FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.1
FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.1
1I have run away. Catch me. If you take me back to my master Zoninus you'll be rewarded.
173For an attempt upon the life of the master the penalty was death in its most agonizing form, by crucifixion. This was also the penalty for taking part in an insurrection, witness the twenty thousand crucified in Sicily (§132) and the six thousand crosses that Pompeius erected along the road to Rome, each bearing the body of one of the survivors of the final battle in which Spartacus fell. And the punishment was inflicted not only upon the slave guilty of his master's life, but also upon the family of the slave, if he had wife (§156) and children. If the guilty man could not be found, his punishment was made certain by the crucifixion of all the slaves of the murdered man. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Nero four hundred slaves were executed for the murder of their master, Pedianus Secundus, by one of their number undetected.
174The cross stood to the slave as the horror of horrors. The very word (crux) was used among them as a curse, especially in the formad(malam)crucem. The various minor punishments were inflicted at the order of the master or his representative by some fellow slave called for the timecarnifexorlōrārius, though these words by no means imply that he was regularly or even commonly designated for the disagreeable duty. Still, the administration of punishment to a fellow slave was felt to be degrading, and the wordcarnifexwas apt to attach itself to such a person and finally came to be a standing term of abuse and taunt. It is applied to each other by quarreling slaves, apparently with no notion of its literal meaning, as many vulgar epithets are applied to-day. The actual execution of a death sentence was carried out by one of theservī pūblicī(§141) at a fixed place of execution outside of the city walls.
175Manumission.—The slave might purchase his freedom from his master by means of his savings, as we have seen (§164), or he might be set free as a reward for faithful service or some special act of devotion. In either case it was only necessary for the master to pronounce him free in the presence of witnesses, though a formal act of manumission often took place before a praetor. The new-made freedman set proudly on his head the cap of liberty (pilleus), often seen on Roman coins (Fig. 34). He was now calledlībertusin reference to his master,lībertīnusin reference to others; his master was no longerdominus, butpatrōnus. The relation that now existed between them was one of mutual helpfulness. The patron assisted the freedman in business, often supplying the means with which he was to make a start in his new life. It the freedman died first, the patron paid the expenses of a decent funeral and had the body buried near the spot where his own ashes would be laid. He became the guardian of the freedman's children, or if no heirs were left, he himself inherited the property. The freedman was bound to show his patron marked deference and respect on all occasions, to attend him upon public occasions, to assist him in case of reverse of fortune, and in short to stand to him in the same relation as the client had stood to the patron in the brave days of old.
176The Clients.—The wordcliēns(fromclueō;therefore "hearer," "one who obeys") is used in Roman history of two very different classes of dependents, who are separated by a considerable interval of time and may be roughly distinguished as the Old Clients and the New. The former played an important part under the Kings, and especially in the struggles between the patricians and plebeians in the early days of the Republic, but had practically disappeared by the time of Cicero. The latter are first heard of after the Empire was well advanced, and never had any political significance. Between the two classes there is absolutely no connection, and the student must be careful to notice that the later is not a development of the earlier class.
177The Old Clients.—Clientage (clientēla) goes back beyond the founding of Rome to the most ancient social institutions of the Italian communities. Thegentēswho settled on the hills along the Tiber (§22) had brought with them as a part of theirfamiliae(§21) numerous free retainers, who seem to have farmed their lands, tended their flocks, and done them certain personal services in return for protection against cattle thieves, raiders, and open enemies. These retainers were regarded as inferior members of thegēnsto which they had severally attached themselves, had a share in the increase of the flocks and herds (§33,pecūlia), and were given the clan name (§47), but they had no right of marriage with persons of the higher class and no voice in the government. They were the originalplēbs, while thegentīlēs(§22) were thepopulusof Rome.
178Rome's policy of expansion soon brought within the city a third element, distinct from bothgentīlēsandclientēs. Conquered communities, especially those dangerously near, were made to destroy their own strongholds (oppida) and move in mass to the city. Those who possessed already the gentile organization were allowed to become a part of thepopulus, or governing body, and these, too, brought theirclientēswith them. Those who had no such organization either attached themselves to thegentēsas clients, or preferring personal independence settled here and there, in and about the city, to make a living as best they might. Some were possessed of means as large perhaps as those of the patricians; others were artisans and laborers, hewers of wood and drawers of water; but all alike were without political rights and occupied the lowest position in the new state. Their numbers increased rapidly with the expansion of Roman territory, and they soon outnumbered the patricians with their retainers, with whom, of course, as conquered people they could have no sympathies or social ties. To them also the name ofplēbswas given, and the oldplēbs, theclientēs, began to occupy an intermediate position in the state, though politically included with the plebeians. Many of them, owing perhaps to the dying out of ancient patrician families, gradually lost their dependent relation and became identified in interests with the newer element.
179Mutual Obligations.—The relation between the patrician patrons and the plebeian clients is not now thoroughly understood; the problems connected with it seem beyond solution. We know that it was hereditary and that the great houses boasted of the number of their clients and were eager to increase them from generation to generation. We know that it was regarded as something peculiarly sacred, that the client stood to the patron as little less than a son. Vergil tells us that a special punishment in the underworld awaited the patron who defrauded a client. We read, too, of instances of splendid loyalty to their patrons on the part of clients, a loyalty to which we can only compare in modern times that of Highlanders to the chief of their clan. But when we try to get an idea of the reciprocal duties and obligations we find little in our authorities that is definite (§12, end). The patron furnished means of support for the client and his family (§177), gave him the benefit of his advice and counsel, and assisted him in his transactions with third parties, representing him if necessary in the courts. On the other hand the client was bound to advance the interests of his patron in every possible way. He tilled his fields, herded his flocks, attended him in war, and assisted him in special emergencies with money.
180It is evident that the mutuality of this relation depended solely upon the predominant position of the patron in the state. So long as the patricians were the only full citizens, so long, that is, as the plebeians had no civil rights, the client might well afford to sacrifice his personal independence for the sake of the countenance and protection of one of the mighty. In the case of disputes over property, for example, the support of his patron would assure him justice even against a patrician, and might secure more than justice were his opponent a plebeian without another such advocate. It is evident, too, that the relation could not long endure after the equalization of the orders. For a generation or two the patron and the client might stand together against their old adversaries, but sooner or later the client would see that he was getting no equivalent for the service he rendered, and his children or his children's children would throw off the yoke. The introduction of slavery, on the other hand, helped to make the patron independent of the client, and while we can hardly tell whether its rapid growth (§129) was the cause or the effect of declining clientage, it is nevertheless significant that the new relation ofpatrōnusandlībertus(§175) marks the disappearance of that ofpatrōnusandcliēnsin the old and better sense of the words.
181The New Clients.—The new clients need not detain us long. They came in with the upstart rich, who counted a long train of dependents as necessary to their state as a string of high-sounding names (§50), or a mansion crowded with useless slaves (§155). These dependents were simply obscure and needy men who toadied to the rich and great for the sake of the crumbs that fell from their tables. There might be among them men of perverted talents, philosophers or poets like Martial and Statius, but they were all at best a swarm of cringing, fawning, time-serving flatterers and parasites. It is important to understand that there was no personal tie between the new patron and the new client, no bond of hereditary association. No sacrifice was involved on either side. The client did not attach himself for life to one patron for better or for worse; he frequently paid his court to several at a time and changed his masters as often as he could hope for better things. The patron in like manner dismissed a client when he had tired of him.
182Duties and Rewards.—The service, however mean and degrading, was easy enough. The chief duty was thesalūtātiō:the clients arrayed in the toga, the formal dress for all social functions, assembled early in the morning in the great man's hall to greet him when he first appeared. This might be all required of them for the day, and there might be time to hurry through the streets to another house to pay similar homage to another patron, perhaps to others still, for the rich slept late. On the other hand the patron might command their attendance in the house or by his litter (§151), if he was going out, and keep them at his side the whole day long. Then there was no chance to wait upon the second patron, but every chance to be forgotten by him. And the rewards were no greater than the services. A few coins for a clever witticism or a fulsome compliment; a cast-off toga occasionally, for a shabby dress disgraced the levee; or an invitation to the dinner table if the patron was particularly gracious. One meal a day was always expected, and felt to be the due of the client. But sometimes the patron did not receive and the clients were sent empty away. Sometimes, too, after a day's attendance the hungry and tired train were dismissed with a gift of cold food distributed in little baskets (sportulae), a poor and sorry substitute for the good cheer they had hoped for. From these baskets the "dole," as we should call it now, came to be calledsportulaitself, and in the course of time an equivalent in money, fixed finally at about thirty cents, took the place of this. But it was something to be admitted to the familiar presence of the rich and fashionable, there was always the hope of a little legacy, if the flattery was adroit, and even the dole would enable one to live more easily than by work, especially if one could stand well with several patrons and draw the dole from each of them.
183The Hospites.—Finally we come to thehospitēs, though these in strictness ought not to be reckoned among the dependents. It is true that they were often dependent on others for protection and help, but it is also true that they were equally ready and able to extend like help and protection to others who had the right to claim assistance from them. It is important to observe thathospitiumdiffered from clientship in this respect, that the parties to it were actually on the footing of absolute equality. Although at some particular time one might be dependent upon the other for food or shelter, at another time the relations might be reversed and the protector and the protected change places.
184Hospitium, in its technical sense, goes back to a time when there were no international relations, to the time when stranger and enemy were not merely synonymous words, but absolutely the same word. In this early stage of society, when distinct communities were numerous, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion, and the traveler in a state not his own found it difficult to get his wants supplied, even if his life was not actually in danger. Hence the custom arose for a man engaged in commerce or in any other occupation that might compel him to visit a foreign country to form previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who would be ready to receive him as a friend, to supply his needs, to vouch for his good intentions, and to act if necessary as his protector. Such a relationship, calledhospitium, was always strictly reciprocal: if A agreed to entertain and protect B, when B visited A's country, then B was bound to entertain and protect A, if A visited B's country. The parties to an agreement of this sort were calledhospitēs, and hence the wordhospeshas a double signification, at one time denoting the entertainer, at another the guest.
185Obligations of Hospitium.—The obligations imposed by this covenant were of the most sacred character, and any failure to regard its provisions was sacrilege, bringing upon the offender the anger ofIuppiter Hospitālis. Either of the parties might cancel the bond, but only after a formal and public notice of his intentions. On the other hand the tie was hereditary, descending from father to son, so that persons might behospitēswho had never so much as seen each other, whose immediate ancestors even might have had no personal intercourse. As a means of identification the original parties exchanged tokenstesserae hospitālēs, (see Rich and Harper, s. v.), by which they or their descendants might recognize each other. These tokens were carefully preserved, and when a stranger claimedhospitiumhistesserahad to be produced and submitted for examination. If it was found to be genuine, he was entitled to all the privileges that the best-known guest-friend could expect. These seem to have been entertainment so long as he remained in his host's city, protection including legal assistance if necessary, nursing and medical attendance in case of illness, the means necessary for continuing his journey, and honorable burial if he died among strangers. It will be noticed that these are almost precisely the duties devolving upon members of our great benevolent societies at the present time when appealed to by a brother in distress.
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 213-250, 607-645; Göll, II, 213-417; Guhl and Koner, 556-580, 676-688, 705-725; Ramsay, 516-521; Pauly-Wissowa,ātrium,compluvium;Smith, Harper, Rich, underdomus,mūrus,tegula, and the other Latin words used in the text; Lübker, 507-509; Baumeister, 1365 f., 631, 927 f., 1373 f.; Mau-Kelsey, 239-348, 361-373, 446-474; Overbeck, 244-376, 520-537; Gusman, 253-316.
186Domus.—The house with which we are concerned is the residence (domus) of the single household, as opposed to lodging houses or apartment houses (īnsulae) intended for the accommodation of several families, and the residence, moreover, of the well-to-do citizen, as opposed on the one hand to the mansion of the millionaire and on the other to the hovels of the very poor. At the same time it must be understood that the Roman house did not show as many distinct types as does the American house of the present time. The Roman was naturally conservative, he was particularly reluctant to introduce foreign ideas, and his house in all times and of all classes preserved certain main features essentially unchanged. The proportion of these might vary with the size and shape of the lot at the builder's disposal, the number of apartments added would depend upon the means and tastes of the owner, but the kernel, so to speak, is always the same, and this makes the general plan much less complex, the description much less confusing.
187Our sources of information are unusually abundant. Vitruvius, an architect and engineer of the time of Caesar and Augustus, has left a work on building, giving in detail his own principles of construction; the works of many of the Roman writers contain either set descriptions of parts of houses or at least numerous hints and allusions that are collectively very helpful; and finally the ground plans of many houses have been uncovered in Rome and elsewhere, and in Pompeii we have even the walls of some houses left standing. There are still, however, despite the fullness and authority of our sources, many things in regard to the arrangement and construction of the house that are uncertain and disputed (§12, end).
188The Development of the House.—The primitive Roman house came from the Etruscans. It goes back to the simple farm life of early times, when all members of the household, father, mother, children, and dependents, lived in one large room together. In this room the meals were cooked, the table spread, all indoor work performed, the sacrifices offered to the Lares (§27), and at night a space cleared in which to spread the hard beds or pallets. The primitive house had no chimney, the smoke escaping through a hole in the middle of the roof. Rain could enter where the smoke escaped, and from this fact the hole was called theimpluvium;just beneath it in later times a basin (compluvium) was hollowed out in the floor to catch the water for domestic purposes. There were no windows, all natural light coming through theimpluviumor, in pleasant weather, through the open door. There was but one door, and the space opposite it seems to have been reserved as much as possible for the father and mother. Here was the hearth, where the mother prepared the meals, and near it stood the implements she used in spinning and weaving; here was the strong box (ārca), in which the master kept his valuables, and here their couch was spread.
189The outward appearance of such a house is shown in the Etruscan cinerary urns (Fig. 35; see also Smith, I, 668; Schreiber, LIII, 5; Baumeister, Fig. 146) found in various places in Italy. The ground plan is a simple rectangle, as shown in Figure 36, without partitions. This may be regarded as historically and architecturally the kernel of the Roman house; it is found in all of which we have any knowledge. Its very name (ātrium), denoting originally the whole house, was also preserved, as is shown in the names of certain very ancient buildings in Rome used for religious purposes, theātrium Vestae, theātrium Lībertātis, etc., but afterwards applied to the characteristic single room. The name was once supposed to mean "the black (āter) room," but many scholars recognize in it the original Etruscan word for house.
190The first change in the primitive house came in the form of a shed or "lean-to" on the side of theātriumopposite the door. It was probably intended at first for merely temporary purposes, being built of wooden boards (tabulae), and having an outside door and no connection with theātrium. It could not have been long, however, until the wall between was broken through, and this once done and its convenience demonstrated, the partition wall was entirely removed, and the second form of the Roman house resulted (Fig. 37). This improvement also persisted, and thetablīnumis found in all the houses from the humblest to the costliest of which we have any knowledge.
191The next change was made by widening theātrium, but in order that the roof might be more easily supported walls were erected along the lines of the oldātriumfor about two-thirds of its depth. These may have been originally mere pillars, as nowadays in our cellars, not continuous walls. At any rate, theātriumat the end next thetablīnumwas given the full width between the outside walls, and the additional spaces, one on each side, were calledālae. The appearance of such a house as seen from the entrance door must have been much like that of an Anglican or Roman Catholic church. The open space between the supporting walls corresponded to the nave, the twoālaeto the transepts, while the bay-liketablīnumresembled the chancel. The space between the outside walls and those supporting the roof was cut off into rooms of various sizes, used for various purposes (Fig. 38). So far as we know they received light only from theātrium, for no windows are assigned to them by Roman writers, and none are found in the ruins, but it is hardly probable that in the country no holes were made for light and air, however considerations of privacy and security may have influenced builders in the towns. From this ancient house we find preserved in its successors all opposite the entrance door: theātriumwith itsālaeandtablīnum, theimpluviumandcompluvium. These are the characteristic features of the Roman house, and must be so regarded in the description which follows of later developments under foreign influence.
192The Greeks seem to have furnished the idea next adopted by the Romans, a court at the rear of theātrium, open to the sky, surrounded by rooms, and set with flowers, trees, and shrubs. The open space had columns around it, and often a fountain in the middle (Fig. 39). This court was called theperistylumorperistylium. According to Vitruvius its breadth should have exceeded its depth by one-third, but we do not find these or any other proportions strictly observed in the houses that are known to us. Access to theperistyliumfrom theātriumcould be had through thetablīnum, though this might be cut off from it by folding doors, and by a narrow passage1by its side. The latter would be naturally used by servants and by others who did not wish to pass through the master's room. Both passage andtablīnummight be closed on the side of theātriumby portières. The arrangement of the various rooms around the court seems to have varied with the notions of the builder, and no one plan for them can be laid down. According to the means of the owner there were bedrooms, dining-rooms, libraries, drawing-rooms, kitchen, scullery, closets, private baths, together with the scanty accommodations necessary even for a large number of slaves. But no matter whether these rooms were many or few they all faced the court, receiving from it light and air, as did the rooms along the sides of theātrium. There was often a garden behind the court.
1This passage is calledfaucēsin the older books. Mau has shown that thefaucēswas on the entrance side of theātrium. He calls the passage by thetablīnumtheandrōn.
193The next change took place in the city and town house only, because it was due to conditions of town life that did not obtain in the country. In ancient as well as in modern times business was likely to spread from the center of the town into residence districts, and it often became desirable for the owner of a dwelling-house to adapt it to the new conditions. This was easily done in the case of the Roman house on account of the arrangement of the rooms. Attention has already been called to the fact that the rooms all opened to the interior of the house, that no windows were placed in the outer walls, and that the only door was in front. If the house faced a business street, it is evident that the owner could, without interfering with the privacy of his house or decreasing its light, build rooms in front of theātriumfor commercial purposes. He reserved, of course, a passageway to his own door, narrower or wider according to the circumstances. If the house occupied a corner, such rooms might be added on the side as well as in front (Fig. 40), and as they had no necessary connection with the interior they might be rented as living-rooms, as such rooms often are in our own cities. It is probable that rooms were first added in this way for business purposes by an owner who expected to carry on some enterprise of his own in them, but even men of good position and considerable means did not hesitate to add to their incomes by renting to others these disconnected parts of their houses. All the larger houses uncovered in Pompeii are arranged in this manner. One occupying a whole square and having rented rooms on three sides is described in§208. Such a detached house was called anīnsula.
194The Vestibulum.—Having traced the development of the house as a whole and described briefly its permanent and characteristic parts, we may now examine these more closely and at the same time call attention to other parts introduced at a later time. It will be convenient to begin with the front of the house. The city house was built even more generally than now on the street line. In the poorer houses the door opening into theātriumwas in the front wall, and was separated from the street only by the width of the threshold. In the better sort of houses, those described in the last section, the separation of theātriumfrom the street by the row of stores gave opportunity for arranging a more imposing entrance. A part at least of this space was left as an open court, with a costly pavement running from the street to the door, adorned with shrubs and flowers, with statuary even, and trophies of war, if the owner was rich and a successful general. This courtyard was called thevestibulum. The derivation of the word is disputed, but it probably comes fromve-, "apart," "separate," andstāre(cf.prōstibulumfromprōstāre), and means "a private standing place"; other explanations are suggested in the dictionaries. The important thing to notice is that it does not correspond at all to the part of a modern house called after it the vestibule. In thisvestibulumthe clients gathered, before daybreak perhaps (§182), to wait for admission to theātrium, and here thesportulawas doled out to them. Here, too, was arranged the wedding procession (§86), and here was marshaled the train that escorted the boy to the forum the day that he put away childish things (§128). Even in the poorer houses the same name was given to the little space between the door and the edge of the sidewalk.
195The Ostium.—The entrance to the house was called theōstium. This includes the doorway and the door itself, and the word is applied to either, thoughforēsandiānuaare the more precise words for the door. In the poorer houses (§194) theōstiumwas directly on the street, and there can be no doubt that it originally opened directly into theātrium;in other words, the ancientātriumwas separated from the street only by its own wall. The refinement of later times led to the introduction of a hall or passageway between thevestibulumand theātrium, and theōstiumopened into this hall and gradually gave its name to it. The threshold (līmen) was broad, the door being placed well back, and often had the wordsalvēworked on it in mosaic. Over the door were words of good omen,Nihil intret malī, for example, or a charm against fire. In the great houses where anōstiāriusoriānitor(§150) was kept on duty, his place was behind the door, and sometimes he had here a small room. A dog was often kept chained in theōstium, or in default of one a picture was painted on the wall or worked in mosaic on the floor (Fig. 41) with the warning beneath it:Cavē canem!The hallway was closed on the side of theātriumwith a curtain (vēlum). This hallway was not so long that through it persons in theātriumcould not see passers-by in the street.
196The Atrium.—Theātrium(§188) was the kernel of the Roman house, and to it was given the appropriate namecavum aedium. It is possible that this later name belonged strictly to the unroofed portion only, but the two words came to be used indiscriminately. The old view that thecavum aediumwas a middle court between theātriumand theperistyliumis still held by a few scholars, but is not supported by the monumental evidence (§187). The most conspicuous features of theātriumwere theimpluviumand thecompluvium(§188). The water collected in the latter was carried into cisterns; over the former a curtain could be drawn when the light was too intense, as over a photographer's skylight nowadays. We find that the two words were carelessly used for each other by Roman writers. So important was theimpluviumto theātrium, that the latter was named from the manner in which the former was constructed. Vitruvius tells us that there were four styles. The first was called theātrium Tūscanicum. In this the roof was formed by two pairs of beams crossing each other at right angles, the inclosed space being left uncovered and thus forming theimpluvium(Figs. 42, 43). The name (§188) as well as the simple construction shows that this was the earliest form of theātrium, and it is evident that it could not be used for rooms of very large dimensions. The second was called theātrium tetrastylon. The beams were supported at their intersections by pillars or columns. The third,ātrium Corinthium, differed from the second only in having more than four supporting pillars. It is probable that these two similar styles came in with the widening of theātrium(§191). The fourth was called theātrium displuviātum. In this the roof sloped toward the outer walls, as shown in the cinerary urn mentioned in§189, and the water was carried off by gutters on the outside, thecompluviumcollecting only so much as actually fell into it from the heavens. We are told that there was another style ofātrium, thetestūdinātum, which was covered all over and had neitherimpluviumnorcompluvium. We do not know how this was lighted; perhaps by windows in the ālae.
197The Change in the Atrium.—Theātriumas it was in the early days of the Republic has been described in§188. The simplicity and purity of the family life of that period lent a dignity to the one-room house that the vast palaces of the late Republic and Empire failed utterly to inherit. By Cicero's time theātriumhad ceased to be the center of domestic life; it had become a state apartment used only for display. We do not know the successive steps in the process of change. Probably the rooms along the sides (§191) were first used as bedrooms, for the sake of greater privacy. The need of a detached room for the cooking must have been felt as soon as theperistyliumwas adopted (it may well be that the court was originally a kitchen garden), and then of a dining-room convenient to it. Then other rooms were added about this court and these were made sleeping-apartments for the sake of still greater privacy. Finally these rooms were needed for other purposes (§192) and the sleeping-rooms were moved again, this time to an upper story. When this second story was added we do not know, but it presupposes the small and costly lots of a city. Even the most unpretentious houses in Pompeii have in them the remains of staircases (Fig. 44).
198Theātriumwas now fitted up with all the splendor and magnificence that the owner's means would permit. The opening in the roof was enlarged to admit more light, and the supporting pillars (§196) were made of marble or costly woods. Between these pillars and along the walls statues and other works of art were placed. Thecompluviumbecame a marble basin, with a fountain in the center, and was often richly carved or adorned with figures in relief. The floors were mosaic, the walls painted in brilliant colors or paneled with marbles of many hues, and the ceilings were covered with ivory and gold. In such a hall (Fig. 45) the host greeted his guests (§185), the patron received his clients (§182), the husband welcomed his wife (§89), and here his body lay in state when the pride of life was over.
199Still some memorials of the older day were left in even the most imposingātrium. The altar to the Lares and Penates remained near the place where the hearth had been, though the regular sacrifices were made in a special chapel in theperistylium. In even the grandest houses the implements for spinning were kept in the place where the matron had once sat among her maidservants (§§86,105), as Livy tells us in the story of Lucretia. The cabinets retained the masks of simpler and may be stronger men (§107), and the marriage couch stood opposite theōstium(hence its other name,lectus adversus), where it had been placed on the wedding night (§89), though no one slept in theātrium. In the country much of the old-time use of theātriumsurvived even Augustus, and the poor, of course, had never changed their style of living. What use was made of the small rooms along the sides of theātrium, after they had ceased to be bedchambers, we do not know; they served perhaps as conversation rooms, private parlors, and drawing-rooms.
200The Alae.—The manner in which theālae, or wings, were formed has been explained (§191); they were simply the rectangular recesses left on the right and left of theātrium, when the smaller rooms on the sides were walled off. It must be remembered that they were entirely open to theātrium, and formed a part of it, perhaps originally furnishing additional light from windows in their outer walls. In them were kept theimāginēs, as the wax busts of those ancestors who had held curule offices were called, arranged in cabinets in such a way that, by the help of cords running from one to another and of inscriptions under each of them, their relation to each other could be made clear and their great deeds kept in mind. Even when Roman writers or those of modern times speak of theimāginēsas in theātrium, it is theālaethat are intended.
201The Tablinum.—The probable origin of thetablīnum, has been explained above (§190), and its name has been derived from the material (tabulae, "planks") of the "lean-to," perhaps a summer kitchen, from which it developed. Others think that the room received its name from the fact that in it the master kept his account books (tabulae) as well as all his business and private papers. He kept here also the money chest or strong box (ārca), which in the olden time had been chained to the floor of theātrium, and made the room in fact his office or study. By its position it commanded the whole house, as the rooms could be entered only from theātriumorperistylium, and thetablīnumwas right between them. The master could secure entire privacy by closing the folding doors which cut off the private court, or by pulling the curtains across the opening into the great hall. On the other hand, if thetablīnumwas left open, the guest entering theōstiummust have had a charming vista, commanding at a glance all the public and semi-public parts of the house (Fig. 47). Even when thetablīnumwas closed, there was free passage from the front of the house to the rear through the short corridor (§192) by the side of thetablīnum. It should be noticed that there was only one such passage, though the older authorities assert that there were two.