DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0243
DOMUS: TIBERIANA
193
brick-stamp—CIL xv. 1081 (145-155 a.d.) ; but further investigation is
needed. For some fine pieces of pavement in opus sectile, see PT 183.
It is, of course, easier to study the outer extremities of the palace.
At the north angle we must attribute to Domitian the huge pile, on the
level of the forum, erected over the peristyle of Caligula, but on a
divergent orientation, which is commonly known as the temple of
Augustus (q.v.) with the two halls behind it, often called the Biblio-
theca Templi Divi Augusti (q.v.), into which the church of S. Maria
Antiqua was inserted before the sixth century (HCh 309 ; Rushforth,
PBS i. 1-123 ; Mitt. 1902, 74-82; 1905, 84-94; HC 161-180;
Griineisen, S. Marie Antique (Rome 1911) ; Wilpert, Mosaiken und
Malereien, ii. passim), but by others supposed to be a reconstruction
of the vestibule of the domus Gaiana (Jahrb. d. Inst, xxxvi. 1-36).1
To him we must also attribute the reconstruction of the exterior
of the substructions of the palace itself, and especially the double-tiered
balcony above the clivus Victoriae—the so-called Bridge of Caligula
(PBS vii. 118-120 ; AJA cit.) ; the rooms behind it are supposed to be
guard rooms ; see RA 63, 64 ; Mem. Am. Acad. iv. 46-48 ; HFP 67, 68.
A single-tiered balcony of the same form continues all round the
exterior of the substructions as far as the east angle (JRIBA 1922,
p. 561, fig. 8 : ASA 135 : the type is quite frequent at Ostia).
Hadrian enclosed the ‘ Temple of Augustus ’ group with a stately
portico, with arcades connected by half columns. ‘ At the same time
the lofty guardrooms on the slope above vanished, in their turn, behind
even more lofty vaults and arches, which united the palace above to
the new Atrium Vestae below, which is of the same period. As a link
to unite these two great structures, Hadrian also built the majestic
ramp by which one still ascends to the Palatine ’ ; (AJA 1924, 398 and
pl. x (Ill. 23) ; the plans in LF 29=LR 155 and ZA 193 are less correct).
On the south-west side of the palace there are traces of work of
the beginning of the second century a.d. (HJ 78, n. 96), especially in
the vaulted chambers described in BC 1894, 95-IOO ; NS 1896, 162 ;
LR 148, and in the open fish pond above them.
The domus Tiberiana is mentioned in Hist. Aug. Pius 10 ; Marcus 6 ;
Verus 2, 6, as the residence of the emperors at that time (for the only
evidence of reconstruction, see above), though by Domus Commodiana
(Commodus 12) the Domus Augustiana (q.v.) is probably meant ;
and its library is spoken of by Fronto ad M. Caes. iv. 5, p. 68, Naber,
and Gellius xiii. 20. I (from whom is probably taken the false state-
ment in Hist. Aug. Prob. 2 : usus autem sum praecipue libris ex
bibliotheca Ulpia—item ex domo Tiberiana : v. Forum Traianum).
Cf. also CIL vi. 8653-5 f°r inscriptions of slaves attached to it
1 The two small openings in the back wall, one leading into each of the two halls into
which S. Maria Antiqua was inserted, are, however, as Hiilsen has pointed out, no proper
continuation of a monumental entrance of this kind (cf. HFP 43).
A.D.R.
N
193
brick-stamp—CIL xv. 1081 (145-155 a.d.) ; but further investigation is
needed. For some fine pieces of pavement in opus sectile, see PT 183.
It is, of course, easier to study the outer extremities of the palace.
At the north angle we must attribute to Domitian the huge pile, on the
level of the forum, erected over the peristyle of Caligula, but on a
divergent orientation, which is commonly known as the temple of
Augustus (q.v.) with the two halls behind it, often called the Biblio-
theca Templi Divi Augusti (q.v.), into which the church of S. Maria
Antiqua was inserted before the sixth century (HCh 309 ; Rushforth,
PBS i. 1-123 ; Mitt. 1902, 74-82; 1905, 84-94; HC 161-180;
Griineisen, S. Marie Antique (Rome 1911) ; Wilpert, Mosaiken und
Malereien, ii. passim), but by others supposed to be a reconstruction
of the vestibule of the domus Gaiana (Jahrb. d. Inst, xxxvi. 1-36).1
To him we must also attribute the reconstruction of the exterior
of the substructions of the palace itself, and especially the double-tiered
balcony above the clivus Victoriae—the so-called Bridge of Caligula
(PBS vii. 118-120 ; AJA cit.) ; the rooms behind it are supposed to be
guard rooms ; see RA 63, 64 ; Mem. Am. Acad. iv. 46-48 ; HFP 67, 68.
A single-tiered balcony of the same form continues all round the
exterior of the substructions as far as the east angle (JRIBA 1922,
p. 561, fig. 8 : ASA 135 : the type is quite frequent at Ostia).
Hadrian enclosed the ‘ Temple of Augustus ’ group with a stately
portico, with arcades connected by half columns. ‘ At the same time
the lofty guardrooms on the slope above vanished, in their turn, behind
even more lofty vaults and arches, which united the palace above to
the new Atrium Vestae below, which is of the same period. As a link
to unite these two great structures, Hadrian also built the majestic
ramp by which one still ascends to the Palatine ’ ; (AJA 1924, 398 and
pl. x (Ill. 23) ; the plans in LF 29=LR 155 and ZA 193 are less correct).
On the south-west side of the palace there are traces of work of
the beginning of the second century a.d. (HJ 78, n. 96), especially in
the vaulted chambers described in BC 1894, 95-IOO ; NS 1896, 162 ;
LR 148, and in the open fish pond above them.
The domus Tiberiana is mentioned in Hist. Aug. Pius 10 ; Marcus 6 ;
Verus 2, 6, as the residence of the emperors at that time (for the only
evidence of reconstruction, see above), though by Domus Commodiana
(Commodus 12) the Domus Augustiana (q.v.) is probably meant ;
and its library is spoken of by Fronto ad M. Caes. iv. 5, p. 68, Naber,
and Gellius xiii. 20. I (from whom is probably taken the false state-
ment in Hist. Aug. Prob. 2 : usus autem sum praecipue libris ex
bibliotheca Ulpia—item ex domo Tiberiana : v. Forum Traianum).
Cf. also CIL vi. 8653-5 f°r inscriptions of slaves attached to it
1 The two small openings in the back wall, one leading into each of the two halls into
which S. Maria Antiqua was inserted, are, however, as Hiilsen has pointed out, no proper
continuation of a monumental entrance of this kind (cf. HFP 43).
A.D.R.
N