3

The Column of Trajan and Its Heirs: HelicalTales, Ambiguous Trails

Of historicalnarratives, one part is historiaor systematictact-thdrni. ":.- other part mythosor fairy-tale,and anotherplasnt, or pl.rusiblcnl\ (:::: : And of rhese/ristoria is the exposition of ccrtain cvcnts that .rrdtru: j: : have occurred:Alcxander's death by trcacherouslyadnrinistcrcil .lnrs. ' Ilaylon. And plasnadeals with cventsthat have not occurrcd bu( .rre.:::.- ilar, in the retelling, to real r-vents:the hypothesesoi conrttlrc. r::.: nrimes. And mythosis an cxposition of events that have ncvcr ()c.u::- : and are thlsc:ooet-fabricated tales. Srxtus Eltprnrcus, AduersosCrammaticos :6i-:/ .

Although few would deny that the Column of Trajan in his Fortrrrr standsamong the greatestof all Ronran nlonuments,scholars trnl r,' agreeon what the column represents.Placed on a high, squarcp()- dium, once containingTrajan's ashes, and closelyboxed in bv buili- ings, the column risesfrom a laureatetorus molding to the grcat clpr- tal, which originally bore a gilded bronzestatue of the emperor (tlc 3.r;pls. 3.I-3.3).r This lofty statue,marking the long axisof thc Fo- rum, may have been visible from the entrance, a numinous f-iqurc mediating between earth and heaven.tThe eye-catchingmarble col- umn, supporting the Imperial image, is wrapped in a helical band trt- narrativereliefs on which the fame of this monument, perhapseven ()l Trajan himself appearsto rest.r These reliefs consist of more than z,5or-rfigures, arrangedin corrr- plex landscapeand architecturalsettings, and include as many as I -i_i scenes.'Apparently, they presentthe history of the two Dacian \\'rrs l of rot-ro6 4.n., when Trajan gatheredthe provinceof Daciainto thc t Roman Empire, bringing much glory to himself. The artist adopted an epic-documentarymode of historicalrepresentation, previously de- veloped to celebratethe deedsof conqueringemperors in Roman art. Despitethe grand scaleof the conceptand the heightof the colunrn.

9o ./ A:r --\ \ 6 -- r53l 6 lat ra9-50 147 t{5 l4( ir"( 112-l ral r42-3-4 4 l3r t40 t4l t3a-5 17i7i' 2 t3l 32 1 125-6 ll30\ r3r I ZNP4 '/ t23 -6 T\ |il9 t22 I124 il8 \ r2o-r I lt7 lla ll5-( |7 , lt6 lr3 !t5.6 lt4 Il2 r8.9 llrI ir2l |l3 r07 roE- no IO4 ;;) (;; t()2 rol IG loo tol 9a 193 roo I 9s-6-' 93 'rl 89-90 8t se-eo) el 05 86 87 ro{ 8l 86\ fta;; 79 >7t 11' 80 '5-3urneno --T 75 76 7) 73 74-5 70 1 7l ,2 66. f 67 68-9 6a 65 66 65 ''' \: 03.4 57-t- g_l) 60 6l 53 54 55/ 56117 5o t2 .8-e | 50 5l 46- 4a rz\'8 ao 42-3 ao-| .1' 40 if 39 35, 36 t, 33 l6 32 rr \3s 2a 31 132 24 25 26 27 2l-2 23 24 IE r9-20 20 2t-2 t3 la 16-7 t2 l4 l5 il-2 t/9 to to a 5 6 6 7 8 2\ 2 I 3-4

st NT ilw 5W

the Divine ?roion NW

Column of Troion

Librory rplrol ends

NE

tirrt oppeorance of lroion (6)

3E (doorf

Fig. j.r. The column of Trajan a.d Forum (adaptedfrom c. cichorius, Die Retiefs der Traianssiiule[Berlin r896-r9oo] and W. Gauer, LJntersuthungenzur Traianssiiule.I: Darstellungsprogramm und kunstlerischerEntuturJ [ffgy1in ry771 fig. 4)

9r 92 VisualNarratiues

!. 't ,€€ ,i.. , t- #; r.-

: : --

. I,-' ."f :

4':, '{i t."i t' r'$

t.*4 --.d***' Plate j.t. Column of Trajan, Rome. pcdestal and scene 6.

the numerous, small figures were progressivelydifficult to seeclearly, even if the low relief surfacewas once elaboratelypainted. Neither could they be easily comprbhendedfrom close by, becausethe prox- imity of the column to the librariesand to the BasilicaUlpia (fig. :.r) did not allow the viewer to step back sufficiently to gai' a consisrenr, coherentperspective of the whole. Furthermore, the helical courseof the relief band made it practicallyimpossible to follow the path of the relief without losing one's place, especiallyas the figures becamein- distinct at the sidesof the visual field. And ir was and still is very diffi- cult to understand the scenesin the higher elevations of the helix The Column of Trajan and Its Heirs 93

:tt: '

,r,,t:*{E&

Plate3.2. Column of Trajan, Rome. East side 94 Visual Narratiues

Platej- j. Column of Trajan on sestertius reverse.

without undergoing the most taxing gyrations, complicatedby lapses of memory, which concealthe narrativetrail (ftg. l.z).' The relative obscurity of so much of the relief, the difficulty in vis- ually maintaining the continuity of the narrative becauseof the cir- cling upward movement of the helix, and the constantseparation be- tween the viewer's experienceof time and the progress of events would seem paradoxicalif the principal purpose of the reliefs was to presentthe Dacian Wars in linear, chronologicalorder. Given the sub- stantialpresence of the monument and the importanceof the commis- sion, this seeming disparity between the competenceof the artist- narrator and the apparent incompetenceof the observer must be an illusion. Yet these very explicit, elaboratelydetailed, and ostensibly historicalreliefs extended over hundredsof meters.If the artist did not intend to entrap the viewer within the confinesof the helix, then he nust have provided comprehensibleand sympathetic alternativesfor interpreting the reliefs, separatefrom the historical context. Accord- ingly, what has been generallyrecognized as the most extensivework of narrativeart surviving from antiquity must be, in effect, something more. Gauer has emphasizedthe primacy of the architecturalrole of the column as a free-standing form without appreciating the vectoral course of the helical relief and its synthesisof horizontal and vertical motion.8 Whatever the sourcesof the spiral band the insistent rise complementsthe supportive function of the column.eLike it, the he- lix culminatesin the radiant person of Trajan Optimus Augustus (pl. 3.3), as rhetoricadds persuasion to argument. The helix begins directly above the entranceto the podium on the long axisof the Forum (fig. :.r), althoughthe narrativeitself properly starts with the first carved forms, representingDacian buildings, at The Column of Trajan and lts Heirs 95

Y {} -a | | ------,/^) -:-: ---:' i | ^/,/' .l-fl:"f, LJ LY

In this woy the tourlifs con odmlre the reliefs of the Column of Troion Fig. j.z. The Column of Trajan, Rome (adaptedfrom a cartoon in Il Messagqero[Rome] October 7, 1958)

the eastcorner (plr. :.r, 3.2).Right abovethem and in line with the eagle of Jupiter, the sign of the triumphant emperor, the artist pre- sentedTrajan for the first time (scene6): he appearsin military council at the beginning of the campaign, facing east toward Dacia and the rising sun. This position marks the dawn of a new era, when Trajan stood aspacator orbis after his Dacian victory,"'a theme later extended by an issueof aurei that display the image of the Sun God, probably in reference to his final eastern campaign against the Parthians." More than a century before, Augustus had similarly associatedhimself with the cosmos, the sun, easternvictories, and world peaceand had expressedthis program through the intimate relationshipbetween the I Solarium Augusti and the Ara PacisAugustae.'2 E. Buchner recently observed that the height of the Solarium obelisk was approximately that of the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, hardly a fortu- 96 Visual Narratives

itous coincidence.'3C. J. Simpsonhas also suggestedthat a further connectionbetween Augustus and Trajan was deliberatelystressed: in his opinion, the Column of Trajan was dedicatedon May rz, possibly to Mars Ultor, on the precedentof Augustus'sdedication of the Tem- ple of Mars Ultor in Rome on the sameday in z B.c.r.So it would appearthat neither the beginning nor the dimensionsof the helix were self-determinedor self-containedbut were exrernally referential be- yond the boundariesof the historical account. According to Pliny, the Elder, Romans placed statuesof famous men on columns to elevatethem above all other mortals (l,lat. Hist. 34.12.27).Recent experimenrs have demonsrratedthat there is a pref- ercncefor upright structuresin nremory traces.since verticality serves as the integrating factor, giving an ordered structure to what other- wise might have become an overburdened form of representation.15 At this basiclevel of integration, the form of the column presentedit- self as a single sign,'othe very instrument to convey honor upon Trajan for those who sought immediate comprehensionwithout refer- ence necessarilyto the reliefs.'?In this capacity, the column func- tioned as an "iconogram."'' Still, when perceivedfully as a complex work of art, it presentsa network of diverse communicational acts that elicit responsesthrough the repertoriesof images.', The helical reliefs thus compel viewers to realizethat there is a surplus of visual expression that they are unable to analyzecompletely as they lose sight of the historicaltrack around in back and up above(fig. :.r; pl. 3.2). At the sametime they sensethat there is alsoa surplusof con- tent, as more is given than the record of the Dacian Wars, however elaboratetheir presentation.r"Indeed, ljmberto Eco seemsalmost to have the Column of Trajan in mind when he writes:

Thus art seemsro be a way of intcrconncctingmessages in ordcr to pro- duce a text in which: \q manymcssages, on diffbrent levelsand planesof the discourse,are anbiguously organized; (b) thcseambiguities are not re- alized at random but follow a precisedesi,gn; (c) both the normal and the ambiguous deviceswithin a given messageexert a tofltextualpressure on both the normal and the ambiguous deviceswithin all others; (d) the way in rvhich norms of a givcn systcm are offbnded by one messageis tlresame as that in which the norms of orhcr systemsare offbnded by the various messagesthat they pcrmit.:'

In considering the helical relief of Trajan's Column, such arnbiguities may be discovered in two intertwined contexts: that of the "histori- cal" narrative of the Dacian Wars, dependent on textual analogies and patterns of reading, and that of the articulated, directional sequence of identifiable scenes(figr. l.r, 3.3, 3.4), equally dependenr on modes of The Columnof Traian and Its Heirs 97

visualization.In both contexts, however much neglectedin the pres- ent scholarly literature, there exists a great, but complementary ten- sion betweenthe narrativestory and the narrativediscourse, as distin- guished by S. Chatman." The options for variant readingsare much more availableto the viewer than to the readerof a historicaltext, and the narrator is much lessevident. Thr-rs,the helicalreliefs oft-er an ex- cellentopportunity to evaluatethe artist'ssolutions to the problem of translatinghis knowledge of the record into eflbctive modes of telling his, or Trajan's, story in visual ternls while developing the symbolic function of the monument.rr P. G. Hamberg definedthe monument as a columnahistoriata,largely becauseof his conception of the reliefs as a form of mythologized epic, dominated by the heroic protagonist, Trajan, set within a docu- mented historicizing framework." Such an attitude accordsrvell with the view that the Roman historiographical intention turned much more on politics than on logic.tt Gauer, in his recent book, was care- ful to differentiatebetween the historicaland the political programs of the column: to serve the causeof historical narrative the successive sceneswere grouped sequentiallyand episodicallywithin the period A.D. ror-ro6 (fig. 3.r),'owhile the political program was developed by the emphatic, repetitive representationof the units of the Roman army, by the multiple appearancesof Trajan with his officers, and by the numinous qualities of his presence."K. Lehmann-Hartlebenhad previously analyzedthe formalistic artifices of the helical narrative, those patterns of discourseor scenesthat were offered in repetitive variation; he categorizedthem as motifs relatedto (r) formal address, (z) sacrifice, (3) building operations, (4) the treatment of embassies and captives,(5) marchesand journeys, and (6) battle." These highly ceremonialmotifs control the conrseof the relief and collstitute a veritable epitome of the historical record, carefr.rlly formed to maximize viewer recognition,although embedded in an il- lusory matrix of continuity. Such a processheightens the effectiveness of the column as a victory monument, glorifying the uirtus Traiani.l' Indeed,the whole column risesfrom a torus molding in the fbrm of a laurelwreath (pl. :.r), the crowning attributeoithe heroictriumpha- tor. Preciselybecause these ceremonial motifs and stereotypicalscenes were systematicallyrepeatc-d up the corlrseof the helix, from visibility to relative invisibility, the observercouid readiiy anticipatetheir reap- pearanceand could recognizetheir symbolic content without having to look too carefully.r" Trajan, the hero of this dramatizedmythos of victory, is revcaledas the awesomeprotagonist whose eff-ect on eventsis decisive,almost as Visual Narratiues

ll r___l N: NW tw 3t NI (doorl

COLUNf N OF TRAJAN (numberingorrer crchoriu,,

rolid figurcr indi(ota lh. oppaoronGc of lroion

Fig. S.S. The Column of Trajan, Rome; solid figures indicate the appearanceof Trajan, scenes 6-78 (numbering from C. Cichorius, Die Relie-fsder Traianssiiule[Berlin r896-r9oo]) The Column of Trajan and lts Heirs 99

Y

72

:, *I *1 5: 'i

middb ection upper €

COLUMN OF TR,AJAN Sothcort tidG (rumbcring ofler Cichqiur, lroion l: N= H:: FQ s.l.The Column of Trajan, Romc, southeastside, showing appearancesof Trajan and the Dacian leader, scenes6-r48 (numbering from C. Cichorius, Die Reliefsder'fraianssiiule fBerlin r896-r9oo]; adaptedfrom G. B. Piranesi,Trofeo o siamagn$ca colonna rcclide di narno [Rome r775 or 17761pls. r-zr and S. Reinach,Rdpertoire de reliefsgrecs et romainsr [Paris rgog) 332-j69

if it were he aloneagainst the Dacians(fig. 1.4).''The greatsurrender scene(scene 75) that concludesthe First DacianWar stagesa dramatic confrontation between Trajan and the Dacian chief, Decebalus,after the paradigm establishedby Alexander's victory over Darius of Persia, preservedin the Alexander Inosaic.r2T'his sceneappears on the southeastside of the column at the halfway point in the helix, di- IOO VisualNarratiues

rectly above the beginningof the spiral (figt. :.r, 3.4). At the same level on the oppositeside, scene78 reiteratesthe messagesymbolically by representingVictory inscribing the great deeds on a shield, the clupeusuirtutis (fig. :.3). Significantly,this abstractlycomposed scene facesthe Temple to the Divine Trajan (fig. :.1) and appearsdirectly above the most frontal of all Trajan's appearanceson the column, scener9, readilyvisible to the observer(fig. :.3). However mythical the structureof representation,the artist'sconception of the relief pro- vides not an example of contrived, revisionist history but rather his version of the historian'sobligation to revealthe truth. This unknown master has, in effect, translatedback into nonverbal, visual form the verbal (historical) account of the largely nonverbal substanceof the Dacian'Wars.r3He hasrearranged his narrativein order to enhanceits validity and persuasiveness,relying on the representativemotif to make the truth accessibleto the viewer. In so doing he followed the courselaid out by Wilhelm von Humboldt in r8zr:

The historian'stask is to presentwhat actuallyhappened. An evcnt, howcver,is only partiallyvisible in the world of the senscs;thc resthas to be addedby intuition,inference, and guesswork. . The historian must thcreforeseek the necessityof events;he must not, like the poet, merelyimpose on his materialthe appearanceof necessity. Thus two methods have to be followed simultaneouslyin the approachto his- torical truth; the first is the exact, impartial, critical investigation of events;the secondis the connectingof thc cventsexplored and the intu- itive understandingof them which could not be reachedby the first means. . . . The historian worthy of his title must show every event as part of a whole, or, what anounts to the same thing, must reveal the tbrm of history per sein every cvent described.. . . An historicalpresen- tation, like an artisticpresentation, is an imitation of nature. The basisof both is the recognition of the true form, the discovery of the necessary, the elimination of the accidental. For it is the greatestvirtue of a work of art to revealthe inner truth of lorms which is hidden in their ac- tual appcarance.t'

The designer of the helical reliefs must then be seen as a historian in stone, a master in the intentional sublimation of abundantly detailed, apparently factual information in formalized patterns. This omnipres- ent factual detail, ranging from elements of costume to weapons to ethnographic and topographic depictions (pl. 3.2), has captured the at- tention of many scholars and convinced them of the historicity of the representations.3sNo wonder, since the lavish use of realistic detail functioned as an effbctive rhetorical device to further the illusion of authenticity. (Jnfortunately, the textual record against which the his- The Column of Traian and Its Heirs I0I

:.,ricitv of the column reliefsmight be measuredis itselfuncertain be- -'.rr.rscthe work of the principal Roman historian of this period, (..issir-rsI)io, has survived only in the epitomizedversions of Book r,r.fi-{. composedby Xiphilinos in the eleventhcentury.36 \\-hateverthe evidentiary value of this epitome, Dio's original text ',r'.rs u'ritten a century after the events described.Faith in either the :csrrr:rl or the visual record must be given cautiously. Recently a :()nrbstonewas discoveredat Philippi with an elaborateinscription .in.1u'ell-preserved relief panel depicting the captureof Decebalusin a :n.rnner similar to but not identical with the representationof this .'r'cnt in scener45 on the column.tt The variation is slight and is probably causedby different artistic treatmentas well as by divergent ,rccounts.Yet even the highly detailedrepresentations of architecture .rnd terrain for which the column reliefs arejustly famous are funda- rrrcr]tallvartistic schemes, products not only of a rich descriprivetra- .irrron in Roman artrsbut of artists rather than battlefield reporters.i' I. A. Richmond understoodthe role of the telling vignete that com- Sincd pertinent,dramatic, and typical activitiesof the Roman army rhror-rghwhich the relationshipbetween causeand effect could be dis- pl.rvedagainst the backgroundof greatevents.a" Gombrich has observedthat the very perfectionof imitation in an- cic't and Renaissanceart was reachedin order to achievethe end of rntelligibleand convincingnarratives.*' Such realisticdescription may bc understoodas a form of narrativewithout action,arpartly because ir provides a bridge berweenthe known and the familiar that smooths rhc acceptanceof the historicaldatum. Roman annalistsrecognized rhis phenomenon, and in fact this relianceon suprarealisticdetail, so otten presentin Roman historicalart, hasbeen deemed a characreristic of Roman popular culture.'3That tendency has been lifted to a new dcqreeof significanceby the great artist responsiblefor the design of Trajan'sColumn, possiblyApollodorus of Damascus.'o Although Trajan's own memoirs of the Dacian Wars do not exist, a prestigiousand especiallypertinent model for them survives:caesar's commentarii,in particular those books that narrate the events of the 'war.n5 t-irstyears of the Gallic M. Rambaud once criticized the ten- dentious, self-servingcharacter of the Commentarii,holding Caesarto be an artful liar who reshapedthe raw historical data in the form of rhe commentarius,which purports to be unorgamzed,and then added literary embellishments.16Although not everyone agrees with this negative view of Caesar'sversion of the truth,aTthe famous expres- sion "veni, vidi, vici" surely emphasizesthe heroic protagonistas r02 Visual Narratiues

master of events and frames this conceit in aphoristic, memorable form. Similarly, the constantrepetition of Caesar'sname, coyly pre- sentedin the third person, resemblesTrajan's frequent appearanceson the column (figr. :.3, 3.4, fifty-nine times in Gauer'sone hundred scenes.ttThis concentrationon a single great personageor on a scene dominated by him affects the reader/viewer as the scheme develops patternsof convergentaction around the heroic agent. Thus, the col- umn may be understood as a permanentform of epic theater, repro- ducing faraway things and eventsand bringing them closer,both spa- tially and experientially, to an audience. That audience, in turn, never losessight of Trajan as he performs his leading role in a history play with strongly biographicalovertones. Such a role reinforcesthe power of the emperor over the courseof eventsthen and over the ob- server now," and displays the deeds of Trajan for all to see and know.5" F.-H. Mutschler has analyzedCaesar's practice very thoroughly, tabulating the noncommentary elementsin the text as well as scene- setting devices, addressesto the troops, marches,building activities, and so on, bringing to mind Lehmann-Hartleben'sthematic categories in the design of the column.5' In both the column and the Bellum Callicum the work begins with a geographical/topographicalintro- duction and the characterof the terrain is emphasizedthroughout as a precondition for action.5: Identical motifs are reiterated for their propagandavalue and becausethey impose a rhythmic structure on the courseof events.Caesar's text alsocontains many summariesand retrospectiveanalyses, giving significantform to pastevents, while on the column Trajan frequently looks to the left or "backward" (for ex- ample, scenes8, 9, and 16) and the diagonalcourse of the helix en- couragesretrogressive movements of the viewer'seyes (fig. 3.3). In- deed, Caesar'suse of the ablative absoluteas a nondigressivebut temporally isolatedform seemsanalogous to the employment of these repositionalmotifs and accentsin the helical relief." The pace of the narrative in both works fluctuatesconstantly, de- pending on the importance or complexity of the situation, for in- stance,the treatmentof Caesar'sbattle with the Nervii (z.r8ff.) or the repeatedattacks on the Dacian fortressesduring the Second Dacian War (scenesIOI-rz7) . Scenesetting takes the form of a dramaticcon- struct, artificially containedand progressivelytypified through repeti- tion, with the consequenterosion of historical content.3oSome lost official commentary on the Dacian Wars may lie behind the master's conception of the helix, but the relationshipbetween Caesar'sCorr- mentariiand the column is primarily ideological. The Colunrn of Traian and lts Heirs I()3

When Hamberg perceivedthe column as an epos of contemporary history, following Lehmann-Hartleben5sand against Wickhoff's older view that it incorporated a historical narrative of the annalistic r)'pe,'ohe emphasizedTrajan's role as the central character.Yet he did not free himself from the notion of the resgestae, that ordered list of achievementsessential to the annalistictradition, tied to a strict chronology and the principle of group rather than individual history. Hamberg was still trapped by the apparentcontinuity of representa- tron along the helicaltrail, which linked actionsin a logical (historical) scquence. Gauer showed that there is a historical program, arrangednot just successivelyby scenesbut in collectionsor groups of scenesthat in- corporate larger chronological units or periods in episodic form.5' These groups contain many scenes,running over four or more bands of relief, and although one sceneand often even two or three can be seenat once (fig. 3.3), none of the groups existswholly within a sin- qle visualfield. Nor canthe viewer readilycomprehend the beginning and end of one of theseepisodes in the absenceof highly visible mark- c'rs,such as the elementsin scenes75 and 78 in the middle of the col- unrn, which representdescriptively and symbolically the end of the First Dacian War. The breadthof scene75 andcertain combinations of scenes-48- 5o, 68-7I, 8z-85-imply the circumferentialcourse of the relief, but even in thesecases mnch lessthan half of the actualsur- taceof the band is readableat one time. There is little doubt that the individual scenesand Gauer's groups do function as articulatedunits of a historical narrative, constructed tor ready assimilationby the mind. Anyone with extraordinary eye- sight, great patience,and a retentivevisual memory can take it all in. But factual or historicaljustification is insufficient, since the audience is too restrictedby the limits of visibility. Thus, the appealto the eye and the mind must have been differently conceived,if the senseand the panegyricaltone of the relief were meant to be conveyed to the largestand best audiencepossible. The helix doesappear to have"sides" and "corners,"determined by the alignment of the column on the central axis of the Forum and on the podium (fig. :.r; pl. 3.r). This "facading"of the helix supports the developmentof vertical, thematic correspondencesamong various scenesoutside of the temporal network." Conspicuous among them are the multiple representationsof fortressesin the upper third of the column, where repetition compensatesfor poor visibility; the death of Decebalus(scene r45) appearsabove the figure of Victory (scene78), the connection effected despite the nine intervening spirals through F

I()4 Visual Narratives

foreshortening;the motif of the Ronran arnry crossing pontoon bridges,initiating the major campaignsof the war, is superimposedin scenes3-4, 48, and rot. To thesemay be addedthe verticalaxis on the northwest, which risesfrom Trajan's adlocutio(a formal addressto the troops) in sceneIo to the near frontality of the emperor in sceue r9, to Victory in sceneZ8 (fig. 3.3).Complementing these vertical ac- cents,the artist has achieveda nearly completeresolution of the helix, which actually begins on the southeastand ends on the northeast,but from the viewer's point of sight seemsto reach closure on the east, right above Trajan's initial appearancein scene6. Despite its abbrevi- ated form and the reversalof the helix, the numismatic rendering of the column (pl. : 3) shows that the spiral beganand endedbeneath the front oI Trajan's st:rtue(facing east?)." Indeed, the helir terminates on the coin below the emperor'soutstretched hand in harmony with Plirry'simagery of total powcr (Panagyric56.3). Given the conflicting requirements of continuous narrative and symbolic correspondence,the masterof Trajan's Column invented the helicalcomposition as an integratingmedium. Its movement is pri- marily diagonal, effectively distinguishingstory spacefrom discourse space.u"The rising pitch of eachband brings the upper registerof the right side of the visual field almost to the level of the center of the next higher registerat the left (pl. 3.r). As a result,the viewer is en- couragedto read right along the courseof the band and at its visual termination to look back and left to the "beginning" of the next band. Although upper is later within the terms of the historicalnarrative, es- tablishedby the helix, it is now neither immediately nor congruently later and thus the continuity of representationis broken. The master has createdan illusion of continuity that substitutesfor the integrity of story spacea structureof expressivediscourse whose principal actor is Trajan, the "actant" of narrative(figs. j.3, 3.4).u'History has been transformed into epic romance by the interruption of the story line with readily comprehended tableaux of lirnited dimensions, domi- nated by typical and repetitivescenes focused on the emperor. These tableaux map the surface of the helix, creating a seriesof highly integratedspatial forms that constitutethe nucleusof the sym- bolic, atemporalprogram (fig. 3.4).utThe distinctionbetween the lit- eral (annalistic)message and the symbolic content of the narrativerep- ertory, between fact and interpretation, has been defined visually. In this way, the masterexpressed the hierarchicalstructure of his compo- sition and connectedthe analogoustopoi, both ceremonialscenes and tableaux, in glorifying Trajan.u'The operative mentality is panegyri- cal. The Columnof Traian and lts Heirs rc)5

.\ distinction has thus been made between the spatialdistribution of :nci.lcnts depicted in the relief, and the order of their occurrence."' -fhc nrasterhas imposed the former system upon the viewer, relying uFon its significant coherenceas the primary instrument of narrative :rrnsmission.o'This processing of the historical record defines the :cndentiousconnection between eventsand transforms them into ele- nrcnts of a followable story, here given a highly formal, ceremonial srructurethat seemspeculiarly Roman."''The resulting mythical form rranslatesthe history of the Dacian Wars into a coherentsystem of ap- pcJrances,ordered by causeand effect as if the story were fiction.o' lndeed, the thrust toward narrative anachrony,"' developed in the countermovementsproduced by the helix and by the crossingpatterns rhat connectimages of Trajan from one band to another(fig.3.a), is rnadepossible by the tableaucomposition and by the prior knowledge of the eventsthat was possessedby the Roman public. Sincethe fun- .ilnrental connectionamong eventsis causal.fixed in Trajan, precise location in time and spacebecomes less important.6'q The scheme is eminently visible in the tight relationship between scenesglrc and rylzo (fig.3.3), which transcendsthe bounds of the registersand of temporal progression.A line of sight and of action passesfrom the fallen soldier in scene9 through the figure of Trajan immediately above him to the near-frontalimage of Trajan within the rvallsin scenesrgl20. The other side of the visual triangle at the right complements this stable, hierarchicaldesign, reinforced by the per- pendicular rising from Trajan, addressingthe soldiersin scenero to his reappearanceabove in scenesrglzo. The sides of this triangular schemehave been defined sharply in order to detachscenes 9 and rcr from eachother while intensifying the framing device,as Trajan faces first to the left and then to the right, thereby filling the triangular spacewith his presence.Although three distinct moments have been defined scenically,the associationis atemporalas the ensemblecomes into view as a whole and simultaneously,creating an image of ulti- mate causality." A similar intention shapesthe combination of scenes 8 ro r6 and scener8, where the direction is reversed,pointing toward the ceremonialevent, the lustratio,which initiatesthe campaign. The repetition of such combinations throughout the relief, many of them even more elaboratelydeveloped (fig. :.+), assertsa form of "emplot- ment"7l that further develops the mythosrather than historiaof the Dacian'Wars. These disjunctive tendenciesbring to mind certain cinematic tech- niques, previously noted in the Column of Trajan:'2rapid changesin perspective,marked shifts in the density of figural populationsand in r06 VisualNarratives

the quantity of detail, variationsin scenicdimension and orientation, alternationsbetween progressivelyactive and static segments,abrupt leftward movements counter to the normative direction, and the em- ployment of the quasi close-upas a focusingdevice. Although the use of analogiesdrawn from the cinema is risky in any analysisof helical relief, the unrolling spiral and the unrolling film do presentsome sim- ilarities in composition. Perhapsmost important among them are the significant, expressivecontradiction of stop-and-go movement, the use of more detail than can be comprehendedby the viewer, and the sacrificeof scenic independenceto continuity.'r Despite the sharing of many of these featuresby the two mediums, the transienceof the film and the permanenceof the relief interposea fundamentaldistinc- tion between them. The viewer of the column enjoys the option of seeingit all once, again, in part or altogether,or in any way desired, subjectto the influenceof the design.The artist had to limit the exer- ciseof theseoptions to tell his story and to make his point. He did so by controlling the vagariesof detail through patterning, by anchoring activity in well-defined, carefullyframed constructions,and by keying the flow of the strip on Trajan.'* In doing so, he converted the narra- tive into a double system of sets,one proceedingalong the helix, the other, as a paranarrative,set in tableauform." The pattern of the paranarrativeemerges clearly from Piranesiand others who distorted the relief in their rendering of the column by flattening the surface,which extendsthe registerslaterally beyond the true bounds of visibility, and by reducing the effect of foreshortening (fig. :.+) . Lines have beendrawn to indicatethose connections that es- tablish atemporalsets or groups, made more noticeablein the original when color was used to distinguish Trajan from the rest.76The lower sectionof the column comprisesa set of sevenbands from the begin- ning of the First Campaign (scenes4-6) to the beginning of the Sec- ond (scenes48-5o). This set culminatesin the figure of Trajan in sceneJo, which closely replicatesscene I2 and is similarly turned to the left. Despitethe number of bands,approximately 6.5 metershigh, the vertical relationshipsare clearly defined; scenesof river crossings that end in Trajan, placedon high, definethe boundariesof an episode that is chronologically and symbolically coherent, even if the major part of the helix is invisible. l7ithin this larger set are two subsets,consisting of the lower four bands(scenes 4-6 to z8-3o) and the upper four bands(scenes z8-3o to 48-5o), with the fourth band doing double duty. That band termi- natesthe static composition of the lower subsetin the sceneof Trajan The Column of Traian and lts Heirs r07

nreetingthe Dacian embassy(scene z8), which, in turn, is the basisfor rhe active scenesof marching and of war in the next two bands, ulti- rnately resolvedin the triumphant figure of the emperor in scene5o. Lessdistinct groupings of scenescan be recognized,effected by simi- larities in design and the frequency of Trajan's appearance,but they play a greater role in establishingthe unity of the helix than in pre- sentingthe iconographicprogram. So, despitethe importanceof the third and sixth bands,they do not form boundariesof the visual field in the sameway as the groupingsof bandsI-VII, I-IV, IV-VII, and even II-V. The repetition of a patterned tableau, consisting of four bands (or their equivalent),is important throughout becauseit creates r seriesof panel-likecompositions that rise up the column, defined by its sidesand by the ribbonedgeof the registers. Further up the shaft other sets of four bands come into view: the first contains bands VIII-XI (scenesS8-ZS); the second, bands XII-XV (scenes8r-ror/roz). Trajan doesnot appearso frequentlyin rhis sectionbr-rt his position is even more dominant, marking the an- gles of diamond- or kite-shapedcompositions; the only exceptionoc- curs in the great surrender scene (75), which ends the First Dacian War and marks the midpoint of the column and its history. Here Decebalusfills the right corner of the set, confronting Trajan as he standsproudly behind his men, who kneel before the emperor. Al- though the artist has spared no effort in extending this magnificent scenealmost the width of the column and in making it highly visible to spectators,looking perhapsfrom the upper-story windows of the adjacentBasilica Ulpia (fig. :.r), he has also recognizedthe impor- tanceof verticalcontinuity in his overalldesign. From below, the an- gle of the stairs on which Decebalusstands so prominently leadsthe eye diagonally to the left, to Trajan in the center of the next band, scene8r; that scenewith its architecturalframe definesthe apex of the lower set and the baseof the Lrpper.As the diagnosticlines show (fig. 3.4, a vertical axis runs fron-rthe equestrianfigure of Trajan in scene 58 through his body in scene8r to repeatin scenerorlroz, a highly chargedsacrificial ceremony. In this section,as in the lower groupings of bands, there are major and minor sets, establishingwell-defined tableaux that are not totally detachedfrom one another but, rather, are interlocked about the Imperial person. In the topmost section (flg. :.+) the height of each registerwas somewhat greaterto compensatefor the increasingdistance from the ground. Becauseof foreshortening,the visual field is here occupiedby five bands that appeareven smallerthan the spacetaken by four bands I()8 VisualNarratiues

lower down the shaft. These tightly interlocking sets of five bands consistof one set,containing bands XVII-XXI (scenesrr4-r4l), and the last set, bandsXVIII-XXII (scenesrfi-r471r48). In this section, the artisthas staged the last act of the DacianWars: the courseof his- tory noves from the siegeof a Daciantown (rr3) to the Roman camp (rz5), to the siegeof the Roman camp in the presenceof Decebalus Q34lt3_5),to the subnrissionof the Daciansbefore Trajan (r4r), to the pursuit of Decebalus(r4z), and finally to the display of his severed head Q47lr48) as the Roman soldiersround up Daciancaptives. This section readsas the concluding synopsisof the war for the composi- tion as a whole, an elaboratecoda to the themespresented more visi- bly below. The existenceof thesesynoptic tableauxand their role in dividing the helix into coherent visual fields raise the question of models and sources.Since the artist could not have developedhis design by trial and error on the relief itself, we must assumehe used cartoons,pre- paratory sketches,and models, which possibly influenced his con- ception.TTMany scholarshave looked to rhe tradition of Roman triunrphal painting, those paintings that representedrhe resgestae of victorious campaigns in enemy territory, often with explicit detail; such paintillgs were carried in the triumphal processionand were frequently displayed in public after the parade." It is not known whether thesepaintings took the form of ribbonlike srrips,like the he- lix beforeit was curledup (seefig. :.2), or that of panelsthat would be exhibited in sequenceduring the procession;perhaps the immediate pictorial source was an illustratedmanuscript of some type." Al- though both triumphal paintings and illustrated manuscripts-histo- ries, official records, battlefield accounts-could have provided ap- propriate models for the helical relief, they do not survive. Potential models do survive, however, that suggestthe importance of the tab- leau panel as a basic component in the design. The famous EsquilineTomb painting (fig. t.z), commemoratirrg the Roman victory in the SecondSamnite War, provides an example of superimposedregistration. Other pictorial models fall in the tradi- tion of chorographicrepreserrtation. appropriared by Ronran triunr- phal painting as the background of campaigning,according to literary sources.*''The late second-century(n.c.) Nile Mosaic from Palestrina best indicatesthis function in its depiction of Ptolemy II's journey up the Nile.8' In the pseudohelicaldesign of the mosaic, movement from the bottom of the panel to the top signifiesmovement up rhe Nile in spaceand time, as measuredby loosely construcredtopographical vi- The Columnof Trajan and Its Heirs r(]9

Fig.l.S. Comparison betweenthe Flight of Aeneasfrom the Tabula IliacaCapitolina, left, and the east side of the Column of Trajan, right, scenes6-35 (Column of Trajan adapted from S. Reinach, Ripertoirede reliefsgr((s et rcmainsr IParis I9o9] 332-34o) gnettes, strung out on either side of the river with a good deal of shifting from one side to the other. Here the Nilotic landscapedomi- natesthe ensemble,with the viewer taking the placeof Ptolemy mov- ing up the Nile and enjoying the changing scenery.In the column, however, Trajan is both voyager to victory and master of the ensem- ble, so dominant in his person that he standsfor permanencein an otherwise changing world. A near-perfectprecedent for the tableau panel can be found in the teleologicaldesign of the Iliupersispanel on the TabulaIliaca (pl. z.r), especiallywhen compared with the lower part of the column on the southeast(fig. 3.i)." The schematicdrawing divides the Iliupersis panelinto six registers,two of which (ra and Ib, 4a and 4b) represent motifs of destructionand flight, respectively,framing the two middle registers.Aeneas appears in register z, receiving the household gods from his father, Anchises,who is pursuedby a Greek warrior; Aeneas reappearsin register 3, enlargedfor dramatic emphasis,holding An- chiseson his shoulder and leading Ascaniusby the hand as he leaves the doomed city of Troy, guided to safetyby Hermes. At the bottonl IIO Visual Narratiues

Platej.q. Arch of SeptimiusSeverus, Rome. East facade,reconstruction of P. S. Bartoli

of the panel, in register 4, Aeneasand his family board ship to make their escapeto the West. The figure of Aeneas,repeated three times, deflnesthe courseof action. As the primary acror, he is centralto the entire composition of the panel, the swing figure of register3, almost frontally posed in the gates of Troy. Despite the small scaleo[ the Iliupersispanel and the downward courseof movemenr,the conrposi-

I t

I h The Columnof Traian and lts Heirs III

t (--- COUl{cll-tloilCllO I 4\l^t [".ffJ 6 (>J') ri/ 1 I rorocurroI

3ulnl3$o|l

rDrtsa Slrlf t9troN

cttsttHoN tllltct

tltr ucta SUtflttt|oN r^"fi,j

7 " \qq trrGt{l ;td

ctrtt?lloal tultalJlloN lnructa 5lrct $:Gr

IY

0 t tatlltlus ,rv:lur lrJ + t DlllCllON Ot ilOV:m:Nl Fig. j.6. Schematicrendering of thc narrative panelsin thc Arch of Septimius Scverus,Rome (adapted from R. Brilliant, The Arch oJ SeptimiusSeuerus in the Roman Forum, MAAR z9 [Rome ry671, fig. p. r6e)

tion closely resemblesthe sectionalorganization of Trajan's Column, not only in the establishmentof successivesequences that crossreal or irnplied bands and in the use of framing devicesbut also in the great weight placedupon the principal actor as the key to the narrative. If the Tabula Iliacaillustrates in miniature the narrativefunctions of the tableau panel, a grand application of this format appearsin the great panelson the Arch of Septimius Severusin the Roman Forum (pl. :.+)." Thesepanels contain historical material pertaining to Sep- timius's victory over the Parthiansat the beginning of the third cen- tury, rnaterialthat has been divided into scenes,arranged by episode, and dominated by the figure of the emperor (fig. :.6) The Severan tr2 Visual I:Jarratiues

artist appearsto have looked closely at the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius (fig. 3.7), then unrolled the helix in his mind and spreadthe relief flat againstthe facadeof the triumphal arch. He used real architectureto frame the tableaupanel but retainedthe scenicdi- visions of the columns as well as the registratedscheme of the now ir- relevanthelix. The observerbegan his reading of the panels(fig. 3.6) at the bottom and followed the ostensiblecourse of the historicalnar- rative, shifting his gaze from side to side and gradually upward, the key to his visual path provided by the imperial presence.It is of con- siderableinterest to note that the dimensionsof the Severanpanel, ap- proximately 3.9 metershigh and 4.7 meterswide, closelycorrespond to the calculateddimensions of the tableaux on Trajan's Column, which can be fairly estimatedto be about 4 meters in height (four bands)and about 3 meterswide, the latter being the apparencwidth of the column when reduced by the zones of impaired visibility at the sides. The recurrenceof very structttredmotifs in the Severanpanels follows the intensification of the ceremonial mode on the Aurelian Column, revealedmost clearly in the greater relianceon frontal im- ages of the emperor. Still, one cannot say that the greater symbolic weight of the composition adequately compensatesfor the greater confusion in the visual field on the Severanpanels. This impetus to transform events into ritualized occasionsinflu- enced the composition of severalcareer and battle sarcophagiof the late second century,8asuch as the fine Pietralatasarcophagus in the Terme (plt. :.J-3.7)." A tangled sceneof battle between Romans and barbarians fills the front of the sarcophagus,framed between symbolic pairs of captivesplaced beneath trophies and dominated by the rising equestrianfigure of a Roman generalin the center. On the ends, complementing the paired captivesin front, other barbariansare led into captivity over a pontoon bridge at the left, a proleptic intro- duction to the whole, and barbariansgenuflect in submissionon the right, a successfulconclusion to the campaign. This predella-likear- rangement of ends and front follows a pattern deveiopedin contem- porary mythological sarcophagi,discussed in Chapter 4. In the Pie- tralata sarcophagusthe typology of the Roman careerhas also been played out on the lid in three classicscenes: the clement generalat the right, his marriagein the center,and his wife and child at the left. The repertory constitutesthe salient and ceremonialaspects of a virtuous life as husband, father, and generousvictor. The schemerests on the

Fig.S.Z.The Column of Marcus Aurelius, Rome (adaptedfrom G. B. Piranasi,TroJeo o sia magniju colonnaroclide di marmolRome 1775or t776lpl. zz) j:. -t.J. Pietralatabattle sarcophagus,front. Terme Museum, Rome. Photos:Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rome.

P!ttej.6. Pietralatabattle sarcophagus,leflt end. Plate1.7. Pietralatabattle sarcophagus, right cnd II4 Visual Narratiues

concept of victory, symbolized below, and the sculptor has made ev- ery effbrt to connect the two levels in his composition. The prevalenceof this symbolic mode, which submerged particu- lars into patternedsigns of authority, deeply influencedthe composi- tion of this sarcophagus.Despite the elaborationof detail, the motifs are conventional, even ready-made,since the only unJinishedparts of the sarcophagusare the heads of the Roman general and his wife, waiting it would seem for the "right" portraits to bring them to life. This is stereotypeddrama. The forms of an official history, derived from imperial models, wait for the actorsof that history, and without them there can be no possibility of narrative. Even in the Column of Marcus Aurelius the role dominatesthe per- son of the emperor. The Aurelian Column, now standing in the Pi- azza Colonna in Rome, just off the Corso, was dedicatedin r8o to honor the emperor's victoriesin centralEurope over the Germansand Sarmatians;it was completedin r93, someeighty yearsafter the Col- umn of Trajan, which servedas the prime model (fig. l.Z).-'Rising above a base,now lost, which resembleda sarcophagusfront," the Aurelian Column closely follows its model, but the number of spiral bands has been reducedfrom twenty-two to twenty, the pitch of the helix is steeper,and the carving is deeper, enhancingvisibility. The Aurelian Column exhibitsa comparablehistoricity in its presenratiorl of the eventsof the Germanand MarcomannicWars of the early r7os, although the number of sceneshas been reduced." Still, the figure of Marcus Aurelius appearsmore frequently. sixty-two rimes as opposed to fifty-nine for Trajan; the distribution is significant,because Marcus appearsthirty-six times befbre Victory, marking the end of the first war, and only twenty-six times thereafter,when he would be lessvis- ible. The Aurelian Column has many more ceremonial scenesand many fewer connectives,lessening the value of the tableaucomposi- tion but strengthening the development of strong vertical accents, as the viewer's eye moves upward fronr one Imperial ceremony to the next. Scenesof battle, the taking of captives,and acts of cle- mency-the Pietralatarepertory (pls. 3.j-3 .7)-appear more fre- quently on the bottom half of the Aurelian Column, where the em- peror can more readily dominate the composition. For the same reason, the more purely ceremonial scenes,such as advent, address, and the departure fbr war are nlore common at the higher levels, where the simple organization of the hierarchicalcomposition made the emperorstand out." It was easierto seethe Aurelian Column becausethe monument The Columnof Traian and lts Heirs II5

rvas located in the center of a large, open square,lying between the \-ia Flaminia and the Temple of the Divine Marcus."' For this reason, rhc beginning of the helix, the first appearanceof the emperor, and rhc figure of Victory all occur on the northeast side, facing the Via Flaminia, and there engagethe greatestpublic attention. Scholarshave long recognizedthe greatereffect oI the disposition of sceneson the .\urelian Column, an effect created partly by the greater viewing spaceavailable but even more so by the expressionof celebratiorather rharrof historiaor narratio.Maximus of Tyre, rhetor and philosophein rhe reign of the Antonine emperors.wrote:

The narrationof thesethings, through the assistanceof memory, pre- servesthe humanrace, . guardsits virtues,and makes its actronsrm- mortal through renown. In short, historical narrations are to the hearernrost delightful with respectto pleasure,and to the spectatorwith rcspectto recollection. but at the sametimc we must say, Your har- mony, O historians, is beautiful and most alluring, but a worthy soul dcsiressomething else. For what is there venerablein the record of ancient evils to him who has not yet learnedhow these things are to avoided?For if historians,distinguishing things worthy from such as are basc,concealed some and rclatedothers, the soul would be benefittedby thc imitation of historical transactionsin the samemanner as thc eye bv the imitation of painting.''

The detached ceremonial scenes rather than the synoptic tableau dominate the helical composition of the Aurelian Column and enrpha- size the virtue of the emperor in its purest state of being. Tied to- gether vertically, such sceneseffectively disconnected the Imperial im- agery from the helical course of putative history and quickly led the viewer upward to the gilded statue of Marcus Aurelius at the top. But for those who could not or would not look so far, the entire program of the Aurelian Column was summed up at eye level in the relief at the base (fig. l.Z).There, barbarians knelt in submission to the em- peror. In a manner of thinking, the isolated panels of the codex had replaced the dynamic flow of the roll. In retrospect the helical relief of the Column of Trajan embodies three distinct, but interrelated codes of varying degrees of narrativity: the annalistir, the iconic, and the imagistic.The annalistic code informs the helix as a primary whole, providing the ostensible documentary proof of the successful actions of the Dacian Wars. The helical mode of presentation and the extraordinary amount of factual detail, which transcend the limits of immediate visual perception, offer viewers a generalized concept of the whole both at the time of first sight and I16 Visnal Narratiues

subsequently,when they reflect on this glorious episode of Roman arms and the emperor who brought them to victory. The iconic code shapesthe ceremonial structure through individual scenes(as recog- nized by Lehmann-Hartleben),whereby Trajan's powerful effect on affairs is manifested in comprehensible,framed patterns, constantly repeatedto enhancetheir reception.It is this systemof codificationby scenethat so dominates the visual structure of the Aurelian Column. The imagistic code relies on the tableauas the principal form of im- mediate visual communication.creating a seriesof shifting uisiorres that convey the illusion of historicalcontinuity and satisfythe need for proof without losing sight of Trajan as the dramatispersotta.oJ The artist who invented Trajan's Column integrated these three systems or codes to an unusual degree. Historical reality thus per- serveredas a factual resonancein viewers minds, the iconic scenefo- cusedtheir attention, and the tableaugave them something to look at that made visual sense.'3For thesereasons the Column of Trajan can legitimately assertits claim as the classicexample of Roman narrative art; incorporating elementsof narration that offered immediate as well as extended gratification, ir is coherent in detail and in its thematic formulations, all governed by a heroic central characterwho never disappearsfrom view or from the consciousnessof viewers. This singular achievementin Roman narrativeart provided an abre- active model for its successors,when valueschanged. As we have seen in consideringthe panelsfrom the SeveranArch in the Forum (pl. :.+; fig. :.6), eachpanel is readinternally from the bottom up, while the four panelstogether are read sequentiallyfrom left to right on eachfa- cade from the Forum to the capitol side of the arch. This fractured system of narrative discoursecompletes itself in the highly ceremonial concluding addressof Septimiusto his troops besidethe Parthiancapi- tal in the fourth panel.'nThe two facesof the arch are bound together in temporalsequence, but weakly, by the passageof the synopticnar- rative containedin the panels.This narrativesubstance has been rein- forced by the presenceofthe Four Seasonsin the adjacentspandrels of the central bay (p1.3.4), as the seasonalcycle moves from Winter be- side panel I to the rich harvest of Autumn next to panel IV, symbolizing the successfulconclusion of the Parthian War.n' Despite the consistent,if abbreviated,narrativity of the panels,their historical content has been devaluedby their allegoricalmode, supportive of an extended image of cosmic security. The very concept of ;felicitas temporumappears to emerge from Imperial victory, when nnder- stood as a sign of divine favor, but like the cycle of the Seasonsit has Tlrc Columnof Traian and lts Heirs T17

ncither beginning nor end. The narrative program of the Severan .\rch equivocatesbetween annalisticand iconic codesas the preferred vchiclefor the exaltationof the enperor, the hero in and beyond his- rr)r\'. Yet it moves decisivelytoward an atemporal form of reference lhat eventuallydeprives narrative not only of its primacy but of its in- tcrnalcoherency as well. On the contemporary tetrafrontal Arch of Septimius Severus in Lcptis Magna in Libya there were severalregistrated, crowded, quasi- n.lrrative reliefs, some of which vaguely resemblethe siegescenes in thc panels of his Roman arch.'o However, these reliefs were not placedon the facadesbut rather on the inside of the piers, where de- spite their ready accessto the viewer their ancillary position indicates thc reducedstatus of the narrativein the ensemble.Indeed, their very locationimplies their reductionto the role oI predelle,conrplenrentine rhe major sculpturalprogram on the exterior, and suggeststhe inferi- ority of their history. Coins of Septimiusthat proclaim him Fundator Pacis,Pacator Orbis, Rector Orbis, and RestitutorUrbis supportthis vierv. The most thorough-going attempt to assimilatethe tradition of the historiated column to the format of the triumphal arch was under- taken in the design of the domed tetrapylon erectedin honor of Gal- erius at Salonikashortly after 3oo (fig. 1.8). This monumenr has undergoneclose study in recent years with much disagreementabout the representativeand descriptivequality of its reliefsin the conrexrof Galerius'sPersian Wars, an issuecomplicated by the lossof two of the original four piers." Despite the regularity of the registratedfrieze as a framing device for the reliefs and its applicationto all four sidesof eachpier, the attempt fails to achieveeither the narrativecoherency of the helix-which after all has no sides, no conlers-or the icono- graphic balanceof the paneledfacade, largely becauseof the overbur- den of messagesand the confusion of narrative codes. Historically derived topics and conceptualizedrituals of stateare in- terwoven throughout, competing for attention, while the multiple points of entry into the tetrapylon offer, perhaps,roo many immedi- ate options to the viewer. The GalerianArch with its insistent regis- tration lacks those visual accentsthat focus attention, and thus the dis- tinctions between externalizedfact and the ideal reality, presentedin the reliefs(fig. :.8), areblurred. Unlike the panelsin the SeveranArch in Leptis, here the registersare everything; unlike the columns with their helical motion and vertical axes, here the registersare discretely defined, bound laterally by the edgesof the piers, separatingone side

-/ II8 Visual Narratiues

AI,/\\B

Elcfemenfio l)\\ Y/(l@uo"a"

@ Gfemcnrio l"-SS lKt.lgotbsorired

13 pcrodc ol 77 Yolo (omelr >

lrl onimol 28 onimol b@ty > IY IY

lrl ill SAION I rA (northwcrtl P^LACr > V

[!!l odlo(utio

@l pcoce 2 coplure ol embot5y horem

27 Vora 13 porodc of

2E anlmol l{ anlnol booly lv IY

ADnrANOPr,l < PATACI (routhcqrrI rau30[rum > V

Fig. j.8. Arrangement of the registersin the Arch of Galerius,Salonika The Column of Traian and lts Heirs rr9

tiom another, and by their horizontal frames of stone moldings, u'hich inhibit the vertical extensionof the themesfrom one registerto .tnother. Yet it is the thematic natureof the Galerianscheme that has come to be regarded as the organizing principle of the entire program, Gal- crius's victories over the Persianshaving been used as an opportunity to glorify him, his Imperial colleagues,and the awesomeauthority of his office. Recentreconstructions of the program have suggestedthat historicalparaphrase and hierarchicalimagery alternatedon the differ- enr facesof the standing piers, marked by some degree of enrphasis upon the major avenueof approach,leading to the Imperiai palaceto the southwest.esYet, it is not only the registratedcomposition of the GalerianArch with its falseillusion of lateralcontinuity, nor the mo- notonous composition, nor the additive characterof the work, nor the confusing mixture of narrative codesand hierarchicalmodes that viti- ate the integrity of the narrative, even in this attenuatedform. The tault lies, rather, in a strong disinterestin the narrativeconstruct itself and in the concomitant humanizing processof explanation.This phe- nomenon is understandablein a regime that prized over all other pos- srble attributes of the emperor the quality of everlastingpower, un- changing,transcending history.* Of course,if Galeriushimself had been intendedas the prime viewer of the tetrapylon and its reliefs-an audienceof one-then the dominance of regality over reality would be absolutely consistentwith his majesty."''Such an interpretationof eventsas symbols of divine authority is a reflex of the panegyric,that speechof unmitigated praisedelivered before rulers of the late Roman Empire:

In lateRoman pancgyrics, events wcre not necessarilynarratcd in detail, but could be explicitlyor implicitly passedovcr to makeroom for de- scriptions of statcs of af-fairsand of imperial actions in terms of pageants and ceremonies. Instead of hearing of historical facts, the audicnce heard of facts as symbols and as tokens of imperial majesty. . Ir was a pane- gyric commonplace to say that the cmperor's achievements were too great and too numerous to be narrated in detail.""

In effect the Arch of Galeriusat Salonikais an example of bricolage, constructedout of the repertory of Imperial images. Despite appear- ancesthe Arch of Constantinein Rome (fig :.9) is not. The latter monument, commemoratingthe new emperor'svictory over Max- entiusat the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 3lz, was dedicatedthree years later.rr'}2 The arch celebratesConstantine's victory in his per- r2() VisualNarratiues

Hrnos

r : IRAJANIC SOUTCt D H : HADRIANIC SOURCE u a A r AUttLlAN SOUnCt ] C: CONSIANTINIAN S€UIPTUIE

EEol'='90

) cr tEGrNS )

NONIH ) Fig. S.S.Arrangement of reliefswith their sourcesin the Arch of Constantine,Rome t sonal drive for supremeauthority in the West againsthis domesticop- ponent, who posed as a staunchdefender of Roman tradition. Perhaps for this reasonthe program insistsso much on Constantine'sposition as the deliverer of the state from tyranny and presentshim in the

I The Column ol'Traian and Its Heirs

rnediatingrole as continuatorof the old, gloriousorder of Rome and as generator of the new order under divine providence.r'" Accord- ingly, the program of the arch takes on a strongly historical cast of grandioseimplications, because among other things it containsboth analepticand proleptic elementsof narrative."'' The courseof eventsleading to Constantine'svictory has been reca- pitulated in the narrow ribbon of registratednarrative that begins or-r the northwest corner (CI) and fills the fiieze on the west side with scerlesof his departurefrom Milan. The frieze continueson the south facade,first with the successfulsiege of Verona (Cz), followed by the defeatof Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (C3), and finally marks the trir-rmphantentry of Constantineinto Rome (C+) on the eastend. This rlarrativeribbon enwrapsthe whole arch, unlike previousexamples, in a manner reminiscentof Roman mythological sarcophagi(pls. 4.3-4.5). The friezeeventually represents the completionof this his- torical processin the two staticregisters on the north facadeof the arch, which facesRome: thesereliefs show the emperor Constantine in glory, addressingthe Roman citizenry from the rostrums in the Fo- rum (C5) and, again centrally placed,in the act of distributing his lar- gess to the Roman needy (C6). Unlike the continuous rightward movenlentof segmentSI-4, which presentthe actionsof the victori- ous campaign,the final segments(C5 and C6) mark the culmination of the story in set piecesthat developa highly orderedimage of static rlajesty quite beyond the boundariesof time, even if they once did happen. Therefore, the narrative portion of the frieze takes the form of a prologue, which comes to a full stop in the two iconic composi- tions on the north. These formal motifs of adlocutio/ordtio(CS) and largitio(C6) find their justification in what has gone before, as seenby the viewer; as icons, they are unbounded, thus proleptically assuring the positive coLlrseof events in a state of perenniaiwell-being. The static, permanentcharacter of thesetwo motifs, then, symbolizesboth the ceremonial conclusion of the narrative course and the establish- ment of a prosperousfuture under Constantine. But the ConstantinianArch also incorporatesan analepticmode of narration through the physical incorporation of pieces taken from early Imperial monuments or from referencesin its own design. Con- stantinepermanently "borrowed" a number of reliefsand statuesfrom a triumphal monument of Trajan, eight tondi from a Hadrianic hunt- ing monument celebratinghis uirtus,and eight panelsfrom a lost tri- umphal arch of Marcus Aurelius (fig. :.C). This act does not seem to have been the product of artistic declinenor of stylistic insensitiv- rz2 Visual Narratiues

ity but rather of a deliberate program of historical reconstruction whereby the old becamenew, and the past the present.r"5 Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and even Septimius Severus (through design) were consideredthe great emperors of the recent past, prior to the turbulenceof the third century. In consolidatingthis reuseof the past, the original Imperial headson the borrowed reliefs were replacedby Constantine'sown portrait with but few exceptions. Thus Constantinemade their past fti-r.These portions of older nlonu- ments came from Rome itself and rvereprobably well known, and the very processof assimilationmust have been public knowledge. The resulting associations,deliberate acts of rejuvenation,expressed an es- peciallypositive, if anachronistic,reconstruction of Roman history. In the central passagewayof the arch, two sectionso[a Trajanic re- lief were hung with replacementportraits: a martial theme on the left (facing north) under the legend Liberatori(Jrbis, paraphrasing scenes Cr-3 of the external Constantinianfrieze; on the right side, the en- trance of Constantine (n6 Trajan) into Rome appearedunder the in- scriptiorr FundatorPacis. The latter conceit complements the Con- stantinianfrieze on the eastend (Ca), which describesmore explicitly the sameevent. Many similar correspondencesexist betweenthe Con- stantinianfriezes on the facadesand the reconditionedHadrianic tondi just above them, and finally with the remodeledAurelian panelsin the attic. These vertically expressedrelationships-stronger on the north side becauseof the greaterweight of symbolic forms-rely on the de- vices of incorporationby analogy and of typological reiterations,a principle of organization first developed withir-r the unified, unitary time frame of Trajan'sColumn. This deliberatereuse of the past, whereby that past in the form of recognizablespolia is brought into the presentso that it may become the foundation of future progress, collapsestenrporal distinctions."'n Within the Constantiniancontext, therefore, Roman Inperial history has been fully redesigned,reformed, so that its perennialqualities are fulfilled in Constantine. On the east end of the arch the narrative comes to the end of the new beginning with his triumphant entry into Rome and into supreme power. Above this frieze hovers a Con- stantiniantondo, emulating the Hadrianic tondi on the facades.It presentsthe figure of Apollo/Helios, rising over the seain his golden chariot, holding the orb of the sun in his hand, a symbol of world do- minion. Surelythis imagerepresents the dawn of a new era, sincethe descendingLuna appearsin the correspondingtondo on the west end, symbolizing Maxentius's fall. Nor is this surprising, when Con- The Columnof Traian and Its Heirs r23

stantine adopted the imagery of Sol Invictus as his own, confirmed by the epithet applied to him by the panegyricist, "oriens imperator."1"7 Deliberate acts of choice, then, govern the location of this Solar tondo on the east, where the Sun rises, and one is reminded of Tra- jan's initial appearance,facing east on his column (plt. :.t, 3.2; fig. 3.r). By this device, the unknown designer of Constantine's Arch has strengthened his programmatic concept that all before was prologue, as the old completed itself in the new. But he has also made a riddle out of his mixture of past, present, and future, best appreciated by those who know before they see, who apply hermeneutics to their task of reconstructing narrative out of disparate pieces.

We ought in some sort to imitate the bees;andjust as they in thcrr wan- derings to and fro, sip the flowers, thcn arrangetheir spoil and distribute among the combs so I too shall put into writing all that I have ac- quired in the various courscof my reading,to reduceit thereby to order and to give it coherence.For not only does arrangementhelp thc mem- ory, but the actual processof arrangement,accompanied by a kind of mental fermentation which servesto seasonthe whole, blends the di- verse extracts to make a singlc flavor; with the result that, even if the sourcesare evident, what we get in the end is still something clearlydif- ferent from those known sources.r"8