The Earlier Period of the Roman Republic and the Later Imperial Era - Essay Example

?Discuss change and continuity in art and architecture from the Roman republican era through to the imperial period. Consider what has changed, what has stayed the same and some possible reasons why. Introduction. From the considerable distance in time of some two thousand years, it is easy to look back on the Roman period and appreciate its considerable achievements in the fields of art and architecture as a glorious legacy, and to see them belonging to a single category. A closer look at the individual works of art, buildings and designs of this long era reveals, however, that there was considerable evolution over time, so that it is possible to distinguish two distinct sub categories of Roman art: that of the republican era and that of the imperial period. This paper outlines the main features of the art and architecture of each of these two periods in turn, and then traces the areas of similarity, which suggest continuity and areas of difference, which indicate elements of change. Potential reasons behind these findings are then explored, looking to Roman history, politics and culture to explain what is happening to the art and culture of the Romans. The Roman Republican Era: 500 BC to 50 BC. There are some difficulties for art historians in tracing the earliest stages of Roman art, because many of the surviving artefacts from the 500 years BC cannot be firmly associated with any particular artist, or date, or even in many cases, location. Some are extant in copies only, and others exist in a damaged or even fragmented state. The more durable materials like marble have survived, more or less, but it is certain that many more treasures in other formats have been lost. This means that scholars must take great care before making definitive judgements about early Roman art: the vast majority of it has not survived, and the samples which remain are not necessarily the greatest and best examples. One feature which is noticeable from the Republican period of Roman art, is the tendency to imitate Greek models of sculpture. Hellenist artists were much admired by the Romans, not just in sculpture but also in literature, music and all kinds of arts and crafts. In sculpture this influence can be seen very clearly in the muscular, semi-naked bodies and the static poses which exude a sublime and noble authority: “Critics are united in acknowledging the enormous debt owed to Greece by all branches of Roman art.” (Jackson, 1987, 33) A good example of the way that Romans imitated Greek culture in the early days of the Republic can be seen in the statue of Diaoumenos (c. 430BC) which is a marble copy of a Greek bronze. The different material makes it somewhat stiffer and more formal than the bronze original must have been, but it shows a similar preoccupation with physical prestige. Vergil’s account of the early history of Rome contains an illuminating passage on the differing value systems that existed between Greeks and Romans. Anchises says: “Others will cast their breathing figures more tenderly in bronze and bring more lifelike portraits out of marble. Roman, remember by your strength to rule earth’s peoples for your arts are to be these: to pacify, to impose the rule of law to spare the conquered, battle down the proud.” (Vergil, Aeneid, VI, 1145-1147) This suggests that the emphasis for Romans may have been more on the symbolism of power and authority that these statues conveyed, than appreciation of the physical beauty of the piece. There are also technical differences in the way that the Romans adapted Greek techniques and styles. Jackson points out that the Roman funerary rights often involved the production of realistic death masks, from which also portraits in three dimensional marble could be made later, and explains the verism of late republican portrait statues as being partly derived from this tradition: “the death mask emphasizes the construction of the face and skull, whilst Hellenistic art shows more concern for the plastic rendition of muscle and for the surface detail generally.” (Jackson, 1987, 40). Roman culture had initially valued the death mask for religious reasons, but these lessened in importance, and Roman families sought to preserve the actual images of living persons, in order to keep alive their memory for future generations. Attention to the actual physical details of the face in particular, then takes on more importance, and so it can be said that Roman statues differ from their late Hellenist counterparts in so far as they depart from classical notions of beauty and move more towards a true to life representation of human beings, even if this means including less than ideal proportions and other personal flaws. An example of this can be seen in the “Portrait of a Roman General” (75-50 BC) which has a typically well-proportioned and muscular body in the Greek style, complete with draped clothes, and a symmetrical stance, but a somewhat rugged head, showing an expression of determination and seriousness. It is as if a Roman head has been fixed on a Greek body, thus showing the ambivalent attitude that the Roman culture continued to have with regard to the Greeks. Etruscan influences were also important, and scholars note that the large temple, decorated with terracotta which was built on the Capitoline hill, and many other buildings from around 575 BC onwards carried the flavor of this culture into Roman architecture. (Pollitt, 2001, 219). It is thought that such buildings were built by Etruscan experts and this is evidence that the early Roman society has an eclectic taste, and an openness to the employment of paid or slave labor with specific expertise, to enhance the quality of the built environment while leaving Roman aristocrats free for their political and military endeavors. In Roman Republican architecture there is also evidence of some borrowing and some departure from Greek models. The city of Rome was of course intended to put on display the wealth and good taste of its elite citizens, and to serve as a model for all provincial towns and cities to emulate. In architecture, as in art, the supremacy of Greece was recognized at first, but Roman taste was less exuberant than that of the Greeks, and more concerned with combining religious ritual with domestic living arrangements. The “atrium house” became the norm for wealthy Roman citizens, with its large public area at the front, the main reception rooms behind that, and various side rooms off the atrium and finally a garden at the rear. (Ellis, 2000, p. 27) The house of Livia and Augustus, which was built on the Palatine Hill, combined the ceremonial status that used to belong to the priests, but in keeping with Rome’s democratic style of government, it also had plenty of bureaucratic functionality “…every Roman aristocratic house had a public role in the reception of guests and clients, and as a centre for business negotiations.” (Ellis, 2000, p. 54) This palace had it had no less than three large reception rooms as well as an open court area in which multiple public offices and functions could take place. The Imperial Period: 27 BC to 500 AD. The imperial period of Roman history is characterized by expanding frontiers and the cult of the emperor. Sculpture is now put to use as a demonstration of the emperor’s power, and striking portraits of the reigning emperor are erected all across the Roman provinces, showing a new and distinctive Roman military style. Figures such as the Augustus of Prima Porta are typical: the figure is bare headed, and wearing draped clothes, like traditional Greek and early Roman portraits, but what is different now is the clearly defined breastplate and the short skirts, signifying the emperor’s leadership of the might of the roman army. The hairstyle is short and practical, and the bearing is declamatory, as if the statue asserts the emperor’s authority upon all observers. There is still a fascination with Greek styles and even some subject matter drawn from the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses, but much of the mythical reference is symbolic, and there is a concentration now on the Roman civic virtues. Women are depicted in modest and industrious poses, and this can be seen for example in the murals and frescoes of Pompeii, and there are also emerging Christian themes in areas colonized by this emerging religious grouping. A significant innovation which can be seen at Pompeii is that of wall painting in the architectural style, and a taste for landscapes. (Zanker, 1990, 28) In architecture the skills of the Romans were adapted to the different terrains of the vast empire. Military buildings and fortifications predominate on the outskirts of the empire, including massive wall defences, ditches and forts. With increasing proximity to Rome there is more and more elaborate infrastructure including baths, amphitheatres and all the usual trappings of a functioning city. The Romans excelled in construction skills, and their use of the arch and the dome allowed permanent buildings on huge scale. From the elegant aquaducts of southern France to the white stone walls of the British city of York, the Roman architects sought to recreate the beauty of Rome using the materials they found to hand in all corners of the empire. They perfected also the skill of choosing the appropriate type and weight of stone for each construction, and devised an early type of concrete. These technical improvements, along with the wealth that the military campaigns created for Rome, allowed the imperial builders to create monumental works in great numbers and with impressive proportions. Even utilitarian structures were built with on a monumental scale. Roman buildings also served to reward loyal followers, whether Roman citizens or tribal leaders, and the variety in construction styles reflects the local tastes of different tribes. The Pantheon is a good example of the Golden Age of Roman architecture in the imperial era, and though it was damaged and restored on several occasions, it retained its impressive scale and demonstrative style and came to be a model for much later architects in the Renaissance and modern periods. The circular plan allows a myriad of the ancient gods to be viewed like paintings in a modern gallery, rather than worshipped in formal religious rites. Geometric patterns based on the circle and the square reduce the building to an elegant simplicity and at last the Romans demonstrate an individuality and self-confidence that comes of their own success, and is not derived from imitation of the Greeks. In some ways imperial Roman architecture was a form of propaganda, proclaiming the superiority of the Roman civilization above the barbarian tribes from whom they gathered tribute. Space was at a premium in the area around Rome and successive emperors embarked on new town building to alleviate overcrowding. In the reign of Nero during the second century AD the city of Ostia was built to accommodate a growing population, and contemporary authors report that there were many fine houses three or more stories high. (Packer, 67, 84). Many of those consisted of shops with living accommodation above them, and although the buildings could be four stories high, conditions for the population were cramped. The open air culture of the Mediterranean meant that people spent most of their free time out in the streets or in the many public buildings and came home only to work and sleep. Besides the impressive external structures of the imperial era, there is also evidence of great care being taken with the interiors. Mosaics are produced with both geometric and figurative designs, the latter often depicting naturalistic images such as animals and fish. Even in far flung parts of the empire such as Britain, there are many surviving examples of this technique. The Brading Villa in the Isle of Wight, for example, sports a reception room with an elaborate mosaic pavement. (Smith, 1883, 116) There is a central head of Medusa, surrounded by geometric panels depicting scenes reminiscent of Mediterranean life. The quality of this work is not so great as other pieces nearer to Rome, but what this shows is that the Romans who built such domestic buildings are exporting their world view to a context far removed in time and space from the heart of the Empire. The scenes with human beings are framed in geometric shapes, merging the mythological with the practical. The building of luxury housing in the provinces was largely fuelled by the desire of aristocrats and retiring Roman military leaders to invest the profits of their life’s work in a piece of land conquered by Rome. In some areas, such as Africa, the villa was the preferred style, while in others, such as Spain, town houses were more popular. (Ellis, 2000, 41) The addition of private baths and gardens is well documented also, especially in the third and fourth centuries AD when Roman wealth was at its peak. In Gaul and Britain there was less luxury, but as time progressed housing here, too grew more elaborate. Conclusion. This comparison of the earlier period of the Roman Republic with the later Imperial era shows a gradual evolution from emulation of Greek and Etruscan styles to the development of art, engineering and architecture that is quintessentially Roman. Early Roman civic architecture served to support the coming together of leaders in large public spaces and the religious rituals of the population. The need to impose authority on conquered tribes drove a building program that was designed to dwarf any other constructions in size, and stamp the authority of Roman rule on the landscape. From a focus on realistic facial portraits in the time of the Republic, tastes turned to iconic and youthful emperor statues, sporting full military regalia and symbols of power such as wreaths and swords. Religious imagery is retained, but it becomes more domestic and at the same time more symbolic. Monumental works grew more concentrated on the emperor and the demonstration of military power. Elements of the new Christian religion also begin to replace Greek and Roman mythological subject. The greatness of Rome was a constant theme, but its expression adapted with the times and to the influence of surrounding territories. References “Augustus of Prima Porta”. Around 20 BC. The Vatican Museums, Rome, Ellis, Simon P. 2000. Roman Housing. London: Duckworth. Jackson, David. 1987. “Verism and the Ancestral Portrait.” Greece & Rome. Second Series. 34 (1): 32-47. Kuttner, Ann L. 2004. “Roman Art during the Republic.” In Harriet I. Flower (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 294-321. Packer, James E. 1967. “Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome.” The Journal of Roman Studies. 57 (1/2): 80-95. Pollitt, J.J. 2001. “Rome: The Republic and Early Empire.” In John Boardman (Ed.), The Oxford History of Classical Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 217-230. Polykleitos. C. 430 BC. Roman copy of a Greek bronze statue. Metropolitan Museum, New York. Figure in marble (Pentelic). Image available at: http://www.metmuseum.org “Portrait of a Roman General”. 75-50 BC. Restored by Palazzo Massimo. Republican heroic figure from the Sanctuary of Hercules, Tivoli, Italy. Marble, approx.. 6’2” high. Smith, D.J. 1983. “Mosaics.” In Martin. Henig (Ed.) A Handbook of Roman Art. London: Phaidon, 116-138. Welch, Katherine. 2010. “Art and Architecture in the Roman Republic.” In Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, (Eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, 496-519. Vergil. 1990. Aeneid.Translated by Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Vintage. Wheeler, Mortimer. 1985. Roman Art and Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson. Zanker, Paul. 1990. The Power of images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Read More