ociety underwent changes that proved to be permanent. The arts, it is argued, consequently "suffered a blow from which they never recovered" (Vermeule 159).
But the extent to which a few examples of the new unclassical art found on the Arch of Constantine foretell the future of Christian art is problematic. Vermeule himself notes that, even though the victory has ultimately been understood as the triumph of the new religion, at the time the Arch was constructed "the old expressions of Roman imperium were no less a force in the arts" (184). The elegant triple arch, which features a harmonious and relatively simple design, is "perhaps the best of the surviving Roman triumphal arches" even though it came at the end of the tradition, was hastily constructed, and cannibalized sculpture and architecture from several earlier monuments (Strong 276).
It should be clear that there is no reason to assume that there was any Christian element in the sculptural program of the Arch which was, as Grabar puts it, "pagan through and through" (148). Grabar adds that the monument sought to "glorify the 'Unconquerable Sun' as the emperor's guide and guardian" but the image of the sun is balanced by one of the moon. They were contemporary work but were carved in imitation of the classical style and the lack of specificity regarding the role of the sun or the moon may have been, despite Grabar's claim, a mark of the emperor's discretion (Grabar 148). Certainly the elegant and eminently legible inscription on the monument is notable for the absence of any invocation of a particular god. The dedication is made to Constantine "the Pious, the Fortunate, Augustus--inasmuch as through the inspiration of deity, and the greatness of his mind, he, with his army, avenged the State" (quoted in Vermeule 170). Much of the senatorial class remained hostile to Christianity and in 315, and for some time after, Constantine held to a "calculated policy of balan...