Tabularium

The large, polygonal structure of the late Republic, located on the saddle between the two summits of the *Capitoline (inter duos lucos), overlooking the W end of the *Forum Romanum, is conventionally known as the ‘Tabularium’ (public records office, depository of the tabulae publicae). The imposing remains of this structure were incorporated into Michelangelo’s Palazzo Senatorio, and its high colonnaded galleries still dominate the Forum. The masonry is dated either to the Sullan period or to the 2nd c. B.C. (Purcell 150-51), but excavations under Palazzo Senatorio indicate that the Tabularium was built, in part, over ruins damaged in the Capitoline fire of 83 B.C. (Mura Sommella 1984, Sanzi di Mino, Colini); its current footprint, therefore, was laid down after 83 (for the ground-plan see Sommella Mura 1981, fig. 2; cf. Purcell 136 fig. 2). This date is confirmed by the epigraphic evidence. In the 15th c., a severely corroded inscription, now lost, was seen in the salt-warehouses of Palazzo Senatorio; it recorded the construction of a substructio (substructure) and tabularium by Q. Lutatius Catulus, consul of 78 B.C. (CIL VI 1314=ILS 35: ... SVBSTRVCTIONEM ET TABVLARIVM ... FACIVNDVM COERAVIT). Another inscription, discovered in 1845, mentions Catulus but not the name of the structure (CIL VI 1313). In addition, a funerary inscription of 65-35 B.C. names the probable architect, a certain L. Cornelius, praefectus fabrum and architectus of the consul and censor Q. Catulus (Molisani). The Tabularium was probably built between 78 and 65 B.C., the dates of Catulus’ consulship and censorship respectively (Mura Sommella, LTUR 17; Coarelli 1995, 44). Yet despite this wealth of information, a serious problem remains: no ancient author, not even Cicero, gives us a name for this central and imposing building (Purcell 135), and the physical remains, too, are difficult to interpret. The substructio attested on the lost inscription (CIL VI 1314) was the large platform under Palazzo Senatorio which served as the foundations for the entire complex (Mura Sommella, LTUR 17). There were three levels. At the lowest level, a high podium, with cement walls faced with tufa blocks on the inside and peperino (from Gabii) on the outside, forms a large platform to overcome the height difference between the Forum and the saddle of Piazza del Campidoglio. Inside were two distinct sets of rooms served by a N–S internal corridor with small windows facing the Forum; also on this lowest level were two entrances on the S side almost at the level of the Forum opening onto a ramp of stairs that led to the Temple of *Veiovis, where a second set of stairs doubled back to reach the lost uppermost level (Mura Sommella, LTUR 18; Coarelli 1995, 45). An intermediate level was a porticoed gallery of 11 arches overlooking the Forum, incorporating an internal passageway which connected the two summits of the Capitoline (Mura Sommella 1994, 45). On the upper level, attested only by architectural fragments and from observations of the surviving foundations, stood the records office of the Tabularium proper (Mura Sommella, LTUR 18; Coarelli 1995, 48). The findspot of the lost inscription discovered in the salt warehouses (CIL VI 1314) allows us to locate the archives in the part of the building overlooking Piazza del Campidoglio, in the ‘Galleria di Sisto IV’, not the gallery overlooking the Forum (Mura Sommella 1994, 48-49, 54 n.23; ead., LTUR 17, 19). Coarelli suggests that there was a monumental façade and several large rooms facing in the direction of Piazza del Campidoglio, and a large colonnaded portico facing the Forum on this uppermost level (Coarelli 1995, 48; cf. Golvin). Our map gives the outline of the Tabularium with internal divisions to mark the gallery overlooking the Forum and a small niche on the S side (discussed below); for a plan of the internal arrangements of the Tabularium, see Sommella Mura 1981, fig. 2. Purcell has argued that the name ‘Tabularium’ is problematic when applied to the entire building. In particular, he argues that the findspot and wording of the inscriptions do not sufficiently prove that Catulus dedicated a massive public-records office, and that no central archive of this scale was ever required from what is known of Roman administrative practices (Purcell 139-41). But the arguments used to debunk the traditional name may be taken too far. Purcell notes that no other tabularium of this scale is attested in the Roman world (Purcell 141). But if anywhere, we would expect to find the exception to the rule at Rome. It is argued that archival practices at Rome were amateurish by modern standards and that the building as it survives has no spaces clearly suitable for handling documents (Culham). But if Roman archives were haphazard, then we should not expect to find a building ‘suitable’ for such a purpose. In support of the traditional view, we may note that certain archives are known to have burned before c. 77 B.C. (Cic., Rab. perd. 7; Nat. D. 3.74); perhaps these were burned in the Capitoline fire of 83 and replaced by those dedicated by Catulus (Kardos). We are also told that 3000 bronze tablets were destroyed in the fire on the Capitol in A.D. 69 (Suet., Vesp. 8.5); this indirectly confirms the existence of a large public-records office, at least in the Flavian period (Mura Sommella, LTUR 17). Coarelli suggests that the treasury of the Temple of *Saturn (aerarium Saturni) stood S of the Tabularium, and that the Tabularium may be seen as an expansion of the archival functions of the treasury of the Temple of Saturn; he also suggests that the internal corridor at the lowest level of the Tabularium might have been used to transfer currency from the Republican mint on the *Arx straight to the aerarium (Coarelli 1995, 46). There are two radical, yet flawed, reinterpretations of the Tabularium. Purcell proposes an identification with the *Atrium Libertatis, an administrative complex presently placed NW of the *Forum Iulium. He offers a cogent and well-argued case (accepted by Smith), but it ultimately rests on a passage of Cicero which describes Caesar’s building plans in 54 B.C. (Cic., Att. 4.16.8). This passage is sufficiently ambiguous for the present authors to exercise caution (s.v. Atrium Libertatis). Furthermore, the fragmentary architectural histories of each structure conflict at several points. The Atrium Libertatis was built in two phases both dating before 194 B.C. (Livy 34.44.5). The next known intervention was that of Asinius Pollio in 39 B.C. The Tabularium was built after the fire of 83, too late for the original 3rd-c. supports of the Atrium Libertatis, and too early to belong to the architectural patronage of Asinius Pollio. Purcell is forced to propose that the restoration work of 39 B.C. was limited to the upper storeys of the structure (Purcell 150). Purcell’s theory has thus generally been rejected (Mura Sommella, LTUR 17; Amici; La Rocca 26). An alternative theory is offered by La Rocca, who reads the Tabularium as a monumentalization of the *Asylum, and argues that the surviving foundations of the Tabularium formed a large terraced platform, perhaps surrounded by porticoes, and planted with trees to represent the Asylum grove (La Rocca 27; for further details, s.v. Asylum). La Rocca’s theory is highly conjectural; the crucial flaw, as noted by Mura Sommella (1997, 442), is that he ignores the inscriptions which attest to the existence of the tabularium of Q. Lutatius Catulus. Even if we remain unconvinced by these theories, we may nevertheless feel that the conventional term Tabularium is an imperfect name for the entire structure under Palazzo Senatorio (it is used by Claridge only in quotation marks). Perhaps the Tabularium was more than just a tabularium. Thus Mura Sommella (LTUR 19) argues that the tabularium was just one, albeit central, part of a large multi-functional complex. Even before the construction of the Tabularium, this part of the saddle may have already been terraced and used for public buildings, as evidenced by the mosaic pavement from a terraced structure of the 2nd c. B.C. partially excavated by Colini (Mura Sommella 1997, 436). The fact that several dedicatory inscriptions are attested, each with a slightly different wording and found in different parts of the building, suggests that there were distinct entities within the complex, each marked by a separate entrance (Mura Sommella, LTUR 19). In addition, the irregularity of the ground-plan and internal divisions suggests that the construction work undertaken after the fire of 83 intentionally preserved the divisions and functions of pre-existing buildings. However, this theory also has its weaknesses. Mura Sommella focuses on the small, irregularly-shaped niche opening toward the Area Capitolina on the S side of the Tabularium; she views this as an anomaly in a building with a high degree of architectural coherency, and suggests, in part following La Rocca, that this niche is the Asylum (Mura Sommella 1997, 438; ead., LTUR 19-20; not accepted by Coarelli 1995, 48, nor here by us, s.v. Asylum). As for additional, non-archival uses of the complex, Coarelli suggests that the underground rooms in the NE of the Tabularium may be identified as part of the late-Republican and early-Imperial mint of Rome (Coarelli 1995, 47; accepted as a possibility by Mura Sommella, LTUR 19). According to Livy, the Republican mint of Rome and the Temple of *Iuno Moneta both stood on the site once occupied by the house of a would-be tyrant, M. Manlius Capitolinus; he is explicit that this still applied in the Augustan period: ubi nunc aedes atque officina Monetae est (‘where the temple and mint of Moneta now are’: Livy 6.20.13; cf. Ov., Fast. 6.185-89). The mint, therefore, stood next to Iuno’s temple, perhaps even in the temple (Zehnacker). Coarelli’s placement of the mint in the Tabularium rests on the assumption that the Temple of Iuno Moneta stood in the nearby Aracoeli gardens (Coarelli, LTUR), but this temple almost certainly stood under the Church of S. Maria in Aracoeli on the summit of the Arx (s.v. *Iuno Moneta). Coarelli’s theory is thus seriously weakened. In all likelihood, the Asylum and Republican mint were not located within the Tabularium. The large Republican structure under Palazzo Senatorio may indeed have been a multi-functional religious and administrative space, but it is still best identified primarily as the Tabularium, or public archives.