According to art historian Zanker, an “A Roman emperor was defined not simply by his own actions, but also by the manner in which he presented himself, the way he appeared in public, and the personal style he adopted in his interaction with the Senate and the people.” Throughout imperial Roman history, every emperor grappled with the task of balancing their image between a powerful ruler and a princeps, or “first citizen”. As seen earlier in the Augustus exhibit, Augustus managed to do this very well. Another important piece of architecture with which emperors conveyed this message was their living quarters. For example, Augustus had very modest and public living quarters, balancing his image of being the princeps and “the first among equals” very well.
Domitian, the last of the Flavian emperors, was not a particularly well-liked ruler. There were many rumors that he had murdered his brother, Titus, in order to secure his position as emperor. Because of the generally dim view people had towards him and his rule, Domitian felt even more pressure to reaffirm his power. One of the most notable ways he did this was through the building of the Flavian palace, one of the most exceedingly extravagant living quarters that have ever been built for an emperor.
The palace is currently in ruins with some reconstructions done. It had 3 main areas: the public area (Domus Flavia), the private residential area (Domus Augstana), which took up more than two-thirds of the entire palace, and the gardens. The entire structure was built on man-made foundations stretching from the Gemeline hill to the Palatine, symbolically showing the emperor’s immense power in being able to manipulate nature.
Implication’s on Domitian’s Rule
Ruins of the Palatine. Image from https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/39818/277315/f/2340679-Domus-Flavia-Flavian-Palace-1.jpg
Sources:
Paul Zanker, “Domitian’s Palace on the Palatine and the Imperial Image,” in Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, eds. Alan Bowman et. al., Proceedings of the British Academy 114(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 105-130.