We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Romulus is the outer and larger moon of the main-belt asteroid 87 Sylvia. It follows an almost-circular and close-to-equatorial orbit around the asteroid. In this respect it is similar to the other Sylvian moon Remus.
Romulus was discovered in February 2001 from the Keck II telescope by Michael E. Brown and Jean-Luc Margot. Its full designation is (87) Sylvia I Romulus before receiving its name, it was known as S/2001 (87) 1. The moon is named after Romulus, the mythological founder of Rome, one of the twins of Rhea Silvia raised by a wolf.
87 Sylvia has a low density, which indicates that it is probably a rubble pile formed when debris from a collision between its parent body and another asteroid re-accreted gravitationally. Therefore, it is likely that both Romulus and Remus, the second of Sylvia's moons, are smaller rubble piles which accreted in orbit around the main body from debris of the same collision. In this case their albedo and density are expected to be similar to Sylvia's. 
Romulus's orbit is expected to be quite stable − it lies far inside Sylvia's Hill sphere (about 1/50 of Sylvia's Hill radius), but also far outside the synchronous orbit. 
From Romulus's surface, Sylvia takes up an angular region 16°×10° across, while Remus's apparent size varies between 0.62° and 0.19° (for comparison, Earth's Moon has an apparent size of about 0.5°).
Romulus (Artist's Impression) - History
Featured in Macworld - one of the
best history sites on the web
Did You Know?
Romulus and Remus
suckled by the she-wolf
Romulus was King of Rome 753-715 B.C.
Most of what we know of the early history of Rome comes from Plutarch's Lives and Livy's History of Rome. They wrote much later and their stories are mixed with legend. How much is uncertain. It is clear that there were Kings in Rome and that they were not hereditary. They were chosen by the Comitia Curiata, a group of leaders in the community. This institution later developed into the Senate. The traditional dates for the Roman kings are almost certainly incorrect, and so dates will be omitted.
Sometimes there are conflicting legends, though later Romans have attempted to reconcile them. One legend has it that before the founding of Rome there was a thriving city at Alba Longa, ruled by Kings. It was founded by the son of Aeneas, a survivor of the Trojan War, and the son of Venus and a highborn Trojan. It is in this city that the legendary founder of Rome, Romulus, and his brother Remus were born.
Their grandfather Amulius was then king of Alban Longa. He was overthrown by his brother Numitor, who made Amulius's only child, a daughter, a Vestal Virgin to prevent her from having children (the Vestal Virgins were sworn to celibacy). Livy tells the story of the remarkable birth of Romulus and Remus:
The Vestal was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins. She named Mars as their father, either because she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king's cruelty the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river. By a heaven-sent chance it happened that the Tiber was then overflowing its banks, and stretches of standing water prevented any approach to the main channel. Those who were carrying the children expected that this stagnant water would be sufficient to drown them, so under the impression that they were carrying out the king's orders they exposed the boys at the nearest point of the overflow, where the Ficus Ruminalis (said to have been formerly called Romularis) now stands. The locality was then a wild solitude. The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king's flock-master found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story, his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. History of Rome, Book 1
When grown Romulus founded the city of Rome.
Nicholas Poussin's Rape of the Sabine Women 1637 (Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Livy tells another story about Romulus in the story of "The Rape of the Sabine Women." It seems that Romulus needed wives for the men who had joined his city.
The Roman state had become strong enough to hold its own in war with all the peoples along its borders, but a shortage of women meant that its greatness was fated to last for a single generation, since there was no prospect of offspring at home nor any prospect of marriage with their neighbors. Then, in accordance with the decision of the senate, Romulus sent messengers to the neighboring peoples to ask for alliance and the right of marriage for the new people. . . But nowhere were the emissaries given a fair hearing. Some scorned, others feared the great power growing in their midst, both for themselves and for their descendants. . . Romulus, to gain time till he found the right occasion, hid his concern and prepared to celebrate the Consualia, the solemn games in honor of equestrian Neptune. He then ordered that the spectacle be announced to the neighboring peoples. He gave the event great publicity by the most lavish means possible in those days. Many people came, some simply out of curiosity to see the new city, and especially the nearest neighbor, from Caenina, Crustuminum and Antemnae the entire Sabine population came, wives and children included. Received with hospitality in the houses, after having seen the position of the city, its walls, and the large number of buildings, they marveled that Rome had grown so fast. When it was time for the show, and everybody was concentrating on this, a prearranged signal was given and all the Roman youths began to grab the women. Many just snatched the nearest woman to hand, but the most beautiful had already been reserved for the senators and these were escorted to the senators' houses by plebeians who had been given this assignment.
The Romans drove off the men, and took the women for their wives. The Sabine men did not give in so easily however. There was war between the Romans and the Sabines led by their king Titus Tatius. It was the women who finally brought peace to Rome. They persuaded their fathers not to fight their new husbands and the Romans accepted Titus Tatius as joint ruler with Romulus.
Romulus disappeard one day in a thunder storm. He appeared in a vision to Julius Proculus who told him that he had ascended to the gods and was to be worshipped as Quirinus.
According to Roman historian Livy, the abduction of Sabine women occurred in the early history of Rome shortly after its founding in the mid-8th century BC and was perpetrated by Romulus and his predominantly male followers it is said that after the foundation of the city, the population consisted solely of Latins and other Italic people, in particular male bandits.  With Rome growing at such a steady rate in comparison to its neighbors, Romulus became concerned with maintaining the city's strength. His main concern was that with few women inhabitants there would be no chance of sustaining the city's population, without which Rome might not last longer than a generation. On the advice of the Senate, the Romans then set out into the surrounding regions in search of wives to establish families with. The Romans negotiated unsuccessfully with all the peoples that they appealed to, including the Sabines, who populated the neighboring areas. The Sabines feared the emergence of a rival society and refused to allow their women to marry the Romans. Consequently, the Romans devised a plan to abduct the Sabine women during the festival of Neptune Equester. They planned and announced a festival of games to attract people from all the nearby towns. According to Livy, many people from Rome's neighboring towns—including Caeninenses, Crustumini, and Antemnates—attended the festival along with the Sabines, eager to see the newly established city for themselves. At the festival, Romulus gave a signal by "rising and folding his cloak and then throwing it round him again," at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men.  In total, thirty Sabine women were abducted by the Romans at the festival. All of the women abducted at the festival were said to have been virgins except for one married woman, Hersilia, who became Romulus' wife and would later be the one to intervene and stop the ensuing war between the Romans and the Sabines.  The indignant abductees were soon implored by Romulus to accept the Roman men as their new husbands. 
Outraged at what had happened, the king of the Caeninenses entered upon Roman territory with his army. Romulus and the Romans met the Caeninenses in battle, killed their king, and routed their army. Romulus later attacked Caenina and took it upon the first assault. Returning to Rome, he dedicated a temple to Jupiter Feretrius (according to Livy, the first temple dedicated in Rome) and offered the spoils of the enemy king as spolia opima. According to the Fasti Triumphales, Romulus celebrated a triumph over the Caeninenses on 1 March 752 BC. 
At the same time, the army of the Antemnates invaded Roman territory. The Romans retaliated, and the Antemnates were defeated in battle and their town captured. According to the Fasti Triumphales, Romulus celebrated a second triumph in 752 BC over the Antemnates.
The Crustumini also started a war, but they too were defeated and their town was captured.
Roman colonists were subsequently sent to Antemnae and Crustumerium by Romulus, and many citizens of those towns also migrated to Rome (particularly the families of the captured women).
The Sabines themselves finally declared war, led into battle by their king, Titus Tatius. Tatius almost succeeded in capturing Rome, thanks to the treason of Tarpeia, daughter of Spurius Tarpeius, Roman governor of the citadel on the Capitoline Hill. She opened the city gates for the Sabines in return for "what they bore on their arms", thinking she would receive their golden bracelets. Instead, the Sabines crushed her to death with their shields, and her body was buried on or thrown from a rock known ever since by her name, the Tarpeian Rock.
The Romans attacked the Sabines, who now held the citadel. The Roman advance was led by Hostus Hostilius, the Sabine defence by Mettus Curtius. Hostus fell in battle, and the Roman line gave way. The Romans retreated to the gate of the Palatium. Romulus rallied his men, promising to build a temple to Jupiter Stator on the site. He then led them back into battle. Mettus Curtius was unhorsed and fled on foot, and the Romans appeared to be winning.
At this point in the story, however, the Sabine women intervened:
[They], from the outrage on whom the war originated, with hair dishevelled and garments rent, the timidity of their sex being overcome by such dreadful scenes, had the courage to throw themselves amid the flying weapons, and making a rush across, to part the incensed armies, and assuage their fury imploring their fathers on the one side, their husbands on the other, "that as fathers-in-law and sons-in-law they would not contaminate each other with impious blood, nor stain their offspring with parricide, the one their grandchildren, the other their children. If you are dissatisfied with the affinity between you, if with our marriages, turn your resentment against us we are the cause of war, we of wounds and of bloodshed to our husbands and parents. It were better that we perish than live widowed or fatherless without one or other of you." 
The battle came to an end, and the Sabines agreed to unite in one nation with the Romans. Titus Tatius jointly ruled with Romulus until Tatius's death five years later.
The new Sabine residents of Rome settled on the Capitoline Hill, which they had captured in the battle. 
The motivation behind the abduction of the Sabine women is contested among ancient sources. Livy writes that Rome's motivation for abducting the Sabine women was solely to increase the city's population and claims that no direct sexual assault took place during the abduction. Livy says that Romulus offered the Sabine women free choice as well as civic and property rights. According to Livy, Romulus spoke to each of them in person, declaring "that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying right of intermarriage to their neighbours. They would live in honourable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and—dearest of all to human nature—would be the mothers of freemen."  Scholars like Dionysius of Halicarnassus argue that it was an attempt to secure an alliance with the Sabines through the women's newly founded relationships with Roman men.  Livy's account is reinforced in some ways through the works of Cicero. In Cicero's work De re publica, he reiterates Livy's view that the plan to abduct the Sabine women at the festival was done in order "to strengthen the new state" and "safeguard the resources of his kingdom and people."  Unlike Livy, Cicero, and Dionysius, Ovid sees the abduction of the Sabine as an avenue for the men of Rome to fulfill their sexual desires rather than an attempt at taking wives to produce children for the city.  While he does make note of the issue surrounding Rome's lack of women, he does not make it out to be a factor in the planning of the abduction.
Many treatments of the legend combined a suitably inspiring example of the hardiness and courage of ancient Romans with the opportunity to depict multiple figures, including heroically semi-nude figures in intensely passionate struggle.
The subject was popular during the Renaissance as symbolising the importance of marriage for the continuity of families and cultures. It was also an example of a battle subject in which the artist could demonstrate his skill in depicting female as well as male figures in extreme poses, with the added advantage of a sexual theme. It was depicted regularly on 15th-century Italian cassoni and later in larger paintings. A comparable opportunity from the New Testament was afforded by the theme of the Massacre of the Innocents.
The 16th-century Italo-Flemish sculptor Giambologna sculpted a representation of this theme with three figures (a man lifting a woman into the air while a second man crouches), carved from a single block of marble. This sculpture is considered Giambologna's masterpiece.  Originally intended as nothing more than a demonstration of the artist's ability to create a complex sculptural group, its subject matter, the legendary rape of the Sabines, had to be invented after Francesco I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, decreed that it be put on public display in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Piazza della Signoria, Florence.
The proposed site for the sculpture, opposite Benvenuto Cellini's statue of Perseus, prompted suggestions that the group should illustrate a theme related to the former work, such as the rape of Andromeda by Phineus. The respective rapes of Proserpina and Helen were also mooted as possible themes. It was eventually decided that the sculpture was to be identified as one of the Sabine virgins.
The work is signed OPVS IOANNIS BOLONII FLANDRI MDLXXXII ("The work of Johannes of Boulogne of Flanders, 1582"). An early preparatory bronze featuring only two figures is in the Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte in Naples. Giambologna then revised the scheme, this time with a third figure, in two wax models now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. The artist's full-scale gesso for the finished sculpture, executed in 1582, is on display at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence.
The woman and the kneeling man reference figures from the ancient sculpture Laocoön and His Sons. 
Bronze reductions of the sculpture, produced in Giambologna's own studio and imitated by others, were a staple of connoisseurs' collections into the 19th century.
Nicolas Poussin Edit
Nicolas Poussin produced two major versions of this subject. His initial version was entitled The Abduction of the Sabine Women and was most likely completed around 1633–1634. The painting depicts Romulus giving the signal to the Romans for the abduction. According to the Met, the subject matter of Poussin's work allowed him to highlight his understanding of pose and gesture as well as his knowledge of Roman architecture.  This version of the painting currently resides at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
Poussin's second version, entitled The Rape of the Sabine Women, is essentially a recreation of his original work and was likely completed around 1637–1638. The architectural setting of this work is more developed than in the original. This painting currently resides in the Louvre Museum in Paris.  According to the Louvre, painting multiple version of one subject was not uncommon throughout Poussin's career.
Peter Paul Rubens Edit
Peter Paul Rubens painted his version of The Rape of the Sabine Women around 1635–40. It now resides in the National Gallery, London.  The painting depicts the moment Romulus gave the signal for the Romans to abduct the Sabine women. Rubens emphasizes the violence of the abduction and sexualizes it by depicting women with exposed breasts and a soldier lifting up a woman's skirt. 
Johann Heinrich Schönfeld Edit
Johann Heinrich Schönfeld painted a version of this subject entitled The Rape of the Sabine Women in the late 1630s. His work now resides at the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. 
Jacques Stella Edit
Jacques Stella painted a version of the Rape of the Sabine Women entitled The Rape of the Sabines in the mid-17th century. Stella's depiction of the scene is said to have so closely resembled Nicholas Poussin's works that following his death his version was mistaken for a Poussin. This work now resides at Princeton University's Art Museum. 
Jacques-Louis David Edit
Jacques-Louis David painted the other end of the story, when the women intervene to reconcile the warring parties. The Sabine Women Enforcing Peace by Running Between the Combatants (also known as The Intervention of the Sabine Women) was completed in 1799. It is in the Louvre Museum. 
David had begun work on it in 1796, when France was at war with other European nations, after a period of civil conflict culminating in the Reign of Terror and the Thermidorian Reaction, during which David himself had been imprisoned as a supporter of Robespierre. After David's estranged wife visited him in jail, he conceived the idea of telling the story to honor his wife, with the theme being love prevailing over conflict. The painting was also seen as a plea for the French people to reconcile their differences after the bloodshed of the French Revolution. 
The painting depicts Romulus's wife Hersilia — the daughter of Titus Tatius, leader of the Sabines — rushing between her husband and her father and placing her babies between them. A vigorous Romulus prepares to strike a half-retreating Tatius with his spear, but hesitates. Other soldiers are already sheathing their swords. [ citation needed ]
The rocky outcrop in the background is the Tarpeian Rock. [ citation needed ]
John Leech Edit
The English 19th-century satirical painter John Leech included in his Comic History of Rome a depiction of the Rape of the Sabine Women, where the women are portrayed, with a deliberate anachronism, in Victorian costume and being carried off from the "Corona et Anchora" ("Crown and Anchor", a common English pub sign in seafaring towns).
Edgar Degas Edit
Edgar Degas painted The Rape of the Sabines  (after Poussin), c. 1861–1862.
"The masters must be copied over and over again", Degas said, "and it is only after proving yourself a good copyist that you should reasonably be permitted to draw a radish from nature." Degas first received permission to copy paintings at the Louvre in 1853 when he was eighteen. He was most interested in the great works of the Italian Renaissance and of his own classical French heritage, hence this detailed copy of Poussin's painting. 
Charles Christian Nahl Edit
Charles Christian Nahl painted the subject in a trio of works entitled The Abduction, The Captivity, and The Invasion.
Pablo Picasso Edit
Pablo Picasso visited this theme in his several versions of the Rape of the Sabine Women (1962–63), one of which is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. These are based on David's version. These conflate the beginning and end of the story, depicting the brutish Romulus and Tatius ignoring and trampling on the exposed figure of Hersilia and her child. 
Ancient works Edit
The episode of the Rape of the Sabine Women is recounted by Cicero,  Livy,  Dionysius of Halicarnassus,  and Plutarch.  The poetry of Ovid also contains several allusions to this episode  and it is included on the shield of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid. 
Modern works Edit
The midrash Sefer haYashar (first attested in 1624) portrays the story as part of a war between the Sabines, descended from Tubal, and the Roman Kittim (Jasher 17:1–15). A more detailed version of this narrative is found in the earlier mediaeval rabbinic work Yosippon.
The story was parodied by Lady Carlotta, the mischief-making character in Saki's short story "The Schartz-Metterklume Method". 
Stephen Vincent Benét wrote a short story called "The Sobbin' Women" that parodied the legend. Later adapted into the 1954 musical Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, it tells the story of seven gauche but sincere backwoodsmen, one of whom gets married, encouraging the others to seek partners. After a social where they meet girls they are attracted to, they are denied the chance to pursue their courtship by the latter's menfolk. Following the Roman example, they abduct the girls. As in the original tale, the women are at first indignant but are eventually won over.
In 1962, a Spanish "sword and sandal" film based on the story was made, directed by Alberto Gout. Titled El Rapto de las Sabinas, the film was released in the USA under the titles The Rape of the Sabine Women and The Shame of the Sabine Women.
Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) features a group of all-male players offering to put on a performance of The Rape of the Sabine Women, to the disgust of the title characters. 
The latest adaptation is a film without dialogue, The Rape of the Sabine Women, which was produced in 2005 by Eve Sussman and the Rufus Corporation. 
The Reign of Romulus Augustus
maybe not directly, but a convenient butterfly of having Clovis killed would go a loooooong way towards that goal.
Note: This post is written in the POV of a person who until now has been a background character. I've been waiting for the right time to write something from his perspective. Might as well be now, otherwise I should have titled this thread "The Reign of Orestes."
Almost 450 years ago, the bloodthirsty triumvir Octavian began his benevolent reign as Caesar Augustus. By the time of his death some four decades later, it seemed like the Roman Empire held the world in its grasp (minus the debacle in Germania, of course). Under Romulus Augustus, the western half of that empire was fighting for its survival with not even half of the advantages of its more secure eastern counterpart.
Looking back on the history of the first emperor, there was such a blatant contrast between Caesar Augustus and Romulus Augustus, and the boy-emperor knew it. For one, the man who first carried the title of Augustus ruled over a united empire that stretched from Spain (Hispania) to Syria. Romulus’s empire, if it could even be called “his” empire, was barely holding on to the Praetorian Prefecture of Italy (not counting the loss of Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica, as well as North Africa to the Vandals). In addition, there were a few Roman rump states, one under Syagrius who maintained a semblance of Roman authority in an enclave within northern Gaul. Due to the Vandal invasion of North Africa, the area of Mauritania came under the control of Roman-Moorish kingdoms with only nominal allegiance to the Ravenna government.
But Italy was essential. Even Romulus knew that there could be no more pretenses to a “Western Empire” if Italy (including cities like Ravenna and Rome) was lost to Germanic rule. He figured that his father might be looking in to whatever options there were for restoring actual Roman rule to distant places like Gaul and Mauretania. But given how much effort has already been made to preserve said rule in Italy alone, Romulus feared that the chance of providing any real aid to either one was slim at best. For the moment, the Vandals hold too strong a monopoly on Africa. In Gaul, the strength of both the Franks and Visigoths have come to eclipse that of the Western Empire. If the Romans in the West still dared to hope of one day seeing their realm restored to near forgotten glories, they have to bide their time. Though how much time was anyone’s guess. As far as Romulus could tell, it was his moment in history that would decide the ultimate fate of the Western Empire for the foreseeable future.
Such a notion filled Romulus with despair. This was too much responsibility for any adolescent boy to handle. True, at fifteen years of age he should technically be considered an adult. But as far as most people in the Roman world and beyond were concerned, he was a pretentious little child who owed everything to his father. Romulus Augustulus, the “little Augustus” they mockingly joked about him. Some didn’t even believe he deserved the name of Rome’s legendary founder, and so nicknamed him Momyllus, the “little disgrace.” If only the common man knew that his actual namesake was his noble grandfather on his mother’s side, the Pannonian nobleman Comes Romulus.
Such degrading insults frustrated the emperor, but then again he could hardly blame his detractors. Regardless of what he was under Roman law, he was still very much a child and certainly treated like one too. It was his father who forced him to accept this throne and the name “Augustus” it was his father who kept him on that throne by making sure that his son kept the title of emperor, so far. Romulus had done nothing to reverse the tidal wave of public disrespect directed against him, and how could he? A lot of time has passed since the West had a true emperor who didn’t overly rely on his court officials to do his job for him. For all intents and purposes, the emperor ruled with supreme authority in the government in name only. In reality, political and military power was heavily invested in the magister militum, which could explain why Orestes was keen on not trading that office for a “ceremonial” one. In Catholic circles, the Pope of Rome is the spiritual father of the Church in the West.
Romulus Augustus felt as useless as the people thought he was. All he could do so far was carry out a few formal duties - purely ceremonial in function - and then retreat into the seclusion of the Imperial Palace at Ravenna, carefully guarded by his father’s most trusted soldiers. How he wished to just get away from it all. Why should he have to rule over a people who weren’t even waiting to see ifhe would fail? From what he has heard, they’re already betting on when he will be deposed. Well he wanted nothing more than to renounce his title and leave it to someone more willing to bear such an unwanted burden. Except he would most likely be murdered afterward. So many deposed emperors have been killed, and so few have survived only to spend the rest of their lives in exile. Should another successful usurper arise, it is hard to imagine that he might be merciful enough to let the young Romulus live.
Sometimes Romulus wished that he could at least follow in the emperor Tiberius’s example and “exile” himself to a fortified island like Capri, or maybe the Castellum Lucullanum, a magnificent villa in Campania that was built centuries ago by Lucullus and later fortified by Valentinian III. Such thoughts were only fantasies, however born of a youthful mind overwhelmed with melancholy. Romulus would go no where as long as his father needed him to maintain the façade that an empire still needed its emperor. Unless he could finally have the chance to actually prove his worth, assuming he had any, then he will never be remembered as “Romulus Augustus.” Only “Romulus Augustulus,” or worse, “Momyllus Augustulus.”
The thought of either derisive nickname filled the emperor with even more despair. For that was most likely his destiny, to be remembered as a little disgrace, unworthy of the title of emperor and the legacy that went with it.
“They’ll never see me as anything more than a child, a disgrace, and a pretender to the names of Romulus and Augustus. It’s hopeless.”
Some historians have claimed that, in contrast to his controlling father, Romulus Augustus's loving mother was the only positive influence in his early life. As a young boy, he was sheltered from the world to the point of enduring virtual isolation with only his mother and few others to compensate for the loneliness and insecurity he faced throughout his formative years.
As a result of hearsay, in spite of a lack of evidence, some believe that Romulus's mother is more responsible than anyone else for the cynical, ruthless and brutal man he became. According to one story, Romulus's mother taught him to believe that trust was a fool's gambit, compassion for the naïve, and mercy for the weak. Though he should not dismiss the teachings of the Church, she wanted him to understand that no action was too extreme where the Emperor's survival was concerned.
Whatever the truth, "survival of the fittest" all but defined Romulus's reign and policies as Emperor of the Romans. At the same time, he would go on to strengthen the alliance between the Papacy and the Imperial throne. Unlike Orestes, whom Romulus rarely acknowledged throughout the later years of his reign, the Emperor commissioned several great works as tribute to his mother's legacy.
Magnum and RyuDrago: Thank you both for you insight, and also for taking an interest in this timeline. I'm certainly considering the fate of Sygarius's realm and am also considering what, or if anything can be done about it from Orestes's POV. At the same time, I'm also considering if the Franks or Visigoths might make more effective allies for the Western Empire, given how powerful they have become. Yes, they have both been unreliable at times, but there are some examples when they proved "loyal" (well, loyal enough ) to the West. I certainly can't be completely sure how it would unfold in this alternate timeline, but the continued existence of the Gallo-Roman population and further Christianization just might motivate either faction to at least consider closer ties to Rome and the West - by that I mean peace treaties or alliances. They wont simply jump back into the Empire's fold if they don't have to.
You are welcome. About the fate of the domain of Soissons: I see only two possible choices, or the WRE searches an alliance with one of the three barbarian people settled in Gaul (Franks, Burgundians or Visigoths) or Syagrius plays the indipendence card from Ravenna. In both cases, the survival of the region depends essentially with an agreement with one of these three peoples, each one with advantages and disadvantages.
Burgundians: They could guarantee a direct connection between North Gaul and Italy, they were on the path to the definitive conversion to Christianity and they have a fairly strong integration with the Roman uses, having behind a long story of cooperation with the Empire due to the foederati status. However they meddled in the past in the internal affairs of the Empire and could be interested one day to be the new overlords of the WRE. In that vision they could even agreed to join into the fold but they could be later a thorn in the side of the Empire.
Franks: On the way on the path to Christian conversion, and they have a strong interest towards the Roman uses, but they were positioned on a border territory with pressures from other barbarian peoples and as OTL they were interested to expand South.
Visigoths: They controlled the majority of Gaul, and the preservation of the domains could be useful as a buffer region against the Franks, but they were still Arians and not yet integrated with the Roman uses. Also the sack of Rome surely was still an open wound for the Italians, so i'm not sure Orestes will try to seek a negotiation with Toulouse at the time.
The alliance with one of these people could even later save the Empire from the Ostrogoth menace despite the fact i could predict the loss, even if temporary, of Dalmatia, reduced to some outposts like Split. However, if according to the last chapter Romulus is determinated to show his valor, things could still go differently.
This post is kind of long, but that's because it covers the next eight years after AD 477. With the exception of the PODs in my first two posts, a lot of what happens in this Timeline also happened (more or less) in the original timeline. Aside from keeping the Western Empire around post-AD 476 (or AD 480), the other purpose of this alternate timeline is to see how the West (down but not out) affects the rest of the late fifth century and early sixth century AD. Starting with the next post, I will be focusing on how other factions (ex: Franks, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, etc.) feature into this Timeline.
AD 478 – AD 485
Eight years have passed since the Eastern Empire officially recognized the legitimacy of Romulus Augustus as Roman emperor of the Western Empire in AD 477, and so much has happened both within and beyond the diminished borders of the West. If the situation was bad for Rome during the reign of Valentinian III, it unquestionably became worse twenty years after his death. When Orestes seized control of the government from Julius Nepos in AD 475, so little remained of the Empire and so many powerful rivals surrounded them on all sides. It seemed inevitable that the West was ultimately doomed to collapse on what remained of itself, and yet there was still an Augustus in Ravenna more than ten years later.
It has been a long and difficult struggle for Orestes to guide the Empire in a direction that saw relative internal peace over last decade. Sometimes he could hardly believe that he had lived to succeed thus far. Of all the things that he might have done differently, he more certain than ever that the Germanic foederati would have been his undoing, had he made a different choice regarding their desire to become permanent residents in Italy. He had come so close to rejecting their appeal, and was by now so relieved that he did not make such a fatal error in judgment. If they had turned against him, he would not be alive right now, and his son would no longer be emperor. Perhaps another figurehead would have been placed on the throne, or if the rumors were true, then the foederati would have proclaimed Odoacer as their king.
Looking back on the Empire’s recent history, Orestes reflected on the many things that have happened in the West over the last several years:
Shortly after the reconciliation of Constantinople and Ravenna, Orestes made a risky decision to include Odoacer in the higher tiers of the Roman political and military hierarchy. Part of what kept the Roman population satisfied was the fact that both institutions remained mostly composed of Romans. But there were still a number of Germanic officers in the army, and it was unlikely that Odoacer would remain content where he was if the prospect of kingship had once been a viable option for him to take. The land used to settle the foederati may have placated them, but Odoacer was still popular enough with the rank-and-file, and he needed to be kept quiet with “bribes” in the form of greater prestige and authority.
Hence, Orestes granted Odoacer the title of Comes Italiae, giving the latter a military appointment superior to dux, but under the magister militum. The two powerful officials then governed the Western Empire in effect as a duumvirate, sharing leadership over Rome to a certain extent. So while the Romans maintained their monopoly on the administrative apparatus, the promotion of Odoacer gave the barbarians the impression that they were not being utterly excluded from the Roman government in Italy.
The duumvirate was hardly a perfect arrangement, however. Beneath the exterior of this political alliance, Orestes's rivalry with Odoacer almost mirrored the one that existed between Octavian and Marc Antony. Both were always on the lookout to seize greater laurels at the other’s expense. More often than not, Odoacer proved difficult for Orestes to work with. At one point, Odoacer argued in favor of the reclamation of Noricum, by now overrun and controlled by the Rugians. Orestes did want to see some of the West’s former territory restored under Roman rule in his lifetime. The army, a pale shadow of its former self, was arguably still an effective military force, at least enough to maybe recover Noricum. But with several larger and more powerful kingdoms surrounding the Empire, Orestes was adamant that external wars had to be avoided at all costs in the event of an emergency, in which Rome would need every last soldier at her command to defend Italy from insurrection - or worse, invasion. So instead the Magister Militum negotiated an alliance with the Rugian king Feletheus, and even managed to convince him to supply some soldiers to the foederati units. In order to compensate a clearly displeased Odoacer, Orestes had his fellow duumvir appointed consul in AD 479. The office of Roman consul had long since been deprived of any real power, but it remained a great honor nonetheless, complete with a lofty salary.
A year later, Odoacer convinced Orestes to support his initiative to absorb Sicilia back into the Western Empire. The Germanic general, who sometimes boasted that he could have achieved this before Genseric died, was certain that such a goal was even more possible with Huneric as the new king of the Vandals. Thanks to an Eastern Roman envoy and his own personal fear of Constantinople, Huneric had been relatively lenient to his Roman Catholic subjects. In any case, even some of the Romans in Italy were beginning to get restless with Orestes’s cautious approach to foreign policy, and so this time he did not use his superior authority to obstruct Odoacer. After the successful diplomatic coup saw Sicilia (minus the city of Lilybaeum) returned to Roman control, the jubilant people of Italy rejoiced in celebration, feeling a sense of triumph that their generation had only heard of in stories of past greatness.
Officially, it was a victory for the Western Empire and its duumvirate, “acting on behalf” of their emperor of course. But in reality, Odoacer received the greater share of accolades for the direct role that he played. Ironically, it was a victory for Rome, but also a setback for Orestes. He could endure Odoacer’s elevated standing in Italy for now, but not indefinitely.
Unfortunately, not long afterward, Huneric resumed his father's anti-Catholic policies by making martyrs out of those who refused to convert to Arianism, and banishing others to Corsica. Ravenna could only respond with an official protest Rome outright condemned these actions. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Romans were quite glad to hear of Huneric's death a year ago in AD 484.
As for his son, the emperor Romulus Augustus was 24 years-old now, but still overshadowed not not only by his father, but Odoacer as well. Not that this was unusual, given how the western court had been the real government for nearly a century, ruling in fact while emperors like Honorius and Valentinian III governed mostly in name. In the collective minds of the people, Roman and Germanic, Romulus Augustus had virtually transcended into something of a “Big Brother” persona, the result of the “name and reputation” being more prominently featured than the actual person himself. To the average civilian, the emperor was an authority figure (in principle, at least) whose presence was transmitted throughout the Empire via various media sources, such as heralds and propaganda tools.
AD 483 was a particularly significant year though, given that Anicia Juliana gave birth to Romulus’s son and heir. They chose the name ‘Olybrius’ for the newborn prince, mainly to highlight Anicia’s prestigious family, including her noble pedigree as the daughter of Western emperor Olybrius and direct descendant of Theodosius I.
The Technological, Social and Political Forces Behind the Inception of Modern Art
Suppression and Expression
Few artists and even fewer non-artists today fully appreciate the circumstances surrounding the inception of modern art, a transition from an enforced style of representational picture making to an evolved form of painted individual expression. It was a process, which broke with traditional client specified needs to become an artistic statement. Today, it might be analogous to a staff copywriter quitting to become a poet.
Only after we understand the politics, technological innovations and changing events of the 19th century, do we begin to understand why the departure was both inevitable and essential, from an artistic perspective.
Photography's Invention 1807-1839
|Click to enlarge |
First Photograph: Then called a
Heliograph, Nicéphore Niépce coated
a metal plate with a silver/asphalt
ground and used an artist's camera
obscura device to direct an image
onto it for a period of eight-hours.
He entitled the image View from the
Window at Le Gras.
In 1829, Parisian theatre set designer, Louis Daguerre partnered with Niépce to reduce the exposure time using a plate coated with silver iodide. The resulting high contrast image with improved detail was then fixed with a common salt solution. This greatly improved process became the formulation for the first practical photograph, which he called the Daguerréotype process. Daguerre would further modify the artist's camera obscura device to become a more controlled exposure chamber.
Financially ruined and under considerable stress caused by his brother Claude's funds mismanagement of the Pyréolophore engine, Nicéphore Niépce died of a stroke in 1833 at age 68. However, six years later, in 1839, the French government acquired the camera design and process. In exchange, France provided a lifetime pension to Niépce's surviving partner, Louis Daguerre, who had perfected the results. The government of France then shared its intellectual property so it could be commercially produced.
The Camera and the Paint Tube, 1840-1850
This early form of photography became extremely popular throughout the 1840s and 1850s, displacing all but the very best portrait painters.
The camera would forever impact how a studio was employed. For centuries, artists had been using the camera obscura device. When models were unavailable for extended periods (i.e. busy client sitting for portraits), the device would be employed to render quick but accurate outline sketches. Furthermore, as talented as artists may be, few are gifted with the ability, and many more cannot be trained to capture exact portrait likenesses. Over time, less successful artists would turn to photography for income, converting their painting workspaces into photography studios.
For historical and mythological paintings, which required a number figure models, employment of a camera became a financially prudent approach. Instead of hiring models for extended periods, the artist would do still Daguerreotype Plates of models and props to work from later. At this time, most elaborate historical paintings and portrait paintings were commissions with deadlines, where visual accuracy wasn't just desired but was a contract requirement.
Purists today may argue with the use of photography for artistic purposes. However, current artistic livelihoods today generally do not depend on providing perfectly accurate likenesses, which was very much the case in the neoclassical, academic world of 19the century France. Furthermore, it was common practice for one artist to paint a quick but accurate facial portrait (possibly using a camera obscura) of a famous, often busy individual (i.e.: Napoleon, George Washington, etc.) and then use that rendering to create a variety of portraits later. The convenient and accurate camera replaced these time-consuming and often rushed processes.
|Tubes of Paint:Renoir would later |
say "Without paints in tubes, there
would be no Cézanne, no Monet, no
Sisley or Pissarro, nothing of what the
journalists were later to call
Instead of transporting undependable animal bladders filled with paint or multiple palettes prepared in advance to a painting location, artists could simply carry convenient, fully loaded, ready-to-use tubes of paint. Rather than discarding the unused paint, it could instead be retained within capped tubes, unsullied and ready for use on whatever painting followed.
Again, there would be purists who would resist convenience over traditional studio based painting and paint grinding. However, to be on location, in daylight, with the option of selecting one pure color after another, without time-consuming paint grinding, became an entirely new form of expression. Some might consider it an enriching experience, even fun. The inexpensive, portable, expendable tin paint tube made this possible. The painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir would later say, "Without paints in tubes, there would be no Cézanne, no Monet, no Sisley or Pissarro, nothing of what the journalists were later to call Impressionism." 
Napoleon III's Coup d'etat
France's internal struggles would not end with the July Revolt of 1830 (the subject of Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People), the June Rebellion of 1832 or the Revolt of 1848. Instead, the division would begin anew with two failed coup attempts and a third successful one in 1851, all made by Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, who became known as Napoleon III (Napoleon I's son, François Charles Joseph Bonaparte, had died in 1832 of Tuberculosis). Playing the role of the ancient Gaius Octavian, Louis-Napoléon decided to make claim to his uncle's former title of Emperor and again dissolve the Republic.
However, regarding the arts, Louis-Napoléon tastes were both antiquated and out of touch with the cultural revolution then underway in Europe. His favorite painters were Alexandre Cabanel and Franz Xaver Winterhalter.
- Note: Regarding the artwork in the figure to the above right. The contrasting dates associated with the outmoded styles of these works are of particular interest. The classically styled Birth of Venus painting was completed and then purchased by the Emperor in 1863, the year of the Impressionists' Salon des Refusés exhibition and Delacroix's death. The imperial neoclassical portrait of Louis-Napoléon, standing next to crown and coronation robe, was completed in 1865, the same year Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and the late French Romantic composer Hector Berlioz was finishing his memoirs.
By 1844, Delacroix had retired to private life. Dealing with health issues, he spent much of his time in a small cottage in Champrosay. Nevertheless, in response to the Second Empire's expressed conservatism and feeling the need for greater artistic unity and freedom, he along with romantic sculptors Albert-Ernest Carrier-Belleuse and Aimé Millet, painter Puvis de Chavannes, and writer Théophile Gautier formed the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts in 1862. It was what curator/historian Hans-Ulrich Simon referred to as a Secessionist manifestation. 
Regarding the future of art, the Société would become a declaration of expressed independence from neoclassicism and academia while directly challenging the Paris Salon's control over French art.
Dissension and Re-education 1852-1862
The Paris Salon and Gauged Control
The Paris Salon began in 1674 as the official exhibition of the Académie des Beaux-Arts de Paris, a division of the artistic study at the Institut de France. The exhibition's initial purpose was to display the works of graduate students of the École des Beaux-Arts.
The Salon garnished its name from the Salon Carré, where the first exhibition was held. By 1725, the exhibit was moved to the Louvre Palace and became known as the Salon de Paris (Paris Salon). Exhibition at the Salon was essential for any artist who wished to secure a successful future as a painter or sculptor in France. Because of ongoing government support, an exhibition at the Salon was also considered a mark of royal favor.
Over time, the exhibition went from semi-private to thpublic. After the French Revolution, it became a government-sponsored event. By the 19th century, it had opened its doors to foreign artists and became the most anticipated art exhibition in the Western World.
|Voice of the Elite:Much like the way Christie's and Sotheby's determine today's artistic value and stature, the Paris Salon of the 19th century, with its exclusive rules and guidelines would eliminate those not in tune with the traditional values of the Académie des Beaux-Arts and presumed selective tastes of government officials. The Salon's judgment on admission and awards would determine the careers of the selected few, even when they weren't in tune with popular tastes.|
As participation grew, exhibitions became juried to maintain a consistent venue, with the government often times being involved with juror selection to best reflect national tastes. Consequently, with France's tardy entry to Romanticism and the occasional nostalgic relapse in taste, many artists, including lifelong academicians began to complain, voice formal opposition and even protest. In response, the stoic Salon would only tighten its entry requirements.
The Barbizon School and Seeds of Change
As early as the 1820s, Parisian artists were increasingly aware of the Romantic Art movement already in vogue beyond France’s borders. The direct paint application techniques and passionate visions of other European artists were, by then, making a lasting impression.
Rousseau would take up residence in the forest village in 1848. He would then be united with fellow artists Jean-François Millet and Jules Dupré who had also taken up painting in the forest community. They, in turn, would be joined by Charles-François Daubigny who had joined the Barbizon School in 1843.
Daubigny would befriend Camille Corot in 1852 and fall under the influence of Gustave Courbet later that same year. Courbet's involvement in politics approached fanaticism and would eventually lead him to drink, poor health and early death.
Their works would impress a new generation of French painters with their brilliant passions of vision and unconventional application of paint. The Impressionist Claude Monet would later pay close attention to Turner's paint application techniques.
During the Paris Salon exhibit of 1824, the Salon jury was impressed enough with Constable's painting The Hay Wain, to award it the gold medal. Traditional in subject matter and composition, the painting was an open book of articulated detail, achieved through the non-traditional technique of alla prima, impasto paint application. Delacroix, Corot and Rousseau were amongst those who were favorable impressed by the painting.
One artist who voiced concern over France's selective art practices was Thomas Couture (1815-1879). A graduate of the École des Beaux-Arts and winner of the Prix de Rome. Couture would become one of the celebrated academicians of the 19th century. After the success of his painting Romans during the Decadence (1847), he turned to teaching and opened a painting school of his own, with the hopes of producing France's greatest historic painters. However, somewhat of an aging rebel, he ignored traditional painting techniques and published his own book on paint application and practices, entitled Conversations on Art Methods. It was published in 1879, the year of his death. Édouard Manet would study under Couture from 1850 to 1856.
Another instructor of non-traditional painting techniques was Horace Lecoq de Boisbaudran (1802-1897). Also a graduate of the École des Beaux-Arts, de Boisbaudran had a somewhat novel approach to instructing paint appreciation. He would have his students go to the Louvre and study painting by the old masters with the intention of memorizing the works and their paint application techniques. He would then have his students return to class and attempt to rapidly copy the paintings from memory. Fantin Latour, Auguste Rodin, and Alphonse Legros were amongst his students.
After Louis Philippe I replaced Charles X, the Bourbon king, Gleyre would use his studio for regular political gatherings where he and like-minded individuals espoused their liberal and often time radical views. In 1842, he took over the studio of artist Paul Delaroche, where Gleyre then taught a number of younger artists direct paint application technique and, above all, work ethic. Never did he accept payment from his students. Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley and James Abbott McNeill Whistler were amongst his students.
Consequently, a number of traditional artists, both accomplished and student began to experiment and voice reservations over the Salon's control of painting style through restrictive entry guidelines. In time, award practices and the granting of government commissions would come under fire as well.
After being rejected from the Exposition Universelle, Courbet decided to strike back. He erected a provisional structure next door to the exposition site, which he then named The Pavilion of Realism, to display his works.
Courbet then decided to write his Realist Manifesto as the introduction to his independent personal exhibit. In it, he insists he no longer wishes to "imitate" the work of others, "ancient" or "modern" and that "art for art's sake  is too trivial a role". Instead, Courbet wished to employ the "consciousness of my (his) own individuality" to paint the "customs", "ideas" and "appearances of my (his) own time". In short, Courbet wished not to continue a tradition of idealized renderings and instead paint only what he knew, which was the people of that day.
Courbet's Realist Manifesto ran contrary to almost every principle of the French Academic tradition and was a defiant message to the Salon and Exposition Universelle juries regarding discriminatory art approval practices. Today, when one views his work, it becomes clear Courbet believed the common people, free of all title and pretense, best represented the subject concept he choose to depict.
Today, when the term French Realism is used, its definition should not be confused with any visual rendering style, like photo-realism or hyperrealism, but is instead intended to describe a cultural realism of present-day events, real-life not photo-real. For Courbet, that would mean the common working class. For the Barbizon painter Jean-François Millet, it would be the rural working class and for painter and printmaker Honoré Daumier, it would be the urban working class and government figures. All of these individual efforts were deliberate instances of rebellion against the cultural traditions imposed by the Salon and its government-sponsored exhibits which favored idealized renderings of history, mythology or embellished portraiture.
Courbet's The Pavilion of Realism managed to get the attention of the cultural officials as well as artists who were already discontent with the government's enforcement of sanctioned art, via the Salon and other government-sponsored events. Consequently, it would mark the beginning of rebellious, independent exhibits.
Nieuwerkerk's Cultural Ministry
|Émilien de Nieuwerkerke - |
Superintendent of the Imperial
Museums and all-around pseudo-
minister of culture for France's Second
In 1853, Nieuwerkerk became a free member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. Aside from his museum posts and Academy roll, he was also the Intendant or personal manager of the imperial household, its holdings, and priceless objets d'art.
Nieuwerkerk exerted considerable control over artwork approved for state-supported exhibitions, beginning with the Exposition Universelle, in 1855. In that instance, Nieuwerkerk approved a request to have the work of William Wyld, an English painter, hung in the French section, while rejecting two major works by French artist Gustav Courbet. Clearly, having some connection to Nieuwerkerk held considerably more weight than a Salon gold medal.
In 1863, Nieuwerkerke (by then the Comte de Nieuwerkerke) decided, over the fierce opposition of its members, to reform the École des Beaux-Arts. Like Napoleon III, his tastes in art were nostalgic to the point of being antiquated, so much so, the Count was attacked by both liberal and conservative element within the art community. Nevertheless, he created the chair of art history with the intention of mandating art education, one infused with highly conservative, if not dated, views  .
Nieuwerkerke's my-way-or-highway ministerial approach proceeded with the weight of the imperial government behind him, which he employed to exert considerable control over the appearance or suppression of artwork by contemporary artists, the presentation of awards and the issuance of government commissions.
Art Revival of 1863
By 1863, the annual government-sponsored Paris Salon art exhibit had become the premier showcase for art school graduates and aspiring artists. For the past two centuries, its awards, subsequent commissions, and purchases had been a springboard to many an artists' careers. Serious artists all desired their work to appear on its highly coveted walls.
However, by 1863 the Salon was under the direct influence of Napoleon III's Second Empire and its reigning lord of government taste, the Comte de Nieuwerkerke, who was by then serving as the Salon's jury chair. In line with the École des Beaux-Arts reforms of the same year, Nieuwerkerke's Salon jury had tightened entry requirements to a point where two-thirds of all submitted works were eliminated from entry, the greatest number of rejections in the Salon's history. Only traditional, realistic paintings executed with academic painting techniques of the long-established genre (which by then were considered dated) were allowed admission.
The two most popular paintings in the 1863 Salon exhibition were Alexandre Cabanel's The Birth of Venus and Paul-Jacques-Aimé Baudry's The Pearl and the Wave. In describing The Pearl and the Wave, art historian Bailey van Hook's review of the work accurately reflects the imperial taste of that time: ". the subject woman is shown lying down sluggishly for the gratification of the looker-on who she describes as "voyeuristic viewer"  . Similarly, French art critic Jules-Antoine Castagnary comments, "a Parisian modiste. lying in wait for a millionaire gone astray in his wild spot." 
Nevertheless, the works represented a tradition dating back to before Jacques-Louis David's historic paintings, which depict women as objects, almost props, smaller and weaker than men. These 1863 Salon works would seem to hark back even further to the Rococo period and painter François Boucher depictions of sensuous nudes as objects of desire.
Journalist Émile Zola defended Le déjeuner, writing: "this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude"  . No doubt Zola enjoyed the irony of connecting Nieuwerkerke jury's decision to works in the same museum under his care.
Whistler's Symphony in White No. 1, The White Girl became the other celebrated reject of the 1863 Salon exhibit. It remains unclear today for the painting's rejection from the Salon. It was rejected a year earlier in London by the conservative Royal Academy, and that in itself may have been enough.
The painting was a portrait of Whistler's mistress, Joanna Hiffernan who would later model for Courbet, though being a mistress would not have been that uncommon and certainly not grounds for rejection.
One thing Nieuwerkerke's stacked jury would have found objectionable about Whistler's Symphony was, again, the non-traditional handling of the paint. The direct painting approach with clearly visible paint strokes would have had much in common with Manet's Le déjeune, and would have been sufficient for its elimination.
Salon des Refusés
Even before the 1863 Salon exhibition, the extremely conservative Second Empire was facing criticism from the French public. Beginning in 1860, public outcry for freedom of the press was joined with outrage from within France's large Catholic population over the Empire's Italian policy to remove the city of Rome from Vatican sovereignty. The economy was taking a hit due to reduced exports caused by the American Civil War and members of the government were now protesting for a right to vote approval of a bloated imperial budget. As there was no doubt Nieuwerkerkehe and likeminded jurors were behind the massive exclusion resulting from the 1863 Salon exhibition judgment, Napoleon III's government faced considerable backlash from that large number of rejected artists.
|Palais de l'Industrie (Palace of |
Industry) - Where the Salon de Paris
and the Salon des Refusés was held
in the year 1863.
Journalist Émile Zola reported that members of the public pushed through those crowded galleries and "the rooms were full of the laughter of spectators"  . No doubt the government was counting on a negative reaction since the enormous rejection included large numbers of mundane and poor artwork. However, the works of Manet, Whistler and others managed to stand out. They were noted by the press, the public and continued to raise questions regarding excessive government control. Nevertheless, the Salon refused to change its ways until after the fall of the Second Empire and the Emperor's exile in England. After that, the Salon would regularly hold its Salon des Refusés but, by then, public interest in the Salon and the works of its traditionalists had waned.
The chain had been broken. Tradition had become just that, tradition. Over the next century and a half, artistic freedom would sponsor more than a hundred art movements, some different, many similar. Instead of settling for just a picture, a painting would mimic literature and music. It would go beyond being just a picture created from a client or committee's specifications. Meanwhile, advancements in photography and the invention of motion pictures would fulfill what Zola described as the "crowd's" needs for visual accuracy, which included realistic portraits, portrayals of history and the telling of stories. As for the artists of 1863, the door had finally been opened. Soon, the Impressionists would run towards its streaming light to paint its poetry.
1. Gustavson, Todd, The Camera: A History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital, Sep 4, 2012, Sterling Signature Reprint edition (September 4, 2012),
ISBN-13: 978-1454900023, pp. 2-3
2. Tinterow, Gary Conisbee, Philip Naef, Hans (1999). Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
ISBN 0-8109-6536-4, p. 503
3. Renoir, Jean - Renoir - My Father, (1894, Boston: Little Brown 1962, Columbus Books Ltd. 1988, New York Review Books Classics, 2001),
ISBN 978-0-940322-77-6, p. 69
4. Simon, Hans-Ulrich, Sezessionismus. Kunstgewerbe in literarischer und bildender Kunst, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1976,
5. Tinterow, Gary, Michael Pantazzi, Vincent Pomarède, and Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1996), Corot. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art,
ISBN 0870997696, p. 150
6. Gautier, Théophile, l'art pour l'art (Art for art's sake), L’Artiste, 1855-56.
7. Mansfield, Elizabeth, Art History and Its Institutions: The Nineteenth Century, Routledge, 2002,
ISBN-13: 978-0415228695, pp. 86-88
8. Laborde, On de, Academies of Art: Past and Present, New York, NY, Da Capo Press, 1973, pp 249-51 and Boeme, The Teaching Reforms of 1863, pp. 4-6
9. Shaw, Jennifer L. Art History, Vol. 14, The Figure of Venus: Rhetoric of the Ideal and the Salon of 1863, Association of Art Historians, 1991
ISSN: 0141-6790, No. 4
10. Published in Le Moniteur on 24 April 1863. Cited in Maneglier, Hervé, Paris Impérial - La vie quotidienne sous le Second Empire, p. 173
11. Meneglier, Hervé, Paris Impérial- la vie quotidienne sous le Second Empire, Éditions Armand Colin, (1990). p. 173.
12. Zola, Émile, Édouard Manet - Le déjeuner sur l'herbe, 1867, et lps 91
There’s a She-Wolf in the Closet
This image depicts the mythology surrounding Romulus’s birth and nurture. According to legend, the rape of a Sabine Woman (Rhea Silvia) by the god Mars resulted in the birth of twins Romulus and Remus. Rhea was so ashamed of the births she rid herself of the children. Romulus and Remus were then found, suckled, and raised by a she-wolf.
Supporting quote from Vergil’s Aeneid
” The tradition goes on
to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been
exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty
she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the
children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so
gentle towards them that the king’s flock-master found her licking
the boys with her tongue. ”
Similarities and differences
The image is consistent with the tale of Romolus and Remus. The boys are depicted as suckling the wolf with her standing over them in a protective, almost maternal way.
The artist depicts a playfulness between Romulus and Remus not discussed in the text. This is most likely meant to communicate the familial nature of the scene and enforce the she-wolf’s nurturing of the boys.
What most interests the artist?
The artist is most interested by the tale of the she-wolf. The piece of plain and straightforward in its intent to communicate the relationship between the wolf and the boys. While this is the focal point of the art piece, it is not a large part of the text.
Cornell Gem Impressions Collection. “Brooklyn College Subscription Resource Login Required.” ASTOR, ASTOR, library.artstor.org.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/#/asset/SS35941_35941_22903711.
Art History News
In the 18th century, the Grand Tour of Europe was an educational and social rite of passage for wealthy young men, particularly from England and Germany. The journey, which could last a year or more, might involve a number of stops. But Rome was the essential destination.
Rome’s wealth of classical art and architecture and the glories of its Renaissance and Baroque periods were considered the pinnacle of Western civilization by the cultural elite of the time. Modern Rome awaited discovery as well, for during this period the capital of the Papal States underwent a dazzling urban and artistic renewal, with the construction of new public and private monuments such as the Spanish Steps and the Trevi Fountain. The Papacy also sponsored lavish festivals featuring elaborate fireworks displays accompanied by large amounts of food and wine. Aristocratic families, wishing to further elevate the manners, tastes and social standing of their sons through exposure to great works of art, fueled a phenomenon of cultural pilgrimage which became known as the Grand Tour, and eventually gave birth to more widespread tourism in the 19th century. In addition, the Grand Tour created a thriving market for prints of the great vedute, or views, of Rome and inspired generations of gifted artists skilled at capturing the sights and spectacles of the Eternal City.
The exhibition Lasting Impressions of the Grand Tour: Giuseppe Vasi’s Rome, at the Princeton University Art Museum from March 5 through June 12, 2011, revealed the rich variety of representations of 18th century Rome that were prompted by the intersection of a flourishing artistic community and the increasing demand for souvenirs of the Grand Tour. This phenomenon is examined through the particular lens of Giuseppe Vasi (1710 -1782), a prolific printmaker and architect who created a comprehensive, multi-volume series of more than 200 etchings of Rome for the tourist trade.
Born in Corleone, Sicily, Vasi lived and worked in Rome, where he was a contemporary of other notable vedutisti (view painters) such as Giovanni Paolo Panini and Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Vasi’s student. Vasi’s work, renowned for its exacting topographical accuracy and lively social observation, is viewed here in the context of the artistic and cartographic traditions from which it emerged and which it, in turn, influenced. An understanding of Vasi’s particular vision and its impact on ways of seeing and interpreting the city as a work of art is enhanced by a strong contextual component, demonstrated by loans of paintings, watercolors, drawings and prints from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Firestone and Marquand Libraries at Princeton University, as well as by several works from the Princeton University Art Museum’s own collections, that together create a compelling view of a great world capital in the age of the Grand Tour.
After an introduction to Vasi’s work as a whole, and in the context of late 17th and 18th century Roman cartography (including, most notably,
Giovanni Battista Nolli’s monumental Pianta Grande di Roma, 1748),
the exhibition situated a selection of Vasi’s Magnificenze (both individual plates and bound volumes) within the tradition of the Roman veduta by juxtaposing them with examples in different media by contemporaries including Canaletto, Panini and Piranesi. Finally, the exhibition concluded by presenting these popular images as souvenirs of the Grand Tour, complementing the prints with other collectibles, including a box of plaster casts and a reproduction of an ancient Roman bust of the emperor Caracalla. These, together with portraits and portrayals of identifiable Grand Tourists and Roman inhabitants by such artists as Nathaniel Dance, Pompeo Batoni and Giuseppe Ghezzi, create a compelling ensemble that brings the distant world of the Grand Tour and 18th century Rome closer to today’s spectator.
Frontspiece: Allegorical Scene with Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, from the series Delle Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna (Book I), 1747.
“Lasting Impressions of the Grand Tour is an exhibition that highlights the significance of the Grand Tour as an important aesthetic and cultural phenomenon,” said Laura M. Giles, Heather and Paul G. Haaga, Jr., Class of 1970, Curator of Prints and Drawings at the Princeton University Art Museum and curator of the exhibition at Princeton. “Vasi’s prints—of critical importance to historical studies in urbanism and architecture—serve as the springboard for a broad investigation into the representation of Rome and its impact on collecting practices and, indeed, on taste itself in the age of the Grand Tour. The exhibition also addresses the universal desire to capture a visual reminder of one’s journeys and experiences abroad. Before the invention of photography, Vasi’s etchings, either individually framed or displayed in bound volumes, served as souvenirs—high-end postcards—recalling the splendors visited after one returned home, and prompting others to embark on their own Grand Tour.”
Lasting Impressions of the Grand Tour: Giuseppe Vasi’s Rome was organized by the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art at the University of Oregon. Two University of Oregon faculty members, James Tice, professor of architecture and James Harper, associate art history, were the curators of the exhibition, and principal authors of
What is Expressionism?
Edvard Munch, “The Scream,” 1893 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons Public Domain)
Expressionism is a modernist movement that emerged in early 20th-century Germany. Artists working in this style distort the reality of their subjects in order to “express” their own emotions, feelings, and ideas.
With an aesthetic and approach heavily inspired by the paintings of Vincent van Gogh and Edvard Munch&mdashtwo artists viewed as predominant precursors of the movement&mdashExpressionists employed artificial color palettes, energetic brushstrokes, and exaggerated textures in their works. Together, these characteristics culminate in avant-garde paintings that favor the subjective over the true-to-life in order to reveal a glimpse into the psyche of artists.
Dressing For Success In Hollywood Brings Romulus Entertainment To A Fresh New Chapter
These days, “impression management” has become so important to those aiming for job success, that luxury brands quite often dedicate an exorbitant amount of time and effort to help men dress for success effectively. More than ever before, American businessmen are nurturing dress codes by adding a healthy dose of creativity paired with individuality. Still today, in business and professional settings, it is modified conservatism that remains the true winner in menswear.
In fact, the power men behind the scenes in creative industries, such as film, fashion and music still prefer to look polished in a power suit. The dress-for-success idea is alive and well as Americans step forward into 2021. To my point, knowing what to wear during office hours truly matters in ones overall path to professional performance.
Funny enough, the origins of dress for success go way back to the rigorous work of renowned sociologist Erving Goffman and his idea that the social world functions like a theatre and we, its social actors, are performing to the best of our ability. I’d have to say, I’d buy that. Take actor Michael B. Jordan for instance. He always seems to be right on the money when it comes to dressing well. Moreover, he exudes an air of positive power and modified sophistication.
HOLLYWOOD, CA - FEBRUARY 28: Actor Michael B. Jordan attends the 88th Annual Academy Awards at . [+] Dolby Theatre on February 28, 2016 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Christopher Polk/Getty Images)
An impeccable look is definitely about the tailoring but intricate details can be even better. For me, menswear style exists with proper fit, balance and proportion. The few tips I can give you are to wear professional and conservative clothing, be mindful that the clothing is clean and pressed and chose conservative shoes that are clean and polished. And never wear your clothes too tight. It will make you appear awkward.
From Amazon Devices To Roombas, These 10 Products Are Bound To Sell Out During Prime Day
Heads Up: These 15 Prime Day Competitors Are Running Sales To Compete With Amazon
That being said, do you ever wonder what the world’s most famous men in Hollywood are wearing? Thankfully, I am not referring to actors. In fact, I think most actors today need me to teach them the guidelines on how to look and dress age appropriately. On the contrary, I am referring to the true power players within the film industry. The men that run Hollywood from production all the way through to wrapping-up the final edits and packaging the film to present to the biggest film companies in the world.
These are the men in Hollywood- who fundamentally get the job done!
MILAN, ITALY - JANUARY 16: Models pose at Ralph Lauren Purple Label Presentation as part of Milan . [+] Men's Fashion Week FW16 on January 16, 2016 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Stefania D'Alessandro/Getty Images)
Back to fashion few American menswear designers are more committed to Hollywood style than Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford and Paul Stuart. It’s no wonder why power house CEO Brad Feinstein has made Ralph Lauren Purple Label and RRL his go to selection while walking the red carpet on Hollywood’s biggest night!
More importantly, what I find most appealing is that Feinstein pays great respect and tribute to great American menswear designers. But then again, Feinstein walks to his own beat at work and at play. On his casual days, you can find him dressed in RRL’s tough leather jackets and biker boots. It is fitting as his look is ruggedly handsome and his style fits the bill.
Brad Feinstein - CEO, Romulus Entertainment wears SuitSupply
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
It all started when Brad Feinstein founded his independent production company, Romulus Entertainment, to finance and produce original, captivating, extraordinary films that speak to our humanity. As an entrepreneur and visionary producer, he is responsible for bringing provocative and transcendent content to the big screen while enabling the filmmakers (with whom he partners) to reach their creative vision.
One of the first things you need to know about Brad is that he is, to some extent, a risk-taker. But “With great risk comes great reward”. He decided to step outside of the status quo, and be a part of the creative process that ignites fascination and thought.
He started his career as an investment banker and financial advisor. Subsequently, he used the merged his experience as an investment banker, extensive knowledge of corporate finance and his love of movies to create his company.
In 2016, Brad launched New York-based Romulus Entertainment, an independent production company that finances and produces original film and television content. Romulus was founded on several principles including timeliness, efficacy, and selectivity, all of which inform Brad’s decisions and are subtly infused into every film he makes. By concentrating his efforts on substantial, dramatic stories and high-action thrillers, he seemingly culminates new groundbreaking films each year. In a modern day Hollywood he seeks and attracts directors and talent, in order to bring these noteworthy stories to the screen.
His films tell stories that challenge and inspire the viewers, that will resonate with them, and leave them mesmerized long after the movie is over.
Since the inception of Romulus, there have been many high points for Brad as a producer, including the releases of Gully, a dystopian drama, and Dreamland, a coming-of-age story set in the Great Depression, both of which premiered at the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival. Jungleland, a cross-country tale of two brothers trying to escape their circumstances via bare-knuckle boxing, premiered at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival.
Bruised, a story of a disgraced MMA fighter battling her own demons, and her complicated emotional . [+] relationship with her 6 year old son.
Bruised: courtesy of Romulus Entertainment
With the fight for racial justice and equality at the forefront of 2020, both of these films feel relevant, and very timely. Brad was thrilled to produce Halle Berry’s directorial debut, Bruised, a story of a disgraced MMA fighter battling her own demons, and her complicated emotional relationship with her 6 year old son. The Banker tells a compelling story of two African-American entrepreneurs set in the 1960s, and the lengths to which they had to go, in order to be successful.
The Banker courtesy of Romulus Entertainment and Apple TV+
I recently had the privilege to speak with Brad Feinstein - CEO, Romulus Entertainment about the origins of the name Romulus, how his job is to support the filmmakers and make sure the financing is in place and why he believes that Ralph Lauren Purple label works best for him while walking the red carpet at the Oscars!
@paulstuartny- Blue super 120 wool pinstriped suit,
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
Paul Stuart Blue super 120 wool pinstriped suit, Bengal blue, and white striped dress shirt, and silk dot tie. Suit $2495 ,Shirt $255 and tie $155
Joseph DeAcetis: Romulus produces and finances most of its projects, how do you make that happen?
Brad Feinstein: We are very fortunate to have a very dedicated finance partner for Romulus’s projects. My partner, Joseph Ingrassia and I met while I was still working with my previous company, and in 2016 we decided we would start a new business together. The goal was to merge Joe’s background in private equity with my finance and creative background, with Joe providing the capital and with me creatively producing all of the films. It’s worked out incredibly well because I have the autonomy to do whatever I want creatively and can feel comfortable to know that the money is going to be there when we go to make a movie. The thought process is first the creative has to make sense, then the economics need to check out. And once both things work, then we know we have a movie.
JD: What advice do you have for a young film entrepreneur wanting to get into the game?
BF: It’s difficult for me to suggest what path anyone else should take because there are so many ways to enter this business. Some producers work for more experienced producers as assistants and learn the business that way, I entered the biz on more of a finance track, however I think the best advice I can give is to find stories that you are passionate about and don’t give up. Because it is a long process making a film, sometimes spanning years of your life, so it needs to be something you really care about. It takes years to get movies made and the reason most people fail is because they just stop trying. There are movies that made sense years ago that just don’t make sense today and there are scripts that we couldn’t get made a few years ago that are very relevant today, so a lot of it is about the timing of the project as well and not giving up on it.
Dreamland: Starring Margot Robbie
Dreamland: courtesy of Romulus Entertainment and Paramount Home Entertainment
JD: Talk to Forbes about the origins of the name Romulus and the significance of the brand name within the film industry?
BF: I’ve always been attracted to history and things that are mythological, and Romulus was the founder of Rome. From what was just a single hill he built an empire, and that is what we aspired to do when we started this business —- to build something out of nothing. The company is only three years old, and I would like to believe that we have begun to build some brand awareness with the films that we have done. My hope is that the name speaks to quality and projects that speak to social awareness.
Brad Feinstein - CEO, Romulus Entertainment wears Black leather western shirt isRalph Lauren. Jeans . [+] RRL. Boots Frye, watch Rolex
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
JD: I know that you can't offer a tutorial on how to be successful in Hollywood, but Apple, Paramount, (NETFLIX). have put their trust in you especially during a trying year as 2020. Can you identify your strengths or strategies you took that were rewarded with respect to script, budget, schedule, casting and crew?
BF: We have been incredibly fortunate to have great partners like Apple. Netflix, and Paramount. I am just thankful that they have supported the films that we’ve wanted to make. I think it all starts with finding great material and filmmakers and then elevating that material with stellar cast and crew and bringing it all in at a reasonable price point. If you have enough money you can make anything, but being able to manage finances appropriately and making it at the right price is really the art of it.
JD: How does the role of a producer vary from film to film. Please give detailed examples?
BF: I’m sure some producers do different things on different films, but my role really doesn’t change. I wear multiple hats on every film, but really my focuses are on the creative and getting the financing of the film in order. My job is to support the filmmakers and make sure the financing is in place, then typically we will give notes on the script, work with the director on casting and hiring the department heads, and then oversee production of the film, and ultimately make deals to sell the film to distributors. That really never changes.
Brad Feinstein - CEO, Romulus Entertainment wears RRL
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
JD:Talk to Forbes about the importance of power dressing (such as the Paul Stuart pinstripe power look suit pictured above) with respect to the entertainment industry?
BF: I would say both inside and outside the entertainment industry, the first thing people notice is your appearance. It’s just a fact that people will judge you by how you’re dressed. And whether you are on set or attending an event, it’s important to dress properly. People are fascinated by old Hollywood glamor. There are entire TV shows dedicated to what people are wearing at awards shows. In some respects, awards shows are just as important for showcasing style as the runways and catwalks of the fashion business. People look to Hollywood for their style advice. It can be incredibly nerve wracking to have to walk these red carpets, but it’s not really about me. My job as a producer is to support my talent and make sure they look great.
MILAN, ITALY - JANUARY 16: Models pose at Ralph Lauren Purple Label Presentation as part of Milan . [+] Men's Fashion Week FW16 on January 16, 2016 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Stefania D'Alessandro/Getty Images)
JD: In your words, when you are considering signing on to produce a film, what makes you unique and stand apart from other Hollywood producers? It is the materials, heartfelt storylines, location.
BF: As I said earlier, I think it all begins with the script, and making sure that we are telling stories that are going to be timely and thought provoking that have a social element that can inspire change. I think that’s been the difference-maker for us. What also makes us different is the fact that we not only produce the films, but we also finance them. So, we operate like a mini studio where we can choose the material we want to make and then finance the films. The locations are also key. I feel like people want to see films that feel transportive and bring them to places they want to imagine themselves in for the next two hours —- especially during these times of Covid when people can't really travel.
Ralph Lauren Purple Label:
Ralph Lauren Gregory Notch-Lapel Tuxedo
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
Ralph Lauren—Gregory Notch-Lapel Tuxedo. The Gregory combines lightweight full canvassing and a modern silhouette with Purple Label's unparalleled quality and fine Italian craftsmanship. At the start of construction, pattern pieces are hand-cut by expert tailors, ensuring precision of the highest caliber. Wool barathea fabric personally selected by Mr. Lauren combined with considered details such as hand-sewn buttonholes and edges complete this signature tuxedo. $3,295, Poplin Tuxedo Shirt. Fit for the most elegant formal occasions, this shirt is tailored in Italy from crisp cotton poplin and distinguished by a pleated bib. French cuffs and genuine mother-of-pearl buttons complete this sophisticated piece.$695
JD: How do you describe your personal style with menswear today? And where do you get your style influence from?
As a producer I spend a lot of time on set so I like to be comfortable in my style and I think the things I wear have to be somewhat rugged and durable because I have to be out in the elements all day. I’m not sure people realize when they watch a movie how much time we spend outside. Most of my movies aren’t made in a studio, they’re made on location. My style has to be somewhat eclectic because most of the time I’m on set, where I need to be wearing big boots and warm coats because we spend most of our time in the elements, and then also balancing that with certain dressier things I need to wear to red carpets and events (when we used to still have those). I think Ralph Lauren’s Double RL line captures a lot of my style, which is somewhat moto-inspired, somewhat western inspired, and also inspired by the style of the 40s and 50s. That is what I feel the most comfortable in.
JD: From a producer's perspective, what gives you the confidence to take on such controversial films such as The Banker.
BF: I think that I have always felt a sense of obligation that if we’re fortunate enough to get to make the films that we want to make, they should be films that say something. Everyone’s tastes are different and some people choose to produce horror movies or faith-based films, but whatever the genre is, I want to make things that are thought provoking and create social awareness. I am fortunate to have the opportunity that I do it took me a long time to get out of a finance seat and get into a creative seat. I want to make things that are inspiring because I think those are the films that will endure the test of time.
Ralph Lauren Purple Label:
Ralph Lauren Purple Label Gregory Handmade Tuxedo. The Gregory combines lightweight full canvassing . [+] and a modern silhouette with Purple Label's unparalleled quality
Photo Courtesy of Macrae Marran"
Ralph Lauren-Gregory Handmade Tuxedo. The Gregory combines lightweight full canvassing and a modern silhouette with Purple Label's unparalleled quality and even greater hand-craftsmanship. At the start of construction, pattern pieces are manually cut by expert Italian tailors, ensuring precision of the highest caliber. Wool gabardine fabric personally selected by Mr. Lauren combined with considered details such as hand-sewn buttonholes and edges complete this signature tuxedo. $5,995 Poplin Tuxedo Shirt- Fit for the most elegant formal occasions, this shirt is tailored in Italy from crisp cotton poplin and distinguished by a pleated bib. French cuffs and genuine mother-of-pearl buttons complete this sophisticated piece.$695 and Dalvin Calfskin Oxford —True to our dedication to craftsmanship, this streamlined men's oxford is constructed by artisans in Italy from calfskin that is hand-burnished to achieve a rich depth of color.$1,250
JD: What is it about the Ralph Lauren Purple label that works for you on a Hollywood red carpet such as the Oscars?
Ralph Lauren Purple label is incredibly stylish and classy and they use the highest end materials in the clothing they make. The clothing is so well made that it's almost impossible to look bad in it, and the styles are timeless and transcendent. You can just see the difference in quality with Purple label versus most other brands, so when you're on the red carpet it automatically stands out. Ralph Lauren, for me, is the one brand that I can one stop shop between Double RL and Purple label, which can cover pretty much my entire wardrobe.
The impressionist artists were friends, who as a group were part of the cafe set in the city of Paris. Many of them lived in the Batignolles neighborhood, located in the 17th arrondissement of the city. Their favorite meeting place was the Café Guerbois, located on Avenue de Clichy in Paris. The most influential impressionists of the period include: