Klasická Archeologie the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in The

Home , Capitoline Triad, Jupiter Tonans, Juventas

Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta Katedra archeologie a muzeologie

Klasická archeologie

Lukáš Surý

The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Archaic Age

Bakalářská práce

Vedoucí práce: PhDr. Elisabetta Gagetti, Dr.

2012

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author‘s signature

Acknowledgement:

I would like to give all my gratitude and thanks to my supervisor Dr. Elisabetta Gagetti, PhDr. for the most helpful advices, guiding and very kind approach to our cooperation.

Contents

Contents ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 1. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Ancient Literary Sources ...... 8 1.1 Anthology of ancient texts ...... 15 2. The History of Studies and Excavations...... 24 3. Archaeological context of the area Capitolina ...... 32 4. The Archaeological Remains of the Temple ...... 38 4.1 Abstract of the catalogue of the remains ...... 41 5. The Hypothetical Reconstruction and Elevation of the Temple ...... 44 Conclusions ...... 49 Summary ...... 53 Shrnutí ...... 53 Bibliography ...... 54 Documentation of images ...... Chyba! Záložka není definována.

Introduction

The main purpose of this thesis is to bring some light on the subject of the scarce remains of the once great Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome, built in the Archaic period, and to acquaint the reader with the Temple‘s history, studies, excavations and new researches, including its hypothetical reconstruction. The most important temple in Rome, dedicated to the Capitoline Triad, originated on the southern hilltop of the Capitoline Hill, which is the proper Capitolium. A number of altars and shrines preceded the area of the Temple in the time of king Numa Pompilius, but after his victory over this Italic tribe of the Sabines, most of them were destroyed so as to give place to a new colossal structure celebrating the superior power of Etruscans and their intention to settle down in the political centre of the Latins, the city of Rome. The relationship between the size of the enormous building and the Capitolium is such that the latter appears as a natural ―pedestal‖ of the Temple, which in this way had to be visible from all the hills of the city. Tarquinius Priscus, the first king of the Etruscan dynasty, started the project of the building in the first quarter of the sixth century BC in its destined place with the help of augurs. During the reign of the king‘s successor, Servius Tullius, no activity related to the Capitoline Temple is mentioned. Subsequently, the third Etruscan king, Tarquinius Super- bus, resumed the construction, interrupted by the death of his father. Nevertheless he was not able to finish it due to his expulsion from Rome; this event brought the end of the monarchy. The Temple was then inaugurated by the consul of the new born Roman republic Horatius Pulvillus. The dedication itself took place on September 13th 509 BC. The most probable look of the Temple was hexastyle and also araeostylum referring to its widely spaced intercolumniations. It was built on a high podium and its measures were about 62 meters in length and with the width of 53 meters, that was just slightly less than the length. The building faced south and had three rows of columns in the front and one on each side. According to the typical Etrusco-Italic temple architecture, it was sine postico. It had three parallel cellae, separated by walls, but sheltered under one single pitched roof. The three cellae belonged to: Juno (the left one), Jupiter Optimus Maximus (in the centre) and Minerva (the right one).

In the central cella there was the cult statue of Jupiter, made in clay. The god was depicted in a seated position, with a lightning in his right hand. The author of the statue was Vulca of Veii, who also created the terracotta quadriga with Jupiter, which was placed on the top of the roof. In the following years of the Roman republic the Temple was mostly shrouded in mystery. It was destroyed by a wild fire three times – in the years 83 BC, AD 69 and 80. However, it was always rebuilt, but with slight changes in the columns and its elevation. The final plundering began in the fifth century AD during the raid of Vandals who did not leave out any temple from their grasp. Afterwards, the Temple of Jupiter was forgotten and we posses no information or clue of what happened to the building during the Middle Ages. In the Renaissance, only remains of the podium were still visible, but in this very time started a new trend of interest in antiquity, which led, in the field of archaeology and topography, to search for the still surviving remains. These new excavations took place over the centuries until the recent years and still continue.

I decided to divide my work about the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus into the following five chapters: Ancient literary sources, History of studies and excavations, Archaeological context of the area Capitolina, Archaeological remains of the Temple and its hypothetical reconstruction in plan and elevation. In the first one I would like to outline the Temple‘s history since its origins in the sixth century BC to the sack of Rome by the Vandals, on the basis of the literary sources, mostly ancient historians, relying upon what they noted about the Temple and even upon what they saw themselves. The second chapter should focus on the information I collected about the studies and excavations made since the end of the Middle Ages until the present; followed by the one about the geomorphologic context of the area Capitolina, the Capitoline Hill and the presence of the possible surroundings. The archaeological remains will be the subject of penultimate chapter, mapping the excavation site, the materials used for the podium and the walls and resuming old and new discoveries.

The content of the last chapter is going to be an attempt to bring some light on the recent hypothetical reconstruction of the Temple and its elevation, supplemented with picture documentation.

1. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the An- cient Literary Sources1

The origins of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill are dated back to the times of the reigns of the Etruscan kings, Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus. Since then we can only rely on mentions by some ancient authors to gain knowledge on how the temple was built, its style, historical and other related events. In the literary tradition, if the elder version, which even concludes in Romulus or Numa Pompilius being the founders of the Capitoline Temple, is overlooked, the vow of constructing the temple was made by Tarquinius Priscus, when the king was fighting against Sabines2. He ruled since 616 BC and had great merits in urbanization works such as the construction of sewers for the drainage of the marshes and the recovery of the asso- ciated valley. In order to identify the locus dignior aptiorque3 for the construction site, Tarquinius Priscus finally decided which part of the Capitoline Hill‘s top he would use for laying the foundations. Historians report that in the intended area for the building already existed rit- ual shrines and altars. Most of them dated back to Sabine-Roman conflicts and had been dedicated by the Sabine king Titus Tatius and also by Numa4: as they had to be destroyed, there was a need to call for an exaugury5. The remains, related to the oldest cults that stood still untouched in the destined place, were: templum6, arae7, fana sacellaque deorum8.

1 All the passages are quoted in extenso at the end of the present chapter. For the collection of the ancient sources see Tagliamonte, Gianluca. Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, aedes, templum, (fino all‘83 a.C.). In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby. Vol. 3. Roma: Quasar, 1996.; Cifani, G., L’architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica, Roma: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider, 2008, p. 81-82. 2 Cic. Rep. 2.20.36 [infra, text no. 1]; Liv. 1.38.7 [infra, text no. 2] and 1.55.2 [infra, text no. 3]; D. H. 3.69.1 [infra, text no. 4] and 4.59.1 [infra, text no. 5]; Plut. Publ. 14.1 [infra, text no. 6]; Tac. Hist. 3.72 [infra, text no. 7]. 3 The translation could be ―a place that possessed dignity‖. 4 Varr. L. 5.74 [infra, text no. 8]. 5 From the Latin term exauguratio. It is the act of taking away from a place or thing the sacred character, which it had received by inauguration, consecration, or dedication. That such an act was 8

Livy writes that Tarquinius wanted to

build a temple of Jupiter on the Tarpeian Mount (the southern half of the Capitoline Hill) to stand as a memorial of his reign and his name ... and that the site might be free of all other religious claims, and belong wholly to Jupiter and his temple, which was being built there, he determined to annul the consecration of several fanes and shrines, which had been first vowed at the crisis of the battle against Romulus, and had afterwards been consecrated and inaugurated.9

The exaugury itself, performed by an augur of highest rank, Attus Navius10, took place soon after. But it is possible, as mentioned in some other sources, including Livy, that this action had been related to the next successor to the Etruscan throne in Rome, Tar- quinius Superbus. The sight of the collegium of augurs turned in the end to the sacred places of the remaining three of the deities (Iuventas11, Terminus12 and Mars), who with

performed by the augurs, and never without consulting the pleasure of the gods by augurium, is implied in the name itself (Liv. 1.55 [infra, text no. 1], cf. 5.54.69 [infra, text no. 9]; D. H. 3.69.3- 5 [infra, text no. 4]; Cato ap. Fest., sub voce Nequitum [infra, text no. 10]). No consecrated place whatever could be applied for any profane purpose, or dedicated to any other divinity than that to which it originally belonged, without being previously exaugurated (Smith, William, LLD. Wayte, William, Marindin, G. E. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: John Murray, 1890, sub voce). 6 Serv. Aen. 9.446 [infra, text no. 11]. 7 Var. L. 5.74 [infra, text no. 8]. 8 Livy 1.55.2 [infra, text no. 3]; Lact. Epit. 1.20.38 [infra, text no. 12]. The data of the literary sources on this point let us presume with some certainty that before the great temple of the late sixth century there was already on the Capitolium another temple dedicated to the same deity, although much smaller in size − perhaps it was just a sacellum (a small shrine) − that probably, according to the testimony of Macrobius, contained the three deities in the same single cell, as Juno and Minerva were only ―guests‖ of Jupiter. 9 Stamper W., John. The Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire. First edition. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2005, p. 11. 10 D. H.. 3.70.1 [infra, text no. 4]. 11 Equivalent of Greek Hebe, the goddess of youth: more precisely, she was the goddess of the youth wearing the toga virilis. Biondetti, Luisa. Dizionario di mitologia classica. Dèi, eroi, feste. Milano: Baldini&Castoldi 1997, sub voce. Ebe, p. 202. 12 One of the fourteen divinities introduced to Rome by Titus Tatius. He was the god who protected the boundaries. Biondetti, Luisa. Dizionario di mitologia classica. Dèi, eroi, feste, sub voce. Termine, p. 691-692. 9 the voices of their priests refused to move. Therefore these three places were embedded in the new temple of the Capitoline Triad. The altars of Terminus and Iuventas remained: the altar of Iuventas was in the place of the cella of Minerva, while the ones of Terminus and Mars, stayed unsheltered. On the other hand, by other sources could Tarquinius Priscus be evenly credited with the beginning of the massive work, which would have started in the last four years of his reign (582-578 BC, according to Varronian chronology13) and that would also involve the realization of an embankment surrounded by a large retaining wall (analemma, according to Dionysius of Halycarnassus)14, on which the foundations would be. The same monarch also commissioned the cult statue, representing Jupiter seated, the work by the coroplast Vulca of Veii. Miraculous events were narrated about the construction works: during the excavation of the foundations a human severed head (caput in Latin) was found and it was per- fectly preserved. It was interpreted as a prediction of the future greatness of Rome and after this important event the hill would have been named since then Capitolium. The construction of the temple was not resumed until the time of Tarquinius Pris- cus‘ relative, his son or grandson, Tarquinius Superbus. In the pressing situation of fi- nancing the work, he used the booty from the plundering of the Latin cities of Suessa, Pometia, Apiolae and others. For such a work the manpower would be recruited by the king not only in loco15, but also probably in Lazio region, as recorded by a late source on the use of a contingent of fabri coacti (―forced workers‖) from the town of Cora; and from Etruria as well, because of Etruscan artists‘ and artisans‘ specialization in decorative terracotta. The cost of the operation, funded ex manubis16, is quantified by the historian L. Calpurnius Piso in 40,000 talents in silver and, for another clarifying example, by Fabius Pictor in 400 talents equivalent to 40,000 pounds. The latter estimated quantification was preferred by Livy and later taken over by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and by Plutarch. The inauguration of the temple took place after the expulsion of the last king, by one of the republic‘s first consuls, Marcus Horatius Pulvillus17, favoured by a fortunate

13 D. H. 3.69.2 [infra, text no. 4]. 14 Ibidem. 15 Livy 1.56.1 [infra, text no. 13]. 16 Ex manubiis - meaning ―from proceeds of the spoils‖. A. Cornelius Gellius. Noctes Atticae : book XIII. Volume II of the Loeb Classical Library edition. 1927. p. 489. 17 Plb. 3.22.1, Livy 2.8.4-8 and 7.3.8 [infra, texts no. 14, 15, 16]. 10 chance instead of by his colleague, Valerius Publicola, on campaign against Veii. Reached by the news of his son‘s death and interrupted in the moment of holding the doorpost during the dedicatory prayer,18 Pulvillus nevertheless continued with the dedication of the temple of Jupiter till the task was done. The tradition is not univocal in determining the date of the dedication, but from canonical records it would have been most probably on 13th September 509 BC. According to a valuable record by Dionysius of Halicarnassus the temple was built on a podium and each side was circa 200 feet (60 meters) long: the perimeter, then, was of almost 800 feet, the difference between length and width being of only 15 feet. Further- more we are acquainted it had a triple row of columns on both sides and on the facade that faced south. The rear side was made with a popular technical solution called muro cieco – ―the blind wall‖. Inside there were three parallel cells under a unique roof, but separated by walls. The central one was dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the right one to Mi- nerva and the left one to Juno. In his classification of temples in five classes (pycnostyle, systyle, diastyle, araeostyle, eustyle), Vitruvius quotes the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in araeostylis19, that is among Tuscan temples characterized by widely spaced intercolumniations and looking always low and disproportionally large, with columns whose height was equal to eight times the diameter of their shafts. This feature did not allow using stone or marble architraves: instead, there were beams of wood above the columns. Reports made by several ancient authors suggest that − back in time of Tarquinius Priscus −, as already mentioned, the first Etruscan king commissioned to Vulca, a coroplast of Veii, a cult statue of Jupiter to be placed in the central cella of the temple. The image of the god was made in clay and was represented in a seated position; his right hand held a beam of lightning, for that is the main attribute of the god. The statue was covered with clothes and signs typical for Etruscan kingship: the toga picta worn over the tunica pal- mata20, a golden bulla, a crown, a sceptre, etc. Later, such insignia were worn by Roman

18 The dedication of temples was usually conducted by the supreme magistrate. He laid his hand on the doorpost, thus symbolically handing over the building to the god, whilst he recited after the Pontifex the dedicatory prayer. This touching with the hand was a symbolical act in all transfers of property, manumission of slaves, and consecration of sacrificial victims (Livy 2.8.7). 19 Vitr. 3.3.5 [infra, text. no. 17]. 20 The tunica palmata was an under-garment embroidered with figures of victory and palm branches. Over this was thrown the toga picta, a purple toga embroidered with gold. These were the 11 generals on the day of their triumph; on this occasion, as living images of Jupiter, they painted their own face in red, like the face of Jupiter‘s statue. The other two deities, Minerva and Juno, had probably also their own cult statues and altars, whose possible author could be Vulca of Veii. The pre-existing altar of Iuventas was assumed in the pronaos of Minerva and that of Terminus found its place in the cella of the goddess Juno. Tarquinius Superbus, moreover, commissioned to the artists of Veii another task, which was a magnificent quadriga in terracotta on which there was another representation of Jupiter (Fig. 1). The quadriga was placed as the central acroterion on the roof of the building. Referring to Pliny21, the author would be Vulca once more, but his work is dated, as mentioned above, to the time of the king Tarquinius Priscus. About this chariot existed a strange narration, recorded by Plutarch and other sources, that once it was formed and put to be cooked in a furnace in Veii, instead of loos- ing water, the chariot increased in volume so much that it split the oven that contained it. This miraculous event was interpreted by the priests who attended the haruspices as the omen of the future power of Rome and was supported by another one. It was told that when games took place then in the circus of Veii, its winner Ratumenna was thrown off his chariot, but his horses, instead of stopping, carried it by themselves to Rome to the very place of the Capitoline temple and proceeded around it three times as a ceremony of ad- miring the terracotta quadriga.22 The chariot in terracotta was replaced by a bronze one in 296 BC, due to the Ogul- nii brothers, who in that year got the office of aediles. The acroterial statue in clay of the god Summanus23, which stood there before, was struck by a lightning in 275 BC.

vestments of the Capitoline Jupiter, and were lent from the Capitol to be worn by the victorious general while he celebrated his triumph (Livy 10.7.9). 21 Plin. Nat. 35.45.9-11 [infra text no. 18]. None of these works is preserved but we can look for a similar example in the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia in Rome, where is on exhibition the statue of Apollo from the temple of Portonaccio in Veii, which belonged to Vulca‘s workshop. 22 Plin. Nat. 7.65.3 [infra text no. 19]. 23 Summanus was the god of nocturnal thunder, as counter posed to Jupiter, the god of diurnal (daylight) thunder. Cicero recounts that the clay statue of the god which stood on the roof of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was struck by a lightning bolt: its head was nowhere to be seen. The haruspices announced that it had been hurled into the River Tiber, where indeed it was found on the very spot indicated by them. 12

In the basement chambers, inside a marble container, were kept the libri Sibyllini, which Tarquinius Superbus purchased and from which a collegium of priests, whose numbers rose from two at the beginning to fifteen at the end (quindecemviri sacris faciundis), took advice in the times of pressing matters. In different underground rooms, located in the area Capitolina24, there were favisae25 containing votive offerings and ancient statues that had fallen from the temple roof and that, as sacred object, could not be destroyed.

Except for some sporadic mentions, we know very little of the history of the temple during the early centuries of the Republic. From 459 BC on, literary sources record a whole series of dedications (statues, golden crowns, spolia hostium, etc.) that Roman magistrates and victorious generals located in the Capitoline temple. Later, on the occasion of the Ludi Romani, every year since 366 BC a grand procession took place and started from the area Capitolina. The archaic temple seems to have survived almost unchanged up to the late-Repub- lican time, except for the mentions of partial changes, such as the paving of the cellae in opus scutulatum in 149 BC or the gilded bronze lining of the roof tiles. In 83 BC on July 6th a widespread fire destroyed completely the temple, whose reconstruction was begun by Sulla and was finished by Q. Lutatius Catulus, who rededicated the temple in 69 BC.26 In the second half of the first century BC further restorations were promoted by Caesar and Augustus. The late Republican temple, for reasons of religious conservatism, was rebuilt in the same size, plan and style of the previous one. Even the project of Q. Lutatius Catulus to lower the area surrounding the podium, in order to make the entire building slenderer and to extend the access of stairway, was prevented by the presence of the favisae. The Temple was destroyed a second time by a fire in AD 69, during the conflicts between Vitellian forces and the followers of Vespasian; the following reconstruction was curated by L. Iulius Vestinus; and a third time by another one in the AD 80.27 The structure‘s restoration was finished under Domitian in its original form, except for higher columns made of Pentelic marble and added coverings in gold worth 12,000 talents.

24 On the area Capitolina, see below, chapter 3. 25 For the meaning of the term favisae, see below, chapter 3, text and note 63. 26 Tac. Hist. 3.72.3 [infra text no. 7]. 27 Tac. Hist. 4.53.1-4 [infra text no. 21]. 13

The building, still admired for its splendour in the fourth century AD, received its last dedication in gold in AD 425 and in the sixth century AD the Temple of Jupiter Op- timus Maximus was still described as one of the greatest works in the world.

1.1 Anthology of ancient texts28

1. Cicero, On the Republic, 2.20.36: «And when he had driven the Sabines from the walls of the city, he scattered them with his horse and conquered them. It is he whom we under- stand to have instituted the great games, which we call Roman, and to have made vow during the Sabine war, while in battle, that he would raise a temple on the capitol to the great and good Jupiter». Translation by G.W. Featherstonhaugh. The Republic of Cicero, book II. New York: G. & C. Car- vill, 1829. After: http://www.archive.org/stream/republicofcicero00cicerich#page/94/mode/2up; last visit: 19.04.2012.

2. Livy, The History of Rome, 1.38.7: «Finally, with prophetic anticipation of the splendour which the place was one day to possess, he [scil.: Tarquinius Priscus] laid foundations for the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, which he had vowed in the Sabine war». Translation by Benjamin Oliver Foster. Livy. Books I and II With An English Translation. Cam- bridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press - London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3 Achapter%3D38; last visit: 05.04.2012.

3. Livy, The History of Rome, 1.55.1-6: «Having got possession of Gabii, Tarquinius [scil.: Superbus] made peace with the Aequian nation and renewed the treaty with the Etruscans. He next turned his attention to affairs in the city. Here his first concern was to build a temple of Jupiter on the Tarpeian Mount to stand as a memorial of his reign and of his name, testifying that of the two Tarquinii, both kings, the father had made the vow and the son had fulfilled it. [2] And that the site might be free from all other religious claims and belong wholly to Jupiter and his temple, which was building there, he determined to annul the consecration of several fanes and shrines which had been first vowed by King Tatius at the crisis of the battle against Romulus, and had afterwards been consecrated and inaugurated. [3] At the very time when he began this task the gods are said to have exerted their power to show the magnitude of this mighty empire. For whereas the birds permitted that the consecrations of all the other shrines should be rescinded, they refused their con- sent for the shrine of Terminus. [4] This omen and augury was thus construed: the fact that

28 If not differently indicated, the translation have been made by the Author of the present thesis. 15 the seat of Terminus was not moved, and that of all the gods he alone was not called away from the place consecrated to him, meant that the whole kingdom would be firm and stead- fast. [5] When this auspice of permanence had been received, there followed another prodigy foretelling the grandeur of their empire. A human head, its features intact, was found, so it is said, by the men who were digging for the foundations of the temple. [6] This appearance plainly foreshowed that here was to be the citadel of the empire and the head of the world, and such was the interpretation of the soothsayers, both those who were in the City and those who were called in from Etruria to consider the matter». Translation by Benjamin Oliver Foster. Livy. Books I and II With An English Translation. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press - London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3Achapt e%3D55; last visit: 05.04.2012.

4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities, 3.69.1-70.1: «This king also undertook to construct the temple to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, in fulfilment of the vow he had made to these gods in his last battle against the Sabines. Having, therefore, surrounded the hill on which he proposed to build the temple with high retaining walls in many places, since it required much preparation (for it was neither easy of access nor level, but steep, and terminated in a sharp peak), he filled in the space between the retaining walls and the summit with great quantities of earth and, by levelling it, made the place most suitable for receiving temples. [2] But he was prevented by death from laying the foundations of the temple; for he lived but four years after the end of the war. Many years later, however, Tarquinius, the second king after him, the one who was driven from the throne, laid the founds of this structure and built the greater part of it. Yet even he did not complete the work, but it was finished under the annual magistrates who were consuls in the third year after his expulsion. [3] It is fitting to relate also the incidents that preceded the building of it as they have been handed down by all the compilers of Roman history. When Tarquinius was preparing to build the temple he called the augurs together and ordered them first to consult the auspices concerning the site itself, in order to learn what place in the city was the most suitable to be consecrated and the most acceptable to the gods themselves; [4] and upon their indicating the hill that commands the Forum, which was then called the Tar- peian, but now the Capitoline Hill, he ordered them to consult the auspices once more and declare in what part of the hill the foundations must be laid. But this was not at all easy; for

16 there were upon the hill many altars both of the gods and of the lesser divinities not far apart from one another, which would have to be moved to some other place and the whole area given up to the sanctuary that was to be built to the gods. [5] The augurs thought proper to consult the auspices concerning each one of the altars that were erected there, and if the gods were willing to withdraw, then to move them elsewhere. The rest of the gods and lesser divinities, then, gave them leave to move their altars elsewhere, but Terminus and Juventas, although the augurs besought them with great earnestness and importunity, could not be prevailed on and refused to leave their places. Accordingly, their altars were included within the circuit of the temples, and one of them now stands in the vestibule of Minerva‘s shrine and the other in the shrine itself near the statue of the goddess. [6] From this circumstance the augurs concluded that no occasion would ever cause the removal of the boundaries of the Romans‘ city or impair its vigour; and both have proved true down to my day, which is already the twenty-fourth generation. 70. The most celebrated of the augurs, the one who changed the position of the altars and marked out the area for temple of Jupiter and in other things foretold the will of the gods to the people by his prophetic art, had for his common and first name Nevius, and for his family name Attius; and he is conceded to have been the most favoured by the gods of all the experts in his profession and to have gained the greatest reputation by it, having dis- played some extraordinary and incredible instances of his augural skill». Translation by Earnest Cary Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, Volume I, Books 1-2. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1939 (first edition). After: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/3D*.html#ref87; last visit: 05.04.2012.

5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities, 4.59.1: «After this achievement Tarquinius gave the people a respite from military expeditions and wars, and being desir- ous of performing the vows made by his grandfather, devoted himself to the building of the sanctuaries. For the elder Tarquinius, while he was engaged in an action during his last war with the Sabines, had made a vow to build temples to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva if he should gain the victory; and he had finished off the peak on which he proposed to erect the temples to these gods by means of retaining walls and high banks of earth, as I mentioned in the preceding Book; but he did not live long enough to complete the building of the temples». Translation by Earnest Cary. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, Volume II, Books 3-4. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1939 (first edition). After: 17 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/4C*.html; last visit: 05. 04. 2012.

6. Plutarch, The Life of Publicola, 14.1: «The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus had been vowed by Tarquin, the son of Demaratus, when he was at war with the Sabines, but it was actually built by Tarquinius Superbus, the son, or grandson, of him who vowed it. He did not, however, get so far as to consecrate it, but was driven out before it was quite com- pleted. Accordingly, now that it was completely finished and had received all the orna- ments that belonged to it, Publicola was ambitious to consecrate it». Translation by Bernadotte Perrin. Plutarch, Parallel lives: The Life of Publicola, Volume I. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1914. After: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Publicola*.html; last visit: 19.04.2012.

7. Tacitus, Histories, 3.72: «This was the most deplorable and disgraceful event that had happened to the Commonwealth of Rome since the foundation of the city; for now, as- sailed by no foreign enemy, with Heaven ready to be propitious, had our vices only allowed, the seat of Jupiter Supremely Good and Great, founded by our ancestors with sol- emn auspices to be the pledge of Empire, the seat, which neither Porsenna, when the city was surrendered, nor the Gauls, when it was captured, had been able to violate, was destroyed by the madness of our Emperors. Once before indeed during civil war the Capitol had been consumed by fire, but then only through the crime of individuals; now it was openly besieged, and openly set on fire. And what were the motives of this conflict? what the compensation for so great a disaster? was it for our country we were fighting? King Tarquinius Priscus had vowed its erection in his war with the Sabines, and had laid the foundations on a scale which suited the hopes of future greatness rather than what the yet moderate resources of Rome could achieve. After him, Servius Tullius, heartily assisted by the allies, and Tarquinius Superbus, employing the spoils of war from the conquered Suessa Pometia, raised the superstructure. But the glory of its completion was reserved for the days of liberty. After the expulsion of the Kings, Horatius Pulvillus, in his second consulate, dedicated it, a building so magnificent, that the vast wealth afterwards acquired by the people of Rome served to embellish rather than increase it. It was rebuilt on the same site, when, after an interval of 415 years, it was burnt to the ground in the consulate of Lucius Scipio and Caius Norbanus. Sulla, after his final triumph, undertook the charge of restoring it, but did not live to dedicate it, the one thing denied to his uniform good fortune.

The name of Lutatius Catulus, the dedicator, remained among all the vast erections of the Emperors, down to the days of Vitellius. This was the building that was now on fire». Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Sara Bryant. Complete Works of Tacitus. New York: Random House, Inc., 1873 (reprinted 1942). After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080%3Abook%3D3%3Achapt er%3D72; last visit: 19.04.2012.

8. Varro, On the Latin Language, 5.74: «There is scent of the speech of the Sabines about also the altars, which by the vow of king Tatius were dedicated at Rome: for, as the Annals tell, he vowed altars to Ops, Flora, Vediovis and Saturn, Sun, Moon, Vulcan and Sum- manus». Translation by Roland G. Kent. Varro, On the Latin language, Volume I, Books 5-7, London: Harvard University Press, 1938. After: http://archive.org/stream/onlatinlanguage01varruoft#page/70/mode/2up/search /Titus+Tatius; last visit: 19.04.2012.

9. Livy, The History of Rome, 5.54.69: « Here it was that whilst the Capitol was being cleared with augural rites, Juventas and Terminus, to the great delight of your fathers, would not allow themselves to be moved». Translated by Rev. Canon Roberts. Livy, The History of Rome. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+5+54&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999. 02.0026, last visit: 19.04.2012.

10. Cato ap. Fest., sub voce Nequitum: «And Cato, in the first book of his Origins: ―In that place there were many shrines: he performed their exaugury, with the exception of the shrine which was dedicated to Terminus: it was impossible to perform its exaugury».

11. Servius, Commentary to Vergil’s Aeneid 9.446: «In the city of Rome there was not a temple of Jupiter. And when Tarquinius Superbus decided to build the temple already vowed by Tarquinius Priscus, he began to take the auguries, about which hill was the most suitable for this temple. And, as in all of them the result was the Tarpeian Hill, where there were many shrines of different divinities, with sacrifices it was done so that the divinities were invited to other temples, an act by which [Tarquinius] was able to build freely the Temple of Jupiter, with no desecration. And, after that all the gods had kindly moved, only Terminus, that is the god of boundaries, did not want to go away, but remained there.

Then, sacrifices were performed about it and it was understood that, remaining Terminus together with Jupiter, it meant for the City endless power with religion. This is the reason why in the Capitolium the inclined portion, which faces towards the stone itself of Termi- nus, has no roof; in fact the sacrifices to Terminus were performed only in the open».

12. Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 1.20.38: «What shall I say of those who worship a rude and shapeless stone under the name of Terminus? This is he whom Saturn is said to have swallowed in the place of Jupiter; nor is the honour paid to him undeservedly. For when Tarquinius wished to build the Capitol, and there were the chapels of many gods on that spot, he consulted them by augury whether they would give way to Jupiter; and when the rest gave way, Terminus alone remained. From which circumstance the poet speaks of the immoveable stone of the Capitol. Now from this very fact how great is Jupiter found to be, to whom a stone did not give way, with this confidence, perhaps, because it had rescued him from the jaws of his father! Therefore, when the Capitol was built, an aperture was left in the roof above Terminus himself, that, since he had not given way, he might enjoy the free heaven». After: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07011.htm; last visit: 20.5.2012.

13. Livy, The History of Rome, 1.56.1: «Tarquin, intent upon finishing this temple, having sent for workmen from all parts of Etruria, employed on it not only the public money, but the manual labour of the people; and when this labour, by no means inconsiderable in itself, was added to their military service, still the people murmured less at their building the temples of the gods with their own hands; they were afterwards transferred to other works...» Translated by Benjamin Oliver Foster. Livy. Books I and II With An English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0151%3Abook%3D1%3 Achapter%3D56; last visit: 20.04.2012.

14. Polybius, Histories, 3.22.1: «The first treaty between Rome and Carthage was made in the year of Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius, the first Consuls appointed after the expulsion of the kings, by which men also the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was consecrated. This was twenty-eight years before the invasion of Greece by Xerxes».

Translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. Polybius. Histories. London - New York: Macmillan, 1889. Re- print: Bloomington, 1962. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plb.+3.22&fromdoc=Perseus %3Atext%3A1999.01.0234; last visit: 31.05.2012.

15. Livy, The History of Rome, 2.8: «The consul elected was Sp. Lucretius. [4] But he had not, owing to his great age, strength enough to discharge the duties of his office, and within a few days he died. M. Horatius Pulvillus was elected in his place. [5] In some ancient authors I find no mention of Lucretius, Horatius being named immediately after Brutus; as he did nothing of any note during his office, I suppose, his memory has perished. The temple of Jupiter on the Capitol had not yet been dedicated, and the consuls drew lots to decide which should dedicate it. [6] The lot fell to Horatius. Publicola set out for the Veientine war. His friends showed unseemly annoyance at the dedication of so il- lustrious a fane being assigned to Horatius, and tried every means of preventing it. [7] When all else failed, they tried to alarm the consul, whilst he was actually holding the door-post1 during the dedicatory prayer; by a wicked message that his son was dead, and he could not dedicate a temple while death was in his house. As to whether he disbelieved the message, or whether his conduct simply showed extraordinary self-control, there is no definite tradition, and it is not easy to decide from the records. [8] He only allowed the message to interrupt him so far that he gave orders for the body to be burnt; then, with his hand still on the door-post, he finished the prayer and dedicated the temple. These were the principal incidents at home and in the field during the first year after the expulsion of the royal family. [9] The consuls elected for the next year were P. Va- lerius, for the second time, and T. Lucretius. 1 The dedication of temples was usually conducted by the supreme magistrate. He laid his hand on the doorpost, thus symbolically handing over the building to the god, whilst he recited after the Pontifex the dedicatory prayer. This touching with the hand was a symbolical act in all transfers of property, manumission of slaves, and consecration of sacrificial victims. Translated by. Rev. Canon Roberts. Livy. History of Rome. New Yor:. E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+2+8&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.015 1; last visit: 31.05.2012.

16. Livy, The History of Rome, 7.3.8: «It was in accordance with this direction that the consul Horatius dedicated the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the year following

21 the expulsion of the kings; from the consuls the ceremony of fastening the nails29 passed to the Dictators, because they possessed greater authority. As the custom had been subsequently dropped, it was felt to be of sufficient importance to require the appointment of a Dictator». Translated by. Rev. Canon Roberts. Livy. History of Rome. New Yor:. E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+7+3+8&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0 026; last visit: 31.05.2012.

17. Vitruvius, On Architecture 3.3.5: «In araeostyles we cannot employ stone or marble for the architraves, but must have a series of wooden beams laid upon the columns. And moreover, in appearance these temples are clumsy-roofed, low, broad, and their pediments are adorned in the Tuscan fashion with statues of terra-cotta or gilt bronze: for example, near the Circus Maximus, the temple of Ceres and Pompey's temple of Hercules; also the temple on the Capitol». Translation by Morris Hicky Morgan. Vitruvius. The Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press - London: Humphrey Milford. 1914. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0073%3Abook%3D3%3 Achapter%3D3%3Asection%3D5; last visit: 19.04.2012.

18. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 35.45.9-11: «In addition to these particulars, he states that the art of modelling was anciently cultivated in Italy, Etruria in particular; and that Volcanius was summoned from Veii, and entrusted by Tarquinius Priscus with making the figure of Jupiter, which he intended to consecrate in the Capitol; that this Jupiter was made of clay, and that hence arose the custom of painting it with minium; and that the four-horse chariot, so often mentioned, upon the pediment of the temple, was made of clay as well». Translation by John Bostock and H.T. Riley. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. London: Taylor and Francis, 1855. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D35% 3Achapter%3D45; last visit: 19.04.2012.

29 There is an ancient instruction written in archaic letters which runs: Let him who is the praetor maximus fasten a nail on the Ides of September. This notice was fastened up on the right side of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, next to the chapel of Minerva. This nail is said to have marked the number of the year —written records being scarce in those days —and was for that reason placed under the protection of Minerva because she was the inventor of numbers. Cincius, a careful student of monuments of this kind, asserts that at Volsinii also nails were fastened in the temple of Nortia, an Etruscan goddess, to indicate the number of the year (Livy 7.3.8). 22

19. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 8.65.3: «...the horses ran to the Capitol, just as if he had been standing in the car, and went three times round the temple there. But what is the greatest prodigy of all, is the fact that the horses of Ratumenna came from Veii to Rome, with the palm branch and chaplet, he himself having fallen from his chariot, after having gained the victory; from which circumstance the Ratumennian gate derived its name». Translation by John Bostock and H.T. Riley. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. London: Taylor and Francis, 1855. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D8%3 Achapter%3D65; last visit: 19.04.2012.

20. Aulus Gellius, The Attic Nights, 2.10.3: «Id esse cellas quasdam et cisternas quae in area sub terra essent, ubi reponi solerent signa vetera quae ex eo templo collapsa essent, et alia quaedam religiosa e donis consecratis. Ac deinde eadem epistula negat quidem se in litteris invenisse cur ―favisae‖ dictae sint, sed Q. Valerium Soranum solitum dicere ait, quos ―thesauros‖ Graeco nomine appellaremus, priscos Latinos ―flavisas‖ dixisse, quod in eos non rude aes argentumque, sed flata signataque pecunia conderetur». Translated by John C. Rolfe. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. With An English Translation,.. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press - London, William Heinemann, Ltd., 1927. After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2007.01.0072:id=v1.p.151; last visit: 19.04.2012.

21. Tacitus, Histories, 4.53.1-4: «The work of rebuilding the Capitol was assigned by him to Lucius Vestinius, a man of the Equestrian order, who, however, for high character and reputation ranked among the nobles. The soothsayers whom he assembled directed that the remains of the old shrine should be removed to the marshes, and the new temple raised on the original site. The Gods, they said, forbade the old form to be changed. [...] Additional height was given to the structure; this was the only variation which religion would permit, and the one feature which had been thought wanting in the splendour of the old temple». Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Sara Bryant. Complete Works of Tacitus. New York: Random House, Inc. 1873 (reprinted 1942). After: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080%3Abook%3D4%3Achapt er%3D53; last visit: 19.04.2012.

2. The History of Studies and Excavations

The history of studies and excavations of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus is far from being completely written. After the start of its being looted and then with the main wave of Rome being sacked by the Vandals in AD 455 there follows a period of the Temple fading away from our sight: through the Middle Ages to the early Renaissance there was nothing to be seen. The first attempts of bringing some light on the remains appeared with the antiquarians of the fifteenth century in quest for recovering the ancient culture. But they provided only the square meters measures and drew the ground plan fit to the description of Dionysius of Halicarnassus30. Among them there were: Poggio Bracciolini, Pomponio Leto, Giovan Battista de Rossi, and others. The custom to follow Dionysius‘ work continued also next century. Some details were added: offerings, treaties and booty kept in the Temple; location on the site of the church of San Salvatore in Maximis. The famous I quattro libri dell’architettura by Andrea Palladio31 do not refer to any rest of remains because nothing of them was visible. In the second half of the sixteenth century an inevitable topographical intervention occurred. The Roman citizens bestowed to a certain Gian Pietro Caffarelli via Emperor Charles V, in 1538, a spacious part of the Capitoline area. The Caffarelli family decided then to build there a palace during the years 1576-1583, cover the rear part of the temple with the cellae and begin the structure‘s demolition including almost all that was left of the decorated marbles. This action caused only occasional revealing of fragments during the works in the palace. In the first third of the seventeenth century Alessandro Donati pointed out the sides of the decoration and especially that the Temple‘s surrounding was thickset with grand porticoes32. After the second half of the Century came out a mistake in the Latin translation

30 D. H. 4.61. 31 I quattro libri dell‘architettura di Andrea Palladio: ne’ quali, dopo un breve trattato de’ cinque ordini, & di quelli avertimenti, che sono più necesarij nel fabricare; si tratta delle Case Private, delle Vie, de i Ponti, delle Piazze, de i Xisti, & de’ Tempij. In Venetia, appresso Bartolomeo Carampello, 1616. 32 Donati, Alessandro. Roma vetus ac recens. Book 2. Rome, 1638. 24 of Dionysius by F. Nardini, that the Temple sides should be 200 x 185 feet and also tacked a plan with the suggested porticoes. In 1683 Raffaele Fabretti33 revealed some important discoveries concerning the substructures after that the Caffarellis had adjusted the ground level behind the palace. Its remains were interestingly illustrated in a picture in Fabretti‘s publication (Fig. 2). In this time of two great antiquarians, Fabretti and Bartoli, the ultimate location of the archaic building was finally known. Unfortunately, its parts that were not included in the palace remained exposed to further - even intended - damages. Almost a hundred years later the temple of Capitoline Jupiter was mentioned in the work Della Magnificenza ed architettura di Romani by the famous artist and architect Giovanni Battista Piranesi. He cites the description of the structure and related events following the classical ancient historians, such as the mentions about: aerostyla and the use of wooden architrave, lower and broader size of the building, acroterial statues of gilted bronze after the Tuscan fashion – as were the columns, none of them in any style of Greek origin, three cellae in the Temple, the pronaos with tripled columns, and double row of columns on the sides,...34 Later on, a mixture of judgements showed up. It related to the building not having any traces of existence. The location of the so called Arx35 was mistakenly put under

33 Fabretti, Raffaello. De columna Trajani syntagma. Rome, 1683. p. 78. 34 Piranesi, Giovanni Battista. Della Magnificenza Ed Architettura De’ Romani. Rome. 1761. p. 29. and 31: «.Ma già siamo giunti al monumento specifico della Romana magnificenza. È questo il tempio predetto di Giove Capitolino […]. È fondato su d‘un‘alta cima della circonferenza di otto jugeri; ed è largo dugento piedi incirca da ogni lato […] noi andiamo congetturando intoro all‘architettura di questo tempio quel che apertamente ci attesta Vitruvio […]: Negli aerostili non si debbono usare architravi di pietra […] ma […] travi di legno […]. Questi templi poi sono di aspetto bassi, gravi, umili e larghi; e I loro fastigi si adornano con figure di terra cotta o di bronzo dorato all‘uso Toscano […]. Dunque la forma di questo tempio descritta da Dionigi, cioè di una larghezza quasi uguale alla lunghezza, con tre celle, col pronao di tre ordini di colonne, e co‘ laterali di due, era degli aerostili, non alla Greca ma alla Toscana, e quella stessa che gli fu data da Tarquinio il Superbo, e che fu tale fino ai tempi di Vespasiano». 35 In antiquity, the Capitoline Hill was clearly divided in two heights, the Capitolium and the Arx, separated by a deep valley corresponding to the present Piazza del Campidoglio, where the level was about 8 meters below the present. The main buildings were oriented toward the Roman Forum, from which rose the road, the clivus Capitolinus, which led up to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, on the Capitolium. On the Arx there was, among other buildings, the Temple 25

Palazzo Caffarelli. Some parts of decorated cornice from a frieze were found in 1780 close to Via Montanara, as documented later by Rodolfo Lanciani, in north-west of the Temple. But their authenticity was, due to the distance, questioned. Another study was made by Alois Hirt36 at the turn of the nineteenth century. The main aim of his reconstruction was again to measure the Temple and determine its location, relying on the already mentioned ancient authors (Livy, Tacitus and Vitruvius). Hirt was aware that Dionysius described the Temple in the time of Sulla as the almost exact imitation of Tarquinius‘ one. But he made the temple a hybrid in the overall lay-out of the columns: the width of the intercolumniations was supposed to be over 7 meters, not 6, and he omitted the porticoes. Palazzo Caffarelli (Fig. 3) had been the Prussian embassy since 1816 and became the official residence of Germany in Rome. Thirteen years later it became the seat of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archaeologica (later Deutsches Archäologisches Institut). After the publishing of the last volume of the Beschreibung der Stadt Rom in 1830s, dealing with the Capitol37, a debate decided to point out the south-west area of the hill as the location of the late structure. Another remarkable find revealed a wrong translation of Dionysius‘ description: that there were not two rows of columns on the sides as assumed earlier but only one38. In the last volume it was also noted that under the walls of Palazzo Caffarelli during the process of reconstruction of the adjacent casa Marescotti in 1835 was brought to light a stairway to the three cellae. In the study Roma nell’anno 1838 (―Rome in the year 1838‖) by Antonio Nibby39 we got a still supported theory about the eastern peak location and a reference (not included in Dionysius‘ work) on the number of columns detected in the reproduction of the Temple on coins. The construction should be 185 Roman feet (over 56 meters) broad and

of Juno Moneta. See Giannelli, Giovanni. Arx. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby, vol. 1. Rome: Quasar, 1993. p. 127-129. 36 Hirt, Alois. Der Tempel des kapitolinischen Jupiter. Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften aus den Jahren 1812-1813, 1816. p. 18-39. 37 Platner, Ernst, et Alii. Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, III, Die sieben Hügel, der Pincio, das Marsfeld und Trastevere, 1. Abteilung, Capitol und Forum, Palatin, Aventin und Caelius nebst ihren Umgebungen, oder der Beschreibung 3. bis 7. Buch. Stuttgart - Tübingen: Cotta, 1837. 38 D. H. 4.61.4. 39 Nibby, Antonio. Roma nell'anno MDCCCXXXVIII, descritta da Antonio Nibby. (4 vols) Roma: Tipografia delle Belle Arti, 1838-1841: vol. 1. p. 558 26 the width of the intercolumniations within limits of 22 to 32 feet inwards. Bronze covered the wooden architraves and the materials of the columns were possibly tuff or Alban stone; the columns, following Vitruvius, had a height of 22 meters. In several works by the Italian archaeologist and architect Luigi Canina40, the location was once more discussed. The Arx was placed on the south summit, therefore the Temple obviously on the north. It could be seen from the Forum facing south. The church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli provided some new findings under its frontal section: here were the favisae which prevented the project of Catulus of lowering the ground close to the podium, to which I referred to in the previous chapter. Meanwhile along Canina‘s incorrect placement, as there were so many before him, finally the closest to reality was proposed in a publication (1843) by Wilhelm Becker41, stating: the structure was on the south-west summit, opposite the northern Arx. It could be testified by Tacitus, Dionysius, Livy, the route of the clivus Capitolinus. The style of the Temple was still wide and low. Drawings of the foundations of the Temple were made as early as the seventeenth century, but in 1865, for the acquisition by the Prussian state of the former Palazzo Caffarelli, the first reconstruction work on a large scale started throughout the complex. Documentation and enhancement of the excavations were entrusted to Pietro Rosa, while the survey was carried out by the architect Alois Hauser. In the garden of the palace were brought to light some of the tuff remains of the Temple structures facing south-west; it was the opposite corner of the still visible partitions. In the 1870s, with the proclamation of Rome as the capital of Italy and the multiplication of archaeological discoveries related to the urban renewal of the town, there was a growing interest in the Temple of Jupiter. For its position as Prussian embassy it received an attention in joining the German and Italian scholars, focusing on the numismatic evidence. On the earliest coins, by the republican minter Petillius Capitolinus, was the temple portrayed as hexastyle and its acroterion depicted Jupiter standing in a large quadriga, with eagles on the roof‘s corners.

40 Canina, Luigi. Esposizione storica e topografica del foro romano e sue adiacenze. Del Cav Luigi Canina, Consigliere della Commissione Generale d’Anrichità e Belle Arti. Edizione seconda, ampliata e corredata da XIV grandi tavole. Roma: dai tipi dello stesso Canina,Rome, 1845. p. 52. 41 Becker, Wilhelm Adolph. Die römische Topographie in Rom. Eine Warnung. Als Beilage zum ersten Theile seines Handbuch der römischer Alterthümer. Leipzig: Weidmann 1844, p. 41-44. 27

Rodolfo Lanciani, the famous Romanist archaeologist and art historian, known for his studies of the topography and monuments of the ancient Rome, published his first essay about the Temple in 187542, discussing the interpretation of the coinage finds, the plan and documentation. After the successful localization of the limits of the building on top of the Capitolium instead of on the Arx, the wrong orientation was corrected. That included the platea of the Temple found in via di Monte Caprino, close to the garden of the newly founded Museo dei Conservatori (1876). Lanciani presented a fragment of a fluted Pentelic column discovered in the same year‘s excavations which belonged to the Temple in the times of Emperor Domitian. The colossal marble drum of 2.1 m diameter suggested an intercolumniation of at least 9 meters. The study on this subject confirmed that the Temple had not undergone changes in size from the Archaic age to the Imperial time, except perhaps for the height. In his later notes Lanciani mentioned that the platform of the Etruscan base was 57.17 x 61.62 meters with intercolumniations as spacious as they required wooden architraves and later he added that the architraves were decorated. He described the temple as ―pure Etruscan, low and heavy.‖ The next year followed a study by Heinrich Jordan43 who presented the technical report of architect Ludwig Schupmann about the remains of the temple and the size and precise measurements of the fragment of Domitianic column recovered the previous year, assuming of its diameter not exceeding two meters at the lower scape. Schupmann‘s results were: foundations of 51 x 74 m, hexastyle type and intercolumniations 9.2 meters wide. In accordance with Dionysius‘ measures Jordan tried to compare them with the foundations and also to recalculate them in other feet metrics. This action met lately some angry responses from Otto Richter, who used Italian foot (0.278 m) instead of Jordan‘s Greek foot (0.308 m). Then he was addressed with a possibility that Dionysius thought of the temple as the reconstruction of his own time and used the Roman foot (0.296 m), most frequent in the first century BC. The debate about the size of the Temple and the adopted metric system will continue in subsequent years, fueling mostly autonomous researches.

42 Lanciani, Rodolfo. Tempio di Giove Ottimo Massimo. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, III, 1875. p. 165-189. 43 Jordan, Heinrich. Sul tempio di Jupiter Capitolinus. Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, XLVIII, 1876. p. 145-172. 28

Giuseppe Fiorelli, the general director of antiquities, found in 1878 a roof tile, coloured with white, red and black bands, significant for its Etruscan fashion44. In 1887, the first of classical dictionaries‘ article ‗Capitolium‘ noted45 that the columns of the original temple were really thick and enormously spaced. The reliefs found on the coins depicted particular reconstructions, differenced in the decoration of the pediment and acroterion. On a Domitian‘s coin there was for example a tetrastyle building which had taller columns than the previous ones. The original Temple was captured on Volteius‘ coins – a hexastyle of Tuscan order (fig. 4) On a record of 1888 due to Christian Hülsen46 who did some important work in the archives, we have knowledge of a drawing made by Antonio da Sangallo the Elder: a Corinthian cornice fragment which pointed out some technical aspects of the elevation, in particular the timber architrave (longer than 7 meters) which dated back to the Imperial era, the possibility of a marble cornice inside the cellae and a trabeation 3 m height. The temple was considered a hexastyle with an oversized intercolumniation of 9.2 m. But Hülsen focused rather on the design in Domitian‘s time than in the Tarquinians‘. Towards the end of the nineteenth century were discovered yet additional pieces of the complex: part of the platea and an archaic well on a new street to Monte Caprino, a corner of the substructures and two clay fragments (Fig. 5). The bigger picture of the building mapping was framed by the western side and south-western corner, the eastern side and south-eastern corner. In 1919, after Palazzo Caffarelli returned to the Italian state, as a consequence of the results of World War I, were launched a series of renovations of the entire block and were identified other remains of the temple (north-eastern corner), shortly after published in a brief form by Roberto Paribeni47. Then, between 1922 and 1923, the following renovation of the hill led to the discovery of the remaining features of the substructures of the Temple area.

44 Fiorelli, Giuseppe. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 1878, p. 235. 1878. P. 235. See also: Gjerstad, Ernst. Early Rome. Lund 1953-73, III, 1960. fig. 120.1. 45 Daremberg, Charles and Saglio, Edmund. Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines. 5 volumes, Paris, 1877-1919. p. 901-906. 46 Hülsen, Christian. Osservazioni sull‘architettura del tempio di Giove Capitolino. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, III, 1888. p. 150-155. 47 Paribeni, Roberto. Saggi di scavo nell‘area del tempio di Giove Ottimo Massimo sul Campidoglio. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 1921. p. 38-49. 29

In the 1930s the Museo Mussolini, later renamed Museo Nuovo, was expanded in the adjacent areas of the former Prussian embassy; new remains belonging to the podium of the Temple were identified, and, for the first time, were made available to the public thanks to their inclusion in the Museum. Most of the new excavations were in fact unpublished and reports made in those years were an observing prospection of the muro romano (―Roman wall‖) by architect Johannes Prip-Møller in 193648. Later on it was (definitely) stated that Dionysius described the first Temple, not the Sullan one, and used the Roman foot which gave the Temple the measures of 56.98 x 61.42 m. It was supposed to be hexastyle, a low and wide form of aerostylum. Essays of documentation were also carried out by Einar Gjerstad in 1959, when he discussed the Temple in the third volume of his Early Rome49 with a special attention to the north-east corner and the partition wall between the central and eastern cellae; soon after that was published an article by Tony Hackens50 that arose again the problem of the identification of the remains of the leveled area Capitolina, distinct from the podium, according to the archive documents. Gjerstad tried to create a detailed reconstruction but the evidence needed was little. He calculated for example these possibilities: the dividing walls in the cellae were made of tuff, as must have surely been the columns (height of 56 feet, 8 feet in diameter), and classically the architrave of wood. He suggested the use of Roman measurements that would make the Temple 180 x 210 feet. Limited and occasional surveys were subsequently carried out in Palazzo Caffarelli: particularly in 1974 at the partition known as ―Roman wall‖, before the renovation of the facilities, and in 1984, for the prospecting by the ACEA51, about the Salita delle tre Pile (―Slope of the Three Pillars‖), the later one with graphic illustration by the architect Giovanni Ioppolo.

48 Prip Møller, Johannes. On the wall of the Jupiter temple. Capitol. Acta archaeologica. VII, 1936. p. 75-80. 49 Gjerstad, Einar. Early Rome, III, Fortifications, domestic architecture, sanctuaries, stratigraphic excavations (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, 4°, XVII:3). Lund: Gleerup 1960. 50 Hackens, Tony. Capitolium vetus. Bulletin de l'Institut historique belge de Rome, 33, 1961, p. 69- 88. 51 ―Azienda Comunale Elettricità ed Acque‖. 30

The exhibition La grande Roma dei Tarquini (―The Great Rome of the Tarquins‖) took place in 1990: in the related catalogue52 the Temple was discussed following Vitruvius‘ canons and Dionysius‘ description of the Sullan building, which imitated the Tarquinian original to the point, except for the height53. As for the reconstructions, I quoted Ronald T. Ridley: ―The measurements vary considerably, and worst of all, so do the terms used: base, foundations, substructures, podium, platform. Nothing which has been preserved can be assigned with sureness to the parts of the building which would have been visible in antiquity.‖54 Finally, early in 1998 and in summer 2000 the ruins of the Temple were set out, under the archaeological supervision of the City of Rome, during the renovation of the Musei Capitolini. These surveys, carried out for the first time with the stratigraphic method, allowed the acquisition of important data on the phase antecedent to the Temple previously unknown in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori and perfected the plan (Fig. 6) of the Temple with surveys in the garden of Palazzo Caffarelli, identifying and also confirming the historical elements (Figs. 7, 8) dating to the Archaic Temple. The archaeological investigations carried out in 2002 within the Museo Nuovo, (formerly Museo Mussolini) concerning the building complex of the sixteenth century - Palazzo Caffarelli, could bring to light some areas of the foundations of the Temple, surfacing, where preserved, just beneath the pavement of the hall. This is partly known from the data of the previous excavations, partly from new results: in particular, they revealed the transverse partitions of the foundations, which were incorporated in the walls of the successive phase of the building.

52 La grande Roma dei Tarquini, ed. by M. Cristofani. Rome: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider, 1990. 53 Ibi, entry no. 3.7, Tempio di Giove Capitolino. p. 75-76. 54 Ridley, Ronald T. Unbridgeable Gaps. The Capitoline Temple at Rome. In Quaestiones Capitolinae (Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 106). Rome: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider. 2005. p. 83-104. 31

3. Archaeological context of the area Capitolina

Area, in Latin55, means a free space without buildings in front of or around a temple, or the building site of a temple. The term area Capitolina thus refers to the free space around the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as it was shaped through different phases, starting from the Late Archaic, and since the construction of its retaining walls and substructures. The retaining walls and the substructures of the Republican period ˗ we learn of extensions and new buildings in 388 BC56 and 189 BC57 ˗ were still admired in the Imperial period.58 The last major expansion took place apparently under Domitian in the area of the Tesoreria Comunale59, perhaps where the temple of Jupiter Custos was located60. From such area came to light from various excavations remains of large walls in capellaccio and Grotta Oscura tuff, some of which were surely remains of the retaining wall.61 Small residues of these retaining walls could be seen from the north side of the Jupiter temple or in position at the foot of the Capitoline Hill. The problem of the term area Capitolina is closely related to the problem of the meaning of the term Capitolium, which is repeatedly used as a synonym. Those buildings, monuments and statues which, according to the sources, were situated in Capitolio, cannot be located with certainty, but only with high probability on the southern hilltop, the area.

55 See a shrine built by Domitian on the Capitoline, on the site of the house of the porter who had rescued him when the Vitellians stormed the Capitol in 69 A.D., p. 154, sub voce: «a piece of level ground, a vacabt space esp.[ecially] in the town […] around [a building]». 56 Livy 6.4.12. 57 Livy 38.28.3. 58 Plin. Nat. 36.24.104. 59 Tac. Hist. 3.74.1-2. 60 A shrine to Jupiter Conservator was built by Domitian on the Capitolium, on the site of the house of the temple-keeper who had rescued him when the Vitellians stormed the Capitol in AD 69. After Domitian became emperor, he erected a large temple to Jupiter Custos which may have replaced the earlier shrine. Reusser, Christian. Iuppiter Conservator. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby, vol. 3. Roma: Quasar, 1996. p. 131. 61 Reusser, Christoph. Area Capitolina. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby, vol. 1, Rome: Quasar, 1993. p. 114. 32

Such situation also concerns the huge dossier of early Imperial military diplomas referring to buildings, monuments and statues ―in Capitolio‖.62 The size of the area has been differently judged in the research. Today, the prevailing hypothesis − against the former idea of a closed, high-walled, rectangular temenos − is that the area was the whole irregular surface around the large Temple, further enlarged by the retaining walls. The ancient building remains confirm this assumption: there are no evidences of an inner temenos; the well-known segments of foundations - and of walls are almost at the same level, about 46-47 meters above sea level (although an exact measurement is missing) and the 4-5 m high podium of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus is clearly different from it, as it is visible on the representation of the Temple, even if simplified, on the so-called ―Tiberius cup‖ (Fig. 9) from the hoard of Boscoreale. In the area Capitolina there were also the so-called favisae Capitolinae, underground, chambers carved in the rock, of which various were cut during the earlier excavations: «Servius Sulpicius, an authority on civil law and a man well versed in letters, wrote to Marcus Varro and asked him to explain the meaning of a term which was used in the records of the censors; the term in question was favisae Capitolinae. Varro wrote in reply that he recalled that Quintus Catulus, when in charge of the restoration of the Capitol [that he dedicated in 69 BC], had said that it had been his wish to lower the area Capitolina, in order that the ascent to the temple might have more steps and that the podium might be higher, to correspond with the elevation and size of the pediment; but that he had been unable to carry out his plan because the favisae had prevented it. These, he said, were certain underground chambers and cisterns in the area, in which it was the custom to store ancient statues that had fallen from the temple, and some other consecrated objects from among the votive offerings».63 The remains of the retaining walls and the buildings at the hill foot let us presume, that the boundaries of the area were determined by the shape of the hill, especially by the steep slopes. Its precise curve, which over time underwent various changes, can now be

62 Cf. below, chapter 4, note 1 (military diplomas being the sole evidence of the ara gentis Iuliae). 63 Gel. 2.10.3. After: The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. With An English Translation. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press - London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1927 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2007.01.0072:id=v1.p.151; last visit: 20.5.2012). 33 determined only approximately. The area has been described of about 1.5 - 2 hectares, of which 0.33 hectares were occupied by the podium of the great Temple. In the context of the area a geomorphologic analysis should not be forgotten. The Capitoline Hill is formed by a complex stratification and the foundations of the Temple cut some of its geological layers whose components were re-used for the construction. A deposit of gravel is documented between 0 - 12 meters above sea level, followed by a 10-meter range of clastic sediments that consisted of silt, clay and sands. These deposits were formed in the geological era when the Capitoline Hill was still underwater, with the water level around 12.78 m. At intervals of 20 and 25 m above sea level there was the well-known, extensive layer of granular gray tuff, specifically termed cappellaccio, visible on the eastern side of the Hill, near the present via della Consolazione. Among 25 and 35-38 meters above sea level has been detected a powerful deposit of lithoid red tuff (tufo lionato, Fig. 10), a result of the pyroclastic flow of the Alban Hills. This formation is more easily discernable on the Capitoline Hill, especially on its western slope, where the deposit‘s thickness reaches over 20 meters. And this is also the layer in which results the founding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Between 35 and 43 m above sea level there were clay deposits of waterway origin, coated with an artificial layer which had formed since early ages up to our days. This accu- mulation is particularly evident in the valley of the Asylum, where it reaches a thickness of more than 5 meters. A wall enclosed the area, against whose inner side, since the mid-2nd century BC, some porticoes leaned. Walls and porticoes are known from the sources: porticoes behind and besides the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.64 A stone wall with pilasters, entablature and fighting animal groups on the right side of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus is depicted on one of the reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 11) today in the Palazzo dei Conservatori: it may mean one of these porticoes. The muri quoted in two military diplomas65 probably indicated the enclosing wall. This also appears on the fragments of the Severan marble plan of Rome (housed in the Templum Pacis), assigned to the Capitolium: FUR 31 abc and 31 ii. Their visual representation is a stone wall with a

64 D. S. 34/35.28a; Tac. Hist. 3.71.4; Suet. Caes. 10.1 (quoted in Reusser, Christian, Area Capitolina, p. 115). 65 CIL XVI 20 and 26. 34 gate which is below the podium of the Temple of Jupiter on the ―Tiberius cup‖ from Boscoreale. The entrances to the area were protected by dogs at night; an aedituus (―temple keeper‖) is attested in the sources and in inscriptions. The discussion on the accesses to the area Capitolina could be made during the excavations at the time of Fascism and later topographical work to be clarified. The clivus Capitolinus, the most important access open to traffic, led by the Temple of Saturn, along a uniform slope, forming a gentle curve to the west, to a sharp flexure towards the front of the Temple of Jupiter in the area Capitolina. In the literary sources another access is mentioned: «the steps which are above the Arch of Calpurnius», where Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was killed in 133 BC, according to the Christian writer Paulus Orosius, who wrote in the late 4th and in the early 5th century AD. Unfortunately, their location is not clear for us today. Another access to the area, apparently only a stairway, located in the west of the hill, was discovered at the height of the Temple of Bellona.66 The excavations in the area of the Tesoreria Comunale brought to light the remains of a second paved Republican roadway from the Tabularium to the area Capitolina, which no longer existed in the Imperial period and whose name is not known. Of another access on the south-western edge of the forum Holitorium we have knowledge from the already quoted fragments 31 abc and 31 ii of the Severan Marble Plan. It shows a larger, double stairway with an arch, which leads to a walled free area in which there are two temples, until now not yet convincingly identified. In addition to the great Temple of Jupiter, were located in the area Capitolina a number of other sacred buildings, attested by Servius.67 From the sources we know of the temples of: Jupiter Feretrius, Fides, Mens, Venus Erucina (later Capitolina), Ops, Jupiter Tonans, Mars Ultor and Jupiter Custos (formerly Conservator). But the details of their appearance and exact location are far scanty. None of these sacred buildings - with the exception of the Temple of Fides – have any archaeological evidence so far. To these, that have no evidence we can add the altars and small sanctuaries of: Isis, Serapis, Anubis, Venus Victrix, Fortuna Primigenia, Jupiter

66 The identification of the structure with the Temple of Bellona was made in the 16th century: today, according to Filippo Coarelli, it could be, even hypothetically, identified with the porta Catularia (quoted in Reusser, Christian. Area Capitolina, p. 115). 67 Ad Aen. 2.319: «on the Capitolium, in fact, the statues of all the gods were worshipped» (the translation is mine). 35

Soter, Bellona etc. The ara gentis Iuliae, known only by surviving inscriptions,68 may perhaps be connected with the foundation in opus coementicium at the southeast corner of the Temple of Jupiter (Fig. 12). And alongside temples, shrines and porticoes, in the sources there are a number of secular buildings (archaeologically detectable) on the Capitolium: triumphal arches, the aedes Thensarum (the depository of sacred parade chariots), the aerarium militare, the aqua Marcia (prolonged to the Capitolium in 144-140 BC), the atrium publicum, a library, a temporary theatre with awnings against the sunshine and others. The archaeological remains (Fig. 13) in the area Capitolina, with the exception of the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus are, therefore, very scarce. The supply of the water was provided by deep well shafts, at various places − e.g. at the northeast corner of the Temple, at the foundation in opus coementicium before its southeast corner. During the construction of modern foundations was destroyed a large water channel in blocks of tuff, which ran in north-south direction. In the south-western half of the area there are just a few remains of structures. In addition to the well shafts, there was a segment of a wall of peperino blocks running parallel to the front of the Temple of Jupiter. Several excavations in the depth have shown that the Hill is mostly covered by these post-ancient layers of debris. The area Capitolina became, like the Roman Forum, the preferred site of a variety of foundations.69 Some literary and epigraphic sources refer to about thirty statues of gods (of which one third consisted of Jupiter statues), twenty-five portrait statues, ten groups of statues and five trophies (―memorials of victories‖) − surely only a small part of the once existing wealth. The earliest information on the Republican period is the dedication of the statue of Jupiter Imperator in 380 BC - a piece of loot from Praeneste - even if controversial in its authenticity. To the late 4th and early 3rd century BC belonged the first certainly attested statues of gods as well as portrait statues, and probably the group of the Kings with L.

68 See above, note 1. 69 Cf. Cic. Verr. 2 4.30.60: «Many kings, many free cities, many opulent and powerful private men, cherish intentions of ornamenting the Capitolium in such a way as the dignity of the Temple and the reputation of our empire requires». After: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge. London: George Bell & Sons, 1903 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopp er/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0018:text=Ver.:actio=2:book=4:section=68&highlight=many%2 Ckings; last visit 20.05.2012). 36

Iunius Brutus.70 In the mid-2nd century BC the area Capitolina was so overcrowded that some of the statues had to be removed by the censors, like in the Roman Forum. Numerous other Republican and Imperial votive offerings, such as inscribed tables, clipei, textiles, paintings, precious metals, metalworks, precious stones and many aureae coronae are mentioned in the sources.71 The most proud donors were Roman generals or magistrates, foreign rulers as well as ambassadors and since the time of Augustus also almost exclusively the imperial family. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (pronaos, cellae or immediate surroundings) was preferred in the establishment of votive offerings, especially statues, as the characteristics of the site show very clearly. The Augustan Age was a decisive point also in the history of the Capitolium (Fig. 14). Through the construction of another temple, extensive restorations, the programmatic removal of many of the older honorary statues, the dedications of some statues and a number of other votive gifts, the first princeps in charge gave the area Capitolina a new look, strongly oriented to the emperor and his family. Several inscriptions and literary sources attest that in the Republican and early Imperial period the transcripts of treaties and honorary resolutions were on display on the whole Capitolium. They were, in fact, under the protection of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, but also of Fides (―Loyalty‖), whose temples on the Capitolium were near each other. The sources repeatedly report damage or even destruction of bronze inscriptions on the Capitolium. In the fire of the Capitolium in 69 AD, 3000 bronze inscribed panels were allegedly destroyed. Under Vespasian they were collected again and newly inscribed at great expense.

70 Plin. Nat. 33.1.19 and 34.5.22 (quoted in Reusser, Christian. Area Capitolina, p. 117). 71 Collected in Reusser, Christian. Area Capitolina. p. 117. 37

4. The Archaeological Remains of the Temple

On the residential, fully developed area on the Capitolium in the Archaic age was constructed a monumental temple whose foundations occupied a quadrangle of about 3300 square meters in the north-west/south-east direction. Its remains are the testimony of Rome‘s Etruscan rulers, about whom we have only fragmented reports in the literary sources. The size of the building demanded a choice of the whole construction company (typical of the regime of tyranny), for whose ideological assumptions it can be only compared with the ruins of the great dipter temples in the cities of Asia Minor (the Didymaion at Miletus) or southern Italy and Sicily (the Temple G at Selinus, the Olympieion at Agrigento, the Archaic Heraion at Poseidonia). Their destination has always been, in spite of partial collapses and modern despoliation, a visible landscape mark for scholars looking for literary memories or interested in retrieving the technical skills of the ancient architects. Instead, the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, whose elevation was destroyed by thousands of years of spoliation, lost all its traces already in the Middle Ages, to the extent that even its exact location on the Capitoline Hill has long remained uncertain: for a long time, in fact, the notion of sacred buildings coincided with that of the whole Capitoline Hill, according to the vision of augurs that has influenced the identification of its perimeter. The archaeological remains found, especially on the front of the Temple − where a large cement building in a square shape is perhaps identifiable with the ara gentis Iuliae72 (altar of Gens Iulia) − show that in templum Iovis, or the area dedicated to the deity of the hill, there was not only the ancient sacred edifice built by the Tarquins to be found.

72 The ara gentis Iuliae - an altar on the Capitoline Hill, presumably not far from the Temple of Fides and from the Temple of Jupiter itself, as it can be deduced from the compared analysis of fourteen diplomata militaria of honourably discharged soldiers, belonging to the years between AD 68 and 79, fixed on the outer side of the ara, and the places of their displaying. See: La Rocca, Eugenio. Gens Iulia, ara. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby, vol. 2. Rome: Quasar, 1995. p. 369-370. 38

The foundations of the podium are partially embedded in the thick layer of red lithoid tuff (tufo lionato)73, at an altitude of around 37 m above sea level, as revealed by the excavation of the foundation pit (Fig. 15, width: about 3.8 m.) along the east/north edge of the Temple, in the so-called Giardino Romano (Fig. 16, "Roman Garden"). The foundations of the colossal temple were placed in trenches dug deeply into the ground to achieve the most solid tuff layers. The cut of the pit, initially running obliquely with an inclination towards the trench, in some places formed a stepped profile for future gradual declination that deepened the excavation; the deepest part of it coincided with the alignment of the outer blocks (Fig. 17). The lowest row of blocks, the first to be put in place, was inserted within the solid layer of massive red tuff deposit. As the foundations were put in place the pit was gradually filled with clay and blocks of cappellaccio, broken or chipped during the working phase74. The dimension of the accommodating area surrounding the temple should be about 45.5 m. above sea level, while the ground level of the Archaic period, observed in the first internal longitudinal partition from north (the so-called muro romano inside the Museo Nuovo Capitolino, Figs. 18, 19) can be calculated at about 50 m above sea level. Therefore, the height of the podium of the Archaic period was about 4.5 m (15 Roman feet), but it was increased between the turning point of the first centuries BC and AD to about 5.4 meters, by means of a layer of concrete, 3 feet thick, placed on top of the podium and still visible at the muro romano. These information of the remains were in boom between the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century when archaeologists started to discover the overall parts of the Temple including the base platea in the Caffarelli garden and two transverse partitions of the podium, perhaps limited to the foundation level, as it would seem from their absence starting from 45.5 m above sea level, on the east side of the muro romano. The massive material was ash-gray friable cappellaccio75 but used without cement which was not a typical technique of the Royal period.

73 Cifani, Gabriele. L’architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica. Rome: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider, 2008. p. 84. 74 The scarce and very fragmentary ceramic material found inside, along with the lack of any trace of containment works of the pit, give an idea of the speed of implementing the works, which must have involved numerous masons organized by a huge working company. 75 In Rome the first stone material to be used in architecture was that offered by the ground of the city itself: cappellaccio, a friable, granular, ash-gray tuff with a fairly fine grain. It remains to be 39

Other later findings in the same area, in particular the recognition of additional remains in the foundations area in front of via di Monte Caprino, occupying the Prussian Embassy, allowed to recognize the consistency of the Temple in its original size and proportions. The structures in blocks of cappellaccio lying under the Palazzo Caffarelli and its garden consisted, as it is known, of the walls, parallel to each other, all around the muro romano and intersected by transverse partitions, which have been removed, along with the valuable materials of which consisted the elevation, even many blocks that made up the rustic podium in the age of the Tarquins. Along the most distinctive architectural element, the muro romano, that was like a palimpsest of dispossessed bits and reusing of the entire building, there are the five highest rows, placed each at a slightly retracted position with respect to the underlying one and cut with a height of 40 cm instead of the usual 30-32 cm. Such unusual dimension could refer to a rising of the podium in a post-Archaic phase, probably late Republican76. However, some 40 cm high blocks are documented also in structures dated to the Archaic period (for example, the podium blocks of the Temple of Saturn): therefore, their presence alone cannot justify by itself a later date of the cappellaccio blocks remains. The temples of Pyrgi and Sant‘Omobono served as examples for the technique of laying of the blocks77: each row of blocks was alternated by a layer of earth, a technique which allowed to use the inside filling also as ground of the building site. In the north-east sector of the Temple, in fact, the filling against the rows of blocks contains layers of tuff splinters.

established whether the stone was quarried from the area inside the Archaic settlement district – perhaps on the slopes of Capitoline at the Lautumiae. Cappellaccio was the stone material mainly used in Roman architecture in the sixth and fifth centuries BC, to build the walls of the first phase of the Regia, the oldest segments of the Servian Walls, and the most important temple in Rome, that was dedicated to the triad formed by Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill. The high friability of cappellaccio and its tendency to flake soon led the Romans to use stone materials that were stabler and exhibited more aesthetic qualities. Even so, the use of cappellaccio was not abandoned; due to its high resistance to compression, it survived in the foundations until at least the second century BC. 76 Gjerstad, Einar. Early Rome, III, Fortifications, domestic architecture, sanctuaries, stratigraphic excavations (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, 4°, XVII:3). Lund: Gleerup 1960. p. 176. 77 Colonna, Giovanni. Milano: Electa, 1981. p. 46. 40

The front of the Temple of Jupiter is well attested by south-east corner, similar to the north-east corner, collapsed due to the breaking of underlying cavities, flanked by a well made of granular gray tuff slabs. Along the east side of the Temple another one is documented: this latter was dug in to the clay soil and lined with terracotta half-rings with some tuff and tile fragments. A series of reinforcements in opus caementicium with splinters of gray lithoid tuff and, rarely, of basalt, dating to late Republican and early Imperial age, were discovered parallel to the partitions of the foundations, particularly in the north-west area of the podium. To the same period seems to be dated a layer of cement with splinters of gray lithoid tuff, whose thickness is about 90 cm, detected on the top of the muro romano. The cement reinforcements seemed to be placed at the intersections of the dividing walls, and therefore can be explained with the laying of the plinths of the columns of the Temple.

4.1 Abstract of the catalogue of the remains

1) South-east corner of the podium of the temple in opus quadratum of granular gray tuff. 2) Segment of the south perimetral wall, oriented north-east/south-west. 3) Structure of travertine, probably of Imperial age. The structure was placed in corres- pondence with the connection of external eastern and southern walls and with a partition inside the podium. The shape is a square of 3.2 m per side and it consists of travertine blocks, 1.2 m wide. On the surface are sunk square holes, linked with the edge of the block through narrow, small channel into which it is likely that rods, fixed into the holes, had been secured with molten lead. 4) Segment of the longitudinal partition known as muro romano in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff, with restorations in opus caementicium. It is 3 Roman feet high (90 cm ca.). The five upper rows are 40 cm high; the others 29.7 (one Roman foot). 5) Segment of transverse partition wall discovered during the 1998-2000 excavations within the garden of Palazzo Caffarelli. 6) Segment of longitudinal wall in opus quadratum located in the inner garden of the Palazzo Caffarelli. 6a) Remains of walls in opus quadratum west of the previous wall. 7) Long segment of the perimetral wall of the Temple podium in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff (the blocks are 40 cm long), in the inner garden of the Palazzo Caffarelli. 41

8) Segment of a longitudinal wall in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff, brought to light from underneath the floor of the Museum in the excavations which took place in 1998- 2000. 8a) Short segment of a transversal wall which is perhaps related to the partition of the podium. 9) Segment of a longitudinal wall in opus quadratum from north-west to south-east, of which five rows in height are still visible. 10) Segment of a transversal wall in the area between the central cella and the eastern one. 11, 12) Two segments of longitudinal partitions found in the excavations 1997-2000. 13, 13a, 13b) Segments of a longitudinal wall in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff, oriented north-west/south-east, 3 m long, 2.5 m wide, about 3 m high; the altitude on the top of the wall is between 43.5 and 44 m above sea level. 14) Perimetral segment of the podium in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff, recently (2001) included in the exhibition of the Musei Capitolini. 14a) Reinforcement of the podium in opus caementicium (part of a larger structural intervention on the podium in the Imperial period). 15) North-east corner of the podium in opus quadratum in gray granular tuff, excavated in 1959. 16) Well lined by granular gray tuff slabs with a diameter of 1.5 m. Its remains are interrupted at - 11 m by the appearance of modern underground rooms. In its inner filling were found, as well as numerous fragments of tuff, also a part of a clay statuette and a fragment of architectonical terracotta with a vertical strigil pattern. 17) Segment of the foundation pit of the podium of the Temple; up to 3.8 m wide and up to 4.5 m deep. Found during the 1997-2000 excavation. 18) Well made of semicircular clay shaft rings strengthened with tuff splinters. From the filling of the well, only partially excavated, comes a piece of slab of phase I, with a procession of chariots type Veii-Rome-Velletri. 19) Segments of wall in opus quadratum, related to the substructures of the temple in the rosso lionato tuff layer. 20) Section of a longitudinal wall in gray granular tuff, 4.85 m thick, placed in the central position as to the short side of the podium, outside of it. 21) Segment of the north perimetral wall of the podium.

22) Segment of a longitudinal wall in opus quadratum found during the ACEA prospections in the Salita delle Tre Pile (11.3 m long, 4 m wide, 1.92 m high; top altitude: 42.30 m above sea level). 22a) Segment of a wall reported by H. Jordan as found in 1878. 23) Segment of a wall on the north-west slope of the Capitoline Hill, in the area below the Piazzale di Villa Caffarelli. 23a) Segment of wall reported by H. Jordan as found in 1876.

5. The Hypothetical Reconstruction and Elevation of the Temple

Some light on the Temple reconstruction (fig. 20, 21, 22) subject appeared in the 1950s as part of a broader discussion about the Tuscan and the Etruscan-Italic order elaborated by the Swedish archaeologist Einar Gjerstad with the help of the architect Borje Blome. The reconstruction model of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was published in the third volume of his Early Rome: Fortifications, domestic architecture, sanctuaries, stratigraphic excavations.78 As usual, a critic partly devoted to the dimensional followed - the height hypothesized for the columns was more suitable for the Late Republican period then for the Archaic, as Axel Boëthius argued. Gjerstad reaffirmed his statement, highlighting on one side the unavoidable approximation of the measurements; on the other side that the reconstruction was based on proper Vitruvian canons and comparisons with similar Greek temple architectures still surviving. Also, for the first time, a hypothesis was put forward: that the remains of the known Temple had to be referred, instead, to a platea on which the Temple, consistently smaller, stood, on the basis of the reconstruction of the Late Archaic complex of Sant‘Omobono. Such statement gave origin to the doubts of H. Riemann and Ferdinando Castagnoli about the excessive proportions of the reconstruction. From the recent excavations in the Giardino Romano of Palazzo Caffarelli we know that these doubts were superseded. Yet, later in 1982, such doubts were questioned again: in particular, some technical difficulties in Gjerstad‘s model were stressed; and the improbability of the presence of wooden columns was pointed out. On the other hand the platea theory prevented its supporters from verifying the actual static problems; and even from taking into consideration the documentation offered by the coeval Etruscan, Latin and Greek temple architecture. The reconstruction of the 1960s, in fact, was based on the knowledge of the sole perimetral walls, and on the assumption of the lack of a reticulate of walls inside the podium. What we know today as the perimetral walls were then considered more suitable

78 Gjerstad, Einar. Early Rome, III, Fortifications, domestic architecture, sanctuaries, stratigraphic excavations (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, 4°, XVII:3). Lund: Gleerup 1960. 44 for the foundations of a cella rather than of a podium. However, the new excavations have identified two transversal walls79, which created a reticulate of walls, exactly that type of structure which Ferdinando Castagnoli had considered essential to the definition of a temple podium instead of a platea. So the monumental structure of approximately 3,300 square meters possessed a reticulate of walls made in opus quadratum, wide up to 6.9 meters and deep up to 12 meters, with the slightest evidence of the top of the temple of reduced or at least ordinary size built there. At this point it is clear that the remains still visible in Palazzo Caffarelli, cannot belong but to the podium of the Temple. Such plan provides precious indirect elements for understanding the main aspects of the elevation of the building, which cannot be left out of the overall debate about the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. There are four longitudinal walls about 3.85 m wide and two transversal walls ca. 4.5 m wide, forming a network of foundation walls, linked to a perimetral wall ca. 6.9 m wide. About such network of foundation walls, the Temple of the Dioscuri in Rome and the Temple A at Pyrgi, both of the first half of the fifth century BC, can provide some similar technical aspects. The long sides of the building are about 62 m long, while the minor is 53 meters, and corresponds to the front of the building. An approximation of about 1% must be taken into account, due to the inevitable distortions and to the degree of error present in any cartographic reproduction caused by some surface irregularities of the foundations, affecting the measures which may be added by a deviation in the length from 0.25 to 0.5 m. The size of the podium is therefore only approximately reconstructed (in default) as Gabriele Cifani80 stated in his publication: Length: 62 m; Width: 53 m; Perimeter: 230 m; Total area: 3286 sq. m;

79 Cf. above, chapter 4, nos. 8a and 10. 80 Cifani, Giovanni, L’architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica. Roma: L‘Erma di Bretschneider, 2008. p. 105. 45

Height of the foundations: about 7.5 m (stated through the work in the Giardino Romano); Height of the elevation of the podium (detectable on the muro romano): 4.5 m; Thickness of the reinforced concrete (detectable on the muro romano): 0.9 m; Average height of the podium, including the foundations: 12 m.

The finally confirmed wooden entablatures were part of the araeostyle temple, like the wide intercolumniations. The six longitudinal walls suggest a hexastyle and araeostyle front, with an interaxis of 8.40 to 8.80 m on the sides and 12.68 m in the centre. The beams covering the central intercolumniation could be realized entirely with trunks of fir, chestnut, beech or pine. All these trees were widely present in the forests of Central Italy along the Tyrrhenian Sea. The hypothesized columns should have − on the basis of the thickness of the foundations − a diameter of 2.1 m at the lower scape and could be made of (eventually stuccoed) lithoid tuff. For a comparison we can consider some Late Archaic temples: B and A of Pyrgi (Fig. 23), Veii-Portonaccio (Fig. 24), Orvieto-Belvedere (Fig. 25), Vulci (Fig. 26) or, in the Greek world, the Artemision of Ephesus, whose columns had a 2-meter diameter at the lower scape and 1.5 m at the upper scape. Such columns, along a front of 55.10 m, supported wooden entablatures covering interaxes of 8.5 m. The actual diameter of 2.1 m at the lower scape suggests a more or less similar diameter at the upper scape, which could offer a space for even more timber beams in position side by side or overlapped, with a thickness of about 1-2 Roman feet. The presence of three adjacent cellae in the rear section of the temple (pars postica) appears today doubtless, thanks to the planimetry of the podium, and in turn leads to the presence of a colonnade on each of the two sides of the perimetral wall. The comparison with Etruscan and Roman temples of the Archaic period suggests the presence of extension of the walls forming antae, with a pronaos for each cella, of an overall depth not bigger than the half of the temple podium length. The excavation of the entrance stairway, located on the south-eastern side and known from ancient sources such as Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, allows a reconstruction of 15 or 16 steps, each one foot high. This total number was sufficient to overcome the difference in height, between the ground level and the podium, of 4.5 m (documented from the level of the foundation pit, and in comparison with the two wells).

On the hypothetical elevation (Fig. 27) of the Temple in the Archaic period may bring some light occasional finds of decoration parts, architectonical terracotta remains or bits of roof tiles. Due to the width of the area in which many pieces are spread, it is difficult to make right attributions to the Temple: for example a large eaves tile with a painted meander band preserved in the Antiquarium Comunale, as shown by recent archive investigations, was found in 1883 on the Esquiline covering an infant grave (suggrundium) in a lot southeast of Piazza Vittorio Emanuele and confused in the first publication with a group of smaller decorative terracottas, actually discovered in via di Monte Tarpeo. The debate remains open on the type of roofing, whether it was pitched or looking like a turtle shell, as proposed by Arvid Andrén and Giovanni Colonna: the data of excavation were not enough to add information about it. In a technical comparison it should be mentioned that the recovery of tegulae conciliares (―gutter tiles‖)81 from the late Archaic house with impluvium at Roselle, and from Aqua Acetosa Laurentina and Gonfienti too, can corroborate the hypothesis about the development, as early as the sixth century BC, of three-pitched roofs like those imagined for the temple at Ardea and that of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. Moreover, we must remember the attestation in Greece of at least two early Archaic temples with a three-pitched roof: the Temple of Apollo at Thermon in Aetolia, dated to 630-620 BC, and the Temple of Hera at Corcyra (Mon Repos) dated to 610 BC. For the reconstruction of the decoration of the Archaic Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, according to literary and numismatic sources, in particular to a denarius of M. Volteius issued in 78 BC − which, according to a well-attested convention of Roman art, depicts schematically and with four columns instead of six the building at that time undergoing a radical reconstruction after the fire in 83 BC − it is very likely the presence of a quadriga in terracotta or bronze on the fastigium and a series of terracotta ornamental volutes on the tympanum, comparable to those documented for the Archaic Temple of Sant‘Omobono; and a cornice along the sides of the podium.

81 See Cato Agr. 1.14.4: «The price of this work from an honest owner, who furnishes duly all necessary materials and pays conscientiously, one sesterce3 per tile. The roof will be reckoned as follows: on the basis of a whole tile, one which is one-fourth broken is counted two for one; all gutter tiles are counted each as two; and all joint-tiles each as four». 47

Important evidences for the reconstruction offer also the late Republican and Imperial phases, when the podium, as already mentioned, was restored and raised on the top with a cement layer about 3 Roman feet high. Fragments of decorated marble cornice (Fig. 28), seen in the Renaissance in the area of Palazzo Caffarelli, can be referred with certainty to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and in particular to the decoration of the cellae, while the beams of the pronaos, as in the Archaic phase, were in wood, possibly covered with bronze sheets.

Conclusions

The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus as it was built in the Archaic phase, provides perhaps too wide a scope for fantasy in imagining the whole superstructure, without any exact description. Despite such fact, the Tarquinians‘ Temple − which in its nonesuch extensive measures was beyond comparison with any other in the whole ancient Italy − can still give us answers from both a variety of literal sources and archaeological documentation. According to the ancient historians, the first mentions related to the inaugurator of the Temple, Tarquinius Priscus, are in connection with the war against the Sabines. On this event we have numerous records by different authors, both Roman and Greek, of the first century BC: Cicero, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tacitus. Similar is the evidence for the special sacral action of exaugury of the remains of altars a and shrine of the Sabine times, to which referred Cato, Dionysius and Livy, who also mentioned the possibility of a preceding sacred area (dedicated to Terminus), in the same place as Jupiter‘s. Then much attention to king Tarquinius Priscus is given, due to his credits to the city of Rome and its people. After his expulsion, the dedication was undertaken by the consul Pulvillus and on this occasion Livy acquainted us about the dedicatory prayer at the Temple doorstep. There are, moreover, mentions about the belonging of the Temple of Jupiter to the araeostyla templa (by Vitruvius, who wrote about its measures and gave us the Sullan building description); the specific look of the cult statue of Jupiter; the quadriga and its artist Vulca of Veii (referred to by Pliny the Elder); the area Capitolina and the Temple disused artefacts stored in the underground favisae. During the Republican period the notes are scanty. So the Temple fragmentary history and its features are therefore due to the above mentioned ancient authors . After that, the Temple of Jupiter had disappeared from the sight till the Renaissance, in this latter period started the movement of interest in the Temple − and in antiquity in general. The most trusted source was Dionysius‘ work, which was further followed and upgraded.

The new situation, nonetheless, made the documentation difficult, because in the very place of the Temple in the sixteenth century was built Palazzo Caffarelli, that covered a large part of the remains. At the end of the seventeenth century the ―final‖ location of the Temple was discovered, but the remains outside the palace stayed unprotected from the ravages of time. Almost a century later, Giovanni Battista Piranesi followed in his work the commonest descriptions of the building by the ancient historians. Among its feature, there was the frequently questioned use of wooden entablatures in the architraves between the columns, as well as the dimensions of the intercolumniations. The Temple was supposed to be lower and broader than usual. It should have acroterial statues in gilded bronze, three cellae in the inside, a triple row of columns in the pronaos and two rows of columns on the sides, which statement was wrong, as it had only one row of columns on both sides. The quest for the right location continued until the twentieth century. The study by Alois Hirt still followed Dionysius‘ description of the Sullan temple even if he attempted to the reconstruction of the Archaic one, because it remained almost the same in its proportions as the Archaic original, except for few changes, mainly in elevation. Yet his suggested intercolumniation - 6 meters wide - were wrong: they should have been about 8 m wide. From the discovery of the drawing by Sangallo the Elder we gained the knowledge of a fragment of cornice which is related to the wooden architrave of the front of the Temple, whose length is more than 7 meters. The intercolumniation in the front was at that time hypothesized of 9.2 m and the Temple as a hexastyle. Later Gjerstad tried to create a reconstruction and, in Roman unit of length the Temple measured 180 x 210 feet. The surveys that took place in 1998 and 2000 in the garden of Palazzo Caffarelli brought new data about the plan of the Archaic temple. Then in 2002 within the Museo Nuovo were discovered the transverse partitions of the foundations, so that the basic outline of the Temple came finally to light. In the third chapter I dealt with the area Capitolina – the free space around the Temple of Jupiter. It contained the suggested substructures and here retaining walls were constructed, which further enlarged the whole area. However we have a lack of any evidence about the possible existence of a rectangular temenos.

The podium of the Temple occupies about 17% of the 2 hectares area. It was 4-5 m high. The area was enclosed by a wall with porticoes, likely close to the building. The Capitoline Hill is composed of a complex stratification of layers. From 0 to 43 meters above sea level can be found: gravel, clastic sediments, granular gray tuff or cappellaccio, lithoid red tuff or tufo lionato, and clay deposits. All around the Temple there were numerous small temples, shrines and secular buildings. Close to it were also wells for water supply. To the grand structure belonged first attested statues of gods, portrait statues, countless offerings, such as textiles, paintings, clipei, aureae coronae, etc. During the Augustan age many of such items were removed or replaced. In the next part I focused on the archaeological remains. The Temple‘s foundations measure about 3300 square meters and were constructed in the north-west/south-east direction (front at south-east). They were found in the foundation pit, which revealed that they were embedded in the lithoid red tuff layer at an altitude of about 37 m above sea level. The podium was made of ash-gray cappellaccio and its original height of 4.5 m increased in the turn of the first centuries to 5.4 m. The walls underlying Palazzo Caffarelli were made of blocks of cappellaccio, parallel to each other and to the muro romano (made of useless remnants), and intersected by transverse partitions, which were removed at an unknown moment. Along the muro romano there were the five highest rows of block, 40 cm high, placed in a slightly retracted position. Around the Temple a series of reinforcements in opus quadratum was added in the later centuries. In the final chapter I gave some information about the hypothesized reconstruction of plan and elevation. These subjects were mostly handled by Einar Gjerstad. It was stated that the only possible comparison was the late Archaic complex of Sant‘Omobono. Instead, we must have also in our mind the consideration of the documentation by the coeval Etruscan, Latin and Greek temple architecture. Moreover this reconstruction of 1960s could not yet rely upon the knowledge of the perimetral walls and the reticulate of transversal and longitudinal walls known from the recent excavations. It was made in opus quadratum, 6.9 meters wide and 12 meters deep.

Only at this point it was finally obvious that such remains under Palazzo Caffarelli belonged to the podium of the Temple. These were four longitudinal walls lying under the two transversal walls (with the width of 3.85 m and 4.5 m). Together they created a network of foundation walls connected with the perimetral wall (3.6 m wide). The size of the podium, therefore, is 53 x 62 meters with 230 meters in perimeter. The columns had a diameter of possibly 2.1 m at the lower scape and not much different at the upper scape; they were made of lithoid tuff and very likely stuccoed. The question about the elevation is still opened. There was found only one preserved roof tile with questionable connection to the Temple. There are two possibilities for the roofing: a (three) pitched roof or a turtle shell-like roof. The most valuable depiction of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be found on an underestimated numismatic source – a denarius of M. Volteius dated to 78 BC, just five years after the destruction of the Temple by a fire. On the coin the Temple has four columns instead of six and the great bronze or terracotta quadriga is presented with a series of ornamental volutes on the tympanum.

Summary

The work deals with one of the most famous Etruscan temples, built in the city of Rome at the times of the Etruscan monarchy: the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus. Its construction was stated by L. Tarquinius Priscus, who began the building works in the last four years of his reign (583-579 BC), in the so-called area Capitolina, where older cultic structures (such as buildings and altars) had already been founded by the preceding kings of Rome. The building was carried out by L. Tarquinius Superbus, who called coroplasts from Etruria (among whom the literary sources quote the celebrated Vulca of Veii) for its decoration. The temple, inaugurated in the first year of the Republic, 509 BC, survived in its archaic look with no major alterations until the Late Republic, when, in 83 BC, it was destroyed by a fire.

Shrnutí

Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá jedním z nejznámějších etruských chrámů, který byl postaven v Římě v době vlády etruských králů: chrámem Jupitera Optima Maxima Kapitolského. Jeho konstrukce byla zahájena L. Tarquiniem Priscem, jenž započal stavební práce v posledních čtyřech letech své vlády (583-579 př. n. l.) v tzv. area Capitolina, v níž se již v předchozí době nacházely kultovní stavby a oltáře, založené předešlými etruskými monarchy. Stavba byla dokončena L. Tarquiniem Superbem, jenž pro její výzdobu povolal umělce z Etrurie (mezi nimiž, podle literárních zdrojů, byl i věhlasný Vulca z Vejí). Chrám byl inaugurován až v roce 509 př. n. l, tj. v prvním roce nově vytvořené republiky. Svůj původní vzhled si zachoval až do pozdní republiky, kdy byl v roce 83 př. n. l. zničen velkým požárem.

Bibliography

For the abbreviations of the names of the ancient writers and of the titles of their works see: Liddell, H. P. G., Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. by H.S. Jones and R. McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940 (ninth edition). With a Supplement, ed. by E. A. Barber. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, str. XVI-XXXVIII. and Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. by P. G. W. Glare (combined edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, str. IX-XX; integrated with Lewis, Ch. T., Short, Ch. Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879, str. VI-XI.

Becker, Wilhelm Adolph. Die römische Topographie in Rom. Eine Warnung. Als Beilage zum ersten Theile seines Handbuch der römischer Alterthümer. Leipzig: Weidmann 1844. 59 pages.

Biondetti, Luisa. Dizionario di mitologia classica. Dèi, eroi, feste. Milano: Baldini&Castoldi 1997. 830 pages. ISBN 8880903009.

Canina, Luigi. Esposizione storica e topografica del foro romano e sue adiacenze. Del Cav Luigi Canina, Consigliere della Commissione Generale d’Anrichità e Belle Arti. Edizione seconda, ampliata e corredata da XIV grandi tavole. Roma: dai tipi dello stesso Canina, 1845.

Cifani, G., L’architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica, Roma: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider, 2008. 404 pages. ISBN 9788882654443.

Colonna, Giovanni. Santuari d’Etruria. Milano: Electa, 1981. 204 pages. ISBN 8843511610.

Daremberg, Charles and Saglio, Edmund. Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, d’après les textes et le monuments […]. 5 volumes. Paris, 1877-1919.

Donati, Alessandro. Roma vetus ac recens utriusque aedificiis illustrata. Book 2. Romae: Ex typographia Manelphi Manelphii, 1638.

Fabretti, Raffaello. De columna Trajani syntagma […]. Romae : Tinassi, 1683.

Fiorelli, Giuseppe. In Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 1878.

Giannelli, Giovanni. Arx. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby, vol. 1. Rome: Quasar, 1993, p. 127-129. 512 pages. ISBN 88-7097-019-1.

Gjerstad, Einar. Early Rome, III, Fortifications, domestic architecture, sanctuaries, stratigraphic excavations (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, 4°, XVII:3). Lund: Gleerup 1960. 487 pages.

Hackens, Tony. Capitolium vetus. Bulletin de l'Institut historique belge de Rome, 33, 1961, p. 69-88.

Hirt, Alois. Der Tempel des kapitolinischen Jupiter. Abhandlungen der historisch- philologischen Klasse der Königliche Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften aus den Jahren 1812-1813. Berlin, 1816, p. 18-39.

Hülsen, Christian. Osservazioni sull‘architettura del tempio di Giove Capitolino. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, III, 1888, p. 150-155.

Jordan, Heinrich. Sul tempio di Jupiter Capitolinus. Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, XLVIII, 1876, p. 145-172.

La grande Roma dei Tarquini, ed. by M. Cristofani. Catalogue of the exhibition (Rome, 1990). Rome: ―L‘Erma‖ di Bretschneider, 1990. 294 pages; ISBN: 8870626849.

La Rocca, Eugenio. Gens Iulia, ara. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby. Vol. 2. Rome: Quasar, 1995. 500 pages. ISBN 8871400739.

Lanciani, Rodolfo. Tempio di Giove Ottimo Massimo. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, III, 1875, p. 165-189.

Le antiche metropoli del Lazio, ed. by M. Torelli and A. M. Moretti Sgubini. Catalogue of the exhibition (Rome, 2008-2009). Milano: Electa. 294 pages. ISBN 978-88-370-6620-8.

Nibby, Antonio. Roma nell’anno MDCCCXXXVIII, descritta da Antonio Nibby. 4 vols Roma: Tipografia delle Belle Arti, 1838-1841.

Palladio, Andrea. I quattro libri dell‘architettura di Andrea Palladio: ne’ quali, dopo un breve trattato de’ cinque ordini, & di quelli avertimenti, che sono più necesarij nel fabricare; si tratta delle Case Private, delle Vie, de i Ponti, delle Piazze, de i Xisti, & de’ Tempij. In Venetia, appresso Bartolomeo Carampello, 1616.

Paribeni, Roberto. Saggi di scavo nell‘area del tempio di Giove Ottimo Massimo sul Campidoglio. In Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, 1921, p. 38-49.

Piranesi, Giovanni Battista. De Romanorum magnificentia et architectura. Della Magnificenza Ed Architettura De’ Romani. Romae : 1761, presso il medesimo autore nel palazzo del conte Tomati a strada Felice. 212 pages.

Platner, Ernst, et Alii. Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, III, Die sieben Hügel, der Pincio, das Marsfeld und Trastevere, 1. Abteilung, Capitol und Forum, Palatin, Aventin und Caelius nebst ihren Umgebungen, oder der Beschreibung 3. bis 7. Buch. Stuttgart - Tübingen: Cotta, 1837. 626 pages.

Prip Møller, Johannes. On the wall of the Jupiter temple, Capitol. Acta archaeologica, VII, 1936, pp. 75-80.

Reusser, Christian. Iuppiter Conservator. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby, vol. 3. Roma: Quasar, 1996, p. 131-132. 512 pages. ISBN 8870970493.

Reusser, Christoph. Area Capitolina. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby, vol. 1, Rome: Quasar, 1993, p. 114-117. 512 pages. ISBN 8870970191.

Ridley, Ronald T. Unbridgeable Gaps. The Capitoline Temple at Rome. In Quaestiones Capitolinae (Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 106), 2005, p. 83-104. 500 pages. ISBN 8882656645.

Smith, William, LLD, Wayte, William, Marindin, G. E. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: John Murray, 1890.

Stamper W., John. The Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire. First edition. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2005. 287 pages. ISBN 9780521810685.

Tagliamonte, Gianluca. Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, aedes, templum (fino all‘83 a.C.). In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by E.M. Steinby. Vol. 3. Roma: Quasar, 1996. 512 pages. ISBN 8870970493.

Tempio (Il) di Giove e le origini del Colle Capitolino, ed. by M. Albertoni and I. Damiani. Milano: Electa, 2008. 72 pages. ISBN 978-88-370-6062-6.

Documentation of images

Fig. 1 Acroterial terracotta statue of Apollo from Veii, Temple at Portonaccio. H. 1.68 m 510-500 BC ca. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia (after: Tempio)

Fig. 2 R. Fabretti, 1683: Sketch of the muro romano (after: Tempio)

Fig. 3 Palazzo Caffarelli in the 19th century (after: Tempio)

Fig. 4 Denarius of M. Volteius illustrating the Temple of Jupiter

Fig. 5 Monte Tarpeo, investigations 1896. Fragment of an acroterion, attributable to the Temple of Jupiter (after: Tempio)

Fig. 6 Giardino Romano, excavations 1998-2000. Plan of the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter (after: Tempio); for bigger resolution see the enclosure

Fig. 7 Giardino Romano, excavations 1998-2000. Fragments of terracotta covering, attributable to the Temple of Jupiter (after: Tempio)

Fig. 8 Giardino Romano, excavations 1998-2000. Female head antefix, dated to the second half of the 6th century BC, found inside a pit of the Republican period (after: Tempio)

Fig. 9 ―Tiberius‘ cup‖ from the hoard from Boscoreale. After: Kuttner, Anne L. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford: University of California Press, 1995, plate 9

Fig. 10 Tufo lionato, after: Funiciello, Renato et Alii. The Seven Hills of Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005, plate XII

Fig. 11 Relief from a lost monument of Marcus Aurelius. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo Nuovo. Marcus Aurelius velato capite is performing a libatio in front of the Temple Jupiter Optimus Maximus before sacrificing the bull. After: Rilievi storici Capitolini. Il restauro dei pannelli di Adriano e Marco Aurelio nel Palazzo dei Conservatori, ed. by E. La Rocca. Roma: De Luca Editore, 1986, plate XXXVII)

Fig. 12 Reconstruction plan of the area Capitolina, its buildings and its surroundings (hypothetical location). 1. Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. 2. Temple of Jupiter Custos (Conservator)*. 3. Ara gentis Iuliae*. 4. Fornix P. Cornelii Scipionis Africani Maioris. 5. Temple of Jupiter Tonans. 6. Two arches (known from the inscription CIL XVI 20). 7. Temple of Fides. 8. Hexastyle temple (known from the Marble Forma Urbis). 9. Tetrastyle temple (known from the Marble Forma Urbis). 10. Clivus Capitolinus. 11. Parthian Arch of Nero. 12. Temple of Veiovis. 13. Tabularium. 14. Temple of Vespasian. 15. Porticus of the Dei Consentes. 16. Temple of Saturn. 17. Vicus Iugarius. 18. Sacred area of Sant‘Omobono. 19. Temple of Carmenta (?). 20. Stairway and arch (known from the Marble Forma Urbis). 21. Three temples in the forum Holitorium. 22. Theatrum Marcelli. 23. Porticus Octaviae. 24. Temple of Apollo in Circo. 25. Temple of Bellona; 26 Baths (?). 27. Access to the Capitolium, according to Bartolomeo Marliano (16th century) (after: Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby. Vol. 1. Roma: Quasar, 1993, p. 395)

Fig. 13 The archaeological remains of the area Capitolina and its surroundings (after: Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby. Vol. 1. Roma: Quasar, 1993, p. 396)

Fig. 14 Plan of the Capitolium with the indication of the ancient remains. Drawing by Giovanni Ioppolo (after: Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. by M. Steinby. Vol. 1. Roma: Quasar, 1993, p. 434)

Fig. 15View of the northeast side of the Temple of Jupiter and its foundation pit at the end of the excavations in 1999 (after: Tempio)

Fig. 16 Giardino Romano, excavations 1998-2000. Northeast side of the foundation pit, with the indications of the different levels, ancient and modern (after: Tempio)

Fig. 17 Giardino Romano, excavations 1998-2000. Northeast side of the Temple of Jupiter. Filling of the foundation pit with blocks broken during their working and thrown into the pit (after: Tempio)

Fig. 18 Area of the Temple of Jupiter. The so-called muro romano, east side, relief of its elevation. On its top can be seen the layers of concrete [calcestruzzo] of the Roman period and the modern access to one of the inside rooms (after: Tempio)

Fig. 19 Area of the Temple of Jupiter. The muro romano from south (after: Tempio)

Fig. 20 The reconstruction of the Temple inside the Musei Capitolini

Fig. 21 Reconstruction drawing of the Capitoline Hill and its temples by Jacques Carlu, 1924 (after: Tempio)

Fig. 22 Reconstruction drawing of the Temple of Jupiter in the Archaic period (after: Tempio)

Fig. 23 Reconstruction sketch of the Temple B at Pyrgi (after: Le antiche metropoli del Lazio)

Fig. 24 Veii, Portonaccio: modern reconstruction of the Temple (after: Le antiche metropoli del Lazio)

Fig. 25 Orvieto. Votive model of a temple. 5th century BC. Florence, National Archaeological Museum (after: Le antiche metropoli del Lazio)

Fig. 26 Vulci. Votive model of a temple. 3rd century BC. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia (after: Le antiche metropoli del Lazio)

Fig. 27 (b) Reconstruction of the elevation of the Temple of Jupiter in relation to today buildings; (c) Plan of the same buildings: in black, the plan of the Temple of Jupiter (after: Tempio)

Fig. 28 Fragment of a Pentelic marble column belonging to the Flavian restoration of the Temple of Jupiter (after: Tempio)