No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Diocletian's Palace at Split1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Extract
The existence of the great ‘palace’ which the Emperor Diocletian built for his retirement on the Dalmatian coast near his birthplace of Salona and which forms the nucleus of the present city of Split has been well known for over two hundred years. It was in 1757 that the celebrated Scottish architect Robert Adam visited Spalato, as it was then known; several years later he published his famous book of beautifully executed engravings of the ruins which, quite apart from its importance for the development of European neo-classical architecture in general and of the so-called Adam style in particular, first widely publicized the details of the palace in Europe. Since then the remains have deservedly been the subject of several complete studies and have featured prominently in many books on Roman architecture and on Dalmatia. With such a large amount of literature available in a comparatively accessible form, it is not my intention in this short article to provide either a complete historical account or a complete description of the place; it is rather to look briefly at its history from the time of Diocletian up to the point at which it stopped being a palace and started being a town, and to consider certain aspects of its architecture.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1972
References
page 175 note 2 Adam, R., Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro in Dalmatia ([London], 1764).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 175 note 3 Niemann, G., Der Palast Diokletians in Spalato (Vienna, 1910)Google Scholar, and Hébrard, E. and Zeiller, J., Spalato: Le Palais de Dioclétien (Paris, 1912)Google Scholar are still fundamental works on Split, despite the fact that recent excavations by the Yugoslavs have proved them wrong on several points. The fruits of the more recent work have been published in J. and Marasović, T., Diocletian Palace [sic] (English edition, Zagreb, 1970)Google Scholar, which contains a wealth of fine illustrations and a sound text. See also, among many others, Robertson, D. S., A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture 2 (Cambridge, 1943), 255 ff.Google Scholar, 316 ff.; Kähler, H., Art of the World: Rome and her Empire (London, 1963), 202 ff.Google Scholar, with a good plan on 204; and Wilkes, J. J., Dalmatia (London, 1969), 387 ff.Google Scholar, which gives an excellent account. Rossiter, S. (ed.), The Blue Guide to Yugoslavia, the Adriatic Coast (London., 1969), 134ff.Google Scholar, provides a full and accurate tourist guide to the palace, with good maps.
page 176 note 1 The date is established by an inscription (CIL iii. 9575)Google Scholar illustrated in Wilkes, op. cit., plate 58, and the identity of the martyrs by CIL iii. 8874.
page 176 note 2 [Victor, Aurelius], Epitome de Caesaribus 39. 6.Google Scholar For the conference see also Zosimus, ii. 10. 4–5Google Scholar, and for the famous dedication to Mithras made on that occasion CIL iii. 4413.Google Scholar For the actual date see Groag, E. and Stein, A. (eds.), Prosopographia Imperii Romani, i2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1933), 335.Google Scholar
page 177 note 1 The date is disputed. See Groag and Stein (eds.), loc. cit.
page 177 note 2 Lactantius, , De Mortibus Persecutorum 15.Google Scholar
page 177 note 3 Ibid. 51.
page 177 note 4 [Victor, Aurelius], Epitome de Caesaribus 39. 7.Google Scholar
page 177 note 5 This bias comes across particularly clearly when Lactantius, having dealt with the mental anguish and physical pains of Diocletian's last days (De Mart. Pers. 42)Google Scholar, begins his next chapter: ‘Unus iam supererat de adversariis Dei, cuius nunc exitium ruinamque subnectam.’
page 177 note 6 xvi. 8. 4. There is no suggestion that the pall was actually stolen, but the passage is evidence for the fact that the dead Emperor's body still lay in the mausoleum at that time. Exactly how and when the body and its sarcophagus disappeared we do not know, though it seems reasonable to associate their removal closely with the conversion of the mausoleum into a Christian church.
page 178 note 1 Notitia Dignitatum Occ. xi. 46 and 48Google Scholar; gynaecium is the actual word used.
page 178 note 2 Sidonius Apollinaris, who was Bishop of Auvergne at the time, bitterly complains of this deal in Ep. vii. 3Google Scholar, though in Ep. viii. 7Google Scholar he terms Nepos a ‘iustus princeps’.
page 178 note 3 For a fuller account of Marcellinus and Nepos see Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (Oxford, 1964), 241 ff.Google Scholar, and Wilkes, J. J., op. cit. 420–2.Google Scholar
page 179 note 1 J. J. Wilkes, op. cit. 436
page 179 note 2 Black Lamb and Grey Falcon (London, 1967), 145.Google Scholar
page 179 note 3 Pleasure of Ruins (London, 1966), 410.Google Scholar
page 180 note 1 For a view of the ‘triclinium’ from the campanile see J. and T. Marasović, op. cit., ‘enclosure’, plate 43.
page 180 note 2 Adam criticized the ornamentation of the North Gate (op. cit. 23–4, on plate XIII), and also described the way in which the horizontal entablature supporting the pediment of the prothyron curved up in an arch over its central intercolumniation as ‘somewhat singular’ and ‘liable to Objection’ (op. cit. 25, on plate XXI). For a more general condemnation of the architecture at Split see Plornmer, H., Ancient and Classical Architecture (London, 1956), 364–5.Google Scholar
page 180 note 3 For example Robertson, op. cit. 321, and SirWheeler, Mortimer, Roman Art and Architecture (London, 1964), 144 ff.Google Scholar
page 181 note 1 Op. cit. 25, on plate XXI. Robertson, op. cit. 226–8, deals thoroughly with this phenomenon at Baalbek and with its historical precursors, all of them also attempts to lessen the weight at this point.
page 181 note 2 Kähler, op. cit. 206. One must be careful not to confuse the arch of the entablature with the lower arch between the central pair of columns which, like the chapels between the side pairs of columns, is much later and conceals a Roman doorway with a highly decorated horizontal lintel at the back of the porch.
page 181 note 3 Op. cit. 227, and n. 4 on an example of monumental use which occurs about a century earlier at Lepcis Magna. There, as at Split, eastern influence may have been at work.
page 181 note 4 For some of the much earlier, less grandiose precedents see Wheeler, op. cit. 145–7. His comparison with wall paintings in the Villa dei Misteri at Pompeii is not really apposite, since there an entablature intervenes between the capitals and the arch—Robertson's ‘second method’, op. cit. 227, illustrated on 228. But the reference to the Suburban Baths at Herculaneum is undeniable. For this latter see also Grant, M., Cities of Vesuvius (London, 1971), 85.Google Scholar
page 182 note 1 Op. cit. 25, on plate XX. For Burlington, 's book Designs of Ancient Buildings by Palladio (London, 1730)Google Scholar see Lees-Milne, J., Earls of Creation (London, 1962), 125.Google Scholar
page 183 note 1 Robertson, op. cit. 321, implies that the columns on the North Gate too were engaged. This is incorrect, and, although they must have stood right against the outer face of the gate itself, there is no trace of any engagement.
page 184 note 1 Adam, op. cit., plate XII, misplaces one of the ‘devil-face’ corbels and adds a third, which should warn us not to put too much faith in the detail of his engravings; plate XIII, however, is correct. Plate XII also shows three complete columns and portions of two more still in position on the corbels, and all six capitals in place.
page 184 note 2 J. and T. Marasović, op. cit. 13, think the heads are those of minotaurs, but, de spite the horns and the rather cow-like ears, the actual faces look more like those of humans.
page 184 note 3 Op. cit. 321.
page 184 note 4 For example SirRichmond, Ian, Roman Archaeology and Art (London, 1969), 274–5Google Scholar; but I do not believe his description to be fully correct—even if, as seems certain, ‘renewed’ is taken as a misprint for ‘removed’ on 275.