Stamper2005-The Architecture of Roman Temples_extras

The A R C H I T E C T U R E oj R O M A N

TEMPLES

The Republic to the Middle Empire

This book examines the development of Roman temple architecture from its earliest history in the sixth century B.c. to the reigns of Hadrian and the Antonines in the second century A.D. Although archaeologists, architects, and historians have studied these temples since the Renaissance, this book is unique for its specific analysis of Roman temples as a building type. John Stamper analyzes their formal qualities, the public spaces in which they were located, and, most importantly, the authority of precedent in their designs. The basis ofthat authority was the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the city's first and most important temple. Stamper challenges the accepted reconstruction of this temple, proposing a new reconstruction and an assessment of its role in the transformation of Rome. He also traces Rome's temple architecture as it evolved over time and how it accommodated changing political and religious contexts, as well as the effects of new stylistic influences. John W. Stamper is Associate Professor and Associate Dean in the School of Architecture at the University of Notre Dame. Both an architect and architectural historian, he is the author of Chicago's North Michigan Avenue: Planning and Development, 1Q00-1Q30.

The ARCHITECTURE of ROMAN TEMPLES

The Republic to the Middle Empire

JOHN W. STAMPER University of Notre Dame

111 CAMBRIDGE ^0

UNIVERSITY PRESS

P U B L I S H E D BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vie 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcôn 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http:/'www.cambridge.org © John W. Stamper 2005 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2005 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typefaces Bembo 11/14 pt., Weiss, Trajan, andjanson

System VSTipXig [TB]

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Stamper, John W. The architecture of Roman temples : the republic to the middle empire / J o h n W Stamper. p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-521-81068-x 1. Temples, Roman - Italy - Rome. 2. Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus (Rome, Italy) 3. Architecture, Roman — Italy - Rome - Influence. 4. R o m e (Italy) - Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title. NA323.S73 2004 726'.i207'o9376 - dc22 2004045666 ISBN o 521 81068 x hardback

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations Preface

page vii xiii

Introduction: The Authority of Precedent

i

1

Building the Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus

6

2

A New Reconstruction of the Temple

19

3

Etrusco-Roman Temples of the Early Republic

34

4

Assimilation of Hellenistic Architecture after the Punic Wars

49

5

The Corinthian Order in the First Century B.C.

68

6

Architecture and Ceremony in the Time of Pompey and Julius Caesar

84

7

Rebuilding Rome in the Time of Augustus

105

8

Augustus and the Temple of Mars Ultor

130

9

Temples and Fora of the Flavian Emperors

151

10

The Forum Traiani

173

11

Hadrian's Pantheon

184

12

Hadrian and the Antonines

206

Epilogue

219

Notes List of Abbreviations Works Cited and Consulted Index

-

223 261 265 281

EPILOGUE

T

his study's primary intention has been to analyze the architectural, religious, and political importance of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome from the time of its dedication at the beginning of the Republic to the middle Empire. The Capitoline Temple exerted a powerful influence on Roman society for centuries, serving as the focal point of the city's religious and political culture. From its location on top of the Capitoline Hill, the temple dominated the city around it just as the Parthenon came to dominate Athens after its construction in the mid—fifth century B.C. The Capitoline Temple was a timeless beacon guarding over the city, evoking memories of Rome's founding, its greatest leaders, and its long tradition of celebratory events. Throughout the Republic, no other temple in Rome rivaled the Capitoline Temple in size or religious and political importance. Most other temples were barely half its size, and none commanded such an imposing site. It was only in the time of Augustus, with the construction of the Temple of Mars Ultor, that it was rivaled in scale and prominence. The width of this temple's pronaos was, in fact, nearly equal to that of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus as it is reconstructed in this study, suggesting that Augustus's architects looked to the ancient building as a precedent. The Capitoline Temple may have been the model in a similar manner for Vespasian's architect in building the Templum Pacis and again for the builders of the Temple of Divus Traianus and the Pantheon. This study's second intention was to analyze Rome's temple architecture as it changed over time. It has taken into account the fact that many of the temples, whether in the Forum Romanum, the Forum Boarium, the Largo Argentina, or around the Circus

Flaminia, were built, destroyed, and then rebuilt again. In some cases, this was a cycle that was repeated two or three times. The Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus was built and rebuilt four times between 525-507 B.C. and A.D. 82. With each of these rebuildings, certain features of the temple's plan or stylistic details were altered to reflect the changing political and religious context and the effects of new stylistic influences. This book began with a challenge to the currently accepted reconstruction of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, arguing that its width, length, height, and interaxial spacings are far too large for the technology of Roman builders in the sixth century B.C. Because of its exaggerated size, it has been viewed by most architectural historians as an anomaly in the history of Roman architecture. This exaggerated size has always made it difficult to relate the Capitoline Temple to any other temples, whether Etruscan, republican, or imperial. The new reconstruction proposed here is based on a different interpretation of the building's physical evidence and written accounts by ancient authors. It also takes into account a comparative study of later temple architecture in R o m e to which it was indubitably linked. It proposes a building whose dimensions are more compatible with both contemporary and later temples, and thus more within the capabilities of builders in the sixth century B.C. The Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus presented here is seen not as an anomaly, but as a paradigmatic building that had a major influence on the designs of many later temple structures and their iconographie programs, at least until the middle of the second century A.D. The review of Etrusco-Roman temples from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. revealed a period of experimentation in plan type yet a continuing use of 219

220

THE ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN TEMPLES

characteristic Etruscan and Latin features, for instance, the tall podium, widely spaced columns in a deep pronaos, and terra-cotta decorative details. Temples from this period owed much to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in terms of their plans, architectural forms, and symbolism, yet they were all built at a scale about half its size as it is reconstructed in this study. This in itself is a significant difference, but not nearly so if we consider the fact that they would have been only about one-third the size of the previously accepted reconstruction. The analysis of Roman temple architecture in the third and second centuries B.C. covered an important period of transition from the Etrusco-Roman tradition to an adaptation of the Hellenistic style, especially the introduction of the Ionic Order. As Rome systematically conquered more territory in the eastern Mediterranean, it increasingly absorbed the architectural forms of Hellenistic Athens, Priene, and Pergamon initially in the form of the Ionic Order, and then in the Corinthian. The writings of Vitruvius were also introduced in this context. Although he wrote his Ten Books of Architecture much later, in the first century B.C., his theories on temple architecture most directly applied to the Ionic Order, which was introduced into Rome two centuries earlier. The Temple of Portunus in the Forum Boarium, for instance, closely corresponded to his theories of architectural beauty and illustrates the way builders typically followed the proportional canons Vitruvius described, while altering them when they felt it necessary for visual refinement. Discussion of Vitruvius's theories early in the study also provided an outline of his systems of categorization according to plan and façade types so that they could be used as a reference throughout the study. The introduction of the Corinthian Order was then described as a further aspect of Hellenistic influence on Roman architecture. Early examples of the new order included the Round Temple by the Tiber, the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli, and Temple B in Largo Argentina. Contemporary with these was the partial transformation of the Capitoline Temple by the dictator Sulla, who used elements of Corinthian columns from the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens as he rebuilt the structure after a fire. The introduction of the Corinthian Order into R o m e continued with projects

like Pompey's Temple of Venus Victrix and Caesar's Forum Julium. Integral to this discussion was an analysis of the role of temple architecture in the processions and ceremonies of the late Republic. The assimilation of Hellenistic architecture into Roman building practices began to change at the time of the second triumvirate — Octavian, Antony, and Lapidus - in the late first century B.C. Roman builders and architects continued to be influenced by eastern styles and building techniques, especially those of Asia Minor, but at the same time they made their own distinct interpretations. They also began to exert an influence on other regions, including Athens. Their distinctly Roman interpretations of the Corinthian Order were evident, for instance, in the Temple of Divus Julius, Temple of Saturn, Temple of Apollo Palatinus, and the Temple of Apollo Sosianus. We see in these buildings a certain continuity that was unique to Rome. Most of them had marble Corinthian capitals with precise formal and technical characteristics that showed a clear influence of Hellenistic sources but with Roman refinements. Discussion then focused on the Temple of Mars Ultor, Augustus's most important building in Rome, constructed in 37-2 B.c. A comparison between this building and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus revealed dimensional similarities in the width of its pronaos, which suggest a direct architectural link. It was an indication that Augustus and his architects may have looked at the Capitoline Temple with renewed interest as a reference point for their own imperial architecture. They saw it as a building to emulate or recall as an important part of Augustus's efforts to establish and maintain the legitimacy of his rule. At the same time, this comparison provided a review of the differences between the Etrusco-Roman style of the early Republic and the classicism of Augustus. The architecture of the Flavian dynasty from the second half of the first century A.D. represented the work of an especially prodigious group of builders who achieved a new level of refinement and perfection in temple architecture. They constructed the Temple of Vespasian, Templum Pacis, and Forum Transitorium, and they rebuilt the Capitoline Temple twice, making it a more characteristically Corinthian structure while maintaining its original plan. They also constructed the Arch of Titus, which was placed on the axis of the Via

EPILOGUE

Sacra at a point where it framed a view of the Temple across the Forum Romanum. It was the Flavians' way of politically honoring the memory of Jupiter and associating their name with the temple's symbolic reference to Rome's founding. Discussion of the Temple of Divus Traianus, the giant temple begun by Trajan and finished by Hadrian, again pointed out similarities in dimensions that may have existed between this temple and those of the Capitoline Temple. Like Augustus, Trajan responded to the city's most important architectural precedent, continuing the revival of interest in its historical significance and exploiting its compelling power to maintain the legitimacy of his rule. This dimensional unity in temple architecture in imperial Rome culminated with Hadrian's Pantheon, which had the same 115-foot width as the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus as it is reconstructed in this study. Maintaining a long association with the East, Hadrian associated himself with both Zeus and Jupiter. His link to the deities and his emulation of certain aspects of the Capitoline Temple in his design of the Pantheon, plus its equidistant location between the Capitoline Temple and the Mausoleum of Augustus, were discussed as a representation of both the unity and the universal character of the religious and political life of the Roman Empire. Hadrian's far-reaching interests led him to embrace on one hand a Hellenistic identity based on the city of Athens and the cult of Zeus and, on the other hand, the Latin culture focused on R o m e and the Capitoline triad Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. The Pantheon served as a unique manifestation of this religious and political synthesis across cultural borders, its architecture reflecting both tradition and innovation. The analysis of Hadrian's Temple of Venus and Rome and the two temples built by his successor, Antoninus Pius, further considered his link to Zeus in Athens and the influence of the precedent of the Temple of Olympian Zeus. It concluded with the work ofAntoninus Pius and the transformations his architects made to the Hadrianic style in the middle of the second century A.D.! These temples of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius were not the last constructed in Rome, but they were the last to represent a discernable unity in temple design with a lineage going back to the Capitoline Temple and the Roman adaptation of the Hellenistic orders.

221

In summary, this book has sought to draw attention to the authority of precedent in the design of Rome's temple architecture from the early Republic to the time of Hadrian and the Antonines. Crucial to this thesis is the proposed reconstruction of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which allows us to recognize its central role as a paradigm in Rome's architectural development. Possessing the political status of its association with the founding of the Republic and its religious authority as the temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, it was the most important architectural model for generations of temple builders. The site of Rome derived its authority from the history of its founding, and the Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus symbolized the legitimate access to and maintenance of political power. Political and religious symbols permeated imperial Rome, from visual displays and honorific inscriptions on public monuments to coins and literary texts. Emperors had many political and religious symbols to use in acquiring and consolidating their power. The republican consuls and dictators and imperial rulers alike drew on architecture and ceremony to foster power and legitimacy in Rome and the rest of the Empire. 2 How they did so is revealed most vividly in the temple and forum complexes on which they lavished much of their energy and money and which remain so striking for us to observe today in Rome's ageless topography. The establishment and maintenance of political and religious auctoritas through architecture and ceremony was a part of Rome's development from its founding in the eighth century B.c. to the end of the Empire. We cannot, in fact, fully understand its architecture unless we understand the relationship between architecture and the political and religious intentions behind its production. Architecture and its urban settings, combined with the ritual ceremonies that took place within them, were the very essence of Roman society and culture. 3 While symbolizing the apparent presence of an overriding political authority, the public buildings and urban spaces of ancient R o m e also represent a social balance, a mutually held belief in the value of urban settings and ritual ceremonies, an acceptance and, in many cases, a powerful visual expression of the overt presence of state authority. As stated in the Introduction, precedents in architecture form the basis of a continuous evolution

222

THE ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN TEMPLES

of style and building practice, one architect describing it as "form which has been accepted as the proper expression of good logic, fitness and beauty, proven by the test of time and accepted as a standard upon which new expression can be modeled and with which it may be compared." 4 Architects in-the Roman world operated much more in terms of precedent than most architects today are accustomed to. This study examined how the design of temple structures typically made reference to earlier precedents, and how this process of both imitation and innovation was essential to members of the Roman ruling class in establishing and maintaining their political control. It was also essential to the general population - the plebeians and the middle class — in demonstrating their support for or disagreement with certain causes, their admiration for particular rulers, or their dissatisfaction with their political status. Impressive architectural settings and elaborate public ceremonies were all acknowledged modes of exercising power or establishing auctoritas, a concept the ancient Romans understood well. The pomp and spectacle of a triumphal procession amid monumental marble-clad buildings became a way of explaining, impressing, and mediating between the rulers and the people. Although much of Rome's early architecture was derived from Etruscan and Latin traditions and practices, Roman architects, engineers, and planners developed their own identifiable system of planning and building adapted to specific topographical conditions and constructional capabilities. Along with other cities of central and southern Italy, R o m e was especially rich in multicultural influences because it was there that the Romans, Etruscans, Latins, and Sabines, and later the Hellenistic Greeks, met one another. The Egyptians and the Greeks had been the first to build columnar temples and to organize cities on a formal grid. The

Romans expanded on these concepts at a time when their military conquests and increasing wealth allowed them to build new temple and forum complexes in Rome and its colonies. Thus, they promulgated newly codified planning and building modes. The Roman architectural community made this new expressive language its own, if not always out of agreement with its principles, then because its aesthetic results fulfilled a deeply felt need for elegance and monumentality in architecture. As temples became taller, columns more slender and attenuated, forum spaces grander and more clearly and formally articulated, basilicas more solid, and triumphal arches more refined, Romans felt a great satisfaction with their artistic production. There was an assurance in their decision making. This movement toward internationalism was already well under way in the late Republic, but reached its maturity in the time of the Flavians and Hadrian. In looking at the temples of ancient Rome, this book has provided an analysis of this cross-cultural assimilation and transformation of early architectural traditions. It has described both the foreign sources of Roman architecture and its distinctly regional elements. It has identified the factors that allowed Roman architecture to transcend its precedents, to leap from a purely local or regional phenomenon to one of international importance. In part, it is the interplay of the localized and the universal that confers on the architecture of ancient Rome its authority, its appropriateness as a transformable and compelling language for other cultures. A universal style of architecture without some local characteristics can be lifeless and sterile, while a regional style without outside influences can appear to be provincial. Like any great architecture, that of the Romans, as this book has shown, possessed a unique combination of both the universal and the regional.