Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill

Author(s): James S. Ackerman

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Renaissance News, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1957), pp. 69-75
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2857501 .
Accessed: 28/09/2012 13:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Renaissance News.

http://www.jstor.org

tonio Cocco of abstainingfrom furtherplaywriting was still being

observed by Piccolomini in I568 (69). Since at this time he was in
need of the Medici patronage,Piccolomini would have committed a
seriousblunderin refusingFrancescothe firstfavor he had ever asked
and in denying ever having written a comedy for Cosimo I, a deed
which would have endearedhim to the Medici family.
The statementsfound in Piccolomini'sprinted works, the correspondence with the Medici family, and especiallythe letter to Spannocchi, prove that he did not write the Ortensio.The real authorsof
the piece were the membersof the Accademia
as is stated
degl'Intronati
on the title page and alsoby Piccolominihimself. Specifically,the letter to Spannocchiinforms us that the Ortensiowas firstperformedon
January26, 1561, insteadof October I560 (as suggestedby Sanesi).
It also invalidatesSanesi'sand Rossi's conclusion that Piccolomini
played the limited role of counsellingthe Intronati.In saying 'non mi
sono trovatone a comporla,ne a censurarla,ne a volerlacomprovare',
Piccolomini disavowseven this responsibilitywhich was officiallyhis
as a 'censore'of the Academy.16
PENNSYLVANIA

STATE UNIVERSITY

write the comedy which he had recently requested (see above).

16 Another work
erroneously attributed to Piccolomini by early biographers is the
tragedy entitled La Conversionedi S. Cipriano. The real author was Giovanni Fazio da
Urbino (see Salvioli, Bibliografiauniversaledel teatrodrammaticoitaliano, Venezia, I903,
I, 878). The first edition of this tragedy, which appeared in Urbino in 1626, bears the
words StorditoAccademicoInsensatoin the place of Fazio's name. It is clear that the false
attribution arose when early biographers confused the Stordito Accademico Insensato
with Piccolomini, whose academic pseudonym was StorditoIntronato.

Marcus Aurelius on the CapitolineHill

by JAMES S. ACKERMAN

RECENT book, Dante poeta veltro (Florence,I953), LeonardoOlschkidiscussedthe statuesof Castorand Pollux that stand
at the top of the ramp leading onto the Capitolinehill in Rome. He
showed that these representationsof the Dioscureswere brought to
the heart of the Renaissancecity not merely as works of art, but as
symbols:symbols of heavenly protection (they are the Geminiof the

IN A

[69]

Zodiac) and of Liberty (to Dante they stood for popularresistanceto

tyranny),in which roles they had been the guardiansof Rome since
ancienttimes. In addition, Olschki discoveredan attributeappended
for politicalreasonsby a sixteenth-centuryPontiff,Clement VII,that
made the twins respectivelythe Pope and the Emperor-co-rulers of
the modernRoman Empire.
If the sculptureat the gateway to the wonderfulRenaissancesquare
on the Capitolis chosenwith suchdeliberatesymbolicintention,then
other statueson the hill probablywere placedtherefor good reasons.
Particularlythis must be true of the bronze equestrianmonument of
MarcusAurelius,brought to the hill in 1538 and placedin the center
of the oval piazza on the axis of the entirearchitecturalcomposition.
Its presencethere is a puzzle: given the significanceof the Dioscures,
why did Pope Paul in (Clement'ssuccessor)put an imperialportrait
in the place of honor? Why was this particularportraitso desirable
that it had to be stolen from the Chapterof St. John in the Lateran,
which had held title to it for over a millennium?Finally,why, when
MichelangeloBuonarrotiwas commissionedto designthe square,the
buildings, and even an elegant base for the new acquisition,was he
not also requiredto execute a statuehimself;a monument not to pagan, but to ChristianRome?
Contemporaryreportersdo not quite answer these questionsbecausethey are confusedabout the identity of the rider. Antiquarians
and guides assureus that they know him to be MarcusAurelius,but
add that the public is confused on the subject.Bernardo Gamucci's
guidebook of 1565 is typical:
... & nel mezo rinchiugono come in un centro quella famosa statua equestre di Marco
Aurelio condottavi dalla Chiesa di san Giovanni Laterano al tempo di Paolo terzo
Pont. Ott. Max. laquale e' chiamata da' volgari de' nostri tempi il gran Villano. Alcuni
credono che questa statua sia di Settimio Severo, & altri dicono di Lucio Vero; il che a
me non pare, per non s'assomigliare in alcuna parte al vero ritratto delle loro medaglie.

The emperorswere alreadymentioned by Fulviusin I527, and later

AntoninusPius is addedas well. In 1536 the GermantravelerFichard
speaksof them, too, but adds, 'itaquenesciturcuius-es ist ein sehr
sch6nstuck'.
But the humanistswho argued over which Antonine emperor is
representedwere too learnedfor theircontemporaries.Even the mistakesthey correctedwere suchgood mistakesthatonly rivalarchaeol[70]

ogists could have made them. Evidently the 'vulgar' did not listen,
but preferreda folk legend ('granVillano') that deniedthe figure any
imperialidentity. Nor did the humanistsmanageto convince the educated classes,becausedocuments in which the statue is mentioned
seldom identify it correctly. I found a variety of opinions expressed
just in the year that the monument came to the Capitol. One record,
a decreeof complaintfrom the LateranChapter,namesthe Emperor
correctly;anotherrecordsthe advice of Michelangelofor the 'reformatione statueM. Antonii'. A more common erroris representedby
entriesof 1538in two diaries,that of Cola Colleine, who says, 'lo cavallo di Costantinofu messonellapiazzadi Campidoglio',and that of
Blasio di Martinelli,who mentions 'locum Capitoliinoviter explanatum cum aequo (sic)aereoConstantiniex Lateranotranslato'.
Of course, the attemptsto identify the statuedid not begin at the
time of its arrivalon the Capitolinehill. This was one of the few masterpiecesof Roman artthathad been on view throughoutthe Middle
Ages, and recordsof many centuriesshow that Romans seldom were
satisfiedto leave the riderwithout a name. I cannot tell the intricate
and fascinatinghistory of these legends here, but perhapsI can indicate sketchily the distant background of the Renaissancesources I
have quoted by outlining the origins and suggesting the causes of
three majortraditions,those identifying the statueas Constantine,as
the 'granVillano', and asan AntonineEmperor.
Conlstantine

This identificationmay be tracedback to the tenth century and is

possiblyCarolingianin origin. The choice of Constantineprovided a
name that was famous enough to be generallyknown, one that was
Christian,and one that recalledthe time when Constantinoplewas a
satelliteof Rome and not a rival. In the Middle Ages, however, the
statuewas not principallya portraitor a monument, but a symbol for
Roman Law. Traitorsand criminalswere executedbefore it, or even
hung from the neck of the horse. In its dual role as a reminderof the
power of the Emperorand of the protectionof Roman Law the statue expressedthe concernof Carolingianand post-CarolingianRome
for the revival of ancientglories: Renovatio. I think that the original
impetus for the Constantinelegend was just romantic or nostalgic,
and thatit was some time beforeit began to gatherpoliticalovertones
resultingfrom controversybetween Popes and Emperors.
[71]

GranVillano
By the mid-twelfth century a rival legend had arisen-with a purpose. The authorsof the earliestmanuscriptsof the MirabiliaUrbis
Ronaenot only offera new attributionbut takepainsto refutethe old
one: 'Lateranisest quidamcaballusaereusque diciturConstantini,sed
ita non est; quia quicumquevoluerit veritatemcognoscerehoc perlegat.' Then follows an elaboratelegend set 'in the time of the consuls
and senators'.Rome is besiegedby a powerful orientalking, and the
city is powerless to defend itself. An 'armiger'of great beauty and
virtue appearsbefore the Senateclaimingthat he can rout the enemy,
and the Senateagreesto give him a limitlessrewardif he is successful.
Leavingthe Roman forceswithin the city walls, he goes out alone to
find a certaingrove of trees that the besieging king visits nightly to
relieve himself. He is able to locate this by hearing a cuckoo, whose
nightly song is set off by the visitorsto the grove. Approachingin disguise, the hero capturesthe king, and succeedsin carryinghim back
into the city before the retainerscan stop him. He then leadsthe Roman army out to slaughterand capturethe besiegers.In appreciation
of this feat the Senaterewardsthe hero with a great fortune and with
our equestrianstatue, memorializing him with his right arm outstretchedto seize the king, the cuckoo sitting on the horse'shead (the
bound top-knot of the mane does resemblea bird), and the king underfoot, representedas a 'dwarf', with his arms tied behind his back
(the bound captive,originallya featureof the monument, was lost in
the laterMiddle Ages).
Master Gregorius,who repeatsthis story in about I200, tells us
that, while the Constantinelegend is still adheredto by the people,
the 'Clericsand Cardinalsof the Roman Curia'supporthis version.
Even without Gregory'shelp we can see the story as a clever work of
papalpropaganda.It unmistakablytakesplace in RepublicanRome;
the folk-hero-a poor but honest soldier-overcomes a king who is
debasedboth in statureand in the circumstancesof his capture.The
story succeedsboth in extolling the virtues of ancient Rome and its
populace and in playing down the concept of Empire and Emperor.
I am not familiarenough with the history of the twelfth centurypapacy to suggest what party or Pope first may have found this legend
useful, but it is too pointedly political to passas a simple tale such as
guides love to repeat.Without entirelyvanquishingthe Constantine
[72]

legend, this Guelph story, if I may call it that, persistsinto the sixteenthcentury.Surelythe earlyRenaissanceassociatedthe statuewith
this folk hero, becausethe common soldierswho achieved glory in
the quattrocento
were memorializedin equestrianportraitsmodeled
on thatof MarcusAurelius.Donatello'sGattemelata,Ucello's Hawkwood, Castagno'sNiccolo da Tolentino, Verrocchio'sColleoni, and
Leonardo'sG. G. Trivulzio all were mercenarysoldiersof greatbravery who vanquishedrulersand achievedrichesand fame. The rulers
themselvesrarelyappearedon horseback.
MarcusAurelius

The identificationof the statuewith figuresother than Constantine

and the anonymoushero did not commence until the fifteenth century. Humanismapproachedthe problem in a scientificratherthan a
symbolic fashion, and startingwith attributionsto Commodus and
SeptimusSeverus,scholarsgraduallynearedthe mark by Gamucci's
method, arrivingat the properanswerin about I470.
But the Renaissancewas not archaeologicalto the core. Even the
antiquariansof the sixteenthcenturyhad to admit, when they had arrived at the right answer,that the old romancesstill remainedpopular. It appearsthat the MarcusAureliusdid not come to the Capitoline merely as a great bronze statueof a given ruler-it came also as
Constantine,emperorand symbol of Roman Law, and finally as the
'Villano': folk-hero, anti-imperialist,the symbol of the liberty of
Roman citizensasmaintainedby theirgovernor, the Pope.
So perhapsto the sixteenth-centuryvisitor the centralfigure on the
Capitolinesquareand the twin Dioscuresat its entrancemeant much
the samething-Liberty securedby the harmoniousrule of the Pope
andEmperor.Round aboutin every directionwere statuesthat completed the symbolicpoem. At the rear,the GoddessRoma(Michelangelo had planned aJupiterin her place) flankedby the Nile and the
Tiber-rivers of the East and West; and on the forward railing,trophies thought to be Republican,statuesof Constantineand Constantius, and milepostsfrom the Via Appia bearingspheressymbolizing
universalrule.
The storywould be incompletewithout an attemptto explainwhy
Michelangeloplacedthe statueon an ovoid mound risingfrom a ring
of stepsthat bordersthe piazza and decoratedwith a twelve-pointed
stellatedpattern.It has been called a segment of the terrestrialglobe
[73]

anda representation
of theCaputMundi(themedievaldesignation
for
the Capitol),whichis plausiblewithoutbeingconvincing.I haveno
provenanswer,but I detectboth an antiqueanda medievalsource.
The formermay be a Romanshield,whichwould explainboth its
ovalshapeandthefactthatit is raisedratherthanflat.Theportraiton
the shield-imagoclipeata-wasan imperialprerogativein ancient
to Christ.Themedievalsourceis one of the
timesandwastransferred
in St. Isidor'sDe naturarerum
that
cosmologicaldiagrams(schemata)
lunar
the
concordance
of
the
with
other
cycle
symbolizes
temporal
inferences
of thenumbertwelve,particularly
Months,Hours,andthe
distinctivestar(formedby inZodiac.1It differsfromMichelangelo's
rather
than
arcs
tersecting
triangles)only in beinginscribedwithina
Aurelius
becomesthe Roman
circleinsteadof an oval. So the Marcus
heroelevateduponthesymbolof thecosmos:itsvariedtraditionsare
mergedinto a testimonyto the restorationof Roman dignityand
undertheChurch.
pre-eminence
If eachage is typifiedby the symbolismappendedto the bronze
horseman,thenthe modernperiodmustbe characterized
by a story
at oncethemostmaterialistic
andthemostpessimistic
of alltime.It is
toldby thegreatRomanhumorist,G. G.Belli:
CAMPIDOJJO

Ecchesce ar Campidojjo, indove Tito

Venne a mmercato tanta ggente abbrea.
Questa se chiama la Rupa Tarpea
Dova Creopatra bbutto ggiu er marito.
Marcurelio sta 11 ttutto vestito
Senza pavura un cazzo de tropea.
E un giorno, disce er zor abbate Fea,
C'ha da esse oro infinamente a un dito.
E ssi ttu gguardi er culo der cavallo
E la faccia dell'omo, quarche innizzio
Gia vvederai de scappa ffora er giallo.

1 owe the discovery of this diagram to Prof. Harry Bober, who is preparing a book
on the schemata.

[74]

Quanno e ppoi tutta d'oro, addio Donizzio:

Se va a ffa fotte puro er piedistallo,
Che amanca poco ar giorno der giudizzio.2
UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

2 'Here's the
Campidoglio, where Titus sold so many Jews at market. This is called
the Tarpeian Rock, from which Cleopatra threw down her husband. Marcus Aurelius
stays there all dressed up without fear of storms. And one day, says Abbot Fea, it will
all become gold, down to the last finger [some of the original gilding of the bronze is
preserved, ed.]. And if you examine the horse's arse and the man's face, you can already see some sign that the yellow is bursting out. And when it is all gold, that's the
end: even the pedestal will come crashing down, andJudgment Day will be close.'

andthePuritanParadise
Marvell's'Bermudas'
by ROSALIE

L. COLIE

IT IS often difficultto rememberthatAndrewMarvellthe poet

wasalsoapolemicalPuritanandpracticalpolitician,so littledo his

survivingpoemsreflecthis publicactivity.Leastof all, one would
think,could his Gardenpoems,where his privateintentionsseem
most highly developedandhis generalNeoplatonismmost sharply
yieldupanyreferenceto hisPuritanlife.Butwhenwe
particularized,
examinehis 'Bermudas',
one of Marvell'ssubtlestshorterpoemsand
in bothits imageryandits implicaclose
to
'The
Garden'
strikingly
tionsof paradise,we cannotfailto realizeits backgroundof English
expansioninto the New Worldandof the religiousdrivesthatsent
outfromtheirislandintoharsherclimatesin theexpectaEnglishmen
tion of some sort of practicalEden.Marvell'ssong is the song of
praiseof his marinersto the God thatled them 'throughthe watry
Maze'to anotherisland,long hiddenfromtheirknowledgeandfar
kinderthanEnglanditself.The lasttwelvelinesof the poem carry
very strongsuggestionsof the 'colonizingactivitiesof the English
Puritans':1
1 For a study of this subject, see Arthur Percival Newton, The Colonizing Activities
the
of
English Puritans (New Haven and London, I914) and Louis B. Wright, Religion

andEmpire.TheAlliancebetweenPiety andCommerce
in EnglishExpansion.1558-1625
(Chapel Hill, 1943).

[75]