The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms Author(S): Jaś Elsner Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol

Home , 270s, Adventus (ceremony), Arch of Constantine, Basilica Ulpia, Baths of Caracalla, Via Sacra

From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms Author(s): Jaś Elsner Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 68 (2000), pp. 149-184 Published by: British School at Rome Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40311027 . Accessed: 25/11/2013 07:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Papers of the British School at Rome.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FROM THE CULTURE OF SPOLIA TO THE CULT OF RELICS: THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE AND THE GENESIS OF LATE ANTIQUE FORMS

THE MONUMENT

TheArch of Constantine (Figs 1 and2) has occupieda singularlycontroversial posi- tionin thehistoriography of Roman art, since the painter Raphael wrote a famous reporton antiquitiesfor Pope Leo X in about1519. In Raphael'swords:

Althoughliterature, sculpture, painting, and almostall theother arts had longbeen declining and had grownworse and worse until the time of the lastemperors, yet architecture was stillstudied and practised according to thegood rules and buildings were erected in the same style as before... Of thisthere are manyevidences: among others, the Arch of Constantine, whichis well designedand well builtas faras architectureis concerned. Butthe sculptures of the same arch are very feeble and destituteof all art andgood design. Those, however, that come from the spoils of Trajan and AntoninusPius are extremelyfine and done in perfectstyle.

TheArch, or moreparticularly the contrast of itsfourth-century sculpture with the spolia fromthe second century incorporated on it,has cometo signifythe onset of lateantiquity and the emergence of medievalstyles. In a rhetoricaltradition reach- ingback from Berenson in the1950s via Gibbonand Vasari to Raphaelhimself, the archhas beenthe paradigm for the study of stylisticdecline (Berenson (1954) with Eisner(1998), Gibbon(1776: 428), Vasari(1568: 224-5 {Proemiodelle Vite,5)) withHaskell (1993: 118-21)). Today,the notion of decline,and withit thevery practice of styleart history, arerather out of fashion (pace Spivey(1995)). As earlyas 1901,Riegl had attempted to rehabilitatethe Constantinian reliefs of theArch in a formalanalysis which accepted,their radical difference from earlier Roman images but attributed that styl- istictransformation to the emergence of what he calleda 'lateRoman Kunstwollen' (Riegl, 1901: chapter2 (= Riegl, 1985: 51-7, 77-8, 91-5, 101-2)).2Effectively, Rieglaccepted the formal differences, first signalled by Raphael,between the late antiquesculptures and theearlier spolia includedon theArch, but put them down notto thejudgmental (and in his view anachronistic)concept of declinebut rather

1 Raphael'sletter (translation: Goldwater and Trêves,1945: 74-5; Camesascaand Piazza, 1993: 257-322). The referenceto Pius is wrong:modern scholarship attributes the sculptural spolia to the reignsof Trajan,Hadrian and MarcusAurelius. Positive attitudes to theArch before Raphael's letter: 1993. Massini,2 On 'Kunstwollen':Olin, 1992: 129-53;Iversen, 1993: 71-90.

149

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 150 ELSNER

-g

1 !

ON (N

vO où ^

o£ ^. oc § < •£

'6 "o

I?o- £ II I c c iS c o U ^-i o

U-

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 151

"S 1 §■ 1 r-

to . - < .s

-C >« 3 S ^^

c(U c S C O U ^t-o

U-

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 152 ELSNER to a setof choicesgoverned by a newlate Roman aesthetics. Recentscholarship has soughtto reintegrate the sculpture of the Arch into the tra- ditionof Imperialstate reliefs set up in thecity of Rome.The reuseof spolia from monumentsoriginally dedicated by Trajan,Hadrian and MarcusAurelius has been analysedin terms of a specificallyConstantinian programme of Imperial propaganda:3 the of312 justifies his ofRome in a monumentded- usurpingconqueror4 appropriation icatedin 315, whichsimultaneously celebrates his victoriesover Maxentius in 312, hisdecennalia of 315 andthe new Constantinian golden age evokedin theimages of 'good' emperorsfrom the second century ad.5 Thisapproach is an importantcorrect- iveto the exaggerated rhetoric of stylistic decadence which characterized earlier literature(Kleiner, 1992: 454-5), and one can hardlydeny the ideological effect of the Arch'sprogramme of pro-Constantinian propaganda.6 But the risk of emphasizing the Arch'sessential continuity with the past (againstboth Riegl and theadherents of 'decline'(for example, Brilliant (1984: 122) andPierce (1989: 416))), is thatwe lose sightof thekey cultural insight embodied in Raphael'ssharp distinction of styles, whetherthis leads to the Berensonian lament over decline or a Riegliancelebration of earlymedieval form. That is, the Arch did precipitate a fundamental and radical set of changesin Romanvisual practice which the 'style merchants' may have identified in waysthat now seem outmoded and inappropriate, but which none the less did happen. Muchremains controversial about the monument.7 Indeed, every time a scaf- foldingis erectedto restorethe Arch, close visualanalysis persuades some that it was reallyerected earlier than Constantine - by Domitian,8for example, or by Hadrian,9or that even its apparently Constantinian sculpture is in factspolia (Wace, 1907;Knudsen, 1989; 1990).In additionto these debates, we needto remember that theArch is no longerin itsfinal state of completionin Constantiniantimes.10 It has

3 On thelate antique materials: L'Orange and von Gerkan, 1939. On theearlier sculpture: Trajanic - LeanderTouati, 1987; Kleiner, 1992: 220-3, 264; Hadrianic- Boatwright,1987: 190-202;Evers, 1991; Oppermann,1991; Turcan,1991; Kleiner,1992: 251-3, 265; Schmidt-Colinet,1996; Aurelian - Ryberg,1967; Angelicoussis,1984; Kleiner,1992: 288-95, 314. For a generalbibliography: De Maria,1988: 318-19. Photographs:Giuliano, 1956. Post-antique illustrations: Punzi, 1999. 4 Fordiscussion of the dates see Buttrey(1983: 375-80); pace Richardson(1975), whoargued for ad 325-6. 5 Forthe programme and ideology:Brilliant, 1984: 119-23;Pierce, 1989; Pensabene and Panella, 1993-4: 125-7. Fora cogentcritique of the view effectively assumed by L'Orange and his successors thatthe spolia ofthe Arch posit a 'particulardiplopia ... [that]postulates an idealviewer with historic- allyspecific knowledge', see Kinney(1995: 57). The ideologicalargument is notnecessarily opposed to thepragmatic case forthe reuse of older marblesas a exercise:Ward-Perkins, 1999: 227-33. 7 cost-cutting For discussionof the architecturesee WilsonJones (forthcoming) and of the archaeology Pensabeneand Panella( 1999). 8 Domitian:Frothingham (1912-15) opposedby Walton(1924) and L'Orangeand von Gerkan (1939: 4-28). 9 Hadrian:Melucco Vaccaro and Ferroni,1993^; Steiner,1994. This view has beenopposed by Pensabeneand Panella 174-5, 10 (1993-4: 217-20). On thearchaeological context: Panella, 1990; Panella et al, 1995.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 153 lostthe sculptures which once adornedits top (Magi, 1956-7),and ithas lostmost of thecoloured stones which were inlaid both round the Hadrianic tondi and in a now entirelyvanished frieze which ran all theway aroundthe top of the arch's middlesection beneath the cornice on whichthe attic storey stands.11 In thispaper, I explorethe cultural implications of theArch of Constantinein itsfourth-century context, to see ifwe can redefineits meanings and its innovations moreprecisely. I focuson twocentral aspects of theArch's construction: first, its functionas a collectionof spolia (and as a carefullydesigned object for the display ofspolia), and, second, the implicit meditation on thenature of history and the past embodiedin thejuxtaposition of objectsfrom different periods on a new,compos- ite,monument. What I haveto sayassumes inevitably that any lost materials would nothave transformedsubstantially the issues of spoliationand iconographywhich will be discussed.Also, I assumethat once theArch reached its finalstate under Constantineitconstituted a Constantinian monument, whatever the previous history of supposedearlier arches on thesite.

SPOLIA

Muchhas beenwritten about the incorporation within the Arch of Constantine- - alongsideits fourth-century friezes, arch-spandrels and pedestals offour portions of a greatfrieze celebrating Trajan, eight roundels from what was possiblya Hadrianichunting monument, and eight relief panels from a lostarch commemorat- ing MarcusAurelius. The Archis notthe first monument in Rome to use spolia. Enoughfragments survive from the Arcus Novus of Diocletian, erected in 293-4 on theVia Lata inRome (Laubscher, 1976; Koeppel, 1983: 79 and 102;Buttrey, 1983), to showthat it incorporated reliefs from a Claudianor possibly Antonine monument (thesenow beingin thefaçade of theVilla Medici in Rome) alongsidetetrarchie sculpture(including some pedestals subsequently removed to theBoboli Gardens in Florence)(De Maria, 1988: 312-14; Kleiner,1992: 409-13; Torelli, 1993b). Possiblyalso fromthe third century (though many have dated it to thefifth) are the remainsof theso-called 'Arco di Portogallo'(Torelli, 1993a), which incorporated second-centuryrelief panels, probably Hadrianic.12 Likewise, in architecture,the so- called 'templeof Romulus'erected on theVia Sacra by Maxentiusafter 307 used architecturalsculpture culled from a seriesof earlierbuildings (Cima, 1980).13The

11 Penabeneand Panella (1993^: 184, 191-2) havesuggested a friezeof green porphyry, but one mightalso envisagea smallfigurai opus sedile frieze.This was, afterall, thegreat age ofopus sedile in Rome,as demonstratedby the surviving panels from the Basilica of Junius Bassus fromthe 330s. 12 The fifth-centurydate was proposedby Stucchi(1949-50: 122) and repeatedby, for example, De Maria (1988: 325). Third-centurydates have been proposedby Bertolettiand La Rocca (1987: 21-32) (the250s) andTorelli (1992: 122-3) (the270s). Maxentiancontext: Cullhed, 1994: 45-67, esp.pp. 52-5. Pre-Constantinianarchitectural spolia: Pensabene,1993: 762-8; Pensabeneand Panella,1993^: 112-25.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 154 ELSNER

Archof Constantinecombines these two kindsof spolia - notonly the figurai reliefs,but also manyarchitectural elements such as capitals,bases, column shafts and entablature,are gatheredfrom previous monuments (Kahler, 1953: 28-36; De Maria,1988: 316; Pensabene,1988). None theless, while the Arch of Constantinewas notoriginal in constructing itsvisual and aesthetic messages in spolia, it was thebeginning of a veritableflood of spoliationin Constantine'sown reign,which was to createfundamentally new patternsin late antiqueand earlymedieval art.14 Even beforethe Arch was com- pleted,Constantine had begunthe constructionof the LateranBasilica in 313. Itsdouble side-aisles rested on green-speckledverde antico columns, while the red columnsof the nave itself were also spolia (Krautheimer,Corbett and Frazer, 1977: 64-5, 79-80; Pensabene,1993: 750-2; Pensabeneand Panella, 1993^: 127-8, 166-70). Most of thecolumn-shafts, bases, capitalsand entablaturesused in the buildingof SaintPeter's on theVatican Hill (319-24) appearto have beenspolia (Krautheimer,Corbett and Frazer, 1977: 237-8; Pensabene, 1993: 753-6; Pensabeneand Panella, 1993-4: 170-4). In Saint Peter's,even the six spiral columnswhich adorned the shrine of thesaint himself were explicitly recorded as beingbrought from the Greek east in thesixth-century Liber Pontifìcalis, a judg- mentmodern research has upheld (Ward-Perkins,1952; Toynbeeand Ward- Perkins,1956: 204-5; Nobiloni,1997).15 The habitof usingspolia forthe making of churchesrapidly became a standardmethod - as thefifth-century interiors of SantaMaria Maggiore,Santa Sabina and SantoStefano Rotondo in Rome amply attest(for example: Pensabene, 1995; Brandenburg,1996; Brenk,1996). However,the raiding of old stockrooms,dilapidated buildings and perhaps per- fectlyrepairable monuments in Romewas nothingcompared with the remarkable act of collecting via spoliation which accompanied the inaugurationof Constantinoplein the320s and330s. In thewords of SaintJerome, writing 60 years later,'Constantinople was dedicatedby the virtualdenuding of every city' (Chronicon314 (p. 232, Helm)).All kindsof antique statues - fromhonorific ded- ications(like thetetrarchs, now in Venice)to cultimages from pagan temples - were collectedfrom the citiesof the east and broughtto adornthe new capital (Mango, 1963: 55-9; GubertiBassett, 1991).16 According to Eusebius (Vita ConstantiniIII. 54):

14 On spolia in general:Esch, 1969; Deichmann,1975; Brenk,1987; Alchermes,1994; de Lachenal,1995; Poeschke,1996; Kinney,1997; Mathews,1999. On Constantinianspolia: Pensabene and 1993-4: 1997: 1999. Panella,15 125-37; Kinney,1995; 126-8; Pensabene, The relevantpassage fromthe Liber Pontificate is at theentry for Silvester 34. 16 (ed. T. Mommsen(Berlin, 1898), vol. 1,p. 57; ed. L. Duchesneand C. Vogel(Paris, 1955), vol. 1,p. 176;but givenas 34. 19 in ed. I. Forchielliand A.M. Strickler(Rome, 1978), vol. 2, p. 60). 16 Responsesto suchpagan monuments: Saradi-Mendelovici, 1990; James,1996. Spoliationin Byzantium:Saradi, 1997; spoliationin Rome:Strong, 1994: 19-20; Curran,1994.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 155

Proud statuesof brass were exposed to view in all thepublic places of the imperialcity. Here a Pythian,there a SminthianApollo excited the con- tempt of the beholder, while the Delphic tripods were erected in the Hippodrome and the Muses of Helicon in the palace. In short,the city which bore his name was everywherefilled with brazen statues of the most exquisite workmanship, which had been dedicated in every province,and which the deluded victimsof superstitionhad long vainly honouredas gods with numberlessvictims and burntsacrifices, though now at lengththey learned to thinkrightly, when the emperorheld up these veryplaythings to the ridiculeand sportof all beholders.

Whatis strikingis theparticular kind of antiquarianismby whicha distin- guishedclassical heritage was literallyamassed for Constantine's new city through objectsgathered and displayedwithin it. Throughoutthe followingcentury, em- perorsand their ministers (who avowed far more stringently anti-pagan policies than Constantine)continued to packthe city with antiquity's pagan masterpieces. By the latefifth century, a collection of 81 antiquestatues, mostly bronzes, had been gath- eredin theBaths of Zeuxippus.17In theearly years of thefifth century, Lausus, a seniorminister in thegovernment of TheodosiusII (406-50), assembleda spec- tacularcollection of ancientoriginals in his palace in Constantinople.Its gems includedPhidias's chryselephantine Olympian Zeus, removed after the suppression of theOlympic festival in 394, and Praxiteles'smarble Cnidian Aphrodite, as well as worksby Skillis,Dipoenus, Bupalus and Lysippus (Mango, Vickers and Francis, 1992;Guberti Bassett, 2000). Theseantiquities are not the same as thebulk of the Roman spolia, in thatthey were free-standingworks rather than architectural ornaments or reliefsculpture. But theArch of Constantineincluded a seriesof eightfree-standing Dacian prisoners(probably Trajanic) (Waelkens, 1985: 645, nos. 3-9), whichwere placed atop itsfour projecting columns on each of thelong sides (Fig. 3). The Dacian prisoners,like the antiquities gathered in Constantinople(in so faras we can reconstruct theirconditions of display),were divorced from their original contexts and made to serveentirely new fourth-centuryarchitectural settings and purposes.18All this spolia representsan urgeto turnto thematerial culture of thepast in orderto bol- sterthe present. The distinctionand authorityof a new dynastyand a new capital wereunderwritten by an intensevisual programme appealing to and rootedin the - past.In manyways this strategy is reminiscentof earlierImperial programmes suchas thepropaganda of Augustus - butin itswholesale and systematicuproot- ing of some of antiquity'smost venerable masterpieces, it was startlinglyinnov- ative.

17 See Christodorus,Palatine Anthology II, withGuberti Bassett (1996) who has statedthat Constantinehimself was responsiblefor the collection of thesestatues (491 and 505), whichis poss- iblebut not provable. 18 Packer(1997: I, 437-8) has arguedthat they were originally in theBasilica Ulpia.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 156 ELSNER

O 00 lit ëë* B "2 H ^ >>-5 ^ E >: cd cd -ç 11 1 lit So^ ag|C C -vj

ü O-3 03 - ^ III ■5

~~IIs •sis to £ -a g g « ° ë s ■g S.O ^Ië~~

~~rn ,- > o Ö .^~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 157~~

There is, however,one finalaspect of the culturalhistory of Constantiniancol- lectingwhich was ultimatelyto be by farthe most significantof Constantine'sin- novationsin thisfield. On his death on 22 May 337 (Fowden, 1993; Woods, 1997; Hunt, 1998: 1-2), Constantinewas laid to restin a lavish mausoleum describedat lengthby Eusebius (Vita ConstantiniIV. 58-60). Whetherthis building was a cruci- formchurch - the firstChurch of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople- or a mausoleum(circular or octagonal) of the kindtypically erected by the tetrarchsand lateremperors in thefirst half of thefourth century,19 has been an issue of debate for nearly a century(Heisenberg, 1908; Krautheimer,1971; Dagron, 1974: 401-8; Mango, 1990a: esp. 53^; Leeb, 1992: 93-120; Cameron and Hall, 1999: 337-8). What is significantare Constantine's intended companions in this tomb (Vita ConstantiniIV. 60):

Such were the emperor'sofferings with a view to makingeternal the memoryof the Lord's apostles. He was,however, pursuing this construc- tionwith another purpose in mind,which escaped notice at firstand only laterbecame evident to everyone.For he reservedfor himself that spot for suchtime as was appointedfor his own demise,providing in advancein thesurpassing eagerness of his faith,that after his deathhis bodyshould sharein the invocation of the apostles with a viewto benefiting, even after hisdemise, from the prayers that were going to be offeredhere in honour ofthe apostles. For which reason he ordainedthat services should also be performedhere, having set up an altar-tablein the middle.Indeed, he erected12 coffins(Gtikocc) - as itwere sacred statues - in honourand resemblanceof theapostolic choir and placed in themiddle of themhis ownsarcophagus, on eitherside of which stood six ofthe twelve apostles. Such,then, as I havesaid, was hispurpose, conceived with a sobermind, as regardsthe place where,after his death,his body was to reposein dec- orousfashion.

This passage is sufficientlyobscure to have engenderednumerous debates aboutConstantine's intentions and the mausoleum's final form. Apart from emphas- izingthe emperor's piety, Eusebius has lefta hostof issueswhich can be interpret- ed in severalways. Was thesite originally conceived as a memorialfor the apostles (as Eusebiusimplies) or forthe emperor? Was thebuilding a mausoleumunusually equippedalso to be a church?Or was it a churchunusually designed to be also a mausoleum?And whaton earthare thetwelve coffins which were somehow also twelvestatues? Since the Churchof the Holy Apostles(substantially rebuilt by Justinianin thesixth century) was razedto theground by Mehmetthe Conqueror whenhe used the site for the erection of the Fatih Mosque in 1462,the complete lack of archaeologicalevidence hardly helps. But it is abundantlyclear that Constantine

19 For example,the mausolea of Diocletianat Split,Galerius at Gamzigradand Thessalonike, Maxentiuson theVia Appia outsideRome, Helena on theVia Labicana,Santa Costanza on theVia Nomentanaand Centcellesin Taragona.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 158 ELSNER was buriedas thethirteenth apostle in a sacredshrine constructed also to commem- oratethe twelve apostles, each ofwhom was builta tomb. As controversialas thequestions surrounding the building is thedate for the translationof apostolicremains to the tombs. 21 June 336 (that is, during Constantine'slifetime) and 3 March357 or 360 (thatis, duringthe reign of his son, ConstantiusII) are attestedby fourth-centurysources for the bringing of therelics of SaintsAndrew and Luke to Constantinople(Mango, 1990b; Woods, 1991). Howeverthis conundrum is tobe resolved,what is againclear is thatsometime after the erectionof the emptyapostolic tombs (and possiblyvery soon after,during Constantine'sown lifetime) they began to be filledwith a newkind of spolia whose significanceas a modelfor medieval patterns of piety can hardlybe overrated.20By theend of thefourth century and throughout the fifth, emperors and bishops would vie in an intensecompetition for the bones of what have been called 'thevery spe- cial dead' (Brown, 1981: 69): The cult of relics- apparentlyinaugurated in Constantine'slater years - was alreadyin fullflood.21 I wantto suggestthat, in thedevelopment of Constantiniancollecting and display,the Arch of Constantine was thefirst step in a setof experiments which would ultimatelyresult in the Holy Apostles. Unlike the earlier collecting of emperors such as Hadrianor theSeverans (exemplified in thesurviving sculptures from the Villa at Tivoli(Raeder, 1983) andthe Baths of Caracalla(Marvin, 1983; DeLaine, 1997: 265-7)), theArch of Constantine was a collectionof earlier originals, not of copies. In this,as I haveremarked, itwas anticipatedby the Arcus Novus of Diocletian and emulatedby the statuesin Constantinople.But the archdiffers from the Arcus Novusin focusingspecifically on theportrait reliefs of earlier emperors, into whose bodiesConstantine's own head was reçut(see, forexample, Figs 4-6 and,below, Fig. 8). Whilewe cannotreconstruct the programme of Diocletian's arch, there is no doubtthat the Arch of Constantine has a singularlyimperial theme (in contrastto the themesof victoryand triumphparaded in theother surviving arches in Rome- thoseof Titusand SeptimiusSeverus). Unlike the other arches, Constantine's Arch focuseson theiconic doings of emperors- hunting,dispensing justice, addressing thepopulace, entering cities, distributing largitio, even performing the act of sacrifice- andemphasizes the historic antiquity of such activities through looking back to earlieremperors. In effect,the Arch of Constantinecollects around the emperor theimages of his own distinguished predecessors into whose very forms he hasbeen mergedby replacingtheir features with his own.

20 Constantineseems responsible also forthe translation of Lucianof Antiochin 327 or 328 to Drepanumin Bithynia- thebirthplace of his mother, which was renamedHelenopolis in herhonour: ChroniconPaschale I 527 Bonn;Barnes, 1981: 221; Maraval,1985: 367; Pohlsander,1995: 3. In the last monthof his life,Constantine went to praythere before dying at Nicomedia:Eusebius Vita ConstantiniIV. 61; Barnes,1981: 259; Pohlsander,1995: 22. 21 Cultof the saints: Delehaye, 1912: 60-119; 1927: 196-207; 1930;Brown, 1981. On therise of translationafter 350: Mango,1990a: 51-2, 60-1. Pilgrimage:Körting, 1950: 330-42.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 159~~

Fig.4. TheArch of Constantine. Detail of the head of Constantine (reçut from a headof Trajan) from thesection of the great Trajanic frieze on thewest wall of the passageway in thecentral opening. Photo: DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 82.1106. (Reproduced courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

By the end of the 330s - afterthe dedicationof Constantinople,after the Councilof Nicaea andthe firm establishment of Christianityas thepreferred (if not yetthe only exclusive) imperial cult - Constantine'smausoleum reformulated the tropesof visualrhetoric we findon theRoman arch in Christianterms. By appro- priatingthe images of thesaints rather than those of theemperors, instead of his imperialpredecessors, Constantine inaugurated the collection of his apostolicfore- fathers.Whether he was himselfresponsible for the first translation of relicsto the tombsset up inthe mausoleum, or whether it was hisson, is less significantthan the factthat the tombs were prepared and thattheir space was the space of his own entombment.Christianity had no spolia, no visual or architecturalremains, to be culledfrom the places of its scripturalpast. Its onlyspolia werethe bones of its

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 160 ELSNER~~

Fig.5. TheArch of Constantine. Detail of the head of Constantine (reçut from a headof Trajan) from thesection of the great Trajanic frieze on theeast wall of thepassageway in thecentral opening. Photo: DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 32.51.(Reproduced courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

dead.Where the Arch of Constantine embedded the emperor's image in the midst of hischosen imperial antecedents, the mausoleum placed his body within a collection ofinfinitely more significant ancestors - at leastfor anyone who professed the faith ofJesus Christ. Theadaptation of the culture of spolia to the cult of relics was a brilliantand dar- ingleap. Its spectaculareffect may be seen in therate at whichlate fourth-century bishopslike Ambrose of Milanor Damasusof Romediscovered the bodies of lost martyrsand used their bones in thefounding of churches(Ambrose: McLynn, 1994:

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 161~~

Fig. 6. The Archof Constantine.Detail of thehead of Constantine(reçut from a headof Hadrian) fromthe Hadrianic medallion showing a boarhunt, on theeastern end of thenorth front (for the wholeview, see Fig. 1) . Photo:DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 32.36. (Reproducedcourtesy of the DeutschesArchäologisches Institut, Rome)

211-17,230-5, 347-50,363-4; Damasus:Pietri, 1976: 529-57; Charlet,Guyon and Cadetti,1986). Its politics in the Holy Apostles were as potentas thoseof the Arch of Constantinein 315. Whilethe arch had attempted to justify the rightful succession of a conquerorin a cityhe hadjust taken by force, the mausoleum affirmed for all to see that- whateverambivalences of religious policy the long years of Constantinian gov- ernmenthad displayed - theemperor's final position (and, still more significant, that ofhis heirs, who oversaw his burial) lay unambiguously with Christianity. But, as in thecase ofthe Arch, the immediate politics are much less significantthan the cultur-

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 162 ELSNER al impactof thesemonuments' creation and continuedexistence. The archhelped to establishan aestheticof spolia which has been of the essence not only to medieval art ingeneral but to successiverefurbishments ofthe city of Rome itself. The mausoleum tookthis antiquarianism of materialobjects and appliedit (by 360 at thevery latest) tothe excavation and display of saintly bodies. Both monuments were concerned with thecollecting and displayof originals- whetheroriginal sculptures or authentic bones.In one senseboth were very much of theirtime, rather than ahead of it,since theirsis ultimatelyconceived as a cultureof wholeremains (complete sculptural panelsor tondi,whole bodies of importantsaints). Very rapidly, both the culling of spolia and thecult of relicswould become a cultureof fragmentsas (in bothcases) demandswiftly came to exceedsupply.

Fig. 7. TheArch of Constantine. Detail of thehead of a tetrarch(reçut from a headof Hadrian)from theHadrianic medallion showing a sacrificeto Apollo, on theeastern side of thenorth front. Photo: DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 32.39. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 163~~

~~PAST AND PRESENT~~

Letus examinemore carefully the juxtaposition of reliefs from different periods on theArch of Constantine.It is thisconfrontation of objects which has alwaysocca- sionedthe principal debate - whetherto reflecton issuesof style(for example - L'Orangeand von Gerkan,1939: 192-219; Berenson,1954; Kitzinger,1977: 7-9, 15-16; Strong,1988: 276-8), or on questionsof propagandaand ideology(for example- Pierce,1989; Ruysschaert, 1962-3). With the possible exception of the eightDacian prisoners,none of thereused spolia on thearch was installedin the fourthcentury without modifications (Hannestad, 1994: 59-63 (Hadrianictondi), 86-92 (Trajanicfrieze)). In particular,the imperial heads were reçut (von Sydow, 1969:23-5; Rohmann,1998: 265-7): Trajanto becomeConstantine (Figs 4 and 5) (LeanderTouati, 1987: 91-5; Koeppel,1985: 174 (no. 13), 179 (no. 49)), Hadrian to representConstantine and one othertetrarch - whetherhis co-emperorLicinius (whomhe eventuallyoverthrew in 324) or his fatherConstantius Chlorus has been muchdebated (Figs 6 and 7).22The heads of MarcusAurelius, reçut or possibly replacedin the fourthcentury (probably by heads of Constantine)(Stuart Jones, 1906: 251-2), wererestored in 1732 (see Fig. 3).23In effect,all thespolia were markedas contemporaryin the fourth century by the insertion of Constantine 's fea- turesand possibly those of his deifiedfather into the bodies of earlieremperors (cf. Kinney,1995: 57-8). Whateverqualms criticshave feltabout the styleof the Constantinianfriezes, there is littledoubt about the excellent quality of thesereçut heads.24The act ofmaking venerable works from the past contemporary by chang- ingthe portraits was notin itselfnew in theRoman world (Blanck, 1969).25 But the archdevelops this practice by making it a systematicand coherent feature of the aestheticof a complexpublic monument. The effect is to compresstime, so thatthe past - theeras of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus - becomesassimilated into the present. Thespolia, all incorporatedinto the upper levels of the arch (except for the two panelsfrom the Trajanic frieze which occupy the central passageway, Fig. 8), are

22 Generally:Evers, 1991: 786-93. For Licinius:L'Orange and von Gerkan,1939: 165-7; Berenson,1954: 48, 54; L'Orange,1984: 40-9, 116-17;Kleiner, 1992: 446; Rohmann,1998: 263-73. ForConstantius Chlorus (instead of Licinius): Calza, 1959-60: 145-54;Ruysschaert, 1962-3: 81; von Sydow,1969: 24-5; Boatwright,1987: 194; Pierce,1989: 412; Evers,1991: 790; Turcan,1991: 56. I findthe arguments in favourof Liciniusweak and thosefor Constantius stronger though not com- pelling.If Smith(1997) has identifiedthe portrait of Liciniuscorrectly, then the Licinius hypothesis forthe Arch of Constantinemust finally be laid to rest. Accordingto thesculptor Pietro Bracci, the eighteenth-century heads (now in situ)represent Constantineand not Trajan, as reportedwrongly by Angelicoussis (1984: 142),Kleiner (1992: 288) and Capodiferro(1993).See Gradara,1918: 161. - 'Superb'- Hannestad(1994: 92); 'almostworthy of thebest Attic traditions'(l) Berenson (1954:25 55-7). The archetypalcase is theColossus of Nero,which appears to have been reçut(or at least rededicated)with some frequency: Lega, 1989-90(with a repertoryof sourcespp. 364-8); Bergmann, 1994:7-17.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 164 ELSNER~~

~~C/5 x: #ç2~~

~~où. S -~~

~~"c3 c j to JH< S "a» sis~~

~~c ^ oh 2* ûûZ \" ^ tn • C 08 - (U OÙ oû'u-~~

~~O T3 - C~~

~~co i f-s-s V u e «*-x:~~

~~-ilo o c <*§ ^ 3 § «'S~~

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 165 presentedas a seriesof discreteicons. Each panelof the spolia evokesa canonical, evena normative,activity associated with emperorship. Together, they represent a visualsynopsis of the emperor's role as envisagedin thepublic sphere, grounded in theheritage of the glorious imperial past. In theattic storey are the Aurelian panels. These show,on thenorth side fromleft to right,scenes of adventus,profectio, lib- eraUtas and thedispensing of justice; on thesouth side, the presentation of a bar- barianprince to the Roman army (Fig. 3), thegranting of clemency to prisoners (Fig. 3), theemperor addressing his troops(adlocutio) and theritual purification of the armyby sacrifice (lustratio) (Angelicoussis, 1984: 145-58;Koeppel, 1986: 56-75). The orderfollows no particularnarrative sequence and bearsno obviousor recov- erablerelationship to theoriginal monument on whichthese reliefs were displayed. Below theattic, above the two smaller arches on eitherside ofthe central opening, are theeight Hadrianic tondi representing scenes of huntingand sacrifice.These were embeddedin a thinveneer of porphyry(Turcan, 1991: 53; Pensabeneand Panella,1993^: 184; MeluccoVaccaro and Ferroni,1993-4: 29), whichprovided a purpleground for the imperial action displayed. The twoshort sides of the arch boasted large panels from the Trajanic frieze in theattic, both showing scenes of fighting between Romans and Dacians, and below thesea Constantiniantondo on each side (imitatingthe Hadrianic tondi of thelong sides) showingthe rising sun on theeast and thesetting moon on thewest (Figs 9 and 10). In the centralpassageway are two sectionsof the Trajanicfrieze with imagesof theemperor (his head recarvedas Constantine)victorious over the barbarians.Above thesescenes, respectively on theeastern and westernsides of the bay,are theConstantinian inscriptions FUNDATORI QUIETIS and LIBERATORI URBIS (see Fig. 8) (L'Orangeand von Gerkan,1939: 187; Giuliano,1956: 8).26 - By contrastwith what I havedescribed as theiconic quality of these images all sufficientlyremoved from their original display and the time of their first cutting - tohave acquired a heroicaura, symbolic of what it meant to be an emperor is the Constantinianfrieze (L'Orange and von Gerkan,1939: 34-102; Koeppel, 1990: 38-64). Thisis a narrativereading around the Arch, from west via southand east to thenorth side, which represents, in fairlygeneral terms, Constantine's advance from Milan(Fig. 9), theseige of Verona, the battle of theMilvian Bridge, the emperor's victoriousentry into Rome (Fig. 10) andhis subsequent activities in the city, includ- ingan adlocutioto thepeople from the rostra in theRoman forum and a liberalitas. Whatseems aesthetically the odd choice of havingthe frieze spill overthe end- cornersof thearch, beyond the last projecting pilaster on each of thelong sides, is

26 - It is a sad reflectionon thescholarship of the Arch of Constantine that the inscriptions surely oneuncontroversial feature of the Arch's structure and decoration - so oftenhave been reported wrong- ly,especially in theEnglish literature. Pierce (1989: 411) and Iacopi (1977: 5) have turnedthe dative intoa nominative(and henceturned Constantine from being the recipient of the Arch into its initiator). Kleiner(1992: 444) andBrilliant (1984: 122) havegiven completely inexplicable variations.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 166 ELSNER~~

~~C ^~~

~~S -a ci: -^ II l'I §1 I"! §^ §1 |Q .s cl ^ >^' 'S ^ ^- ? 0 ^ c -^ O ^j~~

~~gè .£ ^ c ^~~

~~§ g> Uz~~

~~1 ë •S c^ 2 < £Q « 2~~

~~C3 O to «t i a «a~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 167~~

~~•S ~ où £ II~~

~~c £ 'c g~~

~~«31~~

~~ox) cb C 0)~~

~~JZ £~~

~~'s g^E ^ là!c «-•os 11!~~

~~c •2 to~~

~~IlC/3~~

~~2 § c a. O D. U ^ o| 11~~

~~Ö o ^-~~

~~LJU S~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 168 ELSNER~~

Fig. 11. The Archof Constantine.Detail of thenortheast corner, showing the eastern frieze (Constantine'sapproach to Rome)turning the corner on to thenorth front. Photo: DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 5636. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

an effectivevisual marker of thecontinuity of thefrieze's narrative action around thearch (Brilliant, 1984: 121; Pierce,1989: 414; Koeppel,1990: 40, 43, 52, 56), by contrastwith the self-contained icons above (Figs 11-14).That continuity both ges- turesto thespecific historical narrative related by the frieze (Constantine 's defeat of Maxentius)and undercuts this story by continuing back to thebeginning again. The northface of the arch contains both the beginning and the end of the frieze's narrative. In fact,history was to provethe frieze correct: after the triumphant entry into Rome,there would indeed be anotherprofectio, another set of sieges and battles and

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 169~~

Fig. 12. TheArch of Constantine.Detail of theConstantinian frieze at theeast end of thenorth front, showingthe two leading soldiers of Constantine'sarmy approaching the city of Rome. Photo:DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 32.46. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

finallythe overthrowing of Licinius." For mypurposes, in relatingthe artistic dynamics of thearch to a lateantique cultureof spoliationwhich was to findits most developed expression in thecult of relics,what is significantis therelation of past and present in thiscareful set of jux- tapositionsand recuttingsof theArch's sculptures. Their meaning is not in any respectChristian, although a goodcase has beenmade for the workshop involved in carvingthe friezebeing responsiblefor both Christianand pagan sarcophagi

~~27 The generaland timeless quality of the frieze is welldescribed by Richardson(1975), thoughin aid of a mistakenview of thedate.~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 170 ELSNER~~

Fig. 13. The Archof Constantine.Detail of thenorthwest corner, showing the opening of thewest- ernfrieze (the advance from Milan) at thewest end of thenorth front. Photo: DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 5642. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

(L'Orangeand von Gerkan,1939: 219-29; Brandenburg,1981: 71-4). Butthere is a parallelwith Christian typological pairings of Old and New Testamentscenes in thepresentation of a Constantiniannarrative of victoryagainst the backdrop of the gloriousdeeds of earlieremperors, in particularTrajan, and theiconic actions of Marcusand Hadrianin fulfillingthe imperial role (Malbon, 1990: 150-1; Eisner, 1995:280). Letus examinesome of the effects of this visual compression of past and pres- entby lookingat thetotal effect of thesculptural display on, forexample, the two shortersides of the Arch. This has hardlybeen attempted, since scholarship has been concernedmore to discussthe different elements of spolia accordingto theirsup- posedoriginal interrelations and provenances than to elucidatethe setting which the

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 171~~

Fig. 14. The Archof Constantine.Detail of theConstantinian frieze at thewest end of thenorth front,showing the last two soldiers of Constantine'sarmy leaving Milan. Photo:DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 32. 45. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

~~Senate'sdesigners chose forthem in celebrationof Constantine.28The west side (Fig. 15) has, at its centre,the Constantinian medallion of thesetting moon with,~~

2S I am conscioushere that I am imputingintention to both the Arch's programme and to the Senate as itsinaugurators. Both these assumptions might be criticized(Kinney, 1995: 57); but(at leastin the case ofthe dedicators) it seems perverse to deny the Senate a roleproclaimed loudly by the Arch's main atticinscription and impliedalso in thedatives of thepassageway inscriptions. The Arch'spropa- ganda,therefore, represents not Constantine justifying himself (as suggestedby, for example, Brenk (1987: 105) and Pierce(1989: 388, 391, 415)) but ratherthe Senatepresenting their new emperorwith a visualprogramme that constructs him in theway they hoped he wouldturn out. This allows the Arch to appearas a highlytraditional Senatorial monument (like theAra Pacis) withthe emperor as recipient ofexternally bestowed honours. Of course,the placing of the Arch at theendpoint of Maxentius's great buildingprogramme to the east of the forum (on whichsee Cullhed(1994: 49-55)) allowsit to cap and makeConstantinian the whole Maxentian project.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 ELSNER immediatelybelow, the inaugurationof the fourth-centuryfrieze showing the emperorand his armyleaving Milan forthe war againstMaxentius (see Fig. 9). Above,in theattic, a fragmentfrom the great Trajanic frieze sets the Constantinian war in the historicalcontext of a virtuallyendless cycle of imperialwarfare (as endless,in the context of official art in the city of Rome,as thehelical friezes on the columnsof Trajanand Marcus).On eitherside of theattic storey are settwo of the free-standingdefeated Dacians (perhapsoriginally from Trajan's forum), while on thebases of thepilasters on each side of thebottom of thewestern end of thearch are two fourth-centuryscenes of defeatedenemies (male and female)between Romanvictory standards.

Fig. 15. The Archof Constantine.General view of thewest front (for detail of thecentral section, see Fig. 9). Photo:DAI, Rome,Inst. Neg. 38. 701. (Reproducedcourtesy of the Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut, Rome)

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 173~~

The sculpturalimagery on themain body of the west end is thusframed at each cornerof the longitudinal field by an imageof imperial triumph over barbarians. The specificinauguration of Constantine'scampaign to overthrowMaxentius, and its settingin parallelwith Trajan's Dacian Wars,is valorizedby thebroader picture of Romanimperialism - theconquest and maintenanceof theprovinces - thatis implicitlymade possible by such hard but responsible choices as thatof Constantine to make civil war againstwhat the Arch's attic inscription{CIL LXI 1139: Grünewald,1990: 78-86; Hall, 1998;Kuttner, forthcoming) - repeated in the centre of boththe longersides - describesas 'tyranny'.The dangerto the state,to Constantine,even the defeat of Rome,are fore-shadowedby theimage of theset- tingmoon - whichserves also to set thehistorical theme within a cosmological dispensation. By thetime the viewer reaches the eastern side (assuming a progressround the Archwhich follows the directional injunctions of thefrieze), after the victorious battlesof the southern friezes, the theme is unalloyedtriumph. In theConstantinian frieze, the army marches triumphantlytowards Rome in preparationfor Constantine'sadventus into the city, while the rising sun and a torch-bearinggenius flyabove in the tondo (Fig. 10). Thetheme of sunny victory is echoedin the Trajanic sceneson theattic, showing Roman troops blowing trumpets and gallopingover fallenbarbarians. Again the four corners of the visual field are framed by the image ofdefeated Dacians at thetop and conquered provincials on eitherside ofa Roman standardbelow. Implicitly, the civil war has becomea greatvictory over Rome's enemies,with the visual emphasis significantly turning on foreignenemies. Withinthis typological programme of savingthe state, the choice to reçutthe imperialheads of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus as portraitsof Constantine(and perhaps his father)signals a significantbreak with previous patterns of recutting (Figs4-7). Theelimination of an emperor'sportrait often signalled an actof damnatiomemoriae (Vittinghoff, 1936; Pekary, 1985: 134-42; Stewart,1999), in whicha Domitian,Nero or Commoduswas madeto vanish,in whatmight be describedas theancient equivalent of airbrushing!29Such removals can be seen,for instance, in the Cancellariareliefs (Koeppel, 1984: 24, 29-30; Bergmannand Zanker,1981: 388-9),where Nerva replaces Domitian, or the triumph panel of Marcus Aurelius in theMuseo Conservatori,where Commodus has been removedand reçutinto an extensionof the temple in thebackground (Koeppel, 1986: 50-2). UnderCaracalla, thistraditional attempt to makethe absence of a figurevanish was replacedby the - use of a violentlyempty space signallingthe total eradication of the condemned as witnessedby the gouged-out hollows replacing the images of Caracalla's brother Geta,his wife Plautilla and his father-in-law Plautianus on theGate of the Argentarii in Rome(Haynes and Hirst, 1939: 20-3).

~~29 Fordiscussion of the effects of thison survivingimages: Bergmann and Zanker, 1981; Pollini, 1984;Born and Stemmer,1996: 101-17.~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 174 ELSNER~~

Butthe recuttings on theArch of Constantinereverse these patterns in several ways.Firstly, the reçut panels are not left in situ, as weremost major recuttings fol- lowingdamnatio memoriae, such as theColossus of Nero or theArgentarii reliefs. Secondly,the act of recuttingin thecase of theArch of Constantinerepresents not a rejectionof theseprevious emperors (who in facttopped the list of good rulers) butrather a bolsteringand elevatingof Constantinethrough literally putting him in theirshoes.30 In effect,as theArch searches for methods of creatinga typological relationshipbetween Constantine, the fourth-century usurping conqueror, and his greatsecond-century predecessors, it does so by simultaneouslyexploiting and transformingtime-honoured patterns of Romanimage-making. The reçuthead - forcenturies a signal of the condemnationof the figurewhose face has been destroyed- nowbecomes a markof honour for the emperor whose face has been inserted,in part because of the praiseworthy body into which his head has beenput. In this,the reliefsof the arch emulatetraditions of the honorificreuse of statues(Blanck, 1969; Jucker, 1981 (on an earlierperiod)), as well as theleaving of unfinishedheads and thelater insertion of portraitheads into mythological scenes commonin non-imperialRoman art (Huskinson, 1998), for example on sarcophagi likethe splendid Ludovisi sarcophagus now in thePalazzo Altempsin Rome(L. de 31 Lachenalin Giuliano,1983: 56-67). Here a mythologicalor a battlescene of a fairlystandardized type has theportrait of the deceased inserted in thefigure of the mainprotagonist - who is simultaneouslycommemorated through his portrait and elevatedby virtueof thegrand military or mythicalnarrative in whichhe figures. This strategy,extremely common in Romanart generally, is rarelyattested in pub- lic imperialart, though Pliny recorded the case of twopaintings of Alexanderby Apelles,brought to Romeby Augustus and displayed'in themost frequented parts of his forum',in whichClaudius substituted the portrait of Augustus for Apelles's headof Alexander (Pliny, Natural History 35. 36.94). Effectively,the reliefs of the Archof Constantineclothe the emperor in thevirtually mythologized deeds of his Romanforebears - as the Ludovisiyouth is clothedin thegrandeur of Roman victoryand Claudius'sAugustus was clothedin the frame- bothaesthetic and myth-historical- of Apelles's Alexander. Therecuttings of the reused reliefs on theArch posit a novelkind of visual pro- pagandawhich is bothutterly traditional in itstreatments of earlierimagery and at

30 Here I differfrom Kinney (1997: 146) who has insistedthat 'recutting literally effaced ... ori- ginalreferents. Claudius with the face and name of Diocletian was Diocletian.Trajan with the face and epithetsof Constantinewas Constantine'.The problemwith this position - whichaffirms the tradi- tionalattitude to imperialdamnatio memoriae upheld not only in first-and second-century objects, but also in numeroustexts - is thatthe recuttingof faces on theArch of Constantine(and its third- centurypredecessors) was notan exampleof damnatio.That the visual language of damnatioshould have been appropriatedto imperialpraise in theArch is perhapsevidence that, as in thecase of the Colossusof Nero, the original referent was in factnever whollv effaced. The frequentattempts to identifythe portrait inevitably have been central to the arguments about dating,but a datein thesecond half of thethird century is agreedgenerally.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 175 thesame time radically new. The methodsof damnatiomemoriae (as practisedin thefirst and secondcenturies rather than under the Severans) are used, but without thecondemnatory intentions. The highly traditional practice of adding portrait heads to bodies engagedin militaryor mythicalnarratives (or to statuetypes like Doryphorusor the athletes) is againpressed into service, but with the revolutionary twistthat it is earlierstate reliefs of previous'good' emperorswhich provide the mythicalcontext into which Constantine 's image is cut.32

~~CULTURAL CONTEXT~~

The visual strategiesof theArch of Constantinewere hardly isolated within late Romanculture. Strikingly, the Arch's aesthetic of bricolage- its syncretismof fragmentsfrom different periods and stylesas thebasis of a newmonument which - putsa certaininterpretative onus on itsviewers reflectssimilar patterns in late antiquepoetry (Roberts, 1989: 66-121; Miller,1998). The figurativepoems of Optatian,for instance, whom Constantine made Prefect of Rome in 329 and again in 333,are so writtenthat certain letters, highlighted in red,form a geometricalpat- ternwhose sequencemakes syntactical and semanticsense and readsas a poem withina poem (Levitan,1985: 254-63; Miller,1998: 123-6). Like theHadrianic - medallionsand theAurelian panels, not to speak of the Constantinianfrieze whoseformal and stylistic affinities mark them as particulargroups within the over- all visualprogramme of the Arch with their own specific narratives (of huntingand sacrifice,of traditionalimperial triumph and of the Constantinianconquest of Rome)- one ofOptatian's patterns, while formally segregated from the rest of his poem,functions both within the largerpoem's contextand separately.Just as a knowingviewer might choose to read theiconography of Trajanor Marcus,say, againstthe pro-Constantinianinterpretation of positive historical precedent (and hencesee Constantineas a usurper,for example), so Optatian'sreaders could choose to interpretthe figurai poem either in harmonywith the larger poem or againstit. WhileOptatian does not play on thepast thematically, he nonethe less developsthe fundamentaltraditions of Latin verse to radicallynew ends (Levitan, 1985: 168-9), justas thearch makes considerable innovations out of the most traditional practices ofRoman art.

32 It maybe thatsomething of thenovelty of theserecuttings on theArch of Constantineand its predecessors,the Arco di Portogalloand the Arcus Novus, was presagedin third-centuryimperial statu- ary.A colossalnude in Naples(Museo Nazionale5993) appearsto representSeverus Alexander reçut fromElagabalus. In thiscase, although Elagabalus had suffereddamnatio memoriae, it is also truethat Alexanderwas his adoptedson andheir. The statuecan thusbe readas botheffacing the memory of a hatedpredecessor (the traditional use ofrecutting in imperialart) and as a newkind of filialgenuflec- tionto a deceasedancestor (anticipating the much more developed typological use of recuttingon the Archof Constantine):Fittschen and Zanker, 1970.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 ELSNER~~

Meanwhile,poets frombefore the end of the thirdcentury, exploiting the verbalquarry of the past, ransacked the canonical works of Homer and Virgil to create centosin Greekand Latin- new works(often but not invariablyon Christian themes)made up entirelyfrom the classic lineswritten by thehallowed masters (Crusius,1899; Lamacchia,1984; Gärtnerand Liebermann,1997; Hoch, 1997: 1-^42;Usher, 1998). While Ausonius's spectacular description of sexualintercourse (entirelyin juxtaposedlines of Vergil)may hardlycompare with the sobrietyof Trajan,Hadrian and Marcus transformedinto Constantine(let alone Proba's retellingof theBible in Virgiliancentos!), the aesthetic of appropriationand trans- formedmeaning is an ironicversion of the same process.33 Such centos could again be readon (at least)two levels: as narrativepoems in theirown right and as clever 'cut-and-paste'jobs, playingwith the canon. Again, the parallels with the Arch are obvious- notonly on theformal level of reuseof spolia andmaking a newwork of art,but also on themore complex interpretative level of offeringreaders and viewersdifferent positions and possibilities for exegesis, whose thrust could not be whollycontrolled by the arch's makers. On themore thematic level, philosophers, grammarians and bishopsvied to reinterpretthe substanceof Homerand Virgil(for example:Lamberton, 1986: 144-232;1992; MacCormack, 1998: 1-88). Constantinehimself gave a sermonpre- sentingthe Messianicchild of Virgil'sFourth Eclogue as Christ(Benko, 1980: 671-2; Lane Fox, 1986: 649-52; MacCormack,1998: 23-7). Thiskind of typological exegesis- muchmore commonly of courseemployed to show how Old Testamentthemes prefigured the events of the New Testament- underliesthe great floweringof visualtypology in theChristian arts of thethird and fourthcenturies (Schrenk,1995; Eisner,1995: 271-87). Like thetypology of theArch, the use of scenes- suchas Jonah'sencounter with the whale or the sacrifice of Isaac to fore- shadowthe Christian narrative of Jesus 's Resurrection- conflatedpast and present, anddisplayed the past only in so faras thepast is validatedby, fulfilled in andmade meaningfulthrough the present. While the Arch's typological imagery had no overt exegeticunderpinning in a canonicaltext such as scriptureor evenVirgil's poetry, theheroic precedent of previousimperial example was a stapleof fourth-century historyand panegyric{Historia Augusta Elagabalus 1. 1-2, Claudius2. 3, 18. 4, Aurelian42. 4, Tacitus6. 9; PanegyriciLatini IL 4.5, 11.6,IV 24.6 (withNixon (1990: 30-3)). These fourth-centurymodels of verbalor visualjuxtaposition - variously describedas an 'aestheticof discontinuity'(Roberts, 1989: 61), 'theproduction of meaningby fragmentation'(Miller, 1998: 188) and theproduct of 'a remarkably paratacticimagination' (Miller, 1998: 199) - have a resonancewith the cult of relics(Miller, 1998: 123, 126, 130-3), 'a 'cult' betterdescribed as an aesthetic'

~~33 Ausonius:Nugent, 1990: 37^1; Malamud,1989: 35-9; Slavitt,1998: 47-75 (fora brilliant translationinto a Shakespeareancento); Proba: Clark and Hatch,1981.~~

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 177~~

(Miller,1998: 123). For relics,the fragments of once wholebodies, possessed by synecdochethe active, even magical, power of the whole in thepart. They belonged to thepast but were assimilated to presentneeds - in liturgy,in churchbuilding, in commemorativemonuments. Like an Old Testamenttype, or one of Constantine's predecessorson his Arch,their resonance oscillated constantly between their ori- ginalmeaning and their new significance in whatevercontext they were deployed. Withinthe realm of state art,the designersof Constantine'smonuments employedthis new style of syncretisticbricolage to brilliantand incremental effect. Whilehis tetrarchie predecessors had justified their imperial lineage through Jovian and Herculeandynasties (Liebeschuetz, 1979: 240-4), the Arch'suse of spolia realignsConstantine away from the traditional gods and towards an equallyidealiz- ing successionof 'good emperors'.The buildingof apostolictombs in themau- soleumat Constantinople(itself a transformedimperial family mausoleum such as thoseof Augustus and Hadrian at Rome)used a regimeof images to proclaima fur- therand fundamental change of lineage:Constantine and his heirs now traced their successionby virtueof thesuccessors of Christas well as (and ultimatelyrather than)those of Augustus.The placingof relics in the mausoleum(whether by Constantinesoon afterits foundingor by Constantiusa generationlater) supple- mentedand affirmedthe change of lineagethrough the additionof actualspolia fromthe scriptural past, imbued with all theactive power of the saints. Relics - like thespolia on theArch - added a materialdiscourse of theactual hallowed sub- stancesof the past to thatof visual representation.One interestingdifference betweenthe Arch and themausoleum is thatthe former's method of conflation,in whichConstantine eclipses his predecessors by being carved into their bodies, gives way to a supplementalmode where the image of Constantineis addedto thoseof thetwelve apostles, and ultimately their bodies are brought to accompanyhis. In thecontext of survivingsculpture and architecturein Rome,the Arch of Constantinestands out. Whether we focuson theuses of spolia,on theinnovative juxtapositionof stylisticallyand chronologically diverse relief sculptures on a highly traditionalarchitectural structure (this was Raphael'soriginal point of interest), on issues of recutting,or on the typologicalpotential of theArch's imagery,it embodiesfundamental changes in Romanvisual practice. But these are cast in highly traditional- even conservative- forms.The archis so traditionalas to be - hardlynew, and yet its innovations are - and signalfuture ruptureswith previous practicewhich are littleshort of revolutionary. Alone of all Roman emperorsexcept Augustus, Constantine occupied the thronefor over 30 years.Like Augustus,he engineeredpolitical changes which transformedthe empireto an extentno otherruler achieved. One aspectof this processof politicaltransformation - as Zanker(1988) has shownwith such com- - pellingelegance in thecase of Augustus was thedevelopment of a rhetoricof imagesadapted to theneeds of imperialpower at thetime. Of course,the evidence (includingthe visual evidence) for the reign of Constantineis muchless thanthat forthe reign of Augustus. But, if we examinethe great Constantinian projects (from

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178 ELSNER theArch to thebuilding of churchesto thefoundation of Constantinopleand the mausoleum),looking at themnot in isolationbut as aspectsof a concertedand developingvisual strategyover three decades, it is quiteclear that Constantine 's spindoctors were as masterlyand creativeas thoseof Augustus. That the medieval cultof relicsand themedieval aesthetic of spoliationowes so muchto thispro- grammeis (at leastfrom the viewpoint of thosein theearly fourth century) fortu- itous;but it is also a tributeto thebold andbrilliant uses of art,spolia andrelics in thestate propaganda of Constantine.34 Jas Elsner

~~References~~

Alchermes,J. (1994) Spolia in Romancities of the late empire: legislative rationales and architectural reuse.Dumbarton Oaks Papers48: 167-78. Angelicoussis,E. (1984) The panel reliefsof Marcus Aurelius.Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts: Römische Abteilung 91: 141-205. Barnes,T.D. (1981) Constantineand Eusebius.Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Benko,S. (1980) Virgil'sFourth Eclogue in Christianinterpretation. Aufstieg und Niedergang des RömischenWelt 31 (1): 646-705. Berenson,B. (1954) TheArch of Constantine or theDecline of Form. London, Chapman and Hall. Bergmann,M. (1994) Der Koloß Neros,die DomusAurea und der Mentalitätswandelim Romder FrühenKaiserzeit. Mainz, P. vonZabern. Bergmann,M. and Zanker, P. (1981) 'Damnatio Memoriae': UmgearbeiteteNero- und Domitiansporträts.Zur Ikonographieder flavischenKaiser und des Nerva. Jahrbuchdes DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts, Rom 96: 317-412. Bertoletti,M. and La Rocca,E. (1987) Rilievistorici capitolini. Rome, De Luca. Blanck,H. (1969) Wiederverwendungalter Statuen als Ehrendenkmälerbei Griechenund Römern. Rome,L"Erma' di Bretschneider. Boatwright,M. (1987) Hadrianand theCity of Rome. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Born,H. and Stemmer,K. (1996) DamnatioMemoriae das BerlinerNero-Porträt {Sammlung Axel GuttmannV). Mainzam Rhein,Sammlung Guttmann bei vonZabern. Brandenburg,H. (1981) ArsHumilis. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 24: 71-84. Brandenburg,H. (1996) Die Verwendungvon Spolienund originalen Werkstücken in derspätantiken Architektur.In J. Poeschke(ed.), AntikeSpolien in der Architekturdes Mittelaltersund der Renaissance:11-48. Munich, Hirmer Verlag. Brenk,B. (1987) Spolia fromConstantine to Charlemagne:aesthetics versus ideology. Dumbarton Oaks Papers41: 103-10.

34 The researchfor this paper was conductedduring my tenure of a HughLast Fellowshipat the BritishSchool at Rome in 1997. I thankPaul Zankerfor lending me his own advancecopy of the Rendicontifor 1993^ (almostentirely devoted to theArch of Constantine) over two years before this volumereached any library in London, as wellas Dale Kinney,Peter Stewart, Bryan Ward-Perkins and MarkWilson Jones for generously letting me see theirwork in advanceof publication. Versions of this paperhave been deliveredat seminarsin theuniversities of Californiain Los Angeles,Cambridge, Chicago,Oxford, Reading and the Courtauld Institute: I am gratefulto everyonewho took the trouble to interrogateme and makeme thinkagain. I owe a numberof particularimprovements to the Editor (BryanWard-Perkins), Michael Allen, Dale Kinney,Neil McLynnand the anonymous readers.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 179~~

Brenk,B. (1996) Spolienund ihre Wirkung auf die Ästhetikder varietas. Zum Problem alternierender Kapitelltypen.In J. Poeschke(ed.), AntikeSpolien in derArchitektur des Mittelaltersund der Renaissance:49-92. Munich,Hirmer Verlag. Brilliant,R. (1984) VisualNarratives. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Brown,P. (1981) TheCult of the Saints. London, SCM Press. Buttrey,T.V. (1983) The datesof the arches of 'Diocletian'and Constantine.Historia 32: 375-83. Calza, R. (1959-60) Un problemadi iconografiaimperiale sull'arco di Costantino.Atti della Pontifìcia AccademiaRomana di Archeologia:Rendiconti 32: 133-61. Camesasca,E. and Piazza, G. (1993) (eds) Raffaello,gli scritti,lettere, firme, sonetti, saggi tecnicie teorici.Milan, Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli. Cameron,A. andHall, S. (1999) (trans.,introduction and commentary) Eusebius: Life of Constantine. Oxford,Clarendon Press. Capodiferro,A. (1993) Arcodi Costantino.In E.M. Steinby,Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae I: 86-91. Rome,Edizioni Quasar. Cima, M. (1980) Decorazionearchitettonica. In //Tempio di Romoloal Foro Romano(Quaderni dell'Istitutodi storiadell'architettura 26): 103-20.Rome, Multigrafica Editrice. Charlet,J.-L., Guyon, J. and Carletti, C. (1986) Damase etles martyrsromains. Vatican City, Pontificia Commissionedi Archeologia. Clark,E. A. and Hatch,D.F. (1981) The GoldenBough, the Oaken Cross: the VirgilianCento of FaltoniaBetitia Proba. Chico, CA., ScholarsPress. Crusius,O. (1899) Cento. In Real-Encyclopädieder ClassischenAltertumwissenschaft 3 (2): 1,929-32. Cullhed,M. (1994) ConservatorUrbis Suae: Studiesin thePolitics and Propagandaof theEmperor Maxentius.Stockholm, Svenska Institut i Rom. Curran,J. (1994) Movingstatues in late antique Rome: problems of perspective. Art History 17: 46-58. Dagron,G. (1974) Naissanced'une capitale. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Deichmann,F.W. (1975) Die Spolienin derSpätantiken Architektur. Munich, Verlag der Bayerischen Akademieder Wissenschaften. de Lachenal,L. (1995) Spolia: uso e reimpiegodell'antico dal III at XIV secolo. Milan,Longanesi. DeLaine,J. (1997) TheBaths of Caracolla. Portsmouth, R. I., Journalof Roman Archaeology. Delehaye,H. (1912) Les originesdu cultedes martyrs.Brussels, Société des Bollandistes. Delehaye,H. (1927) Sanctus:essai sur le cultedes saintsdans l'antiquité.Brussels, Société des Bollandistes. Delehaye,H. (1930) Loca sanctorum.Analecta Bollandiana 48: 5-64. De Maria,S. ( 1988) Gliarchi onorari di Romae dell'Italia Romana. Rome, L' 'Erma'di Bretschneider. Eisner,J. (1995) Artand theRoman Viewer:the Transformationof Art from the Pagan Worldto Christianity.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Eisner,J. (1998) Berenson'sdecline, or his Arch of Constantine reconsidered. Apollo 148 (July):20-2. Esch,A. (1969) Spolien.Zur Wiederverwendungantiker Baustücker und Skulpturenin mitteralter- ischenItalien. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 51: 1-64. Evers,C. (1991) Remarquessur l'iconographie de Constantin:à proposdu remploide portraitsdes 'bonsempereurs'. Mélanges de l'Ecole Françaiseà Rome:Antiquité 103: 785-806. Fittschen,K. and Zanker,P. (1970) Die Kolossalstatuedes SeverusAlexander in Neapel - eine wiederverwendeteStatue des Elegabal.Archäologischer Anzeiger: 248-53. Fowden,G. (1993) The lastdays of Constantine.Journal of Roman Studies 83: 146-70. Frothingham,A.C. (1912-15) Who builtthe Arch of Constantine?Its historyfrom Domitian to Constantine.American Journal of Archaeology 16: 368-86; 17: 487-503; 19: 1-12,367-85. GärtnerH. andLiebermann, W.-L. (1997) Cento.In Der NeuePauly 2: 1,061^. Gibbon,E. (1776) TheHistory of theDecline and Fall of theRoman Empire 1 (ed. D. Wormesly, 1994).London, Allen Lane/Penguin. Giuliano,A. (1956) L'arco di Costantino.Milan, Istituto Editoriale Domus.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 180 ELSNER~~

Giuliano,A. (1983) (ed.) Museo nazionaleromano: le sculture1.5. Rome,De Luca. Goldwater,R. andTrêves, M. (1945) Artistson Art.London, Kegan Paul. Gradara,C. (1918) Restaurisettecenteschi fatti all'Arco di Costantino.Bullettino della Commissione ArcheologicaCommunale di Roma46: 161-4. Grünewald,T. (1990) ConstantinusMaximus Augustus (Historia Einzelschriften 64). Stuttgart,F. Steiner. GubertiBassett, S. (1991) The antiquitiesin theHippodrome of Constantinople.Dumbarton Oaks Papers45: 87-96. GubertiBassett, S. (1996) HistoriaeCustos: sculptureand traditionin the Baths of Zeuxippos. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 100: 491-506. GubertiBassett, S. (2000) 'Excellentofferings': the Lausos collectionin Constantinople.Art Bulletin 82: 6-25. Hall, L.J.(1998) Cicero'sInstinctu divino and Constantine'sInstinctu divinitatis: the evidence of the Archof Constantinefor the senatorialview of the 'Vision' of Constantine.Journal of Early ChristianStudies 6: 647-71. Hannestad,N. (1994) Traditionin LateAntique Sculpture. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Haskeil,F. (1993) Historyand Its Images.New Havenand London, Yale UniversityPress. Haynes,D. and Hirst,P. (1939) PortaArgentar iorum. London, Macmillan for the British School at Rome. Heisenberg,A. (1908) Grabeskircheund Apostelkirche 2. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrich. Hoch,C. (1997) ApolloCentonarius. Tubingen, Stauffenberg. Hunt,D. (1998) The successorsof Constantine.Cambridge Ancient History 13: 1^3. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press. Huskinson,J. (1998) 'Unfinishedportrait heads' on laterRoman sarcophagi: some new perspectives. Papers ofthe British School at Rome66: 129-58. Iacopi, I. (1977) L'arco di Costantinoe le termedi Caracolla. Rome, IstitutoPoligrafico dello Stato/Libreriadello Stato. Iversen,M. (1993) AloisRiegl: Art History and Theory.Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. James,L. (1996) 'Praynot to fallinto temptation and be on yourguard'. Gesta 35: 12-20. Jucker,H. (1981) Iulisch-ClaudischeKaiser- und Prinzenporträtsals 'Palimpseste'.Jahrbuch des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts, Rom 96: 236-316. Kahler,H. (1953) RömischeGebälke 2.1: Die Gebälkedes Konstantinsbogen.Heidelberg, C. Winter. Kinney,D. (1995) Rape or restitutionof thepast: interpreting spolia. In S.C. Scott(ed.), TheArt of Interpreting{Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University 9): 53-67. University Park,PA., Pennsylvania University Press. Kinney,D. (1997) Spolia,damnatio and renovatiomemoriae. Memoirs of theAmerican Academy in Rome42: 117-48. Kitzinger,E. (1977) ByzantineArt in theMaking. London, Faber and Faber. Kleiner,D.E.E (1992) RomanSculpture. New Havenand London,Yale UniversityPress. Knudsen,S.E. (1989) Spolia: the so-calledhistorical frieze on theArch of Constantine.American Journalof Archaeology 93: 267-8. Knudsen,S.E. (1990) Spolia: thepedestal reliefs on theArch of Constantine.American Journal of Archaeology94: 313-14. Koeppel,G. (1983) Die historischenReliefs der römischenKaiserzeit I: stadtrömischeDenkmäler unbekannterBauzugehörigkeit aus augusteischerund julisch-claudischerZeit. Bonner Jahrbücher183: 61-144. Koeppel,G. (1984) Die historischenReliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit II: stadtrömischeDenkmäler unbekannterBauzugehörigkeit aus flavischerZeit. Bonner Jahrbücher 184: 1-65. Koeppel,G. (1985) Die historischenReliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit III: stadtrömischeDenkmäler unbekannterBauzugehörigkeit aus trajanischerZeit. Bonner Jahrbücher 185: 143-215. Koeppel,G. (1986) Die historischenReliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit IV: stadtrömischeDenkmäler

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 18 1~~

unbekannterBauzugehörigkeit aus hadrianischerbis konstantinischerZeit. BonnerJahrbücher 186: 1-91. Koeppel,G. (1990) Die historischenReliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit VII: derBogen des Septimius Severus,die Decennalienbasisund der Konstantinsbogen. Bonner Jahrbücher 190: 1-64. Körting,B. (1950) PeregrinanoReligiosa. Münster, Regensberg. Krautheimer,R. (1971) On Constantines Churchof the Apostles in Constantinople.In R.K. Krautheimer,Studies in Early Christian,Medieval and RenaissanceArt: 27-34. London, Universityof LondonPress. Krautheimer,R., Corbett,S. and Frazer,A.K. (1977) CorpusBasilicarum Christianarum Romae V. VaticanCity, Pontificio Istituto di ArcheologiaCristiana. Kuttner,A. (forthcoming)Acclaiming the new Augustus: text and imagein theArch of Constantine. Wordand Image(non vidi). Lamacchia,R. (1984) Cento.In EnciclopediaVirgiliana I: 734-7. Rome,Istituto dell Enciclopedia Italiana. Lamberton,R. (1986) Homerthe Theologian. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress. Lamberton,R. (1992) The neoplatomstsand the spintuahzationof Homer.In R. Lambertonand J. Keaney(eds), Homer s AncientReaders: 115-33. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Lane Fox,R. (1986) Pagans and Christians.Harmondsworth, Viking Penguin. Laubscher,H.P. (1976) ArcusNo vus undArcus Claudii: zwei Triumphbögenan derVia Lata in Rom. Nachrichterder Akademie der Wissenschaftenin Göttingen: 65-108. LeanderTouati, A.M. (1987) The GreatTrajanic Frieze. Stockholm/Göteberg,Svenska Institutet i Rom/AstromsForlag. Leeb,R. (1992) Konstantinund Christus. Berlin, W. De Gruyter. Lega, C. (1989-90) II Colosso di Nerone.Bullettino della CommissioneArcheologica Comunale di Roma93: 339-78. Levitan,W. (1985) Dancingat theend of a rope: OptatianPorfyry and the fieldof Romanverse. Transactionsand Proceedingsof the American Philological Association 115: 245-69. Liebeschuetz,J.H.W.G. (1979) Continuityand Changein RomanReligion. Oxford, Clarendon Press. L'Orange,H.P. (1984) Das RömischeHerrscherbild III.4: das SpätantikeHerrscherbild von Diokletian biszu denKonstantin-Söhnen 284-361 n. ehr.Berlin, Gebr. Mann. L'Orange,H.P. and von Gerkan, A. (1939) Der SpätantikeBildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens.Berlin, VerlagWalter de Gruyter. MacCormack,S. (1998) TheShadows of Poetry: Vergil in theMind of Augustine. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress. Magi,F. (1956-7) II coronamentodell'Arco di Costantino.Atti della PontificiaAccademia Romana di Archeologia:Rendiconti 29: 83-110. Malamud,M. (1989) A Poetics of Transformation:Prudentius and Classical Mythology.Ithaca, CornellUniversity Press. Malbon,E. (1990) The Iconographyof the Sarcophagusof JuniusBassus. Princeton,Princeton UniversityPress. Mango,C. (1963) Antiquestatuary and theByzantine beholder. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17: 55-75. Mango,C. (1990a) Constantine'smausoleum and the translation of relics. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83: 51-62. Mango,C. (1990b) Constantine'smausoleum: an addendum.Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83: 434. Mango,C, Vickers,M. and Francis,E.D. (1992) The Palace of Lausus at Constantinopleand itscol- lectionof ancientstatues. Journal of the History of Collections 4: 89-98. Maraval,P. (1985) Lieuxsaints et pèlegrinages d'Orient. Paris, Cerf. Marvin,M. (1983) The freestandingstatues of the Baths of Caracalla. AmericanJournal of Archaeology87: 347-84. Massini,A. (1993) TheArch of Constantinerevisited: a studyof itscritique, use and interpretationin the Renaissance.Can theArch of Constantinebe seen as a positivemonument? Courtauld

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 ELSNER~~

Instituteof Art, University of London,M.A. Report. Mathews,K.R. (1999) Expressingpolitical legitimacy and culturalidentity through the use of spolia on theambo of Henry II. MedievalEncounters 5: 156-83. McLynn,N. (1994) Ambroseof Milan. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress. MeluccoVaccaro, A. and Ferroni,A.M. (1993-4) Cui costruìl'Arco di Costantino?Un interrogativo ancoraattuale. Atti della PontificiaAccademia Romana di Archeologia:Rendiconti 66: 1-60. Miller,P.C. (1998) 'Differentialnetworks': relics and otherfragments in late antiquity.Journal of EarlyChristian Studies 6: 113-38. Nixon,C.E.V. (1990) Theuse ofthe past by the Gallic Panegyrists. In G. Clarke(ed.), Reading the Past in LateAntiquity. 1-36. RushcuttersBay, Australian National University Press. Nobiloni,B. (1997) Le colonnevitinee della basilica di San Pietroa Roma.Xenia Antiqua 6: 81-142. Nugent,S. (1990) Ausonius'iate-antique' poetics and 'post-modern'literary theory. Ramus 19: 26-63. Olin,M. (1992) Formsof Representation inAlois Riegl's Theory of Art. University Park, Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press. Oppermann,M. (1991) Bemerkungenzu einemJagddenkmal des KaisersHadrian. Nikephoros 4: 211-17. Packer,J.E. (1997) TheForum of Trajanin Rome.Berkeley, Los Angelesand London,University of CaliforniaPress. Panella,C. (1990) La valle del Colosseonell'antichità. Bollettino di Archeologia1-2: 35-88. Panella,C, Pensabene,P., Milella, M. andWilson Jones, M. (1995) Scavo nell'areadella Meta Sudans e ricerchesull'arco di Costantino.Quaderni di ArcheologiaEtrusco-Italica 23 (= Archeologia Laziale12(1)): 41-61. Pekary,T. (1985) Das RömischeKaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft(Das Römische HerrscherbildIII). Berlin,Gebr. Mann. Pensabene,P. (1988) The Archof Constantine:marble samples. In N. Herz and M. Waelkens(eds), ClassicalMarble: Geochemistry,Technology and Trade:411-18. Dordrecht,Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pensabene,P. (1993) II reimpiegonell'età Costantina a Roma. In G. Bonamenteand F. Fusco (eds), Costantinoil Grande2: 749-68. Macerata,Università degli Studi di Macerata. Pensabene,P. (1995) Reimpiegoe nuovemode architettoniche nelle basiliche cristiane di Romatra IV e VI secolo.Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Ergänzungsband 20 (2): 1,076-96. Pensabene,P. (1999) Progettounitario e reimpiegionell'Arco di Costantino.In P. Pensabeneand C. Panella,Arco di Costantino:tra archeologiae archeometria:13^2. Rome, L"Erma' di Bretschneider. Pensabene,P. andPanella, C. (1993^) Reimpiegoe progettazionearchitettonica nei monumenti tardo- antichidi Roma. Attidella PontificiaAccademia Romana di Archeologia:Rendiconti 66: 111-283. Pensabene,P. and Panella,C. (1999) Arco di Costantino:tra archeologiae archeometria.Rome, L"Erma' di Bretschneider. Pierce,P. (1989) TheArch of Constantine: propaganda and ideology in lateRoman art. Art History 12: 387-418. Pietri,C. (1976) RomaChristiana I. Rome,École Françaisede Rome. Poeschke,J. (1996) (ed.) AntikeSpolien in der Architekturdes Mittelaltersund der Renaissance. Munich,Hirmer Verlag. Pohlsander,H.A. (1995) Helena: Empressand Saint.Chicago, Ares Publishers. Pollini,J. (1984) Damnatiomemoriae in stone:two portraits of Neroreçut to Vespasianin American Museums.American Journal of Archaeology 88: 547-55. Punzi, R. (1999) Fonti documentarieper una riletturadelle vicende post-antichedell'Arco di Costantino.In P. Pensabeneand C. Panella,Arco di Costantino:tra archeologia e archeometria: 185-228.Rome, L"Erma' di Bretschneider.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 183~~

Raeder,J. (1983) Die StatuarischeAusstattung der VillaHadriana bei Tivoli.Frankfurt am Main,Peter Lang. RichardsonJr., L. (1975) The dateand program of theArch of Constantine.Archeologia Classica 27: 72-8. Riegl,A. (1901) SpätrömischeKunstindustrie. Vienna, Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Riegl,A. (1985) Late RomanArt Industry. Rome, G. Bretschneider. Roberts,M. (1989) TheJeweled Style. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Rohmann,J. (1998) Die spätantikenKaiserporträts am Konstantinsbogenin Rom. Mitteilungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts: Römische Abteilung 105: 259-82. Ruysschaert,J.(1962-3) Essai d'interprétationsynthétique de l'arc de Constantin.Atti della Pontificia AccademiaRomana di Archeologia:Rendiconti 35: 79-100. Ryberg,I.S. (1967) The Panel Reliefsof MarcusAurelius. New York,Archaeological Institute of America. Saradi,H. (1997) The use of ancientspolia in Byzantinemonuments: the archaeological and literary evidence.International journal ofthe Classical Tradition3: 395-423. Saradi-Mendelovici,H. (1990) Christianattitudes toward pagan monumentsin late antiquity. DumbartonOaks Papers 44: 47-61. Schmidt-Colinet,A. (1996) Zur Ikonographieder hadrianischenTondi am Konstantinsbogen.In F. Blakolmer(ed.), FremdeZeiten. Festschrift Jürgen Borchardt II: 261-73. Vienna,Phoibos. Schrenk,S. (1995) Typosund Antityposin der FrühchristlicheKunst. Munster, Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Slavitt,D. (1998) Ausonius:Three Amusements. Philadelphia, University of PennsylvaniaPress. Smith,R.R.R. (1997) The publicimage of LiciniusI: portraitsculpture and imperialideology in the earlyfourth century. Journal of Roman Studies 87: 170-202. Spivey,N. (1995) Stumblingtowards Byzantium: the decline and fallof lateantique sculpture. Apollo 142 (July):20-3. Steiner,A.M. (1994) Cui costruìl'Arco di Costantino?Rivelazioni su un monumentosimbolo del mondoromano. Archeo: 38-45. Stewart,P. (1999) The destructionof statues in lateantiquity. In R. Miles (ed.), ConstructingIdentities inLate Antiquity. 159-89. London, Routledge. Strong,D. (1988) RomanArt. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Strong,D. (1994) RomanMuseums. London, Pindar Press. StuartJones, H. (1906) Noteson Romanhistorical sculptures. Papers of the British School at Rome3: 217-71. Stucchi,S. (1949-50) L'Arco detto'di Portogallo'sulla via Flaminia.Bullettino della Commissione ArcheologicaCommunale di Roma73: 101-22. Torelli,M. (1992) Topografiae iconologia.Arco di Portogallo,Ara Pads, Ara Providentiae,Templum Solis. Ostraka1: 105-31. Torelli,M. (1993a) Arcodi Portogallo.In E.M. Steinby,Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae I: 77-9. Rome,Edizioni Quasar. Torelli,M. (1993b) ArcusNovus. In E.M. Steinby,Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae I: 101-2. Rome,Edizioni Quasar. Toynbee,J. and Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1956) TheShrine of St Peter.London, Longmans, Green and Co. Turcan,R. (1991) Les tondid'Hadrien sur l'arc de Constantin.Académie des Inscriptionset Belles- lettres:Comptes Rendus: 53-80. Usher,M. (1998) HomericStitchings: the Homeric Centos of theEmpress Eudocia. Lanham,Md., OxfordRowman and Littlefield. Vasari,G. (1568) Le vitede' più eccellentipittori, scultori ed archittetori(ed. G. Milanesi,1878). Florence,Sansoni. Vittinghoff,F. (1936) Der Staatfeindin der RömischenKaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur 'Damnatio Memoriae'. Berlin,Junker und Dünnhaupt.

This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 ELSNER von Sydow,W. (1969) ZurKunstgeschichte des SpätantikenPorträts im 4 Jahrhunderstn. Chr. Bonn, R. Habelt. Wace,A.J.B. ( 1907) Studiesin Roman historical reliefs. Papers of the British School at Rome4: 270-6. Waelkens,M. (1985) Froma Phrygianquarry: the provenance of the statues of the Dacian prisoners in Trajan'sForum at Rome.American Journal of Archaeology 89: 641-53. Walton,A. (1924) The dateof the Arch of Constantine. Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome4: 169-80. Ward-Perkins,B. (1999) Reusingthe architectural legacy of the past, Entre Idéologie et Pragmatisme. In G.P. Brogioloand B. Ward-Perkins(eds), The Idea and Ideal of the TownBetween Late Antiquityand theEarly Middle Ages: 225^4. Leiden,Brill. Ward-Perkins,J.B. (1952) The shrineof St Peter'sand its 12 spiralcolumns. Journal of Roman Studies 42: 21-33. WilsonJones, M. (lorthcoming)Genesis and mimesis: the design or the Arch ot Constantinein Rome. Journalof the Society of Architectural Historians. Woods,D. (1991) The dateof the translation of the relics of SS. Andrewand Luke to Constantinople. VigiliaeChristianae 45: 286-92. Woods,D. (1997) Wheredid ConstantineI die? Journal of TheologicalStudies 48: 531-5. Zanker,P. (1988) ThePower of Images in theAge ofAugustus. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

~~This content downloaded from 129.67.21.201 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:34:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions~~