Pages

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Roman Housing and Self-Promotion

Taylor Speer-Sims
May 19, 2012



 Roman Housing and

Self-Promotion


            Wealthy Romans did not have only one type of housing. They lived in apartments, town houses, farms, villas, and of course, palaces. There was an ideal of what Rome was, and how these people thought that they ought to live. And while the preference was to own land and their abode, there were many Romans that rented. Whatever the form of residence, the rich tried to outdo the nobility by the magnificence of their living area. Could it have been true that the Roman elite used their housing as a self-propaganda tool?
            Pulling from both Etruscan and Greek styles, the Romans, the buildings and styles of the Roman republic were highly eclectic.[1] Etruscan and Greek roots morphed into a style that was completely Roman. The Romans believed that their ancestors did not have ostentation, or even plastered walls.[2] Interest in home decoration and building really began to surge during the 2nd century BC. This just happened to coincide with the rising personal wealth of Roman individuals. As the rich got richer, they spent their disposable incomes on larger and grander houses.[3]
            Housing of the Romans included small apartments. This was not the ideal, but many elite found themselves living in units above stores.[4]  Different races including Jews, Arabians, and Phoenicians inhabited many of these places.[5] Egyptian dignitaries lived in Roman apartments, but they were usually not the higher-end of establishments and typically for those that had lost their luster. Pliny, the poet lived in a tiny apartment, or insulae, in the suburba. Each floor of the four or five floor isulae held five to ten one room apartments and had many residences within each.[6] There were even apartments over the living quarters of the elite inside the home or around the garden of the villa, of which one would rather live if they had to stay in an apartment.[7]
            Elite Romans that lived in town houses preferred their homes near bakeries. One possibility for the closeness of such a structural relationship was perhaps a connection within the business itself. The Northwest area of Pompeii had the most spectacular of townhouses, and they also had the higher-end bakeries as well. One possible connection to the bakeries could have been for the warmth generated by the ovens. This would have been lovely during cool months. Julius Polybius had his luxury townhouse adjacent to a bakery in this area of Pompeii. This could have been the case with this particular man. Or, perhaps one of his patrons had been an owner of the bakery business. The freedman, Popidius owned a bakery and was situated somewhat near his establishment.[8] Showing a connection to a prosperous business would certainly have been a reason to have their townhouse near such an establishment.
            Having a connection with a business was certainly the case for the elite within the fishing cities and villages. The coastal regions flourished due to trade of incoming goods, as well as well as shipping out their own water living produce. Coastal elite fashioned themselves houses, called domus, which began to rival one another.[9] (This was where the English word domicile came from.) Roman domus were grand and had “marble pillars, statues, plaster walls and mosaic floors.”[10] Maritime ostentation had become so exuberant that it was rumored that Varro may have written his criticism of architectural ambitious competition about seaside manors in the first century BC.[11]
What was certain was the wealth that was generated due to the fish and trade industry. Where it was earned directly, there was the pretense of fish farming for display purposes alone. Domitia Lepidia, Nero’s aunt, had luxury fishponds at her villa as a “charming edifice.” [12] Others had their dining rooms situated so that the view was as panoramic as possible.[13] The House of the Moralist, in Pompeii, even had an outdoor dining room with red painted masonry couches, a marble topped dining table, and a bronze heating brazier. The walls of this outdoor eating area were fully painted and slightly decorated. An awning would have covered all this and[14] These luxuries were for important guests to appreciate, so they were obviously built to impress the visitor.
Luxury farms were another type of housing of the Roman elite. Of course there was the poor and middling farmer too. While the lower class farmers rented small farms and homesteads, the quality lived in villas. Villas began around the 1st century BC in the Roman provinces and were similar to the country houses and plantations of the 18th century. Most of the owners were actually people that were native to the areas where they lived, and not transplanted people from the Holy City. Most of the most extensive villas were in the northern provinces, and especially in Gaul. [15] These extensive structures had painted walls, lush mosaic and/or heated floors, courtyards, and ponds. In fact, the villa owners displayed any signs that showed Roman affluence.[16]
Villas were categorized into three types: villa urbana, villa rustica and villa fructuaria. The last villa style was a working, self-supporting entity. The villa rustica did have some workings, but was negligible and was more like a hobby farm. The villa urbana was really a type of weekend getaway for the rich.[17] Like Domitia Lepidia and her charming fish folly, Fannius Synistor had a romanticized version of a wine plantation in Boscoreale. This villa was somewhere between the villa urbana and villa rustica. The rooms of the house proper were extraordinarily large and highly ornamental. Synistor did dabble in agriculture but his winery used treading vats instead of wine presses.[18] Synisor’s villa was obviously used for its visual display rather than its functionality.
Pastio villaticas were a distinct form of villa of the Roman wealthy. These farms raised peacocks, cranes and other visually beautiful game. The buildings resembled the domus of the maritime cities, but were on great country estates.[19] Each having an enormous amount of acreage would have been worth a fortune.[20] These properties were completely ostentatious and had no other function save for their decoration.[21]
The pastio villaticas tried to rival the palaces of the emperors, but did not necessarily succeed. The Emperor Hadrian built a complex that had vast living suites, a bath house, gymnasium, sports stadium, libraries, guest houses, temples, theaters, gardens, an artificial lake surrounded by colonnades and statues. Hadrian’s Pleasure Palace at Tivoly had been built between 118 and 138 AD.[22] Nero’s Domus Transitoria built in 60 AD was an immense, grandiose residence that enclosed the areas from the Palatine to the Maecenas gardens on the Esquiline. This palace burned in the great fire of 64 AD and was then replaced by the most opulent Domus Aurea.[23] The latter palace was begun in 37 AD by Nero and continued by Trajan had 150 rooms with pearl encrusted ceilings covered with ivory.[24] What other reason was there for this pompous display of wealth other than exhibitionism? The only reasons were pomp and self-promotion.
Self-promotion would have been absolutely necessary for any politician. Political slogans were painted on walls of villas. It would have been necessary for a politician to show his support to the area. One way that these men showed the local people that they were indeed part of their community was to purchase large tracts of land. They did this to show their permanence in the chosen territory. It was also a means of buying their way into the gentry and into political prominence.[25]
Wealth did not necessarily coincide with social hierarchy, but it certainly helped to get the Roman where they wanted to be. [26] Vitruvius mentions c. 15 BC in his books The Ten Books On Architecture that the planning of a house should in fact take into account the stature of a client. He mentions that the persons:
of high rank who hold office and magistracies, and whose duty it is to serve the state… must provide princely vestibules, lofty halls and very spacious peristyles, plantations and broad avenues finished in a majestic manner; further libraries and basilicas arranged in similar fashion with the magnificence of public structures, because, in such palaces, public deliberations and private trials and judgments are often transpired.[27]

This of course fully shows the power of the abode in regards to the political hierarchy. He goes on to say that if this house is built correctly, then there will be no reason for censure.
            Marking the social status would have been as necessary as indicating the political aspirations. Vitruvius also noted that the people of different trades should have different types of houses. Magnificent rooms would not have been necessary to the plebs, but would have visibly indicated the respectability of the individuals that lived there.[28] The size and quality of the building depended on the social status of the residents.[29]
            The social status was definitely symbolized within the structure as well. Atriums permitted all visitors. More private visitor rooms were specifically made for important visitors. These rooms visualized the importance of the host by the use mosaics.[30] Other symbolic indicators were marble columns, water features, ornamental fixtures, and furniture. Formal gardens that held paths, trellises and trees would also have announced status.[31]
By the 1stcentury BC, the most important form of symbolic decoration had become large wall paintings.[32] Frescoes indicated wealth, status and social aspirations. Pompeii’s houses were filled with frescoes of different eras. The House of the Faun and the House of Menander had the most elaborate and up to date paintings. They were also the most grand of the mansions within the city.[33] There was obviously not a coincidence. Wealth, status and decoration went hand-in-hand for the Romans.
Romans also loved ostentation because their neighbors and betters did as well. The emperors were building grandiose palaces. The lower statuses wanted to emulate their betters. Fashions changed as new technologies were invented.[34] Construction and artwork were improved upon. The wealthier people had the best first. Social norms of the Roman elite had been outwardly displayed through the use of the current fashions.[35] These fashions included housing trends. Fashion was a “mediating position between extremes”.[36] And, since fashion was the function of society within a period, it was also influenced by dominant values.[37] Psychological motivations were also prevalent. Fashions were used to stand out, and to also conform. These motivations included egotism, vanity, and the seeking of social prestige.[38]
Prestige was indicative in the size, but it was also in the beauty. Poor people could not afford amazing artworks. Julius Caesar molded public opinion by the use of artwork.[39] Propaganda art became abundant with the removal of Greek statues. If an individual could afford them, then this person must have been someone. Self-promotion continued in death with sarcophagi.[40] To argue a point, these were housing the dead body. The Melfi Sarcophagus had many architectural elements carved all over, including the deceased lying on her bed from her own home.[41] In any case, a house was important to the stature of a person. Curtius Micias lost his house when he lost favor with Pompeius Magnus. Lenaeus announced that his school was in the same quarter as the home of Pompeius Magnus. And, Marcus Verrius Flaccus was proud of the fact that his school was in the house of Catulus, which happened to be a part of the palace complex.[42]
Houses of the provincial  wealthy emulated the Roman ideal. It was true that the outer limits became Romanized later than those areas close by. They also changed by degrees throughout time. The second century saw many houses in the North move toward a Roman ideal. One reason could have been economic expansion, another could have been because of the emperor’s visits. Whatever the initial motivation, “construction connected with the imperial ideology.”[43] This is when Roman culture, as well as housing, became desirable. It was the comforts of the Roman home that moved people into imperial domestic dwellings. The luxuries of soft beds and hot baths, central and floor heating, and of course wine that was so very much imperative to the society. These changes were felt more to the west and the north of the empire. And, another reason for changes in housing style and structure had to do with the fact that men in service were “eager to be promoted”.[44]
Houses were so important to the Romans that people would find many means to acquire houses above their means that they thought was worthy of them. Borrowing from a benefactor allowed the person to get what they wanted. There were no mortgages, but there were personal and secured loans. Houses and estates had to be purchased through cash. So, marrying for dowries to get into a higher social status lent the idea of using that money to purchase land and domiciles. Freedman converted any, and all wealth into farms to join the country gentry.[45] It was obvious to all that men of worth had great estates.
Great estates of the elite of ancient Rome were an important aspect of life. While people lived in apartments, town houses, farms, villas and palaces, the point was that they had lived in the highest style that they could acquire, not necessarily afford. The symbolism of the abodes beauty meant more than simply fashion. These buildings romanced the ideal of Rome. The most important features were ones that indicated the social status of the owner. The Romans used their housing as a means of self-promotion and propaganda.



Bibliography:
Adkins, Lesley and Roy . An Introduction to the Romans. Edison, NJ: Quantum, 2002.

Butterworth, Alex and Ray Laurence. Pompeii: The Living City. New York: St. Martin’s
            Press: 2006.

Le Glay, Marcel. et al. A History of Rome, 4th Ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Lorenzi, Rossella. “Ceiling at Nero’s Golden Palace Collapses in Rome.” March 30, 2010. 
In Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/history/ceiling-at-neros-golden-palace-collapses-in-rome.html. (accessed May 19, 2012).

----“Tyrannical Roman Emperor’s Home Reconstructed.” April 15, 2011.  In Discovery
News. http://news.discovery.com/history/nero-palace-reconstructed-virtual-110415.html. (accessed May 19, 2012).

Nardo, Don. Life in Ancient Rome. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1947.

Kleiner, Fred. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective, Volume 1, 13th
Ed. (Boston: Wadsworth, 2010.

Romans, The” – Housing. History on the net Group. Last Modified March 22, 2012.
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Romans/housing.htm. (accessed April 12, 2012).

Solomon, Michael. The Psychology of Fashion. Toronto: Lexington Books, 1985.

Strabo, “The Geography, Book XVI.ii.” C. 22CE. In Quoted in “Modern History
Sourcebook”, Fordham University. Last modified August 1998. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/roman-jews.asp (accessed May 19, 2012).

Suetonius. “De Viris Illustris.” C. 106-113 BCE. Quoted in “Modern History Sourcebook”,
Fordham University. Last modified August 2000. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/
ancient/suet-viribus-rolfe.asp. (accessed May 20, 2012).


Originally written for class at American Military University.



[1] Fred Kleiner. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective, Volume 1, 13th Ed. (Boston: Wadsworth, 2010.), 159.
[2] Joanne Berry, The Complete Pompeii. (London: Thames and Hudson, 2007.), 168.
[3] Ibid, 157.
[4]Romans, The” – Housing. History on the net Group. Last Modified March 22, 2012.
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Romans/housing.htm. (accessed April 12, 2012).
[5] Strabo, “The Geography, Book XVI.ii.” C. 22CE. In Quoted in
“Modern History Sourcebook”, Fordham University. Last modified August 1998. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/roman-jews.asp (accessed May 19, 2012).
[6] Don Nardo. Life in Ancient Rome. (San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1947.), 45.
[7] Berry, 119.
[8] Alex Butterworth and Ray Laurence. Pompeii: The Living City. (New York: St. Martin’s Press: 2006.), 186.
[9]Romans, The”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid, 70.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid, 71.
[14] Berry, 160-161.
[15] Lesley and Roy Adkins. An Introduction to the Romans. (Edison, NJ: Quantum, 2002.), 59.
[16] Ibid, 59-60.
[17] Butterworth, 69.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid, 70.
[21] Ibid, 69.
[22] Nardo, 46.
[23] Rossella Lorenzi. “Tyrannical Roman Emperor’s Home Reconstructed.” April 15, 2011.  In Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/history/nero-palace-reconstructed-virtual-110415.html. (accessed May 19, 2012).
[24] Rossella Lorenzi. “Ceiling at Nero’s Golden Palace Collapses in Rome.” March 30, 2010.  In Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/history/ceiling-at-neros-golden-palace-collapses-in-rome.html. (accessed May 19, 2012).
[25] Butterworth, 72.
[26] Ibid, 80.
[27] Vitruvius. The Ten Books On Architecture. C. 15 BC. Quoted in Berry, 158.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Berry, 158.
[30] Ibid, 158.
[31] Ibid, 159.
[32] Ibid, 176.
[33] Ibid, 159.
[34] Michael Solomon, The Psychology of Fashion. (Toronto: Lexington Books, 1985.), 6.
[35] Ibid, 4.
[36] Ibid, 5.
[37] Ibid, 6.
[38] Ibid, 58.
[39] Kliener, 164.
[40] Ibid, 194.
[41] Melfi Sarcophagus, c. 165 CE. Marble, 5’7”. Museo Nazionale Archeologico del Melfese, Melfi. In Kleiner, 194-195.
[42] Suetonius. “De Viris Illustris.” C. 106-113 BCE. Quoted in “Modern History Sourcebook”, Fordham University. Last modified August 2000. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/suet-viribus-rolfe.asp. (accessed May 20, 2012).
[43] Marcel Le Glay et al. A History of Rome, 4th Ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.), 362.
[44] Ibid, 364.
[45] Butterworth, 72.


No comments:

Post a Comment