-5- Bibliography: All images are taken from the great resource:

Transcription

1 The Roman temple that I chose to write about for research assignment one is the Pantheon, begun in about 123 AD and completed in 126 under Roman Emperor Hadrian. It is located in the Campus Martius of Rome. Its name means all gods in the Greek root Pantheion, but comes to mean temple to all gods in Latin form (Parker). There are 3 primary geometric elements which constitute the structure: a pedimented octastyle porch, an immense domed cylinder, and a rectangular feature as wide as the porch and high as the cylinder, placed between the two (fig. 1 & 2). The materials used in the structure are mainly concrete and a vertically oriented flat brick -which was also used to date the building via consul stamps found on them (Parker). The dome itself is in the form of a concrete monolith, its interior radially lined with square corbels of truncated pyramid design, which diminish in size with rise (hand drawn). This corbeling adds strength to the dome because it lightens the weight of it, while, integral to its deployment here, a network of supportive truss-work is formed. The concrete has varying density, found to be most dense at the 24' thick base, and lighter, less dense concretes are found at the dome s uppermost height. The density of the concrete is a manufactured result, born through the use of fist-sized stones in the base of the structure, smaller stones of diminishing size with increase in height through the rotunda, and pomace and empty clay pottery in increasing amounts toward the uppermost heights in the dome. The portico is supported by sixteen, 39' x 5' monolithic grey granite columns from Egypt (weighing in at 60 tons each) and topped with marble Corinthian capitols and set upon marble bases. The exterior was once clad in marble veneer, then stucco, and now the bare, raw structure of the walls is shown. Bronze was once found on the Pantheon in the form of roofing tiles for the dome, as ceiling for the portico, as solid doors, and other decorative embellishments. At this time, with a substantial absence of the original bronze, the wooden beams of the portico roof structure are revealed, and a less-than-grand leaded dome roof is now on display. Only a replaced inscription is placed upon the architrave of the portico, while remarkably, the original doors are still in place (MacDonald, The Pantheon). By the necessity of its low tensile strength concrete, the Pantheon as structure is found to be of a compression nature (fig. 4). Working together with the technologies of the varied density concretes and corbeling are a series of massive compression rings, which contribute to the successful deployment of the dome and rotunda -the unity of which gives the Pantheon its durability. The weight of these rings, set atop the rotunda and around the dome s exterior, forces downward upon the rotunda s 20' thick walls and the network of interlocked interior arch-work within them (fig. 5). The compression rings thereby prevent the dome from pressing outward, which would send the massive walls of the rotunda to topple. Additionally, the oculus found at the dome s center provides support via its form as a continuous arch, while relieving the dome s structure of the need to support the weight of an otherwise closed design. It is these technologies which both serves as a testament to the remarkable engineering skills of the Romans, and gives reason toward an understanding of how it has stood for nearly two millennia (MacDonald, Ibid). The site of the Pantheon, as said, is in the Campus Martius. This must not be overlooked with regard to the success of the structure and its execution, because the Campus Martius was -1-

2 formerly unstable swampland. It is due to the depth of the excavations, required to construct a suitable foundation for the dissipation of downward thrust from the above building, which brought the Pantheon to rest upon more stable ground, and significantly enhanced its structural integrity (Rohan). A modern day onlooker could mistake its current stance on its plot for having sunk under its own weight, or haphazardly guess that it had been intended to have the odd appearance of being without a pedestal. Neither of these interpretations occurred, but rather, it now seemingly resides in a lower position ever since the urban-decay which followed its political use, in the byproduct of the ruins from its neighboring contemporary buildings, and the sordid remains of the Medieval peasantry. Before the fall of the empire, the Pantheon once stood within a large grid of contemporary state buildings in a district known at the time as the Augustine Ninth District, which was the governing center of the entire empire. Despite its original setting within a grid, or even its then commonly found marble-clad exterior, it is obvious that the Pantheon would not have blended into the network and fabric of its setting, based on the scale and geometry of the rotunda and megalithic dome. Additionally, having a North-facing main entrance, the orientation of the Pantheon is not in keeping with the traditions of Roman temple building. And, moreover, with the columns being as slender as they are, Classical architecture does not have any precedent hitherto the construction of such proportions as found in the Pantheons rendition of the colonnaded portico. Also on the exterior, there once stood before the Pantheon a large, rectangular forecourt, demarcated by a colonnaded stoa, which would have provided an onlooker with an axial view of the grand building. That onlooker would have seen, as one can still see today, the single mass of a portico projection, preceding the unifying rectangular transitional mass (narthex), which is attached to the cylinder-dome mass. The sizes of these unified masses increases with height, and, given the axial approach, is similar to those same natures found in the many Hindu Temples found throughout Asia (fig. 5). Conversely though, the Pantheon is more monolithic and geometric to the eye, and clearly hints toward the interior of the building, which is actually the intended focus (MacDonald, The Architecture). The interior (fig. 6) was later examined during the Renaissance to great length as a circle in a box. The circle in a box design was thought to be part of the Devine and universal elements of life, as interpreted by the philosophies regarding phi ratios within all living geometries simply animated by Da Vinci s Vitruvian Man (fig 7). This interior was later, in the 17 th century Baroque era, a topic for renovations under Pope Alexander VI. Bernini, the architect of the pope, refused to perform any program changes to the interior in order to preserve its naturally beautiful Classical antiquity (Marder). The Devine rotunda is entered after having passed through the portico, and the dimly lit narthex. It could be surmised that as one s eyes come to see across the bedazzling pattern set in high-quality stone upon the floor before them, whilst passing between the immense columns on either side of the narthex, that the natural inclination would be to follow up the richly Classical embellishment of the adjacent walls and up through the dynamic corbeling of the dome. The sight of a 30' wide hole at the center would be captivating, as would be the observing of the column of light which falls through this aperture. The colomn of light provides both luminosity for the jewel-box-like space of fine stone, and seems to equate into a -2-

3 supernatural suspension of the great dome (LaFollette). Surrounding the main hall within niches, were carved marble representations of the seven deities for which the Pantheon was erected to celebrate (temple to all gods), and also statues of the same means in representations of the deified Emperors Caesar and Augustus (they have all since been removed). The lineage of the deities within these walls, including the two former emperors, is important to understand in relation to the purpose of the Pantheon s construction (MacDonald, Ibid). It is said that Hadrian was an intriguing and refined character, who might have been brilliant. For example, in leu of taking the credit for the Pantheon, he specified that the temple state on its portico entablature that Agrippa built this in honor of Emperor Marcus Agrippa, who built the precursor to the Pantheon on the same site in 27 BCE (subsequently twice burnt down). Notwithstanding, Hadrian calculatingly knew how this new building that he erected could be used for his advantage as a gesamtkunstwerk, despite not having his name on the exterior of the building (This act in itself was done to appear unpretentious to the plebes and senate). It is the iconic image of himself, seated below the shaft of light, radiating down from the heavens and upon his centrally installed thrown, and seated amongst the gods and formerly deified emperors that Hadrian wanted to cast into the minds of others. Such imagery could have served for the inspiration behind The Ecstacy of Saint Teresa and the chiaroscuro effects found in Flemish paintings (tongue in cheek) (fig. 8). The Pantheon and all that was its name, former site, and still remains as a provocative interior and exterior, was intended to bring Hadrian to the level of the gods in the eyes of his people (LaFollette). Other cultural points of significance stem from the aforementioned northern orientation. The reason for this odd placement on the site is thought by some to have been done in order to place a visitor to the temple and Hadrian into a heightened sense of drama. It is upon approaching the temple, along the lengthy axial processional path through the courtyard, which would have been lined by a fully polished and armed squadron of soldiers -both impressive and fear invoking. This effect is compounded by the sun shining down from the south and upon the polished bronze dome which brilliantly reflected the light down and off of the magnificently daunting and haloeffected silhouette, into the eyes of the visitor. The thought here is that this combination controlled the visitor by placing them into a subordinate role, and the whole affair of reaching the shaded portico and the janitores (door keepers) in a state of near-blindness would have been a further compromising adjustment to make while illuminating the shining masterpiece. All of this light-play is then fully realized, complimented, and gratified by the stunningly lit interior (LaFollette). Culturally, the Pantheon has evolved a great deal through the course of time. It became consecrated as the church, S. Maria ad Martyres, in the 7 th c. by Pope Boniface IV. Were it not for the church taking it under its management, the Pantheon would have most likely ended up as an addition to the soil which has risen-up around it. The Church, though, is not entirely innocent either, because it was under the false auspices of Pope Urban VIII of the Barbarini family that the bronze was largely raped from the Pantheon. It is recorded that a scant ten percent of the bronze later went toward the constructions of the baldachin by Bernini at the apse and nave -3-

4 crossing of S. Peter s Basilica. A small reinvestment in Rome given the fact that ninety percent of the bronze was quickly sold-off as raw armament material to Constantinople in order to fend off the encroaching Islamic civilization. The money went into the deep pockets of the Vatican, and the city lost part of its heritage once more. From this unscrupulous scandal came the proverb What the barbarians did not do, the Barbarinis. The last alterations to the Pantheon also occurred during the 17 th c., and it was under the hand of a now weary Bernini (who, as said, refused to perform alterations upon the interior). Pope Alexander who had wished for a building of an appearance more fitting of a church, coerced Bernini into adding a pair of lanterns atop the narthex roof (fig. 9). These lanterns served to be ridiculed by the public and scholars alike, being un-affectionately referred to as the Asse s Ears (Rohan). They were removed in the late 1800s (MacDonald, The Pantheon). The Pantheon has served its public in these various ways over the numerous centuries, as the cultures that utilized it had their own take on what the building meant. It was once a house for all gods in the Roman pagan sense, a thrown room for a demigod, and was converted into a house for one god under the rule of the Christians. Today, although still a Christian facility, the pilgrimages now made there are certainly not for contributions to the seven planetary gods, or the demigod who built it, or even to a significant extent the Christian god. Pilgrimages to the Pantheon are primarily done presently in order to contemplate its iconic structure, its architecture, and how it all defies gravity and time so well. Today, these pilgrims visit a timemachine which echos with the memories of the doctrines which erected it and now maintain it. The Pantheon seems as though it could outlive yet another empire. To bring this topic full circle and bring about fresh perspective, we only need to look at The Rose Planetarium at the Museum of Natural History in New York City (fig. 10). This modern structure has a great deal of inter-relationship with the Pantheon. Apart from being constructed by a free society, and of steel and glass, The Rose Planetarium seeks to scientifically explain the heavens; all the planets named after the planetary gods which the Pantheon was erected to honor. These gods of the heavens are suspended around a gigantic sphere in a glass box -not unlike those found inside the Pantheon, surrounding Hadrian. Inside the planetarium, one must navigate a dramatic processional path along an upward spiral and into the gigantic hanging sphere. Inside, a visitor will gain a glimpse into the heavens. Inversely, we have Hadrian, acting as the heavens to all, with an oculus above him which served to be the all-seeing eye by which he managed his empire. Only the evolution of time through the course of empires can create such startling alternate paralleled inter-realities -the ghosts of which are found in great buildings like the Pantheon (Rohan). -4-

5 Bibliography: MacDonald, William L. The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, For a thorough comprehension of the elements of the building, where its forms come from and how they are unique, this is an excellent reference. Most interesting is the meaning of the Pantheon, which however is not discussed to my satisfaction. Progeny, is integrated and subtle. This is my second time reading this book, and I recommend it to anyone who would like to know more about this amazing, and emboldened by time, archetype. MacDonald, William L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire: An Introductory Study, Revised Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965, This is slightly redundant to the The Pantheon by MacDonald, but it does serve new ideas, and places them in more of a relationship with other relative architecture. It is most useful for a better understanding of the building through use of fullpage photographs. Marder, Tod A., Bernini and Alexander VII And Praise of the Pantheon in the Seventeenth Century, Art Bulletin 71 (1989), This is a well written paper on the interior decoration scheme which was sought to be changed by Alexander. Through circumstantial evidence the case is made that Bernini refused to change the interior against his great patron s wishes. Notwithstanding, he did place the assears on her, which is not discussed here, but it is a spirited debate which tries to prove that Bernini did have respect enough for the state of the natural antiquity of the interior. His refusal to embellish the dome and rotunda with a new program against the wishes of Alexander in order to preserve the integrity of the Pantheon is the anecdote which represents the different receptions of architecture in 17 th c. Rome. Parker, Freda, Monolithic Dome Articles The Pantheon ROME-126AD: A Temple to all Gods. No Update Information. 09/26/ This source, like most internet sources, contradicts some statistical data by MacDonald. It does however speak about the statistics of th brick work with a good amount of certainty, which I could not find elsewhere. I was annoyed by the author s seeming hatred toward Hadrian. Professor LaFollette, Laetitia, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Lecture on Roman Art and Architecture, November, Laetitia proved very informative throughout this entire semester, and introduced the idea of the odd northern orientation for uses regarding control over lower government, and foreign dignitaries. Also from this series I was most impressed with Trajan s Column and the contrast to that of Marcus Aurelius. She will stay in my memory for quite some time. Professor Rohan, Timothy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Lecture on Architectural History - Survey. October, I thank Tim Rohan for pointing out the Bernini s asses-ears to me. He also relayed the brilliantly symbolic, yet diametrically opposed relationship that the Pantheon has to the Rose Planetarium at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. He is also the man responsible for initially inspiring me to become an architect. All images are taken from the great resource: Stockstad, Marilyn. Art History: Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Henry N. Abrams, Inc One of the most comprehensive, and all-encompassing books in regard to art and architectural history. -5-

6 Ancient Roman Temples: The Pantheon Richard Anthony Dobrowski Arch 115, Survey of Architecture I Fall Semester, 2006 Professor Fulton Harley, Section 27/28-6-

7 Figure 2 Figure 1 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 3 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9-7-

8 Figure 10-8-

9 -9-