face of the arch we have a series of panels relating to Trajan's work in the provinces. On the attic the gods of the Danube provinces appear to the left, the submission of Mesopotamia on the right; the lowest panels represent negotiations with Germans (left) and Parthians (right), in the centre (as on the other face) we have a military scene (recruiting in the provinces) to left, balancing the foundation of colonies and growth of the proles Romana on the right. As the above description will show, this arch is, in respect of its significance, the most important monument of Roman historical art. Technically, the reliefs fall somewhat short of the best work of the Flavian period—the long panels of the archway, which represent a sacrifice offered by Trajan and his benefactions to the municipia of Italy, have not the verve of those from the Arch of Titus, but are at least as fine as the works executed for Trajan's Forum.
With the accession of Hadrian—the “Greekling,” as he was called by his contemporaries—a short-lived renaissance of classicism set in. The eclectic modifications of Greek statuary types which it called forth do not fall within our province; but it should be noticed that in portraiture the most important work of this period was the idealized type of Antinous, here represented by a famous example (Plate I. fig. 6) in the Louvre, which invests the favourite of Hadrian with a divinity expressed in the terms of Hellenic art as well as a pathos which belongs to his own time.[1] The historical monuments of this and the following reign are few in number, and lack the pregnancy of meaning and vigour of execution which distinguish those of the Trajanic period; mention may be made of three reliefs in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, one of which represents the apotheosis of an empress, and of the panels in the Palazzo Rondinini shown by the analogy of a medallion of Antoninus Pius to belong to his time. This is also the place to take note of the ideal figures symbolical of the subject peoples of the Empire. Under Trajan Roman sculptors had produced the fine statues of Dacian captives which now adorn the Arch of Constantine; to the Hadrianic period belong the idealized figures of provinces, classical in pose and motive, several of which are in the Palazzo de Conservatori.[2]
|
| (Drawn from photo, Moscioni.) |
| Fig. 39.—Pilaster with Oak Leaf Ornament. |
We pass on to the period of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, in which Roman art underwent a further transformation. The earliest monument of the time which calls for our attention is the base of the column (now destroyed) erected in honour of Antoninus Pius. Two of its faces are here shown (Plate IV. figs. 21 and 22), and the contrast is remarkable between the classicistic representation of the apotheosis of Antoninus and Faustina, witnessed by the ideal figures of Rome and the Campus Martius (holding an obelisk), and the realistic treatment of the decursio, a ceremony performed by detachments of the praetorian guard on horse and foot. We note the endeavour of the Roman sculptor to express more than his medium will allow, and his inadequate grasp of the laws of proportion and perspective. Discarding the classical standard and its conventions, the artist disposes his figures like a child's toys, and, when confronted with the problem of the background, waves it aside and reduces the indication of the place of action to a few projecting ledges on which his puppets are supported. The reliefs of the Column of Marcus Aurelius suffer by comparison with those of Trajan's Column. The story which the designer had to tell was doubtless less definite in outline; we cannot trace, as in the former instance, the march of events towards a dramatic climax, and there is some reason to think that, although the two bands of relief, separated (as on Trajan's Column) by a figure of Victory, correspond generally with the “Germanic” and “Sarmatic” wars of Marcus down to A.D. 175, the narrative is not strictly chronological; thus the fall of rain ascribed by Christian tradition to the prayers of the “Thundering” Legion (Plate IV. fig. 24) is represented at a very early stage, whereas our historians place it towards the close of the war. The figures are smaller and at the same time more crowded than those upon Trajan's Column, and the landscape is less intelligently rendered. The type of the rain-god, which is without doubt the creation of the Roman sculptor, is boldly conceived but scarcely artistic. Still the reliefs show that the designers of the time were making vigorous efforts to think for themselves, and for this reason possess a higher value than the more conventional panels now distributed between the attic of the Arch of Constantine and the Palazzo dei Conservatori, which seem to have decorated a triumphal arch set up in or after A.D. 176.[3] The portraiture of the time also shows the invasion of new principles. Even before the reign of Marcus we find a tendency to emphasize the contrast between hair and flesh, the face often showing signs of high polish. In the latter half of the 2nd century the contrast is heightened by a new method of treating the hair, which is rendered as a mass of curls deeply undercut and honeycombed with drill-holes; a fine example is the Commodus of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. The aim of the sculptor is to obtain an ornamental effect by the violent contrast of light and dark—an adaptation for the purposes of plastic art of the chiaroscuro which more properly belongs to painting. This tendency may be seen at work in all branches of sculpture. The sarcophagi of the Antonine and later periods, with their crowded compositions and deep shadows, have the same pictorial effect; and in pure ornament the vivid illusionism of Flavian art disappears, and, though plant-forms are lavishly used—from the time of Trajan onwards we note a growing distaste for pure outlines, which are hidden beneath all-pervading acanthus foliage—the interest of the sculptor comes to lie more and more in intricacy of pattern, produced by the complementary effect of lights and shadows. An instance of this may be found in a pilaster now in the Lateran Museum (fig. 39), which Wickhoff justly contrasts with the rose-pillar from the monument of the Haterii. It is all-important to remember that (as Strzygowski has pointed out)[4] it is not true shadow which is contrasted with the high lights in later Roman ornament; if so, the plastic effect of the free members would be heightened, whereas the reverse is actually the case, for even the figures on sarcophagi, worked in the round though they be, do not stand out from the background—which indeed is practically abolished—but seem rather to form elements in a pattern. The reason is that pure darkness is set off against the high lights, and the whole surface being thus broken up, there remains no impression of depth.
Under Septimius Severus and his successors, Roman, art drifts steadily in its new direction. The reliefs of his arch at the entrance to the Forum represent the emperor's campaigns in the East in a compromise between bird's-eye perspective and the “continuous” style which cannot be called successful;
- ↑ It is in the portraits of the Hadrianic period that we first meet with the plastic rendering (in marble) of the iris and pupil of the eye; on the significance of this convention see above.
- ↑ On these see Lucas's article in Jahrb. des k. deutschen arch. Instituts (1900), pp. 1 ff., and Mrs Strong, Roman Sculpture, pp. 243 ff.
- ↑ This series of panels is discussed in Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. iii. p. 251 ff.
- ↑ Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen (1904), p. 271.
