Monumental Column Design and Iconography of the Good Emperors

Travis R. Rupp (University of Iowa)

Emperor Trajan in A.D. 113 erected a great column in honor of his campaign and defeat of the Dacians, but the monumental column trend was short lived in the city itself. Only two other columns were erected in Rome during the second century. The column of Marcus Aurelius was closely modeled upon Trajan’s, but its predecessor, the Column of Antoninus Pius, looked very different. Its significance also did not resemble that of Trajan’s. By looking at each emperor’s reign, it is possible to observe why these three models are so distinctly different. The portrayal of each emperor’s accomplishments on a column informs us of exactly what the public image of each emperor had become by the end of his life. It also reflects their successors who erected the columns in their honor, for neither Antoninus Pius nor Marcus Aurelius completed their own columns.

Drawing upon the work of Penelope Davies (2000), Michael Grant (1994), Diana Kleiner (1992), and Gustaf Hamberg (1945), I show that although physical shape allows Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius’ columns to be grouped together architecturally, their iconography suggests they served different purposes. Trajan’s column shows the emperor as an aggressive and effective commander, whereas the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius reveals a leader motivated by peace. Trajan’s 100 foot marble narrative is in stark contrast to Antoninus Pius’ 50 foot red, Egyptian granite column, which was smooth with no relief. The sculpture on the base more closely emulates the apotheosis of Sabina on the Arco di Portogallo commissioned by Hadrian in A.D. 136. This peaceful motif on the Column of Antoninus Pius accurately represents his reign, which lacked military campaigning. Peace is what he emphasized, so that is what his monument displays.

The Column of Marcus Aurelius much more closely resembles Trajan’s structurally, but examination of the narrative, reveals a different vision of the commander. Trajan is clearly depicted as having control over his army, the barbaric enemies, and the war in general. In contrast, Marcus Aurelius lacks this level of control. Diana Kleiner says, “Such a scene does not reflect the business-as-usual-in-the-Roman-empire attitude of the panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius but rather reveals the soul-searching anxiety of an emperor who was concerned that the Roman Empire had gotten out of control” (Roman Sculpture, 297). The repetition of a confident Trajan is depicted at regular intervals on his column, but Marcus Aurelius’ image appears less frequently on his column and outcomes depend heavily on divine intervention. Where Trajan is displayed as a commander in combat alongside his troops, the sense of unity is lost on the Column of Marcus Aurelius. The Column of Marcus Aurelius displays an army thriving on violence and nearly becoming the barbarians they are opposing.

Since Trajan oversaw the construction of his own monument, he ensured that he would forever be remembered as a man who controlled his empire and the barbarian horde. His column was the central part of his large forum program, strictly funded by his triumphs in Dacia. Spectators could literally watch the narrative unroll up the column all the while being reminded that the first “foreign” emperor of Rome had complete control over the empire. Whereas prior emperors told of their campaigns on rolled up papyri, Trajan displayed his history for all to see and marvel at. In A.D. 113, the empire spanned farther than ever before due to Trajan’s persistence and military genius.

In contrast, Marcus Aurelius attempts to remember Antoninus Pius according to the reign of peace from 138-161. To mark his accomplishments, Pius receives a granite column, half the height of Trajan’s, and it tells virtually no story. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius longed for peace during his reign, but the profit of war and the expansion of the empire were what the people remembered and what history persevered. In turn, Commodus was left to complete a monument to his father, and to appease an army who adored Marcus Aurelius, he closely imitated the Column of Trajan. I conclude that the iconography of a less-certain Marcus Aurelius comes from Commodus’ disapproval of his father’s reliance on a shared emperorship. Scholars believe Marcus Aurelius abandoned his campaigns to the north, but Commodus certainly finished the war after his father’s death. Moreover, Commodus was frustrated at erecting a column solely to Marcus Aurelius meant to honor campaigns across the Danube.