Save
Save chapter to my Bookmarks
Cite
Cite this chapter
Print this chapter
Share
Share a link to this chapter
Free
Description: The Architecture of the Roman Empire, Volume I: An Introductory Study (Revised...
~In the whole body of architecture in Roman lands, the most striking and fundamental change in stylistic direction took place during the latter half of the first century and the early decades of the second. It was then that the sculptured, linear forms of the classical past were first firmly challenged by the canopied volumes of the future. The vital...
PublisherYale University Press
https://doi.org/10.37862/aaeportal.00120.002
View chapters with similar subject tags
Preface
In the whole body of architecture in Roman lands, the most striking and fundamental change in stylistic direction took place during the latter half of the first century and the early decades of the second. It was then that the sculptured, linear forms of the classical past were first firmly challenged by the canopied volumes of the future. The vital significance of this shift for the history of architecture has been generally recognized, but the principles and meaning of the new style have not been explored in detail. Major problems remain unsolved and some of the most characteristic and instructive monuments of the period have gone unstudied or are in need of re-examination. The present volume, self-contained within the limits described below, is offered as an introduction to this original architecture of the Roman Empire. Later I hope to enlarge this discussion by analyzing additional buildings and sites in Italy and the provinces, and by attempting to solve stylistic and historical problems other than those considered here.
My objective has been to give direction to a vast quantity of refractory evidence. Any extended attempt to study the nature of the forms, principles, and meaning of imperial architecture is hampered by an embarrassingly large number of existing buildings and fragments (among the handbooks only Crema’s suggests the magnitude of this number). Thus I have begun with a manageable and homogeneous division of the evidence, one that may provide a basis for further study. The buildings that have been chosen for analysis are the Esquiline wing of Nero’s Domus Aurea (built in 64–68), the palace of Domitian on the Palatine (ca. 87–96), Trajan’s Markets beside his Forum (first decade of the second century), and Hadrian’s Pantheon (118/119—ca. 126). In addition to these, a structure that was most probably a part of Nero’s Domus Transitoria (built sometime between 54 and 64) will be discussed briefly at the outset.
The more purely practical reasons for this selection are as follows. The identities and nearly exact dates of the four principal examples are firmly established. The buildings make a compact group chronologically, for the total span of years does not exceed that of a long lifetime. They are rather more accessible than many other important monuments of the same period, and this may be useful to anyone who wishes to correct and improve this study. They are sufficiently well preserved to be fruitful subjects for analysis, though as yet only the Pantheon has been described in any detail. Relevant passages in ancient texts exist for all but one example (Trajan’s Markets). The names of the architects of the Domus Aurea and Domitian’s palace are known, as well as something of the career of the man who was probably Trajan’s chief architect and master of works. Hadrian’s deep personal commitment to architecture is not in doubt. Thus the designs of these buildings can be linked directly or circumstantially to the names of particular men, an unusual occurrence in the study of Roman architecture and one of some consequence.
There are additional reasons why these buildings were chosen. Together they record or foreshadow the chief characteristics of specifically imperial architecture. Conceived in response to direct imperial commissions, they were planned and constructed by thoroughgoing professionals who significantly altered the history of design and construction. They expressed Roman programs and intentions in monumental forms that represented not the past but a new age. They were built in the paramount city of the Empire, and this, together with the relevancy and quality of their design, gave them great prestige. Their shapes, effects upon the senses, and to a certain extent their structural principles, were soon imitated or adapted in the provinces, and the debt owed by the architecture of the capital to that of non-Latin lands was in a sense repaid. The architecture defined by these examples appeared in every imperial city and town, displaying the image of Rome and its claims. This wide extension of influence through the agency of Roman rule is important because these buildings embody concepts crucial to much subsequent architecture. In short, they represent fairly a highly creative and historically significant period of Mediterranean and Western art.
The emphasis throughout is upon the direct testimony of the buildings as they stand today. Almost no attempt is made to solve the perplexing questions of their pre-imperial origins or to define the degree of their incipient medievalism. They are taken, in the main, on their own terms. Because their major spaces are vaulted and their structural solids are chiefly of concrete, the traditional architecture of stone columns and wooden roofs is slighted. Certain links between vaulted and unvaulted design have been cut as a result of limiting the evidence in both quantity and kind. This does not mean that post-and-beam buildings, composed primarily of rectilinear shapes and prismatic volumes, were abandoned during the Empire. On the contrary, they were built in quantity and their stylistic canon was creatively re-interpreted by imperial architects. But traditional designs such as the temple form and the monumental colonnade were not the only sources of imperial imagery, for vaulted architecture came increasingly to express and embody the meaning of the Empire. Its potential in this respect was first recognized and given definition in Rome itself, and it is these dramatic events that are under discussion.
The study of imperial architecture has been advanced in recent years by the late Miss Blake, by Bloch, Boëthius, Brown, Crema, Lugli, von Gerkan, Nash, Tamm, and Ward Perkins, among others. Their books and articles have enlarged the ground covered in older works such as those of Anderson-Spiers-Ashby, Durm, Jordan, Rivoira, and Robertson. My heavy debt to both groups, and to the authors of numerous excavation reports and studies of specific problems, will be recognized by every student of Roman architecture. But it may be proper to emphasize that the present volume is neither a handbook nor a survey of a period, and that most of its substance has been derived from the examination and study of the selected buildings, with exceptions consisting mainly of certain facts taken from authoritative publications cited in the notes.
The reader may question the use of the word “imperial,” so often applied pejoratively today. Fully developed Roman architecture of the period from Nero to Hadrian was the product and expression of social and artistic forces best described in this way, as I hope I have shown. And some will be curious about the degree of precision of the drawings. These are not exact archaeological reports, but are either explanatory diagrams or essays in graphic restoration intended to complement the text. Several of the drawings are original, constructed from my own measurements and calculations. Some have been re-drawn or evolved from the work of others. The remainder are composites based upon more than one source; the use of published information is acknowledged in the List of Illustrations. A considerable amount of technical material appears in the text, but it is intended to be the servant of an attempt to analyze architectural effects and meaning. The references in the Index will serve as a glossary of any unfamiliar terms. The dimensions of the major examples, unless they are necessary to the immediate argument in the text, are given in the Appendix. The designation A.D. has been excluded except in a few cases of possible ambiguity.
In the study of architecture there can be no substitute for leaning against one’s buildings. Roman architecture is spread from the Tyne to the Euphrates, and I should have seen a much smaller part of the broad context of evidence without financial assistance. Travels in Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were made possible in part by the generosity of the Honorable John Nicholas Brown, by the award of a Prize Fellowship in Classics for 1954–56 by the American Academy in Rome, by a grant toward summer travel expenses in 1959 by the American Philosophical Society, and by assistance from the Provost’s Fund of Yale University. To Mr. Brown and these institutions I wish to offer grateful thanks. Laurance P. Roberts and Richard A. Kimball, successive directors of the American Academy in Rome, facilitated my studies by many kindnesses. I am indebted to Helen Chillman, Maria Cozzolino, Kenneth John Conant, Sterling Dow, George M. A. Hanfmann, Leonard Opdyke, and John Dane, Jr., for help both direct and indirect. The book was largely completed, and its sequel begun, with the support of a Morse Fellowship from Yale University during 1962–63.
Three-quarters of the drawings were made by Bernard M. Boyle, M.A., M. Arch., and it is a pleasure to acknowledge the value of the give and take of our discussions. The remainder of the drawings were made by Der Scutt, R. Larason Guthrie, and Duane Thorbeck, all architects. The William L. Bryant Foundation contributed to the cost of the drawings and photographs. The extent to which I have made use of Ernest Nash’s excellent Fototeca in Rome is recorded in the List of Illustrations. The quotations from the Loeb Classical Library are reprinted by permission of the Harvard University Press.
I am much indebted to George A. Kubler, Sumner McK. Crosby, and Spiro K. Kostof for cogent criticisms of manuscript drafts. Frank E. Brown also read these, and I have profited greatly from his detailed suggestions and from his extraordinary knowledge, so freely given, of the Roman world. The staff of the Library of the American Academy in Rome, led by Signora Inez Longobardi, was an unfailing source of help. Many Italian scholars, officials, and custodians were also most courteous and helpful; I would like particularly to thank Professors Giulio Ansaldi, Guglielmo Gatti, and Pietro Romanelli. I also owe a good deal to discussions at various buildings and sites with friends—Marion Blake, Frank Brown, Ferdinando Castagnoli, Henry Millon, Ernest Nash, Norman Neuerburg, and John Ward Perkins. I claim all the errors in the book, as well as an awareness of many problems left unexplored. The secrets of architecture are not easily discovered.
These pages are inscribed to the memory of the late Robert Pierpont Blake, Professor in Harvard University, because of his guidance and encouragement. Few who are committed to late antique and early medieval studies can be more fortunate than those who began their work with him. Finally, my principal debt is to my wife, Dale Ely Mac-Donald, for her continued help and sustaining patience.
 
New Haven, Connecticut
November 1964
W. L. M.
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
For this edition errors have been corrected, the Bibliography modernized, and a chapter added in which some recent studies are mentioned and questions of style considered. I would like to thank the staff of the Yale University Press for their support and patience.
 
W. L. M.
 
Northampton, Massachusetts
April 1981