The Utilization of Tuscan Columns in the Coliseum in Rome - Essay Example

? The Utilization of Tuscan Columns in the Coliseum in Rome (YOUR (THE The Coliseum in Rome is considered as one of the most remarkable wonders of the classical world. Known as the Flavian Ampitheater, this architectural structure functioned as the culminating area for both the patrician and the plebeian classes of the Roman society. It served as the major arena, the entertainment spectacle of the Romans so to speak, of enthusiasts for bloodbath in the numerous gladiatorial matches (Szegedy-Maszak, 121-122). Indeed, the Coliseum was, as compared to modern day wrestling, the venue for stars in the gladiatorial field. Apart from the brutal sport which was always staged by the Coliseum, the huge structure was the place for culture. The Roman high society exhibited their appreciation for the plebeian entertainment, while having brought their royal tradition amongst their peers. The patrician class, on the other hand, were the avid fans of their iconic gladiators whom they placed their bets upon. Aside from becoming a melting pot of the Roman society, the Coliseum was an architectural marvel. Its colossal image in the Roman urban setting was undefeated through time. Its intricate floor plan was deemed as an innovation of the classical era, an advanced structure ahead of its time. It was frequently compared by modern engineers and architects to the stadiums and arenas of today. This was in terms of organizational planning. Since the Coliseum had the capability to house thousands of individuals, it had to be constructed with respect to the manner of entry and exit of crowds at a single moment. The Coliseum was the first to bear such technical functions. In addition, having to bear such number of audiences, the Coliseum managed to separate the classes of the Roman society as per the seating placements within the arena. More importantly, the architectural design of the structure was an undeniable marvel for during its glory days. The series of arches and wall carvings were testament to the Roman classical art. What is interesting is the series of Tuscan columns prevalent in the entirety of the Coliseum. The Doric, Ionic and the Corinthian columns could be seen from the exterior to the interior of the structure. The prevalence of Roman columns is, indeed, a very interesting notion to look at. These columns have functional and implied meanings which pertain to their structural use and the message they convey to scholars of the Roman classical art. Thus, this research would focus entirely on the mentioned aspect: the use of the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns in the Roman Coliseum. This research will first tackle a brief historical background to the structure in order to fully understand the context which it outlived. It will then establish a better understanding of the Tuscan columns, namely the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian, through historical analysis and interpretation. As for the conclusive part of the study, it will use the historical analysis of the Coliseum and the Tuscan columns in order to establish the relationship of both. Hence, the task of this study is to explain the use and presence of the mentioned columns in the Coliseum through a survey of historical contexts associated with the classical Roman period. For the purpose of this study, it will use a series of secondary sources and scholarly works in order to corroborate and prove the thesis of this research. A Brief Historical Narrative of the Coliseum in Rome By mere observation of the ruins which now lay at the heart of Rome, the Coliseum is deemed as one of the most treasured classical legacies of the Roman period. The magnanimous and huge built of the structure was conclusive of its ambitious accomplishment of having been considered as the focal point of the urban Roman setting. From the origins of its name alone, the Coliseum can be derived from either the colossal traits that it had during its time or from the Colossus of Nero from which it copied its enormity, height and bulk. Even scholars of Roman history are divided over the fact of this debate. The Flavian emperors’ efforts to construct an ampitheater like no other was deemed as the sole reason for its undefeated size and encompassing reputation, hence the name. However, the opposing scholars argue that the architects of the Coliseum were determined to copy the magnanimity of the Colossus of Emperor Nero nearby (Canter, 152-154). When the origin on the name of the Coliseum continues, the structure’s birth was the initiative of the Flavian emperors during the latter years of the 1st century A.D. The huge structure was a venue for all sorts of entertainment during that time. Spectators watched as gladiatorial matches were conducted. Horse races, games, beast combats and mock naval warfare were also the events staged in the Coliseum. It housed a total of 45,000 individuals – a remarkable achievement for any man-made feat. This ampitheater was an archetype for almost all sizes of ampitheaters found within the Roman Empire, from the western most point of Britain up to the eastern most point of Asia (Szegedy-Maszak, 121-122). Indeed, the Coliseum in Rome was not only a culmination of several the Roman traditions, but it was also a consolidation of the ampitheaters in the empire. It was as if the Flavian emperors had officially established Rome as the center for entertainment, the center for all subjects of the empire to experience the pomp and grandeur of the Roman urban life. However, the existence of the Roman Coliseum was only as lengthy as the life of the Roman Empire. The demise of Rome caused the end of the Coliseum’s prestige as an active piece of Roman structure. The decline of the Imperial power ushered a period of destruction for the colossal ampitheater, the process of instituting the present day ruins was thus at hand. In the subsequent centuries, the Coliseum had diverted from its primary function as the venue for gladiatorial combats and the like. In 1675, the ampitheater was used as a warehouse for nitrate storage used for the manufacture of gunpowder. The use of the Coliseum was immediately halted when Pope Benedict the XIV commemorated and declared the structure as a Christian shrine in 1744. The pontiff consecrated the place in the name of the martyrs who perished, though nothing of such was ever proven. Under the church’s auspices, Stations of the Cross were installed around the circumference of the ruins (Szegedy-Maszak, 121-122). Up to this day, the ruins of the Coliseum still stand as one of the major tourist destinations in Rome (see Figure 1). Indeed, history had played a crucial role in the demise of the Coliseum. The ruins that most of the tourists see to this day manifest the destroyed grandeur of the ampitheater. Yet, the legacy of the classical Roman architecture is imprinted upon the walls of what was left of the Coliseum. A perfect way to see the architecture of the antiquities is through the Tuscan columns of the structure. The Tuscan Columns and their Uses in the Coliseum The Coliseum was patterned after an Etruscan style of architecture that was passed over by the Hellenic Greeks. Originally, the Tuscan columns were products of Greek architecture which express simplicity but elegance. The Greek legacy instituted harmony in the proportions where everything was balanced (Hollister, 130-131). If one observes the original image of the Coliseum, a feel of the Hellenic architecture can be perceived. The rounded ampitheater with the properly installed Tuscan columns in the three levels of the entire structure gives a sense of simplicity. The remnants of Greek art had also penetrated the Roman art when numerous statues that follow the Greek sculpture – one that expresses the nature of humanity as a natural being in the world (Hollister, 132-133). The only difference is that the sculptures in the Coliseum are amply draped in Roman garments (see Figure 2). Focusing on the Tuscan columns, there are a total of 3 variants of the said architectural detail. The first of which is the Doric column. Historically, the Doric columns were prevalent in the Hellenic architecture. A series of these can be seen in the Parthenon and other temples of Greek worship. Doric columns were made as simple as possible – a rounded body with a rounded accent for its header and footer (see Figure 3 [7]). This type of column was built in utter thickness in order to function as a reliable support or foundation for temples and other structures. Of all the Tuscan columns, the Doric is the strongest type because it is the thickest and firmest in built (Boethius, 249-252). The second variant of the Tuscan columns is the Ionic column (see Figure 4). As compared to the Doric, the ionic style is more intricate in design. When on looks at the piece, a definitive scroll header can be seen while the footer retains a Doric style. In terms of durability, the Ionic is less reliable because its thickness had been reduced due to the decorative purpose of the column. The Ionic is less-reliable for the purposes of structural foundation and support. This type of column became popular during the 6th century (Boethius, 251-252). The last of the Tuscan columns is the Corinthian column (see Figure 5). The Corinthian deviates from the notion of a Hellenic type of architecture. As compared to the Doric and the Ionic, the Corinthian is more intricate as it tends to imitate nature when leaves seem to spring out of the header. The Corinthian is the least slender of the three. It is the lightest and the most likely used to adorn classical structures (Boethius, 249-252). By summarizing the physical attributes of the Tuscan columns, the Doric can be assessed as the most functional for structural support while the Corinthian remains to the least. On the basis of the style and design, the Corinthian tops the scale for its intricacy while the Doric stays at the bottom due to its utter simplicity. A relatively good comparison of the three columns can be seen in the Roman Coliseum. The columns are arranged accordingly, the Doric at the bottom, followed by the Ionic, then the Corinthian. Indeed, such arrangement is logical for it supports the structural purposes of the respective columns. Vitruvius explains the purposes of architectural soundness and the column’s role in a structure: Let the thickness of the columns at the bottom be one seventh of their height, their height one third of the width of the temple, and the diminution of a column at the top, one fourth of its thickness at the bottom. The height of their bases should be one half of that thickness. The plinth of their bases should be circular, in height one half that of the bases, the torus above it and conge being of the same height as the plinth. The height of the capital is one half of the thickness of the column. The abacus has a width equivalent to the thickness of the bottom of a column. Let the height of the capital be divided into three parts, and give one to the plinth (that is the abacus), the second to the echinus, and the third to the necking with its conge (Boethius, 249-250). In the passage above, Vitruvius attributes the exact proportion and distribution of weight within a single column, in order for that piece to be structurally sound. However, this can be attributed to the general construct that the Coliseum had exhibited. By looking at the picture of the ruins, the thickest part, the Doric, is all arrayed at the first level of the Coliseum. This arrangement is intended in order to have a reliable support or foundation at the base of the enormous ampitheater. On the other hand, Ionic columns are placed on the second level of the structure because the need for a firm foundation lessens. As the Coliseum rises, the pressure on the walls is not as much as the pressure on the base. Hence, a more decorative and slender column is appropriate for such purposes. On the third and final level of the Coliseum, the Corinthian columns are arranges accordingly. Based on the previous assumption, gravity lessens and the pressure on the walls is the least in the highest part of the Coliseum. In this case, the Corinthian, which is the weakest column among the three, functions for the sole purpose of adorning the topmost part of the structure. Vitruvius’ logic truly works for the model of the Coliseum. The analysis of a firm base as compared to the top is a very intelligent way to explain the use of the Tuscan columns in the Coliseum. Another view for a deeper analysis of the Tuscan columns in the Coliseum is through the separation of classes within the Roman community (see Figure 6). As what had been mentioned in the structural form of the ampitheater, the columns were duly arranged down from the strongest, up to the lightest. Tantamount to that, the columns may be interpreted as indicators to the different levels in the existing society at that time. Since the base columns constituted the strongest array of pillars in the Coliseum, the same goes with the type of audience who got to reside in the lowest part of the ampitheater, and providing the best view as compared to other seats. These seats were exclusively reserved for the Senators, the high ranking officials of Rome. These politicians were prioritized in the Coliseum, thus given the best seats that were closer to the performers at the arena (Claridge, 276-282). How is seating arrangement inside the ampitheater significant to the Tuscan columns? It can be implied that the strongest Doric columns at the base of the structure is the same as interpreting the gravity of the roles of the Senators to the Roman Empire. Hence, by using the importance of the Doric column to the stability of the Coliseum, we can discern the importance of the Senators to the overall stability of the Roman Empire in terms of political matters. Moving on with this analysis, the next level of seats was provided for the equestrian class or the knights and the nobilities of the Roman Empire (Claridge, 276-282). Adjacent to the Ionic columns, it can be said that, although they were not of firm importance to the Roman state as compared to the Senatorial class, they were still given credence due to their social upbringing. This goes parallel with the Ionic that was not as strong as Doric in terms of structural support. At the topmost portion of the Coliseum, the upper parts of the ampitheater had seats reserved for subsequent classes, mostly the plebians. These commoners, slaves and women were all stocked up in the highest portion of the Coliseum because classes of utter importance were given the best viewing areas (Claridge, 276-282). Hence, the plebians had to be satisfied with a minute view of the happenings in the arena. Again, with the analysis used above, the sheer weakness of the Corinthian columns as compared to the other two goes the same with the weak perception for the plebians as compared to the Senatorial and the upper classes in the society. A Conclusive Analysis for the Tuscan Columns in the Coliseum in Rome Indeed, the Tuscan columns in the Coliseum in Rome had significant uses for the structure itself and for supplying ample analysis of the Roman society. In the brief narration of the history of the Coliseum, it cannot be denied that history had moulded the ampitheater to be one of the most spectacular Roman structures in the Empire up to the time when it underwent a drastic decline due to the fall of Rome and its subjection to the thralls of time. It is also definitive that the Coliseum was largely influenced by the Hellenic architecture of ancient Greece, most especially the introduction of the Tuscan columns to Roman architecture. The variants of the Tuscan columns have different characteristics and roles in the entire structure. The simple but thick Doric was functional as the structure’s base, the slender but lightly adorned Ionic was good for the subsequent level, while the weak but highly intricate Corinthian was fit for the upper parts of the ampitheater. Aside from functional purposes, the columns have provided room to analyse the Roman society. Parallel with the strong Doric were the highly influential and prioritized Senatorial class seated at the lowest part of the ampitheater. The Ionic was compared to the equestrian class seated directly above the politicians. While the weakest tantamount to the traits of the Corinthian were constituted of the plebians seated at the topmost portion of the Coliseum. Works Cited Boethius, Axel. “Of Tuscan Columns”. American Journal of Archaeology, July, 1962: pp. 249- 254. Print. Canter, Howard Vernon. “The Venerable Bede and the Colosseum”. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 1930: pp. 150-164. Print. Claridge, Amanda. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print. Hollister, C. Waren. Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2006. Print. Szegedy-Maszak, Andrew. “A Perfect Ruin: Nineteenth-Century Views of the Colosseum”. Arion, Third Series, Winter, 1992: pp. 115-142. Print. Appendix Read More