Talk:Pantheon, Rome

Article name

Can we come up with a better name for this article? Pantheon at Rome? Pantheon in Rome? Roman Pantheon? No, that last one would probably be about the gods. Any other ideas? RickK 05:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've changed this to "Pantheon in Rome", which was the title given in Pantheon. I agree – "Pantheon, Rome" is a horrible name and makes it sound like an American town. —Wereon 14:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with this name? It's the Pantheon, it's in Rome. Adam 06:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with Pantheon, Rome, but I'd vaguely favor The Pantheon. It is, after --Rnbc 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)all, fairly commonly known as the Pantheon, not just one of them. The general disambig. page could still be at Pantheon (there's several other instances where Blah is a disambig. page and The Blah is a particular page). --Delirium 06:09, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for The Pantheon RickK 06:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Pantheon in Paris is also called The Pantheon. It will look a little presumptuous to claim a monopoly of the name for Rome - particularly since The Pantheon is the official name of the Paris one, whereas it is only a popular name for the Church of the Mary and all the Martyr Saints in Rome. Adam 06:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--No, the Roman Pantheon is "The" Pantheon. Granted, its current official name is the Church of Mary and all the Martyr Saints (and there are other Pantheons), but that is because the Catholic Church changed the name and converted the building into a Christian church (rather than a pagan temple to "all the gods," that is, "Pantheon"). It has always been popularly known as the Pantheon, and the Parisian Pantheon is only named that because it was modeled on the Roman original. ---Of course, having looked up your profile, I realize you probably know such things... which I suppose means that I would rather you clarify and further defend your position... of course, why I should expect you to do that considering you made the statement I was replying to in 2004, I do not know.

"The Pantheon in Paris is also called The Pantheon." You are joking, surely? Is there any building in Paris called "The ... whatever"? Dyaimz (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Barberini Popes order that the bronze work from the Pantheon be melted down to be used in making the baldachin in St. Peter's Basilica. There was a saying, "Ciò che non hanno fatto i barbari hanno fatto i Barberini" or similar (What the barbarians didn't do, the Barberini did). It would be good to verify and add this. MPolo 13 Aug 2004

I made an edit to this page before I was a registered user (the one about Hadrian keeping the same wording in the inscription after rebuilding) and it was kept. Is there any way I can retrospectivly get this on to the "my contributions" list now I have a user name, etc? Thanks. Jaimzc 26 Oct 2004

May I suggest another name? Pantheon (Rome), so it is easier to drop the (Rome) bit when it is necessary.--Panairjdde 09:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Santa Maria ad Martyres

This is just to explain my reverting what was a thoughtful and well-intentioned change, from "Santa Maria ad Martyres" to "Sancta Maria ad Martyres"; now back to "Santa" with no C.

The Italian name of the church is in Italian — not as obvious as it might sound, since one or two churches in Rome have no Italian name (the church of Domine Quo Vadis? comes to mind, complete with its question mark) — thus "Santa Maria" with no C. The "ad Martyres" bit is indeed Latin, though, and you'd 'spect "Sancta"; but alas for system for all of us, it doesn't work that way.... Some churches in Rome named on similar principles do have distinct Italian and Latin names (here the church of S. Pietro in Vincoli = S. Petri ad Vincula is a good example), but others, even in Italian, keep a hybrid name, and this is the case here. (Yet others, one can't tell, since the Italian and the Latin are the same, as S. Maria in Via Lata).

The same hybrid naming occasionally applies to Italian geographical names; there is, for example, a hamlet in Umbria called "S. Pietro Aquaeortus", in which Peter speaks Italian but the springs bubble away in Latin. The situation is much more frequent in England, with names like Lyme Regis, Cerne Abbas, etc. — Best, Bill 22:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oop. I was formatting a new illus. at the same time and missed this. I thought: Sancta Maria ad Martyres" or "Santa Maria ai Martiri." Reasonable, but wrong. I'll fix my blunder. --Wetman 22:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes

I've found a nice photo of the bronze doors here: http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/engineering/pcengin.31.jpg

Am in the process of tracking down the copyright owner for permission to add to this article...

Images

I removed a couple of images, since there are already a lot of them, in comparison to the article lenght. If you think your images deserve to be published, add them to wikicommons' page on Commons:Pantheon (Roma).--Panairjdde 09:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ookokokkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.254.202.235 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Nazi architecture

Why's Nazi architecture in the list of the See alsos? As far as I know, Adolf Hitler and the Pantheon have nothing in common, really. -- SoothingR 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, Hitler luved the Pantheon and based the Volkshalle on it. Battlefield 20:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on thinking skills

This paragraph was added by User:222.154.59.153 to the bottom of the article:

thinking skills is related to the pantheon as the romans used to go there for lectures on problem solving. This is where schools orginated from, the first ever school was in the pantheon and only the wealthy could attend as you had to give quite alot of money. Money in rome was very rare and most people usually had one or two solid gold hand cut circles which had the current King stamped in on the back. People didn't usually pay up money, they usually payed up in favor, so they might have to do some sort of job for them.

I really don't see anything here that can be salvaged. --Kwekubo 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dome

This article claims that the dome of the Duomo in Florence is larger than that of the Pantheon. Yet, the article on the Duomo claims that it is smaller than the dome of St. Peters, and the article for St. Peter's claims that its dome is smaller than the dome of the Pantheon. This is, of course, logically impossible. I bring it up mainly because I have always read that the Pantheon had the largest dome until the Superdome was built in the 20th century. So, this should either be removed or clarified. 4def5rg6ty7hjd8qhjyhy9qhfyqfq98uhfujwmid9fehfieuhuew0uwffwfw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.254.202.235 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What if it rains?

I think it may not be a pleasant experience to be in the Pantheon when it rains. -- Toytoy 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, one of the great experiences of Rome is to visit the building in the rain. It can be spectacular, and depending on the light a cylinder of wetness - and the floor is reflective etc. the floor is raised a bit at the center so that it does not pool and the water drains somewhere in the perimeter. not sure how the drainage works, but the Roman engineers figured it all out.Brosi 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I love Rome. -- Toytoy 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been there when it rained (2009), the rain just comes in and there is a drain in the middle of the floor under the oculus. Because of the wind not much rain falls straight in. it's not a big deal at all. The floor isn't raised in the center and the water doesn't run off to the perimeter; that is stupid BS. Just think about the logic. Why would you put multiple drains only along the perimeter so the water had to run over the whole floor instead of putting one in the middle where the water actually falls? The Romans were great engineers, great enough to build a drain where the water falls. There are drains along the perimeter but the floor is indented in the middle not raised.

need better plan

Can't we get a more up-to-date plan and/or section. This one does not show the library in the back and is therefore actually wrong. A better section can be found at

http://www.romaonline.net/poolbot/Extras/Eng/index.php____pg_bag__tour_en___oper__show_tour_en___pg_idx__34

or

http://www.romaonline.net/poolbot/Extras/Eng/index.php____pg_bag__tour_en___oper__show_tour_en___pg_idx__34

There are better ones.Brosi 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

tensile strength ?

Domes only need high compressive strength, not tensile strength. Concrete has high compressive strength. What's the problem with building large domes out of concrete? I think that information needs checking, but I'm not a specialist. Anyone can help? --Rnbc 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bronze plates

The following has been removed by a recent editor: It was covered with gilded bronze plates. I think that bronze plates were indeed removed from the Pantheon, perhaps by Sixtus V. Any information?--Wetman 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PANTHEON

i think the article is exellent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.69.25 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

A gremlin?

The following seems impossible: "The apse painting of Glory of all the Saints (1544) was painted by Giovanni Guerra." The year 1544 is Guerra's birth date, and the redecoration is said to have been commisioned by Pope Clement XI. Can anyone untangle this? My TCI Roma e Dontorni (1965) offers no details. --Wetman 07:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I likely put that in from some source. Giovanni Guerra worked also for Clement VIII. That is the likely answer, but to be safe, I will delete the commission note. CARAVAGGISTI 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

More citations neededUser:Kushal_one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.163.1 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal recovery needed

On Sept 28, this page was vandalized, including deletions of section headers. Later edits did not recover these properly, and additional material was added on. Does anyone have time for a careful reconstruction that respects both? Mlouns 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

took out some text

There is no evidence that the Pantheon was ever actually used. Nor is it certain that there was an altar at the center. REMOVED: "When the Pantheon was still dedicated to the Roman gods, the large number of flames for all the gods produced a vast amount of smoke which escaped out the top. When it rained, water would not be an issue because the smoke would keep the rain from falling through the Great Eye."(Brosi 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

• I have removed more text of a similar nature, and tried to qualify the rest as theory. We really have no idea how it may or may not have been used. Resistor (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

simplistic opening

The opening paragraph is quite simplistic (compared to the relative sophistication of the article itself)."It is the best preserved of all Roman buildings, and perhaps the best preserved building of its age in the world." Well it is the best preserved because it was made into a church by the Christians who tore down most of the other temples. That it "has been in continuous use throughout its history." What does this mean. it seems that the Romans actually after hadrian's death did not use the building and even if they did it was used very differently than today. Doe any body want to rephrase the beginning??? (Brosi 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

• Actually, that's reasonably accurate. It does not seem to have been completely abandoned in the same way that, say, the Flavian Amphitheatre (the Colosseum), or any of the other huge temples of antiquity. The best I can say is: look up an image of the remains of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and compare it to the state of the Pantheon. Resistor (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this entry

Considering how many scholarly books and articles have been published on the Pantheon is especially tragic that this entry is riddled with inaccuracies from start to finish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.147.170 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• My father, a professor of classical architecture who has studied the Pantheon significantly, went through this article with me, and we have tried to improve many sections of it. In particular, the old versions presented as facts many things that are debated theories (particularly assertions about the identity of the architect and the uses of the building in antiquity). We have tried to make it clear when a statement is a popular theory as opposed to a proven fact. Resistor (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

inconsistency in medieval history section

The history --> medieval history section contains an inconsistency. It says the pantheon was immune from spoliation, then it describes its spoliation. Could someone please fix this? 203.221.127.208 13:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed this in my recent cleanups. Resistor (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What did you change?

Here is what is there now (I am not changing it right now);

The building's consecration as a church saved it from the abandonment, destruction, and the worst of the spoliation which befell the majority of ancient Rome's buildings during the early medieval period. Paul the Deacon records the spoliation of the building by the Emperor Constans II, who visited Rome in July 663:

Remaining at Rome twelve days he pulled down everything that in ancient times had been made of metal for the ornament of the city, to such an extent that he even stripped off the roof of the church [of the blessed Mary] which at one time was called the Pantheon, and had been founded in honor of all the gods and was now by the consent of the former rulers the place of all the martyrs; and he took away from there the bronze tiles and sent them with all the other ornaments to Constantinople.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

pantheon vs. pantheum

I have significant experience with Latin writing (particularly about art and architecture), and have never encountered the word 'pantheon' used a word in Latin. My experience has been that it is always 'pantheum' in Latin, and 'pantheon' in Greek. Can anyone provide a reference for this usage? If not, I'll change the entry. Resistor (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pasquino quote

Can anyone provide insight into the connection between the Pasquino quote and the Pantheon? The article explains the connection poorly. Resistor (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

80.200.43.138 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Pasquino has a quote about Pope Urban VIII. 'Quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini' is his quote which means: 'Everything the barbarians didn't do, is done by Pope Urban VIII. He said that because Pope Urban VIII made a lot of changes at the pantheon.

Raphael's tomb

The translation of the epitaph on Raphael’s tomb is really terrible and doesn’t make a lot of sense. How about this, a much better translation, by the poet Mowbray.

Behold Great Raphael entombed here,

Whom, living, Nature’s very soul did fear,

For She did see, her works he would outvie,

And now in death doth fear herself to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leightonmowbray (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• While I haven't reviewed the translation currently in place, I'm generally in favor of a literal translation over a poetic/interpretive one. If you feel that the current translation is inaccurate, please leave more information as to why. Resistor (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want a literal translation, you will need to write ‘The great parent of things’. The other translator did grasp the figurative meaning of ‘Nature’. The literal translation runs as follows: HIC=here EST=is RAPHAEL TIMUIT=feared QUO=who SOSPITE=living VINCI=conquer (surpass/ defeat) / RERUM= things MAGNA =great PARENS=parent ET=and MORIENTE=dying MORI=to die. Now the poet Mowbray takes the literal words and places them, without altering the meaning, into iambic pentameter. Thus the meaning is retained while the essence is transformed into verse. Remember that the original form was in two lines of verse in six metrical feet. The technique of translating Latin verse into English pentameter was invented by the poet Chaucer, and cultivated by the Bard. It is now kept alive by Mowbray. Leightonmowbray (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

fulfillment

built to represent all gods, it is claimed, but that amounts to the only 1 god, and so built to that end; fulfilled by Dec 1970 visit of God on earth, as forseen by seers 2500 yrs before. /s/ lil zeus sr 76.195.232.219 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry....what???????--Amadscientist (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

columns description

I restored some text about the columns. This was originaly obtained on this site and deleted for some reason.

I don't know the original source but I added a source that confirms at least part of it.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know why it was deleted and I know where it came from......see Copyright infringment below.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The source to the column weight was deleted and I just restored it. There was a larger weight which contradicts this in addition to the source I restored I checked the density and concluded that the lower weight estimate is clearly more credible. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The larger weight (~100 tons) is in reference to larger size columns (50-footers) that were *not* used on the Pantheon. I agree that the existing columns are about 60 tons apiece. 50 foot columns were larger in both diameter and height, thus the substantially larger figure.Mgsobo (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been in continuous use throughout its history

History of Rome says it was closed for centuries. Who is right?--Dojarca (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was closed from the Theodosian decrees of 491 to its Christian dedication in 609. "Over a century" would be more accurate: pleaee edit the phrase you found in History of Rome accordingly. --Wetman (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There could be no Theodosian decrees in 491. Did you mean 391? Theodosius died in 395.--Dojarca (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Added info box and map

I also changed the finish date and added a reference for that change.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information on the Architectural mistake

It's hard not to notice the front portico is shorter than it's intended construction. Why is this not discussed?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, with reference to Mark Wilson Jones' book, Principles of Roman Architecture which discusses analyzes the issue in great detail. Mgsobo (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringment

Naughty, naughty. You cannot copy and paste word for word any part of an existing article off the internet. The section refering to the columns....is from Freda Parker's article at Monolithic.com [http://static.monolithic.com/thedome/pantheon/index.html The Pantheon-- Rome -126 AD A temple to all gods - by Freda Parker]. 12th paragraph down. I am removing the entire section and the reference that claims it to be from another source.

I suggest checking the rest of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the source the first time I restored this information now that I know the source I'll provide a brief discription with the apropiate source. since Monolithic.com has proven reputable as far as I know and the information isn't contested I trust this will be satisfactory. This will also provide readers who are interested with a link to the article which seems like a good one. Thanks for pointing it out.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was put up ages ago and it was just to easily google when I was researching online information about the height of the columns and the discrepancy in alignment of the front portico.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

What's the deal with all the red links in the Decoration while a Christian church section.

The title of the section alone is suspect, but the red links look kind of odd. Ther is no way all these links will be made in the near future so I am removing them. Red links mean there is no article and should only be used if you are preparing to do so not to tell other s you want articles or show the lack of articles. Sorry to be such a party pooper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Image

The original image was recently replaced. I have returned it. While the images of people in public locations without their consent is legal and acceptable on wikicommons, it is not clear whether the same applies on Wikipedia. At any rate it seems inappropriate to replace the image with one of similar quality depicting so many people by using an image that was zoomed further out than the original. Keeping the subject of the article in question within the framing of the image, as well as keeping it squarely zoomed into just the structure in question is best.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PantheonRomeModel.jpg

Model of the Pantheon

This model of the Pantheon is out of date, and has been for decades. The sculpture in the pediment is copied from a relief showing the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus; the sculptures on the intermediate block probably copy a coin showing sculptures on the Basilica Ulpia. MacDonald, The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny (1976) gives this devastating critique: "In the model once displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the cornices appear to be subordinated to an overgrowth of detail that the original building probably never carried. The model is of a building in the style of the romantic classicism of the nineteenth century, an important style in its own right but with few connections with Roman imperial architecture." I think the image should be replaced with something more appropriate. Maybe one of the images on the French, German, or Italian versions of this page? I'll look around for something better, but if someone wants to beat me to it, that's fine. Mgsobo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not move the late C19 model down to the last section, with your report of MacDonald's critique?--Wetman (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BC/AD or BCE/CE

The terms "BC" and "AD" are technically obsolete, so should they be replaced with "BCE" and "CE", respectively? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't, you are wrong on your claim. Therefore, please do not create confusion regarding the issue. By the way, the manual of style describes in detail what is acceptable and what not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Longer_periods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.157.178 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is you who are mistaken, Mr. Unsigned (talk). The WP Manual of Style, to which you linked, does not say that "BCE" and "CE" should not be used. Here's what it actually says: "Years are denoted by AD and BC or, equivalently, CE and BCE. Use only one system within an article, and do not change from one system to the other without good reason." And there is "good reason" to use "CE" and "BCE" in the article, since it is about an ancient Roman structure -- built in a time and place where terms like "BC" and "AD" were neither used nor even known. Yes, the building was later adapted for use as a Christian church, but that is secondary to its original function. It was not designed or built at a time "before Jesus"; it was built by a Roman emperor, to venerate Roman gods.Bricology (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. This should be BC/AD per WP:ERA, because it always has been. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the parthenon

Should a "not to be confused with the Greek temple the Parthenon" be added? The two terms are very similar, and, for example, I frequently confuse the two. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

also, the article mentions that Pliny the elder is a contempory source for the Pantheon, but he died 100 years before it was built. He described the temple of Agrippa, not the Hadrianic Pantheon, which i the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.4.93 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder died 50 years (not 100 years) before its completion. I agree that it's not the same building as Agrippa's, but its interior and its overall function might have remained the same. Abvgd (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Current Representations of Gods

Having never seen it in person, I really don't know, but are there still statues of gods in the Pantheon? --Eddylyons (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they were removed or destroyed when the Christians took over and converted it to a Christian monument Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreinforced concrete dome?

There's a diagram image at this website from a 1905 book (Pantheon J. Durm, Handbuch der Architektur, Stoccarda, 1905) which appears to show brick relieving arches behind the concrete of the dome all the way to the oculus. Is this accurate? I have always been told that the dome is purely concrete. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In these images there's an aerial photograph, no arches, and a section showing just the thickness of the concrete towards the bottom. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with checking an overhead photo is that the top of the building is covered with sheet metal roofing. I've been looking for additional sources and I've found several other images and texts which agree that the entire top half of the building (the dome portion) is not purely concrete, but they seem to differ with the first image a bit on some of the details:

• This image labeled "Pantheon section drawing (Andrea Palladio 1570)" shows horizontal brick bonding courses behind the first three levels of coffers, and the exterior retaining rings on the roof as brick.
• the drawing "Figure 4" here depicts a section showing brick relieving arches behind at least the first two courses of coffers.
• This diagram also shows retaining arches behind the first two levels of coffers (the dark rectangles are the arches intersecting with the section plane).
• This page has images labeled "Pantheon Sections (left picture:Ward-Perkins6, right picture: MacDonald7)" both showing retaining arches hidden behind the first two courses of coffers and the rim of the oculus as brick. Text from the page supports the ring-steps on the roof being made at least partly with brick and the oculus being ringed with courses of brick:

"The smaller step-rings are faced with semilateres (bricks)16 which gives credibility to the corbeling method. Each ring was built like a low Roman wall. The circular part of the upper dome was likely placed by using wooden scaffolding.

"The compression ring (oculus) at the center of the dome is 19'-3" (5.9 m) in diameter and 4'-7" (1.4 m) thick. The ring is made of 3 horizontal rings of tile, set upright, one above the other; the ring is 2 bricks thick.16/17 This ring is effective in properly distributing the compression forces at this point. There is a bronze ring covering the lip dating back to the original construction, but other bronze plates on top of the roof have been removed and later replaced with lead plates."

• This photo from the book "The Architecture of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1" seems to actually show some of the hidden smaller arches depicted in the other diagrams uncovered from behind the first course of coffers (the same book includes this diagram of brick arches behind the first two levels of coffers). Text from page 109 supports this, as well as the step-rings on the roof being brick (if that is what is meant by "masonry"):

"From the interior the entire hemisphere appears to be a vault, but structurally this is not the case. Plates 105 and 106 show that the true span of the dome is that at level IV, not at III, for up as far as IV the structure is, however complex, essentially a circular wall and not part of the domical vault. [...] There are seven step-ring features that project from the ideal extrados of the dome, loading it with additional masonry through 43 degrees of its rise (approximately two-thirds of its vertical height)." AmateurEditor (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have found the answer. From page 105 of "The Architecture of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1":

"Other than the trabeated porch and the column screens of the interior niches the building is of brick-faced concrete, though the intrados of the dome lacks brick facing and stone blocks appear at certain bearing points within the cylinder. The technique of the brick-faced wall construction is the same as that employed at the Markets and Baths of Trajan. Above level IV the dome contains no brick arches or vaults. Drawings and engravings that show a complicated skeleton of brick ribs within the fabric of the great vault above level IV are based upon one of Piranesi's plates. Apparently he examined part of the vaults and arches within the cylinder and dome up to level IV and then assumed that some such system continued up to the oculus: his assumptions have been repeated for nearly two centuries. Plates 105 and 106 show the maximum height actually reached by the internal vaults, arches, and radial walls (in Plate 105 the sections through the vaults are shaded)." AmateurEditor (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the black dents?

Those black dents visible in the "triangle" of the main picture – where do they come from? Are they bullet holes (what's the Pantheon's history during WW2, anyway?) or due to weather effects over the centuries, for instance? Thanks. -- 91.11.253.109 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I believe you are referring to the mounting points for metal sculptures that have since disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.145.98 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

March equinox illumination of the entrance for the emperor

I have just read in a paper (Daily Telegraph, Monday 1 August 2011) about this new theory. Apparently the door was illuminated at the precise moment the emperor entered the building on the March equinox. The size and shape of the beam from the oculus matches to an inch the semicircular stone arch above the doorway. There is another effect on 21 April.

I am not sure how and where to mention it or what sources to cite, but I feel this would be an important part of the article.

Heimdall 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdall1973 (talk • contribs)

Age of doors

The article currently states "The large bronze doors to the cella, once plated with gold, are ancient but not the original ones of the Pantheon. The current doors – manufactured too small for the door frames – have been there since about the 15th century.". On a recent visit I saw an information sign inside the Pantheon (from, I believe, the Italian archaeology authorities) stating that the doors are now believed to be original, and are no longer believed to be 15th century replacements. They are deliberately "too small" to allow space for the grating above them that admits some light and air. I haven't put this in body of the article because I don't have a conventional source that can be cited for this information.

Anberent (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture problem

There seems to be a problem with the link to the picture of Umberto's tomb (File:Umberto tomb pantheon.jpg). The original file is fine and I can get it to appear on the page at full size, but the thumbnail photo just shows up as a line in the article. I've tried repairing it to no avail. I am sure I am missing something. Can someone with a little more technical knowledge try to fix this glitch? Thanks. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong in the way the image is formatted in the article so I'm not sure what we can do. It may just be that Wikipedia's servers are having trouble today. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is still occurring. Anyone more savvy with pictures take a look at this? Thanks.Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the problem image. Someone can re-insert it if they can figure out the problem.Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Works modeled on, or inspired by, the Pantheon

Except for the introductory paragraph, this is just a list of buildings with no citations demonstrating they were modeled on or inspired by the Pantheon. I propose getting rid of the list as it appears to violate WP:NOR. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section on the basis of a lack of sources, but also that a list isn't adding a whole lot to the article. The sourced paragraph at the start of the section is quite good IMO and could perhaps be expanded on a little. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I removed the list but retained the intro paragraph. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

• http://www.pantheon-rome.com/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pantheon, Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150916002619/http://www.vicariatusurbis.org:80/SantaMariaadMartyres/ to http://www.vicariatusurbis.org/SantaMariaadMartyres/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with PNG rendering of SVG picture

The picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Pantheon_section_sphere.svg/330px-Pantheon_section_sphere.svg.png (used in the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome#Rotunda) is not right – the building itself is missing. I don't know how to fix it, but I wanted to draw someone's attention to it. --Jhertel (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusion toward authenticity of Ancient History section

The article states that the Pantheon was most likely conceived by either Trajan or the consul Marcus Agrippa and only finished by Hadrian: "Lise Hetland argues that the present construction began in 114, under Trajan, four years after it was destroyed by fire for the second time (Oros. 7.12). She reexamined Herbert Bloch's 1959 paper, which is responsible for the commonly maintained Hadrianic date, and maintains that he should not have excluded all of the Trajanic-era bricks from his brick-stamp study. Her argument is particularly interesting in light of Heilmeyer's argument that, based on stylistic evidence, Apollodorus of Damascus, Trajan's architect, was the obvious architect....The degree to which the decorative scheme should be credited to Hadrian's architects is uncertain. Finished by Hadrian but not claimed as one of his works, it used the text of the original inscription on the new façade (a common practice in Hadrian's rebuilding projects all over Rome; the only building on which Hadrian put his own name was the Temple to the Deified Trajan). How the building was actually used is not known. The Historia Augusta says that Hadrian dedicated the Pantheon (among other buildings) in the name of the original builder (Hadr. 19.10), but the current inscription could not be a copy of the original..."

The citations for this material are as follows:

Hetland, Lise (November 9–12, 2006). Graßhoff, G; Heinzelmann, M; Wäfler, M, eds. "Zur Datierung des Pantheon". The Pantheon in Rome: Contributions Contributions to the Conference. Bern.

and

Ramage and Ramage, 2009, p.36

This seems to contradict some of the material presented I have heard. Now I'm rather confused. Just how much of an influence did Hadrian really have over the design of the Pantheon? I know that, either way, Apollodorus was heavily involved, but I had the impression that Hadrian was a true design nut who often meddled in Apollodorus's work. How accurate is this article? L3X1 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC) L3X1 (distænt write) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"In 2013 it was visited by 6 million people"

I wonder how they arrived at this number. I lived in the next street for 3 months and walked in and out of that building dozens of times. The door was always wide open and nobody counted.--dunnhaupt (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Smile please, you're on camera! Or they do sample periods with people with clickers, or some less scientific method. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Crowd estimation is one of the more scientific guessing methods. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pantheon, Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avirel.unitus.it/bd/autori/melchiorri/nuova_guida_metodica/parte_terza.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928031043/http://www.liechtensteinmuseum.at/en/pages/artbase_main.asp?module=browse&action=m_work&lang=en&sid=31032196&oid=W-147200412195342017 to http://www.liechtensteinmuseum.at/en/pages/artbase_main.asp?module=browse&action=m_work&lang=en&sid=31032196&oid=W-147200412195342017

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lessens" (nouns)?

Does this sentence make sense? "There are three floors in the Pantheon; the second is made up of lessens that allow sunlight to filter through to the first floor, assisted by the light flowing in through the oculus." I didn't see this kind of structure explained in the two sources that were listed. I looked up "lessen" as a noun in both regular dictionaries and in architectural dictionaries, and didn't see anything. What is a "lessen"? I've been in the Pantheon, but not since 1984, so I don't remember this. Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 00:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems gibberish to me! Added here], along with other odd stuff. Now removed. It only has one "floor" for a start. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

eight barrel vaults and a drum wall "into eight piers"

Under the heading "Structure: Rotunda", it states "The 4,535 tonne weight of the Roman concrete dome is concentrated on a ring of voussoirs 9.1m in diameter that form the oculus, while the downward thrust of the dome is carried by eight barrel vaults in the 6.4m thick drum wall into eight piers." (emphasis added) The last part is confusing -- particularly the word "into", which does not seem to relate to either the barrel vaults of the wall. Can anyone explain what is meant by this phrase? Is it that the "...eight barrel vaults..." divide the "...wall into eight piers"? -or something else? Bricology (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Columns were looted by Rome not quarried

The article makes it sound like the Romans quarried these columns in Egypt. That is not the case. The Romans were incapable of creating such large single piece columns. True Roman columns of this scale are segmented and joined. These single piece columns were quarried in Egypt by the ancient temple builders of Egypt. The Roman explorers found them as ruins and transported them back to Rome on ships as found treasures. The Romans also looted 13 obelisks, with hieroglyphs, that are displayed around Rome; which are further proof that the most impressive stone work the Romans got from Egypt were pieces they looted, not pieces they quarried.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

In the External Links section the following link is incorrect or the website it points to has been removed or edited as it no longer appears. It needs to be removed a it is a broken link.

Official webpage from Vicariate of Rome website AlanMorris-LA (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That link points to an archive of that site. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What do the letters and numbers say or mean on the front of the Panthron

Thank you 2603:8001:A600:7849:1900:6CE9:B407:8AC4 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo

But honestly, is this picture better than this one  ? With the obelisk covering part of the facade and of questionable quality? Really? --NikonZ7II (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022: BC/AD -> BCE/CE

The BC/AD year markers should be changed to BCE/CE. The only argument for the former would be that this article is from a Christian point of view. This is clearly not the case though, since this an architectural article for a building that was created for and served as a place of worship for non-Christian religions for hundreds of years. Moritorium (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed since 2016

There's been a citation needed mark since 2016;

"...this deaconry was suppressed to establish the Cardinal Deaconry of S. Apollinare alle Terme Neroniane-Alessandrine.[citation needed]" Perhaps it should be removed, or a citation be found and put in. Rockethead293 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The "Pantheon" cannot have been a Temple

There are several arguments against an intepretation of the building as a temple: – It has no podium, but every Roman temple had to have one. Compare, e.g., the very high and well visible podium of the contemporary temple dedicated to Hadrian, the "Hadrianeum" (later the Building of the Roman Stock Exchange) which lies only a few meters away. – It has no dedicatory inscription: All the inscriptions refer to (not deified!) persons responsible for its construction or changes. But a Roman temple had to have an inscription saying to which deity it was dedicated (and, in many cases but in smaller letters) by whom. – It has no altar. There are no traces of an altar in front of the building (only those of a small triumphal arch), and, of course, no traces of any altar inside the building. While the latter would have been virtually impossible for any place of cult, it is impossible to have a temple without a cult and a cult without an altar. – Its interior has the form of a (round) public space under open sky with surrounding "façades". Nothing of that kind would have been useful for a temple, because only priest would have been alowed to enter a temple. But such an representative architecture is clearly directed to visitors.

It is no argument against this correction that there have been a few statues (Mars and Venus, at least) in or in front of the Pantheon – like there have been statues of gods and deified persons in gardens or private buildings. But such statues do not make a building into a temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernd Kulawik (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pantheon (Rome) - Dome interior.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Measurement in Roman feet

It's well known that the height and width of the Pantheon dome are basically the same. But the article includes this segment: "The height to the oculus and the diameter of the interior circle are the same, 43.3 metres (142 ft), so the whole interior would fit exactly within a cube (or, a 43.3-m sphere could fit within the interior)." The citation is to Roth in 1992, which not only gets the page wrong (it is 30, not 36, which I will fix), but Roth gives the clear span dimension as "43.4 meters" (not 43.3m) "or 142 feet 6 inches". Also, he says the oculus is 30 feet (9.1m) across and surely it cannot be 30 Roman feet across as well, so the segment immediately following this one, about the oculus is conflicting:

"These dimensions make more sense when expressed in ancient Roman units of measurement: The dome spans 150 Roman feet; the oculus is 30 Roman feet in diameter; the doorway is 40 Roman feet high." This passage is citing Claridge in 1998. But these measurements conflict with the very wikipedia article cited on ancient Roman units of measurement. In that article a Roman foot is given as 296mm. If the span is 43.3m = 43300 mm, dividing this by 296 mm = 146.283 Roman feet. This is nowhere near 150 Roman feet. Can someone explain this discrepancy? (Even if the more correct quote from Roth is used 43.4m = 146.62 RF).

Claridge actually states: "The interior of the rotunda has an internal diameter of 150RF (44.4m)." Yes, 150RF does equal 44.4 meters, but nowhere is there any evidence given for this being an actual measurement. This is clearly speculation on the part of the author, and the 44.4m is given in parentheses as the equivalent of the presumed 150RF. So the quote from Claridge is used to justify talking about 150RF, but conflicts with the citation from Roth stating that the span is 1 meter shorter than that. Whom are we supposed to believe?

Separate from these issues is the fact that the Bern laser survey in 2009 measured the dome span as 43.56m, for which see here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00004-018-00423-2

I would think that the lasers would be a more up-to-date and accurate measurement than Roth from 1992, or Claridge from 1998 (if either of them actually did any measurement at all). This laser survey would make the dome span ~147.16 Roman feet, still nowhere near 150 as the article misleadingly states. Catalyst418 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Name section

I feel like the basic opinion that Pantheon means "Temple to all the Gods" is not well-presented. Only the counter-argument is presented. Barjimoa (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the French wikipedia does a good job in presenting the basic theory as well (and the sources there used are good). Barjimoa (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Influence on Volkshalle

The 'Influence' section could probably include mention of the Pantheon's influence on Hitler/Speer's planned Volkshalle. The Volkshalle article includes mention of this, and a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added a bit: there are a few others in "See also" that could similarly be moved into main text, with some sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Zenomonoz (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"according to at least one expert"

Translation: according to one expert. 94.191.152.146 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed -- and that wasn't what the source said anyway. I've added the name (Carlo Fea). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)