Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome by Penelope J. E. Davies (review)

In Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome, Penelope Davies presents the reader with an analysis of the public buildings erected in Rome between 590 and 44 B.C.E. This analysis is multi-faceted, or—if the metaphor may be allowed—consists of many levels. At its most basic, it is a chronicle of the public edifices that were built during the Republican epoch; private architectural entities, such as homes, apartments, or commercial structures, are not its focus, and these are mentioned in passing and only when they intersect with the public sphere. Davies proceeds chronologically, dividing the book into seven chapters, each of which deals with construction during a particular span of time after a brief introduction narrates the domestic politics and foreign affairs of that span.

The first chapter treats the early Republic (c. 509-338), whose architecture is largely religious since, Davies notes, most government buildings had already been built by the kings, and magistrates tended to govern from home (though strictly civic structures like the Rostra and the "Servian Walls," treated here, are exceptions). Chapter 2 treats 337 to 218, during which decades most architecture was still primarily religious. Davies discusses how the location of temples took on increasing significance: locations were chosen by the temple-founders (usually censors fulfilling vows made as consul) for the greatest possible visibility and to signal familial alliances and adherence to old-fashioned Roman tradition. Davies also observes how the function of temples began to change somewhat: beyond housing the statues of the gods, they also became places in which to store and display spolia.

Chapter 3 focuses on 217-134, a period characterized by an initial austerity in building occasioned by the expense of the Hannibalic War; eventually, however, foreign conquests filled the treasury—and the city—with vast wealth. Religious architecture on the one hand reflected conservatism, as the deities to whom temples were dedicated were largely time-honored, ancient Italic ones. On the other hand, the size, style, and fabric of new temples were mostly non-traditional (Davies notes the popularity of marble and the exciting new possibilities of concrete), with temples talking on Hellenic and Hellenistic architectural styles.

Chapter 4 discusses the chaotic period between 133 and 90, during which a reaction set in against marble. Temple construction and restoration (the latter was now far more frequent than new temple construction), as well as public works, increasingly functioned less to promote personal and gentilician advantage, and more to bolster and glorify factionalism as the conflict between populares and optimates gradually became more acute.

Because the decades between 89 and 44 were largely dominated by Sulla, the Triumvirate (especially—at least in terms of architecture—Pompeius Mag-nus), and Julius Caesar, chapters 5 to 7 largely deal with their buildings and the messages sent by them: of legitimacy, restoration of the Republic, cleansing of miasma, and financial recovery (Sulla); of the enormity of military skill and the willingness to use funds to delight the people (Pompeius); of reform and public utility (Caesar). Buildings such as the Theater of Pompeius/Temple of Venus Victrix and compounds such as the Forum Iulium are investigated, for style and substance as well as subtext. Other figures are of course mentioned, including Q. Lutatius Catulus and his restoration of the Capitoline, and the destruction wrought by P. Clodius (which certainly affected the architecture of Rome).

Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome is impressively scholarly; extraordinarily well written and engaging, it nevertheless presumes a baseline knowledge of Republican history and the language of art and architecture—dimensions that may be daunting to those not well versed in these fields. It is also not entirely without flaws: its discussion of the narrow entrances of temple façades and their height as expressions of the patrician dominance of religion, for example, is not entirely persuasive. Furthermore, there are a few minor but noteworthy errors of fact: a footnote on the Battle...