The Ara Pacis Augustae, also known as the Altar of Augustan Peace, is a celebrated piece of Roman art believed by many scholars to represent Augustus’s successful return from Gaul and Spain. Hence, the monument serves as a commemoration of Augustus’s significant achievements in establishing peace within the Roman world and symbolizes the subsequent prosperity. Despite the artist’s unidentified name, considerable information about the altar’s history is available.
The Ara Pacis Augustae was founded on July 4, 13BC, during a significant ceremony. Sacrifices were made to the state gods and Pax, the goddess of peace, on this day. Construction of the altar took three and a half years and was finished in 9BC. The altar stands freely on a podium and is surrounded by four walls adorned with sculptural reliefs internally and externally. The lower registers display decorative vines and cactus leaves, while the upper registers primarily feature figural sculptures.
Contained on the Ara Pacis are several notable friezes, including two processional friezes on different sides. These depict the ceremony of the monument being dedicated and Augustus’s return from Gaul. Despite missing most of his body, Augustus is portrayed alongside his two grandsons and multiple Senate members in the frieze. Furthermore, the panel of Tellus features Gaius and Lucius Caesar, who are both believed to be the nephews and future heirs of Augustus.
Another frieze on the Ara Pacis depicts a Roman priest and his attendants preparing to sacrifice a sow, which may suggest a sacrificial significance to the altar. However, art historians have debated this interpretation. In addition to this scene, there are several other friezes that portray Earth or Tellus, the lineage of Venus, and even Pax herself, along with other important figures. Two particularly crucial characters on the altar are Aeneas and Romulus, who embody contrasting representations of Augustus. These diverse and significant figures collectively illustrate the broad scope of individuals depicted on the Ara Pacis.
Present in a significant portion of the Ara Pacis Augustae’s ornamentation are animals, flowers, and fruits, serving as representations of fertility and growth. Augustus aims to illustrate that the peace he has established will bring prosperity to Rome. Additionally, these symbols convey the message to women in the empire that they should bear children and be fruitful. These vegetable friezes can be easily found, primarily on the lower sides of the Ara Pacis, with many believed to have been originally colored.
Augustus’ utilization of art as propaganda is evident in the Ara Pacis, which showcases his importance and magnificence through various friezes. The design and decoration on the Ara Pacis are largely symbolic and iconographic, representing Augustus’ greatness and political policies. Despite its age of over two thousand years, the Ara Pacis continues to be a significant artwork that is still the subject of study today. The monument has been exhibited to the public at the Ara Pacis Museum in Rome since the 1930s, after being excavated in multiple parts during the sixteenth century.
The Ara Pacis is widely regarded as one of the greatest monuments ever made due to its elaborate friezes and intricate adornments.
Annotated Bibliography
Syme, Ronald. “Neglected Children on the Ara Pacis.” American Journal of Archaeology 88.4 (1984): 583-89.
Syme, a highly esteemed professor of ancient history at Oxford University and history at the University of California at Los Angeles, provides valuable insights into overlooked aspects of the Ara Pacis.
He was a prolific author, writing numerous books such as Tacitus, The Roman Revolution, and From Augustus to Nero: The First Dynasty of Imperial Rome. The American Journal of Archeology, known worldwide, is considered one of the most prestigious publications. Since its establishment in 1885, the journal has been distributed to fifty-three countries and nearly one thousand universities and museums. This highlights the valuable contributions that both Syme and the American Journal of Archaeology make to the field of art.
Syme argues that the frieze on the Ara Pacis does not depict Gnaeus or Domitia, but instead their older siblings. According to him, Domitia died in 12 B.C. while Gnaeus passed away in his twenties. Syme believes that early deaths were common during this time due to high mortality rates. He suggests that the male figure portrayed is a brother of Gnaeus. Furthermore, Syme claims that the flamen shown on the Ara Pacis is Sextus Appuleius, supported by an inscription from Carthage. Therefore, he presents a new argument along with multiple sources to support his claim.
Syme presents a differing viewpoint regarding the interpretation of the two children depicted in the Ara Pacis, which differs from earlier authors who have supported the idea that they portray Gnaeus and Domitia. He aims to clarify this misinterpretation by offering alternative explanations that are well-supported by existing sources. Therefore, a significant portion of Syme’s work is devoted to debunking previous assumptions about the Ara Pacis. His contribution is valuable as he introduces a contrasting perspective that has not been previously discussed by other authors and scholars.
John Pollini’s identification of the figures in the Ara Pacis is highly valuable and has not been proposed by previous authors. His identifications contribute to the existing scholarly research on this subject. While there have been various interpretations of the Ara Pacis, Pollini’s unique perspective and arguments distinguish him from other scholars in the field. It is important to recognize his noteworthy contribution to the understanding of this artwork. (Source: Pollini, John. “Ahenobarbi, Appuleii and Some Others on the Ara Pacis.” American Journal of Archaeology 90.4 (1986): 453-460.) Pollini’s credentials are extensive and reputable.
Pollini was a professor at John Hopkins University in the Department of Classics. He is now a professor of art history at the University of Southern California. In 1978, he received his PhD in ancient history and Mediterranean archaeology from UC Berkeley. Pollini has been the Dean of the School of Fine Arts at USC and has extensively published in this field. The American Journal of Archaeology is highly regarded in this discipline.
This journal is renowned for its scholarly articles and extensive research. Currently, it can be accessed at various universities and museums across the globe. As a result, both Pollini’s expertise and the American Journal of Archaeology strongly affirm their significance in the field of art studies. Pollini contends that one of the figures depicted on the south frieze of the Ara Pacis is indeed Gnaeus. The identification of this character as Gnaeus has sparked considerable debate due to the fact that he could not have become a consul until fifty years old, which is eighteen years later than usual.
Pollini argues that it was uncommon for scandalous figures like Gnaeus to be delayed in attaining the consulship. He also points out that despite being depicted as an older man, there are still elements of youth portrayed. Furthermore, Pollini confirms that Marcus Appuleius is the Flamen Iulialis in the south frieze, as only Octavia Maior’s sons were known to be related to Augustus during the construction of the Ara Pacis. To support his claims convincingly, Pollini uses both historical and contemporary sources.
Pollini’s journal article delves into the various interpretations scholars have regarding the Ara Pacis, with a particular focus on refuting Ronald Syme’s viewpoints. In his extensive rebuttal, Pollini disagrees with Syme on virtually every interpretation. This response challenges several previously unchallenged interpretations and aims to debunk them while presenting more convincing explanations.
However, although he does not mention any specific authors, he agrees with one earlier interpretation that the figure on the south frieze of the Ara Pacis is Gnaeus. Pollini’s focus is solely on Syme and he does not mention any other authors who have worked on the Ara Pacis. Pollini provides valuable contributions to the interpretations of the Ara Pacis, offering new explanations supported by ample evidence and references. He reaffirms the previous interpretation of Gnaeus and introduces a new interpretation that Marcus Appuleius is the Flamen Iulialis. Additionally, Pollini discusses several other minor figures in contrast to Syme. Despite their disagreements, Pollini’s contribution enhances the existing scholarly literature of the Ara Pacis. Professor Nancy de Grummond, who currently teaches classics at Florida State University, has impressive credentials that qualify her for this field of study.
She has also written numerous works including The Religion of the Etruscans and Etruscan Mythology along with Sacred History and Legend. Aside from her solid background, the American Journal of Archaeology has been in existence since 1885, providing scholarly contributions in the field of classical archeology. This journal has membership in the Archaeological Institute of America and has been highly regarded by many scholars. Thus, both de Grummond and the American Journal of Archaeology are extremely credible sources of information for the study of the Ara Pacis.
De Grummond’s thesis asserts that the figure on the southeast panel exclusively portrays the identity of Pax Augusta. Despite scholarly debates about the representation of Pax in this frieze, de Grummond firmly maintains that her attributes clearly depict her. Symbols such as poppies and grain, which are known from her depictions on coins, are representative of Pax. Additionally, de Grummond suggests that Augustus and his advisors associated the concept of seasons and the goddess of Peace with Pax Augusta.
De Grummond argues that there is a connection between the altar and Hesiod’s Theogony, specifically focusing on the goddess Eirene representing the seasons. She provides multiple examples from the Ara Pacis that support the idea of the four seasons depicted in the relief. Ultimately, de Grummond demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between Augustus and the seasons portrayed in the Ara Pacis. De Grummond builds upon the works of Gardthausen and Zanker, who also propose that the panel solely portrays Pax Augusta.
However, disagreeing with earlier scholars like Torelli, she does not support the idea of the triple goddess that includes Pax, Venus, and Tellus all in one. Additionally, de Grummond acknowledges the arguments brought forth by Hannell and Simon but highlights their flaws. Conversely, she shares Gardthause’s viewpoint that the Ara Pacis represented the four seasons. In the latter half of her work, de Grummond expands on and strengthens Gardthause’s evolving argument.
Although de Grummond did not originate the argument about the Ara Pacis’ connection with the four seasons, she provides significant support to Gardthause’s idea. De Grummond takes this argument and develops an intellectually stimulating interpretation of the Ara Pacis. While she offers ample evidence to support her thesis, there are still unanswered questions that other art historians can explore. This contribution has opened up new possibilities for interpreting the Ara Pacis. Elsner, John, who has extensive credentials in classical art, including being a Senior Research Fellow in Classical Art at Corpus Christi College and Oxford, as well as a visiting professor of Art History at the University of Chicago. Elsner has published numerous works, such as Roman Eyes: Rituality and Subjectivity in Art and Text, “The Rhetoric of Buildings in the De Aedificiis of Procopius,” and “Classicism in Roman Art,” among others.
Along with Elsner’s qualifications, The Journal of Roman Studies offers numerous peer-reviewed articles pertaining to Roman art and architecture. This journal has acquired acclaim for its pioneering articles, which have sparked fresh interpretations and debates in the field of Roman art history. Consequently, both Elsner and The Journal of Roman Studies are invaluable resources for the study of Roman art. Elsner argues that the altar was utilized as a site for sacrificial cult rituals, highlighting the neglect of this sacrificial aspect in earlier scholarly research.
The author states that the sacrificial altar had diverse interpretations depending on the observer. This implies that the altar held different significance for a Roman priest, a Jew, and a Pythagorean, indicating that the ancient viewer was intended to be involved in the altar. Ultimately, the author contends that the Ara Pacis symbolizes the sacrificial rituals, which actively engaged the Roman viewer with this altar. Despite presenting a fresh perspective, the author does not disregard the earlier research conducted on the Ara Pacis.
According to Elsner, certain earlier authors have disregarded the significance of the altar and he also disagrees with other authors who support the naturalist theory. This theory suggests that the Ara Pacis has only one meaning, thereby excluding the ancient viewer. However, Elsner acknowledges the ideas put forth by Paul Zanker, who believes that the Ara Pacis does not depict a specific historical event or person. Nevertheless, Elsner finds Zanker’s argument to be overly simplistic.
Instead of traditional approaches, Elsner’s focus lies on the sacrificial meaning of the Ara Pacis and its significance to the Roman viewer. His argument is supported by plentiful evidence throughout the article. Elsner’s contribution to the continuing study of the Ara Pacis Augustae is his suggestion that the altar had a crucial sacrificial meaning for Romans. He emphasizes that there was no singular interpretation of this altar, a crucial aspect overlooked by previous scholarship, which motivated him to select this topic.
The text argues that the procession and altar scene in the Ara Pacis represent two main forms of sacrifice. Elsner suggests that the Aeneas relief portrays ritual action, while the altar relief engages the viewer in participating in the ritual. Therefore, the viewer is always an active participant in the Ara Pacis, similar to these sacrifices. Additionally, the altar relief showcases a mythological act rather than depicting a specific ritual. Overall, this contribution emphasizes the significance of sacrificial rituals in the Ara Pacis. – Castriota, David.
The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art is a book written by Castriota in 1995. His academic background, including a baccalaureate degree from New York University and a PhD from Columbia University, adds credibility to his work. Currently, Castriota is an assistant professor of art history at Sarah Lawrence College. In addition to this book, he has also authored Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century B. C. Athens and has received multiple fellowships from the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Early Christian and Byzantine Art.
Castriota and Princeton University Press are both highly regarded for their publications in various fields such as art, photography, poetry, and academia. This gives the work a strong credibility due to their reputable backgrounds. Castriota’s thesis emphasizes the significance of vegetal decoration on the Ara Pacis as it symbolizes the gods, particularly the Augustae.
Additionally, the author suggests that the portrayal of different plants and flowers on the Ara Pacis represented important Roman values and sacred rituals. The author does not support the idea that these vegetal friezes were solely used for decoration. Moreover, the author argues that the connection between Dionysos and Apollo should be seen as harmonious rather than conflicting. The author supports this claim by referencing Greek and Roman literature, as well as their religious beliefs. By utilizing these sources, the author presents a fresh interpretation of the vegetal friezes found on the Ara Pacis.
Castriota’s book contradicts previous arguments and interpretations made by earlier authors, particularly those scholars who believed that Dionysos and Apollo had an antagonistic relationship. Instead, Castriota argues that these two gods actually support each other to convey the image of Augustae. Additionally, earlier authors have not devoted much research or time to studying the vegetal friezes. Only a handful of authors, such as L’Orange, Busing, and Sauron, have briefly examined the vegetal friezes.
While acknowledging the significance of their scholarly works, Castriota does not contribute to them. Nevertheless, Castriota’s study of the Ara Pacis presents a valuable addition to the field. Despite the extensive research conducted thus far, Castriota offers a fresh interpretation of Dionysos and Apollo that had not been previously proposed. Moreover, Castriota stands out as one of the few authors who have investigated the vegetal friezes. His assertion that these friezes serve a purpose beyond mere decoration holds great importance in the examination of the Ara Pacis friezes.
Castriota’s work is highly valuable as it presents a fresh and unique interpretation of the Ara Pacis Augustae, unlike previous authors who have studied this artwork. Rehak, who has strong credentials in the field of classical art, published an article titled “Aeneas or Numa? Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae” in The Art Bulletin in 2001. Rehak holds a baccalaureate degree in classical studies and classical archaeology from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology from Bryn Mawr College.
After obtaining his degrees, Rehak worked as a visiting assistant professor at several prestigious universities including the University of Kansas, College Wooster, American University of Paris, and Duke University. Besides his impressive qualifications, The Art Bulletin is a highly regarded journal featuring peer-reviewed articles on art history. It is also affiliated with the College Art Association and has an esteemed editorial board.
Both Rehak and The Art Bulletin support the validation of the journal article. Rehak argues that the Aeneas relief depicts King Numa sacrificing a sow to ensure peaceful relations with another nation. He claims that Numa followed Fetial Law, a set of rules that the Romans followed for conducting a fair war. According to Rehak, this ceremony involved sealing an oath by sacrificing a sow to establish peace. He also suggests that the gods portrayed in the relief serve as witnesses to the oath, rather than being the ones benefiting from the sacrifice.
Furthermore, the author asserts that the decision to place Numa and Romulus side by side on the western side of the Ara Pacis was deliberate and aimed to convey three key ideas: Firstly, Numa and Romulus embodied contrasting leadership styles, with one being associated with warfare and the other with peace; Secondly, both figures serve as contrasts to Augustus, showcasing essential traits and attributes that are also present in his own life and character; Thirdly, the circumstances surrounding the births of Numa and Romulus connect to Augustus’s own birth and bring the concept of cosmic time full circle to the era of the golden age.
Rehak aims to support his thesis by analyzing ancient literature and mythology, which offers substantial evidence for his argument. His work confronts the theories put forth by previous authors, including Johannes Sieveking and John (Jas) Elsner, who upheld the belief that the relief depicted a sow sacrifice ritual. Rehak aims to disprove this flawed interpretation, which has been widely accepted by archaeologists and art historians over an extended period of time.
In his article, the author devotes a significant portion to debunking the earlier interpretation. He argues against it by pointing out that state monuments rarely depicted sacrifices of single sows. Therefore, since the relief in question only depicted one sow, the initial interpretation should be seen as doubtful. The author also presents numerous other examples to support his argument that earlier authors may have misunderstood this complex relief.
According to Rehak, the relief on the Ara Pacis does not symbolize a sacrificial ritual, unlike previous interpretations. Instead, he suggests that it represents something entirely different. Rehak also argues that the message conveyed by the Ara Pacis is about the balance between war and peace, as well as the consistent presence of this equilibrium under Augustus’ rule. As a result, Rehak provides a new explanation that challenges and undermines previous understandings of the relief on the Ara Pacis.
