Roman Relief Sculpture
Guide to Sculptures of Ancient Rome.


Roman Relief Sculpture (c.55 BCE onwards)
History, Types, Styles: Historical Reliefs, Trajan's Column

Contents

Relief Sculpture of the Augustus Era
Ara Pacis Augustae
Relief Sculpture From the Julio-Claudian Period
Relief Sculpture of the Domitian Era
Trajan's Column
Other Relief-Sculpture From the Trajan Era
Arch of Trajan

Other Resources on Roman Sculpture
Portrait Busts

Relief Sculpture of the Augustus Era

An early example of historical relief-sculpture from ancient Rome is the marble frieze from the Basilica Aemilia, which stood on the northern extremity of the Roman Forum. Discovered in fragments, several of its scenes have been pieced together and have revealed that its subject is Roman episodes from legendary history, among which can be recognised the death of Tarpeia, the rape of the Sabine women, battle scenes, and the building of the walls of some city in Italy while a standing goddess looks on. The treatment is in the rich, plastic, Hellenistic manner, with high relief, vigorous movement, some bold foreshortening in the figures, and conventional landscape elements. The Basilica Aemilia was restored between 54 and 34 BCE and the frieze could belong to that time. On the other hand, its content is much more in place in the reign of Augustus, whose political propaganda included the glorification of Roman origins; and there was actually another restoration of the building after a fire in 14 BCE. From its close similarity in style to the little friezes on the sacrifice of the Ara Pacis Augustae, we may also date as Augustean the small frieze, most precisely and delicately carved with scenes of a triumphal procession, from the temple of Apollo in the Campus Martius, although no restoration of that temple by Augustus has actually been recorded.

Ara Pacis Augustae

On the Ara Pacis Augustae, founded in 13 BCE and completed and dedicated in 9 BCE, were errected the earliest western reliefs that can be strictly described as documentary, that is, depicting a contemporary event in which specific, identifiable individuals are portrayed as taking part. This altar, which stood in the Campus Martius on the western side of the Via Lata, consisted of a table of sacrifice within a precinct, the walls of which were pierced by entrances on the east and west. The outer sides of these walls are carved with two superimposed zones of relief work and all the sculptured portions of the monument are of Luna marble. In the upper zone on the south side is shown the procession of Augustus and members of his family, with f1amens and lictors, to the site of the altar on the day of its foundation, 4 July 13 BCE. Here we can recognise Augustus himself, the consuls of the year, Tiberius and Varus, Agrippa and one of his little sons, possibly Livia, the emperor's wife, Julia, his daughter, his sister Octavia, his two nieces, the Antonias, with their husbands and children, and Iullus Antonius, who was praetor urbanus in that year. On the corresponding north side is the parallel, converging procession of members of the Roman priestly colleges, magistrates, senators, and representatives of the Roman people with their children.

This large-scale procession is continued in miniature on the inner altar proper, where friezes show figures of Vestal Virgins, priests, sacrificial victims with their attendants, and parts of other figures. Both of the large processional scenes are typically Roman, slow, stately, and purposeful, yet with their casual and homely touches - a young couple chatting, officials with their attention wandering, one child obviously frightened, another child tired of walking and asking to be picked up. But the treatment of the main figures, with their rhythmic draperies and idealised hair and features, is thoroughly classical and there can be little doubt that the sculptors of the Ara were Greeks. Of the four scenes that adorned the outside of the east and west walls two survive - Tellus or Italia, seated amid children, animals, and plants and flanked by the spirits of ocean and the inland waters, and Aeneas offering the white sow as a sacrifice to the Penates (of the two other scenes, the Wolf and Twins and Dea Roma, only fragments remain); and these, while Roman in content, are conceived and executed in the full Hellenistic pictorial style. Moreover, the lovely floral composition, alive with tiny beasts, birds, and insects, that occupies the lower zone on the outside of all four walls and the great naturalistic swags of fruit, leaves, corn, ears, etc. that decorate the upper zone on the inner side of the walls can be closely paralleled in carvings from second century BCE Pergamon and in some first-century BCE work in Attica.

Note: for more information about the art and artists of Classical Antiquity, please see: Greek Sculpture and Greek Art. For historical influences, see: Egyptian Sculpture and Egyptian Art. For a list of the best statues, statuettes and reliefs produced during this period, see: Greatest Sculptures Ever.

Just as the procession on the precinct walls and altar proper perpetuates the actual ceremony of consecration, so the rest of the reliefs are likely to allude to the same occasion. The reliefs on the east and west walls could represent painted panel pictures fixed to the provisional wooden structure that the altar was destined to replace. The floral zone could be reckoned to be a translation into marble of a ceremonial carpet or hanging used at the altar's site on the foundation day. As for the swags - we know that it was customary in Rome to deck with fillets and garlands a site set apart for a new religious building; and although the marble versions as we have them combine in one luxuriant medley the flowers and fruits of all four seasons to symbolize the blessings of Augustan peace and plenty, we can reasonably assume that they take the place of the real garlands that were slung between the posts of the temporary precinct walls on 4 July 13 BCE.

The reliefs of the Ara Pacis offer a superb example of the interweaving of the actual present with the legendary past, of concrete fact with symbol and allegory, of classical dignity and poise in the human figures with an uninhibited delight in all the details of Nature in the decorative friezes. In their own kind they remained unsurpassed throughout the history of Roman sculpture.

More Articles About Sculpture, Painting and Architecture of Ancient Rome

Roman Art Guide (Introduction)
Early Roman Art (c.510 BCE to 27 BCE)
Hellenistic Roman Art (c.27 BCE - 200 CE)
Late Roman Art (c.200-400 CE)
Roman and Celtic Art
Christian Roman Art (313 CE Onwards)

Relief Sculpture From the Julio-Claudian Period

From the Julio-Claudian period there has come down to us no public monument whose whole scheme of sculptural decoration is completely known to us, as in the case of the Ara Pacis. One of the best-preserved reliefs of this time is a long frieze ornamenting one side of what would appear to have been a large base or altar, the reliefs on its other sides being wholly lost, apart from tiny fragments indicating that they once existed. It was found in Rome beneath the Papal Chancellery and shows a procession of city magistrates (vicomagistri) accompanied by ministers (camilli) holding statuettes of the imperial Genius and Lares, sacrificial victims with attendants, musicians, and other male figures. The men and animals are ranged side by side along the field with little overlapping. In parts of the frieze there is a second row of figures carved in low relief on the background and of these the chief stylistic interest lies in the fact that their heads are slightly raised above those of the figures in the foreground, as though the spectator were viewing the procession from a somewhat elevated point of vantage. This device of vertical perspective, which we shall meet with again many times in Roman historical sculpture, has often been hailed as essentially a feature of popular Italian folk, art, which wormed its way into works of public and official sculpture. But normally it is the lower types of art that borrow from the higher, not vice versa; the convention occasionally appears in official Hellenistic sculpture and was probably to be found in monumental Hellenistic paintings, to judge from their apparent reflections in western funerary reliefs of Greek content and in Roman historical scenes of a strongly pictorial character, such as the reliefs with battles of Romans and Gauls on the Tiberian Arch at Orange; and when we find it occurring, as here, on an elegant, refined, not to say academic, piece of carving and on works of court inspiration such as the reliefs on Trajan's Column, it is hard to believe in its Volkskunst origin. Its increasing vogue and development are to be more reasonably explained by the general Roman passion for factual detail, which naturally expressed itself in attempting to display all the participants in an action, including those in the second plane, as fully as possible. Again, the device was at times obviously demanded by aesthetic considerations, when in architectural reliefs such as the Orange panels and the spiral bands on Trajan's Column, the whole effect depended on filling the entire field with sculpture. There we sometimes find the complete figures of the persons in the second plane tiered above those in the foreground.

The other surviving reliefs which can be dated to the Julio-Claudian epoch need not detain us long. A series of parts of processional and sacrificial scenes now built into the Villa Medici on the Pincian Hill, and some fragments with architectural and decorative motifs found on the Via Lata and now in the New Capitoline Museum, may have belonged to the Ara Pietatis begun by Tiberius in AD 22, but completed under Claudius. There is a group of figures, including those of Divus Augustus and Venus, and part of a procession of sacrificial beasts, at Ravenna, also possibly Claudian. Most of these pieces strike us as cold, conventional, and unadventurous. If Nero's ambitious schemes for new imperial residences (e.g. the Golden House) and for replanning Rome after the fire of 64 left him time for sponsoring buildings with historical reliefs, none have come down to us.

The next significant works of this kind date from the reign of the third Flavian emperor, Domitian.

[Note: For biographies of important sculptors from Classical Antiquity, see: Phidias (488-431 BCE), Myron (Active 480-444), Polykleitos/Polyclitus (5th century), Callimachus (Active 432-408), Skopas/Scopas (Active 395-350), Lysippos/Lysippus (c.395-305), Praxiteles (Active 375-335), Leochares (Active 340-320).].

Relief Sculpture of the Domitian Era

The two relief panels one on either side of the passage-way of the Arch of Titus, erected at the eastern end of the Roman Forum by his younger brother to commemorate his apotheosis after his death in 81 CE, were long regarded as embodying the Flavian sculptural style, to which the term 'illusionistic' has been applied. If we mean by 'illusionism' the attempt on the artist's part to create in the spectator the belief that he is looking at the actual thing that a work of art purports to portray, then we may say that both of these panels are legitimately described as 'illusionistic'. For both are such excerpts from a whole, long procession as an onlooker might have seen framed by the window from which he was watching the ceremony. In the imperial cortege scene the actual chariot carrying the emperor is shown frontally as emerging from the background towards the spectator, as are also the figures in the foreground to the right of it. But the four horses which are drawing it and most of the lictors in the left background behind them are in profile, and the two foreground figures on the left, although partly shown frontally, are moving in the same direction. The most important part of the procession has, in fact, been caught by the artist in the act of making a right-angle turn leftwards. Similarly the scene of the bearing of the Jewish spoils is shown as emerging from the background on the left, bowing out in a curve at the centre, and then receding again through an arch set obliquely to the background on the right. Both reliefs produce the highly pictorial illusion of steady, continuous movement. In the second scene all the actors are human. But in the first scene Victory, Honos, and Virtus, divine personifications, have joined the historical personages.

The notion of a Flavian style was, however, shattered in 1938 by the discovery near the Papal Chancellery of two Domitianic reliefs, which depict, in a very different style, Vespasian's arrival (adventus) in 70 CE in Rome, where the young Domitian as Caesar (heir to the Empire) had claimed to be in charge during his father's absence, and the setting out of Domitian (whose features have been awkwardly recut to resemble those of Nerva) for one of his northern campaigns as emperor. While the scene implies, of its very nature, an unseen goal beyond it, its composition is relatively self, contained, centralised, and static, as compared with that of the Arch of Titus panels, and the arrival-scene forms a single unit, wholly complete in itself. In both scenes the figures are arranged in planes flush with the background and no illusion of depth or space is created. The whole effect is classical and unpictorial; and although the heads of Vespasian and the young Domitian in the adventus scene are vivid portraits, the other individual figures both of the men and of the gods and personifications, who in both reliefs mingle freely with the human actors, are statuesque in type and idealised in facial features.

There was, in fact, another, classicising Flavian style, which is also to be found in the figure frieze, alluding to Minerva and her Roman cult, on the precinct walls of the forum planned and begun by Domitian, but dedicated under Nerva. And the same style appears again in the Louvre relief of an imperial suove-taurilia sacrifice, dated by some as Julio-Claudian, but more probably depicting Domitian (the modern face takes the place of one that was smashed deliberately in ancient times), sacrificing at the twin altars of Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus. (See also bronze sculpture and marble or stone sculpture).

Trajan's Column

The designer of the spiral relief bands on the shaft of Trajan's Column in Rome did not, as we have seen, invent the Roman documentary method of historical narration in art. Nor did he invent the continuous style of composition, according to which successive episodes in a story are unfolded in one unbroken series within a single field, with no lines of demarcation between them, while the hero is shown recurring in each or almost every scene. This style is found in a limited form on fifth century BCE Attic red-figure cu ps painted with the labours of Theseus, in the Telephus frieze from the altar of Zeus at Pergamon, and on Hellenistic ('Megarian') moulded terracotta bowls with the labours of Hercules or scenes from Homer in relief. What the Trajanic artist did was to produce the most complete, extensive, and novel exemplar of both the documentary method and the continuous narrative style that had, so far as we know, yet appeared in the art of the ancient Greek and Roman world.

Trajan's Column, 100 Roman feet in height, constructed of Parian marble, and completed and dedicated by 113 CE, has its shaft entwined with a winding ribbon, about a metre wide, of sculptured reliefs in 23 spirals recording visually the story of the emperor's two Dacian wars (CE 101-2 and 105-6). Columns with spiral relief bands filled with purely decorative motifs were already known in Roman art. Horizontal bands of figures had occurred on the shafts of votive columns in Gaul and Germany. But this combination of figure scenes and spiral bands was, so far as we can tell, completely new. As a 'document' this series of reliefs presents the Dacian wars, from start to finish, in straightforward, factual 'prose' - the emperor, the Roman army, the Dacian foe all intent upon their tasks of war.

Divine figures, gods and personifications, are found extremely rarely. Typical, routine happenings in army life - imperial addresses to the troops (adlocutiones), sacrifices in the field, the fortification of strong-points, marches, battles of all kinds - do, indeed, recur; and these could have taken place at any time and in any order. But there are also shown certain particular events and places in the Dacian campaigns that are outstanding and unique - the initial crossing of the Danube by the Roman army, the emperor's voyage up the Danube, the submission of the Dacians at the end of the first war, Trajan's embarkation at Ancona for the second war, the great sacrifice by the Danube bridge, the storming of the Dacian capital, the death of the Dacian king Decabalus; and these things must have happened, for the most part, in the particular order in which they are recorded on the Column. We have, then, in the reliefs a sequence of events which is generally, but not, as it were, photographically true to history, not a literally exact chronological and topographical account of the campaigns, but a faithful outline of the story combined with a most minute and circumstantial description of the sort of problems that the Roman troops had to face in Dacia. The accuracy of the rendering on the Column of Roman military details and of Dacian physiognomy, arms, dress, fortifications, etc. can be established from other archaeological material; and there can be little doubt that behind these reliefs lie sketches made at the 'front' by eyewitnesses, namely army draftsmen who accompanied the troops to war. It is likely that such sketches would have been originally made for the imperial archives, without the Column in view. But when it was decided that the Dacian wars should be depicted in relief on its shaft, a master artist, commissioned to prepare measured drawings or cartoons for the sculptors, would have made a selection from the army draftsmen's work, elaborated their sketches, and fused them together within a single framework, using vertical perspective so as to fill each band from top to bottom with an 'all,over', tapestry-like design and to display the maximum amount of detail. A striking instance of this urge to omit nothing and to present everything in its greatest extent is the scene of a legionary wading a river and carrying his shield, piled with his equipment, on his head. Here vertical perspective for the river, which is shown spread out as on a map, is illogically combined with the horizontal viewpoint for the man, who is seen from behind. This combination of viewpoints must have been a deliberate part of the design, not just due to naivety on the pact of the carver, whose modelling of the soldier's back and arms reveals him as a very skilful artist. Similarly, the illogical disproportion in scale, throughout the reliefs, between the human figures and the architectural and landscape accessories was due, not to childishness, but to the necessity of making the human actors, whose activities were, after all, of primary importance, stand out and be distinguishable from a distance. (See also: Roman Architecture: c.400 BCE - 400 CE)

If it be urged that we have no direct evidence for the existence of army artists' sketches, the same applies to Trajanic illustrated scrolls relating the history of the Dacian wars, which are some, times thought to have been the models of the Column frieze. And on what but war-time drawings could such scroll illustrations themselves have been based?

Who designed the cartoons for the relief bands has not been recorded. We know that Trajan's Syrian-Greek architect, Apollodotus of Damascus, was responsible for the whole complex of forum, basilica, and Greek and Latin libraries, of which the Column was the central and dominating feature; and if he did not draw the cartoons himself, he must have supervised and approved them. But whoever he was, this master draftsman is agreed to have produced the classic example of the developed continuous narrative style in Roman sculpture, converting what had probably been isolated pictures into a single, unified, running frieze of closely interlocking scenes - a space-time continuum. Here the figure of the hero, Trajan himself, constantly recurs, seen, as in a film, passing rapidly from place to place against an unfolding landscape and architectural background.
For in this great historical panorama, as the different incidents succeed one another (and often these incidents can have been separated only by a very short, if any, interval of time), the scene shifts by smooth transitions from river to camp, from camp to forest, from forest to town, and from town to open country. As we stand facing one side of the Column and watch the frieze appearing, disappearing, and reappearing round the shaft as it climbs slowly, but resolutely, upwards to its goal, to victory, symbolised first by an imperial eagle and then by the statue of the emperor on the summit, we cannot but be stirred and awed at finding ourselves in the presence of this great dramatic action - so vast and so distant that we can only apprehend parts of it. If the language of these reliefs is prose, the ideas and the imagination that the language expresses have an epic quality.

Note About Art Evaluation
In order to learn more about plastic art, see: How to Appreciate Sculpture. For later works, please see: How to Appreciate Modern Sculpture.

Other Relief-Sculpture From the Trajan Era

Nothing else so exciting as the frieze on the Column has survived from Trajan's reign, nor anything remotely as artistic as the reliefs at the Parthenon in Athens. The nearest thing to it in content and style-so near, in fact, that it must have been designed by the same hand or in the same workshop is a large, long frieze on a flat, straight surface, four substantial portions of which are re-used on the walls of the central passageway and on the east and west attics of the Arch of Constantine in Rome, while a number of much smaller fragments once belonging to it can be recognised in various museums in Rome and elsewhere. When casts were taken of each of the four sections on the Arch, it was found that all fitted together. On the left is an imperial adventus moving leftwards. Trajan is conducted home in triumph by Virtus, crowned by Victory, and accompanied by soldiers and lictors. Emerging rightwards out of the first scene, without a break, is one of a cavalry charge against Dacians, in which the emperor himself takes part on horseback. Meeting this battle scene in a leftward direction is a group of Roman soldiers presenting to the charging emperor Dacian prisoners and the severed heads of dead Dacians (a very similar presentation of severed heads to the emperor appears on the Column); and further to the right is a group of Roman horsemen charging over the prostrate bodies of fallen foes. Thus, whereas on the Column the main stream of the story flows consecutively from left to right, here, at least in the portions that we have, it ebbs and flows alternately to left and right and the scenes are grouped together with a total disregard of spatial and temporal logic. Moreover, whereas on the Column the emperor is never involved in the actual conflict and the Roman troops wear battle-dress, here Trajan leads the charge and the soldiers wear 'parade' uniforms with plumed and decorated helmets. These are, in fact, scenes of 'ideal' or dramatised war, such as we find on battle sarcophagi of later periods; and it is not impossible that this great Trajanic frieze was designed after Trajan's death to adorn the temple dedicated by Hadrian to his adoptive parents and erected to the north/west of the forum and basilica that bore Trajan's name. The triumph of the emperor on this frieze is not terrestrial only, but also celestial - his victory over death by apotheosis. As compared with that on the Column, the relief on the frieze is high and the main figures have a relatively statuesque and richly plastic quality. Landscape accessories are very few; but there is the same urge here as there to fill the whole field by means of the more restrained use of vertical perspective that the scheme of the design allowed.

For Roman buildings in Ancient Egypt, such as Trajan's Pavilion (c.164 CE), see: Egyptian Architecture.

Arch of Trajan

The well-known Arch of Trajan at Beneventum in southern Italy bears the date 114 CE and was certainly decreed by the Senate, possibly already built and dedicated as a structure, before the emperor's death. Its fourteen large, rectangular reliefs, one on either side of its single passageway and six on either face (artics and pylons), present an epitome of Trajan's achievements at home and abroad - his recruiting of troops, his founding of colonies in Italy and in the provinces, his establishment of new ports in Italy, his social policy, his pacification of the Danube lands (in the person of their patron deities), his friendly relations with Spanish and Germanic tribesmen, and his eastern conquests. One of the most appealing of these sculptured pictures is the passageway relief that depicts the alimenta, the emperor's charitable foundation for the poor children of Italy, who appear in person to receive his bounty, along with their fathers and personifications of their native cities. All these reliefs form isolated, self-contained pictures, apart from the two in the lower tiers of the pylons on the side of the Arch that faces Beneventum, which constitute the single scene of Trajan's solemn welcome by the citizens of Rome in the Roman Forum, and those on the attic on the same side, again forming a single scene in which Trajan is greeted on the Capitol by the Triad and other diviuities and receives from Jupiter the latter's thunderbolt, the symbol of his vocation to govern the world as the god's vice-regent. In this picture Hadrian is shown in imperial dress next to the emperor, while Italia lays a hand upon his shoulder as though to point him out as Trajan's heir. On the other side of the Arch, in the relief that records Trajan's eastern conquests, Hadrian is again indicated by the hand of an official laid upon his shoulder, while another official rests his hand on the emperor's arm, as though to restrain him from that annexation to the Empire of Meso
potamia which Hadrian, once on the throne, immediately abandoned.

It would seem to be certain that the carving of the Arch was not completed until after Hadrian's accession. The treatment of these sculptures is not only wholly different from that of the Column reliefs, but also carries much further the stylistic divergencies between those reliefs and the other frieze. The compositions are crowded, but the main monumental figures stand out boldly in even higher relief against the massed company behind them. Background architectural and landscape elements are either absent or reduced to a minimum; and the use of vertical perspective is very limited. Gods, personifications, and human beings mingle freely. Some of the heads are badly weathered; but there still remain several striking likenesses of Trajan, and in the emperor's entourage are persons with arresting, portrait, like features.

For articles about the art of ancient Greece see:

Sculpture of Ancient Greece (Introduction)
Daedalic Style Sculpture (c.650-600 BCE)
Archaic Greek Sculpture (c.600-480 BCE)
Early Classical Greek Sculpture (c.480-450 BCE)
High Classical Greek Sculpture (c.450-400 BCE)
Late Classical Greek Sculpture (c.400-323 BCE)
Hellenistic Greek Sculpture (c.323-27 BCE)
Hellenistic Style Statues and Reliefs

NEXT: Relief Sculpture from Ancient Rome (Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Severan Period).

• For the origins and development of 3-D art, see: Sculpture History.
• For a detailed chronology, see: Timeline, History of Art.
• For more about the sculpture of Ancient Rome, see: Art Encyclopedia.


ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ART
© visual-arts-cork.com. All rights reserved.