AUGUSTUS, DOMUS (2)
* the house of Augustus on the Palatine, which served
as his residence subsequently;
habitavit ... postea in Palatio, sed
nihilo minus aedibus modicis Hortensianis, et neque laxitate neque
cultu conspicuis, ut in quibus porticus breves essent Albanarum
columnarum, et sine marmore ullo aut insigni pavimento conclavia
(Suet. Aug. 72; cf. 29:
templum Apollinis in ea parte Palatinae
domus excitavit, quam fulmine ictum desiderari a deo haruspices
pronuntiarant). The house was thus originally that of Hortensius,
and close to the temple of
APOLLO (q.v.); and if we identify the latter
with the podium on the south-west side of the hill, the house of
Hortensius will be that which is generally known as the house of
Livia. Augustus also acquired the house of
Q. LUTATIUS CATULUS
(q.v.), the site of which is not exactly known.
We thus learn from Suet. that a part of the house of Augustus was
struck by lightning and the temple of Apollo was erected on its site-
in compensation for which the senate decreed that a house should be
given to him out of the public funds (Cass.
Dio xlix. 15. 5). The
enlarged house must have been ready at more or less the same time as
the temple of Apollo; for on 13th January, 27 B.C., the senate decreed
that an oak crown should be placed over the door (Fast. Praen. 13 Jan.;
Mon.
Anc. vi. 13; Cass.
Dio liii. 16. 4; Ov. Fasti, i. 509;
iv. 951;
for a representation cf. the Sorrento base (Mitt. 1889, pl. x.;
1894,
238 sqq.; SScR 76), and Cohen, Aug. 385=BM. Aug. 126).
The authors speak of its great simplicity, and of a lofty tower
chamber, into which the emperor was glad to retire (Suet. Aug. 72,
73) and of an
AEDICULA ET ARA VESTAE (q.v.). The house was
destroyed by fire in 3 A.D. (Cass.
Dio lv. 12; Suet. Aug. 57), and
Augustus only accepted pro forma the contributions made for its
repair.
Hulsen suggests that the older remains under the basilica, peristyle
and triclinium of the
DOMUS AUGUSTIANA (v. p. 161) may belong
to the palace of Augustus (HJ go). But even if we accept his theory
as to the temple of Apollo, on which this depends, this is only possible
for the former group, to which, however, the rooms under the large
hall to the S.E. and the so-called lararium must be added-if they
do not belong to an independent house. And, as the temple was
founded in a part of the original house (see above), this would make it
far too large (Richmond in
JRS 1914, 193-194). On the other hand,
if we identify the podium on the S.W. with the temple of Apollo
(cf. Reber, 382), the house of Hortensius purchased by Augustus may
well be identified (as Parker, Photo 2250, had already suggested) with
what is generally known as the house of Livia. That it actually passed
into her possession is very probable, from the discovery of lead water-pipes with the name Iuliae Aug(ustae) (
CIL xv. 7264), which most
authorities refer to her. It has also been identified with the house of
Germanicus, the father of Caligula, where the murderers of the latter
hid themselves (Joseph. Ant.
Iud. xix. 1. 15 (117)), e.g. by LR 149- 151 ;
cf. HJ 63 (but contrast the rejection of this theory, ib. 85, n. 109).
But only the identification with the house of Augustus suffices to
explain the fact that it was preserved unaltered down to the end of the
classical period, as though it had been an object of veneration (see
DOMUS TIBERIANA). Water-pipes show that it remained imperial
property at least until the time of Domitian (
CIL xv. 7285-ib. 7265.
L. Pescennius Eros Caesarum may be almost contemporary with
7264, the Caesares being either Gaius and Lucius or Tiberius, Drusus,
and Germanicus).
The house is approached by a small passage, accessible from the
cryptoporticus of the domus Tiberiana, which leads into a court,
most of which is paved with mosaic. On the right is a small
triclinium, and next to it a wine cellar; and opposite the entrance are
three vaulted rooms, facing N.W. and originally lighted by large
lunette windows over the roof of the court. The paintings are similar
to those which in Pompeii are assigned to the second style, and (especially in the central room of the three, wrongly called tablinum) their
perspective owes much to scene painting (Mau in Ann. d.
Inst. 1880,
136 sqq.; Gesch. d. Wandmalerei 167-174; 196-205; cf. HJ 62 n. 62).
1
The other section of the house (perhaps the front) was only reached
from the portion described by a narrow wooden staircase. At first
it consisted of a courtyard surrounded by a portico with rectangular
pillars, and rooms on two sides of it (N.W. and S.W.); the centre of it
was then filled up by a large room; then the portico was split up into
small rooms; and finally the cast angle was cut by a narrow cryptoporticus (
YW 1911, 10), which has destroyed this front of the house-
if there was one. There is a lower story, as to which no information
is available at present.
On the S.W. are the scanty remains of a peristyle, at present cut
off from the rest of the house by a road which is not ancient, but the
result of restoration by Rosa
(who excavated the house in 1869), which
is identified as the atrium in which the senate met (
JRS 1914, 207,
213 sqq.; Tac.
Ann. ii. 37;
xiii. 5. 2; Serv. ad
Aen. vii. 170-175;
xi. 235). Its area is at least 14.20 by 15 metres, or even 22.70 by 20
(
BC 1913, 199-224)-certainly not as little as 6 by 15 (DAP 2. xi. 13).
It was built on the remains of an earlier house, a white mosaic pavement of which still remains under the vault of the cryptoporticus.
This vault must have been set on the remains of the pre-existing
building, and, though provided with windows, was never cleared out
so as to be accessible. Further remains of both periods have also
been found to the N.W. and S.W., but no description is available.
See HJ 60-63,74-76; BA 1914, Cr 73; YW 1920,83-84; ZA 178-186.