The tablinum: a space and stage for “private” and “public” rituals in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content 1 The Tablinum: A Space and Stage for “Private” and “Public” Rituals in the Houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum by Ambra Spinelli Ph.D. Dissertation FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL Doctor of Philosophy (ART HISTORY) University of Southern California May 2019 Committee: John Pollini, Supervisor Ann Marie Yasin Steven Ellis 2 To my devoted parents who taught me the art of living a happy life 3 Acknowledgments This journey would not have been possible without the support of many people. First, I wish to thank my dissertation committee members for their generous contributions, invaluable advices, and precious time. I am forever indebted to my dissertation supervisor John Pollini, who since the very first day of graduate school believed in me and gave me endless support. Pollini has spent countless hours reflecting, discussing, and encouraging me through the entire process. He has constantly provided me with direction, expertise, criticism, and advice, becoming more than a professor and a mentor but also a dear friend to me. I am extremely grateful to him for making the dissertation process a very enjoyable journey. My sincere gratitude also goes to Ann Marie Yasin, who has frequently and patiently pushed me to interact with different methodologies and to approach the field of archaeology from multiple directions. Yasin’s crucial insights and constructive criticism have had a profound bearing not only on this dissertation but also on my scholarly work and research. Our conversations provided great stimulus for the development of my thought. A special thanks goes to Steven Ellis for his significant comments as well as support over the past eight summers of research work at Pompeii, Naples, and Rome during the University of Cincinnati’s Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia. This dissertation would not have been possible without the invaluable opportunity to be part of this Project and work in Pompeii for almost a decade, where I have developed this dissertation topic after spending countless hours on site. A special thanks goes to Thomas Habinek, who was a member of my dissertation committee but who passed away recently and was therefore not able to see the final results of my research. 4 Habinek’s acute observations have invaluably enriched my work. Our conversations, dinners, and laughs will be always part of my graduate career. My visits to Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Naples were made possible through the financial support of the USC Department of Art History, the Research Enhancement Fellowship, the Andrew W. Mellon Digital Humanities Fellowship, the American Friends of Herculaneum Scholarship, and the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia. I wish to thank the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia for granting me the permission to study the sites. At Pompeii, I am grateful in particular to Massimo Osanna, Grete Stefani, Antonio Varone, Michele Borgongino, Ernesta Rizzo, and Giuseppe Di Martino, as well as the various “funzionari archeologi” (Laura D’Esposito, Fabio Galeandro, Giovanna Patrizia Tabone, Sara Masseroli, Marialaura Iadanza, Annalisa Capurso, and Alberta Martellone). A special thanks also goes to the various “consegnatari” in the Casa di Bacco (Domenico Busiello, Ulderico Franco, and Luisa Pagano) for facilitating the research through several summers of archival work. In Herculaneum, I would like to thank Francesco Sirano, Emanuela Santaniello, and the “consegnatario” Antonio Russo, as well as the Herculaneum Conservation Project, where I am particularly grateful to Domenico Camardo for fruitful conversations and for providing me with significant information. At the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli I express my sincere gratitude to Luisa Melillo (whose close friendship and technical expertise in the field have been invaluable), Paolo Giulierini, Alessandra Villone, and Valeria Sampaolo for helping me in getting access to the various depositories of Museum. I also wish to thank the entire staff of the Library and Historic Archive of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, and in particular Maria 5 Rosaria Esposito, Andrea Milanese, Angela Luppino, Michela Staiano, Olga Capretto, and Caterina Cozzolino for assisting me in the archival research. Among the various institutions that granted me the access to study their material, work in their library, and/or survey their ancient sites, a special thanks goes to the Getty Research Institute, the Parco Archeologico di Ostia Antica, the Parco Archeologico di Fregellae, the Soprintendenza Speciale per il Colosseo, il Museo Nazionale Romano e l’Area Archeologica di Roma, and the Archivio Centrale dello Stato in Rome, as well as the Library and Photographic Archive of the American Academy in Rome, where Emiliano Di Carlo has generously provided me with helpful material. I also must acknowledge several members of the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia, and in particular Steven Ellis, Eric Poehler, Aimée Scorziello, Kevin Dicus, Leigh Lieberman, Allison Emmerson, Gina Tibbott, Catherine Baker, Mark and Jennifer Robinson, and Gregory Tucker for conversations and comments that greatly assisted the research. As parts of my work were presented as unpublished papers at several national and international venues, I thank the audiences at these presentations for their helpful remarks. My special gratitude goes in particular to Molly-Swetnam Burland, Hilary Becker, Antonella Coralini, and Silvia Pacifico for providing me with significant information as well as Bettina Bergmann, Jane Fejfer, John Clarke, Andrew Wallace- Hadrill, Riccardo Helg, Steven Tuck, and Anna Anguissola for fruitful discussions. To Daniela Scagliarini, my advisor during my collegiate career in Bologna, I offer thanks for instilling in me the passion for Campanian domestic architecture and wall paintings and for creating research opportunities that were inestimable for my next scholarly steps. I also owe a particular amount of debt to my friend Lily Withycombe for her patience, 6 technical support, editing expertise, and insightful comments to the final product. Thank you to my dear colleagues at USC for their friendship and encouragement throughout my graduate career, and in particular to Hector Reyes (who patiently offered me valuable insights and helped me to explore news ideas), Selma Holo, Kate Flint, Diane Ghirardo, Amy Ogata, Tracey Marshall, and Elizabeth Massari, as well as to the entire staff of The J. Paul Getty Museum (Antiquities and Conservation Departments), especially Kenneth Lapatin and Mary Louise Hart. I have been very fortunate to have close friends scattered around the world who were listening, offering me advice, and supporting me through this entire process. It is through the help of everyone that the end result has been achieved. Thus, I am especially thankful to Aphrodite Angelopoulou (who has been more like a sister than a roommate), Paola Mior, Kimberley Ferdinando, Aimée Scorziello, Kiernan Graves, Blessy Bandera, Christopher McGeorge, Christian Lehmann, and Laure Marest. Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to Mattia Menghi for his love, patience, and moral support, and to my parents, Eleonora Tomasi and Ugo Spinelli, for being a constant source of strength and for always encouraging and inspiring me to follow my dreams. 7 Contents Acknowledgments 3 Introduction 16 Objectives of this Study 16 History of Scholarship 18 Research Methodology and Sources 23 Preview of the Chapters 30 Chapter 1. Defining the Tablinum: Literary and Archaeological Evidence 35 The Tablinum in Ancient Literary Sources 41 Conclusion 64 Chapter 2. The Tablinum in its Spatial Dimension: A Versatile Space 69 Form and Type of tablinum’s Boundaries 74 “Insubstantial” Boundaries: Curtains 77 Permeable Boundaries and Artifactual Records: Household Storage 84 “Solid” Boundaries: Partitions and Doors 90 The Nexus Tablinum-Triclinium and Tablinum-Cubiculum 103 Conclusion 107 Chapter 3. Looking toward and through the Tablinum: Enhancing the Householder’s Identity, Presence, and Pietas 110 The Framing of the Domestic View. Part I: Ancestral Images 112 The Framing of the Domestic View. Part II: Religion and Pietas 122 Conclusion 142 8 Chapter 4. Inside the Tablinum: Exploring Social, Familial, and Cultural Activities 144 Roles and Uses of the Tablinum in Light of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence 145 Conversing, Dining, and Resting in the Tablinum 154 The Tablinum’s Decorative Apparatus: Spectacles and Myths in Campanian Wall Paintings 162 Conclusion 185 Summary 188 Tables 196 Figures 218 Bibliography 266 Appendix A: 172 Tablina in 160 Atrium Houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum (Architecture and Decoration) 328 Appendix B: Finds in 70 Tablina 402 Appendix C: Graffiti in Tablina 421 9 List of Tables 3.1 Tablina’s frontal entrance treated as “temple-like” in antis in their appearance 3.2 Information on lararia in 160 houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum 4.1 Wall decoration of 172 tablina of Pompeii and Herculaneum 4.2 Central mythological panels on tablina’s walls at Pompeii and Herculaneum 4.3 Mars and Venus on Pompeian walls List of Figures 1.1 Plan of Roman (or Vitruvian) house (after Mau 1899, 241, fig. 110) 2.1 Bronze tiebacks, Casa di Obellius Firmus, Pompeii (Pompeii, Casa di Bacco, inv. nos. SAP 3211a-b) (courtesy of M. Borgongino) 2.2 Wooden partition, Casa del Tramezzo di Legno, Herculaneum (author) 2.3 Wooden partition and modern curtain, Casa del Tramezzo di Legno, Herculaneum (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, LC.Italy.Herculaneum.C.13, 1930) 2.4 Republican Sanctuary, cella IV, Brescia (courtesy of G. Tucker) 2.5 Villa Romana at Positano (courtesy of S. Pacifico) 2.6 Tomb of Vestorius Priscus, Porta Vesuvio, Pompeii (author) 2.7 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa del Sacello Iliaco, Pompeii (author) 2.8 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 2.9 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa di Sallustio, Pompeii (author) 10 2.10 Cuts for cardines of wooden door. Tablinum, Casa della Caccia Antica, Pompeii (author) 2.11 Pendant stone blocks. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa del Cinghiale I, Pompeii (author) 2.12 Detail of the left stone block. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in house VIII.2.14-16, Pompeii (author) 2.13 Remains of a wooden antepagmentum. Tablinum, Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico, Herculaneum (author) 2.14 Detail of the left stone block. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo, Herculaneum (author) 2.15 Ornamental disk to tie back curtains. Tablinum, Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo, Herculaneum (after Maiuri 1958, 248, fig. 194) 2.16 Wall extensions at the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii (author) 2.17 Detail of a wall extension in opus vittatum mixtum on top of a base of Calcare del Sarno. Tablinum, Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii (author) 2.18 Wall extensions at the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii. Internal view (author) 2.19 Recesses for couches. Tablinum, Casa di Sutoria Primigenia, Pompeii (author) 2.20 Recess for couch. Tablinum, house IX.3.15, Pompeii (author) 2.21 Recess for couch. Tablinum, Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato, Herculaneum (author) 2.22 Cuts for cardines of folding doors (valvae). Back threshold of the tablinum in the Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 11 2.23 Cuts for cardines of folding doors (valvae). Back threshold of the tablinum in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (author) 2.24 Link tablinum-cubiculum, Casa del Principe di Napoli, Pompeii (author) 3.1 Funerary relief of A. Amelius Aristomachus and Aemilia Hilaria (National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen, inv. no. 1187) (courtesy of J. Pollini) 3.2 Domestic shrine. Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 3.3 Portrait herm, Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 110663) (author) 3.4 Herm bases flanking the frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (author) 3.5 Portrait herm, Casa di Cornelius Rufus, Pompeii (Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 20604) (courtesy of the Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, box 299) 3.6 Portrait herm, Casa di Vesonius Primus (or di Orfeo), Pompeii (Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 407/4) (courtesy of the Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, box 297) 3.7 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Umbricius Scaurus, Pompeii (author) 3.8 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 3.9 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Ercole e Augia, Pompeii (author) 3.10 Half-columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico, Herculaneum (author) 12 3.11 Drawing of fluted stuccowork pilasters once framing the entrance of the tablinum in the Casa della Fontana Grande, Pompeii (after Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII) 3.12 Remains of frontal jambs of the tablinum in the Casa della Fontana Grande, Pompeii (author) 3.13 Fluted stuccowork pilasters once framing the front entrance of the tablinum in the Casa del Centauro, Pompeii (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 1769) 3.14 Remains frontal jambs of the tablinum in the Casa del Centauro, Pompeii (author) 3.15 Columns of impluvium framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa delle Nozze D’Argento, Pompeii (author) 3.16 Columns of impluvium framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Obellius Firmus, Pompeii (author) 3.17a-b Axial views onto the Egyptianizing shrine from the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 3.18 Egyptianizing shrine. Peristyle garden, Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 3.19 Niche lararium. Viridarium, Casa della Venere in Bikini, Pompeii (author) 3.20 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa di Ercole, Pompeii (author) 3.21 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 3.22 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (author) 3.23 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato, Herculaneum (author) 3.24 Aedicula fountain. Peristyle garden, Casa del Granduca, Pompeii (author) 3.25 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 13 4.1 Plan of the Casa della Venere in Conchiglia, Pompeii (courtesy of Jackie and Bob Dunn www.pompeiipictures.com) 4.2 Opus sectile panel. Tablinum, Casa del Bicentenario, Herculaneum (after Maiuri 1958, 230, fig. 180) 4.3 Central geometric panel. Tablinum in the Casa dei Cubiculi Floreali (also called, Casa del Frutteto), Pompeii (author) 4.3 Central pseudo-emblema. Tablinum, Casa dei Cubiculi Floreali (or del Frutteto), Pompeii (author) 4.4 Central emblema. Tablinum, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9986) (author) 4.5 Drawing of a lost central emblema once decorating the floor of the tablinum in the Casa di Championnet I, Pompeii (after Mazois, 1824, pl. 20) 4.6 Current pavement of the tablinum in the Casa di Championnet I, Pompeii (author) 4.7 Central emblema once decorating the floor of the tablinum in the Casa dei Capitelli Figurati, Pompeii (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 432a) 4.8 Current pavement of the tablinum in the Casa dei Capitelli Figurati, Pompeii (author) 4.9 Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 4.10 Heads of Griffins decorating the threshold of the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 4.11 Fresco with “Wrath of Achilles” (Fourth Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9104) (author) 14 4.12 Fresco with “Achilles discovered on the Island of Skyros” (Fourth Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9110) (author) 4.13 Mosaic with the “Wrath of Achilles.” Garden portico, Casa di Apollo, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 10006) (author) 4.14 Mosaic with “Achilles discovered on the Island of Skyros.” Garden portico, Casa di Apollo, Pompeii (author) 4.15 Drawing of lost panel with “Wrath of Achilles.” Temple of Apollo, Pompeii (after A. Steinbüchel 1833, pl. 8b) 4.16 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (Fourth Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa di Meleagro, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9256) (author) 4.17 Drawing of a lost panel with “Mars and Venus.” Quadriporticus of the Theaters, Pompeii (modified from Gli ornati delle pareti ed i pavimenti delle stanze dell'antica Pompei incisi in rame. 1838, pl. 53) 4.18 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (Third Style, painted after 62 CE). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di Cornelius Tages, Pompeii (author) 4.19 Fresco with “Daedalus and Pasiphae” (Fourth Style). Left/west wall of the tablinum, Casa della Caccia Antica, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 8979) (author) 4.20 Fresco with the “Punishment of Dirce” (Third Style). Left/east wall of the tablinum, Casa del Granduca, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9042) (author) 4.21 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di Meleagro (MANN, inv. no. 9556) (author) 4.22 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Macellum, Pompeii (author) 15 4.23 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Temple of Isis, Ekklesiasterion (6), Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9548) (author) 4.24 Fresco with “Admetus and Alcestis” (Fourth Style). Right/east wall of the tablinum, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9025) (author) 4.25 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (late Third Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii (author) 4.26 Fresco with the “Dionysus and Ariadne in a joyous procession” (late Third Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii (author) Appendix A: 172 Tablina in 160 Atrium Houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum (Architecture and Decoration) Appendix B: Finds in 70 Tablina Appendix C: Graffiti in Tablina 16 INTRODUCTION Objectives of this Study The tablinum, lying between the front and the rear of the house, was used as a reception room for guests who were not admitted into the privacy of the home; and here undoubtedly the master of the house received his clients. 1 With these words the 19th century German archaeologist August Mau described the position and use of the tablinum within the Roman house. By looking at primary literary sources, Mau assigned nomenclature and uses to individual domestic spaces. In doing so, he established the traditional approach by which social activities and behaviors are associated with architectural remains, thus contributing to the understanding of the tablinum (also spelled tabulinum) 2 in modern scholarship as a space associated with client relationships. In modern scholarship, the tablinum has been commonly identified as a spacious room, opening at the far end of the atrium and opposite the entrance. Described generally as a stereotypical type of room playing a key role in setting the axial planning of the house, 3 the tablinum thus far has been treated by later scholars secondarily in respect to other rooms of a Roman house. It has become commonplace in modern scholarship for the tablinum to be described as the main reception space for the presentation of the paterfamilias to his clients during the formal morning greeting, or salutatio. 4 No primary 1 Mau 1899, 252. A similar description and interpretation of the tablinum is also found in Overbeck and Mau’s earlier 1884, 262. 2 Both terms are used in ancient texts. Throughout my work, I retain the word tablinum since it is used the most frequently in modern scholarship. 3 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 384. 4 For an explicit connection between salutatio and tablinum, see among many, McKay 1975, 34; Richardson 1988, 388; Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 55; 1994, 13, 44 (noting in both works how “the vestibulum-atrium-alae- tablinum complex lends itself to the salutatio”); Carandini 1990, 98; Clarke 1991, 4; 1996; 2014, 346; 17 literary source, however, mentions the use of this space in connection with the salutatio, a daily ritual linked to the vestibulum and the atrium. 5 Until today, the tablinum has received insufficient attention within the larger discussion of Roman housing. 6 Prior to my study, the tablinum has only been occasionally addressed in site-specific studies on houses at Pompeii and/or Herculaneum. 7 When a larger selective sample has been taken into consideration, scholars have primarily focused either on the analysis of artifacts or on the architectural and/or decorative evidence. 8 Several studies, all of which date from the end of the 19th to the beginning of 20th centuries, were instead mainly concerned with the etymology of the Latin term. 9 The aim of my dissertation is to study more fully the room known as the tablinum in the houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum as part of a more comprehensive sampling of material evidence. I will look at the full range of literary and archaeological evidence (finds, fixtures, decoration, architecture, and graffiti) in a large sample (i.e., 172 tablina). The primary goal is to expand our understanding of this domestic room beyond its possible use for the salutatio by considering the tablinum not just as a separate space within the house but also as a Dwyer 1991, 27; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 388; Flower 1996, 200; Pesando 1996, 211-12; 1997, 108-11; Rowland and Noble 1999, 256; Ellis 2000, 27, 146–47, 196; Gros 2006, II, 40; Hales 2003, 2; Romizzi 2006a, 125; Carucci 2007, 8; Hodske 2007, 82; Sewell 2010, 126; Jolivet 2011, 247, 250-51. In other scholarly works, the tablinum is also described as the room where the master of the house would have conducted his business and met with his clients, although without specific reference to the morning salutatio: see Overbeck and Mau 1884, 262; Mau 1899, 252; Audouin 1903, 45; Torelli 1990, 98; 2007, 132; Milnor 2005, 98. 5 Goldbeck 2010, 138–39. 6 The bibliography on Roman houses is extensive. Among the principal works, see De Albentiis 1990; Clarke 1991; Gazda 1991; Wallace-Hadrill 1988; 1994; 1997; 2015; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a; Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997; Pesando 1997; Zanker 1998; Dickmann 1999; Ellis 2000; Hales 2003; Allison 2004; Anguissola 2010; Jolivet 2011; Tuori and Nissen 2015. 7 See, for instance, the various studies on single Pompeian houses or insulae published by the Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompeii. 8 See infra Introduction (“History of Scholarship”) for further discussion. 9 Nissen 1877, 643; Daremberg and Saglio 1892, II, 351; Marquardt 1892, I, 258; Sogliano 1898; Audouin 1903. 18 room intrinsically related to its domestic architectural and decorative context. The results will show that the tablinum was a versatile space suited to both “private” and “public” requirements. Scholars who have focused on the patronal activities of the tablinum, as well as on its “public” nature, have never fully discussed this space nor considered its decoration comprehensively. Although the mythological frescoes often found in tablina are frequently discussed in terms of the moral lessons associated with them, they also attest to the role played by contemporary theatrical and amphitheatrical spectacles and by the social and cultural environment in influencing the content and composition of certain visual tableaux. Analysis of the various mythological scenes both in private and public buildings across Pompeii and Herculaneum demonstrates the existence of a common visual vocabulary shared by different strata of society. These images within the tablinum, therefore, demonstrate the important role played by various public entertainments (e.g., theatrical and athletic) in shaping Roman culture and society. History of Scholarship While setting the groundwork for the understanding of the tablinum (as well as of the other domestic spaces) by the next generation of scholarship, Mau was also one of the first scholars to liken the forum of the city to the atrium of the house, 10 thus initiating discussion of the “private” and “public” dynamics of Roman domestic spaces, which would flourish in later scholarship. 11 He understood the Roman house to be a complex 10 Mau 1899, 61. 11 See infra n. 142 (with further discussion and extensive bibliography). 19 space built to fulfill the familial, religious, social, economic, political, and cultural needs of the dominus and his family. Following Mau, and in particular throughout the second half of the 20th century, the houses in the Vesuvian territory have been the subject of a number of studies investigating ancient familial and social life in the Roman world. 12 Domestic architecture, material, and visual culture from the Bay of Naples, in particular, have been the subject of intense discussion among modern scholars, who have demonstrated just how much the concept of the house in ancient Rome differs from our modern one. The dichotomies of private/public, otium/negotium, and gravitas/levitas, as well as the high degree of importance given by the dominus to his own domestic space, have acquired a central role in such studies. Ancient Romans constructed their houses as both documentum and monumentum, aware of the central role played by their home 13 in affirming and animating their identity within Roman society. As Shelley Hales has stated, the Roman domus “was a visual, architectural construct of the familia’s identity and proof of the participation in Roman society.” 14 The general attention paid to the atrium and the peristyle garden, 15 with a focus on the “public” and “private” access to these spaces, allowed scholars to debate the domestic behaviors within these areas, as well as the acceptance or transgression of “Romanitas” (“Romanness”) by ancient Roman dwellers. Yet, while modern scholars have refined the concepts of “private” and “public” in regard 12 The studies of Clarke (1991), Zaccaria Ruggio (1995a), Pesando (1997), Wallace-Hadrill (1994), Zanker (1998), Dickmann (1999), and Hales (2003), among many others, have highlighted the importance of a well- planned domestic space for a wealthy dominus from which he could administer his affairs as well as affirm his identity and social status through an evocative architectural and decorative scheme to impress visitors. 13 I use the term “home” in its broader meaning, which entails not only a defined, architectonic space and its decorative scheme but also the members living within (i.e., the paterfamilias, his wife, children, and slaves), who all contributed to affirm the dominus’ identity and social position in the Roman society. 14 Hales 2003, 2. For an overview of the daily activities and ritual performances in the Roman house, see Hales 2003, 249 (esp. n. 3 with bibliography). 15 I adopt the nomenclature of Simelius (2018, 9), who uses the term “peristyle garden” to describe an “open space which had at least one colonnade on one side.” 20 to the Roman house, Mau’s characterization of the tablinum has remained largely unchallenged. Those interested in Roman domestic life have thus far focused predominantly on rooms such as the atrium, alae, cubiculum, and peristyle garden, pointing out their multiuse as well as their “private” and “public” facets. 16 The works on the cubiculum by Andrew Riggsby and Anna Anguissola, for instance, demonstrated how this room, whose name derives from the Latin cubare (“to lie down; to rest; to go to bed”), serviced a set of different activities depending on the householder’s needs. 17 Their studies have shown that the rooms labeled as cubicula were intended for various types of activities, from resting to receiving guests and conducting business affairs. Discussing the definition of the term cubiculum in Latin sources, Riggsby concluded that this room was suited to a wide range of activities, such as reception, rest, sex, and controlled displays of art, as well as murder and even suicide. Anguissola’s study on the architectural and decorative evolution of cubicula at Pompeii also contributed to the larger debate on the social and behavioral changes that occurred between the late second century BCE and 79 CE. In her analysis of the architectural evolution of the alae in Regio VI at Pompeii, Elisabetta Cova carried out an analogous approach. 18 While the alae have been typically described as reception spaces associated with the activities of the dominus, Cova illustrated how these spaces were not 16 For more specific interests in the atrium: Evans 1980; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 349-82. Ala: Cova 2015. Cubiculum: Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 397-409; Riggsby 1997; Anguissola 2010; Nissin 2015. Peristyle garden: Jashemski 1979; Dickmann 1997; Simelius 2015; 2018. 17 For a list of possible activities that took place in a cubiculum, see: Leach 1997; Riggsby 1997; Anguissola 2010, esp. 62-7; Nissin 2009; 2015. The artifactual evidence for modest (undecorated) cubicula at Pompeii, furthermore, seems to indicate how these rooms might have also been used as the “principal deposit” for storing and safekeeping domestic items: Berg 2014. 18 Cova 2015. Alae (wings) have been defined in modern scholarship as the two symmetrical rooms opening on each side of the atrium. 21 static entities but were subjected to modifications through time. The gradual insertion of staircases or storage fittings in the alae, indeed, suggest the versatility of these rooms, which acquired more specific and practical functions tied to the needs of the households by the time of the eruption. By discussing the versatility of cubicula and alae, Riggsby, Anguissola, and Cova’s works contributed to illuminating some of the shifting dynamics and socio-economic changes that occurred between the end of the Republic and the early Empire. Within such significant works, the tablinum, generally described as the “master’s room,” has not received the same interest and attention within the scholarly discussion of Roman familial practices and social customs. Within the rich scholarly tradition on Roman housing, numerous studies have included a discussion of the tablinum in the houses of the Vesuvian sites, especially Pompeii, and deserve attention. In discussing private living and architecture, the works of Paul Zanker and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, in particular, have provided new ideas on the uses and the social implications of domestic spaces, including some general remarks on the tablinum. 19 Selecting a sample of houses at Pompeii, Fabrizio Pesando briefly examined the decorative treatment and architectural history of the tablinum within the house, although he was mainly concerned with the use of this space for patronal activities (in particular, in connection with the salutatio). 20 Annamaria Zaccaria Ruggiu expanded discussion of the “complex tablinum-atrium,” focusing on the etymology of the term tablinum in ancient literary sources and discussing the possible functions of this space through time. 21 Zaccaria Ruggiu, in particular, concluded that the tablinum was an extension of the atrium 19 Zanker 1979; 1998; Wallace-Hadrill 1994. 20 Pesando 1997. 21 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 383-96. 22 and was meant to serve the dominus’ “public” needs (i.e., linked to patronage rituals such as the salutatio). For the scholar, therefore, the presence of this room in the house might also be interpreted as a possible indicator of the social rank of the householder. By looking at the houses of 16 candidates at Pompeii, however, Eleanor Winsor Leach demonstrated how some of the abodes of politicians, who aspired to or held a magisterial office between 71 and 79 CE, are not only modest in scale and decoration, but also lack a tablinum (e.g., Casa delle Venere in Conchiglia [II.3.3] at Pompeii). 22 While the “traditional” atrium-alae-tablinum complex led several scholars to envision the tablinum as a space strictly related to the Roman aristocratic patronage system, Andrew Wallace- Hadrill has recently remarked how this idea should be handled with caution. 23 Focusing on the main parts (i.e., living rooms) of the houses at Herculaneum and Pompeii in a large sample, Jens-Arne Dickmann has also made some contributions to our understanding of the tablinum. 24 Although Dickmann’s analysis was not aimed at providing a statistical and comprehensive study of the tablinum, nor did it discussed the full range of archaeological and literary evidence for this space, it pointed out the multifunctionality of this type of room. The attention to artifactual remains as a resource for understanding the distribution of domestic activities has also recently played a role in the larger discussion of private living. 25 In her analysis of the artifactual evidence recorded in 30 atrium houses at Pompeii, Penelope Allison stressed the importance of examining material culture to interpret household activities. Despite a long interest in ancient inscriptions and graffiti at Pompeii and Herculaneum, furthermore, it is only recently that scholars such as Rebecca 22 Leach 2004, 211-41. 23 Wallace-Hadrill 2015, 178-79. 24 Dickmann 1999. 25 Allison 1993; 1997; 1999; 2004; 2006; 2007; Berry 1997a; 1997b; 2007; Berg 2014. 23 Benefiel and Jacqueline DiBiasie have started to pay closer attention to their context and distribution within the house. 26 These recent interests and approaches are also important for understanding the tablinum contextually. Until now, however, not only has the tablinum remained insufficiently examined, but scholars have also not embraced the analysis of the full range of extant evidence. For this reason, I looked at a large sample of tablina, taking a multidisciplinary approach that combines the analysis of both textual and archaeological evidence (i.e., decoration, architecture, material culture, and graffiti). Ultimately, what I seek to demonstrate is that all of these sources, despite their limitations and problems, are necessary resources that should be taken into consideration in order to achieve a better and more comprehensive picture of ancient domestic and social living practices. Such a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the tablinum, I believe, will contribute to an understanding of the relationship between the domestic activities and social customs that took place in Herculaneum and Pompeii, at least during their last decades prior to the eruption of Vesuvius. Research Methodology and Sources My work presents an in-depth study of the fixtures, decorations, architecture, and graffiti of the room identified as the tablinum in 160 atrium houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum 26 Benefiel 2010; 2016; DiBiasie 2015; Benefiel and Sypniewski 2018. 24 during the last decades before the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. 27 Because some dwellings fall into the category of double-atrium house, the total number of tablina considered is 172 (more specifically, 156 tablina at Pompeii and 16 tablina at Herculaneum). 28 For Herculaneum, I have limited my study to the 16 atrium houses where a tablinum is clearly identifiable. 29 As for Pompeii, Hans Eschebach estimated that 400 atrium houses have been excavated at Pompeii, a number which has been reduced to 380 by Edith Margaret Evans. 30 Further examination of the excavated atrium houses at Pompeii, however, demonstrates that not all of these abodes can be treated as of the “atria” type and that the room indicated as the tablinum is not always present nor easy to identify within the house. 31 156 tablina at Pompeii and 16 at Herculaneum constitute a sufficiently large and representative sample, from which I can detect pattern and draw conclusions about the situation of this space within the atrium-style house during the first century CE. My selection of the 156 tablina at Pompeii mainly depended on the following criteria: presence and identification of a tablinum, as well as good preservation and existing 27 For more discussion of the definition and identification of the tablinum as well as the problems regarding the use of Latin nomenclature found in ancient texts with regard to the Pompeian house, see Chapter 1. 28 For the houses at Pompeii, I have followed the numbering and the Italian nomenclature adopted in the authoritative ten-volume work, Pompei: Pitture e Mosaici (1990-2003; hereafter PPM), which is also now accompanied by an eleventh volume (PPM Disegnatori) focusing on drawings and paintings. For Herculaneum, I refer to Amedeo Maiuri’s Ercolano: i nuovi scavi 1927-1958 (1958). 29 I have based my architectural studies on Maiuri’s plan of the town (1958), later re-published in several studies (see esp. Wallace-Hadrill 2011a). 30 Eschebach 1970; Evans 1980, 1. 31 According to Weiskittel (1979, 26), who does not provide evidence for such statistics, the total number of Pompeian atrium houses presenting an atrium-alae-tablinum plan is 276. Without any further explanation, Jashemski (1979, I, 22) restricted the number of atrium houses at both Pompeii and Herculaneum to about 240. Scholars have existimated different numbers of atrium houses according to their specific criteria, and sometimes ignoring the fact that, despite retaining its “domestic” setting, a private dwelling might have been altered to suit a new function related to commercial activities. See, for instance, the Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4) at Pompeii. 25 documentation (in archival and published sources) of the house. The location of the tablinum within the atrium house follows a “typical” pattern - a central positioning of a tablinum towards the back of an atrium, generally on axis with the vestibule. Indeed, the location of the tablinum is one of the most common features of atrium houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum. However, there are certain examples in which this pattern was complicated, usually by the existence of a central corridor flanked by two rooms of difficult identification at the back of the atrium. 32 Wherever the interpretation of a tablinum is unclear, I omitted the house from my sample. 33 The criteria governing the selection for inclusion of individual houses was also based on their state of preservation. For instance, I did not include the Pompeian abodes that had been badly damaged in WWII. The house’s selection was also based on the quality and quantity of the documentation available. My sample includes the houses that I was able to personally survey, especially over the summers of 2016, 2017, and 2018, as well as a few houses that I could not visit but for which the information provided in earlier studies was enough to allow me to take them into consideration. 34 Consequently, the information provided on the architectural and decorative elements is based on my personal inspection of the houses and/or on the analysis of archival and published sources. 32 For an overview of the type of houses at Pompeii: Nappo 1997. In a few instances, the tablinum is located off axis (rather than being centrally located). See the house VI.7.16 at Pompeii. 33 Because the tablinum often appears to be a spacious open-sided room with good quality decoration and offers “planned” vistas within the house, it is sometimes possible to identify the tablinum in those houses with double rooms on the backside of the atrium, where one room appears to have such characteristics while the other one is smaller and closed off toward the back of the house, as in the case of the Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15: tablinum [d] in PPM I, 407-82) and Casa delle Danzatrici (VI.2.22; tablinum [5] in PPM IV, 230- 62) at Pompeii. 34 My seasons of fieldwork overlapped with the “Grande Progetto Pompei,” a large-scale restoration project (2015–2018) during which several insulae and/or single houses at Pompeii were periodically closed. Therefore, it was not possible to survey some houses during this period: e.g., Casa di Diomede (I.2.17), Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15), and Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i), among a few others. Appendix A lists the available information on these houses. 26 As previously noted, my work represents an interdisciplinary approach that also encompasses the analysis of the artifactual remains recorded in the tablinum during earlier excavations. 35 Such analysis, however, has to be limited to 70 tablina (58 at Pompeii and 12 at Herculaneum) for several reasons. For Pompeii, I analyzed the assemblage of material culture only for those abodes excavated from the period of Giuseppe Fiorelli (1860s) to the first half of the 20th century. In the 1860s, Fiorelli, the Superintendent and new director of the Pompeian excavations, inaugurated a new period of excavations characterized by a scientific approach and the analysis of artifacts within their archaeological context. 36 My focus on those excavations for the analysis of contextualized artifacts is due to the availability and nature of information documented by the archaeologists in the various excavation and journal reports. For Pompeii, such analysis was possible by combining both the published sources and the archival documents. For the latter sources, in particular, I consulted the archives at Pompeii (Casa di Bacco), the Archivio Storico of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli (hereafter MANN), and the Archivio Centrale dello Stato di Roma. 37 The unpublished (handwritten) versions of the Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei (which I abbreviate as GdS UP to distinguish them from the published version – the Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei Nuova Serie, GdS NS) can mostly be found in the Archivio Storico of the MANN and in the Casa di Bacco at 35 On the value of studying this type of evidence: Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Allison 2001; 2004; Laidlaw 2007; Monteix 2016. 36 Pompeian excavation reports from the time of Fiorelli on, however, differ over time. While the period between 1860-1920 was characterized by great attention to detail in the recording of the archaeological evidence brought to light, the following years are more problematic. Almost no publication exists for the period 1930-40 and very little for the period 1930-60. On Fiorelli’s system of excavation and contributions, see Scatozza Höricht 1987; Barbanera 1998, 19-34; García y García 2015a; Moormann 2015, 74-83, esp. n. 303 (with further bibliography). For a summary of the work accomplished by Fiorelli’s successors: Moormann 2015, 81-92. 37 For the complexities of Pompeii’s documentary sources and an outline of the methodology by which to locate, access, and study the various archival records, see Spinelli and Scorziello (forthcoming). 27 Pompeii. In my artifactual analysis of 70 tablina, however, neither I nor the archivists could locate the GdS UP for four of these tablina (all at Pompeii). For these four tablina, therefore, I have relied on studies published by leading scholars in the field who have republished information from these journals. 38 The classic corpus of bibliographic sources necessary to undertake such archival research at Pompeii includes: Fiorelli’s Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia (PAH), the unpublished and published versions of the Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei (GdS), the Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (NSc), and the Bulletino dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (BdI), later replaced by the Römische Mitteilungen (RM). 39 As for the assemblage of the material remains from Herculaneum, I based my study on the unpublished excavation notebooks compiled by the archaeologist and Superintendent of Campania (1924-1961), Amedeo Maiuri, in the Giornale dei Nuovi Scavi di Ercolano (GSE). 40 These journals, which still today remain unpublished, cover the excavations from 1927 to 1961 and constitute the major source of information on finds. 41 The 18th and 19th-century excavations at Herculaneum had been mainly carried out through a network of tunnels and shafts with the aim of finding valuable objects. 42 Maiuri, instead, promoted large-scale “open-air excavations” that started down from the street and building facades, and gradually moved into the ancient 38 These tablina are found respectively in the Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12), Casa del Menandro (I.10.4), Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7), and Casa del Centenario (IX.8.3,6) at Pompeii. I draw on scholars of artifactual analysis at Pompeii, including e.g., P.M. Allison, J. Berry, and A. Coralini. See Appendix B. 39 A convenient list of the main bibliographical sources for Pompeii (including excavation reports, periodicals, and volumes from the Bourbon period to the 1960s) can be found in Laidlaw 1985, 2-13. 40 On the GSE: Monteix 2009. 41 A transcript and digitalized copy of the unpublished diaries of Maiuri’s excavations at Herculaneum can be found at the Ufficio Scavi di Ercolano. Maiuri’s main publication, Ercolano: i nuovi scavi 1927-1958, mostly focuses on architecture while sometimes providing information on material remains from private buildings. Unfortunately, the scientific results of Maiuri’s work on finds, floor, wall decorations, and inscriptions were never published. 42 A series of short open-air excavations were also carried out in the 19th century, from 1828 to 1875: Camardo 2013. 28 structures. This method of excavation also allowed for a better investigation, documentation, and preservation of the visual and material evidence that came to light. 43 My nearly a decade of work in Pompeii in various capacities, and in particular as Head of Archival Research for the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia, directed by Professor Steven Ellis (University of Cincinnati), cautioned me about the problems and challenges inherent in the study and interpretation of this archival material. Clarifying the original location of finds is indeed by no means unproblematic. 44 In approaching the analysis of archaeological finds at Pompeii, for instance, we have to dismantle the theory of “systemic inventories” – that is, the idea that assemblages of objects are found in their assumed places of use, thus providing a clear idea of “space function” – an idea often referred to as the “Pompeii Premise.” 45 The situation is more complicated because both Pompeii and Herculaneum were heavily excavated and damaged before an organized method of recording existed. 46 Pompeii and Herculaneum were not only damaged by the excavations and tunneling of earlier explorers, which removed and/or misplaced finds, 47 but were also badly recorded during the 18th and part of the 19th-century excavations, lacking maps and information regarding find spots. Furthermore, while Pompeii was initially buried under a fall of pumice and volcanic ashes that “sealed” the city, Herculaneum was hit by superheated pyroclastic surges and flows 43 For Maiuri’s work at Herculaneum: Camardo and Notomista 2017. 44 See, e.g., the ever-changing numbering system (devised in the modern period) for both Pompeii and Herculaneum, with buildings changing topographical enumeration several times. 45 Binford 1981; Schiffer 1985. 46 Allison (1992b, 50) discusses the complexities of dealing with Pompeian artifacts, pointing to the disturbances of the “treasure hunting” approach of the pre-18th and 19th-century excavations. 47 See, e.g., the Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico at Herculaneum: Cerulli Irelli 1974, 12-13. At Pompeii, see, e.g., the traces of holes in the Casa di Cerere (PPM II 172-229) or in the Insula del Menandro, where the dates for the tunnels are often indeterminate and could range from antiquity to later periods (Ling 1997). 29 of gases, dense ashes, and volcanic rocks that misplaced many artifacts from their original find spot. 48 My study attempts to counter this by also looking at extant archaeo- architectural remains in combination with literary evidence. By keeping in mind the limits, problems, and pitfalls inherent in conducting this type of archival analysis, and combining the data from the excavation diaries and journals with an analysis of the full range of archaeological evidence (i.e., architectural and decorative elements), it is possible to obtain a more complete picture of the social and familial uses of the tablinum during the last decades before the eruption of the Vesuvius in 79 CE. To achieve this goal, the wealth of information offered by other scholarly studies has been also taken into consideration in the selection of the houses. Particular attention was paid to the architectural and decorative changes that happened during the first century CE. An in-depth study of the structural changes and architectural evolution of the selected tablina would have been impossible to undertake within the scope and limits of this dissertation given that the majority of the houses generally date from the end of third/beginning of second century BCE to 79 CE. However, when other scholars have undertaken such studies for specific houses, I critically evaluated their results and included bibliographic information on them in order to produce the most complete results of these tablina. In conclusion, my tablinum project provides the first comprehensive and systematic study of the 79CE condition of 172 tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum. I offer here new insights on the tactics of self-presentations employed by 48 Deiss 1989, 18; Mastrolorenzo and Petrone 2000, 56; Wallace-Hadrill 2011a, 26-37. After the heavy pumice-fall that reached thickness between 4 and 6 meters, Pompeii was also later struck by pyroclastic surges. For a synthesis of the eruption of Vesuvius and its effects at Pompeii and Herculaneum, see also De Carolis and Patricelli 2003; Sigurdsson 2013, 50-9. 30 the householder as a manifestation of his social presence within a Roman provincial civic setting in the late first century CE. Analysis of the tablinum in its architectural and decorative setting also helps to shed light on broader questions about changes in tastes, customs, and socio-economic structures in the early Imperial period. As a room gradually disappearing from the Italic house, with a shift from the emphasis on the Campanian-style atrium house to the peristyle plan, the tablinum, perhaps more than any other domestic space, speaks volumes about the changing mechanisms of self-presentation employed by the householder. Preview of the Chapters The results of my study are presented in four chapters that embrace a number of different but related topics. Chapter 1, “Defining the Tablinum: Literary and Archaeological Evidence,” explores the problematic of applying ancient terminology to domestic spaces and the issues related to the uncertain genesis of the term tablinum in ancient literary evidence. Because of the puzzling origins of its name, the tablinum has only briefly been discussed in previous scholarship and is usually addressed as the “main reception space” within the house and/or in relation to the salutatio. In this chapter, I discuss the full range of extant literary sources for the tablinum in their historical context, outlining the various problems in identifying the uses of this space according to ancient texts. 49 In doing so, I introduce and examine a few ancient sources (i.e., Seneca the Elder, Apuleius, and 49 For abbreviations of ancient works, see Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th edition). Abbreviations not included in OCD 4 can be found in Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (Oxford 1968) and in Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1982). 31 Pseudo-Hyginus) that have otherwise been overlooked in the scholarly discussion regarding the uses and definitions of this space. Chapter 2, “The Tablinum in Its Spatial Dimension: A Versatile Space,” examines the spatial and architectural arrangement of the tablinum. Previous scholars have emphasized the “public” nature of the tablinum and considered this room as part of the atrium complex. 50 However, the tablinum, usually set on axis in the central pathway of the house, often served as a “hinge” between the front and back of the house, serving both “private” and “public” needs. In this chapter, therefore, I discuss the versatility of this space whose multiple uses would have depended on seasonal changes and weather conditions, as well as daily needs. In this respect, I look in particular at the treatment of the tablina’s thresholds and the types of boundaries (such as curtains, doors, partitions, as well as windows and walls) that would have controlled the access to and view into and from this space. In addition, I consider the type of rooms that flanked the tablinum to see if any pattern can be discerned that might help us to clarify the ancient householder’s activities and paths of movement. Analysis of the tablinum’s spatial setting, boundaries, and artifacts suggest the adaptability of this space to serve both the household’s “semi-public” and “semi-private” needs. While it is not my intention to discuss the history and evolution of the atrium-style house and the gradual disappearance of the tablinum, I provide the background to my argument and examine the physical arrangement of the tablinum as a space whose antecedents can be seen in Etruscan architecture. 51 50 See esp. Dwyer 1991; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a. 51 On the development of the atrium house: Gros 2001, 30-8; Sewell 2010, 122-36; Jolivet 2011, 67-91; Wallace-Hadrill 2007, 283-85. 32 In Chapter 3, “Looking toward and through the Tablinum: Enhancing the Householder’s Identity, Presence, and Pietas ,” I discuss the synoptic framing of the tablinum in its larger domestic, decorative, and architectural context as a means of self-presentation employed by the householder. In particular, patterns in the treatment of the tablinum’s frontal entrance (which was often flanked by two columns, resulting in a sort of “temple-like” in antis structure), the display of busts of deceased family members flanking the tablinum’s entrance, and the presence of lararia nearby or behind the tablinum and visible from the axially disposed atrium-tablinum-peristyle garden complex all hint at the relationship between religion and the social sphere within the house. Such architectural and decorative planning would have allowed the paterfamilias to express his pietas erga deos, patriam, parentes. This could also perhaps explain why, over time, nymphaea located in the back garden and visible from the axially disposed atrium-tablinum began to resemble the form of a lararium. Seen from the vestibule of the house, such an architecturally framed view of the tablinum would have created the illusion of a monumental lararium itself. In this Chapter, I also discuss the role of pietas in contemporary and socio-political terms, demonstrating how through various architectural and decorative devices, the householder would have fulfilled familial and social duties. Chapter 4, “Inside the Tablinum: Exploring Social, Familial, and Cultural Activities,” focuses on the possible uses of the tablinum during the last phases of Pompeii and Herculaneum in light of finds, architectural and decorative elements, and graffiti, keeping in mind how different solutions might have been conditioned by the time of the day or season. I consider the possible uses of the tablinum listed by modern scholars discussing 33 problems in their methodological approaches. I also examine not only the decoration of the tablinum’s walls and floors but also the decorative and architectural setting around this space (i.e., vistas from the tablinum to the front and back of the house; wall and floor decoration of spaces nearby the tablinum). Placing the tablinum in its decorative and architectural contexts will help to shed light on the relationship between the tablinum and other “reception” spaces, as well as on social and familial behaviors. The tablinum was often a finely decorated space that usually allowed a direct access to the back garden, offering symmetrical views of frescoes painted on the back wall of the peristyle garden, as well as on water features such as nearby pools or elegant nymphaea. These vistas, decorative wall schemes (the majority painted in the Fourth Style), and mosaic floors (many of which seem also to present a central ornament around which couches could have been disposed), suggest a “static” use of the tablinum, for instance for conversing, resting, and dining activities. Therefore, what can the tablina’s architectural arrangements, sizes, fixtures, physical and structural boundaries, decorations, and finds tell us about residential activities and social behavior? In particular, I intend to go beyond the use of this space for the salutatio, a perception that has not only prevented a fuller discussion of this room but also conditioned the way in which scholars have sometimes interpreted its decoration. The mythological scenes depicted on the walls of tablina, indeed, have usually been construed as visual “moral lessons” associated with the use of this space. In this respect, I offer some new interpretations for tablina’s mythological paintings and discuss the social and cultural environment in which such visual tableaux are found and circulated. The results indicate how the subjects of such wall paintings demonstrate the impact of contemporary entertaiments, attesting to the presence of a Roman spectacle culture. 34 My work is accompanied by a series of images and tables. Three separate appendices at the end of my work, furthermore, present information I gathered over the course of my summers of survey and the analysis of the published and archival sources. My approach is aimed at charting the percentage of dwellings presenting similar patterns in the treatment of the tablinum in order to make some assertions about the use of this space as well as the domestic and social customs during the last decades prior to the eruption. In Appendix A, I record relevant information about each tablinum (such as wall and floor decorations, architectural features, dimensions, types of closure). I provide an interpretation of the 79CE condition of tablina based on the archaeological evidence, as well as published and archival sources, while also including some information on the current state of tablina. When the walls of a tablinum were found in coarse plaster, furthermore, I also discuss whether such treatment was found in the nearby rooms (such as atrium or alae). Such an approach would help us to understand whether changes were made or being made to a tablinum at the time of Vesuvius’ eruption, or if a redecoration was possibly planned for several rooms but never carried out. In this Appendix, I situate the tablinum in its spatial architectural and decorative context, recording information on the type of rooms and spaces that flanked the tablinum. I also provide the principal bibliographic information and the years of excavations for each tablinum. Appendix B lists the artifactual evidence recorded in the published and/or unpublished journals of excavations for 70 tablina, while Appendix C gathers information on the graffiti found within this space as recorded and scattered in various publications. I did not locate the graffiti personally, but I have relied on the information found in such sources. 35 Chapter 1: Defining the Tablinum: Literary and Archaeological Evidence Since the beginning of excavations in 1738 and 1748 respectively, the ancient sites of Herculaneum and Pompeii captured the public attention and imagination almost immediately. 52 The first explorations were sponsored by the Bourbon dynasty for the express purpose of using ancient Roman “treasures” to promote the goals of the regime. 53 It would take more than a century for a systematic archeological approach aimed at understanding the social, historical, cultural, and economic dynamics of those cities to develop. The Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli, who was appointed director of the excavations in 1860, inaugurated a new period of archaeological discovery at Pompeii characterized by large-scale, systematic, stratigraphic excavation which allowed not only for a better preservation of the ancient site but also for the detailed recording of what was being unearthed. 54 Since that time, the analysis of the spatial distribution and function/s of Roman domestic spaces has been a subject of intense study. 55 52 For a general overview of the history of the excavations and documentation at Pompeii, see Zevi 1981, 11-21; De Caro 2015; Moormann 2015, 7-94; Osanna et al. 2015. On Herculaneum: Franchi dall’Orto 1993; Pagano 2000; 2003; Camardo 2006; Moormann 2015, 17-48. During the first decade following its discovery, Pompeii received little attention because excavations were mostly concentrated in the nearby ancient cities of Herculaneum and Stabiae due to the richness of finds that were unearthed (i.e., the discovery of the Villa dei Papiri and of the maritime villas at Stabiae). In 1764, the ancient site of Pompeii gained renewed attention thanks to the discovery of the Temple of Isis and the Theaters complex. For the 18th-century methodologies of excavation and restoration at Pompeii, see Parslow 2001. 53 On the earliest Bourbon explorations and documentation, see Parslow 1995; Rodriguez and Del Carmen 2005; Moormann 2015, 17-48. 54 Fiorelli introduced a new method of archaeological investigation, excavating the ancient site by horizontal layers (that is, from the top down) rather than starting from the streets. Although such archaeological practice was first applied in 1852 to a few single houses (e.g., the Casa di Sirico, (VII.1.25,47)), Fiorelli was responsible for introducing this method on a large scale at Pompeii. Such a method, applied systematically throughout Pompeii, allowed the ancient buildings and artifacts to be better preserved and recorded. On Fiorelli’s excavation system, reforms, and contributions, see Scatozza Höricht 1987; Barbanera 1998, 19-34; García y García 2015a; Moormann 2015, 74-83, esp. n. 303 (with bibliography). 55 Bibliography is vast on this subject. A list of the main works discussing Roman domestic spaces and their functions includes: Clarke 1991; Allison 1993; 1997; 2004; Wallace-Hadrill 1994; 2015; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a; 1995b; Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997; Nevett 1997; Pesando 1997; Riggsby 1997; Leach 1997; 2004; Dickmann 1999; Berry 2007; Anguissola 2010; Cova 2015; Tuori and Nissen 2015. 36 The discovery of colorfully decorated ancient buildings under Fiorelli’s excavations gained the widespread attention of international scholarship, especially the German archeologist August Mau. 56 Mau analyzed the archaeological material alongside a close reading of the late first century BCE treatise De architectura (“on Architecture”) written by the Roman military engineer Vitruvius, who set out his guidelines for the Roman house. Indeed, the “ideal plan” of the Roman atrium house equipped with rooms such as fauces, atrium, alae, and tablinum as we still understand it today is a concept created in the 19th century which aimed to explain Roman domestic spaces in relationship to the accounts of Vitruvius and other ancient writers (Fig. 1.1). Throughout the 20th century, this literature-driven approach has prevailed in scholarship to the point that it became a common practice in the archaeological research to label domestic rooms according to the Greek and Latin nomenclature found in ancient texts. In the last few decades, however, scholars have started to question the nature of such ancient literary sources by applying a more critical approach to the study of archaeological evidence. The first problem encountered in an analysis of domestic spaces, indeed, is that ancient texts are less concerned with providing details about the spatial location of rooms or the activities that took place within them. Because the ancient accounts of domestic spaces are often vague and lack such specific information, scholars such as Penelope Allison and Eleanor Leach have highlighted the problems which have consequently arisen because of this tendency to correlate archaeological remains with ancient literary descriptions. 57 56 Mau’s strong interest in wall paintings led him to develop his influential classification of Pompeian interior painted decoration known as the Four Styles of Pompeian wall paintings, which offered a great contribution to later scholarship. 57 Allison 1993; 2001a; 2004; Leach 1997. 37 This study inevitably encounters the problematic task of using ancient written sources to identify domestic spaces. There are a few ancient literary sources on the tablinum, none of which specifically locate this room within the ancient Roman house. Vitruvius, for instance, is more interested in describing the canonical proportions of the tablinum in relation to the atrium (De arch. 6.3.5-6; 6.5.1), without providing information about the physical setting of the tablinum in its spatial context. Similarly, neither the late Republican Roman linguist Varro (De vita pop. rom. 1, 29, in Nonius 83M) nor the early imperial naturalist Pliny the Elder (HN 35.2.7) assign the tablinum a position within the Roman house, although the latter mentions the tablinum in connection with the atrium. Among the few other literary sources mentioning the tablinum, the second-century C.E. grammarian Festus (De verb. sign. 356M) is the only one who gives us some sort of spatial information, saying that the tablinum was located nearby the atrium (proxime atrium). 58 Assigning a specific location within such a plan concerns not only the tablinum but also other rooms such as cubiculum, triclinium, exedra, oecus, cenaculum or pinacotheca, as they are never described with a specific location in the Roman house. 59 Despite the problems in combining architectural remains and textual descriptions found in ancient 58 In chronological order, the ancient writers who mention the tablinum are: Varro, Vitruvius, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Festus, Apuleius, and Pseudo-Hyginus. 59 Allison 2004, 14. Vitruvius, for instance, briefly discusses the seasonal orientations of the triclinia without any indication of their specific location in the plan of the house: Leach 2004, 40. In her study of the origins of the triclinium in the Roman house, Zaccaria Ruggiu (1995b, 139) discusses the criteria for identification for this space, such as, the tripartite floor mosaic decoration to indicate the position of the beds, alcoves in the walls for the insertion of the beds, and the discovery of fragments of couches or beds. On the history and development of the triclinium: Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995b; Dunbabin 2003. On the problematic identification of cubicula in the Roman house: Nissin 2009; Anguissola 2010. 38 literary sources, scholars have noted how the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum present a “standard” plan that may fit well with the Vitruvian description of the Roman ideal house, allowing us to easily recognize spaces such as fauces, atrium, alae, and tablinum. 60 Thus, today we can still apply such “categories” as modern conventions. Described by scholars as typically being a broad room located at the far end of the atrium and opposite the entrance, the tablinum has acquired a “canonical location” within archaeological research. Consequently, a study of the tablinum in its physical context can be undertaken because it has become architecturally identifiable and can be easily recognized in the ancient houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum. There is another issue to address before undertaking the analysis of any domestic space, however: the practice of using literary texts not only to identify and label archaeological remains such as room types, but also to attribute specific activities to those spaces. Despite the fact that no surviving ancient literary source provides clear information about the social and practical uses of domestic spaces, it has become common practice (since Mau) not only to label rooms but also to assign precise functions to individual spaces. 61 Architectural remains have been thus associated with certain activities following the descriptions found in ancient texts such as Vitruvius’ De architectura, Varro’s De lingua Latina., or Pliny the Younger’s Epistulae, in which he describes his five villas in Italy. 62 These ancient writers, however, were not usually concerned with the description of the spatial organization of domestic activities, while only sometimes providing nomenclature 60 The Casa del Chirurgo (VI.1.10) at Pompeii has been often used to illustrate Vitruvius’ description of the “ideal plan” of the Roman house. 61 Allison 2001a; 2004. 62 See Plin. Ep. 2.17, 5.6, 9.7. 39 along with spatial and dimensional information. In her study, Allison has especially criticized the tendency to use written evidence to describe domestic activities. As Allison has noted: “written sources can provide considerable insights into the interrelationships of people within Roman households, but the ancient sources in general do not provide very useful information on the spatial aspects of household behavior.” 63 Not only were Roman domestic rooms multipurpose spaces, but also the notion itself of “function” is problematic because it relates to the purpose for which something is designed or exists. In this study, therefore, rather than discussing “function,” I refer to the activities and behaviors related to domestic spaces with the term “use,” which encompasses a degree of neutrality and is better suited to our understanding of domestic rooms as fluid and multipurpose spaces. 64 The problem concerning an understanding of the tablinum in its social, cultural, and historical setting encompasses firstly the issue regarding its etymology and, secondly, its role within the house. While terms such as triclinium, cubiculum, or cenatio, for instance, ultimately take their name from the furniture or the possible activity related to these spaces (although ancient terms, as mentioned above, could carry specific connotations about behaviors that may or not reflect reality), the tablinum’s etymology does not help to clarify the possible uses of this space. In this respect, in particular, ancient textual sources do not agree on the origin of the term tablinum. 63 Allison 2001a, 184. 64 I thank Wallace-Hadrill for pointing out the problem raised by the notion of “function” rather than “use” in discussing Roman domestic spaces (pers. conv. 01/ 2016). 40 I will now explore the complexities of the term tablinum in full, pointing out the various problems inherent in reading this space according to primary literary sources. What I wish to demonstrate is that the situation is more complicated than that presented in previous studies. Consequently, I will discuss the full range of surviving literary evidence for the tablinum and set out the historical contexts for these ancient authors. I will also introduce two ancient textual sources that have not previously been referenced in the discussion of the definitions and uses of the tablinum: a spurious passage of the Controversiae by Seneca the Elder (dated to the first half of the first century CE that has never before received attention in this context) and the De munitionibus castrorum attributed to Pseudo-Hyginus whose dating is still controversial spanning, as it does, the first to mid- fourth century CE. 65 As we shall see, the results of this analysis provide a deeper understanding of the role played by the tablinum in the process of the self-promotion employed by householders. In particular, a contextualized reading of primary literary sources highlights how these ancient authors were more concerned about what was appropriate for the domestic sphere than describing the social practices and uses of the tablinum. What emerges from these ancient passages is that the tablinum, up to a certain period, must have played an important role within the house as visual shorthand for the dominus’ self-presentation to his visitors. 65 For earlier studies focusing on the ancient literary evidence for tablinum: Nissen 1877, 643; Daremberg and Saglio 1892, II, 351; Marquardt 1892, I, 258, esp. n. 3; Sogliano 1898; Audouin 1903; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 383-96; Flower 1996, 203-5; Allison 2004, 168; Leach 1997, 52-3; 2004, 26-8. However, no one has ever set out the full range of primary literary sources. Marquardt, for instance, is the only author to mention the presence of the tablinum not only in the works of Varro, Vitruvius, Pliny, and Festus, but also in Pseudo- Hyginus, although he fails to add Apuleius’ Florida 23, which is only discussed by Zaccaria Ruggiu. 41 The Tablinum in Ancient Literary Sources Writing in the first century BCE, Marcus Terentius Varro is the earliest extant author to mention the tablinum, tracing its terminology to the boards or planks (tabulae) of buildings: Ad focum hieme ac frigoribus cenitabant, aestivo tempore in loco propatulo: rure in chorte; in urbe in tabulino, quod maenianum possum intellegere tabulis fabricatum (“In the winter and cold weather, [ancient Romans] were accustomed to eat at the hearth; during the summer, in an unroofted space: in the country, in the garden; in the city, in the tablinum, which we can understand as a veranda made out of planks”). 66 For Varro, the tablinum would have been an open space (loco propatulo) found in the urban houses and built from timber as a veranda (maenianum). It is in such an unroofted that a family and its guests would had dined during the summer. Thus, the name tablinum would derive from the tabulae (boards) originally attached to the back wall of the atrium to form a veranda. 67 Writing his treatise between 49 and 32 BCE, Varro speaks about a use of the tablinum in former times, as suggested by the use of the imperfect form for habitual action in the past (cenitabant). 68 If we accept his interpretation, it is difficult to 66 Varro De vita pop. rom. 1.29, in Non. 83M. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of modern and ancient languages (Latin and Greek) into English are by the author. 67 In another passage (Ling. 5.162), Varro briefly describes the rooms around the atrium, mentioning a practice of former times to take meals on the first floor in cenacula (from cenare “to dine”). According to Varro, when meals began to be taken on the upper floors, all the rooms upstairs were called cenacula (Posteaquam in superiore parte cenitare coeperunt, superioris domus universa cenacula dicta). On the basis of this passage, Audouin (1903, 46) suggested that one of the dining rooms set on the first floor might have also been called sometimes tablinum because it was etymologically connected with the tabulatum (tabulatio), meant as “floor.” 68 On the use of eat “in an open-air space” (in propatulo) in earlier times, although without specific reference to this space itself (i.e., a tablinum?), see also Valerius Maximus (2.5.5): Fuit etiam illa simplicitas antiquorum in cibo capiendo humanitatis simul et continentiae certissima index: nam maximis viris prandere et cenare in propatulo verecundiae non erat. nec sane ullas epulas habebant, quas populi oculis subicere erubescerent. (“It was also that simplicity of the men of the old times in taking meals, another 42 see how the tablinum was used as a room for “representation,” where the head of the house conducted his daily business in a much earlier period, beyond such a use as summer dining room. Later on, this space might have become a proper room set between the atrium and the garden area, thus serving various practical and cultural needs of the household. 69 In the first century CE, Pliny the Elder presents another reading of this space, associating the tablinum with the setting for the archives and records of a family. Pliny, in particular, implies that the etymology of the word tablinum should be connected with an understanding of tabulae to refer to the tablets for writing accounts, which he lists as codicibus and monimentis:Tabulina codicibus implebantur et monimentis rerum in magistratu gestarum (“The tabulina were filled with account-books and written memoirs of the things that magistrates accomplished during their public office”). 70 A more explicit interpretation is offered by the second century CE grammarian Sextus Pompeius Festus, who comments on the first-century CE lost treatise De verborum significatu by Verrius Flaccus informing us that: Tablinum proxime atrium locus dicitur, quod antiqui magistratus in suo imperio tabulis rationum ibi habebant publicarum rationum causa factum locum (“The place nearby the atrium is called tablinum because certain sign of education and at the same time modesty. Indeed, none of the greatest men among them was ashamed to take lunch or dinner in an open-air space. Certainly, they did not have any banquet that they were ashamed to show to the public gaze”). 69 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 383-96. For Zaccaria Ruggiu, the tablinum developed as a space in the house only at the end of the Republic, while in former times, it formed a unitary complex together with the alae and atrium. 70 Plin. HN 35.2.7. In many modern commentaries, the word tablinum is often translated as “monument- room” and thus related to and imbued with the archival function that this space might have had. To avoid the problems related to such an approach, I prefer to retain the Latin terminology, rather than offering a description that could be misleading. 43 there magistrates of old used to keep the accounts (tabulis rationum) during their legal tenure of power, a place created for public records”). 71 According to Pliny and Festus, the tablinum would have been the place reserved for the documents of the paterfamilias’ financial and official affairs. 72 Following a passage by the first-century BCE Greek historian Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who describes the inter- generational preservation of censorial documents by the householders of earlier periods, a few scholars have also postulated that those documents were kept in the tablinum, which thus served as the repository for the master’s records. 73 Dionysus of Halicarnassus, however, speaks of the preservation of these censorial records in the house in general, without assigning them to a specific domestic room: Δηλοῦται δὲ ἐξ ἄλλων τε πολλῶν καὶ τῶν καλουμένων τιμητικῶν ὑπομνημάτων, ἃ διαδέχεται παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς καὶ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖται τοῖς μεθ´ ἑαυτὸν ἐσομένοις ὥσπερ ἱερὰ πατρῷα παραδιδόναι· πολλοὶ δ´ εἰσὶν ἀπὸ τῶν τιμητικῶν οἴκων ἄνδρες ἐπιφανεῖς οἱ διαφυλάττοντες αὐτά (“This is proved by many other things and by the so-called records of the censors, which a son inherits from the father and commits to transmit to the next generations like the ancestors’ rites; there are many distinguished men of censorial families who preserve these [records]”). 74 71 Festus De verb. sign. 356M, Liber 18 (948). In Paul the Deacon Excerpta (added to Festus’s work), we read: Tablinum locus proximus atrio a tabulis appellatus (357). 72 While many scholars have described the tablinum a priori as a space for family archives, Flower (1995, 203-4) pointed out how ancient writers employ the terms codices, monimenta, and tabulae rationum to describe the official documents kept in the tablina, without specifically stating the presence of “family” records. Contra Flower’s suggestion, it could be argued that these writers mentioned only the official records simply because such archival material was tied to the subject matter of their descriptions and because they were the most important to underscore the householder’s status in Roman society. 73 Daremberg and Saglio 1892, II, 352; Flower 1996, 204. 74 Dion. Hal. 1.74.5. 44 It is also important to keep in mind that, like Varro, Pliny and Festus also briefly discuss the use of the tablinum in former times, as evidenced by their use of the imperfect tense (implebantur; habebant). These writers, therefore, do not appear to offer a contemporary picture of the tablinum. The question remains: did the tablinum still serve an archival function at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE? An analysis of the artifactual evidence uncovered during earlier excavations in 70 tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum does not show any evidence for family accounts. The artifactual records, therefore, do not support this notion of archival use for the tablinum, although this does not preclude this being an earlier use of such space (Appendix B). This kind of material, instead, has been usually found in rooms (often cubicula) on the upper floors of the house. 75 The discovery of cupboards, chests, and cabinets in the forecourt of houses has also led scholars to suggest that family records were possibly kept in the alae and then consulted in the tablinum. 76 No archival document, however, has ever been mentioned in ancient texts (nor has been discovered) as stored in containers displayed in the atrium quarter. 77 In the space labeled the “tablinum” in the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum, several papyri were found on the floor, or stored in capsae or on shelves. These papyri, however, were philosophical texts, and thus not related to familial and household activities. 78 75 For an analysis of the domestic spatial distribution of private archives at Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Camodeca 2000; 2009. 76 Richardson 1988, 389. 77 For a general discussion of chests and cupboards found in the forecourt of Pompeian houses and an analysis of their contents, see Allison 1999, 60-1. 78 Sider 2005; Camodeca 2009. In this “tablinum,” together with these papyri, excavators also recorded seven tabulae ceratae, one in fragmentary form, which were not deciphered and today are lost: Maiuri 1946, 373-76; Capasso 1990; Camodeca 2009, 26, n. 7 (with further bibliography). Capasso (1990, 85-6), believes them to be “polittici di bosso” written in Latin and possibly recording information on the papyri stored in the Villa. In the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum, earlier studies have identified the room set between the inner and outer peristyle as a “tablinum.” In my work, I retained the term, but I prefer to put it in quotation marks because of the difficulties inherent in “identifying” this type of space in villas. 45 Another important element to consider in Pliny’s passage (HN 35.2.6-7) is the description of the contents of the tablinum and the atrium. For Pliny, in particular, both spaces would have contributed to celebrating the householder and his family. 79 The records found in the tablinum, together with the portraits and trophies displayed in the atrium, would have enhanced the idea of this domestic area as a locus memoriae of the family: Aliter apud maiores in atriis haec erant, quae spectarentur; non signa externorum artificum nec aera aut marmora: expressi cera vultus singulis disponebantur armariis, ut essent imagines, quae comitarentur gentilicia funera, semperque defuncto aliquo totus aderat familiae eius qui umquam fuerat populus. Stemmata vero lineis discurrebant ad imagines pictas. Tabulina codicibus implebantur et monimentis rerum in magistratu gestarum. Aliae foris et circa limina animorum ingentium imagines erant adfixis hostium spoliis, quae nec emptori refigere liceret, triumphabantque etiam dominis mutatis aeternae domus. But at the time of our ancestors it was different and in the atria were displayed portraits to be looked at; not statues made by foreign artists, neither in bronze nor marble. Portraits made in wax were distributed each in a separate cupboard so that they could be carried in during the funeral processions of the family, and every member of the family who had died was always present. The painted portraits of ancestors were connected by lines to illustrate the family trees. The tabulina were filled with account-books and written memoirs of the things that magistrates did during their office. Outside and around the thresholds of their doors were other statues of great ancestors, and here were affixed the spoils of the enemy, which not even a purchaser of the house was allowed to displace; thus, the houses continued to triumph even if the masters were changed. The role of the tablinum in boosting the householder’s status is also found in Vitruvius’ treatise. Writing his De architectura in the second half of the first century BCE, Vitruvius first introduces the term tablinum in relation to the atrium, describing how the proportions, size, and height of the former should be determined according to those of the latter (6.3.5- 6): 79 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 388. 46 Tablinum, si latitudo atrii erit pedum viginti, dempta tertia eius spatio, reliquum tribuatur. Si erit ab pedibus XXX ad XL, ex atrii latitudine tablino dimidium tribuatur. Cum autem ab XL ad LX, latitudo dividatur in partes quinque, ex his duae tablino constituantur…Altitudo tablini ad trabem adiecta latitudinis octava constituantur. Lacunaria eius tertia latitudinis ad altitudinem adiecta extollantur. As for the tablinum, if the atrium’s width is 20 feet, take one third of this sum away and give the rest to the tablinum. If the atrium is from thirty to forty feet, half its width should be assigned to the tablinum. When it is from forty to sixty feet, its width should be divided into five parts, and of these, two should be given to the tablinum…The height of the tablinum to the beam should be one eighth part more than its width, the height of its coffering one third. Later in his treatise, Vitruvius addresses the suitability of private spaces according to the householder’s social and political standing. 80 At 6.5.1, we read: …qui communi sunt fortuna, non necessaria magnifica vestibula nec tabulina neque atria, quod in aliis officia praestant ambiundo neque ab aliis ambiuntur (“Those of moderate income do not need magnificent (magnifica) vestibula, tabulina, or atria because they perform their duties by visiting others rather than having others visiting them”). This passage led modern scholars to assume that the tablinum was connected somehow to the morning greeting salutatio (despite the fact that only the vestibulum and atrium are mentioned in ancient texts in relation to this formal ritual). 81 The salutatio, however, was not the only occasion in which a cliens would have entered the house of his patronus. The patronage system, indeed, entailed an exchange of officia and beneficia between a patron and his clients throughout the course of the day. Among the benefits that a client might have received from his patron was, for instance, an invitation to dinner. Depending on the 80 On the house as setting for the daily affairs of Roman aristocrats, see esp. Cic. Sull. 73; Dom. 115-16; Vitr. De arch. 6.5. See futher discussion in Wiseman 1987; Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 10-14; Nevett 1997; Treggiari 1998; 1999. 81 See supra n. 4. 47 relationship between a patron and his client, a dominus might have received an important client for dinner in his tablinum, whose layout, position, and decoration may have been well suited for such kinds of activity. 82 Other scholars have preferred to offer a wider interpretation of the tablinum as the place that belonged to the master of the house, independent of its relationship or lack thereof to the salutatio. Serving as the “main reception room” of the house, therefore, the tablinum would have been the space where the dominus conducted his business in general. 83 Such an interpretation is usually based on a mid-first century BCE passage by Cicero in his De oratore (3.133). Here, Cicero mentions how the great men in earlier times conducted their public duties both in the forum and in the house, seated on their chair (in solio sendentes domi): M'. vero Manilium nos etiam vidimus transverso ambulantem foro; quod erat insigne eum, qui id faceret facere civibus suis omnibus consilii sui copiam; ad quos olim et ita ambulantes et in solio sedentes domi sic adibatur, non solum ut de iure civili ad eos, verum etiam de filia collocanda, de fundo emendo, de agro colendo, de omni denique aut officio aut negotio referretur. We have certainly seen Manius Manilius walking across the forum; this was a notable sign that he put his wisdom at the benefit of all his fellow citizens; and in the old times, to them, both when they wandered through the forum and seated in their chair at home, people went to ask for advice not only on a question of law but also on the marriage of a daughter, on the purchase of a farm, on the cultivation of a field, in short, on any sort of liability or business. 82 From Quintus Cicero, we learn about three types of clients. The patron-client relationship involved a full range of social rituals and a series of officia/beneficia that also depended on the categories of patron’s clients. For a discussion of ancient Roman patronage, the different kinds of clients, and the system of officia and beneficia: Saller 1982; 1989; Wiseman 1982; Wallace-Hadrill 1990. 83 See supra n. 4. 48 Cicero speaks of the house in general, without offering any explicit description of a particular room where the dominus (seated on his solium), would have waited for his clients and conducted his business. 84 The ancient writer implies an important formal room and a chair where the dominus may have been seated, but he does not tie his statement to a specific space, which might have also depended on the prestige of the guest and the formality of the occasion. Such a tendency to treat unsubstantiated secondary sources as primary evidence in modern scholarship 85 is particularly clear in Ingrid Rowland and Thomas Howe’s description of the tablinum in their commentary to Vitruvius’ treatise. In the following quotation, for example, Rowland and Howe combined all the previous scholarly assumptions for this space, without pointing out the problems nor suggesting more than one possible reading of the ancient texts: “…The tablinum apparently began as the principal dining room of the domus, but its primary function came to be the usual place were the dominus of the house, seated, with his secretaries, and others, conducted the business of the morning salutatio with clients…The tablinum became little more than a passage to the garden peristyle but may still have functioned as the normal seat of the salutatio.” 86 84 For the display of the solium in the tablinum: Wallace-Hadrill 1989, 63; Carandini 1990, 98; Torelli 1990, 98; 2007, 134. Subsequently, Wallace-Hadrill (2015, 179) has posited a possible connection between the tablinum and the morning salutatio, at the same time briefly considering the ongoing and problematic debate on the social structure of the Roman atrium house: “The wide opening of the tablinum might indeed seems to be conceived with the morning salutatio, for putting on display the paterfamilias on his solium, visible to the crowd of clients even as they press through the door. The picture is a seductive one, and here too we need to exercise caution. The first caution is that it is by no means clear that this physical arrangement of space was generated by the practices of Roman aristocratic society.” 85 For a critique to such approach: Allison 2001, 187. 86 Rowland and Noble 1999, 256. 49 The situation, however, is more complex than what scholars have presented in the past. Indeed, while Vitruvius lists magnifica tablina among the rooms that people of a certain social status need to perform their social and cultural activities, his concern is more about the room’s appearance rather than with its possible uses. What Vitruvius’ passage seems to imply, instead, is that magnifica tablina (alongside magnifica vestibula and atria) were meant to enhance the social standing of an (elite) man. 87 Vitruvius’ focus is on the “public” and proper appearance of the tablinum in a house of a public figure, and not on the social and practical usage of this room. It is very probable that the tablinum was used during a series of activities related to the patronage system and the family’s needs in general. However, what clearly emerges in Vitruvius’ account is the attention to proper décor and treatment that certain rooms must receive because they are linked to the householder’s social duties. The ancient architect, indeed, refers to those rooms as magnifica, a term that would have quickly recalled in the mind of his contemporary readers the notion of what was considered admirable in the public sphere. Because it was meant to serve representative and practical needs, magnificentia was applied to the décor and appearance of Roman public buildings (although even here within certain limits). 88 The notion of magnificentia is here applied to the private sphere because the domus was the place where the householder fulfilled his political, social, and cultural needs. Such attention to magnificentia applied to the proper decoration/appearance of certain spaces found in the houses of men of standing is reiterated in a later passage (De arch. 6.5.2): 87 The association between well decorated tablina and men of a certain status is also seen in Apuleius (tabulina perpulchra). See infra with further discussion in this Chapter. 88 See, e.g., Vitruvius’s discussion of the right proportions of the forum (De arch. 5.1.2). 50 …nobilibus vero, qui honores magistratusque gerundo praestare debent officia civibus, faciunda sunt vestibula regalia alta, atria et peristylia amplissima, silvae ambulationesque laxiores ad decorem maiestatis perfectae; praeterea bybliothecas, pinacothecas, basilicas non dissimili modo quam publicorum operum magnificentia comparatas, quod in domibus eorum saepius et publica consilia et privata iudicia arbitriaque conficiuntur. …But for the nobles, who hold offices and magistracies, and have to serve the citizens, we must provide princely vestibules, lofty atria and spacious peristyle gardens, groves and broad avenues finished in a majestic style; and also libraries, pinacothecas, and basilicas that can be compared to the magnificence of public structures, because, in the houses of such men, public deliberations as well as private decisions and judgments are often accomplished. Vitruvius notes how the magnificentia seen in public spaces (publicorum operum magnificentia) can be applied to the houses of noble men and, in particular, to those rooms such as libraries, pinacothecas, and basilicas 89 because in these houses publica consilia et privata iudicia arbitriaque are held. 90 Here the tablinum is omitted among the list of “public” domestic spaces (i.e., vestibula, atria, peristylia) possibly because it is considered as part of the atrium quarter. 91 After all, Vitruvius’s remark is on the appearance (magnificence) and scale of the “atrium house,” not on its form. 92 To date, scholars engaged with the analysis of domestic spaces have been mainly interested in the tablinum itself and its association to vestibula and atria in relation to patronage rituals. Previous studies have also generally focused on the diffusion of luxury and extravagant living (luxuria) in the Roman domestic sphere, concentrating in particular 89 In the course of comparing several editions of the De architectura, I have noted that the word pinacothecas has sometimes been missing, a solution that might have depended on the manuscript tradition. For instance, the Latin term does not appear in the 1934 Loeb text (translated by Frank Granger) but it does appear in the 1899 Teubner edition (translated by Valentin Rose) as well as in TLL X.1.2151. To my knowledge, this issue has been overlooked by modern scholars. 90 On legal hearings inside the Roman house, see De Angelis 2010, 1-25; Bablitz 2015. On the symbolic and functional relationship between civic and domestic basilicas: Russell 2015. 91 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 386. 92 Wallace-Hadrill 2015, 180. 51 on moralizing ancient sources such as Cicero or Pliny the Elder. 93 The boundary between luxuria (something that is excessive) and magnificentia (something that is admirable) may have been very small, but it was still present and perceived in the ancient Roman world. Cicero, for instance, condemns the use of private luxuria, which is called magnificentia in the public sphere: odit populus Romanus privatam luxuriam, publicam magnificentiam diligit (Mur. 76). 94 He also attacks the passion for private extravagance among his contemporaries on several occasions. 95 Despite such a moralizing attitude, Cicero also admits that, to a certain extent, magnificentia is still allowed in the houses of public figures (like himself!) who must fulfill public and social needs: 96 cavendum autem est, praesertim si ipse aedifices, ne extra modum sumptu et magnificentia prodeas (Off. 1.140). 97 In Vitruvius’ treatise the notion of magnificentia is applied not only to public buildings but also to private ones. Because magnificentia is proper of public spaces (which aim to be representative), it can be also applied to the private spaces of men of standing who held a public role. 98 In sum, Vitruvius is concerned more with what is appropriate for a public figure and less with providing information about the social and practical uses of domestic 93 Weeber 2003; Leach 2004, 167-76; Wallace-Hadrill 1990; 2008, 316-55; Thirkell White 2014. 94 Similarly, see Vell Pat. 2.1.2 (publicamque magnificentiam secuta privata luxuria est). 95 Against private magnificentia: Cic. Leg. 2.62 and 2.66 (sepulcrorum magnificentiam); Tusc. 5.61 (magnificentiam aedium regiarum); 3.30 (magnificentia villae Tusculanae). 96 See also Russell 2016, 8-10. Cicero, indeed, owned several villas in Italy and even a house on the Palatine. 97 “But care must be taken, particularly if you are building yourself, not to overstep the proper measure in expense and magnificence.” 98 See Cic. Off. 1.138-39, which discusses how the house of elite men of standing should be planned according to the householder’s public duties. 52 spaces. 99 As a result, Vitruvius fully applies the notion of magnificentia (which was especially used in philosophical and rhetorical discourses) 100 to the art of building. 101 Vitruvius, who may have been influenced by rhetoricians like Cicero, describes buildings’ symmetry and proportionality, applying a full range of formulae and terms derived from the language of rhetoric, whose study was an integral part of the education of the Roman elite. The Vitruvian treatise, for instance, adopts terms such as uenustas, elegantia, dignitas, convenientia, and utilitas, and applies the rhetorical categories of ordinatio, dispositio, inventio, and memoria contemplated in rhetorical texts. 102 Furthermore, Vitruvius’s description of the wide training in multiple disciplines necessary for an architect recalls the educational program presented by Greek and Roman rhetoricians for orators. 103 99 In briefly discussing the setting for judicial proceedings within the Roman house, De Angelis (2010, 15) arrives at a similar conclusion for the inclusion of basilicas in domestic spaces as stated in Vitruvius (De arch. 6.6.2). According to De Angelis, “rather than having rooms specifically dedicated to judicial affairs–or to any kind of business, for that matter–what matters is the need for reproducing the maiestas and magnificentia of public spaces in the domestic environment…Thus, in the house, judicial activity did not condition the specific aspect of the architectural context, but interacted with it in a loose way, taking advantage of its connotations.” See also further discussion of this aspect in Bablitz 2015, esp. 64-5. 100 Cicero, for instance, describes magnificentia as an essential quality of orators and statesmen: Inv. rhet. II.163; Off. I.72. On magnificentia applied to private architecture in Cicero’s works, see supra n. 95. 101 For magnificentia applied to temples, see De arch. 1.2.6; 7.Pref.15. To basilicas, see De arch. 5.1.10. To traction machines, see De arch. 10.1.2 Among other contemporary authors concerned with both public and private magnificentia of buildings in general, see, e.g., Livy 5.24.6 (magnificentia publicorum privatorumque tectorum ac locorum). 102 See Rhet. Her., Cic. De or., and Quint. Inst. On Vitruvius’ use of terms such as uenustas and elegantia, see in particular Krostenko 2001. For Vitruvius’ association of the rhetorical terms ordinatio, inventio, dispositio, and memoria to the field of architecture, see esp. De arch. 1.1.4, 1.2.1-2, and 1.2.9: further discussion in Thomas 2014, esp. 46-52. 103 In Rome, the process of learning ancient rhetoric and oratory encompassed the study of several disciplines such as law, history, grammar, literature, and philosophy, as well as musical and mathematical studies (i.e., arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy): Quint. Inst. 1.4.5; 1.10.1-49; 12.2; 12.3; 12.4. On the wide training necessary for Roman orators, see also Cic. De or. 1.16; 1.72-3; 3.125. On the architect’s broad training in studies such as astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, music, and philosophy: Vitr. De arch. 1.1. Vitruvius admits to having received a complete and advanced education, spending a period of study in Athens (De arch. 6.pref.4). Studying abroad, especially in cities like Athens, was part of the third stage of Roman education (the rhetorical stage) of the elite. In these vibrant urban centers, young (and wealthy) students would have had the opportunity to listen and join in conversation with leading scholars, acquiring the skills necessary for their future careers. Roman rhetorical training, indeed, “was not just an acquisition of knowledge, but more generally a process of acculturation” (Habinek 2005, 61). 53 Vitruvius is concerned with both the aesthetic and ethical aspects of private and public buildings, and it is with this in mind that we should read his description of private spaces. Because magnificentia entailed not only an ethical but also an economic aspect, it was necessarily related to the cost of a structure, and thus linked to the social and political prestige of its benefactor, either a person or a community. 104 This economic aspect marked thin boundary between magnificentia (which is admirable and suitable) and luxuria (which exceeds the permitted limits). Vitruvius’ attention to the treatment of domestic rooms according to the householder’s social standing should not be a surprise considering the period in which he was living and the moralizing attacks of other authors toward the contemporary excess (luxuria) in the private sphere. 105 His treatise, furthermore, was dedicated to Augustus, whose own house blurred the distinction between “private” and “public,” and whose moral reforms banned lavish expenditure, encouraging Roman people to follow his example and live in more “modest” houses. 106 Beginning with Vitruvius, who speaks about magnifica tablina, the architectonical and decorative treatment of the tablinum could have been involved in a debate over what was appropriate or not to have in the house. Being usually a room directly visible from the street (if doors were left open), the tablinum allowed a glimpse through to the back of the 104 See, e.g., Roman attention to aqueducts and roads system (i.e., Agrippa’s water system embellished with statues and columns: Plin. HN 36.24.121). Examples of Roman public and magnificent buildings matching the grandeur of Rome are, for instance, the Forum of Augustus and the Basilica of Lucius Aemilius Paulus: Plin. HN 36.24.102. On the ethical and economic aspects of magnificentia, see Arist. Eth. Nic.; Cic. Inv. rhet. Excessive expenditure (magnificentia) was also inevitably criticized: Cic. Mur. 38; Plin. HN 36.16.36; 36.24.118. 105 Cicero, e.g., attacks Verre’s plunder of public artworks, which were taken to embellish his private estates: Ver. 2.4.1; 2.1.57; 2.2.83; 2.2.176. On ancient authors attacking specifically luxurious abodes, see Edwards 1993, 137-72. 106 On the “modest” living of Augustus, see Suet. Aug. 72.1; Cass. Dio 52, 35.1-2. 54 house. Considering the tablinum’s pivotal position, it is reasonable to assume that the dominus paid great attention to the architectural and decorative features of this room, an assumption that is supported by the archaeological evidence. 107 As we shall see more in the following chapters, indeed, the tablinum seems to have actively participated in the householder’s tactics of self-presentation. With the spread of wealth, therefore, it is possible to imagine how the tablinum might have been featured in moralizing discussions relating to private luxury. Such a hypothesis helps us to better understand two ancient passages which condemn the display of overly decorated tabulina and lacunaria (ceilings). I begin with an analysis of Apuleius’s Florida (23) followed by a spurious passage by Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae (2.1.11-12). The Florida is an anthology of orations delivered by Apuleius at Carthage in the second half of the second century CE. Born at Madauros (a Numidian colony in North Africa) around 120s CE, Apuleius studied at Carthage, Athens, and Rome, developing skills in Greek and Latin rhetoric and oratory. In his Florida 23, Apuleius mentions the association between tabulina perpulchra (especially splendid tabulina) and lacunaria auro oblita (gilded ceilings) in context of describing the house of a rich but sick man and discussing the uncertainty of fortune: Sicuti nauem bonam, fabre factam, bene intrinsecus compactam, extrinsecus eleganter depictam, mobili clauo, firmis rudentibus, procero malo, insigni carchesio, splendentibus uelis, postremo omnibus armamentis idoneis ad usum et 107 In discussing wall paintings from Rome and the Bay of Naples, Leach (2004, 211-14) remarks on the attention paid to the decoration of tablina. The tablinum, indeed, is generally among the most “nicely” decorated rooms within the house. See, e.g., the tablinum in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a), Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48), and Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.23,26) at Pompeii. For further discussion of the decoration of the tablina, see Chapter 4. 55 honestis ad contemplationem, eam nauem si aut gubernator non agat aut tempestas agat, ut facile cum illis egregiis instrumentis aut profunda hauserint aut scopuli comminuerint! Sed et medici cum intrauerint ad aegrum, uti uisant, nemo eorum, quod tabulina perpulchra in aedibus cernant et lacunaria auro oblita et gregatim pueros ac iuuenes eximia forma in cubiculo circa lectum stantis, aegrum iubet, uti sit animo bono sed, ubi iuxtim consedit, manum hominis prehendit, eam pertrectat, uenarum pulsum et momenta captat: si quid illic turbatum atque inconditum offendit, illi renuntiat male morbo haberi. diues ille cibo interdicitur; ea die in sua sibi copiosa domo panem non accipit, cum interea totum eius seruitium hilares sunt atque epulantur, neque in ea re quicquam efficit condicione. It’s like a good ship, made by expert hands, well-built inside, well painted on the outside, equipped with a rudder that moves freely, strong hawsers, a tall mast, an excellent mast top, shining sails, and, in short, every piece of equipment that may serve the use and please the eye. Imagine how easily that ship, if not a helmsman drives it or a tempest blows, will be swallowed in the abyss or shattered against the rocks together with its magnificent gear. Again, when doctors visit a sick person, none of them, just because he sees in the house splendid tabulina, gilded coffers (lacunaria), and crowds of beautiful boys and youths that stand in the bedchamber around his couch, urges the patient to take courage. Rather, after sitting at the man’s bedside, he takes his hand, feels it, examines the beat and force of the arterial pulsations and; if he finds any irregularity or disorder, he tells the patient that he is gripped by a serious illness. That wealthy man is forbidden the food, and on that day, in his opulent house, he does not receive a piece of bread meanwhile the whole servitude is happy and feasts. His condition is of no value in that circumstance. Modern commentators have offered different translations of this passage, usually basing their interpretations according to the Varronian or Plinian etymology of the term tab(u)linum. Thus, Apuleius’ tabulina perpulchra have been translated variously as: “exquisite balconies”; 108 handsome bookcases”; 109 “exquisite picture galleries”; 110 and “rich halls.” 111 108 Butler 1909, 212. 109 Gurney and Blachford Tighe 1914, 403. 110 Hilton 2006, 138. 111 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 392-93 (“lussuosi saloni”); La Rocca 2005, 93 (“splendide sale”), without further comments on the term tabulina. Cf. Lee (2005, 192) who, basing his assumption in part on the Italic plan of the Roman house, describes the tabulina as “a series of rooms separating the domus’ peristyle from the atrium: in a large house this could be expected to be very large.” 56 Among the scholars offering a study of the tablinum’s etymology and uses, Annamaria Zaccaria Ruggiu suggested that Apuleius used the word tabulina in general terms to indicate richly decorated halls (“lussuosi saloni”) because by the time that the North African writer was reflecting on the tablinum, the word had already lost its “original function and meaning.” 112 Furthermore, because the Italic axial disposition vestibulum-atrium-tablinum was never adopted in the Romano-African houses, Zaccaria Ruggiu claimed that Apuleius (or the Carthaginian who compiled Apuleius’ speeches in the Florida) was unaware of the original use of the tablinum, and was therefore unable to refer to the type of Italic atrium house. 113 A comparison between the Florida 23 and earlier philosophical works, however, allows for a different interpretation of Apuleius’ passage, suggesting how the ancient writer may have possibly relied on earlier moralizing rhetorical tropes in discussing his contemporaries. John Hilton, in particular, demonstrated how Apuleius was highly influenced by Stoic principles and made use of material found in the first century CE works by Seneca the Younger and Philo of Alexandria. 114 The rhetorical trope of an expensive ship that can be easily ruined by a storm, for instance, is also found in Seneca (Ep. mor. 76.13). Apuleius’ passage lacunaria auro oblita is also similar to Seneca’s words lacunaria auro gravia (Ep. mor. 90.9). The metaphor of a doctor visiting a sick and wealthy man, whose luxurious house is equipped with paintings, gold, and many attendants, furthermore, recalls a passage 112 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 392: “Certamente nel II sec. d.C. il significato e la funzione del tablinum si erano già persi, se Apuleio, nella raccolta delle sue conferenze, usa la parola per indicare genericamente dei lussuosi saloni.” 113 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 393. On domestic architecture in Roman North Africa, see Thébert 1987; Carucci 2007. 114 Hilton 2006. 57 found in the De providentia (2.17) written by the first-century CE Alexandrian philosopher Philo: …ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γάρ, ἐπειδάν τις εὐτυχὴς νοσήσῃ, κἂν ὁ μέγας ᾖ βασιλεύς, πάνθ᾿ ὑπερβάντες τὰ περίστωα, τοὺς ἀνδρῶνας, τὰς γυναικωνίτιδας, γραφάς, ἄργυρον, χρυσόν, ἄσημον, ἐπίσημον, ἐκπωμάτων ἢ ὑφασμάτων πλῆθος, τὸν ἄλλον τῶν βασιλέων ἀοίδιμον κόσμον, ἔτι δὲ τὸν οἰκετικὸν ὄχλον, καὶ τὴν φίλων ἢ συγγενῶν, ὑπηκόων τῶν ἐν τέλει θεραπείαν ἐάσαντες, [τῶν σωματοφυλάκων], ἄχρι τῆς εὐνῆς ἀφικόμενοι, καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα ἀλογήσαντες, οὔθ᾿ ὅτι κλίναι λιθοκόλλητοι καὶ ὁλόχρυσοι θαυμάσαντες, οὔθ᾿ ὅτι ἀραχνοϋφεῖς ἢ λίθῳ γεγραφημέναι στρωμναί, οὔθ᾿ ὅτι ἐσθημάτων ἰδέαι διάφοροι, προσέτι δὲ τὰς περὶ αὐτὸν χλαίνας ἀπαμφιάσαντες, ἅπτονται χειρῶν, καὶ τὰς φλέβας προσπιεζοῦντες ἀκριβοῦσι τοὺς παλμούς, εἰ σωτήριοι… …For those [physicians who give their attention to the body], when a man of success is sick, even if he be the great king himself, dismissing the peristyles, the men’s apartments, the women’s chambers, the pictures, the silver and the gold, whether uncoined or coined, the abundance of cups and textile works, and all the rest of celebrated ornaments proper of kings, and the multitude of servants, and the friends or relatives, and the subjects in high positions who are about his person [the bodyguards], they arrive to his bed, and pay no attention to what surrounds his body nor notice with admiration that his bed is inlaid with precious stones and with gold, and that his blanket is of the finest embroidery workmanship, or that the fashion of his cloth is exquisite, but they even take his garment off, and take hold of his hands, and press his veins, and feel his pulsations to see if they are healthy… According to Hilton, τὰ περίστωα, τοὺς ἀνδρῶνας, τὰς γυναικωνίτιδας, γραφάς would refer to Apuleius’ tabulina perpulchra in aedibus, which is translated by Hilton as “exquisite picture galleries in the houses,” while χρυσόν, ἄσημον, ἐπίσημον, to Apuleius’ lacunaria auro oblita (“gilded ceilings”). 115 Because of some differences between the Florida 23 and Philo’s De providential 2.17, Hilton concluded that Apuleius did not rely directly on Philo but was probably using another text on providence, now lost. Now, if we keep in mind the close parallels between Apuleius and Seneca the Younger’s works, it is reasonable to assume that the former writer was possibly relying on earlier tropes, in which the tablinum 115 Hilton 2006, 138. 58 was part of a larger discourse relating to moralizing attacks on private luxury. It is also important to note that, although the “traditional” plan of the Italic house was not adopted in Roman North Africa, Apuleius spent a period of his life studying in Rome as part of his educational training. Consequently, it is likely that Apuleius was aware of the tablinum in the Italic tradition. Apuleius’ passage, in my opinion, should not be taken as a direct reference to one of the contemporary houses that an ancient traveler would have seen in Carthage or in other Roman cities of North Africa, but rather be understood as an example of that process of “Romanization” that encompassed literature as well as material and visual art. In analyzing the use of the word “atria” in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (2.4), Alessandro Barchiesi has rightly pointed out how the ancient writer was less interested in describing the real appearance of domestic spaces in the Roman provinces and more concerned with earlier literary models, in particular, Ovid. 116 In his Metamorphoses (2.4), Apuleius describes the house of Byrrhena at Hypata (in Thessaly, Greece) as furnished with atria longe pulcherrima, despite the fact that the atrium is the typical (and first) element used by Vitruvius (De arch. 6.7.1) to describe what makes a Roman (Italic) house different from a Greek one. To clarify, this does not exclude the possibility that houses in Greece and Asia Minor in the Roman period sometimes did not feature/include an atrium. 117 What is important in Apuleius’ passage, however, is his choice of a domestic model that was quickly identifiable as “Roman.” As Barchiesi notes: “nella realtà quotidiana come 116 Barchiesi 2010. 117 For examples of Greek houses with atria in Roman colonies in Greece and Asia Minor, see Gros 2006, II, 214-30. 59 nell’immaginario, un atrium è un indicatore di identità culturale.” 118 After all, Ovid too described the Greek palace of Circe as furnished with prodigiosa atria (Met. 13.968) and covered in marble (Met. 14.260; 14.314). 119 “Atria” are therefore employed in Latin literature to underscore a process of Romanization. Interestingly enough, the word peristylium (an element that is so typical of the Greek and Romano-African house) never appears in Apuleius’ writings. 120 The elite readers of Apuleius would have understood such a connotation. Byrrhena’s rich house, therefore, would have been perceived as within a “Romanized” setting, by comparison with what one was expected to encounter in an idealized Greek world. 121 Such expediency may have amused the readers, equally as Florida 23 may have entertained its audience with its ironic description of the house of a sick but wealthy master. In conclusion, Apuleius’ audience was most probably composed of highly literate individuals, who even though they did not adopt the Italic tablinum in their own houses, would have probably known of it from Latin literature. Those individuals aware of this literary tradition would probably have known what the Italic tablinum was, while for others it could have just meant a richly decorated hall. Without knowing the full extent of the Latin corpus that was being circulated at the time, it is difficult to understand the situation. We may only postulate that the connection between exquisite tabulina and gilded lacunaria was 118 Barchiesi 2010, 200. 119 A comparison between the Metamorphoses of Ovid and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius further indicates how the latter writer was influenced by Ovid in the composition of his text: Barchiesi 2010. 120 Apulieus employs once the word porticus, which is the technical Latin term used by Pliny and Sidonius Apollinaris in the description of their villas. Both Pliny and Sidonius, furthermore, never mention the term peristylium, which appears rarely in Latin literature: Leach 2004, 34-40; Carucci 2007, especially 18-19. Cf., for instance, Martial (Epigr. 12.50), who condemns the luxurious and inhospitable quality of the house of one of his contemporaries by mentioning two kinds of areas that would have recalled in the mind of his reader the contemporary lifestyle: porticus and atrium. 121 Barchiesi 2010, 204. 60 already present in earlier moral philosophical works concerned with the spread of private luxury but that these works are unfortunately lost. A passage found in Seneca the Elder might support such a hypothesis. In his Controversiae (2.1.11-12), Seneca attacks the luxury found in contemporary abodes such as the large use of gold and precious stones to decorate ceilings, walls, and floors. This passage is unfortunately spurious and together with “laquearia et tablina” another translation has been offered by later lexicographers (“ruina et incendia”): 122 …Quid tandem est quod non divitiae corruperint? Primum, si inde incipere velis, aedes ipsas, quas in tantum extruxere ut, cum domus ad usum ac munimentum paratae sint, nunc periculo, non praesidio <sint>: tanta altitudo aedificiorum est tantaeque viarum angustiae ut neque adversus ignem praesidium nec ex ruinis ullam [villam] in partem effugium sit. Ad delicias dementis luxuriae lapis omnis eruitur, caeduntur ubique gentium silvae; aeris ferrique usus, iam auri quoque, in extruendis et decorandis domibus, nempe ut anxii et interdiu et nocte ruinam ignemque metuant; qui sive tectis iniectus est <sive> fortuitus, laquearia et tablina [or ‘ruina et incendia’] illa urbium excidia sunt… …What is there that riches have not corrupted? In the first place, if you want to begin from there, the houses themselves, which have been built so tall that though they are meant for use and protection, now they are source of danger and not security; such is the height of the buildings and the narrowness of the streets that there is no protection from a great fire nor escape anywhere from the collapsing buildings. Every stone is cut down to build the pleasures of insane luxury; forests are levelled everywhere throughout the world; copper and iron, and now gold as well, are used for building and decorating houses; that is to say, the householders fear fire and collapse all day and night. Whether a fire seizes on buildings by arson or accident, these ceilings and tablina [or ‘collapses and flames’] are the destructions of the cities. If we accept laquearia et tablina as the authentic reading, this passage might offer a valuable glimpse into the notion of tablinum used by ancient authors in condemning the 122 On laquearia et tablina: Kiessling 1872, 158-59; ruinae et incendia: Müller 1887, 112; Winterbottom 1974, 216. 61 spread of private luxury between the end of the Republic and the early Empire. By the Augustan period, as seen in Vitruvius, the tablinum, through its architectural and decorative treatment, was a room meant to enhance the householder’s identity. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that this room might have quickly become part of a larger discourse condemning private luxuria in decorating floors, walls, and roofs (lacunaria/laquearia) with gold and precious stones. 123 Gilded lacunaria, for instance, are often mentioned in attacks on private and excessive wealth. Apuleius, moreover, describes these tablina as perpulchra (“utterly beautiful”) thus accentuating the optical perception of these rooms. 124 It is not unlikely that the link between tablina and lacunaria (perhaps, already seen in Seneca the Elder) was also present in other contemporary works that are no longer extant. Eventually, bearing in mind not only the still uncertain etymology of the term tablinum but also the fact that we cannot be certain that Apulieus was using the word tabulina in more general terms (as “richly decorated halls”) or because he was influenced by formulaic passages found in earlier tropes in which the term tablinum was used in its original meaning, the Latin term tab[u]lina should be retained in translating these ancient texts. After Apuleius, the tablinum appears only in one other ancient literary source, but this time in a context completely different from the domestic one, since it is mentioned in the military treatise, De munitionibus castrorum, which describes Roman military camps. Attributed to Hyginus Gromaticus (sometimes, and here, also called Pseudo-Hyginus) and dated between the late first and mid-fourth century CE, this monograph was intended to be a theoretical and practical manual for Roman military surveyors, providing a detailed 123 Cf. the modesty of August’s house on the Palatine: Suet. Aug. 72-3. 124 The term perpulchra is composed by the adjective pulcher (-chra) “beautiful” and the prefix per used to intensify the optical experience. 62 description of the measurements and arrangements of the military units inside a camp. 125 The text presents a technical vocabulary encompassing both unknown terms and common words used in a new and peculiar sense. 126 Thus, as we have seen in Apuleius’ passage, even here modern lexicographers are not in agreement, offering different interpretation for the term tabulinum, which is translated as: “the long (and, at times, the short) side of a position”; 127 the “breadth” of an allotted area (in contrast to its “length” – signa); 128 “the space for tents” (in contrast to the signa as the “space for the standards”); 129 or “the space where the tabulae (archives) of the legions were kept” 130 thus, probably being confused with the tabularium legionis. De munitionibus castrorum (2-3; 31-32; 34): [2] Quod[si] legiones plures acceperimus et supplementa pauciora, ut necessarium sit cohortes circa vallum crebrius ponere, convertimus pedaturam: quod fuerit signis, tabulinum; [sig]num hemistrigii mutabimus ratione tensurae suae. Cuiusque generis subiecimus. Aliqua cohors CL, per CL solet adsignari, sed, in quantum fieri potest, devitari debet de eo, quod centuriae suo ordine tendere non poterunt et pedatura cohortis uno pariter nudabitur, sicut forma subiecta est. [3] Cohors prima causa signorum et aquilae intra viam sagulariam, et quoniam duplum numerum habet, duplam pedaturam accipiet, ut puta signis pedes CXX, tabulino pedes CCCLX, vel signis CLXXX, tabulino pedes CCXL, formae ratio, ut reliquae. Igitur si legiones impares, hoc est tres, acceptae fuerint, duae primae lateribus praetorii per rigorem viae sagularis tendere debebunt, alia in praetentura similiter per rigorem viae sagularis intrantibus portam praetoriam parte laeva; dextra cohors contraria tendat, ut possit exercitus combinatus educi... [31]…Nunc latus praetorii componamus et praetenturam similiter computemus, sicut retenturam fecimus ut sciamus cohortibus legionnariis quid tabulino vel signis dare debeamus. [32] Observare 125 Scholars do not agree on the manuscript’s dating: see Gilliver 1993a, 36-8 (with further reference). For a quick overview of the text, see Webster 1985, 170-72; Gilliver 1995b. On military treatises in general, see Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome 2010, 434-38, s.v. “Military Treatises” (Wheeler). 126 Lenoir 1979, xiv-xvi. Miller and DeVoto (1994, 63) note how both the terms tabulinum and signa (among many others in the military monography) “mean something quite different in Pseudo-Hyginus than they usually do.” 127 Gemoll 1879, 7; Miller and DeVoto 1994, 63, 68-9, 80-3. 128 Smith 1842, 205. 129 Marquardt 1892, I, 258; Gilliver 1993b, 37, 43. 130 Ursin 1881, 44; Grillone 1977, xx. 63 itaque debebimus ut, quotiens tres legiones cum supplementis acceptae fuerint, dimidia pars castrorum DCCXX pedes latitudinis habeat et lateribus castrorum cohortibus tabulino XC, signis CCXL pedes adsignemus ut deducto tabulino cohortium et latitudine viae sagularis, reliqui DC [centum] pedes supersint, ut alae miliariae in praetentura ad pedem tendant… [34] Nunc praetenturam ut componamus, numerum equitum alarium qui sunt reliqui computemus. Fiunt IIII milia, partis dimidiae II milia. Accipere debet ala miliaria signis pedes CL, tabulino pedes DC. Hac ratione pedes CL efficiunt hemistrigia <V>. [2] But if we get more legions and fewer supplementary troops, so that it will be necessary to place the cohorts more densely along the rampart, we will alter the site: what is assigned to the standards will be [assigned] to the tabulinum; we will not change the way of setting the tents in the hemistrigae. We have given below a plan of each of these types. Sometimes it is customary to assign an area of 150 by 150 [feet] to a cohort, but although this can be done, it should be avoided as the centuries can not camp their tents in the [usual] order and the location of the cohort will be left exposed on one side, as [shown] in the map below. [3] The first cohort, because of the standards and the eagles, and because it is of double strength, will camp along the via sangularis in a double allotted area, for example 120 feet for the standards, 360 for the tabulinum, or 180 feet for the standards, 240 feet for the tabulinum; the organization of the plan will be the same as for the rest of the cohorts. Therefore, if we have an odd number of legions, for example three, the first two will have to camp on the sides of the praetorium aligning themselves to the via sangularis; the other in the praetentura and similarly aligned with the via sangularis, on the left side as entering from the porta praetoria; one cohort camps on the right so that the army can leave in the usual order… [31] … Now we should organize the sides of the praetorium and calculate similarly the praetentura, like we did for the retentura so that we know what we should assign to the tabulinum and the standards of the legionary cohorts. [32] Therefore, we should note that when three legions with supplementary troops are to camp, half part of the camp is 720 feet wide and we assign to the cohorts on the sides of the camp 90 feet for the tabulinum and 250 for the standards, so that having deduct the space (tabulino) for the cohort and width for the via sagularis, it will remain 600 feet, and thus alae miliariae should camp in the praetentura area… [34] Now, to organize the praetentura, we calculate the number of remaining cavalry from the alae. They are 4000, and the half of that, 2000. An ala miliaria must receive 150 feet for the standards, 600 feet for the tabulinum. According to this method, 150 feet make 5 hemistrigia. How can we possibly explain the use of the word tabulinum in a military context? Among the scholars engaged with an analysis of the tablinum in ancient literary sources, Joaquim Marquardt, to my knowledge, is the only one to mention this passage. Starting with Varro’s description of the tablinum as a chamber named after a maenianum made by 64 planks (tabulis fabricatum), Marquardt suggests that in De munitionibus castrorum the term tabulinum would derive its name from the planks and should be intended as the space for tents. 131 Marquardt based his hypothesis on a description of tents found in Isidorus (Etym. 15.10.1), who describes the tents (cortinae) as being made of tabulae and funibus. 132 In this respect, it is important to note that all the other passages previously discussed present elite uses of the term. If we accept Marquardt’s explanation, therefore, we might have here evidence that by the time of Pseudo-Hyginus, part of Roman society was still thinking of tablina in terms of temporary structures made of planks. 133 Conclusion The vagueness of the extant ancient literary sources has led scholars to comment too summarily on the tablinum, which has been usually regarded as a room related to the patron-client relationship. Modern scholars have envisioned the tablinum as the visual focal point of a client entering the house of his master. Accordingly, in the tablinum the 131 As Marquardt notes (1892, I, 258), however, although this explanation is possible, the problem of the meaning of maenianum in Varro’s passage remains, as such term has different connotations. For Marquardt, Pseudo-Hyginus distinguishes between the measurement of a space for the camp of the army divisions in the side of the standards (signa) and the side for the tents (tabulinum): “…Comme opus figlinum est un travail de poterie, ainsi le tablinum est un assemblage de planches. C’est pourquoi Hygin (De mun. castr. 2-3 et 31- 34) distingue, dans la pedatura ou mesure de l’espace assigné au campement des divisions de l’armée, le côté des drapeaux (signa) et le côté des planches (tabulinum).” 132 Isid. Etym. 15.10.1: Tabernacula tentoria sunt militum, quibus in itinere solis ardores tempestatesque imbrium frigorisque iniurias vitant. Dicta autem tabernacula quod cortinae distentae funibus tabulis interstantibus adpenderentur, quae tentoria sustinerent. (“Tabernacula are the soldiers’ tents, with which they avoid the hit of the sun, as well as the rainstorms, and the injuries of the cold. They are called tabernacula because their curtains are stretched out and suspended by ropes from the planks standing between them which supports the tents”). 133 A similar parallel, for example, can be seen in the Latin word felix, which meant “fortunate” in elite Roman literature, although we know that it still retained the meaning of “productive” in an agricultural sense, for example being used adjectivally to describe fields yielding abundant crops. 65 dominus would have received his clients and conducted his business during the morning salutatio. Such an interpretation of the tablinum has been assumed by combining the analysis of archaeological evidence (e.g., the tablinum’s spatial position within the house) with the Vitruvian treatise about this room. Yet, as demonstrated, none of the extant textual sources ever mentions the use of the tablinum as the room where the master received his clients during the salutatio. While Vitruvius inserts the tablinum in the patron-client relationship, he never states that this was the place where the dominus sat and received his clientes, nor that the tablinum played a role in such formal morning ritual. The patronage system, furthermore, entailed an exchange of different sorts of officia and beneficia between a patron and his client that extended beyond the morning greeting. Invitations to dinner and free lodging, for instance, were only some of the benefits a client enjoyed from his patron who, in return, received social services such as support for his political career. What emerges from the words of Vitruvius, Seneca the Elder (if we accept the reading laquearia et tabulina), and Apuleius, instead, is special attention not so much to the social uses of the tablinum but to its appearance. These writers were undoubtedly concerned with the contemporary spread of luxury within the private sphere. However, while Vitruvius accepts demonstrations of extravagance (magnificentia) in the “public” rooms (e.g., magnifica vestibula tablina atria) of the house of political figures because it is apt to serve the dominus’ official needs, in Seneca the Elder and Apuleius the name tablinum seems to have acquired a different feature. Being associated with lavish and gilded lacunaria, tablina are used by both authors in a more general way to condemn the spread 66 of luxury within the domestic sphere. Such different attitudes towards tablina as well as private magnificentia might have depended on the changing historical circumstances, as an aristocrat could have been seen as trying to rival the imperial household. 134 In primary literary sources, we read about attention to the houses’ forecourt (i.e., the atrium quarter). Cicero, for instance, mentions how an empty spacious house would have been indicative of a lack of social prestige of its dweller. 135 Conscious of this sort of shame, the Latin orator makes sure to remark that his own house, on the contrary, is well filled with clientes or amici in the morning (bene completa domus est tempore matutino). 136 Vitruvius also describes how the sizes of the tablinum, alae and atrium should be proportional to each other and should be determined according to both their use and effect. 137 Thus, it is not surprising that an attack on the transgression of social norms in luxurious living concerned the house’s forecourt and, consequently, the tablinum because of its “public” nature and visible transparency. 138 Pliny (HN 36.6), for instance, criticizes Marcus Scaurus for decorating his atrium with large columns of Lucullan marble (“africano”), each 38 feet high (HN 36.6). 139 The ancient writer also tells us that the orator 134 Another similar example can be seen in the modification of the value of gloria, a traditional virtue of the Roman honor code which, at the time of the Principate, becomes increasingly restricted to the emperor, a few military commanders, and a few philosophers (who were placed in difficulty through claiming it): Habinek 2000. 135 Cic. Off. 1.139. 136 Ibid. Att. 1.18.1. 137 A similar concern regarding the appearance of buildings is also presented in the description of the forum, whose size should be adjusted to its audience so that it does not appear either too cramped or too empty: Vitr. De arch. 5.1.2. 138 Other rooms such as triclinia are also attacked by contemporary authors. However, being a room visible from the street even to people not invited to enter the house, the tablinum might have been subjected to a particular attention by the householder (and, consequently, the community). 139 Asconius speaks of “four marble columns of large size” (Commentary on Cicero, Pro Scauro 27), informing us of the number of columns reused by Scaurus for his atrium. For a possible reconstruction of this atrium, see Coarelli 1989, 182, fig. 1. For further discussion of the Theater of Marcellus’ columns and the house of Scaurus, see Davison 2000, 131-54. 67 Lucius Crassus was the first to adorn his Palatine house with six foreign marble columns from the Mt. Hymettus quarries near Athens, for which reason he gained the nickname of “Palatine Venus” (HN 36.7-8). These columns were probably displayed in his atrium, as suggested by Pliny’s comparison between the atria of his contemporaries and the ones of former times decorated with large marble columns (quis enim hodie tantarum columnarum atrium habet?). In condemning the extravagant living of the emperors Caligula and Nero, Suetonius not only lists the artificiality and expenditure of their town houses, which were furnished with lavish decorative materials, but also criticizes the vestibulum of their abodes. Caligula, for instance, would have stretched the boundaries of his house (Domus Gai) on the northwest corner of the Palatine to the Forum, turning the temple of the Castors into his own vestibule (aedes Castoris et Pollucis in vestibulum transfigurata), and thus transgressing the boundary between sacred and secular. 140 The vestibulum of Nero’s Domus Aurea, instead, was large enough to contain a colossal statue of the emperor himself. Such a vestibule was not only ample but also extended through a triple colonnade a mile long to a lake surrounded by country features, thus stretching the natural and cultural boundaries between urban and country life. 141 In this respect, the tablinum, being directly visible from the street by passersby, might have also become a room easily associated with such private excess, and thus used in broader terms in texts attacking private luxuria. 140 Suet. Cal. 22.2-4; Cass. Dio 59.28.5. 141 Suet. Ner. 31.1. For a discussion of ancient criticism toward luxurious buildings and their transgression of “natural order,” see Edwards 1993, esp. 143-50. Recently, on Nero’s Domus Aurea: Fertik 2015, esp. 24 on the vestibule. 68 Eventually, what the ancient writers confirm is that the tablinum was among those rooms participating in the orchestration for the householder’s self-presentation. The analysis of the archaeological evidence in the following chapters will further address this aspect, at the same time revealing how the tablinum was designed to perform different practical and social rituals according to the family’s needs. 69 Chapter 2: The Tablinum in its Spatial Dimension: A Versatile Space It has been customary among scholars to discuss the Vitruvian plan of the atrium house recognized in the domus at Pompeii and Herculaneum in regard to its front and rear portions, the former being centered around the atrium and the latter around the peristyle garden or viridarium. In regard to these dual dimensions, scholars have envisioned “public” and “private” domestic areas according to Vitruvius’ description (De arch. 6.5.1) of spaces accessible to people without an invitation (the communia [loca] cum extraneis, which are vestibula, cava aedium, peristylia and other rooms of similar use – quaeque eundem habere possunt usum), and spaces accessible to visitors only by invitation (the propria loca patribus familiarum, namely cubicula, triclinia, balneae and other rooms serving similar purposes – ceteraque, quae easdem habent usus rationes): …tunc etiam animadvertendum est, quibus rationibus privatis aedificiis propria loca patribus familiarum et quemadmodum communia cum extraneis aedificari debeant. Namque ex his quae propria sunt, in ea non est potestas omnibus intro eundi nisi invitatis, quemadmodum sunt cubicula, triclinia, balneae ceteraque, quae easdem habent usus rationes. Communia autem sunt, quibus etiam invocati suo iure de populo possunt venire, id est vestibula, cava aedium, peristylia, quaeque eundem habere possunt usum. …Then we also must turn our attention to how, in private buildings, the rooms for the family and the rooms shared with visitors should be built. Indeed, in the private rooms, such as cubicula, triclinia, baths and others of similar use, nobody enters into without being invited. In the public ones, on the other hand, vestibula, cava aedium, peristyles and any other room with similar purpose, even uninvited members of the people can gain access. 70 The discussion about how to define “public” and “private” in the ancient Roman world has been debated in modern scholarship. 142 The categories of “public” and “private” in the ancient Roman (and Greek) world, however, did not stand in opposition to each other but often intersected and overlapped. 143 As discussed in Chapter 1 with regard to elite domestic architecture, Vitruvius (De arch. 6.5.1-2) remarks on the proper appearance of such spaces, which should reproduce the magnificentia and maiestas of public structures. In this sense, the Roman house can be considered as a “semi-public” building (or a private residence with a “public face”) because it was not simply a residential space but was also meant to provide a site for business, political, and legal transactions. 144 142 The bibliography on the “public” and “private” facets of the Roman house is vast. In my work, I have relied especially on: Coarelli 1981; Thébert 1987; 1993; Wiseman 1987; Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 1994; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a; Dickmann 1997; 1999; Grahame 1997; Riggsby 1997; Treggiari 1998; Hales 2003; Anguissola 2010; Sewell 2010; Tuori and Nissen 2015. Today, scholars agree that both English terms, especially in regard to architecture, do not perfectly apply to the ancient notion of privacy and communality since Romans did not consider a space “private” or “public” in the way we do today. This conclusion, however, does not imply that Romans did not distinguish between private and public architecture: see, e.g., Vitr. De arch. 1.3.1, 1.7.1, 2.Pref.5, 2.3.3, 2.8.9; Quint. Inst. 11.2.21. According to Vitruvius (De arch. 1.3.1), for instance: Aedificatio autem divisa est bipertito, e quibus una est moenium et communium operum in publicis locis conlocatio, altera est privatorum aedificiorum explicatio. (“Building is divided in two parts: one is about the edification of walls and public buildings in public sites, the other concerns the construction of private buildings.”). The Roman distinction between these two types of aedificatio (the public and the private) related to the extent to which a building pertained to the res publica. Thus, particularly with reference to domestic spaces, while the English term “private” suggests an aspect related to the family nucleus, the Latin privatus defines anything that is not owned and controlled by the “state” (the res publica, intended not as an abstract concept but literally as “the common weal,” that is, something concerning everyone). Privatus, therefore, would be any kind of property managed by a person, a private individual or a family (hence, the notion of res privata). On the concept of res publica, see New Pauly, Antiquity 12: 504-6, s.v. “Res publica” (H. Galsterer). 143 For a brief discussion of the notions of “private” and “public” in ancient Greece and Rome, see New Pauly, Antiquity 11: 878-81, s.v. “Private sphere and public sphere” (C. Höcker). In the houses of Classical Greece, the concept of “private” and “public” is discussed in dialogue with internal segregation: see, e.g., the andron, a room for male activities related to hospitality and positioned away from the interior of the house. On domestic architecture in the Greek world, see Nevett 1999; Cahill 2002; Ault and Nevett 2005. 144 Vitruvius not only describes the décor of elite private homes with terms proper to public buildings (i.e., presenting an aura of public magnificence), but also notes how in these abodes both public deliberations and private affairs took place (publica consilia et privata iudicia arbitriaque conficiuntur; De arch. 6.5.2). On private and public affairs conducted at home, see also Cic. Planc. 66.17-18. 71 In recent years, however, several scholars – notably Kate Cooper – have started to argue against the suitability of such English modern words as “public” and “private” in discussing ancient Roman domestic activities. 145 They assert that such terms are anachronistic and that their use ultimately leads to misunderstandings about the ancient Roman world. They point out that the Roman house had to appear “open” and “visible” to enhance the householder’s authority and stature while simultaneously having strictly controlled access. 146 Slaves in charge of doors and curtains (e.g., ianitores and ostiari) would have controlled both entrance and visibility. 147 According to Cooper, therefore, the dichotomy of communia / propria loca should not be addressed in terms of “public” and “private,” but in terms of “accessibility,” “visibility,” and “exposure.” For Cooper, these terms are better suited to defining ancient Roman domestic spaces and activities. 148 In my opinion, while the notions of accessibility and visibility certainly contribute to an understanding of Roman domestic spaces, the words “public” and “private,” which have been long applied and are still currently in use in the archaeological vocabulary, should not be dismissed in discussing the domestic environment and its range of activities. The Roman house, indeed, was a “semi-public” structure not in regard to its accessibility but in terms of its social function. In his house, an elite Roman performed duties pertaining to 145 Among the scholars dissatisfied with the discussion of the Roman domestic realm in terms of “private” and “public,” see Cooper 2007; Hilder 2015; Speksnijder 2015. 146 Romans’ interest in the visibility of their domus is amply testified in Latin literature: Cicero, for instance, notes how his house was built in a location that was visible from almost the entire city (Dom. 100: in conspectu prope totius urbis domus est mea). Velleius Paterculus, furthermore, tells us of a conversation between Livius Drusus and his architect in regard to the construction of the politician’s house on the Palatine. According to the ancient writer, when the architect suggested building the house on a site away from the public gaze and scrutiny, Drusus replied how his domus should be seen by everyone (Vell. Pat. II.14.3: ... si quid in te artis est, ita compone domum meam, ut quidquid agam, ab omnibus perspici possit). 147 Ancient authors often remark on the openness of the aristocratic house, whose doors were closed only in times of mourning: see Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 46 n. 12 for a list of Latin passages. 148 Cooper 2007. 72 the public sphere. In addition to the patronal practice and system of reciprocal beneficia (mutual services) and officia (obligations) among a patron and his clients, elite houses were also sites for small hearings. 149 In such domestic environments, political, social, economic, and legal transactions were maintained and mediated. 150 In considering the multifunctional character of the domus, therefore, the terms “public” and “private” can still be employed, all the while understanding that domestic spaces were fluid, adaptable, and flexible entities. Hence, spaces regarded as “public” could have also served more “private” needs, and vice versa. The peristyle garden, for instance, was an area serving both “private” and “public” uses because visitors could have been received here both for dining and entertainment purposes, as well as for educational and juridical activities. 151 Because Romans defined the concepts of “private” and “public” in fluid ways, 152 it is acceptable to discuss domestic spaces according to their different degrees of private and public. Within this framework, how should we consider the tablinum? Typically described as a broad room, set at the far end of the atrium and opened widely onto it, the tablinum has been generally considered by modern scholars as part of the “public” area of the house and, in particular, as an extension of the atrium quarter for activities mainly related to the paterfamilias’ needs (i.e., as master’s study and space for 149 De Angelis 2010, 14-17, (esp. n. 43 with bibliography); Bablitz 2015. See also supra n. 144. 150 Saller 1982; Wallace-Hadrill 1989. 151 Simelius 2015, 2018 (esp. 63-5 with bibliography). 152 Such malleable concepts of private and public in the ancient Roman world did not concern only the domestic setting but also the meeting point par excellence: the forum. Before describing the architectural arrangements of this public space, for instance, Vitruvius (De arch. 5.Pref.5) notes how the forum is the place for both public and private business (publicarum et privatarum rerum rationes). On the connection between house and forum in terms of both physical arrangements and activities: Mau 1899; Wallace-Hadrill 1989, 63-4; Treggiari 1997; Russell 2016. Forum and house could also be places of memory, reflecting political achievements: Flower 1996, 185-222; Hales 2003, 40-60; Russell 2016, 60. For a discussion of honorific statues set both in the forum and in the house, see Pliny HN 34.17. 73 receiving clientes during their morning visits). 153 Unlike any other room, however, the tablinum as it appears in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum usually opens up widely not only towards the front but also towards the back of the house. It thus functioned as a sort of “hinge” between the two domestic portions of the atrium and the garden. For this reason, the tablinum has been also regarded as a “transitional area” between the front and back but has still mainly been discussed in regard to the frontal, or “public,” part of the house. 154 How this space stood architecturally and decoratively in relation to the rest of the house, especially to the back section, has received less attention in modern scholarship. By looking at the tablinum’s spatial location, its boundaries (both permeable and permanent), and contextualized artifacts, I describe the tablinum as a versatile space, suited to serve a range of activities in response to the practical, intimate, as well as social needs of the family members. The adaptable character of this room, in particular, depended on the ways in which it was oriented. In this chapter, therefore, I will discuss the forms and types of boundaries employed to regulate the tablinum’s visual and physical access to closed and open areas. As we shall see, starting as a room with a wide opening onto the atrium, by the first century CE the tablinum undergoes some structural changes, such as a restriction of its threshold toward its front entrance. This gradual frontal closure and development of the tablinum into a more “defined” area indicates how this space 153 Richardson 1988, 388; Dwyer 1991, 27; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 387-88; Flower 1996, 203; Hales 2003, 107-8; Anguissola 2010, 314. 154 In a brief discussion of the tablinum’s etymology and evolution, for instance, Wallace-Hadrill (2015, 179) notes that: “it becomes hard to say whether it is a distinct room or merely an extension to the space of the atrium itself.” For the tablinum eventually becoming a passageway between the front and back of the house, see also Dickmann 1999, 154; Romizzi 2007, 369; as well as further discussion in the text. 74 eventually becomes distinct from the atrium’s quarter. The results demonstrate how the tablinum was a highly flexible space whose visual and physical access could be manipulated and controlled through different types of physical and visual barriers according to the daily and seasonal needs of the family. Form and Type of Tablinum’s Boundaries The Roman house has long been addressed in terms of a “visually transparent” and “empty” space. 155 In the last few decades, however, scholars have started to pay attention to the role played by boundaries in controlling the visual access and movement within the domestic environment. 156 Potential boundaries such as doors, partitions, 157 and curtains, which are no longer extant today, were ubiquitous in the house and contributed to restriction and manipulation of the sight of, and access to, spaces. One important factor to better understand the uses of the tablinum, therefore, is to look at the ways in which this room could have been visually and physically isolated from the front and back portions of the house. In my survey of 172 tablina, 112 tablina (65%) appear to be open and accessible from both their front and back sides. When open onto the back, the tablinum usually gave access to the peristyle garden or viridarium behind it. An additional 30 tablina (18%) are 155 On the “visual transparency” of the Roman house: Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 44-5. Cf. the notion of the “empty house paradigm” in Lauritsen 2011, 59; 2013, 95. 156 On domestic doorways and thresholds in Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Ivanoff 1859; Hori 1992; Lauritsen 2011; 2013; 2015; Proudfoot 2013; Berry 2016. 157 For the definition of “partition” in domestic spaces at Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Lauritsen 2013, 99. 75 partially blocked at the rear by a small or large window (i.e., “picture window”), which blocked the physical passage but still gave visual access to the area (usually a garden) located at the back of the tablinum. 158 In 30 instances, the tablinum’s back side appears completely closed, usually because the 79CE house did not continue behind it (in the case of 16 tablina) or because behind the tablinum were other service or hospitality rooms (as is the case with 10 tablina). 159 Hence, within my survey, there are only four cases in which the tablinum’s back side appears completely closed off despite the location of a garden directly behind it. 160 In general, the tablinum appears as an open space in its full width towards the front and back portions of the house. Its accessibility and visibility, however, were controlled by different types of boundaries which allowed the tablinum to turn into a more intimate and secluded space from both the atrium and the garden area behind at certain times of the day. Three different types of boundaries were employed to control and regulate the sight of and access to the tablinum: curtains, partitions, and doors. 161 All of the three types can be considered “permeable” boundaries. Partitions and doors, however, are “more permanent” (i.e., solid) forms of barriers and are harder to manipulate compared with a more flexible fabric alternative. In my study, therefore, I refer to curtains as “insubstantial” boundaries 158 This number does not include houses such as the Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7) in which the tablinum, despite having a large window looking onto the garden, also presents a door granting the access to the back area. 159 In the case of the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7), for instance, the tablinum still gave access to the lateral peristyle garden through a lateral door while its back wall was closed, as there was a cubiculum behind. For information on the 172 tablina’s spatial and architectural arrangements, see Appendix A. 160 These tablina (all at Pompeii) are found in the following houses: Casa di Epidius Fortunatus (I.3.3); house VI.15.6; Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25,47); house VII.2.51. 161 Walls and large windows (so-called “picture windows”) were employed too, especially to separate the tablinum from the back area. In the latter case, the visual access could have been regulated by screens of wood or glass. For the presence of glass doors in domestic spaces, see Plin. Ep. 2.17.4-5; 2.17.21; 5.6.19; 5.6.29. 76 and to partitions and doors as “solid” boundaries. The physical and visual access to the tablinum from the atrium was regulated by any of them. When fully opened on the garden area (i.e., without a wall or a window to block the movement and/or sight), the tablinum’s rear side was regulated only by means of doors (usually valvae, that is, three or four-leaf folding doors). 162 Due to the nature of the archaeological evidence, in most of the cases it has not been possible to understand the type of boundaries that regulated a tablinum’s frontal doorway. Most of the tablina now lack their lintel and frontal threshold, which might have shown evidence for metal hinges, cuts or pivots signaling, for instance, the presence of a door. The presence of “solid” boundaries like partitions and doors, furthermore, does not imply that curtains were not also employed at the same time. The reading of the artifactual record provides some information on the spatial distribution of curtains, which are more difficult to identify because they leave fewer marks on the standing architecture and because the material of the curtains themselves has not survived. 163 Despite the limitations and difficulties in detecting the type of boundary that screened the frontal threshold of the tablinum, my survey illustrates how this room gradually starts to close off more permanently toward the atrium area in the first century CE, as demonstrated by the structural restrictions of its front opening. Such masonry restrictions attest to a marked separation of the tablinum from the atrium quarter by the 79 CE. This 162 See also Dickmann 1999, 153-54. To my knowledge, the only “tablinum” closed at the rear by means of curtains is the one found in the Villa dei Misteri at Pompeii. Here, a complete curtain rod with hanging rods is still preserved in situ outside the room, framing the view from the panorama behind. Because of the different social and cultural meanings of residences built outside the urban context, however, my work only encompasses the analysis of houses within the city walls. 163 In the excavation reports, for instance, we read sometimes about the discovery of bronze tiebacks for curtains. See further discussion in the text. 77 feature might have also affected the type of boundary used now to screen the tablinum’s frontal doorway (i.e., a preference for doors which are more difficult to manipulate compared with curtains). However, given the fact that it is not possible to establish if a type of boundary was adopted first chronologically or if one eventually replaces another, and given that there is evidence of both types being used simultaneously, I start with an analysis of the less durable boundaries, followed by more solid ones as well as structural alterations. “Insubstantial” Boundaries: Curtains The use of curtains and draperies (vela, cortinae, and aulaea), which often appear in Roman visual and material art, may have been quite widespread in Roman architecture. In comparison with the “solid” (i.e., durable) boundaries such as doors and partitions, the presence of textile hangings is harder to detect not only because of their perishable nature but also because such “soft” furnishings rarely leave marks on the standing architecture. 164 The reading of artifactual records, consequently, helps to detect evidence for textile screening. Bronze tiebacks in the shape of ship prows ending with bull figures, for instance, were discovered in the frontal jambs of the tablinum in the Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX.14.2-4; Fig. 2.1) 165 and in the Casa del Citarista (I.4.5,25) 166 at Pompeii. Other 164 The bar attached to the lintel to support curtains would have left marks in the wall. Because most of the tablina at Pompeii are today unroofed, while those at Herculaneum often have their ceiling reconstructed, it can be difficult to detect these sorts of holes. 165 A total of four bronze disks were found at the entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX.14.2,4): two larger bosses with bull and ship’s prow were found in the eastern jamb fronting the main atrium, and two smaller bosses were located in the same jamb, but on an internal position. See Sogliano NSc 1905, 254-55, fig. 7. 78 ornamental bronze bosses with similar ship prows (but without the figure of a bull) were also found at the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo at Herculaneum (V.11-12) and were probably used to tie back curtains screening the doorway between the atrium and the tablinum. 167 The discovery of a pair of bronze discs with protruding ship bows at the doorway between the atrium and tablinum of the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento at Pompeii (V.2.1) also led archaeologists to hypothesize that this space was screened by means of curtains or, less likely, of a wooden partition. 168 Alongside the reading of archival material, the evidence for metal fittings as well as the lack of cuts in thresholds and door jambs (which testify to the existence of doors and partitions), provide insight into the spatial distribution of curtains. 169 The presence of “solid” boundaries, however, does not rule out the possibility that textile hangings were also employed at the same time. 170 Doors and partitions, indeed, could have been embellished with decorative bronze fittings and rich textiles. The well-known carbonized wooden partition found in the Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (III.11-12) at Herculaneum, for instance, was characterized by two sets of bifores (double doors), one on each side of 166 BullArchNap. VII, 12 febbraio 1859 (aprile 1859), 92-3. See also Dwyer 1982, 87, fig. 126; Pesando 1997, 34. 167 Maiuri GSE, 1 ottobre 1938; 1958, 248, fig. 194. 168 These tiebacks were found still fixed to the frontal jambs of the tablinum and placed at about 2 meters above the floor level: Sogliano NSc 1892, 274; NSc, 1896, 424; Mau 1899, 250, 298; RM 8 1893, 33. The tablinum’s rear was closed by a quadrivalve door: see, i.e., the discovery of two wings ajar with a block lock and the plaster cast of the door made by early archaeologists (Sogliano NSc 1892, 238-39; NSc 1896, 427). On the boundaries of this tablinum, see also Pesando 1997, 65 n. 107; Proudfoot 2013, 93; Berry 2017, 132 n. 33. 169 The lack of marks left by cuts, metal hinges, and pivots on thresholds, however, does not imply that any room without signs of doors or partitions was screened by means of a curtain: Lauritsen 2013, 103. 170 The tablinum/oecus in the Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2) at Herculaneum, for instance, had the lateral doorways closed by single-leaf doors while the central and larger opening had both a curtain and a wooden screening, the former indicated by the cuts to sustain the curtain rod over the tablinum’s doorway, the latter by a cavity that the wooden screen left in the plaster. For the screening of this central opening, see Pesando and Guidobaldi (2006a, 203, 217), who suggest only the use of curtains, and Maiuri (1958, I, 289), who believes that the middle doorway was only screened by a partition. 79 the tablinum’s entrance, decorated with bronze fittings for holding lamps and handles for ease of opening (Fig. 2.2). 171 As shown reconstructed in an early photograph, a curtain was probably hung in the central part to block access and lines of sight at certain times of the day (Fig. 2.3). 172 Today the tablinum in the Casa del Tramezzo di Legno appears partially visible from the street, the curtain hung by early excavators having being removed. Such a partial view onto the tablinum (and the area behind) has also influenced the ways in which scholars have today reconstructed the possible presence of wooden partitions in other abodes at Pompeii and Herculaneum. In studying the various types of ancient domestic boundaries in a sample of houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum, Taylor Lauritsen relied on the current appearance of this carbonized partition to reproduce the wooden structure that would have partially blocked the view of other tablina (such as, for instance, the partition that was once located at the doorway between the atrium and tablinum of the Casa del Menandro at Pompeii [I.10.4]). 173 Alongside their function to subdivide rooms and screen doorways, curtains were also hung between the columns of atria and peristyle gardens to provide shade or protect the 171 Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 203; De Carolis 2007, 33. 172 The photograph was taken in 1930 and is located at the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, inv. no. LC Italy, Herculaneum C 13. Scholars are still debating on the appearance and make up of this partition. According to Maiuri (1958, 213), Lauritsen (2013, 99-100), and Guidobaldi et al. (2014, 171), the central part of the partition was probably occupied by another wooden door today lost. Cf. Esposito (2014, 65), who suggests that the central opening was left empty so that the partition would have only partially screened the view. To my knowledge, no scholars have ever proposed the possibility of a curtain to screen the central opening, as is shown in this early photograph. It may also have been possible that both a wooden screen and a curtain were used to regulate the central opening, as was probably in the case with the Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (see supra n. 170). 173 Lauritsen 2013, 111, fig. 8. Although Lauritsen (2013, 100) notes that it is impossible to know whether there were other types of partitions different from the only example found at Herculaneum, he does not take in consideration the use of curtains in screening the central aperture flanking the wooden doorways. 80 corridors against rain and wind. 174 Despite their ephemeral nature, hanging textiles were complementary to other types of fixed boundaries, helping to regulate, channel, and limit visual and practical access within the house. Unfortunately, the remains of textiles at Herculaneum and Pompeii are still in need of a study that could inform us about the type of items from which they derive (i.e., cloth or soft furnishing). 175 As Kenneth Lapatin has noted, “most ancient textiles seem to have been produced as rectangles, and thus could serve flexibly as garments, hangings, or coverlets.” 176 Thus far, while scholars have mostly focused on the analysis of domestic textiles from late antiquity, the study of curtains and hangings produced and attested in Italy during the late Republican and early Imperial period has received less attention. 177 Information on the appearance of curtains and their usage in this period derives especially from artistic and literary evidence. The walls of the two outer chambers of the Republican four-cellae Sanctuary at Brescia (dating to the first half of the first century BCE), for instance, feature Second Style paintings 174 Pliny (H.N. 19.6.24) tells us about the use of red curtains to protect the moss that grows from the sunlight in the inner courts of the house ([vela] ubent in cavis aedium et muscum ab sole defendant). For curtains in atria, see also Ovid Met. 10.588-96. For curtains in porticos, see, e.g., the fresco painted on the eastern wall of the tablinum in the Casa del Poeta Tragico (MANN, inv. no. 9027: Bragantini 2009, 334-35, cat. no. 150). Hooks to suspend curtains have been found, e.g., in the peristyle gardens of the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento (V.2.i) and Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) at Pompeii: see Leach 2004, 180 n. 98 (with bibliography). 175 These textiles are not currently on public display. According to Luisa Melillo, Director of the Conservation Department at the MANN, none of these fabric remains appears to have belonged to curtains: (pers. conv. with Melillo, 11/2017). Because usually textiles are preserved in fragmentary form, their original function often remains inconclusive: Wild 1979; Stephenson 2014, 12. In addressing the textile evidence dated around ca. 100 CE at Vindolanda, a Roman fort in northern Britain, Wild (1979, 19) concludes how “the textiles were all rags, few more than 10cm square and many with signs of considerable wear. It is not usually possible to guess from what items of clothing or soft furnishing they were derived.” Similar problems associated with identifying the use of ancient textile, albeit this time from the period of late antiquity in Roman Egypt, is also addressed by Stephenson (2014, 12). 176 Lapatin 2015, 190. 177 See Osborne 1992, esp. 321-24; Stephenson 2014 (with bibliography). The focus on domestic soft furnishings has usually related to Roman provinces and/or been addressed in scattered studies: Wild 1979; Thébert 1987; Schrenk 2004, 2006; De Moor and Fluck 2009; Stephenson 2006, 2014; Lapatin 2015. For a brief discussion of hanging curtains in the houses of Roman Italy, see Leach 2004, 180-84; Lauritsen 2013, 101-3. 81 depicting on the socle decorated curtains hanging from a metal rod (Fig. 2.4). 178 Most of the documented examples, however, come especially from Campania. Several wall paintings from the Vesuvian cities show evidence for the different types of textile furnishing (such as rugs, cushions, table linens, and curtains) that would have embellished the domestic setting. 179 In these frescoes, the fabrics appear richly decorated with bright colors and sometimes intricate motifs and embroidered borders, as seen, for instance, in the recently excavated Villa Marittima Romana at Positano (Fig 2.5). 180 As Eleanor Leach has rightly pointed out, “that such simulated fabric coverings had real-life counterparts in decorative custom cannot be doubted. That they belonged within an elevated category of luxury is also unquestionable.” 181 Textile hangings, therefore, were valuable display materials and may be placed in the category of conspicuous consumption. As with the display of frescoes, mosaics, and 178 On this Sanctuary and its decoration: Moormann 2001, 59-60 (with bibliography). Moormann (2001, 59) notes how such fictive drapery might have imitated the real wall-covering textiles, although “no remains of real fabric in temples or other buildings are known.” Curtains appear in the socles of First and especially Second Style wall paintings. See, e.g., the Hellenistic houses at Centuripe and Solunto in Sicily: Libertini 1926, 58, pl. 4; Tybout 1989, 115-16, pl. 86.1. At Pompeii, see the tablinum in the Casa del Labirinto (PPM V, 23, fig. 39), as well as the cubiculum (31) and exedra (37) in the Casa del Fauno (cubiculum: PPM V, 99, fig. 20; exedra: PPM V, 125, fig. 58). For further examples and discussion of painted curtain socles at Pompeii: De Vos 1976, esp. 53; Barbet 1985, 27-9; Laidlaw A. 1985, esp 32-3. 179 E.g., the fresco with “Mars and Venus” in the tablinum of the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a) at Pompei: Hodske 2007, 145, no. 167, pl. 6,1. Another example is the well-known frescoes with indoor and outdoor banqueting scenes painted on the three walls of the triclinium in the Casa dei Casti Amanti (IX.12.6) at Pompeii: Wallace-Hadrill 2004, figs. 1a-3a; Roller 2006, pls. 2-3, 7. Also, the fresco from the north wall of the triclinium (r) in the Casa del Triclinio (V.2.4) at Pompeii: MANN, inv. no. 120031: Roller 2006, pl. 4. Leach discusses the pictorial representations of curtains, which gradually become an essential element of the decoration: Leach 2004, 181-84 (with further bibliography). 180 Another example of painted curtains showing intricate motifs can be found in the diaeta (6) in the Casa del Gran Portale (V.35) at Herculaneum. Painted on a blue background is a frieze showing white curtains hung from an entablature and embroidered with fantastical creatures and geometric motifs: Mazzoleni and Pappalardo 2004, 368-72, 378-79 with colored plates. 181 Leach 2004, 181. Above and beyond their decorative function, curtains also have some practical advantages. For instance, being easier to manipulate and change (in comparison to more permanent barriers), curtains could be quickly replaced according to new tastes and fashions. Heavy curtains, furthermore, would have ensured not only visual but also acoustical privacy, curbing the noise from the street. 82 sculptures, curtains contributed to both creating a sophisticated aura and enhancing the householder’s wealth and social standing. A perfect example comes from tombs, another type of private context which also reflect Romans’ construction of social identity. For example, the fresco from the tomb of Gaius Vestorius Priscus at the Pompeian necropolis of Porta Vesuvio depicts a table adorned with several silver vessels shining in front of a finely embroidered, dark red drapery (Fig. 2.6). 182 This imagery gives us an idea of the type of furnishing which decorated the houses of successful men as well as of the social and cultural implication/value of such furniture in reflecting the owner’s position in the society. Both utensils and fabrics were a key part of the promotion of the householder’s wealth, status, and cultured lifestyle to his visitors and guests. Screening the frontal entrance of the tablinum by means of curtains would have also enhanced the dramatic view onto this space, creating an impressive and enriched stage for the dominus. 183 Capable of altering the size or shape of a space, hangings contributed to the creation of a theatrical and dramatic view onto the space they screened and perhaps testify to growing concerns about privacy and the establishment of boundaries. Scholars have stressed the “theatrical” role played by the architectural setting of the tablinum in 182 On the tomb of Vestorius Priscus and its decoration, see Mols and Moormann 1994; Clarke 2003, 187- 203; Lapatin 2015, 40-1, n. 124 (with further bibliography). 183 An increasing use of textile hangings is discernible in the houses of late antiquity. Both archaeological and literary evidence for this period attests to the presence of draperies and curtains behind which an emperor, bishop, or patron would have appeared to his visitors. See, e.g., Corippus (In laudem Iustini Aug. minoris 3.255-62) as well as the mosaic of Constantine IV in the Basilica Saint Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna. Textile hangings, therefore, participated in the construction and maintenance of social hierarchy, indicating the position of power within an architectural setting (whether an imperial palace, a church, or an elite house). For a study of the social, political, and religious implication of textile furniture in late Roman domestic settings, see Stephenson 2014. 83 enhancing the dominus’ familial and social position during the morning salutatio. 184 According to Eugene Dwyer, standing in the tablinum with curtains open towards the atrium, the dominus would have appeared as in a “proscenium stage” to his clientes. 185 For Dwyer, screened by curtains, and sometimes elevated a few inches above the atrium’s floor, the tablinum would have thus suited patronal needs. 186 The fact that curtains and draperies would have increased the dramatic setting of this space and suggested concerns with privacy and visibility is not debatable. The argument that this room was conceived for the morning salutatio, as a perfect setting for the dominus sitting on his solium to appear to his clientes, however, should be considered with caution. Indeed, Mario Torelli’s assumption that the Corsini throne was displayed in the tablinum of an aristocratic house, among the imagines maiorum, is clearly captivating but lacking evidence. 187 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill has recently discussed the problems concerning the implication of the tablinum in the morning greeting. 188 In the case of Pompeii and Herculaneum, for instance, it is hard to believe that the continuation of the cruciform fauces-atrium-alae-tablinum plan, which can already be seen in the Etruscan architecture of the late sixth and early fifth century BCE, should be taken as a model for social practices adopted by both elite and non-elite provincials after centuries. The 184 On the use of stage curtains in theatrical settings: Sear 2007, 8 (with bibliography); Manuwald 2011, 69- 70. 185 Dwyer 1994, 27. 186 In my survey, I have counted 23 tablina (13%) with floor level elevated above that of the atrium. See Appendix A. 187 Torelli 1991, 365-66; Torelli 2007, 132. 188 Wallace-Hadrill 2015, 179. Etruscan antecedents of the atrium house plan can be found at Regisvilla, Marzabotto, and possibly Rome. The reconstruction of the plans of the late Archaic housing in Rome by Carandini and Carafa (1995, 215-82), however, still remains controversial. Among the scholars challenging their interpretations, see Moormann 2001; Wiseman 2008a, 271-92; Sewell 2010, 124-26; Jolivet 2011, 68- 72. 84 practice of salutationes in small provincial towns like Pompeii and Herculaneum, furthermore, is also debated. 189 While we can only speculate on the association and implication of the tablinum to patrician Roman practices in such provinces, an analysis of this space in its architectural and decorative setting can still offer important information about Roman domestic customs and habits. Permeable Boundaries and Artifactual Records: Household Storage As less solid boundaries than doors and partitions, curtains might also indicate that a room did not need to be “physically secured.” Indeed, looking at the spatial distribution of artifacts in the houses of Pompeii, Ria Berg has noted how the principal deposits of artifacts are not found in the typical reception rooms (e.g., tablina and triclinia) but instead in modest, undecorated cubicula, which thus acted as a sort of “cassaforte” (strongbox). 190 While we may expect to find a concentration of artifacts in rooms interpreted as signifying the dominus’ status, the archaeological evidence in fact contrasts with this assumption. Domestic material was not usually kept in its place of use but in locked-up storage spaces. According to Berg: La casa romana è spesso vista principalmente come una macchina di auto rappresentazione del dominus. In questa macchina, anche gli oggetti di maggior valore rappresentativo dovrebbero essere utilizzati nelle stanze di maggior valore rappresentativo. Il pattern dei reperti, con triclini vuoti, contrasta con questa figura. In alternativa, la casa romana può essere vista come un sistema 189 See further discussion in Chapter 4 (“Roles and Uses of the Tablinum in Light of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence”). 190 Berg 2014. 85 specializzato di salvaguardia dei beni, con scala di controllo degli oggetti graduata, dagli ambienti più accessibili a quelli più impenetrabili. Su questo asse, i luoghi più rappresentativi si contrappongono agli spazi più sicuri, meno decorati, con maggiore concentrazione di reperti, culminando in un modesto cubicolo con la maggiore concentrazione dei beni della casa, il suo c.d. “deposito principale. 191 Analysis of the artifactual evidence recorded in the various archival and published records for 70 tablina confirms that these rooms/spaces were often found empty or containing just a few finds by late 19th and 20th-century excavators (Appendix B). 192 Yet this is problematic within the overall study of contextualized artifacts at Pompeii and Herculaneum, which entails several problems and limitations. In primis, scholars must contend with the idea that objects are to be found in their places of use thus providing information about “space function” (an idea referred to as the “Pompeii premise”). 193 Such a theory of “systemic inventories” is highly complex in the case of a city like Pompeii due to several factors, such as the “treasure hunting” activities of the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as the lack of an organized method of recording prior to Fiorelli. 194 It is even more complicated in the case of Herculaneum, owing not only to the 18th and 19th-century excavation activities and practices, 195 but also to the way that Herculaneum was 191 Berg 2014, 43. (“The Roman house is often seen primarily as a tool for self-representation of the dominus. Here, even the most symbolic objects should be used in the rooms of greater representative value. The pattern of the finds, with empty triclinia, contrasts with this picture. Alternatively, the Roman house can be seen as a specialized system of safeguarding assets, with a graduated scale of control of the objects, from the most accessible to the most impenetrable environments. On this logic, the most representative places are contrasted with most secure, less decorated ones where we find the majority of artifacts, culminating in a modest cubiculum with the greatest concentration of the house's finds, the so-called ‘main deposit’”). 192 Among the 70 tablina of my survey, no finds were reported for about half of them. 193 See supra n. 45 (with bibliography). 194 To complicate the understanding of contextualized artifacts is the fact that the excavations at both Pompeii and Herculaneum were carried out using various nomenclature systems. Ancient streets, neighbors, and properties, therefore, changed address and/or nomenclature several times, complicating any reading of archival records. On the archaeological records and finds uncovered during the Bourbon period, see Pagano and Prisciandaro 2006. For a discussion of the limitations of documentation pre-dating Fiorelli, see Allison 1992b; 2004, 30-34. 195 See supra nn. 52-3 (with bibliography). 86 “destroyed” by the eruption. Herculaneum was not buried under layers of volcanic ash, lapilli, and debris that served to “seal” objects in their original find spot (as occurred initially at Pompeii), but was instead engulfed by superheated pyroclastic surges and flows of gases, ashes, and volcanic rocks. As a result, many of the artifacts later discovered in Herculaneum were moved from their original locations. 196 Despite the limitations in the analysis of artifactual evidence, 197 a study of contextualized finds still offers crucial information to research, contributing to a better understanding of Roman domestic organization and everyday life. Through analyzing the artifactual evidence, for instance, we can sometimes detect the presence of hanging textiles by the tablinum’s frontal entrance, as demonstrated by the discovery of the previously mentioned bronze fittings which functioned to tie back curtains. The absence of evidence for certain other finds also offers important contributions to the research. This is the case, for instance, with the lack of household archives in tablina. 198 Artifact studies at Pompeii, in particular, seem to demonstrate how Romans generally stored their items, rather than reflect their place of usage. 199 Examples of this are domestic utensils and tools which, when not in use, were usually kept in mixed arrays inside wooden chests and cupboards, 196 Ibid. n. 48 (with bibliography). 197 On the GdS and their limitations as a sourse for the artifactual evidence at Pompeii, see esp. Berry 1997b, 186-87; Allison 2004, 31-4. On the complexities of dealing with an analysis of 20th-century excavation journals at Herculaneum (GSE), see Monteix 2009. 198 Household archives are often placed by scholars in the tablinum although the reading of the artifactual evidence contrasts with this idea. See discussion in Chapter 1 (“The Tablinum in Ancient Literary Sources”). 199 Berry 1997b, 193. Besides Allison’s major study (2004) on artifact distribution, other works on Roman storage at Pompeii and Herculaneum include: Mols 1999; Kastenmeier 2007; Cova 2013; Berry 1997b, 2007; Berg 2014, 2016; Spinelli and Scorziello (forthcoming). 87 which were set both around the house (e.g., in the atrium area or along the walls of the peristyle garden) and in small undecorated rooms easier to lock (e.g., cubicula). 200 The presence of cupboards, chests, and miscellaneous assemblages of domestic material found in 9 to 12 tablina (among the 33 considered in her study) led Penelope Allison to argue for a possible use of the tablinum as storage for domestic materials during the final years of the city. 201 Such an interpretation, however, is complicated by two factors. Firstly, we should consider the hypothesis that a residential building might have been converted, for instance, into a commercial property at the time of the eruption. In that case, the presence of unexpected finds in a room like a tablinum would not be surprising, as the use of this room was clearly changed at that time. This transformation of room use was the case, for instance, with the tablinum in the Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12) at Pompeii, whose artifactual assemblage included a terracotta lamp, a few coins, a bronze signet ring, and two ornamental plaques in bone, as well as several amphorae. The excavations and artifactual studies of the house carried out by the British School in Rome have demonstrated how part of this residential building was reserved for commercial activities by the time of the 79 CE eruption. 202 Thus, the atrium, once a reception space, was converted into a storage area and the cubiculum (4) into a stable. The fact that the tablinum and the triclinium (10) were the only two rooms of the house to be redecorated 200 Berry 1997b, 193; Allison 2004; Berg 2014, 41. 201 Allison 2004, 80-2, 121-22, 168. 202 For the excavations and studies of the artifactual evidence from this property, see Berry 1997a; Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1998; 1999; Wallace-Hadrill 2005. Another example can be offered by the house I.6.8- 9 at Pompeii, which was turned into a commercial property in the last phase of the city: PPM I, 352. This building is part of Allison’s survey. 88 in the Fourth Style is not relevant, as the rooms lost their “original” use in the final period of the city. Secondly, several houses were still in a state of ongoing restoration following the 62 CE earthquake and its aftershocks, 203 with their tablina still waiting for refurbishment. Thus, it is possible that domestic artifacts were temporarily stored in the tablinum until a new decoration was applied. This might have been the case, for instance, for the tablinum in the Casa di Vibius Italus (VII.2.18), 204 the tablinum in the house IX.6.5, 205 and the tablinum in the main atrium of the Casa del Centenario (IX.8.3) 206 at Pompeii (Appendix B). Finally, mixed arrays of domestic items are usually found in cupboards and chests distributed throughout the house. 207 Storage containers were ubiquitous in the house and was not hidden away. 208 In my artifactual analysis of 70 tablina I have found evidence for 203 Tacitus (Ann. 15.22) dates the earthquake to 62 CE. and Seneca (QNat. 6.1.2) to 63 CE. Today, scholars mostly accept the 62 CE date. See Lazer (2009, 67, 307, n. 10) and Leach (2004, 186-187, n. 2) for modern bibliographic sources discussing the date of the earthquake. For post-seismic activity until the 79CE eruption of the Vesuvius, see Fröhlich and Jacobelli 1995; Lazer 2009, 67-70 (with review of earlier scholarship on this matter during Pompeii’s final decades). On the structural damages at Pompeii: Andreau 1978; Allison 1995. 204 According to Maiuri (1942, 122), “le alae e tablino hanno un primo abbozzo di intonaco.” For tablina in coarse plaster, see infra further discussion in Chapter 4 (“The Tablinum’s Decorative Apparatus: Spectacles and Myths in Campanian Wall Paintings”). 205 Traces of Fourth Style decoration on the tablinum’s eastern walls indicate that this room was redecorated around the middle of the first century CE. However, after the earthquake, the tablinum’s two side walls (north and south) had to be rebuilt and were still undecorated at the time of the eruption: Fiorelli NSc 1878, 322; Mau BdI 1880, 224. For a list of miscellaneous finds recorded to have been discovered in this tablinum, see Appendix B. 206 The Casa del Centenario was badly damaged during the 62 CE earthquake and was still under repair and redecoration at the time of the eruption: Maiuri 1942,131, 188. Significant work on the Casa del Centenario has been conducted for several years by the University of Bologna under the direction of Daniela Scagliarini Corlàita and Antonella Coralini. The latter has recently published a volume on the history of excavations and finds from the dwelling: Coralini 2018. I thank Antonella Coralini for sharing with me fruitful information on the dwelling. 207 Similar distribution patterns of miscellaneous finds stored together can be also seen in retail outlets: Spinelli and Scorziello (forthcoming). 208 Allison 2004, 65-123; Nevett 2010, 110-13; Cova 2015, 95-6. 89 chests and/or cupboards in 14 to 22 tablina. 209 Only in 3 cases does the tablinum present a sort of recess/cupboard cut in one of its lateral walls. 210 In addressing the presence of mixed assemblages of finds in storage furniture, Joanne Berry has rightly remarked: There often appears to be no system or pattern in the artefact-types; thus, for example, glass vessels may be stored with bronze vessels and ceramic commonwares. The question of room function, therefore, remains a difficult one, and it is highly likely that rooms in the Roman house were multi-functional and that activities were organized on a temporal rather than spatial basis…It may be more useful to consider the relationship between the different types of activity carried out through a study of the types and materials of artefacts on a house- wide basis rather than by a room-by-room basis. 211 In using the analysis of the instrumentum domesticum to identify the functional activities of spaces, therefore, we should keep in mind the complexity of each study case and the history as well as evolution of each dwelling. The fact that reception rooms (e.g., tablina and triclinia) were often found empty, however, suggests that they were unlikely to have been intended for storage and to store family goods. 212 This suggestion would appear to be confirmed by the analysis of their thresholds. As Taylor Lauritsen has noticed, curtains were generally employed for rooms with wide doorways, such as tablina, triclinia, and oeci. 213 Storing utensils for dining and entertainment equipment might have required a more secure location away from the activity space. As previously discussed, this was also 209 14 tablina show certain evidence for chest and/or cupboard (see, e.g., the presence of fittings such as locks and hinges and/or of wooden containers), while 8 tablina do not show sure evidence for chest and/or cupboard but the relevant quantity of items found within suggests that furniture of this type was probably present in the room. See Appendix B. 210 The tablina in the house VI.7.3 and in the Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) at Pompeii each present a small niche/recess cut in the north wall. The cupboard in the north wall of the tablinum in the Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56), instead, is much larger and has been compared with the cupboard (10) in the Casa del Menandro (I.10.4). The cupboard in the Casa del Menandro, however, was accessible from the atrium and was closed off from the tablinum by a large window: Ling 1997, 50 n. 6. Because it seems it was meant to be accessible from the atrium and not from the tablinum, I did not include it in this list. 211 Berry 1997b, 194. 212 Berg 2014. 213 Lauritsen 2013, 103. 90 the case for the family archives, which were usually found in rooms (often cubicula) on the upper floor and not in more accessible and visible tablina. “Solid” Boundaries: Partitions and Doors Besides curtains, more “permanent” form of boundaries like wooden partitions and doors were also employed to regulate access and lines of sight from the atrium to the tablinum. The archaeological evidence for wooden partitions (movable or structural) is scanty due to their ephemeral nature. 214 Thus far, the only example of a standing wooden partition is the one found in the Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (III.11) at Herculaneum. 215 The presence of wooden panels closing the tablinum off from the atrium is instead usually detected by the cuts left in the door jambs. Some examples of this type of structure to regulate the tablinum’s frontal doorway can be seen at Pompeii in the Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4; Fig. 2.7), Casa del Menandro (I.10.4; Fig. 2.8), and Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4; Fig. 2.9). 216 As already noted, evidence for wooden shutters at the front entrance of the tablinum in the Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i) is unlikely. The pair of bronze discs discovered at the front jambs of this tablinum may have been used to tie back curtains. 217 214 Partitions, like curtains, leave little evidence of their presence: Lauritsen 2013. 215 See supra n. 172, Fig. 2.2 216 Other tablina whose frontal doorways were possibly screened by wooden partition are found in the following houses at Pompeii: Casa della Parete Nera o dei Bronzi (VII.4.59), Casa di Pane (VIII.3.28,31), Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23), house VI.5.16 (although only scanty evidence remains, i.e., a cut in western door jamb); and at Herculaneum: Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2.). 217 See supra n. 168. Unfortunately, I was not able to inspect this house, as it was inaccessible during my fieldwork periods due to the “Grande Progetto Pompei.” 91 Hinged doors at the frontal threshold of tablina were also employed, as can be detected by the existence of turning posts (cardines) for the metal pivots cuts into the thresholds near the door jambs. Several ancient abodes still retain evidence for these pivoted doors at the tablinum’s frontal threshold (Appendix A). 218 In the inner door jambs of the tablinum in the Casa delle Caccia Antica (VII.4.48) at Pompeii, for instance, it is possible to see the space once occupied by the wooden frames where the wall plaster stops. Cuts in the threshold near the two door jambs confirm the presence of folding doors to screen the wide frontal opening (Fig. 2.10). In the majority of cases, however, it remains difficult to understand the type of boundary screening the tablinum’s front doorway. Sometimes the tablina’s front doorways present stone blocks located at each lateral end without holes or cuts, which would indicate the presence of doors. 219 In the Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8), for instance, the frontal threshold takes the form of a decorative mosaic represented between two blocks slightly raised from the threshold (Fig. 2.11). A similar situation can be seen in the house VIII.2.14-16, where the pendant stone blocks are instead fully inserted in the floor and do 218 At Pompeii, I have found evidence for the use of pivoted doors at the front of tablina in the following abodes: Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15), Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19), Casa dei Quattro Stili (I.8.17), Casa del Triclinio (V.2.4), house V.2.7, Casa delle Amazzoni (VI.2.14), Casa delle Danzatrici (VI.2.22), Casa di Inaco e Io (VI.7.19), house VI.15.6, Casa di M Caesius Blandus (VII.1.40), Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48), Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56), Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII.9.47), house VIII.4.34, Casa di Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.24, minor atrium), Casa di Achille (IX.5.1-3), house IX.5.6,17. At Herculaneum: Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2), Casa Sannitica (V.1-2), Casa dell’Atrio Corinzio (V.30), Casa della Gemma (Ins. Or. I), Casa del Rilievo di Telefo (Ins. Or. 2-3). In the case of the Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI.15.7-8), the threshold of the tablinum is composed of reused marble slabs with traces of cuts for a door. In this case, therefore, the frontal entrance of the tablinum was probably closed by means of curtains. See also Lauritsen (2011, 71) for this threshold. 219 Examples of tablina presenting a similar solution (i.e., lateral stone pedestals in the threshold and without marks of hinges) are found in the following houses at Pompeii: house I.4.9, house VI.5.4, Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.8,10), Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7), Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25,47), Casa del Marinario (VII.15.2), house VIII.2.14-16, Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8), Casa di Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20), Casa del Centenario (IX.8.6, representative atrium). At Herculaneum: Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo (V.11), Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico (VI.17), Casa dei Due Atri (VI.29). 92 not rise up from the threshold (Fig. 2.12). This sort of pedestal/base was probably intended to sustain a wooden casing (antepagmentum) set at the doorposts. 220 One example is provided by the remains of a wooden antepagmentum which are still visible in the tablinum of the Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico (VI.17) at Herculaneum (Fig. 2.13). According to Giuseppina Cerulli Irelli’s study of the house, there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a partition or wooden structure connected to the doorposts. 221 The entrance to the tablinum in the Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico, therefore, probably appeared as framed by a wooden casing with curtains. In certain instances, the presence of both such pendant stone bases (without marks of hinges) and the plaster on the door jambs might indicate that an earlier wooden casing around the tablinum’s threshold (whatever its barrier might have been) was eventually replaced with curtains. The threshold of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo (V.11) at Herculaneum, for instance, presents stone bases at each lateral end of the opening, indicating the presence of a wooden door casing at some point (Fig. 2.14). In the last period of the city, however, the jambs of tablinum were decorated and the antepagmenta were thus dismissed. The discovery of two ornamental disks further indicates the screening of this space by means of curtains, at least in the last period (Fig. 2.15). 222 The lack of organic material at Pompeii further complicates the situation. The tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20), for instance, presents a frontal entrance restricted 220 For ancient sources on antepagmenta, see TLL II, 152; RE I.2, 2354. 221 Cerulli Irelli (1974, 30-31): “nessuna traccia sicura di transenne o tramezzo, neppure nell’unico frammento conservato degli antepagmenta di legno, che si scorge a sinistra di chi entra. Una delimitazione ideale è formata dalla grande fascia a meandro (di m. 4,38 x 0,48) che corre a terra fra gli stipiti, segnando l’inizio della decorazione in mosaico del pavimento.” 222 See supra n. 167. 93 with wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum on top of an earlier base in Calcare del Sarno (Figs. 2.16-2.18). 223 It is likely that at each lateral end of the threshold most probably stood a wooden antepagmentum. Since the wooden casing around the tablinum’s opening is missing, it is not possible to tell if some sort of more permanent structure (such as wooden screens or latticework sliding doors) was once attached to the wooden doorposts. Examples of this type of “grille” barrier were used to screen the west ala of the Casa del Bicentenario (V.15-16) at Herculaneum, the entrance to the “Schola Armaturarum” at Pompeii, and the triclinium of the complex (probably an hospitium) at Murecine. 224 Information on latticework doors may also be found in Roman art. For example, in the frieze decorating the atrium of Villa di Giulia Felice (II.4.1-12) at Pompeii and depicting market scenes in a forum, a “grille” door appears among the columns of the forum portico. 225 Openwork “grille” doors are sometimes also seen in sanctuary scenes (as shown in Second Style wall paintings), which probably suggest that this form of boundary was not considered as less acceptable than other types of boundaries that would have, instead, completely obstructed the view. 226 Despite this, it remains difficult to understand if “grille” doors were considered appropriate for a room like a tablinum located on the 223 These wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum replaced the original ones in Calcare del Sarno during the restorations of the house in the last decades of the city. The frontal entrance to this tablinum, therefore, must have appeared already restricted before the first-century CE restorations. See also Gallo (2013, 21, 43-4), who, however, does not discuss the type of closing screening the tablinum’s frontal opening. 224 On the wooden latticework structure in the ala of the Casa del Bicentenario: Maiuri 1958, 229-30, fig. 179; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 186-87, fig. 187. For the “Schola Armaturarum”: Spinazzola 1953, III, tav. xvi. For the complex at Murecine: Pagano 1983 (who identifies the complex as a collegium); De Simone and Nappo 2000, esp. 94-5, 126 with images (not numbered); Nappo 2001. A tall wooden latticework gate also screened the storage space to the left of the tablinum in the Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico (VI.17) at Herculanum and whose scant remains are still left in situ: see Cerulli Irelli 1974, 37. 225 This fresco is today at the MANN, inv. no. 9069: Clarke 2003, 97 fig. 50. 226 A half-closed iron openwork gate in a sanctuary setting appears in the painted decoration of the oecus (15) at Villa A at Oplontis: Mazzoleni and Pappalardo 2004, 136-37 with a reconstruction of the imaginary setting. The triclinium (G) of the Villa at Boscoreale also shows a Second Style decoration depicting a closed wooden openwork gate to the entrance of a sanctuary: Barnabei 1901, 65-6, fig. 14; Barbet 2009, 55. As Proudfoot (2013, 106) correctly remarks, however, solid-panel doors appear more frequently than grille ones in decoration. 94 central axis of the house. This type of barrier, indeed, would have only partially obstructed the view onto the tablinum whose visual access needed some sort of control and required complete closure, not only by more permanent forms of permeable boundaries (such as doors and partitions) but also by more ephemeral furnishings like curtains. 227 Because the majority of tablina lack their frontal threshold and lintel, it is difficult to understand if a specific type of boundary was employed more than others to control the frontal access to the tablinum by the time of the 79CE eruption. Based on the surviving archaeological evidence, my analysis demonstrates that hinged doors were often used to screen the front opening of those tablina that were restored in the first century CE. 228 A gradual tendency to restrict the front opening of the tablinum (with the insertion of wall extensions against the original jambs, or with the jambs rebuilt in a way that contracted the threshold) seems to also occur in the same period. 229 Of the about 98 tablina that show signs of restoration or structural changes in their frontal threshold through the time, about 41 (42%) have their front openings partially restricted in the first century CE (Appendix A). 230 It is difficult to know how these tablina would have appeared before the restoration 227 In reconsidering secondary domestic doors and axial vistas gained from the entrance of an abode, Proudfoot (2013, 106) notes that “not all doors obstructed a view into the house. In fact, rather than limiting a house’s display potential, closure systems actually presented homeowners with a greater range of options for display.” This certainly makes sense for domestic entranceways which, while blocking the physical entry, would have still provided visual access. See, e.g., the possible presence of an openwork gate at the back of the vestibule in the Casa di Popidius Priscus (VII.2.20) at Pompeii: Proudfoot 2013, 106 (with bibliographic information). 228 Of the about 22 tablina whose front opening was closed by means of hinged doors, 16 show signs of restorations dated to the first century CE (Appendix A). The tablina restored in the first century CE have their frontal door jambs in opus vittatum mixtum or opus testaceum (i.e., brickwork). For a brief overview of the chronology of Roman construction techniques and the type of facings of Roman concrete (opus caementicium), see Adam 2007; Dobbins 2007. 229 For a tendency to narrow the tablinum’s front doorway in the houses at Pompeii during the early Imperial period, see also: Evans I 1980, 93. 230 See, e.g., the tablinum in the Casa delle Colombe a Mosaico (VIII.2.34) at Pompeii with door jambs in opus vittatum mixtum inserted on top of an earlier Second Style mosaic floor. For the other 56 tablina, 95 (i.e., completely open in their full width or already partially restricted). However, because the tablinum usually appears to have been fully open in their frontal width in the earliest time, 231 it seems reasonable to conclude that this room undergoes a gradual structural restriction of its front opening by the early Imperial period, according to new domestic trends and needs. Such evidence for a frontal enclosure of the tablinum suggests a marked separation of this room from the atrium quarter. From a wide-open space oriented toward the atrium, the tablinum gradually starts to close off more permanently towards the atrium area in the first century CE, developing into a more defined space. By the time of the eruption of Vesuvius, furthermore, in my survey I encountered 6 tablina that presented an even more marked separation from the atrium quarter, sometimes with an insertion in the frontal threshold of a large window that blocked the visual and/or physical access to the tablinum. 232 The tablina in the Casa di Cerere (I.9.13) and in the Casa di Sutoria Primigenia (I.13.2) at Pompeii, for instance, not only have a frontal large window that prevents a direct access from the atrium but also present recesses in their walls to accomodate dining couches, indicating a likely use of this room for eating and/or sometimes it is difficult to be more precise regarding the date of restriction. Many abodes at Herculaneum, for instance, were largely rebuilt by Maiuri so it is not possible to understand the earlier construction techniques. As for Pompeii, there is a tendency to contract the tablinum’s front opening in the Roman period but sometimes it is difficult to offer a more specific date (see also Evans 1980, 87 with the same issues and problems). 231 See, e.g., the use of Sarno stone for the door jambs of the tablinum of some of the oldest houses like the Casa del Chirurgo (VI.1.10) and the Casa degli Scienziati (VI.14.43) at Pompeii. 232 For tablina with frontal windows and rear entries and/or lateral passage entries (hence, not accessible directly from the atrium), see Casa di Cerere (I.9.13), Casa di Sutoria Primigenia (I.13.2), and Casa di Giuseppe II (VIII.2.39) at Pompeii. The tablinum in the Casa Sannitica (V.1-2) at Herculaneum also had a large frontal window, although here two doors provided access from the atrium quarter. The tablinum in the Casa del Citarista (I.4.5,25) was raised half a meter from the atrium floor and was not directly accessible from the atrium but from a lateral corridor. The frontal threshold of the tablinum in the house IX.3.15, instead, was completely walled up during the early Imperial period and thus inaccessible from the front area. 96 resting activities (Fig. 2.19). 233 Of these 6 tablina presenting such marked separation from the atrium, the one in the house IX.3.15 even had its front opening completely walled up in the Imperial period. This tablinum also underwent more permanent structural changes that turned this space into a dining room (as testified by the cuts in the eastern wall to fit a dining couch; Fig. 2.20). Recesses for triclinia beds are also visible in two more tablina that do not present signs of restrictions: house V.2.7 at Pompeii and the Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato (V.5) at Herculaneum (Fig. 2.21). What is interesting about these 8 houses, all of which show a more marked separation from the atrium quarter and/or evidence of recesses for dining couches in the tablinum’s walls, is the fact that these abodes already contained dining rooms. 234 The decision to duplicate spaces for hospitality reveals the versatility of the tablinum. An analysis of the material and visual culture might further suggest the use of this space for eating/resting purposes. The study of the artifactual record shows evidence for beds and/or couches in 4 tablina. 235 As Allison has noted, while this number is relatively small to indicate the use of this room for resting/dining purposes, it is noteworthy in comparison to the little evidence of bedding usually recorded in rooms associated with resting and/or 233 The doorway between the atrium and the tablinum in the Casa di Cerere probably saw the insertion of this “picture window” during the late Republican period on the grounds that the atrium’s decoration is in Second Style: see also PPM II, 216. 234 See, e.g., those houses lacking “typical” dining halls (like triclinia) and in which the tablinum would have been the main and only room serving “hospitality” practices (i.e., Casa dell’Atrio Corinzio (V.30) at Herculaneum; house VIII.4.34 at Pompeii). On the use of the tablinum for dining purposes, see further discussion in Chapter 4 (“Conversing, Dining, and Resting in the Tablinum”). 235 These tablina are found in the following houses: Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4), house I.6.8-9, Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10; tablinum 4), Casa del Menandro (I.10.4). These are the same ones included in Allison’s survey although the scholar counts a total of five tablina in her survey: Allison (2004, 81-2, 131-32). The finds in room 15 (identified as tablinum) in the Casa dell’Efebo, however, were collected against the northwest anta, between this so-called tablinum and the atrium (A''): NSc 1927, 63: “presso l’anta sinistra del vano di apertura fra l’atrio A'' e il tablino di comunicazione con il peristilio.” 97 eating activities (i.e., cubicula and triclinia). 236 Furniture such as beds and couches could also be moved from one room to another, so we should not automatically expect to find evidence for them in a room used for resting/dining purposes. Finally, the pavements of the tablina usually present a central panel which may have determined the location of couches around the walls, thus further indicating resting/dining activities. In addition, the walls of tablina are usually decorated in the later fashions (mostly Fourth Style) and often display narrative-mythological panels that confirm (along with the pavements) a “static” use of this space as well as the owner’s desire to update the tablinum in accordance with the later trends. 237 A person standing in the tablinum, furthermore, would have not only enjoyed a view onto an elaborate decoration, but also axial vistas onto a carefully planned decorative and architectural setting (both toward the atrium and the peristyle garden). The amount of attention paid to the decoration of the tablina, and for planned vistas from it, further indicates that visitors and family members were meant to spend time in this room. Thus far, we have seen how in the early Imperial period the tablinum becomes a more defined room by gradually closing its doorway on the atrium side. The development of the tablinum’s back threshold, instead, is still under discussion. In general, the tablinum appears to be a room opening onto the garden area (with its rear wall gradually being 236 Respectively, room type 4 (“small closed rooms off front halls”) and room type 10 (“medium/large closed rooms of gardens/terraces without good views”) in Allison’s work (2004, 82, 91). 237 On the treatment of tablina’s pavements and walls, see Chapter 4. 98 removed). 238 Scholars today agree on the adoption of the peristyle garden (which replaced the hortus area) during the second century BCE. 239 Yet the opening of the tablinum’s back wall, as well as the insertion of a corridor (andron) 240 connecting the front and back of the house and located on one side of the tablinum (usually occupied by a reception room such as an oecus or triclinium), remain difficult to date and are open to discussion and different interpretations. 241 A few tablina retain a decoration in the First Style and present a “picture window” towards the back section of the house, suggesting that this layout might reflect an older form of this space. 242 Most of the tablina, however, are decorated in the Fourth (or, in fewer cases, Third) Style, which does not help to clarify the situation in the earlier times. The quoins used at the rear jambs of tablina are usually opus vittatum mixtum or simple brickwork, which are commonly associated with the final years of Pompeian construction. It is, therefore, not clear if the removal of the back wall occurred in the first century CE or if the use of these quoins simply indicates restoration and rebuilding during the Imperial period (especially after the 62CE earthquake and its aftershocks). In the latter case, only an architectural survey of the entire building as well as excavations would better clarify the development of the tablinum and how this room 238 Although a few tablina show a full closure of their back side after the 62 CE earthquake (e.g., Casa del Naviglio VI.10.11, house VI.15.6, and house VII.2.51 at Pompeii), this might have been an occasional phenomenon as the majority of tablina restored after this event continue to offer visual and/or physical access to the garden area. 239 Dickmann 1997, 127; Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 239; Farrar 1998, 12-14; Sewell 2010, 135; Simelius 2018, 34. 240 In Greek, the term andron refers to the “men’s rooms” while in Latin it refers to a corridor (Vitr. De arch. 6.7.5). 241 On the difficulties of dating the opening of the rear wall of the tablinum: Dickmann 1999, 153; Jolivet 2011, 249. Among the main scholars discussing the development of the rear portion of the tablinum and the adoption of the andron, see Overbeck 1884, 261-62; Richardson 1955, 157; 1988, 121; Evans 1980, 93; Eschebach 1995, 189; Pesando 1996, 75-6; Dickmann 1999, 151-54; Wallace-Hadrill 1997; Jolivet 2011, 250-51. In several Pompeian houses, the tablinum seems to have been fully closed off originally toward the hortus: see Zanier 2009, 297 n. 11 (with bibliography). 242 These tablina are found in the Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4), Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.9,10), and Casa del Fauno (VI.12.2,5) at Pompeii. 99 would have once appeared. 243 This, however, is beyond the scope of my study. My goal, indeed, is to consider the structural changes that appear at the time of the eruption, so as to understand the use of the tablinum in the final years of the towns. What is certain is that by the first century CE the tablinum appears as a room oriented and opened (either partially or fully) onto the garden behind. 244 Among the Pompeian houses considered there are only 3 tablina whose back doorway was completely walled up in the first century CE (mostly after the 62 CE earthquake), thus blocking the access and view onto the garden area behind. 245 The majority of tablina restored during the first century CE, however, continued to offer visual and/or physical access to the garden area behind. 246 The tablinum’s opening onto the back follows the conversion at 180 degrees (from the atrium to the peristyle garden) of the openings of reception rooms situated on either side of the tablinum in those houses enlarged or restructured during the first century BCE. 247 The tablinum appears now as a room overlooking the peristyle garden, with wide doors or “picture windows” framing the vista onto the open green space and its decorative setting. Such rear opening allowed for axial vistas and views into the house directly from the 243 In my work, I took the analysis of single buildings carried out by other scholars into consideration. Despite this, many houses are still waiting for detailed studies that could clarify the chronological development of their rooms. 244 Wallace-Hadrill 2007, 287; 2011, 223. 245 Casa del Naviglio (VI.10.11: Cassetta and Costantino 2006, 274), house VI.15.6 (PPM V, 662; Pesando 1994, 211), and house VII.2.51 (Evans 1980, 88, 91) at Pompeii. In a few other cases (usually dated after 62 CE), a “picture window” (which blocked the entrance but not visual access of the back) was inserted at the tablinum’s rear side: see at Pompeii, Casa dell’Atrio Tetrastilo (VI.7.3: Martini and Betello 2017, 201), house VI.13.13 (Gobbo 2010, 375); Casa di Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20: Gallo 2013, 44); house VI, 7, 16 (Coda 2017, 162). Cf. Evans (1980, 89-92), who argues for a closure of the back of the tablinum during the first century CE, especially after the 62CE earthquake. 246 See, e.g., Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (VI.2.1: Maiuri 1942, 116), Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.5: Maiuri 1942, 101); Casa C. Vibius Italus (VII.2.18: Maiuri 1942, 122), house VIII.2.14-16: Maiuri 1942, 133, Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48: Maiuri 1942, 118), Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8: Maiuri 1942, 133), and Casa di Epidius Sabinus (IX.1.22: Maiuri 1942, 126). 247 On this change in orientation, see esp. Dickmann 1997; 1999. Wallace-Hadrill (2011, 210) notes how the atrium is now reduced to an “entrance parlour.” 100 street (when the entrance doors were clearly left open). 248 Despite the tablinum’s new orientation, the access to and vistas onto the back of the house were still controlled and regulated, hence the use of more “permanent” boundaries such as hinged doors at the tablinum’s rear. Doors, indeed, seem to be the only type of barrier used to regulate the passageway between the tablinum and the garden area. Wide doors like valvae, in particular, are the most common type here employed (Figs. 2.22, 2.23). 249 The use of more “permanent” boundaries indicates that some sort of visual and practical surveillance was still required. Such boundaries allowed the front area to remain completely secluded from the rear, depending on the various daily and seasonal activities and needs of the family. The adoption of the peristyle garden, and the new orientation of reception rooms toward it, have inspired some scholars to suggest that the tablinum eventually became a sort of monumental vestibule toward the garden. 250 According to Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “If the tablinum, for instance, starts as a room with a wide opening on the atrium, and at most a view through the back window towards the garden, by the first century AD it becomes 248 The volume of scholarship discussing the axial view created by the alignment fauces-atrium-tablinum- peristyle garden is considerable. See, in particular, Drerup 1959; Bek 1980, 164–203; Jung 1984; Wallace- Hadrill 1988, 82, 88–9; 1994, 44-5; Clarke 1991, 2–6, 87; 1996; Hales 2003, 102–22; Hartnett 2017, 188- 92. From ancient authors, we learn how the doors of an elite dwelling stood open: Plaut. Aul. 3.515-19; Sen. De Brev. Vit. 14.3. Doorkeepers (such as ianitores and ostiarii), indeed, would have safeguarded entrances: see an overview of the ancient sources in RE IX.1, 692-93; XVIII.2, 1665. 249 Different types of doors are attested in Campanian domestic spaces and usually depended on the size of the doorway. Single-leaf doors, double doors (bifores), and three or four-leaf folding doors (valvae) are the most common types: Lauritsen 2013, 98. For ancient literary evidence on doors, see Smith 1842, 503-506; Marquardt 1892, I, 268-278; Daremberg and Saglio 1900, III, 603-609. 250 Dickmann 1997, 132; 1999, 151-54. Wallace-Hadrill 2007. According to Dickmann (1999, 151), the tablinum only occasionally continued to serve its “former function as the most important living room of the atrium” while becoming now an impressive passage toward the peristilium. (“Als eindrucksvoller Zugang zum Peristyl fungierte zumeist das tablinum, das seine ehemalige Fuktion als bedeutendester Wohnraum am atrium nurmehr zeitweise erfullt haben durfte”). 101 normal to remove the back wall entirely, so that the tablinum becomes a transitional area that pulls the visitor through to the peristyle behind.” 251 My archaeological survey supports such an interpretation while at the same time demonstrating how the tablinum becomes more than a “transitional area” between the front and the back portions of the house. The gradual closure of the tablinum’s frontal doorway, as well as the use of more permanent types of boundaries to regulate its rear opening, demonstrate the versatility of this room, whose physical and visual access was still something to be controlled and regulated. By the first century CE, the circulation between the front and back of the house was usually regulated by two passageways: the andron and the tablinum. In my survey, in particular, I have found 13 houses in which the passage from the front area to the garden space was only granted from the tablinum, suggesting how the use of this space may vary, depending on its desired usages or the singular study case. If there was no corridor, however, one of the two rooms flaking the tablinum may have also been turned into, or used as, a passageway connecting the front and back of the house (see Appendix A). According to Jens-Arne Dickmann, the different use of these spaces depended on the status of the people passing through them. The andron would have been reserved for servants and family members and the tablinum for guests. For Dickmann, during the morning ritual, whatever the tablinum’s use might have served in the first century CE, the rear part stood closed, implying that the andron was predominantly used by servants and family members. In my opinion, the temporary use of the tablinum as a “vestibule” towards the back of the house might also have depended on the different guests invited into the house. As one of the most elegantly decorated rooms 251 Wallace-Hadrill 2007, 287. 102 within the house, the tablinum could have been used as passageway to impress certain guests during a dinner. Guests could also have been received at the back of the house through the corridor, depending on their status and relationship to the householder. 252 In such a hierarchal society like that of ancient Rome, it is reasonable to assume that the crossing of the tablinum might have been restricted to some guests. Furthermore, because of its “static” decoration and central location, the tablinum might have provided an alternative dining space. Set in a central position, from which visitors would have enjoyed axial vistas onto the water features placed in both the atrium and the garden area, the tablinum would have been a perfect location for a meal. Guests could have also begun their meal in one of the richly decorated reception-rooms of the house and then moved to the tablinum to enjoy its narrative-mythological panels and begin new conversations. 253 Lastly, it is also interesting to note that at least in 12 cases (7%), the andron (or room) 254 that connects the front to the back of the house and flanks the tablinum on one side is also linked to the tablinum itself by means of a hinged door, usually a single-leaf door. This might also speak for the various degrees of privacy of the tablinum itself. At certain times, for instance, both the tablinum’s frontal and rear doors could be kept closed, allowing for a more intimate space. A person inside the tablinum could have still received food (or any other necessity) through the small door opening onto the corridor. 252 The decoration of corridors is usually “paratactic,” without mythological paintings and well suited to the purpose of the distribution and passage of people. A very few examples of corridors seem to have been decorated with mythological pictures. See, at Pompeii, Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48) where corridor (9) was possibly decorated with two mythological scenes (Leda and Swan; Herakles and a lady), as well as the house VI.15.6, in which corridor (k) was decorated with an image of Hercules and Omphales: Sogliano NSc 1897, 32; PPM V, 624. 253 See further discussion in Chapter 4 (“Conversing, Dining, and Resting in the Tablinum”). 254 This list also includes four cases (Casa di Cerere I.9.13, room [i]; house VI.13.13, triclinium [n]; house VI.15.5, triclinium [k]; Casa delle Colombe a Mosaico VIII.2.34, oecus [o]) in which it seems that the room (usually an oecus/triclinium) flanking the tablinum had lost its “original” hospitality use, becoming no more than a passageway between the front and back of the house. 103 The Nexus Tablinum-Triclinium and Tablinum-Cubiculum Finally, with regard to the tablinum in its architectonical and decorative setting, it appears that this room is closely associated with and/or sometimes connected by means of a door to two types of domestic spaces, namely a triclinium and a cubiculum. The arrangement tablinum-triclinium is found in several abodes and reflects a much earlier tradition. In discussing the cruciform plan of the Etruscan house and the origins of the Roman one, Vincent Jolivet has illustrated how the tablinum usually appears as a room flanked by two reception spaces (an oecus and a triclinium) in early times. 255 In several houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum it is possible to observe such a scheme. My survey confirms that in general a triclinium (and/or oecus) is not only placed next to a tablinum, but also sometimes connected by means of a door. At least 34 tablina (20%) appear connected through a door to a triclinium (or oecus) by 79 CE. 256 Occasionally, both tablinum and triclinium share even the same pavement floor and/or color coding of the walls, a device that allows for the unification of these spaces and the perception of them (at least, at times) as one independent unit. The tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20) at Pompeii, for instance, was linked to the oecus (s) on its right side through a door and the same white tesserae mosaic floor. 257 Because information on the decoration of walls 255 According to Jolivet (2011, 254), while the tablinum was used by both sexes, the oecus was reserved for women and the triclinium for men. The “canonical plan” of the Roman (or Vitruvian) atrium house and its Etruscan antecedents have been the subject of different studies. See Jolivet 2011, esp. 7-33 (with an an overview of the different scholarly interpretations), as well as supra n. 51 (with further bibliography). 256 Appendix A. I did not include in this list those oeci/triclinia still connected via a door to the tablinum but that, by 79 CE, appear to have changed use and been turned into a corridor for the passage from the front to the back of the house (e.g., house VI.13.13 at Pompeii, as well as supra n. 254 with other examples). 257 On this mosaic pavement: Pernice 1938, 48. For images of both floors: PPM VIII, 942, figs. 57-8. The walls of the tablinum were in the process of being redecorated while the oecus (s) had already received a 104 and/or floors is often scanty, it is difficult to understand if such a “decorative device” was more common than what is shown by the extant archaeological evidence. 258 Annamaria Zaccaria Ruggiu has briefly noted how this “abbinamento triclinio-tablino” belongs to an older social and typological tradition, without offering any explanation for it. 259 Her focus, indeed, was on the planimetric transformation that followed the arrival of Eastern luxuria in the second century BCE, and in particular the adoption of a new domestic arrangement: the triclinium-cubiculum complex. Romans adopted new rituals of banqueting, such as the tradition of dining and then resting after a meal. Such a luxurious lifestyle affected the plan of the house, as demonstrated by the architectural development of the triclinium-cubiculum complex in which guests could seek respite after a meal. 260 In studying Pompeian alcove cubicula, Anna Anguissola has reiterated how the second- century BCE combination of a banquet hall and a cubiculum (not only in the peristyle area but also in the atrium quarter) responded to the new social practices of representation and hospitality that followed the diffusion of luxurious commodities and customs. 261 According to Anguissola, furthermore, the complex triclinium-cubiculum found in the atrium area might have also served to accommodate those visitors who were not necessarily admitted to the tablinum (and the triclinium linked to it) during the salutatio: new decoration in the Fourth Style at the time of the eruption. See Gallo 2000, for information on the triclinium’s wall paintings, which are lost today. Another example of a tablinum and triclinum being linked by a door and sharing similar floor decoration can be seen in the Casa della Fontana Piccola (VI.8.23, main atrium). Here, both rooms received a similar new pavement in white and black tesserae in late Second-early Third Style. The walls of both rooms were redecorated in the Fourth Style. 258 Many houses were also under reconstruction and/or restoration at the time of the eruption due to the damages caused by the earthquake and its aftermath. See, e.g., Casa delle Nozze d’Argento (V.2.i) and Casa della Statuetta Indiana (I.8.5) at Pompeii, where the walls of the triclinium connected to the tablinum via a door were found undecorated at the time of the excavation. 259 Zaccaria Ruggiu 2001, 59-60. 260 Ibid. For the combination of a banquet hall and a cubiculum, see also Pliny’s description of his villas (Ep. 2.17; 5.6). 261 Anguissola 2010, 173-76. 105 Accanto o in alternativa all’affiancamento di tablinum e triclinium, rintracciabile in numerosi edifici e legato a una tradizione tipologica e sociale di più antica data, andava quindi affermandosi con uno scopo ben preciso un nuovo nesso planimetrico, quello di cubiculum e triclinium...In quest’ottica, è forse possibile riconsiderare almeno in parte il ruolo svolto dal tablinum che, se davvero di ‘ufficio’ del dominus si trattava, non necessariamente costituiva la destinazione finale per tutti quanti fossero ammessi all’atrio e desiderassero udienza, in qualsiasi momento della giornata…A pieno titolo appartenente alla zona pubblica della domus, dunque il tablino sarebbe stato teatro del rituale quotidiano della salutatio…La centralità rispetto alle fauces e all’impluvium rendevano quella del tablino una posizione strategica, suscettibile più d’ogni altra di attirare la curiosità di chi percorresse l’atrio, nonostante diaframmi di diverso tipo vi fossero talora installati per sottrarlo agli sguardi indiscreti (nonché, più sottilmente, per ‘sedurre’ l’outsider con una visione fugace e parziale al suo arredo). In un contesto simile, disporre di piccole e grandi sale da ricevimento in una zona più vicina all’ingresso poteva ridurre il movimento nella corte, decongestionando l’area del tablino e del triclinio ad esso sussidiario, garantendo al contempo un luogo più idoneo a conversare con alcuni ospiti. 262 Although we can only speculate today on the use of the tablinum during the morning salutatio, the connection tablinum-triclinium might indicate a use of this complex for both social and more intimate needs, depending on the daily dynamics of the household. In my opinion, such “semi-public” and “semi-private” uses of the tablinum are further demonstrated by another room often closely connected to the tablinum, namely the cubiculum. In my survey, at least 14 tablina (8%) are connected to a cubiculum by doors, while another 38 (22%) appear located next to a cubiculum, although there is no direct 262 Ibid. 172-73. (“In addition to or alternatively to the flanking of tablinum and triclinium, which can be traced in numerous buildings and linked to a more ancient social and typological tradition, a new planimetric complex, that of the cubiculum and triclinium...In this perspective, it is perhaps possible to reconsider at least in part the role played by the tablinum which, if it actually served as ‘office’ of the dominus, it did not necessarily constitute the final destination for all of those admitted to the atrium and who wished to be received, at any moment of the day…Certainly belonging to the public area of the domus, the tablinum would have been used for the daily ritual salutatio… Thanks to its centrality with respect to the fauces and the impluvium the tablinum was in a strategic position, susceptible more than any other room to attract the curiosity of those who walked in the atrium, despite barriers of different kinds were sometimes installed to avoid indiscreet eyes (and, more subtly, to ‘seduce’ the outsider with a fleeting and partial view of his furniture). In a similar context, having small and large reception rooms in an area closer to the entrance could have reduced the movement in the court, decongesting the area of the tablinum and the triclinium to it subsidiary, while ensuring a more suitable place to converse with some guests”). 106 access between the two rooms (Appendix A). 263 Among these 14 tablina connected to a cubiculum by means of a door, 7 functioned as the only passage and access to the cubiculum, which, otherwise, was not accessible. 264 In the Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI.15.7-8) at Pompeii, for instance, a cubiculum (f) is located behind the tablinum and accessible only through a door on the rear threshold of the tablinum. The rooms also share the same Fourth Style wall paintings decoration as well as pavement in opus signinum embellished with white tesserae, a decorative scheme that further indicates how they functioned as an autonomous unit (Fig. 2.24). Another similar case is evident in the Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.5) at Pompeii, where the tablinum is the only room to grant access to a cubiculum (6C) on its left. Bettina Bergmann has remarked that the walls of both rooms share a similar color code as well as a theatrical theme, as was evident in the tablinum’s central mosaic emblema showing the preparation of a satyr play and the painted scenic masks in the cubiculum. 265 This planimetric association tablinum- cubiculum would further support the use of this complex to receive select guests for both social needs, such as to discuss business with a peer or a client, as well as intimate activities, like dining and resting with a few guests, as in the case of the triclinium- cubiculum solution. The arrangement of the tablinum-cubiculum, therefore, might have also served such “hospitality” customs, becoming at a certain time of the day a more “private” complex to receive intimate guests. 263 I have not considered here two cubicula that were clearly turned into storage space by the final years of the city, as indicated by the cuts in the walls for fitting cupboards. These cubicula are found in the house VII.3.30 and in the Casa di Pane (VIII.3.28,31) at Pompeii and were only accessible from tablinum. 264 I.e., Casa di Cerere (I.9.13), Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.23, minor atrium), house VI.5.16, Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.5), Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI.15.8), house VIII.2.29, and house VIII.4.34. 265 Bergmann 1994, 254. No archaeological evidence remains of the painting with scenic masks in the cubiculum, which are also mentioned in Breton (1855, 261) but not in PPM (IV, 601-2). The tablinum’s walls had black socle, main zone with yellow fields, and white upper register; the cubiculum’s wall had black socle, main zone with alternating yellow and white fields, and white upper register. On the mosaic emblema in the tablina, see Chapter 4. 107 Conclusion Located between the front and back portions of the house, the tablinum has been usually studied in relation to the “public” domestic quarter. An analysis of the tablinum’s spatial setting, boundaries, and contextualized artifacts, however, demonstrates the adaptability of this space, whose manipulation allowed the fulfillment of different activities, needs, and goals. As often noted, the adoption of the peristyle garden by the second century BCE caused a new orientation of the spaces fronting the entrance hall. Set in a central position, opposite and directly visible from the entrance, the tablinum gradually becomes a space which, either partially or totally, opens on the garden area, allowing for deeper vistas inside the house to impress passersby and visitors. My combined study of the various archaeological evidence (architectural, decorative, and artifactual) also reveals how the tablinum underwent some permanent structural changes that turned this space into a more defined room capable of serving multiple uses. During the early Imperial period, in particular, several tablina appear to have had their frontal opening restricted. In a few cases, the tablinum’s frontal doorway is even partially or totally walled up, so that the room is not directly accessible from the entrance hall anymore. The results of such architectural modifications reinforced the separation between the front and back side of the house, turning the tablinum into a more defined and distinct room from the atrium quarter. Permanent architectural changes, such as the evidence for recesses to accommodate dining couches cut into the walls of some tablina – 108 even in dwellings that already had dining rooms – reflect a need for more “private” spaces within the house and further indicate the versatility of the tablinum. By the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE the tablinum appears as a flexible space that served different needs. Besides its “public” use in providing a site for the celebration of the dominus and his family, the tablinum would have fulfilled more “private” needs, becoming an intimate space where the paterfamilias could have received and banqueted with a smaller group of guests. At certain times of the day, for instance, the tablinum could have been used as an alternative space for serving and consuming food, with its rear and front barriers either closed or open depending on the family’s needs and seasonal changes. The arrangement tablinum-triclinium and tablinum-cubiculum further reinforces the idea of an alternative complex of rooms for “hospitality” practices. Boundaries such as curtains, partitions, and doors regulated the access into, and sight into and from the tablinum. Such boundaries could have been opened or closed towards the back and front areas according to the various daily needs of the occupants. The door to the rear of the tablinum, for instance, could have been shut during the morning, when clients were received, and later opened to allow views onto the peristyle garden. 266 Offering a monumental background, the tablinum could have also been a perfect space for receiving and dining with a few guests. As a “hinge” between the front and back area, furthermore, the tablinum might have been used as “grand vestibule” to impress some guests, depending on their status and relationship with the householder. 266 Berry 2016, 132. That at a certain time of the day, passersby and visitors were granted the view through the tablinum back into the house is indeed confirmed by the careful axial vistas planned from the vestibule entrance. 109 Whatever the “original” use of the tablinum might have been, such separation between the front area might reflect social and cultural changes in society. The Vitruvian atrium house, whose examples are visible in Pompeii and Herculaneum, indeed, was not a fixed entity but was subject to changes and modifications. 267 This development and transformation of the Roman (or Vitruvian) dwelling is clearly exemplified by a study of the variety of archaeological evidence for the tablinum. Eventually, the gradual disappearance of the tablinum from the Italic house, with a shift in emphasis from the Campanian-style atrium house to the peristyle plan (especially in the middle and late Imperial period), 268 most probably reflects changes in the mechanisms of self-presentation employed by the householder. As Andrew Wallace-Hadrill has remarked, the abandonment of the “traditional” atrium-alae-tablinum complex should not be interpreted as a reflection of changes in the patronage system nor as a withdrawal of the elite from the public life, but rather as a concern for a “greater control on the exposure of the master to the public.” 269 From a social, cultural, and practical point of view, the tablinum eventually became an unnecessary space as new “representative” rooms were built around the peristyle garden. An analysis of the tablinum, perhaps more than any other room, illustrates this shift toward a concern and need for “privacy.” 267 Wallace-Hadrill 2011a, 210; 2015, 289. 268 George 1983; Ellis 1988; Clarke 1991, 263-64; Farrar 1998, 17, 19; Carucci 2007, 18-19; Wallace- Hadrill 2007; Simelius 2018, 34. Among many issues in a study of the Italian domus is the lack of complete plans (George 1983, 188). Evidence for a shift in emphasis from the atrium-tablinum complex to the peristylium-triclinium scheme comes especially from provinces: Gros 2006 II, 148-196; Anderson 2013, 219. Late Roman houses, in particular, did not adopt the “traditional” atrium-tablinum complex but manifested an interest in the peristyle garden and apsidal rooms built around it. For a discussion of social changes in the Late Antique and their impact on domestic architecture, see Thébert 1987; Ellis 1991; Gros 2006, II. 269 Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 52. 110 Chapter 3: Looking toward and through the Tablinum: Enhancing the Householder’s Identity, Presence, and Pietas The Roman domus was a status symbol. 270 As the site of many rituals and celebrations (i.e., religious, social, political, familial, and domestic), the domus was more than a family shelter, in that it allowed for the construction of status and the maintenance of social order. It presented the public face of the householder, and his family, to society, and conveyed his virtus, dignitas, and existimatio. Scholars have amply demonstrated how the domus was central to the promotion of the householder’s public presence and identity among his peers. Alongside of such secular socio-political and cultural aspects, the religious nature of the domus has been also been brought into focus. 271 The shrine for the household divinities (lararium), 272 the display of portrait busts and spoils (spolia), as well as ancestor masks (imagines maiorum) in the “public” areas of the house, are usually the principal characteristics taken into consideration when discussing the religious nature of the Roman house. 273 Schlars have also taken into account decorative and architectural art, which contributed in various ways to enhance the religious character of the house as well. 270 Saller 1984; Wiseman 1987; Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Hales 2003. 271 On the religious nature of the Roman house: Coarelli 1983; Saller 1984, 350-54; 1994, 89-90; Wiseman 1987; Treggiari 2001, 74-108. This aspect has been also briefly investigated by Muccigrosso 2007, 184-86; Sewell 2010, 157. 272 For the sake of brevity, I adopt the name lararium throughout my work although the term does not appear until the third century CE (cf. CIL 9.2125, which dates between 235-328 CE) and the fourth century CE (cf. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Marc. Aur. 3.5; Alex. Sev. 29.2, 31.5; Tac. 17.4). Household shrines are usually described in earlier literary texts as: aedicula, ara, sacraria, and sacellum. Today, however, the term lararium has become standard in modern scholarship to indicate household shrines also for earlier periods. For further information, see Giacobello 2005; Gagetti 2006, 491. 273 Clarke 1991; Hales 2003, 57, 113-14; Pollini 2012, 25-6. 111 This chapter will discuss how the tablinum mediates between the secular and sacral spheres of the domus. By considering how the tablinum is framed, and examining its appearance from various sightlines, I argue that the decoration of the tablinum, with a columnar entrance recalling the façade of a prostyle temple, the display of busts and statues of ancestors flanking the tablinum’s entrance, and the vistas onto the lararium through and from the tablinum, all hint at the connection between Roman religion and the social nature of this space. Unpacking this relationship also helps to draw out the reasons behind later architectural and decorative changes. For example, it contributes to our understanding of why, over time, nymphaea located in the back garden and visible from the axially disposed atrium-tablinum began to resemble the form of lararia. Seen from the vestibule of the house, such architecturally-framed views of the tablinum could have created the illusion of a lararium itself. In this way, too, the paterfamilias could highlight both his role as the head of religion in his household, as well as his devotion to the gods and his own divine genius, thus fulfilling familial and social duties by stressing his pietas and presenting himself as bonus vir (good citizen) to his guests. As a fundamental civic and familial virtue, pietas acquired a more significant political character during the time of Augustus, when the Genius of the Princeps was worshipped at both the state and domestic level. 274 Governing individual relationships both within the family and the state, pietas was one of the most important Roman values. Analysis of the domestic archaeological evidence, therefore, can help us to better understand the role that pietas played in enhancing the dominus’ Romanitas and presence in the public sphere. 274 On the worshipping of the Genius of Augustus as well as official and non-official views on the matter of imperial cult, see Pollini 2012, 69-132 (with past literature on the subject). 112 The Framing of the Domestic View. Part I: Ancestral Images Aedificavi hanc domum. Ut scitis, casula erat: nunc templum est. 275 Religion shaped every aspect of a Roman’s life and was integral to the domestic context as well. From the primary literary evidence, it is clear that domestic and religious language and concepts overlapped in ancient Rome. Petronius’ satirical description of the extravagant life of Trimalchio, who turned his little shack into a rich “temple” and lived pampered by clients as a god, is just only one of the many ancient literary sources drawing parallels, albeit here with exaggeration, between the domestic and religious sphere (Sat. 77.4). More broadly, the term aedes, for instance, was used by ancient writers, in literary as well as epigraphic contexts, to refer to both the house of a mortal and the house of a god (i.e., temple), while the word atrium, which translates as the domestic open courtyard, was also employed to characterize public and religious buildings (i.e., the atrium Vestae in Rome). 276 The terms dii penates and domus were often used synonymously, and indeed, in the Archaic period the palace of the king was also the site for the public cult of the Penates, Lares, Vesta, etc. 277 The account of a certain Virginia, who in 296 BCE dedicated part of her abode to house a sacellum to Pudicitia Plebeia, further elucidates the religious character of the Roman house. 278 275 Petron. Sat. 77.4. “I have built this house. It was a shack, as you know, but now it is a temple.” 276 Muccigrosso 2007, 184. 277 Coarelli 1983, 200; Saller 1984, 350. 278 Muccigrosso 2007, 184. 113 The overlap between “architettura sacra” and “architettura privata” is particularly evident in the lives of public figures. 279 Well-known, for instance, is the symbolic fastigium added to the façade of Caesar’ s house (domus publica) so that his residence resembled a temple, as well as a royal palace (regia). 280 Striking parallels between domestic and religious architecture are also visible in the nature of Scipio Africanus’ vestibule, at which pirates admitted to his house worshipped as if they were at the most religious shrine or sacred temple (religiosissimam aram sanctumque templum: Val. Max. 2.10.2); and, perhaps most notable, the architectural scheme of Augustus’ Palatine house, which was connected to the Temple of Apollo (Suet. Aug. 29). 281 Ovid also remarks on the sacral nature of the Augustan vestibulum, which “was large enough to accommodate a shrine of Vesta” (Fast. 4.950; limine). The ideological and religious impact of the Augustan Palatine house was further increased by its close proximity to other sacred structures like the Aedicula (or Ara) Vestae (a shrine that Augustus built within or next to his house), the Temple of Magna Mater (restored by Augustus after it was damaged by a fire in 3 BCE), and the Temple of Victoria, as well as such sacro-secular buildings connected with the mythological origins of Rome like the Auguratorium and the Hut of Romulus. By reinforcing his association with the founder of Rome, as well as adding the cult of Apollo, Vesta, and the Penates to his house, Augustus was the first Roman to design an innovative and audacious program of religious and domestic interconnections for his Palatine residence, which both surpassed the related activities of his Republican predecessors and 279 Filippo Coarelli (1983) was one of the first scholars to discuss the “sacralizzazione della casa” in Roman elite domestic architecture, discussing the parallels between “architettura sacra” and “architettura privata.” 280 Coarelli 1983, 199; Wiseman 1987, 396-97. On the fastigium decorating Caesar’s public residence: Cic. Phil. 2.110; Suet. Iul. 81.3; Flor. 2.13.91. 281 For an overview of the different phases of construction of Augustus’ Palatine house: Coarelli 2012, 347- 98. 114 set an example for subsequent emperors to emulate. 282 Caligula’s architectural ambitions for his Palatine palace probably reflected the intent of his great-grandfather Augustus, rather than signifying megalomania, as his ancient detractors claimed after his death. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Caligula would have turned the Republican Temple of the Castors in the Forum into the vestibule of his palace on the Palatine (the Domus Gai) – which is strikingly reminiscent of Augustus’ own constructed relationship between house and temple. 283 If we consider elite and imperial houses, the overlap between the categories of domestic and religious is further attested by analysis of their furnishing. In discussing the ideological aspects of such abodes, Timothy Wiseman has drawn attention to how both house and temple were loci memoriae meant to preserve and advertise the names of the owner (in the former case) or the dedicator (in the latter). Both public temples and elite domus were filled with paintings, sculptures, and other precious works of art which communicated to a visitor striking social and political visual messages, such as the authority and wealth of an individual or a country. 284 In the early Republic, a person entering the atrium of a Roman nobleman’s house was immediately faced with a setting 282 On the ideological aspects of the Palatine house of Augustus, see Meyboom 2005. As Meyboom (2005, 234) points out, such a Hellenistic tradition of combining a sanctuary with a private residence was already introduced in Rome by Pompey (who built his house in proximity to his theater with the Temple of Venus Victrix), as well by Clodius, who dedicated a shrine to Libertas beside his house. 283 Suet. Calig. 22.2; Cass. Dio 59.28.5. Although both Suetonius and Cassius Dio (respectively in the second and third century CE) mention an extension of Caligula’s Palatine palace towards the Forum, their descriptions differ in regard to the connection between such palace and the Temple of the Castors. Today, there is no surviving evidence that Caligula created an opening into the back of the Temple, thus physically turning this sacred space into his palace’s vestibule. On the Domus Gai, its interpretation, archaeological excavations, and possible connection with the Temple of the Castores, see, among many, LTUR II 1995, 106-8 s.v. “Domus Gai” (Hurst); Adams 2007, 191-98; Carandini 2010, 266-70; Coarelli 2013, 167-72. For a discussion of Caligula’s ancient traducers, see Pollini 2012, 369-422. 284 Wiseman 1987, 395-96, esp. ns. 5-6 with literary passages attesting the display of spolia (military booty) both in the house and the temple. 115 meant to celebrate and animate the memory of the householder and those of his ancestors. The ancestral representations of a family, which included stemmata (painted family trees), clipeatae imagines (shield portraits), and family archives, as well as portrait busts and wax masks of family ancestors (imagines), were exhibited in the atrium (the first accessible room), providing moral and social benefits. 285 The imagines were said to be kept inside separate armaria (wooden cupboards) 286 and labeled with a titulus (inscription) recording the ancestor’s name, achievements, and honors. 287 The ancestral wax masks served as power symbols in the minds of both the family and the visitors, as they were intended to be testimonia to the background, importance, and presence of a prestigious family in the society. Every day, visitors entering the atrium of a Roman elite’s dwelling during the morning salutatio were reminded of the master’s rank through the presence of the imagines. Beyond advertising a nobleman’s lineage and a family’s social position, the imagines also served a didactic purpose for the family members. Preserving the memory of the deceased ancestors for future generations, the imagines served as exempla (role models) of traditional moral and civic values for the elite’s children. 288 The role of the imagines also extended beyond the house’s boundaries, playing an important function in the construction of collective memory. Writing in the second 285 For an overview of ancestral representation in domestic space according to ancient literary sources, see Flower 1996, 40-6; Doonan 1999; and Pollini 2012, 13-68, especially for the origins of the ancestral wax mask tradition, its performative role in Roman riturals of death, and its impact on the “veristic” portraiture. 286 Polyb. 6.53.4; Plin. HN 35.6 (aliter apud maiores in atriis haec erant, quae spectarentur…expressi cera vultus singulis disponebantur armariis, ut essent imagines). For the symbolic significance of the imagines in the atrium, see Flower 1996, 185-222, esp. 185 ns. 2-3 (with a list of ancient primary literary sources). Modern scholars often locate the imagines in the alae, an assumption that is not supported by any ancient texts and derives from a misreading of Vitruvius’ passage (De arch. 6.3.6): Cova 2013, 373. 287 Flower 1996, 207. 288 Sall. Iug. 4.5-6. On the tradition, use, and importance of the imagines maiorum in ancient Rome, see Flower 1996; Pollini 2012, 13-68. 116 century BCE, the historian Polybius (6.53.6) describes the public parades of the imagines maiorum during the funeral procession of a Roman aristocrat, as well as their display at public sacrifices. Either kept within the house, or displayed at funerals and special ceremonies, ancestral wax masks played a significant political role in maintaining the rank and importance of old aristocratic families in Rome. 289 Only the Roman men who held one of the highest public offices (the so-called “curule magistracies”) 290 were granted the honor of an imago. As the privilege of only a few, ancestral masks were status symbols to display proudly. Because of their perishable nature, no ancestral wax imago of the Roman nobiles has survived. However, in addition to the literary sources, some indirect evidence for the imagines of Rome’s nobility also comes from the archaeological evidence. 291 The funerary relief commemorating the freedmen A. Amelius Aristomachus and Aemilia Hilaria in the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen, for instance, shows the portraits of the deceased couple, each set within an open cupboard (Fig. 3.1). 292 What is represented here are the busts of a freed couple (a man and a woman), not their masks. 293 Because non-aristocratic classes tended to imitate the art of the nobility, this relief can be taken as reminiscent of the armaria found in the houses of Roman aristocrats. The 289 Pollini 2012, 27-8. On the biased nature of ancient sources dealing with ancestral images in the Roman house, see Doonan 1999, 74. 290 For an overview of the Roman constitution in the Republican period: Lintott 1999, Posner 2010. More specifically on the cursus honorum during the Republic: Beck 2005; in the Empire: Eck 1996. On political institutions in Pompeii: Mouritsen 1988. 291 For a comprehensive study of imagines in literary and archaeological evidence, see Flower 1996. 292 National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, inv. no. 1187, dated around 30 BCE: Flower 1996, 7, pl. 1; La Rocca and Parisi Presicce 2011, 45, cat. no. 1.2 (Papini) with extensive bibliography; Pollini 2012, 14 fig. 1.1. Another grave relief with similar pendant portraits and commemorating freed people is in Rome, Centrale Montemartini, Musei Capitolini, inv. no. 15712, dated between the end of the first century BCE- beginning of the first century CE: Gregori and Mattei 1999, 254, cat. no. 717 (Capoferro). 293 The right of wax images, furthermore, was not extended to women since they could not hold public offices. 117 archaeological evidence from elite and non-elite contexts at Pompeii and Herculaneum provides further information on the significance of ancestral imagines in Roman culture. 294 In the Pompeian Casa del Menandro (I.10.4), which was an elite dwelling probably belonging to a rich local magistrate, 295 four ancestor portraits (two heads and two busts) were discovered inside a semicircular niche (room 25) in the southwest corner of the peristyle garden (Fig. 3.2). Most probably made of wood rather than wax, these miniature portraits (of which today only the plaster casts remain) were preserved inside a domestic shrine and were probably part of the family cult. 296 I agree with Harriet Flower, who considers the heads and busts in the Casa del Menandro to be a local type of ancestor portrait for the domestic cult on the grounds that they were made of wood and were kept in a domestic shrine in the peristyle area rather than, as described in literary sources, in cupboards set in the atrium. 297 These portraits, therefore, should not be understood as actual wax imagines but, rather, as busts of deceased ancestors associated with the family cult. Other similar examples of such local tradition are found in the house I.8.18 at Pompeii and in the Casa del Graticcio (III.13-15) at Herculaneum. 298 Even in these instances, the small portraits do not present any actual imago. Nonetheless, they still give us a sense of just how important the preservation and veneration of family history for 294 For a convenient overview on ancestral portraits at Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Odile and Laforge 2007. 295 On the ownership of the Casa del Menandro, see Ling 1997, 142-44. 296 Maiuri 1933, 96-106, figs. 48-9; Boyce 1937, 28, no. 49; De Franciscis 1951, 19-20, fig. 1; Flower 1996, 42-3, Pl. 2; Pollini 2012, 27, fig. 1.6; Fejfer 2008, 175, 179-80, figs. 104-5. Together with the four portraits was also found a small statue of a young seated man wearing a garland and interpreted as a Lar. 297 Flower 1996, 42-6. 298 House I.8.18, Pompeii: three small busts were found inside the niche lararium in the kitchen and have been mistakenly assigned to the niche lararium in the atrium of the nearby Casa dei Quattro dei Stili (I.8.17) in earlier studies (see, among many: PPM I, 853, fig. 13; Odile and Laforge 2007, 164-65, fig. 6). For correct information on the location of these portraits: Foss 1997, 200-1, figs. 3-4; Giacobello 2008, 142-43, no. 14. Casa del Graticcio (III.13-15), Herculaneum: a wooden female bust was found in a lararium located in room (5) on the upper floor. The bust is in Herculaneum, Antiquarium, inv. no. 322/75598: Maiuri 1958, 419; Flower 1996, 43 n. 65; De Kind 1998, 117; Ascione and Pagano 2000, 112, no. 62; Odile and Laforge 2007, 162, fig. 4. 118 present and future success were for the Romans. Such attention to the commemoration of family heritage demonstrates how past, present, and future were intertwined in the Roman house. Starting in the early Imperial period, with the new politic inaugurated by Augustus in trying to control and limit the public self-advertisement of aristocratic families, the wax imagines of the Roman nobility gradually lost significance. The presence of other important media in the house, such as portrait busts of family members set in the atrium, however, continued to appear and function as exempla to the family and the public. 299 Thanks to the analysis of the archival and photographic sources for Pompeii and Herculaneum we know of a few examples of portrait herms displayed at the frontal entrance to the tablinum of some ancient dwellings. Particularly well-studied is the portrait herm found in front of the left (north) anta of the tablinum in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.23,26) at Pompeii whose inscription reads: GENIO L[ucii] NOSTRI | FELIX L[ibertus] (“To the genius of our Lucius, [dedicated by] the freedman Felix”) (Fig. 3.3). 300 This bronze portrait of a certain Lucius may represent an ancestor of the owner of the family, a rich Pompeian banker. 301 Before the right (south) pilaster of this tablinum stood another marble herm base, which bears the same inscription but was found headless at the time of excavation in 1875. 302 Two reproductions of the marble herm bases 299 Fejfer 2008, 90. 300 MANN, inv. no. 110663. On the inscription: CIL 10, 860; Cooley 2014, 151-52. 301 Contra Welch (2007, 571), who associates the portrait with the last owner of the house. The dating and identification of this male portrait is still debated. See esp. De Franciscis 1951, 31-5, figs. 17-20; Dexter 1964, 224-25; Andreau 1974, 25-31; Döhl and Zanker 1979, 197; Bonifacio 1997, 90-2, no. 36, pl. 29; Petersen 2006, 163-83; Welch 2007, 568-71, figs. 36.11a-b; Fejfer 2008, 90-1. 302 GdS NS, 1875, 176. The herm base is today displayed at the MANN, inv. no. 110665. 119 are today in situ, placed in front of either anta of the tablinum to give us an idea of how this space would have appeared to the people within and outside the house (Fig. 3.4). Another example of a portrait herm flanking the entrance to the tablinum comes from the Casa del Citarista (I.4.5,25) at Pompeii, a double atrium house. In the representative atrium (6) of this house, the excavators recorded two bronze busts (a man and a woman), presumably relating to two members of the gens Popidia, who owned the house. 303 The male bust was discovered in front of the right (south) anta of the tablinum while the female one was found in the left (north) ala of the house. 304 Because these busts are similar in size and style, it is likely that they were originally a pair and stood before either anta of the tablinum. Other portrait herms set in a similar manner at the frontal entrance to the tablinum were found in the Casa di Cornelius Rufus (VIII.4.15) 305 and the Casa di Vesonius Primus (or di Orfeo, VI.14.20) 306 at Pompeii (Figs. 3.5, 3.6). 307 As the wax 303 The ownership of the house is confirmed by the abundance of graffiti within the building, while the identification of the busts is still debated. On the male bust, which is at the MANN, inv. no. 4989, ht. 0.38 m: De Franciscis 1951, 25, figs. 12-13; Dwyer 1982, 86-7, figs. 123-24; Bonifacio 1997, 87-9, no. 33, pl. 26; Welch 2007, 567-68, figs. 36.9a-b. The female bust is also at the MANN, inv. no. 4990, ht. 0.38 m: De Franciscis 1951, 49-50, figs. 48-9; Döhl and Zanker 1979, 195; Dwyer 1982, 87, figs. 127-28; Bonifacio 1997, 109-111, no. 44, pls. 36b-37; Welch 2007, 568, figs. 36.10a-b. 304 Dwyer 1982, 86-7 (with further reference on the archival sources). 305 Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 20604. The marble herm base is inscribed: C. CORNELIO RUFO, “To Gaius Cornelius Rufus”: CIL 10, 864: De Franciscis 1951, 39, fig. 27; Bonifacio 1997, 86, no. 32, pl. 25; Fejfer 2008. 306 Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 407/4. De Franciscis 1951, 30-1, fig. 16; Bonifacio 1997, 90-2, no. 35, pl. 28; Welch 2007, 570-71, figs. 36.12a-b. The marble herm base bears the inscription: PRIMO N[ostro]| ANTEROS ARCAR[ius], “To our Primus, [dedicated by] the cashier Anteros”: CIL 10, 865. 307 The well-known portrait herm found in the Casa dell’Erma di Bronzo (III.16) at Herculaneum, which also gave the name to the building, was discovered in a room on the upper floor and not in the atrium: Maiuri GSE, 15 febbraio 1929: “Nello scavo C, ambiente n. 17, piano superiore esterno della casa del piccolo atrio tuscanico (n. 8) a m. 2.10 dall’estremità del muro lato ovest, a m. 3.40 dal sottostante pavimento, a m. 0.50 dalla parete nord, ed a m. 0.08 da quella ovest poggiato sul pavimento è apparso: Bronzo: Erma di un Genio alta m. 0.50. La testa è alta m. 0.27 e larga m. 0.20. Il capo è alquanto schiacciato ed i capelli sono mossi. Essi coprono una parte della fronte. L’occhio sinistro è rotto. E’ di una discreta fattura. Inventario n. 403.” See also Maiuri 1958, 244. The herm is today in Herculaneum, Antiquarium, inv. no. 75680: De Kind 1998, 123; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 144. 120 imagines in the house of Roman noble families, these busts would have played a crucial role in emphasizing the presence and social position of the householder, at the same time educating the family’s younger generations in regard to moral and civic values (i.e., emulating the achievements of their predecessors). The identification of the portrait herms found in Pompeii flanking the tablinum’s entrance is still debated. While most scholars believe them to be portraits of the family ancestors, 308 Katherine Welch has contended that, rather, they represented the current owners of the house at the time of the eruption. 309 Welch notes that the portrait herms with dedicatory inscriptions at Pompeii all belonged to freedmen. According to her argument, all these herms share a similar “style of heightened realism” suited to express the Romanitas proper of wealthy individuals of servile origins. Lacking a family history of notable individuals and, thus, without recourse to a display of dynastic ancestral busts, such freedmen would have commissioned and displayed realistic portraits of themselves to remind the community of their current social rise. 310 Whether representing the current owners of the house, immediate predecessors, or remote ancestors, it is unquestionable that the portrait herms of L. Caecilius, Vesonius Primus, C. Cornelius Rufus, and the bust in the Casa del Citarista stood prominently in the first and “most accessible” area of the house (the atrium) to impress the householder’s social peers and subordinates. In discussing the portraits flanking the tablinum, however, I argue that 308 De Franciscis 1951; Döhl and Zanker 1979, 197; Dweyer 1982, 127; Bonifacio1997; Petersen 2006, 176; Fejfer 2008, 90. 309 Welch 2007, 572. 310 Ibid. For the portraits of freedmen in general and their imitation of the aristocratic wax mask tradition, see Pollini 2012, 53-6 (with further bibliography on the subject). 121 the identification of the individual represented and his/her social status, as well as the ways in which these private portraits were visible to both invited guests standing in the atrium and to those passing by and viewing the house by way of the vestibule, should be taken into consideration. The striking street axial vistas across the fauces-atrium-tablinum into the garden, and the decorative emphasis on the domestic entrance doorways, as well as the placement of benches and the raising of sidewalks in front of ancient dwellings, demonstrate a willingness to manipulate the vista and path of pedestrians, who were forced “to take notice and adjust their course.” 311 Placed in such prominent positions, therefore, these portraits were meant to be seen not only by the individuals inside the house but also by passers-by who moved along the street (at least, when the various doors of the house where left open). For a person standing outside of the house, it would have been difficult to recognize the individuals portrayed. These busts, therefore, could have been understood as ancestor portraits, providing the family (at least, at first glance) with an historical pedigree that was in some way comparable to the grandiose lineage of the elite citizens. Framed by family portraits and directly visible from the street, the tablinum served to publicly advertise the family’s position within society and display the householder’s respect for and devotion to his ancestors (that is, his pietas). In doing so, the paterfamilias would have fulfilled social and familial duties by presenting himself as a bonus vir. 311 Russell 2016, 15. At the threshold of the main entrance doorway of the Casa del Fauno (VI.12.2,5) at Pompeii, for instance, was placed the inscription HAVE (“Welcome”), which invited the visitors to rest and look at the house’s interior. Only at Pompeii, furthermore, at least 100 benches stood in front of 69 ancient dwellings: Hartnett 2008, 92, 96-8, table 1. On the manipulation of street space, see Wiseman 1987 (for Rome); Hartnett 2008, 2017 (for Rome, Pompeii, and Herculaneum). 122 The Framing of the Domestic View. Part II: Religion and Pietas Roman pietas is a crucial concept for understanding the relationships between individuals both within the family and the larger context of the state. Governing reciprocal obligations and a sense of responsibility and dutiful devotion “toward gods, country, and family members” (that is, the pietas erga deos, patriam, parentes), 312 pietas was the quintessential Roman family value. 313 The Augustan poet Virgil and his description of the pius Aeneas in the Aeneid have prompted modern scholars to conceive of the Roman family as a unit strongly supported by filial “piety” and respect towards the autocratic paternal figure. Familial pietas, therefore, has often been associated with a sense of submission to a higher authority, especially regarding the father-child relationship and the subsequent filial submission and respect. Richard Saller, however, has clarified how the familial notion of pietas encompassed mutual affection, responsibilities, and obligations among all the family members. Cicero’s devotion toward his daughter Tullia, as well as the attention he paid to 312 Cf. Ad Her. 3.4 (…si quod ius in parentes, deos, patriam natura comparavit, id religiose colendum demonstrabimus; si hospitia, clientelas, cognationes, adfinitates caste colenda esse dicimus…). Among the various ancient texts dealing with the concept of pietas, Cicero’s writings provide the fullest picture of this concept: on the pietas toward the gods (De deor. nat. I.2.3; I.41.116; De fin. III.22.73; De off. III.6.28; II.3.11; Dom. 107); toward the state (De rep. 6.16; Brut. 126; De inv. 2.66); toward relatives (De rep. 6.16; De inv. 2.66; Ad fam. XI.22.11). Wagenvoort (1980, 1-20) discusses how the concept of pietas changes in Cicero’s descriptions according to his personal and political troubles. On Cicero’s pietas, see also Emilie 1944. 313 Evans Grubbs 2011, 377. The concept of pietas has been well studied and discussed. For a quick and broad overview, see TLL 10.1.14.2086-105. In my work, I have relied especially on: Wissowa 1909; Hellegoarc’h 1963, 276-79; Wagenvoort 1980; Traina 1984; 1994; Saller 1988; 1996; Berdowski 2014; Mouritsen 2014; Natali 2014; Noreña 2016, 71-7. 123 the instruction of his son and nephew, is particularly illustrative of this. 314 Moreover, in epitaphs, pietas is a shared quality attributed to both parents and children. Funerary inscriptions, therefore, further illustrate how the notion of pietas was a “reciprocal quality of affectionate devotion valued in parents and children alike.” 315 The family unit was maintained through a mutual understanding of duty. It was from a common sense of care and gratitude that obligations and reciprocal actions were fostered in the ancient Roman world. Because familial gratitude (pietas erga parentes) was the foundation of all the virtues, pietas was a Roman cardinal virtue for the maintenance of not only familial but also social relations. 316 From the family realm, therefore, pietas was projected onto the larger state context, providing the common basis for the consistent maintenance of social and civic harmony. Pietas, indeed, was an inherent concept in the Roman web of expectations and obligations and often overlapped with the notions of officium (duty) and fides (trust). 317 Pietas regulated other familial and social dynamics, such as obsequium (deference) and officium by children to parents and by freedman to their patrons, and governed people’s behaviors, actions, and relationships, thus prompting reciprocal duties and responsibilities and allowing for the preservation of the familial, social, and political order. 318 314 For examples of primary literary sources attesting not only to filial respect (e.g., the pius Aeneas of Virgil) but also to a wife’s pietas toward her husband or a father’s pietas toward his children, see Saller 1988, esp. 399-403. 315 Saller 2001, 103-4. Cf. Mouritsen (2014, 51), who notes how parental pietas toward their children (as opposed to the filial pietas for their parents) is a concept that does not fully develop until the Imperial period, when “the meaning came to gradually approach that of clementia and caritas.” 316 Cic. Plan. 12.29: …ut vivat cum suis, primum cum parente – nam meo iudicio pietas fundamentum est omnium virtutum… (“…He should live with his family, and especially with his father – I consider family pietas the basis of all the virtues”). 317 On the overlap between pietas, officium, and fides, see Hellegorac’h 1963, 276-79. 318 Hellegorac’h 1963, 277 (for the pietas linked to the officium); Saller 1988, 399-410; 1996, 105-14. 124 Such a sense of responsibility and obligation between people in higher positions and their subordinates was a two-way relationship, flowing both upwards (toward parents and patrons) and downwards (toward children and clients). Alfonso Traina has rightly explained this ascending/descending exchange of gratitude and obligations between individuals as an “emotional” bond proper of pietas, defined as “il dovere di amare e il diritto di essere riamati (in ogni tipo di rapporti).” 319 As a fundamental concept at the basis of the exchange of beneficium and officium, pietas governed the relationships of amicitia and clientela. 320 A pius man is “qui debitum reddat” (Hist. Aug. AntP. 2.3.4). Pietas, therefore, was essential to foster social stability and a widespread sense of community, thus promoting society’s cohesion. Such understanding of familial and civic ideals of pietas permeated any social strata and influenced the life of individuals by reminding them of their mutual duties and expectations. Considering the religious character of the Roman house, as well as the fact that pietas was a cardinal virtue for the maintenance of familial and social harmony, I claim that the householder employed various devices to promote his social and religious “dutifulness” and, thus, his participation in public life. A discussion of the synoptic framing of the tablinum in its larger decorative and architectural setting, in particular, helps to shed light on the strategies of self-presentation employed by the dominus to fulfill this goal. The 319 Traina 1994, 132. Pietas, furthermore, moved not only “vertically” (that is, between a leader and a subordinate) but also “horizontally,” between friends and siblings (i.e., peers): Noreña 2016, 72. 320 Reference to pietas in literary and epigraphic texts is abundant: TLL 10.1.14.2086-105. Some examples of pietas among friends include: Cic. Sest. 3; Planc. 98; Mil. 100; Fam. 1.9.1; Apul. Met. 8.7.3. For pietas between a patron and a client: Plin. Ep. 7.29.2; Val. Max 6.8.2; CIL. V.2176; VI.2225. For pietas between family members: Cic. Planc. 33; Brut. 33; Sull. 64; Val. Max. 5.4.7; Plin. HN. 7.121; Stat. Silv. 5.Praef. For a discussion of Roman friendship and patronage, as well as the overlapping relationship between the categories of amici and clientes, see Saller 1989; Verboven 2011. 125 posts at the entrance to the tablinum, for instance, were frequently treated as columns or fluted pilasters surmounted by an entablature or architrave. 321 Scholars have noted that such “columnar” treatment of the tablinum’s opening would have created a setting well- suited to the public appearance of the dominus to his clients. 322 Associated with the grand architecture of public buildings, columns are widely used in domestic architecture to enhance the “semi-public” dimension and prestige of certain spaces. 323 Along with enhancing the tablinum’s secular (“semi-public”) aspect, however, I argue that such architectural and decorative treatment of the tablinum, which in the majority of the cases could have been already visible from the street, would have also recalled the façade of a prostyle temple, thus granting a religious dimension to this space. My analysis of the archival material and archaeological evidence left in situ in Pompeii and Herculaneum suggests that there were at least 33 tablina with posts treated as columns or fluted stuccowork pilasters by the time of the eruption. (Table 3.1) 324 The façade of the tablinum in the Casa di Umbricius Scaurus (VII.16.12-15) at Pompeii offers 321 Mau (1899, 250) noted that “architecturally the front of this room formed the most impressive feature of the atrium.” 322 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 395: “Questa ‘cornice’ architettonica del dominus, adatta alle sue apparizioni pubbliche all’interno della casa, alla sua funzione di patronus, ai suoi compiti ufficiali.” 323 According to Wallace-Hadrill (1994, 21-2): “atria and peristyles form the normal context for columns, both being, on Vitruvius’ account, public areas.” As a matter of fact, indeed, not only the tablinum but also the entrance to the alae sometimes present a similar “columnar” treatment: Mau 1899, 252. See, e.g., the Casa di Sallustio at Pompeii (VI.2.4), whose tablinum and alae’s entrance were both adorned with Corinthian pilasters: Laidlaw and Stella 2014, 133-34. Jung (1984, 78) noted that about two-thirds of the atrium houses at Pompeii had a tablinum with such architectural treatment, while one-third the alae. 324 This “columnar” decoration of tablinum and alae’s entrance seems to be in fashion between the second and early first century BCE, while plain casings or unfluted pilasters are instead preferred in the imperial era: Mau 1899, 252; Richardson 1988, 155. This, however, does not rule out the possibility that a “columnar treatment” of the tablinum’s entrance was continued to be done in the first century CE as well. This is the case, for instance, with the tablinum in the following Pompeian properties: Casa di Paquius Proculus (I.7.1), Casa d’Ercole (VI.7.6), Casa della Fontana Piccola (VI.8.24, minor atrium), Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII.2.20), Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56), Casa di Romolo e Remo (VII.7.10), Casa di Ercole e Augia (VIII.3.4), and Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus (IX.1.22, representative atrium). 126 one of the most impressive examples. Here, three-quarter columns surmounted by Corinthian capitals frame the tablinum’s frontal entrance, conferring a monumental and religious aspect onto the space, which would have been particularly evident to a visitor approaching the main entrance and looking through the fauces (Fig. 3.7). Half or three- quarter columns framing the tablinum’s frontal entrance are also visible in the Casa del Menandro (I.10.4) and Casa di Ercole e Augia (VIII.3.4) at Pompeii, as well in the Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2) at Herculaneum (Figs. 3.8-3.10). 325 My analysis of the various archival and published sources offers an important contribution to detecting such treatment which no longer exists. This is the case, for example, with the Casa della Fontana Grande (VI.8.22) at Pompeii, where the jambs that framed the tablinum’s frontal entrance were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters, no longer extant but recorded in a 19th-century sketch of the building (Figs. 3.11, 3.12). 326 The tablinum in the representative atrium (16) of the Pompeian Casa del Centauro (VI.9.3-5) also had its frontal jambs decorated as fluted pilasters in stuccowork. Although such treatment does not survive today because the house was heavily damaged by the Allied bombs in 1943, it is shown in an early photograph (Figs. 3.13, 3.14). 327 In at least another 8 cases, furthermore, the entrance to the tablinum was framed by the columns of the impluvium 325 In general, however, such grandiose architecture is less attested. The posts at the frontal entrance of the tablinum are usually decorated with plaster fluted shafts. 326 The drawing was produced in 1845 and is published in Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII. I thank Jackie and Bob Dunn for providing me with the source for this drawing, which is also published in their website: https://bit.ly/2VACDPA (pers. corr. 11/2018). 327 The image can be found at the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 1769. For another example of tablinum’s columnar treatment of frontal jambs, see Casa del Gruppo dei Vasi di Vetro (VI.13.2): American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 1423. Today, only scanty remains of the right fluted pilaster are still visible because the house was damaged in WWII. For further discussion of the Allies’ bombing of Pompeii in 1943, see García y García 2015b. 127 when looking across the entrance doorway (Table 3.1). 328 Hence, when the tablinum was not structurally framed by its own columns/fluted pilasters (that is, when the tablinum’s antae lacked such columnar treatment), as in the Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i) or in the Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX.14.4) at Pompeii, the columns supporting the impluvium would have offered an “optically symmetrical” framing of the tablinum when looking through the vestibule of the house (Figs. 3.15, 3.16). 329 Appearing as an in antis “temple- like” structure, the tablinum would have thus contributed to the overall religious character of the domus and to constructing and maintaining the role of the paterfamilias as head of the household religion. Beyond regulating human interactions, pietas had a prominent religious aspect, since it governed an individual’s relationships with the gods. 330 It was thus expressed by religio, that is, the cult of the gods (cultus deorum) with the performance of ritual acts. 331 Indeed, it could be stated that religio governed almost every domestic action. The Roman house provided a site for the performance of daily religious practices and annual ceremonies that were necessary for the maintenance of the family’s welfare, integrity, and survival. Acting as, effectively, the chief priest of the house, the paterfamilias oversaw and performed all 328 This number is subject to change since in several instances it has not been possible to understand if this was also the case for those tetrastyle atria which today are lacking the columns placed around their impluvium. 329 On constructed plans meant to enhance “optical symmetry” within the house, see Bek 1980, 182-83; also, Jung 1984 with further discussion. On “geometrically symmetrical” and “optically symmetrical” vistas (which are oriented taking into consideration the viewpoint of an observer), see Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 82-3. Similarly, Pollini (2012, 219, n. 44) discusses Roman arrangements and vistas in terms of “structural enframement” and “synoptic eframement.” The latter, in particular, could be symmetrical or not, and concerns what an observer could see, comprehend, and contextualize in one place at one time. 330 Traina (1984, 93) defines such a characteristic of pietas, whose recipients are both gods and humans, as an expression of its “bipolarità.” 331 On the overlap between pietas and religio, see Hellegorac’h 1963, 276. According to Polybius (6.56.6- 15), it is such a sense of religious duty that defined Romans and made them superior to other societies. For a similar interpretation, see also Cic. Nat. D. 2.8. Thanks to its strong religious connotations, pietas fostered respect for duties and gratitude among individuals from all strata of Roman society. 128 of the various domestic rituals to appease the tutelary deities who safeguarded his health and fortune and that of his family. 332 The main life events such as birth, marriage, and death, furthermore, all took place through ritual located within the house, demonstrating how the ceremonies of Roman domestic life were strictly formalized. 333 Roman household religion was a private cult led by the paterfamilias, and, unlike the state religion, was not regulated by any written dogma. 334 Each family performed various rituals and worshipped a variety of gods according to individual preference and need. However, among the multitude of domestic deities worshipped within the house, Vesta, Penates, Lares, and Genius acted as central protective forces. They were usually worshipped together in the context of the domestic hearth and the lararium. As the goddess of the hearth, Vesta was a spiritual manifestation or personification of the hearth fire, although she could be also found anthropomorphically depicted in a few lararia. 335 The Penates were protectors of the food supply (penus), but the term is sometimes used to refer more generally to all the household deities. 336 The Lares (guardians of the house) 337 and the Genius (the living spirit and procreative force of the paterfamilias) 338 have been 332 Turcan 2001, 14; Pollini 2012, 25. 333 For a brief overview on Roman domestic daily and annual ceremonies, see Turcan 2001, 14-50. 334 Bodel 2008. 335 Orr 1978, 1561. 336 Hor. Carm. 2.4.15; 3.23.19; Cic. Har. resp. 37; Hist. Aug. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 18.6; Antoninus Pius 3.5. On the Penates: Orr, 1979, 1562-63; Fröhlich 1991, 37-47; LIMC 7: 288-91, pl. 224, s.v. “Penates” (Mambella); Kaufmann-Heinimann 2007, 151-52; Flower 2017, 48. 337 The origins of the Lares are still debated. Orr (1980, 90) and Giacobello (2008, 49-52) recap the scholarly debate and the two opposing theories (either, Lares interpreted as originally gods of the field who later moved into the house, or as spirits of the dead ancestors). The latter theory is the one generally followed in scholarship; see Giacobello 2008. Contra Flower (2017), who has recently argued that these numina were not connected with the deceased members of the family but were benevolent protectors and guardian spirits of place and travel. For representations of the Lares in material and visual culture: LIMC 6: 205-12, pls. 97-102, s.v. “Lar, Lares” (Tran Tam Tinh). 338 The Genius is a divine protective force being born with, and inseparable from, a human being (Sen Ep. 110.1-2). When a paterfamilias dies, his Genius leaves with him (Censorinus DN 3.5), and the spirits of the 129 frequently found in domestic shrines. The Lares usually appeared as twins holding a wine cup and wearing a short tunic, while the Genius was generally represented as a togate male figure holding a patera (libation bowl) as a recipient of a sacrifice and sometimes also carrying a cornucopia. The Genius had a female counterpart, Iuno, who was the guardian spirit of the paterfamilias’ wife and sometimes appears in lararia as well. 339 The domestic cult of these tutelary deities was necessary for the continuation of the family’s gens and welfare. 340 The archaeological evidence from the Vesuvian sites, and especially from Pompeii, offers the largest number of private lararia, allowing us to draw some conclusions about the domestic cult in the Campanian towns. 341 Since most of the evidence dates between the late Republic and early Empire, furthermore, a study of the Vesuvian sites also helps to elucidate some aspects of Roman private religion. Within the plethora of studies on the Roman household cult, some works stand out as indispensable tools for understanding the domestic rituals in the Vesuvian region. George Boyce’s Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii published in 1937 offered the first systematic collection of these household shrines. Because some of the lararia Boyce studied have today disappeared, this publication is a crucial and fundamental resource on this subject as dead ancestors are associated with the Di Manes (Hor. Epist. 2.2.183). Upon the death of a paterfamilias, the family Genius (genius familiaris), which is associated with the domestic cult and the paterfamilias, is transmitted to the next living male head of the family. On the Genius: Wissowa 1902, 154-59; Orr 1978, 1569-75; LIMC 8 Suppl.: 599-607, pls. 372-76, s.v. “Genius” (Romeo); Giacobello 2008, 119-25. 339 Petron. Sat. 25; Plin. HN 2.16; Tib. 4.6.1. For further discussion of Iuno, see Orr 1978, 1570; Rives 1992; Flower 2017, 59-60. For examples of Iuno in Pompeian lararia, see Boyce 1937, 57, no. 221; 75, no. 349, pl. 19,2; Fröhlich 1991, 298, no. L109, pl. 14,2; 261, no. L29, pl. 28,1-2. 340 The Genius, for instance, received bloodless sacrifices on the anniversary of the paterfamilias’ birthday and marriage: CIL 10 860, 861; Tib. 1.7.49; 2.2.1; Fest. Gloss. Lat. 214; Censorinus DN 2.2. 341 Some differences, however, might have occurred among the Vesuvian sites as well: Orr 1978, 1585-87. A comprehensive study on the religion and its various aspects in the Campanian sites does not currently exist. Among the principal works, see Boyce 1937; Tran Tam Tinh 1972; 1979; Orr 1978; 1980; Adamo- Muscettola 1984; 1996; Fröhlich 1991; Cicirelli 1995; Foss 1999; Kaufmann-Heinimann 2007; Giacobello 2008; Brandt 2010. 130 it includes all of the domestic shrines excavated until the period of publication. Boyce distinguished three major types of domestic altars: the niche type, the aedicula type, and the wall painting type. 342 Gerald David Orr expanded upon Boyce’s work 40 years later, and, by including the archaeological evidence from Herculaneum, added a fourth type of shrine to Boyce’s classification: the pseudo-aedicula lararium. 343 Thomas Fröhlich’s study on the domestic religious themes in Pompeian paintings, as well as Pedar Foss’ focus on the relationship between the rituals of cooking and eating, offered other important contributions to the subject. Both Fröhlich and Foss, in particular, have discussed the difference in style, quality, and location of household shrines in terms of the social division of domestic ritual within the house. 344 Analysis of the evidence for the household cults at Pompeii and Herculaneum has demonstrated how there is an interesting parallel between the type of a shrine and its spatial context. In less exposed and visited areas (such as kitchens), lararia are usually simple niches or paintings, thus less impressive than the monumental aediculae and pseudo-aediculae which are only found in the communia loca of the house like atria and peristyle gardens. 345 When considering the duplication of lararia within the house, Federica Giacobello has argued against the interpretation that slaves worshipped at the kitchen lararia because they were located in the “servile area” of the house, while the 342 Boyce 1937, 10-18. 343 Already mentioned in Boyce (1937, 13), the pseudo-aedicula is set aside as a fourth type of lararium by Orr (1978, 1577-85, pls. 1-2; 1980, 97-8). Less frequently found is the sacellum, a domestic room set apart for the religious cult: Boyce 1937, 18; Orr 1978, 98. 344 On the scholarly tradition on the “servile character” of the kitchen lararia, see Fröhlich 1991, 29-31; Foss 1999. Contra Giacobello 2008, who argues against a social distinction between the slaves and the paterfamilias in regard to the domestic cult. 345 For a list of Pompeian domestic lararia grouped according to their position and typology, see Bakker 1994, 40, fig. 6; Giacobello 2008, 131-294; Brandt 2010, 97-113. 131 lararia displayed in more visible spaces such as the atrium and peristyle garden were connected to the religious practices of the paterfamilias. According to Giacobello, the domestic cult that took place in the kitchen lararium was still within the domain of the paterfamilias. Such duplication of lararia within the home should not be explained by a correlation of spaces and their functions with the status of the house’s inhabitants, but, rather, should be understood to be connected to the tactics of self-presentations employed by the householder. According to Giacobello, therefore, the kitchen lararia (that is, the “primary lararia”) served as an “authentic” expression of the cult because they were reserved for the worship of the Lares who served as guardians of the house. The “secondary lararia,” which are the most impressive in terms of their monumentality and richness, displaying images of various beneficent divinities (such as Bacchus, Venus, and Hercules, among many others), instead, would not have served the primary place of cultic worship in the house but were, most importantly, meant to recall the householder’s wealth and social status. 346 While I have found Giacobello’s distinctions between the two types of domestic lararia (“primary” and “secondary”) particularly useful according to their typology, spatial distribution, and visibility, I remain less convinced by her argument regarding the division of cultic activities between these two categories of lararium. In my opinion, such distinction in religious activities between lararia cannot be clearly defined, partly because images of Lares appear in both types of shrines 347 and also because there is evidence for 346 Giacobello 2008, 59-69. On the kitchen shrines as the “true lararia” (because they were only associated with Lares and Vesta), see also Foss 1997, 217. 347 See, for instance, the two bronze statuettes of Lares found in the aedicula-lararium in the peristyle garden of the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7; Boyce 1937, 57-8, no. 221, pl. 38.2), as well as the 132 cultic ceremonies in the “secondary lararia” as well. 348 What is unquestionable, however, is the fact that the architecturally complex lararia, which were displayed in the most accessible, exposed, and visited rooms, were meant to draw attention to the householder’s status, dignity, and presence within the society. Their location in the atrium, the place for individual and collective memory of the family, would have undoubtedly created a crucial setting for the dominus since it was here that he conducted his business enterprise and patronage activities. Within the discussion of Pompeian domestic lararia, scholars have noted how shrines are usually found in kitchens, atria, and peristyle gardens, and less commonly in vestibules, corridors, and cubicula, as well as in “representative” rooms such as tablina and triclinia. 349 The reasons behind such a lack of shrines in formal reception rooms, however, have not been addressed. An analysis of the spatial distribution of domestic shrines at Pompeii shows that lararia are found in only two triclinia and in one room tentatively identified as a “tablinum.” 350 These lararia are simple niches. If household shrines are aedicula-lararium in the atrium of the Casa delle Pareti Rosse (VIII.5.37), where Lares appear both painted and represented in bronze statuettes found in situ (Boyce 1937, 77, no. 371, pl. 31.1-2). According to Giacobello, the Lares found in “secondary lararia” should not be intended as the “authentic” expression of the domestic cult (as the ones found in the “primary lararia”) but considered more generally as benevolent deities (like the statuettes such as Venus and Hermes found in monumental lararia). 348 See also Petersen 2009; I arrived independently at a similar conclusion. We have evidence for iron nails driven into the wall above, below, or at the sides of the shrine and used to sustain ribbons (taeniae), and garlands, as well as offerings for the deities: Boyce 1937, nos. 213, 349, 459. In front of the niche lararium in the garden of the Pompeian Casa del Larario del Sarno (I.14.7) once stood a wooden altar for the offerings: Jashemski 1979, 60, no. 104; Giacobello 2008, 259, no. V20. 349 Bakker 1994, 39-40; Bodel 2008, 255-56; Giacobello 2008, 66-7; Brandt 2010, 92. An earlier distinction between household shrines in formal reception rooms (atria and peristyle gardens) and residential ones (cubicula) was made by Adamo-Muscettola 1984, 12. 350 Bakker 1994, 40; Giacobello 2008, 288-92; Brandt 2010. The triclinia are in the Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7) and in the house IX.9.11; the “tablinum” is in property I.12.9, a dwelling that I did not take into consideration in my survey because it is not an atrium house (PPM II, 784). Brandt (2010, 97-114) also lists three more lararia: a niche lararium in a triclinium in the Casa di T. Dentatius Panthera (IX.2.16; not mentioned in Boyce, Orr, PPM, or Giacobello); a lararium in the tablinum of the Casa del Centauro (VI.9.5; here, however, the two rectangular niches flanking the tablinum’s back door to the garden should not be 133 meant to impress the visitors, it is surprising to see that in the two principal rooms associated with receiving and entertainment activities (i.e., tablinum and triclinium), the lararium is basically absent. While the presence of monumental lararia in the communia loca has been linked to the tactics of self-presentation employed by the householder, their almost total absence in formal reception rooms has received little attention. To my knowledge, only Rasmus Brandt has offered a possible explanation for this, suggesting that the two representative rooms par excellence (tablinum and triclinium) do not need a household shrine because the presence of the dominus would already play a protective role in these spaces. According to Brandt: The household gods (lares and genii) and the dominus played complementary roles in the protection and well-being of the household, the one in the metaphysical, religious sphere, the other in the everyday, real sphere. To be in balance with and in support of each other they could not compete in and about the same spaces. 351 This explanation is highly unlikely. The absence of a shrine does not necessarily imply that statuettes of tutelary deities were not present and/or brought in the tablinum or triclinium during certain occasions. Petronius, for instance, described how two images of the Lares were brought to the table and passed around among the guests in his narrative of Trimalchio’s feast (Sat. 60). The artifactual record, furthermore, attests to the presence of protective deities in tablina. The discovery of a bronze statuette of a Lar in the tablinum taken as household shrines); a lararium in the tablinum of the Casa di Romolo e Remo (VII.7.10; mentioned in Boyce [1937, 68, no. 297] as being “against the W. wall of the tablinum, near the entrance from the atrium,” but not in situ and impossible to ascertain). This tablinum was damaged during WWII and is today partly reconstructed. 351 Brandt 2010, 92. 134 of the Domus Volusii Fausti (I.2.10) at Pompeii 352 suggests that images of tutelary deities were displayed or kept in representative rooms, where they perhaps stood on wooden tables or cabinets that have not survived today. Statuettes representing a variety of gods have been also recorded in other tablina at Pompeii, attesting to local and individual preferences. An ivory statuette of Venus and a bronze one of Jupiter, for instance, were recorded in the tablinum of the Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18), 353 and two statuettes in gilded terracotta representing a female draped figure (possibly Minerva) were found in the tablinum of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5, representative atrium). 354 Three statuettes representing respectively Isis-Fortuna, Bes, and Harpocrates, furthermore, were found in the tablinum of the Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7), 355 while a statuette of Cybele (together with three unidentified statuettes) was discovered in the tablinum of the Casa della Caccia dei Tori (VI.16.28). 356 From my perspective, therefore, the absence of shrines in tablina might have depended on practical rather than ideological considerations. When filled with furniture (such as chairs, couches, and tables), as well as people, most tablina simply did not have enough room to display a monumental lararium of the type 352 GdS NS, 1874, 57. 353 GdS NS, 1875, 257. 354 Both statuettes are headless. For further information, see Dwyer 1982, 37-8, pl. VII, figs. 22-3 with inventory numbers. 355 Elia NSc 1934, 297-308. 356 Sogliano NSc 1908, 277-78, fig. 5 (who mistakenly interpreted the figure as Venus). The interpretation of the other statuettes is uncertain. Two of them were found in fragments: one in amber seeming to represent Eros, and one in gold and alabaster whose subject has been not identified: Sogliano NSc 1908, 277. The identification of the fourth figurine, which represents a woman in a chiton and mantle, reclining on a kline and holding a patera approached by a snake is still debated: Sogliano NSc 1908, 277-78, fig. 6 (who argues that a figure is a Lar); Mauri NSc 1929, 372; D’Ambrosio and Borriello 1990, 40, no. 71, pl. 12. Representations of women reclining on a kline and holding a patera (with or without the snake) have been found (both painted and/or in terracotta) in other domestic spaces of the Vesuvian sites (esp. in lararia) and connected to a local domestic cult of ancestors: Fröhlich 1990, 44-8; Krzyszowska 2002, 165-67. For their identification with Iuno: Fergola 1987, 164-65; D’Ambrosio and Borriello 1990, 39-40, nos. 70-2. For further examples of this type of terracotta figurines: Levi 1926, 183-84, nos. 806-11. For a discussion of Oriental cults such as Cybele in the Campanian area, see Tran Tam Tin 1972. 135 found in the communia loca as well. A simple niche lararium like the one found sometimes in cubicula seems to attest to a more private worship and would not have “impressed” the visitors as the more lavish aediculae and pseudo-aediculae set in atria and peristyle gardens. 357 To show off his religious devotion to visitors, the householder would have employed the monumental lararia set in the communia loca, which were usually visible to a person standing or resting in the tablinum. This is, for instance, the case with the aedicula lararium set in the peristyle garden of the Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3-5), or with the one located in the atrium of the Casa del Menandro (I.10.4). The Fourth-Style Egyptianizing shrine in the southeastern corner of the peristyle garden of the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7) at Pompeii, furthermore, must have been planned with the tablinum in mind since from this room a person would have had an axial and unobstructed view onto such shrine when looking through the two openings of the tablinum’s south wall (Figs. 3.17a-b, 3.18). 358 My archaeological survey, in particular, demonstrates that at least in 61 cases, a person inside a tablinum had access to sightlines onto household shrines located in the atrium and/or the garden area (Table 3.2). Despite the fact that tablina did not display lararia, these rooms could have still offered visibility of the lavish domestic shrine. It is also important to note that about 78 ancient dwellings do not show evidence of household shrines in both the atrium quarter and the garden area (Table 3.2). This absence of lararia from the communia loca of the house, however, might be in consequence to the 357 For examples of niche lararia in cubicula: Giacobello 2008, 68, 288-91, cat. nos. C2, C4, C9, C13. On the Lares cubiculi: Petr. Sat. 29; Suet. Aug. 7.1, Dom. 17.2. 358 Brandt 2010, 88. I also observed this and arrived independently at a similar interpretation. Today the larger of the two openings, which appears as a door, seems to have been originally a window: Seiler 1992, 30; Powers 2006, 50. 136 ephemeral nature of the archaeological evidence. Some shrines could have been made of perishable material such as wood, which would not have survived. In this case, the number of tablina with a view onto a fine shrine should be higher than is evident today in the archaeological record. A few examples of elegant wooden lararia were discovered at Herculaneum and, like the masonry aediculae, are elaborately furnished with podiums, columns, and cornices. 359 It is therefore reasonable to assume that such portable shrines were also in use at Pompeii, where the evidence for wood and other organic material has very rarely survived in comparison with Herculaneum. 360 Although no permanent lararia has been found in the atria of some very large houses (e.g, Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i) and Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.8-10) at Pompeii), we can extrapolate from the surviving examples in Herculaneum that wooden shrines are likely to have once been placed in these atria. 361 In support of this are the seven bronze statuettes (two Lares, Venus Anadyomene, Hercules, Faun, Eros, and an ithyphallic old man) which were discovered on the floor of the atrium of the house VII.15.3 at Pompeii, and that were once probably grouped in a now-lost wooden shrine. 362 Another similar instance comes from the atrium of the Pompeian house VI.14.27, where excavators recorded statuettes of various divinities in bronze (two Lares, Venus Anadyomede, Isis, Anubis, and an old men) and silver (Harpocrates), as well as a terracotta figure of a woman reclining upon a 359 The wooden lararium found in the Casa del Salone Nero (VI.13) was lavishly decorated with columns surmounted by marble capitals: Ascione and Pagano 2000, 102, figs. 44-5; De Carolis 2007, 140, fig. 105. On the four wooden lararia found at Herculaneum, see Mols 1999, 58-62, 132-34. 188-200, cat. nos. 27-30. 360 On the different nature of Pompeii and Herculaneum’s destruction, see supra n. 48. 361 On the possible presence of a wooden lararium in the atrium of the Casa delle Nozze D’Argento, see Fröhlich 1991, 30; Dickmann 199, 122. 362 GdS NS, 1872, 363-64. Cf. Boyce (1937, 72, no. 329) and (Brandt 2010, 114), who also list another statuette of a Priapus (not mentioned in the GdS) and suggest that only five of these statuettes would have formed the equipment for a lararium. On the presence of “eclectic combinations” in Pompeian aedicular lararia, which might have grouped together conventional, exotic, and/or erotic images, see Fröhlich 1991, 31 n. 142; Giacobello 2008, 74-80. 137 kline and holding a patera from which a serpent is about to drink. 363 Wooden shrines could have also been displayed in the covered portico arranged around the garden. In the portico of the peristyle garden of the house IX.6.5 at Pompeii, for instance, early excavators found two statuettes of Lares and one of Mercury. 364 A number of other objects were found together with these statuettes, suggesting the possible presence of a combined cupboard-lararium, something which is attested both in literary and archaeological evidence. 365 Furthermore, external, as well as internal, sight-lines were carefully arranged in the viewing of lararia. In at least 18 ancient dwellings, the household shrine is set on the back wall of the garden area, in alignment with an axial view from the main entrance of the house and, thus, visible through the fauces, atrium, and tablinum, into the peristyle garden (Table 3.2). 366 Other shrines could have also been placed in a similar manner but have not survived today. This is the case with the aedicula shrine in the Casa della Diana Arcaizzante (VII.6.3) at Pompeii, inside which stood a marble statue of the goddess of the hunt, after whom the house is named. 367 These shrines were undoubtedly planned to be 363 GdS NS, 1875, 172; Boyce 1937, 53, no. 202. For other statuettes of female figures reclined on a kline, see supra n. 356. 364 Fiorelli NSc 1878, 373; Mau BdI 1880, 230. The marble statuette representing Venus Anadyomene and Satyr (h. 0.42 m), which was wrongly assigned to this tablinum by Fiorelli and Mau (see also D’Acunto 2008, 175-76, fig. D 19), was actually found during the upper level excavations of the property: cfr. GdS UP 8 Ottobre 1878: “Isola 6 Reg. 9 casa nr. 5, terre superiori all’ingresso del peristilio. Marmo: statuetta in marmo grechetto di Venere…” 365 Petron. Sat. 29.8. See, for instance, the combined cupboard-aedicula lararium found in the Casa del Sacello di Legno (V.31) at Herculaneum: Mols 1999, 60, 192-97, cat. no. 29, figs. 139-45. 366 This list also includes the Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56) and the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI.15.5) at Pompeii in which a nymphaeum resembling an aedicula lararium was set in the peristyle garden and visible from the street. To a passerby or visitor at the entrance of the house, this fountain would have given the impression of a lararium itself. See infra for further discussion. For the concept of axiality in the Roman domestic spaces, see supra n. 248 (with bibliography). 367 My survey, however, does not take into consideration shrines such as this one, set on a deep-axis view in the back wall of the garden of the Casa della Diana Arcaizzante (VII.6.3), because the dwelling was almost 138 seen not only by invited people but also by those passing by the front of the house along the street. The simple niche in the back wall of the viridarium in the Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6; Fig. 3.19) at Pompeii, as well as the more elaborately decorated aediculae in the peristyle gardens of the Casa di Ercole (VI.7.6; Fig. 3.20), Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3-5; Fig. 3.21), and Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7; Fig. 3.22) at Pompeii, or of the Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato at Herculaneum (V.5; Fig. 3.23), were all located in axial alignment with the front entrance to the house and were surely intended to be seen primarily from this position. Other rooms like triclinia branching off from the garden area might have enabled a partial view onto these shrines, but an axially aligned view could only be experienced by looking through the fauces-atrium-tablinum setting into the peristyle garden or viridarium. Framed by the tablinum and set on a deep and unobstructed vista (when the doors were left open), these household shrines had an important social function and meaning as they highlighted the dominus’ religious devotion and pietas to the gods, while showing respect for traditional social values. 368 In my opinion, such spatial and decorative treatment of lararia could also perhaps explain why, over time, nymphaea located in the back peristyle gardens and visible from the axially disposed fauces-atrium-tablinum setting began to resemble the form of a entirely destroyed during the 1943 Allied bombing of the city. The Casa della Diana Arcaizzante has been the subject of an archaeological project led by the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, and the Escuela Española de Arqueología in Rome. For the history of excavations, a digital reconstruction of the house, and the view onto this shrine, see http://www.dianaarcaizante.com/. I thank the director of the project, Jose María Luzón Nogué, for bringing this shrine to my attention (pers. conv. 07/2017). 368 Foss 1997, 217; Dickmann 1999, 122; Clarke 2003, 75-6; Bodel 2008; Peréz Ruiz 2008, 221; Johansson 2011, 148. 139 lararium. 369 The aedicular fountain in the peristyle garden of the Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56; Fig. 3.24) at Pompeii, for example, mimics the aedicula shrine in the peristyle garden of the Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3-5; Fig. 3.25). Seen from the vestibule of the house, such an architecturally-framed view of the tablinum would have created the illusion of a lararium itself, a visual trick that would have later impressed a guest invited into the house. 370 The idea that domestic lararia were meant to display the owner’s pietas and his observance of the mos maiorum has been addressed in modern scholarship. 371 The role that pietas began to play from the time of Augustus on, however, has not been fully explored in its socio-political terms. A chronological study of the domestic shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum, in particular, demonstrates a tendency to construct monumental lararia in the communia loca especially during the Imperial period. Scholars have often explained such a tendency in terms of the “private and public” nature of domestic spaces. Impressive shrines built in atria and peristyle gardens, in particular, would be the result of a growing wealth, which led to a “monumentalization” of the domestic “public” spaces that provided various opportunities for the owner’s self- presentation. 372 Giacobello has also noted how almost all the Pompeian domestic lararia date to the period between 62 and 79 CE, thus connecting their construction to the large- scale restorations and changes in properties that took place at Pompeii as a result of the 369 Dwyer (1979, 62) noted that the aedicular fountains set in the garden were often confused with sacral shrines (lararia) by earlier excavators. On garden nymphaea in ancient Italy, see Neuerburg 1965. 370 Another aedicular fountain set on the back of the garden area on a deep-axis view is found in the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI.15.5) at Pompeii. 371 Dickmann 1999, 122; Hales 2003, 113-14; Pérez 2008, 221; Johansson 2011, 148. 372 Foss 1997, 217; Pesando 1997, 272-73; Dickmann 1999, 124; Giacobello 2008, 67. 140 earthquake’s damage. In my opinion, there is also another important factor to take into consideration, that is, the crucial political role that pietas began to play from the time of Augustus onwards. Pietas was a cornerstone of the Augustan agenda, which aimed to restore ancient morality and traditional values. 373 Claiming to have restored 82 temples in a single year (RG 20), Augustus himself was depicted as a man of pietas by both contemporary and later writers, 374 an association reflected in the story of the pius Aeneas. Pietas, indeed, is one of the four cardinal virtues listed on the clupeus virtutis (honorific shield) awarded by the Senate and the People of Rome to Augustus in 27 BCE. 375 What made pietas thoroughly appropriate for Augustus’ agenda is not only its primacy (as a fundamental character among the principal Roman virtues), but also its mutuality (as it prompted reciprocal duties thus contributing to the maintainance of the social order). During the Republic, Romans considered pietas a fundamental virtue necessary to sustain human (and divine) relationships (Cic. Planc. 29). 376 Pietas, therefore, was not only a value, but also a social attitude. 377 Under Augustus, the term pius acquired an immense political connotation, becoming an indication of loyalty to the State (and thus, to the emperor). By the early Empire, pietas came to function as a political tool, playing a crucial ideological and civic role in social and political life. 373 Traina 1984; Zanker 1988, 102-10; Galinksy 1996, 86-90. 374 Ov. Fast. 1.607-616; 3.699-710; 5.567-89; Suet. Aug. 72; Cass. Dio 53.16.6-8. 375 R.G. 34.2: …clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare virtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis causa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem (“…In the Curia Julia was placed a golden shield with an inscription attesting that the Senate and the People of Rome gave me this in recognition of my valor, clemency, justice, and piety”). 376 It was thanks to their pius behaviors that the Romans surpassed other people: Pol. 6.56.6-8; Virg. Aen. 12.838-40. 377 Traina (1984, 97): “la pietas non è solo un lessema o un concetto: è un comportamento.” 141 Displaying himself as a pius man, through the construction of elaborate masonry lararia set in “public” areas of the house, the householder would have demonstrated his presence and participation in the public life. In my opinion, such “monumentalization” of the communia loca and focus on the public display of private devotion was not only a matter of growing wealth but also depended on the socio-political nuance that pietas acquired in the early Empire. 378 An analysis of private lararia in their socio-historical context, consequently, might also help us to better understand why the domestic cult gradually became increasingly publicly visible during the Imperial period. 379 Eventually, the opening of the tablinum’s rear wall contributed to promoting the public display of private devotion (since, as seen above, it allowed the view onto lavish shrines set in the peristyle garden). Depending on the economic resources of the householder, elegant aediculae, simpler niches, 380 or painted lararia 381 began to be placed in a location visible from the entrance of the house during the first century CE to highlight the dominus’ pietas. The display of portrait busts of family members, as well as the columnar treatment of the tablinum’s façade, would have further underscored his piety. Such decorative and 378 Dickmann (1999, 122) argued that the quality and furnishings of imperial age lararia should be related to the householder’s willingness to show off his pietas and prestige in the society. The scholar, however, only explained this in terms of the “monumentalization” of the atrium area connected to the arrival of luxury and wealth. 379 At Ostia, for instance, most of the dwellings date between the third and fourth century CE and display lararia mainly in the two areas of social representations: peristyles and triclinia: Bakker 1999, Brandt 2010. 380 E.g., the niche lararium set in the back of wall of the garden in the Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7) and visible from the entrance, through the tablinum’s back door. This niche is dated to the last period of the town: Giacobello 2008, 257, no. V14. For this image, see Fig. 3.19. Another example of niche and painted lararium dated to the last period of the town can be seen in the back wall of the garden of the Casa di Optatio (VII.2.14): Jashemski 1979, II, 173, no. 321; Giacobello 2008, 278, no. V.60. 381 See, in the Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4), the painted lararium–no longer extant–depicted on the south wall of the atrium, flanking the entrance to the tablinum and visible from the house’s entrance. According to Laidlaw and Stella (2014, 149), the lararium was added sometime between the Augustan and early Julio- Claudian period, when the property changed owner and function. See, Laidlaw and Stella 2014, 61, 149, fig. 2.12 with drawing of the lararium. 142 architectural settings reflect the crucial political role played by pietas, whose public display allowed the dominus to show off his role, importance, status and therefore overall position and participation within society. Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the synoptic framing of the tablinum in its larger domestic decorative and architectural context as a means of self-presentation employed by the householder. The tablinum’s façade with its in antis “temple-like” appearance, the display of portrait sculptures of family members flanking the tablinum’s entrance, and the vista looking toward a lararium from and through the tablinum all demonstrate how the tablinum was a space that mediated between the religious and secular aspects and functions of the house. Such an architectural and decorative planning would have allowed the paterfamilias to express and highlight above all his pietas erga deos, patriam, parentes. To construct social identity, promote the family’s presence and status, and consequently preserve historical memory, a house and its interiors had to recall Roman pietas in the eyes of a visitor and passersby. Considering how the observation of pietas was crucial to the maintenance of familial and social relationships, therefore, it is not surprising to see how domestic interiors were planned to reflect and celebrate one of the householder’s virtues par excellence. By the time of Augustus, furthermore, pietas began to acquire a 143 greater and more prominent political role in the domestic setting. The decorative and architectural treatment of the tablinum, as well as its opening at the back onto a garden peristyle to reveal the lararium, contributed to the enhancement of the householder’s social presence, status, and piety. In this way, the owner of the house would have fulfilled familial and socio-religious duties, while at the same time stressing his Romanitas and presenting himself as bonus vir to his guests. 144 Chapter 4: Inside the Tablinum: Exploring Social, Familial, and Cultural Activities In this chapter, I investigate the possible activities that might have taken place in the tablinum by the time of the 79 CE. As discussed in Chapter 1, the tablinum has been generally referred to as the main reception space for the presentation of the paterfamilias to his clients and friends during the formal morning greeting (salutatio), despite the fact that no ancient literary source mentions the tablinum in connection with this daily ritual. A few other uses of the tablinum have also been briefly proposed in previous scholarship. I examine such possible uses of the tablinum as listed by modern scholars and caution against generalizing and making hypothetical claims, rather than analyzing the full range of archaeological evidence available to us, a corpus of evidence that this chapter draws on. The perception that the tablinum served as the “master’s study” and the emphasis on its “public” nature have not only prevented a fuller discussion of this space but have also conditioned the ways in which scholars have interpreted its decoration. For instance, the mythological frescoes often found in tablina are frequently discussed in terms of the moral lesson associated with them, while the role played by contemporary spectacles and by the social and cultural environment in promoting certain visual tableaux has received less attention. The figurative imagery within this room, when compared with the mythological images found in various private and public buildings across the urban fabric, informs us about a common visual vocabulary shared by different strata of society, reflecting the cultural and local environment as well as the fashion and taste in which it circulated. A study of the mythological wall paintings found in the tablinum without a 145 focus on the salutatio or on the patron/client activities in it, in particular, offers new interpretations and understanding of the larger social, geographical, and cultural contexts in which these images were created. The analysis of wall decorations associated with this room in conjunction with a close study of the full range of archaeological and literary evidence reveals how the tablinum was a highly flexible space, which served multiple social and familial activities. Roles and Uses of the Tablinum in Light of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence Among the common uses attributed to the tablinum by modern scholars are bedroom, matrimonial chamber (furnished with the lectus genialis), depository of family records, master’s office/study room, principal reception space, seat for daily courtesy calls (salutationes), dining space, domestic storage, and impressive vestibule to the peristyle garden. Despite the fact that certain roles of the tablinum are difficult to demonstrate because they are not supported by either literary or archaeological evidence, there has been a tendency in modern scholarship to turn assumptions into assertions. In Chapter 1, I discussed how the modern idea of the tablinum as a space associated with patron/client relationships derived from the treatment of unsubstantiated secondary literary sources as primary ones. Mau’s interpretation of this space, indeed, played a key role in the interpretation of the tablinum in later studies and is still influencing numerous scholarly publications. 146 Given the vagueness and scarcity of textual evidence, which is unable to clearly define our space, today we must rely on the full range of archaeological evidence to acquire a sense of the possible roles and uses of the tablinum, at the same time clarifying the assumptions and challenges that are inherent in our methodological approach. By combining a more critical reading of the primary textual sources with the archaeological evidence still extant and/or recorded in archival and published material, I will now discuss the uses of this space as proposed in secondary scholarship, starting from the unsubstantiated interpretations followed by those that seem the most reasonable to infer for this space (at least at the time of the eruption). A. Master’s bedroom, matrimonial chamber, and seat for symbolic display of the lectus genialis The long-established perception that the tablinum formerly served as the master bedroom and matrimonial chamber where the lectus genialis once stood (that is, the symbolic nuptial bed where the couple consumed the ritual feast and spent their first night together as husband and wife) is not supported by any evidence and should be considered with caution. 382 In ancient literary texts we read that the wedding couch (lectus or torus genialis) stood opposite the house-door (ianua), hence its alternative name of lectus adversus. 383 Because the adjective of adversus has usually been understood as a reference to the main entrance, scholars have assumed that the tablinum was formerly the place 382 On the tablinum as the master’s bedroom and matrimonial chamber: Mau 1899, 251; Patroni 1936, 816; McKay 1975, 33; Boëthius 1978, 185; Carandini 1990, 98; De Albentiis 1990, 88-9; Ellis 2000, 27, 146; Hales 2003, 107; Leach 2004, 26; Adam 2005, 619; Lorenz 2008, 383; Jolivet 2011, 250; Briganti and Mezei 2012, 81; Clarke 2014, 347. 383 Prop. 4.11.85; Asc. Mil. 38.4-7; Gell. NA 16.9. 147 where the couch may have stood (both during and after the wedding ceremony, in public view and display). No ancient writer, however, mentions the tablinum as the space where the lectus stood for the ceremonial meal and the sexual intercourse of the newlyweds, nor that this room served as the conjugal bedroom and/or for the symbolic display of the lectus during the married couple’s life. Ancient sources, in particular, do not provide clear information and/or agree on the specific location of the nuptial bed within the house (both during and after the wedding). 384 Cicero (Clu. 5.14) and Quintilian (Decl. 6.16.13), for instance, tell us in general terms that the lectus genialis was set “in the house” (in domo); Horace (Epist. 1.1.87) uses the broad term aula; while Catullus (64.47-49) generically reports, although in a mythological context, that the marriage bed in the Palace of Peleus and Thetis was set “in the midst of the palace” (geniale locatur sedibus in mediis). 385 According to Ovid (Fast. 2.739) and Asconius (Mil. 38.4-7), 386 the lectus genialis/adversus, as a symbol of marriage and the family procreator, 387 may have once been displayed in the atrium and 384 Treggiari 1994; Hersch 2010, 212-19. 385 For other ancient passages mentioning the lectus/torus genialis or adversus without further specifying its location in the house, see Livy 30.12.21; Verg. Aen. 4. 603-4; Sen. Con. Ex. 6.6.1,11; Prop. 4.11.85; Sen. Med. 1; Val. Max. 2.6.14; Luc. Phars. 2.356-57; Tac. Ann. 15.37.19; Gell. NA 16.9; Apul. Met. 9.26.5, 10.34.17. 386 Asc. Mil. 38.4-7: Deinde, omni vi ianua expugnata, et imagines maiorum deiecerunt et lectulum adversum eius uxoris Corneliae, cuius castitas pro exemplo habita est, fregerunt, itemque telas quae ex vetere more in atrio texebantur diruerunt (“Then, having violently broken down the door, they threw down the masks of his ancestors and smashed the marriage bed of his wife Cornelia, whose chastity was held to be exemplary, and in the same way they destroyed the fabrics which according to ancient custom were woven in the atrium”). 387 Servius (Aen. 6.603) connects the couch to the production of children (genus). Cf. Festus (83L), who informs us that this couch takes the name from the genius of the paterfamilias and was decorated in his honor. 148 used by the wife as a space in which to spin and take care of the household. 388 From Pliny (Pan. 8.1), instead, it would appear that during the married couple’s life, the bed was set in a cubiculum and not in the atrium. Considering the vagueness of the literary evidence, we could also postulate that the nuptial couch was set in the garden area (which could have also been “opposite” [adversus] the entrance) as we read in a passage by Juvenal. 389 It is also important to note that practices and customs are not static entities but develop and change over time. Nonetheless, the notion of the tablinum as a space formerly used as the master’s bedroom and for the symbolic display of the wedding couch cannot be confirmed by literary or archaeological evidence. 390 It is not only the lack of textual evidence but also the central position and wide opening of the tablinum which might exclude the possibility that this space was used for conjugal activities. 391 Such activities could have taken place in a room offering more intimacy, such as a cubiculum. 392 Despite this, when discussing the development of the Roman house, there is still a tendency in recent scholarship to consider the tablinum as the traditional space for the lectus genialis so that this room would have symbolically served the function 388 Such “public” displays of wifely virtues are well attested in literary, epigraphic, and archaeological sources since the dedication of a matron to her household brought honor to her husband too. See Spinelli 2017 (with bibliography). 389 Juv. 10.334-35: dudum sedet illa parato flammeolo Tyriusque palam genialis in hortis sternitur et ritu decies centena dabuntur antiquo, ueniet cum signatoribus auspex (“She has been long seated with her bridal veil all ready: the nuptial bed with its purple coverlet is openly prepared in the gardens, and, according to the ancient rites, a dowry of ten hundred thousand sesterces will be given”). 390 Scholars, indeed, have also tried to support such a thesis in reference to the archaeological evidence. In particular, it has been suggested that Etruscan funerary architecture would have served as a model for the private, domestic architecture: De Albentiis 1990, 88-90; Carandini 1990; Torelli 1990, 98. As Zaccaria Ruggiu (1995a, 394-95) has correctly remarked, however, such an assumption for the Roman house is supported by neither archaeological or literary evidence. 391 On the lack of privacy for marital or conjugal activities in a room like a tablinum, see also Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 393-96; Gros 2006, 25. 392 More intimate rooms like cubicula might have been better suited to such activities. Indeed, in discussing the uses of the cubiculum (I) in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7,38) at Pompeii, Anguissola (2010, 150) suggests that the lectus genialis may have stood in such a space, at least in the last phase of the city. 149 of protecting and perpetuating the family lineage. Yet according to this interpretation, the tablinum would have become the dominus’ office and reception room at a later date. B. Family archive, master’s office, and seat for salutationes Other roles of the tablinum which have been proposed in modern scholarship also need further consideration. In particular, it has usually been assumed that the tablinum, from being a matrimonial chamber (and/or master’s bedroom) as well as a summer dining room and place for the family archive, would have later become the principal reception space where the dominus conducted his business and received the clients during his daily courtesy calls (salutationes). Such assumptions, however, are difficult to prove and should also be treated with caution. As we have seen in Chapter 1, the puzzling etymology of the name tablinum does not help to clarify the early use/s of this space since the word tabula may refer to both the planks for building the space (Varro De vita pop. rom. 1.29) and wooden archives (Plin. HN 35.2.7; Fest. De verb. sign. 356M). Varro, Pliny, and Festus, furthermore, all use the imperfect form (cenitabant; implebantur; habebant), which suggests that the writers were not discussing a contemporary use of the room. While it is not known if the household records were kept in the tablinum in early times, this was certainly not the case in the Imperial period. As we have seen in earlier discussions, the analysis of contextualized household artifacts at Pompeii and Herculaneum has shown that, at least at the time of the eruption, family records were usually kept locked in rooms on the upper floors. The 150 perception that the tablinum served as a repository of family records (thus functioning as key space for the maintenance of a household and its tradition), as well as its proximity to the ancestral imagines with their elogia and tituli kept in the atrium, have also led scholars to suggest that the written and publicly delivered eulogies for the deceased members of the aristocratic house (laudationes funebres) were stored from generation to generation in the tablinum. Even this statement, however, is not supported by the available evidence. 393 In the scholarly tradition the tablinum has mainly been considered as an extension of the atrium and thus closely associated with the “public” presentation of the dominus to his social peers and subordinates. Hence, it was from here that the dominus would have greeted his morning clients and conducted his business. The extant literary evidence on the tablinum, however, does not present this room as the master’s main reception space. 394 A discussion of the use of the tablinum for the salutatio in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum is also complicated by the fact that we are still not certain as to whether salutationes were even practiced in these small provincial towns. 395 According to Fabian Goldbeck, salutationes were probably limited to Rome itself since they could only be held by members of the senatorial class. 396 Because no senators are known to have come from Pompeii, 397 therefore, Goldbeck concludes that salutationes did not take place in the atria 393 The term monimentum [monumentum] used by Pliny to describe one kind of records stored in the tablinum is too generic to allow for the extrapolation that funeral oratories were also kept here. For the tablinum as repository of the funeral laudationes: Homo 1926, 8; Crawford 1941, 26; Pollini 2012, 36. Cf. Flower (1996, 203), who rightly points out that no ancient literary source mentions the tablinum as a space where the funeral orations were kept. In general, on the laudatio funebris: Vollmer 1892; Crawford 1941; Durry 1942; Kierdorf 1980; Ramage 2006; New Pauly, Antiquity 7: 298-99, s.v. “Laudatio funebris” (Eder). 394 See discussion in Chapter 1. 395 Our knowledge of salutationes only comes from Rome: Dickmann 2010; Goldbeck 2010; Speksnijder 2015; Simelius 2018. 396 Goldbeck 2010, 22-3, 60-7. 397 Camodeca 2008, 25. 151 of the domestic residences in the small Campanian towns. 398 Whether or not the atria of the Campanian houses experienced such daily calls as described in Roman literary sources, we can assume that they would have witnessed similar reception practices in light of the social use of the house. 399 The spatial analysis of both artifacts and graffiti, indeed, confirms that business was conducted throughout the day and everywhere within the house. 400 Various social practices like banquets and even baths may have also presented an opportunity for discussing business with clients and peers. The perception that the tablinum served as a setting for daily calls has also led scholars to assume that this room functioned as an indicator of the householder’s social rank. 401 The archaeological evidence, however, does not support such an interpretation, as the tablinum is not always present in the houses that belonged (at least in the first century CE) to local magistrates, who would certainly have had clientes and were frequently visited. Thanks to continuous scholarly efforts, it is possible to reconstruct the chronological sequence of the municipal magistracies of the Campanian towns especially during the last decades of their existence. 402 At Pompeii, for instance, the reading of the various graffiti, sepulchral epigraphy, and electoral inscriptions painted on the facades of building, as well as the wax wooden tablets of the rich banker Caecilius Iucundus, 403 have enabled us to 398 Contra Goldbeck (2010, 128-57), one could argue that we know of at least the name of one Roman senator in the Vesuvian area, Marcus Nonius Balbus, who was a citizen of Nuceria as well as patron and resident of Herculaneum: Cooley and Cooley 2004, 191; Camodeca 2010, 184, and 25 for a list of senators from the Campanian area. 399 Dickmann 2010, 60-1; Viitanen, Nissinen, and Korhonen 2012, 75-6; Simelius 2018, 60. 400 For the material evidence: Allison 2004. For graffiti: DiBiasie 2015; as well as infra with further discussion of domestic graffiti. 401 Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 383-84, 388-89. 402 For comprehensive studies on magistrates at Pompeii: Franklin 1980; 2001; Mouritsen 1988; Camodeca 2008, 277-322. For Herculaneum: Camodeca 2008, 151-218. 403 On these wax tablets: Andreau 1974; Dexter 1974; Camodeca 2009, 18-19. 152 reconstruct part of the chronological sequence of the local magistrates. 404 Prosopographical studies have also enabled scholars to make important discoveries regarding the houses’ inhabitants so that we can identify some of the houses owned by local magistrates in the first century CE. What is interesting is the fact that not all of them had a tablinum. The Casa della Venere in Conchiglia (II.3.3) at Pompeii, for example, has been convincingly attributed on the bases of graffiti and painted inscriptions to D. Lucretius Satrius Valens, a flamen of Nero in 50-54 CE and duumvir in the Neronian period (sometime between 53-61 CE). 405 D. Lucretius Valens filius, who ran for aedileship in 68-69 CE, also lived in the same house with his father, mother, and siblings. 406 The original plan of the house, which was built in the second century BCE, consisted of an atrium tuscanicum with a tablinum and a garden area behind it. Starting from the middle of the first century BCE or early first century CE, the house underwent some structural modifications, with the loss of the tablinum and the construction of the peristyle garden at the back of the house (Fig. 4.1). 407 According to Zaccaria Ruggiu, the lack of tablinum in all of the atrium houses in Regio II at Pompeii should be understood as an indicator of the social rank of their respective 404 The situation is more complex for Herculaneum because of the almost total absence of electoral inscriptions painted on the buildings’ facades: Camodeca 2008, 151. 405 Della Corte 1965, 383-84; PPM III, 113; Franklin 2001, 101; Pesando 2006, 141; Romizzi 2006a, 340. According to Franklin (1980, 101-2; 2001, 101), D. Lucretius Satrius Valens was adopted by D. Lucretius Valens, aedile in 33-34 CE. Contra Mouritsen (1988, 105, 208 n. 438) and Camodeca (2008, 308), who argue that they were the same person. 406 Franklin 2001, 101; Romizzi 2006a, 340. 407 For an earlier date of such structural modification, Pesando 2006, 140-41. PPM (III, 113) and Romizzi (2006a, 340) date the house’ modifications to the first century CE. There is still no comprehensive study which assembles the analysis of the archaeological, epigraphic, and material evidence for this house. 153 owners. 408 Such an interpretation, however, is not supported by the extant evidence. Indeed, the Casa della Venere in Conchiglia (II.3.3), which in the first century CE belonged to a local magistrate, demonstrates how the identification of a householder’s social status cannot be made on the basis of the existence or lack of the tablinum. Honored with one of the highest priesthoods in the city, the flaminate D. Lucretius Satrius Valens was a prominent figure at Pompeii. He sponsored gladiatorial shows on four occasions and is mentioned in several graffiti and painted inscriptions in and around his house. 409 We can certainly imagine our Lucretius (and his son) receiving frequent visits and conducting various business activities at home. The lack of a tablinum in the house suggests that this room was not necessarily an indicator of the owner’s social status and that it was not a fundamental space for conducting daily business and affairs (at least in the first century CE onwards). Roman domestic spaces served multiple uses, depending on various needs of the householder and his family. Thus, a meeting with a client could have taken place in almost any appropriate space within the house, including the tablinum. Unfortunately, identifying home ownership is not an easy task. 410 For instance, the Casa di Gavius Rufus (VII.2.16) at Pompeii, a large house that also lacks a tablinum, had originally been attributed to M. Gavius Rufus (a candidate for the duumvirate in 79 CE) 408 The Regio II is also partly unexcavated. According to Zaccaria Ruggiu (1995a, 383-84, 389), instead, the houses that the belonged to local magistrates, such as the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a), or the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento (V.2.i), all had a tablinum. 409 Mouritsen 1988, 105; Mouritsen and Gradel 1991; PPM III, 113; Franklin 2001, 101-6; Camodeca 2008, 296-322. 410 Della Corte 1965; Mouritsen 1988; Allison 2001b. For a discussion of the spatial distribution of elite dwellings and political slogans of the upper classes at Pompeii, see Viitanen and Ynnilä 2012 (with bibliography). For the difficulties in understanding the building’s ownership, see recently Turchi 2017b, 390-400 (on the Regio VI.7. at Pompeii). 154 on the basis of two inscriptions painted at the sides of the main doorway. 411 Today this interpretation has been treated with caution by archaeologists, although the house must have belonged to a wealthy individual because of its size and decoration. 412 The lack of other archaeological and epigraphic evidence, 413 which could have provided the proprietor’s name, indicates the problems inherent in associating a dwelling with a name on the basis of inscriptions found on the façade of buildings alone. 414 From what we have seen in the case of the Casa della Venere in Conchiglia, however, we can assert that the lack of a tablinum in the Casa di Gavius Rufus does not necessarily help us to identify the social rank of the owner. Conversing, Dining, and Resting in the Tablinum The notion that the tablinum could have been used for dining activities is not new to scholarship. Varro discussed an old custom of eating in the tablinum during the summer, 411 Fiorelli 1875, 187: “Due epigrafi graffite accanto allo ingresso di questa casa, ch’è la prima nel vico settentrionale, cioè M. GAVI DOMUS a sin. della porta, e RVFII VA[le] a dr. di essa, tolgono ogni dubbio sulla sua spettanza al duumviro M. Gavio Rufu.” Cf. Della Corte (1965, 154-55), who rejects the identification of the owner of the house with M. Gavius Rufus. On the inscriptions supporting M. Gavius Rufus for the aedileship in 79 CE: Mouritsen 1988, 135; Franklin 2001, 185-86; Viitanen and Nissin 2017, 128-29. There is still no comprehensive study which assembles the analysis of the archaeological, epigraphic, and material evidence for this house. 412 PPM VI, 530-85; Krzyszowska 2002, 87 (who attributes the house to an individual of high rank). The attribution of the house to the duumvir candidate M. Gavius Rufus is debated on the basis of Della Corte’s new reading of the inscription M. Gavi domu, which instead would have read the praenomen C., thus becoming C. Gavius domu: CIL 4 2319f. 413 E.g., seal stamps, inscriptions on ceramic vessels, and graffiti. Inside the house was also found a graffito attesting to a certain M. Vecilius Verecundus, Vestiar[ius] (CIL 4 3130), a maker and seller of clothing whose shop has been identified in the Pompeian property at IX.7.1. 414 Future studies on wall inscriptions will certainly offer important contributions to this research. The spatial context of inscriptions and graffiti at Pompeii and Herculaneum has recently received an increased scholarly interest: Benefiel 2010; 2016; 2018; DiBiasie 2015; Viitanen and Nissin 2017 (for Pompeian electoral programmata); Benefiel and Sypniewski 2018. In particular, Benefiel and her team are currently assembling a public digital repository with information on the various graffiti scattered in both Campanian towns: http://ancientgraffiti.org/about/. 155 and modern scholars have suggested that this room could have continued to serve this purpose even in later periods. This more intimate use of the tablinum, however, has usually been treated very briefly and secondarily in respect to the other “public” ones assumed for this space. Scholars, in particular, have focused on the vistas afforded from this space onto the garden area and its decorative setting. Closed to the atrium by means of wooden screens and opened onto the green area at the back, the tablinum would have been turned into a sort of “garden room” 415 offering an alternative location for consuming a meal. In the summer it would also have been a pleasant place to take a meal, since it would have offered shade and have a breeze going through it. While such a use of the tablinum has been built on a few selected samples, my study confirms this argument through a systematic examination of this room in its decorative and architectural setting in a large sample. 416 The results demonstrate how the tablinum was not only a “static” room in which people used to spend time, but that it was also subjected to modifications and adaptations through time according to contemporary fashions. Among the possible uses of this space, activities such as dining, conversing, and resting seem to be confirmed by the archaeological evidence. A common feature found on tablina’s pavement, for instance, is the presence of a central element (often a pseudo- emblema) 417 that might have indicated the position of the mensa (table) around which 415 Zanker 1998, 180-81. 416 Maiuri 1958, 213; Clarke 2014, 348. On the use of the tablinum for dining purpose see, e.g., Mau 1899, 251; Maiuri 1958, 213, 281 (for the tablinum/oecus in Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico [IV.2] at Herculaneum); Richardson 1988, 237 (for the tablinum in the Casa di Giuseppe II [VIII.2.39] at Pompeii); Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 125 (for the tablinum in the Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo [V.11] at Herculaneum); Dickmann, 1999, 98; Clarke 2014, 347. 417 The term pseudo-emblema refers to a panel assembled on site and differs from the emblema, which is a panel produced in a workshop and later brought to a site: Kondoleon 1994, 102-4. 156 beds/couches were arranged. 418 Of the 142 tablina that have recorded or extant evidence of their floor decoration, a total of 48 (34%) had a design motif (usually geometric) in the middle of the floor. Such central ornament could consist of a rich opus sectile panel (Fig. 4.2), a simpler geometric pattern (Fig. 4.3), or more rarely, a figural scene, as in the case of the well-known emblema from the tablinum in the Casa del Poeta Tragico (Fig. 4.4). 419 More than an half of tablina surveyed (83=59%) had a rich pavement, usually in sectilia, tessellated mosaic, or opus signinum decorated with a range of colored stones. 420 The reading of the various archival and published sources has been crucial in understanding the interior decoration of the majority of tablina, whose floor and wall decoration is no longer preserved but can still be reconstructed through early photographs and written records. This is the case, for instance, with the tablinum in the Casa di Championnet I (VIII.2.1; Figs. 4.5, 4.6) and the tablinum in the Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII.4.57; Figs. 4.7, 4.8) at Pompeii whose ancient mosaic pavements are no longer extant today but can be understood through earlier drawings or photographs. 421 Sometimes, the orientation of the pavement decoration also suggests that its primary view was designed to privilege the person within the tablinum. In the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7) at Pompeii, for 418 This type of “pavimento centralizzato” is typical of triclinia and tablina: Scagliarini 1974-1976, 15. The central emblema itself is not a sure indication of a dining room since seats may also have been arranged around it. The size of the majority of tablina, however, indicates that this type of room could fit dining/bedding couches. 419 The name of this house is derived from the polychrome mosaic emblema representing the preparation of a satyr play: MANN, inv. no. 9986 (0.54 m x 0.55 m). On the Casa del Poeta Tragico and this mosaic, Bergmann 1994, esp. n. 28 (with bibliography). 420 The term opus signinum (also known as cocciopesto or battuto) refers to a waterproof mortar floor incorporating crushed tile and ceramic, with or without surface decoration. On sectilia pavements: Guidobaldi and Olevano 1998 (for Pompeii and Herculaneum); Dunbabin 1999, 254-68 (for a general overview and with bibliography). On the types of pavement at Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Blake 1930; Pernice 1938; De Vos 1979; Ling 1998; Dunbabin 1999, 38-60; Clarke 2007b; Guidobaldi et al. 2014. 421 During the three summers I was working on my survey of relevant buildings in Pompeii, it was difficult to understand some of the pavements of tablina because of vegetation or because they were obscured by protective covering. In these cases, I had to rely only on the information available in the archival or published records: see, e.g., the mosaic floor in the Casa del Centenario (IX.8.6, representative atrium), which is currently covered but an image of which can be found in PPM IX, 934, fig. 59. 157 instance, the threshold mosaic between the tablinum and the atrium shows a design of squares with various patterns separated by a two-ply guilloche. The dolphin, two heads of griffins, 422 and swan represented in four of the eight squares were oriented towards the interior of the room, suggesting that they were arranged for a viewer who was positioned inside the tablinum rather than for a person standing in the atrium (Figs. 4.9, 4.10). To be clear, the tablinum appears in general as a smaller and more quadrangular type of room in comparison with the characteristic rectangular form of the traditional dining space (the triclinium). 423 Various types of portable couches and beds also existed in ancient Rome. As Katherine Dunbabin has pointed out: “It is not always easy to distinguish the remains of dining couches (lecti tricliniares) from beds, which often had similar form, nor is it always clear how they were used in practice.” 424 Either way, the size of tablina and the dimensions of their floor decoration when they have a central ornament (i.e., the distance between the central panel on the floor and the tablinum’s walls), indicate that this type of room would have usually been able to accommodate dining/bedding couches. 425 After all, we know that even a cubiculum could be large enough to be used as a moderate- sized dining room. 426 422 Sogliano NSc 1906, 375; PPM V, 738. Cf. Pernice (1938, 86), who wrongly interprets the two heads of griffins as horns of plenty. 423 On the architectural and decorative characteristic of the triclinium: Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995b; Dickmann 1999, 215-19; Dunbabin 2003, 38-43. 424 Dunbabin 2003, 38. 425 The dataset from my survey includes measurements of the various floors and central ornaments. The dimensions of Roman wooden couches average about 2.20/2.40 m (L.) by 1.20 m (W.): Mols 1999, 217 (with slightly smaller dimension for couches found at Herculaneum); cf. Dunbabin (2003, 38), who notes that most of the couches included in Mols’ study were actually beds. There are very few tablina whose dimensions are too small to fit couches (e.g., Casa delle Amazzoni [VI.2.14], Casa dell’Ara Massima [VI.16.15], and Casa dell’Orso Ferito [VII.2.45] at Pompeii). 426 Plin. Ep. 2.17.10 (vel cubiculum grande vel modica cenatio). For dining in cubicula, Sen. Dial. (Marc.) 22.6 (“eating by oneself in cubiculo”); Sen. Dial. (De Ira) 8.6. See also Nissin 2009, 89. 158 Central panels are not the only feature that might have defined the position of the couches in the room. Recesses in the walls to accommodate couches are found in 5 tablina, indicating, in these cases, a more permanent “static” use of the tablinum for both resting and dining activities. 427 My analysis of the artifactual remains recorded in 70 tablina shows the presence of beds/couches in a total of 4 tablina, all at Pompeii (Appendix B). 428 This number is only “relatively” small when it is compared with the scarce evidence of bedding/dining furniture in rooms like cubicula. 429 As Roman furniture was portable and easy to transfer between rooms, a banquet with friends, peers, and clients was not a static activity but could be moved from one room to another. Wooden couches and tables could have been set temporarily in a tablinum to supply an alternative dining space, perhaps after the guests had already consumed a banquet in another room. When we look at the archaeological evidence there is no reason to assume that a dining party would have always started and ended in the same room. 430 Most of the atrium houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum are equipped with multiple spaces for dining activities and several of these proprieties are also provided with private baths. 431 The 427 At Pompeii: Casa di Cerere (I.9.13), Casa di Sutoria Primigenia (I.13.2), house IX.3.15, house V.2.7 At Herculaneum: Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato (V.5). See further discussion in Chapter 2 (“‘Solid’ Boundaries: Partitions and Doors”). 428 Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4), house I.6.8-9, Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10; tablinum 4), Casa del Menandro (I.10.4). See further discussion in Chapter 2 (“‘Solid Boundaries: Partitions and Doors”). 429 Ibid. 430 Multiple dining rooms could have also been used at the same time for large dinner-events: Cic. Att. 13.52.1-2; Macrob. Sat. 3.13.11. See also Foss 1994, 98. Scholars have usually discussed Roman private banquets by focusing on the characteristics of the room itself (i.e., size, form, and decoration), on the behaviors within the dining space (especially in terms of gender and social status), or on the ethics involved in the convivium. Moving activities during a banquet have been primarily explored in regard to slaves’ practices and not to the guests who consumed the meal. Basic work on Roman banquets include: D’Arms 1990; 1991; 1999; Dunbabin 2003; Gold and Donahue 2005; Roller 2006; Dunbabin and Slater 2011 (with further bibliography). 431 Only at Pompeii, e.g., there are at least 30 examples of private baths: Koloski-Ostrow 2007, 242-43 (with bibliography). 159 practice of conviviality and hospitality encompassed the presence of various spaces for the entertainment of the householder and his guests (beyond the familiar practice of dining- resting as seen in the nexus triclinium-cubiculum). 432 Petronius (Sat. 73) gives us an idea of such a Roman practice in describing Trimalchio and his guests first having a banquet in a triclinium, then moving to the bath, and eventually returning to feast in “another” dining room (aliud triclinium). Despite the fact that Petronius does not mention the consumption of food in a tablinum and that his work is clearly a satire, he nonetheless describes the sort of convivium experienced by Romans and their habit of feasting with guests in different rooms within the house. A dining party, therefore, might have started in a triclinium and then later moved to the tablinum, where the dominus could have continued to banquet and/or rest with a smaller number of guests. Multiple rooms with good views and with various pictorial decorations would have allowed the dominus to display his personal taste, cultural knowledge, and status. At the same time, these rooms would have amused visitors invited for a banquet, inspiring conversations, for instance, in response to the different mythological scenes painted on the walls. 433 The spatial analysis of graffiti and wall paintings might further suggest this practice. Inscribed on the south wall of the tablinum in the Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18) 432 On the nexus triclinium-cubiculum: Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995a, 150; 2001; Anguissola 2010, 173-76; as well as Chapter 2 (“The Nexus Tablinum-Triclinium and Tablinum-Cubiculum”). While describing his five villas in Italy, Pliny (Ep. 2.17, 5.6, 9.7) lists numerous triclinia (cenationes) and cubicula, as well as baths. Despite skeptical studies on the historicity of Pliny’s estates, these were all amenities that we would expect to find in a wealthy house. The use of various dining rooms and cubicula might have depended not only on the season but also on the specific occasion as well as the patron’s needs. On Pliny’s villas: Bergmann 1995c. 433 Hodske (2007, 138) has noted how the houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum do not generally present a “meaningful” decorative program in which paintings were intentionally combined according to their iconography. Instead, “more attention was paid to formal correspondence, for example suitable format and size, or else similar motifs of compositions.” 160 at Pompeii, for example, is the graffito “PELIAS | ALCESTIS” (CIL 4 4052). The tablinum’s walls were decorated with a central mythological scene representing respectively “Adonis and Venus” (north/left wall) and “Mars and Venus” (south/right wall). 434 This graffito, therefore, does not respond directly to the wall paintings of the tablinum, but expands upon a fresco with “Admetus and Alcestis” depicted in the nearby room (l). 435 The fact that the author chose to write a graffito in a different room from the one in which he saw the painting attests to the sort of dynamic and interactive experience between viewers and visual art within the house. 436 Sometimes, there is also a direct dialogue between a wall painting and the graffiti inscribed on the walls. 437 This is the case in the tablinum of the house V.2.10 at Pompeii in which literary graffiti quoting Ovid’s Heroides (4), a poem that describes Phaedra’s declaration of love for her stepson Hippolytus, were written directly on a wall painting depicting the same myth. 438 In recent years, scholars have started to pay particular attention to the spatial context and distribution of graffiti. 439 Within the house, graffiti tend to cluster in “dynamic” spaces (i.e., vestibules, atria, and peristyle gardens), which are the most frequented ones because 434 Neither painting has survived. For the painting with “Adonis and Venus”: Sogliano 1879, 35, no. 142; Schefold 1957, 63; PPM III, 546; PPP II, 12. The painting with “Mars and Venus” was found badly damaged but from the excavators’ accounts we can assume that it would have depicted such a scene: Mau BdI 1877, 23; Sogliano 1879, 61, nos. 140, 352; Schefold 1957, 64; PPM III, 540; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 114, pl. 2,3.4. 435 Pelias was Alcestis’ father, who contested the marriage between his daughter and Admetus. On this fresco: Sogliano 1879, 88, no. 506; PPM III, 550-52, fig. 22-3; PPP II, 13. 436 See DiBiasie 2015, 215-16, with discussion of this graffito and related wall painting in the Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18). 437 See, e.g., the epigrams accompanying the painting with Pero and Micon in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a) at Pompeii: Peters and Moormann 1993, 33-5. The study of “literary graffiti” has been now used to understand the social and cultural background of the everyday life of people at Pompeii and Herculaneum: Milnor 2009; 2014; Kruschwitz 2010; DiBiasie 2015. 438 An early drawing provides some idea of this painting: PPM III, 835, fig. 11. Swentnam-Burland (2015) amply discusses these graffiti and their interaction with the wall painting. 439 Benefiel 2010; Baird and Taylor 2011; DiBiasie 2015; Benefiel and Keegan 2016. 161 they were meant for the passage of people. 440 Although graffiti are less attested in “static” rooms (such as tablina, triclinia, and cubicula), an analysis of their content corroborates the multiuse of domestic spaces. Numerical and commercial graffiti, for instance, are not only found in the tablinum (a space commonly identified as an area of business), but also in rooms not typically thought to serve such activity like cubicula, indicating that these rooms were also places for business. 441 Carrying out a study of graffiti in tablina is not an easy task and, like the analysis of artifacts and wall and floor decoration, it entails the analysis of an extensive corpus of data scattered in published and archival sources. In my work, I did not locate the graffiti personally, but I have relied on the information found in such sources. 442 The results confirm that a variety of different graffiti appear in a total of 27 tablina, most of which include social communication, personal names, Roman numerals (in one case pertaining to commerce), alphabetic letters, and, in one case, a date (Appendix C). 443 The tablinum, like almost any other room within the house, was a flexible space serving both pleasure (“private”) and business (“public”) activities. It could have been used for dining, resting, and/or conversing with a few visitors, as well as for conducting trade, 440 Benefiel 2016, 98. 441 DiBiasie 2015, 316. In her study of the distribution and content of graffiti from twelve Pompeian properties, DiBiasie notes that commercial graffiti appear not only in vestibules, atria, and tablina (places usually associated with business activities), but also in oeci, triclinia, and cubicula. “These commercial graffiti demonstrate the presence of such activities in a variety of spaces and further emphasize the need to nuance our notion of privacy when examining the ancient material” (DiBiasie 2015, 299). 442 Thus far, the main source for painted and inscribed inscriptions at Pompeii and Herculaneum is the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) 4, Suppl. 2-4. In addition to this corpus, I have examined epigraphic evidence scattered and studied in various works on individual houses. Recently, the “Ancient Graffiti Project” directed by Rebecca R. Benefiel, has started to locate and record the various handwritten inscriptions at Pompeii and Herculaneum in a public digital repository: see supra n. 414. 443 This count only includes graffiti from inside the tablinum and not graffiti found near it, such as on the tablinum’s pilasters facing either the atrium or the peristyle garden. 162 business, or even legal hearings. 444 Its temporary use as an “impressive vestibule” leading to the garden area, in my view, might have depended on the type and number of visitors that the dominus received. In general, however, the tablinum seems to be a “static” room frequented by both guests and the house’s inhabitants. It might have sometimes been used to suit more casual moments as well, as a sort of informal “cotidiana amicorumque cenatio” where the dominus received a few daily personal friends. 445 The Tablinum’s Decorative Apparatus: Spectacles and Myths in Campanian Wall Paintings Analysis of tablina’s wall decoration within their social, cultural, and historical context offers important contributions to the understanding of ancient daily life. The majority of tablina are decorated in the so-called Fourth Style, which developed in Pompeii during the Claudio-Neronian period and dominates the domestic landscape, as it is the latest one in chronological order and present at the time of the eruption. 446 As for the pavements, the reading of the archival and published sources has been crucial in reconstructing wall decoration since most of the tablina no longer preserve evidence of it. My study indicates 444 Bablitz (2015, 75) suggests that the tablinum might have been used as a sort of tribunal during the legal hearings that took place within the house. Such a role of the tablinum, however, can be only discussed for individual cases and cannot be generalized since it depended on the householder’s status. For a discussion of the spaces for legal proceedings in the Roman world: Bablitz 2009; 2015; De Angelis 2010. 445 In his villa in Tuscany, Pliny (Ep. 5.6.21) lists a number of dining rooms, among which there was a more informal one where he used to dine with personal friends (cotidiana amicorumque cenatio). 446 On the Fourth Style: Beyen 1938-1960; Bastet and De Vos 1979; Cerulli Irelli 1990; Ling 1991; Strocka 1995; 2007; Pappalardo 2008, 10. For an overview of the chronology of the Four Styles in earlier scholarship, see Barbet 1985, 182, pl. v (with dating of the Fourth Style from 54 CE); Strocka 2007. Mau’s Four Styles classification system of Pompeian wall paintings still offers the traditional framework for studying Roman painting, although there have been many attempts to refine it: Mau 1882. 163 that 85 tablina (50%) were painted in the Fourth Style, 32 (19%) in the Third Style, 5 (3%) in the Second Style, and 5 (3%) in the First Style. Early excavators recorded a total of 21 (12%) tablina in coarse plaster and 6 (4%) without decoration, while for 18 (11%) there was no record or evidence of wall decoration (Table 4.1). 447 There could have been various reasons for leaving a room undecorated (e.g., economic or functional). 448 A property might have also been temporarily uninhabited at the time of the eruption. This is the case, for instance, with the Casa dei Capitelli Colorati (VII.4.31,51) at Pompeii where the walls of the atrium and tablinum were originally covered with marble slabs, of which only scanty remains were found during excavations in 1833. 449 Most likely owing to the continuous seismic activities that led to the eruption in 79 CE, the owner might have decided to abandon the property systematically, dismantling the marble veneering and removing other precious items around the atrium rooms. 450 The coarse plaster applied on the walls of 21 tablina might have indicated that these rooms were still waiting for a new decoration at the time of the eruption. 451 Indeed, it is 447 For specific information about the decoration of each tablinum, see Appendix A. 448 Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 155-60. In the case of a central and spacious room like the tablinum, however, it is difficult to believe that the owner did not think this room was worthy of redecoration if the abode was still inhabited. The tablinum might have also been temporarily used for more utilitarian needs such as storage, although this is something that cannot be generalized and would have depended on particular study cases. Indeed, even the fact that a room was repainted in the latest style does not imply a priori that its use was not changed at the time of the eruption. See, e.g., the tablinum in the Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12), which is discussed in Chapter 2 (“Permeable Boundaries and Artifactual Records: Household Storage”). On the connection between a room’s decoration and utilitarian activities: Allison 2001a, 193. 449 Avvolta BdI 1833, 33-4. The two opus sectile panels that are wrongly said to be found in the tablinum of this house (MANN inv. nos. 9977, 9979; see Elia 1929; Niccolini 1854 1.2; Schefold 1957, 183) were actually discovered in the property VII.2.38: PAH II, 540 (found on May 22, 1845); Pagano and Prisciandaro 2006, 160-61. Such a marble decoration (like the other rooms within the house painted in the Fourth Style), was applied after the 62 CE earthquake: Descouedres 1993. 450 Descouedres 1993, 165-78. See supra n. 203 for the seismic activities at Pompeii during the last decades prior 79 CE. 451 According to Vitruvius (De arch. 7.3.5), application of the second and third plaster layers will occur after the coarse plaster has set. Based on modern replicas of Roman lime mortars, some scholars have noted that the mortar would reach its highest strength, or fully set, between 28 and 90 days: see Lippiello 2011; 164 interesting to note that at least in 14 cases, the course plaster was applied not only on the walls of the tablinum but also on the walls of the rooms nearby (like alae, atrium and/or fauces), possibly suggesting that the proprietors were planning to systematically redecorate and “update” this frontal area (most probably according to the latest trends). 452 In these cases, therefore, the course plaster walls of the tablinum, in conjunction with the few finds recorded from this room, should not be understood as an indicator of the change in use of this room (now functioning, for instance, as storage or working space) since the rooms nearby were also found in similar conditions. 453 A total of 71 (or 72) central mythological paintings are recorded in about 46 tablina (Table 4.2). 454 Other representations in the main zone of the wall may also include small paintings (pinakes) showing landscapes or, more often, “still life” images (so-called xenia), depicting a wide range of subjects including different types of fruits, vegetables, and animals, as well as theatrical masks, religious objects, and writing equipment. The Lippiello, Ceraldi et al. 2016, 562. For the coarse plaster (“intonaco grezzo”) serving as base for a later decoration, see Mau RM 1886, 151; RM 1899, 5. For sources on Roman wall painting techniques, see Strocka 2007, 304, esp. n. 3 (with further bibliography). 452 For information on tablina and the rooms nearby whose walls were found in coarse plaster, see Appendix A. Such a redecoration of the walls in the latest trend is attested, for instance, in the Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12) at Pompeii where excavations revealed that a Fourth Style decoration in the tablinum replaced an earlier one in the First Style: Wallace-Hadrill 2005, 102. 453 In discussing the tablinum in the Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25,47) at Pompeii, Fiorelli argued that both its lack of decoration and the discovery of a few finds within it would suggest that the tablinum had lost its “representative” use becoming a “working space” by 79 CE. According to Fiorelli (GdS NS 1862, 10): “Di fronte alla porta d’ingresso, a modo di tablino, evvi una stanza con le pareti ed il pavimento simili all’atrio, in cui forse trattenevasi quel servo preposto ai negozi, o Sirico stesso allorchè dava opera a tali uffici; chè non par dubbio esser questa parte della casa a ciò destinata, e per tal cagione sfornita di qualsiasi dipintura ed ornamento.” In similar conditions (i.e., with coarse plaster walls and with a few finds), however, were also found the fauces and the atrium of this house. The Fourth-Style decoration in triclinium (8) and exedra (10) in the atrium area suggests that fauces, atrium, and tablinum were probably waiting for a new decoration at the time of the eruption. See also PPM VI, 229 for similar conclusions. For information on the finds recorded in the tablinum of the Casa di Sirico, see Appendix B. 454 Unfortunately, it was not possible to get a better idea of the decoration of all the tablina painted in the Third and the Fourth Style. In the Giornale degli Scavi excavators sometimes only recorded the wall painting Style, as the decoration had already almost entirely disappeared. In other cases, excavators noted that central panels had been already removed during earlier explorations. 165 still life images may have alluded to the kind of gifts that a patron bestowed upon his guests. 455 Such decoration is also typically found in “private” rooms like cubicula and triclinia, where it would have conveyed an impression of hospitality and wealth. 456 Mythological scenes and still life images fit well into “static” spaces meant for receiving visitors, but they should not be interpreted as thematic reflections of the activities carried on within the room. 457 Decoration, indeed, does not have to indicate the “function” of space; rather it reflects the hierarchical relationships among them. Thus, a “paratactic” or repetitive decoration is typical of “dynamic” spaces such as vestibules, atria, and peristyle gardens, which are meant for the distribution or passage of people. Complex figural imagery, instead, is well suited to “static” rooms such as tablina, triclinia, and cubicula where people were meant to spend time. 458 Although figurative paintings should not be regarded as thematic reflections of the activities that took place within a room, the mythological scenes found in tablina have often been interpreted in relation to morning salutatio, for which, as I indicated, there is no evidence. The walls of the tablinum in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7) at Pompeii, for example, were each painted with a central mythological scene related to the life of Achilles. On the north (left) wall was a panel showing the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, on the south (right) wall, the discovery of Achilles on the Island of Skyros 455 Vitruvius (De arch. 6.7.4) describes this type of paintings as xenia, alluding to the gifts of food provided by Greek hosts to their guests. On representations of still life images in Roman art: Eckstein 1963; Croisille 1965; Leach 1982; 2004, 80-1; De Caro 1991; 2001; Ling 1991, 153-57; Dunbabin 2003, 63-8. 456 Dunbabin 2003, 63-8; Anguissola 2010, 326-32. Pinakes with still life images painted in the middle zone of the wall appear frequently in the period of transition between the Third and Fourth Styles (although the majority belong to the Fourth Style) and can be found in different types of rooms, including triclinia, cubicula, oeci, tablina, and atria: De Caro, 1991, 260-61; Loccardi 2009, 64-5. 457 Allison 2001, 193; Leach 2004, 53-4. 458 Scagliarini 1974-1976; Clarke 1991, 16; 2007b, 323; Ling R. 2006, 199; Esposito 2012, 66. 166 (Figs. 4.11, 4.12). 459 Both paintings are fragmentary but through comparison with other similar Pompeian images, such as two mosaics in the Casa di Apollo (Figs. 4.13, 4.14), 460 we can reconstruct their original appearance. The wrath of Achilles is told in Homer’s Iliad (Book 1), while the story of this hero on Skyros does not belong to the Homeric epic but to a later tradition. 461 Despite acknowledging the lack of ancient written sources for the use of the tablinum during the salutatio, Jennifer Trimble nonetheless concluded that such decoration would have reflected the patronage activities that took place within the room. Trimble maintains that after viewing paintings of the twin-gods of entrances, Castor and Pollux, painted on the walls of the vestibule of this house, a client would have experienced a climactic “seeing and being seen” relationship between himself and his patron only when he entered into the tablinum with its paintings showing the analogous shared gaze of Achilles and Odysseus. Such a symbolic association, according to Trimble, would have been appropriate for a tablinum during the morning salutatio-reception between the patron and his clients. 462 The same pairing of mythological subjects, however, is also found in one (or possibly two) Pompeian houses, and here in rooms other than the tablinum. In the previously 459 After their discovery in 1828, both paintings were cut from their walls and today are displayed at the MANN inv. nos. 9104 (quarrel of the hero with Agamemnon), 9110 (discovery of the hero at Skyros): Bragantini and Sampaolo 2009, 308-9, 312-13, cat. nos. 136, 139 (with further bibliography). 460 Both mosaics decorated the walls of the garden portico (24) in the Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23). The mosaic with the Wrath of Achilles is today displayed at the MANN, inv. no. 10006; the one with Achilles’s discovery at Skyros is in situ. The frescoes in the Casa dei Dioscuri would have shown similar images. In the fresco with Achilles on Skyros, the hero would have appeared between his lover Deidameia (who is today missing) and Odysseus, while in the quarrel of Achilles, Agamemnon and Athena would have stood respectively on the left and right sides of the hero. 461 On the literary tradition of the episode of Achilles on Skyros, see King 1987, 178-84. According to the myth, knowing the tragic destiny of the hero if he fought in the Trojan war, Achilles’ mother Thetis concealed her son as a woman at the court of Lycomedes, king of Skyros. Here the hero fell in love with one of the king’s daughters, Deidameia, but later threw off his disguise and was persuaded by Odysseus to join the Greek expedition to Troy. 462 Trimble 2002, 244. 167 mentioned Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23), the scenes appear in two mosaics decorating the walls of the garden portico (24) near the summer triclinium (Figs. 4.13, 4.14), while in the Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48) at Pompeii, the hero on Skyros and, possibly, another fresco representing the wrath of Achilles, are said to be found both in the ala (6). 463 A fresco depicting the episode of the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles was also found in the portico of the Temple of Apollo, at Pompeii (Fig. 4.15). 464 The episode of Achilles and Odysseus on Skyros, in particular, became extremely popular in Roman art and literature during the first century CE. 465 This myth is represented in a number of other houses at Pompeii and especially in more “private” rooms like triclinia. 466 In my opinion, then, the presence of this subject in a tablinum need not reflect the “public” role of this space as a setting for the salutationes. I am not denying that the tablinum could have been used for receiving clientes. Rather, the point I want to make is that the subject matters of a painting does not in itself establish the function of the tablinum as a place where the salutationes actually took place. 463 For the Casa di Apollo: PPM IV, 507-10, figs. 64-5, 69; PPP II, 162; as well as supra n. 460. For the Casa della Caccia Antica: Schefold 1957, 180-81; Allison 1997, 55-68; PPM VII, 17, fig. 1; PPP III, 132. The scene with the wrath of Achilles is suggested by Schefold (1957, 181) but it is not certain: Allison 1997, 68. 464 On the Temple of Apollo and its decorative setting: Moormann 2011, 71-85; Heslin 2015 (who also postulates the presence of a painting with Achilles on Skyros in the portico of the Temple of Apollo. However, there is no evidence for such painting). A very fragmentary central panel depicting the Wrath of Achilles was also found in the atrium of the Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3,5): Bergmann 1994, 237-39 (with bibliography). 465 The episode of Achilles and Odysseus on Skyros is mentioned in the elegiac poetry (Prop. 2.16-16; Ov. Ars. am. 1.680-705) while Statius’ incomplete epic poem Achilleid represents the most extant detailed account of the story. 466 The episode of Achilles being discovered on Skyros is represented in at least eleven houses at Pompeii: Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18; peristyle garden i), Casa di Modesto (VI.5.13; atrium 2), Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23; garden portico 24), Casa del Centauro (VI.9.3-5; cubiculum 11), Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7; tablinum 42), Casa dei Vettii (VI.15.1; triclinium t), Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25,47; room 34), Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48; ala 6), Casa dei Postumii (VIII.4.4,49; triclinium 33), Casa della Fontana D’Amore (IX.2.6,7; triclinium k), Casa di Achille (IX.5.1-3; triclinium u). See LIMC I: 58-9, pls. 108-113, s.v. “Achilleus” (Kossatz-Deissmann). 168 The emphasis on the “public” nature of the tablinum (as principal formal reception room) has also conditioned other scholars’ interpretations. The communis opinio that has emerged is that the mythological paintings found in tablina should be explained by the “representative” role of this room, and, consequently, in terms of moral lessons and values (i.e., the exemplum virtutis) associated with the subjects depicted. 467 Accordingly, representations of divine couples like Mars and Venus, themes commonly found in official Roman art, served to celebrated conjugal affection and alluded to the positive qualities embodied by them respectively (e.g., dignitas, auctoritas, and virtus; uenustas, fecunditas, and castitas). 468 According to Katharina Lorenz, images of this divine pair depicted in a “public” room like the tablinum would have reflected the role models and virtues of a proper husband and wife to the family members and visitors admitted to the house. 469 In discussing the sizable presence of scenes featuring Mars and Venus in Pompeian tablina, Jürgen Hodske has already arrived at a similar interpretation suggesting that Mars and Venus were particularly popular in the tablinum because it is here that the dominus presented himself to his clients. 470 The pictorial choice of scenes with Mars and Venus recorded in tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum (8 in total) has been interpreted as an expression of moral virtue (Table 4.2). 467 Wallace-Hadrill 1996, 109; Trimble 2002, 242-45; Romizzi 2006a, 93-5; Hodske 2007, 71, 82-4, 137; Lorenz 2008, esp. 380-84. 468 This is in part due to the fact that Pompeii has been interpreted as a reflection of the social and cultural aspects of Rome even though the city did not become a Roman colony until 80 BCE under Sulla, when it acquired the name of Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum. Under Augustus, who claimed them as his own ancestors, Mars and Venus became the official gods of Rome and were incorporated in imperial propaganda. On Roman sculptures of Mars and Venus with portrait heads, see Kleiner 1981; D’Ambra 1996, 2000; Hallett 2005, esp. 331-32 (with a list of the 15 extant nude and partially nude portraits of women in the guise of Venus); Kousser 2007. 469 Lorenz 2008, 264-69. 470 Hodske 2007, 137. 169 To be sure, mythological paintings with these two divinities could be seen as referencing the exemplary qualities of an idealized couple that might be perceived by a client as analogous to the relationship of the patron and his wife. 471 My systematic analysis of central mythological scenes at Pompeii, in particular, demonstrates that the pairing of Mars and Venus was a very popular motif not only in tablina, but also in other domestic rooms typically associated with more “private” activities (i.e., cubicula and triclinia) (Table 4.3). 472 In the Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) at Pompeii, for instance, this divine pair appears depicted three times (in a tablinum, a cubiculum, and an unidentified room) (Fig. 4.16). 473 Scenes with Mars and Venus have been also recorded in other types of domestic rooms 474 as well as in civic and public buildings at Pompeii (Table 4.3). The same myth, indeed, is found in the Quadriporticus of the Theaters (Fig. 4.17), in the commercial enterprise at VII.3.8, and in the garden restaurant at VIII.5.15-16. 475 In my opinion, 471 This discussion, however, also leads us to consider the degree to which Roman art had a moral impact on its audience. In discussing private licentious art in the second half of the first century BCE, for instance, Propertius (2.6.27-30) makes clear the didactic role of erotic images while blaming the indecent pictures (obscenas tabellas) of the forbidden love between Mars and Venus found in virtuous homes for corrupting the honest behavior of innocent girls. For Propertius, sexually titillating images like the one of Mars and Venus were responsible for influencing behaviors and threating morality among his contemporaries. 472 Representations of Mars and Venus at Pompeii appear in 6 triclinia and 9 cubicula. When compared to the other mythological scenes represented in triclinia and cubicula, Mars and Venus are still among the most popular subjects. See among the most represented myths in triclinia: Narcissus (13); Dionysus and Ariadne (9); Theseus and Ariadne (8); the Judgement of Paris (8); Mars and Venus (6); Actaeon and Artemis (6). In cubicula: Narcissus (13); Fishing Venus (12); Theseus and Ariadne (11); Mars and Venus (9). See also Hodske 2007, Table 1. 473 The scene with Mars and Venus in the Casa di Meleagro is depicted in two variants. For the one in the tablinum: Hodske 2007, 144, no. 246, pl. 4,1 (MANN, inv. no. 9256). For unidentified room: Hodske 2007, 144, no. 247, pls. 4,3.4 (MANN, inv. no. 9250). For cubiculum (12): Hodske 2007, 144, no. 250, pl. 4,2 (MANN, inv. no. 9254). 474 Mars and Venus, for instance, appear in the portico (19) of the Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10-11), as well as in the atrium of the Casa dell’Orso Ferito (VII.2.45). The fresco with Venus recorded in the atrium of the Casa del Poeta Tragico was found badly damaged and lacking its right side, so it is not possible to identify which character was depicted nearby to Venus. It is, however, possible that it was Mars or Adonis, two figures who were sometimes paired with Venus in mythological scenes. 475 For the painting with Mars and Venus in the Quadriporticus of the Theaters (known today as the “Caserma dei Gladiatori”): Hodske 2007, 144, no. 632, pl. 3,3 (not preserved). For commercial enterprise at VII.3.8 (in room [a] mistakenly called “tablinum” by earlier excavators): Hodske 2007, 143, no. 442, pl. 1,4. For garden restaurant at VIII.5.15-16 (in summer triclinium [o]): Hodske 2007, 145, no. 619, pl. 5,2 (not preserved). 170 therefore, depictions of Mars and Venus in the tablinum need not be explained in terms of the “public” and “official role” for the tablinum, where the dominus would have greeted his clients and conducted business with them. The considerable number of scenes with Mars and Venus in wall paintings at Pompeii 476 attests to the popularity of this myth in the contemporary local society (especially from the middle of the first century CE since the majority of them are in the Fourth Style and/or date after the 62CE earthquake). Of the 32 paintings with Mars and Venus depicted in private and public buildings at Pompeii, indeed, only four of these were produced in the Third Style (which dates from the Augustan period to the 40s CE). 477 Although depicted in the Third Style, the painting with Mars and Venus in the tablinum of the Casa di Cornelius Tages (I.7.19; Fig. 4.18) at Pompeii likely dates to the decade after 62 CE, thus restricting to three the number of paintings with this subject that can be dated before the 40s CE. 478 The question remains: why was this myth so popular in a small provincial town like Pompeii in the first century CE? Was it connected to the socio-cultural context in Rome? In ancient literature, we also read about the ironical meaning of the tale of Mars and Venus which encompassed a mythological, adulterous love affair. The earliest account of the myth appears in Homer’s Odyssey (8.266-369), where the affair of Mars and Venus was told in the context of the story of the quarrel of Achilles and Odysseus and the Trojan Horse, to lighten people’s spirits between two dramatic events. The adultery of Mars and 476 Herculaneum and Pompeii show a preference for myths involving respectively their patron deities (Hercules in the former case, Venus in the latter): Hodske 2007, 138-39. 477 On Third Style wall paintings: see Strocka 2007, 311-15, esp. n. 9 (with extensive bibliography). 478 The painting with Mars and Venus in the tablinum of the Casa di Cornelius Tages (I.7.19) is in situ: PPM I, 750, 766; Hodske 2007, 145-46, no. 43. The other Third Style paintings with Mars and Venus are found in the cubiculum (14) of the Casa del Primo Piano (I.11.9; in situ), in the tablinum of the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a; in situ), and in the tablinum of the Casa dell’Amore Punito (VII.2.23; MANN, inv. no. 9257): Hodske 2007, 145-46, nos. 82, 167, 435. 171 Venus is later mentioned in various Greek and Roman texts, but the most detailed account is found in Ovid (Met. 4. 169-89; Ars Am. 2.561-89). The union of Mars and Venus, in particular, remains as one of the most amusing and most popular stories of Roman literature. According to the story, Venus cheated on her husband Vulcan with Mars. Vulcan took revenge by fashioning an invisible bronze net that entraps Mars and Venus in bed in the midst of their sexual activity. He later invites all the other gods to witness and mock the adulterous couple so that, in Ovid’s words (Met. 4.188-89): superi risere diuque / haec fuit in toto notissima fabula caelo (“the gods laughed, and for a long time this was the most well-known story in all of heaven.”). 479 The transgressive and humorous aspects of the story may have contributed to making Mars and Venus a quite popular subject in Roman art. 480 As I will later discuss, this tale, however, was also very popular in theatrical spectacles such as pantomime. A similar interpretation could also be provided for many other mythological figures and narrative scenes painted on the walls of tablina, such as Achilles on Skyros, Daedalus and Icarus, Hercules and Deianira, Pasiphae and the Bull, or the Punishment of Dirce (Figs. 4.19, 4.20). These tragic myths, indeed, also had comic and/or transgressive aspects. Scenes with Pasiphae and the Bull or Icarus falling from the sky, for instance, may have functioned as a risible motif, recalling the “farcical executions” of criminals staged in the 479 See also Ov. Am. 40 (notior in caelo fabula nulla fuit). 480 See Clarke 2007a, 169-72 with examples of terracotta medallions with Mars and Venus on a bed before Vulcan or a group of gods. For Roman representations of Mars and Venus in different media: LIMC 1:544- 49, pls. 346-89, s.v. “Mars und Venus” (Simon). In this respect, the subversive aspect of the myth might have inspired a playful interpretation by its viewer, sometimes (but not always) functioning even as a “tongue-in-cheek slam at the Augustan propaganda.” (Clarke 2007a, 170). After all, Pompeii and Herculaneum were both Hellenized towns, so not always sympathetic to everything Roman. See, for instance, the mocking representations of Aeneas or Romulus represented as a dog-headed apes, today displayed in the Gabinetto Segreto at the MANN, inv. nos. 9089 (Aeneas) and 8588 (Romulus): Clarke 2007a, 151-53, pls. 16-17. 172 amphitheater as mythological episodes. 481 Usually associated with a moral concept, a familiar tragic myth might have simply functioned as a motif capable of sparking different conversations and reactions among viewers. As John Clarke has rightly explained: “Even though this image fits into a kind of interior that seems quite serious, to assume that all ancient viewers interpreted it and used it for serious moral lessons is to underestimate – or perhaps overestimate – Roman viewers.” 482 Painted on the walls of a tablinum, a triclinium, or a cubiculum, therefore, these mythological scenes could have been interpreted in multiple ways, depending on the scenarios in which the dominus received his visitors as well as on the knowledge and skills of his guests. For instance, a mythological scene could have been used for its serious moral lesson during a visit by a client or a friend. At a dinner party, instead, the meaning of that traditional mythological subject could have been reversed into a comic one, generating laughter among people enjoying a meal. 483 Scholars today agree in considering the Roman house as a sort of pinacotheca whose frescoes would have not only maintained the memory of those myths and of the lost Greek encaustic panels of the Classical and Hellenistic period, but also acquired new meanings according to the Romans’ emulation and reception of the past. 484 Mythological imagery 481 Coleman 1990; Clarke 2007, 23-6. Several ancient authors attest to capital executions staged as mythological enactments in the arena: Mart. Spect. 8, 5, 7, 16b, 21; Apul. Met. 10.29.34; Tert. Ad nat. 1.10.47; Tac. Ann. 15.44.4. 482 Clarke 2007a, 169. 483 On the “ambiguity” inherent in the visual narrative of the Mars and Venus’ myth, which was not confined to a single fixed interpretation, see Swetnam-Burland 2017. 484 See esp. Bergmann 1994; 1995b; Clarke 2003; 2007; Newby 2016. (Images of such lost masterpieces would have probably circulated through illustrated texts and copy-books: Ling 1991, 217-19; Clarke 2010). Roman art has been interpreted for a long time as little more than an imitation of Greek art, especially in the 173 has been especially discussed by scholars in regard to the role of paideia and the practice of ekphrasis, thus connected to the ability to discern, discuss, and provoke intellectual debate among the viewers. 485 The analysis of the connection between mythological paintings, literature, and rhetorical responses in the domestic sphere has dominated (and still dominates) scholarship. 486 Thus, painted in a “public” room like a tablinum, Greek mythological narratives taken from epic and elegiac poetry, for example, would have reflected and advertised the householder’s cultural knowledge and his “up-to-date participation in elite culture.” 487 What is important to note, however, is the fact that, as with the representations of Mars and Venus, several other mythological narratives painted on the walls of tablina are also found in many other private and public spaces at Pompeii. Frescoes with Argos and Io (Figs. 4.21, 4.22, 4.23), Phryxus and Helle, or Endymion and Selene, for instance, are found frequently in civic, commercial, and/or religious spaces throughout the city. 488 tradition of Kopienkritik. Studies are now moving away from such a tradition, considering Roman art as part of its Roman setting, thus as emulating rather than imitating the Greek models. For this socio-historical approach to Roman statuary, see esp.: Gazda 2002; Perry 2005; Kousser 2008; Marvin 2008; Anguissola 2012; Longfellow and Perry 2018. On Kopienkritik: Zanker 1974; Ridgway 1984. 485 Literature on this subject matter is extremely vast, see among many: Lehmann-Hartleben 1941; Thompson 1960-1961; Brilliant 1984, 54-89; Elsner 1995, 21-48; 2007, 67-109; Leach 2000; Ghedini et al. 2004; Clarke 2007a, 143-46; Webb 2009; Pollini 2010, 312-15; Newby 2016; Roby 2016; Squire 2018. For a discussion of ekphrasis as part of the ancient rhetorical practice, see Webb 2009. 486 See esp. Bergmann 1994; 1996; Valladares 2006; 2011; 2012; Knox 2014; Lorenz 2014; Meyer 2014; Platt 2014; and recently Newby 2016. 487 Trimble 2002, 244. 488 “Argos and Io”: triclinium 37 (Casa del Citarista, I.4.5,25); tablinum 8 (Casa di Meleagro, VI.9.2); viridarium 45 (Casa dei Dioscuri, VI.9.6-7); Macellum (VII.9.7); room 26 (Casa del Banchiere, VII.14.5); Temple of Isis, Ekklesiasterion (VIII.7.28); cubiculum b (house IX.2.18); triclinium l (house IX.9.d). “Phryxus and Helle”: room b (tavern, I.1.2); viridarium 32 (Casa di Sallustio, VI.2.4); tablinum 7 (Casa di Modesto, VI.5.13); cubiculum 6 (Casa del Poeta Tragico, VI.8.3-5); Macellum (VII.9.7); triclinium 14 (Casa dei Postumii, VIII.4.4,49); cubiculum b (Casa delle Pareti Rosse, VIII.5.37); cubiculum 7 (Casa di Marcus Lucretius, IX.3.5,24); ala d (house IX.5.6,17). Representations of “Endymion and Selene” are too numerous to be listed here (see Hodske 2007, 210-12) and appear in various domestic rooms, as well as commercial spaces, such as in the hospitium or thermopolium I.4.15 (room 2): not included in Hodske’s catalogue (2007). 174 The appearance of such mythological imagery in places associated with the lower strata of the society (such as taverns), in particular, has been often discussed in relation to the (social and visual) language of domestic space and explained as a sort of “aspirational luxury.” 489 Their presence in commercial and industrial properties (including drinking- establishments, workshops, and inns), therefore, may have provided an aura of “refined taste.” 490 Sometimes, it remains difficult to determine whether these scenes belong to an earlier domestic phase of the property or if they correspond to the conversion of the space from a domestic to commercial function, according to the new owner’s taste and agenda. Either way, such “shared” mythological imagery indicates that retail outlets were deeply integrated into social and cultural urban life, perhaps indicating that this was not just a matter of “aspiration nor imitation” of social refinement. 491 In my view, these mythological scenes may have also recalled to customers’ minds the mythological narratives staged in public contemporary performances, thus indicating how such visual language was also an expression of urban life (and hence, not limited to the elite). 492 Whether painted on the walls of a domestic room (like a tablinum, a cubiculum, or a triclinium) or of a religious, civic, or commercial building (like a temple, a market place, or a food and drinking-establishment), these mythological scenes attest to the presence of 489 The mythological imagery is quite attested in lodging or commercial spaces (e.g., the shops or bars at I.1.2, I.14.5, I.14.11-15, V.2.14, V.2.19, VI,10.1, VI.14.28, or the inns at I.8.8 and VI.9.1). The so-called “tavern imagery,” which is sometimes found in food and drinking- establishments, however, has received more scholarly attention and is used as evidence for the reconstruction of the life in and the decoration of bars. On the “tavern scenes” in bars at VI.10.1 and VI.14.35-36, see Clarke 2003, 134-36, 161-68; Leach 2004, 258-59. On mythological wall paintings found in food and drinking-establishments at Pompeii (and elsewhere), see recently Ellis 2018, 239-48, esp. 240 n. 43 (with further bibliography). 490 Leach 2004, 258-59; Pirson 1999, 91-5. 491 For a critique of the idea that luxury only “belonged” to the elite world, see Wallace-Hadrill 2004; 2008, esp. 323-24; 2014, esp. 75; Ellis 2018, 239-48. 492 See Spinelli and Scorziello (forthcoming). 175 an emerging visual canon that was familiar to people from all social classes. 493 In discussing the ubiquitous presence and selection of certain mythological images in Pompeii and Herculaneum, therefore, there is another important element which might have contributed to the widespread popularity of certain mythological iconography. That is, the role played by various public spectacles and by the cultural, social, and local environment, in promoting certain visual tableaux among the urban fabric. 494 Different forms of popular theatrical performances might have contributed to the development and dissemination of a mythological visual canon derived from classical tragedy. Myth, indeed, was performed in a variety of media and was deeply integrated into the everyday social and cultural life, from the mythological spectacles staged in the theater to the “farcical executions” in the amphitheater (where such punishments were staged as parodies of mythological episodes). 495 With two stone theaters, Pompeii offered a wide range of theatrical performances, 496 becoming a prominent center for pantomime during the first century CE. Several graffiti 493 See, for instance, representations of “Admetus and Alcestis,” which appear not only in various domestic spaces (e.g., in tablinum [8] of the Casa del Poeta Tragico VI.8.3-5; in triclinium [k] of the Casa del Balcone Pensile VII.12.28; in ala [9] of the Casa dei Postumii VIII.4.4,49), but also in public buildings like in the so- called “Basilica” (Augusteum) at Herculaneum. 494 Following a similar trend, Leach (2004, 130-32) called attention to the link between contemporary public entertainments and Pompeian garden paintings, arguing that the megalographic representations of exotic animals on domestic garden walls would refer to the venationes (wild animal hunts staged in the amphitheater) rather than being based on the paradeisoi (animal parks) of Hellenistic rulers. Cf., for a paradeisos interpretation of such images: Jashemski 1979, 68-73. 495 On Roman “farcical executions” see supra n. 481 (with bibliography). 496 The Large Theater was built in the 2nd century BCE while the Small Theater (also called, theatrum tectum or odeum) was erected after Pompeii became a Roman colony, around 75 BCE. During the renovation of the Large Theater in the Augustan period, the number of seats was also increased, allowing for more spectators from various social classes: Sear 2006, 130-33. Cf. Rome, where the first stone theater was the one erected by Pompey in 55 BCE: Sear 2006, 17, 133-35. On the various range of entertainments at Pompeii: Parslow 2007. 176 at Pompeii and Herculaneum attest to the presence of traveling pantomime troupes and their rival fan clubs (Paridiani and Anicetiani), informing us of the wild popularity of this theatrical genre in contemporary society. 497 Pantomime was a silent solo-dance in which a masked actor performed each of the (male and female) parts accompanied by an orchestra and a choir, which sang the words of a libretto. 498 As a genre with Greek origins, pantomime was already familiar to Romans at the end of the Republic, with the first performances probably dated to around 80 BCE and connected to the general Sulla, who was a major supporter of popular entertainments like mime. 499 However, it only developed in its canonical Roman form during the Principate of Augustus, when two pantomime dancers of Eastern origin -- Pylades from Cilicia and Bathyllus from Alexandria -- are credited with having introduced this new genre of entertainment (“the Italian dance”). The former favored themes taken from tragedy, the latter from comedy. The passion for pantomime, which appealed to both lower and upper strata of the society, led to a real “pantomania” 500 in Imperial Rome through the centuries, from theater riots among fans 501 to sharp criticisms from moralist writers. 502 While the emperor Tiberius exiled pantomime performers either from Italy (Tacitus, Ann. 4.14) or from Rome (Cassius Dio 57.21.3) in 23 CE, his successor Caligula recalled them at the beginning of his reign in 37 CE. 497 On the presence of various pantomime actors that came to visit and perform at Pompeii and Herculaneum: Franklin 1987; Starks 2008, 130-37. A few other graffiti probably alluding to pantomime actors are also found in the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7) at Pompeii (1955, 93-5). For pantomime graffiti at Herculaneum: Franklin 1987, 99, 102; Cooley and Cooley 2014, 99-100, nos. D76, D80. Thanks to graffiti and inscriptions, we know that several actors visited both Pompeii and Herculaneum. Future studies on this type of evidence might shed more light on the travelling pantomimists performing at both cities and elsewhere in the region of Campania. 498 For basic works on pantomime, see Wüst 1949; Rotolo 1957; Garelli 2007; Hall and Wyles 2008; Webb 2008; Dunbabin 2016, 85-113 (with extensive bibliography). On the pantomime libretto, see esp. Jory 2004, 152-53; 2008. 499 Garelli 2007, 137-42. See infra with further discussion of Sulla and his support of mime-actors. 500 Lada-Richards 2008, 285. 501 On pantomime riots: Jory 1984; Slater 1994. 502 Plin. Ep. 7.24.4-7; Plut. Mor. 748d. With their seductive movements, pantomime performers were accused of debauching women of higher rank (Juv. 6.60-6). 177 Caligula, indeed, was reputedly so infatuated with pantomime that he not only performed them but is also alleged to have had an affair with the dancer Mnester. 503 While the emperors’ attitudes toward pantomime performances continued to oscillate throughout the Roman empire, the popularity of pantomime never diminished and continued to attract audiences from all social classes. 504 Presenting scenes mostly taken from epic and classical tragedy, and especially favoring myths with strong emotional and/or erotic narratives (Lucian De Salt. 31, 67), pantomime contributed to the spread of theatrical imagery and the cultured lifestyle associated with it, playing a seminal role in educating the masses (Libanius Or. 64.112). 505 Pantomime, indeed, appealed both to the highest and lowest segments of the society, entering in the lives of Roman people through both public festivals and private entertainments. Pantomime performances, for instance, were included in the sacred games honoring the imperial cult such as the Sebasta (established by Augustus at Naples in 2 CE) and the ludi Augustales (held at Rome in honor of Augustus after his death in 14 CE). 506 A funerary inscription at Pompeii also attests to pantomimes in the ludi Apollinares sponsored there by A. Clodius Flaccus in 20 BCE. 507 As for pantomime performances in the private sphere, we know that they were quite common among wealthy people. The famous 503 Suet. Calig. 36, 54-5; Cass. Dio 59.5.5. While this is likely to be a negative invective fabricated to emphasize Caligula’s unpopular reign, it is interesting that pantomime was used as a touchstone for imperial morality. For a discussion of Caligula and pantomime, see Pollini 2012, 377-79. 504 Garelli 2007, 179-208; Lada Richards 2008; Cicu 2012, 275-76. On the popularity of pantomime among all social classes: Ov. Tr. 2.519; Luc. De Salt. 83; Macr. Sat. 2.7.13-19. During the early Empire, for instance, Claudius put to death Mnester, who was said to have had an affair with Messalina, while Nero was passionate about theatrical, dancing and singing performances, as well as politically invested in the instrumentalization of pantomime to enhance his popularity. On Nero and pantomime, see Garelli 2004. 505 Pantomime penetrated different strata of the society. On the social, political, and cultural implications of pantomime in Rome and its provinces, see Hall and Wyles 2008 (with bibliography); Hall 2013. 506 Jory 1984; Slater 1993, 1995; Hunt 2008, 182; Webb 2011; Dunbabin 2016, 88. 507 CIL 10.1074c. See discussion in Franklin 1987, 95. 178 Pylades, for instance, is said to have performed the role of Hercules at a private banquet given by Augustus (Macr. Sat. 2.7.16-7). 508 When found in tablina, images of Mars, Achilles, Hercules, Admetus, and Dionysus, as well as their respective female counterparts Venus, Deidamia, Deianira, Alcestis, and Ariadne have usually been explained as reflections of Roman social values, especially in the contemporary construction of sexuality and normative gender roles (i.e., virtus and dignitas for the men; pulchritudo and castitas for the women) (Figs. 4.24-4.26). 509 The tales of Venus, Dionysus, Achilles, Hercules, and Europa, as well as Theseus and the Labyrinth, among many others, however, were also all staged in pantomime. 510 The subjects of these mythological paintings, therefore, may very well have been influenced by various public spectacles such as pantomime, which favored tales of passion and erotic adventures taken from tragic narratives. Ovid, indeed, complains that some of his works were performed on a pantomime stage, while we know that notable poets like Statius and 508 For pantomime performances at private dinners: Jones 1991. Ancient textual evidence for private pantomime performances include: Sen. Ep. 47.17; Plin. NH 7.184; Petr. Sat. 52.9 (where the term histrio is used as synonym of pantomimos); Tac. Ann. 11.4. Propertius’ description of Cynthia dancing the part of Ariadne in a pantomime probably alludes to a private performance (Prop. 2.3.17-18). For a general discussion of pantomime in the private sphere: Slater 1994. 509 See esp. Trimble 2002; Dickmann 2005; Romizzi 2006a; 2006; Valladares 2006; Hodske 2007; Lorenz 2008. In discussing the pair of images found in tablinum of the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7) at Pompeii, e.g., both Trimble (2002, 241) and Romizzi (2006a 59-60; 2006b) argued that the masculine figure of Achilles would have served as a paradigm of heroic male virtues, thus reflecting a normative male role. While one could perhaps agree with such an interpretation for the painting with the Wrath of Achilles, I find this reading problematic for the carnivalesque disguise of the hero on Skyros. On representations of Achilles on domestic mosaics as helping to construct social identities: Muth 1998, 151-96. 510 Our main source for pantomime themes is Lucian’s De Saltatione, written in the second century CE: Lada-Richards 2007. Other textual evidence for pantomime themes can be found in later works by Libanius and John Chrysostom, while for the early Imperial period information is scanty and scattered in various written sources. We can however assume that the same mythological stories were performed even then, considering the fact that pantomime drew from the same Greek epic and tragic repertory. The fact that certain myths are not found mentioned in the extant evidence, therefore, does not rule out the possibility that they were not staged in pantomime. (I thank Bettina Bergmann for discussing with me the repertory of pantomime for early Imperial period: pers. conv. 01/2018). For an exhaustive list of the Greek and Latin reference to mythological narratives staged in pantomime, see Wüst 1949; Garelli 2007, 267-80. 179 Lucan wrote pantomime libretti 511 and that Seneca’s tragedies were influenced by such performances. 512 Quickly becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment, especially thanks to its strong emotional charge, pantomime might have played a seminal role in making these classical mythological subjects universally known, appealing, and familiar in the urban context across social boundaries. 513 This genre, indeed, played a significant role in the reception of visual and material art among Romans of all social classes in the later centuries. 514 A mythological representation, therefore, could have been interpreted in various ways according to the different viewpoints, contexts, and experiences of viewers (e.g., from quoting an ancient text [recitatio] to recalling a passage heard or a scene seen at a public performance). The paired images with the narratives draw from the life of Achilles in the tablinum of the Casa dei Dioscuri (Figs. 4.11, 4.12), for instance, might have recalled the militia amoris in the mind of an educated viewer since, from the first century BCE onwards, “love” played a crucial role in Achilles’ literary treatment. Poets like Propertius, Ovid, and Horace were all concerned with Achilles’ amatory behaviors and his three lovers (Briseis, Deidameia, and Penthesilea), who were the reason for temporarily 511 Ov. Tr. 5.7.25-30. Plutarch (Mor. 748c = Sympotic Questions 9.15.2) informs us that both Statius and Lucan wrote pantomime libretti. According to the Life of Lucan attributed to Vacca, Lucan wrote 14 pantomime libretti (salticae fabulae). On Statius’ Agave libretto: Juv. Sat. 7.82-7. 512 Zimmermann 1990; Zanobi 2008; 2014. 513 “Pantomime, from an evolutionary perspective, is a descendant of Greek tragic theatre, with which it shared much of its subject-matter, tone, aesthetic appeal and emotive function. It is therefore one of the chief cultural arenas in which we can see at work the processes through which the ancient repertory emerged and evolved into a canon.” (Hall 2013, 457). 514 In discussing the reception of sculptural representations of Mars and Venus in the High Empire, Kousser recognizes the significance of this underestimated genre through which “Roman viewers could experience a more powerful connection to the mythological portraits than would have been possible through, for example, literary texts.” (Kousser 2007, 688). 180 arresting the hero’s martial activities. 515 Performed in public spectacles, the tales of Achilles were nonetheless also well-known to a broader audience, who would then have been capable of understanding the meaning of these myths painted on walls. Until today, the debate as to what extent imperial pantomime would have influenced mythological images in Roman art is still open. Problems emerge when scholars discuss how much these performances and/or individual actors would have served as models for statuary and painting. 516 Despite none of the scenes represented on Pompeian walls showing a “direct” illustration of a pantomime performance, these mythological paintings might have still provided an “indirect allusion” to the mythological narratives performed in theaters. What is shown is not an actual and/or particular performance (i.e., a masked actor on stage), but the story itself. Pantomime, therefore, would have influenced the choice of themes and not the style or iconography of wall paintings. 517 Because 515 Hor. Ep. 1.2.12-13; Prop. 2.8.29-36; Ov. Am. 1.9. In the Homeric Iliad, Achilles’ withdrawal from the battle was a matter of dishonor as Agamemnon took his “spoils of war” (Briseis, intended not as lover but as a γέρας, a marked war prize that the hero possessed). In the Roman period, instead, it is his love for Briseis that motivated Achilles’ decision, and it was the pain for having lost his love that caused the hero’s anger and withdrawal from his martial activities. For further discussion of the development of Achilles’ character in the Roman period, see King 1987, 110-284. 516 For discussion of this matter, see Lada-Richards 2004, 2016; Slater 2010. This is further complicated by the fact none of the pantomime libretti has survived today. For an overview of pantomime and its evidence in visual art, see Jory 1996; 2001; 2002; Huskinson 2002-2003; Zanker and Ewald 2012, 32-4; Dunbabin 2016, 91-113 (with further bibliography). On the impact of pantomime on visual and material art in Rome and its provinces: Rotolo 1957; Huskinson 2002-2003; 2008; Kousser 2007; Dunbabin 2014. 517 Huskinson (2002-2003, 139) and Dunbabin (2014, 230) arrive at a similar interpretation for the late second and early third-century CE Graeco-Roman mythological mosaic pavements from Zeugma and Antioch, where the contemporary dominant theatrical genre was pantomime. As for Pompeii, until today, only a few examples of wall paintings showing a theatrical setting have been interpreted by scholars as “direct” illustrations of pantomime performances: i.e., the scaenae frons (stage building) decoration in the Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23, room 25) and in the Casa di Pinarius Cerealis (III.4.4, cubiculum [a]), as well as the theatrical painting depicting a boy with sleeveless and short tunic in front of pulpitum (stage_ in Casa dei Quattro Stili (I.8.17, tablinum [9], north wall). None the of the figures represented, however, is wearing a mask. Even these images, therefore, cannot be taken as actual representations of pantomime performance: see further discussion in Hall 2008, 12-15; Dunbabin 2016, 99-100 (nn. 70-4 with bibliography). On the influence of theater in general on wall paintings: Leach 2004, 151. Positive but brief comments on the 181 pantomime reflected a visual language appealing to different social strata and transcending linguistic barriers, it is likely to have contributed to the “democratization” of mythological narratives. Through hand-gestures and body-movements, which spoke a communis sermo, the pantomime actor was capable of making a cultural repertory accessible and ubiquitous. 518 The passion for pantomime that emerged during the first century BCE in Hellenized cities such as Pompeii and Herculaneum might have played an important role in influencing the choice of the mythological visual repertory, which was otherwise mostly Greek. 519 More recently, a few scholars have also discussed the changing themes of mythological paintings found in tablina. 520 A shift from moralizing narrative scenes with idealized individuals presented in the Third Style towards mythological scenes exploring physical beauty and erotic-emotional interaction presented in the Fourth Style has been observed. According to Katharina Lorenz, this change in visual imagery might be related to a gradual shift in the function of the tablinum, which over the course of the first century CE was “used less and less for representative life situations.” 521 In discussing the Fourth Style wall paintings showing the “Toilette of Venus” and “Adonis Wounded” depicted respectively on the north and south walls of tablinum in the Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23) at Pompeii, Lucia Romizzi arrived at a similar conclusion. According to Romizzi, in influence of pantomime on Pompeian wall-paintings have been made by Beard 2008, 255-56; Bergmann 2017. I independently reached a similar conclusion. 518 Hall 2013, 456. The power of gestural codification among the ancients is clearly stated by Quintilian, who in discussing rhetorical delivery informs us that performative gesture was the universal human language (communis sermo; Inst. Or. 11.3.85-7). 519 As Hodske has noted (2007, 36-7), representations of Roman deities and heroes are completely absent and Roman myths are exceptional at Pompeii. 520 Hodske 2007, 33-57; Lorenz 2008, 380-84. 521 Lorenz 2008, 383. 182 particular, such “erotic” motifs would have alluded to the love of Venus and Adonis and should be related to the change in function of the tablinum, which developed from being a space for salutationes (and appearance of the dominus to his clients) to a triclinium or vestibule leading to the back of the house. 522 Not only is a considerable amount of sensual and voyeuristic images (which is so typical of the Fourth Style and of the elegiac poetry), 523 found in various domestic rooms as well as in civic and public buildings, but such narratives were also favored by pantomime. In my view, then, the change of mythological scenes in tablina is not necessarily related to a shift in the use of this space, but, rather, attests to the sort of familiar visual vocabulary that circulated in the urban fabric, informing us of the important role played by public spectacles in ancient people’s social and cultural life. Besides pantomime, there were a number of other ways the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum would have encountered Greek myths in their everyday lives. Two graffiti at Pompeii, for example, testify to the performance of the pyrricha, an armed dance which also brought mythological themes on stage. 524 Suetonius (Ner. 12.2) describes the performance of two pyrrichae danced by imported Greek youths on the themes of Pasiphae and of Icarus during the reign of Nero. In the former performance, a bull mounted, “or at least many spectators believed so,” a Pasiphae concealed inside a fake wooden heifer, while in the second, an actor playing Icarus fell to death at the feet of 522 Romizzi 2007, 372. Both wall paintings were left in situ: PPM VI, 483-89, figs. 29, 33; Hodske 2007, 152, no. 218, pl. 17,2.3 (Toilette of Venus); 225, no. 219, pl. 130,2 (Adonis Wounded). 523 Hodske (2007, 34) noted that most of the myths represented on Pompeian walls are found in Ovid’s works. For voyeuristic imagery and the practice of voyeurism in the Casa del Centenario, see Pollini 2010. 524 On these two Pompeian graffiti (CIL 4 1203, 9983; Coleman 1990, 56). On the pyrricha in general, see Sabbatini Tumolesi 1970; Slater 1993, 200-5; Ceccarelli 1998. 183 Nero, covering the emperor with his blood. Despite the intercourse between the bull and Pasiphae as described by Suetonius being fictitious, we know that such “mythological re- enactment” actually took place in the damnatio ad bestias staged in the amphitheater. Martial, indeed, informs us that a woman was condemned to death by performing an actual intercourse with a bull (Lib. Spect. 5.2) and Apuleius describes a similar scene when he writes that a woman was punished by copulating with a donkey (Met. 10.34.4). 525 As a parody of a moral lesson, their death was intended to amuse the spectators (while also raising capital punishment to an art form). Other popular forms of theater also included mimes and Atellan comedies. Like pantomime, mime dominated the Roman stage during the Imperial period, but while the former was a serious theatrical form, mime instead brought comic stories to the stage, also including mythological plots. 526 Many sources inform us that Sulla greatly encouraged this light genre theater, being particularly benevolent to mime-actors and even composing some Latin “satiric” comedies (σατυρικαὶ κωμῳδίαι) himself. 527 These comic compositions were most probably Atellane rather than mimes. 528 The Atellan farces (fabulae Atellanae) were a native Italian comic drama that developed outside of Rome and were named after the Oscan town Atella in Campania. Mythological scenes were also 525 See further discussion in Coleman (2006, 62-8), who rightly notes that even if Apuleius is writing a fictitious story, he corroborates the evidence for this sort of punishment. The capital execution for criminals could have also been staged in the form of pyrrich dances (Plutarch Mor. 554b; Ulpian Dig. 48.19.8.11): see further discussion in Sabbatini Tumolesi 1970, 328-38; Coleman 1990, 68-71. 526 Mime involved a spoken (and usually maskless) performance, in comparison to the masked and silent pantomime dancer. On mime, see Duckworth 1952, 13-16; Cicu 2012; and recently Dunbabin 2016, 114-37 (with further bibliography). On the differences between mime and pantomime: Panayotakis 2005, 139-46; 2008, 185-90; Wiseman 2008b. McKeown (1979) has argued for the influence of Roman contemporary mime on Augustan elegy. As was the case with pantomime, the influence was probably reciprocal: Panayotakis 2005, 140. 527 Nicol. Damasc. apud Athenaeus. 6.261C. On the politics and theatrical interest of Sulla and his support of popular comic entertainments: Garton 1972, 141-67; Garelli 2007, 135-42. 528 Garton 1972,146; Garelli 2007, 137, esp. n. 175 (with primary literary evidence). 184 frequently parodied in the Atellane, whose high popularity began around the 80s BCE and must have continued at least until the second century CE (Juv. 3.173–5, 6.71). 529 Despite their profession being regarded as one of the most “disgraceful,” 530 actors were sometimes honored with public commemorations for their benefactions. At Pompeii, for instance, the actor (“a player of second part”) Caius Norbanus Sorix was honored with two portrait herms (one in the Temple of Isis and one in the building of Eumachia), 531 and at Puteoli, the pantomime dancer L. Aurelius Pylades, a freedman of Hadrian, is the subject of an honorific inscription. 532 In a region like Campania, which was exposed over the centuries to several influences such as Etruscan, Greek, Oscan, and finally Roman, 533 and in whose theatrical performance (in its various forms) was always a popular form of entertainment, 534 we can safely assume that theatrical spectacles played an important part in the creation of an emerging visual canon. A comparison between the mythological images depicted on the walls of tablina with those found in domestic, as well as civic, commercial, and religious spaces across 529 Trimalchio, for instance, prefers the Atellane to other types of comedies, attesting to the continuous popularity of these Italian farces during the early Empire (Petr. Sat. 53). Literary evidence for the Atellane is scanty for later periods, but the last performances occurred possibly in the fourth century CE: Arn. Adv. nat. 7.33.7; st. Jerome epist. 52.2. On the origins of the Atellane and their parody of tragic myths: Duckworth 1952, 10-13; Frassinetti 1953; Trapido 1966; Panayotakis 2005, 138-39. 530 Edwards 1993, 98-136. 531 A third herm of C. Norbanus Sorix was found in the Sanctuary of Diana at Nemi (where there was also a theater): Granino Cerere 1988-89. The herm from the Temple of Isis was found complete (MANN, inv. no. 4991), while only the inscribed base survives for the other herm in the building of Eumachia: Welch 2007, 564-65, fig. 36.7; Fejfer 2008, 301 (with bibliography); Cooley and Cooley 2014, 100, no. D82. 532 ILS 5186; Lendon 1997, 101; Fejfer 2008, 40; Webb 2011, 228. 533 Thiermann 2005; Wallace-Hadrill 2011b. 534 In ancient literary sources we read how the Latin drama was influenced by the earlier Fescennine Verses (supposedly from the Faliscan town of Fescennium in Southern Etruria), which were improvised musical and dancing performances with an abusive and often obscene component: Hor. Epist. 2.1.139-63; Liv. 7.2. On the Etruscan and Oscan theatrical influences in Rome: Beacham 1991, 1-26; Duckworth 1994, 3-17; Brockett and Hildy 2014, 43-4. 185 Pompeii, offers new interpretation about the reading of such visual tableaux. Rather than being indicative of the room’s “function” (especially in relation to the salutatio), these images further support the versatility of the tablinum, as an appropriate space to converse, dine, and spend time with a few guests, who would have read the decoration according to their own skills and education. To understand the nature of such iconographic and decorative scenes, in particular, we must take into consideration the historical, social, and cultural context in which they circulated. The mythological paintings found in tablina, in my opinion, inform us of the wider popular culture. The commonality of the subject matter and its wider dissemination through various platforms such as performance (and not only the oral and written traditions) indicate that the tablina in these Vesuvian sites were not necessarily intended to impress elite and educated individuals but were designed with a broad audience in mind. Conclusion The scarce textual evidence for the tablinum has discouraged a fuller discussion of this space in modern scholarship prior to my study. In this chapter, I clarified previous scholarly (unsubstantiated) assertions about the uses of this space by the time of the eruption of Vesuvius through the analysis of the full range of ancient archaeological and literary sources. By looking at the interplay between architectural, decorative, epigraphic, and textual evidence, I argued that the tablinum was a versatile space that did not necessarily function as an indication of the householder’s social status. The attention 186 devoted to the tablinum’s wall and floor decorations, as well as its architectural modifications, such as recesses in the walls to accommodate couches, all suggest that this space may have served both “private” and “public” activities, depending on the family’s needs. Analysis of walls and floors of tablina, in particular, confirms a “static” use of the tablinum for activities such as conversing, dining, and resting. Past scholarship’s excessive focus on the “public” nature of the tablinum and its use during the salutatio has also conditioned the way in which its decoration has been interpreted. While the mythological frescoes often found in tablina have usually been considered in terms of the moral lessons supposedly associated with them, I argue that both the contemporary spectacles and the social and cultural environment may have also played an important, if not a dominant role, in the promotion of mythological visual tableaux. To be clear, while spectacles and pantomime would explain the popularity of mythological subjects, this does not preclude that certain mythological subjects were being chosen for display in a home for other reasons, as in making analogies to the virtues of, and relationship between, a husband and a wife. What I aim to demonstrate, however, is that the figurative imagery within the tablinum (when compared with the mythological scenes found in different buildings across the city) informs us about a common visual vocabulary shared by different strata of the society, reflecting the cultural and historical environment and taste in which it circulated. In a region like Campania, which was exposed to several cultural influences over the centuries, the long interest in various genres of theatrical spectacles that brought on-stage mythological narratives may have contributed to the “democratization” of such repertory in the contemporary urban fabric. 187 By the end of the first century BCE, pantomime, like gladiatorial combats, chariot races, and staged animal hunts, became mass media spectacles capable of drawing an extensive crowd. These mythological paintings, together with theatrical and athletic imagery, as well as theaters, amphitheaters and graffiti, 535 provide evidence for both the nature and importance of a Roman “spectacle culture” and the impact that such contemporary entertainment had on the lives of Romans. 536 These paintings, therefore, are also an important expression of cultural identity. Throughout these chapters, we have built up an understanding of the tablinum as a highly flexible space, which served multiple social and familial purposes and activities, above and beyond the supposed function of the salutatio. Analysis of wall and paving decoration of the tablina surveyed indicate that there was a wide range of iconographic and decorative possibilities for the embellishment of this room. While the decoration reflected the cultural capital of the dominus of the house, it drew on a shared and recognizable visual language to do so. My analysis of the historical and cultural context in which this visual language circulated offers new solutions to interpreting the mythological painting within the tablinum (and beyond) at Pompeii and Herculaneum today. 535 For an overview of spectacle images in Roman material and visual art both at Pompeii and elsewhere, see Newby 2015 with bibliography. 536 This “spectacle culture” was essential to Romans’ understanding of cultural identity and contributed to the maintenance of shared values across the community. On Roman spectacles as an expression of cultural identity and life, see Flower 2014. 188 Summary My study investigates the domestic room known as the tablinum in 172 atrium-style houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum. By looking at the full range of the archaeological and literary evidence and being wary of generalizations and unsubstantiated assertions, I attempt to clarify the possible uses of this space during the last decades of the towns prior to the 79 CE eruption in light of all of the available source material. The primary goal was to move beyond the idea of the tablinum’s principal use as the “public” and formal reception room where the master of the house received his clients during the salutatio, a traditional approach to this space which has dominated scholarship since the 19th century and that has deeply influenced all subsequent discussion of the space and discouraged an in-depth analysis of the evidence. My research consistently attests to the tablinum as not just a separate space within the house but also as a room intrinsically related to its domestic architectural and decorative context. My study therefore deepens our understanding of the tablinum, its role and use in the Roman house, and extends our knowledge of the range of possible activities that took place within this space during the final years of the cities before their destruction and burial by Vesuvius. The scarce and puzzling extant textual evidence for the tablinum has conditioned the ways in which scholars have discussed its uses. In modern scholarship, the tablinum has often been seen as the main reception space for the presentation of the paterfamilias to his clients during the formal morning salutatio. Such an idea goes back to a 19th-century antiquarian approach, in which the archaeological evidence in Pompeii and Herculaneum 189 has been interpreted in light of what was thought to be suggested by the literary sources, although none of the extant written sources actually explicityly state this. Other scholarly assumptions have also been explored and treated with caution in my study. The long- standing perception that the tablinum served as the master’s bedroom and matrimonial chamber for the display of the lectus genialis, for instance, is similarly unsubstantiated by any evidence. My discussion of the ancient literary sources for the tablinum in their historical context, combined with an analysis of the material evidence, reveals that this space was not used as a repository for family archives (at least, this was not the case during the last decades before the 79CE eruption). While the tablinum might have been used to preserve the archival records in older times (as Pliny and Festus suggest), no archival materials at Pompeii and Herculaneum have ever been found in a tablinum. Tabulae ceratae, in particular, were often found in smaller rooms on the upper floor like cubicula, spaces which were easier to secure. In my work, I also introduce some relevant ancient passages that have not previously played a role in a discussion of the tablinum. What emerges, in particular, is that ancient literary sources were more concerned with the appearance of this space than its social and domestic uses. Located between the front and back portions of the house, the tablinum appears in general as a room that opened onto both the atrium and the garden area at the back of the house. Past scholarship has especially focused on the “public” nature of the tablinum and discussed this room in relation to the area of the atrium. My study of the architectural treatment of tablina in a large sample indicates that this room gradually started to be closed off toward the atrium during the first century CE. A total of 41 tablina, in 190 particular, had their frontal openings restricted by wall extensions during the first century CE, while in 6 cases, the tablinum’s doorway facing the atrium was either partially or totally walled up, so that the access and/or view onto this room from the atrium area were blocked. Such structural modifications turned the tablinum into a more defined space from the area of the atrium. A total of 5 tablina, furthermore, show recesses cut in their walls to accommodate couches, while remains of wooden couches/beds have been recorded in another 4 tablina. This latter number appears only relatively small when compared with the scarce evidence for couches/beds in rooms usually associated with resting activities like cubicula. 537 As domestic spaces served multiple purposes, so too could furniture, which was portable and could be moved around the house, depending on daily and seasonal requirements. My systematic analysis of a large sample of tablina confirms the versatility of this room. We may conclude that by 79 CE, the tablinum appears as a flexible space available to serve both “private” and “public” needs. Earlier scholarship on Pompeian domestic spaces interpreted the addition of the peristyle garden as resulting in a gradual decrease of the importance of the tablinum, which developed into a decorative, amplified vestibule leading toward the back of the house. My study, however, argues that the tablinum in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum still played a key role in meeting the household’s practical and ideological needs up until 79 CE. A fuller analysis of this pivotal space in its spatial, architectural, and decorative layout has provided important information on the different strategies of self-presentation employed by the householder in enhancing his status and identity within the society. Through a series of strategies that included 537 Allison 2004. 191 displaying busts of family ancestors flanking the entrance of the tablinum, the “columnar” treatment of the tablinum recalling a temple-like façade, and the view onto the lararium from and through the tablinum, the dominus would have communicated above all his pietas erga deos, patriam, parentes. By doing so, he promoted his presence and appearance as bonus vir within the town. The majority of tablina, furthermore, had their walls repainted in the Fourth Style according to the latest contemporary taste. Such attention to an “updating” of the wall decoration (either already executed or planned, in the case of several coarsely plastered tablina) indicates how the tablinum was still “necessary” to serve the householder’s daily needs. An analysis of the tablinum’s wall and floor decorations, in particular, confirmed the use of this space for “static” activities. At certain times of the day the tablinum could have been used for hosting a banquet, with its front and rear barriers either closed or open depending on the family’s needs, and in light of weather conditions and seasonal changes. In the tablinum, a few family members and guests could have enjoyed a meal while at the same time being entertained by specific views that spoke volumes about the dominus’ personal taste, wealth, and self-cultivation. Carefully planned vistas from the tablinum onto the decorative apparatus in the garden or in the atrium, in particular, suggest the use of this room for dining activities. 538 The arrangement tablinum-triclinium and tablinum- 538 Describing one of the triclinia in this maritime estate at Laurentum (Southwest of Rome), Pliny highlights the combination of natural and architectural landscapes in framing views, while also stressing on the different landscapes available from the triclinium’s windows and doors, and on how architecture played a fundamental role in enjoying those vistas. See Pliny (Ep. 2.17.5–6): … triclinium satis pulchrum…undique valvas aut fenestras non minors valvis habet atque ita a lateribus a fronte quasi tria maria prospectat; a tergo cavaedium porticum aream porticum rursus, mox atrium silvas et longinquos respicet montes (“… a triclinium rather pleasant…is provided all around with folding doors or windows as large as doors so that it looks out on the three seas from the sides and the front; from the back, it offers a view on inner hall [cavaedium], the open space [aream] with two colonnades, then the entrance hall 192 cubiculum further reinforces the idea of an alternative complex of rooms for “hospitality.” Different types of boundaries would have regulated the access and view onto and from the tablinum, turning this room into an adaptable space used for such activities as dining, relaxing, and/or conversing, while also featuring an imposing vestibule entrance to impress guests. The frequent presence of a corridor flanking the tablinum and connecting the front and back of the house suggests various paths and movement flows within the house. A total of 13 tablina, in particular, provided the only passageways to the back of the house, again suggesting that the use of this space varied considerably, depending on its desired usages. Past attention to the “public” nature of the tablinum and the patron/client activities that might have taken place within it has not only discouraged a fuller discussion of this space but has also conditioned the way in which its decoration has been interpreted. The mythological frescoes often found in tablina have been frequently discussed in terms of the moral lessons associated with them. The role played by contemporary spectacles and by the social and cultural environment in promoting certain visual tableaux has received less attention. Tablina whose decoration remains intact often contain a specific repertoire of mythological scenes such as Mars and Venus, and Dionysus and Ariadne (among many others). As discussed in Chapter 4, these scenes reveal a universal visual canon, one probably animated by popular public performances. This suggests that the tablina of the Vesuvian sites were not designed solely with an elite and educated audience in mind but [atrium], the woods, and the mountains in distance”). On Pliny’s villas, see Bergmann 1995a. The same attentions to sightline views (and on such kind of frescoes) can be seen in other rooms meant for receiving guests. See, e.g., the set of oeci in the garden of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius Fronto that were built facing the garden’s walls, which were painted with a large-scale venatio scene. 193 were also taking into account a broad audience and general cultural trends. My analysis of mythological paintings found in tablina and other domestic rooms, as well as in civic, religious, and commercial buildings (like a temple, a market place, or a food and drinking- establishment), demonstrates the presence of a common visual language in the urban context, which was accessible across social boundaries. The subjects of these mythological paintings may very well have been influenced by various public spectacles such as pantomime performances, whose actors are vividly attested in graffiti at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Presenting scenes mostly taken from epic and classical tragedy and favoring myths with a strong emotional and/or erotic narrative, pantomime appealed to both the highest and lowest segments of the society, contributing to the “democratization” of mythological imagery. Explaining the popularity of mythological subjects by way of public spectacles does not preclude the possibility that certain mythological narratives were being chosen for display in a home for other reasons as well, perhaps concerning the relationship of a married couple. My study, however, demonstrated that an analysis of wall paintings found in tablina can offer new interpretations and understanding of the larger social and cultural context in which they were created and circulated, above and beyond a focus on the salutatio. Considering the existence of various theatrical genres in a region like Campania, which was subjected to several multicultural influences over the past centuries, we can safely assume that theatrical spectacles played an important part in the creation of an emerging visual canon. The mythological paintings decorating tablina (and beyond), 194 therefore, demonstrate the impact of contemporary entertainments on ancient Roman everyday lives. Lastly, Campanian domestic buildings were not static entities but evolved and adapted through time. The archaeological evidence from Pompeii and Herculaneum indicates that the tablinum was a room subjected to structural and decorative changes over time, requiring updating and redevelopment to suit new needs and tastes. 539 Because the tablinum is a domestic space that gradually disappears from both the literary and archaeological evidence, my research also contributes to a larger discussion of Roman social history. The gradual removal of the tablinum from the plan of the Italic houses, especially from the second century CE onwards (with a shift in emphasis from the Campanian-style atrium house to the peristyle plan), probably reflected the new habits and techniques of self-presentation employed by the dominus. With the insertions of several “representative rooms” set around the peristyle area, the tablinum gradually became an unnecessary space within the house. As my study of the tablinum indicates, this development is attributable to a growing concern for “privacy” related to more profound social changes that will have occurred between the middle and late Roman Imperial period. 540 539 On developments of the Campanian atrium house and its adaptability to new social and economic needs, Wallace-Hadrill 2007, 2015, as well as supra n. 268 (with bibliography). 540 Examples of a removal of the tablinum from the atrium house during the second and third century CE can be seen in Domus dei Coiedii at Suasa, near Ancona (Dall’Aglio and De Maria, 2005) and in the Domus below Santi Sergio e Bacco in the Subura in Rome (Andrews 2014). The Domus di Palazzo Massani at Rimini dispensed with the tablinum even earlier, during the Tiberian period (Ortalli and Montebelli 2003). Some Republican atrium houses might have maintained their original structure in later centuries, as testified by the three atrium houses with tablinum shown in the Forma Urbis Romae, which is dated to the Severan period. These tablina would have also provided the only access to the garden area (there is no andron in the house). It is not possible to understand, however, if the house continued to maintain a domestic character or was converted, for instance, into a commercial property, similar to what happened to the Casa di Sallustio 195 (VI.2.4) at Pompeii. On the Forma Urbis Romae and these tablina, see the Stanford Online Project: https://formaurbis.stanford.edu/fragment.php?record=58 196 Tables 3.1 Tablina’s frontal entrance treated as “temple-like” in antis in their appearance P: Pompeii H: Herculaneum No. Property “Columnar” treatment of tablinum jambs Impluvium columns framing view onto tablinum 1 P: Casa della Grata Metallica (I.2.28) x 2 P: Casa di Epidius Fortunatus (I.3.3) x 3 P: Casa di Paquius Proculus (I.7.1) x 4 P: Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19) x 5 P: Casa dei Cubiculi Floreali o del Frutteto (I.9.5) x 6 P: Casa del Menandro (I.10.4) x 7 P: Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7) x (no longer extant but mentioned in Elia, NSc 1934, 280) 8 P: Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18) x 9 P: House V.2.g x 10 P: Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i) x 11 P: Casa del Chirurgo (VI.1.10) x 12 P: Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4) x 13 P: Casa d’Ercole (VI.7.6) x 14 P: Casa della Fontana Grande (VI.8.22) x (no longer extant. For image see: Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII) 15 P: Casa della Fontana Piccola (minor atrium, VI.8.24) x 16 P: Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) x (see also image at the Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, box 293, GCPA 0042217) 17 P: Casa del Centauro (representative atrium, VI.9.5) X (no longer extant. For image see: American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection nos. 1769-1770) 197 18 P: Casa dell’Ancora Nera (VI.10.7) x 19 P: Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.10) x x 20 P: Casa del Fauno (VI.12.2,5) x 21 P: Casa del Gruppo dei Vasi di Vetro (VI.13.2) x (see also image at the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection no. 1423) 22 P: Casa del Forno di Ferro (VI.13.6) x 23 P: Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI.15.5) x 24 P: House VI.17 (Ins. Occ.) 41 x 25 P: Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (VII.1.40) x (no longer extant. For image see: Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, Box 298, GCPA 0042210 26 P: Casa di M. Popidius Priscus (VII.2.20,40) x 27 P: Casa di Mercurio (VII.2.35) x 28 P: Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56) x 29 P: Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII.4.57) x (no longer extant. For image see: American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection no. 432a) 30 P: Casa della Parete Nera o dei Bronzi (VII.4.59) x (no longer extant but mentioned in Avellino, Memoriae 3 (1843), 168; PPM VII, 95) 31 P: Casa di Romolo e Remo (VII.7.10) x 32 P: Casa di A. Octavius Primus (VII.15.12) x 33 P: Casa di M. Umbricius Scaurus (representative atrium, VII.16.13) x 34 P: Casa di Championnet I (VIII.2.1) x 35 P: Casa di Ercole e Augia (VIII.3.4) x 36 P: Casa Postumii (VIII.4.49) x 37 P: House VIII.5.9 x 38 P: Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus (IX.1.22,29) x 39 P: Casa di Obellius Firmus (representative atrium, IX.14.4) x 198 40 H: Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2) x 199 3.2 Information on lararia in 160 atrium houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum Property P. H. Position of lararium in the house Lararium visible from tablinum No evidence of a lararium in both atrium and peristyle garden Reference Domus Volusii Fausti (I.2.10) x Pseudo-aedicula lararium in the north wall of the viridarium (i) above the masonry triclinium, not visible from the tablinum (d) Boyce 1937, 22, no. 6; Giacobello 2008, 252, no. V1 Casa di Diomede (I.2.17) x Pseudo-aedicula lararium in the east wall of the fauces (a) and aedicula lararium in the north wall of viridarium (f). The latter is not visible from the tablinum (e) Boyce 1937, 22, nos. 9-10; Giacobello 2008, 230, no. F1 Casa della Grata Metallica (I.2.28) x x Casa di Epidius Fortunatus (I.3.3) x Aedicula lararium in the atrium (b), north-west corner, visible from the tablinum (g) x Boyce 1937, 24, no. 19 Casa della Rissa nell'Anfiteatro (I.3.23) x Niche lararium in the peristyle garden (n) and not visible from the tablinum (i) House I.4.2 x x Casa del Citarista (I.4.5,25) x Niche lararium in the east wall of the kitchen (42) x Giacobello 2008, 135, no. 8 House I.4.9 x Niche lararium in the center of the E wall of the viridarium (n), meant to be seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum. There is no other primary view onto it x Boyce 1937, 24, no. 30; Giacobello 2008, 252, no. V4 Casa del Criptoportico (I.6.2) x Niche and lararium painting in the west wall of the peristyle garden (12), not visible from the tablinum (6) Boyce 1937, 25, no. 36; Fröhlich 1991, 251, no. L4; Giacobello 2008, 253, no. V5 Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4) x x House I.6.8-9 x x Casa dei Quadretti Teatrali o di Casca Longus (I.6.11) x x Casa di Stallius Eros (I.6.13) x Niche lararium in room (11) x Boyce 1937, 25, no. 38 Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15) x x Casa di Paquius Proculus (I.7.1) x Niche lararium in the kitchen (14) x Giacobello 2008, 136, 9 Casa dell'Efebo (I.7.10-12) x Niche lararium in the east wall of the atrium testudinatum (A’), x Boyce 1937, 26-7, nos. 40-1; Fröhlich 1991, 251- 200 visible from the tablinum/exedra (4). A niche and lararium painting are also in the north wall of the corridor (18) (north- west wall), near to the triclinium (17), and an aedicula lararium in the corridor (19), near the triclinium (22) 52, nos. L5-L6; Giacobello 2008, 136, no. 10; 254-53, no. V8; 293, no. P1 Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19) x Niche lararium in the north wall of the peristyle garden (h). Another niche lararium is in the west wall. Neither lararia are visible from the tablinum (c) Boyce 1937, 26, nos. 42-3; PPM I, 787-88; Giacobello 2008, 255-56, no. V9-10 Casa del Pomarius Felix (I.8.2) x x Casa della Statuetta Indiana (I.8.5) x x Casa dei Quattro Stili (I.8.17) x Niche lararium in the south-east wall of the atrium (3), near to the entrance to the tablinum (9) and visible from it x Giacobello 2008, 232, no. A1 Casa del Bell'Impluvio (I.9.1) x x Casa dei Cubiculi Floreali o del Frutteto (I.9.5) x x Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12) x Niche lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (8), partially visible from tablinum (5) x Orr 1972, 153, no. 4 Casa di Cerere (I.9.13) x x Casa del Menandro (I.10.4) x Aedicula lararium in the north- west corner of the main atrium (b), constructed at the time of the Fourth Style redecoration of the atrium and visible from the tablinum (8). An exedra (25) with altar and niche opens off the south side of the peristyle garden. Other two niche lararia are in the kitchen (27) and kitchen (45), and one niche lararium in the atrium (41) x Boyce 1937, 27-8, nos. 48-53; Fröhlich 1991, 255, no. L14; Giacobello 2008, 146-47, nos. 17-19; 232, no. A2; 256, no. V12 Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7) x “Shrine/shelf” (lararium?) in the south wall of the viridarium (12), visible from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum. A statuette of Hercules was found on this shelf. A niche lararium is also in triclinium (8) and another one in the kitchen (11) x Boyce 1937, 29, nos. 56-7; Fröhlich 1991, 256, nos. L15-L16; Giacobello 2008, 147-48, no. 20; 288, no. C1 Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7) x Niche lararium in the south wall of the viridarium (8), visible x Orr 1972, 153, no. 7; Giacobello 2008, 257, no. 201 from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum V14 Casa di Sutoria Primigenia (I.13.2) x Pseudo-aedicula lararium in the south wall of the viridarium (above the summer triclinium; 14), and visible from the tablinum (11). A lararium painting is also in the kitchen (28) x Orr 1972, 161-62, nos. 31, 33; Fröhlich 1991, 261, no. L29; Giacobello 2008, 156-57, no. 28; 258, no. V18 House I.16.4 x Aedicula lararium in the north- west corner of the atrium (2), constructed at the time of the Fourth Style redecoration of the atrium. Tablinum (6) has primary view onto this aedicula x Orr 1972, 166, no. 46; Fröhlich 1991, 264, no. L36; Giacobello 2008, 235, no. A7 Villa di Giulia Felice (II.4.3) x The house has a sacellum/lararium (55). There is also a niche in the north wall of room (80) x Fröhlich 1991, 265-66, no. L40 Casa di Trebius Valens (III.2.1) x Niche lararium in the south wall of the kitchen (i). Another niche is in the peristyle garden (x) x Boyce 1937, 30, no. 64; Giacobello 2008, 162, no. 33; 263, no. V27 Casa del Toro (V.1.7) x Sacrarium/lararium (5) in the south wall of atrium, visible from the tablinum (13). A niche lararium also stood in the east wall of the peristyle garden (b) but it was not visible from the tablinum x Boyce 1937, 32, nos. 71-2; 2008, 236, no. A9; 263, no. V28 Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18) x Three lararia (in an unidentified room, in the kitchen (t) and in the latrine) not visible from the tablinum (g) x Boyce 1937, 32, nos. 75-7; Giacobello 2008, 162-63, no. 35 Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.23, 26) x V.1.23 (minor atrium): lararium painting in the kitchen (l). V.1.26 (representative atrium): aedicula lararium in the north wall of the atrium (b), visible from the tablinum (i). A niche (lararium?) also stood in the exedra (r), constructed in the first century CE and visible from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum. A niche is also found in the south wall of cubiculum (n) x Boyce 1937, 32-3, nos. 79-80; Giacobello 2008, 163, no. 36; 236-37, no. A10; 264, no. V29; 290, no. C9 House V.2.g x Niche lararium (no longer extant) in the north wall of the atrium (d), visible from the tablinum (l) x Boyce 1937, 36, no. 104 Casa del Cenacolo (V.2.h) x Niche lararium in the fauces (a) and partially visible from the tablinum (f). Another lararium is in the kitchen (p), and a pseudo-aedicula lararium is in x Boyce 1937, 36-7, no. 106-8; Fröhlich 1991, 268-69, nos. L46-L48; Giacobello 2008, 165, no. 38; 231, no. F5; 264, no. 202 the cubiculum (k) but not visible from the tablinum V30 Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i) x Niche lararium, constructed between 62-79 CE, in the viridarium (5), not visible from the tablinum (o). Another lararium, no longer extant, was in the kitchen (s) Boyce 1937, 37-8, no. 109-10; Fröhlich 1991, 269-70, no. L49; Giacobello 2008, 166, no. 39; 264, no. V31 Casa del Triclinio (V.2.4) x Niche lararium in south wall of the atrium (b), constructed after 62 CE and visible from the tablinum (g). Another niche lararium is in the south-west wall of the peristyle garden (o) but not visible from the tablinum x Boyce 1937, 34, nos. 86-8; Fröhlich 1991, 267, no. L42; Giacobello 2008, 237-38, no. A11; 265, nos. V33-34 House V.2.7 x Niche lararium in the west wall of the atrium (e), partially visible from the tablinum (o) x Boyce 1937, 34, no. 89; Giacobello 2008, 238, no. A12 House V.2.10 x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (t), partially visible from the tablinum (l). No room has an axial view onto it, which could have been frontally visible only while walking x Boyce 1937, 34, no. 91 Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a) x Lararium in the west wall of the kitchen (18) x Boyce 1937, 42, no. 128; Giacobello 2008, 167, no. 42 House V.4.c x Niche lararium in the east wall of the viridarium (K), visible from the tablinum (G) x Boyce 1937, 42, no. 130; Giacobello 2008, 267-68, no. V38 Casa delle Vestali (VI.1.7) x Lararium painting in room (h). Niche lararium near the kitchen, north wall x Boyce 1937, 43, nos. 133- 34; Giacobello 2008, 170- 71, no. 47; 290, no. C10 Casa del Chirurgo (VI.1.10) x Niche and lararium painting in the kitchen (13) x Boyce 1937, 43, no. 135; Fröhlich 1991, 273, no. L56; Giacobello 2008, 171, no. 48 Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4) x Lararium painting (dated to the Augustan period) on the east wall of the atrium (10), to the left of the tablinum (19) and no longer extant. It is not visible from the tablinum but is visible from the fauces Boyce 1937, 44, no. 139; Fröhlich 1991, 274, no. L57 House VI.2.13 x x Casa delle Amazzoni (VI.2.14) x Lararium painting with an altar in the viridarium (9), visible from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum x Boyce 1937, 44, no. 141; Fröhlich 1991, 275, no. L58 Casa del Narciso (VI.2.16) x Niche lararium in the south wall of peristyle garden (21), visible from the tablinum (18) x Giacobello 2008, 268, no. V40 Casa delle x Aedicula lararium in the Boyce 1937, 44, no. 142; 203 Danzatrici (VI.2.22) peristyle garden (8), not visible from the tablinum (5). This aedicula was meant to be seen only while walking in the garden Giacobello 2008, 269, no. V41 Casa o Accademia di Musica (VI.3.7) x Niche lararium in the east wall of the viridarium (13), visible from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum x Boyce 1937, 45, no. 146; Giacobello 2008, 172, no. 49 Casa di Nettuno (VI.5.3) x Niche lararium in cubiculum (3), constructed in the first century CE x Boyce 1937, 46, no. 152; Giacobello 2008, 290, no. C12 House VI.5.4 x x Casa di Modesto (VI.5.13) x x House VI.5.16 x Niche in a cubiculum (?) x Boyce 1937 46, no. 155; Giacobello 2008, 291, no. C13 Casa di Pansa (VI.6.1) x Niche and painting lararium in the north wall of the kitchen (19) x Boyce 1937, 46-7, no. 156; Fröhlich 1991, 276, no. L61; Giacobello 2008, 172-73, no. 50 House VI.7.3 x Pseudo-aedicula lararium in the north-east wall of the atrium (2), partially visible from the tablinum (11) x Boyce 1937, 47, no. 160; Giacobello 2008, 241, no. A17 Casa d’Ercole (VI.7.6) x Aedicula lararium in the north- west wall of peristyle garden (14), visible (and meant to be primarily seen) from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum x Boyce 1937, 47, no. 162; Fröhlich 1991, 276, no. L62; Giacobello 2008, 269-70, no. V44 House VI.7.16 x x Casa di Adone Ferito (VI.7.18) x x Casa di Inaco e Io (VI.7.19) x x Casa dell'Argenteria (VI.7.20-22) x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (19), visible (and meant to be primarily seen) from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum x Boyce 1937, 48, no. 166; Giacobello 208, 270, no. V45 Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23) x Niche and lararium painting in the kitchen (15) x Boyce 1937, 48, no. 167; Fröhlich 1991, 277, no. L64; Giacobello 2008, 174, no. 52 Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3-5) x Aedicula lararium in the north wall of the peristyle garden (10), visible (and meant to be primarily seen) from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum x Boyce 1937, 48-9, no. 168; Giacobello 270-71, no. V46 Casa della Fontana Grande (VI.8.22) x x 204 Casa delle Fontana Piccola (VI.8.23-24) x VI.8.24 (minor atrium): niche lararium in the north wall of the atrium (17), partially visible from the tablinum (19) x x (VI.8.23, representative atrium) Boyce 1937, 49, no. 172 Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) x Lararium painting in the west wall of the kitchen (38) x Boyce 1937, 49-50, no. 174; Fröhlich 1991, 277, no. L65; Giacobello 2008, 175, no. 53 Casa del Centauro (VI.9.3-5) x Lararium painting in the north wall of the underground kitchen, beneath the viridarium (29) x Boyce 1937, 50, no. 175; Giacobello 2008, 175, no. 54 Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7) x Aedicula lararium in the east wall of the peristyle garden (45), visible (and meant to be primarily seen) from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum. A niche lararium is also in kitchen (50) and kitchen (55). x Boyce 1937, 50, no. 176- 78; Fröhlich 1991, 277-78, no. L66; Giacobello 2008, 176, nos. 55-6; 271-72, no. V47 House VI.10.6 x x Casa dell'Ancora (VI.10.7) x Aedicula lararium in the south wall of the viridarium (27) set on a lower level, not visible from the tablinum (4) Giacobello 2008, 272-73, no. V48 Casa del Naviglio (VI.10.11) x x Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.9-10) x Niche lararium in the kitchen (13) x Boyce 1937, 51, no. 183- 85; Fröhlich 1991, 278, no. L67; Giacobello 2008, 177, nos. 57 Casa del Fauno (VI.12.2,5) x Aedicula-niche lararium in the north wall of the second peristyle garden (40), not visible from the tablinum (33). A niche lararium was in the kitchen (24) Boyce 1937, 51-2, nos. 189-90; Giacobello 2008, 177-78, no. 59; 273, no. V49 Casa del Gruppo dei Vasi di Vetro (VI.13.2) x Aedicula lararium in the north- east wall of the peristyle garden (14), visible from the tablinum (8) x Boyce 1937, 52, no. 193; Fröhlich 1991, 278-79, no. L68; Giacobello 2008, 274, no. V50 Casa del Forno di Ferro (VI.13.6) x House VI.13.13 x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (o), visible (and meant to be primarily seen) from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum x Boyce 1937, 52, no. 195; Giacobello 2008, 274, no. V51 Casa di Sextus Pompeius Axiochus (VI.13.19) x Six niches in the east wall of the peristyle garden (s) (the two in the middle resemble temple facades and might have given the illusion of lararia). Visible and meant to be primarily seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum. In these x Brandt (2010, 104) suggests that these niches were used for the imagine maiorum. 205 niches were found “alcuni puttini in terracotta” (PPM V, 232, fig. 62) Casa di Vesonius Primus o di Orfeo (VI.14.20) x Niche lararium in the north wall of the peristyle garden (o), partially visible from the tablinum (i). No room has a primary (frontal) view onto this niche x Boyce 1937, 53, no. 200; Giacobello 2008, 274, no. V52 House VI.14.40 x Two vaulted niches (lararia?) are in the north wall of the atrium (b), 3.22 m above the floor. A lararium painting (no longer extant) also stood in the peristyle garden (i) and was visible from the tablinum (f) x Boyce 1937, 54, nos. 207- 8; Giacobello 2008, 180, no. 62 Casa dell'Imperatrice di Russia (VI.14.42) x x Casa degli Scienziati (VI.14.43) x Niche lararium in the north wall of the peristyle garden (14), partially visible from the tablinum (7). No room had an axial view onto it. Another niche lararium is also in the kitchen x Boyce 1937, 54, nos. 209- 10; Fröhlich 1991, 279, no. L69; Giacobello 2008, 180, no. 63; 275, no. V56 Casa di P. Crusius Faustus (VI.15.2) x x Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI.15.5) x Three arched niches with two altars are in the east wall of atrium (b), visible primarily from the tablinum (e). An aedicula niche resembling a lararium which was probably once used as a fountain is locates on the west wall of the viridarium (u), visible from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum x Boyce 1937, 54-5, no. 212; Giacobello 2008, 242-43, no. A21 House VI.15.6 x Niche lararium in cubiculum behind room (h) and niche lararium in kitchen (m) x Boyce 1937, 55, no. 213; Giacobello 2008, 182, no. 65; 291, no. C14 Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI.15.7-8) x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the viridarium (n), done in the middle of the first century CE and partially visible from the tablinum (e). A niche lararium is also in the kitchen (g) x Boyce 1937, 55, no. 214- 15; Giacobello 2008, 183, no. 66; 276, no. V57 Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7) x (Egyptianizing) shrine in the east-south wall of the peristyle garden (F), visible and meant to be seen from the tablinum (E). An aedicula lararium is in the north wall of the peristyle garden but not visible from the tablinum. A niche (lararium?) is x Boyce 1937, 56-8, no. 220-21; Fröhlich 1991, 281, no. L74; Giacobello 2008, 277, no. V58 206 also in the west wall of the atrium (B), to the right of the tablinum and not visible from it Casa dell'Ara Massima (VI.16.15- 17) x Niche and lararium painting in the north wall of the atrium (B), nearby the kitchen (k), partially visible from the small tablinum (D) x Boyce 1937, 58-9, no. 224; Fröhlich 1991, 281- 82, no. L75; Giacobello 2008, 185, no. 68 House VI.16.28 x x House VI.17 (Ins. Occ.) 41 x Lararium in corridor (10) x Giacobello 2008, 291, no. C15 Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25, 47) x In the south-east corner of the atrium (3) there was a lararium painting (no longer extant), visible from the tablinum (6). A niche lararium is also in the kitchen (12) x Boyce 1937, 60, no. 236; Fröhlich 1991, 282-83, no. L79; Giacobello 2008, 187, no. 71 Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (VII.1.40) x Niche lararium in the north-east wall of atrium (3), partially visible from the tablinum (11) and in axial view with room (4). A niche lararium is also in the kitchen (14) x Boyce 1937, 61, nos. 244- 45; Giacobello 2008, 188, no. 72; 244, no. A24 Casa di Optatio (VII.2.14) x Niche and lararium painting in the west wall of the viridarium (l), visible and meant to be primarily seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum. No other room in the viridarium had a view onto this shrine (only the tablinum). Constructed in the last period of the town, when the garden decoration was replaced with a Lares theme. A niche lararium is also found in the kitchen and another one in cubiculum (m) x Boyce 1937, 61, no. 249; Fröhlich 1991, 283, no. L80; Giacobello 2008, 278, no. V60 Casa di C. Vibius Italus (VII.2.18) x Niche lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (o), not visible from the tablinum (b) Boyce 1937, 62, no. 252; Giacobello 2008, 279, no. V62 Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII.2.20,40) x Underground sacellum/sacrarium (v) x Boyce 1937, 62-3, no. 253; Fröhlich 1991, 284, no. L81; Giacobello 2008, 189-91, no. 73 Casa dell'Amore Punito (VII.2.23) x x Casa di Mercurio (VII.2.35) x x Casa dell'Orso Ferito (VII.2.45) x x House VII.2.51 x Niche lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (o), not visible from the tablinum (m) Boyce 1937, 63, no. 256 House VII.3.6 x Aedicula lararium in the south x Boyce 1937, 63, no. 259; 207 wall of the viridarium (i), visible and meant to be seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum Giacobello 2008, 280, no. V64 House VII.3.30 x x Casa dei Capitelli Colorati (VII.4.31,51) x Aedicula lararium in the ala (7), visible from the tablinum (13). The aedicula is constructed at the time of the redecoration of the ala in the Fourth Style. Originally, there was only a niche lararium in the atrium, which was walled up and replaced after 62 CE by this monumentalized lararium. Other lararia are found in the kitchen (58), in the south-west corner of the peristyle garden (sacrarium 41) and in an unidentified room x Boyce 1937, 66, nos. 277- 79; Fröhlich 1991, 287, no. L86; Giacobello 2008, 194, no. 79; 244, no. A26; 281, no. V67 Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48) x Niche lararium in room (8) x Boyce 1937, 66, 275; Giacobello 2008, 291, no. C16 Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56) x Aedicula-fountain resembling a lararium in the peristyle garden (15), visible and meant to be seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium-tablinum. A niche lararium, constructed after 62 CE, is also in the north wall of the atrium (7) and visible (primarily) from the tablinum x Boyce 1937, 66, 281; Giacobello 2008, 245, no. A27 Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII.4.57) x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the peristyle garden (t), partially visible from the tablinum (p). No room has an axial view onto it. This aedicula was meant to be seen frontally only when moving around the portico x Boyce 1937, 66, no. 282; Giacobello 2008, 281, no. V68 Casa della Parete Nera o dei Bronzi (VII.4.59) x Niche lararium in the kitchen x Boyce 1937, 66, no. 283 Casa di Romolo e Remo (VII.7.10) x According to Boyce (1937, 68, no. 297) there was a high masonry base "upon which may have rested a lararium" against the west (right) wall of the tablinum (k), near the entrance to the atrium. Brandt (2010, 107) repeats what Boyce says. Not reported in: Sogliano GdS NS 1873, 374-77; Fiorelli 1975, 246; Giacobello 2008. This masonry is no longer extant x Boyce 1937, 68, no. 297 208 because the house was badly damaged during the WWII bombing Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII.9.47) x Aedicula lararium in sacellum (3) located on the north wall of the atrium, not visible from the tablinum (7) Boyce 1937, 69, no. 304 Casa della Caccia Nuova (VII.10.3) x Aedicula lararium in the north wall of the viridarium (s), not visible from the tablinum (o). This aedicula would have been visible only to people standing in the viridarium. A lararium painting is also in the kitchen Boyce 1937, 69, nos. 307- 8 House VII.14.9 x x Casa del Marinaio (VII.15.2) x x House VII.15.8 x Niche lararium in the north wall of the viridarium (i), not visible from the tablinum (e) Boyce 1937, 72, no. 332; Giacobello 2008, 281, no. V69 Casa di A. Octavius Primus (VII.15.12- 13) x Niche lararium in the west wall of the atrium (b), partially visible from tablinum (h). No room has an axial view onto it. A lararium painting is also in the kitchen (g) x Boyce 1937, 72-3, 334-35; Fröhlich 1991, 290, no. L93; Giacobello 2008, 195, no. 82; 245-46, no. A29 Casa del Principe di Montenegro (VII.16.10) x According to Boyce (1937, 73, no. 338): "In a room on the S side of the house is a square niche.” The house was badly damaged during the WWII bombing x Boyce 1937, 73, no. 338 Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII.16.13-15) x Aedicula lararium in north-east corner of the representative atrium (2), visible from the tablinum (9) x Boyce 1937, 73, no. 340 Casa di Championnet I (VIII.2.1) x Sacellum/sacrarium opened off from the south portico of the peristyle garden (r), no longer extant Boyce 1937, 74, no. 341 Casa di Championnet II (VIII.2.3-5) x Sacellum/sacrarium (m) opened off from the north-west corner of the peristyle garden (l), not visible from the tablinum (g) Boyce 1937, 74, no. 342 House VIII.2.13 x Underground sacrarium (y) Boyce 1937, 74, no. 343; Giacobello 2008, 246, no. A30 House VIII.2.14-16 x VIII.2.16 (representative atrium): aedicula lararium with altar in cubiculum (d) facing the atrium, not visible from the tablinum (E) x Giacobello 2008, 246, no. A30 House VIII.2.29-30 x VIII.2.29 (minor atrium): aedicula lararium in the north west corner of the atrium (k), x x (VIII.2.30, representative atrium) Boyce 1937, 74-5, no. 346-47; Giacobello 2008, 196, no. 84; 247, no. A32 209 visible from the tablinum (z) and constructed during in the last phase of the town. A niche lararium is also in the kitchen (13) Casa delle Colombe a Mosaico (VIII.2.34-35) x x Casa di Giuseppe II (VIII.2.39) x The cubiculum (c) facing the atrium was turned into a sacrarium with niche lararium and altar in the last phase of the town, not visible from the tablinum (r) Boyce 1937, 75 no. 349; Fröhlich 1991, 291, no. L95; Giacobello 2008, 197, no. 85 Casa di Ercole e Augia (VIII.3.4) x x Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8) x x Casa di Pane (VIII.3.28,31) x Lararium painting in the kitchen (13) x Boyce 1937, 76, no. 357; Giacobello 2008, 199, no. 88 Casa dei Postumii (VIII.4.4,49) x Lararium painting in the kitchen (22) x Boyce 1937, 76, no. 358; Giacobello 2008, 199, no. 89 Casa di Cornelius Rufus (VIII.4.15) x Aedicula lararium in the north- west corner of the atrium (b), visible from the tablinum (c) x Boyce 1937, 76, no. 362; Giacobello 2008, 200-1, no. 91 House VIII.4.34 x x Casa del Gallo I (VIII.5.2,5) x VIII.5.2 (representative atrium): masonry altar in the north-west corner of the atrium (3), visible from the tablinum (d). A niche lararium is also in the kitchen. VIII.5.5: niche lararium in the kitchen (v) x (VIII.5.2: representative atrium) Boyce 1937, 77, no. 368; Giacobello 2008, 201, no. 92 House VIII.5.9 x Niche lararium in the kitchen (o). According to Boyce (1937, 77, no. 369): “In the S. W. corner of an undecorated room on the right of the tablinum, is a small hearth, and on the west wall is a rude painting of an aedicula” x Boyce 1937, 77, nos. 369- 70; Giacobello 2008, 201, no. 93 Casa delle Pareti Rosse (VIII.5.37) x Aedicula lararium on the east corner of the atrium (1), partially visible from the tablinum (e) x Boyce 1937, 77, no. 371; Fröhlich 1991, 291-92, no. L96; Giacobello 2008, 202-3, no. 94 Casa di M. Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20) x Aedicula lararium in the ala (g), not visible from the tablinum (r). This lararium was monumentalized in the last period of the town Boyce 1937, 79-80, no. 385; Giacobello 2008, 247-48, no. A34 Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus (IX.1.22,29) x Aedicula lararium (Fourth Style decoration) on the south-east corner of the atrium (b), visible x Boyce 1937, 80, no. 386; Giacobello 2008, 248, no. A35 210 from the tablinum (h) House IX.2.17 x Two niche lararia in the north wall of the atrium (d), partially visible from the tablinum (e). A lararium painting is also in the kitchen (m) and another aedicula lararium is in the peristyle garden (h) but not visible from tablinum x Boyce 1937, 81, no. 396- 98; Giacobello 2008, 205, no. 98; 248-49, no. A36 House IX.2.18 x Niche lararium in the north wall of the peristyle garden (h), partially visible from the tablinum (e) x Boyce 1937, 81, no. 399; Giacobello 2008, 283, no. V75 House IX.2.21 x Pseudo-aedicula lararium on the south wall of the peristyle garden (k), not visible from the tablinum (g) Boyce 1939, 81-2, no. 402; Giacobello 2008, 283, no. V76 Casa di Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5,24) x IX.3.5 (representative atrium): aedicula lararium on the south corner of the atrium (2), visible from the tablinum (15) x Boyce 1937, 83, no. 408; Giacobello 2008, 249, no. A38 House IX.3.15 x Aedicula lararium in the east wall of the peristyle garden (k), partially visible from the tablinum (o). No room has an axial view onto this lararium, which was meant to be seen frontally only when moving around the portico. Another lararium painting with Egyptianizing divinities was found in room (h) x Boyce 1937, 84, nos. 414; Giacobello 2008, 284-85, no. V79 Casa di Achille (IX.5.1-3) x Niche lararium in cubiculum (q) on the upper floor and lararium painting in the kitchen (s) x Boyce 1937, 85, 419-20; Fröhlich 1991, 296, no. L105; Giacobello 2008, 205-7, nos. 99-100 House IX.5.6,17 x Niche lararium in the eat wall of the viridarium (u), not visible from the tablinum (i). No room has an axial view onto this lararium, which was only meant to be seen frontally when moving around in the garden Boyce 1937, 85, no. 422; Giacobello 2008, 285, no. V80 House IX.5.11 x Lararium painting in the kitchen x Boyce 1937, 86, no. 424 House IX.6.5 x Lararium painting in the kitchen (p) x Boyce 1937, 86-7, no. 431 Casa del Centenario (IX.8.3,6) x Pseudo-aedicula lararium in the south wall of room (49), not visible from the tablina (6 or 21) x (IX.8.6, representative atrium) Boyce 1937, 89-90, no. 448; Fröhlich 1991, 297, no. L107; Giacobello 2008, 211-12, no. 108 House IX.9.d x x Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX.14.2,4) x IX.14.4 (representative atrium): aedicula lararium on the west- north corner of the atrium (B), visible from the tablinum (H). x (IX.14.4: representative atrium) Boyce 1937, 30-1, nos. 67-8; Fröhlich 1991, 299, no. L111; Giacobello 2008, 218-19, no. 114; 211 IX.14.2 (minor atrium): niche lararium in the kitchen (18) 251, no. A42 Casa dello Scheletro (III.3) x Niche lararium in apotheca (d), visible through the small window cut on the west wall of the tablinum (7). An aedicula sacellum-nymphaeum is in the small open courtyard and on axis with the oecus (10). Another niche lararium is in room (17), probably the kitchen x Maiuri 1958, 270-75; Orr 1972, 193, nos. 1-3 Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (III.11) x x Casa dell'Erma di Bronzo (III.16) x x Casa dell'Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2) x x Casa Sannitica (V.1- 2) x x Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato (V.5) x Aedicula lararium in the west wall of the viridarium (9), visible and meant to be primarily seen from the axial disposition fauces-atrium- tablinum. A niche lararium is also in the cubiculum (5) x Maiuri 1958, 259-61; Orr 1972, 195-96, nos. 15-16 Casa di Nettuno e Anfitrite (V.6-7) x Aedicula lararium on the north- west corner of the atrium, visible from the tablinum (5). A niche lararium is also in north wall of the summer triclinium (E) but not visible from the tablinum x Maiuri 1958, 394; Orr 1972, 196, nos. 17-18 Casa dell'Apollo Citaredo (V.11) x x Casa del Bicentenario (V.15- 16) x Two niches (lararia ?), respectively in the east and south walls of the peristyle garden, possibly visible from the tablinum. A niche lararium is also upstairs between cubicula (E) and (F) x Maiuri 1958, 235-36, fig. 185; Orr 1972, 196-97, nos. 19-21; Fröhlich 1991, 301, no. L116 Casa dell'Atrio Corinzio (V.30) x x Casa del Sacello di Legno (V.31) x A wooden lararium (Herculaneum, Deposito Archeologico, inv. no. 1287) was found in the cubiculum (2) facing the atrium x Maiuri 1958, 254-55, fig. 202; Orr 1972, 198, no. 26; Mols 1999, 60, 192- 97, cat. no. 29, figs. 139- 45. Casa del Salone Nero (VI.13) x A wooden lararium (decorated with columns surmounted by marble capitals; Herculaneum, Deposito Archeologico, inv. no. 2020) was found in fragments in the peristyle garden and in room x Maiuri 1958, 241; Orr 1972, 199, no. 30; Mols 1999, 197-200, no. 30 212 (G), possibly a triclinium. An aedicula lararium is in room (f) and visible from the tablinum (L) Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico (VI.16- 18, 26-27) x Lararium painting in the kitchen (18). Remains of a masonry base (0.45 m x 0.45 m x 0.40 m) in the corridor 9 (north wall) are identified by Orr as an aedicula lararium (1972, 200, no. 32). Cfr. Cerulli Irelli (1974, 43), who mentions it without any explanation x Orr 1972, 200, nos. 32-3; Cerulli Irelli 1974, 74; Fröhlich 1991, 302, no. L118 Casa del Doppio Atrio (VI.29) x Two niches lararium (decorated in the Fourth Style) in the south wall of the second atrium, partially visible from the tablinum (4) x Maiuri 1958, 279; Orr 1972, 199, no. 29 Casa della Gemma (Ins. Or. I.1) x x Casa del Rilievo di Telefo (Ins. Or. I.2- 3) Orr (1972, 201, no. 37) mentions a “rectangular niche” in the south wall of the atrium. An aedicula lararium is in the north wall of the viridarium (15), not visible from the tablinum (2) Maiuri 1958, 360, fig. 291; Orr 1972, 201, no. 37-8 213 4.1 Wall decoration of 172 tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum 214 4.2 Central mythological panels on tablina’s walls at Pompeii and Herculaneum MYTH / MYTHOLOGICAL FIGURE NO. PROPERTY Mars and Venus 8 Pompeii: I.7.19; V.1.18; V.4.a; VI.9.2; VII.2.23; VII.9.47; VIII.3.8 Herculaneum: V.15-16 Narcissus (with or without Echo) 5 Pompeii: VI.7.20; VI.16.15; VII.15.2; IX.9.d Herculaneum: V.6-7 Endymion and Selene 4 Pompeii: I.2.17; VI.7.20; VIII.4.4 Herculaneum: V.11 Dionysus and Ariadne 4 Dionysus discovering Ariadne: Pompeii: VI.13.6; VII.10.3 Herculaneum: V.30 Triumph of Dionysus with Ariadne: Pompeii: V.4.a Dionysus (alone or with any of his followers) 3 Pompeii: III.2.1; I.11.6-7 Herculaneum: V.30 Adonis wounded 3 Pompeii: VI.15.13; VI.7.23; VI.10.7 Adonis and Venus 2 Pompeii: V.1.18; VIII.4.4 Judgement of Paris 2 Pompeii: I.8.17; VII.2.14 Daedalus and Pasiphae 2 Pompeii: VII.4.48 Herculaneum: V.15-16 Meleager and Atalanta 2 Pompeii: VI.2.22; VI.9.5 Hercules and Omphales 2 Pompeii: VI.13.6; VIII.4.34 Punishment of Dirce 2 Pompeii: VII.4.56; VIII.4.34 Apollo 2 Pompeii: VI.5.3 Herculaneum: V.11 Phaedra and Hippolytus 1 (or 2) Pompeii: V.2.10; VI.16.7 (uncertain) Mars seated on a throne 1 Pompeii: IX.2.18 Toilette of Venus 1 Pompeii: VI.7.23 Fishing Venus 1 Pompeii: IX.9.d Punishment of Eros by Venus 1 Pompeii: VII.2.23 Rape of Europa 1 Pompeii: I.10.4 Wrath of Achilles 1 Pompeii: VI.9.7 Achilles on Skyros 1 Pompeii: VI.9.7 215 Hercules, Deianeira, and Nessus 1 Pompeii: VI.9.5 Hylas taken by the Nymphs 1 Pompeii: I.7.19 Admetus and Alcestis 1 Pompeii: VI.8.3,5 Paris and Helen at Sparta 1 Pompeii: VI.16.7 Perseus and Andromeda 1 Pompeii: I.7.11 Theseus and Ariadne outside the labyrinth 1 Pompeii: VII.4.48 Daedalus and Icarus 1 Pompeii: I.8.17 Iphigenia in Tauris 1 Pompeii: V.1.26 Hecuba crying for the body of Hector taken back to Troy 1 Pompeii: V.1.26 Marsyas among the Nymphs 1 Pompeii: VI.16.28 Phryxus and Helle 1 Pompeii: VI.5.13 Argos and Io 1 Pompeii: VI.9.2 Paris and Oenone 1 Pompeii: IX.5.6,17 Diana and Callisto 1 Pompeii: IX.5.6,17 Drunk Silenus 1 Pompeii: III.2.1 Seated Maenad 1 Pompeii: VI.14.42 Satyr and Maenad 1 Pompeii: VII.2.14 Hermaphroditus, Silenus, and Maenad 1 Pompeii: IX.1.22 Fight of Pan and Eros 1 Pompeii: IX.1.22 Contest between Venus and Hesperus with Apollo sitting as judge 1 Pompeii: VIII.4.34 Nereids 1 Pompeii: VII.2.14 Horai 1 Pompeii: V.4.c 216 4.3 Mars and Venus on Pompeian walls No. PROPERTY ROOM TYPE WALL STYLE PAINTING REFERENCE 1 Casa di Capella (I.3.24) Cubiculum (l) Fourth Style Sogliano 1979, no. 136; Schefold 1957, 12; PPM I, 83 2 Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10-11) Portico (19) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 34; PPM I, 698-701; PPP I, 68 3 Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19) Tablinum (c) Third Style (but done after 62 CE) Schefold 1957, 36; PPM I, 766; PPP I, 74; Hodske 2007, 145-46, no. 43 4 Casa del Primo Piano (I.11.9,15) Cubiculum (14) Third Style PPM II, 636; PPP I, 161; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 82 5 Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18) Exedra (o) Fourth Style Sogliano 1979, no. 139; Schefold 1957, 65; PPM III, 556; PPP II, 13; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 115 6 Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18) Tablinum (g) Fourth Style Sogliano nos. 352, 140, Schefold 1957, 64 7 Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.26) Cubiculum (p) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 133; Schefold 1957, 68; PPM III, 613 8 Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.26) Room (t) (cubiculum?) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 138; Schefold 1957, 68; PPM III, 618; PPP II, 29; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 128 9 Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a) Tablinum (7) Third Style Schefold 1957, 85; PPM III, 1017; PPP II, 87; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 167 10 Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a) Triclinium (4) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 86; PPM III, 989; PPP II, 84 11 Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4) Cubiculum/diaeta (34) [in the upper zone] Fourth Style Helbig no. 319; Schefold 1957, 94; PPM IV, 141-42; Laidlaw and Stella 2014, 112 12 Uncertain: Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3,5) Atrium (?) Fourth Style Helbig no. 294; Schefold 1957, 104; PPP II, 166 13 Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) Tablinum (8) Fourth Style Helbig no. 318; Schefold 1957, 111; PPM IV, 682; PPP II, 185; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 246 14 Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) Unidentified room Fourth Style Helbig no. 314; Schefold 1957, 114; PPM IV, 816; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 247 15 Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2) Cubiculum (12) Fourth Style Helbig no. 1448b; Schefold 1957, 111; PPM IV, 689; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 250 16 Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-9) Unidentified room Fourth Style Helbig no. 327b; Schefold 1957, 304 17 Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI.16.15) Triclinium (g) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 157; PPM V, 872; PPP II, 360; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 387 18 Casa dell’Amore Punito (VII.2.23) Tablinum (f) Third Style Helbig no. 325; Schefold 1957, 172; PPM VI, 674; PPP III, 78; Hodske 2007, 146, no. 435 217 19 Casa dell’Orso Ferito (VII.2.45) Atrium [in the upper zone] Fourth Style Helbig no. 315; PPM VI, 757; PPP III, 88 20 Commercial building with shop (VII.3.8) Room (a) (mistakenly called tablinum) Fourth Style Helbig no. 321; Schefold 1957, 176; PPM VI, 848; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 442 21 Casa del Doppio Larario (VII.3.13) Triclinium (g) Fourth Style Helbig no. 324; Schefold 1957, 176; PPM VI, 871; PPP III, 103 22 Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII.9.47) Tablinum (7) Fourth Style Helbig no. 320; Schefold 1957, 197; PPM VII, 370; PPP III, 175; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 515 23 Casa del Balcone Pensile (VII.12.28) Room (h) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 143; Schefold 1957, 203; PPP III, 208 24 Casa del Marinaio (VII.15.2) Triclinium (v) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 137; Schefold 1957, 206; PPM VII, 739; PPP III, 227; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 548 25 Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8) Tablinum (7) Fourth Style Helbig no. 326; Schefold 1957, 220; PPM VIII, 374; PPP III, 326; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 582 26 Garden restaurant (VIII.5.15-16) Summer triclinium (o) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 226; PPM VIII, 598; PPP III, 352; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 619 27 Casa delle Pareti Rosse (VIII.5.37) Cubiculum (b) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 228; PPM VIII, 626; PPP III, 355; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 623 28 Quadriporticus (so-called, “Caserma dei Gladiatori”; VIII.7.16-17) Exedra Fourth Style Helbig no. 322; Schefold 1957, 234; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 632 29 Casa di Achille (IX.5.2) Cubiculum (c) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 134; Schefold 1957, 252; PPM IX, 371; PPP III, 450 30 Casa (IX.5.6,17) Cubiculum (s) Fourth Style Sogliano no. 135; Schefold 1957, 254; PPM IX, 431; PPP III, 457 31 Casa della Fortuna (IX.7.20) Triclinium (i) Fourth Style Schefold 1957, 271; PPM IX, 842; PPP III, 505; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 764 32 Uncertain: Unidentified building Helbig 455 218 Figures 1.1 Plan of Roman (or Vitruvian) atrium house (after Mau 1899, 241, fig. 110) 219 2.1 Bronze tiebacks, Casa di Obellius Firmus, Pompeii (Pompeii, Casa di Bacco, inv. nos. SAP 3211a-b) (courtesy of M. Borgongino) 2.2 Wooden partition, Casa del Tramezzo di Legno, Herculaneum (author) 220 2.3 Wooden partition and modern curtain, Casa del Tramezzo di Legno, Herculaneum (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, LC.Italy.Herculaneum.C.13, 1930) 221 2.4 Republican Sanctuary, cella IV, Brescia (courtesy of G. Tucker) 2.5 Villa Romana at Positano (courtesy of S. Pacifico) 222 2.6 Tomb of Vestorius Priscus, Porta Vesuvio, Pompeii (author) 223 2.7 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa del Sacello Iliaco, Pompeii (author) 224 2.8 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 225 2.9 Cuts for wooden partition. Tablinum, Casa di Sallustio, Pompeii (author) 226 2.10 Cut for cardines of wooden door. Tablinum, Casa della Caccia Antica, Pompeii (author) 227 2.11 Pendant stone blocks. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa del Cinghiale I, Pompeii (author) 2.12 Detail of left stone block. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in house VIII.2.14- 16, Pompeii (author) 228 2.13 Remains of wooden antepagmentum. Tablinum, Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico, Herculaneum (author) 229 2.14 Detail of the left stone block. Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo, Herculaneum (author) 2.15 Ornamental disk to tie back curtains. Tablinum, Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo, Herculaneum (after Maiuri 1958, 248, fig. 194) 230 2.16 Wall extensions at the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii (author) 231 2.17 Detail of a wall extension in opus vittatum mixtum on top of a base in Calcare del Sarno. Tablinum, Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii (author) 2.18 Wall extensions at frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Epidius Rufus, Pompeii. Internal view (author) 232 2.19 Recesses for couches. Tablinum, Casa di Sutoria Primigenia, Pompeii (author) 2.20 Recess for couch. Tablinum, house IX.3.15, Pompeii (author) 233 2.21 Recess for couch. Tablinum, Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato, Herculaneum (author) 2.22 Cuts for cardines of folding doors (valvae). Back threshold of the tablinum in the Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 234 2.23 Cuts for cardines of folding doors (valvae). Back threshold of the tablinum in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (author) 235 2.24 Link tablinum-cubiculum, Casa del Principe di Napoli, Pompeii (author) 3.1 Funerary relief of A. Amelius Aristomachus and Aemilia Hilaria (National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen, inv. no. 1187) (courtesy of J. Pollini) 236 3.2 Domestic shrine. Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 237 3.3 Portrait herm, Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 110663) (author) 3.4 Herm bases flanking the frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, Pompeii (author) 238 3.5 Portrait herm, Casa di Cornelius Rufus, Pompeii (Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 20604) (courtesy of the Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, box 299) 239 3.6 Portrait herm, Casa di Vesonius Primus (or di Orfeo), Pompeii (Pompeii, Deposito del Foro, inv. no. SSPES 407/4) (courtesy of the Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, box 297) 240 3.7 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Umbricius Scaurus, Pompeii (author) 241 3.8 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa del Menandro, Pompeii (author) 3.9 Three-quarter columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Ercole e Augia, Pompeii (author) 242 3.10 Half columns framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico, Herculaneum (author) 3.11 Drawing of fluted stuccowork pilasters once framing the entrance of the tablinum in the Casa della Fontana Grande, Pompeii (after Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII) 243 3.12 Remains of frontal jambs of the tablinum in the Casa della Fontana Grande, Pompeii (author) 244 3.13 Fluted stuccowork pilasters once framing the entrance of the tablinum in the Casa del Centauro, Pompeii (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 1769) 245 3.14 Remains of frontal jambs of tablinum in the Casa del Centauro, Pompeii (author) 3.15 Columns of impluvium framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa delle Nozze D’Argento, Pompeii (author) 246 3.16 Columns of impluvium framing the frontal entrance of the tablinum in the Casa di Obellius Firmus, Pompeii (author) 247 3.17a-b Axial views onto the Egyptianizing shrine from the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 3.18 Egyptianizing shrine. Peristyle garden, Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 248 3.19 Niche lararium. Viridarium, Casa della Venere in Bikini, Pompeii (author) 249 3.20 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa di Ercole, Pompeii (author) 3.21 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 250 3.22 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (author) 3.23 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato, Herculaneum (author) 251 3.24 Aedicula fountain. Peristyle garden, Casa del Granduca, Pompeii (author) 252 3.25 Aedicula lararium. Peristyle garden, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (author) 253 4.1 Plan of the Casa della Venere in Conchiglia, Pompeii (courtesy of Jackie and Bob Dunn www.pompeiipictures.com) 4.2 Opus sectile panel. Tablinum, Casa del Bicentenario, Herculaneum (after Maiuri 1958, 230, fig. 180) 254 4.3 Central pseudo-emblema. Tablinum, Casa dei Cubiculi Floreali (or del Frutteto), Pompeii (author) 4.4 Central emblema. Tablinum, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9986) (author) 255 4.5 Drawing of lost central emblema once decorating the floor of the tablinum in the Casa di Championnet I, Pompeii (after Mazois, 1824, pl. 20) 4.6 Current pavement of the tablinum in the Casa di Championnet I, Pompeii (author) 256 4.7 Central emblema once decorating the floor of the tablinum in the Casa dei Capitelli Figurati, Pompeii (courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher no. 432a) 4.8 Current pavement of tablinum in the Casa dei Capitelli Figurati, Pompeii (author) 257 4.9 Frontal threshold of the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 4.10 Heads of Griffins decorating the threshold of the tablinum in the Casa degli Amorini Dorati, Pompeii (author) 258 4.11 Fresco with “Wrath of Achilles” (Fourth Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9104) (author) 4.12 Fresco with “Achilles discovered on the Island of Skyros” (Fourth Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9110) (author) 259 4.13 Mosaic with the “Wrath of Achilles.” Garden portico, Casa di Apollo, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 10006) (author) 4.14 Mosaic with “Achilles discovered on the Island of Skyros.” Garden portico, Casa di Apollo, Pompeii (author) 260 4.15 Drawing of lost panel with “Wrath of Achilles.” Temple of Apollo, Pompeii (after A. Steinbüchel 1833, pl. 8b) 4.16 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (Fourth Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa di Meleagro, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9256) (author) 261 4.17 Drawing of lost panel with “Mars and Venus.” Quadriporticus of the Theaters, Pompeii (modified from Gli ornati delle pareti ed i pavimenti delle stanze dell'antica Pompei incisi in rame. 1838, pl. 53) 4.18 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (Third Style, painted after 62 CE). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di Cornelius Tages, Pompeii (author) 262 4.19 Fresco with “Daedalus and Pasiphae” (Fourth Style). Left/west wall of the tablinum, Casa della Caccia Antica, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 8979) (author) 4.20 Fresco with the “Punishment of Dirce” (Third Style). Left/east wall of the tablinum, Casa del Granduca, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9042) (author) 263 4.21 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di Meleagro (MANN, inv. no. 9556) (author) 4.22 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Macellum, Pompeii (author) 264 4.23 Fresco with “Argos and Io” (Fourth Style). Temple of Isis, Ekklesiasterion (6), Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9548) (author) 4.24 Fresco with “Admetus and Alcestis” (Fourth Style). Right/east wall of the tablinum, Casa del Poeta Tragico, Pompeii (MANN, inv. no. 9025) (author) 265 4.25 Fresco with “Mars and Venus” (late Third Style). Left/north wall of the tablinum, Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii (author) 4.26 Fresco with the “Dionysus and Ariadne in a joyous procession” (late Third Style). Right/south wall of the tablinum, Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii (author) 266 Bibliography Adam J.-P. 2005, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques. London: Routledge. Adamo-Muscettola S. 1984, “Osservazioni sulla composizione dei larari con statuette in bronzo di Pompei ed Ercolano,” in U. Gehrig (ed.) Toreutik und figürliche Bronzen römischer Zeit. Berlin: Staatliche Museen Kulturbesitz, Antikenmuseum, 9-32. ———. 1996, “I culti domestici,” in M. Borriello, A. D'Ambrosio, S. De Caro (eds.), Pompei. Abitare sotto il Vesuvio. Ferrara: Ferrara D’Arte, 175-79. Adams G. 2007, The Roman emperor Gaius “Caligula” and his Hellenistic aspirations. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press. Allison P. M. 1992a, “The relationship between wall-decoration and room-type in Pompeian houses: a case study of the Casa della Caccia Antica,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 5: 235-49. ———. 1992b, “Artefact assemblages: not the Pompeii Premise,” in E. Herring, R. Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins (eds.), Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, 3. London: Accordia Reserach Institute, 49-56. ———. 1993, “How do we identify the use of space in Roman housing,” in E. Moormann (ed.), Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting. Leiden: Babesch, 1-8. ———. 1995, “On-going seismic activity and its effects on the living conditions in Pompeii in the last decades,” in T. Fröhlich and L. Jacobelli (eds.), Archäologie und Seismologie: La Regione Vesuviana dal 62 al 79 D.C.: Problemi Archeologici e Sismologici. Munich: Biering & Brinkmann, 183-90. 267 ———. 1997, “Artifacts and Spatial Function in Pompeii,” in B. Rawson and P. Weaver (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy. Status, Sentiment, Space. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 321-54. ———. 1999, “Labels for ladles: Interpreting the material culture of Roman Households,” P. M. Allison (ed.), The Archaeology of the Household Activities. London; New York: Routledge, 57-77. ———. 2001a, “Using the Material and Written Sources: Turn of the Millennium Approaches to Roman Domestic Space,” American Journal of Archaeology 105.2: 181- 208. ———. 2001b, “Placing Individuals: Pompeian Epigraphy in Context,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14: 53-74. ———. 2004, Pompeian Households. An Analysis of Material Culture. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. ———. 2006, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 3: The Finds, a Contextual Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 2007, “Domestic Space and Activities,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 269-78. Allison P. M. and F. B. Sear 2002, The Casa della Caccia Antica in Pompeii (VII 4, 48). Series. Häuser in Pompeji, 11. Münich: Hirmer. Allroggen-Bedel A. 2009, “Ercolano, dal sito al museo, dal museo agli archivi: il puzzle ercolanese,” in A. Coralini (ed.), Vesuviana: archeologie a confronto. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Bologna, 14-16 gennaio 2008). Bologna: Ante Quem, 167-79. 268 Alonso Rodriguez M. Del Carmen 2005, “Documenti per lo studio di Ercolano, Pompei e Stabia nel secolo XVIII sotto il patrocinio di Carlo III,” Rivista Storica del Sannio 3.12: 225-59. Amoroso A. 2007, L’Insula VII, 10 di Pompei. Analisi Grafica e Proposte Ricostruttive. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 22. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Andersson E. B. 1990, “Fountains and the Roman dwelling: Casa del Torello in Pompeii,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Archäologischen Instituts 105: 207-36. Anderson J. C. 2013, Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andreae M. Th. 1990, “Tiermegalographien in pompejanischen Garten. Die sogenannten Paradeisos Vorstellungen,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 4: 45-124. Andreau J. 1973, “Histoire des séismes et histoire économique: Le tremblement de terre de Pompéi (62 ap. J.-C.),” Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 28.2: 369-95. ———. 1974, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus. Rome: École française de Rome. Andrews M. 2014, “A Domus in the Subura of Rome from the Republic Through Late Antiquity,” American Journal of Archaeology 118.1: 61-90. Anguissola A. 2010, Intimità a Pompei. Riservatezza, condivisione e prestigio negli ambienti ad alcova di Pompei. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. ———. 2012, “Difficillima Imitatio”: Immagine e lessico della copie tra Grecia e Roma. Rome. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Archer W. 1994, “The maturing of the Fourth Style: The Casa della Nozze d'Argento at Pompeii,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 129-215. Ascione G. C. and M. Pagano 2000, L’Antiquarium di Ercolano. Naples: Electa. 269 Audouin E. 1903, “De L’Origine du Tablinum,” in G. Boissier (ed.) Mélanges Boissier: recueil de mémoires concernant la littérature et les antiquités romaines dédié à Gaston Boissier. Paris: A. Fontemoing, 45-7. Ault B. A. and L. Nevett 2005, Ancient Greek Houses and Households. Chronological, Regional, and Social Diversity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bablitz L. 2015, “Bringing the law home: the Roman house as courtroom,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: JRA, 63-76. Baird, J. and C. Taylor (eds.) 2011, Ancient Graffiti in Context. New York: Routledge. Bakker J.T. 1994, Living and Working with the Gods. Studies of Evidence for Private Religion and its material environment in the city of Ostia (100-500 AD). Amsterdam: Gieben. Barbanera M. 1998, L’archeologia degli italiani: storia, metodi e orientamenti dell'archeologia classica in Italia. Rome: Riuniti Ed. Barbet A. 1985, La Peinture Murale Romaine. Les Styles Décoratifs Pompéiens. Paris: Picard. Barchiesi A. 2010, “Le Metamorfosi nell’atrio,” in R. Uglione (ed.) Lector, intende, laetaberis. Il romanzo dei greci e dei romani. Atti del Convegno Nazionale di Studi, Torino, 27-28 Aprile 2009. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 187-208. Barnabei F. 1901, La Villa Pompeiana di P. Fannio Sinistore Scoperta presso Boscoreale. Rome: Tipografia della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. 270 Bartman E. 1994, “Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm,” in E. Gazda (ed.), Roman Art in the Private Sphere. New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 71-88. Bastet F. L. and M. De Vos 1979, Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile pompeiano. Archeologische Studiën van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome IV. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij. Beacham R. 1991, The Roman Theatre and Its Audience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beard M. 2008, Pompeii: The Life of a Roman Town. London: Profile. ———. 2011, Prima del fuoco. Pompei, storie di un giorno. (Trad. T. Casini). Bari: Laterza. Bechi G. 1852, “Relazione degli Scavi di Pompei da agosto 1842 a gennaio 1852,” in Real Museo Borbonico XIV: 1-16. Beck H. 2005, Karriere und Hierarchie: die römische Aristokratie und die Anfänge des cursus honorum in der mittleren Republik. Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte. Beihefte. Neue Folge, 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bek L. 1980, Towards Paradise on Earth: Modern Space Conception in Architecture, a Creation of Renaissance Humanism. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Suppl. 9. Herning: Odense University Press. Benedetti C. 2006, “La casa VI 10, 6,” in F. Coarelli and F. Pensando (eds.) Rileggere Pompei. I. L’Insula 10 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 121-59. 271 Benefiel R. R. 2010, “Dialogues of Graffiti in the House of Maius Castricius at Pompeii,” American Journal of Archaeology 114.1: 59-101. ———. 2016, “The Culture of Writing Graffiti within Domestic Spaces at Pompeii,” in R. Benefiel and P. Keegan (eds.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 80-110. Benefiel R. R. and P. Keegan 2016 (eds.), Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco- Roman World. Leiden: Brill. Benefiel R. R. and H. M. Sypniewski 2018, “The Greek Graffiti of Herculaneum,” American Journal of Archaeology 122.2: 209-44. Berdowski P. 2014, “Pietas erga patriam: ideology and politics in Rome in the early first century BC. The evidence from coins and glandes inscriptae,” in Twardowska K. (ed.), Within the Circle of Ancient Ideas and Virtues. Studies in Honour of Professor Maria Dzielska. Krakow: Historia Iagellonica, 143-159. Berg R. 2014, “La casa come cassaforte. Riflessioni sulle zone di attività e di deposito nelle case pompeiane,” XVIII CIAC: Centro y periferia en el Mundo Clásico: 41-4. ———. 2016, “Dominae apothecarum. Gendering Storage Patterns in Roman Houses,” in R. Berg (ed.), The material sides of marriage. Women and domestic economies in antiquity. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 175-89. Bergmann B. 1994, “The Roman House as Memory Theater: The House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii,” The Art Bulletin 76.2: 225-56. ———. 1995a, “Visualizing Pliny’s villas,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 8: 406-20. ———. 1995b, “Greek masterpieces and Roman recreative fictions,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: Greece in Rome: 79-120. 272 ———. 1995c, “Visualizing Pliny’s Villas,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 8: 406-20. Bergmann B. 1996, “The Pregnant Moment: Tragic Wives in the Roman Interior,” in N. B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 199- 221. ———. 2002, “Art and nature in the Villa of Oplontis,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 47: 87-121. ———. 2017, “The Lineup: Passion, Transgression, and Mythical Women in Roman Painting,” Eugesta. Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 7: 199-246. Berry J. 1997a, “The Conditions of Domestic Life in Pompeii in AD 79: A Case-Study of Houses 11 and 12, Insula 9, Region I,” Papers of the British School at Rome 65: 103-25. ———. 1997b, “Household artefacts: towards a re-interpretation of Roman domestic space,” in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 183-95. ———. 2007, “Instrumentum domesticum – A Case Study,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 292-301. ———. 2016, “Boundaries and Control in the Roman House,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 29: 125-41. Beyen H. G. 1938-1960, Die Pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweitem bis zum vierten Stil, Vols. 2. Haag, M. Nijhoff. Binford L. R. 1981, “Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’,” Journal of Anthropological Research 37.3: 195-208. Blake M. E. 1930, “The pavements of the Roman buildings of the Republic and early 273 Empire,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 8: 7-159. Bodel J. 2008, “Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic Religion,” in J. Bodel and Olyan S. M. (eds.), Household and family religion in antiquity. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Ltd, 248-75. Boëthius A. 1978, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (2nd ed). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bonifacio R. 1997, Ritratti romani da Pompei. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Bonifacio G. and A. Sodo (eds.) 2002, Stabiae: storia e architettura: 250° anniversario degli scavi di Stabiae 1749-1999. Convegno internazionale, Castellammare di Stabia, 25- 27 marzo 2000. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Boyce G. K. 1937, “Corpus of the Lararia of Pompei,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14: 5-112. Bragantini I. 1997, “Distribuzione dei rivestimenti pavimentali a Pompei in età imperiale,” Atti AISCOM 4: 531-40. Bragantini I. and V. Sampaolo (eds.) 2009, La Pittura Pompeiana. Naples: Electa. Brandt J. R. 2010, “Sacra privata in the Roman domus. Private or public? A study of household shrines in an architectural context at Pompeii and Ostia” Acta ad archeologiam at artium historiam pertinentia 23: 57-117. Breton E. 1855, Pompeia décrite et dessinée. Paris: L. Guérin. Briganti C. and K. Mezei 2012, The Domestic Space Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Brilliant R. 1984, Visual narratives: storytelling in Etruscan and Roman art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 274 Brockett O.G. and F.J. Hildy 2014, History of Theatre (10th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Butler H. E. 1909, The Apology and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura [Trans.]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cahill N. 2002, Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Calabrò A. 2012, “Pompeian Cauponae in their Spatial Context: Interaction between Bars and Houses,” in A. Anguissola (ed.), Privata Luxuria. Toward an Archaeology of Intimacy: Pompeii and Beyond. Munchen: Herbert Utz Verlag, 73-91. Camardo D. 2006, “Gli scavi ed i restauri di Amedeo Maiuri. Ercolano e l’esperimento di una città museo,” Ocnus. Quaderni della Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia. Alma Mater Studiorum. Università di Bologna 14: 69-82. ———. 2013, “Herculaneum from the AD 79 eruption to the medieval period: analysis of the documentary, iconographic and archaeological sources, with new data on the beginning of exploration at the ancient town,” Papers of the British School at Rome 81: 303-40. Camardo D. and M. Notomista (eds.) 2017, Ercolano: 1927-1961. L'impresa Archeologica Di Amedeo Maiuri E L'esperimento Della Citta Museo. Studi Della Soprintendenza Archeologica Di Pompei 34. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Camodeca G. 2000, “Le tavolette cerate di Ercolano,” in M. Pagano (ed.), Gli Antichi Ercolanesi: Antropologia, Società, Economia. Naples: Electa, 71-4. ———. 2002, “Per una riedizione dell’archivio ercolanense di L. Venidius Ennychus. I,” Cronache Ercolanesi 32: 257-80. 275 ———. 2006, “Per una riedizione dell’archivio ercolanense di L. Venidius Ennychus. II,” Cronache Ercolanesi 36: 189-211. ———. 2008, I ceti dirigenti di rango senatorio equestre e decurionale della Campania romana. I. Naples: Satura Ed. ———. 2009, “Gli archivi privati di tabulae ceratae e di papiri documentari. Pompei ed Ercolano: case, ambienti e modalità di conservazione,” Vesuviana 1: 17-42. Capasso M. 1990, “Le tavolette della Villa Ercolanese dei Papiri,” Cronache Ercolanesi 20: 83-6. Carandini A. 1990, “Il Palatino e le aree resindenziali,” in M. Cristofani (ed), La grande Roma dei Tarquini. Catagolo della mostra, Roma, 12 giugno-30 settembre. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 97-9. ———. 2010, Le case del potere nell’antica Roma. Bari: Laterza. Carandini A. and P. Carafa 1995, Palatium and Via Sacra I: prima delle mura. L’età delle mura e l’età delle case arcaiche. Bollettino di Archeologia 31-33. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Carrella A. 2008, “Le Regiones V-VI,” in A. Carrella, L. A. D’Acunto, N. Inserra, and C. Serpe (eds.), Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 26. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 63-108. Carucci M. 2007, The Romano-African Domus. Studies in space, decoration, and function. Oxford: Archaeopress. Cassetta R and C. Costantino 2006, “La Casa del Naviglio (VI 10, 11) e le botteghe VI 10, 10 e VI 10, 12,” in F. Coarelli and F. Pesando (eds.) Rileggere Pompei. I. L’Insula 10 276 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 245-335. Castrén P., R. Berg, A. Tammisto, and E.-M. Viitanen 2008, “In the Hearth of Pompeii – Archaeological Studies in the Casa di Marco Lucrezio (IX, 3, 5.24),” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003- 2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 331-40. Ceccarelli P. 1998, La pirrica nell’antichità greco-romana. Studi sulla danza armata. Pisa-Roma: Ist. Editoriali e Poligrafici. Cerulli-Irelli M. G. 1971, Monumenti della Pittura Scoperti in Italia. Vol III: Ercolano I, Le pitture della Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Cerulli-Irelli M. G. 1974, La Casa “del Colonnato Tuscanico” ad Ercolano. Naples: G. Macchiaroli. ———. 1990, “Der letzte pompejanische Stil,” in M.G. Cerulli-Irelli, M. Aoyagi, S. De Caro, and U. Pappalardo (eds), Pompejanische Wandmalerei. Stuttgart: Belser, 233-38. Ciarallo A. and M. Mariotti Lippi 1993, “The Garden of ‘Casa dei Casti Amanti’ (Pompeii, Italy),” Garden History 21.1: 110-16. Ciarallo A. and E. De Carolis (eds.) 1999, Homo Faber: natura, scienza e tecnica nell'antica Pompei. Exhibition Catalogue. Milan: Electa. Cicirelli C. 1995, Vita religiosa nell’antica Pompei. Pompeii: Soprintendenza Archeologica. Cicu L. 2012, Il mimo teatrale greco-romano. Lo spettacolo ritrovato. Rome: Università La Sapienza. 277 Clarke J. R. 1991, The Houses of Roman Italy 100 B.C.-A.D. 250. Ritual, Space, and Decoration. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. ———. 1996, “The ‘View Through’ in the Ancient Roman House,” Texas Classics in Action: Austin: University of Texas Press, 1-3. ———. 2003, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans, Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press. ———. 2007a, Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press. ———. 2007b, “Domestic decoration. Mosaic and stucco,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 323-35. ———. 2010, “Model-Book, Outline Book, Figure Book: New Observations of the Creations of Near-Exact Copies in Romano-Campanian Painting,” in I. Bragantini (ed.), Atti del X Congresso Internazionale dell’AIPMA (Association international pour la peinture murale antique). Napoli 17-21 Settembre 2007. Naples: Universitá degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale,” 203-14. ———. 2014, “Domus/Single Family House,” in R. B. Ulrich and C. K. Quenemoen (eds.), A Companion to Roman Architecture. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 342–62. Coarelli F. 1983, “Architettura sacra e architettura privata nella tarda Repubblica,” in Architecture et société: de l'archaïsme grec à la fin de la République romaine, Actes du colloque international organize par le Centre national de la recherché scientifique et l'École Française de Rome (Rome 2–4 décembre 1980). Paris: Le Centre; Rome: L’Ecole, 191-217. 278 ———. 1989, “La casa dell’aristocrazia romana secondo Vitruvio,” H. Geertman and J.J. de Jong (eds.), Munus non ingratum. BABesh Suppl. 2. Leiden: Stichting Bull. Ant. Beschav., 178-87. ———. 2002, Pompei: la vita ritrovata. Udine: Magnus. ———. 2012, Palatium. Il Palatino dalle origini all’impero. Rome: Quasar. ———. 2013, “Domus Gai,” in G. Ghini (ed.), Caligula: La Trasgressione al Potere, Rome: Gangemi, 167-78. Coda L. 2017, “Casa VI 7, 16-17,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi e Ricerche del Parco Archeologico di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 146-62. Coetzee D. and L.W. Eysturlid 2013, Philosophers of War. The Evolution of History’s Greatest Military Thinkers. Vol. 1. The Ancient to Premodern World, 3000 BCE–1815 CE. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Coleman K. M. 1990, “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 80: 44-73. ———. 2006, M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooley A. E. and M. G. L. Colley 2014, Pompeii and Herculaneum. A Sourcebook (2nd ed). London and New York: Routledge. Cooper C. F. 2007, “Closely Watched Households: Visibility, Exposure and Private Power in the Roman Domus,” Past and Present, 197: 3-33. 279 Coralini A. 2001, “I rivestimenti pavimentali della Casa del Centenario a Pompei (IX 8,3.6.a), in A. Paribeni (ed.), Atti dell’VIII Colloquio AISCOM (Firenze, 21-23 febbraio 2001). Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole, 639-54. ———. 2018, Pompei. Insula IX 8. Vecchi e Nuovi Scavi (1979-). Bologna: Ante Quem. Coralini A. and Scagliarini D. C. 2016, “La decorazione “diacronica”: il caso della Domus del Centenario a Pompei, in J. Bonetto, M.S. Busana, A.R. Ghiotto, I. Colpo, M. Salvadori, and P. Zanovello (eds.), I mille volti del passato. Scritti in onore di Francesca Ghedini. Rome: Quasar, 499-509. Cova E. 2013, “Cupboards, Closets, and Shelves. Storage in the Pompeian House,” Phoenix 67: 373-91. ———. 2015, “Stasis and Change in Roman Domestic Space: The Alae of Pompeii's Regio VI,” American Journal of Archaeology 119.1: 69-102. Crawford O. C. 1941, “Laudatio Funebris,” The Classical Journal 37.1: 17-27. Croisille J.-M. 1965, Les Natures mortes campaniennes. Répertoire descriptif des peintures de nature morte du Musée national de Naples, de Pompéi, Herculanum et Stabies. Collection Latomus 76. Brussels. Croom A. T. 2007, Roman Furniture. Stroud: Tempus. D’Acunto L. A. 2008, “Le Regiones IX,” in A. Carrella, L. A. D’Acunto, N. Inserra, C. Serpe (eds.), Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 26. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 155-204. D’Ambra E. 1996, “The Calculus of Venus: Nude Portraits of Roman Matrons,” in N.B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219-32. 280 ———. 2000, “Nudity and Adornment in Female Portrait Sculpture of the Second Century AD,” in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson (eds), I Claudia II: Women in Ancient Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 101-14. D’Ambrosio A. and S. De Caro 1989, “Un contributo all’architettura e all’urbanistica di Pompei in età ellenistica. I saggi nella casa VII, 4, 62,” Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica 11: 173-215. D’Ambrosio A. and M. Borriello 1990, Le terrecotte figurate di Pompei. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, D’Amelio P. 1886, Dipinti Murali Scelti di Pompei. Naples: Richter. D’Arms J. 1990, “The Roman Convivium and the Idea of Equality,” in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 308-20. ———. 1991, “Slaves at the Roman Convivium,” in W. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor: University of Michingan Press, 171-83; ———. 1999, “Performing Culture: Roman Spectacle and the Banquets of the Powerful,” in B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle. New Haven and London: National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 301-19. D’Auria M. 2010, “La Casa del Granduca Michele (VI,5,5)” in F. Pesando (ed.), Rileggere Pompei III. Ricerche sulla Pompei Sannitica. Campagne di scavo 2006-2008. Quaderni di Studi Pompeiani 4. Pompeii: Associazione Internazionale Amici di Pompei, 41-54. ———. 2012, “Spatial Organization in Middle-Class Houses of III and II c. B.C. at Pompeii: The Example of the Casa del Granduca Michele (VI 5,5),” in A. Anguissola 281 (ed.), Privata Luxuria. Toward an Archaeology of Intimacy: Pompeii and Beyond. Munchen: Herbert Utz Verlag, 131-42. Dall’Aglio P. L. and S. De Maria 2005, “La domus dei Coiedii di Suasa: dallo scavo al museo,” in F. Morandini and F. Rossi (eds.), Domus romane: dallo scavo alla valorizzazione. Milan: Et, 145-60. Daremberg Mm. Ch. and Edm. Saglio 1877-1919, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines: d'après les textes et les monuments. Paris: Hachette. Davison J. M. 2000, “Vitruvius on the theater in Republican Rome,” in K. Geffcken, J. Hallett, and S. Dickison (eds.), Rome and Her Monuments: Essays on the City and Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken. Wauconda, Ill: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 125-72. De Albentiis E. 1990, La casa dei Romani. Milan: Longanesi. De Angelis F. 2010, “Ius and Space: An Introduction,” in F. De Angelis (ed.), Space of Justice in the Roman World. London and New York: Brill, 1-25. De Caro S. 1991, “Due ‘generi’ nella pittura pompeiana: la natura morta e la pittura di giardino,” in De Franciscis et al. (eds.), La pittura di Pompei: testimonianze dell’arte romana nella zona sepolta dal Vesuvio nel 79 d.C. Milan: Jaca Book, 256-65. ———. 2001, La natura morta nelle pitture e nei mosaici delle città vesuviane. Naples: Electa. ———. 2015, “Excavation and conservation at Pompeii: a conflicted history,” Fasti On Line Documents & Research 3. < http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-con-2015- 3.pdf>. 282 De Carolis E. 2000, Ercolano e Pompei. Arredi e oggetti di antiche dimore vesuviane. Naples: T&M. ———. 2007, Il mobile a Pompei e Ercolano: letti, tavoli, sedie e armadi. Contributo alla tipologia dei mobile della prima età imperiale. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. De Carolis E. and G. Patricelli 2003, Vesuvio 79 d.C. la distruzione di Pompei ed Ercolano. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. De Franciscis A. 1951, Il ritratto romano a Pompei. Naples: G. Macchiaroli. ———. 1988, “La Casa di C. Iulius Polybius,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2: 15-36. De Haan N., K. Peterse, S. Piras, F. Schipper and V. Iorio 2005, “The Casa degli Scienziati (VI 14, 43): Elite Architecture in Fourth-Century B.C.E.,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei ed Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 240-56. De Kind R.E.L.B. 1998, Houses in Herculaneum. A new view on the town planning of insulae III and IV. Amsterdam: Gieben. De Moor A. and C. Fluck (eds.) 2009, Clothing the House: Furnishing Textiles in the 1st Millennium AD from Egypt and Neighboring Countries. Tielt, Belgium: Lanoo Publishers. De Simone A. and S. C. Nappo (eds.) 2000, Mitis Sarni Opes. Nuova Indagine Archeologica in Località Murecine. Naples: Denaro Libri. De Vos M. 1976, ‘Scavi nuovi sconosciuti (I.9.13): pitture e pavimenti della Casa di Cerere a Pompei,” Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 38: 37-75. ———. 1979, “Pavimenti e mosaici,” in F. Zevi (ed.), Pompei 79: Raccolta di studi per il decimonono centenario dell'eruzione vesuviana. Naples: G. Macchiaroli, 161-76. 283 Deiss J. J. 1989, Herculaneum: Italy’s Buried Treasure (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Della Corte M. 1965, Case ed abitanti di Pompei (3rd ed.). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Descoeudres J.-P. and F. Sear 1987, “The Australian Expedition Project,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 1: 11-36. Descoeudres J.-P. 1993, “Did some Pompeians return to their city after the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79? Observations in the House of the Colored Capitals,” in L. Franchi dell’Orto (ed.), Ercolano 1738-1988: 250 anni di ricerca archeologica. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Ravello-Ercolano-Napoli-Pompei, 30 ottobre-5 novembre 1988. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 165-78. Dexter C. E. 1974, “The Casa di Cecilio Giocondo in Pompeii” (PhD dissertation, Duke University). DiBiasie J. F. 2015, “The Writings on the Wall: the Spatial and Literary Context of Domestic Graffiti from Pompeii” (PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin). Di Capua F. 1950, “Sacrari pompeiani,” in A. Mauri (ed.), Pompeiana. Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei. Naples: G. Macchiaroli, 60-85. Dickmann J.-A. 1997, “The peristyle and the transformation of domestic space in Hellenistic Pompeii,” in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 121-36. ———. 1999, Domus frequentata. Anspruchsvolles Wohnen in pompejanischen Stadthaus. Munich. 284 ———. 2007, “Residences in Herculaneum,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 421-34. Dickmann J.-A and F. Pirson 2002, “Casa dei Postumii in Pompeji und ihre Insula,” Römische Mitteilungen 109: 243-314. Dickmann J.-A and F. Pirson 2005, “Il progetto ‘Casa dei Postumii’: un complesso architettonico a Pompei come esemplificazione della storia dell’insediamento, del suo sviluppo e delle sue concezioni urbanistiche,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei ed Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 156-69. Dohl H. and P. Zanker 1979, “La scultura,” in F. Zevi (ed.), Pompei 79: Raccolta di studi per il decimonono centenario dell’eruzione vesuviana. Naples: G. Macchiaroli, 177-210. Donati A. (ed.) 1998, Romana pictura. La pittura romana dalle origini all’età bizantina. Venice: Electa. Doonan O. 1999, “Family Values: Ancestral representation and social reproduction in Roman houses,” in S. S. Lukesh (ed.), Interpretatio Rerum: Archaeological Essays on Objects and Meaning. Archaeologia Transatlantica XVII. Providence: Center for old world archaeology and art, Brown University, 73-84. Drerup H. 1959, “Bildraum und Realraum in der römischer Architectur,” Römische Mitteilungen 66: 145-74. Duckworth G. E. 1994, The nature of Roman comedy. A study in popular entertainment (2nd ed.). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dunbabin K. M. D. 1999, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: 285 Cambridge University Press. ———. 2003, The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2014, “Mythology and Theatre in the Mosaics of the Graeco-Roman East,” in S. Birk, T. M. Kristensen, and B. Poulsen (eds.), Using Images in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 227-52. ———. 2016, Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Dunbabin K. M. D. and W. Slater 2011, “Roman Dining,” in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 438-66. Durry M. 1942, “Laudatio funebris et rhétorique,” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire anciennes 16: 105-14. Dwyer E. 1979, “Sculpture and Its Display in Private Houses of Pompeii,” in Pompeii and the Vesuvian Landscape: papers of a symposium. Washington: Archaeological Institute of America, 59-77. ———. 1982, Pompeian Domestic Culture. A Study of Five Pompeian Houses and their Contents. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore. ———. 1991, “The Pompeian Atrium House in Theory and Practice,” in E. Gazda (ed.), Roman Art in the Private Sphere. New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 25-48. 286 Eck W. 1996, “Tituli honorarii curriculum vitae e autorappresentazione nell’Alto Impero,” in W. Eck (ed.), Tra epigrafia, prosopografia e archeologia: scritti scelti, rielaborati e aggiornati. Rome: Quasar, 319-40. Eckstein F. 1963, “Natura Morta,” Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica 5: 355-60. Edwards C. 1993, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrhardt W. 1988, Casa dell'Orso (VII 2, 44-46). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 2. Munich: Hirmer. ———. 2004, Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V 2, i). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 12. Munich: Hirmer. ———. 2005, “Gli stili pompeiani ed il proprietario: l’esempio della Casa delle Nozze d’argento,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei ed Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 170- 90. Elia O. 1932, “I cubicoli nelle case di Pompei” Historia 6: 394-421. Ellis S. P. 2000, Roman Housing. London: Duckworth. Ellis S. J. R. 2018, The Roman Retail Revolution. The Socio-Economic World of the Taberna. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elsner J. 1995, Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007, Roman eyes. Visuality and subjectivity in art and text. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 287 Emilie G. 1944, “Cicero and the Roman Pietas,” The Classical Journal 39.9: 536-42. Eschebach H. 1970, Die städtebauliche Entwicklung des antiken Pompeji. Heidelberg: F.H. Kerle. Esposito D. 2014, La Pittura di Ercolano. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 33. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Étienne R. 1966, La Vie quotidienne à Pompéi. Paris: Hachette. Evans E. M. 1980, “The Atrium Complex in the Houses of Pompeii” (PhD Dissertation, Birmingham University). Evans Grubbs J. 2011, “Promoting pietas through Roman law,” in B. Rawson (ed.), A Companion to families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Malden, Mass.: Wiley- Blackwell, 377-92. Farrar L. 1998, Ancient Roman Gardens. Stroud: Sutton Publication. Fejfer J. 2008, Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fergola L. 1987, “Attività della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei. Comune di Boscoreale. Via Casone,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 1: 163-66. Fertik H. 2015, “Privacy and Power: the De Clementia and the Domus Aurea,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: JRA, 17-29. Fiorelli G. 1873, Gli Scavi di Pompei dal 1861 al 1872. Naples: Tipografia Italiana. ———. 1875, Descrizione di Pompei. Naples: Tipografia Italiana. Flower H. I. 1996, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 2010, “Spectacle and Political Culture in Roman Republic,” in H. I. Flower (ed.), 288 The Cambridge Companion to Roman Republic (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 377-98. ———. 2017, The Dancing Lares and the Serpent in the Garden: Religion at the Roman Street Corner. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ford Weiskittel S. 1979, “Vitruvius and Domestic Architecture at Pompeii,” in Archaeological Society of Washington (ed.), Pompeii and the Vesuvian Landscape. Papers of a symposium sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America, Washington Society, and the Smithsonian Institute. Washington D.C.: Archaeological Institute of America, 25-38. Franchi dall’Orto L. (ed.) 1993, Ercolano 1738-1988. 250 anni di ricerca archeologica, Atti del convegno internazionale Ravello-Ercolano-Napoli-Pompei (30 ott.- 5 nov. 1988). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Franklin J. L. 1980, Pompeii: The Electoral Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A.D. 71–79. Rome: Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 28. ———. 1987, “Pantomimists at Pompeii: Actius Anicetus and His Troupe,” The American Journal of Philology 108.1: 95-107. ———. 1990, Pompeii: The “Casa del Marinaio” and its history. Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei. Monografie III. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2001, Pompeis Difficile Est: Studies in the Political Life of Imperial Pompeii. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Frapiccini D. and E. Seccaroni 2017, “Casa dell’Adone ferito VI 7, 18,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi 289 della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 163- 84. Frassinetti P. 1953, Fabula Atellana. Saggio sul teatro popolare latino. Genova. Friedländer L. 1968/1908, Roman Life and Manners Under the Early Empire (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Fröhlich T. 1991, Lararien-und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 1996, Casa della Fontana piccola (VI 8, 23.24). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 8. München: Hirmer Verlag. Fröhlich T. and L. Jacobelli (eds.) 1995, Archäologie und Seismologie: La Regione Vesuviana dal 62 al 79 D.C.: Problemi Archeologici e Sismologici. Munich: Biering & Brinkmann. Fulford M. G. and Wallace-Hadrill A. 1998, “The House of Amarantus at Pompeii (I.9.11- 12). An interim report on survey and excavations in 1995-6,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 7: 77-113. Fulford M. G. and Wallace-Hadrill A. 1999, “Towards a History of Pre-Roman Pompeii: Excavations Beneath the House of Amarantus (I.9.11-12), 1995-8,” Papers of the British School at Rome 67 :37-144. Gallo A. 2008, “Nuove ricerche statigrafiche nella Casa di M. Epidio Sabino (IX, 1, 22),” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 321-29. ———. 2013, Pompei: la monumentale dimora degli Epidii (IX, 1, 20). Naples: Arte 290 tipografica. García y García L. 1998, Nova Bibliotheca Pompeiana. 250 Anni di Bibliografia Archeologica, V ols. 1-2. Rome: Bardi Editore. ———. 2015a, “Giuseppe Fiorelli e la Scuola Archeologica di Pompei,” ArcheologicaMente 9. Rome: Arbor Sapientiae. ———. 2015b, “Pompei: i bombardamenti del 1943,” in Osanna M. et al. (eds.), Pompei e l’Europa 1748-1943. Milano: Electa, 371-77. Garelli M.-H. 2004, “Neron et la pantomime,” in Hugoniot C., F. Hurlet, S. Milanezi (eds.), Le statut de l'acteur dans l'antiquité grecque et romaine. Tours: Presses universitaires François Rabelais, 353-68. ———. 2007, Danser le mythe. La pantomime et sa réception dans la culture antique. Louvain: Peeters. Garton C. 1972, Personal Aspects of Roman Theater. Toronto: Hakkert. Gazda E. (ed.) 1991, Roman Art in the Private Sphere. New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gazda E. K. (ed.) 2002, The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Suppl. 1. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Gell W. 1832, Pompeiana. The result of excavations since 1819. Vols. 1-2. London. Gemoll G. 1879, Hygini Gromatici liber de Munitionibus Castrorum. Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri. Ghedini F. 1992, “Caccia e banchetto: un rapporto difficile” Rivista di Archeologia 16: 72- 291 88. Ghedini F., I. Colpo and M. Novello (eds.) 2004, Le immagini di Filostrato minore: La prospettiva dello storico dell’arte. Antenor, Quaderni 3. Rome: Quasar. Giacobello I. 2005, “Lararium (mondo romano),” Thesaurus Cultus et Ritum Antiquorum 4. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 263-64. ———. 2008, Larari pompeiani. Iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestico. Milan: LED. Gilliver C. M. 1993a, “The Roman Art of War: Theory and Practice. A Study of the Roman Military Writers” (PhD Dissertation, University of London). Gli ornati delle pareti ed i pavimenti delle stanze dell'antica Pompei incisi in rame. 1838. Naples: Stamperia Reale. Gilliver C. M. 1993b, “The de munitionibus castrorum: Text and Translation,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 4: 33-48. Gobbo B. 2009, “Casa VI, 13, 13,” in M. Verzár-Bass and F. Oriolo (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 335-76. Goldbeck F. 2010, Salutationes: die Morgenbegrüssungen in Rom in der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Golde B. and J. Donahue (eds.) 2005, Roman dining. A special issue of American Journal of Philology. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Grahame M. 1997, “Public and Private in the Roman House: Investigating the Social Order of the Casa del Fauno,” in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic 292 Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 137-64. Granino-Cerere M. G. 1988-1989, “Nemi. L’erma di C. Norbanus Sorex,” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia 61: 131-51. Gregori G. L. and M. Mattei (eds.) 1999, Roma (CIL VI) 1. Musei Capitolini. Supplementa Italica-Imagines. Rome: Quasar. Grillone A 1977, Hygini qui dicitur de metatione castrorum liber. Leipzig: Teubner. ———. 2006, “Lessico ed espressioni della gromatica militare in ps. Igino,” Collection de Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Antiquité 993: 125-36. Gros P. 2006, L'architecture romaine: du début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut- Empire. 2, Maisons, palais, villas et tombeaux. Paris: Picard. Guidobaldi F. and F. Olevano 1998, “Sectilia Pavimenta dell’Area Vesuviana,” Studi miscellanei: Seminario di archeologia e storia dell’arte greca e romana dell'Università di Roma 31: 223-40. Guidobaldi M.P. and D. Esposito 2012, Ercolano. Colori da una città sepolta. Verona: Arsenale. Guidobaldi F., M. Grandi, M. S. Pisapia, R. Balzanetti, A. Bigliati 2014, Mosaici Antichi in Italia. Regione I. Ercolano. Vols. I-II. Pisa: F. Serra. Gurney H. and M. Tighe 1914, The works of Apuleius, comprising the Metamorphoses, or Golden Ass, the God of Socrates, the Florida, and his Defence, or A Discourse on Magic. A New Translation. London: G. Bell and Sons. Habinek T. 2000, “Seneca’s Renown: ‘Gloria, Claritudo,’ and the Replication of the Roman Elite,” Classical Antiquity 19.2: 264-303. 293 ———. 2005, Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication. Hales S. 2003, The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall E. 2008, “Introduction: Pantomime, a Lost Chord of Ancient Culture,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-40. ———. 2013, “Pantomime: Visualizing Myth in the Roman Empire,” in G. Harrison and V. Liaps (eds.), Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre. Leiden: Brill, 451-73. Hall E. and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hallett C. 2005, The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC–AD 300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hartnett J. 2008, “Si quis hic sederit: Streetside Benches and Urban Society in Pompeii,” American Journal of Archaeology 112.1: 91-119. ———. 2017, The Roman Street. Urban Life and Society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helbig W. 1868, Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten städte Campaniens. Leipzig, Breitkopf und Härtel. Hellegouarc'h J. 1963, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République. Paris: Les Belles lettres. Hilder J. 2015, “Inner space: the integration of domestic space at Volubilis in the 3rd c. A.D.,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102, 161-76. 294 Hilton J. 2006, “Apuleius, Florida 23 and Popular Moral Philosophy,” Acta Classica 49: 137-44. Hinterhöller M. 2008, “Die Wandmalereien des Dritten Stils in der Casa dell’Erma di Bronzo in Herculaneum und ein Landschaftsfresko im Nationalmuseum von Neapel,” Römische Mitteilungen 50: 69-160. Hodske J. 2007, Mythologische Bildthemen in den Häusern Pompejis: Die Bedeutung der zentralen Mythenbilder für die Bewohner Pompejis. Ruhpolding: Verlag Franz Philipp Rutzen. Homo L. 1926, Primitive Italy and the Beginnings of Roman Imperialism. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner: New York, Knopf. Hori Y. 1992, “Thresholds in Pompeii,” Opuscula Pompeiana 2: 73-91. Hunt Y. 2008, “Roman Pantomime Libretti and their Greek Themes: The Role of Augustus in the Romanization of the Greek Classics,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 169-84. Huskinson J. 2002-2003, “Theatre, Performance and Theatricality in Some Mosaic Pavements from Antioch,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46: 131-65. ———. 2008, “Pantomime Performance and Figured Scenes on Roman Sarcophagi,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 87-109. Inserra N. 2008, “Le Regiones I-II-III,” in A. Carrella, L. A. D’Acunto, N. Inserra, and C. Serpe (eds.), Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 26. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 15-62. 295 Ivanoff S. 1859, “Varie specie di soglie in Pompei ed indagine sul vero sito della fauce,” Annali dell'Istituto di corrispondenza archeologica 31: 82-108. Jashemski W. F. 1979, The Gardens of Pompeii: Herculaneum and the Villas destroyed by Vesuvius. Vols. 1-2. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Caratzas. Johansson L. 2011, “The Pompeian lararium as symbol of commemoration: a study of Roman domestic cult and its role as a link to the past,” in H. W. Hofsten (ed.), In memoriam: commemoration, communal memory and gender values in the ancient Graeco-Roman world. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Pub, 144-56. Jolivet V. 2011, Tristes Portiques: Sur le plan canonique de la maison étrusque et romaine des origines au principat d’August. Rome: École Française de Rome. Jones C. 1999, “Dinner Theater,” in W. Slater (ed). Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 185-98. Jones R. and D. Robinson 2004, “The Making of an Elite House. The House of the Vestals in Pompeii,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 107-30. ———. 2005a, “The structural development of the House of the Vestals (VI.i.6-8, 24- 26)” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei ed Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 257-69. ———. 2005b, “Water, Wealth, and Social Status at Pompeii: The House of the Vestals in the First-Century,” American Journal of Archaeology 109.4: 695-710. Jory J. 1984, “The Early Pantomime Riots,” in A. Moffatt (ed.), Maistor: Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning. Camberra: Brill, 57-66. 296 ———. 1996, “The Drama of the Dance: Prolegomena to an Iconography of Imperial Pantomime,” in W. Slater (ed.), Roman Theater and Society. E. Togo Salmon. Papers, I. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1-27. ———. 2001, “Some case of mistaken identity? Pantomime masks and their context,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 45: 1-20. ———. 2002, “The masks of the propylon of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” in P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 238-53. ———. 2004, “Pylades, Pantomime, and the Preservation of Tragedy,” Mediterranean Archaeology 17: 147-56. ———. 2008, “The Pantomime Dancer and his Libretto,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 158-68. Jung F. 1984, “Gebaute Bilder,” Antike Kunst 27.1: 71-122. Karivieri A. 2005, “Insula V 1. Casa di Caecilius Iucundus (V 1, 23-26),” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei e Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 150-55. Karivieri A. and R. Forsell 2008, “New results from the campaigns of 2003-2006 in the Casa di Caecilius Iucundus (V 1, 22-27), in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 103-8. 297 Kastenmeier P. 2007, Luoghi del lavoro domestico nella casa pompeiana. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 23. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Kaufmann-Heinimann A. 2007, “Statuettes de laraire et religion domestiques à Pompéi” Contributi di Archeologia Vesuviana III. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 21. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 151-57. Kierdorf W. 1980, Laudatio Funebris. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der römischen Leichenrede. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain. Kiessling A. 1872, Annaei Senecae. Oratorvm et Rhetorvm: Sententiae Divisiones Colores. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubneri. King K. C. 1987, Achilles. Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kleiner D.E.E. 1981, “Second-Century Mythological Portraiture: Mars and Venus,” Latomus 40.3: 512-44. Kocken M. 1992-1993, “I due atri nella casa di M. Obellius Firmus a Pompei. Alcuni appunti sulla storia edilizia,” Meded 51-52: 30-41. Koloski-Ostrow A. O. 2007, “The city baths of Pompeii and Herculaneum,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 224-56. Kondoleon C. 1994, Domestic and Divine. Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Kousser R. 2007, “Mythological Group Portraits in Antonine Rome: The Performance of Myth,” American Journal of Archaeolgy 111.4: 673-91. 298 ———. 2008, Hellenistic and Roman Ideal Sculpture: The Allure of the Classical. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Knox P. E. 2014, “Ovidian Myth on Pompeian Walls,” in J. F. Miller and C. E. Newlands (eds)., The Handbook of the Reception of Ovid. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 36-54. Krostenko B.A. 2001, Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Kruschwitz P. 2010, “Romanes eunt domus! Linguistic Aspects of the Sub-Literary Latin in Pompeian Wall Inscriptions,” in T.V. Evans and D.D. Obbink (eds.), The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press,156-70. Krzyszowska A. 2002, Les cultes privés à Pompéi. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. La Rocca A. 2005, Il Filosofo e la Città: Commento Storico ai Florida di Apuleio. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. La Rocca A., S. Ensoli, S. Tortorella, and M. Papini 2009, Roma. La Pittura di un Impero. Exhibition Catalog. Milan: Skira. La Rocca E. and C. Parisi Presicce (eds.) 2011, Ritratti. Le tante facce del potere. Rome: MondoMostre. Lada-Richards I. 2004, “Μύθων εἰκών. Pantomime Dancing and the Figurative Arts in Imperial and Late Antiquity,” Arion 12.2: 17-46. ———. 2007, Silent Eloquence: Lucian and Pantomime Dancing. London: Duckworth. ———. 2016, “Danding Trees: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Imprint of Pantomime Dancing,” American Journal of Philology 137.1: 131-69. 299 Laidlaw A. 1985, The First-Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Laidlaw A. and M. S. Stella 2008, “Nuove Indagini nella Casa di Sallustio (VI 2, 4),” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 147-57. ———. 2014, The House of Sallust in Pompeii (VI 2, 4). Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 98. Langner M. 2001, Antike Graffitizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Lapatin K. 2015, Luxus. The Sumptuous Art of Greece and Rome. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. Laurence R. 1994, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London and New York: Routledge. Laurence R. and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.) 1997, Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22. Lauritsen M. T. 2011, “Doors in domestic space at Pompeii: a preliminary study,” in D. Mladenović and B. Russell (eds.), TRAC 2010: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Newcastle: Oxbow Books, 59-75. ———. 2013, “The Form and Function of Boundaries in the Campanian house,” in A. Anguissola (ed.), Privata luxuria: Towards an Archaeology of Intimacy: Pompeii and Beyond. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 95-114. 300 ———. 2015, “Ter Limen Tetigi: Exploring the Role of Thresholds in the Houses of Pompeii and Beyond,” in A. Di Castro and C. A. Hope (eds.), Housing and Habitat in the Ancient Mediterranean: Cultural and Environment Responses. Leuven Paris Bristol: Peeters, 299-312. Lazer E. 2009, Resurrecting Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge. Leach E. W. 1988, The rhetoric of space: literary and artistic representations of landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 1997, “Oecus on Ibycus: investigating the vocabulary of the Roman house,” in S. E. Bon and J. Rick (eds.), Sequence and space in Pompeii, Oxford: Oxbow, 50-72. ———. 2000, “Narrative Space and the Viewer in Philostratus’ Eikones,” Römische Mitteilungen 107: 237-51. ———. 2004, The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee B. T. 2005, Apuleius’ Florida: A Commentary. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Lehnmann-Hartleben K. 1941, “The Imagines of Elder Philostratus,” Art Bulletin 23: 16- 44. Lendon J. E. 1997, Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lenoir M. 1979, Pseudo-Hygin. Des Fortifications du Camp. Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres.” Levi A. 1926, Le terracotta figurate del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Florence: Vallecchi Editore. Libertini G. 1926, Centuripe. Catania: F. Guaitolini. 301 Ling R. 1991, Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1997, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 1. The Structures. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1998, Ancient Mosaics. London: British Museum Press. ———. 2006, “Painting, Stucco, Mosaic,” in E. Bispham, T. Harrison, and B. Sparkes (eds.), The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 194-205. Ling R. and L. Ling 2005, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 2. The Decorations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lipizer S. and P. Loccardi 2009, “Casa di Marcus Terentius Eudoxsus o del Forno di Ferro (VI, 13, 6),” in M. Verzár-Bass and F. Oriolo (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 103-52. Lippiello M. 2011, “Pozzolanic cementum of the ancient constructions in ‘Campi Flegrei’ area,” International Journal of Architectural Heritage 5: 84-100. Lippiello M., C. Ceraldi, C. D’Ambra, and G.P. Lignola 2016, “Mechanical characterization of ancient pozzolanic mortars with additions of brick and tuff dust: a comparative investigation,” in K. Van Balen and E. Verstrynge (eds.), Structural analysis of historical constructions: anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 558-64. Loccardi P. 2009, “Casa del Gruppo dei Vasi di Vetro (VI, 13, 2)” in M. Verzár-Bass and F. Oriolo (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 31-86. 302 Lohmann P. 2018, Graffiti als Interaktionsform. Geritzte Inschriften in den Wohnhäusern Pompejis. Berlin: De Gruyter. Longfellow B. and E. Perry (eds.) 2018, Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Lorenz K. 2008, Bilder machen Räume: Mythenbilder in pompeianischen Häusern. Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter. ———. 2014, “The Casa del Menandro in Pompeii: Rhetoric and the Topology of Roman Wall Painting,” in J. Elsner and M. Meyer (eds.), Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183-210. Maclaren S. 2002, “Lusso, spreco, magnificenza,” Agalma: Rivista di Studi Culturali e di Estetica 2: 43-62. Maiuri A. 1933, La Casa del Menandro e il suo Tesoro di Argenteria. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. ———. 1940, “Picturae Ligneis Formis Inclusae,” RendAccIt 7.1: 138-60. ———. 1942, L’ultima fase edilizia di Pompei. Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani. ———. 1946, “Tabulae Ceratae Herculanenses: testi e documenti,” La Parola del Passato. Rivista di studi antichi 1: 373-79. ———. 1951, La casa pompeiana. Naples: Arte Tipografica. ———. 1958, Ercolano: i nuovi scavi 1927-1958. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Manuwald G. 2011, Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maratini C. 2017, “Casa di Ercole, VI 7, 6,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 69-90. 303 Maratini C. and M. Betello 2017, “Casa dell’Atrio tetrastilo, VI 7, 3,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 194- 208. Maratini C. and M. Magoni 2017, “Casa dell’Argenteria VI 7, 20-22,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 237- 76. Marquardt P. J. 1892, Manuel des antiquités romaines. La Vie Privée des Romains. Vols. 1-2. Paris: E. Thorin. Marvin M. 2008, The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue Between Greek and Roman Sculpture. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. Mastrolorenzo G. and P. P. Petrone 2000, “Gli studi scientifici sull’eruzione e i suoi effetti,” in M. Pagano (ed.), Gli Antichi Ercolanesi: Antropologia, Società, Economia. Naples: Electa, 51-9. Mattusch C. C. 2005, The Villa dei Papiri: life and afterlife of a sculpture collection. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Mau A. 1882, Geschichte der dekorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji. Berlin: Reimer. ———. 1899, Pompeii: Its Life and Art (1st ed.), transl. by Francis W. Kelsey. New York: Macmilian. Mazzoleni D. and U. Pappalardo 2004, Domus. Wall Painting in the Roman House. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. 304 McKay A. G. 1975, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World. John Hopkins University. McKeown J.C. 1979, “Augustan Elegy and Mime,” in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, New Series 25 (205): 71-84 Meyboom P.G.P. 2005, “The Creation of an Imperial Tradition. Ideological Aspects of The House of Augustus,” in K.A.E. Enenkel and I.L. Pfeijffer (eds.), The Manipulative Mode. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 219-74. Meyer M. 2014, “Coda: The Rhetoric of Roman Painting within the History of Culture: A Global Interpretation,” in J. Elsner and M. Meyer (eds.), Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 418-45. Michel D. 1990, Casa dei Cei (I 6, 15). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 3. Munich: Hirmer. Mileti M. C. 2000, “La casa I, 11, 6-7 a Pompei. Un esempio di edilizia privata minore,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 11: 101-16. Miller M.C.J. and DeVoto J.G. 1994, Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus: The Fortification of the Roman Camp. Chicago: Ares Publishers. Milnor, K. 2005. Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014, Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mols S.T.A.M. 1999, Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum. Form, Technique, and Function. Amsterdam: Gieben. 305 Monteix N. 2009, “Inventio Herculanensis: per una rilettura dei giornali di scavo di Ercolano,” in A. Coralini (ed.), Vesuviana. Archeologie a confronto. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bologna 14-16 gennaio 2008. Bologna: Ante Quem, 181-98. Moormann E. M. 2001, “Carandini’s royal houses at the foot of the Palatine. Fact or fictions?” BAbesh 76: 209-12. ———. 2015, Pompeii’ s Ashes. The Reception of the Cities Buried by Vesuvius in Literature, Music, Drama. Boston/Berlin/Munich: De Gruyter. Mouritsen H. 1988, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2014, “‘Pagane Lebensmodelle?’ Gods, pietas, and the Roman maiores,” in H.-G. Nesselrath and M. Rühl (eds.), Der Mensch zwischen Weltflucht und Weltverantwortung. Lebensmodelle der paganen und der jüdisch-christlichen Antike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 47-62. Mouritsen H. and I. Gradel 1991, “Nero in Pompeian Politics Edicta Munerum and Imperial Flaminates in Late Pompeii,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 87: 145-55. Muccigrosso J. 2007, “Religion and politics: did the Romans scruple about the placement of their temples?” in C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey (eds.), Religion in Roman Republican Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181-206. Muscettola A. 1984, “Osservazioni sulla composizione dei larari con statuette in bronzo di Pompei ed Ercolano,” Toreutik und figürliche Bronzen römischer Zeit. Berlin: Antikenmuseum, 9-32. 306 ———. 1996, “I culti domestici,” in M. Borriello (ed.), Pompei. Abitare sotto il Vesuvio. Exhibition catalogue. Ferrara: Ferrara Arte, 175-79. Müller H. J. 1887, L. Annaei Senecae Oratorum et Rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores. Vindobonae: F. Tempsky. Muth S. 1998, Erleben von Raum – Leben im Raum. Zur Funktion mythologischer. Mosaikbilder in der Römisch-kaiserzeitlichen Wohnarchitektur. Heidelberg: Archäologie und Geschichte. Nappo S. 1997, “The urban transformation at Pompeii in the late third and early second centuries BC,” in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 91-120. ———. 2001, “La decorazione parietale dell’hospitium dei Sulpici in località Murecine a Pompei,” Mélanges de l'école française de Rome 113.2: 839-95. Natali B. 2014, “Pietas: Gods, Family, Homeland, Empire” (PhD Dissertation, University of Calgari, Alberta). Neuerburg N. 1965, L’Architettura delle Fontane e dei Ninfei nell’Italia Antica. Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore. Nevett L. 1997, “Perceptions of Domestic Space in Roman Italy,” in B. Rawson and P. Weaver (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy. Status, Sentiment, Space. Canberra: Humanities Research Centre; Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 281-98. ———. 1999, House and Society in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 307 ———. 2010, Domestic Space in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newby Z. 2015, “Roman Art and Spectacle,” in B. E. Borg (ed.), A Companion to Roman Art. Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 552-68. ———. 2016, Greek Myths in Roman Art and Culture: Imagery, Values and Identity in Italy, 50 BC–AD 250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nielsen I. 1988, “The Temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum Romanum. A preliminary report of the Scandinavian excavations (1983-1987),” Acta Archaeologica 59: 1-14. Nissen H. 1877, Pompeianische Studien zur Städtekunde des Alterthums. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann. Nissin (formerly Nissinen) L. 2009, “Cubicula diurna, nocturna: revisiting Roman cubicula and sleeping arrangements,” Arctos 43: 85-107. ———. 2015, “Sleeping areas in the houses of Herculaneum,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102, 101-18. Noreña C. F. 2016, Imperial ideals in the Roman West: representation, circulation, power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Odile M. and C. Laforge 2007, “‘Imagines maiorum’ et portraits d'ancêtres à Pompéi,” in L. Barbanei, M. Odile, and C. Laforge (eds.), Contributi di Archeologia Vesuviana III. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 21. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 158-71. 308 Orr D. G. 1972, “Roman Domestic Religion: A Study of the Roman Household Deities and Their Shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum” (PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland). ———. 1978, “Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of the Household Shrines,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.16/2: 1557-91. ———. 1980, “Roman Domestic Religion: The Archaeology of Roman Popular Art,” in R. B. Browne (ed.), Rituals and Ceremonies in Popular Culture. Ohio: Bowling Green, 88-104. Ortalli J. and C. R. Montebelli 2003, Rimini. Lo scavo archeologico di palazzo Massani. Rimini: Archeologica. Osanna M., M. T. Caracciolo, and L. Gallo (eds.) 2015, Pompei e L’Europa 1748-1943. Milan: Electa. Osborn J. 1992, “Textiles and Their Painted Imitations in Early Medieval Rome,” Papers of the British School at Rome 60: 309-51. Overbeck J. and A. Mau 1884, Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken (4th ed.). Leipizig: Engelmann. Pagano M. 1983, “L’edificio dell'agro Murecine a Pompei,” Rendiconti dell’Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti di Napoli 58: 325-61. ———. 1997, I Diari di scavo di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia di Francesco e Pietro La Vega (1764-1810). Raccolta e studio di documenti inediti. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2000, “Storia degli scavi,” in M. Pagano (ed.), Gli Antichi Ercolanesi: Antropologia, Società, Economia. Naples: Electa, 24-8. 309 ———. 2003, Gli Scavi di Ercolano. Naples: Marius. ———. 2005, I primi anni degli scavi di Ercolano, Pompei e Stabia. Raccolta e studio di documenti e disegni inediti. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Pagano M. and R. Prisciandaro 2006, Studio sulle provenienze degli oggetti rinvenuti negli scavi borbonici del regno di Napoli: Naples: Nicola Longobardi. Panayotakis C. 2005, “Comedy, Atellane Farce and Mime,” in S. Harrison (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub., 130-47. ———. 2008, “Virgil on the Popular Stage,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185-97. Pappalardo U. 2008, The Splendor of Roman Wall Paintings. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Pappalardo U. and R. Ciardiello 2010, Greek and Roman Mosaics. New York: Abbeville Press. Parslow C. 1995, Rediscovering Antiquity: Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabiae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2001, “The open-air excavations at Pompeii in the Eighteenth century: new methods, new problems,” in P. G. Guzzo (ed.), Pompei, Scienza e Società. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Naples, 25-27 November). Milan: Electa, 19-27. ———. 2007, “Entertainment at Pompeii,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 213-23. Patroni G. 1936, “Tablino e cella triplice nell’architettura etrusca,” Atti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti 12: 808-18. 310 Pedroni L. 2008, “Pompei, Regio VII, Insula 2, pars occidentalis: le indagini dell'Institut für Archäologien dell'Universität,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 237-48. Pérez Ruiz M. 2008, “El culto ne la casa Romana,” Anales de prehistoria y arqueología 23-24: 199-230. Pernice E. 1938, Die ellenistiche Kunst in Pompeji. VI: Pavimente und figürliche Mosaiken. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Pesando F. 1996, “Autocelebrazione aristocratica e propaganda politica in ambiente privato: la casa del Fauno a Pompei,” Cahiers du Centre Gustav-Glotz 7: 189–228. ———. 1997, Domus. Edilizia privata e società pompeiana fra III e I secolo a.C. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2008, “Case di età medio-sannitica nella Regio VI: tipologia edilizia e apparati decorative,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi, Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 159-72. Pesando F. and M.P. Guidobaldi 2006a, Gli Ozi di Ercole. Residenze di Lusso a Pompei ed Ercolano. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2006b, Pompei, Oplontis, Ercolano, Stabiae. Guide Archeologiche Laterza 14. Rome: Editori Laterza. 311 Pesando F., D. Cannavina, F. Freda, A. Grassi, R. Tilotta, and E. Tommasino 2006, “La casa dell’Ancora (VI 10, 7),” in F. Coarelli and F. Pensando (eds.) Rileggere Pompei. I. L’Insula 10 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 163-241. Peris Bulighin G. 2006, “Il complesso d’Orfeo a Pompei (Domus VI, 14, 18-20 e VI,14, 12). Quadro architettonico e cronologico,” in F. Marcatilli et al. (eds.) Contributi di Archeologia Vesuviana I. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 17. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 79-146. Perry E. 2005, The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters W. J. T. and E. M. Moormann 1993, La casa di Marcus Lucretius Fronto a Pompei e le sue pitture. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. Petersen L. H. 2006, The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2008, Review of Larari pompeiani. Iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestic, by Federica Giacobello. Bryn Mawr Classical Review, April 15, 2009. Pirson F. 1999, Mietwohnungen in Pompeji und Herkulaneum. Munich: Pfeil. Platt V. 2014, “Agamemnon’s Grief: on the Limits of Expression in Roman Rhetoric and Painting,” in J. Elsner and M. Meyer (eds.), Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 211-31. Pollini J. 2010, “Lovemaking and Voyeurism in Roman Art and Culture: The House of the Centenary at Pompeii,” in Römische Mitteilungen 116: 289-319. 312 ———. 2012, From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Posner E. 2010, “The Constitution of Roman Republic: A Political Economy Perspective,” John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper 540. Powers J. D. 2006, “Patrons, houses and viewers in Pompeii: Reconsidering the House of the Gilded Cupids” (PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor). PPM: G. P. Carratelli (ed.) 1990-2003, Pompei: pitture e mosaici, Vols. 1-12. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Rainer L., K. Graves 2017 S. Maekawa, M. Gittins, F. Piqué 2017, Conservation of the Architectural Surfaces of the Tablinum in the House of the Bicentenary, Herculaneum. Phase I: Examination, Investigations, and Condition Assessment. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Ramage E. S. 2006, “Funeral Eulogy and Propaganda in the Roman Republic,” Athenaeum 94: 39-64. Richardson L. 1988, Pompeii. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. ———. 1955, Pompeii: The Casa dei Dioscuri and its painters. Rome: G. Bardi. Ridgway B. S. 1984, Roman Copies of Greek Sculptures: The Problem of the Originals. Jerome lectures, series 15. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Riggsby M. A. 1997, “‘Public’ and ‘private’ in Roman culture: the case of the cubiculum,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 36-56. Rives J. 1992, “The Iuno Feminae in Roman Society” Échos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 36.11: 33-49. 313 Roby C. 2016, Technical ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature: The Written Machine between Alexandria and Rome. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Rodriguez A. and M. Del Carmen 2005, “Documenti per lo studio di Ercolano, Pompei e Stabia nel secolo 18. sotto il patrocinio di Carlo III,” Rivista Storica del Sannio, III.12/24: 225-59. Roller M. 2006, Dining Posture in the Ancient Rome. Bodies, Values, and Status. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Romizzi L. 2006a, Programmi decorativi di III e IV stile a Pompei. Un’analisi sociologica ed iconologica. Naples: Loffredo Ed. ———. 2006b, “La Casa dei Dioscuri di Pompei (VI.9.6-7). Una nuova lettura,” Contributi di Archeologia Vesuviana II. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 18. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 77-160. ———. 2007, “Il programma decorativo della Casa di Apollo (VI 7,23) a Pompei,” in S. Fortunelli (ed.), Sertum Perusinum gemmae oblatum. Naples: Loffredo, 365-91. Rotolo V. 1957, Il pantomimo: studi e testi. Palermo: Presso l’Accademia. Rossi I. 2006, “La Casa dei Cinque Scheletri (VI 10, 2) e la Caupona (VI 10, 1),” in F. Coarelli and F. Pensando (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. I. L’Insula 10 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 29-74. Rowland I. D. and T. H. Noble 1999, Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 314 Russell A. 2015, “Domestic and civic basilicas: between public and private space,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102, 49-61. ———. 2016, The Politics of Public Space in Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sabbatini Tumolesi P. 1970, “Pyrricharii,” La Parola del Passato 134: 328–38. Scagliarini D. C. 1974-1976, “Spazio e decorazione nella pittura pompeiana,” Palladio 23-5: 3-44. Saller R. P. 1982, Personal patronage under the early empire. Cambridge, London, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1984, “Familia, domus, and the Roman conception of the family,” Phoenix 38: 336-55. ———. 1988, “Pietas, obligation and authority in the Roman family,” in K. Christ, P. Kneissl, and V. Losemann (eds.), Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für Karl Christ. Darmastadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 393-410. ———. 1989, “Patronage and friendship in early imperial Rome: drawing the distinction,” in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society. London and New York: Routledge, 49-62. ———. 1996, Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1999, “Pater familias, mater familias, and the gendered semantics of the Roman household,” Classical Philology 94.2: 182-97. 315 ———. 2001, “The Family and The Society,” in J. Bodel (ed.), Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions. London: Routledge, 95-117. Scatozza Höricht L. A. 1987, “Giuseppe Fiorelli,” in M. Gigante (ed.), La cultura classica a Napoli nell’Ottocento. Naples: Università di Napoli, 865-80. Schefold K. 1957, Die Wände Pompejis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schrenk S. 2004, Textilien des Mittelmeerraumes aus spätantiker bis frühislamischer Zeit. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung. ———. (ed.) 2006, Textile in Situ: Their Find Spots in Egypt and Neighbouring Countries in the First Millennium CE. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung. Schiffer M. B. 1985, “Is There a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology?” Journal of Anthropological Research 41.1: 18-41. Schoonhoven A. V. 1999, “Residences for the Rich? Some observations on the Alleged Residential and Elitist Character of Regio VI of Pompeii,” Bulletin antieke beschaving: Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology 74: 219-46. Sear F. 2006, Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seiler F. 1992, Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7.38). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 5. Munich: Hirmer. Serpe C. 2008, “Le Regiones VII-VIII,” in A. Carrella, L. A. D’Acunto, N. Inserra, and C. Serpe (eds.), Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 26. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 109-54. Sewell J. 2010. The Formation of Roman Urbanism, 338–200 B.C.: Between Contemporary Foreign Influence and Roman Tradition. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of 316 Roman Archaeology Suppl. 79. Sigurdsson H. 2013, “The environmental and geomorgraphical context of the Volcano,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 43-62. Slater W. 1993, “Three problems in the history of drama,” Phoenix 47: 189-212. ———. 1994, “Pantomime Riots,” Classical Antiquity 13.1: 120-44. ———. 1995, “The Pantomime Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 36: 263-92. ———. 2010, “Sorting out pantomime (and mime) from top to bottom,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 23: 533-41. Simelius S. 2015, “Activities in Pompeii’s private peristyles: the place of the peristyle in the public/private dichotomy,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102, 119-31. Smith W. 1842, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquity. London: John Murray. Sogliano A. 1879, Le pitture murali scoverte negli anni 1867-79. Naples: F. Giannini. ———. 1898, “L’Origine del ‘Tablinum’ secondo Varrone,” Atti della Reale Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti. Naples: Società Reale di Napoli, 1-7. Speksnijder S. A. 2015, “Beyond ‘public’ and ‘private’: accessibility and visibility during salutationes,” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: JRA, 87-99. Spinazzola V. 1953, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi in Via dell’Abbondanza, Anni 1920–1923. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. 317 Spinelli A. and A. Scorziello (forthcoming), “The History of Excavations and Studies in I.1 and VIII.7: Finds, Decoration, and Fixtures,” in S. J. R. Ellis, A. Emmerson, and K. Dicus (eds.), Excavations at Pompeii (I.1, VIII.7, and the Porta Stabia). Vol. 1: Structure, Stratigraphy, and Space. Squire M. 2018, “A Picture of Ecphrasis: The Younger Philostratus and the Homeric Shield of Achilles,” in A. Kampakoglou and A. Novokhatko (eds.), Gaze, Vision and Visuality in Ancient Greek Literature. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Press, 357-417. Starks J. H. 2008, “Pantomime Actresses in Latin Inscriptions,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110-45. Staub Gierow M. 1994, Casa del Granduca un Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII 4, 57). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 7. Munich: Hirmer. ———. 2008, “Some results from the last years’ field work in the Casa degli Epigrammi Greci (V 1,18.11-12),” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 93-102. Staub T. 2008, “Initiating the study of Casa del Torello di Bronzo (V 1, 7). Some observations concerning the water use and dristribution,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell'area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006): atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 109-16. 318 Steinbüchel A. 1833, Großer antiquarischer Atlas oder Abbildung der vorzüglichsten Denkmähler der alten Welt: zu einer wissenschaftlichen Begründung der Alterthumskunde; nach den Vorträgen im k.k. Münz- und Antiken-Cabinett. Vienna: Trentsensky. Stemmer K. 1992, Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI 16, 15-17). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 6. Munich: Hirmer. Stephenson J. W. 2006, “A Social History of Late Roman Villas in the Iberian Peninsula” (PhD Dissertation, Emory University). ———. 2014, “Veiling the Late Roman House,” Textile History 45: 3-31. Strocka V. M. 1984a, Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI 15, 7.8). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 1. Tübingen: Wasmuth. ———. 1984b, “Ein missverstandener Terminus des vierten Stils: die Casa del Sacello Iliaco in Pompeji (I 6,4),” Römische Mitteilungen 91: 125-40. ———. 1991, Casa del Labirinto (VI 11, 8-10). Series. Häuser in Pompeji 4. Munich: Hirmer. ———. 1995, “Die Chronologie des Vierten Stils, von keinem Erdbeben erschüttert,” in T. Fröhlich and L. Jacobelli (eds.), Archäologie und Seismologie: La Regione Vesuvi- ana dal 62 al 79 D.C.: Problemi Archeologici e Sismologici. Munich: Biering und Brinkmann, 175-82. ———. 1997, “Mars and Venus in Bildprogrammen pompejanisher Häuser,” in D. C. Scagliarini (ed.), I temi figurative della pittura parietale antica. Atti del VI Convegno Parietale sulla Pittura Parietale Antica (Bologna 20-23 settembre, 1995). Imola: University Press Bologna, 129-34. 319 ———. 2007, “Domestic Decoration. Painting and the ‘Fourth Styles’,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 302-22. Swetnam-Burland M. 2015, “Encountering Ovid’s Phaedra in House V.2.10-11, Pompeii,” American Journal of Archaeology 119.2: 217-32. ———. 2017, “Marriage Divine? Narratives of the Courtship of Mars and Venus in Roman Painting and Poetry,” in B. Longfellow and E. Perry (eds.), Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption: Familiar Works Reconsidered. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 166-90. Thébert Y. 1987, “Private life and domestic architecture in Roman Africa,” in P. Veyne (ed.), A history of private life. From pagan Rome to Byzantium. Vol. I. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 313-409. Thiermann E. 2005, “Ethnic Identitiy in Archaic Pompeii,” SOMA 2003 Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, BAR. Oxford: Oxford Archaeopress, 157-60. Thirkell White R. 2014, “Luxury at Rome: avaritia, aemulatio and the mos maiorum,” History 6: 117-43. Thomas E. 2014, “On the Sublime in architecture,” in J. Elsner and M. Meyer (ed.), Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 37-88. Thompson M. L. 1960-1961, “The Monumental and Literary Evidence for Programmatic Painting in Antiquity,” Marsyas 9:36-77. Torelli M. 1991, “La ‘Sedia Corsini’ monumento della genealogia etrusca dei Plautii,” Mélanges Pierre Lévêque. Vol. 5: Anthropologie et société, 355-76. ———. 1998, “Il culto imperiale a Pompei,” in S. Adamo Muscettola (ed.), I culti della Campania antica. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi in ricordo di N. Valenza Mele 320 (Napoli 15-17 Maggio 1995). Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 245-70 ———. 2007, “L’età regia e repubblicana,” in P. Gros and M. Torelli (eds.), Storia dell’urbanistica. Il mondo romano. Bari: Laterza, 4-200. Traina A. 1984, “Pietas,” Enciclopedia Virgiliana 4: 93-101. ———. 1994, Poeti latini (e neolatini) IV. Note e saggi filosofici. Bologna: Pàtron. Tran Tam Tinh V. 1972, Le Culte des Divinités Orientales en Campanie en Dehors de Pompéi, de Stabies et D’Herculanum. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1979, “La vita religiosa,” in F. Zevi (ed.), Pompei 79: Raccolta di studi per il decimonono centenario dell'eruzione vesuviana. Naples: Macchiaroli. Trapido J. 1966, “The Atellan Plays,” Educational Theatre Journal 18.4: 381-390. Treggiari S. 1991, Roman Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1994, “Putting the bride to bed,” Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 38.13: 311-31. ———. 1998, “Home and Forum: Cicero between ‘Public’ and ‘Private,’” in Transactions of the American Philological Association 128: 1-23. ———. 1999, “The upper-class house as symbol and focus of emotion in Cicero,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 33-56. ———. 2001, Roman Social History. London and New York: Routledge. Trimble J. 2002, “Greek, Myth, Gender, and Social Structure in a Roman House. Two Paintings of Achilles at Pompeii,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Suppl. Vol. 1: 225-48. Tuori K. and L. Nissen (eds.) 2015, Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102. 321 Turcan R. 2001, The Gods of Ancient Rome: religion in everyday life from archaic to imperial times. New York: Routledge. Turchi M. 2017a, “Casa di Inaco e Io VI 7, 19,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 209-36. ———. 2017b, “La documentazione epigrafica,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 390-400. Tybout R. A. 1989, Aedificiorum figurae: Untersuchungen zu den Architekturdarstellungen des frühen zweiten Stils. Amsterdam: Gieben. Ursin N. R. 1881, De castris Hygini qvi fertur qvaestiones. Helsingfors: Ex Officina Frenckelliana. Valladares H. 2006, “Image Amoris: the poetics of desire in Roman painting” (PhD Dissertation, Columbia University). ———. 2011, “Fallax Imago: Ovid’s Narcissus and the seduction of mimesis in Roman wall painting,” Word & Image 27.4: 378-95. ———. 2012, “Elegy, Art and the Viewer,” in B. K. Gold (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell: 318–38. Van Binnebeke M. C. 1993, “Decoration and Function – Herculaneum,” in E. M. Moormann (ed.), Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Ancient Wall Painting, Amsterdam 8-12 September 1992. Leiden: Stichting BABESCH. 322 Van Binnebeke M. C. and R. de Kind 1996, “The ‘Casa dell’Atrio Corinzio’ and the ‘Casa del Sacello di Legno’ at Herculaneum,” Cronache Ercolanesi 26: 173-228. Varone A. and G. Stefani (eds.) 2009, Titulorum Pictorum Pompeianorum qui in CIL vol. IV collecti sunt: imagines. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 29. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Varone A. (ed.) 2012, Titulorum graphio exaratorum qui in C.I.L. vol. IV collecti sunt: imagines. Vols. I-II. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 31. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Varriale I. 2012, “Architecture and Decoration in the House of the Menander in Pompeii,” in D. Balch and A Weissenrieder (eds.), Contested Space. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 163- 84. Verboven K. 2011, “Friendship among the Romans,” in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman Worlds. New York: Oxford University Press, 404-21. Versluys M. J. 2002, Aegyptiaca Romana: nilotic scenes and the Roman views of Egypt. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Verzár-Bass M. and F. Oriolo (eds.) 2009, Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Vollmer F. 1892, “Laudationum funebrium Romanorum historia et reliquiarum editio,” in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. 18: 445-528. Wagenvoort H. 1980, Pietas: Selected Studies in Roman Religion. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 323 Wallace-Hadrill A. 1988, “The Social Structure of the Roman House,” Papers of the British School at Rome 56: 43-97. ———. 1990, “The Social Spread of Roman Luxury: Sampling Pompeii and Herculaneum,” Papers of the British School at Rome 58: 145-92. ———. 1994, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton. ———. 1996, “Engendering the Roman House,” in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson (eds), I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 104-15. ———. 1997, “Rethinking the Roman atrium house,” in R. Laurence and A. Wallace- Hadrill (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22, 219-40. ———. 2004, “Imaginary Feasts: Pictures of Success on the Bay of Naples,” in A. Gallina Zevi and J. H. Humphrey (eds.), Ostia, Cicero, Gamala, Feasts and Economy: Papers in Memory of John H. D’Arms. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 57, 109-23. ———. 2005, “Excavation and standing structures in Pompeii Insula I.9,” in P. G. Guzzo and M. P. Guidobaldi (eds.), Nuove ricerche archeologiche a Pompei e Ercolano. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 10. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 101-8. ———. 2007, “The development of the Campanian house,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 279-91. Wallace-Hadrill A. 2008, Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2011a, Herculaneum: Past and Future. London: Frances Lincoln. 324 ———. 2011b, “Pompeian identities: between Oscan, Samnite, Greek, Roman, and Punic,” in E. S. Gruen (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 415-27. ———. 2014, “The sense in the marketplace: the luxury market and easter trade in Imperial Rome,” in J. Toner (ed.), A Cultural History of Senses in Antiquity. London: Bloomsbury, 69-89. ———. 2015, “What makes a Roman house a ‘Roman house’?” in K. Tuori and L. Nissen (eds.), Public and Private in The Roman House and Society. Pourtsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 102, 177-86. Wallace-Hadrill A. and J. Berry 1998, “Regio I, insula 9. Il progetto britannico,” in J. Berry (ed.), Sotto i lapilli. Studi nella Regio I di Pompei. Milan: Electa, 49-68. Webster G. 1985, The Roman imperial army of the first and second century A.D (3rd ed.). Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble Books. Webb R. 2008, Demons and Dancers: Performance in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 2009, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham, England/Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ———. 2011, “The Nature and Representations of Competition in Pantomime and Mime,” in K. Coleman and J. Nelis-Clément (eds.), L’organisation des spectacles dans le monde romain. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 58. Vandœuvres; Genève: Fondation Hardt, 173-220 Weeber K.W. 2003, Luxus im alten Rom: Die Schwelgerei, das süsse Gift. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag. 325 Welch K. E. 2007, “Pompeian men and women in portrait sculpture,” in J. J. Dobbins and P. F. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii. London and New York: Routledge, 550-84. Wild J. P. 1979, “Roman Textile from Vindolanda, Hexham, England,” Textile Museum Journal 18: 19-24. Winterbottom M. 1974, The Elder Seneca, Declamations, I. Controversiae, 1-6, II. Controversiae, 7-10; Suasoriae. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Wiseman T. P. 1982, “Pete nobiles amicos: Poets and Patrons in Late Republican Rome,” in B. K. Gold (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 28-49. ———. 1987, “Conspicui Postes Tectaque Digna Deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in the Late Republic and Early Empire,” in L’Urbs: espace urbain et historie (Ier siècle av. J.-C. – III siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes du Colloque International (Rome, 1985). Rome: École française de Rome, 398-413. ———. 2008a, Unwritten Rome. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. ———. 2008b, “‘Mime’ and ‘Pantomime’: Some Problematic Texts,” in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146-53. Wissowa G. 1909, “Pietas,” in W. H. Rosher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 3/2: 2499-05. ———. 1912, Religion und kultus der Römer. Munich: C. H. Beck. Wüst E. 1949, “Pantomimus,” Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 18.3: 833-69. 326 Zaccaria Ruggiu A. 1995a, Spazio pubblico e spazio privato nella città romana. Rome: École française de Rome. ———. 1995b, “Origine del triclinio nella casa romana,” in G. Cavalieri Manasse and E. Roffia (eds.), Splendida civitas nostra: studi archeologici in onore di Antonio Frova. Rome: Quasar, 137-54. ———. 2001, “Abbinamento triclinium-cubiculum: un’ipotesi interpretativa,” in M. Verzár-Bass (ed.), Abitare nella Cisalpina: l’edilizia privata nella città e nel territorio in età romana. Trieste: Editreg, 59-101. Zampetti M. 2006, “La casa VI 10, 3-4 e la bottega VI 10, 5,” in F. Coarelli and F. Pensando (eds.) Rileggere Pompei. I. L’Insula 10 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 77-118. Zanella S. 2017, “Casa di Apollo VI 7, 23,” in A. Zaccaria Ruggiu A. and C. Maratini (eds.), Rileggere Pompei IV. L’Insula 7 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 35. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 276-308. Zanier K. 2009, “Casa di Sextus Pompeius Axiochus (VI, 13, 19),” in M. Verzár-Bass and F. Oriolo (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 227-301. Zanker P. 1998, Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Engl. transl. of Pompeji: Stadtbild und Wohngeschmack. Mainz am Rhein, 1995). ———. 1974, Klassizistische Statuen: Studien zur Veränderung des Kunstgeschmacks in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: P. von Zabern. 327 Zanobi A 2008, “The Influence of Pantomime on Seneca’s Tragedies,” in Hall E. and R. Wyles (eds.) 2008, New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 227-57. ———. 2014, Seneca’s Tragedies and the Aesthetics of Pantomime. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Zarmakoupi M. (ed.) 2010, The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 2014, Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples. Villas and Lanscapes (c. 100 BCE–79 CE). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zevi F. 1981, “La storia degli scavi e della documentazione,” in Pompei 1748-1980. I Tempi della Documentazione. Rome: Multigrafica, 11-21. Zimmermann B. 1990, “Seneca und der Pantomimus,” in G. Vogt-Spira (ed.), Strukturen der Mündlichkeit in der römischen Literatur. Tübingen, 161-67. Zuccagni-Orlandini A. 1845, Atlante Illustrativo ossia raccolta dei principali monumenti italiani antichi, del medioevo e moderni e di alcune vedute pittoriche. Regno delle due Sicilie. Florence. Zulini E. 2009, “Casa VI, 13, 10-11,” in M. Verzár-Bass and F. Oriolo (eds.), Rileggere Pompei. II. L’Insula 13 della Regio VI. Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 177-203. 328 Appendix A: 172 Tablina in 160 Atrium Houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum (Architecture and Decoration) This appendix gathers information on the decorative and architectural treatment of 172 tablina in 160 atrium-style houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 CE. Abbreviations and explanations of terms: w. = width l. = length h. = height d. = diameter Measures refer to the internal dimension * = house in which access was not granted Note: --I describe the architectural evidence as it appears at the time of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 CE. --By “restriction” I mean either the redoing of jambs to restrict the opening or the addition of wall-extensions on either side of the new opening onto the atrium (see Chapter 2). --By “front” I mean on the atrium side; “back” refers to the back side of the house. --By “left” and “right” I mean from the perspective of the viewer standing in the atrium looking toward the tablinum or standing in the tablinum itself. --By “back side” I mean which room/space stood behind the tablinum. --By “lateral sides” I mean which room/space flanked the tablinum. --The term “peristyle garden” refers to an open green area with at least one colonnade on one side; otherwise I employ the term viridarium. 541 --Included here is the main bibliography. Further information (esp. on the various archival material) can be found in PPM. --By “lacking” I mean any evidence no longer extant but known from excavation reports. --In regard to the types of closure: “unknown, no record or evidence” refers to the fact that there are no cuts for a door or partition in the threshold or jambs, nor any recorded evidence for curtain items. POMPEII 1) Domus Volusii Fausti (1.2.10): tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Only traces of red socle (with plant motif) and ceiling were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted to the right side with wall extension in opus incertum against original jamb in Calcare del Sarno; left jamb in Calcare del Sarno partly restored in brick quoining. Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum. 541 See supra, n. 15. 329 BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (g) and stairs to the upper floor: tablinum closed onto them. The tablinum originally had a narrow door leading to cubiculum (g), later walled up. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (e) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: walled up (hospitality room behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 3.38 x w. 5.61 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1873. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1874, 196-98; Fiorelli 1875, 41-2; Schefold 1957, 9; PPP I, 2-3; PPM I, 18-25; Romizzi 2006a, 305. 2) *Casa di Diomede (I.2.17): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. Right wall: central mythological painting with “Endymion and Selene” (no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM I, 40-41, fig. 6). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in brick quoining against original jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (f): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (r) leading from atrium to triclinium (p). Right: cubiculum (d) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknow, no record. EXCAVATIONS: 1873. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1873, 238-39; BdI 1874, 264; Fiorelli 1875, 43-4; Schefold 1957, 10; PPP I, 4; PPM I, 37-44; Romizzi 2006a, 306; Hodske 2007, 212, no. 7, pl. 110,3.4; Inserra 2008, 22-8; Calabrò 2012. 3) Casa della Grata Metallica (I.2.28): tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Four vignettes with hunting erotes stood in the main zone, two on each wall (no longer extant but described in Sogliano 1879, 62, nos. 357-60). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Pernice (1938, 105) there was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, both jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, both jambs in opus vittatum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (h): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (c), functioning as corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: cubiculum (e) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.20 x w. 4.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1873. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1874, 249-52; Fiorelli 1875, 48-9; Sogliano 1879, 62, nos. 357-60; Schefold 1957, 11; Richardson 1988, 114-15; PPP I, 4-5; PPM I, 58-63; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 93; Romizzi 2006a, 306. 330 4) Casa di Epidius Fortunatus (I.3.3): tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Black socle, white main zone with four vignettes with hunting erotes (no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM I, 66-7, fig. 7). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement with central element in opus sectile composed of slabs of polychrome marbles, measuring 1.37 x 1.13 m. There is a marble threshold between atrium and tablinum. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, both jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were painted as fluted pilasters (scanty remains). Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum (originally there was a “picture window” later walled up). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (x): tablinum closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (h) opened only onto atrium. Right: corridor (q) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: walled up (peristyle garden behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 3.40 x w. 3.83 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1869-73. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1873, 236-38; Fiorelli 1875, 50-1; Schefold 1957, 11; PPP I, 5-6; PPM I, 64-70; Romizzi 2006a, 307-8. 5) *Casa della Rissa nell’Anfiteatro (I.3.23): tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted on the left side in the first century CE, wall extension in Calcare del Sarno against jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, both jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. The right/west wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (k). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (n): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (l) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (k) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only opened onto peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1869-73. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Matz BdI 1869, 240-42; Fiorelli 1875, 55-6; Mau 1882, 64; Schefold 1957, 12; PPP I, 6; PPM I, 77-81; Romizzi 2006a, 308. 6) House I.4.2: tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. Only traces of red painting in the socle were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, both jambs almost entirely lacking. The south/right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (c). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (f): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (a) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (c) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only opened onto atrium. 331 TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.56 x w. 3.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1853, 1869. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 60-1; Maiuri 1942, 145; PPP I, 8-9. 7) Casa del Citarista (I.4.5,25): tablinum (14) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. Only traces of black painting in the socle and of red painting in the main zone were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Pernice (1938, 68) there was an opus signinum pavement decorated with colored stones. There is a marble threshold between atrium and tablinum and another one between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: “picture window,” both jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: completely open, left jamb in opus vittatum and Calcare del Sarno, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.55 m from the atrium’s level. The left/north wall of tablinum has a door connecting to corridor (15) while the right/south wall has a door onto cubiculum (36). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (17): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (15) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: stairs (16) to the upper floor and cubiculum (36) with a door connecting to the tablinum (but with different color code applied to the walls) and only opened onto peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: window and curtains (an ornamental bronze boss was found nailed to the left anta). 542 Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.05 x w. 3.95 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1853-61; 1868; 1872. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 61-5; Pernice 1938, 68; Schefold 1957, 14-17; Dwyer 1982, 79-108; PPP I, 9-14; PPM I, 117-77; Pesando 1997, 27-34; 2006, 93-7; Romizzi 2006a, 310; Nappo 2007. 8) House I.4.9: tablinum (h) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, both jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining and Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (n): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (i) leading from atrium to triclinium (m). Right: small room (g) and kitchen (o). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. 543 DIMENSIONS: l. 4.77 x w. 3.54 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1855, 1861. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 66; Mau 1882, 413; PPP I, 10; PPM I, 178-80. 542 See, supra n. 166 (with bibliography). 543 For further explanation on these pendant blocks with no cuts for cardines, see Chapter 2 (“‘Solid’ Boundaries: Partitions and Doors”) as well as supra Figs. 2.11-2.18. 332 9) Casa del Criptoportico (I.6.2): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated (like all the rooms in the atrium quarter). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to NSc (1913, 476-77) there was an opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: window, jambs in opus vittatum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (12): tablinum has a window toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: cubiculum (7) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.18 x w. 3.87 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1911-13. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 17-22; Richardson 1988, 167-68; PPP I, 15-26; PPM I, 193-277; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 98-101. 10) Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4): tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like fauces and atrium). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white and black tesserae. In the threshold between atrium and tablinum, the tesserae form a rhomboid net pattern. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window” cut in the opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (m): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (g) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: “sacellum” (e). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: partition. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.77 x w. 3.79 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1911-13. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1942, 147-50; Pernice 1938, 61-2; Schefold 1957, 22-4; Strocka 1984b; PPP I, 26-32; PPM I, 280-329; Pesando 1997; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 98-103. 11) House I.6.8-9: tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. Black socle, white main zone. Without figurative paintings. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, wall extensions in opus incertum. Back: “picture window” cut in the opus incertum wall. The right/ wall of tablinum has a door connecting to corridor. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (i): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor leading from atrium to the peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.85 x w. 4.65 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1912-27. 333 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri NSc 1929, 391-400; Pernice 1938, 40; PPM I, 352-53; Allison 2004. 12) Casa dei Quadretti Teatrali o di Casca Longus (I.6.11): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (16): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (11) opened only onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (7) leading from atrium to the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.47 x w. 2.87 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1912-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri NSc 1929, 404-27; Schefold 1957, 25-6; PPP I, 36-9; PPM I, 361-96; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 105; Romizzi 2006a, 314. 13) *Casa di Stallius Eros (I.6.13): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae forming a geometric pattern (PPM I, 404, fig. 6). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum and Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (13): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: cubiculum (5) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1927. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1942, 160; Schefold 1957, 26; PPP I, 39; PPM I, 400-6; Allison 2004. 14) *Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15): tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with a central element in opus sectile enclosed by a floral motif in white and black tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted with a door and a window. Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised from the atrium’s level. According to Allison (2004): “A rectangle cut out of the pavement (0.42 x 0.90 m) in the center of the west wall was conceivably for a piece of furniture.” BACK SIDE: Viridarium (h): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor (k) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door and window. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1913-14. 334 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 26-28; Richardson 1988, 227-28; Michel 1990, 34-6; PPP I, 39-45; PPM I, 407-82; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 105-7. 15) Casa di Paquius Proculus (I.7.1): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Earliest phase of Third Style (“candelabrum style”) in the left/east wall (black socle and white main zone) with restorations in Fourth Style in the right/west wall (red socle and main zone). No figurative paintings were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders. There is a central element composed of a marble disk enclosed by a mosaic with small scenes of wildlife (PPM I, 507, figs. 39-40). There is a colored mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing geometric patterns and another one between tablinum and oecus/exedra (8) showing a floral. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE on the left side with wall extension in brick quoining against jamb in Calcare del Sarno; the right jamb is in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. There is a large recess on the left/east wall of the tablinum (l. 2.96 x w. 1.31-0.96 m). BACK SIDE: Oecus/exedra (8) opened onto peristyle garden (9): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor (5) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with stairs to upper floor. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.26 x w. 4.16 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1911-12, 1923-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1942, 147; Schefold 1957, 28-9; PPP I, 45-53; PPM I, 483- 552; Pesando 1997; Ehrhardt 1998, 43-8; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 107-10; Romizzi 2006, 317. 16) Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10-12): tablinum (4) and tablinum (13) I.7.10: tablinum (4): turned into an exedra/triclinium. WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. White socle and main zone. North/right wall: central mythological painting with “Perseus and Andromeda” (no longer extant; for images, see PPM I, 635, figs. 25-6); lateral panels with medallions with male busts. South/left wall: vignettes with still life. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae (PPM I, 632, fig. 21). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE on the left side with wall extension in brick quoining, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Back: lateral narrow doorway. BACK SIDE: Triclinium (6): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: latrine (5). Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.73 x w. 6.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1925. 335 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri NSc 1927, 32-83; Schefold 1957, 31-5; PPP I, 60-70; PPM I, 619-727; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 112-14; Hodske 2007, 183, no. 36, pl. 67,6. I.7.11: tablinum (13) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in brick quoining, right one in Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (14), serving as domestic storeroom (signs of shelfs on the walls). Right: cubiculum (12). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.75 x w. 3.14 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1925. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri NSc 1927, 32-83; Schefold 1957, 31-35; PPP I, 60-70; PPM I, 619-727; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 112-14; Romizzi 2006a, 319-20. 17) Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19): tablinum (c) WALL DECORATION: Third Style but painted after the 62 CE. Black socle with garlands, yellow main zone with central mythological paintings: on the south/right wall: “Hylas and the Nymphs” (in situ; PPM I, 768, fig. 29); on the north/left wall: “Mars and Venus” (in situ; PPM I, 767, fig. 28). On the lateral panels there are vignettes with erotes or Psyche. Red upper zone with architectural elements. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno (the right one was partly restored in brick quoining). The posts of the tablinum are painted as fluted pilasters. Back: “picture window,” jambs in opus vittatum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (n): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (b). Right: corridor (d) leading from atrium to the peristyle garden (h). In the last period, the house was connected to the Casa dell’Efebo. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.86 x w. 2.78 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1925-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri NSc 1929, 354-79; Schefold 1957, 35-6; PPP I, 73-7; PPM I 750-89; Coralini 2001, 117, 151-52, P.011; Allison 2004; Romizzi 2006a, 321; Hodske 2007, 145-46, no. 43, pl. 6,2; 250, no. 42, pl. 164,3. 18) Casa del Pomarius Felix (I.8.2): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Socle with various animals, red main zone. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, both jambs in opus vittatum mixtum on top on earlier blocks in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway (jambs almost entirely lacking). The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (9) while the right wall has a door connecting to triclinium (8). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. 336 LATERAL SIDES: Left: two cubicula, one (6) only opened onto atrium, the other (9) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: triclinium (8) with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.33 x w. 3.74 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1912, 1936-37. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Della Corte NSc 1946, 93; Schefold 1957, 37; PPP I, 77; PPM I, 794- 96. 19) Casa della Statuetta Indiana (I.8.5): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Black socle with plant motif, main zone of alternating red and black fields with central mythological paintings removed (east/left wall) and no longer extant (west/right wall). On the lateral panels, vignettes with animals. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum with central element in opus sectile composed of polychrome marble slabs. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (6) while the right wall has a door connecting to triclinium (7). BACK SIDE: Viridarium (8): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: two cubicula: cubiculum (5) only opened onto atrium, cubiculum (6) only opened onto viridarium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: triclinium (7) opened onto atrium and viridarium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.95 x w. 3.70 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1912, 1938-39. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 37; PPP I, 77-8; PPM I, 797-801; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 114. 20) Casa dei Quattro Stili (I.8.17): tablinum (9) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Dark red socle, main zone of alternating yellow and red fields with central mythological or figurative paintings: east wall, “Daedalus and Icarus” (in situ; PPM I, 865-66, figs. 34-5); south (right) wall, “Judgment of Paris” (in situ; PPM I, 868-69, figs. 38-9); north (left) wall, uncertain theatrical scene (in situ; PPM I, 862-63, figs. 29-31). Yellow upper zone with architectural elements and with vignettes with masks and still life scenes. FLOOR DECORATION: Pavement decorated with slabs of travertine (PPM I, 861, fig. 28). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted with two windows (cut in the first century CE) and a door. Back: closed by a wall. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (10). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (10) with a door connecting to the tablinum and opened onto the atrium. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. 337 DIMENSIONS: l. 5.87 x w. 4.68 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1937-38, 1951. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP I, 82-89; PPM I, 847-913; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 115-17; Romizzi 2006a, 323; Hodske 2007, 208-9, no. 49, pl. 103,5; 279, no. 51, pl. 199,4. 21) Casa del Bell’Impluvio (I.9.1): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Badly preserved. Black socle with plant motif, light blue main zone with vignettes with masks, winged figures, imagines clipeatae (PPM I, 930, fig. 18), vessels, and architectural elements. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with central element in opus sectile (PPM I, 926, figs. 10-11). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus vittatum, right jamb in brick quoining. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (8). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (13): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: two triclinia: triclinium (9) only opened onto atrium, triclinium (8) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 8.25 x w. 4.41 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1913, 1951-52. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 38; PPP I, 89-91; PPM I, 919-41; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 117-18; Romizzi 2006a, 324; Berry 2007. 22) Casa dei Cubicoli Floreali o del Frutteto (I.9.5): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated (like atrium, ala (7), and triclinium (17)). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement decorated with white tesserae and with a central element showing an hourglass and square motif measuring 1.15 x 1.15 m. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (6) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: corridor (4) with doorway to the peristyle garden walled up and with steps to the upper floor. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.89 x 3.56 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1913, 1952. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 38; Richardson 1988, 225-27; PPP I, 94-102; PPM II, 1-137; Wallace-Hadrill and Berry 1998; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 118-19; Romizzi 2006a, 326. 338 23) Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Decoration only remains in the east (right) wall: black socle with plant motif, red main zone with two vignettes with duck between architectural elements. Upper zone with central peacock (PPM II, 154-63, figs. 4-14). FLOOR DECORATION: Beneath the actual floor, excavations uncovered a First Style mosaic in opus signinum decorated with white tesserae (Wallace-Hadrill 2005, 102). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs redone in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.30 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (8): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (7) opened only onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (6) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.79 x w. 4.64 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1952-54. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP I, 103-5; PPM II, 150-71; Berry 1997; Fulford and Wallace- Hadrill 1999; Wallace-Hadrill 2005; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 119; Calabrò 2012. 24) Casa di Cerere (I.9.13): tablinum (j) WALL DECORATION: Earliest phase of Third Style (“candelabrum” style). Black socle, main zone of alternating red and white fields with candelabra, white upper zone. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with central element composed of an eight-pointed star motif inside a circle and a square (PPM II, 217, Fig. 70). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: closed with “picture window” during the Republican period. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. Evidence for recesses to accommodate dining couches in the north and east walls of tablinum. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (k) which was only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: Portico (o) and peristyle garden (n): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: two cubicula: cubiculum (g) only opened onto atrium, cubiculum (k) with window toward peristyle garden and only accessible from tablinum through a door. Right: room (i) turned into a corridor leading to the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: window. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.95 x w. 3.64 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1951-52. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP I, 105-9; PPM II, 172-229; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 120. 25) Casa del Menandro (I.10.4): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. East (left) wall: black socle with plant and other ornamental motifs, yellow main zone with central mythological painting depicting the “Rape of Europa” (in situ, badly preserved). White upper zone. FLOOR DECORATION: White mortar with red, yellow, and black limestone chips. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs plastered in the form of fluted columns. Back: central doorway, jambs covered by plaster. Tablinum’s floor slightly raised of ca. 0.11 m from the atrium’s level. The west (right) wall has a large window opening onto a cupboard (10). 339 BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (c): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (9) leading from atrium to the peristyle garden. Right: large cupboard (10) opened onto the tablinum by means of a large window on the west wall. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: partition. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.53 x w. 4.37 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1926-32. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1933; Maiuri 1942, 150-52; Schefold 1957, 38-46; Richardson 1988, 159-61; PPP I, 111-33; PPM II, 240-397; Ling 1997; Ling and Ling 2005; Pesando 1997; Allison 2004; 2007; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 121-26; Romizzi 2006a, 327- 38; Hodske 2007, 201, no. 62, pl. 94,3; Inserra 2008, 49-52. 26) Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Found partly undecorated: The east wall was probably undecorated; the west wall had a black socle with red and yellow fields. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once painted as fluted pilasters (no longer extant but mentioned in Elia NSc 1934, 280). Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The right and left walls of the tablinum have a door connecting respectively to triclinium (8) and triclinium (9). BACK SIDE: Portico (10) and viridarium (12): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (9) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: triclinium (8) only opened onto viridarium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. The access to viridarium only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.35 x w. 2.74 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1932-33. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Elia NSc 1934, 278-308; Schefold 1957, 46-7; PPP I, 133-37; PPM II, 398-420; Ling 1997; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 127-28; Romizzi 2006a, 331. 27) Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Dark red socle, yellow main zone with central mythological painting on the south wall depicting “Dionysus, Silenus with tambourine, and young Satyr” (in situ; PPM II, 551, fig. 38 [which mistakenly interprets the Silenus as a Maenad]). On the west wall, a medallion with a female bust (Maenad) (PPM II, 552, figs. 39-40). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white and black tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno and opus vittatum mixtum, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum Back: door and window onto viridarium. The window is cut in the opus incertum wall, the door has the right jamb restored in opus vittatum mixtum. There is a stairway on the north-west wall of the tablinum. 340 BACK SIDE: Viridarium (8): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (10) only opened onto viridarium. Right: the house ends. The access to viridarium only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Cfr. Mileti (2000, 113, n. 23) who tells that the tablinum was once closed by means of a door onto the atrium. No evidence today. Back: door and window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.44 x w. 5.26 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1954. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP I, 150-55; PPM II, 526-69; Mileti 2001; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 128-29; Romizzi 2006a, 332; Inserra 2008, 52-3. 28) Casa di Sutoria Primigenia (I.13.2): tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, white main zone with vignettes with birds, white upper zone with garlands. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signignum decorated with white tesserae and with central geometric element showing a motif of rhombi and meanders (PPM II, 867, fig. 10). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: closed with “picture window” during the Republican period. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The tablinum is not set in axial disposition with (nor visible from) the entrance. Evidence for recesses to accommodate dining couches in the west (right) and east (left) walls of tablinum. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to corridor (10). BACK SIDE: Portico (13) and viridarium (14): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (10) leading from atrium to viridarium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: window. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.93 x w. 3.23 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1915, 1953-55. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Della Corte NSc 1916, 32; PPP I, 183-85; PPM II, 860-80. 29) House I.16.4: tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with a central geometric element showing a motif of meanders and squares (PPM II, 1017, fig. 29). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, both jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central window, cut in the opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: portico (9) and viridarium (11): tablinum has a window toward them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (5) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (7) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.81 x w. 4.42 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1955. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP I, 199-202; PPM II, 998-1023. 341 30) Villa di Giulia Felice (II.4.3): tablinum (92) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle with plant motif, red main zone vignettes depicting landscapes or a flying couple. Upper zone with vignettes with various still life scenes. Th north (left) wall is very badly preserved while the paintings found on the south wall (right) are displayed at the MANN, inv. no. 8598 (PPM III, 286-92, figs. 172-81). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement delimited by a black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in first century CE, both jambs redone in opus vittatum mixtum and brick quoining. Back: “picture window” and smaller window, jambs in opus vittatum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium: tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: biclinium (91). Right: cubiculum (97). Both rooms are only accessible from the atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.68 x w. 4.74 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1754-57, 1933-34, 1951-53. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 53-4; PPP I, 228-41; PPM III, 184-310; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 141-46. 31) Casa di Trebius Valens (III.2.1): tablinum (n) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Black socle with geometric motives, main zone of alternating red and black fields with central mythological painting showing “Drunk Silenus” (in situ, east/right wall; PPM III, 367, fig. 40), and “Dionysus with panther” (in situ, west/left wall; PPM III, 372, fig. 47). White upper zone white with still life scenes (masks and birds). The north wall has a frieze on the upper zone depicting dears and garlands (PPM III, 366-67, figs. 37-8). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right one in brick quoining. Back: “picture window,” right jamb in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (x): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (p) only opened onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (f) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.70 x w. 4.09 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1913-15. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 56-7; PPP I, 244-48; PPM III, 341-91; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 147-48. 32) Casa del Toro (V.1.7): tablinum (13) and tablinum (a) V.1.7 (representative atrium): tablinum (13) WALL DECORATION: Second Style (Phase IIA). Badly preserved. FLOOR DECORATION: Lavapesta pavement decorated with pieces of red and yellow limestones. The threshold between atrium and tablinum was decorated with six rows of white tesserae (lacking; PPM III, 503, fig. 46). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno. 342 BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (b): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (18) only opened onto the peristyle garden. Right: corridor (10) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no evidence or record. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.48 x w. 4.85 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1836-38, 1875-76. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1874, 146; Pernice 1938, 67; Schefold 1957, 61-2; Neuerburg 1965, 121-22; Laidlaw 1985, 102-4; Anderson 1990; PPP II, 1-10; PPM III, 481-532; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 151-53; Staub 2008. *V.1.3: tablinum (a) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: closed by a wall. This house once ended behind tablinum and today there are the utilitarian rooms (k) and (i). BACK SIDE: Originally, the house ended behind tablinum. Now, utilitarian rooms (k) and (i), which belongs to the house V.i.7. LATERAL SIDES: Left: apotheca (b). Right: small viridarium (d). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: walled up (service quarters behind tablinum). EXCAVATIONS: 1875-76. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP II, 1-10; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 151-53; Staub 2008. 33) Casa degli Epigrammi (V.1.18): tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Almost entirely lacking. Socle with plant motif, red main zone: north/left wall with central mythological painting depicting “Adonis and Venus” (in situ, no longer extant) and with lateral vignettes with hunting erotes. South/right wall with central mythological painting depicting three erotes raising a shield (lacking), possibly representing “Mars and Venus” (in situ, no longer extant) and with lateral vignettes with eros. Upper frieze with erotes holding a garland (MANN, inv. nos. 8525-26; PPM III, 546, nos. 12-13). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. The pavement was in lavapesta with a central element composed of slabs of colored marble. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in in brick quoining, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were treated as fluted pilasters. Back: central doorway, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (i): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (f). Right: corridor (h) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.72 x w. 4.09 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1748, 1875-76. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1877, 22-3; Sogliano 1879, 35, no. 142; 61, no. 352; 63-4, nos. 362, 365, 367; Pernice 1938, 65; Schefold 1957, 63-6; PPP II, 10-15; PPM III, 539- 343 73; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 153; Romizzi 2006a, 344; Hodske 2007, 144, no. 114, pl. 2,3.4; Staub Gierow 2008. 34) Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V.1.23,26): tablinum (i) and tablinum (e) V.1.26 (representative atrium): tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Badly preserved. Black socle, yellow main zone: north/left wall with central mythological painting showing “Iphigenia in Tauris” (MANN, inv. no. 111439) and with lateral vignettes with Satyr and Maenad (MANN, inv. no. 110590), Maenad and eros (MANN, inv. no. 110591). South/right wall with central mythological painting showing “Hecuba crying the body of Hector” (lacking), and with lateral vignettes with Satyr and Maenad (in situ). Yellow upper zone with architectural elements and vignettes with masks and still life scenes. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic with black borders and with central element showing a motif of dodecagons and rosettes. There is a black and white mosaic threshold between the atrium and the tablinum showing a geometric motif. (PPM III, 587, figs. 20- 1). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (l): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (e) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (u) only opened onto the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.32 x w. 5.45 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1875-76. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano 1879, 113-14, no. 579; 116-17, no. 583; Schefold 1957, 66- 8; Dexter 1974; PPP II, 15-29; PPM III, 574- 620; Karivieri 2005; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 153-55; Petersen 2006, 163-84; Karivieri and Forsell 2008; Hodske 2007, 237, no. 123, pl. 147,3, 270-71, no. 124, pl. 189,3. V.1.23: tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. Mau (BdI 1876, 232) only records a simple decoration in Third Style. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a lavapesta pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: possibly slightly restricted in the first century CE, left jamb redone in opus vittatum mixtum; right, wall extension in opus incertum against jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The south (right) wall has a door (jambs in opus vittatum) leading to house V.1.26 and another one connecting to cubiculum (f) which was only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (i) leading from atrium to garden courtyard (l). Right: cubiculum (f) only accessible from tablinum through a door connecting; corridor (d) leading from tablinum to atrium (b) in V.1.26. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.30 x w. 3.95 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1875-76. 344 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1876, 232; Dexter 1974; PPP II, 15-29; PPM III, 574- 620; Karivieri 2005; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 153-55; Petersen 2006, 163-84; Karivieri and Forsell 2008. 35) House V.2.g: tablinum (l) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. According to Mau (NSc 1896, 420-21), the main zone of the tablinum’s east and west walls were decorated with central vignettes with landscapes flanked by medallions. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: doorway cut in the opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: Portico (p) and viridarium (q): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (k) leading from atrium to portico and viridarium. Right: cubiculum (m) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.96 x w. 3.41 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1891, 1907. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau NSc 1896, 420-21; Schefold 1957, 75; PPP II, 31-3; PPM III, 641-49. 36) Casa del Cenacolo (V.2.h): tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Badly preserved. Black socle, red main zone: east wall with central medallion showing a portrait of a young man with crown and the word “HOMERVS” painted on a scroll (MANN, inv. no. 120620a; PPM III, 663, fig. 30), and with a lateral medallion with landscapes (in situ). West wall with central medallion showing a portrait of a young man with crown and the word “PLATO” painted on a scroll (MANN, inv. no. 120620b; PPM III, 663, fig. 33). White upper zone with architectural elements. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae to form a sort of central geometric motif (PPM III, 662, fig. 27). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted with door. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Room (h) and viridarium: tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (g) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (e) leading from atrium to room (h) and viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.31 x w. 4.12 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1891-93; 1907. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 75-6; Richardson 1988, 115; PPP II, 33-7; PPM, III, 650-75; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 155. 37) *Casa delle Nozze D’Argento (V.2.i): tablinum (o) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Mau (RM 8 1893, 39) only describes the predella with hippocampi and erotes. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with a black border. 345 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: central doorway. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (n). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (r): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (n) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only opened onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (p) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: probably curtains (see the discovery of a pair of bronze discs with protruding ship bows at the doorway between the atrium and tablinum, about 2 m. above the floor). 544 Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1891-1908. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1892, 274; NSc, 1896, 424; Mau RM 8 1893, 33, 39; 1902, 256, 301-8; Pernice 1938, 51; Maiuri 1942, 115-16; Schefold 1957, 76-80; Richardson 1988, 155-59; Archer 1994; PPP II, 37-54; PPM III, 676-772; Pesando 1997; Ehrhardt W. 2004; Ehrhardt 2005; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 155-59. 38) Casa del Triclinio (V.2.4): tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Red socle, main zone of alternating yellow and red fields. According to Mau (BdI 1855, 181) there was a central painting showing a “Sacred Landscape.” FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Pernice (1938, 109), there was a lavapesta pavement with marble slabs. There is a marble threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to deposit (e). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: deposit (e) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (h) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.95 x w. 4.73 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1883-85. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1855, 181; Pernice 1938, 109; Schefold 1957, 70-1; PPP II, 57- 61; PPM III, 797-823; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 159. 39) House V.2.7: tablinum (o) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae forming a geometric pattern (PPM III, 825). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in opus incertum. Back: “picture window,” cut in the opus incertum wall. The tablinum’s left/west wall has a recess for a couch. The right/east wall of tablinum has a door connecting to corridor (p). BACK SIDE: Room (r) and viridarium (t): tablinum has a “picture window” toward them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum/deposit (n). Right: corridor (p) leading from atrium to viridarium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.82 x w. 4.80 m. 544 Sogliano NSc 1892, 274; NSc, 1896, 424; Mau 1899, 296-302. 346 EXCAVATIONS: 1884. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau RM 9 1894, 40; PPP II, 61-2; PPM III, 824-29. 40) House V.2.10: tablinum (l) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. East wall with central mythological painting depicting “Hippolytus and Phaedra” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM III, 835, fig. 11). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (k). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (t): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (k) with door connecting to the tablinum and opened onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (m) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknow, no record or evidence. Back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.04 x w. 3.73 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1888-92. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 71-2; PPP II, 62-4; PPM III, 830-47; Romizzi 2006a, 352; Hodske 2007, 233, no. 146, pl. 141,5; Swetnam-Burland 2015. 41) Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V.4.a): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Black socle with enclosed garden (hortus conclusus), dark red predella with still life scenes, main zone of alternating black and red fields: south/right wall with central mythological painting showing the “Triumph of Dionysus and Ariadne in a joyous procession” (in situ; PPM III, 1012-13, figs. 84-6) and with lateral vignettes with landscapes. North/left wall with central mythological painting showing “Mars and Venus” (in situ; PPM III, 1017-18, fig. 94) and with lateral vignettes with landscapes. Black, red, and yellow upper zone with fantastic architecture. (For images, see Peters and Moormann 1993, pls. 5-7, 10-11). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. Marble threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs covered by painted plaster. Back: central doorway, cut in the opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: cubiculum (6) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.59 x w. 3.93 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1900. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 84-7; Richardson 1988, 228-29; PPP II, 81-92; PPM III, 966-1029; Dwyer 1982; Peters and Moormann 1993; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 159-62; Clarke 2007, 169-72; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 167, pl. 6,1; 164, no. 168, pl. 37,3. 347 42) House V.4.c: tablinum (G) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle with geometric elements, yellow main zone with central paintings showing Horai (“Seasons”): north wall: Spring and Summer; south wall: Fall and Winter. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum). BACK SIDE: Viridarium (K): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (J) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: cubiculum (H) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.28 x w. 3.03 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1902. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1905, 128-38; Schefold 1957, 88; PPP II, 92-5; PPM III, 1033-46. 43) Casa delle Vestali (VI.1.7): tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Pernice (1938, 110), there was a mosaic pavement of high quality. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, only right jamb in Calcare del Sarno remains. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (14): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (6) leading from atrium to various rooms in the back of the house. Right: cubiculum (4) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.06 m (very ruinous). EXCAVATIONS: 1770, 1785-87, 1811, 1828. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 249-52; Fiorelli 1875, 77-9; Schefold 1957, 91-2; Pernice 1938, 110; PPP II, 105-11; PPM IV, 5-49; Jones and Robinson 2004; 2005; 2005a; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 164-66; Romizzi 2006a, 361. 44) Casa del Chirurgo (VI.1.10): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. There was a Fourth Style decoration. Black socle, main zone with blue panels on either side of a central zone with paintings (lacking, not recorded. They possibly represented “scenes of Bacchic celebrations”: see, Anderson and Robinson 2018, 473-75 with further explanation). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border (PPM IV, 61 fig. 15; Anderson and Robinson 2018, 261, fig. 5.11.12). Excavations revealed an earlier opus signinum pavement beneath this mosaic floor (Anderson and Robinson 2018, 250). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. According to Anderson and 348 Robinson (2018, 256), the tablinum’s rear wall was removed at the end of the first century BCE). BACK SIDE: Portico (16) and viridarium (20): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (9) once connected to tablinum with a door, later walled up, and only accessible from atrium. Right: triclinium (10) only opened onto the atrium. The access to viridarium only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.40 x w. 4.60 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1770-71, 1926. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 252; Fiorelli 1875, 80; Mau 1899, 174-77; Schefold 1957, 92-3; PPP II, 111-16; PPM IV, 52-84; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 166-67; 2008; Anderson and Robinson 2018. 45) Casa di Sallustio (VI.2.4): tablinum (19) WALL DECORATION: First Style (like alae and atrium). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with small pieces of limestone. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The opening is flanked by two Corinthian pilasters. Back: “picture window.” Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.18 m. from the atrium’s level. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (22). BACK SIDE: Portico (21) and viridarium (24): tablinum has a “picture window” toward them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (22) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only opened onto viridarium. Right: corridor (20) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: partition. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.63 x w. 5.47 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1776-80; 1805-9. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 224-34; Fiorelli 1875, 83-5; Mau 1899, 177-81; Maiuri 1942, 98-9; Schefold 1957, 93-4; Richardson 1988, 108-11; Laidlaw 1985, 118-36; PPP II, 116-23; PPM IV, 87-147; Pesando 1997, 183-90; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 167- 71; Laidlaw and Stella 2008; 2014. 46) House VI.2.13: tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: First Style. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae forming a meander pattern on the sides. In the center of the pavement, the tesserae were arranged to form a central floral motif. (PPM IV, 163, figs. 1-2). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum against jamb in Calcare del Sarno (right) and in brick quoining (left). Back: closed by a wall. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to apotheca (7). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (5). Right: apotheca (7) with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. 349 DIMENSIONS: l. 3.53 x w. 3.61 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1811. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 87; Schefold 1957, 94; Laidlaw 1985, 137-42; PPP II, 125-26; PPM IV, 162-67. 47) Casa delle Amazzoni (VI.2.14): tablinum (13) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, black main zone with vignettes with erotes. White upper zone with a youth identified as Apollo (Helbig no. 1837). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with multicolored stones, mostly marbles. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted with insertion of a niche on the left wall, jamb in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum; right jamb in Calcare del Sarno with restorations in opus vittatum. Back: central doorway. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (10). BACK SIDE: Viridarium (9): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (12) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: oecus (10) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also accessible both from atrium and viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.40 x w. 2.45 m. EXCAVATIONS: c. 1810. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 254; Pernice 1938, 104; Schefold 1957, 94-5; PPP II, 126-30; PPM IV, 168-97; Romizzi 2006a, 364. 48) Casa di Narciso VI.2.16: tablinum (18) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. On the left/north wall, in the central panel of the red main zone there was a painting showing a man wearing a petasos (in situ, no longer extant; for image, see Mazois II, pl. 27 in PPM IV, 212, fig. 24). The upper zone was decorated with hortus conclusus, architectural elements and animals. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with central element (“rosetta”: PPM IV, 209-10, fig. 22a-b). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (21): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (19) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: apotheca (3). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.93 x w. 4.67 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1787-89, 1811, 1818. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 254; Fiorelli 1875, 87-8; Schefold 1957, 95; PPP II, 130-33; PPM IV, 198-220. 49) Casa delle Danzatrici (VI.2.22): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Badly preserved. Red socle, light blue main zone with a central mythological painting showing “Meleager and Atalanta with the spoils of 350 the Calydonian boar” (south/left wall; Magazzini di Pompei inv. no. 17712; PPM IV, 239, fig. 19). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Breton (1855, 256), there was a mosaic pavement (not mentioned in Pernice 1938, PPP, and PPM). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum, opus vittatum mixtum, and brick quoining. The tablinum is located off axis rather than being centrally located. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.30 m from the atrium’s level by means of two steps. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (8): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor (6) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.77 x w. 3.52 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1787-89, 1811, 1818. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 255-56; Fiorelli 1875, 89; Schefold 1957, 95-6; PPP II, 134-39; PPM IV, 230-62; Romizzi 2006a, 365; Hodske 2007, 224, no. 192, pl. 129,1.2. 50) *Casa o Accademia di Musica (VI.3.7): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Lacking. Black socle, yellow predella, red main zone with central paintings detached during the Bourbons’ excavations (they must have been of good qualities). White upper zone. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. There is a marble threshold between atrium and viridarium. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: very slightly restricted in the first century CE, both jambs redone in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (13): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (9) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: corridor (7) leading to triclinium (14). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1809-10. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 224; Fiorelli 1875, 92-3; Pernice 1938, 105; Schefold 1957, 96; PPP II, 141-43; PPM IV, 278-89. 51) Casa di Nettuno (VI.5.3): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, main zone of alternating purple and yellow fields with medallions on the side panels on the north/left and south/right walls: Venus and eros; Maenad and Satyr; Silenus and child; male bust; female bust (in situ, no longer extant; for drawings, see PPM IV, 316, figs. 28-9). In the main zone of the east/frontal wall was a central mythological painting showing “Apollo with tripod and snake” (in situ, no longer extant; Avellino BAN 2.1844, 89). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with small pieces of limestone. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: Service sector of the house. 351 LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (6). Right: corridor (4) leading from atrium to service sector of the house. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: wall (service quarters behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 4.25 x w. 4.61 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1843. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 255; Avellino BAN 2.1844, 89; Fiorelli 1875, 96-8; Pernice 1938, 104; Schefold 1957, 97; PPP II, 142-43; PPM IV, 295-321; Romizzi 2006a, 367. 52) House VI.5.4: tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum against jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (15): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (6) only opened onto peristyle garden. Right: cella penaria (4). This cella was originally a corridor later on walled up. The access to viridarium only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.69 x w. 4.97 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1837; 1843-44. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 98; PPP II, 143-44; PPM IV, 322-24. 53) Casa di Modesto (VI.5.13): tablinum (7): WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Badly preserved. There was a black socle, main zone of alternating fields in red and yellow with central mythological paintings: north wall: “Phryxus and Helle”; east/wall: “Adonis Wounded” (both in situ, no longer extant). Upper zone with architectural elements and representation of Hermes above the central mythological fresco with Adonis wounded (no longer extant: PAH I.3, 17). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Breton (1855, 257), there was a mosaic pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in opus incertum. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (6) Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.62 x w. 4.42 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1808, 1836. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 257; Fiorelli 1875, 100; Schefold 1957, 98; PPP II, 145; PPM IV, 342-44. 352 54) House VI.5.16: tablinum (9) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Badly preserved. Red socle, main zone, and upper zone. There were no central mythological paintings. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: two doorways, the larger one leading to viridarium (7), the other to cubiculum (10). Both viridarium and cubiculum were only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (7) and cubiculum (10): tablinum opened onto both. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cella penaria (11). Right: oecus (6) only opened onto atrium. The access to viridarium only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: partition (see cut in the right jamb). Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.49 x w. 4.48 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1808, 1829, 1835, 1881. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 100; PPP II, 145-46; PPM IV, 345-51. 55) Casa di Pansa (VI.6.1): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like atrium). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (9): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (7) only accessible from atrium. Right: corridor (6) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.67 x w. 4.99 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1811, 1813-15, 1827. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 202-18; Fiorelli 1875, 100-1; Maiuri 1942, 99-100; Schefold 1957, 98-9; Richardson 1988, 120-24; PPP II, 146-47; PPM IV, 357-61; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 174-76. 56) House VI.7.3: tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted on the right in the first century CE with wall extension in opus vittatum and opus vittatum mixtum against jamb in Calcare del Sarno; left jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window” (dated to the Julio- Claudian period: Maratini and Betello 2017, 207-8). On the north/left wall of the tablinum there is a niche (probably a cupboard). This wall also has a door connecting to cubiculum (12). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (12) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also accessible from atrium. Right: corridor (9) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.74 x w. 3.49 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1835. 353 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 106-8; Schefold 1957, 99; PPP II, 147-48; PPM IV, 365-71; Maratini and Betello 2017, 194-208. 57) Casa d’Ercole (VI.7.6): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Only traces of light blue painting in the main zone remain. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. The posts of the tablinum are painted as fluted pilasters. Back: “picture window” (dated to the first century CE). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (14): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: door giving access to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (7). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 1.66 x w. 2.65 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1835. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 257-58; Fiorelli 1875, 108-9; Schefold 1957, 99; PPP II, 148-49; PPM IV, 372-88; Maratini 2017. 58) House VI.7.16: tablinum (10) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. No record or evidence of paintings. Yellow socle with geometric elements, main zone of alternating red and black fields. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window,” (opus incertum wall between jambs in brick quoining; done in the first century CE). On the south/left wall of the tablinum there is a cupboard (15). BACK SIDE: Kitchen (12) and small viridarium (11): tablinum has a “picture window” toward them (dated to the first century CE) LATERAL SIDES: Left: cupboard (15) only accessible from tablinum and with small window onto atrium, measuring l. 2.34 x 1.16 m. Right: corridor (9) leading from atrium to small viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.95 x w. 2.93 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1835-36. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 110-11; Schefold 1957, 100; PPP II, 149-50; PPM IV, 395-98; Coda 2017. 59) Casa di Adone Ferito (VI.7.18): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with small pieces of limestone. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right one in brick quoining. Back: central doorway. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to room (9). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (14): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: room (9) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto peristyle garden. Right: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. 354 TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.48 x w. 3.89 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1835-36. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 270; Fiorelli 1875, 111-13; Schefold 1957, 100-1; PPP II, 150-53; PPM IV, 399-432; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 176; Frapiccini and Seccaroni 2017. 60) Casa di Inaco e Io (VI.7.19): tablinum (9) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Yellow socle, main zone of alternating red and yellow fields: on the south/left wall there was a central fresco showing a “Sacred Landscape” and wrongly described by 18th-century excavators as the myth of Inaco and Io (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border. There is a marble threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (8). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (12): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (10) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (8) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only opened onto the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.78 x w. 5.23 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1836. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PAH II, 320-31; PAH III, 102; Schultz AnnInst.1838, 85; Fiorelli 1875, 113; Schefold 1957, 101; Pernice 1938, 88; PPP II, 153-55; PPM IV, 433-48; Turchi 2017. 61) Casa dell’Argenteria (VI.7.20-22): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, yellow predella, main zone of alternating red and yellow fields and with central mythological painting showing “Narcissus and Echo” (north/right wall; MANN, inv.no. 9388) and “Endymion and Selene” (south/left wall; MANN, inv. no. 9241); on the lateral panels there were vignettes with a flying Nike or eros. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border (PPM IV, 454, fig. 9). There is a marble threshold between tablinum and atrium and another one between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.18 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (19): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (8) opened onto both atrium and peristyle garden. Right: corridor (6) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: According to Maratini and Magoni (2017, 247), the tablinum was closed by the means of a door onto the atrium. The marble threshold, however, does not show any cut for cardines. Back: door. 355 DIMENSIONS: l. 5.33 x w. 4.96 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1830, 1834-35. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 271; Fiorelli 1875, 113-14; Pernice 1938, 49; Schefold 1957, 101-2; Richardson 1988, 117-19; PPP II, 155-57; PPM IV, 449-69; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 176-78; Romizzi 2006a, 371; Hodske 2007, 170, no. 216, pl. 48,3; 210, no. 805, pl. 105,1. Maratini and Magoni 2017. 62) Casa di Apollo (VI.7.23): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, black predella with marine animals and landscape, yellow main zone with central mythological painting with “Toilette of Venus” (in situ, south/left wall) and “Adonis Wounded” (in situ, north/right wall); on the lateral panels, medallions with a female bust with eros (in situ; PPM IV, 483, 90, figs. 24- 34). White upper zone with architectural motifs. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum floor decorated with white tesserae (PPM IV, 482, 23). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (8) leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: cubiculum (6) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, possibly with partition (see cuts in the door jambs). Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.44 x w. 2.96 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1830-40. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 271-73; Fiorelli 1875, 115-17; Pernice 1938, 85; Schefold 1957, 102-3; Richardson 1988, 333-37; PPP II, 157-64; PPM IV, 470-524; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 178-79; Hodske 2007, 152, no. 218, pl. 17,2.3; 225, no. 219, pl. 130,2; 152, no. 218, pl. 17,2.3; Romizzi 2007; Zanella 2017. 63) Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI.8.3-5): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, yellow main zone with central mythological painting showing “Admetus and Alcestis” (east/right wall; MANN, inv. no. 9025, PPM IV, 546-47, fig. 36), white upper zone with architectural elements. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders. There was a central emblema in opus vermiculatum showing actors preparing to perform a satyr play and enclosed by a net of meanders (MANN, inv. no. 9986; PPM IV, 546, fig. 35). The emblema measures 0.40 x 0.40 m (1.51 x 1.51 m including the meander net). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.19 m from the atrium’s level. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (6C) only accessible from the tablinum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (6C) only accessible from tablinum through a door connecting. This cubiculum shares with the tablinum a similar color code of the walls. Right: corridor (9) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. 356 DIMENSIONS: l. 3.75 x w. 5.54 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1824-26. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PAH III,59; Breton 1855, 258-63; Fiorelli 1875, 118-20; Mau 1899, 307-14; Pernice 1938, 171-72; Maiuri 1942, 100-1; Schefold 1957, 103-6; Richardson 1988, 322-24; PPP II, 164-74; PPM IV, 527-603; Bergmann 1994; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 179-81; Romizzi 2006a, 373; Hodske 2007, 252, no. 228, pl. 168,1; Carrella 2008. 64) Casa della Fontana Grande (VI.8.22): tablinum (12) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Breton (1855, 327) and Fiorelli (1875, 125) record vignettes with hunting erotes (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement enclosed by a black border with meander motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (no longer extant; for drawing see, Zuccagni-Orlandini III, 1845, pl. XXII). Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (16), which is only accessible from the tablinum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (16) with a door connecting to the tablinum and only accessible from this room. Right: triclinium (11) opened onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.68 x w. 5.51 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1826. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PAH II, 174-77; III, 72-3; Breton 1855, 266-68; Fiorelli 1875, 125; Pernice 1938, 111; Maiuri NSc 1944-45, 130-35; Schefold 1957, 107; Neuerburg 1965, 123-24, fig. 121; Richardson 1988, 117-19; PPP II 175-76; PPM IV, 613-20; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 181-82. 65) Casa della Fontana Piccola (VI.8.23-24): tablinum (8) and tablinum (19) VI.8.23 (representative atrium): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Yellow socle, main zone with central painting missing and not recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black swastika-meander motif as border (PPM IV, 636, fig. 23). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, original jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.23 m from the atrium’s level by means of a marble step decorated with a head of Ammon between vegetative and floral elements. (PPM IV, 636, fig. 24). The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (11). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (16) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (11) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also accessible from peristyle garden. The triclinium and tablinum have different color code of their walls but share the same mosaic floor. 357 TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.69 x w. 4.70 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1826-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 268-69; Fiorelli 1875, 125-26; Pernice 1938, 111; Maiuri 1942, 102-3; Schefold 1957, 107-10; Neuerburg 1965, 124-25, fig. 118; PPP II, 176-83; PPM IV, 621-59; Fröhlich 1996; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 182-83; Romizzi 2006a, 376-77. VI.8.24: tablinum (19) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle with vegetative elements, light blue main zone with vignettes showing still life scenes (central panels) and medallions with Maenads or flying erotes (side panels). White upper zone with architectural elements and vignettes with landscapes. (PPM IV, 652-53, Figs. 53-4). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in first century CE on the right, jambs redone in opus vittatum mixtum. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: Kitchen (20) and service quarter. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (23) leading from atrium to service quarter. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: wall (service quarters behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 2.38 x w. 3.33 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1826-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 126-27; Pernice 1938, 111; Maiuri 1942, 102-3; Schefold 1957, 107-10; PPP II, 176-83; PPM IV, 621-59; Fröhlich 1996; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 182-83. 66) Casa di Meleagro (VI.9.2): tablinum: (8) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Yellow main zone with central mythological paintings showing “Argos and Io” (north/left wall; MANN, inv. no. 9556; PPM IV, 681), “Mars and Venus” (south/right wall; MANN, inv. no. 9256; PPM IV, 682, fig. 51). Upper zone decorated with frieze in stucco with a painting showing Drunk Dionysus or Hercules and another showing Drunk Silenus with two Satyrs, as well as vignettes with Hylas and Nymph, Actaeon and Diana, Hermes, Nymph and Pegasus (MANN, inv. nos. 9596, 9625; PPM IV, 684-85, figs. 54-5). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae (PPM IV, 680-81, figs. 46-8). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are painted as fluted pilasters. Back: closed by a wall. On the north/left wall of the tablinum there is a niche (cupboard), measuring w. 0.85 x h. 1.86 x d. 0.61 m. BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (31) and service quarter: the tablinum is closed onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (32) leading from atrium to service quarter and peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (15). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: wall (hospitality and service quarter behind tablinum). 358 DIMENSIONS: l. 3.43 x w. 4.67 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1829-30. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PAH II, 213; Breton 1855, 273-76; Fiorelli 1875, 129-33; Mau 1882, 74-5; Schefold 1957, 110-14; Richardson 1988, 318-22; PPP II, 183-202; PPM IV, 660- 818; Coralini 2001, 117, 186-88, P.061, P.062; Leach 2004, 196-200; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 183-84; Romizzi 2006a, 377; Hodske 2007, 226, no. 248, pl. 131; 144, no. 250, pl. 4,2. 67) Casa del Centauro (VI.9.3-5): tablinum (6) and tablinum (26) VI.9.5 (representative atrium): tablinum (26) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Badly preserved. Black socle with vegetative elements, yellow predella, main zone of alternating yellow and red fields and with central mythological paintings showing “Meleager and Atalanta” (north/left wall; MANN, inv. no. 8980; PPM IV, 851-52, fig. 66) and “Hercules, Deianira, and Nessus” (south/right wall; MANN, inv. no. 9001; PPM IV, 857, fig. 68). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a black mosaic pavement decorated with colored marble slabs and with central emblema consisting of square marble tiles (PPM IV, 851, fig. 64). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right jamb in brick quoining. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (no longer extant; for image, see American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection nos. 1769-1770). Back: central doorway. The east/frontal walls of the tablinum have two niches painted in light blue and each measuring 0.50 x 0.34 m. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (27). The right wall has a door connecting to corridor (28). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (30): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (27) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto viridarium. Right: corridor (28) leading from atrium to peristyle garden (30) and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.18 x w. 4.96 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1829-30. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bonucci BdI 1829, 67; Breton 1855, 276-78; Fiorelli 1875, 133-35; Mau 1882, 75-8; Pernice 1938, 45; Schefold 1957, 114-15; PPP II, 202-7; PPM IV, 819- 59; Leach 2004, 200-1; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 184-86; 2008; Romizzi 2006a, 381-82; Hodske 2007, 224, no. 279, pl. 128,3.4; 175, no. 280, pl. 57,3.4. VI.9.3: tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB) but in the process to be redecorated (Mau 1882, 420). Lacking. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Pernice (1938, 45) there was a lavapesta pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (9): tablinum opened onto it. 359 LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (7) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden (9). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.98 x w. ca.4.93 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1829-30. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bonucci BdI 1829, 67 Fiorelli 1875, 133-35; Mau 1882, 75-8; Pernice 1938, 45; Schefold 1957, 114-15; PPP II, 202-7; PPM IV, 819-59; Leach 2004, 200-1; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 184-86; Pesando 2008. 68) Casa dei Dioscuri (VI.9.6-7): tablinum (42) and tablinum (61) VI.9.6 (representative atrium): tablinum (42) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Dark red socle, yellow predella with vignettes showing fights between centaurs and lions (side panels) and chariot races of erotes (central panels), main zone of alternating red and light blue fields and with central mythological paintings: north/left wall, “Wrath of Achilles” (MANN, inv. no. 9104; PPM IV,903, fig. 82 ); south/right wall, “Achilles on Skyros” (MANN, inv. no. 9110; PPM IV, 908, fig. 88). On the side panels of the main zone: small floating groups showing a Satyr and a Maenad (a few left in situ, others at the MANN, inv. nos. 9134, 9135; PPM IV, 906, fig. 86, 910, fig. 90) separated from the central panels by architectural elements with a Muse represented on each one. Upper frieze with vignettes showing Nilotic or pastoral landscapes (MANN, inv. no. 9106; PPM IV, 907, fig. 87, 911, fig. 91). Light blue upper zone with flying Nike in the central panel. FLOOR DECORATION: Almost entirely lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (45): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (41) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (43) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.84 x w. 4.73 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1828-29. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gell 1832, pl. 63, 133-45; Breton 1855, 278-85; Fiorelli 1875, 135-38; Pernice 1938, 65; Maiuri 1942, 101-2; Schefold 1957, 115-21; Richardson 1955, with extensive bibliography; PPP II, 207-27; PPM IV, 860-1004; Trimble 2002; Leach 2004, 192-96; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 186-87; Romizzi 2006a, 77-160; 2006b; Hodske 2007, 206, no. 286, pl. 99,3; 203, no. 285, pl. 96,2.3. VI.9.7: tablinum (61) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, black main zone with vignettes with landscapes in the central panels. Lacking. FLOOR DECORATION: Lavapesta decorated with white tesserae and with a white border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (68) and viridarium (66): tablinum closed onto them. 360 LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (63). Right: corridor (62) leading from atrium to viridarium (66). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: wall (hospitality room behind tablinum). EXCAVATIONS: 1828-29. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 135-38; Pernice 1938, 65; Maiuri 1942, 101-2; Schefold 1957, 115-21; Richardson 1955; PPP II, 207-27; PPM IV, 860-1004; Trimble 2002; Leach 2004, 192-96; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 186-87. 69) House VI.10.6: tablinum (18) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (11): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: Oecus (17) opened onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right: corridor (12) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.38 x w. 4.33 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1828, 1831. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 141-42; Pernice 1938, 45; PPM IV, 1044-49; Benedetti 2006. 70) Casa dell’Ancora Nera (VI.10.7): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red main zone: on left/ north wall there was a central mythological painting with “Adonis Wounded” (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: Almost entirely lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Portico and series of oeci/triclinia (18-20): tablinum opened onto portico. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (5). Right: corridor (10) with stairs leading from atrium to viridarium (27) at a lower level. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.80 x w. 4.11 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1828, 1831. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 290-91; Fiorelli 1875, 142-43; Schefold 1957, 123-24; Richardson 1988, 329-33; PPP II, 231-234; PPM IV, 1050-71; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 189; Romizzi 2006, 387. 71) Casa del Naviglio (VI.10.11): tablinum (15) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Black predella with marine animals, yellow main zone. No record on paintings. 361 FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement in the center (forming a sort of central element) surrounded by an earlier pavement in opus signinum decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum against jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum after the 62 CE. BACK SIDE: Triclinium (24) opened onto viridarium: tablinum closed onto it LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (16) opened only onto atrium. Right: corridor (14) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: walled up (hospitality room behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 4.28 x w. 4.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1824-27. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 291-92; Pernice 1938, 41; Schefold 1957, 124-25; PPP II, 234-37; PPM IV, 1072-101; Cassetta and Costantino 2006; Pesando 2008. 72) Casa del Labirinto (VI.11.9-10): tablinum (33) WALL DECORATION: First Style, with socle restored in Second Style (fauces in Second Style, atrium and ala (32) in First Style). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders and with central emblema removed in the 19th century (missing). There is a mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a meander motif of polychrome tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in Calcare del Sarno). Tablinum’s floor slightly raised of ca. 0.05 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (36): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (35) accessible only from atrium. Right: corridor (34) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no holes/cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.39 x w. 4.78 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1828, 1831. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 285-88; Pernice 1938, 36; Maiuri 1942, 103-4; Schefold 1957, 125-27; Richardson 1988, 164-67; PPP II, 237-52; PPM V, 1-70; Pesando 1997; Strocka 1991; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 189-91. 73) Casa del Fauno (VI.12.2,5): tablinum (33) WALL DECORATION: First Style (like vestibule, fauces, atrium, and both alae, as well as the rest of the house). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus sectile floor (scutulatum). There was a mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a meander motif of polychrome tesserae (MANN, without in. no.; PPM V, 108-10, figs. 31-4). 362 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in Calcare del Sarno). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (36): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium/corridor (35) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (34) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.65 x w. 5.73 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1828, 1831. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 294-301; Mau 1899, 282-91; Pernice 1938, 91-2; Schefold 1957, 127-28; Laidlaw 1985, 172-207; Richardson 1988, 116, 124-26, 168-70; PPP II, 253-62; PPM V, 80-141; Pesando 1996; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 192-97. 74) Casa del Gruppo dei Vasi di Vetro (VI.13.2): tablinum (8) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. Black socle, red main zone, each wall is decorated with three central vignettes decorated with still life scenes. (PPM V, 7a-7b, p. 147). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a black and white mosaic pavement inserted in an earlier opus signinum floor. The threshold between tablinum and atrium is in marble. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted pilasters (no longer extant; for image, see American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection no. 1423). Back: central doorway, jambs in opus incertum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.12 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (14): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (9) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (7) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.11 x w. 4.89 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1837. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 301; Pernice 1938, 111; Schefold 1957, 129; PPP II, 263-64; PPM V, 142-57; Loccardi 2009. 75) Casa del Forno di Ferro (VI.13.6): tablinum (7). (Only in the very last phase of the town, the house was turned into weaver’s workshop) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style (dated after the 62 CE but before the house acquired an industrial function). Lacking. Black socle with geometric elements, red main zone with on the west/left wall: central mythological painting with “Hercules drunk and Omphale” (MANN, without in. no.); lateral panels with vignettes with Venus and Adonis with erotes, Satyr and Nymph. On the east/right wall: central mythological painting with “Dionysus discovering Ariadne” (in situ, no longer extant); lateral panels with vignette with Satyr and Nymph. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement. 363 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted pilasters. Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno (the right jamb in missing). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (13) turned into a weaver’s workshop after the 62CE: tablinum opened onto it. According to Lipizer and Loccardi (2009, 105, 114), the tablinum was opened onto the peristyle garden between the end of the first century BCE and beginning of the first century CE. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (6) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.20 x w. 5.04 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1837, 1846, 1873-74. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 304; Schefold 1957, 130; PPP II, 264-66; PPM V, 158- 74; Coralini 2001, 117, 190-91, P.067; Hodske 2007, 172, no. 320, pl. 52,3.4; Lipizer and Loccardi 2009. 76) House VI.13.13: tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with a black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum). The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus/triclinium (n). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it done after the 62 CE (see also, Gobbo 2009, 375). LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (m) only opened onto atrium. Right: oecus/triclinium (n) turned into a corridor, serving as only access to the back of the house, and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.46 x w. 4.80 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1876. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 67; Schefold 1957, 131; PPP II, 266-68; PPM V, 179- 93; Gobbo 2009. 77) Casa di Sextus Pompeius Axiochus (VI.13.19): tablinum (p) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Only traces of red socle and main zone were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement with slabs of travertine. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (r). BACK SIDE: Room (q) and peristyle garden (s): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (m) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (r) with a door connecting to the tablinum and not accessible from atrium but from tablinum and cubiculum set behind triclinium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. 364 DIMENSIONS: l. 4.73 x w. 4.70 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1874-76. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 131; Pernice 1938, 40; PPP II 268-74; PPM V, 202- 39; Zanier 2009. 78) Casa di Vesonius Primus o di Orfeo (VI.14.20): tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like atrium and south wall of peristyle garden). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border. There is a mosaic threshold between the atrium and the tablinum showing a star-like motif in black and white tesserae. The mosaic threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden show a shield motif in black and white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (m) with doorway to the atrium walled up. Right: corridor (k) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, possibly with curtains (i.e., presence of a round cavity on the right jamb). Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.10 x w. 4.85 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1834-36; 1874. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 97; Maiuri 1942, 114-15; Schefold 1957, 132-33; PPP II, 278-82; PPM V, 264-307; Peris Bulighin 2006, 79-146. 79) House VI.14.40: tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle with plant motif, red main zone with white architectural panels, white upper zone. Without panels (like the triclinium l). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement. There is a marble threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.06 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (i): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (g) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (e) opened onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.98 x w. 4.53 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1842, 1876-77. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 48; Schefold 1957, 137-138; PPP II, 294-97; PPM V, 390-408. 80) Casa dell’Imperatrice di Russia (VI.14.42): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Badly preserved. Black socle, main zone of alternating red and white fields and with, on the south wall, a central mythological panel showing a “Seated Maenad holding a shield” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM V, 421, fig. 18). 365 FLOOR DECORATION: Badly preserved. Opus signinum pavement decorated with white and black tesserae and with a central geometric element (no longer extant: Avellino BAN 1847, 30). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Portico (13) and peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to room (13) and peristyle garden. Right: cubiculum (4) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.55 x w. 2.57 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1846, 1876. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Avellino BAN 1847, 30; Schefold 1957, 138; PPP II, 297-98; PPM V, 409-25; Romizzi 2006a, 397. 81) Casa degli Scienziati (VI.14.43): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated by early excavators. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement with slabs of travertine (Avellino BAN 1846, 95). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: narrow central doorway, jambs in opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (14): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (12) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: cupboard (6) opened only onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.66 x w. 4.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1839; 1845-46. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Avellino BAN 1846, 95; Pernice 1938, 112; Schefold 1957, 138-39; Neuerburg 1965, 126-27, fig. 119; PPP II, 298-303; PPM V, 426-67; De Haan et al. 2005; Pesando 2008. 82) *Casa di P. Crusius Faustus (VI.15.2): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Second Style. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted to the right in the first century CE (Evans 1980, I, 88). Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised from the atrium’s level by means of two steps. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (k): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: triclinium (f) also leading to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1895. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1897, 19-20; Schefold 1957, 149-150; PPP II, 322-23; PPM V, 573-77. 366 83) Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI.15.5): tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Found in the process to be redecorated in the Fourth Style. Coarse plaster in the main zone and Fourth Style decoration in the upper zone. 545 FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders. There is a central element of hexagons and cubes with a guilloche border of colored tesserae, measuring 1.23 x 1.23 m. Both thresholds of the tablinum have a colored mosaic strip showing various geometric and vegetative elements. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are painted as fluted pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (h) while the right wall has a door connecting to triclinium (k). BACK SIDE: Portico (s) and viridarium (u): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (h) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto viridarium. Right: triclinium (k) with a door connecting to the tablinum and opened both onto atrium and viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.40 x w. 4.35 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1895-97. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1932, 113; Pernice 1938, 103; Schefold 1957, 150; PPP II, 323-30; PPM V, 580-621; Allison 2004. 84) House VI.15.6: tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style but with the back wall under redecoration (Mau RM 1898, 24; PPM V, 629). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. According to Sogliano (NSc 1897, 30-1), there was an opus signinum pavement with a central circular element indicating the position of the dining couches. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in brick quoining against original jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: tablinum closed by a wall after the 62 CE. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (i): tablinum closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (e) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (g) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: walled up (viridarium behind tablinum). DIMENSIONS: l. 4.40 x w. 4.35 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1895. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1897, 30-1; Mau RM 1898, 24; Schefold 1957, 150-51; PPP II, 330-33; PPM V, 622-46. 85) Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI.15.7-8): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, white main zone showing three vignettes with still life images (marine animal and hunting scenes). Upper white zone with marine animals. 545 Maiuri (1942, 113): “Nel tablino, rifatto, s’era iniziata la ridipintura delle pareti incominciando dal fregio superiore che già appare dipinto con una certa finezza secondo i motivi e composizione del IV stile, mentre il resto della parete è rivestito di semplice bozza d’intonaco.” 367 FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, right jamb in brick quoining. Back: cubiculum (f) only accessible from tablinum through a narrow door. The walls of this cubiculum present the same color code decoration of the tablinum. The south/left wall of the tablinum has a window onto the viridarium. BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (f): tablinum opened onto it. This cubiculum was only accessible from the tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: viridarium (n). Right: kitchen (g) TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown. The current threshold is composed of reused slabs marble with cardines cut. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.59 x w. 3.62 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1896-98. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 49; Schefold 1957, 151-58; Strocka 1984a; PPP II, 333- 38; PPM V, 647-79; Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 47-50; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 202. 86) Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI.16.7): tablinum (E) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Badly preserved. Black geometric socle, main zone of white and yellow fields and with central mythological panels: on the west wall, a panel with “Paris and Helen at Sparta” (in situ; PPM V, 738, fig. 42); on the north wall, a not-identified panel: Sogliano (NSc 1906, 383) mentions a seated female figure and a standing man and identifies the scene with a possible representation of “Hippolytus and Phaedra” (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with central element with geometric pattern in colored tesserae. There is a mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing various marine animals (dolphin, two heads of griffins, swan) within squares and separated by a two-ply guilloche. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. Back: closed (there is cubiculum (I) behind the tablinum). Today, the tablinum’s south/left wall has two doors providing access to the peristyle garden located on the rear and left side of the house. In origin, the larger door was a window (Seiler 1992, 30; Powers 2006, 50). BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (f): tablinum closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: peristyle garden (F) with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: kitchen (g). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. 546 DIMENSIONS: l. 3.56 x w. 4.36 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1903-4. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 85-6; Maiuri 1942, 113-14; Schefold 1957, 153-56; Richardson 1988, 314-17; PPP II, 340-56; PPM V, 714-846; Seiler 1992; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 205-7; Hodske 2007, 191, no. 374, pl. 80,2. 546 According to Sogliano NSc 1906, 381: “Due cuscinetti di lava, messi nel pavimento, a pie' del lato interno di ciascun pilastro, potrebbero provare che questi, in un tempo posteriore, fossero stati rivestiti internamente con imposte di legno. Di queste però manca ogni traccia sulle faccie dei detti pilastri.” 368 87) Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI.16.15-17): tablinum (D) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Imitation marble socle, white main zone decorated with candelabra, animals and a central mythological panel showing “Narcissus” on the west/back wall (in situ; PPM V, 881, fig. 45 [called “pseudo-tablino”]). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: closed by a wall. Tablinum very small, also called “pseudo-tablinum” (Stemmer 1992). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: room (C) used for domestic storage. Right: room (E) used for domestic storage. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: probably nothing. DIMENSIONS: l. 1.21 x w. 1.97 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1903-4. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 156-58; PPP II, 356-62; PPM V, 847-89; Stemmer 1992; Allison 2004; Romizzi 2006a, 406; Hodske 2007, 168, no. 382, pl. 42,4. 88) House VI.16.28: tablinum (F) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Black and red socle, main zone of alternating yellow and green fields: on the north/left wall, central paintings representing a “Hunt of Bulls” (in situ, no longer extant; for image, see PPM V, 937, fig. 10); on the east wall, central mythological painting with “Marsyas and the Nymphs” (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with a central geometric element. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, right wall extension in opus vittatum mixtum, left in brick quoining. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: service rooms (G, H). Right: triclinium (I). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.95 x w. 3.54 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1904. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 158-59; PPP II, 367-69; PPM V, 930-43; Romizzi 2006a, 407; Hodske 2007, 282-83, no. 393, pl. 204,3. 89) House VI.17 (Ins. Occ.) 41: tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Second Style (Phase IIA). North wall: white and red socle supported by telamones, white main zone with the prows of two large ships. South wall is lacking. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. Probably removed during the Bourbon explorations of the house (PAH I, 97-9; PPM VI, 13). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, right jamb in brick quoining. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Portico (21) and terrace (22): tablinum opened onto them. 369 LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (16) with doorway to the atrium walled up. Right: cubiculum (7) only opened onto atrium. The access to terrace (22) in the back of the house only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1759; 1970. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PAH I, 97-9; PPP III, 2-6; PPM VI, 10-43; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 207. 90) Casa di Sirico (VII.1.25,47): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like fauces and atrium). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (19): the tablinum is closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (7) leading from atrium to peristyle garden (19). Right: cupboard (5), with originally a door connecting to the tablinum, later walled up. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: wall (peristyle garden behind). DIMENSIONS: l. 3.43 x w. 4.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1851-52, 1857-62, 1872-73. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 316-17; Fiorelli GdS NS 1862, 7; Schefold 1957, 164- 66; PPP III, 28-40; PPM VI, 228-353; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 211; Romizzi 2006a, 412. 91) Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (VII.1.40): tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Dark red socle with marine animals and garlands, black main zone with central vignettes showing still life images or landscapes (in situ, no longer extant but recorded in Fiorelli GdS NS 1862, 94). FLOOR DECORATION: Black mosaic pavement with white border and central geometric element (a rosette inscribed in a circle and in a square). There is a polychrome mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing squares with various designs (shield, thunder, “rosetta”; PPM VI, 406-9, figs. 57-65). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. The posts of the tablinum were once painted as fluted pilasters (no longer extant; for image, see Getty Research Institute, 76.P.6, Box 298, GCPA 0042210). Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (17): the tablinum is opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (13) leading from atrium to peristyle garden (19). Right: oecus (12) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.64 x w. 4.57 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1848, 1862. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli GdS NS 1862, 94; Pernice 1938, 53; Maiuri 1942, 125-26; PPP III, 42-53; PPM VI, 380-458; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 211-13; Romizzi 2006a, 414. 370 92) Casa di Optatio (VII.2.14): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Dark red socle with plants, yellow main zone with central mythological paintings: on the south/left wall, a painting with the “Judgement of Paris” and one with a “Nereid on marine horse and a dolphin”; on the north/right wall, a painting with “Satyr and Maenad” and a one with “Nereid on marine ox and two erotes.”(In situ [based on drawing: PPM VI, 517, fig. 11] but no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was white mosaic pavement with black border. There mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showed a swastika-meander motif (for images, see PPM VI, 515, fig.8. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in opus vittatum, right jamb in opus vittatum and brick quoining. Back: window, cut in the opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: Corridor (k) and small viridarium (l): the tablinum has a window toward them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor (f) leading from atrium to small viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. EXCAVATIONS: 1843. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 71-2; Schefold 1957, 169; PPP III, 58-60; PPM VI, 510-29; Hodske 2007, 189, no. 423, pl. 78,3. 93) Casa di C. Vibius Italus (VII.2.18): tablinum (b) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like alae). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a black and white mosaic pavement and a mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a swastika-meander motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (m). The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (n). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (m) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: triclinium (n) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. According to Fiorelli (1873, 32) and PPM (VI, 590), there was a wooden frame on the east wall of the tablinum that functioned as corridor leading to the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 6.41 x w. 4.59 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1867-68. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1873, 32; Pernice 1938, 113; Maiuri 1942, 121-24; Schefold 1957, 171; Richardson 1988, 311-13; PPP III, 67-70; PPM VI, 586-614; Romizzi 2006a, 418. 94) Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII.2.20,40): tablinum (01) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. 371 FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a colored mosaic pavement with central element showing a “cancellum” motif (PPM, VI, 634, fig. 38). The threshold between atrium and tablinum had a mosaic strip a “chessboard” motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in brick quoining. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Room (02) and peristyle garden (u): tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (p). Right: corridor (r) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.42 x w. 4.85 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1833-34, 1845, 1863-65. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 54; Maiuri 1942, 124; Schefold 1957, 171-72; PPP III, 70-7; PPM VI, 615-58; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 213-15; Pedroni 2008. 95) Casa dell’Amore Punito (VII.2.23): tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. On the left/north wall there was a central mythological painting showing the “Punishment of Eros” (MANN, inv. no. 9257; PPM VI, 673, fig. 14), on the right/south wall, a painting showing “Mars and Venus” (MANN, inv. no. 9249; PPM VI, 675, fig. 16). FLOOR DECORATION: Lavapesta pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: counter for selling food added in the first century CE, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (i): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (h) opened onto atrium and cubiculum (k) behind. Right: corridor (g) leading from atrium to small viridarium (i). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.00 x w. 3.72 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1867. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 113; Schefold 1957, 172; PPP III, 77-9; PPM VI, 665- 78; Hodske 2007, 152, no. 434, pl. 18,1.2; 146, no. 435, pl. 6,3; Pedroni 2008. 96) Casa di Mercurio (VII.2.35): tablinum (k) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, white main zone with vignettes animals (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (f). BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (l): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (c) leading from atrium to room (a). Right: triclinium (f) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto atrium. The tablinum was the only space opened onto and giving access to the small viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.95 x w. 4.46 m. 372 EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1867. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 173; PPP III, 83-4; PPM VI, 722-32; Pedroni 2008. 97) Casa dell’Orso Ferito (VII.2.45): tablinum (k) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Red socle with Maenad, yellow main zone without panels. FLOOR DECORATION: Black and white mosaic pavement with central element in opus sectile measuring 1.09 x 1.32 m and bordered by a swastika-meander net. Both thresholds of the tablinum are in marble. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted on the right side with jamb in Calcare del Sarno, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cella/cupboard (l). The tablinum was the only space opened onto and giving access to the small viridarium. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (m): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (e) with window onto tablinum. Left: cella/cupboard (l) with a door connecting to the tablinum and also accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.15 x w. 3.92 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1844, 1867. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 98; Maiuri 1942, 126; Schefold 1957, 174-75; Neuerburg 1965, 128-29, fig. 117; PPP III, 85-94; PPM VI, 742-85; Ehrhardt 1988; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 215. 98) House VII.2.51: tablinum (m) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Yellow main zone with candelabra. No paintings were recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in first century CE, jambs redone in brick quoining. Back: closed by a wall during the first century CE. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (l) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (n) only opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: walled up (peristyle garden behind). DIMENSIONS: l. 3.88 x w. 3.98 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1862, 1867-68 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Brizio GdS 1868, 92; Pernice 1938, 114; Schefold 1957, 175; PPP III, 98-100; PPM VI, 814-35. 99) House VII.3.6: tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted on the right, jamb in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (i): tablinum opened onto it. 373 LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (e) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (f) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1867. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP III, 100-1; PPM VI, 838-45. 100) House VII.3.30: tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Yellow socle with plants, yellow main zone with central painting showing the “Distribution of bread” (MANN, inv. no. 9071; PPM VI, 949, fig. 11). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum and opus incertum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (i) turned into a storage room and only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: Small viridarium (k): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: cubiculum (i) turned into a storage room by the 79 CE and only accessible from tablinum through a door. The tablinum was the only space opened onto and giving access to the small viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.97 x w. 2.96 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1863, 1869. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 178-79; PPP III, 110-14; PPM VI, 943-73; Ciarallo and De Carolis 1999, 134-35 (Borriello); Donati 1998, 136, 277 no. 24 (Sampaolo). 101) Casa dei Capitelli Colorati (VII.4.31,51): tablinum (13) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated by early excavators. Originally, the walls of atrium and tablinum were covered with marble slabs of which only scanty remains were found (Avvolta BdI 1833, 33-4). Such decoration was applied after the 62 CE and removed before 79 CE (Descouedres 1993, 165-78). The two opus sectile panels that are wrongly said to be found in the tablinum of this house (MANN, inv. nos. 9977, 9979; see Elia 1929; Niccolini 1854 1.2; Schefold 1957, 183) were actually discovered in property VII.2.38 (PAH II, 540, found on May 22, 1845; Pagano and Prisciandaro 2006, 160-61). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with central element with “rosone” motif made of black tesserae (Avvolta BdI 1833, 146). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. According to PPM (VI, 997), the back wall of the tablinum was removed after the 62 CE during the intense restorations of the house. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (18): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (14) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: corridor (15) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.00 x w. 4.74 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1822, 1832-33, 1835, 1846-47. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Avvolta BdI 1833, 33-4; Pernice 1938, 77; Breton 1855, 301-4; Schefold 1957, 182-85; Richardson 1988, 120-24; PPP III, 116-28; PPM VI, 996-1107; 374 Descoeudres and Sear 1987; Descoeudres 1993; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 216. 102) Casa della Caccia Antica (VII.4.48): tablinum (10) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Painted socle showing colored marbles, predelle with vignettes showing hunting erotes and pygmies fighting Nilotic animals, light blue main zone with central mythological scenes: on the west/left wall, painting with “Daedalus and Pasiphae” (MANN, inv no. 8979; PPM VII, 26, fig. 31); on the east/right wall, painting with “Theseus and Ariadne outside of the Labyrinth” (MANN, inv. no. 9048; PPM VII, 23, fig. 26). On the lateral panels, vignettes with flying figures. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border and with central element showing a “chessboard” motif, measuring ca. 1.00 x 1.00 m (PPM VII, 21, fig. 23). There was a polychrome mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing theatrical masks and garlands (MANN, without inv. no.; PPP III, 133). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.04 m. from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (12): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (9) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (11) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.39 x w. 4.42 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1833-35. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 304-5; Pernice 1938, 88; Maiuri 1942, 118; Schefold 1957, 180-82; Allison 1992; PPP III, 129-39; PPM VII, 6-43; Allison and Sear 2002; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 218-20; Hodske 2007, 154, no. 481, pl. 22; 209, no. 482, pl. 104,2. 103) Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56): tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. On the east/left wall there was a central mythological painting showing the “Punishment of Dirce” (MANN, inv. no. 9042; PPM VII, 55, fig. 19). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a central element in opus sectile (Avellino MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, 370-72; Staub Gierow 1994, 29-32). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted pilasters (scanty remains). Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.04 m. from the atrium’s level. On the west/right wall of the tablinum there is a large cupboard. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (15): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (12) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.90 x w. 3.65 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1833, 1845-46. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Avellino MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, 370-72; Breton 1855, 293-94; Schefold 1957, 185-86; Neuerburg 1965, 129-20, fig. 115; PPP III, 139-41; PPM VII, 44- 375 62; Staub Gierow 1994; Carrella 2008, 121-22; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 220; Hodske 2007, 241, no. 488, pl. 153,1.2. 104) Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII.4.57): tablinum (p) WALL DECORATION: Earliest phase of Third Style (“candelabrum style,” as in the rest of the house). Lacking. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border and with central element showing a “rosetta.” There was also a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a vegetative motif. (For the central panel and this threshold, see images in PPM VII, 81, fig. 28). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (no longer extant; for image, see American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive, Warsher collection no. 432a). Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (s) while the right wall has a door connecting to corridor (q). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (t): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (s) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right corridor (q) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.56 x w. 4.71 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1831-33. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 186; Pernice 1938, 85; Richardson 1988, 161-64; PPP III, 141-44; PPM VII, 63-92; Staub Gierow 1994; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 220. 105) Casa della Parete Nera o Casa dei Bronzi (VII.4.59): tablinum (l) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Black socle, red main zone. Lacking. According to Avellino (MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, 168) there were vignettes painted on the central walls. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black a swastika-meander motif as border and with a central element (Avellino MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, pl. II.1, for lost pseudo-emblema). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were once treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (no longer extant but mentioned in Avellino MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, 168; PPM VII, 95). Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (m) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right corridor (n) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, possibly with partition (see a rectangular cut on both jambs). Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.18 x w. 4.38 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1832-34. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Avellino MemRegAccErc 3, 1843, 168-69; Pernice 1938, 68; Schefold 1957, 186-88; PPP III, 144-48; PPM VII, 93-139; Staub Gierow 2000. 376 106) Casa di Romolo e Remo (VII.7.10): tablinum (k) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like atrium and alae). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with colored marble slabs. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum against jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum are treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (scanty remains). Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (p): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (l) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (n) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.00 x w. 4.90 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1864, 1871-72. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 90; Maiuri 1942, 119-20; Schefold 1957, 194-95; PPP III 162-66; PPM VII 258-76; Romizzi 2006a, 436. 107) Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII.9.47): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Red socle and main zone. On the west/right wall there was a central mythological painting with “Mars and Venus” (MANN, inv. no. 9248; PPM VII, 370 fig. 27). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno mostly redone in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (10). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (8): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (10) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: oecus (9) only opened onto peristyle garden. The access to peristyle garden only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.34 x w. 4.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1820-21. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 89; Schefold 1957, 197-98; PPP III, 173-76; PPM VII 358-77; Romizzi 2006a, 438; Hodske 2007, 143, no. 515, pl. 1.1. 108) Casa della Caccia Nuova (VII.10.3): tablinum (o) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Badly preserved. Black socle with plants, main zone of alternating red and light blue fields and with central mythological painting on the south/right wall showing “Dionysus and Ariadne” (MANN, inv. no. 111484; PPM VII, 409, fig. 50). On the lateral panels, vignettes with Muses (left in situ and lacking; for images, see PPM VII, 408, 410, fig. 49, 51). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders and with central geometric element in black and white tesserae (PPM VII, 405, fig. 44). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno, right jamb in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. 377 BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (r): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: corridor (p) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.11 x w. 4.35 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1821, 1863. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 114; Schefold 1957, 198-99; PPP III, 177-82; PPM VII 386-422; Romizzi 2006a, 439; Amoroso 2007; Hodske 2007, 161, no. 519, pl. 33,1. 109) House VII.14.9: tablinum (11) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No evidence. Pernice (1938, 115) only reports that the pavement was older than First and Second Style floors. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (12). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (15): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (12) only opened onto atrium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: corridor (9) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.09 x w. 4.70 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1833. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 115; PPP III, 218-19; PPM VII 686-97; Romizzi 2006a, 446. 110) Casa del Marinaio (VII.15.2): tablinum (t) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Purple socle, yellow main zone with central mythological painting showing “Narcissus” (Magazzini di Pompei, SAP 20877; PPM VII 736, fig. 64). FLOOR DECORATION: Black and white mosaic pavement with a geometric border motif and with central element (“rosetta”; PPM VII, 735, figs. 62-3). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (x). BACK SIDE: Portico (u) with stairs to the viridarium: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (x) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: triclinium (v) only opened onto peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no holes/cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.26 x w. 5.72 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1871-72. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano 1879, 118-19, no. 590; Maiuri 1942, 120-21; Schefold 1957, 205-7; Franklin 1990; PPP III, 220-227; PPM VII 704-65; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 225; Romizzi 2006, 446; Hodske 2007, 169, no. 547, pl. 45,1. 378 111) House VII.15.8: tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Lacking. Black geometric socle, white main zone with central vignettes with still life images. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted to the right, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window.” BACK SIDE: Oecus (h): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (f) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.28 x w. 4.92 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1871-73. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schefold 1957, 208; PPP III, 230-32; PPM VII, 795-812. 112) Casa di A. Octavius Primus (VII.15.13): tablinum (h) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. There decoration was simple, without and without mythological paintings (Mau BdI 1874, 94). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. According to Mau (BdI 1874, 93-4), some parts of the pavement were better preserved because protected by couches. 547 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by wall in Calcare del Sarno. There is a small window cut in the back wall of the tablinum. BACK SIDE: The house ends directly behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (i). Right: corridor (k) leading from atrium to small viridarium (l). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.96 x w. 3.72 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1872-73. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1874, 93-4; Schefold 1957, 208; PPP III, 233-35; PPM VII, 824-29. 113) Casa del Principe di Montenegro (VII.16.10): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Lacking. The walls of the tablinum were decorated with two central mythological paintings, both detached but lacking today: “Europa and the Bull,” and a painting showing possibly “Bellerophon and Stheneboea.” (Both in situ, no longer extant; for drawing of “Europa and the Bull,” see PPM VII, 842- 44, fig. 4). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, remains of jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: closed by wall in Calcare del Sarno. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (6). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. 547 Mau BdI 1874, 93-4: “Nel tablinum il pavimento di terra battuta è adorno di stellette formate da pietruzze bianche e poste in file. E se ne distinguono bene quelle parti meno consumate che furono coperte da due mobili, probabilmente klinai, a giudicare dalla forma.” 379 LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: triclinium (6) opened onto atrium and with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.37 x w. 3.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1850-51. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 440-41; Schefold 1957, 208-9; PPP III 237; PPM VII, 840-44; Hodske 2007, 200, no. 555, pl. 92,3. 114) Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII.16.12-15): tablinum (9) and tablinum (25) VII.16.13 (representative atrium): tablinum (9) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. According to Mau (1882, 281), the socle was restored in Third Style. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in tufa. The opening is flanked by two Corinthian pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (18): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (10) only opened onto peristyle garden. Right: oecus (8) only opened onto peristyle garden. The access to peristyle garden only happened through the tablinum (the door of both oeci opening onto the atrium was walled up). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.58 x w. 4.73 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1850-51. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 79; Mau 1882, 281; 1902, 298-300; PPP III, 237-44; PPM VII 845-86; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 147-50. *VII.16.12: tablinum 25 WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted on the right, jambs in opus incertum and Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: Service quarter: tablinum closed onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (26). Right: corridor (27) leading from atrium to service quarter. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record. Back: wall (service quarter behind tablinum). EXCAVATIONS: 1850-51. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1899, 292-94; PPP III, 237-44; PPM VII 845-86. 115) Casa di Championnet I (VIII.2.1): tablinum (k) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. According to Mazois (1824, II, pl. 22) one wall had in the middle a painting showing a “Standing Warrior.” FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a mosaic pavement with a central element (a “rosetta” framed by a net of triangles (for drawing, see Mazois 1824, II, pl. XX, fig. 1; PPM VIII, 28, fig. 2). 380 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining (mostly rebuilt). Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.10 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (r): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (m) leading from atrium to cryptoporticus; triclinium (n) opened onto peristyle garden (r). Right: corridor (j) leading from atrium to peristyle garden (r). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.71 x w. 4.41 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1799, 1812, 1828. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mazois 1824, II, pl. XX, fig. 1; Breton 1855, 340-43; Schefold 1957, 210; Richardson 1988, 233-34; PPP III, 283-88; PPM VIII, 24-61; Romizzi 2006a, 451. 116) Casa di Championnet II (VIII.2.3-5): tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with double border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (l): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: “sacrarium” (f) and cubiculum (i). Right: corridor (k) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.12 x w. 4.48 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1808. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 100; Breton 1855, 340-43; Maiuri 1942, 138; Schefold 1957, 210-11; PPP III, 288-89; PPM VIII, 62-9. 117) House VIII.2.13: tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. No record. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in Calcare del Sarno and brick quoining, right jamb almost entirely redone in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (p): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (f) only opened onto peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (h) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1826, 1888, 1929. BIBLIOGRAPHY: PPP III, 289; PPM VIII, 70-1. 381 118) House VIII.2.14-16: tablinum (E) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like atrium, alae, and room k). According to Mau (RM 1899, 5), such coarse plaster would indicate the intent to apply a new decoration. 548 FLOOR DECORATION: Almost entirely lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement. There is a marble threshold between tablinum and portico behind. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Portico (F): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (i) and cubiculum (k). Right: triclinium (I) opened both onto atrium and portico (F). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.40 x w. 5.74 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1826, 1889-99, 1928-29 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 115; Schefold 1957, 211; PPP III, 289-92; PPM VIII, 72-93; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 226-28. 119) House VIII.2.29-30: tablinum (q) and tablinum (z) VIII.2.30 (representative atrium): tablinum (q) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like the fauces; the atrium was found undecorated). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.29 m from the atrium’s level. The left wall of the tablinum has two doors connecting respectively to triclinium (r) and oecus (s). The left wall of the tablinum has two doors connecting respectively to oecus (o) and triclinium (p). BACK SIDE: Portico: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (r) and oecus (s), both with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: oecus (o) and triclinium (p), both with a door connecting to the tablinum. The access to portico only happened through the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1767, 1883-84, 1928. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1885, 87; Pernice 1938, 74; Maiuri 1942, 142; Schefold 1957, 216-17; PPP III, 311-13; PPM VIII, 241-63; Allison 2004. VIII.2.29: tablinum (z) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lavapesta pavement decorated with marble chips. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (a) only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: Portico: tablinum opened onto it. 548 Mau RM 1899, 5: “…l'atrio stesso con le ale ed il tablino e le stanze adiacenti k l hanno intonaco grezzo soltanto, che sen’alcun dubbio doveva servie di base alla pittura.” 382 LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (a) only accessible from tablinum through a door. Right: corridor leading from atrium to the back of the house. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1767, 1883-84, 1928. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1884, 212; Pernice 1938, 74; Maiuri 1942, 142; Schefold 1957, 216-17; PPP III, 311-13; PPM VIII, 241-63; Allison 2004. 120) Casa delle Colombe a Mosaico (VIII.2.34-35): tablinum (m) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like alae, atrium, and the two triclinia flanking the tablinum (n, o)). According to Mau (RM 1886, 152), these walls were in the process of being redecorated. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with a central element (medallion with “chessboard” motif inserted in a square and with four Nilotic birds at each angle), measuring 1.05 x 1.05 m (MANN, inv. no. 114280; PPM VIII, 277, fig. 21). There is a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a swastika- meander motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum against jambs in brick quoining. Back: doorway (very ruinous). The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (n). BACK SIDE: Portico: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (n) opened both onto atrium and portico behind, and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: oecus (o) turned into a corridor leading from atrium to the back of the house TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.32 x w. 4.92 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1769, 1885-86. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau RM 1886, 151-52; Schefold 1957, 217; PPP III, 314-16; PPM VIII, 264-90; Allison 2004; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 229. 121) Casa di Giuseppe II (VIII.2.39): tablinum (r) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. According to Mau (RM 1887, 112-24) there was a yellow socle, predelle with vignettes showing hunting erotes and pygmies in “erotic scenes,” a main zone of alternating black and red fields and with two central paintings showing a “Sacro-Idyllic Landscape” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawings, see PPM VIII, 333, figs. 47-8). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was a white mosaic pavement with black border. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: closed with “picture window” in the first century CE (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum). Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum. BACK SIDE: Terrace: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: stairs (u) leading to the upper floor and cubiculum (s) only opened onto the terrace. Right: corridor (q) leading from atrium to the terrace at the back of the house. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: large window. Back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.93 x w. 4.05 m. 383 EXCAVATIONS: 1767, 1769, 1884-85. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 336; Mau RM 1887, 122; 1902, 344-47; Sogliano NSc 1885, 538; Pernice 1938, 43; Maiuri 1942, 144; Schefold 1957, 217-20; Richardson 1988, 234-40; PPP III, 319-24; PPM VIII, 308-56; Allison 2004; Romizzi 2006a, 453. 122) Casa di Ercole e Augia (VIII.3.4): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum in the form of columns. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (11): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (21) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right: corridor (12) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.65 x w. 4.06 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1767, 1769, 1887. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schultz AnnInstArch 1838, 201; BdI 1841, 119-20; Mau 1882 97; Schefold 1957, 220; PPP III, 324; PPM VIII, 357-402; Romizzi 2006a, 454. 123) Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII.3.8): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Red socle, yellow main zone with central mythological painting showing “Mars and Venus” on the east wall (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM VIII 375, fig. 20). There were medallions on the lateral panels. FLOOR DECORATION: White and black mosaic pavement showing a “carpet” motif of squares and rectangles. There is a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a floral pattern (central head of acanthus with tendrils; PPM VIII, 373, figs. 17-18). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: very slightly restricted, wall extensions in opus incertum against jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back with doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (12): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (6) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.87 x w. 4.64 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1838. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 332; Pernice 1938, 66; Maiuri 1942, 132-33; Schefold 1957, 220; PPP III, 324-27; PPM VIII, 362-84; Pesando 2006, 230-31; Romizzi 2006a, 455; Hodske 2007, 145, no. 582, pl. 5,3.4. 124) Casa di Pane (VIII.3.28,31): tablinum (10) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with fragments of travertine. 384 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back with central narrow door, jambs in opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Cubiculum (11) only accessible from tablinum through a narrow door. This cubiculum appears to be turned into a storage room by the 79 CE. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (12) opened onto atrium. Right: oecus (9) opened onto atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, possibly with a partition (see cuts on both jambs). Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.97 x w. 2.96 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1818 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Breton 1855, 319; Fiorelli 1875, 330-31; Mau 1882, 97; Pernice 1938, 116-17; Schefold 1957, 222; PPP III, 334-35; PPM VIII, 449-50. 125) Casa dei Postumii (VIII.4,49): tablinum (10) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, yellow main zone with central mythological paintings: on the east/left wall, “Mars and Venus” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM VIII, 480, fig. 47), on the west/right wall, “Endymion and Selene” (in situ, no longer extant, and not drawn). A personification of the four seasons (Horai) was represented in the four lateral panels. White upper zone. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. There was a marble threshold between tablinum and atrium and another one between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. The posts of the tablinum were once painted as fluted pilasters (scanty remains). Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (23): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (11) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: corridor (12) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.69 x w. 3.83 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1766, 1855, 1861. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1942, 133; Schefold 1957, 222-23; PPP III, 335-43; PPM VIII, 451-517; Dickmann and Pirson 2002; 2005; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 231-31; Romizzi 2006a, 458; Hodske 2007, 153, no. 597, pl. 19,4; 212, no. 596, pl. 109,4. 126) Casa di Cornelius Rufus (VIII.4.15): tablinum (c) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. There were two central large figurative paintings showing “Local Personifications,” possibly representing Sarnus and Nymphs for Helbig (no. 1018, 1020). (Both in situ, no longer extant; for drawings, see PPM VIII 521fig. 3a-b.) FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. There is a marble threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back central doorway, jambs in opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (n): tablinum opened onto it. 385 LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (m) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right: small storage room (k) and cubiculum (l). Originally, they formed a corridor leading to the peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.73 x w. 4.69 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1766, 1855-56, 1861. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1882, 97; Maiuri 1942, 134; Schefold 1957, 225; PPP III, 343- 44; PPM VIII, 518-25; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 232-33; Romizzi 2006a, 461; Hodske 2007, 255, no. 608, pl. 172,1; 255, no. 609, pl. 172,3. 127) House VIII.4.34: tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. Black socle, main zone of alternating yellow and red fields and with central mythological paintings: north wall, central painting with “Hercules and Omphale” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM VIII, 536 fig. 6), vignettes with Seasons (Summer and Fall) on the two lateral panels. East wall, central painting with “Contest between Venus and Hesperus with Apollo sitting as judge” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM VIII, 539, fig. 9), vignettes with Seasons (Winter and Spring). West wall, central painting with “Punishment of Dirce” (in situ, lacking and not drawn), vignettes with flying figures. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, wall extensions in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum. Back: closed by a wall in opus incertum. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.31 m. from the atrium’s level. The left wall of tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (5) only accessible from tablinum. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (5) only accessible from tablinum through a door. This cubiculum is raised from the tablinum’s level by means of 3 steps. It had yellow socle and main zone with central mythological paintings showing “Hippolytus and Phaedra” and “Endymion and Selene.” (Both in situ, no longer extant). Right: room (3). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.71 x w. 5.21 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1861. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 344-45; Overbeck and Mau1884, 272-73; Schefold 1957, 225; PPP III, 344-45; PPM VIII, 531-46; Coralini 2001, 117, 213, P.100; Romizzi 2006a, 462; Hodske 2007, 173, no. 613, pl. 54,1.2; 236, no. 612, pl. 145,3. 128) Casa del Gallo (VIII.5.2,5): tablinum (d) and tablinum (y) VIII.5.2 (representative atrium): tablinum (d) WALL DECORATION: Found undecorated by early excavators. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. Pernice (1938, 46) mentions remnants of a mosaic pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (e). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (f): tablinum opened onto it. 386 LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (c) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (e) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. There is no information on the wall decoration of this oecus, while it had a white mosaic pavement. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.63 x w. 5.68 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1780, 840-41, 1881-83, 1943. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1882, 97-8, 213, 282; BdI 1883, 171-74; Fiorelli NSc 1881, 321- 24; Maiuri 1942, 135; Schefold 1957, 225-26; PPP III, 345-47; PPM VIII, 547-66; Romizzi 2006a, 463. VIII.5.5: tablinum (y) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. There is no further information in the archival and published records. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back closed by a wall. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (x). Right: cubiculum (z). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.98 x w. 4.50 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1780, 840-41, 1881-83, 1943. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1882, 439; Schefold 1957, 225-26; PPP III, 345-47; PPM VIII, 547-66; 129) House VIII.5.9: tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like the oecus (g) to the right of the tablinum). FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. The posts of the tablinum were treated as fluted stuccowork pilasters (scanty remains). Back central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to corridor (e). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (h): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (e) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: oecus (g) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front and back: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.31 x w. 4.77 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1881-82. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1833, 174-77; Fiorelli NSc 1881, 322; Schefold 1957, 226; PPP III, 349; PPM 569-71; Allison 2004. 130) Casa delle Pareti Rosse (VIII.5.37): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like atrium, cubicula (i, k), triclinium (r)). 387 FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum; dated to the first century CE). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (p): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: corridor (f) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.77 x w. 4.40 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1881-82. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1884, 107; Schefold 1957, 227-29; PPP III, 355-59; PPM VIII, 619-47; Romizzi 2006a, 465. 131) Casa di M. Epidius Rufus (IX.1.20): tablinum (r) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum on top of a base in Calcare del Sarno. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum; dated to the first century CE). The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (s). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (u): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (t) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: triclinium (s) accessible from atrium and also with a door connecting to the tablinum. This triclinium was decorated in the Fourth Style but shared with the tablinum the same mosaic pavement. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.83 x w. 4.27 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1858, 1866. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schöne BdI 1867, 43-7; Fiorelli 1875, 371-73; Mau 1899, 303-6; Pernice 1938, 48; Schefold 1957, 236-37; Richardson 1988, 111-14; PPP III, 389-95; PPM VIII, 916-55; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 234-35; Gallo 2013. 132) Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus (IX.1.22,29): tablinum (h) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Socle of alternating red and white field with plants and marine animals, light blue main zone with central mythological paintings: on the east/right wall, painting with “Ithyphallic Hermaphroditus and Maenad” (MANN, inv. no. 27875; PPM VIII 973, fig. 32); on the west/left wall, painting with the “Fight between Pan and Eros” (in situ, no longer extant; Helbig no. 407; Fiorelli 1875, 373). In modern representations, the painting with Hermaphroditus (displayed in the Gabinetto Segreto) was replaced with a scene of Venus and fishing erotes (PPM VIII, 971-73, figs. 31-2). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae to form a lozenge motif. 388 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. The posts of the tablinum are painted as fluted pilasters. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (n) set in the back side. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (m): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: storage room (i) opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (k) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.06 x w. 4.80 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1858, 1866. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiorelli 1875, 373; Pernice 1938, 79; Maiuri 1942, 126-27; Schefold 1957, 237-39; PPP III, 395-405; PPM VIII, 956-1044; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 235-36; Romizzi 2006a, 468; Hodske 2007, 245, no. 636, pl. 158,4.5; Gallo 2008. 133) House IX.2.17: tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: closed by opus incertum wall. BACK SIDE: exedra (i) opened onto peristyle garden (h): tablinum closed onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (f) only opened onto atrium. Right: corridor (g) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.47 x w. 4.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1870. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 40; Mau 1882, 103; Schefold 1957, 243; PPP III, 417- 19; PPM IX, 41-57. 134) *House IX.2.18: tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Third Style, with restorations in Fourth Style. Red socle, yellow main zone with central mythological painting showing “Ares enthroned” (south/left wall; in situ, no longer extant), and on the lateral panels vignettes with flying figure. The decoration on the north wall is not preserved due to earlier explorations. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum and opus incertum, right jamb in opus vittatum and opus incertum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (h): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (f) opened only onto atrium. Right: corridor (g) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.47 x w. 4.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1870. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Trendelenburg BdI 1871, 194-95; Sogliano 1879, 31-32, no. 124; Schefold 1957, 243-44; PPP III, 419-22; PPM IX, 58-81; Romizzi 2006a, 474. 389 135) House IX.2.21: tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with slabs of multicolored marbles. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: front restricted in the first century CE, jambs redone in opus vittatum mixtum and brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. The tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (n) set in its back side. There was no record or evidence for the decoration of this triclinium. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (k): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: “sacrarium” (h). Right: triclinium (e) turned into a corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.97 x w. 4.71 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1869. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pernice 1938, 117; Schefold 1957, 244; PPP III, 422-24; PPM IX, 82- 95; Romizzi 2006a, 474. 136) Casa di Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5,24): tablinum (15) and tablinum (33) IX.3.5 (representative atrium): tablinum (15) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Imitation marble socle. The main zone had large central panels inserted in wooden frames and later placed in the center of the walls. They were already removed in ancient time (Maiuri 1940, 151). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders and with central emblema in opus sectile of polychrome marble encircled with a border of variegated mosaic (motif of acanthus with tendrils and birds; PPM IX, 2551, figs. 162-64). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in brick quoining. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum). Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.12 m from the atrium’s level. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (18) set on an upper floor: tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor/steps (17) leading from atrium to viridarium at an upper level. Right: triclinium (16) accessible from atrium and ala (8). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.51 x w. 4.71 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1846-47, 1851. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bechi 1852; Breton 1855, 318-29; Pernice 1938, 105; Maiuri 1940, 150-51; 1942, 128; Schefold 1957, 246-50; Neuerburg 1965, 131-32, fig. 123; PPP III, 429-44; PPM IX, 141-313; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 236-37; Romizzi 2006a, 476; Castrén et al. 2008. IX.3.24: tablinum (33) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Lacking. According to Bechi (1852, 15) there was a black socle, main zone of alternating yellow and red fields, and white upper zone with vignettes showing erotes and still life scenes. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. No record or evidence. 390 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum, right jamb in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (18): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (32). Right: corridor (34). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1846-47, 1851. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bechi 1852; PPP III, 429-44; PPM IX, 141-313; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 236-37; Castrén et al. 2008. 137) House IX.3.15: tablinum (o) WALL DECORATION: Second Style (like the rest of the house). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely closed (walled up in the first century CE). Back: central doorway, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. There is a recess to accommodate dining couch in the east wall of tablinum. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to corridor (f). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (k): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (f) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: cubiculum (p) opened onto peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: walled up. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.63 x w. 3.69 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1871. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1882, 128-29; Schefold 1957, 251; PPP III, 445-47; PPM IX, 328-45. 138) Casa di Achille IX.5.1-3: tablinum (k) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Found almost entirely lacking and not recorded. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae and with a central geometric element (PPM IX, 386, fig. 33). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb in brick quoining, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Room (l) and peristyle garden: tablinum opened onto them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (i) opened only onto atrium. Right: corridor (m) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.57 x w. 3.72 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1877-78. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1879, 26-7; Pernice 1938, 117; Maiuri 1942, 129-30; Schefold 1957, 251-53; PPP III, 450-53; PPM IX, 370-99; Romizzi 2006a, 480. 139) House IX.5.6,17: tablinum (i) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Dark red socle with garlands, main zone with alternating yellow and red fields and with central mythological paintings: on the east/left wall, panel with “Diana and Callisto” (in situ, badly preserved; D’Amelio 1886, pl. XIX; PPM IX, 444-45, fig. 77), on the west/right wall, panel with “Paris and Oenone” (in situ, 391 badly preserved). On the lateral panels and on the south and north walls, vignettes with erotes. White upper zone with architectural motifs and figures. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders and with central geometric element (PPM IX, 435, figs. 59-60). Marble threshold between tablinum and corridor (k). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: front restricted in the first CE, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: “picture window” (jambs in opus vittatum mixtum; done in the first century CE). BACK SIDE: Corridor (l) and viridarium (u): tablinum has a “picture window” toward them. LATERAL SIDES: Left: portico (k) leading to viridarium. Right: stairs to the upper floor. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.39 x w. 4.46 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1877-78. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano 1879, 30-1, no. 119; 127-28, no. 623; D’Amelio 1886, pl. XIX; Schefold 1957, 253-55; PPP III, 454-65; PPM IX, 403-85; Romizzi 2006a, 481; Hodske 2007, 192, no. 716, pl. 82,3; 196, no. 715, pl. 87,3. 140) House IX.5.11: tablinum (l) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, main zone of alternating red and light blue fields with representation of a standing warrior in the each of the three panels (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM IX, 593, fig. 119). FLOOR DECORATION: Lavapesta pavement (like in all the other rooms of the house). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs redone in opus vittatum mixtum (scanty remains of original jambs in Calcare del Sarno). Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus incertum, right jamb in opus vittatum mixtum. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (o): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (m) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (k) only accessible from atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.98 x w. 3.50 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18776-78. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1879, 139-206; Sogliano 1879, 152, no. 768; Schefold 1957, 257-59; PPP III, 470-78; PPM IX, 528-99: Romizzi 2006a, 483. 141) House IX.6.5: tablinum (g) WALL DECORATION: Remains of an earlier Fourth Style. The walls, however, were mostly rebuilt after the 62 CE and without decoration. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae forming a net of meanders. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (3): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (f) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus/triclinium (h) only opened onto peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. 392 DIMENSIONS: l. 3.92 x w. 5.00 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1877-78. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau BdI 1880, 221-31; Fiorelli NSc 1878, 322-23; Schefold 1956, 265; PPP III, 493-96; PPM IX, 747-64. 142) Casa del Centenario (IX.8.3,6): tablinum (6) and tablinum (21) IX.8.6 (representative atrium): tablinum (6) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like southern walls of both alae). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders. There is a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a four-pointed star motif (PPM IX, 934-35, figs. 59-60). The mosaic threshold between tablinum and peristyle garden has a shield (“pelta”) motif (PPM IX, 935, fig. 61). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: central doorway, left jamb in opus vittatum mixtum, right one in opus incertum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to oecus (7). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (5) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. Right: oecus (7) only opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. This oecus has a Fourth Style decoration with vignettes showing flying figures and erotes in the main zone. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. 549 Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.71 x w. 4.78 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1879-80. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1942, 131; Richardson 1988, 126-27; PPP III, 511-38; PPM IX, 903-1104; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 237-40; Coralini 2001; Romizzi 2006, 491; Coralini and Scagliarini 2016. IX.8.3: tablinum (21) WALL DECORATION: Third Style. Lacking. According to Mau (1882, 282-83) there was a simple decoration with red socle and main zone of alternating light blue and dark red fields. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (12). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (10): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (17) opened only onto atrium, and cubiculum (12) opened onto peristyle garden and with a door connecting to the tablinum. Right: corridor (22). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. EXCAVATIONS: 1879-80. 549 The tablinum’s floor was covered during my personal inspection of the house. For information and image of its frontal threshold, see PPM IX, 934, 59. 393 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mau 1882, 382-83; Schefold 1957, 273-81; Richardson 1988, 126-27; PPP III, 511-38; PPM IX, 903-1104; Coralini 2001; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 237- 40; Coralini and Scagliarini 2016. 143) *House IX.9.d: tablinum (f) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, main zone of alternating black and red fields with central mythological paintings: on the east wall, painting with “Fishing Venus” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM X, 75, fig. 18); on the south wall, painting with “Narcissus” (in situ, no longer extant; for drawing, see PPM X, 77, fig. 20). On the lateral panels there were vignettes with erotes. FLOOR DECORATION: Lacking. There was an opus signinum pavement (Sogliano NSc 1889, 131). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: close by wall. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: triclinium (l). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. EXCAVATIONS: 1888. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1889, 130-32; Schefold 1957, 283-84; PPP III, 546-48; PPM X, 63-92; Romizzi 2006, 495; Hodske 2007, 169 no. 786, pl. 45,2. 144) Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX.14.2,4): tablinum (H) and tablinum (19) IX.14.4 (representative atrium): tablinum (H) WALL DECORATION: Found in coarse plaster (like fauces, atrium, alae (G, 25) and triclinium (24), which has a door connecting to the tablinum). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno. Back: with narrow central doorway, jambs in opus incertum. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to triclinium (24). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (42): tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (I) leading from atrium to peristyle garden and with a large window cut in the tablinum’s left/west wall. Right: triclinium (24) accessible from atrium and also with a door connecting to the tablinum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: curtains (ornamental bronze bosses were found nailed to the right and left antae). 550 Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 5.11 x w. 6.75 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1903-5. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sogliano NSc 1905, 245-57; Maiuri 1942, 131-32; PPP III, 579-97; PPM X, 361-500; Kocken 1992-1993; Dickmann 1999, 152-54; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 245. IX.14.2: tablinum (19) WALL DECORATION: Second Style (the rest of the house was in First and Second Style). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae. 550 A total of four bronze bosses were found: Sogliano NSc 1905, 254-55, fig. 7. For images of two of them, see supra Fig. 2.1. 394 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in Calcare del Sarno and opus incertum. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall between jambs in Calcare del Sarno). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (42): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: steps (o) to the upper floor. Right: corridor (44) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.80 x w. 3.51 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1888, 1903, 1910-11. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Della Corte NSc 1911, 267-71; Maiuri 1942, 131-32; Schefold 1957, 286-88; PPP III, 579-97; PPM X, 361-500; Kocken 1992-1993; Pesando 1997; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 245. HERCULANEUM 145) Casa dello Scheletro (III.3): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Purpe socle, yellow main zone (altered to red) with architecture FLOOR DECORATION: Almost entirely lacking. There was an opus sectile pavement made of slabs of colored stones (“palombino” and “ardesia”) which were mostly removed during earlier explorations. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE (largely restored in 20th century). Back: “picture window.” BACK SIDE: Oecus (10): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: small room (a) with window cut in the west/left wall of tablinum to allow view onto a niche lararium in the cubiculum’s west wall. Right: corridor (e) leading from atrium to hospitality quarter. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.80 x w. 3.51 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1830-31, 1927-29. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 265-75; De Kind 1998, 98-104; Esposito 2014, 80-1; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 320-21; Dickmann 2007, 426; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 287-92; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 143-59. 146) Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (III.11): tablinum (7) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Red socle, black main zone with central vignettes showing still life images and theatrical masks (some vignettes were also removed during earlier excavations). White frieze with Amazonomachy scenes and erotes. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border. There is a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a floral pattern (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 170-71, no. 141, pls. LIII, LIV). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in tufa. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. (The tablinum was shortened back during the early imperial period: Dickmann 2007, 426). BACK SIDE: Portico (8) and viridarium: tablinum opened onto it. 395 LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (6) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right: corridor (e) leading from atrium to viridarium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: partition. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.92 x w. 4.82 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1825-30, 1869-75, 1928-29. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 207-22; De Kind 1998, 105-13; Pagano 2003, 63-5; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 199-205; 2006b, 321-22; Dickmann 2007, 425-26; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 206-10; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 216-25; Esposito 2014, 65- 6, 138-41; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 160-74. 147) Casa dell’Erma di Bronzo (III.16): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Third Style (Phase IIB). Almost entirely lacking. Black socle, main zone of alternating red and light blue fields, without figurative decoration. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with slabs of colored marbles and stones forming a sort of central element (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 176, no. 149, pl. XXXVIII). There was a marble threshold between atrium and tablinum. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE on the left with jamb in brick quoining (see also Maiuri 1958, 246). Back: window. BACK SIDE: Small courtyard (7): tablinum has window toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor (6) leading from atrium to triclinium (8). Right: stairs (5) to the upper floor. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.45 x w. 3.56 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1927-29. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 243-47; De Kind 1998, 123-26; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 327-28; Hinterhöller 2008; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 142-49; Esposito 2014, 64-5, 114-16; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 174-77. 148) Casa dell’Atrio a Mosaico (IV.2): tablinum (5) [so-called Oecus Aegyptius] WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, white main zone with a central vignette on the east wall detached during earlier excavations. White upper zone. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement with central element in opus sectile made of colored marble slabs, which were mostly removed during earlier excavations (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 186-89, nos. 159-61, pls. XXXV, CVI, CXXVII, CXL, XXXIII). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: partially closed with three doors. The central posts are in the form of columns. Black: closed by a wall. The right wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cubiculum (6). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: cubiculum (6) with a door connecting to the tablinum. This cubiculum is on a lower level and must have once been accessible from tablinum through wooden steps (Cerulli Irelli 1971, 19). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: two lateral doors, a central partition, and curtains. DIMENSIONS: l. 6.80 x w. 4.81 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1929-30. 396 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 280-302; Cerulli-Irelli 1971; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 211-23; 2006b, 328-34; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 293-302; Esposito 2014, 177-82; Russell 2015; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 181-203. 149) Casa Sannitica (V.1-2): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Yellow socle and main zone (today altered to red) decorated with a riche architectural design. The main zone originally had paintings that were detached during 18th-century excavations. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae forming a rhomboid net pattern. In the center of the pavement, the tesserae are arranged to form a geometric motif (“rosone” inserted in a square enclosed by a meander net; Guidobaldi 2014, II, 265-67, no. 236, pls. X, IX, X, XIX). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: partially closed with “picture window” inserted in the first century CE (opus incertum wall between jambs in opus vittatum mixtum) and door. Black: closed by a wall. A large window (onto the oecus 5) and a narrow door (leading to atrium) are cut in the north/left wall of tablinum. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus (5) with large window onto the tablinum. Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door and window. North/left side: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.78/97 x w. 5.37 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1927-34. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 197-206; Clarke 1991, 85-93; Van Binnebeke 1993; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 345-46; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 202-6; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 81-3; Esposito 2014, 64, 187-88; Guidobaldi 2014, I, 256-69. 150) Casa del Mobilio Carbonizzato (V.5): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style (socle and main zone). Third Style (upper register). The Fourth Style decoration was applied sometimes after the 62 CE (Guidobaldi and Esposito (2012, 157)). Red socle, main zone of alternating red and white fields showing in the central panels a flying figure (west/right wall) and Maenad (east/left wall), in the lateral panels, vignettes with lions. Red upper zone with architectural elements. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border and with central element in opus sectile of colored marbles measuring ca. 0.80 x 0.80 m. (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 278-79, nos. 246a-c, pl. LV). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb restored in brick quoining. Back: “picture window.” There is a recess to accommodate dining couch in the left/north wall of tablinum. BACK SIDE: Viridarium (9): tablinum has a “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to viridarium. Right: cubiculum (5). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.80 x w. 3.60 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1932-33. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 255-61; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 347-48; Esposito 2014, 124-25, 189; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 270-81. 397 151) Casa di Nettuno e Anfitrite (V.6-7): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Almost entirely lacking. In the main zone of the left/north wall there was a mythological painting showing “Narcissus and Echo” (in situ, no longer extant). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with central element in opus sectile of colored marbles (almost entirely removed during 18th-century excavations). There was a threshold decorated with colored marbles (also removed). (Guidobaldi 2014, 284-85, II, nos. 254a-b, pl. LXX). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: window. BACK SIDE: Small internal courtyard with nymphaeum and summer triclinium (E): tablinum has a window cut in its back wall to allow for an axial view from the main entrance of the house onto the mosaic of Neptune and Amphitrite. This mosaic gave the impression of a fountain when seen from the entrance of the house. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (4). Right: corridor leading from atrium to nymphaeum. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: window. DIMENSIONS: l. 2.55 x w. 2.43 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1932-34. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 393-403; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 76-80; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 348-50; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 283-85; Esposito 2014, 81-2, 189-90; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 282-91. 152) Casa dell’Apollo Citaredo (V.11): tablinum (e) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, yellow main zone with mythological paintings: on the south wall, painting with “Apollo playing the lyra with half naked woman and eros” on the west/right wall, painting with “Endymion and Selene” (both paintings in situ, badly preserved). White upper zone with architectural motifs. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with large central element in opus sectile of colored marbles enclosed by a floral motif in white and black tesserae. There is a black and white mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a swastika- meander motif. (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 302-5, nos. 273a-c, pls. LVI, CXXVIII, CXXXIV, XLI). 551 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: closed by a wall. The left wall of the tablinum has a door connecting to cella/storage room BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cella/ storage room, with a door connecting to the tablinum and also opened onto atrium. Right: triclinium (d). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: curtains (an ornamental bronze boss was found nailed to the left anta). 552 Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.15 x w. 4.87 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1938. 551 Esposito (2014, 63-4) notes that such decoration would indicate that the room was used as biclinium. 552 Maiuri GSE, 1 ottobre 1938; 1958, 248, fig. 194. 398 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 247-51; Guidobaldi e Olevano 1998, 236-37, pl. 14.4; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 351-52; Esposito 2014, 63-4, 192-93; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 301-5. 153) Casa del Bicentenario (V.15-16): tablinum (not numbered) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Yellow socle, main zone of alternating red and yellow fields with central mythological paintings: on the east/right wall, painting with “Mars and Venus” (in situ; Rainer, Graves et al. 2017, 256, fig. 6.31) and on the lateral panels, a medallion with a Maenad and bearded Silenus and a medallion with Maenad. On the west/left wall, painting with “Daedalus and Pasiphae” (in situ; Rainer, Graves et al. 2017, 256, fig. 6.32) and on the lateral panels, a medallion with a Maenad and young Satyr and a medallion with a Maenad. Black frieze showing theatrical masks, hunting and fishing cupids and Amazons; upper register with architectural element and fantastical creatures. FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with large central element in opus sectile of colored marble. There is a white and black mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum (as well as between tablinum and peristyle garden) showing a floral pattern (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 594-95, figs. 286-88, pls. LXXIV-LXXV). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden: the tablinum is opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: triclinium (8). Right: steps to the upper floor and corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. 553 Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 4.95 x w. 4.15 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1938. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 222-39; Guidobaldi e Olevano 1998, 237, pl. 16,3; Pagano 2003, 46-8; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 185-190; 2006b, 352-55; Esposito 2014, 62-3, 190-92; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 246-53; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 306-19; Rainer, Graves et al. 2017. 154) Casa dell’Atrio Corinzio (V.30): tablinum (2) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Red socle, black main zone decorated with central mythological paintings showing “Dionysus and Ariadne” and “Infant Dionysus” and (MANN, inv. nos. 9720, 9721; Allroggen-Bedel 2009, 171-73, figs. 3-5). FLOOR DECORATION: Black and white mosaic pavement decorated with geometric motifs and with central element in opus sectile of colored marble, measuring 1.55 x 1.55 m. There is a marble threshold between atrium and tablinum. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum mixtum. Back: closed by a wall. Tablinum’s floor raised of ca. 0.08 m from the atrium’s level. The tablinum was also accessible from a narrow door cut in its left wall. BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cubiculum (3). Right: the house ends. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. 553 The mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum was covered during my survey of the house. However, from Maiuri’s images kept in the archive at Herculaneum, there are no cuts for cardines in the mosaic threshold that might have indicated the presence of a door. 399 DIMENSIONS: l. 6.00 x w. 4.90 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1933-34. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 261-65; Van Binnebeke and de Kind 1996; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 356; Allroggen-Bedel 2009; Esposito 2014, 82-3, 186-87; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 322-29. 155) Casa del Sacello di Legno (V.31): tablinum (3) WALL DECORATION: First Style (like fauces and atrium). FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with white tesserae to form a meander motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open. Back: closed with two windows. BACK SIDE: corridor and triclinium (5): tablinum has two windows toward them LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor. Right: steps leading to the upper floor. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.55 x w. 3.58 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1933-34. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 252-55; Van Binnebeke and de Kind 1996; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 356-57; Esposito 2014, 137; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 330-33. 156) Casa del Salone Nero (VI.13): tablinum (L) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black socle, black and white main zone with architectural elements, and white upper zone with imagines clipeatae. There were no figurative paintings. FLOOR DECORATION: There was an opus signinum pavement decorated with marble slabs, which were already removed in the ancient time (Camardo et al. 2014). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, jambs in tufa. Back: central doorway. BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: oecus/triclinium (M) opened both onto atrium and peristyle garden. Right: corridor (I) walled up and turned into a storage room after the 62 CE. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 7.70 x w. 5.10 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1933, 1937-40, 1947-48. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 239-42; Van Binnebeke 1993; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 190-99; 2006b, 363-66; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 226-36; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 236-45; Esposito 2014, 142-47; Camardo et al. 2014; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 351- 57. 157) Casa del Colonnato Tuscanico (VI.16-18,26): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Black and purple socle, main zone of alternating red and light blue fields with architectural elements. The central panels might have been decorated with paintings (not preserved) while in the lateral panels there are medallions with erotes. Frieze with alternating light blue and red fields with vignettes showing theatrical masks and marine animals. White upper zone with architectural and other ornamental elements. 400 FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black border. There is a colored mosaic threshold between atrium and tablinum showing a swastika-square motif. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: completely open, left jamb partly restored in brick quoining. Back: small and high window (ca. 1.90 m from the floor level). BACK SIDE: Steps (10) to the upper floor and peristyle garden (12): tablinum with small and high window which did not offer a view onto the garden area. LATERAL SIDES: Left: cella/storage room (6). Right: corridor (8) leading from atrium to peristyle garden. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. The remains of wooden antepagmentum (on the left jamb) do not show any cut for partition or door (Cerulli 1974, 30-1) Back: small window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.85 x w. 4.66 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations ,1939. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cerulli Irelli 1974; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 366-68; Esposito 2014, 128-30; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2013, 191-203; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 358-71. 158) Casa dei Due Atri (VI.29): tablinum (4) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. Beige socle, red main zone with vignettes showing still life images, white upper zone decorated with marine animals. FLOOR DECORATION: Opus signinum pavement decorated with colored marble slabs. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in brick quoining. Back: central doorway, jambs in brick quoining. BACK SIDE: Secondary atrium: tablinum opened onto it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: diaeta (3) accessible from atrium and with a window onto the tablinum. Right: corridor (5) leading to secondary atrium. TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: unknown, no record or evidence. Two stone blocks are located at each lateral end of the tablinum’s frontal threshold with no cuts indicating the presence of a door. Back: door. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.74 x w. 3.93 m. EXCAVATIONS: 1932, 1939-40. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 275-79; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006b, 369-70; Esposito 2014, 161-62; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 255-57; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 378-83. 159) Casa della Gemma (Ins. Or. I.1): tablinum (5) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. No record or evidence of decoration (almost entirely lacking). FLOOR DECORATION: There was a rich pavement with central element in opus sectile of colored marbles measuring 1.18 x 0.70 m (Guidobaldi et al. 2014, II, 638, no. 14, pl. CXVIII). ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: closed by a wall. The tablinum’s south/right wall has a window onto the viridarium (P). BACK SIDE: The house ends behind tablinum. LATERAL SIDES: Left: the house ends. Right: viridarium (P). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. 401 DIMENSIONS: l. 5.96 x w. 4.03 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1939-40. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 336-42; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006a, 232-56; 2006b, 377; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 246, 295-97; Esposito 2014, 67-8; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 42-52. 160) Casa del Rilievo di Telefo (Ins. Or. I.2-3): tablinum (2) WALL DECORATION: Fourth Style. No record or evidence of decoration (almost entirely lacking). FLOOR DECORATION: White mosaic pavement with black borders. There was a central element in opus sectile of colored marbles measuring 1.24 x 1.13 m. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Front: slightly restricted in the first century CE, jambs in opus vittatum. Back: “picture window” (opus incertum wall inserted between jambs in opus vittatum). BACK SIDE: Peristyle garden (9): tablinum has “picture window” toward it. LATERAL SIDES: Left: corridor leading from atrium to peristyle garden (9) Right: cubiculum (3). TYPES OF CLOSURES: Front: door. Back: large window. DIMENSIONS: l. 3.25 x w. 4.34 m. EXCAVATIONS: 18th and/or 19th-century explorations, 1934-36. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maiuri 1958, 345-60; Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 232- 56; 2006b, 377-80; Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 246-53; Guidobaldi and Esposito 2012, 303-10; Esposito 2014, 70-3; Guidobaldi et al. 2014, I, 64-92. 402 Appendix B: Finds in 70 Tablina (58 at Pompeii and 12 at Herculaneum) Note: Excavation dates refer to the period in which the house (not just the tablinum) was explored. 554 POMPEII Domus Volusii Fausti (1.2.10): tablinum (d) EXCAVATIONS: 1873. Possible presence of chest/cupboard for the quantity of items found within the tablinum. GdS NS, 1874, 57: “Il 3 Maggio 1873. Essendosi fatto uno scavo straordinario nel tablino della casa, indicata il giorno 2, si è ritrovato. Bronzo: due conche, un vasetto per misura, una casseruola, una forma di pasticceria e due monete. Vetro: un odorino, una caraffinetta, un lacrimatoio e un coverchio di vaso. Terracotta: una lucerna… Il 7 Maggio 1873: Dalla stessa località, indicata il giorno 3 [tablinum], è pervenuto. Bronzo: una statuetta di un sacerdote con corno e patera. Vetro: un lacrimatoio.” Casa di Diomede (1.2.17): tablinum (e) EXCAVATIONS: 1873. Possible presence of chest/cupboard for the quantity of items found within the tablinum. GdS NS, 1874, 55: “1 Aprile 1873: Come nel mese precendente, gli scavi continuano nell'Is. 2°, Reg. I. con 131 operai. Essendosi fatto uno scavo straordinario nel tablino della casa, che ha l'ingresso dal secondo vano, lato settentrionale dell'Is. suddetta, a contare dall'angolo nord-est, si è rinvenuto: Oro: una moneta e cinque anelletti. Bronzo dorato: un mezzo globo. Perle: cinque piccole perle, framezzate da tre coralli verdi di pastiglia e infilzate in un mezzo cerchio di filo di oro. Argento: Un orecchino mal conservato, un anelletto, sei monete e un cucchiaio. Corniola: una corniola, su cui vedesi incisa una figura virile nuda, che nella sin. ha un gladio e accanto vi è un tronco d'albero. Ambra: vari pezzi di ambra. Osso: un piccolo cane, mancante di due gambe. Bronzo: un amuleto, sette monete, un ago saccale, una piccola lagena e un vaso per misura. Pastiglia: un uovo rotto in tre pezzi. Cristallo di rocca: una farfalla, una piccola anitra, una anforetta e un verticchio. Vetro: Frammenti di vetro greco, colorati bleu e verde ed una boccettina. Terracotta: una lucerna ed una tazzolina. Marmo: due colombi, l'uno sull'altro.” Casa della Grata Metallica (I.2.28): tablinum (d) EXCAVATIONS: 1873. 554 See supra Introduction (“Research Methodology and Sources)” for information on the criteria on the houses’ selection. 403 No finds were recorded from the tablinum. Casa del Criptoportico (I.6.2): tablinum (6) EXCAVATIONS: 1911-13. GdS UP 1913: “25 Novembre 1913: Nel tablino, a m. 1 dal pavimento, presso la parete orientale, si sono raccolte tre monete di bronzo, e cioè un medio bronzo di M. Agrippa L.F.; un grande bronzo di Vespasiano; e un medio bronzo di Tito Cesare che non ha riscontro fra i tipi registrati…Il 29 Novembre 1913: nel pavimento del tablino, mezzo dupondio della fine della Repubblica (Giulio Cesare e Ottaviano?): l'altra metà era stata forse deposta in un’olla crematoria… Il 5 Dicembre 1913: Nello stesso tablino, si è rinvenuta una bacinella di marmo bianco trasparente larga m. 0173, munita di quattro bugnette (una manca) rettangolari intorno all'orlo. Nel fondo esterno è espresso a bassorilievo un fiore a sei petali lanceolati inscritto in un cerchio.” Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I.6.4): tablinum (f) EXCAVATIONS: 1912-13. Evidence for chest/cupboard and for bedding. GdS UP 1913 and Della Corte NSc 1913, 29-35: “2 gennaio [1913]: Regio I, ins. VI. N. 4:… sulla parete occidentale del tablino, presso la parziale impronta cava lasciata da un armadio di legno, si sono trovate due bottiglie di vetro a recipiente emisferico alte m. 0,15, ed ivi stesso avanzi dei finimenti dell'armadio medesimo, cioè: Bronzo: due borchie circolari a rilievi concentrici con i rispettivi anelli striati, larghe m. 0,042; quattro cerniere ad alette di poco rastremate, fissate alle bandelle di legno mercé piccoli piuoli di legno; un corrente di serratura, lungo m. 0,09…Il 4 gennaio: Continuandosi l'accurata esplorazione del tablino, si è raccolta una stecca d'osso lunga m. 0,128 dalle facce l'una convessa, l'altra liscia, un po' mancante in una estremità, mentre l'altra è decorata di una incisione riproducente un dito umano. Ivi presso, nel cavo lasciato dal legno dell'armadio, due curiosi e nuovi utensili di legno, alla cui conservazione ha conferito l'ossido di un rivestimento esterno di sottilissima lamina di bronzo (lunghezza m. 0,032) … il 13 gennaio: un cucchiaino di argento a coppa circolare e manico tondo, rastremato in punta, lungo m. 0,14… Il 14 gennaio si è ultimato lo scavo dell'angolo S-W del tablino e si sono potuti raccogliere tutti gli avanzi dell'armadio e degli oggetti in esso contenuti. Cominciando dagli avanzi del mobile, avvertirò che a m. 0,90 dal pavimento si sono raccolti in posizione orizzontale, epperò abbattuti, due sostegni in ferro e avorio, risultanti ciascuno di una verga di ferro alta m. 0,34 rivestita di dischi di avorio sovrapposti l'uno all'altro e variamente sagomati, insieme ai quali si sono rinvenute altre quattro cerniere fissate coi piuoli di legno come quelle trovate il giorno 2; altre due borchiette circolari con anello striato; una corrente di serratura e una chiave di ferro con altri resti informi. Dall'altezza di m. 0,90 poi, fino al pavimento, ecco la supellettile raccolta, raggruppata in materia: Vetro: un fiasco [h. m. 0,15]...quattro boccette [h. tra 0,09 e 0,13]...frammenti di bottiglia... Ferro: arnese a bilanciola...Bronzo: due catinelle...piccoli resti di tre cassettini in legno...Avorio: frammenti di un cassettino a sezione quadrata con chiusurina in argento...che ne rivestivano le superfici esterne...Ago crinale in bronzo... Oro : un anello di m. 0,023 di diametro esterno...un altro di m. 404 0,075...con scolpito a rilievo un busto virile barbato con la fronte cinta da cordone...due orecchini...un cerchielllo... Vetro: sei piccole lenti... Ferro: un anello mancante della parte inferiore, nel cui costone è fissata una corniola ellittica con l'incisione cava del cavallo vittorioso…Il 23 gennaio: in corrispondenza della metà anteriore della parete ovest del tablino, si sono raccolti questi altri oggetti: Bronzo: una situla ovoidale alta m. 0,205 con resti del manico in ferro; una oenochoe...alta m. 0,15...; uno scudo di serratura circolare... Vetro: sei bottiglie...alte da m. 0,12 a 0,17, e tre vasi cubici ad orlo tondo alti da m. 0,12 a 0,14, uno dei quali contiene nel fondo ossicine e lische di pesci.” House I.6.8-9: tablinum (d) EXCAVATIONS: 1912-27. Evidence for chest/cupboard and for bedding. Maiuri NSc 1929, 393-96: “In fondo all'atrio si apre il tablino d…si rinvennero in esso quattro piedi in bronzo ed un corrente, egualmente in bronzo, di uno dei lati lunghi di un letto; le misure che poterono prendersi prima della rimozione danno m. 2,20 di lunghezza, m. 1,25 di larghezza, m. 0,55 di altezza…tre piccoli trapezofori a zampa leonina (alt. m. 0.13) con perni in bronzo per fermarli; trattasi probabilmente di un sostegno di vaso o di grande lucerna in bronzo per fermarli; una base di colonna ottagona su plinto quadrato (m. 0.22 x m. 0.22) in giallo antico; una piccola base rettangolare di marmo bianco con il perno in ferro (alt. 0.13) per sostegno di qualche statuetta; un frammento di lastra di alabastro di qualche opus sectile scomposto.” Casa dei Quadretti Teatrali o di P. Casca Longus (I.6.11): tablinum (6) EXCAVATIONS: 1912-27. Evidence for chest/cupboard. Maiuri NSc 1929, 424: “Nel tablino n. 6. Bronzo: numero 3 borchie con chiodo in ferro; parte di serratura con relativo corrente munito di dieci fori; piccola serratura a doppio scudo di ferro e di bronzo con il corrente ed avanzi dell'asse di legno fra le due lamine; altro congegno di chiusura; elegante disco circolare (diam. 0.12) di serratura (fig. 40) ornato di cerchi concentrici incisi ed in rilievo e, lungo il bordo, di otto borchie coniche a corpo liscio o striato; presso il foro della chiave una borchia in forte rilievo con protome femminile (Medusa ?) girando, veniva a chiudere con una pisatrina il for della serratura; bilancia completa con i piatti ed i residui della funicella carbonizzata (lungh. del giogo m. 0.25); peso a corpo sferico con appiccagnolo; maniglia con arpione ber battenti di armadio o di porta; anello con quattro catenelle per laterali di cassa; tre cernierine; due guardaspigoli; tre asticelle cilindriche forate ad una estremità; frammenti di dischetti circolari applicati ad ornamento di mobile; cardine di porta. Osso: una serie di cerniere in osso.” Casa di Stallius Eros (I.6.13): tablinum (6) EXCAVATIONS: 1927. No finds were recorded from the tablinum. 405 Casa dei Ceii (I.6.15): tablinum (d) EXCAVATIONS: 1913-14. Possible evidence for chest/cupboard for the presence of furniture decoration. GdS UP 1913: “Il 2 Luglio 1913: nel tablino quattro dischi di bronzo larghi 0.055, serviti forse di decorazione ad un mobile di legno… Il 4 Luglio 1913: Regio I, Ins. VI, Casa a sud della Fullonica n. 7. Nel tablino 6, sotto la larga finestra che si apre a sud, si è raccolta una piccola e robusta patera di bronzo, larga m. 0,17 col fondo a rilievi concentrici e l'ansa desinente in foro binato sormontato da una pallina.” Casa di Paquius Proculus (I.7.1): tablinum (6) EXCAVATIONS: 1911-12, 1923-27. No finds were recorded from the tablinum, only fragments of stucco belonging to the ceiling decoration (GdS UP 1923). Casa dell’Efebo (I.7.10-12): tablinum (4) and tablinum (13) EXCAVATIONS: 1925. Evidence for bedding in the tablinum 4 and for chest/cupboard in the tablinum 4 and the tablinum 13. GdS UP 1925: “4 Maggio 1925: Addossato alla parete ovest dell'ambiente N. 19 [tablinum no. 04] e precisamente accanto alla porta che mette in comunicazione questo ambiente con quello N. 21 fu notata una impronta di cassa in legno larga m. 1.70x0.77. Furono anche rinvenute parte dei piedi e chiodi in ferro ed avanzi di legno. Sotto la parete nord di questo stesso ambiente furono rinvenute le vestigia di un letto o divano in legno. Di questo furono raccolti più pezzi dei pieci in ferro rivestiti di segmenti in osso dei quali notai alcuni avanzi di parti di legno, di tela, forse resti di lenzuolo lungo m.2x1,20… Il 27 Maggio 1925: Nell'ambiente 28 [tablinum no. 13] si è raccolto: Terracotta rossa a labbro strozzato in due punti alt. mag. 80x75. Vetro: balsamario periforme allungato alt mag. 92. Altro simile mancante della parte superiore alt mag. 65. Bronzo: Ago saccale lung. mag. 115. Ferro: forbici da giardiniere lung. mag. 165. Osso: punteruolo lung. mag. 85. Ferro: Doppio anello pieghevole lung. mag. 190x70. Chiave a doppio ordine di chiusura lung. mag. 160. Bronzo: Tre monete, due di modulo grande, una irriconoscibile, la seconda di Vespasiano (?). La terza di modulo medio ossidata. Sono state rinvenute le esatte vestigia di una cassetta di legno carbonizzata le cui tavolette erano tra loro assicurate con chiodi di ferro, in essa sono state trovate le seguenti statuette di bronzo addossate l'una all'altra. Misurando lo spazio occupato dalla statuetta risulta che la cassetta era larga m. 0,20x0,20 alta in media m. 0,30. La prima statuetta rappresenta un uomo molto scarno, barbuto, avendo col piede destro in avanti insistente su questo e col sinistro indietro. La mano sinistra alla gla quasi per reggerla, bocca aperta come se gridasse, colla destra alzata un momento più della spalla regge una [?] in argento a bordo largo e armato da volute in basso rilievo. Il fallo è pendente e molto pronunziato. La base rettangolare di bronzo, rivestito da una lamina di argento. Alt. della figura 233. Bronzo: altra simile con lievi dettagli o correzioni fatte nella fora di cera. Altra simile ma col piede sinistro in avanti, col destro indietro, colla sinistra alzata un poco fino alla spalla del medesimo lato. Altra simile ma con lievi ritocchi nella forma di cera. Una delle 406 quattro statuette è mancante del dito indice e un'altra di quello pollice…Vetro: unguentario al. mag. 62. Bronzo: due sendelli di serratura con chiudi di bronzo alt. mag. 80x65. Osso: due tavolette di una cassetta rettangolare...Terracotta a impasto fino: Due bicchieri a pareti molto sottili pancia gonfia ornato da zone al tornio ...collo ad imbuto e bocca molto larga. Uno di questi è mancante di un pezzo dell'orlo alt. mag. 90 diam. della bocca 75. Ferro: serratura con corrente e chiodi lung. 80x80. Altra serratuta semplice lung. 80x80. Zappa conservata lung. 245x140. Accetta conservata lunga 130x80. Bronzo: vasetto semplice con foro per corrosione nella pancia, coperchio sfondato da arnesi di ferro che vi stan dentro alt. 55x80…L’ 1-2 giugno 1925: Sul pavimento dell'ambiente 28 [tablinum no. 13] e sotto la parete meridionale sono stati raccolti i seguenti oggetti: Ferro: lancia col manico accartocciato, lunga, mm 305x90. Bronzo: due anse a forma di delfino, lunghe mm. 175. Coppa alta mm 44 larga mm 180 con dentro i seguenti oggetti: due frammenti di un piatto di bilancia, un doppio anello e fra essi fusa insieme una rondella; parte di un altro anello e rondella simile; una parte di lamina di bronzo il tutto aderente alla coppa. Tre borchie. Terracotta: ciotola biancata e grezza alt. mm. 85, diam. 145. Osso: quattro cerniere. Bronzo: una moneta di module medio. Osso: ago crinale... Dadi da giuoco.... Bronzo: peso per filo a piombo a forma di goccia ad acqua, ha il peduncolo forato. Osso: anello con incavo in ogni lato... Fondo di una cassettina rettangolare...sul fondo della cassettina vi sono circa 20 aghi in ferro attaccati ad essa per l'ossido. Sotto vi sono altri frammenti di ferro... Ferro: blocco di asticelle… Vetro: vetro sottile di color turchino. Piatto a fondo piatno e pareti verticali... Altri tre piatti simili. Pasta vitrea. Coppa semisferica in 19 frammenti...14 lucerne...due olle...19 coperchietti con peduncolo...Vassoio quasi semicircolare...piattino a forma sferoidale...scodella a ciotola...Ferro: tre zappe in cattivo stato...Due rastrelli in frammenti. Frammenti di una larga lamina e di una griglia. Poi vari pezzi di pietra. Piombo: due pezzi di fistula...Ferro: un cucchiaiotto da stuccatore rotto...Bronzo: vari frammenti e chiodi.” Casa di P. Cornelius Tages (I.7.19): tablinum (c) EXCAVATIONS: 1925-27. NSc 1929, 375-76: “Nel tablino n. 5: a più di un metro dal pavimento e dallo strato di cenere e di lapillo si raccolse una grossa lanterna in bronzo che doveva pendere al momento dell'eruzione dal soffitto del tablino.” 555 Casa della Statuetta Indiana (I.8.5): tablinum (4) EXCAVATIONS: 1912, 1938-39. GdS UP 1939: “10 luglio 1939: dal tablino: Bronzo: una moneta di modulo medio di Vespasiano.” 556 555 According to Allison, a ceramic lamp and a bronze lock plate (for door/chest/cupboard) were also found in the tablinum (GdS UP 1925). Unfortunately, neither I nor the archivists could locate the GdS UP. Thus, I could only report the information recorded in the NSc, which do not any evidence for a ceramic lamp and a bronze lock. 407 Casa dei Quattro Stili (I.8.17): tablinum (9) EXCAVATIONS: 1937-38, 1951. Evidence for chest. GdS UP 1938: “1 Aprile 1938: Presso la parete N a circa m. 2 dal piano antico in mucchio di terre sconvolte si è rinvenuto: Bronzo: statuina virile comica con bocca spalancata, mento prominente e braccio destro ripiegato nell'atto di sorreggere la mandibola con la mano. La figura è nella posizione seduta. Alt. m. 0.70…Il 4 aprile 1938: In un cumulo di maceria presso l'angolo NE si sono raccolti i seguenti avanzi di un cassettino: Bronzo: Gruppo di avanzi ornamentali di un cassettino di legno costituito da fascette laminari, da borchiette di varie forme e dimensione, da una piccola maniglia ad arco ed elementi decorativi raffiguranti tre amorini due anitre ed un pesce…Il 5 aprile 1938: Sul pavimento al centro del salone si è rinvenuto: Argento: Cucchiaino con il manico desinente a punta. Lung. m. 0,155. Bronzo: Tre monete di medio modulo di Claudio. Bronzo: Cerniera con un'aletta mozza. Lun. m. 0,18.” Casa di Amarantus (I.9.12): 557 tablinum (5) EXCAVATIONS: 1952-54. Berry 1997a, 109: “A The material excavated from the tablinum (5) was disturbed and the condition of this area of the house when it was first excavated was ruinous…the Giornali states that there was some rubble on the floor which was there before the eruption, and do not mention any evidence for a roof. Artefacts recovered in this area consist of (in the southeast corner of the pavement) a terracotta lamp, two coins, and a rectangular bronze signet bearing the inscription "Q. MESTR' MAX IM I"; (in the northeast corner) a bronze coin, and two ornamental plaques made of bone; and (along the west wall) several amphorae.” Casa del Menandro (I.10.4): 558 tablinum (8) EXCAVATIONS: 1926-32. Evidence for bedding. Allison 2007, 64-6: “Bronze and silver bed fittings (along west wall, toward the S-W corner; Pompeii, inv. 4270A-B); no precise location in the tablinum: bronze ring handle (Pompeii, inv. 4244A); bronze lamina (4244B); fragment of bronze strap hinge (Pompeii, inv. 4245); bronze strap hinge (Pompeii, inv. 4248); another fragment of bronze strap 556 The following items were not found within the tablinum but nearby its western anta: GdS UP 1939: “Il 24 luglio 1939: Presso il pilastro occidentale del tablino a m. 0,50 dal pavimento si è rinvenuto: Bronzo: cucchiaino col manico rastremato, lung. m. 0,13. Vetro: bottiglietta a corpo quadrangolare. Alt. m. 0,065.” 557 For this tablinum, neither I or the archivist could locate the GdS UP. Thus, I relied on the artifactual study carried by Berry (1997a). 558 For this tablinum, neither I or the archivist could locate the GdS. Thus, I relied on the artifactual study carried by Allison (2007). A description of the bedding furniture from this tablinum, however, can be also found in Maiuri 1933, 423-37, figs. 159-60. 408 hinge (Pompeii, inv. 4249); bronze nail; marble herm (Pompeii, inv. 4237); ceramic bowl; two clay loom weights; bronze grappa).” Casa del Fabbro (I.10.7): tablinum (7) EXCAVATIONS: 1932-33. Possible presence of chest/cupboard for the quantity items found within the tablinum. Elia NSc 1934, 297-301: “Bronzo: disco a percussione per segnale orario con orlo a taglio diritto, arpione e catenina per la sospensione, passante in un foro non centrato… – gruppo di elementi di una bilancia a stadera costituita: a) da un giogo di forma quadrata, con angoli apicati; b) da un manicotto cilindrico…c) frammenti delle capsule di rinvestimento; d) due pesi… – vaso da misura (sextarius) di forma tronco-conica dall’ansa ad anello sormontata da un ditto umano a rilievo con fondo frammentato… – piattello di candelabro… - ‘bombylios’ a tronco di cono rovescio ed a basso e stretto collo, con catenina di sospensione… – pieduccio di vaso in forma di pelta… - borchietta… - coppa crateriforme a basso piede tornito… - gruppo di nove monete… - specchio di forma circolare… - casseruola… - altra più piccola, ma fusa, a coppa cilindrica… - fruttiera a coppa ellittica… - coppa di lamina fusa… - coppetta di un ‘infundibulum’… - anello con quattro catenine di sospensione… - maniglia di cassa… - scudo di serratura di cassa… - scudo di serratura… - scudo e congegno di serratura di cassa... – gruppo di nove cerchietti per maniglia… - gruppo di dodici borchie a semplice umbone… - gruppo di due anelli e di due campanellini… - bilancia… - altra bilancia… - Astuccio cilindrico ‘graphiaria techa’ di semplice lamina con coperchio mobile; lunghezza m. 0.184 del diametro di m. 0.015 contenente tre ferri da pittore… - altro astuccio cilindrico analogo, di semplice lamina, ornato di striature orizzontali, contenente tre specilli… - altro simile di semplice lamina (lunghezza m. 0.185) contenente due spatole a foglia (cestri) e due cucchiaini per sostanze gelatinose… - altro simile con coperchio, vuoto – due manici di coltello… - altri due manici di coltello… - piccola scatola rettangolare… Bronzo e pietra: oggetto formato da un coperchio in bronzo avente al centro un incavo emisferico, con gli orli ricurvi formanti una guida per la lastrina di ardesia ad orlo sagomato che vi scorre al disotto… - due lastrine di ardesia per lo uso…; sono tutti astucci per spugna (spongium) (fig. 14) – elementi di una sostanza grassa solidifacata, forse un mastice – scudetto di serratura di una cassettina… - quattro cerniere di porta… - patera con recipiente emisferico… - ‘pelvi’ poggiante su tre piedini… - altra simile… - piccolo ‘perpendiculum’ piriforme, mancante dell’anello di sospenzione, altezza m. 0.03 – otto cerniere a forma di anelli dello spessore di metri 0.14…Vetro: coppa ombelicata… - piccola olla… - ciotoletta… - boccetta piriforme di vetro bianco opaco… - boccetta di vetro bianco a corpo bulbare… - tazza frammentata… - quattro bottiglie di vetro bianco opaco a corpo bulbare e collo lungo… - quattro bottiglie piriformi a collo lungo… - aryballos di vetro bianco… - unguentario fusiforme di vetro bianco, opaco… - bottiglia cilindrica di vetro verde… - bottiglia cubica… - salsiera di vetro verde – ‘provino’ di vetro verde… - ‘provino-storta’ di vetro bianco azzurro… - coppa di vetro verdino… - due ciotolette frammentarie… - una scatola cilindrica (pyxis) di vetro blu… - bottiglia cubica con ansa… - due unguentari… - boccettina sferica. Pietra colorata: gruppo di tre gemme per anelli….Bronzo, maiolica, pasta vitrea e osso: ventisette elemenit di una collana costituiti ciascuno da un ciondolo, aventi carattere di 409 amuleto: a) tre grani tondi di vetro semplice; b) un vago cilindrico di vetro variegato; c) un grano a tre spicchi riuniti; d) un grano di cristallo sferico; e) una minuscola tartaruga; f) due Bes di cui uno frammentario; g) due ossicini di animali, forati; h) un pendaglio a forma di uliva strigilata; i) un cane; l) un coniglietto; m) una tesserina con lettere incise; n) una mano; o) una statuina minuscola di Arpocrate; p) un dado faccettato; q) un grappolo di uva; r) una statuita di Iside-Fortuna; s) un pesce; t) una figurina magica femminile; u) un astragalo forato; v) un rospo; x) un rosoncino; y) un ciondoletto rettangolare ritagliato agli orli; z) un fiore di loto. Inoltre nel gruppo di amuleti fu rinvenuto il fermaglio di bronzo che chiudeva la collanina costituito da un gancetto a bottone ed occhiello e da un altro a bottone ed a asola trinagolare (fig. 20) (Inv. 5332). Osso e pasta vitrea: 14 borchiette forate di varia forma e grandezza… - Osso: 28 elementi di cerniera…; gruppo di 16 elementi cilindrici di cerniera…e due capsule terminali…Ferro: astucciuola di specillo, spezzata e concrezionata…Piombo: due pesi in forma di piramide.” Casa della Venere in Bikini (I.11.6-7): 559 tablinum (7) EXCAVATIONS: 1954. Evidence for chest/cupboard. Allison 2004: “Underneath a stairway along the west wall was a cupboard. Several amphorae were found in this cupboard, and two bronze locks, and a bronze buckle. Two bronze coins were probably also from here. A wooden box or small chest was reported on the floor on the east side of this room. Twenty-one bone hinges (three described as large), bronze bosses, bronze nails, and a lock with attached chains were also found on the floor. The