Perception on Roman art suffers from a dual fallacy. Conventional views on the aesthetic and social significance of ancient Rome usually presupposes a point of view that is monolithic, literate, upper class and already well acquainted with the nuances of pagan symbolism. Equally problematic is almost the exclusive choice of imperial art as the only form of serious Roman art, ignoring the large body of domestic and casual art that also thrived and were actually more numerous at that time. Gazda agrees that there are many problems inherent in the study of Roman art as a whole, which are intensified for Roman art of the private sphere. But he also states that one of the biggest advantages of championing imperial art and ignoring private art is that official art can be studied in relation to the historical record and can be associated with specific imperial patrons and their policies (Gazda 2).
A similar exclusivity is present when it comes to art criticism. All art criticism presupposes an informed viewer. Although never clearly spelled out, this viewer, or the perception he represents is exclusively elitist. That, however, comes as no surprise because the dominant scholarly view of the present age, namely the white Euro-American view is largely a historical product of the patrician view of Roman imperialism. It is noteworthy in this context that right from the Renaissance to early Democracy to its last terrible avatar in the form of Fascist domination, genocide and ethnic cleansing, each milieu has referred to the Pax Romana, or the exclusivity of the Roman Empire, as a model. Such an attitude suffers from an inherent essentialization first, it ignores the gradual development of the Roman Empire, its expansion and consolidation over a period close to a millennium, and secondly, it considers the Roman society interchangeably with the Roman elite, ignoring the large presence of the non-elite section of the society that can be brought under the overarching umbrella of the Roman plebian.
Agreed, there are cursory mentions of the Roman plebian in mainstream chronological history, yet the elitist point of view still maintains dominance in other aspects such as the aesthetic views towards art, architecture, and even historiography itself. Plebian, it must be remembered is a rather eclectic category, that constituted the considerably larger group of independent, unprivileged, poorer and vulnerable men as well as nonpatrician large landowners, less wealthy landholders, artisans, merchants and small farmers. Although they were citizens, the plebeians did not possess the same rights as the patricians (Spielvogel 118) and that resulted in a form of civil animosity.
The Roman emperor, at least, did not take them so much for granted, and at least formally felt a need to address them through the monuments and the imperial artworks that were erected at various parts of the city. There were marked changes in the attitude of the Roman Emperors towards the plebians over the centuries, and these changes were represented in the monuments they erected in significant urban centers. They range from empathy to advice, from close association to covert threats, from suggestions to images of oppression. The way the plebian population of Rome viewed and understood these monuments were markedly different from the way the elite viewed it.
Non-Elitist Representation in the Ara Pacis of Augustus
One of the earliest monuments of the Roman age that was however, quite a revolution at its time is the beautiful Ara Pacis of Augustus. Built after his triumphal return from Egypt, it was strategically placed at the Campus Martius, an area outside the citys sacred bounderies, but bordered by the major road to the north, the via Flaminia (Clarke 22). It was in perfect astronomical and geometric symmetry with the two other major Augustan monuments of the city, the mausoleum and the sundial. Critics have found out how the shadow of the sundial pointed directly at the center of the Ara Pacis altar on September 23, the Birthday of Caesar Augustus. Other usual analyses that take up much scholarly thought of the present day related to the Ara Pacis relief are identification of the royal and priestly characters in the Royal procession on the west and south friezes, identity of the mythological and allegorical figures of the others and the general symmetry of the work in relation to the internal and the external walls of the monument.
What is often forgotten in these discussions is that the contemporary viewer did not necessarily view the monument as most present day scholars do with a direct access to the altar and helps from photographic close-ups of the figures that can be cross checked with profiles and portraitures in contemporary coins to ascertain identities. The altar was usually closed to everyone but the priests and the Vestal maidens who were trusted with the religious duties of carrying out sacrifices and other rituals. Augustus himself preserved the right of offering the first sacrifice on particular days. However, the monument is unique in the way that the viewers can catch a glimpse of the internal carvings unlike other Roman monuments.
For most non-elites, however, the appeal of the monuments was completely different. The procession friezes were carved at considerable distance from the foot and raised on about a 12 feet platform, and from that distance it was impossible to make any difference between one member of the royalty and another all of them were more or less seen as generic representation of the Roman elite delineated through the togas and the head dresses. Augustus definitely stood out, as he was meant to stand out. A parallel between Augustus and Aeneas could also be deciphered because of the similarity in their dresses and their proximity to one another in the sacrificial friezes. What probably caught their attention more, largely due to their unusual presence as well as their relative proximity to the viewer were the children in the procession. This was the first time that children were depicted in a monumental Roman frieze.
None of the children could be identified by the plebian except that they were probably part of Augustus extended, but their approach and attitude spoke more. They look reluctant and bored and cling to the robes of their nurses or their mothers who have an expression of chiding them for their supposed misdemeanor in a royal procession. To a modern critic, it would appear as more of a kind of human interest, but for a contemporary member of the plebian it was more than that. One of the children, a girl is dressed in a toga a dress usually reserved for boys, and two other children are in ostensibly barbarian garbs. At the outset, it would appear to a non-elite onlooker that the children of the royalty were just like his own. The childrens casual dressing, boredom, and desperate clinging to the robes of their mothers were situations that they themselves must have experienced directly a hundred times. Covert message of such representations would be to project the Emperor as one of people, to whom the power has been offered by the voters, (and the plebians did enjoy a right to vote, although they could not qualify as a senator), and thus a sympathizer of their cause. This was a political necessity for the first representative of Roman Imperial Rule.
Clarke has commented that Augustus projected his role as the leader of a democratic Republic in almost all his monuments. However, at the same time he, somewhat ironically, projected the dynastic continuance of royalty in creating the mausoleum. Clarke moreover emphasizes the significance of the intricately carved foliage vignettes and the many fantastic and real animals realistically carved at the base of the Ara Pacis. For the non-elite viewer () there was one attraction much more interesting than the figural reliefs. Larger by over a foot (0.35m), closer to the ground than the figural friezes, and more available to the viewers scrutiny at eye-level, was the beautifully carved and conceived decoration of the enclosure walls lower half (Clarke 26). This part of the monument is the clear work of an absolute virtuosos. It is not so much, perhaps, in the great processions of the Ara Pacis that the true significance and vitality of Augustan art reside as in its beautiful and original decorations from flower and plant life (Strong 59). It reminded many members of the plebians of the sylvan past in the Roman countryside, as the many foliages could be identified like roses etc. Rome itself hardly had any green space available except for royal mausoleums and temples.
However, even this beauty and attraction is also not without its historical rationale. This throwback to a kind of idyllic countryside can be read as one of the prominent signs of the times, with clear overtones of transition from a democratic republic to a new form of imperialism. Whereas formerly the citizen had found his happiness in and through public life, henceforward he sought it far from the Forum, in the peace of rurala life or by giving up his life to the service of a general. The task of being a citizen was replaced by the ideal of a rustic existence or of commitment or serving a dux or general (Glay 183). The plebians did not have recourse to that repose. For them, this frieze was their only closeness to a world they were physically and materially removed from. The non-elite used this to evoke that past, to help their children understand the species, each complimented no doubt with the many stories of their origins and metamorphoses that were part of the stock Roman knowledge, diligently recorded by Pliny and Ovid.
The Plebian Army in Trajans Column
Similar differences in perspective can be seen if we closely study other monuments of Rome. Little remains of the Trajan group of monuments in Rome, including the Forum and the Basilica Ulpia, although many present reconstructions give us an idea of how it may have looked and felt to walk through it in the classical times. However, the only extant complete architecture, the Trajan Column gives us a comprehensive idea of the way these iconic Trajan monuments could have communicated to the plebian group. Built about 122 years after the Ara Pacis in a much more populous Rome with a more eclectic social formation, this monument appears to address the plebian community in a different way. At the outset, a tripartite arrangement of the motifs is clear to every serious onlooker, which comprise Trajan, the Dacians and the army. They are set, more often than not, in clear hierarchy with Trajan at the top and the army at the bottom. Few Roman Emperors have their image so extensively carved as Trajan. He is ubiquitous in the carvings, everywhere from offering ritualistic sacrifice to marching with the cavalry, from receiving foreign delegates to laying out plans of strategic attacks. Two different levels of communications are immediately laid by the extensive military rhetoric of the narrative. It can easily be called a narrative because all aesthetic analyses of the column speaks in a way as if one has to read the helical structure in some order. First, it foregrounds and summarily champions military discipline. The clear delineation of the armies, often with actual names of platoons, regiments and the numbers in each, and the smooth transition and communication from top to bottom shows the necessity of discipline. Discipline is a must for success seems to be the watchword of the construction. The expectation is clear to the civil citizens of the state the same level of discipline is expected even in carrying out of civic duties. Trajan himself, with his life, served as a living example of a high degree of personal discipline, and that appealed to the non-elite, and provided a direct contrast to the rural escape of the Augustan age. Trajan was frugal in his meals and ostensibly free from vice, his morals, military physique and majestic comportment conforming to the plebian concept of integrity, prejudiced as it was in favor of those who recalled ancient ideals of rustic simplicity and valor (Bennet 66).
However, for the plebian community, there appears to be an appeal of a different kind. If we take a close look at the cross-section of the army scenes, we will find that most of the soldiers apart from the commanders and the strategy makers belong to non-Roman citizens. We have already seen that foreigners, slaves and freemen formed a considerable part of the Roman society. The Trajan friezes somehow emphasized their central role in the building of the Roman community, and also in some way outlined their way to freedom. For a proper understanding of that dynamic, it is important to understand the position of slavery in the Roman world.
Slaves were brought in ancient Rome from all over the Caucusian world as well as from parts of North Africa where the Empire stretched its hold. The last foreign influx was that of about 50,000 Dacians, defeated by Trajan. Slaves were appointed as teachers, instructors, merchants, artisans, and often looked after business, commerce and trade for their Roman masters. Freedom was something they could buy both for money as well as through exemplary good work in the eyes of their Roman masters. The other way to buy freedom was to serve in the army for 25 years or carry out some work of exemplary courage. At Trajans time, the Roman army comprised a lions share of legionaries, praetorians and auxiliaries, a majority of whom were foreign slaves. Most fighters in the fray were largely non-Roman, while Romans were largely legionaries building fortifications, handling provisions and moving troops. Even while operating arms, they largely handled long distance weapons like the ballista or a crossbow, with a range not less than 500 yards (Clarke 38). The auxiliaries and the symmachiarii abound in the war scenes of the Trajan column, fighting in quest of Roman citizenship.
The Trajan column shows many such army personnel turn freemen, and for many still in bondage on a visit to the square, it must have showed them a way to much cherished citizenship. Roman citizenship meant a right to vote and to carry out work even as a statesman or a priest, and that dream must have inspired many still in slavery. It may have, arguably, worked as a kind of deterrence for the royalty to check civil revolt or non-cooperation, but for the many slaves it was the pictorial laying down of a formula for success. At the same time, it also laid out the Roman way of the life as the most glorious one, thus inspiring freemen to give up their barbaric way of life even after gaining freedom. It held promise if not for them, at least for their offspring. Despite various other nuances in the representation of the friezes, this can show us how perception may vary from one socio-economic position to another, and how meaning can take a different form in each case.
The same pattern can be seen running even for other Roman monuments, particularly for the imperial structures of Marcus Aurelius and others in a different time and age. Thus, we can come to the conclusion that he elite and the non-elite of Rome had largely different ways of perceiving and analyzing imperial art. The plebian fascination with this form of official art, for reasons completely unique as compared to the patrician perception, became represented in much of the non-official art of Rome, which is beyond the scope of the present paper. However, at least we can come to the conclusion that the elitist analysis is not the only one, and an art can be perceived in as many ways as there are perceivers.
