A day trip to Orange and the Roman theatre

Roman theatre at Orange, view of the scaenae frons

Originally in planning our trip to Lyon I thought we might base ourselves in Orange for a night or two and travel to Arles and Nimes. Upon reflection this itinerary would have proved to be impossible and require us to rush form place to place. Ultimately we would not have had enough time to enjoy Lyon. Consequently we confined ourselves to a day trip to Orange. Corinne fanatasized about an increase in the temperature, however despite the bright sunshine this never materialised. Our route south during the morning bore witness the gradual build of the increasingly chilly wind which followed our route down the valley of the Rhone. Thoughts of peeling off a few layers of warm clothing disappeared and she put on an extra fleece to retain some warmth in the cold air.

 

 A view of the Roman theatre in Orange by Hippolyte Destailleur (1822 - 1893)

The Romans settled in the area were veterans of the second Gallic Legion. This settlement is reputed to have taken place occurred in or about 35 B.C. close to the site of a Gallic hill fort, home to the Tricastini tribe. The site was named Colonia Julia Secundanorum Arausio. Today one can view the well preserved  monuments built by these Roman settlers; the theatre and triumphal arch. Arausio became an administrative centre for the region of modern day northern Provence, a few kilometers from the river Rhone, and enjoyed a certain amount of stability until it was sacked by the Visigoths in 412 A.D. As such you would expect to find more evidence of Roman life in the local museum but its collection is quite limited and confined to finds associated with the theatre. This having been said the significance of the Roman architecture in the town has been recognised, and the site was listed by UNESCO in 1981.

Roman theatre at Orange, view of the cavea looking north west

Roman theatre at Orange, view of the passage access to the upper media cavea 

The theatre was built during the reign of Augustus [31 B.C. - 14 A.D.] and similar to many Roman theatres in Gaul the theatre in Orange utilises the steep rocky hillside of Saint-Eutrope to support the middle of the cavea. The theatre ranks as a medium size theatre in Roman Gaul measuring 103 meters in diameter. One can only begin to imagine and marvel at the massive scale of the structure that was built at Autun (Augustodunum) which measured approximately 148 meters in diameter.  The theatre was restored and embellished during the Hadrianic period [117 A.D. - 138 A.D.]. Either side of the theatre an arcaded perimeter wall contains stairwells providing access to barrel vaulted tunnels and the summa and media cavea. Similar to many Roman theatres, to the west of the theatre at Orange a large temple complex was constrcted into a hemicycle, again dictated by the hillside of Saint-Eutrope.

The theatre is most notable for the fact that the scaenae frons is still standing. the guide states that it is the only one in Europe still standing and draws comparison to the other scaenae frons structures still visible today at Aspendos in Turkey. Viewed from the street this wall is on a monumental scale standing 37 meters tall. The street side of the wall still has the series of corbels used to support masts from which a vela or cover was suspended over the theatre. Today all that remains on the surface treatment of the wall are some imitation arches in low relief. The wall facing the cavea would have been richly decorated with architectural ornament including columns, statuary and possibly mosaic on a number of levels.

 

Roman theatre at Orange, view of the cavea and scaenae frons from the hill of Saint-Eutrope

The scaenae frons was vitally important to the function and acoustics of the theatre. Vitruvius, who would have been alive for a portion of the reign of Augustus, set out in his ten book treatise, De Architectura, the importance and attributes of the scaena frons and its role in acoustics. The fifth Book deals with the Theatre and its construction and he makes the following comments:
"The roof of the colonnade to be built at the top of the rows of seats, should lie level with the top of the scaena, for the reason that the voice will then rise with equal power until it reaches the highest rows of seats and the roof. If the roof is not so high, in proportion as it is lower, it will check the voice at the point which the sound first reaches."
More recently studies have sought to examine and understand the acoustic effects of the Roman theatre and come to the conclusion that they worked very effectively; for reasons that would embarrass modern concert hall designers who would appear to depend on sound systems to control acoustics.

Roman theatre at Orange, view from Rue de la Republique of the scaenae frons wall

The structure was most likely abandoned as a theatre by the end of the 4th Century and was occupied for other purposes until the 19th Century. The precincts of the theatre were known to have been used as a prison, a fort, and occupied by the town's townspeople until the restoration commenced. By 1869 a series of annual shows were initiated; held during the Summer they were called "Fetes Romaines".

Contemporary drawings depict the theatre in a variety of conditions but an engraving from Gazette des Beaux-Arts published in 1861 depicts the cavea without seating and the arcing contours of the hillside which opens in places revealing the substructure of the cavea and the vaulted passages. The restoration of the theatre was begun in 1825 under the instructions of Prosper Merimee, Directer of Historic Monuments. The initial challenge, like similar ancient structures in the south of France, was to demolish the dwellings incorporated into and adjacent to the theatre. These works continued for many years and were overseen directly by Simon-Claude Constant-Defeux from 1856 to 1858. Later excavations were undertaken by the architect and archaeologist, Jules Formige, who also worked on the theatre at Arles and amphitheatres at Frejus and Lutece, in Paris. In the early 20th Century and is credited with discovering numerous articles now associated with the scaenae frons structure.

Theatre at Orange from Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Volume 11, 1861

Upon arrival at the site, I climbed up to the top of Saint-Eutrope to get a better vantage point when the sun was going to be at its highest point during the day. The sun's low flight across the early February sky meant that the hill of Saint-Eutrope placed most of the cavea in a cool shade. In contrast the immense scaena frons was exposed to bright sunshine and the white marble statue, said to be that of Augustus, was radiant in its niche. Afterwards we explored the theatre itself which it is estimated could seat up to 7,300 spectators. Wandering around the structure today you can experience the scale and atmosphere of one of the best preserved a Roman theatres. Viewing the theatre from Saint-Eutrope is a vertigo inducing experience but is in my opinion the only way to get a good look at the entirety of the theatre and put in a context of the surrounding countryside.

 The triumphal arch at Orange, view from the south

About half a kilometer to the north of the theatre can be found the Roman triumphal arch. The construction date of the triumphal arch at Orange is not easy to pin down because of the inscription evidence. If one is to interpret the inscription evidence associated with the arch it is easy to form the view that the construction was a prolonged process probably beginning under the reign of Augustus [31 B.C. - 14 A.D.] to honour the veterans of the Gallic Wars settled in the area, and later either embellished or remodeled under the reign of Tiberius [14 A.D. - 37A.D.] to commemorate the victories of Germanicus [16 B.C.? - 19 A.D.] in the Rhineland and of course Tiberius himself. This arch is important for a number of reasons; the arch is a provincial precursor to the more famous monumental triumphal arches of Septimius Severus [193 A.D. - 211 A.D.] and Constantine [306 A.D. - 337 A.D.] in Rome, having the principal arch in the centre and a minor arch to either side, and a sequence of four Corinthinan columns ranging across the facade. The decoration and inscriptions are well recorded, thanks to the restoration work, but despite the two thousand years which have passed since its construction much of the architectural ornament and sculptural reliefs, which are cut in limestone, are in reasonably good condition.

Impression of the Arch at Orange prior to restoration in 1825 from Gazette des Beaux-Arts,

Volume 11, 1861

 The triumphal arch at Orange, view from the north

The arch itself measures 19.57 meters long, 8.4 meters wide and 19.21 meters tall. The sculptural decoration that would have been placed on the attic story no longer exists but would have raised the overall height considerably. The arch was restored during the 1820s by the architect Augustin Caristie and another person called Renaux, who are also associated with the works being carried out the theatre at this time. The arch had been incorporated into the medeval walls of Orange and the first task was to liberate and isolate the structure.

 The triumphal arch at Orange, detail of relief above the right hand arch on the south side

Caristie is accredited with a very judicious and sympathetic restoration. The careful manner in which he undertook this task has made it possible for us to enjoy this important Roman piece of urban imperial and historical architecture. 

Many of the reliefs on the north and south sides depict typical trophy displays of shields, above them are motifs related to marine warfare such as tridents and anchors. The naval references in the arch may be a direct reference to the victory of Augustus at Actium in 31 B.C. The majority of these reliefs are in low relief, however the trophy scenes on the short sides were sculpted in high relief. These six panels, two destroyed on the west side, depicted the battledress, helmets, standards and trumpets and captives.

 The triumphal arch at Orange, view from the north and reconstructed west side

The battle relief on the attic story of the north side remains in good condition. Originally there may have been other bronze objects applied to the relief to add detail and embellishment but these have disappeared. The scene depicts a chaotic combat scene with the naked Gaulish tribesmen being killed and overpowered by the Roman Legionaries. The Roman Second Legion has been identified on a panel by the use of the Capricorn motif on the shield of an officer. The settlers and their descendants must have had certain amount of pride in the arch and what it commemorated; the victory over the Gaulish tribes was not to be forgotten and the arch guaranteed this.

 The triumphal arch at Orange, detail of a battle relief from the attic story

Returning to Lyon, I set my heart on exploring Vienne for a day and Corinne's thoughts leaned in the direction of shopping and staying in Lyon. I was amazed by the theatre and triumphal arch at Orange, but I admit I was overwhelmed by the the Roman building program at Vienne, and hope to relate my experience of some of them in the next entry.

50 minutes in Rome; the Flavian amphitheatre and Arch of Constantine

An unfamiliar view from the south of the inner wall and structure of the Flavian amphitheatre

On the 29th October I began a quick trek around Europe. The main purpose of the trip was to deliver a boat from Sardinia to Palma da Mallorca. The first leg of the journey was from Dublin to Rome. I had originally calculated a possible 2 hours 30 minutes in Rome but my flight to Rome was delayed on the ground. When I finally arrived I was left in a bit of a dilemma; there was just over two hours to my next flight and any contemplated trip to Rome would be all too brief. What could possibly achieved by travelling into Rome for such a short period of time? On the other hand, there are few experiences as nauseating as languishing in an airport terminal for a couple of hours.

After inspecting the train times I decided to buy a return ticket for the train. In Italy trains arrive and depart on time, and the success of this little leap of faith was dependant upon this prior experience of Italian rail travel. Fortunately, there were to be no surprises and I arrived in time and made my way to the Flavian amphitheatre, cherishing any sights of the eternal city as I went. Even as the train arrived into Stazion Termini I was captivated by the walls of the ancient city, a large triumphal gate and basilica.

First view of the Flavian amphitheatre or Colosseum

Following a forced march of about 14 minutes (there was not a moment to be lost), I glanced to my left and caught my first sight of the attic storey of the amphitheatre towering above the Roman skyline. As you get closer the immensity of the structure becomes more apparent. It is the largest amphitheatre in the Roman world measuring 189 meters by 156 meters. Only the amphitheatres at Pozzuoli, which was also built under the reigns of Vespasian (9A.D. - 79A.D.) and Titus (39A.D. - 81A.D.), and Capua come close. For a building that is nearly 2000 years old you cannot but be impressed by the scale of the structure and a moment later its purpose.

View of damage to the south side caused by an earthquake in 1349

The construction of the amphitheatre was commenced under the Emperor Vespasian circa 72 A.D., completed by Titus and dedicated in 79 A.D. Cassius Dio in his Roman Histories, Epitome, Book LXVI, XXV describes the spectacles, and entertainments, recording the events in some detail:

"in dedicating the hunting-theatre and the baths that bear his name he produced many remarkable spectacles. There was a battle between cranes and also between four elephants; animals both tame and wild were slain to the number of nine thousand; and women (not those of any prominence, however) took part in dispatching them. As for the men, several fought in single combat and several groups contended together both in infantry and naval battles. For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water and brought in horses and bulls and some other domesticated animals that had been taught to behave in the liquid element just as on land.

He also brought in people on ships, who engaged in a sea-fight there, impersonating the Corcyreans and Corinthians; and others gave a similar exhibition outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, a place which Augustus had once excavated for this very purpose. There, too, on the first day there was a gladiatorial exhibition and wild-beast hunt, the lake in front of the images having first been covered over with a platform of planks and wooden stands erected around it.

On the second day there was a horse-race, and on the third day a naval battle between three thousand men, followed by an infantry battle. The "Athenians" conquered the "Syracusans" (these were the names the combatants used), made a landing on the islet and assaulted and captured a wall that had been constructed around the monument. These were the spectacles that were offered, and they continued for a hundred days; but Titus also furnished some things that were of practical use to the people. He would throw down into the theatre from aloft little wooden balls variously inscribed, one designating some article of food, another clothing, another a silver vessel or perhaps a gold one, or again horses, pack-animals, cattle or slaves. Those who seized them were to carry them to the dispensers of the bounty, from whom they would receive the article named."

The design of the amphitheatre was in itself innovative. The amphitheater had no Hellenic precedent and many similar Roman structures prior to the building of the Flavian amphitheater were temporary wooden structures; the historians Suetonius and Tacitus both record that the Emperor Nero built a large wooden amphitheater at the Campus Martius in 56 A.D. However, It is not possible to state with any certainty whether these were eliptical in format or not. The facade of the amphitheater is loosely based upon the Theatre of Marcellus in Rome, which was inaugurated by Augustus in 12 B.C., and in particular the manner in which the classical orders were used to decorate the arcaded facade of the structure.

The outer wall comprised three stories of superimposed arcades surmounted by a podium and attic story, both of which are pierced by windows interspersed at regular intervals. There is a hierarchical progression in the representation of the orders on the facade which frame the arcades. The lower storey is decorated with the Doric order, second story with the Ionic, the third story with the highly decorative Corinthian order, and finally the attic and podium with Corinthian pilasters.

Detail of the third storey and attic level

The amphitheatre remained in use for over 400 years being upgraded and decorated by successive emperors. In that time it survived fires, numerous earthquakes, and in 217 A.D. it was closed for a 5 year period after being struck by lightning. With the demise and contraction of the city of Rome the amphitheatre like many others was converted to urban use, and the stone and marble was stripped for other structures in the city. A church was built into the structure and the amphitheatre became inhabited finally being converted into a castle by the Frangipani family. A clearing and restoration of the amphitheatre began in the early 18th century.

Detail of the lower levels

The arch of Constantine is situated a stones throw from the Flavian amphitheatre. Viewing the arch gives you an insight into a number of eras of Roman artistic styles and sculptural traditions. The simple reason for this is that much of the ornament and sculpture on the arch was taken from earlier periods and monuments. Not only was there a practice of reusing earlier sculpture and ornament, also known as spolia, during the period but there is also evidence to suggest that sites themselves were reused and regenerated. Where the arch of Constantine now stands archaeologists have found the remains of earlier foundations, and theories suggest that structures dating to the periods of Domitian and Hadrian may have occupied the site prior to 315 A.D.

View of the Arch of Constantine from the north

The arch was commissioned by the Roman Senate following Constantine's (272A.D.- 337A.D.) victory over Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312 A.D. The monument was completed on or about 315 A.D. and is very much a conglomerate of reliefs from other monuments in tandem with some contemporary friezes and reliefs. It is difficult to surmise if this is a result of a rush job in an effort to get the job completed, or if difficult economic times were taking hold, because there are certain abnormalities in the decoration and carving of the entablature which would leave one to believe that the construction was not executed with the care one would expect.

Whether the construction was quick or the quality of carving and building suffered from an economic slump, it worth noting that the choice of the reliefs has been done with some care and aplomb; the clear object being to create a strong and recognisable political message. The inference was that Constantine as Emperor was to be seen in a similar light and compared to his successful and popular predecessors such as Trajan (53A.D.- 117A.D.), Hadrian (76A.D.- 138A.D.) and Marcus Aurelius (121A.D.- 180A.D.).

The Roman Senate was paying tribute to Constantine, but he himself was probably eagerly seeking support and to strenghten his image and popularity in that part of the Roman world. Another point in support of this theory is the obvious reference point to the arch of Septimius Severus erected in 203 A.D. which is very similar in format and design and stands not too far away in the Roman Forum.

A number of theories exist debating the origins, development and history of the structure. The arch itself has a great number of sculptures and carved panel reliefs. As you look at the various reliefs and scenes depicted you can experience a brief tour and insight into sculpture and artistic traditions from the reigns' of Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Constantine.

Relief on the attic storey of the west side from the reign of Trajan

Relief on the attic storey of the east side from the reign of Trajan

The figures of 8 Dacian soldiers standing on top of the columns on the attic story and flanking the inscription date to the reign of Trajan. Four reliefs, two of which are illustrated above, are also thought to have come from the period of Trajan and research suggests that they were taken from Trajan's forum, which was still standing and being used at the time the arch was constructed. They refer to idealised episodes of the Dacian wars and the virtues of the Emperor.

Reliefs above the eastern arch of the north side

Eight roundels or tondi decorate the facade and date to the time of the reign of Hadrian, or just after it. The tondi feature hunting and sacrificial scenes and were originally set against a porphyry background as in the example above. Antoninus, Hadrian's lover, has been identified in a hunting scene on the north face and scholars have also suggested that some of the characters features have been changed to represent Constantine's family members and Constantine himself.

Reliefs above western arch of the north side

There are rectangular panels above the tondi in the attic story, eight in total placed in pairs on either side of the inscription. Scholars are in agreement to the extent that they date from the period of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Furthermore, some writers have suggested that the panels were taken from a triumphal arch of Marcus Aurelius which was dedicated in 176 A.D. celebrating his victories over the Sarmatian and Germanic tribes. Other theories, based upon a stylistic analysis, suggest the panels have come from more than one source, but as they are all the same size the argument for more than one source may be somewhat weak.

In any event these panels were re carved and modified during the reign of Constantine to be used on the arch. The scenes represent a now similar theme of departure and preparation for campaign, addressing the armies, the campaign itself, and its aftermath including the subjugation of the enemy.

Hadrianic Roundels with Constantinian relief below depicting the siege of Verona on the south side

The depictions in the reliefs of the early 4th century represent a definite shift from the veristic approach employed by the carvers and designers from the reign of Trajan. The Constantinian craftsmen adopted a naive or impressionistic representation of the human form, while still referencing some conventions of landscape and cityscape utilised by their predecessors. The Constantinian friezes represent a narrative of important episodes and victories including the preparations for, and battle of the Milvian bridge, culminating in Constantines triumphant entrance into Rome, and addressing the people. In one very evocative scene Constantine is portrayed enthroned as dominus flanked by the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian establishing Constantine's unchallengable sovereignty and lineage.

Further Constantinian reliefs can be found in the spandrels above the arch depicting winged victories and the river gods, and low reliefs representing soldiers and prisoners can be seen in the podium base to the arch or socles.

Hadrianic Roundels with Constantinian relief below depicting the battle of the Milvian bridge on the south side

Inscription from the south facade flanked by Trajan's Dacian prisoners and the panels of Marcus Aurelius

An inscription appears in the center of the attic story and is translated as follows:

To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the Greatest, pious, fortunate, the Senate and people of Rome, by inspiration of divinity and his own great mind with his righteous arms
on both the tyrant and his faction in one instant in rightful battle he avenged the republic,
dedicated this arch as a memorial to his military victory.

The inscription is interesting from a number of view points. It unreservedly reflects the support of the Senate and People of Rome for the Emperor Constantine. It also goes on to announce Constantine was inspired by a divinity in defeating the tyrant Maxentius. It does not identify which god was the source of this inspiration, but it is widely thought that the reference was supportive of the Christian faith and an ongoing toleration of that faith. Did Constantine have any input or collaborate in the formualtion of the inscription? Famously, Constantine was careful not to convert to Christianity until his death bed and this may have been politically expedient at the time rather than an attempt to be absolved from all his sins near to death.

The arch in some repects represents an odd series of unusual Roman contradictions and perhaps mystery (which may be solved by a little further reading adn understanding). The arch does not commemorate a triumph publicly proclaimed in the normal way by the Emperor Contantine following his defeat of Maxentius, who had previously proclaimed himself as Emperor in 306 A.D. The Senate possibly felt somewhat uneasy and exposed after Maxentius departed Rome, and its supporting factions, to meet Constantine on the battlefield.

Another contradiction is the fact that the scenes depicted represent previous Emperors' and the Roman army's triumphs over foreign armies, thus extending and securing the Roman frontiers. This is seperate and distinct to a Roman army marching on Rome and against Romans, which had rarely happened before except in the political turmoil surrounding pivotal episodes in the careers of Sulla and Julius Caesar, and the history of late republic.

Perhaps the arch was built to patch up a number of issues and problems for all concerned. The dedication of the arch served the Senate to be reverent and proclaim their support for their Emperor. The message it bore did little to harm Constantine's grip on the Roman empire. Furthermore, the reference to divine inspiration would have been readily recognisable as a toleration of the christian faith, but also possibly was understood to be a continuation and preservation of connection between the emperor and divinity, without going so far as to proclaim himself as being divine or "DIVI".

I had very little time at the site, approximately 16 minutes, before I had to turn on my heels and run back to the station. I managed to get to the train station, out of breath, and more importantly caught the train back to the airport. Full of relief, hot and exhausted, I was very happy to have foregone the airport departure lounge and breaking away to experience the sights which I had first marvelled at through the paintings of Panini and breath taking prints of Piranesi.