2015 Withycombe Taperell L PHD vol 1

The religious topography of the Capitoline and Palatine hills
from the Augustan to the early imperial periods, with particular
reference to the cult of Jupiter
Elizabeth Withycombe-­‐Taperell Volume I: Text and Bibliography
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics, Royal Holloway, University of London October 2014 Declaration of Authorship
I, Elizabeth Withycombe-­‐Taperell, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: Date: 1 Abstract
This thesis re-­‐assesses the current understanding that the establishment of a new cult of Apollo on the Palatine in 28 BCE represented, intentionally or unintentionally, a lowering of the status of the state god Jupiter on the Capitoline and a major shift in the political and religious history of the Augustan period. It makes a detailed study of the evidence for the architecture and role of each of the Augustan temples dedicated to Jupiter on the Capitoline (Chapter 4: Jupiter Feretrius, Chapter 5: Jupiter Tonans and Chapter 6: Jupiter Capitolinus), and investigates the possible relationships between them and the temple of Apollo and the imperial palace on the Palatine. In doing so, this thesis revises some key elements of accepted reconstructions and argues that the design and location of all four Augustan temples and the imperial palace were closely interconnected and their placement calculated to link the person of Augustus and his residence as much with Jupiter as with Apollo (Chapters 1-­‐2). Later Emperors, such as Domitian, repeated and adapted this Augustan topography. 2 Table of Contents
Declaration of Authorship ......................................................................................... 1 Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................... 9 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Context .......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Research aims and objectives ...................................................................... 13 1.3 Research materials and methodologies ............................................................. 20 1.3.1 Topographical sources .................................................................................... 20 1.3.2 Topographical maps ........................................................................................ 22 1.3.3 Archaeo-­‐architectural reconstructions of Roman temples ............................. 25 1.3.4 Vitruvius’ De architectura and ‘The Imperial Design Framework’ .................. 26 1.3.5 Depictions of temple architecture in reliefs, coins and other media ............. 32 1.3.6 Representation of temples on coins ............................................................... 33 1.3.7 Representation of temples in monumental reliefs and other figurative art .. 35 1.4 Structure of the thesis ..................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................... 37 The House of Augustus ....................................................................................... 38 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 38 2.2 Locating the ‘House/s of Augustus’ ................................................................... 42 2.2.1 The literary Evidence ...................................................................................... 42 2.2.2 The Archaeological Evidence: Carettoni’s house of Augustus and the ‘house of Livia’ ..................................................................................................................... 58 2. 3. The house of Augustus and the Domus Augustana ......................................... 62 3 2. 3.1 The pre-­‐Flavian phases of the Domus Augustana .......................................... 64 2. 3.2 The Aula Isiaca ............................................................................................. 64 2. 3.3 The ‘Casa dei Grifi’ ....................................................................................... 65 2. 3.4 The ‘palazzetto augusteo’ ........................................................................... 67 3.1 Domus Augustana: the ‘august edifice’ ............................................................ 69 3.2 Religious aspects of the Domus Augustana .................................................... 71 3.3 The augurated status of the Domus Augustana ............................................... 77 3.4 The entrance to Augustus’ house on the Palatine ........................................... 78 3.5 Romulean monuments in front of of the House and Temple ............................ 82 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 84 CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 86 The Temple dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine hill ........................................... 86 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 86 3.2 The foundations and podium ............................................................................. 95 3.3 The architectural fragments .............................................................................. 97 3.4 Later re-­‐use of the podium .............................................................................. 101 3.5 The elevation of the temple ............................................................................ 103 3.6 Reconstructing a new temple of Apollo Palatinus ........................................... 106 3.6.1 The height of the order of the Apollo Palatinus temple ............................... 106 3.6.2 The façade of the Apollo Palatinus temple ................................................... 112 3.6.3 The columnar rhythm and façade of the temple .......................................... 115 3.6.4 Resolving the height of the order of the Apollo Palatinus temple ............... 125 3.6.5 The orientation of the temple ...................................................................... 129 3.7.1 Reconstructing the ground plan and elevation of the Apollo Palatinus temple135 3.7.2 Reconstructing the Apollo Palatinus temple ................................................ 136 3. 8 The ground plan .............................................................................................. 137 3.8.1 The pronaos .................................................................................................. 137 3.8.2 The cella ........................................................................................................ 137 3.8.3 The frontal stairs of the temple .................................................................... 139 3.9 Reconstructing the elevation of the Apollo Palatinus temple ......................... 140 3.9.1 The height of the podium ............................................................................. 140 3.9.2 The Column order ........................................................................................ 142 4 3.9.3 The entablature and roof ............................................................................. 142 3.10 The Apollo Palatinus temple and its diastyle architraves .............................. 146 3.11 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 152 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................ 155 The temple dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline hill ....................... 155 4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 155 4.2 The numismatic evidence for the temple dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius ........ 158 4.2.1 The Republican Jupiter Feretrius type .......................................................... 158 4.2.2 The Trajanic reissue of the Republican Jupiter Feretrius type ...................... 161 4.3 Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius ............................... 163 4.4 Aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri ... feci (Res Gestae et Impensae 19.2) ............. 166 4.5 The temple of Jupiter Feretrius and its cult statue .......................................... 174 4.6 Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius and his augural authority in Rome .................................................................................................. 180 4.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 185 CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................. 187 The Temple dedicated to Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline hill ......................... 187 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 187 5.2 The dedication date for the temple of Jupiter Tonans .................................. 189 5.3 Other evidence for the temple ........................................................................ 193 5.4 The location of the temple of Jupiter Tonans in the area Capitolina .............. 196 5.5 The temple of Jupiter Tonans and the concrete substructures on Via del Tempio di Giove ..................................................................................................... 200 5.6 Augustus and Jupiter Tonans ........................................................................... 209 5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 215 CHAPTER SIX .................................................................................................... 217 The temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill ........ 217 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 217 6.1.1 The building and rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple ..................... 218 6.1.2 The cappellaccio tuff substructures of the temple ....................................... 226 5 6.1.3 A brief introduction to modern scholarship ................................................. 238 6.2 Recorded and surviving marble elements from the Domitianic temple .......... 240 6.3.1 The height of the order of the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple ................................................................................................. 250 6.3.2 The origin of the column drum in the shaft and the approximate height of the order ................................................................................................................ 251 6.4 Technical and structural problems of the araeostyle rhythm ......................... 256 6.5 Domitian and Jupiter ....................................................................................... 257 6.6.1 The Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Olympieion .................................... 259 6.6.2 Pentelic marble in Flavian Rome ................................................................... 268 6.7.1 Reflections of the Augustan temple in Domitian’s rebuilding ...................... 271 6.7.2 The cenatio Iovis of the Domus Augustana .................................................. 273 6.8.1 Augustus’ restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple .............................. 278 6.8.2 The date of Augustus’ restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple ........... 280 6.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 283 CHAPTER SEVEN ............................................................................................... 286 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 286 Modern references, abbreviations and ancient source citations .......................... 295 Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 296 6 Acknowledgements
I firstly thank my supervisor, Professor Amanda Claridge. I am grateful for her critique of my work and her generous contributions to it. I am also grateful to Royal Holloway for awarding me the Reid Research Scholarship 2009-­‐13, which covered my fees and granted me a maintenance stipend, and the Classics Department, for awarding me a bursary to attend the BSR City of Rome course in 2010. I thank the staff at the ICS for providing an ideal research environment, especially Sue Willetts, Alice Milner and Rosario Rovira, and especially Christopher Ashill. I am grateful to Jacob Isager from the Danish Institute in Athens, who shared his impressive knowledge of the temple of Apollo at Actium, and Jens Pflug at the DAI, who enthusiastically responded to my questions concerning the Domus Augustana. Chrystina Häuber and Franz Schütz generously gave me copies of their excellent AIS Roma maps, and hospitably included me in their thought provoking conference at the Ludwig-­‐Maximilians University in October 2012. Peter Wiseman generously forwarded a number of articles prior to their publication along with kind encouragement. Angela Carbonaro at the Capitoline Museums patiently assisted my examination of the column fragments in the Caffarelli garden, and Scott Pike provided helpful correspondence about Pentelic marble. I am also grateful to Sophie Hay, Ben Russell, Will Wootton, Beth Munro, Stephen Tarquin Smith, Emma Cole, Thomas Coward, Vicky Györi, Bobby Xinyue, Jason Lundock, Marianna Brancia d’Apricena, Jen Baird, Toph Marshall, Hallie Marshall, Shahrokh Razmjou, Julia Oyrer, Vivien Conacher, Claudia Stephan, Alice Bygraves, Özlem Edizel, the Jónsdóttir family, Charlotte Potts, Philippa Walton, Clare Rowan and Chris Malone, who have provided advice, practical assistance and/or support at various stages. I wholeheartedly thank Blair Fowlkes-­‐Childs for her support and generosity. I am grateful for the constructive comments provided by my examiners during the viva, which helped to improve the final version of this thesis. Final thanks are to my family: Tim Goodwin, my brother Robert for his helpful editorial assistance and my mother Patsy for her encouragement and generous support. I remember my grandfather Peter Withycombe, whose generosity meant that I could remain in London for a fourth year. This thesis is dedicated to my mother Patsy Withycombe. 7 Abbreviations
Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London 1923– ) BMCRR Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, H.A. Grueber, (London 1910) CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862-­‐) D Lower diameter of body of column shaft HCap Height of capital ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau (Berlin, 1892-­‐1916) Inscr. Ital. Inscriptiones Italiae, ed. A. Degrassi (Rome 1937-­‐63) Lewis and A Latin Dictionary. Charlton T. Lewis and. Charles Short (Oxford, Short Clarendon Press, 1879) LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Vols. 1-­‐6. E. M., Steinby, ed. (Rome, 1993-­‐2000) MAR Mapping Augustan Rome. Directed by Lothar Haselberger in collaboration with David Gilman Romano. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 50. (Portsmouth 2002) RE Pauly-­‐Wissowa, Real-­‐Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (1893-­‐ ) RE1 Mattingly, H. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 1: Augustus to Vitellius. (London, BMP, 1976) RE2 Mattingly, H. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol.2: Vespasian to Domitian, (London, BMP, 1976) RF Roman foot, Roman feet. 1 RF = 0.296m. RG Res Gestae Divi Augustus RIC The Roman Imperial Coinage (London 1923– ) RRC Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. I-­‐II. Ed. M.H. Crawford (Rome, 1974) UD Upper diameter of body of column shaft BMCRE 8 CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Context
The Augustan ‘restoration’ of Roman religion constituted a profound and large-­‐scale reform and transformation of ritual and landscape in Rome in the late first century BCE,1 at the centre of which was Augustus himself. Augustus’ religious primacy, and the privileged relationship with the gods that he claimed to exercise in the name of the entire civic community, was represented by his omnipresence within the priestly colleges2 and was given particular force by his investments in the religious landscape of Rome. In 28 BCE, the same year in which the temple of Apollo was dedicated, Augustus commissioned a citywide restoration of shrines and cult places,3 and throughout his principate was responsible for the construction of more public temples than any other individual in the history of religious architecture in Rome. Augustus dedicated temples to Divus Julius in the Roman Forum, Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline hill, Apollo on the Palatine hill, and Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum. Although each of these 1
The key texts explaining the restructuring and transformation of religion in the Augustan period are Beard 1994, 729-­‐63; North 1989, 573–624; and Price 1996, 812-­‐47; Wallace Hadrill 2005, 62-­‐7 provides a useful discussion of the rhetoric of the terms ‘decline’ and ‘restoration’. 2
Augustus was elected pontifex in 48 BCE, nominated an augur in 42-­‐40 BCE, an xvvir in 37-­‐5 BCE and a viivr by 16 BCE. He was also a member of the lesser priesthoods, elected a frater Arvalis, a sodalis Titius and a fetialis. The only comparable precedent was Caesar, but he had only been pontifex and Augur. See Price 1996, 824-­‐30 for discussion of the priesthoods, the evidence for Augustus’ election to them, and his impact on the priesthoods. 3
RG 20.4; many of these temples were rededicated with a new dies natalis to coincide with a date that was significant to Augustus or another member of the imperial family. For the new dies natalis of temples restored in the Augustan period see Gros 1976, 32-­‐3. The date of 28 BCE is secure because the programme of restoration is recorded in his sixth consulship. 9 new temples was ostensibly dedicated to a public cult, they also had a personal relevance to Augustus, who was well aware of the propaganda value inherent in investing in the religious landscape of the city. While in the Republic a successful commander might dedicate or restore a temple to a specific deity in response to military victory and consequently publicly identify his victory and self-­‐
representation with the cult, the citywide programme of building and restoration that took place in the early Augustan period surely entitled Augustus to lay claim to the favour of the entire Roman pantheon. Expressed through the magnificence of Roman religious buildings in the form of major public temples and their precincts, the religious topography of Augustan Rome provided a powerful expression of the new order and its ideology. In 2 BCE, the Senate and the Roman people recognised Augustus’ exceptional religious status by awarding him the honorific title pater patriae, the father of the fatherland.4 This title evoked a parallel with Jupiter, the principal deity of the Greco-­‐Roman pantheon, who was worshipped as the father of the gods, the Roman people and the Roman state.5 The cult of Jupiter was one of the most visible in the city and its temples were prominently located in all parts of Rome, none more so than the temples located on the Capitoline, in the centre of the city and in view of the Forum and the Circus Maximus. The wide and varied dispersal of temples, altars, and sacred sites dedicated to Jupiter testifies to its presence 4
Awarded on 5 February 2 BCE, Inscr. Ital. 13.2.119, 407: feriae ex s.c. quod eo die Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, trib. Potest. xxi, cos. xiii, a senatu populoque Romano pater patriae appelatus. See RG 35. Tertium decimum consulatum cum gerebam, senatus et equester order populusque Romanus universus appellavit me patrem patriae, idque in vestibulo aedium mearum inscribendum et in curia Iulia et in foro Augusto sub quadrigis ‘When I was holding my thirteenth consulship, the senate and equestrian order and people of Rome all together hailed me as father of the fatherland, and decreed that this title should be inscribed in the forecourt of my house and in the Julian senate house and in the Augustan forum under the chariot’ (trans. Cooley 2009, 100). Cooley (2009, 273-­‐5) provides a useful discussion of the title ‘pater patriae’. 5
For Jupiter as father of the gods and the Roman people see Virg. Aen. 1.256. 10 and importance. There was a sacellum dedicated to Jupiter Fagutalis on the Esquiline and a temple dedicated to Jupiter Iurarius on the Tiber Island,6 the revered site of the Capitolium Vetus was on the Quirinal, as well as least one other cult site dedicated to the deity,7 while some of the hills of Rome featured sites dedicated to eponymous Jupiters, such as Jupiter Viminus on the Viminal.8 Augustan and imperial writers held many of these sites to be amongst the oldest sacred sites in the city; indeed, the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline (the subject of chapter 4) was commemorated as Rome’s first sanctuary. However, the principal site for the cult of Jupiter in Rome was the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline (the subject of chapter 6). The Augustan poet Ovid recognised the parallels between Jupiter and Augustus, and drew an extended comparison between them in his Fasti, of which I quote two lines: Hoc tu per terras, quod in aethere Iuppiter alto nomen habes: hominum tu pater, ille deum ‘The name which Jupiter has in high heaven, you have throughout the earth. You are the father of men, he of gods.’ (Ov. Fast. 2.131-­‐2; trans. Wiseman and Wiseman 2011.) There are a number of other instances where Ovid drew parallels between Augustus and Jupiter, and, despite the many ironies in this potentially autocratic 6
Jupiter Fagutalis: Fest. 87, CIL 6.452; Jupiter Libertas: Livy 24.16.19; Jupiter Iurarius on Tiber Island: LTUR V, 101, s.v. ‘Veiovis, aedes (Insula Tiberina) [D. Degrassi] and Richardson 1992, 406. 7
Capitolium vetus: Varro 50.5.158, Not. Reg. 7; LTUR I, 234. s.v. ‘Capitolium Vetus’ [F. Coarelli]. 8 There was an altar dedicated to Jupiter Viminus on the Viminal, according to Varro Ling. 5.51 and Fest. 376; there is also evidence for Jupiter Fagutalis on the Fagutal from an inscription, CIL 6.452, and a figure of Jupiter Caelius, Jupiter of the Caelian, is identifiable from an inscription on an Antonine relief panel in the Capitoline museums, inv. 1264. 11 representation, the poet was clearly tapping into an existing and recognised connection between the princeps and the deity.9 The development of the ideology of the emperor as Jupiter in Rome began with Augustus and had profound consequences for the nature of the cult of Jupiter in Rome, particularly on the Capitoline, as well as more broadly for the religious topography of the city. The cult of Jupiter transformed from a largely public entity into a cult that was more private and imperial in nature. From the Augustan period onwards, the emperor became the sole practitioner of the cult’s major rituals, most notably in the case of the triumph, the celebration of which Augustus restricted to members of the imperial family.10 Similarly, as we shall see in chapter 4, it is likely that Augustus restricted the dedication of the spolia opima, a rare military triumphal ritual performed at the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, to members of the imperial family as well. In consequence, the role of the Capitoline hill shifted from providing the principal site for the public worship of Jupiter to the principal site for the emperor’s worship of Jupiter and worship of the emperor alongside of Jupiter. Although this was a significant departure from tradition, it was religiously sanctioned because Augustus was bestowed with a unique augural authority sourced from Jupiter in Rome and was positioned as Jupiter’s earthly agent, a role which later emperors inherited. In the Republic, however, only in rare and usually 9
Bretzigheimer 1991, 19-­‐74; Barchiesi 1997 and Barchiesi 2007; Segal 2001, 89-­‐99. After his triple triumph in 29 BCE, Augustus was to turn down all future offers of a triumph. Although between 27 – 19 BCE commanders qualified to celebrate a triumh, Agrippa turned down triumphs in 19 BCE and 14 BCE (Dio Cass. 64.11.6, 54.24.7) which set a precedent that all other commanders would follow. Subsequently, only members of the imperial family were granted triumph, while ornamenta triumphalia, the ornaments of a triumph but not the triumphal procession, were granted to those outside of the imperial family. For the change in the nature of the Triumph in the Augustan period see Raaflaub 1987, 270-­‐1. 10
12 controversial instances had individuals associated themselves with Jupiter.11 At the time, therefore, the association between Augustus and Jupiter was largely unique, and aligned the princeps with the most important and long-­‐standing aspect of Roman religion. The figure of the emperor as Jupiter would go on to become a cornerstone of imperial ideology, particularly in regards to the concept of the divine emperor.12 1.2 Research aims and objectives
The religious topography of early imperial Rome, and particularly Augustan Rome, has attracted considerable interest in the past four decades. Most scholarship has approached the subject either from a large-­‐scale perspective by considering the topography of the entire city, or has examined individual buildings and monuments. A number of important works define the first category. Pierre Gros’ Aurea Templa. Recherches sur l’Architecture Religieuse de Rome à L’Èpoque d’Auguste (1976) provided the first comprehensive examination of surviving Augustan temples and discussed patterns of architectural type and decorative form; Paul Zanker’s The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988) presented the political change of Augustan Rome alongside the development of a new visual language; while Diane Favro’s The 11
The most notable cases are Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar. Scipio Africanus was rumoured to be the son of Jupiter and his success to have been foredained by Jupiter, see De Vir. 3. 49. He reputedly made daily visits to the Capitoline and spent lengthy periods in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, for which see Livy 26.19.5. Scipio Africanus commenced the rebuilding of this Jupiter Capitolinus temple following its destruction in 83 BC, for which see Tac. Hist. 3.70, and his death mask was placed in the temple’s pronaos probably after its rebuilding, see Val. Max. 8.15 and App. Iber. 23. Julius Caesar also cultivated a close association with Jupiter. At the age of seventeen he was designated flamen dialis, Suet. Jul. 1.1, and reputedly attempted to have his name replace Catulus’ on the denominative inscription of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, for which see Cic. Att. 2.24.3, Dio Cass. 55.1.1 and Suet. Jul. 15. 12
For emperor worship in Rome in general, see Gradel 2002. 13 Urban Image of Augustan Rome (1996), Lothar Haselberger’s edited Mapping Augustan Rome (2002) and his Urbem Adornare: Rome’s Urban Metamorphosis under Augustus (2007) provide synthetic, large-­‐scale, general introductions. A number of close analyses of the standing remains of Augustan temples in Rome comprise the second category of studies. Joachim Ganzert’s Der Mars-­‐Ultor-­‐
Tempel auf dem Augustusforum in Rom (1996) reports on the standing remains of the temple of Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum, Alessandro Viscogliosi’s Il Tempio di Apollo “In circo” e la formazione del linguaggio architettonico Augusteo (1996) provides a detailed study of the temple of Apollo in Circo, paying particular attention to its interior decoration, the Danish Institute at Rome’s The Temple of Castor and Pollux III (2009)13 offers a detailed account of the evidence for and reconstruction of the Augustan phase of the temple of Castor in the Roman Forum, and Stefan Zink’s two articles published in 2008 and 2012 present the results of a new survey of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. By comparison, the temples dedicated to Jupiter on the Capitoline hill, the principal site of state religion, that Augustus either restored or founded anew, have been overlooked in studies of the religious landscape of Augustan Rome, and have never been the subjects of independent studies. While the earliest phasing of the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline (the subject of chapter 6) has been closely examined, the later imperial phases of the building have received little attention, and the Augustan restoration entirely neglected. 13
Sande and Zahle 2009. 14 The absence of a detailed study on the subject of the topography of the cult of Jupiter in Augustan Rome, and on the Capitoline in particular, is owing to the scarcity of our evidence. We know from literary sources that Augustus restored temples dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and that he vowed and dedicated a new temple to Jupiter Tonans on this hill, but only the archaic substructures and column fragments of Flavian date from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and a concrete foundation of Flavian date that will be examined in chapter 5, have survived as archaeological evidence. On the basis of the literary evidence Gros was able to stress, although only briefly, the importance of the cult of Jupiter in the Augustan period, observing the significance of the temple of Jupiter Tonans to Augustus and considering the new role of the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus within the restored religious landscape of Rome.14 Otherwise, Gros focused primarily on the new temples dedicated to Apollo Palatinus and Mars Ultor, largely because previous excavations had yielded new evidence for these two Augustan temples, unlike the remains of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which, at this point, remained only partially uncovered. The absence of standing remains for the temples dedicated to Jupiter on the Capitoline has influenced the larger-­‐scale topographical studies and supported the view that the new Augustan religion, as represented by the temples of Apollo on the Palatine and Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum, relegated the cult of Jupiter in Rome to a position of lesser importance.15 The long article that J.R. Fears published in the ANRW in 1981 entitled, ‘Jupiter and Roman Imperial 14
For Jupiter Tonans see Gros 1976, 34. For the view that the cult of Jupiter was relegated in the public religion of Augustan Rome see Gros 1976, 40; Favro 1996, 201, 204; Beard, North and Price 1998, 200-­‐1; Miller 2009, 194; Stamper 2005, 118; Egelhaaf-­‐Gaiser 2007, 217-­‐8. 15
15 Ideology’,16 in which he considers the role of Jupiter in religious, political, and imperial ideology from the archaic period to late antiquity, has been influential in the development of this view. Fears made a case for the ‘honored insignificance’ of Jupiter under Augustus, proposing that Jupiter was relegated to a minor role in the religious policy and topography of Rome, and that his former functions were transferred to Mars and Apollo.17 Fears’ argument was founded primarily in the absence of depictions of Jupiter on Augustan coinage.18 According to Fears, when later Emperors, particularly Domitian, formulated an ideology linking the emperor with Jupiter, it was an innovation from earlier imperial precedent.19 Subsequent studies on Roman religion have, to some extent, tempered Fears’ viewpoint of the ‘honored insignificance’ of Jupiter by recognising that Augustus did in fact make a conspicuous investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline.
For instance, in his 1996 entry to the Cambridge Ancient History, Simon Price remarked that Augustus’ investment in the temples dedicated to Apollo Palatinus and Mars Ultor was ‘not because of animosity towards the existing cults,’20 and in her The Urban Image of Augustan Rome of 1996, Diane Favro acknowledged that Augustus recognised the traditional significance of the Capitoline hill ‘as a focus of display and ceremony’ but accepted that he also undermined this by transferring some of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple’s key rituals and objects to alternative 16
Fears 1981, 3-­‐141. Fears 1981, 56-­‐66. 18
Williams (2007, 156) arrived at a similar conclusion: ‘The most significant factor in guiding the choice and description of divinities on coins, in the imperial period at least, seems to have been the relationship of the god in question to the emperor or the empire. Hence, presumably, the absence of the figures of Jupiter from Augustus’ coinage, and the presence of Mars Ultor (‘the Avenger’) and Apollo Actius (‘of Actium’), both of whom had a close relationship to the emperor’. 19
Fears 1981, 74. 20
Price 1996, 832. 17
16 sites.21 John W. Stamper, in his diachronic study of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the context of the development of religious architecture in Rome, asserts that the Capitoline hill was an important site in Octavian’s building programme, but only in the 30s and 20s BCE.22 Actually, as this thesis will discuss in detail, Octavian restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in the late 30s BCE, vowed to dedicate a temple to Jupiter Tonans in 26 BCE and built it in the years following, and also restored the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the last quarter of the first century BCE. These three events were given force and a lasting importance by the performance of rituals at the sites, most notably during the Ludi Saeculares in 17 BCE, during which both the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Jupiter Tonans temple were key locations for preliminary rituals of the spectacular event [see chapter 5, pages 148-­‐51], as well as, in the case of the Jupiter Tonans temple, Augustus’ reportedly frequent visits to it throughout his lifetime [see chapter 5, pages 194]. None the less, the view that Augustus’ new temple of Apollo established the Palatine as an alternative centre of religion in Rome and supplanted the Capitoline still prevails, and it is usually assumed that the transfer of the Sibylline books from the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus to the Apollo Palatinus temple signified the loss of importance of the cult of Jupiter and the corresponding elevation of the cult of Apollo.23 Another important reason for the development of this view was the perceived ‘special’ relationship between the House of Augustus and temple of Apollo. In the 1960s, Gianfilippo Carettoni excavated what appeared to be a ramp connecting the house to the area to the 21
Favro 1996 51, 203. Stamper 2005, 126. 23
Fears 1981, 60-­‐1; Zanker 1988, 108; Favro 1996, 147-­‐8; Miller 2009, 194; For a more moderate discussion see Beard, North and Price 1998, 200-­‐1. 22
17 immediate south of the Apollo Palatinus temple and the foot of the temple steps.24 The perceived access between house and temple both instigated and supported a theory that the Augustan complex was modeled on the Hellenistic palaces at Pergamon and Alexandria, which were built in close association with major sanctuaries, and this soon became a cornerstone for the understanding of the Augustan topography of the Palatine.25 With no clear evidence for a similar connection with the cult of Jupiter, Augustus’ relationship with Apollo, and consequently the status of the cult of Apollo within Rome, appeared to be of the greater significance. While the extent of Augustus’ investment in the religious topography of the Capitoline and its implications remain ill-­‐defined,26 as does the relationship between the Capitoline and the Palatine hills in the Augustan period, the proximity of the two hills, their comparable altitudes and shared ideological significance as the first settled sites in Rome, have inspired a number of scholars to consider that there was a connection between them.27 As regards the imperial period, this connection has customarily been discussed in competitive terms, whereby Augustus deliberately established the Palatine, the imperial palace and 24
Carettoni 1983, 388-­‐92, Fig.5. Carettoni 1966-­‐7, 67; Zanker 1988, 51-­‐2; Von Hesberg 1989; s.v. LTUR I: 1993, 57. ‘Apollo Palatinus’ [P. Gros]. For acceptance of the idea, see Royo 1999, n 152-­‐3; and ‘Domus’Augustus’ in Dumser MAR 2002, 104-­‐104-­‐6. 26
Favro’s (1996, 147-­‐8, 204) discussions on the relationship between the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Apollo Palatinus temple, and the Capitoline and Palatine more generally, are abstract and do not engage with the archaeological evidence; a brief discussion of Augustus’ investment in the cult of Jupiter is found in Stamper 2005, 125-­‐6. 27
Balland (1984, 57-­‐80), for instance, proposes that the hut of Romulus on the Capitoline that is mentioned in the literary sources was constructed on the Capitoline in the Augustan period to moderate Augustus’ considerable investment in the Palatine. Further discussion in Edwards 1996, 36-­‐7. Miller (2009, 253-­‐97) discusses the relationship between the two hills in the context of a close study of Horace’s Carmen Saeculare. Rea (2007) focused on the Palatine and Capitoline hills because she considers the two sites to be the most significant settings for the stories of Rome’s early development into a community, believing that with reference to these two hills Augustus also restored memory of the legendary origins of Rome. However, Rea’s work is more concerned with the representation of Jupiter as the protector of early Rome, and the role of Jupiter in Rome’s archaic past, as reflected in Augustan poetry. 25
18 the temple of Apollo as an alternative, or rival, to the Capitoline and its Capitolium, the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.28 In contrast, two recent studies of the Augustan projects on the Capitoline and Palatine as reflected in Augustan poetry, Jennifer Rea’s 2007 Legendary Rome and John F. Miller’s 2009 Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets, both conclude that a carefully balanced and harmonious relationship developed between the major cults of Apollo and Jupiter on the two hills. However, neither study took the physical remains into serious consideration. Yet, the recent advances in knowledge concerning the archaeology of the imperial Palatine, combined with this thesis’ examinations of archaeological evidence on the Capitoline that may provide new insights into the temples of Jupiter Tonans and Jupiter Capitolinus, mean that it is timely to undertake a comparative study of the religious topography of the Palatine and Capitoline hills in the Augustan and early imperial periods, prompted by the following questions: 1.
Why did Octavian choose to move to the Palatine hill and where exactly was his house? 2.
How did the location of the house relate to the new temple of Apollo? 3.
Could there have been a topographical relationship between the location of the house of Augustus, the temple of Apollo and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus? 28
Particularly Favro 1996, 204, followed by Miller 2009, 336. 19 4.
What was the nature and significance of Augustus’ investment in the cult of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline? 5.
What was the nature and significance of Augustus’ foundation of the temple of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline? 6.
How does Augustus’ reported rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus relate to his other activities on the Capitoline hill? 7.
Do the Domitianic phases of both the House of Augustus on the Palatine and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple relate to their Augustan precedents? 1.3 Research materials and methodologies
Essentially, this thesis comprises a series of exercises in reconstruction. While the reconstructions are principally topographical and historical, in two instances (chapter 3 and chapter 6) they are also archaeo-­‐architectural; in every case, however, the sources of evidence are numerous and diverse, as are the methodologies employed to interrogate them. 1.3.1 Topographical sources
Topographical reconstruction -­‐ the placing of monuments within the city in relation to one another -­‐ takes as its point of departure the known physical geography of the site of Rome on one hand, and the many references to buildings and sites in the ancient literary and epigraphic sources on the other. Most of the sites and buildings in this thesis are well-­‐known in the latter regard and the sources have been collected together and made available with modern bibliography in the form of topographical dictionaries, from Platner and Ashby’s A Topographical 20 Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929), Giuseppe Lugli’s Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes (1959-­‐69), Lawrence T. Richardson’s A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1992), Margareta Steinby’s edited five-­‐volume Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae (1993-­‐2000), and Lothar Haselberger’s edited Mapping Augustan Rome (2002). All of these works provide a wealth of topographical information, organised in alphabetical order of the names of individual buildings. However, the relevance and reliability of the literary and epigraphic sources, and particularly the literary sources, as topographical indicators, is difficult to judge, as they usually offer only incidental references, and their prime concern is not necessarily accuracy. Such sources must always be considered in their historical context, and both evaluated and used carefully. Connecting a named building with a specific archaeological site on the ground is the next challenge. Our knowledge and understanding of the geography of the ancient city and the sources is constantly expanding, as are the ways in which, and degrees to which, the two can be combined within a wider historical context, while the historical context itself becomes increasingly nuanced in the light of an understanding of spatial relationships. Some of the combining of evidence can be done, and may have to be done, in the abstract, for in many cases we lack sufficient evidence to produce an accurate cartographic representation of the evidence. However, mapping in some form or other is generally involved in topographical reconstruction, although the precision of the mapping and the detail that is possible varies from one place to another. Some buildings have been excavated in their entirety and can therefore be plotted accurately, others remain unknown and are consequently little more than a dot; some have been positioned exactly in relation to other buildings in their immediate vicinity and are precisely georeferenced, while 21 others remain detached from their physical context awaiting new evidence that will allow them to be represented and positioned more accurately. However, before all of this can be converted into evidence for a meaningful historical discourse, such information has then to be placed in time as well as space. 1.3.2 Topographical maps
The topographies of the Palatine and the Capitoline hills are at almost opposite ends of the spectrum outlined above. The Palatine is a dedicated archaeological park: substantial remains of ancient buildings, mostly dating from the late first century CE and later, are still standing above ground, while numerous excavations have exposed older structures, some dating to as early as the ninth century BCE. The broad disposition of space in the later imperial period, although it is still full of uncertainties, is known. In comparison, the Capitoline is virtually a blank at any period: buildings and gardens of post-­‐antique date obscure all the ancient topography; nothing of antiquity (beyond substructures) is standing above ground, few excavations have taken place, and those that have been carried out are largely unpublished. The only fixed points on a map of the Capitoline are the so-­‐
called Tabularium (a massive substructure of the late second or first century BCE that can be plotted in the cellars beneath the Palazzo dei Senatori), the platform of what we can presume is the sixth century BCE temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (located under the Palazzo Caffarelli) and a few isolated fragments of other buildings of mostly Flavian and later date in the centre (under the Piazza del Campidoglio) and at the northern end of the hill (under the church of S. Maria in Aracoeli and its cloister). Neither the Palatine nor the Capitoline has a precisely defined geological profile, although in both cases recent advances have improved our understanding. A 22 programme of deep coring on the Capitoline examined its earliest geological phases, and confirmed literary descriptions of it as comprising two peaks and an intervening depression (where the piazza del Campidoglio is situated today).29 However, the geological profile of the Palatine in particular has been radically revised. Previously it was supposed, on the basis of its present configuration, and perhaps by analogy with the Capitoline, that the Palatine comprised two summits and an intervening valley, however it is now recognised that the original summit was located in the centre of the hill and beneath the Flavian palace. 30 As explained above, mapping in some form or other is generally involved in topographical reconstruction. An original aim of this thesis was to produce a topographic model of the relevant areas of both the Palatine and Capitoline hills and the profile of the intervening valley in order to experiment with theoretical relationships between the respective heights, viewsheds and the precise orientation of the temples of Jupiter Capitolinus, Tonans and Feretrius on the Capitoline, and the temple of Apollo and the house of Augustus on the Palatine. It was hoped to examine certain rituals and known episodes with a topographic aspect in situ, through applying viewshed analysis in GIS.31 However, there were insurmountable obstacles to this aim. I did not have access to accurate information regarding the precise levels and heights required to generate a reliable topographic base, nor, in 29
Alvarez et al 1996, 751-­‐54; Ammerman and Terrenato 1996, 35-­‐46; for ancient descriptions of the Capitoline and its two peaks see Livy 1.8.5, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.15, 30
Ammerman 1995, For studies concerning the geomorphology and profile of the Palatine, see Ammerman 1992, 107-­‐11, and Ammerman 1995a, 87-­‐93, who presents the results of the fieldwork on the Palatine between 1987-­‐95, involving coring and hand borings. For a general introduction to the geology of the Palatine see LTUR IV 1999, 12-­‐14, ‘Palatium (Environmental Setting).’ [A.J. Ammerman]; for more recent research on the geology and geomorphology of the eastern side of the Palatine see Arnoldous-­‐Huyzendveld 2007, 391-­‐98. 31
For a useful and thorough survey of relatively recent studies examining visibility in archaeology using viewshed analysis, see Lake and Woodman 2003, 689-­‐707, and for a technical approach Connolly and Lake 2006, 208-­‐33. I attended two training courses in GIS, with a focus on viewshed analysis, at UCL in 2010 and I am grateful to Andy Bevan for allowing me entry to them. 23 hindsight, would there ever be sufficient evidence for this. In the case of the Capitoline, the ancient ground level can only be hypothesised from the highest level of standing substructures. In contrast, numerous surveys have recorded the topography of the Palatine, but the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma has not released the data. For example, Maria Antonietta Tomei produced a map of the area of the Palatine relevant to this thesis with numerous valuable spot levels ASL for her 2011 edited publication on the Domus Tiberiana (Fig. 3.42), but the map is reproduced at such a low resolution that it is very difficult to read the numbers accurately.32 Because the results of viewshed analysis can only be as good as the topographic data they are modeled on, approaching the material with GIS and viewshed analysis in mind proved impractical. Compounding this were the many issues and arguments that concern reconstructing the relevant buildings in 3D. Furthermore, existing maps, particularly of the Palatine, are either schematic or outdated, and could not correlate to 3D easily; while more recent maps often feature only small pockets of the areas relevant to my study and they do not always plot the information in the same way or reconstruct the outline of the buildings in an identical fashion. For example, while new maps of the south-­‐west Palatine are found in Ricardo Mar and Wulf-­‐Rheidt’s entries to the Divus Vespasianus catalogue (2009), as well as those in Mar’s earlier El Palatí. La Formació dels Palaus Imperials a Roma (2005), they did not assist my endeavour because they provide maps of only specific areas which are often irrelevant to my areas of focus and do not include spot levels; and while Mar completely reconstructs the outline of buildings within these, Wulf Rheidt’s maps of the Palatine instead renders the surviving buildings 32
Tomei and Filetici 2011, 35. 24 and provides far less detail for the hypothesised parts. It was consequently difficult to produce a composite map of the Palatine or to even overlay maps accurately. In short, I have only provided three maps here. The first, Map 1, is a detail of Chrystina Hauber’s and Franz Schütz AIS Roma map,33 which they kindly provided me with in 2010, of the Capitoline and Palatine hills. Map 2, of the southwest Palatine hill, is composed of the most up-­‐to-­‐date published plans and maps of the sites that are discussed in this thesis. The plan of the Domus Augustana is sourced from Wulf-­‐Rheidt and Sojc’s 2009 (273, fig.4) plan of the Flavian phase of the Domus Augustana, the plan of the Domus Tiberiana is sourced from Tomei and Filetici’s (2011, 35) map of the site, and the Republican remains around the temple of Apollo were sourced from Iacopi and Tedone’s (2005/6, 360-­‐1) plan of the site. Map 3, of the Capitoline, was produced in AutoCad using Chrystina Häuber and Franz Schütz’s georeferenced AIS Roma map as a base, supplemented with further detail supplied from Giuseppe Gatti’s 1896 plan of the concrete foundations discovered on Via del Monte Tarpeo, Christian Hülsen’s 1899 map of the Capitoline reproduced in the Neue Pauly, the map of the Capitoline drawn by Giovanni Ioppolo in 1965 for Antonio Maria Colini, and Paola Mazzei’s 2007 map of the Capitoline. 1.3.3 Archaeo-architectural reconstructions of Roman temples
In chapter 3, I propose a reconstruction of the plan and elevation of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, and in chapter 6 I estimate the height of the order of the Domitianic phase of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline. The 33
For further information on these maps see Häuber and Schütz 2004 and 2006, and Häuber 2005. 25 architectural order in both cases is Corinthian, and I have relied principally on the work of Mark Wilson Jones and the design principles that he has codified for the Corinthian order on the basis of his own surveys and analysis of the ten best-­‐
preserved Corinthian temples still standing in Rome, which he has been able to correlate with the recommendations for the design of the order as presented in the treatise of Vitruvius.34 However, the architectural fragments surviving from the two building concerned here are not sufficient to indicate whether they conform to either the design principles that Mark Wilson Jones has codified for the Roman Corinthian order, or a schema that the Roman architect Vitruvius laid out for the construction of temples in his first century treatise De architectura. Consequently, in the case of archaeo-­‐architectural reconstruction, neither Wilson Jones’ Imperial design framework, nor Vitruvian principles, can be applied to the evidence without careful consideration in every instance. The following section provides a discussion of both sources. 1.3.4 Vitruvius’ De architectura and ‘The Imperial Design Framework’
The precise dates for the writing and publication of Vitruvius’ ten-­‐volume architectural treatise De architectura are unknown and disputed.35 On the basis of the nomenclature that Vitruvius (c.90-­‐20 BCE) uses for Augustus, imperator Caesar (De arch. 1.1, 4.1 and 5.1), some scholars have proposed that the text was most likely written after 27 BCE, the date at which Gaius Octavian assumed the name Augustus.36 Others point out that ‘Augustus’ was honorific and was applied 34
Wilson Jones 1989, 35-­‐69; on the Corinthian capital, Wilson Jones 1991, 89-­‐150; further discussion on the symbolism of the Corinthian order in Wilson Jones 2000, 135-­‐8, and on the ‘Imperial design framework’ 143-­‐56. 35
A useful, although inconclusive, survey of some scholarship on the dating of De architectura, although now dated, is Baldwin 1990, 425-­‐34; Gros 2006 offers a useful discussion of the dating of the work. 36
Granger in the introduction to the Loeb translation, 1, xiv. 26 neither immediately nor widely, while the language of De architectura, particularly in the introductions to the books, is strongly evocative of the ideology related to the Augustan rebuilding programme.37 On the grounds that Vitruvius does not discuss amphitheatres, monumental baths, the Corinthian order, concrete or the importation of polychrome marble, which are generally held to be the quintessential features of Roman architecture of the last quarter of the first century BCE, some scholars propose an earlier date of composition.38 This argument is persuasive, and is supported by the author himself: Vitruvius indicates that he had refrained from publishing De architectura prior to the battle of Actium, which suggests that it was composed prior to 31 BCE.39 In Books Three and Four, Vitruvius examines the temple, firstly establishing theoretical aspects of design and then moving onto practical considerations. In book three, drawing heavily on earlier Greek architectural theory (De arch. 3.3.8), Vitruvius stated that the design of temples relies on modular arrangements which are determined by proportio, which can be roughly translated as proportion, symmetria, mathematical harmony, and eurythmia, gracefulness:40 37
Gros 2006, 263-­‐70; Wallace Hadrill 2008, 147-­‐8. Wilson Jones 2000, 34; Wiseman 2014, 327-­‐30. 39
De arch. 1.1: Cum divina tua mens et numen, imperator Caesar, imperio potiretur orbis terrarum invictaque virtute cunctis hostibus stratis, triumpho victoriaque tua cives gloriarentur et gentes omnes subactae tuum spectarent nutum populusque Romanus et senatus liberatus timore amplissimis tuis cogitationibus consiliisque gubernaretur, non audebam, tantis occupationibus, de architectura scripta et magnis cogitationibus explicata edere, metuens ne non apto tempore interpellans subirem tui animi offensionem. ‘Caesar, Supreme ruler: while your divine intelligence and supernatural power were acquiring the mastery of the whole world and Roman citizens were glorying in your triumph and your victor, once all your enemies had been obliterated by your indomitable bravery, and all the peoples you had conequered awaited your command, and the Roman People and Senate, freed from fear, began to be governed by your far-­‐ranging plans and decisions, I did not dare, when you were so occupied with such important matters, to publish my writings on architecture and the ideas I had developed after long reflection, for fear that by interrupting you at an inopportune moment I might incur your displeasure.’ (Trans. Schofield 2009, 3). 40
See Wilson Jones 1989, 60 and n.63 for a discussion of the terms. 38
27 Aedium compositio constat ex symmetria, cuius rationem diligentissime architecti tenere debent. ea autem paritur a proportione, quae graece ἀναλογία dicitur. proportio est ratae partis membrorum in omni opere totiusque commodulatio, ex qua ratio efficitur symmetriarum. namque non potest aedis ulla sine symmetria atque proportione rationem habere compositionis, nisi uti hominis bene figurati membrorum habuerit exactam rationem. ‘The design of temples depends on modularity, the principles of which the architect must adhere to rigorously: modularity originates in proportion, which is called analogia in Greek. Proportion is the commensurability of a predetermined component of a building to each and every other part of a given structure, and modularity is based on this commensurability.’ (Vitr. De arch. 3.1.1; trans. Schofield 2009, 66.) In short, a module is selected whose dimensions govern the temple’s other parts. For example, when Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.5) defines the five ‘species’ of temples he does so according to the arrangement of columns in relation to the column diameter. In pycnostyle the intercolumnar distance is equal to one and a half column diameters, in systyle the intercolumnar distance is equal to two column diameters, in eustyle the intercolumnar distance is equal to two and a quarter column diameters, in diastyle the intercolumnar distance is equal to three column diameters, and in araeostyle the intercolumnar distance, although unspecified, must be equal to at least more than three of the lower column diameters. Vitruvius also explains that the distance between columns determines the dimensions for the diameter of the shaft (De arch. 3.3.11). It is unlikely that Vitruvius himself was ever responsible for the construction of a temple, and his rules for the design of temples were drawn from earlier manuals supplied by architects who had, particularly those of the second century BCE Greek architect Hermogenes (De arch. 3.3.8-­‐9).41 Because Vitruvius sourced many 41
Vitruvius claims construction only of the Basilica at Fanum De arch. 5.1.6. 28 of his rules from much earlier Greek treatises, there are good grounds to question their applicability to Roman imperial temples. However, seven of the ten best-­‐
preserved Corinthian orders on temples in Rome reflect Vitruvius’ stipulations for the pycnostyle and systyle rhythms, which indicate that his work was neither purely theoretical nor out-­‐dated.42 Vitruvius’ prescriptions are relevant to this thesis because, as we shall see, he probably classifies the temple of Apollo on the Palatine as diastyle, and definitely classifies the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as araeostyle. According to Vitruvius, these two spacings required columns that were proportionately thicker than columns arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm: quemadmodum enim crescunt spatia inter columnas, proportionibus adaugendae sunt crassitudines scaporum. namque si in araeostylo nona aut decima pars crassitudini fuerit, tenuis et exilis apparebit, ideo quod per latitudinem intercolumniorum aer contra vero pycnostylis, si octava pars crassitudini fuerit, propter crebritatem et angustias intercolumniorum tumidam et invenustam efficiet speciem. itaque generis operis oportet persequi symmetrias. etiamque angulares columnae crassiores faciendae sunt ex sua diametro quinquagesima parte, quod eae ab aere circumciduntur et graciliores videntur esse aspicientibus. ‘When the distances between columns increase, the diameters of the column-­‐
shafts should be enlarged proportionately. For if, in the case of an araeostyle temple, only a ninth or tenth [of the column height] is given to the diameter, the column will look thin and insubstantial, since the air seems to consume and reduce the breadth of the shafts, because of the width of the intercolumniations. By contrast, if, in the case of pycnostyle temples, an eighth of the height is allocated to the diameter, it will make the columns look swollen and inelegant because of their closeness and the reduced intercolumniations.’ 42
Wilson Jones 2000, 120 table 6.2. The five temples are those dedicated to Mars Ultor, Apollo Sosianus, Castor and Pollux, Antoninus and Faustina and Vespasian. Vitruvius himself did not approve of the pycnostyle rhythm on the grounds that matrons wishing to enter a temple with this columnar arrangement could not enter arm in arm but could only do so in single file (De arch. 3.3.3). 29 (Vitr. De arch. 3.3.11; trans. Schofield 2009, 78.) Unfortunately, although Vitruvius lists contemporary examples for both the diastyle and the araeostyle spacing, there are no surviving buildings in Rome of either type against which we could test his rules. Vitruvius did not treat the Corinthian order in detail, discussing only the supposed fifth century origins of its capital (De arch 4.1.9), although there were examples of Corinthian temples in or near Rome which he is likely to have been aware of, such as the late second/early first century BCE round temple by the Tiber and the similarly dated round temple at Tivoli. Vitruvius’ relative neglect of this order implies either that he was not as familiar with its recent developments as he was with the earlier orders, or that the Roman Corinthian order was not yet fully developed at the time of his writing. The applicability of Vitruvius’ rules to the reconstruction of imperial Corinthian temples, and particularly those not arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm, is therefore unclear. On the one hand, some of Vitruvius’ rules are reflected in surviving architecture, and he draws on contemporary examples in Rome to illustrate his definitions of the various temple rhythms, but, on the other hand, Wilson Jones suggests that Vitruvius’ strict schemes may be counter to the variety and flexibility of Roman architecture.43 Wilson Jones has observed that Vitruvius’ stated proportional relationship between column height and diameter, in which the greater the intercolumnal space the thicker the column, in addition to his rules fixing the height of the capital and base, contradicts the 6:5 ratio between total column height and shaft height, which, in 1989, Wilson Jones first identified as a fundamental design 43
Wilson Jones 1989, 62. 30 principle of the Roman Corinthian order.44 Wilson Jones’ observation came from a study of the proportional relationships evident from a survey of ten Corinthian orders from the best-­‐preserved temples in or near Rome, most of which were pycnostyle, and which he has called the ‘The Imperial Design Framework.’45 On the grounds that the proportional relationships for the Roman Corinthian order first appear in the Augustan period, featured in the temples dedicated to Apollo in Circo, Mars Ultor and Castor and Pollux, Wilson Jones proposes that the ‘Imperial Design Framework’ was established during the course of the Augustan principate.46 Although it is unclear as to precisely when, the Augustan phases of the temples cited above all post-­‐date the vowing and dedication of the Apollo Palatinus temple (36-­‐28 BCE), which means that its relevance to the latter temple is unclear. According to Wilson Jones, changing the overall slenderness of the column, while simultaneously fixing the heights of its base and capital, in the way that Vitruvius also recommends, changes the ratio of the height of the shaft to that of the whole column in a way that is in fact counter to attested examples and, in particular, is incompatible with the 6:5 rule.47 However, the height of the base and the capital according to the ‘Imperial Design framework’ provides a way in which the 6:5 rule and the appropriate thickness of columns according to Vitruvius can both be accommodated. Wilson Jones observes that the height of the base and the capital ultimately varied to suit the other decisions already taken 44
Two exceptions of Augustan date are the 50 RF temples of Apollo Sosianus and Castor. Apollo Sosianus H: 50.09, h: 42.23 RF; Castor H: 49.86, h: 41.91 RF. Wilson Jones proposes that the deviation owes to the fact that 50 feet is not a multiple of 6 feet and consequently the shaft height cannot be 5/6 of the column height and simultaneously a whole number of feet. Wilson Jones 1989, 38. 45
See Wilson Jones 1989, 35-­‐69; later presented in a synthesized form in Wilson Jones 2000, 149-­‐
53. 46
Wilson Jones 1989, 57. 47
Wilson Jones 1989, 61. 31 to accommodate the total column height and the 6:5 ratio.48 Therefore, while Vitruvius’ prescriptions for column rhythms and the proportional relationships between column dimensions and their spacing are applied in this thesis, the height of the capitals and bases do not adhere to Vitruvian rules, but instead vary, as recommended by Wilson Jones. The selection process governing which rules to apply when considering archaeo-­‐
architectural reconstructions is determined by surviving examples: as above, because Vitruvian stipulations for column spacing are in some instances confirmed by physical examples they are on occasion applied in this thesis, while surviving examples of capitals and bases from Roman Corinthian orders have indicated that their heights varied, rather than being fixed, and therefore do not always follow Vitruvian rules. In sum, both Vitruvius and Wilson Jones provide useful rules to guide the process of archaeo-­‐architectural reconstruction, which are drawn on in chapters 3 and 6, but they have to be applied with caution, given that neither is necessarily representative of the full range of possibilities in Roman design. 1.3.5 Depictions of temple architecture in reliefs, coins and other media
Depictions of temples are found in monumental state reliefs, coins and other media, and a number of representations in varying media may illustrate the temples discussed in this thesis. Such sources are iconographically rich and can reveal much about contemporary attitudes and artistic style, but each medium is potentially subject to its own conventions and it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine their level of accuracy as architectural evidence. The following two 48
Wilson Jones 2000, 149. 32 sections explain the particular problems associated with the representations of temples on coins and in reliefs. 1.3.6 Representation of temples on coins
Three of the temples concerned here (Jupiter Feretrius, Jupiter Tonans and Jupiter Capitolinus), though none survives on the ground, feature on Roman coinage: Jupiter Feretrius on a series of Republican denarii and a Trajanic reissue; Jupiter Tonans on a series of aurei and denarii minted in the Augustan period in Spain, and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on two Republican series of denarii and various Flavian issues of aes and sestertii. Representations of buildings are a particular feature of coinage minted in Rome.49 Their significance and value as evidence have been much discussed, most recently by Andrew Burnett, who considers coin images to be interpretations, rather than reproductions, of buildings, which can provide valuable illuminations of contemporary concerns.50 Coin images produced in the Republic focused mainly on the achievements of one’s ancestors, a custom that translated under the Empire into a celebration of the achievements of the living emperor. Amongst the various images decorating the reverses of Roman coin types, representations of buildings and monuments in the city were often selected in commemoration of their construction or restoration. The reliability of such images as architectural evidence is debatable, for the reality is that, unless the building survives, we cannot be sure whether the coins are accurate representations of it or not. The fact that some buildings, such as the Colosseum,51 Trajan’s column52 and the 49
Hill 1989. Burnett 1999. 51
See the series of sestertii produced under Titus: BMCRE 2.262.190 pl.50.2 50
33 temple of Antoninus Pius53, do correspond quite closely to their coin images, unfortunately does not mean that we can trust all the other images as well. Many images appear to be schematic or even abstract renditions of buildings, such as the schematic renditions of an aedicular building associated by the accompanying legends with both Vesta and Jupiter Optimus Maximus produced in a series of denarii minted in Gaul in the first century CE.54 The most serious questions arise in connection with coins which may have been issued on the occasion of a vow, since there is no guarantee that the building was ever built or that, in the event it was built, that the coin image bore any relation to it. For example, in 19/18 BCE a series of denarii and aurei were minted in Spain and a series of cistophoroi in Pergamon, some of which feature a reverse depiction of a round temple with a legend identifying it as a temple of Mars Ultor.55 According to the much later Dio Cassius, Augustus intended to dedicate the Parthian standards, military ensigns that had been lost in previous, unsuccessful campaigns in Parthia and which Augustus retrieved and brought back to Rome in 19 BCE, in a temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitoline.56 A considerable volume of scholarship has attempted to link these numismatic representations and Dio Cassius’ reference to the existence of a temple dedicated to Mars Ultor on the Capitoline,57 which is otherwise entirely unattested. However, the most likely conclusion is that the coinage may 52
See the series of denarii minted in Rome under Trajan between 112-­‐17 CE with a detailed reverse depiction of the column which correlates with the remains of the column itself. British Museum R. 11711, RIC2 292, p.264 (type), RE3 454, p.94, PCR 552. 53
See the series of sestertii minted under Antoninus Pius in around 158-­‐59 CE with a reverse depiction of an octastyle temple on a four step podium which correlates reasonably well with the surviving remains of the temple. British Museum R.13878, RIC 1004, p.149 (type), RE 4 2065, p.352. 54
See British Museum 1860,0330.48, RIC1 128, p.214 (type), RE I 71, p.307. 55
For an example of the Spanish series see British Museum R.6089, RE1 367, p.65, RR2 4409, p.28, RIC1 69a, p.47; for an example of the Pergamene series see RIC 507, BMCRE 704. 56
Cass. Dio. 54.8.3. 57
‘Mars Ultor (Capitolium)’ in LTUR III [s.v. Chr. Reusser 1996, 230-­‐31], 230-­‐1; Rich 1998, 82-­‐85; Hannah 1998, 422-­‐33; Östenberg 2009, 53-­‐75. 34 have represented a vow to build such a temple but that this was never carried out, and that the coinage therefore represents a temple that never existed. For the rest, the function of the images can be presumed to have required that the building was recognisable, and thus they should bear some relation to its actual appearance. 1.3.7 Representation of temples in monumental reliefs and other figurative art
Depictions of temples in Roman reliefs are even more problematic sources of evidence for specific buildings than coins. Although the scale at which they are represented is usually much larger than on coins, the temples are never the primary focus of the relief and none is actually identified by name. They usually appear in the background of scenes of sacrifice. The identification of the temple depicted in any given relief is usually entirely a matter of guesswork, often relying on expectations of what occasion the scene represents, and is thus at serious risk of circularity in argument. As on the coins, it may be presumed that the images were intended to be recognisable as specific temples, but we cannot judge how far that actually entailed a realistic portrayal of the architecture, unless the building itself survives. Sculptural representations of temples were to a large extent conventional, no less than numismatic ones, and subordinate to the other artistic requirements of the scene. The decoration on the pediment provides the best clue to the temple’s identity, in that we may presume it was appropriate in some way to the deity or deities being honoured, but very few temples in reliefs have been securely identified in this way.58 It is possible that the two most 58
However, the temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine has been identified in the Valle-­‐Medici relief, a section of a sculptural frieze from a Julio-­‐Claudian monument. Two fragments of this relief provide a relief representation of a Corinthian temple, and although the depiction is fragmentary, with only four coloumns of the original hexastyle façade preserved, the right hand akroterion 35 important temples under scrutiny here (the temple of Apollo Palatinus, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus) are represented in reliefs, but the uncertainties are too many to be able to rely upon these reliefs as evidence. For instance, the temple that appears in three-­‐quarter view in the background of the so-­‐called Kithara or Albani reliefs, where Apollo, Diana and Latona are being received by a winged figure who is probably Victory, could be the Apollo temple on the Palatine.59 But it could also be the temple of Victory, or the scene may not be set on the Palatine at all. The temple in the background of the Extispicium relief in the Louvre could be the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, but the identification relies on a part of the relief only preserved in sixteenth-­‐century drawings in the Vatican, which may or may not have interpreted its detail correctly.60 1.4 Structure of the thesis
This thesis divides into two parts. The first examines the question of the early history and development of the imperial residence and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, the second part examines the temples dedicated to Jupiter that Augustus restored or founded on the Capitoline. Chapter 2 argues for an alternative location of the house of Augustus on the Palatine, and explores the ways in which it may have evoked associations with Jupiter. Chapter 3 evaluates the evidence for the temple that Augustus dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine and Amanda Claridge’s hypotheses concerning the features a corybant, while the pedimental sculptures feature lions, female figures with tympana and a pine branch, and a throne with a mural crown on the seat, all iconographical attributes of Magna Mater which are widely accepted to identify the temple as that of Magna Mater on the Palatine. See Bell 2009, 65-­‐99. 59
Cain 1989, taf. 218. 60
This detail is indicated in the Codex Vaticanus Latinus 3439 folio 83, a sixteenth century sketch of the heavily restored Hadrianic Extispicium relief which was discovered in the Forum of Trajan in 1540 and is named after the ritual scene depicted in front of a temple. See Wace 1907 and Tortorella 1988. For the ritual depicted in the scene, see Ryberg 1955, 128-­‐30. 36 layout, elevation and orientation of this temple, and offers a new reconstruction of it in accordance with them. Chapter 4 undertakes a closer study of the evidence for Octavian’s investment in the cult and temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and offers an interpretation of this restoration and its wider meaning. Chapter 5 investigates the evidence for Augustus’ temple dedicated to Jupiter Tonans and its location in the area Capitolina, exploring its importance in regards to the development of an imperial ideology of Jupiter in Rome. Chapter 6 addresses the question of the Augustan restoration of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, working backwards from the evidence of the Flavian rebuildings, as represented in the architectural elements in the Caffarelli garden on the Capitoline and a reconstruction of the height of the order of the Domitianic phase of the temple, and explores the possible interpretation of Domitian’s investment as a reflection of the earlier Augustan form. Chapter 7 summarises the findings in response to the research questions listed above, and presents the overall conclusions to be drawn from them. 37 CHAPTER TWO
The House of Augustus
2.1 Introduction
The way in which an emperor lived during his lifetime reflected his political and moral values, and it is well recognised that the imperial palace was therefore a powerful monument of self-­‐representation.61 ‘Bad’ emperors misappropriated temples for vestibules to their homes, built lodges in the area Capitolina within which they could sleep in the presence of Jupiter, spent vast sums adorning their private residences, and encircled Rome with their palaces.62 In contrast, ‘good’ emperors lived modest, open and accessible lives, and the design and layout of their houses mirrored this.63 A number of scholars have therefore attempted to locate and reconstruct Augustus’ house on the Palatine and to consider it in terms 61
Zanker (2002, 105-­‐30), using Domitian’s palace on the Palatine as a case study. Suetonius (Calig. 22.2-­‐4) reports that Caligula appropriated the temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum Romanum to use as his vestibule, and Dio Cassius (59.28.5) reports that the statues of Castor and Pollux served as his gatekeepers. Cassius Dio also reports that Caligula constructed a kind of lodge in the area Capitolina so that he could sleep near to Jupiter (59.28.2). According to Plutarch (Public. 15.5), Domitian spent an extraordinary amount in the construction of his palace, while Pliny (HN 36.111) reports that Caligula and Nero encircled Rome with their palaces. 63
Plin. Paneg. 46.47: Magno quidem animo parens tuus hanc ante vos principes arcem publicarum edium nomine inscripserat; frustra tamen, nisi adoptasset qui habitare ut in publicis posset. ‘Your father had shown his magnanimity by giving the title of “open house” to what (before your time or his) had been a stronghold of tyranny – yet this would have been an empty formula had he not adopted a son capable of living in the public eye.” (Loeb, Trans. Betty Radice). Paneg. 47.6: Nullae obices nulli contumeliarum gradus superatisque iam mille liminibus ultra semper aliqua dura et obstantia. Magna ante te, magna post te, iuxta te tamen maxima quies: tantum ubique silentium, tam altus pudor, ut ad parvos penates et larem angustum ex domo principis modestiae et tranquillitatis exampla referantur. ‘There are no obstacles, no grades of entry to cause humiliation, nor a thousand doors to be opened only to find still more obstacles barring the way. No, everything is peaceful before reaching you and on leaving you and above all, in your presence; such deep silence, such greate reverence, that from the prince’s house and example of calm and moderation returns to every humble hearth and modest home.’ (Loeb, Trans. Betty Radice). Pliny (Paneg. 48.3) later writes of senators in the Domus Augustana lingering remoramur resistimus ut in communi domo ‘as if in a home we share’. 62
38 of the evolving ideology of the Augustan Principate.64 However, the last decade has witnessed a radical revision of some long-­‐held interpretations of the archaeology on the southwestern Palatine, where Augustus’ residence was located, and some prevailing theories have been overturned.65 This owes partly to the completion of recent excavation and survey projects on the Palatine, particularly in relation to the Imperial palaces,66 as well as the revision of traditional interprertations regarding the published evidence of key monuments and sites.67 A review of the evidence for and theories regarding the location of the house of Augustus is appropriate to this chapter. However, this chapter will not engage with the reconstructions of the buildings and monuments on the Palatine offered by Andrea Carandini, because those that are relevant, namely Carandini’s reconstruction of the house of Augustus, are largely imaginative and have already received systematic criticism, most notably by T.P. Wiseman.68 Aside from this omission, however, this chapter will engage with the most prevalent interpretations of the evidence regarding the location of the house of Augustus. It will introduce the hypothesis advanced in this thesis, namely, that the 64
Notable studies provided by Royo 1999 and Mar 2005. One of the most influential, and incorrect, interpretations of the topography of Augustan Rome concerned the supposed existence of a ramp connecting Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ with the temple of Apollo, for which see Carettoni 1966-­‐7, 67 and Carettoni 1983, 388-­‐92, Fig.5. Gros (1976, 57) interpreted the location of Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ and the temple of Apollo to imply that Augustus and Apollo were equivalents; Zanker (1988, 51-­‐2) influentially interpreted the ramp in terms of a Hellenistic palace, comparing it with palatial complexes in Pergamon and Alexandria, a notion which was picked up later, in general texts such as Richardson’s entry (1992, 118) on the house of Augustus, and the MAR 2002, 104-­‐6 entry, ‘Domus: Augustus’ on 105. 66
For recent research on the Vigna Barberini see Villedieu 2007; for recent research on the Domus Tiberiana see Tomei and Filetici 2011; for recent research on the Domus Augustana see Wulf-­‐
Rheidt and Sojc 2009, and Sojc 2013 on the sunken peristyle of the Domus Augustana. 67
Particularly important are the surveys of the area around the temple of Apollo, see Iacopi and Tedone 2005-­‐6, although Pensabene and Gallocchio (2011, 475-­‐87) revise the interpretation of some of the individual structures, particularly Iacopi and Tedone’s interpretation of the portico of the Danaids on the supporting wall identified as ‘M’ on their maps of the site. 68
For Carandini’s and Bruno’s reconstruction of the House of Augustus, see Carandini 2008. For critique of this, see Wiseman 2001, Wiseman 2009a. Wiseman 2013 offers a comparative review of Carandini’s Atlante di Roma Antica and Coarelli’s Palatium. Coarelli (2012, 347-­‐55) also critiques Carandini’s reconstruction of the house of Augustus. 65
39 construction of the nearby temple of Apollo on the Palatine did not represent, intentionally or unintentionally, a lowering of the status of the state god Jupiter on the Capitoline and a major shift in the political history of the Augustan period. Instead, this chapter will propose that the location of the house of Augustus on the Palatine was in fact calculated to link Augustus and his residence as much with Jupiter as with Apollo. Although there is major controversy regarding the location and form of Augustus’ residence on the Palatine, this chapter will propose that its layout was – if not actually embodied – then highly influential for the later development of the imperial palace, which maintained the association between the emperor, Jupiter and Apollo.69 During the first century BCE, the Palatine, especially on the sides overlooking the Forum valley and the Via Sacra, had become the favoured residence of many of Rome’s political elite, such as Cn. Octavius, M. Aemilius Scaurus, L. Licinius Crassus, and famously Cicero and Clodius.70 Octavian’s selection of the Palatine for his residence was therefore to some extent following normal aristocratic behaviour, but his decision was surely also motivated by the legendary, kingly and augural traditions associated with the hill.71 In literary tradition among the antiquarians, especially Varro and the Augustan poets, the Palatine was celebrated as the first settled site in Rome, and Romulus was standing on the Palatine when the twelve vultures portended his kingship.72 Landmarks such as the hut of Romulus, the ficus ruminalis and Roma quadrata 69
For recent studies on the development and evolution of the imperial palaces on the Palatine see Cecamore (2002, 213-­‐30); Royo 1999; Mar 2005. Current understandings are being revised with the results of the excavations recently published by Tomei (Tomei 2012) and Wulf-­‐Rheidt et al (see especially Wulf and Sojc 2009 and Hoffman and Wulf 2004). 70
Coarelli 2012, 287-­‐36. 71
Edwards 1996, 31-­‐5. 72
Romulus observing twelve vultures from the Palatine see Livy 1.6.4-­‐7.1 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.5.1-­‐2. For discussion of the legendary, kingly and augural traditions associated with the hill see Rea 2007, 21-­‐43. 40 commemorated this association.73 A considerable volume of scholarship has explored the connection between Romulus, Octavian and the Palatine.74 However, two other factors, which are likely to have motivated Octavian’s decision to move to a house on the southwestern Palatine, are the centrality of the hill to the centre of Rome, and its high altitude, which afforded intervisibility between the seven hills of the city and the imperial residence. More specifically, Octavian’ choice of site (an older house previously owned by the Hortensii) was informed by its location near to the summit of the Palatine hill, which established Augustus’ house in view of the city. As we shall see, the forecourt of Augustus’ house was probably visible from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and the fastigium of the door, which struck Ovid as a temple of Jupiter, could have been oriented to the three temples dedicated to Jupiter on the Capitoline that -­‐ as we shall discuss in Chapters 4-­‐6 -­‐ Augustus was in due course to restore or found anew. The location and design of Augustus’ house on the Palatine, and Augustus’ building programme on the Capitoline, were therefore interrelated. The aim of this chapter is to firstly set out the evidence for Augustus’ residence on the Palatine, and to then explain why the approximate location for the house of Augustus can be identified with the site of the Flavian palace on the Palatine, now known as the Domus Augustana. It will then propose that literary 73
For the hut of Romulus on the Palatine see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.79, and for the preservation of its form see Dio Cass. 48.43. The inclusion of a casam romuli in the Regionary Catalogues for the Palatine indicates that it was preserved to the fourth century CE. Edwards (1996, 31-­‐43) provides a discussion of the literary evidence for the hut of Romulus, mentioning also the ficus ruminalis, the fig tree under which Romulus and Remus were allegedly nurtured by a she-­‐wolf, and Roma Quadrata. The evidence for the toponym Roma Quadrata is complicated, although Wiseman (2012, 371-­‐87) proposes that Roma quadrata was an area at or near the summit of the Palatine hill. All such landmarks are likely to be the product of later invention, upon which see Wiseman 1999, 37-­‐8. Coarelli (2012, 127-­‐61) discusses the Palatine of Romulus, although interprets it as an historical and recoverable reality. 74
For the late Republican inhabitation of the Palatine see Royo 1999, 120-­‐71; Coarelli (2012, 336-­‐
46) situates the evidence for the development of the house of Augustus on the Palatine and proposes a sequence for its development. For the connection with Romulus, Octavian and the Palatine see Edwards 1991, 31-­‐43; Rea 2007, 21-­‐44; and especially Wiseman 2012. 41 evidence supports the notion that the house of Augustus, at least as he rebuilt it in 3CE, was an augurated space, which meant that some basic elements of the first imperial residence were respected in subsequent rebuildings. With recourse to a later imperial phase of the palace, the vestibule of the house of Augustus will be identified. The significance of this site and its decoration, particularly in regards to the evolving ideology of Augustus as the earthly representative of Jupiter, will be examined. Map 1 illustrates all of the sites and structures on the Palatine that are discussed in this chapter. 2.2 Locating the ‘House/s of Augustus’
2.2.1 The literary Evidence
Ancient literary texts provide the only sources of evidence for the house of
Augustus,75 and the following section provides a brief analysis of them. The first reference to the house of Augustus, according to some scholars, may be found in Virgil’s description of King Latinus’ palace at Lavinium as tectum augustum ingens in the Aeneid, composed between c.29-­‐19 BCE: Tectum augustum ingens. centum sublime columnis, urbe fuit summa, Laurentis regia Pici, horrendum silvis et religione parentum. Hic sceptra accipere et primos attollere fasces regibus omen erat, hoc illis curia templum, hae sacris sedes epulis, hic ariete caeso perpetuis soliti patres considere mensis. Quin etiam veterum effigies ex ordine avorum antiqua e cedro, Italusque paterque Sabinus 75
The literary evidence for the house of Augustus been analysed by a number of scholars, see Richmond 1914, 193-­‐6; Wiseman 1987a, 393-­‐413; Wiseman 2009a, 527-­‐35; Wiseman 2012, 371-­‐
87; LTUR II, 40-­‐5 s.v. ‘Domus Augustana, Augustiana’ [L.Sasso D’Elia]; Royo 1999, 119-­‐73; Mar 2009, 250-­‐1; Coarelli 2012, 380-­‐1. 42 vitisator, curvam servans sub imagine falcem, Saturnusque senex Ianique bifrontis imago vestibulo astabant, aliique ab origine reges Martiaque ob patriam pugnando volnera passi. Multaque praeterea sacris in postibus arma, captivi pendent currus curvaeque secures et cristae capitum et portarum ingentia claustra spiculaque clipeique ereptaque rostra carinis. ‘A sacred building, massive and soaring to the sky with a hundred columns, stood on the highest point of the city. This was the palace of Laurentine Picus, a building held in great awe because of an ancestral sense of the presence of the divine in the grove that surrounded it. Here the omens declared that kings would receive their sceptres and take up the rods of office for the first time. This temple was their senate-­‐house, this the hall in which they held their sacred banquets and here the elders would sacrifice a ram and sit down to feast at long tables. Here too, carved in old cedar wood, stood in order in the forecourt the statues of their ancestors from time long past: Italus and Father Sabinus, planter of the vine, still holding in effigy his curved pruning knife, old Saturn, the image of Janus with his two faces, all the other kings since the foundation of the city and with them the men who had been wounded while fighting to defend their native land. Many too were the weapons hung on the posts of the temple doors, captured chariots, curved axes, crests of helmets, great bolts from the gates of cities, spears, shields and beaks broken off the prows of ships.’ (Virg. Aen. 7.170-­‐86; trans. David West 2003, 145-­‐6.) Wiseman proposes that Virgil’s use of Augustus to describe King Latinus’ palace in the passage constitutes a direct allusion to the house of Augustus on the grounds that this adjectival use of ‘augustus’ is not found anywhere else in the Aeneid and should specifically refer to Augustus and his residence.76 In consequence, Wiseman gives credit to the late fourth/early fifth century CE grammarian Servius, who, in his commentary on the Aeneid, reports that Virgil’s description of King Latinus‘ palace in Lavinium was based on Augustus’ house on 76
Wiseman 1987: 397-­‐8. 43 the Palatine.77 O.L. Richmond had already stressed the topographical value of Servius’ commentary and had drawn attention to Servius’ intimation that Virgil was implicitly referring to the house of Augustus when describing Latinus’ palace on another occasion in his commentary.78 At Aen. 11.235, Servius explained that the senate gathered in King Latinus’ palace because, although it was a private residence, it was augurally founded and provided an appropriate site for a senatorial meetings, reminding his readers that senatorial meetings had been similarly held in the atrium of Augustus’ house on the Palatine, upon which King Latinus’ palace was based.79 The late date of Servius’ composition means that he himself cannot have witnessed the house of Augustus, however, and his commentary alone cannot support the notion that Virgil’s description of King Latinus’ palace was sourced from the house of Augustus on the Palatine. To conclude this discussion of Virgil Aen. 7.170-­‐86, if Virgil did indeed base his description of King Latinus’ palace on a contemporary understanding of the house 77
Serv. Aen. 7.170: tectum avgustum ingens domum, quam in Palatio diximus ab Augusto factam, per transitum laudat: quam quasi in Laurolavinio vult fuisse. ‘The huge august house: the house, which was built by Augustus on the Palatine as we said, he praises through the passage: which he wants to have been like (the one) in Lavinium.’ I am grateful to Chris Malone for his help with this translation. For Wiseman’s discussion of Virgil’s adjectival use of ‘augustus’ and his belief in Servius’ passage, see Wiseman 1987: 397-­‐8. 78
Richmond 1914: 214. 79
Serv. Aen. 11.235: alta intra limina cogit quaeritur cur ad privatam domum convocetur senatus, qui non nisi ad publica et augurato condita loca convenire consuevit. sed scimus domum Latini augurato conditam et eandem tam templum fuisse, quam curiam: namque in superioribus legimus “tectum augustum” , id est augurio conditum, item paulo post “hinc sceptra accipere et primos attollere fasces regibus omen erat, hoc illis curia templum” . merito ergo ad domum regis, quasi ad locum gentibus publicum, convocatur senatus: nam ait in septimo “tali intus templo divum patriaque Latinus sede sedens” . idcirco etiam in Palatii atrio, quod augurato conditum est, apud maiores consulebatur senatus: ubi etiam aries immolabatur, quod, ut in septimo diximus, Vergilius ad Latini transtulit domum. multi dicunt perite Vergilium nec templi nec curiae hoc loco fecisse commemorationem, sed tantum dixisse 'tecta regia', ut ostenderet, consilium quod initur, non esse complendum, quia nec rite est inchoatum: ea enim quae dicit Latinus, effectu carebunt. ‘One asks why the senate is summoned to a private house, when it is accustomed to meet only in places which are state-­‐property and augurally founded. But we know that the house of Latinus was augurally founded, and that it was at the same time as much a temple as a senate-­‐house. It is right therefore that the senate should be summoened to the king’s house, as to a place made public property for the world: for he says in the seventh book ‘within such a temple … did he sit. Therefore the senate used to be consulted in days of yore in the atrium of the Palatium also, the atrium which was augurally founded (‘auguratio condito’), where also the ram used to be sacrificed, all of which Virgil has transferred to the house of Latinus.’ (Trans. Richmond 1914, 215). 44 of Augustus on the Palatine, as both his adjectival use of ‘augustus’ and Servius’s commentary suggest, then the implication is that at the time of composition, Virgil could represent the house of Augustus as a tall structure located at a high point on the Palatine. The poet Ovid provides the first certain reference to the house of Augustus in his Tristia, composed c. 8-­‐12 CE.80 In this poem, written during exile, Ovid sends a book to Rome, progressing from the Forum and up the Sacra Via, past the temple of Vesta and the temple of Jupiter Stator, to arrive at the house of Augustus, which he describes as ‘a dwelling worthy of a god’, a progression which provides a select itinerary of Augustan Rome. Ovid describes Augustus’ residence as adorned with an oak wreath, with laurel trees set in front of it, and an inscription placed upon it. The temple dedicated to Apollo must have been in close proximity to the house of Augustus because Ovid refers firstly to the inscription on the house, and then to the stairs of the Apollo Palatinus temple. The relevant section is as follows: paruit, et ducens ‘haec sunt fora Caesaris,’ inquit, ‘haec est a sacris quae via nomen habet, hic locus est Vestae, qui Pallada servat et ignem, haec fuit antiqui regia parva Numae.’ inde petens dextram ‘porta’ est ait ‘ista Palati, hic Stator, hoc primum condita Roma loco est.’ singula dum miror, video fulgentibus armis conspicuos postes tectaque digna deo. ‘et Iovis haec’ dixi ‘ domus est?’ quod ut esse putarem, augurium monti querna corona dabat, cuius ut accepi dominum, ‘non fallimur,’ inquam, et magni verum est hanc Iovis esse domum, cur tamen opposita velatur ianua lauro, cingit et augustas arbor opaca comas? 80
Ovid’s Tristia is dated to 8-­‐12 CE because the poet was exiled in 8 CE, and the poem was written in response to as an appeal for his return, for which see Williams 2002, 233-­‐45. 45 num quia perpetuos meruit domus ista triumphos, an quia Leucadio semper amata deo est? ipsane quod festa est, an quod facit omnia festa? quam tribuit terris, pacis an ista nota est? utque viret semper laurus nec fronde caduca Carpitur, aeternum sic habet illa decus? causa superpositae scripto est testata coronae: servatos cives indicat huius ope. adice servatis unum, pater optime, civem, qui procul extremo pulsus in orbe latet, in quo poenarum, quas se meruisse fatetur, non facinus causam, sed suus error habet. me miserum! vereorque locum vereorque potentem, et quatitur trepido littera nostra metu. aspicis exsangui chartam pallere colore? aspicis alternos intremuisse pedes? quandocumque, precor, nostro placere parenti isdem et sub dominis aspiciare domus! inde tenore pari gradibus sublimia celsis ducor ad intonsi candida templa dei, signa peregrinis ubi sunt alterna columnis, Belides et stricto barbarus ense pater “This is Caesar’s forum; this is the street named from the sacred rites. This is the place of Vesta guarding Pallas and the fire, here was once the tiny palace of ancient Numa”. Then turning to the right, “That”, he said, “is the gate of the Palatium. Here is Stator; on this spot first was Rome founded.” While I was marveling at one thing after another, I beheld doorposts marked out from others by gleaming arms and a dwelling worthy of a god. “Is this also Jove’s abode,” I said, and for such thought an oaken wreath gave to my mind the augury. And when I learned its master, I said, “no error is mine; it is true that this is the home of mighty Jove. But why is the door screened by the laurels before it, their dark foliage surrounding the august tresses? Can it be because that home has deserved unending triumph or because it has always been loved by the Leucadian god? Is it because the house itself is full of joy or because it fills all things with joy? Is it a mark of that peace which it has given to the world? And as the laurel is ever green with no withering leaves to be plucked away, so does that house possess an eternal glory? The reason for the crowning wreath is shown by an inscription: it declares that by his aid citizens have been saved. Add, O best of fathers, to those whom thou hast saved one citizen who far on the world’s edge lies in forgotten exile, the cause of whose punishment which he admits that he has deserved, as not a deed, but his own mistake. Wretched me! I fear the spot, I fear the man of power, my script wavers with shuddering dread. See you my paper pale with bloodless colour? See you each alternate foot tremble? Sometime, I pray, mayst thou, O palace, be reconciled with him who fathered me, and may it be his lot to behold thee under the same masters! Then 46 with even pace up the lofty steps I was conducted to the shining temple of the unshorn god, where alternating with the columns of foreign marble stand the figures of the Belids, the barbarian father with a drawn sword.’ (Ov. Trist. 3.1.30-­‐62; Loeb, Trans. Arthur Leslie Wheeler.) According to the most detailed passage on the house of Augustus, supplied by the biographer Suetonius, writing in the early second century CE, the house that Ovid described was the modest house previously owned by a certain Hortensius: in ceteris partibus vitae continentissimum constat ac sine suspicione ullius vitii. Habitavit primo iuxta Romanum Forum supra Scalas anularias, in domo quae Calvi oratoris fuerat; postea in Palatio, sed nihilo minus aedibus modicis Hortensianis, et neque laxitate neque cultu conspicuis, ut in quibus porticus breves essent Albanarum columnarum et sine marmore ullo aut insigni pavimento conclavia. Ac per annos amplius quadraginta eodem cubiculo hieme et aestate mansit, quamvis parum salubrem valitudini suae urbem hieme experiretur assidueque in urbe hiemaret. Si quando quid secreto aut sine interpellatione agere proposuisset, erat illi locus in edito singularis, quem Syracusas et technyphion vocabat; huc transibat aut in alicuius libertorum suburbanum; aeger autem in domo Maecenatis cubabat. Ex secessibus praecipue frequentavit maritima insulasque Campaniae aut proxima urbi oppida, Lanuvium, Praeneste, Tibur, ubi etiam in porticibus Herculis templi persaepe ius dixit. Ampla et operosa praetoria gravabatur. Et neptis quidem suae Iuliae, profuse ab ea exstructa, etiam diruit ad solum, sua vero quamvis modica non tam statuarum tabularumque pictarum ornatu quam xystis et nemoribus excoluit rebusque vetustate ac raritate notabilibus, qualia sunt Capreis immanium beluarum ferarumque membra praegrandia, quae dicuntur gigantum ossa, et arma heroum. ‘It is generally agreed that in other aspects of his life he [Augustus] was very restrained, attracting no suspicion of any other faults. He lived at first near the Roman Forum, at the top of the Ringmakers’ steps, in a house which had belonged to the orator Calvus. Later he lived on the Palatine but in the no less modest house that had belonged to Hortensius. It was notable neither for its size nor for its decor, having within it small colonnades of Alban stone and no marble decoration at all nor any suites with lavish flooring. And for more than forty years, he slept in the same bedroom winter and summer, and even though he found the city detrimental to his health in winter, he still continued to spend his winters in town. If ever he had some business he wanted to conduct in secret or without interruption, he had a particular room on a higher 47 level which he used to call his Syracuse or his little workshop and this is where he would go, or else to the suburban villa of one of his freedmen.’ (Suet. Aug. 72.1-­‐4; trans. Edwards 2008, 81.) The house of Hortensius will have been named after its original builder, conventionally understood to be the orator Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, consul of 69 BCE, who died in 50 BCE and bequeathed the property to his son Q. Hortensius.81 This latter Hortensius, originally a partisan of Caesar, was executed following his capture at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BCE; he had probably already been placed on the proscription lists of 43 BCE.82 In all likelihood, Octavian purchased the property in this same year.83 Of the house of Hortensius, only the name of its prior owner and modest decoration is known, but it may be possible to hypothesise the approximate location of this house on the Palatine from its attested simplicity. Roman politics was a highly visible enterprise, and as business was often conducted in private houses, the residences that were located on the northwestern slopes of the Palatine and in sight of the Forum were especially prized.84 The wealthier houses on the Palatine, such as the house of Cicero, probably lined the lower slope of the northeastern Palatine in order to be close to the Forum and in public view.85 In contrast, it is possible that the house of Hortensius, as a less luxurious dwelling, was located closer to the summit of the Palatine. Moreover, the summit of the 81
Val. Max. 5.9.2. Plut. Brut. 28.1. See Hinard 1985, 475-­‐6; Wiseman 2009a, 528. 83
Wiseman 2011, 528; in contrast, Corbier (1992, 873, 888) suggest that Octavian moved into the house of Hortensius in 36 BCE, however the arguments for the earlier date are more convincing. 84
For the visual dominance of elite housing, see Wiseman 1999, 101; ‘The great man was at his most visible as he went to and from his domus, and it was that that made houses whose postes gave onto highly frequented parts of the city s desirable.’ LTUR II, 325-­‐6 s.v. ‘Forum Romanum (The Republican Period)’ [N. Purcell]. 85
In de domo sua (100), Cicero famously referred to his house on the Palatine as in conspectu prope totius Urbis domus est mea, ‘my house, gentlemen, stands full in view of well-­‐nigh the whole city.’ (Loeb, Trans. N. H. Watts). 82
48 Palatine had augural and Romulean associations, and, as we shall see throughout this thesis, Augustus’ authority in Rome was expressed through the bestowal of a specific auspicia, while his association with Romulus aligned him with the legendary founder of the city.86 The likely location of the house of Hortensius at the summit of the Palatine would have been appropriate to the developing ideology of the princeps. According to Dio Cassius, Octavian was offered a second house in 36 BCE, this time at public expense, because Octavian had donated land originally intended for his residence for the construction of the temple of Apollo and its porticoes.87 According to Suetonius (Aug. 29.3), Octavian transferred the use of the land because lightning struck it, which, according to the haruspices, marked it out for Apollo.88 Although some scholars interpret this to mean that the house in which Octavian was already living was thus expropriated,89 Wiseman points out that Velleius Paterculus, writing in 30 CE and therefore nearest to the event, provides a version of events which make this unlikely.90 According to Velleius, it was during Octavian’s absence from Rome that procuratores acting on his behalf 86
Romulus took the original auspces at the foundation of Rome on the summit of the Palatine, see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.5.1-­‐2. 87
Dio Cass. 49.15.5: Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἄλλως ἐθρυλεῖτο, τότε δὲ οἰκίαν τε αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου δοθῆναι ἔγνωσαν·∙ τὸν γὰρ τόπον ὃν ἐν τῷ Παλατίῳ, ὥστ´ οἰκοδομῆσαί τινα, ἐώνητο, ἐδημοσίωσε καὶ τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι ἱέρωσεν, ἐπειδὴ κεραυνὸς ἐς αὐτὸν ἐγκατέσκηψε. ‘The people at this time resolved that a house should be presented to Caesar at public expense; for he had made public property of the place on the Palatine which he had bought for the purpose of erecting a residence upon it, and had consecrated it to Apollo, after a thunderbolt had descended upon it.’ (Loeb Trans. E. Cary). 88
Suet. Aug. 29.3: Templum Apollinis in ea parte Palatinae domus excitavit, quam fulmine ictam desiderari a deo haruspices pronuntiarant. ‘The Temple to Apollo he had erected on the site of that part of his Palatine residence which the haruspices had announced was desired by the god when it was struck by lightning.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 58). 89
Coarelli (2012, 384-­‐85) identifies the ‘house of Livia’ as the House of Hortensius which was expropriated in 36 BCE; Iacopi and Tedone (2005/6, 363-­‐66) think that Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ was the house upon which the lightning bolt fell. 90
Wiseman 2009a, 528-­‐9. Velleius dates the composition of his text to the consulship of M. Vincius in 30CE, and it is usually assumed that he composed his Compendium of Roman history in this year, although there is some dicussion, for which see Rich 2011, 84-­‐7. 49 purchased properties on the Palatine in order to increase the amount of open space around Augustus’ own residence, but in 36 BCE construction commenced for a temple and portico on the site instead.91 Therefore, the temple of Apollo was not constructed in Augustus’ residence but, rather, came to occupy the site of properties originally purchased around his residence. Dio Cassius provides the only record that Octavian was awarded another house at public expense in 36 BCE, and there is no record of Octavian’s response. If Octavian was awarded a house at public expense, it is likely to have been recorded elsewhere, so Octavian probably declined the offer; Olivier Hekster and John Rich propose that such a refusal would have enabled a show of modesty.92 However, following the later destruction of Augustus' house by fire in 3 CE, both Cassius Dio and Suetonius agree that the Roman Senate awarded Augustus a new house at public expense but the princeps allowed only nominal public contributions towards its rebuilding, instead preferring to finance it personally.93 This must have been a rebuilding of the house of Hortensius and was presumably the house that Ovid had in mind in his poem. 91
Vell. Pat. 2.81: Victor deinde Caesar reversus in urbem contractas emptionibus complures domos per procuratores, quo laxior fieret ipsius, publicis se usibus destinare professus est, templumque Apollinis et circa porticus facturum promisit, quod ab eo singulari exstructum munificentia est.‘Caesar, on his victorious return to the city, made the announcement that he meant to set apart for public use certain houses which he had secured by purchase through his agents in order that there might be a free area about his own residence. He further promised to build a temple of Apollo with a portico about it, a work which he constructed with rare munificence.’ (Loeb, trans. F. W. Shipley). 92
Hekster and Rich 2006, 151-­‐2. 93
Dio Cass. 55.12.4: Ἐμπρησμοῦ δέ ποτε τὸ παλάτιον διαφθείραντος, καὶ πολλῶν αὐτῷ πολλὰ διδόντων, οὐδὲν ἔλαβεν ἢ μόνον παρὰ μὲν τῶν δήμων χρυσοῦν παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν δραχμήν.‘Once, when a fire destroyed the palace and many persons offered him large sums of money, he accepted nothing but an aureus from entire communities and a denarius from single individuals.’ (Loeb Trans. E. Cary). Suet. Aug. 57.2: In restitutionem Palatinae domus incendio absumptae veterani, tribus atque etiam singillatim e cetero genere hominum libentes ac pro facultate quisque pecunias contulerunt, delibante tantum modo eo summarum acervos neque ex quoquam plus denario auferente. ‘When his house on the Palatine was destroyed by fire, veterans, guilds, the tribes, and even individuals from other walks of life with great willingness brought funds for its rebuilding, each in accordance with his own means, though the emperor would take only a little from each of the heaps, keeping no more than a penny from anyone.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 74). 50 In 12 BCE, Augustus was elected pontifex maximus, an office that required him to live in the domus publica in the Forum.94 At the time of his election, Augustus circumvented this requirement by making part of his house public95 and incorporating the cult of Vesta within it.96 In 3 CE, however, Augustus declared the entirety of his house state property following its rebuilding, and consequently fulfilled the domestic obligations of the pontifex maximus.97 The form of the cult of Vesta within the house of Augustus (both before and after the fire of 3CE) is unclear and much debated, owing to the contradictory accounts in the ancient literary and epigraphic sources. The following section will list the relevant evidence in chronological order. In the Metamorphoses (Met. 15. 861-­‐66), Ovid links the worship of Apollo with Vesta; in the Fasti (Fast. 4.949-­‐50) Ovid writes that the house of Augustus holds three gods. Ovid seems to imply 94
For Augustus’election to pontifex maximus, see RG 10.2; Dio Cass. 54.27.3: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ συνεδρίου. καὶ οὔτε ἐκεῖνα ἔτ᾽ ἐκυρώθη οὔτ᾽ οἰκίαν τινὰ δημοσίαν ἔλαβεν, ἀλλὰ μέρος τι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι τὸν ἀρχιέρεων ἐν κοινῷ πάντως οἰκεῖν ἐχρῆν, ἐδημοσίωσεν. τὴν μέντοι τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν ἱερῶν ταῖς ἀειπαρθένοις ἔδωκεν, ἐπειδὴ ὁμότοιχος ταῖς οἰκήσεσιν αὐτῶν ἦν. ‘That measure, therefore, now failed of passage, and he also received no official residence; but, inasmuch as it was absolutely necessary that the high priest should live in a public residence, he made a part of his own house public property. The house of the rex sacrificulus, however, he gave to the Vestal Virgins, because it was separated merely by a wall from their apartments.’ (Loeb Trans. E. Cary). 95
Dio Cass. 54.27.3: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ συνεδρίου. καὶ οὔτε ἐκεῖνα ἔτ᾽ ἐκυρώθη οὔτ᾽ οἰκίαν τινὰ δημοσίαν ἔλαβεν, ἀλλὰ μέρος τι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι τὸν ἀρχιέρεων ἐν κοινῷ πάντως οἰκεῖν ἐχρῆν, ἐδημοσίωσεν. τὴν μέντοι τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν ἱερῶν ταῖς ἀειπαρθένοις ἔδωκεν, ἐπειδὴ ὁμότοιχος ταῖς οἰκήσεσιν αὐτῶν ἦν. ‘That measure, therefore, now failed of passage, and he also received no official residence; but, inasmuch as it was absolutely necessary that the high priest should live in a public residence, he made a part of his own house public property. The house of the rex sacrificulus, however, he gave to the Vestal Virgins, because it was separated merely by a wall from their apartments.’ (Loeb Trans. E. Cary). 96
Met. 15. 861-­‐66: di, precor, Aeneae comites, quibus ensis et ignis vesserunt, dique Indigetes genitorque Quirine Urbis et invicti genitor Gradive Quirini Vestaque Caesareos inter sacrata penates, et cum Caesarea tu, Phoebe domestic, Vesta, quique tenes altus Tarpeias Iuppiter arces ‘‘O gods, I pray you, comrades of Aeneas, before whom both fire and sword gave way, and ye native gods of Italy and thou Quirinus, father of our city, and Gradivus, invincible Quirinus’ sire, and Vesta, who hast ever held a sacred place midst Caesar’s household gods, and thou Apollo, linked in worship with our Caesar’s Vesta, and Jupiter, whose temple sits high on Tarpeia’s rock’ (Loeb, Trans. Frank Justus Miller). 97
Dio Cass. 55.12.4: Ὁ δὲ Αὔγουστος τὴν οἰκίαν οἰκοδομήσας ἐδημοσίωσε πᾶσαν, εἴτε δὴ διὰ τὴν συντέλειαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ δήμου οἱ γενομένην, εἴτε καὶ ὅτι ἀρχιέρεως ἦν, ἵν´ ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἅμα καὶ ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς οἰκοίη ‘When Augustus had built his house, he made it all state property, either on account of the contributions made by the people or because he was high priest and wished to live in apartments that were at once private and public.’ (Loeb Trans. E. Cary). 51 that the deities of Apollo and Vesta and Augustus were both included in the imperial residence and were of an equal value, and as Ovid’s reference to Apollo here seems to refer to the new temple on the Palatine, some scholars have consequently proposed that Augustus also constructed a temple on the Palatine dedicated to Vesta.98 Two fragmentary calendar entries, recording dedications to Vesta in the house of Augustus, have been variously reconstructed to indicate that an altar, statue and/or shrine were dedicated to Vesta within. These two entries are as follows: the late Republican fasti Caeretani records that a sig (num) Vest (ae) was set up in domo P, sometimes reconstructed as domo Palatina or domo Publica,99 and the early Imperial fasti Praenestini records the erection of a […] et […] / Vestae in domu imp (eratoris).100 To indicate the difference in the prevailing reconstructions of the fasti Praenestini, reconstructed from knowledge of the context of the inscriptions, the space of the lacunae, and comparison with more complete inscriptions, a brief survey follows. Theodor Mommsen supplied aedicvla et ara, Degrassi signum et ara, Guarducci signvm et aedis, Coarelli ara et aedes.101 In support of the existence of a shrine (either an aedicula or an aedes) 98
For Metamorphoses see above fn. 96; fast. 4.949-­‐50: aufer Vesta diem! Cognate Vesta recepta est:/ sic iusti constituere patres./ limine Phoebus habet partem, Vestae pars altera cessit;/ Quod superest illis, tertius ipse tenet. ‘Take the day, Vesta! Vesta has been received at her kinsman’s threshold. Stand, you Palatine laurels! May the house stand, wreathed with oak! One house, it holds three eternal gods.’ (Trans. Wiseman and Wiseman 2013). For a sumary of the evidence and for further reference to modern discussion, see LTUR V 1999, 128-­‐9, ‘Vesta, Ara, Signum, Aedes (in Palatio)’ [R. Capelli]; Coarelli (2012, 399-­‐420) provides the most comprehensive introduction to the ancient evidence and modern scholarship. 99
Inscr. Ital. XIII.2,66 = CIL 1.2.213: Loedi florae. fer(iae) q(uod) e(o) d(ie) sig(num) vest (ae) in domo P(alatina? publica? pontifica?) dedic(atum). The fasti caeretani is pre 12 BCE. 100
Inscr.Ital. XIII.2,133 = CIL 2.236: feriae ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) quod eo di[e ...]m et [...]/ Vestae in domu imp(eratoris) Caesaris Augu[sti po]ntificis ma[x(imi)] dedicatast Quirino et Valgio co(n)s(ulibus). For the date of the Fasti Praenestini see Degrassi 1963, 66. 101
For the lacunae in the fasti praenestini, Mommsen originally restored it as [aedicvl]a et [ara] in the CIL; Degrassi (1955, 145-­‐6), however, suggests that [signv]m et [ara] fits better; Guarducci (1964, 166-­‐7) proposes [signv]m et [aedis] proposing that although aedis is missing in the fasti Caeretani, the statue of Vesta may only have been visible in 12 BCE (1964, 159, 167), whereas the aedis may have been visible when the fasti Praenestini were amended in the early Imperial period (1964, 167). Coarelli (2010, 410) suggests ara et aedes, but an aedes for a god would by definition have an ara. 52 dedicated to Vesta on the Palatine, some scholars have identified a Palatine temple of Vesta on a series of Tiberian dupondii (Fig. 2.1) and Flavian aurei (Fig. 2.2), both of which illustrate a round Ionic temple with a conical roof, flanked, in the case of the Tiberian dupondii, on either side by pillars topped with a ram and a bull, and, on the Vespasianic aurei, with a statue of Vesta and a statue of the Palladium and a statue of Vesta also located in the doorway.102 Some scholars also identify a round Ionic temple depicted on the Augustan altar known as the Sorrento base as a Palatine temple of Vesta (Figs. 2.3 – 2.7).103 However, the illustrations on these two coin series and the altar cannot be certainly identified. The interpretation of the scene with the round Ionic temple on the Sorrento base is particularly contested. Only half of its original decoration is preserved; the surviving remains may feature a continuous religious scene, which, in 1932, Giulio Emanuele Rizzo first proposed represents the dedication of the shrine of Vesta on the Palatine, an identification which has since received much support.104 Three sides of the base are illustrated with references to three Palatine monuments: the figures of Apollo, Diana and Latona, identifiable by the tripod cauldron in the background and Diana’s quiver, refer to the temple of Apollo on the Palatine on side B (Fig. 2.4),105 the seated figure of the draped Magna Mater, identifiable by the dancing corybant to her left and the lion seated at her feet, refer to the 102
For the identification of a temple of Vesta on the Palatine on the Tiberian dupondii see Guarducci 1964, 161, and Guarducci 1971, 95-­‐6. According to Guarducci (1971, 105-­‐8), the ram and the bull may represent the zodiac signs for April, when a number of celebrations associated with Augustus are known to have taken place. For agreement with, and further discussion of, this interpretation, see Coarelli 2012, 413-­‐4. 103
Rizzo 1932 first proposed that a temple of Vesta on the Palatine was illustrated on the Sorrento base; followed by Guarducci 1971, 93-­‐5; Cecamore 2004; Coarelli 2012, 399-­‐420, Wiseman 2009a and 2012. 104
Rizzo 1932, 40, 50. This interpretation is widely accepted, see Beard, North and Price 1998, 190 and Fig.4.4. 105
For the identification of the Palatine triad, and of the figure at a lower register as the Sibyl, see Rizzo 1932, 52-­‐60; Degrassi 1966/67, 100; Galinsky 1996, 216; Beard et al. 1998, 190. There is some discussion as to whether the figures specifically represent the cult statues of Apollo, Latona and Diana as described by Pliny HN 36.24-­‐25, 32 and Propertius 2.31.15-­‐18. 53 nearby temple of Magna Mater on side D (Fig. 2.5),106 while the fragmentary figure of Mars on side C is located in front of an Ionic façade, which is identifiable with the house of Augustus because of the corona civica that is placed on it (Fig. 2.6), an honour which will be given further consideration later in this chapter. The fourth side of the base, side A, features a procession with Vesta and five Vestals, identifiable by their suffibuli, and two goddesses, while an Ionic portico and a round shrine feature in the background (Fig. 2.7).107 Scholars are divided as to whether this round shrine represents the temple of Vesta in the Forum or the temple of Vesta on the Palatine.108 However, in consideration of the fact that Augustus does not record construction of a temple of Vesta in the Res Gestae, and nor is it recorded explicitly in any of our sources, it is unlikely that a new temple of Vesta was constructed on the Palatine. On the other hand, the dedication of a statue and altar dedicated to Vesta within the house of Augustus remains a likely possibility. Ovid describes Augustus’ house as worthy of a god, and this elevated description of the house probably referred to the unusual sacral aspects that characterised the house, rather than the magnificence of the structure. The worship of Vesta was included within the house, and, as we shall see, the vestibule of the house of Augustus probably shared space with the area Palatina, the sacred precinct of the temple of Apollo. To sum up so far, the house of Augustus was the house of Hortensius, acquired by 36 BCE. However, Octavian and his agents were also purchasing other 106
For the identification of Magna Mater see Rizzo 1932, 92-­‐5; Stucchi 1958, 15; Degrassi 1966/67, 100; Guarducci 1971, 110; Wiseman 1991, 107. 107
Rizzo (1932, 46-­‐7) proposes that the goddesses are Ceres and Libera. 108
Stucchi (1959, 90-­‐1) and Hölscher 1988, 376 identify the round temple as the temple of Vesta in the Forum Romanum; Rizzo (1932, 32), Guarducci (1971, 102-­‐8) and Cecamore (2004, 105-­‐41) identify it as a temple of Vesta on the Palatine. 54 properties on the Palatine in the 30s BCE, and probably later still, with the apparent intention of expanding Octavian’s residence. The reason given for the expansion was to provide more space for public business, so it could mean opening up more public space in front of the house, by acquiring and demolishing adjacent houses, rather than extending the house itself. The size of Augustus’ vestibulum, the forecourt in front of the door, is a matter for conjecture and will be discussed further below, but would need to be very large for a person of his growing power and status. In 36 BCE, lightning struck one of these properties and consultation of the haruspices revealed the prodigy to mean that Apollo desired the site instead. Octavian, having chosen the house of Hortensius on the Palatine for his residence, lived in it for the next forty years until it perished in a fire in 3CE. At this point it is worth clarifying that although the ancient authors usually referred to Augustus’ residence with the singular domus, in this context domus refers to a complex of buildings rather than a single building. For instance, it is recorded that Augustus’ grandsons were educated in the atrium of the house of Catulus, which formed part of the palace.109 Wiseman has pointed out that Josephus records this arrangement of multiple houses forming the imperial residence.110 Although most modern interpretations of the evidence unnecessarily reconstruct the existence of multiple houses, the house in which 109
Suet. Gram 17: Quare ab Augusto quoque nepotibus eius praeceptor electus, transiit in Palatium cum tota schola, verum ut ne quem amplius posthac discipulum reciperet; docuitque in atrio Catulinae domus, quae pars Palatii tunc erat, et centena sestertia in annum accepit. ‘He [Marcus Verrius Flaccus] was therefore chosen by Augustus as the tutor of his grandsons and he moved to the Palace with his whole school, but with the understanding that he should admit no more pupils. He gave instruction in the atrium of the house of Catulus, which at that time formed part of the Palace, and was paid a hundred thousand sesterces a year.‘ (Loeb, Trans. J.C.Rolfe). 110
Joseph. AJ 19.117: ὁδούς τε ἑτέρας χωροῦντες παρῆσαν εἰς τὴν Γερμανικοῦ μὲν οἰκίαν τοῦ Γαΐου πατρός, ὃν τότε ἀνῃρήκεσαν, συνημμένη δὲ ἐκείνη, διὰ τὸ ἓν τὸ βασίλειον ὂν ἐπ᾽ οἰκοδομίαις ἑκάστου τῶν ἐν τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ γεγονότων ἀσκηθὲν ἀπὸ μέρους ὀνόματι τῶν οἰκοδομηθησομένων ἢ καί τι τῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκήσεις ἀρξάντων τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν παρασχέσθαι. ‘though the palace complex was a single site, it was made up severally of the buildings belonging to each member of the imperial family, named after their builders or those who had even begun on any part of the house).’ (Trans. Wiseman 1991, 18). See Wiseman 20091, 535. 55 Augustus lived was in fact likely to be a single building.111 Augustus certainly acquired a number of properties on the Palatine during his lifetime for his household, perhaps to serve particular functions that his own residence could not accommodate, but these remained separate properties and were not architecturally unified.112 Augustus’ house was destroyed by fire in 3 CE.113 Thereafter, when rebuilt by Augustus, at his own expense, it was called the Domus August[i]ana and that name continued in use.114 The rebuildings of the Domus Augustana by Nero after the fire of 64 CE, and then by the Flavians, suffered from the damnatio of their builders and reverted to the Domus Augustana in each case.115 This indicates that the house of Augustus should be associated with the remains of the imperial palace on the Palatine that have been known since antiquity as the Domus Augustana.116 In support of this hypothesis, geomorphological studies have demonstrated that the true summit of the Palatine is situated beneath the core of the Flavian palace, which accords with evidence in favour of locating the house of 111
See especially Coarelli (2012: 395-­‐9) for the argument that Augustus had both a private and a public palace. Tomei 2000 and Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6 also believe in the existence of a private and a public palace. 112
Contra Coarelli (2012, 395-­‐9), who thinks that the imperial palace even in this early period was an architecturally unified building, with specific area designated for specific family members. 113
Suet. Aug. 57.2: In restitutionem Palatinae domus incendio absumptae veterani, tribus atque etiam singillatim e cetero genere hominum libentes ac pro facultate quisque pecunias contulerunt, delibante tantum modo eo summarum acervos neque ex quoquam plus denario auferente. ‘When his house on the Palatine was destroyed by fire, veterans, guilds, the tribes, and even individuals from other walks of life with great willingness brought funds for its rebuilding, each in accordance with his own means’. (Trans. Edwards 2008, 74). 114
Panciera (2007, 293-­‐308) discusses the epigraphic evidence for the Domus Augustana, which could be used both in its sense of ‘house’ as a residential structure, and the ‘household’, referring to the family and including slaves. He demonstrates that the term Domus Augustiana dates to the Neronian/Flavian period, while the term Domus Augustana dates to the second and third centuries CE. Royo (1999, 235-­‐8) lists the epigraphic references for Domus Augustana, Domus Palatinae, Palatiumi, Domus tiberiana. 115
Suetonius (Ner. 31) tells us that Nero’s own palace was known firstly as the Domus Transitoria and then as the Domus Aurea; from the Flavian period, the imperial palaces on the Palatine were sometimes known collectively as Domus Palatina. See Tamm 1963, 206. 116
See Castagnoli 1964, 186-­‐8, which has already argued exactly that case. 56 Hortensius, and thus the house of Augustus, on the summit as well.117 The summit of the Palatine had particular connotations with augural practice and with Romulus. According to Ovid, it was here that Romulus took the auspices and, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, built his hut as well.118 The summit of the Palatine may also be the site of the enigmatic toponym Roma Quadrata,119 which, according to Solinus (quoting Varro), began in the grove in the area Apollinis and terminated at the stairs of Cacus, and, according to the second century CE Festus, was located before the temple of Apollo.120 A related consideration is that we know the Romulean monuments continued throughout antiquity because of their inclusion in a number of later sources, such as Solinus and Festus quoted above, but also in the Regionary Catalogues for Palatium Regio 117
For studies concerning the geomorphology and profile of the Palatine, see Ammerman 1992, 107-­‐11, and Ammerman 1995a, 87-­‐93 and Ammerman 1995b, 87-­‐100, who presents the results of the fieldwork on the Palatine between 1987-­‐95, involving coring and hand borings. Ammerman provides a more general introduction to the environmental setting of the Palatine in LTUR IV 1999, 12-­‐14, ‘Palatium (Environmental Setting).’ [A.J. Ammerman]; for more recent research on the geology and geomorphology of the eastern side of the Palatine see Arnoldous-­‐Huyzendveld 2007, 391-­‐98. 118
According to Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 14.2.2, the augural staff that Romulus used to take the auspices was discovered on the summit of the Palatine near a sacred hut of Romulus. For Romulus taking the auspices on the Palatine, see Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 2.5.1. Ov. Met. 14.842: in summo nemorosi colle Palati. Romulus’ use of the summit of the Palatine is pointed out by Wiseman 2012, 379. For the hut of Romulus, see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.5.1. Although it is not specifically referred to as on the summit, the location is suggested, for which see Wiseman 2012, 379-­‐82. 119
LTUR 4, 207-­‐9 s.v. ‘Roma Quadrata’ [F. Coarelli]; for more recent bibliography on the subject see Wiseman 2012, 379-­‐80, n.53. 120
Solinus 1.17.18: ea incipit a silva quae est in area Apollinis, et ad supercilium scalarum Caci habet terminum, ubi tugurium fuit Faustuli. ‘It begins from the grove which is in the area of Apollo, and has its terminus at the brow of the stairs of Cacus, where was once the hut of Faustulus. There was Romulus’ augural ‘mansio’; and having taken the auspices he laid the foundations of the walls at the age of eighteen years.’ (Trans. Richmond 1914, 223); Festus 258, Lindsay 346: Quadrata Roma in Palatio < locus> ante templum Apollinis dicitur, ubi reposita sunt quae solent boni ominis gratia in urbe condenda adhiberi, quia sazo munitus est initio in speciem quadratam. Eius loci Ennius meminit cum ait ‘et quis est erat Romae regnare quadratae.’ ‘A place [?] on the Palatine in front of the temple of Apollo is called ‘square Rome’. It is where those things are stored which are customarily used for the sake of a good omen in founding a city. (It is so called) because it was originally built of stone in a square shape. Ennius refers to this place when he says “And […] to rule over square Rome.’ (Trans. Wiseman 2012, 379). For a discussion of these, and other relevant sources, see Wiseman 2012, 379-­‐83, who concludes (383) that Roma Quadrata was an area near, or at, the summit of the Palatine, although much of the space was likely built over in subsequent imperial building, particularly for the domus Tiberiana, although the toponyms was monumentalized in a structure located to the front of the Apollo Palatinus temple. 57 X. Therefore the space in front of the imperial palace surely retained these Romulean monuments, including the vestibule. The vestibulum of the house of Augustus is an open question and uncertain at the moment but must be taken into consideration, just as we take into consideration the continued existence of the Romulean monuments. In general these have only been discussed in connection with the temple of Apollo but we will leave the discussion of the area Apollinis for chapter 3. Because of the summit’s associations with Romulus, Wiseman proposes that Octavian deliberately selected a house on this part of the hill in order to look out on the hut that Romulus had allegedly used when taking the first auspices of Rome that confirmed his kingship.121 Octavian’s selection of the summit of the Palatine for his residence may also have afforded vistas of central Rome, and the south-­‐western summit of the Capitoline hill as well, from which the house of Augustus could have been equally visible. 2.2.2 The Archaeological Evidence: Carettoni’s house of Augustus
and the ‘house of Livia’
The hypothesis that the house of Augustus is located on the site of the later Flavian palace is not a new one – indeed, since the sixteenth century, it was assumed that the house of Augustus must have been located beneath the remains of the Domus Augustana – however, an alternative location for the house of Augustus adjacent to the temple of Apollo has been widely accepted since the 1960s and has only recently been validly opposed. Pietro Rosa first excavated the site in 1869 and discovered the remains of a late Republican house, which he 121
Wiseman 2012, 385. 58 named the ‘house of Livia’ because of his discovery of the lead pipes stamped with IULIAE AUG. (USTAE) (see map 2 for the ‘house of Livia’).122 Giovanni Pinza, O.L Richmond, Platner-­‐Ashby and Giuseppe Lugli identified the ‘house of Livia’ as the House of Hortensius mentioned in the ancient sources.123 In 1954, Gianfilippo Carettoni began excavating the area to the west of the temple of Apollo with the expectation that the site would yield further evidence for the site of Augustus' earliest residence.124 Carettoni exposed the remains of a late Republican house on an upper level, overlain by a deposit of earth and rubble approximately four m. deep.125 Carettoni suggested that the structure and decoration of this house (large tuff blocks, painted walls and opus sectile mosaic pavements) recommended a date in the early Augustan period, while the perceived simplicity of decoration and the proximity of the house and the temple of Apollo tallied with literary descriptions of the house of Augustus.126 Carettoni particularly noted the discovery of a fragment from a wall painting featuring a reclining, laureate Apollo holding a kithara and with a quiver behind his back (Fig. 2.8).127 These finds inspired Carettoni to claim that he had discovered the residence of Augustus on the Palatine (see map 2 for Carettoni’s ‘House of Augustus’). Carettoni’s identification was formed on the assumption that the house and temple of Apollo were immediately adjacent to each other, a view that derived from his reading of 122
CIL XV 7264; For Rosa’s excavation of the ‘house of Livia’ see Tomei 1999, 363-­‐40, and 424-­‐8 for the underground tunnels. 123
Richmond 1914, 208-­‐211; Carettoni 1956-­‐7, 51-­‐62; Carettoni 1960, 201-­‐02; Lugli 1965, 262-­‐64; see also Papi 1995, 116-­‐7 for his LTUR entry on the Domus Q. Hortensius and other proposals for the identification of this house on the Palatine. 124
For Carettoni’s preliminary report of the site, see Carettoni 1956/7, 51-­‐62. 125
Carettoni 1960, 201-­‐2. Richmond (1914, 207-­‐8) had already identified this as the house granted to Octavian by the Senate in 36 BCE. Previously, Rosa had interpreted it as a schola or collegium connected to the temple, see Tomei 1993, 156, which he identified as that dedicated to Jupiter Victor. For a summary of the remains see Claridge 2010, 126-­‐131. 126
Carettoni 1960, 202; Carettoni 1966-­‐7, 63-­‐6, esp. 69. Later reinforced in Carettoni 1983, 7-­‐16, and accepted in LTUR II, 46-­‐8 s.v. ‘Domus Augustus (Palatium)’ [I.Iacopi], see especially 47. 127
Carettoni 1960, 202. 59 Suetonius.128 Carettoni excavated what appeared to be a ramp connecting the house to the area to the immediate south of the Apollo Palatinus temple and the foot of the temple steps.129 The perceived access between house and temple both instigated and supported a theory that the Augustan complex was modeled on the Hellenistic palaces at Pergamon and Alexandria, which were built in close association with major sanctuaries, and this soon became a cornerstone for the understanding of the Augustan topography of the Palatine.130 Carettoni’s discoveries overshadowed the long-­‐held theory that the residence of Augustus was located beneath the Domus Augustana. Carettoni’s excavations of the ‘House of Augustus’ were never properly published, although it was widely considered that the results that were known unquestionably confirmed the location of Augustus’ house.131 Yet, Carettoni's interpretations faced increasing criticism. The feasibility of Carettoni’s ‘House of Augustus’ and the ‘house of Livia’ constituting the administrative and political centre of Rome seemed unlikely, because Augustus’ residence required sufficient space for a complex administrative and governing system, as well as the performance of public rituals involving large crowds such as the salutatio and convivia, and neither house appeared to contain the appropriate space or layout for any of this.132 Renewed study of the standing remains of Carettoni’s ‘House of 128
Suet. Aug. 29. See Richmond 1914, 193, whose ‘preliminary examination of evidence’ begins with the sentence, ‘Temple and house were in the closest proximity.’ See also Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 9. 129
Carettoni 1983, 388-­‐92, Fig.5. 130
Carettoni 1966-­‐7, 67; Zanker 1988, 51-­‐2; s.v. LTUR I: 1993, 57. ‘Apollo Palatinus’ [P. Gros]. For acceptance of the idea, see Royo 1999, n 152-­‐3; and ‘Domus’Augustus’ in Dumser MAR 2002, 104-­‐
104-­‐6. 131
For acceptance of Carettoni’s identification of ‘the house of Augustus’ see Pensabene 1997, 149-­‐92, Royo 1999, 157-­‐73 89-­‐114; Favro 1996, 100, 104. 132
Degrassi 1966-­‐67, 77; Mar 2009, 250. According to Cassius Dio (56.26.2-­‐3), Augustus regularly welcomed the entire Senate, Equestrian order, and sometimes, on special festive days, the Roman people, to the salutatio ritual on the Palatine. 60 Augustus’ gave strength to these doubts. In 2006, Irene Iacopi and Giovanna Tedone published a detailed study of Carettoni’s ‘House of Augustus’ on behalf of the SAR that challenged all accepted chronology for the so-­‐called ‘House of Augustus’, producing an earlier timeframe for both the construction and destruction of the house and demonstrating that the house was designed as part of a more complex plan than formerly realised.133 Although some still believe that Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ was Octavian’s first residence on the Palatine, others reasonably point out that its double peristyle layout and decoration counter Suetonius’ description of the modest house of Hortensius, and argue that it therefore cannot be associated with Octavian’s residence.134 The most significant obstacle to Carettoni’s identification of the ‘house of Augustus’, however, is that the building was never completed and was destroyed partway through its construction to allow for the erection of the temple of Apollo.135 The ramp, moreover, once believed to connect Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ to the temple of Apollo, was filled with late Republican/early Augustan pottery and pre-­‐
dates the construction of the temple.136 One of the reasons that Carettoni’s hypothesis survived for so long is that Carettoni did not include spot levels in his published drawings for either the ‘house of Livia’ or the ‘House of Augustus’, which would establish that both structures lie well below the Augustan ground level. For the ‘House of Livia’, the relevant information can be deduced from Carettoni’s section drawings. Although Carettoni provides no levels, it is possible to work out with reference to a section 133
Earlier time frame, Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 366-­‐74. Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 363 think that this was the house of Hortensius in which Octavian lived; see also Coarelli 2012, 364-­‐7, 90-­‐1. 135
Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 371. 136
Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 370. The fill of the ramp comprised campana A, thin wall and pre-­‐
sigilata pottery fragments. 134
61 published in 1957 (Fig. 2.9) that the highest point of the standing structures of the ‘house of Livia’ lies at 46.25 m.asl. Therefore, the highest point of the ‘house of Livia’ was located about a metre and a half below the ground level around the temple of Apollo which, according to the SAR map of the site (Fig. 2.10), is located at 47.76 m.asl.137 Carettoni’s ‘House of Augustus’ was constructed from an even deeper level than the ‘house of Livia’, and therefore Iacopi and Tedone propose that, in all likelihood, Carettoni’s house of Augustus served a similar function, namely, that both unfinished houses were filled in and served as foundations for the portico of the Danaids.138 This explains why the wall paintings from the ‘house of Livia’ and Carettoni’s ‘House of Augustus’ have survived, albeit in a fragmentary state, and why there is no evidence for later alteration in the ‘house of Livia’, a surprising feature that was otherwise interpreted to indicate that the residence was preserved as a site of veneration.139 In sum, although some scholars have sought to identify both the ‘house of Livia’ and Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ with Augustus’ residence on the Palatine,140 it is no longer feasible to consider them as such. Instead, the house of Augustus should be identified with the site of the Flavian palace on the Palatine. 2. 3. The house of Augustus and the Domus Augustana
As explained already, the evidence supports a location for the house of Augustus on the site of the Domus Augustana. However, the lack of systematic 137
See Claridge 2013c, forthcoming. Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 375; Iacopi 2007, 12-­‐14, 76. 139
Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 157. 140
Iacopi and Tedone conclude that Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ was Octavian’s house upon which Suetonius described a thunderbolt falling, and was in use, briefly, between 39-­‐36 BCE; Coarelli (2012, 374-­‐6), sceptical of Suetonius’ claim to the modesty of Hortensius’ house given its location in an elite residential area, proposes that Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ is the house of Hortensius. Coarelli (2012, 378-­‐9, 381-­‐2) proposes that the ‘house of Livia’ was one of Octavian’s properties purchased in 36 BCE, but, struck by lightning in c.35 CE, was then incorporated into the construction of the temple of Apollo. 138
62 study of the imperial palaces on the Palatine until recently meant that this hypothesis remained untested. The imperial palaces have been subject to renewed examination since the 1960s,141 most notably with the recent survey directed by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), whose results have transformed accepted notions concerning the chronology and development of the Domus Augustana.142 However, the pre-­‐Flavian phases have not received the same degree of attention, with the exception of some studies of the wall paintings.143 The following section details the current state of evidence for the pre-­‐Flavian levels of the Domus Augustana. 141
See Bartoli 1938 for his report on the exavations of the Domus Augustana between 1926-­‐8, although 4-­‐18 deals with the history of the excavation of the site and only 19-­‐29 Bartoli’s interpretation of the remains of the podium of a possible ‘tempietto’ in the northern peristyle interspersed with prior scholarship as well; Wataghin Cantino’s 1966 publication provided a new survey of the Domus Augustana and the so-­‐called Domus Flavia as well, perceiving two distinct architects in the buildings; Finse 1962 and 1969 published the results of a Danish survey of the Aula, Basilica and Lararium; Krause; Gibson, DeLaine and Claridge 1994 published an interpretation of the results of a 1960s survey of the substructures, standing remains of the Triclinium, the fountain courts, the south-­‐west end of the garden peristyle, and the main architectural fragments discovered in the vicinity, and proposed a reconstruction of the Triclinium and the fountain courts. 142
The survey ran from 1998 -­‐ 2010 with a series of annual campaigns. Hoffman and Wulf 2000 provides a preliminary report on their survey on the so-­‐called Domus Severiana; Hoffman and Wulf 2004 provides an edited book with sections on the various aspects of the imperial palaces in Rome; Wulf-­‐Rheidt and Sojc 2009 provide a well illustrated article revising accepted features of the traditional chronology and phasing of the Domus Augustana, the Domus Severiana and the Stadium. Wulf-­‐Rheidt and Socj (2009, 268 – 272) point out that a close study of the building materials of the Domus Augustana indicate that it not a single construction as is conventionally believed, but rather was constructed in two Flavian phases, the first phase attributable to Vespasian and the second phase attributable to Domitian. They demonstrate that the eastern section of the ‘Domus Severiana’ commenced in the Flavian period and was a site for hanging gardens (275-­‐7), and that the ‘Stadium’ was a sunken garden surrounded by a cryptoporticus (272-­‐5). Their results mean that the Flavian palace has to be reconstructed on a larger scale than previously realized, and concludes with an entirely new restoration of Domitian’s palace. Sojc’s 2012 Domus Augustana. Neue Forschungen zum ‘Versenkten Peristyl’ auf dem Palatin illuminates the so-­‐called ‘sunken peristyle’ of the Domus Augustana. 143
These will be discussed further below, although in brief, for the studies of the wall paintings of the Aula Isiaca see Rizzo 1936a and Iacopi 1997; for the wall paintings of the ‘Casa dei Grifi’ see Rizzo 1936b and Iacopi 1991. 63 2. 3.1 The pre-Flavian phases of the Domus Augustana
Throughout the subterranean levels of the Domus Augustana, fragmentary evidence in the form of mosaic and opus signinum flooring and opus reticulatum and quasi reticulatum walls testifies to the existence of late Republican residences, while the accompanying decorative remains of mosaic, stone and stucco adornment indicate that such residences were of an elite nature.144 However, the fragmentary and scattered nature of the evidence means that a complete understanding of the elite Republican housing beneath the Domus Augustana is impossible. 2. 3.2 The Aula Isiaca
In September 1724, during excavations conducted for Francesco Farnese, the Duke of Parma, the remains of a vaulted room, covered in white ground paintings with some ‘Egyptianizing’ elements, were discovered beneath the floor of the so-­‐called ‘Basilica’ (for the location of the ‘Basilica’ refer to map 2), and the site was re-­‐excavated by Boni between 1912-­‐14.145 This hall was the only part of what was originally a larger complex to survive the construction of a Neronian cistern above, and comprised a spacious rectangular vaulted room with an apsidal wall (Fig. 2.11).146 The wall paintings feature fantastical architecture, mythological 144
For the fragmentary traces of Republican residences beneath the sunken peristyle, see Morricone Mattini 1967, 10-­‐15. 145
Hülsen 1895, 256-­‐61. Giacomo Boni rediscovered the Aula Isiaca was re-­‐discovered. See Boni 1913, 246. Rizzo 1936 and more recently Iacopi 1997 provide studies of the wall paintings. Vout (2003, 192-­‐4) provides an interesting discussion on the problems of dating the wall paintings in relation to their ‘Egypitianizing’ iconography and the incorrect association of the room with Isis. 146
Cecamore 2002, 222. 64 landscapes and Egyptianizing motifs on a white background (Fig. 2.12).147 Henri Jordan and Christian Hülsen initially dated the room to the Augustan period, and tentatively identified the structure with Augustus’ residence on the Palatine because of their proposed date and the detail of the paintings.148 However, in his 1936 study of the site Giulio Emanuele Rizzo influentially perceived Isiac imagery in the paintings and, naming the room the Aula Isiaca, attributed its construction to Caligula.149 This dating and attribution has been criticised in recent years, however,150 and scholars are increasingly returning to the notion that the room may have formed part of Augustus’ residence on the Palatine.151 2. 3.3 The ‘Casa dei Grifi’
The other pre-­‐Flavian remains are located in the south-­‐eastern part of the Domus Augustana. For a long time this part of the site was inaccessible because it lay beneath the Villa Mills, constructed in the early sixteenth century and occupied since 1856 by the reclusive Convento della Visitazione.152 In 1906, the Villa Mills was requisitioned and Giacomo Boni was able to explore beneath the structure for the first time since Piranesi had surveyed it in the eighteenth century.153 Unfortunately, Boni published very little of these excavations, 147
Unfortunately, many of the paintings were destroyed during the course of their attempted transfer to Parma. See Lanciani 2000, 86, recording Bianchini Veron. 348 f. 118. However, artists were commissioned to copy the wall paintings upon their discovery, and a series of watercolour sketches from the period survives to testify to the original decoration, see Iacopi 1997, 6. 148
See Hülsen 1895, 256-­‐59; Hülsen and Jordan 1907, 74-­‐6, 90, n.117. See also Hülsen 1928, 67, 68. 149
Rizzo 1936a, 38-­‐9. 150
Carettoni 1971, 326-­‐6; Iacopi 1997; Vout 2003, 194-­‐5. 151
Ling (1991, 39, 45-­‐6) analyses the decoration of this room, and identifies similarities with some of the wall paintings in Carettoni’s ‘house of Augustus’ (Ling 1991, 48); Claridge (2009, 137) tentatively proposes that the Aula Isiaca formed part of Augustus’ palace. 152
For the Villa Mills, see Bartoli 1929, 3-­‐6. 153
For a brief history of the Villa, see Amoia, A. and E. Bruschini 1997, 67-­‐8. Giambattista Piranesi surveyed the remains of the Domus Augustana in the 1750s, and (in Piranesi 1756) produced a plan of the upper and lower level of ‘del Palazzo di Cesare creduta l’abitazione d’Augusto sul Monte Palatino’, Tav. 45-­‐46, as well as prints depicting the contemporary remains, eg. Tav.35, 65 providing only a general and summary account of his findings in 1913.154 Fortunately, however, Maria Marella Vanello and Carettoni later provided further detail on Boni’s excavations and set out the evidence for the remains of a late Republican house (Fig. 2.13) with evidence of a later restoration discovered beneath the so-­‐called ‘lararium’ in the northernmost corner of the palace, which was one of Boni’s most important discoveries on the Palatine (for the location of the ‘lararium’ refer to map 2).155 In his 1936 study of its paintings, Rizzo named the house ‘Casa dei Grifi’ after the white stucco decoration discovered in two semi-­‐circular lunettes featuring Griffins on a red background.156 The surviving four rooms of the Republican phase of this house indicate a building constructed on a small and irregular plan. The earliest walls are constructed in tufo lionato and faced with opus incertum, which Iacopi dates to the first half of the second century BCE.157 These were later refaced in opus quasi reticulatum upon which wall paintings were laid. They can be associated with the early Second Pompeian Style and consequently are dated to c.100-­‐80 BCE.158 The good state of preservation of the wall paintings, as well as that of the stucco decoration on the roof and vaultings, owes to the lower storey of the house being filled in while the upper level was still in use.159 ‘Veduta degli Avanzi delle Case de Cesari sul Palatino’, depicting the façade facing the Circus Maximus. 154
Boni 1913, 242-­‐52. 155
For Boni’s brief report on the ‘Casa dei Grifi’ see Boni 1913, 248-­‐9; see Marella Vianello 1947, 3-­‐34, in which she publishes his field notes, and also Marella Vianello 1950, 21-­‐32 for further interpretation of them; more briefly, Carettoni 1960, 197-­‐8. 156
Rizzo 1936b. The SAR conducted further work on the structure in 1990, and Irene Iacopi published a short report on the results, see Iacopi 1991. 157
Iacopi 1991, 83. 158
Rizzo 1936; Ling 1991, 23; Barbet 2009, 36. 159
Boni 1913, 248; Iacopi 1991, 72; Richardson 1992, 72. 66 2. 3.4 The ‘palazzetto augusteo’
Between the ‘Casa dei Grifi’ and the ‘lararium’ are the remains of what may be another pre-­‐Flavian building, although dating and identifying the site is difficult. The remains consist of part of a marble floor on the upper level of the ‘Casa dei Grifi’ covering an earlier mosaic pavement (Fig. 2.14), which allegedly extends under the Aula Regia and, according to Castagnoli, beneath the Aula Isiaca as well (Figs. 2.15, and refer to map 2 for the location of the Aula Regia).160 These remains constitute either a renovation of the ‘Casa dei Grifi’, or a different building constructed above, which Boni dated to the Augustan period.161 In 1947, Marella Vianello, with reference to Boni’s field notes and her own examination of the site, linked the intervention phase of the ‘House of the Griffins’ with the remains of a marble floor of an impluvium discovered in the northeastern corner of the ‘Lararium’ (Fig. 2.16) that apparently extended beneath the Domitianic foundations to the Aula Regia, and possibly the Aula Isiaca as well.162 Marella Vianello noted the complexity and uncertainty of the remains, and concluded that only future excavation could clarify their relationships and dating.163 However, she also gave these remains the grandiose and seductive title, ‘palazzetto Augusteo’. Marella Vianello directed excavations beneath the Aula Regia in 1949-­‐
50, and in 1950 made a further case for the identification of the ‘palazzetto Augusteo’, but acknowledged that the situation remained unclear (refer to map 2 for the location of the so-­‐called ‘palazzetto Augusteo’) .164 160
Boni 1913, 248; Rizzo 1936,4; Blake 1947, 181; Marella Vianello 1947, 50 and 1950, 26; Castagnoli 1964, 186. 161
Boni 1913, 248. 162
Marella Vianello 1947, 17-­‐18. 163
Marella Vianello 1947, 29; Marella Vianello 1950, 29. 164
Marion Blake also observed the remains, (Blake 1947, 181, and ns 5 and 6) describing a polychrome mosaic pavement covered with slabs of Hymettan marble, and traces of a travertine 67 Maria Luisa Morricone Matini, in the context of her 1967 study of Roman mosaics on the Palatine, searched for Boni’s attested walls of opus reticulatum, from which he had dated the ‘palazzetto Augusteo’ to the Augustan period, but discovered only walls of indeterminate opus incertum in the south-­‐west angle of the Lararium, while of the apparently corresponding pavement beneath the Aula Isiaca, she found only fragments of cocciopesto.165 Morricone Matini concluded that there was no evidence to date the upper level of the ‘Casa dei Grifi’ to the Augustan period, and instead considered it to be part of the late Republican phase of the house.166 In contrast, Claudia Cecamore examined all of the relevant material that Boni and Marella Vianello had excavated, and, noting that the structural remains were orthogonally aligned with the Neronian phase of the so-­‐called Clivus Palatinus, proposes that the evidence for the ‘palazzetto Augusteo’ constitutes a Neronian restoration of the ‘Casa dei Grifi’.167 This brief account of the pre-­‐Flavian evidence beneath the Domus Augustana provided above indicates the considerable uncertainty regarding the interpretation and dating of the pre-­‐Flavian remains on the site.168 In short, it is currently impossible to identify these remains with any known phases of the imperial palace. However, given that the hypothesis that the house of Augustus impluvium. Blake connects these with a peperino wall located in “a tangle of walls to the west” and on a different orientation to the earlier walls. Regrettably, Blake states that further examination and clarification was impossible owing to the danger of the collapsed surroundings and a nervous administration “which sincerely valued the lives of foreign investigators, especially women.” In its current state it is difficult to obtain permission to access the site, and I have not visited the site in person. 165
Morricone Matini 1967, 19, and photographs of the opus incertum walls, see Tavola C and Figs.3-­‐4. 166
Morricone Matini 1967, 17-­‐32. 167
For discussion of the ceramic fragments recorded during Boni’s excavations, see Cecamore 2002, 225, and 224-­‐5 for the ceramic fragment discovered during Marella Vianello’s excavations, and the difficulties of dating them, and conclusion at 226. 168
The Kaiserpalaste survey has not exmained these sites according to Jens Pflug, pers. comm. 68 on the Palatine was located on the site of the Domus Augustana is likely, the pre-­‐
Flavian levels of the Domus Augustana require new investigation. Despite the lack of clear information regarding the pre-­‐Flavian evidence beneath the Domus Augustana, it is possible that the later imperial phases of the palace can provide some insight into the Augustan phase of the Domus Augustana. The following section will propose that the nomenclature for the imperial residence known as the Domus Augustana referred to both the inhabitant of the house and to the nature of the house as an augurated space. The house’s augurated status means that its basic orientation was respected in imperial rebuildings, and that in some parts the later phases of the palace may reflect its earliest phase, the Augustan residence, as well. 3.1 Domus Augustana: the ‘august edifice’
In modern scholarship, Domus Augustana has become a topographical designation for the central part of the imperial palace.169 The term Domus Augustana is, however, an ancient one, firstly attested in second and third century CE epigraphic evidence in reference to the imperial household, and later used as a toponym in the Regionary Catalogues, appearing as domum Augustianam et Tiberianam.170 The latter example indicates that, at least by the mid-­‐fourth century CE, the term Domus Augustana was a topographical designation for some part of the imperial palace. ‘Augustana’, as an adjectival 169
Sojc 2013, 14. Panciera 2007, 294-­‐303; for Domus Augustana in the Regionary Catalogues, see Curiosum: Regio X, Palatium: continent casam Romuli/ aedem Matris deum et/ Apollinis Ramnusi/ pentapylus/ domum Augustianam et/ Tiberianam/ auguratorium/ aedem Iobis/ curiam veterem/ Fortunam respicientem/ septizonium divi Severi/ Victoriam Germanianam/ lupercam, and in the Notitia for Regio X: continent casam Romuli/ aedem Matris deum et/ Apollinis Ramnusi/ pentapylum/ domum Augustianam et/ Tiberianam/ auguratorium/ aream Palatinam/ aedem Iovis victoris/ domum Dionis/ curiam veterem/ Fortunam respicientem/ septizonium divi Severi/ Victoriam Germanicianam/ lupercam. 170
69 form of ‘Augustus’, derived either from Augustus as the first owner of the residence, or the adjective ‘augustus’ meaning consecrated, or, as is most likely, both.171 The meaning of ‘Augustus’ is best understood with recourse to Suetonius’ passage in his life of Augustus recording how Octavian accepted the official title Imperator Caesar Augustus on 16 January 27 BCE: postea Gai Caesaris et deinde Augusti cognomen assumpsit, alterum testamento maioris auunculi, alterum Munati Planci sententia, cum quibusdam censentibus Romulum appellari oportere quasi et ipsum conditorem urbis, praeualuisset, ut Augustus potius uocaretur, non tantum nouo sed etiam ampliore cognomine, quod loca quoque religiosa et in quibus augurato quid consecratur augusta dicantur, ab auctu uel ab auium gestu gustuue, sicut etiam Ennius docet scribens: Augusto augurio postquam incluta condita Roma est. ‘Responding to the suggestion of others that Augustus ought to be called Romulus on the grounds he too was, as it were, a founder of the city, Munatius argued successfully that he should rather take the name Augustus, a name not only new but also grander. For holy places, also, and places where something has been consecrated by augural rites are termed ‘august’ [augusta], either from the term for an increase in dignity [auctas] or from the phrase denoting the movements or feeding of birds [avium gestus gustusve], as Ennius too tells us when he writes: After renowned Rome was founded with august augury…’ (Suet. Aug. 7.2; trans. Edwards 2000, 46.)172 Prior to 27 BCE, Augustus was only used as an epithet to describe augurated sites, and its application to the person of Octavian surely celebrated his remarkable position holding all of the major priesthoods in Rome.173 The nomenclature of the 171
Lewis and Short ‘Augustus’. See also Dio Cass. 53.16.6-­‐8. 173
Aug. RG. 7.2: pontifex maximus, augur, XVvirum sacris faciundis, VIIvirum epulonum, frater arvalis, sodalist Titius, fetialis fui ‘I have been chief priest, augur, one of the Fifteen for conducting sacred rites, one of the Seven in charge of feasts, Arval brother, member of the fraternity of Titus, and fetial priest.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 64). Normally a single priesthood was held for life. A series of denarii issued in 16 BCE, the reverse of which featured a simpulum, lituus, patera and a tripod, 172
70 Domus Augustana, meanwhile, referred not only to the house in which Augustus lived, but could also have testified to its status as an inaugurated building. It is probably for this reason that aedes was selected to refer to the imperial palace in the Res Gestae.174 As Varro informs us, in the late Republic most augurated buildings were temples, and Ovid reinforces this in the Fasti by telling us that ‘august’ is applied to consecrated temples.175 The augurated status of the domus Augustana being Augustus’ private residence was therefore exceptional.176 3.2 Religious aspects of the Domus Augustana
Literary sources inform us that the façade of the house of Augustus was flanked on either side by laurel trees, and, following the fire of 3 CE, probably featured a fastigium decorated with the corona civica above the doorway. The laurel trees and the fastigium decorated with an oak wreath meant that the house of Augustus was marked out as a sacred residence, and may even have evoked a temple dedicated to Jupiter. The following section details the evidence for these features and discusses their significance. all symbols of the priestly offices, commemorated Augustus’ exceptional holding of all the priestly 2 offices in Rome. See RIC I 69: 367.Beard, North and Price 1998, 182. 174
RG 34.2: quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum vestiti publice coronaque civica super ianum meam fixa est ‘For this service, I was named Augustus by senatorial decree, and the doorposts of my house were publicly clothed with laurels, and a civic crown was fastened above my doorway’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 98). 175
Varro, Ling. 7.10: sed hoc ut putarent aedem sacram esse templum, eo videtur esse factum quod in urbe Roma pleraeque aedes sacrae sunt temple, eadem sancta ‘But that people should have the idea that a temple is a consecrated building, seems to have come about from the fact that in the city Rome most consecrated buildings are temples, and they are likewise inviolable.’ (Loeb, Trans. Roland G. Kent). Ov. Fast. 1.609-­‐16: sancta vocant augusta patres, augusta vocantur/ templa sacerdotum rite dicata ‘Our fathers call sacred things ‘august’, ‘august’ is what temples are called when they have been duly consecrated by the hand of the priests’ (Trans. Wiseman and Wiseman 2013). 176
Varro, Ling. 7.10: sed hoc ut putarent aedem sacram esse templum, eo videtur esse factum quod in urbe Roma pleraeque aedes sacrae sunt temple, eadem sancta ‘But that people should have the idea that a temple is a consecrated building, seems to have come about from the fact that in the city Rome most consecrated buildings are temples, and they are likewise inviolable.’ (Loeb, Trans. Roland G. Kent). 71 On 13 January 27 BCE, the Senate awarded Augustus the honour of having two evergreen laurel trees placed on either side of the front door of his house.177 Laurel trees traditionally flanked the regia, the headquarters of the pontifex maximus, and they were also located at the front of the temple of Vesta.178 In light of this, the placement of laurel trees at the front of Augustus’ house can be interpreted to have indicated Augustus’ prime position in Roman religion at the time. However, the laurel was also associated specifically with both Apollo and Jupiter. In Augustan poetry, Apollo is often described as ‘laurel wearing’;179 laurel was also associated with the cult of Jupiter, and, specifically, with the ritual of the triumph.180 During the triumphal procession, triumphators were adorned with laurel wreaths of the ‘royal’ or ‘Augusta’ variant, which they then deposited in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.181 The Roman senate, also in 27 BCE, granted Augustus permission to wear a triumphal laurel crown on all occasions, forging a further link between Augustus and the laurel.182 The laurel trees placed at the front of Augustus’ house were therefore laden with recognisable religious, Apolline, Jovian and triumphal meaning. Another honour that the senate awarded Augustus in 27 BCE was the right to adorn the façade of his house with the corona civica, an oak wreath that was 177
Dio Cass. 53.16.4. For laurel trees flanking the regia, see Ov. Fast. 3.137-­‐44; for Julius Caesar inhabiting the domus publica see Suet. Caes. 46. 179
For laurel and Apollo, see Ov. Ars. 3.389 and 493-­‐7. 180
For the associations between laurel, Jupiter and the triumph, Plin. HN 15.133-­‐5. 181
See Josephus’ description of Vespasian and Titus’ triumph, in which both are garlanded with laurel, BJ 7.123-­‐57. For laurel decorating horses, spectators and freedmen in the procession as well, see Östenberg 2009, 262-­‐3. It is worth noting that although the dedication of the Triumphal insignia was transferred to the temple of Mars Ultor, according to Dio Cass. 55.10.3 , the honour of dedicating laurel in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was maintained. For the ‘royal’ or ‘augusta’ laurel grown on the imperial property known as ad Gallinas see Plin. HN 15.129 and 136-­‐7. 182
Dio Cass. 48.16.1, 49.15.1, 51.20.1-­‐2, 53.26.5. 178
72 traditionally awarded to a Roman soldier who had rescued another Roman in battle, of which there are only seven recorded examples.183 By the late Republic, however, the corona civica was associated with Romans who had saved the city, while in the imperial period it became the exclusive symbol and privilege of the emperor.184 Accordingly, the Senate awarded Augustus the corona civica following his victory at Actium in thanksgiving for having saved Roman citizens from civil war.185 The Res Gestae located the corona civica as super ianuam, above the door to Augustus’ house, and Augustan coins show the wreath and legend: ob civis servatos (Figs. 2.17-­‐18). However, Suetonius locates the corona civica more precisely in a pediment, fastigium, above the door to Augustus’ house. In his biography of Claudius, Suetonius reports that this emperor located a corona navalis on the fastigium of the imperial residence next to a corona civica.186 Since it is known that Tiberius refused the honour of being awarded the 183
For the corona civica made of varieties of oak see Plin. HN 16.5.1.1 and Gell. NA 5.6.11. Bergmann 2010, especially pp. 185-­‐202, explores how the corona civica became the exlusive honour and symbol of the emperor. 184
A statue of Julius Caesar wearing the corona civica was apparently erected on the rostra in 45 BCE, symbolizing his role in the conclusion of civil war. Dio Cass. 44.4.4. 185
RG 34.1-­‐2: In consulatu sexto et septimo, postquam bella civilia exstinxeram, per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum vestiti publice coronaque civica super ianuam meam fixa est et clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare virtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis caussa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem. ‘In my sixth and seventh consulships, after I had put an end to civil wars, although by everyone’s agreement I had power of everything, I transferred the state from my power in to the control of the Roman senate and people. For this service, I was named Augustus by senatorial decree, and the doorposts of my house were publicly clothed with laurels, and a civic crown was fastened above my doorway, and a golden shield was set up in the Julian senate house; through an inscription on this shield the fact was declared that the Roman senate and people were giving it to met because of my valour, clemency, justice, and piety.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 98). 186
Suet. Claud. 17: Ad cuius spectaculum commeare in urbem non solum praesidibus provinciarum permisit, verum etiam exsulibus quibusdam; atque inter hostilia spolia navalem coronam fastigio Palatinae domus iuxta civicam fixit, traiecti et quasi domiti Oceani insigne. ‘Among the enemy spoils was a naval crown which he [Claudius] had fixed to the gable of the imperial palace alongside the civic crown, to show that he had traversed, and, as it were, conquered the Ocean.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 178). 73 corona civica,187 and there is no evidence to suggest that Claudius was ever awarded the honour, it is probable that Suetonius was referring to the corona civica that the Senate awarded Octavian. The discrepancy between the location of the corona civica reported in the two sources (the Res Gestae locates it above the door to Augustus’ house, while Suetonius locates it in the pediment of the imperial residence) is explicable if we consider the possibility that the fastigium was a feature of Augustus’ house after its rebuilding in 3 CE. The corona civica, which was previously set above the door to Augustus’ residence, later decorated the pediment constructed above it, although Augustus specified only the original honour. Therefore, the entrance to the Domus Augustana, as rebuilt after 3CE, featured a fastigium, at the centre of which was the corona civica. In the context of religious architecture, fastigium refers to the triangular pediment that was placed above the entablature of a temple’s facade, which lay at the end of each long axis of the pitched roof. However, because Augustus specifies that the corona civica was located above his doorway in the Res Gestae, it is likely that the pediment to which Suetonius later referred was located above the doorway to Augustus’ house, perhaps in the form of an aedicular porch. The existence of numerous front doors/entrances framed with aedicular porches on domestic buildings throughout the empire is testament to the fact that the presence of a fastigium above a doorway to a building is not notable in and of itself.188 Domestic pediments differ from temple pediments in size and decoration, because the latter are, in general, much larger and conspicuously 187
Indeed, Tiberius refused this honour: Suet. Tib. 26.2: Praenomen quoque imperatoris cognomenque patriae et civicam in vestibulo coronam recusavit ‘and he also turned down the proposal to adorn his entrance hall with the civic crown.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 112). 188
For example, the Domus del Protiro at Ostia, the ‘Slope’ houses at Ephesus, and the Villa di San Marco at Stabia. 74 decorated with relief sculpture. However, Cicero reported that Julius Caesar was awarded the construction of a fastigium on his residence, listed amidst other honours confirming his divine status and declared to be one the highest honours possible.189 How the pediment which decorated the house of Caesar differed from pediments found in more normal Roman domestic contexts is unclear. However, it nonetheless indicates that, at least in some cases, the existence of a pediment in a domestic context could be symbolic of divinity;190 it also supports the notion that the pediment of Augustus’ house, already distinguished from other domestic pediments by its unique honorific decoration of the corona civica, may have been an unusual design feature, at least in combination with its decoration. Indeed, the specific combination of the oak wreath on the pediment is likely to have had a precise meaning. Although Zanker has argued that by the Augustan period oak trees and wreaths had become ubiquitous motifs in Roman art and lacked any specific Jovian associations,191 more recently other scholars, most notably Bettina Bergmann in her 2011 study of the development of the symbolism of the corona civica, have made more convincing cases contending that the oak retained a clear association with Jupiter.192 That the decoration of Augustus’ fastigium with the corona civica, the oak wreath, associated him with Jupiter is supported by Ovid’s interpretation of the oak wreath on Augustus’ house in the Tristia, cited above [pages 45-­‐47]. Ovid also makes the association between the corona civica, Jupiter and Augustus 189
Cic. Phil. 1.10: Quem is honorem maiorem consectus erat, quam ut haberet pulvinar, simulacrum, fastigium, flaminem? ‘What greater honor had Caesar attained than to have a sacred couch, an image, a gable, a special priest?’ (Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). See also Suet. Caes. 81 and Plut. Caes. 63, in which Caesar’s wife dreamed that the pediment collapses. 190
For a discussion of the meaning and symbolism of fastigium, see Thomas 2007, 22. 191
Zanker 1988, 93-­‐4. 192
Gradel (2002, 49-­‐51) believes that the connotations with the corona civica and Jupiter remained obvious; more recently Bergmann (2011, 75-­‐80) discusses the significance of the oak as a symbol of Jupiter in the imperial period. 75 clear in the Fasti: sancta vocant augusta patres, augusta vocantur templa sacerdotum rite dicata manu; huius et augurium dependet origine verbi, et quodcumque sua Iuppiter auget ope. augeat imperium nostri ducis, augeat annos, protegat et vestras querna corona forse, ‘Our fathers call sacred things ‘august’, ‘august’ is what temples are called when they have been duly consecrated by the hand of the priests. Augury too is derived from this word’s origin, and whatever Jupiter augments with his power. May he augment our leader’s rule, may he augment his years, and may the crown of oak-­‐leaves protect your doors.’ (Fast. 1.609-­‐16; trans. Wiseman and Wiseman 2013.) Here, Ovid implies that the house of Augustus was consecrated like a temple, and that Jupiter’s custodial role towards Augustus was apparent in the location of the oak wreath located above the entrance to the house. The passage could also be understood to imply that the house of Augustus was evocative of a temple dedicated to Jupiter. Ovid surely plays on this when he draws a parallel between the house of Augustus and the house of Jupiter in his Metamorphoses (1.175-­‐6) and describes Olympus as the ‘Palatine of great heaven’.193 It is probable that Ovid did not make this connection in the manner of a straightforward panegyric; indeed, the many ironies and ambivalences in Ovid’s representation of Jupiter mean that his identification of Augustus as Jupiter could reflect an oppressive regime as much as it could the principal authority of the 193
Met. 1.170-­‐6: hac iter est superis ad magni tecta Tonantis/ regalemque domum: dextra laevaque deorum/ atria nobilium valvis celebrantur apertis./ plebs habitat diversa locis: hac parte potentes/ caelicolae clarique suos posueres penates;/ Hic locus est quem, si verbis audacia detur/ Haud timeam magni dixisse Palatia Caeli ‘There is a high way, easily seen when the sky is clear. ‘Tis called the Milky Way, famed for its shining whiteness. By this way the gods fare to the halls and royal dwelling of the mighty Thunderer. On either side the palaces of the gods of higher rank are thronged with guests through folding-­‐doors flung wide. The lesser gods dwell apart from these. Fronting on this way, the illustrious and strong heavenly gods have placed their homes. This is the place, which, if I make bold to say it, I would not fear to call the Palatine of great heaven’ (Loeb, F. J. Miller). 76 Roman state.194 Nonetheless, Ovid’s associations between Augustus’ house on the Palatine, consecrated temples and the celestial realm, indicate that the imperial residence could be understood in terms of a Roman temple, and perhaps one dedicated to Jupiter. Following the rebuilding of Augustus’ house in 3 CE, the result of which Ovid will have witnessed before his exile, the location of the corona civica in its pediment evoked an association between the inhabitant of the house and Jupiter. 3.3 The augurated status of the Domus Augustana
As discussed above, the term Domus Augustana could refer to both the house of Augustus and its augurated status. In the case of some major public temples in Rome, there is good evidence to suggest that their augurated status ensured that their ground plans were sacrosanct and were replicated in the case of rebuilding. The most famous literary testimony for this relates to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the subject of chapter 6, whose late Republican and Flavian rebuildings were allegedly guided by augural law protecting the temple’s original groundplan. Tacitus, who served on the board of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis, the priesthood in charge of the Sibylline books and the Secular games, provides the best evidence for this: ab eo contracti haruspices monuere ut reliquiae prioris delubri in paludes aveherentur, templum isdem vestigiis sisteretur: nolle deos mutari veterem formam. ‘The haruspices when assembled by him directed that the ruins of the old shrine should be carried away to the marshes and that a new temple should be erected on exactly the same site as the old: the gods were unwilling to have the old plan changed.’ 194
Barchiesi 2005, 183. 77 (Tac. Hist. 4.53.1; Loeb, trans. C.H. Moore.) The rebuilding of the temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum in the late Augustan period also preserved the layout of the original temple by reproducing and enlarging it at a ratio of 7:6.195 Although there is also considerable evidence for the alteration of temple ground plans during rebuilding,196 at least in these two cases of major public temples in Rome, the augurated limits of the templum were evidently respected. There is also some evidence for the replication of the layout of some specific areas in imperial rebuildings of the Domus Augustana, which could suggest that certain areas of the house of Augustus were similarly respected. Beneath the ‘Aula Regia’, or Great Audience chamber, (for the location of the ‘Aula Regia’ refer to map 2) Giuliani published a plan and photograph of concrete foundations excavated in the 1930s and 40s, indicating two earlier rooms of a similar layout and on exactly the same axes as the ‘Aula Regia’, although smaller in proportion (Fig. 2.19).197 These remains are likely to be Neronian, although whether they pre or post date the fire of 64 CE is unclear.198 Such spatial continuity is of particular interest in regards to the vestibule of the house of Augustus, which, as will be argued below, was probably located in approximately the same place as the vestibule of the Flavian phase of the palace. 3.4 The entrance to Augustus’ house on the Palatine
As discussed above, the entrance to the house of Augustus was marked 195
Sande and Zahle et al 2009, 95. For example, Tiberius’ investment in the new temple dedicated to Concordia at the foot of the Capitoline. “Concordia, aedes,” LTUR I 316-­‐20, s.v. A.M. Ferroni. 197
Carettoni 1960, 197-­‐9; Giuliani 1982, 233-­‐58. Franchesco Bianchini probably gave the assembly room the name Aula Regia, although Martial (Epig. 8.36) had provided a reference to an aula. 198
See Giuliani 1982, 233-­‐58 for a discussion of the dating. 196
78 out with some unusual decorative features. It is also known that the entrance to the house of Augustus featured a vestibulum. The Res Gestae records that an inscription honoring Augustus as pater patriae was erected in vestibulo, which Ovid referred to in conjunction with the corona civica.199 This was the same place where Augustus’ body would later lie in state in vestibulo domus.200 There is some discussion as to the precise meaning of vestibulum, although most of the ancient sources indicate that it was not a part of the house proper, but rather was located outside, and in front, of the house.201 Varro, for instance, defined vestibulum as a ‘space that is before the house,’202 while Aulus Gellius, describing large groups waiting to pay their respects to the Emperor Antonius Pius in vestibulo aedium Palatinarum,203 supplied a definition of vestibulum sourced from the first century BCE Grammarian Gaius Aelius Gallus:204 199
RG 35: Tertium decimum consulatum cum gerebam, senatus et equester ordo populusque Romanus universus appellavit me patrem patriae, idque in vestibulo aedium mearum inscribendum. ‘When I was holding my thirteenth consulship, the senate and equestrian order and people of Rome all together hailed me as father of the fatherland, and decreed that this title should be inscribed in the forecourt of my house’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 100). Also Ovid probably locates a shrine of Vesta in the vestibulum of Augustus’ house, with limine here synonymous with vestibulum, Fast. 4.948-­‐50: 28 April. tunc repetam, nunc me grandius urget opus./ aufer, Vesta, diem. cognati Vesta recepta est/ limine: sic iusti constituere patres./ ‘That’s when I’ll resume; now a greater is pressing on me. Claim the day, Vesta! Vesta has been received at her kinsman’s threshold. So the just Fathers have decreed.’ Wiseman Trans. For the meaning of limine as vestibulum, see Wiseman 2011, 78. 200
Suet. Aug. 100.2: A Bovillis equester ordo suscepit urbique intulit atque in vestibulo domus conlocavit. ‘From Bovillae, it [Augustus’ body] was taken by the equestrian order who carried it to Rome where it was placed in the vestibule of his house.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 96). 201
Tamm (1963, 96-­‐7) argues that the vestibulum was understood in antiquity to be a place in front of the door to a residence, and states that this definition was ‘absolutely firm’ in the late Republic and under Augustus, although the nature of vestibulum changed by the second century CE, when it meant a rectangular porticoed courtyard in front of a residence. For more recent discussion on the meaning of vestibulum, see Leach 1993, 23-­‐28, who argues that there was no consensus in the ancient world as to the meaning of vestibulum. 202
Lat. 7.8.1: vestibulum, quod estante domum. 203
Gell. 4.1.1: in vestibulo aedium Palatinarum omnium fere ordinum multitudo opperientes salutationem Caesaris constiterant. ‘In the entrance hall of the palace on the Palatine a large number of men of almost all ranks had gathered together, waiting an opportunity to pay their respects to Caesar.’ (Loeb, Trans. J. C. Rolfe). 204
Aulus Gellius offers a definition, NA 16.5.1-­‐3: Pleraque sunt vocabula, quibus vulgo utimur neque tamen liquido scimus, quid ea proprie atque vere significent, sed incompertam et vulgariam traditionem rei non exploratae secuti videmur magis dicere, quod volumus, quam dicimus: sicuti est "vestibulum" verbum in sermonibus celebre atque obvium, non omnibus tamen, qui illo facile 79 C. Aelius Gallus, in libro De Significatione verborum Quae ad Ius Civile pertinent secundo, vestibulum esse dicit non in ipsis aedibus neque partem aedium, sed locum ante ianuam domus vacuum, per quem a via aditus accessusque ad aedis est, cum dextra sinistraque ianuam tecta saepiunt viae iuncta atque ipsa ianua procul a via est, area vacanti intersita. ‘Gaius Aelius Gallus, in the second book of his work On the Meaning of Words relating to the Civil Law, says that the vestibule is not in the house itself, nor is it a part of the house, but is an open place before the door of the house, through which there is approach and access to the house from the street, while on the right and left the door is hemmed in by buildings extended to the street and the door itself is at a distance from the street, separated from it by this vacant space.’ (Gell. NA 16.5; trans. John C. Rolfe.) It is likely that vestibula were unroofed because other references to them indicate that altars, trees, and even large statues were erected in them, for example the colossal, 120 RF tall statue of Nero which Suetonius (Ner. 31) records was located in his vestibulum.205 The location of the vestibule in Augustus’ house is unknown, although Amanda Claridge has already noted that the sequence of events which Ovid records in the book’s journey through the Palatine in the Tristia indicate that the front of Augustus’ house was visible before the temple of Apollo, and must therefore have utuntur, satis spectatum. Animadverti enim quosdam haudquaquam indoctos viros opinari vestibulum esse partem domus primorem, quam vulgus "atrium" vocat. C. Aelius Gallus in libro de significatione verborum, quae ad ius civile pertinent, secundo vestibulum esse dicit non in ipsis aedibus neque partem aedium, sed locum ante ianuam domus vacuum, per quem a via aditus accessusque ad aedis est, cum dextra sinistraque ianuam tectaque sunt viae iuncta atque ipsa ianua procul a via est area vacanti intersita. ‘vestibulum or “vestibule,” a word frequently met in conversation, yet not wholly clear to all who readily make use of it. For I have observed that some men who are by no means without learning think that the vestibule is the front part of the house, which is commonly known as the atrium. Gaius Aelius Gallus, in the second book of his work On the Meaning of Words relating to the Civil Law, says that the vestibule is not in the house itself, nor is it a part of the house, but is an open place before the door of the house, through which there is approach and access to the house from the street, while on the right and left the door is hemmed in by buildings extended to the street and the door itself is at a distance from the street, separated from it by this vacant space.’ (Loeb, trans. J. C. Rolfe). For another ancient definitions of vestibulum see Macrobius 6.8.1. 205
For altars, Wiseman 2011 proposes that we can understand Ovid’s use of limine to refer to vestibule, recording the statue or altar of Vesta in the house of Augustus. Speksjneider (2011, 5) observes that Cicero in Pro Cael. 35, and 89, distinguishes the roofed house from the vestibulum, which implies that the vestiblum was unroofed. 80 been located either to the north or east of the temple of Apollo’s remains.206 Zanker refutes the identification of the appropriately located octagonal entrance hall on the north western side of the First Court (for the octagonal entrance hall refer to map 2) as the vestibulum of the palace (which Helge Finsen identified as such in the 1960s) and, along with Ricardo Mar and Coarelli, instead proposes that the rectangular courtyard to the north east of the Domus Augustana, known as ‘No Man’s Land’ (for the location of ‘No Man’s Land’ refer to map 2), was the site of the vestibule, arguing that it was of a suitable size and in an appropriate location to accommodate visitors arriving at the palace via the Clivus Palatinus, which is, in fact, where topographers had traditionally located the vestibulum from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.207 However, this proposal is problematic because of the many uncertainties regarding the layout and construction chronology for this courtyard, while its size, layout and alignment are closely comparable with that of the Aula Regia which could indicate that it was another assembly room. More problematically, this room is clearly located within the Domus Augustana, not in front of it, and it therefore does not accord with ancient definitions of vestibulum. The octagonal entrance hall on the northwest side of the palace remains of interest for a number of reasons. This hall is approximately 10 m2 and features an elaborate internal layout of four entrances and four niches, as well as two annexes on either side. The width of the door is around 2.96 m, or 10 RF, and features a portico set in front of it. 206
Claridge 2010, 375; Wiseman 2012, 129. Zanker 2002, 115; Zanker 2004, 96; Mar 2009, 255-­‐61, and Figs.3, 4 and 6; Coarelli 2012, 489-­‐
91. Zanker (2002, 115) is right to refute Helge Finsen’s 1969 identification of the octagonal 2 entrance hall on the north-­‐western side of the First Court (approximately 10m ) with four entrances and four niches, as the small but elegant vestibule of the palace. 207
81 As pointed out above, the literary evidence indicates that the front of Augustus’ house was located in front of the temple of Apollo, which could refer to the approximate area of the octagonal entrance hall. In addition, a vestibulum requires an entrance, and the Domus Augustana notably featured only a few entrances – a probable security device to control admission to the palace -­‐ and so the clear access provided by the octagonal entrance hall, which was one of only two entrances to the palace on the north-­‐western side, is notable.208 Furthermore, the area in front of the octagonal entrance hall contains enough space to reconstruct a vestibulum set before it. Of interest is the map (see Fig. 3.1) that Pietro Rosa produced of the south-­‐west Palatine in 1865 following his excavation of the area, which records a ‘via antica’ running south-­‐east from the Domus Tiberiana and aligned with the octagonal entrance hall (see also map 2).209 Unfortunately Rosa removed the street in order to excavate beneath it (finding the ‘House of Livia’) and provides no information as to its date, except to say that it was ‘late’ and paved in basalt. On his map, the lines connecting its path to the entrance to the palace are dotted. It may have stopped short of the space in front of the temple of Apollo. Regardless, the balance of evidence favours locating the vestibulum of the imperial palace at this site. 3.5 Romulean monuments in front of of the House and Temple
There are several indications in the written sources that the size of the space in front of Augustus’ house must have been quite large. A temporary theatre could be installed there for the Ludi Palatini, with a porticus,210 and it housed a 208
There is also a second, smaller entrance beside the ‘basilica’. Tomei 1999, 533, tav. VII. 210
For the temporary theatre in front of the house of Augustus, in use during the Ludi Palatini, see Josephus Ant. Jud. 19.1.11.91: κατεσκεύαστο δὲ τὸ θέατρον, πηκτὸν δὲ ἐγίνετο κατὰ ἕκαστον 209
82 number of ‘historic’ monuments associated with the foundation of the city by Romulus. We have already mentioned Roma Quadrata, while the hut of Romulus, the ficus Ruminalis and the Lupercal also served to evoke and commemorate the legendary origins of Rome and its founder, Romulus.211 The proximity of these monuments to the house of Augustus gave strength to the implication that Augustus was the new founder of Rome.212 ἐνιαυτόν, τοιόνδε τρόπον: θύρας ἔχει δύο φερούσας τὴν μὲν εἰς αἴθριον, τὴν δ᾽ εἰς στοὰν εἰσόδοις καὶ ἀποχωρήσεσιν, ὅπως μὴ ταράσσοιντο οἱ ἔνδον ἀπειλημμένοι, ἐκ δ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς καλύβης ἐνδοτέρω διαφράγμασιν ἑτέραν ἀπειληφυίαις ἐπ᾽ ἀναστροφῇ τοῖς ἀνταγωνισταῖς καὶ ὁπόσα ἀκροάματα. ‘The theatre was a wooden structure, put up every year in the following way. It had two doors, one leading out into the open, one into a portico where people could go in and out without disturbing those segregated inside. And from the main part of this structure there was an inner door, leading to another part which was separated off by partitions as a retreat for competitors and performers of all kinds.’ (trans. Wiseman 1991, 14). 211
For the hut of Romulus see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 53.16.5, which is discussed in more detail pp; For the ficus ruminalis, the fig tree that stood close to the Lupercal, where Romulus and Remus were suckled by the she-­‐wolf, see Varro, Ling. Lat. 5.54; Ov. Fast. 2.411; Livy 1.4; Serv. Aen. 8.90; Fest. 270, 27; Plin. NH 15.77; Plut. Rom. 4), and for the Lupercal, a cave or grotto at the foot of the Palatine, see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. I.32, 79; Serv. Aen. 8.90, 343; Ov. Fasti. 2.380. Augustus records a restoration of the Lupercal in Res Gestae 19.1. 212
Edwards 1996, 33. 83 4. Conclusion
The magnificence and scale of the imperial palaces on the Palatine, which came to span nearly the entire hill, ensured that they were some of the most extraordinary buildings in Rome. In Roman literature, the imperial palace became synonymous with the Palatine hill.213 The only comparable example whereby a building assumed the name of the hill upon which it was built is the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Capitoline hill, whereby Capitolium may be understood to mean both the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and/or the Capitoline hill.214 In both cases, this was a profound expression of the permanence of the buildings because the antiquity of the Palatine and Capitoline was well recognised. This is particularly the case for the Palatine hill, perceived to be the first area of settlement in Rome, because the location of the imperial palace at this site, and especially its proximity to monuments commemorating Romulus, surrounded it with this perceived ancient past. It would appear that Augustus recognised these associations of the Palatine, selecting for his residence a house that was not notable for its size or grandeur, but was rather located at a site where comparisons with Romulus and ancient augural traditions were inevitable. To sum up the situation, the house of Hortensius that Octavian acquired could 213
Dio Cass. 53.16.5-­‐6: ῾καλεῖται δὲ τὰ βασίλεια παλάτιον, οὐχ ὅτι καὶ ἔδοξέ ποτε οὕτως αὐτὰ ὀνομάζεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἔν τε τῷ Παλατίῳ ὁ Καῖσαρ ᾤκει καὶ ἐκεῖ τὸ στρατήγιον εἶχε, καί τινα καὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Ῥωμύλου προενοίκησιν φήμην ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ὄρους ἔλαβε: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κἂν ἄλλοθί που ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ καταλύῃ, τὴν τοῦ παλατίου ἐπίκλησιν ἡ καταγωγὴ αὐτοῦ ἴσχεἰ. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῷ ἔργῳ αὐτὰ ἐπετέλεσεν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου ὄνομα καὶ παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ δήμου ‘The royal residence is called Palatium not because it was ever decreed that this should be its name, but because Caesar dwelt on the Palatine and had his military headquarters there, though his residence gained a certain degree of fame from the mount as a whole also, because Romulus had once lived there. Hence, even if the emperor resides somewhere else, his dwelling retains the name of Palatium.’ (Loeb, Trans. E. Cary). 214
For Capitolium meaning both the Capitoline hill and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, see LTUR I, 1993, 226-­‐31 ‘Capitolium (Fino alla prima età Repubblicana)’ [G. Tagliomonte], especially p.227. Ammerman points out that the Palatine and the Capitoline are the only two hills in Rome whose name is in the substantive form, see LTUR IV 1999, 12-­‐14, ‘Palatium (Environmental Setting).’ [A.J. Ammerman], comment on p.12. 84 have been in origin quite a modest, domestic building. It is likely to have been one of several relatively small properties that made up the early Augustan palace, while the House of Augustus, rebuilt after 3 CE, may have been far more ostentatious. It could have taken the same alignment as the part of the house of Hortensius that Augustus declared public in 12 BCE, but applied that to the whole, which was then replaced under Nero and Domitian, all the while maintaining the front door in the same position in relation to the temple of Apollo. It is observable that the alignment of the Domus Augustana is not on axis with the alignment of the temple of Apollo, which could reflect the earliest orientation of the Augustan residence, constructed prior to the temple of Apollo (see map 2). The combination of decorative features which demarcated the house of Augustus, and are perhaps to be related to its new status as a partially public building in 12 CE and then as an entirely public building in 3 CE, such as the laurel trees set in front of it and the corona civica placed in a fastigium above the doorway, may have helped to make comparisons between the house of Augustus and religious buildings both inevitable and obvious. But it was the temple of Apollo, the subject of the following chapter, to which the house of Augustus was particularly connected. 85 CHAPTER THREE
The Temple dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine hill
3.1 Introduction
During the Republic, Apollo was a relatively minor divinity in the Roman pantheon.215 As a god of prophecy, light, and calm, however, Apollo appealed to all groups during the turbulent civil war period in Rome, especially in the Triumviral period, and various means were employed by a number of different individuals so that the imagery of and associations with Apollo evoked the possibility of a brighter future.216 For instance, between 43-­‐2 BCE, Octavian’s enemies, Brutus and Cassius, minted coinage with Apolline attributes, while Plutarch reports that Mark Antony intended to restore the temple dedicated to Apollo at Delphi.217 The precise circumstances involving Octavian’s vowing of the temple of Apollo are not entirely clear. On 3 September 36 BC, Octavian and Agrippa defeated Sextus Pompeius in the famous naval victory of Naulochus, and returned to Rome in 215
The fundamental study for the introduction of the cult of Apollo to Rome is Gagé 1955; Miller 2009 provides a comprehensive text focusing on the introduction of Apollo to Augustan Rome via Augustan poetry. 216
For the appeal of Apollo in triumviral politics, see Zanker 1988, 48-­‐50. 217
Brutus minted coinage in Rome in 43-­‐2 BCE with Apolline imagery of the lyre, laurel, tripod, and laureate profiles of Apollo. See RRC 501, 502.1, 503.1, 504, 506.3. His comrade Cassius also minted a series in Rome featuring Apolline imagery, see RRC 498-­‐9. For Mark Antony intending to restore the temple of Apollo at Delphi, see Plut. Ant. 23. 86 November of that same year.218 It has often been assumed, therefore, that the temple of Apollo Palatinus was vowed in connection with this event. In a 2009 article, Olivier Hekster and John Rich point out, however, that there is no evidence for Octavian having vowed a temple at this point and demonstrate that the temple of Apollo was not, as is commonly thought, vowed in thanks for Octavian’s victory at Naulochus, nor was it dedicated in thanks to Apollo for his victory at Actium.219 As we saw in the previous chapter, it was in 36 BCE that lightning struck a property which Octavian had acquired in order to expand his residence on the Palatine, and the haruspices interpreted this lightning as a prodigy sent by Apollo meaning that the deity desired the site for himself.220 Octavian therefore ceded the property to the state, and offered to build the temple at his own expense. The link between the site, temple and Apollo, however, was later given force by Octavian’s victory at Actium 31 BCE, which occurred near to a sanctuary of Apollo. Octavian commemorated his victory, and Apollo’s role in it, restoring the temple of Apollo at Actium, as well as founding a new city, Nicopolis, and dedicating a new sanctuary to Apollo within it.221 218
For the victory at Naulochus, see Suet. Aug. 16.1, App. Bell. Civ. 5.116-­‐22; for Octavian’s return to Rome and his ovatio, see Suet. Aug. 22. 219
For discussion of the battle of Naulochus in 36 BCE as distinct from the lightning bolt on the Palatine and Augustus vowing to build a temple dedicated to Apollo in 36 BCE see Hekster and Rich 2006, 150-­‐2; for their assessment of the role of the battle of Actium in the development of the cult of Apollo in Rome, concluding that the temple of Apollo was vowed in response to the lightning strike in Rome in 36 BCE as well as a thank-­‐offering for Octavian’s victory at Actium, see 162-­‐5. 220
Dio Cass. 49.15.5; Vell. Pat. 2.81.3; Suet. Aug. 29.3. For the involvement of the haruspices see Hekster and Rich 2006, 158-­‐9, and especially 166-­‐7. 221
Strabo 7.7.6; Suet. Aug. 18.2; Dio 51.1.2-­‐3. Hekster and Rich (2006, 162-­‐3) explain the significance of the victory off the coast at Actium to Octavian, and especially the nearby sanctuary of Apollo. Many scholars, such as Gagé 1955, 524, Gros 1976 n. 133,66, Hekster and Rich 2006, consider the temple of Apollo to be an ex voto for the battle of Actium; contra Gurval (1997) who argues that the connection between Apollo and Actium is overstated in modern scholarship, and that the connection was not made by Octavian or his contemporaries. The site of a temple was excavated on the Actian promontory between 1867-­‐8 by l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, and while the excavation was never published, the excavator François Noël Champoiseau published a later report, for which see Michon 1886, 236-­‐7. Champoiseau described walls of opus reticulatum, a 87 When considered against the background of Republican temple traditions, Octavian’s vowing of the temple of Apollo Palatinus is unusual. Firstly, there is no record of senatorial involvement as was normal practice.222 Even more unusual is the fact that the temple was vowed by an individual and funded at personal expense, despite its status as a public temple. Despite such irregularities, the temple dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine hill profoundly altered the religious topography of the Palatine and Rome.223 The prominence of the temple in Rome also propelled the cult of Apollo to a new position, which had ramifications further afield as temples dedicated to Apollo were restored and founded anew throughout the Italian peninsula and the Mediterranean in the late first century BCE/early first century CE.224 The temple of Apollo Palatinus was dedicated on 9 October 28 BCE, and the accompanying porticus of the Danaids was inaugurated between 26-­‐24 BCE.225 The poet Propertius witnessed the latter event, describing a luminous marble temple rising within a golden porticus, a pediment decorated with the sun god Helios in a chariot, and, glimpsed between ivory doors, three statues of Apollo, mosaic floor composed of small pebbles in various colours, a pedestal in the centre of the main room, and nearby blocks of marble, limestone and other (unspecified) stones, and antefixes. In 2009 the site was re-­‐opened under the auspices of Ioannina University in a project led by Ismini Triandi, but the results are as yet unpublished. However, Catherine Morgan provides a comprehensive synthesis of the excavations, http://chronique.efa.gr/index.php/fiches/voir/796/. 222
Orlin 1997, 105-­‐6; the lack of senatorial involvement throughout the construction of the Apollo Palatinus temple is noted in Hekster and Rich 2006, 156. 223
Zanker 1988, 48-­‐9; LTUR I, 154-­‐7 s.v. ‘Apollo Palatinus’ [P. Gros]. 224
For the temple of Apollo and Diana constructed in Peltuinum, see Bianchi 2009 and Bianchi 2011-­‐12; for the temple dedicated to Apollo at Cumae restored by Augustus, see Gallo 1985-­‐6; for restoration of the temple of Apollo at Pompeii in the Augustan period, see Dobbins et al 1998 and Carroll and Godden 2000. 225
For the date of the opening of the Apollo Palatinus temple see Insc. Ital. 13. 2. 209, 518-­‐9, Aug. aed. Apol. dedicauit. Little is known of the portico of the Danaids, and given that they are only mentioned in Augustan sources it is widely assumed that they were destroyed in the fire of 64 CE and not rebuilt. For various attempts at their reconstruction, see Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, 358-­‐
66; Quenemoen 2006, 229-­‐50. 88 Diana and Latona.226 The temple of Apollo, constructed entirely in Luna marble, was the solid marble temple that Virgil’s Sibyl at Cumae promised Aeneas, and Virgil later referred to the shimmering, snowy white threshold of the temple.227 Ovid describes a shining temple (candida templa) with high steps (gradibus sublimia).228 Augustus modestly recorded his construction of the temple and his dedication of spolia and gifts within it in the Res Gestae,229 the extraordinary magnificence of which Pliny the Elder later detailed.230 It was surrounded by a 226
Prop. Eleg. 2. 31. 1-­‐15: Quaeris, cur veniam tibi tardior? aurea Pheobi/ porticus a magno Caesare aperta fuit./ tota era in spatium Poenis digesta columnis,/ inter quas Danai femina turba senis./ hic equidem Phoebus visus mihi pulchrior ipso/ marmoreus tacita carmen hiare lyra;/ atque aram circum steterant armenta Myronis,/ quattuor artificis, vivida signa, boves./ tum medium claro surgebat marmore templum,/ et patria Phoebo carius Ortygia:/ in quo Solis erat supra fastigia currus,/ et valvae, Libyci nobile dentis opus:/ altera deiectos Parnasi vertice Gallos,/ altera maerebat funera Tantalidos./ deinde inter matrem deus ipse interque sororem/ Pythius in longa carmina veste sonat. ‘You ask why I come to you somewhat late? Apollo’s golden porticus has been opened by mighty Caesar. The whole of it had been marked out for a promenade with African columns, between which stood the many daughters of old Danaus. Here I thought that Phoebus’ statue was fairer than Phoebus himself as he sang with silent lyre and parted lips of marble; and around the altar stood Myron’s herd, four steers by the sculptor, statuary which seemed to be alive. Then in the middle rose the temple, of dazzling marble, dearer to Phoebus even than his Ortygian home: upon the pediment of this stood the chariot of the Sun, and doors which were a famed piece of African ivory; one door lamented the Gauls cast down from Parnassus’ peak, the other the deaths of Niobe and her children. Then between his mother and his sister the god of Pytho himself, wearing a long cloak, plays and sings. (Loeb, Trans. G. P. Goold). 227
Virg. Aen. 6.69-­‐74: tum Phoebo et Triviae solido de marmore templum instituam festosque dies de nomine Phoebi. ‘Then I will set up for Phoebus and Trivia a temple of solid marble, and festival days in Phoebus’ name.‘ For the snowy white threshold of the temple, see Aen. 8.720: niveo candentis limine Phoebi. 228
Ov. Tris. 3.1: Inde tenore pari gradibus sublimia celsis/ ducor ad intonsi candida templa dei,/ signa peregrinis ubi sunt alterna columnis,/ Belides et stricto barbarus ense pater, ‘Then with even pace up the lofty steps I was conducted to the shining temple of the unshorn god, where alternating with the columns of foreign marble stand the figures of the Belids [danaids], the barbarian father with a drawn sword.’ (Loeb, trans. A. L. Wheeler). 229
RG 24.2: statuae meae pedestres et equestres et in quadrigeis argenteae steterunt in urbe XXC circiter, quas ipse sustuli, exque ea pecunia dona aurea in aede Apollinis meo nomine et illorum qui mihi statuarum honorem habuerunt posui. ‘The eighty or so statues made of silver, depicting me on foot, on horseback, and in a four-­‐horse chariot, which stood in the city, I myself removed, and from the money realized I placed golden gifts in the temple of Apollo in my name and in the name of those who had honoured me with the statues.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 86). 230
For Myron’s famed heifer, see Cic. Verr. 2.4-­‐135; Prop. 2.31.7-­‐8. For Cephisodotus’ statue of Latona see Plin. HN 36.25: Praxitelis filius Cephisodotus et artis heres fuit. cuius laudatum est Pergami symplegma nobile digitis corpori verius quam marmori inpressis. Romae eius opera sunt Latona in Palatii delubro, Venus in Pollionis Asini monumentis et intra Octaviae porticus in Iunonis aede Aesculapius ac Diana. ‘The son of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus, inherited also his skill. His Persons Grappling at Pergamum is highly praised, being notable for the fingers, which seem genuinely to sink into living flesh rather than into dead marble. At Rome his works are the Latona in the temple of the Palatine Apollo, a Venus in the Collection of Asinius Pollio, and the Aesclepius and Diana in the temple of Juno within the porticuses of Octavia.’ (Loeb, Trans. H. Rackham). 89 portico lined with statues of the Danaids.231 In the early second century, Suetonius celebrated the temple of Apollo as one of Augustus’ greatest building projects.232 He described the temple as adjoined with porticoes and Greek and Latin libraries, and reported that meetings of the senate were held in the temple when Augustus was elderly.233 All of these ancillary buildings were probably located in the area Apollinis, the sacred precinct of the temple of Apollo that was probably later known as the area Palatina, although its extent and layout is largely unknown.234 Following Augustus’ death, the temple of Apollo remained one of the most important temples in Rome, as testified by its frequent Statue of Diana: Plin. HN 36.32: Timothei manu Diana Romae est in Palatio Apollinis delubro, cui signo caput reposuit Avianius Evander. There is a Diana by Timotheus at Rome in the temple of the Palatine Apollo, a statue for which a head was made as a replacement by Avianius Evander. (Loeb, trans. H. Rackham). 231
Propertius’ description of the temple, above in fn. 226 suggests that a portico surrounded the temple, further supported by Velleius’ (2.81) slightly later reference to Augustus building a temple with a portico around it, templumque Apollinis et circa porticus facturum promisit. Propertius described the marble as African marble, Poenis … columnis, probably referring to giallo antico, and also described statues of the Danaids alternating with the columns, which Ovid reiterated in the Tristia 3.1.61-­‐2. Both Suetonius (Aug. 29) and Cassius Dio (53.1.3) state the existence of the porticoes but provide no further information. On the grounds that the only descriptions of the porticus date to the Augustan period it is usually supposed that the porticus was destroyed in the fire of 69 CE and was not rebuilt. See Claridge 2009, 143. 232
Suet. Aug. 29.1: Publica opera plurima exstruxit, e quibus vel praecipua: forum cum aede Martis Ultoris, templum Apollinis in Palatio, aedem Tonantis Iovis in Capitolio. ‘He undertook much public building. Foremost among his projects were: his Forum with the Temple of Mars the Avenger; the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine; the Temple of Jupiter the Thunderer on the Capitol.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 58). 233
Suet. Aug. 29.3: Templum Apollinis in ea parte Palatinae domus excitavit, quam fulmine ictam desiderari a deo haruspices pronuntiarant; addidit porticus cum bibliotheca Latina Graecaque, quo loco iam senior saepe etiam senatum habuit decuriasque iudicum recognovit. ‘The Temple to Apollo he had erected on the site of that part of his Palatine residence which the haruspices had announced was desired by the god when it was struck by lightning.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 58). 234
The first attested reference to the area Apollinis is in the inscription honouring Lucius Volusius Saturninus in 56 CE, recording that a consular statue, one of three, was to be erected in aria Apolinis, see Fejfer 2008, 441. The only other reference is in a fragment from the second century CE marble plan of Rome, Fragment 469, with ] REA APO [ reconstructed as Area Apollinis, located near to a rectangular form. For discussion of this fragment and the reconstruction of the rectangular form as either an altar or statue base see LTUR I, 1993, 113, s.v. “Area Apollinis (Palatium)” [E. Rodríguez Almeida]. The first reference to the area Palatina is in Gell. NA 20.1; it is later recorded in the Notitia for Regio X (Palatium): continet casam Romuli aedem Matris deum et Apollinis Ramnusi pentapylum domum Augustianam et Tiberianam auguratorium aream Palatinam aedem Iovis victoris domum Dionis curiam veterem Fortunam respicientem septizonium divi Severi Victoriam Germanicianam lupercam. The area Palatina is not, however, mentioned in the Curiosum. The area Apollinis and the area Palatina were probably one and the same, and the latter term may be a later derivation. 90 appearance in imperial sources, and it survived into the fourth century until fire destroyed it on 18 March 363 CE.235 The location of the temple of Apollo Palatinus was unresolved until the early twentieth century. In the course of his excavations on the south-­‐west Palatine in 1864, Pietro Rosa exposed a concrete podium with remains of tuff blocks, which was in fact the remains of the temple of Apollo, but he identified it as the temple of Jupiter Victor, listed in the Regionary Catalogues and originally dedicated in 295 BCE (Fig. 3.1).236 In 1897 Rodolfo Lanciani, on the belief that some adjacent structures in opus quadratum belonged to the schola of the college known to be associated with the temple of Jupiter Propugnator, attested only in second century CE inscriptions, identified the podium as the latter on his Forma Urbis Romae (Fig. 3.2).237 Christian Hülsen, meanwhile, made a case for identifying the Apollo Palatinus temple with a large temple podium in the Vigna Barberini, an 235
Ammianus Marcellinus 23.3.3: Verum ut compertum est postea, hac eadem nocte Palatini Apollinis templum, praefecturam regent Aproniano, in urbe conflagravit aeterna, ubi ni multiplex iuviset auxilium, etiam Cumana carmina consumpserat magnitude flammarum. ‘But, as was afterwards learned, it was on that same night that the temple of the Palatine Apollo, under the prefecture of Apronianus, was burned in the eternal city; and if it had not been for the employment of every possible help, the Cumaean books also would have been destroyed by the raging flames.’ (Loeb, Trans. John C. Rolfe). 236
Although Rosa did not publish his results at the time, Tomei (1999, 141-­‐56) has since published details of his discovery from a study of the archival material. The location for the temple of Jupiter Victor on the Palatine remains unknown, although a number of literary and epigraphic sources testify to its existence. Livy (10.29.12-­‐14) credits the consul Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus with the vowing and dedication of an aedes to Jupiter Victor at the battle of Sentinum in 295 BCE, although he does not specify the site at which it was to be constructed. In the Fasti 4.621, Ovid refers to a celebration for Jupiter Victor on 13 April. Josephus (BJ 19.4.3) reports that the senate met in a temple of Victory following the murder of Caligula; and according to Dio Cass. (60.35.1) Claudius’ death in 54 CE was prophesied by the doors of a temple of Jupiter Victor opening of their own accord. The fourth century Regionary Catalogues explicitly record a temple of Jupiter Victor on the Palatine, Notitia: aedem Iovis victoris, and the Curiosum: aedem Iobis. Coarelli (2012, 247) suggests that the Regionary catalogues reference to Jupiter Victor is a corruption of Iouis Vltoris, referring to Alexander Severus’ rededication of the temple of Elagabalus in the Vigna Barberini. 2
However, a temple dedicated to Jupiter Victor may also have been located on the Quirinal, CIL I 802; and a recently published calendar fragment also attests to a temple dedicated to Jupiter Victor on the Capitoline. For publication and discussion of this fragment, see Vella 2010-­‐11, 335-­‐
78. 237
Lanciani 1967, 137; see also Tomei 1999, 156-­‐60 for the identification of the collegium. The evidence for the temple dedicated to Jupiter Propugnatoris is attested only in fragmentary fasti dated to 190-­‐238 CE. CIL 6.2004‑2009, which refer to an aede Iovis Propugnatoris, located in Palatio. 91 argument based on a close reading of the literary sources and his conviction that the surrounding site had the capacity to hold the Augustan complex.238 Hülsen’s identification, however, was soundly criticised by his contemporaries, particularly by Giovanni Pinza.239 In a 1910 publication, Pinza compared the concrete of the podium variously attributed to Jupiter Victor and Jupiter Propugnator with the concrete of the mausoleum of Augustus, and observing the identical material and manner of construction, proved that the concrete of the temple podium on the Palatine was of an Augustan date and, moreover, that it could not belong to the temple of Jupiter Victor because there was no evidence of an earlier, third century phase of the temple on the site.240 Pinza’s analysis of the literary sources, and particularly the position of the temple of Apollo in the Regionary Catalogues,241 supported his identification of the site as the temple of Apollo, which was then widely accepted, although skeptics continued to raise doubts for many years thereafter.242 In 1913 Pinza reported the results of a more detailed analysis of the surviving concrete, which revealed that an upper layer at the north eastern end, 70 cm. in thickness, was of a different composition, containing fragments of coloured marble veneer and architectural elements indicative of a late period.243 238
Hülsen 1928, 61, 65-­‐6, 68. Richmond 1914, 194; Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 18; and Pinza (1910, 5-­‐15) refutes his theory in the greatest detail. 240
For Pinza’s study of the material of the Mausoleum of Augustus, see Pinza 1910, 23-­‐4, fig.3, and for his study of the concrete of the monuments on the southwest Palatine, including the temple of Apollo, see 25-­‐32. 241
Pinza 1910, 17-­‐41; Pinza 1913, 220-­‐4. 242
For immediate acceptance see Richmond 1914, 196-­‐8; for comprehensive discussion of the contemporary theories concerning the location of the temple of Apollo see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 18-­‐9, in which Pinza’s location is declared ‘the most satisfactory’; for brief discussion of the uncertainties surrounding the identification of the site see Richardson 1992, 14, in which the identification of the temple with the podium in the southwestern part of the Palatine is referred to as ‘the more popular view.’ 243
See Pinza (1913, 217-­‐9) for analysis of the remains of the podium of Apollo, and 218 for the late concrete layer at the northeastern end. 239
92 In 1953, Giuseppe Lugli undertook a new survey of the site and generated a plan of the remains of the podium overlaid with his reconstructed layout of the temple (Fig. 3.3).244 Lugli cleared out four deep holes located to the south-­‐west of the podium, which he interpreted to be the negative imprint of the foundations of the façade (Fig. 3.4),245 and also discovered a column drum in the south-­‐eastern part of the podium in a larger robber-­‐trench identified as cavo a, which can be seen in Fig. 3.3, estimating the diameter of this drum to be 1.45m.246 Lugli compared this column drum to the column drums of the recently excavated temple of Apollo in Circo,247 which was rebuilt by C. Sosius in approximately the same period in which the temple of Apollo Palatinus was constructed.248 With recourse to the plan of the rebuilt temple of Apollo in Circo, and applying Vitruvius’ principles for a hexastyle temple plan (De arch. 3.3.1-­‐13), Lugli proposed a reconstructed ground plan for the temple of Apollo.249 Lugli posited that the Apollo Palatinus temple featured a hexastyle, pseudoperipteral plan, a southwest orientation, a central front intercolumniation distance of 2.67m., and an interaxial distance of 4.4m., a rhythm that falls somewhere between Vitruvius’ pycnostyle (1½) and eustyle (2¼) rhythms.250 A number of scholars have since pointed out that Lugli’s publication provided contradictory measurements.251 244
Lugli 1965, 264-­‐5, Fig.107. These are not evident in Lanciani’s representation of the Palatine in his Forma Urbis Romae, but they can be made out on Deglane’s (1885-­‐6) actual state plan of the podium, and probably influenced his reconstruction, which closely resembles Lugli’s. 246
For the clearing of the deep holes, see Lugli 1965, 275. Lugli 1965, 265 Fig.107, and 278 Fig.117 f for a black and white photograph of the drum in the trench. For estimated measurements, see 276. 247
For the excavations and proposed reconstruction of the temple, see Colini 1941, 9-­‐40. 248
Livy 4.25.3, 40.51.6. 249
Lugli 1965, 275-­‐7 and Fig.116. In particular, 279-­‐80 for reference to Vitruvian proportions. 250
Lugli 1965, 280. 251
Haselberger 2003, 169; Quenemoen 2006, 234 and n. 24; Zink 2008, 49, n. 9. 245
93 Gianfilippo Carettoni supervised the next major excavations of the site, which took place between 1956-­‐64.252 Carettoni discovered two pieces of a door frame of Luna marble decorated with acanthus scrollwork and Apolline symbols – two crouching griffins and a tripod (Figs. 3.5 -­‐ 6)253 – in the deep trench that cuts the podium in two, presumed to be the location of the front wall of the cella. The decoration of these pieces confirmed Pinza’s identification of the site. Carettoni’s publications, however, were summary, and he provided only minor variations to Lugli’s schematic plan of the remains (Fig. 3.7), and in later publications, Carettoni presented the temple merely as a rectangle (Fig. 3.8).254 Lugli’s reconstruction of the Apollo Palatinus temple with a hexastyle, pseudoperipteral layout with a 50RF Corinthian order and a southwest orientation remains virtually unchallenged, although, as noted above, certain measurements are recognised to be contradictory. The most recent publications on the temple have either accepted Lugli’s reconstruction uncritically, or have followed Lugli’s methodology to arrive at the same conclusion. The inaccessibility of the site to the public means that it is difficult to assess the remains, and this problem of access is compounded by the repeated publication of Lugli’s reconstructed layout of the temple over his plan of the site. In Stefan Zink’s recent publications of the temple podium, his useful plans of the remains, the result of a new survey, are also overlaid with his hypothetical ground plan (Fig. 3.9).255 252
Carettoni’s excavations of the temple of Apollo were never properly published, although for brief reports and discussion of some discoveries see Carettoni 1966/7 and Carettoni 1978. 253
Carettoni 1966/7, 71, Figs.10-­‐11. 254
Carettoni 1966/7, 71 Fig.8; Lugli 1965, 265, Fig.107. 255
For Zink’s results, see Zink 2008, Zink 2009 and Zink 2012. For Zink’s plans of the remains overlain with his own hypothetical interpretation of the remains, see Zink 2012, 394 Fig.5, although the plan is faint, and in 395 Fig.6 the plan is rendered clearly in black and white. 94 Carettoni’s failure to publish the site adequately, the continued application of Lugli’s methodology in subsequent scholarship, and the persistent presentation of the remains with a hypothetical ground plan overlaid, has resulted in a false orthodoxy concerning the ground plan of the Apollo Palatinus temple. Amanda Claridge’s interpretation of the remains of the Apollo Palatinus temple in the addendum to the LTUR and in her discussion of the site in her Oxford Archaeological Guide to Rome provides a singular and notable exception to the current scholarly consensus.256 The aim of this chapter is partly to test her proposals in relation to all of the most recent evidence. This chapter will therefore firstly examine the relevant evidence for the temple and will provide an analytical description of the architectural remains associated with the temple. Secondly, it will explain how and why the current understanding of the temple could be corrected, and will make a case for the likely ground plan and elevation of the temple. It will conclude this section by providing reasoned illustrations for a new reconstruction of the Apollo Palatinus temple.257 Thirdly and finally, it will propose that the design of the temple of Apollo Palatinus replicated architectural features that are derived from the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill, and explore the meaning of this replication. 3.2 The foundations and podium
Beneath the current ground level (which lies at 47.76 m.asl, according to the SAR plan already referred to in chapter 2, Fig. 2.10) and the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple, are a series of tunnels, both ancient tunnels that connected the 256
See Claridge 2010, 142-­‐3; Claridge 2000, 225. Claridge 2013, forthcoming. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance and original ideas offered for this chapter from Amanda Claridge. 257
95 temple to various buildings in the vicinity, and modern robber tunnels, as well as drains, cisterns, walls and foundations, all of which reach to a depth of more than 12m. Above is the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple, which reveals three phases: Late Republican, Augustan, and Late Antique. The podium incorporates the remains of a Late Republican building, probably an elite residence, which is indicated by a mosaic composed of small, white tesserae in the south-­‐eastern part of the podium.258 The Augustan podium is now reduced to a concrete core. The concrete is dusky red, composed of a red mortar with red and black pozzolana, and an aggregate of chunks of Fidenae and Grotta rossa tuff, combined with medium sized fragments of tile, and travertine fragments (Fig. 3.10).259 The outer margins of the concrete, as viewed from Zink’s 2012 plan (Fig. 3.9) indicate the inner face of the outer foundation walls, of 19.2 x 41.60 m. It was once faced with load-­‐bearing tuff ashlar masonry, sections of which are partly preserved along the southeastern flank and in the depths of the transverse robber trench (Fig. 3.11). The overall dimensions, if the order was the same size as Apollo in Circo, can be restored as c. 24 x 47m. / 80 x 160 RF.260 A patch of marble paving in the passage on the south eastern side, can be presumed to represent the ground level in the Flavian period, but a small excavation made for Lugli at the north-­‐eastern end indicates that the Augustan ground level was about a metre lower (Figs. 3.12-­‐13). Lugli therefore reconstructed the original height of the podium, allowing an extra 30-­‐40cm. for 258
Lugli 1965, 268, 275, Fig.110; Morricone Matini (1967, 39) dates it to the late 80s BCE. I was unable to find a photograph of this mosaic of sufficient quality to include in the list of figures; a black and white photograph is available in Lugli 1965: 268, Figure 110. 259
Van Deman 1912, 251. 260
Claridge 2010, 142. 96 the cella floor, as c.4.70 m.261 Lugli unfortunately did not provide any spot heights above sea level (asl), but modern surveys by the Soprintendenza indicate that the top of the concrete podium at the northeastern end reached 51 m.asl. (Fig. 2.10) and the marble paving in the passage lies at 47.76 m., whereas, if Lugli was correct, the Augustan ground level would be at c.46.70m.262 Four deep holes, once 10m. and now around 7m. in depth, are located in the southwest part of the podium. 3.3 The architectural fragments
A number of architectural fragments were discovered by Bartoli, Lugli and Carettoni in the southeast and northwest parts of the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple and may be identified with the Augustan superstructure of the temple on the basis of their find spots, dimensions and material.263 However, previous attributions of some of the fragments associated with the temple are unlikely because of their small size. For instance, a fragment of a double-­‐scotia marble column base is sometimes associated with the temple, and while its lower diameter, measurements of which range from 1.35-­‐1.42m.,264 have led scholars to suggest that the fragment derived from an interior order from the temple,265 it is equally possible that the fragment derived from a smaller temple or other building on the Palatine. A fragment of a horizontal marble cornice is also probably wrongly attributed to 261
Lugli 1965, 266 Lugli 1965, 287 Fig. 120. 263
Lugli 1965, 276-­‐8 and Fig.117. 264
Bauer 1969, 190, n. 24 measured 1.35-­‐1.37; Zink measured c. 1.39 m. ± 3 cm. Zink 2008, 52. 265
Zink 2008, 58. 262
97 the Apollo Palatinus temple.266 The upper side of this fragment preserves fragmentary modillions and five dentils of the original frieze from the structure to which it belonged, from which Strong reconstructed it as the S curved-­‐modillion type.267 It measures to a height of 0.60m., a width of 0.66m. and a length of 1.17m.268 Again, these measurements are probably too small to support an association with the temple of Apollo Palatinus.269 There are six architectural fragments of Luna marble which can be more confidently associated with the temple: one very large column drum (Fig. 3.14), the upper half of a very large Corinthian capital from a semi-­‐column (Fig. 3.15) one smaller fragment of a very large Corinthian capital from a semi-­‐column (Fig. 3.16), the lower half of an equally large Corinthian capital from a three-­‐quarter column (Fig. 3.17) and two fragments from a left marble door jamb (already seen in Figs. 3.5-­‐6). Their size and find spots, discovered in or near the temple podium, support an association with the temple, while the semi and three-­‐quarter round capitals indicate that the plan was pseudoperipteral. The style of the capitals and the sculptural relief is credibly Augustan, and although the marble has not been isotopically tested, it is widely agreed to be Luna, which was preferred in monumental architecture in Rome in the Augustan period and is specifically named in the case of the Apollo temple by Servius in his early fifth century CE commentary on Virgil’s Aeneid.270 266
Lugli 1965, 277. Strong 1963, 80. 268
Strong 1963, 76; see Zink 2008 55 and Fig.9 for a reconstruction. 269
The temple of Divus Hadrianus, which featured a 50 RF order, featured a cornice with a height of 1.28 m. high. Strong 1953, 123. Maria Antoinetta Tomei proposes that the cornice fragment instead derives from the Arch of Octavius Tomei 2000a, 570, n.66, 592, Figs.15-­‐16. 270
Serv. ad Aen. 8. 720: candentis limine phoebi in templo Apollinis in Palatio de solido marmore effecto, quod adlatum fuerat de portu Lunae, qui est in confinio Tusciae et Liguriae: ideo ait 'candentis'. For the preference of luna marble in the Augustan period see Strong and Ward Perkins 267
98 The marble column drum, preserved to a height of 1.78m. and with traces of seventeen of its original twenty-­‐four flutes remaining, is currently located on top of the southeastern part of the podium, beside the hole (cavo a) where Lugli first observed it.271 The fact that it was fully in the round indicates that it derives from the pronaos of the temple.272 Reconstructions of its diameter have ranged from 1.45 m. (Lugli) to 1.60 m. (Bauer), as recorded in table 3.1. However, Bauer does not claim to have measured the drum himself, while Quenemoen’s 1.48m. simply rounded up Lugli’s figure to 5 Roman feet, as Lugli himself had done. Zink’s figure of 1.50-­‐1.54m., on the other hand, is based on a very precise scale drawing of the drum in plan and elevation, and is surely the most reliable. Table 3. 1 Published measurements for the diameter of the column drum attributed to the temple of Apollo Palatinus (metres) Lugli 1965 Bauer 1969 Zink 2008 Quenemoen 2006 1.45 c.1.60 1.52 ± 2 cm 1.48 The fragmentary capitals associated with the Apollo Palatinus temple, which were on display on site by the early 1920s and had probably been discovered in excavations on the western side of the site in 1921,273 were the subject of a detailed study by Heinrich Bauer in 1969,274 who published drawings in plan and 1962, 26 and Gros 1976, 74; for the opening of the Luna quarries and a brief outline of their history in the imperial period, see Claridge 2013, 1341-­‐2. 271
Lugli 1965, 276, and see 265 Fig.107 for location of the find spot. 272
Lugli 1965, 276; Quenemoen 2006, 234; Zink 2008, 47-­‐9, 51. 273
Carettoni 1967, 287. 274
Bauer 1969, 183, noting that several German scholars in the 1920s and 30s had already published photographs and recognised their Augustan style. A brief account in Heilmeyer 1970, 37-­‐9, 41, 138. 99 elevation of both main fragments and combined their evidence in a hypothetical reconstruction of the elevation of a complete capital in the round (Fig. 3.18).275 Adding the height of the lower three-­‐quarter fragment (87cm.) to the height of the upper semi-­‐capital fragment (77cm.), Bauer estimates that the total height of the capital was 163.6 – 164.3cm., and estimates the lower diameter of the kalathos at 126-­‐128cm.276 A plain flower stem bears the remains of a leaf emerging from a horizontal ledge. There are also the remains of adjacent volutes, and between each set of volutes is a rosette decorated with four petals and a circular centre beneath a curved stem, which is an Augustan detail.277 The two fragments of a doorframe in Luna marble found by Carettoni in 1966 (Figs.3.5-­‐3.6) join each other, measuring 3.45m. in height, 1.06m. in width, and 1.20m. in depth.278 The cuttings and dowel holes for attachment suggest they come from the left hand side of the doorway. The sculpted tripod, with two griffins at its foot and acanthus decoration, would have faced outwards, but their positions when found are not recorded.279 To conclude thus far, the bulk of the podium, the column drum, the three-­‐quarter and half Corinthian capitals, and the doorjamb fragments, can be confidently associated with the Augustan phase of the Apollo Palatinus temple on the basis of their findspots, material and style. 275
Bauer 1968,183-­‐204. Bauer 1968, 200. 277
Bauer notes that the Arch at Aosta also features Corinthian capitals with this flower decoration, Bauer 1969; tafel 64: 3; the Arch at Rimini also features flowers between the volutes, although in this case they are more detailed with seven, rather than four, petals, and a coiled centre. For a discussion of this decorative detail, see Strong 1960, 121-­‐2. 278
Carettoni 1966/7, 71. 279
Carettoni 1966/67, 74, Figs.10-­‐11. 276
100 3.4 Later re-use of the podium
There is evidence that the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple was re-­‐
used in a later construction. In 1864 Rosa discovered blocks of partly worked red, Aswan granite on the site and connected them with the temple of Jupiter Victor as he saw it, but he did not consider their function (Fig. 3.19).280 Carettoni also discovered numerous blocks of the same material in his excavation trench in the southern part of the podium.281 Their find spot and quantity support the notion that the blocks derived from a structure on the site.282 Because Aswan granite is generally associated with much later building activity in Rome, these granite blocks should be considered in relation to a later phase of, and alongside of other evidence for late modifications to, the temple of Apollo Palatinus.283 In 1913, Pinza noted that the northeast end of one of the lateral, higher-­‐level foundations in the podium was covered with a 70cm. thick layer of concrete with inclusions of marble fragments and suggested that it represented a substantial modification of the superstructure in a late period (Fig. 3.20).284 Zink has since observed that these concrete areas included a fragment of a white marble fluted column drum, and interprets them as ‘spot foundations’ for brick-­‐faced 280
Tomei 1999, 169, and 170 Fig.106. ‘Nella stessa trincea sono stati raccolti numerosi blocchi squadrati di granito rosa di Aswan. Carettoni 1966/7, 71. 282
Quenemoen’s suggestion (2006, 234) that these blocks derived from the base of the cult statue is unlikely because the use of Aswan granite is not widely attested for the Augustan period. As a building material, it appears mainly in the late imperial period in Rome. It is more likely that the cult statue base in the Apollo Palatinus temple would be similar to that from the Castor and Pollux temple, which is an opus caementicium rectangle (c.11.7 x 3.35 m). of reddish concrete with travertine and cappellaccio tuff caementa located in the southern part of the cella, for which see Nilson et al 2009, 58-­‐9 Fig.3.3.1; or the statue base in the temple of Apollo in Circo, which may be identified with the hard packed opus camenticium rectangle in the northern part of the foundations, according to Viscogliosi 1996, 36-­‐7. 283
Aswan granite was used in a Late Antique construction phase in the Lateran baptistery, see Liverani 2012, 119-­‐32. 284
Pinza 1913, 218. 281
101 reinforcements in the cella corners.285 A small piece of brick-­‐faced concrete survives in situ at the eastern corner and has been dated by Evelyn Bukowiecki to the mid fourth century CE or later.286 Lugli had merely thought that these differing concrete areas were foundations for the interior colonnade of the Augustan temple,287 but Zink proposes that they are part of a restoration of the interior of the cella and its roof prior to the fire of 363 CE, a restoration otherwise unattested, in which part of the superstructure was removed and recycled in the new foundations.288 While the use of fragments of monumental architecture as caementa certainly is evident in the late third and early fourth centuries in Rome,289 a simpler interpretation of the evidence is that following the known destruction of the temple in the mid-­‐fourth century, the podium was re-­‐used as the foundation for a different building. There is good evidence that, despite Constantine’s move to Constantinople, the Palatine palace continued in use well into the sixth century CE. The Emperor of the Western Roman Empire still resided on the Palatine when in Rome, such as Honorius in 403 CE and Valentinian III in 439 CE, and the Late Antique floor in the Triclinium, and brick stamps elsewhere in the Domus Augustana attest to ongoing repair and rebuilding under Theodoric and Athalaric in the sixth century CE.290 The granite blocks discovered in the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple and the other traces of modifications in the fourth century or later certainly suggest that the appearance of the surviving 285
Zink 2012, 397, Fig.10. Zink 2012, 399, Fig.11. 287
Lugli 1965, 267-­‐8. 288
Zink 2012, 399 and fig.11. 289
For the re-­‐use of statuary in the Aurelian wall, see Coates-­‐Stephens 2001, 217-­‐38. 290
Brick stamps attesting to restoration work under Theodoric and Athalric: CIL XV.1665a, I, 1672. For a discussion of the evidence for these later construction phases in the imperial palace see Augenti 1996, 17-­‐45. 286
102 structure may be deceptive. 3.5 The elevation of the temple
All previous reconstructions of the Apollo Palatinus temple have produced a pseudo-­‐peripteral, hexastyle temple with a Corinthian order approximately 15m. high (more or less 50 RF) with minor variations regarding the intercolumniations and interaxial spacing of the frontal colonnades. Lugli’s groundplan has already been outlined; we can now trace the genesis of the current and largely accepted ground plan and elevation. In 1976 Pierre Gros provided a ground plan of the Apollo Palatinus temple in his Aurea Templa. Recherches sur l’Architecture Religieuse de Rome à l’Èpoque d’Auguste (Fig. 3.21), placing it next to the hexastyle plans of the temple of Apollo in Circo and Maison Carrée at Nîmes, and providing elevations of the latter two temples. The three plans are reproduced at the same scale in order to highlight similarities of the Augustan pseudoperipteral type.291 Gros relied on the preliminary results from Carettoni’s excavations and, unhappy with Lugli’s unconventional column spacing, proposed that the Corinthian colonnades of the temple could have featured Vitruvius’ systyle rhythm, whereby the diameters of two columns could be inserted between one column and the next.292 Although Gros discussed various aspects of the temple’s elevation, including its columnar order and entablature, he did not illustrate a reconstruction.293 291
Gros 1976, 119, 228, pl. XX. Vitr. De arch. 3.3.2; Gros 1976, 214. 293
Gros 1976, 221. 292
103 In 2005/6, Irene Iacopi and Giovanna Tedone directed a new survey of the archaeological remains associated with the Augustan complex on the southwestern Palatine, but simply placed Lugli’s ground plan of the temple overlaid on the remains of the podium (Fig. 3.22), therefore orienting the temple to the southwest, locating a hexastyle façade in line with the negative imprints, and aligning the cella wall with the horizontal trench that Carettoni had excavated, as Lugli had done before him. The plan of the temple therefore included a pronaos that was four columns deep, and an engaged side colonnade of seven columns. In 2008, Stephan Zink published a preliminary report on his new survey of the site and measurements of the various architectural fragments connected to the temple, and proposed a new reconstruction in 3D. He followed Lugli’s methodology closely, starting with the four voids as the footings of the temple, and, with similar recourse to the temple of Apollo in Circo, proposed a hexastyle pseudoperipteral plan that differed only in the spacing of the columns.294 Zink subsequently ‘confirmed’ this reconstruction in a paper of 2012, with further slight modifications in the spacing of the columns (Fig. 3.23). However, some aspects of Zink’s reconstruction are questionable. For example, in his 2012 reconstructed ground plan, the walls of the cella are all of varying thickness.295 It is not clear whether this was an illustrative error, or a deliberate design feature. While in theory a consistent thickness of walls would ensure that the weight of the roof is evenly distributed throughout the support structure of the temple, there is no practical benefit to the varying thickness of the cella walls. 294
Zink 2008, 52, and 58-­‐60. Zink 2012, 395, Fig.6. 295
104 Zink’s proposal that the temple featured three different intercolumniations is another problem. Zink proposes that the regular intercolumniation of the pronaos was 4.12 m. ± 2 cm., that the central intercolumniation of the pronaos was 4.28 m. ± 2 cm., and that the intercolumniation along the sides was 3.92 m. ± 2 cm.296 In Roman feet, these convert to 14.4 RF, 14 RF and 13.2 RF respectively. When converted into interaxial measurements, they equal 5.8 m. / 19.5 RF, 5.64 m. / 19 RF, and 5.44 m. / 18.4 RF. The amount of variation is problematic, however, because a consistent intercolumniation throughout a temple’s façade and colonnade is more usual. Normal design practice in the Augustan period, as explicitly indicated firstly by Vitruvius and then by actual examples [and as discussed in the introduction to this thesis, pages 27-­‐30], arranged columns according to intercolumniations, which constituted simple multiples of the lower diameter of the column shaft, but Zink’s reconstruction does not adhere to such a pattern. Moreover, it is more usual for principal dimensions to comprise integral numbers of Roman feet, whereas Zink provides measurements in metric units only, which, when converted into Roman feet, do not result in whole numbers or reasonably simple fractions. All of the proposed reconstructions outlined above agree on two known facts only: 1) the Augustan temple of Apollo Palatinus was constructed in the Corinthian order and 2) featured a pseudoperipteral layout. Close analysis of the available evidence, however, provides good grounds for challenging other accepted aspects of the reconstructions concerning the height of the order, the frontal distribution of columns, and the orientation of the temple. 296
Zink 2012, 392-­‐3. Zink corrects the measurements for the lateral colonnade from 419 ± 2 cm. to 392 ± 2 cm. 105 3.6 Reconstructing a new temple of Apollo Palatinus
3.6.1 The height of the order of the Apollo Palatinus temple
A fifty RF order is usually proposed for the Apollo Palatinus temple on the basis of the estimated dimensions of the column drum found on the site of the podium and its presumed location in the column shaft. According to Zink, Lugli was the first to propose that the drum is currently positioned upside down on the podium, although in fact Lugli reported that it was still lying in cavo a.297 Lugli, as noted above, reconstructed its diameter to be 1.45m.298 and took it to represent the lower end of the shaft, though he did not explain his reasons. Zink has since clarified that the flute channels project significantly outwards (towards the top as presently mounted), which means that the drum can only be the lowest or highest drum in the body of a shaft. In his view, as in Lugli’s, the large diameter of the drum indicates the latter (and that the drum as presently mounted is upside down).299 From this standpoint Zink restored the lower diameter of the drum (about 30 cm. above the foot) as c.1.52 m. ± 2 cm and the upper diameter as c. 1.48 m. ± 1 cm. and his plot of the curve produced a maximum diameter of 1.53 ± 2 cm.300 When the lower diameter of the drum from the Apollo Palatinus temple is compared with the lower diameter of the columns from contemporary temples featuring fifty foot orders dedicated to Castor and Pollux (LD = 1.50 m.) and 297
Zink 2009 citing Lugli 1965, 276. Lugli1965, 276. 299
Lugli 1954, 43; Zink 2008, 51. 300
Zink 2008, 51. 298
106 Apollo in Circo (LD = 1.47 m.), it would appear that the Apollo Palatinus temple also featured an order 50 RF/14.8 m. tall.301 In two papers, the first delivered at ‘Reconstruction and the Historic City: Rome and Abroad’ at Ludwig-­‐Maximilians-­‐Universität in Munich (18.10.12) and the second at the British Academy (25.6.13), Amanda Claridge has proposed a new reconstruction for the temple of Apollo Palatinus, featuring a diastyle rhythm and a tetrastyle façade. Firstly, Claridge observes that that Zink’s published field drawing of the column drum features a horizontal line identified as ‘Überleifrinne’ (Fig. 3.24), or feed channel, running across the radius of the upper surface, to a central dowel hole. Claridge argues (for the reasons outlined below) that this means that the column drum is in fact correctly positioned; it comes from the top of a column shaft. In order to fully understand her point and its ramifications, the construction technique for a column comprising drums must be explained. There are a number of ways to secure column drums together to form a shaft, but from the Hellenistic period onwards it became normal practice, followed throughout the Roman world, to make a straight horizontal join, keyed in position by dowels, which could be of wood, but were more commonly of metal, usually iron, set in lead.302 Before the join is made, the upper end of the dowel is fixed into the underside of the drum to be added and a matching socket is prepared in the top of the drum, which is already in position. A channel is cut so that molten lead can be poured in from the outer edge of the join, to seal the lower end of the dowel in position once the join is closed. Gravity demands that the feed channel is cut into the lower component of the join, that is, the top of the drum below. The use 301
Lower column diameters sourced from Wilson Jones 2002, 224, Table 2. See Martin 1965, 291-­‐6; Ginouvès and Martin 1985 vol. 1, 114, plates 27 and 29; Adam 1999, 56-­‐7. I am grateful to Amanda Claridge for explaining thise process more fully to me. 302
107 of this technique is recognisable from the ends of column drums featuring circular or rectangular voids from which the metal has since been removed, and the position of the drum in the shaft can be deduced from the presence or absence of feed-­‐channels. Depending on the size of the drum, more than one dowel might be employed. The drums forming the columns of the temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus, for example, had two dowels, each with their own pour-­‐
channel (Fig. 3.25). Because the Apollo Palatinus drum features a feed channel on its upper face, it is in fact positioned the correct way up on the podium. The flaring of the flutes in the uppermost part of the drum precludes identification with an intermediary drum and confirms that it must be the upper column drum of the shaft, rather than the lowest as previously believed.303 Zink’s detailed measurements can therefore be reversed so that his estimated lower diameter of c.1.53 m. ± 2 cm. represents the diameter of the neck of the shaft. Claridge points out that this provides an upper diameter which is notably larger than the upper diameter of columns from a fifty foot order and is instead comparable with the upper diameters of the surviving sixty foot columns from the temple of Mars Ultor, measuring c. 1.53-­‐5 m.304 Therefore, Claridge proposed in her two talks that the diameter of the drum could indicate that the Apollo Palatinus temple also stood to an order of sixty Roman feet. 303
Lugli 1965 276-­‐7; Zink 2008, 51. The upper diameter from the temple of Mars Ultor is sourced from Wilson Jones 2000, 143, Fig.7.18. 304
108 Table 3. 2: Comparative measurements for columns deriving from fifty foot and sixty foot Corinthian orders in Rome (measurements sourced from Wilson Jones 2002: 224, Table 2). Temple H (RF) D (m.) UD (m.) Hcap (m.) Apollo in Circo 50 1.47 n/a 1.65 Castor 50 1.475 n/a 1.61 Mars Ultor 60 1.77 1.55 2.0 Table 3. 3: Proposed measurements for the Apollo Palatinus temple (metres). Reference H (RF) D (m.) UD (m.) Hcap (m.) Lugli 1965 50 1.48 1.45 n/a Bauer 1969 50 n/a n/a 1.63.6-­‐1.64.3 Zink 2008 50 c.1.52 ± 0.02 c. 1.48 ± 0.01 1.63.6-­‐1.64.3 Claridge 2012/13 60 1.776 1.55 2 109 However, the dimensions of the half-­‐capital as provided by Bauer may contradict Claridge’s initial hypothesis of the sixty-­‐foot order. As explained above, Bauer concluded that the height of the half capital was 1.63.6-­‐1.64.3m.305 There is some room to adjust his estimation, because he assumes that the construction technique for the three-­‐quarter fragment was identical to that of the half-­‐capital fragment. If, however, the height of the upper fragment of the half-­‐capital was, like the two-­‐piece capitals from the temple of Mars Ultor, approximately commensurate with the height of the lower half, then the total height of the capital may have been slightly larger, measuring c.1.74m.306 In normal Roman Corinthian, the height of the capital is often equal to the diameter of the flare at the bottom of the shaft.307 This 1:1 ratio is evident in the temple of Mars Ultor, whereby the height of the capital is 2m. and the diameter of the flare at the bottom of the shaft measures 2.01m., and the temple of Castor, whereby the height of the capital is 1.61 m. and the diameter of the flare above the bottom of the shaft measures 1.64 m.308 If these rules were already developed for the Apollo Palatinus temple, which was dedicated twenty-­‐six years prior to the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor and thirty-­‐four years prior to the re-­‐dedication of the temple of Castor, then the 1:1 ratio between the height of the capital and the diameter of the flare above the shaft could equally apply to the Apollo Palatinus temple as well. Given that the temple of Apollo was constructed much earlier than these two Corinthian temples, however, it is not automatic that this ratio is appropriate. Although the Olympieion in Athens, the first example of a temple 305
Bernard 2012, 3-­‐4. For the two halves of a Corinthian capital being of an approximately equal height, see Bernard 2012, 2-­‐3. 307
Wilson Jones 1989, 40-­‐1. 308
Wilson Jones 2000, 224, Table 2. 306
110 constructed in the Roman Corinthian order, built in the second century BCE in Athens and designed by the Roman architect Decimus Cossutius, featured capitals with a height of 1.955 m. while the diameter of its flare above the shaft is 2.04 m., which approximately accords with the 1:1 ratio, the late second/early first century Corinthian capitals from the Round temple by the Tiber featured a capital height of 1.25 m. while the diameter of the flare above the shaft is 1.05m., which does not accord with the 1:1 ratio. According to Wilson Jones, however, any deviation from the 1:1 relationship could be explained by the difficulties associated with raising columns.309 Given that there is at least one earlier example of the 1:1 relationship between the height of the capital and the diameter of the flare at the bottom of the shaft, it is not unlikely that the 1:1 ratio was also found in the proportional relationships in the columns from the temple of Apollo Palatinus. In this case, the diameter of the flare at the bottom of the shaft of the Apollo Palatinus temple would measure either c.1.63 m. or c.1.74 m. The first diameter (c.1.63m.) is commensurate with the lower diameter of the flare above the shaft of temples with fifty-­‐foot orders: the temple of Castor, the Pantheon portico and the temple of Hadrian.310 Therefore, the dimensions of the Apollo Palatinus half-­‐
capital may contradict Claridge’s initial hypothesis that the temple featured a sixty-­‐foot order; it may indeed have featured a 50RF order, as Lugli had already proposed. It is worth pointing out, however, that Bauer’s reconstruction of the half-­‐
capital, referenced earlier (Fig. 3.18) is unconvincing. The inner volutes are 309
Wilson Jones 1989, 40. Dimensions for the diameter of the lower flare of the shaft: temple of Castor: 1.64 m., Pantheon portico: 1.63 m., and the temple of Hadrian: 1.65 m. Dimensions sourced from Wilson Jones 2000, 224, Table 2. 310
111 disproportionately small and the caulices disproportionately wide, while the upper diameter of the kalathos appears to be narrower than its base. Overall, Bauer’s reconstruction supplies a squat-­‐looking capital. Bauer’s reconstruction of the capital post-­‐dated Lugli’s publication, in which Lugli had already proposed that the temple of Apollo Palatinus featured a fifty-­‐foot order. It is possible that, although Bauer acknowledged the capital fragment to be one of the largest of its kind in Rome, his study was shaped by a preconception regarding its height.311 It is at least clear that the capital as Bauer reconstructed it cannot fit the upper diameter of a 60 RF column shaft. A new study of both the semi-­‐capital and three-­‐
quarter capital fragments, and a new reconstruction of the capitals, would therefore be welcome. To sum up so far, Claridge’s hypothesis that the Apollo Palatinus temple featured a 60 RF order is yet to be proved definitively, and I will return to the height of the order of the temple in a later section. 3.6.2 The façade of the Apollo Palatinus temple
It is usually assumed that the temple of Apollo Palatinus featured a hexastyle façade. Lugli first proposed this on the basis of his interpretation of the four deep holes in the south-­‐western extent of the concrete core which he understood to be the negative imprints of the frontal columnar façade, an interpretation to which Zink has recently granted unequivocal support.312 These holes once measured c.10 m. in depth, although today they extend to c.7 m.313 Lugli, and most recently Zink, propose that they originally held ashlar blocks that 311
Lugli’s study is acknowledged in Bauer’s first footnote, Bauer 1969, 183. Acknowledging the colossal size of the fragment, see Bauer 1969, 184. 312
Lugli 1965, 275-­‐7; Zink 2008, 49, 52 Fig.5, 55, 56 Fig.10; Zink, 2008 and Zink, 2012. 313
Zink 2012, 389. 112 served as foundations for the columnar façade and therefore can only reflect a hexastyle pronaos.314 Upon closer examination, however, this interpretation is difficult to sustain. Vitruvius explains the necessary logic of temple foundations in De architectura: Fundationes eorum operum fodiantur, si queat inveniri, ab solido et in solidum, quantum ex amplitudine operis pro ratione videbitur, extruaturque structura totum solum quam solidissima. Supraque terram parietes extruantur sub columnas dimidio crassiores quam columnae sunt futurae, uti formiora sint inferiora superioribus; quae stereobates appellantur, nam excipiunt opera. Spirarumque proiecturae non procedant extra solium; item supra parietis ad eundem modum crassitudo servanda est. Intervalla autem concamaranda aut solidanda festucationibus, uti distineantur. Sin autem slidum non invenietur, sed locus erit congesticius ad imum aut paluster, tunc is locus fodiatur exinaniaturque et palis alneis aut oleagineis aut ribusteis istilatis configatur, sublicaque machinis adigatus quam creberrime, carbonibusque expleantur intervalla palorum, et tunc structuris solidissimis fundamenta impleantur. Extructis autem fundamentis ad libramentum stylobate sunt conlocandae. “The foundations of these works should be sunk down to solid ground and in solid ground, if it can be found, as much as seems reasonable for the size of the work, and the whole site should be built up with rubble work as solidly as possible. Above ground level, walls should be constructed beneath the columns, half again as thick as the columns are to be, so that the lower parts of the building will be more stable than the upper parts. For this reason these walls are also called “ground walkers”, stereobates, because they bear the weight of the building. The bases of the columns should not project beyond the solid part of the substructure. Above this level the thickness of the wall should be kept constant and these places in between should either be vaulted over or rammed with fill in order to stabilize them.” (Vitr. De arch. 3.4.1; trans. Rowland 2001.) Vitruvius’ prescription is substantiated by contemporary examples. Vitruvius describes a typical foundation of the Late Republican/early Imperial period whereby ashlar foundations took the load from the columns above, while concrete and/or vaulting was located between. The lateral foundations of the temple of Castor (rebuilt 6 CE) provide a good illustration of Vitruvius’ description 314
Zink 2012, 393. 113 as it comprises eleven courses of travertine ashlar blocks beneath the columns at a slightly greater width than the base of the columns, beneath which are eight courses of cappellaccio tuff blocks. Between the travertine piers are opus caementicium arched vaults, and between the cappellaccio blocks are solid fills of opus caementicium (Fig. 3.26). The foundations supporting the frontal colonnade of the temple dedicated to Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum are different, comprising a continuous ashlar stylobate (Fig. 3.27).315 The purpose of both foundation types outlined above is to provide as static and solid a unit as possible. As already explained, Vitruvius’ rule is founded on the necessity that the weight of the roof must be evenly distributed throughout the support structure so that extra weight is not placed on an individual area which could cause it to fracture. Lugli and Zink’s interpretation of the holes in the frontal façade of the Apollo Palatinus podium, however, suggest that the two columns on either side of the pronaos shared a foundation while the two central columns were raised on isolated foundation piers. This reconstruction is unlikely on the grounds that it provides a pattern of unequal distribution that is otherwise unattested. In a footnote, Zink suggests that comparative evidence is found in the temple of Apollo in Circo and the Augustan Pantheon.316 In fact, only the lateral foundations of the temple of Apollo in Circo comprise single travertine blocks beneath the columns, between which is opus caementicium with tuff caementa, the front columns rose on a continuous stone stylobate, combining travertine and tuff. And while the foundations for the earliest phase of the Pantheon are contested, there 315
Ganzert 1996, 84-­‐6, taf. 15:1. Zink 2008, 49: ‘ Following usual practice of the period (seen in Apollo Sosianus and the Augustan Pantheon, the foundations featured ashlar blocks only in limited zones and opus caementicium for the rest.’ 316
114 is no evidence that is comparable to what Zink is proposing.317 Therefore, there are no comparative examples of temple foundations where the front columns are set on spot foundations and also share foundations, which renders both Lugli’s and Zink’s interpretation of them as unlikely. A simpler explanation may be offered for the existence of the negative imprints in the southwestern part of the Apollo Palatinus podium. The foundations and the podium of the temple incorporated the remains of a Republican building with standing walls of travertine and tuff, and it is possible that the travertine blocks within the four holes also related to the older structure rather than to the Augustan temple. The stonework was kept in situ as part of the temple foundations but then, with all of the other valuable stone on the site, the stone from these four holes was robbed leaving only the two holes and two rectangular cavities. The existence of the four holes in the southwestern part of the temple podium, therefore, cannot sustain the notion that the Apollo Palatinus temple featured a hexastyle façade. 3.6.3 The columnar rhythm and façade of the temple
The Apollo Palatinus temple has thus far been reconstructed with a variety of columnar rhythms. As already mentioned above, Lugli proposes that the temple featured a rhythm in between pycnostyle (intercolumniation of 1½ D) and eustyle (intercolumniation 2¼ D), Gros proposes the systyle rhythm (intercolumniation 2 D), and Zink three different rhythms, none of which accord 317
For the foundations of the temple of Apollo in Circo see Bianchini 2010, 527-­‐35 and 548, Fig.12; In Zink 2012, 389 n.1 we are referred to the survey of the foundations of the present Pantheon porch, published by Beltrami in 1898, 46, Fig.XIV but this demonstrates that they are formed of a pre-­‐existing building, originally standing above ground level, not a foundation, nor even Augustan. 115 to a Vitruvian type. All of these scholars propose that the temple featured a hexastyle façade. The following section will explain that none of the already proposed intercolumniations are likely, and that the temple of Apollo Palatinus temple probably featured a tetrastyle façade with a diastyle rhythm. Vitruvius defines the diastyle rhythm in book three of De architectura in reference to an Apollinis et Dianae aedis: Diastyli autem haec erit compositio, cum trium columnarum crassitudinem intercolumnio interponere possumus, tamquam est Apollinis et Dianae aedis. haec dispositio hanc habet difficultatem, quod epistylia propter intervallorum magnitudinem franguntur. ‘The diastyle temple is composed so that we may put the breadth of three columns in the intercolumnar space, just as occurs in the temple of Apollo and Diana. This design has the following difficulty: because of the wide intercolumnar space the epistyle has a tendency to break.’ (Vitr. De arch. 3.3.4; trans. Rowland 1999, 49.)318 Vitruvius uses the present tense to define the diastyle rhythm of the temple of Apollo and Diana and therefore referred to a temple that, at the time of his writing, was extant in the form as described. In 1929, Platner-­‐Ashby assumed that Vitruvius’ reference to the temple of Apollo and Diana in the passage quoted above was a reference to the Apollo Palatinus temple.319 However most scholars have subsequently attributed the reference to a Republican phase of the temple of Apollo in Circo.320 This attribution is made on the grounds that, during his 318
Gros (1976, 74-­‐5) considers that this passage reveals some inexperience, because spans exceeding 6m. were evident in Greek architecture, and were supported by timber architraves. The Tuscan type remained popular in Rome until the late Republic, and large spans were evidently possible. 319
Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 17; Kellum 1985, 169; Favro 1996, 148. 320
Lugli 1965, 277-­‐8, n.26; Gros 2006, 410: ‘’la description de la colonnade du temple dit d’Apollon et de Diane, qui s’applique sans doute à l’aedes Apollinis du circus Flaminius avant sa réfection augustéenne.’ Rowland 1999, 4; LTUR I, 50 s.v. ‘Apollo, Aedes in Circo’ [Viscogliosi]; Viscogliosi 1996, 25-­‐6. 116 excavation of the site, Colini discerned an earlier temple, and also because the temple of Apollo Palatinus was known to be constructed of solid marble and the intercolumniation required for the diastyle rhythm would be difficult to support in this material.321 It is therefore widely understood that Vitruvius defined the diastyle rhythm in reference to the Republican temple of Apollo in Circo.322 Moreover, because Lugli had identified the so-­‐called negative imprints of the columnar façade on the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple, which suggested a rhythm halfway between the proportions for the eustyle and systyle rhythms, and therefore not the diastyle rhythm, it was believed that Vitruvius’ reference could not apply to the Apollo Palatinus temple.323 The chronology for the restoration of the temple of Apollo in Circo is not straightforward. Because the architrave of the temple of Apollo in Circo features a crowning of cavetto and ovolo, Strong suspects that the architect for the rebuilding came from Asia, and, identifying similarities with the decoration on the Arch of Rimini, dedicated in 27 BCE, proposes that the temple and the Arch were the products of the same architect and contractors.324 Heilmeyer, observing that the decorative style of the capitals finds close parallels with capitals produced in Asia Minor and particularly Pisidian Antioch, proposes that they were the product 321
For the earlier tetrastyle phase of the temple of Apollo in Circo see Viscogliosi ‘Apollo, Aedes in Circo’ LTUR I, 52 and 373 Fig.31; Viscogliosi 1996, 23-­‐4, plates 1-­‐3. For the difficulty in supporting the intercolumniation in marble see Viscogliosi (1996, 26) who immediately dismissed this possibility on the grounds that it would give rise to technical difficulties. 322
Exceptions: Stamper (2005, 16, n. 84 and Fig.88) states that the intercolumniation of the Apollo Palatinus temple was diastyle, although without offering an explanation, and confusingly his ground plan of the temple appears to feature a hexastyle façade with the systyle rhythm. See also Claridge 2010, 132, who considers the diastyle rhythm a possibility. 323
Gros 1976, 198, 214; Gros 1993, 56; Haselberger 2003, 159; Viscogliosi 1993, 49-­‐54; Rowland 2001, 4; Wallace-­‐Hadrill 2009, 152. For the plan of this phase see Viscogliosi 1996, 15-­‐33, pl. 1-­‐3. 324
Strong 1953, 130 n.33; Strong 1963, 80-­‐81. 117 of a workshop from Asia Minor in Rome.325 Both Strong and Heilmeyer recommend a completion date for the temple of Apollo in Circo of c.20 BCE.326 Gros, however, dates the remains of the temple of Apollo in Circo to an earlier intervention, identifying the capitals to be carved in the so-­‐called second Triumviral style, and the entablature the product of a slightly later stylistic tradition, and therefore dates the completion of the temple’s restoration to 30-­‐25 BCE.327 Complicating matters further are the literary references to this temple. In the early Flavian period, Pliny the Elder gave this temple of Apollo in Circo the epithet ‘Sosianus’, listing some of the valuable statuary within the delubro Apollo Sosianus and templo Apollo Sosiani.328 This is the same temple as the temple of Apollo in Circo because the first century CE historian Asconius confirms that there were only two temples dedicated to Apollo in Rome, and that the second was the Apollo Palatinus temple.329 The epithet Sosianus has long been understood to refer to Caius Sosius, who is likely to have been involved in the Augustan-­‐era restoration of the temple of Apollo in Circo.330 Sosius’ role in late triumviral politics has led scholars who have examined the building against the backdrop of triumviral politics to conclude with a different phasing to that proposed by Strong 325
Heilmeyer 1970, 45-­‐46. For the connection with Pisidian Antioch, see Heilmeyer 1970, 46-­‐7, and 82-­‐3. 326
Strong 1963, 81; Heilmeyer 1970, 113. 327
Gros 1976, 211-­‐27. 328
Plin. HN 13.53, 36.28, 36. 34-­‐6. 329
Ascon. in toga candida 90 C: ne tamen erretis, quod his temporibus aedes Apollinis in Palatio fuit nobilissima, admonendi estis non hanc a Cicerone significari, utpote quam post mortem etiam Ciceronis multis annis Imp. Caesar, quem nunc divum Augustum dicimus, post Actiacam victoriam fecerit; sed illam demonstrari quae est extra portam Carmentalem inter forum holitorium et circum Flaminium. ea enim sola tum quidem Romae Apollinis aedes. ‘Just so you don’t go astray because in our times the best known temple of Apollo has been the one on the Palatine, you must be warned that that is not the one Cicero refers to, since it was built many years after Cicero’s death by Imperator Caesar, whom we now call Divus Augustus, after his victory at Actium. The one indicated [by Cicero] is the one outside the Porta Carmentalis between the Forum Holitorium and the Circus Flaminius. At that time that was the only temple of Apollo in Rome.’ (Trans. Wiseman 2014, 327-­‐8). 330
For instance, see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 15, which supplies some earlier bibliography. Shipley 1931, 10, 26-­‐8. 118 and Heilmeyer. Sosius, although initially a supporter of Julius Caesar, later sided with Octavian’s opponent Mark Antony, who awarded Sosius governorship of Syria and Cilicia in 38 BCE, and Sosius had a victory in Judaea in 37 BCE, for which he was awarded a triumph in Rome in 34 BCE.331 Following Octavian’s victory at Actium, however, Octavian pardoned Sosius and later allowed him to serve on the board of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis and preside over the ludi saeculares in 17 BCE.332 Interpretation of the architectural decoration of the temple, particularly the pedimental sculpture and the interior frieze of the cella, can be divided into two groups. Scholars who propose that Sosius financed the restoration of the temple ex manibiis after his triumph in 34 BCE but prior to the battle of Actium and as a challenge to Octavian’s construction of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine represent the first group.333 The second, more populous and recent, group proposes that a repentant Sosius restored the temple of Apollo in Circo after Actium on Octavian’s instructions and with his involvement and/or supervision.334 The second option is likelier because a gens was responsible for 331
For Caius Sosius as a devoted follower of Mark Antony, see Dio Cass. 49.41.4. For Sosius’ command in Syria and Cilicia, see Dio Cass. 49.22-­‐23.3. 332
Dio Cass. 51.2.4. Augustus’ forgiveness of Sosius was apparently often singled out as a striking example of Augustus’ clemency, for instance, Dio Cass. 56.1-­‐2. Velleius Paterculus explains that Sosius was forgiven because of an interception by L. Arruntius and Octavian’s clementia. Vell. Pat. 2.86.2. For Sosius as a member of the XViri sacris faciundis see CIL VI. 3243, lines 150-­‐52. 333
Shipley (1931, 10, 26) assumes that Sosius built the temple following his victory in 34 BCE. 334
Zanker (1988, 69) proposes that the extraordinary lavishness of Sosius’ rebuild was ‘a special way of expressing his loyalty to Apollo and the god’s protégé.’ La Rocca’s close study of the architectural decoration of the temple, and particularly the amazzonomachia which decorated the temple’s pediment, led him to propose that the decorative schema provided a metaphor for the battle of Actium, with the Greeks versus the Amazons reflecting the battle between Rome and Egypt, and, specifically, Octavian and Cleopatra. La Rocca identifies the prisoners in trousers with apparently Celtic hairstyles in the interior frieze as northern barbarians and suggests that the frieze commemorated Augustus’ triple triumph rather than Sosius’ Judaean triumph, therefore proposing that the restoration of Apollo in Circo was completed under Augustus’ supervision after 29 BCE. See La Rocca 1985 and 1988. In contrast, Gros (1976, 161-­‐6) argues that Sosius was responsible only for dedicating a cedar wood cult statue in the temple. La Rocca (1985, 84) objects to Gros’ argument, rightly pointing out that it is unlikely for an individual who dedicated the cult statue to not dedicate the temple as well. Alessandro Viscogliosi proposed a more complicated phasing for Sosius’ restoration of the temple. Viscogliosi (1996, 121-­‐4, 169-­‐71, and Fig.191) assumes that after his victory at Judaea in 37 BCE, Sosius successfully applied for the contract to 119 the upkeep of buildings constructed at the initiative of one of its members. In the case of temples, this responsibility was linked to a vow and could not be easily transferred to another individual. The consul Gn. Julius originally vowed the temple (Livy 4.29.7), a distant ancestor of Julius Caesar, and therefore Caesar may have inherited its restoration, the responsibility for which was then passed on to Octavian. The date of the new dies natalis for the rebuilt temple occurred on 23 September, the birthday of the princeps, which strongly supports Octavian’s involvement, but does not explain the accepted nomenclature for the temple as templo Apollo Sosiano. What is clear, however, is that there is no evidence to indicate that the temple of Apollo in Circo, originally dedicated to Apollo Medicus in response to a plague, was ever connected with the cult of Diana, whereas there is significant evidence for the importance of Diana within the cult and temple of Apollo Palatinus. Vitruvius specifically refers to the diastyle temple of Apollo with the double epithet Apollinis et Dianae aedis, and this can only be the temple of Apollo on the Palatine.335 restore the temple of Apollo in Circo and had substantially commenced the construction of both the exterior and interior of the temple, constituting ‘una fase secondotriumvirale.’ On the basis of the differences between the dimensions and styles of the capitals decorating the interior pilaster orders to those of the interior free standing colonnade, Viscogliosi (1996, 124-­‐5, 186) proposes that there was an intermission in the building process which was caused by Actium. Octavian, as the victor, took ownership of the restoration and made his mark on the interior of the cella with a double colonnade featuring column shafts of African marble, figured capitals and the frieze between the two levels, the subject of which celebrated his own triumphs, an intervention dated to 25 BCE. Hölscher 1985, published in English translation in 2009, suggests that Caesar’s initial preparation for the site of the adjacent theatre of Marcellus cut into the temple’s foundations to the extent that a new building was required. Following Caesar’s death, Octavian inherited responsibility for the continuation of the restoration of the temple of Apollo in Circo. After Actium, however, Octavian embarked on ‘a shrewd, calculated policy’ in which he persuaded members of the Roman elite, and particularly former supporters of Mark Antony, to contribute to the architectural renewal of the city. Sosius was persuaded to assume responsibility for the temple of Apollo in Circo, thus purchasing the rights to complete the temple and dedicate it, and commissioned an interior decorative frieze celebrating Octavian’s victories in the Balkans between 35-­‐33 BCE. 335
Wiseman 2012. Wiseman points out that in Virgil, Aeneid 6.69-­‐74, the Sibyl promises Aeneas a temple dedicated to Apollo and Trivia, here meaning Diana, and that Horace dedicates the Carmen Saeculare to both Apollo and Diana. 120 The diastyle rhythm provided one of the largest intercolumniations possible, and there are two reasons why it may have been appropriate for the temple of Apollo Palatinus. Firstly, Wiseman points out that the large intercolumniation of the diastyle rhythm provided ideal spaces for the display of the spoils of war, with which the temple of Apollo, later known also as Apollo Actiacus in reference to Octavian’s victories in 31 BCE, was decorated.336 The second reason for a wider intercolumniation is that, as we shall see in a later section of this chapter, the layout of the Apollo Palatinus temple may have been inspired by the widely spaced façade of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which featured the araeostyle layout, the largest intercolumniation possible.337 Claridge has already noted that when any of the estimates for a lower column diameter, listed in Table 3.1, are reconstructed in a diastyle rhythm across a podium with a width of about 23m., six columns would far exceed it.338 Five columns would be possible, although highly improbable, but while four are slightly too short (e.g. Zink’s 1.52 x 4 cols + 3 x 4.56 m. intercolumniations = 6.08 + 13.68 = 19.76), they are close enough to the inner dimensions of the podium as preserved in the surviving concrete of its core (19.2 x 41.6m.) to suggest that 336
Wiseman 2013. See Virg. Aen. 8.714-­‐22: at Caesarm triplici invectus Romana triumpho/ moenia, dis Italis votum immortae sacrabat,/ maxima ter centum totam delubra per urbem./ Laetitia ludisque viae plausque fremebant;/ omnibus in templis matrum chorus, omnibus arae;/ ante aras terram caesi stravere iuvenci./ ipse, sedens niveo candentis limine Phoebi,/ dona recognoscit populorum aptatque superbis/ postibus ‘But Caesar, entering the walls of Rome in triple triumph, was dedicating to Italy’s gods his immortal votive gift -­‐ three hundred mighty fanes throughout the city. The streets rang with gladness and games and shouting; in all the temples was a band of matrons, in all were altars, and before the altars slain steers strewed the ground. Himself, seated at the snowy threshold of shining Phoebus, reviews the gifts of nations and hangs them on the proud portals.’ (Loeb, trans. H. Rushton Fairclough). 337
Favro (1996, 147-­‐8) had already raised this possibility: ‘Significantly, the princeps chose a diastyle arrangement with widely spaced columns for his new Temple to Apollo on the Palatine. Roman observers immediately read this rather retardataire configuration as a sympathetic interpretation of early buildings in Italy such as the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the opposing Capitoline Hill.’ See also Favro 1996, 204, where she proposes that the temple of Apollo’s ‘broadly space columns indicate an early Italic temple format emulating, if not competing with, the Capitoline structure.’ 338
Claridge 2010, 132-­‐3. 121 tetrastyle is a distinct possibility. An inscription recording the Severan Ludi Saeculares refers to a tetrastylum augusti in the area Apollinis, and in light of the discussion above it is worth exploring whether this could refer to a tetrastyle temple of Apollo. A ‘tetrastylum Aug.’ located within the Area Apollinis appears in the epigraphic record of the Severan ludi saeculares, which were performed in 204 CE:339 Imp. Seve]rus et Antoninus Aug [g. cum ///] et pr. Pr. Et ceteris X [V vir ... ad aede]m Apollinis Pa[l]atini praete[xtati co]ronatique processerunt, ibique Severu [s A]ug. [apud a]ram ligneam tempor[alem... u tam in area Apollinis ante tetrastylum Aug. qui [ ... praeeunte] Antonino Aug. filio suo a [dsistent]ibus Geta Caes. Et pr. Pr. Et ceteris X [V vir.] ture et vino honorario rem divinam f [ecit; Se] verus Aug. [Apo] llini ac [D] ianae libis novenis po [pan. Novenis pthoib. Noven. sein sac] rificavit hac prec [a] tion [e quam le] git ipse: Apollo uti tibi in illis libris scriptum est cuiusq. Rei ergo quodq. Meliu[s siet “... those with bordered togas and the crowned-­‐ones made a procession to the temple of Palatine Apollo, and in that place Severus Augustus ... at the temporary wooden altar . . . . . . thus in the sacred-­‐space of Apollo in front of the tetrastylum Augustus – who . . . , while his son Antoninus Augustus was going in front of him, and while Geta Caesar and the praetorian prefect and the rest of the quindecemviri were attending upon him – carried out the divine proceedings with incense and cakes (.) ...”340 The inscription is fragmentary, with lacunae occurring at line endings and beginnings, although enough remains to indicate that the relevant section records a procession of the Emperor and the quindecemviri to the aedem Apollinis Palatini and performing rituals in the area Apollinis at a temporary wooden altar located in front of a ‘tetrastylum Aug’. Romanelli originally supplied a genitive ending to 339
CIL 6.32327.7, 23: in Palatio in aede Apollinis … in area aedis Apollinis. Romanelli 1931, 343, 353-­‐4: [ad aede]m Apollini Palatini … in area Apollinis ante tetrastylum Aug. 340
I am grateful to Atticus Cox for his kind assistance with this translation. 122 ‘tetrastylum Aug’, thus Augusti, a rendering that is found in another copy of the text, and consequently understood it to refer to tetrastylum.341 Others, however, supply ‘Aug (ustus)’ and understand him to be the subject of ‘f [ecit]’, in which case ‘Augustus’ should be identified with Septimius Severus who performs a ritual in the area Apollinis in front of an unspecified tetrastylum. Either way, the extract from the epigraphic record of the Severan Ludi Saeculares refers to the existence of a tetrastyle structure in the area Apollinis in the early third century CE. Yet precisely what is meant by tetrastylum is also unclear.342 At face value it just means ‘four columns’, so tetrastylum could apply to a square structure with a column at each corner, or four columns in a row, as in a columnar entrance, or on the façade of a temple.343 Romanelli proposes that it refers to a monumental gateway to the Palatine precinct,344 Castagnoli a tetrastyle aedicule enclosing a statue of Augustus,345 and Tomei the arch of Gaius Octavius.346 Vitruvius uses tetrastyle adjectivally for a temple whose frontal façade features four columns, and also for an atrium whose roof is supported on four columns.347 While it is also possible that the Severan acta for the Ludi Saeculares refer to a tetrastyle temple in the area Apollinis, it is not possible to confirm the identity of the tetrastylum augusti. 341
For example, CIL 6.33885 = ILS 7214. Romanelli 1931, 330-­‐1. Even this comparison is not straightforward though, as there is a gap between tetrastylum and Aug(usti). 342
In the context of an inscription concerning a ritual of the fratres arvales dated to 19 May 87 CE and found in the grove dedicated to Dea Dia just outside of Rome, a tetrastylum was a place where ritually slaughtered animals would be consumed, and in this context tetrastylum is thus reasonably translated as ‘dining room.’ CIL 6.2065: 15-­‐40. Trans. Beard, North and Price 1999, 88. Scheid 1990, 109, and alternative meanings 117-­‐29. 343
A good introduction to the meaning and some modern evidence is found in Corbier 1992: 907-­‐
9, although he is not overly convinced by any of the supplied interpretations and concludes that the tetrastylum augusti remains a mysterious edifice. 344
Romanelli 1931, 330-­‐1, and 343. 345
Castagnoli 1964, 188. 346
Tomei 2000a, 585-­‐6, and Plin. HN 36.36 for a description of the arch. 347
Vitruvius De arch. 3.3.7 (tetrastyle temples), De arch. 6.3.1 (tetrastyle courts) 123 To sum up so far, although Zink’s recent published reconstruction of the Apollo Palatinus temple proposes an elevation of a fifty foot hexastyle temple with a rhythm between the systyle and eustyle, in accordance with the other major reconstructions of the temple, it is possible that the temple of Apollo may instead have featured a tetrastyle sixty foot Corinthian order in the diastyle rhythm. I produced two elevations to illustrate this hypothesis and to compare a diastyle, tetrastyle fifty-­‐foot temple with a diastyle, tetrastyle sixty-­‐foot temple (Fig. 3.28), which I discuss again later in this chapter. In terms of elevation, a sixty-­‐
foot temple of Apollo is of course taller than a fifty-­‐foot temple of Apollo. The height of the order also affects the dimensions of the temple’s groundplan because the lower diameter will be a fraction of the total height of the order, and therefore a 60 foot order would also feature a thicker order and, consequently, a greater intercolumnal spacing and a proportionately wider and longer groundplan. When initially producing the elevations for a 60 RF Apollo Palatinus temple, the proportions of the columns were sourced from those of the 60 RF temple of Mars Ultor on the grounds that they were of roughly the same height and date. However, according to Vitruvius De arch. 3.3.11, the proportions for columns arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm, which applied to the temple of Mars Ultor, are necessarily different to the proportions of columns arranged in a wider spacing, such as the diastyle facade of the Apollo Palatinus temple. A closer examination of Vitruvius’ discussion of the proportions of columns and their relationship with intercolumniations suggests that the application of the columnar proportions from the temple of Mars Ultor to the temple of Apollo Palatinus must be 124 incorrect, and prompts revision of Amanda Claridge’s proposal regarding the 60 RF columnar façade of the diastyle Apollo Palatinus temple. 3.6.4 Resolving the height of the order of the Apollo Palatinus temple
Returning to a discussion that I initiated in the introduction [Chapter 1, pages 26-­‐32], in Book three of De architectura Vitruvius presents the five categories of columnar rhythms (pycnostyle, systyle, eustyle, diastyle, araeostyle) and explains how and why the proportional relationships of columns are dependent upon their spacing. In the passage (Vitr. De arch. 3.3.11) already quoted in the introduction [Chapter 1, page 28], Vitruvius explains that columns arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm (the narrowest intercolumniation possible) should feature slimmer shafts than columns arranged in the araeostyle rhythm (the widest intercolumniation possible). As already raised in the introduction, Vitruvius’ prescriptions for columns arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm, whereby the relationship between lower diameter and total height is 1:10, reflected actual practice in the Augustan period, and this is verified by recourse to Augustan temples in Rome which were arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm: Mars Ultor, Apollo in Circo and Castor, all of which featured the 1:10 ratio between lower diameter and total height.348 However, it is more difficult to determine whether the ratios that Vitruvius set out for the four other temple categories were equally reflected in contemporary practice because, of the Corinthian temples to survive in Rome since antiquity, column rhythms larger than the pycnostyle are comparatively poorly represented, although the columns from the systyle tholos at Tivoli and the systyle temple of 348
Wilson Jones 1989, 39. 125 Antoninus and Faustina also concord with Vitruvius’ columnar stipulations for the systyle rhythm.349 Such concordances suggest that we should take Vitruvius’ prescriptions for columnar arrangements and proportions seriously. For the diastyle rhythm, Vitruvius writes: item in diastylo dimetienda est isposit columnae in partes octo et dimidiam et unius partis columnae crassitudo conlocetur. ‘in diastyle temples, the height of the column should be divided into eight and a half units, of which one should be used for the diameter of the column.’ (Vitr. De arch. 3.3.10; trans. Tavenor 2009, 76.) As we have seen, the large upper diameter of the Apollo Palatinus temple (1.50-­‐
54m.), although initially appearing to correlate with the 60 RF order from the temple of Mars Ultor, may instead have derived from a thicker order of a smaller height in accordance with Vitruvius’ specifications. We have already seen that the likely reconstructed height of the upper half of the semi-­‐capital fragment is better suited to a 50 RF order, and it is therefore possible that the large upper diameter of the Apollo Palatinus column drum (1.50-­‐54m.) similarly belongs to an order of 50 RF, rather than 60 RF. If so, at 1:8:5, the lower diameter of columns from the Apollo Palatinus temple would measure 1.74m. /5.88 RF. Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.12) also provided a proportional rule establishing the ratio between the lower column diameter and the upper column diameter, which is determined by the total height of the column. For columns measuring between 40-­‐50 RF, the relationship between the lower diameter and upper diameter is 8:7. 349
Vitr. De arch. 3.10: in systylo altitudo dividatur in novem et dimidiam partem et ex eis una ad crassitudinem columnae detur. ‘in the systyle temple, the height should be divided into nine and a half units, and one should be given to the diameter of the column.’ (Trans. Rowland and Howe 1999). In the case of the temple at Tivoli, with a total column height is 7.10m. which, divided by 9.5 parts is equal to 0.75m., approximately equal to the diameter of 0.76m. Measurements sourced from Wilson Jones 2002, 224. 126 From the known upper diameter of 1.50-­‐1.54m., it may be established that the lower diameter should therefore equal 1.71-­‐1.76m., agreeing with the lower diameter of 1.74m. already proposed. Multiplied by 8.5, in accordance with Vitruvius’ stipulations, the total column height should be approximately 50 RF. However, it is difficult to ensure that these dimensions fit the height of the capital on the one hand (whose height is currently insoluble) and on the other ensuring that the columns fit on the outside of the podium. The lower diameter (1.71-­‐
1.76m.) that is produced following Vitruvian proportions for a 50 RF order is not suitable for the ground plan of the temple of Apollo published by Zink, because the plans for a diastyle temple generated from this lower diameter produce a cella wall that does not align with the horizontal trench that contained the ashlar foundations of the cella wall. However, a lower diameter of 1.85 m./6.25 RF fits the width and length of the podium, and results in intercolumniation distances of 5.50m./ 18.75 RF and interaxial distances of 7.40 m (25 RF). A lower diameter of 1.85m. /6.25 RF is one-­‐
eighth of 50 RF, however, rather than 1:8:5 as Vitruvius proposed. Although this ratio is otherwise unattested in examples of the Corinthian order in Rome (Wilson Jones has observed that in Rome the lower diameter of the shaft is usually either one-­‐tenth of the total height, or one-­‐eighth of the shaft350), there was usually an integral relationship between the lower diameter of the body of the shaft and either total column height or shaft height. The 8:1 ratio between the total height of the column and lower diameter may have been appropriate in the case of the Apollo Palatinus temple because it was being constructed at a time when the principles for orthodox Roman Corinthian may have still been in development. 350
Wilson Jones 2000, 151. 127 In sum, the Apollo Palatinus temple may have featured a 50 RF order, with a lower diameter here tentatively estimated to measure 1.85m. /6.25 RF, while we will continue to work with the upper diameter of c.1.60m., which Bauer had already proposed. As mentioned above, Zink’s analysis of the drum reconstructed its diameter (here identified as the upper diameter) to be 1.50-­‐54 m., providing a difference of 10-­‐6 cm., or around a third of a Roman foot to the upper diameter which is proposed in this chapter. Zink’s reconstruction was conducted from a fragmentary column drum and the margin of error allows for the possibility. Unfortunately there are no surviving examples of a Corinthian diastyle temple in Rome, which would verify whether or not Vitruvius’ stipulations were carried out in practice for the larger spacings as well as for the narrower. As discussed in the introduction, Wilson Jones observed that Vitruvius’ prescriptions for varying columnar proportions determined by intercolumnal spacing are not compatible with the widely attested 6:5 ratio between total column height and shaft height.351 This is because ‘changing the overall slenderness of the column while fixing the heights of its base and capital changes the ratio of the height of the shaft to that of the whole column, the converse of what actually happens.’352 Wilson Jones posits that Vitruvius did not mention the 6:5 rule either because it was not yet fully consolidated as a design rule at the time of writing, or because of a reactionary preference. According to Vitruvius (De arch. 3.5.1), the height of the base should be half the lower diameter (therefore c.0.925m.), which, added to the height of the capital as proposed by Bauer (1.63.6 – 1.64.3m.) equals 2.56m. /8.6 RF. This leaves 41.4 RF for the height of the shaft, which is close to Wilson Jones’ 6:5 rule, but not close enough to concord with it exactly. However, 351
Wilson Jones 1989, 38. Wilson Jones 1989, 60-­‐1. 352
128 the temples of Apollo Sosianus and Castor also deviate from the 6:5 rule (H: 50.09, h: 42.23; H: 49.86, h: 41.91) and Wilson Jones explains this by observing that 50 feet is not a multiple of 6 feet, so that the shaft height cannot be 5/6 the column height and simultaneously a whole number of feet.353 These two roughly contemporary examples that do not concord with the 6:5 rule indicate that the columnar proportions proposed for the Apollo Palatinus temple are not unlikely. To sum up so far, it is likely that the column order from the temple of Apollo, rather than featuring similar dimensions to the columns from the temple of Mars Ultor, may instead have derived from a thicker order of a smaller height, namely 50 RF. While this concords with Vitruvius’ belief that the slenderness of columns depends on the plan rhythm, it does not adhere to his specific proportional rules governing the relationship between total column height and lower and upper column diameters because they conclude with dimensions that are incompatible with the remains of the podium of the temple of Apollo Palatinus. 3.6.5 The orientation of the temple
The orientation of temples was dictated by the landscape in which they were situated, the proximity of other buildings, and augural and other sightlines. Given the amount of variables involved, it is unsurprising that there would appear to be no standard orientation for the positioning of temples in Rome.354 The temple of Castor and Pollux in the Roman Forum faces north-­‐east, the temple of Mars Ultor 353
Wilson Jones 1989, 38. Gros (1976, 147-­‐53) addressed the literary and archaeological for the orientation of temples in the Augustan period, and demonstrates that Augustan temples were located on a variety of orientations. Although it has traditionally been assumed that the majority of ancient Greek temples were located on an east-­‐west axis in order to face the rising sun (Dinsmoor 1939 being particularly influential), recent work by Efrosyni Boutsikas (Boutsikas 2009, 4-­‐16) demonstrates that Greek temples were in fact also located on a variety of axes, which were determined by local topography and traditions. 354
129 in the Augustan Forum faces south, and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus faces southeast, and the other temple plans outlined in Map 1 all testify to this variety in orientation as well. However, Gros observes that temples constructed in the late Republic reflect a general tendency towards orienting temples to the east to face the rising sun.355 According to Vitruvius, an east-­‐west orientation was preferred for temples, as long as the surrounding terrain allowed this. If not, temples should be oriented so that a considerable portion of the city walls, or a nearby river, is visible: Regiones autem, quas debent spectare aedes sacrae deorum inmortalium, sic erunt constituendae, uti, si nulla ratio inpedierit liberaque fuerit potestas, aedis signumque, quod erit in cella conlocatum, spectet ad vespertinam caeli regionem, uti, qui adierint ad aram immolantes aut sacrificia facientes, spectent ad partem caeli orientis et simulacrum, quod erit in aede, et ita vota suscipientes contueantur aedem et orientem caelum ipsaque simulacra videantur exaudientia contueri supplicantes et sacrificantes, quod aras omnes deorum necesse esse videatur ad orientem spectare. Sin autem loci natura interpellaverit, tunc convertendae sunt earum regionum constitutiones, uti quam plurima pars moenium e templis earum conspiciatur. ‘Now the regions that the sacred dwellings of immortal gods should be established so that, if there is no impediment and there is unrestricted power to choose, both the temple and the cult statue which is to be housed in the cella should face the western regions of the heavens, so that those who approach with offerings and sacrifices will look towards the image within the temple beneath the eastern part of the heavens; and thus when they are raising their prayers, they will view both the temple and the rising heaven, while the images themselves will seem to be rising as well, to view the supplicants and sacrificers because it seems necessary that all altars of the gods face east. But if the nature of the site prevents this arrangement, then the layout of the site should be adjusted so that as much as possible of the city walls can be observed from the temples of the gods.’ (Vitr. De arch. 4.5.1-­‐2; trans. Rowland 1999, 59.) 355
Gros 1976, 150. 130 In accordance with Vitruvius’ recommendations above, the south facing orientation of the temple of Apollo in Circo may be explained in relation to the proximity of the Tiber, because the temple of Apollo in Circo was presumably originally oriented towards it.356 However, it does not provide an explanation for the assumed southwest orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple, which is usually understood in regards to the proximity of the Circus Maximus. Zink has recently claimed that the orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple to the southwest is an incontrovertible truth.357 Rosa was the first to propose that the Apollo Palatinus temple featured a southwestern orientation, although at the time he thought it was the temple dedicated to Jupiter Victor. Rosa justified his construction of frontal stairs descending to the southwest by apparently observing traces of a frontal stair that connected a series of terraces from the podium of the temple to the Circus Maximus, which Carettoni later reiterated (although no evidence has survived to corroborate either statement).358 Rosa’s view was formed on the existence of a flight of stairs that he saw connecting the southwestern part of the podium to the Palatine slope, which he then overbuilt so that visitors could access the ruins. Rosa’s belief in the southwest orientation of this podium made sense because there are good reasons why a temple dedicated to Jupiter should face the Circus Maximus. The Jupiter Capitolinus temple, for instance, was oriented towards the Circus Maximus because its main festival, the ludi Romani, took place here.359 In 1913, following his correct 356
Bianchini 2010, 540 suggests that the temple retained the orientation of the preceding temple because of religious constraints. 357
Zink 2012, 389. 358
Tomei 1999, 141, 150-­‐3; Gallocchio and Pensabene refer to stairs connecting the apsidal buildings, conventionally understood as the ‘libraries’, to the ground level connected to the area to the south east of the podium. See Pensabene and Gallocchio 2011, 484. 359
Dionysius of Halicarnassus claims to describe the fifth century BCE procession from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple to the circus maximus in Rom. Ant. 7.72-­‐3; for a discussion of this passage, as 131 identification of the podium as belonging to the temple of Apollo Palatinus, however, Pinza argued that the temple must be oriented to the north-­‐east because a temple dedicated to a solar deity, and its cult statues, should face the rising sun.360 Pinza’s theory is substantiated by recourse to the Augustan phases of other temples dedicated to Apollo in Italy. The Augustan restoration of the temple dedicated to Apollo at Cumae changed the temple’s original north-­‐south orientation to an east-­‐west orientation (Fig. 3.29),361 Augustus’ rebuilding of the temple of Apollo at Actium preserved the pre-­‐existing eastern orientation of the temple, and the temple probably dedicated to Apollo at Peltuinum was also constructed on a north-­‐east orientation (Figs. 3.30-­‐31).362 Moreover, the above reinterpretation of the four voids in the southwestern part of the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple above means that the imperative to locate the pronaos of the Apollo Palatinus temple at the southwestern part of the podium no longer exists. The southwestern orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple is, therefore, not as self-­‐evident as Zink has stated. Amanda Claridge has made a persuasive case for the alternative orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple in LTUR volume V and her Oxford Archaeological Guide to Rome.363 Claridge argues that the north-­‐eastern half of the podium has barrel-­‐vaulted passages in its core, suitable for supporting the lighter weight of the pronaos, whereas the south-­‐western part of the podium is characterised by many more and larger voids, suggesting that it was largely composed of solid tuff preserving either a third century BCE or first century BCE interpretation, see Beard, North and Price (1998, 66-­‐7). 360
Pinza 1913, 221. 361
Gallo 1985-­‐6, 135, 151. 362
The temple at Peltuinum is understood to be dedicated to Apollo because of a table for votive offerings with an inscription APELLVNE, the Oscan equivalent of Apollo, which was discovered reused as a threshold in a nearby building. See Bianchi 2009, 136 and n.21. The proximity of a theatre reinforces this identification. 363
LTUR V, 225 s.v “Apollo Palatinus,” [Claridge, A]; Claridge 2010, 132-­‐3. 132 corresponding to a more weighty construction above i.e. the cella of the temple.364 In a recent article, Wiseman gathers a great deal of contemporary literary evidence that supports the northeastern orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple: Horace uses the epithet ‘Augur’ in Carm. 1.2.30-­‐32 to describe Apollo, and readers would have known that an Augur normally faces east; in Virgil’s Aeneid 8.627 Caesar’s location on the threshold of the Apollo Palatinus temple makes the best sense if Apollo and Caesar are facing the Palatine.365 In one of his Odes, Horace asks the Roman people what god the Romans should seek assistance from, praying for ‘augur Apollo’, and Wiseman argues that Horace’s readers would have known that an augur normally faced east when taking the auspices.366 Horace’s Carmen saeculare contains a reference to the quadriga on the apex of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine looking out over the whole city of Rome, which should therefore imply it faced northeast.367 The route taken by the book in Ovid’s Tristia up to the Palatine hill from the Forum implies that the temple faced in that direction.368 Wiseman also notes Josephus’ passages in his 364
Claridge 2010, 143. Virg. Aen. 8.714: ipse sedens niveo candentis limine Phoebi/ dona recognoscit populorum aptatque superbis/ positbu; incedunt victae longo ordine gentes./ ‘He himself, sitting in the snow-­‐
white threshold of Apollo’s gleaming temple, review the gifts of nations and affixes them to the shrine’s proud portals. A long line of conquered peoples processes by.’ (Miller 2009, 207). See Wiseman 2012, 372. 366
Hor. Carm. 1.2.25-­‐32: quem vocet divum populis ruentis/ imperi rebus? Prece qua fatigent/ virginus sanctae minus audientem/ carmina Vestam?/ Cui dabit partis scelus expiandi/ Iuppiter? Tandem venias precamur/ nube candentis umeros amictus,/ augur Apollo ‘which of the gods are the people to summon in order to restore the fortunes of the crashing state? With what entreaty can the holy virgins importune Vesta, who does not heed their chants? To whom will Jupiter give the task of expiating the crime? Come, finally, we beg you, prophetic [augur] Apollo, who clothe your gleaming shoulders in a cloud.’ (Trans. Miller 2009, 46-­‐8). See Wiseman 2012, 372-­‐3. 367
Hor. Carm. Saec. 9-­‐12: alme Sol, curru nitido diem qui/ promis et celas aliusque et idem/ nasceris, possis nihil urbe Roma/ uisere maius. ‘O nourishing Sun, who on your gleaming chariot bring forth the day and hide it, and are reborn another and the same, may you be able to behold nothing greater than the city of Rome.’ (trans. Putnam 2000, 86 and 91). See Wiseman 2012, 373. 368
Ovid Tris. 3.1.59-­‐60: inde tenore pari gradibus sublimia celsis/ ducor ad intonsi candida temple dei/ ‘from there I am led in the same direction to the shining temple of the unshorn god, lofty with 365
133 Jewish War and Antiquities relating to a deputation of Judeans meeting in the temple of Apollo in the presence of a crowd of eight thousand assembled in the area Apollinis.369 Wiseman points out that the sacred precinct of a temple should be located in front of it, but there is not enough space for a gathering of eight thousand in the area to the south-­‐west of the temple, whereas the open space to the north-­‐east of the temple provides the requisite area.370 Lastly, Wiseman cites an inscription from the villa of the Volusii Saturnini at Lucus Feroniae, which records the nine honorary statues voted to Lucius Volusius Saturninus by the Roman Senate at the request of the Emperor Nero in 56 CE and testifies to the existence of a sightline between the curia and the area Apollinis:371 consulares unam in ispos divi Iuli, alteram in Palatio intra tripylum, tertiam in aria Apolinis in conspectum c [ uriae] ‘Consular [statues]: one in the temple of Divus Julius, another on the Palatine within the tripylum, a third in the precinct of Apollo within sight of the curia’ steps leading on high.’ (Trans. Miller 2009, 217). Wiseman 2012, 375, and n.23. Claridge (2009, 132-­‐3) and Pinza (1910) draw the same inference from the passage. 369
Joseph. BJ 2.80-­‐1: Ἀρχελάῳ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης πάλιν ἄλλη συνίσταται δίκη πρὸς Ἰουδαίους, οἳ πρὸ τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἐπιτρέψαντος Οὐάρου πρέσβεις ἐξεληλύθεσαν περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους αὐτονομίας·∙ ἦσαν δὲ πεντήκοντα μὲν οἱ παρόντες, συμπαρίσταντο δὲ αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης Ἰουδαίων ὑπὲρ ὀκτακισχιλίους. ἀθροίσαντος δὲ Καίσαρος συνέδριον τῶν ἐν τέλει Ῥωμαίων καὶ τῶν φίλων ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὸ Παλάτιον Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερῷ, κτίσμα δ᾽ ἦν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ θαυμασίῳ πολυτελείᾳ κεκοσμημένον, μετὰ μὲν τῶν πρεσβευτῶν τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν πλῆθος ἔστη, ‘Fifty deputies appeared, but more than eight thousand of the Jews in Rome espoused their cause. Caesar assembled a council, composed of the Roman magistrates and his friends, in the temple of the Palatine Apollo, a building erected by himself with astonishingly rich ornamentation. The Jewish crowd took up a position with the deputies; opposite them was Archelaus with his friends.’ (Loeb, Trans. H. Thackeray). Also, Jos. AntJ. 17.300-­‐1: ἀφίκετο εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην πρεσβεία Ἰουδαίων Οὐάρου τὸν ἀπόστολον αὐτῶν τῷ ἔθνει ἐπικεχωρηκότος ὑπὲρ αἰτήσεως αὐτονομίας. καὶ ἦσαν οἱ μὲν πρέσβεις οἱ ἀποσταλέντες γνώμῃ τοῦ ἔθνους πεντήκοντα, συνίσταντο δὲ αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης Ἰουδαίων ὑπὲρ ὀκτακισχίλιοι. Καίσαρός τε συνέδριον φίλων τε τῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ Ῥωμαίων τῶν πρώτων συνάγοντος ἐν ἱερῷ Ἀπόλλωνος μεγάλοις τέλεσιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἱδρυμένῳ, οἱ μὲν πρέσβεις μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν αὐτόθι Ἰουδαίων ἀφικνοῦνται, Ἀρχέλαος δὲ μετὰ τῶν φίλων. ‘The number of envoys, who had ben sent with the consent of the nation, was fifty, and they were joined by more than eight thousand of the Jews in Rome. When Caesar had assembled a council of his own friends and the leading Romans in the temple of Apollo, which had been built by him at great expense, the envoys presented themselves together with the crowd of local Jews, as did Archelaus and his friends.’ (Loeb, Trans. L.H. Feldman). Wiseman 2012, 375-­‐6. 370
Wiseman 2012, 376. 371
For a translation of the text, and a discussion of the statue types and their locations mentioned, see Fejfer 2007, 439-­‐45; Wiseman 2012, 376. 134 (CIL VI 41075a; trans. Fejfer 2007, 439-­‐45.) Only a c survives in the original inscription but curia may be confidently supplied by comparison with a fragment of a replica of the inscription in the Lapidario Forense, which preserves curia in full.372 As Wiseman has stressed, the curia, with no further qualification should be the curia Julia, situated at the northeast corner of the forum, facing southwest. A final point to make in support of the north-­‐eastern orientation of the Apollo Palatinus temple is that if it faces the other way, the temple turns its back to the entrance of the Flavian palace, in front of which may have been the original site of Augustus’ vestibule. In conclusion, the weight of circumstantial evidence is firmly in favour of the Apollo Palatinus temple having a northeastern orientation. 3.7.1 Reconstructing the ground plan and elevation of the Apollo
Palatinus temple
Based on the arguments presented in this chapter up to this point, some reasoned hypotheses in respect to the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo Palatinus may be listed as follows: 1.
The remains of the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple, without their framing stonework measure 19.20 m. wide, and an uncertain length; with their surrounding stonework the outer dimensions could be possibly circa 80 RF in width (23.68 m.) and 160 RF in length (47.36 m.), in the 1:2 proportional relationship of length to width recommended by Vitruvius (De arch. 4.4.1) that is 372
Panciera 2002, 1075-­‐77. 135 also evident in the Augustan-­‐era temple of Roma and Augustus at Pola (Figs. 3.32-­‐ 33) and the Maison Carrée at Nîmes (Figs. 3.21, 3.41). 2.
The half-­‐capital and the three-­‐quarter capital indicate that the exterior of the temple featured an engaged colonnade and a pseudoperipteral layout. 3.
The columns were spaced in the diastyle rhythm, whereby the intercolumniation equals the space of three column diameters. 4.
With a possible lower diameter of 1.85m., the intercolumniation would measure 5.55m. / 1.6 RF. 5.
If the orientation of the temple faces northeast, a porch four columns deep (with the lower diameter and intercolumniation proposed above) aligns with the trench for the cella wall. 6.
The upper diameter of the columns in the pronaos was c. 1.50-­‐62 m. 3.7.2 Reconstructing the Apollo Palatinus temple
In light of the many challenges posed to previous reconstructions of the Apollo Palatinus temple offered above and the new solutions which have been offered, it is appropriate to attempt a new reconstruction of the elevation and plan of the temple. However, because the reconstruction proposed below is based on a combination of fragmentary evidence and its interpretation, the following options are not offered as definitive solutions for the ground plan and elevation of the Apollo Palatinus temple, but, rather, provide provisional hypotheses which I hope will be useful to generate further discussion and demonstrate that what is perceived to be the current orthodoxy regarding the 136 reconstruction of this temple leaves does in fact leave room for further enquiry. The reconstruction is illustrated in Figures 3.34 – 36. 3. 8 The ground plan
It is likely that the temple’s ground plan was pseudoperipteral because of the three-­‐quarter capital, discussed above. This plan type is, moreover, the most widely attested type in Rome, and is illustrated in Fig. 3.34).
3.8.1 The podium
The surviving concrete from the northeastern limit to the trench with the doorframe in it measures 19.20m. in width and 23m. in length (see Fig. 3.9), to which the outer stonework has to be added for the stereobates. Vitruvius (De arch. 3.4.1) recommends that stereobates should be one and a half times as thick as the columns they support. (c. 2.5-­‐3m.). The length and width of the podium in plan is illustrated in Fig. 3.34. 3.8.1 The pronaos
As in the case of the temples dedicated to Mars Ultor and Apollo in Circo, a deep pronaos is proposed for the temple of Apollo Palatinus, with four frontal and side columns. (As illustrated in plan in Fig. 3.34 and in elevation in Fig. 3.35). 3.8.2 The cella
The width and length of the cella for the Apollo Palatinus temple is difficult to establish with certainty from the available plans. When measured from the inner (south-­‐east) edge of the cella door trench in the plan provided by Zink 2012, the cella length could be at least 18.5 m., but his plan is truncated; from Iacopi’s 137 plan (Fig. 3.11) it could be as much as 24 m. However, the location of the foundation trench for the cella wall and the proposed north-­‐east facing orientation of the temple results in a square cella measuring 17.4m. x 17.4m. or 59 x 59RF. In this reconstruction, therefore, the plan of the cella features a length that is equal to its width, which was similar to the square layout of the cella in the temple of Mars Ultor.373 The robber trench dividing the temple’s concrete podium provides the approximate thickness for the front wall of the temple’s cella. At the thickest extent, 16 m. below the ground, where four courses of the stereobate in tuff are still in situ, it measures c.2.2m and at its thinnest extent at the top of the trench 1.85m.374 These measurements are sourced from robbed and damaged walls, however, and it is likely that the thickness of the cella wall was less. The temple of Mars Ultor probably featured a cella wall thickness of 1.2m. and the temple of Castor, as reconstructed by Sande et al 2009, featured cella walls with a thickness of c.0.8m.375 For the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo, a thicker cella wall width of 1.74 m. /5.9RF has been selected (and for all of the cella walls, not just the front wall of the temple’s cella) because this measures one tenth the length and width of the cella and constitutes a simple fraction of a larger measurement. However, this is not an absolute dimension but rather relates to a simple proportional relationship that relates to the other dimensions of the plan, and may be subject to revision. The plan of the cella as reconstructed here is illustrated in Fig. 3.34. 373
See Ganzert 1996 vol.2, pl.47. Measurements taken from Zink 2012, 3 fig.3. 375
Measured from Ganzert 1996, beilage 47 and Sande et al 2009 Pl. 12.2. 374
138 3.8.3 The frontal stairs of the temple
The nature of the frontal staircase of the Apollo Palatinus temple is unknown. Ovid refers to the sublimia celsis, ‘lofty, elevated stairs’ of the temple, which suggests that the staircase was tall, although the accuracy of his description cannot be determined. The frontal stair of the temple is often reconstructed similarly to the plans of Maison Carrée (seen already in Figs. 3.21, see also Fig. 3.41) and the temple of Pola, where the stairs extend in front of the podium and are flanked on either side by parallel plinths (Fig. 3.32 -­‐ 3.33).376 In this reconstruction a second variation is offered, based on the nature of the frontal staircase of the Augustan phase of the temple of Apollo at Pompeii (selected because the temple was rebuilt in a contemporary time period and was dedicated to the same deity), which features a freestanding frontal staircase, whereby the width of the steps extend only to the outside of the plinths of the two central columns (Figs. 3.37 – 3.38). These two staircase types are illustrated with two different colours (blue for wider staircase with parallel plinths and red for the freestanding staircase) and with hatched lines to emphasise that they are only possible options without direct supporting evidence. A difference between the two styles of staircases in elevation is that the narrow staircase will have allowed for more space in front of the temple on a restricted site, and will also have given the impression of greater height. Although there are no specific rules for the dimensions of stair risers and treads, Vitruvius stipulates that the frontal stairs of a Corinthian temple should be of an uneven number, and recommends that the height of the steps should be no 376
Quenenmoen 2006, 237 fig.7, 240 fig.9; Zink 2012, 395, fig.6. For the representation of the frontal staircase of the Apollo Palatinus temple without plinths, see Lugli ; Iacopi and Tedone 2005/6, tav. 8. 139 more than five-­‐sixths of a foot (0.25m.) and no less than three-­‐quarters of a foot (0.22m.), while the treads should be no less than one and a half feet in width (0.44m.), and no more than two feet in width (0.59 m.).377 Vitruvius’ stipulations for temple stairs are reflected in the remains of the temple of Mars Ultor, whose tread is c.0.48m. and its risers c.0.25m.378 In the reconstruction of the Apollo Palatinus temple, the proposed stair riser is 0.25m., and the proposed stair tread is 0.45 m. 3.9 Reconstructing the elevation of the Apollo Palatinus temple
3.9.1 The height of the podium
The height and appearance of the podium of the Apollo Palatinus temple is unknown.379 In general, the heights of temple podia in imperial Rome were very site specific because each podium (whose purpose was to elevate the temple superstructure and make it visible) had to take the surrounding topography and neighbouring buildings into consideration, factors that were always subject to variation. For example, the fifty foot temple of Castor and Pollux, located at a low ground level of c.13m.ASL in the southeast of the Roman Forum, was constructed on a podium which measured to a height of 7.4m./25 RF in height, whereas the larger sixty foot temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum was located within 377
Vitr. De arch. 3.4.4: gradus in fronte constituendi ita sunt uti sint semper inpares. namque cum dextro pede primus erit pondendus. crassitudines autem eorum graduum ita finiendas censeo ut neque crassiores dextante nec tenuiores dodrante sint conlocatae. sic enim durus non erit ascensus. retractiones autem graduum nec minus quam sesquipedales nec plus quam bipedales faciendae videntur. ‘The steps in the front should be constructed so that they are always an odd number. In this way, if one begins to mount the temple steps with the right foot, it is again the right foot that will step into the temple proper. I think that the height of the steps should be made so that they are no greater than five-­‐sixths of a foot and no less than three-­‐fourths; in this way, the ascent will not be difficult. The treads of the steps should be no less than one-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half feet wide and no more than two feet.’ (Trans. Rowland 1999, 51). 378
The tread of the Mars Ultor stairs is sourced from Ganzert 1996 Beilage 12/12 a, and the risers from Ganzert 1996 Beilage 13/13a. 379
For temple podia, Vitruvius (De arch. 3.4.5) advises only that their profiled mouldings should be appropriate to the stylobate of the colonnades they support. 140 its own precinct and at a higher ground level, and consequently required a smaller podium that reached a height of 4.5m./15 RF (Table 3.4). The temple of Apollo was located on the summit of the Palatine and within a clearly set out precinct and surrounded by a portico. With an order reaching to the likely height of 50 RF, the temple’s podium did not need to be excessively tall in order to be conspicuous. Ovid’s description of the temple’s stairs as gradibus celsis, however, indicates that it was located on a tall podium that could afford a tall staircase. Although this is a poetic reference and could accordingly be subject to poetic licence, Ovid did offer an eyewitness account. In the case of the Apollo Palatinus temple, Lugli measured the height of the podium of the Palatinus temple to 4.63-­‐4.73m., or approximately 16 RF.380 On its own, this is close to measuring a third of the height of the temple’s likely 50 RF order. This echoes the proportional relationship between the height of the podium and the order of the late Republican tholos at Tivoli, whose 8 RF tall podium is a third the height of its 24 RF order. 381 Zink, however, estimated a higher ground level (c. 47.65 m.asl), believing it to be represented by the patch of marble paving between the eastern flank of the temple and the western flank of the Domus Augustana (Fig. 3.39), and consequently reconstructed a smaller podium measuring c. 3.50 m.382 Claridge has recently given support to this higher ground level and proposed a podium height for the Apollo Palatinus temple of 4m., which takes into account c.0.50m. or stone capping to be added to the existing concrete.383 A podium height of 4m. /13.5 RF is offered in the illustrations of the elevations of the temple of Apollo 380
Lugli 1965, 33. For the dimensions for the tholos at Tivoli see Wilson Jones 2000, 104-­‐5 and fig. 5.28. 382
Zink 2012, fig. 7. 383
Claridge forthcoming, 2014. 381
141 Palatinus produced in this thesis, see Figs. 3.35 – 3.36. The profile of the moulding on the podium has been illustrated in reference to contemporary examples of temple podia in Rome, from the Augustan phase of Temple A in the Largo Argentina, and the Augustan phases of the middle and the southern temples in the Forum Holitorium (Fig. 3.40).384 3.9.2 The Column order
As above, the Apollo Palatinus temple may have featured a 50 foot Corinthian order, with a lower diameter of 1.85 m. / 6.25 RF and an upper diameter of 1.52 m. / 5.1 RF. The profile of the Corinthian capital, shaft and the base were sourced from Wilson Jones’ illustration of a Corinthian column of the imperial period, with the Corinthian ‘normal’ capital type and Attic base.385 3.9.3 The entablature and roof
There is no surviving evidence for the precise nature or height of the entablature and roof of the temple of Apollo Palatinus. Therefore, the form and dimensions of the entablature and roof in the illustrations have been proposed in reference to the well-­‐preserved entablature and roof of the Corinthian temple of Maison Carrée at Nîmes (Fig. 3.41), dedicated in the last quarter of the first century BCE,386 and only a single, provisional version has been rendered.387 384
Gros 1996 (vol.I), 134 fig. 145. Wilson Jones 2000, 221 Appendix B. 386
Amy and Gros 1979. 387
Zink 2008, 59-­‐60, identifies the architrave and cornice fragments of luna marble discovered on the site with the temple, although they are both probably too small to have derived from it. Zink proposes a frieze height of c.77cm, which he estimated by comparing the frieze from the temple of Apollo Sosianus with the frieze from the temple of Portunus and arriving at a median value, and an overall entablature height of c.267 cm. ± 8 cm., and a roof height of 5.2m., according to Zink 2012, 396 fig. 7, and a total height of c. 7.87 m. 385
142 The entablature of the temple of Maison Carrée at Nîmes was a quarter of the column height (7.5: 30 RF), a ratio that is elsewhere attested in the Roman Corinthian order, and the height of the entablature for the temple of Apollo Palatinus here proposed follows the same proportional relationship and therefore measures to 12.5 RF/ 3.7 m.388 In general, temples constructed in the imperial periods featured roof pitches between eighteen and twenty three degrees, for which see Table 3.4.389 A pitch of eighteen degrees was selected in this reconstruction, resulting in a roof height of 17.5 RF/ 5.18 m., and a total roof and entablature height of 30 RF / 8.88 m. However, because, as stated above, the nature of the roof for this temple is unknown, the illustration of the roof of the temple that is offered in this thesis (Figs. 3.35 – 3.36) is acknowledged to be entirely speculative. 388
Wilson Jones 1989, 48 and 66. Ulrich 2007, 124. 389
143 5 RF 1.5 m 11.7 RF 3.5 m 22° 6.7 RF 2 m 5 RF 1.5 m Roma and Augustus, Pola 27 RF 11.25 RF 3.33 m 18.75 RF 5.5 m 11.25 RF 3.33 m 30 RF Maison Carrée 7.5 RF 2.23 m 19° 15 RF 4.5 m 31 RF 9.25 m 60 RF Mars Ultor 18 RF 5.3 m 50 RF 12.7 RF 3.75 m 18° 25 RF 7.4 m 23° 34 RF 10 m 21.5 RF 6.35 m Castor and Pollux 12 RF 3.5 m Height of order Temple390 Entablature Height Roof height Roof pitch Entablature and Podium height roof height Table 3. 4: Augustan temples in Rome and their dimensions for the roof, entablature and podium 390
Measurements for the temple of Castor sourced from Sande et al 2009, 291 pl. 9; measurements for the temple of Mars Ultor sourced from LTUR II 1995, 289-­‐95, ‘Forum Augustum’ [V. Kockel] Fig. 121; measurements from the temple of Maison Carrée sourced from sourced from Wilson Jones 2002, 67 fig. 3.28; and measurements for the tetrastyle temple at Pola sourced from Letzner 2005, 47 fig. 70. 144 Table 3. 5: Measurements for the reconstructed dimensions of the Apollo Palatinus temple elevation RF M H 50 14.8 HCap 5.5 1.63 H shaft 41.4 12.25 H base 3.12 0.925 Width of base at bottom of plinth 8.5 2.52 H entablature 12.5 3.7 H roof 17.5 5.18 H roof and entablature 30 8.8 H podium 15.5 4 Stair riser 10” 0.25 Stair tread 1.5 0.45 Table 3. 6: Proposed measurements for the frontal colonnade of the Apollo Palatinus temple Column drum D Column drum UD Intercolumniation distance (diastyle) Interaxial distance M 1.85 1.60 5.55 7.4 RF 6.25 5.4 18.75 25 145 3.10 The Apollo Palatinus temple and its diastyle architraves
I have set all of my working out for a reconstruction of the temple of Apollo above and concluded with what I have already stated to be a working hypothesis which appears to work in plan. However, when it comes to the elevation, there are problems. The reconstruction proposed here results in an intercolumniation distance of 5.5 m. (1.85 m. x 3) and interaxial distances of 7.4m. (25 RF). One objection that can reasonably be raised to this proposition is that the clear span would be too great to be supported by marble. This is exactly what Vitruvius draws attention to in his reference to the diastyle rhythm. haec dispositio hanc habet difficultatem quod epistylia propter intervallorum magnitudinem franguntur. ‘This scheme presents the difficulty that the architraves fracture because of the breadth of the spans.’ (Vitr. De arch. 3.4; Trans. Schofield 2009, 76.) It is true that the distance is right at the limit of marble’s capacity for unsupported spans. Indeed, general expectation is that the greatest possible span is 5 m., rather than 5.5 m. But in reality the span is not 5.5 m. but the distance between the capitals, which should be equal to the width of the base.391 Therefore, while the span of the entablature block is to be 25 RF/ 7.4 m, the unsupported part will in fact measure less than this. In normal Roman Corinthian the diagonal width of the abacus relates to the height of the capital in a ratio of 2:1, which means that the width of the abacus in this reconstruction should be 3.26m., and accordingly 391
See Wilson Jones 1991, 90 fig.1. 146 the greatest unsupported span that this reconstruction entails is 14RF/ 4.14m., which is within the realm of possibility. Moreover, Amanda Claridge rightly points out that while the architrave of a diastyle temple of Apollo would require strong, faultless blocks of marble, the quarries of Luna marble at Carrara, the marble of which was noted for its compressive and tensile strength, could supply this.392 Therefore, despite the technical problems entailed in the diastyle rhythm of the solid marble Apollo Palatinus temple, the above section has demonstrated that it is possible. Supposing that, therefore, the diastyle spacing works, why was such a plan selected? Lothar Haselberger has proposed that the pycnostyle rhythm was a ‘Leitmotif’ of Augustan architecture.393 Actually, the poor survival rate of buildings with a column spacing larger than pycnostyle or systyle probably owes to the fact that narrower spacings have better longevity. However, Vitruvius cites only a single example of the diastyle rhythm in Rome, the Apollo temple, which does indicate that this particular spacing was unique.394 How then, should we interpret the wide intercolumniations and thick columns of the Apollo Palatinus temple, as proposed in this chapter? I have already discussed one possible interpretation above, in which Wiseman proposes that the wide intercolumniation of this temple provided a suitable exhibition space for the spoils of war. The following section proposes another 392
Claridge 2014, forthcoming. Haselberger 2003, 151-­‐97. Haselberger also acknowledges the existence of wider intercolumniations, citing the example of the wide intercolumniation of the temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine, but he considers this a throwback to much earlier design, rather than a feature of Augustan architecture in its own right. 394
Unlike temples in the araeostyle rhythm, of which Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.5) provides three examples: the temple dedicated to Ceres, located near the Circus Maximus, a temple dedicated to Hercules by Pompey, and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.2) provides two examples of the pycnostyle rhythm and only one of the systyle rhythm but in both cases specifically suggests that there were more. 393
147 possibility in which the design of the Apollo Palatinus temple deliberately replicated key architectural elements sourced from the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill. Both temples featured large and widely spaced columns, roofs decorated with quadriga, and contained three cult statues. The Jupiter Capitolinus temple was dedicated to a triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, and the temple of Apollo, although ostensibly dedicated just to Apollo, appears to have been configured as dedicated to a triad of Apollo, Diana and Latona as well, therefore supplying a Palatine triad. With both temples located on the summit of the two neighbouring hills, this architectural replication was surely apparent and recognisable. It may have indicated that Augustus’ new temple of Apollo was of an equal status as that of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Support of this hypothesis may be found in a consideration of the performance of Horace’s Carmen Saeculare in the Ludi Saeculares of 17 BCE. This was an extraordinary festival celebrating the rebirth of the city and marking its entrance into a golden age, a fitting conclusion to the civil wars during which the Augustan Principate had developed.395 The Ludi Saeculares were held from 31 May to 3 June, and included formal sacrifices, prayers, torch lit entertainments and banquets, while between 5 – 12 June additional festivities, such as chariot races, 395
Reportedly celebrated every 100 years, see Varro, Ling. 6.11, although in the Augustan period it was reckoned at 110 years in order to celebrate it in 17 BCE, for which see Censorinus 17.2. Augustus’ recorded its celebration in the ludi saeulares 22.2: pro conlegio XVvirorum magister conlegii college Marco Agrippa ludos saeculares Caio Furnio Caio Silano consulibus feci. ‘On behalf of the college of the Fifteen as master of the college with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague I provided centennial games in the consulship of Gaius Furnius and Gaius Silanus.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 84). Beard, North and Price 1998, 71-­‐2 discuss the evidence for the earliest performances of the ludi saeculares, and a thought provoking analysis of the Augustan version of the ludi saeculares, 201-­‐6. A marble pillar discovered on banks of the Tiber in 1895 provides much administrative information regarding the celebration and, most importantly, a detailed description of the festival and its rituals, recorded in CIL VI 32323, and a recent re-­‐edition is provided by Schnegg-­‐Köhler 2002. 148 theatrical performances and animal hunts, were held as well.396 The programme of events had been determined in consultation with the Sibylline oracles, previously stored in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple but transferred to the Apollo Palatinus temple in the 20s BCE.397 Although the transfer of the Sibylline oracles to the Palatine has been perceived to constitute an argument in favour of the ‘honored insignificance’ of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the ascendancy of the Apollo Palatinus temple,398 given the oracular aspect of Apollo it seems likelier that the transfer was more simply connected with the appropriateness of this temple as a repository. The ritual part of the proceedings concluded with a series of sacrifices that Augustus and Agrippa performed at the temple of Apollo Palatinus,399 following which the Carmen Saeculare was performed. Two choirs of twenty-­‐seven young men and twenty-­‐seven young women, all with both parents still living, sang the Carmen Saeculare on the Palatine in front of the temple of Apollo, and then, following a likely procession from the Palatine to the Capitoline 396
For record of the festivities performed from 31 May to 3 June, see CIL VI 32323 lines 147-­‐9; for record of the additional festivities performed between 5-­‐12 June, see CIL VI 32323 lines 155-­‐65. 397
For the importance of the Sibylline oracles see 4.62. 4-­‐6. For the transfer of the Sibylline books to the Apollo Palatinus temple, see Suet. Aug. 31.1. Although Suetonius indicates that the Sibylline oracles were transferred from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple to the Apollo Palatinus temple in 12 BCE, it is recognised that the transfer was surely earlier than this because of their central role in the ludi saeculares. Beard, North and Price (1998, 198) propose that it occurred between 23-­‐19 BCE. 398
Fears 1981, 63-­‐4. 399
CIL VI 32323, lines 139-­‐46: Ante diem III nonas Iunias in Palatio Apollini et Dianae sacrificium fecerunt imperator Caesar Augustus M. Agrippa libeis VIIII popanis VIIII pthoibus VIIII; precatique sunt ita: Apollo uti tibi in illis libris scriptum est, quarumque rerum ergo quodque melius seit populo Romano Quiritibus uti tibi VIIII popanis et VIIII libis et VIIII pthoibus sacrum fiat: te quaeso precorque; cetera uti supra. Apollo uti te popanis datis bona prece precatus sum eiusdem rei ergo macte heis libis libandis esto fito uolens propitious. Idem in pthoibus. Eisdem uerbis Dianam. ‘On 3 June, on the Palatine, Imperator Caesar Augustus and Marcus Agrippa performed a sacrifice to Apollo and Diana with nine pancakes, nine round-­‐cakes, and nine Greek-­‐style cakes, and they prayed as follows: “Apollo! As is written with regard to you in those books, accordingly so that anything and everything may be better for the Roman people, the Quirites, to you let there be a sacrifice with nine round-­‐cakes, nine pancakes, and nine Greek-­‐ style cakes: I ask and pray you: the rest as above.” “Apollo, as I have prayed to you with the gift of round-­‐cakes and with a fitting prayer, accordingly with this, be honoured with these cakes on offer, become willingly well-­‐
disposed.” The same for the Greek style cakes. With the same words, Diana.” (Trans. Cooley 2003, 275). 149 hill, sang it again in the area Capitolina.400 Some scholars have considered the Carmen Saeculare to reflect the newly elevated status of the cult of Apollo and the denigration of the cult of Jupiter in Rome.401 However, John Miller rightly tempers such viewpoints by proposing that the purpose of the text was to celebrate harmony, and suggests that its performance established a kind of ‘topographical equipoise’ between the Capitoline and Palatine.402 The 400
CIL VI 32323, lines 147-­‐52: Sacrificioque perfecto pueri XXVII quibus denuntiatum erat patrimi et matrimi et puellae totidem Carmen cecinerunt. Eodemque modo in Capitolio. Carmen composuit Q. Horatius Flaccus. ‘Once the sacrifice had been performed, 27 boys, with fathers and mothers living, to whom notice had been given, and the same number of girls sang the hymn; in the same way on the Capitol. Quintus Horatius Flaccus composed the hymn.’ (Trans. Cooley 2003, 275). The Acta for the Severan ludi saeculares, performed in 204 CE, records that the chorus paraded from the Palatine to the Capitoline. Pighi 1967, 166, lines 71-­‐6, Inde XVviri duxerunt] et tibi[cinum fidicinum cornic]inum aeneatorum et tubinic[u]m translatum, et togatorum [ ] a]sinariorum [ ]m et tiro[n]umque ludionum quadr[igarum binarum et bi]garum binarum item desultorum cu[rsor]umque faction[m singularum] [pompam] publicis et c[alatoribus ordinantibus, adstante et i]intercede[nte popul]o, per [Vi]am Sacram forumque Romanu[m], arcum Seve[ri et Antoni]ni Aug[[g. et Getae Caes.]] Pueros pue[llas]que [fre]equentes [qui aderant] [praesi]des praece[debant et publici pompan t]ralatumque tegebant. Impp. Sever[us] et Antoninus Aug[[g. et Geta Caes.]] cum pr. Pr. Sub[sequente]s pueros puellasque, sustinente [pom]pa in Capitolio, cum [ceteris XV] – [viris con]uenerunt in [area ante aedem Iu]is [O.]M., an[t]e cuius pronaum, ut in Palat[i]o, carm[e]n cone[x]is minibus [pue]ri puellaeque dix[erunt ch]orosque hab<u>erunt. Quos perfe[cto] sacrificio Augg. Hon[orauerunt] [pueris] n.VIIII lances arge[nteas dantes, ut] reliquis [c]um Troiam lusissent; item puell[i]s tri[a eu]la serica e praetext. ] sollemnem. Acce[ptis diuisi]sque omnibus, se receper [unt. I]nde Severus et Antoni[nus Augg. [[et Geta]. ‘From there, the quindecimviri led both the solemn procession of flautists, lyre players, horn players, trumpeters, and the procession of donkey drivers with the toga, young soldiers and actors, two chariots with four horses and two chariots with two horses, and in the same way of the horse riders and runners of each group, with the official heralds and public slaves maintaining the order, with the people being present and inbetween, through the Via Sacra and the Forum Romanum, the arch of Severus and Antoninus Augustus and Geta Caesar. The guardians went before the numerous boys and girls who were present and the public slaves protected the solemn procession. The emperors Severus and Antoninus Augustus and Geta Caesar with the praefectus praetorii, following the boys and girls, while the procession was held in the Capitoline, with other quindecimviri they assembled in the area before the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, before whose pronaos, while in the Palatine, the boys and girls told/said a poem with joint hands and they had dances with singing. After the sacrifice was done, the Augusti honoured them by giving the boys nine silver plates, so they could play the ‘game of Troy’ with the others. In the same way when the girls received and distributed three silk veils and the traditional toga praetexta, they withdrew.’ I am grateful to Giulia Brunetta for her assistance with this translation. 401
Feeney 1998, 34: “The eclipse of the old Capitoline deities by the Palatine gods of the princeps is most remarkable, and it is exposed more nakedly in ten minutes of singing than it had been in three days of ritual action.” Davis (2001, 111-­‐27) suggests that the performance of the text recorded in the Acta indicates a careful and deliberate attempt to balance ‘the old’ (the traditional Capitoline deities of Jupiter and Juno) with ‘the new’ (Apollo and Diana), but that the hymn itself was weighted towards Apollo and Diana, and wonders why Juno is not addressed at all, concluding that the text discards “the princeps’ attempt at harmony, excludes the old and magnifies the claims of the new regime.” 402
Miller 2009, 274. 150 performance of the poem, and the likely procession between the two hills, drew the eyes of all the citizens of the city from the Palatine to the Capitoline, and confirmed the importance of the Apollo Palatinus temple, just over ten years after its dedication, in the religious landscape of Rome, and indicated its status as equal to that of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. 151 3.11 Conclusion
In Republican Rome, Apollo was a minor and foreign deity who was located outside of the city walls and in the circus Flaminius. In Augustan Rome, however, with the construction of a new temple on the Palatine hill in close proximity to Augustus’ own residence, and with the restoration of the temple dedicated to Apollo in Circo, the status of Apollo was elevated to one of the major public cults in the city. At the same time, Apollo’s role in Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BCE and the implication of Apollo’s custodial relationship towards Octavian, which was symbolised by the close proximity between the house of Augustus and the temple of Apollo, attests to the personal relationship that Augustus cultivated with the deity. The dimensions and height of the temple, and its location near to the summit of the Palatine, means that it must have been one of the most conspicuous monuments on the hill. Since the 1960s, it has been the convention to reconstruct the Apollo Palatinus temple as hexastyle pseudoperipteral with a fifty-­‐foot Corinthian order of unusual spacing or even three different spacings, oriented southwest towards the circus maximus. As this chapter has shown, this reconstruction can be challenged on various grounds. This chapter has reviewed the evidence for the temple of Apollo, and has paid particular attention to the column drum and the upper part of the half-­‐capital. It has also positively assessed Amanda Claridge’s recent proposal that the temple should be reconstructed with a tetrastyle diastyle plan and face northeast. To sum up my conclusions in regards to the architectural fragments and Claridge’s hypothesis, it is at least equally feasible that the column spacing in the 152 temple was diastyle in rhythm, in which case the façade was tetrastyle rather than hexastyle. The size of the temple’s order, however, is not easy to determine. The one surviving drum matches the size of the neck of the 60 RF columns on the temple of Mars Ultor, but because of the wider spacing those of the temple of Apollo could have been shorter and thicker. It is therefore likely that the temple of Apollo instead featured a 50 RF order, as suggested by the heights of the fragments of capitals found on site. Claridge’s proposal regarding the northeastern orientation of the temple here is convincing. While such a conclusion can be supported by the fact that Apollo is a solar deity, which means that a temple dedicated to Apollo is better suited to face the rising sun, there is also good evidence that the temple faced inwards towards the Palatine palace. As explained above, this may be understood as an index of the relationship between Apollo and Augustus. Because of Apollo’s alleged role in the battle of Actium it is possible that Augustus conceived of his relationship towards him as salvific and custodial, and maintained this connection throughout the period. As we shall see, Augustus’ relationship with Jupiter also conceived of Jupiter as the protector of Augustus and the imperial family. However, the protective relationship between Augustus and Apollo was more personal, and directly linked the deity with the princeps. The new reconstruction of the Apollo Palatinus temple proposed in this chapter on the one hand adheres to previous reconstructions of the temple, notably in the rectangular plan and the 50 RF order. However, while previous reconstructions proposed that the Apollo Palatinus temple featured a rectangular cella, the reconstruction proposed in this chapter provides a square cella. Moreover, the new reconstruction furnishes the façade with considerably thicker 153 columns in a wider spacing than is usually proposed. This chapter proposed that an explanation for this might be found when considering the design of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. It was proposed that the design of the Apollo Palatinus temple deliberately reflected recognisable aspects of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, such as the quadriga roof decoration, wide intercolumniation, and a triad of cult statues, in order to signify the importance of the new temple in the religious landscape of Augustan Rome, and to establish it as a Palatine triad comparable to the Capitoline triad. The importance of the temple of Apollo in Rome did not cause a corresponding loss of importance of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. On the contrary, the fact that some of its most recognisable features were replicated in order to bestow status on the temple of Apollo, testifies to its enduring, recognisable significance. 154 CHAPTER FOUR
The temple dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline
hill
4.1. Introduction
This chapter shifts the focus from the Palatine to the Capitoline, and provides an examination of Octavian’s restoration of the temple dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius in the late 30s BCE, at the same time that the temple of Apollo was being built on the Palatine. The temple dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline hill holds an exceptional place in Roman religious history. Located in the sacred precinct dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill, the area Capitolina, the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was situated in the religious heart of Rome.403 This was the principal site for the performance of major public rituals, as well as those recorded in the regular religious calendar.404 Roman consuls carried out the nuncupatio votorum at the area Capitolina prior to their departure for military campaigns and, if successful and awarded a triumph, returned here to deposit their laurel wreaths at the cult statue of Jupiter Optimus 403 RG 19:1 locates the temple aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri. For discussion of the term in Capitolio and its meaning of the area Capitolina, see Reusser 1993, 114-­‐117. 404
For discussion of the buildings, temples and monuments located in the area Capitolina see LTUR I, 1993, 114-­‐7 s.v. ‘Area Capitolina’ [Chr. Reusser] 1993, 114-­‐117 and Reusser 1993, 32-­‐51; Platner-­‐Ashby (1929, 47-­‐50) still provides a relevant discussion of the precinct, although with much earlier bibliography. Common scholarly consensus holds that the area Capitolina was small, but this is governed by modern knowledge of the small size of the hill itself. Ancient accounts suggest that the precinct appears to have been buttressed and elevated, Livy 25.3.14, which probably resulted in a much larger surface area than usually supposed. 155 Maximus in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.405 The annual consuls were granted office in this venerated space, while later, the official prayers for the health of the Emperor and the Roman state took place here as well. The temple of Jupiter Feretrius, therefore, located within the area Capitolina, was in a very significant location. In some instances, Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, was attributed with vowing the temple, while other historians credit him with building and dedicating it as well, and Augustan authors such as Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus commemorate the temple as the first consecrated site in the city.406 Romulus allegedly built the temple to house the exceptionally rare spoils known as the spolia opima, the armour stripped from an enemy commander killed in hand-­‐to-­‐hand combat during battle, and these triumphal associations also explain the temple’s location in the area Capitolina.407 Three sets of the spolia opima were reportedly stored inside the temple: the first was attributed to Romulus for his defeat of Acron, the king of the Caeninenses, the second to Aulus Cornelius Cossus for his defeat of Lars Tolumnius, the leader of Veii, in 437 BCE, and the third to Marcus Claudius Marcellus for his defeat of Viridomarus, the leader of the Gallic Insubres, at the battle of Clastidium in 222 BCE.408 Also stored within the temple were objects used by the fetial priesthood, whose priests oversaw rituals that were connected with the making of treaties, and, according to several 405
For the nuncupatio votorum ritual on the Capitoline see Livy 45.39.12. According to Livy 1.33.8, Romulus vowed a temple of Jupiter Feretrius and consecrated its templum: haec templi est origo quod primum omnium Romae sacratum est. ‘This was the origin of the first temple that was consecrated in Rome.’ (Loeb, Trans. B. O. Foster). Sacratum refers only to a sacred and consecrated site, however, rather than a cult building; Dionysius of Halicarnassus attributes Romulus with the construction of an actual temple, see Rom. Ant. 2.34.42. 407
Fest. 202-­‐204L provides the most comprehensive definition of the spolia opima. For the recorded instances of its dedication, see Prop. 4.10; Livy 1.10.5-­‐6, 4.20; Plut. Rom. 16; Plut. Marc. 8. 408
For Romulus’ dedication of the spolia opima, see Livy 1.10, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.34.4, Prop. 4.10, Plut. Rom. 16. For A. Cornelius Cossus’ dedication of the spolia opima, see Livy 4.19-­‐20, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.5, Prop. 4.10. For Marcellus’ dedication of the spolia opima see Plut. Marc. 6.6, 8.1-­‐5, Polyb. 2.34.5-­‐9, Verg. Aen. 6.855-­‐59, Prop. 4.10. 406
156 ancient sources, were involved with the process that led to declarations of war.409 By the Augustan period, however, the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was reputedly in ruins. Perhaps seeking to establish a parallel with Romulus, Octavian, who, it is alleged, very nearly assumed the name of Romulus before choosing the name Augustus, restored the ruined temple of Jupiter Feretrius as a member of the fetiales. The relevant literary sources regarding Octavian’s rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius are brief and at times offer contradictory information, which explains why the temple has only ever been discussed in brief topographical entries, in contrast with the function and historicity of the fetials and the requirements for the dedication of the spolia opima, subjects which have attracted considerable interest.410 Moreover, like most of the religious topography of the Capitoline, no archaeological remains can be securely identified with the temple of Jupiter Feretrius.411 There are, however, two numismatic depictions of the temple. With reference to the depiction of the temple in a Republican series of denarii minted in the mid-­‐first century BCE and the Trajanic reissue of the series in the early second century CE and a re-­‐
examination of some key literary sources, this chapter aims to provide new insights into the form and significance of the temple following its Augustan 409
For fetiales and the making of treaties, see Livy 1.24-­‐25, 30.43.8; for fetiales and declarations of war, see Livy 1.32.5. 410
Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 305; Richardson 1992, 226; Coarelli 1995: 135-­‐136; Thein 2002, 157. 411
A. M. Colini discovered a votive deposit on the Capitoline hill in 1926 and 1927 (see Colini 1927). A number of scholars have since associated this deposit with the cult of Jupiter Feretrius. The deposit consisted of carbonised remains, coarse and fine ware vessels, and thin bronze phallic figurines. Above this was a cappellaccio wall. Colini took the votive deposit to represent the open-­‐
air practice of a cult, and interpreted the cappellaccio wall, which he dated to around 500 BC on the basis of its material and structural similarities with the substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, to be a later construction of the associated cult building. The relationship of the deposit to the cappellaccio remains, however, was never fully clarified, and the dating for the votive deposit and the cappellaccio wall ranges from the mid-­‐eighth century to the sixth century BC. The material it contained was generic in nature and there was nothing specifically relating to Feretrius. In consequence, the favissa could be associated with a number of cults. See Gjerstad 1960, 201; Cifani 2002, 79 and fig. 68; Mazzei 2007, 155-­‐166, 185-­‐189. 157 rebuild, as well as its role in the religious topography of the Capitoline and Rome in the Augustan and early imperial periods. In sum, this chapter will demonstrate that Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was a more complex undertaking than the simple restoration of a ruin, and will set out the first phase of Octavian’s investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline. 4.2 The numismatic evidence for the temple dedicated to Jupiter
Feretrius
Very little is known about the structure or appearance of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius; the brief descriptions of it that Cornelius Nepos and Dionysius of Halicarnassus provide, both of which will be discussed in more detail below, suggest only that by the late Republic the temple was in a dilapidated state. A mid-­‐first century BCE series of denarii bearing a reverse depiction of a temple provides one of only two representations of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius; a rare Trajanic reissue of the series was minted in the early second century CE. Although numismatic depictions of religious buildings do not constitute architecturally accurate elevations, the unusual level of detail in the representation of the temple in both series recommends close analysis. 4.2.1 The Republican Jupiter Feretrius type
P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, who possibly held the office of quaestor in 48 BCE, minted an issue of silver denarii in Rome featuring a reverse depiction of a temple (Figs. 4.1-­‐2).412 Although no legend identifies the temple, consideration of the other decoration on the type indicates that it is most likely a 412
Sydenham 1952, 187, pl. 29; RRC 439/1 (type). 158 representation of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. The proposed date of issue is 50 BCE, the year in which C. Claudius Marcellus held the consulship alongside of L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus.413 The issue commemorates Marcellinus’ distant ancestor, M. Claudius Marcellus, henceforth Marcellus, and his dedication of the spolia opima in 222 BCE. The obverse of the denarius features a right-­‐facing veristic style profile portrait of Marcellus, with the triskeles, a symbol associated with Sicily, in the lower left register, and a vertical legend reading MARCELLINUS on the right.414 The reverse features two vertical legends, COS. QUINQUIES on the left-­‐hand side recording Marcellus’ five consulships, and MARCELLUS on the right-­‐
hand side. The reverse also features an image of a veiled togate figure holding a frame decorated with a spear, breastplate, shield, and helmet, poised to ascend a narrow staircase of four tall stairs leading to a tetrastyle temple, located on top of a high podium which, in some issues, is indented (Fig. 4.2). Plain columns, closely spaced together, support a tall, pitched, narrow roof with a gable end and curved akroterial decoration, all features indicative of a timber and terracotta construction. In sum, the Republican denarius presents a figure poised to ascend the stairs of a very small, tetrastyle temple. Coin images produced in the Republic focused mainly on the achievements of one’s ancestors,415 and as a portrait of Marcellus constitutes the obverse decoration, it is likely that the scene represents his great achievement of dedicating the spolia opima, and the temple depicted 413
The evidence for this is listed in Münzer 1999, 334 and Broughton 1952, 247. Mattingly 1926, 253-­‐254, however, proposes that it was struck in 44 BC. It is likelier that it was minted in the year of the consulship, 50 BCE. 414
In contrast, Lahusen 1989, 20-­‐21 proposes that the portrait on the obverse is Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, Cos. 56 BCE and the father of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, although given that a depiction of a figure depositing the spolia opima is on the reverse the identification of Claudius Marcellus is likelier. 415
For Republican monetary practice see Meadows-­‐Williams 2001, 27-­‐49. 159 may therefore be confidently identified as the temple of Jupiter Feretrius.416 Harriet Flower has noted that the detail of the dedication scene and the portrait, in conjunction with the fact that the Republican issue provides the earliest instance of a Roman coin presenting a building as part of an historical narrative, mark out this series as exceptional.417 As with any coin type, the interpretation of its decoration is not straightforward. Although this issue of denarii was minted in the first century BCE, it depicts a ritual performed in the third century BCE. The accuracy of the scene, and the source of the depiction, is of course indeterminable. Although the Republican mint may have been located nearby in the temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline, which would mean that the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was available for reference during the production of the series, it is impossible to establish whether the moneyer styled his image on the contemporary temple of Jupiter Feretrius.418 The depiction of the temple on the reverse of the Republican denarii could instead provide a mid-­‐first century notion of the temple in its earliest form. Neither interpretation is mutually exclusive, however. By the late Republic the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was already identified as an ancient building, and as the moneyer has taken care to present the details of a small temple probably constructed of timber and terracotta, it is reasonable to connect 416
Zollschan 2012, 130-­‐131 proposes that the denarius which M. Volteius minted in Rome in c. 78 BC (RRC 385), featuring an eagle with outstretched wings on the obverse and a tetrastyle temple on the reverse, traditionally identified as the Jupiter Capitolinus temple because of the depiction of the three cella doors, is actually the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. Zollschan’s identification is based on alleged similarities with Marcellinus’ issue. In fact, the two denarii are markedly different representations. Marcellinus’ denarius features columns spaced very closely together, a high podium with an indentation in the right-­‐hand side and a frontal staircase comprising four tall stairs, a tall, pitched narrow roof, and no doors. In contrast, the Volteius denarius presents a widely spaced columnar façade, a three-­‐step podium, three closed doors and a large heavy roof. The large intercolumniation and the three doors are clear references to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and its traditional interpretation is therefore correct. 417
Flower 2000, 47 and n. 68. 418
A useful discussion of the various arguments proposed for the location of the temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline is provided by Tucci 2005, 7-­‐33. 160 these details with a contemporary understanding of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline. 4.2.2 The Trajanic reissue of the Republican Jupiter Feretrius type
The Jupiter Feretrius type was reissued in a rare series of silver denarii minted in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Trajan in around 112-­‐114 CE (Figs. 4.3 -­‐ 4).419 The Trajanic restored coinage substantially adapted the reverse and obverse images of the earlier coins to suit a contemporary style.420 While the obverse of the reissued Trajanic Jupiter Feretrius type is identical to the Republican type, featuring the profile of Marcellus, the triskeles and a nominative, the representation of the Jupiter Feretrius temple on the reverse is rendered differently from the Republican type. A Trajanic denarius in the British Museum provides the clearest example of the discrepancy (Fig. 4.3). The first difference is the inclusion of a horizontal legend, IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST, which encircles the upper register and records Trajan’s honorific titles, his military victories in Dacia and Germany, and his restoration of the Republic.421 The legend surrounds a tetrastyle temple, located on a high podium with a frontal staircase, an indeterminate column order and a roofline decorated with akroteria, as in the Republican type. In contrast with the Republican issue, however, the temple in 419
This coin is discussed in Komnick 2001, 137-­‐138, taf. 25, 36.0, which is a specialist work on the restored coinage under Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan and includes a comprehensive catalogue. However, I have not found any reference to the Trajanic reissue of the Republican denarius in scholarship concerning the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. Gunnar Seelentag proposes that the reissue of Trajanic coinage may be located more precisely in the year 112 CE, produced to celebrate the opening of Trajan’s Forum and mark the eve of the emperor’s departure to the Parthian war. For discussions of the dating of the reissue see Seelentag 2007, 161-­‐83 and Seelentag 2009, 265-­‐73, and Seelentag forthcoming 2014. 420
In particular, see Seelentag 2014, forthcoming, who observes that even the physiognomy of past emperors was altered so that their portraits resembled Trajan’s portrait. 421
Komnick 2001, 138. For Trajan’s military campaigns in Dacia and Germany, see Dio Cass. 68.8-­‐9, 11-­‐14. 161 the Trajanic reissue features a taller, narrower frontal staircase comprised of seven, rather than four, steps, leading to a straight podium, and the apex of the roof is decorated with a circular finial. While the addition of the legend on the Trajanic reverse type could suggest that any change in the Republican design of the temple was motivated by the pragmatic concern for the image to fit the smaller space, the new details in fact provide extra, rather than abbreviated, detail, which indicates that they were intentional and not the product of an inconsistent die engraver. The additions in the new depiction of the Jupiter Feretrius temple in the Trajanic reissue of the Republican denarius were most likely the result of the coin’s adaptation to a Trajanic style. Gunnar Seelentag has recently explored the ideological value of, and audience for, the Trajanic restored coinage, proposing that these restored coins were presented to specific, elite individuals as imperial gifts and conveyed the message that Trajan was the greatest of all the past Principes.422 The Emperor’s close relationship with Jupiter may explain the specific selection of the Jupiter Feretrius type for reissue, while a reference to the spolia opima in Pliny the Younger’s Panegyric, dedicated to Trajan, suggests that they were still a recognised honour at this time.423 The 422
For a discussion of the possible audience of the Trajanic restored coinage and the proposal that the coinage served as gifts, see Seelentag 2007, 164-­‐8. Other scholars have understood that the purpose of the restoration and reissue of Republican types by Roman Imperial mints was to promote the appearance of continuity and smooth political transitions, for instance, see Mattingly 1926, 269-­‐70 and 1936, lxxvi-­‐lxxxix. 423
Plin. Paneg. 17.3: Nec tibi opima defuerint, si quis regum venire in manus audeat, nec modo telorum tuorum, sed oculorum etiam minarumque coniectum, toto campo totoque exercitu opposito perhorrescat. ‘The spoils of supreme honour would be yours if any king would dare to match himself against you, shuddering with terror though the whole field of battle and army might lie between, when confronted not only by your weapons but by a glance from your threatening eye.’ (Loeb, Trans. Betty Radice). Some scholars have even interpreted a scene on the arch of Trajan at Beneventum to be a depiction of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. Klaus Fittschen identifies the Corinthian temple in the adventus scene on the attic panel to the right of the inscription on the Arch as the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and the arch to the left as the entrance to the area capitolina, through which ashlar substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple are visible. This identification is made on the decorative schema of the temple. The triangular pediment is decorated with a shield bearing a winged thunderbolt at its centre, and it is 162 Republican depiction of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, with its connotations of spectacular valour and triumph, must have appealed to an emperor who was lauded for his military successes. Trajan also represented himself as a ‘new’ Augustus, and drawing attention to a temple that was of particular significance in the Augustan principate therefore makes sense. 4.3 Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius
The temple of Jupiter Feretrius was the first temple that Octavian restored in Rome. Why it was singled out in a city that was apparently filled with decaying religious sites is unclear, although in a pre-­‐Actium, civil war climate, the temple’s associations with victory and the correct procedure for the declaration of war surely made it an appealing candidate for attention.424 Yet Octavian’s interest in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius appears to have been secondary to his involvement in the associated fetial priesthood, because, according to Cassius Dio (50.4.4-­‐5), it was as a fetial that Octavian publicly vowed to confront Mark Antony and Cleopatra in war in 32 BCE, while the restoration of the temple took place after this.425 The exact chronology for Octavian’s restoration of the temple is unknown. Modern scholars have speculated that the myths identifying Romulus as the surrounded on either side by circular shields. The identification of this temple as Jupiter Feretrius is only speculative however. Fittschen 1972, 775-­‐77; see also Torelli 1997, 160-­‐61. 424
For a contemporary reference to neglected temples see Horace’s Ode 3.6. The rhetorical power of the claim of neglect in the late Triumviral period has been called into question, and Wallace-­‐
Hadrill 2005, 62-­‐7 provides a useful discussion of the terms ‘decline’ and ‘restoration’. 425
Dio Cass. 50.4.4. This was apparently a later development of an earlier rite where the fetial hurled a spear into enemy territory in order to declare war, as described in Livy 1.32.12-­‐14. On the grounds that the only references to the spear-­‐throwing rite are found in Augustan literature, Wiedemann 1986, especially 482-­‐483, argues that it was invented at this time. For Augustus as fetial, see RG 7.3. Santangelo 2008 and Zollschan 2012 have recently opposed, with different arguments, the notion of an Augustan invention. Federico Santangelo has since suggested in personal communication that the ritual should not be considered in terms of a war declaration, but, rather, was a ritual that announced the beginning of the war to the inhabitants of Rome (see Ferrary 1988); it involved no interaction whatsoever with the enemy. 163 original founder of the temple inspired Octavian’s interest; or that Octavian’s adoptive father Julius Caesar, who, in 45 BCE, was allegedly awarded the exceptional honour of dedicating the spolia opima without qualifying for it, bequeathed the project.426 Cornelius Nepos, however, provides a more pragmatic reason for the restoration of the temple in his biography of the wealthy equestrian Atticus: ex quo accidit, cum aedis Iovis Feretrii in Capitolio, ab Romulo constituta, vetustate atque incuria detecta prolaberetur, ut Attici admonitu Caesar eam reficiendam curaret ‘Hence it was, that when the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, built in the Capitol by Romulus, was unroofed and falling down through age and neglect, Caesar, on the suggestion of Atticus, took care that it should be repaired.’ (Nep. Att. 20.3; Loeb, trans. J. C. Rolfe.) Here, Atticus advised Octavian to restore the temple of Jupiter Feretrius because of its dilapidated state. Octavian’s restoration can be dated accordingly. Nepos appears to have commenced Atticus’ biography in the late 30s BCE, and Atticus died in 32 BCE, when Nepos was still in the process of writing. Nepos remarks that the final two chapters of his biography were composed after Atticus’ death (Att. 20.1), which suggests that the record of Octavian’s rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in the third last chapter should predate Atticus’ death in 32 BCE, and the biographer refers to Octavian as Caesar, rather than as Augustus, the honorific title that Octavian received in January 27 BCE. Although use of the title Augustus came in gradually, both events provide rough parameters to date Atticus’ suggestion that Octavian restore the temple of Jupiter Feretrius and Octavian’s completion of the task between c.33 BCE and 27 BCE. 426
Dio Cass. 44.4.3. 164 The restoration of the temple is usually dated more closely to 32-­‐30 BCE on the grounds that Octavian’s declaration of war on Antony and Cleopatra as a member of the fetiales in 32 BC provided a complementary, and a likely contemporary, act.427 Whatever the precise year of restoration, it is unlikely that Atticus’ advice provided the appropriate religious authority under which Octavian was able to restore a temple on the Capitoline. Instead, the primary source of Octavian’s right to the rebuild most likely derived from the Republican tradition whereby the descendants of the original dedicator inherited responsibility for a temple’s maintenance. In the case of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, however, it is difficult to clarify who was responsible for its initial construction. Livy attributes Romulus with vowing to build the temple and consecrating its templum, but not with the actual construction of a cult building, although, later crediting Ancus Marcus with an amplificatio of the aedes of Jupiter Feretrius, Livy implies its prior existence (1.33.8). According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account of the temple’s founding (Ant. Rom. 2.34.4), however, Romulus built a temple shortly after vowing it. Of the three known dedicators of the spolia opima, however, Marcellus was the only historical figure, and responsibility for the maintenance of the Jupiter Feretrius temple may have fallen to his descendants.428 Octavian was related to the Marcelli through marriage: Octavian’s sister Octavia married C. Marcellus in c. 54 BCE, and their son, M. Claudius Marcellus, married Augustus’ daughter Julia in 25 BCE.429 It is therefore likely that Octavian sourced his authority to restore the temple of Jupiter Feretrius from the tradition of inherited 427
For a date of restoration in 32 BC see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 293 and Shipley 1931, 48; for a restoration between 32-­‐30 BC see LTUR III, 1996, 136 s.v. ‘Iuppiter Feretrius, Aedes’ [F. Coarelli]. 428
See Flower 2000, especially 35-­‐41. 429
Münzer 1999, 334, 391-­‐392; See Flower 2000, 47. 165 responsibility and through his family connection with the Marcelli, an authority that was undoubtedly augmented by Octavian’s membership of the fetial college. Octavian’s pious restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius therefore reflected his connections with the Marcelli. At the same time, the restoration of the temple must have evoked memory of Romulus as its original dedicator, and it is certainly possible that Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius prompted parallels with Romulus. 4.4 Aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri ... feci (Res Gestae et Impensae 19.2)
Augustus recorded his building and restoration work in Rome in the Res Gestae chapters 19-­‐21 using feci, ‘I built’ to record the construction of new public buildings built on public land, and refeci, ‘I restored’ or perfeci, ‘I completed’, to record his restoration of buildings and his completion of buildings planned by his adoptive father Julius Caesar.430 His restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius heads the list of buildings governed by the verb feci, ‘I built’ in 19.2: Curiam et continens eí chalcidicum, templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius quí priorem eodem in solo fecerat Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri et Iovis Tonantis, aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae et Iunonis Reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in suma sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci. ‘I built the senate house and the chalcidicum adjacent to it, and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of deified Julius, the lupercal, the portico near the Flaminian Circus, which I allowed to be called Octavian after the name of the man who had built an earlier one on the same foundation, the pulvinar at the Circus Maximus, the temples on the Capitol of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter the Thunderer, the temple of Quirinus, the temples of Minerva and of Queen Juno and of Jupiter Libertas on the Aventine, the temple of the Lares at the top of the Sacred Way, the temple of the 430
Cooley 2009, 182-­‐91 provides a useful discussion of the terms feci, refeci and perfeci. 166 Penates on the Velia, the temple of Youth and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine.’ (RG 19.2; trans. Cooley 2009, 78.) Of the temples included in this list, feci is only truly applicable to the temples of Jupiter Tonans and Apollo Palatinus, which were new foundations, while the other listed examples were already in existence prior to the Augustan period and could more accurately have been included in the refeci section.431 It is already evident that, according to Cornelius Nepos, Octavian restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, which also concords with Livy’s slightly later account of Octavian’s investment in it. In a passage usually dated between 29 and 25 BCE, Livy recorded that Augustus restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius because it was dilapidated by age.432 That Octavian restored, rather than built, the temple of Jupiter Feretrius is clear, and the precise meaning of feci in the context of Res Gestae chapter 19 has long puzzled scholars.433 Returning to the 431
Cooley 2009, 182-­‐91 is a useful reference for a discussion of the terms feci, refeci and perfeci, and provides a brief but succinct summary of all buildings recorded in this list and further bibliography. In brief, the buildings with Republican foundations are: the curia, the lupercal, the porticus Octavia, the temple of Quirinus on the Aventine, the temples dedicated to Minerva, Juno Regina and Jupiter Libertatis on the Aventine, the shrine of the Lares at the top of the Sacra Via, the temple of the Penates on the Velia, the temple of Youth and the temple of Magna mater on the Palatine. Only the chalcidicum, the Apollo Palatinus temple, the temple of Divus Julius, and the temple of Jupiter Tonans were entirely new foundations. 432
Livy 4.20.7: hoc ego cum Augustum Caesarem, templorum omnium conditorem aut restitutorem, ingressum aedem Feretri Iovis, quam vetustate dilapsam refecit, se ipsum in thorace linteo scriptum legisse audissem, prope sacrilegium ratus sum Cosso spoliorum suorum Caesarem, ipsius templi auctorem subtrahere testem ‘Augustus Caesar, the founder or renewer of all the temples, that he had entered the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius, which he had repaired when it had crumbled with age, and had himself read the inscription on the linen breast-­‐plate, I have thought it would be almost sacrilege to rob Cossus of such a witness to his spoils as Caesar, the restorer of that very temple.’ (Loeb, trans. B.O. Foster). Luce 1965, 209-­‐217 proposes that this passage was a later insertion and was added sometime between 27–25 BC on the grounds that Livy refers to ‘Augustus’, his official name from 27 BC; Sailor 2006, 332 suggests that it could also have been earlier in association with Crassus’ victory of 30 BC, although this is a circular argument. Luce’s argument, based on the nomenclature of Augustus, is likelier. 433
The buildings that Augustus restored are listed in RG 20.1-­‐3, including a reference to the restoration of eighty-­‐two temples in Rome: duo et octoginta templa deum in urbe consul sextum ex auctoritate senatus refeci, nullo praetermisso quod eo tempore refici debebat. On the meaning of feci see Cooley 2009, 182-­‐183; Haselberger 2007, 60. 167 potential association with Romulus, Edmund Thomas and Christian Witschel propose that Augustus deliberately recorded his restoration of the Jupiter Feretrius temple in the Res Gestae with feci in order to style Augustus in the role of Rome’s founder.434 When considering record of the restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in the Res Gestae in isolation this is convincing, and I have already given support to the possibility that Octavian’s restoration of the temple evoked memory of Romulus’ dedication of it. However, feci also applies to the fourteen other buildings listed in the passage, and while the Romulean subtext of feci is pertinent to the lupercal and the temple of Quirinus on the Aventine, none of the other buildings listed shares this association.435 Furthermore, the Res Gestae was composed more than fourty years after Octavian selected the name Augustus, allegedly in preference to Romulus, and the connection between Augustus and the founder of Rome was not as relevant in the late Principate as it was in its early years. Lothar Haselberger offers a more convincing explanation, suggesting that Octavian accomplished such a comprehensive restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (and the other buildings listed in the passage) that he was entitled to claim its construction on the temple’s dedicatory inscription and later state feci in the Res Gestae as well.436 This notion of Octavian’s comprehensive restoration of the temple, however, is seemingly opposed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of it in the Roman Antiquities: 434
Thomas and Witschel 1992, 150. The lupercal was a cave at the base of the Palatine where Romulus and Remus were reportedly nurtured by a she wolf, see Ov. Fas. 2.413-­‐22; the temple of Quirinus was a third century BC temple dedicated to the deified Romulus on the site of his apotheosis. This temple was damaged by fire in 49 BC, rebuilt in 45 BC but rededicated by Augustus 29 June 16 BC, see Ov. Fast. 6.795-­‐6, Dio Cass. 54.19.4. Both the lupercal and the temple of Quirinus were closely associated with Romulus as well. 436
Haselberger 2007, 60. 435
168 μετὰ δὲ τὴν πομπήν τε καὶ θυσίαν νεὼν κατασκευάσας ὁ Ῥωμύλος ἐπὶ τῆς κορυφῆς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου λόφου Διός, ὃν ἐπικαλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι φερέτριον, οὐ μέγαν: ἔτι γὰρ αὐτοῦ σώζεται τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἴχνος ἐλάττονας ἢ πέντε ποδῶν καὶ δέκα τὰς μείζους πλευρὰς ἔχον. ‘After the procession and the sacrifice Romulus built a small temple on the summit of the Capitoline hill to Jupiter whom the Romans call Feretrius; indeed, the ancient traces of it still remain, of which the longest sides are less than fifteen feet.’ (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.34.4; Loeb, trans. E. Cary.) It is unclear if Dionysius, by referring to the still-­‐existing ancient traces of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, is describing the temple as he witnessed it or if he sourced his description from an earlier observation that pre-­‐dated Octavian’s restoration. There is no precise date for the composition of the book in which the above passage is found, although it is known that the historian was born in around 60 BCE, moved to Rome c.30 BCE, and published the completed Roman Antiquities in 7 BCE.437 Even this broad chronological framework, however, suggests that Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius should post-­‐date Octavian’s restoration of it in c. 32-­‐30 BCE. Dionysius does not explicitly state that he witnessed the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and we know that in some cases he relied on earlier sources for information regarding Roman buildings without citing them. For example, Dionysius describes Romulus’ erection of a Greek inscription in the Comitium (Ant. Rom. 2.54.2), for which he must have been reliant on an earlier source, although he does not acknowledge it, because this inscription was no longer 437
See the introduction in Dion. Hal.. Ant. Rom. 1.3-­‐4, where he dates the publication of the Roman Antiquities to 7 BC and the consulships of Claudius Nero and Calpurnius Piso. 169 visible in his day.438 In his description of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, however, Dionysius used ἔτι, ‘still’, in the present sense to describe the ancient traces of the temple that ‘still remain’, and he used ἔτι in the same way in his description of the contemporary hut of Romulus on the Palatine:439 βίος δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἦν βουκολικὸς καὶ δίαιτα αὐτουργὸς ἐν ὄρεσι τὰ πολλὰ πηξαμένοις διὰ ξύλων καὶ καλάμων σκηνὰς αὐτορόφους: ὧν ἔτι καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ ἦν τις τοῦ Παλλαντίου ἐπὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν ἱππόδρομον στρεφούσης λαγόνος Ῥωμύλου λεγομένη, ἣν φυλάττουσιν ἱερὰν οἷς τούτων ἐπιμελὲς οὐδὲν ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνότερον ἐξάγοντες, εἰ δέ τι πονήσειεν ὑπὸ χειμῶνος ἢ χρόνου τὸ λεῖπον ἐξακούμενοι καὶ ‘But their life was that of herdsmen, and they lived by their own labour, generally upon the mountains in huts which they built, roofs and all out of sticks and reeds. One of these, called the hut of Romulus, remained even to my day on the flank of the Palatine hill which faces towards the Circus, and it is preserved holy by those who have charge of these matters; they add nothing to it to render it more stately, but if any part of it is injured, either by storms or by the lapse of time, they repair the damage and restore the hut as nearly as possible to its former condition.’ (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.79.11; Loeb, trans. E. Cary.) It would appear, therefore, that Dionysius is providing a first-­‐hand account of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, whose ancient traces existed at the time of description. The measurements for the remains that Dionysius records (the longest side being less than fifteen feet) are certainly those that we would expect for such an ancient temple. To place them in context, the longest side of the temple, by which Dionysius is probably referring to the length of a surviving podium, measures around 4.5m.440 This is notably small for the longest side of a temple 438
I am grateful to James Richardson for bringing this to my attention. For support for this position, see Andrén 1960, 88-­‐104. 440
It is unclear which ancient unit of measurement Dionysius is using, however, whether the 439
170 podium, and correlates only with seventh and sixth century shrines found outside of Rome. For instance, a rectangular building of tuff ashlar blocks at Falerii Veteres which has been dated to 600-­‐550 BCE, and which is believed to have had a cult function, measures 3.6 x 6.2m, and a rectangular building of pebble foundations and mud-­‐brick walls located at Gravisca, dated to c. 580 BC, measures 4.7 x 3.13m.441 The dimensions of later podia, especially in Rome, are considerably larger than this, and the remains of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius as Dionysius described them therefore accord with their alleged antiquity.442 Yet, it is strange to note that Dionysius refers to the ancient vestiges of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius so shortly after its rebuilding. In ancient Rome, ruins were equated with religious neglect, and there is no evidence for their deliberate preservation.443 It is, moreover, particularly unlikely that temples on the Capitoline hill, the principal site of religion in Rome, were allowed to decay so rapidly, especially if Augustus was responsible for the restoration, whom Livy celebrated in the context of a passage amending record of Cossus’ dedication of the spolia opima and Augustus’ entry to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, as the ‘founder and restorer of all our temples’.444 Roman foot (0.296m), the Greek foot (0.308m), or the Attic foot (0.2957m). See Oxford Classical Dictionary, ‘Measures’ 2003 (fourth edition): 942. For our purposes, however, all of these options are approximately identical, respectively converting to 4.44m, 4.62m, and 4.44m. 441
For the remains at Falerii Veteres see Colonna 1985, 111-­‐112; for the remains at Gravisca, see Torelli 1977, 398-­‐458. 442
For instance, the podium of the first century temple, Maison Carrée, constructed at Nîmes measures 31.82m in length and 15m in width, therefore c. 100 x 50 Roman Feet, and the podium of the temple of Mars Ultor measured c. 36 x 35 m, more than 100 x 100 Roman feet. For the measurements of Maison Carrée see Wilson Jones 2000, 214; for the measurements of the podium of the temple of Mars Ultor, see Ganzert 1996. 443
For the neglect of a temple and its implications see Ov. Fast. 2.55-­‐61 on the temple dedicated to Juno Sospita on the Palatine. Catharine Edwards has pointed out that Augustan poets frequently evoked the ruins of other ancient cities, such as Troy and Carthage in order to emphasise the durability of the city of Rome, but there is no evidence for the deliberate preservation of remains. Edwards 2011, 646. 444
Livy 4.20.7: templorum omnium conditorem ac restitutorem; see also Hor. Odes 1.2. 171 Various solutions have been proposed in the attempt to reconcile Augustus’ feci in the Res Gestae with Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account of the ancient traces of the temple, and Platner-­‐Ashby collated the three most likely in their 1929 topographical entry on the temple of Jupiter Feretrius.445 In brief, these solutions are: 1) that the restored temple contained the ruins of the ancient temple; 2) that the plan of the ancient temple was marked on the floor of the new temple; 3) that the dimensions of the restored temple of Jupiter Feretrius were commensurate with the dimensions of the ancient temple. The first two options are unpersuasive because they require Dionysius observing traces of the ancient temple from within the restored temple, which is an unlikely scenario given that Dionysius was not a member of the fetiales, or of any other pontifical college, to which access to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was limited.446 Therefore, it is not possible that Dionysius entered the temple of Jupiter Feretrius to observe either the ruins of the ancient temple within or its ancient plan marked on the floor. However, the third suggestion, that the newly restored temple was commensurate with the plan of the earlier temple, is feasible. This option requires that Octavian’s rebuilding respected the original plan, and presumably elevation, of the earlier temple. Augustus’ rebuilding of the temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine in 3 CE provides a helpful comparative example as it was restored to its second century BCE form with its original materials of peperino, 445
For the dimensions of the restored temple of Jupiter Feretrius being commensurate with the dimensions of the ancient temple and the possibility that the restored temple contained the ruins of the ancient temple see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 293-­‐294, with reference to earlier scholarship, and Richardson 1992, 218. For the proposal that the plan of the ancient temple was marked on the floor of the new temple see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 294. 446
Càssola interprets the evidence to suggest that the spolia opima were stored in an adyton of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (Càssola 1970, 10-­‐11). 172 Grotta Oscura tuff and stucco.447 Moreover, it was a comprehensive and faithful restoration that was also recorded with feci in the Res Gestae 19.2. Pierre Gros interprets Dionysius’ wording, and particularly his use of ἀρχαῖον ἴχνος, ‘ancient traces’, to testify to Octavian’s faithful restoration of the ancient temple.448 Further to the likelihood that Octavian restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius with respect to its pre-­‐existing plan and materials, Francesca De Caprariis proposes that the restored superstructure of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was located above ancient, visible foundations, and that it is these foundations to which Dionysius refers when he reports witnessing the ancient traces of the temple.449 Not only does this situation accord with the ancient literary evidence, but it is also corroborated by another similar instance on the Capitoline with the imperial rebuildings of the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline. Both Livy and Pliny the elder report that the ancient, opus quadratum substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple remained visible below its rebuilt superstructure despite intervening imperial rebuildings.450 447
For the fire in AD 3 and the destruction of the temple of Magna Mater, see Val. Max. 1.8.11 and Ov. Fast. 4.247-­‐348; for the materials of the Magna Mater temple and their dating see Blake 1947, 249, 330. 448
Gros 1976, 45. 449
Further, De Carprariis (2002, 723) proposes that this is illustrated on a side of the early imperial silver Boscoreale cup B that commemorates one of Tiberius’ triumphs. One side of cup B illustrates a nuncupatio votorum scene and a general riding in triumph on the other. A tetrastyle temple with a garland hanging from either end of the architrave and an eagle with outstretched wings in the pediment is located in the background above an opus quadratum podium constructed on two levels. De Caprariis identifies the lower level of the opus quadratum podium to be the ancient remains of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and the upper level and the superstructure of the temple to be the results of Augustus’ rebuild. However, the more widely accepted interpretation of the temple in this scene which identifies the temple as that dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline is likelier given the context of the rituals performed on both sides of the cup, known to have been performed in front of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and for which see Kuttner 1995, 124-­‐136. For a discussion of the terms ‘podia’ and ‘foundations’ in modern scholarship see Potts 2011: 15-­‐26, and 15 for the observation that podia and foundations are generally commensurate in size. 450
Livy 6.4.12: eodem anno, ne privatis tantum operibus cresceret urbs, Capitolium quoque saxo quadrato substructum est, opus vel in hac magnificentia urbis conspiciendum ‘That same year, that the Capitol might not grow in private buildings only, the Capitol was provided with a substructure of hewn stone, a work which even amidst the present splendours of the City is deserving of 173 To sum up so far, Augustus’ record of building the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in the Res Gestae and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of it, recording both a comprehensive rebuilding of the temple and observation of its ancient traces, appear to contradict each other. Upon closer consideration, however, the two sources support the notion that Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius constituted a comprehensive and faithful rebuilding, whereby the rebuilt superstructure, erected in its traditional materials, was placed on top of the temple’s original foundations and podium. While Augustus’ later restoration of the temple of Magna Mater provides a comparable case study whereby traditional materials of the structure were used in the rebuilding, Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius is otherwise unique in light of subsequent Augustan restoration and construction work in Rome, which was characterised by the use of marble, particularly Luna marble, and the Roman Corinthian order.451 4.5 The temple of Jupiter Feretrius and its cult statue
Aside from the spolia opima, the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was also the repository for the ritual implements of the Fetiales, which consisted of a knife or stone and a sceptre.452 Commenting on the passage in Virgil’s Aeneid in which King Latinus uses a sceptre to ratify a treaty with Aeneas, Servius, writing in the late fourth/early fifth centuries, reported that a statue of Jupiter normally held remark.’ (Loeb, Trans. B.O Foster); Plin. HN 36. 24. 104: Sed tum sense aggeris vastum spatium, substructiones Capitolii mirabantur ‘But it was in those days too that old men still spoke in admiration of the vast proportions of the Agger and of the enormous foundations of the Capitol.’ (Loeb, Trans. John Bostock). 451 For Luna marble see Claridge 2013, 1341-­‐42; for Augustus and the Corinthian order see Wilson Jones 2000, 139-­‐40. 452
Fest. 81L. 174 this sceptre.453 Although this should refer to a statue in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, because the sceptre used to ratify treaties was reportedly stored in this temple and its associated priesthood was involved in the process, it is instead usually assumed that Servius’ comment relates to the cult statue of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the proximate Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Indeed, it is conventionally held that the temple of Jupiter Feretrius did not house a cult statue on the grounds of the absence of any explicit reference to one.454 However, Strabo, who was present in Rome in the very early Augustan principate, reports that Octavian constructed a naiskos, or small temple, on the Capitoline for the purpose of housing a spoliated colossus of Zeus, and, through a process of deduction, it is possible to identify this naiskos as the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. This would indicate that Octavian dedicated a cult statue in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and therefore that the temple, contrary to conventional belief, contained a cult statue, at least from the early Augustan period. Strabo recounts that Mark Antony removed three colossal, presumably bronze, statues of Herakles, Athena and Zeus attributed to the fifth century BCE Athenian sculptor Myron from the Heraion in Samos:455 453
Serv. Aen. 12.206. For the assumption that the temple of Jupiter Feretrius did not contain a cult statue see Richardson 1992, 219 and Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 294. For references to Romulus and Jupiter as witnesses within the temple, which may imply that there were statues dedicated to both in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, see Livy 4.20.11. 455
The period at which Strabo was present in Rome is not directly stated by the author, although he reports the journey from Asia to Rome in 6.3.7, and describes buildings in the Campus Martius and expresses familiarity with the ideology of Augustan Rome and early Augustan construction on the Campus Martius. For Strabo’s familiarity with Rome and Lazio see Coarelli 1988, 75-­‐91, especially 89-­‐90 for Rome. Although Strabo does not specify that the colossi were of bronze, it is likely that they were, because Myron is said to have only worked in this material, with the exception of a wooden xoanan which Pausanias 2.30.2 credits him with constructing. Augustus records returning the votive objects that Mark Antony removed from temples in RG 24.1. 454
175 καὶ τὸ Ἡραῖον, ἀρχαῖον ἱερὸν καὶ νεὼς μέγας, ὃς νῦν πινακοθήκη ἐστί: χωρὶς δὲ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἐνταῦθα κειμένων πινάκων ἄλλαι πινακοθῆκαι καὶ ναΐσκοι τινές εἰσι πλήρεις τῶν ἀρχαίων τεχνῶν: τό τε ὕπαιθρον ὁμοίως μεστὸν ἀνδριάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ἀρίστων: ὧν τρία Μύρωνος ἔργα κολοσσικὰ ἱδρυμένα ἐπὶ μιᾶς βάσεως, ἃ ἦρε μὲν Ἀντώνιος ἀνέθηκε δὲ πάλιν ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν βάσιν τὰ δύο, τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα, τὸν δὲ Δία εἰς τὸ Καπετώλιον μετήνεγκε κατασκευάσας αὐτῷ ναΐσκον. ‘Samos … has the Heraeum, which consists of an ancient temple and a great shrine, which latter is now a repository of tablets. Apart from the number of the tablets placed there, there are other repositories of votive tablets and some small chapels full of ancient works of art. And the temple, which is open to the sky, is likewise full of most excellent statues. Of these, three of colossal size, the work of Myron, stood upon one base; Antony took these statues away, but Augustus Caesar restored two of them, those of Athena and Heracles, to the same base, although he transferred the Zeus to the Capitolium, having erected there a small chapel for that statue.’ (Strab. Geog. 14.1.14; Loeb, trans. Horace Leonard Jones.) Because Καπετώλιον has the meaning of both the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Capitoline hill, it is unclear whether the passage should be translated to mean that Octavian dedicated Myron’s colossus of Zeus in a shrine erected within the Jupiter Capitolinus temple or in a temple constructed on the Capitoline. Numerous accounts of individuals, who, after celebrating a triumph, dedicated statuary from their spoils in the area Capitolina, within the Jupiter Capitolinus temple or around the columns of its pronaos, testify to the practice of dedicating manubial statuary in or near to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.456 Strabo provides two such examples of successful Roman commanders removing statues from 456
For instance, Strabo also records that Fabius Maximus took a colossal bronze statue of Hercules sculpted by Lysippus from Tarentum in the third century BC and placed it on the Capitoline: Geog. 6.3.1. See also Livy 9.44.16; Plin. HN 34.18.40-­‐41, Plut. Fab. 22.5-­‐6. Pliny refers to an Apollo on the Capitoline, which Marcus Lucullus brought back from Pontus, HN 34.18.39. Many artworks were exhibited on the Capitoline hill and in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, although both spaces are recorded as in Capitolio. For instance, Pliny refers to two bronze heads stored in Capitolio at 34.18.43, to paintings at 35.8.22, and to a bronze statue of Athena sculpted by Euphranor located at the foot of the Capitoline at 34.77. It is known that statues crowded the columns of this temple, as there are various references to the clearing of them, for instance, see Livy 40.51.3. 176 Greece and dedicating them on the Capitoline, and in both instances the geographer locates these statues with a dative, ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ, meaning that they were deposited within the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.457 However, when Strabo refers to the Capitoline hill solely elsewhere in the text he uses the nominative singular Καπετώλιον, and his repeated use of Καπετώλιον in the passage cited above suggests that he intended the meaning of ‘Capitoline hill’.458 It is for this reason that most scholars interpret the passage quoted above to mean that Octavian deposited the statue of Zeus in a small temple constructed for the purpose.459 However, because this provides the only attested example of a sacred building constructed specifically to house manubial art on the Capitoline, it deserves closer attention.460 Although Strabo does not offer a date for the completion of the temple and the dedication of the statue, the repatriation of Myron’s statues of Athena and Herakles is likely to have taken place during the winter of 30 BCE that Octavian spent partly in Samos following Octavian’s defeat of Mark Antony at Actium in 31 BCE, and Octavian’s dedication of the statue of 457 Geog. 6.3.1: ὧν ἐστι καὶ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ χαλκοῦς κολοσσικός, Λυσίππου ἔργον, ἀνάθημα Μαξίμου Φαβ 'ίου τοῦ ἑλόντος τὴν πόλιν. ‘Among this booty is the Heracles in the Capitol, a colossal bronze statue, the work of Lysippus, dedicated by Maximus Fabius, who captured the city.’ (Loeb, Trans. H.L. Jones). Geog. 7.6.1: εἶτ᾽ Ἀπολλωνία ἐν χιλίοις τριακοσίοις σταδίοις, ἄποικος Μιλησίων, τὸ πλέον τοῦ κτίσματος ἱδρυμένον ἔχουσα ἐν νησίῳ τινί, ὅπου ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἐξ οὗ Μάρκος Λεύκολλος τὸν κολοσσὸν ἦρε καὶ ἀνέθηκεν ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ τὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, Καλάμιδος ἔργον. ‘The greater part of Apollonia was founded on a certain isle, where there is a temple of Apollo, from which Marcus Lucullus carried off the colossal statue of Apollo, a work of Calamis, which he set up in the Capitolium.’ (Loeb, Trans. H.L. Jones). 458
For Strabo’s use of Καπετώλιον meaning the Capitoline hill see 5.3.2, 5.3.7, 5.3.9. 459
In Ernst Berger’s 1969 discussion of the passage he interprets it to mean that Augustus constructed a naiskos on the Capitoline hill, although he doesn’t translate naiskos, Berger 1969, 88-­‐9 and n. 132; in Stefan Randt’s recent commentary of Strabo’s Geography he translates the sentence as ‘den Zeus hat er auf das Kapitol versetzt, wo er einen kleinen Tempel fürihn bauen ließ.’ Randt 2005, 14. 460
The only comparative example I have been able to find is provided by Pliny (HN 35.60. 130) who refers to the orator Hortensius constructing an aedes for a painting of the Argonauts by the fourth century Greek painter Cydias at his villa. 177 Zeus in the temple on the Capitoline must follow after this, most likely following Octavian’s return to Rome in 29 BCE.461 The question remains: in which Capitoline temple was Myron’s statue of Zeus was dedicated? Given the temple’s location on the Capitoline, the origin of the cult statue as a Classical masterpiece and Octavian’s involvement in it, is likely that the identity of the temple was recorded elsewhere.462 During his principate, Augustus invested in three temples on the Capitoline, restoring both the temples of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter Optimus Maximus and building the temple of Jupiter Tonans. In theory, all three temples are suitable candidates for the repository of Myron’s Zeus. The evidence for Octavian's restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius has already been presented, and brief accounts of Augustus’ investment in the temples of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Jupiter Tonans now follow. Augustus recorded an expensive restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the subject of chapter 6, in the Res Gestae 20.1.463 As we shall explore later in further detail, this restoration is usually dated to around 9 BCE because Dio Cassius reports that in this year lightning damaged a number of temples on the Capitoline, including that of Jupiter Capitolinus.464 There is, however, no record of a statue by Myron being deposited within this temple, while the likely date of restoration in 9 BCE prevents any convincing connection between Strabo’s reference to a naiskos on the Capitoline in which a statue of Zeus was dedicated and the Jupiter Capitolinus 461
Suet. Aug. 17.3. Strabo was similarly brief when referring to ‘the very costly temples’ in the Campus Martius and the temples in the Forum in 5.3.8. 463
Capitolium et Pompeium theatrum utrumque opus impensa grandi refeci sine ulla inscription nominis mei. Καπιτώλιον καὶ τὸ Πομπηίου θέατρον ἑκάτερον τὸ ἔργον ἀναλώμασιν μεγίστοις ἐπεσκεύασα ἄ νευ ἐπιγραφῆς τοῦ ἐμοῦ ὀνόματος. ‘I restored the Capitoline temple and theatre of Pompey, incurring great expense for both buildings, without inscribing my name anywhere on them.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 80). 464
See chapter 6, pages 280-­‐1. 462
178 temple – particularly considering that naiskos must refer to a small temple, but the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was reputedly one the largest temple in Rome. Augustus also constructed a new temple dedicated to Jupiter on the Capitoline, the temple of Jupiter Tonans, which is the subject of chapter 5. Pliny refers to the statuary in the temple of Jupiter Tonans three times in his book on bronze working in the Natural History, referring to its statuary,465 but never mentions a statue by Myron in connection with this temple.466 Furthermore, as the temple of Jupiter Tonans was dedicated in the late 20s BCE, and thus a decade after Augustus dedicated the statue of Zeus as recorded by Strabo, the temple of Jupiter Tonans can be firmly rejected. Octavian’s interest in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, however, was particularly keen in the late 30s and early 20s BCE. His involvement with the fetiales was initially driven by the desire to publicly and legitimately declare civil war through traditional channels, while his restoration of the temple honoured his family connections with the Marcelli and provided a pious offering to Jupiter as well. It is therefore likely that Octavian dedicated the statue of Zeus in the restored temple of Jupiter Feretrius following his return to Rome in 29 BCE. Given the small size of the temple, suitable to the term naiskos, it is likely that the statue of Zeus was dedicated near to the objects identified with the spolia opima.467 In consideration of the temple’s function as a repository for objects associated with the supreme military honour in Rome, Octavian’s dedication of the statue of Zeus, associated with his victory at Actium, was perhaps intended to evoke the 465
See chapter five, page 194, fn. 507. Pliny lists some of the works by Myron in Rome in HN 34.19.57-­‐58 and does not mention Myron’s colossus of Zeus. 467
Filippo Càssola has argued that the spolia opima were stored in the adyton, or the innermost chamber of a temple whose entry was restricted to priests. See Càssola 1970, 25. 466
179 honour of dedicating the spolia opima. As we shall see in the following section, Octavian may have had good reason to do so. 4.6 Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius and his
augural authority in Rome
It is well recognised that Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius was politically, as well as religiously, motivated.468 In late 30 or early 29 BCE, Marcus Licinius Crassus, the proconsul of Macedonia, defeated Deldo, the king of a Scythian tribe the Bastarnae, in single-­‐combat. In theory, therefore, Crassus qualified to dedicate the spolia opima upon his return to Rome. Whether Crassus ever intended to dedicate the spolia opima, if he made a request to do so which Octavian blocked, or, if by the early Augustan period the ritual was a purely antiquarian honour which Crassus never attempted to obtain, divides opinion.469 Dio Cassius, writing in the third century CE, reported that Crassus did not dedicate the spolia opima because he had not been the supreme commander at the time of his victory.470 In the late Republic, however, the dedication of the spolia opima involved a tripartite system for spolia opima prima, spolia opima secunda and spolia opima tertia at three different sites in Rome, as reported by the second century CE grammarian Festus, citing the late Republican authors Varro and Verrius Flaccus as well as alleged archaic pontifical law, under which Crassus 468
Dessau 1906, 142-­‐51; Harrison 1989, 408-­‐14; Rich 1999, 544-­‐55; Flower 2000, 34-­‐64. Most scholars agree that Crassus’ defeat of the king in single combat was unexpected and that he was likely to have sued for the honour, for example Harrison 1995, 409, although Rich 1998, 89-­‐90 and 1999, 546 argues that by the late Republic the spolia opima were a purely antiquarian matter and Crassus simply chose not to apply for the honour. Given the importance of the triumph at this time and the new focus on the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, it is more probable that the spolia opima were very topical and it is unlikely that they were, at this point in time, purely antiquarian. 470
Dio Cass. 51.24.4. 469
180 would have qualified to dedicate at least the spolia opima secunda.471 However, the Fasti record that the Senate awarded Crassus a triumph in 29 BCE, which should confirm that he had fought under his own auspices with recognised imperium, and indicate that Crassus had qualified to dedicate the spolia opima in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius.472 Although the question of whether Crassus intended to dedicate the spolia opima is at issue, it is at least clear that even the possibility of another individual qualifying for the honour may have compromised Octavian’s devotion to the cult of Jupiter Feretrius and thrown into sharp relief the fact that Octavian could not rightly claim the honour for himself. Moreover, while Octavian would surely have been reluctant for his connections with the cult of Jupiter Feretrius to benefit any other individual, Crassus was a political rival in a volatile period and the prospect that he could have returned to dedicate the spolia opima may have been a source of particular anxiety.473 Octavian was to celebrate his triple triumph in Rome in August 29 BCE and, in the lead up to the great spectacle, may have been understandably concerned that Crassus’ dedication of the spolia opima would eclipse his own victory. Although Crassus’ intentions and Octavian’s reaction to them can only remain speculative, it is now well recognised that Livy’s apparent amendment of a passage concerning Cossus’ dedication of the spolia opima, cited below, indicates firstly that the dedication of the spolia opima was of significance in the 20s BCE, and secondly, that Crassus was not entitled to the honour of 471
Festus 202-­‐204L. ILS 13.1.86-­‐87; in contrast with Dio Cass. 51.25.2, who states that Crassus did not receive a triumph. 473
Kearsley 2009 emphasises the extent of the threat that Crassus posed in the years 31-­‐29 BC. 472
181 dedicating the spolia opima at the time because he had not held the correct imperium when he had fought as a proconsul:474 omnes ante me auctores secutus, A. Cornelium Cossum tribunum militum secunda spolia opima Iovis Feretri templo intulisse exposui; ceterum, praeterquam quod ea rite opima spolia habentur, quae dux duci detraxit, nec ducem novimus nisi cuius auspicio bellum geritur, titulus ipse spoliis inscriptus illos meque arguit consulem ea Cossum cepisse. ‘Following all previous historians, I have stated that Aulus Cornelius Cossus was a military tribune when he brought the second spoils of honour to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. But besides that only those are properly held to be “spoils of honour” which one commander has taken from another commander, and that we know no “commander” but him under whose auspices the war is waged, the very words inscribed upon the spoils disprove their account and mine, and show that it was as consul that Cossus captured them.’ (Liv. Hist. 4.20.5-­‐6; Loeb, trans. B.O. Foster.) Although it is nowhere explicitly stated, Alberto Dalla Rosa argues that the evidence indicates that around the time of the battle of Actium, Octavian exercised a unique augural authority under which all battles were fought under Octavian’s auspicia, rather than the auspicia of the commander.475 Prior to the departure of a Roman consul for military campaign, the commander took the auspices on the Capitoline and only departed with Jupiter’s guarantee of maxima auspicia. In 31 BCE, it would appear that Octavian’s unique auspicia meant that all military victories were rightly Octavian’s, whether or not he had been present during the battle.476 This subordination to the auspices of Augustus apparently carried over into 30 BCE, the year in which Crassus defeated the King Deldo. As proconsul, Crassus’ imperium was secondary to Octavian’s auspicia, and, in consequence, Crassus’ victory was Octavian’s victory. A comparable episode 474
For instance Dessau 1906, 142-­‐51; recently reiterated by Sailor 2006, 329-­‐88. See Dalla Rosa 2011. 476
Liebeschuetz 1979, 7-­‐29; Scheid 2003, 112-­‐120; Dalla Rosa 2013, 254, 259-­‐60. 475
182 occurred in 28 BCE, when the proconsul of 30-­‐29 BCE, Gaius Carrinas, earned a triumph for his victories in the province of Gallia Comata, which was held in Rome in July 28 BCE and shared with Octavian.477 Crassus returned to Rome in either late 28 or early 27 BCE, and although he was also awarded a triumph, it is possible that he did not qualify to dedicate the spolia opima because he was fighting under Octavian’s auspicia. Rosalinde Kearsley proposes that Octavian’s special auspicia was also sourced from his restitution and performance of the augurium salutis ritual in January 29 BCE, which publicly identified Octavian as the earthly representative of Jupiter acting for the welfare of the state.478 A statue base of Luna marble originally located on the Arx contains a fragmentary inscription on the right hand side of the base proclaiming the ritual as auguria maximum quo salus P[opulus] R[omanus] petitur quod actum est, ‘the greatest augury by which the health of the Roman people is sought’.479 The ritual firstly required that an augur appeal to the gods in a time of peace and, if the auguries were favourable, the praetor would then offer a prayer on behalf of the Roman people.480 Kearsley argues that the revival and public performance of this prayer bestowed a specific 477
Dio Cass. 51.21.6; for discussion of this case see Dalla Rosa 2011, 245-­‐53. The source of Octavian’s exceptional auspicia is unclear. Rosalinde Kearsley proposes that Octavian’s restitution of the augurium salutis ritual on the Arx, the northern slope of the Capitoline, in January 29 BC publicly identified Octavian as the earthly representative of Jupiter acting for the welfare of the state, and that this provided his unique auspicial authority. See Kearsley 2009, 150-­‐156; see also Costa 1910. According to Alberto Dalla Rosa, however, Octavian was able to exploit his extraordinary position following victory at Actium in Rome to revise the traditional augural powers of the consulate. See Dalla Rosa 2011, 253-­‐61. 478
See Kearsley 2009, 150-­‐156; Dalla Rosa 2013, 243 n.1, however, considers Kearsley to have overstated the significance of this ritual. 479
The statue base was discovered during the demolition of houses near to the Vittorio Emanuele monument in the nineteenth century. Its find spot probably indicates that it was originally located on the Arx, the northern summit of the Capitoline and had fallen in later subsidence of the hill. It is now in the Museo Nazionale Romano. The statue base measures 1.23m. in height and 0.73m. in width. The only published photograph I have been able to find of the base is in Pasqui 1910, 132. When first discovered, traces of bronze feet were observed on the top of the base indicating that it once supported a standing statue. 480
For details on the augurium salutis see Cic. De leg. 3.43; Linderski 1986, 2257 and n.439. 183 auspicium on Octavian, which enabled him to obstruct Crassus’ request, whether actual, or intended, to dedicate the spolia opima.481 In both cases, however, it is unclear as to why Octavian, with this unique augural authority, did not then dedicate the spolia opima that Crassus had won, or even share his triumph. Perhaps if he had done so, Octavian may have brought attention to the fact that dedicating the spolia opima was an honour that he would never attain. Another possibility is that he may not have needed to do so: Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, and his likely dedication of the statue of Myron’s Zeus within, representative of Octavian’s decisive victory at Actium, could have provided an alternative offering that was commensurate with dedicating the spolia opima. After the late Republic, there are only two more references to the dedication of the spolia opima, both of which concern members of the imperial family. Augustus’ grandson Drusus allegedly aspired to the honour, and Pliny celebrated Trajan as a general worthy of dedicating the spolia opima.482 These two references could indicate that any future dedication of the spolia opima in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, like the celebration of the triumph, was later restricted to members of the imperial family. 481
Kearsley 2009, 155. For Drusus’ alleged interest in dedicating the spolia opima, see Suet. Claud. 1.4 and Dio Cass. 55.4.4-­‐5. 482
184 4.7 Conclusion
This chapter examined the evidence for the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitoline, and particularly Octavian’s restoration of it in the late 30s BCE. It has provided a topographical study of the temple and considered its significance in the religious landscape of the Capitoline and Augustan Rome. It proposed that Octavian’s investment in the temple rebuilt it with traditional materials and on its original plan. This restoration of the temple represents the primary phase in the Augustan investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill, which was characterised by a faithful appreciation of the cult building and its associated priesthood and rituals. However, Octavian’s ostensible respect for the antiquity of the structure was connected to what would appear to have been a manipulation of one of the cult’s most famous and ancient rites, that of dedicating the spolia opima. Indeed Octavian’s restoration of the temple ensured that this spectacular honour, the highest military award possible, was henceforth restricted to members of the imperial family. In consequence, Octavian’s restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius endowed it with a new function as a monument connected with the military valour of the imperial family. Octavian’s restored temple of Jupiter Feretrius therefore provided a powerful symbol of the exclusive, imperial connection to the cult. A particular reading of a passage in Strabo that was discussed in this chapter explored the possibility that Octavian dedicated a colossal bronze statue of Zeus by Myron within the restored temple sometime in or after 29 BCE, which he had acquired following his victory at Actium. If this were to be the case, then the dedication of this statue in the temple may have been styled in the manner of 185 dedicating the spolia opima. Octavian’s involvement in the fetiales, his restoration of the temple, and his possible dedication of a cult statue, were linked to the celebration of the triumph in its most exceptional form. Therefore, while Octavian’s investment in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius marked the first, tentative stage of his investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill, it also constituted some important shifts in religious policy. In particular, it marked out Octavian’s close relationship with the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline and his evolving self-­‐representation with the deity. Indeed, Octavian’s investment in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius is best considered alongside of his revival of the augurium salutis ritual, which publicly identified him as the earthly agent of Jupiter. In the following chapter, we will see in another topographical case study how Augustus expanded this connection further and explicitly demonstrated his personal connection with Jupiter through his construction of a new temple, dedicated to Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline, in the decade following his restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. 186 CHAPTER FIVE
The Temple dedicated to Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline
hill
5.1 Introduction
This chapter continues the investigation into Augustus’ investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline, but this time focuses on Augustus’ introduction of a completely new temple and cult dedicated to Jupiter Tonans (Thunderer) in the area Capitolina. Unlike the other new temples that Augustus constructed in Rome, dedicated to Divus Julius in the Roman Forum, Apollo Palatinus, and Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum, all of which are firmly located and have received detailed topographical, archaeological and architectural examinations,483 the temple dedicated to Jupiter Tonans has received relatively little attention in modern scholarship since its precise date of dedication, location and design are uncertain.484 To date, relevant literature on the subject consists of brief and repetitive topographical entries.485 An exception is Pierre Gros, who, in 1976, recognised its significance with recourse to the literary evidence and termed it ‘la grande creation olympienne du régime’, although his discussion was only very 483
For the temple of Divus Julius see Richter 1888; for the temple of Apollo see chapter 3; for the temple of Mars Ultor see Ganzert 1996 and Claridge 2013. 484
One exception is Pierre Gros (1976, 34), who considered the political importance of the latter temple, describing it as ‘la grande création olympienne du régime’. However, Gros’ discussion was brief. 485
See Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 305-­‐6; Richardson 1992, 226-­‐7; LTUR III, 159-­‐60, s.v. ‘Iuppiter Tonans, Aedes’ [P. Gros]; Thein in MAR 2002, 157. 187 brief.486 Another exception is Jennifer A. Rea, who, in her study of Rome’s legendary origins as reflected in Augustan poetry, examined the temple of Jupiter Tonans, proposing that Augustus selected a cultic variant of Jupiter evoking his earliest incarnation as a sky god to remind the inhabitants of Rome of the deity’s earliest function to serve and protect the community.487 Rea’s discussion, however, underestimates the close interrelationship between Augustus and the cult of Jupiter Tonans, which is the subject of this present chapter. A survey of the available evidence increases our already existing knowledge regarding the importance of the temple and its cult in Augustan Rome, and also offers possible options for the location of the temple in the area Capitolina. The first part of this chapter will draw on numismatic, literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence to resolve the dedication date of the temple, and its precise location in the area Capitolina. The second part will investigate the nature of Augustus’ involvement in the cult, its significance, and effect on the nature of the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline. In short, this chapter will propose that the new cult of Jupiter Tonans had a transformative effect on the religious topography of the Capitoline hill, and also had a profound effect on the nature of the cult of Jupiter in Rome. It will suggest that the entire process of this temple’s construction, from its vowing to its dedication, represents a specific agenda to link the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline with Augustus, and to strengthen Augustus’ role as Jupiter’s earthly agent. 486
Gros 1976, 34. Rea 2007, 44-­‐63. 487
188 5.2 The dedication date for the temple of Jupiter Tonans
Augustus’ selection of the epithet ‘Tonans’ for his new temple on the Capitoline hill was unusual because it is the only recorded instance where the thundering aspect of Jupiter was singled out and represented in a public cult. Elemental attributes of Jupiter were already worshipped in Rome, for instance, a hypaethral shrine dedicated to Jupiter Fulgur was located in the campus Martius and a statue of Summanus, the deity associated with nocturnal lightning, was positioned on the pediment of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.488 However, Jupiter Fulgur was located outside of the pomerium, while the statue of Summanus does not appear to have been replaced after it was struck by lightning in the late Republic. It is likely that the dedication of this new temple was an important event, although little is known of it, and the precise year of dedication remains particularly uncertain.
In the Res Gestae, Augustus recorded only the bald fact of the temple’s construction in the area Capitolina.489 The precise year in which it was dedicated therefore remains unknown, although it is generally assumed that it was in 22 BCE.490 More fortuitously, three Roman calendars preserve the dies natalis for the temple of Jupiter Tonans as the 1st September.491 From Suetonius we learn that Augustus had vowed a temple to Jupiter Tonans when, during a night march on 488
LTUR III, 136-­‐8 s.v. ‘Iuppiter Fulgur, Aedificium’ [D. Manacorda]. For the statue of Summanus on the Jupiter Capitolinus temple having been struck by lightning see Cic. de Div. 1.10.6; there are no later references to it to indicate that it was replaced. 489
RG 19.2: Aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri et Iovis Tonantis... feci. 490
For acceptance that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was dedicated in 22 BCE, see Platner Ashby 1929, 305; LTUR III, 159, s.v. ‘Iuppiter Tonans, Aedes’ [P. Gros]; Richardson 1992, 226; Thein in MAR 2002, 157. 491
:
Insrc. Ital. 13.2. 504: September 1 Inscr. Ialt. XIII.2, 504. Acta fratrum Arvalium: Iovi Tonanti in Capitolio, Iovi Libero, Iunoni Reginae in Aventino To Jupiter Tonans on the Capitol. To Jupiter Liber, to Queen Juno on the Aventine. Fasti Amit.: Iovi Tonanti in Capitolio ‘To Jupiter Tonans on the Capitol.’ Ant. Min.: Feriae Iovi ‘Holiday in honour of Jupiter.’ 189 campaign in Spain against the Cantabri, he narrowly escaped death as lightning struck and killed the slave who was in front of the litter in which he was being transported.492 This episode can be closely dated to early 26 BCE. Augustus left Rome in the middle of 27 BCE and arrived in Spain, via Gaul, at the end of the same year, but campaigned for only a short part of 26 BCE because illness forced him to retire.493 This illness delayed Augustus’ return to Rome until 24 BCE, and he was seriously ill in 23 BCE, but he had recovered by 22 BCE.494 Given Augustus’ return to good health, combined with his presence in Rome, it is generally thought that the temple was dedicated in this same year.495 However, there are two obstacles to the assumption that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was dedicated in 22 BCE. Firstly, according to Pierre Gros, construction of the temple can only have begun upon Augustus’ return to Rome in 24 BCE because the process of introducing a new temple in Rome required the presence of the individual who had vowed it.496 If Gros is correct, then the dedication of the Jupiter Tonans temple in 22 BCE allows a construction period of only two years, and a later dedication date is therefore likely. Secondly, in 22 BCE Augustus did not hold the consulship, but the holding of this office was technically required for the dedication of a new temple.497 According to Livy, reporting on a curule aedile’s dedication of a shrine to Concordia in 304 BCE, the individual dedicating a temple 492
Suet. Aug. 29.3: Tonanti Iovi aedem consecravit liberatus periculo, cum expeditione Cantabrica per nocturnum iter lecticam eius fulgur praestrinxisset servumque praelucentem exanimasset. ‘The temple of Jupiter the Thunderer he consecrated after he had an escape from danger. For once when he was traveling by night on campaign in Spain, a flash of lightning struck his litter and killed the slave who was lighting the way.’ (trans. Edwards 2008, 58). 493
Dio Cassius 53.25.5-­‐8 provides an account of Augustus’ activities in Spain. 494
For Augustus’ severe illness see Dio Cass. 53.30.1-­‐3 and Suet. Aug. 28.1, 59, 81.1. 495
For dedication of the Jupiter Tonans temple in 22 BCE see the references to the topographical entries listed above in fn. 491; Scheid (2009, 282) suggests that it was dedicated in 21 BCE, although without explanation. 496
Gros 1976, 66. 497
For the procedure concerning the dedication of temples in the Republican period, see Orlin 2011, 162-­‐88. 190 had either to hold the consulship or be bestowed with imperium.498 While there are in fact numerous examples to demonstrate that this was not always a legal requirement in the Republic, Livy’s specification could suggest that this law was revived (or created) in the Augustan period precisely at the time when the construction of public buildings in Rome was being restricted to the sphere of Augustus and his supporters.499 The relevance of this law, concerning the necessary dedication of a temple by a consul, to the Augustan period is supported by the fact that Augustus held the consulship when he dedicated the temples of Divus Julius, Apollo Palatinus and Mars Ultor. In 22 BCE, Augustus was neither consul nor bestowed with imperium. It was in this year, however, that Augustus left Rome for the east and only returned to Rome in 19 BCE, in triumph and bearing the Parthian standards.500 As part of the honours celebrating his return in this year, the Senate granted Augustus the right to wear consular insignia, to sit in the chair between the consuls and to bear fasces, thus all of the trappings of office without election to the consulship.501 Given the celebratory atmosphere of 19 BCE and Augustus’ holding of the consulship in this year, it is likely that Augustus dedicated the temple of Jupiter Tonans at this time. This later dedication date, moreover, is supported by a coin series celebrating the return of the Parthian standards to Rome and Augustus’ subsequent honours.502 The series is dated to 19/18 BCE from those known historical events and was probably minted in Spain, at Caesaraugusta in Hispania Tarraconensis and Colonia Patricia 498
Livy 9.46.6-­‐7. Hölscher 2009, 19. 500
RG 29.2: Parthos trium exercitu um Romanorum spoila et signa reddere mihi supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere coegi ‘I compelled the Parthians to give back to me spoils and standards of three Roman armies and humbly to request the friendship of the Roman people.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 94). 501
Dio Cass. 54.10.5. 502
Mattingly 1923, cxi. 499
191 in Hispania Baetica, on the basis of stylistic similarities with the portraiture on Spanish civic issues of aes.503 An issue of aurei and denarii bearing the image of the temple of Jupiter Tonans on the obverse are included. A right-­‐facing portrait of Augustus decorates the obverse (Figs. 5.1-­‐5.6), while the reverse features a depiction of the Jupiter Tonans temple and the horizontal legend Iov. Ton. flanks either side of the temple (see Fig. 5.1 for a vertical legend). The temple depicted is tall and narrow, and its podium consists of three steps upon which stand six tall, slender Corinthian columns. The ends of a rectangular architrave are decorated with akroteria, and a narrow, pitched roof with moulded decoration is located above and set in from the edge. A wide central intercolumniation reveals the cult statue, a nude figure of Jupiter holding a thunderbolt and a spear or a sceptre. On the coins that feature the full extent of the temple’s roof, a simple akroterion is placed on the apex of the pediment (Fig. 5.5) Given that this Spanish series is concerned with Augustus’ triumph in the east and the return of the Parthian standards, the inclusion of the Jupiter Tonans type in the series is puzzling. Harold Mattingly sought to explain it by proposing that the Jupiter Tonans temple originally housed the Parthian standards before they were transferred to the temple of Mars Ultor in the Augustan Forum, although this act is otherwise unattested.504 Another possible explanation is that the issue celebrated Augustus’ dedication of the temple, therefore supporting the year of dedication for the temple of Jupiter Tonans in c.19/18 BCE, rather than in 22 BCE as conventionally assumed. Not only does this afford a more realistic construction time frame (allowing for five or six years, rather than only two), it 503
See Sutherland 1984, 25-­‐6; Mattingly 1923, cxi ascribes them to ‘Uncertain 2’ mints (Colonia Patricia?); Grueber 1910, vol. II, 28-­‐9 catalogued the series under ‘coinage of Rome’; Giard 1976, 13 thinks that the series could have been produced in Gaul. 504
Mattingly 1923, cxi. 192 would also mean that Augustus dedicated the temple in the year that he held the consulship. On balance, it is likely that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was dedicated in c.19/18 BCE. 5.3 Other evidence for the temple
The temple of Jupiter Tonans was certainly completed by 17 BCE when it provided one of the venues for the performance of the ludi saeculares, as recorded in the fragments of a marble pillar discovered on banks of the Tiber in 1895.505 The space in front of the temple of Jupiter Tonans was selected as a site for certain rituals during the proceedings, such as the distribution of purgamenta and the receiving of fruges. There are a number of later literary references to the cult and temple, and while some Flavian poetic allusions to Jupiter Tonans are ambiguous and could equally refer to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, others are explicit and detailed.506 Pliny refers to the statuary of the Jupiter Tonans temple three times in his book on bronze working in the Natural History, noting that the statues of Castor and Pollux located in front of it were praised, and that its cult statue by Leochares was ante cuncta laudabilem, of unrivalled merit, and a valuable example of Delian 505
CIL 6.32323, lines 29-­‐36. Isdem cos., isdem mag. XV vir. s.f. ad collegium [relatum est purgamenta dari et fruges accipi colle[g]io [ …… placere ut in Capitolio ante aedem Iovis]/ maximi et ante aedem Iovis tonantis et [ ……. in Palatio aedem] Apollinis et in porticu eius, fruges autem i[bi ubi supra scriptum est accipiendas esse et ad aedem Dianae in Aventino et] in porticu eius [ Censuerunt autem, ut singuleis tr[ibunalis XV viri fruges acciperent bini itemqu[e omnes convenirent deinde ter[ “Under the same consuls, and the same officials of the Fifteen in charge of sacrifices, [the matter was brought] to the college … that means of purification be given and corn be received, that the college … [decides that on the Capitol in front of the temple of] greatest [Jupiter] and in front of the temple of Jupiter the Thunderer and [ … on the Palatine in front of the temple] of Apollo and in its portico, and that corn [should be received] in the places [specified above and at the temple of Diana on the Aventine and] in its portico … Moreover they decreed that to individuals at the platforms [the Fifteen…] they should receive two portions of corn each and also …[…] they should all assemble then … (Trans. M.G.K. Cooley 2008, 272). 506
For ambiguous poetic references to Jove Tonans see Mart. Epigr. 5.16.5, 7.60.1-­‐4, 10.51.13-­‐4, 11.94.7; Stat. Silv. 4.2. Also, later, Claudian Paneg. dictus Honorio cos. VI 44 sq. 193 bronze.507 In his book on stone, Pliny reports that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was constructed with blocks of solid marble.508 In his Life of Augustus, Suetonius reports that Augustus frequently visited the temple and recounts that he adorned it with bells in order to appease Jupiter Optimus Maximus, who had appeared to him in a dream to complain that the new cult was distracting his own worshippers: Cum dedicatam in Capitolio aedem Tonanti Iovi assidue frequentaret, somniavit queri Capitolinum Iovem cultores sibi abduci seque respondisse Tonantem pro ianitore ei appositum; idque mox tintinnabulis fastigium aedis redimiit, quod ea fere ianus dependebant. ‘As he used to make constant visits to the Temple of Jupiter the Thunderer which he had dedicated on the Capitoline, he dreamed that Jupiter Capitolinus complained to him that he had taken away his worshippers and that he himself replied that he had placed Jupiter the Thunderer there beside him as a doorkeeper. Soon after, in consequence, he had bells put on the apex of the Thunderer’s roof, since these usually hang from doors.’ (Suet. Aug. 91.2-­‐3; trans. Edwards 2000, 89.) Dio Cassius provides a similar narrative, but adds that thunder occurred during the dedication of the temple and gives four reasons for the popularity of 507
Plin. HN: 34.19.78: Hegias: Et Castor ac Pollux ante aedem Iovis Tonantis ‘and his Castor and Pollux that stand before the temple of Jupiter the Thunderer [are praised]’. (Loeb, Trans. H. Rackham); 34.19.79: Leochares: Iovemque illum Tonantem in Capitolio ante cuncta laudabilem ‘and the famous Zeus the Thunderer now on the Capitol, of quite unrivalled merit’ (Loeb, Trans. H. Rackham); 34.5.10: Deliaci autem Iuppiter in Capitolio in Iovis Tonantis aede. ‘While that of Delos [Delian bronze] is seen in the Zeus or Jupiter in the temple of Jupiter the Thunderer on the Capitol.’ (Loeb, Trans. H. Rackham). 508
This passage is found in an aside concerning the introduction of marble veneer in domestic contexts, Marcus Lepidus’ use of Lucullan marble, and Marcus Scaurus’s use of solid marble walls in a stage that he constructed in Rome, although Pliny was not certain if they were veneer or solid blocks. Plin. HN 36.8.50: Non facile dixerim secto an solidis glaebis polito, sicuti est hodie Iovis Tonantis aedis in Capitolio. ‘Though I am not prepared to say whether these were of veneer or of solid polished blocks, as, for instance, is the case today with the walls of the temple of Jupiter the Thunderer on the Capitol.’ (Loeb, Trans. H. Rackham). Gros (2009, 100) thinks that Pliny is referring to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, but this can hardly be the case, as Pliny (HN 33.16, 19, 35.14, 36.45) specifies this temple as aedes Capitolina and (HN 3.70) Capitolium and (HN 36.56.185) Iovis Capitolini. 194 the new cult: the novelty of the cult epithet, the cult statue, its association with Augustus, and that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was the first temple that those ascending the Capitoline came to on their arrival: Καὶ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Βροντῶντος ἐπικαλουμένου ναὸν καθιέρωσε·∙ περὶ οὗ δύο ταῦτα παραδέδοται, ὅτι τότε τε ἐν τῇ ἱερουργίᾳ βρονταὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὄναρ τῷ Αὐγούστῳ τοιόνδε ἐπέστη. Τῶν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων, τὸ μέν τι πρὸς τὸ ξένον καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, τὸ δὲ καὶ ὅτι ὑπὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου ἵδρυτο, μέγιστον δὲ ὅτι πρώτῳ οἱ ἀνιόντες ἐς τὸ Καπιτώλιον ἐνετύγχανον, προσερχομένων τε αὐτῷ καὶ σεβόντων, ἔδοξε τὸν Δία τὸν ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ ναῷ ὄντα ὀργὴν ὡς καὶ τὰ δεύτερα αὐτοῦ φερόμενον ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐκ τούτου ἐκείνῳ τε εἰπεῖν ἔλεγεν ὅτι προφύλακα τὸν Βροντῶντα ἔχοι, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἡμέρα ἐγένετο, κώδωνα αὐτῷ περιῆψε, βεβαιῶν τὴν ὀνείρωξιν·∙ οἱ γὰρ τὰς συνοικίας νύκτωρ φυλάσσοντες κωδωνοφοροῦσιν, ὅπως σημαίνειν σφίσιν ὁπόταν δεηθῶσι δύνωνται. ‘The people, he thought, approached Jupiter who is called Tonans and did reverence to him, partly because of the novelty of his name and of the form of his statue, and partly because the statue had been set up by Augustus, but chiefly because it was the first they encountered as they ascended the Capitol; and thereupon the Jupiter in the great temple was angry because he was now reduced to second place as compared with the other. At this, Augustus related, he said to Jupiter Capitolinus, "You have Tonans as your sentinel"; and when it was day, he attached a bell to the statue as confirmation of the vision.’ (Cass. Dio 54.4.2-­‐3; Loeb, trans. E. Cary.) Given the similarities in the two accounts, it is likely that Suetonius and Dio Cassius were drawing on the same source, and it is possible that this source was Augustus’ autobiography.509 Although only a few fragments of it survive, we learn from Suetonius that it comprised thirteen books and concluded with the 509
For the remains of Augustus’ memoirs, see Smith and Powell 2009. 195 Cantabrian campaign.510 It has been proposed that Augustus composed an autobiography in order to justify his personal and political conduct during his ascension to sole leadership in Rome, especially in regards to the civil wars.511 In Rome, Jupiter’s support of Augustus’ leadership was clearly and widely expressed, and, as we shall see later in this chapter, Augustus’ construction of the temple of Jupiter Tonans may have provided one of the most powerful expressions of Jupiter’s support. 5.4 The location of the temple of Jupiter Tonans in the area Capitolina
The tale of Jupiter Optimus Maximus’ displeasure in Augustus’ dream, recounted above, indicates that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was somewhere in the vicinity of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, but the lack of any other fixed point of reference makes it difficult to locate it more precisely. Dio’s passage is typically read on the understanding that Καπιτώλιον is synonymous with the area Capitolina, and that as the Jupiter Tonans temple was the first seen when entering the area Capitolina it was accordingly located near to the terminus of the clivus Capitolinus.512 Most reconstructions of the area Capitolina include an entrance located at the south-­‐eastern side of the Capitoline, apparently dependent on the notion that all the temples located within this space must have overlooked the Roman Forum.513 The Jupiter Capitolinus temple faced south and away from the Forum, however, and despite the various hypotheses proposed for 510
Suet. Aug. 85.1: item "Hortationes ad Philosophiam," et aliqua "De Vita Sua," quam tredecim libris Cantabrico tenus bello nec ultra exposuit ‘He also wrote, ‘Exhortations to Philosophy’ and something ‘On his own Life’, which he described in thirteen books up to the Cantabrian war and no further.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 84). 511
For the self-­‐justifying function of Augustus’ autobiography see Rich 2009, 145-­‐72. 512
Richardson 1992, 226. 513
Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 305-­‐6; Richardson 1992, 31. 196 the layout and extent of the area Capitolina and the route of the clivus Capitolinus, the relationship between the two remains unknown, although Albert J. Ammerman and Nicola Terrenato argue that entrances to the Capitoline can only be located on the eastern side of the hill on account of the prohibitive steepness of its other sides.514 Dio Cassius’ description of the Jupiter Tonans temple as the first temple that was encountered when ascending the area Capitolina may have related to hierarchical tensions between the old and new cults of Jupiter on the Capitoline, which Dio Cassius would elaborate upon further in the narrative of Augustus’ dream, with πρώτῳ providing a contrast with the δεύτερα of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Furthermore, the precise meaning of Καπιτώλιον in Dio Cassius’ narrative is ambiguous, because, as we saw in chapter 4 [page 176] it could just as equally refer to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as to the area Capitolina. If Dio Cassius was indeed referring to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, then the passage could suggest that the Jupiter Tonans temple was placed anterior and in close proximity to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, interrupting the traditional course of the dedicant. Suetonius and Dio Cassius also suggest a location in front of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as they describe, respectively, the temple of Jupiter Tonans as the ianitor, gatekeeper, and προφύλακα, sentinel for Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Suetonius uses appositum in conjunction with pro ianitore, which can be variously translated as ‘contiguous’, ‘bordering upon,’ as well as ‘place by, lay beside,’ and 514
LTUR I, 280 s.v. ‘Clivus Capitolinus’ [Wiseman, T.P.]; Ammerman and Terrenato 1996, 43. 197 all of these translations indicate that the temples of Jupiter Tonans and Jupiter Capitolinus were in very close proximity. 515 In addition to the passages from Suetonius and Dio Cassius, there are other clues to the location of the temple of Jupiter Tonans. An inscription of Hadrianic date from Praeneste places the temple of Jupiter Tonans in proximity to a shrine of Fortuna Primigenia: Tu, quae Tarpeio coleris vicina Tonanti, votorum vindex semper, Fortuna, ‘You, Fortuna, who shares the Tarpeian hill with the nearby Thunderer, always [the] defender [and] protector of vows’.516 However, the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia is not elsewhere attested. Pierre Gros proposes that the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia and the temple of Jupiter Tonans are the two temples which are shown on the remains of the third century CE plan of the city of Rome depicted on the Severan Marble map fragments 31 a-­‐c (Fig. 5.7).517 The buildings shown on these fragments are generally located on the west margin of the Capitoline on the basis of the adjacent staircase depicted on, and the orientation of the grain of the marble and thickness of the border of, these fragments, and it is in this part that Gros locates the entrance to the area Capitolina. The smaller, tetrastyle temple to the left would be the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia, and the larger one the temple of Jupiter Tonans. Alexander Thein, following Aronen’s theory that the entrance to the area Capitolina was on the opposite side, locates both temples to the northeast.518 Finally, Paola Mazzei proposes that a favissa discovered on the Capitoline in the 1920s belonged to the shrine of Fortuna, and accordingly tentatively identifies some adjacent concrete 515
Lewis and Short: Appositum. With examples: Plin. HN 3.18.22,12.1.5; Tac. Ann. 1.7; Cic. Inv. 2.54.165. And in its perfect form, apposivi, it can mean ‘to place, put, or lay at, near or by the side of. Lewis and Short, apposivi, with the examples of Plaut. Mil. 3.3.31. 516
CIL XIV 2852 = ILS 3696. 517
LTUR III, 160, s.v. ‘Iuppiter Tonans, Aedes’ [P. Gros]; Gros 1976, 66, 97-­‐100. 518
See LTUR II, 273-­‐75 s.v. ‘Fortuna Primigenia’ [Aronen, J.]; Thein in MAR 2002, 157. 198 substructures in Via del Tempio di Giove as ‘Iuppiter Tonans?’ (Fig. 5.8).519 These concrete substructures are closely analysed further below. A number of objections, however, can be raised to all of these hypotheses. The two temples in the Severan Marble plan fragments are placed alongside each other, a relationship which might warrant the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia being described as iuxta rather than the more generic vicina of the Hadrianic inscription. Mazzei’s favissa contained nothing specifically relating to Fortuna and could be associated with a number of archaic cults.520 The Hadrianic date of the inscription affects its value as a topographic indicator for the Augustan Capitoline, as the area Capitolina was damaged by fire in 69 CE, 80 CE and 82 CE, each time necessitating rebuildings of the site. The location of the temple of Jupiter Tonans, once known, can be used as a clue for the position of Fortuna Primigenia, but not vice versa. Mazzei’s tentative identification of the concrete substructures on the Capitoline, however, deserves further consideration.521 A number of possibilities have been proposed for the concrete remains, but all attempts at identification have so far lacked a detailed study of the concrete.522 The following section, therefore, provides a close study of the concrete substructures with a view to 519
Mazzei 2007, 146, tav.1. See Gjerstad 1960, 190-­‐201 for detailed discussion of the deposit; for alternative interpretations of this deposit see Colonna (1984, 401) who identifies it with Jupiter Feretrius, Lowe (1978, 143) who identifies it with Terminus, and Ampolo (1988, 158-­‐9) who identifies it as a cult place on the Capitoline exaugurated for the construction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, in line with the narrative provided by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 521
Mazzei’s reproduction of Gatti’s map identifies it as ‘platea in calcestruzzo di età imperiale’. Mazzei 2007, 147, 2. 522
See Richardson 1992, 226-­‐7; see also Von Sydow 1973, Fig.34, who identifies the concrete foundation in his reproduction of Ioppolo’s map of the Capitoline as ‘Jupiter Tonans’, although without accompanying explanation. 520
199 analysing its materials and construction style in order to resolve its dating, and to test its identification as the substructures of the temple of Jupiter Tonans. 5.5 The temple of Jupiter Tonans and the concrete substructures on
Via del Tempio di Giove
During construction work for a new municipal building on the Capitoline in 1896,523 a solid mass of opus caementicium with the imprints of wooden shuttering on three sides was discovered around 20m. to the southeast of, and orthogonally aligned with, the partly exposed cappellaccio tuff substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple (see Fig. 5.9, and see also Map 3).524 A report by Giuseppe Gatti in the Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica for 1896-­‐7 included a section drawing and a plan (Fig. 5.10), and Christian Hülsen’s account of the discovery published the following year supplied a photograph (Fig. 5.9). In Gatti’s publication, the complete eastern side measured 14.80m. / 50 RF, while the fragmentary south and north sides measured 6.0m. / 20 RF and 14.50m/49 RF respectively.525 The western end disappeared into what was then the property of the Prussian Embassy and could not be excavated.526 Hülsen, however, subsequently reported that the north side could be measured to a length of 16 m/ 54 RF and evidently continued further, and in his RE entry concerning the Jupiter Capitolinus temple published the following year (1899), Hülsen drew a slightly more elongated plan than the plan that Gatti had provided earlier (Fig. 523
Gatti 1896 a, 116. The latter had been partly excavated in 1875 during construction of a new hall for the Capitoline Museums in the garden between the Palazzo dei Conservatori and the Palazzo Caffarelli, but not fully exposed. Athenaeum vol. 2516, 96-­‐7, 15 January 1876. Extracted from Notes from Rome by Rodolfo Lanciani, ed. Cubberly 1988, 1-­‐2. 525
Gatti 1896 a, 117-­‐8. 526
Gatti 1896 b, 188. Later these became known as the Montanari Gardens. Today it is a park but serves as a site for construction materials and is generally inaccessible. 524
200 5.11).527 In depth the foundation measured approximately 7m. /24RF, its upper surface located at a height of 46.36m.asl, the lower at 39.37m.asl (refer to the section in Fig. 5.10). The construction of the Via del Tempio di Giove in 1896 destroyed much of the centre of the concrete foundation (Fig. 5.12 -­‐ 13), but parts are still visible on either side of the road, incorporated into a brick wall (Fig. 5.14) and the wall of a municipal building (Fig. 5.15).528 The eastern end of the north side, still with its shuttering indentations, is preserved in the office of the segretaria (Fig. 5.16) and the archivi of the Avvocatura (Fig. 5.17). The surfaces of the cuttings facing the road have been heavily repointed with modern cement, and only the lower parts are original. The concrete of the Via del Tempio di Giove foundation is composed of a grey mortar with both red and black pozzolana and an aggregate of basalt chunks (c.5-­‐10 x c.3-­‐5cm.) and a grey tuff with small white round crystalline inclusions, possibly peperino (Fig. 5.18 -­‐ 19).529 The precise dating of Roman concrete, particularly substructures of concrete, is difficult, although a rough typology for Roman concrete structures based on the material, size and distribution of caementa, and the quality, type and quantity of the pozzolana and lime used for mortar has been developed.530 Gatti did not suggest a date for the Via del Tempio di Giove foundation other than the imperial period, but Hülsen proposed an Augustan date, comparing the composition of the construction materials of this structure with the construction materials in the 527
Hülsen 1898, 216. Presumably he had been able to arrange some further excavation in the embassy grounds, by virtue of his post of second secretary at the German Institute. 528
In October 2011 I surveyed the visible remains with a total station and laser prism, and I am grateful to Sophie Hay for her kind assistance with this. 529
Attempts to develop reliable scientific methods of dating concrete on the basis of the mortar using e.g. Carbon 14 dating have so far failed, for the problems, see Ringbom et al 2011; Lindroos et al 2011. 530
Van Deman established a comprehensive chronology for concrete monuments, including a chronological outline of concrete substructures. See Van Deman 1912, 232-­‐41. For more recent works on the use of concrete in Roman architecture, see DeLaine 2002 and Lancaster 2005. 201 foundation of the Tomb of Caecilia Metella.531 Later, Gros favoured the Domitianic period, comparing the construction materials used for the Via del Tempio di Giove substructure with those employed in the foundations of the Domitianic palace on the Palatine.532 Most recently Arata has proposed a Hadrianic date for the Via del Tempio di Giove foundation, comparing the construction materials with those characterising the foundations of the temple of Venus and Rome.533 The use of basalt in foundations dating to the Augustan period was extremely rare, and in the specific case of the tomb of Caecilia Metella on the Via Appia, the basalt was sourced directly from the bedrock upon which the tomb was constructed.534 For this reason, Hülsen’s comparison between the Via del Tempio di Giove structure and the tomb of Caecilia Metella on the Via Appia is not helpful. Other contemporary foundations are more likely to be characterised by large and roughly distributed pieces of tuff, travertine and peperino in a dusky red mortar.535 Moreover, Augustan foundations always combined concrete with opus quadratum tuff masonry.536 In contrast, the use of basalt as aggregate and concrete as a stand-­‐alone material define Flavian substructures.537 The foundations of the Domitianic palace, which Gros cited, measure around 2.5m. / 8 RF in height and 3 m. / 10 RF in width (Fig. 5.20), but the aggregate is a mixture of 531
Hülsen 1898, 216. Gros 1976, 98. 533
Arata 2010a, 139. 534
Van Deman 1912, 391; Claridge 2010, 430-­‐31; See Gerding 2002, 26-­‐7. 535
See Van Deman 1912, 235, 387-­‐99. 536
See Vitr. De arch. 3.4.1, in chapter 3, p.84. The foundation of the temple of Castor provides a good illustration of Vitruvius’ definition as it comprises eleven courses of travertine ashlar blocks beneath the columns at a slightly greater width than the base of the columns, beneath which are eight courses of cappellaccio tuff blocks. Between the travertine piers are opus caementicium arched vaults, and between the cappellaccio blocks are solid infills of Augustan opus caementicium. See Nilson, Persson and Zahle 2009, 21-­‐49. See also Strong and Ward Perkins 1962, 25 for a discussion of the style of Augustan foundations. 537
Van Deman 1912, 407. 532
202 basalt pieces (c.3-­‐5cm. x c.3-­‐5cm.) and fragments of tile and brick (c.3-­‐5cm. x c.3-­‐
5cm.), with some larger pieces of travertine (Fig. 5.21).538 The foundations for the nearby and near-­‐contemporary Arch of Titus (Fig. 5.22) were laid in horizontal courses with large pieces of basalt (c.3cm. x 3-­‐5cm.) evenly alternating with courses of larger travertine pieces (c.5-­‐10cm. x 5-­‐10cm.). The exposed western side of the foundations of the Hadrianic temple of Venus and Rome, mentioned by Arata, is characterised by medium-­‐sized chunks of basalt and travertine distributed in regular rows (Fig. 5.23). However, the opposite side of the foundation is different, with caementa of tuff, travertine, basalt and brick, with tuff utilised under the non-­‐load bearing parts of the superstructure, and basalt and travertine closely packed together in rows for the load-­‐bearing parts (Fig. 5.24).539 None of the cited substructures, therefore, provide a particularly convincing parallel for the Via del Tempio di Giove foundation, although this is perhaps to be expected considering that the materials used as caementa were usually sourced from the previous buildings on the site and are consequently very site-­‐specific.540 The concrete foundation on the Via del Tempio di Giove features a particular combination of basalt with grey tuff, rather than travertine, and grey tuffs (both the cappellaccio of the underlying bedrock and imported peperino) predominate in all the surrounding ancient remains. Its basalt components and the manner in which they are laid, however, compare most closely with the dateable Flavian, especially Domitianic, examples, and since known restorations 538
The Domitianic phase of the temple of Veiovis provides an example of a contemporary yet different foundation, with caementa composed of travertine, basalt and other materials, see Blake 1959, 102. Unfortunately, I was not granted permission to examine this. 539
See Blake 1973, 40. 540
Van Deman 1912, 234-­‐5. 203 to the Capitoline following the fires of 69 CE and 80 CE are recorded in the written sources,541 the balance of evidence is in favour of the concrete foundation dating to the Domitianic period and probably post 80 CE. What the foundation on the Via del Tempio di Giove once supported has been much debated, for the 1896 excavation found no element that can be attributed to its superstructure and also gave rise to some confusion over its shape. Hülsen’s 1899 RE entry features a plan of the Capitoline with the concrete foundation reconstructed as a rectangle (Fig. 5.11).542 However, despite Hülsen’s testimony to the contrary, most published plans featuring the substructure have been taken from Gatti’s publication and shown it as a square.543 The map of the Capitoline drawn by Giovanni Ioppolo for Antonio Maria Colini has been particularly influential (Fig. 5.25),544 reproduced by Von Sydow545 and Coarelli546 and many others since,547 which shows it firmly as a square, 14.80 x 14.80m, / 50 x 50RF, positioned in line just to the right of the façade east of Capitoline Jupiter. On this understanding, some diverse hypotheses as to the superstructure supported by this foundation have been proposed, from the aedes Thensarium (where sacred vehicles used to convey the images of the gods in 541
Dio Cass. 66.24.1-­‐3 records that the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and its surrounding temples were destroyed, and Suetonius Dom. 5 credits Domitian with their restoration. See Blake (1959, 100) for a discussion of this fire and Domitian’s rebuilding on the Capitoline. 542
Hülsen 1899, 1535-­‐6. 543
See Häuber 2005, 42-­‐3, and n. 283-­‐5. 544
Colini 1965. Paribeni 1921, 47 referred to a rectangular foundation 47, but his plan on page 45, shows it as square. 545
Von Sydow 1973, 56, abb. 34. 546
Coarelli 1974, 40, where it is labelled as ‘Tensarium’; see also the University of Virginia’s Rome Reborn model which reconstructs it as a small temple ‘Aedes Tensarum’. http://www.romereborn.virginia.edu/ge/TS-­‐001.html. 547
For example, Claridge 2010, Fig.109; Thein in MAR 2002, 157, who refers to ‘the square cement remains of a podium’ although given an Imperial dating, was not reproduced in the MAR map; Hackens 1962, 12, Fig.1 204 procession were stored),548 to the arch of Nero,549 or – most persuasively -­‐ a monumental altar, namely the Ara Gentis Iuliae, attested on the Capitoline by military diplomas, and probably constructed c. 6-­‐9 CE. The ‘square foundation’ is marked as such in Reusser’s plan of the area Capitolina offered in the LTUR (Fig. 5.26).550 Since it is now clear that the Capitoline concrete foundation was rectangular (as represented in map 3) and measures over 7m. in depth, which is consistent with known foundation depths for temples but of an unnecessary depth for altars, it is likely that the foundation supported a temple.551 In 1921, during excavations of the Jupiter Capitolinus podium, Roberto Paribeni thought it likely that the foundation supported a monumental public building, probably a small temple, but considered further identification of it impossible because of the lack of any other evidence.552 When Paribeni was writing, however, the substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple had not been completely exposed, and the relationship between the two footings could not yet be fully appreciated. The prominent position of the concrete substructures, so close to and orthogonally aligned with the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, indicates a temple of considerable 548
Suet. Vesp. 5; LTUR I, 17 s.v. ‘Aedes Thensarum, Thensarium Vetus’. [Pisani Sartorio]; The location of the Aedes Thensarium as in Capitolio is attested by military diplomas, which were attached to it: CIL XVI.4, CIL XVI.30. Coarelli (1974, 45) identifies it as the building shown to the right of the temple of Jupiter in the background of the relief in the Palazzo dei Conservatori showing Marcus Aurelius at sacrifice. 549
Palombi 1996, 855, relying on Kleiner 1985, see 72-­‐7 for a discussion of the coinage showing the arch, which he reconstructs as a tetrapylon. However, Tac. Ann. 13.41.4, 15.18.1, reports its location as medio Capitolini montis, which, as Kleiner 1985, 69-­‐72 points out, could as well or better refer to the Asylum, the area between the Arx and the Capitolium. 550
La Rocca used Hülsen’s measurements of 14.80 metres x c.16 metres, but described the foundation as almost square ‘pressocché quadrata’ and suggested it was similar in form to the Ara Pacis, although this is considerably smaller (10.625 x 11.65m). See LTUR II s.v. ‘Gens Iulia, Ara’ Fig.64 [La Rocca]. 551
Hülsen 1898, 219; see also Sear 1982, 71, who gives the depth of a foundation trench for a temple as five to six metres in depth. Another possibility is that the depth testifies to the instability of the ground which required the sinking of the foundations to bedrock. 552
Paribeni 1921, 47. 205 status connected with Jupiter. Possible candidates are the aedes of Jupiter Feretrius, the aedes of Jupiter Tonans, the sacellum of Jupiter Conservator, and the templum of Jupiter Custos. None of these temples are securely located, although there is no indication that the temples dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius, Conservator or Custos should be located this close to the Jupiter Capitolinus substructures, unlike the literary testimony which suggests that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was located in close proximity to the great temple. However, Domitian dedicated temples to both Jupiter Conservator and Custos, and therefore either would suit the likely date for the foundation. According to Tacitus, Domitian first dedicated a sacellum to Jupiter Conservator on the site of the house of a priest on the Capitol in which he sought refuge during the civil war in 69 CE, and from where, disguised as a devotee of the cult of Isis and hidden among its priests, he escaped the forces of Vitellius.553 When emperor, Domitian 553
Tac. Hist. 3.74: Domitianus prima inruptione apud aedituum occultatus, sollertia liberti lineo amictu turbae sacricolarum immixtus ignoratusque, apud Cornelium Primum paternum clientem iuxta Velabrum delituit. ac potiente rerum patre, disiecto aeditui contubernio, modicum sacellum Iovi Conservatori aramque posuit casus suos in marmore expressam; mox imperium adeptus Iovi Custodi templum ingens seque in sinu dei sacravit. ‘Domitian was concealed in the lodging of a temple attendant when the assailants broke into the citadel; then through the cleverness of a freedman he was dressed in a linen robe and so was able to join a crowd of devotees without being recognized and to escape to the house of Cornelius Primus, one of his father's clients, near the Velabrum, where he remained in concealment. When his father came to power, Domitian tore down the lodging of the temple attendant and built a small chapel to Jupiter the Preserver with an altar on which his escape was represented in a marble relief. Later, when he had himself gained the imperial throne, he dedicated a great temple of Jupiter the Guardian, with his own effigy in the lap of the god.’ (Loeb, Trans. Clifford H. Moore). Also Suet. Dom. 1.2: Bello Vitelliano confugit in Capitolium cum patruo Sabino ac parte praesentium copiarum, sed irrumpentibus adversariis et ardente templo apud aedituum clam pernoctavit, ac mane Isiaci celatus habitu interque sacrificulos variae superstitionis cum se trans Tiberim ad condiscipuli sui matrem comite uno contulisset, ita latuit ‘During the conflict with Vitellius, Domitian took refuge on the Capitol with his paternal uncle, Sabinus, and some of the troops they had with them, but when their opponents burst through and the temple caught fire, he secretly spent the night with the temple-­‐
keeper and, in the morning, disguised in the dress of an adherent of Isis, he joined a group of priests of that dubious superstition and got away with one companion to the district across the Tiber, where he managed to hide in the home of a school friend’s mother’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 280). Reusser (1995, 131-­‐2), however, suggests that Domitian firstly built a marble altar dedicated to Jupiter Custos, rather than a temple, and only then did he build a temple dedicated to Jupiter Conservator. There is no reason to think this, as sacellum clearly refers to a small temple. Some commentators, such as Darwall-­‐Smith 1996, 110-­‐12, unnecessarily conflate what are clearly two separate buildings into one. 206 built a second temple, this time dedicated to Jupiter Custos, which, according to Tacitus, was ingens or enormous, and apparently featured a seated cult statue with an effigy of Domitian in its lap. Various scholars have proposed identifying the concrete podium with the sacellum of Jupiter Conservator or the templum of Jupiter Custos, Ashby and Nash identifying it with Jupiter Conservator, and Gros identifying it with the podium with Jupiter Custos.554 However, Domitian’s escape does not make sense if we locate his place of refuge immediately in front of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, because as Richardson points out, the location was neither inconspicuous nor safe given the proximity of the burning temple.555 On the strength of Suetonius’ narrative of the escape, in which Domitian escaped disguised as a worshipper of Isis, Arata proposes that the aedituus in which Domitian took refuge was associated with the cult of Isis Capitolina, a cult whose presence and location on the Capitoline is attested in epigraphic sources.556 Unfortunately, these sources do not provide a precise location for the aedituus, but there is no reason to locate it in the area Capitolina.557 The theological hierarchy of the area Capitolina probably prohibited the presence of other sovereign deities within its limits,558 so, if Arata’s equation is correct, neither the temple of Jupiter Conservator nor the temple of Jupiter Custos can be associated with the concrete foundation, since a priest of Isis would hardly have a house in front of the temple of Jupiter.559 554
For the identification of the substructures with Jupiter Conservator, see Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 292; Nash 1961 vol. 1. 518; for the identification of the substructures with Jupiter Custos see Gros 1976, 98. 555
Richardson 1992, 226. 556
Arata (2010a, 129-­‐36) for his discussion of the cult of Isis on the Capitoline, and (2010a, 136-­‐9) for his discussion of the temple of Jupiter conservator, and (2010a, 139-­‐45) for Jupiter Custos. 557
For a discussion of the relevant sources for Isis on the Capitoline, see Versluys 2003, 425-­‐30. 558
See Scheid 2005b, 99. 559
Arata (1998, 134-­‐5, Figs.6-­‐7, 151-­‐4) proposes that the sacellum dedicated to Jupiter Conservator should instead be located on the Arx, associating it with a small building with an opus 207 Nor can the Capitoline foundation be associated with Domitian’s second temple dedicated to Jupiter Conservator, given Tacitus’ description of it as ingens and the relatively small dimensions of the Via del Tempio di Giove foundation.560 Considering the evidence supplied by literary sources for the Jupiter Tonans temple being located so close to, and in front of, the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, it is most likely that the Via del Tempio de Giove foundation once supported the temple of Jupiter Tonans. Dio Cassius records that the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and its surrounding temples were destroyed in 80 CE and Suetonius credits Domitian with their restoration.561 The concrete foundation, therefore, is likely to be a Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Tonans temple. The preceding Augustan foundation would probably have been composed of a mix of concrete and tuff, but the fires of 69 CE and 80 CE could have rendered it necessary to rebuild not just the temple but also its foundation in the Domitianic period. A Domitianic rebuilding of the Augustan temple of Jupiter Tonans would explain why the Flavian court poet Statius celebrates Domitian as ‘he who restores the caementicium foundation, walls of opus latericium and a black and white mosaic floor, with four niches and an apse, possibly dated to the early Flavian period. He identifies two parallel concrete foundation walls with travertine and marble caementa fragments in the garden behind Santa Maria Aracoeli as the temple of Jupiter Custos. Arata 2009, 214-­‐5, and for photographs of the foundations see Figs.5-­‐6; Arata 2010a, 139-­‐46. 560
Tac. Hist. 3.74: mox imperium adeptus Iovi Custodi templum ingens seque in sinu dei sacravit. In chapter 6 page 251, fn. 690, however, it is pointed out that ingens may have served to contrast negatively with modicum sacellum. 561
Dio Cass. 66.24.1-­‐2: πῦρ δὲ δὴ ἕτερον ἐπίγειον τῷ ἑξῆς ἔτει πολλὰ πάνυ τῆς Ῥώμης, τοῦ Τίτου πρὸς τὸ πάθημα τὸ ἐν τῇ Καμπανίᾳ γενόμενον ἐκδημήσαντος, ἐπενείματο: καὶ γὰρ τὸ Σεραπεῖον καὶ τὸ Ἰσεῖον τά τε σέπτα καὶ τὸ Ποσειδώνιον τό τε βαλανεῖον τὸ τοῦ Ἀγρίππου καὶ τὸ πάνθειον τό τε διριβιτώριον καὶ τὸ τοῦ Βάλβου θέατρον καὶ τὴν τοῦ Πομπηίου σκηνήν, καὶ τὰ Ὀκταουίεια οἰκήματα μετὰ τῶν βιβλίων, τόν τε νεὼν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου μετὰ τῶν συννάων αὐτοῦ κατέκαυσεν. ‘However, a second conflagration, above ground, in the following year spread over very large sections of Rome while Titus was absent in Campania attending to the catastrophe that had befallen that region. It consumed the temple of Serapis, the temple of Isis, the Saepta, the temple of Neptune, the Baths of Agrippa, the Pantheon, the Diribitorium, the theatre of Balbus, the stage building of Pompey's theatre, the Octavian buildings together with their books, and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus with their surrounding temples’ (Loeb, Trans. E. Cary); Suet. Dom. 5. See Blake (1959, 100) for a brief discussion of Domitian’s rebuilding of the Capitoline. 208 Thunderer to the Capitol,’562 and why Martial so frequently referred to Domitian as Jupiter Tonans.563 5.6 Augustus and Jupiter Tonans
The temple of Jupiter Tonans was unique in the religious landscape of Augustan Rome. Magistrates vowed the majority of temples in Republican Rome, usually while on campaign and in response to an external military situation, either at critical points in battle, or in appeasement following great defeat where it was perceived that the welfare of the Roman state was threatened.564 In contrast, Augustus vowed the temple to Jupiter Tonans in response to a near fatal incident while on campaign, and therefore planned to construct a monument commemorating a personal act of thanksgiving. Furthermore, this is unusual in regards to the known tradition of temples or monuments constructed in response to a prodigy on campaign, which would normally result in the erection of a monument or temple at the site where the prodigy occurred, rather than in Rome.565 Moreover, unlike most of the other temples built in Rome, whose construction required at least some degree of senatorial involvement, there is no mention of the senate during any stage of the construction of Jupiter Tonans, nor even any 562
Stat. Silv. 4.3.16-­‐7: qui reddit Capitolio Tonantem et Pacem propria domo reponit, qui genti patriae futura semper sanctit limina Flaviumque caelum, ‘he who restores the Thunderer to the Capitol and puts Peace back in her own house, who consecrates an everlasting dwelling and a Flavian sky to his father’s race.’ (Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). 563
See Martial Epigr. 7.56.4. 7.99.1, 9.28.10, 9.39.1, 9.86.7, 9.65.1, 9.91.6. 564
Orlin 1997, 19-­‐21, 35-­‐75. Hekster and Rich suggest that the Jupiter Tonans temple was vowed in response to a prodigy, namely the lightning bolt, and then note that it differed from the Republican prodigy temple tradition in the lack of senatorial involvement. Hekster and Rich 2006, 156. I disagree: the temple was vowed in thanks for Augustus’ life. 565
It was more usual for temples to be vowed on campaign in the context of a general appealing to a deity to grant victory and vowing them a temple in thanks if there was a successful conclusion to the battle. For example, Livy 10.19.17, in which Appius Claudius Caecus vowed a temple to Bellona if she granted them victory in battle against the Etruscans and Samnites in 296 BCE. For a discussion of vows for temples made by magistrates on campaign, see Orlin 2002, 45-­‐66. 209 mention of consultation of the Sibylline books. The lack of mention of the traditional authorities who would normally be consulted during the construction of a major public temple in Rome, suggest that Augustus personally commissioned the construction of the temple of Jupiter Tonans. This provides a strikingly similar parallel to Octavian’s personal involvement in the construction of the temple of Apollo Palatinus. Therefore, although the temple of Jupiter Tonans was ostensibly associated with a public cult, it was, first and foremost, associated with Augustus as a private individual. Moreover, while Augustus stresses in the Res Gestae that he modestly refrained from leaving his name on the pediment of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, he was certainly entitled to inscribe it on the pediment of the Jupiter Tonans temple, which was located immediately in front of the former. The great value that Augustus accorded the temple of Jupiter Tonans is evident in the fact that, as Pliny draws attention to, its superstructure was constructed in blocks of solid polished marble, solidis glaebis polito. This was a notable design feature which would have contrasted with most other contemporary temples (excepting the temple of Apollo on the Palatine) which were instead faced with marble veneer. The temple of Jupiter Tonans also housed Greek masterpieces for its cult statuary. The magnificence of the temple’s form and cult statuary, moreover, was given power by the public performance of ritual. As already noted, the space in front of the temple was selected as a site for purificatory ritual preceding the spectacular series of rituals, games and performances of the ludi saeculares in 17 BCE, and Suetonius records that Augustus frequently visited the temple, to the extent that this was even discussed with Jupiter Optimus Maximus in a dream. It is likely that as part of Augustus’ restoration of the older temple of 210 Jupiter Libertas on the Aventine its traditional dies natalis was transferred from the Ides to the Kalends (1st) of September, therefore aligning it with the same dedication day as the temple of Jupiter Tonans.566 The prominence of the new temple of Jupiter Tonans, therefore, was very visible in Rome. To some scholars, the anecdote of Augustus’ dream concerning the temple of Jupiter Tonans has indicated a problem in hierarchy between some of the temples and deities in the area Capitolina. To Gros, the passage reflects the displacement of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in Augustan Rome, and indicates that the Roman population may have reacted to (what he interprets to be) the decline of honours accorded to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.567 Gros proposes that Augustus’ subjugation of the temple of Jupiter Tonans, having decorated it with bells and declared it to be a gatekeeper to the great Capitoline temple, was designed to appease supplicants in Rome, rather than the traditional deity of the Capitoline.568 To Scheid, the anecdote highlights the hierarchical complexities of the area Capitolina and the tensions that arose when aspects of a divinity as important as Jupiter Optimus Maximus, such as thunder and lightning, were transposed onto another cultic variant.569 In contrast, Wiseman sees Augustus’ modest subjugation of his new temple as emphasising Augustus’ pietas to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.570 Wiseman provides the most convincing interpretation of the anecdote, particularly in light of the spatial relationship previously articulated 566
The change of the dies natalis is dependent on an entry in the fast. Arv. for a temple of Jupiter Liber, CIL I.214: 1st September: Iovi Tonanti in Capitolio, Iovi Libero Ivnoni Reginae in Aventino. Gros 1976, 32-­‐4. LTUR III, 144 s.v. ‘Iuppiter Libertas, Aedes’ [M. Andreussi]. The dies natalis for the temple dedicated to Juno Regina on the Aventine was also 1 September. There is little evidence for the temple of Jupiter Libertas on the Aventine, see LTUR III 1996, 144. “Jupiter Libertas, Aedes’ [M. Andreussi]. 567
Gros 1976, 40. 568
LTUR III, 160, s.v. ‘Iuppiter Tonans, Aedes’ [P. Gros]. 569
Scheid 2005b, 95-­‐6; see also Scheid 2009, 284. 570
Wiseman 2009b, 119. 211 between the temples of Jupiter Tonans and Jupiter Capitolinus. The likely location of the Jupiter Tonans temple, immediately in front of and to the southeast of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, may be understood as a powerful physical expression of the status of the Jupiter Tonans temple as a pious offering to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. This interrelationship was expressed in the relative heights of the temples, now indicated by the remains of the Jupiter Tonans’ concrete substructure and the Jupiter Capitolinus substructures (Fig. 5.27). The highest point of the Jupiter Capitolinus substructures is represented by the top of the ‘Muro Romano’, which is at is 49.5m. asl, or 11.5m. above the sixth century BCE foundation level.571 The ground level around the temple in the Flavian period, approximately indicated by the top of the concrete foundation for the temple of Jupiter Tonans, is c. 46m. asl, which is approximately four metres below the highest level of the Muro Romano.572 Therefore, it is evident that the temple of Jupiter Tonans, at least as it is proposed in this chapter, was located at a considerably lower level in front of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. The relative heights between the two temples accord with Suetonius’ description of the Jupiter Tonans temple as ianitor to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. At the same time, while Augustus’ investment in this temple was an expression of his pietas towards Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the temple of Jupiter Tonans also symbolised Jupiter’s protective and supportive role towards Augustus. Therefore, the form and location of the temple of Jupiter Tonans also presented the relationship between Augustus and Jupiter as one of mutual support. Ovid may have reflected on this relationship in the Metamorphoses 571
Measurements sourced from Danti 2001, 340 Fig.20, 344 Fig.26. This level was taken in 1896, and I confirmed it in October 2010, with a reading of 44 m.ASL allowing ± 1m. error. 572
212 when he described Jupiter as the father and leader of the heavenly realm and Augustus the father and leader of the earthly realm: Iuppiter arces temperat aetherias et mundi regna triformis, terra sub Augusto est; pater est et rector uterque. ‘Jove rules the citadels of heaven and the realms of all the immense three-­‐
natured universe: the earth Augustus governs, each of them Father and Leader.’ (Met. 15.857-­‐60; Loeb, trans. A.D. Melville and E.J. Kennedy 1986.) The representation of Augustus in the guise of a thundering Jupiter, Jupiter Tonans, is well attested in ancient literature. However, the association was fraught with incongruities, and the thunderbolt as a symbol, and indeed the representation of the emperor as Jupiter, could also be also associated with imperial repression.573 For example, Ovid also deployed Jupiter’s thunderbolts to symbolise Augustus’ supremacy, but in an ironic and subversive manner.574 It would appear, therefore, that the autocratic implications of Augustus’ exclusive connection with the cult of Jupiter Tonans, and his concomitant identification with Jupiter, were also recognised. The Flavian date of the concrete podium suggests that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was rebuilt under Domitian, most likely in his rebuilding of the Capitoline following the fire of 80 CE.575 As explained above, Domitian also 573
For some of the ambiguities in the representation of the ‘thundering’ Augustus see Bretzigheimer 1993, 19-­‐74; and for the thunderbolt as a symbol of imperial repression see Barchiesi 1997, 25. 574
Barchiesi 1997, 42. 575
Castagnoli (1941, 67-­‐9) proposes that the probable temple of Jupiter in the Haterii relief represents the Domitianic rebuild of the Jupiter Tonans temple. The comparison is not a perfect match, however. While the depiction of the nude, bearded cult statue with a spear or sceptre and a lightning bolt is reminiscent of the numismatic depiction of Jupiter Tonans in the Spanish series of denarii, the statue depicted in the Haterii relief is classicizing, whereas the cult statue as depicted in the Augustan coin series, with its unusual hat and pointed beard, featured some 213 constructed two more temples on the Capitoline, the first dedicated to Jupiter Conservator and the second to Jupiter Custos. Just as Augustus dedicated the temple of Jupiter Tonans in thanksgiving for his own life, Domitian dedicated these two temples to Jupiter in thanks for having survived the civil war of 69 CE. There are striking parallels between Augustus’ temple of Jupiter Tonans and Domitian’s temples of Jupiter Conservator and Custos regarding the circumstances of their vowing and their personal relevance to the emperor. Augustus’ investment in the cult of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline was a profound part of the development of the ideology of the emperor as Jupiter. Like the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, this investment introduced a new cult and solid marble temple to an established site in the centre of Rome. archaic aspects. A good image of the temple in this relief, in the Vatican Museums, may be found in Coarelli’s entry on the relief in the 2009 Divus Vespasianus catalogue, number 24. 214 5.7 Conclusion
This chapter surveyed the numismatic, literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence for the temple that Augustus dedicated to Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline, and offered two proposals that will contribute to the study of this largely overlooked temple. Firstly, this chapter proposed that the dedication of the temple, conventionally believed to have taken place in 22 BCE, was in 19 BCE. On this understanding, the temple of Jupiter Tonans would have been dedicated in the celebratory atmosphere of the year in which Augustus returned from the east with the Parthian standards and was granted a number of exceptional honours by the senate. Secondly, this chapter proposed to identify the rectangular Domitianic concrete foundation that was discovered and partly destroyed on the Capitoline in 1896 with the site of the temple. This identification places the temple of Jupiter Tonans directly in front of and in line with the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, although at a lower level. This location of the Jupiter Tonans temple symbolised one of its functions as a monument dedicated to Jupiter in thanks for having saved Augustus’ life during the Cantabrian campaign. It also served to demonstrate Augustus’ pious devotion to Jupiter. It was therefore both a magnificent, yet respectful, monument. Augustus’ dedication of the temple of Jupiter Tonans, a major public temple in the principal site of religion in Rome, without recourse to the senate or the haruspices and entirely constructed with personal funds, transformed the nature of the state cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline. In the late Republic, Jupiter was the protector of the Roman state, but Augustus’ dedication of the temple of Jupiter Tonans very clearly established Jupiter’s dominant role as protector of the new 215 princeps. Although many scholars have interpreted the new temple of Jupiter Tonans to have displaced the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, it is more likely that its location provided a profound and lavish demonstration of Augustus’ pietas to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The dedication of the new temple of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline was therefore a critical element in Augustus’ evolving ideology of Jupiter. However, Augustus refrained from dedicating the temple of Jupiter Tonans with an epithet that explicitly articulated Jupiter’s custodial role towards him, unlike Domitian, who later cultivated an identical relationship with Jupiter on the Capitoline and dedicated religious buildings to Jupiter Conservator and Jupiter Custos. However, Augustus’ selection of the epithet ‘Tonans’ was still unusual because it was the only recorded instance where the thundering aspect of Jupiter was singled out and represented in a public cult. It is therefore likely that this drew further attention to a temple whose close association with Augustus had already confirmed its privileged role in the religious landscape of Rome, and whose lavish investment in it ensured its celebrated position well into the imperial period. In sum, although the cult of Jupiter Tonans was ostensibly a public cult, in reality the temple comprised a grandiose and private dedication, which expressed Augustus’ personal and exclusive connection with the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline. Augustus’ construction of this temple represents an important development in his larger investment in the Capitoline, which would culminate with his rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the subject of the following chapter. 216 CHAPTER SIX
The temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the
Capitoline hill
6.1 Introduction
The subject of this chapter is the temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Juno Regina and Minerva on the Capitoline hill, and known as the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the most venerated temple in Rome whose ground plan, as we saw in chapter 2, was sacrosanct [pages 77-­‐8]. Its great size was considered to signify the greatness and political dominance of Rome, while its rich decoration and the votive offerings placed in and around the temple bestowed additional magnificence on it.576 The temple’s sacred precinct, the area Capitolina, [already introduced in chapter 4, pages 155-­‐56] featured porticoes and a number of ancillary buildings, monuments, statues and other temples, which provided the setting for the state rituals and ceremonies that took place in front of the temple.577 To Beard, North and Price, Jupiter Optimus Maximus was ‘the fount of the auspices upon which the relationship of the city with the gods rested,’ while to Catharine Edwards, the Capitol, with the golden Jupiter 576
The most lavish recorded single donation was Scipio Africanus’ arch, gilded statues and basins, for which see Livy 37.3.7; for golden crowns dedicated in the temple Livy 2.22.6, 4.20.4, 7.38.2, 28.39.1-­‐6, 36.35.12; a gold statue of Victory, Livy 22.37.5; for precious jewelry see Livy 33.36.13-­‐4. To Tacitus (Hist. 3.71) the majesty of the temple was so great that the wealth of the Roman empire would only ever be able to adord it, rather than increase it. 577
For the buildings and other temples in the area Capitolina see LTUR I 1993, 114-­‐17, s.v. ‘area Capitolina’ [Chr. Reusser]. 217 Capitolinus temple, could be considered as a metonym of Rome itself.578 Thus, it was Virgil’s Jupiter who promised Aeneas imperium sine fine, and many of the rituals that took place in the area Capitolina concerned Jupiter’s bestowal of auspicia.579 For instance, the departing Roman consul offered Jupiter sacrifices before leaving the city for military command and offered him sacrifices upon his return.580 Upon election to office, Roman magistrates performed their inaugural public sacrifices at the temple and the Senate met there on occasion as well.581 It was here that the augurium salutis ritual, already mentioned [chapter 4, page 183], was performed in 29 BCE in order to publicly declare Octavian to be Jupiter’s earthly agent. We have already seen that Augustus’ identity in Rome was strongly associated with augury, and at the centre of this association was Jupiter Optimus Maximus. His restoration of the temple dedicated to this deity was therefore significant in regards to the evolving identification of the imperial relationship with Jupiter. 6.1.1 The building and rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple
The following section introduces the Jupiter Capitolinus temple by way of articulating its different construction phases. Ancient literary sources tell us that the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill was dedicated on 13 578
Beard, North and Price 1998, 59; Edwards (1996, 87). Virg. Aen. 1.279. 580
For the sacrifices to Jupiter prior to military campaign see Livy 41.27.3. For the triumphator attired in the guise of Jupiter, see Livy 10.7.9-­‐10, 30.15.11-­‐2; Juv. 10.38; Fest. 209; Serv. Aen. 11.334 For a sceptical interpretation of the triumphator as Jupiter and an introduction to modern literature on the subject, see Beard 2007, 225-­‐44. More recently, Östenberg 2009 provides a less critical approach and engages with the evidence. 581
For inaugural public sacrifices at the Jupiter Capitolinus temple see Cic. Sull. 23.65; for the Senate meeting in the temple Suet. Claud. 10.4. 579
218 September 509 BCE.582 During the excavations between 1998-­‐2001 the foundation trench for the temple was excavated along the substructure’s northeastern wall in the Giardino Romano (Fig. 6.1).583 Clay deposits characterised by materials dating to the sixth century were discovered between some of the tuff substructure walls (Fig. 6.2-­‐3).584 The nature of the finds indicates that construction work commenced in the middle of the sixth century, which means that the attested dedication date is plausible.585 The first temple allegedly stood for over four centuries, with some additional embellishments, until the early first century BCE.586 In 83 BCE, fire destroyed the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.587 Lucius Cornelius Sulla started rebuilding that same year,588 but after his death in 78 BCE the Senate charged Quintus Lutatius Catulus with its completion.589 The temple was commemorated in a series of Republican denarii minted by a certain Volteius in the early 70s BCE in Rome, which feature reverse representations of a hexastyle façade (Fig. 6.4). Catulus dedicated the new temple in 69 BCE and his name was recorded on its pediment.590 It is probably this phase of the temple that Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.5) criticised as varicae, barycephalae, humiles, latae, 582
For the consul Marcus Horatius’ dedication of the temple see Polyb. 3.22.1; Livy 2.8.6-­‐8; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.35.3; Plut. Publ. 14.2. 583
For discussion of these excavations see Danti 2001, 338-­‐45. 584
Danti 2001, 343-­‐5 and Fig.27 for the ceramic finds, and 342 for dating. 585
See Danti 2001, 342 for the dating of the site; and Arata 2010b, 595 for support of this dating. 586
For embellishments, see, for instance, the columns being re-­‐stuccoed, Livy 40.51.3, and Pliny’s reference to a new mosaic floor in the main cella of the temple after 149 BCE, HN 36.185 and for the gilding of the coffering of the ceiling HN 33.57. 587
For the destruction of the temple in 83 BCE see Cic. Cat. 3.4.9; App. Bell. Civ. 1.9.83. Flower (2008, 74-­‐92) explains how this was a traumatic portent that overshadowed Sulla’s dictatorship, forewarning divine disfavor and symbolizing political discord and instability, and which established a model for the destruction of the temple as portending civil war and constitutional change. 588
For Sulla’s commencement of rebuilding the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, see Tac. Hist. 3.72. 589
For Catulus’ intended rebuilding see Gell. Noct. Att. 2.10.1-­‐3. 590
For Catulus’ dedication of the temple, see Plin. HN 19.23; for Catulus’ name on the pediment see Cic. Verr. 2.4.69 and Tac. Hist. 3.72. However, the cult statue in the temple was not dedicated until 65 BCE, according to Cic. Div. 2.20.46, four years after the superstructure of the temple was completed. 219 ‘splayed, top heavy, low, and sprawling’, which suggests that, at least in Vitruvius’ opinion, the height of the temple at the time of observation was unsuitable. In the Res Gestae (20.1), Augustus claims to have restored the Jupiter Capitolinus temple but refrained from dedicating it in his own name. Although scholars have never disproven or discounted this assertion, it has also not been taken seriously.591 The claim itself is perfectly credible, since Augustus’ other claims of the sort are corroborated by the remains of the buildings themselves or by other witnesses, but in the case of Jupiter Capitolinus such confirmation is lacking. Aside from the Res Gestae, there are no other sources testifying to an Augustan restoration of the temple, and none of the archaeological evidence for the temple is of Augustan date, so the nature, date and extent of his restoration remains obscure.592 This neglect is in keeping with current thought regarding the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. In modern scholarship, it is now commonly perceived that, despite Octavian’s initial investment and interest in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline, the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple were demoted in the Augustan period and eclipsed by the new temples of Apollo on the Palatine, Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline and/or Mars Ultor in the Augustan 591
For instance, Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 300 mention the Augustan restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in a sentence, and propose, although without explanation, that Augustus restored it in c.26 BCE; Gros (1976, 15, 45) and de Angeli (LTUR III 1993, 148-­‐53, s.v.’Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, Aedes (Fasi Tardo-­‐Repubblicane e di età imperiale’ [S.De Angeli]) briefly report the restoration and propose a date of 9 BCE; Richardson 1992, 223 provides a one line mention testifying only to the existence of an Augustan restoration; Stamper (2005, 125) reports that ‘Octavian ordered necessary restoration work on the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus’, thus implying a date prior to 27 BCE. Haselberger 2007, 178. 592
Augustus records his restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in conjunction with record of his restoration of the theatre of Pompey in the Campus Martius. The date at which he restored the theatre of Pompey is unknown, although secondary scholarship generally proposes a date in the 30s, specifically 32 BCE, for which see Richardson 1992, 384)and LTUR 5, 1999, 35-­‐8, s.v. ‘Theatrum Pompei’ [P.Gros]. However, Thein (in MAR 2002, 243) rightly points out that there is no evidence to date the restoration. It is well recognised that despite Augustus’ ostensible preservation of the original denominative on Pompey’s theatre it was later known as the theatrum Augustum Pompeianum (CIL VI 9404). 220 Forum.593 Suetonius’ record of the transfer of the Sibylline Books from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple to the Apollo Palatinus temple, Augustus’ devotion to Jupiter Tonans, and, especially, Cassius Dio’s list of rituals, which were traditionally located at the Jupiter Capitolinus temple but in 2 BCE were adapted to include the temple of Mars Ultor and the Augustan Forum, are usually cited in support of this theory.594 The latter passage is of particular importance and is quoted below in full: [2] ... Ἄρει, 1 ἑαυτὸν δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους, ὁσάκις ἂν ἐθελήσωσι, τούς τε ἐκ τῶν παίδων ἐξιόντας καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἐφήβους ἐγγραφομένους ἐκεῖσε πάντως ἀφικνεῖσθαι, καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τὰς ἐκδήμους [3] στελλομένους ἐκεῖθεν ἀφορμᾶσθαι, τάς τε γνώμας τὰς περὶ τῶν νικητηρίων ἐκεῖ τὴν βουλὴν ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τοὺς πέμψαντας αὐτὰ τῷ Ἄρει τούτῳ καὶ τὸ σκῆπτρον καὶ τὸν στέφανον ἀνατιθέναι, καὶ ἐκείνους τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς τὰς ἐπινικίους τιμὰς λαμβάνοντας ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ χαλκοῦς [4] ἵστασθαι, ἄν τέ ποτε σημεῖα στρατιωτικὰ ἐς πολεμίους ἁλόντα ἀνακομισθῇ, ἐς τὸν ναὸν αὐτὰ τίθεσθαι, καὶ πανήγυρίν τινα πρὸς τοῖς ἀναβασμοῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀεὶ ἰλαρχούντων 1 ποιεῖσθαι, ἧλόν τε αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τῶν τιμητευσάντων [5] προσπήγνυσθαι, καὶ τήν τε παράσχεσιν τῶν ἵππων τῶν ἐς τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν ἀγωνιουμένων καὶ τὴν τοῦ ναοῦ φυλακὴν καὶ βουλευταῖς ἐργολαβεῖν ἐξεῖναι, καθάπερ ἐπί τε τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου ἐνενομοθέτητο. ‘. . . to Mars, and that he himself and his grandsons should go there as often as they wished, while those who were passing from the class of boys and were being enrolled among the youths of military age should invariably do so; that those who were sent out to commands abroad should make that their starting-­‐
point; that the senate should take its votes there in regard to the granting of triumphs, and that the victors after celebrating them should dedicate to this Mars their sceptre and their crown; that such victors and all others who receive triumphal honours should have their statues in bronze erected in the Forum; that in case military standards captured by the enemy were ever 593
Gros 1976, 40; Fears 1981, 56-­‐66; Bonnefond 1987, 251-­‐78; Zanker 1988, 108; Favro 1996, 201, 204, Stamper 2005, 125-­‐6; Haselberger 2007, 178-­‐9. 594
For the transfer of the Sibylline Books to the Apollo Palatinus temple, see Suet. Aug. 31.1. 221 recovered they should be placed in the temple; that a festival should be celebrated besides the steps of the temple by the cavalry commanders of each year; that a nail should be driven into it by the censors at the close of their terms; and that even senators should have the right of contracting to supply the horses that were to compete in the Circensian games, and also to take general charge of the temple, just as had been provided by law in the case of the temples of Apollo and of Jupiter Capitolinus.’ (Dio Cass. 55.10.2-­‐5; Loeb, trans. E. Cary.) None of the scholars who rely on Dio Cassius’ passage to argue for the case of the reduced importance of the cult of Jupiter in the Augustan period -­‐ such as Marianne Bonnefond, who, in an influential 1987 article, concluded that the temple of Mars Ultor assumed many of the traditional functions and objects of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in order to rival the role and function of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple (listed above are the toga virilis, departure rituals for a military commander, the senates voting of triumphs, and the dedication of triumphal insignia) have ever provided sufficient analysis of it.595 Michael Peter Swan’s 2004 detailed commentary on Cassius Dio Book 55 points out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the text, as well as its fragmentary and corrupt state. Moreover, for every example of a ritual being transferred to the temple of Mars Ultor and/or the Forum Augustum, Swan provides evidence for the continued performance of these rituals on the Capitoline as well.596 This indicates that the temple of Mars Ultor was included as an additional site, rather than replacing the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. The only exception concerns triumphal insignia, which were certainly to be deposited in the temple of Mars Ultor rather than in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. All of this indicates that the importance of 595
Bonnefond 1987, 251-­‐78. See Swan 2004, 96-­‐100. 596
222 the cult and temple of Mars Ultor in Rome was signified by its inclusion as a site for the performance of some of the major rituals linked with the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. It did not, however, constitute a ‘programme of dispossession’ designed to devalue the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as Bonnefond argued.597 In connection with this, all of the examples first cited to point to the denigration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple (Suetonius’ record of the transfer of the Sibylline Books from the Jupiter Capitolinus temple to the Apollo Palatinus temple, Augustus’ devotion to Jupiter Tonans, and Cassius Dio’s list of rituals which were traditionally located at the Jupiter Capitolinus temple but were adapted to include the temple of Mars Ultor and the Augustan Forum) are better understood as attempts to elevate the status of the temples of Apollo Palatinus, Jupiter Tonans and Mars Ultor either to match that of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, or to indicate that they were of a comparable importance, rather than evidence for the ‘honored insignificance’ of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.598 In 69 CE, the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was again destroyed in civil war.599 Vespasian, who was nominated emperor while absent from Rome, began 597
Bonnefond 1987, 254-­‐5. Fears (1981, 63-­‐91) made a particular case for the ‘honored insignificance’ of Jupiter in the Augustan period, proposing that Jupiter was relegated to a minor role in the religious policy and topography of Rome and that his former roles were usurped by Mars and Apollo. Fears’ understanding of the role of Jupiter in the Augustan period, however, was founded almost entirely in numismatic evidence, and other scholars who have restricted their evidence to numismatics have echoed this view. Fears points out that after 27 BCE, there was only one significant reference to Jupiter on imperial coinage on a Spanish issue of aurei and denarii from the period 19 -­‐ 16/15 BCE representing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, but Fears contextualizes this type within a series that celebrated Augustus, and refuses to credit the image of Jupiter with any meaning beyond the cult’s close association with the princeps. Fears explains Jupiter’s newly reduced role in the religious topography of Augustan Rome by conceptualizing Jupiter, and particularly Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as a symbol for the free res publica that was opposed to the rule of the princeps. 599
For the account of the temple’s destruction in 69 CE, see Tac. Hist. 3.71 and Suet. Vitel. 15.3. Edwards (1996, 74-­‐82) leads us through Tacitus’ emotive passage. 598
223 rebuilding the Jupiter Capitolinus temple upon his return to Rome in 70 CE.600 This was the emperor’s first major restoration project in the city, and some series of aes and sestertii minted throughout the 70s CE may provide some reflection of the restored building, consistently portraying a Corinthian temple with tall and widely spaced columns, three cult statues, and a steeply pitched pediment and roof (Figs. 6.5-­‐8). The Jupiter Capitolinus temple was, moreover, the first building to be represented in Flavian coinage, which testifies to its symbolic power.601 Vespasian’s sons, Titus and Domitian, also produced coins with identical representations of the temple throughout Vespasian’s period of rule, which indicates that the first Flavian rebuilding of the temple was represented as a dynastic project. Although when, and indeed if, Vespasian’s rebuilding of the temple was completed is very unclear, Dio Cassius records that the temple was destroyed again in 80 CE in the fire that ravaged much of the Campus Martius.602 Titus began its restoration, as recorded in the entry for 7 December 80 CE in the Acta Arvalium.603 Upon Titus’ death in 81 CE, Domitian presumably inherited responsibility to continue the rebuilding. A precise date for its completion is lacking, although entries from the Acta Arvalium suggest that the temple was finished in 86 CE. Between 81-­‐7 CE calendar entries record that imperial sacrifices 600
Jupiter Optimus Maximus was believed to endorse Vespasian’s claim to sovereignty, see Suet. Vesp. 5.6, Tac. Hist. 1.86; Dio Cass. 64.8.2 and 65.1.3. 601
This significance is pointed out by Darwall-­‐Smith 1996, 47. 602
For record of the fire in 80 CE and its effect on the Capitoline, see Dio Cass. 66.24.1-­‐2. 603
For record of Titus’ restoration see: CIL VI 2059.12-­‐13: M. Tittio Frugi T. Vincio Iuliano Cos. VII Idus December in Capitolio in aedem opis sacerdotes convenerunt ad vota nuncupanda ad restitutionem et dedicationem capitoli ab imp T. Caesare Vespasiano Aug. ‘In the consulship of M. Tittius Frugi and T. Vincius Iulianus, seven days before the Ides of December, the priests came together on the Capitol in the temple of Ops to pronounce the vows for the restoration and dedication of the Capitol with the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus.’ I am grateful to Chris Malone for his help with this translation. 224 were performed only in Capitolio,604 while in 87 CE imperial sacrifices are recorded to have taken place in the pronaos Iovis Optimi Maximi and, in 89 CE, in templo Iovis Optimi Maximi.605 Therefore, Domitian’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was probably complete by 87 CE, while the recorded date for the first quinquennial Capitoline games in 86 CE could indicate that the dedication of the temple was also in this year, because such games would have provided a fitting celebration.606 Rebuilding was certainly complete by 88 CE in time for Domitian’s ludi saeculares, during which the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was a site for preliminary rituals and sacrifices.607 The best archaeological evidence for the Jupiter Capitolinus temple dates to the Domitianic rebuilding in the form of colossal column fragments on the Capitoline. This chapter will offer a reconstruction of the height of the order from this last building phase of the temple. 604
For record of ritual taking place, generically, in Capitolio, see CIL VI.6.2059 lines 11, 39-­‐40 for the years 80-­‐1CE; CIL 6.2060 lines 33, 39 for 81 CE. 605
CIL 6.2065.1-­‐3: III non(as) Ianuar(ias). In Capitolio in pronao Iovis optimi maximi C. Salvius Liberalis frater Arvalis, qui cive C. Iuli Silani magistri fungebatur. Pronao Iovis optimi maximi was supplied from in Capitolio in pro … mi, although this restoration is convincing because complete examples of this phrase in similar contexts are elsewhere attested in the Acta, for which see Fishwick 1991: 518. The Acta for 89 CE (CIL 2066: 35-­‐7) refers to templo Iovis Optimi Maximi: VIII k(alendas) Febr(uarias) in Capitolio ob laetitiam publicam in templo Iovis o(ptimi) m(aximi) ? fratres Arvales Iovi o(ptimo) m(aximo) ovem marem immolarunt. In this inscription, again, templo has been supplied from in Capitolio ob laetitiam publicam in tem…Iov/ o.M. bovem marem ionmolarunt, but given the context (in Capitolio and Iov. O.M) templo from tem is surely correct. 606
Some scholars (for example, Platner-­‐Ashby 1929, 300; Blake 1950, 101; Lugli 1970, 129; Arata 2010b, 211), on the basis of a series of denarii minted in an Asian mint in 82 CE with a reverse depiction of the temple (tetrastyle and with three cult statues) and a legend reading CAPIT RESTIT, have proposed that Domitian’s restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was completed in this year. For an image of the coin, see British Museum, registration number G.2219. Darwall Smith (1996, 107) convincingly refutes this on the grounds that it allowed for too short a construction period. As explained above, the temple was probably completed in 86 CE, and its dedication was commemorated with Domitian’s new Capitoline games. 607
For a discussion of Domitian’s ludi saeculares, and particularly the bronze, silver and gold coin types minted for the occasion in Rome, see Grunow Sobocinski 2006, 581-­‐602. 225 6.1.2 The cappellaccio tuff substructures of the temple
Having articulated the five main building and restoration phases of the temple, I will now address its plan and elevation. Foundation walls of cappellaccio tuff, which comprise the main temple remains, have been partly exposed since at least 1683 when Raffaele Fabretti sketched the wall that is now known as the Muro Romano in his de columna Trajani syntagma (Fig. 6.9). In the second to last unnumbered page of this manuscript is a print showing what Fabretti correctly identified as the western side of the remains of the substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, later known as the Muro Romano. Fabretti identifies the area to the rear of the Palazzo Caffarelli and Palazzo dei Senatori as A and B. In front he identifies two large concrete conglomerates with the letters D and E. The letter H marks part of the collapsed substructure, and F to G are the points at either end of a horizontal dotted line marking the plane between the strongest points of the concrete superstrata, which Fabretti describes as ‘a very solid concrete incrustation three feet thick covering the remains of the total area.’608 Although broken fragments of the substructure are indicated in the drawing, Fabretti did not record his observation of any column or entablature fragments. Fabretti’s drawings do not show the horizontal brick faced drainage channel, nor do they feature the brickwork that is now visible on the tuff substructure and discussed later in the introduction (Figs. 6.18, 20-­‐21), which probably indicate that the brick additions are later interventions and date from after 1683.609 608
Fabretti 1683, unpaginated, index at end: firmissima incrustatione materiaria trium pedum crassitudinis totam in summa superficie aream contegente. 609
Arata (2010b, 600) identifies them as Medieval and Renaissance interventions. 226 Some of the foundation walls of the temple were reused in later buildings and it proved difficult to uncover and measure the full extent of the remains.610 Although the foundation remains have been partly exposed since at least the seventeenth century, it was only during the excavations directed by Anna Mura Sommella between 1998 and 2001 that all surviving and accessible remains of the substructures were uncovered. The substructures were measured overall as 74m. /250RF in length and 54m. /182RF in width.611 The top of the Muro Romano provides the highest point of the substructures, lying at 49.5m.asl, while the lowest point of the substructures, indicated by the depth of the cappellaccio wall in the Giardino Romano, was traced to 37m.asl. (Fig. 6.3).612 Through the process of deep coring, Ammerman and Terrenato have determined that the natural peak and ground level of the Capitoline hill reached a height of 45 m.asl,613 and Danti proposes that the preparation level for the temple was located above 50m.asl.614 This indicates that in some parts the substructure extended to the considerable depth of 13m., and surely to even greater depths when taking into account the layers stripped from the foundations above this. The existing walls are usually understood to reflect the temple’s network of transverse and longitudinal footings supporting a hexastyle tripteral pronaos and triple cella with a peripteral colonnade on the lateral sides and a closed rear, a plan-­‐type known in modern scholarship as peripteros sine postico.615 Most 610
Ridley (2005, 91-­‐102) summarizes the various attempts to measure the substructures, and provides a table (p.102) listing the discrepant conclusions. 611
Mura Sommella 1997-­‐9, 57-­‐79; Mura Sommella 2000, 7-­‐26;Mura Sommella 2001, 263-­‐364. 612
Measurements sourced from Danti 2001, 343, Fig.26. 613
Ammerman and Terrenato 1996, 42, fig.6. 614
Danti 2001, 340 Fig.20. 615
For the belief in the direct relationship between the substructures and the temple plan see Cifani 2007, 106 and Danti 2001, 323-­‐8, 338; for discussion of the peripteros sine postico type, Gros 1976, 122-­‐4. 227 published plans and sections of the tuff substructures are usually overlaid with this ground plan.616 However, a direct correlation between the substructure and the temple plan is not as straightforward as is often optimistically supposed. Ferdinando Castagnoli has already observed that the peripteros sine postico layout universally proposed for the archaic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple seems not to appear in central Italic religious architecture until the fourth century BCE.617 More recently, Mura Sommella has proposed a peripteral layout for the temple with steps on all sides, and interprets Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of the temple, analysed later in this chapter, pages 234-­‐35, to support this reconstruction, particularly in his selection of περιλαμβανόμενος to describe the triple row of columns, in this case believed to surround the temple and render it peripteral.618 It is usually accepted that the temple was hexastyle. Einar Gjerstad assumed as such in his influential 1960 reconstruction of the Archaic phase of the temple; Ronald Ridley hailed the temple’s hexastyle façade as its ‘most identifying characteristic’; John Hopkins took the hexastyle façade for granted and consequently misread Dionysius’ description of the temple, discussed later in this chapter [pages 234-­‐35] to include record of six columns; Arata has recently proposed that the first phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple featured a tetrastyle plan on the grounds that comparable sixth century Italic temple plans were similarly tetrastyle, and suggests that it was increased to a hexastyle plan 616
For plans of the temple overlaid on plans of the remains see Mura Sommella 2000, 24, Fig.25, Fig.26; the plan drawn by G. Foglia and C. Rosa in Danti 2001, 324, Fig.1; see also Cifani 2002, 86, Fig.70; John Hopkins 2010, 20, Fig.5, 21 Fig.6, 25, Fig.10, 28. Fig.12, and 32 Fig.17, as well as Hopkins 2012, 112, Fig.6.8. 617
Castagnoli 1955, 139-­‐43. 618
Mura Sommellla 2009, 333-­‐72. 228 during the rebuilding by Sulla and Catulus.619 However, despite the near universal acceptance of the temple’s hexastyle façade, no source confirms that this was in fact the case. In quantitive terms, an approximately equal amount of evidence suggests that the temple featured a tetrastyle façade as it does a hexastyle façade. The representation of the temple in the Volteius issue of denarii produced in c.78 BCE (Fig. 6.4), the late first century BCE Boscoreale cup B (Fig. 6.10-­‐11), a series of tetradrachmae minted under Titus in Asia Minor in 82 CE (Fig. 6.12) and the Marcus Aurelius relief (Fig. 6.13) present a tetrastyle façade;620 while the mid-­‐first century BCE Petilius Capitolinus series of denarii (Fig. 6.14), Flavian issues of denarii and aes minted by Vespasian in Rome and celebrating the consulships of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian throughout the 70s CE (Figs. 6.5-­‐8, 6.12) and the Hadrianic Extispicium relief, restored from sixteenth century sketches of it when in better condition (Figs. 6.15-­‐16), depict a hexastyle façade.621 However in qualitative terms, most of the tetrastyle representations of the temple are schematic renditions of a temple and are therefore likely to be 619
Gjerstad 1960, 180; Ridley 2005, 98; Hopkins 2012, 117; Arata 2010b, 618-­‐9. The relief and numismatic representations of a tetrastyle Jupiter Capitolinus temple: for the depiction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the Volteius series of denarii see RRC 385/1, RR1 3156, p.388, and for interesting discussion on the relevancy of this issue for understanding the reconstruction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple see Grunow Sobocinski 2013, 453-­‐4; for the representation of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple on the silver Boscoreale cups see Kuttner 1995, 127-­‐31. For the series of tetradrachmae minted in c.82 CE under Titus see RPC2 860/1, p/133; for the depiction of the tetrastyle Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the Marcus Aurelius relief see Zanker 2008: 95, Figs.60C. 621
The relief and numismatic representations of a hexastyle Jupiter Capitolinus temple, for the series of denarii minted by Petilius Capitolinus see RR1 4217, p.571, RRC 487/1, and Grunow Sobocinksi 2013, 454 discusses the relevancy of this series for a reconstruction; for the identification and discussion of the temple in the Hadrianic Extispicium relief, discovered in 1540 in Trajan’s Forum, as the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in conjunction with the Codex Vaticanus sketch 3439, fol. 83, for which see Tortorella 1988, 476, and n. 8, see Wace 1907, 240; Tortorella 1998, 476; Arata 2010 b, 591-­‐2, and for the nature of the Extispicium ritual see Ryberg 1955, 128-­‐
30. 620
229 simplified representations of a hexastyle façade.622 A tetrastyle depiction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple may also have been a deliberate decorative device selected in order to emphasise the three doors of the triple cellae. In contrast, the hexastyle renditions of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple are in general more detailed, particularly in the case of the Flavian numismatic representations of the Flavian Jupiter Capitolinus temple. The balance of evidence, at least in qualitative terms, would appear to be in favour of a hexastyle façade. From the imperial period onwards, most major public temples in Rome, at least as far as we can ascertain from the surviving evidence, were hexastyle (Apollo in Circo, Divus Antonius Pius and Diva Faustina), if not octostyle (Mars Ultor, Castor and Pollux, the Pantheon portico, temple of Saturn), or even decastyle (Roma and Venus). Tetrastyle façades were more commonly associated with smaller temples in earlier time periods; with the temple of Apollo Palatinus as reconstructed in this thesis a notable exception to this. However, all of the hexastyle, octostyle or decastyle examples listed above were arranged in either the pycnostyle or systyle rhythms, narrow spacings which afforded a large number of columns on a podium width, whereas it is known that the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was arranged in the araeostyle rhythm, and as eight or ten columns arranged in this spacing would have required a very large podium width, a hexastyle layout seems within the realm of likely possibility. The balance of evidence is in favour of a hexastyle layout. However, not everyone is convinced. More recently, criticism has been levelled at the interpretation of the extent of the substructures. Electrical works carried out on the Capitoline in March 2010 allowed for a closer analysis of the cappellaccio walls beneath the 622
For the tetrastyle representation as an abbreviation of the hexastyle form see Colini 1925, 182, n.1; Zanker 2008, 95; Arata 2009, 211. 230 Caffarelli terrace, the north eastern part of the substructures, and inspired Francesco Paolo Arata to challenge Mura Sommella’s proposed length of the foundation.623 Arata identifies the cappellaccio walls as part of a retaining wall buttressing the Capitoline hill, rather than belonging to the Jupiter Capitolinus substructures, and consequently proposes reducing the length of the substructures to 62.50m/ 211RF, as Einar Gjerstad had originally proposed in his study of the foundations.624 Pier Luigi Tucci provides further criticism in regards to the recent reconstruction of the temple’s substructures, observing that the north-­‐
western so-­‐called transverse wall is aligned with the much later palazzo above, rather than with the ancient remains, as can be clearly seen in Fig. 6.17.625 In reality, the cappellaccio tuff walls survive as a series of scattered remains and bear clear evidence of re-­‐use, which is evident when the proposed ground plan of the temple is removed from the plan of the remains (Fig. 6.17). It is therefore difficult to form any definite conclusions about their dimensions. Ronald Ridley points out that problems of interpretation are compounded by the inconsistent terminology that is applied to the remains, of ‘podia’, ‘foundations’, and ‘substructures.’626 Cappellaccio tuff was typically used in temple foundations dating to the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, as well as for the construction of podia, but it was also employed for terracing, paving and standing structures. While the terms ‘foundation’ and ‘substructure’ are synonymous, referring to the support system of a building below the ground level, Charlotte Potts distinguishes a podium as ‘a distinctive type of raised substructure which must be negotiated to 623
Arata 2010a, 593, n.76; Mura Sommella 2009, 334-­‐5. Riemann (1969, 112-­‐3) had already proposed that this was part of the temenos wall rather than the remains of the foundations of the temple, although Reusser (1993, 33-­‐4, Figs.3-­‐4) considers it to be the remains of the podium. 624
Gjerstad 1960, 178. 625
Tucci 2006, 390. 626
Ridley 2005, 99. 231 enter a surmounting building or superstructure’.627 An important distinction between the terms foundation/substructure and podium, therefore, is that while foundations and substructures are below the ground level, podia are visible and above the ground level. Ashlar masonry podia sometimes featured ornamental mouldings, which differentiated them from ashlar masonry substructures.628 However, there is no evidence of moulding on any of the cappellaccio tuff blocks of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. This means that the cappellaccio remains either constituted substructures and were originally below the ground level; or, what is more likely to be the case, the lower levels served as substructures while the upper levels provided terracing, above which the steps or podium of the temple were constructed. This second option is given strength by Livy’s and Pliny’s reports that substructum/ substructiones of opus quadratum of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple were visible to them.629 As we saw in the previous chapter, a minimum for the ground level of the Flavian Capitoline is provided by the top of the concrete core identified with the site of the Jupiter Tonans temple, the top of which lies at c.46 m.asl.630 Although it is possible that this level is the result of modern demolition, the upper surface was very level upon discovery and shows no signs of re-­‐use and it is likely that all that has been removed is the level of travertine which capped the foundations, 627
Potts 2011, 15. Potts 2011, 17. 629
Livy 6.4.12: eodem anno, ne privatis tantum operibus cresceret urbs, Capitolium quoque saxo quadrato substructum est, opus vel in hac magnificentia urbis conspiciendum. ‘That same year [388 BCE], that the City might not grow in private buildings only, the Capitol was provided with a substructure of hewn stone, a work which even amidst the present splendours of the City is deserving of remark.’ (Loeb, Trans. B.O Foster); Plin. HN 36.24. 104: Sed tum sense aggeris vastum spatium, substructiones Capitolii mirabantur ‘But it was in those days too that, that old men still spoke in admiration of the vast proportions of the Agger and the of the enormous foundations of the Capitol. (Loeb, Trans. John Bostock). 630
Gatti 1896, fig 2a. 628
232 raising the level by another 50 cm. at most, to c.46.50m.asl, and the top of the foundation therefore, in contrast with the highest point of the Flavian Capitoline concrete foundation, the highest point of the Muro Romano lies at 49.90m.asl,631 a discrepancy of three-­‐ and a half metres. The ground level would be 46.5m., which is a metre lower than the ground level around the temple of Apollo (47.7m.). The so-­‐called ‘Muro Romano’ is a good example for the reuse of the Jupiter Capitolinus’ foundations because it is recessed and features later additions (Figs. 6.18-­‐22). It has no regular face on either side and may have been created by selected quarrying, having been reused as a border between the Palazzo dei Conservatori and the neighbouring properties owned by the church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli. The upper parts of the western side of the Muro Romano feature overlapping pieces of small reddish tuff laid in mortar and two high vertical cuts (Fig. 6.20). To the west of the tuff, mortar insertions and the cuts, and at the same level, is a layer of concrete into which thin, rectangular bricks were laid, above which was a brick-­‐faced, long, narrow channel, probably for drainage (Fig. 6.21). At the top of the wall is a layer of concrete, corresponding to that recorded by Fabretti in 1683 (Fig. 6.9), varying in thickness from 60-­‐90cm. (Fig. 6.22).632 Of all these interventions, only the uppermost concrete layer predates 1683 when it was recorded by Fabretti (Fig. 6.9, Fig. 6.22), and, could be ancient. Antonio Maria Colini and Arata link the concrete to Sulla’s rebuilding, while Einar Gjerstad associates it with Vespasian’s rebuilding.633 To my 631
Sourced from Danti 2001, fig. 26. Danti 2001, 325-­‐6, 341. 42. Danti associates the concrete with Catulus’ rebuilding and interprets it to be a preparation level for the pavement above. 633
Colini 1925, 170; Arata 2010b, 598; Gjerstad 1960, 177. 632
233 knowledge, no scientific analysis has ever been undertaken with a view to resolving their date, although such a study would clearly be beneficial. Even taking all of these issues into account, it is nevertheless reasonable to accept that the overall measurements for the width and length of the substructure of the temple established in the most recent excavations (74 x 54 m.) are reliable. Interestingly, they appear to correlate with Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ late first century BCE description of the dimensions of the temple, which follows shortly after an account of the discovery of a human head found while digging the temple’s foundations, an omen that prophesied Rome’s future status as ‘the head of Italy’.634 The exceptional nature of the site of the temple is linked with its exceptional dimensions: ἐποιήθη δ᾽ ἐπὶ κρηπῖδος ὑψηλῆς βεβηκὼς ὀκτάπλεθρος τὴν περίοδον, διακοσίων ποδῶν ἔγγιστα τὴν πλευρὰν ἔχων ἑκάστην: ὀλίγον δέ τι τὸ διαλλάττον εὕροι τις ἂν τῆς ὑπεροχῆς τοῦ μήκους παρὰ τὸ πλάτος οὐδ᾽ ὅλων πεντεκαίδεκα ποδῶν. ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῖς αὐτοῖς θεμελίοις ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἔμπρησιν οἰκοδομηθεὶς κατὰ τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν εὑρέθη τῇ πολυτελείᾳ τῆς ὕλης μόνον διαλλάττων τοῦ ἀρχαίου, ἐκ μὲν τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον μέρους τοῦ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν βλέποντος τριπλῷ περιλαμβανόμενος στοίχῳ κιόνων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν πλαγίων ἁπλῷ: ἐν δ᾽ αὐτῷ τρεῖς ἔνεισι σηκοὶ παράλληλοι κοινὰς ἔχοντες πλευράς, μέσος μὲν ὁ τοῦ Διός, παρ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τὸ μέρος ὅ τε τῆς Ἥρας καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ὑφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ καὶ μιᾶς στέγης καλυπτόμενοι. ‘It [the Jupiter Capitolinus temple] stood upon a high base and was eight hundred feet in circuit, each side measuring close to two hundred feet; indeed, one would find the excess of the length over the width to be but slight, in fact, not a full fifteen feet. For the temple that was built in the time of our fathers after the burning of this one was erected upon the same foundations, and differed from the ancient structure in nothing but the costliness of the materials, having three rows of columns on the front, facing the south, and a single row on each side. The temple consists of three parallel shrines, separated by party walls; the middle shrine is dedicated to Jupiter, while on one side stands that of Juno and on the other that of Minerva, all three being under one pediment and one roof.’ 634
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.59.3-­‐61.3; and Livy 1.55.5 for the parallel account. 234 (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.61.3-­‐4; Loeb, trans. E.E. Cary.) The historian suggests that the κρηπῖδος ὑψηλῆς, or high base, perhaps meaning podium, of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, measured eight hundred feet, with each side measuring approximately two hundred feet. Such vast dimensions firmly placed the temple in the context of colossal temple architecture, and accorded it a magnitude that was commensurate with the significance of the site as the ‘head’ of Italy. Livy and Pliny considered the ancient podium of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple a cause for wonder in the late Republic and Augustan period.635 A number of scholars have attempted to discern the correlation between Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ report of the dimensions of the Jupiter Capitolinus’ podium and the remains of the tuff substructures since their discovery in the late nineteenth century. It is, however, unclear which standard of foot Dionysius was using, whether the Roman foot (0.296m.), the Greek foot (0.308m.) the Attic foot (0.2957m.) or the Italian foot (0.278m.).636 200 Roman feet equals 59.2m., 200 Greek feet 61.6m., 200 Attic feet 59.14m., and 200 Italian feet equals 55.6m. Dionysius suggests, moreover, that the width and length of the substructures did not measure 200 feet perfectly, rather, they measured 210 x 190 feet or similar. 210 x 190 Roman feet is equal to 62.16 x 56.24m., the equivalent in Greek feet is 635
Livy 6.4.12: eodem anno, ne privatis tantum operibus cresceret urbs, Capitolium quoque saxo quadrato substructum est, opus vel in hac magnificentia urbis conspiciendum ‘That same year, that the Capitol might not grow in private buildings only, the Capitol was provided with a substructure of hewn stone, a work which even amidst the present splendours of the City is deserving of remark.’ (Loeb, Trans. B.O Foster.); Plin. HN 36.245.104: sed tum senes aggeris vastum spatium, substructiones Capitolii mirabantur ‘But at that time elderly men still admired the vast dimensions of the Rampart, [and] the substructures of the Capitol’ (Loeb, trans. D.E. Eichholz). 636
See Oxford Classical Dictionary ‘Measures’ 2003 (fourth edition), 942. Ridley (2005, 102) helpfully summarised which scholars selected which foot in order to understand Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ measurements, pointing out that the majority of scholars selected the Roman foor, although some earlier scholars proposed the Greek foot and the Italian foot. 235 64.68 x 58.52m., the equivalent in Attic feet is 62 x 56.2 m., and the equivalent in Italian feet is 58 x 53 m. If it measured 205 x 195 feet, 205 x 195 feet is equal to 60.68 x 57.72m., the equivalent in Greek feet is 63.14 x 60.06m., the equivalent in Attic feet is 60.62 x 57.66m., and the equivalent in Italian feet is 56.99 x 54.21m. Yet none of the above conversions accord with the most recent measurement of the substructures (74 m. /250 RF in length and 54m. /182RF in width). Gjerstad’s and Arata’s measurement of the length of the substructures to 62m. provides a closer match, but cannot resolve the question regarding which foot the historian was using.637 The attempt to match Dionysius’ reported measurements for the length and width of the substructures do not give adequate consideration to the use and transmission of numbers in the ancient literary tradition. Even if it were possible to identify the foot that Dionysius of Halicarnassus was using, it would still remain unknown as to whether the historian was referring to an archaic foot or to its imperial equivalent, or if the historian was referring to specific measurements or those that had been rounded up. Furthermore, the precise translation of κρηπῖδος ὑψηλῆς remains unclear. At face value it can be translated as ‘high foundations’, but whether Dionysius of Halicarnassus was referring to the substructures alone, or to the podium, remains unknown.638 The endeavour to consider the archaeological remains of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in light of the ancient literary tradition is complicated by the fact that ‘numerical hyperbole’ characterises many ancient accounts of the construction of 637
Arata 2010B, 593 and n.76. Arata 2010b, 613 assumes Dionysius of Halicarnassus is referring only to the foundations of the temple. 638
236 famous ancient buildings.639 As I already touched on above, ‘numerical hyperbole’ is a particularly common feature in the literary tradition regarding the construction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, whereby the grand dimensions of the temple reflected the scale of the Roman empire. Livy (1.53.2-­‐3) considers the scale of the sixth century temple to be equal to the maiestas of the Roman empire, and slightly later, at 1.56, describes the vast multitude of builders and engineers required for the construction of the temple, drawn from throughout Etruria and the plebeian class in Rome. Both Pliny (HN 28.14-­‐7) and Plutarch (Public. 13) recount that during the crafting process of the clay quadriga, which adorned the fastigium of the temple, reputedly expanded beyond its intended size to colossal dimensions while in the kiln, which prophesied the future greatness of Rome. According to Janet DeLaine, we could consider the vast dimensions of the temple, the great cost of construction, the transformation of the natural landscape that was required, and the sheer number of workers involved, in terms of the rhetoric concerning exceptional construction in Rome.640 Therefore, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of the κρηπῖδος ὑψηλῆς, whereby the temple’s podium measures approximately 200 x 200 feet, is likely to be part of a literary tradition whereby the colossal dimensions of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple reflected its significance as the principal temple in Rome and the greatness of the Roman empire. What also remains unclear is how much is now missing from the top of the substructures. Antiquarian sources report instances where the original courses of blocks were removed. For instance, the Memorie of Pietro Santi Bartoli records 639
When discussing Roman numerology, Wilson Jones (2000, 83) points out that in ancient accounts of great and/or mythical buildings, ‘numerical hyperbole was rife’. 640
DeLaine 2002, 205-­‐30. 237 the removal of 25 palms (about 5m.) of stone from the plateam Capitolii in 1630.641 Perhaps this records the removal of a better quality stone from the podium of the temple. As we shall see further in this chapter, the Domitianic rebuilding of the temple restored it with columns of Pentelic marble, which might have required the provision of some stronger support than that which could be provided by the relatively softer cappellaccio tuff substructures.642 6.1.3 A brief introduction to modern scholarship
The question of whether the ground plan of the archaic temple was commensurate with the surviving substructures polarizes current scholarship.643 In an article published in 1998 and a book in 2005, John Stamper revived Ferdinando Castagnoli’s argument, although he neglected to cite the earlier source, arguing that the dimensions which are traditionally proposed for the Jupiter Capitolinus temple are technically impossible, and proposed that the temple is likelier to have been constructed on a smaller, terraced platform.644 In 641
Bartoli Mem. 11: Hoc tamen pacto quod ante plateam Capitolii debeant obstringere prospectum seu faciatam per 25 palmos aliter cadant a dicta concessione. Actum etc. ‘It was however agreed that facing the street on the Capitol (they) obstruct the view (or façade) by 25 palms otherwise they should fall from the stated concession.’ I understand this to mean that 25 palms of stone were removed from the substructure of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple because its height was obstructing view of the street. (Lanciani 1994, 5, 146). In the photograph supplied by Hülsen in 1898 of the concrete substructure, now identified with the temple of Jupiter Tonans, a large pile of blocks supporting a spoil heap is featured in the background. The large blocks appear to be similar to the cappellaccio tuff blocks of the Jupiter Capitolinus substructure. Hülsen (1898, 216 n.2) notes that the blocks were not discovered in situ, but were dismantled from the wall which had separated the German embassy from the Montanari gardens. These are likely to have derived from the substructure of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as well. 642
For the poor resistance of tuff from Rome see Gros 1976, 75. 643
For arguments proposing a smaller temple, see Stamper 1998/99, Stamper 2005 and Arata 2010 b; for refutations of the smaller temple and support of the colossal plan, see Cifani 2007; Mura Sommella 2009, 333-­‐72. 644
For Castagnoli’s earlier argument, see Castagnoli 1974, 435-­‐6 and Castagnoli 1984, 7-­‐11; for his argument that the temple was located on a smaller, terraced platform, see Stamper 1998-­‐99 and Stamper 2005, 19-­‐33, and Fig.s. 17 and 18. 238 an article also published in 2005, Ronald Ridley adopted a highly sceptical stance in which he argues that such issues will never be resolved and declares that reconstructions of the temple can only be ‘fanciful’.645 Refuting Stamper’s view in two articles published in 2010 and 2012, John Hopkins attempted to demonstrate that central Italic architects possessed the technical knowledge, skill and experience to enable them to construct an archaic temple on a colossal scale, and that the temple must have been as large as the archaic foundations because a temple of this period should occupy the entirety of the foundations upon which it is placed.646 In an article published in 2010, Arata favours the idea of a smaller building, and on a new reading of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of the temple, proposed that the larger substructure constituted the templum, while the temple constituted a smaller aedes located above, although without offering a reconstruction.647 Fortunately, all of the details of this debate do not require analysis here because the focus of this chapter is on the imperial versions of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. However, I will briefly demonstrate that the traditional understanding of the colossal size of the temple is likely to be correct. Hopkins points out that fragments of late sixth-­‐century terracotta revetments found near to the substructures in 1896, which are surely identifiable with the archaic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, have been reconstructed as a palmette frieze 0.60m. in height. This is nearly twice the size of any other contemporary palmette frieze and indicates that the archaic temple was indeed of exceptional size.648 Certainly, to judge by the surviving fragments of its marble order, the Domitianic 645
Ridley 2005, 104. Hopkins 2010, 15-­‐33; Hopkins 2012, 111-­‐38. 647
Arata 2010b, 621. 648
Hopkins 2010, 18, 29, in reference to Mura Sommella 2000, 21-­‐3 and 24-­‐6. 646
239 temple was also of a colossal size. However, in contrast with the considerable volume of scholarship that has been produced for the archaic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the Imperial rebuildings under Augustus, Vespasian and Domitian are comparatively overlooked.649 This neglect is particularly surprising in the case of the Domitianic rebuilding because the best archaeological evidence for the temple dates to this rebuild. The next part of this chapter will firstly examine the archaeological evidence for the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and will then evaluate the potential relationship between this and the lost Augustan temple. 6.2 Recorded and surviving marble elements from the Domitianic
temple
Many fragments of large columns of Pentelic marble were discovered on the Capitoline hill between the fifteenth and twentieth centuries. These may be confidently identified with the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple on the basis of their size, material and find spots. A study of the reports of their discovery, combined with analysis of some surviving fragments in the Caffarelli garden, provides the means to consider the total height of the column order of the Domitianic phase of the temple. In 1447, Poggio Bracciolini saw a marble doorframe and many broken column fragments on the Capitoline, which he presumed belonged to a marble 649
Stamper (2005, 151-­‐72) dedicates a brief chapter to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the Flavian period, entitled, ‘Temples and Fora of the Flavian Emperors.’ Vespasian’s and Domitian’s rebuildings are treated in five short pages, 151-­‐56. He estimates the columns to a total height of 16 or 17 m, and does not refer to the fragments of Pentelic marble on the Capitoline. Townend (1987), Wardle (1996) and Edwards (1996, 74-­‐82) provide analysis of Tacitus’ passage recording Vespasian’s clearing of the site. Darwall Smith’s 1996 study of Flavian architecture is predominantly based on readings of the literary and numismatic evidence. 240 temple.650 Pirro Ligorio recorded that Pentelic marble columns nine feet (piedi = 2.68m.) in diameter were taken for re-­‐use in St Peters during the Pontificate of Paul III (1534 -­‐ 1539).651 The sculptor Flaminio Vacca recalled in 1594 that a number of columns of marmo statuale, by which he probably meant Pentelic marble,652 thought to be associated with the temple of Jupiter Stator, were discovered behind the Palazzo dei Conservatori.653 The quantity of the marble fragments that Bracciolini described, and their quality, as testified by Vacca and Ligorio, encouraged large-­‐scale spoliation of the site, both legal and illegal.654 In around 1538, the Caffarelli family purchased part of the land on the southern summit of the Capitoline and over the next five decades, constructed the Palazzo Caffarelli. During the initial clearing of the site between 1544 and 1546, the Caffarelli family sold twenty-­‐four cartloads of marble, including large column drums, to be used in the construction of St. Peters.655 Giovanni Pietro Caffarelli also discovered a fluted column drum on 1 June 1545.656 Antonio Da Sangallo the Younger (who was in Rome preparing a number of drawings on 650
Poggio Bracciolini De varietate fortunae: consedimus in ipsis Tarpeiae arcis ruinis, pone ingens portae cuiusdam, ut puto, templi marmoreum limen, plurimasque passim confractas columnas. Lanciani 1998, 1, 69. 651
Ligorio Turin XV, 167, colonne erano di marmo Pentellismo, ma come havemo veduti alcuni suoi fragmenti erano nove piedi grosse di diametro, portate per l’opera del santissimo tempio di S. Pietro. Lanciani 1990, 99. 652
For a reference to ‘marmo statuale’ meaning Pentelic see Lanciani 1892, 89. 653
Schreiber 1887 no.65: ‘Me ricordo sopra il monte Tarpeo al pallazzo dei Conservatori, verso le Carceri Tulliane, esservisi cavati molti pilastri di marmo statuale, con alcuni capitelli tanto grandi, che in uno d’essi io vi feci il leone che mi fece fare Ferdinando Granduca di Toscana nel suo giardino atta Trinità del Monte Pincio; e delli suddetti pilastri il cardinale Federico Cesis ne fece fare da Vincenzo de Rossi tutte le statue et profeti che al presente si trovano in Santa Maria della Pace alla sua capella. Si diceva essere il tempio di Giove Statore. Non si trovò nè cornicioni, nè altri segni di detto tempio: io fo giudicio che per essere tanto accosto alla rippa del detto monte si siano diruppati da loro stessi, overo dal fuore de Goti precipitati: puot’essere ancora, per qualche accidente non fusse finito.’ Hülsen 1888, 150-­‐1. 654
Lanciani 1998, 1, 253-­‐4 for a reference to a band of marauders; Lanciani 1990, 2, 99-­‐100 for reference to a license for the excavation and recovery of material on the Capitoline. 655
Cifani 2002, 82. 656
‘Questa fu la colonna del tempio di Giove Olimpico, che Silla arrecò dalla Grecia, e mise in Campidoglio, trovata da Ms. Gio. Pietro Caferello nel giardino de’ Conservatori il 1° Gennaio 1545.’ From Hülsen 1888, 151. See also Lanciani 1990, 2, 99, who records Sangallo’s record of Giovanni Pietro Caffarello’s discovery of a fluted column in the garden of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. 241 ancient Roman architecture between 1531-­‐1539 for a treatise on the illustrated version of Vitruvius) provided further detail on this column drum, reporting that the flutes were 24 cm. in width, and also recorded the discovery of a marble cornice.657 Da Sangallo the Younger attributed all of these remains to a temple, and identified the column drum fragment with one of Sulla’s columns removed from Athens [see below pages 260-­‐61] but only a brief description of the remains and a simple ink sketch of a fluted column drum, unpublished, survive.658 The width of fluting as reported by Da Sangallo the Younger (24 cm.) indicate that the drum derived from a colossal order, while his identification of the drum with Sulla’s Greek columns (‘Canale della colonna del te[m]pio di Joue oli[m]pio quale reco silla di grecia’) could also suggest that he believed the marble to be Pentelic. Christian Hülsen sought to identify a measured drawing of a Corinthian cornice with egg-­‐and-­‐dart decoration in the Uffizi collection that had also been discovered in the garden of the Caffarelli estate (Fig. 6.23) to Da Sangallo the Younger on the basis of the style of handwriting and draughtmanship, and because the recorded findspot of the illustrated cornice (‘a champidoglio nella vignja di Janpetro [abraded word] chaferelglj’, here presumably refering to Giovanni Pietro Caffarello) was in a similar locale to the findspot recorded for Da Sangallo the Younger’s reported cornice discovery (‘in Campidoglio … trovata da Ms. Gio. Pietro Caferello nel giardino de’ Conservatori’).659 Since the total height of the cornice as measured by Da Sangallo was only 1.027m., Hülsen proposed 657
See Hülsen 1888, 153. The notes on the measured drawing of the cornice read: ‘Questa chornice futtrovatta drieto a champidoglio nella vignja di Janpetro [abraded word] chaferelglji’ 658
The description reads: ‘Canale della colonna del te[m]pio di Joue oli[m]pio quale reco silla di grecia e la mise i[n] Capitolio le trouo Mess. Joanpietro Caffarello i[n] e locho suo giu[n]to al giardino de Co[n]servatori i[n] Capitoli a di j di gennaro 1545 sono canali 24 largi dita lo regolo largo dita. From Bartoli ‘Descrizione dei disegni’, recorded in Hülsen 1888, 151-­‐2. The sketch is Uffizi Sched. 1215, p.64, unfortunately I was unable to find a published copy of it. 659
According to the Scheda Fiorentina 1215 and 1614, as recorded in Lanciani 1990, 2, 99; see also Hülsen 1888, 152-­‐5. 242 assigning it to the smaller interior entablature of the cella of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.660 However, the dimensions suggest that the cornice derived from another, smaller building on the Capitoline. In 1872, a fluted column drum of Pentelic marble was discovered embedded in the garden wall dividing the Palazzo dei Conservatori and the Palazzo dei Senatori.661 Three years later, Lanciani proposed that this drum derived from the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and reconstructed its diameter as 2.10m.662 This would represent a circumference of 6.6m., and with twenty-­‐four flutes and fillets of 27.5cm. in width, the same order of magnitude as the drum recorded by Da Sangallo the Younger. On 7 November 1875, fragments of Pentelic marble column drums were discovered in the Caffarelli garden lying on top of ashlar tuff blocks that would shortly afterwards be identified as the substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.663 Another column fragment of Pentelic marble was discovered embedded in the wall separating the Palazzo dei Conservatori and the Palazzo Caffarelli.664 One of these column fragments might have been sketched in a rough map of the Capitoline drawn by an otherwise unknown Arieti in the late nineteenth century for Rodolfo Lanciani (Fig. 6.24), although the two recorded dimensions for the illustrated column drum appear to read 8cm. for the width of the fillet, and 6cm. for the width or depth of the flutes. Despite the ambiguity of the illustration, both 660
Hülsen 1888, 154. The height of the cornice fragment did not measure 3m. as Ridley (2005, 92) suggests. The total height of the cornice on the illustration measures 3.30 palmi, not metres, and Hülsen rightly converted this to 1.27m. 661
Hülsen 1888, 150. 662
Lanciani 1876, 185. 663
Athenaeum vol. 2516, 96-­‐7, 15 January 1876. Extracted from Notes from Rome by Rodolfo Lanciani, ed. Cubberly 1988, 1. 664
Lanciani 1892, 52; Marquand 1898, 21. 243 measurements are certainly very small, and are too small to be associated with the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.665 Heinrich Jordan, who had supervised the excavations in 1875, recorded a find spot for one of the column drum fragments discovered in 1875 at ‘y’ in the map that he produced in 1876, which indicates that one of the column drum fragments discovered in 1875 was unearthed on the northeastern, central side of the remains (Fig. 6.25).666 Moreover, Jordan recorded that the width of fluting of this column drum was 24cm., which provides an identical dimension to the width of fluting on the column drum discovered in 1545 and measured by Da Sangallo the Younger, perhaps indicating that both reported discoveries referred to the identical column drum. From the known width of the flutes, Jordan reconstructed the diameter of the column drum discovered in 1875 as 1.8m.667 An Attic base with parts of the torus and scotia still preserved (Fig. 6.26), now lost, was discovered in front of the Palazzo dei Conservatori in 1875, and the location of its approximate find spot was recorded in Arieti’s sketch (Fig. 6.24).668 From the base, Ludwig Schupmann concluded that the diameter of the column drum could not exceed two metres, and estimated that the diameter of the base was 2.26m., as reported by Heinrich Jordan in 1885.669 In 1896,670 a large fragment from the upper half of a two-­‐piece Corinthian capital of Pentelic marble, now lost, was discovered in the wall separating the 665
It is difficult to identify the numbers with certainty. MS. Vatican Latin 13038 f.215, see Hackens 1962, 22 and pl. II. 666
Jordan 1876, pl.30. 667
Jordan 1876, 145-­‐72. 668
For the discovery of the base fragment see Jordan 1885, 72 n. 69; Marquand 1898, 21-­‐2. For Arieti’s sketch recording the find spot see Hackens 1962, 22 and pl. II. 669
Jordan 1885, 72 n.69. 670
Gatti 1896a, 116. 244 Montanari gardens from the Palazzo Caffarelli.671 Reporting its discovery in the 1897 volume of Notizie degli Scavi, Giuseppe Gatti described it as ‘un pezzo di grandissimo capitello corinzio, in marmo greco’ with traces of caulices and acanthus, and estimated a general diameter (of the kalathos) of around 2m.672 The capital was constructed in two halves, a construction practice that is usually diagnostic of a Late Republican or early imperial date.673 In this particular case, however, it is likely that the capital was carved in two pieces because of its exceptional dimensions. Allan Marquand published a photograph of the colossal capital fragment in 1898 (Fig. 6.26),674 the same year in which Hülsen also published Tognetti’s drawing and reconstruction of it (Fig. 6.27).675 Hülsen estimated the height of the complete capital to be c.2m., and estimated that the column from which it derived featured a lower diameter of 1.40m.676 The latter estimate cannot be correct, however, because in normal Roman Corinthian the height of the capital should be equal to the diameter of the flare of the shaft, and therefore approximately reflect the lower diameter as well, and, from this understanding, Hülsen’s estimated lower diameter should therefore be closer to two metres.677 If this were to be the case, then the full height of the colossal capital fragment discovered in 1898 concords with the lower diameters of the column drum 671
The wall was partly excavated in 1875 during construction of a new hall for the Capitoline Museums in the garden between the Palazzo dei Conservatori and the Palazzo Caffarelli, but not fully exposed. Athenaeum vol. 2516, 96-­‐7, 15 January 1876. Extracted from Notes from Rome by Rodolfo Lanciani, ed. Cubberly 1988, 1-­‐2. 672
Gatti 1897, 60. 673
Heilmeyer (1970, 34, n. 128) doubts its Flavian dating. For the construction of capitals in halves see Strong and Ward Perkins 1962, 12-­‐13, Bernard 2013, 1-­‐18. 674
Marquand 1898, 21-­‐2, Fig.2. 675
Hülsen 1898, 217, Fig.4. 676
Hülsen 1898, 218. 677
Wilson Jones 1989, 40-­‐1. 245 fragments discovered in 1872 and 1875 as reconstructed by Lanciani (2.10m.) and Jordan (1.8m.). Finally, during his excavations on the Capitoline in 1925 to the west of the Capitoline concrete foundation identified with the Jupiter Tonans temple in the previous chapter, Colini discovered a number of colossal fragments of fluting on the Via del Tempio di Giove and near to the concrete foundation, some of which may be seen in the background of two contemporary photographs (Figs. 6.28-­‐
29),678 and a fragment from a colossal pilaster of Pentelic marble (Fig. 6.30).679 Colini reported the following measurements for the pilaster fragment: the preserved length of the flutes is 19cm., the width of the fillets 6cm., and the depth of the flutes around 12cm. Colini proposed that these column and pilaster fragments should be identified with the foundation on the Via del Tempio di Giove concrete foundation discussed in the previous chapter in relation to the Jupiter Tonans temple. The photograph published in 1930 of the pilaster fragment (Fig. 6.30) indicates that four flutes are preserved. The pilaster fragment that Arata recently identified in the Caffarelli garden also features four flutes, and this fact, in consideration with the identical depth of fluting reported for both of the pilaster fragments, suggests that Colini discovered the pilaster fragment which Arata later identified in the Caffarelli garden. Although, as we shall see, Arata identified the pilaster fragment with the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, Colini discovered the fragments in the ‘area ‘della Protomoteca’’, the approximate site for which can be identified with 4B on Mazzei’s map of the Capitoline (refer back 678
Reproduced in Mazzei 2007, 160-­‐1, Figs.10-­‐11. Mazzei (2007, 168, 189-­‐90) also records an archival reference to the discovery of column fragments, although only the bald fact of discovery is reported. 679
For brief reference to the fragments of fluting from columns of considerable dimensions, see Colini 1927, 384; and for a photograph and more detailed discussion of a large fragment of a colossal pilaster, Colini 1930, 62, and Fig.42. 246 to Fig. 5.8), which is too far from the substructures of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple (about eighty metres away) to be convincingly identified with it.680 Only three architectural fragments of Pentelic marble are still in the Caffarelli garden: a large fragment of a column drum (Figs. 6.31-­‐33), a large fragment of a pilaster (Figs 6.34-­‐35) and a section of fluting (Fig. 6.36). The fact that the critical parts of each fragment (width and depth of fluting, and width of fillets) have nearly identical measurements, and the fact that each fragment is carved from Pentelic marble, suggests that they belonged to the same building. Although the marble has not yet been isotopically tested, the bands of green mica schists running diagonally across the profile of the drum, and horizontally through the broken section of the pilaster, are flaws indicative of Pentelic marble (Figs. 6.33, 6.35).681 Of greatest interest to this chapter is the column drum. Although a number of drums were discovered on the Capitoline between 1545 and 1875, Schupmann and Marquand appear only to have had access to a single drum, which may be that which remains on the Capitoline today. In 1898, Marquand proposed that the fragment of the Pentelic column drum in the Caffarelli garden derived from a column with a total height of 18.211m. / 61 RF.682 In 1946, Giuseppe Lugli briefly referred to the fragments but calculated the considerably larger total height of 21.58m., or just over 72 RF.683 In 2010, Amanda Claridge observed that the column drum fragments of Pentelic marble discovered in 1875, Lanciani’s reconstructed drum diameter of 2.10m., 680
For the approximate findspot of the column fragments discovered by Colini see Mazzei 2007, 164 fig.13. 681
Bernard (2010, 40-­‐6) employs electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy and isotopic analysis on the marble fragments from two second century BCE temples in the Campus Martius, which could equally be applied to the Capitoline fragments. 682
Marquand 1898, 24. 683
Lugli 1946, 26-­‐7; Richardson (1992, 224) criticised Lugli’s proposal as ‘excessive’. 247 and the capital fragment discovered in 1896, could signify a total height of 21.3m. following Wilson Jones 6:5 rule.684 In 2010, Arata stated that the total height of the column must have been greater than 14.17m., but did not venture to estimate a total column height.685 In May 2012 I examined the Pentelic column drum with the aim of determining accurate measurements for the width of the fillets and depth of fluting for this drum in order to reconstruct its circumference and diameter, from the flutes and fillets visible in Fig. 6.32 and recorded in Table 6.1.686 Due to the damaged surface of the drum it is now impossible to reconstruct its diameter with absolute precision. Table 6. 1: Measurements for the column drum (metres) Schupmann 1875 Jordan 1885 Marquand 1898 Arata 2010 Withycombe 2014 Width of fillets Axial measurement of flutes Width of fluting Depth of fluting D (est.) 0.19 n/a 0.45 0.235 1.8 0.18 n/a 0.045 0.225 1.72 0.16 0.07 0.065 0.225 1.70 0.16 0.07 0.067 0.227 1.73 684
Claridge 2010, 270. Arata 2010b, 620 and n. 247. 686
I am grateful to Angela Carbonaro at the Capitoline Museums for her kind assistance with my examination and measurement of the fragments. 685
248 When Schupmann originally measured the circumference of a colossal Pentelic marble column drum on the Capitoline in 1875, he arrived at an axial distance between the flutes of 22.4cm. and accordingly calculated a circumference of 5.4m. and a diameter of 1.80m.687 Marquand later adjusted this to a diameter of 1.72m., presumably following the formula where the diameter may be calculated through dividing the circumference by π (3.142). Arata’s measurements for the width of the fluting and the fillets of the column drum fragment differed from Marquand’s measurements of a column drum by 2cm.: the width of the fluting is 2cm. less while the width of the fillets is 2cm. more. The axial distance is 0.225m. Consequently, Arata arrived at an identical diameter to that which Marquand had already proposed (1.72m.), but rounded it down to 1.70m. The measurements for the drum’s flutes and fillets, published by Arata in 2010 and checked by myself in 2012 (see Table 6.1), differ from Marquand’s measurements in the respective widths, finding the fillets proportionately wider and the flutes proportionately narrower. This discrepancy can be explained by the possibility that we selected different flutes to measure. However, taking my figure of 0.227m. as the axial distance between the flutes, this multiplied by 24 gives 5.448m. in circumference which, divided by π, gives a diameter of 1.73m. The similarities of the width and depth of the fluting provided in the other recorded studies of the colossal column drum gives satisfactory confirmation that the drum which Schupmann and Marquand independently analysed is the same drum which is still in the Caffarelli garden. Marquand, Arata and I have all come 687
Jordan 1876, 151; see also Jordan 1885, 72-­‐3, n. 69; see Schupmann’s report dated to 15 August 1876 in Lanciani 1870, 151. 249 up with a diameter with a difference of only 1cm. In consequence, the best-­‐
preserved side of the column drum of Pentelic marble in the Caffarelli garden features a diameter of c. 1.72-­‐3m.688 I will quickly point that as I have demonstrated above, the colossal column drum fragment in the Caffarelli garden surely derived from the Flavian period of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple on the basis of its find spot and material. It is possible, although not very likely, that these fragments derived from Domitian’s temple dedicated to Jupiter Custos on the Capitoline. This temple was reportedly also of enormous dimensions, (described by Tacitus as ingens, ‘prodigiously large’) but we have already seen in chapter 5 [pages 206-­‐9] that this temple should be located on the Arx. Moreover, Tacitus’ use of the adjective ingens, although probably still signifying a large temple, according to Gros was selected to provide a negative contrast with Domitian’s modicum sacellum, dedicated during Vespasian’s reign, in the preceding line.689 Therefore, the dimensions of Domitian’s temple of Jupiter Custos may not have been comparable to the dimensions of the Domitianic rebuild of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and the colossal architectural fragments of Pentelic marble discussed in this chapter cannot be associated with the emperor’s new temple of Jupiter. 6.3.1 The height of the order of the Domitianic rebuilding of the
Jupiter Capitolinus temple
Even in its fragmentary state, the drum in the Caffarelli gardens is unusually large, which should indicate that it derived from a very large column 688
They are unlikely to have measured 0.16m wide, because the flutes from the upper shaft of the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek measured 0.17.5-­‐18.5m. Band, Schulz and Winnefeld 1921, 56. 689
Gros 1976, 98. 250 order. The columnar fragments listed above are now either lost or have been damaged to the extent that it is impossible to extract precise measurements from them. The existence of the surviving fragments is often stated, but only rarely have they been closely analysed, and varying dimensions for the individual columnar parts and the total height of the column have been proposed.690 The following section, therefore, provides a close study of the surviving fragments with a view to resolving the height of the order of the Domitianic rebuild of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple 6.3.2 The origin of the column drum in the shaft and the approximate
height of the order
It is now impossible to establish from which part of the column shaft the drum derived, for both ends are fractured. There is no trace or a joining surface and no trace of dowels. No curvature or flaring on the surviving fillets is visible, the presence of which would indicate (as in the case of the column drum of the Apollo Palatinus temple discussed in chapter 3 [page 106] that it originated from either the upper or lower part of the column shaft, but given its fragmentary state it is not even possible to rule out one or the other of those possibilities. Lanciani’s and Jordan’s estimated diameters of 2.10m. and 1.8 m. indicate, however, that the drum/s they observed cannot be identified with the column drum of Pentelic marble in the Caffarelli garden. This suggests that the Caffarelli garden column drum’s diameter of c. 1.72-­‐3m did not constitute the lowest column diameter. 690
For mention of the fragments and bibliographic references, see Richardson 1992, 224; De Angeli 1996, 153. 251 What is clear is that the diameter of the drum in the Caffarelli garden is nearly one Roman foot larger than the lower diameters recorded for 50 RF columns (Apollo in Circo LD: 1.47m., Castor and Pollux LD: 1.475m.),691 and 4-­‐5cm. less than the lower diameter recorded for the 60 RF columns from the temple of Mars Ultor (LD: 1.77m.). Indeed, the diameter of the Caffarelli garden’s drum is only c.35-­‐6cm. less than the largest lower diameter recorded from a standing order of 2.08m., from the columns of the temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus at Baalbek, though we may note that this diameter is also very close to the diameter of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as recorded by Lanciani (2.10m.).692 The above comparisons might not be appropriate, however, because the temples of Apollo in Circo, Castor and Pollux, Mars Ultor and Jupiter at Baalbek were all pycnostyle, whereas the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was arranged in a much wider rhythm, which, according to Vitruvius, required proportionately thicker shafts. Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.1 and 3.3.5) categorized the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as an example of the araeostyle rhythm, whereby the columns are spaced so widely – more than three diameters apart – that they can only support an entablature of timber, rather than of stone.693 According to Vitruvius (De arch. 3.3.1), columns 691
Wilson Jones 2000, 224. For the lower diameter, see Wilson Jones 2000, 224, and the upper diameter Schulz and Winnefeld 1921, 56. Construction of the temple dedicated to Jupiter at Baalbek was commenced in the Augustan period, but it was not completed until c.60 CE. The plan of the temple measured 48 x 88m, or 162 x 297RF, and 19.9m/ 67RF tall columns were arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm on a podium that was 13.5m/ 45RF tall. Schulz and Winnefeld 1921, 50. Because this temple was arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm, its proportions were surely more slender than the proportions for the columns of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which must have had thicker columns because its columns were arranged in the araeostyle rhythm. 693
Vitruv. De arch. 3.3.1: species autem aedium sunt quinque, quarum ea sunt vocabula: rare quam oportet inter se diductis araeostylos ‘The species of temples are five, for which these are the terms: … araeostyle, when the columns stand further apart than is desirabe; (Trans. Rowland 1999, 49). and 3.3.5: in araeostylis autem nec lapideis nec marmoreis epistyliis uti datur, sed inponendae de materia trabes perpetuae. et ipsarum aedium species sunt barycephalae humiles latae, ornanturque signis fictilibus aut aereis inauratis earum fastigia tuscanico more, uti est ad Circum Maximum Cereris et Herculis Pompeiani, item Capitolii. ‘It is not possible to make an araeostyle temple with epistyles in stone or marble; instead, above the columns wooden beams 692
252 arranged in the araeostyle rhythm should feature diameters that are an eighth of their height. Given the reportedly large dimensions of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, it is likely that its columns measured to at least fifty Roman feet, if not taller. As we saw in chapter 3 [pages 126-­‐27], Vitruvius stipulated that columns measuring from forty to fifty feet, and also those of a taller height, should feature a 7:8 ratio between their upper and lower diameters. The diameter of the drum in the Caffarelli garden measures to c. 1.72-­‐3m., and if this (for the sake of argument) approximately reflects the upper diameter of the column (7), then the lower diameter (8) should measure 1.96-­‐7m. According to the 1:8 ratio between the lower diameter and total height for columns arranged in the araeostyle rhythm, also proposed by Vitruvius, the total column height should measure 15.68-­‐76 m., or around 53 RF. Lanciani’s reconstructed drum diameter of 2.10m. and the 24cm wide flutes measured by Antonio Da Sangallo the Younger and Jordan, could suggest, however, that the lower diameter of the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was considerably more than 1.96-­‐7m. Using Lanciani’s figure (2.10m.) as a possible lower diameter, Vitruvius’ formula, at the 1:8 ratio (LD: H), would result in a column height of 16.8/ 57 RF and an upper diameter in that case, if we employ the 7:8 ratio, would be 1.84 m. This is not easily compatible with the reconstructed diameter of the drum in the Caffarelli gardens, unless it truly does come from the top of the shaft and the reconstructed measurements are a significant underestimate. Whether this means that we should distrust Lanciani’s figure (which was an estimate), or suppose that the columns did not must be placed all round. The appearance of these temples is splayed, top heavy, low, and sprawling, while their roofs are decorated with teracotta ornaments or gilded bronze in Etruscan style, as in the temple of Ceres near the Circus Maximus, the temple of Hercules built by Pompey, and also the Capitoline temple.’ (Trans. Rowland 1999, 49). 253 obey Vitruvius’ slenderness ratio, is now impossible to judge. While neither calculation just made is based on a fixed, known value, both, using Vitruvius’ prescriptions for columns arranged in the araeostyle rhythm, suggest that the total height of the order of the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple measured around 53 -­‐ 57 RF (15.68-­‐76m. -­‐ 16.8m.), which is significantly lower than the total column heights proposed hereto by Marquand (18.211m. / 61 RF), Lugli (21.58m. / 72.9 RF) and Claridge (21.3m. / 72 RF) in the past. The reason for this discrepancy could lie in the wider spacing of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which means that the thickness of its columns was not that of ‘normal’ Corinthian practice, as investigated by Wilson Jones. However, when Vitruvius stipulates that the total height of columns in the araeostyle rhythm should be equal to eight times the lower diameter because, if they were nine or ten times the lower diameter as is more normal, they would ‘appear thin and scanty’,694 the only surviving description of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple could provide confirmation that Vitruvius’ stipulations were not followed in this particular instance because ‘thin and scanty’ was precisely the criticism that Plutarch leveled at the column shafts in Domitian’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple [see pages 258-­‐59]. Consequently, the calculations proposed just above would be ineligible with a Vitruvian framework. It is therefore possible that Vitruvius’ prescription for the pycnostyle rhythm, whereby 694
Vitruv. De arch. 3.3.10: Aedibus araeostylis columnae sic sunt faciendae uti crassitudines earum sint partis octavae ad altitudines. ‘`the columns in an araeostyle temple should be made in such a way that their diameter is equal to one-­‐eighth their height.’ (Trans. Rowland 1999, 50). 3.3.11: Aedibus araeostylis columnae sic sunt faciendae uti crassitudines earum sint partis octavae ad altitudines. item in diastylo dimetienda est altitudo columnae in partes octo et dimidiam et unius partis columnae crassitudo conlocetur. in systylo altitudo dividatur in novem et dimidiam partem et ex eis una ad crassitudinem columnae detur. ‘The larger the space between the columns, the greater the diameter of the shafts must be. For if an araeostyle temple had columns whose diameters were equal to one-­‐ninth or one-­‐tenth the height of the column, the building would seem flimsy and inconsequential, because all along the intercolumnal spaces the air itself seems to diminish the apparent thickness of the shafts.’ (Trans. Rowland 1999, 50). 254 the ratio between the lower diameter to the total height of the column is 1:10, which Wilson Jones has observed in his imperial design framework although most normally for columns arranged in the pycnostyle rhythm, exactly as Vitruvius prescribed, was also followed in the case of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.695 Accordingly, in the case of Lanciani’s reconstructed diameter (2.10m.), the total column height would be 21m. /71 RF, which is near to the total heights that both Lugli (72.9 RF) and Claridge (72RF) proposed. To sum up so far, we have two alternative heights based on the available dimensions. If we follow Vitruvius’ prescriptions for the araeostyle rhythm, the columns were somewhere between 53 -­‐7 RF; if we follow the 1:10 ratio between lower diameter and total column height reported by Vitruvius in relation to the pycnostyle rhythm and observed by Wilson Jones for normal Roman Corinthian, the columns would measure somewhere over 70 RF high. The contemporary testimony, namely Plutarch’s complaint regarding the slenderness of the columns and the temple as shown in the Flavian coinage [see page 224 and figs. 6.5 -­‐ 6.8), do indicate that the columns of the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple were very slender and tall. While both 50+RF and 70+RF are colossal dimensions, the latter offer the tallest orders imaginable in Roman architecture. If the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple had indeed featured columns of this magnitude, the temple would have been the largest temple in Rome at the time and unmatched until the Severan temple dedicated to Hercules and Bacchus on the Quirinal, constructed some one hundred and fifty years 695
Plut. Publ. 15. 3-­‐4. 255 later.696 While it may be tempting to reconstruct the order of the temple to this height, it is, however, also possible that the order measured between 50-­‐60 RF, colossal nonetheless, but certainly not without parallel in Rome. 6.4 Technical and structural problems of the araeostyle rhythm
As already discussed in chapter 3, wide spacings were beset by various complications, and particularly placed great the strain on the architraves to support such large intercolumniations. It is for this reason that Vitruvius stated the architraves of temples arranged in the araeostyle rhythm should be constructed of timber. Gros provides examples in Greek architecture where intercolumniations exceeding 6m. were supported by wooden architraves, and interprets Tacitus’ reference to the aquilae vetere lingo catching on fire in his description of the temple’s destruction in 69 CE (Hist. 3.71.9) to indicate that the Augustan version of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple featured wooden architraves.697 However, no definite understanding of precisely what Tacitus meant has been reached. Heinz Heubner, in his commentary on The Histories book 3, offers two interpretations of aquilae, firstly, the wooden pediment, and secondly, timber beam supports in the roof.698 Rhiannon Ash, however, as well as other scholars, suggests that Tacitus’ reference to the timber aquilae in the passage serve an emotional function, emphasising both the antiquity of the 696
For the temple of Bacchus and Hercules on the Quirinal see Santangeli Valenzani 1991-­‐92, 7-­‐16. The largest cornice block known in Rome derives from this temple, and weighs one hundred tons, see Wilson Jones 2000, 172 n.46. 697
Gros 1976, 75. 698
Heubner 1972, 170. 256 temple and the pathos of the situation because the temple catches alight from the aquilae, venerable symbols of Jupiter.699 6.5 Domitian and Jupiter
Domitian was known to be a devoted adherent of Jupiter and styled himself as Jupiter’s earthly representative.700 The association between Domitian and Jupiter was evoked in contemporary religious architecture, panegyrics, poetry and coins.701 Domitian was particularly associated with Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Minerva.702 According to Suetonius (Dom. 4.4), Domitian established quinquennial games, Capitolia, which were held in the Campus Martius in honour of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, at which he presided in a crown bearing images of the Capitoline triad and flanked by the Flamen Dialis and the Flaviales, the latter being a newly established college of priests for the worship of the deified Flavians.703 However, the clearest expression of Domitian’s commitment to Jupiter Optimus Maximus was his rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, whose architrave was emblazoned with his name.704 From the literary sources, we know that Domitian endowed the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with an astonishing degree of splendour. Plutarch narrates the 699
Ash 2007, 232. This is suggested in Mart. Epigr. 7.60. 701
See Fears 1981, 77-­‐9. 702
For Domitian’s devotion to Jupiter, see Fears 1981, 74-­‐80; Jones 1993, 97-­‐9; Darwall-­‐Smith 1996, 105-­‐15. 703
Hardie (2003, 125-­‐47) provides a thorough discussion of the poetic competitions of the Capitolia. Gros (2009, 105) compares the Capitolia with the games that Augustus established at Nicopolis, suggesting that Domitian modelled them on this Augustan precedent. 704
Suet. Dom. 5: Plurima et amplissima opera incendio absumpta restituit, in quis et Capitolium, quod rursus arserat; sed omnia sub titulo tantum suo ac sine ulla pristini auctoris memoria. ‘A great number of splendid structures which had been destroyed by fire he rebuilt, including the Capitoline temple, which had burnt down again. However, in all cases his own name was the only one inscribed and no mention was made of any of the earlier builders.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008: 283). 700
257 original dedication of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in his biography of the Patrician statesman Publicola, one of the Consuls elected for 509 BCE.705 In an aside, Plutarch decried the expensive gilding of the Domitianic temple: ὁ δὲ τέταρτος οὗτος ὑπὸ Δομετιανοῦ καὶ συνετελέσθη καὶ καθιερώθη. λέγεται δὲ Ταρκύνιον εἰς τοὺς θεμελίους ἀναλῶσαι λίτρας ἀργυρίου τετρακισμυρίας: τούτου δὲ τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸν μέγιστον ἐν Ῥώμῃ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν πλοῦτον ἐκλογισθέντα τὸ τῆς χρυσώσεως μὴ τελέσαι ἂν ἀνάλωμα, πλέον ἢ δισχιλίων καὶ μυρίων ταλάντων γενόμενον. οἱ δὲ κίονες ἐκ τοῦ Πεντελῆσιν ἐτμήθησαν λίθου, κάλλιστα τῷ πάχει πρὸς τὸ μῆκος ἔχοντες: εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἀθήνησιν. ἐν δὲ Ῥώμῃ πληγέντες αὖθις καὶ ἀναξυσθέντες οὐ τοσοῦτον ἔσχον γλαφυρίας ὅσον ἀπώλεσαν συμμετρίας καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ, διάκενοι καὶ λαγαροὶ φανέντες ‘The fourth temple, which is now standing on the same site as the others, was both completed and consecrated by Domitian. It is said that Tarquin expended upon its foundations forty thousand pounds of silver. But the greatest wealth now attributed to any private citizen of Rome would not pay the cost of the gilding alone of the present temple, which was more than twelve thousand talents. Its pillars are of Pentelic marble, and their thickness was once most happily proportioned to their length; for we saw them at Athens. But when they were recut and scraped at Rome, they did not gain as much in polish as they lost in symmetry and beauty, and they now look too slender and thin.’ (Plut. Public. 15.3-­‐4; Loeb, trans. Bernadotte Perrin.) Domitian allegedly filled the area Capitolina with gold and silver statuary, acquired Pheidias’ renowned chryselephantine statue of Zeus for the cult image, constructed doors of solid gold, and roofed the temple with bronze tiles covered with a thick gold leaf.706 705
Plut. Public. 14. Plutarch notes a similarity with Sulla and Catulus, in that Sulla commenced the restoration but did not receive the honour of its dedication, which was instead granted to Catulus. I could not find a commentary on Plutarch’s biography, although Affortunati and Scardigli 1992, 109-­‐31 provide a historiographical discussion of the text. 706
The degree of splendour in Domitian’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple is implied in Pliny’s Paneg. 52, who refers to the many statues of silver and gold in the sacred precinct, and see fn. 755 for the references to Pheidias’ famous chryselephantine statue of Zeus serving as the cult 258 6.6.1 The Jupiter Capitolinus temple and the Olympieion
The following section examines the commonly held assumption that marble from the unfinished exterior façade of the temple dedicated to Olympian Zeus in Athens, the Olympieion, was used in imperial rebuildings of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. The passage from Plutarch’s Life of Publicola quoted above is sometimes interpreted to support the notion that Domitian sourced columns from the Olympieion, which were then recut in Rome.707 According to Plutarch, columns taken from Athens were ‘re-­‐struck’ and ‘scraped’ in Rome for the Domitianic rebuild of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and most scholars understand Plutarch to mean that full columns, already carved, were removed from a building in Athens and then recut in Rome.708 Some then go on to assume that the columns were extracted from the exterior colonnade of the Olympieion, which measure to a total height of 16.83m. / 57 RF, a shaft height of 14 m. / 47RF, and feature a lower diameter of. 1.925 m. / 6.5RF.709 This latter assumption ultimately derives from another passage, this time in Pliny the Elder’s image in the temple. For the belief that Pheidias’ statue of Zeus was the greatest in antiquity, see Plin. HN 31.4.18. Lapatin (2001, 123-­‐4) proposes that the first century rebuild under Sulla/Catulus saw the first introduction of a chryselephantine statue of Zeus, imitating that of Pheidias. See Zadoks Jitta 1938 for a discussion of the numismatic depictions of the cult statue. Zosimus (Nova Historia 5.38) reported that the Vandal leader Stilicho stripped the solid gold doors from the temple in the mid-­‐fifth century CE, and Procopius (Wars 3.5.4) reported that the Vandal king Geiseric robbed the temple of its gilded bronze tiles. 707
At the same time, some scholars have judiciously recognised the importance of the nature of the marble, without making the association with the Olympieion. See Walker 1979 and Arata 2010a. 708
For instance, see Kirsopp Lake 1929, 104; Richardson 1992, 224;Stamper 2005, 154; Arata 2010b, 619 and n.238. Other scholars are more judicious in their understanding of the passage, however, and state only that columns of Pentelic marble from Athens were used for example Gros 2009, 105; Walker 1979, 128. Recently, Perry (2012, 184) assumes that Plutarch witnessed the columns while they were still in the quarry or were about to be shipped, although this scenario is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely that Plutarch would have entered a quarry site, and secondly, even if he had, he could only have observed roughed out column parts because the fluting of columns was performed once the columns were erected in order to make the fluting flush. For the stages of column carving see Wilson Jones 1999, 242-­‐45, and Fig.13.19 clearly illustrates the process. 709
Measurements from Dinsmoor 1950, 341; Wilson Jones 2000, 224, Table 2. 259 Natural History, which may suggest that Sulla supplied the first rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with full columns of Pentelic marble removed from the Olympieion in Athens. Pliny begins Book 36 with a criticism of the amount of marble that was quarried and transported in his day. In an aside, Pliny remarks that in earlier times, when coloured marble was not desirable, marble columns were certainly used in temples, but only because of the strength of marble, rather than its decorative possibilities: columnis demum utebantur in templis, nec lautitiae causa -­‐ nondum enim ista intellegebantur -­‐ sed quia firmiores aliter statui non poterant. Sic est inchoatum Athenis templum Iovis Olympii, ex quo Sulla Capitolinis aedibus advexerat columnas. ‘Marble columns were certainly used in temples, not, however, as an embellishment, since embellishments as such were not yet appreciated, but merely because there was no way of erecting stronger columns. Thus they [marble columns] are a feature of the unfinished temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, from which Sulla brought columns to be used for temples on the Capitol.’ (Plin. HN 36.45; Loeb, trans. D.E. Eichholz.) Pliny’s passage is widely interpreted to mean that Sulla furnished the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with the Corinthian columns of Pentelic marble extracted from the unfinished exterior of the Olympieion.710 It has been noted that Pliny ambiguously used the plural aedibus, creating uncertainty as to which temple (or temples) he was actually referring.711 Many scholars, nevertheless, suppose that 710
Sear 1982, 12, 237; Ward Perkins 1974, 48; Gros 1996 vol.1, 180-­‐1; Ward Perkins and Boëthius 1970, 137. Perry 2012, 181. Renata Tölle-­‐Kastenbein (1994, 49) observes that the relevant passage is found in the context of a discussion of coloured marble, and therefore proposes that Pliny was referring to coloured marble columns from the smaller interior order of the Olympieion. This must be corrected. In fact, Pliny’s passage constitutes an aside from the discussion of coloured marble. Its main point is that the earliest temples in Rome did not use marble for decorative purposes but instead used marble in temples because it was the strongest load-­‐bearing material available. Therefore, Pliny was indeed referring to the Pentelic marble, load-­‐bearing columns supporting the pronaos of the temple, and not to smaller columns of coloured marble from an interior colonnade. I am again grateful to Stephen Smith for his helpful discussion of this passage with me. 711
Abramson 1974, 18-­‐9. 260 Pliny’s passage indicates that full Corinthian columns were transported from Athens and then employed for the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and have hailed the first rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as a critical moment in the development of the Roman Corinthian order.712 However, the notion that the first rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple by Sulla/Catulus sourced columns from the Olympieion, and that the use of these Olympieion columns influenced the development of the Roman Corinthian order, is outweighed by the counter arguments. If colossal columns from the Olympieion were indeed used in this rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which, at the time, would have been the tallest columns in Rome, it is strange that Vitruvius later criticised this specific rebuild of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple for appearing ‘splayed, top heavy, low, and sprawling’.713 In his 1970 study of the Roman Corinthian standard capital type,714 Wolf-­‐Dieter Heilmeyer could not discern any stylistic influence of the Olympieion capitals.715 More recently, Wilson Jones confirmed that while the Olympieion’s columns provide the first example of the axiomatic 6:5 relationship between the total height of the column and the height of the shaft, which later defined columns of the normal Roman Corinthian order, the Olympieion’s capitals do not feature the diagonal rule or the cross-­‐
sectional rule which, two centuries after its aborted construction, developed into 712
Fagerlind 1932, 124; Dinsmoor 1950, 280; Boëthius and Ward Perkins 1970, 105; Gros 1996 vol. 2, 476; Stamper 2005, 68, 81-­‐3. 713
Kirsopp Lake 1929, 103. 714
The Roman normal Corinthian type is defined by the inclusion of a curving abacus, two rows of eight alternating acanthus leaves, four pairs of volutes, and four pairs of helices with foliage, adjacent pairs of which emerge from a single caulicus. Definition sourced from Wilson Jones 1991, 113. 715
Heilmeyer 1970, 34 n. 128; see also Ambramson 1974, 15-­‐7; Wilson Jones 1991, 115. The representation of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple on the Petilius Capitolinus series of denarii, apparently in the Tuscan order, in conjunction with the observations that the Olympieion’s capitals had little impact on the development of the Roman Corinthian ‘normal’ capital, suggest that the first century BCE rebuilding of the temple maintained the Tuscan order. 261 proportional axioms for Corinthian ‘normal’ capitals in Rome.716 Finally, Vitruvius was an avowed fan of the second century BCE Roman architect of the Olympieion, Decimus Cossutius, and it seems likely that he would have noted if the columns from this temple were used on the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.717 However, Pentelic marble may have been the only available choice for Sulla’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. In the first century BCE, the quarries of Pentelic and Parian marble were the two major sources of supply to Rome, and while Parian was better suited to smaller works such as sculpture and architectural decoration, Pentelic was preferred in monumental architecture.718 In keeping with this trend, Sulla may have aimed to rebuild the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with Pentelic marble. The unfinished Olympieion would have provided an easy target for supplies of Pentelic marble because some of the marble originally intended for its completion may have remained on site in roughed our state but not yet mounted in position. Pliny (HN 36.45) referred to the temple as unfinished in the first century CE, although according to Vitruvius (De arch. 3.2.8) Cossutius envisaged a tripteral octostyle pronaos, a posticum and flanking dipteral colonnades of twenty columns, defined as octostyle hypaethral.719 Decimus Cossutius’ descendants and freedmen are attested throughout the 716
Wilson Jones 1991, 113-­‐5. See Vitr. De arch. 7 preface 15, in which Vitruvius celebrates the symmetrically disposed architrave and overall splendour of the Olympieion, which pleased all audiences, from the untutored to the expert. Vitruvius particularly notes the Corinthian symmetries and proportions of the temple, and laments the absence of an accompanying treatise. 718
Bernard 2010, 49-­‐50. 719
A brief description of Hadrian’s completed temple may be found in Paus. 1.18.6-­‐8. The variation in the form and carving techniques of the capitals is usually explained in reference to the construction phases of the temple, for instance, Dinsmoor 1950, 281; Ambramson 1974, 4. Many scholars date the south-­‐eastern group to the Hellenistic period, see Welter 1923, 187-­‐8; Dinsmoor 1950, 280-­‐1; Heilmeyer 1970, 57-­‐8; Abramson 1974 4-­‐5; others argue that some of the capitals exhibit Augustan and /or Hadrianic workmanship and style, for which see Gordon (1972/3, 1-­‐11), who focuses on the construction technique for the columns, whereas Heilmeyer (1970, 57-­‐8) provides a stylistic discussion. Enough of the Olympieion was standing in the first century BCE for Vitruvius to celebrate the symmetry and splendour of its various parts. 717
262 Mediterranean well into the second century CE in the context of the marble trade and even the Roman Senate.720 Given their relationship to the original architect of the Olympieion and status as marmorarii, the Cossutii could have been well placed to facilitate trade of the marble originally intended for the Olympieion. Therefore, it is possible that roughed out column parts of Pentelic marble originally intended for the Olympieion were transported to Rome and carved in the first century BCE rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple or other temples on the Capitoline, but it is unlikely that finished columns were transported. It is usually assumed that the columns were removed during Sulla’s sack of Athens in 86 BCE, although Herbert Abramson rightly argues that Sulla could not have had the foresight to remove a sufficient quantity of the Olympieion’s columns prior to the destruction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.721 However, at the time of the Jupiter Capitolinus’ destruction in 83 BCE, Sulla was the most powerful individual in the Mediterranean and could easily have had the columns removed at a later date. Moreover, Sulla had the means to transport the materials. According to Plutarch (Sull. 27.1), Sulla had twelve hundred ships at his disposal, and, according to Appian (Bell. Civ. 79.1) sixteen hundred ships.722 The Mahdia shipwreck that was discovered off Cape Tunisia bearing a cargo of approximately seventy roughed-­‐out columns of Pentelic marble, which varied considerably in length from 1.80m. to 6m., as well as twenty-­‐eight Ionic, Doric and other capitals, 720
For a discussion of the evidence for the Cossutii and their freedmen in the first century BCE and first century CE, see Rawson 1975; Bernard (2010, 51-­‐2) suggests that the Cossutii may have been already active in the supply of marble for public architecture in Rome in the second century BCE. 721
For Sulla’s sack of Athens see Plut. Sull. 14.6, App. Mith. 30; for Abramson’s reservations see Abramson 1974, 17. 722
I am grateful to Stephen Smith for pointing this out to me. 263 demonstrates that it was possible to transport large quantities of marble columnar parts in a single vessel in the 60s or 70s BCE.723 Plutarch’s passage concerning Pentelic marble and the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, and the concomitant interpretation that the columns for this rebuilding were taken from the Olympieion, is worth interrogating more closely. The evidence itself appears to offer arguments both in support and against the hypothesis that columns from the Olympieion furnished the façade of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Firstly, the decoration of the leaf stem of the Jupiter Capitolinus capital fragment discovered in 1896 and recorded in the photograph published in 1898 (Fig. 6.26) is different to the decoration of the leaf stem of the Olympieion’s capitals (Fig. 6.37). The Jupiter Capitolinus capital fragment features the simple stem of a bud framed on either side by fragments of caulici and derives from the upper half of a capital. Tognetti plausibly reconstructed the bud as the decoration of the flower stem leading to the central flower decorating the abacus and ledge (Fig. 6.27). Despite the variation present in the Olympieion capitals, they all feature the leaf stem for the central flower emerging directly from a central acanthus leaf (Fig. 6.37). In contrast, as seen above, the Jupiter Capitolinus capital fragment features the leaf stem emerging from a simple flower bud on a downturned leaf, which is characteristic for the decoration of capitals of the Flavian period (Fig. 6.38).724 The decoration of the leaf stem on the Jupiter 723
Of the approximately seventy shaft fragments discovered on board twenty-­‐five were measured, and they vary in length. Seven measure between 1.90-­‐2.75 m., eight measure between 3.30-­‐3.75 m., nine measure between 3.90-­‐4.40m., and one example measures to a length of 6 m. See Hesberg 1994, 175. Hesberg (1994, 77) speculates that the Mahdia cargo may have been spoils from Sulla’s sack of Athens. For this shipwreck in general, see Hellenkemper, Prittwitz and Bauchhenss 1994. 724
Pensabene and Caprioli 2009, 110, and Figs.1-­‐4. 264 Capitolinus temple in the Domitianic period is similar to the capitals of the temple of Vespasian and Titus in the Roman Forum, constructed c.90 CE (Fig. 6.39), and the Corinthian capital A from the main peristyle of the cenatio Iovis in the south corner of the Domus Augustana (Fig. 6.40).725 These Flavian decorative traits suggest that at least the capitals for the Jupiter Capitolinus temple were new products of the Domitianic period. Yet the total height of the columns from the Olympieion (H: 16.83m. / 57 RF) is strikingly close to the total height of our options calculated for the Caffarelli drum in relation to Vitruvian principles (H: 15.68-­‐76 m. -­‐ 16.8m. / 53-­‐57 RF). Although this could be a coincidence, we cannot exclude the possibility that they were brought from the Olympieion. Plutarch’s reference to the columns of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as appearing too slender, and his somewhat unlikely explanation that this was because they had been recut when they came from Athens, might be explained by the fact that they were pycnostyle in their original setting but then placed in an araeostyle arrangement. However, if so, his reference to them being cut down is not credible because they would have been used in their original state. Although the Olympieion’s columns were the largest in Athens, their dimensions are smaller than both a 50+RF and a 70+RF order of the Domitianic Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which I have already calculated as two possible heights of the order. It is self evident that a column cannot be recut into a taller order. Moreover, because both the Olympieion and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple featured the Corinthian order, the shafts of both will have featured flutes and fillets and so the recutting of the shafts to which Plutarch refers was, in theory, 725
Gibson, DeLaine, Claridge 1993, 82, Fig.15. 265 unnecessary. It would therefore be easier to understand Plutarch’s reference to the recutting to point to an Athenian building of the Doric order, which would certainly have required recarving because the shafts of this order featured flutes terminating in sharp edges, or arrises, which would have had to be recarved as flat bands. Following such a process, Doric shafts would indeed have appeared thinner, and Plutarch’s criticism concerned its disproportionately thin appearance. There are, however, no examples, extant or recorded, of a temple or building in Athens featuring a colossal Doric order of Pentelic marble from which the columns could have been sourced. Indeed, the interpretation of Plutarch’s passage to mean that Domitian sourced Pentelic columns from a building in Athens implies that Domitian had an entire building in Athens dismantled to furnish the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with columns. Such an act would have been described by one of Domitian’s many later critics, but is unattested. Plutarch may have been attempting to criticise the quality of Roman craftsmanship.726 Indeed, Plutarch’s passage provides a strikingly negative contrast with his Life of Pericles, in which he commends the dedicated specialists involved in the construction of Pericles’ building projects in Athens, particularly the Parthenon, and praises the beauty of their workmanship.727 Plutarch implicitly juxtaposes the visible thinness of the columns of the Domitianic rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the product of inferior craftsmen, with Pericles’ Parthenon, the exemplar of virtuoso Classical architecture and carving. Although 726
See for example Walker 1979, 128. Stadter 1989, 145; Plut. Per. 13.1: ἀναβαινόντων δὲ τῶν ἔργων ὑπερηφάνων μὲν μεγέθει, μορφῇ δ᾽ ἀμιμήτων καὶ χάριτι, τῶν δημιουργῶν ἁμιλλωμένων ὑπερβάλλεσθαι τὴν δημιουργίαν τῇ καλλιτεχνίᾳ. ‘So then the works arose, no less towering in their grandeur than inimitable in the grace of their outlines, since the workmen eagerly strove to surpass themselves in the beauty of their handicraft.’ (Loeb, Trans. Bernadotte Perrin). I am grateful to Chris Siwicki for suggesting the connection with Plutarch’s Life of Pericles. 727
266 it is likely that Domitian’s choice of marble was dictated by Sulla’s earlier selection, the discussion above gives further weight to Walker’s proposal that Plutarch may have intended to evoke a comparison between the carving of Pericles’ Parthenon and Domitian’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. To sum up so far, some scholars have proposed on the evidence of a passage in Plutarch’s Life of Publicola that the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was rebuilt with columns of Pentelic marble sourced from the Olympieion in Athens. While this cannot be entirely excluded, it also cannot be proven. It is interesting that Plutarch observed a known optical effect of wide intercolumniations between columns whose lower diameter may not have been thick enough, which made the columns appear thinner than they actually were.728 As we have seen, Vitruvius had already warned of this effect in a discussion of the araeostyle rhythm. To sum up so far, it is known that the columns of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple were arranged in the araeostyle spacing, were of the Corinthian order (at least from the early imperial period), and were of Pentelic marble. Columns from the pycnostyle Olympieion were probably too slender for the araeostyle rhythm of the temple, although Plutarch refers to such disproportion in his description of the temple. 728
Plin. HN 36.56.178: columnae eaedem densius positae crassiores videntur. ‘As for columns, identical ones appear to increase in thickness merely by being placed more closely together.’ (Loeb, Trans. D.E. Eichholz). 267 6.6.2 Pentelic marble in Flavian Rome
Plutarch’s record of the use marble brought from Athens in the Domitianic rebuilding of the temple, although it does not testify to the removal of columns from the Olympieion, is nonetheless significant. The quarries of Luna marble at Carrara would have provided a much closer supply of white marble, of which large and faultless blocks could be extracted, and which were surely of more use in colossal architecture than flawed blocks of Pentelic marble.729 Pentelic marble is a finely crystalled and translucent white marble with grey veins quarried at Mount Pentelikon in Northern Attica.730 Until the Flavian period, the use of Pentelic marble in monumental architecture in Rome was relatively rare, but it was particularly popular in the Domitianic period.731 The column drum of Pentelic marble in the Caffarelli gardens features thin bands of green mica schist in its broken sections (see Fig. 6.33 for the broken section of the column drum). Micaceous bands are frequently intercalated within Pentelic marble and are an example of the flawed parts of all the Pentelic quarries.732 Scott Pike’s mapping of the quarry pits on Mount Pentelikon demonstrates that while micaceous bands characterised many different pits throughout the ancient quarry area, for the most part the intercalations were 729
Claridge 2013 a, 1341; Wilson Jones 2000, 210. The definition of Pentelic marble is sourced from Claridge 2010, 36. For the quarries at Pentelikon, see Attanasio 2003, 190-­‐4. 731
For Pentelic marble in the Flavian period see Walker 1979, 128. 732
I am grateful to Professor Scott Pike from Willamette University, a specialist in the quarries at Mount Pentelikon, who in the 1990s mapped every quarry site on Mount Pentelikon and identified 172 quarry sites, both ancient and modern, for his informative email communication on the subject. See Pike 2010. 730
268 avoided in antiquity because they rendered the marble prone to shattering.733 Mica schists are more usually observed in smaller, non-­‐load bearing contexts, such as the architectural sculpture attributed to the templum gentis Flaviae on the Quirinal.734 The presence of the mica schists explains why the column drum fragment of Pentelic marble was not considered suitable for sculptural or architectural reworking, and why it remained, fortunately, on the Capitoline hill to the present day. It is nonetheless unusual to observe this banding in a column drum. Its inclusion in the superstructure of the temple testifies either to the possibility that the mica intercalations were unknown to the stoneworkers who were restoring the Domitianic phase of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple – indeed, the schisting is evident only in the broken section of the drum and we do not know if it was visible to the Flavian stonemasons – or that Pentelic marble was in such demand at this time that supplies of premium marble were rare. One positive feature of Pentelic marble with micaceous bands is that it provides a brighter, whiter marble than the usual quality of Pentelic, which tends to be slightly creamy and yellow in 733
Pike 2010, 699-­‐708; see also Korres 1995, 82-­‐3, who briefly discusses the planes of weakness in Pentelic quarries. 734
See La Rocca (2009, 224-­‐33) for a discussion of the history, remains and location of the Templum Gentis Flaviae, and Paris (2009, 460-­‐8) who provides an important discussion of the architectural sculpture which is probably associated with this temple. Although the identification of this temple is not certain, Paris points out that the findspot of the fragments, near to the baths of Diocletian and therefore in Regio VI, and their size and material (Pentelic marble), in conjunction with the likely identification of the emperor Vespasian in some of the sculptural relief fragments, indicate that the fragments derived from a Flavian monument of high status. The only Flavian building that is listed in the Regionary Catalogues for Regio VI is the Templum Gentis Flaviae, and so the pieces are convincingly identified with this temple. Davies (2000, 151-­‐8) discusses the fragments, and briefly mentions the mica schists. The 2009 Divus Vespasianus catalogue provides photographs and discussion of the individual fragments, see catalogue entries 52-­‐64, and especially Paris 2009, 460-­‐1. 269 colour.735 However, the column drum of Pentelic marble in the Caffarelli gardens was a single drum among many, and it may not be representative of the quality of the rest of the marble that was used throughout the temple. It is nonetheless interesting that the lower, more visible, half of the contemporary Arch of Titus is Pentelic marble, while the upper, and less visible, half is constructed of Luna marble, and, as discussed previously, mica flaws are also present in the architectural sculpture of Pentelic marble attributed to the templum gentis Flaviae.736 Perhaps these examples point to the limited supply of Pentelic marble in the Domitianic period. This would be hardly surprising considering that Domitian had to rebuild the Jupiter Capitolinus temple so shortly after Vespasian’s rebuilding of it, who presumably also built the temple in Pentelic marble. Furthermore, Domitian’s rebuilding of the temple took place alongside of other extensive rebuilding in Rome following the fire of 80 CE, all of which could have placed considerable stress on the available supplies of Pentelic marble. If Pentelic marble were in such short supply in the Domitianic period, this may have increased its market value. Susan Walker proposes that Domitian’s use of Pentelic marble in his rebuild of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was ultimately motivated by the need to replace the Pentelic columns which Sulla had used in his rebuild of the same temple, and that the selection of this marble for such an important temple inspired the preference for Pentelic marble in Flavian Rome.737 Walker is likely to be correct in this, but the value of Pentelic marble at this time may also have been linked to its limited supply. If this were the case, then 735
Claridge (2013 a, 1341) observes that Carrara marble is ‘rather dull in tone compared with the Greek marbles and of limited translucency’. 736
For the variation in the type of stone used in the Arch of Titus, see Pfanner 1983, 19. 737
Walker 1979, 128. 270 Domitian’s rebuilding of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in Pentelic marble, at the time in limited supply, could also be understood as an expression of his devotion to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The triple colonnade of the pronaos, featuring a likely eighteen colossal columns of Pentelic marble, would have been a lavish aspect of the rebuilding and provided a splendid votive dedication in its own right. 6.7.1 Reflections of the Augustan temple in Domitian’s rebuilding
In many ways, Domitian’s investment in the cult of Jupiter on the Capitoline is strikingly reminiscent of Augustus’ investment on the Capitoline. Both Domitian and Augustus styled themselves as the earthly representatives of Jupiter, and dedicated temples to Jupiter that signified Jupiter’s protective role towards them. However, Zanker observes an important difference between Augustus’ and Domitian’s association with Jupiter, pointing out that while the association with Jupiter was bestowed upon Augustus by the Senate (with, as already discussed, the revival of the augurium salutis ritual which publicly identified Augustus as the earthly agent of Jupiter, and the honorific title pater patriae), Domitian bestowed the association upon himself.738 Pliny the Younger suggests that Domitian transgressed acceptable boundaries of the worship of Jupiter, although there is also evidence for Domitian’s pious devotion to the deity.739 Perhaps Domitian’s excessive approach was the problem, rather than the nature of his identification 738
Zanker 2002, 117. Plin. Paneg. 52.7: ante quidem ingentes hostiarum greges per Capitolinum iter magna sui parte velut intercepti devertere via cogebantur, cum saevissimi domini atrocissima effigies tanto victimarum cruore coleretur, quantum ipse humani sanguinis profundebat. ‘Yet previously the vast herds of victims were often stopped on the Capitoline way and large numbers forced to turn aside, for in honour of that grim statue of a brutal tyrant the blood of victims had to flow as freely as the human blood he shed.’ (Loeb, Trans. Betty Radice). 739
271 with Jupiter, which appears to have been modelled on an Augustan precedent.740 In contrast with Augustus’ careful investment in the cult of Jupiter, which developed in stages throughout his Principate, Domitian replicated the Augustan investment ostentatiously and immediately, and exceptionally considered himself a deity in his own lifetime.741 Domitian’s reconstruction of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple may provide valuable reflections of the earlier phases of the temple because he probably respected the sacrosanctity of the Jupiter Capitolinus’ plan. Pliny the Younger’s Panegyricus dedicated to Trajan supports this notion. Throughout the Panegyrics, Pliny contrasts Domitian’s lavish investment in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple with Trajan’s pious investment in the temple.742 However, Pliny does not criticise the rebuilt structure at any point, and, given the nature of the Panegyrics and the ease with which Pliny directs vitriol against the former emperor, it is likely that if it were possible to criticise Domitian’s departure from the traditional layout of the temple, Pliny would have done so. Insofar as we know anything of the substructures, there is no sign of any radical alteration on the ground, and we have the testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tacitus that the rebuildings of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple always followed the same plan. There is no reason to believe that Domitian in anyway altered the traditional plan of the 740
Henriksen 2012, xxvi-­‐viii, considers the poetic associations between Domitian and Jupiter to be pure flattery and also humorous; Jones 1993, 98-­‐99 argues that Domitian was genuinely reverent towards Jupiter, and considered himself, like Augustus, only to be the earthly agent of Jupiter. 741
Suet. Dom. 13.2: Pari arrogantia, cum procuratorum suorum nomine formalem dictaret epistulam, sic coepit: "Dominus et deus noster hoc fieri iubet." ‘With no less arrogance, when he was dictating a formal letter in the name of his procurators he would begin: ‘Our master and god issues the following orders.’ (Trans. Catharine Edwards 2008, 289). Penelope Davies (2000, 148-­‐
58) explores the significance of the Templum Gentis Flaviae and Domitian’s exceptional deification, and proposes that Domitian used Augustus as a model for his rebuilding of Rome and his anticipatory funerary practice. 742
According to Suetonius (Dom. 13.2) Domitian ordered that the only statues to be erected of him on the Capitoline were to be of silver or gold, and of a fixed weight. 272 temple, and was probably bound by the same regulations that the augurs enforced for Vespasian’s rebuilding.743 In matters of religious and moral reform, after all, Domitian styled his building and restoration programmes in the manner of a new Augustus.744 6.7.2 The cenatio Iovis of the Domus Augustana
In this next section, we briefly return to the subject of chapter 2, the imperial palace on the Palatine. The results from the DAI’s survey of the imperial palace have significantly revised the conventional chronology for the Domus Augustana and identified a more complicated chronological sequence following the fire of 64 CE, starting with Nero, continuing under Vespasian with a major Domitianic phase, and followed by further Trajanic and Hadrianic interventions.745 However, the Triclinium, in the western part of the Domus Augustana and adjacent to the temple of Apollo (refer to map 2), was certainly a Domitianic construction, and analysis of its design and interpretation in contemporary literature indicate that Domitian expressed his devotion to Jupiter through this building as well. 743
Tac. Hist. 4.53: templum isdem vestigiis sisteretur: nolle deos mutari veterem formam. ‘The haruspices … directed … that a new temple should be erected on exactly the same site as the old: the gods were unwilling to have the old plan changed.’ (Loeb, Trans. Clifford H. Moore). 744
Martial specifically evokes the comparison in Epigr. 8.80.5-­‐6; see Jones 1992, 99 and Davies 2000, 149 for modern discussion on the parallel between Domitian and Augustus. 745
When the Flavians destroyed Nero’s palaces and started construction anew, it is usually understood that the palace was conceived as a single building under Domitian and the architect Rabirius, for instance see MacDonald 1982, 47; Blake 1959, 115. A passage in Dio Cassius (65.10.4) is often cited in support of this, in which the historian suggests that Vespasian spent little time in the Imperial palace, instead preferring the gardens of Sallust between the Pincian and Quirinal hills. However, the results of the DAI’s recent study of the standing remains of the Domus Augustana in the course of the Kaiserpalast project challenge both the conventional dating for the Domus Augustana, and the assumption that the palace was designed as a unitary construction. In particular, Ulrike Wulf-­‐Rheidt and Natascha Sojc have presented the evidence for two Flavian phases of the palace, one of which constitutes a Vespasianic phase. Wulf-­‐Rheidt and Sojc 2009, 268. They demonstrate that the palace was not completed until the time of Trajan, or even Hadrian. However, the Triclinium features brick-­‐faced concrete with bonding courses of bipedales regular intervals which is diagnostic of Domitianic construction. Sojc 2005/6, 345. 273 The reconstruction of the Triclinium by Sheila Gibson, Janet DeLaine and Amanda Claridge proposed a rectangular apsidal hall measuring 29.05 m. /98 RF in width and 31.55 m. /107 RF in length (Fig. 6.41), with an interior triple tier of Corinthian columns measuring a total height of 31.6 m. /107 RF (Fig. 6.42).746 They propose that the room reached an overall approximate height between 30-­‐
35 m., and reconstruct a timber roof with a truss and a gabled end (Fig. 6.42).747 References to the Triclinium in contemporary poetry, however, indicate that its height and lavish decoration were considered in terms of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Martial refers to Rabirius’ design of the imperial palace in terms of the ‘worthy shrine’ of ‘Phidias’ Jupiter’, and describes the top of the palace reaching the heavens and surrounded by thunder,748 echoing Statius’ description of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as reaching the heavens. These descriptive devices, whereby the height of the Triclinium was so great that it penetrated the divine realm, imply that it housed a divine inhabitant, although whether this was Domitian or Jupiter is ambiguous. Martial plays on the connection between the Jupiter Capitolinus temple and Domitian’s Triclinium in his Epigrams, suggesting 746
Gibson et al 1994, 86. DeLaine, Claridge and Gibson convert the Roman foot as 0.295 m., as explained in footnote 28, although in this thesis the Roman foot equals 0.296 m. 747
Gibson et al 1994, 80-­‐81. They propose a timber roof, rather than a vaulted roof, as has been reconstructed by some scholars, for instance MacDonald 1982, 56-­‐63. A clear summary of the relevant arguments is found in Lancaster 2009, 187-­‐8. 748
Mart. Epigr. 7.56: Astra polumque pia cepisti mente, Rabiri,/ Parrhasiam mira qui struis arte domum/ Phidiaco si digna Iovi dare templa parabit,/ Has petet a nostro Pisa Tonante manus./ ‘Rabirius, your pious mind has comprehended the stars and sky, builder of the Parrhasian dwelling with wondrous skill. If Pisa shall prepare to give Phidias’ Jupiter a worthy shrine, she will ask our Thunderer for these hands.’ (Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). Later, Martial suggests that a bust of Domitian surpasses even this famed statue and makes the connection between Domitian and Jupiter explicit. See Mart. Epigr. 9.24: Quis Palatinos imitatus imagine vultus/ Phidiacum Latio marmore vicit ebur?/ Haec mundi facies, haec sunt Iovis ora sereni:/ Sic tonat ille deus, cum sine nube tonat./ Non solam tribuit Pallas tibi, Care, coronam;/ effigiem domini, quam colis, illa dedit. ‘Who surpassed Phidias’ ivory in Latin marble with this bust portraying the Palatine countenance? This is the face of the firmament, this is the aspect of unclouded Jove. So the god thunders when he thunders from a clear sky. It was not merely a wreath, Carus, that Pallus accorded you; she gave you the Lord’s effigy, which you worship.’ (Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). 274 that, were Martial invited to dine in the heavens with Jupiter, or in Domitian’s Triclinium, he would prefer the latter. Qui Palatinae caperet convivia mensae Ambrosias que dapes, non erat ante locus: Hic haurire decet sacrum, Germanice, nectar Et Ganymedea pocula mixta manu. Esse velis, oro, serus conviva Tonantis: At tu si properas, Iuppiter, ipse veni. ‘Formerly there was no place large enough for the banquets and ambrosial repasts of the Palatine board. Here, Germanicus, you may fitly drink sacred nectar and cups mixed by the hand of a Ganymede. I pray it may be long before you choose to dine with the Thunderer. As for you, Jupiter, if you cannot wait, come yourself.’ (Mart. Epig. 8.39; Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). And also, Ad cenam si me diversa vocaret in astra Hinc invitator Caesaris, inde Iovis, Astra licet propius, Palatia longius essent, Responsa ad superos haec referenda darem: 'Quaerite qui malit fieri conviva Tonantis: Me meus in terris Iuppiter, ecce, tenet. ‘If I were invited to dinner in different heavens by Caesar’s summoner on the one hand and Jupiter’s on the other, though the stars were closer and the Palace farther off, I should give this answer to be returned to the High Ones: “Seek on for one who would rather be the Thunderer’s guest: my Jupiter, see, keeps me on earth.” (Mart. Epigr. 9.91; Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). Statius, who describes his apparent participation in a banquet held in Domitian’s banqueting hall in his Silvae, composed around in 95 CE, also explored the association between Domitian and Jupiter, comparing Domitian’s new Triclinium with celestial dwellings, and suggesting it to be admired by Jupiter on the Capitoline. 275 Tectum augustum, ingens, non centum insigne columnis, sed quantae superos caelumque Atlante remisso sustentare queant. stupet hoc vicina Tonantis regia, teque pari laetantur sede locatum numina, nee magnum properes escendere caelum; tanta patet moles effusaeque impetus aulae liberior campo multumque amplexus operti aetheros et tantum domino minor: ille penates implet et ingenti genio iuvat, aemulus illic mons Libys Iliacusque nitens et multa Syene et Chios et glaucae certantia Doridi saxa Lunaque portandis tantum suffecta columnis. longa supra species: fessis vix culmina prendas visibus auratique putes laquearia caeli. hic eum Romuleos proceres trabeataque Caesar agmina mille simul iussit discumbere mensis, ipsa sinus accincta Ceres Bacchusque laborat sufficere, aetherii felix sic orbita fluxit Triptolemi; sic vitifero sub palmite nudos umbravit colles et sobria rura Lyaeus. ‘An august edifice, vast, magnificent not with a hundred columns but as many might support heaven and the High Ones were Atlas let go. The Thunderer’s neighbouring palace views it amazed, the deities rejoice to see you established in a residence equal to their own (nor hasten you to ascend the great sky!); so wide the pile, such the thrust of the hall, freer than a spreading plain, embracing much of heaven within its shelter; he fills the household and weighs it down with his mighty being. Here contend the mountains of Libya and the gleaming stone of Ilium, dark Syene too and Chios, and rocks to rival the grey-­‐
green sea, and Luna, substituted only to support the columns. Far aloft extends the view; your weary eyes could scarce attain the roof, you would think it the gilded ceiling of heaven. When Caesar bade Romulus’ magnates and the columns of robed Knights recline here together at a thousand tables, Ceres herself with her dress girt up and Bacchus toil to supply their wants. So flowed the bounteous path of sky-­‐borne Triptolemus; so Lyaeus shaded bare hills and sober fields under his clustered vines.’ (Stat. Silv. 4.2.18-­‐37; Loeb, Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey). The writer of the biography of Pertinax in the Historia Augusta, of uncertain, 276 although later, date, also referred to the Triclinium as the cenatio Iovis, or the banqueting hall of Jupiter, perhaps in reference to Statius’ earlier poetry.749 Although such references could be dismissed as sycophantic reflections of Domitian’s devotion to Jupiter, the association between Jupiter and the Triclinium in the imperial palace may have been more than poetic. In their reconstruction of the Triclinium, Gibson, DeLaine and Claridge explain how the scale of the building, the precious materials used to decorate it, and the timber roof and pedimental façade, resulted in a recognisable architectural type that evoked comparisons with divine buildings, such as temples.750 Zanker pursued the association between the function of the Triclinium and evocations of Jupiter further, estimating that the Triclinium could accommodate up to one hundred and eighty guests, and, including the space of the Aula Regia and the Basilica as well, proposes that public banquets with up to five hundred guests could take place in the Domus Augustana.751 Zanker points out that public feasting on this scale normally took place in religious contexts.752 The most famous public feast was the epulum Iovis, the banquet of Jupiter, which was celebrated on 13 September. Here, senators feasted on sacrificial offerings with Jupiter in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.753 Zanker proposes that the layout of the Triclinium, with Domitian possibly reclining on a couch in the apse in the southern part, may have meant that public feasting in this room was evocative of this very festival, with Domitian appearing as Jupiter 749
Hist. Aug. Pert. 11.6, supervenerunt Pertinaci, cum ille aulicum famulicium ordinaret, ingressique porticus Palatii usque ad locum qui appellatur Sicilia et Iovis cenatio. ‘The troops arrived just as Pertinax was inspecting the court-­‐slaves, and, passing through the portico of the Palace, they advanced as far as the spot called Sicilia and the Banqueting-­‐Hall of Jupiter.’ (Loeb, Trans. David Magie). 750
Gibson, Claridge and DeLaine 1994, 92-­‐3. 751
Zanker 2001, 112-­‐3. 752
Consider the feast held in a temple dedicated to Hercules in Rome, paid for by a triumphant general, the vast size of which is reported by Athenaeus Ath. 4.153 and Plut. Caes. 55.2. 753
Scheid 2003. 277 Optimus Maximus himself.754 Finally, the poetic references relating to Domitian and Jupiter in the imperial poetry above echo Ovid’s earlier associations between Augustus and Jupiter, and the earthly and celestial Palatine. Although it has already been explained that Ovid’s association may have contained subversive and ironic connotations, it is clear that the link between the emperor and Jupiter provided a lasting expression of the central role of the princeps in imperial ideology. 6.8.1 Augustus’ restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple
The following section turns to the Augustan restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, with a view to confirming the date of restoration. Augustus recorded his restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple in the Res Gestae: Capitolium et Pompeium theatrum utrumque opus impensa grandi refeci sine ulla inscription nominis mei. Καπιτώλιον καὶ τὸ Πομπηίου θέατρον ἑκάτερον τὸ ἔργον ἀναλώμασιν μεγίστοις ἐπεσκεύασα ἄ νευ ἐπιγραφῆς τοῦ ἐμοῦ ὀνόματος. ‘I restored the Capitoline temple and theatre of Pompey, incurring great expense for both buildings, without inscribing my name anywhere on them.’ (RG 20.1; trans. Cooley 2009, 80.) It is usually assumed that this consisted only of the donation of gold and precious stones in the temple later mentioned by Suetonius.755 Since Augustus draws 754
For the epulum Iovis see Val. Max. 2.1.2; discussion in Scheid 2003. Suet. Aug. 30: Aedes sacras vetustate conlapsas aut incendio absumptas refecit easque et ceteras opulentissimis donis adornavit, ut qui in cellam Capitolini Iovis sedecim milia pondo auri gemmasque ac margaritas quingenties sestertium una donatione contulerit. ‘Furthermore, he restored ruined or burned temples, beautifying these and others with the most lavish gifts -­‐ for instance, a single donation to Jupiter Capitolinus of 16,000 pounds of gold, besides pearls and 755
278 attention to the fact that he did not leave his name on the pediment, however, the restoration was presumably of sufficient substance to merit such an inscription and is therefore likely to have involved considerable structural work rather than just a donation. Moreover, given Augustus’ major investment in temples in Rome during his lifetime it would be unusual if equal (if not more) attention were not paid to the Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Unfortunately the Res Gestae provides no clues to date the restoration. A date in or after 9 BCE is commonly proposed because Dio Cassius reports that in this year lightning damaged a number of temples on the Capitol, including that of Jupiter Capitolinus.756 There are, however, other possibilities: the Res Gestae records a city-­‐wide restoration of shrines and cult places in Rome in 28 BCE;757 the temple was an important location during the preliminary rituals of the Ludi Saeculares in 17 BCE and a restoration may have been performed in or around this year;758 a restoration of the temple coinciding with the restitution of the Flamen Dialis, the head priest of the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, in 12 BCE, precious stones to the value of 50 million sesterces.’ (Trans. Edwards 2008, 60). Dio Cass. records that following Augustus’ triple triumph, he made dedications in the temple of divus Julius and the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, 51.22.2-­‐3. 756
Dio Cass. 55.1.1: καὶ αὐτῷ σημεῖα οὐκ ἀγαθὰ συνηνέχθη: πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλα καὶ χειμῶνι καὶ κερxαυνοῖς, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ναοὶ ἐφθάρησαν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου τῶν τε συννάων αὐτοῦ κακωθῆναι. ‘Many buildings were destroyed by storm and by thunderbolts, among them many temples; even that of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the gods worshipped with him, was injured.‘ (Loeb, Trans. E. Cary). For the acceptance of 9 BCE as the year in which the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was restored see Gros 1976, 19; LTUR III 1993, 148-­‐53, s.v. ‘Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, aedes (fasi tardo-­‐repubblicane e di età imperiale)’ [de Angeli], specifically 150 for support of the year 9 BCE; Thein in MAR 2002, 155; Haselberger 2007, 178; Cooley 2009, 191-­‐2. 757
RG 22.4: duo et octoginta templea deum in urbe consul sextum ex auctorate senatus refeci, nullo praetermisso quod eo tempore refici debebat. ‘I restored eight-­‐two temples of the gods in the city as consul for the sixth time, in accordance with a resolution of the Senate, and I neglected none which needed repair at this time.’ (Trans. Cooley 2009, 80-­‐1). 758
CIL 6.32323, line 29: Isdem cos., isdem mag. XV vir. s.f. ad collegium [relatum est/ purgamenta dari et fruges accipi colle[g]io [ …… placere ut in Capitolio ante aedem Iovis]/ maximi ‘Under the same consuls, and the same officials of the Fifteen in charge of sacrifices, [the matter was brought] to the college … that means of purification be given and corn be received, that the college … [decides that on the Capitol in front of the temple of] greatest [Jupiter] … (Trans. Cooley 2008, 272). 279 could also be appropriate.759 In light of all these possibilities for the date of the Augustan restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, the following section will attempt to find a resolution. 6.8.2 The date of Augustus’ restoration of the Jupiter Capitolinus
temple
The claim that the Jupiter Capitolinus temple required rebuilding in 9 BCE because it was damaged by thunderbolts deserves closer analysis, given that Augustus’ construction of the temples dedicated to Apollo on the Palatine and Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline were also vowed in relation to either thunderbolts or lightning strikes, both attributes of Jupiter. While it is clear that Augustus gave careful regard, at least publicly, to the appropriate response to prodigies, it is also evident that he relied on the interpretation of such prodigies to legitimately construct public temples with a personal relevance. In the case of the storms recorded in 9 BCE, which damaged the Jupiter Capitolinus temple as well as other temples on the Capitoline, they occurred prior to the departure of Drusus, Augustus’ stepson, for a military campaign in Germany760 as inauspicious omens: ταῦτα μὲν ἐπί τε τοῦ Ἰούλλου Ἀντωνίου καὶ ἐπὶ Φαβίου Μαξίμου ὑπάτων ἐγένετο, τῷ δὲ ἐχομένῳ ἔτει ὁ Δροῦσος μετὰ Τίτου Κρισπίνου ὑπάτευσε, καὶ αὐτῷ σημεῖα οὐκ ἀγαθὰ συνηνέχθη: πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλα καὶ χειμῶνι καὶ κεραυνοῖς, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ναοὶ ἐφθάρησαν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου τῶν τε συννάων αὐτοῦ κακωθῆναι. οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐφρόντισέ τι αὐτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔς τε τὴν τῶν Χάττων ἐσέβαλε καὶ προῆλθε μέχρι τῆς Σουηβίας, τήν τε ἐν ποσὶν οὐκ ἀταλαιπώρως χειρούμενος καὶ τοὺς προσμιγνύντας οἱ οὐκ 759
For Augustus as pontifex maximus see Dio Cass. 54.27.2-­‐3; Beard, North and Price 1998, 186-­‐9. For Drusus’ preceding German campaigns of 12-­‐10 BCE, see Dio Cass. 54.32.1-­‐3, 33.1-­‐5 and 36.3. 760
280 ἀναιμωτὶ κρατῶν. ‘The events related happened in the consulship of Iullus Antonius and Fabius Maximus. In the following year [9 BCE] Drusus became consul with Titus Crispinus, and omens occurred that were anything but favourable to him. Many buildings were destroyed by storm and by thunderbolts, among them many temples; even that of Jupiter Capitolinus and the gods worshipped with him was injured. Drusus, however, paid no heed to any of these things, but invaded the country of the Chatti and advanced as far as that of the Suebi, conquering with difficulty the territory traversed and defeat