I want to turn from the Basilica Nova to the arch of Constantine which is the last ancient monument that I'm going to show you this semester. The arch of Constantine was constructed by Constantine to celebrate his victory over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian bridge. We think it was begun in 312 A.D. and completed in three 315 A.D. It is also possible, some scholars have suggested that it's conceivable, that Maxentius may have begun this too in the same way that he began the Basilica Nova. And that Constantine took it over when he was victorious over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian bridge. We don't know which is the case whether he, it was begun by Maxentius and finished by Constantine or whether Constantine began it himself. I'm more likely to favor the latter, that Constantine began it himself, but we do not know and it's something that you should be aware of, that particular controversy. But it certainly dates to this time period to, roughly between 312 and 315 A.D. One of the reasons that we believe, I mean one of the reasons that the incontrovertible reason that we know that the building was completed by Constantine, as the inscription tells us it's a Constantinian building but also there are friezes here that depict the battle of the Milvian Bridge and other battles from that war and show us of course Constantine victorious in those scenes. It is a triple-bayed arch very similar in that regard to the arch of Septimius Severus and the Roman Forum and I don't think there's any question that the general format of it is based on the arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. It too like the arch of SeptimiusSeverus is covered with sculpture, a veritable billboard advertising the achievements of Constantine in this important battle and overall. But we see that of course instead of the panels, the excerpts as I describe them from the columns of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius that we see on the arch of Septimius Severus, we see very different kinds of sculptural decoration here. It does cover the entire arch and it's interesting primarily because some of it is Constantinian. The parts that are Constantinian that were carved during the fourth century are the Spandrels with the Victories, the Spandrels with the river gods, very much like the Arch of Trajan at Benevento, the great, the frieze that encircles, all sides of the monument you can see that frieze here.The pedestals of the columns were also carved in the Constantinian period.And there are two roundels, two round frames on either short side of the Constantinian monument that were also done during the Constantinian period. But what's particularly interesting is the fact that all the rest of the sculpture was cobbled together from earlier monuments, and it won't surprise you to hear that they were the monuments of the Emperor Trajan, the Emperor Hadrian and the Emperor of Marcus Aurelius. All the men whom Constantine considered the great emperors of the second century A.D. The emperors of the second century A.D. with whom he most wanted to connect himself. He inserts sculpture from their monuments into this monument. We don't know whether these were monuments that had fallen into disrepair and were lying in shambles, you know around the city or whether he actually deliberately took apart earlier monuments to extract from them the fragments that he wanted. Also very interesting is the fact that in all of these scenes, the scenes that are used from earlier monuments he replaces the heads of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius with his own portrait. So he in a sense becomes them in this arch. Let me show you quickly a diagram which will give you perhaps a better sense of all of this. The Trajanic, the material from the Trajanic period includes statues of Dacians that come from the Forum of Trajan in Rome, as well as from two panels, four panels in fact two that are located on the central bay on either side and two that are located on the sides on the attic in both cases. Hadrian the roundels, eight of them on the two long sides of the arch belong to some lost hunting monument of Hadrian. The panels, the vertical panels that you see in the attic come from an arch, a lost arch of Marcus Aurelius. And as I've already described the bases, the spandrels and the frieze all belong to the Constantinian period. I want to show you those very very quickly, a panel on the left hand side from the Forum of Trajan- representing Trajan returning to Rome after his victory over the Dacians. We think this was a pedestal or a base podium for the temple of divine Trajan that was at the end of the forum and built by Hadrian. We see a couple of the Dacians over here that come from the arch of the forum of Trajan. The second story in the main part of the forum, and then here these vertical panels that we believe come from a lost arch of Marcus Aurelius. Here we see that one part of the Constantinian frieze with Constantine seated now headless in the center. Here we see the roundels from the lost hunting monument we believe of Hadrian. You can see a dead lion for example lying here. Hadrian has returned from the hunt, but the head of Hadrian recarved as a head of Constantine. Another scene over here, the sacrifice to Hercules, who is floating in the upper most part above. But again the main thing for us is just that this comes from a Hadrionic monument is re-used here. So that Constantine can associate himself with these great emperors of the fourth century. Another detail showing you the Dacians from the forum of Trajan as well as these panels from this lost arch of Marcus Aurelius, probably originally dating to the 170s to 180 A.D. The, what you see here are the Spandrels with victories and a victory in the base. Victory triumph and over barbarian who kneels at her feet. And if you look at these scenes, if you look at these very carefully and you compare them to the little bit of Roman sculpture that we've looked at in the course of the semester, think of the Ara Pacis for example. When you think back to that and you look at these figures, one could- one could agree with the contention that this is not as good as it once was. If you look at this figure of the doughy season boy, who's representing a season down here or this figure of the victory who was not depicted with the same finesse, that we see the victory riding on the shield on the column of Trajan. I think a case can be made that this is not as well rendered as it was once upon a time. You can see that in the river god and you can definitely see it in this scene here. This is a scene from the Constantinian frieze depicting the, depicting the siege of the City of Verona, very similar to that siege scene we saw in the Column of Trajan with the battering ram. And I think you can see as you look at these figures they are much more awkward in their motions. Look at these three over here with the shields and the spears. They are exactly the same as if they were stamped out of a cookie cutter. You don't see the artist taking the time to create distinction between them as you would see on the south frieze for example of the Ara Pacis. Again there may be a, there's a different, they have their different thoughts behind this of what they're trying to achieve. And it may be that this different style works better for what they've been trying to achieve. We've talked about this move toward, toward abstraction and toward geometry and so on. But so it's not that I'm talking about this in a denigrating way. I'm saying that it could be chosen for a different reason to, it helps them present their case in a better way. But I don't, I think it's undeniable that it isn't as fine in quality as what we saw before, and we see here the Scene of Constantine on the roster in the Roman Forum, addressing the people, he's got the five column monument behind him. But look at these statues on either side. Seated statues we can identify them by their portraits of Hadrian and of Marcus Aurelius, which I think demonstrates without any question, head of Constantine is gone but he would have been represented with his neo Trajanic hairstyle in the center flanked by Marcus Aurelius and by Hadrian, I think that suggests without question, again that he is deliberately, that he is taking these bits and pieces of sculpture from other monuments in order to underscore his relationship to these great leaders of the pagan past. And I want to quote from Bernard Berenson the great art historian in a book that he wrote called, The arch of Constantine or the decline of form in 1954. And I quote him as we look at another detail from the Constantinian frieze, "These stunted bodies are swathed in heavy blankets or covered with scanty shifts, both with the folds of the drapery as unfunctional as helplessly chiseled as ever European art sank to in it's darkest ages." So that is a very damning point of view, viz a viz this sculpture. But again I think a case can be made. But I'd like to say here today that I don't think the same. I want to underscore, that I don't think the same case can be made for architecture. When you look at the buildings that we looked at today, the Basilica at the Palace of Constantius Chlorus finished by Constantine. I think you will agree with me that this is a great building and a great building, again rooted in the past, looking to the future. When you look at something like the Tor de' Schiavi which we looked at last time, a tomb that is based on the Pantheon in Rome but has the innovation of the porthole windows that we talked about. Architects still innovating, still looking to the past but still get into innovating. The great baths of Diocletian on the left and of Constantine that we looked at today. Huge baths in the Imperial tradition not very different from the Baths of Trajan or the Baths of Caracalla. Still, it's great. They could still build at the scale and they continue to innovate, exploring new forums for the Caldarium in each of these cases. The Minerva Medica that we talked about today, yes in the tradition of round buildings and traditions of the explorations of Hadrian at his villa or Rabirius on the Palatine Hill. But of a grand scale and with new innovations, the placement of those windows, those round tinted windows at the base of the dome rather than the Oculus. The use of the decagonal plan. Innovative, new, things that haven't happened before so they are looking to the past. They are building as well as they usually build and they are continuing to add new things. When we look at in fact I'm reminded as I think about this of the two roundels that were put up, that were added to the arch that were put up in the, that were made in the Constantinian period for the Arch of Constantine and I showed them to you here, Luna in her chariot, the moon descending, a Cupid by her side and the personification of the ocean, Oceania is down below, Luna descending and on the other side, Apollo the Sun God, ascending from the ocean his chariot is going up toward the sky. The Pluto, the cupid leads the way with a torch. Just as every, just as the moon descends and the sun rises, civilizations and eras end and other civilizations come to take their place. And what happened at the very end of ancient Rome is that Constantine founds a new capital. He founds the city of Constantinople as the capital of the Roman Empire. He does that in 324 A.D. And he dedicates it as the, he dedicates this new city of Constantinople to the God of the Christians on the 11th of May in 330 A.D. 330 A.D. So Constantinople becomes the new capital replaces Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. This may not have sounded so amazing at the start because we've already seen the Tetrarchs creating all kinds of new capitals, the creation of a new capital wasn't that bizarre at this particular point in time. But he went on to decorate it with all kinds of buildings that look very much like those in Rome and in retrospect we know that that move of the Capitol from Rome to Constantinople signaled the death of Rome at that particular point in time and not to be resuscitated again until essentially the Renaissance. If we look at some of the buildings that survived though from Constantinople, we will see that they are based so very closely on those of Rome. The Hippodrome the sculpture at the base of the Obelisk, the aqueducts of Constantinople. And of course especially the famous mosque of Hagia Sophia which you see on the left which would have been inconceivable without the architectural innovations of the Pantheon. So although we see that the capital shifts from Rome to Constantinople, that Rome's history at this point lies in the future when it's going to be revived in the Renaissance. It's going to be looked at again in the Baroque period and into the time of Mussolini and even today when Roman architecture remains so influential. But although, again the argument can be made that sculpture and painting decline. I think that architecture did not and the lessons that the Roman architects provided have lasted the test of time. That they were passed on. These these architectural wonders were passed on to the Middle Ages in the West to Byzantium in the eastern part of the empire. That they continued to be operated in the Renaissance, in the Baroque period, in the time of Mussolini in the time of Richard Meier indeed today, and I believe that they will continue to be significant for anyone designing buildings they will provide an inspiration for at least the 2672 years. Thank you very very much this semester for joining me on what has been a special adventure this semester. And I I again want to thank you for that. And that's it.