User:Wmalvey/Arch of Constantine

Main Contributions to the Article

 * Added to the controversy section.
 * Demonstrated the wide-spread use of spolia in the monument.
 * Added a new section on the arch after the fall of the Roman Empire which wasn't apart of the article before.

Other thoughts

 * It was difficult to find important additional information that was not already included in the article.
 * In the history and controversy sections I made small additions to what was already written because I thought it was useful information.

History
Not only did the Roman senate give the arch for Constantine's victory, they also were celebrating decennalia, a celebration for the tenth year Constantine ruled as Emperor of the West. The inscription on both the north and south sides of the attic mentions a tyrant, alluding to Constantine's victory over Maxentius, a recognized Roman tyrant.

Controversy
Another theory holds that it was erected, or at least started, by Maxentius, or that it was a Constantinian variation of a Maxentius copy. It has also been suggested that the sculptures of Constantine are spolia themselves. These theories are difficult to prove due to the fact that the Arch of Constantine in modern times does not reflect the state it was in when it was completed.

Iconography
The arch makes use of the practice spolia, and although the arch was created in the fourth century, many parts of the sculptures date back to the third and second centuries. Examples of this can be seen in four sections; two in the central area, one on the east side of the attic, and one on the west side of the attic. These sections have friezes in which multiple heads of Trajan have been recut to resemble Constantine. Another area with spolia is on the north and south sides of the attic where eight relief panels were taken from a lost Arch of Marcus Aurelius and recarved to be Constantine which later were replaced with Trajan. In addition, one scholar promoted the idea that the builders of the arch reused materials to boost Constantine and associate him with his deified predecessors by "presenting him in [their] bodies". This contributes to the idea that the use of spolia was, to an extent, a form of propaganda that promoted the Constantinian golden age through the likeness of former "good emperors". Constantinian propaganda reflected in the arch also depicts Maxentius as an evil tyrant, not a rival Roman emperor. An inscription on the arch alludes to Maxentius as someone that all Roman citizens were liberator from his rule and happy to be free from him.

Many arches created roughly around the same time, such as the Arch of Septimius Severus, depicted the triumphal procession of the emperor it was dedicated to on horizontal panels. However, the arch of Constantine does not depict this subject in horizontal panels that read as a continuous narration. Instead, the designer of the arch showed historical events in separate, smaller pieces. It is believed that this was done because Constantine's victory was over another Roman, not a foreign enemy, and is one of the few monuments that represent such a victory.

The Arch After the Roman Empire
After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the arch was used by different groups for various purposes. During the middle ages, the arch was notably utilized by the monks of S. Gregorio and the Frangipani family. Throughout the later Middle ages and the Renaissance the arch was known as the Arcus Trasi. Renovations and adaptations, along with purposeful vandalization led to the arch needing repairs, specifically on its various reliefs. Some notable repairs took place in 1570 under Pope Clement XII that focused on the addition of eight imperial heads in the Aurelian panels, and then again in 1733 when Pietro Bracci restored the eight Dacians atop the columns.

Conversations surrounding the use of spolia throughout the arch have been taking place from the Renaissance until present day, with artists and scholars criticizing the use of reliefs from different eras. One Neoclassical theorist described the mixture of eras present on the arch as, "a corruption not only of art but of the heart", while others commended its architecture and reused sculpture.