Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
References
All Topics
Art
Art History

Memory and the Roman viewer: Looking at the Arch of Constantine

Profile image of Jessica Faye HughesJessica Faye Hughes

2014, In: Galinsky, Karl ed. Memoria Romana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory. Supplements to the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

visibility

…

description

16 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

[Opening two paragraphs - please contact me if you'd like to read the whole chapter] "In many ways, the Arch of Constantine in Rome is an obvious choice of subject for an exploration of Roman memory. Not only was its primary function commemorative (it celebrated Constantine’s tenth year of rule and his victory over Maxentius in A.D. 312), but it was also constructed from pieces of sculpture and architecture that had, at some point, been taken from the monuments of earlier Roman rulers. Indeed, much of the existing scholarship on the arch already addresses the topic of memory, although the word memory itself is not always explicitly invoked. These earlier discussions deal primarily with themes that might come under the heading of “Cultural Memory” or “Collective Memory,” since they consider how the arch’s makers selected, preserved, and re-presented elements of a “usable past” to serve their own, contemporary purposes. Most commentators now agree that the decision to recycle old sculptures was motivated by an ideological agenda rather than a (purely) financial one, taking it to be deeply significant that the older reliefs come from the monuments of the “good emperors,” Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. The fact that these scholars go on to offer rather different interpretations of the arch’s program reflects the inherent ambiguity of reused images, which can simultaneously indicate both change and continuity, and which can assert supremacy over the past at the same time as appropriating its numinous power. The present chapter builds on this rich tradition of scholarship on the Arch of Constantine. However, in contrast with most earlier commentators, here I am particularly interested in memory as a human, cognitive faculty. The figure of the Roman viewer is thus central to my analysis, and one aim of this chapter is to show how work in the interdisciplinary field of memory studies can bring us closer to understanding the dynamics of viewing monuments in antiquity. I focus principally on two aspects of the complex and mutually formative relationship that existed between the arch and the Roman viewers who contemplated it. First, I emphasize the fact that viewers approached the monument with a suite of existing memories, which shaped their own unique responses to the imagery and configured its meaning in ways that could both consolidate and subvert the intentions of its creators. Secondly, I suggest that the arch actively impacted the memory of viewers, shaping the way in which they thought about the past, in the future. This idea of a two-way relationship between a monument and viewer dovetails with those theories that describe memory as distributed between individuals and the physical or social environment in which they operate. Finally, I will propose a third way in which the monument relates to memory, suggesting an analogy between in- dividual memory and national history similar to that described by Schlesinger in the citation above."

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The Arch of Constantine serves as a significant study of Roman collective and cultural memory.
  2. Viewers' pre-existing memories shaped their interpretation of the Arch's imagery, influencing its meaning.
  3. The monument's design promotes a two-way relationship, actively impacting viewers' future perceptions of the past.
  4. Reused sculptures from earlier emperors signal both continuity and change in imperial representation.
  5. The Arch's narrative style reflects autobiographical memory, contrasting fragmented past with continuous recent history.

Related papers

Multivalence of Memory: The Tetrarchs, the Senate and the Vicennalia Monument in the Roman Forum
Elizabeth Marlowe

in K. Galinsky and K. Lapatin (eds.), Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire (Los Angeles: Getty, 2016), 240-62.

View PDFchevron_right
Defying Death in Ephesus. Strategies of Commemoration in a Roman Metropolis, in: E. Mortensen – B. Poulsen (eds.), Cityscapes and Monuments of Western Asia Minor. Memories and Identities (Oxford 2017) 229–236
Martin Steskal

2017

View PDFchevron_right
Roman Cultural Memory Conference
Pedro Paulo A . Funari
View PDFchevron_right
What is Cultural Memory Cultural Memory in Republican and Augustan Rome third proofs
Martin Dinter

Cultural Memory in Republican and Augustan Rome t, 2023

20.1 Reconstruction of the Porta Romana. 20.2 The two inscriptions decorating the Porta Romana. 20.3 Dante Vaglieri's reconstruction of the text of the Porta Romana dating to c. 1910. 20.4 The reconstruction of the two inscriptions belonging to the Porta Romana by Lothar Wickert in the Supplement volume of CIL XIV at no. 4707 (1934). 21.1 Reconstruction of the statue monument of L. Cassius Longinus (drawing by Julia Ochmann). 21.2 Facsimile of the pedestal of a statue of Hegelochos, re-used as a public honorary statue for L. Cassius Longinus. 22.1 Carthage: the Punic (===) and Roman (-) street system overlaid. The thick lines (-) are contour lines. 22.2 Carthage: Roman Byrsa (first phase). 22.3 Corinth: Sketch plan of the forum area c. 30 BC. 22.4 Corinth: The Forum area in later Augustan/Iulio-Claudian times.

View PDFchevron_right
The Architectonics of Memory: Space, Power, and Identity in Contemporary Rome
Letizia Modena

Annali d'Italianistica, 2019

Roma negata. Percorsi postcoloniali nella città (2014), a book comprised of Rino Bianchi's series of portraits and Igiaba Scego's narrative, and African-American artist Carrie Mae Weems's Roaming (2006), a collection of photographs shot in Rome, take the viewer on a pilgrimage through the city, exposing and questioning the relationship among architecture, space, and identity. Both works chart the ethics and aesthetics of collective memory in its rapport with monuments and buildings that commemorate and celebrate nation, empire, and national identity. The artists! itineraries through the Eternal City are a meditation on history, memory, and public space that reminds us that national identity-formation through symbolic architecture hinges on selection and omission. From within the built environment, the two photographers and the writer prompt us to ask ourselves whose story architecture archives and memorializes. Their creative endeavors should thus be approached as counter-narratives that seek to invert the architectonic and monumental erasure of minority identities throughout history.

View PDFchevron_right
How Ancient Greeks and Romans Represented Their Past: A New Volume on Ancient Memory, review De Marre (M.), Bhola (R.K.) (edd.) Making and Unmaking Ancient Memory. London/New York: Routledge, 2022
Nicoletta Bruno

Classical Review, 2023

View PDFchevron_right
The flexibility of monumental memory. Using monuments to create the past in Arcadia
Julie Baleriaux

2014

Political events have a repercussion on the monumental landscape of cities and their local tradition: that is still true today, and was undoubtedly the case in ancient Arcadia. In Greek poleis, monuments were built at strategic places which made sense, and presented viewers with different layers of possible interpretation, from episodes taken from panhellenic narratives to very local histories. In this paper, I will examine three cases in which the Arcadians used monumental memory, namely adding layers of interpretation to monuments, existing or new, to fulfil contemporary claims. These cases will be: - The monuments of the Tegean agora, which all seem to display how much the Tegeans hated the Spartans from a very early time; - The statuary group of the Arcadians at Delphi, which features a very conveniently newly found son of Arcas; - The Trophy of the Arcadians in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Mantinea, which is one example of how monuments contribute to filling gaps in local memory by creating historicizing events.

View PDFchevron_right
VIII colloquium Ars Mediaevalis: Memory: Monument and Image in the Middle Ages (Aguilar de Campoo (Palencia) May 4th-6th 2018) FINAL PROGRAM
Gerardo Boto

MEMORY is a psychological faculty and an intellectual power that found its expression in the foundational and oft-repeated phrase of the Eucharistic celebration heard by all believers: " do this in remembrance of me ". Memory is projected onto ritual commemorations of the dead, funeral processions, anniversaries, liturgical celebrations and concerns all of the deceased, from the humblest to those who hold eminent institutional, religious or administrative positions, and, of course, the " special dead",​ namely, the saints. It is not restricted to commemorating the deceased, whose presence is invoked by naming them in obituaries and in the objects associated with them. The latter were movable (liturgical vessels, manuscripts, ritual vestments, portable altars, trophies, objects associated with reliquaries and artistic patrons) or the fixed furnishings of buildings (reredoses, mural paintings, stained-glass windows, heraldic sculpture and, in particular, epigraphs and funerary monuments). By extension, the term memory was used in reference to the buildings or altars (e. g. cella memoriae) that sheltered these objects of such high sacred value. MEMORY is at the heart of Augustinian epistemology, which believed that human reason is nourished by intelligence, love, and memory. In the secular domain, memory played a central role in underpinning laws and institutions whose legitimacy depended on established customs. To establish the legal foundation of the present and future, lawmakers had to express the past and the certainty of the past. THIS COLLOQUIUM intends to analyze social memory as the process that enables society to renew and reform its understanding of the past so that it can be incorporated into the present, thus establishing a historical analogy in the narrative of the passing of time. The social memory includes liturgical memory, historiography, genealogy, oral tradition and other forms of cultural production and reproduction. Therefore, the colloquium's aim in particular is to revisit the concept of cathedral memory, which includes all of those works, activities and uses of space that transmits over time the memory of important bishops, clerical dignitaries and laypeople and the origins and historical episodes in which they had played leading roles. HOWEVER, in each cathedral, the promotion of memory was incorporated into a communal setting in use over a long period of time and thus fostered diverse dynamics in terms of the interactions and intersections between the memory of the individual and/or the cooperative memory of social groups. Furthermore, mnemotechnic resources played a highly important role in adopting, storing, connecting, activating, modeling and reinventing the information and visual expressions received at a given moment in the past. MEMORY, as contemporary psychology shows, is a dynamic process that transforms the past to such an extent that it creates new pasts. In fact, operative and dynamic memory is an exercise not so much in recognizing the past as an immutable reality but rather in reorganizing that past to the point of imagining it. Remembering always means connecting new stimuli (images, logical sequences, references, stories, etc.) that awaken this recollection with earlier information that has already been taken on board but stored away. Without the analogous links that adapt memories, it is impossible to integrate new events into a historical sequence. How did such assumptions affect the way in which images functioned during the Middle Ages? Where and when were architectural spaces composed to promote the gestation or remodeling of individual or institutional memories? This colloquium will provide a forum for analysis and debate regarding these fundamental questions of visual culture and medieval art.

View PDFchevron_right
The Rhetoric of Rome and the Reappropriation of the Ancient Monuments, Fragmenta 1, 2007, pgg. 141-171
Eugenio La Rocca

Every culture has to deal with decay and death. Buildings and sites lose their original function and significance to be used in a different way by later generations. This becomes explicit in the case of, for instance, the Pantheon and the Colosseum. The way these Roman monuments are interpreted leans heavily on the ideas of the interpreter. Everyone reconstructs Rome according his own selective memory and creates a very personal image that may not necessarily take heed of any historical evidence. Even construction in the late nineteenthcentury Rome follows its own distorted path as does Mussolini who transformed the Urbs according to his own ideological and political twist. All these volatile appropriations of the past should remind us that it is our task to preserve Rome as a cultural memory that reflects our whole civilization in an enlightened modern way.

View PDFchevron_right
“Sites of Memory” – A Topic for Research and Communication?
Katharina Steudtner

eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies, 2021

This article focuses on theories and discourses in cultural studies that deal with the concept and phenomenon of memory and analyzes the relevance of such content for professional discussions in ancient studies and the preservation of monuments. Using examples of my own and "borrowed" examples from others, I seek to show how the concepts from sociologist Maurice Halbwachs and historian Pierre Nora have an especially fruitful effect on our research and can generate new associations. I begin my observations at a natural temporal and spatial starting point: a historicist church interior in Berlin. The focus then moves to the medieval-looking Wartburg Castle, in Eisenach, and the western facade of the Metz Cathedral, concluding with the "ancient" ruins of Didyma and Pompeii.

View PDFchevron_right

References (74)

  1. My research into spolia and memory was generously funded by a grant from the Memoria Romana project. I am grateful to Karl Galinsky, Adam Gutteridge, Janet Huskinson, Maggie Popkin and Hugo Spiers for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
  2. On the Arch of Constantine, see the following selective bibliography, with further references: Faust 2011, Gutteridge 2010; Marlowe 2006; Liverani 2011, 2009, 2004;
  3. Holloway 2004, 19-54; Holloway 1985; Elsner 2003; Elsner 2000; Elsner 1998; Wilson Jones 2000. Pensabene and Panella 1999, Kleiner 1992 (pp. 444-455 with bibliography on p. 464), Peirce 1989; Brilliant 1984, 119-123; Ruysschaert 1962-3; Giuliano 1955, Berenson 1954. 3 For the concept of 'usable past' see Zamora 1998.
  4. The (eventual) temporal separation of monument and viewer is assumed by Roman writers. Cf. Varro, De Lingua Latina 6.49; Cicero, Epist. ad Caes. fr. 7; Horace, Odes 3.30.1. 25
  5. Wertsch 2002, 26.
  6. Kinney 1997, esp. p. 58. Note that damnatio is a modern term of convenience, and as such should be used with caution. See Flower 1998, esp. 156.
  7. Elsner 2000, 174; Galinsky 2008, 15.
  8. On the 'mimesis of the Arch of Septimius Severus' see Wilson Jones 2000, 65-67.
  9. On the Arch's interplay with Maxentian building projects and other nearby buildings, see Marlowe 2006. On the provenance of the spoliated sculptures, see Kinney 1997, 127-128. 30 This is familiar territory for scholars working within the field cultural memory studies: see for instance Fowler 2007.
  10. Zerubavel 1996, 287.
  11. Kleiner 1992, 450, and 462.
  12. Foucault's contre-mémoire; see Introduction, n. 33.
  13. Galinsky 2008, 20; Hedrick 2000, xii and 113-130.
  14. "Archive" has been an operative notion in memory studies; cf. Assmann 1999, 343-347 with reference to Derrida and, similarly, Frischer in this volume. 36 On the ars memoriae see Small 1997, 95-116 and Onians 1999 177-205. 37 These examples are drawn from the Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.22. 38 Small 1997.
  15. See for instance Tulving and Pearlstone 1966; Tulving and Osler 1968. 41 Prusac 2011.
  16. Ebbinghaus 1885. Accessible introductions to cognitive work on memory include Schacter 2001, Baddeley, Eysenck and Anderson 2009, and Boyer and Wertsch 2009.
  17. Kinney 1995, on the view of L'Orange and his successors.
  18. Elsner 2000, 165-166; cf. Gutteridge 2010, 167.
  19. 'Discrete icons' is Elsner's phrase: 2000, 165. A different view is presented by Kleiner 1992, 466: she describes the frieze as representing 'discrete historical episodes', in contrast to the earlier, encircling friezes of the Arch of Titus in Rome and Trajan in Beneventum. 46 Rose 1993, 41.
  20. See in particular Gutteridge 2010.
  21. E.g. Kansteiner 2002; Novick 1999, 267-268; Wertsch 2002, 37. Works Cited Angelicoussis, E., "The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius," Römische Mitteilungen 91 (1984) 167-178.
  22. Assmann, A., Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses (Munich 1999).
  23. Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W. and Anderson, M. C., Memory (Hove 2009).
  24. Berenson, B., The Arch of Constantine and the Decline of Form (London 1954).
  25. Boatwright, M., Hadrian and the City of Rome (Princeton 1987).
  26. Boyer, P. and Wertsch, J., Memory in Mind and Culture (Cambridge 2009).
  27. Brenk, B., "Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41 (1987) 103-109.
  28. Brilliant, R., "Temporal Aspects in Late Roman Art," L'Arte 10 (1971) 64-87. Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art (Ithaca, 1984).
  29. Carruthers, M., "Varietas: a word of many colours," Poetica: Zeitschrift für Sprach-und Literaturwissenschaft (Munich 2009) 33-54.
  30. Ebbinghaus, H., Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. (Leipzig 1885).
  31. Elsner, J., Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998).
  32. Elsner, J., "From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms," Papers of the British School at Rome 68 (2000) 149-184.
  33. Elsner, J., "Iconoclasm and the Preservation of Memory," in Nelson, R. S. and Olin, M. Monuments and Memory, Made and Unmade (Chicago 2003) 209-231.
  34. Evers, C., "Remarques sur l'iconographie de Constantin: à propos du remploi de portraits des 'bons empereurs," Mélanges de l'Ecole Française à Rome: Antiquité 103 (1991) 785-806.
  35. Faust, S., "Original und Spolie. Interaktive Strategien im Bildprogramm des Konstantinsbogens," Römische Mitteilungen 117 (2011) 377-408.
  36. Flower, H.," Rethinking 'Damnatio Memoriae': The Case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso Pater in AD 20," Classical Antiquity 17.2 (1998) 155-187.
  37. Fowler, B. The Obituary as Collective Memory (New York 2007).
  38. Galinsky, K., "Recarved Imperial Portraits: Nuances and Wider Contexts," MAAR 53 (2008) 1-25.
  39. Giuliano, A., Arco di Costantino. Istituto Editoriale Domus, (Milan 1955).
  40. Gutteridge, A., "The Depiction of Time on the Arch of Constantine" in Archaeology and Memory, ed. D. Boric (Oxford 2010) 158-170.
  41. Hansen, M. F., The Eloquence of Appropriation: Prolegomena to an Understanding of Spolia in Early Christian Rome (Rome 2003).
  42. Holloway, R.R., Constantine and Rome (New Haven 2004). "The Spolia of the Arch of Constantine," Numismatica e Antichità Classica 14 (1985) 261-273.
  43. Kansteiner, W., "Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies," History and Theory 41.2: 179-197 (2002).
  44. Kinney, D., "Rape or restitution of the past? Interpreting spolia," in The Art of Interpreting, ed. S. C. Scott (Pennsylvania 1995) 53-67.
  45. Kinney, D. , "Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae," Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42 (1997) 117-148.
  46. Kleiner, D., Roman Sculpture (New Haven 1992).
  47. Leander Touati, A. M. ,The Great Trajanic Frieze (Stockholm/Göteborg 1987).
  48. Liverani, P., "Reimpiego senza ideologia: la lettura antica degli spolia dall'arco di Costantino all'età carolingia," Römische Mitteilungen 111 (2004) 383-434. 'The Fragment in Late Antiquity: A Functional View' in The Fragment: An Incomplete History, ed. W. Tronzo (Los Angeles 2009) 23-36.
  49. "Reading Spolia in Late Antiquity and Contemporary Perception," in Reuse Value. Spolia and Appropriation in Art and Architecture, from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, eds. R. Brilliant and D. Kinney (Farnham 2011) 33-51.
  50. L'Orange, H. P. and von Gerkan, A., Der Spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens. Berlin 1939).
  51. Magi, F. , "Il coronamento dell'Arco di Costantino," Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti 29 (1956-7) 83-110.
  52. Marlowe, E., "Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape," Art Bulletin 88.2 (2006) 223-242.
  53. Novick, P., The Holocaust in American Life (Boston 1999).
  54. Onians, J., Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and Rome (New Haven and London 1999). Ostenberg, I., Staging the World. Spoils, Captives and Representations in the Roman Triumph (Oxford 2009).
  55. Packer, J. E.,The Forum of Trajan in Rome (Berkeley and London 1997).
  56. Pensabene, P., "The Arch of Constantine: Marble Samples," in Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology and Trade ed. N. Herz and M. Waelkens (Dordrecht 1988) 411- 418. Pensabene, P. and Panella, C., Arco di Costantino: Tra archeologia e archeometria (Rome, 1999).
  57. Pierce, P., "The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art," Art History 1989: 387-418.
  58. Prusac, M. , From Face to Face: Recarving of Roman Portraits and the Late-Antique Portrait Arts (Leiden and Boston 2011).
  59. Punzi, R., "Fonti documentarie per una rilettura delle vicende post-antiche dell'Arco di Constantino" in Arco di Costantino: Tra archeologia e archeometria ed. P. Pensabene and C. Panella (Rome 1999) 185-228.
  60. Rohmann, J., "Die spätantiken Kaiserporträts am Konstantinsbogen in Rom," Römische Mitteilungen 105 (1998) 259-282.
  61. Rose, S., The Making of Memory: From Molecules to Mind. (London 1993).
  62. Ruysschaert, J., "Unità e significato dell'Arco di Costantino," Studi Romani 11.1 (1963) 1-15.
  63. Ryberg, I. S., Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Rome 1955).
  64. Schacter, D. L., How the Mind Forgets and Remembers: The Seven Sins of Memory (Boston and New York 2001).
  65. Schlesinger, Jr., A.M. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York 1992).
  66. Small, J. P., Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London 1997).
  67. Tulving, E. and Osler, E.," Effectiveness of Retrieval Cues in Memory for Words," Journal of Experimental Psychology 77.4 (1968) 593-601.
  68. Tulving, E. and Pearlstone, Z., "Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for Words," Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 5.4 (1966), 381-391.
  69. Waelkens, M., "From a Phrygian Quarry: the Provenance of the Statues of the Dacian Prisoners in Trajan's Forum in Rome," American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1985) 641-653.
  70. Wertsch, J., Voices of Collective Remembering (Cambridge 2002).
  71. Wilson Jones, M., "Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59.1 (2000) 50-77.
  72. Young, J. E., The Texture of Memory. Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (Yale 1993).
  73. Zamora, L. P. ,The Usable Past: The Imagination of History in Recent Fiction of the Americas (Cambridge 1998).
  74. Zerubavel, E., "Social memories: Steps to a sociology of the past," Qualitative Sociology 19 (1996) 283-300.

Related papers

Review of Karl Galinsky and Kenneth Lapatin, eds., "Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire" (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2016)
Carson Bay

H-Net Reviews in the Humanities & Social Sciences, 2016

View PDFchevron_right
BEYOND BUILT FORM: THE COLOSSEUM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE OCTOBER 2011
Kadir Arikan
View PDFchevron_right
Remembering and Forgetting in the Roman Provinces
Hella Eckardt

Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond Built Form: The Colosseum
Yunus Çetin
View PDFchevron_right
Visibility Matters. Notes on Archaic Monuments and Collective Memory in Mid-Republican Rome
Gabriele Cifani

K. Sandberg, C. Smith (eds.), Omnium Annalium Monumenta: Historical Writing and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome, Leiden - Boston, pp. 390-403, 2018

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Art History
  • Architecture
  • Memory Studies
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved