by Unknown
23 Carlo Fea, L’integrità del Pantheon rivendicata a Marco Agrippa, Rome 1807, p. 26. Fea highlighted one brickstamp he believed to be Trajanic (CIL XV 315), found during his investigations of the building in 1804. Being convinced that the core of the building was Agrippan/Augustan, he discharged the problem without any discussion; Fea 1807, pp. 27–28.
24 R. Phené Spiers, “Monsieur Chedanne’s Drawings of the Pantheon,” Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 2, 1895, pp. 175–182; cf. William C. Loerke, “Georges Chedanne and the Pantheon: A Beaux Arts Contribution to the History of Roman Architecture,” Modulus, 1982, pp. 40–55.
25 Lanciani 1892, p. 151, writes “... this is not a real discovery, but confirmation of facts already known” (from Fea’s investigation in 1804).
26 Luca Beltrami, Il Pantheon: La struttura organica della cupola e del sottostante tamburo, le fondazioni della rotonda, dell’ avancorpo, e del portico, avanzi degli edifici anteriori alle costruzioni adrianee. Relazione delle indagini eseguite dal R. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione negli anni 1892–93, coi rilievi e disegni dell’ architetto Pier Olinto Armanini, Milan 1898.
27 Bloch (1937–1938, p. 7) acknowledges his great debt to Dressel’s work (1891), but points out that his treatment of undated brickstamps is erratic. Having identified brickstamps with the consular date 123, Dressel assumed that all of the bricks made by the same brickmakers should be ca. 123, ignoring the possibility that their activities could have extended over several years.
28 Bloch dated many important public buildings from the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, along with two buildings from the third and fourth centuries.
29 Dressel 1891; Bloch 1937–1938.
30 Steinby 1977, pp. 7–113; Janet DeLaine, “Building Activity in Ostia in the second century AD,” Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 26, 2002, pp. 41–102.
31 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 117.
32 Apart from Dressel’s publication of 1891, Bloch’s work was also based on the study by Guey, which was published the year before, 1936; J. Guey, “Devrai-on dire: Le Panthéon de Septime Sévère? A propos des estampilles sur briques recueillies dans ce monument, notamment en 1930 ou en 1931 et depuis,” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire (Ecole Française de Rome) 53, 1936, pp. 198–249.
33 Bloch 1937–1938; Bloch 1947–1948; Bloch, “The Serapeum of Ostia and the Brick Stamps of 123 AD,” American Journal of Archaeology 63, 1959, pp. 225–240; Steinby 1977; DeLaine 2002. All of these authors concord on this dating.
34 For a complete list of brickstamps found in situ in the Pantheon, divided into categories, see Hetland 2007.
35 Apart from the 4 dated brickstamps, the following are assigned to the Trajanic period: CIL XV 314–315 (8); CIL XV 377 (1); CIL XV 693 (3); CIL XV 811 d–f (3); CIL XV 1008 (1); CIL XV 1106 (3). The combined total amounts to 19 brickstamps.
36 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 112–117.
37 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 14–19; pp. 316–320.
38 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 87–102.
39 Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, ed. Hermann Dessau, Berlin 1906, 8658, 3, as reported by Bloch 1937–1938, p. 317.
40 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 317–318.
41 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 316–320; Bloch 1959.
42 Bloch 1959.
43 Vitruvius 2.3.1–4. Ever since Boëthius’s mention, Vitruvius’s recommendation has been used to support Bloch’s hypothesis; see Axel Böethius, “La datazione dei mattoni,” Eranos 39, 1941, pp. 152–156; Bloch 1959, pp. 225–240; A. C. G Smith, “The Date of the Grandi Terme of Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli,” Papers of the British School at Rome 46, 1978, pp. 73–93.
44 Vitruvius 2.3.2.
45 T. Helen, Organisation of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Century AD, Helsinki 1975, pp. 16–18.
46 See Hetland 2007 for details on the manual production of bricks made of clay from the Tiber valley.
47 Bloch 1959, pp. 225–240. In fact, 15 (or 41%) of the total of 36 brickstamps found in situ in the Serapeum were made in the years 125 and 126.
48 Bloch 1959, pp. 225–240, esp. p. 234: “It seems most remarkable, that in 125, and assuredly in 126, the supply of bricks manufactured before 123 to be used in the walls were virtually exhausted.”
49 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 113: “Come per tutti gli edifici del gruppo, M. Rutilio Lupo ha fornito mattoni anche per la costruzione del Pantheon: essi sono tutti datati. ... In altri termine: è rappresentato ogni anno della serie datata, ciò è identico a quanto abbiamo osservato nel ‘quartier des docks’ in Ostia (cfr. anche il Palazzo Imperiale in Porto), senza che si possa in nessuno dei casi desumere qualche cosa sull’andamento dei lavori, anzi non abbiamo nè per il Pantheon nè per gli horrea in Ostia il minimo indizio che la costruzione sia stata iniziata prima dell’avvento al trono di Adriano.”
50 DeLaine suggests that Bloch was aware of this fact, despite his contrary arguments. (DeLaine 2002, esp. pp. 42–43; see also p. 78). The brickstamps found in and around the building are from the years 114–117, which also may be an indication that the works were finished by 118.
51 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 100–102.
52 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 114: “Con ciò è accertata la contemporaneità del Pantheon e delle costruzioni trattate sopra [i.e.. Il ‘Quartier des Docks’ (Ostia), La Casa dei Triclinii (Ostia), Il Portico di Claudio (Portus), Il Palazzo Imperiale (Portus)].”
53 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 14–19; pp. 112–117.
54 In the last years of the reign of Trajan, Anteros Severianus apparently started using a new matrix, CIL XV 811 a–c. Bloch (1937–1938, pp. 112–113) emphasizes that it is not possible to see an immediate and absolute change; he does suggest, though, that by Hadrian’s reign, all of Anteros Severianus’s workers were using only this matrix. However, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that some of these types were produced contemporaneously, and so it is best to assign them a broad date range, late Trajanic/early Hadrianic.
55 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 112: “... tuttavia egli disponeva ancora, quando il Pantheon fu costruito, di vecchie rimanenze munite dei timbri 811 d e f : 4 es. (3 in situ + 1). 811 d, f appartengono, come abbiamo dimostrato, al primo e al principio del secondo decennio del secondo secolo d. Cr.” English translation: “... after all he [Anteros Severianus] still disposed, when the Pantheon was constructed, of old remains with stamp types 811 d e f : 4 (3 in situ + 1). 811 d, f belong, as we have demonstrated, to the first and the beginning of the second decade of the second century.”
56 Bloch 1937–1938, pp. 112–117.
57 Often it seems that it is Bloch’s and Steinby’s assumption of a Hadrianic date for the Pantheon that guides the date assigned for undated brickstamps; for more details, see Hetland 2007.
58 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 116: “È strano che dopo la catastrofe nel 110 il monumento restò come era, salvo forse insignificanti riparazioni.”
59 This was brilliantly pinpointed by Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, “Apollodorus von Damaskus – der Architekt des Pantheon,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 90, 1975, pp. 316–347, esp. p. 328.
60 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 116. “L’attuale costruzione non può essere anteriore al 117, e se si considera che si tratta di un monumento imperiale ... non può essere dubbia la conclusione che il totale rifacimento si iniziò solo dopo che l’imperatore era venuto a Roma, cioè dopo il principio del luglio 118, nella seconda metà del 118 o nel 119, ossia il principio della costruzione cade ancora nell epoca di Apollodoro di Damasco, che forse non fu estraneo al grandioso progetto.”
61 For the date of Trajan’s Baths, see J. C. Anderson, Jr., “The Date of the Thermae Traiani and the Topography of the Oppius Mons,” American Journal of Archaeology 89, 1985, pp. 499–509 (who argues for an earlier, Domitianic, initiation of the works); G. Caruso and R. Volpe, s.v. “Thermae Traiani,” in Steinby 1995–1999, vol. 5 1999, pp. 67–69. For Trajan’s Markets, see Lynne Lancaster, “The Date of Trajan’s Markets: An Assessmen
t in Light of Some Unpublished Brick Stamps,” Papers of the British School at Rome 63, 1995, pp. 25–44; E. Bianchi, “I bolli laterizi dei Mercati Traiani,” Bullettino di archeologia cristiana 104, 2003, pp. 329–352; L. Ungaro, s.v. “Mercati di Traiano,” in Steinby 1995–1999, vol. 3, Rome 1997, pp. 241–245. For Trajan’s Forum, see James Packer, s.v. “Trajan’s Forum,” in Steinby 1995–1999, vol. 5, Rome 1999, pp. 348–356; E. Bianchi, “I bolli laterizi del Foro di Traiano: il catalogo del Bloch e i rinvenimenti delle campagne di scavo 1991–1997 e 1998–2000,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 102, 2001, pp. 82–120. For Atrium Vestae, see R. P. Scott, s.v. “Atrium Vestae,” in Steinby 1995–1999, vol. 1, Rome 1995, pp. 138–142.
62 Anthony R. Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, London 1997, p. 191.
63 Dio Cassius (69.4.1) states that Apollodorus built the forum, the odium, and the gymnasium for Trajan in Rome. The bridge over the Danube (the ancient Ister) was described by Procopius as being built by Apollodorus (Procopius, Buildings, IV.6.12–13). Dio Cassius (68.13) also describes the building of the bridge, but he does not attribute it to Apollodorus. The Historia Augusta (XIX.13) states that Apollodorus assisted the emperor Hadrian with the constructing and the moving of the colossal statute of the Moon (situated on the western side of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the Colosseum).
64 Several scholars credit Apollodorus with Trajan’s Forum (including Trajan’s Column), Trajan’s Markets, Trajan’s Baths, and the bridge over the Danube; see inter alia William L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, An Introductory Study, London 1965, pp. 133–134; John Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture 2, London 1981, p. 9; Mark Wilson Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture, New Haven 2000, pp. 21–24 (who, however, leaves the Markets as an unresolved attribution and gives further references to others who have given Apollodorus a more extensive portfolio).
65 Bloch 1937–1938, p. 116; Heilmeyer 1975, pp. 316–347; Alessandro Viscogliosi, “ Il Pantheon e Apollodorus di Damasco,” in Tra Damasco e Roma: L’architettura di Apollodoro nella cultura classica, ed. Festa Farina et al., Rome 2001, pp. 156–183;Wilson Jones 2000, pp. 192–193, 212; Gerd Heene, Baustelle Pantheon: Planung, Konstruction, Logistik, Düsseldorf 2004.
66 Heilmeyer 1975, esp. p. 328. In a 1994 article, Lothar Haselberger endorses Heilmeyer’s suggestion and argues for a Trajanic dating; L. Haselberger, “Ein Giebelriss der Vorhalle des Pantheon. Die Werkrisse vor dem Augustusmausoleum,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 101, 1994, pp. 279–309, esp. pp. 296–298.
67 Heilmeyer 1975. Stylistic similarities between the architectural decoration of the late Trajanic and early Hadrianic periods have also been linked to Apollodorus by Strong (D. E. Strong, “Late Hadrianic Architecture Ornament in Rome,” Papers of the British School at Rome 21, 1953, pp. 118–151).
68 Smith 1978, pp. 75–93. Smith accepted Bloch’s theory that bricks were cured for a period of years before they were used (Bloch 1937–1938 and 1959, pp. 225–240; Smith 1978, pp. 75–93). He also believed that the Pantheon was built contemporaneously with the earliest parts of Hadrian’s Villa (Smith 1978, p. 77), which he dates to sometime after 117. Smith’s hypothesis found support from Mary T. Boatwright in her work on buildings in Rome connected with Hadrian, who called Heilmeyer’s Trajanic dating of the Pantheon “quite implausible” (Mary T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, Princeton 1987, p. 13).
69 It is listed under the first year of Hadrian’s reign, in 117 (Dio Cassius, 69.4).
70 Heene (2004) also follows Heilmeyer’s late Trajanic time scheme for the Pantheon, though without any explanation. Heene offers new thoughts as to how the construction of the Pantheon proceeded that contrast with the intriguing (if not very feasible) rope-technique solution put forward by Taylor (Rabun Taylor, Roman Builders, Cambridge 2003); cf. MarkWilson Jones, “Review of R. Taylor’s Book: Roman Builders,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 2003, pp. 557–560.
71 The idea that the emperor Hadrian was involved in, perhaps even responsible for the design of, the Pantheon is often mentioned in the scholarly literature: F. E. Brown, “Hadrianic Architecture,” Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann, ed. L. F. Sandler, New York 1964, pp. 55–58; Kjeld de Fine Licht, The Rotunda in Rome. A Study of Hadrian’s Pantheon, Copenhagen 1968; MacDonald 1976, pp. 11–12; H. Stierlin, Hadrien et l’architecture romaine, Fribourg 1984; Boatwright 1987, pp. 30–31; P. Gros, “Hadrien architecte. Bilan des recherches récentes,” Hadrien empereur et architecte, ed. M. Mosser and H. Lavagne, Paris 1999, pp. 33–53, esp. pp. 48–57; E. Salza Prina Ricotti, “Adriano – architetto, ingegnere e urbanista,” Adriano architettura e progetto, Milan 2000, pp. 41–44; Ricotti, Villa Adriano: il sogno di un imperatore, Rome 2001; D. Danziger and N. Purcell, Hadrian’s Empire: When Rome Ruled the World, London 2005, pp. 17–18.
72 The term “the Roman Architectural Revolution” was first coined by MacDonald (1965, pp. 41–46), and later adapted by another influential scholar, Ward-Perkins (1981, pp. 97–120).
73 The expression “Hadrianic architecture” was first used by Italian scholars such as Promis and Rivoira, see C. Promis, “Gli architetti e l’architettura presso i Romani,” Reale academia delle scienze di Torino: Memorie 28, 1873, pp. 177–180; Giovanni T. Rivoira, “Di Adriano architetto e dei monumenti Adreanei,” Rendiconti della Accademia dei Lincei 18, fasc. 3, 1909; Rivoira, Roman Architecture and Its Principles of Construction Under the Empire, with an Appendix on the Evolution of the Dome Up to the 17th Century, New York 1972, p. 118. It was taken up by Toynbee, Snijder, and Strong; see J. M. C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School, a Chapter in the History of Greek Art, London 1934, esp. p. iii; Geerto A. S. Snijder, “Kaiser Hadrian und der Tempel der Venus und Roma,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 55, 1940, pp. 1–11; D. E. Strong, “Late Hadrianic Architecture Ornament in Rome,” Papers of the British School at Rome 21, 1953, pp. 118–151, and later amplified by Brown (1964). Since then, the idea of “Hadrianic” architecture has received numerous endorsements, of which the following is a selection: MacDonald 1965, pp. 94–121, pp. 129–137; MacDonald 1976; William L. MacDonald, “Hadrianic Circles,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 43, 1993, pp. 394–408; C. F. Giuliani, “Volte e cupole a doppia calotta,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 82, 1975, pp. 329–342; Boatwright 1987, p. 8; D. M. Jacobson, “Hadrianic Architecture and Geometry,” American Journal of Archaeology 90, no. 1, 1986, pp. 69–89, esp. pp. 57–71; Wilson Jones 2000, esp. pp. 93–100; Anna Maria Reggiani, “Villa Adriana. Riflessioni per la conoscenza di un unicum,” Adriano: architettura e progetto, Rome 2000, pp. 3–8, esp. p. 7; E. Salza Prina Ricotti, Villa Adriano: il sogno di un imperatore, Rome 2001, esp. pp. 21–22.
Four The Conception and Construction of Drum and Dome
Giangiacomo Martines
Sphere and Cylinder: Models of Mathematical Harmony and Perfection
Roman architecture can exhibit considerable complexity and sophistication, yet it typically does so by means of elaborating on an elemental geometrical conception.1 The Pantheon exemplifies this principle. Despite the intricacy of its constructive system, the unity of the composition is easy to grasp, as Georges Chedanne’s wonderful cutaway conveys (see Plate XI). In his introduction to the building in his famous treatise on architecture, Andrea Palladio highlights the main geometrical intention behind the design of the interior: “Some maintain it is the same round shape as the world: the height from the floor to the opening in the ceiling, from whence light enters, is the same as its width, that is, the diameter from one wall to the other.”2 The Rotunda is as impressive today as it was for Palladio, and it does indeed circumscribe a sphere. The only source of light, the oculus, draws the visitor to the center of the space, where we can wonder at the monumental interplay of a hemispherical dome resting on a cylinder of the same height, a geometry confirmed by modern precision surveys (see Plate XII
and Fig. 6.6).3 This sort of geometry was characteristic of Roman architecture. In his chapter on baths, Vitruvius describes a circular room with a dome in the following terms: “The Spartan sauna and sweating chambers should be joined onto the tepidarium, and however broad these are, they should have the same height up to the springing of the dome.”4 The rapport between cylinder and hemisphere is, however, different from that found in the Pantheon. The equality of width to height includes the dome in the Pantheon, but excludes it in Vitruvius’s laconicum, the total height of which was thus one and a half times its width.5 Numerous buildings from the Roman period present variations on the theme of a hemispherical dome resting on a cylinder, including nymphaeums, tombs, and bathing rooms.6 None, though, were as large as the Pantheon.
X. Pantheon interior elevation laid flat with proportions overlaid. (Wilson Jones 2000, Fig. 9.13)
XI. Cutaway axonometric projection of the Pantheon by George Chédanne, 1891. (Paris, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Envoi, inv. 24804)
