Class 4 – Power and Authority

Representing War / Recording History: Column of Trajan and

Bayeux “Tapestry”

KEY WORKS: • Column of Trajan, marble, ancient Rome, 113CE,
originally about 128’ tall with base. Commissioned by
Emperor Trajan, located in Forum of Trajan, Rome
• Bayeux “Tapestry,” embroidered wool on linen,
medieval Europe, c. 1070-1080, 20” x 230’,
commissioned by Bishop Odo(?)
KEY TERMS: Trajan, Dacians, relief/low relief, frieze, forum, Edward the
Confessor, Harold, William of Normandy (William the
Conqueror), Battle of Hastings, Anglo-Saxon, Norman
REQUIRED READING: On Column of Trajan:
- Read: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-
art-civilizations/roman/early-empire/a/column-of-trajan
- Read: this site and the article by Andrew Curry (scroll
down to it): http://www.nationalgeographic.com/trajan-
column/
- Optional – but fun! – stop action short video on how
Column was built:
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/150315
-ngm-building-trajans-column?source=relatedvideo
- Optional – brief intro to column, but then extensive
images and resources: http://www.trajans-column.org/
On Bayeux ‘Tapestry:’
- Read this:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/latin-
western-europe/romanesque1/a/bayeux-tapestry
- Watch this:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/latin-
western-europe/romanesque1/v/bayeux-tapestry

NOTE: USE ACTIVE LINKS to the above websites posted on

Canvas.

LECTURE OBJECTIVES:
Art works (like sculptures and images) are often static modes of communication
that usually depict a single moment frozen in time. However, art is also often
used to record historical events of import. How did artists tackle the challenge of
conveying the unfolding of time in a static medium? Each of these monuments
provides a solution. There is a tendency and desire to view these monuments as
documents – as a recording of history – providing images that help us access
information about what happened, objectively. Yet each was commissioned and
executed by the victors. And the historical narratives appearing on each are
carefully crafted. What is the relationship between art (which implies a license to
invent, embellish, and highlight particular aspects) and a historical record (which
implies objective recording)? This class meeting also opens up a new unit:
Power and Authority. How was artistic patronage used to convey imperial or
royal power?

READ and WATCH the assigned sites above and then consider the
following supplementary material and questions before coming to class:

For the Column of Trajan, we will be particularly interested in the following:

How did the emperor physically ‘make his mark’ in the heart of Rome? What is a forum?

The Column appears as #2 above. The Forum also contained a monumental equestrian
statue of Trajan (#6) and, located throughout the larger portion of the forum, (#5) were
statues of vanquished Dacians, such as the one that appears below. Think about the
relationship between the narrative frieze depicted on the column and the broader
complex of spaces, buildings and artworks in which it is located. Note that marked as #3
above are the Greek and Latin libraries from which we assume visitors could have
viewed the column from upper stories. Why might it be significant that the Column is
flanked by two libraries? Think about what it would have been like to view the Column in
person at this site. Scholars are often perplexed by the degree of pictorial detail
included on the column, given its scale. If one views the monument at ground level, you
are only able to take in the details for a few of the ascending bands. Once the bands
continue upward, your eye is no longer able to take in the detail. Also, if standing in one
location at the base of the Column, you will only see a partial ‘slice’ of these narrative
bands. In order to follow the entirety of the frieze as it wraps around the column, you’d
need to continuously circle the work – an embodied action that most viewers would have
been unlikely to undertake. Hence there is a degree of illegibility at play here, despite
the work’s pretense to divulge literal, narrative detail.

A captive Dacian. How is he represented? What marks

him off as being ‘foreign’? How would you describe his
pose, his bearing? What purpose did statues of
captured Dacians serve in the broader forum complex?

The base of the Column is decorated with piles of

discarded and abandoned Dacian weapons and armor.
Remember that the forum – an immense construction
project that outshines the previous imperial forum
complexes in scale and grandeur – was paid for by the
large booty and wealth the Romans captured from the
Dacians. Dacia was located in what we now refer to as
“Romania.” At the time, it was located at the far
extremes of the Roman world, it was the “barbaric”
frontier. When Dacia was captured, the empire, under
Trajan, extended its borders.

Shortly, we will return to the Column of Trajan when we think about how architectural
and urban spaces are constructed to articulate and enact authority and power. We will
compare the Column to other notable sites in ancient Rome: the Arch of Titus and
Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum). Pay particular attention to the ways in which the
Column depicts empire building. Why is the crossing of rivers, the building of bridges
and roads, and the construction of camps and permanent structures an important
component of the iconographic program of the Column of Trajan?

Finally, remember that the Column of Trajan is, in some respects, as much an
architectural structure as it is a sculptural work. Why was it important for the designers
and builders to include an interior staircase? What would it have been like to ascend the
tower? Why was it as important for Roman citizens to look out from the Column as it
was for them to look up at it? What is afforded by the view from above?

+++++++++++

For the Bayeux ‘Tapestry’, we will be particularly interested in the following:

Two weeks ago, we discussed the “social space” of the Jade Ax – this included a variety
of things – the geographic movement of the raw material quarried for the object, the
various locations where it was crafted into the ax by specialist artisans, the other
geographic locations where similar objects were found, but also the social status of the
owner who was buried with the ax, and its function as a sign of social prestige. What is
the “social space” of the Bayeux Tapestry? This could likewise include a wide array
of aspects of the work and its context. Think about this question as you go over the
assigned material.

Consider the fact that this monumental work was created just a few years after the
conclusion of the Battle of Hastings. This is a period of raw reconciliation and
occupation. The Normans were attempting to establish themselves in their new territory
and live with the Anglo-Saxons who were just defeated. How does the work navigate
this difficult circumstance and confused situation? Most art historians view the work as
one clearly crafted from the perspective of the victorious William, a work that justifies his
invasion and celebrates this feat. But one scholar, Carola Hicks, regards the work as
more ambiguous. She points out most of the first half of the scenes include Harold as
the main actor. They depict him being sent to northern France by King Edward; his
capture, being held prisoner; William liberating him and, in exchange, asking him to
pledge an oath of loyalty to him; his return to England and presence at the death bed of
Edward. Was Harold appointed to become king as the final wish of the dying king? If
so, does his assumption of the throne represent an act of duty to his king? Was he
doubly bound to both William and Edward and thus had to make a difficult choice? If so,
Hicks argues, the work quite skillfully allows those first spectators to make their own
interpretation. (Carola Hicks, The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece,
London, Random House, 2007, chapter 1. )

Hicks also provides rich detail about the work’s facture, format, and intended setting
and audience.
- Its original audience would have been court-based, including the kin of
warriors who had fought on both sides of the battle.
- Despite the work’s immense breadth (230’ long), as a textile work, it could
have been rolled up and thus was mobile, transportable (unlike Trajan’s
column which has been firmly rooted in place for almost 2000 years.) At this
time, court life was mobile, retinues traveling from great hall to great hall.
(The Norman invasion resulted in an immense building campaign as castles
were erected throughout the kingdom.) Portable wall hangings were often
brought with them.
- Medieval great halls were crafted of stone and were often cold, drafty and
gray. To decorate these interior spaces, adding a sense of color and warmth,
immense tapestries or textiles were hung from the walls, creating “an
ambience of comfort and luxury.”
- These wall hangings were status symbols. Their manufacture was quite
complex and required extensive time, labor and resources (see below).
- The makers of these objects drew their inspiration from similar wall hangings
made in the eastern Mediterranean – from Byzantine, Syrian and Islamic
workshops. These prized items were often true ‘tapestries’ woven with silk
and decorated with precious gems.
- Original viewing conditions: Imagine the work’s display in a great hall,
illuminated by only flickering candlelight. Often, great feasts and celebrations
would be unfolding in these spaces when visiting courts were present. It is
believed that part of these festivities might have included an oral narration
(with musical accompaniment) of the scenes depicted in the hanging.
- The Bayeux wall hanging is actually not a “tapestry” (its name a misnomer)
but a stretch of linen embroidered with dyed wool. This may make it seem
 less luxurious than other wall hangings of this era, but in fact, linen was a
charged material, and quite difficult to make. Linen, in early Christianity, was
associated with purity and was the material used for priestly garments. It was
produced from the fine fibers of the flax plant which had to be grown,
harvested, soaked, dried, smashed, separated and spun – a long and difficult
process. And there were yards and yards of it necessary for this work!
- Think about the wide circle of people needed to make the ‘tapestry’: the
peasant agrarian workers who grew and initially treated the flax, preparing it
for weaving; the specialized weavers; the workers who raised the sheep and
collected and spun the fine wool fibers; the dyers who, for generations,
worked up special formulas to create dyes of vibrant colors that would remain
permanent; the designers who mapped out the complex story of the work,
drawing cartoons that the embroiderers would use to map out the narrative
and the hundreds of characters; and the upper-class and noble women who
would have deployed their finely acquired skills of embroidery to work the
scenes into the linen. The Bayeux Tapestry is very much a work of
monumental communal endeavor, involving people from different social
classes and ranks, both men and women.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
One of our chief concerns for this unit is the temporality of these works. Think
about what this means. Consider the following questions as you engage with this
week’s material:
- What is the temporality of the Column of Trajan? Of the Bayeux
‘Tapestry’? (Or of any art work, for that matter.)
- What might we mean by this?
- What aspects of time should be considered?
- What is the relationship between space and time in these narrative
monuments? Between geography and history?

Further Bibliography:

Brilliant, Richard, “The Column of Trajan and its Heirs: Helical Tales, Ambiguous Trails,”
in Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1984): 90-123.

Brown, Shirley A., “The Bayeux Tapestry: History or Propaganda?,” in David Pelteret,
Anthony Edgell, and J. Douglas Woods, eds., The Anglo-Saxons Synthesis and
Achievement (Waterloo, Ont: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985).
(http://www.medievalists.net/files/09012309.pdf )

Coulston, Jon, “Transport and Travel on the Column of Trajan,” in Travel and Geography
in The Roman Empire, eds. Colin Adams and Ray Laurence (London and New York:
Routledge, 2001): 106-37.
Coulston, Jon, “Overcoming the Barbarian: Depictions of Rome’s Enemies in Trajanic
Monumental Art” in L. De Blois, ed. The Representation and Perception of Roman
Imperial Power. (Brill, 2003): 389-424.

Dillon, Sheila, “Women on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and the Visual
Language of Roman Victory,” in Representations of War in Ancient Rome, eds. Shiela
Dillon and Katherine E. Welch (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press,
2006): 244-271.

Foys, Martin K., Karen Eileen Overbey, and Dan Terkla, eds., The Bayeux Tapestry:
New Interpretations (Woodbridge, UK and Rochester NY: Boydell Press, 2009).

Huet, V. “Stories One Might Tell on Roman Art: Reading Trajan’s Column and the
Tiberius Cup,” in Art and Text in Roman Culture, ed. J. Elsner (Cambridge and London:
Cambridge University Press, 1996): 9 – 31.

Kampen, Natalie, “Looking at Gender: The Column of Trajan and Roman Historical
Relief,” in Feminisms and the Academy, eds. D.C. Stanton and A.J. Stewart (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1995): 46-73.

Packer, J.F., The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in Brief (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001).

Stephenson, John W., “The Column of Trajan in light of ancient cartography and
geography,” Journal of Historical Geography 40 (2013): 79-93.

Strong, Donald, Roman Art (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995): 141
– 151.