The Civic Function of Agrippa’s Pantheon*

The Pantheon in Rome has fascinated and confounded scholars for centuries.
The massive domed rotunda was long attributed to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa,
whose name appears prominently on the inscription above the portico (Fig. 1).
The building was thought to date to the mid-20s BC. It was not until the late
19th century with the work of the French architect Georges Chédanne that the
long-standing error was revealed. Brick stamps clearly showed that the rotunda
was not the work of Agrippa, but dated a century and a half later to the time of
the emperor Hadrian. 1 Excavations followed, revealing traces of a structure
below the Hadrianic building which were attributed to the original Pantheon of
Agrippa. Architectural history had to be rewritten, and Agrippa’s building
awaited reconstruction. Lanciani soon published his views, and they became
orthodox: Agrippa’s Pantheon was a rectangular structure occupying the space
marked out by the portico of Hadrian’s building. Whereas Hadrian’s rotunda
faced north, Agrippa’s building was believed to have faced south. 2 A century
of scholarship followed, exploring the plan and function of Agrippa’s building,
and explaining the unusual relationship between the first Pantheon and the
structure later completed by Hadrian.

∗
  Portions of this paper were presented at the College of Charleston, Connecticut
College, and at the Mediterranean Studies Association conference in Marbella, Spain, in
May 2014. I thank those audiences and the journal’s reviewers for their helpful feed-
back. I owe special thanks to Melissa Huber who discussed with me many of the key
issues and prepared the plan of the Campus Martius to accompany the text. Unless
otherwise noted, all translations are by the author.
1
  For an overview of the Pantheon’s history, see L. Richardson Jr., A New Topo-
graphical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore, 1992, p. 283-286; A. Ziolkowski,
Pantheon, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. 5, Rome,
1999, p. 54-61; and E. La Rocca, Pantheon (fase pre-Adriana), in E.M. Steinby (ed.),
Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. 5, Rome, 1999, p. 280-283; for a discussion
of 19th and 20th century scholarship and the problem of identifying Agrippa’s original
building, see W. Loerke, Georges Chédanne and the Pantheon: A Beaux-Arts Contribu-
tion to the History of Roman Architecture, in Modulus 4, 1982, p. 40-55 and E. Thomas,
The Architectural History of the Pantheon in Rome from Agrippa to Septimius Severus
via Hadrian, in Hephaistos 15, 1997, p. 163-186, at p. 163-169. For a recent argument
that assigns the work on the Pantheon to Trajan, see L. Hetland, Dating the Pantheon,
in JRA 20, 2007, p. 95-112.
2
  See R. Lanciani, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, Boston / New York,
1897, p. 473-481 for the reconstruction of Agrippa’s building.

Latomus 75, 2016

 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon651

Figure 1.  The Pantheon in the Campus Martius (photo: author)

In turn this new orthodoxy began to be challenged in recent decades. Lan-

ciani’s reconstruction of a southern exposure was based on a misinterpretation
of the archaeological evidence, misreading the foundations discovered under the
northern edge of Hadrian’s Pantheon as the back wall of Agrippa’s structure.
Loerke and Tortorici re-examined the reports of the 19th century excavations,
correcting Lanciani and arguing that Agrippa’s Pantheon was a north-facing
complex with a circular sanctuary corresponding in ground plan to Hadrian’s
later structure. 3 Other studies followed, contributing new arguments to support
a north-facing building. 4 Excavations carried out in 1996-1997 offered confir-
mation; evidence of a northern porch approached by lateral stairs was identified
and associated with Agrippa’s building. 5 A century of scholarship built around
a south-facing structure should now be rejected. Like Hadrian’s later rebuilding,
Agrippa’s Pantheon consisted of a north-facing portico fronting a circular cella.
The cella was likely supported by a wooden roof raised on internal supports. 6

3
 Loerke, Georges Chédanne [n. 1]; E. Tortorici, L’attività edilizia di Agrippa a
Roma, in Il Bimillenario di Agrippa, Genoa, 1990, p. 19-55, at p. 27-42.
4
  C.J. Simpson, The Northern Orientation of Agrippa’s Pantheon. Additional Considera­
tions, in L’Antiquité Classique 66, 1997, p. 169-176; Thomas, Architectural History [n. 1].
5
 P. Virgili / P. Battistelli, Indagini in piazza della Rotonda e sulla fronte del
Pantheon, in Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 100, 1999,
p. 137-154.
6
 Virgili / Battistelli, Indagini [n. 5], p. 147-148, M. Wilson Jones, Principles of
Roman Architecture, New Haven / London, 2000, p. 182, and E. La Rocca, Agrippa’s
Pantheon and its Origin, in T. Marder / M. Wilson Jones (eds.), The Pantheon: From
Antiquity to the Present, New York, 2015, p. 49-78, at p. 64-67, offer several possible
reconstructions for the circular structure. As Agrippa’s building was destroyed by fire in
AD 80 (Dio 66.24.2), some portion of the building must have been covered by a wooden
roof. A. Ziolkowski, What Did Agrippa’s Pantheon Look like? New Answers to an Old
Question, in G. Grasshoff / M. Heinzelmann / M. Wäfler (eds.), The Pantheon in
Rome. Contributions to the Conference Bern, November 9-12, 2006, Bern, 2009, p. 29-40
continues to maintain the southern orientation of Agrippa’s building, arguing that the traces
of the north-facing porch belong to the Domitianic rebuilding of the Pantheon. However,
652 darryl a. phillips

Although the building’s history is now better understood, how the Pantheon
functioned in Rome in the Augustan age remains an open question. As our
written sources for Agrippa’s Pantheon are few and no parallel exists in Rome
or Italy for a cult of “All the Gods”, interpretations have rested heavily on the
topographical and historical contexts and a single account of the construction of
the building by the 3rd century historian Dio Cassius. In one influential view,
the south-facing Pantheon was seen to occupy the area of the Palus Capreae,
the “goat marshes” where Romulus was said to have ascended to heaven. This
location was specifically chosen for the building to enhance the Pantheon’s
function as a shrine to Augustus and his family. 7 Another theory, arguing that
a south-facing Pantheon mirrored the basilica-temple of Neptune which Agrippa
constructed immediately to its south, identified the Pantheon as a private shrine
to Mars that celebrated Augustus and his dynasty. 8 With the re-establishment
of the north facing of Agrippa’s building, views of the Pantheon have been
modified slightly. Linking the Pantheon with the Mausoleum of Augustus that
was erected in the same period at the far northern reaches of the Campus Martius,
most now interpret Agrippa’s Pantheon as a dynastic cult site, celebrating
Augustus, his family, and the gods connected with the Julian gens. 9

no satisfactory explanation exists for the imagined 180 degree rotation of plan that he
now attributes to Domitian. For the religious problem with such a rotation, see Simpson,
Northern Orientation [n. 4], p. 170-171.
7
  F. Coarelli, Il Pantheon, l’apoteosi di Augusto e l’apoteosi di Romolo, in Analecta
Romana Instituti Danici (ARID), suppl. 10, 1983, p. 41-46. This view is most recently
found in La Rocca, Agrippa’s Pantheon [n. 6], p. 75-76.
8
  A. Ziolkowski, Was Agrippa’s Pantheon the Temple of Mars in Campo?, in PBSR 62,
1994, p. 261-277.
9
 Loerke, Georges Chédanne [n. 1]; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age
of Augustus, Ann Arbor, 1988; Tortorici, L’attività edilizia [n. 3]; Simpson, Northern
Orientation [n. 4]; and Thomas, Architectural History [n. 1] all view the Pantheon as
some sort of a dynastic religious structure in the Hellenistic tradition. A. Grüner, Das
Pantheon und seine Vorbilder, in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Römische Abteilung MDAI(R) 111, 2004, p. 495-512 places the Pantheon in an Italian
tradition of religious buildings. J. Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples. The
Republic to the Middle Empire, Cambridge, 2005, p. 127-129 and L. Haselberger, Urbem
adornare: Die Stadt Rom und ihre Gestaltumwandlung unter Augustus/Rome’s Urban
Metamorphosis under Augustus, Portsmouth, RI (JRA Suppl. 64), 2007, p. 112-119 find
further significance in the location of the structure. P. Broucke, The First Pantheon:
Architecture and Meaning (abstract), in G. Grasshoff / M. Heinzelmann / M. Wäfler
(eds.), The Pantheon in Rome. Contributions to the Conference Bern, November 9-12,
2006, Bern, 2009, p. 27-28 has presented new evidence for the appearance of Agrippa’s
building, furthering the view that the Pantheon was a key element in an Augustan reli-
gious and dynastic complex. M. Koortbojian, The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus:
Precedents, Consequences, Implications, New York, 2013, p. 133-137, places emphasis
on the new divinity Divus Julius. For the most recent discussion that synthesizes many
of these views, see E. La Rocca, Augustus’ Solar Meridian and the Augustan Urban
Program in the Northern Campus Martius, in L. Haselberger (ed.), The Horologium of
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon653

Three main lines of reasoning have shaped interpretations of Agrippa’s Pan-

theon. First, the evidence from Dio has been seen to point to the function of the
Pantheon as a dynastic shrine, celebrating Augustus and his family. Reconsider-
ing the passage, I present an alternate reading that places the Pantheon within the
established building traditions of the late first century BC. Second, the date 27 BC
is commonly taken to mark the mature development of the principate of Augus-
tus, and this date looms large in interpretations of the Pantheon as a dynastic
shrine from the time of its foundation. 10 In contrast, my approach is to view the
period as one of incremental change, to privilege continuity in political traditions
and building practices over innovations, especially in the 20s BC. During this
period Augustus was actively promoting the restoration of Republican govern-
mental institutions, and the Pantheon should be interpreted in this historical con-
text. Finally, scholars now look to the far northern reaches of the Campus Martius
in assessing the topographical context for Agrippa’s Pantheon. Thus the Pantheon
with its northern orientation is linked with the Mausoleum of Augustus, a private
structure some 700 meters to the north. Such views suppress the Mausoleum’s
own context, located a short distance from the Via Flaminia, a street that must
have been densely populated with other family tombs. 11 Rather than connect
Agrippa’s Pantheon with Augustus’ tomb, my approach is to place the Pantheon
within the context of public building projects in the Campus Martius. Expanding

Augustus: Debate and Context, Portsmouth, RI (JRA Suppl. 99), 2014, p. 121-165, espe-
cially p. 125-132.
10
 Our principal prose sources for the period, Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and
Dio Cassius’ history, both present static views of the period as they look back at Augustus
from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD when the principate had long existed. Suetonius aban-
dons a chronological framework, spending the majority of the biography discussing the
period from 27 BC to AD 14 by topic (see J.M. Carter, Suetonius. Divus Augustus,
Bristol, 1982, p. 3-5). Similarly, Dio emphasizes the events of 27 BC as establishing a new
era (see J.W. Rich, Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53-55.9)
(Reprint with corrections of 1990 edition), Great Britain, 2007, p. 8-16). In contrast, for
the evolving position of Augustus, see E.T. Salmon, The Evolution of Augustus’ Principate,
in Historia 5, 1956, p. 456-478. P.A. Brunt, The Role of the Senate in the Augustan
Regime, in CQ 34, 1984, p. 423-444 and D.A. Phillips, Potestas and Auctoritas: Augustus
and Elections 27-17 B.C., in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 16, 2012,
p. 134-150, demonstrate the continuation of many “Republican” practices after 27 BC.
11
  Recent discussions of the Mausoleum of Augustus emphasize the park-like setting
noted in ancient sources (Strabo 5.3.8; Suet., Aug. 100.4). The park must have occu-
pied the north-west reaches of the Campus Martius. Suppressed in some accounts is the
existence of other tombs that must have lined the entire Via Flaminia from the “Servian
Walls” at the base of the Capitoline leading north out of the city. Juvenal (1.170-171)
notes the dense tombs here, likening them to the tombs along the Via Latina. Although
only scattered traces of tombs on the Via Flaminia have been found, this is due to the
continuous and dense inhabitation of the Campus Martius in post-Classical times and
should not be taken as an indication of the appearance of the area in antiquity. For a
balanced treatment, see P. Rehak, Imperium and Cosmos. Augustus and the Northern
Campus Martius, Madison, 2006, p. 33-37.
654 darryl a. phillips

Figure 2.  The northern Campus Martius in the late first century BC
(plan by Melissa A. Huber)
1) Theater of Pompey, 2) Portico of Pompey, 3) Curia of Pompey, 4) Pantheon,
5) Saepta Julia, 6) Diribitorium, 7) Baths of Agrippa/Basilica of Neptune,
8) Stagnum of Agrippa, 9) Euripus, 10) Aqua Virgo, 11) Obelisk and Meridian of
Augustus, 12) Ara Pacis, 13) Mausoleum of Augustus, 14) Ustrinum of Augustus.

northwards from and contiguous with the theater, portico, and senate house
built by Pompey the Great, Agrippa built an array of new civic spaces – a bath,
basilica, porticoes, gardens, elections office, and voting enclosure (Fig. 2). 12
I suggest that the Pantheon should be assessed within the context of Agrippa’s
building program and viewed in connection with Pompey’s public buildings to
its immediate south.

12
  For a comprehensive map of the entire city of Rome in the Augustan age, see
D. Romano / N. Stapp / M. Davidson, Digital Augustan Rome (http://digitalaugustanrome.
org).
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon655

By focusing on the civic function of Agrippa’s Pantheon we are able to

examine the building from a fresh perspective and gain a new appreciation of
the role the building played in Rome in the Augustan age. Literary and
epigraphic sources indicate that the Pantheon was a favorite meeting venue, and
the plan of Agrippa’s Pantheon suggests that the building was designed to
accommodate large gatherings. Drawing together this evidence and considering
the history of the 20s BC and the topography of the Campus Martius, I argue
that Agrippa’s Pantheon was designed to serve as a new meeting place for the
senate. The Pantheon was built to replace the Curia of Pompey that had been
closed following the assassination of Julius Caesar. Together with the Saepta
Julia immediately to its east, Agrippa’s Pantheon defined a new civic center in
the northern Campus Martius. Like other new venues in the Forum Romanum
that housed the senate and hosted voting assemblies, the sites in the Campus
Martius associated Augustus and his family with the political institutions of the
state, propagating his image as the leading man in Rome. As the principate of
Augustus evolved in the decades that followed, many of the civic functions of
the Pantheon were appropriated by the newly constructed Forum of Augustus
and Temple of Mars Ultor, which opened in 2 BC and became a new venue for
meetings of the senate. Although the Pantheon continued to host other public
meetings for centuries to come, through the refashioning of the building com-
pleted by Hadrian, the temple became renowned for its daring architecture
rather than the civic business conducted there.

1.  Agrippa’s Pantheon in Literary and Epigraphic Sources

Few ancient sources refer directly to Agrippa’s Pantheon, and the site is not
mentioned at all by Augustan writers. This is indeed surprising given the fre-
quent mention of other buildings by writers of the day. 13 Writing some two and
a half centuries after the event, Dio provides the only detailed account of the
construction of the Pantheon in his notice of the buildings completed by Agrippa
in the Campus Martius in 25 BC:
He [Agrippa] also completed the building called the Pantheon. It is called by this
name probably because among the statues it has likenesses of many gods, includ-
ing Mars and Venus, or perhaps, as I think, because the domed vault resembles

13
  See L. Haselberger et al., Mapping Augustan Rome, Portsmouth, RI (JRA, Suppl.
50), 2002, for a catalog of sites and references to ancient authors. The silence of Ovid and
other writers should perhaps caution us against viewing the Pantheon as a centerpiece of a
prominent dynastic scheme. A similar lack of literary sources for the Egyptian obelisk
erected nearby in the Campus Martius clouds the on-going debate about the “Horologium”
of Augustus; see L. Haselberger, The ‘Horologium’: Where Do We Stand, and where
Should We Go?, in L. Haselberger (ed.), The Horologium of Augustus: Debate and
Context, Portsmouth, RI (JRA Suppl. 99), 2014, p. 167-201, at p. 174-176.
656 darryl a. phillips

the heavens. Moreover, Agrippa wished to set up a statue of Augustus there and
to name the building for him. But when Augustus would not accept either honor,
Agrippa set up a statue of the elder Caesar inside, and in the front portico he
placed statues of Augustus and himself.
τό τε Πάνθειον ὠνομασμένον ἐξετέλεσε; προσαγορεύεται δὲ οὕτω τάχα μὲν ὅτι
πολλῶν θεῶν εἰκόνας ἐν τοῖς ἀγάλμασι, τῷ τε τοῦ Ἄρεως καὶ τῷ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης,
ἔλαβεν, ὡς δὲ ἐγὼ νομίζω, ὅτι θολοειδὲς ὂν τῷ οὐρανῷ προσέοικεν. ἠβουλήθη μὲν
οὖν ὁ Ἀγρίππας καὶ τὸν Αὔγουστον ἐνταῦθα ἱδρῦσαι, τήν τε τοῦ ἔργου ἐπίκλησιν
αὐτῷ δοῦναι; μὴ δεξαμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ μηδέτερον ἐκεῖ μὲν τοῦ προτέρου Καίσαρος,
ἐν δὲ τῷ προνάῳ τοῦ τε Αὐγούστου καὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἀνδριάντας ἔστησε. 14

Although this passage has long been used as an important source for under-
standing the Pantheon and its function, key problems with interpreting the text
remain. 15
First, Dio begins his narrative with a discussion of the name “Pantheon,”
providing two explanations as to why the building has this name. To Dio, the
name “Pantheon” does not derive from the function of the building as a shrine
to “All the Gods,” but rather was attributed to the building because of its domed
form or the many statues of gods that it housed. The notion that the Pantheon
owed its name to the dome that crowned the space is certainly incorrect, as many
have noted. 16 The dome that Dio knew in the third century AD was completed in
the Hadrianic period, and yet the structure seems always to have been called
the Pantheon. 17 Dio’s probable error in associating Hadrian’s dome with Agrip-
pa’s building should perhaps give pause, but ought not to discredit his account

14
 Dio 53.27.2-3.
15
  For the most recent discussion of this passage, see A. Ziolkowski, Prolegomena
to any Future Metaphysics on Agrippa’s Pantheon, in A. Leone / D. Palombi / S. Walker
(eds.), Res Bene Gestae: Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva
Margareta Steinby, Rome, 2007, p. 465-476, at p. 468-472.
16
  Among those who believe that Dio mistook Hadrian’s building for Agrippa’s are
W.L. MacDonald, The Pantheon. Design, Meaning, and Progeny, Cambridge, MA,
1976, p. 76-77; Richardson, Topographical Dictionary [n. 1], p. 283; Ziolkowski,
Pantheon [n. 1], p. 55; Wilson Jones, Principles [n. 6], p. 179; Rich, Cassius Dio [n. 10],
p. 163. Ziolkowski, Prolegomena [n. 15], p. 473 revises his earlier position, crediting
Dio with acknowledging the building’s history (Dio 66.24.2) and viewing the building
as retaining its basic form throughout the multiple restorations.
17
  The Pantheon is first named in the Acts of the Fratres Arvales (CIL 6.2041 = ILS
229.51), an inscription dating to the reign of Nero. Agrippa’s Pantheon had been dam-
aged by fire in AD 80 (Dio 66.24.2), restored by Domitian (Hieron., ab Abr. 2105), then
struck by lightning and seriously damaged once again under Trajan (Oros. 7.12.5;
Hieron., ab Abr. 2127). The final rebuilding was completed by Hadrian (S.H.A., Hadr.
19.10), although the inscription prominent on the architrave continued to credit Agrippa
as the builder (CIL 6.896 = ILS 129). For a complete list of the primary sources and
summary of the building history, see Richardson, Topographical Dictionary [n. 1], p. 283-
286; Ziolkowski, Pantheon [n. 1]; La Rocca, Pantheon [n. 1]. See Hetland, Dating
the Pantheon [n. 1], for the possibility that the rebuilding was begun under Trajan, and
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon657

altogether. The assertion that the building was called the Pantheon because it
contained statues of many gods is reasonable given the testimony of the statues
of Mars, Venus, and other gods. The evidence from Dio does, however, leave
open the possibility that the Pantheon was dedicated to a specific group of gods,
rather than the cult of “All the Gods” as the name implies. 18
Furthermore, Dio notes that Agrippa had planned to set up a statue of Augus-
tus inside the Pantheon and to name the building for him. Some have read this
statement as an attempt by Agrippa to build an “Augusteum,” a sort of shrine
to Augustus and his family dynasty. 19 The construction of a formal shrine to
Augustus in Rome is certainly anachronistic for the 20s BC. We know that
Augustus refused divine honors in Rome during his lifetime, and a temple to
Augustus was constructed in Rome only after his death and formal deification
by the senate. 20 Proponents of an informal dynastic shrine have not offered a
satisfactory explanation of how such a site, especially one on the scale of Agrip-
pa’s Pantheon, would have actually functioned in the city at this date. 21

only finished by Hadrian. For the argument that the Hadrianic inscription copied the
original, see below.
18
  The god or gods to whom the Pantheon was dedicated remains an open question.
P. Godfrey / D. Hemsoll, The Pantheon: Temple or Rotunda?, in M. Henig / A. King
(eds.), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1986, p. 195-209, at
p. 197-198 argue that dedicating a temple to “All the Gods” is counter to Roman prac-
tice which requires an individual cella for each deity worshipped at a site. See also
F. Castagnoli, Il Tempio Romano: Questioni di Terminologia e di Tipologia, in PBSR
52, 1984, p. 3-20, at p. 7-13 for examples of aedes that share a common templum. Only
the 10th century Suidas (4.20 Adler: Πάνθειον: τόπος. ἀνὰ τὸ πεδίον τῆς Ῥωμαίων
νεὼς ἦν κοινὸς πάντων τῶν θεῶν. Πάνθειον αὐτὸν ἐκάλουν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι) refers to the
Pantheon as a temple to all of the gods, but the designation in this late source is clearly
based on a literal rendering of the building’s name and should not be pressed as evidence
for the building’s function. Evidence of statues of gods within the Pantheon is not nec-
essarily evidence of a cult to those deities in the building. P. Stewart, Statues in Roman
Society. Representation and Response, Oxford, 2003, p. 184-193, demonstrates that stat-
ues of gods were erected in a variety of contexts in the Roman world, in both private
and public settings. Statues erected as the focal point of cult activities in the cella of
temples represent only a small subset of religious images.
19
  For example, Coarelli, Il Pantheon [n. 7], p. 44-45; Thomas, Architectural History
[n. 1], p. 173; I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford, 2002, p. 143;
Haselberger, Urbem adornare [n. 9], p. 112-119; La Rocca, Agrippa’s Pantheon [n. 6],
p. 53.
20
 Suet., Aug. 52; Dio 51.20.8. For Suetonius’ views on the deification of Augustus,
and for a recent discussion of the worship of Augustus during his lifetime and after his
death, see D. Wardle, Suetonius on Augustus as God and Man, in CQ 62, 2012, p. 307-
326. See D. Fishwick, On the Temple of Divus Augustus, in Phoenix 46, 1992, p. 232-255
for a discussion of the Temple of Divus Augustus and the shrine erected at Augustus’
birthplace after his death in AD 14.
21
 Gradel, Emperor Worship [n. 19], p. 270-282, offers the most nuanced assess-
ment, stressing the concept of “relative divinity” versus “absolute divinity,” noting that
Augustus was already a god to many before his death. Criticism of the view that the
658 darryl a. phillips

A more likely reading of Dio’s words is a literal one: Agrippa proposed to

place a statue of Augustus inside the building and to name the structure for him.
Rome in the late first century BC was filled with buildings that were formally
named in honor of individuals or informally took on the builder’s name as a
designation. The new senate house in the Forum Romanum, completed in
29 BC, was named the Curia Julia to honor Octavian’s adoptive father Julius
Caesar. 22 Augustus later constructed the Theater of Marcellus in the name of
his son-in-law. 23 And, as Dio himself reported, Agrippa had honored Augustus
the year before the opening of the Pantheon by naming the newly monumenta­
lized voting enclosure next door to the Pantheon the Saepta Julia. 24 All are
contemporary examples of the practice of naming a building in honor of an
individual. In addition, the Temple of Diana on the Aventine was commonly
referred to as Diana Cornificiana, recalling the rebuilding carried out by Lucius
Cornificius. 25 Similarly, the Temple of Apollo in the circus was referred to as
Apollo Sosianus in recognition of the rebuilding carried out by Gaius Sosius. 26
The testimony from Dio suggests that Agrippa had planned to name his buil­
ding the “Pantheon of Augustus” or the “Julian Pantheon” in much the same
way as he had named the neighboring voting enclosure the Saepta Julia. For
some reason this proposal was unacceptable to Augustus.
In Dio’s account, the refusal of the name is tied to Augustus’ refusal to have
a statue of himself placed inside the building. It was not the existence of an
honorary statue that was unacceptable to Augustus, but the placement of the
statue inside this particular building. After all, Augustus did not object when
Agrippa placed statues of both of them in the portico of this very building.
Agrippa was not planning to place a cult statue of Augustus within the building;
Dio is careful to distinguish between the statues of gods (ἀγάλματα) early in
his narrative and the statues of humans (ἀνδριάντες) that follow, using precise
vocabulary to make a clear distinction. 27 The placement of an honorary statue

Pantheon was an informal dynastic shrine has been raised by Ziolkowski, Prolegomena
[n. 15], p. 471-472; see also the discussion below. Following Augustus’ death the Pantheon
may have been associated with the imperial cult, as the use of the site by the Fratres Arvales
suggests (n. 17 above), but this should be seen as an evolution in the use of the building,
not the original function. For the connection between the Fratres Arvales and the cult of
Divus Augustus, see J. Scheid, Romulus et ses frères. Le collège des frères arvales,
modèle du culte public dans la Rome des Empereurs, Rome, 1990, p. 417-424.
22
 Dio 51.22.1. Following convention, I use the name „Octavian“ to identify Augus-
tus prior to 27 BC. In January of that year Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus received the
new honorific “Augustus.”
23
  RG 21.1; Suet., Aug. 29.4.
24
 Dio 53.23.2.
25
  CIL 6.4305 = ILS 1732.
26
 Pliny, HN 13.53, 36.28.
27
 On the Greek and Latin terminology used for statues, see Stewart, Statues [n. 18],
p. 20-28. This point is explored by Ziolkowski, Prolegomena [n. 15], p. 468-471.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon659

in a temple did not constitute the establishment of a cult of the individual. Many
examples attest a long standing tradition of erecting honorary statues both
inside shrines and within the precincts of Roman templa. 28 Plutarch suggests
that it was already a well-established practice by the early second century BC. The
Roman people had erected a statue of Cato the Elder in the Temple of Salus fol-
lowing his censorship in 184 BC. 29 It was a noteworthy distinction for Cato, but a
commonplace tribute at the time; Cato is said to have lamented the fact that so
many unknown men had received a similar honor. The practice escalated in the
late Republic. During his lifetime Julius Caesar was voted by the senate the special
honor of having statues of himself placed in all of the temples of Rome. 30 In 35 BC,
Octavian himself is reported to have placed an honorary statue of Antony in the
Temple of Concord. 31 Honorary statues were erected in buildings throughout the
city. To understand the reason why Augustus opposed the placement of a statue of
himself inside the Pantheon, we should look to the function of the building.
Also significant in Dio’s account is the mention of the statue of the “elder
Caesar” (τοῦ προτέρου Καίσαρος) that Agrippa placed inside the building. Dio
groups this statue of Julius Caesar with the statues of Augustus and Agrippa
that were placed in the porch, using the term for human statues (ἀνδριάντας). 32
As Caesar had been deified in 42 BC, we might expect Dio to use the term
usually reserved for an image of a deity (ἄγαλμα) to describe the statue of
Caesar as he did to identify the likenesses of Mars and Venus. Earlier in his
history Dio had used the term “elder Caesar” to refer to Julius Caesar the man,
drawing a distinction between Julius Caesar and the younger Octavian Caesar
(the future Augustus); elsewhere he refers specifically to “Divus Julius” and
the “demi-god Caesar” in order to specify the god. 33 The narrative suggests that
Agrippa placed inside the Pantheon a statue of Julius Caesar the man, not the
god Divus Julius. Perhaps one of the many honorific statues of Caesar in Rome
was relocated to this site. In Dio’s account the image of Julius Caesar was cer-
tainly not intended to be the primary focus of cult activity in the temple.

28
  See G. Lahusen, Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue in Rom. Literarische und epi­
graphische Zeugnisse (Archaeologica 35), Rome, 1983, p. 33-37 for honorific statues in
temples; p. 12-18 for statues in the comitium, rostra, and curia, all of which were inaugu-
rated templa with civic functions. More generally, see Stewart, Statues [n. 18], p. 118-
148, on the proliferation of honorific statues in Rome, including the placement of statues
of both men and gods in temples.
29
 Plut., Cat. Maior 19.3-4. On this passage, see D. Fishwick, The Statue of Julius
Caesar in the Pantheon, in Latomus 51, 1992, p. 329-336, at p. 329.
30
 Dio 44.4.4-5. For this unusual honor, see M. Koortbojian, The Double Identity of
Roman Portrait Statues: Costumes and their Symbolism at Rome, in J. Edmondson /
A. Keith (eds.), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture (Phoenix Suppl. vol. 46),
Toronto, 2008, p. 71-93, at p. 77-78.
31
 Dio 49.18.6.
32
  Fishwick, Statue of Julius Caesar [n. 29], p. 331-332.
33
 Dio 47.18.1, 51.2.5; cf. Dio 51.20.6: ἥρως Ἰούλιος, 56.36.2: ἡμίθεος Καῖσαρ.
660 darryl a. phillips

In sum, Dio reports that Agrippa had constructed a temple in the Campus
Martius that was called the Pantheon because of its architectural plan or sculp-
tural decoration. The building housed statues of Mars and Venus and other
gods. Agrippa had hoped to include an honorific statue of Augustus inside the
temple’s cella and to name the structure the “Pantheon of Augustus” or the
“Julian Pantheon”, but Augustus would not allow either honor. Instead, he
placed a statue of Julius Caesar inside the building; statues of Augustus and
Agrippa were set up in the pronaos.
The detailed account in Dio is supplemented by passing references to the
Pantheon in other sources. Pliny the Elder knew Agrippa’s Pantheon, referring
to the decorations of the temple on three occasions in his Natural Histories
which dates to the 70s AD. Pliny reports that a famous pearl, once part of a
matched set prized by Cleopatra, was split in two to make earrings for a statue
of Venus located in the Pantheon. 34 Like other temples in Rome, Agrippa’s
Pantheon received some of the spoils from the Actian campaigns. 35 Later, in a
discussion of the use of bronze in buildings, Pliny notes that Syracusan bronze
column capitals were erected by Agrippa in the Pantheon. 36 Finally, he tells us
that Diogenes of Athens was responsible for the sculptural decorations of Agrip-
pa’s Pantheon, including the pedimental sculptures and caryatids that were
placed on the columns of the temple. 37
Although clearly identified as a temple (templum) by Pliny and others, the
Pantheon seems to enjoy a status different from other religious shrines. 38 In a

34
 Pliny, HN 9.121.
35
 Dio 51.22.2-3 notes that the temple of Divus Julius, Curia Julia, and the temple of
Jupiter on the Capitoline all received spoils from Egypt.
36
 Pliny, HN 34.13.
37
 Pliny, HN 36.38: Agrippae Pantheum decorauit Diogenes Atheniensis; in col-
umnis templi eius Caryatides probantur
38
  Macrobius locates the same statue of Venus described by Pliny “in the templum
which is called the Pantheon” (3.17.18: in templo quod Pantheum dicitur). For a discus-
sion of the definition of templum and the variety of structures that might be templa, see
J. Stambaugh, The Functions of Roman Temples, in ANRW 2.16.1, 1978, p. 544-608, at
p. 557, 580-583; P. Catalano, Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano.
Mundus, templum, urbs, ager, Latium, Italia, in ANRW 2.16.1, 1978, p. 440–553, at
p. 467-479; and J. Linderski, The Augural Law, in ANRW 2.16.3, 1986, p. 2146-2312,
especially p. 2271-2272 for the distinction between templa and aedes sacrae. For a
comprehensive overview of the terminology for religious structures, see Castagnoli, Il
Tempio Romano [n. 18]. Thomas, Architectural History [n. 1], p. 171 also explores the
meaning of a Roman templum in connection with the Pantheon, but does not consider
that a curia was a templum. The posited circular plan for the rear portion of Agrippa’s
building does not rule out the inauguration of the site as a templum. L.R. Taylor, Roman
Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar, Ann Arbor,
1966, p. 19-21, notes that the rostra in the forum and other speakers’ platforms employed
for public meetings were templa, and this is despite the fact that they might lack simple
rectilinear plans. Aulus Gellius (NA 14.7.7) specifically notes that the round Temple of
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon661

list of buildings restored by the emperor Hadrian that is presented in his biog-
raphy, the Pantheon and other public buildings are separated from religious
shrines: “In Rome, he restored the Pantheon, Saepta, Basilica of Neptune,
many sacred shrines, the Forum of Augustus, and the Baths of Agrippa” (Romae
instaurauit Pantheum, Saepta, Basilicam Neptuni, sacras aedes plurimas, Forum
Augusti, Lauacrum Agrippae). 39
The unusual plan of the Pantheon, with emphasis on the large interior space in
contrast to the exterior-focus of other temples, may explain this distinction. 40
Several sources explicitly note the use of the Pantheon as a meeting space. The
earliest mention records a meeting of the Fratres Arvales held on 12 January AD
59 to make a formal announcement of the dates of the annual sacrifices to Dea
Dia to be carried out in May of that year. 41 Meetings in the Pantheon also appear
in the epitome of Dio by Xiphilinus. Hadrian is said to have managed all of the
important business of the state in collaboration with the senate, holding sessions
with the leading men in the Palace, the Forum, the Pantheon, and other places. 42
Given that we now know that the Hadrianic building shared a northern orientation
with Agrippa’s original structure, this evidence should perhaps carry more weight
in an assessment of the function of Agrippa’s building. Finally, we hear of the
Pantheon hosting a public meeting two centuries later: a decree issued by the
co-emperors Valentinian and Valens was delivered in the Pantheon. 43 Until at
least the 4th century AD the Pantheon served as a civic space for conducting pub-
lic business. Just as the general plan of the building persisted through successive
reconstructions, it seems that the civic function of the building persisted as well.
The evidence for the use of the Pantheon points to a civic role for the buil­
ding as a meeting venue. The historical and topographical contexts offer further
support for this view. When Agrippa planned the Pantheon, there was a need
for a new senate house in the Campus Martius.

Vesta was not inaugurated as a templum, suggesting that the circular form did not itself
rule out the possibility.
39
 S.H.A., Hadr. 19.10.
40
  Godfrey / Hemsoll, Pantheon [n. 18], p. 202-205 consider the use of Hadrian’s
Pantheon as an assembly hall, noting the similarities of the design to other imperial
audience chambers. The revised understanding of the plan of Agrippa’s Pantheon makes
their observations applicable to Agrippa’s building as well.
41
  CIL 6.2041 = ILS 229.51: in Pantheo. The public ceremony of indictio is attested for
the Pantheon and the Temple of Concord; Scheid, Romulus [n. 21], p. 460-464. Scheid
suggests that the meeting in AD 59 was perhaps held in the porch of the Pantheon, in full
view of people gathered in front of the building, but he is likely envisioning the south-facing
rectangular plan of Agrippa’s Pantheon that was accepted at the time. With our new under-
standing of the plan, we should perhaps now move the meeting to the interior of the building.
42
  Dio 69.7.1: Ἔπραττε δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου πάντα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀναγκαι-
ότατα, καὶ ἐδίκαζε μετὰ τῶν πρώτων τοτὲ μὲν ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ τοτὲ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῷ
τε Πανθείῳ καὶ ἄλλοθι πολλαχόθι.
43
  Cod. Theod. 14.3.10: lecta in Pantheo.
662 darryl a. phillips

2.  A New Senate House in the Campus Martius

In the years following the battle of Actium, a spirit of reconciliation filled

Rome. The emergency government of the Triumvirate had expired and civil
wars had been brought to an end. The gates of Janus Quirinus were closed in
January 29 BC for the first time in two hundred years, symbolically marking
the return of peace throughout the empire. 44 The old form of government could
now be restored. Reflecting on the period, Augustus himself provides a succinct
summary of the return of the old order:
In my sixth and seventh consulships [28-27 BC], after I had put an end to civil wars,
although by everyone’s agreement I had power over everything, I transferred the
state from my power into the control of the Roman senate and people.
In consulatu sexto et septimo, postqua[m b]el[la ciuil]ia exstinxeram, per con-
sensum uniuersorum [po]tens re[ru]m om[n]ium, rem publicam ex mea potestate
in senat[us populi]que R[om]ani [a]rbitrium transtuli. 45

The irregularities of the preceding years had come to an end, and Republican
political institutions and practices were reestablished. The consuls once again
alternated the fasces, marking a return to collegial governance. 46 Laws and
rights were returned to the Roman people. 47 Electoral and legislative voting
assemblies began to function again as they had in years past. 48 The prestige of
the senate was restored. 49 Augustus himself describes the restoration of poli­
tical institutions as a process that took place over a period of two years, but
preparations had started earlier, and the system continued to evolve in the years
following 27 BC. 50
Part of this restoration included the opening of monumental new venues to
house the political institutions of the state. A new senate house in the Forum
Romanum had originally been planned by Julius Caesar on an axis to correspond

44
  RG 13; A. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Text, Translation, and Commentary,
Cambridge, 2009, p. 158-160.
45
  RG 34.1. The text and translation are those of Cooley, Res Gestae [n. 44], p. 98;
for a discussion of the passage, p. 256-260.
46
  Dio 53.1.1; on this passage, see Rich, Cassius Dio [n. 10], p. 132.
47
  An aureus of 28 BC records: leges et iura p.R. restituit; J.W. Rich / J.H.C. Williams,
Leges et Iura P.R. Restituit: A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28-27 B.C.,
in Numismatic Chronicle 159, 1999, p. 169-213.
48
  Suet., Aug. 40.2: comitiorum quoque pristinum ius reduxit.
49
  Vell. Pat. 2.89.3: restituta uis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas,
imperium magistratuum ad pristinum redactum modum. See Brunt, Role of the Senate
[n. 10], for the activity of the senate throughout the Augustan age.
50
 See W.K. Lacey, Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System
(ARCA 35), Leeds, 1996, p. 132-153 for a discussion of the date of the beginning of the
principate.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon663

with the new Forum Iulium. 51 Work was completed by Octavian and the buil­
ding, named the Curia Julia in honor of Octavian’s adoptive father Julius Caesar,
was officially opened in 29 BC. 52 Looking back on his work late in life, Augus-
tus emphasizes the symbolic importance of the senate by placing the Curia Julia
at the top of the long list of buildings that he completed in his monumental
tomb inscription. 53 In opening the new curia, Octavian was proclaiming that he
had restored Rome to normal governance. 54 The Curia Julia was to serve as a
regular meeting place of the senate throughout the principate. 55
Just ten days before the opening of the Curia Julia, Octavian had dedicated
the new Temple of Divus Julius at the other end of the forum. The temple had
been started by the triumvirs after the deification of Julius Caesar by the senate
in 42 BC, but was completed by Octavian alone. As with the Curia Julia,
Augustus later took full credit for the building. 56 The podium of the temple
seems to have been specifically designed to accommodate legislative voting
assemblies, and thus was intended to replace the Temple of Castor that had
served as an important voting site for almost a century. 57 The Temple of Divus
Julius likely became the primary site for voting inside the pomerium immedi-
ately following its dedication in 29 BC.
There was, of course, a political motive for these works. By sponsoring these
buildings, Octavian took on the role of patron and protector of the political
institutions of the state, and the use of these monuments of the Julian family for
civic functions created a strong tie between the state and his family. The per-
sonal role that Octavian played was made clear to all in the scheduling of the
opening ceremonies to coincide with the celebration of his triple triumph in 29
BC. The triumph was held on three consecutive days, August 13-15. 58 The
Temple of Divus Julius was dedicated on August 18, followed on August 28 by
the dedication of the Ara Victoriae that marked the opening of the Curia Julia. 59
Both the Temple of Divus Julius and the Curia Julia were decorated with spoils

51
  For overviews and bibliography, see Richardson, Topographical Dictionary [n. 1],
p. 103-104; E. Tortorici, Curia Julia, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum
Urbis Romae, vol. 1, Rome, 1993, p. 332-334; M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Pouvoir des
mots, pouvoir des images: Octave et la curia Iulia, in Klio 77, 1995, p. 386-404.
52
  Dio 51.22.1.
53
  RG 19.1.
54
  Cooley, Res Gestae [n. 44], p. 183.
55
 R. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton, 1984, p. 113-116.
56
  RG 19.1.
57
 D.A. Phillips, The Temple of Divus Iulius and the Restoration of Legislative
Assemblies under Augustus, in Phoenix 65, 2011, p. 371-388, at p. 376–384.
58
 On Dio’s account of the triple triumph (51.21.5-9), and for addition references, see
M. Reinhold, From Republic to Principate: An Historical Commentary on Cassius
Dio’s Roman History Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.), Atlanta, 1988, p. 156-158.
59
  Inscr.It. 13.2.497. Dio 51.22.1 places the event in 29 BC; Inscr.It. 13.2.79 provides
the date for the dedication of the altar.
664 darryl a. phillips

from the campaigns, which had surely been displayed through the streets as part
of the triumphal procession. 60 Octavian brought peace for the senate and Roman
people and with the wealth acquired through his conquests he was to provide
monumental new venues for the political institutions of the state.
While Octavian himself focused on new civic buildings in the Forum Roma-
num, his close political ally Marcus Agrippa monumentalized the civic space of
the Campus Martius outside the pomerium. Traditionally, the pomerium marked
the sacred boundary of the city, separating the areas of urban and military aus-
pices (domi et militiae). 61 Meetings of the centuriate assembly, the body that
elected consuls and praetors, were always held outside the pomerium as the
assembly represented the military units of the state. 62 The plan to monumen-
talize the election site in the Campus Martius was originally conceived by
Julius Caesar. 63 After Caesar’s death, work continued on the site under the
direction of M. Aemilius Lepidus, Octavian’s colleague in the triumvirate, but
it was Agrippa who completed the work, dedicating the structure in 26 BC. 64
The assembly space in the center of the Saepta was surrounded by the largest
porticoes in the city of Rome, surpassing even the famous garden portico con-
structed by Pompey for his theater complex just to the south-west. 65 Dio tells
us that Agrippa named the structure the Saepta Julia in honor of Augustus. 66
The Saepta Julia was the principal voting site for electoral assemblies, comple-
menting the new Temple of Divus Julius which served as the primary venue for
legislative assemblies. 67
It seems likely that Augustus and Agrippa would have also given thought to
the construction of a new extra-pomerial meeting place for the senate. Just as
two sites for popular assemblies had been opened, there was a need for two

60
  Dio 51.21.7-8, 51.22.2; RG 21.2.
61
 On the symbolic importance of the pomerium, see M. Koortbojian, Crossing the
Pomerium. The Armed Ruler at Rome, in B.C. Ewald / C. Norena (eds.), The Emperor
and Rome (Reprint with corrections of 2010 edition), Cambridge, 2011, p. 247-274,
especially p. 247-249; for bibliography and topography, see M. Andreussi, Pomerium,
in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Vol. 4, Rome, 1999, p. 96-
105.
62
  Gell., NA 15.27.
63
  Cic., Att. 4.16.14. For the building’s history, see Richardson, Topographical
Dictionary [n. 1], p. 340-341; E. Gatti, Saepta Iulia, in E.M. Steinby [n. 61], p. 228-
229.
64
  Dio 53.23.1-2.
65
 See Haselberger, Urbem adornare [n. 9], p. 108-113 for a description and the
comparison with Pompey’s complex.
66
  Dio 53.22.2: Ἰούλια αὐτὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ Αὐγούστου προσαγορεύσας.
67
  Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies [n. 38], p. 47-58; Phillips, Temple of Divus
Iulius [n. 57], p. 379-380. In conjunction with the Saepta Julia and immediately to its
south, Agrippa also undertook the construction of a voting office, the Diribitorium. The
Diribitorium was completed by Augustus and opened in 7 BC; Richardson, Topographical
Dictionary [n. 1], p. 109-110.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon665

senate houses. Senate sessions were held outside the pomerium to accommodate
magistrates engaged in military assignments and pro-magistrates who could not
cross into the city without laying down their imperium. This was particularly
important for generals returning to Rome who were seeking from the senate a
vote for a triumph to celebrate their campaigns. 68 In the 2nd and early 1st centu-
ries BC such meetings were most frequently held in the Temple of Bellona or
the Temple of Apollo, sites located in the narrow southern reaches of the Cam-
pus Martius close to the Capitoline Hill and the Tiber River. 69 By the middle of
the first century these sites could no longer comfortably accommodate the
expanded senate. The senate had steadily increased in size in the course of the
first century BC, rising from the traditional size of 300 members to more than
600 by 61 BC, and even more under Caesar and during the Triumvirate. 70
In 55 BC Pompey had opened a dedicated space for extra-pomerial meetings of
the senate as part of his monumental theater complex in the Campus Martius,
perhaps with an eye to his own need to attend meetings as a pro-magistrate
while remaining outside the pomerium. 71 He selected a site to the north of the
temples of Bellona and Apollo, where open space was available for his ambi-
tious building plans. Pompey’s purpose-built curia was specifically designed for
the expanded senate and likely became the largest meeting place in Rome, the
only venue able to accommodate benches for all senators in attendance. 72
Pompey’s new curia was part of a massive complex that included Rome’s
first permanent theater as well as a public garden portico (Fig. 2). 73 The site
was opened with great fanfare in 55 BC, although final construction was not
completed until 52 BC, the year of Pompey’s third consulship. Pompey’s work

68
  Talbert, Senate [n. 55], 119-120; M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat de la Répu­
blique Romaine, Rome, 1989, p. 28-30, 137-151. Embassies from states not allied with
Rome were also regularly received by the senate outside the pomerium.
69
  Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat [n. 68], p. 144-147 presents the evidence for the
use of these temples.
70
 L.R. Taylor / R.T. Scott, Seating Space in the Roman Senate and the Senatores
Pedarii, in TAPA 100, 1969, p. 529-582, at p. 530-531. More than 1,000 members are
recorded in 29 BC when a first attempt was made to reduce the size (Dio 52.42.1-2).
It was not until 18 BC that Augustus was able to bring the size of the senate back down
to 600 members (Dio 54.13-14).
71
 On the Curia of Pompey, see R. Étienne, La Curie de Pompée et la mort de César,
in Hommage a la Mémoire de Jérôme Carcopino, Paris, 1977, p. 71-79; F. Coarelli,
Curia Pompei, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. 1,
Rome, p. 334-335. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat [n. 68], p. 164-165 and M. Temelini,
Pompey’s Politics and the Presentation of his Theatre-Temple Complex, 61-52 BCE, in
Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 7, 2006, p. 1-14, at p. 5 both note Pompey’s special need
for extra-pomerial meetings.
72
  Taylor / Scott, Seating Space [n. 70], p. 569-572.
73
 For detailed discussions of Pompey’s complex, see A. Kuttner, Culture and
­History at Pompey’s Museum, in TAPA 129, 1999, p. 343-373 and Temelini, Pompey’s
Politics [n. 71].
666 darryl a. phillips

was the largest public complex in the Campus Martius, outdone only by the
building projects in this area undertaken by Marcus Agrippa several decades
later. Like the Curia Julia in the Forum Romanum, the Curia of Pompey was a
templum, an inaugurated space. Decrees of the Senate could only be passed in
a templum, a space which had been ritually established by augurs. 74 Like the
rest of the complex, the curia took the name of its builder, appearing in the
sources as both the Curia Pompeia and the Curia Pompeii. 75 A statue of the
building’s sponsor had been placed inside the senate chamber. 76 As in other
public buildings, the inclusion of an honorary statue is not surprising, especially
given that the statue honored Pompey as the builder. 77 Sculptures depicting the
fourteen nations subdued by Pompey during his eastern campaigns were also
set up somewhere in Pompey’s complex, possibly in the theater’s arcades. 78
Pompey’s curia, built from the proceeds of his campaigns, provided a fitting
setting for extra-pomerial senate meetings to deliberate on the awarding of
future triumphs and to consider foreign affairs.
In the late 50s BC there was also a frequent need to hold meetings of the
senate outside the pomerium to accommodate Pompey, who remained in Italy
while holding a pro-magistracy and thus could only participate in sessions of
the senate when they were held outside the city. We hear of two such meetings;
one in 52 BC before Pompey was elected to the consulship, which was held in
the Curia of Pompey, and another meeting in 49 BC for which the location is
not named. 79 Later in 49 BC, the senate again met outside the pomerium, this
time to accommodate Julius Caesar who had returned to Rome from Gaul. 80
The Curia of Pompey was probably the regular meeting place of the senate
during these years. 81 It is likely that in the late 30s and early 20s BC Octavian
would have anticipated his own need for senate meetings outside the pomerium.
Just as Pompey and Caesar had needed to meet with the senate while pro-­
magistrates, looking to his own future, Octavian very likely imagined that he
too would have a similar need after the expiration of his triumviral powers and

74
  Gell., NA 14.7: nisi in loco per augurem constituto, quod templum appellaretur,
senatusconsultum factum esset, iustum id non fuisse. Gellius names the Curia Hostilia,
Curia Pompeia and Curia Julia as loca profana that had been established as templa by
the augurs in order to accommodate meetings of the senate.
75
  Gell., NA. 14.7; Livy, Per. 116.
76
  Plut., Brut. 14.2.
77
  A century later, when the emperor Claudius restricted the setting up of statues in
public except by permission of the senate, he made an exception for people who con-
structed or restored the buildings; builders and their relatives were allowed to continue the
practice of setting up statues without restriction (Dio 60.25.2-3); see Stewart, Statues
[n. 18], p. 133.
78
  Pliny, HN 7.34; Richardson, Topographical Dictionary [n. 1], p. 384.
79
  Dio 40.50.2, 41.3.3.
80
  Dio 41.15.2.
81
  Taylor / Scott, Seating Space [n. 70], p. 572.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon667

the end of his consecutive consulships. And by this time a new venue had to be
built as Pompey’s curia was closed.
The senate had assembled at the Curia of Pompey on 15 March 44 BC.
At the start of this session Julius Caesar was struck down by assassins, falling
at the feet of the statue of Pompey inside the meeting chamber. 82 Both the day
itself and the building were declared accursed. At a meeting in 42 BC the senate
declared the Ides of March, which had long been a regular meeting day of the
senate, to be a dies nefas; no meetings could take place on this date. 83 The
chamber where Caesar had been killed was closed off, and as Dio reports,
would later be transformed into a latrine. 84
The need for a new curia in the Campus Martius in the late 30s and early 20s
BC was acute, but given recent history, it was a politically charged issue.
I suggest that Agrippa built the Pantheon to replace the Curia of Pompey.
Agrippa chose a location in the Campus Martius directly to the west of the
Saepta Julia, the voting place of the centuriate assembly that was in the process
of being monumentalized. Both buildings were approached from the north, and
together they formed a new civic center that marked the northern boundary of
public building in the Campus Martius (Fig. 2). The Pantheon was designed on
a grand scale to accommodate the 1,000 members of the senate at the time. 85
As Dio tells us, Agrippa had initially planned to name the new building after
Augustus and to erect a statue of Augustus within the building. 86 Thus Agrip-
pa’s imagined “Pantheon of Augustus” complete with statue of the honoree
inside the senate chamber would have mirrored the former Curia of Pompey
with the statue of its namesake. When Augustus rejected this plan a clever
alternative saw the placement of a statue of Julius Caesar inside the building.
The man struck down at the foot of the statue of Pompey in the Curia Pompeia
would now be honored with a statue in the new senate house.
Like the Curia Julia and the Curia of Pompey, Agrippa’s Pantheon was inau-
gurated as a templum, a requirement for the senate to conduct business there.
Statues of Venus, Mars, and other gods decorated the interior of the building.
Offerings might be made to these deities in connection with sessions of the
senate, as was the practice with the goddess Victoria in the Curia Julia. 87 As we
have seen, the statue of Venus in Agrippa’s Pantheon was adorned with spoils

82
  Plut., Caes. 66.1; Cic., Div. 2.23.
83
  Dio 47.19.1; Suet., Jul. 88.
84
  Although the Curia of Pompey was closed, the statue of Pompey was preserved.
Augustus transferred the statue from the curia to a marble arch opposite the entrance to
Pompey’s theater (Suet., Aug. 31.5).
85
  Dio 52.42.1 states that there were 1,000 senators at the start of 29 BC when work
on the Pantheon was likely underway. Augustus was not successful in his attempts to
reduce the Senate to 600 members until 18 BC (n. 70 above).
86
  Dio 53.27.3.
87
  Herodian 5.5.7.
668 darryl a. phillips

captured from Cleopatra, just like the statue of Victoria in the Curia Julia. 88
Other elements of the decorative scheme of the Pantheon were a fitting reminder
and response to Pompey’s complex. Noteworthy among the decorations were
figures of caryatids that Pliny reports were placed on the columns of the Pan-
theon. 89 To a Roman viewer, caryatids were a potent symbol of conquest and
submission. 90 Just as Pompey’s complex had included statues of the nations
conquered by Pompey, the caryatids of Agrippa’s building created an image of
Roman domination. The decoration of both complexes was particularly appro-
priate for meetings of the senate related to foreign policy and military affairs.
Indeed, in many ways Agrippa’s entire building program in the Campus Mar-
tius followed on and directly responded to the monumental building program of
Pompey. 91 For many years, Roman generals had used the spoils of their victories
to build public monuments in the Campus Martius. 92 As the wealth brought back
from conquests increased, so too did the scale of building. Portico complexes
rose in place of free-standing buildings. Then Pompey’s massive complex of
theater, garden portico, and senate house set a new standard by providing space
for both leisure activities and civic institutions. Agrippa’s work followed this
model, and expanded the monumentalized zone immediately to the north of
Pompey’s complex (Fig. 2). The Saepta Julia provided a richly adorned venue
for electoral assemblies. Agrippa also opened Rome’s first public sweat-bath,
which was later expanded to include the first full public bathing complex after
Agrippa led the waters of the new Aqua Virgo to the Campus Martius in 19 BC.
Like Pompey’s complex, Agrippa’s work included both covered porticoes
and elaborate gardens, but Agrippa also added a huge artificial lake and stream
(the Stagnum and Euripus), regularizing the former marshlands and creating
leisure promenades that featured displays of statue groups. Agrippa’s projects in
the Campus Martius were greater even than those of Pompey.
The rivalry with Pompey’s complex was given final and lasting form with
the inscription that Agrippa placed above the entrance of the Pantheon. I sug-
gest that Agrippa’s inscription was a direct response to Pompey’s. Although the

88
 Dio 51.22.2.
89
 Pliny, HN 36.38.
90
  Vitr. 1.1.5. For discussions, see A. Lesk, “Caryatides probantur inter pauca
operum”: Pliny, Vitruvius, and the Semiotics of the Erechtheion Maidens at Rome, in
Arethusa 40, 2007, p. 25-42, at p. 38-42; B. Kellum, Concealing/Revealing: Gender and
the Play of Meaning in the Monuments of Augustan Rome, in T. Habinek / A. Schiesaro
(eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, 2004, p. 158-181, at p. 167-168.
91
 On Agrippa’s building, see J-M Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, Rome, 1984, p. 231-
298. Roddaz (p. 238-241) notes that during the civil wars Agrippa seems to have
acquired property in the Campus Martius that had originally been owned by Pompey. On
Pompey as an inspiration and rival for Agrippa, see especially Roddaz, p. 271-272, 275
n.256.
92
 Rehak, Imperium and Cosmos [n. 11], p. 9-30 provides an overview of the building
history of the region.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon669

dedicatory inscription on Pompey’s complex does not survive, a literary source

provides enough information to make possible a partial restoration. Aulus Gel-
lius, quoting a letter of Cicero’s freedman Tiro, reports a particular grammatical
problem that arose when Pompey was preparing for the final dedication when
construction was at last completed in 52 BC. 93 Pompey was unsure whether to
record himself on the occasion of his third consulship as consul tertium or con-
sul tertio. Cicero is said to have provided a clever solution to the grammatical
conundrum. He advised Pompey to write consul tert. This anecdote suggests
that no similar inscription existed in Rome at the time, or surely Pompey would
have used it as a model. Certainly Pompey’s dedicatory inscription stating that
he was three-times consul was the first of its kind in Rome.
Agrippa’s inscription directly responded to that of Pompey’s complex, and
Agrippa did not equivocate. The Pantheon of Agrippa, marked by the simple
statement that “Marcus Agrippa, consul three times, built it” made clear to all
that this structure was to replace Pompey’s curia. 94 Hadrian chose to preserve
the original text of Agrippa’s inscription in his later reconstruction of the
building. Earlier, Augustus had retained Pompey’s dedicatory inscription,
including the statement that Pompey was consul three times, when he had
restored Pompey’s complex. 95 The rival inscriptions of the three-time consuls
Pompey and Agrippa were to survive for centuries.

3.  The Pantheon and the Forum of Augustus

The Pantheon of Agrippa was not used for long as an extra-pomerial meeting place
for the senate. As the principate of Augustus evolved, there proved to be little need
for meetings of the senate outside the boundary of the city. Old customs were

93
  Gell., NA 10.1.6-7.
94
  CIL 6.896 = ILS 129: M. Agrippa L. f. cos. tertium fecit. The view that Hadrian
retained the wording of Agrippa’s original inscription stems from the testimony in the
Historia Augusta (Hadr. 19.10: eaque omnia propriis auctorum nominibus consecrauit).
M.T. Boatwright, Agrippa’s Building Inscriptions, in ZPE 189, 2014, p. 255-264 at
p. 260-261, offers the most recent argument that Hadrian copied Agrippa’s inscription.
In contrast, Ziolkowski, Prolegomena [n. 15], p. 467-468 argues that the Hadrianic inscrip-
tion was a new creation, and reflects a change in the nature of the building. C.J. Simpson,
The Pantheon’s Inscription, CIL 6.896. Its Date of Composition, Cultural Context, and
‘Message’, in Athenaeum 97, 2009, p. 149-157, has also argued that the wording of the
inscription was a second century creation, fitting with the culture of Hadrianic Rome and
the unique honor of three consulships bestowed upon elite supporters of the princeps.
Neither Ziolkowski nor Simpson considers the precedent of Pompey’s inscription. The
argument put forward here does not deny that the inscription also had special relevance
in Hadrian’s day.
95
  RG 20.1: Pompeium theatrum … refeci sine ulla inscriptione nominis mei. Aulus
Gellius notes that in his day the restored text of Pompey’s inscription used the Roman
numeral “III” in place of the abbreviation tert (Gell., NA 10.1.8: numerus tertii consu-
latus non uti initio primoribus litteris, sed tribus tantum lineolis incisis significatus est).
670 darryl a. phillips

adapted to accommodate the new order as Augustus acquired powers that were not
bound by the traditional geographic limits of the pomerium. In time new buildings
were erected to serve as venues for the evolving institutions of the state. By 2 BC
the role of the Pantheon had been usurped by the Temple of Mars Ultor in the
Forum of Augustus. Augustus’ new complex became the chief location for ses-
sions of the senate related to military honors and foreign affairs.
In the years that followed the restoration of governmental institutions in the
early 20s BC, the state continued to evolve as Augustus’ position became for-
malized in new and unexpected ways. Augustus negotiated a long-term settle-
ment that granted him imperium both inside and outside of the city of Rome. 96
In the period from 31 to 23 BC, Augustus continually held the consulship and
thus could exercise imperium within the city and also command troops in the
provinces. After he stepped down from the consulship mid-year in 23 BC, he
departed the city to tour the eastern provinces where he exercised a pro-consular
command. During the period that he was away, it is unlikely that he would have
possessed imperium in the city. 97 Had Augustus remained near Rome, the senate
would surely have made regular use of the Pantheon of Agrippa to accommo-
date him, just as sessions had been held in the Curia of Pompey to accommo-
date Pompey during his pro-magistracy in the late 50s BC. Augustus, however,
chose not to remain in the outskirts of Rome. He departed for the east and upon
returning to the city in 19 BC was immediately voted special consular powers,
a grant that once again gave him formal standing within the city. After this time,
for Augustus himself there would no longer be an issue of relinquishing his
imperium when crossing the pomerium; he was to hold imperium militiae et
domi for the rest of his life. 98 After 19 BC Augustus could meet with the senate
inside the city without restriction. Significantly, it was at this very time that
Augustus seems to have begun construction of the Forum of Augustus and the

96
  The general outlines of the “settlements” of 27, 23, and 19 BC are well under-
stood, although some of the specific details remain the topic of debate. See the recent
discussions of the issue by H. Cotton / A. Yakobson, Arcanum Imperii: The Powers
of Augustus, in G. Clark / T. Rajak (eds.), Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman
World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, Oxford, 2002, p. 193-209, and J.-.L Fer-
rary, ‘Res Publica Restituta’ et les pouvoirs d’Auguste, in S. Franchet D’Espèrey et
al. (eds.), Fondements et crises du pouvoir, Bordeaux, 2003, p. 419-428.
97
  For a discussion and bibliography, see most recently Phillips, Potestas [n. 10],
p. 138-145.
98
  Koortbojian, Crossing the Pomerium [n. 61], p. 266-272 offers a recent detailed
discussion that includes bibliography. Koortbojian places the Prima Porta statue type in
the context of this pivotal change, noting that the cuirassed image of Augustus conveyed
the idea of imperium without boundary, an important new concept that marks an evolution
in the Roman state. According to Dio 53.32.5, in 23 BC Augustus had been freed from
the requirement of laying down his pro-consular imperium upon crossing the pomerium;
after 19 BC, his imperium in Rome was consular in nature.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon671

Temple of Mars Ultor, a new venue within the pomerium designed for meetings
of the senate. 99
Furthermore, both the evolution of Augustus’ position in the state and the
return to the practice of an interval between the consulship and a pro-consular
command took away the need that many others would have had for extra-
pomerial sessions of the senate. 100 Now that most Roman forces stationed in
provinces were formally commanded by Augustus, the awarding of triumphs
was greatly curtailed. Only a commander who fought under his own auspices
was eligible for this honor. Because they did not wield independent commands,
the legates of Augustus could not celebrate a triumph and thus did not come
under the old restrictions when they returned to Rome.
The triumph had been a high honor sought by many early in Augustus’ life.
Suetonius reports that more than thirty men had been voted a triumph in Augus-
tus’ day; all but three celebrated victories won before 27 BC. 101 In 19 BC,
Cornelius Balbus became the last person outside the family of Augustus to earn
a triumph. It was more than a decade before the next celebration, that of Tibe-
rius in 7 BC, and almost two more decades before Tiberius again triumphed in
AD 12. Both Balbus and Tiberius likely observed the old traditions, making a
formal request to the senate for a triumph and remaining outside the pomerium
until the day of the celebration. Our sources do not record where the meetings
of the senate were held to award these triumphs, but the Pantheon of Agrippa
may well have been the venue used by the senate to vote for the triumphs held
in 19 and 7 BC. 102 In another context Tiberius was certainly careful to observe
the prohibition against crossing the pomerium. In discussing the events of 7 BC
prior to Tiberius’ triumph, Dio specifically notes that there was a need for a

99
  For the date, see most recently J. Geiger, The First Hall of Fame. A Study of the
Statues in the Forum Augustum, Leiden, 2008, p. 59.
100
  Koortbojian, Crossing the Pomerium [n. 61], p. 268-271.
101
  Suet., Aug. 38.1. On the passage in Suetonius, see Carter, Suetonius [n. 10], p. 151.
For a discussion of triumphs after 27 BC, including triumphs that were turned down, see
F. Hickson, Augustus Triumphator: Manipulation of the Triumphal Theme in the Political
Program of Augustus, in Latomus 50, 1991, p. 124-138; Koortbojian, Crossing the
Pomerium [n. 61], p. 268-271; G. Sumi, Ceremony and the Emergence of Court Society
in the Augustan Principate, in AJP 132, 2011, p. 81-102, at p. 87-93.
102
  The vote for Tiberius’ triumph was taken late in 8 BC and the triumph was cele-
brated in January of 7 BC. Dio’s account (55.6.5) of the awarding of the triumph is
abbreviated, and it is unclear whether Tiberius was back in Rome at the time of the vote.
Tiberius certainly did not cross the pomerium until the day of his triumph. For the tri-
umph of Tiberius in AD 12, the vote of the senate was likely taken in the Temple of Mars
Ultor (see discussion below). The lack of specific references to meetings of the senate
held in the Pantheon is not surprising given that the locations of only two extra-pomerial
senate meetings are known for the entire period from 27 BC to AD 14, and both were
exceptional cases. In 17 BC a meeting was held in the Saepta Julia (CIL 6.32323.50) in
connection with the Ludi Saeculares (when a large public venue may have been desired),
and in 7 BC a meeting was held in the Portico of Octavia (discussed below).
672 darryl a. phillips

special extra-pomerial senate session on the Kalends of January when Tiberius

entered office as consul with Gnaeus Piso as his colleague. 103 For this tradi-
tional meeting of the senate at the start of the year, Tiberius chose a site in the
Portico of Octavia specifically because it was located outside the pomerium; as
he had yet to celebrate his triumph Tiberius could not cross into the city. 104 The
site in the Portico of Octavia was likely chosen over Agrippa’s Pantheon
because of its close proximity to the Capitoline. The New Year’s meeting was
traditionally held in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus; 105 the Portico of
Octavia was located at the foot of the Capitoline in the southern Campus Martius,
immediately below the Temple of Jupiter and just outside the pomerium.
The triumphs of Tiberius in 7 BC and AD 12 show how the traditional
­celebration had evolved; the triumph had become a special honor to be enjoyed
only sparingly, and exclusively by members of Augustus’ family. Even Augus-
tus himself did not celebrate again after his triple-triumph in 29 BC, but instead
received other honors from the senate. 106 In place of the ritual of the triumph
that had held a place of high prestige during the late Republic, new honors were
developed to recognize successful military leaders.
Augustus himself constructed a new venue for the awarding of military hon-
ors, the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Forum of Augustus dedicated in 2 BC. 107
Both Suetonius and Dio provide detailed accounts of the function of the new
complex, drawing upon the lex templi that established official uses of the site. 108

103
  Dio 55.8.1.
104
  Dio 55.8.1: Τιβέριος  ... ἔς τε τὸ Ὀκταουίειον τὴν βουλὴν ἤθροισε διὰ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ
πωμηρίου αὐτὸ εἶναι. On this passage, see P. Swan, The Augustan Succession: An His-
torical Commentary on Cassius Dio‘s Roman History Books 55-56 (9 B.C.-A.D. 14),
Oxford, 2004, p. 72. This „Curia of Octavia“, which seems to have been a modest
structure incorporated into the Portico of Octavia perhaps functioning as scholae, is
mentioned only in Dio and Pliny (HN 36.28). The site was built several years after the
Pantheon, following the death of Marcellus in 23 BC when Octavia took over work on
the complex; Richardson, Topographical Dictionary [n. 1], p. 104, 317-318. By this
date the senate had been reduced to some 600 members, down from the 1,000 reported
in 29 BC (cf. note 70 above).
105
  Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat [n. 68], p. 69.
106
  The senate voted that new ceremonial altars be dedicated in Augustus’ honor to
mark his return from provincial tours in 19 BC and again in 13 BC (RG 11.1-12.2). The
Altar of Fortuna Redux, formally dedicated in 19 BC, and the Ara Pacis, dedicated in
9 BC, were erected along the roads where Augustus crossed back into the city of Rome.
On the altars, see Cooley, Res Gestae [n. 44], p. 151-156. Augustus (probably in 25, 19,
and 8 BC), Agrippa (in 19 and 14 BC), and Tiberius (in 12 BC) were all voted triumphs
which they turned down, suggesting a period of transition when new honors were being
developed; see Hickson, Augustus Triumphator [n. 101], p. 126-130.
107
 For discussions and bibliography, see Richardson, Topographical Dictionary
[n. 1], p. 160-162; V. Kockel, Forum Augustum, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topo-
graphicum Urbis Romae, vol. 2, Rome, 1995, p. 289-295.
108
  Suet., Aug. 29.1-2; Dio 55.10.2-4. See Swan, Augustan Succession [n. 104], p. 93-99.
Swan posits a common Latin source for both accounts.
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon673

For the senate, the Temple of Mars Ultor was established as the venue for
­taking votes to award triumphs, an action formerly taken at locations outside
the pomerium. 109 Other ceremonies were to further the role of the new complex
as the center for military affairs. Those departing for provincial commands were
to set out from the temple. On returning to the city, triumphal insignia were to
be dedicated here along with military standards reclaimed from the enemy.
­Statues of successful commanders were to be erected in the porticoes of the new
forum.
Although our sources are silent on the matter, it is likely that the senate met
in the Temple of Mars Ultor to vote a triumph for Tiberius in AD 12. Presu­
mably, the senate would have also met in the Temple of Mars Ultor to pass
decrees of ovation and to award triumphal ornaments marking lesser military
achievements. 110 Our only specific mention of a meeting held there comes
under Caligula, when the emperor is said to have sent a dispatch from Germany
with special instructions that it be delivered to the consuls at a meeting of the
senate in the Temple of Mars. 111 Caligula was clearly fishing for a triumph.
Augustus’ new complex of forum and temple represented the culmination of
the tradition of monumental building as undertaken by Pompey and forwarded
by Agrippa. The Forum of Augustus consisted of a vast open area paved in
marble, flanked on either side by long porticoes with two sets of hemicycles
opening up behind each. The hemicycles and porticoes housed an extensive
series of honorific portrait statues of those who had contributed to the greatness
of the Roman Empire. 112 In future years, commanders who were awarded
­military honors were to have bronze statues erected in their honor here. 113 In
effect, the Forum of Augustus housed a “Hall of Fame” that was intended to
serve didactic purposes, providing models for Augustus himself and future
principes, as well as for the Roman people as a whole. 114 At the narrow north-
west end of the forum the Temple of Mars Ultor stood on a high podium. The
temple was designed with an unusually broad cella, a feature that would facili-
tate the use of the space for meetings of the senate.

109
 M. Bonnefond, Transferts de functions et mutation idéologique: le Capitole et
le Forum d’Auguste, in CEFR 98, 1987, p. 251-278, at p. 254-256.
110
 See R. Syme, Some Imperatorial Salutations, in Phoenix 33, 1979, p. 308-329 for
a discussion of known cases in the Augustan era. The awarding of triumphalia ornamenta
was an innovation, first introduced to honor Tiberius in 12 BC. Suetonius (Aug. 38.1) notes
that Augustus awarded triumphal ornaments to more than thirty men; Brunt, Role of the
Senate [n. 10], p. 434-435 argues that the Senate continued to play its traditional role in
the awarding of honors.
111
  Suet., Cal. 44.2.  ; Talbert, Senate [n. 55], p. 117.
112
  Suet., Aug. 31.5.
113
  Dio 55.10.3.
114
  The most recent discussion, with updated bibliography and full discussion of the
evidence for the statues, is Geiger, First Hall of Fame [n. 99]; I borrow the phrase “Hall
of Fame” from Geiger’s work.
674 darryl a. phillips

It is perhaps significant that a major decorative element of Augustus’ new

complex was derived from Agrippa’s Pantheon. The caryatids that supported
the architrave on the attic level of the porticoes in the Forum of Augustus
repeated the scheme from the Pantheon, and were likely modeled directly on
the Pantheon’s caryatids. 115 In the new forum, these symbols of conquest and
submission were now directly linked to the commanders who were responsible
for Roman domination as statues of generals stood directly below the caryatids.
Agrippa’s statue was included among the honorees, just as his image had been
erected in the porch of the Pantheon. 116 But here, as the principate of Augustus
had evolved, Agrippa was no longer represented alongside Augustus. Augustus’
position was now unique. The senate decreed that a quadriga inscribed with the
title “Father of the Country” (Pater Patriae) be erected in Augustus’ honor in
his new forum. The honorific title had been presented to Augustus by universal
acclamation of the senate, equites and Roman people. 117 By decree of the senate
the title Pater Patriae was also to be inscribed in the entrance of Augustus’
house and the Curia Julia. Augustus had earned a unique position, now separate
from the other leaders.
The evolution of Augustus’ position within the state and the construction of
the new Forum of Augustus and Temple of Mars Ultor directed the focus of
civic activities away from the Pantheon of Agrippa. Although its primary civic
role as an extra-pomerial senate house had been curtailed, the Pantheon never-
theless continued to retain a public function. It seems likely that the podium of
the Pantheon would have been used by officials when elections were being held
in the Saepta Julia, immediately to the east. Agrippa’s building was approached
by lateral stairs, creating a front podium with a blank façade that could be used
as a speaker’s platform. 118 Open space in front of the structure, stretching far to
the north in the Campus Martius, provided ample room for crowds. 119 The cre-
ation of new voting centuries in honor of Gaius and Lucius Caesar in AD 5
required a new venue to host pre-voting, before the casting of votes in the
Saepta Julia. 120 It seems likely that Agrippa’s Pantheon would have served this

115
  Lesk, Caryatides [n. 90], p. 33-38 builds on an argument put forward by P. Broucke,
The Caryatids from Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli and the Pantheon of Agrippa (abstract), in
AJA 103, 1999, p. 312.
116
  Geiger, First Hall of Fame [n. 99], p. 136-137.
117
  RG 35.1.
118
  The Pantheon was a templum rostratum, on which, see R. Ulrich, The Roman
Orator and the Sacred Stage: The Roman Templum Rostratum (Collection Latomus,
vol. 222), Brussels, 1994.
119
  The open area is suggested by the placement of the later baths of Nero, constructed
in alignment with the west side of the Pantheon. A colonnade was later constructed in
front of the Pantheon, formally defining the space; Richardson, Topographical Dictionary
[n. 1], p. 284.
120
 For the text of the Tabula Hebana that refers to the Lex Valeria Cornelia of
AD 5, see J.H. Oliver / R.E.A. Palmer, Text of the Tabula Hebana, in AJP 75, 1954,
 the civic function of agrippa’s pantheon675

purpose, given its location outside the pomerium and the fact that it was an
inaugurated templum which was a necessity for Roman voting procedures. 121
The presence of statues of both Augustus and Agrippa in the porch of the
­Pantheon would have added special significance to the voting ritual. The later
addition of new voting centuries honoring Germanicus and Drusus show that
this practice continued at least through Julio-Claudian times.
After Augustus’ death, the Pantheon continued to evolve in its role. The
Fratres Arvales met there in AD 59, and likely at other times as well. The asso-
ciation of the site with Augustus no doubt made the Pantheon an appealing
venue. In the second century AD Hadrian completed a massive re-engineering
of the Pantheon, creating the domed rotunda that stands today. The fact that the
Pantheon was no longer a major site for civic activities allowed for a radical
reworking: traditional Roman religious architecture was generally conservative,
while imperial audience halls featured innovative designs. 122 After the new
­Pantheon was completed, the site returned to a position of prominence in the
later years of Hadrian’s reign. In its new form the Pantheon became one of
Hadrian’s favorite venues for meetings with leading men in the state, and was
still in use for civic functions at the end of the fourth century AD. 123

4.  Conclusion

Augustus succeeded in establishing the principate, not by declaring himself a

monarch and promoting his family dynasty following his victory at Actium, but
rather by restoring the institutions of Republican government while accumulat-
ing an unprecedented combination of traditional powers and associating himself
and his family with the institutions of the state. The Pantheon of Agrippa marks
an early step in the evolution of the principate of Augustus. Republican institu-
tions were restored in the 20s BC and monumental new sites were constructed
to house the political bodies of the state. Voting assemblies and sessions
of the senate convened at the Temple of Divus Julius, Curia Julia, and the
Saepta Julia, all of which were completed between 29 and 26 BC. The Pan-
theon, completed in 25 BC, was another of these buildings with an important

p. 225-249. The ballots of the special voting units were carried into the Saepta Julia to
be counted (line 35 of the inscription records in saept[a d]eferantur).
121
 Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies [n. 38], p. 73-74. The practice of sortition in
voting required that the lots be drawn in a templum.
122
  Godfrey / Hemsoll, Pantheon [n. 18], p. 202-205; P. Davies / D. Hemsoll /
M. Wilson Jones, The Pantheon: Triumph of Rome or Triumph of Compromise?, in Art
History 10, 1987, p. 133-153 argue that the plan for Hadrian’s Pantheon was modified
during construction when monolithic columns intended for the portico were diverted for
use in the Temple of the Divine Trajan, suggesting that Trajan’s temple was more important
than the Pantheon.
123
  Dio 69.7.1; Cod. Theod. 14.3.10.
676 darryl a. phillips

civic function. Originally built to replace the Curia of Pompey as an extra-

pomerial meeting place for the senate, the Pantheon of Agrippa played an
important role in the reestablishment of Republican institutions in the 20s BC.
Together, these new civic buildings in the Forum Romanum and the Campus
Martius developed the image of Augustus as patron and protector of the insti-
tutions of the state.
In the decades that followed the opening of the Pantheon, new monuments
were built in the northern Campus Martius that marked the evolution of Augus-
tus’ position. After his election as Pontifex Maximus in 12 BC, Augustus
adjusted the calendar to correct an error that had caused the calendar to move
ahead several days. To celebrate this achievement, Augustus erected an obelisk
with a meridian line in 10 BC in the northern Campus Martius near the Saepta
Julia and Pantheon. 124 The next year, the Ara Pacis was dedicated by the senate
and people of Rome as a thanks offering to Augustus for bringing peace to the
Roman world. This monument marked the place on the Via Flaminia where
Augustus had crossed the pomerium and entered back into the city on his return
from the provinces three years before. The altar was a new form of honor, as
Augustus himself had repeatedly refused another triumph. The Saepta Julia,
Pantheon, obelisk, and altar were all structures with civic functions, built by or
for the senate and people of Rome. All of these structures celebrated Augustus’
role in the state and created a binding link between Augustus and state institu-
tions. As the decades passed, the principate evolved and the links became more
direct.
After the settlement of 19 BC there proved to be little need for a senate
house outside the pomerium as Augustus’ power had been freed from traditional
restrictions. By 2 BC the Pantheon of Agrippa was supplanted by the Temple
of Mars Ultor and the Forum of Augustus. Augustus’ impressive new complex
was designed to host meetings of the senate and civic activities related to
­military honors and foreign affairs. Although the primary civic function of the
Pantheon was curtailed, the temple continued to play host to meetings in the
years that followed. The monumental reworking of the building by Hadrian
assured the Pantheon’s lasting fame, long after its original civic function was
forgotten.

Connecticut College.Darryl A. Phillips.

124
  P. Heslin, Augustus, Domitian and the so-Called Horologium Augusti, in JRS 97,
2007, p. 1-20 offers a forceful argument for viewing the „Horologium“ of Augustus as a
civic monument erected by the Pontifex Maximus, not part of an elaborate dynastic complex.