We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
In the Via del Portico d'Ottavia at Rome, close by the Theatre of Marcellus, there still stands the propylaeum of the Porticus Octaviae, from which the street took its name. The inscription on the architrave records the restoration of the building by Septimus Severus and Caracalla in A.D. 203, but passes over in silence the previous history of the site. For that we are dependent largely on literary sources, chief among which is a passage of Velleius Paterculus, in which he records the building-activities of Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 143, censor 131 B.C.), the conqueror of Andriscus: Hic est Metellus Macedonicus, qui porticus, quae fuerunt circumdatae duabus aedibus sine inscriptione positis, quae nunc Octaviae porticibus ambiuntur, fecerat, quique hanc turmam statuarum equestrium quae frontem aedium spectant, hodieque maximum ornamentum eius loci, ex Macedonia detulit. … Hic idem primus omnium Romae aedem ex marmore in iis ipsis monumentis molitus <huius> vel magnificentiae vel luxuriae princeps fuit.
Velleius' statement, that the site of the Porticus Octaviae had formerly been occupied by a Porticus erected by Metellus, is clear, and adequately confirmed elsewhere. Less clear is what he says about the two temples, which we know from other evidence to have been dedicated to Juppiter Stator and Juno Regina.
1 Illustrated in Lugli, Roma Antica: Il Centro Monumentale (1946), pp. 562 ff.; see also Marchetti-Longhi, in Rend. Pont. Acc. Arch. xx (1943–1944), p. 86Google Scholar.
2 Velleius 1, 11, 3 ff., ≺huiusy≻ inserted by Ruhnken; cf. Livy 6, 4, 12.
3 See e.g. Pliny 34, 31 (a statue of Cornelia erected ‘in Metelli publica porticu, quae statua nunc est in Octaviae operibus’).
4 See passages cited in n. 10. For Regina as the culttitle of Juno in her temple in the Porticus, see pp. 154 f.
5 See e.g. Platner-Ashby, p. 304; Lugli, op. cit. p. 565; Castagnoli, in Mem. Acc. Linc. 8, i (1948), pp. 164, 166Google Scholar. Platner-Ashby, l.c., after referring to Velleius, cite as further justification for ascribing the temple of Juppiter to Metellus ‘aedes Iovis Metellina (Festus 363)’ (sic). As the page-reference shows, they are using Müller's 1839 ed. of Festus. The correct reading is in aede Iovis Metellinae (sc. porticus, which was frequently omitted): see Lindsay's ed. (Teubner (1913), p. 496; Gloss. Lat. IV, p. 451). Castagnoli, l.c., still quotes the text in Müller's version (as given by Platner-Ashby).
6 Varro, R.R. 3, 5, 12 f.; Cicero, de domo 102, 114, 116; ad Att. 4, 2, 5. I hope to discuss this question in greater detail elsewhere.
7 Varro, de L.L. 8, 71.
8 Pliny 36, 40. In the last sentence of section 40 Pliny clearly indicates that his knowledge of Pasiteles is entirely second-hand. He has cited Varro by name just before the words quoted, and does so again a few lines below. Varro is likewise his authority on Pasiteles in the very similar context 35, 155 f.
9 Cf. Asconius, in or. in tog. cand., p. 90 (81) (of the temple of Apollo which abutted on the Porticus).
10 Cf. Vitruvius 3, 2, 5 ‘in porticu Metelli Iovis Statoris’; Festus l.c. (n. 5); Pliny 36, 35 ‘intra Octaviae vero porticus aedem Iunonis’; 36, 24 ‘intra Octaviae porticus in Iunonis aede’. Varro himself did, however, elsewhere refer to the position of the temple of Juppiter, without explicitly mentioning the Porticus: ‘Varro libro octavo rerum divinarum delubrum ait alios aestimare in quo praeter aedem sit area adsumpta deum causa, ut est in circo Flaminio Iovis Statoris’ (Macrobius 3, 4, 1; cf. Servius auctus, Aen. 2, 225). There he was presumably treating the area, and the porticus which bounded it, as parts of the delubrum, and for that reason made no explicit mention of the Porticus, cf. App. Prob. (Gramm. Lat. (ed. Keil, H.) iv, 202Google Scholar): ‘“delubra” vero aream cum porticibus demonstrat.’
11 Pliny 36, 35: ‘intra Octaviae vero porticus aedem Iunonis ipsam deam Dionysius et Polycles aliam … idem Polycles et Dionysius, Timarchidis filii, Iovem, quiest in proxima aede, fecerunt’. For the dating of Dionysius and Polycles, see p. 156. Pliny says that Pasiteles was active ‘Magni Pompei aetate’ and that he received the citizenship in 90 or 89 B.C. (33, 130, 156; 36, 40).
Pace Brunn, (Gr. Künstler i, pp. 415 ff.Google Scholar) and Lippold (Handbuch d. Arch., Lfg. 5, p. 367, n. 1; but see R.-E. xviii.4, 2087, 54), the mention of the Porticus of Octavia in Pliny 36, 35 (above) shows that Pliny's statements there, if not the result of his own observation, at least come from a source later than Octavia's reconstruction—thus making it impossible to suppose that Pasiteles' statue replaced that of Dionysius and Polycles as the cult-statue of Juppiter at the time of the reconstruction.
12 Cf. Sallust., Bell. Cat. 9, 2.
13 2, 1, 2.
14 Obsequens 18: ‘turbinis vi in Campo columna ante aedem lovis decussa’.
15 See Vitruvius 1,2, 5: ‘Iovi Fulguri et Caelo et Soli et Lunae aedificia sub divo hypaethraque constituentur’. For temples of Juppiter at Rome, see Platner-Ashby, s.v.; Wissowa, Rel. u. Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), pp. 594 ff. There was probably only one sanctuary of Juppiter Fulgur there (cf. Aust in Roscher, , Lexikon ii, 656Google Scholar; Wissowa, op. cit. pp. 121 f.).
16 Vitruvius 3,2,5 (H reads hermodi, but no Hermod(i)us is otherwise known; Hermodori is Turnebus' emendation).
17 Nepos ap. Priscian 8, 17, p. 383, 4H: ‘Aedis Martis est in circo Flaminio architectata ab Hermodoro Salaminio’; see also Pliny 36, 26; Brunn, , Gr. Künstler ii, p. 241Google Scholar.
18 Livy 40, 52, 2 f.. cf. 39, 2, 11; 3, 54, 15; 63, 7; Saec., Acta Lud. (CIL vi, 32323Google Scholar) 156, where the ‘Circus Flaminius’ clearly does not include the Theatre of Pompey. In the fourth-century Regionaries ‘Circus Flaminius’ is the name given to the whole of Augustus' IX th Region: Jordan, , Top. ii, p. 554Google Scholar). For the location of the temple of Apollo, see e.g. Lugli, op. cit. pp. 536 ff.; Platner-Ashby, s.v.; for attempts to duplicate it, see du Jardin, in Rend. Pont. Acc. Arch. viii (1931–1932), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar; Marchetti-Longhi, ibid. xx (1943–4), pp. 387 ff.
19 It has been customary to distinguish between Lepidus' temple of Juno and that in the Porticus. For example, Becker, (Röm. Alt. i, p. 618Google Scholar), wrongly assuming that Obsequens 16 (‘porticus inter aedem lunonis Reginae et Fortunae’) implies the existence of a temple of Fortuna side-by-side with Lepidus' temple, goes on to argue that there would not have been room for such a temple on either side of the temple of Juno subsequently enclosed in the Porticus of Metellus. Roscher, (Lexikon ii, i, 601, 603Google Scholar) wrongly inferred from Livy 40, 52, 1 ff. that Lepidus' temple of Juno must have been near a temple of Diana. (cf. also Richter, , Top. ii, p. 218Google Scholar; Jordan-Hülsen, , Top. i, 3, pp. 538 f.Google Scholar; Wissowa, Rel. u. Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), p. 190; Thulin, in R.-E. x, 1120Google Scholar; Platner-Ashby, pp. 290, 304; Marchetti-Longhi, op. cit., pp. 436 ff.). Lepidus' temple of Juno and that in the Porticus are identified by Aust, Lugli, and Castagnoli.
20 Livy 40, 52, 2 f.
21 Livy 40, 51, 3. The site of this (temporary) theatre would, in this reference to the contract for its erection, have to be indicated by the words ad Apollinis, rather than by ad Iunonis, because, at the time, the temple of Juno was not yet in existence or, at least, not dedicated.
22 Not. d. Scavi (1921), P. 120: ‘Dian(ae) Iunon(i) R(eginae) in Camp(o) Tempe(statibus)’; cf. Castagnoli, in Mem. Acc. Linc. 8, i (1948), pp. 115, 165Google Scholar. I hope to discuss elsewhere the question of the relationship between the terms in Campo and in Circo Flaminio (or ad Circum Flaminium).
23 See Livy 40, 52,1 ff. This (with 39, 2, 8) is the only other record of a shrine of Diana in the IXth Region: see Platner-Ashby s. v. ‘Diana’. The anniversary of the Lares Permarini, also dedicated by Lepidus in 179, was celebrated either one or two days before (Fast. Praen.; Macrobius 1, 10, 10; Fast. Ant. Vet.).
24 Forma Urbis frg. 33; Eumenius, pro instaurandis scholis (Panegyrici Latini V) 7, 3; cf. Macrobius 1, 12, 16.
25 See Livy 40, 51, 6, where Fulvius in 179 commissions a ‘porticus … ad fanum Herculis’. It is natural to suppose that this fanum Herculis was his own temple of Hercules Musarum. Apart from this Porticus and the possible Porticus ‘<ad> aedem Apollinis Medici’ (Livy ibid.), we know of no Porticus in the neighbourhood of the Circus Flaminius in existence in 156, other than the Porticus Octavia (sic); and, if it had been this last which was struck by lightning, Obsequens would presumably have called it by its name. The temple of Fortuna mentioned by Obsequens is presumably that of Fortuna Equestris, dedicated by Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 173 B.C. (Livy 42, 3; 42, 10, 5) ‘ad theatrum lapideum’ (Vitruvius 3, 3, 2), which, pace Platner-Ashby, must be the Theatre of Marcellus, not that of Pompey—Vitruvius draws a sharp distinction between stone and marble (5, 5, 7; 5, 3, 3; cf. Pliny 36, 45; Isidorus, , Etym. 16, 5, 1Google Scholar) and the theatre of Pompey was known as ‘Theatrum marmoreum’ (Fast. Amit. 12th Aug.) cf. Castagnoli, op. cit., p. 167.
26 Arrian, Anabasis 1, 16, 4.
27 Velleius 2, 1, 1 f.; 2, 3, 1. Modern authorities give dates ranging from 149 to 146 B.C. for the building activities—real or alleged—of Metellus. None of these have any solid basis. 149 B.C., which Roscher, (Lexikon ii, 1, 603Google Scholar) gives for the temple of Juno and which Castagnoli (op. cit., p. 164) gives for the temple of Juppiter and for the Porticus, is based on a misunderstanding of Velleius' use of the pluperfect fecerat in the passage quoted above, from which it is inferred that Metellus' building-activities had preceded his defeat of Andriscus in 148. In reality, the pluperfect is used with reference to fuerunt circumdatae (for which cf. Pliny 36, 39 (sitae fuere) together with 34, 69). It is noticeable that when Velleius speaks of Metellus' transportation of the equestrian statues, which were still in situ, he changes to the perfect detulit.
28 See n. 11 (Idem Polycles et Dionysius is found only in the Bambergensis).
29 Διονύσιοϛ Τιμαρχίδου καὶ τιμρχίδηϛ Πολυκλέουϛ Ἀθηναïοι ἐποίησαν (quoted here from Robert in Hermes xix (1886), p. 304Google Scholar); cf. Lippold, op. cit. (n. 11), pp. 366 ff.
30 Hatzfeld, in B.C.H. xxxvi (1912), pp. 110 ffGoogle Scholar.
31 Which was, in the time of Ovid (Fasti 6,793 f.), 27th June. Since there is no evidence of an Augustan restoration of the Palatine temple, this was presumably its anniversary under the republic as well.
32 See Vitruvius 3, 2, 5. For the date of the de architectura, see 5, 1, 7 (‘pronaus aedis Augusti’); cf. also Pellatti, in Atti del III Congresso di St. Rom. i, pp. 48 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also n. 40.
33 Dio 49, 43; cf. Festus 188 (‘Octaviae porticus duae appellantur …’); also’ Jordan-Hülsen, , Top. i, 3, p. 489 n. 51, p. 541Google Scholar. See also Velleius 2, 1, 2; Res gestae 19; Appian, Ill. 28.
34 Pliny 35, 114; 36, 22; 36, 28 f.
35 Plut., Marc. 30; Dio 49, 43; Suetonius, de gram. 21; and the inscriptions cited in n. 39.
36 Dio 55, 8, 1; cf. Josephus, , B.J. 7, 4Google Scholar.
37 CIL i, pp. 252, 339. It is impossible to determine what the new anniversary was. There was an offering of some kind to Apollo ‘ad theatrum Marcelli’ on 23rd Sept. (Fast. Arv.), but it is open to question whether this celebrated the anniversary of the temple. On the same day there were offerings to Mars and Neptunus (‘in Campo’), and it would be too much of a coincidence to have the anniversaries of temples of all three Di Actiaci (Suetonius, , Div. Aug. 18, 2Google Scholar) occurring together on Augustus' birthday. For examples of offerings indicated in the Fasti in the form normally used for natales, but not in fact celebrating natales, see Wissowa, Rel. u. Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), p. 475, n. 1.
38 Festus 188; Plut. Marc. 30; Dio 49, 43; Suetonius, Div. Aug. 29, 4Google Scholar; de gram. 21.
39 CIL vi, 4431–3; 4435; 4461. For other references to employees at the Porticus see ibid. 5192; 2348; 8708.
40 Dio 43, 49, 2; 53, 30, 5; Saec., Acta Lud. (CIL vi, 32323Google Scholar) 156 (‘(i)n thea(tro quod est) in circo Flaminio’); Dio 54, 26, 1 (13 B.C.); Pliny 8, 6; (11 B.C.). On the assumption that the Porticus of Octavia was erected soon after the death of Marcellus, it has been maintained that 23 B.C. is the approximate terminus ante quem for the composition of Vitruvius' de architectura (Degering in Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift (1907), 1374; Schanz-Hosius, , Röm. Lit.-Gesch. ii, p. 388Google Scholar). But the assumption is, as indicated, without foundation.
41 36, 42 f.
42 For surviving traces of marble-construction, see Lugli, op. cit. pp. 562 ff.
43 Velleius, l.c. (p. 152); cf. Platner-Ashby p. 304 ‘a temple in Rome entirely of marble’; Aust in Roscher, , Lexikon ii, 1, 684Google Scholar; Jordan-Hülsen, , Top. iii, 1, pp. 538 f.Google Scholar; Frank, Tenney in C.A.H. viii p. 385Google Scholar. Yet Virgil makes Aeneas emphasise, as something remarkable, the fact that the Palatine temple of Apollo was to be of solid marble (Aen. 6, 69 f.). Another Augustan temple of solid marble was that of Juppiter Tonans (Pliny 36, 50).
44 Livy 42, 3; Val. Max. 1, 1, 20.
45 Pliny 36, 4–7; 17, 6; 36, 50, 114, 48. In the first passage, Pliny is speaking of the bringing in of marble by sea. For the bringing in by sea of the Carrara marble of Luna, the chief Italian marble used at Rome, see Strabo 5, 2, 5; cf. Blake, , Ancient Roman Construction, Washington (1947), p. 53 and n. 23Google Scholar. In any case imported foreign marble was in use at Rome earlier than Italian marble (see Boethius, in Dragma Nilsson (Acta Instituti Regni Sueciae ii, 1939), p. 129Google Scholar; cf. Perkins, Ward in J.R.S. xli (1951), pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar).
46 Pliny himself may have been vague about the history of the Porticus Metelli (e.g. in 34, 31 he speaks of a statue of Cornelia put up ‘in Metelli publica porticu, quae statua nunc est in Octaviae operibus’), but Nepos, to whom Münzer (Beiträge z. Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte (1897), pp. 327 ff.) ascribes the passages of Pliny quoted in note 45, was certainly acquainted with some of the work of Hermodorus, architect of the temple of Juppiter in the Porticus (see n. 17); and Varro, who heads the list of authorities in the index to book 36 of Pliny, was familiar with the Porticus itself (see supra pp. 152 f. and n. 10).
47 He wrote his History for Vinicius, on his elevation to the consulship (A.D. 30).
48 Ovid, , Ars Am. i, 70Google Scholar; cf. Pliny 34, 31; 35, 114, 139; 36, 15, 22, 24, 28 f., 35.
49 For the Porticus Metelli as an ‘Art Gallery’, see Cic., , ii Verr. 4, 126Google Scholar.
50 Cf. n. 46.
51 Vitruvius 3, 2, 5; Forma Urbis frg. 33 (cf. Aust in Roscher, , Lexikon ii, 1, 685Google Scholar; Brunn, , Gr. Künstler ii, p. 241Google Scholar). The Forma shows the temple of Juppiter to the right as one entered through the propylaeum.
52 Dio 66, 24 (the reference to the Library shows that the Porticus Octaviae and not the Porticus Octavia is intended).
53 Suetonius, Dom. 20 (Domitian's restoration at the beginning of his reign of ‘bibliothecas incendio absumptas’).
54 CIL vi, 1034. For parallels to the suggested history of the inscriptions, cf. the substitution of the name of Clodius for that of Catulus on the porticus Catuli (Cic., de domo 137); and the ascription of Fulvius Nobilior's temple of Hercules to Philippus, who had, in fact, erected a Porticus round it (Suetonius, , Div. Aug. 29, 5Google Scholar; Ovid, , Fasti 6, 802Google Scholar).
