DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0631
VENUS ET ROMA
553
Romae (Serv. Aen. ii. 227), templum urbis (Amm. Marcell. xvi. 10. 14 ;
Hist. Aug. Hadr. 19 ; Cassiod. Chron.), urbis Venerisque templa (Prud.
c. Sym. i. 221), and possibly templum Veneris1 (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 32).
The plans were drawn by Hadrian himself, and evoked sharp criticism
from his Greek architect, Apollodorus, who is said to have been put to
death in consequence (Cass. Dio lxix. 4). The temple was dedicated
in 135 a.d. (Hieron. loc. cit. ; cf. Athen. viii. 63, p. 361, who erroneously
gives the day as the Parilia), but perhaps finished by Antoninus Pius
(Cohen, Hadrian 1420-1423, Pius 698-703, 1074-1076).
In accordance with Roman theory in such matters, it was necessary
to build a separate cella for each goddess, in this case not side by side, but
back to back, that of Venus facing east, and that of Roma west (Prud.
loc. cit. : atque Urbis Venerisque pari se culmine tollunt templa). In
307 the temple was injured by fire and restored by Maxentius (Chron. 148 ;
Aur. Viet. Caes. 40 : urbis fanum) ; and the whole of the superstructure
dates from his time, as was first pointed out by Nibby (Roma Antica
ii. 738 ; 2 cf. AJA 1912, 429). It was one of the monuments that
aroused the special wonder of Constantius when he visited Rome in 356
(Amm. Marcell. xvi. 10. 14), and was probably the largest and most magni-
ficent temple in the city. It is mentioned in the Notitia (Reg. IV), and
somewhat later by Prudentius (loc. cit.), for the last time in antiquity.
The history of its destruction is unknown, but in 847-853 Leo IV built
the church of S. Maria Nova in its ruins (HCh 352), and this is one of the
chief arguments that it was the earthquake of his reign that wrought so
much harm in and around the forum (LPD ii. 108, c. 20 : terre motus
in urbe Roma per indictionem factus est x (i.e. before 30th August, 847)
ita ut omnia elementa concussa viderentur ab omnibus). This church
was rebuilt in 1612 and is now called S. Francesca Romana. (Cf. p. 235).
The temple proper was built on an enormous podium of concrete
faced with travertine, 145 metres long and IOO wide, on the north side
of the Sacra via, between the Velia and the Colosseum, and on the line
of the main axis of the latter, necessitating the removal of the Colossus
Neronis (q.v.). Owing to the slope of the ground, the height of the
podium at the east end is considerable, and chambers were constructed
in it for the storage of the machinery and apparatus of the amphitheatre.
On this podium was a peribolus formed of a colonnade consisting of an
outer wall and a single row of enormous columns of grey Egyptian granite
on the sides, and probably of a double row of columns only at the ends.
This colonnade had projections like propylaea at the corners and at the
middle of the long sides. See JRS 1919, 184, for Ligorio’s plan of it
(the genuineness of which is doubtful). At the west end of the podium a
wide flight of steps led down to the paved area in front of the temple ;
but at the east end there were only two small flights. The temple
proper was raised on a platform, seven steps high, in the centre of the
1 'Αφροδίσιον (Cass. Dio lxxi. 31). 2 ASA vii. should be corrected.
553
Romae (Serv. Aen. ii. 227), templum urbis (Amm. Marcell. xvi. 10. 14 ;
Hist. Aug. Hadr. 19 ; Cassiod. Chron.), urbis Venerisque templa (Prud.
c. Sym. i. 221), and possibly templum Veneris1 (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 32).
The plans were drawn by Hadrian himself, and evoked sharp criticism
from his Greek architect, Apollodorus, who is said to have been put to
death in consequence (Cass. Dio lxix. 4). The temple was dedicated
in 135 a.d. (Hieron. loc. cit. ; cf. Athen. viii. 63, p. 361, who erroneously
gives the day as the Parilia), but perhaps finished by Antoninus Pius
(Cohen, Hadrian 1420-1423, Pius 698-703, 1074-1076).
In accordance with Roman theory in such matters, it was necessary
to build a separate cella for each goddess, in this case not side by side, but
back to back, that of Venus facing east, and that of Roma west (Prud.
loc. cit. : atque Urbis Venerisque pari se culmine tollunt templa). In
307 the temple was injured by fire and restored by Maxentius (Chron. 148 ;
Aur. Viet. Caes. 40 : urbis fanum) ; and the whole of the superstructure
dates from his time, as was first pointed out by Nibby (Roma Antica
ii. 738 ; 2 cf. AJA 1912, 429). It was one of the monuments that
aroused the special wonder of Constantius when he visited Rome in 356
(Amm. Marcell. xvi. 10. 14), and was probably the largest and most magni-
ficent temple in the city. It is mentioned in the Notitia (Reg. IV), and
somewhat later by Prudentius (loc. cit.), for the last time in antiquity.
The history of its destruction is unknown, but in 847-853 Leo IV built
the church of S. Maria Nova in its ruins (HCh 352), and this is one of the
chief arguments that it was the earthquake of his reign that wrought so
much harm in and around the forum (LPD ii. 108, c. 20 : terre motus
in urbe Roma per indictionem factus est x (i.e. before 30th August, 847)
ita ut omnia elementa concussa viderentur ab omnibus). This church
was rebuilt in 1612 and is now called S. Francesca Romana. (Cf. p. 235).
The temple proper was built on an enormous podium of concrete
faced with travertine, 145 metres long and IOO wide, on the north side
of the Sacra via, between the Velia and the Colosseum, and on the line
of the main axis of the latter, necessitating the removal of the Colossus
Neronis (q.v.). Owing to the slope of the ground, the height of the
podium at the east end is considerable, and chambers were constructed
in it for the storage of the machinery and apparatus of the amphitheatre.
On this podium was a peribolus formed of a colonnade consisting of an
outer wall and a single row of enormous columns of grey Egyptian granite
on the sides, and probably of a double row of columns only at the ends.
This colonnade had projections like propylaea at the corners and at the
middle of the long sides. See JRS 1919, 184, for Ligorio’s plan of it
(the genuineness of which is doubtful). At the west end of the podium a
wide flight of steps led down to the paved area in front of the temple ;
but at the east end there were only two small flights. The temple
proper was raised on a platform, seven steps high, in the centre of the
1 'Αφροδίσιον (Cass. Dio lxxi. 31). 2 ASA vii. should be corrected.