Conclusion

The conclusion brings together the arguments of preceding six chapters, setting out the final case for the Roman concept of built heritage as an explanation for the way in which buildings were restored. For the Romans, historical associations were not necessarily invested in the architecture of the buildings. Theirs was a concept of heritage that placed historic value on buildings as nominal entities without tying it to the physicality—the authenticity of appearance or originality of materials—of the structure. The chapter also proposes that the status of architects in the Roman world might provide one reason as to why historic architecture was seemingly not valued.

Ancient Responses to Restoration

This chapter moves from examining how buildings were physically restored to considering the way in which their restoration was received by those who witnessed it. Through a close reading of literary sources, the discussion unravels contemporaries’ responses to instances of rebuilding and what this indicates about attitudes to built heritage in Roman society more widely. Specifically, the chapter returns to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. By considering the way in which the successive phases of the temple were written about by authors including Cicero, Martial, Plutarch, and Tacitus, it is possible to detect a debate about how the building was changed, with voices both embracing and disdaining its ever-increasing grandeur. Importantly, though, these objections to the manner of the restorations come from moral sensibilities about luxuria rather than any notion of valuing historic architecture.

Introduction

The cityscape of republican and imperial Rome was invested with historic significance by its inhabitants. Yet this historic built environment was not static, but subject to destruction and redevelopment. Consequently, Rome’s historic buildings could not simply exist independent of any intervention, but needed to be physically engaged with by the city’s inhabitants. It is the manner in which this was done and how this was perceived that is the subject of this book, with the aim of developing an understanding of the Roman concept of built heritage. The Introduction aims to illustrate some of the importance of, and difficulties with, examining architectural restoration and attitudes to heritage in ancient Roman society through a comparison with the Golden Pavilion Temple in Japan. The Introduction also provides a chapter outline, explaining how the arguments in the rest of the book will unfold.

The Restorations of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus

This chapter focuses on the three reconstructions of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Examining the archaeological, textual, and visual evidence for the appearance of the Catulan, Vespasianic, and Domitianic versions of the temple, it charts how the Capitolium became physically larger and materially grander with each phase. In this way, it is possible to see how the temple retained its nominal identity and accumulated historical associations, while the architecture of the original building was not preserved. Particular attention is also given to the consistent retention of the original footprint of the building in the successive restorations. Contrary to previous interpretations that emphasize political and ideological reasons for this decision, by examining the involvement of haruspices the case is made that the continuity was singularly an act of religious veneration.

Restoration

This chapter opens by considering the functional and ideological reasons behind the rebuilding of structures in ancient Rome. It then moves into a discussion of agency in restoration, examining the extent to which it was the patrons, architects, or other individuals who were responsible for decisions regarding the designs of buildings. The final part of the chapter aims to show the prevailing Roman approach to the restoration of public buildings and sets out a key premise which informs the rest of the study. Briefly, this is that restoration was consistently carried out in an innovative manner, which involved designs being made grander, updated in line with contemporary architectural practices, and with no overt attempt made to purposefully preserve the former appearance of a building for historical reasons.

Definitions and Parameters

This chapter explores the idea of architectural restoration in the Roman world—how ancient authors wrote about it as a subject. It also includes a review of existing scholarship on the subject, defines the concept of built heritage and its applicability to the study of antiquity, and explains the chronological and geographical parameters of the investigation. The final part of the chapter presents a survey of developments in Roman architecture as well as the transformation that the city of Rome underwent between the Great Fire of AD 64 and the early AD 120s, thereby establishing the context in which many of the subsequent discussions can be understood.

Roman Thoughts on the Rebuilding of Rome

This chapter explores how Rome’s inhabitants responded to the destruction and rebuilding of the city of Rome as a whole. The discussion revolves primarily around three authors—Seneca the Younger, Martial, and Tacitus—who all experienced and wrote about the dramatic transformation of Rome’s urban fabric in this period. We see that the way in which these authors characterize the development of the cityscape is indicative of, and informed by, a series of related attitudes towards the historic built environment. In short, that innovative restoration tended to be positively received, that the destruction of existing buildings could often be perceived as a positive occurrence, and that there was no sense of nostalgia for lost structures as architectural relics of the past.

The Casa Romuli Anomaly

This chapter examines the Casa Romuli, the thatched hut associated with the city’s founder Romulus and held up as an exemplum of Rome’s origins. Contrary to other examples discussed in the book, this structure consistently retained its original form and the same type of materials when rebuilt. However, in this instance, too, the case is made that the architectural continuity was not motivated by an overt attempt to preserve the historic appearance of the building, but was instead a consequence of other influences. By drawing a comparison with the maintenance of the Pons Sublicius, a new interpretation of the hut is proposed and the relevance of religious agency in matters of built heritage is again brought to the fore.