Nero's Golden House And Its Ideology

[Kosmo]

I think that building a huge "house" (palace) in a city where only public buidings were great it's a political statement in her self.

[Germanicus]

Definately Kosmo.

[phil25]

My only quibble would be to suggest that one needs to define "palace" for C1st Rome.

 

I think Nero's building was unprecedented in Roman terms in its day (paralled perhaps by the palace quarter in Alexandria) but certainly not by the habitations of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius or Claudius. Afterwards, I believe the concept was taken up, in a different form, by Domitian on the Palatine (where, of course, our word "palace" originates).

 

This the sheer scale and intent (whatever that was - but see a previous post of mine in this thread for some suggestions) of Nero's may have been a statement in themselves. But I think the Roman vocabulary in c64AD needs examining to see how much this incredible structure must have stretched and challenged conventional wisdoms both about buildings and the role of its principal inhabitant - the princeps himself.

 

Maybe that is what Nero wanted - like gaius before him, to display absolutism (the de facto nature of the principiate, however concealed) and what it meant in an unmistakeable and permanent way.

 

Phil

[phil25]

Another thought has struck me about Nero's Domus Aurea.

 

The model for the Roman town house of a noble is the atrium/peristyle one - inward looking and "closed". The visitor gradually gains intimacy and privelege/honour as he is admitted deeper into the building. there are few external windows.

 

The Domus reminds me, however, of some of the wall-paintings from Pompeii and elsewhere of seaside villas, symmetrical in style, with long porticoes and OUTWARD-FACING facades looking over the sea.

 

So was Nero seeking to introduce the villa form into an urban setting? If so, then I suggest there was a radical statement being made.

 

As our visiting expert noted in his recent Q&A session, the Romans had been very worried by Greek/Hellenistic innovations. He wrote:

 

The Romans were big on moral decay. Absolutely obssessed and they used it as an explanation of historical change to the exclusion of virtually everything else.

 

To put that in slightly different words and to misuse an anachronistic parallel!(!) it seems me that this could be represented as struggle between the "puritan" (sober, ascetic) and the "cavalier" (gay and colourful) aspects of the Roman character.

 

Now if the Domus is anything it is surely Greek and Hellenistic in its references and inspiration, rather than reflecting traditional Roman "virtues".

 

Again, if my inferences are remotely correct, I would suggest we see a clear political statement being made.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Maybe that is what Nero wanted - like gaius before him, to display absolutism (the de facto nature of the principiate, however concealed) and what it meant in an unmistakeable and permanent way.

 

I wouldn't have said so. Nero wanted a big house. Bigger than everyone elses - but then he was Nero wasn't he? Didn't he deserve such a dwelling? Only then could he 'live like a human being'. The Domus Aurea was a gross exercise in vanity and it certainly never won him any friends.

[Kosmo]

I think that Domus Aurea had ties with hellenistic kingship, but definetly not with greek classical arhitecture.

Arhitecture tells us a lot about the ideology of the builder if it's in a context.

[phil25]

Caldrail, your last post appeared to be entirely subjective.

 

I wouldn't have said so.

 

You are always entitled to disagree, and i welcome, discussion, but where is the evidence for any of the following statements:

 

Nero wanted a big house. Bigger than everyone elses... But was the Domus a house? The word could have been used in jest, or ironically? Surely a house or any other sort of building, is defined by its use - not by the word it is called? Scotland Yard in London is a building, not a "yard" at all. It was originally located in Scotland Yard, but that was long ago.

 

...but then he was Nero wasn't he? Didn't he deserve such a dwelling? That seems to necessitate having known or discussed the position with the man.

 

"Only then could he 'live like a human being'. " I have said before, one has to discuss that statement in the original language and not in translation. Secondly, we do not know that nero said it - classical historians often made up speeches. Finally, it could have been a jest, as many of Gaius' quoted statements may have been; or an ironic comment; or even to illustrate my view that he could now live as an "autocrat" should - grandly and apart. But that could have related to his concept of the role, as much as, or instead of, to ego.

 

The Domus Aurea was a gross exercise in vanity and it certainly never won him any friends. Again we don't know. Nero's rule failed, but history was written by the victors, who demolished his structures. But the Colossus remained, for instance (though re-headed) - so not all was so despised. Only a little later, Domitian's Palatine palace survived him - how was that different to the Domus in any practical way?

 

At some stage an American President moved out of the White House (sufficient for Lincoln) and built a West Wing including an Oval Office. Was that vanity? or was it a reflection of changing requirements of the office of President; his duties, size of his staff etc etc. I can argue, I think, more strongly that the Golden House reflected politics and power, change and perceptions, than you can selfishness and ego-mania. And i could back it up with strong arguments - but it would still be subjective as your's would.

 

So why not even consider my suggestions (nothing more)?

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

So why not even consider my suggestions (nothing more)?

 

Clearly he has considered them, and rejected them.

 

I can argue, I think, more strongly that the Golden House reflected politics and power, change and perceptions, than you can selfishness and ego-mania.

 

But you agree that both are subjective view points.

 

I think that both these statements:-

 

Maybe that is what Nero wanted - like gaius before him, to display absolutism (the de facto nature of the principiate, however concealed) and what it meant in an unmistakeable and permanent way.

 

 

I wouldn't have said so. Nero wanted a big house. Bigger than everyone elses - but then he was Nero wasn't he? Didn't he deserve such a dwelling? Only then could he 'live like a human being'. The Domus Aurea was a gross exercise in vanity and it certainly never won him any friends.

 

Can exsist side by side. Is a ruler who wants to be a hellenstic monarch and display the absolutist nature(if that's what one wants to accept) of his rulership not vain ?

[phil25]

I didn't say they couldn't, Germanicus.

 

I'm simply attempting to explore Caldrail's statements, to understand better - and he cites no evidence or thought process - why he so firmly rejects my hypothesis (and it is nothing more).

 

Phil

[caldrail]

No thought process?

 

Domus is latin for house. nero's original home on the Palatine wasn't badly damaged from the fire, but having seen the empty space left he just couldn't resist the temptation to use it for himself. Rome of course was always a very crowded place, and I think even the palaces were crammed in. With all this space available, a private park was now possible inside the city boundary. This kind of aggrandisement happens all the time when people become powerful and wealthy. Not everyone falls prey but the temptation is always there. Its an instinctual need to advertise your own status to other people in terms of property.

[phil25]

I would simply observe, Caldrail, that I (and this is entirely my view, you don't have to share it) that it is dangerous to make statements like:

 

...This kind of aggrandisement happens all the time when people become powerful and wealthy. Not everyone falls prey but the temptation is always there. ..

 

Not all civilizations or cultures are the same nor is human nature always channelled in the same ways or expressed similarly. Much of our misunderstanding of ancient cultures (Rome and Egypt to cite but two examples) is often distorted by the Victorian tendency to interpret them as the C19th in fancy dress. They were not, not were the institutions simply dry runs for those of the later period.

 

Try to envisage Roman politics by way of a parallel of ours today 9whether US of UK) and I think anyone who does will find themselves far astray and confused. the odd analogy to help get aross some aspact might work, but Rome defies the use of terms like democracy or republic in any way we might understand now.

 

Similarly, I agree, you'll find the definition of "domus as house in any latin dictionary. But what does the word mean. there is clearly a disonance between a Pompeiian domus of the same period and the Golden House. It is the usage of the word, not some simple definition that I am seeking to probe.

 

. nero's original home on the Palatine wasn't badly damaged from the fire, but having seen the empty space left he just couldn't resist the temptation to use it for himself.

 

Again, what on earth is your source for this remark, which goes further than reliance on an ancient author would warrant.

 

Rome of course was always a very crowded place, and I think even the palaces were crammed in.

 

I have underlined the word "palaces" in this remark of yours because I'd like to know, in that context, what you mean by it. precisely which dictionary word would you use in latin for it?

 

In continue to disagree strongly with you, but as in another recent thread, I wonder whether it is much use continuing the discussion. We seem to have no way of reaching agreement.

 

I am quite prepared to accept much of what you say within my wider hypothesis, but I see no willingness on your part to show flexibility or even to accept the possibility of a broader explanation than you propose. That is very limiting, at least to me.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Well maybe its just me, but I get bored with dry technical descriptions of every possible nuance or detail that the author can possibly conjure out of thin air. Usually it doesn't explain anything. I prefer to say what I think is right. You don't agree? Cool. But if I don't believe you're materially adding to understanding why would I shift position?

 

Broader explanations aren't always required. Even if an event has a compound cause it can still be explained in simple terms.

 

Also I cannot believe that the romans are alien to us. Our culture is based on the ruins of theirs. We belong to same family trees. Our inheritance is their experience and monuments. They were no different as human beings and their behaviour can easily be classified in similar terms to ours. Indeed, this point makes understanding the roman character much easier in my view. Why attempt an intellectual analysis when all you need to do is get to know these people. History is so much easier when you look at it from the viewpoint of the people who made it. Rich, poor, or indescribably mundane - it makes no difference. They all have stories to tell us through writings, relics, tombstones, archaeology etc. Sure their culture has differences to ours. I accept their mindset was different. But isn't that what fascinates us? How people can be like us yet so different? Isn't it the ability of the roman world to go to extremes that we find so shocking on the evening news today?

 

Of course we don't agree. You're looking for clever insights in some complex jigsaw puzzle by describing each piece. I prefer to look for the picture on the box lid.

[phil25]

Ok Caldrail we'll agree to differ. End of discussion.

 

phil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The emperor Nero was responsible for one of the most magnificent palaces ever built, he already owned a palace of enormous size streching from the Palatine to the Esquiline which he called 'The Passageway' and when this burned down during the great fire of 64 which some say Nero was responsible for, he re-built an even bigger and better palace

 

The following details taken from Suetonius' Twelve Caesars will give some idea of it's size and magnificence

 

The entrance hall was large enough to contain a huge statue of himself, 120 feet high; and the pillared arcade ran for a whole mile. An enormous pool, like a sea, was surrounded by buildings made to resemble cities, and by a landscaped garden consisting of ploughed fields, vineyards, pastures and woodlands - where every variety of domestic and wild animal roamed about. parts of the house were overlaid with gold and studded with precious stones and mother of pearl. All the dining rooms had ceilings of fretted ivory, the panels of which could slide back and let a rain of flowers, or of perfume from hidden sprinklers, shower upon his guests. The main dining room was circular and it's roof revolved, day and night, in time with the sky. Sea water, or sulphur water was always on tap in the baths. When the palace had been decorated throughout in this lavish style, Nero dedicated it, and condescended to remark:"Good, now i can at last begin to live like a human being !"

 

Now that must have been a sight to see

Edited September 22, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[phil25]

As I have argued elsewhere on this site, I think there is much to be done in exploring the rationale behind Nero's successive palaces in Rome - first the Domus Transitoria and then the Domus Aurea.

 

I have never been wholly satisfied with the explanation that Nero was a megalomaniac with a desire to live extravagantly - though like George IV, there may have been an element of that involved.

 

But when one looks at the great palace builders - Louis XIV (Versailles/Marly etc); Charles I (unexecuted -sorry about the pun! - designs for Whitehall); Domitian (the Palatine) etc there is often a new concept of government/monarchy/social relations involved as well.

 

If we look at Domitian's later buildings, they left intact the historic (House of Livia/House of Augustus) and the probably official/bureaucratic (Palace of Tiberius though probably Claudian, under what is now the Farnese Gardens). and they included both a private residence for the emperor (though vast and magnificent) as well as a suite of state apartments including a dining room, judgement hall, chapel and throne room.

 

There was also a ramp connecting the Forum Romanum to the Tiberian structures on the hill which had a colossal hall as entrance. This may have been the approach for citizens seeking to do business.

 

Now Domitian would have known and recalled the Neronian palaces especially the Domus Aurea, and some of the purposes would, no doubt have needed to be recreated.

 

Thus I believe there is merit in re-examining the Domus Aurea in particular, to ascertain whether we can distinguish public and private areas; a "passage" from open and public to intimate and reserved; whether the buildings link the city with the governmental; and what the whole concept says about Nero's view of the evolving imperial role and responsibilities.

 

Given recent work on the surviving elements of the Domus, I believe this is an exciting time to conduct such a re-appraisal.

 

Phil