CUJAH MENU Vertigo and Vanity: A Study of Trajan’s Column Heather McDonald There are numerous examples of architectural monuments in ancient Rome— structures that involved complex building procedures, expensive materials, im- measurable aid, and careful engineering. Trajan’s victory column can be count- ed as one among these architectural monuments. Although there are character- istics that set it within the parameters of a traditional monument, there are also some that allow for a variation from this model. This exposition will consider the general typology of the triumphal column as well as the particular formal qualities of Trajan’s Column. When considering the implications of the formal qualities, we can ask what and how does this monument communicate to its present audience? In our response, we must consider the contingency of our in- terpretation from our own historical perspective to avoid anachronisms. I would like to consider Trajan’s column not only as traditional monument, but also as a monument that communicates an aporetic message. Trajan’s Column acknowledges and asserts coherence and continuity and simultaneously allows for disruption of that coherence. In what follows, I would like to consider the status of the monument. It is perhaps useful to consider William H. Gass’s apt remark about monuments: “The monumental wrestles with the dialectic of en- durance and denial” [1]. What is it that Trajan’s column denies? What does it claim to endure? And are these reconcilable in any way? A descriptive introduction to the monument is appropriate at this point, con- sidering a monument’s physicality is primary to its status as a monument. Tra- jan’s Column was among many of the architectural additions and modifcations in Rome that the emperor was responsible for during his reign (98-117 C.E.). Trajan’s Column was a component of a large forum initiated (106-113 C.E.) by Trajan and most likely his architect, Apollodorus of Damascus [2]. The Column can be classifed as a victory pillar (triumphal column) and a funerary column. Although Trajan’s Column was completed in 113 C.E.—before he died—the Column was designed to be a funerary column [3]. The victory column was es- tablished by Trajan to catalogue and celebrate his victories in the Dacian wars (101-106 C.E.). The Luna marble bas-reliefs along the exterior of the column are in a spiral formation and illustrate various events during the wars that Trajan conducted in Dacia, such as medics assisting wounded soldiers during battle. At the base of the column is an entrance to a spiral staircase that leads to the top of the col- umn where there is a platform to stand and observe the vista. The base holds the ashes of Trajan, so the funerary aspect of the structure is present in the mind of the individual who then ascends the marble stairs [4]. Initially, a bronze eagle stood at the top of the column, but it was later replaced by a statue of the emperor Trajan afer he died in 117 [5]. There currently stands a statue of St. Peter, which replaced that of Trajan in 1588 [6]. The stairway inside the col- umn is carved from blocks of marble placed one on top of the other, making the stairwell structurally integral to the exterior of Trajan’s Column [7]. The height of the column is an impressive 35.23 m (115 f 7 ins), and it serves neither architecturally to support a pediment, nor is it exclusively decorative (without function [8]). It does not have a structural or peripheral role within a larger building but is an autonomous structure mirroring the autonomous role of the emperor afer the fall of the Republic in ancient Rome. The physical character- istics of Trajan’s Column distinguish its monumental status in its grandiosity, totality, and presence. In addition to the physical characteristics of the Column, one must recognize the importance of the topographical location, architectural context, and orien- tation of the column. The location of Trajan’s column is north-east of the Capi- toline hill and north of the Forum Romanum. It was assumed for a time that the inscription on the pedestal of Trajan’s Column, which spoke of a mountain that was removed in the construction of Trajan’s Forum, referred to a hill that connected the Capitoline and the Quirinel and that Trajan removed this hill in the process of constructing his forum [9]. However, upon recent excavations, it was revealed that this probably did not occur since there is evidence of previ- ous architectural development underneath the foundations of the Column and surrounding area [10]. Nevertheless, its metaphorical implications are all the same: Trajan had the power and means to move mountains for Rome. Trajan’s reign initiated architectural development that included markets, tem- ples, baths, triumphal arches, and other types of utilitarian and social buildings [11]. Trajan’s Column stands in an open court next to Trajan’s basilica and is sheltered on the east and west sides by the Bibliotheca Ulpia [12]. The Temple of Divine Trajan is situated to the north of the Column and to the south is the Basilica of Trajan [13]. The Column of Trajan is the locus that these principle buildings encircle. It is important to recall that the physical remains of Trajan are located at the base of the Column. This allies the ashes of Trajan with the centre of this orbit of principle buildings and indicates the signifcance of the autonomy of the Roman emperor through his ashes. The architectural context of the location of Trajan’s Column indicates its symbolic importance. To further elucidate the signifcance of Trajan’s Column, it is helpful to consid- er some analogous architectural structures. Two types that come to mind are obelisks and large-scale sundials. In particular, for the latter, the Horologium Augusti in the Campus Martius comes to mind. The Romans ofen appropriat- ed cultural forms and structures in their conquests. The most popular example is of the Roman appropriation of Greek culture; however, this also occurred for other territories, such as Egypt. The strong resemblance between Trajan’s Col- umn and an obelisk is perhaps little surprise considering such appropriative tendencies, but of course, the Romans were selective in their cultural appropri- ation—appropriation of the Barbarian West was highly uncommon if not com- pletely absent. Why would the Romans appropriate the Egyptian obelisk? The symbolism of the form is signifcant. The phallic nature of the obelisk in Egypt- ian mythology is connected with the death of Osiris and the commemoration of his virility initiated by Isis [14]. The connotations of dominion, renewal, and dissemination in the phallic obelisk appealed to Roman ideals. Trajan’s Column stands as a visual disruption in the natural and architectural landscape of Rome. George Hersey makes an interesting comparison between the helical relief of Trajan’s Column and the helical structure of D.N.A. The helical form of a col- umn is also referred to as a “Solomonic” shaf, which alludes to biblical tradi- tions and the apparent use or possibly invention of the spiral column for a tem- ple by Solomon (or his architect Hiram of Tyre [15]). Hersey draws a progres- sion from the spiral column to the twisted column of the baroque and remarks at their “powerfully biotic” attributes [16]. Trajan’s Column stands as an early example of this helical form which signifes a strong, continuous movement perpetuated. Its ideological connotations are quite clear. In addition to the resemblance to an obelisk, Trajan’s Column also calls to mind the Horologium Augusti in the Campus Martius. The sundial consists of a gnomon, the vertical pointer that casts a shadow on the face of the clock to re- veal annual and daily time. The indexical attributes of the Horologium Augusti apply to Trajan’s Column. The solid form indicates what is directly above: the dome of the heavens, the cosmos. This idea of the indexicality of a triumphal column is referred to briefy in John E. Moore’s essay on the Monument in London, modeled afer Trajan’s Column, among other infuences [17]. These morphological analogies reveal the context in which we can understand Tra- jan’s Column as identifying and legitimizing itself by way of reference to archi- tectural predecessors—without overshadowing its innovation. Trajan’s Column became an architectural predecessor itself. It was a model both for the Column of Antoninus Pius in Rome (161 C.E.) as well as for the Column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome (174 C.E [18]). The latter has a spiral col- umn relief and an interior stairwell that leads to the top of the column where a statue of the Emperor crowns the Column. Similarly, the reliefs on the Column of Marcus Aurelius document the wars that were led by him against German groups situated north of the Danube [19]. Imitations of a structure indicate suc- cess and popularity as well as monumental status. Trajan’s Column espouses this characteristic of a traditional monument because of the imitations that were inspired by the structure. The commemorative purposes of Trajan’s Column are inscribed in the helical reliefs of Trajan’s conquest of Dacia. Commemoration takes the form of a (pos- sibly hyperbolic) reconstruction of the events which established Trajan’s status as a competent and successful emperor. It historicizes and legitimates the new land and wealth that Trajan conquered. It emphasizes the positive, the present, and the established, rather than the absent. For a diferent perspective on the monument, we can turn to the twentieth cen- tury artist and writer, Robert Smithson, who described a contemporary monu- ment that difered greatly from the traditional sort in its utility and aesthetic.