I From Treasure Hunting to Archaeological Dig. History of the ...

11

I From Treasure Hunting to Archaeological Dig. History of the Excavations ofHerculaneum and Pompeii

In Antiquity, the region at the foot of Vesuvius was renowned for its healthy climate, fertility and beauty. There were good ports inancient Herculaneum and Pompeii, and navigable rivers flanked Pompeii. The area was rather densely inhabited by people living infarmsteads, villages and small cities. Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae, lying around Vesuvius, were to be singled out in historybecause of their unhappy fortune in A.D. 79, not thanks to specific features that placed the towns above other average settlements inthe Roman world.

Undoubtedly, many eruptions had happened before – some of them are also known from stratigraphic excavations – but Vesuviusseemed dead, or had been sleeping for ages, when it exploded in 79. This eruption was so powerful that the fill of the wide caldara –3

which looked like a plain top next to the ridge of Monte Somma – was blown up, crumbled by the heat and the gases coming frominside the earth. Thanks to a long description of the event in two letters by the younger Pliny, seventeen years old at the time, writtensome twenty years later to his friend, the historian Tacitus, volcanologists are able to reconstruct the event. Many people were able tosave themselves, but a great number died on this day of hell.4

The small towns had no particular importance within the Roman Empire. They are barely mentioned in the written sources wepossess, and many questions remain open: when were they founded and who were their first inhabitants? How did they develop?5

Herculaneum was said to have been founded by Hercules; the other places do not have a foundation myth, but the same Herculeswould also be the founder of Pompeii.

No famous men are reported in the sources as originating in these towns. Cicero possessed a villa on the outskirts of Pompeiicalled Pompeianum, and another nobleman, Calpurnius Piso had a villa near Herculaneum. Many think that the Villa of the Papyrimust have been his property. In the time of Augustus there were other rich people with fancy villas nearby, e.g. M. Vipsanius6

Agrippa, married to Augustus’ daughter Julia. Their last son, M. Agrippa Postumus, so called because of his birth after his father’sdeath in 12 B.C., is associated with a villa unearthed and destroyed around 1900 at Boscotrecase. The family of Nero’s second wife,Poppaea, originated in this region and possessed some houses and villas; she herself has been associated with ‘Villa A’ at TorreAnnunziata, ancient Oplontis.

The main event mentioned in the written sources – and verified during the excavations – was a very strong earthquake on February5 A.D. 62. Writing in the early second century, Tacitus describes this occurrence in his (15.22) under that year, whereas theAnnalsphilosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca, in an essay on the origin of earthquakes, gives the names of the two consuls of the year 63,Regulus and Virginius. Although Seneca’s treatise came out only a few years after the event, most scholars think that this mention isan interpolation of a later date and that we should follow Tacitus.7

Like Pliny the Younger at around A.D. 100, Dio Cassius described the eruption of 79 a hundred years later. According to him, theinhabitants of Pompeii were sitting in the theater at midday when disaster struck. The cataclysm would have been so enormous thatrescue was barely possible. People returned afterwards to Pompeii, where the ashes and lapilli were easier to remove, but the8

epigram written some ten years later by Martial only speaks about a former time (see Chapter IX, note 1442). A disaster of this kindwas also described in the Antonine or later . The Jewish prophecy is about a pseudo-Nero, who will come from theOracula SibyllinaEast to the West:9

But when from a crevice in the Italian earth A fire will escape and reach wide heaven, And will burn many towns and kill men, And when many glowing ashes will fill the large heaven And drops will fall out of heaven like blood, Then know that it is the scorn of God in heaven, Since they will ruin the people of pious guiltless.

This can be compared to Seneca’s rationale of the description of the earthquake of 62:vaticinium eventu 10

It will also be profitable to keep in mind that the gods do nothing like that, and that neither heaven nor earth areshaken by the ire of deities: these thing have their own causes and do not rage upon order but, exactly as our bodiesare disturbed by certain vices they are disturbed, and then, when they seem to do damage, they suffer it.

As to the exact day of the eruption, most generally August 24, around midday, has been assumed. New research, however, seems toindicate a date in the fall, e.g. October 24. For our topic, this is not so relevant, but I think that the latter date seems to correspondwith various facts, like the victims’ clothing, fruit harvested, and the discovery of a coin dated September 79.11

What Happened Before 1738

In some medieval and Renaissance Italian texts Pompeii is mentioned as an example of a lost culture. To my knowledge, the oldest12

Copyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.

All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

EBSCO : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/12/2018 9:10 AM via UNIVERSITEIT LEIDENAN: 984256 ; Moormann, Eric, TotalBoox, TBX.; Pompeii’s Ashes : The Reception of the Cities Buried by Vesuvius in Literature, Music, andDramaAccount: s2985883.main.ehost

12

In some medieval and Renaissance Italian texts Pompeii is mentioned as an example of a lost culture. To my knowledge, the oldest12

mention in prose in which the buried cities are evoked is Giovanni Boccaccio’s from 1341-1342.Comedia delle Ninfe fiorentine 13

Ameto listens to stories told by nymphs. In one of them, the nymph Lia recounts her trip as a bride from Sicily to Rome to meet hergroom. On her way north the vessel passes Capri, Sorrento, the cliffs of Stabiae, Pompeii and Vesuvius, imitator of Etna. Then she14

sees Pozzuoli, Cumae and Baiae. This list of names adds an exotic touch to the Nymph’s tale, and does not focus on the fatal events.Quite extensively Flavio Biondo discusses the location of Herculaneum and Pompeii in his in the middle of theItalia Illustratafifteenth century: the first should be near Torre del Greco, the latter in the surroundings of Castellammare di Stabia, but nothing isextant. Pliny died during the study of the eruption. Niccolò Perotti’s dictionary of the mid-fifteenth century highlights15

Herculaneum among five towns called Heraclea:16

The fifth Heraclea is in Campania, Italy, and is also named Herculaneum. It lies by the sea near Pompeii and has apromontory that enjoys marvellous breezes from winds they call Etesiae, which is why it is true that the air is veryhealthy over there. This town used to be the domain of the Oscans, as well as Pompeii that is irrigated by the riverSarnus. Then it was held by the Thusci and Pelasgi, followed by the Samnites. It was also the market town of Nolaand Nuceria, not far from Mount Vesuvius that is cultivated with excellent fields except for its peak. It is largelycovered by a plain, but this is barren and abounds with ashes, having in front of it hollow caves full of burnt stones.So, it is easy to conjecture that these places were once ablaze with fire, but that the flames were extinguished whentheir fuel ran out.

This long silence upon Campania and its buried cities remained almost undisturbed until the beginning of the eighteenth century.One of the few post-79 activities at Pompeii known formed works for the construction of irrigation canals in the years 1594-1600,when Domenico Fontana hit ancient houses; a memorial slab in the street between insulae I 6 and I 7 marks this fact. Some17

inscriptions came to light and the toponym Civita in the area of Pompeii recorded the earlier presence of a , a city, as stated18 civitasby Lucas Holstenius. But apart from some brief notices like Holstenius’ and that in by Giulio Cesare19 Neapolitana HistoriaCapaccio nothing happened until 1689. This and other publications did not try to link fortuitous finds with the ancient towns20

hidden under the feet of modern people. Instead, they convey a greater perspicacity about the topography of ancient Campania thanthe first generation of excavators at Pompeii, who would not know its name before 1756, when inscriptions were found recording thename Pompeii (see note 76). A late example of this kind of antiquarian scholarship before the first explorations is that of the learnedpriest Niccolò Partenio Giannettasio SJ. In 1704 he published , a history of Campania. He mentioned the ancientVer Herculanumcities destroyed by Vesuvius, but did not hint at explorations or even fortuitous finds. The book is a clear example of research relyingon written sources only, both ancient and later texts.21

One of the first stratigraphic soundings in archaeology was carried out in the area of Vesuvius, as early as 1689. The astronomer22

Francesco Bianchini described a small dig by the Neapolitan architect Francesco Picchetti next to the volcano. To establish thechronology of the period between the Diluvium and our time, this excavation was very important for him. In an area 1,500 metersfrom the sea, they encountered at a certain depth some layers of earth that seemed to be systematized in order, one horizontally uponthe other. They found after the fourth “suolo” inscriptions from the Roman era, and at 100 in depth there were other traces.23 palmiPicchetti’s account gives a precise stratigraphy of what is called by him the Villa of Pompey: nine layers. The layer that interests us,labeled A, contains inscriptions and pieces of iron. Bianchini ascribes the Roman objects to the “Città di Pompej,” not far fromScafati, where traces were found previously. Bianchini was not only familiar with astronomy, but he also had a good command ofancient sources, and might have had, as Giuseppe Pucci has suggested, a keen eye for these still largely unknown phenomena.24

Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and his colleagues at the Herculaneum Conservation Project made new finds concerning earlydiscoveries in the towns buried by Vesuvius. When they cleaned some of the Bourbon tunnels (see below), they found shards fromMedieval and Baroque pottery, dating from before the eighteenth century. Wallace-Hadrill suggests that previous work had beencarried out here, but with no written record. The lack of official interest might even be explained by the superstition reigning in thearea of Naples that these impious remains would bring misfortune.25

Discoveries in the Early Eighteenth Century

The precise date of the “first” finds of Herculaneum remains an enigma. The area was occupied by the houses of the village of26

Resina. As is well known, the discovery is connected with the French Prince or Count of Elbeuf who started to construct a villaaround 1710, when he was in the service of Austrian troops occupying Naples and environments in the Wars of Succession. This is27

situated in the harbor of Resina, Granatello, and not – as is often suggested – on the spot where a deep well was dug in the hard lavaduring the preparations for the construction. Workers found antiquities in this pit, as had apparently happened previously in otherdeep excavations. Gennaro Borrelli has made clear that Elbeuf had acquired other properties and that the pit could have been sunk28

there for the sake of antiquities. Officially, it was said that Elbeuf was looking for water, but following rumors spread by local29

workers, others thought that he was searching for marble. The marble in this case would be reworked into plaster of Paris, whichshould serve as the basic material for the rococo stuccoes in the new properties, or was even sent to Naples for some churches. The30

presence of this material reminded the people of the existence of the buried cities Herculaneum and Pompeii. The years 1706, 170831

, 1709, 1711, 1712, and 1713 are most frequently mentioned in the early accounts, but one even finds 1720. Some years32 33 34 35 36 37

are surely incorrect, as Elbeuf arrived in 1707 and left Naples in 1716 after having sold all his properties. In a meticulous38

reconstruction of this period Francesca Longo Auricchio has argued that 1711 was the most plausible year of the discovery, and JensDaehner has reached the same conclusion. A conclusive reason might be the brief announcement in the 39 Gior nale de’ letterati

of that year in which the discovery of marble objects by the Prince of Elbeuf in a temple in ancient Herculaneum is maded’Italiapublic. Columns in various sorts of marble were found as well as an architrave with the inscription: 40 Appius. Pulcher. C. f. Cos. MP.




13

. (Appius Pulcher, son of Claudius, imperator, consul, seven-man of meals). It was argued at length that he wasVIIvir. EpulonumCicero’s friend known from his letters. Moreover there was the statue of a woman that might be a portrait of the Vestal Claudia,mentioned by Valerius Maximus. The finds included statues of Hercules and some women. Contemporary descriptions of the pit41

and of the finds pulled out from it are almost completely lacking. As late as 1740 Charles De Brosses (see Chapter II) visits the old42

soldier at Florence.43

Theater at Herculaneum: view from within an eighteenth century Bourbon tunnel through hard volcanic material, with stage ( ) inFig. 1: prosceniumthe center, stage wall ( ) on the left, and a narrower tunnel visible on the right (photo Stephan Mols)scaenae frons

Clearly, the count had had great luck by hitting the stage building of the Roman theater of Herculaneum, where he came acrossmarble columns and revetments of its sumptuous façade ( ). Three female statues, which were brought to light in good shape,fig. 1had adorned niches of the stage façade and represented Muses or local elite women. In 1713, Elbeuf gave them to Eugene, prince ofSavoy, commander of the Austrian troops, lover of culture and a distant relative. His heirs sold the statues to Frederick Augustus II,

Elector of Saxony in 1736, and they are still on display in the art collection of the former Saxonian court at Dresden, the Albertinum.




14

Elector of Saxony in 1736, and they are still on display in the art collection of the former Saxonian court at Dresden, the Albertinum. Borrelli’s investigations about the properties have made clear that Elbeuf’s enterprise was a rather nasty business, kept as secret as44

possible and only aiming at his personal interests.Luckily we know the pit itself, because King Charles started new investigations there in 1738. Presumably, the King ordered the

old pit to be reopened after hearing rumors about the earlier finds. The story that the King’s wife Maria Amalia Christina, a45

daughter of the King of Saxony, knew the statues at Dresden from her infancy has turned out to be a romantic fantasy on the basis ofthese data. Local informers and experts like Amenta and Stendardo could have encouraged the King to reopen the old pits. This46

enterprise proved to be so productive that real excavations started below the streets of Resina.Very soon the discovery of an ancient city, more than twenty meters under the modern city of Resina, became known outside the

inner circles of the court and visitors from abroad came to see the treasures found. Their impressions will be discussed further inChapter II.

A New King Has His Own Ambitions

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, southern Italy formed part of the Spanish Empire and was governed by a Spanish viceroy.Partly due to the problems of hereditary succession in Spain itself, conflicts rose across the whole of Europe and, after too manybattles and conferences, the south of Italy became an independent kingdom. The new King was chosen from the Spanish Bourbondynasty that had reigned over the area from 1500 onwards. He was the eighteen year old Charles – Carlos in Spanish, Carlo in Italian– who would become a very ambitious sovereign who wanted to put his newly-formed state definitively on the map of Europe. Hebelieved that the old city of Naples should acquire an illustrious court and become an important center of power and culture, in orderto attract both noble and intellectual visitors. Great architectural projects included the enlargement of the old residence of theviceroys (Royal Palace), the erection of summer palaces in Naples (Capodimonte), Caserta (Reggia) and Portici, the construction ofuseful buildings for the population like the enormous Hospital of the Poor (Albergo dei Poveri), and theaters for drama and opera,especially San Carlo theater, which still exists as an annex of the Royal Palace. The court members could not do less than build theirown palazzi and country houses in the shadow of the royal premises.47

Both foreigners and Neapolitans praised these eager construction activities. Naples always possessed a court, but the mainimpression of a visitor entering the city formerly had been that of a community dominated by the catholic clerical orders; numerouschurches (like Rome), but even larger monasteries (unlike Rome) such as Santa Chiara and San Gregorio Armeno occupied the mainpart of the old center.

For one of his summer residences the King chose Portici-Resina, a village some eight kilometers south of Naples along the newroad constructed by the government, to Calabria. Along the coast stood a number of ‘Vesuvian villas’ belonging to members of thecourt where even on a hot summer day an agreeable breeze tempered the sticky atmosphere. The area chosen by the King containedthe villa Caramanico, begun by Elbeuf.

The Bourbon Exploration of Herculaneum48

In order to penetrate down to the Roman stratum, some 25 to 27 meters under the actual street level, workers made vertical andhorizontal tunnels in the concrete-like volcanic mass and followed the walls of the ancient buildings they encountered to give them asort of orientation ( ). The miners operated like moles under the smoky and feeble light of torches and had to beware of gasesfig. 1escaping from the volcanic material. The removal of the debris was complicated and slowed the progress. Convicts did the hardestwork: no free local man dared to go down into the dangerous galleries for miserable payments. The workers were forced to creepthrough the tunnels dragging heavy iron balls attached to their ankles – the fear that they would attempt to steal things or flee thescene was very strong –and many of them died underground. The number of workers varied, depending on the availability of49

money and convicts. Once tunnels no longer provided items to be carried off, they were backfilled with material from the ongoingwork in newly-made tunnels, so the area visible at Herculaneum always remained very restricted. Some spots were even excavatedtwo times, like the alleged palaestra, where excavators stripped the walls of the large exedra in 1743 and again in 1761. The theater50

remained the only monument constantly explored and on view.51

The first soundings were made on the instigation of Marcello Venuti, who would be knighted by the King in 1740. He had come toNaples on the bequest of the court and was serving simultaneously as the director of the Farnese collection at Capodimonte and asroyal librarian when in the fall of 1738 he suggested excavating at Herculaneum. According to him, the finds in Elbeuf’s property52

stemmed from ancient Herculaneum. Daily supervision was entrusted to Roque Joaquin de Alcubierre, who had training as a mineengineer. He would lead the excavations until his death in 1780. The Minister of Interior Affairs, Bernardo Tanucci (who held thisposition from 1754 to 1776), would coordinate the work. The oldest excavation reports derive from the last months of 1738.53

Fortunately, a large number of these reports were sent weekly to the Ministry of the Interior and have been preserved in the NationalArchives in Naples. As a result, we know many precise details about the progress of the work from the outset. These texts were54

written in Spanish during the first decades of the explorations.Unfortunately, like most people involved in this and other archaeological enterprises, Alcubierre had not the faintest idea about

proper archaeological method. His orders from the Court were to find as many spectacular objects as possible and meticulously55

make note of unusual finds in the weekly reports. The brief descriptions of the work carried out and the discoveries made helpedauthorities decide what to transport to the royal palace at Portici. Alcubierre’s ultimate failure was not only the result of his total lackof knowledge and experience, but also of the scope of the project, which extended radically beyond the skills and expertise of




15

everyone involved. The finds were rich and the methods of excavating and extracting the treasures hidden under thick layers ofvolcanic material had to be developed on the spot. There were no advisers available, although foreigners did suggest that expertsfrom Britain, France or Germany would do better.

An early collaborator was the French engineer Pierre Bardet de Villeneuve, who had already worked in the area since 1737. Hewas in charge of the excavations from 1741 to 1745, when Alcubierre was apparently removed for bad conduct or illness. He madean accurate map of the explorations; only the orientation of the theater is wrong.56

In 1749 Karl Weber became an assistant to Alcubierre, taking over the main responsibilities in 1750, although Alcubierreremained the head of the organization. Weber was a Swiss engineer and a military man, and kept the works going steadily until hisdeath. The sensible biography Christopher Parslow dedicated to him reveals his noble feelings for the antiquities and his wish toform a sound set of documentation that would enable a better understanding of the treasures dug up from under Resina. Even in theHerculaneum tunnels he sought a systematic procedure in which the outlines of the buildings explored might be understood.57

Among his most significant work was the excavation of the Villa of the Papyri. The numerous Greek and Latin text scrolls that werefound would evoke enthusiastic reactions among travelers and scholars alike (see Chapter VII). When making sketches and plans ofparts of the excavations, Weber was foolishly blamed for slowing the progress, but fortunately, we still possess some of theseaccurate and highly valuable documents. The plan and the accompanying commentary on the Villa of the Papyri is a strikingexample of his skills. Volkmann apparently knew about the plans, stored as big secrets in Naples. We know that he wrote Tanucci58

about his map of Herculaneum in 1765, but never saw it published, although in 1796 it finally was. Weber’s map differs fromBardet’s, for example, in that its palaestra is too small.

The King and his wife showed some interest, but were probably not fully conscious of the importance of these finds. Theypresumed that the antiquities could serve as excellent decoration for the new palace at Portici. After a short time, however, it becameclear that the steady stream of paintings, statues, bronze objects and ceramics would occupy a much larger space and that a specialaccommodation should be created to store all of them. The staff was enlarged with a curator and restorers, and gradually a more orless professional museum, the , was growing in volume and importance, systematized on two floors of theHerculanense Museumpalace at Portici (see below, pp. 30–33).

All these activities stimulated locals and foreigners to praise King Charles in prose and poetry. One example is a lavish eulogy byPietro d’Onofri from 1789, which mentions the excavations of the towns destroyed by Vesuvius as one of Charles’ beneficent works.

The Spanish author Juan Andrés hailed the King when he was in Pompeii in 1786. Charles’ prestige was further enhanced by 59 60

visits of monarchs and other important persons like Joseph II of Austria and Gustav of Sweden, and the King even got praise from61

strangers who transmitted his fame to their countries. As to Gustav, his great interest is evinced in a letter to count Von Creutz aboutthe great importance of the site and the little effort made to reveal its treasuries.62

The commitment of the King went so far that he joined the restorers in the museum at Portici to clean the finds. As he wascleaning some cameos, someone suggested that he should make a chain for himself, but the King refused, saying that the findsshould remain in royal Neapolitan property. Inside what had at first looked like an ostrich shell but was just a lump of lava, a ringwith a bearded head was found, which the King would bear for several years. The King also looked after the moral elevation of his63

people, preventing the exhibition of an obscene bronze statue, that of Pan mating a goat (p. 118, fig. 4). His confessor would havetold him that it should not be put on display.64

A new advantage for the court became clear: the collection at Portici formed an extra attraction for foreign visitors, who came toadmire these curiosities and works of art found just twenty meters under their feet, and thanks to the explorations, the youngkingdom saw its prestige grow considerably both within and outside Italy.

The court tried to prevent publications about the excavations and the finds in its desire for a monopoly on the revelation ofexcavation news. Nevertheless, Venuti published an account of the first results in Spanish for the King (1740), which he enlargedafter his withdrawal to Cortona. The latter booklet – in Italian – soon became known abroad thanks to translations into German and65

English. Venuti dedicated it to Frederick Christian, Royal Prince of Poland and Elector of Saxonia, and defended its publication withenthusiasm. A similar anthology was published by Antonio Francesco Gori, who like Venuti was one of the founders of the 66

. He gives excerpts and synopses of newsletters and accounts in letter books. A French overview of theAccademia di Cortona 67

discoveries was provided in an anonymously published booklet attributed to Moussinot or D’Arthenay.68

Some monuments caused a particular impression, e.g. two marble equestrian statues. The statues were discovered “avanti deltempio sul Foro de’ Ercolano,” not far from the “Basilica,” according to La Vega’s explanation on his map. Twenty-eight normal andthirty-eight forced workmen were employed to transport these marbles to Portici on May 23, 1743. The persons depicted were ayouth and an elderly gentleman, and both were called Marcus Nonius Balbus; that they were a father and son was a logical thought,but thanks to thorough research by Stefania Adamo Muscettola, we know that the statues represent one and the same person, giftedtwo times in his life with such special monuments. One of these statues was erected in the courtyard of the Portici palace, and the69 70

other inside. Both were copied in the shape of ceramic statuettes by the royal manufacture in Naples. The younger equestrian lost hishead to a cannon ball in the revolutionary year 1798. Both figures earned high praise from travelers, like Lumisden, who wrote thatthe “son” was better than the Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.71

A truly major discovery was made when excavations in a new shaft, dug around 19 October 1752, produced very high qualitybronzes and, slightly later that year, some 1,860 carbonized papyri, not at first recognized as such, but rather soon discovered to beGreek texts from antiquity (p. 41, fig. 2). All efforts were focused on this structure and for nearly two years all interest was turned tothe Villa of the Papyri (see here Chapter VII).72

Gradually, however, the stream of spectacular finds at Herculaneum diminished and, as Pompeii proved to be a more convenientplace to work, the authorities decided to stop work at Herculaneum in 1766 and to concentrate entirely on the nearby dig.

The Bourbon Explorations at Pompeii and Stabiae

As we have seen, some twenty kilometers south of Portici-Resina, the area named Civita was known for a long time as a spot where

antiquities could be found. No description of it prior to the excavations is at hand, except for those of the late seventeenth century,73




16

antiquities could be found. No description of it prior to the excavations is at hand, except for those of the late seventeenth century,73

but presumably some indications were available: the oval shape of the amphitheater was well discernible in the landscape and partsof columns were probably scattered over the fields. These fertile grounds were intensively used as vineyards and vegetable gardens74

and peasants frequently found antiquities digging holes for planting vines or trees.The notices of stray finds at Civita stimulated the court to do some soundings at this spot, and on 30 March 1748, work started

after the report of occasional finds of column pieces and paintings in “un paraje llamado la Civita,” not far from Torre Annunziataand immediately recognized as Pompeii. The find of this second town aroused curiosity about which town was where. The first75

finds at Herculaneum had led to the speculation that here was the famous Pompeii of Pliny’s letters, but Stabiae was suggested aswell.76

The area investigated first was what we now call the (“properties”) of Julia Felix, which Amedeo Maiuri wouldPraediare-excavate in the early 1950s. At Pompeii it was much easier to clear away the debris than dig the painstaking tunnels under77

Resina: the ruins at Pompeii were covered with a considerably thinner layer (to a maximum of seven meters) of volcanic material –mainly lapilli and dust – which was rather loosely packed. It soon became clear that the method of tunneling was inadequate forPompeii, since the galleries could easily collapse. It was here, therefore, that the first real open-air excavations began.

These excavations of Pompeii did not follow any methodical rules. After clearing away the upper layers, workers explored the78

rooms they encountered. Remains of roofing tiles and sections of upper walls, which included holes where wooden roofing beamswould have rested, and many other chunks of fallen walls were carelessly removed. The goal was to assemble removable looseobjects, wall paintings and floor mosaics, as was the practice at Herculaneum. Upon inspection by one of the museum custodians or,by most historical accounts, the leader of the excavation, Camillo Paderni or Giuseppe Canart, they decided whether to strip themosaics and (parts of) the paintings. One advantage became clear in relation to the paintings. Able to see the whole wall instead of79

only a small part, the excavators could chose larger fragments or even entire walls to cut out. The latter practice is seen for the firsttime with a wall from the of Julia Felix with the immensely popular still lifes in the upper register.Praedia 80

The earliest excavations apparently were not rewarding enough, for in October 1750 the work stopped, only to be taken up againin March 1755. It is clear from the stoppage that the excavators had not yet seen the potential for an interesting monument for81

visitors, let alone an object of scientific archaeological studies. The remarks by travelers were doing their work in a certain way. Theyear 1755 is often mentioned in travel accounts as that of the discovery of Pompeii, an error explained by the fact that from this dateonwards the explorations would no longer be interrupted. Now that the opened trenches were no longer being backfilled, the82

open-air museum would rapidly become a reality, but it would still take some years before noteworthy areas became visible, namely,what is now called Insula Occidentalis VI and VII, the properties of Filippo Irace, Domenico Cuoco and others. Francesco La Vega83

took over Weber’s job after the Swiss’ sad death in 1764, and worked for many decades at Pompeii. One of his majoraccomplishments was the systematic cleaning of the area around the Herculanean Gate, so that visitors could walk a stretch of thestreet inside and outside the city wall.84

There must have been some reluctance at the Court to leave the excavations open out of the fear that visitors would take souvenirshome with them. The risk of losing valuable and unique finds to tourists and robbers impeded the Neapolitan court to change itspolicies. In other parts of the Reign, supervisors were called to protect the monuments in the same way as in Pompeii. This85

hesitation proves how strong the interest in objects was. The fervid sale of ancient objects to foreigners in Rome might have beenanother reason the Court wanted to keep them for itself. The meaning of the finds did not concern the King or his workers and theexcavations encountered – as we will see – heavy criticism from scholars and other travelers.

Regardless of whether or not buildings were backfilled after the dig, the excavators normally did not make written or drawndocumentation of the remains. However, Paderni had sketches made that enabled him to reset pieces of painting and mosaic intotheir original shape. The ruins primarily served as a mine of murals, mosaics and movable objects. No one really asked what he orshe was excavating. Rummaging around, the excavators did not even recognize the difference between interior and exterior walls86

and the streets were seldom mentioned in the weekly reports. Restorations were limited to the covering of the upper layer of walls,87

the addition of small roofs to “protect” the paintings left and the like. The Marquis de Sade saw a room in the House of thein situ 88

Surgeon covered with a refurbished roof, so that he got an impression of the house’s original splendor.89

After the tombs, mainly explored in 1758, one of the first buildings to become visible was the city gate at the northwest corner ofPompeii known as the Herculanean Gate. It was a “lucky” find, as it was one of the original entrances to the old city, and it led to90

intensive research which resulted in the discovery of houses inside the city walls, along a street paved with huge basalt blocks andprovided with sidewalks, similar to those seen in the galleries at Herculaneum and – without the sidewalks – in the streets of Naples(p. 154, fig. 5). The houses were painted both inside and outside. Shops and signs of owners came to light. Outside the gate a seriesof tombs amidst suburban villas lined the same street. An inscription mentioning the made anPagus Augustus Felix Suburbanusinterpretation of living quarters plausible. As this street was to become a logical entrance for more than a century, theextra murosimage of the city as a society where the living and the dead stayed next to each other, especially in the , was soon created. Inpagusthe visitors’ perception, the inhabitants seemed to be absent only for a brief appointment, but the skeletal remains on the streets andin the houses were the silent testimony to the disaster. One villa, covered after having been researched, was assigned to the famouspolitician Cicero, whose is known from his correspondence. All these buildings were stripped, where possible, of thePompeianum 91

most precious elements, like figural scenes in the wall paintings and floors.On a slope in the southern area of the town, a series of public monuments came to light in the 1750s. First of all, there was a badly

ruined temple with columns of the Doric order, laid out on a triangular open space, soon called Foro Triangolare. These remainswere immediately associated with the well-preserved Greek temples at Paestum discovered almost simultaneously, and they proved,according to many people, that Pompeii had once been a Greek city. Adjacent to it a courtyard and two theaters were found. Small92

rooms flanking the courtyard (which must have served as foyers for the theater guests and as training grounds for youth) containedskeletons of chained persons, probably slaves, and bronze helmets adorned with sumptuous relief and apparently used in parades andgladiator fights in the amphitheater. The founders of the small theater ( : covered theater) were mentioned on a slab:theatrum tectumGaius Quinctius Valgus and Marcus Porcius. Two brothers Holconius had paid for reconstruction works in the big theater, accordingto a pair of inscriptions, and the architect of these works, Marcus Artorius Primus was eternalized in another inscription.Furthermore, there was another training center, a palaestra where a beautiful statue of a standing nude athlete had stood, fragments ofwhich had been collected by La Vega in 1797. Perhaps the most spectacular find was a temple dedicated to the Egyptian goddess93




17

which had been collected by La Vega in 1797. Perhaps the most spectacular find was a temple dedicated to the Egyptian goddess93

Isis: the objects found and the decorations on the walls proved the exceptional nature of this arcane figure (see Chapter II,pp. 141–144).

The same excavation method was used at a beautifully located spot along the edge of a hill, in a seashore village calledCastellammare (“di Stabia” was added at the end of the nineteenth century), some ten kilometers south of Pompeii. At ancientStabiae some Roman villas were found and re-covered after the explorations. They were to be rediscovered in 1950 by a localheadmaster and dilettante archaeologist, Libero d’Orsi, who would become subject of a novel himself (see Chapter V, pp. 282–283).Fortunately, in the last decades the interest in these monuments has increased.

In 1759 King Charles was called to Spain to succeed Ferdinand VI who had died. He left the throne to his nine year old sonFerdinand, who was placed under the custody of Tanucci. Charles did not take finds with him to his new reign and even gave backthe afore-mentioned finger ring. Paderni was asked to be a dealer for the acquisition of antiquities from Rome for the royalcollections. Whereas Charles continued to follow the progression of discoveries from Madrid as we know from the letters94

dispatched by Tanucci, Ferdinand did not demonstrate a strong commitment to the archaeological project. This contrasted with thegenuine interest of his future wife, Maria Carolina, the daughter of the Austrian emperor Joseph II and Maria Theresia.95

The Museum at Portici

Herculae exuvias Urbis traxisse Vesevi ex Faucibus una vide regia vis potuit96

Some twenty years after the start of the explorations at Herculaneum, the storerooms in the Palace at Portici were full of material andcould no longer be shown to guests. Therefore, it was decided to devote a special wing of the palace to exposing the treasures, andthe officially opened its doors in 1758. It was by no means a public museum. Like access to theHerculanense Museum 97

excavations, access to the collection was possible only with a special permit. This had to be obtained from Tanucci, and a requestwas made via the ambassador in Naples. For most guests this was no problem, since they belonged to the elite of society, but eventhey could not go without such a letter.98

As for the arrangement of the objects, we must rely on descriptions of visitors, the note by Franceso Piranesi from 1806 and lateraccounts. These sources sometimes contradict each other, which is understandable given that it was strictly forbidden to make notesand sketches. A visitor’s every movement was meticulously controlled by a guard; objects could be stolen, copied in a drawing orsimply touched, all of which had to be prevented. As a matter of fact, guests could be terribly impertinent, like Anna Miller. Shewanted to touch a piece of paper with her finger, to take some tiny “atom” with her, but even that was seen as a theft of the King’sunique possessions. Despite the severe rules, sometimes people succeeded in making notes and drawings. It was because of this99

that the Comte de Caylus was able to publish some objects at Portici drawn by a friend, but he stressed that he was not permitted tobetray his source, whose reputation he wanted to protect. It is even said that Winckelmann (see p. 44–45) entered, looked in utmostconcentration trying to learn some inscriptions by heart, left after several minutes to write down a note, and entered again to continuethe visit. The guards found it suspicious, but apparently he succeeded in misleading them, so that his two publications on theexcavations contain a number of correctly copied texts.

Descriptions of this sort and a map by Francesco Piranesi enabled Agnes Allroggen-Bedel and Helke Kammerer-Grothaus topresent a trustworthy “guide” to the old museum. Winckelmann saw five rooms in 1758, Fougeroux de Bondaroy described nine100

rooms in 1763, and from 1799 there were eighteen rooms on the first floor. The fifth room contained the papyri and the devicePiaggio had made to unfold them, room 6 showed the reconstruction of a kitchen, room 7 had bronze statuary and in room 8 therewere imprints and body parts of victims, like the famous woman’s breast (see Chapter III). In room 18 the “obscene objects” like thefamous tripod with the ithyphallic satyrs were on display. Wall cases contained the smaller pieces: lamps with erotic scenes, phalli101

et cetera. Apparently everyone could see this room, as the accounts of both ladies and gentlemen testify. The lower floor displayedhundreds of paintings and large statues. On the second floor store rooms and studios were arranged. Mariana Starke described thesituation in the museum around 1800: the minister’s permit was valid for a whole year and the museum was open every day from 9to 1 and from 3 to 6, excluding holidays. She warned that the lower rooms with the paintings were chilly.102

The arrangement of the objects according to categories corresponded with the taxonomy used in antiquarian studies of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries that would be criticized by Winckelmann. From our point of view, a modern museum aspectwas the reconstruction of the kitchen – a rather peculiar conception compared to the purely aesthetic approach of the rest of the finds,which was criticized by no less than Diderot, who found the interest for common objects out of place.103

The staff was small, yet two individuals should be singled out. The already mentioned French sculptor Giuseppe (originallyJoseph) Canart, was at the museum from 1739. Paderni was trained as a painter and came into the King’s service in 1749. He104 105

had been at Herculaneum with Canart as early as 1739-1740 and reported the find of the theater to his friend and artistic colleague,the English painter Allan Ramsey. Remains had been found of an amphitheater, a chariot and a broken equestrian statue, which106

were under Canart’s custody. According to one letter, Paderni thought that the excavations at Herculaneum were like those at the107

Roman catacombs and that it was a shame no documentation was being made:108

The First Mistake those Men they call Intendants have committed is, their having dug out the Pictures, withoutdrawing the Situation of the Place, that is, the Niches, where they stood: For they were all adorned with Grotesques,composed of most elegant Masques, Figures, and Animals: which, not being copied, are gone to Destruction, and thelike will happen to the rest. […] I left then a Paper of Directions how to manage. If they do not observe them, thegreater Misfortune will be ours, to hear that what Time, Earthquakes, and the Ravages of the Volcano have spared, arenow destroyed by those who pretend to have the Case of them.




18

Notwithstanding this criticism, Paderni was a good person for the job of custodian of the collection at Portici. He would be active inthis function until his death and never left the area but for a year in Spain (1765-1766). His education as a painter was useful,because he made drawings of the objects that became the basis of several engravings for the . His diary and Antichità d’Ercolano

provide extremely useful data regarding the excavations and the finds made at Herculaneum. His work, however, wasMonumenti 109

not easy, as he struggled with the methods of restoration and often received too many pieces at one time to work on. He wrote to hisfriend, the painter Thomas Hollis:110

At present my time is much taken up, in a work extremely difficult and tedious; which is this: When the theatre wasfirst discovered, there were found in it, among other things, several horses in bronze, larger than life; but all of thembruised, and broken into many pieces. From this sad condition they are not yet restored. But his majesty havingexpressed a particular desire to see that effected, if possible, with regard to one of them, I resolved to attempt it; andaccordingly have set about it.

During a brief period around 1760, Paderni assumed the supervision of the excavations at Pompeii, but this came to an end in 1763when the Court accused him of destroying wall paintings. His work resulted, for the first time, in buildings and streets being openedto the public, and included drawings of buildings in his . In that respect, he is among the first to present documentation ofMonumentithe antique urban remains rather than of the objects in the museum. The reconstruction of the kitchen in the museum and the111

illustration of every-day utensils, like vessels and bronze utensils, make him a forerunner in the study of daily life.112

Publications in Eighteenth-Century Naples

As the number of unearthed treasures grew, the court was called upon to publish accounts of the excavations. Naples had little famein the field of antiquarian studies, whereas it was famous for modern approaches of sciences like economy and agriculture.113

Delphine Burlot had recently discovered that the court envisaged an illustrated publication of the finds as early as 1746, but the fewremaining copies of this work demonstrate such rough craftsmanship that they were most likely not ready for distribution.114

Apparently, this project was aborted in favor of one put forward by the Roman priest Ottavio Antonio Bayardi, whose first work wasa never completed multi-volume , of which the first volume opens with a dedication to theProdromo delle antichità d’ErcolanoKing.115

Bayardi’s research gained some momentum with the publication of a catalogue, which was long expected by the Court. Bayardi116

decided to use Montfaucon’s method of classification and, because of his weak health, begged for understanding. In 1755 Tanucci117

founded a scientific academy, and included Bayardi among its twenty-seven members, among which Mazzocchi, Martorelli, andTanucci himself. This asked Bayardi to prepare a proposal for a series of publications and started to118 Accademia Ercolanesepublish the huge luxury volumes of the . They did not include any documentation about the excavation orAntichità di Ercolano 119

where objects were found; objects were merely described and illustrated, and classified by their physical status (painting, bronze) andwithout records about the context of their discovery. Tanucci asked the ’s members to write comments and descriptionsAccade miaof the objects illustrated on the plates. These contributions remained anonymous.120

Bayardi fell ill and wished to return to Rome. The government granted him this wish, and in 1756 he went back to Rome121 122

without bitterness. Volkmann quoted an epigram about Bayardi:123

The town of Hercules, once oppressed by cruel ruins and hidden in the vast innards of earth, now comes to light oncommand of the magnanimous King and brings so many rare things to the fore that were hidden before: we admirehow statues and painted figures take breath as well as the learned hands of old artists. But, while neither earthquakesnor fires were able to destroy her, the horrible page of an Author is. Look, she is again drowned in so much blackdarkness and lies completely entombed in Bayardi’s book.

Hollis told the following anecdote:124

In the summer 1752, when the two first volumes of a work related to Herculaneum, Stabiae, Pompeii, and theantiquities discovered in those cities of late years, were ready for publication, Mons. Baiardi, the author of them, alearned good prelate from the Romish communion, though it hath been said of a genius not altogether suitable to thatwork, waited on the King of Naples, now King of Spain, to receive his directions for the distribution of thosevolumes, which had been printed by his own special command, in order to be scattered, as other volumes have beensince, among the learned every where; the King said to him immediately, without noticing Neapolitan, Spanjard, orany other people, Give five hundred copies to the English. Bajardi, who was by no means disinclined to that nation,replied bowing, I fear, in that case, the rest of Europe will fail of their proportion. – LET THE PRESS BE SETANEW.COUNTRYMEN,Applaud the munificence of the Monarch, and believe him to be, what in fact he is, though sometimes misled by badservants, a friendly, honest man.An English Traveller. But while neither earthquakes nor fires could ruin the town, a dire page of an Author can. Look,again they sent so many merged into black darkness, in Baiardi’s book she lies, entirely buried.




19

The opulent volumes of the served as gifts to royal colleagues and noblemen who got access to the court. Their failureAntichità 125

was their limited distribution: even though they were not rare, since printed in some hundred copies, they did not arrive on the desksof people who had a real interest in the excavations. That Winckelmann struggled to get a copy gives us an idea of this imbalance,126

in that scholars were apparently deemed unworthy of these volumes.The genius behind the curtains was Tanucci, the only professor who succeeded in becoming a minister. Jacob Jonas Björnståhl

observes that he refused to be mentioned among the authors and asked his interviewer not to write about this topic, since the was supposed to be a team effort. According to the mineralogist Johann Jacob Ferber it was Ferdinando Galiani whoAntichità 127

made the decisive suggestion for two important changes: the open-air excavations at Pompeii and the wider diffusion of the Antichità.128

Dupaty made a strong comparison between Winckelmann and the : one man, Winckelmann, had reached more than theAntichitàentire group of Neapolitan scholars. The got tired of the incessant criticisms about the slow progress made129 Accademia Ercolaneseand decided to publish a series of engravings made for the Antichità: Gli ornati delle pareti ed in pavimenti delle stanze dell’antica

but also as “fogli volanti, distributi con poc’ordine in vero.” Each painting was presented without anyPompei incise in rame 130

comments, and only sometimes with an indication of its provenance. A great difference from the is that we see complete131 Antichitàwall and floor decorations, and no cut-out fragments, which makes them still precious. Among the artists are those of the ,Antichitàlike Raffaello Morghen, Giovanni Casanova and Francesco Morelli. Research into the documentation of the Temple of Isis has madeclear that many engravings were never even published.132

All these publications encountered heavy criticism. Caylus was very skeptical about the choice of paintings made for the firstvolume of the , which included tiny and insignificant figures as well as ugly arabesques. He also believed that the texts wereAntichitàtoo long and repetitive. His negative judgment of Volume II reflected that of cardinal Paciaudi, but he studied it with his friend133

Galiani. That did not hinder Caylus, however, from inserting illustrations into his work copied from or already made for the 134

, together with works of a “pensionnaire” of the French Academy in Rome.Antichità 135

A cheap edition of the by Thomas Martyn and John Lettice was important for the diffusion of Herculanean motifs inAntichitàneo-classical art and handcraft. Loved and reviled alike, these decorations would conquer Europe.136 137

In the late eighteenth century, general guides to Naples started to include some pages on the excavations and on the museum atPortici. Apparently, the court was no longer making objections. The local revolution and the French occupation are probably whatcaused this change in the old politics of monopolizing all sorts of publications.138

Publications in Learned Circles in Europe

Among the first important works about the excavations at Herculaneum – and unique thanks to its illustrations – is a booklet byNicolas Cochin and Charles Bellicard, from 1754. Cochin was a draughtsman whoObservations sur les antiquités d’Herculanum 139

would become the most important print maker in France. He was in Rome in 1749-1750 as one of the guides of the brother ofMadame de Pompadour, the marquess Abel-François de Vandières and was accompanied by the architect Bellicard on his trip to theSouth. In Naples, they were guests of D’Arthenay, secretary of the French ambassador and possibly author of an early account140

(see p. 24). Their story delivers a positive image of the excavations, that matches the ideas of the in the discussion on theAnciensimportance of Antiquity for the . From Cochin’s point of view as an artist, the study ofQuerelle des Anciens et des Modernes 141

Roman wall paintings was important. His judgment of the wall paintings was not very positive, apart from the praise of the142

Theseus and the Minotaur from the “Basilica” at Herculaneum. The architectural paintings were considered the worst of all.143

Strikingly, the images of paintings and objects found at Herculaneum in this publication are rather primitive, when compared withthose of the Campi Flegrei and considering Cochin’s skills as a draughtsman. Since the authors refer to the severe rules aboutdrawing and writing in Naples, they probably drew these images from memory, intentionally making them extra ‘primitive’ tobolster their criticism of these prohibitions.144

Caylus’ afore-mentioned was a vast work about the old cultures of the Mediterranean, the Near East and NorthwestAntiquitésEurope. It contains various reflections on objects found in Herculaneum and Pompeii. Caylus never visited the sites, but was well145

informed, despite the never-answered demand for “éclair-issemens” from the King about the prohibitions from making notes. He146

gleaned notes from his correspondence with Cardinal Paciaudi and travelers, hoping to learn about the Herculanean antiquities. He147

believed that the paintings were of low quality, apart from the Theseus and the Minotaur.Caylus’ method, like that of the Encyclopédistes, concentrates on the function of the objects in ancient society. His point of view,

in contrast with Cochin and Bellicard, was that of the . Classical antiquity, he believed, is an excellent culture to imitateModernesand emulate, but it is not insuperable, and Pompeii and Herculaneum are ideal for a reconstruction of antique life, since they offer148

incredible information that surpasses what a mere object, like an incense burner, can offer. As in the , Caylus arranged149 Antichitàthe items according to formal criteria, like format and material (similar to the taxonomy of Pliny the Elder and that of the seventeenthand eighteenth century, see p. 32, 115).




20

August Denis Fougeroux de Bondaroy, (1770), plate 2. Upper and middle row: still lifes of writingFig. 2: Recherches sur les ruines d’Herculanumutensils and a coin box. Lower row: writing utensils, sistrum, tibiae, nails, a charred loaf, and charred papyrus scrolls, and Piaggio’s papyrus

unroller.

Like many others, Caylus wished to buy an original object from the excavations, like an unpublished papyrus, even by means of aclandestine dig. It would have been a great pleasure to unroll his own ancient text, which, of course, he was never able to do.150

Household utensils form the central item of a book by August Denis Fougeroux de Bondaroy, based on his visit in 1763. At151

length he speaks about the volcanic material in Herculaneum and its stratigraphy. Despite the low visibility in the tunnels, he regardsa daylight exploration as unfeasible because of the thick masses of lava. Household items are of high interest, showing how152

people lived. An essay on “Fabriques des mosaïques” concludes the booklet. Fougeroux’s work betrays an attention to the objects153

used in daily life, a characteristic of his book which goes well with science. Paintings serve to illustrate aspects of ancient life likereligion, writing, music, and making wine ( ).fig. 2 154

The fact that Fougeroux paid so much attention to utensils and illustrated them on as many as three plates was the reason for whichDiderot attacked him. In his view, a book dealing with ordinary objects as opposed to the arts was not worthy of being in the luggageof a traveler to the south. It sounds strange that the editor of the , who was so interested in the arts and crafts of his155 Encyclopédieown time that there should be extensive descriptions and lavish illustrations of these topics in this work, did not recognize therelevance of ancient forerunners. But entirely in accordance with the views of his time, Diderot saw Antiquity as an example of highculture and the daily-life aspects were irrelevant for modern people. The finds at Herculaneum and Pompeii, interesting since theymade known aspects of common life, apparently did not trigger Diderot to change his mind.156

Fougeroux knew Winckelmann’s , which also stressed the importance of studying old “Geräthe” that had grace andSendschreibenshowed ancient peoples’ good taste. Modern artists would gain profit from copying them. One of Winckelmann’s reviewers,157

Christian Gottlob Heyne, would single out this point and quote Winckelmann extensively.158

François de Paule Latapie was among the first to describe the excavations at Pompeii carried out in the light of the day. In apresentation in 1776 in the Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Arts de Bordeaux, he gave a clear definition of Pompeii’simportance in respect to Rome: its mediocrity guarantees other forms of information than Rome’s grandiose ruins. Therefore, it is noproblem that houses are small, since even in the smallest ones there are novelties to discover. A striking detail is the presence of159

glass in the windows, while bones are the remains of the victims, often collected by the visitors as souvenirs (cf. Chapter III, p. 182).Latapie was the first to record names of houses formed on the basis of graffiti on their façades. He suggested the excavation of, or160

at least the full discovery of the walls of the town in order to obtain a notion of its size. In Latapie’s view, farmers ruined the

archaeological site with their agricultural activities. This concern might have its origin in Latapie’s profession as a student of161




21

archaeological site with their agricultural activities. This concern might have its origin in Latapie’s profession as a student of161

gardening, which was evidenced in the detailed depiction of planted trees and shrubs on his plan. In many respects, his plan, the firstknown plan of the excavations – Esquisse du Plan de Pompeii faite de mémoire pour donner une idée des positions respectives desfouilles en Fevrier 1776 – gives a distorted view of the ancient city but offers insight into the primary monuments known at that time.

Francesco Piranesi would publish a plan in 1785, whereas Latapie’s sketch remained hidden in the archives of his academy.162 163

Latapie’s main critic was of course Winckelmann, who – justly – boasted to have studied at Portici for many months, much morethan any passing traveler. He hoped to escape the court’s vengeance with the publication of his 1762 and 1764 libels in Germaninstead of one of the learned languages: and Sendschreiben von den Herculani schen Entdeckungen Nachrichten von den neuesten

. Caylus’ French translation of the had the effect Winckelmann feared: theHerculanischen Entdeckun gen 164 SendschreibenNeapolitans soon took notice of Winckelmann’s caustic remarks.165

Winckelmann’s criticism concerned three cardinal points: (1) the prohibition against publishing anything about the discoveries, (2)the incompetence of the personnel involved, and (3) the management of the finds. His first book championed the effort to abolish theprohibitions, train the personnel and more properly manage the finds. After Cochin and Bellicard, Winckelmann was the first to offerextensive descriptions as well as comments on finds themselves rather than on the excavations, which had been the norm in the workof others before him. Inscriptions are often quoted correctly, which suggests that he must have learned them by heart. Among thepeople involved, diplomatically, he did not hit Tanucci, but Alcubierre, who according to him, and as an Italian saying went, knew aslittle of the excavation as crabs knew of the moon. Bayardi, Martorelli, and Mazzocchi got their share of criticism, too, as166

omniscient but stupid authors, without insight or understanding, writing books that were too thick. The only praise was for Weberand Piaggio. Winckelmann’s succinct style contrasts with the pompous publication of the Neapolitan academics. It is especiallyworth noticing that he always associates the finds with other antique objects or written sources, trying to illustrate their relevance forarchaeology on a broader scale than Naples.

He did not criticize the excavation methods or the extraction of objects: it would be too burdensome to lay open Herculaneum. AtPompeii the open-air dig was easy, but developed too slowly and with too few workmen. Despite his hitting the core of the167

excavations’ problems, nothing changed and nobody attempted to revise any methods. Even internal criticism to more extensivelydivulge the results of the research failed.168

The answer to Winckelmann’s was an anonymous booklet attributed to Mattia Zarillo (or Zarrilli), a member of theSendschreiben. For him, Winckelmann was a Goth who wrote for other Goths, lazy (if learned) linguists who did not want toAccademia Ercolanese

travel to the South, and who like moles, were running in the mines of dark knowledge. It is true, the author admits, that the169

excavators destroyed some bronzes and other objects, but otherwise the King would need still more showcases. He defends hiscolleagues Martorelli and Mazzocchi; the latter wrote a beautiful epigraph about the base of the equestrian statue of Balbus and,besides, he was internationally famous. As to Alcubierre: he never wanted to be an Antiquarian, but was a good military architect170

and for that reason was chosen to direct the complicated subterranean excavations.171

One of the major scholars in Naples was the English ambassador Sir William Hamilton, who stayed from 1764 until 1800, surely alonger period than he wished, but thanks to his publications, made himself unforgettable. Although volcanology was his primary172

field of interest, he also published about Herculaneum and Pompeii. He guided many visitors to the excavations and to Vesuvius andhad a small collection of Pompeian objects. This was a wonder, since almost nothing Pompeian was on the art market. One of the173

first illustrated accounts of the excavations in Pompeii is Hamilton’s paper in the still existing periodical . The textArchaeologia 174

mainly is a brief commentary on a set of plates, and focuses – for the first time in the excavation history – on architecture. Plate175

VI, for instance, shows the “Barracks of the gladiators.” On a shelf there are some skulls seen as the remains of “soldiers”. The176

plates are very “dry,” in that they do not contain additions that create a romantic or other particular atmosphere. There are no people,and “dramatic” situations, with skeletons, lack, although the description contains emotional remarks. Hamilton wanted to record thesituation and avoided inserting private feelings. The fact that his publications are in a scientific periodical and the product of ascientific presentation may have been important factors. This publication and the lavish would be cited by manyCampi Phlegraeischolars. In the latter work he tried to explain the different layers of volcanic material covering Herculaneum (volcanic mudhardened like concrete by water) and Pompeii (showers of pumice, fragmented volcanic material).177

Among the most influential illustrated books of the eighteenth century is Saint-Non’s , with its 450Voyage pittoresquehigh-quality illustrations by skilled artists. It would be translated into English and the term picturesque formed a basic element in thetitles of many works to follow. Saint-Non visited Naples in December 1759 and April 1760 on his Grand Tour, and was encouragedby Caylus to study the antiquities from the Vesuvian cities. He undertook the publication of the many years after and178 Voyageinvolved Vivant Denon (see Chapter II, p. 140) and some members of the French Academy in Rome; Petra Lamers has reconstructedthis rather complicated project. The Vesuvian cities are the subject of the second volume. Saint-Non argues that while179

Herculaneum was rather famous, Pompeii ran the risk of remaining unknown because of the lack of publications includingdescriptions and illustrations. This is why his artists have taken the liberty of suggesting a more dramatic, “picturesque”180

atmosphere – e.g. Hubert Robert’s illustrations of the excavations of Herculaneum in a wild, rocky landscape, with small peoplelaboring and impressive finds scattered over the place, and that of the skeleton in a (fantasy) subterranean room. Such anexaggeration seemed necessary to evoke emotions in the readers, because in reality, nothing was visible above the ground except forthe unspectacular entrance into the subterranean galleries.181

Almost all the publications briefly presented here focus on objects and paintings, the things brought to the museum at Portici.Hamilton and Saint-Non were the first to illustrate the houses and other edifices and also changed the approach among travelers, whobegan to concentrate more on the urban landscape. This early lack of interest contrasted greatly with the study of the temples ofPaestum, which resulted in lavishly illustrated publications from the first years after discovery. The monumentality of these templesand, still more importantly, the liberty to study them in their remote position without any royal proviso considerably stimulatedresearch.182

The Years 1800-1860Copyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.



22

In 1799 King Ferdinand and the court fled to Palermo, the second capital of the kingdom, because of local revolts and the fact thatFrench troops guided by general Championnet occupied Naples. The revolutionary dream of a republic, the Repubblica Partenopea,lead by local intellectuals, turned out to be a failure and Ferdinand returned. He fled again in 1806 to Palermo, taking with him manycrates of artifacts and papyri. The French occupation from 1806 to 1815 onwards had rewarding consequences for the excavations atPompeii after a time of lesser activities Napoleon’s substitute, the general Joaquin (or locally: Gioacchino) Murat, successor of183

Joseph Bonaparte in 1808 as King of Naples, and his wife Caroline, one of Napoleon’s sisters, showed a great interest in the ancientcity. Caroline paid many visits to the site and personally influenced the work being done.184 185

A positive element for the local people was the continuity of the personnel working in the excavations, because they were notreplaced by French employees. Ferdinand appointed Felice Nicolas as a director of the excavations and museum collections in 1805.Nicolas remained in charge under the French rule, whereas Francesco La Vega’s brother Pietro was responsible for the excavationsthemselves. Nicolas would be succeeded by Michele Arditi in 1807, who remained responsible until his death in 1838. Arditi had186

been a member of the from 1787 onwards, and was one of the last real antiquarians in the style of Mazzocchi.Accademia ErcolaneseThe number of workers increased with totals as high as 600 people reported. The method of excavating changed, too. Workers first

explored the top layers of volcanic material and unearthed the uppermost parts or contours of the buildings. They could then decidewhich buildings to excavate entirely. Another major innovation was better documentation, which resulted in clearer plans of the187

excavation area. The city walls were explored on the uppermost layer and the area of the forum and its surrounding buildings wascleared, the first coherent plot of public buildings in the city, and connected with the Herculanean gate by the also unearthed “ViaConsolare.” From now on, people really walked through the streets of an ancient town (cf. pp. 318–319, fig. 14). The Frencharchitect François Mazois was in charge of publishing the architecture of the town, while Aubin-Louis Millin and the German painterFriedrich Catel simultaneously produced a splendid publication about some tombs outside Herculanean Gate, which marked the startof scientific publications. Millin’s book was dedicated to the Queen.188

The excavation policy did not change under the French and the practice of cutting out paintings and mosaics was maintainedthroughout the nineteenth and even greater part of the twentieth century. Material belonging to upper floors was rarely recognized assuch. Repairs of the ruins themselves were carried out on a very limited scale.

The road from the Herculanean Gate to the center of town became fully free (p. 154, fig. 5) and the discovery of the forum with itspublic and sacred buildings further boosted Pompeii’s popularity. One of the major finds was the Temple of Jupiter, where a skeletonwas found in a subterranean room under the high podium. At first thought to be the municipal prison, it would soon become a locusof drama in novels. The temple in a courtyard at the Westside of the forum became the “Temple of Venus” and got its correct name,Temple of Apollo, when in 1860 a Venus temple was found near Porta Marina. Other prestigious monuments were the macellum, amarket place called Pantheon, the Temple for the Fortuna of Augustus, a public latrine and the public measuring table.

The main private dwelling unearthed during the French occupation was the House of Sallustius, outstanding for its lavish displayof luxury. The excavators found a garden with a series of separate rooms, which they interpreted as a “motel” for love affairs, called

after an adjective of the goddess of love. One of the garden walls showed a huge representation of Actaeon andvenereum 189

Artemis, and another, a painted garden and a marble fountain in the shape of a sphinx.Under Ferdinand, who was reinstalled in 1815, the employees who had worked under the Murat regime continued, including

Arditi and Antonio Bonucci. The latter would have a successor in Carlo Bonucci, who was in charge of various ranks as architect190

and director of Pompeii between 1828 and 1849. The possibilities granted to foreigners to carry out research in Pompeii also191

continued. The Russian A. Brulloff published a monograph on the then recently discovered public baths near the forum.The King made an important decision regarding the museum. The Palazzo degli studi, “the Studi” for short, the former seat of the

university, became the Real Museo Borbonico. Next to the paintings and the sculptures from the Farnese collection, inherited byCharles as the last – remote – member of that illustrious family, the antiquities of Vesuvius were to be installed. This transport192

was carried out in phases between 1816 and 1822. The contemporary arrangement of the objects according to material categories likepaintings, bronzes, glass objects, still reflects the way these items had been on display at Portici. The excavation context played norole, even when the location of a painting’s discovery was known.193

New discoveries of private houses in the post-Napoleonic period included the House of Pansa, which occupied an entire block, andwas named after a painted name on the façade. It included a brothel and a shop with a painting of a peacock, which represented goodluck. The House of the Tragic Poet was small, but luxuriously furnished, and named after a mosaic with an old man dressing actorsfor a stage play. The mosaic of a watch dog with the inscription near the front door recalled Trimalchio’s painted dog inCave canemthe first-century Latin novel by Petronius. During the 1830s, director Pietro Bianchi concentrated on the area of the ViaSatyricadella Fortuna. In 1832, he oversaw the lucky find of the House of the Faun, named after the bronze statuette of a dancing satyr. An194

extremely rich set of floor mosaics was explored, the most famous of which depicts a battle between Alexander the Great and Darius.Its precise interpretation provoked a hot debate in which Goethe, shortly before his death in 1832, made an interesting suggestion onthe basis of a drawing sent to Weimar by Zahn. The mosaic was protected by a glass roof, and reproductions were produced in195

Naples. Details appeared on vases and fabric. This and other figural pieces were lifted and brought to the museum in Naples in196

1843.197

In the nineteenth century Pompeii became a crucial scholarly stop. The digs transmitted real life from the past directly to thepresent, and invited visitors to Pompeii and readers of publications concerning it to reflect on the destiny of this ancient town and oftheir own cities. Studies about urbanization in an urbanizing society like that of the nineteenth century often referred to Pompeii.198

Its value clearly surpassed that of the old curiosity shop it had been in the previous century. According to the American historianVirginia Zimmerman, Danish ancient historian Barthold Niebuhr’s work was instrumental, for he stressed that reenacting the pastcould essentially fill the gap between that past and the present. Pompeii could play a paramount role in this process, as we will seethroughout many works discussed in this book.199

This was less the case for Herculaneum, although the authorities started new excavations there. They hoped to explore the town bydaylight, removing many meters of volcanic material, and satisfying the demands travelers had already expressed in the eighteenthcentury. Between 1828 and 1835 the House of Argus, the House of the Skeleton – for a long time the only place where remains of avictim of the A.D. 79 eruption were found – and the House of Aristides came to light (p. 398, fig. 17). The finds were evidently not

sufficient compensation for the difficult task, and the work stopped in 1835. Giacomo Leopardi was very critical of the slow200




23

sufficient compensation for the difficult task, and the work stopped in 1835. Giacomo Leopardi was very critical of the slow200

progress of the work, as he wrote in his . This epic – a sort of continuation of theParalipomeni della Batracomi omachiapseudo-Homeric (“War between frogs and mice”) from the Hellenistic era – describes the residence of the miceBatrachomyo machiaunder the earth, called Topaia. It features palaces, statues and columns like every big city, but it does not need light. Topaia,201

therefore, is like the hidden treasures at Herculaneum and might be the tunnel from Naples to Pozzuoli or even, I want to suggest,202

the one described in Sannazaro’s Arcadia (see Chapter III, pp. 170–171). Behind this metaphor hides Leopardi’s fight against the203

Neapolitan intelligentsia, and their dreamer’s mentality. Leopardi attacked Francesco Maria Avellino, director of the excavations anda central figure in the Neapolitan academic circles, together with his friends as a “hypocrite mob.” Leopardi may have been204

exaggerating, since Avellino and other academics were very active in the study of antiquity. As in , Leopardi sees205 La ginestrapeople working at Herculaneum moved by private vanity and not by eagerness to expand science. Leopardi portrays strangers206

going down to the dark remains of Herculaneum under Resina, and seeing monuments hidden from the light of day. He argues that ifthese ruins were in Germany or Britain, the visitor would not need torches, since they would be visible, like those at Pompeii, andasserts that Italy should unearth these treasures to prove its greatness.

A third, short burst of activities at Herculaneum happened in 1869-1875, when parts of the public baths were found, but the rest ofthe “Sleeping Beauty” of Herculaneum was to remain undisturbed until 1927 (see Chapter IX). Therefore, we return to Pompeii.

Despite the progress made in the first decades of the nineteenth century, and the increasing number of scientific publications,excavators still lacked much interest for the architectural remains themselves, which were rapidly falling into decay. One suchexample was the amphitheater, already documented in 1748 and excavated at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The excavatorswere excited to find the names of the same magistrates who had been responsible for its construction carved in the stone benches, butpaintings adorning the walls of the arena fell off after one cold and rainy winter in 1816 and were lost. Fortunately, watercolors anddrawings had been made, or else they would have been forgotten forever. Like those in the amphitheater, paintings and mosaics in207

houses also suffered from exposure to the weather. Objects and decorations were ripped off, leaving the houses bereft of their souls,and transforming them into empty boxes, and there was little substantive information available for visitors, who were subjected to thewhims of local guides. Nevertheless, most visitors did not care that the excavators had haphazardly unearthed one house after anotherand failed to keep the area tidy, but instead heaped up the debris close by. Thousands of roof tiles encountered by every excavator inthe first place had simply been thrown away.

Monographs and Guide Books for the Learned and General Public in the Nineteenth and EarlyTwentieth Century

François Mazois’ four great folios of the 1820s, which were the first to include all aspects of Pompeian architecture, are still amasterpiece of scholarship. For twelve years, Mazois lived amidst the ruins at Pompeii, with their “air de jeunesse qui charme.”208

He only lived to see the first two completed, but all four were eventually edited by François-Charles Gau. The first volume209

features streets, city walls and tombs, and the second focuses on private houses. One plate shows an excavation, with women and210

children carrying away baskets of lapilli. The third and fourth volumes both open with obituaries for Mazois by Artaude, which211

reveal that King Joachin Murat and Queen Caroline encouraged Mazois in the Napoleonic era to carry out thorough research, as didKing Ferdinand after his return to power. Volume III is about the portico behind the theater, the theaters themselves and the forum;Volume IV is about temples.212

The first Pompeii guidebooks were published in the same period as Mazois’ folios. Sir William Gell’s werePompeianaparticularly influential for the earliest fiction authors. Gell moved definitively to Naples in 1816 due to gout. The architect John PeterGandy contributed the lavish illustrations to Gell’s text of his seminal first set of of 1819. These were made with thePompeiana 213

help of a lanterna magica. had a large readership, and in 1832 Gell published a supplement under the same title. It isPompeianacurious to see that the 1853 edition of I contain the same plates as the first edition. Clearly, this and other publicationsPompeianawere often not updated in reprints. The images of later editions still show the people in 1832 dress.214

According to various testimonies, Gell was a mild and sweet man, an affectionate companion. He figured as an amiable guide215

of English tourists who, like Hamilton in the 1770s and 1780s, never refused such a job despite his gout. In Naples, his inseparablefriend was Keppel Craven, with whom he had once taken up residence in London in 1803 after a mission to Greece and Asia Minor.

Craven would survive Gell for sixteen years and died in 1852.216

The architect Thomas Leverton Donaldson is known for his 1827 lavish folio volumes. These presented a trustworthy image topeople who did not go to Pompeii. The interest in the town was not defined by works of arts like paintings, but by its density of217

information about daily life:218

The dreadful catastrophe which involved in one common ruin Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabia, lamentable as it isto contemplate in all its horrors and desolation, offers a field for the indulgence of that laudable curiosity which hadbeen so long unsatisfied, that a general despair prevailed of such a gratification as it now enjoys.

The architect William Barnard Clarke produced a richly illustrated, nearly 600 page volume that compiled authors like Mazois, Gell,and Donaldson. It was a book to read at home. He catalogued eighty houses and described extensively those of Meleager, the219

Tragic Poet, Pansa, Regina Carolina, and Bacchus, as well as the Villa of Diomedes. Italian counterparts, but with fewer or noillustrations, were Bonucci’s and Vinci’s guides of the 1820s.220

Almost all written guides use a structure that seems based on the pioneering works of Mazois and Gell. After a brief history of thediscovery and the excavations, the author sketches Pompeii’s history, explaining the city’s name, geomorphology and the classicalsources. The descriptions of the monuments follow functional categories: squares and streets, fortifications, tombs, sacral andCo

pyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.



24

thermal buildings, and houses, and differ merely in the length of the general explanations of the various aspects (e.g. the lay-out ofthe Roman house, the structure of baths).

On the French market, people had to wait for an original contribution until the mid 1850s. Ernest Breton intended to offer a cheapand handy guide, to be used on site or read at home. Although it had a large format, two editions came out within one year. Byreading his book, travellers and other readers got a realistic depiction of the ancient life at Pompeii, focusing on private matters.221

In the 1850s, ongoing research rendered Gell’s 1819 and 1832 books out of date, and with Breton’s 1855 book too thick to bepractical, the publication of smaller guides became popular. Marc Monnier enjoyed great success with his elegant and vivid 1864guidebook, translated into many languages and republished in many editions in French. His preface is written as a dialogue222

between a bookseller in Naples and a tourist, and lays out what a visitor to Pompeii would need for a meaningful tour. First of all, aguidebook should be affordable, slim and accessible, but according to the bookseller, such a book did not exist, so he suggests the223

traveler write one himself. In the following, Monnier directly addresses the reader, and says that Pompeii was a small town of 30,000inhabitants whose monuments were not like the Pantheon in Rome or the Maison Carrée in Nîmes. Its streets were narrow and itshouses were small, and it looked as if it were the day after the fire. The brothel demonstrated that Pompeii was a small Sodom,224

punished by Heaven like the biblical town. According to Monnier, Fiorelli’s archaeological work was paramount (p. 76, fig. 3; see225

below, pp. 74–81), for he had rekindled the fire of research started by people like Mazois and Zahn in the 1820s. Monnier’s book isfull not only of passion, but even of sentimentalism, with its longing for contact with and re-enacting of the past. In his own book,Johannes Overbeck advised visitors to Pompeii to bring Monnier’s book with them.226

Overbeck, an esteemed professor of archaeology and ancient art, had been asked by his editor to write a handbook like Gell’s,which would illustrate Roman life and history based on the excavations at Pompeii. But, as he confessed in his preface, he had nooccasion to do research in Italy. The result was a learned work, based on the study of available literature, but full of mistakes.227

Because it was too thick, Overbeck’s book was meant to be studied at home. He would notably improve the later editions (1866,228

1875) and wrote a still authoritative fourth edition in collaboration with August Mau. In Overbeck’s eyes, the importance of Pompeiiwas that history displayed itself in the streets and the houses (p. 154, fig. 5). Monuments like the Temple of Isis and the229

amphitheater serve as testimony for the decline of paganism. The baths are proof of the bright side of Pompeian life, and the230

town’s architecture was modest, with technical flaws in the structures erected after the earthquake of 62. Pompeian society stood atthe brink of decline, for things were made for practical use and not for the sake of mere art. Overbeck evidently saw Pompeii as a231

mix of good Greek taste and Roman pragmatism, in a long development that would lead to the inevitable fall of the Roman Empire. His aestheticism clearly matched the German common opinion formed by Winckelmann’s aesthetics, in which Greece was the232

cradle of art, and Rome represented the genius of practical commodities to improve daily life.The growing demand for slimmer guidebooks did not preclude a new generation of thick handbooks. Similar to Breton’s book

were two publications by public servant and amateur archaeologist Gustave-Bascle de Lagrèze and the archaeologist Henri Thédenat. To Lagrèze, Pompeii was not an ideal example of an ancient city simply thanks to its architecture, inscriptions, or artifacts (all of233

which had been studied by more learned authors than him). Instead, he viewed it as a series of material testimonies of ancient dailylife matching the written sources, and so yielding a realistic reconstruction of the past. Pompeii was a gay town of no less than234

40,000 inhabitants, Lagrèze writes, whose streets bristled with life. The city was dedicated to Venus and the Pompeians, “these noblelusts of intelligence” (“les nobles voluptés de l’intelligence!”), watched masterpieces by Aeschylus and Plautus in the theaters, and tosatisfy their emotions liked to view cruel scenes in the amphitheater. Despite his stressing of moral decline, Lagrèze did not judge235

Pompeii a sinful city rightly punished by Destiny, and ends with his assertion that Pompeii did not fall by the hand of God, but thatRoman civilization was self-destructive.236

The French archaeologist Henri Thédenat attempted to give a complete panorama of the history of the excavations and art ofPompeii. The illustrations are both modern photos and old engravings. Regarding the history, the French and Fiorelli get a place237

of pride. Fiorelli’s plaster casts of the victims are trustworthy portraits of the city’s inhabitants a visitor cannot contemplate beingovercome with emotion, (p. 314, fig. 13).238

Mau made major contributions to a better understanding and chronology of the wall paintings. He would have been happy aboutthe growing number of books documenting wall paintings, many of which were rapidly decaying, often unprotected by roofs. Largefolio plate volumes by the Niccolini brothers and smaller editions by Presuhn and D’Amelio, which contained color illustrations oflost murals, still have value today. Felice Niccolini followed an administrative career and was briefly Director of the239

Archaeological Museum in 1882, whereas his brother Fausto worked as an architect, among other things, redesigning this museum. Fausto’s son Antonio, who would be instrumental in the debate about the restoration of the House of the Vettii, continued the240

project after the death of his father and uncle.There was also a growing interest in the inscriptions as a primary source of historical relevance. Pompeii was, and is, a rich241

treasure for texts written on the walls, discovered , that could illustrate in an immediate way the lifestyle of its inhabitants,in situwhich was largely lacking in the classical sources. These inscriptions were met with the interest of a large number of visitors, whohad been trained in Latin during their school days. As a matter of fact, epigraphy greatly helped the process of bringing the deadtown and, consequently, ancient society, to life. Scientific editions by Theodor Mommsen, Karl Zangemeister and others in the

series were among the first great results of new research, which was mainly carried out by GermanCorpus Inscriptionum Latinarumscholars. Scribbles on walls would also feed the imagination of many fiction authors, especially in the creation of living citizens asprotagonists of their books.

In the following section, two scientific problems will be highlighted as examples of the archaeological debate in the nineteenthcentury, that is Pompeii’s chronology and its purported Greek character.

The Sense of Time in Early Studies on Pompeii

It is debatable whether students of Pompeii’s antiquities during the first century after its discovery paid attention to the chronologicaldevelopment of the living city until 79. The archaeologist Kurt Wallat believes that they did and that Pompeii’s advantage was242

that it possessed numerous data that helped researchers arrive at sound dating proposals. Wallat’s statement begs verification: did243




25

that it possessed numerous data that helped researchers arrive at sound dating proposals. Wallat’s statement begs verification: did243

publications during the first hundred years of Pompeii’s excavation even enter into the discussion of time and history of thearchaeological remains, or did they merely rely on literary sources which lacked a sense of time? Since “scholars” of that time weremostly interested in traditional antiquarianism (they preferred the study of objects without bothering with the find context), they didnot critically use sources and their publications were purely descriptive. Pompeii was an ideal object for antiquarian descriptions,presenting itself to both tourists and scholars in that era as the exemplary antique town, showing all aspects of Greek and/or Romansociety, of undetermined antiquity simultaneously. Renato Fucini’s impression epitomizes the emotions of visitors and studiosi inthose years:244

Pompeii is the town that was able to die better than all her beautiful sisters of Magna Graecia, because violent deathby asphyxia is the only death that befits her beauty. Concerning the colossal ruins of Agrigento and Syracuse, theirskeletons corroded by time, the archaeologist cannot study osteology, while the cadaver of Pompeii has all her limbsintact; her blood stands still but has not lost the rosy color apparent under the smooth skin. The spirit has left and thebody has not been corrupted.

When going through early publications to look for glimpses of chronological insight, it becomes clear that they generally deliver aPompeii which, despite its myth and its history, has no historical stratigraphy in the archaeological remains. Enlightenment-erastudies about the origins and early days of Pompeii were purely based on the interpretation of scarce mentions in ancient writtensources. Hercules had founded Herculaneum, and Pompeii probably had the same origins. Cochin and Bellicard argued that the245

year of Herculaneum’s foundation was 1238 B.C., as calculated from the chronology in the of Dionysius ofAntiquitates RomanaeHalicarnassus. If this were correct, Herculaneum would have been one of the oldest cities in Italy. Oscans lived there before246

Greeks arrived in Cumae, although the exact date of this influx of new inhabitants was not yet known, and to date, still isn’t today.Although ancient texts refer to considerably later moments in Pompeian history, chronological hallmarks like the Second Punic War,the Social War of 91 B.C., Sulla’s installation of the , the A.D. 59 riot in the amphitheater, and theColonia Veneria Pompeianaearthquake of 62 were not seen as indicators of urban, architectural or artistic changes in the town. Consequently, the inhabitants,from Oscans to Romans, always lived in the same types of houses, worshipped the identical gods, and strolled the same streets thatvisitors have strolled in modern times.

As for the old Oscan inhabitants, bizarre etymology enticed odd theories. Henri Sass noted “obscenities” in the excavations and inthe collections at Portici and explained them in a peculiar way by connecting the term “obscene” with the Oscans, the firstinhabitants of Herculaneum:247

From the indecent tendency of their [viz. the Oscans’] manners, the word obscoenum (quasi oscenum) is supposed tobe derived.

In the 1850s Alphonse D’Augerot published a fictitious correspondence between “Valmer” and “Fanny D.” written at Pompeii in“Septembre 185*.” The correspondents suggest that Pompeii’s name stems either from Syrian or Oscan (mouth of a burningpumfurnace) or from the Greek (interpreted as warehouse). In the letter, Pompeii was an Oscan city with old walls frompompeion 248

that period, pure and simple. It would become rich, which was not entirely beneficial, since together with opulence, corruptionpenetrated the town’s walls and affected the inhabitants.249

These claims stand next to those about the Doric Temple on the Foro Triangolare, which was seen as the oldest part of town. Itwas a happy coincidence that its discovery in 1767 and subsequent excavation ran contemporaneously with the first explorations ofthe Doric temples of Paestum in the 1750s. Winckelmann dated these sanctuaries to the archaic period, and all subsequent scholarsfollowed his lead.250

Friedrich Leopold Graf zu Stolberg, when he wrote about the remains of Pompeii as testimonies to ancient Greek art, was fullyinspired both by Winckelmann’s view of classical antiquity and by Romantic fascination for landscape. Roughly worked, he writes,the column drums were noble and strong, not corrupted by weakness, and really Doric in spirit. It was the same spirit one found inthe poems of Pindar and Theocritus, in the records of the ancients, and the Doric music.251

Bonucci ranked the Doric temple under the Etruscan monuments, whereas Donaldson compared the temple to those at Paestum252

and attributed it to Hercules himself. Donaldson believed that the Foro Triangolare should be called the orForum Nundinariumvegetable market. In Gell’s work the Doric Temple got a very brief description, apparently being a less attractive monument than253

the adjacent theater area, which was amply illustrated. Gell believed that too little was preserved to make an adequate drawing andsimply claimed that it was a “Greek temple.” Breton stressed the antiquity of the temple, arguing that the Foro Triangolare had254

probably not been open to everybody, and had been closed under Sulla, and repeated Mazois’ claim that it had originally formed thetown’s acropolis. Breton explained its bad state of conservation by the result of continuous spoliation after 79, when parts of the255

monument were still jutting out above the lapilli.256

An interesting early observation on chronology can be found in a letter of Björnståhl. He suggested that all Pompeian wallpaintings dated from after the earthquake of 62 when the city was fully restored. The inscription in the Temple of Isis, whichmentions the restoration financed by Popidius Celsinus, formed his proof. Mazois suggested that the paintings at Pompeii257

followed Roman trends initiated under Augustus and therefore, without saying it explicitly, the French scholar attributed all of themto the imperial period.258

Mazois focused on various aspects that could help date specific buildings. In general, he considered Pompeii’s architecture asGreek. Some influences from other nations, albeit “très légères,” were also noticeable. Houses were simple and only grew in size259

and luxury at the end of the Republic, when Roman influences increased. In the volume on public buildings Mazois argues that260

cisterns might be an older system for the collection of water than the pipes one saw above the ground. This new theory would beCopyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.



26

generally accepted, as was the following. The forum showed restorations from after the earthquake and its layout had oddities due tothe succession of phases. The “Temple of Venus” (actually that of Apollo) would be older than the forum, as well as some streetsthat lead to the forum. Moreover, the capitals of this temple and the Temple of Jupiter were Greek. Mazois also noted that the theaterquarter must have been the oldest part of town; here he had the Foro Triangolare and the Doric temple in mind again.261

Gell has little on chronology. In early times there had been Oscans, followed by Etruscans and Campanians. From the Sulla revoltsonwards, the city was Roman. The state of the buildings explicitly mentioned was the result of restorations from after the 62earthquake. Gell’s descriptions of the monuments themselves are illustrated with indiscriminate text sources from different periods:Plautus, Livy, Vitruvius, Virgil and the satirists of the first century A.D., to record a few only, served to instruct readers about namesand functions of parts of temples, houses and public buildings. The uncritical use of various genres of texts, works from theRepublican to late Imperial periods, and phrases quoted out of context remained common and would continue until very recently.Learned novels like Mazois’ and Böttiger’s are the “best” examples of this custom (see Chapter III,Le palais de Scaurus Sabinapp. 190–192).

With a few exceptions, like the city wall of Pompeii, there is no timeline running through Gell’s description. He makes remarksabout the Greek architectural orders, which are all present in various Forum buildings. Pompeii, unfortunately, is not a good exampleof their use and development: the custom of covering columns and capitals with stucco layers obscures the pure forms. A sense of262

chronology comes to the fore in the description of the two triumphal arches that flank the Temple of Jupiter. In his explanation of thebeautiful plan of the Forum area, Gell states that the arch at the west side might be younger as it was composed of brick and rubble.The other one is called the “Old Triumph Arch.”263

In the second series of , Gell discusses the Temple of Fortuna Augusta. The excavators found inscriptions mentioning aPompeianaMarcus Tullius, son of Marcus, as builder of this marble temple on private land. This temple for the imperial cult of the FortunaAugusta was erected at the beginning of the first century A.D. in honor of the emperor Augustus. The fact that Gell merely called theshrine “Temple of Fortuna” implies that he did not understand the importance of the adjective as a reference to the emperor.augustaGell shared the general opinion which suggested that this Tullius might have been the great orator Cicero himself, or his son.264

Mazois also neglects the information given by . In his view, the lack of a (surname) would be an indicationaugusta 265 cognomenfor the attribution of the temple to the father or grandfather of Cicero. Like other authors, he was spellbound by the idea that Rome’smost famous orator was tangible via his relatives. Nevertheless, while discussing the relief in which a priest makes an offering at266

the altar in the Temple of the Genius Augusti at the east side of the Forum, Mazois criticized those who want to see a portrait ofCicero in that priest: nonsense, we must not try to find Cicero everywhere!267

Breton agreed with Gell on the Fortuna temple and did not include many observations concerning chronology. He stated that268

the buildings of Pompeii were constructed in a Greek style, albeit with some Roman flair. Breton reinforced Mazois’ argument thatthe paintings were all the product of one group of painters directed by one single master. He mentioned some cases of damage269

caused by the 62 earthquake, including the Temple of Apollo (in his time still thought to be of Venus), which showed signs of thatdisaster, whereas the absence of the Temple of Jupiter’s columns was the result of a restoration project. The same was true for theForum. The restoration of the columns in the portico behind the grand theatre gets no precise date. A vague time period is given270

for the theater: in Rome, the first permanent theater was that of Pompey, and other theaters were constructed consequently, like thatof Pompeii. Another proposal concerns the Basilica, whose Ionic capitals, Breton claimed, dated it to the first century B.C.271

The City Walls of Pompeii

Even on the earliest maps, the walls’ circuit was recognized in the landscape, but they were easier to study after the Frenchexcavation in the early nineteenth century, which was followed by a complete unveiling in the 1850s. Letters of the Oscan alphabetcarved into the walls served as proof of their antiquity and got various labels: Oscan, Etruscan, and old Greek. According to MarianaStarke they were Hebrew characters.272

Mazois argued that as a necessary protection of a city’s inhabitants, the walls were the oldest parts of any town. The earliestsettlers would have needed adequate shelter and went to great lengths to ensure the safety of their growing city. Mazois claimed273

that although the ramparts of Pompeii were not built using the “Cyclopic” technique (with large worked blocks put together in drymasonry) known from city walls in central Italy, and were therefore not extremely old, they were most likely archaic, because the drymasonry consisted of trapezium-shaped blocks with oblique sides, and Oscan or Greek characters were carved into their surfaces,proving the Oscan or Greek origin of the town. Mazois observed repairs made during the Social Wars, recognizable by their274

careless technique.Gell admired the masonry technique and the stucco decoration of the wall’s façades:275

The walls of Pompeii are, perhaps, the only part of the city at all calculated to resist that rapid decay, which seems tohasten the disappearance of every other remain within their circuit.t.

In his from 1819, Gell believed that Oscan marks on the masonry blocks and the Oscan inscription in the Nolan GatePompeianawere signs of lower class people, probably to be understood as the workmen’s tokens. In this way the strange spelling of the gate’s276

inscription could be explained as the consequence of the corruption of language, like the corruption of pure Italian clearly observedin the Neapolitan dialect. Gell compared Pompeii’s walls to the Etruscan walls at Volterra, and the shape of the Nolan Gate to that277

of the Lion Gate at Mycenae. These comparisons, however, did not lead him even to venture a tentative date for the walls. The readerremains a little puzzled as to the meaning of the quoted sentence about decay: did Gell mean that the city walls could survivecontemporary elements of decay – a development he observed in the excavations given the lack of protective measures – or was he

alluding to their durability in antiquity? In his book of 1832, however, Gell concluded: “[The walls] are of a very remote time, if278




27

alluding to their durability in antiquity? In his book of 1832, however, Gell concluded: “[The walls] are of a very remote time, if278

we may judge from the appearance of the masonry.” The construction technique represented another argument for an early date.279

He had probably read Mazois’ notes on this topic, when he wrote this new opinion.Bonucci also believed that the walls were very old, mentioning the presence of “Etruscan letters” and observing that the walls

were repaired after the siege of Sulla. According to Breton, the city walls are the oldest parts of the town; the reader gets280

references to Mycenae and Praeneste and other fortified sites. The walls were Oscan and the shape of the inscriptions was identical tothose of the Wall of Servius Tullius in Rome. Therefore, the Pompeian fortifications are dated to the middle of the sixth century. InBreton’s view, the walls between the towers near Mercury Street and the Vesuvian Gate were newer (maybe constructed in 91 B.C.,the Social War), as deduced from the technique. He observes their disuse after the entrance of Sulla’s troops and their clumsy repairduring the Civil War of Pompey. In the third edition of his work (1870), Breton compared the presence of column drums in the281

ramparts of Pompeii to those in the northern walls of the Acropolis of Athens, which he had described in his 1862 book aboutAthens.282

Why Disregard Time?

The reason not to reflect upon the antiquity of the city itself stems from the dominating impression most visitors maintained aftertheir tour: the idea of a city not quite dead, or one awaiting new inhabitants, pervaded a lot of travel accounts and memoirs (seeChapter II). The German Romantic poet August von Kotzebue waited for a drink in one of ancient Pompeii’s bars, in which ringstains from cups were still visible, and whose bartender seemed to have left momentarily to do some shopping (p. 160, fig. 6).Finally, he exclaimed to a friend that, if no bartender showed up, they would just go to another bar. Louise Demont first expected283

to encounter the proprietor of a house, when she walked around in its rooms but concluded that the town was dead:284

While you are wandering through the abandoned rooms, you may, without any great effort of imagination, expect tomeet some of the former inhabitants, or perhaps the master of the house himself, and almost feel like intruders,dreading the appearance of anyone in the family. In the streets you are afraid of turning a corner, lest you should jostlea passerby; and on entering a house the smallest sound startles, as if the proprietor were coming out of the backapartments. The traveller may long indulge the illusion, for not a voice is heard, not even the sound of a foot to disturbthe loneliness of the place, or interrupt his reflections. All around is silence, not the silence of solitude and repose, butof death and devastation, the silence of a great city without one single inhabitant!

For Breton, the fact that modern man had entered a city described by Pliny and Tacitus was more satisfying than it was eerie.Educated with the texts of ancient writers, including Cicero, another “inhabitant” of Pompeii, he considered it irrelevant to researchPompeii’s history, for – as Breton says at the end of his book –every visitor simply wants to meditate upon the things they have justseen in the company of the contemporaries of Pliny and Titus.285

There is one chronological reference based on the basalt of the streets. The geologist John Phillips argued:286

Of all that meets the eye in the interior of Pompeii nothing appears so old in style as the pavement, which, except byoccasional mendings, may be readily believed to have been laid by Pelasgian hands at the building of the city. Thispolygonal pavement – its hard solid block worn by the traffic of a thousand years before the beginning of our era,especially planned for the passage of the bigae, between raised footways with convenient stepping-stones – excites,and deserves to excite, more wonder than all the bright columns, and baths, and grottoes, and flesh-coloured frescoes,of this gay and luxurious city.

These reflections testify to the vivid interest in Pompeii’s history, and show that some authors really did contemplate the varioushistorical phases of the town’s history as expressed in the archaeological remains. However, no writer ever tried to reconstruct thearchaeological development of the town and its architectural and art-historical phases. In a certain way this quest for history isconnected with another problem: was Pompeii a Greek town?

Pompeii’s Greek Mask

“Pompeii you know was a Greek city.” Not only Shelley, but many others fostered the idea of Herculaneum and Pompeii as Greek287

communities, mixed up with elements from Roman society. The question is why this Greek notion emerged. As we have seen in theprevious section, three arguments related to a possible Greekness prevailed in the early years: Hercules as a founder of the city, theDoric temple on the Foro Triangolare, and both the serious and semi-scholarly etymology of the name “Pompeii” as a Greek word.

The earliest writers on Pompeii, namely Venuti, Bayardi, and Cochin and Bellicard, simply presented it as Greek and argued that,288

in the early days of the city’s existence, Oscans and Greeks lived there together. Thanks to his influential 289 Geschichte der Kunst from 1764 and his two pamphlets about Herculaneum, discussed above, Winckelmann was the most influential authordes Alterthums

to underline the Greek character of the Vesuvian cities. In general, he firmly believed that the Greeks had brought civilization to290

the Mediterranean and that modern societies should continue to develop its best elements. His opinion that all things Greek werevastly superior to other cultures, including the Romans, would become a standard belief among scholars and amateurs of Greek artand literature during the following century. In Campania, Winckelmann argued, Greek influences could still be seen in the artifacts,




28

rather than in magnificent buildings and statues. His student Volkmann fervidly advocated the idea of Greekness in his highlyinfluential travel guide, stating that everything in these towns was Greek, notwithstanding the fact that Latin was the languagespoken there. Simultaneously, the admiration for the beauty of specific objects found in the excavations was another excuse to see291

Herculaneum and Pompeii as bearers of Greek culture.Winckelmann’s claim that the Greeks were “superior” would also influence romantic authors. In this vein Jean Paul sketched the

region’s romantic spell in . Campania was permeated by an epic Greek combination of horror and bliss, nature and people,Titaneternity and minutia. Local people danced amidst columns, ruins, rocks made by Vesuvius, and in vineyards on top of deadHerculaneum. Shelley similarly claimed that it was the atmosphere that made Pompeii Greek:292 293

Every now & then we heard the subterranean thunder of Vesuvius; its distant deep peals seemed to shake the very air& light of day which interpenetrated our frames with the sullen & tremendous sound. This scene was what the Greeksbeheld. (Pompeii you know was a Greek city.) They lived in harmony with nature, & the interstices of theirincomparable columns were portals as it were to admit the spirit of beauty, which animates this glorious universe tovisit those whom it inspired. If such is Pompeii, what was Athens? what scene was exhibited from its Acropolis? (…)O, but for that series of wretched wars which terminated in the Roman conquest of the world, but for the Christianreligion which put a finishing stroke to the ancient system; but for those changes which conducted Athens to its ruin,to what an eminence might not humanity have arrived!

Overbeck defined the House of the Tragic Poet as an expression of the purest Greek spirit, with a display of Greek education andtaste.294

Another Greek feature – at least as experienced by the travelers – was erotic art. Diderot’s typified the VesuviusEncyclopédiecities as places dedicated to Venus, the most venerated goddess in the Greek world. After a discussion of bronze phalli found there,Jaucourt remarked that Campania, Capua, and Baiae were regarded as hot spots or areas of debauchery, which was proved by theseobjects. The most obscene objects were not displayed in the Palace of Portici. Jaucourt’s and similar texts formed the basis of the295

lustful image of Pompeii and Herculaneum that became popular throughout Europe. As late as 1907, Édouard Schuré wrote thatPompeii was “a Greek hetaera who played the cither, sang like the Muses, and danced like the three Graces. She knew lust, literature,and art.” In his own words, he repeated the notion of the city of Venus from the . The turn from debauchery to296 Ency clopédieGreek (sexual) freedom was easily made.

Greekness could also exert negative influences. Henry Swinburne, who was critical about the artistic level of the Herculaneanpaintings, saw them as a severe defect of a Greek town:297

It is remarkable that in the representations of porticoes and temples, the style is as barbarous as that of the Gothicages; the columns are slender to excess, the entablatures heavy and crowded with fantastic ornaments, which I wassurprised and shocked to find in a city where the Greek taste in arts ought to have been more religiously adhered to. Isaw no landscape in which the artist has discovered any thorough knowledge of perspective.

Dr. Thomas Arnold, the famous “headmaster of Rugby,” argued that corruption had affected Pompeii:298

… it is a place utterly unpoetical. An Osco-Roman town, with some touches of Greek corruption – a town of theeighth century of Rome, marked by no single noble recollection, nor having – like the polygonal walls of Cicolano –the marks of a remote antiquity and a pure state of society. There is only the same sort of interest with which onewould see the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, but indeed there is less. One is not authorized to ascribe so solemn acharacter to the destruction of Pompeii; it is not a peculiar monument of God’s judgements, it is the mummy of a manof no worth or dignity – solemn, no doubt, as everything is which brings life and death into such close connexion, butwith no proper and peculiar solemnity, like places, rich in their own proper interest, or sharing in the general interestof a remote antiquity, or an uncorrupted state of society.

Giuseppe Fiorelli’s Revolution in Research and Administration

The revolutionary events around 1860 brought the end of the Bourbon monarchy. Garibaldi – whose own interest in Pompeii isunclear – gave the honorary directorship of the museum, without any real authority or responsibilities, to the French writer299

Alexandre Dumas, who had accompanied Garibaldi’s unification expedition in Sicily and wrote propaganda pamphlets in support ofGaribaldi’s mission in France. Dumas dreamed of divulging knowledge about ancient Pompeii among all social classes. His300

appointment offended the Neapolitans who remembered Dumas’ unflattering sketches of Naples in of 1842.Le corricolo 301

Moreover, Garibaldi decided that the Museo Borbonico would become a national museum, and that the closed cabinet of “obscene”objects should be opened for everyone. This must have been a blow to Domenico Spinelli, the principe di San Giorgio, who in 1852,in his function as museum director, had removed works of arts like Titian’s Danae from the rooms accessible to the general public.302

Among the local archaeologists involved with this political change, the most outstanding personality was Giuseppe Fiorelli. Hehad acquired a good name for himself as early as the 1840s in numismatics and starting working at Pompeii in 1847. He had madeCo

pyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.



29

rather caustic comments about the reigning directors Avellino and Bonucci and the disorganization of both museum and excavations.He ran into even more trouble given his involvement in the political debate on the future of the kingdom and the unification of Italy,for which he was jailed in 1849. Shortly before 1860 he became the personal secretary of the Bourbon Prince Leopold, the brother ofKing Ferdinand II, who held more progressive opinions on Italian unity than his brother. In prison, Fiorelli started compiling a hugecollection of archival materials on the excavations, which would result in his . Clearly, FiorelliPompeianarum antiquitatum historiamust have been a man of enormous energy and efficiency, and gifted with the talent of making contacts with Italian and foreignscholars.303

Fiorelli’s stardom rose steadily in and outside Naples. He was appointed Chief Inspector of the excavations and Professor ofArchaeology in 1860, and in 1863, after Spinelli’s death, he became Director of the museum and Superintendent. This combinationof roles remained the responsibility of one person at a time until the 1970s, when a restructuration of the administration ofarchaeological monuments led to a new organizational model. Fiorelli’s career signifies the turning point between more than ahundred years of treasure hunting and scholarly archaeological study of the buried cities. Among his main concerns were theimprovement of the scientific approach to excavating, and, consequently, new directions in research. He was the first activeexcavator who considered Pompeii as a source of its own. Pompeii’s remains, he believed, should be explored with special attentionto the urban workings of the city itself.304

He was also instrumental in improving both the tourist’s experience and the security at the archaeological sites. At Herculaneum,for example, he made visiting the famous theater possible by constructing a spacious brand new entrance. At Pompeii, the excavationresembled a piece of Emmenthal cheese rather than an urban site (pp. 318–319, fig. 14). He ordered workmen first to remove thelarge piles of lapilli and excavation debris from the ancient city’s streets before starting new digs to unearth the areas between theformerly excavated complexes ( ). In his Pompeii guidebook of 1875, he explained that the town had to be excavatedfig. 3systematically on the basis of the layout of streets and house blocks. Finally, the recognition of the victims, “preserved” as cavities inthe volcanic fill, added a significant element of knowledge, populating the city, as it where, with its former inhabitants. Fiorelli305

also built a site museum, next to the Porta Marina, where he exposed the gypsum casts and other new finds (p. 314, fig. 13).306

Marc Monnier, (second edition, 1867, abridged and adapted for young people), plate opposite p. 16: “FouillesFig. 3: Pompéi et les Pompéiensrécentes à Pompéi sous la direction de M. l’inspecteur Fiorelli, en 1860,” recent excavations in Pompeii under the direction of inspector Fiorelli. A

tourist (in foreground, with top hat) is guided through the area between the atrium and peristyle of the House of the Small Bull, named after thebronze statuette of a bull, which is visible on the marble table in the center of the atrium. The guide is pointing at another ancient object, which

excavators “happen to find” amidst the debris at the very moment of the tour.

All these works took some ten years and rarely yielded important new discoveries, at least in the eyes of the old-fashioned treasurehunters and tourists who wanted merely to be impressed by shiny new objects. The criticism of Fiorelli’s “dull” work was easilywarded off by his clearly written explanations of the new methodology. After a certain while, therefore, he was met with esteem asthe general public’s mentality changed radically, even in the most common tourist books, and it became an honor to shake the handof Fiorelli himself.

Thanks to his revolutionary excavation process, the excavators became aware that the city was subdivided into house blocks,surrounded by streets. These blocks, called , received numbers, as did every entrance to a building from the street, whichinsulaecorresponded with the Italian practice of those days. Clusters of house blocks together formed urban districts, called . Today,regionesevery building at Pompeii has an address composed of three numbers, according to this system introduced by Fiorelli.307

The excavation practice simultaneously improved by employing a technically superior stratigraphic method, probably first utilizedin the House of Siricus in 1852. The horizontal layers of lapilli were more carefully removed, and finds were registered in their308




30

context. For the first time, the roofs could be studied and reconstructed. An important discovery was that atrium roofs had a squareopening in the middle (compluvium) and were inclined inwards; so rain water could pour into a basin (impluvium) that was installedin the floor. The illustrations in most books from before the 1870s depict flat and entirely closed roofs.

Fiorelli correctly recognized cavities encountered from the very start of the excavations as vacuums caused by the gradualputrefaction of organic material like wood and flesh. Among these negative “voids” human skeletal remains sometimes came tolight. Skeletal remains had been found even during the early excavations, but their imprints in the surrounding lapilli had seldombeen recorded. By filling these hollow spaces with fluid plaster – a technique used for the first time in February 1863 in the House309

of the Skeletons – a new attraction was born. The plaster dried and was cleared of lapilli, and from the resulting cast, the shapes ofwooden objects, trees, animals and people became tangible. These casts aroused sentimental feelings in the hearts of visitors, whowere now able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the victims of the eruption (p. 314, fig. 13). The Neapolitan writer LuigiSettembrini even stated that Fiorelli had “discovered human pain.”310

Fiorelli also brought about other major changes. The personal permit needed to get access to the excavations disappeared in theearly 1860s. Visitors were required to pay an entrance fee and respect official opening hours. Despite the fact that visitors nowneeded to pay, this change was democratizing: persons of every nationality, age, and gender could enter the site, as long as theyobeyed the regulations formulated by law. Visitors hired guides or guards to visit the monuments, and many of the old, unqualifiedciceroni were licensed. It was forbidden to tip the guides, who suddenly saw a sharp decrease in their income, and Fiorelli soon hadto increase their wages from one and one and a half to two lire, and from two to two and a half lire. Unfortunately, the new guides311

were not tested to check what they really knew, and remained largely ignorant about the monuments themselves. The number ofguards grew from 16 in 1861 to 41 in 1872, and night visits to Pompeii were no longer permitted under the new rule.

In 1866, Fiorelli founded a small archaeological school for Italian students from the whole country who would become the futureleaders of the new archaeological regime. This school functioned until the beginning of the twentieth century in the312

appropriately-named Vicolo dei Soprastanti in Pompeii, and some important archaeologists conducted their first studies there. Theaccent on the “whole” of Italy stemmed from an idealism that the treasures belonged to the new, unified Italy, and that people fromthe entire country could study here and work at Pompeii. Even so, many successive directors and staff members originated from theformer Bourbon kingdom. Fiorelli simultaneously encouraged the work of foreign students, especially Germans like WolfgangHelbig, Heinrich Nissen, Theodor Mommsen, and August Mau. The classicist Theodor Gomperz stayed for the first time in313

Naples in 1871 to study the papyri, and wrote to his wife about his work and his curious “encounter” with erotic paintings atPompeii. Shortly after, in 1873, the German classicist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf arrived to assist Mommsen, his314

father-in-law, and to work on his own projects. He met Mau, stayed in the primitive Albergo Sole at Pompeii and got specialpermission from Fiorelli to work day and night. Heinrich Schliemann, the future excavator of Troy and Mycenae, visited the315

excavations in 1868. He was interested in aspects such as the ancient residents’ daily life, and met Fiorelli, and his young assistantsGiulio De Petra (see p. 82), Francesco Salvatore Dino and Eduardo Brizio, but did not study the excavation methods. He wouldreturn to Naples and die there on December 26, 1890. His house in Athens, the Iliou Melathron was adorned with Pompeian316

frescoes.317

Fiorelli took the first steps towards a program of restoration and conservation of the ancient city, but it would not be until around1895, under De Petra’s leadership, that the first houses were reconstructed, using original materials found as much as possible.in situThe house of two freedmen, the Vettii brothers, and that of the Silver Wedding (named for the silver wedding of King Umberto I andhis wife Margherita in 1893) are among the oldest examples of reconstructed Pompeian monuments. Fiorelli also attempted to318

place statues and pottery in glass cases in the houses, but these displays would not last long, since numerous thefts forced the objectsto be moved back to the museum. Apparently, the idea of substituting casts and copies was seldom seriously considered untilrecently.

After Carlo Bonucci’s 1828 “pocket companion,” Fiorelli’s 1875 guide was the first of a long series of guides to the excavations atPompeii published by the Superintendents. gives an excellent overview of his fifteen years of work,319 La descrizione di Pompeiincluding the aspects I have briefly laid out here. It is the first of a new type of guide: rational, severe, and systematic. In a way, it isan inventory and not a real guide, systematically describing each building in the topographical order of regiones and insulae. Nowords are wasted on jokes, anecdotes, or discussions. The lack of systematic chapters – apart from a brief introduction on Pompeii’shistory – makes the book unattractive for general readers, but it remains a rich sourcebook for students of Pompeii.

Obtaining a high administrative function in the state administration in Rome, Fiorelli designed a bureaucratic system for theadministration of archaeological and other kinds of monuments in the whole of Italy. An important means of recording the results ofthe excavations taking place under the aegis of these new archaeological services was the (editedGiornali degli scavi di Pompeibetween 1869 and 1879), which formed the example for the , a national gazette in which the results ofNotizie degli scavi di antichitàexcavations became public. It is no wonder that Fiorelli’s name was on the lips of every person interested in Pompeii in the last fourdecades of the nineteenth century.320

Despite all of Fiorelli’s revolutionary accomplishments, which were continued by Michele Ruggiero, we lack a clear policy ofexcavation and conservation. What was the goal for unearthing house after house in Pompeii? How was Pompeii thought to functionin the public space, both as an ancient city and as a modern tourist attraction? For Fiorelli, Ruggiero and their successors – De Petra(1893-1900, 1906-1910), Spinazzola (1911-1923), and Maiuri (1924-1961) – the aim apparently remained a complete excavation ofPompeii without ever answering these (and other) questions. The increasing call for a slower pace and a more intense scientificprogram did not find ready acceptance in local Neapolitan circles. It is as if each director wanted to make his own spectaculardiscovery. Today, scholars agree that it would have been more beneficial for the long term preservation of Pompeii to leave more321

undisturbed rather than mindlessly excavating countless houses, since the maintenance of the ruins gradually became more complexand expensive, and the chance of unearthing ground breaking objects or buildings smaller. Pompeii and Herculaneum were the“lucky survivors” thanks to their relatively good preservation, a paradox used in comparisons between Rome and the small Vesuviantowns, but even these treasures needed care. Whereas Rome had huge surviving public monuments, Pompeii and Herculaneumdemonstrated what ancient life was really like, in the shape of less notable constructions like houses and modest public buildings.

The excellent conservation under the volcanic material even evoked reflections about how “our” culture would be preserved forfuture generations. Frederic Harrison proposed an underground museum of the nineteenth century, when this era was coming to itsend:322




31

end:322

It is the duty of an age to be self-conscious, and to reflect how its acts and its thoughts will appear in the eyes of adistant posterity. It is mere affectation to deny that our doings and our lives will be as interesting to the men of thetwenty-ninth century as the doings and the lives of the ninth century are to us…

De Petra stood on the brink of a new century. He had assisted Fiorelli in the Archaeological School and worked as director of the323

museum in Naples since 1875, while he was also chair of Archaeology at the University of Naples. After Ruggiero’s retirement in1893, De Petra became Director of the Vesuvian excavations. He fostered great concerns about the enormous export of objects whichhad been found during legally allowed but for him intolerable excavations by private landowners like Vincenzo De Prisco atBoscoreale. Especially the acquisition of Boscoreale’s famous silver treasury by Baron Edmond de Rothschild and donated to theMusée du Louvre in Paris frustrated him to the point of sending letters to the Minister of the Interior requesting to change the lawsabout excavations on private land. Instead of being heard, he was dismissed in 1900, clearly a political scapegoat. He was able toreturn in 1906 under a new government, and was no longer deemed guilty of anti-loyalist activities. Only in 1909 were better lawspassed concerning the archaeological excavations on private grounds. Ettore Pais, the first non-Neapolitan high official, served asDirector from 1901-1905, during which time he encountered a high degree of hostility for not belonging to the Neapolitan elite.324

The Early Twentieth Century

Vittorio Spinazzola’s excavations became the new state of the art, given his reuse of building materials collected in the excavationsfor the reconstruction and restoration of the monuments. Another main point of interest was archaeological stratigraphy, a constantweakness in Pompeian archaeology. The “new excavations” along the Via dell’Abbondanza led to discoveries of grand houses325

like the House of the Cryptoporticus and the House of the Ephebe or of Cornelius Tages. As in former times, scientific informationremained scarce, if we look for publications other than the reports in the . Spinazzola, however, was fired inNotizie degli scavi 326

1923 for vaguely formulated political reasons, before he ever could publish extensively. Afterwards, he worked for many years on327

his ), a large publication on these excavations, but never saw itPompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di via dell’Abbondanza (1910-1923printed. The type and already printed parts were lost during World War II, but thanks to the efforts of his son-in-law, thearchaeologist Salvatore Aurigemma, it would finally come off the presses ten years after Spinazzola’s death, in 1953. It includes a328

box of plates with numerous scientific reconstruction drawings of building facades, upper stories, and interiors, which was quite anovelty. The two huge text volumes are still a hallmark of extensive and detailed documentation and interpretation. Spinazzola’sbiggest fault was his failure to communicate his finds and his insistence on keeping the excavations surrounded by high fences, sothat Italian and foreign colleagues alike did not get full insight into his activities until the 1953 publication.329

Herculaneum remained silent during the nineteenth century. Apart from the two small open-air excavations and Fiorelli’sconstruction of a new entrance to the theater, nothing happened to attract visitors and scholars to Resina (p. 398, fig. 17). At thebeginning of the twentieth century, however, there were calls to recommence work at Herculaneum. Charles Waldstein, the formerdirector of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and excavator at Argos, started a worldwide movement hoping tocreate a positive attitude about starting a major dig at Herculaneum. He tried to get archaeologists, politicians, sponsors and thegeneral public together on the same page, and attempted to form an international research team composed of specialists in variousfields who were to unveil Herculaneum from under the lava. The reception of Waldstein’s idea was favorable and his stimulating330

1908 book, written together with the politician Leonard Shoobridge, was published to great acclaim, even in Italy. A growingchauvinism in Italy and perhaps the celebration of the fifty years of independent Italy, however, interrupted Waldstein’s progress.King Victor Emanuel III withdrew his support, as did other Italians, and the nation defended the refusal as an act of national interest.

Almost two decades would pass before the excavations really started again, when the same King hammered the first blow with a331

pickaxe on March 15, 1927.

The Era of Amedeo Maiuri

Amedeo Maiuri was working on Rhodes for the Italian Archaeological Service, when, in 1924, at the age of 38, he took up the taskof guiding the enormous Superintendency of his native area, Campania and Molise. Throughout his career, he carried out an332

incredible multitude of Roman projects in Herculaneum, Pompeii, Capri, as well as excavations in Greek sites like Velia and Cumae.He had a good and rapid pen and published a steady stream of books, booklets, scientific essays, impressions and journal articles.333

Even in his popular works he stressed his scientific program of laying open antique towns in all their aspects. Pompeii andHerculaneum formed the best examples for both the learned and tourist world. It has recently been said adroitly that Maiuri334

“invented Herculaneum” thanks to his special attention paid to this site after the first axe’s blow made by the King in 1927.335

A topic not studied before by the local archaeologists was the history of Pompeii before 79. From the middle of the nineteenthcentury, attempts were made to develop a chronology of the city’s building history and the emergence of its arts. Previously,foreigners like Nissen and Mau had carried out most of these path-breaking studies, for example on the chronology of architecturalstructures. Maiuri understood that modern times called for more than the discovery of “new” houses. Therefore, Maiuri’s336

stratigraphic soundings below the level of A.D. 79 were a major innovation. He argued that stratigraphic research beneath the upperlayer of ancient Pompeii would reveal new data about Pompeii’s history. His work on the Forum, around the Temple of Apollo andwithin the House of the Surgeon, along the city walls and in the Doric Temple was revolutionary. Although Maiuri could not337

answer every question about the development of Pompeii, he formulated the agenda that would and will continue to occupy many




32

generations of archaeologists. This sort of work, however, was not done at Herculaneum, where the hard ground level made this sortof research difficult.

Maiuri was favored by time and by politics, in terms of financial possibilities and administrative power to undertake all of hisexcavations. He had the support of the fascist regime in Rome, which was of the opinion that these projects were very valuable forItaly, in that they would present a positive image to the world. Some authors have argued that Maiuri was not much interested inpolitics unless he could get support for his many “children,” the excavations around Naples. He might have been more obliged338

than willing to include the following quotation of the Duce in the first of his popular guidebooks, dated October 24, 1931, in whichMussolini underlines the uniqueness of the Vesuvian cities:339

You can offer to the world enchanting prospects and unpeeled towns that are unequalled on the surface of the Earth.

To promote his successes and to get support, Maiuri gave numerous lectures, both for uniformed fascists and other audiences.Several times he endorsed the idea of archaeology as an active form of research that favored the state’s ideology to get strength andhistorical foundation. Publicizing the results was an important means to secure a wide awareness of Maiuri’s efforts. Thecontinuation of the archaeological projects was his main goal.

After 1945, Maiuri was briefly submitted to a critical evaluation of his work during the war by the allies, but he was not punishedand continued his work as passionately as ever, and rather successfully until his official retirement in 1961 at the age of 75. Hisprojects were largely financed the Cassa del Mezzogiorno, the special finance institute for the economic development of southernItaly. Thanks to his more popular publications for the general public, Maiuri became the absolute prince of Campanian archaeology,much like Fiorelli had been in his age. He reigned Neapolitan archaeological society as a sort of independent ruler, and was (and stillis) named “Don Amedeo” by his compatriots. His zeal was nationalistic and patriotic, and not very open to the international scholarlycommunity.340

His zeal did not, however, keep foreign scholars completely out of the picture. International projects were carried out, but theywere mostly based on already-excavated material, and did not interfere with the excavation projects of the local archaeologists. Thechronology of wall painting, for instance, was a field that saw a prolific production of foreign publications, especially in Germanyand the Netherlands, until the end of the twentieth century. Especially in the first decades of the twentieth century, foreign341

students of Roman archaeology would complain about the poor quality of data available, and what little academic profit that could behad by studying them given their unreliable nature. That is likely explained by the scarcity of professional publications of excavationrecords. The stream of preliminary reports by the Superintendent and his assistants seldom got sequels in the shape of extensive342

monographs or analytic articles by the same excavators. Maiuri was a splendid exception to that rule.Like Spinazzola, Maiuri enthusiastically practiced restoration. He used ancient techniques to re-erect walls and columns, and to

restore roofs, but forgot to take into account the fact that future generations of scholars would want to distinguish between thesurviving ruins and the reconstructions. This is a great handicap for scholars who study the genuine antique remains, especially atHerculaneum, where the weathering of antique and modern materials has produced identical wall faces.

A bad stroke of luck for Pompeii was the heavy bombardment on August 24, 1943, which in an ironic twist, was the same day asVesuvius’ 79 eruption. The southwestern part of the city was afflicted with 250 bombs, which completely devastated Fiorelli’s sitemuseum, the Porta Marina and some nearby houses. Fortunately, Maiuri had sent most materials exposed in the museum to the343

monastery of Monte Cassino in June 1943, so that these objects were safe. From there they were brought to other depositories, justbefore this venerated old sanctuary was quasi-annihilated itself under Ally bombs. The Allies defended the attack by recording thepresence of German officers near the excavations, and continued to attack both ancient and modern Pompeii in September, hoping tohit the Germans, who were withdrawing to the north. Maiuri did not make a big deal of these barbarous attacks, because he foundhimself on the brink between the fascist government and the allied troops’ temporary government. Despite the fact that Maiuri’s344

leg was broken due to a hit during the bombardment (he remained slightly incapacitated for the remainder of his life), neither he345

nor other authorities dared to protest loudly, as would happen after the destruction of Monte Cassino. Therefore, the event fell intoalmost complete oblivion. A long-lasting effect was the installation of the bar-restaurant in the section of the Forum Baths, whichhad been destroyed.

Among the collaborators in the archaeological service, Olga Elia deserves to be mentioned. She was one of the very few346

women to hold important positions; her last such position was Archaeological Superintendent of Liguria. Between 1929 and 1961she worked in Pompeii, Stabiae, and Torre Annunziata-Oplontis and carried out many projects.

The Last Fifty Years: Consolidation of the Monuments and Intensification of Research

From 1961 to 1976, Alfonso De Franciscis, a modest man and a good scholar, ended the ongoing excavations and paid moreattention to restoration and maintenance. His only large excavation in Pompeii was the House of Julius Polybius along the Via347

dell’Abbondanza. At Herculaneum he completed Maiuri’s excavation of Insula VI with the exploration of the club house of theAugustales. The discovery of a huge villa under a former pasta factory at Torre Annunziata led to the large excavation of a complexattributed by him and others to the family of Nero’s wife Poppaea, and the recognition of ancient Oplontis. Maria Giuseppina CerulliIrelli initiated the excavation in the so-called Insula Occidentalis at Pompeii, which had been partially explored in the eighteenthcentury, and where up to recent years various groups of scholars have been working. She also conducted research on the oldexcavations at Herculaneum. Her successors, Fausto Zevi (1976-1982) and Stefano De Caro (1982-1984), were extremely severeabout granting permission to begin new digs. They forbade nearly all forms of excavation except rescue projects and trial digs inalready ruined complexes. Scientific publications about these projects by the excavators are unfortunately almost entirelynonexistent, apart from several papers by De Caro on Pompeii and on a villa near Boscoreale.

In the post-Maiuri era, large worldwide exhibitions became increasingly popular. Pompeii became an export article of “Made in




33

Italy.” The first exhibition, with treasures from the Museum at Naples and the storerooms at Pompeii, traveled around the globe in1972-1974. Italy was proud of its past, and Pompeii served as a gift to all people interested in archaeology. Cerulli Irelli made greatefforts to spread Pompeii fever in Japan, where she lived and worked for several years. The former provincialism gave way, and thedoor opened to international activities. There was suddenly room for research projects by foreign archaeologists, like the study anddocumentation of entire house blocks, and stratigraphic soundings in the gardens of formerly excavated houses. The number ofmonographs dedicated to old and new excavations has exploded in the last couple of decades, with authors from all over the world.The superintendency launched series of monographic publications that include works by both Italian and foreign scholars.348

When a heavy earthquake devastated many structures in the Vesuvian area on November 23, 1980, a photo campaign started in thelate 1970s by the Istituto Centrale di Restauro e del Catalogo proved invaluable, for the damaged buildings were already at leastpartially catalogued. The ten huge volumes of , edited by the institute of the Enciclopedia Italiana, are aPompei, Pitture e Mosaicisound scholarly product, which unfortunately came too late to document a great number of structures, which makes frequentconsultation of old publications imperative. Unfortunately, the buildings extra muros are not featured in this compendium,349

whereas for Herculaneum and the other Vesuvian sites no similar project has ever been envisaged.In 1982, the large superintendency of Naples and Caserta was split into two. Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae formed one part,

guided by Baldassare Conticello until 1994. The rest of Naples’ surroundings formed the other, and fell under Enrica Pozzi’s and DeCaro’s care (1990-2003). This separation is understandable if one considers the extreme archaeological richness of the vast area, butit meant that the collection in the National Museum in Naples was rudely cut off from its old links to Pompeii. It depended on awillingness to collaborate, although the relationship between the new Superintendents was rather hostile. Conticello started a hugeexcavation project in the House of the Chaste Lovers, named after “chaste” depictions of banqueting lovers, while he also organized numerous exhibitions. Since these failed to include the material in the Naples museum, they provided a distorted picture of ancient350

reality. Superintendent Pier Giovanni Guzzo (1994-2009), who started as a relative freshman in Pompeian matters, reestablishedcontact with the Naples superintendency. The intensive exhibition policy has been continued, but the shows now again containmaterial from both Pompeii and Naples. In 2008 the two superintendencies were combined again in the form of the SoprintendenzaSpeciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei, which was placed under the aegis of Guzzo. Since 2009, this large351

superintendency has had various directors, about whom I do not write, keeping Guzzo’s directorship as the end of the historyrecounted here. I only mention Teresa Elena Cinquantaquattro who has been succeeded in 20214 by Massimo Osanna.

The works at Herculaneum follow a similar policy as Pompeii: restoration and consolidation are the key words of the directorsover the last decade. This caution came after the bad experience of conducting open-air excavations at the Villa of the Papyri in the1990s. Supported by politics and institutions, Marcello Gigante succeeded in realizing grand-scale works, aiming to find a supposedLatin counterpart of the Greek papyri known up to now (see Chapter VII). This project was carried out in an inadequate way, andfailed to produce the results desired by the famous papyrologists. The site was severely damaged and the superintendency was forcedto continue archaeological work and restorations, yet on a more modest scale. A new approach to research was the clearing of the352

eighteenth-century tunnels, which was started recently by the director of the excavations, Maria Paola Guidobaldi, in charge since1998. The large-scale “Herculaneum Conservation Project” was successfully launched thanks to financial supports of the PackardHumanities Institute. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, former director of the British School at Rome and now professor in Cambridge, leadsthis project together with Guidobaldi and other local archaeologists.353

Today, all archaeologists working in and on Pompeii admit that one of the biggest challenges is the preservation of the vast ruinsthat have come to light in the past 250 years. All understand that it is far too late to rescue every monument; too much has alreadybeen definitively ruined in the course of time. The ever-increasing number of tourists – some two million per year to Pompeii alone –causes plenty of erosion in itself, and rigid management is compulsory. Archaeologists have to make room for managers andrestorers, who manage and restore the excavations as tourist attractions.

These matters, however, are not the topic of this book, although already the earliest accounts of the excavations containedlamentations about the rapid loss of archaeological evidence. We will encounter some of these voices in the following chapters.

Conclusion: From Tunnels to Trenches

The first tentative excavation at Herculaneum followed previous haphazardly-made finds under the village of Resina, which is in thearea of ancient Herculaneum. By means of tunneling down through the thick layer of over twenty-five meters of volcanic material,miners sought treasures that could illuminate the young Kingdom, founded in 1734. The court and the elite of Naples remained ratherstoic about these discoveries, whereas the discovery of this subterranean town prompted foreigners to write enthusiastically torelatives and friends about their encounters with the underground remains. Gradually, Neapolitans became aware of the value notonly of artifacts, but of the sites themselves, so that open-air excavations in Pompeii after 1755 brought to light the houses and streetsof an ancient Roman town, which was unparalleled in Europe. Scientific research did not keep pace with these discoveries. At first,in order to keep the secrets unique, nothing was published at all, and later, travel accounts urged the court to take steps, whichresulted in the . Intellectual discourse, however, was almost uniquely a matter of foreign students and interestedAntichità d’Ercolanolaymen.

The unsystematic excavation methods and the simple-minded desire to enrich the royal collections remained more or lessunchanged until 1860, and led to the extraction of all moveable finds, as well as mosaics and paintings being stripped from floors andwalls. The urban aspect of Pompeii – a unique point in comparison with other archaeological monuments in the Mediterranean – wasscarcely even considered relevant. Studies failed to reflect upon the town as an example of ancient society, for the lion’s share of theincreasing number of publications concentrated on single buildings or building categories, and works of art. The nineteenth-centuryapproach developed from the antiquarianism of the previous century, and moved towards the study of Pompeii as a monument ofancient daily life, focusing on houses and the artifacts found there alongside well-studied Greek and Roman texts. The Vesuvianmaterial became an independent source for knowledge of antiquity.

In this discourse two questions come to the fore: did Pompeii’s chronological development stimulate scholars to write about




34

Pompeii’s history rather than only about its monuments and its last days, and why did so many people see the town as an expressionof Greek rather than of Roman culture? Most early authors did not question Pompeii’s chronology, and assumed all monuments hadsimply been there forever. Greekness or Romanness had to do with a personal preference for things Greek or Roman. The mythicalfigure of Hercules was instrumental in defining Herculaneum and Pompeii as Greek, and the luxury evident in both cities and freesexual morale enhanced this impression.

In the second half of the nineteenth century we observe an increasing professionalization of archaeology in general, and ofPompeian archaeology in particular. Officials were professionally trained, which increased their effectiveness at managing the newlyinstalled superintendencies. Thanks to Fiorelli’s school, Pompeii formed the educational cradle of many Italian archaeologists. ForPompeii itself it implied better excavation and restoration methods. The sites were seen as monuments of the living past, to be caredafter by modern men. The professionalization of archaeology profited from the developments made at Pompeii and so did Pompeiifrom better-trained archaeologists.

A drawback was the gradual closure of research in and around the excavations for foreigners, especially under Maiuri. ManyItalian archaeologists of the early and mid twentieth century believed that they could properly execute the digs and the publication ofthe results simultaneously. Despite the good work followed by reports in the , the final documentation of theNotizie degli scavistill-rapid digs remained superficial. Spinazzola and Maiuri were the only officials to publish monographs on important projects,while the rest of the excavations remained neglected like those of the previous 150 years.

The last two decades present another image altogether. Local archaeologists have become aware of the gigantic problems ofresearch and maintenance, and have realized the necessity of involving colleagues from academic institutions within and outside ofItaly. As for the restoration, former officials were less interested than modern ones. The aid of non-Italian sponsors is now welcomedand no longer seen, like it was in former times, as an intrusion.

The enormous number of discoveries made during 250 years of excavating has attracted increasing numbers of tourists. Thepublication of books and booklets about old and new finds grew in a similar way. All superintendents and excavation directorscontributed and continue to contribute to this genre, which fulfills its goal of making Pompeii and her sister city known around theworld.

Pompeii and Herculaneum are no longer mysterious places. Publications, TV documentaries, and exhibitions, as well as explodingnumbers of tourists to the sites, have brought them among the most famous historical places in the world. Especially Pompeii hasbecome a brand name that must be experienced. In the literary evocations we will encounter in the following chapters, the townbecomes the image of ancient Roman daily life, in which all sorts of adventures took place, and where all layers of Roman societyintermingled.




35

II Travelers to the Vesuvian Cities

“A man who has not been in Italy, is always conscious of an inferiority, from his not having seen what it is expected aman should see. The Grand object of travelling is to see the shores of the Mediterranean.”354

Introduction: Grand-Tourists Going South

The visitors to Pompeii and Herculanum who are presented in this chapter typically saw Italy as the apogee of ancient culture and thecradle of all expressions of art. They visit(ed) cities and monuments, which illustrate at least one of these aspects. Starting in355

1500, various “categories” of visitors, each with their own goals, made the journey south to Italy. Artists, the first category, traveledacross the Alps in order to better know the art of Italian Renaissance masters and Antiquity, both of which were increasingly growingin importance in the eyes of both the learned and non-learned public. They seldom wrote travel diaries; at least, we possess very fewsuch records. Another category consisted of young noblemen from England, Germany, France and other Northern Europeancountries who, upon finishing their university studies, decided to experience the world. Some such noblemen chose to continue theirstudies in Paris, Leiden, Padua, or other cities, but most decided to tour Europe, and trained in fighting, horseback riding, dancing,and sports after their obligatory daily visit to a noteworthy church, palazzo or ruin. While the grand tour might have includedSwitzerland, France, Germany, and the Republic of the Seventeen Provinces, the culmination was always a long visit to Italy. A thirdcategory of visitors included students and scholars, who wanted to expand their knowledge and their network by visiting colleaguesand institutions. Antiquity formed one of the main topics of their studies and the choice of Italy, therefore, was compulsory.

Visitor numbers remain unknown, but the greatest share of them during the eighteenth century was English, until the Napoleonicwars caused a blockade on the Continent. After them were the French, followed by the Germans, and, at a considerable distance,individuals from other countries. Since Italians wrote few travel books, they seem to be absent in this story, but we may nonethelessassume a steady number of Italian visitors. Almost no one traveled alone; most traveled in parties, which were sometimes356

composed of members of the various categories. The young noblemen engaged teachers and/or guides, who helped them witheverything from making practical arrangements at resting places to enlightening them about the places they were visiting. In her 1789book , Hester Lynch Piozzi summarizes what a trip to Italy should offer:Thraliana 357

I have been diverted with Folly, & shocked by Vice, pained by Incredulity, and sicken’d with silly Implicitness ofBelief. Entertained extremely well upon the whole though, and enriched with many new Ideas, among which thoseexcited by Vesuvius Pompeia &c. will be the last to forsake me. The Works of Man may be great & lovely: Apollo deBelvedere however, or Venus de Medici soon fade from one’s Remembrance, & leave the Cascade of Terni, andGloom of Pozzuoli indelibly impressed. Of all I have seen – Venice most pleased, & Naples most astonished me:Rome is dazzling without Sublimity in its , and Splendid without being Majestic in its Religious Functions.MaterialeGold & Glare, Pomp & Pageantry soon sicken the Observers of Life & Manners, who seek for Images that will nottarnish, and Truths which will never decay.

Besides diaries and journals, the literary form travel books usually take is of a bundle of letters sent home to family members,colleagues or even fictitious persons. Authors often do not conceal that these are not real pieces of correspondence, as we read in anobservation in the preface of Gabriel-François Coyer’s 1775 “letters to Aspaise.” And if instead, the author claims that a letter358

really is private correspondence, why would he publish it? The printed versions surely do not exactly reproduce either the actual359

experiences the authors had, or their impressions of them in original drafts thrown onto paper in hotels, pensions or coaches, butthese final printed editions are often the only versions that survive. The travel book genre has a long history; for Campania, we360

must go back to the earliest grand tourist writings in the sixteenth century.361

A survey of hundreds of travel books has made it clear to me that some include extremely personal, fascinating statements and dullcopies of previous descriptions all at once. The advantage of this survey is that one becomes aware of the fact that many travelerswrote the same “personal” experiences. A written record of a trip often served as a prestigious gift to friends or family members, andgave the author a higher status in society. Hence, written accounts range from simple descriptions of the places, monuments andlandscapes, to individual impressions of Italy’s past and present, the decay of antiquity, the power of nature and encounters withlocal people. Especially the earliest travelers were able to break new ground, and wrote both thorough descriptions of and personalreflections upon the wonders in Italy. Third and fourth generation voyagers felt the burden of these first impressions, and as a result,it was more difficult for them to maintain a fresh and open mind towards these places. They often abandoned the heavy travel guidebooks and stuck to writing down their personal experiences or making rapid sketches of their daily activities. New discoveries atPompeii got thorough attention. In many late-eighteenth and early nineteenth-century records, there is an obvious fascinating withmorbidness, as we will see in Chapter III. The emotions ventured in romanticism matched perfectly with descriptions of experiencesof visits to the excavations, which we can glean from records in literature.

After a relatively meager season of traveling during the Napoleonic era, British tourism soared during the nineteenth century,Copyright @ 2015. De Gruyter.



I From Treasure Hunting to Archaeological Dig. History of the ...

Documents

Transcript of I From Treasure Hunting to Archaeological Dig. History of the ...