Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/668

 €52 POMPEII. and was erected by a certain M. Tullius, a citizen and maj;istrate of Pompeii, who has been supposed to be of tlie family of Cicero; but the absence of the cognomen renders tliis biglily improbable. The epithet of Fortuna Augusta shows that the temple and its inscription are not earlier than the time of Augustus. It is much in ruins, h.aving probably suffered severely from the earthquake of 63 ; and has little architectural efft-ct. Pompeii possessed two Theatres and an Amphi- theatre. Tiie former were situated, as seems to have been usual in Greek towns, close together; the larger one being intended and .adapted for theatrical per- formances properly so called; the smaller one serving as an Odeum, or theatre for music. Both are un- questionably of Roman date : the larger one was erected (as we learn from an inscription found in it) by two memtiers of the same family, M. Holconius Eufus and M. Holconius Celer, both of whom appear to have lield high civil offices in the municipal government of Pompeii. The period of its con- struction may probably be referred to the reign of Augustus. The smaller theatre seems to be of ear- lier date, and was erected at the public expense under the direction of the Duumviri or chief magis- trates of the city. The large Theatre is to a con- siderable extent excavated out of the side of a hill, on the slope of which it was situated, thus saving a considerable amount of the expense of construction. But the exterior was still surrounded by a wall, a part of which always rose aboe the surface of the soil, so that it is singular it should not have long before led to the discovery of the buried city. Its internal disposition and arrangements, without ex- actly coinciding with the rules laid down by Vi- truvius, approach sufficiently near to them to show that it was constructed on the Roman, and not the Greek model. Its architect (as we learn from an inscription) was a freedman of the name of M. Ar- torius Primus. It seems to have been almost wholly cased or lined with marble, but the greater part of this, as well as the other decorations of the building, has been carried away by former excavations, pro- bably made soon after the catastrophe. The interior diameter of the building is 223 feet : it had 29 rows of seats, divided into three stories by galleries or praecinctiones, and was capable of containing about .")000 spectators. The smaller Theatre, which communicated with the larger by a covered portico on the level of the orchestra, was not above a fourth of the size of the other, being adapted to receive only about 1.500 spectators. We learn from an inscrip- tion that it was covered or permanently roofed in, a rare thing with ancient theatres, and doubtless owing to its small size. Its chief architectural pe- culiarity is that the seats are cut off by the walls at the two sides, so that it is only the lower seats of the cavea, of which the semicircle is complete. Adjoining the two theatres, and arranged so as to have a direct communication with both, is a large quadrangular court or area (183 feet long by 148 wiiie), surrounded on all sides by a Doric portico. Its destination is very uncertain, it has been called a provision market (Forum Xun- diiiarium); but is more generally regarded as having served for the barracks or quarters of the soldiers. Perhaps a more plausible conjecture is that it was a barrack, not of soldiers but of gladiators. On the W. of this, as well as of the great theatre, was the triangular area or forum already noticed, in which the Greek temple was situated. The opening POMPEII. of this on the N., where it communicated with the street, was ornamented by a portico or Propylaeum composed of eight Ionic colunms of very elegant style, but consisting of the common volcanic tufo, cased with stucco. The Amphitheatre is situated at the distance of above 500 yards from the Theatres, at the extreme SE. angle of the city. It offers no very remarkable differences from other edifices of the same kind: its dimensions (430 feet by 335) are not such as to place it in the first rank even of provincial structures of the class; and from being in great part excavated out of the soil, it has not the imposing architectural character of the amphitheatres of Verona, Nemau- sus, or Pola. It had 24 rows of seats, and about 20.000 feet of sitting-room, so that it was adapted to receive at least 10,000 spectators. From one of the inscriptions found in it, it appears that it was built, or at least commenced, by two local ma;;is- trates, named C. Quinctius Valgus and Jf. Porcins, , after the establishment of the colony under Augustus, 9 and probably in the reign of that emperor. M The only public building which remains to be noticed is that of the Thermae or Baths, which were situated in the neighliourhood of the Forum, adjoining the short street which led into it from the Temple of Fortune. They have no pretence to vie with the magnificent suites of buildings which bore the name of Thermae at Rome, and in some other great cities ; but are interesting as containing a complete suite of all apartments really required for bathing, and from their good preservation throw much light upon all similar remains. The details of their construction and arrangement are fully given in the Dictionary of Antiqtdties ^art. Balneae], as well as in the works specially devoted to Pompeii. It is impossible here to enter into any details concerning the results of the excavations in regard to the private dwellings at Pompeii, though these are, in many respects, the most interesting, from the light they have thrown upon the domestic life of the ancient inhabitants, their manners and usages, as well as from the artistic beauty and variety of the objects discovered. A few words on the general character of the houses and other private buildings of Pompeii are all that our space will admit of. As these are almost the only remains of a similar kind that have been preserved to us, it must be borne in mind that they can hardly be regarded as represent- ing in their purity the arrangements either of the Greek or Roman mode of building. On the one hand Pompeii, though strongly tinctured with Greek civilisation, was not a Greek city; on the other hand, though there is no doubt that tlie houses at Pompeii present much more the Roman plan and arrangement than that of the Greeks, we must not conclude that they represent them in all respects. AVe know, at least, that Rome itself w.as built in many respects in a very different manner. Cicero, in a well- known passage, contrasts the narrow streets, the lofty houses, and irregular construction of the capital with the broad streets and regular aiTange- nient of Capua, resulting from its position in a level plain; and it is clear that, in some respects, Pompeii more reseinbled the capital of Campania than the imperial city. Its streets indeed (as al- ready stated) were narrow, but with few exceptions straight and regular, and the houses were certainly low, seldom exceeding two stories in height; and even of these the upper storj' seems to have consisted