What Are the Unique Features of the Pantheon in Terms of Design and Construction
What are the unique features of the Pantheon in terms of design and construction?
The French writer Stendhal described the Pantheon as the ‘first great monument of non-useful architecture’. This statement nullifies the usefulness of religion, as the Pantheon was a place of worship but this is not what separated it from other Ancient Roman architecture. Its uniqueness can be discerned not only in its immense and unprecedented size but also in the originality of design and from a purely aesthetic point of view, a clear synthesis of the classical orders. In order that one might pinpoint the unique features found in the Pantheon one must explore other buildings constructed at the same time that utilise more primitive or indeed superior structural features. The Aqueduct of Segovia is an example of a piece of architecture that is far removed from the Pantheon in terms of both form and function but shares similar construction methods. Following this particular comparison it seems to me that to remove the distinctive features outside of their whole unit is an often-flawed historical method. However, if one pinpoints the influences of the structural elements in later architecture like the Baths of Diocletian and on figures like Brunelleschi than a sense of gravitas can be transposed quite lucidly onto the unique features of the Pantheon in terms of its design and construction.
Bernini perceived the Pantheon as the union of fundamental forms, the portico and the cylindrical vault. This was a unification of classical orders, the Roman vault and the Greek Corinthian temple front. The effect of omissions in architectural terms like the lack of a major statue or indeed a prominent courtyard serves to expound the clarity of the existing features, the portico, the pediment and the dome. The dome remains the central feature in compliance with the originality of design as even after nearly 2000 years it still remains the world’s greatest unreinforced concrete dome. A succession
The French writer Stendhal described the Pantheon as the ‘first great monument of non-useful architecture’. This statement nullifies the usefulness of religion, as the Pantheon was a place of worship but this is not what separated it from other Ancient Roman architecture. Its uniqueness can be discerned not only in its immense and unprecedented size but also in the originality of design and from a purely aesthetic point of view, a clear synthesis of the classical orders. In order that one might pinpoint the unique features found in the Pantheon one must explore other buildings constructed at the same time that utilise more primitive or indeed superior structural features. The Aqueduct of Segovia is an example of a piece of architecture that is far removed from the Pantheon in terms of both form and function but shares similar construction methods. Following this particular comparison it seems to me that to remove the distinctive features outside of their whole unit is an often-flawed historical method. However, if one pinpoints the influences of the structural elements in later architecture like the Baths of Diocletian and on figures like Brunelleschi than a sense of gravitas can be transposed quite lucidly onto the unique features of the Pantheon in terms of its design and construction.
Bernini perceived the Pantheon as the union of fundamental forms, the portico and the cylindrical vault. This was a unification of classical orders, the Roman vault and the Greek Corinthian temple front. The effect of omissions in architectural terms like the lack of a major statue or indeed a prominent courtyard serves to expound the clarity of the existing features, the portico, the pediment and the dome. The dome remains the central feature in compliance with the originality of design as even after nearly 2000 years it still remains the world’s greatest unreinforced concrete dome. A succession
Bibliography: W L. MacDonald, ‘The Architecture of the Roman Empire’, Yale University Press, 1965 W L. MacDonald, ‘The Pantheon: design, meaning, and progeny’, Harvard University Press, 1976 Robert Mark and Paul Hutchinson, ’On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon’, The Art Bulletin, Vol.68, Number 1, pp 24-34, 1986 Carroll Meeks, ‘ Pantheon Paradigm’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1960), pp. 135-144 A. Bronson Alcott, ’Pantheon’, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1868, pp146-165 -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. W L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, pp189