Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

无法识别作者。根据版权声明推断作者为Gaius Cornelius – 无法识别来源。根据版权声明推断为其自己的作品。

Roman soldiers: cornicen — players of the cornu (horn). From the cast of Trajan’s column in the Victoria and Albert museum, London.

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Poussin Rape SabineLouvre

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD.

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Warrior weapons found in a tomb in Lanuvium, near Rome. Vth century BC. Kept in Diocletian’s Baths Museum, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Battaglia tra Romani e barbari all’epoca delle guerre marcomanniche
(sarcofago di PortonaccioRomaMuseo Nazionale Romanopalazzo Massimo alle Terme).

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin-nobg.png

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Roman army

Stèle trouvée sur le Forum Romain, à proximité du Lacus Curtius, représentant un cavalier romain du ive siècle av. J.-C.

 

Coin showing (obverse) head of the late Roman emperor Julian(ruled 361–363 AD) wearing diadem and (reverse) soldier bearing standard holding kneeling barbarian captive by the hair, legend and Myth VIRTUS EXERCITUS ROMANORUM (“Valour of Roman army”). Gold solidusSirmium mint.

The Roman army(Latinexercitus Romanus) was the terrestrial armed forces deployed by the Romans throughout the duration of Ancient Rome, from the Roman Kingdom (to c. 500 BC) to the Roman Republic (500–31 BC) and the Roman Empire(31 BC – 395), and its medieval continuation the Eastern Roman Empire. It is thus a term that may span approximately 2,206 years (753 BC to 1453 AD), during which the Roman armed forces underwent numerous permutations in composition, organisation, equipment and tactics, while conserving a core of lasting traditions.[1][2][3].

Historical overview

Early Roman army (c. 500 BC to c. 300 BC)

The Early Roman army was the armed force of the Roman Kingdomand of the early Republic (to c. 300 BC). During this period, when warfare chiefly consisted of small-scale plundering raids, it has been suggested that the army followed Etruscan or Greek models of organisation and equipment. The early Roman army was based on an annual levy.

The infantry ranks were filled with the lower classes while the cavalry (equites or celeres) were left to the patricians, because the wealthier could afford horses. Moreover, the commanding authority during the regal period was the high king. Until the establishment of the Republic and the office of consul, the king assumed the role of commander-in-chief.[4] However, from about 508 BC Rome no longer had a king. The commanding position of the army was given to the consuls, “who were charged both singly and jointly to take care to preserve the Republic from danger”.[5]

The term legion is derived from the Latin word legio; which ultimately means draft or levy. At first there were only four legions. These legions were numbered “I” to “IIII”, with the fourth being written as such and not “IV”. The first legion was seen as the most prestigious. The bulk of the army was made up of citizens. These citizens could not choose the legion to which they were allocated. Any man “from ages 16–46 were selected by ballot” and assigned to a legion.[6]

Until the Roman military disaster of 390 BC at the Battle of the Allia, Rome’s army was organised similarly to the Greek phalanx. This was due to Greek influence in Italy “by way of their colonies”. Patricia Southern quotes ancient historians Livy and Dionysius in saying that the “phalanx consisted of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry”.[7] Each man had to provide his equipment in battle; the military equipment which he could afford determined which position he took in the battle. Politically they shared the same ranking system in the Comitia Centuriata; which ultimately vis-à-vis placed the men on the battlefield.[clarification needed]

Roman army of the mid-Republic (c. 300–88 BC)

The Roman army of the mid-Republic was also known as the “manipular army” or the “Polybian army” after the Greek historian Polybius, who provides the most detailed extant description of this phase. The Roman army started to have a full-time strength of 150,000 at all times and 3/4 of the rest were levied.

During this period, the Romans, while maintaining the levy system, adopted the Samnite manipular organisation for their legions and also bound all the other peninsular Italian states into a permanent military alliance (see Socii). The latter were required to supply (collectively) roughly the same number of troops to joint forces as the Romans to serve under Roman command. Legions in this phase were always accompanied on campaign by the same number of allied alae (Roman non-citizen auxiliaries), units of roughly the same size as legions.

After the 2nd Punic War (218–201 BC), the Romans acquired an overseas empire, which necessitated standing forces to fight lengthy wars of conquest and to garrison the newly gained provinces. Thus the army’s character mutated from a temporary force based entirely on short-term conscription to a standing army in which the conscripts were supplemented by a large number of volunteers willing to serve for much longer than the legal six-year limit. These volunteers were mainly from the poorest social class, who did not have plots to tend at home and were attracted by the modest military pay and the prospect of a share of war booty. The minimum property requirement for service in the legions, which had been suspended during the 2nd Punic War, was effectively ignored from 201 BC onward in order to recruit sufficient volunteers. Between 150-100 BC, the manipular structure was gradually phased out, and the much larger cohort became the main tactical unit. In addition, from the 2nd Punic War onward, Roman armies were always accompanied by units of non-Italian mercenaries, such as Numidian light cavalry, Cretan archers, and Balearic slingers, who provided specialist functions that Roman armies had previously lacked.

Roman army of the late Republic (88–30 BC)

Imperial Roman legionaries in tight formation, a relief from Glanum, a Roman town in what is now southern France that was inhabited from 27 BC to 260 AD (when it was sacked by invading Alemanni)

The Roman army of the late Republic (88–30 BC) marks the continued transition between the conscription-based citizen-levy of the mid-Republic and the mainly volunteer, professional standing forces of the imperial era. The main literary sources for the army’s organisation and tactics in this phase are the works of Julius Caesar, the most notable of a series of warlords who contested for power in this period. As a result of the Social War (91–88 BC), all Italians were granted Roman citizenship, the old allied alae were abolished and their members integrated into the legions. Regular annual conscription remained in force and continued to provide the core of legionary recruitment, but an ever-increasing proportion of recruits were volunteers, who signed up for 16-year terms as opposed to the maximum 6 years for conscripts. The loss of ala cavalry reduced Roman/Italian cavalry by 75%, and legions became dependent on allied native horse for cavalry cover. This period saw the large-scale expansion of native forces employed to complement the legions, made up of numeri (“units”) recruited from tribes within Rome’s overseas empire and neighbouring allied tribes. Large numbers of heavy infantry and cavalry were recruited in Spain, Gaul and Thrace, and archers in Thrace, Anatolia and Syria. However, these native units were not integrated with the legions, but retained their own traditional leadership, organisation, armour and weapons.

Imperial Roman army (30 BC – AD 284)

During this period the Republican system of citizen-conscription was replaced by a standing professional army of mainly volunteers serving standard 20-year terms (plus 5 as reservists), although many in the service of the empire would serve as many as 30 to 40 years on active duty, as established by the first Roman emperorAugustus (sole ruler 30 BC – AD 14).Regular annual conscription of citizens was abandoned and only decreed in emergencies (e.g. during the Illyrian revolt 6–9 AD). Under Augustus there were 28 legions, consisting almost entirely of heavy infantry, with about 5,000 men each (total 125,000). This had increased to a peak of 33 legions of about 5,500 men each (c. 180,000 men in total) by AD 200 under Septimius Severus. Legions continued to recruit Roman citizens, mainly the inhabitants of Italy and Roman colonies, until 212. Legions were flanked by the auxilia, a corps of regular troops recruited mainly from peregrini, imperial subjects who did not hold Roman citizenship (the great majority of the empire’s inhabitants until 212, when all were granted citizenship). Auxiliaries, who served a minimum term of 25 years, were also mainly volunteers, but regular conscription of peregrini was employed for most of the 1st century AD. The auxiliaconsisted, under Augustus, of about 250 regiments of roughly cohortsize, that is, about 500 men (in total 125,000 men, or 50% of total army effectives). Under Severus the number of regiments increased to about 400, of which about 13% were double-strength (250,000 men, or 60% of total army). Auxilia contained heavy infantry equipped similarly to legionaries, and almost all the army’s cavalry (both armoured and light), and archers and slingers.

Later Roman army (284–476 AD) continuing as East Roman army (476–641 AD)

Stone-carved relief depicting the liberation of a besieged city by a relief force, with those defending the walls making a sortie (i.e. a sudden attack against a besieging enemy from within the besieged town); Western Roman Empire, early 5th Century AD

The Late Roman army period stretches from (284–476 AD and its continuation, in the surviving eastern half of the empire, as the East Roman army to 641). In this phase, crystallised by the reforms of the emperor Diocletian (ruled 284–305 AD), the Roman army returned to regular annual conscription of citizens, while admitting large numbers of non-citizen barbarian volunteers. However, soldiers remained 25-year professionals and did not return to the short-term levies of the Republic. The old dual organisation of legions and auxilia was abandoned, with citizens and non-citizens now serving in the same units. The old legions were broken up into cohort or even smaller sizes. At the same time, a substantial proportion of the army’s effectives were stationed in the interior of the empire, in the form of comitatus praesentales, armies that escorted the emperors.

Middle Byzantine army (641–1081 AD)

The Middle Byzantine army (641–1081 AD) was the army of the Byzantine state in its classical form (i.e. after the permanent loss of its Near Eastern and North African territories to the Arab conquests after 641 AD). This army was largely composed of semi-professional troops (soldier-farmers) based on the themata military provinces, supplemented by a small core of professional regiments known as the tagmata. Ibn al-Fakih estimated the strength of the themata forces in the East c. 902 at 85,000 and Kodama c. 930 at 70,000.[8] This structure pertained when the empire was on the defensive, in the 10th century the empire was increasingly involved in territorial expansion, and the themata troops became progressively more irrelevant, being gradually replaced by ‘provincial tagmata’ units and an increased use of mercenaries.

Komnenian Byzantine army (1081–1204)

The Komnenian Byzantine army was named after the Komnenosdynasty, which ruled from 1081–1185. This was an army built virtually from scratch after the permanent loss of half of Byzantium’s traditional main recruiting ground of Anatolia to the Turks following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and the destruction of the last regiments of the old army in the wars against the Normans in the early 1080s. It survived until the fall of Constantinople to the Western crusaders in 1204. This army had a large number of mercenary regiments composed of troops of foreign origin such as the Varangian Guard, and the pronoia system was introduced.

Palaiologan Byzantine army (1261–1453)

The Palaiologan Byzantine army was named after the Palaiologosdynasty (1261–1453), which ruled Byzantium from the recovery of Constantinople from the Crusaders until its fall to the Turks in 1453. Initially, it continued some practices inherited from the Komnenian era and retained a strong native element until the late 13th century. During the last century of its existence, however, the empire was little more than a city-state that hired foreign mercenary bands for its defence. Thus the Byzantine army finally lost any meaningful connection with the standing imperial Roman army.[citation needed]

This article contains the summaries of the detailed linked articles on the historical phases above, Readers seeking discussion of the Roman army by theme, rather than by chronological phase, should consult the following articles:

History

Corps

Strategy and tactics

Equipment & other

Some of the Roman army’s many tactics are still used in modern-day armies today.

Early Roman army (c. 550 to c. 300 BC)

Until c. 550 BC, there was no “national” Roman army, but a series of clan-based war-bands which only coalesced into a united force in periods of serious external threat. Around 550 BC, during the period conventionally known as the rule of king Servius Tullius, it appears that a universal levy of eligible adult male citizens was instituted. This development apparently coincided with the introduction of heavy armour for most of the infantry. Although originally low in numbers the Roman infantry was extremely tactical and developed some of the most influential battle strategies to date.

The early Roman army was based on a compulsory levy from adult male citizens which was held at the start of each campaigning season, in those years that war was declared. There were no standing or professional forces. During the Regal Era (to c. 500 BC), the standard levy was probably of 9,000 men, consisting of 6,000 heavily armed infantry (probably Greek-style hoplites), plus 2,400 light-armed infantry (rorarii, later called velites) and 600 light cavalry (equites celeres). When the kings were replaced by two annually elected praetores in c. 500 BC, the standard levy remained of the same size, but was now divided equally between the Praetors, each commanding one legion of 4,500 men.

It is likely that the hoplite element was deployed in a Greek-style phalanx formation in large set-piece battles. However, these were relatively rare, with most fighting consisting of small-scale border-raids and skirmishing. In these, the Romans would fight in their basic tactical unit, the centuria of 100 men. In addition, separate clan-based forces remained in existence until c. 450 BC at least, although they would operate under the Praetors’ authority, at least nominally.

In 493 BC, shortly after the establishment of the Roman Republic, Rome concluded a perpetual treaty of military alliance (the foedus Cassianum), with the combined other Latin city-states. The treaty, probably motivated by the need for the Latins to deploy a united defence against incursions by neighbouring hill-tribes, provided for each party to provide an equal force for campaigns under unified command. It remained in force until 358 BC.

Roman army of the mid-Republic (c. 300 – 107 BC)

Levy of the army, detail of the carved relief on the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, 122-115 BC.

The central feature of the Roman army of the mid-Republic, or the Polybian army, was the manipular organization of its battle-line. Instead of a single, large mass (the phalanx) as in the Early Roman army, the Romans now drew up in three lines consisting of small units (maniples) of 120 men, arrayed in chessboard fashion, giving much greater tactical strength and flexibility. This structure was probably introduced in c. 300 BC during the Samnite Wars. Also probably dating from this period was the regular accompaniment of each legion by a non-citizen formation of roughly equal size, the ala, recruited from Rome’s Italian allies, or socii. The latter were c. 150 autonomous states which were bound by a treaty of perpetual military alliance with Rome. Their sole obligation was to supply to the Roman army, on demand, a number of fully equipped troops up to a specified maximum each year.

The Second Punic War (218–201 BC) saw the addition of a third element to the existing dual Roman/Italian structure: non-Italian mercenaries with specialist skills lacking in the legions and alaeNumidian light cavalry, Cretan archers, and slingers from the Balearic islands. From this time, these units always accompanied Roman armies.

The Republican army of this period, like its earlier forebear, did not maintain standing or professional military forces, but levied them, by compulsory conscription, as required for each campaigning season and disbanded thereafter (although formations could be kept in being over winter during major wars). The standard levy was doubled during the Samnite Wars to 4 legions (2 per Consul), for a total of c. 18,000 Roman troops and 4 allied alae of similar size. Service in the legions was limited to property-owning Roman citizens, normally those known as iuniores (age 16–46). The army’s senior officers, including its commanders-in-chief, the Roman Consuls, were all elected annually at the People’s Assembly. Only equites (members of the Roman knightly order) were eligible to serve as senior officers. Iuniores of the highest social classes (equites and the First Class of commoners) provided the legion’s cavalry, the other classes the legionary infantry. The proletarii (those assessed at under 400 drachmae wealth) were ineligible for legionary service and were assigned to the fleets as oarsmen. Elders, vagrants, freedmen, slaves and convicts were excluded from the military levy, save in emergencies.

The legionary cavalry also changed, probably around 300 BC onwards from the light, unarmoured horse of the early army to a heavy force with metal armour (bronze cuirasses and, later, chain-mail shirts). Contrary to a long-held view, the cavalry of the mid-Republic was a highly effective force that generally prevailed against strong enemy cavalry forces (both Gallic and Greek) until it was decisively beaten by the Carthaginian general Hannibal‘s horsemen during the second Punic War. This was due to Hannibal’s greater operational flexibility owing to his Numidian light cavalry.

The Polybian army’s operations during its existence can be divided into three broad phases. (1) The struggle for hegemony over Italy, especially against the Samnite League (338–264 BC); (2) the struggle with Carthage for hegemony in the western Mediterranean Sea (264–201 BC); and (3) the struggle against the Hellenistic monarchies for control of the eastern Mediterranean (201–91 BC). During the earlier phase, the normal size of the levy (including allies) was in the region of 40,000 men (2 consular armies of c. 20,000 men each).

During the latter phase, with lengthy wars of conquest followed by permanent military occupation of overseas provinces, the character of the army necessarily changed from a temporary force based entirely on short-term conscription to a standing army in which the conscripts, whose service was in this period limited by law to 6 consecutive years, were complemented by large numbers of volunteers who were willing to serve for much longer periods. Many of the volunteers were drawn from the poorest social class, which until the 2nd Punic War had been excluded from service in the legions by the minimum property requirement: during that war, extreme manpower needs had forced the army to ignore the requirement, and this practice continued thereafter. Maniples were gradually phased out as the main tactical unit, and replaced by the larger cohorts used in the allied alae, a process probably complete by the time the general Marius assumed command in 107 BC. (The “Marian reforms” of the army hypothesised by some scholars are today seen by other scholars as having evolved earlier and more gradually.)

In the period after the defeat of Carthage in 201 BC, the army was campaigning exclusively outside Italy, resulting in its men being away from their home plots of land for many years at a stretch. They were assuaged by the large amounts of booty that they shared after victories in the rich eastern theatre. But in Italy, the ever-increasing concentration of public lands in the hands of big landowners, and the consequent displacement of the soldiers’ families, led to great unrest and demands for land redistribution. This was successfully achieved, but resulted in the disaffection of Rome’s Italian allies, who as non-citizens were excluded from the redistribution. This led to the mass revolt of the socii and the Social War (91-88 BC). The result was the grant of Roman citizenship to all Italians and the end of the Polybian army’s dual structure: the alae were abolished and the socii recruited into the legions.

Imperial Roman army (30 BC – AD 284 )

God Bes as a Roman soldier. Sword in right hand and spear and shield in left hand. Limestone slab, in relief. Roman Period. From Egypt. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London

Recreation of a Roman soldier wearing plate armour (lorica segmentata), National Military Museum, Romania.

Roman relief fragment depicting the Praetorian Guard, c. 50 AD

Ancient Roman statue fragment of either a general or an emperor wearing a corselet decorated with Selene, and two Nereids. Found at èmegara, dating from 100-130 AD.

Relief scene of Roman legionariesmarching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

Under the founder–emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD), the legions, c. 5,000-strong all-heavy infantry formations recruited from Roman citizens only, were transformed from a mixed conscript and volunteer corps serving an average of 10 years, to all-volunteer units of long-term professionals serving a standard 25-year term (conscription was only decreed in emergencies). In the later 1st century, the size of a legion’s First Cohort was doubled, increasing legionary personnel to c. 5,500.

Alongside the legions, Augustus established the auxilia, a regular corps of similar numbers to the legions, recruited from the peregrini (non-citizen inhabitants of the empire – about 90% of the empire’s population in the 1st century). As well as comprising large numbers of extra heavy infantry equipped in a similar manner to legionaries, the auxilia provided virtually all the army’s cavalry (heavy and light), light infantry, archers and other specialists. The auxilia were organised in c. 500-strong units called cohortes (all-infantry), alae(all-cavalry) and cohortes equitatae (infantry with a cavalry contingent attached). Around 80 AD, a minority of auxiliary regiments were doubled in size. Until about 68 AD, the auxilia were recruited by a mix of conscription and voluntary enlistment. After that time, the auxilia became largely a volunteer corps, with conscription resorted to only in emergencies. Auxiliaries were required to serve a minimum of 25 years, although many served for longer periods. On completion of their minimum term, auxiliaries were awarded Roman citizenship, which carried important legal, fiscal and social advantages. Alongside the regular forces, the army of the Principate employed allied native units (called numeri) from outside the empire on a mercenary basis. These were led by their own aristocrats and equipped in traditional fashion. Numbers fluctuated according to circumstances and are largely unknown.

As all-citizen formations, and symbolic garantors of the dominance of the Italian “master-nation”,[citation needed]legions enjoyed greater social prestige than the auxilia. This was reflected in better pay and benefits. In addition, legionaries were equipped with more expensive and protective armour than auxiliaries. However, in 212, the emperor Caracallagranted Roman citizenship to all the empire’s inhabitants. At this point, the distinction between legions and auxilia became moot, the latter becoming all-citizen units also. The change was reflected in the disappearance, during the 3rd century, of legionaries’ special equipment, and the progressive break-up of legions into cohort-sized units like the auxilia.

By the end of Augustus’ reign, the imperial army numbered some 250,000 men, equally split between legionaries and auxiliaries (25 legions and c. 250 auxiliary regiments). The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211 (33 legions and c. 400 auxiliary regiments). By then, auxiliaries outnumbered legionaries substantially. From the peak, numbers probably underwent a steep decline by 270 due to plague and losses during multiple major barbarian invasions. Numbers were restored to their early 2nd-century level of c. 400,000 (but probably not to their 211 peak) under Diocletian (r. 284–305). After the empire’s borders became settled (on the RhineDanube line in Europe) by 68, virtually all military units (except the Praetorian Guard) were stationed on or near the borders, in roughly 17 of the 42 provinces of the empire in the reign of Hadrian (r. 117–38).

The military chain of command was relatively uniform across the Empire. In each province, the deployed legions’ legati (legion commanders, who also controlled the auxiliary regiments attached to their legion) reported to the legatus Augusti pro praetore (provincial governor), who also headed the civil administration. The governor in turn reported direct to the emperor in Rome. There was no army general staff in Rome, but the leading praefectus praetorio(commander of the Praetorian Guard) often acted as the emperor’s de facto military chief-of-staff.

Legionary rankers were relatively well-paid, compared to contemporary common labourers. Compared with their subsistence-level peasant families, they enjoyed considerable disposable income, enhanced by periodic cash bonuses on special occasions such as the accession of a new emperor. In addition, on completion of their term of service, they were given a generous discharge bonus equivalent to 13 years’ salary. Auxiliaries were paid much less in the early 1st century, but by 100 AD, the differential had virtually disappeared. Similarly, in the earlier period, auxiliaries appear not to have received cash and discharge bonuses, but probably did so from Hadrian onwards. Junior officers (principales), the equivalent of non-commissioned officers in modern armies, could expect to earn up to twice basic pay. Legionary centurions, the equivalent of mid-level commissioned officers, were organised in an elaborate hierarchy. Usually risen from the ranks, they commanded the legion’s tactical sub-units of centuriae (c. 80 men) and cohorts (c. 480 men). They were paid several multiples of basic pay. The most senior centurion, the primus pilus, was elevated to equestrian rank upon completion of his single-year term of office. The senior officers of the army, the legati legionis (legion commanders), tribuni militum (legion staff officers) and the praefecti (commanders of auxiliary regiments) were all of at least equestrian rank. In the 1st and early 2nd centuries, they were mainly Italian aristocrats performing the military component of their cursus honorum (conventional career-path). Later, provincial career officers became predominant. Senior officers were paid enormous salaries, multiples of at least 50 times basic.

A typical Roman army during this period consisted of five to six legions. One legion was made up of 10 cohorts. The first cohort had five centuria each of 160 soldiers. In the second through tenth cohorts there were six centuria of 80 men each. These do not include archers, cavalry or officers.

Soldiers spent only a fraction of their lives on campaign. Most of their time was spent on routine military duties such as training, patrolling, and maintenance of equipment etc. Soldiers also played an important role outside the military sphere. They performed the function of a provincial governor’s police force. As a large, disciplined and skilled force of fit men, they played a crucial role in the construction of a province’s Roman military and civil infrastructure: in addition to constructing forts and fortified defences such as Hadrian’s Wall, they built roads, bridges, ports, public buildings, entire new cities (Roman colonies), and also engaged in large-scale forest clearance and marsh drainage to expand the province’s available arable land.

Soldiers, mostly drawn from polytheistic societies, enjoyed wide freedom of worship in the polytheistic Roman system. They revered their own native deities, Roman deities and the local deities of the provinces in which they served. Only a few religions were banned by the Roman authorities, as being incompatible with the official Roman religion and/or politically subversive, notably Druidism and Christianity. The later Principate saw the rise in popularity among the military of Eastern mystery cults, generally centred on one deity, and involving secret rituals divulged only to initiates. By far the most popular in the army was Mithraism, an apparently syncretist religion which mainly originated in Asia Minor.

Late Roman army/East Roman army (284–641)

The Late Roman army is the term used to denote the military forces of the Roman Empire from the accession of Emperor Diocletian in 284 until the Empire’s definitive division into Eastern and Western halves in 395. A few decades afterwards, the Western army disintegrated as the Western empire collapsed. The East Roman army, on the other hand, continued intact and essentially unchanged until its reorganization by themes and transformation into the Byzantine army in the 7th century. The term “late Roman army” is often used to include the East Roman army.

The army of the Principate underwent a significant transformation, as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the Principate army, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on conscription and its soldiers were more poorly remunerated than in the 2nd century. Barbarians from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army’s recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The size of the 4th-century army is controversial. More dated scholars (e.g. A.H.M. Jones, writing in the 1960s) estimated the late army as much larger than the Principate army, half the size again or even as much as twice the size. With the benefit of archaeological discoveries of recent decades, many contemporary historians view the late army as no larger than its predecessor: under Diocletian c. 390,000 (the same as under Hadrian almost two centuries earlier) and under Constantine no greater, and probably somewhat smaller, than the Principate peak of c. 440,000. The main change in structure was the establishment of large armies that accompanied the emperors (comitatus praesentales) and were generally based away from the frontiers. Their primary function was to deter usurpations. The legionswere split up into smaller units comparable in size to the auxiliary regiments of the Principate. In parallel, legionary armour and equipment were abandoned in favour of auxiliary equipment. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.

The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate. The evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. Indeed, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles in mid-4th century. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with much higher defensive specifications. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a defence-in-depth strategy or continued the same posture of “forward defence” as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army’s defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as a looser forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, and/or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

Byzantine army (641–1081)

Komnenian Byzantine army (1081–1204)

Emperor John II Komnenos, the most successful commander of the Komnenian army.

The Komnenian period marked a rebirth of the Byzantine army. At the beginning of the Komnenian period in 1081, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to the smallest territorial extent. Surrounded by enemies, and financially ruined by a long period of civil war, the empire’s prospects looked grim.

At the beginning of the Komnenian period, the Byzantine army was reduced to a shadow of its former self: during the 11th century, decades of peace and neglect had reduced the old thematic forces, and the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 had destroyed the professional tagmata, the core of the Byzantine army. At Manzikert and later at Dyrrhachium, units tracing their lineage for centuries back to Late Roman army were wiped out, and the subsequent loss of Asia Minor deprived the Empire of its main recruiting ground. In the Balkans, at the same time, the Empire was exposed to invasions by the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, and by Pecheneg raids across the Danube.

The Byzantine army’s nadir was reached in 1091, when Alexios I could manage to field only 500 soldiers from the Empire’s professional forces. These formed the nucleus of the army, with the addition of the armed retainers of Alexios’ relatives and the nobles enrolled in the army and the substantial aid of a large force of allied Cumans, which won the Battle of Levounion against the Pechenegs (Petcheneks or Patzinaks).[9] Yet, through a combination of skill, determination and years of campaigning, Alexios, John and Manuel Komnenos managed to restore the power of the Byzantine Empire by constructing a new army from scratch. This process should not, however, at least in its earlier phases, be seen as a planned exercise in military restructuring. In particular, Alexios I was often reduced to reacting to events rather than controlling them; the changes he made to the Byzantine army were largely done out of immediate necessity and were pragmatic in nature.

The new force had a core of units which were both professional and disciplined. It contained formidable guards units such as the Varangians, the Athanatoi, a unit of heavy cavalry stationed in Constantinople, the Vardariotai and the Archontopouloi, recruited by Alexios from the sons of dead Byzantine officers, foreign mercenary regiments, and also units of professional soldiers recruited from the provinces. These provincial troops included kataphraktoi cavalry from Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and various other provincial forces such as Trebizond Archers from the Black Sea coast of Anatolia. Alongside troops raised and paid for directly by the state the Komnenian army included the armed followers of members of the wider imperial family and its extensive connections. In this can be seen the beginnings of the feudalisation of the Byzantine military. The granting of pronoia holdings, where land, or more accurately rights to revenue from land, was held in return for military obligations, was beginning to become a notable element in the military infrastructure towards the end of the Komnenian period, though it became much more important subsequently.

In 1097, the Byzantine army numbered around 70,000 men altogether.[10] By 1180 and the death of Manuel Komnenos, whose frequent campaigns had been on a grand scale, the army was probably considerably larger. During the reign of Alexios I, the field army numbered around 20,000 men which was increased to about 30,000 men in John II’s reign.[11] By the end of Manuel I’s reign the Byzantine field army had risen to 40,000 men.

Palaiologan Byzantine army (1261–1453)

The Palaiologan army refers to the military forces of the Byzantine Empire from the late 13th century to its final collapse in the mid 15th century, under the House of the Palaiologoi. The army was a direct continuation of the forces of the Nicaean army, which itself was a fractured component of the formidable Komnenian army. Under the first Palaiologan emperor, Michael VIII, the army’s role took an increasingly offensive role whilst the naval forces of the Empire, weakened since the days of Andronikos I Komnenos, were boosted to include thousands of skilled sailors and some 80 ships. Due to the lack of land to support the army, the Empire required the use of large numbers of mercenaries.

After Andronikos II took to the throne, the army fell apart and the Byzantines suffered regular defeats at the hands of their eastern opponents, although they would continue to enjoy success against the crusader territories in Greece. By c. 1350, following a destructive civil war and the outbreak of the Black Death, the Empire was no longer capable of raising troops and the supplies to maintain them. The Empire came to rely upon troops provided by Serbs, Bulgarians, Venetians, Latins, Genoans and Ottoman Turks to fight the civil wars that lasted for the greater part of the 14th century, with the latter foe being the most successful in establishing a foothold in Thrace. The Ottomans swiftly expanded through the Balkans and cut off Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, from the surrounding land. The last decisive battle was fought by the Palaiologan army in 1453, when Constantinople was besieged and fellon 29 May. The last isolated remnants of the Byzantine state were conquered by 1461.

References

  1. ^ The Complete Roman Army, Adrian Goldsworthy Thames & Hudson, 2011
  2. ^ The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History, Pat Southern, Oxford University Press, 2007
  3. ^ Companion to the Roman Army, Paul Erdkamp, John Wiley & Sons, 31 Mar 2011
  4. ^ Rostovtzeff, Michael. Rome. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1960
  5. ^ VegetiusThe Military Institutions of the Romans (J. Clark, transl.) Harrisburg Penn.; 1944.
  6. ^ Dando-Collins, Stephen. Legions of Rome. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010.
  7. ^ Southern, Pat. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  8. ^ Heath, Ian (1979). Byzantine armies, 886-1118. Osprey. p. 19. ISBN 978-0850453065.
  9. ^ Angold, p. 127
  10. ^ Konstam, p. 141.
  11. ^ W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, 680

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

 

Giacobbe Giusti, PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: Madonna del Parto, Monterchi

Giacobbe Giusti, PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: Madonna del Parto, Monterchi

 

Giacobbe Giusti, PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: Madonna del Parto, Monterchi

 

Madonna del Parto (“Madonna of Parturition”) is an iconic depiction of the Virgin Mary shown as pregnant, which was developed in Italy, mainly in Tuscany in the 14th century. Examples include works by Taddeo GaddiBernardo Daddi and Nardo di Cione. The Madonna was portrayed standing, alone, often with a closed book on her belly, an allusion to the Incarnate Word. The works were associated with the devotions of pregnant women, praying for a safe delivery.[1]Sometimes, as with a statue by Sansovino in the Basilica of Sant’Agostino in Rome, the depiction is of a Virgin and Child, but known as a Madonna del Parto because it was especially associated with devotions over pregnancy. Here the Virgin wears the Girdle of Thomas, a belt of knotted cloth cord that was a relic held in Prato Cathedral, which many depictions wear.

Piero della Francesca

Giacobbe Giusti, PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA: Madonna del Parto, Monterchi
Piero Madonna del parto.jpg
Artist Piero della Francesca
Year after 1457
Type detached fresco
Dimensions 260 cm × 203 cm (100 in × 80 in)
Location Musei Civici Madonna del Parto, Monterchi

The most famous work showing this subject is a fresco painting by the Italian Renaissance master Piero della Francesca, finished around 1460. It is housed in the Museo della Madonna del Parto of MonterchiTuscany, Italy.

Piero della Francesca finished it in seven days, using first-rate colors, including a large extent of blu oltremare obtained by lapis lazuli imported from Afghanistan by the Republic of Venice.

The fresco was at one time located in Santa Maria di Momentana (formerly Santa Maria in Silvis), an old country church in the hilltown of Monterchi. The edifice was destroyed in 1785 by an earthquake and the work was detached and placed over the high altar of the new cemetery chapel; in 1992 it was moved to the Museo della Madonna del Parto in Monterchi. The work was attributed to Piero della Francesca only in 1889. Its dating has been the subject of debate, ranging from 1450 to 1475. The 16th century artist and writer Giorgio Vasari wrote that it was completed in 1459, when Piero della Francesca was in Sansepolcro for his mother’s death.

The fresco also plays an important role in Richard Hayer’s novel Visus, in Andrei Tarkovsky’s film Nostalghia, and in the poem “San Sepolcro” by Jorie Graham.

Piero della Francesca’s Madonna has neither books nor royal attributes as in most predecessors of the image, nor does she wear the girdle. She is portrayed with a hand against her side to support her prominent belly. She is flanked by two angels, who are holding open the curtains of a pavilion decorated with pomegranates, a symbol of Christ’s Passion. The upper part of the painting is lost. The two angels are specular, as they were executed by the artist using with the same perforated cartoons.

The theological symbolism behind the representation is complex. Maurizio Calvesi [2] has suggested that the tent represents the Ark of the Covenant. Mary would be thus the new Ark of Alliance in her role as Mother of Christ. For other scholars the tent is a symbol of the Catholic Church and the Madonna would symbolize the tabernacle, as she is portrayed containing Jesus’ body.

Notes

  1. ^ Cassidy, throughout
  2. ^ Maurizio Calvesi, Art e Dossier, 1989

References

  • Cassidy, Brendan, “A Relic, Some Pictures and the Mothers of Florence in the Late Fourteenth Century”, Gesta, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1991), pp. 91–99, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the International Center of Medieval Art, JSTOR
  • Longhi, Roberto (1927). Piero della Francesca. Rome. ISBN 1-878818-77-5.
  • Calvesi, Maurizio (March 1989). “Nel grembo dell’Arca”. Art e Dossier (33).
  • Renzi, Giulio (1994). Gli affreschi di Piero della Francesca ad Arezzo e Monterchi: luogo teologico mariano. Poggibonsi.
  • Zapperi Walter, Ingeborg (1992). Piero della Francesca, Madonna del parto: ein Kunstwerk zwischen Politik und Devotion. Frankfurt.

Further reading

  • Ferrie, Frank, “Piero della Francesca’s Madonna del Parto and the Function of Images of the Pregnant Virgin Mary”, Dandelion, London, 2 December 2010. online. Date accessed: 15 May. 2017

Giacobbe Giusti, MICHELANGELO: The Entombment, National Gallery

Giacobbe Giusti, MICHELANGELO: The Entombment, National Gallery

 

Giacobbe Giusti, MICHELANGELO: The Entombment, National Gallery

 

Entombment Michelangelo.jpg
Artist Michelangelo
Year circa 1500–1501
Medium Tempera on panel
Dimensions 162 cm × 150 cm (64 in × 59 in)
Location London, National Gallery

The Entombment is an unfinished painting of the placing of the body of Jesus in the garden tomb, now generally attributed to the Italian Renaissance master Michelangelo Buonarroti and dated to around 1500 or 1501. It is in the National Gallery in London, which purchased the work in 1868 from Robert Macpherson, a Scottish photographer resident in Rome who, according to various conflicting accounts,[1] had acquired the painting there some 20 years before.

History

The chronological position of this work has been the source of some dispute, although it is generally considered an early work.[2] Some authorities believe that it may have been executed by one of Michelangelo’s pupils from a drawing by the master or was a direct imitation of his work.[3]

According to documents discovered in 1981,[4] Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint a panel for the church of Sant’Agostino in Rome, but in the end gave back the sum received. It is probable that this work was the Entombment, which remained unfinished upon Michelangelo’s return to Florence.

There is an anecdote that Michelangelo received a letter from his father saying that he should abandon whatever he was doing because a great piece of marble had arrived for him, which would become his David sculpture.[citation needed]

Depiction

The centre of the panel portrays Christ being carried up a flight of steps to the sepulchre, which was intended to be painted in the blank area at the top right of the work. The bearded older man behind him is probably Joseph of Arimathea, who gave up his tomb for use as Christ’s sepulchre. The long-haired figure on the left is probably Saint John, wearing a long orange-red gown, with one of the Marys (possibly Mary Magdalene) kneeling at his feet.

The identity of the two figures on the right is uncertain. Suggested identities for the elongated inner figure range from Nicodemus to one of the Marys,[5] while the figure on the far right may be Mary Salome. The large unfinished area at the bottom right was intended to be used for the kneeling form of the Virgin Mary.

The floating appearance of some of the figures may be partly explained by the fact that the painting is intended to be viewed from below,[6] and to the fact that it is unfinished. However, the apparent incongruity of the stance of the bearer on the right remains problematical.[7]

Many of the unfinished parts of the painting, such as the cloak of the missing Virgin, would have required quantities of the expensive lapis lazuli blue. If this was in short supply, it could be that this would have held up completion of the painting, which may explain why it was unfinished.[8] However, even if this were so, it would not explain why the artist could not have completed the many other parts of the painting that did not require any blue.[9]

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Michael Hirst and Jill Dunkerton, Making and Meaning: the Young Michelangelo, National Gallery Publications, London, 1994 at 131, endnote 11.
  2. Jump up^ Hirst and Dunkerton, op cit at 60.
  3. Jump up^ Sepoltura di Cristo: La tela incompiuta di Michelangelo (in Italian)
  4. Jump up^ Michael Hirst, 1981. Michelangelo in Rome: an altar-piece and the’Bacchus’, The Burlington Magazine, October 1981:581ff.
  5. Jump up^ Hirst and Dunkerton, op cit at 67.
  6. Jump up^ Andrew Graham-Dixon, “Anatomy of a Genius”, The Independent, 25 October 1994, http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/891
  7. Jump up^ Hirst and Dunkerton, op cit at 69.
  8. Jump up^ Hirst and Dunkerton, op cit at 70, 123
  9. Jump up^ Philip McCouat, “Michelangelo’s disputed Entombment“, http://www.artinsociety.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entombment_(Michelangelo)

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, RAPHAEL: Madonna of the Pinks, National Gallery, London

Giacobbe Giusti, RAPHAEL: Madonna of the Pinks, National Gallery, London

Madonna of the Pinks

Giacobbe Giusti, RAPHAEL: Madonna of the Pinks, National Gallery, London

 

Raphael Madonna of the Pinks.jpg
Artist Raphael
Year c. 1506–1507
Type oil on yew
Dimensions 27.9 cm × 22.4 cm (11.0 in × 8.8 in)
Location National Gallery London

The Madonna of the Pinks (c. 1506–1507, ItalianLa Madonna dei garofani) is an early devotional painting usually attributed to Italian Renaissance master Raphael. It is painted in oilson fruitwood and now hangs in the National Gallery, London.

Subject matter

The painting depicts a youthful Virgin Mary playing with the Christ childand handing him carnations. (The Italian title, La Madonna dei garofaniactually means The Madonna of the Carnation.) These flowers, whose botanical name is dianthus (Greek for ‘flower of God’), are a premonition of Christ’s Passion – according to Christian legend, the flower first appeared when the Virgin wept at the Crucifixion. The event takes place in a dimly-lit domestic setting influenced by Netherlandish art. The composition is based closely on the Benois Madonna by Leonardo da Vinci, although the colour scheme of blues and greens that link the Virgin with the landscape is Raphael’s own. Through the arched window is a landscape with a ruined building, symbolising the collapse of the pagan world at the birth of Christ.

Provenance

The subject matter and size of the painting, little larger than a Book of Hours, suggest that it may have been intended as a portable aid to prayer. The identity of its original patron is unknown, although an inventory from the 1850s suggests that it was commissioned for Maddalena degli Oddi, a member of a prominent Perugian family, after she had taken holy orders.[1]

In the 19th century it was property of the painter Vincenzo Camuccini.

Attribution to Raphael

Only in 1991 was the painting identified as a genuine Raphael,[2] by the Renaissance scholar Nicholas Penny. Although Raphael scholars were aware of the existence of the work, which had hung in Alnwick Castle since 1853, they considered it merely the best of several copies of a lost original. After a major public appeal the Madonna of the Pinks was bought in 2004 by the National Gallery from the Duke of Northumberland for £34.88 million, with contributions from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Art Collections Fund.[3] To justify the expenditure it went on a nationwide tour to ManchesterCardiffEdinburgh and Barnard Castle.

In the summer of 2006 Caruzzi et al. published online research which alleged that Nicholas Penny‘s attribution and the associated defence of it published by the National Gallery are based on incomplete analysis, untenable arguments and misinterpretations. In 2007 the posthumous publication of James BeckFrom Duccio to Raphael: Connoisseurship in Crisis disputed the attribution of the National Gallery’s painting Madonna of the Pinks to Raphael. Brian Sewellnotably criticised the painting of being of low quality and possibly forged, pointing out how the Madonna’s right leg seems disconnected from her body.

Painting materials

The palette is relatively limited compared to other works by Raphael.[4]The sky and the blue drapery of the Virgin are painted in natural ultramarine and azurite, he further employed lead-tin yellowmalachiteand verdigris.[5]

References

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Heavenly creature | | Guardian Unlimited Arts
  2. Jump up^ “National Gallery to reveal its fakes in exhibition”
  3. Jump up^ “British campaign to ‘save’ a popular Titian”
  4. Jump up^ Roy, A., Spring, M., Plazzotta, C. ‘Raphael’s Early Work in the National Gallery: Paintings before Rome‘. National Gallery Technical Bulletin Vol 25, pp 4–35.
  5. Jump up^ Raphael, Madonna of the Pinks, ColourLex

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

The main inscription on the attic would originally have been of bronze letters. It can still be read easily; only the recesses in which the letters sat, and their attachment holes, remain. It reads thus, identically on both sides (with abbreviations completed in parentheses):

imp(eratori) · caes(ari) · fl(avio) · constantino · maximo · p(io) · f(elici) · avgusto · s(enatus) · p(opulus) · q(ue) · r(omanus) · qvod · instinctv · divinitatis · mentis · magnitvdine · cvm · exercitv · svo · tam · de · tyranno · qvam · de · omni · eivs · factione · vno · tempore · ivstis · rempvblicam · vltvs · est · armis · arcvm · trivmphis · insignem · dicavit
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.[7]

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Detail of relief panel, south side, right panel of left arch

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Detail of north plinth on second column from east (see gallery), viewed from east, with Victoria (left), prisoners (right)

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Round relief, south side, far left. Departure for the hunt

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Obsidio (detail)

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

The last scene (North side of arch) in the Constantinian frieze on the Arch of Constantine. It recalls Marcus Aurelius in the liberalitas attic panel of the arch, overseeing the distribution of gifts to the public. Constantine is in the exact center of the frieze (in the center of this photo), seated on a podium (his head is missing). The similarity to Christian depictions of the throned Christ surrounded by disciples – intentional or coincidental – is obvious. Constantine’s right hand holds a tessera with slots for coins, some of which are falling out to be caught in the toga of a senator who gazes up at his benevolent leader

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Rome, Arch of Constantine, main entablature NW corner.

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Rilievi circolari dell’epoca dell’imperatore Adriano e fregio contemporaneo all’arco

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Capo barbaro supplicante, che abbraccia il figlio (dettaglio dal pannello della Clementia)

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Ritratto di Tiberio Claudio Pompeiano (al centro)

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Seconda parte: I prigionieri sono incalzati da una carica della cavalleria guidata dall’imperatore stesso e seguito da signiferi e cornicini

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Panneau sculpté de l’époque de Marc Aurèle

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Plinths, north side looking east

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Es scheint deutlich erkennbar, dass die Attikanachträglich aufgesetzt wurde

Arch of Constantine

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Arch of Constantine at Night (Rome).jpg

Arch of Constantine
Location Forum
Built in AD 315
Built by/for Constantine I
Type of structure Triumphal arch
Related List of ancient monuments
in Rome
Arch of Constantine is located in Rome

Arch of Constantine
Arch of Constantine
Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

The Arch of Constantine, Rome – painted by Herman van Swanevelt, 17th century

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

South side, from Via triumphalisColosseum to right

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

North side, from the Colosseum

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

West side

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

East side, Forum behind

Relief panels, round reliefs and frieze over left (west) arch, from south

Round reliefs and frieze over right (east) arch, from south

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Arch of Constantino 2013

The Arch of Constantine (ItalianArco di Costantino) is a triumphal arch in Rome, situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill. It was erected by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine I‘s victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312.[a]Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch.[1] The arch spans the Via triumphalis, the way taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph.

Though dedicated to Constantine, much of the decorative material incorporated earlier work from the time of the emperors Trajan (98–117), Hadrian (117–138) and Marcus Aurelius (161–180), and is thus a collage.[2] The last of the existing triumphal arches in Rome, it is also the only one to make extensive use of spolia,[3] reusing several major reliefs from 2nd century imperial monuments, which give a striking and famous stylistic contrast to the sculpture newly created for the arch. This earned it the derisive nickname of Cornacchia di EsopoAesop’s Crow.[4]

The arch is 21 m high, 25.9 m wide and 7.4 m deep. It has three archways, the central one being 11.5 m high and 6.5 m wide and the lateral archways 7.4 m by 3.4 m each. Above the archways is placed the attic, composed of brickwork reveted (faced) with marble. A staircase within the arch is entered from a door at some height from the ground, on the west side, facing the Palatine Hill. The general design with a main part structured by detached columns and an attic with the main inscription above is modelled after the example of the Arch of Septimius Severus on the Roman Forum.

History

The arch, which was constructed between 312 and 315 AD, was dedicated by the Senate to commemorate ten years (decennalia[b]) of Constantine’s reign (306–337) and his victory over the then reigning emperor Maxentius (306–312) at the Battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312,[6] as described on its attic inscription,[7] and officially opened on 25 July 315. Not only did the Roman senate give the arch for Constantine’s victory, they also were celebrating decennia, a series of games that happens every decade for the Romans. On this occasion they also said many prayers.[8] However, Constantine had actually entered Rome on 29 October 312, amidst great rejoicing, and the Senate then commissioned the monument.[9]Constantine then left Rome within two months and did not return till 326.[10]

The location, between the Palatine Hill and the Caelian Hill, spanned the ancient route of Roman triumphs (Via triumphalis) at its origin, where it diverged from the Via sacra.[6][4][11] This route was that taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph. This route started at the Campus Martius, led through the Circus Maximus, and around the Palatine Hill; immediately after the Arch of Constantine, the procession would turn left at the Meta Sudans and march along the Via sacra to the Forum Romanum and on to the Capitoline Hill, passing through both the Arches of Titus and Septimius Severus.

During the Middle Ages, the Arch of Constantine was incorporated into one of the family strongholds of ancient Rome, as shown in the painting by Herman van Swanevelt, here. Works of restoration were first carried out in the 18th century,[3][c] the last excavations have taken place in the late 1990s, just before the Great Jubilee of 2000. The arch served as the finish line for the marathon athletic event for the 1960 Summer Olympics.

Controversy

There has been much controversy over the origins of the arch, with some scholars claiming that it should no longer be referred to as Constantine’s arch, but is in fact an earlier work from the time of Hadrian, reworked during Constantine’s reign,[6] or at least the lower part.[d] Another theory holds that it was erected, or at least started, by Maxentius,[8][e] and one scholar believed it was as early as the time of Domitian (81–96).[16][6]

Symbolism

Whatever the faults of Maxentius, his reputation in Rome was influenced by his contributions to public building. By the time of his accession in 306 Rome was becoming increasingly irrelevant to the governance of the empire, most emperors choosing to live elsewhere and focusing on defending the fragile boundaries, where they frequently founded new cities. This factor contributed to his ability to seize power. By contrast Maxentius concentrated on restoring the capital, his epithet being conservator urbis suae (preserver of his city). Thus Constantine was perceived amongst other things as the deposer of one of the city’s greatest benefactors, and needed to acquire legitimacy. Much controversy has surrounded the patronage of the public works of this period. The German philosopher, Walter Benjamin observed that history is seen through the eyes of the victor (Über den Begriff der GeschichteVII, 1940), and Constantine and his biographers were no exception. Issuing a damnatio memoriae he set out to systematically erase the memory of Maxentius. Consequently, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the patronage of early fourth century public buildings, including the Arch of Constantine, which may originally have been an Arch of Maxentius.[11]

Sculptural style

Constantine’s Arch is an important example, frequently cited in surveys of art history, of the stylistic changes of the 4th century, and the “collapse of the classical Greek canon of forms during the late Roman period”,[2] a sign the city was in decline, and would soon be eclipsed by Constantine’s founding of a new capital at Constantinople in 324.[7] The contrast between the styles of the re-used Imperial reliefs of TrajanHadrian and Marcus Aurelius and those newly made for the arch is dramatic and, according to Ernst Kitzinger, “violent”,[2] although it should be noted that where the head of an earlier emperor was replaced by that of Constantine the artist was still able to achieve a “soft, delicate rendering of the face of Constantine” that was “a far cry from the dominant style of the workshop”.[17] It remains the most impressive surviving civic monument from Rome in Late Antiquity, but is also one of the most controversial with regards to its origins and meanings.[6]

Kitzinger compares a roundel of Hadrian lion-hunting, which is “still rooted firmly in the tradition of late Hellenistic art“, and there is “an illusion of open, airy space in which figures move freely and with relaxed self-assurance” with the later frieze where the figures are “pressed, trapped, as it were, between two imaginary planes and so tightly packed within the frame as to lack all freedom of movement in any direction”, with “gestures that are “jerky, overemphatic and uncoordinated with the rest of the body”.[2] In the 4th century reliefs, the figures are disposed geometrically in a pattern that “makes sense only in relation to the spectator”, in the largesse scene (below) centred on the emperor who looks directly out to the viewer. Kitzinger continues: “Gone too is the classical canon of proportions. Heads are disproportionately large, trunks square, legs stubby … “Differences in the physical size of figures drastically underline differences of rank and importance which the second-century artist had indicated by subtle compositional means within a seemingly casual grouping. Gone, finally are elaboration of detail and differentiation of surface texture. Faces are cut rather than modelled, hair takes the form of a cap with some superficial stippling, drapery folds are summarily indicated by deeply drilled lines.”[18]

The commission was clearly highly important, if hurried, and the work must be considered as reflecting the best available craftsmanship in Rome at the time; the same workshop was probably responsible for a number of surviving sarcophagi.[18] The question of how to account for what may seem a decline in both style and execution has generated a vast amount of discussion. Factors introduced into the discussion include: a breakdown of the transmission in artistic skills due to the political and economic disruption of the Crisis of the Third Century,[19]influence from Eastern and other pre-classical regional styles from around the Empire (a view promoted by Josef Strzygowski (1862-1941), and now mostly discounted),[20]the emergence into high-status public art of a simpler “popular” or “Italic” style that had been used by the less wealthy throughout the reign of Greek models, an active ideological turning against what classical styles had come to represent, and a deliberate preference for seeing the world simply and exploiting the expressive possibilities that a simpler style gave.[21] The sculptors of Constantine’s time were more interested in symbolism: both symbolism for religion as well as symbolism for history.[22] One factor that cannot be responsible, as the date and origin of the Venice Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs show, is the rise of Christianity to official support, as the changes predated that.[23]

The stylistic references to the earlier arches of Titus and Septimius Severus, together with the incorporation of spolia from the times of other earlier emperors may be considered a deliberate tribute to Roman history.[24]

Iconography

The arch is heavily decorated with parts of older monuments, which assume a new meaning in the context of the Constantinian building. As it celebrates the victory of Constantine, the new “historic” friezes illustrating his campaign in Italy convey the central meaning: the praise of the emperor, both in battle and in his civilian duties. The other imagery supports this purpose: decoration taken from the “golden times” of the Empire under the 2nd century emperors whose reliefs were re-used places Constantine next to these “good emperors”, and the content of the pieces evokes images of the victorious and pious ruler.

Another explanation given for the re-use is the short time between the start of construction (late 312 at the earliest) and the dedication (summer 315), so the architects used existing artwork to make up for the lack of time to create new art. It could be that so many old parts were used because the builders themselves did not feel the artists of their time could do better than what had already been done by different people.[22] As yet another possible reason, it has often been suggested that the Romans of the 4th century truly did lack the artistic skill to produce acceptable artwork, and were aware of it, and therefore plundered the ancient buildings to adorn their contemporary monuments. This interpretation has become less prominent in more recent times, as the art of Late Antiquity has been appreciated in its own right. It is possible that a combination of those explanations is correct.[25]

Attic

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

South attic

On the top of each column, large sculptures representing Dacians can be seen, which date from Trajan. Above the central archway is the inscription, forming the most prominent portion of the attic and is identical on both sides of the arch. Flanking the inscription on both sides are four pairs of relief panels above the minor archways, eight in total. These were taken from an unknown monument erected in honour of Marcus Aurelius. On the north side, from left to right, the panels depict the emperor’s return to Rome after the campaign (adventus), the emperor leaving the city and saluted by a personification of the Via Flaminia, the emperor distributing money among the people (largitio), and the emperor interrogating a German prisoner. On the south side, from left to right, are depicted a captured enemy chieftain led before the emperor, a similar scene with other prisoners (illustrated below), the emperor speaking to the troops (adlocutio), and the emperor sacrificing a pig, sheep and bull (suovetaurilia). Together with three panels now in the Capitoline Museum, the reliefs were probably taken from a triumphal monument commemorating Marcus Aurelius’ war against the Marcomanni and the Sarmatians from 169 – 175, which ended with Marcus Aurelius’ triumphant return in 176. On the largitio panel, the figure of Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus has been eradicated following the latter’s damnatio memoriae.

From the same time period the two large (3 m high) panels decorating the attic on the east and west sides of the arch show scenes from Trajan‘s Dacian Wars. Together with the two reliefs on the inside of the central archway, these came from a large frieze celebrating the Dacian victory. The original place of this frieze was either the Forum of Trajan, or the barracks of the emperor’s horse guard on the Caelius.

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Main section

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

 

Detail of north plinth on second column from east (see gallery), viewed from east, with Victoria (left), prisoners (right)

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Round relief, south side, far left. Departure for the hunt

The general layout of the main facade is identical on both sides of the arch, consisting of four columns on bases, dividing the structure into a central arch and two lateral arches, the latter being surmounted by two round reliefs over a horizontal frieze. The four columns are of Corinthian order made of Numidian yellow marble (giallo antico), one of which has been transferred into the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano and was replaced by a white marble column. The columns stand on bases (plinthsor socles), decorated on three sides. The reliefs on the front show Victoria, either inscribing a shield or holding palm branches, while those to the side show captured barbarians alone or with Roman soldiers. Though Constantinian, they are modelled on those of the Arch of Septimius Severus (and the destroyed Arcus novus[f]), and may be considered as a “standard” item.[26]

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

The pairs of round reliefs above each lateral archway date to the times of Emperor Hadrian. They display scenes of hunting and sacrificing: (north side, left to right) hunt of a boar, sacrifice to Apollo, hunt of a lion, sacrifice to Hercules. On the south side, the left pair show the departure for the hunt (see below) and sacrifice to Silvanus, while those on the right (illustrated on the right) show the hunt of a bear and sacrifice to Diana. The head of the emperor (originally Hadrian) has been reworked in all medallions: on the north side, into Constantine in the hunting scenes and into Licinius or Constantius I in the sacrifice scenes; on the south side, vice versa. The reliefs, c. 2 m in diameter, were framed in porphyry; this framing is only extant on the right side of the northern facade. Similar medallions, of Constantinian origin, are located on the small sides of the arch; the eastern side shows the Sun rising, on the western side, the Moon. Both are on chariots.

The spandrels of the main archway are decorated with reliefs depicting victory figures with trophies (illustrated below), those of the smaller archways show river gods. Column bases and spandrel reliefs are from the time of Constantine.

Constantinian frieze

Obsidio (detail)

Liberalitas (detail)

The horizontal frieze below the round reliefs are the main parts from the time of Constantine,[7] running around the monument, one strip above each lateral archway and including the west and east sides of the arch. These “historical” reliefs depict scenes from the Italian campaign of Constantine against Maxentius which was the reason for the construction of the monument. The frieze starts at the western side with the Departure from Milan(Profectio). It continues on the southern, face, with the Siege of Verona (Obsidio) on the left (South west), an event which was of great importance to the war in Northern Italy. On the right (South east) is depicted the Battle of Milvian Bridge (Proelium) with Constantine’s army victorious and the enemy drowning in the river Tiber.[7] On the eastern side, Constantine and his army enter Rome (Ingressus); the artist seems to have avoided using imagery of the triumph, as Constantine probably did not want to be shown triumphant over the Eternal City. On the northern face, looking towards the city, are two strips with the emperor’s actions after taking possession of Rome. On the left (North east) is Constantine speaking to the citizens on the Forum Romanum (Oratio), while to the right (North west) is the final panel with Constantine distributing money to the people (Liberalitas).[27][28]

Inner sides of the archways

In the central archway, there is one large panel of Trajan’s Dacian War on each wall. Inside the lateral archways are eight portraits busts (two on each wall), destroyed to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify them.

Inscriptions

The main inscription on the attic would originally have been of bronze letters. It can still be read easily; only the recesses in which the letters sat, and their attachment holes, remain. It reads thus, identically on both sides (with abbreviations completed in parentheses):

imp(eratori) · caes(ari) · fl(avio) · constantino · maximo · p(io) · f(elici) · avgusto · s(enatus) · p(opulus) · q(ue) · r(omanus) · qvod · instinctv · divinitatis · mentis · magnitvdine · cvm · exercitv · svo · tam · de · tyranno · qvam · de · omni · eivs · factione · vno · tempore · ivstis · rempvblicam · vltvs · est · armis · arcvm · trivmphis · insignem · dicavit
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.[7]

The words instinctu divinitatis (“inspired by the divine”) have been greatly commented on. They are usually read as sign of Constantine’s shifting religious affiliation:[7] The Christian tradition, most notably Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, relate the story of a vision of God to Constantine during the campaign, and that he was victorious in the sign of the cross at the Milvian Bridge. The official documents (esp. coins) still prominently display the Sun god until 324, while Constantine started to support the Christian church from 312 on. In this situation, the vague wording of the inscription can be seen as the attempt to please all possible readers, being deliberately ambiguous, and acceptable to both pagans and Christians. As was customary, the vanquished enemy is not mentioned by name, but only referred to as “the tyrant”, drawing on the notion of the rightful killing of a tyrannical ruler; together with the image of the “just war“, it serves as justification of Constantine’s civil war against Maxentius.

Two short inscriptions on the inside of the central archway transport a similar message: Constantine came not as conqueror, but freed Rome from occupation:

liberatori vrbis (liberator of the city) — fundatori qvietis (founder of peace)

Over each of the small archways, inscriptions read:

votis x — votis xx
sic x — sic xx

They give a hint on the date of the arch: “Solemn vows for the 10th anniversary – for the 20th anniversary” and “as for the 10th, so for the 20th anniversary”. Both refer to Constantine’s decennalia, i.e. the 10th anniversary of his reign (counted from 306), which he celebrated in Rome in the summer of 315. It can be assumed that the arch honouring his victory was inaugurated during his stay in the city.

Works modeled on, or inspired by, the Arch of Constantine

Giacobbe Giusti, Arch of Constantine, Rome

Arch of Constantine, viewed from Colosseum looking south west to Palatine Hill

Notes

  1. Jump up^ By the “Senate and people” (S.P.Q.R.) according to the inscription, though the Emperor may have “suggested”. See also: A. L. Frothingham. “Who Built the Arch of Constantine? III.” The Attic, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 1. (Jan. – Mar., 1915), pp. 1-12
  2. Jump up^ Constantine chose to date his accessionbrate his decennalia in the year July 315 to July 316 [5]
  3. Jump up^ Deane[12] comments that Gradara[13] published an excerpt from the diary of Pietro Bracci in 1732, in which Bracci states that he carved new heads for seven of the Dacian slaves surmounting the columns and a completely new statue for the eighth (right of centre, south side). He also made new heads for the emperors and other figures on the reliefs between the slaves
  4. Jump up^ For which, see Conforto,[14] however, for the contrary view that the whole arch was constructed in the 4th century, see Pensabene & Panella [15]
  5. Jump up^ The controversy extends to a number of other public buildings attributed to Constantine, as hinted at by Aurelius Victor in De Caesaribus[11]
  6. Jump up^ The Arcus novus, was erected by Diocletianca. 314 on the Via lata, one of three triumphal arches on that road, and was destroyed ca. 1491 during reconstruction of Santa Maria in Via Lata. The remains, including the plinths are now in the Boboli Gardens, in Florence.[26]

Citations

  1. Jump up^ Watkin, David (2011). A History of Western Architecture: Fifth Edition. London: Laurence King Publishing. p. 87.
  2. Jump up to:abcd Kitzinger 1977, p. 7.
  3. Jump up to:ab Elsner 2000.
  4. Jump up to:ab Lanciani 1892p. 20.
  5. Jump up^ Ferris 2013p. 20.
  6. Jump up to:abcde Ferris 2013p. 7.
  7. Jump up to:abcdef Aicher 2004p. 184.
  8. Jump up to:ab Stephenson, Paul (2010). Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor. New York: The Overlook Press. p. 151.
  9. Jump up^ Barnes 1981pp. 44–47.
  10. Jump up^ Ferris 2013p. 11.
  11. Jump up to:abc Marlowe 2010.
  12. Jump up^ Deane 1921, p. 91.
  13. Jump up^ Gradara 1918.
  14. Jump up^ Conforto 2001.
  15. Jump up^ Pensabene & Panella 2001.
  16. Jump up^ Frothingham 1912.
  17. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, p. 29.
  18. Jump up to:ab Kitzinger 1977, p. 8.
  19. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, pp. 8–9.
  20. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, pp. 9–12.
  21. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, pp. 10–18.
  22. Jump up to:ab Watkin, David (2011). A History Of Western Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing. p. 88.
  23. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, pp. 5–6, 9, 19.
  24. Jump up^ Ferris 2013p. 13.
  25. Jump up^ Kitzinger 1977, pp. 8–15.
  26. Jump up to:ab Ferris 2013p. 21.
  27. Jump up^ Bandinelli & Torelli 1992.
  28. Jump up^ Follo et al 2015.

References

Books

Articles and chapters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Constantine

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

A caryatid from the Erechtheion, standing in contrapposto, displayed at the British Museum

 

 Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

A caryatid from the Erechtheion, standing in contrapposto, displayed at the British Museum

caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-idGreekΚαρυάτις, plural: Καρυάτιδες) is a sculpted female figure serving as an architectural support taking the place of a column or a pillar supporting an entablature on her head. The Greek term karyatidesliterally means “maidens of Karyai“, an ancient town of Peloponnese. Karyai had a famous temple dedicated to the goddess Artemis in her aspect of Artemis Karyatis: “As Karyatis she rejoiced in the dances of the nut-tree village of Karyai, those Karyatides, who in their ecstatic round-dance carried on their heads baskets of live reeds, as if they were dancing plants”.[1]

Ancient usage

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

The Caryatid Porch of the ErechtheionAthens, 421–407 BC

Some of the earliest known examples were found in the treasuries of Delphi, dating to about the 6th century BC, but their use as supports in the form of women can be traced back even earlier, to ritual basins, ivory mirror handles from Phoenicia, and draped figures from archaic Greece.

The best-known and most-copied examples are those of the six figures of the Caryatid Porch of the Erechtheion on the Acropolis at Athens. One of those original six figures, removed by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century, is now in the British Museum in London. The Acropolis Museum holds the other five figures, which are replaced onsite by replicas. The five originals that are in Athens are now being exhibited in the new Acropolis Museum, on a special balcony that allows visitors to view them from all sides. The pedestal for the Caryatid removed to London remains empty. From 2011 to 2015, they were cleaned by a specially constructed laser beam, which removed accumulated soot and grime without harming the marble’s patina. Each Caryatid was cleaned in place, with a television circuit relaying the spectacle live to museum visitors.[2]

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

 

Intricate hairstyle of Caryatid, displayed at the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Although of the same height and build, and similarly attired and coiffed, the six Caryatids are not the same: their faces, stance, draping, and hair are carved separately; the three on the left stand on their right foot, while the three on the right stand on their left foot. Their bulky, intricately arranged hairstyles serve the crucial purpose of providing static support to their necks, which would otherwise be the thinnest and structurally weakest part.

The Romans also copied the Erechtheion caryatids, installing copies in the Forum of Augustus and the Pantheon in Rome, and at Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli. Another Roman example, found on the Via Appia, is the Townley Caryatid.[citation needed]

Renaissance and after

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

St. Gaudens‘ caryatids

In Early Modern times, the practice of integrating caryatids into building facades was revived, and in interiors they began to be employed in fireplaces, which had not been a feature of buildings in Antiquity and offered no precedents. Early interior examples are the figures of Hercules and Iole carved on the jambs of a monumental fireplace in the Sala della Jole of the Doge’s Palace, Venice, about 1450.[3] In the following century Jacopo Sansovino, both sculptor and architect, carved a pair of female figures supporting the shelf of a marble chimneypiece at Villa Garzoni, near Padua.[4] No architect mentioned the device until 1615, when Palladio‘s pupil Vincenzo Scamozzi included a chapter devoted to chimneypieces in his Idea della archittura universale. Those in the apartments of princes and important personages, he considered, might be grand enough for chimneypieces with caryatid supporters, such as one he illustrated and a similar one he installed in the Sala dell’Anticollegio, also in the Doge’s Palace.[5]

In the 16th century, from the examples engraved for Sebastiano Serlio‘s treatise on architecture, caryatids became a fixture in the decorative vocabulary of Northern Mannerism expressed by the Fontainebleau School and the engravers of designs in Antwerp. In the early 17th century, interior examples appear in Jacobean interiors in England; in Scotland the overmantel in the great hall of Muchalls Castle remains an early example. Caryatids remained part of the German Baroque vocabulary (illustration, right) and were refashioned in more restrained and “Grecian” forms by neoclassical architects and designers, such as the four terracotta caryatids on the porch of St Pancras New Church, London (1822).

Late Baroque caryatid and atlantidhemi-figures at SanssouciFrederick the Great‘s schloss at Potsdam

Many caryatids lined up on the facade of the 1893 Palace of the Arts housing the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. In the arts of design, the draped figure supporting an acanthus-grown basket capital taking the form of a candlestick or a table-support is a familiar cliché of neoclassical decorative arts. The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Artin Sarasota has caryatids as a motif on its eastern facade.

In 1905 American sculptor Augustus Saint Gaudens created a caryatid porch for the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York in which four of the eight figures (the other four figures holding only wreaths) represented a different art form, Architecture, Painting, Sculpture, and Music.[6]

Auguste Rodin‘s 1881 sculpture Fallen Caryatid Carrying her Stone (part of his monumental The Gates of Hell work)[7] shows a fallen caryatid. Robert Heinleindescribed this piece in Stranger in a Strange Land: “Now here we have another emotional symbol… for almost three thousand years or longer, architects have designed buildings with columns shaped as female figures… After all those centuries it took Rodin to see that this was work too heavy for a girl… Here is this poor little caryatid who has tried—and failed, fallen under the load…. She didn’t give up, Ben; she’s still trying to lift that stone after it has crushed her…”[8]

Origins

The origins of the term are unclear. It is first recorded in the Latin form caryatides by the Roman architect Vitruvius. He stated in his 1st century BC work De architectura(I.1.5) that the female figures of the Erechtheion represented the punishment of the women of Karyæ, a town near Sparta in Laconia, who were condemned to slavery after betraying Athens by siding with Persia in the Greco-Persian Wars. However, Vitruvius’ explanation is doubtful; well before the Persian Wars, female figures were used as decorative supports in Greece[9] and the ancient Near East. Whatever the origin may have been, the association of Caryatids with slavery persists and is prevalent in Renaissance art.[10]

The ancient Karyæ (“Walnut Trees”) supposedly was one of the six adjacent villages that united to form the original township of Sparta, and the hometown of Menelaos‘ queen, Helen of Troy. Girls from Karyæ were considered especially beautiful, tall, strong, and capable of giving birth to strong children.[citation needed]

A caryatid supporting a basket on her head is called a canephora (“basket-bearer”), representing one of the maidens who carried sacred objects used at feasts of the goddesses Athena and Artemis. The Erectheion caryatids, in a shrine dedicated to an archaic king of Athens, may therefore represent priestesses of Artemis in Karyæ, a place named for the “nut-tree sisterhood” – apparently in Mycenaean times, like other plural feminine toponyms, such as Hyrai or Athens itself.

The later male counterpart of the caryatid is referred to as a telamon (plural telamones) or atlas (plural atlantes) – the name refers to the legend of Atlas, who bore the sphere of the heavens on his shoulders. Such figures were used on a monumental scale, notably in the Temple of Olympian Zeus in AgrigentoSicily.

Gallery

Giacobbe Giusti, Caryatid (/kæriˈætɪd/ kair-ee-AT-id), archaic Greece

References

Notes

  1. Jump up^ (Kerenyi 1980 p 149)
  2. Jump up^ Alderman, Liz (7 July 2014). “Acropolis Maidens Glow Anew”The New York Times. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
  3. Jump up^ Noted by James Parker, in describing the precedents for the white marble caryatid chimneypiece from Chesterfield House, London, now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Parker, “‘Designed in the Most Elegant Manner, and Wrought in the Best Marbles’: The Caryatid Chimney Piece from Chesterfield House”, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, 21.6 [February 1963] pp. 202-213).
  4. Jump up^ Also noted by Parker 1963:206.
  5. Jump up^ Both remarked upon by Parker 1963:206, and fig. 9.
  6. Jump up^ “archsculptbooks.com”. Archived from the original on 7 July 2011. Retrieved 29 December 2016.
  7. Jump up^ “Fallen Caryatid Carrying Her Stone”The Collection Online. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  8. Jump up^ Heinlein, Robert A. (1961). Stranger in a Strange Land. Putnam. ISBN 978-0-441-79034-0.
  9. Jump up^ Hersey, George, The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998 p. 69
  10. Jump up^ The Slave in European Art: From Renaissance Trophies to Abolitionist Emblem, ed Elizabeth Mcgrath and Jean Michel Massing, London (The Warburg Institute) 2012

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

 Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Die heutigen Reste der Villa

Bei Lullingstone(östlich von London in Kent) konnten die Reste einer reich ausgestatteten römischen Villaausgegraben werden. Vor allem die Fragmente von Wandmalereienmit christlichen Motiven erregten überregionales Interesse.

Lage

Die Villa von Lullingstone liegt in einem kleinen Tal, nahe bei dem Fluss Darent. Sie liegt an einem Abhang und ist besonders gut erhalten, da im Laufe der Jahrhunderte Erde vom oberen Teil des Abhanges nach unten rutschte und dabei auch die Ruinen der Villa bedeckte und damit auch schützte.

Geschichte des Baues

Plan der Villa um 125 n. Chr.

Reste einer Wandmalerei: Nymphen

Modell der Villa

Plan der Villa um 400 n. Chr.

Erste Siedlungsreste stammen aus der Zeit vor der römischen Eroberung Britanniens. Es fanden sich Scherben und Münzen, die um 1 bis 43 n. Chr. datieren. Gebäudereste sind aus dieser Zeit bisher nicht festgestellt worden.

Ein erster Bau aus Stein wurde hier um 100 n. Chr. errichtet. Dieser Bau ist architektonisch nur schwer zu fassen, da er durch spätere Umbauten verunklärt ist. Es war aber sicherlich eine einfache Portikusvilla mit Eckrisaliten. Das Gebäude bestand im unteren Teil aus vermauerten Feuersteinen. Der Aufbau war vielleicht ein Fachwerkbau. Zu diesem Bau gehörte auch ein Keller, der aus zwei Räumen bestand, der bis zum Ende der Villa in Betrieb blieb. Hinter der Villa (im Westen) wurde ein Küchengebäude errichtet.

Das Gebäude wurde zwischen 150 und 180 erweitert. Es wurden auf der Südseite ein Bad hinzugefügt. Der Keller hatte in der ersten Bauphase zwei Zugänge, wobei in der zweiten Bauphase eine dieser Türen zugemauert wurde. Die nun entstandene Nische erhielt eine Bemalung mit der Darstellung von drei Nymphen. Auch die restlichen Wände wurden bemalt, doch ist davon nur wenig erhalten. Die Umgestaltung deutet an, dass der Keller in einen Kultraum umgestaltet wurde. Der damalige Besitzer scheint recht wohlhabend gewesen zu sein, jedenfalls war er Eigentümer von zwei marmornen Büsten, eine Seltenheit in der britannischen Provinz. Sie fanden sich bei den Ausgrabungen im Keller. Im zweiten Jahrhundert wurde auch ein runder Bau etwas nördlich der Villa errichtet. Die Funktion ist unbekannt, doch wird vermutet, dass es sich um eine kleine Kapelle handelte.

Im Dritten Jahrhundert erlebte das ganze römische Reich eine Zeit wirtschaftlichen Niederganges. Die Villa scheint vernachlässigt worden zu sein, doch wurde sie nicht aufgegeben, wie noch die Ausgräber vermuteten. Münzen und Scherben deuten eine Siedlungskontinuität an. Am Beginn des vierten Jahrhunderts wurde ein Mausoleumwestlich der Villa erbaut. Es bestand aus einem zentralen Raum, um den sich ein Umgang befand. Der Bau ähnelt somit einem römischen-gallischen Umgangstempel. In einer Grube im zentralen Raum lagen zwei Bleisärge, in denen sich die Skelette von einem Mann und einer Frau befanden. Es fanden sich zahlreiche Beigaben, darunter ein Bronzegefäß, vier Glasflaschen, zwei Messer und zwei Löffel. Bemerkenswert ist ein Spielbrett mit 30 Spielsteinen aus Glas, die auf einem der Särge lagen.

Neben der Villa wurde in etwa zur gleichen Zeit ein Getreidespeicher errichtet. Er war 24,4 × 10,7 m groß und gehört damit zu den größten in Britannien. Der Bau hatte einen erhöhten Fußboden, damit Luft darunter zirkulieren konnte.

Um 350 erhielt das Speisezimmer der Villa eine Apsis und wurde mit einem Mosaik ausgestattet. Um 360/370 scheinen die Besitzer zum Christentum konvertiert zu sein. Ein Raum wurde zu einer christlichen Kapelle umgestaltet und erhielt Wandmalereien mit christlichen Motiven. Diese zeigen den Villenbesitzer und seine Familie in Bethaltung, sowie das christliche Chi-Rho. Kurz nach 400 brannte die Villa nieder und wurde nie wieder aufgebaut.

Die Wandmalereien

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Wandmalerei auf der Westwand mit christlichen Adoranten

Die Villa hat ihre herausragende Bedeutung vor allem durch den Fund der Wandmalereien des vierten Jahrhunderts. Vereinzelte Malereifragmente stammen schon aus dem zweiten Jahrhundert. Im Bad fand sich ein Fragment, dass einen Fisch zeigt. Das Fragment fand sich im Frigidarium, das demnach vielleicht mit einer Seelandschaft, wie sie in Bädern beliebt waren, dekoriert gewesen. Andere noch an der Wand haftende Fragmente zeigen eine einfache Felderdekoration.[1] Aus dem zweiten Jahrhundert stammt auch die Nische im Keller mit der Darstellung von drei Wassernymphen.[2]

Die Malereien des vierten Jahrhunderts fanden sich im Keller verstürzt und schmückten einst zwei Räume einer Hauskapelle, deren Dekoration in groben Zügen rekonstruiert werden kann. Die best erhaltene Wand ist die Westwand. Der Sockel stellt wohl eine Marmorimitation dar. Darüber finden sich sechs Säulen zwischen denen wiederum einzelne Figuren auf weißen Grund stehen. Die Säulen sind von Farbbändern gerahmt. Die Figuren scheinen zu schweben und haben ihre Arme ausgebreitet. Nur eine Figur hebt ihre rechte Hand zum Gruß. Die zweite Figur von links ist die best erhaltene und ist darüber hinaus durch einen Vorhang, der hinter ihr erhalten ist, hervorgehoben. Bis auf die vorletzte Figur scheinen alle Männer darzustellen.

Die Ostwand ist schlechter erhalten und deren Rekonstruktion bereitet Schwierigkeiten. Die Sockelzone wird wiederum von Marmorimitationen eingenommen. Darüber befindet sich ein Feld mit sechs Säulen. In der Mitte befindet sich ein Kreis mit dem christlichen Chi-Rho. Zwischen den Säulen scheinen Personen dargestellt zu sein, die auf das Zentralfeld zugehen. Die Rekonstruktion der dritten Zone bleibt schließlich reine Spekulation, hier könnten sich eventuell Säulen aber auch Ornamentbänder befunden haben. Beide Dekorationselemente fanden sich, doch können keiner Wand mit Sicherheit zugeordnet werden.

Die Nordwand zeigt die Sockelzone mit Marmorimitationen und darüber zahlreiche Säulen, in deren Mitte sich offensichtlich eine figürliche Szene befand. Im Oberfeld gab es die Darstellung einer Landschaft mit Gebäuden.

In der Südwand befand sich die Tür des Raumes. Rechts von ihr befand sich über der Sockelzone wiederum ein Feld mit einer von Säulen gerahmten Mittelszene. Im Oberfeld befand sich ein Chi-Rho.

Der Vorraum war einfacher gestaltet, nur an einer Wand befand sich ein Chi-Ro, in einem Kreis und von einem geometrischen Muster gerahmt.

Die Malereien sind von besonderer Bedeutung, da es nur wenige Zeugnisse christlicher Wandmalerei aus dem vierten Jahrhundert gibt. In Britannien sind sie bisher einmalig. Der Stil ist einfach bis unbeholfen. Es gibt kaum Andeutungen von Licht und Schatten oder Perspektive.

Das Mosaik

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Speiseraum mit Mosaik

Das Mosaik im Speisesaal der Villa zeigt zwei Szenen. In der eigentlichen Apsis ist die Entführung der Europa durch Jupiter als Stier dargestellt. Europa, halbnackt, sitzt auf dem Stier. Die Szene wird von zwei Eroten flankiert. Der hintere zieht am Schwanz des Stieres und versucht offensichtlich die Entführung zu verhindern. Über der Szene befindet sich eine lateinische Inschrift, die übersetzt lautet:

Wenn die eifersüchtige Juno den schwimmenden Stier gesehen hätte, dann wäre sie mit größerer Gerechtigkeit auf ihrer Seite wiederhergestellt in den Häusern des Aeolus

Dieser Spruch ist eine Anspielung aus das erste Buch der Aeneis, in dem Juno, die Gattin des Jupiter, den Windgott Aeolus überredet, einen Sturm zu entfachen, um Aenas auf seiner Reise nach Italien zu besiegen. Diese Szene belegt deutlich das hohe Bildungsniveau des Villeninhabers.

Die zweite Szene des Mosaik zeigt Bellerophon wie er auf Pegasusreitet und die Chimära mit einem Speer tötet. Dieses Bild wird von vier runden Medaillons gerahmt in denen sich wiederum Darstellungen in Büstenform der vier Jahreszeiten befinden.

Funde

Giacobbe Giusti, Römische Villa bei Lullingstone

Marmorbüste

Marmorbüste

In der Villa fand sich eine Reihe bemerkenswerter Objekte. An erster Stelle sind zwei Marmorbüsten zu nennen, die sich im Keller fanden. Sie können stilistisch in das zweite Jahrhundert datiert werden und sind Arbeiten aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum. In der früheren Forschung wurde oftmals angenommen, dass es sich hier um Vater und Sohn handelt, die nacheinander Besitzer der Villa waren. Die besser erhaltene zeigt einen bärtigen Mann, in einem militärischen Gewand mit einer runden Fiebel.[3] Eine neuere Theorie besagt jedoch, dass hier der spätere Kaiser Pertinax und dessen Vater Publius Helvius Successusdargestellt sind.[4] Pertinax war Statthalter von Britannien, bevor er zum Kaiser erhoben wurde. Demnach ist die Lullingstonevilla der Landsitz des Statthalters gewesen.

Ein weiterer Fund ist eine Gemme, die geflügelte Victoria mit einem Schild und vor einem Brustpanzer, der Teil einer Trophäe ist, zeigt. Die Gemme gehört zu den besten, die jemals in Britannien gefunden wurden. Sie besteht aus Karneol. Es wurde argumentiert, dass es sich um das Amstsiegel von Pertinax handelte als er als Statthalter in Britannien amtierte. [5]

Ausgrabungen

Die Villa wurde 1939 entdeckt, obwohl es schon seit dem späten achtzehnten Jahrhundert Vermutungen gab, dass es hier Reste eines römischen Gebäudes gibt. Ausgrabungen fanden seit 1949 statt und dauerten 12 Jahre. Die Villa ist heute für Besucher hergerichtet.

Anmerkungen

  1. Hochspringen Liversidge, in: Meates: The Roman villa at Lullingstone, S. 5, Tafel 1, fig. 1 auf S. 6
  2. Hochspringen Liversidge, in: Meates: The Roman villa at Lullingstone, Tafeln IV–V
  3. Hochspringen Neal: Lullingstone, Roman Villa., 22
  4. Hochspringen T. Ganschow/M. Steinhart: The Roman portraits from the villa of Lullingstone: Pertinax and his father, P Helvius Successus.In: Otium: Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka. Remshalden 2005, S. 47–53.
  5. Hochspringen Martin Henig: The Victory-Gem from Lullingstone Roman Villa, in: Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 160 (2007), 1-7

Literatur

  • Geoffrey Wells Meates: The Roman villa at Lullingstone, Kent. Vol. 1, The site. Kent Archaeological Society, London 1979, ISBN 0-85033-341-5.
  • Geoffrey Wells Meates: The Roman villa at Lullingstone, Kent. Vol. 2, The wall paintings and finds. Kent Archaeological Society, London 1987, ISBN 0-906746-09-4.
  • David S. Neal: Lullingstone, Roman Villa. London 1998, ISBN 1-85074-356-8.

Weblinks

 Römische Villa bei Lullingstone – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6mische_Villa_bei_Lullingstone

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Cimabue, The Crucifixion, c. 1277-80, fresco. Upper Church, San Francesco, Assisi

Giacobbe Giusti, Cimabue, The Crucifixion, c. 1277-80, fresco. Upper Church, San Francesco, Assisi

 

 

 

Crocifissione del transetto sinistro

Crocifissione del transetto sinistro
Crocifissione del transetto sinistro
Autore Cimabue
Data 12771283 circa
Tecnica affresco
Dimensioni circa 350×300 cm
Ubicazione Basilica superiore di San Francesco, Assisi

L’immagine al negativo

La Crocifissione del transetto sinistro è un affresco (circa 350×300 cm) di Cimabue e aiuti, databile attorno al 12771283 circa e conservato nella basilica superiore di San Francesco di Assisi. La scena è accoppiata simmetricamente alla Crocifissione del transetto destro, dall’altro lato.

Storia

La datazione degli affreschi di Cimabue è piuttosto discorde, sebbene negli studi più recenti si sia assestata a un periodo tra il 1277, anno dell’elezione al soglio pontificio di Niccolò III e il 1283 circa. La zona del transetto sinistro è decorata dalle Storie apocalittiche.

Per questa scena, forse la più notevole dell’intero ciclo, non è mai stata messa in dubbio l’autografia del maestro[1].

Gli affreschi di Cimabue sono in generale in condizioni mediocri o pessime. Non fa eccezione questa Crocifissione, che dovette essere una delle scene più importanti dell’intero ciclo, e che oggi si presenta sfigurata da abrasioni (in parte colmate dall’ultimo restauro) e con i colori quasi invertiti in negativo, per l’ossidazione della biacca dei colori chiari, diventati oggi scuri. Nella zona inferiore esistono tuttavia alcuni brani coi colori originali ancora visibili.

Descrizione e stile

Possibile autoritratto di Cimabue

Il Cristo

Cristo sulla Croce si erge al centro del dipinto, vistosamente inarcato verso sinistra, come nelle note croci lignee sagomate di Cimabue. La metà superiore, celeste, è affollata d’angeli che manifestano tutto il loro dolore, volando in cerchio attorno al braccio breve della croce, coprendosi il viso piangente, alzando le mani al cielo, e raccogliendo pietosamente il sangue di Gesù con delle ciotole. Questi angeli saranno tenuti ben presenti da Giotto nella sua celebre Crocifissione della Cappella degli Scrovegni. Il capo del Cristo è particolarmente dolente, proteso in avanti anziché adagiato del tutto sulla spalla come nelle croci di Arezzo e di Firenze. Le braccia non sono parallele alla croce, ma se ne distaccano significando tutto il peso del martirio in corso.

Gli astanti

Nella metà inferiore, terrestre, il ritmo è reso altamente tragico dal triangolo di linee di forza, dato dalle pose drammatiche delle due figure ai lati della croce, la Maddalena a destra che distende le braccia e un ebreo che allunga il braccio quasi a toccare il perizoma prolungato di Cristo, che simboleggia il riconoscimento della figura di divina di Cristo da parte di alcuni astanti. Addirittura la Maddalena solleva anche un ginocchio, come se volesse lanciarsi sulla croce accanto a Gesù. Scrisse Adolfo Venturi: «non è più il crocifisso con ai lati le figure simmetriche del portaspugna e del portalancia, né quello con le istorie del suo martirio su un cartellone! Nuova è la scena in cui il dolore e l’odio irrompono da anime forti, le grida contrastano roboanti, i sentimenti si urtano nella tempesta del cielo e della terra». Nella lunga coda del perizoma, una novità iconografica, si moltiplicano le pieghe e le scanalature, con una tendenza al realismo senza schematizzazioni, verso un recupero del classicismo[1].

Ai lati si distendono due gruppi di figure. Quello di sinistra mostra Maria con la mano al petto, nel gesto tipico del dolente, mentre Giovanni le prende la mano per prendersene cura da allora in poi, secondo un episodio narrato solo nel Vangelo di Giovanni. Seguono le tre Marie e una folla di personaggi in secondo piano, tra cui si riconoscono numerosi uomini col capo coperto, gli Ebrei.

A destra invece si mischiano soldati romani ed ebrei, nelle loro espressioni di perplessità (c’è chi si tocca la barba) e di scherno, ma qualcuno accenna a un ripensamento, portando un dito alla bocca in segno di dubbio, e afferrandosi il polso per indicare l’impotenza. Uno addirittura si batte il petto in segno di pentimento, seguendo un passo del Vangelo di Luca (23, 47). Tra queste figure, il volto giovanile dietro al centurione è pressoché identico a un personaggio nell’Imposizione del nome al Battista nei mosaici del Battistero di Firenze (che per questo fu attribuita a Cimabue). L’ultimo volto a destra in prima fila è molto caratterizzato fisiognomicamente, a differenza degli altri, ed è stato ipotizzato che si tratti di un autoritratto del pittore.

Il pittore mise i personaggi uno dietro l’altro per dare idea di profondità, ma non seppe risolvere il conflitto di come essi poggiassero al suolo: ecco che i pochi piedi dipinti (solo per le figure in primo piano), si pestano uno sull’altro, come nei mosaici bizantini di San Vitale a Ravenna. I pochi colori originari superstiti, sopravvissuti proprio in questa zona, dimostrano una grande raffinatezza, che doveva da un effetto di delicata magnificenza: rosa, ocra, verde marcio, marrone. Qui dopotutto era in corso la realizzazione della “più straordinaria visione di forme e di splendori che artisti siano mai riusciti ad attuare” fino ad allora[1].

San Francesco

Alla base di questo triangolo sta rannicchiato san Francesco, che è riconoscibile dalle stimmate e che si bagna col sangue di Cristo che scorre sulla montagnola del Golgota fino al teschio nascosto di Adamo. Francesco appare qui come intermediario tra l’evento sacro e il fedele[2]. La sua presenza è stata interpretata anche come simbolo delle tribolazioni dell’ordine francescano secondo le dottrine apocalittiche di Pietro Olivi e Gioacchino da Fiore, come a dire che far soffrire Francesco e i suoi seguaci è come crocifiggere il Cristo una seconda volta[1].

Il gruppo di destra (negativo)

Alcuni spiegano così la doppia presenza della Crocifissione nella basilica superiore[3].

La questione di Longino

L’uomo che riconosce Cristo, col capo velato (quindi ebreo) impugna il bastone del comando ed ha già il nimbo di santo: difficile è capire se è per Cimabue san Longino, oppure se il fiorentino tenga distaccate le figure del centurione illuminato (per quanto ebreo) e di colui che trafisse Gesù con la lancia; dopotutto la raffigurazione esplicita del soldato con la lancia nella Crocifissione del transetto destro è priva di nimbo. Un uomo con la lancia compare però dietro di lui, e gli fa eco tenendo una posizione analoga col braccio disteso: è forse lui Longino o è un inserviente? Le altre due figure ai lati l’uomo con l’aureola, in un elegante contrapposto simmetrico, inoltre impugnano scudo e lancia: sembra che Cimabue abbia voluto disarmare quella figura per sottolinearne agiograficamente la virtù senza impacci guerreschi[4]. Secondo Chiara Frugoni l’uomo in primo piano è san Longino (che non è infrequente trovare rappresentato ora come ebreo ora come romano), mentre l’uomo che gli fa eco è un altro ebreo che illustra il passo del Vangelo di Luca, in cui si descrive il pentimento di una parte degli Ebrei[5].

In ogni caso, ammettere un santo tra i giudei che furono responsabili della crocifissione di Cristo (secondo la tradizione antigiudaica da san Giovanni in poi) rappresenta un’apertura verso il mondo giudaico fino ad allora senza precedenti, spiegabile forse con l’opera di redenzione ed evangelizzazione universale portata avanti dai Francescani[6]. Duccio di Buoninsegna ad esempio, nella Crocifissione della Maestà del Duomo di Siena, copiò la figura del riconoscitore di Cristo da Cimabue, ma ne omise il nimbo, facendolo ripriombare nell’anonimato della folla tumultuante[6]. A tale ipotesi di accoglienza francescana può legarsi anche scelta di includere la preminenza della figura della Maddalena, la prostituta pentita[5]. Il messaggio di Cristo sembra così dare i suoi primi frutti già appena dopo la Crocifissione, cone le prime conversioni spontanee, allargandosi poi idealmente nell’espansione della comunità credente attuata tramite gli Evangelisti, poi tramite la Chiesa e infine arrivando a Francesco, il “nuovo evangelista”[7], raffigurato ai piedi della croce[8].

Appare quindi un messaggio di speranza, che può riscattare anche chi ha errato, invece di condannarlo insindacabilmente[9].

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocifissione_del_transetto_sinistro

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti: Head of Augustus. Bronze, Roman artwork, ca. 27-25 BC. Found in Meroe in Nubia (modern Sudan).

Giacobbe Giusti: Head of Augustus. Bronze, Roman artwork, ca. 27-25 BC. Found in Meroe in Nubia (modern Sudan).

 

 


Bronze bust of Augustus, dated 27-25 BC. British Museum, London, United Kingdom.

Testa di bronzo di Augusto, ritrovata a Meroe in Nubia (attuale Sudan).


http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti: Power and Pathos

Giacobbe Giusti: Power and Pathos

Blockbuster ‘Power and Pathos’ Exhibit to Open in Florence

An extensive new show brings together 50 ancient bronze masterpieces

‘Eros Sleeping,’ third-second century B.C., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. | Unlike earlier portrayals of Eros as a fickle youth, this version emphasizes purity in the form of sleeping baby.

‘Alexander the Great,’ first century B.C., Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. | This piece impressed ancient authors with its unprecedented realism.
‘Terme Boxer,’ third century B.C., Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano di Palazzo Massimo. | One of the most famous ancient sculptures--a masterpiece of scarred and beaten realism.
‘Portrait of a Man,’ second-first century B.C., Athens, National Archaeological Museum. | Informally called the Worried Man from Delos, this piece is known for its emotional intensity and individuality.
‘Head of athlete,’ second century B.C.-first century A.D, Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum. | Remarkably well preserved--it may be one of the few ancient bronzes that was never buried.
‘Portrait of a poet (Aruendel head),’ second or first century B.C., London, British Museum. | An arresting portrait of an old man, concentrating intensely.
‘Eros Sleeping,’ third-second century B.C., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. | Unlike earlier portrayals of Eros as a fickle youth, this version emphasizes purity in the form of sleeping baby. Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Firenze
  
‘Alexander the Great,’ first century B.C., Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. | This piece impressed ancient authors with its unprecedented realism. Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli
‘Terme Boxer,’ third century B.C., Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano di Palazzo Massimo. | One of the most famous ancient sculptures–a masterpiece of scarred and beaten realism. Museo Nazionale Romano
‘Portrait of a Man,’ second-first century B.C., Athens, National Archaeological Museum. | Informally called the Worried Man from Delos, this piece is known for its emotional intensity and individuality. National Archaeological Museum, Athens/Art Resource, NY
‘Head of athlete,’ second century B.C.-first century A.D, Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum. | Remarkably well preserved–it may be one of the few ancient bronzes that was never buried. Kimbell Art Museum/Art Resource, NY/Scala, Firenze
‘Portrait of a poet (Aruendel head),’ second or first century B.C., London, British Museum. | An arresting portrait of an old man, concentrating intensely. © The Trustees of the British Museum

Is it possible that the apotheosis of Western sculpture was achieved over 2,000 years ago and it’s been all downhill since then? A new blockbuster exhibit, ‘Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World,’ strongly buttresses this view.

Greek bronzes hold a rarified place in the art world, both in terms of quality and scarcity. Most Greek sculpture that has survived is carved from marble. In ancient times, however, bronze was more highly prized and served as the material of choice for the wealthiest patrons and most skilled artists. Unfortunately, bronze was also easily melted down for recycling and most pieces have been lost to time and history. Carol C. Mattusch, a bronze expert at George Mason University, estimates that “There are probably fewer than 200 ancient large-scale bronzes, Greek and Roman, unless you want to count an arm here and a leg there.”

So it’s a remarkable curatorial achievement that ‘Power and Pathos’ brings together 50 or so of the most spectacular surviving masterpieces in one exhibit. The show opens March 14 at the Palazzo Strozzi in Florence, before moving to the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles in July and then the National Gallery of Art in Washington in December. Classical scholars and sculpture lovers are abuzz over the breadth of the show, declaring it one of those rare museum shows that is worth getting on a plane to see. Adding to the allure of the show, many of the pieces have an exciting back-story: a number have been discovered by fisherman or divers at the bottom of the sea. One of the newer stars of the show is the first century B.C. Croatian Apoxyomenos, or Statue of an Athlete, discovered at a depth of about 150 feet in 1997 in the Northern Adriatic off the coast of Croatia. It is largely intact, making it one of the most striking underwater discoveries of the last 20 years. Indeed, from a preservationist’s point of view, the best thing that could happen to a Greek bronze is that it was lost at sea in a shipwreck or buried in a landslide or earthquake.

The works in the show come from “thirty-four museums in thirteen countries on four continents who have entrusted us with many of their most celebrated treasures,” according to the exhibition catalog.

The show is a veritable Murderers’ Row of Greek bronzes, pieces that have been famous for centuries, including the Terme Boxer, from Rome, Sleeping Eros, from New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art and Boy with Thorn, also from Rome. The piece also contains some memorable newer discoveries that have never traveled before. The Getty, which was the driving force behind the exhibition, custom-built specially reinforced shipping crates for the different works and provided them to the different museums for transport.

Large-scale ancient bronzes rarely come to market and the works in the show are literally priceless. In 2007, an anonymous bidder paid about $28 million for a bronze Artemis and the Stag. Using that as a rough, crude measure, there is about $1.5 billion worth of ancient art in the show. Timothy Potts, director of the J. Paul Getty Museum, declines to put a dollar amount on the art in the show, but notes that the Artemis piece was a Roman bronze, and thus had a “frankly lower” value than the older Greek bronzes in the show.

Not every piece will travel to every location on the tour. For instance, the Getty Bronze, a statue of a naked youth crowning himself with a wreath (300-100 B.C.), is claimed by Italy. Mr. Potts says the piece will travel to D.C., but not to Italy. “It’s an object that’s still going through the court system in Italy,” he says. Unlike other pieces that the Getty returned to Greece and Italy for lacking proper title, the Getty says that the bronze was found in international waters and Italy has no legal claim to the piece. A spokesman for Italy’s Culture Ministry said that Italy still claims the statue and that it is currently awaiting a ruling by Italy’s highest appeal’s court. Despite the one contested piece, the Getty and a number of Italian museums are working closely on the exhibit.

The exhibit focuses on works made in the Hellenistic age versus the earlier Classical period, which portrayed subjects in an idealized fashion—godlike rulers and athletes with unattainable abs and cheek bones, much like a fashion magazine cover. The art in the show dates roughly from the death of Alexander the Great (323 B.C.) to the ascent of Rome over Greece in the first century A.D., when artists began to make their work more life-like and individualistic. The Getty’s Mr. Potts argues that the sculptures of that period are the “most life-like and emotionally charged ever made, and still one of the highpoints of European art history.”

The Boxer is filled with pathos. The bruised, aging fighter has a broken nose, battered ears and blood and sweat dripping from his body. The hyperrealism and emotional content of these pieces has an electrifying impact on contemporary audiences. When the Boxer was on loan to the Met in 2013, guards had to constantly stop people from impulsively touching the statue.

Other pieces show wild beards, crow’s feet and other wrinkles, veins and tendons. “The head of the man from Delos is one of the great examples of individual portraiture from any era,” says Jens M. Daehner, one of the curators of the show. “It really embodies our modern idea of what a portrait is—something that originated in Hellenistic time.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/blockbuster-power-and-pathos-exhibit-to-open-in-florence-1426093935

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com