the evolution of the porticus octaviae

7/28/2019 The Evolution of the Porticus Octaviae

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-evolution-of-the-porticus-octaviae 1/10

The Evolution of the Porticus OctaviaeAuthor(s): L. Richardson, Jr.Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Winter, 1976), pp. 57-64Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/502937 .

Accessed: 21/04/2013 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/502937?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/stable/502937?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia



T h e Evolut ion o f t h e P o r t i c u s O c t a v i a e

L. RICHARDSON, JR.

PLATE 12

Abstract

The discoveryof the true locationof the CircusFlaminius in Rome invites reconsiderationf thehistoryof the Porticus Octaviae.It must have be-gun as a single wing along the circus,the PorticusOctavia,and been developedas a peristyle wenty-five yearslaterby the additionof the PorticusMe-telli. The two partsmust still have been distinctinthe time of Augustus,for he restored he PorticusOctavia.This will explain why the tradition that

he paid for the PorticusOctaviaegrew up.Gatti's identification of the Porticus Aemiliamust be abandoned, s it will fit neither opographi-cally nor architecturallywith what we now knowaboutearly porticus n Rome. Down to the middleof the secondcenturyB.C. thesewere eithersingle-wing stoas or streets coveredwith roofs supportedon columns. The PorticusAemilia must have beena light structurenear Piazza Bocca della Verit5that disappeared y the earlyEmpire.

The earliestporticusin Rome of which we have

any record were two built in i93 B.C. by the aediles

L. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paullus(Livy 35.10.12). One was situatedoutside the Porta

Trigemina, and to it was annexed an emporiumalong the Tiber. The other connected the PortaFontinalis to the altar of Mars in the CampusMartius. The first is not described,but Livy makesit quite clear that the second was essentiallya cov-ered walk, an iter by which one could go to the

Campus under protection.Among its featuresmusthave been a bridge over the Petronia amnis, butsince the amnis had probably disappearedunder-

ground into the sewers of Rome by the time Livywrote, he may not have known this.

These must have been fairly expensivebuildings;Livy tells us that the money for them and for

gilded shields hung around the roof of the Capi-toline temple came from fines levied for abusive

grazing. In 196 B.C. the fines of only three grazerssufficed o build a temple to Faunus (Livy 33.42.10).The gilded shields were clearly intended to makethe Capitoline temple emulate the Parthenon;'

the Romans had only recentlybeen exposed to thefull impact of Greek temples on their home soil,and the gilded shields that the Athenians had hungon the architraveof the temple of Apollo at Delphiafter Marathon (Pausanias 10.19.3) and those thatAlexander after the battle of the Granicus had sentto Athens for the architraveof the Parthenon (Plu-tarch,Alex. 16.8) apparently mpressedthem as sin-

gularlyattractiveand appropriateadditions.A little

later Mummius was to celebratehis victory overCorinth by a similar dedication at the temple ofZeus at Olympia (Pausanias 5.10o5), an offeringthat must have galled the Greeks. Up to this timethe Romans seem to have kept to strictertraditionsin the display of spoils.

Were the porticus, too, imitating architecturalforms andplanning that we can identify in Greece?For the porticus extra portam Trigeminam we

might invoke the great stoas of Greece, the LongStoa of Peiraeus, for example, built by Pericles,

which servedas a grain market for the city and layalong a marketplace (Pausanias 1.1.3; schol. on

Aristophanes,Ach. 548). It does not survive, but

surely it and the PorticusAemilia must have borneat least a generic resemblance. There were other

large stoas at such places as Athens, Olympia,Megalopolis, and Delos with different functions,and the adaptability of such a building in con-

junction with a market must early have been ap-parent. Creativeexploitation of the stoa in monu-mental city planning at such sites as Pergamum,Priene, and Magnesiaon the Maeander was still inits infancy at this time and must have figured con-

stantlyin the artisticand architecturalthinking anddiscussionof these decades. So it is not surprisingthat in the expansionand rebuilding of Rome to ac-commodate the vastly increased population andbusiness that victory over Carthage had brought,one of the first complexes should have been an em-

porium with a porticus; the whole form was atthat moment as Greek as the word.

1As early as 31o B.C., after the triumph of the dictator

Lucius Papirius over the Samnites, the gilded shields of the

Samnitespoils

were distributedamong the holders of the

forum shops and displayed to decorate the forum wheneverthere was a solemn procession (Livy 9.40.15-17), but that, I

should hold, was a somewhat different idea.

This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:59:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







58 L. RICHARDSON, JR. [AJA 80

If the other porticus of I93, that outside thePorta Fontinalis, had a Greek prototype, it is lessobvious.For while Greek stoasmight fill the wholeof an availablestretch and so might serve as a con-

necting walk (the South Stoa of the Athenian

agora might have been described as connecting theHeliaia and the Enneakrounos), the number of

people wishing to take advantage of such a con-nection would have been small. On the other handthe main function of this Roman porticus was asan iter, and from Livy's way of speaking of it,it appearsto have been a forerunner of the greatcolonnaded streets of the Near East. They are all

very much later, even in Antioch not earlier thanthe time of Augustus, so we must look elsewherefor parallels. Fortunately in Athens there is oneto hand in the stoa known as the Stoa of Eu-menes II along the south slope of the acropolis.Vitruvius (5-9.1), who is responsiblefor transmit-

ting the name, lists this among the buildings ad-

jacent to theatersthat could serve as shelterin caseof rain, and quite clearlyits two storeyscould haveaccommodateda good many people.But its originaland primarypurposemust have been more like thatof the porticusEumenes added to the sanctuaryofAthene Polias at Pergamum, to complete and de-fine an architecturalcomplex. We have, to be sure,no firm date for either porticus of Eumenes; he

ruled in Pergamum from 197 B.C. to 159. Butgiven the warm friendshipbetween Pergamumand

Rome, we can be confident that new concepts ofHellenistic architecture will have come to Romesooner and more vigorouslyfrom Pergamenebuild-

ing than from any other. In Athens the old roadfrom the theater of Dionysus to the west approachto the acropolisran along a clutter of small sanctu-aries and monuments, as the account of Pausanias

(I.21-2) and the existing remainsclearlyshow. TheStoa of Eumenes offered a suitably dignified and

elegant substitute;it also

provided the south sideof the acropoliswith a handsome base and shelterfor eventual dedications as well as theater-goers.The link, or transition,between it and the theateris not cleartoday, nor is the westernterminationinan arealater coveredby the odeion of Herodes At-ticus,but the generallines and purposeof the build-ing emerge clear enough; it was by intention aconnector in a way earlierstoashad been only inci-dentally.The new Roman porticusoutside the Por-ta Fontinalis was a connector of the same sort.

We should consequently view the two Roman

porticus of 193 as fundamentally different archi-tectural innovations for the city, and it is clear thatboth achieved immediate success.The next year asecond porticus was built extra portam Trigemi-

nam, this one inter lignarios,built from fines leviedon usurers (Livy 3541.0io), and most topographersbelieve that it must have been in 189 that thestretch of the Via Appia leading from the PortaCapenato the templeof Mars,known as the ClivusMartis,was coveredwith a porticusand then calledVia Tecta (Ovid, Fast. 6.i91-92). Ten yearslater,in179 B.C., the censor M. Fulvius Flaccus contractedto build a third porticusextraportam Trigeminam(Livy 40.51.6), and five yearsafter that the censorsQ. Fulvius Flaccus and A. Postumius Albinus re-

stored the original Porticus Aemilia and paved aporticus from the Porta Trigemina to the templeof Venus Obsequenson the slope of the Aventinenear the end of the Circus Maximus (Livy 41.27.8-9). Since the pavement was of stone (silice), we

may presume this was intended for wheeled trafficas well as foot, but the importantthing to realize isthat this, like the porticusfrom the PortaFontinalisto the altar of Mars and the Via Tecta, was firstand foremosta road,a colonnadedway, ratherthana stoa.

In a brilliant articleof 1934G. Gatti demolishedthe theory that the SaeptaJulia lay along the westside of the Via Lata, demonstrated conclusivelythat it belonged just east of the Pantheon and thebaths of Agrippa, and moved a fragment of theMarble Plan bearing the letters I LIA to a placewhere he found a positive join for it.as part of avast building near the Tiber between the Aventineand Monte Testaccio (pl. 12, fig. I).2 This he iden-tified as the PorticusAemilia as rebuilt in 174 B.C.,a warehouseof concrete faced with opus incertum

arranged in a series of four levels descending to-ward the river,a total of two hundred largevaulted

units, well lit and ventilatedby clerestorywindowsas well as by an open and highly flexible lay-out.Gatti's identification has been questioned on vari-ous occasionsand for a varietyof reasons:the build-

ing techniqueseems too sophisticatedfor so earlya

date; the form is hardlylike that of any other porti-cus we know; it is improbable that with all thespace he had available the cutter of the Marble

Plan should have limited himself to the single word2 G. Gatti, " 'Saeptalulia' e 'PorticusAemilia' nella 'Forma'severiana,"BullComm 62

(1934) 123-49.








1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUS OCTAVIAE 59

Aemiliaas identification. etdefiniteproofagainstthe identification as not beenforthcoming.

An argumenthathasnotbeenputforwardwiththe force t deserves s that Gatti'sbuildingcannotbe madeto fit the topographicalequirements ivy

gives for the PorticusAemilia;it is not extrapor-tam Trigeminam.The PortaTrigemina,where-ever t mayhavestood,was n Augustus'sRegioXI,whichexcludedmost,andprobablyll,of theAven-tine. The emporium f Rome,as discoveries longthe Tiberembankment aveshown,moveddownriveronly slowly; long after travertine nd brickwere materialsn generaluse there were landingstagesand warehousesn an unbroken ow alongthe river under the lee of the Aventine.3 This is

exactlywhatwe shouldhaveexpectedandexactlywhat

Livyseemsto

mean;as the ForumBoarium

and ForumHolitoriumbecame oo takenup with

templesandpublicbuildings o functionefficientlyasmarkets,hemarkets oundnew groundsdown-streamustbelowthe old. The porticus uiltbytheaediles of 193 was an embellishment f the new

open air market, he emporium.Anotherimportantrefutationof Gatti'stheory

derivesfrom Livy's descriptionof the sequenceof works n 174.At thattime thecensorspaved he

emporiumwith stoneandmarked t off with stan-

chions; they restored he PorticusAemilia; and

theymadea stairof approachromtheTiber o theemporium.The emporiums clearly he most im-

portantelementhere;the porticus s incidental o

it; andthe stairof approachounds ike a forerun-ner of the sort of installationor river traffic hathascome to light alongthe Tiberunder he Aven-tine. Gatti'sbuilding,whatever t may be, is fartoo important n itself to have been the Porticus

Aemilia. It would have overwhelmedany hypo-theticalemporiumnearby,and since it is clearlyfirst and foremost a warehouse,not a market

building,not only is its function n relation o anemporiuminexplicable,but it would make nosense at all to have plannedthe group with thewarehouseon the far side of the marketsquarefromthe river.The Romanswerebetterplannersthan that. The name of Gatti's building is un-

known, but its characteris not, and it belongs indate half a centuryafter the PorticusAemilia. ThePorticusAemilia was a less importantbuilding notfar from Piazza Bocca della Verity and must have

disappearedytheearlyEmpire;t is mentioned yno one afterLivy.

The proliferation f porticusoutsidethe Porta

Trigemina n the courseof only a few years s atfirsta littleperplexing, s is the necessity orresto-

rationof the originalPorticusAemilia after lessthan twenty years,but if we presume heseearlyporticuswere experiments nd almostentirelyofwood-as their lengthand the completenesswithwhich they have vanishedsuggests-and considerthatanythatfunctionedn connectionwitha mar-ket must have receivedespeciallyhard use, then

earlyrestorationmay be reasonable, nd the factthat we aredealingwith two verydifferent ypesof buildingmayhelpto explain heirproliferation.Since in this period no one yet seems to have

thoughtof

buildinga

porticusf more hana

singlewing, perhaps omeof the porticuswe hearof inclose succession utside he PortaTrigeminawerebuilt to framethe sidesof the emporium hatdidnot front on the river.But that calledinter lig-nariossounds ike something lse again.

In 179 B.C.the censorsbuilt not only a porticusoutside he PortaTrigemina, ut one that ranfrombehindthe naualia o the templeof Apollo:

aliam (sc. porticum) post naualiaet adfanum Herculiset post Spei ad Tiberim

(etad)

aedemApollinis

Medici.

(Livy 40.51.6)

The locationof all thesebuildingsbut the templeof Apollo is uncertain,but this porticus eems tohave run along the Tiber for some distance; neitherdirectionromthetempleof Apollo t wouldsoon have had to be carriedover a watercourse,eitherthe Petroniaamnisor the Cloaca; hus its

primary unctionmust have been as a thorough-fare.In 174thecensorswereevenmoreambitious;they built a porticus rom the templeof Saturn

along the Clivus Capitolinus ll the way to theCuria Calabra n the Area Capitolina.This can

only havebeen a coveroverthe Clivus,since ackof spacewould not have permittedany develop-ment to eitherside. The pictureof Rome in thesecondquarterof the secondcenturyB.C. that now

emerges, with column-supported roofs over thebusiest sectors of some of the main streets, s a littlehard to bring into focus. Perhaps the contact ofRome with Pergamum had impressed the Romanswith the beautiesof columnararchitecture,and they

3Cf. E. Nash, A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome2 (London 1968) 1.380-86 s.v. "Emporium."









had not yet realizedits limitations,for it seems thatmost of these were doomed soon to be swept away.

The next porticus in Rome of which we haverecord was the Porticus Octavia, built by Cn. Oc-tavius after 168 B.C. to commemorate his victory

over Perseus of Macedon in a naval battle. Alongwith other nuggets of Roman topography,Festus

(I88L) preserves the information that there weretwo porticus in Rome that went by the name Oc-

tavia, one built by Octavia, now commonly dis-

tinguishedas the PorticusOctaviae,near the theaterof Marcellus, and another next to the theater of

Pompey,built by Cn. Octavius and restoredby Au-

gustus after a fire. But Augustus himself tells us

(RG 4.19) that the Porticus Octavia that he re-

stored,or rebuilt,preservingthe name of the origi-nal donor was situatedad circum

Flaminium,and

this description we now know would not do fora building close to the theater of Pompey.4 Con-

sequently we are in difficulties.Octavius'sporticuswas evidently the finest build-

ing of its kind; Velleius Paterculus (2.12) calls itmulto amoenissimam.Pliny (NH 34.13) adds thatit was double (duplicem) and called Corinthia inallusion to the bronze capitals of the columns; itwould seem to have been the first Corinthianporti-cus, perhapsthe first Corinthianbuilding in Rome.It will not have been a peristyle,since it is always

referredto in the singular and elbow porticusandperistylesare unattestedin Rome before the middleof the century. The earliest porticus of more thana single wing in Rome seems to have been thatbuilt by Scipio Nasica in the Area Capitolina in

159B.C. This was referred o in the plural (VelleiusPaterculus2.1.2; 2.3.1), as was the Porticus Minuciaof I0o B.C. (Velleius Paterculus2.8.3). We even onoccasionfind Pliny (NH 35.I14 and 132) referringto the Porticus Pompei and the Porticus Octaviaein the plural,so this usage must have persistedwell

into the Empire.Octavius's porticus stood ad circum Flaminium

(Augustus, RG 4.19; Pliny, NH 34.13) or in circo

(Velleius Paterculus2.1.2). The latter designationis shared by a good many buildings; it probablymeans no more than that the building was in thePrata Flaminia, perhapsno more than that it wasin Regio IX of the Augustan city. But the formeris an uncommon expression and is not used even

for the various temples that fronted on the circus.It ought, then, to mean that the porticuslay alongthe circus. The circus was evidently unusual inthat it had no permanent seats;on the MarblePlan

only a small part is preserved,but here it appears

as simply an open area, marked off and embel-lished with an archnext to the theaterof Marcellus,otherwise featureless.Along its northeast side ranthe street that carried most of the trafficbound for

the Campus Martius, eventually to become thePorticus Maxima. The Porticus Octavia must haveeither roofed this street or flanked it. The questionis not easy to decide; the evidence divides about

equally between the two; but we may incline tothe latter as allowing more easily for subsequentevents. Its "double" charactermight be so many

thingsone should

probablynot hazard a

guessabout it.Octavius's porticus stood before the temples of

Juno Regina and Hercules Musarum. The formerwas put up by the great M. Aemilius Lepidus anddedicated during his censorship in 179 B.C.; hehad vowed it some eight years earlier on the eveof his final battle against the Ligurians (Livy39.2.11). Earlier in the same war he had vowed a

temple to Diana (Livy 39.2.8), and since both

temples were in circo Flaminio (Livy 40.52) and

appearin the Fasti Antiatini with a common dedi-

cation day, 23 December," it might be assumedthey stood close together. But the common dedica-tion day is an oddity, perhapsdue to a rebuilding,since Livy is explicit in telling us that after thededication of the temple of Juno there were three

days of ludi scaenici and a day of ludi circenses,while after the dedication of the temple of Dianathere were only two days of ludi scaenici and a dayof ludi circenses.So the temples must always havebeen separate,as is also borne out by the archaeo-

logical evidence.

M. Fulvius Nobilior, who was responsible forbuilding the temple of Hercules Musarum, was M.Aemilius Lepidus'scolleague as censor in 179.It isnatural and logical to suppose their two templeswent up contemporaneously; hey certainlycannot

have been far apart in time, and Lepidus wouldseem to have had, if anything, a start on Fulvius

Nobilior, since his precinct lay closer to the city.Octavius's wish to associate himself with Aemi-

40On the location of the Circus Flaminius, now establishedas lying parallel to the southwest front of the Porticus Oc-

taviae, between this and the Tiber, see G. Gatti,Capitolium 35

(I960) 7, pp. 3-12 and Nash (supra n. 3) 2.232-33.5 NSc 1921, 120.








1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUSOCTAVIAE 61

liusLepidusandFulviusNobilior n hisbenefactionis not hardto understand.Lepiduswas the mostbrilliantmember f an old anddistinguishedamily,rich n offices ndhonors.FulviusNobiliorwasthe

patronof Ennius and donorof the finestgames

Rome had ever witnessed.Octaviuswas the firstmemberof his plebeian amily to attain the con-

sulship.The enormouswealthhe amassedromthe

conquestof Macedonia nabledhim, we are told,to build a magnificenthouseon the Palatineandto liveostentatiously;herewas more thana touchof the parvenuabouthim. In his victoryOctaviushad been associatedwith AemiliusPaullus;verylikely he hoped in the presentof his porticus oassociatehimself in the public mind with more

open-handed eroes, ince Paullus's ircumspectionand

modestyof

stylewere almost excessive.

Twenty-fiveyears later, after his triumph in

146 B.C.,Q. CaeciliusMetellusMacedonicus uilta porticus enclosing the companion temples of

JunoReginaandJupiterStator n an open square.Boyd' has arguedpersuasivelyhat assignment f

responsibilityorthebuildingof thetempleof Jupi-ter Statorto Metellus,assumedby most topogra-phers, estson very flimsyevidence,hat in fact the

templeof JupiterStators likelyto havebeen olderthanthe templeof JunoRegina,since it is nearerthecity.Butbecause f its orientationt is unlikely

to antedatehe CircusFlaminius.The caseagainstMetellus'sresponsibilityor anythingmore herethanhisporticuss verystrong,butif it be acceptedthathe hadnothing o do with thetemple, hen the

temple of JupiterVitruvius describes(3.2.5) as

hexastyle ndperipteralndassigns o Hermodorusof Salamis,an architect nownto havebeen activein Romeduringthe last thirdof the secondcen-

turyB.C.,musthavebeena rebuilding f a genera-tion later.'We lackanyinformation bout his,not

surprisingly, rantedthe date. The templeis notat this

pointour main concern.

Metellus'sporticuswas intended to exemplifythe best n Greek tyle,materials,ndbuilding ech-

nique, as well as to providea propersettingforthe Greek art with which he embellished is gift.Prominent among the treasures was the set of

twenty-five equestrian statues commissioned byAlexander from Lysippus to representthe twenty-

fiveCompanionsilled n the battleof theGranicus

(VelleiusPaterculus .11.3-4); these were set fac-

ing the temples,presumablyn the openarea,andthe colonnadesmust havemadea finebackground.Everyonewas impressed, nd Velleius,by his use

of circumdataend ambiuntur, howsthatMetel-lus's porticusmust have enclosedthe threesidesthe Porticus Octavialeft open so as to form a

peristyle, n enveloping ectangle f colonnadesnthe fashion of the new agorasand sanctuaries fGreece,whileat the same ime the PorticusOctaviamust have continued o be a separate nd distinctelement.

Octavian estored he PorticusOctavia n 33B.C.

(RG 4.I9; Appian, Illyr. 28; CassiusDio 49-43)-In his own list of his works it is precededby theCuria

Juliaand its

chalcidicum,he

templeof the

DeifiedJuliusand the Lupercal,all, with the ex-

ceptionof the last,known to have beendedicatedin 29 and 28B.C.,but the list is not intended o be

chronologically recise.In fact the restoration fthe PorticusOctaviaappears o have been Au-

gustus'sfirst majorpublicwork, apartfrom the

completionof buildings begun by Julius Caesar

(cf. RG 4.20), and it is easyto understandhe ra-tionalebehind t. The spoilsof the Dalmatianwarwereconsiderable;Octavianhad been voted a tri-

umph;and he had the standards f Gabinius, e-

coveredromtheDalmatians,odisplay.The Porti-cus Octaviawas now a hundred and thirty-oddyearsold anddoubtlessn needof repair ndredeco-ration,while its name and reputationwill havemade it singularlyattractive o the young generalpressedfor time. Its relationto the CircusFla-minius,the traditional tagingarea for triumphs,and to the templesof JupiterStatorand JunoRe-

gina canonlyhaveenhanced ts appeal. n the ResGestaeAugustusmplies hat herebuiltheporticusfrom its very foundations,but his allusionto his

modestpreservationf itsold namemayhave beenintendedas a mild joke.A decadelaterOctaviaengagedto rebuildthe

adjacent omplex.Vitruvius(3.2.5) speaksof the

templeof Hermodorus s still standing n his day.From Propertius (3.18.11-20) and Ovid (AA 1.69-7o) we should conclude that Octavia's works wereundertaken in conjunction with her son Marcel-

6 M.J. Boyd, "The Porticoes of Metellus and Octavia," PBSR21 (1953) 152-59.

7 I should hold that the aedes of Metellus referred to byPliny (NH 36.40) was something other than either the porti-cus or the temple of Jupiter Stator. It is described as qua Cam-

pus petitur and given as the location of the ivory Jupiter of

Pasiteles; presumably then it was still standing in Pliny's dayand was at, or near, one of the crossings of the Petronia amnis.It is tempting to see this as one of the temples of the areasacra of the Largo Argentina.








62 L. RICHARDSON,JR. [AJA 80

lus's aedileship in 23 B.C., but it is hardly likelythat work on so extensive a complex could havebeen completed in anything like a single year.Tothe pair of temples, which were rebuilt without in-

scriptionscommemoratingtheir rebuilding (Pliny,

NH 36.42), were added a librarydedicatedin Mar-cellus'sname (Suetonius, Gram.21; Plutarch,Marc.

30.6), a curia in Octavia'sname, a schola or scholae,and the porticus. The proximity of this complexto the theater of Marcellus,so that the porticusmusthave served here as a theater porticus, and theevident intention of rivalling,or outdoing, the thea-ter and porticusof Pompey in splendor hardlyneed

stressing.The alreadyimpressivecollection of pic-tures and sculptureswould seem to have been en-riched with new additions, notably the cult statuesof

Jupiterand

Juno by Dionysiusand

Polycles,the

sons of Timarchides (Pliny, NH 36.35), and the

open spacewas large enough to have included gar-dens and fountains. Were work begun in the yearof Marcellus'saedileshipand completed by the timethe theater was dedicated in his memory a decadelater (Cassius Dio 54.26.1), it would seem soon

enough. There is no mention of a combinationofdedications in our sources,but these are wretchedlyincomplete and haphazard.

The widespreadbelief that the PorticusOctaviaewas a building really built by Augustus but dedi-

cated in the name of his sister rests principallyona passage in Suetonius's life of Augustus (29) inwhich Augustus is said to have put up buildingsin the names of members of his immediate familyin order to stimulate others to emulate him in theembellishment of the city. As examples of his

buildings in others' names are cited the porticusand basilica Gai et Luci, the porticus Liuiae et

Octauiae,and the theatrum Marcelli.Examples ofthe buildingshe promptedarethe templeof Hercu-les Musarum rebuilt by Marcius Philippus, the

temple of Diana rebuilt by L. Cornificius, theatrium Libertatis restored by Asinius Pollio, the

temple of Saturn restored by Munatius Plancus,the theater of Cornelius Balbus, the amphitheaterof Statilius Taurus, and the numerous buildingsof Agrippa.

Since the rebuilding of the temple of Saturn byMunatius Plancus is dated to 42 B.C. (CIL 6.1316;10o.6087)nd the rebuildingof the atriumLibertatisby Asinius Pollio was paid for out of the spoils ofPollio'scampaignsagainstthe Parthinifor which he

enjoyed a triumph in 39 B.C. (Pliny, NH 7.115;

Isidore, Orig. 6.5.2), these will have antedated allthe works of Augustus catalogued by Suetoniusandmost of whatever we know of his building activityin Rome by many years,so we may seriouslydoubtthat the motive Suetoniusascribesto him was ever

involved in the naming of Augustus's buildings.In fact we know that the theaterof Marcelluswasnamed as a memorial to Marcellusafter his death,in commemorationof his having been curule aedile(Cassius Dio 53.30.5-6);the same is the case withthe renaming of the restoredand enlarged BasilicaJulia as basilicaGai et Luci in A.D. 12 (Augustus,RG 4.20; CassiusDio 56.27.5),a gesturethat seemsto have been less successful, at least in the longrun, perhapsbecausethe old name was entrenchedin the popular mind.

But this discrepancyobliges us to scrutinize theothers in Suetonius's catalogue of buildings to seewhether we can find better reasonsfor their names,especially since it is very well known that bothLivia and Octavia had vast wealth, sufficientforthem to have bestowedon Rome far more imposinggifts than a porticus,had they so wished.

The Porticus Liviae was built on the site of thehouse of Vedius Pollio, an outrageous upstart asfamous for his crueltyas for his wealth.At his deathin 15B.C. this man willed the site to Augustus withinstructions to build upon it some splendid work

for the people.Augustus had the existing structuresrazed and allowed the site to lie vacant (CassiusDio 54.23.5-7).Eight years later,in 7 B.C., Tiberiusand Livia dedicated her porticus there in conjunc-tion with Tiberius's triumph at the conclusion ofhis German campaigns (CassiusDio 55.8.1-2).Thewhole celebrationseems to have had a curious fa-milial color and intimacy, and as a monument tohis victories Tiberius then undertook to rebuildthe temple of Concordiain the Forum Romanum.This was eventually dedicated in A.D. io to Con-

cordia Augusta in the names of Tiberius and hisdead brother Drusus. Moreover Ovid in Fasti

6.637-48indicates that somewhere attached to thePorticusLiviae was an earliertemple of Concordia,an offering of Livia to Augustus. Suetonius and

CassiusDio say the porticuswas built by Augustus,but all our other sourcescombine to show that itwas built by Livia on land supplied by Augustusand that it was built with a very special purposeand program underscoring family solidarity.

A similar sort of family solidaritymight be readinto the conjunction of the Porticus Octaviae and








1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUS OCTAVIAE 63

the Theatrum Marcelli. As Ovid (AA 1.69-70)

says:

aut ubi muneribus nati sua munera mater

addidit,externo marmorediues opus ...

Here only the Porticus Octaviae can be meant, butthe theater of Marcellus we know was not reallyMarcellus'sgift; Augustus in the Res Gestae (4.21)takes full credit for it, while within the Porticus

Octaviae was a librarybuilt by Octavia and dedi-cated in the name of her son. In fact it is the minor

parts of the complex, what Pliny (cf. e.g. NH

34-31) repeatedly calls Octauiae opera, the library,curia, and schola, that seem to have been the partsrichest in art treasures,and for these there is no

record of responsibilityother than Octavia's.8On the Marble Plan

(pl.12,

fig. 2)the

complexis hard to read, though surprisingly complete.The

porticus consisted of a double file of columns onat least the front and sides, the front open, exceptat the ends, interrupted by a central propylaeumarchitecturallydistinct from the colonnades. Thesides are closed by walls lying deep behind the

colonnades, that on the northwest broken byat least two small exedras, one semi-circular,theother rectangular. The two temples and theiraltars are easy to discern, despite some oddities,and they are plainly labeled AEDIS IOVIS and

AEDIS IVNONIS. The temple of Jupiter Statoris shown as peripteralsine postico, having colon-nades only on the front and sides, unlike the

temple of Hermodorus, which Vitruvius tells uswas peripteral;the temple of Juno is prostyle.Thusthe area lying behind the temples seems to havebeen deliberately liberated. Behind the temples,abutting on their rear walls, is indicated a sym-metrical disposition of curvilinear and rectilinear

forms,rather ike a great apsedivided n half and

pulledapart; his bearsno identificationutmightbe the scholaof our sources.There is no hint ofhow the architecture ighthavebeendevelopedothe northeast.We are hereclose to the edgeof the

slab of the plan on whichthis appears.Abovethesoutheast ortico s the inscription..

CVS OCTAVIAEET FILI ... The last word,of which all the lettersaremoreor less fragmen-tary, s usuallyrestored s FILIPPI,but the spaceseemsinadequate,while the notionthat the adja-centporticus,Octavia's round hetemplesof Jupi-ter StatorandJunoReginaandPhilip'saround he

temple of Hercules Musarum,could ever havebeen regardedas an architecturalnit seemspre-posterouson the evidencebeforeus. I therefore

proposehatthe

inscriptionhouldbe

completeds

PORTICVSOCTAVIAE ET FILI, with refer-enceto the librarydedicatedn Marcellus's onor,if not to the wholecomplex.There is more than ahint in someof oursourceshatOctavia's enefac-tions weremadeat least as much in the nameofher son as in her own. In Propertius'spicediumfor Marcelluswe find:

quidgenusaut uirtusautoptimaprofuit lli

mater,et amplexumCaesaris sse focos?aut modotam plenofluitantiauela theatro,

et per maternasomniagestamanus?(3.18.11-14)

And the periochae f Livy speakof a porticusnMarcellus'shonor: porticus nomine eius dicata

(Livy, epit. 140). One is remindedof the inscrip-tion of the buildingof Eumachia n Pompeii,a

building hatmimicked number f Romanmonu-ments:

EVMACHIAL.F. SACERD.PVBL.NOMINE SVO ETM. NVMISTRI FRONTONIS FILI CHALCIDICVMCRYPTAMPORTICVSCONCORDIAE

AVGVSTAE PIETATI SVA PEQVNIA FECIT EADEMQVEDEDICAVIT

(CIL io.8Io)

What we see in situtodaycannotbe ascribedoOctavia'srebuilding.The monolithicgranitecol-umnsof the southwestwing of the porticus ould

hardlyhaveappearedn Romebefore he reignofHadrian; he Composite apitalsof the templeofJunoReginaarecharacteristicallyeveran, s is the

8Boyd (supra n. 6) 157, points out that Octavia's personalinterest in the building, especially the library, is confirmed

by the burial of employees of the library in the household tombof her daughter Marcella. The basic bibliography on the Porti-

cus Octaviae is given by S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topo-

graphical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929) 426-

27, supplemented by Nash (supra n. 3) 2.254-58. More re-

cently has appeared P. Fidenzoni, II teatro di Marcello (Romen.d. ca. 1970) with a discussion of the Porticus Octaviae on

145-58. B. Olinder, Porticus Octavia in Circo Flaminio (Stock-holm 1974) reviews the problems and literature in detail but is

inconclusive; it is also marred by failure to appreciate the truenature of the Circus Flaminius as a public square.









survivingbrickwork f the walls;' and the monu-mental propylaeumbearsan inscriptionof Sep-timiusSeverus ecordingts restorationn A.D. 203aftera fire(CIL6.10o34,123I, f.p.3777).But littleof Octavia'sworkprobablyurvived ven till then,

for Octavia'sbuildingswere amongthe losses ofthe disastrousireof Titus in A.D. 8o that burnedout mostof the lowerCampusMartiusand sweptoverthe Capitoline CassiusDio 66.24);the com-

plex must then have been rebuiltby Domitian.What is surprising s that the Circus Flaminiusand the theaterof Marcellus houldhave escapedthat conflagration;n some mysteriousway the

porticusmust have actedas a firebreak. ince Cas-sius Dio seems o have felt the library f Marcelluswas a particularlyrievous oss, we may wonder

whether omeof the othertreasures f theporticusdid not escape.We may presumeOctavianever meant to rob

Augustusof credit or the restoration f the Porti-cus Octavia, hat she aimedonly at enlarging he

commemorationf her son after t hadbeendecidedto completehetheater f JuliusCaesarn his name.At most she may have seen here the opportunityto associate er namewith thoseof her beloved onandbrotherbut intended o take an inconspicuous

place with the CuriaOctaviae.Augustusin theRes Gestaecould still claimthe restorationf the

porticusas his work, as well as the theater.ButOctavia's ntensedevotion o her son was famousand may have led her to almost excessivezeal inhis behalf; Propertiuswas alreadyawareof thevastness f herundertaking.oAugustus'smodestyin refraining romrenaming he PorticusOctavia

ultimatelybetrayedhim. People vaguelyremem-bered hathe had had a share n the work-hencethe storythat he had paid for it-while Octavia's

passionatecultivationof Marcellus'smemoryledlaterRomans o give her nameto the wholecom-

plex.10

DUKE UNIVERSITY

9The earliest datable Conmpositcapitals in Rome seem tobe those of the Colosseum and the a ch of Titus; cf. D.S. Robert-

son, Greek and Roman Architecture" Cambridge 1945) 220;A.M. Palchetti and L. Quilici, "II tempio di Giunone Reginanel Portico di Ottavia,"Studi di topografiaromana (Quadernidell'Istitutodi TopografiaAntica della

Universitsa i Roma 5)77-88.

10If the original error in the identification of the PorticusOctavia near the theater of Marcellus and

Circus Flaminius

lies not with Cassius Dio (49-43) but with Festus (188L),what likelihood is there that Festus is also wrong about the

existence of a Porticus Octavia next to the theater of Pompey?To this there can be no firm answer, since the area around

the theater of Pompey has been little explored and is poorlydocumented in our sources. But in the area sacra of the Largo

Argentina parts of a porticus along the north side of the area

and another along the east have come to light and still re-main

nameless.








fAf

? ? : , ~

25'

FIG. I. Marble Plan (Forma Urbis Romae) fragments 23, 24 a-d, Horrea

Galbana, "Porticus Aemilia." (negative Fototeca Unione, Rome)

s?4u

i? "U";* 6

.*;r.?"B

1

~"ii'???~~~ ~i~"4~s~~,~;~s~T~~??~?E~:~;~~

~L~5

3? .~ tr::

a,~.95~J~'~e~:~p-"'~:~"1%'i~iJS;~i~?-;~.~8"j"a~blE~L~kl~~s~~a~~~-8-~

;?~3r3 r;t

u''

:::k?a

i-i?i:?::-

FIcG.2. Copy of Marble Plan (FormPorticus Octaviae, Aedes Herc

Fototeca Unio

This content downloaded from 89 180 171 15 on Sun 21 Apr 2013 14:59:56 PM


the evolution of the porticus octaviae

Documents