temple architecture

I wonder what style changes there were among Roman temple architecture as Greek, then Christian influences were encountered?

The question sprang from my visit to the vatican-before-vatican San Giovanni Laterano which has a strange spellbinding effect unlike those other gaudy baroque churches in Rome. It seems to have a pagan vibe like a Greek temple, with all the spacious rectangularity and immense statues (not shown too well in http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/r...ohn-lateran.htm ). I guess this place replaced some Roman fort/palace and maybe even inherited Roman temple style?

Also interesting is that church retrofited into Diocletians Baths by Michealangelo or whomever, but that's an oddball case.

I wonder what style changes there were among Roman temple architecture as Greek, then Christian influences were encountered?

I'll have a crack at the Greek part of the question. And I'd say that there were no changes when Romans encountered Greek influences, because the Greek influences were there from the beginning. When Rome was founded Greek influence was strong in the area as a result of close ties between the Etruscans and the Greeks. The legend that the Etruscan kings of Rome were originally of Corinthian stock is a reflection of this. Since the Romans deferred to the Etruscans in many matters of religion, and the few architectural remains we have show that the Etruscans used roughly the same temple design as the Greeks, it is probable that the first temples built in Rome already followed the 'Greek model'. Certainly our sources never mention any changes to the adoption of the standard design of altar/proscenium/cella, with a column/architrave construction.

In fact an argument has been made, controversially, that the 'Tuscan' style of architecture precedes the Ionic and Doric, which would stand this part of the question on its head.

San Giovanni in Laterano is fitted with the huge metal doors taken from the Curia Julia, the ancient Senate House in the Forum. So there's a touch from a pagan past. As far as I know, the church was constructed in stages. The first of which was a rather plain late Roman basilica/hall. Later it was embellished.

Here's an illustration of the what the original church looked like before a devastating fire and subsequent reconstruction.

http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth...ohn_lateran.jpg

Here's a photo of those colossal doors:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doo...Curia_Julia.JPG

Does anyone know when the Senate House lost its doors?

And I'd say that there were no changes when Romans encountered Greek influences, because the Greek influences were there from the beginning. When Rome was founded Greek influence was strong in the area as a result of close ties between the Etruscans and the Greeks.

I just fired up a DVD with Miami U professor Steven Tuck claiming Romans initially DISDAINED Greek culture (maybe because they disdained the Etruscans?). Then he says they gradually learned to like Greek art and architecture, especially after 212bc sack of Siracuse, and emulated it as soon as they had a need for big formal temples, villas, and such.

Back to S.G. Laterno, if I had read more about it I would have realized it was not only Rome's first church, built by Constantine, but features a regal statue of him brought in from Diocletians bath. Might account for part of the pre-Christian feel. I really like it, and would like to put in a claim for the beggars spot behind a certain rear corner where robed officials file by and seem to compete to be seen contributing coins to affluent looking recepients.

And I'd say that there were no changes when Romans encountered Greek influences, because the Greek influences were there from the beginning. When Rome was founded Greek influence was strong in the area as a result of close ties between the Etruscans and the Greeks.

I just fired up a DVD with Miami U professor Steven Tuck claiming Romans initially DISDAINED Greek culture (maybe because they disdained the Etruscans?). Then he says they gradually learned to like Greek art and architecture, especially after 212bc sack of Siracuse, and emulated it as soon as they had a need for big formal temples, villas, and such.

 

It's possible to overstate the 'disdain' thing. For example in the misty days when Roman legend and facts are hard to tell apart, tradition has the Romans seeking guidance from Delphi in Greece, and the twelve tables which were the foundation of Roman law were established after the Romans heard of a similar enterprise in Athens and sent a delegation to take notes. Which you don't do from people you disdain. Aqueducts and sewers as well as much of their architecture the early Romans lifted directly from the Etruscans, and things like ship-building they took from the Greeks.

The point is that while one nation or another might claim to have 'invented' a particular idea, they didn't hold a patent, and these things became part of a common Mediterranean culture. I submit that temple design was one of those things. Certainly after a hard look at Syracuse, the Romans felt that they needed to up their game in terms of culture. But the clue here is in the 'big formal temples' not in 'radically redesigned temples'. That said, there is a theory that the temple/shrine of Heracles in the forum boarium represents an older form of temple design, but the even older temple of Jupiter O.M. on the Capitoline seems to have been from the start a 'Greek' design.

I guess I keep projecting some grand Roman cultural evolution that didn't exist. Apparently they had an acretitive (sp?) culture that borrowed here and there and didn't really redefine it and make it their own very much over time except to scale up and tweak the technology forward.

Some odds and ends from my video course: Roman temples are not comparable to churches, but sanctuaries are (pantheon is an exception). Sanctuaries are the overall complex that includes the public spaces as well as the little temple that houses the god. Roman gods tend to stay put, vs the Greek gods have dramatic lives thru time and space. Roman temples are different from Greek ones in not having to face east. The whole relationship of man to god is so fundamentally different between the pagan and christian phases, that you wouldn't expect a lot of similarity between a sanctuary and church.

Constantine started a massive church building program, including the large churches have that dominated since Rome, Constantinople and the Holy Land. Such a large scale enterprise could be done only using the tastes, the plans, the architects, the decorators and the constructors that already existed at that time.

Could I maybe widen the topic a little (and perhaps show off a little of my significant ignorance of the subject)? I can't help thinking that some of the Mithraic Temples which have been unearthed (for example the one at Procolitia/Brocolitia) seem to have significantly influenced the structure of Paleo-Christian churches (for example St Paul in the Bail in Lincoln).

I seem to remember QI doing a piece on the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, eluding to the fact that the one (Christianity) was significantly influenced by the (much earlier) other.

I'd welcome comments from someone who knows more than just a few interesting facts to wow the tourists.

The big difference between pagan temples and Christian churches is that the temples were part of an 'open air' religion and the churches belonged to an 'indoor' religion. People generally did not enter a temple, and rituals were performed in front of it, where you'd also find the altar. When building churches, which were usually new constructions (in the case of the Lateran the existing buildings were razed first) the architects would have looked to existing buildings capable of holding large amounts of people, large basilicas as found on the forum. Mithraic temples as mentioned by GoC may well have provided similar inspiration.

When building churches, which were usually new constructions (in the case of the Lateran the existing buildings were razed first) the architects would have looked to existing buildings capable of holding large amounts of people, large basilicas as found on the forum.

Wiki sez it came from Trajan's civic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Ulpia in his forum. Gosh, the Lateran church really has the same feel of this reconstruction http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encycl...n/basilica.html .

I hope Mussolini's roadbuilding didn't permanently destroy that Basilica Ulpia, because I like the way it included a liberty apse used to record the names of slaves who had been freed. Hardly findable in google, unless you delve into the online book section. I wonder if there was a place to sign up into volunteering to be a slave too (to escape a worse fate). Nice how Roman slavery wasn't a life or ethnic sentence in some cases - they should get more credit for that, maybe by restoring that apse.

The last classical style Graeco/Roman temple I can find references to was built by Severus in Rome. I suspect that architectural change predated religious change, and that the basilica type building became the norm whatever religious activities went on in it. I would be interested in hearing if anyone has a later example? Traditional classical architecture, like so many other aspects of the Roman world, seems to have changed after the early third century.

The Tempietto at Clitunno maybe? Afaik there's no real consensus on its date but as a built-from-scratch church it should fit the bill.

A wonderful example - thank you!

A wonderful example - thank you!

Slightly off topic, but here's a temple that became a church - the Maison Carrie in Nimes. It's a great example of Roman architecture, and demonstrates once again that official Roman buildings tend to stay up until some barbarian knocks them down.

The Tempietto at Clitunno maybe? Afaik there's no real consensus on its date but as a built-from-scratch church it should fit the bill.

Isn