On the Intersignification of Monuments in Augustan Rome
Matthew B. Roller
Abstract
Matthew B. Roller
Abstract
The erection of public monuments in Rome was an arena of aristocratic competition, as scholars have long recognized. Victorious generals, who set up temples, porticoes, statues, columns, and the like, typically selected these monuments’ appearance and location to create a studied contrast with preexisting monuments. This dynamic, which I call “intersignification,” bears fruitful comparison with the “intertextual” dynamics of Latin poetry. I offer two case studies comparing monumental intersignification in the Augustan era with literary intertextuality, and conclude with general reflections on how the signs in any given system of signification may be made to interact.
OpenAlex reports 107 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The erection of public monuments in Rome was an arena of aristocratic competition, as scholars have long recognized. Victorious generals, who set up temples, porticoes, statues, columns, and the like, typically selected these monuments’ appearance and location to create a studied contrast with preexisting monuments. This dynamic, which I call “intersignification,” bears fruitful comparison with the “intertextual” dynamics of Latin poetry. I offer two case studies comparing monumental intersignification in the Augustan era with literary intertextuality, and conclude with general reflections on how the signs in any given system of signification may be made to interact.
Key concepts: Intertextuality, Poetry, Art, Competition (biology), Contrast (vision), Literature, Classics, History