Papers of the British School at Rome

http://journals.cambridge.org/ROM

Additional services for Papers of the British School at Rome:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus and Roman attitudes to

exceptional construction

Janet DeLaine

Papers of the British School at Rome / Volume 70 / November 2002, pp 205 - 230
DOI: 10.1017/S0068246200002154, Published online: 09 August 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0068246200002154

How to cite this article:

Janet DeLaine (2002). The Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus and Roman attitudes to exceptional
construction. Papers of the British School at Rome, 70, pp 205-230 doi:10.1017/
S0068246200002154

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ROM, IP address: 35.8.191.249 on 03 Apr 2015

THE TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS AND ROMAN
ATTITUDES TO EXCEPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

In memory of Sheila Gibson

In his Panegyric in Cyzicus of AD 166,1 the orator Aelius Aristides praises the
greatness and good fortune of the city, congratulates it for living as part of the
Roman Empire under the enlightened and harmonious rule of its emperors, and
exhorts it to enjoy the benefits of the Empire by living in harmony with its
neighbours. Exceptionally, the speech also includes a long account of the
colossal Temple of Hadrian, the city's greatest monument. While the temple
was probably completed in the reign of Antoninus Pius, when it appears on the
local coinage (Fig. 1), the speech was given in part to celebrate its restoration
after earthquake damage.3 Aristides is fulsome in his praise of the building,
and, to judge from later writers, this was not just hyperbole; Cassius Dio, for
example, describes it as 'the largest and most beautiful of all temples', and in
late antiquity it was sometimes compared to the Seven Wonders of the World.4
This account of the temple provides a rare insight into two particular ways
in which exceptional feats of construction were viewed in the Roman world: as a
source of wonder, and as a symbol of civilization. Apart from the one reference
to its beauty, Aristides does not allude further to the aesthetics of its design or
give many details of its architecture, but concentrates on elements that relate to
the act of its construction as representative of outstanding achievement. He also
uses the construction of the temple as a metaphor for the city itself, and for the
virtues of civic harmony. The oration also alerts us to the moral tension that
such feats of construction embody, by setting up their human creators in
competition with, or in opposition to, the power of Nature.
Such ideas are hardly unique to Aristides, but appear elsewhere in the
ancient sources. The aim of this paper is to explore these ideas, in order to
develop a more nuanced understanding of the role of construction in Roman
thought, and hence of the motive forces that led to the creation of such
exceptional achievements as the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus. It will focus
primarily on the positive virtues of exceptional construction, rather than on

1
Orations 27. For an English translation and notes see P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete
Works. Volume II. Orations XVII-LIII (translated by C.A. Behr) (Leiden, 1981), 98-106, 379-82.
The relevant passages are reproduced in the Appendix, no. 1.
2
W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins ofMysia (London, 1892), 47, no. 218 and pi. 12.14.
Only the substructures and isolated fragments of ornament survive today; see A. Schulz and
E. Winter, 'Historisch-archaologische Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos', in
E. Schwertheim (ed.), Mysische Studien (Asia Minor Studien 1) (Bonn, 1990), 33-82.
3
Behr, Aristides, Orations XVII-LIII (above, n. 1), 379 n. 1.
4
Cass. Dio 70.4.1; Anth. Pal. 9.656; Malalas 11.279.8.
205
206 DELAINE

FIG. 1. Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus, coin of Antoninus Pius. (Adapted from W. Wroth,
Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Mysi a (London, 1892), pi. 12,14.)

negative attitudes towards it, and for the main part on the act of construction
rather than thefinishedstructure, looking not only at what was written, but also
at how and where images of construction were displayed, and at aspects of
actual construction projects. It will also try to put the moral tradition into a
broader philosophical perspective, as it relates to the idea of human progress.

CONSTRUCTION AS WONDER

The most important attribute of the Temple of Hadrian according to Aristides

is its extreme size, which makes it appear 'beyond the power of man to
accomplish', and it is this element that may have led later to the temple being
compared with the Seven Wonders of the World. The idea of the Seven
Wonders exercised a perennial fascination for Roman writers. The first known
list is a Hellenistic creation of the later third or second century BC, and included
most of the canonical wonders: the pyramids, the walls and hanging gardens of
Babylon, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the statue of Zeus at Olympia, the
Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, and the Colossus of Rhodes.5 Other monuments
were added over time, most notably the much-admired Pharos of Alexandria,
although it first appears formally in a list of Seven Wonders only in the seventh
or eighth century AD.6 From the Augustan period on, references — often
elliptical — to one or more of the Seven Wonders became commonplace in
Roman literature, as symbolic of man-made artefacts of unsurpassed renown.

5
For the different monuments included at various time in the list of the 'Seven Wonders'
(originally the 'Seven Sights') and the late date of the modern canon, see P. A. Clayton and M. J.
Price, The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (London, 1988), esp. pp. 1-12 and 158-65.
6
Praise: Strab. 17.791; Diod. Sic. 33.28b.2; Pliny, HN 36.18; Joseph. 5/4.10.5, 5.4.3; as one
of the wonders: A Treatise on the Seven Wonders of the World Fashioned by the Hand of Men,
attributed to Bede of Jarrow. Thefifth-centuryAnth. Pal. 9.656, however, already coupled it with
the standard wonders of the pyramids and the Colossus of Rhodes.
T E M P L E O F H A D R I A N AT C Y Z I C U S 207

That the main distinguishing feature of the various Seven Wonders was
their exceptional size is not surprising, as very large structures have a timeless
and universal attraction. The earliest wonders belong to the very ancient
cultures of Egypt and Babylonia, whose monuments may have influenced the
sixth-century BC wave of colossal temple-building in the Greek colonies of the
Mediterranean, which produced the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. 7 Greek
admiration for such giant feats of construction can be documented as far back
as the fifth century BC — witness Herodotus's fascination with the pyramids
and his list of 'three of the greatest building and engineering feats to be seen in
any Greek land', including another enormous temple, that of Hera on Samos. 8
But it was the third century, in particular, that saw the creation of a wide
variety of monuments that were so much larger than anything that had gone
before as to set the limits of aspirations for centuries to come: monuments like
the Colossus of Rhodes (the tallest statue), the lighthouse of Alexandria (the
tallest building) and the Arsinoeon of Samothrace (the largest circular
building). 9
The Roman world was completely within this tradition, but exceptional
size in construction is often taken for granted as a standard characteristic of the
Roman Empire, and simply decried as vulgar, ostentatious or megalomaniac,
rather than investigated as a phenomenon. The practice in fact can be traced
right back to the sixth-century BC Capitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno and
Minerva, one of Rome's earliest and most significant monuments, which was as
much in the contemporary mediterranean tradition of giant temple building as
the Artemision of Ephesus and the Heraion of Samos. 1 0 In the Imperial period,
however, it is the Hellenistic achievements that appear to have provided direct
archetypes for emulation, as in the Colossus of Nero, Claudius's lighthouse at
Portus, and possibly Hadrian's Pantheon. N o t surprisingly, peculiarly R o m a n
wonders were legitimized in global terms by comparison with the older Seven
Wonders; most notably, Martial praises the Flavian Amphitheatre as the
greatest of all wonders, putting every previous candidate in the shade. 1 1

7
For these exceptionally large temples, see J.J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work. Problems
of Structure and Design (London, 1977), 74-86 on colossal Greek temples, and J.M. Hurwit, The
Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100-480 BC (Ithaca/London, 1985), 179-86 on the influence of
Egypt.
8
Pyramids: Hdt. 2.124-7; Samos: Hdt. 3.60.
9
See B.R. Brown, 'Novelty, ingenuity, self-aggrandizement, ostentation, extravagance,
gigantism and kitsch in the art of Alexander the Great and his successors', in M. Barasch,
L. Freeman Sandier and P. Egan (eds), Art the Ape of Nature: Studies in Honour of H.W. Janson
(New York, 1981), 1-13.
10
A point clearly made by T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the
Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC) (London/New York, 1995), 96.
" M a r t . Sped. 1.2-6. See O. Weinreich, Studien zu Martial. Literarhistorische und Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Stuttgart, 1928), 9-20, for this and the recurrence of the
Seven Wonders in Martial and later Latin epigrams.
208 DELAINE

Size, however, was only one of the criteria that set each of the traditional
Seven Wonders clearly apart from its peers; not only had it to be the largest, but
also the most beautiful, most costly or most technologically sophisticated. 12
Aristides interestingly includes all three in his oration; the beauty that exceeds
the size, the expenditure of time and money, and the engineering equipment and
transport developed specifically for the project. In the Roman period, however,
with the proliferation of giant building projects in Rome and throughout
the mediterranean Empire, such claims to uniqueness were harder to sustain.
In fact, the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus was not without peer, despite ancient
claims. Reconstructions based on the limited archaeological remains and the
description by Cyriac of Ancona, made in the fifteenth century when more of
the building was standing, show that, although very large, this was not the
largest temple in the Roman world. 13 The most recent attempt at reconstructing
the basic plan produces an octastyle pseudodipteral temple of c. 46 x 90 m with
Corinthian columns possibly as much as 21 m high, set on a high platform
c. 80 x 140 m; 14 this compares closely with the 48 x 88 m decastyle Temple
of Jupiter Heliopolitanus at Baalbek, begun in the early Principate, whose
Corinthian columns still stand 19.9 m tall on a 13.5 m high podium. 15 In Rome,
Hadrian's Temple of Venus and Rome covered a larger area (66 x 136 m), and
the Severan Temple of Hercules and Bacchus had columns at least as tall. Even
the 'stones [like] ... the whole temple' of Aristides's description of the Temple
of Hadrian have a close parallel in the Trilithon of the Temple of Jupiter at
Baalbek, each nearly 20 m long and weighing an estimated 800 tonnes. 16
Given that the Temple of Cyzicus was not quite as exceptional as Aristides
tried to make out, it is instructive to note the devices he used to 'talk up' the
building. There are echoes of earlier accounts of the Hanging Gardens of
Babylon in the description of the three-tiered structure of the temple precinct,

l2
Cf. W. Ekschmitt, Die Sieben Weltwunder. Ihre Erbauung, Zerstorung und Wiederentdeck-
ung (Mainz, 1984), 9.
For a critical edition of Cyriac of Ancona's account of the Temple and his sketches of the
remains, see E.W. Bodnar and C. Mitchell (eds), Cyriacus of Ancona's Journeys in the Propontis
and the Northern Aegean 1444-1445 (Philadelphia, 1976), 27-31 and figs 1-6; and on the remains
and reconstruction of the original plan see Schulz and Winter, 'Untersuchungen zum Hadrians-
temper (above, n. 2).
14
The height of the columns is reconstructed from their c. 2.1 m lower diameter, assuming
the standard proportion of lower diametenheight for Roman Corinthian columns of 1:10,
although something less than this is also possible. See M. Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman
Architecture (New Haven/London, 2000), 143-53 and table 1.
15
For the temple and its dimensions, see B. Schulz and H. Winnefeld, Baalbek: die
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898-1905 I (Berlin/Leipzig,
1921), 50-64.
16
See J.-P. Adam, 'A propos du Trilithon de Baalbek', Syria 54 (1977), 31-63, esp. p. 52.
E. Will, 'Du trilithon de Baalbek et d'autres appareils colossaux', in Melanges ojferts a
K. Michalowski (Warsaw, 1965), 725-9, saw this as a specifically eastern tradition rather than a
Roman one, but the giant monolithic columns of Rome suggest that the two are not mutually
exclusive.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 209

with its subterranean and 'hanging' walks, which may not be coincidental.17
Also significant is the way Aristides describes the size of the temple and its
elements in reference to the next largest entity: stones as large as temples,
temple as large as precinct, precinct as large as city. In other words, each
element is not just large of its own kind, but so extravagantly outside the limits
of normal human expectation as to be only comparable to some different kind of
intrinsically larger object. This kind of comparison was later applied to many of
the most famous monuments of Rome, in Ammianus Marcellinus's description
of the visit of Constantius in AD 357:

... whatever he saw first, it seemed to stand out from all the rest: the
shrines of Tarpeian Jove (how far the things of the gods surpass those
of the earth!); the baths built like provinces; the great solid mass of the
amphitheatre, built of travertine and so tall that human sight can
scarcely reach the top; the Pantheon like a city district, well-rounded
and beautiful in its lofty vault ... (16.10.14).

Such descriptive devices, by emphasizing the impossibility of comprehending

the vastness of height, breadth and extent, or the size of individual elements,
take construction out of the realm of everyday human experience. Buildings of
superhuman scale automatically suggest builders and occupants of superhuman
size, a point made very clearly by Diodorus Siculus in his description of the
altar, camp and barracks built by order of Alexander the Great to mark
the extent of his campaign in India: they were built on such a scale as 'to leave
the natives evidence of men of huge stature displaying the strength of giants'. 18
The huge 230 tonne monolith that forms the cupola of the Tomb of Theoderic
at Ravenna makes the same point, and was a source of wonder in the sixth
century.19 This is construction 'as if beyond human power of man to
accomplish', to return to Aristides, and what is beyond human power, he
makes clear, belongs instead to the world of the gods; the construction of the
temple can only be compared with the building of the walls of Troy by Poseidon
and Apollo.

17
Aristides, Orations 27.20, cf. Diod. Sic. 2.10.
18
Diod. Sic. 17.95.1 (see Appendix no. 2); cf. Curtius 9.3.19; Plut. Vit. Alex. 62.4; Arr. Anab.
5.29.1.
19
Excerpta Valesiana 96: 'While living he had a tomb built for him from squared stone, a
work of wondrous size (mirae magnitudinis opus); and he sought out a mighty stone {saxum
ingentem) to put on top'. On the building see R. Heidenreich and H. Johannes, Das Grabmal
Theodorichs zu Ravenna (Wiesbaden, 1971), and for the problem of the monolithic cupola M.
Korres, 'Wie kann der Kuppelstein auf den Mauerring? Die einzigartige Bauweise des Grabmals
Theodorichs des Grossen zu Ravenna und das Bewegen schwerer Lasten', Mitteilungen den
Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Romische Abteilung 107 (1994), 219-58, and R. Santillo, 'II
'saxum ingentem' a Ravenna a copertura del Mausoleo di Teodorico', Opuscula Romana 20
(1996), 105-33. R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth,
1965), 192, rather missed the point when he explained this as 'a residue of the Germanic
tradition'.
210 DELAINE

CHALLENGING NATURE
The greatest demonstration of this kind of power, however, was in changing the
face of the very earth itself, in building to challenge Nature. Any structure of
abnormally large size acts to reshape the face of the earth, and thus to create a new
landmark to rival those of nature. Aristides is quite explicit: 'the temple is equal to
the mountains', and serves as beacon, signal fire and tower 'for those putting into
port' — in other words it serves all the functions of that other great wonder, the
Pharos of Alexandria. Strabo, in his discussion of the Pillars of Hercules, talks of
the 'so to speak 'hand-wrought' landmarks', such as altars, towers or pillars, used
to mark the boundaries of regions by early travellers.20 The impact of such
monuments was fully recognized by Rome, witness the giant trophies of
Pompey in the Pyrenees and of Augustus in the Maritime Alps at La Turbie, a
tower originally nearly 50 m tall.21 A sense of the supernatural quality of the
latter is reflected in a fourteenth-century poem, where it is described as being
built by a giant and necromancer called Apollo, and inhabited by demons.22
While the Roman passion for building individual monuments as markers
in the landscape is very much in the Hellenistic tradition, transforming the
landscape more generally seems to have been part of the Roman ethos from the
earliest days. The giant sixth-century BC Capitoline temple required substantial
terracing works to create a suitable platform. Rather than being built on a
natural rocky plateau, the foundations for the temple had to be dug down some
8 m through unstable deposits to the solid tufa below, while the opposite corner
was built up to take account of the steep slope of the hill.23 That this was not
just something taken for granted by later Romans is suggested by Livy's
description of the substructures of the Capitoline as 'a work worth remarking
on even amid the present splendours of the city', and he may have inspired
Pliny's inclusion of these among the early wonders of Rome still admired in the
late Republic.24 Other early temples formed notable artificial landmarks, such
as the ancient Temple of Jupiter Latialis on the Alban Mount, and the so-called
Temple of 'Jupiter Anxur' at Terracina, the terraced platform for which can still
be seen from afar. That this kind of landscaping was considered a source of
wonder is suggested by Diodorus, who attributes the terrace for the Temple of
Aphrodite on Mount Eryx in Sicily to Daedalus, the legendary artifex.25

20
Strab. 3.5.6.
21
Trophy of Pompey: G. Castellvi, J.M. Nolla and I. Roda, 'La indentificacion de los trofeos
de Pompeyo en el Pirineo', Journal of Roman Archaeology 8 (1995), 5-18; Trophy of Augustus:
J. Formige, Le Trophee des Alpes (La Turbie) (Supplement to Gallia 2) (Paris, 1949).
22
R. F e r a u d , ' L a vida de Sant Honorat, 4 9 . 1 - 1 6 , 4 5 - 5 6 ' , in Formige, Trophee (above, n. 21),
83-6.
23
A. A m m e r m a n a n d N . Terrenato, ' N u o v e osservazioni sul Colle Capitolino', Bullettino
della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in Roma 91 (1996), 3 5 - 4 0 .
24
L i v y 6.4.12; Pliny, HN 36.104.
25
D i o d . Sic. 4.78.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 211

Such large-scale reshaping of the earth was an enduring tradition that went
hand in hand with the creation of many of Rome's most famous buildings;
the 'baths built like whole provinces' of Ammianus, for example, would have
been impossible without terracing the land to create artificial platforms. In the
Baths of Caracalla the earthworks, foundations and substructures took longer to
build and required more manpower — some 10,000 men at once on average —
than the bathing block itself.26 Nothing in the function of the building required
such preliminary works, but it derived from the desire to build on a large
horizontal scale, to elevate the complex into a prominent position, to give it its
own hilltop. In the same way, Trajan's Forum would have been impossible
without the earthworks of which the famous inscription on the Column boasts:
'in order to show how high a mountain — and the site for such great works was
nothing less — had been cleared away',27 placing at centre stage the Forum as a
feat of construction, and one in particular that changed the face of nature. In
this way the inscription acts as a permanent reminder of what had become
invisible — and therefore liable to be forgotten — with the building of Trajan's
Markets into the face of the cut.
More than any single structure, however, it was the great utilitarian
projects — the aqueducts, roads and sewers — that caught the Roman
imagination as the greatest of all the wonders of Rome that reshaped the earth.
Pliny is explicit on the aqueducts: '... if we consider carefully the abundant
supplies of water ... the distances traversed by the water, the raising of arches,
the tunnelling of mountains and the building of level routes across deep valleys,
we shall readily admit that there has never been anything more remarkable in
the whole world'.28 Not only aqueducts but harbours and drainage schemes
invert nature, turning land into water and water into land, while roads make
plains in the mountains or turn marshes into solid land.29 To change the face of
nature in this way means to have power over it, supernatural power in a literal
sense. To Dionysius of Halicarnassus the power represented by the great
engineering works of Rofne is specifically a representation of the greatness of
Rome's Empire, while Frontinus also presents the growth of the aqueduct
system in parallel with the growth of Roman power.30 Roads and bridges are

26
J. D e L a i n e , The Baths of Caracalla. A Study in the Design, Construction and Economics of
Large-scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 25)
(Portsmouth (RI), 1997), 192.
27
See A. Claridge, 'Hadrian's Column of Trajan', Journal of Roman Archaeology 6 (1993),
5-22, esp. pp. 9-10.
28
Pliny, HN 36.24.123.
29
See, for example, Strab. 5.3.8; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.67.5; Pliny, HN 36.24.101,
36.24.121-5; Frontin. Aq. 16; Stat. Silv. 4.3.
30
On Frontinus see J. DeLaine "De aquis suis'l The 'commentarius' of Frontinus', in
Les litteratures technique dans I'antiquite romaine (Entretiens sur I'antiquite classique 42)
(Vandoeuvres-Geneva, 1996), 117-45, esp. pp. 123-5. The same has been argued for canal
building and drainage schemes: see P. Leveau, 'Mentalite economique et grands traveaux
hydraulique: le drainage du lac Fucin aux origines d'un modele', Annales: Economies, Socie'tes,
212 DELAINE

also described in terms of Rome or her emperors' conquering power, for

example by Statius on the building of the Via Domitiana, 3 1 and Kleiner has
argued convincingly that the arches that m a r k the ends of many Roman bridges
are specifically triumphal arches, with Nature the defeated foe. 32 Not surpris-
ingly, then, the bridge over the D a n u b e was seen as one of Trajan's greatest
accomplishments, and is depicted clearly on his column. 3 3
Feats of construction that change the natural topography have also some
claim to share in Nature's immortality, as it is in the nature of landmarks to
be both large and permanent. N o n e of the canonical wonders of the ancient
world was intentionally ephemeral, and to Curtius Rufus the Hanging
Gardens of Babylon were remarkable precisely in withstanding the ravages of
time to which even Nature eventually succumbs. 3 4 A search for the
permanence of Nature may in fact have contributed to the development of
the great vaulted and domed spaces of imperial Rome; after all, vaults are not
the only way to cover large spaces, as the timber roof of the Basilica Ulpia
makes clear. Early vaulted spaces include the artificial caves of nymphaea; and
the natural cave at Sperlonga and the barrel-vaulted vaulted dining hall in the
Esquiline wing of Nero's Golden House, both displaying the myth of Odysseus
in the Cyclops cave, are very much the same kind of spaces. 35 Other types of
vaults appear to emulate the vast tents of the eastern potentates, the very
R o m a n contribution being precisely a constructional one, that of making
permanent and corporeal the insubstantial and ephemeral. 3 6 The Pantheon is
wonderful among other things because of the tension between its apparent
insubstantiality — with its original decor, whatever that was, the dome must
have appeared to float even more than it does now — and its solid and
reassuring permanence of structure. Whether representing the abode of the
gods or of the god-on-earth, the Pantheon by its feat of construction places that

Civilisations 48 (1993), 3-16, and N. Purcell, 'Rome and the management of water: environment,
culture and power', in G. Shipley and J. Salmon (eds), Human Landscapes in Classical Anliquitv
(London, 1996), 180-212, esp. pp. 189-205.
31
Stat. Silv. 4.3.
32
F.S. Kleiner, ' T h e trophy on the bridge a n d the R o m a n triumph over nature', Antiquite
Classique 60 (1991), 182-92.
33
D i o Cass. 68.13.1, a n d implicit in Pliny, Ep. 8.4.1-2. Trajan's Column: scene X C V I I I 258,
see F . Lepper a n d S. Frere, Trajan's Column. A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates (Gloucester,
1988), esp. p p . 4 2 - 3 for the numbering system.
34
Q u i n t u s Curtius Rufus 5.1.35; cf., from a rather different perspective, Sen. Dial. 11.1.1,
where the Seven W o n d e r s stand for the longest-lived m o n u m e n t s possibly m a d e by m a n .
35
H. Lavagne, Operosa Antra. Recherches sur la grotte a Rome de Sylla a Hadrien
(Bibliotheque des Ecoles franfaises d'Athenes et de Rome 272) ( R o m e , 1988), 579-88.
36
F o r tents see E. Salza Prina Ricotti, 'Le tende conviviali e la tenda di Tolomeo Filadelfo',
in M . I . Curtis (ed.), Studia Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski II (New
Rochelle ( N Y ) , 1989), 199-239; a n d , on their possible influence on R o m a n vaulted architecture,
D . Hemsoll, ' T h e octagonal dining r o o m of N e r o ' s G o l d e n House', Architectural History 32
(1989), 1-17.
 V: \ '

TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 213

home firmly in the heart of Rome and — fittingly for the eternal city — in
permanent form, forever.37

INVENTION AND SPECTACLE

Permanence and an imitation of nature were, however, not the only ways to
achieve wonder status. The building that Pliny the Elder judged 'the greatest of
all the works ever made by man, a work that surpassed not merely those erected
for a limited period but even those intended to last for ever', was the temporary
theatre built by Marcus Scaurus in 58 BC, as part of his aedileship, famous for
its 360 marble columns and 3,000 bronze statues, and its stage made of marble,
glass and gilded wood. 38 Equally a source of wonder to Pliny were the famous
twin theatres of Gaius Curio, designed for the entertainments he provided for
his father's funeral; set up back to back, they could be rotated to form an
amphitheatre. 39 'What should first astonish one in this', Pliny asks, 'the
inventor or the invention, the designer or the promoter, the fact that a man
dared to plan the work, or to undertake it or to commission it?'. Originality, not
just the expenditure of exceptional resources, is the keynote here, and the power
of human invention and ingenuity to create the unthinkable.
Some of the value of ingenuity lay in the temporary, constructional aspects
that left no obvious signs in the finished structure, but were an essential part of
the achievement and wonder for contemporaries who watched the process of
construction. Thus Aristides expresses admiration for the engineering equip-
ment and transport designed specifically for the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus,
which 'did not formally exist among mankind'. Pliny the Elder is also
particularly impressed by exceptional technical devices of this kind, providing
loving descriptions of such things as the device created to put the massive lintels
of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus in place.40 Perhaps the best account of this
kind of display of engineering and transport comes from Ammianus
Marcellinus and concerns the transport to Rome of the 32.5 m high Lateran
obelisk and its erection in the Circus Maximus. 41 Ammianus first stresses
the building of a special ship 'of a size previously unknown', and the problems
of shipping it up the Tiber and then through the streets of Rome. He continues:

37
F o r the meaning of the P a n t h e o n see: W.L. M a c D o n a l d , The Pantheon: Design, Meaning
and Progeny (Cambridge (Mass.), 1976), 7 6 - 9 2 ; P. Godfrey a n d D . Hemsoli, ' T h e Pantheon:
temple or rotunda?', in M . Henig a n d A. King (eds), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman
Empire (Oxford, 1986), 195-209; Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture (above, n. 14),
182-4.
38
Pliny, HN 36.24.113-15.
39
Pliny, HN 36.24.116-20.
40
Pliny, HN 36.21.95-7.
41
The account contains m a n y echoes of Pliny the Elder's chapters on obelisks (HN
36.14.64-72).
214 DELAINE

After this there remained only the raising, which it was thought could
be accomplished only with great difficulty, perhaps not at all. But it
was done in the following manner: to tall beams which were brought
and raised on end (so that you could see a very grove of cranes) were
fastened long and heavy ropes so numerous they hid the sky like a
dense spider's web. To these was attached that veritable mountain ...
and it was gradually drawn up on high through the empty air, and
after hanging for a long time, while many thousand men turned
capstans as in mills, it was finally placed in the middle of the Circus...
(17.4.13-15).

Ammianus's description has a visual parallel in an exceptional relief showing

the transport of an obelisk, the only depiction of this feat that survives from the
Roman world (Fig. 2).42 The obelisk is that erected in the Hippodrome of
Constantinople by Theodosius in AD 390, most famous for the scenes of
Theodosius and the imperial household at the games, which also appear on the
supporting pedestal.43 The scene of moving the obelisk is accompanied by two
non-identical inscriptions, one in Latin and the other in Greek, which celebrate
the actual act of raising the obelisk, emphasizing the long time that the obelisk
had lain on the ground and the very short time — 32 days — that it took to
erect it.44 While the main focus of the relief is the obelisk itself, the scene of
activity and the ropes, capstans and men suggest that, as in Ammianus's
description, the actual spectacle of the obelisk being moved and erected was a
crucial part of the achievement. Although the direct evidence is lacking,
Lancaster's reconstruction of the building of Trajan's Column suggests a
similar mentality.45 After all, it required the lifting of blocks weighing in the
order of 50 tonnes through heights of up to 34 m, a task impossible to achieve
using even the largest of ordinary Roman cranes. The erection of an obelisk or
of a giant column could provide a public display as entertaining as any show in
the arena or circus, and just as indicative of imperial power. In addition, in both
Trajan's Column and Theodosius's obelisk the juxtaposition of relief or
inscription celebrating the construction feat with representations of the emperor
himself carries a clear message of the symbolic importance of such
achievements.

42
D.M. Bailey, 'Honorific columns, cranes, and the Tuna epitaph', in D.M. Bailey (ed.),
Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt, Proceedings of the 17th Classical Colloquium of the
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplement 19) ( A n n Arbor, 1996), 155-68, esp. p . 157.
43
F o r the obelisk base, see G. Bruns, Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu
Konstantinopel (Istanbuler Forschungen 7) (Istanbul, 1935); a n d , most recently, B. Kiilerich, The
Obelisk Base in Constantinople: Court Art and Imperial Ideology (Acta ad Archaeologia et Artium
Historiam Pertinentia, Series altera 8° 11) (Rome, 1998), esp. p p . 2 6 - 7 and 69-72.
44
CIG 8612. See Appendix no. 3 for a translation.
45
L. Lancaster, 'Building Trajan's Column', American Journal of Archaeology 103 (1999),
419-30.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 215

FIG. 2. Obelisk relief from the base of Theodosius's obelisk, Constantinople. (Photo: G. Bruns.)

WONDER AS STATUS

Exceptional feats of construction also added to the status of the men who
actually made them possible. In the Theodosian inscription, the glory reflects
on the urban prefect Proclus, but the relief and other depictions of the
machinery of construction bring us much closer to the men in actual charge of
the process, the architects, engineers and contractors. This is surely the case
with the depiction of the giant crane in one of the reliefs from the Tomb of the
Haterii, which Coarelli has convincingly associated with the imperial
contractor, Quintus Haterius Tychicus, known from inscriptions.46 Rather
than a simple indication of occupation, the relief is a potent reminder of the
exceptional ingenuity and technical skill that gave added stature to the man
who may have been responsible for that eighth wonder of the Roman world, the
Flavian Amphitheatre. The fragmentary relief from the Palazzo della
Cancelleria in Rome of "scaffolding around a circular building, which might
be an amphitheatre, may have had a similar intent.47
Such skills might, however, raise questions about their source. Marchis
has argued that the mechanicus in the Greek and Roman world was seen more
as magician than engineer, not just because of what he did, but because he
knew the secrets of how to do things that defied the understanding of ordinary

F. Coarelli, 'La riscoperta del sepolcro degli Haterii: una base con dedica a Silvano', in
Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: a Tribute to P.H. von Blanckenhagen (New York, 1979),
255-69.
47
E. Rodriguez-Almeida, 'Marziale in marmo', Melanges de VEcole Franfaise de Rome.
Antiquite 106 (1) (1994), 197-217, esp. pp. 215-17, dating it to the late first to second centuries
AD. F. Coarelli, 'Gli anfiteatri a Roma prima del Colosseo', in A. La Regina (ed.), Sangue e arena
(Milan, 2001), 43-7, esp. p. 47, gave a date not later than Augustus and identified the building
with Caesar's amphitheatre of 46 BC, but without sufficient argument.
216 DELAINE

men. 4 8 In the medieval guilds, crafts and trades were 'mysteries', both secret
and beyond the knowledge and understanding of those not trained in them.
In the votive relief of Lucceius Peculiaris, who was the contractor for the stage
building at the theatre of Capua, the figure of Minerva watches over a crane
lifting a column, guaranteeing the success of Peculiaris's enterprise but also
identifying the source of his mysterious command of mechanical wonders. 4 9
The more exceptional the construction, the more mysterious, if not super-
human, appeared the men who made it possible. N o t surprisingly, the legend-
ary Daedalus was imagined as the builder of the pyramids, and as metallurgy
was a craft particularly associated with magic, it is perhaps no coincidence
that the bronze Colossus of Rhodes was erected in the mythical home of
the metalworking semi-divine Telchines. According to Strabo, some thought
the Telchines were sorcerers, and others thought they were simply maligned
as such by jealous rivals because they excelled in workmanship. 5 0 This may in
part explain why it was the exceptional metal construction of the cella soliaris of
the Baths of Caracalla, as well as its exceptional span, that led the fourth-
century docti mechanici — 'learned engineers' — to deny that it could have
been done. 5 1 New inventions, or exceptional applications of technology, placed
architects and builders among magicians and gods, those who perform the
impossible.
But magicians do not work for just anyone, and it is significant that many
of the named 'architects' from imperial Rome are precisely those producing
wonders for the emperors. Severus and Celer, said to be responsible for the
wonders of Nero's Golden House and the planned Avernus-Tiber canal, were
noted for their ingenuity and courage. 5 2 Tacitus calls them respectively magister
and machinator, but to translate these as 'master(-builder)' and 'engineer',
as is usually done, 5 3 is to miss their connection with the magic arts. 5 4

48
V. Marchis, 'Machina est medium. La tecnica tra u o m o e natura nel m o n d o antico', in
R. Uglione (ed.), L'uomo antico e la natura. Atti del convegno nazionale di studi, Torino 28-29-30
aprile 1997 (Turin, 1998), 199-231, esp. p p . 2 0 8 - 9 , a n d cf. L. Cracco Ruggini, 'Progresso tecnico
e m a n d o p e r a in eta imperiale r o m a n a ' , in Tecnologia economia e societa nel mondo romano. Atti
del convegno di Como, 27/28/29 settembre 1979 ( C o m o , 1980), 4 5 - 6 6 , esp. p p . 4 9 - 5 0 .
49
CIL X 3821 = ILS 3662. T h e relief was found a m o n g the ruins of the theatre together with
fragments of columns a n d statues: see V. Bracco, Campania (Itinerari archeologici) (Rome, 1981),
2 4 2 - 3 , a n d for the best illustration, M . Frederiksen, Campania ( L o n d o n , 1984), pi. 9.
50
D a e d a l u s — Diod. Sic. 4.30, 1.97; Telchines — Strab. 14.2.7, a n d cf. 10.3.7.
51
S.H.A. Ant. Cara. 9 . 4 - 5 . F o r a n explanation of what might have been involved, see
J. DeLaine, ' T h e cella soliaris of the Baths of Caracalla: a reappraisal', Papers of the British
School at Rome 62 (1987), 147-56.
52
T a c . Ann. 15.42.
53
As do, for example, W.M. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire L an
Introduction (New Haven, 1982), 126; J.C. Anderson, Jr, Roman Architecture and Society
(Baltimore/London, 1997), 52-5.
54
See Marchis, 'Machina est medium' (above, n. 48). I d o n o t agree with Anderson, Roman
Architecture and Society (above, n. 53), 53, that 'nothing much need be m a d e of the omission of
the w o r d architectus... [as] Tacitus probably felt n o need to use the obvious label ...', since
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 217

If the archetype is Daedalus, the historic model is Alexander the Great's

architect Dinocrates, most famous for presenting Alexander with an ambitious
plan to reshape Mount Athos into the figure of a man, with a city held in his left
hand and a bowl in his right in which to collect the water from the mountain.
He was also the architect of Alexandria, the most fabulous of all ancient cities,
and it was Dinocrates that Alexander is said to have longed for when he was
planning the tomb of his close friend Hephaistion, 'because in his innovations
there was always promise of great magnificence, boldness and ostentation'. 55 Of
the other imperial architects named in Roman literature, Domitian's Rabirius is
praised for his 'wondrous art' (mira arte), while Apollodorus was the architect
of Trajan's most famed and fabled works, the bridge over the Danube and the
Forum in Rome. 56 To have such men at one's command was to have power over
the possessors of secret knowledge, as well as ownership of the inimitable
wonders such men could create.
In the later Empire, more often the magical powers of construction were
directly associated with the emperor himself, and we hear rather less of
individual architects or mechanici. This may be implicit in Ammianus's
description of Trajan's Forum, as a 'construction unparalleled anywhere on
earth and wondrous even in the opinion of the gods', a gigantic complex
'beyond description and never again to be imitated by mortal men'. 57
No mention of Apollodorus here, only of the man who had with Augustus
become the very model of the good emperor. The inscription from Theodosius's
obelisk is more explicit; while the urban prefect Proclus is said to have given
advice, it is to the power of the emperor that the obelisk yields. Procopius's
detailed account of the building of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople gives a
more nuanced picture. The building itself is clearly presented in standard
terms of wonder: it has incredible size and beauty, its piers are like sheer
mountain-peaks, and the mechanism of its apparently floating dome is beyond
the power of ordinary men (in this case Procopius) to understand or explain in
words.58 The success of. the project is laid at the door of the mechanici
Anthemios of Tralles and Isidoros of Miletus, but also of the emperor,
Justinian. Procopius assures his readers that this was not mere flattery,

Tacitus is well-known for his manipulation of the colour of a passage by his careful choice of
words (cf. E. Lofstedt, 'On the style of Tacitus', Journal of Roman Studies 38 (1948), 1-8;
C.W. Mendell, Tacitus, the Man and his Work (London/New Haven, 1957), 94; R. Mellor, Tacitus
(London, 1993), 113-36).
55
Vitr. De Arch, 2.praef.1-4; Plut. Vit. Alex. 12A, and Mor. De Alex. fort. 335 c-e; Strab.
14.1.23 (with Cheirocrates for Dinocrates); Plut. Vit. Alex. 72.2, with Stasicrates for Dinocrates,
but the anecdote about Mount Athos confirms the identification.
56
Rabirius — Mart. Ep. 7.56, and note the implied comparison with Pheidias's Zeus;
Apollodorus — Cass. Dio 68.13, 69.4; Procop. Aed. 4.6.12-13. On the difficulties associated with
trying to reconstruct Apollodorus's life, see Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture
(above, n. 14), 21-4 with previous bibliography.
57
Amm. Marc. 16.10.15.
58
Procop. Aed. 1.1.27, 39, 50.
218 DELAINE

and provides two dramatic episodes during the construction in which the
emperor, although not a mechanicus himself, was able with the help of G o d to
find a solution where the skill of the mechanici had failed. 59
Such exceptional construction also demanded exceptional resources. The
exorbitant cost in terms of both actual cash outlay and expenditure of physical
and h u m a n resources are mentioned time and again in accounts of all kinds of
wondrous constructions. The thousands of men required to move the obelisks
can be put alongside the 360,000 Pliny avers it took to build the Pyramid of
Cheops over twenty years, or the 350 million sesterces he gives for the cost
of the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus. 6 0 These are 'potent statistics' that,
according to Purcell, contribute to a conceptual geography of power; the
wonder lies in numbers beyond imagination and the expenditure of impossible
resources. 61 Even where expenditure is not translated into tangible numbers, in
many of the tales of exceptional construction already discussed the underlying
implication is of vast resources and the extraordinary power to command them,
as in Diodorus's account of Alexander's giant army camp and in Aristides's
account of the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus. As with the command of the
mysterious mechanici, such resources were the prerogative of exceptional men;
together, resources and mechanici created wonders that demonstrated the
almost supernatural power of their possessors.

CONSTRUCTION AS CIVILIZATION
The act of building on a grand scale brought with it the power to create wonder,
to set one's achievements alongside those of gods and giants, of the almost
legendary ancient cultures of Egypt and Babylonia, and of the modern
semi-legendary icons like Alexander the Great. Whatever the model, the context
was always civilized society; Daedalus worked at Minos's court, not in the
Cyclops's cave. It is no coincidence that the pyramids, the greatest — or at least
most cited — of the Seven Wonders, were a product of Egypt, believed by
Herodotus and others to be the earliest culture and the one that taught
civilization to the Greeks. 62 The link between construction and civilization,
however, was not confined to wonders, but lay at the very heart of many Greek
and Roman ideas about the origins of civilization and the possibility of human
progress. 63

59
P r o c o p . Aed. 1.1.66-78.
60
Pyramid of Cheops: HN 36.17.78; aqueducts: HN 36.24.122.
61
N . Purcell, ' M a p s , lists, money, order a n d power', Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990),
178-82, esp. p. 180.
62
Hdt. 2.49-64.
63
See E . R . D o d d s , The Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford, 1973), 1-25 for a g o o d
summary.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 219

Of all the accounts that place the development of building as a positive step
towards civilization, that of Vitruvius is — understandably — the most
comprehensive.64 Significantly, it occurs at the beginning of the book on
construction, before he launches into a description of the different types of
building materials and techniques, and following the story of Dinocrates. The
invention of the art of building is placed as the third step in the development of
civilized life, after the discovery of fire and the evolution of language. Not only
is the art of building the one that led in time to the development of other arts
and crafts, but its application provided the shelter and protection necessary for
settled communities, giving it a fundamental role in the emergence of man from
the 'life of beasts and of the fields'.65 Elsewhere in Roman thought, manual
work and the banaustic occupations are represented as being unsuited to the
upper levels of society, whose concerns should be the higher duties of the
state.66 In Vitruvius, however, construction is not something to be ashamed of
for its manual nature, but gloried in as one of the keys to mansueta humanitas,67
which might almost be translated as a 'civilized civilization'. In an early
Augustan context, this is not mere tautology. The large-scale restructuring of
Roman society undertaken by Augustus was reinforced and made visible in the
actual rebuilding, on a grander scale, of the whole physical environment of the
community, a relationship that also informs the list of Augustus's building
projects in the Res Gestae.68
Reflections of this way of thinking can be identified in contemporary
depictions of construction, both verbal and physical. Virgil's description of
the building of Carthage is full of action, of men at work quarrying,
transporting, digging and building; but what is particularly significant is that
this depiction of the physical construction of the community is intertwined
with allusions to its social and political construction, in the formulating of
law and the selection of magistrates — in other words, all elements of a
civilized urban life are at hand. 69 This can be compared with a number of
scenes of late Republican to early Imperial date in which the foundation of a
city is represented by a scene of wall building in ashlar blocks, usually watched
over by an attendant deity.70 Most significant is that part of the frieze from

64
Vitr. De Arch. 2.1.1-7, a n d see Appendix n o . 4 for translation.
65
F o r discussion see Vitruvius, De Architecture! (edited by P. G r o s ; translation a n d
commentary by A. Corso and E. Romano) (Turin, 1997), 171-3.
66
F o r example, Cic. Off. 1.151. See A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society
(London, 1972), 2 9 - 3 0 for a wider discussion.
67
Vitr. De Arch. 2.1.6.
68
Cf. P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann A r b o r , 1988), 101-56.
69
Verg. Aen. 1.421-38, see Appendix n o . 5 for translation.
70
Discussed by J.P. A d a m a n d P. Varene, ' U n e peinture romaine represantant u n e scene d e
chantier', Revue Archeologique (1980), 2 1 3 - 3 8 , esp. p p . 2 1 6 - 1 7 . F o r the Esquiline freize, see n o w
R. Capelli, 'II fregio dipinto dell'Esquilino e la p r o p a g a n d a augustea del mito delle origini', in
A. La Regina (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle terme (Milan, 1998), 5 1 - 8 .
220 DELAINE

the Basilica Paulli (Aemilia) that has been variously interpreted as representing
the building of the walls of Rome or of Lavinium (Fig. 3). 71 This is one of
several scenes from the life of Romulus and the early history of Rome that
decorated the basilica, a structure that above all others embodied the civilizing
role of law in Roman society. Both here and in the passage from the Aeneid the
construction scenes symbolize the foundation of a civilized, urban community;
in both, the building of the walls, the symbolic barriers between the savage
uncontrolled wilderness and the settled orderly life of the citizen, is the key
action. 72 These are not just metaphorical ideas and symbolic expressions, but
have their equivalents in actual construction. The act of building town walls
under the early Empire, when defence was clearly not an issue, was an equally
potent statement of the civilized standing of a community, whether it went with
the granting of municipal or colonial status or not; the symbolic value is even
clearer when only the gates were built, as in the cases of Carsulae and Augusta
Bagiennorum. 73
The same underlying idea may lie behind the repeated building scenes on
Trajan's Column. Polybius describes the Roman camps as 'like towns', 74 and
the act of building a camp, like that of building a town, is symbolic of creating a
piece of civilization within the barbaric wilderness, as well as a practical
response to the threat of enemy action. The context of these scenes on Trajan's
Column encourages this interpretation, as they are frequently juxtaposed in a
seamless fashion with episodes of Dacian prisoners or embassies being brought
in submission before Trajan, as if the act of building alone brings civilization to
the barbarians. 75 The connection with scenes of building city walls is
heightened by the depiction of many of these as ashlar walls, despite this
being both inappropriate and anachronistic for temporary camps in the
Trajanic period. 76 The building of permanent defences at the boundaries of the
Empire can also be read as symbolic statements, city walls writ large marking

71
For the frieze, see G. Carettoni, 'II fregio figurato della Basilica Emilia', Rivista
dell'Istituto Nazionale di Architettura e di Storia dell'Arte (1961), 5-78, esp. pp. 16-21; P. Kranzle,
Die Zeitliche und Ikonographische Stellung des Frieze der Basilika Aemilia (Hamburg, 1991);
D.A. Arya, 'II ratto delle Sabine e la guerra romano-sabina. II fregio della Basilica Paulli (Aemilia)',
in A. Carandini and R. Cappelli (eds), Roma. Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della citta (Milan,
2000), 303-19, esp. pp. 312-14.
72
Cf. G. Petrone, 'Locus amoenusjlocus horridus: due modi di pensare la natura', in
R. Uglione (ed.), L'uomo antico e la natura. Atti del convegno nazionale di studi, Torino 28-29-30
aprile 1997 (Turin, 1998), 177-95, esp. p. 179.
73
P. Gros, L 'architecture romaine du debut du We siecle av. J.-C. a la fin du Haut-Empire.
I. Les monuments publics (Paris, 1996), 26-54, esp. pp. 35-42.
74
Polyb. 6.31.10.
75
For example, the extended building and clearance scenes X1/29-XX/46, with the first
Dacian prisoner brought in at 43, and cf. XXXIX/99-XL/102, LII/129-31, LX/145-LXI/148,
LXVIII/173-LXIX/175, CXXVII/344-CXXX/349. See Lepper and Frere, Trajan's Column
(above, n. 33).
76
J.C.N. Coulston, 'The architecture and construction scenes on Trajan's Column', in
M. Henig (ed.), Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire (Oxford University
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 221

FIG. 3. Graphic reconstruction of the wall-building scene, frieze from the Basilica Aemilia.
(After G. Carettoni, 'II fregio figurato delta Basilica Emilia', Rivista dell'Istituto Nazionale di
Architettura e di Storia dell'Arte (1961), 5-78, fig. 13.)

the edges of civilization;77 the act of building Hadrian's Wall may have been as
important as finishing it. The care with which these walls were decorated
confirms that the fact of their presence mattered as much as their defensive
capability.78
Walls were not the only parts of a city that defined its claim to be civilized.
For Aristides, it is the temple that stands for the greatness of the whole city and
her inhabitants, and it is clear that what is said about the building thereafter
informs what is said about the city. The harmony and proper order, which for
Aristides add so much to the greatness and beauty of the temple, are paraded as
a paradigm for the importance of similar virtues in the life of individual and
city. This is the essence, of civilized society, the life of civic harmony that
allowed the fruits of the enlightened Empire of Rome to be enjoyed, untroubled
by inter-city rivalry. By emphasizing the constructional aspects, rather than the
finished building, Aristides makes the restoration of the temple an exhortation
to city and individual to put aside the 'diseases of wild beasts' and to work just
as actively at maintaining a civilized existence.

Committee for Archaeology Monograph 29) (Oxford, 1990), 39-50, esp. p. 44, although Coulston
put this down simply to 'artistic convention'.
77
Cf. L. Storoni M a z z o l a n i , The Idea of the City in Roman Thought. From Wall City to
Spiritual Commonwealth (translated by S. O'Donnell) (London, 1970), 175-6.
78
See Aristides, Orations 26.80-3, for frontier walls that 'gleam with more brilliance than
bronze' and are 'worth seeing' (Behr, above n. 1, 90-1), and cf. on Hadrian's Wall, P. Bidwell,
'The exterior decoration of Roman buildings in Britain', in P. Johnson and I. Haynes (eds),
Architecture in Roman Britain {Council for British Archaeology Research Report 94) (York, 1996),
19-29, esp. p. 22.
222 DELAINE

MAGNIFICENTIA — A CIVILIZING VIRTUE

The practice of erecting great structures — whether temples or aqueducts — for

the glory of one's city is a familiar manifestation of the practice of euergetism, the
expenditure of personal resources for the public good by which the Graeco-
Roman elites gained and maintained prestige and political power in their
communities.79 The visible result of euergetism on a particularly grand scale is
magnificentia or its Greek equivalent megaloprepeia. While the term is some-
times used generally to describe the splendour offinishedstructures,80 it is more
often used in association with the activities of a specific individual; Vitruvius,
for example, links magnificentia directly with the expenditure of the patron as
his contribution to great building.81
In addition to creating monuments that would in future bring prestige and
practical benefit to the community, one way in which the act of expenditure
contributed to the public good was through the construction process.
A particularly magnificent construction had the virtue, to quote Plutarch, of
bringing 'the whole city under pay'.82 Although the context is ostensibly the
Periclean building programme on the Acropolis of Athens, Amelung has
argued convincingly that in this aspect Plutarch is more reflecting the
conditions of his own times than those of fifth-century Athens.83 The
arguments for economic motives being at least part of the reason for large-
scale building projects are compelling; the amount of manpower involved in the
largest projects in Rome could have absorbed a significant proportion of the
urban workforce.84 From the point of view of the Roman patron, the
importance of magnificentia as an activity also brought with it an imperative to
impress by building swiftly. While in the days of the Republic this could be
explained by the shortness of annual or five-yearly magistracies, once the
benefactions of the imperial family and other patrons were divorced from these
restraints, speed of building became a virtue in its own right.85 The idea also
found occasional expression in building inscriptions, from the baths at Novara

79
See P. Veyne, Bread and Circuses. Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (abridged
English translation B. Pearce) (London, 1990), 13-18, 361-6.
80
F o r example Cic. Verr. 2.4.108 o n t h e Temple of Ceres; Livy 6.4.12 o n t h e splendours of
R o m e ; Pliny, HN 36.95 on t h e Temple of Artemis at Ephesus; Tac. Hist. 3.72 a n d 4.53 on the
Capitoline Temple.
81
Vitr. De Arch. 6.8.9, and cf., for example, Cic. QRosc. 24.5, Verr. 2.2.112; Livy 1.54.1,
1.57.1, 42.3.2; Asc. Scaur. 16; Frontin. Aq. 13.2; Tac. Ann. 11.1, Hist. 3.34.
82
Plut. Vit. Per. 12.3-6.
83
W. A m e l u n g , 'Plutarch, Perikles 12-14', Historia 34 (1985), 4 7 - 6 3 ; P.A. Stadter, A
Commentary on Plutarch's Pericles (Chapel H i l l / L o n d o n , 1989), 144, 153-4.
84
Cf. P. Brunt, 'Free l a b o u r a n d public w o r k s at R o m e ' , Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980),
8 1 - 1 0 0 , a n d DeLaine, Baths of Caracalla (above, n. 26), 197-201, for the Severan period.
85
See for example the c o m m e n t s by Joseph. BJ1.158-9 o n t h e speed with which the Temple
of Peace was completed, a n d Pliny, Pan. 51 on t h e speed with which new porticoes a n d shrines
were rising.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 223

rebuilt after fire 'within two years', 86 to the 32 days for raising the Theodosian
obelisk cited above. More generally, the whole vocabulary of building and
rebuilding inscriptions celebrates the act of building by the patron — the
directness of fecit can easily be forgotten. Consciousness of the need to
demonstrate activity also may have contributed to the peculiarly Roman
practice of putting images of major buildings on coins, often before they were
even finished, as a way of keeping both project and protagonist in the public eye
before the eventual practical benefits could be experienced.87 As we have seen,
construction could also be a spectacle, a form of entertainment, like the games
that were another way in which magnificentia could be exercised.
The magnificentia of construction thus fulfils one of the attributes defined
by Aristotle for its Greek equivalent megaloprepeia, that of arousing admiration
and awe in the spectator. This attribute, together with the setting of exceptional
standards, and the need for the result to demonstrate the resources expended on
it, links megaloprepeia to the world of wonders, 88 so that it is not surprising to
find the aqueducts, the Capitolium and the Baths of Caracalla — those
wonders of the Roman world — all discussed in the ancient sources in terms of
magnificentia ?9 Aristotle also makes it clear, however, that megaloprepeia
applied only to benefactions where the object was worthy of the expenditure,
and this positive attribute of megaloprepeia continued to inform the use of the
word in the Roman period. Similarly, for Pliny and Frontinus it was precisely
the utility of the aqueducts that set them far above the useless pyramids as the
genuine wonders of the Roman world, making them a part of the Roman claim
to be civilized and civilizing. It is this moral aspect of magnificentia that makes
it the patron's contribution to civilization and not just to the marvellous.

THE MORAL DILEMMA

The attractions of large-scale or particularly ingenious construction projects lie,

therefore, not just in their ability to produce wonder and awe in the spectator,
but also in the benefits they convey, which together place the giver in an

86
Novara: CIL V 6513 and J. DeLaine, 'Benefactions and urban renewal: bath buildings in
Roman Italy', in J. DeLaine and D. Johnson (eds), Roman Baths and Bathing. I. Bathing and
Society {Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 37) (Portsmouth (RI), 1999), 65-72, esp. pp.
72-3 for a discussion of its significance.
87
These ideas were inspired by an unpublished paper given by Andrew Burnett at the Second
Roman Archaeology Conference at Nottingham in April 1997, and see M.J. Price and B.L. Trell,
Coins and their Cities. Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine (London,
1977), 53-8 for the history of the practice. Coins of Trajan's Column were minted before
completion of the structure: see Claridge, 'Hadrian's Column of Trajan' (above, n. 27), 13-15,
and P.V. Hill, The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London, 1989), 57-8.
88
Arist. Eth. Nic. 4.2.
89
Aqueducts: Frontin. Aq. 13.2 (on the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus), Dion. Hal. Ant.
Rom. 3.67.5; Capitolium: Tac. Hist. 3.72, 4.53; Baths of Caracalla: S.H.A. Sev. 21.11.
224 DELAINE

unassailable position of power with respect to the spectator and beneficiary.

There are, however, dangers in excessive power, particularly when that power is
used in a way that usurps the prerogatives of the gods. So, while megaloprepeia
is nearly always a positive virtue, or at the worst neutral, magnificentia seems to
have carried with it the seeds of a moral dilemma. In keeping with Stoic tenets,
the Republican past was idealized for its austerity, and its political decline
attributed to luxury and avarice. Lavish outlay was suspicious under any
circumstances, so that the acceptance of magnificentia as a virtue was rarely
wholehearted, and only where its results were clearly to the advantage of the
whole people of Rome. Cicero sets up the antithesis of laudable public
magnificentia and hated private luxuria (luxury), which was to echo through
later Latin literature, so that Tacitus can suggest the vice by the context in
which he used the virtue. 90
The same tension between magnificentia and luxuria appears in Pliny's
account of the temporary theatres of Scaurus and Curio, both criticized
specifically on moral grounds. 91 In the case of Scaurus, the extravagant use of
materials is luxuria, because they were for temporary display rather than
permanent advantage and were after removed to adorn Scaurus's house, setting
a bad example in conspicuous consumption; opprobrium is focused especially
on the use of marble, the hallmark of luxuria?2 Curio's theatre is, if anything,
criticized more seriously, for its excess of ingenuity is portrayed as threatening
the life of the whole Roman people. So when Pliny labels the theatres 'this
magnificentia of his [Curio's]' (hanc suam magnificentiam), he is surely being
ironic. As if to make this clear, he immediately goes on to describe the wonders
of true worth, the Roman aqueducts. Yet this also serves to underline the
inherent ambivalence about the natural order and the achievements of man that
runs through all the Natural History?21 Both the quarrying of marble that
begins Book 36, and the building of the aqueducts and other major engineering
projects that ends the section on marble, involve the radical reshaping of Nature
in much the same ways, so that luxuria and magnificentia appear as two sides of
the same coin. 94

0
Cic. Mur. 76 (pdit populus Romanus privatam luxuriant, publicam magnificentiam diligit),
quoted by Quint. Inst. 9.3.82, a n d cf. Veil. Pat. 1.11.5, 2.1.2. F o r use in a negative sense see Tac.
Hist. 2.5 ('His magnificentia a n d wealth a n d the way in which all else superseded the way of life
of a private citizen elevated Mucianus . . . ' ) ; Ann. 3.55 ('Formerly noble families of wealth or
outstanding distinction met their downfall through a passion for magnificentia'); Ann. 14.52
('... even in the pleasantness a n d magnificentia of his gardens he [Seneca] almost surpassed
the princeps'); Ann. 15.48 ( ' . . . he [Piso] indulged in levity, magnificentia and at times in luxus").
91
Pliny, HN 36.113-20.
92
Pliny, HN 36.24.114-15, cf. 36.2.5-6.
93
M . Beagon, Roman Nature. The Thought of Pliny the Elder (Oxford, 1992), 4 1 - 2 , and cf. S.
Citroni Marchetti, 'luvare mortalem. L'ideale programmatico della Naturalis Historia di Plinio
nei rapporti con il moralismo stoico-diatribico', Atene e Roma 27 (1982), 124-48, esp. p. 125.
Pliny, HN 36.1.1-2 a n d 36.24.123-5. Both the quarrying a n d the engineering projects
involve levelling a n d cutting away or through mountains.
TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS 225

In all this Pliny is struggling with a negative view of construction as

contrary to Nature that goes back at least to Cato. 95 While most of the reproach
is reserved for private building — villas built out into the sea for Horace, the
towering insulae of Rome for Seneca — there are suggestions that even major
public works might not be free from taint, and Pliny himself calls the Corinth
canal nefastum, with its undertones of being against divine law.96 This clinging
doubt about the rightness of construction is not just a topos, but arises from the
whole question of the relation of mankind to Nature, itself tied closely to the
ancient debate on the origins of civilization and the idea of human progress.
These fundamental questions can be traced back to Homer, but crystallized
into an active debate during the fifth century BC, which polarized around a set of
opposing interpretations. 97 The most negative version saw mankind as in decay
from an ideal state in a distant golden age, when the human race had been much
closer to the gods. The other version, which gained strength in the later fifth
century BC, saw mankind as emerging from a bestial state. According to some
this happened through the intervention of the gods, or of the Titan Prometheus,
but most recognized progress as arising from the exercise of man's own in-
genuity. The development of geographic — or better still ethnographic —
writing provided examples of primitive races that could be seen as representing
an earlier stage of development. What is common, however, even to the most
positivist writers, is the idea that technological progress went hand in hand with
moral decline, a decline often demonstrated, as in the case of Xerxes, by the
attempted subjugation of Nature to unjustifiable ends.
These heterogeneous views were still current in the late Republican and
early Imperial periods, and seem to have varied with the individual and the
period rather than simply with different philosophical schools. The most positive
expressions of the belief in human progress appeared in the scientific writers,
especially Vitruvius, who presents human progress as a series of discoveries
made not only by observation of the natural world, but also from the exercise
of the intrinsic mental powers that are Nature's gift to man. 98 His sources
seem to be Democritus and Epicurean philosophers, yet his near-contemporary
Lucretius has a more pessimistic view, believing that the progress due to
man's intelligence had gone too far, so that 'every fresh invention creates

95
See E. Romano, 'Dal de officiis a Vitruvio, da Vitruvio a Orazio: il dibattito sul lusso
edilizio', in Le Projet de Vitruve. Objet, destinataires et reception du de architectura (Collection de
I'Ecole frangaise de Rome 192) (Rome, 1994), 63-73, esp. pp. 63-6.
96
Hor. Carm. 2.18.17-22, 3.1.33-7 and cf. T. Pearcy, 'Horace's architectural imagery',
Latomus 36 (1977), 772-81; Sen. Ep. 90.7-9; Pliny, HN 4.10. In general see P. Fedeli, 'L'uomo e
la natura nel mondo romano', in R. Uglione (ed.), L'uomo antico e la natura. Atti del convegno
nazionale di studi, Torino 28-29-30 Aprile 1997 (Turin, 1998), 105-25, esp. pp. 113-16.
97
For detailed discussions, see Dodds, The Ancient Concept of Progress (above, n. 63),
L. Edelstein, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore, 1967), and S. Blundell, The
Origins of Civilisation in Greek and Roman Thought (Beckenham, 1986).
98
Vitr. De Arch. 2.1.
226 DELAINE

a new need'. 99 Cicero is more positive in the words he puts in the mouth of the
Stoic Balbus, but with the emphasis on the divine providence in providing man
with his mental gifts, and on man as the rightful controller of the rest of the
natural world. 100 Another Stoic, Seneca, provides the extreme negative view,
crying out for a return to the simplicity of a primitive life in his critique of
Poseidonius, and elsewhere.101
With the exception of the extreme case represented by Seneca, these very
different individual responses share one factor in common when it comes to
construction: a recognition of the proper boundaries of action. In Vitruvius this
appears as decor (appropriateness), reflecting the Epicurean ideal of to prepon
that looks for harmony between the works of man and of Nature. 102 As Callebat
pointed out, the word is found rarely in prose before the time of Augustus, a
period that, as we have seen, emphasized the civilizing power of construction in
the civic context. But harmony in its civic setting is also the underlying theme of
Aristides's panegyric on Cyzicus, suggesting that this particular view had a
long life among the Roman elite in supporting the exercise of magnificentia.
Related to decor in Vitruvius is utilitas (usefulness), which in its function as an
indicator of social quality underwrites the whole of Pliny's Natural History and
in particular his attitude to exceptional feats of construction. 103 The very similar
use of these concepts in oratory shows that decor and utilitas are not just
concerned with construction, but are fundamental to the thought patterns of
educated Romans. 104 And both attributes, in a speech or a building, can confer
dignitas and auctoritas, the main sources of Roman power.

CONCLUSION

Large-scale construction was too powerful a symbol ever to be neutral. The art
of construction is a marriage of human invention with nature, and provides

99
Lucr. 5.1412-15. See Blundell, The Origins of Civilisation in Greek and Roman Thought
(above, n. 97), 176-98.
100
Cic. Nat. D. 2.99.147-52.
101
Sen. Ep. 90 (see Appendix n o . 6) a n d QNat 3.27-30; cf. D i o Chrys. Or. 6.25 where
P r o m e t h e u s is rightly punished for introducing m a n to the arts of civilization.
102
On decor in Vitruvius, see L. Callebat, 'Rhetorique et architecture dans le 'de
architectura", in Le Projet de Vitruve. Objet, destinataires et reception du de architectura
(Collection de VEcole frangaise de Rome 192) (Rome, 1994), 31-46 and, in relation to design,
Wilson-Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture (above, n. 14), 43-4, 83-4, 136-8.
103
Vitruvius: H. Geertman, 'Teoria e attualita della progettistica architettonica di Vitruvio',
in Le Projet de Vitruve. Objet, destinataires et reception du de architectura (Collection de I'Ecole
franfaise de Rome 192) (Rome, 1994), 7-30, esp. pp. 21-6; P. Gros, 'L'auctoritas chez Vitruve.
Contribution a l'etude de la semantique des ordres dans le de architecture', in Munus non
ingratum: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vitruvius' De architectura and
Hellenistic and Republican Architecture (Bolletin Antike Beschavung Supplement 2) (Leiden,
1989), 126-33. Pliny: Citroni Marchetti, 'luvare mortalem1 (above, n. 93), 125-6.
104
Cf. Quint. Inst. 10.2.27, 9.4.44; Cic. De Or. 3.178.
T E M P L E O F H A D R I A N AT C Y Z I C U S 227

the tool with which man shapes his world to his own image, not only to create
wonder and amazement, but in the interests of civilization. When carried out on a
superhuman scale and with a godlike ingenuity, it expresses and makes permanent
power over nature, symbolizing the greatness and civilizing force of the Empire,
and the power to command resources. In addition it is a source of spectacle, which
aims to leave the observer in awe of the power and god-like nature of those who
could do the impossible. It thus exalts and reinforces the patron whose gift to
architecture, Vitruvius tells us, is the magnificentia produced by the use of the
best materials, techniques and technologies. N o n e of this is of value, however,
unless the exercise of power is carried out with due regard to decor, to the
balance between man's ingenuity and power to command resources, and the
needs of both the wider community and natural law. 'But what is perfect and
truly the gift of some god', concludes Aristides, 'occurs whenever both
adornments are in harmony, that in the soul and that in construction'.

JANET D E L A I N E

Acknowledgements
The original version of this paper was given as a public lecture in February 2000 at the British
School at Rome, where I was Hugh Last Fellow for 1999-2000. I would like to thank Andrew
Wallace-Hadrill and Bryan Ward-Perkins for encouraging me to develop this for publication,
Joanne Berry for help in the early stages of research, and Amanda Claridge and David Wilkinson
for timely comments on various drafts.

APPENDIX
1. Aelius Aristides, Orations 27: Panegyric in Cyzicus, 16-22 and 40-1 105
(16)... I am close to declaring that you have shown all men who have attempted similar
works to be like children, by having erected a work so great that it would have seemed
to be an act of madness to have conceived it and beyond the power of man to
accomplish it. (17) One would be uncertain as to whether most of the island has been
transferred here or remains in its place. But I think that all would agree that this would
be the offering of no other city or quarry than your own. For their nature would not
suffice. Formerly sailors used to judge their position by the peaks of the islands, 'Here is
Cyzicus', 'This is Proconnesus', and whatever other island one beheld. But now the
temple is equal to the mountains, and you alone have no need of beacons, signal fires,
and towers for those putting into port. But the temple fills every vista, and at the same
time reveals the city and the magnanimity of its inhabitants. And although it is so great,
its beauty exceeds its size. (18) If Homer and Hesiod had happened to be alive, I think
that they would have readily transferred to here the tale about the Trojan wall and
would have told how Poseidon and Apollo jointly designed and fashioned this work for
the city, the former by providing rock from the depths of the sea and at the same time
making it possible for it to be brought here, and the latter through his desire to adorn
his city with such a great addition, as it is likely that a founder would do. (19) You

105
Translation after C.A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works. Volume II.
Orations XVII LIII (Leiden, 1981), 98-106.
228 DELAINE

would say that each of the stones was meant to be the whole temple, and the temple the
whole precinct, and again that the temple precinct was big enough to be a city. (20)
If you wish to consider the comfort and luxury which it provides, it is possible to view
this very great temple like three-storied houses or like three-decked ships, many times
greater than other temples, and itself of a threefold nature. For part of the spectacle is
subterranean, part on an upper storey, and part in between in the usual position. There
are walks which traverse it all about, underground and hanging, as it were made not as
an additional adornment, but actually to be walks. (21) There is no need to praise these
things in speech, but they can be left to the surveyors and technical experts, at least to
as many of these as are fully trained and capable of measuring so great a work, since
I fear that not even all of those may be able to attain to accuracy in this matter.
If someone should forego speaking about the temple itself, it is enough to express
admiration for the engineering equipment and the transport, whose invention was
prompted by the requirements of the temple, since they formerly did not exist among
mankind. (22) You should also be congratulated for your good fortune. For while you
have inscribed upon it the name of the best emperor up to that time, your work has
been completed in these times, whose lot again has been the fairest of the fair and for
which most justly would so great a thank offering be erected to the gods, since it is not
easy to find a greater.
(40) These adornments of construction are fair and exercise a remarkable persuasion
over the masses. But what is perfect and truly the gift of some god occurs whenever
both adornments are in harmony, that in the soul and that in construction. (41) For just
as we praise the harmony in the latter and the fact that each element preserves its proper
relationship, so it is also fitting to think that a well lived life takes place whenever
harmony and order prevail throughout. This adornment is truly proper to cities.
This preserves both individual man and city. This need not be bought at the cost of
money, or the expenditure of time, nor must you set up engineering equipment and be
concerned with public works. But each man need only persuade himself to choose the
better course.

2. Diodorus Siculus 17.95.1-2 106

Thinking how best to mark the limits of his campaign at this point, [Alexander] first
erected altars of the twelve gods each fifty cubits high, and then traced the circuit of the
camp three times the size of the existing one. Here he dug a ditch fifty feet wide and
forty feet deep . . . he directed the infantry to construct huts each containing beds five
cubits long, and the cavalry . . . to build two mangers twice the normal size. In the same
way, everything else which would be left behind was exaggerated in size. His idea in this
was to make a camp of heroic proportions and then leave to the natives evidence of men
of huge stature, displaying the strength of giants.

3. Inscriptions from the base of Theodosius's obelisk, Istanbul107

Greek inscription:
It was only the Emperor Theodosius who succeeded in raising the four-sided column,
which has ever lain as a burden on the earth. He committed the task to Proclus, and so
great a column stood erect in thirty-two days.

106
Adapted from Diodorus of Sicily, Loeb edition translated by C.H. Oldfather
(Cambridge/London, 1946-63).
107
E. Iversen, Obelisks in Exile. II. The Obelisks of Istanbul and England (Copenhagen,
1972), 12-13 for the translation used here.
T E M P L E O F H A D R I A N AT C Y Z I C U S 229

Latin inscription:
I was formerly reluctant to obey the Serene Masters, even when ordered to proclaim the
victory over the extinction of the tyrants [Constantine over Maxentius?], but since all
things yield to Theodosius and his everlasting offspring, I was conquered and subdued
in three times ten days on the advice of Proclus.

4. Vitruvius, De Architectura 2.1.2-4, 6-7 108

Some in the group began to make coverings of leaves, others to dig caves under the
mountains. Many imitated the nest building of swallows and created places of mud and
twigs where they might take cover. Then, observing each other's homes and adding new
ideas to their own, they created better types of houses as the days went on. Because
people are by nature imitative and easily taught, they daily showed one another the
success of their constructions, taking pride in creation, so that by daily exercising their
ingenuity in competition they achieved greater insight with the passage of time. First
they erected forked uprights, and weaving twigs in between they covered the whole with
mud. Others, letting clods of mud go dry, began to construct walls of them, joining
them together with wood, and to avoid rains and heat they covered them over with
reeds and leafy branches. Later, when these coverings proved unable to endure through
the storms of winter, they made heaves with moulded clay, and set in rainspouts on
inclined roofs.
When by daily practice they had made their hands fully adept at building, and by
exercising their talents in clever ingenuity they had arrived by habit on the arts, then too
the industry instilled in their spirits brought it about that those who were more dedicated
to these pursuits declared themselves carpenters. Because these things had been so
established in the beginning, and nature had not only equipped the people with senses
like all the other animas, but had also armed their minds with ideas and plans and
subjected all other creatures to their power, so from the making of building they
progressed, step by step, to the other arts and disciplines, and thus they led themselves
out of the life of beasts and of the fields into gentle humanity. Then, training their own
spirits and reviewing the most important ideas conceived among the various arts and
crafts, they began to complete, not houses any longer, but real residences, with
foundations, built up with brick walls or stone, roofed with timber and tiles.
Furthermore, on the basis of observations made in their studies, they progressed from
haphazard and uncertain opinions to the stable principles of symmetry.

5. Virgil, Aeneid 1.421-38109

Aeneas looked wonderingly at the solid structures springing up where there had once
been only African huts, and at the gates, the turmoil, the paved streets. The Tyrians were
hurrying about busily, some tracing a line for the walls and manhandling stones up the
slopes as they strained to build their citadel, and others siting some building and making
its outline by ploughing a furrow. And they were making choice of laws, of officers of
state, and of councillors to command their respect. At one spot they were excavating the
harbour, and at another a party was laying out an area for the deep foundations of a
theatre; they were also hewing from quarries mighty pillars to stand tall and handsome
beside the stage which was still to be built . . . Aeneas looked up at the buildings. 'Ah
fortunate people,' he exclaimed, 'for your city walls are already rising!'

108
Adapted from Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, translated by I.D. Rowland
(Cambridge, 1999), 34-5.
109
Adapted from Virgil, The Aeneid, translated by W.F. Jackson Knight (London, second
edition, 1958), 40-1.
230 DELAINE

6. Seneca, Epistulae 90.7-10 110

Posidonius says: 'When men were scattered over the earth, protected by caves or by the
dug-out shelter of a cliff, or by the trunk of a hollow tree, it was philosophy that taught
them to build houses'. But I, for my part, do not hold that philosophy devised these
shrewdly-contrived dwellings {machinationes tectorum) of ours which rise storey on
storey, where city crowds against city . . . Was it philosophy that erected all these
towering tenements, so dangerous to the persons who dwell in them? Was it not enough
for man to provide himself a roof of any chance covering, and to contrive for himself
some natural retreat without the help of art and without trouble? Believe me, that was a
happy age before architects, before builders! All this was born with the birth of luxury,
shaping timber square and sawing a beam along the marked-out line with a steady
hand. 'Primitive men split their wood with wedges' for they were not preparing a roof
for a future banqueting hall, nor did they carry pine trees or firs along the trembling
streets with a long row of drays, merely to fasten panelled ceilings heavy with gold on
them. Forked poles erected at either end propped up their houses. With close-packed
branches and with leaves heaped up and laid sloping they contrived drainage for even
the heaviest rains. Beneath such dwellings they lived, but they lived in peace. A thatched
roof once covered free men; under marble and gold dwells slavery.

110
Adapted from Seneca, Epistles 66-92, Loeb edition translated by R.M. Gummere
(Cambridge/London, 1920).