(Slides Left and Right) With the death in 235 of Severus Alexander, the last of the Severan dynasty of emperors, the Roman world was thrown into a half century of near anarchy. Constantly harassed at its borders the Roman empire saw during this period between 235 and 285 more than 25 generals, raising to, and falling from, imperial power. Along with such political instability came great economic instability caused by heavy taxation, deflated coinage and high inflation. This fifty year period begins what historians have called late antiquity.

After the half century of instability, relative calm was temporarily restored under the emperor Diocletian, who rose to power in 284 and who in 293 attempted to solve the problem of imperial succession by dividing the empire into Eastern and Western halves and naming for each half, independent co-emperors each called Augustus with their successors each called Caesar. I show you here on the right a statue depicting the four tetrarchs under Diocletian. Note the stress on the figures as a unified group rather than as individuals. Joined as one massive block; they share similar dress, facial features and gestures.

One important side effect of the anarchy of the third century, one that continued under Diocletian's reform was the decreasing importance of the city of Rome. None of the figures shown in the slide spent any time to speak of in Rome, instead each devoted his attention to his assigned area along the troubled borders of the Roman world. Thus it was on the very margins of the empire that each tetrarch made his capital moving as circumstances might dictate. In actuality, the capital was no longer even a fixed place, but where ever an augustus or a caesar happened to be. During this period York in northern England, Trier in Germany, Nicomedia in Northern Turkey, Salonica in northern Greece and Antioch in Syria, and not Rome served as capitals. Though symbolically still important as the birthplace and traditional capital of the Empire and seat of the Roman, Senate, the political reality was such that Rome had become a virtual backwater, far from where the emperors needed to be.

The last emperor to reside permanently in Rome was Maxentius who used it as his base of rule between 306 and 312. As Maxentius' very presence in Rome suggests the new system established by Diocletian did not survive its first generation and collapsed in 305-306. When once again near anarchy reigned as there were a number of generals who could legitimately lay claim to the imperial seat of the West. Maxentius was one and Constantine another.

Traditionally historians and art historians have stressed the differences between the period of say ca. 200 and that of the period of Diocletian's reforms and beyond. I would like to take a slightly different tack, and suggest that these years did not establish a great break with the past in all aspects of artistic production and architectural design. I see instead great continuity, or at least an attempt at maintaining continuity with the past. To demonstrate this continuity, I will concentrate on a single monument, the Arch of Constantine, and examine not only its sculpture, the usual focus of any discussion of the Arch, but also its relation to earlier arches and most importantly to the topography of the city of Rome.

I will conclude my talk by suggesting that the real break with the Roman past does not occur with the Arch, which I believe was commissioned by the Roman Senate, but with the buildings erected under Constantine's own patronage; that the break with the past does not occur with such a traditional monument as a triumphal arch, but with the new Christian structures sponsored by Constantine on the outskirts of Rome and his foundation of a new capital in the east.

(Slides Left and Right) On 28 October 312 Constantine, portrayed here in a portrait head from about 320, defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge just north of Rome for undisputed control of the West. On the following day, the Senate granted him the traditional triumphal entry into the city. And the soon to be Augustus began what was probably his first visit to the urbs sacra or the sacred city (Slide Right). We can trace his procession through the city on this map of the early fourth century and this model made in the 1930s of 4th century Rome. He followed the customary triumphal route by entering the city from the North, crossed the Tiber and moved through the monumental center of Rome by crossing the field of Mars and then skirting first the Capitoline and then the Palatine keeping the Tiber River, the Circus Maximus and the Colosseum to his right. (Slide Right) We can also get an idea of what he saw as he passed through the city in this model of fourth century Rome made in the 1930s, including the Circus Maximus and the Imperial Palace on the Palatine. At the Colosseum (Slide Right) built by his Flavian ancestors Vespasian and Titus, Constantine's triumphal procession turned West and moved down the Via Sacra or the Sacred Way, passed beneath the Arch of Titus, and then entered the Roman Forum, the symbolic center of the city (Slides Left and Right).

Here, in the Forum shown in ln on the left and as it looks today on the right, Constantine mounted the recently rebuilt rostra, or speaker's platform and addressed the the people of Rome; he then entered the, also newly rebuilt, Curia or senate house and met with the Senate, who named him Augustus, and voted him, among other imperial honors, a triumphal arch. Afterwards (Slide Right) the new Emperor of the West did not continue the usual route and pass beneath the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus (shown at the very right of this reconstruction) and continue up to the summit of the Capitoline to make the traditional sacrifices at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (shown in the upper left hand corner) . He instead retraced his steps through the forum and retired to the Imperial residence on the Palatine.

No doubt, Constantine had certainly just had two very full days, but the need for a little shut eye could hardly explain this elimination of the time worn culmination of a triumphal entry, the sacrifice to the most important Roman deity, Jupiter. Rather, we, as did fourth-century writers, should attribute this very peculiar act to Constantine's belief that he owed his victory over Maxentius to the God of the Christians. According to fourth-century historians, shortly before the battle at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine had had a vision in which he saw either, the cross, or the first two letters of Christ's name in Greek superimposed upon each other, and heard the words "With this sign you shall conquer." Whichever he actually did see, Constantine first ordered his soldiers to emblazon their shields with it, and then sent them off to battle.

For someone who worshipped the god Sol or the sun in its guise as unconquered victor, we should not see Constantine's turn to the Christian godhead as a big jump but rather as a subtle but historically important shift in the new emperor's typically late-Antique syncretistic religious beliefs. At this early date, October 312, though we can speak of a conversion, we should not imagine Constantine as a practicing Christian. At this moment in time, we should view his refusal to sacrifice on the Capitoline, as simply his desire to avoid offending his new found patron deity, who he believed was responsible for his recent victory.

What the Romans, and especially the Senators thought of this particular act, we do not know. If they were offended, they probably did not show it, as Constantine did much else to win their favor. He had, after all, liberated Rome from the unpopular Maxentius. He not only ended his predecessor's persecution of the Senatorial class; he freed political prisoners and sought the Senate's good will by naming a large number of its members to a host of important posts before departing in mid January 313 for the Rhine frontier.

(Slides Left and Right) As I mentioned, the Senate voted Constantine a triumphal arch celebrating his victory at the Milvian Bridge. Obviously, there was no way that the monument could have been finished during the two and a half months of Constantine's first visit. The arch, however, was completed by July 315 when the emperor returned to Rome to celebrate the tenth anniversary of his being acclaimed to power by his troops.

The triumphal arch of Constantine has come down to us essentially in tact. As the last of the great building projects inserted into the monumental center of the city and the largest and most lavishly adorned triumphal arch ever built in Rome, it stands, as we can see in this print of an aerial view of Rome executed in 1577, next to the Colosseum, at the base of the via Sacra just east of the arch of Titus.

The arch is a massive block of white marble masonry, 25 meters wide, 6 and a half meters deep and about 11 and a half meters tall. It stretches across the main thoroughfare connecting the Roman Forum and the Circus Maximus. The block is perforated by three arched openings with the central one being twice as wide and therefore one and a half times as tall as the pair flanking it (Slide Right). A strongly projecting cornice divides the arch horizontally into two main zones. Flanking the openings and establishing the height of the taller lower story on the two major facades are four columns standing on tall plinths. Independent of the main mass they rise to the cornice at the base of the the upper story or attic to carry statues. (Slide Left)

The central panel on each side of the attic bears the following inscription:

"To the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine Maximus, Pius Felix Augustus, since through divine inspiration and great wisdom he has delivered the state from the tyrant and his faction, by his army and noble arms, the Senate and the Roman People, dedicate this arch decorated with triumphal insignia."

The inscription alone indicates the importance of the arch as a piece of propaganda. Note that the inscription clearly states that the arch is a gift from the senate to Constantine. Also note the rather ambiguous phrase "through or by means of divine inspiration" in Latin instinctu divinitatis, which carefully avoids naming the particular divinity responsible for the victory. The words triumphal insignia are surely an allusion to the lavish sculpted decorative program animating almost the entire surface of the arch. (Slide Back Left)

In addition to statues in the round crowning the applied columns, the arch is covered with a rich array of relief sculpture. The bases of the columns depict allegorical figures of victories with defeated soldiers. The spandrels over the outer arches carry images of river gods signifying the boundaries of the Roman world. (SLIDE LEFT) Those over the central arch present more victories carrying trophies which they present to a personification of Rome on the keystone at the apex of the arch. The rectangular panels immediately over the lateral arches depict narrative scenes concerning the actual deeds of Constantine. On the south side or face, we find: Constantine as military general in scenes of his conquest of Italy and subsequent victory over Maxentius. While on the north side we find : Constantine in his new role as ruler of Rome (Slide Left). In the scene over the east opening, shown here on the left the new Emperor is shown making his first address or oratio to the Roman people in the forum as he did in October 312 (Slide Left); and similarly in the matching scene over the west opening, Constantine, seated exactly at the center supervises his first distribution of largesse or donatio to the people of Rome, who look towards him expectantly, presumably as they did when Constantine presented these monetary gifts to them in late 312 or early 313. All these reliefs were carved for the arch.

All the rest of the sculpture on the arch is spolia; meaning, that all of the rest of the sculpture was removed from earlier monuments to be re-used here on the arch of Constantine. Set above the narrative scenes of Constantine are roundels depicting the emperor Hadrian hunting and sacrificing taken from a monument, probably a triumphal arch dedicated to Hadrian who reigned between 98 and 117. In the left slide, the left hand roundel shows Hadrian hunting lions, while in the right hand medallion we see him at the center, with head draped in piety, sacrificing before an altar while attendants look on. The hunt and the sacrifice were imperial occupations par excellent. The hunting scenes are allegorical references to the emperor's abilities as military leader, equating the emperor as a great hunter with the emperor as a great general; while the scenes of sacrifice allude to his religious piety.

In the attic, eight panels were removed from a triumphal arch dedicated to Marcus Aurelius who reigned from 161 to 180 (Slide Left). As on the Hadrianic roundels, these reliefs allude to the virtues of a good emperor by focusing mostly on the emperor's martial duties and roles. The emperor is shown as victorious general performing various traditional functions, such as addressing his troops, entering a city in triumph, as we see here, freeing prisoners, and accepting the surrender of conquered kings. The statues standing over the columns between these reliefs were brought from the Forum of Trajan. These figures do not depict the emperor but on the contrary bound captured soldiers of defeated enemies, the human booty of a victorious emperor. (Slide left)

Like all Roman art the arch of Constantine has a message which is communicated directly and unabashedly to the viewer. As the inscription suggests the sculptural program of the arch proclaims Constantine's imperial triumphal grandeur both in war and in peace. In essence, the arch of Constantine like all Roman triumphal arches acts as a bill board proclaiming the virtues of the triumphant general and the duties of the imperial office.

Who can we imagine was the intended audience? The Senate? The Roman populace? Constantine? Three aspects of the arch make it highly unlikely, in my mind, that the arch was a piece of imperial propaganda aimed at the Senate and the Roman people. First the inscription in the attic clearly states that the arch was a monument to the emperor from the Senate and the Roman people. Secondly, the inscription is distinctly, indistinct, as to the divinity responsible for Constantine's victory over Maxentius. There's no evidence that Constantine felt he needed to hide his devotion to the Christian god. As early as 313, that is two years before the arch was dedicated, Constantine was making fantastically large donations to the Christians of Rome so that they could administer to the needs of their community and build the huge cult and funeral buildings that began to appear on the outer edges of the city.

Moreover, in the soon to be finished audience hall, the basilica of Constantine (Slides Left and Right), on the North side of the via Sacra, not far to the West to the west of his arch, shown here on the right as it is today and here again on the left (Slide Left) in a reconstruction as it would have looked in the time of Constantine, there stood a statue of Constantine the head of which we see here (Slide Right). Though Fragmentary today we can reconstruct its original appearance (Slide right). It held a cross in its right hand, unfortunately not shown in this reconstruction, with an inscription immediately below reading:

"By this Savior sign, the true test of bravery, I saved and freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant.."

which is not exactly an indiscreet reference to the cross as an instrument or "the true test of bravery" of Christ's death, considering the statue was over 40 feet tall (the head alone is more than eight feet tall).

Thirdly, finally, and most importantly, I believe that the arch could not have been commissioned by Constantine because the scenes of pagan sacrifice depicted on the Hadrianic roundels on the arch itself (Slides Left and Right), which represent the only part of the traditional triumphal procession which Constantine refused to perform during his entry into the city in 312.

Because of Constantine's aversion to pagan sacrifice, I would suggest that we simply take the inscription at face value and see the arch and its sculptural program, not as imperial propaganda making claims about Constantine, i.e a statement about Constantine, made by Constantine or his supporters, but rather as an illustration of how the Senate thought a good emperor should act. The spolia almost certainly were removed from earlier triumphal arches, which in Constantine's time were probably in various states of ruin due to the great fires of 287 and 307, but were more importantly dedicated to the most highly regarded emperors of the past. The reused reliefs, then, served both as a compliment to Constantine both associating him with the great emperors of the past, and as appropriate models of imperial behavior. If the Roman Senate, still almost entirely pagan, were the patron of the arch, the refusal to name the Christian Godhead would make sense as one of Christianity's central tenet, monotheism, was explicitly contrary to the Roman religious tradition.

Clearly, Constantine lived up to all the aspects of the desired imperial persona depicted on the arch save for the sacrifices in the roundels. No doubt save for the reference to sacrifice Constantine might even see the arch as rather flattering.

But it would not only be the scenes depicted in the sculpture that were intended to flatter the emperor. You probably have noticed that I have already mentioned two other triumphal arches besides the Arch of Constantine: the arch of Titus from around AD 80 (Slide Right) and the Arch of Septimus Severus of 203 (Slide Right). The sharp eyed among you may already have seen some obvious and not so obvious similarities between the earlier arches, especially between the latter, and the arch of Constantine. The triple opening design, the proportions; the full orders rising from pedestals and the themes depicted on Constantine's arch are all themes derived from the earlier Severan Monument.

The idea of imitating aspects of the earlier arches was intended to connect the Arch of Constantine with the earlier monuments. By having the Arch of Constantine refer back to the arches celebrating these earlier emperors, the designers connected Constantine with these earlier emperors. In this case the designers wanted to make the connection so flagrant that they went so far as to actually remove sculpture from earlier arches and incorporate them into Constantine's. Constantine's importance was also emphasized by the fact that his arch surpassed in size and lavishness all previous arches in the capital.

The use of earlier triumphal arches as models or prototypes for the arch of Constantine reflects a traditional approach to the process of architectural design. In general, due to the scale of architectural projects and the expense involved, architecture traditionally has been a fairly conservative art form. Few patrons are ever willing, or in a political, or economic position, to risk sponsoring a bad building. While one can stash away a bad painting or sculpture, it is rather difficult to hide a bad building, especially a building of the scale which such an important patron as say, the Roman Senate or Constantine, usually desires. Good or bad, the structure would still probably still have to be used. As Vitruvius, the author of the only surviving architectural treatise from antiquity, put it: a building's "merits or faults usually last forever."

Thus patrons throughout much of history have rarely been willing to sponsor a building when they were not sure of what it would look like or how it would function. Because of this, much of the history of architecture is based upon a history of what we call typology or building types. When designing, architects traditionally based their ideas upon a building type: that is an architectural form that was already in use, a basic design canonized for a specific purpose because of formal, symbolic, functional or ritualistic reasons. Since the 1930s the idea of particular building types being suitable for buildings serving particular purposes has fallen in disfavor, though recently it has been revived. The modernist movement believed that a standard form of a box-like steel frame with glass was appropriate for any building no matter what its function or program might be.

Because of the modernist disfavor of the notion of building type, it's a bit hard to come up with a contemporary example. The best one that comes to my mind at least, is the fire station (Slides Left and Right). I would like to take the next few minutes to examine modern examples of building types to obtain a better understanding of the idea. After doing this I will then return to the Arch of Constantine to take up the idea within the context of Ancient Rome.

First the modern examples. Obviously, fire stations require large doors opening onto the street to permit quick and easy exit. Generally they are set back from the main facade line of the street to facilitate the turning of the large trucks. As well, it needs a tower both to dry the hoses and serve as the point from which a siren or bells can be heard throughout the fire district. Here we have two fire stations designed by the contemporary American architect Robert Venturi. Though one lacks the usually requisite tower both are readily identifiable, as fire stations; and for those for whom they are not, the inscription on each, which like the inscriptions we find on Roman triumphal arches, makes the function of the building perfectly clear. Thus, we can usually tell a fire station whenever we see one, even if it has been converted to another use.

Another building type immediately recognizable for what it is as is the Gas Station (Slide Left) and another the drive-in fast food restaurant (Slide Right). For connoisseurs of MacDonalds', an early example of this building type, almost identical in design to the one shown here, is still functioning up on Powell just beyond 82nd. Please note, the modified triumphal arch motif.

(Slides Left and Right) Probably most of you who have seen a triumphal arch say the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, shown here, or the one in Washington square in lower Manhattan in New York City didn't think of a triumphal arch as architecture. Arches, however, may well be the simplest building type there is. They belong to the generic category of honorific monument, and they shape, control and manipulate space in not so subtle ways. Here we see how the Arc de Triomphe, built in 1806, serves as the terminus of the monumental axis of the Champs d'Elysée, the major thoroughfare of downtown Paris. (Slide Right) In the air view here we can see how it has been used to help define not just that one boulevard but the major urban arteries on the western end of the right bank of the Seine. The arch does not merely define a single location, rather it beckons out to where ever it might be seen (Slide Right). Thus the arch seems to control both the space around it and how one moves through that space.

You should consider here, that I don't think architecture is constituted by buildings alone. Rather I see architecture more broadly as the built environment, including, not only the buildings themselves, but also the space they occupy, and the space defined and shaped between them.

Like the Arc de Triomphe, all the triumphal arches we have seen in Rome both control the surrounding space and direct one's movement through that space (Slide Right). The arches in Rome serve as important elements of connection, facilitating our movement through the urban fabric. We need to adjust a bit to the scale, as the ancient city was primarily designed to accommodate foot and some carriage traffic, and not the modern car, bus or truck as modern cities must do. An arch, because it is by its very nature perforated, works admirably at helping mark a route through a city. It spans the route yet allows passage beneath. Because of this, as we see with the arc de Triomphe in Paris it is a vertical marker that can be seen in the void of the street from quite some distance away. As well, we not only see the arch, but we can also see past it, just as we can in this slide of the Arch of Constantine. Letting us know in advance whether, after our trek towards it, we will continue straight on or will have to make a turn in some other direction. Thus arches are usually set at critical junctures. For example, the arch of Titus (Slide Left & Right) marks the entrance into the Roman Forum. Arriving from the Colosseum from the east after we pass through it, we must make the choice between turning left and moving up the Palatine Hill or turning right to continue into the Forum proper. At the opposite end of the forum the Arch of Septimius Severus does much the same thing. Arches, then, have two distinct sides, one you see coming, and the other you could see if you turn around after passing through it. The sculptural programs of triumphal arches were usually designed to take this two sided nature of the arch format into account. For example, on the arch of Constantine the two scenes depicting Constantine performing his civic duties, the oratio and the donatio, are on the north facing into the city, while those devoted to his martial exploits are on the south facing away from the city center.

Note that here at the Roman Forum, arches are used to help mark our progression through this open plaza. This combination of open plaza and architectural marker is a hallmark of Roman urban design. Any Roman city worthy of the name, city, used this combination often in conjunction with other civic structures to define the city's major thoroughfare through its core. This delineated path defined by streets, plazas, buildings and open connective architecture such as triumphal arches is what architectural historians call an armature. The major armature in Rome was the route used for triumphal processions--the very route Constantine followed through the city to the Roman Forum in October 312.

(Slides Left & Right) As you might have guessed from the discussion of the siting of the arches mentioned above, the location of the arch of Constantine serves an important function for the main armature through Rome's monumental center. (As an aside here I want to distinguish the monumental center with its huge civic structure and temples and open fora from the dark dim inhabited areas that encompassed it.) The siting of the arch of Constantine was not only calculated to assist in movement through the city. More importantly its site was carefully established to maximize the meaningful associations and allusions to the recipient, the emperor Constantine. The arch established the southern boundary of a sort of piazza or open area.(Slide Left) To the east stood the Flavian amphitheater, better known today as the Colosseum, built by Constantine's imperial Flavian ancestors Vespasian and Titus. This open area was bounded to the north by the gigantic 40 meter statue known as the Colossus which gave the Colosseum the well known nickname we still use for it today. This gigantic statue was the work of Nero, which when first erected, had stood in the entry way to Nero's lavish palace known as the Golden House. Knowing his ego it should not be surprising to learn that this gigantic statue depicted Nero himself. After the hated Emperor's death, Vespasian destroyed the obscenely scaled palace, and built the Colosseum over a lake on the grounds of the Golden House. Vespasian left the Colossus but rededicated it to the Sun. For our purposes you should recall that the Sun had been Constantine's prime deity until his conversion to Christianity. On the west just north of the via sacra stood the huge temple dedicated to Venus and Roma. Severely damaged in a fire of 307, it had recently been restored by Maxentius, the credit for which however fell to Constantine after Maxentius's demise. Rome, sun and the Flavian dynasty all could be connected with Constantine by the Senate and were alluded to in the placement of the arch.

However, so far we've only looked at the arch's placement in terms of standing in a fixed location. The topographical associations are equally as rich when we examine the urban framework or what I called earlier on, the armature, into which the arch was set (Slides Left and Right). In terms of the overall armature of the city defined by the route of the traditional triumphal procession, the arch of Constantine marked the critical juncture where the procession turned West and entered the Sacred Way towards the Roman Forum. More subtilely (Slide Left) it linked three important Flavian monuments, the arch of Vespasian at the eastern tip of the Circus Maximus to the south, the Colosseum just to the east, and the Arch of Titus to the West (Slide Left). Beyond the arch of Titus the north flank of the via sacra was bordered by the Basilica of Constantine, (Slide Left) the imperial audience hall in Rome. Though a project begun by Maxentius, it was completed by his conqueror. Any doubt about the ultimate patron of the project was settled by the 40 foot seated statue of Constantine in its western niche on the interior (Slide Left). Thus movement along this, the culminating, leg of the triumphal route was now virtually defined by Constantine's and his Flavian ancestor's monuments.

(Slide Left) What we have found here in the siting of the arch of Constantine was standard fare for the urban design of Roman cities and one that had a long history going back to at least to the earliest Roman emperor Augustus, if not back into the Republic. Note, however, that this method of design is a piecemeal additive process. That is, monuments are gradually inserted into the urban fabric usually as part of the armature, gradually, only over a long period of time. In so doing, the armature accumulates denser and denser associations over time.

By its very nature, a city like Rome could not be planned or replanned from scratch. Topographical irregularities, constant and continual use, competing demands from different interest groups, to name only a few limitations, made a grand master plan impossible almost from the city's inception. Instead, because Rome's long history offered a wide spectrum of patrons, building types, locales and the like, specific urbanistic interventions such as the Arch of Constantine could be calculated for maximum effect.

I would also suggest that this insertion of a new architectural element into an pre-exisiting urban setting to establish a new meaning among previously disparate elements is similar to the gathering together of the group of otherwise disparate sculptures on the Arch of Constantine. In both systems, the variety of styles of either the buildings or the sculpture and their initial meanings are not what is most important, but rather in both cases, allusions, associations or messages are generated from the proximity of the elements newly gathered together.(Pause)

Though Constantine could trace his family lineage directly back to the Flavians, the dynasty that had ruled the empire for the thirty or so years after Nero's death, he was not of the same blue aristocratic blood as the senatorial class who dominated the political landscape of Rome. Rather, like the earliest Flavians Vespasian and Titus, he was a military general more comfortable among his troops along the threatened borders of the Empire than in the capital. He was from the provinces, born in the Balkans, and raised in the North. In addition, he had the distinct disadvantage of having become a Christian, again hardly an opener into Roman Senatorial circles. No doubt Constantine disliked Rome. He traveled there only three times, spending, all tolled, well less than a year in the ancient capital. Most importantly as I pointed out at the beginning of my talk, Rome was no longer at the center of things, wars were fought far away along the northern and eastern borders. We can well imagine that Constantine might never have gone to Rome if he had not needed to confront Maxentius just outside its walls to gain control of the west.

(Slides Left and Right) In the year 324, Constantine finally overcame Licinius the emperor of the East to gain control of the entire Roman empire. In the same year the now sole emperor began constructing a new city at a site previously known as Byzantium on the Bosphorous where the continents of Asia and Europe come together. When in 326 during his last visit to Rome he came into open conflict with the Pagan aristocracy for again refusing to perform traditional sacrifices on the Capitoline, Constantine could leave old Rome for good, make his new creation the capital, and name it new Rome (Slide Right). New Rome as it was called throughout late antiquity, was later known as Constantinople, and today as Istanbul. It was a Christian capital, near where the emperor needed to be, and populated by a new almost hand picked senatorial class.

Ultimately we have to say, the arch of Constantine failed to get its message across to at least one member of its audience, (Slide Left) Constantine. No matter how much the Roman Senate may have wished it, and perhaps expressed it in the sculptural programs found on the arch, Constantine was never going to be an emperor of the old mold. As well, the Flavian bloodline so carefully emphasized by the location of the Arch no longer mattered. For in the new capital Constantine both initiated the imperial blood line and created a new urban topography, one entirely to his liking.

The irony is, of course, that Constantine actually did create a new topography of Old Rome. His own major building projects in the old capitol did not focus in the monumental center in the area around the Roman Forum (Slide Left). Rather the bulk of his architectural patronage, focused on the periphery the city, where he constructed structures belonging to a new building type, the Christian basilica or what we would call today, the church. One, the Lateran (labeled #71 on this plan) at the edge of the southeast quarter of the city, served as the cathedral the seat of the bishop where Christians could hold their regular weekly services. Others, forming a ring around the city, were simply huge covered cemeteries to shelter the dead. Finally, there were monumental shrines to the martyrs, most importantly the one to Saint Peter in the Vatican area (labeled #67), across the Tiber, and just to the northwest of the ancient city. Here on the outer edges of the City, and especially in the area closest to the Vatican, not in its traditional center, lay the future of Rome, a Christian Rome, the Rome of the medieval, Renaissance, and the early modern eras (Slide Right). . ., this new Rome broke utterly with the monumental antique past because it was now a city shaped and controlled by Christian armatures, Christian typologies and Christian topography and not the traditional pagan ones. We get an idea of this change in our last Slide here on the right, a Rennaissance-era print depicting the 16th-century city crowded in the Tiber bend with vast areas of the once densely-populated ancient city center now abandoned. This development, however, belongs to the Middle Ages, and not antiquity, and is, therefore, the topic of another lecture. Thank you.

To Hum 110 Home Page Home Page

To My Home Page

Send any comments, suggestions or additions to Minott Kerr at:

Last Modified: 24 Oct. '95