"Non enim vestibulum priorem partem domus infernae esse dicit quod obrepere potest tanquam si ita dicatur, sed loca duo demonstrat extra Orci fores, vestibulum et fauces, ex quibus vestibulum appellat ante ipsam quasi domum et ante ipsa Orci penetralia, fauces autem vocat iter angustum per quod ad vestibulum adiretur."

Here all we are sure of is that Gellius understood the fauces to be in front. If, as is most probable, Virgil or Gellius confounds the atrium and vestibulum, this would show that they are the very passage I am speaking of, namely, that from the front door into the atrium.

Macrobius (Saturn. VI. 8), discussing the same passage, has the same difficulty in reference to vestibulum. Though he decides for the old meaning of vestibulum, — the space in front of the door, and not the atrium, — yet, apparently deceived by the later identification of vestibulum with atrium, he says: fauces autem iter angustum est per quod ad vestibulum de via flectitur. This definition gives no trustworthy clue to the meaning; but it is evident that Macrobius has no idea of an inner passage.

We may add to these cases the definition given by Isidore, Origg. XIV. 826: Fauces sunt angustiorum locorum aditus inter duos montes loca angusta et pervia, dicta a faucium similitudine quasi foces.

Now let us apply the words of Vitruvius to the actual Roman house as it appears at Pompeii. He starts with the proportions of the interior one architectural feature. The length, breadth, and height of the atrium are given (the central part as it appears in the plan, page 11); then the right and left appendages, which are never closed, but form a part of the architectural feature in question; then the tablinum, which stands in the same relation at the back; then the fauces. The only part that stands in the same relation is the passage at the front, which never has a door, and which being directly opposite the tablinum-the pendent to it, as it were may naturally take its proportions from that. Then the doors (i.e. of closed passages, etc.) are described; then the opening in the roof. It must be remembered that all of these parts are visible to a person standing either at the outer or inner end of the atrium, and no others are. All the side passages have, in the Pompeiian houses, thresholds and marks of doors, and must have been closed, so that these rooms

could not have formed a part of the atrium considered, as Vitruvius evidently is considering it, as an architectural member.

It seems impossible to regard the fauces as anything else but the front passage-just what it ought to be with the other meanings of the word as given above.

The only reasons assigned for taking it as the passage or passages at the side are that Vitruvius mentions it next after the tablinum; but, as we have shown, he takes first the centre, then the two side appendages; and as he must then take one end or the other, he naturally begins at the most imposing end, the show part of the house, the tablinum, and then takes the opposite end, the fauces. A feeble support of the side-passage view is drawn from the fact that Vitruvius says that one enters the atrium in city houses immediately from the start. His words are: "in urbe atria proxima ianuis solent esse, ruri autem pseudourbanis statim peristylia deinde tunc atria habentia circum porticus," etc. It is obvious that he is only speaking of the two architectural members or courts in general, and not of the details of either. If it means that there is no passage to the atrium, then he must also mean that there is no passage to the next court, for he says, deinde tunc atria, without mentioning any passage.

One argument for the side passage is drawn from the supposed fact that Vitruvius mentions the peristyle immediately after the fauces. But this is not the case. He speaks of the imagines, the doors, and the compluvium first, thus going round the atrium again, showing that he takes his stand in the space and describes the features of the atrium as seen from that point.

One argument is drawn from the idea that Vitruvius gives the proportions in such a way as to have the side passages, in case there are two, exactly make up the size of the atrium. In the first place, this is of no account; because the remainder of that end of the house (see Plan) does not have any relation to the atrium, properly so called, for the rooms at that end include also all the space occupied at the side of the atrium proper by the alae, or the cubicula and other closed rooms.

Thus :

Then, again, it is not true. atrium; fauces, or of tablinum. num and larger fauces we shall have:

Tablinum is,, or of Then with the largest tablitablinum, } of atrium + (} of

}

tablinum, i.e. of 3) + 4 = 10 of atrium, or, with two passages, }+&=1 of atrium; with the smaller fauces, + } ({ of }) = 1,* or, with two passages, += of atrium. With the smallest tablinum and larger fauces, tablinum, 1⁄2 of atrium + (} of tablinum, i.e. of 1)+}={, or, with two passages, += of atrium. With the smallest tablinum and smaller fauces, + 1 = & of atrium, or, with two passages, + = 1.* With the medium tablinum and larger fauces, of atrium +(3 of 3) = of atrium. With the medium tablinum and smaller fauces, + (} of }) } = } of atrium, or + of atrium. So that it is in only two cases (marked with a star), and those upon different suppositions in regard to the existence of one or two passages, that the reckoning corresponds; while upon our supposition the two corner rooms, either with or without a passage cut off, being independent of the atrium, as are the front rooms, or shops, may take up the whole breadth of the house.

=

According to Vitruvius, the fauces should be or of the tablinum. Now I have measured these passages in the plans of about forty Pompeian houses, drawn to scale in Overbeck, Presuhn, and the Giornale dei Scavi, with the following results :

:

The front passage averages of the tablinum in width; the side passage, when present, averages only.

In detail: The front passage measures, in 3, of the tablinum; in 14, ; in 12, above; in 4, below; in 1, none; in 4, above where no measure of side passage is attainable. The side passage measures in 2, of tablinum; in 8, above ; in 15, below ; in 9, none; in the remainder, no dimension of side passages is given.

Thus it appears that in hardly any case does the side passage come anywhere near the prescribed size, but, in very many cases, is entirely wanting, its place being supplied by a room opening both ways, or not supplied at all, while the front passage corresponds as nearly as could be expected to Vitruvius' statement, and is, in fact, not wanting in more than half-a-dozen houses in Pompeii. Further, if we compare the proportions given by Vitruvius with the existing houses, it is still more clear that the fauces is the front passage.

Appended is a plan of the "House of the Surgeon," drawn to scale after Overbeck, on which is superposed, in dotted lines, the proportions for a house of that size as given by Vitruvius.

To sum up:

First, the word fauces naturally means entrance.

Second, Vitruvius' description has nothing else to refer to except the front passage, as this is always open, corresponding in this respect to the alae and tablinum; while the others are always closed, and so cannot form a part of the architectural feature which Vitruvius is considering. Third, the actual houses show the front passage agreeing with his description; while the other is often wanting, and, when present, never corresponds to Vitruvius' description.