The Atrium Vestæ

Preface

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those, both in America and in Rome, who have so kindly assisted me in the prosecution of this investigation.

I desire especially to thank the officers of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome for the many courtesies shown me as a research fellow of the School, and the Carnegie Institution of Washington for the generous aid by which the publication of this work has been made possible.

Esther Boise Van Deman.

Rome, June, 1909.

in

Contents

Page

Introduction vii

I. Historical Introduction 1-8

Introduction

The House of the Vestals has presented, since its excavation, many problems of great interest to the student of Roman topography and Roman architecture. It was clearly seen that the magnificent building was not the work of one period alone, but that it had been enlarged and beautified in succeeding epochs. The later builders, however, did their work in such a way as to fit it as far as possible into that of their predecessors, and thus produced the impression of a uniform structure. Consequently it is often very difficult to distinguish the different periods.

Valuable monographs on the Atrium Vestae have been published by Lanciani (1884), Jordan (1886), and Auer (1888); but since their time new researches in the field of Roman architecture and methods of construction have thrown additional light upon several questions, while our material for the study of the building has been essentially increased by the most recent excavations (1 900-1 901). For these reasons a new investigation of the Atrium Vestae had become a necessity.

In the following pages Professor Van Deman undertakes this task with great energy and with an accurate knowledge of the situation. The House of the Vestals is taken up in her monograph not as an isolated problem, but in connection with a thorough and extensive study of Roman brickwork. As a result of these studies the author has been able to reconstruct the history of the Atrium Vestae in the first and second centuries A. D. For the history of the republican building also, the remains of which are deeply buried under the imperial Atrium and are sketched for the first time in Professor Van Deman's work, valuable suggestions are given. Although some of the author's statements may be subjected to criticism and even corrected by later researches, her work marks a decided advance in the investigation of one of the most interesting monuments of the Roman Forum, and is besides a valuable contribution to the history of the architecture of the Romans and to our knowledge of their methods of construction.

IX

THE ATRIUM VESTAE

BY

ESTHER BOISE VAN DEMAN

I. Historical Introduction

Excavation of the Atrium: In October, 1883, 1 in the course of the excavations east of the Forum at the foot of the Palatine, there was discovered near the temple of Vesta a building which, from the inscriptions and statues found in and near it, was recognized at once as the house of the Vestal Virgins, the Atrium Vestae. 2 During the next three months the whole of the imperial Atrium, with the exception of the rooms on the southwest, was excavated. In 1899 the work, which had been left unfinished in 1884, was resumed, and in 1901, after the demolition of the church of S. Maria Liberatrice, the remaining rooms on the south and west, which before that time had been inaccessible, were uncovered. 3 The excavations were carried below the level of the imperial period and the scanty remains of the earlier republican Atrium'' were laid bare, wherever this was not rendered impossible by the presence of later structures. During the following two years the excavations in the Atrium and in the buildings adjacent to it were brought to completion.

Previous Plans and Opinions: Of the results of the excavations of 1883— 84,. the first authoritative accounts published were those of Lanciani 5 and Jordan. 8 Their plans of the Atrium 7 differed but little and were in their main features correct; they were in agreement also concerning the history of the building in considering it an architectural unit and the work of a single period. But in their opinions regarding the specific period to which its construction was to be assigned, they disagreed widely. Jordan, basing his conclusions on the presumable date of the inscription over the cedicula* and the dates of a number of brick-stamps, 9 held that the building was the work of Hadrian 10 . The cedicula is, however, as Lanciani pointed out, 11 not structurally united to the Atrium and need not therefore be of the same

1 For discussion of the exact date, see Not. d. Scavi, 4 See plan A, walls indicated in red.

1883, 371, 470, n. 1. Jordan, Der Tempel i Not. d. Scavi, 1883, 434ff. Cf. Ruins and Excavader Vesta, 5, n. 5. tions, 40, 226ff.

2 In the fifteenth century, in the search for marbles • Bull, dell' Inst., 1884, 88ff. Cf. Der Tempel der

to supply the limekilns, a number of statues Vesta, 25!?.

with inscribed bases were brought to light, 'Lanciani, Not. d. Scavi, 1883, plate xxn. Cf. leading to the supposition that the site was Ruins and Excavations, figs. 72 and 92.

that of the burial-place of the Vestals. Jordan, Der Tempel der Vesta, plate 1.

3 Not. d. Scavi, 1899, 325-333; 1900, 159-191. 8 Jordan, Der Tempel der Vesta, 27 et al.

1903, 70-78. Huelsen, Roem. Mitth., xvn, '"Jordan, /. c, 28.

9off. n Bull. dell' Inst., 1884, 149.

2 THE ATRIUM VESTJE.

period. Moreover, the larger number of stamped bricks were either not found in structural parts of the building or are for various reasons open to doubt in regard to their dates. 1 Lanciani, 2 agreeing with Jordan as to the architectural unity of the building, assigned the whole to the period of Septimius Severus. His conclusions were based upon the general style of architecture in the parts best preserved, and upon the presence, in certain walls, of brickwork undoubtedly belonging to the time of Severus. In 1888 Auer, a practical architect, after an independent study of the building, published a brief but suggestive discussion of its history, 3 with a new plan of the group of rooms on the east. 4 His conclusions 5 differed radically from those of the earlier writers. The Atrium, or rather the part of it then excavated, was not, he held, the work of a single builder or period, as Jordan and Lanciani had maintained, but was composed of three distinct units, which were to be assigned to as many periods. 6 The group of rooms on the east, 7 the center of which is the large room called by Jordan 8 the tablinum, which was rightly regarded by Auer as a single structure, was the earliest part of the building and belonged to the period immediately following the fire of Nero. 9 The group of rooms on the south along the Nova Via, less symmetrical in plan than the group on the east, was wholly the work of Hadrian. 10 The rooms on the north, which were more difficult to identify, since they were only partly excavated, were of a much later period, possibly later than the time of Diocletian. 11 The rooms on the west were not yet excavated at the time of the publication of Auer's work.

Purpose of the Present Work: The conclusions of Auer as here given were generally accepted as final, when the results of the excavations which were carried on in 1901-03 12 led me to a careful study of the plans of the Atrium, not only those mentioned above but those which have been published more recently, 13 and of the views advanced concerning its architectural history. After a futile attempt to adapt the plans in detail to the walls as

1 Jordan in his discussion refers to seventy stamps. 9 Auer, /. c, 20. Note Richter's error (/. c.) in

Over forty of these are valueless as direct quoting this date.

evidence, by reason of uncertainty concern- 10 Auer, /. c, 21.

ing their original place in the walls or their u L.c. Middleton {Rem. of Anc. Rome, 1, 309)

date. The evidence of none of those which accepted in general the view of Jordan.

are free from doubt is contradictory to the Richter (/. c.) follows that of Auer. Huelsen

conclusions reached in this discussion. Cf. (Huelsen-Carter, The Roman Forum, 206

Auer, Der Tempel der Vesta, 20. and fig. 125. See also Huelsen, Roem.

3 Auer, Der Tempel der Vesta, 1-10, 20-22. views of Auer in the main, adds to the south

4 Auer, /. c, plate 11. Plate 1 is a reproduction of rooms those more recently excavated on the

that published by Lanciani in the Notizie. west, and assigns the rooms on the north to

5 Auer, 1. c, 3, 6-10, 20-21. the period of Septimius Severus. The

6 A fourth period may be, perhaps, represented by official report of the later excavations is not

the upper story (Auer, /. c, 8). Richter yet published.

(Topographic der Stadt Rom, 90) seems so ^See plate 1.

to interpret the divisions made by Auer. I3 Huelsen, Roem. Mitth., xvn, plate 1. Vaglieri,

7 Auer, /. c, plate 11. Cf. plan C of the present Gli Scavi Recenti nel Foro Romano, 1903,

work. 15 and 71. Thedenat, Le Forum Romain,

8 Jordan, Der Tempel der Vesta, 36 et ah 1904, 317.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 3

I saw and measured them, or to reconcile the facts observed with any of the theories suggested, I decided to make an independent examination of the entire building and of the evidences bearing upon its history. In this examination my purpose was twofold: first, to prepare a more exact plan of the imperial Atrium, so far as it was then feasible, into which the walls discovered since 1889 should be incorporated as soon as they should be made accessible through their official publication; 1 and, second, to reconstruct the architectural history of the building, including, so far as possible, that of the republican structure beneath it.

The carrying out of the former purpose was a simple matter, though tedious', consisting merely in the careful measurement of such of the walls now standing as have been published. In the plans based upon these measurements, which are here presented, 2 a number of errors in the earlier plans have been corrected and some details of importance, as I hope, added.

The reconstruction of the architectural history of the Atrium was, however, less simple, involving, as it did, the determination of the structural units composing the building and their chronological relation to one another, as well as of the periods to which they are to be assigned. For the determination of the various units and their relation to one another, a careful examination was made of the building as a whole, as well as of the individual walls of the various parts; in this examination special consideration was given to the following points:

1. The comparative level of the individual walls in each part and the

relation, with respect to level, between the various parts. 3

2. The unity, in the several parts, in architectural plan and in structure,

the latter as shown especially by continuity in brickwork and concrete.

3. The superimposition of walls of one type upon those of another.

4. The methods of construction, that is, the thickness of the individual

walls and the occurrence and frequency, in them, of bonding-courses composed of large square bricks, the tegulce bipedales of Vitruvius; 4 and where it could be ascertained the depth of the concrete foundations and the width of the courses of brick and the layers of mortar. 5

' By the courtesy of Commendatore Boni, Director 6 In earlier investigations concerning brickwork, of the Excavations, I continued my work in the Atrium during the progress of the excavations. I was not, however, allowed to measure the new walls.

2 Plans A-F.

3 See plate 11, fig. 1.

* De Arch., vii, 1, 7; 4, 2. The tegula bipedales Lanciani (R. and E., 47) holds appear first in the Pantheon and Mausoleum of Hadrian.

They are used, however, much earlier, being found occasionally in the walls of Nero, and regularly in those of Domitian.

the width of a course of bricks and a layer of mortar together has been regarded as a unit of measurement, or the number of courses of brick to the meter has been reckoned. Both of these methods are unreliable, since with the decrease in the width of the bricks in the later periods there is a corresponding increase in the thickness of the mortar. The width of the two together, therefore, and the number of courses of bricks in a meter remain in general the same (see plate 11, fig. 2).

5. The character of the materials employed, as shown by the size, color, and composition of the bricks and by the color and composition of the mortar.

For the determination of the specific periods to which the various parts of the Atrium belong, a comparative study was made, especially with regard to the methods of construction and the materials employed, of all the buildings in and near Rome to which a certain date can be assigned. To this evidence was added that afforded by the literature and coins. The number of brick-stamps accessible to me was not sufficient to warrant their use as evidence, 1 except in a very limited sense.

Periods in the Development of the Atrium: As a result of my investigation along the lines just indicated, certain important facts have been established and new conclusions reached concerning the architectural development of the Atrium. The structural units 2 of which it is composed, apart from those of the early republican building, the number of which it is impossible to determine accurately, are seven or, possibly, eight. These will be described more fully in connection with the discussion of the architectural details of the several Atria. The stages in the history of the building represented by these seven units are, however, but five in number. While no conclusive evidence remains concerning the exact dates of these various stages, the periods to which they are to be assigned can, as will be seen, be definitely determined in all cases.

The Imperial Atrium of the First Period: The building whose scanty remains lie a meter below the present level of the Atrium 3 may be accepted, from its orientation and style of architecture, as the republican Atrium Vestse. More than half a meter above this was erected another building, consisting of a court 45 meters long, which was surrounded on two or, possibly, three sides by a series of lofty rooms. 4 This later building, which differed in orientation and architecture not only from the earlier Atrium, upon the remains of which it was erected, but also from the other buildings of the precinct contemporaneous with it, belongs, as is evident from its construction, wholly to the imperial period. In the earlier of the two buildings, the republican Atrium, whose architectural history extends from the early republican or even the regal period to that of the early Empire, many of the walls were restored more than once before their final destruction, and new walls were added, especially in the rooms which belonged at an earlier

1 The value of brick-stamps in determining the 2 By a structural unit is here meant a building or a date of the structures in which they are found part of a building in which the construction

has been greatly overestimated, owing to the is identical in type and the walls are con-

failure to take into account the frequent use tinuous throughout,

of new material in repairing old walls and 3 Plan A, ii-xii.

of old material in constructing new ones. * Plan A and pp. l6ff.

Fig, 1. The Levels of the Atrium.

Fig. 2. Brick Facing of the Periods of the Flavians and of Septimius Severus.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 5

period to the Domus publico. All of these restorations and additions are, so far as can now be determined, 1 antecedent to the fire of Nero. It is certain that at that time the whole precinct was swept by the flames. 2 Had the Atrium survived the calamity, there would be traces remaining of the restorations necessitated by it. Since, as we have said, no such traces are to be found, the final destruction of the earlier building can not have been subsequent to that event. The later building also, which was erected in its place — which we have called the first imperial Atrium — though it suffered at least twice from fire, shows no evidence of any such complete restoration as would have been necessary had it been built before and passed through the great fire. We may conclude, therefore, that the earlier building, the republican Atrium, was destroyed in the fire of Nero and that the first imperial Atrium, by which it was replaced, was erected at some time subsequent to it. 3 We know that at the time of the death of Galba, in 69 A. D., 4 the precinct of Vesta was recognized as a place of refuge and that the temple and certain of the less important rooms connected with it were already built. At that time, therefore, the Atrium must have been in large part completed, since the continual attendance of the Vestals upon the temple-fire made it necessary that, with the restoration of the regular temple cult, they resume their residence inside the precinct. The half-year between the death of Nero and that of Galba would have been insufficient for the carrying out of the whole work; 5 the reconstruction of the Atrium as well as of the temple 6 must, then, have been begun, if not finished, by the former. 7 The arguments presented are, as it seems to me, sufficient in themselves to warrant the acceptance of the first imperial Atrium as the work of Nero. This conclusion is, however, made more certain by the evidence of the walls themselves, which are identical in material and in methods of construction with those universally recognized as belonging to his time. 8

'The restorations and additions belong in large * Plut., Galba, 27. Tac., Hist., I, 43; Piso in

part to the Domus publico. Of these new eedem Vesta pervasit, exceptusque miseri-

walls but one type is uncertain. Although cordia publici servi tt contubernio eius ab-

no decision can now be reached concerning ditus protractus Piso in foribus

its date, in no case need it be held to be templi trucidatus est.

later than the early part of the reign of Nero. s The coins of Galba (Cohen, Galba, 309-314, 364,

For further discussion, see pp. 12-14. 367, 404, 432), as well as those of Vitellius

2 Tac, Ann., xv, 41. (Cohen, Vitellius, 89-91), afford evidence of

3 As filling for the concrete foundations of this their continuance of the work.

period, rare marbles have been used in ap- 6 Owing to the importance of the cult, neglect

preciable quantities. Before their abandon- to rebuild the temple would hardly have

ment to such a use, these marbles must have escaped the notice of the historians,

by the destruction of the earlier buildings n. 3) holds that the temple was only planned

in which they had been used. Before the by Nero, but built at a later time. The cvi-

rise of the new city of Augustus, imported dence of the coins is not in harmony with

marbles were almost unknown. After that this conclusion; for, though the variants in

period no destruction befell the Atrium or type are not numerous, the coins represent

the buildings adjacent to it until the fire of a number of issues. For example, the three

Nero. The first imperial Atrium must, gold coins in the British Museum, though

therefore, have been erected after that of one type, are from three different issues,

calamity. 8 See pp. 19-20.

The Atrium of the Second Period: Within a few years after the erection of the first imperial Atrium, it suffered considerable injury from fire. 1 The reconstruction following this partial destruction constitutes the second stage in the history of the building. 2 From literary evidence 3 we know that in the reign of Vespasian the Templum Augusti fell a prey to the flames. Since the injury to the Atrium of which we have just spoken was, so far as can be ascertained from the walls now standing, 4 confined largely to the rooms on the west and southwest, 5 it is probable that it was the result of this same conflagration, which, entering the building from the direction of the temple of Augustus, swept over this part of it only. From the coins of the Flavian emperors 6 it is clear that the temple of Vesta was at some time either partly or entirely rebuilt by them. Since there is no reference to any injury to the temple during this period, or to any other calamity befalling this part of the city which might have caused its destruction except that just mentioned, we may safely assume that the rebuilding of the temple indicated by the coins, and the restoration of the Atrium which very naturally accompanied it, were necessitated by the injury wrought by this fire. To this presumptive evidence is added the indisputable evidence afforded by the masonry of the building, which is of the same type as that of the numerous other buildings of the Flavian emperors, especially of Domitian. 7 To this time, therefore, we may assign the imperial Atrium of the second period. 8

The Atrium of the Third Period: There is no evidence, either direct or indirect, of any further change in the Atrium until the second century, when with the growing luxury of the times there arose the necessity for a more extensive establishment. To satisfy this necessity it is probable that the group of rooms on the east 9 was added. At the same time on the south there was built, in the tablinum of the earlier Atrium, a smaller group of rooms. 10 The Atrium so enlarged we have called the Atrium of the third period. Concerning the exact time at which these additions were made, the proofs are simple and decisive. The new rooms on the south are, as will be

The irregular manner in which certain of the walls 6 Coins bearing representations of the temple:

have been repaired indicates destruction by Cohen, Vespasien, 577-581; Titus, 347-351;

fire rather than intentional demolition. For Domitien, 613-616. Coins referring to the

the extent of the injury, see plan B and pp. goddess or to the cult: /. c, Vespasien, 572-

2iff. 576; Titus, 340-346; Julie, file de Titus,

2 Plan B. 15-18; Domitien, 611-612. The represen-

3 Plin., N. H., xii, 94. tation of the temple on these coins differs

4 C/. plans A and B. For further discussion, see from that on the coins of Nero, suggesting

p. 21. an entire rebuilding of the temple and not

6 The outer walls on the north, which are standing the completion of a structure already begun,

to a considerable height, show no sign of 'See pp. 27-28.

restoration at this time. Those on the south- 8 Huelsen holds correctly that the Templum Augusti

east are in part restored. The exact extent as it now stands is the work of Domitian.

of this restoration can not at present be The restoration of the Atrium by him is

determined. It is, however, clear that it therefore more probable.

was by no means as complete as that of the 9 Plan C, 29-39.

western part of the building. l0 Plan C, 13, a, b, c, d.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. 7

seen, 1 later in construction than the rooms adjacent to them. They must, therefore, belong to a period subsequent to that of Nero and of the Flavians, to which these rooms have been assigned. The rooms on the east are identical in type of construction with those on the south. 2 The number of coins of the time of Hadrian 3 which refer to the cult, as well as the well-known activity of that ruler in building, lead to the assumption that the enlargement of the Atrium is to be ascribed to him rather than to any other of the post-Flavian emperors. With this conclusion the walls are in harmony, agreeing even in many unessential details with those of the more important monuments of Hadrian, such as the Mausoleum and the Pantheon. 4 The new groups of rooms on the east and on the south are, therefore, of his time.

The Atrium of the Fourth Period: In the previous period there had been left, on either side of the garden 5 on the east, spaces not unlike the alee of the private house. By filling in these spaces the number of rooms was much increased and the newer part of the Atrium on the east was more closely connected with the earlier building, 6 although the court on the west and the garden were not united to form the present large court until a later period. 7 Over the eastern half, at least, of the Atrium, when so enlarged, upper stories 8 were built, or possibly, in the case of the rooms already existing, rebuilt. These alterations and additions mark the fourth stage in the growth of the building. 9 That we are here dealing with a distinct structure and one later in period than those already discussed is certain. It is evident, in the first place, from the lack of agreement in architectural plan and in type of construction, as well as from the loose mode of attachment between their walls, that the rooms which are here under discussion are structurally distinct from those both of the first and second periods on the west and of the third period on the east. 10 That they are not only distinct from, but later than the rooms of the other periods is even more evident. The concrete foundation of the front wall of the east rooms projects more than half a meter beyond the wall itself. On the north side of the court the later wall, the foundation of which is a meter lower than that adjoining it, has been built, in a bungling fashion, against and on top of this projecting foundation. 11 In the same manner, on the south a shelf which extended along the front wall of the earlier rooms has been utilized in the building of the new walls. 12 The walls of the upper stories also, 13 which are united structurally with the new rooms of the lower story, are built on topof those of the east rooms, 14 or are, as on the side towards

2 See pp. 32f . 8 Plan Fa.

» Cohen, Adritn, 1450; Sabine, 64-68, 78-87. The "Plans D and Fa.

coins of the time of Trajan are few (Cohen, I0 Auer (I.e., p. 8) noted certain of these facts and Trajan, 644-645; Plotine, 10-11). The called attention to their significance,

brickwork also does not belong to his period. "See p. 36 and plate vi, fig. 2.

« See plan C, c. "Plan F.

• Plan D. 14 See p. 42.

8 THE ATRIUM VESTJE.

the Palatine, pushed out above and beyond them. The structural unit, therefore, of which the walls of the upper stories form a part, must be of a period later than that of these rooms, which are of the time of Hadrian. The immediate successors of Hadrian, in fact, the Antonines, especially Lucilla, were liberal benefactors of the Vestals. 1 With the architecture of their time, moreover, that of the new building is in agreement. 2 We may, therefore, conclude that the additions to the Atrium by which the eastern half of the building was completed are to be assigned to the period of the Antonines and are probably in a large part the work of Lucilla.

The Atrium of the Fifth Period: During the reign of Commodus the precinct of Vesta suffered again from fire. In this case the fire entered the Atrium from the side towards the temple, which was, as we know, almost totally destroyed by it. The injury affected most seriously, therefore, the western and northwestern rooms, the inner walls of which were burned almost to the ground. 3 The rooms on the east and south, however, escaped injury. The restoration following this partial destruction marks the last fixed stage in the development of the Atrium. 4 In connection with this restoration the Atrium-court on the west was extended to the east by the destruction of the walls separating it from the earlier garden 5 and by the lowering of the level of the garden to that of the court. Discussion of the exact period at which this restoration took place is rendered needless by the peculiar nature of the brickwork, which is that accepted without question as of the time of Septimius Severus. Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius and a well-known patroness of the Vestals, rebuilt the temple. 6 It is likely therefore, that the restoration of the Atrium was also her work.

After the time of Julia Domna, though the Atrium shared in the vicissitudes which befell the buildings in its vicinity, the restorations and additions were of comparatively small importance and can not be assigned to any certain period.

1 The coins of the period are numerous. Cohen 4 Plan E.

Faustine Mere, 285-193, 318; Marc Aurele 6 See p. 43. The extension of the court may be of

et Lucius Verus, 2; Faustine Jeune, 284- the preceding period, but the weight of

286; Lucille, 92; Crispine, 45. It is as- evidence is rather in favor of the view here

sumed that the famous medallion of Lucilla given.