No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Nel suo studio sui bolli laterizi di Villa Adriana, Bloch attribui le grandi terme ad un edificio della terza fase edilizia, nonostante essi contengano molti bolli non trovabili altrove in edifici posteriori alla prima fase della Villa e del Pantheon (il quale, pace W. D. Heilmeyer, è tuttora da attribuire ai primi anni del regno di Adriano).
La data più recente di Bloch per le terme dipende dall'uso della formula ‘Lucilla Veri’ sul bollo CIL XV 1049, dal momenta che secondo Mommsen e Dressel questa formula era usata solo sui bolli post-Adrianei; qui si è sostenuto che il resto del testo di questo bollo é più caratteristico del primo periodo Adrianeo di quanto suggerisca il suo contesto, e perciò dato che né i resti dei bolli laterizi nelle terme né considerazioni topografiche presentano seri ostacoli, le grandi terme dovrebbero essere riattribuite alla prima fase di Bloch.
Senza le grandi terme la terza fase di Bloch è di scarsa importanza, dato che gli altri edifici attribuiti a detta data potrebbero benissimo appartenere alla seconda fase. Probabilmente, quindi, non ci fu alcun periodo a sé stante di una maggiore attività edilizia alla Villa durante gli ultimi anni di Adriano in Italia.
1 Bloch, , Herbert, (1947) I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia Romana, RomeGoogle Scholar (reprinted from Bull. Comm. lxiv–lxvi (1936–1938), with indices) 164 ff.Google Scholar, 168, 183, 241.
2 Heilmeyer, , Wolf-Dieter, (1975) ‘Apollodorus von Damaskus, der Architekt des Pantheon’, J.D.A.I. xc, 316 ff.Google Scholar, especially 327 ff.
3 Bloch on the Pantheon: Bloch (1947) 102–17. The redating was doubtless suggested by Heilmeyer's own observation that the architectural detail of the Pantheon is closely related to that of Trajan's Forum; Heilmeyer (1975) 328, Heilmeyer, (1970) Korinthische Normalkapitelle, Heidelberg, 158 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Leon, C. F. (1971) Die Bauornamentik des Trajansforums, Vienna, 212 f.Google Scholar, 219 f.
4 Heilmeyer (1975) 328, cf. Bloch (1947) 112 f. His second group of nine presumably consists of the stamps of Rutilius Lupus, cf. Bloch (1947) 113; but of course five of these are not ‘aus den Jahren vor 117 n. Chr.’
5 Loc. cit.
6 On this question see further below pp. 77–8.
7 Bloch (1947) 113.
8 For Trajan's buildings see the Fasti Ostienses for the years 109, 112 and 113 (Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, i, 198–203Google Scholar). For Apollodorus on the Dacian campaign see Procopius, , Buildings IV, vi, 12–13Google Scholar and Heilmeyer (1975) 329.
9 Bloch, H. (1959) ‘The Serapeum of Ostia and the Brick-Stamps of 123 A.D.’ A.J.A. lxiii, 225 ff.Google Scholar, especially 234 for the rapid use of bricks and 236 for storage during the slack period (and cf. 235 and note 37). Heilmeyer (1975) 327 wishes to extend the conditions of the mid-twenties back into the teens of the century.
10 Of the 43 types from definite locations in the Pantheon (120 bricks) 11 types (40 bricks) are shared with the Villa. See Table I (based on Bloch (1947) 103–9, 119–46) and Figs. 1 and 2.
11 The Grottoni and ‘Saepta’ are secondary in construction; see Fine Licht, K.de, (1968) The Rotunda in Rome, Copenhagen, 157 ff., 163 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 98 (p. 91). There still seems to be uncertainty about the forebuilding; Fine Licht (1968) 85 ff., Gerkan, A. von, (1959) Gesammelte Aufsätze, Stuttgart, 59 ff.Google Scholar, and Blake, M. E. (1973) ed. Bishop, D. T., Roman Construction in Italy from Nerva through the Antonines, Philadelphia, 47 with referencesGoogle Scholar.
12 Bloch (1947) 121 f. and 160; cf. Tables I and II.
13 On Hadrian's possession of the site see Kähler, , Heinz, (1950) Hadrian und seine Villa bei Tivoli, Berlin, 18, 20Google Scholar; for Hadrian, in Syria, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian IV, 1 and 6Google Scholar; for the activity in 125, Bloch (1947) 162 f. Kähler (1950) 21 f. toys with the idea that some of the first-phase buildings may have been put up in the final years of Trajan's reign, but this is because he assumes in spite of his own caveat (p. 20) that bricks stamped in 117 A.D. were used very shortly thereafter.
14 Bloch (1947) 107, 109.
15 Heilmeyer (1975) 329 ff.
16 Dio Cassius, LXIX, iv passim; Compare, S H A, Hadrian XVII, 1 and XIX, 13Google Scholar. The latter incident is concerned with the start of work on the Temple of Venus and Rome, for the date of which see Bloch (1947) 252 with references. Cf. also Heilmeyer (1975) 329.
17 Bloch (1947) 164.
18 This line of thought is traceable in his language on p. 163: ‘le piccole Terme … costituiscono il punto di partenza’. See Figs. 3 and 4.
19 Bloch (1947) 163 f.: the material is predominantly of 123 A.D., with only one recorded brick of 124 A.D. (type 358). The stamps of 121 A.D. are of type 344. Cf. note 50 below.
20 For these and the following details see Bloch (1947) 102–17, 117–82, and Tables I and II, and Fig. 5 (cf. Fig. 4). BS refers to Bloch, H. (1947–1948) The Roman Brick Stamps not published in Vol. XV, 1 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar, 1947–8 (reprinted Rome, 1967).
21 In addition the stamp of the younger Domitia Lucilla type 1035, with two examples in situ in the Grandi Terme, occurs loose in the Ospitali and is reported from the Pantheon, and therefore should probably belong to the first phase.
22 Bloch (1947) 165.
23 They are from the years 145, 154 and 155A.D.; see Table III and Bloch (1947) loc. cit.
24 P.I.R.2 III, 60, no. 183Google Scholar.
25 I.e. ‘Domitia Publi Filia Lucilla’; cf. Table III.
26 Dressel, H.C.I.L. XV, i, pp. 42Google Scholar (quoting Mommsen, no. 131) and 274.
27 Bloch (1947) loc. cit.; BS, no. 278. Although the latter work (see above, note 20) first appeared in time to be referred to in the index of the 1947 reprint of I bolli laterizi the text of 1938 was not altered accordingly.
28 See Tables I and II; the breakdown is as follows:—
In the Pantheon or the first phase of the Villa: 361 (2), 377b (1), 635a (2), 693 (2),
29 See above, note 9.
30 Bloch (1947) 165. Cf. Kähler (1950) 26, however.
31 S H A Marcus I, 5.
32 See Table III. The analysis below is directly based on this table.
33 Cf. Bloch (1947) 166.
34 Bloch (1947) 224, 241.
35 See above, note 27.
36 There is of course a difficulty in reconciling the material from the hypocaust at Ostia with the rapid use of bricks attested at the Serapeum (note 9 above), assuming that it is as late as claimed. Even the assumption that there were different arrangements for public and private buildings could not wholly resolve this. Cf. Bloch (1959) 238, where a possible solution is offered.
37 The gulf in the material of the Grandi Terme clearly worried Bloch, hence his return to the problem (1947) 165 f., 241); cf. also Kähler (1950) 26. Of course once the terminus post quem of 145 A.D. for Earinus' stamp is abandoned there is no logical difference between claiming that it dates from 144 A.D. or 120 A.D.
38 Cf. Winnefeld, H. (1895) Die Villa des Hadrians bei Tivoli, Berlin, pl. XIIIGoogle Scholar, and Mirick, H. D. (1933) ‘The large baths at Hadrian's Villa’, M.A.A.R. xi, 119 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 4 and the diagram on p. 121.
39 Bloch (1947) 131, 160.
40 Bloch (1947) 166 ff. See below, p. 88.
41 Bloch (1947) 137, no. 297.
42 Bloch (1947) 137 f.
43 Bloch (1947) 167 f.
44 Bloch (1947) appears to make this assumption, and so perhaps does Kähler (1950) 26.
45 Ricotti, Eugenia Salza Prina, ‘Criptoportici e gallerie sotteranee di Villa Adriana nella loro tipologia e nelle loro funzioni’, in Les Cryptoportiques dans l'architecture Romaine, (École Française de Rome), Rome, 1973, 219 ff.Google Scholar; cf. 241 ff., pl. IX, X.
46 The Vestibolo thus maintains service access to the Grandi Terme when the later buildings and terrace threatened to cut this off; see Figs. 2 and 6.
47 Winnefeld (1895) 32 ff., pl. II.
48 Cf. Bloch (1947) 138 ff. G. Lugli's proposed Augustan date for the original substructure seems to be pure conjecture; ‘Studi topografici intorno alle antiche ville suburbane V, Villa Adriana B), Le fasi della villa da Adriano al tardo impero’ in Bull. Comm. lx, 1933, 111 ff.Google Scholar, 138.
49 Bloch (1947) 141 f. This terrace seems to be a separate early feature comparable with the fully-developed Pecile; see Figs. 5 and 6.
50 On these stamps cf. Bloch (1947) 165 (no. 694), 166, 323 (no. 122c). They occur together behind the Grandi Terme (see below), and type 122c is also found in the Villa in a ‘cryptoporticus’ under the Piazza d'Oro (Bloch (1947) 127 no. 94) and in the ‘basilica’ of the ‘main palace’ (Bloch (1947) 125 no. 64). This last building contains material from both the first and second phases, none of which appears to have been found in situ; type 122c was found with material dated 123–4 A.D. ‘nel muro completamente rifatto …; di origine incerta’ (Bloch (1947) 124 f., 161 f.). See Fig. 5. The types in question occur together in room F of the Piccole Terme (Bloch (1947) 131 ff. and fig. 23); 122b occurs on its own in room E. The stamp of 121 A.D. (344) is found in the surrounding rooms (C, G, H, I, M) and in rooms N and P, while the later stamps come exclusively from the smaller rooms at the northern end of the building (as does type 361, shared with the Pantheon). While it might be stretching credibility to claim that building work started in room F and proceeded anticlockwise to culminate in the northern rooms, there is no reason why stamps 694 and 122c should not be at least as older than the stamps of 121 A.D. as these are older than 123 A.D. The presence of type 361 shows, presumably, that there was older material to be used up at the beginning of the second phase.
51 This could perhaps still be tested by excavation behind the retaining walls.
52 It is of course possible that the lower terrace was cut back before the building of the baths, while the upper terraces were not built out with substructures until later. Fig. 6 shows the first phase of the Villa incorporating these conclusions; compare the versions of Bloch (Fig. 4) and Kähler (Fig. 7).
53 Bloch (1947) 183 and 124, 169 f. (Padiglione verso Tempe), 129, 171 (‘Stadium’ cryptoporticus), 141 ff., 169 (Canopo); in all these cases the material is predominantly dated 123 A.D.
54 On this point see Kähler (1950) 27 f.; S H A Hadrian XXVI, 5 should not be interpreted in terms of Gusman's ‘souvenirs de voyage’ (Gusman, P. (1904) La Villa Impériale de Tibur, ParisGoogle Scholar), and there is no reason why the Canopo cannot have been built before Hadrian went to Egypt. Cf. also Boethius, A. and Ward-Perkins, J. B. (1970) Etruscan and Roman Architecture, Harmondsworth, 330Google Scholar with note 29.
Scattered stamps of the thirties (Bloch (1947) 183) indicate that some later work was done; an example is the apparent conversion of the Biblioteca Latina into a shrine of Antinous—Kähler (1950) 33, 163 note 14.