Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
The early history of the Augusteo, as the Mausoleum of Augustus is now called, wins little space in contemporary literature. Among classical writers first Strabo and then Suetonius tell us that Augustus built for himself and his family, between the Via Flaminia and the Tiber, this huge circular tumulus, crowned with evergreens, surmounted by his own effigy in bronze, and retained by a lofty base of white stone. And these accounts supplement one another in detail, Suetonius noting that the work was done in 28 B.C, and thereby causing one to wonder whether Antony's fate and the conspiracy of Lepidus set Augustus about building his own last resting-place; while Strabo mentions that anustrinum of similar stone, with an iron railing in a circle round it, stood not far away. The building was ready by 23 B.C, when Vergil spoke 4 of it as new. Many people— we know of fourteen great ones— lay within; but the last Emperor to be buried there was Nerva, and then the tomb, entrusted to a procurator's care, was only opened for a short time to house, in the part allotted to Lucius and Gaius, the remains of Julia Domna. In the fourth century it found a place in the list of City monuments, and Ammianus Marcellinus pauses to state that two obelisks in front of it were later additions. After that classical history tells no more of the building or of its fate.
page 23 note 1 Strabo, v. 236.
page 23 note 2 Suetonius, Vit. Aug. 100.
page 23 note 3 These are omitted from the restoration proper, for sake of clearness, but their probable arrangement is shown on a smallscale drawing (Fig. 3).
page 23 note 4 Aen. vi. 873.
page 23 note 5 Viz. Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius, Lucius, Augustus, Livia, Drusus, Germanicus, Tiberius, Agrippina, Livilla, Claudius, Poppaea, Nerva.
page 23 note 6 Aurelius Victor, xii. 12; cf. Cass. Dio, lxix. 33.
page 23 note 7 C.I.L. vi. 8686.
page 23 note 8 Cass. Dio, lxxviii. 24, 3.
page 23 note 9 Curiosum, Urlichs, Codex Urbis R., pp. 20–21.
page 23 note 10 Amm. Marc. xvii. 4, 16. They do not occur in the elder Pliny's list.
page 23 note 11 Arch. R. Star. Pat. 1899, xxii. p. 268Google Scholar.
page 23 note 12 Poggio, De varietate fortunae = Urlichs,Cod. Urbis R. p. 240; cf. Ducange,s.v. cacumen.
page 24 note 1 See Bartoli, Cento Vedute, Tav. A, p. 20.
page 24 note 2 Hermanin, Stadt Rom im xvii. Jahrhundert.
page 24 note 3 Villani = Muratori, , Rer. Ital. Script, xiii. p. 131aGoogle Scholar. Nibby adds to this tradition an unwarranted statement that the Mausoleum then suffered heavily, an error consecrated by Lanciani.
page 24 note 4 Richard de St. Germain = Ughelli, , Ital. Sacr. x. p. 238Google Scholar.
page 24 note 5 Patrini, Memorie di Palestrina, p. 411.
page 24 note 6 Muratori, , Ant. Ital. Med. Aevi, iii. p. 539Google Scholar.
page 24 note 7 Urlichs,Cod. Urbis R., p. 162.
page 24 note 8 C.I.L. vi. 886.
page 24 note 9 Cerasoli, , Bull. Com. XXXIII. (1895), p. 304Google Scholar.
page 24 note 10 See note 12, p. 23.
page 24 note 11 Cerasoli, , Bull. Com. XXXIII. (1895), p. 305Google Scholar.
page 24 note 12 Ibidem. p. 306.
page 24 note 13 Storia degli Scavi, ii. p. 13.
page 24 note 14 See C.I.L. vi. 894.Accursio, Ambros. D. 420, f. 31.
page 24 note 15 Uffizi A. 2067, 2068: not noted in C.I.L.
page 24 note 16 Uffizi A. 384–391 = Bartoli, , Uff. II. cxii–cxiv.Google Scholar: His base-lines, however, are not now to be identified.
page 24 note 17 Cf. Töbelmann, R. Gebälke, on the Arch of Augustus, p. 14.
page 24 note 18 Cf. Bull. Com. 1882, pp. 152–154. Lanciani's transcription of Peruzzi's notes is faulty; and the reductions of his scales to metric equivalents, wrong in themselves, rest upon wrong equations.
page 24 note 19 For these measurements see Hülsen, , Röm. Mitt., IX. (1894), p. 329Google Scholar, based on Sangallo the elder. 1 R. palmo = ·233 metre; 75 passi = 375 piedi R. = 50canne 500palmi R.
page 25 note 1 Bartoli, , Uff. IV., cccxxx., cccxxvi., cccxxiv., III., ccxli., ccxxxvi., ccxxxi., ccxii., cclviiGoogle Scholar.
page 25 note 2 C.I.L. vi. 886.
page 25 note 3 Unless venuti, ii. p. 57, cap. 3, is more correct; see C.I.L. ad loc.
page 25 note 4 Bull. Com. XXXIII. (1895), pp. 306–7Google Scholar: possession in 1546 is proved by Arch. di Stat. R., Investig. 25, fol. 73, June 6, 1546.
page 25 note 5 See Aldroandi, Statue di Roma, 1588, pp. 198–201: cf. Storia degli Scavi, iii. p. 241, andAlbum de Pierre Jacques, 1575, P. 57.
page 25 note 6 Bartoli, Cento Vedute, Tav. A, p. 20.
page 25 note 7 Vestigii, 36. The original sketch is Uff. A. 1750 = Egger, R. Veduten, 7, assigned by Egger to an Anonymus.
page 25 note 8 Diario di Roma, July 3, 1780, No. 570.
page 25 note 9 There are preserved in the Palazzo Correa two engravings showing this building; and Dr. Ashby possesses another, showing its conversion to more permanent form. Uggeri, , Journées Pittoresques, xii. p. 63Google Scholar, note a, mentions another.
page 25 note 10 Maggi, Edif. et Ruin. R. 1618.
page 25 note 11 Giovannoli Alò, i. 40.
page 25 note 12 Bartoli, Antichi Sepolcri, 1727, pl. 72.
page 25 note 13 Ibidem, pl. 71.
page 26 note 1 Piranesi; plan, Antichità, ii. Pl. LXI.: drawing, Campo Marzio, xxi.; section, Antichità, ii., Pl. LXII.
page 26 note 2 Uggeri, 1814, xii. Pl XIV.
page 26 note 3 Canina, , Edifici, iv. 283Google Scholar.
page 26 note 4 Cancellieri, Il Mercato, p. 66.
page 26 note 5 Parker, , Archaeology of Rome, vol. vi. p. 8Google Scholar.
page 26 note 6 Rosa, Relazione delle scoperte arch. 1871–2. p. 73. Lanciani, , F.U.R. viii.Google Scholar, marks the wall as straight.
page 27 note 1 Parker, , Archaeology of Rome, vi. p. 8Google Scholar.
page 28 note 1 Rosa, Relazione delle scoperte arch. 1871–2, p. 73. Gardthausen, , Röm. Mitt., XXXVI.–XXXVII. (1921–1922), p. 140Google Scholar, mistakes this for a precinct wall.
page 28 note 2 Peruzzi = Bartoli, , Uff. II. cxiiGoogle Scholar. = Uff. Arch. 391 recto.
page 29 note 1 See note 10, p. 23.
page 29 note 2 Uff. Arch. 381–391.
page 29 note 3 This has been attempted by Lanciani, but badly; cf. Bull. Com. 1882, pp. 152–4.
page 29 note 4 Cf. the Forum of Augustus and the Tomb of Caecilia Metella, Rome.
page 29 note 5 Uff. Arch. 392 = Bartoli, , Uff. II. cxivGoogle Scholar. (see Pl. XV.).
page 29 note 6 See the end of the paragraph.
page 29 note 7 Strabo, v. 236.
page 29 note 8 Cf. D'Espouy, , Fragments d'Architecture Antique, iGoogle Scholar. pl. 38, Theatre of Marcellus: Anderson and Spiers, Arch. of Greece and Rome, Fig. 139, Temple of Hercules at Cori— a still closer resemblance.
page 29 note 9 Antichità, ii. Pl. LXII.
page 30 note 1 Cf. Canina, , Edifici, vi. xxxGoogle Scholar. A fine example of an actual bronze and stone door is preserved in the State Museum, Constantinople.
page 30 note 2 Bartoli, Antichi Sepolcri, Pl. 73 (numbered 72 by mistake).
page 30 note 3 Cf. Piranesi, , Ant. II. lxiiGoogle Scholar., and our Plate XII.
page 30 note 4 These stones are still preserved in the entrance-passage.
page 30 note 5 This seems to show that they belong to one and the same arch. Nor does ventilation demand a pair (see final paragraph).
page 31 note 1 See J.R.S. XV. (1925)Google Scholar, PL XVII.
Page 31 note 2 It is clear that in 28 B.C. Augustus can hardly have had the same ideas about the scope of the tomb as in A.D. 14.
Page 31 note 3 Cf. Rivoira, Roman Architecture, Figs. 8, 9, 14, 277.
Page 31 note 4 C.I.L. vi. 886.
Page 32 note 1 This sarcophagus has the following history. Described by Stephani, A-Sammlung zu Pawlowsk, p. 24, No. 42. It passed to the Lyde-Brown collection (Catalogue of 1779, No. 1) between 1768 and 1779, at the time of the dispersal of the Soderini collection, since it is not mentioned in the catalogue of 1768. The Soderini Collection was formed from various sources as early as 1567 (cf. Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, ii. p. 15Google Scholar), but the sarcophagus did not form part of it in 1588, when Aldroandi compiled his list. So its provenience is very doubtful. Finally, I am assured by Mrs. Strong and Miss J. Toynbee (who is about to publish it in the J.R.S) that its style is Hadrianic. An illustration is in Codex Pigbianus Berol. 361. Doubtless the legend, ‘ fu trovato nel Mausoleo ’ served rather to enhance its price at the Soderini sale, than to embody the truth.
Page 32 note 2 C.I.L. vi. 894. Peruzzi = Uff. Arch. 2067, 2068.
Page 32 note 3 C.I.L. vi. 895.
Page 32 note 4 Strabo, v. 236.
Page 32 note 5 This, therefore, invalidates Rivoira's assertion, that the Mausoleum was the first large tomb to have a marble-faced exterior.
Page 32 note 6 Suet. vit. Aug. 101.
Page 32 note 7 Peruzzi = Uff. Arch. 394 = Bartoli, , Uff. II. cxiGoogle Scholar. Fig. 198.
Page 32 note 8 Suet. Fit. Aug. 100.
Page 32 note 9 Lanciani, , F.U.R. viiiGoogle Scholar.
Page 32 note 10 C.I.L. vi. 888–893.
Page 32 note 11 Lanciani's ustrinum is, as Hülsen has noted, pure conjecture, based on the crematorium of the Antonines at Monte Citorio. It appears on our Pl. XVIII., but not on XIX.
Page 33 note 1 Cf. Pierce, S. R., J.R.S. XV. (1925)Google Scholar, Pls. XV.–XVIL, where the skeleton of the building is not supplied, since it is inaccessible.
Page 33 note 2 The regular practice in any theatrical building.
Page 33 note 3 If there is any truth in the portent reported before Nero's death (Suet. Vit. Neron. 46), de Mausoleo, sponte foribus patefactis, exaudita vox est nomine eum cientis, there may have been a serious subsidence or collapse as early as A.D. 68.
Page 34 note 1 The brick-facing of Roman buildings has, of course, been studied thoroughly by Dr. Esther van Deman. The methods described below are dealt with by Middleton, but he confuses foundations with superstructures.
Page 34 note 2 Normally, when the building got too high for struts to be practicable, the shuttering was held at the bottom by a key into a putlog hole.
Page 34 note 3 Evidently the use of bonding-courses of large tiles, passing right through brick-faced walls, is an attempt to avoid this danger by binding in the face to the whole structure. But the bonding-course offered a new and more dangerous line of cleavage, and the practice of running the tiles right through the walls seems to have been discontinued for that reason. On buildings constructed at high speed, where care was not paid to this matter, frequent refacings became necessary.
Page 34 note 4 Economy in shuttering may have exacted a standard radius for apses in buildings containing many of them.
Page 34 note 5 Here it is plain that tooling began on the stones when in position (e.g. on the outer archivolt of each gate) but was not continued, perhaps for aesthetic reasons.
Page 35 note 1 See J.R.S. XV. (1925)Google Scholar, Pl. XVII.
Page 35 note 2 In conclusion both writers wish, to thank Dr. Ashby for valuable suggestions, and the Conte Calori, of the Palazzo Correa, for local information and for prints and plans of parts of the building. Without the kind permission of Gr. Uff. T. Bencivenga, Direttore dell' Uff. X. del Municipio, we could not have attempted this work. Official precedent, however, prevented us from viewing the alterations inside the building which have recently (1927) taken place. If further discoveries are made, we venture to hope that our contribution will facilitate preparation of the final account.
