THE COLISEUM AND ESQUILINE.
[Sidenote: Meta Sudans.]
On the road from the Forum Romanum to the Coliseum, after passing through
the Arch of Titus, we descend between the platform and ruins of the Temple
of Venus and Rome, and the remains called the lavacrum of Heliogabalus,
mentioned previously, and, close to the south-western corner of the mass
of substruction on the left, we find a conical column of brickwork about
thirty feet high. A large breach on the side towards the Coliseum shows
that the centre was pierced with a perpendicular pipe, and the eastern
exhibits traces of having been divided into three ledges or stages. This
conical building stood in the centre of a circular basin, the ruin of
which has been traced out and restored. The shape would of itself point to
the purpose which this building served, even if this were not rendered
clear by the remains of a watercourse which descended to it from the
Esquiline. The name Meta Sudans by which the ruin is known comes from the
mediæval list of buildings known as the Curiosum Urbis, but the earliest
authentic authority to which we can appeal for its date is a coin of
Alexander Severus, A.D. 222. The passage of Seneca in which he gives the
name Meta Sudans as being a spot at which the flute-players and trumpeters
made a din by their practice, does not give us any information as to its
position, and therefore we are not justified in assuming that the fountain
was erected in Nero’s time.[67] The coins of Titus which represent the
Coliseum do not show it. Cassiodorus and other chronologists place the
date of the Meta Sudans in Domitian’s reign, and this agrees with the
coins of Titus and also with the nature of the brickwork, which is of the
Flavian era.
[Sidenote: Arch of Constantine.]
Near the Meta Sudans at the entrance of the Via di S. Gregorio stands the
Arch of Constantine, which is the most completely preserved of all ancient
Roman buildings. The name of Constantine, revered by subsequent ages,
seems to have defended the archway from the barbarous spoliation which
attacked most of the great monuments of Rome. The most interesting feature
of this arch in the history of art is the proof which it gives of the
decline of art in the fourth century. Some of the reliefs with which it is
ornamented were taken from an older arch, probably that which formed the
entrance to Trajan’s Forum, and those which are of Constantine’s time show
a coarse and harsh style of execution in lamentable contrast to the
flowing and delicate lines of the more ancient work by their side.
Among the sculptures which belong to the earlier and better period are the
large reliefs under the central arch and those which are placed on either
end of the attica. These four were originally parts of a larger relief
which has been sawn into four equal pieces for the purpose of adorning
Constantine’s arch. The order in which they stood in the original design
has been pointed out by Bellori. The first part is that now placed on the
inside of the middle archway towards the Coliseum, the second stands on
the side of the attica over the arch towards the Cælian, the third on the
inside of the middle archway towards the Palatine, and the fourth upon the
attica on the same side. When united they represented Trajan crowned by
Victory, with the goddess Roma standing near, a battle between Dacians and
Romans, ending in the defeat and submission of the barbarian army. The
dress of the Roman soldiers and of the Dacians is similar to that
represented on Trajan’s column, and quite different from the Roman
military habit in the age of Constantine. Beside these four rectangular
reliefs the eight circular sculptures which stand over the smaller
archways belong to the time of Trajan. They represent hunting scenes and
sacrificial ceremonies. One of them, the second from the left, upon the
side towards the Coliseum, has a remarkable figure of the Emperor with a
nimbus or cloud encircling his head, exactly similar to those represented
round the heads of modern saints. The eight large reliefs upon the attica
over the side archways are also of the workmanship of Trajan’s time, and
commemorate some of the exploits of that emperor, among which may be
mentioned the construction of a road through the Pontine marshes
represented upon the second relief from the left on the side of the attica
towards the Coliseum. The reclining figure with a wheel represents the
road, and the other figures the surveyors, one of which is perhaps
Apollodorus, the famous Greek architect of Damascus. The other reliefs
upon the sides of the attica represent interviews of Trajan with barbarian
princes, and the common sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia, so frequently
depicted on the reliefs of the columns of that emperor, and also on the
large marble screens now standing in the Forum Romanum. The remainder of
the sculptures belong to the Constantinian era, and contain, viewed as
works of art, nothing worth attention. One of them on the side next to the
Coliseum is, however, of great interest to the antiquarian, as it
represents the rostra of the later Empire and the northern end of the
Forum, with the arches of Severus and Tiberius, and the end of the
Basilica Julia, and another, on the side towards the Via di S. Gregorio
representing the victory of Constantino over Maxentius at the Milvian
bridge, is historically valuable.
The figures which stand in front of the attica have the Dacian costume,
and have been removed from some one of Trajan’s buildings. Upon the side
of the central archway can be still seen the traces of nails which
fastened some Roman ensigns to the stones. Similar traces of nails are to
be seen upon the arch of Severus as before mentioned.
The inscriptions over the smaller arches refer to the decennalia or
vicennalia, a festival celebrated after the time of Augustus every ten
years of an emperor’s reign when he was supposed to have the imperium
conferred upon him afresh. The meaning of the expression VOTIS X. VOTIS
XX. seems to be that these inscriptions were put up on the “vota” or day
when vows were made for the emperor’s safety at the beginning of the tenth
and twentieth years of his reign. This is not an uncommon signification of
the word “vota” in later Latin. The day which was usually called vota was
either the first or third of January, and the custom of offering these
vows was retained long after Christianity had been nominally made the
state religion, so that it is not surprising to find it alluded to on
Constantine’s arch.[68] The words on the other side of the arch SIC. X.
SIC. XX. may be interpreted as the form of words used in making vows to
the emperor. “Sic x. annos regnet; sic xx. annos regnet.” “May his reign
last ten years more or twenty years.”
The larger inscription which is cut upon the attica on both sides shows
that the arch was erected in honour of the victory of Constantine over
Maxentius, and the union of the empire under one sovereign. It is not,
however, certain that the arch was built in the first year of
Constantine’s sole reign, for not only do the words INSTINCTU DIVINITATIS
“by inspiration of the Deity,” seem to indicate a more decided leaning to
Christianity than Constantine showed at the beginning of his reign, but
the title of Maximus, which is found in the inscription, does not occur in
the coins of Constantine before the tenth year of his reign.
The solid contents of this arch, as may be seen by ascending the staircase
which is entered by a door at some height from the ground at the end
nearest the Palatine Hill, are mainly composed of pieces of marble taken
from other buildings, and it has even been suspected that the plan itself,
which in beauty of proportion surpasses the Arch of Severus, was borrowed,
together with the materials, from Trajan’s Arch or some older building now
destroyed.
[Illustration: The Coliseum, from the Palatine Hill.]
[Sidenote: The Coliseum.]
We now pass from the Arch of Constantine, with its borrowed ornamentation,
to the great ruin of Rome, the Coliseum, or Flavian Amphitheatre. Although
two-thirds of the original building have disappeared under the shameful
treatment to which the barbarous nobles of the middle ages subjected it,
enough still remains to show the arrangement of the entrances, passages,
and seats of this wonderful construction. The plan of the whole may be
best described as consisting of three principal massive concentric
elliptical arcades. The intervals between each of these are filled in
with other arched work containing corridors and staircases, and between
the innermost of these three arcades and the wall which surrounded the
arena was a triple system of substruction supporting the lower parts of
the rows of seats in the amphitheatre. The stone used throughout is
travertine, with the exception of some interior work of brick and
concrete, and some pumice-stone in the arches. The elliptical shape was
probably chosen instead of the circular in imitation of the amphitheatre
of Curio, which was composed of two semicircular theatres with their
stages between them. The name Coliseum was possibly derived from the great
colossal statue of Nero which for a long time stood close to the Flavian
Amphitheatre, and when the real history of the amphitheatre was lost,
would naturally become the most prominent mark by which it could be
designated. This colossal statue was placed originally in the vestibule of
Nero’s Golden Palace, and was 120 feet high, according to Suetonius. The
material was bronze and the artist was Zenodorus. It appears that
Vespasian, and afterwards Hadrian, moved the colossus to make room for
their new buildings, and that it was finally placed upon the massive
pedestal of brickwork which still remains on the north of the Coliseum.
That it actually stood upon this pedestal is shown by a coin of Alexander
Severus, which represents the Coliseum with the colossus close to it. It
is said by Gibbon that the name Coliseum was also given to the
amphitheatre at Capua without reference to a colossal statue. The Capuan
title may, however, have been taken from the Roman.
The major axis of this huge amphitheatre, from one outside wall to the
other, measures 602 feet, the minor 507. The principal outer wall is 157
feet in height, and is divided into four stories.[69] Of these the lowest
stands on a substruction of two steps, and originally consisted of a row
of eighty arches, between which stood half columns of the Doric order.
These outer arches, with the exception of thirty-three archways, have
disappeared. Upon these rests a very simple entablature without any of the
usual peculiarities of the Doric style, and rather belonging to the Ionic,
a mixture of styles not very rare in Rome.[70] The arches are all
numbered. These numbers were probably intended to correspond to those upon
the entrance tickets and rows of seats, in order that the spectators might
find their proper seats with ease. There is a staircase and a vomitorium
corresponding to every four arches, and the vomitoria as well as the
entrance arches were all numbered to prevent confusion. A ticket for the
amphitheatre at Frosinone has been found. It bears an inscription CAN. VI
IN. X. VIII., thus giving the position and number of the seat. The arches
which stood at the extremities of the minor axis were the approaches to
the imperial pavilions. They were ornamented with marble columns and
carved work on the exterior, and led in the interior to a large
withdrawing-room, from which there was a separate passage to the emperor’s
throne (pulvinar) on the podium. On the Esquiline side the imperial
entrance may still be recognised by a slight projection in the
substructions, and by the pillars of white marble lying near it, which
originally stood on each side. The same arrangement was doubtless made on
the Cælian side, where the Emperor Commodus made himself an underground
approach. The other two principal entrances at the extremities of the
major axis lead directly into the arena, and were probably used for the
entry of processions or marching bodies of gladiators, or machines of
various kinds.
The entablature of the first story is surmounted by an attica, with
projections corresponding to the columns below. Above these stand the
arches of the second story, between which half-columns of the Ionic order
are placed. The details of the architecture here are in a very meagre
style, for the spiral lines on the volutes are omitted, and also the usual
toothed ornaments of the entablature. The same remark applies to the third
story, the half-columns of which have Corinthian capitals with the
acanthus foliage very roughly worked. The fourth story has no arches, but
consists of a wall, pierced with larger and smaller square windows placed
alternately, and is decorated with pilasters of the Composite order.
Between each pair of pilasters three consoles project from the wall, and
above these are corresponding niches in the entablature. The purpose of
these was to support the masts upon which the awnings were stretched.
The second and third of the principal concentric walls contain arches
corresponding to those in the outer wall. Corridors run between these
concentric walls, and on the first and second floors of the outer ring,
and the first floor of the inner ring, these circles afford a completely
unobstructed passage all round. The other corridors are blocked up in
parts by various staircases, leading to the upper rows of seats.
Within the third principal concentric arcade the supports of the building
take the form of massive walls, radiating from the centre of the ellipse,
and divided by elliptical corridors into three ranges. Between these
massive walls and in the corridors are the steps and passages leading to
the lower seats of the amphitheatre. The actual seats which were of marble
have been all pilfered for the benefit of the Roman palaces and churches
of the feudal ages, but we can still make out with tolerable certainty the
five principal divisions into which they were separated. The lowest of
these, called the podium, was a platform raised twelve or fifteen feet
above the arena, upon which were placed the chairs of the higher
magistrates and dignitaries. This was protected by railings and nets full
of spikes, and sometimes also by trenches, called euripi, and horizontal
bars of wood or iron which turned freely round, and thus afforded no hold
to the paws of a wild animal.
Above the podium were four different orders of seats, divided by belts of
upright masonry from each other. The first of these consisted of about
twenty rows of seats, and was appropriated to the knights and tribunes,
and other state officers. The upper row of this set was probably at a
height of about ten feet above the top of the arches of the lowest story.
The next ranges of seats between the second and third belt were
appropriated to Roman citizens in general, and held the greatest number of
spectators.
The wall dividing these seats from the next set was very high, and
contained, besides the vomitoria or entrance doors, a number of windows
for the purpose of lighting the corridors and passages. A considerable
part of this wall is still extant upon the side towards the Esquiline
Hill. Above it ran the third set of seats, occupied by the lower classes
of the people, and above this again, and separated from it by a very low
wall without vomitoria, was the fourth group of seats, immediately under
the windows of the uppermost story, and covered by a portico which ran
round the whole top of the building.[71] The traces of this uppermost row
of seats and of the colonnade which supported the portico may still be
seen on the side towards the Esquiline Hill.
The seats in this part seem to have been partly appropriated to women,
partly to the lower classes. On the roof of the portico stood the workmen
whose business it was to manage the awnings, and to move them as the sun
or rain required. The number of seats in the whole amphitheatre is said to
have been 87,000, and a considerable number, in addition to these, could
stand in the passages between the seats at the entrances of the vomitoria,
and in other vacant places, so that the whole number which the building,
when filled from top to bottom, could hold, was probably not less than
90,000.
The exterior arcade of the building diminishes in thickness towards the
top, in order to render it more stable, and while the Doric and Ionic
columns of the first and second stories stand out from the wall by nearly
three-quarters of their circumference, the third row of Corinthian columns
projects less, and the uppermost row are merely pilasters.
Much discussion has been raised on the question of the awnings or
_velaria_ required for so large a space. It is impossible of course, in
the absence of any distinct contemporaneous description, to discover the
exact mode of suspension adopted. Venuti supposes that a net of cords
constructed like a spider’s web, with both radiating and concentric ropes,
was suspended over the amphitheatre, and that by pulleys arranged over
this the vela were drawn across any part which happened to be exposed to
the sun. By means of pulleys attached to this network of rope, the little
boys mentioned by Juvenal as caught up to the awnings may have been drawn
up. The ropes and pulleys, we are told by Lampridius, were managed by
sailors. In rough and windy weather the awnings could not always be drawn,
and umbrellas coloured according to the favourite’s colours, or large
broad-brimmed hats called causiæ or birri, were then used. Martial has
written some amusing epigrams, showing how jealously the seats
appropriated to any particular privileged order were reserved. He gives
the names of Lectius and Oceanus to the boxkeepers of his time, who chased
intruders from the seats to which they were not entitled. And he describes
with great humour the attempts of a certain Nanneius to smuggle himself
into a better place than he was entitled to. The pickpockets of Martial’s
time also frequented the amphitheatre.
The anxiety of the public to attend the shows was so great that they
occupied the free seats in the amphitheatre before dawn in the morning,
and gave fees to the officials to keep places for them, when any favourite
gladiator or bestiarius was announced to perform. The shows lasted whole
days, and hence various contrivances for keeping the spectators in good
humour, and filling up the intervals between the combats. Seneca tells us
of the meridiani, a class of slaves who were kept on purpose to fill up
the midday leisure hours with sham fights, and ludicrous pranks played
upon the bodies of those killed or half killed in the previous fights. The
air was cooled with immense jets of water projected from the centre of the
arena, or from holes in the statues, and scented with fragrant essences,
among which extract of saffron mixed with wine seems to have been the most
popular.
The _arena_ of the Coliseum was originally about 250 feet in length, and
150 feet in breadth. It seems now much larger on account of the removal of
the wall of the podium. The attention which has been drawn to the arena
during the last few years by the re-opening of the hypogæa, or
subterranean passages, renders it necessary to allude to the subject of
these hypogæa, and to estimate how far the recent excavations have thrown
new light upon the history and construction of the great amphitheatre.
When the French occupied Rome, and it was incorporated into their empire
in the four years preceding the Battle of Waterloo, the French Government
carried out considerable excavations in the arena of the Coliseum, and
besides clearing the podium and the chambers annexed to it, they opened
the cryptoporticus which runs underground towards the Cælian Hill, and
also discovered the passages beneath the arena which have been now
excavated again.
A great controversy was raised at that time as to the real level of the
original arena between several of the archæological professors and
antiquarians of Rome. The same controversy has now been again revived, and
the same questions as to the probable date of the underground
constructions have been again raised, but with as little hope as ever of
arriving at a satisfactory solution. The truth seems to be that, as in
most amphitheatres, these hypogæa were constructed at the very first
erection of the Coliseum, but have been altered, neglected, filled up, and
again cleared out many times during the eventful history of the building,
and that it has now become impossible to trace the various stages of such
destructions and restorations. As often as the drains which were intended
to carry off the water became choked and failed to act, these lower
chambers and passages were filled with water and rendered useless.
The French excavations conducted till the early part of this century,
1810-1814, showed the general character of the chambers and passages under
the arena. They consist of one central passage which extends under the
arena from end to end in the line of the major axis of the ellipse.
Parallel to this there are four narrower rectilineal passages on each side
connected with each other by archways and surrounding these are three
curved passages following the elliptical curves of the sides of the
amphitheatre. The material of which these walls were originally built was
great blocks of travertine similar to those in the surrounding
construction of the amphitheatre, but they have been patched and propped
in many places with tufa stones and brick, and now present a strange
miscellaneous mass of masonry. These underground passages are similar to
those found under the arena at Pozzuoli and Capua. It would seem that they
must have been necessary, in addition to the chambers under the staircases
of the building, for keeping wild beasts in large numbers, or for
marshalling and arranging the long processions which were sometimes
exhibited in the arena, or for other unusual exhibitions requiring more
room for preparation than could be otherwise afforded. In the amphitheatre
at Verona the passages under the arena seem to have served the purpose of
drains, as they are much less extensive than those under the Coliseum, and
are apparently connected with the channels which conducted the rain-water
from the upper part. The same is the case with those at Pola in Istria,
but at Pozzuoli and at Capua the hypogæa are of a similar character to
those in the Coliseum, and were evidently used in connection with the
exhibitions on the arena.
The excavations of 1810-14 do not seem to have been carried deep enough to
show the floor of the hypogæa, and among the principal new objects of
antiquarian interest discovered by the recent operations have been some
large blocks of travertine sunk in the floor of the passages, and pierced
in their centre with large round holes. These holes have evidently been
the sockets into which upright posts of some kind were fixed. In some of
these sockets a metal lining still remains, and in one of them the remains
of a wooden post are said to have been found. Many conjectures as to the
purpose of these sockets have been hazarded. They have been imagined to be
the points on which revolving doors turned, or the holes into which posts
for chaining wild beasts were fixed, or the capstans for the purpose of
winding the ropes attached to stage machines. The explanation which
appears to me to be the most probable is that they were used for the
erection of temporary wooden posts in the same way in which at the present
time such movable posts are used in some of the doorways of large houses
in Rome, to divide the doorway temporarily into two distinct passages, by
attaching a rope to the posts. When long processions had to be marched
across the arena it would be necessary, if they were marshalled below, to
have the course of the entering processionists and of those returning kept
apart by some such device as that of a rope stretched between posts of
this kind.
A large wooden framework has been found in the central passage, blackened
by long exposure to the water. This seems to have been a contrivance for
making an inclined plane on which heavy machines could be dragged up from
below.
Another discovery which has been made is that of two cryptoportici, one of
which extends towards the Esquiline and the Thermæ of Titus, and the other
opens out from under the eastern end of the longer axis of the Coliseum. A
few graffiti of interest representing gladiatorial figures, and some
fragments of inscriptions relating to restorations of the building, or to
the munificence of those who indulged the public with amphitheatrical
exhibitions, have also been found.
The mode in which the naval contests mentioned by Dion as having been
exhibited in the Coliseum were conducted, cannot be stated with any
certainty. They were given by Titus at the dedication of the building and
probably before its completion, so that the space now occupied by the
hypogæa may then have been filled with water previously to the
construction of the dividing walls.
Perhaps no building of ancient Rome is so strikingly characteristic of the
builder, and the age in which he lived as the Flavian amphitheatre.
Vespasian is described by historians, and represented on coins, and in
extant sculptures, as a thick-set, square-shouldered man, with a short
neck, small eyes, strongly marked but coarse features wearing an
expression of effort. He cared little for the elegancies of life, and was
plebeian in his tastes, and regardless of appearances, but set a high
value on manliness and obstinate, unflinching endurance.
During his reign the prevalent feeling in the Roman nation was that of a
worn-out and repentant prodigal. Sick of the frivolity and wanton
debauchery of the Neronian age, yet unable to return to the ascetic
simplicity of primitive times, men adored, for want of a better idol, the
blunt honesty and coarse strength of the Flavians. What if their emperor
wished that his courtiers should smell of garlic rather than of perfumery,
if in his contempt for speculative genius he dubbed the agitating
philosophers of his day “barking curs.”[72] Yet he stood before them as a
proof that the stern old vigour of the national character was not yet
extinct, and that the profligate effeminacy of the previous generation had
not yet rotted the Roman character to its core. The same massive power of
endurance, yet ponderous and vulgar character, belongs to the architecture
of the Coliseum. It exhibits a neglect, almost a contempt for elegance of
proportion. The upper tiers are as heavy and solid as the lower. Its
arcades are massive, practical, built to last for ages; the full,
elaborate details of the Ionic and Corinthian orders, in which an artistic
eye usually finds so much pleasure, are merely hinted at as superfluous.
Doubtless as we now see it, the ruin is far more effective than the
complete building can ever have been. For when complete the appearance of
the Coliseum must have been heavy and oppressive. The enormous unrelieved,
flat surface of the upper wall must have seemed ready to topple over or to
crush the arcade below. But now that earthquakes and barbarous hands have
made such ghastly rents in its sides, the outline has become more varied,
and the base more proportioned to the superstructure, so that although we
can still recognise the flavour of a somewhat vulgar and material age, yet
all that would have offended the eye has been removed, and the historical
memories which cluster around its walls, of mighty emperors and
blood-thirsty mobs, of screams of death or triumph, of gorgeous pageants
and heroic martyrdoms, combine to render the Coliseum in its decay the
most imposing ruin in the whole world.
Two architectural merits have been pointed out in the Coliseum, the
impression of height and size conveyed by the tiers of arches rising one
above another, and the graceful curves produced by the continuous lines of
the entablatures as they cross the building. But what the Roman emperor
under whose auspices this great building was raised would doubtless have
valued more than any elegancies of design which could have been pointed
out to him, is the perfect adaptation of the structure to its purposes.
After the great catastrophe at Fidenæ where 20,000 persons were injured or
killed by the breaking down of a wooden amphitheatre, solidity and safety
were the principal requisites. Free ingress and egress for crowds of
spectators, as well as for any great personages who might attend, was
indispensable. A glance at the plan of the Coliseum will show how
admirably each of these objects was attained. The extraordinary solidity
of the building removed all possibility of the failure of any part to bear
whatever weight might be heaped upon it, and the entrances, galleries and
vomitoria were by the oval form of the building rendered so numerous that
each seat in the whole cavea was accessible at once and without
difficulty. A system of carefully arranged barriers in the passages would
effectually prevent confusion and excessive crowding.
In endeavouring to adorn the great amphitheatre of the metropolis more
richly than those of the provinces its architect defeated his own object.
Some of the provincial amphitheatres, as that of Capua, though in other
respects like the Coliseum, show a simpler and therefore more natural
exterior. When the Doric order is retained in all the tiers, it harmonises
far better with the rude strength of such an edifice than the Corinthian
and Ionic orders of the Coliseum. At Verona and Pola a still further
improvement is made by the rustication of the exterior. At Nismes, on the
other hand, the faults of the Coliseum are aggravated by breaking the
entablatures, and introducing pediments over each front; and in the small
Amphitheatrum Castrense at Rome, where the Corinthian order is executed
in brick, a lamentable illustration of Roman want of taste is exhibited.
[Illustration: MONS OPPIUS. After Palladio and Canina.]
The holes which are now so conspicuous in the travertine blocks of the
exterior wall of the Coliseum were probably made in the middle ages to
extract the iron clamps by which the stones were fastened together. Some
antiquarians have however held that they are the holes in which the beams
of the buildings which clustered round the Coliseum in mediæval times were
fixed. At the end of the fifteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth
century, the travertine blocks of the amphitheatre were used as a quarry
from which to build palaces, and it is said that the Palazzo di Venezia,
the Palazzo Farnese, and the Palazzo della Cancelleria were constructed of
the stone robbed from hence. During part of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries a castle of the powerful family of the Frangipani, which
afterwards belonged to the Annibaldi stood in the walls of the Coliseum.
Later generations of nobles and popes since the beginning of the
nineteenth century have propped the building by buttresses of brickwork,
and have endeavoured to postpone the date foretold by two Anglo-Saxon
pilgrims as that of the fall of Rome. “When the Coliseum falls, Rome will
fall.”[73]
[Sidenote: Aurea Domus of Nero. Baths of Titus.]
The Coliseum was built by Vespasian in a depression between the Cælian and
Esquiline Hills, which had been occupied by a large lake of ornamental
water, called the Stagnum Neronis, used by Nero for aquarian
entertainments and exhibitions. The vast palace known as the Domus Aurea
Neronis extended along the side of the Esquiline on the north of the
Coliseum. The Flavian emperors destroyed this palace, and Titus built a
new group of courts and chambers over the ruins. The relics of these
buildings of Titus are now remaining mingled with the substructures and
lower parts of the Domus Aurea which they superseded. They are entered by
a gateway on the road leading from the Coliseum to S. Pietro in Vincoli.
So far as we can draw any conclusion from the fragmentary and confused
piles of ruins now left, and from the plan which Palladio sketched at a
time when the remains of the palace had not so completely disappeared, it
seems that this part of Nero’s palace consisted of a long straight façade
of buildings extending along the slope of the Esquiline from east to west
in the direction marked on the plan (A-B). In front of this there seems to
have been a projecting court surrounded by small chambers (C-D). A few of
these still remain at the western end, and are used as a dwelling-house
for the custode. Behind the above-mentioned façade were numerous rooms of
various kinds, and courts surrounded with colonnades. One of these courts
with its adjacent corridors and apartments is now partly accessible (E,
F), but the greater part were filled in with rubbish when the baths of
Titus were built over them, and have never been entirely cleared. In the
centre of this court the remains of a fountain-basin and a pedestal may be
seen. The area is now traversed by parallel walls built by Titus to serve
as substructions to his Thermæ. These are indicated on the plan by the
dotted lines in black.
All the rooms in this part which are now accessible have arched roofs, and
are covered with decorative paintings. Fortunately a great number of these
have been preserved to us by artists who copied them before they were
destroyed by damp and the soot of the cicerone’s torch. At the present
time scarcely enough remains to show the beauty and delicacy of the
designs. The best preserved paintings are in the long north corridor,
where is also an inscription illustrating Persius, Sat. i. 113:
“Pinge duos angues: pueri, sacer est locus, extra
Mejite.”
The two snakes were symbolic of the Lares Compitales, and are common at
Pompeii. Raphael adopted the same style of ornamentation as that preserved
here in the Loggie of the Vatican. The rooms now shown, which contain a
bath and other household apparatus, apparently belonged to a private
house, and may either have formed a part of the Aurea Domus, or of some
house built on its site at the time immediately following Nero’s death.
The eleven rooms (F) which occupied the north side of the court (E)
contain traces of wooden staircases leading to an upper story. The
decorations and fittings of these appear to have been so inferior to those
of the other rooms, that we must suppose them to have been occupied by the
imperial slaves, or by the household troops. At the northern end of this
row of chambers is a room with mosaic pavement at a considerably lower
level than those surrounding it, and which must therefore have belonged to
some building earlier in date than the Domus Aurea. It is sometimes called
a part of the House of Mæcenas, but there is no authority for this, and it
is more probable that the House of Mæcenas stood nearer to the Agger of
Servius.
[Sidenote: Sette Sale.]
Another portion of the Domus Aurea is still visible at the SETTE SALE, a
large brick building lying in a vineyard to the left of the Via delle
Sette Sale. The purpose of this was plainly to serve as a reservoir for
water, and it is shown to have belonged to the Domus Aurea, and not to the
Thermæ of Titus, by the correspondence of its position with the
ground-plan of the former. It may have been afterwards used in connection
with the Thermæ, and was possibly preserved with that view, while the rest
of the palace was destroyed or buried. The peculiar construction of the
interior, which is divided into nine compartments, communicating with each
other by openings--not placed opposite to each other, but in a slanting
direction across the building--is said to have been so arranged in order
to prevent the heavy mass of water from bursting open the sides of the
building. The group of the Laocöon was found near the Sette Sale, and it
is supposed that the state-rooms of Titus may have contained that group of
statues.
[Sidenote: Thermæ or Baths of Titus.]
Returning to the ruins of the Baths of Titus near the Coliseum it may be
observed that these Thermæ were connected with the Coliseum by a portico,
traces of which can still be seen on the north side of the amphitheatre.
The arrangement of the building corresponded in some degree to that of the
Baths of Caracalla, consisting apparently of a large square court
surrounded by various offices and places for recreation, in the centre of
which stood a vast mass of building containing the bath-rooms. The sides
of this court were not parallel to any lines of building in the Domus
Aurea, and, therefore, in order to form a level area many new
substructions had to be erected. This is plainly the case with the theatre
(A), which occupied the centre of the side towards the Coliseum. In order
to raise this to the level of the rest of the area, the nine huge arched
chambers, which are now a most conspicuous part of the ruins, were
erected, and one of the courtyards of the Domus Aurea was filled, as we
have seen, with parallel walls of brickwork. On each side of the theatre
there were probably gymnasia, libraries, or ball courts (B B). The central
building was occupied with the frigidarium and tepidarium, and the other
usual adjuncts of a large Roman bath (C C C).
The catalogue called the ‘Curiosum urbis Romæ’ places not only the Baths
of Titus but also those of Trajan in the third region. The anonymous MS.
of Einsiedlen places Trajani Thermæ near the Church of S. Pietro in
Vincoli; and Anastasius in his ‘Life of Symmachus,’ mentions them as near
the Church of S. Martino. It is, therefore, abundantly proved that the
Thermæ of Trajan stood at the back of the Baths of Titus, and it is here
that we find them placed in the plan of Palladio. That they were distinct
buildings seems clear from an inscription in which they are separately
mentioned. A satisfactory explanation of the apparently strange fact that
Trajan erected new and smaller Thermæ near those of Titus is given by one
of the chronologers of the period, who speaks of the Baths of Trajan as
intended for women, for whom there was no separate accommodation provided
in those of Titus. The scattered ruins to the north of the Baths of Titus
may have belonged to Trajan’s Baths.
On the Esquiline Hill, besides the Baths of Titus, the Domus Aurea, and
the Sette Sale, we find four remarkable ruins, which are called the
Trophies of Marius, the Arch of Gallienus, the Minerva Medica, and the
Auditorium of Mæcenas.
[Sidenote: Trophies of Marius.]
The ruin called the Trophies of Marius stands at the corner of the Via di
S. Bibiana. It consists in the lower part of a number of small and
curiously shaped compartments of brickwork, with openings at seven or
eight different points. Underneath these, and now hidden under the level
of the ground, is a large basin or tank, and above them the upper part of
the building is formed by the remains of three niches, in which stood the
marble trophies now placed upon the balustrade of the steps of the
Capitol. They were removed to the Capitol by Sixtus V. in the year 1585.
The name Trophies of Marius is an attempt to explain the more ancient name
of Cimbrum, which we find attached to the ruin in the middle ages, by
identifying the trophies with the Tropæa Marii mentioned by Suetonius as
having been pulled down by Sulla and restored by Julius Cæsar.[74] But
although we must allow that there is some probability in the supposition
that the Marian trophies may have occupied these niches, yet it is certain
that the building itself was intended to serve another purpose, that of
the castellum or principal reservoir of an aqueduct, with a public
fountain in the form of a cascade in front. The basin which has been
discovered under the building, and the peculiar shape of the complicated
interior structure, can be best explained thus, and the remains of some
part of the aqueduct itself may be seen at the back. It was at one time
supposed that the Aqua Julia ended here but it is now generally
acknowledged that the ruin belonged to the Aqua Alexandrina, and that the
name Nymphæum Alexandri, found in the catalogues of the fifth region, must
be assigned to it. The Alexandrine Aqueduct was built by Alexander Severus
in the year A.D. 225. Water was brought to Rome by means of it from a spot
near the Lake Regillus, and a portion is still visible on the left hand of
the Via Labicana about two miles from Rome. The level of this aqueduct
corresponds exactly with the building in question, and the style of
brickwork and architecture are such as might belong to the third century.
It is possible, as Reber remarks, that Alexander Severus may have found
the exact spot where the Trophies of Marius had been placed by Julius
Cæsar convenient for the castellum of his aqueduct, and have used the
trophies to ornament the new building which he erected.
[Sidenote: Arch of Gallienus.]
Close to the Church of S. Vito, and spanning the Via di S. Vito, stands
the Arch of Gallienus, erected by M. Aurelius Victor, prefect of Rome in
A.D. 262, in honour of the Emperor Gallienus and Empress Salonina. It is
constructed of travertine, and the ornamental work upon it is extremely
simple, consisting only of pilasters crowned by roughly worked Corinthian
capitals, and surmounted by an entablature of the commonest kind. Part of
the basement is buried under the present level of the soil, and from a
sketch by San Gallo of its state in the fifteenth century there appears to
have been a pediment above the entablature, and two smaller archways on
each side. The inscription, which is now hardly legible, is cut upon the
architrave and contains a flattering description of one of the most
singularly accomplished and incapable emperors of Rome, of whom Gibbon
says, “Gallienus was a master of several curious but useless sciences, a
ready orator and elegant poet, a skilful gardener, an excellent cook, and
most contemptible prince.”[75]
[Sidenote: Minerva Medica.]
In the grounds of the Villa Magnani, which are reached from the Via di S.
Bibiana, are two small Columbaria, one of which formerly contained
inscriptions relating to the family of the Arruntii, and also one which
belonged to Statilius Taurus, a nobleman mentioned by Tacitus. This was
decorated with scenes from the Æneid of Virgil, but these are nearly
destroyed. In the same gardens, not far to the north-west of the Porta
Maggiore, stands a lofty and picturesque ruin, comprising a central
decagonal hall surrounded by four other apartments, the ground-plan of
which has been preserved by San Gallo. The central hall contained nine
deep niches, and the entrance passes through the tenth side. Over the
niches and the entrance archway are round-headed windows, and the roof was
of vaulted brickwork. Traces still remain of stucco work and cement on the
inner walls, from which it appears that they were covered with ornamental
work and in some parts with marble.
Parts of the pavement, which was of porphyry, have also been found, and in
the neighbourhood of the ruin a number of sculptures have been at various
times discovered, among which are statues of Pomona, Æsculapius, Adonis,
Venus, Hercules, Antinous, some Luperci, and a Faun. The old
topographers, Blondus Flavius and Lucius Faunus, give the name of Terme di
Galuccio or Galuzze to the ruin, and this name has been ingeniously
explained as referring to the Thermæ or Basilica of Caius and Lucius. But
there is no good foundation for this conjecture, or for the identification
of the building with the Temple of Minerva Medica, mentioned in the
Notitia. The latter name was derived from the supposed discovery here of
the Pallas Giustiniani, now in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican. But
another and more ancient account asserts that the statue of Pallas was
found near S. Maria sopra Minerva, and therefore the name of Minerva
Medica cannot with any certainty be applied here.
Canina has proposed another explanation of the name Galuzze. He thinks
that the ruins belonged to the Palatium Licinianum, which is mentioned by
Anastasius, in his ‘Life of Simplicius,’ as near the Church of S. Bibiana.
This palace, he thinks, is identical with the Pleasure Gardens of
Gallienus, who bore the name of Licinius, in which, according to
Trebellius Pollio, he used to bathe and banquet with his courtiers. The
name Galuzze is, therefore, according to Canina, derived from Gallieni
Liciniaria, and the building may be supposed to have formed a part of the
baths in Gallienus’s pleasure grounds, resembling as it does in its
construction the great rotunda of the Baths of Caracalla. The proximity of
the Arch of Gallienus adds probability to this conjecture. The basin now
standing in the ruin is not ancient, and therefore cannot be held to
support this conjecture, but the brickwork and style of architecture are
said by competent judges to be such as might have been erected at the time
of the later Empire. The building called Minerva Medica by the Notitia may
have been near this spot, as some inscriptions here discovered show, but
it most probably consisted only of a chapel of no great extent standing
near the Via Prænestina.
The extensive alterations which have been carried on at Rome during the
last few years in the district at the back of the Viminal and Esquiline
Hills, where a new quarter of the city is being laid out, have disclosed a
number of fragments of sculptures and inscriptions, a detailed account of
which has been given from time to time in the _Bullettino della
Commissione Archeologica Municipale_, and in the letters of Mr. Hemans to
the _Academy_. The most interesting relics bearing upon topographical
questions are the inscription relating to the Macellum Liviæ and Forum
Esquilinum found near the Arch of Gallienus, and the supposed foundations
of the Villa of Mæcenas.
Most of the antiquarian and artistic relics lately discovered here have
been deposited in the Capitoline Museum.
Unfortunately the necessary extension of the buildings attached to the
railway station has resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the
Servian Agger. Some large fragments of the huge blocks belonging to the
Servian wall may be seen at the back of the station. Traces of a road and
a gate were found which have been supposed to belong to the Via and Porta
Viminalis, and many confused heaps of ruins, the relics of private houses
built up against the side of the agger. In one of these the bricks bore
the date of the third consulship of Servianus, A.D. 134, and of that of
Niger and Camerinus, A.D. 138.
A Hermeracles in marble was found near the station, which is figured in
the _Bullettino della Commissione_ for March 1873, and numerous mosaic
pavements, one of which is laid on the floor of the waiting-room at the
station.
[Sidenote: Auditorium.]
One of the buildings attached to an ancient house in this neighbourhood
has been carefully preserved and walled in for protection. It stands near
the ruin called the Trophies of Marius, and not far from the Arch of
Gallienus, and consists of a semicircular recess with ledges rising one
above another in the form of a miniature theatre. A more correct
description of the site is given by stating that it stands where the
former gardens of the convent of the Redentoristi were situated. This
building has, on account of its resemblance to a theatre, and of its
position on a spot over which the famous Gardens of Mæcenas probably
extended, been called the Auditorium of Mæcenas, and romantic ideas have
been connected with it as having been the actual auditorium where Virgil
and Horace may have recited their poetry to their great patron. This view,
however, has been shown to be untenable by Signor Mau, who thinks with
more probability that the ruin in question is an ornamental recess for
decorative works of art and flowers or a fountain. Such recesses may be
seen in some of the houses at Pompeii. The paintings on the walls are of a
style similar to those in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, and the
building may therefore possibly belong to the Augustan age.
[Sidenote: Porta S. Lorenzo.]
The inscriptions on the Porta S. Lorenzo at the eastern side of the
Esquiline Hill tell the history of the several gateways here built by
Augustus and other emperors down to Honorius. The aqueducts run along the
walls from this gate to the Porta Maggiore.
[Sidenote: Porta Maggiore.]
[Sidenote: Tomb of Eurysaces.]
The Gateway of Honorius was removed from the Porta Maggiore by Gregory
XVI. as the inscription on the present gate records. The removal of the
old gateway disclosed the Tomb of Eurysaces, a bread contractor, which is
a very fantastic monument, constructed of stone mortars used for kneading
dough, and ornamented with some curious bas-reliefs of a good period of
art, representing the operations of baking. The inscriptions upon it are
as follows: “EST HOC MONIMENTUM MARCEI VERGILEI EURYSACIS PISTORIS AC
REDEMPTORIS APPARETORUM. FUIT ATISTIA UXOR MIHEI FEMINA OPTIMA VEIXIST
QUOJUS CORPORIS RELIQUIÆ QUOD SUPERANT SUNT IN HOC PANARIO.” The latter of
these inscriptions, however, probably belongs to some other tomb, the
remains of several having been found here, which lead to the supposition
that this was a spot especially devoted to the burial of bakers.
The present gateway is formed by two arches of the Claudian Aqueduct,
which runs along the course of the walls from this point to the corner
near the Amphitheatrum Castrense. The arches are built of rusticated
travertino blocks, and each of the piers is pierced with a smaller arch,
decorated with Corinthian half-columns of rustic work and pediments in the
usual Græco-Roman style of a triumphal arch. This gateway is one of the
most characteristic creations of Roman architecture. It conveys more than
any other building I know, except, perhaps, the rusticated archways of the
amphitheatre at Verona, the impression of rough force and solidity. Over
the arches are three atticas, upon which the following inscriptions are
cut, recording the erection and renewal of the Claudian aqueduct by
Claudius, Vespasian, and Titus:
TI. CLAUDIUS DRUSI F. CAISAR AUGUSTUS GERMANICUS PONTIF. MAXIM. TRIBUNICIA
POTESTATE XII. COS V. IMPERATOR XXVII. PATER PATRIÆ AQUAS CLAUDIAM EX
FONTIBUS QUI VOCABANTUR CÆRULEUS ET CURTIUS A MILLIARIO XXXXV. ITEM
AMERIEM NOVAM A MILLIARIO LXVII. SUA INPENSA IN URBEM PERDUCENDAS CURAVIT.
IMP. CÆSAR VESPASIANUS AUGUST. PONTIF. MAX. TRIB. POT. II. IMP. VI. COS.
III. DESIG. III. P. P. AQUAS CURTIAM ET CÆRULEAM PERDUCTAS A DIVO CLAUDIO
ET POSTEA INTERMISSAS DILAPSASQUE PER ANNOS NOVEM SUA IMPENSA URBI
RESTITUIT.
IMP. T. CÆSAR DIVI F. VESPASIANUS AUGUSTUS PONT. MAX. TRIBUNIC. POTEST.
X. IMP. XVII. P. P. CENS. COS. VIII. AQUAS CURTIAM ET CÆRULEAM PERDUCTAS A
DIVO CLAUDIO ET POSTEA A DIVO VESPASIANO PATRE SUO URBI RESTITUTAS CUM A
CAPITE AQUARUM A SOLO VETUSTATE DILAPSÆ ESSENT NOVA FORMA REDUCENDAS SUA
IMPENSA CURAVIT.
[Illustration: THE FORA OF THE CAESARS]