The Arch of Constantine & Its Cultural Influence

Lori Henderson

Art 1A

L.Seban

5 May, 2015
 Henderson 1

During the Roman era, emperor Constantine reflected a new style both contemporary and

recycled to Roman ideologies embodied throughout its cultural and historical influence which

were implemented into the Arch of Constantine as well other establishments renovated/built

during his reign. The Arch of Constantine dating approximately 312-315 CE offers an insight

into this new strategy of indoctrinating original art works of the past into the present time period

of Constantines reign, but also serves as a statement of the Emperors influence during that era.

Additionally, the Arch provides a cultural insight, and serves as a visual aesthetic. The Arch of

Constantine reflects the cultural arena of religious, political, and economic policies of the day.

Most significantly, Constantine uses this new style of art and architecture to be used as a form of

propaganda to emphasize his divine position as both ruler and mastermind in his decision to

break away from traditional Roman values.

The Arch of Constantine is significant on the basis that it was one of the first monuments that

incorporated spolia that was not originally placed on the monument; thereby integrating old

roman architecture into the construction of the arch itself. Although the Arch represents a clear

sense of propaganda of the imperial rule of Constantine there is debate on whether the Arch was

built for an additional purpose. According to Elizabeth Marlow, with Constantine rebuilding the

colossus (image of the Roman Sun God Sol)and the Arch being positioned strategically with the

intent that the colossus becomes visually aligned with the Arch of Constantine this would enable

viewers to acquire a correlation between the colossus of Sol and the Arch of Constantine

(Roman God associated with emperors).1 This is significant because you see a cultural reference

1
Elizabeth Marlowe, Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape, (The Art Bulletin, 2014),
235.
 Henderson 2

to how religion and politics might have played in with how Constantine promoted himself as an

efficient ruler, politician, and piety. Throughout the structure of the arch Constantine

incorporates the movement/involvement of spolia to completely surround the North and South

faade surfaces. According to Philip Pierce, this is significant because it enables Constantine the

opportunity to implement stories of his conquest over his enemies (Trajanic frieze ), militaristic

adventures (below the Trajanic frieze), portray himself in a good light with the

adlocutio/liberalistas frieze (The boar hunt, The lion hunt, The Sacrifice to Apollo and Hercules

medallions ), following with the depiction of the Siege of Verona frieze, the Hadrianic Start of

the Hunt, the Sacrifice to Silvanus medallions, the battle of the Milvian Bridge frieze, the Bear

Hunt, the Sacrifice of Diana medallion, Aurelian panels, the sun medallion (associated with

Sol), and follows up with the Moon medallion.2 As the spolia was situated on the arch viewers

would see the conflicting elements between new and old Roman ideas. Constantine, as noted by

Philip Pierce, continuously invaded the realm of ancient roman traditions by imposing his face

on those of the successful rulers before him; thereby defacing the original monuments intended

thematic stories and imposing a new meaning with implementing a symbolic portrayal of

embodying the concepts of what they (the successful rulers) portray.3 This is an ongoing theme

that youll see Constantine implement throughout his reign in terms of architectural design. The

Arch of Constantine progresses as a narrative story encapsulating all visual elements

intentionally manipulated to portray a sequence of events providing a thematic theme

emphasizing the emperors right to rule. This idea is further supported by the author who

suggests that the panels which are located on the east & west faade encapsulates a scene of

2
Philip Peirce, The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda And Ideology In Late Roman Art (Art History, 1989), 392-401.
3
Ibid, 391
 Henderson 3

continuation because it possesses both the first and last blocks of the main faades leading the

spectator around the monumentConstantines assumption of power, appears to be passing

through its historical development.4 This quote helps suggest that arch was intended to be

interpreted as a visual reflection of Constantines reign, and emphasize his influence in the

political, economic, cultural, historical and religious platforms. Through an intersectional lens

Constantine is able to achieve this through architectural design as well as through the

incorporation of both old/new thematic elements recycled and in effect reinterpreted.

Assessing the significance of Constantines reign can be acquired through evaluating a deeper

understanding of Constantines life and correlate it with his decision to recycle old roman

architecture. Jas Elsner, associates the emperors implementation of original artworks onto the

Arch as well as images of his predecessors as a way to invoke a symbolic connection in support

of the platform theyve represented.5By associating himself with these ancient images

Constantine is equating himself equal to their achievements and thereby helps acclaim his right

to rule as emperor. While at the same time interweaves a connection between old and new ideas.

Additionally, a sense of authority and cultural influence is portrayed as he fluctuates between

religious emphasis and political propaganda. Whats significant about Constantine is that hes

not afraid to go the extra mile. The emperor is not afraid to reuse images in order to take on a

deeper meaning, as is seen with the colossus which is discussed by Marlow, churches, and the

mausoleum. Elsner suggests that through reviewing Constantines amassed portfolio of

architectural design, as a whole, reflects the

4
Ibid, 314
5
Jas Elsner, From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique
Forms (Papers of the British School at Rome, 2000),158.
 Henderson 4

achievements similar to Emperor Augustus.6 This is significant on the grounds that Constantine

maneuvered a cultural upsurge in his community just as efficient/productive as Emperor

Augustus.

Through undergoing the process of reviewing multiple articles discussing the significance of

the Arch of Constantine, its not difficult to understand just how much a cultural impact this

newly refurbished architectural development had on the city of Rome. Although recycling old

Roman architectural elements is in no way a new idea, however, the way Constantine brought

about a fresh twist into the integration of spolia changed the way society viewed defacing

original works of previous leaders. 7 Constantine reforms the interpretation of a once despised

idea, defacing of original works, into becoming socially acceptable. Elsner further supports this

concept by interpreting the act of recutting in the case of the Arch of Constantine represents not

a rejection of these previous emperors (who in fact topped the list of good rulers) but rather a

bolstering and elevating of Constantine through literally putting him in their shoes.8 The act of

recutting was not a tool intended to degrade these influential leaders but in fact was intended to

be perceived as a tribute in honor of their works. With the integration and implementation of

recutting images and recycling spolia you can see the Arch in relation to Constantine breaking

away from traditional Roman Values, and observe his further exploitation of the old-new

elements being used throughout the Arch. Furthermore, in Marlowes article, she discusses how

Constantine pulls off an architectural feat by incorporating the visual/religious aesthetic of the

6
Ibid, 177-178
7
Elsner, From the Culture of Spolia to the cult of Relics, 174-175.
8
Ibid, 174
 Henderson 5

colossus (Sol) to be reframed around the Arch of Constantine.9 Incorporating this new

framework of architectural design has allowed me the opportunity to associate the Arch as a tool

in which Constantine intended to use in order to serve as platform promoting his radical

ideologies of recycling and rebirthing Roman art work in to the intersectional cultural arena

(religious, political, historical, economic and etc).

Analyzing the significance of the spolia as well as the architectural design in which the

colossus surrounding the Arch of Constantine served, it helped develop the impact in which the

visual aesthetic would be interpreted. As was mentioned in my previous paragraphs, the

orientation of the arch held great weight in which its viewers would instinctually align their gaze

on the arch and associate it with the colossus of Sol. This strategic placing of the Arch helped

invoke a visual balance/propaganda. This concept is supported by Elizabeth Marlowe, who

reaffirms the notion, that Constantines appropriation of the monument took an additional

novel form. By installing his triumphal arch directly in front of it, he literally transformed the

way spectators saw the statue.10 As viewers walked along the entry way to the Arch, the

colossus of Sol would gradually encapsulate the entire entry way of the Arch of Constantine.11

This intimate relationship between the viewers and their interaction with these two structures

allows an almost spiritual relationship to be associated with Sol and the emperor (divinity).

When it comes to the spolia incorporated into Arch visually the Arch of Constantine served as

model explaining how the emperor came to power, however, his mausoleum reflects his

conversion to Christianity (instead of associating himself with previous leaders he associates

9
Marlowe, Framing the Sun, 233
10
Marlowe, Framing The Sun, 229
11
Ibid, 231
 Henderson 6

himself with religious figures).12 In spite of a significant change in thematic admiration both

architectural designs reflects the recycling of old world-and-new world ideas of the Roman era

during Constantines reign.

Constantine was a true architectural genius when it came to developing the infrastructure of

his empire. Not only was he influenced by the cultural and historical implications related to his

reign (successors before him, military conquest, Sol, Christianity) but expanded on his desire to

continue with Roman traditions (recycling the integration of engaged collumns, latin script,

classical figures, arches and the use of concrete) alongside implementing a new strategy of

recutting. This new architectural tradition helped revitalize a cultural influx involving the

incorporation of ancient relics (spolia) to become associated with architectural

advancements/themes of that era. That is, spolia that had a previous significance was now

currently being reused and manipulated to form a different interpretation of itself; thereby

breaking away from Roman traditions. Constantine achieves this through an intersectional feng

shui relationship between political (serving as a triumphal arch), economic (spread of the use of

spolia), social (emphasizing his right to rule) and religious emphasis (Sol and Conversion to

Christianity) throughout the use of the Arch of Constantine and other establishments he has

redesigned/built.

12
Elsner, From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics, 159
 Bibliography

Elsner, Jas. 2000. From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and

the Genesis of Late Antique Forms. British School at Rome, November 25.

Marlow, Elizabeth.2014. Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape.

The Art Bulletin, April 3.

Pierce, Philip. 1989. The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda And Ideology In Late Roman Art.

Art History, December 1.