The Architecture of the Forum of Pompeii
!"ì, ã. sa¡ -}lo
The Architecture of the Forum of Pompeii
By Paul Horrocks
Volume I
Ph.D. Thesis Presented to the Department of Archítecture of the
University of Adelaide June 1998, as Amended February 2000 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS 8
DECLARATION T2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS t4 l.INTRODUCTION 18 1.1 hvrnooucrroN t9 1.2 ANcrevr Vrsrrons I9 1.3 Trm N¡runp or U¡uvens¡r AncHrscrTiRAL Arsrmucs 2t 1.4 U¡uvsns¡- Ansrmrlcs: AN Anr-Flsroruclr Coucspr 2s 1.5 Tm Pnonlpvr wrnr Nerunal-zATloN 30 1.6 AncmrBcrTJRAL Apsrmrlcs Cs¡Nce 30 1.7 Rrvr'øn¡c ruB ANcmn'r Vlsnon 31 1.8 Norn oN SrvrB 3T 1.9 Coxcr.ustoN 32
2. POMPEIAN WALL PAINTINGS ANI) ARCHITECTURE JJ 2. 1 Tw ENcul-run¡.r¡o ANcmlrr OsspnvEn 34 2.2 AN ANcmvr PolærIeN Ancrrecrunru- Arsrrmrtc 34 2.3 Vrsu¡r Arcs 36 2.4 Corwosso Vnws 39 2.5 Trc CnBerroN or VIsu¡r- A;cs ¿N¡ Cotnæosen Vmws 44 2.6 Corwosno VrBws ¡¡lo UNlveRs¡r Assrrßrrcs . . . 45 2.7 Vmws rN AncrurecruRE ¡tto Vy'erl P¡rvrnvcs 47 2.8 CorwosBo Vmws eNo PotpBIAN WALL PeT¡rrrNcs 49 2.9 Tw Ex-rr.¡Ncs Vmw rN rm Cesl DELLA C¡.ccn ANTIcA Covpensr Wmr Wal-l ParvrrNcs 49 2.10 Tw Vmw Fnou rm Tnrcnvruu IN Tm C¡s¿' ot Ocr¿r¿rus Quenrro Cotw¡npo wtrH Wel,l PenrnNcs 51 2.71TrnEn-rn¡Ncn Vmw rN rm Casn oI M. Puprus Ru¡us Colæenrn Wmr Werr PuvrrNcs 53 2.I2Tw CoNcrrnwcB BBTwBBN ffi AsovE Vrews ¡wo Vy'¡rl P¿rvrnvcs 54 2.13 AN E>cr,nNertou FoR THE CoNcnuelrcr BnrwBBN Wan P¿,rvrr¡¡cs ¡No CotwosBo Vmws 55 2.14 AncrurscruRAl E>eBnnNcB ru ANcrBvr Potwu 55 2.15 Vrsu¡L Atcs, Cotnæosnt Vmws ¡Np Rotvt¡N Pusl-tc AncgrrscruRE 56 2.16Tlm Ancrurec'ruR¡L F{lsronv oF rm VBspesmmc TBtnpI-e 57 2.17 TwFonu or rm Vpsp¡su¡uc TBt'pI-B 58 2.18 Tm Vlsu¡r Alas nI rm Vsspesl¡Ntc Tpt"pl-s 60 2.79 Tw Colwoseo Vmw nI rm V¡sp¡.sn¡uc TnIøE . . . . . 6I J
2.20 Cow¿rusoN wlrll Dowsrtc Prerwruc 62 2.21 Corw¡rusoN oF rm Coræossn VIEw wmr Trmo Srns W¡rr ParvrrNcs 63 2.22 Co¡',ppatsoN oF rrm Corvposen VlEw WITH A Morr ANcm¡rr Pux-rwc 65 2.23 CornæerusoN oF rnr CorwosBn Vmw wrrs Founrs Srvr-B W¿r,r, Pnrvrwcs 66 2.24 Tw R-B-TNTSRpRETATIoN or PolæeI¡N Brn-or¡lcs 67 2.25 Ttæ DesIcl.I oF TIIE Fonuvt on Polæel 69 2.26 CoNcr.usrot¡ 70
3. THE WEDGE SHAPE IN THE PLAN OF THR EUMACHIABUILDING ... 7l 3.1 Tne Euvecrue BunprNc 72 3.2Tw AncnrrBcrun¡r FLsronv oF Tm Euuecrue BunorNlc 73 3.3 Tm R¡coNsrnucrloN oF Tm Euv¡csrn Bunonrc sv MAU 75 3.4 Ormn Srnucrunrs wrrn WBpcp-Srnpeo Pl¿rvs 75 3.5 Tm Supposen IvrnNrtox on Wnocn-SH¡p¡o PI-aNs: Tm Co¡¡ceALNßNr or hsonnrocoNAllTY 78 3.6 Tne Exrn¡¡¡cs Vmw r¡q rm Eururecru¡. Bunor¡¡c ...... 79 3.7 TwEvrn¡Nc¡ Vnw on rm Euvecrue CotweneD wITI{ Wru-r P¡.n¡'n¡¡cs 80 3.8 Tm Fecere oF rHE Euv¡crul ButlorNc 82 3.9 Tm F¿c¡oB oF Tm EuvncrueBuntIxc Cotwen¡o wtrn Werr Perx'rr¡lcs 83 3.10 Tm Asvmr,ærrucer Vmw Trnoucu rm Euvecru¡ Bunprxc 85 3.11 Corw¡,rusoN oF rm Vmw TrnoucH rm DoonwAY wrrrl Asvlnnmrnrcel- Vmws r¡,r Vy'ALI- P¡rvrrNcs 86 3.l2Tw Two Vrews IN THE Eur¡ecmeBunomc 88 3.13 Co¡¡clusrox 90
4. SYMMETRICAL PLANNING AND THE MACELLT]M 9l 4.1 Svr'nræTRIcAL Pr¡N¡¡rNc nr RoMAN AncurecrunB . . . . 92 4.2T:m Suppossn Er¡ecr or Svt',nr,mrmcer Pm¡nn¡.rc: A Svm,mrrucer Vmw DowN rm A¡cs 93 4.3 Tm Nor.¡-A>anr Vmws Ttnoucu rrn MncBLrur¡ 95 4.4 Tsn Ancsrrpcruur FLsronv oF Tm MecBI-I-rru . . . . . 96 4.5 Tm DelmBner¡ CnBnnoN or Asvlunmrmcel, Vmws 98 4.6 Trm CBr.rrn¡r Vrew o¡ rm Doonwnvs Cotnp¡n¡D wITH Sscoun SrnB W¡I-l P¡'r¡rn¡¡cs .98 4.7 Tw CBNrnar Vmw on rm Doonwlvs CoNæeneo wrrH Trm.¡ Srrr.e Wen P¿,r¡¡rrNc 99 4.8 Tm Csrvrn¡r Vmw or rrm Doonwevs Cotw¡nso wlTH Founnr Srnn W¡ll PAnì"m.rcs 100 4.9 Tm Asvm,mrnrc¡r Vrews Trnoucn rræ Doonw¡'vs 101 4.10 Trm Asvrnnærnrc¡r Vmws Trnoucn rm Doonw¡vs Covrpenpo wmr Trmo Srne W¡I-l PerN-rNcs 101 4
4.11 Trm Asvlnwmrrucru- Vmws Trnoucs rrre Doonw.lvs ColænnBn wrrn Founrn Srn e W¡t PenrrrNcs 102 4.12 Mrnnon IN¡¡.ce P¡-ns or Vrsws rN Tnrno Srvr.B Werl Pnr¡¡-rNc r02 4.13 Mmnon Il{acs P¡rns or Vmws rN Founrn Srvre Wnrr- P¡rnrwcs 103 4.14 Svr'nmrRIcAL Pt Æ.rNrNc UsBn ro CnBlrs eN Asvlnmrrucar- Pen op ENrne¡qcB Vmws t04 4.15 CoNcr-usro¡¡ 104
5. SYMMETRICAL PLANNING AND THT', EUMACHIA BUILDING . 106 5.1 Svrwr,mrrucer PleN¡uNG AND Axru Pnrsw¡vs 107 5.2Tm Srtr,nr,mrruclrlv PlemrBo Pomcus oF Tm Euulctu¡ Bunon¡c t12 5.3 Tm Ancrurecrun¡r Fllsronv oF TI{E Euuecrrre Butorxc 113 5.4 Tm Vmw rnolrl rræ En-rn¡NcB tt4 5.5 Tm Vmw molvt rrm E¡rrnANcE CoIræ¡,nBo wrm Wen PervrrNcs t14 5.6 Tm Vmw r"nou rm RB¡n Al,'mul-¡ronv 115 5.7 Tm Vmw rnolrt rm Reen Amweronv Cot',æ¡nso wrtH Wnrr PuNrr¡qcs 115 5.8 NoN-A>a¡r VrewrNc Por¡rrs: THe VIEws FRoM rm EesrBnN Enos op rm AwUIAToRIES rl6 5.9 Tm Two Wmoows 118 5.10 Tm Euruecrue Sr¡.rue 118 5.11 Tne Slos SteruEs IN rm CB¡rrner B¡.v 119 5.12 Tw Torru- Vrew 119 5.13 Cornæ¡nrsoN oF rm Vnws oF TI{E Cunv¡n B¡vs wrm V/er-l P¡rwrrNcs 119 5.14 Cornp¡rusoN oF rm Vmws oF TIIE Euuecru¡. SreruB wrs Wer-l P¡rnrnvcs 121 5.15 CornæmrsoN oF rrn Vmws oF TI{E SIoB SreruBS IN TI{E Cp¡¡-rnn- Bev wmr W¡rr, P¡.rNrrNcs t23 5.16 ColæosITIoN oF TFIE Tor¡r Vrews Colæenrp wrrn Wlrl PervnNcs t25 5.17 Tm OeLteuE Vnw rRotr,t üm FonuM t27 5.18 Trn OsLreuE Vnw mou rm Fonur¿ Colpen¡o wrrn Founnr SryI-B W¡lr P¡rvrrxcs r28 5.19 Tm Vmws IN TTIE Eutvncln Bul-orxc t29 5.20 Tm VIews Do Nor Fonu m¡ A¡o¡r Pnrswlv t29 5.21 CoIvæ¡nrsoN wrrr{ PoLæsIAN HousBs 130 5.22 Cor.roustoN 131
6. THE COLONNADES . r32 6.1 Tm Suppospn U¡¡rrrrNc ¡¡lo CoNcBALING FuNcuoN or' CoI-owNADBS . . . 1,33 6.2TtæLrcr or Uurrv oF TI{E Pot'æBI¡N Fonuu Coroxxeons t37 6.3 Tm IlrcoNæI-BTENEss oF Tm ANcmvr Colo¡l¡¡¡lps . . . . . 138 5
6.4 Tm Drsp¡n¡re Nnrunp oF TFIE Colomq¡¡Es nr rm Tnrm oF Tm EnwrIoN 139 6.5 Tm Fentrne oF TIIE CoI-ouNnoB oF Tm Euuecrne BunnrNc ro CoNcn¡r rm F¡.c¿oe BeHnID r40 6.6 Tm ANcnvr Vmwnn AND TuE CoLox¡¡¡oB oF TIIE Euvecm¿. Bun-onqc r4t 6.7 Vrews or CorolrNADES IN PotnæBt¡N HousBs t4t 6.8 Tm Deprcrrot{ op Cot oUNADES IN W¡n Pnrxrrxcs 142 6.9 Tm FLsronv oF TIIE Cnru.cucuvt oF THE Eur¡acrua Bunonqc t44 6.10 A Vrew op rns CoI-oNNADE oF rm Euvecmn Butlotxc corrp¿nsn wrs wrul Pnr¡¡flwcs 146 6.1I Tm F¡n-unB oF TIIE CoLoñ{ADn oF Træ Mecnnuv ro CoNcB¡r rm Fec¡oe BBru¡ro t47 6.l2Tw AncmrBcrun¡r FLsronv oF rI{E Cuercucuu or' rrm MecBr.r-uvr t49 6. 13 Tm Vmw op rrm Meceln¡u 150 6.14 Coxcr-usrolr ts4
7. THF' FORUM OF POMPEtr . 155 7.1 In-rnooucrToN r56 7.2T:m Forurv or Polpen 157 7.3 Tw INrewrIoNs Benrxp rnB DBsIcN oF TnE Fonuvt 159 7.4Tlm DoIr,nNIertoN oF TÉIE Fonuu BY Tm Tslæle or Juptrnn 160 7.5 Ur.r¡rcertoN Trm.oucu Ax¡ltrv t6l 7.6 UNnnNc Colow¡¡¡oes 165 7.7 Excr,osunB t67 7.8 Ur.urv Trnoucu Gn,lou¡r, AcQutslnoN 168 7.9 Tw VIsw o¡ Ttm TBtwI-s or Juprsn 170 7.10 Tm Crno¡lolocv oF THE TBtwLr op Juprren AND TI{E Fr-eurr¡rc Ancms t7l 7.ll Tw Vmw or rne TBN'PIB on JuptrBn AND TTIE FLeurrNc Ancrms CorwenBn wrru W¡ll P¡rNrrxcs t72 7.l2Tw Colotwnoss oN Etrræn SnB op rne TnN,PI-e t75 7.13 Tm Vnw op rm Fonuu 177 7.l4Tm Crnoxor,ocv oF Trm Moxurmvrs AT THE SoumnnN ENrD or rm Fomrv 178 7.15 Tm CrnoNor-ocv oF TIIE Blcrcnou¡l¡ CorolrNeoes . . . 179 7.16 Tm Crno¡¡olocv oF rm Mu¡ucpel- Bunonqcs 182 7.17 Twe Vmw or rm SounmnN Mouurnmn-rs oF THE Forurv: Fnsr PrnsB 183 7.18 Tm Vmw op rrm SorrnænN Mowuwvrs oF rHE Fonuv: SBco¡o Puesn 183 7.I9 Tw Vmw or rrm SoumnnN Mou-nnævrs oF Tm Fonuu: Trmo Ps¡se 184 7.20 Covp¡rusoN oF rm Vmw oF Tm SotmmnN E¡ro or rm Fonuu wmr Tnno Srvm Wru,l PlrNrrNcs 185 7.21 Cor'p¡rusoN oF rns Vmw oF TrIE SounnnN EN¡ o¡ rm Foruwr wrrn Founrn Srnn Wnn P¡r¡¡-rnqcs 187 6
7.22Tw TBIære or Juplr¡n DID Nor Dot',txer¡ rm Fonuv t92 7.23 TwNoN-Ax¿,1- Vmws FRoM THE Mtr¡tIcp¡t Bun-orNcs t92 7.24 CotrtntsoN oF rrm Ann¡r.rcernmNT oF THE CoI-uvms OtnsnB næ MuxIcrp¡r Bunnr¡¡cs WITTI Dotnæsrlc Ex¡tnpL¡s 196 7.25 Tt+s Vmws FRoM THE Mu¡ucpar Bunorxcs Cotr,pnnro wmr Trm,o SrvrB'W,qrl P¡rNrr¡¡cs 198 7. 26 Asvrr,n mrRIcALLY Colposet LlI.loscnpp Vmws 200 7.27 AsvtøTTRIcAL Ancrurrcrune wITI{rN LeNDsAPe Vnws 201
7.28 Asvrwr,mrrueL Colt-wn¡m Sntucrunrs . . . . 202 7.29 RBcBssroN, SurennæoslTloN ¡Nn Asvrunmrnv es Morms rN W¿t- P¡rvrrNc Upppn ZoNes 204 7.30 Dnrcruv Cotw¡nmrp Vmws nq WeLr P¡rNrrNcs 209 7.31T:m Vmw mou rrm Mu¡ucp¡r BunorNcs Colæ¡n¡o wrru FounrH SrvLe Wru.l Pm.rrrxcs 2t0 7.32Ywruu- Mnnon lvrecB Pens or Vmws 2tl 7.33 L¡venrNc, PRoncnou, R-ecnssIoN ¡¡qn Colwrex Corwostrlox . 212 7.34 Tw Vtsws FRoM THE Muttlcp¡r BunorNcs CotwenBo wrrs Vrrws rN PolpuRN Hous¡s 2t8 7.35 Tm Vrew ¡nou nrp Wnsr¡nN Mutucper, BunorNc ¡¡ro rm IlrrsN-rroN Bnrn'lo nm Fontnrl CoI-ox¡¡¡oes . . . 222 7.36 Corw¡rusoN oF ïre Vmw FRoM THE Wnsr¡n¡¡ Mu¡ucper Bunnrxc wrrs W¡r.r PerNrr¡lcs 224 7.37 Mtnn-Levenpo Vmws R¡rrmn TueN Ewct osING ScnseNs 226 7.38 Unrrv rN rm Fonuu or PolæBIt 227 7.39 Tw Use or EI-Bwwrs r¡q Srven¡r DI¡¡SRENT Vnws . . . 228 7.40 CoNcr.usroN 230
8. ARCHITECTT]RE AND I]RBAN DESIGN IN ANTIQUITY 231 8.1 Trn CH¡n¡cren oF TTIE Ancsrr¡crunn oF TI{E Fonuu or Poupeu 232 8.2 Tne E¡¡cwrunereo OnsenvEn 234 8.3 Tm Fhsronv oF rHE RnLertoussp BnrwnBu Ancrurecrunn ¡¡io Pm¡¡rrNc . . . 242 8.4 AncmecruRAI- Morms oN VesBs 244 8.5 Pervrr¡¡c AND Ancrrr¡crunB nr FoURTH Cnvrunv MrcproNt¡. . 250 8.6 ArnxnwoRlA AND PBrn¡. . 253 8.7 Sur"n,ranv oF TIIE ÉLsronv oF TTm R-eleuoxsrup BBrwnnu Pervrr¡¡c ewo AncmrecflJRE 2s8 8.8 Tne ErpBcr oF Tm R¡llrto¡¡srm BBrwBsN Prunrr¡¡c ¡No AncrurBcrun¡ 259 8.9 WBocB PLeNNso SrnucrunBs 262 8.10 Tm Fonuu on Tne¡eN rN Rot'm 264 8.11 Trm TeNffLr op Juprren er Be¡repr 269 8.12 CoNcr.usroN 275 7
9. CONCLUSIONS 277 9.1 Srnn¡env 278 9.2 UnsAN DssIcr.{ IN Avrteurv 279 9.3 Coxcr-usroN 282
LIST OF FIGTIRES AND PLANS 284
BIBLIOGRAPHY . 315 8
Synopsis 9
This thesis investigates the architectural and urban design of the precinct of the Forum of Pompeii. It demonstrates the falsity of the assumption made by many scholars that there are irurate spatial
cues which throughout history have guided both architects in their
designs and the general population in their response to the resultant
buildings. Such an assumption has allowed these scholars to believe
that they can reconstruct ancient people's experience of architecture
and the motivation of the architects by careful analysis of their own
responses to ancient buildings. This thesis shows that this assumption
is contestable given its basis in unproven and untested late nineteenth
century theories of perception. This thesis further demonstrates that
the suposition, made on the basis of the assumed universality of
architectural aesthetics, that the architects of the Forum of Pompeii
were primarily concerned with uniformly enclosed space, axial
symmetry, and orthogonality is wrong. The supposed primacy of these
concerns is contradicted by the actual form ofthe buildings and spaces
that make up the Forum of Pompeii.
This thesis proposes a method for the reconstruction of the
system of aesthetics which motivated the architects of ancient
Pompeii, and guided the general population in their experience of the
buildings around the Forum. This method is based on an
extrapolation of what is known of domestic architectural design in
Pompeii, coupled with an investigation into the way architecture was
depicted in Pompeian wall paintings. It is noted that in the last phase
of ancient Pompeii many houses were designed around visual axes,
which created composed views from key viewing points. It is further
noted that these composed views closely resembled numerous
architectural scenes in Pompeian wall paintings. It is proposed that,
given the constant exposure of ancient Pompeians to these composed 10 architectural views, both built and painted, the forms of such views would have guided the way that they perceived architecture through a process of enculturation. Thus this indicates a way to examine
Pompeian buildings which is consistent with first century AD
Pompeian visual taste. In this method buildings around the Forum of
Pompeii are looked at from similar viewpoints to those created for viewing composed views and architectural scenes in wall paintings. It is clear that the same pictorial effects appear in the resulting views of the buildings around the Forum as appear in domestic composed views and in painted scenes. These pictorial effects are often contradictory to the spatial intuitions of modern scholars. Asymmetry, multilayering, and openings to more distant vistas are common features in contrast to the supposed predominance of symmetry, orthogonality and spatial enclosure.
Initial research points to the existence of compositions and pictorial effects similar to those found at Pompeii in depictions of architecture in Hellenistic art from the fourth century BC onward; and to the emergence of a congruence between painting and architecture in the early Hellenistic period. Examination of structures at other sites shows that the traditional interpretations of Roman architecture based on the spatial intuitions of modern scholars are in conflict with the actual form of the buildings concerned. Comparison between views of these structures and scenes in wall paintings and wall mosaics again shows the appearance of various pictorial effects common to both the real architecture and to the architectural depictions. This suggests that a close relationship between painting and architecture was not confined solely to Pompeii. Rather it had its origins in Hellenistic art and architecture, and was thus part of a wider Roman architecfural culture. Depictions of architecture could thus be used as a guide to the 11 examination of a great deal of the architecture and urban design of the
Roman world. 12
Declaration 13
I, the undersigned, declare that the work contained in this thesrs derives from my original research and does not contain any work done by any other person except where due reference has been made.
I also declare that I am willing to make the copy of my thesis deposited in the Barr Smith Library of the University of Adelaide available to scholars for loan and for photocopying within reasonable limits.
'?W--t*-Jø &Vt It?oeo
Paul Horrocks 14
Acknowledgements 15
There are many people who have helped me with this thesis that I wish to thank. My supervisors, Frank Sear, formerly of the
University of Adelaide, and now Professor of Classics at the
University of Melbourne, and ZigKapelis formerly of the Department
of Architecture of the University of Adelaide, especially deserve my
gratitude. Frank Sear suggested that I investigate the Forum of
Pompeii, and provided me with an opportunity to conduct field work
there as part of the Australian Expedition to Pompeii when he was
co-director. Both he and ZigKapelis, provided invaluable assistance
and advice when I was working in the field.
While undertaking my work for this thesis I was supported by
the Departments of Architecture and of Classics of the University of
Adelaide. Particular reference must be made to the assistance given to
me to resolve administrative problems by Judith Brine, formerly of the
University of Adelaide and now Professor of Architecture of Canberra
University, and by Robert Ussher, formerly Professor of Classics of
the University of Adelaide. I am also grateful for the support given to
me by Anthony Radford, Professor of Architecture of the University of
Adelaide, Terry Williamsom, the head of that department, and Susan
Caldicott, the former head, the Associate Professor John Brine, and
Anne Geddes, the head of the Department of Classics of the University
of Adelaide, who also assisted me in the f,reld. The departmental
secretaries of the Department of Architecture, Dinah Ayers, and of the
Department of Classics, Gillian Bartlett, also gave me invaluable
assistance. I am also grateful to the University of Adelaide for a
Postgraduate Overseas Travel Award which enabled me to undert¿ke
fieldwork at Pompeii, and for an Australian Postgraduate Research
Award which enabled me to work on this thesis. t6
Special thanks must be given to Barry Rowney, formerly of the
Department of Architecture of the University of Adelaide, for his
support and advice in the field. He has measured, prepared and drawn the plans included in this thesis. This work has been essential to its
completion.
Jane Olsson (née Armitt), my fellow postgraduate student in
the Department of Classics, also provided invaluable assistance in the
field. It was she who originally directed my attention to the idea of
visual axes. I am also grateful for her assistance in translating sources
from Italian and German. Janet Delaine, formerly of the University of
Adelaide and now at the University of Reading provided important
advice in the early stages of work on this thesis. My fellow
postgraduate student in the Department of Architecture, Charles
Kides, proved an intelligent sounding board for ideas, as did Antony
Heaven. Michael Maeorg and Catherine Batsch also helped me by
translating the writings of Amedeo Maiuri from the Italian. Other
people also assisted me in the field. Thanks go especially to Louise
Goold, Hamish Kant, Simone McCormack and Belinda Morgan.
I am indebted to the Archaeological Superintendentcy of
Pompeii for permission to undertake f,reldwork. While in Rome I used
the resources of the libraries of the British School at Rome and the
German Archaeological Institute, and I am grateful to the staff for
their assistance. I am also thankful for the help given me by the
Assistant Director of the British School at Rome, Amanda Claridge,
and the secretary Maria-Pia Malvezzi.
Special thanks must go to my parents for all their support, both
emotional and financial, during the work on this thesis. In the final
preparation of this thesis I was greatly assisted by my proof readers
David Farringtor¡ Angus Gordon and Will Lowes. Marc Peake kindly 17 provided the use of his house for the final stages of the work and was supportive throughout. David Mills spent a long Sunday afternoon and a Monday night scanning and preparing my photographs. Finally I would like to thank the following people for their hospitality, support and numerous acts of kindness during the period of the preparation of this work: John Attwater, Susan Bampton, William Bampton,
Tania Collins, Malcolm Cowan, Adam Crossing, Andrew French,
Adrian Danker, Gennaro Guida, Jenny Guida, Luca Guida,
Marina Guida, Caroline Kort, David Monk, Massimiliano Munzi,
Phu Nguyen, Susan Nicholls, Alberto Pizzigati, Tim Reeves,
Chris Waite, Michael Woodhouse, and Giles Wragg. To anyone I have inadvertently left out I also say thank you. l8
1. Introduction 19
I.I Introduction
There have been a number of studies recently of the architectural and urban design of the structures in and around the
Forum of Pompeii (see for example Dobbins,'?roblems of
Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design," "The Pompeii Forum
Project", Zanker; Laurence 20-37; Lauter). This thesis differs from these studies, and from other general considerations of Roman urban design (MacDonald 2, Favro, þook]; [Thesis], see the note on style at the end of this chapter; Lyttelton, Gros, Storia dell'urbanistica) because it questions the assumptions about the architectural aesthetics of ancient people which underlie much of the inte¡pretation of the urban design of antiquity. There can be little progress in the interpretation of Pompeian urban design, and indeed Roman urban design generally until these assumptions about its aesthetical basis are reconsidered. This thesis attempts the beginnings of such a reconsideration.
1.2 Ancienl Wsìtors
Scholars of Roman architecture including William MacDonald and Margaret Lyttelton apply to the study of ancient architecture, and ascribe to the minds of ancient architects, a system of aesthetics which they regard as being universal and timeless. This aesthetic system is based on a series of abstract reactions to space, symmetry, orthogonality, regularity, axial hierarchies and pathways. The assumption that the reactions of people in ancient times to these features were the same as their own today allows modern scholars to purport to determine the intentions of ancient architects. The primary tool that these scholars use in their analysis of buildings is the "ancient visitor." Using this persona they claim to recreate the aesthetic 20 reactions experienced by a person in ancient times visiting the building or complex under discussion. These reactions are held to have been the primary consideration of the ancient architect. Thus, through entering the mind of this "ancient visitor" the scholar claims to reveal the intentions of the ancient architect.
The effect on the ancient visitor is the link that these scholars
make with the ancient architects. The basis of this method is the
supposition that the ancient architect was also primarily concerned
with the aesthetic effects produced in the mind of the spectator by the
design. Particular elements or features of the plan are said to appear
in buildings because they elicit a certain effect in the visitor, and
because it was the intention of the architect to elicit that effect.
In utilizing this method these scholars claim to recreate the
experiences ofthe ancient visitor through personal inspection ofthe
remains of the buildings or complex under discussion, or by an
imaginary traversal of the spaces revealed in a paper reconstruction,
noting their responses at each point. William MacDonald in his
discussion of the reconstruction of what he terms "armafures" of
Roman cities, makes this method manifest:
Visualizing and comprehending an armature ideally requires inspection building by building--column by column if possible. Attempting this suggests the seriality of experiences, the sequences ofvisual and kinetic effects, in a fashion approximating that known in Roman times. True scale is suggested both with respect to people and to differences among various structures, and one's sense of the three-dimensionality of a town is improved. Continuities are effectively evoked. Even if it is pursued only on paper, this procedure may improve our understanding of Roman architectural forms. (MacDonald2:22) 2l
This outline of the scholar's method provokes a number of responses.
Firstly, MacDonald closely links vi sualizatíon with comprehension, linking the reconstruction of the physical forms of the city as it was in ancient times with the grasping of the meaning and intention behind these forms. Secondly, MacDonald implies that the "seriality of experiences" and the "visual kinetic" effects experienced in this visualization of the ancient form of the Roman city equates with those experienced by people in "Roman times." In this view he refers to
"true scale," implying that "scale" is universal, and to "one's sense of three-dimensionality" with the implication that ancient people also had the same conception of three dimensions. What is particularly clear
from this passage is the merging of identities in the mind of
MacDonald between the "ancient visitor" and the "modern scholar."
Both have the same experiences.
1.3 The Nature of Universal Architecturøl Aesthetics
What is the nature of the aesthetics supposedly common to the
ancient visitor, the ancient architect and the modern scholar? There
are a number of major interlinked concerns: space, symmetry, axial
hierarchy orthogonality, regularity and the creation of pathways.
Diane Fawo has ascribed a spatial concern to Roman late
Republican architects:
Republican designers had treated enclosed, unroofed urban areas the same as interior spaces: as a series of modulated spatial experiences composed of designed voids and solids. All was ordered and symmetrical, with the space as well as the architecture crisply defined. The regularized Forum of Pompeii dating to the second century BC, aptly demonstrates these design considerations at work. (Favro [Thesis] 325) 22
Symmetrical planning is supposed to have produced symmetrical views down the axis of building, leading to a central element. In this way an axial hierarchy was to have been established between the central element and subordinate elements at each side: "In all examples the elements are affanged around a central feature or axis in such a way as to converge upon it, concentrate attention there"
(MacDonald2.237). MacDonald notes the universality of symmetry to all architecture, but suggests that Roman architects emphasized it:
"Centrelines and central features are as old as architecture itself, but their dramatic reinforcement by means of a confluence of supporting subordinate features was brought forward by Roman designers seeking to quicken architecture" (MacDonald2:237). He makes clear that this use of symmetry was a feature of all Roman Imperial buildings and complexes: "In every example, unity was sought by arranging design elements in a reciprocating, balanced fashion so as to concentrate attention on a cardinal feature such as a niche, apse, tholos, temple front or dome" (MacDonald2:238).
Another alleged feature of Roman architecture was the
pathway In the method used by the scholars, the spaces of a building
or a complex are traversed either in a mental reconstruction or in
reality, and are thus experienced, by the scholar and by the imaginary
"visitor," as a continuous sequence. It is assumed that the building or
complex was designed around the responses of such a continuously
moving "visitor," who would experience the spaces as a sequence.
The architect supposedly aimed to control and direct this sequential
experience. As has akeady been noted, MacDonald talks of the need
to experience, either directly or in an imaginary reconstruction,
"sequences of visual and kinetic effêcts" (MacDonald2:22). Lyttelton
begins her discussion of planning by referring to Choisy's idea that the 23
Acropolis of Athens was designed around a pathway along which the complex was designed to be experienced as a series of vistas
(Lyttelton 204;313; Choisy l:325-35). Lyttelton's view is that pathways become associated with axial planning, and that symmetrically planned buildings were designed to be experienced through transversal of the main axis (Lyttelton 204-22). Through the manipulation of spatial volumes a tension is supposed to be created in the person experiencing the space, which in the hands of a perceptive architect allegedly drives this person through a spatial sequence. This is clear in MacDonald's comments:
All these uncovered connective spaces were bounded by the closely pressing facades of bordering buildings or covered walkways. And all of them, in a given town, were linked together as continuous conduits, narrow or wide. Framed by verticals meeting the pavement at right angles, they determined and channeled individuals' progress, revealing the urban core and its public buildings . . . . From time to time the directional forces of an avenue might be dissipated temporarily across a plaza, only to be captured and redirected on the opposite side by an archway or some other instrument of the architecture of passage signaling their resumption. Finally, these constructions were accommodated to pedestrian locomotion. . . by manipulation of scale and proportion. (MacDonald2'.32-33)
Lyttelton reflects this belief in the importance of pathways, with the attention she pays to the complexes of the Temple of Artemis at Jerash and the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek. Both of these she believes were planned around axial approaches with axial vistas
(Lyttelton 216-22).
Pathways supposedly required continuity between spaces with orthogonality and regular connections being a concern. MacDonald 24 interprets a number of features as having been intended to ensure such continuity along pathways by disguising irregularities:
Various devices held the towns together and provided the coherence among different structures essential to their identity . . . . The plans of smaller structures \¡/ere frequently adjusted to ensure the unbroken integrity of continuous, major connective elements. Irregularly shaped blocks of shops and offrces, such as the wedge-like ones along the front of the forum market at Pompeii and the northwest enclosures of the Small Market and the Garden Houses at Ostia, suppressed or lessened the effects of wayward plan relationships . . . they were . . .part of the larger need for clear continuity in the urban pattem. In hiding inconvenient salient angles they brought unaligned features into apparent harmony. (MacDonald2:256)
Spaces were purportedly intended to have uniform and regular edges. Colonnades were seen by MacDonald as ensuring this:
A strong effect of a united whole free of any suggestion of egregious fragmentation, of unresolved diversity was required. Various devices held the towns together and provided the coherence among different structures essential to their identity Street colonnades and arcades are obvious examples. Intermittent or continuous partly masking, at ground level, variations of shape and size in the structures behind, they furthered the impression of interconnection between different areas, between one major building and the next. (MacDonald 2:256)
The aesthetic concerns of the scholars, and therefore of the
"ancient visitor" and the "ancient architect," are thus fairly abstract,
crisply defined spaces, symmetrical arrangements and axial pathways
with a sense of harmonious interconnection throughout. These
abstract concerns allow the description of the Forum of Pompeii in
these terms to be made in a few short lines, as is demonstrated by 25
Diane Fawo: "The regularizedForum of Pompeii . . . with a central temple on axis pushed back to the rear of a rect¿ngular open space defined by uniform porticos" (Favro, [Thesis] 325).
1.4 Universal Aesthetics: An An-Historícal Concept
In their confident penetration ofthe thoughts ofancient architects Margaret Lyttelton and William MacDonald are using a method developed by art historians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their clear belief in the universality of the concept of space, and of a desire for regularity and symmetry, are in this art historical tradition. This method rests on the art historians' claim that their underlying aesthetic system is linked with the fundamental mechanics of space perception in humans; that both the system ofspace perception and the system ofaesthetics are universal, even if in a latent form, and have not changed throughout history.
This claim rests in turn on the work of nineteenth-century psychological and physiological theorists of perception. This work led the art historians to the concept of "space." However, even at the time there was great debate about the nature of spatial perception (Turner).
Any attempt to found supposedly universal and complex emotional responses in the nineteenth century physiological or psychological theories of space perception must be regarded with great suspicion.
Cornelis van de Ven has proposed that "space" was alate nineteenth
century art-historical concept that while it had appeared in philosophy,
had played no part in architectural theory until that time (van de Ven xi)
The concept of space was introduced as a universal, timeless
essential in architecture by August Schmarsow, among others in the
1890s. In a speech given in 1893 Schmarsow said that space was the 26 underlying concern of all architecture, from its most "primitive" beginnings. Architecture was rooted in three dimensions. Its fundamental basis was human movement through space. Schmarsow introduced the concept that spatial form was defined by the four walls which surrounded humans. Architecture was reduced to these four elementary planes. Schmarsow included in his analysis of space not only indoor space, but also outdoor spaces such as squares. He believed that the universal feature of all architecture was the creation of enclosed spaces, with the boundaries marked by enclosing masses
(van de Ven 90). Van de Ven observed that after Schmarsow had declared that space was the "determining factor for historical styles," the idea was adopted by the whole of the next generation of German art historians (van de Ven 90).
There was much debate in the nineteenth century among those studying the psychology and physiology of spatial perception (Turner).
There was little empirical data at this time upon which such theories could be based, and there was a paucity of experimentation designed to test such theories, so this was a debate between proponents of a number of largely ungtounded hypotheses. The principal clash was between "nativists," who proposed a physiological, mechanical basis for spatial perception, and "empiricists," who took a psychological position and believed that such perception took place through models that were learnt. Thus, there was a wide variety of possible hypotheses at the time, all unsupported by experimental evidence.
August Schmarsow was apparently familiar with the work of the psychologist Carl Stumpf, who was a colleague at the University of
Goettingen (Margrave 60). Stumpf had published a work "on the
psychological origin of spatial imagination" in 1873 which took a
position which has been described as "restricted nativism" 27
(Margrave 60; Turner 158). Stumpf maintained that "spatial perception is originally three-dimensíonal in its formation, even if its full meaning is only gradually acquired by experience" (Margrave 60).
The child gradually learns to synthesizethe various visual f,telds it observes into a model of a single space where it occupies the centre:
With our body, as the 'natural spatial center,' our sense or feeling of space is determined by such notional controls as right and left, front and rear, above and below. Through this system of natural coordinates, we determine the position of each external object. (Margrave 60)
As Steven Turner notes Stumpf "added no empirical data" to support these contentions (Turner 158).
Schmarsow elaborated Stumpf s psychological theories with some self-examination of his own responses to space, and produced some generalizations about its importance and effect. To Schmarsow space and spatial architecture existed in the human mind before any buildings were constructed, and it was this apriori condition that was discovered by architects. He advised scholars to look inward to their own spatial responses if they were to underst¿nd architecture--he called this the "genetic explanation" of history (Schmarsow 284). All
architecture was principally spatial: "Architecture, therefore, is the
creatress of space, in accordance withthe ideal forms of the human
intuition of space" (Schmarsow 288). Architectural history was for
Schmarsow the evolution of the understanding of the spatial sense
(Margrave 62).
Schmarsow advocated that historians analyze their intuitive
reactions to space whether through personal experience or mental
projection, and because such intuitions are universal, use them as the 28 basis fo¡ their understanding of ancient architecture (Schmarsow 289)
In Schmarsow's work, then, is to be found a statement of the method
used by the scholars ofancient architecture discussed above.
In Schmarsow's spatial aesthetic, architecture is to be
considered from the point of view of the enclosed observer, following
Stumpfs theories of perception (Schmarsow 289). It is the spatial
effect on the observer that is the crucial aspect of architecture:
Thus in the walls that we built, in the post and pillars that supported them, as in all the individual forms of our late tectonic creation, we preferred the abstract regularity of lines, surfaces and bodies as a characteristic architectural effect. (Schmarsow 288)
This reduction of architecture to consideration of abstract volumes is
seen in the work of the scholars examined above, including Diane
Favro (Favro, [Thesis] 325).
Schmarsow also gives great importance to the axis of forward
movement. Extrapolating from Stumpfs belief in the importance of
the axis of the body in the development of perception, Schmarsow
attempts to anchor his aesthetic ideas in psychology and physiology:
Next to the vertical line, whose living bearers resolve space by our bodily orientation into above and below, front and back, left and right ([FN] That this orient¿tion finds its physiological explanation in the internal and external organization of man needs no further elaboration here.), the most important direction for the actual spatial construct is the direction offree movement -- that is, forward -- and that of our vision, which, with the placement and positioning of the eyes, defines the dimension of depth. For the viewing subjects, this dimension is so necessary, for it represents the measure of our free movement in a given space since we are accustomed to looking and moving forward. (Schmarsow 289) 29
From this simplistic naturalization springs the belief that axial arrangements and axial pathways have a universal importance and meaning, a belief manifest in Lyttelton's concern with symmetrical vistas and MacDonald's emphasis on the need to recreate "sequences of visual and kinetic effects" (MacDonald2:22).
Following the work of Schmarsow, other scholars including
A.E. Brinckmann, Paul Franckl and Paul Zucker undertook to synthesize Schmarso#s work with other similar theories about the universal spatial nature of architecture, each with similarly shaþ
foundations, into a more comprehensive method for the interpretation
of architecture (van de Ven 1 10-3 I ). It is this method that underlies the approach ofthe scholars ofancient architecture surveyed above.
Scholars of Roman architecture, then, commonly claim to be
able to enter the minds of ancient architects and determine their
intentions. This claim is based on the supposed existence of a
universal system of architectural aesthetics which emerges from
human responses to space. The scholars imagine the aesthetic
responses of an ancient visitor to the Roman structure under
consideration. As the ancient visitor supposedly shares a common
aesthetic system with the modern scholars, these scholars'o\ryn
imaginary responses to the structure are believed to accord with those
of the ancient visitor. The scholars assume that it was always the
architect's intention to provoke the responses experienced by the
visitor. Thus, the responses experienced by the visitor correspond
with the intentions of the architect. The scholars are then able to
describe these supposedly ancient intentions. This method, together
with the accompanying system of aesthetics, was developed by
historians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These 30 historians attempted to elucidate all-encompassing theories of architectural aesthetics. The theories were developed from these historians' aüempted application of contemporary psychological and physiological claims about human perception as they understood or misunderstood them. These theories were initially quite disparate in form, but were synthesized in the early twentieth century. In the synthesized theory the creation of automatic emotional responses in the visitor through the manipulation of spatial volumes and axial symmetries was seen as the universal intention of the architect.
I. 5 The Problem with Naturalízatíon
The principal problem is that art historians have based their work on making a simplistic connection between elemental space perception and a system of aesthetics. Those following in the tradition of the art historians have assumed that space, regularity and symmetry were the central concerns of ancient architects, to the exclusion or marginalization of other possible factors. This belief in the primacy of these concerns is nowhere examined. Evidence for such concerns is not presented. It remains a pure assumption, apparently based on the idea that Roman architecture was the perfect expressions of the
"natural," that ancient designers were in touch with the fundamental forces shaping human responses to architecture.
1. 6 Arc hítectural Aesthetícs Change
This thesis is predicated on the idea that architecture is not
governed by a set of universal aesthetic rules, but rather that different
practices and approaches to it appear at different times and within
different groups, among both architects and the general populace.
That there is in fact very little that can be seen as "natural" in Roman 3l architecture or urbanism; that Roman architecture is the product of a number of factors, none of which should be related to the so-called
"natural" in any simplistic social-biological manner; and further that
Roman architecture is the product of a distinct historical period, rather than being the manifestation of ahistorical, so-called universal, architectural truths.
1.7 Revíving the Ancient Wsitor
If the connection between modern scholars and ancient visitors and architects provided by a universal system ofaesthetics is broken, how can ancient urban design and architecture be discussed in a relevant way? Clearly if an ancient system of aesthetics can be reconstructed, then it could be applied to the examination of the buildings of the Forum of Pompeii. The persona of the "ancient visitor" could then still be used as a legitimate tool in the explanation of the form of the buildings and urban spaces. However, such explanations are likely to differ from those made using the supposedly universal system of aesthetics.
In the following chapter I will show how evidence exists which permits the reconstruction of an ancient Pompeian system of architectural and urban design aesthetics. In the later chapters this will be applied to the examination of the buildings around the Forum of Pompeii. The conclusions reached by these examinations will differ substantially from those formerly made by many scholars.
1.8 Note on Style
The style of citations used in this thesis is that specif,red by the
MLA Handbook(Gibaldi). All citations are in the text and footnotes
have been avoided. Two departures from this style in citations have 32 been made. The book that Diane Favro has recently published differs substantially from her thesis of the same name. To distinguish them they are cited as Favro, [Book] and Favro, [Thesis] respectively. The
Web site of the Pompeii Forum Project is cited as Dobbins, [Web site]
The full address is given in the bibliography.
1.9 Conclusíon
Many scholars of Roman architecture, including Margaret
Lyttelton and William MacDonald, have made claims about the aesthetic intentions of ancient architects, and used these claims as the basis of their historiography. These claims are based on the assumption that there is a universal spatial aesthetic. There is an implicit belief that the intention of all architects is to produce emotional responses in the visitor through the manipulation of spatial volumes and the creation of symmetrical vistas and pathways. Thus, the visitor's aesthetic responses to spaces, which are held to be the sarne as those of the modern scholar given the supposed universalitv of the spatial aesthetic, accord with the architect's intentions. This rnethod of determining the architect's intentions, and the related
system of aesthetics, was developed by art historians in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They based their method and
system of aesthetics on their understanding of contemporary theories
of perception. The attempts by thefn de siècle art historians and their
followers to ground architectural forms in human perceptual processes
are based on simplistic naturalizations. At the core of this thesis is an
analysis of the architecture of the Forum of Pompeii. This will shorv
in detail the conflict between the actual form of the buildings and
spaces and the architectural intentions proposed by scholars rvho have
followed the tradition of the late nineteenth century art historians. JJ
2. Pompeian Wall Paintings and Architecture 34
2.1 The Enculturated Ancient Observer
If architecture is not governed by the innate cues of a universal system ofaesthetics, how can the architectural experience ofancient
Pompeians be reconstructed? The idea of enculturation provides an answer (Matsumoto 78). This idea of the ancient observer being enculturated differs from the belief of many scholars that people's response to architecture is governed by innate cues. In the enculturation model, the responses of ancient observers do not spring from such innate cues, but comes from exposure to the way architecture is repeatedly represented in wall painting and presented in composed views. Such views in rvall paintings formed the primary means of representing architecture in ancient Pompeii, possibly the sole means. Additionally, investigation of Pompeian houses has revealed that in their last phase they were commonly focused on composed views which were designed to be seen from a single viewing point. These composed views replicated in built form compositional arrangements found in wall paintings. The inhabitants of ancient Pompeii would have become accustomed to seeing
architecture in the form of composed views. Consideration of the rvay
architecture was presented and represented in ancient Pompeii can
therefore provide a guide to the rvay it was experienced by both
ancient architects and ancient Pompeians generally.
2. 2 An A nc ìe nt P o mp eían Arc hit e c tur al A est hetic
The investigations into the design of Pompeian houses
mentioned above began with a paper published in the 1950s in which
H. Drerup noted that certain houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum were
arranged around lines of view, or "visual axes" (Drerup). These axes
emanated from points at the entrances of the houses and ran the full 35 depth to the far side of the peristyle. Drerup noted that these axes bore no relation to any geometric axes of the houses in plan. He termed the views created "Durchblicken." They were ananged around particular features, and they affected the entire layouts of houses such as the
Casa dell'atrio a mosaico in Herculaneum.
Lise Bek expanded the work of Drerup, showing that the axes are present in a greater number of houses (Bek, "Towards Paradise,"
"Venusta Species"). She showed that other oblique visual axes emanate from the off-centre position traditíonally occupied by the most privileged guest in triclinia. Her analysis of the work of the
Roman architectural writer Vitruvius showed that visual axes appear
in the text by implication.
FranzJung concentrated on the views produced by the visual
axes, which he termed "built pictures" (Jung). Jung traced their
development from unresolved scenes of nature to a strict framed
symmetry, and then to a purely asymmetrical form.
Pierre Gros, in a brilliant paper, showed that the method for
constructing such visual axes was given by Vitruvius (Gros, "Le Rôle
de la scaenographia"). While the features of the design were indicated
on the scaenographia, the actual arrangement was resolved on site
using the groma and cords, in a manner familiar from Roman
surveying. Elements of the building were thus positioned in relation to
fixed viewing points, points occupied at the time when the scheme
was being laid out by the gfoma.
Finally, Josef Engemann (Engemann) pointed to the similarity
between some of the composed views and scenes in Second Style
Pompeian wall paintings. This can be expanded to include a wider
range of views and painted scenes in other Styles. 36
These findings can be integrated and then applied to the examination of public buildings. Such an examination suggests that the so-called Vespasianic Temple was designed around a composed view. This view shares its composition with scenes found in a number of Pompeian wall paintings. Thus, viewing buildings in the Forum of
Pompeii from the key points indicated by composed views and comparing the compositions of the views with contemporary wall painting in order to determine their architectural effects offers a method to re-evaluate the design of the buildings around the Forum of
Pornpeii and their experience by ancient Pompeians.
2.3 Wsual Axes
Lise Bek in the chapter of her work, "Towards Paradise on
Earth: Modern Space Conception in Architecture a Creation of
Renaissance Humanism" entitled "<
Roman architectural writer Vitruvius had an interest in visual effects.
This is evident especially in his concept of eurythmla which he applied
to the design of houses (Vitruvius VI,ii,1;3;5, qtd. in Bek, "Towards
Paradise" 167-69). In the case of domestic architecture Bek suggests
that eurythmia is dominant over symmetria and emphasizes the
importance of the view (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 169). She
demonstrates the importance Vitruvius gives to views in the design of
the rooms around the peristyle (Vitruvius Vl,iii,l0, qtd. in Bek,
"Tolards Paradise" 170). Bek sees evidence in the text that the
principles given by Vitruvius underlie the arrangement of Pompeian
houses around lines of view--visual or optical axes--rather than around
axes of symmetry. She suggests that in his discussion of domestic 37 architecture, with its emphasis on the visual, Vitruvius is closest to actual Roman design practice (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 172).
Bek demonstrates that many Pompeian houses are planned around sight lines--or visual axes--rather than axes of symmetry. She describes two forms of visual axis (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 181-95).
The f,rrst is the entrance sequence (Fig.l). A clear view is almost always afforded from the entrance through the entire depth of the house, all major spaces being traversed, including the fauces, the atrium, the tablinum and the peristyle. Architectural elements such as columns and doorways visible from the entrance are usually arranged around the sight line--or visual axis--which leads to some terminating element. However, this visual axis does not generally represent the axis of symmetry within the ground plan, and in fact houses are often completely irregular in plan, and the visual axis often oblique. The second form of visual axis emanates from the triclinium (Fig.2). The particular characteristic of this second form of visual axis is arrangement of architectural elements around an oblique alignment
(Fig.3). This can be accounted for given that the most prestigious
position was located at the ríght of the central couch. The position of the head of a guest reclining in this position would not be centred
within the triclinium but rather would lie towards the right side. In
many cases columns have been offset so that they frame the outward
view from the guest's off-centred position. It is noticeable that in both
cases the axis can only be appreciated from one specific point and
generally cannot be traversed on foot. The axis commencing at the
entrance generally crosses the impluvium, and often passes through a
window, preventing movement along it. In the second case the axis
emanates from the position of the obviously static, reclining diner. 38
Axes of the first type appear in the houses of the Samnite
period. In this period, the axes run from the entrance longitudinally
through the principal spaces of the houses. The original Samnite
sections of the Casa del Chirurgo (VI,1,10) (Fig.4-5), the Casa di
Sallustio (y1,2,4) (Fig.6), and the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1) (Fig.7-8) are
given as examples of this feature (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 182).
Bek notes that in the late Republican and early Imperial
periods there is an increasing emphasis on the view. To achieve this,
order in the ground plan is frequently sacrificed (Bek, "Towards
Paradise" 184). This is even more pronounced in the Imperial period.
The Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) is given as an example of one of these
later houses (Fig.9-10). The view from the entrance in the Casa del
Menandro (I,10,4) is another example given by Bek (Bek, "Towards
Paradise" 185-187; Jung 97-98) (Fig.ll-12). In the entrance sequence
the visual axis transverses the atrium and tablinum, before passing
through a wide intercolumniation into the peristyle. It then crosses the
garden on a slight angle before passing through a nalrower
intercolumniation and then terminating in a flat panel flanked by trvo
semicircular niches on the rear rvall. It is notable that the visual axis
does not coincide with the symmetrical axis of the house, passing in
fact to one side of the peristyle, and traversing it apparently at a slight
angle. This brings the two intercolumniations and the central panel
into alignment.
Tuming to the development of the alrangement of visual axes
from triclinia, Bek begins with the Republican dining roofns. Initially,
as for example in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,11,10), Bek suggests that
the diners were surrounded by a number of views, both painted and
' actual, of equal importance (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 190) (Fig.l3).
By the following period the view of the actual architectural elements 39 in the peristyle was more important (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 190).
Bek gives as examples the oeci in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4)
@ig.1a-6) and the Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI,16,7). However, she notes that at this time regular plaruring, or at least the regularity of the inward view, was given the greatest importance (Fig.17).
The triclinium consisted of three couches arranged in a'[-]' shape (Fig.lS). Because the favoured guest's head was not located on the symmetrical axis of the triclinum, but lay in fact towards the right-hand corner, the guest's outward view would have been oblique
(Fig.2). Bek gives as early examples of this displacement the Casa di
Sallustio (YI,2,4) (Fig.19) and the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI,8,3)
(Bek, "Towards Paradise" 191). Elements are sometimes placed in the peristyle so that they form the centre piece of the oblique view, for example in the Casa di Marcus Lucretius (DL3,5) (Bek, "Towards
Paradise" I92) (Fig.20-21). Bek sums up the features of the two types of view seen in the Houses of Pompeii, the entrance view and the views from triclinia. She notes the use of architectural elements to
frame composed views. The resulting image is, according to Bek,
constructed out of a series of vertical planes each standing behind the
other (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 193).
2.4 Composed Vìews
The development of visual axes leading to the emergence of
the composed view is detailed byFrarøJung in his article "Gebaulte
Bilder." Jung suggests that instead of the axial symmetry supposedly
favoured by the Pompeians, something quite different often occurs,
namely the placement opposite a fixed viewing point of a picture
(Jung 90). Jung examines the views into the peristyle from the oecus
and the triclinium in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,l1,10) (Jung 102-03) 40
(Fig.22). Both of these views are organized in the familiar oblique affangement already described by Bek. Jung dates the wall paintings of the two rooms to 40 BC and therefore suggests that the views into the peristyle represent the oldest example in Pompeii of what he calls
"structured pictures." He describes these picture views as simple: behind the symmetrically appearing columns are seen, without further emphasis, the garden and peristyle.
These pictures then became increasingly elaborate, with large areas of the house given over to their creation. The picture view seen from the triclinium in the Casa di L.Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26) includes the facade of the prostyle oecus which resembles a rustic temple, an element familiar from many wall paintings, while the painting of a hunt scene fills the back wall (Jung 100) (Fig.23). The importance of these pictorial views is shown, Jung notes, in the Casa di Dioscuri (VI,9,6), by the obvious cost, both in land and in the elaborate architecture of the peristyle that comprises the view from the triclinium (Jung 101) (Fig.24). This peristyle is only viewable from the triclinium. Together with the triclinium itself, an area of fourteen by thirty-four metres is occupied. The treatment of the peristyle with its elaborate fountains in the Casa di Meleagro (W,9,2) differs from the arrangement of the Casa di Dioscuri (VI,9,6), as in this case many rooms are focused onto it, each being presented with a different
structured picture (Jung l0l) (Fig.25). Nevertheless, the two houses
share the common feature that everything is obviously done very
deliberately to create a pictorial effect (Jung 102).
The pictures become increasingly independent from the actual
plan form of the house, with asymmetry becoming an increasingly
important feature. In the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,6) Jung f,rnds a
play between symmetry and asymmetry within the structure of the 4t picture views (Jung 105) (Fig.26-27). Two views opened from the triclinium, the first into the peristyle, the second into a nymphaeum.
The first oblique view gave onto a symmetrical picture: the colonnade of the main structure across the peristyle was bordered exactly by the foreground columns. The picture created appeared like the double-storey facade of a Hellenistic palace. This rigorous symmetry was broken by the statue of a drunken satyr, which Jung suggests dominated the view by its asymmetry. The second picture view from the triclinium into the nymphaeum was completely asymmetrical, in contrast to the peristyle view.
In the cases examined above, the pictures which may be asymmetrical have been framed symmetrically by openings or pairs of columns. In the Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4), from the last phase of
Pompeii, Jung f,rnds that even these frames become asymmetrical
(Jung 106) (Fig.28). The triclinium opens through a colonnaded porch onto a garden with a series of rounded and rectangular fountain basins.
Of the three porch columns visible, two are placed symmetrically within the view, while the middle column does not lie in the centre but is closer to the left. The roof between the middle column and the left-hand column is lower and so covers the upper corner of the view.
Jung notes that the old double-frame of triclinium opening and columns is thus disturbed, and is no longer recognizable as a symmetrical element. The composition of the view beyond the columns is also asymmetrical. Three of the basins in the garden are visible, but they do not occupy the centre ofthe view appearing to the
left. The northern basin is virtually obscured. Jung describes the view
as a confusion ofbridges and the square and round extensions ofthe
basins. 42
Jung summarizes the developments in the composition of the picture views (Jung 106). The early simple pictures such as the ones in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,l1,10) develop into the larger pictures such as the one in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6). The cost of constructing the picture views in the Casa dei Dioscuri and the Casa di
Meleagro (VI,9,2) indicates their central role. In the final phase of
Pompeii, suggests Jung, the pictures created began to live a life of their own, as was the case with the views of the garden in the Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4), and the view of the nymphaeum in the Casa del
Centenario (Dq8,6).
Jung then examines the garden of the Casa di D. Octavius
Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) dating to Pompeii's final phase
(Jung 106-114). He suggests that its features, such as the statues and fountains which often appear to be miniatures, are designed to be seen in structured pictures (Jung 111) (Fig.29-30). These pictures are asymmetrical in composition. An example is the view from the triclinium, which is dominated by an off-centre foreground pavilion containing a statue (Fig.3l). Another asymmetrical picture is created for diners reclining in the biclinium on the terrace, encompassing the pillars and statues on the terrace, together with the canal and plantings in the garden (Jung lL2-13) (Fig.32). These asymmetric viervs occur despite the garden being strongly axial, with the canal as the main north-south axis. In fact the axial view is given little or no importance. This axis instead appears to be a way of structuring a series of asymmetrical views. Jung suggests that the garden is laid out in order to be seen in these pictures from fixed viewing points (Jung
114). These include views from the triclinium, the garden gate, a
garden resting place, the biclinium, and supposedly more. 43
Jung goes on to suggest that whole houses were designed in order to create structured pictures (Jung 115). This is evident not only in the arrangement of the garden of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio
(II,2,2),but in the Casa di Meleagro (YI,9,2) and others where the creation of a picture view has had an effect on the general plan. In the
Casa del Centenario (X,8,6), the creation of the triclinium was the centre of the plan of the whole east part of the house.
Jung relates the development of these pictures to the development of the Pompeian building style (Jung 115-16). In the f,rrst phase of the Pompeian house, the symmetrical axis of the atrium ended in the tablinum. Then the back wall of the tablinum was removed. Next the elements of the garden were brought into a symmetrical arrangement around the extended atrium axis, something achieved by the end of the second century BC. A major development from this was the placement of the elements around a line of sight, often oblique, rather than the symmetrical axis. This was a development of the first half of the first century BC. Around 40 BC, in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4), the sight line has been given a target: the two niches on the back wall of the peristyle. During the second half of the fîrst century BC, structured pictures were developed at the ends of these sight lines, such as those in the Casa del Labirinto
(VI,l1,10). These were simple symmetrically framed pictures. In the first half of the first century AD, the symmetrically framed pictures became increasingly independent in their structure. Finally, in the last period before 79 AD, the pictures became asymmetrically structured,
independent ofspace. 44
2.5 The Creation of Wsual,4xes and Composed Wews
Pierre Gros in his article "Le Rôle dela Scaenographia dans les projets architecturaux du début de I'empire romain" demonstrates how the method for the creation of visual axes is implied in the texts of Vitruvius and Cicero (specifically Vitruvius VII, praef. 1l; ilI,5,13;
VI,3,1l;YI,6,6; Cicero Ad AtticumII,3,2). He suggests that the scaenographia descrlbed by Vitruvius was constructed to show the visual cone from a privileged view point. Gros says that the perspective effect in the scaenographia deftned the convergence of rectilinear rays from the eye (Vitruvius VII, praef. 11). He suggests that this is implicit in the design of buildings as well as in their drawing. This is clear when Vitruvius describes the two rays, running from the eye of the beholder to the top and bottom of a pediment
(Vitruvius III,5,13), and when Cicero records his architect's procedure for establishing the proper size of windows (Cicero, Ad Atticum
II,3,2). Gros suggests that the lines of view would have been marked as triangles on the ground plans of Roman buildings,forma
iconographia, with their points indicating the privileged viervpoints,
such as at building entrances. Gros notes that such triangular
markings appear on the base of the statue of the dying Gaul. The use
of such markings on ground plans is implicit in Vitruvius' description
of the suppression of the two columns in front of the tribunal in his
Basilica at Fano (Vitruvius Y,7,7).
Final details of the lines of view rvould have been rvorked out
on site, according to Gros. The method would have been familiar
from Roman surveying practices (see Adam 8-19). Straight lines
indicating the rays from the eye, or the lines of view, would pivot
around a pole, either marked by cords or by lines of sight from a 45 groma. Gros indicates that such workings on site are indicated by
Vitruvius' comments on necessary modifications to symmetria
(Vitruvius VI,3,1l), and by his method of calculating window positions carried out on site using strings (Vitruvius VI,6,6). In summary Gros gives the method for constructing visual axes as introducing firstly scaenographia. This indicates the composition of a view from a privileged point. Its perspective is formed by describing rays emanating from the eye of a person standing on this point.
Secondly, triangular marks are made on the ground plan. The points of the triangles indicate the privileged view-points, while the lines indicate the lines of view. Thirdly, the arrangement of the building is adjusted on site to accord with the lines of view when these last are marked out on the ground. In this procedure, following that familiar from Roman surveying, a groma or pole occupies the privileged point, while the rays or lines of view are marked by strings or sightings depending on which instrument is used.
2.6 Composed Wews and Uníversal Aesthetícs
The above scholars, Bek, Jung and Gros, have demonstrated a method of Pompeian design evidenced by both theory and practice.
However, they still seek to fit this within the system of aesthetics usually applied by scholars when they deal with public architecture.
When Lise Bek proposes that visual axes may be the basis of Roman townscape design, she presents possible examples which accord with 46 the conventional aesthetic interpretations, for instance the Forum of
Augustus in Rome, about which she comments:
In imperial fora, cast in one piece so to speak, the focusing of the temple sited as the background for the square itself is aimed at. This is clearly to be seen at the Forum of Augustus. (Bek, "Venusta Species" 146)
In the traditional interpretation of this Forum, the colonnades were said to enclose the space, directing the eye along the axis of symmetry to the Temple facade, whose symmetrical arrangement was then supposedly analyzed and appreciated (see for example Favro, [Thesis]
355). Bek's treatment of her other example, the Forum of Pompeii, also accords with familiar analyses. She comments:
Here the archways opening to the two streets on either side of the temple of Jupiter, when seen from the entrance to the square from Via delle Scuole serve to underline the composed effect of the visual image to be obtained. (Bek, "Venusta Species" 146)
Here the traditional interpretation again focuses on the dominating,
symmetrical view of the Temple (see for example Richardson,
Pompeii 144, Russell332;336). These accordant examples are
presented for urban design despite the fact that in many cases visual
axes in domestic settings do not fit with the traditional spatial
aesthetic. The axes often do not accord with any geometric axes in the
plan of the houses, and are sometimes oblique to the general lines of
the houses. The views along the axes can only be appreciated from
one spot; once this point is moved away from the composition breaks
up. Thus the axes do not indicate a pathway along which the moving 47 spectator experiences the unfolding of the spaces of the house. They do not even indicate a pathway linking successive viewing points; in fact these axes are generally not traversable. The compositions of the views along these axes sometimes suggest an alrangement of elements in plan which differ from reality, but there is no attempt to disguise this once the viewing point is moved away from. These compositions depart from the supposed Roman obsession with absolute symmetry, and are sometimes entirely asymmetrical.
2.7 Wews ìn ArchÍtecture and Wall Paìntings
In this study of the architecture and urban design of the Forum of Pompeii I will look to a body of evidence generally untapped in this
regard,the views of architecture depicted in Pompeian wall painting.
Architecture is the predominant subject matter of this painting, whether appearing as a frame, as background, or as the main feature.
This thesis will demonstrate that there is a great similarity between the compositions of many of the painted views and those of views from key points in many Pompeian buildings, both domestic and public.
The views reproduce many of the compostional motifs familiar from
the contemporary wall paintings. Furthennore, this thesis will show
that the aesthetic effects of the architectural elements, in both their
painted and built forms, conflict with the effects that scholars often
ascribed to them.
Pompeian wall painting was classified by Mau into four styles
(Mau, Pompeii 456-70;Ling, Roman Painting 3). The First Style
which appeared in the period prior to the establishment of the Roman
colony at Pompeii in 80 BC. This consisted of stucco painted to
appear as masonry. Examples of this Style have been found at many
sites throughout the Mediterranean world. At Pompeii it departed 48 from the truthful reproduction of the form of real masonry in order to create decorative effects (Ling, Roman Painting 12-22). An example of First Style painting is a wall of the atrium in the Casa di Sallustio
(W2,4) (Fig.312).
The Second Style-which is of concern in this thesis-appeared in Pompeii after the est¿blishment of the Roman colony in Pompeii in
80 BC (Ling, Roman Painting23-51). ln this Style architecture is imitated in paint by the use of painterly effects such as perspective and shadowing. Some the Pompeian wall paintings in this Style feature depictions of columns standing in front of masonry walls, others are complex scenes in perspective featuring grandiose architectural vistas.
Often the perspective of these paintings was adjusted with regard to the position of observers in the room looking outward, and to other observers outside looking in (Ling, Roman Painting 51). The walls of cubiculum (m) of the villa at Boscoreale provide an example of this style of painting (Fig.l05).
Third Style painting, which emerged during the period of
Augustus features emphasis on surface and much less on perspective illusion (Ling, Roman Painting 52-70). This surface is broken up by architectural elements, but these have a fantastic quality-being far to thin to represent real masonry supports and feature elaborate
decoration. The overall compositions are invariably centralized
around an aedificium. Panel pictures--which were apparently often
modeled on Hellenistic originals that had been painted on rvooden
panels--are given pride of place. In these panel paintings the
architecture depicted is often "real," that is they resemble structures
realisable in masonry. The walls of room (g) in the Casa di M.
Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) are in the Third Style (Fig.79). 49
Fourth Style, which appeared at the time of Nero, came into its own after the earthquake of 62 AD, being the Style most often represented on the walls of Pompeii (Ling, Roman Painting 71-100).
In this Style the surface is open up further with elaborate vistas, panel paintings and foregtound architecture. The centralized scheme for each wall is generally retained. Some of these Fourth Style features are exemplified by the famous painting of Apollo from the Casa di
Apollo (YI,1,23) (F ig.aÐ.
2.8 Composed Wews and Pompeían l{all Paíntíngs
Josef Engemann (Engemann) has pointed out that there was a similarity between the compositions of certain composed views and the scenes in some Second Style Pompeian wall paintings. For
example the view from the tablinum (D) in the Casa del Fauno
(W,12,2) (Fig.313-14), which encompassed the colonnade of the
peristyle seen over the top of a curtain wall, resembles the colonnades
also seen above a curtain wall depicted on the walls of Room (45146)
in the Casa del Labrinto (VI,11,10) (Engermann 154-65; Abb. 13-20;
Tafel42) (Fig.315). Here Engemann's findings will be expanded and
the great compositional similarity between three composed views and
a number of wall paintings of differing Styles will be demonstrated.
These common compositional features indicate a gteat deal about
Roman architectural aesthetics.
2.9 The Entrance Wew in the Casa della Cacciø antica Compared
With úl/all Paintíngs
In the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48) the entrance
sequence terminates in a carefully framed asymmetrical view of a
receding colonnade (Fig.33-3a). That this is a carefully composed 50 view is indicated by the treatment of the t¿blinum opening to the peristyle. As Jean-Paul Descoeudres has noted, the tablinum opening is not set symmetrically within the wall, but rather is positioned right of centre (Descoeudres 137). The left-hand section is noticeably longer than the right-hand section. With the opening positioned as it is, the corner column is for the most part obscured, giving the illusion of a continuing facade. As Descoeudres notes, "A symmetrical opening in the tablinum's rear wall would destroy this carefully composed and well focused picture" (Descoeudres 137). In detail this pictorial vista consists of three columns and pilaster seen at an angle.
The very outer edge of the corner column of the colonnade is visible at the extreme left of the view. The pilaster at the farther end of the colonnade is attached to the angled wall at the rear of the peristyle.
Close parallels can be found between this fixed "picture" in architecture and designs in contemporary wall painting. As the background in the famous Fourth Style painting featuring Hercules strangling the snakes from the south triclinium in the Casa dei Vettii
(VI,15,1) there appears an almost exact mirror image of the view in the Caccia antica (Fig.35). Within the frame enclosing the entire picture appears a second frame behind the figures. Above this frame
is visible a section of ceiling. This corresponds to the opening in the tablinum wall, while the ceiling compares with the real ceiling which
would once have been seen in the Cacciaantica's tablinum. Within
the opening depicted in the painting we see a receding colonnade,
resembling the one in the Caccia antica, except that it occupies the
right-hand side of the view and not the left.
Another framed view of a receding colonnade in a similar
affangement is to be seen in a Third Style painting on the east rvall of
the oecus in the Accademia di Musica (VI,3,7) (Fig.36). As in the 51 scene in the Casa dei Vettii, a second frame appears within the greater framed view, located behind the figures. Again the opening corresponds to the opening in the Caccia antica tablinum. As in both the Casa della Caccia antica and the depiction in the Casa dei Vettii, this framed view comprises a receding colonnade asymmetrically positioned to one side.
Receding colonnades comparable with the one in the Casa della Caccia antica view also appear as a decorative feature in some
Fourth Style walt paintings. They are to be seen in the architectural composition on the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinarius
Cerealis (m,4,b) (Fig.37); and again on the east wall (Fig.38). They appear in both the upper and central zones of the south wall of room
(e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.39). They are also apparent in the narrow architectural vistas of the south wall of the peristyle in the same house (Fig.aO). More receding colonnades feature in both the upper and centre zones of a painting, this time from the west wall of room (f) in the Casa di Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus)
(II,2,2) (Fig.a1). They are also shown in the famous painting of
Apollo from the Casa di Apollo (W,7,23) (Fig.aÐ.
2.10 The Wew From the Triclíníum ín the Casø di Octavíus Quartio
Compøred wíth ll¡all PaintÍngs
The view from the triclinium of the Casa di Octavius Quartio
(di Loreius Tiburtinus) (1,2,2), as reconstructed by Jung, also corresponds in both its composition and its elements to contemporary wall painting (Jung 111) (Fig.31). The elements are deployed
asymmetrically in a number of layers. A foreground column appars
in the triclinium view towards the left-hand edge of the framing
entrance. This column and the foregound elements are very 52 prominent in the view, obscuring much of the rest of the garden.
These foreground elements include two pergola pillars, which support pergola beams above, and a pavilion with four columns which contains a statue. These pillars and the pavilion are arranged inegularly in the view. Behind these foreground elements appear the other elements of the garden, which form a complex and irregular background. A receding row of trees would have been visible, while the other pavilion on the main axis of the garden is seen in the background towards the right side of the view. Superimposition is an obvious feature of this view. The view of a statue is encroached upon by the foregtound column, which is also superimposed onto the pergola in the middle foreground and the line of trees in the background. The middle ground elements of the pergola and the pavilion with its statue, which fill much of the f,reld of view, are superimposed against the background of the trees and the other garden structures.
These features appear in each of the views on the south wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.a0). The emphasis of these narrow vistas is on superimposition, layering and complexity of arrangement. In the example shown, the foreword projecting entablature is supported by two columns. The inner column also
supports another ent¿blature, and the corner of a roof which runs off to the right, also parallel to the picture plane, crossing the rest of the
vista. Set further back against the projecting entablature, a second
entablature, againparallel to the picture plane, runs off to the left and
bridges the remainder of the vista. The placing of the elements in
various layers in this painting can be compared with the layering in the
view from the triclinium. The irregular arrangement of columns s3 placed close together resembles the irregular, close arrangement of the pergola pillars and the columns of the pavilion in the view.
Asymmetry and layering, ¿ts occur in the triclinium view, are evident on part of the west wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei
Dioscuri (VI,9,6) (Fig.a3). A tholos stands off-centre within the scene, superimposed onto the receding colonnade which lies behind. This resembles the pavilion in the view, both in its off-centre placement, and its relationship with the other columns, which can be likened to the arrangement of the pavilion and the pergola pillars. The superimposition of the tholos on the columns recalls the way in which the pavilion obscures the view of the other garden pavilion in the background.
The arrangement of a pavilion, tholos and background columns on the wall near the northern corner of room (10) in the Casa di P.
Vedius Siricus (YII,I,25.47) resembles again the triclinium view
@ig.aa). Layering is emphasized here. The rear corner column of the square pavilion is joined to the foremost column of the tholos. Th¡ee layers are created as in the triclinium view, with the square pavilion, the tholos, and the structures which lie behind the square pavilion.
The female f,rgure which appears in the foreground of the composition, recalls the statue in the pavilion in the triclinium view.
2.ll The Entrance Wew inthe Casa di M. Pupíus Rufus Compared
Mth Wall Paíntíngs
The entrance view in the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI,15,5), as
reconstructed by Jung, ends with a built picture framed by the opening
of the tablinum (Jung 118) (Fig.a5). The central feature of this picture
is a pedimented frame containing a statue. Above its roof appears a
pergola visibly supported by three pillars. Two of these pillars flank s4 the shrine while the other appears in the middle ground at the left extremity of the picture. The couches of a biclinium app€ar either side of the shrine. A fountain appears directly in front of the statue, while a basin appears offset to the right.
Again, the view in the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (W,15,5) is comparable with wall painting. In the central zone of the east wall of the oecus in the Pompeian house (I,3,25) appears a full architectural composition with figures (Fig.a6). In the painting there is a central figure standing within an aedicula. This recalls the pedimented shrine and statue in the built picture. The columns and entablatures which form the background recall the pergola and its supporting pillars. The columns are supported by an elaborate affangement of bases resembling the couches of the biclinium. The stairways which project forward below the central f,rgure are located in a similar position to the fountain in the view. The asymmetries of the two figures on either side of the central figures recall the asymmetrical positioning of the basin and the differences between the right and left sides of the view.
Another comparable upper zone composition from a Fourth
Style painting appears on a wall fragment from room (g) of the Casa delle Vestali (V|1,6), now in the Naples Museum (Fig.a7). Again, a central figure stands within a pedimented structure corresponding to the statue and shrine. The roof above the pedimented structure,
supported by four columns, resembles the pergola in the view, while
bases recall the couches of the biclinium.
2.12 The Congruence Between the Above Wews and Wall Paintìngs
Very close affinities can be demonstrated between the views in
the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48), the Casa di D. Octavius
Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) and the Casa di M. Pupíus 55
Rufus (VI,15,5), and contemporary wall paintings. These close affinities relate not only to the use of elements, the pedimented shrine in Casa di M. Pupius Rufus, the pavilion seen from the triclinium in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus), and the receding colonnade in the Casa della Caccia antica-but also to the composition--the asymmetrical placement of the colonnade in the
Casa della Caccia antica, the complex layering in the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus), and the centrality of the shrine in the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus.
2.13 An Explønatíonfor the Congruence Between Wall Paíntings and Composed Wews
A possible explanation for the congruence between the composed views in both Pompeian domestic and public buildings and the depictions of architecture in Pompeian wall paintings lies in the design method proposed by Pierre Gros. In this method the principal views of buildings are designed as scaenographia or drawings showing the "visual cone" from the privileged viewpoint. The cause of the congruence becomes clear if such drawings are imagined to have followed the contemporary tastes in the composition of viervs of architecture as shown in wall paintings.
2. t 4 Arc hítecturøl Experíence in Ancíent Po mp eü
Those who lived in Pompeii, especially those of the class of person likely to have been involved in the commissioning of major public buildings, would have been surrounded by depictions of architecture in the wall paintings of the houses in which they lived.
Additionally many of those houses featured composed views which
reproduced the same compositions seen in wall paintings in a built 56 form. Others in ancient Pompeii would have seen composed views when they visited the houses of the wealthy as clients. Such views would appear when they stood on the threshold, or in painted form when they looked at architectural scenes in the wall painting. In addition the painted decoration of public buildings sometimes featured architectural scenes. As will be shown later, in the case of the
Macellum the painted views echo the asymmetrical and multilayered composition of the view through each of that buildings doorways.
Thus most Pompeian citizens would regularly have seen composed architectural views in both their built and painted forms. [n viewing architecture therefore, it can be imagined that the ancient observer would probably have looked for compositions familiar from wall paintings and responded to views from key points such as thresholds.
In order to recreate the way that ancient Pompeians responded to the architecture of Pompeii's Forum it is thus necessary to look at the buildings in the same way as ancient Pompeians, viewing them from key points, and then examining the compositions of those views, comparing them with contemporary wall paintings in order to discover their architectural effect.
2.15 Wsual Axes, Composed Wews ønd Roman Publíc Archítecture
The so-called Vespasianic Temple, located on the eastem side
of the Forum of Pompeii, between the Eumachia Building and the
Public Lares (Fig.a8-50), is an example of a building in which a visual
axis and a view with a composition comparable with scenes in wall
paintings are evident. 57
2.16 The Archítectural History of lhe Vespasíøníc Temple
Amedeo Maiuri has outlined the architectural history of the
Temple and its site through his excavations conducted at the foundation level. According to Maiuri, the building was built as a single entity, and he dates its construction, on the basis of the type of foundation and masonry used, to the final Pompeian period (Maiuri,
Pompei preromana 88-91; L'ultimafase 43-48) (Fig.51). Indeed, the facade wall joins seamlessly with the rebuilt masonry of the
Eumachia facade, which Maiuri securely dated to immediately prior to the eruption. He found no evidence for the existence of an earlier temple on the site, but he did find the substantial remains of the foundations of a small two roomed structure on the Forum frontage which, on the basis of the type of opus incertum used, he dated to the
Augustan era, and tentatively described as a warehouse (Maiuri,
Pompei preromana 9l).
More recently John Dobbins has suggested that the Temple does not date to a single phase of construction in the last years of
Pompeii, but in fact shows evidence of repair and rebuilding indicating an earlier foundation:
For example, post-construction alterations in the sacellum of the Temple of Vespasian, possible earthquake repair in several places, and a complete change of facade decoration suggest a life for the structure that is longer than usually believed and which is incompatible with a view that the structure belongs to the last years of Pompeii. (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Planning" 259)
He has suggested that the Temple was first established during the reign
of Augustus: 58
Extensive earthquake repair proves that the sanctuary was founded before 62. In addition similarities in building material and construction technique relate the sanctuary to the Temple of Fortuna Augustus, the Eumachia Building, and the Holconian additions to the theater, all Augustan projects. Moreover, the sanctuary and the adjacent Eumachia Building are so similar in their building materials, construction techniques, and overall architectural histories that they must be contemporary, or nearly contemporary, foundations. It is therefore possible to apply the chronological evidence for the Eumachia Building to the sanctuary, namely, the architectural and sculptural allusions to the Porticus Liviae and the Forum Augustum in Rome. These associations provide a terminus post quem of ZBC for the Eumachia Building and suggest that both the Eumachia Building and the sanctuary were built at the end of the last decade BC or at the beginning of the first decade AD. (Dobbins, "The AItar" 252)
In conclusion the so-called Vespasianic Temple is contemporary in its initial design with either Third or Fourth Style painting. If Dobbins is correct, and the building was initially designed in the earlier period, he also shows that the main features of this design were maintained in the later repairs.
2.17 The Form of the Vespasianíc Temple
In its final form, the Temple was separated from the Forum by
afacade consisting of an unarticulated wall with a single large doorway joined with the structure of the Lararium to the north, and with the facade of the Eumachia Building to the south (Fig.52). The
section of this wall just to the north of the doorway has been partially reconstructed. Maiuri's plan of the foundations of the Temple drawn
from his excavations suggests that this reconstruction follows the lines
of the ancient design. Through the doorway lay an irregular four sided
space aligned longways with the Forum. Given the lack of drainage, it
appears that this space was roofed. A very wide, possibly colonnaded 59 opening between two short spur walls cormects this space with the
Temple enclosure beyond. The main enclosure is quadrilateral. It was apparently unroofed, as a drain runs around the wall of the space
(Maiuri, L'ultimafase 47). The walls are divided into panels, with alternating semicircular and triangular pediments (Fig.50). These were constructed in relief masonry and were apparently awaiting stuccoeing at the time of the eruption. Similar panels appear on the south and east exterior walls of the Eumachia Building. Towards the middle, but not in the perfect centre of this space, is located the altar with frieze panels on four sides.
Attached to the rear wall of the enclosure, the sacellum stands on a podium. This podium presents aflatface to the enclosure. Two stairways at either side of the podium rise from the rear. Behind the stairway on the right, a doorway leads through the back wall of the enclosure into the most southerly of the three back rooms. These rooms are arraîged along the enclosure wall, and are interconnected through two doorways in the dividing walls; they have exterior access through a door in the northern wall of the complex.
The facade wall, the spur walls, the colonnade and the rear
wall of the enclosure all parallel the sides of the Forum. The rear wall
of the Temple complex, however, follows a different alignment from
the others. The side walls, inclining southward, make irregular angles
with the cross walls. Overall, the resulting spaces in the building are
irregular. The entrance area and the Ternple enclosure are irregular
quadrilaterals with their north and south sides nearly parallel, while
the back rooms are wedge shaped. The main elements of the Temple
do not show regard for the geometric symmetry of these spaces.
Angled towards the entrance, the sacellum lies somewhat north of the
centre of the back wall. As noted above, the altar is not centred within 60 the enclosure. The two short spur walls which separate the entrance area from the enclosure are of different lengths, the northern wall being shorter. The decorative wall panels on each side of the sacellum on the back wall of the enclosure, differ in width. Both of these panels are topped by triangular pediments. They are separated from the neighbouring panels by pilasters and from the sacellum by half-pilaster mouldings. The width of the panel, pilaster and half-pilaster north of the Temple taken from the sacellum wall is 153 cm. The equivalent measurement to the south is202 cm.
2.18 The Visual Axís ín the Vespasíanìc Temple
These inegularities can be accounted for if we regard the
Vespasianic Temple as having been organized around a visual axis rather than an axis of symmetry. On plan, an oblique line can connect the statue base at the rear of the sacellum, the altar and the centre of the main doorway (Fig.53). This is clearly comparable with the visual axes seen in Pompeian houses (Fig.3). If the sacellum were perpendicular with the rear wall or the altar centred within the
surrounding space, both would be viewed from the entrance at an
angle, and there would be no clear relationship between the two.
However, by their actual placing the sacellum and altar are viewed
straight on, and the altar appears to stand in front of the sacellum.
Further, the visual axis can account for the discrepancy in the length of
the spur walls, the northem being shorter. If a colonnade is
reconstructed in this space, as it is in the Mazois plan, this northerly
shifting centres the colonnade on this sight line (Fig.49). All these
manipulations, which give a visual impression of symmetry to an
irregular form, are familiar from the visual axes seen in Pompeian
houses. 6t
2.19 The Composed Wew ín the Vespasianíc Temple
Two Third Style paintings from the southern and rear walls of triclinium (e) in the Casa di Sulpicius Rufus (D(, 9, c) (Fig.59-60) suggest a possible viewpoint for the Vespasianic Temple. These paintings each depict a foreground wall penetrated by a vista. If the
Vespasianic Temple is observed from a point beyond the doorway, a similar composition, in a ruined state, becomes visible. Indeed from the point where the visual axes cuts the current location of the stylobate (the stylobate is according to John Dobbins a modern reconstruction: Dobbins, "The Pompeii Forum Project 1994-95"
75-33) the view closely resembles in its compositional arrangement the scene in the wall painting. In this vista, the doorway acts as a frame in the facade (Fig.56). ln the middle ground stands the altar.
Centred above it is the sacellum, with the statue base appearing above the altar. The pedimented wall panels flanking the sacellum are visible in their entirety, while the doorway "frame" cuts along the outside edge of the pilaster on each side.
Because the visual axis makes an irregular angle with the back wall of the sacellum, which is parallel to the side of the Forum, the width of wall space seen through the frame of the doorway either side of the sacellum is not equal. There is a considerably greater stretch of wall visible to the south than to the north, when viewed along the axis from outside the doorway. As already noted, the pedimented wall
panels either side of the sacellum differ in width. When viewed from a
point where the visual axis intersects with the line of the Forum
stylobate as it currently appears, this difference in panel rvidths
corresponds with the difference in the amount of wall visible on each
side of the sacellum (Fig.5a). Thus these two panels of irregular 62 dimension together with their pilasters fill all the visible wall space either side of the sacellum.
As noted above, the current width of the doorway appears to have been the same as that of the ancient doorway based on the plan prepared by Maiuri from the results of his excavations at foundation level. This is despite the obvious modem reconstruction of the section of the wall adjacent to the north side of the door. However, it is possible that the wall to the north of the door extended in ancient times only to the line marking the end of the extant ancient masonry and the start of the modem fabric. In this case the ancient doorway would have been slightly wider than its modem reconstruction. If this
was the case then the composed view would have differed only
slightly from the one described above (Fig.55). When viewed from a
point slightly to the north of the visual axis, the wall panels and the
outer pilasters again would have occupied all the wall space to either
side of the sacellum. The arrangement of the sacellum, its flanking
wall panels, the altar and the doorway, produce basically the same
composed view regardless of whether the ancient doorway was the
same width as today, as suggested by Maiuri's foundation plan, or was
slightly wider as the extant ancient masonry may suggest.
2. 20 Comparíson wíth Domestic Plønníng
The arrangement of the Temple around an oblique line accords
with the diagram with which Jung has summarized the principle of
visual axis found in Pompeian houses (Fig.3). The positioning of the
altar resembles the placement of the fountains in the Casa delle Nozze
d'argento (Y,2,1) and the Casa di Trebius Valens (III,2,1) (Fig.57) on
the oblique visual axis leading from the triclinium in order that they 63 appear in the centre of the honoured guest's view (Bek, "Towards
Paradise" 193).
In its relationship between the frame and the wall panels, the composed picture in the Temple resembles the composed view in the
Casa del Centenario (DL8,6) (Jung 105) (Fig.26-27). ln that case in the oblique view through the entrance to the triclinium precisely frames a symmetrical view of the colonnade of the peristyle. The interaction between the foreground and background columns may have resembled the interaction between the columns of the colonnade reconstructed by Mazois and those of the sacellum (Fig.a9).
2.21 Comparíson of the Composed Wew with Third Style Wall
Paíntíngs
A close comparison can be made between the composed view in the Vespasianic Temple and the arrangement of contemporary
Pompeian wall painting (Fig.58). The framed architectural vista penetrating the flat surface of the foreground is a standard compositional motif in both Third and Fourth Style Pompeian wall painting.
As noted above particularly close parallels can be drawn between the compositions of view of the Vespasianic Temple along the visual axes and Third Style paintings on the southern and the rear walls of the triclinium (e) of the Casa di Sulpicius Rufus (D!9,c)
(Fig.59-60). On both walls, the central zones of the paintings depict
flat panels with a pair of horizontal decorative elements. This is
reminiscent of the flat marble-clad facade wall of the Temple. At the
middle of the central zone of both painted walls appears a frame
elaborated by a pair of columns topped by a decorative entablature.
This is analogous to the doorway of the Vespasianic Temple. Within 64 the frames of the Pompeian frescos appear painted architectural views, as the Temple doorway frames the view of the interior.
Occupying the middle foreground of the vista on the southern back wall and located on the pictorial centre line is an altzr (Fig.59).
This is directly comparable with the position of the alt¿r in the
Vespasianic Temple. Above the altar appear double doors, one of which is slightly ajar, set into a wall. From behind this door peers a dog. In the Temple the doors of the sacellum and statue base occupy compositionally the same position. Mounted on a pole, and standing on the centre line, appears a decorative panel above the doorway. The sacellum pediment would hold the same position in the real building.
Flanking the central section of wall containing the door are the beginnings of two colonnades. These occupy the place equivalent in the composition to the wall panels of the Temple with their pediments.
Turning to the framed central panel of the rear wall, on the central axis stands analtar, as in the Vespasianic Temple and the neighbouring wall painting (Fig.60). Above the altar appears a temple with a statue, very similar to the sacellum. Either side of the temple appears a wall penetrated by an arched opening. Beyond these walls on both sides appear identical buildings. The walls with their arched openings and the buildings occupy the position of the wall panels with pediments.
In the upper zone of the south wall of the triclinium appears
another vista comparable in its compositional structure \Mith the
composed view of the sanctuary Gig.59). Again, the frame appears in
the midst of a basically undifferentiated panel. The frames are smaller
and simpler than the one appearing in the central zone, consisting of a
narrow painted beading, with a thicker, decorated entablature. Again,
this framed vista parallels the unarticulated facade wall and doorway 65 of the Vespasianic Temple. The pictorial vista also consists of a centre ground element, in this case the double doors, in the same position as the alt¿r in the building. Above this rises, like the sacellum itself, a pedimented structure. In place of the wall panels st¿nd two wings ended with half pediments flanking the centre structure.
A close comparison can be made between the view in the
Vespasianic Temple and a second wall painting to be found in the
Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) in tablinum (h) on the south wall
(Fig.61). Here we see the tall central element flanked by shorter pedimented panels. These directly parallel the pedimented panels of the Temple. The upper zone of this painting also shares a number of features with the Vespasianic Temple view. The arrangement of the tall central panel, which is flanked by doorways, resembles the placement of the sacellum and the two wall panels. This is a layered composition and the layers interact in a manner familiar from the
Temple. The two colonnades seen each side of the arrangement described above, are each seen against a background doorway- This recalls the way the colonnade of the sacellum must have been seen against the rear wall panels.
2.22 Comparíson of the Composed Wew with ø More Ancìent
Paínting
The framed architectural vista as a compositional motif has a considerable antiquity as evidenced by a painted funerary door
(Loculus slab #6 in Tomb A), dating from the second century BC,
which was found at Sciatbi near Alexandria (Adriani 123-124)
(Fig.62). In this Hellenistic example, a raised stuccoed false door jamb frames the painted view. The painting consists of a pediment
above two pilasters and a central doorway. As Lucille Gigante has 66 noted, the painting is made to resemble the view through a doorway as the outer corners of the pediment are obscured by the frame (Gigante
125). As in the Vespasianic Temple, the frame follows the outer edges of the two pilasters.
2.23 Comparison of the Composed Wew wìth Fourth Style Wall
Pøíntìngs
Compositions which feature a pedimented central structure flanked by panels are also a feature of the Fourth Style. The design occurring in the upper zone of the south wall in room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,l5,l) is a good example (Fig.39). The central section features a pedimented structure enclosing a figure. The podium is depicted as standing in front of the background. This recalls the podium of the sacellum which appears forward of the rear wall. The structures which stand either side of the pedimented element enclose openings. These resemble the panels on the rear wall which flank the sacellum.
Another central pedimented structure appears in the upper zone on a wall fragment from room (g) in the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,6) Fig.aT. This structure is flanked by two elaborate curved structures which againresemble, in their positioning, the wall panels in the
Vespasianic Temple.
A further example of a central pedimented structure appears in the upper zone of the western wall of room (f) in the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (1I,2,2) (Fig.al). A layered
effect is to be seen between the foreground columns supporting the
pediment, and other columns in the background, which is visible
through the first intercolumniation. This resembles the way the 67 colonnade in the Vespasianic Temple as reconstructed by Mazois may have appeared against the colonnade of the sacellum.
Compositions which resemble the view in the Vespasianic
Temple also appear in the central zones of some Fourth Style paintings. The painting on the west wall of the oecus in the Pompeian house (I,3,25) is a good example (Fig.63). The pediment, supporting columns, and podium are projected forward as the sacellum stands forward of the rear wall. Flanking the central structure are two entablatures. These occupy a similar position to the two pedimented panels in the Temple. The slender columns supporting the pediment appear superimposed on these pediments, recalling the way the columns of the sacellum would have been seen against the side panels.
Both superimpositions created a layered effect.
An even clearer likeness to the view in the Vespasianic Temple is to be found on the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinarius
Cerealis (III,4,b) (Fig.37). Here the pedimented central element is flanked by a pair of doorways in the rear wall in a manner closely resembling the arrangement of the sacellum and the wall panels.
Again, projecting columns obscure part of the rear doorways, recalling the superimposition of the sacellum columns on the wall panels.
2.24 The Reinterpretation of Pompeian Buìldings
The congruence between views in architecture-both domestic and public--and rvall paintings shows that wall paintings are an
indication of the way Pompeian architects and other inhabitants viewed buildings. This provides a \¡/ay to interpret Pompeian
architecture which does not depend on a belief in an innate system of
architectural aesthetics. 68
As a first step it is necessary to find views of the buildings in question which are comparable in their composition with architectural scenes in wall paintings. These views can be found in a number of ways. Architectural schemes which resemble facades depicted in wall paintings of the Third and Fourth Styles were generally designed to be viewed from a position opposite their centre lines (Clarke 43-45;
5l-52) and so by analogy a similar viewpoint is indicated for facades and monumental groupings. A further analogy can be made regarding the importance of entrance views between domestic examples, where the viewpoint for composed views was often at the threshold, and public buildings. The example of the Vespasianic Temple also indicates the possible importance of viewpoints outside the entrance.
The significance of views outward from the inside of buildings into the Forum is made clear by Vitruvius in his discussion of the design of the Forum of Fanum (Vitruvius V, i, 7). This is further indicated by analogy with the design of a number of Pompeian houses, where views outward from rooms into the peristyle were frequently arranged as composed views. Other views may also be found were architectural elements have clearly been arranged around a visual axis, as was the case with the Vespasianic Temple.
Views from these locations are then compared with wall paintings which are roughly contemporary with the building under discussion. The aim being to find a view that shares its compositional character with a number of wall paintings. When such a view is found, the elements of the building which have an aesthetic effect ascribed to them by scholars are then reconsidered. In both the view
of the building and in the similar scenes in wall paintings an
examination is undertaken of the way the elements under discussion 69 are depicted or viewed. How do they interact with other architectural features? What is their function within the composition?
The compositional function of the element suggested by this investigation is compared to the aesthetic effect commonly ascribed to the element by scholars. Does the newly suggested function or effect differ from the one ascribed by scholars? Are the two possible effects, the one attested to by the evidence of wall paintings, the other
suggested by the intuition of scholars, in fact in conflict?
2.25 The Desígn of the Forum of Pompeìí
In undertaking this study I will concentrate on an analysis of
the Forum of Pompeii and the group of buildings that surround it. The
analysis of this Forum and these buildings is an appropriate place to
begin a revision of the aesthetic interpretation of Roman urban
architecture and design for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Forum
has been significant both in the formation of theln de siècle art
historians' system of aesthetics, and in the continuing propagation of
this system, in the worlds of architectural history and urban design, as
well as in the scholarly study of ancient architecture. Secondly,
because the emerging study of visual axes has been concentrated at
Pompeii and thus the congruence between wall paintings and
architecture has been demonstrated there, it seems appropriate to look
for similar congnlence between wall paintings and public buildings on
the same site which share the same date and possibly the same
architects and builders with the houses already studied. Thirdly, the
buildings of the Forum can be comparatively well dated, which allows
both the determination of particular building schemes, and their
comparison with near-contemporary wall painting. Fourthly, these
structures survive to a reasonable height allowing relatively accurate 70 reconstruction of ancient views. Finally, these views can be compared with the body of contemporary wall painting evidence at the site.
2.26 Conclusíon
This thesis is predicated on the belief that Roman architecture
is not governed by any system ofuniversal architectural aesthetics. In
this light, the discovery of visual axes in the plans of many houses at
Pompeii and Herculaneum points to a genuinely ancient Pompeian
architectural aesthetic. In this thesis I suggest bhat a body of evidence
concerning such an aesthetic exists in the congnlence between
Pompeian buildings and architectural scenes depicted in numerous
Vesuvian wall paintings. Scholars like Lise Bek who have tentatively
proposed that composed views may have been important in the design
of Roman public buildings as well as houses have attempted to fit their
proposals within the system of aesthetic commonly assumed by
scholars. However, as I will show in this thesis, the arrangement of
these views, as well as other features of the buildings under
consideration, both domestic and public, are in conflict with the
precepts of this spatial aesthetic.
In the following chapters I will look at elements of buildings
whose supposed aesthetic purpose has been determined by modern
scholars based on their intuitions. These elements will be
re-examined, in some cases visual axes and composed views will be
sought for, in others buildings will be observed from a similar
viewpoint to those adopted in depictions of comparable structures in
wall paintings. The aesthetic effects in these views, both in their built
and painted forms will be considered. These effects will be contrasted
with those ascribed by scholars according to their responses to
architecture. 7T
3. The Wedge Shape in the Plan of the Eumachia Building 72
3.1 The Eumnchia Buílding
The Eumachia Building is located on the east side of the
Forum between the Via dell'Abbondanza and the Vespasianic Temple and is one of the grandest structures in Pompeii (Kockel 457-458)
(Fig.48; 64). The building has an inscription which names its main
parts (CIL 10.810). These were: a chalcidicum, or wide monumental
porch opening onto the Forum, an internal porticus, enclosing a
rectangular space, and a cryptoporticus which hemmed the porticus on
three sides. Each of these elements was disposed symmetrically, the
main entrance being centrally placed in the wall at the rear of the
chalcidicum flanked by balanced pairs of curved and rectangular
niches, while the space enclosed by the porticus was arranged around a
longitudinal axis running from the entrance and terminating in alarge
central bay containing the core of a large statue base. Either side of
this base appear smaller statue niches. In the bay the shattered
remains of small statue of Concordia were discovered,leading
Lawrence Richardson to suggest that the central base may have been
occupied by a statue of Livia, while the small Concordia statue
occupied one of the flanking niches, the other one being frtleij with a
statue of Pietas, a suggestion that John Dobbins tentatively agreed with
(Ri chardson "Concor dit' 268 -69 ; P o mp e i i 19 6 -97 ; Dobbins,
"Problems of Chronology, Decoration and Urban Design" 652).
Behind this at the rear of the cryptoporticus \Mas another niche
containing a statue of the priestess Eumachia, the building's patron.
The building has a feature immediately obvious in plan, a
divergence betrveen the porticus and the chalcidicum. The
chalcidicum is aligned to the sides of the Forum and the porticus is
aligned with the Via dell'Abbondanza. At the junction between the two
elements, between the rear of the chalcidicum and the wall of the 73 porticus, lies a wedge shaped set of rooms. These are bisected by the corridor leading from the main entrance through to the porticus. The alleged aesthetic effect of this arrangement is the subject of this chapter.
3.2 The Architectural Hístory of the Eumnchía Buíldíng
The Eumachia Building had two clear phases of construction. The first dates from the Augustan period, according to
Moeller, Kockel, and Richardson and the second from the period after the earthquake of 62 AD and prior to the eruption of 79 AD (Moeller
57 -61 ; Richardson, P ompe ii 1 97; Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology,
Decoration and Urban Design" 647; Kockel 457-58). The divergence dates to the earliest phase of the building (Maiuri, Alla ricerca di
P ompe i preromana 53 -63 ; 9 l -99) (Fig. 65-66).
Richardson dated the establishment of the Eumachia Building on the basis of the association he made between it and the portico of
Livia in Rome and the sculptural gallery in the Forum of Augustus.
On this reasoning the Eumachia Building must have been built a little later than these structures in Rome. Thus, later than 7 BC in the case of the porticus of Livia, and after 2 BC in the case of the Forum of
Augustus. Additionally Richardson noted of the Eumachia building that:
it was built by a priestess and dedicated in her name and that of her son, and not that of her husband, who was duovir in þÐ 213 so presumably it must be dated after that. (Richardson, Pompeii 197) 74
The building seems to have been severely damaged by the 62
AD earthquake. Generally it has been believed that the building was undergoing extensive rebuilding at the time of the eruption (for example Richardson, Pompeii 196). However John Dobbins has convincingly shown that the rebuilding and redecoration was complete at the time of the eruption (Dobbins "Problems of Chronology,
Decoration, and Urban Design" 647-61). Only one of the curved bays, and part of one of the rectangular bays, survived in the rear wall of the chalcidicum from the first period. However, Maiuri's excavations revealed that this later rebuilding followed exactly the lines of the earlier design (Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana 9I-92).
Maiuri also found that the famous marble door-frame had been adjusted slightly to f,rt the new doorway by the addition of a section of stucco, something that strongly suggests that it, too, dates from the building's first phase (Maiuri, L'ultimafase 4L; Alla ricerca di Pompei preromanú 92). The repaired porticus also followed the earlier arrangement. The walls of the porticus and cryptoporticus, including the western wall, remained intact, except for the rear wall of the porticus. Here the wall and the square central bay were replaced by t one large curved bay, flanked by two smaller ones (Maiuri, L'ultima fase 4l-43; AIla ricerca di Pompei preromona 92-93).
John Dobbins' more recent chronological investigations mostly
accord with Maiuri's analysis of the post-earthquake repairs to the
masonry (Dobbins "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban
Design" 647-6I). Dobbins has also shown that the stylobate of the
colonnade of the chalcidicum is a modem reconstruction and that the
original version would have differed considerably in form (Dobbins, 75
"The Pompeii Forum Project 1994-95" 75-83). However the reconstructed columns, if not the stylobate, are aligned with the other columns along the eastern side of the Forum, and their spacing follows that indicated by the surviving statue bases, and thus they are likely to occupy the same positions as the original columns. The dating places the general design of the Eumachia Building within the period of the
Third Style of Pompeian wall painting, while the rebuilding work is securely contemporary with the Pompeian Fourth Style.
3.3 The Reconstructíon of the Eumnchia Building by Mau
Mau has reconstructed the porticus as consisting of a double-storey colonnade (Mau "Osservazioni sull'Edif,tcio" ; Spano)
(Fig.67) However, there seems to be no reliable evidence for the existence ofa second storey, and the building appears to have been a single storey structure (fuchardson, "Concordia" 269). In front of the large bay which contained the core of a large statue base, and opposite the entrance, the colonnade rvas certainly projected forward into the court. Above the large semicircular bay, which in its earlier phase was rectangular, Mau has reconstructed a large pediment visible over the porticus roof. Dobbins' work has revealed that in the building's first phase the colonnade of the porticus was of tufa Doric columns, while after the earthquake it was reconstructed in marble Corinthian columns (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban
Design" 660)
3.4 Other Structures wíth Wedge-Shøped Plans
The Eumachia Building can be compared with a number of
other buildings rvhich exhibit divergence between the facade and the
interior. Nearest to hand, we See the feature at the rear of the facade 76 of the Macellum in Pompeii (De Ruyt 137-49 and Kockel 456)
(Fig.68). Again there is a divergence in alignment between the core of the building and its monumental porch. Like the Eumachia Building's chalcidicum, the porch fronts on to the Forum and is aligned with it, while the core of the building is aligned with the Via degli Augustali.
In this case the resulting wedge shaped space is filled by shops of decreasing depth which open off the porch.
Divergence between facade and building appears in three cases at Ostia, the f,rrst two being horrea or grain stores and the third a large apartment complex. The oldest of these, which has been dated to the middle of the first century AD, is the Horrea of Hortensius, located in the centre of Ostia on the Decumanus Maximus (Rickman 64-69)
(Fig.69). Like the Eumachia Building, the main part consists of a large court. The facade of the building \ilas apparently blank, with only one small doorway apart from the main entrance. The wedge-shaped space is here filled with rooms opening off the intemal courtyard.
The second and later structure has been dated on the basis of brick stamps to aroundl20 AD and is known as the Piccolo Mercato, though again it served as a horrea (Rickman 17-24) (Fig.70). The structure also had a central rectangular courtyard, although in this case it was probably roofed by a barrel vault. There was an arcade facing the street somewhat similar to the one fronting the Macellum in
Pompeii. Shops opened onto it, and these, together with two staircases, filled the wedge space. A trapezoidal entrance connected the arcade with the interior court.
The third and latest Ostian example is a large apartment
complex known as the Garden Houses and dating from about 128 AD
(Watts) (Fig.71). It occupies an entire Insula. At the centre stood two
large rectangular buildings containing the apartments, set within a 77 large rectangular court, enclosed by shops and other structures which
flanked streets around the outside of the insula. While the core of the
complex was rigidly orthogonal, the outline of the insula described by
the surrounding streets was irregular. On the northem side was a
wedge-shaped arrangement filled with shops, penetrated by an
entrance passageway which followed the internal alignment.
The Macellum at Lepcis Magna, like the example at Pompeii,
is not aligned with the street, and a triangular arrangement of rooms
fills the resulting angular space, again bisected by an entrance
passageway (Degrassi 27-70; De Ruyt 97-106) (Fig.72). In this case,
the core of the building stood on a higher level than the street, so the
passage consisted in part of a flight of steps. Also, at Lepcis Magna,
the Forum and the Basilica, which form one complex, are placed
divergently (Ward-Perkins, "Severan Art" 61; Di Vita ) (Fig.73).
Again, a line of shops of decreasing depth opening onto the Forum
fills the wedge space. The doorway opening from the Forum into the
basilica is positioned asymmetrically within a large semicircular
central niche. In this way it differs from the entrances of the other
buildings so far discussed, which were placed with regard to the
symmetry of the facade, with the passageway adjusting the
discrepancy for the interior space. Here the passageway is restricted to
the width of the wall.
Two triumphal arches may be classed with this group of
buildings, as they have two facades, each aligned separately with a
connecting passage, and are placed atjunctions ofstreets ofdivergent
directions. The f,rrst, at Palmyra, forms a major part of the surviving
urban scaenography and has been tentatively dated to the late second
century AD (Amy; Lyttelton 224;249-50) (Fig.7a). Here, the junction
of the angular streets is marked by a corner in the passageway. The 78 second such arch is the North Gate at Jerash, dating to 115 AD
(Detweiler; Lyttelton 242-43) (Fig.75). In this case the junction is between an urban street and a country road, and here the passageway follows the alignment of the urban street. Construction and decoration are of an apparently crude nature.
3.5 The Supposed Intentíon of Wedge-Shøped Plans: The
C o nc ealme nt of I no rt h o g o nalìty
There is a consensus of opinion on the effect intended by the architect in each case where the wedge form appears. This intention
\¡/as supposedly to conceal the irregular angle between the interior and the facade, and thus to give an impression of rigid orthogonality. In the case of the arch at Palmyra, Lyttelton notes that the monument
"cunningly hides the change in direction between this section of the colonnaded street and the final section" (L¡rttelton224). At Jerash,
Detweiler states that the aim was to fit with both the urban street and the extra-urban road (Detweiler 117-18). Of the wedge form between the Basilica and Forum at Lepcis Magna, Ward-Perkins notes, "The result was wholly successful so much so, indeed that the uninformed observer remains quite unaware that there has been any problem to resolve," while Mansuelli refers to the aim of creating an illusion of orthogonality (Ward-Perkins, "Severan Art" 61, Mansuelli 289). On the Piccolo Mercato at Ostia, Rickman comments, "the differences in orientation are masked by the inegularly shaped shops," while of the
Horrea of Hortensius he notes, "all these variations are only visible on the plan or when the horrea is viewed from the theatre" (Rickman 23;
66). MacDonald comments generally: 79
Irregularly shaped blocks of shops and offices, such as the wedge-like ones along the front of the Forum market at Pompeii and the northwest enclosures of the Small Market and Garden Houses at Ostia, suppressed or lessened the effects of wayward plan relationships. (MacDonald 2: 25 6)
He then goes on to observe, "In hiding inconvenient salient angles they brought unaligned features into apparent harmony"
(MacDonaLd2.256).
3.6 The Entrance Wew ín the Eumachía Buílding
Analyzing the Eumachia Building in the same way as the
Pompeian Houses, a visual axis runs along the passage, traverses the
space enclosed by the porticus along the axis of symmetry and
terminates at the large statue base once perhaps supporting a statue of
Livia or perhaps Concordia (Richardson, "Concordia" 268'69)
(Fig.76). As with the Vespasianic Temple, it is possible that the
viewing point lies beyond the doorway, within the chalcidicum. Using
Mau's reconstruction we can imagine the elements to be seen in any
view down the passageway (Fig.ó7;77). If the viewing point did
indeed lie beyond the doorway the view would be framed by the
elaborate marble door frame. Within the frame the side walls of the
passage and the high ceiling above would have been visible. Beyond
this would be a vision of the eastern wing of the porticus, with its
projecting section perhaps towered over by the large pediment
reconstructed by Mau, while within the bay below it may have been
possible to see the large statue within. 80
3.7 The Entrance Vìew of the Eumnchía Comparedwilh lVail
Paíntings
The framing of the view by the marble door frame coresponds to the elaborate frames which set off paintings of vistas seen in many
Third Style wall paintings. On the east wall of the caldarium (2\ of the Casa del Labirinto (W,11,10), this frame takes the form of two
slender columns, with a pediment which has a curved top (Fig.78).
The shafts of the columns exhibit decorative bands. Slender columns
topped by a rectangular panel with heart shaped designs make up the
frame seen in the painting on the south wall of the tablinum (h) of the
Casa di Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.61). A single wide band appears
on each of the columns. Pairs of columns again support a rectangular
frieze framing the central panel of a painting from the west wall of
cubiculum (g) in the same house (Fig.79). Here there is the
suggestion that the frame stands forward of the panel itself. Under the
frieze, a ceiling is depicted running backward to the surface of the
panel. Once again, the columns show decorative banding. A pediment
rises above the frieze into the upper zone of the painting with an
outline of curved design on another rectangular panel. Above this
pediment is depicted a much smaller example of a similar surround. A
frame is seen in the central zone of the painting on the east wall of
room (m) in the Casa di Spurius Mesor (Y11,3,29) (Fig.80)- Narrow
columns complete with decorative bands and false marbling support a
decorated rectangular fneze. Another outlined central panel appears
in the Casa di Spurius Mesor on the south wall of the triclinium
(Fig.81).
As seen with one of the examples from the Casa di Lucretius
Fronto, the frame is depicted as standing forward of the surface of the
central panel, and again a section ofceiling in perspective is projected 81 as ifjoining this surface with the rectangular pediment. This pediment is decorated with rectangular designs, and is supported by columns with the usual banding. On the wall of the room north of the entrance in the Casa dell'Ancora (VI,10,7),the supporting columns that make up the sides of the surround are square, comparable with the side panels of the Eumachia Building's marble frame (Fig.82). Above the columns rests a rectangular pediment. Square columns, in this case richly decorated, also make up the sides of the central frame seen on the north wall of the triclinium (l) in the Casa di Orfeo (VI,14,20)
(Fig.S3). These support a decorative frieze topped by a shallow triangular pediment.
A general comparison can be made between the entrance view of the Eumachia Building and a panel of the wall painting on the southern wall of the triclinium (e) in the Casa di Sulpicius Rufus
(D!9,c) (Fig.59). This particular panel is repeated twice in the upper zone. It consists of a vista with an elaborate enclosing band, which parallels the marble door frame of the Eumachia Building. The vista consists of a building with two projecting wings. The bottom storey consists of a flat wall with a large partly open doorway in the central wing. On the second storey there appears a colonnaded gallery encompassing all th¡ee sides. Withín this gallery statues are visible.
The ends of the projecting galleries are topped by half pediments.
This central wing can be likened to the reconstructed vieu' down the visual axis of the Eumachia Building. In the view through the
Eumachia Building, the place of the flanking wings seen in the painting is taken by the walls of the passageway and possibly by
columns of the foreground western colonnade. The symmetrically
depicted central wing topped by a pediment is comparable with the 82 pediment that may once have appeared above the east wing of the
Eumachia Building.
A view of pedimented structure seen through an elaborate
doorway is a motif of a considerable antiquity stretching back well
into the Hellenistic period, as evidenced by the painted funerary door
at Sciatbi near Alexandria, which dates from the second century BC
(Adriani 123-124) (Fig.62). On the funerary door is depicted a framed
vista of a pedimented structure with a double doorway flanked by two
pilasters.
Finally, a comparison can be drawn between the entrance view
in the Eumachia Building and the entrance view in the Vespasianic
Temple (Fig.58). The sacellum of the Temple occupies the central
position, appearing as a high, pedimented structure, very similar to the
view of the pediment in the rear wall of the Eumachia Building's
portrcus.
3.8 The Facade of the Eumnchía Buíldíng
Comparison can also be made between the facade of the
Eumachia Building when viewed from the Forum and near
contemporary Third Style wall painting. This facade consists of pairs
of architectural elements grouped symmetrically either side of the
central doorway (Fig.Sa). At the far extremities of this facade stand
two walls, projecting perpendicular to its line. At the south end, the
wall continues the line of the buildin$s side wall, which flanks the Via
dell'Abbondatuaout along the edge of the chalcidicum. At the north
end, the wall runs west until it reaches the line of the facade of the
Vespasianic Temple. Next, two narrow and short stairways give
access to raised platforms. These are set within large rectangular bays.
They join with sections of walling, which follow the alignment of the 83 front of the platforms. Within each of these two sections of wall are set high and narrow rectangular statue niches. Next, the facade wall bends eastward to form a pair of large curved bays. On either side of the central doorway st¿nd sections of walling similar to those lying between the rectangular and curved niches, agaín with statue niches.
At the centre stands the great doorway with its marble frame already described.
3.9 The Føcade of the Eumnchía Buíldíng Comparedwíth ll/all
Pøintíngs
The composition of the Eumachia facade is recognizable in the painting on the east wall of the triclinium (d) of Termopolio (I,8,8)
(Fig.S5). At the two extremities of the painting, two rectangular panels occupy the same positions in the design as the recessed rectangular bays at each end of the Eumachia Buildin$s facade.
Adjacent, two narrower dark rectangular panels app€ar further towards the middle of the picture. These resemble the narrow panels of masonry standing between the rectangular and curved bays of the facade. Next appears a further pair of panels. These are the same colour as the rectangular outer panels, but the top line is a downward arching curve. This gives the illusion that the painting surface is curved, receding into the wall surface. This illusion is further reinforced by a band in the upper zone which is bounded top and bottom by downward curving lines, again giving the impression that it is curving into the rvall surface. These panels are equivalent to the curved bays of the facade. Either side of the central element appear narrow panels, each of which contains, above a section of dark colour, an architectural vista of a receding colonnade. While these panels are more elaborate than the other narow panels, they may again be 84 compared with the narrow flat sections of masonry which separate the curved panels from the central doorway in the Eumachia Building facade. Indeed, the location of the receding vistas in the painting compares well with the statue niches found in the masonry panels. The central element of the wall painting is an elaborately framed rectangular panel, easily related to the framed central doorway of the
Eumachia Building.
The same arrangement is depicted in an angled perspective of what is possibly garden fencing on part of the east wall of room (m) of the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29) (Fig.80). Here the outermost recessed rectangular bays seen on the Eumachia Building are omitted, the extremities being simply sections of wide flat fencing. However,
\À/e see the characteristic pair of curved bays, symmetrically placed.
Separating these from the central element stands a pair of flat panels, familiar from the Eumachia facade. In the centre there is a large rectangular opening with a wide and elaborate frame closely paralleling the arrangement of the Eumachia's marble door frame.
Perhaps the most spectacular manifestation of this standard affangement of the day appears on the south wall of the tablinum (i) of the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (M,1,26) (Fig.86). Again, \¡/e see two panels whose curved edges, rising at the bottom and descending at the top, give an illusion of curvature to the pictorial surface. Also familiar from the building facade and the other examples from wall painting, these curves are separated from the paintings'central section by narrow panels. The central panel, like those of the other paintings,
is elaborately outlined.
As has already been discussed, the centrally placed and
elaborately decorated frame is a standard feature of the Third Style.
One example of this is the wall painting from the south wall of 8s tablinum (h) in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.61). This parallels closely the use of the elaborate marble frame around the central door of the Eumachia Building. In Third Style paintings the frame is sometimes made to appear as if it were standing in front of the surface of the central panel by the depiction of a ceiling in perspective. In the building this may be compared to the passageway leading to the vista beyond.
The framed central panel of the Eumachia Building opens to a vista of the interior of the building. This directly compares with wall painting, where the framed central panel frequently opens to depict a vista beyond the pictorial surface. Architectural elements usually appear prominently in these vistas. In the Casa di Orfeo (VI,14,20), on the north wall of the triclinium (l) the central panel opens onto a view of landscape with buildings, colonnades, and statuary (Fig.83). On the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29), the panel opens to a mythological scene (Fig.81). Mythological scenes also appear on two walls of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(VI,3,7) (Fig.36; 87). Both of these last scenes have architectural backgrounds.
3.10 The Asymmctrícal Wew Through the Eumnchia Buílding's
Doorway from the Forum If the aim of the rvedge form was to disguise the change in
divergence, it might be imagined that the facade could be viewed from
a position in the Forum where the view through the central doorway
was symmetrical. This is not the case. Such a line of vierv is
obstructed by one of the columns of the chalcidicum. This can be
shown on Maiuri's plan of the Eumachia Building, and in detail on the
plan of the chalcidicum prepared for this thesis by Barry Rowney 86
(Plan 1; Fig.88 89). If the facade is viewed from a point in the Forum opposite its centre, the line of view passes through the midpoints of an intercolumniation and the main doorway (Plan 2; Fig.90-92). An unobstructed vista opens through the doorway. This vista is, however, asymmetrical. To the left of this vista is an angled view of the northern wall of the passageway. It is possible that columns of the western wing of the porticus would have appeared to the right of the passageway wall. Beyond these could have been seen the corner of the projecting section of the eastern side of the porticus, together with an unprojected section. Behind this was seen part of the curved bay at the back of the porticus. In its original form this bay would have been rectangular. Above this may have appeared part of the great pediment
as reconstructed by Mau. The existence of this asymmetrical vista
means that the wedge form does not disguise the breach in
orthogonality between the chalcidicum and the porticus. I will show
that such an asymmetrically composed view in the central panel of a
symmetrical design such as the Eumachia Buildings facade is entirely
consistent with architectural views depicted in Pompeian Third Style
wall painting contemporary with the building's original design.
3.II Comparison of the I¡iew Through the Doorwøy wíth
Asymmetrical Wews ín Wall Pøíntíngs
Asymmetrical views are a characteristic feature of Pompeian
Third Style wall painting. This style was contemporary with the
construction of the Eumachia Building in its initial form. In the
feature panel of the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di M.
Spurius Mesor (YII,3,29),the flrgures are disposed in a walled corner,
with a single column shown at the right (Fig.81). A similar
arrangement occurs on the west wall of the cubiculum (g) of the Casa 87 di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.79). Here again the view opens into a corner, with a lone column appearing to the right of the picture.
On the east wall of the oecus in Accademia di Musica(Y7,3,7), figures
stand in front of a second framed view of a colonnade seen at an angle
(Fig.36).
Many scenes in the upper zone of the Third Style closely
resemble the angled view of the passageway wall as seen through the
Eumachia's doorway from the Forum. The examples are numerous, but
a few are the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di M. Spurius
Mesor (VII,3,29) (Fig.81), the west wall of the oecus in the Accademia
di Musica (VI,3,7) (Fig.87), the south wall of the tablinum (h) in the
Casa di Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.61), and the north wall of
caldarium (22) inCasa del Labirinto (VI,l1,10). The east wall of the
same room is also interesting, as it shows symmetrically placed walls
with ceilings seen at an angle (Fig.78).
The most spectacular presentation of the total composition of a
symmetrical facade with a central asymmetrical vista is to be seen in
the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (VI,1,26) tablinum (i), on the south
wall (Fig.86). I have already shown how its composition resembles
the Eumachia Building's facade. Two receding curved panels flank
the elaborately framed central vista, which resembles the vierv through
the building's doorway. This central panel depicts a view through the
foreground colonnade with an angled side wall, towards the left wing
of apparently the same colonnade which recedes to the left. As in the
Eumachia view, in the painting we see, at an angle, a section of the
passageway wall. Above this is visible a ceiling which resembles the
ceilings of the passageway and the porticus originally to be seen in the
view of the Eumachia Building from the Forum. Beyond the wall and
ceiling, three columns are visible, which resemble the columns in the 88 westem wing of the porticus possibly contained within the Eumachia's framed view. In the background is seen an angled, asymmetrical view of a colonnade which seems to join as a wing of the foreground colonnade. While this differs from the Eumachia's vista, it is clearly an asymmetrical section of architecture which parallels the view of a section of the projecting colonnade in the Eumachia Building. The use of an asymmetrical vista as the centrepiece to an overall symmetrical composition appears both in the painted view and in the built view. In the Eumachia Building, the wedge form has enabled the realization of this composition in built form.
The creation of composed asymmetrical views is familiar from
Pompeian domestic architecture. In Chapter 2 above, a number of examples of such asymmetrical picture views were presented, including that of the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48). From the entrance there appears a carefully framed asymmetrical view of a receding colonnade. This has been achievedbythe off-centre placement of the tablinum opening (Descoeudres 137) (Fig.33-3a).
This adjustment in order to create a composed picture can be compared with the use of the wedge form to permit an asymmetrical view to be the centrepiece of the symmetrical facade. The domestic examples show that the creation of asymmetrical picture views is a familiar practice in Pompeian architecture.
3.12 The Two Wews ín the Eumachía Buílding
I have shown that there are two picture views through the
doorway of the Eumachia Building (Fig.93). One view is from within
the chalcidicum and is symmetrical, and the other is from the Forum
and is asymmetrical. The appearance of two composed views from
different points which utilize some of the same elements is not 89 confined to the Eumachia Building, but is also seen in some Pompeian houses. The entrance view in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) terminates in an asymmetrical arrangement visible through the tablinum, opening in the same manner as the view in the Casa della
Caccia antica (VII,4,48) (Fig.9a-95). Flooded with the light of the peristyle, this framed composed view consists of two elements, the fountain to the right and a column to the left. The wall at the rear of the peristyle, which abuts the fountain, has a painted decoration.
Concealed perfectly by the peristyle column is a painting of a column on the back wall of the peristyle. The f,rrst viewing point is conventionally placed in the entrance passageway, and the first visual axis proceeds from this point across the atrium and tablinum, terminating in the back wall of the peristyle. Like the view from the
Forum of the Eumachia Building, this first view is asymmetrical. A second composed view can be seen from a point in the tablinum
(Fig.96-98). From the tablinum a second peristyle column becomes visible, slightly to the right of the tablinum opening. Also from this position, the painted column on the back wall, which was obscured by the peristyle column in the entrance view, is partially visible. A second such painted column matches the second peristyle column.
This second painted column has not, however, been placed directly behind its peristyle column, as was the first. Instead it appears further to the right. ln fact it is placed with regard to the second visual axis.
From the position in the tablinum this second axis proceeds obliquely through the central point of the intercolumniation between the two peristyle columns to a point on the back wall midrvay between the painted columns. Vierved along this axis the impression is created of
a regular double colonnade. While the small fountain is not centred in this second view, the regularity of the pairs of cohtttuìs, with a 90 landscape view centrally placed between the painted pair, gives a general impression of symmetry. This view can be likened to the symmetrical view of the Eumachia Building's interior from the chalcidicum.
3.13 Conclusíon
These findings on the design of the Eumachia Building lead to re-evaluation of the idea that wedge forms in Roman buildings were always designed to conceal breaches in the orthogonality of the plan.
While the view through the doorway from the chalcidicum ís symmetrical, a vierv from the Forum of the overall facade containing a symmetrical view through the doorway is impossible. The line of such a vierv is blocked by one of the chalcidicum's columns. A centred view of the facade from the Forum has as its centrepiece an unobstructed, asymmetrical vierv through the doorway. Thus, the wedge form does not disguise the breach in orthogonality.
Asymmetrical architectural scenes similar to the vierv through the Eumachia Building's doorway from the Forum are found in many
Pompeian wall paintings. ln one example in particular, an arrangement with an aslnnmetrical vista as the centrepiece of an overall symmetrical composition resembling the view of the Eumachia
Building from the Forum is depicted.
The rvedge form has been used to create a picture vierv with an asymmetrical centrepiece. This is consistent with the asymmetrical composed views found in Pompeian houses. The existence of two composed views through the Eumachia Buildings doorway, one
symmetrical from within the chalcidicum, the other asymmetrical
from the Forum, is also consistent with the arrangements found in
Pompeian houses. 9I
4. Symmetrical Planning and the Macellum 92
4.1 Symmetrical Planníng ín Romnn Architecture
It is a commonly held view that axial design is the most characteristic feature of Roman architecture. Peter Blankenhagen has
unequivocally stated that:
What connects all these undertakings, from the rather modest Forum of Caesar to the enorrnous Bath of Caracalla (to mention only one of the examples of late Roman architecture), is obviously axial symmetry and frontality. That this is the main characteristic of Roman architecture has been well known for a long time. (Blankenhagen 23)
According to Lyttelton, the function of axial design was to draw
buildings into a hierarchical relationship and create a single unified
impression:
The growing development of axial planning--a factor playing a part in the development of baroque planning as it helped to bring about the subordination of subsidiary buildings in a complex to the central one, and so to create a unified ensemble. (Lyttelton 214)
Such a concern with hierarchy supposedly emerged in the Hellenistic
period:
During the Hellenistic period the baroque principle of subordinating individual buildings to a general effect began to gain ground" and the principle of axial planning and the symmetrical arrangement of buildings began to oust the older principle of free-grouping of buildings . . . By the begrnning of the first century AD the principle of axial planning in the organtzation of both religious and secular building complexes had triumphed over the older principle of free-grouping. (Lyttelton2l2) 93
Such considerations of hierarchy and creation of complete ensembles were supposedly manifest in the architecture of Pompeii, both in the
Macellum (Lyttelton 212) (Fig.68), and in the Forum itself according to Favro (Favro, [Thesis] 325).
4.2 The Supposed Effect of Symmetrícal Planning: A Symmetrícal
Víew Down the '4xìs In such an axial composition the visitor was expected by
scholars to have viewed the complex along the axis of symmetry. By
the placement of the entrance to a symmetrically planned complex on
the axis, the hierarchy was said to have been communicated to the
visitor, as Lyttelton notes in her discussion of the Temple of
Ba'alshamin at Si in the Hauran:
A centrally placed door opposite the temple entrance leads into this court from the larger court outside. The Temple of Ba'alshamin and its court scarcely qualify as baroque planning, and they are mentioned only because they show the growing development of axial planning--a factor playing a part in the development of baroque planning as it helped to bring about the subordination of subsidiary buildings in a complex to the central one, and so to create a unified ensemble. (Lyttelton 2r4)
From this position, Favro believed, the spectator would have analyzed
the geometric symmetry of the composition. This is made clear in
Fawo's description of the Forum of Augustus:
Once he stood before the sculpture, the pedestrian was on axls with the entire complex, facing the forum's primary structure, the Temple of Mars Ultor. Looking at the dominant Temple of Mars Ultor, the pedestrian was awed not only by the forum's grand scale, but also by its calculated balance. The symmetry of the complex was unrelenting. (Fawo, [Thesis] 355) 94
The spectator was supposed to appreciate the symmetry by imaginary
division of the complex into two equal halves around the central line
of his view: "standing on axis, the pedestrian could readily imagine
the straight line bisecting the forecourt and culminating in the apex of
the temple's pediment" (Fawo, [Thesis] 355).
This concem for axial views was allegedly manifest in
depictions of architecture in contemporary wall painting. Lyttelton
notes that such a symmetrical axial view appears on a Second Style
wall painting from Boscoreale (Lyttelton 19-20;210-11).
In this view of the intention of axial symmetry, common to a
number of scholars, then, the main entrance to an architectural
ensemble is placed on the axis of symmetry. The entrance so placed
supposedly directs the spectator to view the complex along the axis,
and thus enables an appreciation of the symmetry around the line of
view. The axially placed entrance is regarded as the normal form in
late Hellenistic architectural ensembles. Cases where entrances are
not placed on the symmetrical axis are seen as aberrations, and
indications that the architects had not yet fully embraced the principle
of axial planníng. An example is Lyttelton's comment on the
doorways of the Bouleuterion of Miletus within the otherwise axial
Bouleuterion complex:
Although the hall lacked a central entrance so that the axiality of the building was not completely carried through, the placing of the doors on either side of the shrine-Bouleuterion axis was perhaps more logical, for a central entrance would have been hidden behind the shrine and so invisible from the propylon. The Bouleuterion, therefore, appears to show developing predilection for axiality in the Hellenistic World, but there is not yet a slavish adherence to it, regardless ofother considerations. (Lyttelton 2l l-12) 95
4.3 The Non-Axial Wews Through the Macellum's Doorways
The Macellum at Pompeii is given by Lyttelton as an example of a symmetrically planned market, with a tholos placed on the main axis within its rectangular court (Lyttelton 212) (Fig.68). However, it departs from the supposed standard for such symmetrical plans by not having an entrance on the axis. Instead, an aedicula containing a statue base stands on the main axis. The two entrances from the
Forum are placed on either side of this aedicula. They do not therefore afford a symmetrical view of the building along its main axis. Rather, each doorway offers a nalrow asymmetrical vista of the interior.
From the stylobate of the Macellum, on the central cross axis of the chalcidicum, the view is centred on the Aedicula which stands on the main axis of the building, though it is not perpendicular to it because there is a slight divergence in the alignment between the body of the building and the chalcidicum (Fig.99). In its present condition this aedicula consists of a base, with two ornamental columns which are placed at either end. The capitals of these columns were once elaborated, with the figure of an eagle (Richardson, Pompeii 200). A wide and shallow niche appears in the wall, at the rear of the aedicula which probably once contained a statue.
The two entrances appear on either side of this aedicula, but, in the last phase at least, a direct view through these doorways would have been obstructed by two columns which once stood at the mouth of the passage leading to the main entrance between the tabernae and the aedicula (Fig.100). In front of the surviving bases for these columns appear substantial statue bases. These columns and st¿tue bases would have obscured the view through the doorways, with the 96 exception of a narrow strip on the outer side of each view (Plan 5).
Because of the divergence between the chalcidicum and the
Macellum's interior court, there was a difference in the view through
each door. Through the northern door a section of the interior court's
northern side colonnade would have been visible, while through the
southern door, a section of the eastem rear colonnade would have been
seen.
A clear view through each doorway could only have been
obtained by looking from points in one of the two shallow
passageways which lead to the entrances and lie between the aedicula
and the tabernae wall. From these positions the view through each
doorway is a near mirror image of the other (Fig.101-02). Because the
entrances do not stand on the main axis of the building, the views are
not axial. The tholos does not occupy the centre of the vista, but
appears on the side towards the aedicula and is not seen in its entirety,
as it is partly obscured by the doorway. Beyond the tholos was the
religious shrine which stood at the rear of the court. Again, this did
not occupy the centre of the image,but appeared on one side. On the
side of each view adjacent to the tabernae wall appeared a section of
the eastern, rear colonnade of the court through which would have
been visible the entrances of one of the two side halls which flanked
the shrine. These in turn contained further columns, which appeared
in both these entrance views. Finally, in the foreground appeared
some of the columns of the court's western colonnade.
4.4 The Architectural Hístory of the Macellum
According to Maiuri the Macellum was developed in three
principal stages (De Ruyt 138 and Maiuri, Pompei preromana 75-88)
(Fig.6S; 103-04). The first was built in the latter half of the second 97 century BC. This original structure consisted of a rectangular colonnaded court aligned with the Via degli Augustales. Facing this street were a line of tabernae, and more tabernae stood on the southern side of the interior court. The details of this first structure have been revealed principally through the excavations of Maiuri.
John Dobbins has reversed the earlier analysis of Maiuri with regard to the buildings subsequent development and shown that the chalcidicum and its shops post-date the earthquake of 62, as do most of the shops in the interior and those on the northern exterior side.
The perimeter wall of the court, which Maiuri dated to after the earthquake is shown by Dobbins to have been in the most part to pre-date the earthquake and the subsequent rebuilding. Dobbins has also pointed out that the finished interior decoration in Fourth Style wall painting and the presence of lead in the sections of the stylobate which survive, conclusively prove that the building was complete at the time of the eruption, debunking Maiuri's theory that it was still under construction and Richardson's belief that the porticus was a temporary structure (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design" 668-85; Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana
75-88; Richardson, P ompeii 200-0 I ).
Most significantly for this study Dobbins has shown that after the earthquake a previously triple-arched entrance on to the Forum was converted to the double opening seen today, with the central arch being blocked by the construction of the aedicula (Dobbins, "Problems of Ch¡onology, Decoration and Urban Design" 671-73). The asymmetrical views of the interior thus date from after the earthquake of 62 AD, to the time of the Fourth Style in Pompeian wall painting.
According to Dobbins the situation of the tholos remains unclear, however in contradiction to Maiuri he believes that it was complete at 98
the time of the eruption, probably having a conical roof (Dobbins,
"Problems of Chronolory, Decoration and Urban Design" 685; Maiuri,
L'ultimafase 60-61). Mau's reconstruction of the interior thus accords with current ideas about the form of the Macellum in 79 AD
(Mau, Pompeii 97) (Fig.l0a).
4.5 The Deliberate Creatíon of Asymmetrícal Wews
The two entrances of the Macellum resemble in some ways the two doors into the Bouleuterion at Miletus, placed either side of the complex's main axis (Lyttelton 212). Lyttelton suggested that in that case, logical planning with regard to the central shrine led to the placing of the two doors in their positions, which prevailed over a natural tendency to place an entrance on the axis. Thus, a symmetrical vista of the interior of the Bouleuterion from the entrance was denied.
In the case of the Macellum, it would seem that no such logical planning considerations could be advanced to excuse the deliberate blocking of the axial entrance by the construction of the aedicula.
Examination of contemporary wall painting suggests that the location
of the two entrances, and the views through them, fit well with the
prevailing visual taste. This suggests that the two entrances were
intentionally placed either side of the axis to create this pair of
asymmetrical, mirror image, composed views.
4.6 The Central Wew of the Doorways Comparedwìth Second Style
Wall Paintings
Lyttelton refers to a Second Style painting from a cubiculum of
the villa at Boscoreale as evidence of the desire to create axial views
in architecture (Lyttelton 19-20;210-211) (Fig.105). This painting
depicts a view of a colonnaded court with a central tholos seen 99 through an axially placed propylon. Lyttelton also includes an
illustration of a similar Second Style composition from the Corinthian
oecus in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,l1,10) (Fig.106). This also depicts
an axial view through a propylon placed within a colonnaded court.
However, other paintings contemporary with these depict views
through openings on either side of a foreground central element. This
anangement is analogous to the arrangement of the Macellum's two
doorways either side of the aedicula. The painting from the south wall
of the entrance hall of the frigidarium in the Casa del Criptoportico
(I,6,2) shows a symmetrical pair of openings, with matching views
(Fig.107). Each view shows a receding colonnade with a f,rgure
standing in front. The central section of the painting is reserved for a
landscape view, treated as if it were a painted panel attached to the flat
wall. Another similar Second Style composition appears on the south
wall of the apodyterium in the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) (Fig.108).
Here two mostly concealed openings flank a flat central element
which stands in the foreground. The view through each opening again
shows a receding colonnade. A particularly graphic example comes
from the walls of the Villa at Oplontis, where a structure centred on a
tripod is flanked by two open vistas of angled rows of columns
(Fig.l09). These paintings just as much as the examples Lyttelton
presents, give an indication of the prevailing visual taste.
4.7 The Central Wew of the Doorways Comparedwíth Third Style
llall Paíntíng
Arrangements of symmetrícal pairs of openings constitute a
characteristic of much Third Style painting. There is a play with a
number of pairs of openings and other elements in a painting from
Pompeian house (V,1,14) (Fig.110). Another pair of openings, with 100 an apparently flat central element displaying a plant motif, appears in the upper zone of the north wall of caldarium (22) in the Casa del
Labirinto (VI,11,10) (Fig.l11). Further play with pairs of recessed structures and openings with flat central elements is made in the upper zone of the north wall of the triclinium (1) in the Casa di Orfeo
(VI,14,20) (Fig.83). Perhaps the most graphic example in the Third
Style comes from the upper zone of the south wall of tablinum (h) in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.61). In the centre is
depicted a structure, easily comparable with the aedicula of the
Macellum, with a platform supporting a tripod which stands inside a
shallow niche. On either side of this appear doorways, located in the
equivalent positions to the entrances to the Macellum. Also, in the
middle zone of the painting, the central element is flanked by a pair of
pedimented frames. Above these appear openings, each with a view
of a retreating curved colonnade (Fig.1l2). Anumber of pairs of
openings, each with a view of a receding colonnade, appear in both
the middle and upper zones of the painting on the east wall of
triclinium (d) in Termopolio (I,8,8) (Fig.85). Yet another example of
this composition appears in the upper zone of the south wall of the
triclinium (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus (D!9,c) (Fig.59). On
the east wall of room (m) in the Casa di Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29)
matching architectural vistas appear on either side of the
predominantly flat main panel (Fig.80).
4.8 The Central Wew of the Doorwøys Comparedwíth Fourth Style
WaIl Pøintìngs
This composition is an even more common feature of Fourth
Style, the paintings contemporary with the Macellum's f,rnal phase.
Open vistas flank an undifferentiated central panel on both the walls 1 adjacent to the northern comer of room (d) in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.113). A pair of clearly defined doorways flank a central panel with a landscape vista on the west wall of room (a) in the Casa dell'Ara massima (VI,16,15) (Fig.114). The familiar
arrangement is also seen on the west wall of room (f) in the Pompeian
house (DL5,11) (Fig.115), and on the east wall of room (F) in the Casa
dell'Ara massima (VI,16,1 5) (Fig. I 16).
4.9 The Asymmetrícal Waps Through the Doorwøys
In the Macellum's final phase it would not have been possible
to have a view through both doorways from the one central spot in
front of the aedicula. A column stood in front of each of the
passageways leading to the entrances, and mostly obscured the view.
To gain a clear view the spectator must stand in either of these
passageways, and thus look through one door at a time. The view
through either door is a near mirror image of the other. The view
presented is asymmetncal, with only part of the central tholos being
visible, and this being located to one side of the view.
4.10 The Asymmetrícøl l¡ìews Through the Doorways Compared
with Thírd Style Wøll Paintings
As has been already shown with regard to the Eumachia
Building, asymmetrical architectural views are frequently seen as the
focal points of Third Style painting. An example is the wall painting
from the south wall of the triclinium of the Casa di Spurius Mesor
(yII,3,29), where two figures stand in a corner adjacent to an
off-centre column (Fig.81). A similar asymmetrical arrangement
appears on the south wall of the tablinum (i) in the Casa di L.
Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26), where pride of place is given to an r02 asymmetrical view of a receding colonnade seen through a foreground colonnade (Fig.S6). This last painting can be likened to the view of the Eumachia Building from the Forum (Fig.90; 92). As the central feature, the doorway frames an asymmetrical view of the interior porticus.
4.11 The Asymmetrícal Wews Throagh the Doorways Compared with Fourth Style lyall Paintíngs
Such an interest in the asymmetrical view is canied on into the period of the Fourth Style, both in architecture and painting. The entrance view in the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48) is a classic case. The carefully positioned window of the tablinum frames an
asymmetrical vista (Fig.3a). This features, as the major element, a
receding colonnade. Such a composition also appears in a
contemporary wall painting on a wall of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Fig.35); and on the east wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(VI,3,7) (Fig.36). In the entrance view of the Casa della Font¿na
piccola (VI,8,23) the rear wall of the tablinum again frames an
asymmetrical vista. This consists of an off-centre column and a
fountain (Fig.9a-95).
4.12 Mírror Image Paírs of Wews ín Thírd Style llall Paíntíng
In some Third Style paintings, these asymmetrical views
appear in matching pairs, one view being the mirror image of the
other. These paintings are contemporary, or near contemporary, with
the construction of the Macellum's doorways. They are comparable to
the views through the doorways of the Macellum, each being
asymmetrical, but each being a near mirror image of the other. An
example is the upper zone of the painting on the rear wall of room (e) 103 in the Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus (D!9,c) (Fig.60). Each view consists of four main elements, a porticus, a two storey building, an archway, and another building, of which only the side and corner are visible.
Another mirror-image pair appears in the middle zone of a painting on the east wall of room (m) in the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29)
(Fig.S0). These painted views encompass aîarray of structures.
4.13 Mírror Image Pøìrs of Wews in Fourth Styb lryaU Paintíngs
Pairs of asymmetrical views in mirror image are also a feature
of Fourth Style wall painting, for example in the paintings on the walls
of room (d) in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.1l3).
The south and west walls of the peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii
(VI,15,1) present a particularly good example, where a number of such
pairs flank the central element of each wall (Fig.40). Each view is
asymmetrical and shows columnar structures. On the walls of the
court of the Macellum itself appear paintings of elaborate doorways
opening onto views of asymmetrical and only partially visible
architectural elements (Fig. 1 17).
Some of these asymmetrical views are directly comparable
with views in the Macellum, as they include off-centred and partially
obscured tholoi. A good example appears on the west wall of the
peristyle in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6) (Fig.a3). A narrow panel
shows an off-centred view of a tholos with columns behind. Another
nafrow architectural view appears on the wall of room (15) in the Casa
della Cacci a antica (VII,4,48) (Fig 1 18). In this case, the tholos is
partly obscured by foreground architectural elements which frame the
view. This corresponds to the way part of the view of the tholos in the
Macellum would have been obscured by the edge of the doorway. A
similar afrangement, with the tholos partly obscured behind the frame 104 of the view, occurs near the northem corner of room (10) in the Casa di P. Vedius Siricus (11II,1,25.47) (Fig.aÐ. In this naffow view,
columns appear to stand forward of the tholos, recalling the
foreground columns of the western wing of the porticus in the
Macellum as seen from the doorways. Partly obscured tholoi appear
in a mirror image pair of views on a wall of room (d) in the Casa della
Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.113). On the east wall of room (F) in
the Casa dell'Ara massima (VI,16,15) appears a painting showing a
pair of views, each depicting a pavilion which is partially seen
(Fig.116).
4.14 Symmetrícal Plannìng Used to Creøte an Asymmetrìcøl Pair of
Entrance Wews
The close resemblance between the views through the
Macellum's doorways and many contemporary wall paintings suggests
that the doorways were conceived as composed views. Symmetrical
planning is essential in their creation. Placement either side of the
building's axis makes the views both asymmetrical and a mirror image
pair. In the case of the Macellum, symmetrical planning has been
used to create complex asymmetrical composed views, each the mirror
image of the other, rather than a simple symmetrical view along the
axls
4.15 Conclusion
It is a commonly held belief amongst many scholars that
symmetrical planning was intended to create a symmetrical vista down
the axis of the plan. The Macellum is an example of a symmetrically
planned building. It does not, however, have an entrance placed on
the axis. John Dobbins has shown that in the Macellum's last phase of 105 construction the middle opening of the former triple arched entrance was filled in (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronolory, Decoration and
Urban Design" 671-73). Thus an entrance consisting of two doors standing either side of the building's main axis was created. From these two doorways, a symmetrical view down the Macellum's axis is impossible. Thus, in this case, symmetrical planning has not been used to create such a view. Instead the views through the doorways are as)immetrical, and each view is the virtual mirror image of the
other.
This pair of asymmetrical, mirror image views bears a close
resemblance to views depicted in many Second, Third and Fourth
Style wall paintings. This suggests that the doorways were placed in
order to create two composed views, in keeping with contemporary
pictorial taste. Symmetrical planning has been used in this case to
create this pair of views. It is the doorway's placement either side of
the axis which makes the views through them an asymmetrical,
mirror-image pair. This complex effect differs from the supposed
intention of symmetrical planning-the creation of a symmetrical view
down the axis. 106
5. Symmetrical Planning and the Eumachia Building 107
5.1 Symmetrícøl Planníng and.4xíal Pøthways
In the opinion of many scholars, after initially taking in the symmetrical view, the visitor to the axially planned Roman building was intended by the ancient architect to move forward along the line of the axis. The axis supposedly indicated a clear pathway along which the moving visitor was to experience spaces as a sequence.
Diane Fawo ascribes such a sequential experience occurring to
an ancient visitor to the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos:
A more subtle, yet equally effective manipulation occurred at the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos of ca. 200 BC. At this sloping site, the visitor climbed through a series of distinct enclosures diminishing in architectural and spatial scale. These processional modulations skillfully prepared the viewer for the small scale of the Athena temple, the religious focal point of the entire ensemble. (Favro, [Thesis] 335)
Lyttelton critiques the complex of the Temple of Augustus and Men at
Pisidian Antioch in this vein. She suggests that the various structures
were to be experienced as a sequence by the visitor following the axis.
She believes that the experience of the sequence would give an
impression of unity and highlight the importance of the Temple itself
(Lyttelton 2I3). F;ach of the structures encountered on such a pathway
was supposed to be experienced in a symmetrical view. This is made
clear in Lyttelton's description of the movement through the complex
of the Temple of Artemis at Jerash:
The whole system of approaches to the Temple of Artemis represents a grandiose scheme in which one architectural element or section is succeeded by another forming a whole of great complexity. The welding together of all these elements to form an impressive unity is certainly an achievement in baroque planning. The creation of splendid vistas was another 108
achievement of baroque planning in this complex; first there was the distant view from the three-arched gate down the colonnaded stree! and through the trapezoidal court to the Propylaea; then there was probably the most original view: the closer view of the Propylaea and their colonnade framed by the trapezoidal court; beyond this court there was the vista of the huge flights of steps going up through the Propylaea to the court of the temple, or perhaps only to the forecourt, which is so far unexcavated. In this last view the steps starting in the recess in front of the Propylaea continue unintemrpted past the four large columns in front of the Propylaea and then go up in a monumental flight behind the Propylaea to the forecourt of the temple; they help to link the Propylaea both to what follows and to what precedes, and prevent them from having a separate existence of their own, independent of the great complex which they form part. (Lyttelton2lS-219) (Fig.l19)
According to Lyttelton, axial planning culminated at Baalbek, where the Sanctuary of Jupiter \Mas designed to be seen solely from the axis. Predominant importance was given to the symmetrical view from the propylaea:
Apart from the Propylaea and the huge flights of steps leading up to them the exterior of the sanctuary is without visual importance; the sanctuary was clearly designed to be looked at only from the inside. Everything has been subordinated to the magniflrcent vista stretching ahead from the Propylaea, and to the unfolding of the long approach to the temple and the great altar with the richly decorated and elaborate exedrae revealed behind the colonnades on either side. The Temple of Jupiter is designed to be approached only in this one way, there is one overwhelming view; the spectator cannot walk round the temple as was possible in the case of earlier buildings. (Lyttelton 222) (F íg. 120)
The idea that axes were intended as pathways is not easily
applicable to all axially planned complexes. The Forum of Augustus 109 was a large axially planned complex. Fawo describes the axial view from near the entrance, ascribing to the ancient visitor a temptation to map mentally the axis:
Once he stood before the sculpture, the pedestrian \¡/as on axls with the entire complex, facing the forum's primary structure, the Temple of Mars Ultor. Looking at the dominant Temple of Mars Ultor, the pedestrian was awed not only by the forum's grand scale, but also by its calculated balance. The symmetry of the complex was unrelenting. Standing on axis, the pedestrian could readily imagine the straight line bisecting the forecourt and culminating in the apex of the temple's pediment. (Fawo, [Thesis] 355) (Fig.l2l-22)
However, as Favro makes clear, it was not possible to move forward
along the axis:
However, if he tried to move along the visual axis, he was soon thwarted. Obstacles, for example the central quadriga and the altar on the temple's stepped podium, compelled the pedestrian to deviate from the axis. (Fawo, [Thesis] 355-56)
Further, both Fawo and Peter Blankenhagen note that it was
impossible to experience the full symmetrical nature of the plan from
the central court. The side apses were partly obscured by the
colonnades:
To the right the pedestrian had tant¿lizing glimpses of light coming from the large exedra behind the colorful portico columns. However, since the piers before the exedra did not align directly with the columns of the portico, a full view of this secondary space was impossible. (Fawo, [Thesis] 354) 110
Blankenhagen admits that the full symmetrical effects of the ground plan were not immediately obvious:
In describing the Forum of Augustus we showed that the rectangularity of the ground plan could not be immediately appreciated because the apses were cut off by the colonnades. The identical form of these apses was likewise not apparent at first glance. lVherever one stood in the Forum there was no way of experiencing their exact correspondence. This is all the more strange since the ground plan of the Augustan Forum is very simple and clear and does not consist of many parts. The apses which seem to embrace the temple do so only in the ground plan; no such effect was achieved in the actual architecture. (Blanke nhagen 24)
Similarly in the Forum of Trajan, Blankenhagen acknowledges that the
full symmetry of the plan cannot be easily experienced:
If we examine the apses of the Forum of Trajan, the two apses of the court and those of the basilica, we see that what we said about the apses of the Forum of Augustus is equally true for those of the court of Trajan's Forum. The apses of the basilica could be appreciated more easily when standing in the basilica' But the fact that allþur apses are identical in shape could never be recognizedinany way, save by actual measurement. (Blankenha gen 24) (Fig. I 23 )
Despite these diffrculties, Favro and Blankenhagen believe that
visitors were still intended to follow the axis where possible, and to
analyze the plans in order to appreciate their symmetry. tn the Forum
of Augustus, according to Fawo, visitors were supposed to follow the
line of the axis as best they could, the forced divergence supposedly
heightening the axial effect. 111
Such digressions did not minimize the force of the axial layout. Rather they perceptually expanded the cornplex's size, for the pedestrian was forced to traverse a gteater distance to reach his visual goal. (Favro, fThesis] 355-56)
Blankenhagen specifically rules out the possibility that an intention of visual surprise may be indicated by these complexities
There might be the intent to surprise, a device so common in the intricate systems of Roman interior decorations. The wall decorations of Second Style, for example in the Villa dei Misteri, are ever-new variations of such illusionistic surprise effects. . . . But in architecture with such gtand pretensions as the Imperial Fora these illusionistic games would have no place. (Blankenha gen 24)
Rather, Blankenhagen believes that these problems provided something of a challenge to the sophisticated visitor to analyze the plan and eventually arrive at an understanding of the symmetry:
There is still the possibility that the architect who drew such a ground plan almost as an omamental creation hoped that the intelligent visitor, in becoming acquainted with the finished work, would frnally grasp the symmetries of his design. . . . Therefore the surprise here is of a different character and is to my mind the really original and interesting feature of that striking axiality and symmetry which forms the basic pattern of the Imperial Fora. (Blankenhagen2{)
Blankenhagen believes that symmetrical planning was undertaken because of a love of symmetry for its own sake: tt2
What then is the meaning of this form of symmetry and axiality? I think we must conclude that it is merely the pattern of the blueprint, a love of regularity for its own sake, a dealing with architecture in an almost abstract way. (Blankenhagen 24)
In the view about the intention behind symmetrical planning that I have canvassed above, the visitor to buildings so planned was
supposed to move along the axis, experiencing it as a series of axial
views. The visitor supposedly appreciated the symmetry by
performing intellectual analyses of these views. Other symmetrical
elements, which cannot be seen from the axis, were to be examined by
the lingering spectator, and their symmetry was to be acknowledged
through mental reconstruction of the plan. Planning was supposedly
based on a love of symmetry for its own sake.
Examination of the porticus of the Eumachia Building, and the
comparison of its features with a number of Pompeian V/all paintings,
will suggest alternative intentions for symmetrical planning, intentions
atigned with the creation of visual effects other than a rigid symmetry
for its own sake.
5.2 The Symmetrícally Plønned Porticus of the Eumachia Buíldíng
The Eumachia Building is in some ways a classic example of a
symmetrically planned axial building (Fig.64). While there is a
divergence between the alignment of the facade wall and the core of
the building, the entrance stands on the axis of the interior- When
seen from the chalcidicum the doorway frames a view along the
symmetrical axis of the core of the building which consists of a
colonnaded court. 113
5.3 The Archítectu¡al History of the Eumnchía Buíldíng
As was discussed in Chapter 3 the recent investigations of John
Dobbins have confirmed in general the conclusions of Maiuri that the
Eumachia Building as it was rebuilt after the earthquake of 62 AD followed the lines of the building's earlier plan with the major exception of the rear wall of the porticus (Dobbins "Problems of
Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design" 647-61; Maiuri l'ultima fase 40-43; Alla ricerca di Pompei preromano 91-99). Maiuri's excavations showed that prior to the earthquake this consisted of two
straight walls either side of a central rectangularbay. It was rebuilt in
a different form, having two minor apses and one major apse. The
major apse featured a large statue base, flanked by two smaller statue
niches. As was noted in Chapter 3 it was in this large apse that a
statue of Concordia was discovered (Richardson, Pompeii 196-97;
Zattker 108-09). Richardson has suggested that this statue together
with another of Pietas occupied the side niches while on the central
base stood alarger statue of Livia. The straight sections of walling
either side of the large apse projected some way across the mouth of
the apse. In the mouth stood two columns. The smaller apses and the
straight sections of walling were each penetrated by a window. These
windows opened onto a light well lying between the porticus wall and
the wall of the cryptoporticus. The cryptoporticus walls were also
penetrated by windows. Dobbins has shown that the rear wall of the
porticus was sheathed in marble and that rebuilding and redecoration
were complete at the time of the eruption (Dobbins, "Problems of
Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design" 658-61) (Fig.66). The
general lines of the Eumachia Building are thus contemporary with tt4
Third Style walt painting, while the redesigned rear wall of the porticus dates to the time of Fourth Style wall painting.
5.4 The Wewfromthe Entrance
The view from the entrance towards the opposite end of the court is centred on a large curved bay at the rear ofthe porticus
(Fig.76-77). Before the earthquake this bay was rectangular, but it was rebuilt in a curve. In front of this bay the porticus projected forward. Mau reconstructs a large pediment rising above the central bay (Mau, Pompeii 116) (Fig.67). Atthe centre of the main bay stood
a large statue probably of Livia (Richardson "Concordia" 268'69;
Pompeii 196-97;Dobbins, "Problems of Chronolory, Decoration and
Urban Design" 652). This was framed by both the columns at the
mouth of the central bay and by the columns of the projected sections
of the porticus. The Livia statue was flanked by the two subsidiary
statues probably of Concordia and Pietas, which themselves were
framed by the spur walls as well as by the columns of the projected
porticus. Sections of the rear porticus were also visible on both sides
of the view.
5.5 The Wewfromthe Entrance Comparedwíth Wall Pøíntings
This view is comparable to Fourth Style wall painting. On the
west wall of room (f) in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (di Loreius
Tiburtinus) (tr,2,2) a central figure is seen framed by columns
@ig.a1). More columns and other structures frame two subsidiary figures. A similar arrangement appears on the walls of room (e) in the
Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.39; 124). Yetanother example comes
from the south wall of room (c) in the casa dei capitelli colorati
(VII,4,5l), where a figure of Concordia sits surrounded by a complex 115 affangement of columns and other structures depicted at various depths (Fig.125). From the Casa di Apollo (W,7,23) comes a painting where three figures are grouped among an elaborate arrangement of columns (Fig.aÐ. Perhaps the example that most closely parallels the
scene of the Eumachia Building's central bay comes from the oecus in
Pompeian house (I,3,25) where three figures stand framed by an array
of architectural elements (Fig.46; 63).
The statue of Livia, and the apse in which it stood, highlighted
by the projecting porticus and perhaps by the pediment above,
presented a clear visual goal at the end of the axis. The visitor was
faced with an apparently unobstructed pathway along the axis towards
this goal.
5.6 The Wewfromthe Rear Ambulatory
Arriving within the rear ambulatory of the porticus in front of
the central bay, the visitor would have been presented with another
elaborate symmetrical view (Plan 7;Fig.126). The straight walls
which stand either side of the central semicircular bay projected a
little of the way in front of the bay. These spur walls acted as a frame
for the view of the statues, while the curved wall acted as a backdrop.
The central statue of Livia was framed by a pair of columns. Statues,
probably Concordia on one side and Pietas on the other, were visible
one on each side through the spaces between the columns and the spur
walls.
5.7 The Víewfromthe Rear Ambuløtory Compøredwith lI/all
Paintíngs
The view in its composition resembles the first view, and thus,
can be compared with some of the paintings examined above. The 116 central placement of the figures within such an architectural framework is a familiar feature in the painting of the Fourth Style. As noted above, a female figure, like the statue of Livia, appears in the centre of the upper zone of the painting on the south wall of room (e)
in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.39). Like the Livia statue, the figure appears in the centre of the composition, within an architectural
frame. On the west wall of the oecus in the Pompeian house (I,3,25)
(Fig.63), there appears a central figure flanked by two other figures, in
a manner similar to the arrangement of the statue of Livia and the two
side statues. This afrangement is repeated on the east and south walls
of the same oecus (Fig.a6). A centrally placed figure of Concordia,
within alarge architectural frame, is to be seen in the upper zone of
the south wall of the room (c) in the Casa dei Capitelli colorati
(VII,4,51) (Fig.125). Other framed, centrally placed figures equivalent
to the placement of the Livia statue, appear in the upper zones of
paintings in a wall fragment from room (g) in the Casa delle Vestali
(VI,l,6) (Fig.af and the north wall of room (f) in Pompeian house
(D(,5,11) (Fig.l27). Another centrally placed figure appears on the
west wall of room (f) in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (di Loreius
Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Fi g. a I ).
5.8 Non-Axíal Wewíng Poínts: The Wewsfromthe Eastern Ends of
the Ambulatoríes
Not all the viewing points lie on the main axis of the building.
Nor are all the views in the building symmetrical. From points where
the centre lines of the side ambulatories intersect with the line of the
porticus's rear colonnade, new views open (Plan 6). Through a
window into a light well is visible another window which opens onto
the cryptoporticus at the rear of the building (Fig.128). Visible tt7 obliquely through two successive windows is the statue of Eumachia, which stands in a bay opening off the cryptoporticus at the rear of the building (Plan 6; Fig.129). From the same point, an even more oblique view is presented of one of the pair of side statues of the central bay (Fig.130-32). These three views can only be seen from the one point in each ambulatory. The total view from each point is almost the mirror image of the other and each view is asymmetrical.
That these views are clearly contrived is suggested by the central position of the viewing point and its accordance with the end of the colonnade. Also, the creation of these views requires the positioning
of eight windows, three statues and their bases, and the construction of the correct length of two spur walls. Further, the creation of such
views appears consistent with the arrangement of architectural
elements around visual axes seen in Pompeian houses. It therefore
appears highly unlikely that these views are coincidental. The
deliberateness of these views is further suggested by the fact that they
visually link the statue of Eumachia with the statues of Concordia
from one viewpoint, and with Pietas from the other. Such a linkage is
similar to that between the Livia statue and the statues of Concordia
and Pietas seen in the central apse. This furthers the association
between the priestess and the wife of Augustus that, as was noted by
Richardson, was made by the dedicatory inscription in which
Eumachia and her son, following the dedication by Livia and her son
Tiberius of the porticus of Livia, dedicate a porticus to Concordia
(Richardson, "Concordia;" Pomp eli 194-97).
The two viewing points at the rear of the ambulatories do not
lie on the axis of the Eumachia Building. Thus the axis in this case
does not act as a pathway connecting all the points from which
composed vistas of the building are to be viewed. The composed 118 views seen from these points are not symmetrical and their asymmetry againbrings into question the supposed absolute importance of symmetrical views in Roman architecture. Detailed comparison of these views with contemporary wall painting shows a close similarity.
This suggests that the intention behind the complex affangement of these views was to create a pictorial effect consistent with contemporary taste rather than to stimulate an analysis of the plan.
5.9 The Two Windows
Looking east along the centre line of each ambulatory, the view is dominated by one of the curved bays set into the porticus rear wall
(Plan 6, Fig.128). Set within each bay is alarge window, which
allows the view down the walkway to continue across the light well,
pass through a second window, and terminate at the back wall of the
cryptoporticus. The foregtound in this view would have been in the
shadow of the porticus, the light well would have been in stronger
light, while the cryptoporticus was in shadow. This view then
encompassed the foreground curved bay in shadow, with the window
framing a more brightly lit light well wall, and the second window
framing the darker wall of the cryptoporticus.
5.10 The Eumnchía Statue
From the points where the centre line of each of the ambulatories
intersects with the line of the rear colonnade, an angular view through
the window in the flat section of walling is possible (Plan 6;Fi9.129).
The line of this view continues across the light well and through a
second window to the statue of the priestess Eumachia. This statue is
seen from an angle and is framed by the two windows. tt9
5.11 The Síde Statues ín the Central Bay
From each of the same viewing points, the farther of the two
subsidiary statues in the central bay would have been visible (Plan 6;
Fig.130). The base and nichè for the statue would have been framed
by the spur wall and the nearer of the pair of columns, which once
stood in front of the bay. The projection of the spur wall and the
positioning of the column seem to have been designed to frame the
view of the statue from the viewing point.
5.12 The Total Wew
The total view from each of the two points at the eastern end of
the ambulatories consists of three elements: the view through the
windows in the curved bays; the Eumachia statue seen through two
successive windows; and the side statue in the central bay once seen
through the gap between the spur wall, and a column (Plan 6;
Fig.l3l-32). These elements are separated by two flat stretches of
walling each featuring one window. Beyond the view of the side
statue in the central bay appeared the two columns which once stood
in front of the central bay. Behind these columns also appeared the
curved wall of the central bay. Beyond the position the columns
occupied in antiquity is seen the end of the opposite spur wall and
another straight section of walling. In the distance is seen the frame of
a window set into the wall, and the extremity of the opposite small
bay.
5.13 Comparíson of the Wews of the Curved Bays with l{all
Paintings
Parallels can be drawn between the view through the window
set in the cuwed bay and sections of a number of contemporary wall t20 paintings. Panels which give the impression of curving inwards from the picture plane are a feature of Fourth Style painting. These panels have straight vertical sides, and upwardly curving bottom edges, which suggest that the entire panel is curved. These curved panels are thus comparable to the truly curved bay seen in the Eumachia Building.
Sometimes decorative panels, corresponding in composition to windows in the Eumachia Building's bays, appear in the middle of these painted curved panels. One example is the framed scene in the middle of the large "curved" panel found in room (i) of the Casa dei
Vettii (VL15,1) (Fig.l33). Successive frames equivalent to the two windows seen one through the other in the building are also a feature of the Fourth Style. Near the south-west comer of room (o) in the Casa della Regina Margherita(Y,2,1) we see such an arrangement in the central element. An elaborate columnar frame is positioned in space behind another frame by the receding ceiling and the floor (Fig.134).
In the upper zone of the west wall of room (f) in the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (1I,2,2) (Fig.a1) are two elements which combine the curvature of the foregtound frame with the flatness of the rear frame seen in the Eumachia Building. Each of these elements is located above the middle of the central zone's outer panels. In each case a pavilion with columnar supports is depicted,
Both the frames are made up by these supporting columns. The foreground edge of the roof of the pavilion is depicted as curving upward. Within this first frame appears a second pair of columns supporting an apparently flat ceiling and in turn frame a figure. This is unlike the view in the building, which was terminated simply by the decorated back wall of the cryptoporticus. I2I
5.14 Comparison of the Wews of the Eumnchia Støtue wìth Úl/all
Paintìngs
The view of the Eumachia statue can be compared with a number of paintings. The first is a section of the west wall of room (a) in the Casa dell' Ara massima (M,16,15) (Fig.114; 135). The particular image of interest is located in the upper section of the wall,
and is repeated in near mirror image on either side of the central
framed landscape view. This image consists of an angled view of a
female figure seen between and beyond architectural elements. The
figure stands at the top of three steps. She stands within, or perhaps
immediately in front of, a doorway, which acts as frame. The figure
and the stairs on which she stands are covered by a pavilion, supported
by at least three columns (the extremities of the picture having been
destroyed, it is not possible to confirm the original existence of a
fourth such column). The two columns and their bases on the side
towards the centre of the pictwe are splayed outward. The foreground
column of the pavilion thus encroaches on the figure. The columns of
the pavilion form a second frame for the figure. This angular view of
the f,rgure corresponds with the angled view of the statue of Eumachia.
The raised plinth of the statue is comparable to the figures raised on
the stairs. The architectural frames of the doorway and the pavilion
columns are also comparable to the framing windows in the building.
The angularly seen architecture of the pavilion resembles the angular
vision of the window surrounds, and the wall of the light well. In both
cases, angularly seen architectural elements--the column in the
painting, and the more distant window surround--encroach on the
figure and statue. Even the duality of the painted images is similar to
the two views, each the reversal of the other, seen in the building. r22
Another scone combining female figure and architecture appears on the south wall of room (f) of the Casa di D. Octavius
Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (n,2,2) (Fig.136-37). Again, like the view in the Eumachia Building, this view is oblique. The figure stands on a platform at the top of a narrow staircase, which in turn rests on a wider platform below. In comparison with the composition of the
Eumachia view, the bottom platform corresponds with the wall beneath the foreground window, while the second platform and
staircase relate to the walling beneath the second window and the
statue base. As the statue in the building is visible through a naffow
slot between the edges of the two windows, so the figure in the
painting is contained in a narrow doorway. Like the walling adjacent
to the background window, a section of the door encroaches on the
figure. In the painting a second frame, compositionally equivalent to
the foreground window, is made up by a pair of columns standing
either side of the stairs. Again the motif containing the female figure
is reproduced as a mirror image within the painting, recalling the two
angular views of the Eumachia statue from the ambulatory of the
porticus. A further example comparable with the view in the
Eumachia Building is to be seen in the upper zone of the painting on
the west wall of the same room (Fig.al). On each side of the central
element stands a female f,rgure surrounded by an elaborate
architectural structure. Once again this is seen in an angular view.
The f,rgure is seen framed by elaborate columns. As seen in the
painting examples already discussed, and in the view of the Eumachia
statue, one of these encroaches on the figure. Other painted examples
comparable with the view in the Eumachia Building are: adjacent to
the northern corner of room (10) in the Casa di P. Vedius Siricus
(VII,I,25.47) (Fíg.aÐ, where a f,rgure stands surrounded by columns; r23 the northern wall of room (p) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Fig.l38), where a female figure is seen against a succession of angularly seen frames; and in the upper zone adjacent to the northern comer of room (d) in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Fig.1l3), with a framed female figure. Similar views with a female figure seen at an angle through a narrow architectural frame also occur
in a Second Style painting on the south wall of the entrance hall of the
frigidarium in the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2). A figure is seen
through a narrow window at each end of the central composition
(Fig.l07).
5.15 Comparison of the Wews of the Síde Statues in the Central Bay
wìth lVall Paíntíngs
Because this view resembled to some extent, particularly
through its architectural frame, the view of the Eumachia statue, it is
comparable with the same paintings. The west wall of room (a) in the
Casa dell' Ara massima, (VI,16,15) depicts two figures (Fig.1la).
They are framed by doorways and a column, as the statue was framed
by the spur wall and the column. In the picture the column and a low
panel encroach on the f,rgure as the spur wall encroaches on the statue
base.
The disposition of the figures seen on the south wall of room
(f) in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) ís
also comparable with both the framed view of the Eumachia statue
and the view of the statues in the central bay (Fig.136-37). Once
again, a figure is seen through a nafrow frame, and on one side it is
encroached upon by a flat panel, comparable to the narrow frame of
spur wall and column, and the encroachment on the st¿tue by the spur
walt. Figures framed by columns and wall sections are also seen on 124 the west wall of the same room (Fig.a1). Again the figures are encroached on by the framing structure.
Other examples already compared with the Eumachia statue are also relevant here because they depict figures framed by columns and other structural elements in a manner similar to the framing of the side statues. Near the northern corner of room (10) in the Casa di P.
Vedius Siricus (VII,1,25.47), a flrgure appears framed by, and against a background of, columns (Fig.44). Framed figures also appear on the northern wall of room (p) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.138),
and in the upper zone adiacent to the northern comer of room (d) in
the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.113). The arrangement
of the Second Style painting on the south wall of the entrance hall of
the frigidarium in the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) (Fig.107) is also
comparable with this second statue view; in fact the similarities in
composition are even more striking, as both of the female figures, seen
through narrow openings, are encroached on, on one side by a wall in
a manner very reminiscent of the st¿tues overlapped by the spur wall.
Encroachment and partial concealment of part of one
architectural element by a foreground element seems to be a
characteristic feature of Fourth Style painting. Consider the treatment
of the naffow doorway seen at the bottom left of the detail from the
west wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6) (Fig.a3).
Its left side is obscured by a foreground column, leaving an
asymmetrical view. This compares with the concealment of the
left-hand edge of the statue base and niche by the spur wall when seen
from the northern viewing Point.
The narrow architectural scene on the north wall of room Ø2)
in the Casa del Centenario (X,8,6) (Fig.139) is also partly reminiscent
of the afrangement of the foreground elements of the view. The left of t25 the scene is cut by the dark foreground pillar, which resembles the cutting of the view by the spur in the Eumachia Building. A column stands to the right framing a nalrow gap, in a similar way to the
Eumachia column which framed the narrow gap through which the statue base and niche were seen.
On the walls of room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Fig.39), a motif repeatedly appears which is comparable, in its use of
foreground elements to conceal partially and frame background
elements, to the composition of the wall in the Eumachia Building.
Framed by a foreground pilaster and a slender column, relatable to the
spur wall and column, appears part of an angularly seen pavilion, one
end of which is obscured by the pilaster, which can be compared to the
statue niche and base.
The play with partial concealment of background by
foreground also appears near the south-west corner of room (o) in the
Casa della Regina Margherita (V,2,1) (Fig.13a). Here the foreground
element is a free standing entablature, supported by two columns.
These columns and the entablature frame a view of another structure
behind, which itself consists of columns and an entablature. This
second structure is framed asymmetrically by the first, as the statue
base and niche are framed asymmetrically by the column and the spur
wall.
5.16 Compositíon of the Total Wews Comparedwíth lAøil Paintíngs
The three elements of the view discussed above are separated
by two stretches of flat wall. These flat panels correspond to the broad
flat panels which separate the narrow bands of architectural scenes in
Fourth Style painting. compare this architectural arrangement with
the relationship between the narow architectural vista, and the broad, r26 comparatively sparsely decorated flat panels seen on the north wall of room (42) of the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,ó) (Fig.139).
This standard feature of the Pompeian Fourth Style also appears among many other examples on the walls of room 10 in the
Casa di P. Vedius Siricus (VIL1,25.47) (Fig.aÐ, the east wall of room
(r) in the Casa della Regina Margherita (Y,2,1) (Fig.1a0) and the wall fragment from room (g) of the Casa delle Vestali (VI,l,6) (Fig.a7).
The total composition of the view seen from either viewing point compares especially well with the arrangement in the wall painting on the west and south walls of the peristyle in the Casa dei
Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.a0). Once again, the narrow views of apparently more distant architectural elements are separated by comparatively flat panels. The elements in the narrow architectural views are depicted at
an angle, reminiscent of the angular views of the statues. The views of the painting on the southern wall of the peristyle from the ends of the
eastern and western ambulatories are analogous with the vistas seen
from the pair of viewing points in the Eumachia Building. As with the
Eumachia views, the viewer is presented with a series of narrow
architectural vistas separated by flat panels. From these positions the
architectural vistas are asymmetrical and seen at an angle, as is the
case with the views of the three statues.
These views at the rear of the Eumachia Building can be
compared with the views in the Macellum discussed in the previous
chapter. Like the views through the Macellum doorways, each of
these views is asymmetrical, and each is the mirror image of the other.
This is only possible because of the symmetry of the building's plan.
Again, this breaks with the established view of the function of
symmetrical planning:the production of a succession of symmetrical
vistas. t27
The close similarity between these views and contemporary wall painting suggests that symmetrical planning has been used to re-create the asymmetrical pictures characteristic of wall painting in a built form. The re-creation of the characteristic features, oblique views, complex layering and in particular the making of each view as the mirror image of the other is made possible through the
symmetricat planning. Symmetrical planning seems to have been used
to achieve pictorial effects. This is conclusion is quite at variance
with Blankenhagen's assertion that symmetrical planning was used for
its own sake.
5.17 The Oblique View from the Forum
The back wall of the porticus was designed to be viewed from
a number of different points, at differing angles. In addition to the
four views already noted, from the entranco, from the front of the
central bay, and from the two points at the ends of the side
ambulatories, it is also seen obliquely from the Forum, as was
previously noted in Chapter 3. This view has already been compared
with Third Style wall painting. That analysis demonstrated that a
central asymmetrical architectural vista was fully consistent with the
visual taste contemporary with the building's first phase. The rear wall
of the porticus was rebuilt in the second phase, and its design altered.
The vista, thus altered, is consistent with Fourth Style painting.
In the view in its later form, part of the projecting colonnade
and all of the northern rear colonnade could be seen. Through this
appeared, on the right, southern side, the statue of Livia. This was
framed by the columns of the projecting porticus, as well as by one of
the columns in the mouth of the central bay. Near the centre of the
image appeared one of the side statues of the central bay. This was t28 also seen through the columns of the porticus and then through the space between one column in the mouth of the central bay and the spur wall. On the left, southern side there is a view through the large window in the flat stretch of walling. This allows a vista across the light well of the opposite wall and part of another window. This second window opens on to the rear cryptoporticus.
The view features aplay with layering that seems characteristic of contemporary painting. The differing distances to the three colonnades, the projecting and rear colonnades and the columns in front of the central bay, are indicative of this interest. This is further indicated by the statues glimpsed between the columns, and the view through the two successive windows.
5.18 The Oblique Wewfromthe Forum Comparedwíth Fourth Style
Wall Paíntíngs
The windows resemble the arrangement of the two successive openings seen on an unprovenanced fragment in the Naples Museum
(Fig.lal). In a scene on a wall of room (15) in the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48), stafues appear beyond foreground columns, in a manner comparable with the view of the two statues through the intercolumniations of the porticus (Fig. 1 1 8). A complex columnar display, which parallels the differing columns of the Eumachia view, appears on the south wall of room (f) in the Casa di D. Octavius
Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (1I,2,2) (Fig.136). A profusion of differing colonnades is also to be seen on the north wall of room (e) in
Pompeian house (DL1,7) (Fig.la2). The general effect of the view into the interior of the Eumachia building is most closely paralleled in the painting on the north-western wall of room (d) in the Casa della
Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.1l3), and the northern wall of room (p) t29 in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.138). Here there is a comparable play with layering, columnar display, glimpsed figures, and deeper vrstas.
5.19 TheWews ínthe Eamachíø Buíldíng
When these two views are added to the two views from the
eastern ends of the ambulatories, and the view of the central bay, then
there is a total of five views of the rear wall of the porticus. This
multiplicity of views encompassing the same structure is familiar from
Pompeian domestic architecture. As we have already seen, there are
two cardinal views in the Casa della Fontana piccola (W,8,23), the
entrance view and the view from the tablinum (Fig.9a-98). These both
encompass the fountain, a column, and the painted rear wall, but each
view is quite different. Similarly, the colonnade in the Casa della
Cacciaantica (VII,4,48) forms the main element in the entrance view,
but from the triclinium it performs a quite different function,
providing a frame for the vista across the garden (Fig.33-34).
5.20 The Wews do not Form øn Axial Pathway
The viewing points in the side ambulatories are not indicated
in the view through the Eumachia Building's doorway. The lines of
view from these points in turn do not indicate paths of forward
movement to further viewing points. The view of the statue of
Eumachia doesn't indicate a path to a visual goal. In fact the statue
can be seen, but not reached directly, from these points. The statue
lies at the rear of the cryptoporticus, and the only way to reach this
passage is to retreat up the ambulatory to the western end of the
building, where the only two entries from the porticus are located. 130
The second statue is reachable from the viewing point. In the centre of the eastern ambulatory there is a view of the three statues in the central bay. However, this new viewing point does not lie on the
line of sight connecting the first viewing points with the statue. This
new viewing point lies in front of the mouth of the central bay, from
where all three statues may be freely seen. To reach this point from
either of the side points the eastem walkway must be traversed. Once
one of the side viewing points is left, it is no longer possible to see any
of the three vistas. The window in the curved bay, and the window in
the wall at the back of the light well, no longer align. Neither do the
windows on the oblique line of view, so making the Eumachia statue
invisible. The second statue becomes obscured by the column in the
mouth of the central bay. A clear view does not open up again until
the viewing point in front of the bay is reached. The five viewing
points are thus not connected by an axial pathway.
5. 2 1 Comparíson wìth Pompeiøn Houses
As in the Eumachia Building, the composed víews found in
Pompeian houses do not form axial pathways. In Pompeian houses it
is generally not possible to proceed from the entrance along the line of
the view. In the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI,8,3), it is necessary to go
around the impluvium in the atrium, and along the edge of the
peristyle, to reach the altar which forms the centrepiece of the first
view (Fig.14344). Similarly, to reach the fountain seen from the
entrance of the Casa dell'Orso (WI,2,45), it is again necessary to walk
around the atrium (Fig.145-46). The impluvium in the Casa di Pansa
(VI,6,1) blocks direct passage to the peristyle (Fig.7-8). In the Casa
dei Diadumeni (D(1,20), the entrance vista is filled with elements at
different depths, there is no definitive visual goal and it is not possible 131 to traverse the line ofsight across the peristyle because the central fountain stands in the way (Fig.147-48). It is not possible to travel directly from the viewing point for the entrance view to the viewing point for the tablinum view in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Fig.9S). The way is blocked by the impluvium of the atrium. John
Clarke has described a more complex version of this arrangement in
the Villa of Oplontis (Clarke22).
5.22 Conclusion
The arrangement of the views in the Eumachia Building
indicate that in this case, the axis of s)¡mmetry was not intended to be
a pathway through the building. Rather, its presence enabled the
construction of a series of views, some symmetrical, some
asymmetrical and some the mirror image of others. There is nothing
to suggest that the views form a defined sequence. Each view does not
indicate a clear pathway to another, forward movement along the line
of view being in some cases impossible. The same element, the rear
wall of the porticus, features in each of the views. All this is familiar
from the anangement of Pompeian houses and gardens. Thus, rather
than appearing simply for its own sake, symmetrical planning has been
used to create pictorial effects in the Eumachia Building. 132
6. The Colonnades 133
6.1 The Supposed Unífyíng and Concealíng Functíon of Colonnades
Theorists of urban design, planning historians and classical scholars have all reached a consensus about the architectural intention and function of the colonnade in Roman architecture, and in the
Forum of Pompeii in particular (Fig.a8). They are perceived as unifying screens, concealing the individual buildings behind.
In the view of the nineteenth-century writer on urban design,
Camillo Sitte, the colonnades of the Forum of Pompeii were originally intended to conceal the facades of the individual buildings behind them, unif,ing the edges of the open space. Sitte, in the introduction to his book City Planning According to Artistic Principles, describes the supposed effect ofthese colonnades:
[Pompeii's Forum] is lined with public buildings on all four sides. At the short northern end only, there rises an isolated building-the Temple of Jupiter . . . around the rest of the forum runs a screening two-storey colonnade . . . What must the effect of this plazahave been? From our modern point of view it probably would seem most like a large concert hall with a gallery but without a roof--a hypaethral assembly hall. (sine 6-8)
Later, when considering the pitfalls of modern planning, Sitte outlines his thesis on the general effect of the colonnade in the ancient city:
Ancient arcades, nothing short of magnificent in their architectural detail . . . they encircle aplaza enclosing it completely; or at least they run unbroken along one side of it. Their whole effect is based on continuity, for only by it can the succession of arches become alarge enough unity to create an impact. (Sitte 86) t34
This view is echoed by theorists and historians of urban design as well
as by classical scholars.
The planning historian Paul Zucker concurs with the ideas of
Sitte. Zucker sees the Pompeian colonnades as a single unit, separate
from the buildings behind and in fact hiding them:
Older temples and new ones alike, as well as adjacent markets, basilicas, and other buildings, were separated from the free area through two-storied porticoes which surrounded the forum on three sides and concealed the individual structures. . . . The whole organizatíon became a completely closed square, axial, dominated by the temple and kept together by porticoes--a perfect solution of a Roman forum. (Zucker 50)
Zucker goes on to emphasi ze that the intention of the porticoes was to
uniff disparate buildings: "In their totality, they served to tie together
heterogeneous edifices and to carry through an axial composition.
They formalized previous irregularities" (Zucker 54). However, the
facades of the building are as of minor importance--as space dividers
only loosely related to the colonnade in front:
But the Roman fora create space consciously and immediately The facades oftheir surrounding structures are a secondary feature, representing essentially the separating shell between the exterior space of the forum and the interior space of the individual structures. (Zucker 62)
E. A. Gutkind in his history of urban form again emphasizes
that the intention of the Pompeian Forum colonnade was to conceal
the buildings behind: 135
It was originally surrounded by a portico above which rose a gallery accessible by stairways. Behind this uni$ring screen there rose on the south, west and east sides the facades of adjoining public buildings. Only at the northern end a single edihce, the Temple of Jupiter, flanked by two triumphal arches, was directly drawn into the architectural composition. (Gutkind 4.195)
Gutkind sees the colonnades as a conception separate from the facades of the buildings, as acting to conceal those facades from spectators on the Forum. He views this as a poor architectural solution:
It is very doubtful that the situation of the surrounding buildings behind the portico which cut off and screened the lower part of their facades was a particularly satisfactory solution. In this respect two antagonistic tendencies clashed the desire to assemble as many public buildings as possible around theforum and to do this in an architecturally perfect maffrer. (Gutkind 4:196)
Urban design theorists have made the same interpretation as
Camillo Sitte. In his urban design textbook Finding Lost Space, Roger
Tranick attempts a survey and synthesis of recent theory. Like Sitte, he uses Roman examples to back his argument on the nature of urban space, including the Forum at Pompeii. Like the other commentators, he emphasizes the role of the colonnades in enclosing outdoor space:
The forums at Rome and Pompeii, in early Imperial times were grouped around a central plaza that took gteater signiflrcance than individual building around the perimeter. A loggia encircling the multipurpose public square helped reinforce the fusion of inside and outside space, connecting the functions of the edge to one another and to the center of the composition. The loggia as a major linkage device also acted as a gateway to the surrounding city streets--as the mediator between a legible 136
centralized space and the looser structure ofthe outer area. (Trancik 68-69)
Tranick further applies the concept of the colonnade as a unifier to the
Forum at Pompeii:
In the classical city room, loggie developed as effective means of linking public and semi-public spaces of various functions. At the same time, they provide a unified framework to connect diverse alignments of individual buildings and open spaces. (Trancik 70)
In the view of all these commentators, colonnades are intended to uniff the varied buildings that lie behind them, by concealing their individual facades. They are separate from the facades, which are only secondary features.
Classical scholars have also adopted the same interpretation.
In her dissertation The Urban Image of Augustan Rome, Diane Fawo refers to the unifuing function of colonnades around the Forum of
Pompeii:
The regularized Forum of Pompeii dating to the second century BC, aptly demonstrates these design considerations at work, with a central temple on axis pushed to the rear of a rectangular open space defined by uniform porticos. (Favro, [Thesis] 325)
William MacDonald sees the concept of the colonnade as
uni$ing screen as important in the developed cities of the Roman
Empire. MacDonald emphasizes that it was the desire of the Roman
architect to constantly work for continuity and connection, carefully 137 blending each building with its neighbours, with the aim of creating an
overall effect uniting all the buildings of the city:
They dealt effectively with the need for architectural communality, for contextual interdependence among the varied buildings making up a town. . . . In order to achieve this, a strong effect of a united whole free of any suggestion of egregious fragmentation, of unresolved diversity, was required. (MacDonald2.256)
In MacDonald's view, colonnades played a major role in achieving this
required unity by acting as screens concealing the differences behind:
Various devices held the towns together and provided the coherence among different structures essential to their identity Street colonnades and arcades are obvious examples. Intermittent or continuous, partly masking, at ground level, variations of shape and size in the structures behind, they furthered the impression of interconnection between different areas, between one major building and the next. (MacDonald2:256)
All these writers have assumed that the ancient architects
conceived of Pompeii's colonnades as unifiting continuous screens
concealing the differing facades of the buildings behind.
6.2 The Lack of Uníty of the Pompeían Forum Colonnades
Scholars who have a more detailed knowledge of the Forum at
Pompeii have long realized that the colonnade surrounding the space
is not so absolutely uniffing as the architectural commentators would
suggest. This was clear to Mau: 138
The colonnade was not uniform in character upon all the three sides . . . on the south side, and on the adjoining portion of the east side as far as Abbondanza Street, it was constructed with two rows of columns and had a double depth. On the east side north of this street the porticos in front of four successive buildings took its place. (Mau, Pompeii 46)
The varied nature of the colonnade leads Mau to suggest that the
Forum did not, in fact, act as a single architectural unit: "On even a cursory inspection the Forum is seen to lack unity in the details of its plan and its architecture" (Mau, Pompeii 48-49).
6.3 The Incompleteness of the Ancìent Colonnades
The view that the tufa colonnades acted as a uniform screen, offsetting the Jupiter Temple, is refuted by the physical remains. The old tufa colonnade never enclosed the Forum. It never extended north of the Via dell'Abbondanza on the eastern side, as demonstrated by
Maiuri's excavations (Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana 6l).
This is despite the hopeful assertion of Mau that "we can hardly doubt that the original colonnade extended here also" (Mau, Pompeii 50). In fact, prior to the construction of the Eumachia Building, the frontage had been occupied by tabemae lying at a slightly different alignment from the present Forum stylobate, as Amedeo Maiuri's excavations revealed (Maiuri, Allo ricerca di Pompei preromana 53-63) (Fig.65).
The scanty remains that predate the Macellum, or perhaps mark its first phase, discovered by the excavations of Maiuri do not appear to be aligned with the sides of the forum as they presently appear, and it has been suggested that the original structure extended further westwards than the later Macellum (Maiuri, Amedeo, Alla ricerca di
Pompei preromana 77;86; De Ruyt 138) (Fig.l03). John Dobbins has t39 however questioned the veracity of these findings on the Macellum, given the sparsity of the archaeological evidence on which they are based (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban
Design" 669). What is clear is that at no time did the colonnade act as a uniform screen enclosing the central space on three sides.
6.4 The Dísparate Nature of the Colonnades at the Tíme of the
Eruptíon
The colonnades at the time of the eruption were of a number of differing forms, which reflected the differences of the buildings behind, rather than concealing them as the various commentators would suggest. In this last phase at least two separate colonnades stood on the east side of the Forum, north of the Via dell'Abbondanza.
Firstþ, the tabemae had been demolished and replaced by the
Eumachia chalcidicum (Maiuri, Pompei preromana 62) (Fig.65).
Secondly, another chalcidicum had been constructed in front of the
Macellum (Maiuri, Pompei preromana 87-88) (Plan 4). In addition, regularly spaced bases appear outside the Public Lares which may once have supported a third colonnade. Nothing survives of the colonnade which may once have stood in front of the Vespasianic
Temple. Dobbins has recently noted that stylobate in front of the
Temple is a modern reconstruction (Dobbins, "The Pompeii Forum
Proj ect 1994-9 5" 7 5 -83).
The two surviving colonnades on the eastern side north of the
Via dell'Abbondanza differ in both their dimensions and style from both the old tufa colonnade (Fig.1a9) and the later travertine colonnade, which was apparently in the process of replacing the former (Fig.l52). The columns outside the Macellum were Corinthian
and, in their reconstructed form at least, taller than the older tufa t40 columns (Fig.150). While the Eumachia Building columns are Doric, they rest on attic bases, unlike the tufa or westem travertine columns
(Fig. I 5 1). Richardson believes that the columns of the Eumachia
Building were awaiting fluting, something which would have further
differentiated them from the other columns (Richardson, Pompeii
le6).
These colonnades reflected rather than concealed the
differences between separate buildings. Even at the junctions between
the different colonnades, no attempt seems to have been made to relate
one colonnade to another. Frank Sear, in discussion with me, noted
that the column of the Eumachia's chalcidicum which stands on the
south side almost abuts the northernmost column of the old tufa
colonnade (Fig.1 53). They stand so close together that the southern
side of the Eumachia column remains unf,rnished.
In contradiction to the consensus opinion of the commentators,
these colonnades never formed a üniform screen. The two surviving
colonnades to the north of the Via dell'Abbondanza differ in form,
and thus they did not disguise differences between the individual
buildings.
6.5 The Faílure of the Colonnade of the Eumnchíø Buílding to
Conceal the Facade Behind
Despite the claims that the colonnades acted as concealing
screens, inspection of the colonnade and the facade of the Eumachia
Building immediately shows that the facade is clearly visible from the
Forum through the intercolumniations (Fig.91). Assuming that the
chalcidicum of the Eumachia Building was originally roofed, the
facade wall with its recessed bays would still have been clearly visible r4t from the Forum's central space. Clearly the colonnade does not conceal the building's facade.
6.6 The Ancíent ltìewer and the Colonnade of the Eamnchíø
Buíldíng
Turning here to the concept of enculturation and the
"enculturated ancient observer" introduced in Chapter 2,we can imagine that ancient Pompeians took note of their architecture when it was viewed in, what was for them, conventional compositions which conformed with their visual taste. This visual taste is preserved in the wall paintings and in the composed views found in many houses in
Pompeii. In considering how ancient Pompeians viewed the colonnades of their Forum, we should thus look to the way colonnades were depicted in Pompeian wall paintings and arranged in the composed views. In these views, both painted and built, columns generally appear as part of a total composition, superimposed onto elements behind.
6.7 Wews of Colonnødes in Pompeíøn Houses
The layering offoreground colonnades over background elements is a feature seen in the composed views in some Pompeian houses. In the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4) the entrance view transverses the peristyle (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 185) (Fig.lI-12).
The foreground intercolumniation is very wide, allowing a clear view beyond, but the columns are still visible as a frame. The background
columns have a small intercolumniation. Bek has proposed that this
arrangement was designed to create an illusion suggesting a gteater
distance to the rear colonnades, because the observer imagines that
the intercolumniations of both background and foreground colonnades r42 are equal (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 185). In the oecus of the Casa del
Labirinto (VI,l1,10), Jung has noted that the architectural scene on the east wall is arranged with regard to the real columns in front. In the oblique line of view from the privileged guest's position on the couches, the columns appear to frame the painted tholos (Jung
102-03). I have discovered a further example of superimposition between columns and elements behind in the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.9a-97). The view of the garden from the entrance seen through the frame of the tablinum consists of a single off-centre column, the painted back wall of the peristyle, and a fountain. On the back wall, in line with the column, is a painting of a column with red banding appearing either side. When viewed from the entrance, this painted column is obscured by the real column. The real column is superimposed onto the painting and so takes the place of its two-dimensional counterpart. From the tablinum, a more complicated relationship between real and painted columns becomes visible. A second real column is located to the right of the first. A further column matching the second real column also appears in the painting on the rear wall, but is aligned according to the oblique visual axis running from the tablinum between the two real columns. When viewed from the tablinum, the inside edges of the painted columns become visible, and appear to stand directly behind the real columns.
6.8 The Depiclíon of Colonnades ín Wall Paintings
The series of paintings apparently of the Forum itself from the
Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4) is one example where columns appear as the main architectural feature (Ling, Roman Painting 164-66)
(Fig.3l6-17). These sketchy and impressionistic paintings are
multilayered, with figures appearing in the fore and middlegrounds, 143 while equestrian statues and the colonnades occupy the background.
There is no depiction of any structure behind. Through the intercolumniations, except where figures appear, can be seen only uniform paint. However in many other wall paintings foreground columns are shown superimposed onto middle and background elements in order to form an overall composition.
The superimposition of columns onto background features was consistent with contemporary pictorial taste, as is confirmed by reference to many Second, Third and Fourth Style paintings. In
Second Style painting, architectural scenes are generally depicted as
seen from one centralized viewing point. Thus, the elements further to the sides are depicted as if they were seen from an oblique angle.
Sometimes objects, which are depicted as lying behind pairs of
foreground columns, are placed so that, in this oblique view, they
appea{ to be framed by the columns. For example, in the painting
from room (3) in the Casa di M. Obellius Firmus (DL14,4) (Fig.155),
columns are clearly depicted as seen from a centralized view point,
both the columns and the pilasters behind being visible. However,
each of the outer pair of columns frames a panel in the upper zone of
the wall behind. This framing occurs despite the angle of view. On
the west wall of triclinium (1a) in the Villa at Oplontis, a tripod is
depicted as being placed between two background columns (Fig.156).
It is not positioned centrally between these columns, but rather it is
offset so that in the angular view it is framed by one of the background
columns and by a foregtound column.
In the Third Style paintings, columns are often shown to accord
with the modulations of panels lying behind. Examples appear on the
walls of the cryptoporticus of the Eumachia Building itself (Fig.157),
in a painting in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26) (Fig. 86), 144 on the east wall of the triclinium of the Casa dei Cubicoli floreali
(I,9,5) (Fig.158), and on the northern wall of the peristyle (56) of the
Casa del Citarista (1,4,5.25) (Fig.159).
One of the types of painting found within the Fourth Style is the full-length architectural composition. Four major examples of this type of composition come from the north wall of room (a) of the Casa
di Pinarius Cerealis (m,4,b) (Fig.37); the walls of the oecus in the
Pompeian house (I,3,25) (Fig.46; 63); room (c) in the Casa di Nettuno
(VI,5,3) (Fig.l60); and from the Casa di Apollo (W,7,32) (Fig.a2). All
of these paintings share a number of characteristics. The architectural
scene in each painting is depicted as seen from a single viewing point.
Rich columnar displays are characteristic of these pictures. In each
painting there is a strong sense of layering, with foreground elements
interacting with the background. This interaction is oblique, not
between objects directly behind each other, but between architectural
elements brought into a relationship because of the angular view from
the single centralized viewing point. Pieces of structure are visible
through the gaps between the foreground pieces. The architectural
elements used are themselves elaborate, some of the columns for
example having exotic capitals, or rich decoration on the shafts. Such
complex arrangements of foreground and background in Fourth Style
painting found realization in the architecture of the chalcidicums of
the Eumachia Building and the Macellum.
6.9 The Hìstory of the Chalcidìcum of the Eumachía Buílding
Amedeo Maiuri showed through excavations at the level of the
foundations that the lines of the facade wall of the Eumachia r45
Building date from the first establishment of the building. Though it was apparently mostly destroyed in the earthquake of 62 AD, the rebuilding followed the foundation lines of the original wall and incorporated the surviving southern curved bay (Maiuri, L'ultimafase
4l; AIII ricerca di Pompei preromana 9l-92). John Dobbins recent
chronological study of the masoffy have accorded with Maiuri's
conclusions (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration and
Urban Design" 655-56). Thus, the arrangement of the facade wall
dates to the first decade of the first century AD if Lawrence
Richardson's dating of the establishment of the Eumachia Building is
accepted as was discussed in Chapter 3 (Richardson, Pompeii 197).
Richardson and Dobbins are in agreement that the decoration
of the rebuilt facade wall had been completed at the time of the
eruption, the wall having been sheathed in marble (Richardson,
Pompeii 196, Dobbins, "Problems of Chronolory, Decoration, and
Urban Design" 655). However, Richardson believes that the columns
awaited fluting, and the adjacent statue bases remained unhnished
something on which Dobbins makes no comment (Richardson,
Pompeii 196). In this regard, as was pointed out to me by Frank Sear,
the southernmost column of the colonnade has been left with a rough
surface where it nearly abuts the Tufa column of the older southern
colonnade, (Fig.153).
In summary then, the arrangement of the facade wall of the
Eumachia Building appears to date to the first decade of the first
century AD. The colonnade and the accompanying statue bases may
be post-earthquake constructions, possibly in an unfinished condition.
There relationship to the pre-earthquake arrangement of the colonnade
remains unclear. However if the lines of the original facade were so
carefully followed in the reconstruction, then it may be suggested that r46 the colonnade also followed the original form. The arrangement of the
chalcidicum of the Eumachia Building can be dated to the time of the
Third Style in Pompeian wall painting, while its reconstruction is, of
course, contemporary with Fourth Style painting.
6.10 A Wew of the Colonnade of the Eumachíø Buíldíng Compøred
wíth Wall Paintings
In the view from the Forum, the colonnade is seen against the
Eumachia Building's facade. This facade has been described in
Chapter 3 above. It consists of a pair of curved bays, two pairs of
niches, and apair of rectangular bays, all centred around the framed
doorway, through which is visible an asymmetrical vista of the
buildin$s interior. As previously noted, a similar composition appears
in a wall painting in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (VI,1,26)
(Fig.S6). This painting also includes columns depicted as if they were
standing in front of the "facade." These columns are shown to frame
the central section of the wall behind. From a particular point in front
of the centre of the facade of the Eumachia Building, a similar
arrangement between the columns of the chalcidicum and the facade is
visible (Plan 3; Fig.15a). The columns are seen superimposed onto the
modulations of the facade. Columns appear to flank the central
doorway, and appear either side ofthe curved and rectangular bays.
Thus, for the "enculturated ancient observer" this view would fit with
their visual taste. Such centralizedview points are required for
viewing the large facade-like compositions of some Third and Fourth
Style wall paintings (Clarke 43-45;51-52), and therefore would have
seemed conventional for looking at major facades. It is not being
suggested that this view necessarily represents the original design in
the scaenographia of the ancient architect. Rather, this view indicates, 147 on the basis of the evidence of prevailing visual taste, a way that colonnades would have been perceived in relation to other structures by ancient Pompeians. It shows that colonnades did not always act, or
even primarily function, as screens concealing the structures behind,
as has frequently been suggested by scholars ofancient architecture,
general architecture historians, and theorists of urban design.
6.11 The Faílure of the Colonnade of the Macellum to Conceal the
Facøde Behìnd
If the Macellum was observed from a similar point to the one
used to look at the Eumachia Building--that is from a point in the
Forum opposite the centre of the facade, in this case within the
passagsway beside the Temple of Jupiter-a rich and complex scene
would have been presented to the viewer (Plan 4; Fig.161). The
central pair of columns on the stylobate provide a frame for the view.
Immediately behind these, and mostly obscured, stands a pair of statue
bases. A further pair of statue bases appears on the opposite side of
the walkway. These are not aligned with their counterparts next to the
stylobate, but are closer together. Immediately behind each of these
bases stood a column. These columns are no longer extant, their
previous existence being marked by the surviving column bases. This
pair of columns originally formed a second frame within the first made
up by the stylobate columns. A third and final frame is created by the
two columns of the aedicula. These columns had exotic figured
capiøls depicting eagles (Richardson, Pompeii 200). A statue
apparently once stood at the centre of the view. These three pairs of
columns with their successively smaller intercolumniations, and the
smaller height and diameter of the innermost pair, give the impression 148
of t\Àio symmetrical receding colonnades either side of the central statue.
A similarly rich and complex impression is created by the side sections of the chalcidicum. This image has a number of layers. On the stylobate stood fluted Corinthian columns with attic bases. Partly
obscured by these columns were the stafue bases with their statues.
One of these bases was f,rtted against each of the columns. At the
extremities, these statue bases and their statues would have been less
obscured. At the northern end of the chalcidicum, a wall projected
forward to join, over a doorway, with the triumphal arch that marked
the entrance to the Forum. Within this wall there is a statue niche.
From the viewing point, this niche and the statue therein would have
been visible through an intercolumniation. The stylobate columns and
their adjacent statue bases are not aligned with the wall dividing the
tabernae at the rear of the chalcidicum. Nor, because of the width of
their intercolumniations, do these columns seem to make any regular
relationship with the dividing walls and the attached statue bases.
However, from the viewing point a relationship becomes
apparent. At the end of each of these dividing walls stands a statue
base. These bases are visible in each case through the
intercolumniations between the columns. Because of their
positioning, they are not obscured by the statue bases attached to the
stylobate columns. The image of the northern half of the chalcidicum
consists, going from the outer end to the centre, of a column and
adjacent statue base, the next column and statue base, and the niche
with its statue inthe side wall. The next two stylobate columns and
statue bases frame statues and their bases, each attached to the
tabernae walls. This arrangement is then twice repeated. The next
pair of columns after these frames a statue base attached to the wall t49 dividing the last tabernae from the entrance passageway. The innermost stylobate column of this last pair almost entirely obscures its statue base. A similar view of the southern section of the chalcidicum is to be seen from the viewing point, where again statue bases appear through the intercolumniations of the stylobate columns
Again this view of the Macellum gave abuilt form to a
composition frequently appearing in wall paintings. In this view, and
in the painted scenes, the colonnade did not mask the elements behind
but, rather, formed a total composition with them.
6.12 The Archítectural Hístory of the Chalcídícum of the Møcellum
Amedeo Maiuri claimed on the basis of his investigations in
the early 1940's that the chalcidicum of the Macellum dated from
early imperial times, being the primary surviving portion of the
building from the 62 AD earthquake. He suggested that the work of
redecorating these walls was intemrpted by the eruption of 79 AD.
Maiuri made no comment as to the dating of the colonnade or the
adjacent statue bases. Only the base are apparently identified on his
chronological plan of the building as post-dating the earthquake
(Maiuri, L'ultima fase 55 Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana 87-88;
[19.37).
Richardson disagreed with Maiuri's analysis, asserting instead
that the walls of the Chalcidicum must date to after the earthquake, as
he also believed probably did the colonnade (Richardson, Pompeii
199-200). John Dobbin's recent chronological investigations have
supported Richardson's assertions and run counter to those of Maiuri.
According to Dobbins, virtually all the visible masonry in the 150 chalcidicum, apart from sections of walling around the entrances, dates from after the earthquake. As discussed in Chapter 4, an aedicula was built at this time, blocking the central arch of the original triple arched entrance. Most of the shops of chalcidicum may have followed the lines of pre-earthquake predecessors, however at the northern end Dobbins has shown that a new wall was constructed linking the chalcidicum with the arch at the entrance to the Forum.
Dobbins has also shown that the reconstruction of the Macellum was
complete at the time of the eruption (Dobbins, "Problems of
Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design" 668-73;680-81; 685).
(Fig.68; 103) Dobbins new chronological f,rndings make the design of
the chalcidicum of the Macellum, as it appeared in 79 AD, securely
contemporary with the Fourth Style of Pompeian wall painting.
6.13 The Víew of the Macellum's Colonnade Compareùwìth Wall
Paintíngs
The view of the Macellum's chalcidicum can, like the view of
the facade of the Eumachia Building, be compared with Pompeian
wall paintings. The principal efÏect noted in the middle section of the
view, the receding pairs of columns framing the central panel with its
statue, appears in the paintings of each of the above styles. In the
fridgidarium of the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) repeated use is made
of pairs of colonnades, all of which recede towards the centre of the
picture (Fig.162). A less elaborate Second Style example occurs on a
wall in room (3) of the Casa di M. Obellius Firmus (DL14,4)
(Fig.155). Here, free standing columns are depicted attached by a
projecting frteze to the wall behind and splayed from the centre. At
the centre itselfappears a figure, equivalent to the central statue ofthe
Macellum. This figure is flanked on either side by elaborate columns, 151 which suggest a similarity with the columns of the Macellum's aedicula.
In Third Style paintings, receding colonnades appear, particularly in the upper zone flanking central panels. Usually, these are shown as if they stood behind the central panel, and are seen through openings either side of it. Such an alrangement appears on the wall of room (d) of Termopolio (I,8,8), in the upper zone of the painting (Fig.35; 163-64). In the central zone, two nalrow "windows"
are painted either side of the framed central panel. Visible through
each of these windows is a colonnade consisting of three slender
columns angled towards the centre. A similar pair of windows appears
in the upper zone, again each allowing a view of an angled three
column colonnade. A decorative device stands in the middle of the
central panel in an equivalent position to the aedicula statues of the
Macellum. A very similar anangement appears in the upper zone of
the south wall of triclinium (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus
(IX,9,c) (Fig.59; 1ó5). Again, two openings are shown either side of
the middle panel, each allowing a view of a three columned
colonnade depicted as receding towards the centre of the painting.
Another decorative device appears in the central panel, again in a
similar position to the Macellum's statue.
The upper zone of the painting found on the south wall of
tablinum (h) of Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) presents a
composition which in some aspects is similar to the design of the
entire Macellum facade (Fig.61; 166). The outwardly splayed ranks of
three columns seen either side of the central section of this painting
recall the three-column receding ranks of the chalcidicum. The view
of the doorways seen through the intercolumniations is reminiscent of
the Macellum's doorways as seen through the central ranks of Is2 columns. At the centre of the painting appears an aedicula like the
Macellum's, with a raised platform. As in the Macellum, two elaborate columns stand at each end of this aedicula. Set between them is a recessed niche, recalling the chalcidicum's central niche. At the middle of the picture appears alarge tripod stand. This is in an equivalent location to the aedicula's central statue.
The similarity between wall painting and the arranged view of the Macellum's chalcidicum becomes most evident in the Fourth Style.
The painting on the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinarius
Cerealis (III,4,b) shows similarities with the chalcidicum with its rich layering, and outward splaying of columns (Fig.37). Once again, a figure occupies the centre of the composition. This appears in a recessed panel, possibly an open doorway. On each side of this appear two columns, again with parallels to the chalcidicum's central aedicula. Spur walls terminating in pilasters, each with a projecting column continuing their splayed alignment, are seen on either side of this central panel, again comparable with the splayed columns of the chalcidicum's central section. Recalling those columns in the
Macellum which almost cover the building's entrances, the columns in the painting partially conceal narrow doorways or panels which appear on the outer side of each of them, allowing only a narrow glimpse'
The familiar splayed colonnades also appear in this painting, located on either side of the broad central section. Once again the side sections of background elements are seen through gaps between foreground elements. Open doors and doorways at the back are perceived through elaborate openings. This is comparable with the way in which the statue bases attached to the tabernae walls are visible through the Macellum's stylobate columns. Part of the column bases 153 are visible through low openings in the short foreground walls, which run either side of the central section of the design.
On a wall of the oecus in Pompeian house (1,3,25) is found the familiar splayed arrangement of columns either side of the central panel (Fig.46; 63). At the centre of the picture stands a f,rgure within an architectural frame reminiscent of the statue in the chalcidicum.
On either side of this central section, further figures are visible through gaps in the foreground architectural elements, comparable with views of the Macellum's background statue bases as soen through the foreground colonnade.
The painting in room (c) of the Casa di Nettuno (VI,5,3) depicts a f\at facade wall with a number of structures standing in front of it (Fig.160). At the centre of the facade wall there is a large doorway. In front of this is depicted a circular pavilion supported by eight slender columns. Four of these in two pairs are superimposed onto the doorway, and act as a frame in the doorway itself. The remaining columns appear again as two pairs either side of the doorway acting as a further frame. These columns are similar in their effect to the framing superimposed central columns and aedicula of the Macellum chalcidicum.
The painting from the Casa di Apollo (VI,7,23) is another
Fourth Style architectural composition comparable with the
Macellum's chalcidicum (Fig.aÐ. Once again, as with the Macellum, there is central motif, flanked by splayed three columned colonnades.
All the column bases and architecture are foreshortened on each side as though they were being viewed at an angle from a viewing position opposite the central motif. Again, background panels are visible through the gaps in the foreshortened elements. 154
6.14 Conclusion
There is a belief common to many scholars that the colonnades of the Forum were intended to act as uniform screens, concealing the different buildings behind. The evidence presented questions this belief by showing that the Forum's colonnades are not uniform, differing in height and style with possible gaps where no columns
stood. Furthermore, the sometimes abrupt junctions between the different colonnades heighten rather than conceal the differences between the buildings behind. These colonnades do not act as
concealing screens, as the facades of the Eumachia Building and the
Macellum are clearly visible through the intercolumniations.
In the Eumachia Building, the columns can be viewed as
having formed part of a composed view of the facade. From a central
point they appear superimposed on the modulations of the facade,
framing the central door and each of the bays, and thus resembling the
arangement of columns depicted in a wall painting already noted for
its close similarity to the view of the facade of the Eumachia Building.
Columns appearing as if superimposed on elements behind are
features of the complex multilayered composition of a number of
Fourth Style paintings. The colonnade of the Macellum when seen
from a point opposite the centre ofthe facade produced, in association
with other elements of the chalcidicum, an architecture of an
elaboration familiar from the "fantastic" architectural scenes of Fourth
Style wall painting. This spectacular effect was very definitely far
removed from and contrary to the simple concealment of the facade,
which was the intended function of the colonnade supposed by
Camillo Sitte and those who have echoed his ideas. 155
7. The tr'orum of Pompeii 156
7.1 Introduction
Descriptions of the Forum of Pompeii as a totality often reduce it to an almost abstract form; a rectangular spatial volume well defined by uniform colonnades and dominated atthe northern end by the axial view of the Temple of Jupiter. Diane Fawo's description is typical:
The regularized Forum of Pompeii dating to the second century BC, aptly demonstrates these design considerations at work with a central temple on axis pushed back to the rear of a rectangular open space defined by uniform porticoes. (Fawo, [Thesis] 325; see also Russell320)
Earlier Favro notes the Roman predílection for the creation of
rectangular volumes of space (Favro, [Thesis] 7). This interpretation
of the Forum as a spatial volume appears in the work of the
nineteenth-century commentator on urban space, Camillo Sitte, who
commented that in ancient times it would have seemed "most like a
large concert hall with a gallery but without a roof--a hypaethral
assembly hall" (Sitte 6-8).
In the previous chapter I exposed the fallacy that the Forum's
colonnades acted as a uniform concealing screen. In this chapter I will
suggest that the idea that they were intended to create an isolated and
uniform volume of space--a space dominated by the Temple of
Jupiter-is a modern one. Instead, I will argue that the Forum was
designed in the same manner as many contemporary houses in
Pompeii: to create a number of multilayered views, many of which
looked beyond the colonnades. t57
7.2 The Forum of Pompeíi
Fausto Zevi, documenting the discovery of the Forum of
Pompeii, notes that the excavators reached it in 1813, and by 1814 had
cleared the southern part of the square, the Basilica and the three
buildings at the south end, as well as the facade of the Temple of
Apollo, features which appear on a plan drawn by Mazois in l8l4
(Zevl) (Fig.167). In the early 1820s, work at Pompeii concentrated on
clearing the other public buildings surrounding the Forum, something
which had been achieved by 1825 with the complete complex of
structures now visible, as shown by another plan prepared by Mazois
in that year (Fig.168). The identity of this space as the Forum was
quickly grasped, as it neatly fitted the typical ltalic forum described by
the Roman architectural witer Vitruvius, being a colonnaded
rectangular shape with a temple located at one end and a Basilica
opening on to it (Vitruvius V,i) (Fig.a8).
In the past it was the consensus view of scholars that at the
time of the eruption many of the structures round the Forum were still
undergoing extensive renovation following the earthquake of 62 AD
(for example: Richardson, Pompeii 261-76). The rectangular central
space of the Forum was said to have been in the process of being
repaved, while the colonnades supposedly yet to be erected at the
northern end of the western side. John Dobbins has rejected this view
and explained the stripped condition of the Forum as it appears today
by pointing to three factors: the damage sust¿ined in the eruption; the
probability of large scale salvaging after that disaster of what was
probably Pompeii's most fruitful site for the recovery of reusable, high
quality building materials, and finally, the poor quality of the
excavation, in which much evidence for the condition of the
pre-eruption Forum was probably lost. His recent investigation of the 158 buildings on the Forum's eastem side suggest that the rebuilding and redecoration was complete or substantially complete at the time of the
eruption (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban
Design" 634-35; 688-94).
Overlooking the Forum from its northern end stood the Temple
of Jupiter, while the centre of the west side was occupied by the
enclosure of the Temple of Apollo. On the east side stood two further
temples. The more southerly, adjacent to the Eumachia Building was
the so-called Vespasianic Temple discussed in Chapter 2. To the
north of this, and adjacent to the Macellum stood a building which
Mau identified as a Public Lararium; Richardson believed was a
public Library, a theory strongly attacked by Ling; andZattket,
perhaps more convincingly, has identified with the imperial cult (Mau,
Pompeii 102-05 Richardson, "The Libraries" 400-02; Pompeii
273-75;Ling, "The Architecture" 252-53; Zartker 102-03). In the
south-west comer was a large Basilica, seemingly unrepaired from the
earthquake. Adjacent to this and on the southern end of the square
stood three public buildings. Mau identified the westernmost as the
office of the aediles, the central hall as the Curia, and the easternmost
as the office of the duumvirs (Mau, Pompeii I2l-23). Maiuri offered a
different interpretation, identif,iing the westernmost hall as the Curia,
and the central hall as the public records building (Maiuri, L'ultima
fase 36-37). Laurence, however, has suggested on the basis of Vitruvius' comments on the buildings to be placed in fora that these
buildings were the gaol, the treasury, and the Curia of the Roman
colony (Laurence 23-25; Vitruvius V, ii). The identification of one
the buildings as a gaol seems unconvincing given the form of each of
the three buildings, there being no obvious provision for cells or other
means of restraint. Near these on the southern extremity of the r59
Forum's east side stood an open court, believed by some scholars to have served as the Comitium, the public voting area, but more recently this ascription has been contested, without an altemative function being put forward (Fuchs; Richardson, Pompeii 145-47; Laurence 25).
Commercial buildings are represented by the large market or
Macellum located on the north-east corner. In additíon there stood the
Eumachia Building. The precinct also included smaller monuments
indicative of its central importance in Pompeian life. Among those
was a room adjacent to the Temple of Apollo which contained the
standard weights and measures. Statue bases and inscribed tablets
were clustered around the centre of the northern side, while a large
base surrounded by other bases stood at the southern end. At the
western end, the Temple of Jupiter was flanked by two triumphal
arches.
7.3 The Intentíons Behìnd the Design of the Forum
The Forum at Pompeii is seen to occupy an eminent position in
the development of fora:
Yet, despite the vestiges of its less disciplined predecessor, the new Pompeian forum represents the archetype of a new style of forum-design that was to reach its full development in the early Empire. . . . In a considerable number of examples ranging from the vast complexes of Caesar and Augustus in Rome to such modest squares as the forums of Ostia, or Terracina in southern Latium, a direct descent may be traced from the elongated Republican forums of Pompeii, Alalia, and the fragmentary remains of others. (Russell 320;332)
Pompeii's Forum is so regarded because it is seen to be a clear
expression of the intentions which supposedly underlie the design of 160 the later forums. Determination of the origin of these intentions forms the basis of much historical analysis.
7.4 The Dominatìon of the Forum by the Temple of Jupíter
The first of these intentions is the supposed domination of the
Forum by the Temple of Jupiter. Ward-Perkins sees this intention in the development of the Forum from the end of the second century BC:
During this period there was also a lot of public building. The Forum was enlarged and monumentalizedby the addition of enclosing porticoes; at the north end it was dominated by a large, upstanding temple of Jupiter, and off the south-west corner there now opened a grandiose new basilica. (Ward-Perkíns, P ompe i i 3 4)
This assessment of the role of the Temple is also made by Robertson:
"We may also consider here the Temple of Jupiter which dominates the north end of the Forum at Pompeii, facing south" (Robertson,
Greek and Roman Architecture 212). Mau thought that the pre-eminence of the Temple gave the Forum its character: "The temple of Jupiter dominates the Forum, and more than any other structure gives it character" (Mau, Pompeii 63).
Indeed, domination of a forum by a temple is seen as the feature which distinguishes Italian fora from the Hellenistic agora.
Russell further outlines this supposed difference:
The distinction may be amplified by comparing examples of the "Ionian Agora" with the elongated forums at Pompeii, Paestum, Alalia and Cosa. ln the former the peripheral buildings enclosing the square agora were norrnally planned as a series of stoas of various types, sometimes simple, sometimes L-shaped or even U-shaped, but without any marked tendency to accenfuate or contrast any particular element in the scheme. 161
This does not imply that each wing of the square took the same form, but as a rule no single monument dominated the entire scheme in the way that the frontal view of a podium temple or a basilica dominated the majority of forums from late Republican times. (Russell 320-21)
Russell believes that dominating temples follow an Italic tradition:
Closer analogies to the temple-dominated forum of Pompeir and elsewhere are found at Cella, where the temple is apparently attached to the centre of the rear wall of a tiny coufyard that extends in front of the temple, or at Orvieto, where the facade of the temple is arranged flush with the rear wall of the sanctuary so that only the steps or ramp project into the temenos area. (Russell 323-24)
However, some Hellenistic complexes are also seen as having dominating temples, and thus, Russell suggests, may also have been precursors to the arrangement at Pompeii:
The enclosed gymnasium, macellum, and religious temenos all contain general features common to the Roman forum, but cert¿in examples of the last named in particular have provided some close similarities to the basic ideas present in the westem forum. In the sanctuaries of Zeus at Priene and Megalopolis, for example, the temples are encased within the rear wing while their projecting facades form the dominant focus of the courtyard areathat precedes them. (Russell 322)
7.5 UniJication Through Axialìty
Domination by the Temple supposedly emphasizes the long axis of the space, thus leading to the unification of the entire complex: 162
The most common means, however, for uniffing a complex around a central axis in the late Republican forums so far explored was the Italic temple, raised high on its podium, dominating the short end of a longpiazz.a. (Russell 328)
This is the case in the Forum of Pompeii, according to Boethius
In the forum at Pompeii, with its longitudinal central axis, we can see still more clearly how the traditions of Etruscan temples and old Italic market-places united with Hellenistic magniflrcence. Even before the Roman colony, c.150-l20,the old forum received a temple of Etruscan type at its upper north end, with stairs and prodromus towards the forum. It thereby obtained a central axis running lengthwise from north to south. The t¿bernae were dernolished, and in the second century, along the east, south, and west sides of the rectangular space, suggested by the orientation of the Etrusco-Italic temple, two-storeyed porticoes with columns and architraves of tufa were built in the Hellenistic style. (Boethius, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture 146)
The axiality in Pompeii is supposedly inspired in part by the axial
symmetry seen in Hellenistic sanctuaries, at Priene and Megalopolis:
Both schemes, dated to the end of the fourth century BC, display a marked regularity in their design, but only at Megalopolis is this carried out according to the strictest principles of axiality and symmetry. This included the alignment of the hexastyle columns with the outer columns of the rear portico, a feature that serves to bond the temple inseparably into its peribolus and creates a unity out of two different elements. It is a striking preview of a device adopted under the Empire in several provincial cities. (Russell 322-23)
Boethius sees the principle of axial symmetry as an emerging principle
of Hellenistic design: "in the fourth-century revival of Greek towns r63 before and after Alexander, there appears a general, increasing predilection for axiality and symmetry" (Boethius, Etruscan ond Early
Roman Architecture 145-46). Again, this principle is seen to have
It¿lic as well as Hellenistic origins:
This Hellenistic axial architecture certainly had importance for the late Republican architecture, but to explain its commanding position in the Rome of the last centuries BC and in the Imperial Age as due only to Hellenistic influence would, according to my opinion, be to simpli$ the matter and to forget the Italic traditions which the Greek architecture met in Rome. Axial symmetry was deeply rooted in Italian architecture, and we can clearly trace it there long before the victories of the monumental axial planning in Hellenistic architecture. (Boethius, The Golden House 4l)
Italic architectural practice supposedly made the adoption of the
Hellenistic use of axialþ easy:
It is evident that this axial hellenistic architecture made an overwhelming impression upon Rornan builders, but it would be rash and without historical common sense to overlook that because of their traditions from the Etrusco-Italic temples and sacred precincts, they were predisposed, anyway, towards hellenistic symmetry, though they adopted it to the axial tendencies ofEtrusco-Italic architecture. (Boethius, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture 146)
Axiatity is seen to be the general principle that unites the
disparate fora of the republic:
The beauty of this simple union of ideas was its flexibility as illustrated even in the small number of Republican forums that have been explored. The variety of these designs, as we have seen, arose from the means adopted to accentuate the central axis, but, whether it was a temple, arch, or basilica that was t64
employed as the dominating element, the basic principle in each case was essentially the same. (Russell 332)
The later Imperial fora are said to follow the same axial principle evident at Pompeii:
A study of the forums of Imperial date in Italy and the provinces of the Empire will reveal that the same accentuation ofa central axis was achieved by one or other ofthese devices. By far the most popular was the elongated area with its central axis dominated by the frontal facade of a podium temple. (Russell332)
In the Imperial period, it is the principle of axial design that is seen to
unite the disparate examples of urban design: "Nevertheless,
underlying this variety certain basic principles of axiality, symmetry,
and frontality may be recognizedinmost city-centres" (Russell 336).
This axiality is seen to be a predominant feature in the outline
of Roman architectural practice given by Vitruvius:
From Capitoline temple and its preserved podium and plan we may once more refurn to the question of Roman symmetry and axiality. The Romans applied these aesthetic principles in all the architectural devices which they borrowed and made their own. Vitruvius was much concerned with symmetriarum rationes (see, e.g. vi,3,l1) and with axiality. (Boethíus, The Golden House 62)
Boethius and the others have pointed to the importance given axiality
in Vitruvius' description of his Forum at Fano: 165
In his basilica in Fano he omitted the columns in front of the pronaos of the temple of Augustus. This temple was situated in the middle of the rear wall of the basilica and faced the temple of Jupiter and the centre of the forum. The grouping of these buildings is a good example of axiality with a central axis running from the temple of Jupiter over the centre of the forum and transversly straight across the basilica to the widened intercolumnar space in front of the Aedes Augusti (v,1,6-10). (Boethius, The Golden House 62)
Russell sees the axiality as the main feature of the design: "Everything in its design combines to emphasizethe central axis including the symmetrical arrangement of the pronaos colonnade, the podium steps and altar" (Russell 334). With its axiality, Russell sees the Forum at
Fanum as the archetype of forum design:
With the addition of colonnades along the flanks of the forum the design would be complete as a perfect example of symmetrical balance with the dominating frontal facades of ternple and basilica forming the two poles of the axis. (Russell334)
7. 6 Unífyíng Colonnades
Together with axiality, the colonnades were supposed to engender a sense of unity throughout the entire Forum. The search for unity is said to underlie much of the work of Roman architects:
Baroque design depends upon complex compositional unity. In all examples the elements are arranged around a central feature or axis in such a way as to converge upon it, to concentrate attention there. Centrelines and central features are as old as architecture itself, but their dramatic reinforcement by moans of a confluence of supporting subordinate features was brought forward by Roman designers seeking to dramatize and quicken architecture. (MacDonald2 237) 166
These architects are meant to have used devices to blend individual structures into a larger whole, while focusing on certain individual elements:
Some Roman designers thought in terms of unified, focused patterns and spaces, and in their best work de-emphasised the sense of individuality each building unit had traditionally expressed. They also managed to compose underlying frames of unified parts without abandoning the formal imagery and identity of classicism. (MacDonald 2.244)
The uniffing effect of colonnades is meant to result from their concealment of the structures behind. Russell writes of the purpose of
Pompeii's colonnade: "A portico of tufa along three sides, resting on a raised stylobate, was constructed to mask the buildings situated at its rear" (Russell 319). In the Pompeian Forum there was a disparate collection of buildings to be concealed:
Extensive though these changes \ryere, the vast reorganization of the public centre did not eliminate every trace of the primitive. At the south end, for example, the private houses still bordered the complex, while the tabernae at the south end of the east wing continued in existence, although their course now diverged from the alignment of the forum;but doubtless the new portico concealed the worst effects of these humble structures. (Russell 319 -20)
Todd also supposes that the aim of concealment lies behind the design ofcolonnades:
Porticoes were increasingly used to link elements of different date and style into a more coherent whole, often masking such t67
humdrum features as shops andtabernae- All this is well exemplified at Pompeii after c150. The whole of the early piaz.za was remodelled, a basilica andmacellumweÍe added, and a portico on a raised stylobate hid a muddle of structures along one edge. (Todd 58)
7.7 Enclosure
The uni$ing colonnades are supposed to have a second intended effect; that of enclosure. Russell says of the Forum's design:
"In essence it consists of a combination of two elements quite familiar to Roman architects, the Hellenistic colonnaded enclosure and the
Italic fondness for axiality and balanced groupings" (Russell 320).
However, Russell draws a distinction between the effects of separate colonnades, which he sees as characteristic of the Hellenistic ùgora, and the enclosing effect found in Pompeii's Forum:
The stoas ofthese agoras should rather be regarded as separate colonnaded buildings in their own right in contrast to the peristyle colonnade, which is in essence simply a device to enclose an area and provide a decorative face for a building. (Russell32l)
He goes on to suggest that it is this sense of enclosure that distinguishes Italic fora from the Hellenistic agora:
A different character is also presented by the new type of forum as opposed to the agora in relation to their respective street grids. Openness and accessibility are the key traits of the agora, even in the Hellenistic age, a feature shared of course by the primitive forum in ltaly. . . . The trend in Roman cities, by contrast, was to enclose the forum completely within its own precinct and divorce it from the traffic of the surrounding streets so that it became, in a sense, an element somewhat withdrawn from the city around. (Russell 321-22) 168
The enclosing and concealing effects of the colonnades are
supposedly intended to work together to bring about overall unity: "In this way the complex acquired a tightly integrated unity, its
relationship with the rest of the city now concealed by the surrounding
enciente" (Russell 322). Ans, enclosure and concealment are seen as
the elements of forum design:
As has already been shown, the principal aim in the design of these latter was to incorporate the various elements of the composition, temple, basilica, curia, tabernae, etc., into a monumental unity. This was achieved by a fusion of the colonnaded enclosure that knit the several structures in the complex tightly together behind a uniform facade and the long established It¿lic devices of a symmetrical balance based on a strong central axis. (Russell332)
7.8 Uníty Through Grødual Acquísition
This unified, enclosed axial space dominated by the Temple of
Jupiter \ilas supposedly the product of a process of gradual acquisition,
and not of a single development. That the various projects completed
at different times are said to have worked together to create this
unified effect is said to be the result of a continuing common
architectural intention. Ward-Perkins outlines this view in a
discussion of the Forum in its final phase of development:
Finally, to complete the catalogue of the public monuments of the Imperial Age, there is the forum area itself, the tufa porticoes and pavement of which were already in process of replacement in travertine at the time of the earthquake and were still incomplete in79. We are reminded that no less than the individual buildings, the streets and piazzas of the old-established Italian towns were the product of a long and often piecemeal growth. That despite this haphazard 169
development, the civic centres of Roman towns should so often have achieved a unity and a dignity which may not unfairly be compared with that of their medieval successors is a tribute both to the vitality of the civic institutions of the Roman town and to the essential good manners of the architectural tradition through which they found expression. (Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture 160-6 1)
Richardson gives an outline of this gradual uniffing development of the Pompeian Forum:
On the west side of the forum the planners decided to erect a two-storey colonnade running the whole length of the forum. There had evidently been some colonnaded porches on the east side of the forum at least from the early days of the Roman colony, and gradually that side had become increasingly handsome, until it was lined with fine facades, most of them employing columns and marble. The west side of the forum, thanks to the presence there of the basilica and the Temple of Apollo, fine Tufa Period buildings, had been neglected in the march of progress, and now it was decided to try to bring the two sides into balance by this means. (Richardson, Pompeii 261-63)
MacDonald sees the uniffing development over time of the Roman city as a common principle:
For example, it is clear that although many European towns began as military foundations or were heavily influenced by military planning and traditions (as were some sites in Africa and the east) and thus started out as rather spare and austere places, they gradually acquired enough ofthe essential architectural features of properly imperial towns to bring them broadly into line with urban practice across the empire. This could not be known from just a few sites. Gradual acquisition must be stressed because fully formed cities and towns, the finished products of a lengthy synthesis of Roman formulations with Hellenistic and other potent forces, are the principal subjects here. (MacDonaId 2: 2). 170
In regard to fora, Russell believes that such development has a cumulative uni$ing effect: "In cities where a gradual history of development had laid down an irregular series of buildings a strong trend set in to establish a monumental unity" (Russell 326).
In summary, the Forum of Pompeii has been viewed by many scholars to be an archetype because it is said to encapsulate features in its design which are seen to have been applied in the design of many other fora. These features are the domination of the Forum by the
Temple of Jupiter, the unification of the space by the longitudinal axis and the symmetrical view of the Temple along it, and the uniffing and enclosing effects of the surrounding colonnades. These features of the
Forum are said to have been built up over a long period of time through incremental development which was sensitive to the need to create and reinforce them. All of these assertions will now be put to the test.
7.9 The Wew of the Temple of Japíter
The arrangement of the Temple of Jupiter and its flanking arches at the Forum's northern end created a view which is multilayered and had the character found in the views in Pompeian houses, Pompeian wall paintings, and the public buildings already described. The altar, the podium steps and the equestrian statues occupied the foreground; in the middle ground stood the colonnades and the front wall of the cella. Either side appeared the archways which framed vistas beyond (Fig.17l). t7t
7.10 The Chronologlt of the Temple of Jupìter and the Flankíng
Arches
The prospect of the Temple altered during the first century AD.
The chronology of the Temple of Jupiter and the adjoining structures is known from the excavation and research of Maiuri (Maiuri, Pompei preromana I0l-24) (Fig.169). This chronolory can be summarized as
follows. The Temple was built towards the end of the Samnite period
in the second half of the second century, probably sometime between
150 and 120 BC, following the prevailing style of Etrusco-Italic
architecture. Its second phase dates from the time of the Sullan
colony, when the Temple was extensively remodelled to become a
Temple of the Capitoline Triad. The cella was reconstructed, new
columns were erected at the front, and a new altar was constructed in
the Forum in front of the Temple. Maiuri dates the Temple's third
phase to the last years of the reign of Augustus or the first years of the
Tiberian period. In the first part of this phase, the two arches rvere
constructed either side of the Temple. Today they are referred to as
the Arches of Tiberius and Drusus. Apparently the two arches were
initially fronted by pediments. Only the western arch survives; the
eastern one was apparently demolished soon after its construction, in
the second part of this phase. The new sorcalled Arch of Germanicus
was then constructed at the north-eastern entrance to the Forum,
adjacent to the Macellum. John Dobbins' investigation of the
chronology of the Macellum have confirmed that this arch pre-dated
the earthquake (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and
Urban Design" 680). Daniela Scagliarini Corlaita has suggested that
the larger mass of the new arch helps to maintain an effect of apparent
symmetry between the arches, despite its being set back (Scagliarini
Corlaita, "La situazione urbanistica" a3 ) @ig. 17 0 -7 l). In conj unction 172 with the construction of these arches, the front of the Temple was
remodelled, the altar being moved from the Forum pavement onto a
specially constructed podium at the front of the Temple. Two
equestrian statue bases were also constructed either side of the front
stairway of the Temple. The scene thus appeared to be symmetrical
when viewed from the south end of the Forum, with the altar seen
against the columns of the Temple facade, flanked by the two
equestrian statues, and apparently by both the arches. These
developments in the third phase are contemporary with Third Style
Pompeian wall painting. In the Temple's fourth phase, which occurred
after the earthquake of 62 AD, radical renovations were apparently
begun, but, according to Maiuri, were never completed.
7.11 The Wew of the Temple of Jupíter and the Flønking Arches
Compøred wíth Wøll Paintíngs
The arrangement of the Temple of Jupiter with its arches on
either side f,rts with the compositions of some architectural views seen
in the wall painting of both the Second and Third Styles. It is
analogous to the view of the central tholos flanked by the broken
pediment in the painting from the Corinthian oecus in the Casa del
Labirinto (VI, 1 I , I 0) (Fig. 106). The columns and roof of the tholos
can be related to the columns and pediment of the Jupiter Temple's
facade, while the two sections of broken pediment in the painting can
be likened to the Forum arches. A comparison can also be made with
a similar composition from a cubiculum of the Villa at Boscoreale
(Fig.l05). Here the Temple's place is again taken by a tholos. An
entablature and ceiling supported by two sets of columns appear on
each side of the central tholos. These can be compared in their
location to the arches in the Forum. 173
In a painting from the south wall of the entrance to the frigidarium of the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2), the central element, which consists of a framed landscape scene, occupies an equivalent position in the anangement of the painting to that of the Temple of
Jupiter in the view (Fig.107). This central element is flanked by two panels, each containing a figure. These figures are framed by pairs of columns. These two panels occupy positions equivalent to those of the arches. In a similar manner, the now destroyed central element of the painting in the frigidarium of the same house was once flanked by elaborate strucfures equivalent in their placement to the arches in the
Forum (Fig.l72).
A composition consisting of a central element flanked by pairs of other elements is also evident in a number of Second Style paintings from the Villa at Oplontis; for example on the east wall of room (15)
(Fig.109; 173), andon the north wall of room (23) (Fig.l7a). On the west wall of triclinium (14), the central element, which is topped by a tholos, appears with two arched openings, one to its left and one to its risht (Fis.175).
ln an example of Third Style painting from the wall to the right of the door in tablinum (2) of Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9,1),a pedimented central element, comparable in its positioning with the
Temple, is flanked by two openings, each allowing a view of a receding colonnade (Fig.176). On the rear wall of room (1) in the
Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9,1), the central element, which consists of an entablature supported by a pair of columns, appears between elaborate columnar pavilions, each complete with pediments
(Fig.l77-75). Again, these can be loosely compared with the arches in
the Forum. 174
In the painting on the east wall of triclinium (d) of Termopolio
(I,8,8), a central panel appears topped by a pediment, like that of the
Temple of Jupiter, and with two framed views of receding colonnades which may be likened in their positioning to the arches (Fig.85).
The painting from the wall to the right of the entrance of tablinum (h) in Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) more closely parallels the view in the Forum (Fig.61; 179). In the central zone of the painting there is a large central panel. On either side of this are smaller panels with pediments at their tops. These compare well with the arches in both scale and disposition. Furthermore, the arches apparently once sported pediments on their faces, like the pediments in the painting. The western arch with its pediment is shown in the famous marble relief from the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (Y,1,26)
(Fig.180).
The framed central view of the painting on the south wall of triclinium (e) in Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus (D(9,c) corresponds to the view of the Temple (Fig.59). The central element here is composed of a wall with a large double doorway, and a panel raised on a pole above. Either side appear the ends of porticoes, each holding a statue.
These are analogous in their location to the arches in the Forum. In the upper zone of the same painting appear two near-identical small views which also parallel the view in the Forum. The painting depicts an apparently three-storied structure. The top two stories are of interest. The central element has a pediment at the top and may be likened to the Temple of Jupiter. The two side elements consist of projecting porticoes, each topped by a broken pediment. These occupy the positions of the arches in the Forum view. The closest parallel in painting comes from another wall of the same room. Here 175 the centrepiece consists of a view of a temple flanked by two arches
(Fig.60).
From the above comparison with painting, it is clear that when
the Temple of Jupiter with its two arches was viewed from the Forum,
the composition of the view was similar to that of many scenes in wall
paintings.
7.12 The Colonnødes on Eíther Síde of the Temple
The colonnades of the sides of the Forum are usually imagined
to have guided the eye to the dominating view of the Temple. They
supposedly had this effect because their regularity and uniformity
made them submissive to the differentiated and therefore dominant
view of the Temple. This imaginary view perhaps resembles those of
the colonnades and central pavilions of the villas in two paintings of
unknown provenance now framed together in the Naples
Archaeological Museum (9406) (Fig.3l8) (Ling, Roman Painting 147,
Fig.154). ln the first of these views, no\¡/ appearing on the left, a
central pavilion is flanked by colonnades which run out from it
following the line of its facade. At each end of these colonnades
further colonnades project almost straight forwards. In the second
example the central pavilion is again flanked by a pair of colonnades.
These are depicted as advancing forward at an angle. A variety of
structures appear above these colonnades breaking the absolute
symmetry of the image.
In the view of the Temple of Jupiter from the central area of
the Forum, only the colonnade on the left could have appeared at
anytime as continuous and uniform. At the time of the eruption this
colonnade was apparently still under construction in its travertine
form. This replaced a tufa colonnade of the same height and order 176
(Richardson, Pompeii 264-65). Both the tufa and travertine colonnades were double storey, with Doric columns below and Ionic above. When complete, the original tufa colonnade would have run along the entire lengfh of the Forum's western side, as is indicated by the surviving foundations.
The colonnades on the eastern side of the Forum were not regular and uniform, as discussed in Chapter 6 above. The colonnades outside the Eumachia Building and the Macellum differ in their height and order. It is unknown whether there was a colonnade outside the so-called Vespasianic Temple, although recently John Dobbins has shown that the stylobate there is a modern one, and thus the lack of evidence of column bases seen there cannot be used as positive evidence for the non-existence of such a colonnade. Dobbins believes such a colonnade did in fact exist (Dobbins, "The Pompeii Forum
Project" 75-83). Dobbins has also proposed that tall columns once stood on the large bases which survive outside the so-called Public
Lararium (Dobbins, "The Pompeii Forum Project 1994-95" 83-85).
Certainly these bases are differently spaced from the adjacent colunns outside the Macellum, and Dobbins' suggestion points to an even greater disparity in the form of the colonnades on this side of the
Forum.
The principal effect of the colonnades on the eastern side of the Forum, appearing to the right of the Temple of Jupiter when viewed from the southern end of the square would have been of
inegularity despite their common alignment. They would have borne
a closer resemblance to the various structures which appear above the
colonnades in the second villa scene discussed above. Irregular
colonnades grouped together feature frequently in other scenes of
villas in Pompeian painting. For example in the villa landscape from 177
Stabiae now in the Naples Archaeological Museum (9480) (Ling,
RomanPainting l47,Fig.l55) (Fig.319); the group of villas shown along the sea coast in Pompeian house (VI, 8, 23-24) (Croisille 2:
Planche 97) (Fig.320); other villas in paintings from Pompeian houses
(VI, 7, 18) and (VI, 8, 23-24) (Croisille 2:Planche 96.1; 98)
(Fig.32l-22); and in the Naples Archaeological Museum (9482)
(Croisille 2: Planche 100) (Fig.323). Inegular colonnades are also a feature of the view of the port city now in the Naples Archaeological
Museum (9514) (Croisille 2: Planche 103) (Fig.32a).
7.13 The Wew of the Forum's Southern End
The belief that the view of the Temple of Jupiter completely dominated the uniformly framed space of the Forum is challenged by the view of the Forum's southern end. A grouping of statue bases stands at the southern end of the Forum, filling the view to the south
(Plan 8; Fig.18l). Zanker, perhaps following Mau, has identified these as the bases of statues of the imperial family (Zanker 100; 1 12-14;
Mau, Pompeii 46-48). When this grouping of monuments was viewed from the north, it was seen against a background of two successive and differently arranged ranks of columns, the facades of the Municipal
Buildings and the views through the doorways of these buildings. The grouping was also flanked by the Forum's side colonnades. On comparing this rich and complex view with architectural scenes in many contemporary wall paintings it becomes clear that this grouping, together with the other structures, reproduced in built form the
characteristic features of these paintings, including their overall
composition, layering, elaborateness and superimposition. This view
obviously has a powerful impact and its existence does not fit with an
intention for the Temple of Jupiter to dominate the Forum. Rather, the 178
"spectator" in the Forum would have been presented with elaborate
composed views at both of the short ends of the Forum. This effect is
hinted at by the comments of Laurence and Zanker (Laurence 30-31;
Zanker ll4).
7.14 The Chronologt of the Monuments øt the Southern End of the
Forum
The investigations of Mau and the chronology of Maiuri
suggests three phases in the development of this monument grouping
(Mau, Pompeii 46-45; "Die Statuen;" Zanker ll2-14;Maiuri, L'ultima fase 29-30). In the first phase, usually dated to after the establishment
of the Roman colony at Pompeii in 80 BC, and therefore to the time of
the Second Style, ten equestrian statues appeared evenly spaced in a
single rank across the southern end of the Forum. Four of these bases
survive today. Traces of the others are visible in the pavement, as
was noted by Mau, Maiuri and others (Mau, Pompeii 47;"Die
Statuen;" Maiuri, L'ultimafase29;Zartker ll2-13). The second phase
dates from the early part of the flrrst century AD and corresponds with
the Third Style in painting. In this phase the central arch was
constructed. This was flanked by the two small equestrian statue
bases which survive today from the first phase. The arch is supposed
once to have supported a large statue or statue group, possibly an
equestrian statue. Zanker identifies it as the base of a statue of
Augustus (Zanker 113). In the third phase of development, dated to
later in the first century AD, and thus contemporary with the late Third
Style or with the Fourth Style, the grouping was added to and
reorganized (Zanker 113). Two large rectangular bases now flanked
the central arch and the two small equestrian statue bases. Another
pair of small equestrian bases appears on the perimeter of the 179 grouping. Two more of these small bases stand adjacent to the sides of the Forum, but forward of the rest of the others. They are at right angles to the orientation of the other monuments. Finally, another rectangular base stands on the main axis of the Forum in front of the arch.
In summary, there were three phases of development of the monuments at the southern end of the Forum. The first dates to the foundation of the Roman colony. The second dates to the early part of the first century AD, and was thus contemporary with Third Style
Pompeian wall painting. The third phase has been dated to later in the first century, and thus was contemporary with late Third Style or
Fourth Style wall painting.
7.15 The Chronology of the Background Colonnades
The tufa colonnade at the southern end of the Forum, seen behind the statue bases in the view from the north, is one of the oldest structures around Pompeii's Forum. It is dated on the basis of an inscription found on a loose slab in the Forum near the Basilica, which refers to a Samnite magisterial office, but is inscribed in Latin (CIL l.
1627). It is held that this inscription refers to the tufa colonnade, and on the basis of the Samnite magistracy, the Samnite name of Vibius
Popidus, and the use of Latin rather than Oscan, Lauter dated it to the period just before the Social War, during which Samnite Pompeii was supposedly subject to great Roman influence, or to the period immediately after the war, but just prior to the establishment of the
Roman colony (Lauter 422-23).
In its extant form, the porticus consists of a rank of columns running first from the southwestern corner column around the southeastern corner, and continuing until the Via dellAbbondanza. 180
Behind the first rank of columns outside the Comitium, a second rank is disposed inegularly. This second rank continues across the Via dell'AbbondanuÂ., and abuts the last column of the Eumachia chalcidicum. In addition, two tufa columns continue the alignment of the front rank of the east side, south to the mouth of the Via delle
Scuola. Excavation conducted by Maiuri has revealed a line of column foundations forming another second rank in front of the
Municipal Buildings (Maiuri, Pompei preromana 72-73). Mau in his comments on the colonnade refers to the fragmentary remains of Ionic columns, which suggest the existence of an upper storey colonnade similar to the double-storey travertine colonnade seen on the western side (Mau, Pompeii 50) (Fig.182).
This double storey travertine colonnade along the western side of the Forum was under construction during the first centuÐ/, and was never completed. The columns of this new colonnade correspond in height to the extant tufa columns, as do the heights of the entablatures
The second rank of colunns in front of the Municipal
Buildings, whose existence has been posited from the quadratum
foundations revealed by Maiuri, was demolished (Maiuri, Pompei preromana 72-73) (Fig.183). In its place, a new series of columns was
erected in stuccoed brick, whose capitals consisted of a stone core,
covered in decorative stucco. While these new columns correspond in
their height to those tufa columns on the front stylobate, their
positioning is irregular, and none of them lines up with the columns in
front. Instead they are aligned with the doorways of the Municipal
Buildings behind. The easternmost column is aligned with the end of
the facade of the eastern hall, while the bases of the next three
columns are symmetrically disposed around the axis of this hall in 181 front of the entrance. The next two surviving columns are placed in line with the two side walls of the central hall, and the last two are located in alignment with the ends of the short facade wall of the westernmost hall. The foundation system and arrangement of the column bases was explored by Maiuri (Maiuri, Pompei prerotnetut
72-73). He dates the replacement of the tufa colonnade to Neronian times. The recent discovery by Frank Sear of three column capitals in the House of the Grand Duke, which apparently came from the original colonnade, suggests, through their place in the house, a slightly earlier date in the first century AD (Descoeudres and Sear
28-30).
Maiuri proposed that the new brick and stucco colonnade had two phases of construction (Maiuri, Pompei preromanaT2-73). The first, Neronian phase consisted solely of columns while in the second phase, which Maiuri saw as new post-earthquake construction, a central column in front of the middle hall was demolished and two short spur walls were erected either side of the resultant wide intercolumniation. Each of them was attached to a column.
There are no beam holes evident in the facades of the
Municipal Buildings that could have supported the flooring of the upstairs gallery of the Forum porticus beyond the second rank of columns. Hans Lauter has proposed that this gallery stopped at the second rank of columns, leaving a kind of courtyard open to the sþ between the Forum porticus and the Municipal Buildings' facades in which stood the entry stairs or ramps. This follows a similar affangement outside the Basilica, where Lauter has also demonstrated that another open courlyard existed (Lauter 416-36; Abb.15). These courtyards would have acted as light wells, increasing the illumination
of the facades when observed from the Forum. r82
7.16 The Chronologt of the Munícipal Buìldíngs
The three halls that make u¡ithe Municipal Buildings in their present form mostly date to after the earthquake of 62 AD. Only in the eastern hall is it clear that most of the structure pre-dates the earthquake, with new sections of walling and a new facade added at the northern end (Maiuri, L'ultimafase 35-38). However, Maiuri has shown that all three buildings existed in a somewhat similar form prior to the earthquake. In his excavations, Maiuri found the remains of the foundations of the original facade of the eastern building lying in line with the junction between the new and the old masoffy (lldaiun, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana 99-101; fig. 5a-55) (Fig.183-84). This demonstrated that the facade of the building originally lay further back from the line of the second rank of columns of the porticus. Maiuri's excavations in the central and western halls (in the latter case gteatly limited by the surviving marble pavement at the surface) uncovered the remains of the foundations of the facades of these buildings in their earlier forms (a, a' , al in Maiuri's plan, Fig.183). These foundations were also set back from the line of the post-earthquake facades. The foundations that Maiuri uncovered in each of the halls are not aligned. The old facade found in the central hall lies south of the one found in the eastern hall; while the old facade in the western hatl lies further south again. Thus facades of these buildings in their pre-earthquake form were thus not aligned (Zanker 64). The post-earthquake rebuilding thus regularized the facade lines.
Maiuri also uncovered the remains of the old pavement of the central hall. Above this was found a section of painted plaster decorated in the manner of the First Style. This has enabled the building to be dated to the last part of the second century BC or the 183 early part of the first century BC (Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana l}l;Zanker 64). Lauter has confirmed this date by showing that the building predated the construction of the porticus which stands in front of them. As noted above, he has shown that, as was also the case \¡rith the Basilica, an open space stood between the second rank of columns of the porticus and the facades of the
Municipal Buildings (Lauter 416-36).
7.17 The Wew of the Southern Monumcnts of the Forum: Fírst
Phase
In summary, three versions of the view of the Forum's southern
end appeared during the century and a half prior to the eruption. In the
first of these, an equally spaced line of ten equestrian statues stood
across the southern end of the Forum. Beyond the columns, through
the intercolumniations of the rear colonnade of the porticus could have
been glimpsed the facades of the Municipal Buildings standing across
a courtyard or light well. These facades were set further back than
today, at irregular depths.
7.18 The Wew of the Southern Monuments of the Forum: Second
Phase
In this second phase, dating to the first part of the first century
AD, and thus to the period of the Third Style, the central arch was
constructed. It was flanked by the surviving equestrian statues.
Somewhat later the rear colonnade of the porticus was rebuilt, so that
the columns aligned with edges of the facade walls of the Municipal
Buildings.
The view now consisted of the central monument-which
Zanker suggested may have been a statue of Augustus (Zanker 184
1l3)--flanked by the equestrian statues and seen against the tufa colonnade. This suggests a centralized viewpoint, like those required for the initial viewing of contemporary Third Style wall paintings
(Clarke 64). Beyond this, and more visible now through the stuccoed rear columns, appeared the facades of the Municipal Buildings still with their irregular setbacks, one visible on each side of the central arch.
7.19 The Wew of the Soulhern Monamenß of the Forum: Thírd
Phase
In the third phase the other statue bases were added. Wide openings are created in front of the two Municipal Buildings which face directly onto the Forum. The facades of all the three buildings are brought to a common line, closer to the rear of the porticus.
In the final version of the vierv from a position on the axis of the Forum's central space some of the bases appear superimposed onto others (Fig.l81). The two small equestrian statue bases at each extremity appear clumped together with the large rectangular bases, while there appears wide spacing betrveen these outer clumps and the small equestrian bases which flank the central arch- In furn, these small bases appear clearly separate from the central arch itself. The monuments were seen against a background of the double-storey colonnade, with tufa columns to the left and at the back, and travertine to the right. Behind the rear tufa colonnade is a second rank of columns constructed of brick with a stucco covering. These second rank columns are not regularly spacd but instead are placed with regard to the doorways of the Municipal Buildings behind, which appear either side of the central arch- Through the doorway of the eastern Municipal Building, the building's apse at the rear would have 185 been dimly visible, as would, through the other doorway, have been the podium at the rear of the central building
7.20 Comparison of the Wew of the Southern End of the Forumwíth
Thírd Style Wøll Pøintìngs
Comparison of the view as it would have appeared in its latter two phases with wall painting suggests that the arrangement of the whole grouping of statues, colonnades, and the Municipal Buildings is consistent with the contemporary composition of architectural views.
Compositions which present a number of elements against the background oftwo side colonnades and a back colonnade appear in some Third Style paintings. An example is the painting from a wall of the room to the north of the entrance in the Casa dell'Ancora (M,10,7)
(Fig.S2). In the upper zone, the long central colonnade, which runs parallel to the picture plane, resembles the double storey tufa colonnade at the southern end of the Forum. The place within the composition occupied by the side tufa and travertine colonnades is taken in the painting by two short receding colonnades at either end of the rear colonnade. Three elements are disposed in the painting in a manner which recalls the arrangement of the monuments as seen from the Forum. These elements are a painted scene placed high up in the centre ofthe rear colonnade, and a pair ofelaborate stands depicted either side of the central element. The location of the painted scene is equivalent to that of the large statue once supported by the central arch, while the positioning of the stands recalls that of the smaller equestrian stafues, or the later, larger rectangular bases.
A figure appears raised on a pedestal against the background of
a colonnade in the fragment of a painting from Herculaneum now in 186 the Naples Museum (Muz.Nap. inv. 9878) (Fig.185). This recalls the
position of the statue once raised on the central arch.
The upper zones of painting from the Villa Imperiale offer
compositions comparable with the arrangement of the monuments.
The upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) is particularly rich in these
examples (Fig.186-87). The simplest consists of a figure raised on a
pedestal witú an entablature above (Fig.188). Again, this brings to
mind the relationship of the raised statue on the central arch with the
tufa colonnade behind. The next example is a more elaborate version
of the same scheme (Fig.189). A figure appears raised on a pedestal
below an entablature. From each end of this entablature a colonnade
projects, suggesting the side colonnades of the Forum. The raised
figure is flanked by two pairs of columns and a receding entablature.
The placement of this pair of structures recalls the positíoning of the
two small equestrian bases, which flank the central arch. In general,
the composition of this complex cluster of elements in two layers
resembles the arrangement of the statue bases in the last phase. This
general resemblance to the Forum monuments, with a symmetrical but
complex cluster of elements placed at a number of depths, occurs with
the third example @ig.l90). The background columns, which appear
behind the figures on each side, do not accord with the foreground
structure. In a general way this evokes the lack of accord of the tufa
colonnade of the Forum with the brick and stucco columns behind.
There is also a resemblance to the composition of two near-identical
scenes from the upper zone of room (B) in the Villa Imperiale
(Fig.l9l-92). The large central element corresponds with the central
arch. The two short receding colonnades at the side are reminiscent of
the Forum's side colonnades, with the pair of entablatures which 187 parallel the picture plane bringing to mind the small equestrian statue bases which are aligned at right angles to the rest of the monuments.
A central element, consisting of a stand and a small rectangular painted scene, appears below an entablature in the upper zone ofthe painting on the west wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(YI,3,7) (Fig.87). At each end of this entablature, which runs parallel to the picture plane, are projecting entablatures in an arrangement reminiscent of the Forum's side colonnades. Yet another example of this arrangement occurs in the upper zone of the east wall of the same room (Fig.36).
The upper zone of the painting on the east wall of the tablinum inCaupon¿ di Sotericus (I,12,3) is of interest because the griffin which appears towards the right extremity of the picture is shown parallel to the picture plane (Fig.193). This resembles the orientation of the pair of small equestrian bases near the sides of the
Forum which are aligned at right angles to the other monuments. A similar arrangement is to be seen with the pairs of animals in the painting on the north wall of triclinium (8) in the Casa di P. Vedius
Siricus (V11,1,25.47) (Fig. 1 9a).
7.21 Cotnparíson of the Wew of the Southern End of the Foramwith
Fourth Sryle Wall Paíntíngs
The grouping of monuments is also comparable with some
Fourth Style wall paintings, which are contemporary with its second stage of development. On the west wall of room (f) in the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (1I,2,2) appears an elaborate upper zone (Fig.41).
The central figure occupies the position in the composition of the central arch in the view from the north. This central element is flanked by two f,rne decorative features, which correspond to the 188 equestrian statues either side of the arch. To the side of these decorative elements appear asymmetrical structures; each is the virtual mirror image of the other. Within each structure stands a figure. ln the overall composition these structures are reminiscent of the grouping of the large rectangular bases with the other small equestrian statue bases. The large bases appeared clumped closely together with the other small bases in an asymmetrical arrangement in the corners of the Forum, as the two asymmetrical, complex structures appear in the painting. The projection of the bases for columns and entablature at various angles in the painting recalls the small bases placed perpendicularly to the other monuments. The figures are seen against the corner of a background colonnade, in the same manner as the statues that once stood on the large bases would have appeared against the corners of the backgtound Forum colonnade. The various layers of the elements in the painting recall the different positioning of the bases, some being set forward, while the others were set back, \ rith the colonnades behind.
Another comparable upper zone composition from a Fourth
Style painting appears on a wall fragment from room (g) of the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,6), now in the Naples Museum (Fig.aT. Again, a central figure stands within a symmetrical structure colresponding to the positioning of the central arch. The asymmetrical arrangement with projecting column base, and other sections which parallel the picture plane, evoking the different alignments and close grouping of the large bases and outer smaller bases as seen from the north. (The bases in the painting form the entablature for columns in the central zone). The other structures further from the centre of the picture consist of two entablatures which run parallel to the picture plane, and a receding entablature which joins the other two. The way the 189 entablatures parallel the picture plane is comparable to the way the two small bases at the edge of the view run parallel to the visual plane.
Their comparability is heightened by the griffins, which rest on the entablatures in an orientation probably equivalent to that of the equestrian statues which probably once stood on the bases in the
Forum.
The view of the Forum monuments from the north may also be related to some of the large scale architectural compositions of Fourth
Style painting. Consider the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di
Pinarius Cerealis (m,4,b) (Fig.37). Three groupings of figures appear in the painting. The central group is placed higher than the other two, as the statues in the central arch would have been higher than the statue groups on the two large bases. The bases for structure seen in the foreground extremities of the painting recall the positioning and orientation of the two small equestrian statue bases at the extremities of the view. The columns that form the background suggest the background colonnades of the Forum. The projecting bases each supporting a column mirror, in their form and arrangement, the two small bases which flank the Forum's central arch. The two doorways seen in the background resemble the entrances of the Municipal
Buildings. The columns in front of the doors in the painting accord with those doors, as do the second rank of brick and stucco columns in front of the doors of the Municipal Buildings. There is a play with layering: background bases are visible through openings in a middle ground wall. This evokes the different layers of the monuments in the view and the columns and doorways behind.
Another painting comparable with the view of the Forum monuments and their background appears on the east wall of the same room (Fig.38). Again the bases of the structures depicted resemble the 190
Forum monuments. The central stairs occupy the same position in the composition as the central foreground base in the view. The two projected column bases echo the two small equestrian statue bases which flank the central arch, while the bases at the extremities of the painting correspond, in both their orientation and form, the foreground small st¿tue bases at the extremities of the view. The two doorways which appear in the background are comparable with the entrances of the Municipal Buildings. In both cases, columns stand in front of the doorways, and in both cases these columns are positioned with regard to those doorways.
On the east and south walls of the oecus in Pompeian house
(I,3,25) appear full architectural compositions with figures (Fig.a6).
In each painting there is a central figure flanked by other figures, evoking the statue on the central arch, and the two side statue groups.
The columnar structures which form the background recall the colonnades of the Forum. The columns are supported by an elaborate arrangement of bases. On the south wall, projecting bases for the columns are reminiscent, in their form and placement, of the small statue bases which flank the central arch and the large statue bases.
The stairways which project forward below the central figure call to mind the statue base which stands on the central axis of the Forum in front of the central arch. The complex arrangement of the columns seen in the background recalls the inegular arrangement of the brick and sfucco columns seen beyond the tufa colonnade and in front of the
Municipal Buildings. In both the view and the painting, the rear columns do not accord with those in front. On the east and west walls of the oecus, the sections of the base at the extremities of the paintings remind us in their projected, long rectangular form, and in their 191 location, of the small bases orientated perpendicularly to the other monuments.
In the famous painting from the Casa di Apollo (VI,7,23),
Apollo appears in the centre flanked by two other figures (Fig.42).
This evokes the composition of the Forum statues, with the statue on the central arch and the two flanking groups on the large bases.
Again, the columnar background could be related to the background colonnade of the Forum. The bases below both the columns and the figures are, however, especially reminiscent of the arrangement of the monument bases in the Forum. In its location, the larger central platform beneath Apollo can be related to the Forum's central arch.
The two rectangular bases either side of the central element are very like the small bases which flank the central arct¡ both in their location and in their appearance. The bases which support the side figures are clearly separated from the central bases, as the Forum's large bases are clearly separated from the central elements. The grouping together of the supports for the column and the figure at the side of the painting, with the clear spacing to the central elements, is very suggestive ofthe close juxtaposition of the side monuments in the view. The substantial form of the section of the base beneath the figures, with the moulding on the bottom, evokes the two large bases in the Forum. Two sides of these bases shown in the painting recall the two sides of the large bases visible in the view from the north. The smaller projecting
sections of these bases correspond with the small bases sited forward
of the other bases, and against the sides of the Forum, and are seen
adjacent to the large bases in the view, though in the Forum these
small bases are orientated differently. 192
7.22 The Temple of Jupiter did not Domìnøte the Forum
The monuments together with the tufa colonnade of the porticus the second rank of columns and the facades and entrances of the Municipal Building produced a series of increasingly rich and complex views. Such richness and complexity would have been notable to an ancient Pompeian because, as has been demonstrated above, it represented the appearance in built form of a composition familiar from numerous contemporary wall paintings. Elaborate views thus appeared at each of the Forum's short ends. This is contrary to the common belief that the Temple of Jupiter was the only architectural feature which stood out from the otherwise undifferentiated colonnaded sides of the Forum, and therefore dominated the central space.
7.23 The Non-Axial Wewsfromthe Munícípal Buíldíngs
The views of the Forum from the central and eastern Municipal
Buildings bring into question the supposed importance of the axial view of the Temple of Jupiter for the unity of the Forum, as well as further undermining the idea of the Temple's dominance of Pompeii's
premier public space @lan 9; Fig.l95-96). These views are
asymmetrical and suggest the importance of complexity and layering,
against the supposed importance of a symmetrical and axial view of
the Temple.
The views from the buildings located at the ends of fora are
usually given particular importance by scholars. Vitruvius gives a
description of the Basilica he designed at Fano (Vitruvius V,i,7). This
Basilica lay across one of the naro\ry ends of Fano's Forum, while a
Temple of Jupiter stood at the other. J. Russell in his article "The 193
Origin and Development of Republican Forums" regarded this design as the ideal forum:
With the addition of colonnades along the flanks of the forum the design would be complete as a perfect example of symmetrical balance with the dominating frontal facades of temple and basilica forming the two poles of the axis. (Russell334)
The elements are described as being symmetrically disposed. In the rear wall of the basilica is set the Temple of Augustus. This stands on the same axis as the Forum and the Temple of Jupiter, which it faces.
The two columns in front of this Temple are omitted in the design in order not to obstruct the view:
The columns are: on the breadth of the main roof at each end, four, including the corner columns at right and left; on the long side which is next to the forum, eight, including the same corner columns; on the other side, six, including the corner columns. This is because the two middle columns on that side are omitted, in order not to obstruct the view of the pronaos of the temple of Augustus (which is built at the middle of the side wall of the basilica, facing the middle of the forum and the temple of Jupiter) and also the tribunal which is in the former temple, shaped as a hemicycle whose curvature is less than a semicircle. (Vitruvius V,i,7)
Russell outlined the open view from the tribunal of the Temple of
Jupiter.
We should then suppose a vast central doorway to the basilica providing access to the central line of the forum. At the opposite end of the area but quite visible from the rear of the basilica stands the temple of Jupiter rising high above its podium. (Russell334) t94
At Pompeii the buildings which stand at the southern end of the Forum were the Municipal Buildings. Two of these three buildings face directly on to the Forum towards the Temple of Jupiter.
The floors of both of these are raised considerably above the level of the portico pavement. The wing of the porticus that stands in front of the Municipal Buildings is two colonnades deep, the one on the Forum
stylobate being regular, while the second has a very wide
intercolumniation in front of each of the Municipal Buildings. This
anangement is very similar to that described by Vitruvius in front of
the Temple of Augustus within hís Basilica at Fano. Maiuri suggested
that the intention was to open up aview of the Forum.
Finally, from the different openings of the intercolumniations, and from the lack of columns against the entranceway of the central hall of the cura, the intention of the last architect may be clearly perceived to remove before that entrance any impediment that might have disturbed the sight of anyone who, standing on the inside, might have wanted to have a free view of the walkway of the portico and of one part at least of the Forum. (Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana l0l)
Unlike the Basilica at Fano as described by Vitruvius, these two
buildings stand either side of the long axis of the Forum. The views
they offer are then not axial (Fig.195-96). In fact, from the doorway
and from positions within the buildings, each view is asymmetrical.
Two views from equivalent positions in each of the buildings
will be described below. In the foregtound of each of these views
there appear the tufa columns of the old colonnade, with the
entablature 195
marking the top of the view beyond. From the central hall, the vista beyond these tufa columns appears as follows. At the right-hand side
appears the western side and near corner of the arch which stands in
the Forum. This is visible to its full height. The lower portion of the
statue group that once stood above this arch would also have been
visible. A narrow view of the western side, and part of the top of the
statue base which stands in front of this arch is seen adjacent to the
arch. If part of the statue which originally stood here projected near
the western edge of its base, then this too would have been seen above
the more eastern of the two arches that flank the Temple of Jupiter.
That Temple appears partly obscured by one of the foreground tufa
columns. This column also partially obscures a base which stands
close to the southern edge of the Forum pavement. However, it is
likely that the statue which originally stood here would still have been
visible in part. The western arch flanking the Temple appears, and
below it a large statue base is visible to its full length, cut by the right
hand door frame, and obscured in part by another foreground tufa
column. The statue or statue group which once stood on this base
would have been visible to a considerable height. Behind the location
of this statuary appears the double storey travertine colonnade of the
western side of the Forum.
The view from the easternmost Municipal Buildings is very
similar in its elements to the view from the central hall, but in its
composition it is a virtual mirror image of the latter. The eastern side
of the arch appears on the left of the view, with adjacent to it the
eastern side of the statue base. Above this last appears the western of
the pair of arches which flank the Temple of Jupiter. It is the left and
not the right side of the Temple which is obscured by the foreground
tufa column. This column also partially obscures another small statue 196 base which stands near the southern edge of the Forum. The part of the base (and therefore the statue which once stood on it) that is visible in this case is on the right side, and not on the left as was the case in the view from the central hall. The eastern arch flanking the
Temple of Jupiter appears above another large statue base. This is partly obscured by another foreground tufa column. As the travertine colonnade of the western side of the Forum appears on the left side of the view from the central hall, here the right end of the view is marked by the colonnades of the Eumachia Building and the Macellum.
7.24 Comparíson of the Arrøngement of the Columns Outsíde the
Munìcìpal Buíldíngs wíth Domestíc Examples
By the arrangement of the columns outside the Municipal
Buildings in the last phase of Pompeii in order to open the outward view to the Forum two asymmetrical composed views, each the mirror image of the other, were created because of the positioning of these two Municipal Buildings either side ofthe main longitudinal axis of the Forum. The placement of these columns with regard to the outside vista was fully consistent with the contemporary architectural practice seen in many Pompeian houses. In the entrance views, the foreground columns of the peristyle are often widened to allow a clear view across the court, as are the columns in front of the Municipal Buildings. Lise
Bek notes this in the Pompeian Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (WI,1,40) and in the Herculanian House Casa del Bicentenario (V,15-16) (Belq
"Towards Paradise" 1 84).
The arrangement of views from triclinia outward into the peristyle is especially comparable with the organiz'ation of the outward views from the Municipal Buildings. The view from the most privileged position in the triclinia was carefully organrzed (Bek, 197
"Venusta Species" 140-41). Like the columns outside the Municipal
Buildings, the peristyle columns in front of the triclinia were frequently given a wide intercolumniation, as outside the oecus in the
Casa del Menandro (I,10,4) (Fig.11; 15, 16) and the Casa degli
Amorini dorati (VI,16,7) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 190). The views from these triclinia are like composed pictures (Bek, "Venusta
Species" 141). In their earliest manifestations composed views were symmetrically composed, but the examples contemporary with the
Municipal Buildings are sometimes asymmetrical (Jung 116).
Analogous with the way the Municipal Buildings views open in the opposite direction to the view of the southern end of the Forum, is the way the views from the triclinia in some houses confront the entrance views. Examples are the Casa di C. Vibius (VII,2,18) (Fig.197) and the Casa di M. Holconius Rufus (VIII,4,4) (Fig.198). In these cases, as with the views in the Forum, the elements which form part of a composed view from one direction also form part of another composed view from the opposite direction. This is further emphasized in the Casa dell'Efebo (I,7,11), where a sight line connects the viewing positions of two triclinia, allowing views in both directions (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 190) (Fig.199). The oecus and the triclinium in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,l1,10) are also analogous with the two Municipal Buildings, as they both face the same way with views in the same direction onto the peristyle, in the opposite direction to the entrance view, just as the Municipal Buildings both have views across the Forum in the same direction, opposite to that of the view
from the north (Fie.22). 198
7.25 The Wewsfrom the Municipal Buíldìngs Comparedwíth Thírd
Style Wall Pøíntíngs
Comparison with wall painting will show that the views from the Municipal Buildings are fully consistent with contemporary taste.
As we have already examined with regard to the view through the doorway of the Eumachia Building, and the doorways of the
Macellum, asymmetric architecfural compositions, Íls backgrounds for
figure scenes, often form the centrepieces of Third Style painted walls.
These are againcomparable with the asymmetrical views from the
Municipal Buildings. On the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa
di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29) appears a painting in which two
figures stand before an off-centre column and the corner made by two
walls (Fig.Sl). This is significant in its general asymmetry, and the
comer recalls the far corner of the Forum visible in both views. The
column may be related to the foreground tufa columns. Schefold
presents sketches of other similar Third Style paintings. On a wall of
room (c) in Pompeian house (V.,7,16), Aphrodite and Adonis are
depicted against a background of three walls and two columns
(Fig.200). One of the walls is angled from the left-hand side, while
the other, which does not rise to the full height of the scene, runs from
the right side. The second wall ends attached to the near central
column. Another column appears beyond and partially concealed by
the second wall. Only the capital and the top of the shaft are visible.
The third wall, or possibly just an entablature, joins the second column
to the first. The partial concealment of the second column by the
walls recalls the concealment of parts of the Temple and the side
colonnades by the central arch and the foreground tufa columns in the
Forum view. In another scene from the same house, Ares and
Aphrodite appear before another asymmetrically viewed architectural 199 background (Fig.201). Again, one column is revealed more fully, the view obstructed only by the foreground figures, while the second is partially concealed behind a wall. From a wall in Pompeian house
(X'1,22) Schefold presents a sketch of a painting of Phaedra and
Hippolytus (Fig.202). In the background, two walls form a corner and
a column appears off-centre.
On the east wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(VI,3,7) appears a centrepiece scene in which a group of figures stand
before a vist¿ of one, off-centre, receding colonnade (Fig.36). This is
particularly reminiscent of the off-centre receding colonnade seen in
each of the views from the Municipal Buildings. Equally reminiscent
is the painting on the south wall of the tablinum (i) in the Casa di L.
Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26) (Fig.86). This painting has already been
compared with the view through the doorway of the Eumachia
Building from the Forum. In this case, the likeness of the painting to
the view from the Municipal Buildings is striking. The foreground
columns in the painting resemble the foreground tufa columns in the
view, while the receding colonnade recalls the view of either of the
Forum's side colonnades.
The centrepiece of the west wall of the triclinium (f) in the
Casa di Giasone (DL5,18.21) is the painting "Giasone in the Presence
of Pelia," with the figures appearing in front of an angularly-seen
temple which recalls the view of the Forum's side colonnades
(Fig.203). On the south wall of cubiculum (g) in the same house, the
centrepiece consisted of a depiction of Pan and the Nymph with an
asymmetrical background, with a wall and the corner of a building
together with natural elements (Fig.20a).
Perhaps the most striking parallel between one of these
centrepiece paintings and the views from the Municipal Buildings 200 occurs with the painting of "The Theft of the Palladium" from room
(m) in Pompeian house (I,2,6) (Fig.205). Here the traditional scene is played against a background of inegularly arranged architectural elements. These include an off-centre temple, the positioning of which is reminiscent of that of the Temple of Jupiter in the Forum view. Asymmetrically-viewed monuments appear in the foreground, which suggest the asymmetry of the Forum's central arch, and the flanking equestrian statue bases, when seen from the Municipal
Buildings.
7.26 Asymmetrícally Composed Landscøpe Wews
Asymmetrically composed landscape views that include architectural elements also feature sometimes in the centrepieces of
Third Style wall paintings. As well as pointing to the contemporary taste for asymmetrical vistas, the angularly seen colonnades and the disposition of the other monuments sometimes directly recall the views from the Municipal Buildings. Such a view appears on a wall of cubiculum (16) in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus in Boscotrecase
(Fig.206-07). Notable here is the partial concealment of one monument by another. This recalls the obstruction of the view of the
Temple and the side colonnades of the Forum by the foreground tufa
columns and by the central arch. On a wall in the same room appears
another example (Fig.208). Here the angularly seen colonnade
resembles in some ways the angular view of the side colonnades of the
Forum, while the large foreground column reminds us of the
foreground tufa columns. This indicates that while structures may be
symmetrical in themselves, they may be viewed asymmetrically. A
third such landscape painting appeared in the same room (Fig.209). In 201 this case, the main architectural feature is an obliquely viewed columnar pavilion.
A fourth example, recorded in a drawing, comes from the long wall of the triclinium in Pompeian house (X.,7,22) (Fig.2l0). This features an angled colonnade, which lies in the background, and a pavilion \Mith tall columns. These bear a likeness to the side colonnades of the Forum and the foreground tufa columns. While in some ways these paintings resemble the composition of the views from the Municipal Buildings, they are most significant in reminding us of the popularity of the asymmetrical vista. As previously noted, this must be contrasted with the supposed dominance of the symmetrical axial view.
7.27 Asymmetrícal Architecture wíthín Landscape Wews
There are a number of small paintings which could be best described as scenes of architecture within landscape. These small pictures appear like framed paintings, and are presented in the centre panels, but are not the centrepieces of the entire wall. Often the paintings present asymmetrical views of their architectural subjects.
Two such paintings appear on a wall of tablinum (h) of the Casa di M.
Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.61; 2ll-12). The painting appearing in the left-hand panel depicts what may be a villa, which consists of two adjoining long colonnaded wings. Together these wings appear to form an "L" shape. The projecting wing is shown at an angle, while the other parallels the picture plane. This recalls the receding side colonnade of the Forum, and the columns of the Temple which are aligned \Mith the plane of the view from the Municipal Buildings. In the painting from the right-hand panel appears an irregular grouping of colonnaded structures. These appear to line a waterfront. The 202 arrangement reminds us of the importance of asymmetrically planned and viewed complexes, and this must be considered against the importance which is usually given axial symmetry in histories of
Roman architecture. This point is made clear by an example from a wall of triclinium (2) inthe Casa dei Cubicoli floreali (I,9,5)
(Fig.2l3-14). This small painting appears in a panel of a band beneath the upper zone. A villa of an apparently asymmetrical plan is depicted. It consists of two long colonnaded wings, two apparently shorter colonnaded wings and two towers. The view is angular, with one of the long and one of the short colonnaded wings aligned with the picture plane, while the other wings project at an angle forward to the left and down. Both plan and view indicate the prevailing taste for asymmetry.
7. 2 8 Asymmetrícal Co lumnar Sttactures
Small asymmetrical scenes with columnar structures sometimes appear in wall paintings. Once again this is indicative of a taste for the irregular view. An example, no\¡r' in New York, comes from room (5) in the Villa des Agrippa Postumus at Boscotrecase
(Fig.215). An impressionistic depiction of an angularly seen two-storey columnar structure appears among the trees and figures.
Some of these scenes demonstrate a degree of partial concealment, and the superimposition of one architectural element in front of another, a feature which is seen in the views of the Forum. Three small structures are recorded in a drawing of the south wall of the vestibule of the Ipogeo di Porta Maggiore (Fig.216). In the central example, an entablatue or flat roof is supported by three columns, and is apparently cantilevered to the right. Behind these three columns, a beam slopes down from the fürst column on the left to a fourth, 203
shorter, column under the cantilever. This placement of one element before another is comparable with the way the tufa columns and their
entablature appear before the Temple of Jupiter, partially obscuring it.
Superimposition also appears in the right-hand scene. A beam
emerges from the right-hand side of the building and slopes
downward, passing behind the first column before being supported by
a second column. ln the third example, appearing in the left-hand
panel, a beam supported by two columns is superimposed on the view
of a tree. Two irregularly positioned small structures and the tree
make the painting asymmetrical. These three examples, by reducing
superimposition and partial concealment to their simplest form,
demonstrate their use as a decorative feature. This accords with the
appearance of superimposition and partial concealment in the views
from the Municipal Buildings. The disposition of all three scenes is
funher testimony of the use of asymmetrical views. The partial
concealment of the Temple of Jupiter in the view from the Mturicipal
Buildings, its use as a mere background element, shows that it was not
necessarily the dominant element in the Forum.
A small asymmetrical scene appears on the wall to the left of
the entrance of the cubiculum in the Officina del garum degli Umbricii
(I,12,8) (Fig.217-18). In this case, a tree stands in front of a tower.
Attached to the left-hand side of this tower, a beam runs out, and at the
end is supported by a column. Beneath this beam is visible a receding
structure which can be seen running from the column towards the left.
The composition bears a general resemblance to the views from the
Municipal Buildings in more than its asymmetry. The framed
receding element can also be likened to the view of the side
colonnades of the Forum seen under the entablature and through the
intercolumniation of the foreground tufa columns. It may also be 204 likened to the partial view of the colonnade of the Temple of Jupiter seen through the intercolumniation of the tufa columns, in that it emerges from behind one column and only partially extends, both vertically and horizontally, across the opening. The comparatively large scale of the tower reminds us of the dominance of the foreground tufa columns compared with the other elements of the view.
Another small landscape image comes from a wall of the same cubiculum in the Offrcina del garum degli Umbricii (I,12,8) (Fig.2l9).
This consists of a pavilion with four columns, seen at an angle. Once againthis simple scene testifies to the importance of the asymmetrical composition, in contrast to the supposed dominance of the axial vista in Roman aesthetics.
7.29 Recessíon, Superimposítion and Asymmetry as Motífs ín Wall
Paíntíng Upper Zones
Columnar asymmetrically-viewed structures, not dissimilar to the views of the structures depicted in the small landscape paintings just considered, often appear in pairs in the upper zones of Third Style paintings. These are usually found at either end of the zone. One structure appears as the virtual mirror image of the other. This is clearly comparable with the two views of the Forum from the
Municipal Buildings as, like the painted scenes, one asyrnmetrical view is the mirror image of the other. These painted views also frequently feature superimposition. Such a scene appears on the wall to the left of the door of room 25 in the Villa at Oplontis (Fig.220'22).
An entablature runs parallel to the picture plane. This is supported at each end by a column standing on a stylobate which follows the course of the entablattre. A second entablature crosses the first. This second entablature is shown at an angle, projecting away from the middle of 20s the picture. The second entablature is supported at one end by a foreground column standing on a raised base, and by a background
column at the other. Running from behind the foreground column to the background column is a wall, shorter than the columns. A second
wall, again of a lesser height than the columns, runs from the outer
column inward, and is not seen beyond the foreground column. This
painting exhibits the superimposition and partial concealment notable
in the views from the Municipal Buildings. The foreground column is
depicted as superimposed on the first entablature, and the ends of both
walls, while its base stands before the stylobate. This echoes the
superimposition of the foreground tufa column on the other elements
of the view.
An example in which two asymmetrical elements f,rt within a
greater symmetrical composition occurs on the north wall of exedra
(11) of the Villa in contrada Pisanella (Fi9.223). A receding
colonnade stands on a base of complex affangement. An entablature
runs parallel to the picture plane and branches off from the entablailre
of the receding colonnade. The first entablature is supported by two
columns, one of which stands in front of the receding colonnade. A
base, on which stand these two columns and the second entablature,
runs parallel with the pictorial surface. On this rests another small
base, which in turn supports some of the columns of the receding
colonnade. Another base projects forward at an angle. On this base
stand the remaining columns of the receding (or projecting)
colorurade. The end column of this colonnade is thicker than the other
columns. A short wall runs between the end column and the column
which supports the second entablature. Thus the painting features the
asymmetry, superimposition, projection and recession familiar from
the views from the Municipal Buildings. 206
A fragmentary painting of what wris presumably one of another pair of asymmetrical architectural views appears on a wall of triclinium (3) in the Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9,1) (Fi9.224-25). The depiction is complicated; curved colonnades, a tower and a high foreground entablature all stand on a substantial base. The foreground tower is superimposed on the curved colonnade. Again, this recalls the way the tufa columns are superimposed on the colonnade of the
Temple, and the side colonnades of the Forum. The appearance of the colonnade which runs from the background end of the curved colonnade to the tower, framed as it is by the combination of the tower, foreground entablature and supporting column, can be likened to the views f¡om the Municipal Buildings of the side colonnades of the Forum framed by the tufa entablature and columns.
In two examples from room (1) of the Casa del Bell'impluvio
(I,9,1) on the walls to the right and left of the entrance, is a display of superimposition between elements which are all parallel to the picture plane (Fig.226-27). While in both cases the painting is partly destroyed, it is possible to make out a high pavilion supported by at least three columns in the painting to the right of the door. One end of the pavilion is supported by a thick column, while the other end is supported by thin columns. One of the two slender columns is superimposed on the other. This play with superimposition recalls the portico column superimposed on the view of the Temple of Jupiter. In both cases the elements are parallel to the picture plane.
In a painting from room (g) in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto
(V,4,a) appears another two pairs of as¡nnmetrical structures
(Fíg.79;228). Once again a foreground entablature and columns frame receding colonnades in a manner comparable with the views
fromthe Municipal Buildings. A foreground pavilion is superimposed 207 on the columns of the receding colonnade, recalling the superimposition of the large statue bases (of the later, final phase) onto the side colonnades of the Forum in the Municipal Buildings views. In the pair of structures closer to the middle of the wall, a column which stands under the end ofa high entablature appears in front ofa second, lower entablature. Both entablatures run parallel with the picture plane. This superimposition of some elements onto others is comparable with the overlaying of the foreground tufa columns onto the colonnade of the Temple of Jupiter.
This play with layering, framing, projection and recession in pairs, which is a feature of the Municipal Building views, becomes almost a motif in many Third Style wall paintings. On the east wall of the apoditerium (5) in the Villa in contrada Pisanella each of the pair of rather sparse asymmetrical structures includes a receding entablature, supported by a column at the end(Fig.229). This is framed by an entablature and supports. Superimposed on this second entablature, and the base beneath it, is a thicker decorated column.
Asymmetry, recession and stratification feature in motifJike architectural views from room (9) of the Casa dei Quattro stili (I,8,17)
(Fig.230-31). From each end of a receding wall, entablatures emerge.
At their other ends these entablatures are each supported by a column.
The foreground column is superimposed over the background entablature.
The two structures in the upper zone of the back wall of a cubiculum in the Officina del garum degli Umbricii (I,12,8) display a receding wall as well as a receding entablature and pediment(Fig.2l9;
232); overlaid on the base of the structure is a pedestal supporting a
pitcher. A similar superimposition of pedestal over the base of a 208 structure appears in the damaged upper zone of a painting on the rear wall of room (H) in Pompeian house (VI,16,36) (Fig.2T3Ð.
A receding colonnade and a projecting wall with an entablature appear in the upper zone of the painting on the wall left of the entrance in a cubiculum in the Offrcina del garum degli Umbricii
(I,12,8) (Fig.2l7). A second entablature runs parallel with the picture plane from the point where the projecting wall and receding colonnade join. Supported by a column at its other end, this entablature and its column frame the view of the receding colonnade, recalling the
Municipal Buildings view. A similar arrangement appears on the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29)
(Fig.81). Here, an entablature and column frame a receding wall and colonnade.
In the upper zone of the painting on the rear wall of room (8) of the Casa del Fabbro (I,10,7) is a scene which includes a receding entablature framed by a second entablature and column (Fig.235). A third entablature is attached to the end of the receding colonnade, and runs parallel to the picture plane. At its end this is supported by another column, before it reaches the column which supports the framing entablature. In an abstract way, the first receding colonnade is equivalent to the receding colonnade in the Municipal Buildings views; the second framing entablature and column resemble the framing effect of the tufa colonnade; the third entablature suggests the facade of the Temple of Jupiter.
In the upper zone of an elaborate painting from a wall in
Pompeian house (V,1,4) appears the familiar composition of receding wall, framed by an entablature and a column, which is, in turn, superimposed on another entablature (Fig.1l0). The painting on a wall of room (e) in Casa dei Ceii (I,6,15) cont¿ins a scene where one 209 pavilion, consisting of a roof supported at one end by a pair of columns, frames the view of a second receding pavilion (Fig.236-37).
A foreground entablature (or pavilion), framing a view of a roof, runs parallel to the picture plane and is supported at its end by two columns in the upper zone of a painting from the wall to the right of the entrance of room (9) of the Casa del Fabbro (I,10,7) (Fig.238-39).
This structure, in turn, frames a view of a receding colonnade.
Attached to the end of this colonnade is an entablature, which runs parallel to the picture plane, and is supported by two columns.
Superimposed on this are a further two columns supporting the roof.
MotifJike affangements in asymmetrical pairs also appear in the upper zones of the paintings on the rear wall of room (A) in the Villa
Imperiale (Fig.24042), in room (2) of the Caupona di Sotericus
(I,12,3) (Fi9.24344), and on the east wall of the oecus in the
Accademia di Musica (VI,3,7) (Fig.36).
7.30 Dírectþ Comparable l/ìews in Wall Paíntìngs
The architectural scenes examined above depict, in a quite abstract way, some of the compositional features seen in the views from the Municipal Buildings. There are other more elaborate architectural scenes which are more directly comparable with the views. The reconstruction of the painting from the west wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica (VI,3,7) is a more elaborate version of the motif already discussed (Fig.87). A detailed receding colonnade is framed by a roof and columns. This is easily comparable with the view of the Forum's receding colonnade framed by the foreground portico. In the upper zone of the rear wall of tablinum (i) in Pompeian house (V,1,1023) is a view of a two-storey receding colonnade, comparable with views of the receding colonnades in the Forum 2r0
(Fig.2aÐ. Perhaps the painting that compares most closely with views from the Municipal Buildings appears on the rear wall of room (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus (D(9,c) @i9.24647). Two views appear in the upper zoÍre, each the virtr¡al mirror image of the other.
They both have identical decorated frames. Each view consists of a receding portico and an adjacent colonnaded building. Beyond the building is an arch which runs parallel to the picture plane. This bears a close resemblance to either of the views from the Municipal
Buildings of the Forum. The portico and colonnaded building resemble the view of the Forum's side colonnade. The arch seen in the painting adjacent to the buildings is much like either one of the triumphal arches, seen adjacent to the ends of each of the colonnades.
7.31 The Wewfromthe Munícípal Baíldíngs Comparedwíth Founh
Style Vltøll Paìntíngs
The views from the Municipal Buildings can be compared with many of the Fourth Style wall paintings contemporary with the second phase of the Buildings. The use of narrow, complex architectural views between flat panels is characteristic of the Fourth Style. These narrow vistas, like the views from the Municipal Buildings, appear in pairs, each the virtr¡al mirror image of the other. These vistas are asymmetrical, as are the views from the Municipal Buildings. In these paintings, great emphasis is placed on superimposition, with structures seen through, and partially obscured by, other foreground structures.
Often only half or a section of these structures is visible within the frame of the painted view. This corresponds with the arrangement of the two views where the arch is only partly to be seen, and the superimposition of the foreground columns onto the statue bases and the Temple of Jupiter. This contrasts with the supposedly intended 2rl dominance of the Temple of Jupiter, and the alleged importance of the syrnmetrical axial view. In some paintings, figures sometimes clearly depicted as statues are seen. These, like the other elements, are often partially concealed behind foreground architectural elements or the pictorial frame. These figures correspond well with the statues seen from the Municipal Buildings, which would have been partly hidden behind the door frames or the tufa columns.
7.32 Wrtual Mínor Image Paírs of Wews
The arrangement of virtual mirror image pairs of asymmetrical views of architecture appears in many Fourth Style wall paintings, such as on the south wall of room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Fig.39). In this example, the pair of scenes consists of foreground structures parallel to the picture plane. An entablature is supported by two slender columns. Between these columns a wall rises to half the height of the entablature. Attached to the entablature, and continuing its line, an apparently flat panel joins another elaborate column which runs to the full height of the central zone. A stand appears in the lower half of the zone between the second pair of columns. Visible in the space between the first pair of columns, and above the connecting panel, is a receding colonnade. The columns in the foreground could be loosely related to the foreground tufa columns seen from the
Municipal Buildings, while the receding colonnade resembles the view of the receding colonnades on the sides of the Forum as seen from the
Municipal Buildings.
These painted views thus demonstrate the common characteristics of the Fourth Style painting and the Municipal
Buildings views. Two views are shown, each the virtual mirror image
of the other, both asymmetrical. The layered effect is shown by the 212 vista of the receding colonnade seen through the foreground columns.
The interest in partial concealment is shown by the covering of the lower part of the receding colonnade by the panel between the front pair of columns. The same composition also appears on the west wall of the same room of the same house (Fig.0Ð.
7.33 Layeríng, Projectíon, Recessíon and Complæ Composítíon
Another somewhat more elaborate example appears on the north-western wall of room (d) in the Casa della Fontana piccola
(VI,8,23) (Fig.113). Again, there is a pair of narrow painted vistas, one each side of the central panel, each vista being the apparent mirror image of the other. In the middle foreground, an entablature runs across the whole of the panel. Like the enl¿blature and panel seen in the painting from the Casa dei Vettii, this entablature can be compared with the tufa colonnade in the view from the Municipal Buildings, where it also marks the middle foreground. At the level of this first entablature and adjacent to the central panel in each view, another entablature is depicted as projecting forward from the picture plane, supported by two slender columns. This, like the receding colonnade seen in the painting in the Casa dei Vettii, is indicative of the interest in layering, which is also seen in the view from the Municipal
Buildings. In a manner similar to the partial concealment of background elements by foreground elements seen in the Municipal
Buildings views, this projecting foreground entablature covers a small section of the middle foreground entablature.
On the opposite side of the nalrow vista, another colonnade appears, this time receding, which rises the full height of the vista.
Superimposed onto this colonnade is part of the entablature in the middle foreground. Like the receding colonnade in the Casa dei 2t3
Vettii, this colonnade resembles the side Forum colonnades, as they aro seen from the Municipal Buildings. A panel covers the view of the bottom section of this colonnade, recalling the superimposition over the boffom sections of the Forum's side colonnades by the large statue bases. The layering is further extended by yet another colonnade appearing in the background. This background colonnade runs parallel with the picture plane from adjacent to the central panel, and passes behind the last column of the receding colonnade, before turning itself to recede. This background colonnade recalls the background elements of the view from the Municipal Buildings, such as the Temple of Jupiter, which in both views is partially concealed by a foreground tufa column, and would once have been behind the stafue which stood on the base adjacent to the column. The statuary of the
Municipal Buildings view is recalled by flrgures seen in the painting, above the end of the projecting entablature and the corner of the background colonnade.
More projecting entablatures appear in each of the views on the south wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.a0).
The emphasis of these narrow vistas remains superimposition, layering and complexity of arrangement. In the example shown, the forward projecting ent¿blature is supported by two columns. The inner column also supports another entablature and the corner of a roof which runs offto the right, also parallel to the picture plane and crossing the rest of the vista. Set further back against the projecting entablature, a second entablature, again parallel to the picture plane, runs off to the left and bridges the remainder of the vista. The placing of the elements in various layers in this painting can be compared with the layering of the statue bases and the other elements in the view from 2T4 the Municipal Buildings. A figure is brought into this composition, placed at the end ofthe projecting entablature.
A similar arrangement appears in the Casa del Centenario
(D(8,6), room 42 onthe north wall (Fig.139). Once againan entablature projects forward, supported on two columns. The front column is visible in its full height; the second, however, disappears behind a low balustrade. In addition, the column is partly concealed by two panels, the first running between the columns and the second running parallel to the picture surface to the edge of the vista. This second panel has an opening through which can be seen part ofthe support for a second entablature, which again runs parallel to the picture surface. Near the other end of this entablature, alarge support, which appears from behind the balustrade, and rises to the fulI height of this vista, is superimposed on the ent¿blature. This elaborate superimposition of elements recalls the placement of the statue bases in the Pompeian Forum, so that they are partly concealed behind columns or the central arch.
Projecting and receding entablatures, with partially concealed and superimposing columns, are also a feature of the vista seen in a wall fragment from room (g) in the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,6)
(Fig.af. Again, this recalls the concealing foreground tufa columns and the background, partially concealed columns of the Temple of
Jupiter and the Forum's side colonnade. At the side of the upper zone of this same painting occurs a scene where three entablatures in different layers and lengths interact with each other, the columns of the foreground structure passing in front of the more backward, thus acting like the tufa columns in the view from the Municipal Buildings.
Like the arrangement of statuary within that view, three figures, two griffrns and a man, appear \Mithin the architectural composition. Other 215
Pompeian paintings which have these characteristic narrow vistas with columnar displays, foreground columns being superimposed on the background structures, appear on: the south wall of room (b) in the
Casa delle Paretti rosse (VIII,5,37) (Fig.2a8); the west wall of room
(G) in Pompeian house (V,3,4) (Fig.2a9); the south wall of room (Q) in the Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI,16,7) (Fig.250); in the Casa dei
Vettii (VL15,1) on the north-west and north-east walls of room (i)
(Fig.l33) and the south wall of room (t) (Fig.251); and the west wall of room (f) in Pompeian house (X,5,l l) (Fig.l l5). Further examples appear on the east and west walls of room (F) in the Casa dell'Ara massima (VI,16,15) (Fig.l16;252); the north wall of room (G) in the same house (Fig.253); and the south-west corner of room (r) in the
Casa di Orfeo (VI,14,20) (Fig.25a).
A more complex and fantastic arrangement appears in the Casa della Regina Margherita (V,2,1) on the east wall of room (r) (Fig.laO).
Here, spindly columns support curving pavilion roofs and pieces of fantasy architecture. In the composition, part of the larger pavilion is concealed from view beyond the edge of the vista. This can be compared with the partial concealment of the central arch by the frame of the doorway in the Forum views.
Such an arrangement (where structures are only partly seen within the field of view) is coupled with the presence of a figure on the north-west wall of room (10) in the Casa di P. Vedius Siricus
(\m1,25.47) (Fig.aÐ. This brings to mind the partial view of the central arch, the concealing foreground columns, and the statuary of the views from the Municipal Buildings. In this scene, just over a third of the tholos, which appears at the bottom of the picture, is hidden beyond the field of view, as are the corner and corner column
of the square pavilion which st¿nds above the tholos. As mentioned 216 above, this is comparable with the way that most of the central arch is hidden from view, and it in tum conceals much of the statue base which stands to the north of it. Layering is emphasized here. The rear corner column of the square pavilion is joined to the foremost column of the tholos. Three layers are created, with the square pavilior¡ the tholos, and the structures which lie behind the square pavilion. The figures which appear in the compositior¡ a female in the foreground, and a tiger and centaur on the roof of the square pavilion, recall the statues in the Forum, particularly in their differing heights, with one group on the arch once appearing above the group on the large base, and the nearby small base.
Asymmetry and layering are again evident on part of the west wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6) (Fig.a3). A tholos stands off-centre within the scene, superimposed onto the receding colonnade which lies behind. This can be compared with the large bases which, like the tholos, appear off-centre and partly obscure the views of the receding colonnades from the Municipal Buildings.
On the north-east wall of the Casa della Fontana piccola
(VI,8,23) room (d), there appear a pair of views, each consisting of a two storey tholos which is only half visible (Fig.1 13). This compares with the partially concealed central arch which can only partly be seen within the field of view from either of the Municipal Buildings.
In an architectural scene ofunknown provenance now in the
National Museum of Naples, elaborate columns, door frames and pavilions appear at different depths and partly conceal one another
(Fig.lal). Within the composition appear two bowls on pediments which are partly concealed by the foreground doorway. These can be compared to the partial concealment of the small statue base by the nearþ tufa column in the Forum view, as well as the hiding of much 217 of the st¿tue base, which stands further out in the Forum, by the central arch. An even more complex a[angement of colonnade is to be seen in a detail of the north wall in room (e) of Pompeian house
(DL1,7) (Fig.142). Foreground and receding middle ground
colonnades conceal background ones. This can be compared with the
way the tufa colonnade partly conceals the Temple of Jupiter and the
receding colonnade of the eastern and western flanks of the Forum.
The figure ofa centaur and another creature are to be seen through
foreground columns, recalling how once statuary was to be seen
through the foreground tufa colonnade.
The painting whose composition is most easily comparable
with the Forum views is to be found on a wall of room (15) of the
Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48) (Fig.l18). In this picture, the
figures depicted take the form of statues. The overall composition
consists of a large foreground column which is partly superimposed
onto a tholos behind. This tholos is itself superimposed onto two
small columns which stand in the background. To the right of the
foreground column appears another column in the middle ground. The
foreground column is comparable to the foreground tufa columns, and
its concealment of the tholos compares with the covering of the large
statue base by one of the tufa columns. The limited view of the
background columns compares with the partial view of the columns of
the Forum flanks. To the right of the foreground column, and partly
covered by it, appears an equestrian statue on a rectangular base. Two
other male figures, their bronze colouring suggesting that they are
statues, appear leaning from behind the foreground column. This
partial concealment of statues compares with the way the statues
standing on the bases adjacent to the foreground tufa columns would
have been visible in part. The statue which once stood on the base in 218 front of the central arch would also once have been partly concealed in a similar manner.
The creation of layered, complex vistas with superimposed and partially concealed elements, in both the Municipal Buildings views and in contemporary painting, runs counter to the simplistic architectural taste for axial symmetry and unified hierarchies that has been ascribed to the architects of this period.
7.34 The Wewsfromthe Munícipal BuíldÍngs Compøredwìth Wews
ín Pompeían Houses
The view from the Municipal Buildings are also comparable with contemporary practice in the arrangement of views from domestic triclinia. FratuJung, in his chronology of the development of these views, suggests that they begin as simple symmetrical arrangements, but by the time of the construction of the Municipal
Buildings are independently structured pictures, and in their last phase, contemporary with the rebuilding of the Municipal Buildings, are distinctþ asymmetrical (Jung 116). Examples of such asymmetrical views are to be found in the Casa di M. Holconius Rufus (VItr,4,4)
(Jung 104-05) (Fig.198; 255); in one of the views from the triclinium in the Casa del Centenario (Dç8,6) (Jung 105) (Fig.26); in the Praedia di Julia Felix (II,4) (Jung 105-06) (Fig.28); and in the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (n,2,2) (Jung 106-14) ffi9.29-32). In the view from the triclinium in the Casa di M. Holconius Rufus (VIII,4,4), the view opens onto the peristyle (Jung 104-05) (Fig.198; 255). From the traditionally privileged viewing points, the two foreground columns of the peristyle appear regularly positioned with regard to the opening.
Beyond these, the view is irregular and aqrmmetrical, looking into the corner of the peristyle. A statue of a youth standing on a stepped 219 water cascade is seen from behind off-centre in the vieq recalling the views of the back of the statues from the Municipal Buildings. In this view there is a receding colonnade, and the superimposition of the
foreground columns onto the elements behind, all familiar features
from the Municipal Buildings view and contemporary wall painting.
The view into the peristyle from the triclinium in the Casa del
Centenario (X,8,6) is a rigorously symmetrical compositior¡ with the
exception of the placement of the statue of the drunken Satyr, which is
offset (Jung 105) (Fig.26-27). Another view opens behind the
triclinium into a nymphaeum, and this is completely asymmetrical.
The triclinium in the Praedia di Julia Felix (tr,4) opens onto the
garden with its line of water bases. Two columns which stand outside
this triclinium appear regularly with regard to the entrance frame at
the extremities of the view (Jung 105-06) (Fig.28). The rest of the
view is asymmetrical. The third column of the portico outside the
triclinia that is visible in this view appears ofÊcentre. The basins in
the garden, with their curved and squared extensions, appear
irregularly in the background. The slender columns of the portico
outside the triclinium are superimposed onto these extensions to the
basins.
The views from both the triclinium and the biclinium in the
Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (tr,2,2) are completely asymmetrical, and
present the complex layering and superimposition which we have seen
is characteristic of the views from the Municipal Buildings and
contemporary wall painting (Jung 106-14) (Fig.29-32). The
centrepiece of the garden is a 50m long axial arrangement of statues,
fountains and basins, running virtually the whole length of the garden.
Planting was apparently arranged in rows parallel to this major axis.
The triclinium is located at the northern end of the axis, but the view 220 from the most privileged position within it is not along this axis, rather it is asymmetrical, looking across the line of fountains obliquely (Jung
1l l) (Fig.31). The similarity with the views from each of the
Municipal Buildings is immediately obvious. Both of these do not follow the Forum's main axis, but cut it obliquely. The view from the triclinium also corresponds in both its composition and its elements to the Municipal Buildings views and the contemporary wall paintings
already surveyed. The elements are deployed asymmetrically in a
number of layers, as they are in the Municipal Buildings views. A
foreground column appears in the triclinium viewtowards the
left-hand edge of the framing entrance. This column and the
foreground elements are very prominent in the view, obscuring much
of the rest of the garden (Jung 111). These foreground elements
include two pergola pillars, which support pergola beams above, and a
pavilion with four columns which contains a statue. Another statue
appears from behind the foreground column. These pillars and the
pavilion are arranged irregularly in the view. They are reminiscent of
the statue bases and central arch which occupy the middle foreground
in the views from the Municipal Buildings. Behind these foreground
elements appear the other elements of the Forum, which form a
complex and irregular background; much like the Temple of Jupiter,
the arches and the side colonnades of the Forum form the
asymmetrical background to the Municipal Buildings views. A
receding row of trees would have been visible, resembling the
receding Forum colonnades. The other pavilion on the main axis of
the garden, which is seen in the background towards the right side of
the view, is analogous to the positioning of the Temple of Jupiter in
the Forum views. Statues appear in the composition as they do in the
Municipal Buildings views. The manner in which the view of one of 221 the statues is encroached upon by the foreground column recalls the way in which the views of the statues in the Forum would have been encroached on by the tufa columns. Superimposition is an obvious
feature of this view, as it is with the Municipal Buildings view. As
well as the statue, the foreground column is superimposed onto the
pergola in the middle foreground and the line of trees in the
background. The middle ground elements of the pergola and the
pavilion with its statue, which fill much of the field of view, are
superimposed against the background of the trees and the other garden
structures.
Jung has noted that the view from the triclinium is not axial,
and in fact all the views, from the biclinium, from the entrance to the
garden, and from the grotto under the terrace, are oblique to the
fountain axis (Jung 114). Jung suggests that little weight is placed on
the course of the axis. He notes the fact that much expense has been
outlaid on the creation of a 50m long north-south axis, but the viewing
points do not give onto axial views. Instead, a series of views oblique
to the line of the axis have been created. Jung suggests that the garden
was not intended as a "life size" artefact, but was rather directed
towards the creation of a series of structured pictures. Jung suggests
that space is broken up into various areas to be viewed from special
places. In this house the axial view was not important. Rather, the
axis was a method for structuring a series of asymmetrical pictures.
This is the same approach that we observed in the axially
planned Macellum and Eumachia Building. The Macellum was
equipped with two doorways, one either side of the main axis, which
made an axial view from the entrance impossible. Instead, two
asymmetrical views were created, virtual mirror images of each other.
In the rebuilt rear wall of the porticus of the Eumachia Building, two 222 particular points in the side ambulatories, both equally spaced from the main axis, were gtven asymmetrical views oblique to the axis, which again were virtual mirror images of each other. As in Jung's observations on the garden axis in the Casa di D. Oct¿vius Quartio
(II,2,2), the axes are a way of structuring asymmetrical views. The axial view was given little or no importance. Against the views of many of those who have commented on the intentions which they believe underlie the design of the Forum, and the great imporûance
given the axial view, it seems that the axis of the Forum has been used
in order to construct two asymmetrical views from the Municipal
Buildings, with little regard being paid to the symmetrical view. The
Temple of Jupiter appears off-centre in the view, and partially
obscured by the tufa columns. It forms the background as a layer in
the composition. It does not appear as the dominant element.
7.35 The Wewfrom the Western Munícípal Buílding and the
Intention Behínd the Forum Colonnades
The colonnades of the Forum are generally perceived as the
unifiers along with axiality. They supposedly suppressed the visible
differences between the various strucfures along the sides of the
Forum, and directed attention to the axially positioned Temple of
Jupiter. However in the views from the central and eastern Municipal
Buildings analyzed above they appear as decorative devices. Their
positioning within these multilayered and asymmetrical views means
that they cannot direct attention to other elements. The differences
between the colonnades on the eastem side of the Forum which were
discussed in Chapter 6 above would have been obvious in the view
from the eastern hall. However they would only have helped to
accentuate the complex composition of the view. 223
This use of receding colonnades as a decorative device would have been especially clear in the view from the Western Municipal
Building. The building's entrance is aligned with the western
ambulatory of the Forum. The stuccoed columns which stand in front
of the building have been so placed as to leave unobstructed the view
along the ambulatory, and thus of the inside face of the travertine
colonnade.
This view is also comparable with view from the biclinium in
the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (1I,2,2) (Fig.32;256). The biclinium
is located at the western end of the terrace (Fig.29). From the left
corner of the northern couch, the whole terrace can be observed (Jung
113). Along the south side of the terrace stand in line the nine pillars
of the pergola, which apparently supported a single beam whichjoined
the pillars (Jung 112). From the biclinium, these pillars and the
pergola appear as a receding series, and are the major element in the
view. In the spaces between the pillars appear small statues, and
between the first pair of columns is seen virtually the whole of the
north part of the garden, with two of the three fountains. The receding
series of the pillars with their pergola are similar to a view along a
receding colonnade. Such images of receding colonnades appear in
the views from the central and eastern Municipal Buildings, but one
forms the major element in the view from the western Municipal
Building. The doorway of this Municipal Building is aligned with the
westem ambulatory, andaview of the receding travertine colonnade
forms the dominant element of the view. 224
7.36 Compøríson of the Wew from the Vl¡estern Munícìpal Buílding wíth Wøll Paíntíngs
Views of receding colonnades are a continuing theme in
Pompeian wall painting. They appear as a commonly used decorative device. When viewed from the central and eastern Municipal
Buildings, they appear as only one layer in complex visual compositions. A view of the receding travertine colonnade of the
Forum forms the main feature of the view from the western Municipal
Building.
Already, depictions of receding colorurades have been compared with views of such colonnades from the other Municipal
Buildings and through the doorways of the Macellum. In Second Style painting, they appear on the east wall of the oecus (3) in the Casa di
M. Obellius Firmus (X,14,4) (Fig.155; 257); onthe walls of the frigidarium of the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) (Fig.107; 172); andin paintings from the Villa at Oplontis (Fig.109; 173).
In Third Style painting, receding colonnades make an appearance in the following paintings: on the wall above the doonvay in room (B) of the Villa Imperiale (Fig.258; 191); in the upper zone of the south wall of the triclinium of the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor
(VII,3,29) (Fig.8l); in the upper zone of the rear wall in room (18) of the Casa dei Quattro stili (I,8,17) (Fig.259-60); in the upper zone of the niche in the rear wall of room (22) inthe Casa del Labirinto
(VI,I1,10) (Fig.26l-62); in the upper zone of a wall in room (g) of
Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fíg.228); in the upper zone of the rear wall of tablinum (i) in Pompeian house (V,1,10-23) (Fig.245); and on a wall of a room in the Pompeian house (VI,14,30) (Fig.263).
Receding colonnades also appear as a decorative feature in some Fourth Style wall paintings. They are to be seen in the 22s architectural composition on the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di
Pinarius Cerealis (m,4,b) (Fig.37), and again on the east wall (Fig.38).
They appear both in the upper and central zones of the south wall of room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.39). They are also apparent in the narrow architectural vistas of the south wall of the peristyle in the same house (Fig.a0). Once again, receding colonnades feature in both the upper and centre zones of a painting this time from the west wall of room (f) in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (Casa di
Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Fig.al). They are also shown in the famous painting of Apollo from the Casa di Apollo (YI,7,23) @ig.aÐ.
In the above examples, receding colonnades generally appear in pairs, as part of the general composition of the wall, but they also appear singularly in the central panels of some paintings. In Third
Style painting, receding colonnades appear in the centrepieces of the south wall of the tablinum (i) in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus
(V,1,26) (Fig.86), and on the east wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica (VI,3,7) (Fig.36). In the Fourth Style, receding colonnades appear in the background of a painting on a wall of the south triclinium in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.35). Views of receding colonnades also appear in domestic architecture, for example in the view from the entrance of the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48)
(Fig.3a).
A number of paintings contain depictions of views along the inside of porticoes. These are easily comparable with the view along the inside of the Forum portico from the western Municipal Building.
These scenes indicate that views along the inside of porticoes were part of contemporary visual taste. Examples of these views appear on the extremity of the central zone of a painting on the wall to the right of the entrance of the tablinum (2) in the Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9,1) 226
(Fig.l76;264); inboth the upper and central zones of the east wall of room (d) in Termopolio (I,8,8) (Fig.85; 163-64); and in the upper zone of the south wall of triclinium (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius Rufus
(DÇ9,c) @ig.s9; 16s).
The use of receding colonnades as a decorative device within layered compositions, as witnessed in all the Municipal Buildings views, and in many Pompeian wall paintings, seems far removed from their supposedly intended unifying functions.
7.37 Multílayered Vìews Rather Than Enclosíng Screens
In addition to questioning the supposed unity of the Forum's colonnades, Chapter 6 brought the supposedly intended function of colonnades as concealing screens into doubt. Consideration of the actual views of the colonnades and their relationship with the way colonnades are used in contemporary wall painting suggests that, instead of concealing what was behind, the colonnades appear as one layer in a complex layered composition, interacting with the elements behind. These elements included deep vistas across the inside courts of the buildings surrounding the Forum, as occurs with the view from the Forum of the Eumachia Building and the Macellum. As we have seen earlier, the colonnade at the southern end of the Forum appears as alayer in a similarly complex layered composition when seen from the north. Other layers are comprised of the southern statue bases, the second rank of columns, and the facades of the Municipal Buildings.
Deep vistas open into the interiors of the central and eastern Municipal
Buildings. The Vespasianic Temple is another case in which a vista opens from the Forum into the interior court of a building, as we saw
ínChapter 2. 227
The surrounding of the Forum by these layered compositions, of which the colonnades form only one layer, brings into question the colonnades' supposed simple enclosing function. Rather than enclosure, the Forum becomes the central place for viewing a series of vistas. This is consistent with the contemporary treatment of the wall surface in wall painting. In the wall paintings, the "flat" wall panels open abruptly into vistas beyond the wall, dissolving any simple sense of enclosure. This may be seen for example on the walls of the
Macellum, in the triclinium and peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii
(VI,15,1), and in many other cases.
7.38 Uníty ín the Forum of Pompeíí
Jung proposed that the space of the garden of the Casa D.
Octavius Quartio (tr,2,2) was broken up into various areas to be viewed from special places (Jung 114). He fuither suggested that whole houses are in fact designed around a series of structured pictures, grving the examples of the Casa D. Octavius Quartio (n,2,2), the Casa di Meleagro (M,9,2), and the Casa del Centenario (DL8,6)
(Jung 115). Such an analysis can also be applied to the Pompeian
Forum. The pictures that make up and strucfure the arrangement of the Forum include the chalcidicums of the Macellum and the
Eumachia Building, the Temple of Jupiter and its flanking arches, the southern statue bases with their background, and the three views from the Municipal Buildings.
This concept of the Forum challenges the traditional view that an organic unity developed over time through gradual acquisition in a piecemeal fashion due to the "essential good manners of the architectural tradition through which they found expression"
(Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture 161). We have already 228 rejected the supposed simple unity of the Forum, through either the dominant axial view, or unifying colonnades. Most of the Forum was developed ùring the eighty years prior to the eruption. During this time, the Temple was extensively modified, and its flanking arches constructed, the chalcidicum of the Macellum was built, as were the
Eumachia Building, the Vespasianic Temple, the Public Lararium and the Municipal Buildings. The travertine colonnades, the monument bases, and the new Forum paving all date from this period.
Furthermore, in the last years prior to the eruptiorq the Forum and the surrounding buildings were undergoing extensive reconstruction and modification. Thus, most of the elements in the Forum at the time of the eruption were the product of a fairly rapid development, and not the result of centuries of slow growth.
7.39 The Use of Elements ín Several Dílferent Wews
The main kind of unity in the Forum is the linkages made by elements which appear in two or more different views. For example, some of the colonnades app€ar in at least two different views. The columns outside the Eumachia Building and the Macellum appear as a layer of a composition, with other layers made up of elements from the building behind when seen from positions in the central space of the
Forum in front of each building. On the other hand, when seen from the eastern Municipal Buildings they appear as receding colonnades.
Similarly in the view from the Municipal Buildings, tufa columns appear as the foreground layer of the view, seen against the receding side colonnades, the statues, and the Temple of Jupiter, but when the same tufa columns are viewed from the north, they appear in a different composition as a layer behind the southern statues and their bases. This multiple use of the same element in different views for 229 different effect is consistent with domestic architectural practice. In the Casa di M. Holconius Rufus (VItr,4,4), a fountain, with water cascade steps topped by the statue of a boy, and the columns of the peristyle, form the main features of both the entrance view and the view from the triclinium, which are in almost opposite directions
(Jung 104-05) (Fig.198; 255). The fountain which forms the main element in the Casa di C. Vibius (VII,2,18) is also the main element in the view from the triclinium, but is seen from the opposite direction
(Jung 103-04) (Fig.197). In the Casa di Meleagro (M,9,2), the elaborate structure of fountains and water steps in the peristyle forms a
major element in three separate views from differing directions (Jung
101-02) (Fig.25). As has been seen, the Garden of the Casa D.
Octavius Quartio (tr,2,2) was viewed from a number of viewpoints
including the triclinium, the biclinium, the garden entrance, the grotto
under the terrace, and the garden resting place (Jung 114).
The unity established by the linkages between views certainly
did not result from good architectural manners. The individual
architectural projects were not submissive to some requirement that
they further refltne existing schemes. Rather existing elements or
arrangements were in some cases utilized to develop complex
individual schemes. For example the existing axial plan of the Forum
together with the original placement of two of the Municipal Buildings
either side of the axis allowed the architect modiffing the porticus at
the south end to open a view from each building, by the removal of
columns immediately in front, which was asymmetrical, complex and
multilateral. 230
7.40 Conclusíon
The Forum at Pompeii was not a simple enclosed rectangle dominated by the symmetrical view of the Temple of Jupiter at one end, as such domination was undermined by the complex view of the
Forum's other end. The supposed function of the axis, to direct the viewer to a symmetrical view of the Temple, is similarly repudiated by ¡ the existence of asymmetrical mirror image views from the Municipal
Buildings. The supposed simple enclosure of the space by the colonnades was in fact breached by views into the buildings and
spaces beyond. The views featured compositional motifs frequently
found in Pompeian wall paintings including layering, partial
concealment, projecting and receding colonnades and ent¿blatures,
asymmetry, and overall complexity, and their organizalion resembled
the arrangement of similar built composed views in many Pompeian
houses and gardens. Indeed, the Forum resembled the decorative
schemes found in many contemporary Pompeian peristyles or painted
rooms, and offered a number of complex, multilayered views. It is
these views which created the unity of the Forum, often achieved with
extensive remodelling, not the consistent application of architecfural
"good manners" over a long period of gradual building. 231
8. Architecture and Urban Design in Antiquity 232
8.1 The Character of the Archítecture of the Forum of Pompeii
What has this investigation revealed of the character of the
architecture of the Forum of Pompeii? Most obviously it has been
shown to be pictureJike. In some ways the Forum of Pompeii
resembled a decorated room in a Pompeian house. Along each side
were a number of composed views each like a panel in a wall painting.
While from the Municipal Buildings at the southern end, views opened
onto the central space of the Forum, as views opened from dining
rooms around a peristyle. Each of the views is multilayered, and each
layer is superimposed onto the layers behind. The resulting
composition is in some cases asymmetrical, in others it is symmetrical.
As in the view of the Eumachia Building from the Forum a
symmetrical arrangement may frame a central asymmetrical vista' As
is also the case with the Eumachia Building, the view often
encompasses long stretches of near foreground panels, which have
naffow openings which frame more distant vistas. Here we are again
see the resemblance to wall painting for example the Fourth Style
scheme around the peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Fig.a0).
These more distant vistas often come in mirror image pairs, that is
each view is asymmetrical in itself, but it is the virtual mirror image of
another view. In the cases examined above these views could only be
experienced one at a time, as was the case with the views through each
of the entrances to the Macellum. Another recurring feature of these
views is the receding colonnade, this appears in the views from the
Municipal Buildings.
As the investigation has shown these views resemble wall
paintings. The resemblance is in the compositional arrangement and
the use and disposition of key elements. These compositional
arrangements are standard motiß, as each one is not just comparable 233 with one or two wall paintings, but rather with a great many examples.
As was made particularly clear in the last chapter, these compositional motifs are found in wall paintings usually classed in different Styles or sub-Styles, and across geffes, appearing, for example, in landscape as well as figural scenes, and in the overall architectural framework of paintings.
These motifs include the multilayering and superimposition of elements and the use of asymmetrical as well as symmetrical compositions. Sometimes these asymmetrical views and scenes appear as mirror image pairs, at others a single asymmetrical view or scene appears as the centrepiece of a scheme that is symmetrical overall. These scenes and views commonly feature off-centre tholoi and temples. These are frequently superimposed upon by other
elements, and are often encroached upon by the frame of the view or
Scene. Receding colormades are another common element as are more
distant views often appear as nalrow vistas, breaking through expanses
offoregtound panels.
The views do not appear to be arranged according to any
particular sequence. They are certainly not arranged on axial
pathways. For the moving spectator the views would have appeared at
the viewing point and then broken up when that point was moved
away from. Generally they do not indicate a forward pathway.
Sometimes the centrepieces of the views become invisible when the
viewing point is left, and, as is the case with Eumachia statue seen in
the views from the ends of the ambulatories in the Eumachia Building,
cannot be reached by forward movement.
The same element can appear in more than one view. For
example the back wall of the Eumachia Building appears in the view 234 from the Forum, in another from within the Chalcidicum and in the view from the end of the northern side ambulatory.
Axes of symmetry in plan are frequently used to structure these views, views which are asymmetrical as well as those that are symmetrical. For example, its the symmetry on plan of the elements of the Forum which is used to produce the two virtual mirror image views from the central and eastern Municipal Buildings. Despite the importance of the symmetry in plan these views are entirely asymmetrical.
Views such as those from the Munioipal Buildings in which the
Temple of Jupiter forms but one layer in a multilayered and asymmetrical composition run counter to the ideas of symmetrical hierarchy which following scholars such as Margaret Lyttelton
(Lyttelton 214)we would expect to be accorded such an important building. However such a fixed association between architectural form and political and social meaning is problematic. In a recent
article the architectural theorist Jos Boys has noted in this regard that:
Representation is, by its very nature,pafüal and contested because it generates meaning through association. Associative meanings cannot be universally applicable, nor even fixable, precisely because they are endlessly formed and re-formed through the struggles over intention and reception which take in both space and tirne, Attempts to make a particular, associative conceptual chain which have even some degree of acceptable generality over time are doomed to failure. (Boys 230)
8.2 The Encuhurøled Obsemer
These last points, that of the apparent lack of a defined
sequence for viewing the composed views revealed in Pompeii's 235
Forum, and the failure of some of the compositions of some of those views to conform with the associative meanings assumed by some scholars, brings us to the question of how these buildings were experienced by the people of ancient Pompeii. As was noted at the beginning of the first chapter, it was this "experience" as recreated by modem scholars like Margaret Lyttelton and William MacDonald that was the starting point for their analysis of the architecture. However, the link between the kind of "experience" which these scholars presume to be import¿nt and architectural form is not secure, as was discussed in the first chapter.
As I showed in the first chapter, these scholars are interested in the experience of an observer who moves through the building directed by a number of architectural cues. These include symmetrical axes and expansions and contractions ofthe spatial envelope. Such cues are believed to be universal effecting the modern scholar as much as people in antiquity. Thus, in the imagination of the scholar the antique person moves through the building along the pathway naturally indicated by the axes, noting as they go along the symmetry of the views. The observer responds to the expansion and contraction of the enclosed space around them, the form of such volumes adding
an additional directional force to that of the axes, or substituting for
such axes ifthey are absent.
As was made clear in the first chapter, the basis in physiology
or psychology for the scholars' belief in the universality of the above
responses to architecture are highly suspect. In fact architectural
aesthetics seem much less rooted in the innate, instead being
changeable and thus differing across time and space.
This makes any legitimate attempt to reconstruct the
experience of the "ancient observer" problematic. Obviously the 236 experience of people in the ancient past can no longer be assumed to coincide with that of modem people. However it is also the case that, given that responses to architecture can no longer be regarded as being based on some universal aesthetic system, the experience of architecture was also likely to have differed between individuals in antiquity. Nonetheless the idea of an enculturated "ancient observer" provides a gUide towards the meaningful reconstruction of ancient architectural aesthetics and experience. Those who lived in Pompeii, especially those of the class of person likely to have been involved in the commissioning of major public buildings would have been exposed to the kind of architectural compositions that this thesis has revealed in the buildings around the Forum of Pompeii by the decorative schemes of the houses that they lived in. They would have been surrounded by comparable painted architectural scenes featuring the compositional motifs found in the composed views of the
buitdings around the Forum. Additionally many houses contained
composed views which also displayed these motifs. Others in ancient
Pompeii would have seen composed views when they visited the
houses of the wealthy as clients. such views would appear when they
stood on the threshold, or in painted form when they looked at
architectural scenes in the wall painting. The painted decoration of
public buildings also sometimes featured composed views. In the case
of the Macellum the painted view echo the asymmetrical and
multilayered composition of the view th¡ough that buildings doorways.
Thus most Pompeian citizens would regularly have seen the composed
architectural view in both its built and painted form.
Such views in painting represented the primary means of
representing architecture, possibly the sole means. Given this the
inhabitants of ancient Pompeii would have become accustomed to 237 seeing architecture in the form of composed views which featured the compositional motifs which this investigation has revealed. Thus, they would have been enculturated into seeing architecture in this way.
Bettina Bergmann in her study of the way the inhabitants and visitors to the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI,8,3) may have interacted with its architecture and decoration provides an approach which may be useful here in attempting to reconstruct antique experience of the
Forum of Pompeii. This is the idea of multiple modes of viewing. In the context of the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI,8,3), Bergmann describes the various modes thus:
Though the atrium paintings required a mobile pedestrian to survey the display in any detail, the single panels of Alcetis in the tablinum and of Iphigenia in the peristyle could be contemplated at length by a standing or seated viewer. A third viewing mode, closely fitting traditional notion of a Pompeian pictorial program, presented panels on three walls of a room to someone standing at the entrance or reclining on a couch within. (Bergmann 251)
This idea can be adapted as a way to consider the architectural experience of the ancient residents of Pompeii when they were in the
Forum and the surrounding buildings considered in this thesis.
The use of the Eumachia Building has been the subject of some
debate, but today a general consensus has emerged. Richardson has
suggested that the building had a mixed function, commenting that it
was most likely that the. 238
building of Eumachia served, as the dedicatory inscription suggests, as a public porticus with a crypta to provide shelter from the winter rain and summer sun, a place to walk, a place where, as in the portico of the Saepta in Rome, abazaat in luxury goods could flourish. From time to time it might serve a special purpose, to receive the cloth market, or leather market, or for assemblies of the people, but its chief purpose was as a public porticus. (Richardson, "Concordit' 269)
Richardson's interpretation of the function of the building is supported by John Dobbins and by Ray Laurence who describes the building as a kind of Basilica (Dobbins, "Problems of Chronology, Decoration and
Urban Design" 653; Laurence 28).
Whether the ancient Pompeians used the building for recreational walks and contemplation, or for the display and inspection of goods we can imagine the experience of such people. Such an experience depends on the observer being enculturated with the norms of Pompeian architecture and decoration. Thus the observer moving down the side ambulatories, either inspecting cloth or just strolling, would have been confronted--in the building's last phase at least--by the curved bay at the eastern end with the view through the central
window. This line of view continued through the light well and the
second window before ending with the decorated rear wall of the
Cryptoporticus. This view would have been edged on one side by the
receding colonnade of the Porticus and on the other by the wall of the
cryptoporticus. Through this wall they would have been presented
with a succession of views into the interior of the Cryptoporticus and
the decoration on its side wall. On the right there would have been
views of the central space of the Porticus seen through the colonnade.
Thus, the moving "observer" would have been presented in each
direction with the effects familiar from wall painting of multilayering 239 and, through the windows, abruptly appearing narrow vistas of the decoration in the Cryptoporticus interspaced with the wall painting on the walling between the windows. Arriving at the western end of the ambulatory, the observer would have been presented with the view described in chapter 5. This view closely resembled wall painting and was only visible from one viewing point, appearing abruptly as the point is reached and breaking up, with the main elements becoming invisible, when the point is moved away from. These features would have been familiar to most Pompeians, and perhaps they would have paused as at a house threshold to look at it. Continuing across the rear of the Porticus the observer would have had multilayered views through the rear windows of the walls of the light well and, through further windows, into the Cryptoporticus.
Arriving at the centre of the rear ambulatory there would have appeared the framed view of the statue of Livia already discussed in
chapter 5. It is possible to imagine the ancient Pompeian taking the
viewing position centred on the visual axis defined by the statue and
the two columns, and perhaps moving to the point on this axis where
the two side statues appear either side of the columns, and then
moving to the threshold of the bay, where the side statues again
became visible and flank the central Livia statue. The adoption of
these viewing positions by the ancient observer comes not from some
innate architectural sensibility, but rather from the compositions of
repeated depictions of similar views, familiarity with the need to adopt
key viewing points, and the imporlance of threshold views.
Looking out across the central space ofthe Porticus, observers
would have seen the colonnade of the eastern wing, with sections of
the modulated wall behind with its bays and statue niches. At the
centre of the view, a vista would have opened down the entry 240 passageway and out across the Chalcidicum, falling on a single column of the Chalcidicum colonnade with the Forum itself appearing behind. This reverse view would thus repeat the composition of the
Eumachia Building's facade as seen from the Forum, with its centrepiece asymmetrical view of a portion of the rear of the Porticus.
Those sifiing in the Eumachia Building either as stall holders, or those idling perhaps on seats in the ambulatories or in the central space, or on the stylobate of the Porticus would always have experienced the architecture as multilayered views. From almost anywhere views through the colonnade fall onto a wall which contains the further opening of a window into the Cryptoporticus.
All those entering the Macellum from the Forum are confronted with the asymmetrical view described in chapter 4. The significance of threshold views would be understood by most of the residents of Pompeii. To reinforce the decoration of the inside walls near to the entrance repeats the motif of an asymmetrical view through a doorway. Each of the views outward through these doorways onto the Chalcidicum would have seemed a continuation of the painted decoration with the difference in alignment between the court of the
Macellum and the Chalcidicum leading to off-centre views of single
columns, with other Chalcidicum columns behind.
The observer moving through the Forum close to the
colonnades of the Macellum and the Eumachia Building would have
been presented with multilayered views. Columns, statues and the
modulated architecture of the facade walls would have appeared
superimposed onto each other. The foreground columns would have
framed asymmetrical groupings of elements. All this is very much in
tune with the visual tastes displayed in wall painting. 24t
When passing the Vespasianic Temple, the observer would have caught a view of the Sacellum and the altar as the visual axes
\¡ras crossed. More idle observers may have paused, and familiar as they would have been with visual axes and composed views, may have moved to the stylobate to take in the totality of the framed view described in chapter 2.
A similar, deeper vista would have appeared through the doorway of the Eumachia Building to the passerby. Familiar with the viewing positions of wall painted scenes and composed views they may have moved until the view appeared as described in chapter 6.
Because of their familiarity with the repeated facade like images in wall painting, they may have recognized this view and viewpoint.
With facades such a viewpoint would generally lie opposite the centre line (clarke 43-45;51-52) at a place where the interrelation of the various layers in the view most closely resembled similar schemes in wall paintings.
Thus if an observer wanted to take in the front of the
Macellum, or the monument grouping at the southern end of the
Forum, it may be assumed that the observer, following the prompts of
repeated representation of similar scenes in wall painting, would adopt
a position which produced a similar composition in built form. In
other words the positions needed to see the composed views described
in chapters 6 and7.
Seated officials looking out from the Municipal Buildings
would have been confronted with a view similar to that described in
chapter 7. The multilayered and asymmetrical form of this view
would have been familiar from numerous wall paintings, and in the
views from dining rooms of the last period of Pompeii, such as the one 242 from the dining room in the Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4,2) (Jung 106)
(Fig.28).
This idea of the ancient observer being enculturated differs from the belief of scholars that people's response to architecture is governed by innate cues. In the enculturation model, the responses of ancient observers do not spring from such innate cues, but comes from exposure to the way architecture is repeatedly represented in wall painting and in composed views. tn viewing architecture, the ancient observer would probably have responded to the familiar motifs of multilayering, superimposition and as¡rmmetry, noting receding colonnades, successive openings and off-centre tholoi and temples, rather than to any supposedly innate and pure predilection to symmetry and axial hierarchy.
8.3 The History of the Reløtìonshíp Between Archìtecture and
Pøintíng
Was the architectural sensibility of ancient Pompeians that has
been demonstrated in this thesis shared by others throughout the
Roman world? The evidence suggests that it was. while Pompeian
painting may have developed at Pompeii (Ling, Roman Painting 23),
many of the compositional features noted above in both Pompeian
architecture and wall painting appear in broader Roman art and have
antecedents in the Hellenistic period. Features such as multilayering,
pafüalconcealment, superimposition, asymmetry, and the use of
receding colonnades all appear in art from Hellenistic times. In both
painting and architecture the importance of the view is evident, as are
key viewpoints. At the root of the sensibility of these ancient peoples
lies the relationship between painting and architecture and the 243 importance of the view. The history of this relationship can be shown to have been a long one, reaching back into the 5th century BC.
J.J. Coulton has suggested that architectural drawing played no part in the design of Greek Temples of the classical period (Coulton,
Ancient Greek Architects 53). Instead the architects relied on written and verbal descriptions and on full size simulacra of elements for the process of design and for the communication of that design.
Linda Gigante has suggested that architectural depiction appears in the mid-frfth century as the painted backdrop in the theatre oÍ scaenographia (Gigante 15). She bases this suggestion on the comments of Vitruvius (Gigante 3; Vitruvius VII praef. ii). On the basis of a passage from the writings of Diogenes Laertius which refers to the philosopher Menedemus as being both an architect and a scene painter (Gigante 2l-22;Diogenes Laertius, Lives of eminent
Philosophers II, 125), she believes that a close connection existed
between such painting and architectural design by the end of the fifth
century. She comments:
Menedemus and his father probably utilized their architectural knowledge in designing scene buildings which by this time were a permanent feature in Greek theaters . . . . Conversely their skills as scene painters may have improved the quality of their other architectural projects, for it is difficult to imagine structures (the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, for example) being erected without architect's sketches. (Gigante22)
Gigante further comments : 244
In any event, this passage indicates that in the fourth century BC there was a bond between the disciplines of scene painting and architecture, and it is reasonable to believe that this relationship was formed at the time of Agatharcus' first scenic designs and continued through the Hellenistic period. (Gigante 22-23)
8.4 Architecturøl Motífs on Vases
Linda Gigante goes on to suggest that this kind of architectural scene painting was the inspiration for the depictions of architecture which began to appear on South Italian Vases during the 4th century
BC (Gigante 77; Robertson, A History of Greek Art 440). When these
Vases are examined, it becomes clear that their architectural scenes feature the compositional arrangements found in the wall painting and composed views of Pompeii.
Architecture, as depicted on these vases, is reduced to a set of common motifs: the centrally positioned single column; the Naiskos place at the centre of the composition and containing figures or other elements which are sometimes arranged symmetrically, and sometimes asymmetrically; the obliquely shown, four columned pavilion; the receding colonnade, the asymmetrical arrangement of a
Temple featuring a receding colonnade with other architectural
elements; obliquely viewed foreground columns encroaching on
background elements.
On Apulian Red-Figured Vases, architectural elements often
appear singularly; for example, a repeated motif is the placement of a
pair of draped youths one each side of a column as on a Calyx-Krater
belonging to Professor John Oddy (Trendall l:7) (Fig.265), on a
Bell-Krater in the British Museum BM. F166 (Trendall 1:97)
(Fig.266) and on a Bell-Krater in Geneva, Geneva 13188 (Trendall 1: 24s
123) (Fig.267). According to A. D. Trendall the pairs of draped figures, sometimes with a column at the centre, are a stock subject for the reverse side of vases. Trendall attributes their painting to
"well-drilled hacks" (Trendall 1: xlvii). The arrangement of figures around a single column appears in the composition of a number of
Pompeian wall paintings, including one in the central panel of the north wall of the tablinum in the Pompeian house (VI,2,16) (Fig.268)' in a painting of Pindar and Korinna from room (u) in Pompeian House
(Y,2,4) (Fig.269), and in the middle zone of the south wall of room Q\ inthe Casa di Meleagro (W,9,2) (Fig.270). Single columns, positioned off-centre, also feature in a number of compositions with figures, for example on the south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di
Spurius Mesor (YII,3,29) (Fig.81), and, in a truncated form, on the west wall of cubiculum (g) in the Casa di Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a)
(Fig.79). A composition featuring a single column, positioned slightly
ofÊcentre, appeafs in the entrance view of the casa della Fontana
piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig. 95).
Another architectural motif is a four columned pavilion, for
example on the Amphora, Ruvo 423 (Trendall l: 403) (Fíg.271) and
the Volute-Ktaters, Karlsrule 84, and Naples 3222 (inv.81666)
(Trendall 1 : 43 I -2) (F ig.27 2-7 3). The four-columned structures
depicted on the vases are heroa or shrines of the dead (Neuerburg
110-11), like the Heroon identified as being the shrine of Herakles
Alexikakos in Athens (Travlos 274-7) and depicted on a mid-fourth
century BC votive relief, now in the National Museum in Athens2723
(Fig.27Ð. This structure apparently dates from the fourth century BC.
Such four-columned structures appear in wall painting, for example on
the long wall of room (4) in the Villa des Agnppa Postumus at
Boscotrecase (Fig.209) and, in association with other structures, near 246 the northern corner of room (10) in the Casa di P. Vedius Siricus
(yII,1,25.47) (Fig.aÐ. Such a four columned structure containing a statue appears in the view from the triclinium in the Casa D. Octavius
Quartio (11,2,2) (Fig. 3 I ).
Naiskoi or gtave markers--sculptural reliefs depicting pavilions supported at the side by walls or piers and fronted by pairs of columns--also frequently appear. They are depicted both axially, as for example on the Amphora Ruvo 407 andRuvo 408 (Trendall 1:
327-8) (Fig.27-76), and obliquely, as on the Volute-Krater in the
British Museum BM. F283 (Trendall 1 : I 93) (F ig.277) and on thc
Volute-Krater in Bonn 100 (Trendall1.417) (Fig.278). The figures or objects contained within the Naiskoi are sometimes shown symmetrically, for example on the Amphora in Bari 12061(Trendall
1.376) (Fig.279),but more often are depicted asymmetrically as on the Amphora, Philadelphia L. 64.26 (Trendall l:372) (Fig.280) and on the Amphora Ruvo 407 (Trendall I:327) (Fig.275). According to
Martin Robertson the promulgation of laws limiting funeral expenses led to the cessation of the production of sculptured gravestones in
Athens at the end of the sixth century BC. They reappear in a new
form at the end of the fifth century BC. Robertson comments:
At least they suddenly appear again, commonly not on the tall naffow stones but on a short broad type, crowned by a projecting cornice which normally supports a shallow gable with a palmette akroteria, suggesting the end elevation of a temple. Sometimes, instead, the side elevation is suggested, by omitting the gable and crowning the cornice with a horizontal row of palmettes like the antefixes along the edge of a roof. (Robertson l: 363) 247
As an example of a gravestone topped by a pediment Robertson presents a marble gave-relief now in the National Museum in Athens
(3624) dating from the first quarter of the fourth century Gig.281). As an example of the type of gravestone topped with a line of palmettes, he presents a marble grave-relief of Sosinos from Athens and now in the Louvre, which dates from the third quarter of the fifth century BC
(Fig.zS2). These Naiskoi resemble the frames seen in Pompeian wall paintings, for example in the paintings on the north wall of triclinium
(1) in the Casa di Orfeo (VI 14, 20) and on the east wall of triclinium
(d) in Termopolio (I 8, 8) (Fig.33; 85); in the upper zone of a wall fragment from room (g) in the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,6) (Fig.47), while in the upper zone of the west wall of cubiculum (g) in the Casa di Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Fig.79) appears a Naiskos with a hanging object. They also appear in built views, for example, a naiskos like structure with a statue appeared in the entrance view of the Casa di M.
Pupius Rufus (VI 15, 5) as reconstructed by Jung (Fig'45). The appearance of elements in the Naiskoi depicted sometimes symmetrically and sometimes asymmetrically resembles the appearance of both symmetrical and asymmetrical framed vistas in
Pompeian wall painting. In the frequent positioning of the Naiskoi in the centre of the overall compositions, and in the framing of objects a resemblance can be seen between these Naiskoi and the framing
doorways of the Vespasianic Temple and the Eumachia Building,
which appear in the centre of each facade, and frame elements
deposed symmetrically in the case of the Vespasianic Temple, and
asymmetrically in the case of the Eumachia Building. In this regard,
the decoration on the wall of the Naiskoi shown on the Hydria BM. F.
352 (Fig.283) even loosely resembles that on the marble door frame of
the Eumachia Building. 248
A temple appears on a fragment of a Calyx-Krater Amsterdam
2579 (Fig.284). This includes a depiction of the receding colonnade on the temple's side. Another temple is depicted on a fragment of an
Attic-Krater now in Wurzburg H. 013 (Robertson l:419-20) (Fig.285).
Two of the side columns and the entablature are shown receding, viewed through the pavilion on a Calyx-Krater Taranto 52265
(Trendall 1: 39) (Fig.2S6). The depiction of the temples on these vases follows the well-known classical practice of so placing the temple that the view from the entrance of the temnos is oblique
(Stillwell4). This is true of the Temple at Olympia and of the
Parthenon in Athens (Stillwell 5-6). Such depictions feature a receding colonnade, a feature familiar from Pompeian painting, for example on the east wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(VI,3,7) (Fig.36). Another example with an obliquely seen temple complete with a receding colonnade appears in the central panel of the west wall of triclinium (f) in the Casa di Giasone (DL5,18-21)
(Fig.203). Complex scenes featuring obliquely seen temples and an overall asymmetrical disposition of elements appear in Pompeian
landscape paintings, for example on the walls of room (g) in the Casa
dei Pigmei (DL5,9) (Fig.287-S8) and in a sketch of the design from a
wall of room (h) of the Casa di Giuseppe II (VI1I,2,39) (Fig.289).
Such a compositional scheme also underlies the arrangement of the
two views from the Municipal Buildings and the entrance view of the
Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48).
Another temple with a receding colonnade is shown on a
volute-Krater Milan "H.A." coll. 239 (Trendall 1: 193) (Fig.290). This
scene is noticeable for its asymmetrical disposition of the temple and
the other structural elements, the tripod and the altar. An even more
complex architectural composition appears on a fragment of a South 249
Italian Calyx-Krater from Taranto, Wurzburg H4676 (Fig.291). This depicts the projecting wing of a stoa, with a doorway behind. The view is angular, with one of the columns encroaching on the view of the doorway behind. Stoas with wings, which resemble the structure depicted on the Calyx-Krater fragment from Taranto, first appeared in the later fifth-century with the Stoa of Zeus in the Agora of Athens
(Coulton, Architectural Development 8l-85;222). This structure was built in the Doric order, and featured six columns across the front of each of the projecting wings rather than the two Ionic columns shown on the Calyx-Krater. Martin Robertson suggests that this painted fragment depicts a stage scene or paraskenia,whichhad a similar structure to the winged stoa (Robertson 1: 430-3L; Coulton,
Architectural Development 83). The motif of projecting porches fronted by two columns features in Pompeian wall painting, for example on the east wall of the oecus (3) in the Casa di Obellius
Firmus (DL14,4) (Fig.257). In the Fourth Style painting on the east wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinnarius Cerealis (III,4,4) (Fig.38) the projecting porch features a partially open door at its rear, resembling the porch and door on the vase. Another porch appears in the upper zone of the painting near the northem corner of room (d) in the Casa
della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig.113).
The picture of the projecting porch on the vase incorporates as
a compositional feature the encroachment of a figure and the doorway
by a superimposed column. This appears in the painting on the south
wall of room (f) in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (II,2,2) (Fig'136),
and appears in each of the two pairs of views at rear of the porticus of
the Eumachia Building, where the statue of the Priestess Eumachia is
encroached on by a superimposed window frame, while the side statue 250 in the central bay is encroached on by one of the columns at the bay's mouth.
Elements such as single columns, four-columned pavilions,
naiskoi, obliquely viewed temples and projecting porches are common
to vase painting, Pompeian wall painting and architecture. The shared
compositional motifs, include the framing of both symmetrical and
asymmetrical elements, receding colonnades, overall asymmetrical
affangement, and superimposition and encroachment of one element
onto another. The evidence of South Italian Vases shows that many of
the compositional arrangements later found in Pompeian wall painting
and composed views dated to at least the beginning of the Hellenistic
period.
8.5 Painting and Architeclure ín Fourth Century Macedonia
The evidence of tombs in 4th century Macedonia provides
concrete evidence that aclose relationship between painting and
architecture existed at this time. Furthefrnore there is evidence of
composed views in the tomb architecture. Such views feature some of
the motifs seen in the wall paintings and buildings of Pompeii, and
also identified in vase painting from the fourth century. These
characteristics of Macedonian architecture are outlined by Stella G.
Miller in her article entitled "Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture
and Architectural Decoration." She summarizes three pervasive
tendencies of Macedonian architecture as evidenced by tomb
architecture thus:
The Macedonians hadapredilection for funerary facades intended to create an illusion of being something other than what they are. Secondly, their architects tended to treat individual elements within these facades like optional motifs to be applied, abbreviated, or omitted altogether. And thirdly, 251
architects experimented and interchanged combinations of real stone architectural members with stuccoed elements and their imitations in paint to such an extent that the line between architecture and painting begins to blur. (Miller 162)
As an example of the first tendency, Miller points to the creation of facades which she suggests give the "illusion" of being a
"free-standing architectural entity," by which she means that the Ionic pilasters appear to be columns standing in front of a facade, for example in the Vegina Tomb (Miller 155-56) (Fi9.292) Miller notes that this effect is only achieved when the facade is viewed frontally.
Miller notes that such facades, which give the illusion of free-standing architecture, were a feature of public architecture as well as of tombs
(Miller 159). She points to the Gateway of Zeus and Hera on Thasos, which she dates to the last quarter of the fourth century, as an example
(Miller 16 1) (Fig.293).
As evidence of the use of architectural elements as motifs,
Miller points to the Haliakmon Dam Tomb, dating from the third century, which features a pair of pilasters and an abbreviated entablature, which together act as the door frame (Miller 157;160)
(Fig.29Ð. Miller points to other tombs where there appears only the entablature, without columns. She gives the example of the Dion
Tomb dating from the late fourth century (Miller 158) (Fig.295).
Miller says of these tombs: "The architectural order is being treated like a kind of prefabricated repeating border motif, of which any desired length can be extracted to crown a wall or part of it" (Miller
158).
As evidence of the third tendency, the "blurring" of the
boundary between painting and architecture, Miller presents the
so-called Palatitsa Tomb, where, beneath a capiøl carved in relief, 2s2 appeared a pilaster painted on flat section of stucco (Miller 157-58)
(Fig.296). Another example she gives appears on the facade of the
Great Tomb at Lefkadia, where below afneze with a stucco relief of a battle scene appear metopes featuring flat painted figures. The painting is shaded, giving the impression of being in relief (Miller
159) (Fig.297). Miller notes: "Here then, is a striking combination of plastic reality and painted illusion on one and the same building"
(Miller 159).
The appearance of interchangeability between painting and architecture noted by Miller is clearly important. It points to the close relationship that existed between painting and architecture, a relationship similar to that which was to be found later between
Pompeian wall painting and architecture. The treatment of architectural elements as motifs is also significant, prefiguring the use of architectural motifs, for example the receding colonnade, in the architecture and architectural painting of Pompeii. The presentation of the colonnades as part of the facade also resembles the later treatment of the colonnades of the Eumachia Building and the
Macellum as just one layer in a multilayered decorative scheme.
Miller emphasizes that the Macedonian tomb facades, and
indeed the Gate of Zeus and Hera, require a directly frontal view
(Miller 155). This is suggestive of the viewing points and visual axes
of Pompeian architecture. In fact, such a viewing point is implicit in
the interior decoration of the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles near
Lefkadia (Miller 162-66) (Fig. 293-99). The painting on the walls of
the main chamber depicts square pilasters and capitals on all four
walls. These pilasters are painted in the quarter view, and are
arranged with regard to the view from the doorway (Miller 163). 2s3
In summary, in Macedonian architecture there is evidence of the treatment of architecture as a motif, of a close relationship between architecture and painting, and of the arrangement of architecture with regard to viewing points and visual axes.
8.6 Aløcandría ønd Petrø
The link between painting and architecture that has been established by Miller in the tombs of 3rd century BC Macedonia can also be found in some of the tombs of Hellenistic Alexandria. Some of these tombs contain panels on which doors or gates have been painted. In Alexandria the painted views which appeared on South
Italian vases are now to be found in an architectural setting. On loculus slab #6 from room (e) in Shatby Tomb A appears the framed view of a doorway already noted in chapter 2 (Fig.62). This panel is framed by pilasters and an entablature in relief. The painted view contained by this consists of a doorway, with closed doors, surmounted by an entablature with a dentil course and a pediment.
The area above the pediment is painted blue. Linda Gigante comments on the effect of this painting: 2s4
This painted architectural facade is rendered with an element of substantiality not only because of the highlighted dentil course but also because of the suggestion of its location in a spatial setting. The narrow triangular spaces above the pediment are painted blue, a color which instantly denotes sþ. The effect of this facade which is set in the open air is that of a building being viewed through an open window or a doorway. The relief frame around the picture panel is transformed into the frame of the window or door through which the spectator looks, and by the concealment from view of the corners of the pediment the impression that the structure is close at hand is created. So, through the application of blue paint and the drawing of abruptly terminating horizontal and raking geisons the painter has represented on loculus slab number 6 the image of the facade of a building which is located in the space beyond the plane of the window frame. (Gigante 124-25; also see McKenzie 98-99)
In this painting the central motif of the structure topped by a pediment, which was frequently seen on South Italian vases appears again. Here it is contained within the kind of multiple framing which is later seen in Pompeian wall paintings and composed views. The outer frame is superimposed onto the door frame . This echoes the superimposition of columns onto facades seen in the tombs of Macedonia. It also prefigures the superimposition of the multiple layers of elements seen in Pompeian wall paintings and composed views. Like the
Macedonian tombs, there is the mix of the "real" architectural elements, the framing entablature and pilasters in relief, and of the painted elements. The view is the painted representation of a composed view, as the superimposition that occurs between framing pilasters and the doorway's pediment would only have been visible from a single viewing point. As has already been noted in chapter 2 this scene is comparable with the composed view of the Vespasianic
Temple from the Forum (Fig.58). 25s
There are other examples of painted doors from tombs near
Alexandria. In one from the Tomb of Stephanos at Hadra, a lattice gate appears (Fig.325), on another slab from the Shatby A tomb features a partially opened door, while one from the Wardian (Mex) tomb has the doors open to reveal a figure (McKenzie 98-99)
(Fig.326). Judith McKenzie has pointed the close resemblance between these scenes and painted doorways shown in Pompeian wall paintings. she focuses on the use of blue paint in all three views to indicate sþ or depth behind the elements depicted. McKenzie likens the lattice gateway from the Tomb of Stephanos to similar features on
Second Style wall paintings including that in the cubiculum 11 of the
Villa of Oplontis (Fig.327);the partially opened doors from Shatby
Tomb A and the Wardian (Mex) Tomb are compared to the similarly opened doors in a painting on the walls of oecus (43) of the Casa del
Labirinto (VI,11,10) and of room (32) of the Casa di Amadio (Casa di
Fabius) (1,7,2-3) (McKenzie 9 8-99) (Fi g. 3 2 8 ).
Another, later tomb, Tomb (8) at Ras el Tine has an entrance view that combines both painted and real elements (McKenzie 68)
(Fig.329). Foreground pilasters frame a view of the rear wall. On this wall appears a single painted column, located ofËcentre. This reproduces the single column motif seen on the South Italian vases.
As has been shown earlier in this chapter, this is a motif also found in
Pompeian wall painting. The composition of this view also closely
resembles the entrance view in the Casa Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Fig. 94-95). In both cases there is a framed view of an off-centre
column. In the Pompeian example the off-centred real column
conceals another painted column behind. The Ras el Tine Tomb(8)
provides an example of a threshold view like those found in Pompeii,
a view that features a mix of solid and painted elements. In this regard 2s6 it is like the tablinum view in the Casa Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Fig.96-9S) with its composition of both painted and real columns.
Judith McKenzie has investigated the chronology of the tombs of Petra and the architectural remains of Alexandria. By reversing the supposed sequence of construction of the tombs of Petra, a sequence previously based on spurious ideas of stylistic development, to accord with the dates established by other means, she has shown that the most elaborate tombs date from the Hellenistic rather than from the Roman period. This re-dating places monuments such as the Khasneh in chronological proximity to similarly elaborate architectural remains from Alexandria, and shows that the pre-date similar architectural features in Pompeian Second Style wall painting. This leads
McKenzie to suggest that both the architecture of Petran monuments and Pompeian Second Style painting had a common origin in the architecture and painting of Alexandria. By a detailed examination of the architecture depicted in Pompeian painting she shows that it reproduces features found at Alexandria and Petra. In summary she comments:
It was found that the monumental architecture depicted in second style Pompeian wall-painting is that of Alexandria. This is indicated by structural elements such as broken pediments and conchs. The earliest built examples of these occur in Alexandrta . . .. The decorative details such as cornice types and capital types which are distinctive to Alexandrian architecture are depicted in second style wall-painting. (McKenzie 100)
McKenzie suggests that this architectural style first appears at
Alexandria, then in the tombs at Petra and wall painting at Pompeii.
She comments further: 257
The structural elements survive in Alexandria from an earlier date than at any other site. The decorative details on these, such as the capitals and comices, in the earliest groups at Petra are closely related to the examples in Alexandria. It is extremely unlikely that there was direct cultural influence between Pompeii and Petra. Thus, in view of the common origin of the structural features and decorative elements of the architecture in paintings and at Petra, it may be assumed that the arrangement of the architectural elements common to them, such as the tholos framed by a broken pediment associated with a colonnaded court, occurred in Alexandria. Thus, the architecture depicted in a second style Pompeian wall-painting may be considered an accurate rendition of the earliest baroque architecture, that of Ptolemaic Alexandria, which is also reflected in the architecture of Petra. (McKenzie 100-01)
McKenzie notes that the so-called Roman baroque appears later than the Alexandrian style. She shows that this Roman style features similar compositional forms as the Alexandrian baroque, but utilizes different, peculiarly Roman decorative and other architectural elements.
When the Romans built baroque architecture, especially in the second century AD they used the baroque structural features developed in Alexandria, but with Roman decorative elements, such as capitals and cornices. This contrasts with the depiction of the Alexandrian version of these in the second style Pompeian wall-paintings. (McKenzie 126)
While Pompeian wall painting depicts the forms of Alexandrian
architecture and therefore echoes those of Petra, McKenzie shows that
Petran architecture also uses the painterly devices usually seen in wall
paintings. Partial concealment, superimposition and the framed 258 composed view seen from a prime point are all evident in the approach to the Khasneh.
The dramatic effect in wall-painting is achieved by partially hiding the scene with the "scherwand" and curtain and by the vista being seen from one particular point. Both are achieved atPetraby the viewer's entrance through the Siq to behold suddenly the Khasneh. (McKenzie92) (Fig.330)
8.7 Summnry of the History of the Relatíonshíp Between Painting
and Archítecture
During the classical period, drawings were not used in the
design of Temples. Drawn architectural scenes depicted using some
perspective system appear on stage backclothes, possibly from as early
as the mid-5th century BC. From the 4th century BC onward such
architectural scenes appear on South Italian vases. Thcse feature a
number of the motifs that are later to be seen in Pompeian wall
paintings and composed views. These compositional motifs include:
the single column as a feature, the structure topped by a pediment
containing various elements; the obliquely viewed four columned
pavilion, the receding colonnade, the asymmetrical arrangement of a
temple and other elements; and multilayered views in which
foreground columns are superimposed on background elements.
Tombs from 4th and 3rd century BC Macedonia feature a
blurring between painted and real architectural elements. The painted
and the real becoming almost interchangeable. This architecture
features composed views, which were designed to be seen from a
single point. The views contain such effects as multilayering and
superimposition. 259
The paintings found in tombs near Alexandria continue the mixture of real and painted elements earlier seen in Macedonia.
Motifs found on South Italian vases and later in Pompeian paintings and composed views such as pediment topped structures, doorways and single columns appear. In one painting in particular is found a painted representation of a composed view which could only have
been seen from one vantage point. This was indicated by the
utilization of multilayering and superimposition. A tomb dated later
had a threshold view which had an asymmetrically positioned single
painted column as its main feature.
Pompeian painting reproduces Alexandrian architecture
utilizing it compositions and elements and decorative details. The
architecture of Petra appears also to be of Alexandrian origin- The
later so-called Roman baroque architecture features the compositional
arrangements of the Alexandrian style, but used Roman architectural
elements. The architecture of the Khasneh features pictorial effects.
The approach view along the Siq harnesses partial concealment,
superimposition and a prime viewing point.
Pompeian architecture uses composed views, while the wall
painting depicts such views. Compositional motifs found in South
Italian vases and later in the tomb paintings from Alexandria and the
view of the Khasneh from the Siq also appear in these composed
views , both in their painted and built versions.
8.8 The Elþct of the Relatíonshíp Between Paìnting and
Archítecture
The relationship between architecture and painting and
antiquity should not be seen as painting merely representing
architecture. In fact this relationship had the power to affect the 260 architecture and painting produced, gUiding and changing their forms.
Architecture was filtered through the formal concerns of painting, while painted depictions of architecture were affected by the concerns of real architecture.
ln painting superimposition is a way of indicating depth. Thus
in the loculus slab #6 from Sciatbi the encroachment on the outer
corners of the pediment atop the doorway by the columns in relief,
suggest that the doorway stands on the other side of a space from the
framing entablature and columns as Linda Gigante has noted (Gigante
125). But it is also in itself a decorative device. In many Second Style
paintings curtains or foregtound structures are superimposed on to
elements behind partially concealing them to decorative effect. It
became the mainstay of Fourth Style painting. Architecture
reproduces this painterly effect in solid form. For example in the view
from the tablinum in the Casa Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Fig'96-98),
where two real columns are superimposed upon two painted columns.
Precise superimposition of this kind requires a composed view with a
single viewing point.
The asymmetrical compositions seen on fourth century vases
may be a reproduction in paint of the asymmetrical views of classical
temples seen from the entrances to their precinct enclosures, such as
the view of the Parthenon from the Propylaeum' In wall painting
asymmetry becomes a decorative device. Asymmetrical architectural
scenes become combined in decorative vvays. They sometimes appear
as narow vistas seen through openings in foreground panels. In some
cases they are combined in mirror image pairs. In others,
asymmetrical vistas appear as the centrepieces of asymmetrical
foreground compositions. In these asymmetrical scenes tholoi or
temples and sh¡ines frequently appear off-centred. They are often 26t partialty concealed by foreground elements. Again these pictorial devices were adopted in architecture. In the mirror image views from the Forum entrances to the Macellum, the two views feature the tholos which is viewed ofÊcentre and superimposed open by the columns of the court. Similarly the mirror image views from the Municipal
Buildings featured the Temple of Jupiter in an off-centre position, with statues and columns superimposed on to it. The view of the facade of the Eumachia Building when viewed from the Forum has as its centre piece an asymmetrical view of the rear of its porticus.
Receding colonnades appeared on 4th century vases. Again they depict the oblique view of classical temples as often seen from precinct enclosures. In wall painting they again became a decorative device, appearing in numerous combinations. They were reproduced in composed architectural views, for example in the entrance view in the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48) (Fig.33-3a). In that view the receding colonnade is compositionally combined with asymmetry and superimposed, multilayered framing. The enclosure of the view within the frame of the opening of the tablinum--a frame that was carefully adjusted- perhaps gives the suggestion that it is section of a longer colonnade, extending each end behind the framing walls.
Single columns appeared on the "off-sides" of vases, possibly they were intended to indicate architecture (Trendall 1: xlvii).
However, aS was noted above, such Scenes became a stock feature of wall painting. They then appear in real architecture, for example in
the entrance view of the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Fís.96-e7).
The evidence that the close relationship between painting and
architecture apparent at Pompeii dates from at least the beginning of
the Hellenistic period, and of the power of the interrelationship to 262 reinforce the importance of cerûain compositional motifs in both painting and architecture suggests that ancient people at other sites throughout the Roman world experienced the same kind of enculturation and effected a similar architectural sensibility as the ancient Pompeians. This suggests the need to begin to re-examine the supposed aesthetic motivations of architectural and urban design forms at other Roman sites.
8.9 Wedge Plønned Structares
The common purpose of buildings whose entrances pass through structures of a wedge plan has been interpreted as "hiding inconvenient salient angles," thus bringing "unaligned features into apparent harmony" (MacDonald2:256). The Eumachia Building was a grandand elaborately decorated building. In the Eumachia Building the wedge shape creates two composed vistas which was fully consistent with established architectural practice, attested to by the arrangements of many other buildings in Pompeii as was shown in chapter 3 (Fig.93). The first of these was a view from the Forum, with, as its centrepiece, an asymmetrical view of the interior--a composition fully consistent with contemporary wall painting-and the
second was a view from the entrance with a symmetricaVaxial view of the interior. The asymmetrical and partial view of the interior of the
Eumachia Building from the Forum resembles the view of the
Khasneh in Petra from the Siq. Judith McKenzie has already noted the
use of partial concealment in this view and has likened it to sections of
Second Style wall paintings (McKenzie 92)'
The North Gate at Jerash would not have concealed the change
in direction, as the divergence would have been clearly visible through
the open gates (Fig. 75). Similarly the view through the archway of 263 the Monumental A¡ch at Palmyra in each direction certainly did not
"mask" the fact that the street had changed direction, as Lyttelton would have us believe (Lyttelton 2aÐ eig.74). Rather, in both cases the mythical "ancient visitor" was confronted with a dramatic framed view of a receding colonnade (Fig.300), perhaps the most spectacular known use of this familiar motif in Roman architecture.
That the motif of the receding colonnade continues to appear in Roman art, and in Syria, is demonstrated by its presence on the mosaics of the Grand Mosque of Damascus, which were made nearly five centuries after the construction of the Arch at Palmyra and the
Gate at Jerash. Judith McKenzie has noted that these mosaics are part ofa:
largely unrecognized pictorial tradition of the depiction of Alexandrian architecture which continues into the Byzantine period, especially in the east. The Ummayad wall mosaics in the Great Mosque in Damascus involve scenes which are similar to those depicted in the Pompeian wall paintings. The similarities are in the type of scene (garden, city-scape, monumental architecture) as well as in the det¿ils. Similar scenes also occur in mosaics in Byzantine churches, such as St' George's in Thessaloniki and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. (McKenzie 126)
One architectural scene in particular features a number of receding
colonnades and has as its central feature an obliquely viewed pavilion
(Fig.30l). This demonstrates the ongoing use of the centrally placed
asymmetrical view. The design of the Arch at Palmyra so as to create
two views of receding colonnades is thus fully consistent with the
architectural motifs depicted in Syrian art. 264
Perhaps the most striking later pictorial representation comes
from a 5th century mosaic in St. Maria Maggiore in Rome. In this
mosaic are labelled depictions of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. At the
centre of each is a gateway through which is seen a receding
colonnade (Pietrangeli 110-11; 179 and 122) (Fig.331).
8.10 The Forum of Trajan ín Rome
Ward-Perkins-following Blankenhagen-- criticized the design
of Trajan's forum because it failed to provide an axial pathway
connecting the elements:
It is characteristic of the "drawing-board" mentality of so much Roman architectural thinking that, although the column and the temple beyond it picked up the line of the long axis of the forum, there was no visual continuity whatsoever between the two. (Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture 87) (Fig.123)
He sees a mysteriously conscious intention not to provide such a
pathway evident in the relationship between the front and rear doors of
the Basilica.
The library complex was quite independent, accessible from the basilica only by apair of doors, which seem to have been deliberately placed so as to avoid any direct relationship with those of the main facade. (Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture 87)
As previously noted in Chapter 5, Blankenhagen raised then
emphatically ruled out the possibility that the illusionistic effects
found in wall paintings were the motivations behind the design: j 26s
There might be the intent to surprise, a device so common in the intricate systems of Roman interior decorations. The wall decorations of Second Style, for example in the Villa dei Misteri, are ever-new variations of such illusionistic surprise effects. . . . But in architecture with such grand pretensions as the Imperial Fora these illusionistic games would have no place. (Blankenha gen 24)
Rather, he explained the failure of the design to fulfill the requirements of axial symmetry, by not providing an axial pathway down which symmetrical views were to be seen, as being a result of the architect's purely abstract attitude to symmetry:
What then is the meaning of this form of symmetry and axiality? I think we must conclude that it is merely the pattern of the blueprint, a love of regularity for its own sake, a dealing with architecture in an almost abstract way. (Blankenhagen 24)
Since 1972 James Packer has undertaken a detailed study and reconstruction of Trajan's Forum. In a number of articles he has presented reconstructions and discussed the underlying premises of the architecture of this Forum.
The . . . schema might be termed "Architectural secrets and revelations." Although composed of simple geometric elements, the plan of the Forum must have seemed enormously complex to the ancient visitor. Looking into one of the lateral colonnades from the brightly lit Area Fori, he would have dimly perceived the regular file of pilasters which divided the back wall into bays, and in the center, the more brightly lighted, taller volume of the hemicycle. These hemicycles and the orderly rows of columns within the Basilica Ulpia produced remote, mysterious vistas which receded into darkened interiors accented by daylight introduced from artfully concealed sources. Reminiscent of Campanian wall-paintings in the Second Style, these great colonnades repeated the insistent vertical rhythms of the porticoes of the Area Fori and both framed and divided the interiors to produce 266
vivid alterations of light and shade. Thus, ¡11s f,azzling daylight of the Area Fori would have filtered into the nave of the Basilica Ulpia through 3 rows of columns, and, gazingfrom the nave towards either end of the building, the visitor would have seen, through the continuations of the same colonnades, the more brightly lit, curving sweep of the richly articulated wall of the apse with its tribunal and statues framed within niches. (Packer, "Trajan's Forum Again" 177-78)
Packer goes onto emphasize the central role of visual surprise in the design of the Forum of Trajan.
Once surrounded by the porticoes which framed the Area Fori, the visitor was, therefore, constantly surprised. From the open pavement in front of the Basilica Ulpia, the east and west colonnades hid the hemicycles and the apses of the Basilica. The Basilica blocked off a view of much of the Column of Trajan, the two libraries, and the Temple; and even from inside the colonnades or the nave of the Basilica, columnar screens effectively concealed hemicycles or apses. Enclosed within its portico, the Column of Trajan was fully visible only from the north terrace of the Basilica Ulpia or the steps of the Temple; and even though the Temple of Trajan equalled the size of the Temple of Mars Ultor, the visitor only f,rrst glimpsed it after entering the peristyle around the Column of Trajan. Consequently, these architectural "secrets" transformed a casual walk through the Forum into a series of proglessive visual revelations. (Packer, "Trajan's Forum Again" 177-78)
Packer's interpretation is clearly directly opposed to that of
Blanckenhagen, though, in this article at least, he does not acknowledge the fact. As in the Forum of Pompeii, in Packer's reading of this Roman Forum axes are used to structure a number of
complex views rather than to provide a hidden abstact symmetry for
the visitor to discover. They certainly have not been misused by an
supposedly incompetent architect who does not know how to create an
axial pathway. 267
The two coins which depict the Basilica Ulpia and the Temple of the Deified Trajan that Packer illustrates in one of his articles are interesting in the way they present these buildings (Packer, "Restoring
Trajan's Forum" 6I;6\. In both views statues and columns are shown superimposed, creating a multilayered effect. In the view of the Basilica the equestrian statues are depicted against the columns of the upper floor with the antefixae above, whilc below foreground columns are shown framing middle ground columns. The view of the
Temple shows a rich interplay between statues, acroteria and other architectural elements at roof level. Below, the statue of the deified emperor is seen through the colonnade of the Temple, while the building is flanked by recedíng colonnades. These features highlighted by the views depicted on these coins are similar to the features I have noted in the various views discussed above in the
Forum of Pompeii.
A number of views not mentioned by Packer can be conjectured from an examination of his plan and that of Carla Amici
(Packer, "Restoring Trajan's Forum" 58;62; Amici 73; ftg.Ill;126; see Packer, "Foro di Traiano") (Fig.332-34). These views feature characteristics also seen at Pompeii. It is possible that from within the
Basilica from a position between the two side colonnades on the
longitudinal axis of the building, or from one within behind the rear
colonnade, a narrow angled view through the rear doorway
encompassed part of the base and the lowest section of the shaft of
Trajan's Column, asymmetrically composed with the columns of the
court colonnade, and framed by the doorway, and depending on the
viewing position, possibly by the columns within the Basilica. Such a
view is of course entirely consistent with the examples such as the
Eumachia Building and the Macellum documented at Pompeii. 268
Similar views are also depicted in paintings dating from after the construction of Trajan's forum, architectural compositions found in
Hadrianic and Late Antonine wall painting discovered at Ostia. A framed view of asyrnmetrically positioned colonnaded structure appears on the walls of Room (4) of the House of Jupiter and
Ganymede (Clarke 327 -35 ; frg 203) (Fig. 335). Such asyrnmetric compositions also appear on the walls of Room (9) of the House of the
Muses in Ostia (Clarke 283-85; ftg 172) (Fig.336).
Packer terminates his reconstruction drawings before the rear of the court containing the Column of Trajan, and, thus, does not illustrate the relationship between that court and the colonnade around the Temple (Packer, "Restoring Trajan's Forum" 58, ó2). It is therefore unclear whether a view of part of the Temple would have been possible upon entering, from the Basilica, the portico of the court surrounding the Column of Trajan. However Packer does comment, as quoted above, that the "visitor only first glimpsed [the Temple] after entering the peristyle around the Column of Trajan'(Packer,
"Trajan's Forum Again" 178). He also notes that the Temple formed part of the original total design for the complex, something confirmed by the excavations conducted by Roberto Meneghini which showed that the wall of the temenos of the Temple is bonded to the north wall of the East Library (Packer, "Trajan's Forum Again" 182; "Report from Rome" 320). CarlaAmici, however, reconstructs a possible open colonnade atthe end of the side ambulatories of the portico around the Column of Trajan (Amici 73-76;frg.123) (Fig.337). If that was the case, then from each of the Basilica's rear doorways a portion
of the Temple would have appeared through the intercolumniation of
the colonnade. The framed asymmetrical view of part of the Temple,
probably consisting of the outer part of the steps, a statue base at the 269 side of the podium and perhaps the bottom of the outer end of the colonnade, is again entirely consistent with the composition of architectural views in wall painting. For example in Room (4) of the
House of Jupiter and Ganymede in Ostia appears an asymmetrical, framed view of a columnar structure (Clarke 327-35; frg.206)
(Fig.33S). Framed asymmetrical views of partially concealed architecture are, of course, common motifs of wall painting from the
Second Style onward. It is also a feature of built architecture, as I have demonstrated in the Eumachia Building in chapter 3 above.
8.11 The Temple of Jupíter at Bøalbek
The re-analysis of other major Roman structures which have been interpreted according to the aesthetic system developed by the late nineteenth-century art historians is now indicated. The Sanctuary at Baalbek is an example. Margaret Lyttelton used the language and ideas of the earlier art historians as the basis of her analysis of the complex. She described the complex of the Temple of Jupiter at
Baalbek as "another great example of baroque plaruring" (Lyttelton
220). This complex consisted of a gteat court, surrounded on three sides by colonnades, near the centre of which stood a l7m high square structure today described as the Observation Tower or Monumental
Altar. Other structures within the court were the Small Altar, two freestanding columns and two fountain basins. At the western end of the court stood the enormous Temple of Jupiter. Adjoining the eastern end of the great court was a hexagonal court, and adjoining this was a
propylaea and stairway (Ragette 27-39; Ward-Perkins, Roman
Imperial Architecture 315-17) (Fig.302). Lyttelton dated the
construction of the Temple to the first century AD, the colonnades of
the court and the hexagonal court to the second century and the 270 propylaea to the third century AD (Lyttelton 220). For Lyttelton, the
"splendour of this monumental complex," which "can scarcely be overestimated," lay in the "finely organized axial approach to the
Temple of Jupiter" (Lyttelton 236):
The separate elements are more closely related than in the somewhat straggling system of approaches to the Temple of Artemis at Jerash, for the Temple and the Great Court interlock, and so do the Great Court and the hexagonal court. (Lyttelton22l)
*the Lyttelton believed that axial planning creates a long vista from the
colonnades ofthe Propylaea through the hexagonal court to the altar
and the Temple in the great court beyond" (Lyttelton 221). She felt
that the Great Court in front of the Temple of Jupiter would have been
dominated by that Temple, "The Temple of Jupiter at the west end of
the court succeeds in dominating its complex and impressive
environment chiefly on account of its huge size" (Lyttelton 221). She
held that from the entrance this dominating Temple would have
appeared to have been surrounded by the colonnade ofthe great court,
"The scenic character of this baroque ensemble is apparent in the
colonnaded great court which must have appeared to anyone who
entered it to surround the temple" (Lyttelton22l-22). In her
concluding statement on the baroque nature of the complex, Lyttelton
once again re-emphasised the central importance of the axial view to
the design:
Everything has been subordinated to the magnificent vista stretching ahead from the Propylaea, and to the unfolding of the long approach to the temple and the great altar with the richly decorated and elaborate exedrae revealed behind the colonnades on either side. The Temple of Jupiter is designed 271
to be approached only in this one way, there is one overwhelming view. (Lytlelton 222)
In her discussion of the supposed importance of the axial view,
Lyttelton completely ignored the existence of a structure which blocked that view. The Observation Tower stood'near to the centre of the Great Court in front of the Altar. It was a tall structure, square in plan with faceted sides which stood on a stepped podium (Ragette
- 300 3 4 -3 5 ; Hajj ar, La Tr iad d' H él i opol i s B aal b ek : I cono graphi e -07).
On her plan of the complex, Lyttelton did not show this structure
(Lyttelton 220,Fig39) (Fig.120). From the central entrance to the
Great Court the tower would have completely concealed the Temple of Jupiter, apart from small sections of the outer edges of the podium, as Ward-Perkins has noted (Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial
Architecture 317) (Fig.302). The centre of the view would have been occupied by the Tower's faceted western side and stepped podium. In the complex's final phase the view on either side of the Tower would have encompassed the Courts colonnade, a free standing column anda large fountain basin. The fountain basins are dated by Youssef Hajjar to the first century AD. At the centre of each basin stood a fountain enclosed within a structure of six columns covered with a domed roof.
A wall featuring altemating rectangular and semicircular niches with
carved decoration enclosed the basins (Hajjar, La Triad
d' H él i op o I i s - B aalb ek : I conographi e 293 -9 5 ; 326). The columns are
dated to a much later time, and though symmetrically positioned
around the Tower and made of Egyptian granite, they differ in colour,
the northern one being grey and the southern pink, and slightly in their
dimensions. The foundations of the northern column are made from 272 reused blocks which feature inscriptions which suggest a very late date, possibly to the reign of Julian the apostate, while the southern features an inscription at its base referring to an official whose title predates the Constitution of Antoninus, and thus must have been constructed prior to 212 AD (Hajjar, La Triad d'Héliopolis-Baalbek:
Iconographie 295). The composition of the views on each side of the
Observation Tower is familiar from the paintings and architecture of
Pompeii. Each of these vistas was asymmetrical, but each was the mirror image of the other. The vistas also encompass elements common to Pompeian art: receding colonnades, free standing columns, and oblique views of fountain basins. For example, this is similar to the painting on the eastern wall of the Exedra (15) of the Casa del
Poeta tragico (VI,8,3) (Fig.303) and the west wall of room (f) in
Pompeian House (DL5,11) (Fig.115). The freestanding column is seen against the fountain basin, while they are both in tum seen against the colonnade.
Asymmetrical compositions are also to be found in Syrian art.
A number appear in the mosaics in the Grand Mosque of Damascus
(Fig.301; 304-05). They feature receding colonnades like those seen
in the views at Baalbek, and pairs of asymmetrical vistas flanking a
foreground element resembling the view opening either side of the
Observation Tower. Such vistas are familiar from architecture; for
example, in the Pompeian Macellum, the axial view from the Forum is
blocked by an aedicula, while narrowviews are visible of the interior
through the doors on each side. They are also found in the
architecture of Syria. In the Church of Saint Simeon the Stylite at
Qalaat Semaan, dating from the fifth century AD, a large archway
stands at the porch over the main axis (Degeorge 80-88; Butler
97-105) (tfl in Fig.306; 307). The axial view beyond the narthex is 273 blocked by a pier, and a door stands each side of this pier, permitting oblique views of the interior and preventing a direct view of Saint
Simeon's column from outside. An axial view of the Temple of
Jupiter at Baalbek could only be obtained from the top of the
Observation Tower, or from a position in the shallow space in front of the Small Altar, from which location the Temple would have towered over the visitor.
Lyttelton claims that the primary function of the hexagonal court was to emphasizethe axial approach to the Temple, and ascribes to it a strong spatial effect:
To use the hexagonal court to precede the Great Court, and to back it with the Propylaea was a brilliant and, apparently, uncopied piece of planning. Like the trapezoidal court before the propylaea at Jerash, this hexagonal court gives a strong forward impetus. An interesting later parallel to this use of a hexagonal plan is in Borrornini's Church of S. Ivo in Rome, where the hexagon is employed to a strong feeling of movement forward to the altar. (Lyttelton222)
However, as the axial view of the Temple is blocked by the wall of the
Observation Tower, this argument is undermined. Rather, this court
could be interpreted as a scenoglaphic feature by itself. With regard to
the relationship between the colonnade of the Hexagonal Court and
the wall behind it, Lyttelton has referred to the "elegant
correspondence between the bays of the back wall and the
intercolumniations of the Corinthian colonnade in front" (Lyttelton
236) (Fig.120). This points to the creation within the Hexagonal court
of picturesque multilayered views which opened in most directions.
Each view would have encompassed gently receding pairs of
colonnades, with a further rank of columns visible through the
intercolumniation and then the wall niches beyond. This feature of the 274
Hexagonal Court is comparable to the Forum of Pompeii, where, as I have already shown, such composed vistas opened in virtually every direction. The arrangement of a series of repeated, multilayered architectural vistas is also suggested by some late-Roman mosaics on the insides of domes, for example in the Church of San Giorgio in
Salonica dating from around 400 AD, and in the Battistero degli
Ortodossi dating from the fifth century AD (Fig.308-10). Hexagonal pavilions appear in the mosaics in the Great Mosque in Damascus
(Fig.311). The pavilion shown on the right of the photograph most closely resembles the entrance view of the Hexagonal Court at
Baalbek. The widely spaced foreground columns can be compared to the widely spaced near colonnade in the entry view, the pair of receding colonnades are very similar to the receding row of columns on the sides of the court, and the pair of entrances which open on to asymmetrical views across the Great Court to the open view between the colonnade and the Temple of Jupiter.
Hajjar notes that it is not impossible that the hexagonal court contained a gigantic bouquet of sacred wheat, as is indicated by a literal reading of the coins of Phillip the Arab which show the propylon of the complex with what appears to be a view through the
central arch to such a bouquet in the court beyond. However, Hajjar believes that this bouquet may merely be a symbol on the coin to
identiff the sanctuary (Hajjar, Ls Triad d'Héliopolis-Baalbek:
Iconographie 287-88; La Triad d'Héliopolis-Baalbek: Son culte 2'-
Planche XIII). On the one hand rather than Lyttelton's long axial vista
of the Temple, the wheat would have appeared. on the other, if there
was no wheat the view through the entrance would have encompassed
the rear part ofthe hexagonal court and a view through to the facade
of the Observation Tower. 275
The simplistic axial view and approach proposed by Lyttelton is completely discounted by the physical remains of the complex at
Baalbek. Some of the features of this complex share their compositions with views already discussed at Pompeii and in later
Syrian mosaics. It is possible that there arrangement follows the standard pictorial compositions discussed above.
8.12 Conclusíon
The architecture of the Forum of Pompeii lent itself to the formation of numerous multilayered and asymmetrical views of the kind familiar from Pompeian paintings. Because of continuous exposure to compositional motifs including superimposition, multilayering, asymmetry, and receding colonnades in the wall paintings and composed views of Pompeii, it can be imagined that many ancient Pompeians would have recognized similar compositions when viewing the buildings of the Forum. These compositional motifs have a long tradition in Hellenistic painting dating back to at least the beginning of the 4th century BC. The close relationship between painting and architecture and the creation of composed views have a
similar antiquity. This suggests that the sensibility of ancient
Pompeians towards architecture discussed above was not unique to
Pompeii, but was common throughout much of the Roman World' It
also suggests that painting and architecture have influenced each
other, reinforcing the importance of these compositional motifs both
in painting and architecture. Thus, the urban design and ancient
experience of Roman sites other than Pompeii are ripe for
reinterpretation. For example, wedge-shaped structures are supposed
to have been designed to conceal changes in direction, but the wedge
form of the Monumental Arch at Palmyra created framed vistas of 276 receding colonnades from each direction, a motif well attested in the wall painting of Pompeii, as well as one which appears in later Syrian mosaics and also in a 5th century AD depiction of the gates of
Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Peter von Blankenhagen's assertions about the Forum of Trajan in Rome have been brought into question by
James Packer's investigations which suggest that the architecture of the complex was motivated more by a desire to surprise than on some
"drawing board" obsession with symmetry. Margaret Lyttelton's interpretation that the design of the Temple of Jupiter was focused on an axial vista and pathway, based as it is on notions of a universal "felt space" and the importance of symmetry, seems suspect. The axial view appears to have been blocked by a structure in the great court.
Rather, the creation of the kind of pictorial effects which I have documented at Pompeii and which appear in later Syrian mosaics seems a more convincing explanation for the design. It appears that painting and architecture were closely connected throughout the
Roman world from Hellenistic times. This suggests that Roman architecture at sites other than Pompeii needs to be reinterpreted by reference to architectural depictions in wall paintings and wall mosaics. 277
9. Conclusions 278
9.1 Summnry
This thesis has demonstrated the falsity of the assumptions that ancient architects followed innate spatial cues or responses in their desígns, that ancient people experienced the resulting buildings through the same responses, and that modern scholars can thus reconstruct both the intentions of the ancient architects and the architectural effects experienced by ancient visitors to ancient buildings through the medium of their own spatial reactions. Such assumptions spring from a belief in the universality of a system of aesthetics based on a supposedly innate set of reactions to architectural space. This underlying belief appears to be seriously flawed given its questionable basis in late nineteenth century theories of perceptíon.
Following from this, the thesis has further demonstrated that the supposition commonly made by modern scholars on the basis of their spatial reactions that architects of the Forum of Pompeii were primarily concerned with uniformly enclosed space, axial symmetry, and orthogonality, is wrong. These supposed architectural concerns are contradicted by the actual form of the buildings around the Forum.
There is a demonstrably close congruence between the composition of Pompeian wall paintings and Pompeian architecture.
This congruence indicates a way to view Pompeian architecture which is çonsistent with ancient visual tastes contemporary with the building under question. When the buildings around the Forum are looked at
from similar viewpoints to those from which wall paintings with
comparable architectural scenes are depicted, it is clear that the same
pictorial effects appear in both the built and painted views. These
effects are often contradictory to the spatial intuitions of modern
scholars. Asymmetry, multilayering, and openings to more distant 279 vistas are common features in contrast to the supposed predominance of symmetry, orthogonality and spatial enclosure.
Initial research points to the existence of compositions and pictorial effects similar to those found at Pompeii in depictions of architecture in Hellenistic art from the fourth century onward; and to the emergence of a congruence between painting and architecture in the early Hellenistic period. Examination of structures at other sites shows that the traditional interpretations of Roman architecture based on the spatial intuitions of modern scholars are in conflict with the actual form of the buildings concerned. Comparison between views of these structures and scenes in wall paintings and wall mosaics again shows the appearance of various pictorial effects common to both the real architecture and the architectural depiction. This suggests that the close relationship between painting and architecture was not confined solely to Pompeii, but that it had its origins in Hellenistic art and architecture, and was thus part of a wider Roman architectural culture.
Depictions of architecture could thus be used as a guide to the examination of a great deal of the architecture of the Roman world.
Therefore this represents a vigorous strategy for future research.
9.2 Urban Desígn ín Antíquíty
Modern scholars' belief that they have the ability to penetrate into the minds of ancient architects, and ordinary citizens, through the
medium of supposedly innate and therefore universal responses to
architecture continues to be a potent one. This is especially true in the
case of recent investigations into the urban design of antiquity. In
their Web site (Dobbins, [Web site]), the team comprising the "Forum
of Pompeii Project" which has developed from the work of John
Dobbins outline the philosophy behind their research. In the section 280 headed "Urbanism," it is stated that the "collaborators wish to interpret the data from Pompeii in a wider urbanistic context that has applications to contemporary problems in American urbanism"
(Dobbins, [Web site]). Later it is stated that the aim is for the
designer [to] extract the "enduring paradigms" (as Robert Dripps refers to these recurring patterns) and apply them after appropriate modifications to the contemporary urban scene. Pompeii's importance lies in the recurring patterns which it shares with cities throughout the world from various periods. (Dobbins, [Web site])
According to the Web site these "enduring paradigms" will be determined by thinking like the ancient Pompeian architects who
did not conceive of their urban center as a series of discrete structures, Instead they gave primacy to the urban ensemble. This project's methods of gathering and interpreting data are innovative in that they replicate the approach that the Pompeian designers took. (Dobbins, [Web site])
This concern with the "urban ensemble" and the wish to find universal paradigms in ancient Roman cities which can be applied by
modern urban designers are also central to the approach of Diane
Favro in the book version of her "The Urban Image of Augustan
Rome." In the preface she writes:
My fascination with the urban image deepened while studying Ancient Rome and teaching in Los Angeles. A sprawling city, Los Angeles lacks not only an obvious urban focus, but also a clear identify. . Rome, too, struggles to shape a clear contemporary identity, laboring under the added burden of innumerable diverse urban images piled up over an extensive history . . . . Faced wíth these two distinct examples, I began to 281
explore how an urban image is created, promulgated, and transformed. More specifically, I became concemed with modern applications. How might the admired cities of the past inspire today's residents to demand richer experiences and more meaning from their cities? What lessons could they provide modern patrons and designers interested in creating more focused urban images. (Favro, fBook] xix-xx)
The idea of the urban ensemble and the appeal to antiquity for conf,rrmation that its composition is governed by universal rules and meanings, and thus to find the solutions to problems in the contemporary city are especially North American tendencies and form apart of what has been described as "postmodern urbanism" (Ellin).
This interpretation and use of the past relies on a pastiche of ideas drawn from the theories of art historians including those of Carl Sitte,
August Schmarsow and Paul Zucker such as the universality of responses to space and the meanings of symmetry and axiality coupled with other concepts developed by urban designers (van de Ven,
Mallgrave, Collins, Sitte, Schmarsow, Zucker). For example Diane
Favro uses the ideas of pathways and nodes developed by Kevin Lynch and of serial vision espoused by Gordon Cullen in her analysis of the urban experience of Rome before and after Augustus, concepts which also underlie the interpretations of William MacDonald (Fawo,
[Book] ll-L9;Lynch; Cullen; MacDonald2:291). This pastiche of ideas is projected onto the cities of antiquity as if it were itself the universal paradigm of urban design. However, as this thesis has
shown, such a projection of supposedly universal design concepts as the use of axes to create symmetrical vistas and pathways and to mark
hierarchies, the concealing effect ofcolonnades, the desire to create
irnpressions of orthogonality, and the central importance of spatial 282 enclosure, onto the grouping of buildings and spaces that makes up the
Forum of Pompeii does not fit well with the evidence of the physical remains.
If an attempt is to be made to "think like the ancient
Pompeiians" then a more careful investigation of the Pompeian approach to the composition of architecture with a basis in the physical evidence is necessary. It is not enough to reconstruct the chronology or form of the antique buildings, and then interpret them according to modern ideas of architectural form. This thesis has attempted to reveal a legitimately ancient approach to architecture, one used by both its designers and those experiencing it. This is an approach based on an examination of what is known of contemporary ancient Pompeian design practice and on the congruence between the way architecture was depicted in Pompeian wall paintings and the way it appeared in actuality. The creation of architectural views composed by both the designer and by those experiencing the buildings of the
Forum of Pompeii in antiquity according to a number of motifs including symmetry, asymmetry, multilayering, superimposition and
receding colonnades, produced richer and more fragmentary effects
than those that would have been expected from the projection onto
these ancient buitdings of modem theories of architectural and urban
design.
9.3 Conclusion
This thesis suggests the need for a re-examination of the
character of Roman architecture and urban design, an examination
freed from a belief in a supposedly universal aesthetic of "felt-space"
as held by art historians of the early years of this century. Such a
re-examination can be based, at least in part, on the large body of 283 evidence indicating how buildings were viewed in antiquity provided by architectural depictions in wall paintings and other Romanatt. 284
List of Figures and Plans 28s
Note on Fìgures
Because of the poor quality of many of the wall paintings referred to in the text, there have been great problems with the image quality of a number of the figures reproduced in this thesis. Those seeking the best possible image quality are advised to seek the published sources of the figures noted in the the following list and in the picture captrons.
Figures
Fig.l The first type of visual axis is the entrance view (Bek, "Towards
Paradise" 194,Frg.45).
Fig.2 The second kind of visual axis emanates from the triclinium
(Bek, "Venusta Species" l4l,Fig.2).
Fig.3 The particular characteristic of this second form of visual axis is arrangement of architectural elements around an oblique alignment
(Jung 85, Abb.g).
Fig.4 An axis of the first type appears the original Samnite sections of the Casa del Chirurgo (VI,1,10). In this period, the axis ran from the entrance longitudinally through the principal spaces of the houses
(Jung 76, Abb.4).
Fig.5 The entrance view in the Casa del Chirugo (W,1,10) (Jung 76,
Abb.5).
Fig.6 The Casa di Sallustio (YI,2,4) (Ward-Perkins, Pompeii 40).
Fig.7 The line of the entrance view in the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1)
(Jung 94, Abb.2l).
Fig.8 The entrance view in the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1) (Jung 95,
Abb.22). 286
Fig.9 The lines of the entrance and triclinium views in the Casa dei
Vettii (VI,15,1) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 185, Fig.40).
Fig.10 The entrance view in the Casa dei Vetti (VI,15,1) (Bek,
"Towards Paradise" 348, Plate 69).
Fig.ll The lines of the views from the entrance and the triclinium in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 186, Fig.41).
Fig.12 The entrance view in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,47) (Bek,
"Towards Paradise" 349, Plate 7 0).
Fig.13 The painted scene at the rear of the oecus of the Casa del
Labirinto (VI,l1,10) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 351, Plate 75).
Fig.14 The lines of the entrance view and the view from the oecus in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4) (Jung 96, Abb.23).
Fig.15 The view from the most favoured guest's position in the oecus of the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 350, Plate
72).
Fig.16 View of the oecus of the Casa del Menandro showing the widc intercolumniations in front (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 349,Plate 7l).
Fig.17 Bek notes that in the early imperial period regular planning, or
at least the regularity of the inward view, was given the greatest
importance (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 3 52, Plate 7 6).
Fig.18 The triclinium consisted of three couches arranged in a'tI
shape. Beçause the favoured guest's head was not located on the
symmetrical axis of the triclinium, but lay in fact towards the
right-hand corner, the guest's outward view would have been oblique
(Bek, "Towards Paradise" 195, Fig.46). 287
Fig.19 The lines of the views from the entrance, the summer triclinium and the open air triclinium in the Casa di Sallustio (VI,2,4)
(Bek, "Towards Paradise" 183, Fig.39).
Fig.20 Lines of views in the Casa di Marcus Lucretius (Dç3,5) (Bek,
"Towards Paradise" 192, Fig.43).
Fig.21 The oblique view from the summer triclinium of the Casa di
Marcus Lucretius (D!3,5) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 355, Plate 81).
Fig.22 The lines of the views into the peristyle from the oecus and the triclinium in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,11,10) (Jung t02, Abb.29).
Fig.23 The lines of the view from the triclinium in the Casa di
L.Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26) (Jung 98, Abb.26).
ßig.24 Lines of views in the Casa di Dioscuri (VI,9,6) (Jung 99,
Abb.27).
Fig.25 Lines of views in the Casa di Meleagro (YI,g,2) (Jung l0l,
Abb.28).
Fig.26 The lines of the two views that opened from the triclinium in
the Casa del Centenario (Jung 104, Abb.33).
ßig.27 The view of the peristyle from the triclinium in the Casa del
Centenario (DL8,6) (Jung, 104, Abb.34).
Fig.2S The lines of view from the triclinium in the Praedia di Iulia
Felix (II,4) (Jung 105, Abb.35).
Fig.29 Plan of the garden of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (di
Loreius Tiburtinus) (1I,2,2) (Jung 108, Abb.36). 288
Fig.30 Plan showing the tree planting in the garden of the Casa di D.
Octavius Quartio (de Lorentius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Jung 109,
Abb.37).
Fig.31 The oblique view from the triclinium of the Casa di Octavius
Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Jung 112, Abb.38).
Fig.32 The view from the biclinium on the terrace of the Casa di
Octavius Quartio (di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Jung 113, Abb.39).
Fig.33 The lines of the entrance view in the Casa della Caccia antica
(VII,4,48) (Descoeudres 1 14, Fig.8).
Fig.34 The entrance view in the Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48)
(Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.35 The painting featuring Hercules strangling the snakes from the south triclinium in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Ling, Roman
PaintingPlate WII).
Fig.36 The painting on the east wall of the oecus in the Accademia di
Musica (VI,3,7) (Bastet 217, T avJ{J-V,8 1).
Fig.37 The architectural composition on the north wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinarius Cerealis (III,4,b) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.78).
Fig.38 The architectural compositions on the east wall of room (a) in the Casa di Pinarius Cerealis (m,4,b) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.79).
Fig.39 The south wall of room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,l5,1)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 86). 289
Fig.40 The south wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
@ig.aO) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.67).
Fig.41 The west wall of room (f) in the Casa di Octavius Quartio (di
Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Ling, Roman Painting 83, Fig.84).
ßig.42 The famous painting of Apollo from the Casa di Apollo
(VI,7,23) (Ling, Roman Painting 130, Fig.132).
Fig.43 The west wall of the peristyle in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6)
(Schefold, Verges senes Taf.7 I ).
ßig.44 The northern corner of room (10) in the Casa di P. Vedius
Siricus (\m J,25 . 47) ( S chefol d, V e ge s s en es Taf. 1 0 0).
Fig.45 The entrance view in the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI,15,5) as reconstructed by Jung (Jung Il9, Abb.42).
Fig.46 The east wall of the oecus in the Pompeian house (I,3,25)
(Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.9 1).
ßig.47 A wall fragment from room (g) of the Casa delle Vestali
(VI,1,6), now in the Naples Museum (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.109).
Fig.48 Plan of the Forum of Pompeii (Ward-Perkins, Pomperr 3S).
Fig.49 Mazois' plan of the Vespasianic Temple.
De Vos 42.
Fig.50 Mau's reconstruction of the Vespasianic Temple (Mau,
Pompeii 109, Fig.46).
Fig.51 Plan showing Maiuri's excavations of the Vespasianic Temple
(Maiuri, Pompei preromana Fig.aa)
Fig.52 Plan of the Vespasianic Temple (Modified plan from Maiuri,
P ompe i pr er omana F ig.aÐ. 290
Fig.53 The visual axis in the Vespasianic Temple (Modified plan from Maiuri, Pompei preromono Fig.aa).
Fig.54 The wall panels either side of the sacellum differ in width.
When viewed from a point where the visual axis intersects with the line of the Forum stylobate as it currently appears, this diflerence in panel widths corresponds with the difference in the amount of wall visible on each side of the sacellum (Modiflred plan from Maiuri,
P omp e i pr er omana F ig.aÐ.
Fig.55 The picture view of the Vespasianic Temple (Photograph by
Paul Horrocks).
Fig.56 If the ancient doorway was wider than its modern reconstruction then the composed view would have differed only slightly (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.57 The fountain in the Casa di Trebius Valens ([II,2,1) were placed on the oblique visual axis leading from the triclinium in order that they appeared in the centre of the honored guest's view (Bek,
"Towards Paradise" I93, Fig.44).
Fig.58 The composed view in the VespasianicTemple (Photograph by
Paul Honocks).
Fig.59 The southern wall of triclinium (e) in the Casa di Sulpicius
Rufus (DL 9, c) (Bastet 222,Tav.L,88).
Fig.60 The rear wall of triclinium (e) in the Casa di Sulpicius Rufus
(DL 9, c) (Erhardt, S t i I ge s chi chtl i che T af .7 l, Abb. 29 I ).
Fig.61 The south wall in tablinum (h) of the Casa di M. Lucretius
Fronto (V,4,a) (Bastet 203, Tav.)OO(,57). 29r
Fig.62 A painted funerary door, Loculus slab #6 in Tomb A dating from the second century BC, which was found at Sciatbi near
Alexandria (Adriani Tav.XV).
Fig.63 The painting on the west wall of the oecus in the Pompeian house (I,3,25) ( Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 90,2 ).
Fig.64 A plan of the Eumachia Building (Modified plan from Maiuri,
Pompei preromqna Fig.20; 45).
Fig.65 Plan showing Maiuri's excavations in the chalcidicum of the
Eumachia Building showing the remains of the earlier (Maiuri,
P ompe i pr er omano Fig. 20).
Fig.66 Maiuri, Pompei preromana Fig.45.
Fig.67 Mau reconstructed the porticus as consisting of a double-storey
colonnade, however, there seems to be no reliable evidence for the
existence ofa second-storey, and the building appears to have been a
single-storey structure (Mau, "Osseryazioni" I32).
Fig.68 Phase plan of the Macellum of Pompeii based on the
chronology of Maiuri (De Ruyt Fig.53).
Fig.69 Plan of the Horrea of Hortensius, located in the centre of Ostia
on the Decumanus Maximus (Rickman 65, Fig.18).
Fig.70 Plan of the Piccolo Mercato in Ostia (Rickman 18, Fig.2).
Fig.71 Plan of the Garden Houses in Ostia (Watts 119)-
ßig.72 Plan of the Macellum at Lepcis Magna (Degrassi Fig.3).
Fig.73 Plan of the Forum and the Basilica at Lepcis Magna showing
the major sight lines (Di Vita Fig.l).
ßig.74 Plan of the triumphal arch at Palmyra (Amy 398, Fig.l). 292
Fig.75 Plan of the North Gate at Jerash (Detweiler PIanXVII).
ßig.76 Plan showing the lines of entrance view in the Eumachia
Building (Modified plan from Maiuri, Pompei preromana Fig.20; 45).
ßig.77 The entrance view in the Eumachia Building from the chalcidicum
(Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.78 The east wall of the caldarium (22) of rhe Casa del Labirinto
(VI, 1 1,10) (Bastet 192, Tav.)O!38).
ßig.79 The west wall of cubiculum (g) in the Casa di M. Lucretius
Fronto (V,4,a) (Bastet 202, T av.W,56).
Fig.80 The east wall of room (m) in the Casa di Spurius Mesor
(VII,3,29) (Bastet 219, T av.){J-VII, 84).
Fig.81 The south wall of the triclinium in the Casa di Spurius Mesor
(Bastet 1 85, Tav.XIII,23).
Fig.82 The wall of the room north of the entrance in the Casa dell'Ancora (VI, I 0,7) (Bastet 1 8 5, Tav.XIII,24).
Fig.83 The north wall of the triclinium (l) in the Casa di Orfeo
(VI, 14,20) (Bastet 197, T av.W,I,47).
Fig.84 Plan and elevation of the chalcidicum of the Eumachia
Building (Maiuri, P omp e i pr er omane F íg.20 ; 2l).
Fig.85 The east wall of the triclinium (d) of Termopolio (I,8,8) (Bastet
2l3,Tav.X-I,73)
Fig.86 The south wall of the t¿blinum (i) of the Casa di L. Caecilius
Iucundus (W,1,26) (Bastet 212, T av.){J-,72). 293
Fig.87 The west wall of the oecus in the Accademia di Musica
(vI,3,7)
(Bastet 217, T av.K-V,80).
Fig.88 Plan of the Eumachia Building demonstrating that a view down the main axis of the building from the Forum would have been blocked by a column (Modified plan from Maiun, Pompei preromana
Fig.20;4s).
Fig.89 View of the Eumachia Building from the Forum along the main axis of the building (Photograph by Paul Honocks).
Fig.90 Plan illustrating the oblique view of the court of the Eumachia
Building from the Forum afforded between the central pair of
Chalcidicum columns (Modified plan from Maiuri, Pompei preromanaFig.20 45).
Fig.91 Photograph of the view from the Forum aligned with the axis of the Chalcidicum (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
ßig.92 Close up of the oblique view through the main door of the
Eumachia Building from the Forum (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.93 Plan of the Eumachia Building illustrating the lines of the axial view from within the Chalcidicum and the lines of the oblique view from the Forum (Modified plan from Maiuri, Pompei preromana
Fig.20;45).
Fig.94 Plan of showing the lines of the entrance view (Modified plan
from Eschebach).
Fig.95 The entrance view of the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23)
(Photograph by Paul Horrocks). 294
Fig.96 Plan of the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) showing the lines of the second composed view can be seen from a point in the tablinum (Modified plan from Eschebach).
Fig.97 The second composed viewvisible from the tablinum in the
Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.98 Plan of the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) showing the lines of both composed views (Modified plan from Eschebach).
Fig.99 View of the main entrance to the Macellum from the stylobate of the Chalcidicum (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.100 The bases of the two columns which once stood at the mouth of the passage leading to the main entrance of the Macellum
(Photograph by Paul Honocks).
Fig.101 Plan showing the lines of view through each of the entrances into the interior court of the Macellum from the chalcidicum
(Modifred plan from De Ruyt Fig.53).
Fig.102 The views through each of the doorways into the interior court of the Macellum (Photographs by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.103 According to Maiuri the Macellum was developed in three principal stages (De Ruyt Depliant IV).
Fig 104 Mau's reconstruction of the court of the Macellum (Mau,
Pompeii 97, frg.37).
Fig.105 The walls of cubiculum (m) of the Villa atBoscoreale
(Lyttelton Plate 17).
Fig.106 The rear wall of the Corinthian oecus in the Casa del
Labirinto (VI,l1,10) (Lyttelton Plate 16). 295
Fig.107 The south wall of the entrance hall of the frigidarium in the
Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.35).
Fig.108 The south wall of the apod¡erium in the Casa del
Criptoporti co (I,6,2) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s ch i c ht I i c he Tafel l, Abb. 5 ).
Fig.109 A wall in the Villa at Oplontis (Francisis Dis.25),
Fig.110 A painting from Pompeian house (V,l,l4) (Bastet 176,
Tav.IV,6).
Fig.ll1 The north wall of caldarium (22) inthe Casa del Labirinto
(VI,1 1,10) @astet 192, Tav.)O!39).
Fig.112 Detail of the south wall of tablinum (h) in the Casa di M.
Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Bastet 204, Tav.)OCilI,59).
Fig.113 The walls adjacent to the northern corner of room (d) in the
Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.83).
Fig.114 The west wall of room (a) in the Casa dell'Ara massima
(VI, 1 6, I 5) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. I 02).
Fig.lL5 The west wall of room (f) in the Pompeian house (X,5,11)
(Schefold, Vergess enes Taf. 1 35).
Fig.116 The east wall of room (F) in the Casa dell'Ara massima
(VI, 1 6, 1 5) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 1 36).
Fig.117 A painting from the walls of the court of the Macellum
(Schefold, "La peinture" Planche )OüVI).
Fig.1L8 Detail of the wall of room (15) in the Casa della Caccia
antica (VII,4,4 8) (Schefold, V er ge s s enes Taf. 76, I ).
Fig.119 The Temple of Artemis at Jerash (Lyttelton 2I7,frg.37).
Fig.120 The Sanctuary of Jupiter at Baalbek (Lyttelton220, fig.39). 296
Fig.121 The Forum of Augustus (Favro 516,frg.5.24).
ßig.l22 View of the Forum of Augustus (Boethius and Ward-Perkins
190, fig.85).
Fig.123 The Forum of Trajan (Ward-Perkins, Roman Architecture 44,
Fis.67).
ßig.l24 The walls of room (e) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 85 ).
Fig.125 The south wall of room (c) in the Casa dei Capitelli colorati
(VII,4,5 1 ) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 107).
Fig.126 Arriving within the rear ambulatory of the porticus in front of the central bay, the visitor would have been presented with another elaborate symmetrical view (Photograph by Paul Honocks).
ßig.l27 The north wall of room (f) in Pompeian house (DL5,11)
(Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. I 32).
Fig.128 Through a window into a light well is visible another window which opens onto the cryptoporticus at the rear of the building
(Photographs by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.129 Obliquely seen through two successive windows is the statue of Eumachia, which stands in a bay opening off the cryptoporticus at the rear of the building (Photographs by Paul Honocks).
Fig.130 From the same point, an even more oblique view is presented
of one of the pair of side statues of the central bay (Photographs by
Paul Horrocks).
Fig.131 The total view from the south ambulatory (Modified
Photographs by Paul Horrocks). 297
Fig.132 The total view from the north ambulatory (Modified
Photographs by Paul Horrocks)
Fig.133 Walls in room (i) of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) (Schefold,
Vergessenes Taf .126).
Fig.134 The south-west corner of room (o) in the Casa della Regina
Margherita (Y,2,1) (Schefold, Verge s s enes Taf. 89).
Fig.135 The west wall of room (a) in the Casa dell'Ara massima
(VI, 1 6, 1 5) (Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. I 6, 1 ).
Fig.136 The south wall of room (f) of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio
(di Loreius Tiburtinus) (n,2,2) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.80).
Fig.137 The south wall of room (f) of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio
(di Loreius Tiburtinus) (II,2,2) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.82).
Fig.138 The northern wall of room (p) in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 95 ).
Fig.139 An architectural scene on the north wall of room @2) in the
Casa del Centenario (IX,8,6) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.125)'
Fig.140 The east wall of room (r) in the Casa della Regina Margherita
(V,2, 1 ) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 108).
Fig.141 An unprovenanced fragment in the Naples Museum
(Schefold, Ver ges s ene s T af .7 5).
ßig.l42 The north wall of room (e) in Pompeian house (X,1,7)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 84).
Fig.143 The lines of the entrance view in the Casa del Poet¿ tragico
(VI,8,3) (Jung 88, Abb.14). 298
Fig.l44 The entrance view in the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI,8,3)
(Jung 88,Abb.l5).
Fig.145 The lines of the entrance view in the Casa dell'Orso (VII,2,45)
(Ehrhardt, Casa dell'Orso Abb.44).
Fig.146 The entrance view in the Casa dell'Orso (VII,2,45) (Ehrhardt,
Casa dell'Orso 1xbb.252).
Fig.147 The lines of the entrance vista in the Casa dei Diadumeni
(X,1,20) (Jung Abb. 18).
Fig.148 The entrance vista in the Casa dei Diadumeni (DíI,20) (Jung
Abb.19).
Fig.149 The old tufa colonnade (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.150 The columns outside the Macellum (Photograph by Paul
Horrocks).
Fig.151 The columns of the chalcidicum of the Eumachia Building
(Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.L52 The travertine colonnade (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.153 The column of the Eumachia Building's chalcidicum which
stands on the south side almost abuts the northernmost column of the
old tufa colonnade (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.154 The facade of the Eumachia Building (Modified Photographs
by Paul Honocks).
Fig.155 A painting from room (3) in the casa di M. obellius Firmus
(D! 1 4,4) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s c h i chtl i che T af .2, Abb. 7).
Fig.156 The west wall of triclinium (14) in the Villa at Oplontis
(Francisis Dis.23). 299
Fig.157 A section of the painting on the walls of the cryptoporticus of the Eumachia Building (Bastet 190, Tav.XVIII,34).
Fig.158 The east wall of the triclinium of the Casa dei Cubicoli floreali (I,9,5) (Bastet 211, Tav.)OO(D(,71).
Fig.159 The northern wall of the peristyle (56) of the Casa del
Citarista (I,4,5 .25) (Bastet 222, T av .L,89).
Fig.160 A wall of room (c) in the Casa di Nettuno (VI,5,3) (Schefold,
Vergessenes Taf.101).
Fig.161 The facade of the Macellum (Modif,red Photographs by Paul
Horrocks).
Fig.162 A wall of the fridgidarium of the Casa del Criptoportico
(I,6,2) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s ch i c ht I i ch e Taf. 1, Abb. 3 ).
Fig.163 The upper zone of the painting on a wall of room (d) of
Termopolio (I, 8, 8 ) (Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s ch i chtl i che Taf. 5 8, Abb.24 l).
Fig.164 A detail of the painting on a wall of room (d) of Termopolio
(I, 8, 8 ) (Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s c h i c ht I i che Taf. 5 8, Abb .242).
Fig.165 The upper zone of the south wall of triclinium (e) in the casa
di L. Sulpicius Rufus (DÇ9,c) (Ehrhardt, StilgeschichtlicheTaf.T2,
Abb.2e4).
Fig.166 The upper zone of the painting found on the south wall of
tablinum (h) of Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Ehrhardt,
St ilgeschichtl iche T af .63, Abb.264).
Fig.167 A plan of the Forum of Pompeii drawn by Mazois in l8l4
(De Caro 34,Fíg.28). 300
Fig.168 A plan of the Forum of Pompeii drawn by Mazois in 1825
(De Caro 35,Fig.29).
Fig.169 Maiuri's plan of the Temple of Jupiter (Maiuri, Pompei preromanaFig.6T).
Fig.170 Plan of the Forum of Pompeii highlighting the monuments and arches (Scagliarini Corlaita 45, Fig.8).
Fig. 171 View of the Temple of Jupiter and the flanking arches
(Scagliarini Corlaita 45, Fig.9).
ßig.l72 The south wall of the entrance to the frigidarium of the Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2) ( Schefold, V er ge s s en es Taf. 6).
Fig.173 The east wall of room (15) of the Villa of Oplontis (Francisis
Dis.24).
ßig.l74 The north wall of room (23) of the Villa of Oplontis
(Francisis Dis.13).
Fig.175 On the west wall of triclinium (14) of the Villa of Oplontis
(Francisis Dis.17).
Fig.176 The wall to the right of the door in tablinum (2) of Casa del
Bell'impluvio (I,9, 1 ) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s chicht I i che Taf. 40, Abb. 1 66).
ßig.l77 The rear wall of room (1) inthe Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9,1)
(Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf .44, Abb. 1 86).
Fig.178 Det¿il of the rear wall of room (1) in the Casa del
Bell'impluvio (I,9,1) (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf .44, Abb. I 87).
Fig.L79 Detail of the wall to the right of the entrance of tablinum (h)
in Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche
Taf.62, Abb.263). 301
Fig.180 The famous marble relief from the Casa di L. Caecilius
Iucundus (V,1,26) (Ward-Perk ins, P o mp e i i Cat. I l).
Fig.181 The grouping of statue bases stands at the southern end of the
Forum, (Photograph by Paul Horrocks).
Fig.182 Mau's reconstruction of the tufa colonnade atthe southem end of the Forum (Mau, Pompeii 75,Fi9.25).
Fig.183 A plan showing Mauri's excavations at the Forum's southern end (Maiuri, Pompei preromana Fig.54).
Fig.184 An elevation showing Mauri's excavations at the Forum's southern end (Maiuri, Pompei preromana Fig.55).
Fig.185 A fragment of a painting from Herculaneum now in the
Naples Museum (Muz. Nap. inv. 9878) (Bastet l84,Tav.XII,22).
Fig.186 The upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) of the Villa
Imperiale (Bastet I 83, Tav.XI,2O).
Fig.187 A wall of the porticus (c) of the Villa Imperiale (Ehrhardt,
Stil geschichtl iche Taf. 1 8, Abb.7 4).
Fig.l8S A detail of the upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) of the
Villa Imperiale (Ehrh ar dt, St il ge s ch i cht I i c he T af .20, Abb. 80).
Fig.189 A det¿il of the upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) of the
Villa Imperiale (Ehrh ar dt, St i I ge s chi cht I i ch e T af .20, Abb. 7 8).
Fig.190 A det¿il of the upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) of the
Villa Imperiale (Ehrh ar dt, St i I ge s ch i c ht I i che T af . 19, Abb. 76).
Fig.191. A detail from the upper zone of room (B) in the Villa
Imperiale (Bastet 181, Tav.D(l7). 302
Fig.L92 A detail of the upper zone of a wall of the porticus (c) of the
Vi lla Imperiale (Ehrh ar dt, St i I ge s ch i c h t I i ch e T af .2 l, Abb. 84 ).
Fig.193 The east wall of the tablinum ín Caupona di Sotericus
(I,12,3) (Bastet 216, T av .ñ,IY,7 9).
Fig.194 The north wall of triclinium (8) in the Casa di P. Vedius
Siricus (YII,I,25 .47) (Bastet 230, T av.LVI[ I 06).
Fig.195 The views of the Forum from the central and eastern
Municipal Buildings (Photographs by Paul Honocks).
Fig.196 A plan showing the lines of the views of the Forum from the central and eastern Municipal Buildings (Modified plan from De Voss
33).
Fig.197 A plan showing the lines of the entrance view in the Casa di
C. Vibius (VII,2,I8) (Jung 102, Abb.30).
Fig.198 A plan showing the lines of the entrance view in the Casa di
M. Holconius Rufus (VIII,4,4) (Jung 103, Abb.31).
Fig.199 A plan showing the lines of the entrance view in the Casa dell'Efebo (I,7,1 l) (Bek, "Towards Paradise" 79 l, F i9.42).
Fig.200 Drawing of a detail of a painting of Aphrodite and Adonis on a wall of room (c) in Pompeian house (X.,7,16) (Schefold,
Ver ge s s enes Taf. 5 5,3 ).
Fig.201 Drawing of a detail of a painting of Ares and Aphrodite on a wall of room (c) in Pompeian house (X.,7,16) (Schefold, Vergessenes
Taf.55,4). 303
ßig.2Ù2 Drawing of a det¿il of a painting of Phaedra and Hippolytus on a wall in Pompeian house (X,,1,22) (Schefold, Vergessenes
Taf.59,4).
Fig.203 The centrepiece of the west wall of the triclinium (f) in the
Casa di Giasone (DL5,18.21) is the painting "Giasone in the Presence ofPelia" (Bastet 191, Tav.XD(36).
Fig.204 On the south wall of cubiculum (g) in the Casa di Giasone
(Dq5,18.21), the centrepiece consists of a depiction of Pan and the
Nymph (Bastet 191, Tav.XD!37).
Fig.205 The painting of "The Theft of the Palladium" from room (m) in Pompeian house (I,2,6) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.11,1).
Fig.206 A wall of cubiculum (16) in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus in
Boscotrecase (Schefol d, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 8).
Fig.207 A drawing of a wall of cubiculum (16) in the Villa of Agrippa
Postumus in Boscotrecase (Bastet 160, Fig.6)
Fig.208 A wall of cubiculum (16) in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus in
Boscotrecase (Schefol d, Vergessenes Taf .38).
Fig.209 The centrepiece of a wall of cubiculum (16) in the Villa of
Agrippa Postumus in Boscotrecase (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf.39).
Fig.210 A drawing of the long wall of the triclinium in Pompeian
house (X,,1,22) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s chi cht I ¡ c he T af . 4 5, Abb. 1 8 8).
Fig.211 Detail of a wall of tablinum (h) of the Casa di M. Lucretius
Fronto (V,4,a) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s chichtl i che T af .63, Abb. 26 5 ).
ßig.2l2 Detail of a wall of tablinum (h) of the Casa di M. Lucretius
Fronto (V,4,a) (Ehrhardt, St il ges chi chtl iche Taf. 63, Abb.267} 304
Fig.213 A wall of triclinium (2) in the Casa dei Cubicoli floreali
(I,9,5) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chi cht I ¡che Taf. 8ó, Abb. 3 3 6).
Fig.2l4 Detail of a wall of triclinium (2) in the Casa dei Cubicoli fl oreali (I,9,5 ) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chi chtl ¡ che Taf. 8 8, Abb. 346).
Fig.215 Detail of a wall from room (5) in the Villa des Agrippa
Postumus at Boscotrecase now in New York (Schefold,, Vergessenes
Taf.4l).
ßig.2l6 A drawing of the south wall of the vestibule of the Ipogeo di
Porta Maggiore (Bastet l6t, frg.1).
ßig.2l7 The wall to the left of the entrance of a cubiculum in the
Officina del garum degli Umbricii (I,12,8) (Ehrhardt,
Stilgeschichtliche Taf .28, Abb.l 14).
Fig.218 A detail of the wall to the left of the entrance of a cubiculum in the Officina del garum degli Umbricii (I,12,8) (Ehrhardt,
St il ge s chicht I i che T af .28, Abb. 1 I 7).
Fig.219 A wall of a cubiculum in the Officina del garum degli
Umbricii (I, I 2, 8) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s ch i cht I i che T af .28, Abb. 1 I 3 ).
ßig.220 The wall to the left of the door of room25 inthe Villa at
Oplontis (Ehrhardt, St il ges chichtl iche Taf. I 0, Abb. 47).
ßig.221 Detail of the wall to the left of the door of room 25 in the
Villa at Oplontis (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichrliche Taf.11, Abb.49).
ßig.222 Detail of the wall to the left of the door of room 25 in the
Villa at Oplontis (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf.10, Abb.46).
ßig.223 The north wall of exedra (11) of the Villa in contranda
Pisanella (Bastet 206, Tav.)OCilV,6 1). 305
ßig.224 Detail of a wall of triclinium (3) in the Casa del Bell'impluvio
(I,9, 1 ) (Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s ch i c ht I i c h e T af .43, Abb. 17 7 ).
Fig.225 Detail of a wall of triclinium (3) in the Casa del Bell'impluvio
(I,9, 1 ) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s chicht I i che T af .43, Abb. I 78).
Fig.226 The wall to the right of the entrance in room (l) of the Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9, I ) (Ehrhardt, Stil ges chtchtl iche T af .44,
Abb.l84).
ßig.227 The wall to the left of the entrance in room (l) of the Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9, 1 ) (Ehrhardt, St il geschichtl iche T af .44,
Abb.185).
Fig.228 A painting from room (g) in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto
(V,4, a) (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s chi c htl ¡ c h e T af . 6 5, Abb.27 3).
Fig.229 The east wall of the apoditerium (5) in the Villa in contranda
Pisanella (Bastet 206, T av.WY,62).
Fig.230 Painted architectural views from room (9) of the Casa dei
Quatro stili (I,8,17) (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf .84, Abb.333).
Fig.231 Painted architectural views from room (9) of the Casa dei
Quattro stili (I, 8, 1 7) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chichtl iche Taf. 8 5, Abb. 3 3 5).
ßig.232 A detail from the upper zone of the back wall of a cubiculum in the Officina del garum degli Umbricii (I,12,8) (Ehrhardt,
Stilgeschtchtliche Taf.28, Abb. 1 18).
Fig.233 The rear wall of room (FI) in Pompeian house (VI,16,36)
(Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf .39 , Abb. 160).
ßig.234 A detail from the rear wall of room (H) in Pompeian house
(VI, 1 6,3 6) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chi chtl i che T af .40, Abb. I 63 ). 306
Fig.235 The upper zone of the painting on the rear wall of room (8) of the Casa del Fabbro (I,10,7) (Ehrhardt, StilgeschichtlicheTaf.94,
Abb.368).
Fig.236 Detail of a wall of room (e) in Casa dei Ceii (I,6,15)
(Ehrhardt, St i I ge s ch i cht I i che T af .7 4, Abb. 3 0 I ).
ßig.237 Detail of a wall of room (e) in Casa dei Ceii (I,6,15)
(Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s c h i cht I i che T af .7 4, Abb. 3 02 ).
Fig.238 The wall to the right of the entrance of room (9) of the Casa del Fabbro (I, 1 0,7) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chichtl ¡che T af .92, Abb. 3 62).
Fig.239 A detail of the wall to the right of the entrance of room (9) of the Casa del Fabbro (I,10,7) (Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Taf.93,
Abb.363).
Fig.240 The rear wall of room (A) in the Villa Imperiale (Ehrhardt,
St il geschichtl iche Taf. I 6, Abb.68).
Fig.24l Detail of the rear wall of room (A) in the Villa Imperiale
(Ehrhardt, St i I ge s c hi chtl iche T af .21, Abb. I 1 ).
ßig.242 Detail of the rear wall of room (A) in the Villa Imperiale
(Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s ch i c ht I ¡ c he T af .21, Abb. 8 3 ).
ßig.243 Detail of the rear wall of room (Ð in the Villa Imperiale
(Ehrhardt, St il ges chi chtl i che Taf. I 1, Abb.324).
ßig.244 Detail of the rear wall of room (A) in the Villa Imperiale
(Ehrhardt, St i I ge s ch i cht I i che Taf. 80, Abb. 3 2 3 ).
Fig.245 The upper zone of the rear wall of tablinum (i) in Pompeian
house (V, 1, 1 023 ) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chi chtl ¡ c he Taf. 65, Abb27 5). 307
ßig.246 Detail of the rear wall of room (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius
Rufu s (D!9, c) (F ig.246 -a7 ) (Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s ch i c ht I i c he T af .7 l,
Abb.2e2).
ßig.247 Detail of the rear wall of room (e) in the Casa di L. Sulpicius
Rufus (DÇ9,c) (Schefold, V er ge s s ene s T af . 47 ).
Fig.248 The south wall of room (b) in the Casa delle Paretti rosse
(VItr,5,37) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. I 1 8).
ßig.249 The west wall of room (G) in Pompeian house (V,3,4)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s ene s T af .722).
Fig.250 The south wall of room (Q) in the casa degli Amorini dorati
(VI, 1 6,7) (Schefold, Ver ge s s enes T af . 124).
Fig.251 The south wall of room (t) of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1)
(Schefold, Ver ge s s ene s T af . 127 ).
ßig.252 The west wall of room (F) in the Casa dell'Ara massima
(VI, 16, 1 5) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. I 37).
Fig.253 The north wall of room (G) in the Casa dell'Ara massima
(VI, 1 6, 1 5) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 139).
ßig.254 The south-west corner of room (r) in the Casa di Orfeo
(VI, 14,20) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 143).
Fig.255 View from the triclinium in the Casa di M. Holconius Rufus
(VIII,4,4) (Jung 103, Abb.32).
Fig.256 The view from the'Westem Municipal Building (Photograph
by Paul Honocks).
ßig.257 The east wall of the oecus (3) in the Casa di M. Obellius
Firmus (D(, 14,4) (Schefold, Vergess enes Taf. 2 8). 308
Fig.258 The wall above the doorway in room (B) of the Villa
Imperiale (Ehrhardt, St i I ge s c hi cht I i c h e T af . 17, Abb.7 2).
Fig.259 The rear wall in room (18) of the Casa dei Quattro stili
(I, 8, 1 7) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chichtl i che T af .47, Abb. 1 96).
Fig.260 Upper zone of the rear wall in room (18) of the Casa dei
Quattro stili (I, 8, 1 7) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chi chtl iche T af .47, Abb. 1 95 ).
Fig.261 The rear wall of room(22) in the Casa del Labirinto
(VI, 1 1, 1 0) (Ehrhardt, St il ge s chichtl ¡che Taf. 48, Abb. 1 9 8).
ßig.262 The upper zone of the niche in the rear wall of room (22) in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,I l,10) (Ehrhardt, StilgeschichtlicheTaf.48,
Abb.200).
Fig.263 A wall of a room in the Pompeian house (VI,14,30)
(Ehrhardt, S t i I ge s chi chtl iche Taf. 8 1, Abb. 325 ).
Fig.264 The wall to the right of the entrance of the tablinum (2) in the
Casa del Bell'impluvio (I,9, I ) (Ehrhardt, St ilges chichtl iche T af .42,
Abb.t72).
Fig.265 Calyx-Krater belonging to Professor John Oddy (Trendall 1:
7) (Trendall I :7, Plate 2,6).
Fig.266 Bell-Krater in the British Museum BM. F166 (Trendall I :
Plate34,2).
Fig.267 Bell-Krater in Geneva, Geneva 13188 (Trendall 1:Plate
40,2).
Fig.268 The north wall of the tablinum in the Pompeian house
(VI,2, I 6) (Bastet 229, T av.LVIL 1 05). 309
Fig.269 A painting of Pindar and Korinna from room (u) in Pompeian
House (Y,2,4) (Schefold, Ver ge s s enes Taf. 5 8, I ).
ßig.27D A detail of the south wall of roomQ$ in the Casa di
Meleagro (W,9,2) (Schefold, V e r ge s s enes Taf. 96, 1 ).
ßig.27l Amphora, Ruvo 423 (Trendall 1: Plate 142,4).
Fig.272 Volute-Krater Karlsrule 84 (Trendall 1: Plate 160,1).
ß ig.27 3 Volute-Krater Naples 3222 (ínv. I 1 666) Trendall I : Plate
160,2.
ßig.274 A mid-fourth century BC votive relief, now in the National
Museum in Athens 2723 (Travlos276,Fig.352).
ßig.275 Amphora Ruvo 407 (Trendall 1: Plate 103,1).
ßig.276 Amphora Ruvo 408 (Trendall 1: Plate 103,3).
ßig.277 Volute-Krater in the British Museum BM. F283 (Trendall l:
Plate 61,1).
ßig.278 Volute-Krater in Borur 100 (Trendall 1: Plate 150,1).
ßig.279 Amphora in Bari 12061(Trendall 1: Plate 126,3).
Fig.280 Amphora, PhiladelphiaL. 64.26 (Trendall 1: Plate 123,1).
Fig.281 A marble gtave-relief now in the National Museum in Athens
(3624) dating from the first quarter of the fourth century (Robertson,,4
History of Greek Art 2:Plaie l2ld).
Fig.282 A marble grave-relief of Sosinos from Athens and now in the
Louvre, which dates from the third quarter of the fifth century BC
(Robertson, A History of Greek Art 2:Plate l2la).
Fig.283 HydriaBM. F. 352 (Trendall l:Plate 151,3). 310
Fig.284 A fragment of a Calyx-Krater Amsterdam 2579 (Robertson,,,4
History of Greek Art 2:Plate l33b).
Fig.285 A fragment of an Attic-Krater now in Wurzburg H. 013
(Robertson, A History of Greek Art 2:PIate 133a).
Fig.286 Calyx-Krater Taranto 52265 (Trendall 1: Plate l2,l).
ßig.287 A detail from a wall of room (g) in the Casa dei Pigmei
(D(5,9) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 146).
Fig.288 A detail from a wall of room (g) in the Casa dei Pigmei
(Dq5,9) (Schefold, Vergessenes Taf. 147).
Fig.289 A sketch of the design from a wall of room (h) of the Casa di
Giuseppe II (VIII,2, 3 9 ) (Schefol d, V e r ge s s ene s T af . I 52,1).
Fig.290 Volute-Krater Milan "H.A. " coll. 239 (Trendall I : Plate 60,3).
Fig.291 A fragment of a South Italian Calyx-Krater from Taranto,
Wurzburg H4676 (Robertson , A History of Greek Art 2: Plate 134b).
ßig.292 The facade of the Vegina Tomb (Miller 156, Fig.7).
Fig.293 The Gateway of Zeus and Hera on Thasos (Frazer 194, Fig.6).
ßig.294 The HaliakmonDam Tomb (Miller 160, Fig.15).
Fig.295 The Dion Tomb (Miller 158, Fig.1l).
Fig.296 The so-called Palatitsa Tomb (Miller 163,Fig.24).
ßig.297 A det¿il of the facade of the Great Tomb at Lefkadia (Miller
155, Fig.5).
Fig.298 The interior decoration of the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles
near Lefkadia (lvliller 165, Fig.27).
Fig.299 The interior decoration of the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles
near Lefkadia (Miller 165, Fig.28). 311
Fig.300 The viewthrough the archway of the Monumental Arch at
Palmyra (Degeorge 67).
Fig.301 Mosaic from the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Lazarev
Tav.7I).
Fig.302 From the central entrance to the Great Court the tower would have completely concealed the view of the Temple of Jupiter from the entrance (Modified plan from Ragette forepiece).
Fig.303 The eastern wall of the exedra (15) of the Casa del Poeta tragico (VI, 8,3 ) ( Schefold, V er ge s s en es Taf. 12,2).
Fig.304 Mosaic from the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Lazarev
Tav.72).
Fig.305 Mosaic from the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Lazarev
Taf.73).
Fig.306 Plan of the Church of Saint Simeon the Stylite at Qalaat
Semaan (Butler 99, Ill. I 00).
Fig.307 The southem facade of the Church of Saint Simeon the
Stylite at Qalaat Sema¿n (Degeorge 80-81).
Fig.308 Mosaic from the Hagios Georgios in Salonika (Lazarev
Tav.3).
Fig.309 Mosaic from the Hagios Georgios in Salonika (Lazarev
Tav.4).
Fig.310 Mosaic from the Battistero degli Ortodossi in Ravenna
(Lazarev Tav.23).
Fig.311 Mosaic from the Grand Mosque of Damascus (Lazarev
Tav.76). 3t2
Fig.312 A wall of the atrium in the Casa di Sallustio (YI,2,4) (Ling,
Roman Painting 16, Fig.11).
Fig.313 The lines of the view from the Tablinum (D) in the Casa del
Fauno (W,12,2) (Engermann 158, Abb.16).
Fig.314 The view from the Tablinum (D) in the Casa del Fauno
(W,12,2) (Engermann 159, Abb.l7).
Fig.315 The walls of Room (45146) in the Casa del Labrinto
(VI, I 1, 10) (Engermann Tafel 42).
Fig.316 One of the series of paintings apparently of the Forum itself from the Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4) (Croisille 2: Planche 120.2).
Fig.317 One of the series of paintings apparently of the Forum itself from the Praedia di Iulia Felix (II,4) Croisille 2:Planche 124.1
Fig.318 Paintings of unknown provenance now framed together in the
Naples Archaeological Museum (9406) (Ling, Roman Painting 147,
Fig.154).
Fig.319 A villa landscape from Stabiae now in the Naples
Archaeological Museum (9480) (Ling, Roman Painting l47,Fig.I55).
Fig.320 A villa landscape from Stabiae now in the Naples
Archaeological Museum (9480) (Croisille 2:Planche 97).
Fig.321 Painting from Pompeian house (VI, 7, 18) (Croisille 2:
Planche 96.1).
ßig.322 Painting from Pompeian house (VI, 8, 23-24) (Croisille 2:
Planche 98).
Fig.323 Painting in the Naples Archaeological Museum (9482)
(Croisille 2: Planche 100). 3t3
ßig.324 A view of the port city now in the Naples Archaeological
Museum (9514) (Croisille 2: Planche 103) .
Fig.325 Painting from the Tomb of Stephanos at Hadra (McKenzie
Plate 198a).
Fig.326 A slab from the Wardian (Mex) tomb (McKenzie Plate 198b).
ßig.327 A wall of cubiculum (11) of the Villa of Oplontis (McKenzie
Plate234a).
Fig.328 A wall of room (32) of the Casa di Amadio (Casa di Fabius)
(I,7,2-3) (Mckenzie PIate 24 4b).
ßig.329 The entrance view of Tomb (8) at Ras el Tine (McKenzie
Plate 194).
Fig.330 The approach to the Khasneh at Petra (Lyttelton Plate 93).
Fig.331 A 5th century mosaic in St Maria Maggiore in Rome
(Pietrangeli 119).
Fig.332 Plan of the Basilica Ulpia in Trajan's Forum in Rome (Amici
Tav.II).
Fig.333 Plan of one of the Libraries and the court containing Trajan's
Column in Trajan's Forum in Rome (Amici 78,Fig.125).
Fig.334 A section of one of the Libraries and the court containing
Trajan's Column in Trajan's Forum in Rome (Amici 78,Fi9.126).
Fig.335 The walls of Room (4) of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede
(Clarke 327,Fi9.203).
Fig.336 The walls of Room (9) of the House of the Muses in Ostia
(Clarke 284,Fi9.172). 314
Fig.337 Carla Amici's restoration plans of Trajan's Forum in Rome
(Amici 76,Fig.123).
Fig.338 Detail of a wall of room (4) of the House of Jupiter and
Ganymede in Ostia (Clarke 331,Fi9.206).
Plørc
All plans were drawn by Barry Rowney.
Plan 1 Showing how the line of sight along the main axis of the porticus from the Forum is blocked by one of the columns of the chalcidicum of the Eumachia Building.
Plan 2 The lines of view into the Eumachia Building from a point in the Forum in front of the centre of the chalcidicum.
Plan 3 The lines of view of the chalcidicum of the Eumachia
Building from a point opposite its centre.
Plan 4 The lines of view of the chalcidicum of the Macellum from a point opposite its centre.
Plan 5 The lines of view into the Macellum from a point in the Forum
in front of the centre of the chalcidicum.
Plan 6 The lines of view from points a the eastem end of the
ambulatories in the Eumachia Building.
Plan 7 The lines of view into the centre bay at the rear of the porticus
of the Eumachia Building.
Plan 8 The monuments at the southem end of the Forum.
Plan 9 The lines of view into the Forum from the Edifici Municipali. 315
Bibliography 316
Adam, Jean-Pierre. Roman Building: Materials and Techniques.
Trans. Anthony Mathews. Bloomingfon: Indiana University
Press, 1994.
Adriani, A. "Osseryaziont sulla Stele di Helixio e sui
precedenti alessandri del II stile Pompeiiano." Bulletin de la
Société Royale d'Archéologie d'Alexandrie. ns 10.1,32 (1938): ll2-30.
Amici, CarlaMaria. Foro di Traiano: basilica ulpia e biblioteche.
Studi e materiali dei musei e monumenti comunali di Roma:X
ripatizione antichita bele arti e problemi culturali.
Roma: 1982.
Amy, R. "Premieres restaurations a I'arc monumental de
Palmyra." Syria 14 (1933): 396-411.
Baldassare,Ida, ed. Pompei: Pittura e mosaici. Enciclopedia dell'arte
anticaclassica e orientale. Roma: Instituto della Enciclopedia
Italiana, 1990.
Bastet, F.L., and Mariette De Vos. Proposta per una
clas s ificaz ione del terzo st ile P ompe iiano. Archeologische
Studien van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 4. Gravenhage:
Staatsuitgevery, 1979.
Bek, Lise. "Towards Paradise on Earth: Modern Space
Conception in Architecture a Creation of Renaissance
Humanism." Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 9 (1980):
Supplementum.
---. "Venusta Species: A Hellenistic Rhetorical
Concept as the Aesthetic Principle in Roman Townscape."
Analecta Romona Instituti Danici 14 (1985): 139-148. 377
Bergmarur, Bettina. "The Roman House as a Memory Theater: The
House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii." The Art Bulletin 74
Qee$.22s-s6.
Blankenhagen, Peter H. von. "The Imperial Fora." Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians 13.4 (195a): 2l'26.
Boethius, Axel. Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture.
Pelican History of Art. Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin
1978. --. The Golden House of Nero: Some Aspects of Roman Architecture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1960.
Boethius, Axel, and J. B. Ward-Perkins. Etruscan and
Roman Ar chit e ctur e. P elicatHistory of Art. Harmondsworth:
Pelican-Penguin, 1 970.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans.
Richard Nice. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Boys, Jos. "(Mis)representation of Society? Problems in the
Relationships Between Architectural Ae sthetics and Social
Meanings." Design and Aesthetics: A Reader. Ed. Jerry
Palmer, and Mo Dodson. London: Routledge, 1996. 226'47.
Butler, Howard Crosby. Early Churches in Syria: Fourth to Seventh
Centuries. Ed. E. Baldwin Smith. Princeton Monographs in
Art and Archaeology. 1929. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, t969.
Choisy, Auguste. Histoire de I'Architecture. 2 vols. Paris: Editions
Vincent, Freal & Cie,1964. 318
Cicero Cicero: The Speeches. Trans. Louis E. Lord.
London: William Heinemarur. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1937.
Clarke, John. The Houses of Roman ltaly 100 BC--AD 250: Ritual,
Space and Decoration. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1991.
Collins, George R., and Christiane Crasemann Collins. Camillo
Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning; l4tith a Translation
of the 1889 Austrian Edition of His City Planning According to
Artistic Principles. Rizzoli Essays on Architecture 1. New
York:Rizzoli, 1986.
Coulton, J. J. Ancient Greek Architects at lTork: Problems of
Structure and Design Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press,
1977.
---. The Architectural Development of the Greek
Oxford University Press, 1976. ^Sroa. Oxford: Croisille, Jean-Michel. "Poesie et art figure de Neron aux Flaviens.
Recherches sur l'iconographie et la correspondance des arts a
l' epoque imperiale." Collect ion Latomus 17 9(1982): 2 vols.
Cullen, Gordon. The Concise Townscape. London: Architectural
Press, 1971
De Caro, Stefano, Annie Jacques, LauraMascoli, Pierre
Pinon, George Vallet and Fausto Zevi. Pompei: Travaux et
envois des architectes français au XIXe siècle. Rome: École
nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, École française de Rome,
1981.
Degeorge, Gerard. Syrie: Art, histoire, architecture. Pans: Hermann,
1983. 319
Degrassi, N. "I1 Mercato di Leptis Magna." Quaderni
Archeologica della Libia. 2 (1951):27-70.
Deregowski, Jan B. "Pictorial Perception and Culture." Scientific
American 227 .5 (1972): 82-88.
De Ruyt, Claire. Macellum: Marché alimentaire des
romains. Publications d'histoire de I'art et d'archéologie de
I'université catholique de Louvain 35. Louvain-le-Neuve,
1983.
Descoeudres, J.-P. "The Australian Expedition to Pompeii:
Contributions to the Chronology of the Fourth Pompeian
Style." Pictores per provincias. Avenches, 1987. 135-47.
Descoeurdes, J.-P., and F. Sear. "The Australian
Expedition to Pompeii." Rivista di studi Pompeiiani 1 (1987): rl-36.
Detweiler, A.H. "The North Gate." Gerasa, City of the
Decapolis. Ed. H. Kraeling. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1938. 117-23.
De Vos, Arnold and Mariette Dc Vos. Pompei, Ercolano,
Stab¡a. Guide archeologicheLaterza 11. Bari: Gius. Laterza e
Figli.
Di Vita, Antonio "Il progetto originario delþrum
novum Severianum a Leptis Magna." Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung
Sup.25 (1982): 84-106.
Dobbins, John J. "The Altar in the Sanctuary of the Genius
of Augustus in the Forum of Pompeii." Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung
99 (1992):2st-63. 320
---. "The Pompeii Forum Project, 1994-1995." American Journal of
Archeolog,t 100 ( 1996): 369-70.
---. "Pompeii Forum Project."
ht tp : //j ffir s on.v i I I age. edu/pompe i i/pfp -des cr ip. html ---. "The Pompeii Forum Project 1994-1995." Sequence and Space in
Pompeii. Sara E. Bon and Rick Jones Eds. Oxbow
Monograph 77. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
73-87.
---. "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and
Urban Planning of the Forum at Pompeii." American Journal
of Archeologt 93 (1989):259.
---. "Problems of Chronolory, Decoration, and
Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii." American Journal of
Archeolog,' 98 (1994): 629-94.
Drerup, Heinrich. "Bildraum und Realraum in der Roemischen
Architektur." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen
Instituts, Roemische Abteilung 66 (1959): I47-74.
Ehrhardt, Wolfgang. Cqsa dell'Orso (VII, 2, 4 4 -4 6).
Hauser in Pompeji 2. Munchen: Hirmer Verlag, 1988. --. Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an Romischen W'andmalereien. lldairø am Rhein: Verlag Philipp
vonZabern,1987.
Ellin, Nan. Postmodern Urbanism. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell,
t996.
Engermann, Josef. "Architekfurdarstellungen des Fruhen Zweiten
Stils: Illusionistiche Romische Wandmalerei der Ersten Phase
und ihr Vorbilder in der Realen Architektur." Mitteilungen des
D eut s chen Ar chae ol ogis chen I ns t itut s, Ro em i s che Ab te i lung
(19 67 ): Er garuungsheft 1 2. 321
Eschebach, Hans. "Die Stadtebauliche Entwicklung des
Antiken Pompeji." Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archaeo I o gi s chen Ins t itut s, Ro emi s che Ab t e i lung ( I 970):
Suppl. 17.
Favro, Diane G. The Urbon Image of Augustan Rome.
Diss. University of California, Berkeley,1984. Ann Arbor:
uMI,8524944.
--. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Franciscis, Alfonso de. "La Villa Romana di Oplontis."
Neue Forschungen in Pompeji. Eds. Bernard Andreae and
Helmut Kyrielies Recklinghausen: Verlag Aurel Bongers,
1975. 9-38.
F ÍazeÍ, Alfred. "Macedonia and Samothrace : Two Architectural
Late Bloomers." Symposium Series 1. Macedonia and Greece
in Late Classical and Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History
of Art l0 (1982): 190-203.
Fuchs, Gunter. "Fragmenta Saeptorum: Untersuchungen am
Sogenannten Comoitium in Pompei." Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts : Roemische Abteilung.
64 (1957): ts4-97.
Gibaldi, Joseph, and Walter S. Achtert. MLA Handbookfor L[/riters of
Research Papers. New York: Modern Language Association
ofAmerica, 1988.
Gigante, Lucille. A Study of Perspectivefrom the Representations
of Architectural Forms in Greek Classicol and Hellenistic
Painting. Diss. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
1980. Ann Arbor: UMI, 8104387 322
Gros, Piene. "Le Rôle de la scaenographia dans les projets
architecturaux du début de I'empire romain." Le Dessin
d'architecture dans les sociétés antiques: Actes du colloque de
Strasbourg 26-28 janvier 1984. Université des sciences
humaines de Strasbourg travaux du centre de recherche sur le
proche orient et la Grèce antique 8. Strasbourg: EJB, 1985.
Gros, Pierre, and Mario Torelli. Storia dell'urbanistica: il mondo
romano. Roma: Laterza, 1988.
Gutkind, E.A. International History of City Development.
8 Vols. New York:Free Press; London: Collier-Macmillan,
1964-1972.
Hajjar, Youssef. La Tr i ade d' Hél iopol is-B aalb ek : I conographie,
théologie, culte et sanctuaires. Montreal: Youssef Hajjar,
1985.
---. La Triade d'H,éliopolis-Baalbek: Son culte et sa diffusion à
travers les textes litt,éraires et les documents iconographiques
et épigraphiques. 2 Vols. Études préliminaires aux religions
orientales dans I'empire Roman. Leiden: E.J.Brlll,1977.
Hatf,reld, Gary. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of
Spatial Perceptionfrom Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, Mass
MIT Press, 1990.
Jung, Franz. "Gebaute Bilder." Antike Kunst 27 (1984): 7l-r22.
Kockel, V. "Archaologische Funde und Forschungen in
den Vesuvstadten 2." Archaologischer Anzieger (1986):
443-569. 323
Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of Eminent Philosophers.
Trans. R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library 184. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. 2vols.
Laurence, Rlay. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London and
New York: Routledge, 1994.
Lauter, Hans. "Bemerkungen zur spat Hellenistichen
Baukunst in Mittelitalien." Jarbuch des Deutschen
Archaeologischen Instituts 94 (1979): 390-459.
Lazarev, Viktor. Storia della pittura bizantina. Biblioteca di storia
dell'arte 7. Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 1967.
Ling, Roger. "The Architecture of Pompeii." Journal of Roman
Archøeolog,'. a (1991): 248-56.
---. Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass:M.I.T. Press,
1960.
Lyttelton, Margaret. Baroque Architecture in Antiquity.
Studies in Ancient Art and Archaeology. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1974.
MacDonald, William L. The Architecture of the Roman
Empire. 2 vols to date. Yale Publications in the History of Art
17 and 35. New Haven: Yale University Press, 7965-.
Maiuri, Amedeo. Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana.
Napoli: Soc. editr. napoletana, 1973.
:-. L'ultimafase edilizia di Pompei. Italia
Romana: Campania Romana 2. Roma: Instituti di Studi
Romai-Editore,1942. 324
Mallgrave, Harry Francis, and Eleftherios Ikonomou Eds. Empathy,
Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics i,873-1893.
The Getty Center Publication Programs. Santa Monica: The
Getty Center, 1994.
Mansuelli, G.A. Archittetura e citta: Problemi del mondo
classico. Bologna: Alfa, 1970.
Matsumoto, David. Culture and Psychologt.
Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, 1996.
Mau, August. "Die Statuen des Forums von Pompeji."
Mitte ilungen des Kais erl ichen Deuts chen Archaeol ogischen
Instituts, Roemische Abteilung 1 1(1896): 150-56.
---. "Osservazioni sull'Edificio di Eumachia in
Pompeji." Mitteilungen des Kaiserlichen Deutschen
Archaeol ogischen Inst ituts, Roemis che Abte i lung 7 (1892):
113-48.
---. Pompeii: Its Life and Arl. Trans.
Francis W. Kesley. 1902. Washingfon: McGrathPublishing
Company, 1973.
McKenzie, Judith. The Architecture of Perra. British Academy
Monographs in Achaeology No.l. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1990.
Miller, Stella G. "Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture and
Architectural Decoration." Symposium Series 1. Macedonia
and Greece in Late Classical and Hellenistic Times. Studies in
the History of Art 10 (1982): 152-71.
Moeller, Walter O. The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii.
Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 3.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. 325
Neuerburg, Norman. "Greek and Roman Pyramids."
Archaeologt 22 (1969): 10ó-15.
Onians, Joln. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The
Greek World View 350-50 BC. London: Thames and Hudson,
1979.
Packer, James. "Foro di Traiano: Basilica Ulpia e Biblioteche."
American Journol of Archaeologt 87 (1983): 569-72.
---. "Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a Retrospective."
American Journal of Arcaeologt l0 I (1 997) : 307 -30.
---. "Restoring Trajan's Forum." Inland Architect
34.5 (1990):57-65.
---. "Trajan's Forum Again:the Column of Trajan and the
Temple of Trajan in the Master Plan Attributed to
Apollodorus." Journel of Roman Archaeolog,, 7 (1994):
163-82.
Pietrangeli, Carlo. Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma. Chiese
Monumentali d'Italia. Firenze: Nardini, 1988.
Ragette, Friedrich. Baalbek. London: Chatto and Windus, 1980.
Richardson, Lawrence, Jr. "Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome
and Pompeli." La parola del passato 33 (1978): 260-71.
---. "The Libraries of Pompeii." Archaeolog,,. 30 (1977):394-402.
--. Pompeii: An Architectural History. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Rickman, Geoffrey. Roman Granaries and Store Buildings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Robertson, D. S. Greek and Roman Architecture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Robertson, Martin. A History of Greek Art. 2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1975. 326
Russell, J. "The Origin and Development of Republican
Forums." Phoenix: The Journal of the Classical Association of
Canoda 22 (1968): 304-336
Scagliarini Corlaita, D. S. "La situazione urbanistica degli
archi onorari nella prima eta'Imperiale." Studi sull'arco
onorario romano. Studia archaeologica2l. Roma, 1979.
29-72.
Schefold, Karl. "La peinture pompeienne: Essai sur
l'évolution de sa signif,tcation." Collection Latomus 108
(1e72).
Schefold, Karl. V er ge s s e n e s P omp ej i Unv er offent I i cht e
B ilder Romischer Wanddekorot ionen in Ges chichtl icher Fol ge
Herausgegeben. Bern and Munich: Franke YerIag,1962.
Schmarsow, August. "The Essence of Architectural Creation."
Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics
1873-1893. Ed. and trans. Harr)'Francis Mallgrave, and
Eleftherios Ikonomou. The Getty Center Publication
Programs. Santa Monica: The Getty Center, 1994. 28I-97.
Sitte, C. City Planning According to Artistic Principles.
Trans. George R. Collins and Christiane Crasemann Collins.
Columbia University Studies in Art History and Archaeology 2.
New York: Random House, 1965. *L'Edificio Spano, G. di Eumachia in Pompei."
Rendiconti della Accedamia di archeologica, lettere e belle
arti, Napolt ¡/.S. 36 (1961): 5-35.
Stillwell, Richard. "The Siting of Classical Greek Temples."
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. l3 (1954):
3-8. 327
Todd, M. "Forum and Capitolium in the Early Empire."
Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western Empire.
Eds. T. Grew and B. Hobley. The Council for British
Archaeology, Research Report 59. London, 1985. 56-66.
Trancik, Roger. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban
Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1986.
Travlos, John. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens.
London: Thames and Hudson,l97l.
Trendall, A. D., and Alexander Cabitoglu. The Red-Figured
Vases of Apulia. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
r978-82.
Turner, Steven R. In the Eye's Mind: Vision and the
Helmholtz-H er ing Controv ersy. Princeton, N. J. : Princeton
University Press, 1994. van de Ven, Cornelis. Space in Architecture: The Evolution of a
New ldea in the Theory and History of the Modern
Movements. 3rd ed. Assen: Van Gorcum,1987.
Vitruvius. The Ten Books of Architecture. Trans.H.
Morgan. New York: Dover Publications, 1960.
Ward-Perkins, John B. Cities of Ancient Greece and ltaly:
Planing in Classical Antiquiry. Planning and Cities. New
York: George Brazlller, 197 4.
---. Roman Architecture. History of
World Architecture. 1979. London: Faber and Faber Milan:
Electra, 1988.
---. Roman Imperial Architecture. Penguin History of
Art. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
---. "Severan Art and Architecture at
Leptis Magna." Journal of Roman Studies 38 (1948): 59-80. 328
V/ard-Perkins, John, and Amanda Claridge. Pompeii A.D.
79. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council, 1980.
Watts, D., and C. Watts. "A Roman Apartment Complex."
Scientific American 255 (1986): 116-123
Wolfflin, Heinrich. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the
Development of Style in Later Arl. Trans M. D. Hottinger.
New York: Dover, 1950.
---. Renaissance and Baroqua Trans. Kathrin Simon.
London: Collins, 1964.
Zanker, Paul. Pompei: Societa, immagini urbane eforme
del l' ab i tare. Trans. Andrea Zambini. Torino : Giulio Einaudi
editore, 1993.
Zevi, Fausto. "La storia degli scavi e della
documentazione." Pompeii 1748-1980: I tempi della
documentazione. Roma: Multi Grafica Editore, 1981. 11-21.
Zucker,P. Tower and Square: From the Agora to the
Village Green. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.