Roman Houses

[Pertinax]

I am progressing through this work:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Society-Pompeii-He...8&s=gateway

and I have been fascinated by the insights it provides into "decoding" of property. The elements of layout and usage (along with decoration and ornament) are susceptible to comprehension in terms of the Patron/client relationships of Roman society. What I was unaware of was the subtle changes in decorative finish to gradate rooms and spaces from public to private (cubiculum at the extreme).

The use columns (in fact or as trompe l'oeil ) are a significant Grecian influence, aping Greek public architecture to hint at the status of the Patron as a Public figure . Crassus is alleged to be the first to have used marble on actual imported colums, creating a sort of succese de scandale at his "eastern" fashionability.The use of columns ,which we tend to associate with the houses of Pompeii , is a very specific device to give substance to a social code.Only he who received clients could possibly have such features in his house, and most interestingly his home was undivided from his "workplace" in that it was literally his "power-house".

A lot of scholarly work has been undertaken at Pompeii focussing on the minutiae of chronological change in decorative styles , however it appears that what was assumed to be a chronology is now actually perceived as a scheme of variable internal quality within a given house depending on the social function of the room. The "rank" of the room being very strictly delineated by its decor.

[Ursus]

Very interesting. It hadn't even occured to me there might be a dichotomy in architecture structured along patron/client lines. It does make perfect sense though within the context of Roman cultural values.

[Pertinax]

I havent enough information to write a coherent summary as yet , but another very interesting thing is a total lack of gender division of space. This is totally at odds to the Greek usage of domestic space, one might expect some continuity in transmission of cultural ideas, apparently not. The Roman house ( of this time and social rank) is solely built on the concepts of public versus private and grand versus humble:a client proceeds from being received as part of a crowd in a public space, via select dining in the triclinium to an intimate personal reception in the cubiculum. The more prestigious the Patron, the bigger the house.

THere is a division between servile and non-servile space as would be expected , but it also appears that children of the household ( without the modern obfustication of "adolescence" ) slept with servile staff/slaves.The Greek house is strictly gender divided, the Roman house is not , the person of the paterfamilias is key , not his strict habitation.

[caldrail]

Its unlikely the romans would use any gender division given the male domination of society. Women were offically the property of fathers, guardians, or husbands (although I am aware that roman women did at times escape this restriction) and although they would be expected to run the household, I doubt a virile roman male would feel comfortable in a feminised dwelling.

[Pertinax]

Its unlikely the romans would use any gender division given the male domination of society. Women were offically the property of fathers, guardians, or husbands (although I am aware that roman women did at times escape this restriction) and although they would be expected to run the household, I doubt a virile roman male would feel comfortable in a feminised dwelling.

What puzzles me is the Greek house,( in relation to your comment), if we have a similar male dominance of property and gender (and a conviviality of congress based on "public" style) , why does one property have male only areas, and the other not? Is this again a reflection of "separate" behaviours ( we see a similar physical division in the palais and hotels of the Higher Estates in the France of Loius XIV, whre the Chatelaine lead an almost independent social existence from her husband).

We are slightly off topic , but this is one area where borrowing from Greeek culture seems not to have occured , despite usage of the same architectural ideas.

[DecimusCaesar]

I've noticed the differance between a Insulae and a Domus in terms of architecture. The Domus is supported by colums while a insulae is supported (considering it had many floors) by arches. I suppose that the realtionship between the middle class families living in the Insulae on the lower floors would have a different realtionship between the rich families in the domus seeing as they had to live on one floor, without much rooms, meaning that the men and women would have had to lead different lives.

 

Or did all Roman families (whether rich or poor) have to live according to the same code, or would the dominance of the man of the house be different to the poor families that lived in the insulae?

Edited September 10, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Pertinax]

The difficulty we will have looking at this evidence from Pompeii and Ercolano, is that the insulae are a much more specific big city phenomena. However the insulae stand in the "client" section of our suggested hierarchy of forms, so looking at houses alone (excluding villas as a separate non-urban form) I presently assume that :as soon as a toehold on the rung of patronage is acquired the social coding of space will (in a given epoch) proceed from the poorest Patron (with perhaps one meagre "public" room for a few clients ) to the greatest (with a large house, and a subtle range of gradated spaces for greater intimacy) but that the "code" will be understood by all.

This leads me to ask would our hero Vorenus (HBO Rome) start to recieve clients in his insula? Do we have a public space in the urban areas defined in a different way? Looks like I will have to extend this project to the Insulae as well.

The use of the column is , it would seem, an immediate signifier of Patron status ,even if on a smalll scale or indeed painted as a theatrical style "backcloth" in a defined space ; indeed the theatre motif is yet another borrowing from Greek "public" usage , so a trompe l'oeil setting is not ,de facto, the home a pooorer Patron.

 

DCs post also leads me to wonder about the amount of "living" done outside the home by the Plebs and if being a client meant a sort of peripatetic lifestyle round nodes of Patronage.

 

note: I have also blogged as regards pigmentation hierarchies:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...p;showentry=500

[DecimusCaesar]

I would have thought that the richer families would have stayed at home more than the plebs seeing as they could do most of their work at home. A good Domus could rent out rooms as shops as well as having a study room (Tablinum). It also had the benefits of having a lot of comforts such as the dining rooms, walled gardens and atrium. I guess they only left on the place some times to go to shows or the baths, while I wouldn't blame the plebs for not wanting to stay in the cramped, dirty Insulae for long periods of time.

 

I'm probably wrong about this though.

 

Great article, Pertinax!

Edited September 11, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Pertinax]

Thank you DC. I suppose we could say that the Patron's businesswas the Plebians!

[WotWotius]

I have just read your blog on pigmentation hierarchies:

 

Cinnabar Red is the first major step into a luxurious environment, a painting contractor would charge a client directly for use of such a pigment (it is a sulphide of Mercury , HgS and associated with volcanic regions).

 

Does this mean that Cinnabar Red was in fact a paint that could have easily been attained by the lower-middle classes? Because when I visited Pompeii about three years ago, I noticed that it was only the grandiose houses that have a dark read interior.

 

Finally black, was the colour for the grandest of state rooms, this may seem quite a strange circumstance to the modern historian, its weighty profundity is the key to its popularity in Roman sensibilities.This would be "bone black" or a high quality charcoal made from ivory (or possibly other dense bones), hence its inordinate cost.

 

The dark black you describe was also popular in the dwellings of the rich because it was a shade that camouflaged the blemishes caused by the smoke emitted from braziers that heated the house.

Edited September 12, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

As regards the two colours:

 

Cinnabar red would perhaps be an "aspiring middle class (potential vulgarian ) with substantial wealth" colour, as I stated a decorator would not include this colour at a "standard" price for a client, rather a specific bill would be presented. It struck me that perhaps the vicinity of Vesuvius would have been a potential source of this pigment given its volcanic origins.

 

Black seems a startling choice to modern eyes, initially I assumed it to have been a cheapish pigmentation (lamp black for example) , but that is not the case . The clue to its "profound" use is in its earlier usage in Greek "public" spaces/theatres/stoi.

 

I will be interested to see how the use of interior motifs changes as the hierarchies of client/patron power became more personal and intimate under the Divine Augustus.

 

I am continuing with the notes now , so more information soon.

[WotWotius]

I will be interested to see how the use of interior motifs changes as the hierarchies of client/patron power became more personal and intimate under the Divine Augustus.

 

From what is left of it on the Palentine, do we actually know the colour scheme of Augustus

[Pertinax]

I will be interested to see how the use of interior motifs changes as the hierarchies of client/patron power became more personal and intimate under the Divine Augustus.

 

From what is left of it on the Palentine, do we actually know the colour scheme of Augustus

[Pertinax]

So what are the changes into the Imperium?

 

Let us say you are a person (Paterfamilias specifically) of some importance in Pompeii in AD 79. You are to receive a visit from your crusty old Uncle , a strict unbending Catonian of the old school . You wish to impress this Uncle as he is rather wealthy despite living , apparently , on porridge and old dried fruit, (hence suffering impacted bowels).

 

How will you avoid making a decorative or stylistic faux pas that will mark you down as a man of modish opinion , and therefore unfit to be bequeathed his great wealth?

 

Tricky, firstly you cannot undo the architecture of the house you had built a few years ago. The atrium-peristyle

[Gaius Octavius]

Examples @ Pompey

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1240

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1239

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1238

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1237

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1142