![]() ![]() These earlier discussions deal primarily with themes that might come under the heading of ‘Cultural Memory’ or ‘Collective Memory’, since they consider how the Arch’s makers selected, preserved and re-presented elements of a ‘usable past’ to serve their own, contemporary purposes. Indeed, much of the existing scholarship on the Arch already addresses the topic of memory, although the word ‘memory’ itself is not always explicitly invoked. Not only was its primary function commemorative (it celebrated Constantine’s tenth year of rule, and his victory over Maxentius in 312CE) but it was also constructed from pieces of sculpture and architecture that had, at some point, been taken from the monuments of earlier Roman rulers. In many ways, the Arch of Constantine in Rome is an obvious choice of subject for an exploration of Roman memory. ![]() “quae acciderunt in pueritia, meminimus optime saepe.” The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, 1992) As the means for defining national identity, history becomes a means for shaping history.” As an individual deprived of memory becomes disorientated and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future. Stockholm.“History is to the nation rather as memory is to the individual. The great Trajanic frieze: the study of a monument and of the mechanisms of message transmission in Roman art (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Rom 45). The panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (Monographs on archaeology and fine arts 14). Arco di Costantino tra archeologia e archeometria (Studia archaeologica ("Erma" di Bretschneider) 100). ‘Genesis and mimesis: the design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome’, Journal of the society of architectural historians 59: 50–77. ‘From the culture of spolia to the cult of relics: the arch of Constantine and the genesis of late Antique forms’, Papers of the British School at Rome 68: 149–84. The different reliefs of this monument are useful either way for revealing the development of Roman sculptural techniques over time.Įlsner, J. Whether these earlier reliefs were meant to symbolise Constantine's continuation of the practices of these earlier, 'good' emperors, or were employed simply because it was quicker and easier than producing new ones remains much debated. Still, the reliance on earlier monuments in the Arch of Constantine is striking. Since the re-carved portraits of Constantine are generally of a high quality we should be careful not to dismiss all of the sculptors working in this period and it is important to distinguish between scenes telling a story, like the frieze, and those representing symbolic scenes, like the panels and roundels even in earlier periods different styles were employed for different purposes. The style of these reliefs contrasts markedly with the high-quality of the earlier, re-used panels and is often used as a demonstration of the decline of artistic technique in the Late Roman period. The Constantinian features of the design, then, include only the frieze - depicting scenes of Constantine's campaigns against Maxentius - and the figures of Victories and river deities which adorn the pedestal bases on each side and the spandrels. In addition to these reliefs, the arch also employs eight statues of captured Dacians, from Trajan's Forum, which are erected on top of the eight fluted columns which adorn its sides. This frieze depicts the emperor (Trajan, or perhaps Domitian, re-carved as Constantine) both in battle against barbarians and being received as victor by Victory and other personifications. ![]() Two other sections of this frieze adorn the short ends of the attic at the top of the arch. The large scenes on the walls of the central archway, meanwhile, are Trajanic in date, originally belonging together as part of a long relief, usually called the Great Trajanic Frieze. Again, the main figure on each is re-carved as Constantine or his co-emperor Licinius. The eight round reliefs beneath these are taken from a Hadrianic monument and depict hunting and sacrifice scenes. On each the emperor has been re-carved as Constantine. The eight panels that adorn the attic and flank the dedicatory inscriptions on both sides are from a lost monument of Marcus Aurelius, probably another arch. Aside from these elements most of the other reliefs on the arch are re-used from earlier monuments, adjusted slightly to represent Constantine. Both the inscription on its attic and the continuous frieze running around it make specific reference to Constantine's victory over his rival Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. The Arch of Constantine was dedicated in AD 315 and spanned the Triumphal Way. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |