11.3: Early Empire

Augustus of Primaporta

by Julia Fischer

Augustus and the power of images

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century CE. Marble, 2.03 meters high. Vatican Museums, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Today, politicians think very carefully about how they will be photographed. Think about all the campaign commercials and print ads we are bombarded with every election season. These images tell us a lot about the candidate, including what they stand for and what agendas they are promoting. Similarly, Roman art was closely intertwined with politics and propaganda. This is especially true with portraits of Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire; Augustus invoked the power of imagery to communicate his ideology.

Augustus of Primaporta

One of Augustus’ most famous portraits is the so-called Augustus of Primaporta of 20 BCE (see Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). The sculpture gets its name from the town in Italy where it was found in 1863. At first glance this statue might appear to simply resemble a portrait of Augustus as an orator and general, but this sculpture also communicates a good deal about the emperor’s power and ideology. In fact, in this portrait Augustus shows himself as a great military victor and a staunch supporter of Roman religion. The statue also foretells the 200 year period of peace that Augustus initiated, called the Pax Romana.

Recalling the Golden Age of ancient Greece

In this marble freestanding sculpture, Augustus stands in a contrapposto pose, a relaxed pose where one leg bears weight. The emperor wears military regalia and his right arm is outstretched, demonstrating that the emperor is addressing his troops. We immediately sense the emperor’s power as the leader of the army and a military conqueror.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Doryphoros (Spear Bearer), Roman copy after an original by the Greek sculptor Polykleitos from c. 450-440 BCE. Marble, 6’6″ high. Archaeological Museum, Naples, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Delving further into the composition of the Primaporta statue, a distinct resemblance to Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, a Classical Greek sculpture of the fifth century BCE, is apparent (see Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). Both have a similar contrapposto stance and both are idealized. That is to say that both Augustus and the Spear-Bearer are portrayed as youthful and flawless individuals: they are perfect. The Romans often modeled their art on Greek predecessors. This is significant because Augustus is essentially depicting himself with the perfect body of a Greek athlete: he is youthful and virile, despite the fact that he was middle-aged at the time of the sculpture’s commissioning. Furthermore, by modeling the Primaporta statue on such an iconic Greek sculpture created during the height of Athens’ influence and power, Augustus connects himself to the Golden Age of that previous civilization.

The cupid and dolphin

So far the message of the Augustus of Primaporta is clear: he is an excellent orator and military victor with the youthful and perfect body of a Greek athlete. Is that all there is to this sculpture? Definitely not! The sculpture contains even more symbolism. First, at Augustus’ right leg is cupid figure riding a dolphin (see Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\)).

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Cupid on a dolphin (detail), Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The dolphin became a symbol of Augustus’ great naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, a conquest that made Augustus the sole ruler of the Empire. The cupid astride the dolphin sends another message too: that Augustus is descended from the gods. Cupid is the son of Venus, the Roman goddess of love. Julius Caesar, the adoptive father of Augustus, claimed to be descended from Venus and therefore Augustus also shared this connection to the gods.

The breastplate

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Detail of the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Finally, Augustus is wearing a cuirass, or breastplate, that is covered with figures that communicate additional propagandistic messages (see Figures \(\PageIndex{4}\), (see Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\), \(\PageIndex{5}\)), and \(\PageIndex{6}\)). Scholars debate over the identification over each of these figures, but the basic meaning is clear: Augustus has the gods on his side, he is an international military victor, and he is the bringer of the Pax Romana, a peace that encompasses all the lands of the Roman Empire.

In the central zone of the cuirass are two figures, a Roman and a Parthian. On the right, the enemy Parthian returns military standards. This is a direct reference to an international diplomatic victory of Augustus in 20 BCE, when these standards were finally returned to Rome after a previous battle.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): Detail of Sol and Caelus on the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Surrounding this central zone are gods and personifications. At the top are Sol and Caelus, the sun and sky gods respectively. On the sides of the breastplate are female personifications of countries conquered by Augustus. These gods and personifications refer to the Pax Romana. The message is that the sun is going to shine on all regions of the Roman Empire, bringing peace and prosperity to all citizens. And of course, Augustus is the one who is responsible for this abundance throughout the Empire.

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Detail of Tellus on the breastplate, Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Beneath the female personifications are Apollo and Diana, two major deities in the Roman pantheon; clearly Augustus is favored by these important deities and their appearance here demonstrates that the emperor supports traditional Roman religion. At the very bottom of the cuirass is Tellus, the earth goddess, who cradles two babies and holds a cornucopia. Tellus is an additional allusion to the Pax Romana as she is a symbol of fertility with her healthy babies and overflowing horn of plenty.

Not simply a portrait

Augustus of Primaporta is one of the ways that the ancients used art for propagandistic purposes. Overall, this statue is not simply a portrait of the emperor, it expresses Augustus’ connection to the past, his role as a military victor, his connection to the gods, and his role as the bringer of the Roman Peace.

---

Ara Pacis Augustae

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), 9 BCE. Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The Roman state religion in microcosm

Figure \(\PageIndex{8}\): Portrait of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus from the Via Labicana, after 12 BCE. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Alphanidon, CC BY-SA 3.0) This sculptural portrait depicts an idealized and youthful emperor Augustus as Pontifex Maximus, or "the greatest priest."

The festivities of the Roman state religion were steeped in tradition and ritual symbolism. Sacred offerings to the gods, consultations with priests and diviners, ritual formulae, communal feasting—were all practices aimed at fostering and maintaining social cohesion and communicating authority. It could perhaps be argued that the Ara Pacis Augustae—the Altar of Augustan Peace—represents in luxurious, stately microcosm the practices of the Roman state religion in a way that is simultaneously elegant and pragmatic (see Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\)).

Vowed on July 4, 13 BCE, and dedicated on January 30, 9 BCE, the monument stood proudly in the Campus Martius, a level area between several of Rome’s hills and the Tiber River in Rome. It was adjacent to architectural complexes that cultivated and proudly displayed messages about the power, legitimacy, and suitability of their patron—the emperor Augustus. Now excavated, restored, and reassembled in a sleek modern pavilion designed by architect Richard Meier (2006), the Ara Pacis continues to inspire and challenge us as we think about ancient Rome.

Augustus himself discusses the Ara Pacis in his epigraphical memoir, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) that was promulgated upon his death in 14 CE. Augustus states “When I returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, having successfully accomplished deeds in those provinces … the senate voted to consecrate the altar of August Peace in the Campus Martius … on which it ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal virgins to offer annual sacrifices” (Aug. RG 12).

An open-air altar for sacrifice

Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\): Illustration showing the likely original placement of the Ara Pacis Augustae (far right) in proximity to the Horologium Augusti (sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus in the background. (Image via Smarthistory)

The Ara Pacis is, at its simplest, an open-air altar for blood sacrifice associated with the Roman state religion. The ritual slaughtering and offering of animals in Roman religion was routine, and such rites usually took place outdoors. The placement of the Ara Pacis in the Campus Martius, or "Field of Mars," along the Via Lata--now the Via del Corso, situated it close to other key Augustan monuments, notably the Horologium Augusti (a giant sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus (see Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\)).

The significance of the topographical placement would have been quite evident to ancient Romans. This complex of Augustan monuments made a clear statement about Augustus’ physical transformation of Rome’s urban landscape. The dedication to a rather abstract notion of peace (pax) is significant in that Augustus advertises the fact that he has restored peace to the Roman state after a long period of internal and external turmoil.

The altar (ara) itself sits within a monumental stone screen that has been elaborated with bas relief (low relief) sculpture, with the panels combining to form a programmatic mytho-historical narrative about Augustus and his administration, as well as about Rome’s deep roots. The altar enclosure is roughly square while the altar itself sits atop a raised podium that is accessible via a narrow stairway.

The Outer screen—processional scenes

Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\): Processional scene (south side), Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Processional scenes occupy the north and south flanks of the altar screen (see Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\)). The solemn figures, all properly clad for a rite of the state religion, proceed in the direction of the altar itself, ready to participate in the ritual. The figures all advance toward the west. The occasion depicted would seem to be a celebration of the peace (Pax) that Augustus had restored to the Roman empire. In addition four main groups of people are evident in the processions: (1) the lictors (the official bodyguards of magistrates), (2) priests from the major collegia of Rome (see Figure \(\PageIndex{11}\)), (3) members of the Imperial household, including women and children, and (4) attendants. There has been a good deal of scholarly discussion focused on two of three non-Roman children who are depicted.

Figure \(\PageIndex{11}\): A member of the Priestly college (association) of Septemviri epulones, carries an incense box, processional scene (north side), Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The north processional frieze, made up of priests and members of the Imperial household, is comprised of 46 figures. The priestly colleges (religious associations) represented include the Septemviri epulones (“seven men for sacrificial banquets”—they arranged public feasts connected to sacred holidays), whose members here carry an incense box (see Figure \(\PageIndex{11}\)), and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis (“fifteen men to perform sacred actions”— their main duty was to guard and consult the Sibylline books (oracular texts) at the request of the Senate). Members of the imperial family, including Octavia Minor, follow behind.

Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\): Augustus (far left) and members of the imperial household (south side), Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo via Smarthistory)

A good deal of modern restoration has been undertaken on the north wall, with many heads heavily restored or replaced. The south wall of the exterior screen depicts Augustus and his immediate family. The identification of the individual figures has been the source of a great deal of scholarly debate. Depicted in Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\) and Figure Figure \(\PageIndex{13}\) are Augustus (damaged, he appears at the far left of Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\)) and Marcus Agrippa (friend, son-in-law, and lieutenant to Augustus, he appears, hooded, in Figure \(\PageIndex{13}\)), along with other members of the imperial house. All of those present are dressed in ceremonial garb appropriate for the state sacrifice. The presence of state priests known as flamens (flamines) further indicate the solemnity of the occasion.

Figure \(\PageIndex{13}\): Processional scene (south side) with Agrippa (hooded), Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

A running, vegetal frieze runs parallel to the processional friezes on the lower register. This vegetal frieze emphasizes the fertility and abundance of the lands, a clear benefit of living in a time of peace.

Mythological panels

Accompanying the processional friezes are four mythological panels that adorn the altar screen on its shorter sides. Each of these panels depicts a distinct scene:

• a scene of a bearded male making sacrifice (Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\))
• a scene of seated female goddess amid the fertility of Italy (also in Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\))
• a fragmentary scene with Romulus and Remus in the Lupercal grotto (where these two mythic founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf)
• and a fragmentary panel showing Roma (the personification of Rome) as a seated goddess.

Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\): Sacrifice Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Since the early twentieth century, the mainstream interpretation of the sacrifice panel (see Figure \(\PageIndex{14}\)) has been that the scene depicts the Trojan hero Aeneas arriving in Italy and making a sacrifice to Juno. A recent re-interpretation offered by Paul Rehak argues instead that the bearded man is not Aeneas, but Numa Pompilius, Rome’s second king. In Rehak’s theory, Numa, renowned as a peaceful ruler and the founder of Roman religion, provides a counterbalance to the warlike Romulus on the opposite panel.

Figure \(\PageIndex{15}\): Tellus (or Pax) Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The better preserved panel of the east wall depicts a seated female figure (see Figure \(\PageIndex{15}\)) who has been variously interpreted as Tellus (the Earth), Italia (Italy), Pax (Peace), as well as Venus. The panel depicts a scene of human fertility and natural abundance. Two babies sit on the lap of the seated female, tugging at her drapery. Surrounding the central female is the natural abundance of the lands and flanking her are the personifications of the land and sea breezes. In all, whether the goddess is taken as Tellus or Pax, the theme stressed is the harmony and abundance of Italy, a theme central to Augustus’ message of a restored peaceful state for the Roman people—the Pax Romana.

The Altar

In Figure \(\PageIndex{16}\), the altar itself sits within the sculpted precinct wall. It is framed by sculpted architectural mouldings with crouching gryphons surmounted by volutes flanking the altar. The altar was the functional portion of the monument, the place where blood sacrifice and/or burnt offerings would be presented to the gods.

Figure \(\PageIndex{16}\): View to the altar, Ara Pacis Augustae, 9 BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Implications and interpretation

The implications of the Ara Pacis are far reaching. Originally located along the Via Lata (now Rome’s Via del Corso), the altar is part of a monumental architectural makeover of Rome’s Campus Martius carried out by Augustus and his family. Initially the makeover had a dynastic tone, with the Mausoleum of Augustus near the river. The dedication of the Horologium (sundial) of Augustus and the Ara Pacis, the Augustan makeover served as a potent, visual reminder of Augustus’ success to the people of Rome. The choice to celebrate peace and the attendant prosperity in some ways breaks with the tradition of explicitly triumphal monuments that advertise success in war and victories won on the battlefield. By championing peace—at least in the guise of public monuments—Augustus promoted a powerful and effective campaign of political message making.

Rediscovery

The first fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged in 1568 beneath Rome’s Palazzo Chigi near the basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina. These initial fragments came to be dispersed among various museums, including the Villa Medici, the Vatican Museums, the Louvre, and the Uffizi. It was not until 1859 that further fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged. The German art historian Friedrich von Duhn of the University of Heidelberg is credited with the discovery that the fragments corresponded to the altar mentioned in Augustus’ Res Gestae. Although von Duhn reached this conclusion by 1881, excavations were not resumed until 1903, at which time the total number of recovered fragments reached 53, after which the excavation was again halted due to difficult conditions. Work at the site began again in February 1937 when advanced technology was used to freeze approximately 70 cubic meters of soil to allow for the extraction of the remaining fragments. This excavation was mandated by the order of the Italian government of Benito Mussolini and his planned jubilee in 1938 that was designed to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Augustus’ birth.

Mussolini and Augustus

Figure \(\PageIndex{17}\): Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, Ara Pacis Pavillion, 1938. (Photo: Indeciso42, CC BY-SA 4.0)

The revival of the glory of ancient Rome was central to the propaganda of the Fascist regime in Italy during the 1930s. Benito Mussolini himself cultivated a connection with the personage of Augustus and claimed his actions were aimed at furthering the continuity of the Roman Empire. Art, architecture, and iconography played a key role in this propagandistic “revival”. Following the 1937 retrieval of additional fragments of the altar, Mussolini directed architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo to construct an enclosure for the restored altar adjacent to the ruins of the Mausoleum of Augustus near the Tiber river, creating a key complex for Fascist propaganda (see Figure \(\PageIndex{17}\)). Newly built Fascist palaces, bearing Fascist propaganda, flank the space dubbed “Piazza Augusto Imperatore” (“Plaza of the emperor Augustus”). The famous Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) was re-created on the wall of the altar’s pavilion. The concomitant effect was meant to lead the viewer to associate Mussolini’s accomplishments with those of Augustus himself.

The Ara Pacis and Richard Meier

Figure \(\PageIndex{18}\): Richard Meier and Partners, Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, 2006. (Photo via Smarthistory)

The firm of architect Richard Meier was engaged to design and execute a new and improved pavilion to house the Ara Pacis and to integrate the altar with a planned pedestrian area surrounding the adjacent Mausoleum of Augustus (see Figure \(\PageIndex{18}\)).

Between 1995 and the dedication of the new pavilion in 2006 Meier crafted the modernist pavilion that capitalizes on glass curtain walls granting visitors views of the Tiber river and the mausoleum while they perambulate in the museum space focused on the altar itself. The Meier pavilion has not been well-received, with some critics immediately panning it and some Italian politicians declaring that it should be dismantled. The museum has also been the victim of targeted vandalism.

Enduring monumentality

The Ara Pacis Augustae continues both to engage us and to incite controversy. As a monument that is the product of a carefully constructed ideological program, it is highly charged with socio-cultural energy that speaks to us about the ordering of the Roman world and its society—the very Roman universe.

Augustus had a strong interest in reshaping the Roman world (with him as its sole leader) but he had to be cautious about how radical those changes seemed to the Roman populace. While he defeated enemies, both foreign and domestic, he was concerned about being perceived as too authoritarian–he did not wish to be labeled as a king (rex) for fear that this would be too much for the Roman people to accept. So, the Augustan scheme involved a declaration that Rome’s republican government had been “restored” by Augustus and he styled himself as the leading citizen of the republic (princeps). These political and ideological motives then influence and guide the creation of his program of monumental art and architecture. These monumental forms, of which the Ara Pacis is a prime example, served to both create and reinforce these Augustan messages.

The story of the Ara Pacis becomes even more complicated since it is an artifact that then was placed in the service of ideas in the modern age. This results in its identity becoming a hybridized mixture of Classicism, Fascism, and modernism—all difficult to interpret in a postmodern reality. It is important to remember that the sculptural reliefs were created in the first place to be easily legible so that the viewer could understand the messages of Augustus and his circle without the need to read elaborate texts. Augustus pioneered the use of such ideological messages that relied on clear iconography to get their message across. A great deal was at stake for Augustus and it seems, by virtue of history, that the political choices he made proved prudent. The messages of the Pax Romana, of a restored state, and of Augustus as a leading republican citizen, are all part of an effective and carefully constructed veneer.

---

Roman wall painting styles

by Dr. Jessica Leah Ambler

Mount Vesuvius buried Pompeii two millennia ago—creating a time capsule of the evolution of Roman painting.

Figure \(\PageIndex{19}\): Example of a Fourth Style painting, before 79 CE. Fresco. Pompeii, Italy. (Photo via Smarthistory)

Why Pompeii?

Paintings from antiquity rarely survive—paint, after all, is a much less durable medium than stone or bronze sculpture. But it is thanks to the ancient Roman city of Pompeii that we can trace the history of Roman wall painting. The entire city was buried in volcanic ash in 79 CE when the volcano at Mount Vesuvius erupted, thus preserving the rich colors in the paintings in the houses and monuments there for thousands of years until their rediscovery. These paintings represent an uninterrupted sequence of two centuries of evidence (see Figure \(\PageIndex{19}\)). And it is thanks to August Mau, a nineteenth-century German scholar, that we have a classification of four styles of Pompeian wall painting.

Figure \(\PageIndex{20}\): View of Mount Vesuvius from Pompeii, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA-2.0)

The four styles that Mau observed in Pompeii were not unique to the city and can be observed elsewhere, like Rome and even in the provinces, but Pompeii and the surrounding cities buried by Vesuvius contain the largest continuous source of evidence for the period. The Roman wall paintings in Pompeii that Mau categorized were true frescoes (or buon fresco), meaning that pigment was applied to wet plaster, fixing the pigment to the wall. Despite this durable technique, painting is still a fragile medium and, once exposed to light and air, can fade significantly, so the paintings discovered in Pompeii were a rare find indeed.

Figure \(\PageIndex{21}\): Example of First Style painting, House of Sallust, 2nd century BCE. Pompeii, Italy. (Photo via Smarthistory)

In the paintings that survived in Pompeii, Mau saw four distinct styles. The first two were popular in the Republican period (which ended in 27 BCE) and grew out of Greek artistic trends (Rome had recently conquered Greece). The second two styles became fashionable in the Imperial period. His chronological description of stylistic progression has since been challenged by scholars, but they generally confirm the logic of Mau’s approach, with some refinements and theoretical additions. Beyond tracking how the styles evolved out of one another, Mau’s categorizations focused on how the artist divided up the wall and used paint, color, image and form—either to embrace or counteract—the flat surface of the wall.

Figure \(\PageIndex{22}\): Example of First Style painting, House of the Faun, Pompeii, built 2nd century, BCE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

First Pompeian Style

Mau called the First Style the “Incrustation Style” and believed that its origins lay in the Hellenistic period—in the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria. The First Style is characterized by colorful, patchwork walls of brightly painted faux-marble. Each rectangle of painted “marble” was connected by stucco moldings that added a three-dimensional effect (see Figures \(\PageIndex{21}\) and \(\PageIndex{22}\)). In temples and other official buildings, the Romans used costly imported marbles in a variety of colors to decorate the walls.

Figure \(\PageIndex{23}\): Detail of faux marble, Villa of the Mysteries, before 79 CE. Fresco, just outside the walls of Pompeii on the Road to Herculaneum (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Ordinary Romans could not afford such expense, so they decorated their homes with painted imitations of the luxurious yellow, purple and pink marbles (see Figure \(\PageIndex{}\)). Painters became so skilled at imitating certain marbles that the large, rectangular slabs were rendered on the wall marbled and veined, just like real pieces of stone. Great examples of the First Pompeian Style can be found in the House of the Faun and the House of Sallust, both of which can still be visited in Pompeii.

Second Pompeian style

The Second style, which Mau called the “Architectural Style,” was first seen in Pompeii around 80 BCE (although it developed earlier in Rome) and was in vogue until the end of the first century BCE. The Second Pompeian Style developed out of the First Style and incorporated elements of the First, such as faux marble blocks along the base of walls.

Figure \(\PageIndex{24}\): Example of Second Style painting, cubiculum (bedroom), Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale, 50–40 BCE. Fresco, 265.4 x 334 x 583.9 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Photo: Met Museum, public domain)

While the First Style embraced the flatness of the wall, the Second Style attempted to trick the viewer into believing that they were looking through a window by painting illusionistic images (see Figures \(\PageIndex{24}\), \(\PageIndex{25}\), and \(\PageIndex{26}\)). As Mau’s name for the Second Style implies, architectural elements drive the paintings, creating fantastic images filled with columns, buildings and stoas.

Figure \(\PageIndex{25}\): Detail, xample of Second Style painting, cubiculum (bedroom), Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale, 50–40 BCE. Fresco, 265.4 x 334 x 583.9 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Photo: Met Museum, public domain)

In one of the most famous examples of the Second Style, P. Fannius Synistor’s bedroom (now reconstructed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art), the artist utilizes multiple vanishing points (see Figure \(\PageIndex{25}\)). This technique shifts the perspective throughout the room, from balconies to fountains and along colonnades into the far distance, but the visitor’s eye moves continuously throughout the room, barely able to register that he or she has remained contained within a small room.

Figure \(\PageIndex{26}\): Example of Second Style painting, view of the Dionysiac frieze, Villa of the Mysteries, before 79 CE. Fresco, 15 x 22 feet, just outside the walls of Pompeii on the Road to Herculaneum. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA-2.0)

The Dionysian paintings from Pompeii’s Villa of the Mysteries are also included in the Second Style because of their illusionistic aspects. The figures are examples of megalographia, a Greek term referring to life-size paintings. The fact that the figures are the same size as viewers entering the room, as well as the way the painted figures sit in front of the columns dividing the space, are meant to suggest that the action taking place is surrounding the viewer.

Third Pompeian Style

The Third Style, or Mau’s “Ornate Style,” came about in the early 1st century CE and was popular until about 50 CE. The Third Style embraced the flat surface of the wall through the use of broad, monochromatic planes of color, such as black or dark red, punctuated by minute, intricate details (see Figures \(\PageIndex{27}\) and \(\PageIndex{28}\)).

Figure \(\PageIndex{27}\): Example of Third Style painting, panel with candelabrum, Villa Agrippa Postumus, Boscotrecase, last decade of the 1st century BCE. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Photo: Met Museum, public domain)

The Third Style was still architectural but rather than implementing plausible architectural elements that viewers would see in their everyday world (and that would function in an engineering sense), the Third Style incorporated fantastic and stylized columns and pediments that could only exist in the imagined space of a painted wall. The Roman architect Vitruvius was certainly not a fan of Third Style painting, and he criticized the paintings for representing monstrosities rather than real things, “for instance, reeds are put in the place of columns, fluted appendages with curly leaves and volutes, instead of pediments, candelabra supporting representations of shrines, and on top of their pediments numerous tender stalks and volutes growing up from the roots and having human figures senselessly seated upon them…” (Vitr.De arch.VII.5.3) The center of walls often feature very small vignettes, such as sacro-idyllic landscapes, which are bucolic scenes of the countryside featuring livestock, shepherds, temples, shrines and rolling hills.

Figure \(\PageIndex{28}\): Detail with Egyptian motif, panel with candelabrum, Villa Agrippa Postumus, Boscotrecase, last decade of the 1st century BCE. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Photo: Met Museum, public domain)

The Third Style also saw the introduction of Egyptian themes and imagery, including scenes of the Nile as well as Egyptian deities and motifs.

Fourth Pompeian Style

The Fourth Style, what Mau calls the “Intricate Style,” became popular in the mid-first century CE and is seen in Pompeii until the city’s destruction in 79 CE (see Figure \(\PageIndex{29}\)). It can be best described as a combination of the three styles that came before. Faux marble blocks along the base of the walls, as in the First Style, frame the naturalistic architectural scenes from the Second Style, which in turn combine with the large flat planes of color and slender architectural details from the Third Style. The Fourth Style also incorporates central panel pictures, although on a much larger scale than in the third style and with a much wider range of themes, incorporating mythological, genre, landscape and still life images. In describing what we now call the Fourth Style, Pliny the Elder said that it was developed by a rather eccentric, albeit talented, painter named Famulus who decorated Nero’s famous Golden Palace. (Pl.NH XXXV.120) Some of the best examples of Fourth Style painting come from the House of the Vettii which can also be visited in Pompeii today.

Figure \(\PageIndex{29}\): Example of Fourth Style painting, Ixion Room, House of the Vetii, 1st century CE. Pompeii, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA-2.0)

Post-Pompeian painting: What happens next?

August Mau takes us as far as Pompeii and the paintings found there, but what about Roman painting after 79 CE? The Romans did continue to paint their homes and monumental architecture, but there isn’t a Fifth or Sixth Style, and later Roman painting has been called a pastiche of what came before, simply combining elements of earlier styles. The Christian catacombs provide an excellent record of painting in Late Antiquity, combining Roman techniques and Christian subject matter in unique ways.

---

Portrait of Vespasian

by The British Museum

Figure \(\PageIndex{30}\): Head from a marble statue of Vespasian, from Carthage, northern Africa, 70-80 CE. Marble, 45 cm high. (Photo: © Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

In ancient Rome, official portraits were an extremely important way for emperors to reach out to their subjects, and their public image was defined by them. As hundreds of surviving imperial statues show, there were only three ways in which the emperor could officially be represented: in the battle dress of a general; in a toga, the Roman state civilian costume; or nude, likened to a god. These styles powerfully and effectively evoked the emperor’s role as commander-in-chief, magistrate or priest, and finally as the ultimate embodiment of divine providence.

Portrait of the emperor: A soldier and a wit

Figure \(\PageIndex{31}\): Relief depicting a triumphal procession into Rome with loot from the temple in Jerusalem, panel in the passageway, Arch of Titus, Via Sacra, Rome, Italy, c. 81 CE. Marble, 6’-7” high. (Photo via Smarthistory)

This naturalistic portrait of the emperor Vespasian (reigned 69-79 CE) clearly shows the lined complexion of this battle-hardened emperor, and also the curious ‘strained expression’ which the Roman writer Suetonius said he had at all times (see Figure \(\PageIndex{30}\)). The loss of the nose is characteristic of the damage often suffered by ancient statues, either through deliberate mutilation or through falling or being toppled from their base.

Vespasian was born in the Roman town of Reate (Rieti), about forty miles (sixty-five kilometers) north-west of Rome in the Sabine Hills. Vespasian distinguished himself in military campaigns in Britain and later became a trusted aide of the emperor Nero. Together with one of his sons, Titus, Vespasian conquered Judaea in 75 CE and celebrated with a magnificent triumphal procession through Rome. Part of the event, in particular the displaying of the seven-branched candlestick or “Menorah” from the Temple at Jerusalem, is shown on the Arch of Titus, in Rome (see Figure \(\PageIndex{31}\)). The proceeds from the conquest of Judaea provided funds for the building of the Colosseum and other famous buildings in Rome.

Vespasian was known for his wit as well as his military skills. When, during one of his attempts to boost the treasury, Vespasian raised a tax on public urinals. Titus complained that this was below imperial dignity. Vespasian is said to have held out a handful of coins from the new tax and said “Now, do these smell any different?” Even on his death bed Vespasian’s wit did not desert him. He was perhaps parodying the idea of the deification of emperors, when he said “Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a god.”

Roman portrait sculptures

Portrait sculptures are one of the great legacies of Roman art. Busts and statues portraying men, women and children from most ranks of society were set up in houses, tombs and public buildings throughout the Roman Empire. Sculptures of emperors and magistrates were often thought to embody personal authority, whereas many of the portraits representing private citizens were intended as memorials to the dead.

---

Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater):A CONVERSATION

By Valentina Follo, Dr. Beth: Harris, and Dr. Steven Zucker

This is the transcript of a conversation conducted at the Colosseum in Rome between Beth: Harris, Steven Zucker, and Valentina Follo (courtesy of Context Travel). Watch the video here.

Figure \(\PageIndex{32}\): Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), 70-80 CE. Rome, Italy. (Photo: Dr. Cerise Myers, CC BY)

Valentina: Imagine how beautiful it must have been, this square with all these monumental arches, carved with travertine, and all the statues, and beautiful fountains spilling out water, reflecting the light on the travertine.

Beth: So we might think about this more like the way we think today about Lincoln Center.

Valentina: Exactly.

Beth: With fountains in the middle and gleaming stone.

Steven: Should we start out by talking a little bit about the structure and how it was built?

Valentina: You have to imagine the Colosseum as a gigantic donut. The inside is the arena. “Arena” originally in Latin meant sand. On the floor where gladiators were fighting, they used sand to absorb blood and body fluids, like a gigantic cat litter box. Between different fights, they could simply clean very easily. The original name of this building was not “Colosseum.” “Colosseum” is a nickname given later, not because it was a colossal monument, but because it was located in the proximity of a colossal statue, originally of Nero, that was part of the decoration of his house. And so with time, the nickname was given by this proximity. Originally, it was actually a Flavian Amphitheater. And this is something very typical, even if you think about American monuments. You have the Lincoln Center. You have the Rockefeller Center. They are connected to the name of the family that paid for the building. The Flavian family paid for the building of the Colosseum. Flavian Amphitheater is just a technical name for the shape. It simply means, in Greek, “a double theater.”

Figure \(\PageIndex{33}\): Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum) and Arch of Titus to the left, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Isriya Paireepairit, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Steven: The original Greek theaters were actually semicircles with a flat end by the stage. And so this is really just fusing those two together.

Valentina: By using arches and concrete, Romans were able to build an amphitheater, even a double theater, with seats on a flat surface. The engineering behind it is absolutely astonishing considering that it was only built in 10 years. The Colosseum could hold between 50,000 and 80,000 people. If you look at the actual top part of each of the ground-floor arches, you see a Roman number. They are very dark and dilapidated. You can see a 23, and then there’s a 24, and there is a 25. They’re progressive. And this number would have been written on the ticket and given to the people. It’s like a modern stadium. You would have an assigned seat.

Beth: A gate number.

Valentina: Also, the seat, because it was extremely important for the Romans. And the seats were assigned according to their status. So you had the most important people close to the arena, and the least important—being the women—on the top floor. You have three stories of arches, and then another story, a fourth floor, with windows. So it’s closed with small windows inside it. And if you look at these arches, the arches are framed by columns. At the bosom part, you have what’s called Tuscanic. It’s similar to Doric, but it’s more a local, Italic style.

Steven: It’s even a little simpler than Doric, it seems.

Valentina: Yeah, it’s also the base. Doric columns do not have a base, while Tuscanic columns do have a base.

Steven: And they’re not fluted, as well.

Valentina: No. Then you go to the Ionic columns on the second story. The Ionic columns, actually, were considered the most feminine of the columns. Their proportions were more, slender with the volutes on the top.

Steven: And the women sat higher, as well.

Valentina: Exactly. On the top floor, you’ve got the Corinthian. They are based on the acanthus plant. And it’s indigenous in Rome. You can find it in many gardens. It’s very nice with these green leaves. And so it’s an imitation of a piece of stone covered with leaves of grass. Inside of each of the arches on the second and third floor, there would be a statue. On the top floor, there would have been probably bronze shields, alternating the windows. Again, we imagine the Colosseum as a donut. The outside circle was done with blocks of travertine. The inside of the donut was done with a core of concrete.

Figure \(\PageIndex{34}\): Interior, Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), 70-80 CE. (Photo: Dr. Cerise Myers, CC BY)

Steven: The Romans had really perfected concrete, and really were the first to use it as this real structural material. That was critical for their ability to create structures of this size. Also something like the Pantheon.

Valentina: The development of concrete was crucial for two main reasons. The first one is if you work with cut stone—marble, travertine, even tufa stone—you need specialized workers because you need to know how to cut the stone. If you cut it the wrong way, the stone will crumble into your hands. With concrete, it made it possible for unspecialized workers to produce something more sturdy. At the same time, it’s less expensive. To quarry blocks of marble is not cheap. Concrete could be assembled everywhere. You just need a little mortar and few pieces of stone to make aggregate and water. So it’s very easy, but at the same time, it’s more elastic. With concrete, you get a sort of elasticity and then you can mold space. Because it’s something liquid, you can simply mold it the way you want it.

Beth: And so the idea would be to take a wooden framework that framed out the space that you wanted, and then to pour concrete into that wooden mold.

Valentina: Exactly. And then it would be covered with the decoration. It could be bricks, stucco, whatever you wanted.

Steven: So it really allowed for far more monumental structures, and that would then be economically, and physically, feasible.

Valentina: And less expensive and quick. 10 years to build the Colosseum is quite an accomplishment because they used mostly concrete.

Beth: Also thinking about architecture in a new way, in terms of shaping an interior space.

Valentina: Particularly the interior because if you look at Greek architecture, the inside of a Greek temple is quite narrow. If you think about the Pantheon, you are in this amazing sphere. That’s why they really invented it—they are molding not the outside, but inside, to be able to produce a vault that could permit a space free of standing columns in the middle to support the roof.

Beth: Moving away from post-and-lintel architecture to an interior space.

Steven: Which really, in a sense, almost doubled the architectural vocabulary and created an advancement over a system that had existed for thousands of years.

Valentina: Romans employed concrete on such a scale that permitted them to build wherever they wanted. They were not forced by space. Greeks could not build a theater wherever they wanted. They needed a slope. So what if you were living in a city without slopes? No theater for you, right? Romans were able to create a theater, or an amphitheater, or a circus, or a bath complex wherever they wanted.

Steven: It’s true that the Greeks seemed to use natural features in a more passive way, whereas the Romans seemed to shape the landscape much more aggressively. You talked about the fact that there had been a lake here. Let’s drain the lake. We’re putting a building here. Nature becomes in the service of man rather than vice versa.

Figure \(\PageIndex{35}\): Interior, Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), 70-80 CE. (Photo: Dr. Cerise Myers, CC BY)

Valentina: That’s actually a very good point. The fact is that they wanted to be able to shape their space.

Beth: It’s the idea of urban planning—you could build a city the way you wanted to, and not just be subject to the landscape that was there.

Figure \(\PageIndex{36}\): Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum), with the Arch of Constantine visible in the background, 70-80 CE. (Photo: Dr. Cerise Myers, CC BY)

Steven: But I think there’s this really important way in which the Romans were thinking of themselves as powers in the landscape, having that sort of dominance. It seems to me that the Romans shaped, in a way, that speaks that notion of their own inherent strength.

Valentina: What was different about Roman society—they were not racist in the sense they were looking at the color of your skin—it was a multicultural society. There were Romans from Africa, Romans from Turkey, Romans from Germany. What made it different was if were you a citizen or not. If you were not a citizen, you were nobody. But if you were a citizen, then the color of your skin was not important.

Steven: But there were fine distinctions, even within citizenship?

Valentina: Of course, there were social classes. An interesting aspect was that you could move along the social scale. While for Greeks, you could not even acquire citizenship. It was extremely rare to obtain citizenship. For the Romans, even a slave could become first a free man. And then his children will become a full citizen of Rome. It’s like America, if you think about America, like second-generation immigrants. It’s the same idea. They realized that just being able to move and being able to give people a chance in life could make all the difference in the economy.

---

The Forum and Markets of Trajan

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker

An emperor worth celebrating

Figure \(\PageIndex{37}\): Marble bust of Trajan, c. 108-117 CE. 68.5 cm high. The British Museum, London, England. (Photo: Chris Stroup, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) This veristic sculptural bust of Trajan shows a more truthful depiction of Trajan, with a furrowed brow, large nose, and aged facial features.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus, now commonly referred to as Trajan, reigned as Rome’s emperor from 98 until 117 CE. A military man, Trajan was born of mixed stock—part Italic, part Hispanic—into the gens Ulpia (the Ulpian family) in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (modern Spain) and enjoyed a career that catapulted him to the heights of popularity, earning him an enduring reputation as a “good emperor.”

Trajan was the first in a line of adoptive emperors that concluded with Marcus Aurelius. These emperors were chosen for the “job” based not on bloodlines, but on their suitability for rule; most of them were raised with this role in mind from their youth. This period is often regarded as the height of the Roman empire’s prosperity and stability. The ancient Romans were so fond of Trajan that they officially bestowed upon him the epithetical title optimus princeps or “the best first-citizen.” It is safe to say that the Romans felt Trajan was well worth celebrating—and celebrate him they did. A massive architectural complex—referred to as the Forum of Trajan (Latin: Forum Traiani or, less commonly, Forum Ulpium) was devoted to Trajan’s career and, in particular, his great military successes in his wars against Dacia (now Romania).

Unique under the heavens

The Forum of Trajan was the final, and largest, of Rome’s complex of so-called “Imperial fora”—dubbed by at least one ancient writer as “a construction unique under the heavens” (Amm. Marc. 16.10.15). Fora is the Latin plural of forum—meaning a public, urban square for civic and ritual business. A series of Imperial fora, beginning with Iulius Caesar, had been built adjacent to the earlier Roman Forum by a series of emperors. The Forum of Trajan was inaugurated in 112 CE, although construction may not have been complete, and was designed by the famed architect Apollodorus of Damascus.

Figure \(\PageIndex{38}\): View from the Markets of Trajan of the remains of the eastern exedra and the eastern portico of the main square of the Forum of Trajan, looking toward the Basilica Ulpia (in the upper left). (Photo: MM, CC BY-SA 3.0)

Figure \(\PageIndex{39}\): Plan of the Forum of Trajan. Note that the traditional site of the temple of the deified Trajan is shown, but is replaced by a shrine located at the southern side of the forum’s main square (following R. Meneghini). (Image: Cristiano64, CC BY-SA 3.0, annotated by Smarthistory)

The Forum of Trajan is elegant—it is rife with signs of top-level architecture and decoration. All of the structures, save the two libraries (which were built of brick), were built of stone. There is a great deal of exotic, imported marble and many statues, including gilded examples. The forum was composed of a main square (measuring c. 200 x 120 meters) that was flanked by porticoes (an extended, roofed colonnade), as well as by exedrae (semicircular, recessed spaces) on the eastern (see Figure \(\PageIndex{39}\)) and western sides.

A contested element of the reconstruction of the forum complex is a temple dedicated to the deified Trajan (the deceased emperor had been declared a god). Traditional reconstructions place this temple behind the column, although a recent reconstruction favored by Dr. Roberto Meneghini does not agree with this conjecture, instead preferring to place a shrine to the deified Trajan at the southern end of the forum abutting the retaining wall of the neighboring Forum of Augustus. Scholars continue to debate the nature and position of this temple.

Figure \(\PageIndex{40}\): Remains of the Basilica Ulpia, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The main structure at the center of the forum complex is the massive Basilica Ulpia, and beside that stood two libraries that flanked the Column of Trajan, an honorific monument bearing an elaborate program of sculpted relief.

Paved in white marble: The forum square (Area Fori)

The main square of the forum was once a vast space, screened by architecture on all sides and paved in white marble. Several rows of trees, and perhaps rows of statues, ran parallel to the porticoes. Entry to the forum square was from the south, by way of a triumphal arch surmounted by a statue of Trajan riding in a triumphal chariot. Although the arch itself is no longer extant, it is depicted on a coin issued c. 112-115 C.E. (see Figure \(\PageIndex{41}\)).

Figure \(\PageIndex{41}\): Gold coin (aureus) struck at Rome c. 112-115 CE. (19 mm, 7.13 g, 7h). The legend reads “IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P (“To the emperor Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, Pontifex Maximus, [holder of] tribunician power, in his sixth consulship, father of his country.” The coins depicts a laureate Trajan (draped, and cuirassed bust right) seen from behind on the observe side. On the reverse the Arcus Traiani of the Forum of Trajan is seen. This is presented as a hexastyle building facade, crowned by a frontal chariot drawn by six horses. Three figures stand to the left and right, while four statues occupy niches in the arches below. The reverse legend reads “FORVM TRAIAN[A]” (Photo via Smarthistory)

Figure \(\PageIndex{42}\): Captured Dacian, 106-112. Vatican Museum, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The forum square (116 x 95 meters) has an overriding martial theme, reminding viewers and visitors that the forum was constructed from the proceeds (manubiae) of Trajan’s successful military campaigns against the Dacians (101–102, 105–106 C.E.). The porticoes were decorated with statuary and military standards (official emblems of the legions), as described by the ancient author Aulus Gellius: “All along the roof of the colonnades of the forum of Trajan gilded statues of horses and representations of military standards are placed, and underneath is written Ex manubiis [from the spoils of war] …” (Attic Nights 13.25.1).

The decorative program also included statues of captured Dacian prisoners (see Figure \(\PageIndex{42}\)) and, it seems, statues of notable Roman statesmen and generals that were set in the intercolumnar spaces of the porticoes.

Figure \(\PageIndex{43}\): Silver coin, Denarius (19mm, 3.35 g, 7h), struck 112-114/115 CE IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P, laureate bust right, drapery on far shoulder S P Q R OPTIMO PRINCIPI, equestrian statue of Trajan facing left, holding spear and sword (or small Victory). (Photo: Cristiano64, CC BY-SA 2.5)

At the center of the Forum square stood a bronze equestrian statue of Trajan, the Equus Traiani. While the statue itself does not survive, the occasion of a visit to Rome by Constantius II (in 357 C.E.) preserves a mention of the famous equestrian: “So he [Constantius II] abandoned all hope of attempting anything like it, and declared that he would and could imitate simply Trajan’s horse, which stands in the middle of the court with the emperor on its back.” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15) We also see the equestrian statue depicted on a silver denarius struck at Rome c. 112-114/5 CE (see Figure \(\PageIndex{43}\)).

The massive Basilica Ulpia

Figure \(\PageIndex{44}\): Remains of the Basilica Ulpia in the foreground, and the Column of Trajan in the middle ground. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

As an architectural type, the basilica is uniquely Roman and served various civic and juridical purposes. The habit of planners from the first century BCE onwards had been to prefer to use the basilica as a framing device, so as to have it communicate with the flanks of a forum square. We see this in many cases, although with some variation. In the case of the Forum of Trajan the massive and monumental Basilica Ulpia is constructed at the northern edge of the open courtyard (see Figure \(\PageIndex{44}\)). It thus serves to bisect the complex, with the portico-lined courtyard lying to its east and the libraries and the Column of Trajan to its west.

The basilica is massive—its overall length is some 169 meters and the interior nave is 25 meters wide. It is apsidal at both ends, with a raised central floor, and the main hall has a double surround of columns (96 in total) that were probably of white or yellow marble, in the Corinthian order. The basilica was also famous in antiquity for its gilded bronze roof tiles, as commented on by Pausanias, who remarked that the building was “worth seeing not only for its general beauty but especially for its roof made of bronze” (Description of Greece 5.12.6; see Figure \(\PageIndex{45}\)).

Figure \(\PageIndex{45}\): Artist’s view of exterior elevation (J. Gaudet, 1867). (Photo via Smarthistory)

The Markets of Trajan (dedicated c. 110 CE)

Figure \(\PageIndex{46}\): Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan, 112 CE. The Militia Tower is visible in the center, rising above the markets. (Photo: Vašek Vinklát, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Adjacent to the Forum of Trajan is a separate architectural complex attributed to Trajan that is commonly referred to as the Markets of Trajan. This multi-level commercial complex was built against the flank of the Quirinal Hill which had to be excavated for the purpose. The complex of the markets takes its planning cue from the eastern hemicycle of the Forum of Trajan (see Figure \(\PageIndex{46}\)). The ruins of the markets today preserve 170 rooms and the complex covers a space of approximately 110 by 150 meters; its walls stood to 35 meters above the level of the pavement of the Forum of Trajan. The original extension is hard to ascertain, based in part upon subsequent re-use and construction in the Medieval period (and later). The archaeologist Corrado Ricci (1858-1934) cleared the ruins in the twentieth century, but the markets themselves have received comparatively less attention than the adjacent forum.

Figure \(\PageIndex{47}\): Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan, 112 CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) The function of the markets was mercantile—indeed the markets may have been designed to relocate shops (tabernae) and offices that were displaced by the Trajanic building project. The ground floor offices (at the forum level) were likely occupied by cashiers of the imperial treasury (arcarii caesariani), while upper level rooms may been leased out or used by imperial officials associated with the grain dole (annona).

Figure \(\PageIndex{48}\): Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan (Market Hall), 112 CE. (Photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Figure \(\PageIndex{49}\): Plan of the Markets of Trajan (in relation to the Forum of Trajan). (Image: 3coma14, public domain; annotated by Smarthistory)

The great, vaulted market hall (see Figure \(\PageIndex{49}\)) is an ambitious and brilliant design—just as with the rest of the complex, reflecting the skills of the designer/architect who executed the project. The medieval Militia Tower (Torre delle Milizie ) (12th century) and the now-demolished convent of Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli utilized portions of the structure of the market’s buildings.

The architect – Apollodorus of Damascus

Figure \(\PageIndex{50}\): Portrait considered to be that of Apollodorus of Damascus. Munich Glyptothek, Germany. (Photo: Gun Powder Ma, CC BY-SA 3.0) This sculptural portrait depicts the great builder and architect Apollodorus of Damascus with a thick wavy beard and head of curled, stylized hair.

Figure \(\PageIndex{51}\): Relief from the Column of Trajan, completed 113 CE, showing the bridge in the background and in the foreground Trajan is shown sacrificing by the Danube river. Carrara marble, Rome, Italy. (Photo: Gun Powder Ma, public domain)

Apollodorus of Damascus was a military engineer and architect who was active during the first quarter of the second century CE. He accompanied the emperor Trajan on his campaigns in Dacia and is famous for building a bridge across the Danube river that was both described by ancient authors and depicted in art. The relief from the Column of Trajan depicts the bridge in the background (see Figure \(\PageIndex{52}\)). Built c. 105 CE, the segmental arch bridge was the first across the lower Danube and allowed Roman soldiers to cross the river easily (see Figure \(\PageIndex{51}\)). Apollodorus, who is described as “the master-builder of the whole work” is credited with the project (Procopius, Buildings, 4.6.11-14; tr. H.B. Dewing). Upon return from the Dacian Wars, Apollodorus is thought to have been the architect behind the project that produced the Forum and Column of Trajan, as well as the adjacent markets. A textual tradition is preserved by Cassius Dio that has Apollodorus running afoul of (and being executed by) Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, although it is unclear whether credence should be given to this story (Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.4; tr. Cary).

Significance of the “construction unique under the heavens”

Figure \(\PageIndex{52}\): Vestigi delle antichita di Roma, Tiuoli, Pozzuolo et altri luochi, 1606 (Ægidio Sadeler engravings of reduced copies of Du Pérac’s Vestigi dell’antichità di Roma). Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (Photo: Getty Research Institute, public domain, CC0 1.0)

The Forum of Trajan earned a great deal of praise in antiquity—and it has been the focus of scholarly study perhaps since 1536 when Pope Paul III ordered the first clearing of the area around the base of the Column of Trajan (see Figure \(\PageIndex{52}\)). Paul III would then protect the column itself in 1546 by appointing a caretaker to look after it. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw various artists and architects produce renderings and plans of the forum and its monuments. Among the most famous of these are those of Dosio (c. 1569) and Etiénne Du Pérac (1575). In terms of public architecture in Imperial Rome, the Forum of Trajan complex is a crowning achievement in its vast monumentality. The execution of its sophisticated and elegant design surpassed all of its predecessors in the complex of forum spaces in the city. The value of vast public spaces in the city of Rome cannot be underestimated. For the average city dwellers accustomed to narrow, dim, crowded streets the soaring, the gleaming open space of the forum, bounded by elaborate architecture and sculpture, would have had a powerful psychological effect. The fact that the monuments glorified a revered leader also served to create and reinforce important ideological messages among the Romans. Overall the role of public architecture in the Roman city, and the Roman consciousness, is an important reminder of the ways in which Romans used built space to establish and perpetuate messages about identity and ideology.

The enduring ruins, in this case cleared initially by the excavations sponsored by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini, stand as strong, and stark, reminders of these Roman realities. Modern viewers still extract and reinforce ideas about identity based on looking at and visiting the ruins. Even with these ruins we still come away with an idea about Trajan’s greatness and his martial accomplishments. We might, then, judge the architectural program to be a great success—so successful that a great many of our own public monuments still operate on the basis of conventions established in antiquity.

---

Articles in this section:

• Julia Fischer, "Augustus of Primaporta," in Smarthistory, November 6, 2020.
• Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, "Ara Pacis Augustae," in Smarthistory, October 4, 2020/.
• Dr. Jessica Leay Ambler, "Roman wall painting styles," in Smarthistory, June 8, 2018.
• The British Museum, "Portrait of Vespasian," in Smarthistory, March 2, 2017.
• Dr. Bernard Frischer and Dr. Steven Zucker, "The Colosseum," in Smarthistory, July 19, 2020.
• Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, "The Forum and Markets of Trajan," in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015.