The Evolution of the Porticus Octaviae

Author(s): L. Richardson, Jr.

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Winter, 1976, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Winter, 1976),
pp. 57-64
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

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

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/502937?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

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

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Evolution of the Porticus Octaviae
L. RICHARDSON, JR.

PLATE 12

Abstract
the Romans had only recently been exposed to the
The discovery of the true location full impact
ofoftheGreek temples on their home soil,
Circus
Flaminius in Rome invites reconsideration of the and the gilded shields that the Athenians had hung
history of the Porticus Octaviae. It must have on be-the architrave of the temple of Apollo at Delphi
gun as a single wing along the circus, the Porticus
after Marathon (Pausanias 10.19.3) and those that
Octavia, and been developed as a peristyle twenty-
Alexander after the battle of the Granicus had sent
five years later by the addition of the Porticus Me-
telli. The two parts must still have been distincttoinAthens for the architrave of the Parthenon (Plu-
the time of Augustus, for he restored the Porticustarch, Alex. 16.8) apparently impressed them as sin-
Octavia. This will explain why the tradition that gularly attractive and appropriate additions. A little
he paid for the Porticus Octaviae grew up. later Mummius was to celebrate his victory over
Gatti's identification of the Porticus Aemilia
Corinth by a similar dedication at the temple of
must be abandoned, as it will fit neither topographi-
Zeus at Olympia (Pausanias 5.10o5), an offering
cally nor architecturally with what we now know
that must have galled the Greeks. Up to this time
about early porticus in Rome. Down to the middle
of the second century B.C. these were either single-
the Romans seem to have kept to stricter traditions
wing stoas or streets covered with roofs supported
in the display of spoils.
on columns. The Porticus Aemilia must have been
Were the porticus, too, imitating architectural
a light structure near Piazza Bocca della Verit5
that disappeared by the early Empire. forms and planning that we can identify in Greece?
For the porticus extra portam Trigeminam we
The earliest porticus in Rome of which we havemight invoke the great stoas of Greece, the Long
Stoa of Peiraeus, for example, built by Pericles,
any record were two built in i93 B.C. by the aediles
L. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aemilius Paullus which served as a grain market for the city and lay
(Livy 35.10.12). One was situated outside the Porta
along a marketplace (Pausanias 1.1.3; schol. on
Trigemina, and to it was annexed an emporium Aristophanes, Ach. 548). It does not survive, but
along the Tiber. The other connected the Porta surely it and the Porticus Aemilia must have borne
Fontinalis to the altar of Mars in the Campus at least a generic resemblance. There were other
Martius. The first is not described, but Livy makeslarge stoas at such places as Athens, Olympia,
Megalopolis, and Delos with different functions,
it quite clear that the second was essentially a cov-
ered walk, an iter by which one could go to and the the adaptability of such a building in con-
Campus under protection. Among its features must junction with a market must early have been ap-
have been a bridge over the Petronia amnis, parent.but Creative exploitation of the stoa in monu-
since the amnis had probably disappeared under- mental city planning at such sites as Pergamum,
ground into the sewers of Rome by the time Livy Priene, and Magnesia on the Maeander was still in
wrote, he may not have known this. its infancy at this time and must have figured con-
These must have been fairly expensive buildings;
stantly in the artistic and architectural thinking and
Livy tells us that the money for them and fordiscussion of these decades. So it is not surprising
gilded shields hung around the roof of the Capi-
that in the expansion and rebuilding of Rome to ac-
toline temple came from fines levied for abusive
commodate the vastly increased population and
grazing. In 196 B.C. the fines of only three grazers
business that victory over Carthage had brought,
sufficed to build a temple to Faunus (Livy 33.42.10).
one of the first complexes should have been an em-
The gilded shields were clearly intended to make
porium with a porticus; the whole form was at
the Capitoline temple emulate the Parthenon;'
that moment as Greek as the word.
1 As early as 31o B.C., after the triumph of the dictator
forum shops and displayed to decorate the forum whenever
Lucius Papirius over the Samnites, the gilded shields of the
there was a solemn procession (Livy 9.40.15-17), but that, I
Samnite spoils were distributed among the holders of the should hold, was a somewhat different idea.

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 L. RICHARDSON, JR. [AJA 80
We should
If the other porticus ofconsequently
I93, viewthatthe two outsid
Roman
Porta Fontinalis, had a ofGreek
porticus prototype,
193 as fundamentally different archi-
obvious. For while Greek stoas
tectural innovations might
for the fill
city, and it is clear that th
of an available stretch andimmediate
both achieved so might serve
success. The next year a as
necting walk (thesecond
South
porticus wasStoa
built extra of
portam the
Trigemi- A
agora might have been described
nam, this as
one inter lignarios, built connecti
from fines levied
Heliaia and the Enneakrounos),
on usurers (Livy 3541.0io), and mostthe num
topographers
people wishing to believe
take that advantage
it must have been in 189of such
that the
nection would
been small.
stretch of the haveOn from
Via Appia leading the the other
Porta
the main function Capena
of to this
the templeRoman porticu
of Mars, known as the Clivus
an iter, and from Martis,
Livy's way
was covered of and
with a porticus speakin
then called
it appears to have been a forerunner
Via Tecta (Ovid, of
Fast. 6.i91-92). Ten years later, in t
colonnaded streets 179
of B.C.,the Near
the censor M. Fulvius East. They
Flaccus contracted
very much later, even
to buildin Antioch
a third not
porticus extra portam earlie
Trigeminam
the time of Augustus, soandwe
(Livy 40.51.6), must
five years look
after that the censors el
for parallels. Fortunately
Q. Fulvius Flaccusin
and A.Athens
Postumius Albinus ther
re-
to hand in the stoa known as the Stoa of Eu- stored the original Porticus Aemilia and paved a
menes II along the south slope of the acropolis. porticus from the Porta Trigemina to the temple
Vitruvius (5-9.1), who is responsible for transmit-of Venus Obsequens on the slope of the Aventine
ting the name, lists this among the buildings near ad- the end of the Circus Maximus (Livy 41.27.8-
jacent to theaters that could serve as shelter in case
9). Since the pavement was of stone (silice), we
of rain, and quite clearly its two storeys could have
may presume this was intended for wheeled traffic
accommodated a good many people. But its original as well as foot, but the important thing to realize is
and primary purpose must have been more like that that this, like the porticus from the Porta Fontinalis
of the porticus Eumenes added to the sanctuary of
to the altar of Mars and the Via Tecta, was first
Athene Polias at Pergamum, to complete and de- and foremost a road, a colonnaded way, rather than
fine an architectural complex. We have, to be sure,
a stoa.

no firm date for either porticus of Eumenes; he

In a brilliant article of 1934 G. Gatti demolish
ruled in Pergamum from 197 B.C. to 159. But the theory that the Saepta Julia lay along the w
given the warm friendship between Pergamum and
side of the Via Lata, demonstrated conclusiv
Rome, we can be confident that new conceptsthatof it belonged just east of the Pantheon and
Hellenistic architecture will have come to Rome
baths of Agrippa, and moved a fragment of
sooner and more vigorously from Pergamene build-
Marble Plan bearing the letters I LIA to a pl
ing than from any other. In Athens the old road
where he found a positive join for it.as part
from the theater of Dionysus to the west approach
vast building near the Tiber between the Avent
to the acropolis ran along a clutter of small sanctu-
and Monte Testaccio (pl. 12, fig. I).2 This he i
aries and monuments, as the account of Pausanias
tified as the Porticus Aemilia as rebuilt in 174 B
(I.21-2) and the existing remains clearly show. The
Stoa of Eumenes offered a suitably dignified a warehouse of concrete faced with opus incertu
and
arranged in a series of four levels descending
elegant substitute; it also provided the south side
of the acropolis with a handsome base and shelter ward the river, a total of two hundred large vau
for eventual dedications as well as theater-goers.units, well lit and ventilated by clerestory wind
as well as by an open and highly flexible lay-
The link, or transition, between it and the theater
is not clear today, nor is the western terminationGatti's
in identification has been questioned on v
ous occasions and for a variety of reasons: the bu
an area later covered by the odeion of Herodes At-
ticus, but the general lines and purpose of the build-
ing technique seems too sophisticated for so ear
ing emerge clear enough; it was by intentiondate; a the form is hardly like that of any other po
cus we know; it is improbable that with all
connector in a way earlier stoas had been only inci-
dentally. The new Roman porticus outside the Por-space he had available the cutter of the Marb
ta Fontinalis was a connector of the same sort. Plan should have limited himself to the single w
2 G. Gatti, " 'Saepta lulia' e 'Porticus Aemilia' nella 'Forma' severiana," BullComm 62 (1934) 123-49.

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUS OCTAVIAE 59
disappeared
Aemilia as identification. Yet definite proofby the early Empire; it is mentioned by
against
no one after Livy.
the identification has not been forthcoming.
An argument that has not been put Theforward
proliferation of porticus outside the Porta
with
Trigemina
the force it deserves is that Gatti's building in the course of only a few years is at
cannot
be made to fit the topographical requirements Livy
first a little perplexing, as is the necessity for resto-
ration
gives for the Porticus Aemilia; it is not ofextra
the original
por-Porticus Aemilia after less
tam Trigeminam. The Porta Trigemina, where-
than twenty years, but if we presume these early
porticus were
ever it may have stood, was in Augustus's experiments
Regio XI, and almost entirely of
which excluded most, and probablywood-as
all, oftheir
the length
Aven-and the completeness with
tine. The emporium of Rome, aswhich they have vanished
discoveries along suggests-and consider
the Tiber embankment have shown, moved
that any downin connection with a mar-
that functioned
ket must and
river only slowly; long after travertine have received
brick especially hard use, then
early restoration
were materials in general use there were landingmay be reasonable, and the fact
stages and warehouses in an unbroken
that we arerow
dealingalong
with two very different types
the river under the lee of the Aventine.3 This is of building may help to explain their proliferation.
exactly what we should have expected and exactly Since in this period no one yet seems to have
what Livy seems to mean; as the Forum Boarium thought of building a porticus of more than a single
and Forum Holitorium became too taken up with wing, perhaps some of the porticus we hear of in
close succession outside the Porta Trigemina were
temples and public buildings to function efficiently
as markets, the markets found new grounds down- built to frame the sides of the emporium that did
not front on the river. But that called inter lig-
stream just below the old. The porticus built by the
aediles of 193 was an embellishment of the new narios sounds like something else again.
open air market, the emporium. In 179 B.C. the censors built not only a porticus
Another important refutation of Gatti's theory outside the Porta Trigemina, but one that ran from
derives from Livy's description of the sequence behind the naualia to the temple of Apollo:
of works in 174. At that time the censors paved the aliam (sc. porticum) post naualia et ad
emporium with stone and marked it off with stan- fanum Herculis et post Spei ad Tiberim
chions; they restored the Porticus Aemilia; and (et ad) aedem Apollinis Medici.
they made a stair of approach from the Tiber to the (Livy 40.51.6)
emporium. The emporium is clearly the most im-
portant element here; the porticus is incidental to The location of all these buildings but the temple
it; and the stair of approach sounds like a forerun-of Apollo is uncertain, but this porticus seems to
have run along the Tiber for some distance; in
ner of the sort of installation for river traffic that
either direction from the temple of Apollo it would
has come to light along the Tiber under the Aven-
soon have had to be carried over a watercourse,
tine. Gatti's building, whatever it may be, is far
either the Petronia amnis or the Cloaca; thus its
too important in itself to have been the Porticus
primary function must have been as a thorough-
Aemilia. It would have overwhelmed any hypo-
fare. In 174 the censors were even more ambitious;
thetical emporium nearby, and since it is clearly
they built a porticus from the temple of Saturn
first and foremost a warehouse, not a market
along the Clivus Capitolinus all the way to the
building, not only is its function in relation to an
Curia Calabra in the Area Capitolina. This can
emporium inexplicable, but it would make no
only have been a cover over the Clivus, since lack
sense at all to have planned the group with the
of space would not have permitted any develop-
warehouse on the far side of the market square ment to either side. The picture of Rome in the
from the river. The Romans were better planners second quarter of the second century B.C. that now
than that. The name of Gatti's building is un- emerges, with column-supported roofs over the
known, but its character is not, and it belongs in
busiest sectors of some of the main streets, is a little
date half a century after the Porticus Aemilia. Thehard to bring into focus. Perhaps the contact of
Porticus Aemilia was a less important building notRome with Pergamum had impressed the Romans
far from Piazza Bocca della Verity and must have
with the beauties of columnar architecture, and they
3Cf. E. Nash, A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome2 (London 1968) 1.380-86 s.v. "Emporium."

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 L. RICHARDSON, JR. [AJA 80

for
had not yet realized its the various templ
limitations, for it
most of these were Itdoomed
ought, soon
then,totobe
mea
sw
The next porticusthein circus.
Rome of The circu
which
record was the Porticus Octavia,
that it had built
no perman
tavius after 168 B.C.
onlyto a commemorate
small part is pr
as simply
over Perseus of Macedon in an openba
a naval ar
with other nuggetslished with antopogra
of Roman arch ne
otherwise
(I88L) preserves the featureless.
information that
the street
two porticus in Rome that carried
that went by th
the
tavia, one built by Campus
Octavia, Martius
now comm
tinguished as the Porticus Maxima. The Porticus
Porticus Octaviae,Octavia must havenear
of Marcellus,
andeither
another
roofed this street or next
flanked it. The to
questionthe
Pompey, built by Cn.is not easyOctavius
to decide; the evidenceanddivides about
resto
gustus after a fire.equally But
between the two; but we may incline him
Augustus to
(RG 4.19) that the Porticus
the latter as allowing more easilyOctavia
for subsequent th
stored, or rebuilt, events. Its "double" character the
preserving might be name
so many o
nal donor was situated
things one should ad circum
probably Flam
not hazard a guess
this description we about it. now know would
a building close to the
Octavius's theater
porticus of of
stood before the temples Pom
sequently we are in Junodifficulties.
Regina and Hercules Musarum. The former
Octavius's porticus was
was put evidently
up by the the
great M. Aemilius Lepidus and fin
ing of its kind; Velleius Paterculus
dedicated during his censorship in 179 B.C.; he (2
had vowed it
multo amoenissimam. Pliny (NH 34.13 some eight years earlier on the eve
it was double (duplicem) and
of his final battle against called
the Ligurians (Livy Co
39.2.11). Earliercapitals
allusion to the bronze in the same war he had of vowed
the a c
would seem to have temple
beento Diana (Livy
the 39.2.8),
firstand sinceCorin
both
temples were
cus, perhaps the first in circo Flaminio (Livy 40.52)
Corinthian and
buildin
It will not have been
appear inathe peristyle,
Fasti Antiatini with a commonsince
dedi- it
referred to in thecation day, 23 December,"
singular andit mightelbow
be assumed po
peristyles are unattested in But
they stood close together. Rome before
the common dedica-
of the century. The earliest
tion day porticus
is an oddity, perhaps due to a rebuilding, of
a single wing in since
Rome seems
Livy is explicit to
in telling us that afterhave
the
built by Scipio Nasica
dedication of thein temple the Area
of Juno there were three Cap
159 B.C. This was referred
days of ludi scaenici and toa dayin
of ludithe
circenses,plur
Paterculus 2.1.2; 2.3.1), as
while after the was
dedication the
of the temple Porticu
of Diana
of I0o B.C. (Velleius
there werePaterculus
only two days of ludi scaenici2.8.3).
and a day W
occasion find Pliny (NHSo the
of ludi circenses. 35.I14 and
temples must always have 132
to the Porticus Pompei
been separate, as isand
also borne the
out by the Portic
archaeo-
logical evidence.
in the plural, so this usage must have pe
into the Empire. M. Fulvius Nobilior, who was responsible for
Octavius's porticusbuildingstood ad Musarum,
the temple of Hercules circum was M. F
(Augustus, RG 4.19; Pliny,
Aemilius Lepidus's colleague asNHcensor in 34.13)
179. It is
(Velleius Paterculus
natural 2.1.2). The
and logical to suppose latter
their two temples d
is shared by a good many buildings;
went up contemporaneously; they certainly cannot i
means no more than that
have been far the
apart in time, building
and Lepidus would
Prata Flaminia, perhaps
seem to have had, if no more
anything, than
a start on Fulvius
in Regio IX of the Augustan
Nobilior, city.
since his precinct lay closer But
to the city.
Octavius's wish to associate himself
is an uncommon expression and with Aemi-
is not

40On the location of the Circus Flaminius, now established(I960) 7, pp. 3-12 and Nash (supra n. 3) 2.232-33.
as lying parallel to the southwest front of the Porticus Oc- 5 NSc 1921, 120.
taviae, between this and the Tiber, see G. Gatti, Capitolium 35

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUS OCTAVIAE 61
five
lius Lepidus and Fulvius Nobilior in Companions
his killed in the battle of the Granicus
benefaction
(Velleius
is not hard to understand. Lepidus was Paterculus
the most 1.11.3-4); these were set fac-
brilliant member of an old and distinguished ing the temples,family,
presumably in the open area, and
rich in offices and honors. Fulvius Nobilior was the the colonnades must have made a fine background.
patron of Ennius and donor of the finest games Everyone was impressed, and Velleius, by his use
Rome had ever witnessed. Octavius was the firstof circumdatae and ambiuntur, shows that Metel-
lus's porticus must have enclosed the three sides
member of his plebeian family to attain the con-
sulship. The enormous wealth he amassed from thethe Porticus Octavia left open so as to form a
conquest of Macedonia enabled him, we are told,peristyle, an enveloping rectangle of colonnades in
the fashion of the new agoras and sanctuaries of
to build a magnificent house on the Palatine and
to live ostentatiously; there was more than a touchGreece, while at the same time the Porticus Octavia
of the parvenu about him. In his victory Octavius must have continued to be a separate and distinct
had been associated with Aemilius Paullus; very element.
likely he hoped in the present of his porticus to Octavian restored the Porticus Octavia in 33 B.C.
associate himself in the public mind with more (RG 4.I9; Appian, Illyr. 28; Cassius Dio 49-43)-
open-handed heroes, since Paullus's circumspection In his own list of his works it is preceded by the
and modesty of style were almost excessive. Curia Julia and its chalcidicum, the temple of the
Twenty-five years later, after his triumph inDeified Julius and the Lupercal, all, with the ex-
146 B.C., Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus built ception of the last, known to have been dedicated
a porticus enclosing the companion temples ofin 29 and 28 B.C., but the list is not intended to be
Juno Regina and Jupiter Stator in an open square. chronologically precise. In fact the restoration of
Boyd' has argued persuasively that assignment of the Porticus Octavia appears to have been Au-
responsibility for the building of the temple of Jupi- gustus's first major public work, apart from the
ter Stator to Metellus, assumed by most topogra- completion of buildings begun by Julius Caesar
phers, rests on very flimsy evidence, that in fact the (cf. RG 4.20), and it is easy to understand the ra-
temple of Jupiter Stator is likely to have been older tionale behind it. The spoils of the Dalmatian war
than the temple of Juno Regina, since it is nearer were considerable; Octavian had been voted a tri-
the city. But because of its orientation it is unlikelyumph; and he had the standards of Gabinius, re-
to antedate the Circus Flaminius. The case against covered from the Dalmatians, to display. The Porti-
Metellus's responsibility for anything more here cus Octavia was now a hundred and thirty-odd
than his porticus is very strong, but if it be accepted
years old and doubtless in need of repair and redeco-
that he had nothing to do with the temple, then the ration, while its name and reputation will have
temple of Jupiter Vitruvius describes (3.2.5) asmade it singularly attractive to the young general
hexastyle and peripteral and assigns to Hermodoruspressed for time. Its relation to the Circus Fla-
of Salamis, an architect known to have been activeminius, the traditional staging area for triumphs,
in Rome during the last third of the second cen- and to the temples of Jupiter Stator and Juno Re-
tury B.C., must have been a rebuilding of a genera-gina can only have enhanced its appeal. In the Res
tion later.' We lack any information about this, not
Gestae Augustus implies that he rebuilt the porticus
surprisingly, granted the date. The temple is not from its very foundations, but his allusion to his
at this point our main concern. modest preservation of its old name may have been
Metellus's porticus was intended to exemplify intended as a mild joke.
the best in Greek style, materials, and building tech- A decade later Octavia engaged to rebuild the
nique, as well as to provide a proper setting for adjacent complex. Vitruvius (3.2.5) speaks of the
the Greek art with which he embellished his gift. temple of Hermodorus as still standing in his day.
Prominent among the treasures was the set ofFrom Propertius (3.18.11-20) and Ovid (AA 1.69-
twenty-five equestrian statues commissioned by 7o) we should conclude that Octavia's works were
Alexander from Lysippus to represent the twenty-undertaken in conjunction with her son Marcel-
6 M.J. Boyd, "The Porticoes of Metellus and Octavia," PBSRpus petitur and given as the location of the ivory Jupiter of
21 (1953) 152-59. Pasiteles; presumably then it was still standing in Pliny's day
7 I should hold that the aedes of Metellus referred to by and was at, or near, one of the crossings of the Petronia amnis.
Pliny (NH 36.40) was something other than either the porti- It is tempting to see this as one of the temples of the area
cus or the temple of Jupiter Stator. It is described as qua Cam- sacra of the Largo Argentina.

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
62 L. RICHARDSON, JR. [AJA 80
lus's aedileship in 23Isidore,
B.C., butOrig. 6.5.2),
it is hardlythe
that work on so extensive
the worksa complex could
of Augustus c
been completed in anything like a single
most of whatever we knye
the pair of temples, which were
in Rome by rebuilt witho
many years,
that the
scriptions commemorating motive
their Suetoniu
rebuilding (P
NH 36.42), were added a library
involved in dedicated
the namingin
In fact
cellus's name (Suetonius, we 21;
Gram. know that th
Plutarch, M
30.6), a curia in Octavia's
namedname,
as a amemorial
schola or to
schM
and the porticus. The
in proximity
commemorationof this
of co
hi
to the theater of Marcellus, so that the porticu
(Cassius Dio 53.30.5-6);
have served here as the
a theater
renamingporticus, and
of the rest
evident intention of rivalling, or outdoing,
Julia as basilica the
Gai et L
ter and porticus of Pompey
RG 4.20;in Cassius
splendor hardl
Dio 56.
stressing. The
already impressive
to have beencollection of
less succe
tures and
sculpturesrun,
would seem because
perhaps to havethe
be
riched with new additions,
in thenotably
popularthe cult st
mind.
of Jupiter and Juno by Dionysius
But and Polycle
this discrepancy ob
sons of Timarchides (Pliny,
others inNH 36.35), and
Suetonius's ca
open space was largewhether
enough we to have include
can find bett
dens and fountains. especially
Were work begun
since it in th
is ve
Livia
of Marcellus's aedileship andand Octavia by
completed hadthev
the theater was dedicated in his memory
them to have bestowed o a
later (Cassius Dio 54.26.1), itawould
gifts than seem
porticus, ha
enough. There is no mention of a Liviae
The Porticus combinat
was
dedications in our sources,
housebut
these
of
Vedius are wret
Pollio,
incomplete and haphazard.
famous for his cruelty as
The widespread belief
inthat the this
15 B.C. Porticus
man Octav
wille
was a building really built by Augustus
instructions to buildbut
up
cated in the name of for
his the
sister rests Augustus
people. principal
a passage in Suetonius's
razedlife
andof Augustus
allowed the (2
s
which Augustus is said to have put
Dio 54.23.5-7). up year
Eight bui
in the names of members of his
and Livia immediate
dedicated fa
her
in order to stimulate tion
others to emulate
with him
Tiberius's in
tri
embellishment of the his city. As examples
German campaignsof
buildings in others' whole
names celebration
are cited the por
seems
and basilica Gai et milial
Luci, the porticus
color Liu
and intimac
Octauiae, and the his victories
theatrum Tiberius
Marcelli. Exampth
the buildings he prompted are the
the temple oftemple of H
Concordi
les Musarum rebuilt by Marcius
This Philippus,
was eventually de
temple of Diana rebuilt
cordia by L. Cornificiu
Augusta in the n
dead brother
atrium Libertatis restored Drusus.
by Asinius Pollio
temple of Saturn restored
6.637-48by Munatius
indicates thatPls
the theater of Cornelius Balbus,
Porticus the
Liviae amphit
was an ear
of Statilius Taurus, an
and the numerous
offering of Livia buil
to
of Agrippa. Cassius Dio say the portic
Since the rebuilding but all temple
of the our other source
of Saturn
Munatius Plancus
is was
dated to 42
built by B.C.
Livia(CIL 6
on la
10o.6087) and the the rebuilding
atrium Libe of
and that
it was built w
by Asinius Pollio was paid
and for out
program of the sp
underscorin
Pollio's campaigns against the Parthini
A similar sort offor wh
family
enjoyed a triumph in 39the
into B.C. (Pliny, NHof
conjunction 7.

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1976] THE EVOLUTION OF THE PORTICUS OCTAVIAE 63
the Theatrum Marcelli. As Ovid (AA
forms, 1.69-70)
rather like a great apse divided in half and
says: pulled apart; this bears no identification but might
be the schola of our sources. There is no hint of
aut ubi muneribus nati sua munera mater
addidit, externo marmore diues opus ... how the architecture might have been developed to
the northeast. We are here close to the edge of the
Here only the Porticus Octaviae can be meant, but slab of the plan on which this appears.
the theater of Marcellus we know was not really Above the southeast portico is the inscription ...
Marcellus's gift; Augustus in the Res Gestae (4.21) CVS OCTAVIAE ET FILI ... The last word,
takes full credit for it, while within the Porticus of which all the letters are more or less fragmen-
Octaviae was a library built by Octavia and dedi- tary, is usually restored as FILIPPI, but the space
cated in the name of her son. In fact it is the minor seems inadequate, while the notion that the adja-
parts of the complex, what Pliny (cf. e.g. NH cent porticus, Octavia's around the temples of Jupi-
34-31) repeatedly calls Octauiae opera, the library, ter Stator and Juno Regina and Philip's around the
curia, and schola, that seem to have been the parts temple of Hercules Musarum, could ever have
richest in art treasures, and for these there is no been regarded as an architectural unit seems pre-
record of responsibility other than Octavia's.8 posterous on the evidence before us. I therefore
On the Marble Plan (pl. 12, fig. 2) the complex propose that the inscription should be completed as
is hard to read, though surprisingly complete. The PORTICVS OCTAVIAE ET FILI, with refer-
porticus consisted of a double file of columns on ence to the library dedicated in Marcellus's honor,
at least the front and sides, the front open, except if not to the whole complex. There is more than a
at the ends, interrupted by a central propylaeum hint in some of our sources that Octavia's benefac-
architecturally distinct from the colonnades. The tions were made at least as much in the name of
sides are closed by walls lying deep behind the her son as in her own. In Propertius's epicedium
colonnades, that on the northwest broken by for Marcellus we find:
at least two small exedras, one semi-circular, the
other rectangular. The two temples and their quid genus aut uirtus aut optima profuit illi
altars are easy to discern, despite some oddities, mater, et amplexum Caesaris esse focos?
and they are plainly labeled AEDIS IOVIS and aut modo tam pleno fluitantia uela theatro,
AEDIS IVNONIS. The temple of Jupiter Stator et per maternas omnia gesta manus?
is shown as peripteral sine postico, having colon- (3.18.11-14)
nades only on the front and sides, unlike the
temple of Hermodorus, which Vitruvius tells us And the periochae of Livy speak of a porticus in
was peripteral; the temple of Juno is prostyle. Thus Marcellus's honor: porticus nomine eius dicata
the area lying behind the temples seems to have (Livy, epit. 140). One is reminded of the inscrip-
been deliberately liberated. Behind the temples, tion of the building of Eumachia in Pompeii, a
abutting on their rear walls, is indicated a sym- building that mimicked a number of Roman monu-
metrical disposition of curvilinear and rectilinear ments:
EVMACHIA L.F. SACERD. PVBL. NOMINE SVO ET
M. NVMISTRI FRONTONIS FILI CHALCIDICVM CRYPTAM PORTICVS CONCORDIAE
AVGVSTAE PIETATI SVA PEQVNIA FECIT EADEMQVE DEDICAVIT
(CIL io.8Io)
What we see in situ today cannot be ascribed to hardly have appeared in Rome before the reign of
Octavia's rebuilding. The monolithic granite col- Hadrian; the Composite capitals of the temple of
umns of the southwest wing of the porticus could Juno Regina are characteristically Severan, as is the
8 Boyd (supra n. 6) 157, points out that Octavia's personal cently has appeared P. Fidenzoni, II teatro di Marcello (Rome
interest in the building, especially the library, is confirmed n.d. ca. 1970) with a discussion of the Porticus Octaviae on
by the burial of employees of the library in the household tomb 145-58. B. Olinder, Porticus Octavia in Circo Flaminio (Stock-
of her daughter Marcella. The basic bibliography on the Porti- holm 1974) reviews the problems and literature in detail but is
cus Octaviae is given by S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topo- inconclusive; it is also marred by failure to appreciate the true
graphical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929) 426- nature of the Circus Flaminius as a public square.
27, supplemented by Nash (supra n. 3) 2.254-58. More re-

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 L. RICHARDSON, JR. [AJA 80
surviving brickworkcommemoration
of of theher son walls;'
after it had been decided
and th
mental propylaeum bears
to complete the theateran inscription
of Julius Caesar in his name.
At most she may
timius Severus recording itshave restoration
seen here the opportunity in
to associate her
after a fire (CIL 6.10o34, name with those
3123I, of her p.
cf. beloved son
3777).
of Octavia's work probably
and brother but intended
survived
to take an inconspicuous
even t
for Octavia's place with the
buildings Curia Octaviae.
were amongAugustus in the
the l
the disastrous fire of Titus in A.D. 8o that burned Res Gestae could still claim the restoration of the
out most of the lower Campus Martius and swept porticus as his work, as well as the theater. But
over the Capitoline (Cassius Dio 66.24); the com- Octavia's intense devotion to her son was famous
plex must then have been rebuilt by Domitian.and may have led her to almost excessive zeal in
What is surprising is that the Circus Flaminiushis behalf; Propertius was already aware of the
and the theater of Marcellus should have escaped vastness of her undertaking. So Augustus's modesty
that conflagration; in some mysterious way the in refraining from renaming the Porticus Octavia
porticus must have acted as a firebreak. Since Cas- ultimately betrayed him. People vaguely remem-
sius Dio seems to have felt the library of Marcellusbered that he had had a share in the work-hence
was a particularly grievous loss, we may wonder
the story that he had paid for it-while Octavia's
passionate cultivation of Marcellus's memory led
whether some of the other treasures of the porticus
did not escape. later Romans to give her name to the whole com-
We may presume Octavia never meant to rob
plex.10
Augustus of credit for the restoration of the Porti-
cus Octavia, that she aimed only at enlarging theDUKE UNIVERSITY

liesRome
9 The earliest datable Conmpositc capitals in not with
seemCassius
to Dio (49-43) but with Festus (188L),
be those of the Colosseum and the a ch of Titus; cf.likelihood
what D.S. Robert-
is there that Festus is also wrong about the
son, Greek and Roman Architecture" (Cambridge existence1945) 220; Octavia next to the theater of Pompey?
of a Porticus
A.M. Palchetti and L. Quilici, "II tempio diTo Giunone
this thereRegina
can be no firm answer, since the area around
nel Portico di Ottavia," Studi di topografia romana (Quaderni
the theater of Pompey has been little explored and is poorly
dell'Istituto di Topografia Antica della Universitsa documented in our 5)
di Roma sources. But in the area sacra of the Largo
77-88. Argentina parts of a porticus along the north side of the area
10 If the original error in the identification of the Porticus and another along the east have come to light and still re-
Octavia near the theater of Marcellus and Circus Flaminius main nameless.

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 s?
;4u

i? "U
;* 6 .*;
.r.?
"B 1"~~4 ~
fAf

~ ;,-
"ii'???~~~ ~i~"4~s~~,~;~s~T~~??~?E
~L~5

3? ..~
tr::

a,~.95~J~'~e~:~p
~"1% d'i~iJS;~i~?-;~.~8"j"a~blE~L~kl~~s~ I~a~~
;?~
3r3 r;t
V-,
u''

??:,~ D ?W
25'

:::k?a

i-i?i
:?::-

FIcG. 2. Copy of Marble P

FIG. I. Marble Pla
Porticus Octaviae, Ae
Galbana, "Porticu
Fototeca U

This content downloaded from

5.90.204.225 on Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:11:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms