Aqueduct near Rome by Thomas Cole

Aqueduct near Rome by Thomas Cole: Introduction

A great line of broken arches crosses the countryside in Thomas Cole’s Aqueduct near Rome. Evening sunlight catches the masonry, while a broad shadow lies over the grass. The structure still commands the landscape, although gaps and fallen fragments reveal how much has disappeared. Cole painted this large canvas in 1832, drawing on sketches made outside Rome and completing the work after returning to Florence. It brings a closely observed place into a meditation on the survival of nature and the fragility of human achievement. ^[1]

The painting belongs to the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum at Washington University in St. Louis. Its Roman setting marks an important expansion of Cole’s landscape art: a countryside shaped by ancient engineering offered him a different way to explore time from the wooded mountains of his American pictures. A shepherd and animals continue their ordinary life beside the remains of an empire. The beauty of the view makes that contrast more affecting. ^[2]

At a Glance

• ArtistThomas Cole (1801–1848).
• Title and dateAqueduct near Rome, 1832.
• MediumOil on canvas.
• Dimensions44½ × 67 5/16 inches, unframed.
• CollectionMildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, Washington University in St. Louis; WU 1987.4.
• CommissionCharles Lyman of Waltham, Massachusetts.
• MakingBased on Roman drawings and oil studies; completed in Florence.
• Early circulationExhibited at the National Academy of Design in 1833 and engraved by James Smillie that year. ^{[2] [1]}

Contents

1. Introduction
2. A monument spread across the landscape
3. Evening light and a living foreground
4. Drawing Rome, painting in Florence
5. Claude’s countryside and Cole’s historical imagination
6. Empire without a battle
7. Ruins inside and outside the city
8. An Italian view for American audiences
9. More than one watercourse

A monument spread across the landscape

The first striking feature is the relationship between the tall tower on the left and the long, diminishing arcade. The tower supplies a strong upright near the edge. From its vicinity, the aqueduct moves across the picture in a succession of sunlit supports and dark openings. The eye follows the repeated arches towards the distant hills, measuring the depth of the landscape through their shrinking scale.

That progression is interrupted. Some stretches retain a regular rhythm, while others have broken into isolated piers or short sections. Cole gives the viewer enough of the original pattern to imagine its continuity, then makes its losses visible. The aqueduct consequently appears both extensive and vulnerable. It is an imposing piece of construction whose ruin can be read in the spaces between its surviving parts.

Elizabeth Mankin Kornhauser’s catalogue entry identifies the structure as the Claudian aqueduct and the tower as the medieval Tor Fiscale. The tower therefore introduces a later historical layer into the remains of ancient Rome. Cole’s landscape contains more than one period of building, and the upright that anchors its composition is itself evidence of the continuing adaptation of an older site. The aqueduct’s former purpose was to bring water to the city; its identity as infrastructure matters as much as its picturesque appearance. ^[1]

A water-carrying structure makes a particularly suggestive ruin. Its surviving supports imply organised labour, technical knowledge and the maintenance of urban life. Even in decay, the repeated forms preserve something of that order. Yet the foreground vegetation and broken stone make it clear that the landscape no longer obeys the structure’s original demands. The engineered line has become one element within a wider, changing countryside.

The contrast between near and far helps Cole hold these ideas together. At the left, the masonry has weight, height and a rough edge against the sky. Towards the right, the same architecture becomes a thin band of light. The hills continue beyond it. The eye can move from the close evidence of damage to the spacious beauty of the whole view without leaving the picture. Ruin is therefore experienced at two scales: as fractured material and as a grand form fading into distance.

Evening light and a living foreground

The light makes the aqueduct’s rhythm unusually clear. Warm illumination touches the upright surfaces, while the openings and adjacent ground fall into deeper tones. These alternating areas allow the architecture to stand out without separating it entirely from its setting. Stone, grass and distant hills participate in the same evening atmosphere.

Much of the emotional effect comes from the breadth of the shadow. The bright arcade is surrounded by ground that looks darker, cooler and less sharply articulated. Rather than distributing equal emphasis throughout the scene, Cole concentrates attention on the surviving monument. The sky above opens into a comparatively quiet field. Its spaciousness gives the eye relief from the broken, closely textured forms below.

Kornhauser identifies a low moon, a shepherd with his flock in the middle distance, and a goat at the far right facing the sunset. These details establish the scene’s evening character and its pastoral activity. They also prevent the ruin from becoming an empty architectural display. Life persists here through small movements and modest occupations, far below the scale of the ancient construction. ^[1]

The human figure is small enough that the landscape remains the principal subject. Nevertheless, the shepherd changes its meaning. A monumental public work once served a great city; now an individual tends animals in its vicinity. The two activities imply very different kinds of social organisation. Cole does not need a crowd or a historical reenactment to make the contrast legible. The large surviving structure and the slight living figure carry it between them.

The foreground asks for a slower kind of attention. Kornhauser points to architectural fragments surrounded by vegetation and to a human skull, interpreting them as reminders of mortality and nature’s ascendancy. These are details within the painted composition, not evidence that Cole encountered a body during his excursion. Their significance lies in the association they create between the broken monument and the vulnerability of individual life. ^[1]

A skull compresses the theme of death into a small object; the aqueduct enlarges it to the scale of a civilisation. Vegetation introduces another timescale, growing around what people have left behind. The effect is more complex than a simple opposition between dead stone and living plants. The masonry remains beautiful, the countryside contains decay, and the pastoral figures inhabit the same world as the fragments. Continuity and loss occupy the scene together.

Drawing Rome, painting in Florence

Cole arrived in Rome from Florence in February 1832 and spent roughly four months there. He travelled into the Campagna, the countryside around the city, to study the aqueducts. According to Kornhauser, the finished painting drew on several graphite sketches, some extending across two sketchbook pages, as well as two oil studies made at the site. The catalogue notes connect the aqueduct drawings with a sketchbook dated 7 May 1832. ^[1]

Each medium offered different possibilities. A drawing could establish the long arrangement of piers and arches, helping Cole understand how the structure moved through space. An oil study could register relationships of colour and light that would change while he worked. Their combined use explains why the finished painting can feel attentive to a particular place while also possessing the clarity of a carefully arranged composition.

Kornhauser describes Campagna di Roma, the daylight study, as painted with broad, wet-in-wet strokes. Its clouds were laid in expansively, and Cole included a shepherd with a flock. A second study shows the scene in the waning light of early evening, with the moon appearing. The suggestion that the two were painted on the same day is a scholarly possibility rather than an established sequence. What is secure is that they preserve different lighting conditions. ^[1]

This distinction matters. The large canvas was not the mechanical enlargement of one small image. Cole had several observations from which to choose, including differing skies and degrees of illumination. He could combine the site’s structural character with an atmosphere suited to the exhibition painting. The evening effect is part of the work’s organisation, carrying both the visual separation of forms and the sense that an extensive history is drawing towards its close.

Christopher Riopelle’s study of Cole’s oil sketches offers a particularly useful comparison. He describes the free handling of Campagna di Roma, its substantial paint and dominant brown tonality, and notes the small shepherd’s red vest. In the larger studio painting, he finds a more controlled sky, smoother handling and sunlight that distinguishes the forms more emphatically. His argument is that the finished composition depended on the vitality of the outdoor sketch even as Cole transformed its appearance. ^[4]

The difference between the two formats also changes the viewer’s experience. The study records a relatively immediate encounter, with the application of paint remaining conspicuous. In the finished canvas, the long recession of architecture becomes easier to follow as a continuous design. The work invites sustained looking across a wide surface. Its order is achieved through choices made after the initial encounter, while the encounter supplies the material that keeps the design from becoming merely conventional.

Riopelle places Cole’s Roman sketches within an established practice of artists working before Italian monuments and skies. He also traces Cole’s outdoor oil sketching to Florence in 1831. By the time he studied the aqueduct, this activity was part of a developing working method. Aqueduct drawings and painted studies thus offer unusually concrete evidence for Cole’s technique: attentive looking, rapid recording and later composition were connected stages of his landscape art. ^[4]

Claude’s countryside and Cole’s historical imagination

Rome presented Cole with a landscape he already knew through art. Tim Barringer explains that Claude Lorrain was an important attraction for visiting landscape painters: the Campagna was the terrain from which Claude had fashioned his celebrated pastoral worlds. Cole had studied Claude in London before encountering the Italian countryside himself. Ancient masonry, green foregrounds and distant blue hills could therefore be both immediate observations and reminders of a pictorial tradition. ^[5]

In Aqueduct near Rome, this inheritance can be felt in the spacious recession and the relationship between a quiet pastoral life and impressive architecture. Yet the building does not offer an intact setting for an ideal society. Its broken rhythm repeatedly brings attention back to historical loss. Cole makes the inherited landscape arrangement accommodate a monument that has outlived the power responsible for it.

Barringer also draws attention to Cole’s signature on a fallen classical pediment. He interprets this placement as a playful act with serious implications, associating the painter with the vanished order and the theme of decline. The signature makes an old fragment carry a new name. In that reading, Cole situates his own artistic presence within the history he is contemplating, rather than simply recording the scene from outside it. ^[5]

The same essay proposes a further association: Roman aqueducts might have recalled the railway viaducts being built in Britain. Barringer asks whether Cole could have considered the visual resemblance between ancient infrastructure and modern industrial construction. This is an interpretive question, not a documented explanation of the painting’s subject. No railway appears in the view. Nevertheless, the comparison brings out why an aqueduct could interest a nineteenth-century observer as a technological achievement as well as a ruin. ^[5]

That double interest makes the work resistant to a purely sentimental reading. The arches are attractive because light falls across them and because their surviving pattern suggests the intelligence of their builders. Their damaged state then complicates that admiration. Looking at the painting involves recognising achievement and recognising its limits, without being able to preserve one entirely from the other.

Watch: Thomas Cole

Choose a film to explore the artist’s work, its interpretation and its wider setting.

Thomas Cole: Painting the American Landscape (remastered audio)

Thomas Cole National Historic Site

An introduction to Cole’s landscapes and artistic ambitions.

Watch on YouTube

▶01 · WatchPainting the American landscapeThomas Cole National Historic Site▶02 · WatchEden to EmpireThe National Gallery

Empire without a battle

Kornhauser sees the picture as an anticipation of The Course of Empire, Cole’s five-part account of a civilisation’s development and collapse. The Kemper museum’s collection label similarly interprets the ruin as a meditation on imperial rise and fall, with implications for the young United States. These are scholarly and museum readings of the work; the painting’s Roman setting alone does not establish a specific political message from Cole. ^{[1] [2]}

The connection is strongest in the way the landscape makes a former society imaginable through its remains. There is no battle, fire or advancing army. The aqueduct bears the consequences of time without showing a moment of destruction. Its silence leaves the viewer to reconstruct the human activity that once justified such a large undertaking.

Compared with the successive scenes of The Course of Empire, this single view has to hold several states together. The arches imply a period of construction and use; their gaps disclose a later breakdown; the shepherd and vegetation inhabit what follows. The landscape thus contains a history without illustrating each episode. This economy helps explain why the ruin has such force: past ambition is present as material evidence, while ordinary life continues around it.

The evening setting gives this historical meditation a measured pace. Shadows lengthen, but the view remains calm. Nature’s persistence is not represented as an explosive victory. It appears in the plants beside the fragments, the animals in the grass and the atmosphere extending beyond the masonry. Human achievement has become part of a world it can no longer fully organise.

Ruins inside and outside the city

Cole’s Interior of the Colosseum, Rome, made around the same time, offers a useful comparison. Kornhauser describes plants growing within the monument, along its inner arches and across the ground. Cole also drew individual plants and collected leaves. The vegetation associated with Roman ruins was therefore something he studied at close range, rather than a decorative addition supplied entirely from imagination. ^[1]

The Colosseum picture places the viewer within an enclosing structure. The aqueduct view opens outwards: its arcade leads across an extensive landscape, with sky above and hills beyond. Both subjects allow surviving architecture to organise the scene, but they produce different experiences of scale. One surrounds the spectator with the remains of a public arena; the other makes the spectator follow a public utility into the countryside.

This comparison also clarifies the foreground in Aqueduct near Rome. Nature does not merely provide a distant backdrop to a historical subject. Plants occupy the immediate territory of broken architecture, bringing the process of change close to the viewer. In the Colosseum, living growth appears within the monument’s interior; beside the aqueduct, it occupies the ground around surviving piers and fragments. Cole’s interest in the meeting of construction and vegetation could operate in a concentrated architectural enclosure or across a broad prospect. The Roman works gave him different forms through which to explore that relationship. ^[1]

An Italian view for American audiences

The painting was commissioned by Charles Lyman of Waltham, Massachusetts, who was himself travelling in Rome. Cole completed the canvas in Florence. The commission joined an American patron’s encounter with Italy to the artist’s own concentrated study of the country’s monuments and landscape. It gave a particular Roman site a future in American collecting and exhibition. ^[1]

After returning to New York in November 1832, Cole showed works made in Italy in his studio. Shannon Vittoria’s chronology records Aqueduct near Rome among the pictures displayed in January 1833. The studio exhibition allowed viewers to see the results of his European travel soon after his return. Later that year the painting appeared at the National Academy of Design, giving it a place in a broader public exhibition setting. ^{[6] [1]}

James Smillie engraved the image in 1833. Kornhauser relates its popularity and its influence on other American painters to this circulation, noting that it was emulated and sometimes copied. The catalogue’s notes also identify the painting as the source of the frontispiece to Henry Tuckerman’s The Italian Sketch Book in 1837. An image that began with Cole’s excursions into the Campagna therefore reached readers as well as exhibition visitors. ^[1]

The response of Francis Alexander is especially revealing because he had accompanied Cole into the countryside. In a letter dated 2 April 1834, reproduced in Kornhauser’s entry, Alexander praised the painting’s truth to nature and described its power to revive his experience of the place. His testimony connects the composed canvas back to a shared encounter outdoors. The painting’s historical meaning did not prevent a knowledgeable observer from recognising the feeling of the actual site. ^[1]

Cole returned to the subject in Roman Campagna, dated 1843, reducing the format and omitting the Tor Fiscale. Kornhauser discusses this later canvas alongside Evening in Arcady. The 1843 date belongs to the painting; Cole’s second European journey took place in 1841–42. The later work demonstrates how material from Italy continued to serve his art after the initial visit, with the familiar aqueduct arrangement available for renewed choices of scale and emphasis. ^{[1] [6]}

Aqueduct near Rome remains compelling because its historical argument is carried by the landscape itself. The tower arrests the eye, the arches lead it into distance, and the foreground draws it back to fragments and living things. The view preserves the grandeur of the monument while showing a countryside that continues beyond its usefulness. Cole’s Roman studies supplied the place; his finished composition made its beauty inseparable from its passing human history.

More than one watercourse

The archaeological landscape near Tor Fiscale contains several aqueducts whose conduits and later alterations complicate the impression of one monumental ruin. The Appia Antica archaeological park explains that Aqua Tepula and Aqua Julia were carried above the older Aqua Marcia. Another line of arches supported Aqua Claudia with Anio Novus above it. Those two watercourses were planned under Caligula in AD 38 and inaugurated under Claudius in AD 52. Much later, the Felice aqueduct was inserted among ancient structures during the pontificate of Sixtus V. ^[7]

That layered history gives the repeated arches a practical significance alongside their evocative silhouette. They supported systems for conveying water, with new work built over or alongside existing infrastructure. The accompanying modern photograph of Aqua Claudia makes the height, thickness and rhythm of the masonry easier to examine. It is a view of surviving structures in the Roman aqueduct landscape, without claiming to reproduce Cole’s precise position or the condition he observed.

Aqua Claudia in the Parco degli Acquedotti, Rome, photographed in 2018. The image helps explain the scale and construction of the surviving arches; it does not claim Cole’s exact viewpoint. Image: Mario2912. CC BY-SA 4.0. Resized. This image derivative is available under the same licence.

Cole’s distant treatment turns such engineering into a measured line across the countryside. Reading the ruins as water infrastructure adds another human scale to the scene: the monument once connected everyday urban needs to labour and resources beyond the city.

Frequently Asked Questions

References

1. Elizabeth Mankin Kornhauser, entries 38–40, “Interior of the Colosseum, Rome”, “Aqueduct near Rome” and “Campagna di Roma”, in Thomas Cole’s Journey: Atlantic Crossings (2018), pp. 181–185; associated notes pp. 270–271. Catalogue PDF.
2. Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, “Aqueduct near Rome”, current collection metadata and permanent collection label (2017); indexed record consulted 6 October 2026. Collection record.
3. Elizabeth Mankin Kornhauser and Tim Barringer, Thomas Cole’s Journey: Atlantic Crossings (2018). Career context and artwork/study metadata: catalogue entries 10–66 and chronology, PDF pp. 137–231 and 249–262; related Barringer essay passages, PDF pp. 23–66.
4. Christopher Riopelle, “Thomas Cole and the Landscape Oil Sketch”, in Thomas Cole’s Journey: Atlantic Crossings (2018), pp. 102–104. Catalogue PDF.
5. Tim Barringer, “Thomas Cole’s Atlantic Crossings”, in Thomas Cole’s Journey: Atlantic Crossings (2018), pp. 47–48. Catalogue PDF.
6. Shannon Vittoria, “Chronology”, in Thomas Cole’s Journey: Atlantic Crossings (2018), pp. 253–257. Catalogue PDF.
7. Parco Archeologico dell’Appia Antica, “Parco di Tor Fiscale”, official archaeological account in Italian, accessed 6 October 2026. Source.
8. Franklin Kelly et al., American Paintings of the Nineteenth Century, Part I (National Gallery of Art, 1996). Cole catalogue and both Voyage of Life sets, PDF pp. 91–124.
9. National Gallery of Art, Study for The Mountain Ford (1846), accession 2015.19.772. Collection record and open-access image.
10. National Gallery of Art, Tree Trunks (1825–1840), accession 2015.19.607. Collection metadata and open-access image.
11. Splash image source.

    Thomas Cole, Aqueduct near Rome, 1832. Oil on canvas, 44½ × 67 5/16 inches, unframed. Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, Washington University in St. Louis, University purchase, Bixby Fund, by exchange, 1987 (WU 1987.4).