The public buildings in a Roman city were the most prominent features that would have been noted by a visitor to the city. For example, when Pausanias described Panopeus, he did not wish to describe the settlement as a polls, because it lacked public buildings. Therefore, public buildings were considered to be important: more than that, they created an identity for the inhabitants. Above all, they reflected the needs of the population with respect to the gods. Most public buildings were associated with a religious aspect, whether they were temples, theatres, amphitheatres, basilicas or macella (markets). However, there is also a secular dimension to these buildings. Their construction by an individual enhanced that person’s prestige and position in society. Their name was clearly displayed upon the structure. The public buildings, as monuments, offered each inhabitant of Pompeii an image of their position in relationship to the power of others, the state and the gods . For example, a temple would have exalted a god and the builder of the temple, and emphasised the social distance and divisions of the community. This makes monuments very different from domestic structures.

They take on roles that express the power, the ideology and the identity of a society, and in doing so, they express values that are timeless and associated with tradition.  In Pompeii, the construction of public buildings is an expression of the identity and the ideology of the inhabitants from the early colony until the city’s destruction in AD 79.
Pompeii was a Roman colony from, at the latest, 80 BC . The settlement of Sullan veterans alongside the existing inhabitants of the city caused conflict and change. The period of the early colony saw a fundamental restructuring of monumental space to account for the needs of the new community. When the colony was founded, there were already several large temples, a bath building, a theatre, a basilica, a macellum and a forum complex.
The public buildings of Pompeii would have been viewed by those arriving in the city.
The visitor would have been aware of the prominent Doric temple in the triangular forum rising above the city walls as they arrived at Pompeii’s port on the river Sarno. When the visitor entered the city via the Porta Marina, they would have become aware of the temple of Apollo. Once in the forum, the visitor would have seen the recently completed basilica and macellum, 2 and the shops opening on to the eastern side of the forum.

From the forum, the visitor would have seen the Stabian baths on Via dell’Abbondanza. Finally there was the theatre, in close proximity
to the triangular forum, for the holding of plays at festivals. This would have given the visitor an impression of the city and its inhabitants. The impression was one of a Hellenistic city, with some attributes of Roman culture, such as the basilica. This image was to be altered fundamentally once the colony had been established.
The settlement of a large number of veterans in Pompeii alongside the existing inhabitants caused a certain amount of conflict. The nature of this conflict has been a matter of controversy. Cicero stated in his speech in defence of Publius Sulla  that there had been a quarrel between the new settlers and the Pompeians over suffragium and ambulatio. The issue of suffragium would appear to refer to the constitution imposed by the founders of the colony.

Naturally, the Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum was set up with a Roman political organisation.
There was an ordo of elected duumviri and annually elected aediles. In this constitution, the existing inhabitants were not excluded from office holding or voting. It was the nature of the constitution that caused
the disagreement between the existing inhabitants and new colonists. There is little evidence for the notion that the inhabitants lost the franchise or for the existence of two sets of magistrates in Pompeii, one for the colonists and one for the existing inhabitants.
At the same time the city was divided into vici (wards) with altars to the Lares Compitales sited at the compita or crossroads. This created new local areas with magistrates to celebrate festivals at the local shrines, a parallel for which can be found at Rome with the celebration of the Compitalia
by the magistri vici. The other issue of contention for the Pompeians was an ambulatio.

This would appear to have been a new structure in Pompeii, and might refer to a structure close to the theatre, or to the Porticus of Vibius
in the forum. The issue may have been that
land had been expropriated for the construction of the ambulatio, or that its construction was in such a way that it altered the nature of space to cause offence to the Pompeians.
The quarrel was healed by the intervention of Publius Sulla, one of the patrons of the colony. However, perhaps we should not take Cicero’s statements too literally. After all, he was attempting to defend Publius Sulla rather than to describe accurately the topography of Pompeii.

It was in this period, after the founding of the colony, that the structure of monumental space was fundamentally altered. The forum was developed to reflect the needs and demands of the new settlers. At the north end of the forum the temple of Jupiter was established . This temple was the dominant focus for those using the forum. At the southern end of the forum, a porticus was constructed behind which there were three public buildings. These are commonly associated with the magistrates of the city: one for the two duumviri, one for the aediles and one for the meetings of the ordo. It seems more likely that these three buildings were for the government of the city, and they may conform to Vitruvius’  ideals for the placement of buildings in the forum. He states that the treasury, the prison
and the curia should all be sited in the forum. These three unidentified buildings in Pompeii can be associated with these civic functions, which would have been a necessary part of the structure of the colony. Finally, in the south-eastern corner of the forum, another public building was constructed that is commonly identified as the comitium of
the city.

This identification is dubious at best. However, it was an important building in its time; the identification of a functional purpose is now impossible.
Building activity was not confined to the forum. Two duumviri, C.Quinctius Valgus and M.Porcius, built the small covered theatre . Why there was a need for such a theatre is uncertain. The extant theatre may have been suitable for Greek- or Oscan-style performances and could not be adapted to the needs of the Roman theatre. Therefore, it is possible that this covered theatre was used for Roman-style celebrations, whilst the existing theatre continued to
serve the needs of the Oscan community.  An alternative explanation is more plausible. The small covered theatre in close proximity to the large theatre may not have been used for the staging of plays at all. The structure has close architectural parallels with structures at Corinth, Argos, Athens and Epidauros, which appear to have been used for the performance of rhetorical
exercises or the reading of literary works. It seems likely that the covered theatre at Pompeii would have served a similar purpose in the colonial period.

Clearly, it was felt that the performance of rhetoric was a necessary part of the cultural life of the city.

• Share
• Tweet
• "&title=""">