The Restoration of Spectacle Buildings in the Imperial Period

By Maya Wood- 3rd Year Ancient History

The restoration of structures was common in the imperial period, and spectacle buildings were no exception. But what were the objectives of the emperors in restoring buildings like the Circus Maximus, and the Flavian Ampitheatre (Colosseum), and what experiences could people have that could achieve these purposes? Possible answers can be derived from ancient sources on beliefs about memory, monuments and legacy.

There were several different purposes in restoring existing buildings, such as for the public image of Rome, and in connection, the emperor. By the imperial period, the restoration of buildings was a continuation of practice from the Republic and from Augustus. A respected piece of work that can partially indicate the philosophy behind the restoration of monuments is Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, which states how stones will fall, buildings will crumble, and that ‘the monuments of men fall to pieces’. It explores how things can be remade and renewed. While Lucretius was writing before the imperial period, we can see similar views in Seneca, reflecting similar sentiments about how monuments and cities can fall but be renewed This can suggest a continuation of beliefs surrounding rebuilding, perhaps simply considered a natural renewal process.

Even if considered a natural process, there is still a clear benefit for the image of the emperor. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill has stated that ‘the image of the emperor was written in his city’. The emperor was both restoring and building in their own image and ensuring that the image of Rome was one of prosperity and stability under their reign. Vitruvius, an architect writing under Augustus, indicated that ‘the majesty of the empire also was expressed through the eminent dignity of its public buildings’. It is notable too that reconstruction often came after a chaotic period, such as Vespasian rebuilding after the year of four emperors, and numerous emperors rebuilding after fires in Rome. Christopher Siwicki has explored the idea that the appearance of the city equated to the health of the state, and therefore was the responsibility of the emperor to keep it in good condition, and some emperors took this duty personally and acted upon it.

Titus and Vespasian are examples of emperors who took the image of Rome as part of their personal responsibilities. Suetonius states that Titus extended a father’s love for the city when rebuilding after a fire, even exclaiming ‘I am ruined’ as though the city was part of him, or at least, part of his image. Cassius Dio further suggests Titus refused funds from other private citizens and used his own money. A certain image is being portrayed here, one of benevolence and concern. Andrew Gallia has suggested that these rebuilding projects indicate the importance of public benefactions as part of the Flavian’s ‘self-presentation’. This can also be shown through Vespasian’s image in Suetonius, who suggests he cleared rubble himself, allowing people to build on vacant land, and doing this himself also. These restorations were often portrayed on coins under Vespasian which show it was more than just benefaction but also about the widespread image of the emperor.

This idea of public benefaction, or widespread community patronage, could also benefit the emperor. The emperor was bestowing a rebuilt city, and new spectacle buildings to the public, and acting as patron to the commissioned architects. In return, they were able to maintain a charitable reputation, and express their wealth and power. Sarah Blake has suggested that Flavian building aesthetics placed an emphasis on size, grandeur, and global mastery. Pliny emphasised the Circus Maximus for example in a section in his Natural History about beautiful buildings, suggesting it could hold up to 250,000 people. Dionysius of Halicarnassus painted a similar image, calling the Circus Maximus one of the most ‘beautiful’ and ‘admirable’ structures in Rome, able to hold up to 150,000 people. This clearly indicates size and grandeur, and the global mastery can be indicated by the spectacles that occurred within such buildings, bringing spoils from the empire, and paid for with money acquired from the empire. Despite the slight discrepancies in numbers, the building was certainly rebuilt numerous times, with Hazel Dodge indicating that circuses were not only built to be multifunctional, but also remodelled to accommodate for more entertainment, and presumably, more people.

A further reason for the emperors to restore buildings, and the Circus Maximus in particular, is the ties they had to historical figures. Dionysius of Halicarnassus explored how Tarquinius built the Circus Maximus, cementing its place in the early history of Rome. Other rebuilding projects such as the Colosseum have a purpose of legitimising positions through previous emperors. Suetonius suggests that Vespasian rebuilt the Colosseum as it was ‘a plan which he learned that Augustus had cherished’, showing the attempt to build his own prestige based on previous emperors’ work and status.

The emperors do often appear to have been successful in this decision to restore buildings for their personal position of power and their image. The public would retain the memory of the spectacle as a link to public image and reputation. Maggie Popkin suggests that monuments served to create urban identity, evoking ‘sentiments of collectivity’. These buildings could have personal importance due to the ties they had with collective Roman history. This could make the restoration of the city a move for the personal gain of the emperor, but also with a claim of personal importance for all Romans, creating the illusion of a relationship through a collective urban identity.

Martial for one wrote a whole book on the experience of spectacles, suggested to have been written for the inauguration of the Colosseum. This goes to show the impact of the experiences that could be had, and although it is a satire, the subject matter is still significant. The opening part states ‘all labor yields to Caesar’s Ampitheatre’. If we interpret ‘labor’ to mean the scale of work done on the amphitheatre, we can see how having a large workforce to build such a building could have a literal impact on people’s daily lives, as they are working on and in it. Alternatively, it could suggest that people took a break from their ‘labor’ to go and experience the spectacles, a large and special occasion. Either way, there is a clear impact on the people and indicates the scale of the experience. Popkin has explored how the circus itself, in the ‘attractive spectacle presented by the architecture’ could trigger memories of a ‘mass viewing experience’ that people went through when they attended. This suggests that the experience itself was not a one off, and every time the buildings were encountered, those memories were invoked, keeping the experience, if not also the emperor, in mind

A further function of the Roman occasion, through spectacle, was the maintenance of order and class boundaries. Spectacle as a cultural provision by the emperors was not a frequent experience, but a special privilege, as Suetonius suggests emperor Claudius would introduce new and never done before events. The occasional involvement of public executions of prisoners, discussed by a horrified Seneca the Younger for example, created a spectacle but also an example. The buildings were also structured in a certain way, with different levels of seating reflecting social hierarchies, and Dodge discusses the 76 numbered entrances of the Colosseum based on this. Therefore, while it created a personal experience for the people, and aided the charitable public image of the emperor, it also helped to maintain the status quo and enforced social boundaries.

Finally, a lasting testament to the power of the buildings is their remaining significance. People still flock to the Colosseum in Rome, and it is still remembered and viewed through its connections to the empire and emperors, those who built and rebuilt it. Rome is a tourist destination partially due to its surviving historical monuments, clearly demonstrating why the restoration of monuments for the preservation of public image and legacy for an emperor was an effective means of displaying power. Even Vitruvius stated of buildings in Rome, that ‘...they will correspond to the grandeur of our history and will be a memorial to future ages’.

Overall, the restoration of spectacle buildings, as exemplified by the Circus Maximus and Colosseum, was an effective means for an emperor to legitimise their position through connection to Roman history and significant historical figures, as well as to create an image of benefaction and benevolence bestowed on their people. They were able to exhibit their personal wealth, and exhibit the wealth of the empire, both through the building itself and the events held within. It also plays a large part in the system of patronage, through direct patronage with the architect, and widespread patronage with the people; this is more literally maintained within structured seating and other such status markers. Overall, the building and restoration of spectacle monuments were utilised by the emperors to increase their current reputation but also to solidify their legacy, and these were clearly utilised effectively.

Bibliography

Blake, Sarah H. 2016. ‘The Aesthetics of the Everyday in Flavian Art and Literature’, in A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 344-360. 

Dio Cassius. 1927. Roman History, trans. by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Dionysius of Halicarnassas. 1950. Roman Antiquities, trans. by Earnest Cary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Dodge, Hazel. 2014. 'Building for an Audience: The Architecture of Roman Spectacle', in A Companion to Roman Architecture, edited by Roger Bradley Ulrich and Caroline K. Quenemoen. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell), pp. 281-299.

Gallia, Andrew B. 2016. ‘Remaking Rome’, in A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 148-165.  

Lucretius. 1924. On the Nature of Things, trans. by W. H. D. Rouse and revised by Martin F. Smith (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Martial. 1993. Epigrams, Volume 1: Spectacles, Books 1-5, trans. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). 

Pliny the Elder. 1938. Natural History, trans. by H. Rackham (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Popkin, Maggie L. 2016. The Architecture of the Roman Triumph: Monuments, Memory and Identity. (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Seneca the Elder. 1932. Moral Essays, Volume II: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam, trans. by John W. Basore (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Seneca the Younger. 1917. Epistles, Volume 1: Epistles 1-65, trans. by Richard M. Gummere (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Siwicki, Christopher. 2019. Architectural restoration and heritage in Imperial Rome. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Suetonius. 1914. Lives of the Caesars, Volume II: Claudius. Nero. Galba, Otho and Vitellius. Vespasian. Titus, Domitian. Lives of Illustrious Men: Grammarians and Rhetoricians. Poets (Terence. Virgil. Horace. Tibullus. Persius. Lucan). Lives of Pliny the Elder and Passienus Crispus, trans. by J. C. Rolfe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Vitruvius. 1931. On Architecture, trans. by Frank Granger (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 2003. 'The Streets of Rome as a Representation of Imperial Power', in The representation and perception of Roman imperial power: proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 BC - AD 476), edited by Lukas De Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Stephen Mols. (Amsterdam: Gieben), pp. 189-206.