One may ask cui bono in evoking and emphasizing the broad setting of Rome for
an imperial action.While admittedly there is no direct evidence on this topic, it can be profitable to speculate on the intended impetus and audience of the Anaglypha Reliefs. Scholars have recently emphasized the constant process of negotiation between senate
and emperor, where the senate reminded the emperor of its expectations of his behavior, by praising him for that same type of behavior.361 Most sculptural monuments,
furthermore, at least nominally were commissioned by the senate. It could be that the emphasis on the connection between Rome and imperial action in the Anaglypha Reliefs was a coded reminder (or wishful thinking) on the part of the senate, to recall to a
traveling, Graecophile Hadrian where his duties lay.362 E. Marlowe interprets a Tetrarchic monument in a similar fashion: the extant base from the Five-Column Monument, set up by the senate in Rome, depicts all four Tetrarchs together, presumably in Rome, despite the fact that such an event had never occurred.363 Marlowesees this as an appeal by the senate to return Rome to its proper place as the center of imperial life, at the expense of the new Tetrarchic capitals. The Anaglypha Reliefs—a depiction of imperial gifts specifically to the citizens of Rome and originally Italy, set against a backdrop of urban, Roman magnificence—may be a similar appeal to the emperor not to forget his special duties to Rome.364
It is also interesting that most of the elements chosen to be represented in the foreground of the Anaglypha Reliefs have connections to the republican period. While
361 E.g. Mayer 2002; 2010; Marlowe 2004, 24-33, 245-49; Noreña 2011, 51; Seelentag 2011.
362 The question of the authorship and driving forces behind the Anaglypha Reliefs has been underexplored, and the senate is generally left out of the discussion. Torelli (1982, 108; 1999, 95) has briefly argued that the act of burning tax records, which would have had direct impact on the power of the senate relative to the imperial ficus, is purposely placed near the older speaker’s platformand the Curia, the dual strongholds
of the senate; see also Hölscher 2002, 142. Given the generalized renderings of the buildings, such precise topographical associations are in my opinion too strong, but the general theme of senatorial power could still be evoked more generally in the platforms with rostra.
363 Marlowe 2004, 26-33.
364 Torelli (1982, 91) briefly points out the intimate connection between the depictions on the Anaglypha Reliefs and the citizens of Rome. For the sometimes tense relationship between the emperor and the city of Rome, see Hope 2000.
they may have acquired subsequent connotations, both the Marsyas statue and the ficus Ruminalis (or any of the fig trees that stood of the Forum Romanum) had their roots deep
in the republic. Similarly, the first podium to be decorated with rostra dated to the
heyday of the senate, and all subsequent similar platforms presumably would have retained strong connotations of rule through oratory, a traditional senatorial domain. Despite being set up in the high imperial period, then, the Anaglypha Reliefs had a strong republican flavor. The repetition of the Marsyas and fig tree (and perhaps the platforms with rostra [R12.B2, R13.B7]) makes little sense as a topographic indicator, but does
make sense if these elements were acting as a symbol reflecting on the significance of depicted events.
The alimenta “statue” may also have had strong senatorial connotations. At the
time of Trajan and Hadrian, the most likely period for the execution of the Anaglypha Reliefs, the alimenta was a relatively new imperial institution, having been set up for the
first time, possibly under Nerva, but more probably in the early reign of Trajan.365 The
alimenta as a social institution, however, had a long history: local elites, many of them
senators, often set up private alimentary schemes for their dependents.366 The easy
discussion of such a scheme by Pliny the Younger in a letter to a friend367 suggests that alimentary schemes were a well-known feature of elite life. By commemorating the imperial alimenta, the senate would not only be celebrating an institution that applied
365 Supra n. 101.
366 For private alimentary schemes and their connection to the imperial institution, see e.g. Duncan-Jones 1964, 128; Patterson 1987, 126-27; Woolf 1990, 208-10.
367 Plin.
specifically and only to the local area of Italy, but they also would be presenting the emperor taking on the role of a local elite.
Finally, it is notable that the Scriptores Historiae Augustae (albeit a problematic
source) specifically situate the debt remission in the broader context of numerous beneficial public fiscal acts pursued by Hadrian following the unpopular execution of four senators at the beginning of his reign.368 These acts included the cancelation of
expenses in the provinces, an increase of the allotment to children enrolled in the
alimenta program, and, notably, gifts to individuals, either to restore their senatorial
standard of living or to allow them to run for public office. The Anaglypha Reliefs may thus commemorate correct imperial behavior, especially towards the senate, behavior that came in historical context of atonement for incorrect behavior.
If one works from the (admittedly speculative) premise that the senate sponsored and directed the creation of the Anaglypha Reliefs, then the transference of the debt record burning from the new, lavish imperial forum to a setting evocative of the senate and its traditional stronghold of the Forum Romanum, but more importantly their greater stronghold of Rome in general, would have had great significance. This would help explain the generalized renderings of the buildings: what was important were not the particular identities of individual buildings, but the special spirit of Rome evoked by an urban backdrop.
368 Supra n. 356.
CHAPTER 6:
COLUMN OF MARCUS AURELIUS
The Column of Marcus Aurelius is a difficult monument to evaluate.369 Heavily damaged and without an extant inscription, the exact date and original setting of the column are debated, although it obviously stood on the Campus Martius, probably in the vicinity of the Temple of Divine Marcus and Faustina, known only from literary
sources.370 The precise topic of the figural frieze is also unclear, but it is generally understood to depict campaigns waged by Marcus Aurelius against barbarians across the Rhine and Danube. The monument is clearly modeled after the Column of Trajan, repeating not only the figural frieze but also the structural feature of the internal spiral staircase, as well as specific compositional elements, such as the Victory writing on a shield at the midpoint of the Column.
Like its predecessor, the Column of Marcus Aurelius is a valuable and underexplored resource in the study of architectural depictions. The architectural depictions of the column are exceptional not only in their great number and focus on generic buildings outside of Rome: they also present a unique opportunity for a direct
369 For general discussion, see e.g. Petersen et al. 1896; Morris 1952; Becatti 1955; Caprino et al. 1955; Dobiás 1962; Jordan-Ruwe 1990; Wolff 1990; Pirson 1996; Huet and Scheid 2000; Beckmann 2003; 2005a; 2005-06; 2011; Claridge 2005; Dillon 2006; Coarelli 2008; Ferris 2009; Kovács 2009; Depeyrot 2010a; 2010b.
370 For the related problems of the date and topics of the Column of Marcus Aurelius, see Jordan-Ruwe 1990, 67-9; Wolff 1990; Hölscher 2000, 94; Beckmann 2003, passim; 2011, 19-36; Coarelli 2008, 32-6; Kovács 2009, 159-68. 181-275. For the setting of the column, see e.g. Coulston 1988, 18, 390; Hanoune 2000, 207; Beckmann 2003, 1-2, 23; 2011, 37-54; Clarke 2003, 45-7; Coarelli 2008, 12-32.
comparison between a monument and its prototype. While the architectural depictions of the Column of Marcus Aurelius frequently draw on those of the Trajanic column, the later depictions deviate from their models in several crucial aspects. The similarities and differences between the depictions of the monuments thus can provide a unique window into the changing uses of architectural depictions in Roman state reliefs.
Following the same approach employed for the Column of Trajan, I will begin my analysis of the architectural depictions of the Column of Marcus Aurelius with a short case study of two settlements. I will then proceed to a broader analysis of the
architectural depictions on the monument as a whole, drawing on a comprehensive analysis of all preserved architectural depictions on the frieze.371
6.1 TWO SETTLEMENTS (SCENES I AND XX) ON THE COLUMN OF MARCUS AURELIUS