by Unknown
Table 3.3. Distribution of brickstamps CIL XV 811 a–f
* * *
CIL XV no.Trajan’s BathsTrajan’s Markets & ForumBasilica UlpiaAtrium VestaePantheon
811 a–c 18
811 d 1 12 3 1
811 e 3 1
811 f 1 5 10 2
811 e or f 6 1
TOTAL 2 18 12 11 21
* * *
It is not in fact possible to be precise about the dates of CIL XV 811 a–c, which could span the late Trajanic and early Hadrianic periods.54 What is clear, though, is that CIL XV 811d–f are earlier. Here, then, is another group of “problematic brickstamps” for Bloch’s dating of the Pantheon to the Hadrianic period, which he again explains as “old remains.”55 Contrary to such a hypothesis is also the fact that the oldest types, CIL XV 811 d–f, have only been found in the lower parts of the Pantheon, which must necessarily have been built before the dome, where instead the types CIL XV 811 a–c are dominant (making up 12 out of the total of 21 brickstamps found). Once again, here is a chronological distribution, which argues against Bloch’s stockpiling or old-remains theory in that it points to the progressive release of the bricks to the market.
6. Revising the Date of the Pantheon
The main thrust of the preceding discussion, supplemented by the researches of Steinby and DeLaine, is to revise in some respects the dating proposed by Bloch for the Pantheon. The spread of dates for consular brickstamps is summarized in Table 3.1.
This presentation of the facts invert’s Bloch’s scenario. Instead of 23 problematic Trajanic brickstamps for a Hadrianic dating of the building, this now changes to 1 problematic Hadrianic brickstamp for a Trajanic dating. This stamp, CIL XV 549, is dated by the consuls named to the year 123, but its location at the junction with the columnar portico suggests that it saw use only after the rest of the building was already complete (see Chapter Seven). By contrast, 23 of all the brickstamps found in situ (or almost 33 percent of the total), may be dated to the reign of the emperor Trajan.56 This is surely too great a quantity to represent pure accident or old remains, as maintained by Bloch. Neither Bloch nor Steinby have been able to date any more precisely the group of brickstamps attributable to the late Trajanic/early Hadrianic period (39 stamps, or 55 percent of the total of 70 found in situ).57 It seems that part of this group was assigned to the early Hadrianic period primarily because of being found in the Pantheon, which by these scholars’ definition was built at this time – a classic example of circular reasoning.
The analysis of brickstamps from the Pantheon thus shows that it is very problematic to place the start of building as late as 118 or 119. It is this supposed date that made it necessary for Bloch to invent ad hoc hypotheses, and to explain the presence of so many Trajanic brickstamps by recourse to the notion of stockpiling by Rutilius Lupus, or the using up of surpluses from previous years. However, the present investigation suggests a more straightforward explanation – that the Pantheon started under the emperor Trajan. The simplest reason for the presence of brickstamps dated to the years 114–116 in both the rotunda proper and the intermediate block would be that they reflected the time the Pantheon was built.
As noted, many of the same types of brickstamps found in the Pantheon are found in presumably Trajanic buildings in Rome and Ostia. DeLaine’s demonstration that the bricks of this kind used at Ostia were not stockpiled but were, rather, brought to market in the normal fashion, and, what is more, in the late Trajanic period, makes it all the more likely that the construction of the Pantheon, too, was begun at this time.
7. What Happened with the Pantheon in the Period 110–118/119?
Let us leave the evidence of brickstamps and look at something else that puzzled Bloch: the interval between the destruction of the previous Pantheon by lightning, an event Jerome’s text dates to 110, and the initiation of rebuilding in 118 or 119. Bloch admits that such a long gap is peculiar.58 However, he fails to realize that this period of inactivity, eight to nine years, is entirely his own creation. The fact is that his theory of a Hadrianic date for the Pantheon creates a void.59 He imputed the delay to its status as an imperial project, presuming that work could not begin while the emperor Trajan was away, and which upon his death had to await the arrival in Rome of the new emperor Hadrian.60
Bloch may also have thought that the rebuilding of the Pantheon could not start immediately after the fire of 110 because many other imperial constructions were being built or finished off around that time. Trajan’s major projects include Trajan’s Baths (for which the traditional date of inauguration is 109); Trajan’s Markets (supposedly finished in 110); Basilica Ulpia (concluded in 112) and Trajan’s Forum (substantially concluded in 112, although the works seems to have continued into the Hadrianic period), and the Atrium Vestae (finished in 113).61 Most of these projects were concluded by 112, and so why would the emperor wait to commence with the Pantheon? It might be thought that preparations for the Parthian wars represented an impediment, but Trajan did not leave the capital to lead the campaign until September or October 113.62 And in any case, it is not as if building projects were routinely suspended during military operations.
8. Heilmeyer’s Hypothesis
Ancient sources tell us that Apollodorus of Damascus was Trajan’s master architect and the designer of important structures, including Trajan’s Forum, Trajan’s Baths, and an audacious bridge over the River Danube.63 Many scholars have endorsed this, and have gone on to propose Apollodorus as the author of other buildings constructed during the time of this emperor.64 Some even argue that Apollodorus was the designer of the Pantheon.65 One of them is Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, who in 1975 argued that the Pantheon was initiated during the reign of the emperor Trajan.66 Heilmeyer’s hypothesis is based chiefly on stylistic evidence, especially the close affinities between the marble encrustation and the Corinthian capitals of the Pantheon and equivalent parts of Trajan’s Forum.67 This interpretation has been challenged most forcefully by appeal to the evidence of brickstamps, as viewed in line with Bloch’s analysis. In an article dealing with the dating of the Large Baths of Hadrian’s Villa, A. C. G. Smith concluded that brickstamps support the conventional date of the Pantheon to the early years of Hadrian’s reign.68 Yet if the evidence presented here is correct, the validity of such argumentation dissolves. Another objection to the involvement of Apollodorus has been seen to be his supposed execution at Hadrian’s behest, an event that Dio Cassius places in the earliest parts of his reign.69 However, his narrative, as we have seen, is not entirely reliable, and in any case, a Trajanic start for the Pantheon in effect removes this objection, too.70
Further parallels between the Pantheon and buildings thought to be associated with Apollodorus are explored elsewhere in this volume by Giangiacomo Martines, Gene Waddell, and Mark Wilson Jones. For myself, the most sustained similarities with the Pantheon are found in the hemicycles in the Baths of Trajan, whether in terms of spatial conception or in details of the composition and decoration (see Figs. 5.2, 5.7). Also comparable with the Pantheon is the articulation of the walls with alternating triangular and rounded pediments, and the coffering of one of the hemicycles that are still standing. The diameter of the largest hemicycles is considerable, and if we imagine putting two of them together, the result may have looked strikingly similar to the Pantheon.
9. Conclusion
Given the sparse information that we possess about Roman architects and their activities, it is surely problematic to name with any confidence the creator of the Pantheon. It is easier perhaps to say who it was not. Dated brickstamps give scant support for the claim that the emperor Hadrian was either its patron or its designer. There is no reason not to take the Trajanic brickstamps found in the Pantheon at face value. We know that it was reconstructed entirely from foundation to dome following the fire of 110, and it now seems probable that the planning of the project started soon afterwards. The site could have been cleared, the materials ordered, and works under way by around 114. Cons
equently, any influence that Hadrian may have had on the Pantheon must have been limited.71 The construction of the rotunda may in fact have commenced in the last years of Trajan’s reign, in which case it is, of course, to this period that we should assign its conception and design. Being designed and partially built before 118, the monument really belongs to Trajan’s reign, even if it were completed by his successor.
This interpretation of the facts also illustrates the illogicality of the sometimes almost surgically clear-cut presentation of Roman buildings according to the sequence of emperors, and the implied role they might have played in creating successive styles. Relatively abrupt changes or “architectural revolutions,” as proposed by some scholars, are also to some degree a result of the modern need for characterization, rather than a description of what actually happened.72 In reality, the changes that did occur in Roman architecture happened relatively gradually, in response to the varied activities of many different individuals or schools of architects (at times working simultaneously in different directions), rather than being promoted and propelled by one dominant creative force.
The questioning of the dating of the Pantheon presented here will, it is hoped, lead us to question not just our understanding of this specific building but also what we understand by the widespread notion of “Hadrianic architecture.”73 Entrenched “facts,” such as the date of the Pantheon and its connection to Hadrian, clearly need reevaluation. Going back over and revising the conclusions of earlier research may appear to be a negative kind of activity, but whenever they are too easily taken for granted it becomes imperative.
A more detailed account is published in Lise Hetland, “Dating the Pantheon,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 20, pp. 95–112.
1 William L. MacDonald, The Pantheon: Design, Meaning and Progeny, Cambridge, Mass., 1976, repr. 2002, p. 13.
2 In a volume summarizing recent conservation work carried out at the Pantheon under the direction of Giovanni Belardi, parts of the present building are still attributed to the Augustan period, although no real arguments are presented to support this supposition (Giovanni Belardi, Il Pantheon: storia, tecnica, e restauro, Viterbo 2006).
3 This inscription is usually understood to signify that the Pantheon was built (or dedicated) when Agrippa was consul for the third time, in 27 BC, yet some coins use the legend “M. AGRIPPA. L.F. COS. III” long afterwards. Consequently, the dedication may also be read as “built by M. Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul three times.” See David L. Vagi, Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, vol. 2, Chicago 1999, pp. 233–234; Ilaria Romeo, Ingenuus Leo: L’immagine di Agrippa, Rome 1998, pp. 19–45.
4 Dio Cassius, 53.27.1–2 (cf. trans. as Dio Cassius: Roman History, by Earnest Cary and Herbert Foster, Cambridge 1917).
5 Dio Cassius, 66.24.
6 One source records that “Many public buildings were erected in Domitian’s reign: ... and the Pantheon” (Chronograph of 354, for which see http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_00_eintro.htm; and Jerome’s Chronicles in Rudolf Helm, ed., Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Leipzig 1956; Abr. 2105, for which see also Malcolm Drew Donalson, A Translation of Jerome’s Chronicon with Historical Commentary, Lewiston 1996).
7 Paulus Orosius, “Pantheum Romae fulmine concrematum,” in Historiae adversum paganos, ed. C. Zangemeister, Leipzig 1889, 7.12.5; cf. Jerome in Helm 1956, p. 195; Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon, ed. Alfred Schoene, Berlin 1866, p. 219; Herbert Bloch, “I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 64, 1937–1938, pp. 1–353; p. 116.
8 Dio Cassius, 69.7.
9 Dio Cassius may have used sources such as an autobiography by Hadrian and a work by Marius Maximus, also long since lost, but the Roman consul was no eyewitness (Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography, Oxford 1971, pp. 113–117, 128 ff.; Ronald Syme, ed., Historia Augusta Papers, Oxford 1983, pp. 16, 30 ff; Barry Baldwin, “Dio Cassius on the Period AD 96–180: Some Problematic Passages,” Athenaeum 63, 1985, pp. 195–197. Book 69 of Dio Cassius’s Roman History on the life of Hadrian is known to us only in an epitomized version; it was written in the eleventh century by the Byzantine jurist, later monk, eventually the patriarch of ancient Trapezus, Ioannes Xiphilinos, for emperor Michael VII Dukas (1071–1078). We do not know how much is really Dio’s own work, and how much is that of Xiphilinos. Cf. Fergus Millar, A Study of Dio Cassius, Oxford 1966; P. A. Brunt, “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes,” Classical Quarterly 30, 1980, pp. 488–492.
10 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian, 19.9–10: Cum opera ubique infinita fecisset, numquam ipse nisi in Traiani patris templo nomen suum scripsit. Romae instauravit Pantheum, Saepta, Basilicam Neptuni, sacras aedes plurimas, Forum Augusti, Lavacrum Agrippa; eaque omnia propriis auctorum nominibus consecravit.
11 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Antoninus Pius, 8.2. On the interpretation of terms such as instaurare as used on inscriptions, see E. Thomas and E. Witschel, “Claim and Reality of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions from the Latin West,” Papers of the British School at Rome 60, 1992, pp. 135–177; cf. G. Fagan, “Reliability of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions,” Papers of the British School at Rome 64, 1996, pp. 81–93. Dio’s belief that the Pantheon was built by Agrippa could explain why he refers to the interventions by Hadrian and Antoninus Pius as restorations.
12 The brickstamps were incorporated in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), volume XV. Brickstamps CIL XV 424 a 1 (one example not in situ) and CIL XV 617.1 (one example not in situ) have been dated to the Antonine period by Steinby (E. M. Steinby, “La cronologia delle figliane doliare urbane dalla fine dell’età repubblicana fino all’inizio del III sec.,” Bullettino di archeologia cristiana 84, 1977, pp. 60 and 78).
13 The inscription reads: IMP CAES L SEPTIMIVS SEVERVS PIVS PERTINAX AVG ARABICVS ADIABENICVS PARTHICVS MAXIMVS PONTIF MAX TRIB POTEST X IMP XI COS III P P PROCOS ET IMP CAES M AVRELIVS ANTONINVS PIVS AVG TRIB POTESTAT V COS PROCOS PANTHEVM VETVSTATE CORRVPTVM CVM OMNI CVLTV RESTITVERVNT. The brickstamps nos. CIL XV 155 and 157 found in the intermediate block have been dated to the Severan period (193–211), and CIL XV no. 602, found in the dome, is similarly assigned to 198–211, see Steinby 1977, CIL XV 155–157, pp. 37–38; CIL XV 602, p. 92.
14 The sizes of Roman bricks were different from bricks most commonly used today, being larger, square shaped and only some 2.5 cm to 4.5 cm thick (see Chapter Four).
15 Only the last brick of each batch, or one in so many, was stamped to ease the counting process, according to J. W. P. Campbell, Brick in World History, Cambridge 2003, p. 48.
16 It is important to acknowledge that there are different and even opposite approaches to dating Roman buildings by means of brickstamps. Their very usefulness has also been questioned; see Esther Boise Van Deman, The Atrium Vestae, Washington 1909, and “Methods of Determining the Date of Roman Concrete Monuments,” American Journal of Archaeology 16, 1912, pp. 417–421. (For responses, see Bloch 1937–1938, p. 12; Steinby 1977, esp. p. 17).
17 D. Manacorda, “I diversi significati dei bolli laterizi – appunti e riflessioni,” in La brique antique et medieval: production et commercialisation d’un material, ed. Patrick Boucheron, Henri Broise, and Yvon Thébert (Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 272), Rome 2000, pp. 127–159.
18 Manacorda 2000. The latest nonurban dated brickstamps were made in Todi in AD 93.
19 The first known dated brickstamp from Rome, CIL XV 18, was made in AD 110.
20 Heinrich Dressel and Herbert Bloch list some 289 variants of brickstamps mentioning Apronianus and Paetinus, the consuls in AD 123 (Heinrich Dressel, Inscriptiones urbis Romae latinae, Berlin 1891; Herbert Bloch, I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana. Contributi all’archeologia e alla storia romana (1937–1938), Rome 1947–1948 [supplement to Vol. XV, 1 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum; reprinted by Harvard Studies of Classical Philology LVI–LVII (1947), LVIII–LIX (1948)]). The issue of the brickstamps from the yea
r 123 is very intricate, and existing explanations may not have grasped its entire complexity.
21 The principle of consular dates was understood by Marini and earlier scholars. He argued, for example, that a brickstamp with the name of one of the consuls for the year 142, found in situ in the Baths of Diocletian, represented material reused from an older building, instead of evidence for a hitherto unknown consul from the time of Diocletian (Bloch 1937–1938, p. 4). Although compiled between 1789 and 1799, Marini’s manuscript was kept in the Vatican Library until it was published by Gian Battista de Rossi in 1884 (in Rome) with the title Iscrizioni antiche doliari, and with the inclusion of important notes by Dressel.
22 Rodolfo Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome, Boston 1892, p. 158 (information on Falconieri); Francesco Piranesi, Seconda parte de’templij antichi che contiene il celebre Pantheon, Rome 1790, Tav. 28 and 29.
