|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Critically evaluate the relationship between form and function in three aspects of the design and construction of the Colosseum.The shape of the Colosseum is oval, which had many advantages, the most obvious being the view. Regardless of your seat, you could see all of the arena. The only thing that influenced how well you could see, was how far away you were, and this reflected your rank in society. But not only could the audience see the arena, they could also see each other. Your status was there for 50,000 people to see. This is illustrated with the Emperor himself, who had the prime position of all - the best view of the action, and the best place to be seen. The exterior was inspiring and impressive. The arches are all perfectly proportioned according to strict formal rules. Each level is decorated with a different order of decorative column. The lowest uses the plainer, stouter, Tuscan order to imply strength and solidity, while the slimmer, more elegantly decorated Corinthian columns populate the highest tier. These were the standards of architecture at the time, and the Colosseum represented the form at its best. This perfection of structure and form symbolised the might and splendour of Rome, and by implication the Emperor who built it. The arches themselves had many functions. Not only do they look impressive, they provide the structure that held up the massive weight of thousands of spectators. They form foyers and corridors that people could loiter in between shows, and each one is an individually numbered entrance. With eighty evenly spaced entrances, each leading to a different area of seating, large crowds could get to and from their seats quickly, easily and safely. This makes for a happy audience who will enjoy themselves more, and thus be thankful to the Emperor for his gift to them. Why were the games important to the Romans?For the Romans, the games came to be a symbol of cultural dominance over the world, and of law being maintained within society (10),(12). Animals were a very real danger, and their slaughter demonstrated Rome's control over the wilderness. There was no organised police force, so the slaughter of criminals showed the maintenance of law. The people could feel safe in the belief that the world was under control. The gladiatorial events extended the idea of justice. Criminals could redeem themselves by dying a noble death in combat. If they proved themselves especially worthy, the crowd could even pardon them (by signalling thumbs-up). The people could not just witness, but participate in the magnanimous aspects of justice without getting personally involved in the punishment. Some events, explicitly or implicitly, echoed stories from myth (13),(27). These re-enactments may have helped validate their beliefs. By making the stories real, they became more than stories, but actual events ("We've seen it done. The old legend is proved" (4) ). The games almost became a religious ceremony. They also reflected well on the Emperor. By recreating myths he could, by association, elevate himself to mythological level (that of heroes and gods). By bettering the myths (e.g. with Herculean feats performed by women) he bettered the gods (4). This re-affirmation of faith took on a different tone with the slaughter of Christians. They not only denied the ultimate authority of the Emperor, but also the validity of the Roman religion. An Emperor must feel as if his power is unquestioned, while common people need to feel their beliefs are true. When Christians were killed (and God did not intervene), order was seen to be maintained. The Emperor could believe he was more powerful than God, and the people could believe that Christianity was a falsehood. (Compare the crusades, the witch hunts, and countless similar religious atrocities). Of course, there were less symbolic, more practical reasons for the games' importance. A provincial governor would host games to entertain his populace, and to show off his wealth and power. As the quote says, the people wanted "bread and circuses" (1), and the man who provided them would remain popular. (Compare the present government's 'gift' of the Millennium Dome) Note that the games could also be withdrawn as a punishment, as in the case of the Pompeii riots (1),(16). We know that people could 'buy' prime seats, and that donations to the games were made by wealthy individuals (1). Perhaps they were trying to glean favour with the governor, or were simply trying to associate their names with the popular institution (an early form of advertising?). This could be especially true of games that were part of a tribute: - A letter from Pliny to Valerius Maximus (a governor of Verona?) (4) confirms that games as tribute to a recently deceased individual were expected, even demanded by the populace ("you owe [your wife] some public building or show, and this kind of spectacle is particularly suitable for a funeral tribute"). This confirms that the games were more than just bloodthirsty spectacles, or public executions, but were respected events. Note that the Latin word used for the games is 'munera' - the same word used for funeral ceremonies - and it is suggested that this is where the games had their origin. Funeral rituals, and commemorative events are important in all cultures (compare the public reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997 and the expectations of commemoration). By organising such tributes, the governor (and any other contributing individuals) could gain public favour for themselves. Recall that the Colosseum itself was in part a gift to the people of Rome from the Emperor Vespasian (1),(27). Notice how it was built on land taken from them by Nero, as if Vespasian was deliberately trying to distance himself from, and make amends for the earlier regime. Local governors could be trying to emulate the Emperor, by bringing the gift of the games to the provinces. This was a two-way process - provinces on the outer reaches of the empire would send exotic animals back to Rome, for display in the Colosseum. People need to feel part of something, the bigger the better. The games showed the extent and cultural unity of the Empire they belonged to. As an aside, there must have been an enormous number of people throughout the empire (hunters, trainers, cargo ship crews (15), (25)) whose livelihood depended on the games. For them, the importance of the games was direct, and very tangible. However, it is likely that to the average citizen, the games were important simply as a spectator sport. It is clear from contemporary accounts (4),(5),(6),(9), along with widespread graffiti, friezes and murals (18)-(24),(26) that the games were immensely popular. Combatants (both human and animal) were portrayed as individually named figures, with details of their fights and victories. There were carved 'posters' in the streets, advertising gladiators, hailing their performances, form and fighting style (11). Some had large groups of fans (there are various accounts of their sexual appeal, even to the Emperor's wife (27)). It is possible there was a form of 'league table', and it is likely that much gambling money changed hands. So, what was for a citizen important purely as entertainment was for a governor or emperor an important political tool, and provided for society as a whole a symbol for its own authority and validity. Bibliography
|
|
Except where stated, this site and its contents are copyright ©2010 Alec Harkness and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.