The Arch of Constantine () is a triumphal arch in Rome dedicated to the emperor Constantine the Great. The arch was commissioned by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. Situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill, the arch spans the Via Triumphalis, the route taken by victorious military leaders when they entered the city in a triumphal procession. Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch, with overall dimensions of high, wide and deep. It has three bays, the central one being high and wide and the laterals by each. The arch is constructed of brick-faced concrete covered in marble.

The three-bay design with detached columns was first used for the Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum (which stands at the end of the triumph route) and repeated in several other arches now lost.

Though dedicated to Constantine, much of the sculptural decoration consists of reliefs and statues removed from earlier triumphal monuments dedicated to Trajan (98–117), Hadrian (117–138) and Marcus Aurelius (161–180), with the portrait heads replaced with his own. The resulting mixture of sculptural styles has given rise to much discussion among art historians.

History

The arch, which was constructed between 312 and 315, was dedicated by the Senate to commemorate ten years (a decennia) of Constantine's reign (306–337) and his victory over the then reigning emperor Maxentius (306–312) at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312, as described on its attic inscription, and officially opened on 25 July 315. Not only did the Roman senate give the arch for Constantine's victory, they also were celebrating decennalia: a series of games that happened every decade during the Roman Empire. On these occasions they also said many prayers and renewed both spiritual and mundane vows. However, Constantine had actually entered Rome on 29 October 312, amidst great rejoicing, and the Senate then commissioned the monument. Constantine then left Rome within two months and did not return until 326.

thumb|left|The Arch of Constantine, Rome - painted by [[Herman van Swanevelt, 17th century]]

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. This was the route taken by the emperors entering the city in triumph: it 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. Jones argues that its placement in relation to the Circus Maximus, the Temple of Venus and Rome, and the base of the Colossus indicates a deliberate Constantinian urban design concept, rather than reuse of an earlier arch on that spot.

thumb|Dates of incorporated decorative material

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, or at least the lower part. Recent scholarship considers the monument primarily a senatorial commission, with the Senate responsible for initiating the project while remaining compatible with Constantine’s own political image. Another theory holds that it was erected, or at least started, by Maxentius,

Sculptural style

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

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

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", a sign the city was in decline, and would soon be eclipsed by Constantine's founding of a new capital at Constantinople in 324. The contrast between the styles of the re-used Imperial reliefs of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius and those newly made for the arch is dramatic and, according to Ernst Kitzinger, "violent", 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". 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.

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". 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: <blockquote>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 modeled, hair takes the form of a cap with some superficial stippling, drapery folds are summarily indicated by deeply drilled lines.</blockquote>

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. Rose argues that the same sculptural workshops responsible for Diocletian’s new monuments in Rome were likely also responsible for reworking those reliefs for the Arch of Constantine. 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.

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.

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. Jones has argued that the overall design concept of the arch was conceived as a deliberate synthesis of earlier imperial monuments, presenting past architectural models within a single unified composition as part of its original conception.

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&nbsp;feel&nbsp;the artists of their time could do better than what had already been done by different people. 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&nbsp;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.

Main section

The general layout of the main façade 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 (plinths or 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), and may be considered as a "standard" item. Some scholars have also argued from proportional analysis that the monument’s overall geometry indicates a unified Constantinian construction rather than an earlier full arch that was later rebuilt.

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):

:

: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 Roman People have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.

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: 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:

: (liberator of the city) &mdash; (founder of peace)

Over each of the small archways, inscriptions read:

:

:

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

  • Brandenburg Gate (1770) – Potsdam, Prussia
  • Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel (1806) – Paris
  • Arcul de Triumf (1922) – Bucharest
  • Marble Arch (1828) – London
  • Arcade du Cinquantenaire (1905) – Brussels
  • Washington Union Station (1908) – Washington, D.C.
  • American Museum of Natural History, east façade (1936) – New York City
  • Bond University (1989) – Gold Coast, Australia
  • Kedleston Hall – Derbyshire, England
  • Church of Saint-Denis, façade – Paris
  • Arch of triumph – Pyongyang, North Korea
  • Pitzhanger Manor – Ealing, London
  • Siegestor – Munich

See also

  • List of ancient monuments in Rome
  • List of Roman triumphal arches

Notes

Citations

References

  • Review: Art Bulletin 1979

Further reading

Books

  • Bonamente, Giorgio (ed.) 1992. Costantino il Grande dall'Antichità all'Umanesimo; Atti del 2. colloquio sul Cristianesimo nel mondo antico, Università di Macerata, 18-20 dicembre 1990
  • Contents

Articles and chapters

  • (Full text available on line)
  • in
  • Patrizio Pensabene (1992). Il reimpiego nell'età costantiniana a Roma, in Bonamente, Giorgio 1992 Pt. 2 p.&nbsp;749-768
  • Rose, C. Brian. “Reconsidering the Frieze on the Arch of Constantine.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 34, no. 1 (2021): 175–210. doi:10.1017/S1047759421000015.
  • Koortbojian, Michael. “Constantine’s Arch and His Military Image at Rome.” In Crossing the Pomerium: The Boundaries of Political, Religious, and Military Institutions from Caesar to Constantine, 123–168. Princeton University Press, 2020. doi:10.2307/j.ctvr69521.10.
  • 1960 Summer Olympics official report. Volume 1. p.&nbsp;80.
  • 1960 Summer Olympics official report. Volume 2, Part 1. p.&nbsp;118.
  • The Arch of Constantine, a detailed article "for scholars and enthusiasts"
  • Inscriptions illustrated and discussed
  • Google Maps satellite image
  • Guided tour of the Arch of Constantine on Roma Interactive
  • High-resolution 360° Panoramas and Images of Arch of Constantine | Art Atlas

<!--"Arch of Drusus" as the next landmark and "Obelisk of Montecitorio" as the previous one are taken from the navbox "Landmarks of Rome" that is placed below. A navbox is invisible in mobile view. The addition enables mobile users to click at least the next landmark or the previous one. -->