Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:25:00.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The social spread of Roman luxury: sampling Pompeii and Herculaneum1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Andrew Wallace-Hadrill

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 58 , November 1990 , pp. 145 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1990

References

2 Roman luxury as a social phenomenon still awaits proper treatment. There have been several recent accounts of censorial involvement with luxury: including Clemente, G., ‘Le leggi sul lusso e la società romana’, Società Romana e Produzione Schiavistica, ed. Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A., vol. iii (1981), 1–14Google Scholar; Slob, E., Luxuria: Regelgeving en maatregelen van censoren ten tijde van de Romeinse Republiek (1986)Google Scholar; Astin, A., ‘Regimen morum’, JRS 78 (1988), 14–34Google Scholar; Baltrusch, E., Regimen Morum. Die Regelmentierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der römischen Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit (1989)Google Scholar. Broader and more sociological approaches are adumbrated in the doctoral dissertations of Miles, Deri P., Forbidden Pleasures: sumptuary laws and the ideology of moral decline in ancient Rome (London 1987)Google Scholar, and Edwards, Catharine, Transgression and Control: studies in ancient Roman immorality (Cambridge 1989)Google Scholar, on both of whom I draw gratefully. See also Rocca, E. La, ‘Il lusso come espressione di potere’, Le tranquille dimore degli Dei (1986), 3–35.Google Scholar

3 Discussed in my Suetonius: the Scholar and his Caesars (1983), 177ffGoogle Scholar. See now Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988), 129Google Scholar: ‘The emperor and his family set the standard in every aspect of life, from moral values to hairstyles. And this was true not only for the upper classes, but for the whole of society.’ The importance of social diffusion of luxury is fully grasped by Zanker, who in a series of works points the way to further research. See esp. ‘Die Villa als Vorbild des späten pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks’, Jdl 94 (1979), 460–523Google Scholar; also ‘Zur Bildnisrepräsentation führender Männer in mittelitalischen und campanischen Städten…’ in Les bourgeoisies municipales Italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C. (1983), 251–66Google Scholar. His recent essay, Pompeji. Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform (1988) is primarily concerned with the public buildings of the city, but see 23f on ‘Wohngeschmack’.

4 For Pliny's views on luxury see my discussion, ‘Pliny the Elder and Man's Unnatural History’, G &R 37 (1990), 80–96.Google Scholar

5 Thus Macmullen, R., Roman Social Relations (1974), 88ffGoogle Scholar, stressing the ‘verticality’ of Roman social relationships, and minimising any ‘middle’ class.

6 Thirsk, J., Economic Policy and Projects (1978), esp. 106–32Google Scholar for social diversity and differentiation, and 12ff for moralising protest.

7 E.g. Bradley, Richard, The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power (1984)Google Scholar; Hodder, Ian, Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (1982)Google Scholar.

8 Friedländer, L., Roman Life and Manners, vol. ii (1908), 131 ff.Google Scholar

9 This account of luxury is indebted to Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B., The World of Goods: towards an anthropology of consumption (1979)Google Scholar and Elias, N., The Court Society (trans. Jephcott, E. 1983)Google Scholar; for a historical review, Sekora, E., Luxury: the concept in western thought from Eden to Smollet (1977)Google Scholar.

10 The model, and its impact on changing artistic fashions, is lucidly set out by Morris, Ian, Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City-State (1987), 16fGoogle Scholar, drawing on Miller, D., Artefacts as Categories: a study of ceramic variability in central India (1985), 184ff.Google Scholar

11 See now Henner, v.Hesberg, and Zanker, P. (eds.), Römische Gräberstrassen. SelbstdarstellungStatus-Standard (Munich 1987)Google Scholar.

12 D'Arms, J. H., Romans on the Bay of Naples (1970)Google Scholar remains basic on the social context.

13 Among art historians who have shown interest in the social aspect should be singled out Zanker, Paul (above) and Strocka, V. M., esp. ‘Pompejanische Nebenzimmer’, in Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, ed. Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H. (1975), 101–14Google Scholar; Die Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI 15,7.8) (1984), esp. 49fGoogle Scholar. The works of Schefold, Karl, especially Vergessenes Pompeji (1962) and Pompejanische Malerei, Sinn und Ideengeschichte (1952)Google Scholar, are also concerned with the implications of decoration for society, though I find his model of how art reflects society unconvincing, cf. JRS 73 (1983), 182Google Scholar.

14 Minimal use of archaeological evidence is made in the (otherwise illuminating) studies of Andreau, J., Les affaires de Monsieur Iucundus (Coll. Ec. Fr. **Rome19, 1974)Google Scholar, Castrén, P., Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (Rome 1975)Google Scholar; and recently Jongman, W., The Economy and Society of Pompeii (Amsterdam 1988)Google Scholar. The main (glowing) exception is Jashemski, W., The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas destroyed by Vesuvius (New York 1979)Google Scholar. Also valuable is the recent dissertation of Gassner, V., Die Kaufläden in Pompeii (Diss. Wien178, 1986)Google Scholar.

15 Montias, J. M., Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton 1982)Google Scholar.

16 Benedict, P., ‘Towards the comparative study of the popular market for art: the ownership of paintings in seventeenth-century Metz’, Past and Present 109 (1985), 100–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Zeldin, T., France 1848–1945. Taste and Corruption (1980), 98Google Scholar.

18 The methodological weaknesses of della Corte's work are well exposed by Castrén, P., Ordo Populusque Pompeianus, 31–3Google Scholar, cf. Andreau, J., ‘Remarques sur la société pompéienne’, Dial. Arch. 7 (1973), 213–54Google Scholar.

19 So Maiuri, A., Ercolano. I nuovi Scavi (1927–1958) (1958), 247f.Google Scholar Maiuri's views are popularly accessible in his Pompeii (English trans. Novara 1960), esp. 72ffGoogle Scholar; scholarly argument rests on L'ultima fase edilizia di Pompei (L'ltalia Romana. Campania Romana II, 1942), esp. 162ffGoogle Scholar. Like Lepore, E., ‘Orientamenti per la storia sociale di Pompei’, in Pompeiana. Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei (Napoli 1950), 144–66Google Scholar at 161f, I find his whole scheme of social classification ‘troppo rigida’; I discuss this issue in detail in ‘Elites and trade in the Roman town’ (above n. 1).

20 A helpful introduction for non-mathematicians is Rowntree, D., Statistics without Tears (1981)Google Scholar. I am grateful to colleagues in the Department of Applied Statistics at Reading for advice and discussion; despite the possibility of using more sophisticated mathematical procedures to analyse my material, I have felt the potential advantages to be outweighed by the danger of confusing myself and my readers.

21 On the principles of sampling, cf. the salutary remarks of Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge 1983), 130ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 There has been surprisingly little study of smaller houses, despite the example set by Packer, J., ‘Lower and middle class housing in Pompeii: a preliminary survey’, Neue Forschungen in Pompeji 133–42Google Scholar; see now Gassner op. cit. (n. 14). Note the useful insights of Hoffmann, A., ‘L'architettura’ in Pompei 79. Raccolta di studi… ed. Zevi, F. (1984), 97ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Published by Maiuri, , NSc 1927, 3–83Google Scholar; 1929, 354–438; Elia, O., NSc 1934, 265–344Google Scholar.

24 Ling, R., ‘The insula of the Menander at Pompeii: a preliminary report’, Ant. Journ. 62 (1983), 34–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 According to the directorate of Pompeii, steps are now being taken to repair these much lamented omissions. But despite descriptions of individual houses (esp. de Vos, M., Med.Ned.Inst.Rom. 1976, 37–75Google Scholar on I 9.13; ibid. 1975, 47–85 on I 11.12 and 14; Jashemski, , Archaeology 20 (1967), 37–44Google Scholar on I 11.11), there can be no substitute for a true excavation report. Note also forthcoming volumes on I 6.15, I 7.1 and I 11.6–7 in the ‘Häuser in Pompeji’ series (Strocka, , Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 (1988) 246f)Google Scholar.

26 Insulae 15 and 16 are particularly well reported, by Sogliano, A. in NSc 1897, 19–42Google Scholar; 1906, 374–83; 1907, 548–93; 1908, passim, and by Mau, , Röm.Mitt. 1898, 3–54Google Scholar etc.

27 The finds are now in course of publication, in the series Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei Cataloghi, starting with Höricht, L. A. Scatozza, I vetri romani di Ercolano (1986)Google Scholar and De Spagnolis, M. Conticello and De Carolis, E., Le lucerne di bronzo di Ercolano e Pompei (1988)Google Scholar, and with a projected volume on jewelry by Scatozza Höricht. Welcome though this is, this form of publication succeeds in maximising the divorce of finds from the context of discovery, and so in minimising their archaeological and historical utility.

28 Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum, ed. Van der Poel, H., IIIA (1987)Google Scholar. Eschebach is sharply criticised, e.g. on pp. 12, 14.

29 Repertorio delle Fotografie del Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale. Pitture e Pavimenti di Pompei, ed. I. Bragantini, M. de Vos, F. P. Badoni et al.; Parte I (Regioni I, II, III, 1981); II (Regioni V, VI, 1983); III (Regioni VII, VIII, IX, 1986).

30 Cic. de Off. i. 139, cf. de Domo 116; Sallust, Cat. 12.3Google Scholar, ‘villas … in urbium modum aedificatas’; Seneca, de Ben. 7.10.5Google Scholar, ‘aedificia privata laxitatem urbium magnarum vincentia’, cf. Ep. 114.9; Suetonius, Aug. 72.1Google Scholar; Cal. 37.2. Cf. D'Arms, , Romans on the Bay of Naples, 40Google Scholar.

31 Tarenti, Lex Municipii, CIL I, 22590Google Scholar = ILS 6089 = FIRA i.18, at lines 26ff.

32 Notable examples of deserted houses include I 6.13 (cf. NSc 1929, 430Google Scholar), I 9.8/9/10 (cf. CTP IIIA, 16Google Scholar). Evidence of earthquake damage and incomplete recovery in A.D. 79 is widespread, cf. Maiuri, , L'ultima fase edilizia, 216fGoogle Scholar. The importance of deserted houses is brought out in Phythian-Adams, C., The Desolation of a City. Coventry and the Urban Crisis of the Late Middle Ages (1979)Google Scholar, a case where a city in steep economic decline had as many as 25% of its houses empty.

33 Maiuri, , L'ultima fase edilizia, esp. 161 ffGoogle Scholar. Yet even without earthquake damage, constant adaptation of housing stock is to be expected; cf. the substantial changes now revealed in insula I 20, Nappo, S., Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 (1988), 186ffGoogle Scholar.

34 NSc 1927,38–9Google Scholar.

35 The population of this type of accommodation has been much more thoroughly studied: by Packer, J., The Insulae of Imperial Ostia (MAAR 31, 1971)Google Scholar; Hermansen, G., Ostia. Aspects of Roman City Life (Univ. of Alberta, 1982), 17ffGoogle Scholar; Boersma, J. C., Amoenissima Civitas: Block V.ii at Ostia (1985)Google Scholar, questioning the basis of Packer's population estimates (cf. Ling, R., JRS 63 (1973), 279–81Google Scholar).

36 Eschebach, H., Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, 331Google Scholar briefly characterises some of the regional contrasts of Pompeii; cf. now the much fuller analysis of G. F. La Torre (below n. 45).

37 Most recently discussed by Jongman, , Economy and Society, 108–12Google Scholar.

38 I discuss the bearing of these statistics on population in detail in ‘Houses and households’ (above n. 1).

39 The contrasts are brought out well by Jashemski, Gardens of Pompeii (cited n. 14).

40 Dig. 5.3.39.1; 25.1.6; 50.16.79.

41 Cf. below, section VI.

42 Eschebach, , Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, 331fGoogle Scholar.

43 Jashemski, , Gardens of Pompeii, 24Google Scholar offers a histogram of land-use.

44 Raper, R. A., ‘The analysis of the urban structure of Pompeii…’ in Spatial Archaeology, ed. Clarke, D. L. (1977), 189–221Google Scholar.

45 La Torre, G. F., ‘Gli impianti commerciali ed artigianali nel tessuto urbano di Pompei’, in Pompei. L'informatica (1988), 75–102Google Scholar, a valuable discussion.

46 Gassner, V., Die Kaufläden in Pompeii, 1ffGoogle Scholar offers good discussion of the usage of taberna, which is used of shops, workshops, ‘taverns’, and in general of the dwellings of the poor (e.g. Horace, , Odes 1.4.13fGoogle Scholar: pallida Mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turris). Further enquiry into Roman terminology is needed here, particularly into the boundaries between tabernae/tabernarii and officinae/opifices.

47 Trades that have attracted close study are the most visible: Mayeske, B., Bakeries, Bakers and Bread at Pompeii (1972)Google Scholar; Moeller, W., The Wool Trade of Ancient Pompeii (1976)Google Scholar; Irelli, G. Cerulli, ‘Officina di lucerne fittili a Pompei’, in L'instrumentum domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei nella prima età imperiale (1977), 53–72Google Scholar; Curtis, R. I., ‘The garum shop of Pompeii’, Cronache Pompeiane 5 (1979), 5–23Google Scholar; and the particularly good survey of metal workshops of Gralfs, Bettine, Metallverarbeitende Produktionsstätten in Pompeji (BAR Int. Ser. 433, 1988)Google Scholar.

48 See Kleberg, T., Hôtels, restaurants et cabarets dans l'antiquité romaine (1957)Google Scholar; Packer, J., ‘Inns at Pompeii’, Cron.Pomp. 4 (1978), 30ffGoogle Scholar and Jashemski, , Gardens of Pompeii, 167fGoogle Scholar.

49 As argued in ‘The social structure of the Roman house’, (above n. 1).

50 Cato fr. 175 Malcovati = Plutarch, , Cato ma. 4.4Google Scholar; cf. fr. 185 for his criticisms of others.

51 Varro, , RR 1.2.10Google Scholar; cf. 1.13.7; against frescoes and mosaic floors in general 3.1.10, 3.2.4 etc.

52 Papirius Fabianus in Seneca, , Controversiae 2.1.13Google Scholar (I owe this reference to Catharine Edwards); Pliny, , NH 35.118Google Scholar.

53 ‘The social structure of the Roman house’, (above n. 1).

54 The classic study is still Pernice, E., Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji VI. Pavimente und figürliche Mosaiken (Berlin 1938)Google Scholar. De Vos, M., ‘Pavimenti e mosaici’ in Pompei 79. Raccolta di Studi, ed. Zevi, F. (1984), 161–76Google Scholar comments on the rarity of mosaics, which constitute on her figures 2.5% of the available floor space (p. 162). On the lithostrota decried by moralists, Donderer, M., Jdl 102 (1987), 365–77Google Scholar. Floors have been little studied in comparison to walls, and almost never in conjunction, as should be the case.

55 Gassner, , Die Kaufläden in Pompeii, 13Google Scholar rightly suggests that the renting of tabernae must, to judge by literary sources, have been the normal pattern. Further, ‘Houses and households’, (above n. 1).

56 Vitruvius 6.5.1–2: ‘So those of common fortune have no need of magnificent vestibules or tablina or atria, because they pay their respects going round the houses of others, and are not themselves called upon.’

57 Shop decoration is well discussed by Gassner, , Die Kaufläden in Pompeii, 35fGoogle Scholar. On her reckoning, up to half the shops in Pompeii have some traces of plaster; but this is rarely anything more than simple white, or a high red socle with white above.

58 Maiuri, , Ercolano. I nuovi Scavi, p. 238Google Scholar. Further, ‘Elites and trade in the Roman town’, (above n. 1)

59 Illustrated by de Vos, M., Meded.Ned.Inst.Rom. 1977, pl. 54–5Google Scholar. Gassner l.c. for the tiny handful of other ‘nicely’ decorated shops.

60 See now the excellent study of Ehrhardt, W., Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an römischen Wandmalereien von der späten Republik bis zur Zeit Neros (Mainz 1987), esp. 1–12Google Scholar on external dating

61 For imitations of earlier styles, cf. Ehrhardt, 133ff; Schefold, , Vergessenes Pompeji, 140ffGoogle Scholar; Laidlaw, A., The First Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture (Rome 1985), 42–6Google Scholar.

62 I am grateful to Jean-Paul Descoeudres who, by pointing out the rarity of early decorative styles in smaller houses, suggested this approach to me.

63 Note, however, the fragments of first style decoration emerging in houses of middling size in the blocks near the amphitheatre, e.g. I 20.4: Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 (1988), 189Google Scholar. There is also a fair scatter of first style in the houses in Region I south of the Via di Castricio which fall outside this survey.

64 Contrast, e.g., Beard, M. and Crawford, M., Rome in the Late Republic (1985), 20Google Scholar: ‘The explosion of culture did not involve the poor or the lower classes, as either producers or consumers. It involved, rather, progressively broader bands of the Roman and Italian elite…’ Even for the Republic, this statement is too uncompromising.

65 On the popularisation of wallpaper, see Zeldin, , Taste and Corruption, 81fGoogle Scholar.

66 Cf. ‘The social structure…’, PBSR 1988, 74Google Scholar.

67 Schefold, , Vergessenes Pompeji, 124Google Scholar, characteristic of the tone of the chapter on ‘Vespasianic’ decoration. Maiuri took an equally dim view of the vulgarisation of imperial art: e.g. L'ultima fase edilizia 216, ‘…al mutamento e pervertimento di gusto nel genere e nello stile della decorazione degli ambienti…’

68 PBSR 1988, 74–6Google Scholar.

69 E.g. Strocka, , Casa del Principe di Napoli esp. 37fGoogle Scholar on ‘Filigranborten’; Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (above n. 60), passim, and much of the work of M. de Vos.

70 A theme much stressed by Maiuri, , L'ultima fase edilizia, 162fGoogle Scholar.

71 Elia, , NSc 1934, 320fGoogle Scholar. On the importance of furniture as a status indicator, cf. Zeldin, , Taste and Corruption, 82Google Scholar: ‘What the people of this period [1848–1945] liked in their furniture was thus first of all a symbol of status. The poor had virtually no furniture; even the middle classes took a long time to collect more than the bare essentials—a bed, a table and cheap chairs.’

72 Corte, M. della, Case ed Abitanti, 251, cfGoogle Scholar. NSc 1934, 317Google Scholar.

73 Jongman, , Economy and Society, 163Google Scholar.

74 Robinson, D. M. and Graham, J. W., Excavations at Olynthos VIII. The Hellenic House (1938), 209Google Scholar: loom weights found ‘in nearly every room of every house excavated’. See also my remarks in Ant.Journ. 66 (1986), 434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Ercolano. I Nuovi Scavi, e.g. 220, 252, 260 etc.

76 NSc 1934, 292–308Google Scholar on the finds of I 10.7, a stunning collection meticulously recorded; 336–9 on the disappointing haul of I 10.11, esp at 336: ‘The condition of complete confusion in which the material from the eruption presented itself, as far as several metres from the ground, the frequent presence of breaches made in series along each side of the house, in such a way as to render all the rooms intercommunicating, the disappearance of any trace of the furniture commonest in the houses of Pompeii, beds, portable tables and chairs, points clearly to the partial recovery of furniture … in a return after the catastrophe.’

77 I am greatly indebted in this section to Pim Allison of Sydney University, who has persuaded me both of the importance and the difficulty of closer examination of the finds. Valuable results are to be expected from her own research into these questions.

78 Heers, J., Family Clans in the Middle Ages (English translation 1977)Google Scholar, cited by Jongman, , Economy and Society, 309fGoogle Scholar.

79 So Ling, , Ant.Journ. 62 (1983), 56fGoogle Scholar.

80 ‘Die Villa als Vorbild…’ (above n. 3).