nero,
realized.
colossus
dus also allegedly
of
same
for
and
to
back
goddess
to reinforce
efforts
self-aggrandizing
portrait
lent
once
identity
slippage
to this
(r. 180-92) was said to have removed not just certain
as a
features but the entire head
(again described
modus
he
solar
further
(according
of the moon
statue
matching
the
although
plan
Hadrian's
Despite
tion with
the
Sol,
the more
statue's
any
a
install
the
prevent
deformis,
be
something
translated
the
and
passage,
above
as an
understood
for
the
of
the
translation
toward this reading. The Latin phrase
worse.
as
"ugly
alteration
Thus,
erasure,"
that
at
least
however,
the
changes
one
scholar
form
has
THE ARCH
read
the
images
to
of
portraits
a
as
passage
but
their
(the divine
of
but
widespread
practice
one
notorious
sumably
both
and
litura
is,
capacity,
historian
Fur
stantine
not
in mind
had
case,
particular
the oblique
that
enough
from
vultus
divini
a
rather
of
destruction
that
that Nazarius
suggest
visage)
some
the
adaptation,
of Maxentius.38
portraits
forms
singular
to
or
recarving
into
Constantine
the
thermore,
not
reference
pre
reference
to his audience a decade
would have been comprehensible
after the fact. It is possible that the orator was thinking of the
some
of
recarving
single,
well-known
distinguished,
portrait
alliance
brief
was
stantine
corulers
tense
in
would
no
monuments.
For
Colossus.
The
been
start.
the
fits
already
as
bill
been
have
their
a
the
respective
understated
for
the
is that of
by Maxentius
colossus
statues
The
in
relatively
candidate
one
reasons,
altered
that would
have
doubt
Con
brother-in-law
his
the
from
fragile
each
other's
honor
these
"divine visage"
and
and
erected
territories
ment
Maxentius
between
special
the Solar
monu
famous
very
this
of
interpretation
the
is correct,
passage
by the orator was probably
colossus
to Maxentius's
known
from
only
would
be
putting
that the
implies
was
the
with
the
and
son,
taken
statue's
know
latter
in
place
and
that
both
the
that
rulers
removed.
with
conjunction
one
by
behaved
or
after
who,
alteration
both
emperors.39
and
like Vespasian
to power,
signaled
much
coming
of
acts
These
the
may
of
the
In
this
other
the
that
the
stamp
regime
by removing
change
personalizing
on the colossus
and
it
their predecessors
had made
replacing
an
with
their
that
and/or
imagery
inscription
complemented
own
imperial
But
rhetoric.
Constantine's
of
appropriation
the monument
also took an additional
and highly novel
form. By installing his triumphal arch directly in front of it,
he
transformed
literally
the way
saw
spectators
the
of
pleasure
the
statue.
central
barrier
Up
Constantine's
the Colossus
southernmost
of
the
commanded
space
by
ran
Constantine's
between
attention
the
to
Palatine
structure
the
and
Caelian
may
have
been motivated
in part by its need for repairs: the Chronog
of
354
reports that during the reign of Diocletian
rapher
13,000 spectators were killed in the Circus Maxi
(283-305),
mus
when
however,
additional
of
part
went
well
outer
it collapsed.
beyond
Constantine's
simple
repairs.
ring of seating, which
interventions,
They
greatly
included
an
increased
the
porticoes
the
describes
was
col
the
com
unrealized
on the spina
obelisk
of
racetrack)
was
what
Constantine's
Egyptian
To
circus.
from
the
this
(the
he
end,
shaped
that
by?and
all
above
entire
space
tall
solar
to
the
the
on
framed
sector
to
either
the
end
the
with
structures,
circus
of
the
city
reigning
result
Colosseum
by
a
would
Valley
of
pair
or
presence
the
that
extraordinarily
current
form
was
of Constantine.44
beneficence
were
viewers
northward,
Continuing
a
entering
whose
monuments,
the
Maxi
new
to
Constantine's
plan,
according
sun
would
have
soared
overhead,
god,
circus
the
from
been
due
gone
to
sacr?d
Circus
to the glory of?the
redounding
Had
emperor.
obelisk,
were
they
the
to those approaching
have signaled
immediately
south
to
renovations
spectacular
as
spectacle
they
the
approached
a
to
treated
highly
Colosseum
of the long, straight vista of this
Valley. The combination
stretch of the triumphal way together with the astonishing
height of th? colossus drew spectators visually into the orbit
of the distant monuments
long before they actually reached
the
At
piazza.
this
the
distance,
of
theatricality
the
was
space
erected by the em
already established by the Septizodium,
Severus
(r. 193-211) along the Via Trium
peror Septimius
corner of the Palatine Hill (Fig.
at
the
southernmost
phalis
of
The
states
author
the
Historia
10).45
Augusta biography
explicitly
that
impress
visitors
the
south.46
The
arriving
columnar
story
had
Severus,
seven
screen,
astrological
how
(although
is uncertain),
to
up
arch
statue
of
a
statue
to
the
from
is,
three
long,
of Septimius
to the
relating
significance
this was
conveyed
formally
it an
making
appropriate
sun
at the end
of
the
god
or
the
ahead.
focalized
was
the
(90-meter-)
framed
was
structure
that
Africa,"
295-footwhich
some
planets
The
"from
this
of
purpose
primary
undulating,
iconographically
the
of Sol began back at the Circus Maximus,
Via
of
the
of
the
stretch
point
long, straight
that
Triumphalis
Hills.40
of
a
offers
and
ordered the obelisk of Thutmose
III, the largest in the world,
to be transported to Rome from Heliopolis,
where the pha
raon had dedicated
it to the Sun in the fifteenth
century
it as far as
the obelisk made
BCE. Under
Constantine,
Thebes. The project was finally completed,
by means of a
son
built
his
Constantius
II.43
under
specially
ship,
road
reconfiguration
This
impressive
to install an ancient
plan
counterpart
the Via Triumphalis
Maximus
panegyric
"Lofty
spectacle."42
more
even
sc?nographie
Constan
Nazarius's
229
fourth-century
that Con
enthusiastically
on
the Circus
reported
decorations
description:
purple
The
adornments.
while
CITYSCAPE
glowing red with gold have given such uncommon
to the Circus Maximus
adornment
itself that people gather
there no less eagerly for the sake of the place than for the
have
rededication
and
Maxentius
them
had
features
portrait
Constantine
regard,
earlier
otherwise
the dedicatory inscription of the Colossus of Sol:
to
the monument
installed panels rededicating
the former
have
act
THE ROMAN
umns
towering
of the
expense.
we
summarize,
tine altered
his
already,
Constantine,
at Constantine's
To
was
alteration
Nazarius
inscription.
on the facts when
he
spin
some
at that
date,
early
fragmentary
tendentious
colossus
associated
how
son?the
deceased
a very
the
the rededication
more
rather
AND
lavish
Victor
Constantine's
day and would have been associated with Constantine
by the
time Nazarius delivered his panegyric. This identification
seems all the more plausible
if there was indeed a long
tradition of installing new imperial portraits on the statue. If
criticized
as
the
"completed
in a marvelous
fashion,"41
mus would
in Maxentius's
standing
as well
Aurelius
pleted;
of Constantine. Yet it is unlikely that such a statue would have
been erected in Maxentius's Rome in the first place, for the
OF CONSTANTINE
reinforced
character
by
the
of the avenue
once
steeper
to the
leading up
inclines
of
the
Pala
tine and Caelian Hills that flanked it, an effect heightened
by
the great temple complexes
that dominated both hilltops.47
On the Palatine stood a huge, porticated court surrounding
a third-century temple dedicated by Elagabalus
to
(r. 218-22)
to Jupiter Ultor
Sol Invictus, but reconsecrated
peror's
successor,
Alexander
Severus
by the em
On
(r. 222-35).48
Caelian loomed the great Temple of Divus Claudius,
by the empress Agrippina and completed by Vespasian
first
century.49
Towering
over
the
road,
these
the
begun
in the
structures
ART BULLETIN
230
e.
2006
JUNE
LXXXVIII
VOLUME
NUMBER
2
.4k ,eI,
L
77
10
S. du
P?rac,
Septizodium,
delVantichit?
of
engraving
from du P?rac,
di Roma,
Rome,
the
/ vestige
1575, pi.
13 (artwork in the public domain)
Meta
of Sol
Colossus
11 Study model
of the Colosseum Valley monuments
would
have filled
the peripheral
north,
rendering
the
Colosseum
all
Valley
vision of spectators
not have been unlike
avenues
trees
incarnation
also
have
temples
arch
they
of
lining
the Via
recognized
resonated
were
with
the
Via
that created
S.
the
Claudius
claimed
monuments
The
the
to Sol
visual
ancestor,
colossus
from
was
the
the
emperor
of
Claudius
forebears.
dynastic
of Constantine
and
the
traveler
several
mated
for
other
the
statue.
pieces
as well.
Chief
of
To
missing
the
complete
information
among
these
are
however,
picture,
have
to be
the height
of
esti
the
the
and
stood
of
scale
the
atop
the
arch.52
triumphal
quadriga
reconstruction
posits
My
that
a
height of 19 feet 5 inches (5.92 meters, or 20 Roman feet) for
the statue base (derived from the known proportions
of its
for the quadriga
(also
length and width53) and 4 meters
derived from a number of proportional
relations54) (Fig. 11).
results
that
suggest
the
the
views
spectacle
sun god
(Figs. 12, 13, 15, 16).55
would
Spectators
cumbered
passing
crossed
meters)
the
an
presented
relation
between
have
probably
the Colosseum
those
almost
moving
cinematic
Constantine
first
their
caught
Valley
and
monuments
the
unen
after
that
through the archways of the Acqua Claudia
over the Via Triumphalis,
about 886 feet
(270
the
south of the arch (Fig. 12). From this distance,
portions
roofline
of
(Fig. 13). The
gilded,
of
sight
to
afforded
route
triumphal
of the close
upper
heading
north up the triumphal road can be roughly reconstructed by
the known data (the 67-foot, or 21-meter, height
combining
of the arch and the 353 feet, or 108 meters, between
it and
the colossus) and Albertson's proposed height of 125 feet (38
meters)
base
along
of Constantine,
itself a
turn
in
thus
framed by
of
perspective
whose
namesake
statue's
originally
The
Constantine's
the
the Arch
between
may
ancient
emperor
was
to Constantine's
and
relation
the
Invictus
Gothicus
The Arch
(r. 268-70).51
frame for the Solar Colossus, was
two
these
of
modern
observers
Savvy
rhetoric
Sol
today by the
the
Gregorio,
Triumphalis.50
how
harmoniously
approaching:
while
deity,
patron
personal
Constantine's
newly
heading
ahead
toward
the
straight
dramatic.
The
tunnel
resulting
effect would
of
(model by the author)
vista
low-lying
the more
View from
Acqua Claudia (270m)
View from 35m
Arch of
Constantine
Sudans
one
of
the
the
arch,
colossus
framing
overlapping
colored
by
would
the
have
bronze
patina
been
visible
the Constantinian
of
statues,
centuries
above
quadriga
both
and
probably
the
other
gleamingly new, would have formed a striking tableau. The
bronze Sol in the background
the
would have enveloped
in
of
Constantine
the
luster
of
its
image
radiating
divinity.56
is precedent
There
for superimposing
the figure of the
THE ARCH
THE
AND
OF CONSTANTINE
show
Study model
toward
the
the
view
ing
from
Colosseum
Valley
ROMAN
CITYSCAPE
231
12
AL
the Acqua Claudia, 886
feet (270 meters) from
r
~~~~~~~I
~I 1
of Constan
the Arch
tine (model by the
author)
-i.i*
a?
::::
1.:
rb:
;:1
??i
r';
13
model
Study
from the Acqua Claudia
the
the
of
close-up
:?
ASisdi?fs
i-r
view
(model by
author)
over
emperor
that
of
his
patron
A
deity.
similar
very
tween
repre
in profile appears on a gold medallion
issued in 313
the
Sol's
silhouette
frames
too,
Here,
14).
figure of the
(Fig.
behind
is
him,
emperor: Constantine's
backing
god
literally
his victory. The legend of the medal
him up, guaranteeing
sentation
greatest
the
max
INVICTUS CONSTANTINUS
lion,
on
figures
such
close
in his chariot.
that
proximity
elements
abstract
of
a
image
to emperor
and
facial
their
along
god
profiles
similar
and
of
lined
flicker
an
become
the
Triumphalis,
back
and forth,
in
up
in both
Thus,
pattern.
the Via
the
within the other, until the distinctions between the two begin
to blur. It isworth recalling that the blurring of the personae
of ruler and sun god was in a sense built into the long history
of the colossal statue itself, with its alternating
(and often
It was
the
spectator
moving
up
to life, the topographical
brought
relation
as emperor
identifications
simultaneous)
between
Constantine
the
and
road
expression
and
As
Sol.
one
or
actualized,
of the dynamic
headed
north,
appear to drop down gradually behind the arch,
in his quadriga to domi
allowing the figure of Constantine
nate the skyline ever more insistently (Fig. 15). At the same
Sol would
time,
been
more
visible
and
more
through
of
the figure
central
the arch's
of
the
sun
fornix.
god
At
have
would
some
point,
the full height of the colossus would have been perfectly
tall passageway
framed through the 38-foot- (11.5-meter-)
and would have lined up directly with the figure of Constan
tine in his quadriga on the arch's roof (Fig. 16). The inscrip
tion
panel,
recounting
out with divine
the
assistance
emperor's
(see below),
achievements
formed
carried
a bridge
be
where
position
of monuments
the
resembled
the
monuments.
Constantinian
ancient
acts
various
of
by
architectural
the
and
and colossal
quadriga
figures
likewise
be
In
framed
colossus
to pause
which
ahead.58
overlapping
can
view
closer
toward the
of
the road.
widening
to the
road
the
way
gave
from
ideal
(35
is also
this
turns westward
a natural
If the distant vista of the overlapping
statue
alignment
115 feet
of about
coincidentally,
the Palatine Hill
an
offering
the tableau
piazza,
admire
not
Perhaps
producing
have
been
also
may
this
calculations,
my
By
at a distance
arch.
on
a Constantinian
to other
compared
the spectacle
particular,
new
arch
of
the
recalls
the
emper
in
elsewhere
appropriation
the city. Aurelius Victor informs us that "all the works that he
the sanctuary
[Maxentius] had built with such magnificence,
of the City [the Temple of Venus and Roma] and the Basilica,
were dedicated by the Senate to the merits of Flavius," that is,
to Constantine.59
god.
who
Forum,
or's
nested
the
the point at which
medallion,
refer
one
from
Roman
the twinned
are
almost
features
to
epithet
with
god's
is adorned
shield
The
so
repeating
and
numismatic
ences
are
the medallion
sun
statues.
occurred
have
meters)
This
Constantine,
(invincible
the
directly
applies
Constantine's
emperor),
while
ruler,57
image of Sol
?ug
two
the
would
were
These
reinforced
which
to be
them
new
trance,
four
porphyry
the
Via
on
columns,
flight
was
(Fig.
by
pierced
entrance
Sacra
17).61
Also
numerous
on
steps
for
the mag
en
a monumental
Hill,
of
and
a pronaos
with
Sacra,
up along
opened
to
east-west
from
the building
was an enormous
second
added
aediculae,
the
enough
At
the Via
of
orientation
interventions,
of the buildings
the Velian
a wide
decree
senatorial
by
architectural
to Constantine.60
credited
plausibly
basilica
comprising
changing
south-north
apse,
the appearance
changed
nificent
reattributions
strategic
through
north
directly
wall,
still
across
from
standing
the
today.62
of the
his appropriation
further advertised
a
west
in
of
the
the
installation
colossal,
apse
by
Constantine
building
seated
It
statue
is easy
of
today
himself.63
to dismiss
these
alterations
as
merely
cos
232
ART BULLETIN
2006
JUNE
LXXXVIII
VOLUME
NUMBER
2
,.iia?*iifj?j_
^^
14 Medallion
Sol
of Constantine,
and
Constantine,
Nationale
Biblioth?que
?*
showing
313.
Ticinum,
de France,
Paris (object in the public domain)
15 Study model
showing the view
the Colosseum
toward
Valley,
from
about 427 feet (130 meters) south of
the Arch of Constantine
(model by
the
metic,64
but
appropriation
a mere
than
the
interstice
crossed
basilica
between
a short,
wide
made
tangible
Under
fiat.
senatorial
approached
have
they would
more
much
and
nave.
of the central
space
soaring
now
route
the
spectator
presented
in the western
framed
tine,
apse.
ventions,
the
visitor
could
also
entered
with
After
approach
had
this
alterations,
eyeful
the
the
into
of Constan
Constantine's
structure
the
Via
bustling
a monumental
ascend
Sacra,
and
staircase,
into a long, apsidal space.
pass through a grand propylon
well as the
From here, the soaring height of the building?as
colossal
and Roma,
directly
the
an
of
Rome
Romans
of Venus
After
act
of
nonrectilinear
narrow,
the Temple
vestibule,
emperor's
citizens
the
Maxentius,
the
through
it and
the
to
author)
when
the
spectator
former
to more
offered
have
statue?would
the
central
nave).65
The
spectator
inter
of this building.
from
tius's
central
the
sum
the
than
the
been
reached
of
a
their
totally
Constantine
architectural
revealed
center
of
only
the
interior
thus
renovations
gradually,
(that
is,
amounted
In combination,
they
parts.66
Constantinian
experience
new,
thus harnessed
contributions
to the
one of Maxen
city
to his
own
OF CONSTANTINE
THE ARCH
showing the view at about 115 feet (35 meters)
16 Study model
program. Whereas
ideological
to Maxentius's
spoken
made
those
to
testified
for
claims
Constantine's
for
both
arch's
the
that
experience
tions were
the
new
to
but
monument
of
one
ancient,
at which
Sol
the
approached
as
the
of
increasingly
the colossus
materials.
the
new
of
point
along
the monument
arch,
came
arch
to exceed
the figure
dominant
presented
of the colossus
in
the
to the
central
would
have
The
passageway.
who
spectator
had
at
last
come
would have been
through the Arch of Constantine
While
the
of
the
breathtaking.
cityscape
Esquiline Hill would
have risen up behind it in the background,
the upper reaches
of the statue would have been silhouetted against nothing but
the open sky, fully and unobstructedly
visible in all itsmajesty.
The spectacle was framed on the left by the bulk of the
Temple of Venus and Roma and, on the right, by the Flavian
Amphitheater,
This
nium.67
together
can
view
be
functioning
understood
like
as
a
the
stage
climax
prosce
of
the
Con
in Gaul.
Apollo
a
carries
O
Constantine,
of
portent
"I believe"??you
thirty
rule
accompa
Apollo,
each one of
. . .And?now
years.
and
saw,
that
prophesied
your
laurel wreaths,
you
offering
recognized
the divine
over
the
why
in
yourself
songs of the bards
whole
was
world
due.
this I think has now happened,
since you are, O
Emperor, like he, youthful, joyful, a bringer of health and
of
specta
of
a
It recalls
spectacle.
temple
of
revealing
the triumphal
And
Co
even
the moving
at a
god
sudden
in 310 describing
delivered
sun
the
I believe,
I say
had
this
would
a dramatic
for
the likeness of him to whom
the Via
and
claims:
saw,
do
mean
was
Nowhere
of
233
of the new
and beyond
through,
made
vision
CITYSCAPE
colossus.
obscuring,
from the panegyric
which
too tall and too wide for the eye to take in
tor's field of vision,
grown
construction
have
ROMAN
by the juxtaposition
ancient
partial
nied by Victory,
the two and could,
the
behind,
orator
The
You
spectator
two-hundred-and-fifty-year-old
in the central
framed
passageway
neatly
of Constantine.
and
phenomenological
The
interven
The
must
stantine's
and
they left the forms of
between
than
old
the
was
tually have become
at once,
the
the colossus
passage
Colos
and
triumphal
The
reframing,
arch
a useful
Solar
erase
his
Rome.
furnish
intact.
essentially
imperial
clearer
process
appropriative
the Arch
a
Constantine's
appreciate
Triumphalis
of
lossus
create
components.
easily see the difference
thereby,
out
ings
to
but
and
ancient
not
both
showcased
the
it
time,
of Maxentius's
arch
THE
(model by the author)
tableau produced
shifting
it now
Maxentius
basilica
of
loud and ostentatious,
original
could
view
to
liked
refraining
the
aim was
cases,
it with
replace
As
his
over
he
had previously
legitimacy,
same
the
At
victory
whatever
appropriate
Constantine's
alterations
analogy
sus.
In
and
Constantine.
to
power
the
the building
beneficence
from the Arch of Constantine
AND
very
This
handsome.68
passage
Constantine's
the
phasizes
the epiphanic
sun
dazzling
stantine
is helpful
in thinking
Colosseum
with
Valley
of sight
importance
Sol;
it very
Second,
the
("you
saw
..
emperor
of the
Con
equates
deliberately
"recognized"
at
tableau
It em
of ways.
.
saw") and
you
of the sudden manifestation
qualities
god.69
the
about
in a number
"in
himself
the
likeness" of the god, and is "like" him in a variety of ways.
Finally, it stresses the political implications of Constantine's
special relationship with the sun god, as Apollo promises the
"rule
emperor
thirty
over
the whole
world
[totius
mundi
regna]"
for
years.
Old
and New in the Constantinian Valley
model
My
gives the view of the arch and the Colossus
from
one
direction
only,
but
the
Colosseum
Valley
of Sol
was,
of
ART
234
BULLETIN
VOLUME
2006
JUNE
LXXXVIII
NUMBER
2
;jl.-?il-
^.l_
17 Plan
of
southern
the
a fluid
ancient
capital,
interventions
extending
alterations
teed
the
spectator,
here
were,
the
of
of
of
the
widened
to 83 feet
parapet
could
onnade,
but
the
This
edi
have
of
included
a mon
the Meta
Sudans
made
Colosseum
of
the
arch.
been
is no
at
This
diameter from 53 feet (16
; it has been suggested that the
the
with
topped
evidence
fountain's
like
something
for
(or
footprint
have
through
arch.
there
Unfortunately,
is no
very
tine
must
also
underscored
a
had
it had on the sight lines facing the colossus; that
depend on the height of both the parapet and the
what effect
would
base.
(For my
colonnade.)
puzzling,
pathway
the
Regardless,
somewhat
through
and
its
given
choice
partial
the arch. Perhaps
just
beyond
to encourage
sought
sit down,
I have
reconstruction,
assumed
admire
the
arch,
the
the
the
spectator
view
of
to widen
obstruction
a
the
of
is
fountain
the
central
by monumentalizing
the
fourth-century
designers
even
to
to pause,
perhaps
ahead.
Aside
the colossus
from its awkward spatial implications, the ideological impetus
of the Meta Sudans is clear. The
for the aggrandizement
embellishment
would
have
furthered
Constantine's
appropri
the
dynas
the
whom
one
structure
other
of Venus
was
version
that Aurelius
the
Roma.
and
the
structure,
for
up by
by fire,
reded
destroyed
says was
Victor
Senate.71
unlike
Unfortunately,
on
basilica
the Velian
contemporaneous
rededicated
new
his
his
under
least
Temple
is
temple
phys
At
the
scanty.72
Constan
honoring
Constantine
building.
of the temple
through
as
as well
of Roma,73
inscription
on
the
installed
appropriation
in honor
issues
numismatic
a
by
of an image of this deity for the central keystone
his choice
northern
of
facade
the
arch.74
Thus, though the visual relation between the arch and the
colossus would have been far less dynamic from perspectives
other
parapet
tall with no
[4 feet 7 inches or 1.4 meters]
feet
5 Roman
of
identity as
his
underscored
at
evidence
the
a
prominent
have
been
least,
series
on
to know
way
ical
4)
pi.
rebuilt from the ground
the Hadrianic
the archaeological
at
interventions
Hill,
The
marked effect on the flow of traffic through the valley, for the
new parapet lay directly in the path of the spectator coming
the
the
Rome,"
Flavians,
on
had been
of two
buildings
to Constantine
by
other
rededicated
a col
this.70
against)
would
one
icated
it
facing
of the
in the first century CE.
the
Valley:
after
have
imperial
his mark
temple, which
was
the fountain's
(25 meters)
there
enlargement
valley
around
construction
the
with
meters)
the
installed
parapet
contemporaneously
addition
in
interventions
new
umentalizing
space
in
the
had been built
Maxentius
Constantine's
statue
with
Constantine
a
imperial
association
also
the
along
apse
"A Restoration
and bolstered
Valley
It would
benefactor.
monument
and
approach,
appropriated
tic
guaran
they
of
in
arch
ation of the Colosseum
urban
broad
fact,
Together,
direction
the
and
in
erection
Sol.
of
regardless
of new
panorama
dazzling
fices.
zone
trafficked
heavily
of
number
directions.
any
well
beyond
to the Colossus
scope,
the
in a
from
situated
space,
accessible
Constantine's
pronaos
and
the
facade
(from Minoprio,
Basilica
of Constantine,
4
course,
of Maxentius,
additions
include
the Basilica
Constantine's
Rome;
the monumental
than
basic
the
message
no matter
plain
From
the
gentle
one
how
rise
of
of the Flavian
galleries
would
have
been
able
monuments.
renovated
a
spine
of
of
the
and
would
amphitheater
Amphitheater
to survey
the
would
have
been
(built
authority
Valley.
or
the upper
the
east,
spectators
ensemble
of new,
of
vantage
these
old,
and
points,
or
(colossus-fountain-arch
have
framed
by
was
Colosseum
to the west
to
the
above,
and
the
either
structures
freestanding
described
legitimacy
approached
the Via
Sacra
From
arch-fountain-colossus)
ground
one
northward-facing
of Constantinian
defined
by
Constantine's
the
the
enormous
Flavian
middle
mass
"anees
THE ARCH
AND
OF CONSTANTINE
THE
ROMAN
CITYSCAPE
235
Either
tors") or the rededicated
temple in the background.
end of this middle-ground
axis (whose imperfect alignment
from either of these lat
would hardly have been noticeable
eral
was marked
views)
Constantine's
by bronze
the
atop
quadriga
at one
Sol
statuary,
at
arch
the
end
and
From
other.
the
Esquiline Hill to the north, while the spectator's line of vision
would have been blocked by the back of the colossus, the
elevation of the hill may have permitted a view over the statue
to
the
ous
arch
it. Constantine's
beyond
of
appropriations
ensured
Valley
seum
with
confronted
as his
tions?as
well
ancestral
ties
over
victory
While
preexisting
that from
evidence
to
of
close
the
and
multiple
structures
any
the
relationship
vantage
the
emperor's
with
was
benefac
sun
the
and
Colos
one
point,
urban
Flavians,
first-century
multifari
in
god,
absolute
his
his
Maxentius.75
the
basic
Colosseum
the
view
umphalis
tacular
but
facing
also
have
would
Valley
angle,
of Constantine's
messages
I have
been
in the
program
discernible
from
any
from
the Via Tri
emphasizing,
was
not
most
the
north,
spec
only
visually
It was
the most
laden.
the per
ideologically
been
that Constantine
himself would
have surveyed
spective
his
in
the
into
315 (when he
city
during
triumphal entry
to Rome
returned
to
as would
reign),
triumphal
man
any
in ancient
arches,
triumphal
the
for
Rome,
collectively
the
of
the
triumphal
the
of
arches
the
tals of both
Severus
presented,
man
soldiers
parading
and
with
ments
thus
of
figures
the
nexus
and
form,
The
of
it framed
tion where
to
this
reframe
actually
imperial
citizens
phenomenon.
the colossus
at
arch,
all;
this
of Septi
on
identified,
bodies.
some
move
whose
and
arch
added
urban
another
reframing
di
not
does
happens
only at a third point, through the eyes of the viewer. The
tableau I have been describing does not exist independently
of
the
it is the
spectator;
the way a piece
by
performance
tion
thus
tor's
of
a musician.
generates
the
tableau,
that
Constantine's
acts
mutual
and
gaze
spectator's
constitutes
does not exist independently
of music
the
of
tableau's
it,
of its
urban
constitution:
of
the
composi
the
specta
as the
spectator
subject of its ideology.
Constantine,
The
colossal
Colosseum
Valley
of
Sol
the
sented
saw looming
spectators
approaching
above and then through
several times
in ways
reliefs
and
sun
least
one
lateral
is repre
god.
of the
four
passageways.76
eastern
the monument's
rein
that
Sol
pairs
Sol
facade,
the image in the roundel of the sun god rising in his
in his chariot
is paired with one of Constantine
quadriga
on
out
in
below
the
frieze
setting
campaign
(Fig. 19). Sol's
have
the
form
of the statue
here
would
echoed
quadriga
group
likeness
on
the
the
top
of
of
the
further
arch,
and
emperor
god.
evidence
Hans
Peter
of
the
L'Orange
essential
noted
has
that even in the more strictly historical narrative of the long
is again likened to Sol: in the scene of the
frieze, Constantine
of
the
Verona,
emperor (the third standing figure from
Siege
the left) is shown with the sun god's pronounced
gesture of
This
his
hand
20).77
gesture,
along with the
raising
right
(Fig.
of Sol
and
had
been
standard
attributes
crown,
globe
rayed
Invictus
since
coinage,
under
had
In over
that
in the
on
prominently
and
in at
Constantine
opposite
that adorn
the niches
the arch
adorning
read
it. They
would
imagery
to
that Sol appears
sculptures
of emperor
assimilation
features
gesture
Sol, and Christ
statue
the monument's
force
enough
to discover
to under
them
prepared
the
aspects
were
close
hardly be surprised
in
have
of
where
message.
at a loca
course,
would
Constantine
particular
once
they
itself
also
reaffirm
in their
of
Arch
of busts
Triumphal
charge,
of
procession
Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome, pi. 56)
stand
of Ro
images
these
very
through
arches
18). Ev
(Fig.
triumphal
the Solar Colossus
on
level,
complicit
on the
reliefs
203,
Rome,
Severus,
and captive
Parthians
in
Roman
soldiers
in the public
from
domain;
photograph
Septimius
depicting
(artwork
into
imagery
column
pedes
tall
of
pedestals
trans
benefaction,
The
18 Arch
Ro
The
ideological
ordinary
of Constantine's
positioning
mension
an
with
of
the city center
marchers,
their own
with
conquest,
made
very
triumphal
streets
the
eye
not but have
could
lined
sum
and the Arch
enemies
these
through
gave
at
directly
they replicated
arches
ing
these
the
Ro
the
monuments
through
procession.
effect.
The
captive
passing
eryday pedestrians
level,
his
of
Spanning everyday thor
did double duty as the
the Arch of Constantine
mius
streets
triumphal
to this
contributed
was
the
these
parade,
the simple act of walking
a reenactment
to
road
representing
imperialism and military might.
that on special occasions
oughfares
route
of
anniversary
followed
that
Maximus
Circus
man
formed
tenth
route
itinerary could never be an ideologically
This
one
neutral
the
whose
from
procession
Forum.
celebrate
traveler
he
first
the
magical
life-size
began
Severans.78
properties;
scale,
the
to appear
L'Orange
of this
Emperor-god
attacking army, his right hand
besieged enemy with compelling
on
regularly
suggests
Roman
that
he
claims:
towers
above
scene,
outstretched
magic?like
the
his
against the
the hand of
ART BULLETIN
236
2006
JUNE
LXXXVIII
VOLUME
NUMBER
2
9"
19 Arch
east
of Constantine,
in the public
(artwork
by the author)
photograph
20 Arch
facade
domain;
south
of Constantine,
detail of the frieze depicting
of Verona
facade,
the Siege
in the public
(artwork
by Michael
domain; photograph
Herrman)
Sol Invictus driving his chariot through the universe
[in
numismatic
images]. It is as if irresistible, divine power
flows
outstretched
hand,
its wake.
The
whole
the
of
meaning
in this image: it expresses
It reveals
Sun-emperor.
the Cosmocrator.
the
the
destroying
It symbolizes
can
gesture
the divine
of
unity
the
the divine
enemy
be
under
and
identity of Con
the
from
patron
on
It is remarkable that in neither his lengthy monograph
to the
the Arch of Constantine
(which pays close attention
solar
monument's
nor
imagery)
the sun god did L'Orange
relation
between
piazza. Equally
the
arch's
stantine's
solar
religious
arch
the
and
remarkable
has
imagery
policies.
in any
of his
other
studies
of
ever point out the topographical
the
is how
made
Most
Solar
Colossus
across
the
little impact his analysis of
on
the
historians,
literature
intently
on
Con
focused
on the matter of Constantine's
Christianity, simply ignore the
monument.
it tend to limit their
Those who do consider
attention to the inscription, with its famous reference to the
instinctu
divinitatis,
the
heavenly
force
that
granted
the
em
that
was
monument
the
and
to
tine was already
arch's dedication
avoid
to honor
and
a full-fledged
in 315. The
the
elliptical
to
over
the
of Rome.81
people
that
assumption
Christian
the
Constantine's
offense
key piece
tendentious
the
of
"inspiration
giving
on
from
as a shrewdly
both
Senate
rests
interpretation
The
interpreted
calculated
once
at
weapons
just
non-Christian
whelmingly
This
states
party."80
long been
deity
stantine-Sol.79
his
all
to Christ,
reference
with
republic
and
divinity" has
new
text
The
victory.
to Constantine
"because, by the inspiration of the
and by the greatness of his mind, he and his army
avenged
tyrant
power of the
Autocrator
dedicated
divinity
and victory in
beneficence
him, bringing mercy,
opposing
stood
the
from
his
peror
Constan
by the time of the
of evidence for this
story of his conver
(aside from the highly
sion at the Milvian Bridge in 312 told by Eusebius and Lac
issued in 313. This decree,
tantius82) is the Edict of Milan,
which allowed all inhabitants of the empire to worship what
view
ever
god
they
Christians,
represents
tion of support
however,
chose,
is
that
thus
ending
Constantine's
the
for the religion.83 What
Constantine
indeed, at any point
actually
public
it does
was
in his reign) a Christian
at
this
the
of
persecution
earliest
declara
not
date
show,
(or,
in our sense of
THE ARCH
a
the word:
the
before
rites
traditional
and
contradiction
of
of
his
between
and his family in
Roman
the
is, in other
was
Christian
the
only
to have
I
hope
a Christian
mitted
believe
that
shown,
was
shrill
in Rome
contemporaries
as a reference
on
references
to Sol.
overlooked
the
Spectators,
could
of
new
For
as
tatis"
small
course,
these
have
it seems
reasons,
the
understood
a reference
not
multiple
have
loom
god
in the
of Christians
population
have
it as
interpreted
most
that
likely
"instinctu
phrase
to Sol,
but
to Christ
ob
divini
the
although
ancient
of
could,
capital
saw fit. Whoever
they
chose
the
language of the inscription may have striven for ambiguity
the
of Constantine's
description
other
of
aspect
divine
the monument,
in
in every
but
support,
its
from
to
imagery
sculptural
its setting, the favored deity is unambiguously
Sol.
In sum, the projects in the Colosseum Valley undertaken
name
Constantine's
that
scope
extends
arch.
phal
The
were
beyond
and
ideological
space was not unlike
and
reshaped
visual
plex
the
of
Circus
tively
transformed
arch
into
the
of
The
transition
and
the
the
new
urban
from
Palatine
the
Caelian
into the suddenly wide
architectural
riches
would
and
vertical
parallel,
the
road
effec
colossus,
to the
up
leading
sorts,
over
triumph
sun
god
narrow
and
com
The
the pro
doubling
to the
itself.
It
additions
valley
his connection
benefactions,
the
with
of
of
his
Flavians,
first-century
close
relationship
between
stretch
arena
emperor's
to the
his
entire
and
the
were
Constantine
the
obelisk
a Constantinian
the
structure.
of
as between
Maximus
content
grammatic
advertised
the
and
monuments
the Arch
as well
area
The
preexisting
of the new
between
interplay
of Sol,
the
of
coherence
earlier.
the
experience
by the positioning
Colossus
forms
centuries
of
spectator's
rhetorical
that of the imperial fora built by Trajan
several
Augustus
programmatic
by
of a trium
erection
the mere
well
in
a
characterized
open
have
and
Maxentius,
Sol.
space
Hills,
of
the
road
running
the
through
arch,
piazza filled with
famous,
a
effect.
created
dazzling
to stop and enjoy the
encouraged
of
the
the fountain parapet
presence
spectacle by
inviting
rose
before
them.
To
the
left
the great Temple
immediately
Visitors would
of
Venus
name,
the
sun
and
have been
Roma,
freshly
to the right the majestic
Flavian
emperor's
Constantine's
god,
ancestors,
personal
rededicated
in Constantine's
Flavian Amphitheater,
and
up
protector.
again
reframings.
was
important
one,
for
service
the
through
Their
already
overlaid
with
thus
but
hardly,
new
careful
of
237
emperor,
adaptations,
complicated
a Constantin
course,
the
last.87
Elizabeth Marlowe received her PhD in art history from Columbia
University in 2004. Her dissertation, on the imperial monuments of
Constantinian
fellowship
Rome,
was
completed
while
assistant
professor
Lawrence
in classics
Hall,
Colgate,
on a
two-year
Rome
Prize
in Rome. She is currently a
at the American Academy
at
Colgate
Colgate
University,
University
Hamilton,
[Depart
N.Y.
edu].
Notes
ing over the arch, directly aligned with the figure of Constan
tine on top, with the inscription itself, and with the central
passageway.
servers
would
of meanings
of Classics,
emarlowe@mail.
13346,
god,
hardly
sun
the
and
into
CITYSCAPE
understood
emperor's
adorned
with
statue
bronze
120-foot
have
furthermore,
stratigraphy
ian layer?an
new
made
THE ROMAN
It is hard to
the
a monument
in effect
rededications,
visiting
ment
fully
the arch's
of
the point.
would
to
to
com
how
time
the
a
protestations
of
by
that
and
emperor,
theologians.
the question
Constantine
inscription
its context
given
the
reminders
of
shortage
a Roman
foremost
in 315 is, at any rate, beside
dedication
the
and
secondarily?despite
from
the ancient
contrary
As
no
words,
first
drafted
monuments,
AND
imperial
cult.86 Both the logic and language of the Edict of Milan are
likewise highly traditional: the safety and prosperity of the
on the proper worship of all the
Roman Empire depended
There
gods.
Constantine
old
were
agent
godlike
of himself
practices
of
Constantine
him,
chosen,
of Christ and the worship
worship
servant
monotheistic
mortal,
actively
merely
all Roman
emperors
as the
himself
represented
divinely
will on earth;85
he saw no
heavenly
Like
Christ.84
OF CONSTANTINE
ahead
These
built by
towered
centuries
the
at the Center for the Ancient Mediterranean
I would like to thank audiences
at Columbia
in Rome,
the American
and the annual
Academy
University,
in 2003
of the American
in San Francisco
Institute of Archaeology
meetings
comments
on earlier versions of these arguments.
for their thoughtful
I am
to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation
also grateful
and the Archaeological
Institute of America
for funding my two years as a Rome Prize Fellow at the
American
in Rome, where
these ideas gestated,
and to Richard
Academy
Brilliant
and Natalie Kampen,
the supervisors
of my Columbia
University
where
the
dissertation,
Jim Gorski, who created
they were first presented.
in Figures 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, was extraordinarily
reconstructions
generous
at Colgate
to work with, as was Ray Nardelli
with his time and a pleasure
who put the finishing
touches on the images/Additional
thanks
University,
are due to Bettina Bergmann,
John Bodel, Jim Frakes, David Friedman,
Caroline Goodson, William
Harris, Barbara Kellum, Holger
Klein, Kristina
for stimulat
Richard Neer, and Christopher Wood
Milnor, Rebecca Molholt,
about and insightful
criticisms of various aspects of the
ing conversations
readers at The Art Bulletin
argument; and to Marc Gotlieb and the anonymous
on the manuscript.
for many helpful
suggestions
Unless otherwise
translations are mine.
specified,
1. Raphael
di architet
Sanzio, "Lettera a Leone X," in Scritti Rinascimentali
tura, ed. A. Bruschi
(Milan: II Polifilo,
1978), 474-75; Alois Riegl, Die
nach den Funden in ?sterreich-Ungarn,
vol. 1
sp?tr?mische Kunstindustrie
Hof- und Staatsdruckerei,
(Vienna: Kaiserlich-k?niglichen
1901); Ber
nard Berenson,
The Arch of Constantine, or theDecline of Form (London:
and Hall, 1952); and Ranuccio
Bianchi Bandinelli,
Roma: La
Chapman
1970), 73-83.
fine dell'arte antica (Milan: Rizzoli,
to this rule is the archaeological
work undertaken
2. The exception
by a
handful of Italian teams in the past two decades.
See especially Clemen
tina Panella,
"La valle del Colosseo
Bollettino di Archeolo
neU'antichit?,"
and Panella, Arco
gia 1-2 (1990): 35-88; as well as Patrizio Pensabene
di Costantino: Tra archeologia e archeometria (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschnei
these studies have greatly advanced our understand
der, 1999). While
were built
the monument
and its surroundings
ing of how and when
to analyze them in their
and restored,
they have not attempted
or political
context. Conversely,
broader historical
for recent, theoreti
that nevertheless
cally astute work on the monument
ignores its topo
setting, see Jas Eisner, "From the Culture of Spolia to the
graphical
Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine
of Late An
and the Genesis
tique Forms," Papers of the British School at Rome 68 (2000): 149-84. The
and Armin von
groundbreaking
monograph
by Hans Peter L'Orange
Gerkan, Der sp?tantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens
(Berlin: De
to be listed
1939), now almost seventy years old, also deserves
Gruyter,
works on the monument,
it
among the most sophisticated
although
on the ideological
content of the reliefs and, like its
focused exclusively
the arch's particular urban setting.
predecessors,
neglected
3. For example, Norman H. Baynes, "Constantine
the Great and the
Christian Church," Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929): 341-442;
Uni
Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Cambridge
"Constanti
versity Press, 1981), and see the review by Averil Cameron,
nus Christianus," fournal of Roman Studies 73 (1983): 184-90; and Au
gusto Fraschetti, La conversione: Da Roma pagana a Roma cristiana
fol
(Rome: Laterza,
1999). Scholars who adopt this view are generally
Eusebius of Caesarea,
the
lowing that of Constantine's
contemporary
and church historian,
for example, his Vita Constantini,
biographer
written
death. This was recently published
shortly after the emperor's
as Eusebius: Life of Constantine, ed. Averil Cameron
and Stuart G. Hall
Press, 1999).
(Oxford: Clarendon
238
ART
BULLETIN
JUNE
2006
VOLUME
LXXXVIII
NUMBER
2
ele
also has a long pedigree;
4. This more nuanced?or
skeptical?view
of
ments of it can be found already in the anticlerical
historiography
New
The Decline and Fall of theRoman Empire (1776-88;
Edward Gibbon,
The Age of Con
York: Modern
Library, 1946); and Jakob Burckhardt,
stantine the Great, trans. M. Hadas
Books,
(1853; New York: Pantheon
in highly productive ways
it has been developed
1949). More recently,
as Harold A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops (Balti
by scholars such
more: Johns Hopkins University
Law
Press, 2000); Judith Evans-Grubbs,
and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine's Marriage Legislation
Con
Press, 1995); and Thomas Gr?newald,
(Oxford: Oxford University
in der Zeitgen?ssischen
stantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda
1990).
(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,
?berlieferung
Hermese
5. Theodor
"Konstantinos-Helios,"
(1901): 457-69;
Preger,
Hans Peter L'Orange,
"Sol Invictus Imperator: Ein Beitrag zur Apo
in L'Orange,
theose," Symbolae Osloenses 14 (1935): 86-114,
reprinted
Likeness and Icon: Selected Studies in Classical and Early Mediaeval Art
Press, 1973), 325-44; Franz Altheim, Der
(Odense: Odense University
und Christentum (Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschen
unbesiegte Gott: Heidentum
und Christus: Die Verchristlichung
buch, 1957); Rudolf Leeb, Konstantin
dem Grossen als Spiegel seiner
der imperialen Repr?sentation unter Konstantin
Kirchenpolitik und seines Selbstverstandnisses als christlicher Kaiser (Berlin:
"The Sun Which Did Not Rise
De Gruyter,
1992); Steven E. Hijmans,
Evi
in the East: The Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of Non-Literary
dence," Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 71 (1996): 115-50; Martin Wallraff,
Christus versus Sol: Sonnenverehrung und Christentum in der Sp?tantike,
f?r Antike und Christentum:
32 (M?nster:
Erg?nzungsband
Jahrbuch
Aschendorffsche
2001). Some scholars who have
Verlagbuchhandlung,
or downplayed
Constantine's
interest in Sol (in addi
underemphasized
tion to those cited in n. 3 above) are Andrew Alf?ldi, The Conversion of
Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1948);
Constantine
(New York: Dial Press, 1969); and Rich
Ramsay MacMullen,
ard Krautheimer,
"The Ecclesiastical
Building Policy of Constantine,"
in Costantino il Grande dalVantichita alVumanesimo: Colloquio sul cristiane
and Franca Fusco
simo net mondo antico, ed. Giorgio Bonamente
distributed
(Macerata: Universit?
by E.G.L.E.,
degli Studi di Macerata;
1992), 509-52.
6. For a larger study of Constantine's
building practices and self-represen
see Elizabeth Marlowe,
"That Customary Magnificence
tation in Rome,
and the Symbolic Capitol of Rome"
Is Your Due': Constantine
Which
2004).
(PhD diss., Columbia University,
of the fifty-one arches in Rome cataloged by Heinz Kahler
7. Twenty-four
were on the triumphal route; Kahler,
(Ehrenbogen),"
"Triumphbogen
ed. A. F. von
in Realencyclop?die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
1939), 472-73. Other arches in
Pauly, vol. 13 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler,
situated either along the major north or south roads into the
Rome,
or else in locations
the Vias Appia and Flaminia)
city (especially
"where the emperor passed"
(at bridges,
temples, and in the fora) are,
but cf. Sandro de Maria, Gli archi
strictly speaking, merely honorific,
onorari di Roma e delVItalia romana (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider,
1988), 25, who criticizes Kahler for his "excessive typological and sche
the siting of arches and the
matic rigor." Also on the relation between
route of the triumphal parade, see Ernst K?nzl, Der r?mische Triumph:
T.
Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988); and Russell
and the Roman Triumph," Journal
Scott, "The Triple Arch of Augustus
ofRoman Archaeology 13 (2000): 184.
whether Constan
have questioned
8. Some scholars, at various moments,
an arch at this
to commission
tine could have been the first emperor
see A. L. Frothingham,
prime location along the triumphal route;
"Who Built the Arch of Constantine?"
pt. 1, "Its History from Domitian
to Constantine,"
American Journal of Archaeology 16 (1912): 368-86
(and
same journal). Most
follow-up articles in the next three issues of the
Istituto Centrale di Restauro have
from Rome's
recently, archaeologists
era
Arch in fact dates to the Hadrianic
argued that Constantine's
sit atop those of a demolished
(117-38 CE), and that its foundations
arch built by the emperor Domitian
(r. 81-96 CE); see Alessandra
"Chi constru? l'arco di
and Angela Maria Ferroni,
Melucco Vaccaro
ancora attuale," Rendiconti della Pontificia
Un interrogativo
Costantino?
Accademia Romana di Archeologia 66 (1993-94):
1-60; and Maria Letizia
et al., Adriano e Costantino: Le due fasi delVArco nella valle del
Conforto
that the Constantin
Colosseo (Milan: Electa, 2001). This team maintains
to the preexisting
ian craftsmen made a number of major alterations
columns and disas
arch: they added the attic story and the projecting
surface in
monument's
sembled or chiseled away the second-century
order to forcibly insert the Trajanic and Constantinian
friezes, the
and the imperial
Constantinian
tondi, the slabs of colored marble,
busts in the lateral passageways. This hypothesis
has, however, been
di Roma at La
by scholars from the Universit?
challenged
vigorously
see Pensabene
and Pa
Sapienza and has not found many followers;
and Clementina
nella, Arco di Costantino, as well as Patrizio Pensabene
e progettazione
nei monumenti
architettonica
Panella,
"Reimpiego
di Roma," pt. 2, "Arco Quadrifronte
tardo-antichi
('Giano') del Foro
Boario," Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 67
25-67. For a cogent summary of the key details of the de
(1994-95):
bate, see Mark Wilson Jones, "Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the
in Rome," Journal of the Society of Architectural Histo
Arch of Constantine
at 51-57; and Fred Kleiner,
"Who Really Built
rians 59 (2000): 50-77,
the Arch of Constantine?"
Journal of Roman Archaeology 14 (2001): 661
63.
excava
9. The line of the road is known both from nineteenth-century
into Rodolfo Lanciani's
tions (whose results are incorporated
plan of
this area; Lanciani, Forma urbis Romae [1893; Rome: Quasar,
1990], pi.
e
recent ones; Pensabene
and Panella,
29) and from more
"Reimpiego
45.
architettonica,"
progettazione
to look critically at the anti-Neronian
bias
10. Scholars have recently begun
in the (invariably elite) ancient
literary sources; some have even cham
pioned Nero as a great populist. Jas Eisner, "Constructing Decadence:
in Reflections ofNero:
The Representation
of Nero as Imperial Builder,"
(Lon
Culture, History and Representation, ed. Eisner and Jamie Masters
"'What Worse
don: Duckworth,
1994), 112-17; Penelope
J. E. Davies,
and
'Damnatio Memoriae'
than Nero, What Better than His Baths?':
in From Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny and
Roman Architecture,"
in Roman Portraiture, ed. Eric R. Varner
(Atlanta: Michael
Transformation
Nero (Cam
C. Carlos Museum,
2000), 27-44; and Edward Champlin,
Press, Belknap Press, 2003). Regard
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University
less of the reality, it is the Flavian rhetoric that is of relevance here; a
is the court poet Martial's poem Liber Spectaculorum 2,
key example
in
in the Colosseum
which catalogs a number of the changes
Valley,
and revered Amphitheater,"
of the "conspicuous
cluding the building
"Rome is
where "the pools of Nero once stood," and which concludes,
restored to herself, and under your direction, O Caesar, those delights
to the master"; quoted
now belong
to the people which once belonged
in Jerome J. Pollitt, The Art of Rome, c. 753 B.C.-A.D.
337, Sources and
Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge
Press, 1983), 158.
University
"Meta Sudans," in Lexi
11. On the Meta Sudans, see Clementina
Panella,
con Topographicum Urbis Romae (hereafter LTUR), ed. Eva Margareta
vol. 3 (1996), 247-49;
1993-2000),
Steinby, 6 vols. (Rome: Quasar,
Panella, ed., Meta Sudans, vol. 1, Un area sacra in Palatio e la valle del
e Zecca dello
Colosseo prima e dopo Nerone (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico
"'The Mutability
of All Things':
Stato, 1996); and Elizabeth Marlowe,
in Ar
in Rome,"
The Rise, Fall and Rise of the Meta Sudans Fountain
chitecture as Experience: Radical Change in Spatial Practice, ed. Dana Ar
nold and Andrew Ballantyne
2004), 36-56. For
(London: Routledge,
the Meta Sudans
the coin depicting
ed.,
(Fig. 3), see Harold Mattingly,
British Museum Coins of theRoman Empire, vol. 2 (London: British Mu
seum, 1966), 262 n. 190.
of the
that revealed
the continuation
12. This is known from excavations
the
Flavian paving level of the piazza south of the arch. Unfortunately,
exact point of juncture between
the piazza paving and the triumphal
road has never been located in excavations.
der Konstantinsbo
"Der r?mische Sonnenkoloss,
13. Marianne
Bergmann,
von Konstantinopel,"
Jahrbuch Braun
gen und die Ktistes-statue
schweigische Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, 1997: 120, was, to my knowl
is not
to this shift. This displacement
edge, the first to draw attention
the arch, runs about 6V? feet
visible today; the modern
road, following
east of its ancient predecessor.
(2 meters)
"Der r?
14. Also noted by Panella,
"La valle del Colosseo,"
87; Bergmann,
"L'Arco di
mische
118-20; and Angela Maria Ferroni,
Sonnenkoloss,"
et al., Adriano e Costantino,
in Conforto
nel contesto urbano,"
Adriano
120.
Die Strahlen derHerrscher: Theomorphes Herrscherbild
15. Marianne
Bergmann,
und in der r?mischen Kaiserzeit
und politische Symbolik imHellenismus
1998).
(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
was
long thought that Sol Invictus was a Syrian deity whose cult
in the late second or
into Rome by the Severan emperors
imported
early third centuries CE. This view has recently been strongly criticized
"The Sun Which Did Not Rise," who argues persuasively
by Hijmans,
a later version of Sol Indiges, a sun god who
that Sol Invictus ismerely
was worshiped
in Rome from the early Republican
period on.
16. It was
Divine Comes," Journal of Roman
"The Emperor's
17. Arthur Darby Nock,
"Oriens Augusti?Lever
Studies 37 (1947): 102-16; Ernst Kantorowicz,
du Roi," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963): 117-78; Sabine MacCor
of the
in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony
mack,
"Change and Continuity
at 727-33; Robert Turcan,
"Le
Adventus," Historia 21 (1972): 721-52,
culte imp?riale au Ule si?cle," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der r?mischen
at 1071-73; Bergmann,
"Die Strahlen der
Welt 2.16.2 (1978), 946-1084,
Herrscher,"
278; and R. R. R. Smith, "Nero and the Sun-God: Divine
and Political Symbols in Roman
Accessories
Imperial Images," Journal
of Roman Archaeology 13 (2000): 538.
between
the literary and material
18. On the discrepancies
"Constantine's
Constantine's
reign, see Martin Wallraff,
the Sun after 324," Studia Patr?stica 34 (2001): 256-68,
evidence
Devotion
at 268.
from
to
19. Raissa Calza, Iconograf?a romana imp?riale, da Carausio a Giuliano (287
363 d. C.) (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider,
1972), figs. 238, 241; and
THE ARCH
Lucio de Giovanni,
Costantino e il mondo pagano: Studi di pol?tica e kgisla
zione (Naples: M. D'Auria,
articulated Con
1982), 107. This program
stantine's break with the Tetrarchs, whose coinage had been domi
their devotion
nated by the "genio populi romani" motif and reflected
to Jupiter and Hercules.
"Portrait of a Conspirator:
Con
Patrick Bruun,
stantine's Break with the Tetrarchy," Arctos, Acta Philologica Fennica 10
Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 6,
(1976): 1-23; and C. H. V. Sutherland,
From Diocletian's Reform (AD 294) to theDeath ofMaximinus
(AD 313)
(London: Spink and Son, 1967), 111.
20. Suetonius, Nero 31.1; Pliny, Natural History 34.45. See most recently,
with previous bibliography,
Sorcha Carey, "InMemoriam
(Perpetuam)
Neronis: Damnatio Memoriae' and Nero's Colossus," Apollo 152, no. 146
and
R.
and
Eric
Mutilation
Varner,
Transformation:
(July 2000): 20-31;
Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
66-67.
21. Scriptores
Historiae
Augustae,
Hadrian
19.12.
Antonio Maria Colini sketched and measured
the
22. The archaeologist
its destruction.
remains of the base just before
These notes were stud
ied by Claudia Lega, "Il Colosso di Nerone,"
Bullettino della Commissione
who used them to
339-48,
Archeologica Comunale di Roma 93 (1989-90):
a measurement
or
reconstruct
of 57 by 48 feet (17.6 by 14.75 meters,
60 by 50 Roman feet) for the base.
Der Koloss Neros: Die Domus Aurea und derMentali
23. Marianne
Bergmann,
t?tswandel im Rom der fr?hen Kaiserzeit (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
Severus
1994), fig. 10. The coins date from the reign of Alexander
(r.
and Carol Hum
Edward Allen Sydenham,
222-35)
(Harold Mattingly,
eds., Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 4, pt. 2, Ma
phrey Vivian Sutherland,
crinus toPupienus
[London: Spink and Son, 1962], 64, 104, nos. 410,
III (r. 238-44)
411) and also from the reign of Gordian
(Francesco
I medaglioni romani [Milan: V. Hoepli,
1912], 89, nos. 22, 23].
Gnecchi,
of Berlin, was first
The image on the gem, in the Pergamon Museum
identified as the Colossus of Nero by Bergmann,
11.
"
Memoirs of the
'Colossus of Nero,'
"Zenodorus's
24. Fred C. Albertson,
American Academy in Rome 46 (2001): 103-6. Suetonius, Nero 31.1, gives
a measurement
of 120 Roman feet for the Roman
colossus, while Cas
sius Dio, Roman History 66.15.1, gives 100 feet. The manuscript
tradi
tions of Pliny offer conflicting,
and occasionally
impossible, numbers
107
(cvrxc, cvrx, CVT,x, and ex). Late antique sources oscillate between
and 127 feet; the fourth-century
list many of
Regionary
Catalogs, which
Rome's monuments,
22 for the rays
specify 102 feet plus an additional
of the solar crown. All the ancient sources on the colossus are pre
sented by Lega, "Il Colosso," 364-68.
25. For example,
"Zenodorus's
Smith, "Nero and
'Colossus of Nero,'
the Sun-God," 536-38;
and Albertson,
"
109-12. See also n. 10 above.
Griechische und r?mische Kolossalportr?ts
26. D. Kreikenbom,
erstenJahrhundert nach Christus (Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
bis zum sp?ten
51-63.
1992),
27. Pliny, Natural History 35.51-52.
28. On the rays at birth, see Suetonius, Nero 6.1; and Cassius Dio, Roman
History 61.2.1; on the lyre-playing, see Suetonius, Nero 23-25; and Se
on the coins, see Harold Mattingly,
Coins
neca, Apocolocyntosis 4.17-20;
of theRoman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 1 (London: Trustees of
on the curtains, see Cas
the British Museum,
1923), Nero, nos. 56-60;
sius Dio, Roman History 62.6.2; Lega, "Il Colosso," 349-50;
and Berg
"Die Strahlen der Herrscher,"
189-94.
mann,
29.
Suetonius,
Neronis,"
Vespasian 18. Carey, "In Memoriam
(Perpetuam)
seems a very weak damnation
of
24, argues that such a rededication
of Nero on Vespasian's
the memory
part, given how closely associated
at
Nero was with the sun god. She suggests that this and subsequent
tempts to undo the statue's association with Nero were never more
than halfhearted,
the colossus was useful to subsequent
rulers
because
as an illustration of Nero's
excess (by comparison
to which
they were
and restraint). This may have been the case for
paragons of modesty
the Flavian emperors,
but it is hard to believe that Hadrian would have
remained
gone to such pains to relocate the statue had its associations
so negative. Certainly by the fourth century, the connotations
were pre
dominantly
positive
(see below).
30. Cassius Dio, Roman History
56.15.1.
trans. David Magie
31. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian
19.12-13,
Press,
(London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
vultum, cui antea dica
1967): "Et cum hoc simulacrum post Neronis
tum fuerat, Soli consecrasset."
Neither Lega, "Il Colosso,"
352, nor
Der Koloss Neros, 9, believes
that the features of the statue
Bergmann,
were altered at any point.
32.
Scriptores Historiae Augustae,
Roman History 72.22.3.
Commodus,
17.9-10;
and Cassius Dio,
Der Koloss Neros, 11-13.
33. Bergmann,
34. Non vidi. This very important
inscription, built into the interior of the
work on the monument
in the mid
attic, was seen during conservation
1980s. It was presented
in a talk by Adriano
La Regina at the
publicly
OF CONSTANTINE
AND
THE
ROMAN
CITYSCAPE
239
in 1988 but remains
ninth Incontro di Studio sull'Archeologia
Laziale
It is referred
to, apparently
(as in the
unpublished.
always secondhand
Cassatella and
present case), by many scholars, including Alessandro
Maria Letizia Conforto,
Arco di Costantino: R restauro del sommit? (Pesaro:
"Imarmi
Vaccaro,
svelati,"
1989), 41; Alessandra Melucco
Maggioli,
"The Arch of Constantine:
Archeo 48 (1989): 43; Phillip Pierce,
Propa
in Late Roman Art," Art History 12 (1989): 404;
ganda and Ideology
"La valle del Colosseo,"
and Ferroni,
Vaccaro
Panella,
87; Melucco
"Chi constru? l'arco di Costantino?"
Conservator Urbis
56; Mats Cullhed,
Suae: Studies in thePolitics and Propaganda
of theEmperor Maxentius
(Stockholm: Paul Astr?ms,
1994), 61; John Curran, Pagan City and
Christian Capital: Rome in theFourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon
Press,
come documento
"L'Arco di Costantino
Giuliano,
2000), 62; Antonio
"I colossi
storico," Rivista Storica Italiana 112 (2000): 442; Serena Ensoli,
di bronzo a Roma
in et? tardoantica: Dal Colosso di Nerone
al Colosso
di Costantino; A proposito
bronzei dei Musei Capito
dei tre frammenti
lini," in Aurea Roma: Dalla citt? pagana alla citt? cristiana, ed. Ensoli and
2000), 86; and
(Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider,
Eugenio La Rocca
and Transformation, 66. None of these citations gives
Varner, Mutilation
or a photograph.
the complete
text, the exact dimensions,
see Filippo Coarelli,
in Rome,
35. On Maxentius's
building program
e ristrutturazione
"L'Urbs e il suburbio: Ristrutturazione
urbanistica
amministrativa
nella Roma di Massenzio,"
in Societ? romana e impero
tardo antico, ed. Andrea Giardina
(Rome: Laterza,
1986), 1-35; and
Conservator Urbis Suae.
Cullhed,
In Praise of Later Roman
36. C. E. V. Nixon
and Barbara Saylor Rodgers,
of California
Press,
Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Berkeley: University
1994), 356; Nazarius, Panegyrici Latini 4.12..2: "Ecce enim, pro dolor!
et di
venerandarum
(verba vix suppetunt),
imaginum acerba deiectio
vini vultus litura deformis."
37. Nixon
dence
and Rodgers,
that Maxentius
38. Antonio
(1991):
Giuliano,
7.
ibid., 356 n. 54, note that "this is the only
destroyed
images of Constantine."
"Augustus-Constantinus,"
Bollettino
evi
d Arte 68-69
"I colossi di bronzo a Roma,"
identifies the six-foot-tall bronze
to
in the Conservatori Museum,
Rome,
portrait head of Constantine
in
gether with its hand and globe, as fragments of the Constantinian
carnation of the colossus. Sol is indeed usually depicted with a globe in
his hand, and the Conservatori
head ismarked by regularly spaced
holes across the top, perhaps for the insertion of rays. Ensoli cites a
sources that she claims show that the fragments
number of medieval
were believed
to have come from the area around the Colosseum.
These
connection
be
sources, however,
speak only to the etymological
tween the Colosseum
and the famous Colossus of Nero. Some of them
to the colossal bronze statue fragments
also link Nero's
colossus
then
on view in front of the church of St. John Lateran, but none actually
states that the pieces were found at the Colosseum.
For the texts, see
in
367-68. There are further reasons for caution,
Lega, "Il Colosso,"
the scale of the pieces, as noted by Varner, Mutilation
and
cluding
tall co
Transformation, 66 n. 170. The head of a 105-foot- (32 meter-)
lossus (without the rayed crown) should be at least 13 feet (4 meters)
tall; the Conservatori
piece is only half that. The portrait type is also a
of Constanti
very late one, dating to the period after the founding
left Rome
in 326, it
nople. Given the bad terms on which Constantine
seems likely that whatever monument
bore this image of him was set
in time for the arrival in Rome of his son,
up posthumously,
perhaps
Constantius
that it is
II, in 357. Some scholars have, in fact, suggested
the son represented
by the image (Hans Peter L'Orange, Das Sp?tantike
n. Chr.
Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Sohnen,
284-361
the general
[Berlin: Gebr?der Mann Verlag,
1984], 85, 135), although
consensus
see Heinz Kahler,
remains with Constantine;
"Konstantin
313," Jahrbuch des Deutschen arch?ologischen Instituts 67 (1952), 22ff.;
Calza, Iconograf?a romana imp?riale, 23Iff.; Hans Jucker, "Von der An
des Stils und einigen Bildnissen
Konstantins
des Gros
gemessenheit
sen," in Von Angesicht zu Angesicht: Portr?tstudien; Michael Stettier zum 70.
Stettier et al. (Berlin: St?mpfli,
1983), 51ff.;
Geburtstag, ed. Michael
Klaus Fittschen
and Paul Zanker, Katalog der R?mischen Portr?ts in den
Capitolischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt.
Rom., vol. 1, Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse
(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern,
"The Portraits of Constantine
the
1985), 152-55; and Sandra Knudsen,
Great: Types and Chronology,
AD 306-337"
of
(PhD diss., University
Santa Barbara,
California,
1988), 245-48. Thus, there is little reason to
that the bronze fragments
in the Conserva
accept Ensoli's hypothesis
to do with the Neronian
tori have anything
colossus
(or the Constan
tinian incarnation
thereof).
39. Ensoli,
see John
40. For Constantine's
building
activity at the Circus Maximus,
Roman Circuses (London: Batsford,
1981), 129. On the Cir
Humphrey,
cus Maximus
see P. Ciancio Rossetto,
in general,
"Circus Maximus,"
in
LTUR, vol. 1, 272-77.
41. Aurelius
fice";
49.
excultus miri
Victor, De Caesaribus 40.27: "Circus maximus
trans. H. W. Bird (Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 1994),
240
ART
BULLETIN
JUNE
2006 VOLUME
LXXXVIII
NUMBER
2
and Rodgers,
In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, 381; Nazarius,
sublimes porticus et rutilan
Panegyrici Latini 4.35.5: "Circo ipsi m?ximo
tes auro columnae
tantum inusitati ornatus dederunt,
ut illo non mi
nus
loci gratia quam spectaculi voluptate."
cupide conveniatur
Rerum Gestarum 16.10.17,
43. Ammianus
Cas
17.4.12-18.
Marcellinus,
in
siodorus, Variarum 3.51.8. The events leading to its installation
on its base: Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, vol.
Rome are also recounted
was the first Roman emperor
since
6, nos. 1163, 31249. Constantine
to transport an original Pharaonic
obelisk to Rome; other rul
Caligula
and Hadrian,
had ordered new ones made. Con
ers, such as Domitian
stantine's obelisk was subsequently
relocated from the Circus Maximus
to the Piazza S. Giovanni
in Laterano
in 1587 by Domenico
Fontana,
it still stands.
where
round numbers
of the length and width suggest a minimum
height of 10 Roman feet (about 9 feet 7 inches, or just under 3
these dimensions
meters),
(60 by 50 by 10) would make for a
although
reconstruction
is, by
very squat base. The base in Bergmann's
drawing
contrast, 20 Roman feet tall (see n. 23 above). This seems more appro
of
(both to the other dimensions
priate in terms of overall proportions
a statue base three
the base and to the height of the statue), although
times taller than a human being may strike some readers as implausible.
42. Nixon
44.
It is also worth noting
that the Circus Maximus
itself, as the site of the
Dies Natalis Invicti, the annual games celebrating
the winter solstice on
even
December
25, had long been associated with solar rites. Tertullian
notes cryptically
in De Spectaculis 8.1 that "the circus is dedicated
chiefly
to Sol" (trans. Humphrey,
Roman Circuses, 232), and Humphrey,
fig.
line along the Aventine
37a, posits a temple of the sun at the finishing
side. Alfred K Frazer, "The Cologne
Circus Bowl: Basileus Helios
and
in Essays inMemoriam of Karl Lehmann, ed. L.
the Cosmic Hippodrome,"
Freeman
Sandier
(New York: Institute of Fine Arts, New York Univer
in
"Sol in the Circus Maximus,"
sity, 1964), 105-13; W. Q. Schofield,
(Brussels: Latomus,
1969),
Hommages ?Marcel Renard, ed. J. Bibauw
Gaston H. Halsberghe,
"Le culte de Deus Sol Invictus ? Rome
639-49;
au III si?cle apr?s J.C.," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der R?mische Welt
at 2198; and Curran, Pagan City, 247-49.
II.17.4 (1984), 2181-201,
45.
in Severan
and Sculptural Display
Susann S. Lusnia, "Urban Planning
the Septizodium
Rome: Reconstructing
and Its Role in Dynastic Poli
tics," American Journal of Archaeology 108 (2004): 517-44, with earlier
The
54.
bibliography.
46.
Scriptores Historiae
faceret, nihil aliud
occurreret."
Augustae,
Septimius Severus 24.3: "Cum Septizonium
suum opus
cogitavit, quam ut ex Africa venientibus
47. There
is no way to know from how far south the Arch of Constantine
was visible, for this depends
on how many other triumphal arches
for any
straddled the road. There
is, at any rate, no extant evidence
arches closer to the Flavian piazza than this one.
48. Fran?ois Chausson,
"Le site de 191 ? 455," in La Vigna Barberini, vol. 1,
Histoire d'un site: ?tude des sources et de la topographie, ?d. Andr? Vauchez
di
(Rome: ?cole Fran?aise de Rome and Soprintendenza
Archeologica
Roma,
1997), 55-73.
in LTUR, vol. 1, 277-78; and
49. C. Buzzetti,
"Claudius, Divus, Templum,"
Robin Haydon Darwall-Smith,
Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Fla
vian Rome (Brussels: Latomus,
1996), 48-55.
50. As noted
the modern
its ancient prede
above, however,
road, unlike
The ancient
cessor, is centered directly on the Arch of Constantine.
to the west.
road ran slightly (6M> feet, or 2 meters)
is first reported
in the panegyric
of 310 (Panegyrici
51. The relationship
a number of times in the biogra
and is also mentioned
Latini 6.2.1-5)
in the Historia Augusta. Ronald Syme, "The
phy of Claudius Gothicus
in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium,
of Constantine,"
ed.
Ancestry
Straub (Bonn: Habelt,
G?za Alf?ldy and Johannes
1974), 237-53; and
Die V. Claudii der
Adolf Lippold,
Constantinus.
"Claudius, Constantius,
aus
Konstantins
der Herrschaft
HA; Ein Beitrag zur Legitimierung
stadtr?mischer
Sicht," in Historiae Augustae Colloquium Perusinum, ed.
and Fran?ois Paschoud
(Bari: Edipuglia,
2002),
Giorgio Bonamente
with further bibliography.
309-43,
52. That triumphal arches always served to support statues is clear in Pliny,
Natural History 34.27, and any number of ancient numismatic
images of
feature on their rooftops
triumphal arches, all of which prominently
or in quadrigas.
on horseback
Some of these images are
triumphators
gathered by de Maria, Gli archi honorari, pis. 42, 43, 46, 51, 56, 61, 70,
"Il
Cf. Filippo Magi,
474-75.
74, 82. Likewise Kahler,
"Triumphbogen,"
coronamento
di Costantino,"
Rendiconti della Pontificia Acca
dell'Arco
demia Romana di Archeologia 29 (1956-57):
83-110, who argues, on the
and the 1682 drawings by
basis of a handful of Renaissance
paintings
Arch was
that Constantine's
the French architect Antoine
Desgodetz,
a low parapet wall rather than a statue group. His argument
topped by
for the represented
fails to convince,
however,
parapet could be either
a remnant of the arch's incorporation
into the fortifications
of the
on
in the Middle Ages or an imagined
property
integration
Frangipane
can be learned
the part of the later artists. Unfortunately,
nothing
about the statue group from the monument
itself, as the paving stones
in 1855; see Rosaria Punzi, "Fonti
of the Arch's roof were replaced
dell'Arco di
documentarie
per una rilettura delle vicende post-antiche
in Pensabene
and Panella, Arco di Costantino, 204.
Costantino,"
53. The footprint of the base was 60 by 50 Roman feet (see n. 22 above),
in 1933, only 7 feet 4 inches
but by the time the base was measured
or 7.6 Roman
of its original elevation.
feet) remained
(2.25 meters,
at this measurement
for Constantine's
quadriga
arch-topping
with the proportions
of the extant rooftop statu
through a comparison
a
in
in the
from
different
arch
in
Tiber
honorific
Rome.
Found
the
ary
late nineteenth
from the Arch of
century were a number of elements
Valens and Valentinian,
the bronze feet and shins of a hu
including
man figure still attached
to a cornice block from the arch's roofline;
see de Maria, Gli archi honorari, 320-22,
(as
fig. 67. By my calculations
one-seventh
suming that the preserved
portion of the figure represents
of the statue's overall height),
the statue would have been about 9M>
tall. Also preserved
feet (3 meters)
from this arch was one of its Corin
thian capitals, measuring
tall. This yields
2 feet 9 inches (0.875 meters)
a ratio of 1 to 3.4 for the height of the column capital and that of the
this ratio to the Arch of Constantine,
whose
rooftop figure. Applying
tall (Wilson Jones, "Genesis
capitals are 3 feet 2 inches (0.97 meters)
for a hu
and Mimesis,"
65), gives us a height of 11 feet (3.36 meters)
man figure on the rooftop. A statue group with such a figure standing
in a chariot would probably have been around
13 feet (4 meters)
tall.
to
This presents a ratio of about 1 to 5 for the height of the quadriga
that of the arch itself. Cf. Richard Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severas
in theRoman Forum (Rome: Memoirs
of the American Academy
in
of the height of
Rome,
1967), 253 n. 3, pi. 27, whose reconstruction
the quadriga atop the Arch of Septimius
Severus was based on a ratio
of 1 to 4, "determined
from the numismatic
and an em
representation
pirical analysis of the architectural
design." Cf. also Fred Kleiner, The
Arch ofNero in Rome: A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch before and under
recon
Nero (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider,
1985), pi. 22, whose
to monument
ratio of 1 to 3.4
structed Arch of Nero has a quadriga
(for which he offers no rationale).
I arrived
are off, the
It should be noted that even if these estimated numbers
for my model would be for the distances from
consequences
negative
at which
to overlap and
the monuments
the monuments
appeared
frame one another, not the fact that they produced
this visual effect.
56. There can be little doubt that statuary groups atop triumphal arches
always faced out, toward the approaching
parade or toward those arriv
ing in the city, rather than in, toward the city itself or toward the Tem
This is clear from any number of an
ple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.
cient images of cityscapes with triumphal arches or images of
themselves. Many of these images are collected
triumphal processions
in de Maria, Gli archi onorari, fig. 34, pis. 4, 25, 68.1, 70.2, and 79.2.
55.
see
is frequently
called "invictus" in public inscriptions;
Constantinus Maximus Augustus, 52-57.
58. The suggestion
that the road met the piazza at a distance of about 115
feet (35 meters)
from the Arch of Constantine
is supported by the re
cent excavations
in the area of the Meta Sudans. These uncovered
the
that defined
foundations
of a Flavian wall running northwest-southeast
the border of the piazza along the edge of the Palatine Hill
(Panella,
Le valle del Colosseo, 74-82).
If the line of this wall is extended
south, it
at
intersects the road
this point.
precisely
57. Constantine
Grunewald,
59. Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 40.26: "Adhuc cuneta opera quae magni
fi?e construxerat,
Urbis fanum atque basilicam Flavii meritis patres
sacravere"; trans. Bird, 49.
60. Elizabeth Marlowe,
"Liberator Urbis Suae: Constantine
and the Ghost
in The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation and Ritual,
of Maxentius,"
Uni
ed. Bj?rn C. Ewald and Carlos F. Nore?a
(Cambridge: Cambridge
versity Press,
forthcoming).
61. Anthony Minoprio,
"A Restoration
of the Basilica of Constantine,
Rome," Papers of the British School at Rome 12 (1932): 1-25.
in recent years surrounding
the tra
62. There has been some controversy
see Su
to the reign of Constantine;
ditional dating of these alterations
sanna Le Pera and Luca d'Elia, "Sacra Via: Note
Bullet
topografiche,"
tino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 91 (1986): 247-49,
who believe
that the Via Sacra entrance was part of the basilica's origi
and Filippo Coarelli,
"Praefectura Ur
nal design under Maxentius;
to
bana," in LTUR, vol. 4 (1999), 159-60, who dates the interventions
the late fourth century. The former suggestion
is refuted by the evi
Leonore Heres, Paries, a Proposal for a
in Theodora
dence discussed
Dating System of Late Antique Masonry Structures in Rome and Ostia (Am
this shows only that the al
sterdam: Rodopi,
1982), 111-12, although
The archaeological
evi
terations postdate
the original construction.
the
is far from conclusive,
but the Constantinian
date still makes
dence
see Amanda
most sense historically;
Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeo
Press, 1998), 116; and Curran,
logical Guide (Oxford: Oxford University
Pagan City, 81 n. 56.
THE ARCH
63. The fragments of this statue are now in the courtyard of the Conserva
tori Museum
in Rome. Kahler,
"Konstantin 313," suggested
that the
new north apse was built to accommodate
the relocated judicial tribu
seated statue had displaced
from its former
nal, which Constantine's
setting at the west end of the nave. Others have argued that the statue
and was thus part of the building's
originally
represented Maxentius
des Stils," 55-57;
original design; see Jucker, "Von der Angemessenheit
"L'Urbs e il suburbio," 32; and Varner, From Caligula to Con
Coarelli,
and Transformation, 287. Still other
stantine, 14; and idem, Mutilation
hypotheses
identify the original statue as Hadrian
(Evelyn B. Harrison,
"The Constantinian
Portrait," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 [1967]: 79-96;
sur
and C?cile Evers, "Remarques
de Constantin: ? pro
l'iconographie
"
pos du remploi de portraits des 'Bons Empereurs,'
M?langes de l'?cole
or as some third-century
ruler
Fran?aise de Rome 103 [1991]: 785-806)
"The Portraits of Constantine,"
and
(Knudsen,
169; and Fittschen
"I
Zanker, Katalog der R?mischen Portr?ts, 147-52). Most recently, Ensoli,
colossi da bronzo a Roma," argued that it was Maxentius
who first ap
this colossus "of Hadrian"
and recarved it to his own por
propriated
then had the image altered a second time
trait, and that Constantine
to his own features.
64. Patrizio Pensabene,
"Il riempiego
nell'et? costantiniana
? Roma," in
and Fusco, Costantino il Grande, 762, for example,
Bonamente
suggests
that Constantine
"limited himself
to completing
the projects
merely
begun by Maxentius."
65. The vault of the central east-west nave is estimated
to have been about
33 feet (10 meters)
taller than the 82-foot- (25-meter-) high extant
vaults of the side aisles.
66. The effect of the alterations
is comparable,
in some ways, to that of the
addition of I. M. Pei's glass pyramid in the Cour Napol?on,
which ut
both the appearance
of
and the visitor's experience
terly transformed
the Mus?e du Louvre, Paris. It is also similar in terms of how central
that renovation was to President
Fran?ois Mitterrand's
much-touted,
67.
"Grands Projets."
self-aggrandizing
to note that the heights of the Flavian Amphitheater
It is interesting
and of the Temple
of Venus and Roma
(160 feet, or 48.5 meters)
(141
are very close to that estimated
feet, or 43 meters, with the podium)
for the colossus
(145 feet, or 44 meters, with the base). These balanced
that went into
heights are perhaps evidence of the careful planning
Hadrian's
in the Colosseum
interventions
Valley.
68. Nixon
and Rodgers,
In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, 248-51; Panegyrici
Latini 6.21.4-7:
"Vidisti enim, credo, Constantine,
tuum co
Apollinem
coronas tibi laureas offerentem,
mitante Victoria
quae tricenum sirigu
. . . Et?immo
lae ferunt omen annorum.
quid dico 'credo'??vidisti
cui totius mundi
teque in illius specie recognovisti,
regna deberi vatum
carmina divina cecinerunt. Quod
arbitror contigisse,
ego nunc demum
cum tu sis, ut ille, iuvenis et laetus et salutifer et
pulcherrimus,
impera
see Ramsey MacMullen,
tor." On this passage,
"Constantine
and the
Miraculous,"
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968): 81-96; Bar
bara Saylor Rodgers,
"Constantine's
Pagan Vision," Byzantion 50 (1980):
and Nixon
n. 92.
and Rodgers,
248-50
259-78;
69. Sabine MacCormack,
versity of California
70. Sabina
189-96,
Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity
Press, 1981), 36.
"L'intervento
Zeggio,
on the archaeological
(Berkeley: Uni
in Panella, Meta Sudans,
costantiniano,"
evidence
for the foundations
of this par
apet.
71.
See n. 59 above.
72. The difficulty of tracing the building's
early architectural
history is due
to the numerous
of the structure,
its
postclassical
adaptations
including
transformation
into the church and convent of S.
twelfth-century
Francesca Romana
and the heavy-handed
under the Fas
r?int?grations
cists. A recent archaeological
analysis of the temple's fabric, conducted
from 1998 to 2000, may improve our understanding.
re
A preliminary
ancient,
port mentions
(and thus presum
immediately
post-Maxentian
to the interior, including
alterations
the filling in
ably Constantinian)
of the large square niches on either side of the central apse and the
installation of a new architrave composed
of spoliate blocks; Ernesto
e Roma:
"II Tempio
di Venere
sulla fase del IV se
Monaco,
Appunti
c?lo," in Ensoli and La Rocca, ?urea Roma, 59.
a group of solidi from Trier with the
73. For example,
legend restitutori
libertatis
a globe to the em
and an image of the goddess presenting
peror; Patrick M. Bruun, Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 7, Constantine and
Licinius, A.D. 313-337
(London: Spink and Son, 1966), Trier, nos. 22
26. In the bronze coinage from London, Roma appears with the leg
AUGG (Sutherland, Roman Imperial
ends felicitas
Coinage, vol. 6, nos.
ROMAEAETERAUGG (nos. 269-71),
and romae restitutae
245-48),
(nos.
272-74).
74.
It has even been suggested
one adorning
the keystone
the Velabrum)
is in fact an
and von
Temple; L'Orange
that this figure
(and the nearly identical
of the contemporary
arch in
quadrifrontal
image of the cult statue of Roma from the
Gerkan, Der sp?tantike Bildschmuck, 147ff.;
OF CONSTANTINE
and Pensabene
tonica," 52.
and Panella,
AND
THE ROMAN
"Reimpiego
CITYSCAPE
e progettazione
241
architet
75. A similar argument
is made, with different
evidence,
by Wilson Jones,
"Genesis and Mimesis,"
interventions
in
69, who sees the Constantinian
the piazza as being characterized
It should be
by a "unity of intention."
are errone
that some of the claims in his discussion
noted, however,
ous. There
for the installation of a cult of
is, for example, no evidence
the gens Flavia in the Temple
of Venus and Roma. Furthermore,
in his
that the exterior of the Flavian Amphi
figure 2, Wilson Jones indicates
theater was the site of another
restoration project." The
"Constantinian
to the amphitheater
of which I am aware were
only renovations made
on the interior: the installation of a parapet wall in front of the first
row of seats. The marble blocks of this wall were inscribed with the
names of senators, which allows us to date the addition
to the late
fourth century, but not necessarily
to the reign (and cer
third/early
II Colosseo [Mi
(Ada Gabucci,
tainly not to the impetus) of Constantine
lan: Electa, 1999], 179). It should also be noted that Wilson Jones
leaves out a key piece of evidence
for Constantine's
in the
program
the aggrandizement
of the Meta Sudans.
valley, namely,
76. For the identifications
of
von Gerkan, Der
Sp?tantike
the niche on the left side
able by his radiate crown,
him
Constantine
opposite
Victory crowning his head
77. L'Orange,
78. L'Orange,
"Sol Invictus
79. L'Orange,
"Sol Invictus
these badly worn figures, see L'Orange
and
Bildschmuck, 138-44. The figure of Sol in
of the west wall of the east fornix is identifi
raised right hand, and globe. The figure of
is identified by his military garb and by the
(ibid.,
138-39).
Imperator,"
335.
ibid., 330-31,
suggests that the iconography was based on a
to Rome through the agency of
specific cult statue, possibly brought
from
(the wife of Septimius
Severus), who was descended
Julia Domna
is rejected by Hijmans,
priests of Baal in Emesa, Syria. This hypothesis
"The Sun Which Did Not Rise," 124, along with his broader rejection
of an eastern origin for the Roman cult of the Sun. At any rate, there
is no question
reason, the raised right hand became
that, for whatever
an attribute of Sol in Roman
from the late second cen
representations
tury on.
80.
Imperator,"
340-41.
Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, vol. 6, no. 1139: "quod instinctu divinita
cum exercitu suo / tarn de tyranno quam de
tis mentis
/ magnitudine
omni eius / factione uno tempore iustis / rem publicam
ultus est ar
mis. ..."
81. This view was first articulated
by G. De Rossi, "L'iscrizione dell'Arco
trionfale di Costantino,"
Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana 1 (1863): 57ff.
More recently, see Alf?ldi,
The Conversion of Constantine, 72; Hermann
D?rries, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins
(G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht,
Three Christian Capi
1954), 225; Richard Krautheimer,
tals: Topography and Politics (Berkeley: University
of California
Press,
1983), 131 n. 27; Leeb, Konstantin und Christus, 10; and R. Ross Hollo
way, Constantine and Rome (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2004), 19.
82. Averil
"Eusebius' Vita Constantini: The Construction
of Con
Cameron,
stantine," in Portraits: The Biographical Literature of theEmpire, ed. S.
Swain and M. Edwards
(Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997), 145
74.
edict also restores to Christians
all of their previously
seized prop
and Licinius's
erty. The rescript was issued jointly in Constantine's
coruler in the eastern
names, even though the latter, Constantine's
half of the empire, was not himself a Christian. The key sources are
and Eusebius, Historia
Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 48.2-12;
Ecclesiastica 10.5.2-14.
For a recent discussion,
see Drake, Constantine
and theBishops, 193-98.
83. The
84. A point forcefully argued by Wallraff,
to the Sun."
"Constantine's
Devotion
Christus versus Sol; and
idem,
85. Pliny, for example,
chosen pre
frequently describes Trajan as Jupiter's
fect on earth; Pliny, Panegyric 8.3, 10.4, 80.3. This
is graphi
relationship
on the attic of the Arch of
on
cally represented
Trajan at Benevento,
which Jupiter appears to be handing his thunderbolt
over to the em
are expressed
in
peror across the inscription panel. Similar sentiments
Statius, Silvae 4.3; see also Tacitus, Historiae
1.15.1; and Seneca, Apocolo
cyntosis 4.
see Kayoko
recently on the imperial cult under Constantine,
"The Date and Setting of the Constantinian
Inscription of His
pellum," Studi Classici e Orientali 45 (1997): 369-410.
86. Most
Tabata,
87. On
the postantique
fortunes of the Colosseum
see
Valley monuments,
"
"The Mutability
of All Things.'
What follows are a few cave
Marlowe,
ats and final thoughts about the reconstructions
in this es
presented
does not
say. The Auto Cad program with which
they were generated
handle round shapes with ease, hence
the ungainly and unarticulated
of the Colosseum.
The implausible
cleanliness
of these im
appearance
The urban passageway
that is the
ages is also potentially
disturbing.
focus of this article was one of the most heavily trafficked in ancient
242
ART BULLETIN
JUNE
2006 VOLUME
LXXXVIII
NUMBER
2
such as
Rome, and yet we see no trace of human
impact or presence,
I
broken paving stones, carts, filth, strutting senators, supine beggars.
chose not to add any such figures or details, as they would no doubt
from the focus of the image and come across as sim
have distracted
the reconstructions
take on a
them, however,
plistic or silly. Without
the totalitarian's utopia of an
disconcerting
purity of form, recalling
classical cityscape.
ideal, dehumanized,
Also of concern
is the misleading
semblance
of equal certainty
in a reconstruction
is no
among all the data included
image. There
(for exam
way visually to convey the fact that some of the information
of the Arch of Constantine)
is indisput
ple, the height and appearance
other pieces of the picture are based on
able, empirical fact, whereas
careful deductions
from solid, reliable evidence
(such as the heights of
the Meta Sudans or the Temple
of Venus and Roma),
and still others
are derived from far more hypothetical
calculations
(the height and
of the colossus). Nor is there a way to illustrate the possi
appearance
in the area (along the
bility that there may have been other structures
or other triumphal arches along
slopes of the Palatine, for example,
the road) of which we no longer have any trace. These uncertainties
become particularly worrying when one considers
the aura of objective
science and infallibility that computer-generated
models
invariably ac
in the minds of students. By contrast, the human
quire, particularly
marks of the hand-drawn
reconstruction
sketch, such as those pub
lished in Diane G. Favro, The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cam
their sub
Press, 1996), seem to advertise
bridge: Cambridge
University
to be the product of a single
jectivity and are more readily understood
individual's
and best guesses, emendable
in the face of
imagination
new evidence.
these many drawbacks,
the reconstructions
offered here are
Despite
relations among the struc
useful, I hope, for showing the proportional
tures and, more generally,
of the
for aiding the visual imagination
reader. I would emphasize,
that they are intended not as an
however,
to consider
end in themselves, but rather as a means
larger historical
questions.