Live Like A King

Please write at least one paragraph per question; you are encouraged to respond to other posts as well after answering the questions.

Document Iconfile:14825137

D’Ambra defines identity as a social construction initiated by external forces that dominate individual choices and freedoms. For Romans, identity (as it is associated with status, political clout, cultural aspirations, background and so on) was reflected in external appearances, which are not limited to their clothing and bearing but also their architecture. In the “private” sphere we have seen examples of houses from the Republican period and in Pompeii.

1. Using the images in the above power point presentation, describe the progression of architectural features we can see in the floor plans of the houses regarding the addition of new features over time, and

2. briefly discuss how the architecture of the houses add to or detract from the image of identity that the owners wished to present.

3. How do you predict that Roman concern for “history” and “identity” will extend to public architecture during the Empire? Think about the major patrons of the art (i.e. the imperial family and powerful senators) and the main stage for architectural ostentation (Rome).

Posted at Feb 20/2011 08:26PM:
lpress: 1) From the 3rd century BCE to later on in the 2nd century BCE, Roman houses evolved from the basic Domus Italica to a more Hellenistic style. The typical Domus Italica was centered around an open-air atrium, with bedrooms surrounding the space and a fauces (entryway) leading up to it. The atrium in the Domus Italica served the purpose of a public place for conducting business. as seen in the floorplans of the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii, in the back of the Domus Italic was a hortus, a private garden that was meant only for the members of the household. As houses became Hellenized over time, floor plans expanded to include more rooms and new features. The House of Trebius Valens shows the addition of a peristyle, a garden court inspired by Greek temples. This garden, lined in Greek style columns, was more accessible to visitors than the garden of the Domus Italica. The House of the Vetti also includes two atria, as well as statues and mosaics inspired by Greek art. While the Domus Italica of the 3rd century was simple and utilitarian, the Hellenistic houses of the 2nd century were grander and more visually impressive.

2) The owners of these Roman houses clearly used architecture to present a certain image to the outside world. The importance Roman’s places on appearing both well off and educated can be seen in the inclusion of gardens and large atria, spaces which could be used to chat with intellectuals, philosophers, and politicians. This bigger and more embellished the spaces were, the more a sense of importance was placed on the owners. Greek columns and architecture add the feeling of wealth and grandeur, aiding the belief in the family’s sophistication. Sculptures and paintings within the houses add to an image of wealth and show off the later Hellenistic ideas of the ability to have a lavish lifestyle.

3) I predict that, during the Empire, public art will become a means to show the importance and grandiosity of the Roman Empire. War victories will be translated to monuments and sculptures in order to promote the image of power and success. I also believe that public art will become more diverse and eclectic, including elements of not only Greek art but of other surrounding cultures. As Rome expands from a Republic to an Empire, the city will take on parts of the identities of the other cities and cultures it conquers.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 02:16PM:
mhorn:

1. The move from hortus to perstyle is the most significant architectural change in evolution of the Roman domus. The domus was a complete where families and friends could sleep, dine, do business, and later, even take walks in the park. Looking at the slides we see the basic elements of the domus italica: cubiula was the bedroom; fauces were the entryways to the house; central atrium was the magnet of the plan where business would take place; an ala was a space with religious purposes; trinclinium was the dining room; impluvium was an opening in the roof that collected rainwater; the tablinum was a small transition space to gardens; hortus was the main garden area. The garden are was seen as the private space of the house, few guests were permitted to this area. In the 2nd century AD when Roman architects began to build temples of greek influence (pillars all around the temple, and Corinthian columns) the hortus in Roman domi were upgraded. Looking at Pompei, a city frozen in time the year 79 AD, we see prime examples of domus italica. In the House of the Surgeon we see large dining rooms and atriums, but not a large garden space at the back of the house. Vitruvius considered this type of house to be the ideal house. With the arrival of hellanized architecture, the Roman domus received a large peristyle in the back. In the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vetti we can see large peristyle garden at the rear of the house. In these two houses the gardens take up half of the floorplan. The House of the Faun had two peristyle gardens and two atrium. It even had many Greek sculptures and columns that were reminiscent of Greek temple architecture.

2. The Roman domus and other architecture were utilized as symbols of power and affluence. Not only was the objective to have a large dwelling for peaceful discussion and business, but decorative elements were also at play. In the 2nd century huge homes such as house of the Vetti and the House of the Faun, both which nearly took up entire city blocks, followed Greek architectural features. Constantly in Roman history will grandeur be sought in Roman identity. The Romans imported statues, and had elaborate mosaics, the even used something we call “first style” wall murals. On brick and stone walls while the applied stucco was still wet painters would imitate marble and alabaster reliefs. As the wall dried the cheap stucco looked similar to wall murals of the affluent. Perhaps only the home owner was humored by these elements as we don’t know how Romans interacted with these features in everyday life. Romans used many greek elements in their home, which raises the question of their own Roman identity. The Roman identity, as D’ambra says, the Roman identity is “a construction of social identity by external forces that dominate individual choices and freedoms.” That is to say, as we see by their lavish incorporation of foreign architectural elements, the Roman was not proud of his personal accomplishment per se. The Roman identity and Roman pride was place in the ability to capture and integrate the best of foreign culture.

3. Initially I would predict that as the Roman empire continues to grow, so will the variety of cultures present in public and private architecture. When the romans successfully dominate Egypyt , northern Gaul and England we will see more elements all around. I also think that it not that equation is not linear. When the Romans move north they will have reached the limits of the known world. There will be a whiplash effect on the integration of foreign culture. Romans will need to stabilize themselves as the center of the world and dictate outwardly creedences and cultures. Furthermore, the main tenent in Roman power – conquest - will decline, and as such, the need to display foreign conquest will also decline. Rome as it begins to walk borders of peace and recession will close itself off from the outside world, and become a more introvert culture.

Posted at Feb 08/2011 10:16PM:
Geggie: If you have any problems, please let me know!

Posted at Feb 09/2011 08:51AM:
cmwu: Roman houses have evolved over time from a basic Domus Italica floorplan to a more Hellenistic Domus plan, with one or two peristyle gardens in the back. The standard Domus Italica of 3rd century BCE features a layout that serves the purpose of conducting business within the house, with a fauces leading into the atrium, the open, core space for transactions and negotiations. A hortus, a private garden not intended for guests, was tucked in the back of the house, which granted visual but not physical access to people who visited the house. The House of the Surgeon in Pmpeii is a prime example of an early Domus Italica type of house. With the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vetti, one can notice the addition of the Greek temple inspired peristyle, a garden court in the back of the house. The columns around the peristyle recall Green temple architecture, but are used on an interior rather than exterior perimeter. The House of the Faun employs the Hellenised Domus Italica style on a grand level, with two peristyles and two atria.

In the House of the Vetti, the owners wished to express wealth and fertility through images of the God Priapus and other symbols throughout the house. They utilized a huge peristyle surrounded by columns deliberately stuccoed in white to resemble marble, which represents Greek temple architecture. By doing so, the owners express their superiority over a conquered culture, using the Greeks’ religious styles in a secular context, and pronouncing their cosmopolitan status and Roman identity as an imperial power. However, I feel that the surface level stucco on the columns detracts from their expression of wealth because it indicates a desire to fabricate an elevated status that is likely above one’s real, less impressive station. In the House of the Faun, quantity, scale, and elaborate mosaics and wall paintings are used to express wealth and domination. The large peristyles are strategically placed so that one can visually access both of them from the smaller of the two atria. The visitor must use his imagination to fill in the details of the grand gardens, and this effectively emphasizes the ownership that the master of the house has, further delineating his wealth.

The Romans have a penchant for absorbing the cultural elements of their conquered subjects, such as the Greeks in the preceding examples. Their conscious use of Greek architectural and religious elements in domestic life serve as an expression of cultural superiority and national strength. The power holders of Rome will likely want to further express their authority, especially as the empire expands and power becomes critically important for ruling Rome’s vast lands. I predict that public architecture will continue the trends seen in domestic architecture by incorporating more elements of “conquered cultures” in order to express Roman superiority.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 01:57PM:
hschreiber: 1. The style of the Roman house began as the domus italica and progressed into the Hellenized domus plan. The Domus italica consisted of a fauces (entryway), a central atrium which was open to the sky, an impluvium in the atrium which collected the rain, several cubicula which were small rooms directly off the atrium, the ala which was a religious space or sanctuary, a trinclinium (dining room), a tablinum which was the transition room to the garden, and finally, the hortus which was the garden. According to Vitruvius, the domus italica was the ideal type of house. The domus italica was inward looking in nature with private and public spaces. Private spaces included the hortus whereas public spaces included the atrium, a place where business was conducted. Oftentimes, the front of the house had rooms with doors open to the street – these were shops. The domus italica began to take on Greek airs in the second century BCE when Roman architects were beginning to construct stone temples with Greek influences such as Corinthian columns. The Hellenized domus had a larger, column-framed peristyle in the place of the more modest hortus of the domus italica. Other than the larger peristyle, the Hellenized domus had a similar floorplan to that of the domus italica. One exception is that the Hellenized domus generally had more rooms that the domus italica. The House of the Faun is an excellent example of a Hellenized domus as it has enormous Hellenistic influences throughout the house. The House of the Faun has two peristyle gardens. In addition, the statues and mosaics displayed in the House of the Faun were largely copies or variations on Greek masterpieces. Thus, the Romans moved from the domus italica to incorporating Greek style into their homes.

2. The architecture of Roman houses served to add to the image of personal identity that the owners of these houses wished to present. Through looking at the architecture of houses in Pompeii, one can discern if the owner had Greek inclinations – this usually meant that the owner was wealthy and a powerful member of society. For example, the façade of the House of the Faun in Pompeii announces that the owner had a strong interest in Greek art and architecture because it had Greek stylistic details. These details include large columns surrounding the entryway. These Greek influences continue inside the house as well. The interior walls of the house are decorated in the First Style of wall painting. This style masks the brick wall with plaster and fresco to imitate marble. The implication of the First Style wall painting was extreme wealth. The Romans copied this style from the Greeks and so the owner of the House of the Faun was both wealthy and interested in Greek artistic techniques. Another example of Greek influence in the House of the Faun is the mosaic of Alexander the Great which faces the inner peristyle of the house. This mosaic clearly identifies that this house had Hellenistic inclinations of grandeur. Ultimately, the owner of the House of the Faun used architectural details, such as columns, and artistic details, such as the First Style wall decoration and mosaics, to establish and present his identity as an affluent member of Roman society whose home evoked the style of Hellenistic palaces and sanctuaries.

Kleiner writes that Marcellus, the conqueror of the wealthy Greek city of Syracuse, brought Greek art to Rome and started the “craze for Greek art.” Many powerful Roman generals would bring back the spoils of war to Rome, and this included both art and styles of architecture. Thus, the major patrons of art in Rome included not only powerful generals but also senators and the imperial family – all affluent members of Roman society. Roman art consequently represents the advancement and dominance of the Roman Empire and the Roman way of life. In this way, the Roman conception of history and identity seem to merge in both art and architecture. This idea is exemplified when the Romans would erect victory columns in the heart of the Roman Forum to celebrate Rome’s conquests. The victory columns celebrated the Roman Empire’s physical growth – the growth of its lands – as well as its cultural growth – the growth of Roman art which incorporates Greek influences. The Roman concern for history and identity will extend to and will come together in public architecture as the Romans celebrate the supremacy and prosperity of the Roman Empire.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 01:58PM:
hschreiber: 3. Kleiner writes that Marcellus, the conqueror of the wealthy Greek city of Syracuse, brought Greek art to Rome and started the “craze for Greek art.” Many powerful Roman generals would bring back the spoils of war to Rome, and this included both art and styles of architecture. Thus, the major patrons of art in Rome included not only powerful generals but also senators and the imperial family – all affluent members of Roman society. Roman art consequently represents the advancement and dominance of the Roman Empire and the Roman way of life. In this way, the Roman conception of history and identity seem to merge in both art and architecture. This idea is exemplified when the Romans would erect victory columns in the heart of the Roman Forum to celebrate Rome’s conquests. The victory columns celebrated the Roman Empire’s physical growth – the growth of its lands – as well as its cultural growth – the growth of Roman art which incorporates Greek influences. The Roman concern for history and identity will extend to and will come together in public architecture as the Romans celebrate the supremacy and prosperity of the Roman Empire.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 02:53PM:
midenova: 1. At the beginning, we can observe that the typical Domus Italia plan had smaller gardens and no peristyle court, or at least a small peristyle court. As we progress through the slides, we can see how the peristyle court gets larger and takes up a more significant part of the house. This shows how the architectural plans of Roman houses become more Hellenized. Also, in earlier examples, gardens were small and located towards the back of the house, as in the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii. These gardens were not meant to be seen by members of the general public, and were reserved for residents of the house. However, the more Hellenized plans have large peristyle courts, which were meanted to serve a more social purpose than the smaller, earlier gardens. The House of Trebius Valens shows the transition towards larger gardens, because we can see the large peristyle court located in the back. The House of the Vettii marks the definitive transition between small and large gardens; here, we can see a very large peristyle court that completely takes the place of the small garden observed in the Domus Italica plan. Also, these peristyle courts (as seen in the House of the Vettii) are characterized by a colonnade, which is a Hellenistic feature not observed in the earlier Domus Italica plan. Overall, the houses did maintain a large, rectangular shape, which was only not seen in the House of the Surgeons (characterized by more irregular, obtuse angles of walls). However, there was a major difference in the floorplan and architecture features, especially with regard to the gardens and peristyle courts.

2. The architecture of the houses was meant to project a powerful message about the social status of the owner, and this is a valuable feature to examine. With the House of Trebius Valens, the peristyle garden court that is a Hellenistic feature that showcases the owner’s taste, class, and high standing in society. The core of the house is still quite similar to the Domus Italica plan (it has an atrium, cubiculi, and ala) but the addition of the peristyle court sends an extra message that relates the owner to Greek culture. Also, the atrium suggests that the owner would have received matters of business here, and members of the public would visit him in this room. Therefore, the existence of the atrium points to the owner’s large presence in society and the business matters of society. The House of the Vettii in Pompeii projects a similar message. It also has a peristyle garden in the back, and the dining room has a view this green, open space. Therefore, it shows how the owner would have entertained guests in this house, and he would have wanted to showcase the Hellenistic characteristics of his house. The columns in the peristyle court are not made out of marble, but the surface has been reinvented to look Greek; the columns are white and fluted, as though made out of Greek marble. This further suggests how the owner wanted to project his high class and taste through these Hellenistic features.

3. During the Empire, the patrons of art will become the Imperial Family, senators, and statesmen. They will want to project their personal power and influence upon onlookers in Rome, and therefore the art will become vehicles for state propaganda on a much larger scale. Also, as the Empire continues to grow and expand, Romans will continue acquiring different territories and cultures. This will make art more diversified in style, because Romans will want to show how they can assimilate any culture into its empire. This will be important to them as they try to showcase their dominance over the regions that they conquer through internalizing new types of art. Roman conquests also mean that spoils of war will be brought back, and these spoils will often be wonderful, exotic things. Therefore, these objects will be included in public monuments and coins to further project the reach of the Roman empire and show the power of the empire. For instance, the Arch of Titus depicts a menorah as part of the spoils from the sack of Jerusalem. Also, during Caesar’s time, a crocodile was brought back to Rome from Egypt, and this crocodile was shown on a coin. Again, this shows how the development of the Empire suggests more battles and conquests, and therefore more culture assimilation which will be reflected in art.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 03:08PM:
mstokely: 1. and 2.) For the most part, the progression of roman houses from the Domus Italica to the Hellenistic Domus revolves around the transformation of the back garden of the house, originally a small, humble garden or hortus to the more luxurious and pretentious columned-framed gardens known as peristyles. These gardens where seen as private spaces for the house, with few guests every being allowed to enter them. The progression of the importance of these private gardens in the home can be seen with their increase in size amongst the house in the power point, and the inclusion of fountains and other luxuries. From the small garden in the House of the Surgeon we move to the House of the Faun, which not only has two peristyles, but the peristyles themselves account for almost half the size of the house.

Though the transformation of the role of the garden changed a great deal in the roman household, many features of the house remained relatively the same. Guests entered the roman house though the fauces into the atrium, and if the guest required serious business of the owner, they were then brought to the tablinum. These three key features formed the general axis of the house that lead directly from the front door to the private garden or peristyle in the back, with the other rooms of the house typically coming of this axis. This axis was very important in presenting an image of the owner to guests. Though guests could not generally proceed beyond the tablinum, they had a direct view to the often most luxurious part of the house, the peristyle. This, along with the mosaics and murals of the house allowed the owners to present an image of wealth and power to their guests.

3.) Just as the wealthy owners of roman houses were able to depict notions of wealth and power through owning artwork that was Greek in style, I think artwork from conquered civilizations will be used to foster a Roman identity of a vast empire ruling over many different civilization. By using artwork from Greece and other civilizations, as well as copying them in their public works, Rome will be able to demonstrate their control over other civilizations.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 03:35PM:
jdesrosier: 1. The standard domus italica floor plan evolved into a much more elaborate, extensive and Hellenized version as Romans became wealthier and displayed their fortunes through their homes. The domus italica floor plan fulfills the basic needs of its inhabitants and was influenced by Etruscans (as seen in the Tomb of the Shields in Cerveteri). The fauces act as an entryway leading to the atrium, the core of the house and a place for serious business. The cubiculum, compluvium and impluvium were also standard features. The alae served as space for religious worship, and the tablinum evolved to be an entryway to the hortus, generally in the back of the house. The triclinium or dining room tended to be located towards the back of the home. The House of the Surgeon has all of the rooms mentioned above but it adapts to its surroundings. Because it is in Pompeii, it has other buildings it needs to work around, which is why the hortus is not the typical square shape. The House of Trebius Valens represents a Hellenized version of the domus italica with its peristyle garden that featured a peripteral colonnade, similar to the one found in the House of the Vetii. The columns placed on the interior of the home created a Greek feel, giving an impression reminiscent of temples. The house maintains the axial view from the front to the back featured in earlier floor plans. The House of the Faun impresses its visitors before they enter the house. It extends its boundaries over an entire city block because of its two atria and two peristyle gardens. The façade announces its Greek inspiration with pseudo-Corinthian columns that rise at least two stories. Unlike earlier homes, there is a sense of inaccessibility not only because of social constraints but also visually. There is virtually no way to see into the more private areas of the home, an effect drawn from Hellenistic palaces. Yet in one sense it still conforms to the initial domus italica plan in that it ends with a tablinum. Houses became more complex to suit the needs of their owners and in their more complicated state took on more and more Greek architectural displays.

2. Houses were a display of the owner’s wealth and social status, so additional luxurious rooms or spaces would add to the image of affluence. Sprawling peristyle gardens were a gift because it was virtually impossible to carry on an intellectual conversation in the city streets. They offered a quiet space for contemplation and discussion, something few poor citizens could engage in. In addition to the architecture, wall paintings in particular saved owners an enormous amount of money while giving the impression that they had spent it. The first style which imitated Greek wall paintings, aimed to look like costly marble panels by using painted stucco relief (like the House of the Griffins). The second style sought to dissolve a room’s confining walls and to replace them with the illusion of an imaginary, theatrical 3D world (like the Villa of the Mysteries). Other imitations of marble include columns like the ones found in the House of the Vetii. The columns surrounding the garden were stuccoed in white and fluted to imitate Greek marble, a signal that Greek influence was becoming a greater presence in Roman homes. Countryside villas were the most sumptuous and obvious conspicuous consumption with profusions of open colonnaded spaces and waterways. These homes illustrated the social and monetary power of their owners.

3. The Roman concern for history and identity will manifest itself in major public works. For instance, the victory temples in Largo Argentina commemorated not only success but also the victorious individual as well. Public displays of architecture will grow larger and not only be decorative. For instance, Julius Caesar built his Forum Iulium as a place for people to conduct business because the Forum Romanum had become too crowded. He also dedicated a temple to Venus Genetrix that stood on a high podium visible to all, highlighting his family’s connection with Venus. Whenever people entered into that space, they were instantly reminded of Julius Caesar and his contribution to Rome (even if he was assassinated). He drew on his family’s history and used his Forum to secure his place in the physical history of Rome. Another example of a public display of architecture is Pompey’s Theater that he dedicated in 55 BCE. Though permanent theaters were generally frowned upon, Pompey built a huge spectacular public space that also featured a temple to Venus (Victrix). Given these buildings that promoted individuals, I foresee the imperial family and powerful senators constructing places that will both facilitate Romans’ everyday lives and increase the builder’s popularity.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 04:07PM:
cbahamon:

1. The development of Roman domestic architecture can most easily be described by the transition from the plan of the domus italica to the form of the Hellenized domus. As illustrated in Kleiner’s textbook, the domus italica has of a façade with three entries: the side two are shop fronts and the central is an entrance to the house. The main entry was then leads to an atrium with a central impluvium, a pool which gathers water, and a hall which culminates in a small hortus, garden, in the rear. Off to the sides are several cubuculi (bedrooms), alae (religious spaces), and a triclinium (diningroom). The house is based on an axial, inward looking design, which leads a viewer’s gaze straight from the entryway to the bit of natural space in the back. However, despite the architectural gift of a view through the domus, the house design functions in levels of privatization, where a person’s relationship with the owner determines how far they are lead into the house (many will be stopped in the front atrium). Though the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii departs from a traditional rectangular house plan, the traditional domus italica elements are present. The Hellenized domus is not much different from the domus italica in terms of the continuation of the axial plan and increased privatization of the rear portions of the house; however, there are several ways in which the new design departs from the original and become essentially more Greek. Perhaps the clearest example of this Greek influence is the growth of the small hortus into a large peristyle garden court whose columns echo the architecture of Greek temples. The House of Trebius Valens in Pompeii is a clear example of the transformation of the hortus, though, unlike a traditional Greek temple, it lacks columns along the back wall (the second century BCE House of the Vettii has a true peristyle garden). (Chapter 3, Kleiner)

2. The structure of the Roman house very much played into the home owner’s identity. As Kleiner states “The Roman house was more than just a place to live. It played an important role in Roman social rituals,” (32, Kleiner). These “social rituals” included the meetings between the Roman patrons and their clientele which were held in the domus. The spectrum of privatized space in the Roman house afforded the patron the sought identity of power. The patrons could exercise their social might and bestow perceived status on others by restricting or allowing increased access into their house. This idea of controlling power by architecturally restricting space was not new. In fact, the Egyptians implemented a similar design with their temple architecture where only the highest priests were allowed into the deepest and most sacred spaces which housed the statues of the gods. However, this design was relatively new to the Romans (at least compared to the simple huts which came before), and quite effectual for demonstrating power. Another architectural design which demonstrated the power of the house owner was the size of the garden (which again grew in the transition from the italica to Hellenized design). Of course owning a large private space would demonstrate wealth, but there also loomed the question of whether this large Greek design would be a hindrance to the development of a Roman identity. In fact, not only was the peristyle garden a Greek addition, but the houses themselves were often decorated with Greek art work (for example the Villa dei Papiri housed the Seated Hermes in addition to several athletes and drunken satyrs). However, the Roman “craze for works of Greek art” (47) should not be taken as contrary to the development of a Roman identity. In fact it fits very well with Virgil’s call to the Romans to let others “bring more lifelike portraits out of marble” while the Romans themselves were “to rule earth’s people,” (10, D’Ambra, Empire and Its Myths). By decorating their houses with Greek works of art the Romans were not seeking to appropriate a Greek identity but to demonstrate their power and affluence as Roman citizens that they were part of a nation that could seize this booty from others.

3. I believe that Roman “identity” will continue along the trend of seizing other nations’ works of art and re-appropriating them into a Roman context: for example to use Greek art to commemorate Roman victories. The architecture will continue along the trend of Marcellus, who after sacking a Greek city, “broke with precedent and brought back to Rome not only the usual spoils of war—…gold…and the like—but also the city’s artistic patrimony,” (47, Kleiner). The imperial patrons of art will thrive on seizing others’ art work because it will be born from the fruit of Roman military prowess and might and the glory of conquering other peoples.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 05:37PM:
mfinnegan: 1. The typical 3rd century BC "Domus Italica" is characterized by a basic axial floor plan with long visual access to the hortus, or garden, in the rear. Though guests have visual access to the home, the idea of the Domus Italica is that the owner may admit his guests as far into his home as he deems appropriate; implied in the plan of the Domus Italica is limited physical accesibility. Though the hortus is present in the earlier versions of the Domus Italica, by the 2nd century BC the hortus is a much more prominent feature of the Roman home. The peristyle garden becomes a high priority for wealthy Roman home-owners. Indeed, this shift from a basic floor plan to the more intricate plan featuring much larger peristyle gardens (and sometimes more than one garden in a single home) indicates the Hellenization of Roman architecture over time. Indeed, in the "House of the Vetii" in Pompeii, the columns of the peristyle court are stuccoed to resemble Greek marble. Likewise, in the House of the Faun, the largest home in Pompeii, the mosaics of the various cubicula of the house are of Greek influence, and the mosaic of Alexander the Great defeating Panus located between the house's two peristyle gardens is a reproduction of a Greek masterpiece. (Kleiner, 3)

2. The architecture of the house could serve to showcase the wealth and social status of the owners. By the 2nd century BC, huge homes such as the House of the Vetii and the House of the Faun, which took up an entire city block, were being built in the more extravagant Hellenistic style. As evinced by the peristyle gardens, elaborate mosaics, and "First Style" wall murals with which rubble and brick walls were stuccoed and painted to resemble marble and alabaster, it is clear that 3rd and 2nd century Romans were largely preoccupied with conveying wealth and luxury by means of their homes. However, though owning an enormous home or villa is in itself a marker of wealth, the owners' attempts to replicate luxury, by means of stucco and illusion, perhaps only served to indulge the pretensions of the owner - whether anyone else was fooled by these tricks is an interesting question. Moreover, this Roman preoccupation with all things Greek raises the question of the "Roman identity" itself - as D'ambra says, the Roman identity is not necessarily an entity within itself, but rather a "construction of a social identity by external forces that dominate individual choices and freedoms." And so, though the Romans were influenced by Hellenistic architecture and practices, in their desire to replicate this style they developed their own identity that is distinctly Roman.

3. I think that as Romans continue to conquer other empires, elements of the artwork of other wealthy nations, such as the Eastern empires and Egypt, will begin to appear in artwork at Rome. I also predict that during the Roman Empire, depictions of imperial political figures will become increasingly grandiose and extravagant. and city architecture will follow this trend as well.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 09:22PM:
icanal: I-The typical single-family house of the third century is the domus italica. The guest enters the house through the fauces walking to the atrium. Depending on how closely related the guest is with the host, guest is invited to move forward; however, standing at the atrium where the business and meetings usually take place, the guest still can see the hortus. While the main architectural features stay the same, second century roman architects start to construct stone temples under the influence of the Hellenistic style. Instead of the modest hortus, they add a column-framed garden called peristyle where they only serve to private guests. What makes peristyle distinctively different from the hortus is the addition of luxurious marble statues, the pool, mural paintings and mosaic floor decorations showcasing the Greek masterpieces in marble. One example to this Hellenized Domus would be the House of the Vettii where the peristyle garden is adorned with marble tables and ‘splendid mural paintings’. Larger and more luxurious compared to the modest domus italica, the Hellenized roman house still keeps the essential features of the earlier type but take the glory to a new level. II-Roman house reflects owner’s standing in the community with its formal architecture and ostentatious decorations. One example to this is the decorations around the central axis leading to the atrium. We see how they showcase the ancestral portraits giving an aristocratic feeling to the residence as well as to the guests. Another example to this is the peristyle. The lavish expenditure on marble basins and Greek statues in peristyle along with the columns in the dining rooms adorned with mural paintings give the feeling of palaces and symbolize prestige through the setting to the host. III- Judging by the ostentatious decorations in the residential architecture we have seen up to this point, I think the Empirial architecture will even be more glorious and luxurious. Since Romans will conquer the whole region, they will be showing this off with the amount of wealth they have acquired and the architectural pieces they have brought along from these newly conquered regions. They will not only use Roman elements but also incorporate these new cultures’ elements with a very lavish and rich presentation.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 09:37PM:
sengle: 1. Beginning in about the 2nd century BCE, the Roman domus Italica began to integrate more Greek and Hellenized forms into its architectural structure. The “Hellenized domus” was based around a similar floorplan to that of the ideal domus Italica. However, the main architectural changes tended to include a larger garden (peristyle) surrounded by a row of columns, the movement of the triclinium to the back of the house so diners would be able to view the peristyle while eating/lounging (as is seen in the House of the Vettii), and the addition of more rooms and hence greater overall square footage. Several artistic elements were also employed asallusions to Greek culture—a culture that the Romans had more or less conquered and subsequently assimilated into their vast territory. For example, over 90 Greek-inspired bronze and marble sculptures were found in and around the House dei Papyri in Herculaneum, and brick columns surrounding peristyles were often painted in a manner that mimicked Greek marble.

2. Roman aristocrats placed an immense amount of importance on displaying Greek or Greek-inspired works of art/architectural forms in their personal homes (as well as the public sphere, as was discussed in the previous QRIs). For Romans, Greek images and artistic styles (e.g. column orders, youthful and muscular bodies of statues, etc.) conjured up allusions to the once-powerful Greek culture that had progressively been dominated by powerful Roman conquests. Displays of Greek art were transitive expressions of Roman omnipotence, and the artwork speaks convincingly of conquest and assimilation. Therefore individuals living in a domus Italica or a Hellenized domus were proclaiming their identity as powerful and worthy citizens of the unrivaled Roman Republic. Furthermore, Romans living in these villas illustrated their monetary wealth through the architecture of their surroundings. As Kleiner illustrates, social hierarchy played an important role in the daily lives of the Romans, and affluent patrons made a concerted effort to express their wealth through the architecture of their homes as well as the art displayed within it.

3. For the Romans, the display of Greek art and architectural forms, whether in the private or public sphere, was a means of communicating Rome’s power and authority. Kleiner discusses how throughout Rome’s history, this exploitation and assimilation of other cultures’ art (e.g. the Etruscans and the Greeks) increased significantly. Rome emphasized the importance of government and ruling over art and cultural pursuits. Art was yet another vessel through which the Romans could display their power. Therefore, it is more than feasible to assume that this trend would continue and increase throughout the history of the Empire.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 10:02PM:
cteitz: 1. The architecture of Roman private urban dwellings developed from the “domus Italica” standard into the Hellenic-style domus, and as in some extravagant examples, almost country-villa home within the city. The original domus Italica was inward looking and practical in design, with a large central atrium that also served as the main space for public interactions within the house. The atrium’s central element was the impluvium and compluvium combination that both provided water and a sacred space for the house, as well as light for a building with mostly closed walls. The atrium joined most rooms in the house along a central axis and provided a visual connection to the more private rooms and the small garden. The House of the Surgeon provides a particularly good example of this style, although it is less linear than a house built on the traditional rectangular base. As the Greek influences became more prevalent in Roman private architecture, the basic floor plan of the house changed, particularly the transformation of the garden into a larger and more elaborate peristyle. The House of Trebius Valens demonstrates the first step in this progression; it retains the longer and narrower line of the domus Italica, along with the visual from the entryway to the garden. However, the peristyle is much larger, partially surrounded by a colonnade, and includes an outdoor dining area. An example of the Hellenized domus taken further is the House of the Vettii, which again keeps the essential components of the domus Italica but sacrifices the tablinum for the sake of a more open atrium. Its garden is also fancier than the traditional style, with a vast open space, four-sided colonnade, and multiple water features. The House of the Faun is the largest private dwelling found in Pompeii, and it exemplifies the extent to which the Hellenic style impacted Roman architecture. It echoes the palaces of Greek kings and provides a piece of paradise within the bustle of city life inside its multiple atria, peristyles, and rooms. Although it still has the traditional atrium spaces for conducting business, because of their placement within the house it creates more private areas that only the most privileged of guests could expect to see.

2. The design of these houses is a good way of understanding more about their owners’ tastes, aspirations, and the image they wished to present to society. The domus Italica style was less personalized but still contributed to an identity of a middle-upper class citizen who had enough respectability to own a nice and conventional home. The Hellenized Houses of Trebius Valens and the Vettii brothers both reflect men who wanted to show their prestige and place in society with richer designs that had connotations of “cultured” taste. The House of the Faun takes this portrayal to an extreme, emphasizing the owner’s wealth and influence within the community. The opulence of the House of the Faun, however, also detracts from the owner’s image because such an ostentatious display is un-Roman and shows a Greek weakness for luxury. The obvious Hellenic influences might be acceptable in the originally Greek colony of Pompeii, but a visitor from Rome would find the design too much.

3. Public architecture during the Imperial period will walk a delicate line as it tries to balance Roman virtues including respect for history and valuing the state above all with the rise of personal power and influence. The need to create a publicly visible identity for the powerful leaders will drive vast construction projects in very public spaces but require them to first appear as something for the benefit of all Rome, and then as a reminder of the kindness of the benefactor. The identity aspect will influence design, because although the incorporation of conquered cultures is important, it cannot threaten the power of Roman tradition. Public architecture and monuments provide a lasting influence for their creators, both through their visual presence in the city and the impact of their construction, which creates jobs and revenue for many thankful clients.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 10:54PM:
cklimansilver: 1. The images document the transition from a distinct Roman style to that with strong Greek overtones. Initially, Roman houses were strict and orderly––by the Domus Italica convention, they were designed for the conduction of business: a long faces (entryway) led to an atrium (receiving hall) with a large impluvium (sunken pool). Cubicula, or small chambers, dotted the sides of the Atrium, which eventually opened into a larger tablinum, and finally, the hortus, or open garden. The further one ventured into the house, the more private the areas, and the less likely a guest would be invited back. As centuries progressed onward, however, Greek influence began to infiltrate Roman style. The peristyle garden (which replaced the simple hortus), borrowed from the Greeks, became more prominent in Roman houses. Several of the later houses, such as the Trebius Valens of Pompeii, displayed the garden prominently (though it was certainly private), instead of "banishing" it to the back of the house. In general, this emerging style, known as the Hellenized dooms, became much more popular (the House of the Vettii is an excellent example), mimicking Greek tendencies––Corinthian columns, for instance, or other Greek features. By the end of the second century BCE, many Roman houses were putting on Greek airs.

2. The interplay between Roman and Greek is strongly depicted in the development of Roman architecture, and individual home owners could indicate their preferences in the design of their houses. Typical innovations included Priapus statues to indicate fertility and prosperity, Greek columns and designs as an homage to Greek architecture, and especially peristyle gardens, which were also borrowed from the Greek style. The House of the Vettii showcases many of these Grecian features, particularly in the peristyle garden and court. Greek leanings suggest an appreciation for Greek society and culture, but at the same time, they also convey a sophistication inherent to the time: Grecian architecture was in vogue, and implementing the Greek style denoted a certain sort of class. By contrast, a Roman-style house (such as the Trebius Valens) both emphasizes business and establishes a hierarchy among visitors (something that Greek-style houses, but the extent was not necessarily as obvious). The passage from the fauces to the hortus is strongly suggestive: it preserves the order, power, and identity that was so precious to Roman society. Moreover, the embellishments owners added (for both stereotypically Roman and stereotypically Greek houses), such as mosaics, paint the owners as affluent and cultured. Essentially, these architectural decisions seemed to effect the image that the owners wished to evoke.

3. History and identity were important to Roman society, so it is likely that those values will be preserved in the public domain. Romans strove to commemorate generals and figures; statues, mosaics, and other honorific works of art are likely to be prominent. At the same time, the Romans did not scorn all that was not Roman. Since Greek architecture has become popular, it is likely that they will continue to effect Greek style, adjusting and enhancing to fit the more Roman model where necessary. After all, the needs for an individual home and the construction of a larger city are different.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 11:25PM:
rwarner: Vitruvius noted the ideal domus italica floor plan as consisting of the major architectural features designated in the first slide, as he revered order and a logical outlay of the roman house. The typical domus is more or less symmetrical; it has a clear progression from public shop windows in the front, to the fauces and atrium where business was conducted, to the triclinium and hortus for private or elite scenarios. In the House of the Surgeon we see that the ideal rectangle has been forfeited, a portico has been added, and the garden in the back is skewed, abandoning the symmetry and order in the ideal domus. Then, as Hellenistic styles came in vogue, the tablinum disappeared (as seen in the house of the Vettii), the peristyle was opened up and the dining room moved to provide a better view of the larger garden (House of Trbius Valens). In addition, columns of brick and mortar were added and stucco’d with flutes to imitate the marble columns of Greece. Finally, in the House of the Faun, the entire order of the Domus is abandoned, two atria exist and a huge peristyle with stucco columns is added to the back to allow for “cultivated leisure,” or using leisure time to flex the mind. Greek statues of gods decorate the peristyle for stimulating thought, and classical Greek lore is depicted on mosaics throughout the house, indicating an even stronger allusion to Hellenistic styles. The original Domus is designed for business and to present status. The size of the house clearly matters, but depending on how important you were, you may not make it past the fauces, meaning you only get a taste of what’s inside. The house then is designed to tempt the visitor in and display wealth, but also to make it quite clear how important they are, for only the elite make it back to the hortus which is designed for luxury and extravagance. All of the examples conform to this design except the House of the Faun, which is closed off, possibly indicating the owner only did business with the extremely elite, or that this was a second home and less utilitarian. Another sign of wealth and status would have been the frescoed walls, sometimes including Greek architectural elements or basic perspective drawings. By opening up the house, particularly the peristlye, and including more Hellenistic influences in architecture, the owner could convey wealth to any visitor. It is funny though, that the Greek additions, such as the columns, do not conform to the orders as described by Vitruvius, and are sort of a hodgepodge of various styles (Doric columns with Corinthian columns, say). This would have been ridiculous in Greek times and seen as foolish, not elite, showing an ignorance of the wealthy and a slavery to trends. Based on what we have seen become of the Domus Italica, it seems that the Romans are not immune to trends and will follow whichever one comes around. I would say the Romans’ concern for “history” is separate from their ideas of “identity,” as the former implies a respect for the past, and the latter seems to be based on lavishness and a new age of ostentatious showmanship. The architecture of Rome will also have an identity, as it is largely commissioned by the elite who will adhere to these notions of Roman identity. Whether they are based on a history that Rome is trying to keep is another question.

Posted at Feb 09/2011 11:29PM:
rwarner: With formatting:

1.Vitruvius noted the ideal domus italica floor plan as consisting of the major architectural features designated in the first slide, as he revered order and a logical outlay of the roman house. The typical domus is more or less symmetrical; it has a clear progression from public shop windows in the front, to the fauces and atrium where business was conducted, to the triclinium and hortus for private or elite scenarios. In the House of the Surgeon we see that the ideal rectangle has been forfeited, a portico has been added, and the garden in the back is skewed, abandoning the symmetry and order in the ideal domus. Then, as Hellenistic styles came in vogue, the tablinum disappeared (as seen in the house of the Vettii), the peristyle was opened up and the dining room moved to provide a better view of the larger garden (House of Trbius Valens). In addition, columns of brick and mortar were added and stucco’d with flutes to imitate the marble columns of Greece. Finally, in the House of the Faun, the entire order of the Domus is abandoned, two atria exist and a huge peristyle with stucco columns is added to the back to allow for “cultivated leisure,” or using leisure time to flex the mind. Greek statues of gods decorate the peristyle for stimulating thought, and classical Greek lore is depicted on mosaics throughout the house, indicating an even stronger allusion to Hellenistic styles.

2. The original Domus is designed for business and to present status. The size of the house clearly matters, but depending on how important you were, you may not make it past the fauces, meaning you only get a taste of what’s inside. The house then is designed to tempt the visitor in and display wealth, but also to make it quite clear how important they are, for only the elite make it back to the hortus which is designed for luxury and extravagance. All of the examples conform to this design except the House of the Faun, which is closed off, possibly indicating the owner only did business with the extremely elite, or that this was a second home and less utilitarian. Another sign of wealth and status would have been the frescoed walls, sometimes including Greek architectural elements or basic perspective drawings. By opening up the house, particularly the peristlye, and including more Hellenistic influences in architecture, the owner could convey wealth to any visitor. It is funny though, that the Greek additions, such as the columns, do not conform to the orders as described by Vitruvius, and are sort of a hodgepodge of various styles (Doric columns with Corinthian columns, say). This would have been ridiculous in Greek times and seen as foolish, not elite, showing an ignorance of the wealthy and a slavery to trends.

3. Based on what we have seen become of the Domus Italica, it seems that the Romans are not immune to trends and will follow whichever one comes around. I would say the Romans’ concern for “history” is separate from their ideas of “identity,” as the former implies a respect for the past, and the latter seems to be based on lavishness and a new age of ostentatious showmanship. The architecture of Rome will also have an identity, as it is largely commissioned by the elite who will adhere to these notions of Roman identity. Whether they are based on a history that Rome is trying to keep is another question.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:35AM:
rmckeown: 1. The images of the numerous floor plans of Roman houses demonstrates the evolution of the Roman house from its simplest form in the Domus Italica to its grandest and most ornate form in the house of the Faun. The Domus Italica floor plan is represents the most rudimentary form of Roman architecture. Its size is small, its spaces are neatly compartmentalized, and its architectural features are for the most part unadorned. However, the beauty of this housing style lies in its simplicity. The two key architectural features of a Domus Italica house are the atrium, which openly welcomes guests at the front of the house with a vast open space that is filled with light and beauty from the compluvium in the ceiling, and the quaint, open garden in the back of the house, which acted as a refuge for the residents to escape the cramped, crowded city around them. The Domus Italica housing style was then surpassed by the large and ornate housing plans of the House of Trebius Valens, the House of the Vettii, and the House of the Faun. These housing plans, which greatly outsize the Domus Italica plan, employ new architectural features that help to open up the closed spaces of the house, transforming the owner’s city home into a great, peaceful country villa. The primary architectural feature that catalyzes this transformation is the peristyle garden, which is large open garden that is enclosed by a row of columns. This heavily Greek approach to opening up the house to the surrounding elements of nature enabled the owners to fully experience “tryphe” in urban life. Another architectural feature that the House of the Faun exhibits is the employment of multiple atria, which, in the same manner as the peristyle garden, exposes the residents to the beauty of nature and the outside world, helping to free them from their constrictive urban environment. 2. The architecture of these Roman houses, particularly those of Trebius Valens, the Vettii, and the Faun perform the function of promoting and heightening the image of the owner. First of all, the grand size of these houses alone attest to the great wealth of their owners. Whether people were passing by them on the street or clients were entering them to do business with their owners, these houses symbolized the great power and social status of the people that owned them. Aside from their size, these houses were decorated and furnished with such lavish paintings, frescos, mosaics, and structural features that they openly praised the status of their owners. For example, the House of the Faun displayed so many breath-taking works of art, namely the vast mosaic of Alexander the Great, which even to this day, scholars believe that the owner must have resided at the social pinnacle of Pompeii. Also, these houses all displayed Greek elements of architecture, namely through their peristyle gardens, which helped to verify their owners’ deep sense of culture and erudition, thereby displaying their owners as rich in both mind and wealth. Therefore, the overall ostentatious regality of the architecture of these houses definitely helped to add to the owners’ image of identity. 3. I think that the Roman concern for “history” and “identity” will extend deeply into public architecture during the Empire because of the desire of the major patrons of the arts to promote an image of power and legacy. Due to its great military power and financial wealth, the Roman Empire will continue to expand its vast territory throughout the world. As a result of these great conquests, I think that the major patrons of the arts in the Roman Empire will have an insatiable desire to correlate this military dominance to the architectural styles of public life, thereby promoting the Empire’s image of global dominance the Roman people. I think that the Roman patrons will perform this task of praising the empire by building triumphal arches and vast public buildings and great forums through which the people may pay homage to the Empire. I also think that the major patrons of the arts, namely Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar will also promote their own wealth and the wealth and power of their family by creating buildings or statues dedicated to themselves (e.g. the Theatre of Pompey and the Basilica Julia). Through the building of these projects, the great patrons of art in the Roman Empire could promote both the image of their family name and the name of their homeland, thereby demonstrating a deep concern for “history” and “identity.”

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:52AM:
kgroszyk: 1. These images reveal the transition from the basic Domus Italica style home to the more elaborate and luxurious Hellenized Domus style. The Domus Italica was constructed in a way to allow the owner to conduct within the home. The house would have a narrow fauces which led to a large central reception atrium. In the front of the house, there would be one or two rooms that would serve as one room shops. On either side of the atrium there would be several bedrooms. In the back of the house, there would be a “home office” space – or tablinum. Behind the tablinum at the very rear of the house there would be a small garden. In the House of the Vetti – which represents a Hellenized Domus – there are many new features that give the house a more Greek style. The formerly modest garden was replaced by a larger column-framed peristyle garden, which could be used for entertaining guests and dining. The garden also featured marble tables and mural paintings. Aside from the larger garden, The House of the Vetti had a similar floorplan to a typical Domus Italica, except for the removal of the tablinum, as the owners did not conduct business from home. 2. As social pressures dictated that a Roman house reflect the owner’s standing in the community, Romans would design their homes in an effort to project a certain image or identity. The architecture of the House of the Vetti certainly adds to the owner’s desire to present an identity of wealth and luxury, as well as the owner’s Greek pretentions. The grand peristyle decorated with large murals and marble tables certainly reveals an image of wealth and exorbitance. Furthermore, as views of the garden could be seen from the fauces, the pretentious garden could be seen by any visitor who entered the home, which reveals the owner’s desire to ‘show off’ this grand space. Finally, the Greek style columns that line the garden reveal the owner’s affinity for Greek style and architecture. However, the use of the First Style technique – which covered up rubble walls with stucco and paint so that they resembled Greek marble – on the columns and walls does detract from the image of wealth and luxury which the owner attempted to convey. This technique replicated the image of Greek luxury, without quality materials and expensive cost. Thus, although the House of the Vetti projects an image of wealth and luxury by replicating Hellenistic architecture, the use of first style walls reveals this image may be without substance. 3. As the Roman Empire continues to grow and expand to further lands and cultures, I believe Roman art and architecture will continually become more diverse and eclectic, as it assimilates different cultural aspects of acquired territories into its own unique identity. Just as they were able to incorporate aspects of Greek and Etruscan art while maintaining their own distinct identity, I believe the Romans will be able to do this on a large scale and spread their arts and traditions throughout the Empire.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 12:52PM:
jmiranda:

1. From the earliest Domus Italica houses to the House of Faun in the early 2nd century BCE, certain common features appear in the architectural plans. The transition from fauces to atrium to garden was common. The atrium served as a focus point for the house and location for business transactions. And the layout of the house was overwhelmingly inward-looking. However, over time there were significant variations on the architectural plan. There is an increase in the size of the hortus relative to the atrium. From the Domus Italica plan where the two were approximately equal in size, we see a transition to the House of Faun, where the hortus was several times larger than the atrium. Earlier architectural plans were also oriented around a central axis down the house, but the House of the Vetti departs from that layout with an almost square floor plan. However, by the end of the 2nd century BCE, while a central axis still remained, it no longer ran the length of the whole hosue, as in the House of the Faun. The separation or privatization of leisure spaces intended only for members of the house was becoming more common. Over all, changes in architectural features reflected a hellenization of the domestic space and a trend towards luxury and extravagance while but still retained the inward-looking nature of the Domus Italica plan.

2. The House of Faun in Pompeii was the largest mansion in Pompeii. The architecture is a combination of Greek and Etruscan styles. The public atrium was of the “tradition Tuscan atrium type with no supports for the roof other than timber beams projecting out of the walls” (Kleiner 36). A second tetrastyle atrium existed for family use that was even more elaborated and saturated with Greek influence. The hosue also featured a number of mosaics, including one of the Battle of Issos and two large peristyle gardens. The Greek influences to architecture added to an image of culture and worldliness that the owners wished to present. However, the most luxurious parts of the house – the largest garden, and portions of the art collection – were inaccessible to the general public. Did this separation of private luxury from public access indicate that the owners did not want to show off their wealth and simply wanted it for personal enjoyment? Or that they wished to add an air of mystery to the extent of their wealth?

3. For the Romans, art and architecture was a means to present a personal identity to the public. Similarly, public art and architecture was very much a means to establish a cultural identity of the nation to be reinforced in the public’s eye and presented to other nations. It was a way to maintain and glorify history, as well as to establish an image of the Roman people as a cultured and educated people. I predict, that to project this image, public architecture will serve to awe and impress. Influences of other cultured nations will certainly appear in the architectural design, as a way of asserting the Roman ideals of worldliness and culture, but the overall design will still be distinctly Roman – other architectural styles mastered or dominated by the Roman power. Public architecture will also be a form of propaganda, serving to glorify the history of the empire and its roots.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 01:37PM:
jthomas: 1.The images of the Roman household begin with the more humble and simple Domus Italica to a more extravagant style of living through the more hellenistic styles of architecture and in general larger households. The houses seem to maintain the same inner structure, with similar rooms, particularly the atrium and cubiculum. However, the later houses added more features, like a garden, which further evolved into the Greek style peristyle. The garden was generally a private place to be in the Domus Italica, and a location that the general public would probably never see. The more hellenistic houses are built so that the guest at the front door can see a glimpse of the extravagance of the peristyle from where they are standing. Also it seems that the beginning houses were much more narrow, and the farther a person entered the house, the more private the area. However, in a house like the house of the Vettii, the order of rooms flows from the atrium directly into the peristyle, where the other rooms flow to the side. It seems that in the more hellenistic homes, the whole home opens up to the garden, when in the Domus Italica, this was not the case.

2. The Domus Italica is much more humble compared with home like the House of the Faun. The Domus Italica's architecture is meant to resemble a private area from the family living there, and based on the way the house it set up, it does just that. The later homes are meant to display a luxurious way of living. It is meant to be an ostentatious display of wealth, so that every person that walks by knows that the homeowner is wealthy. The Greek style is meant to evoke extravagance, with the painted walls, the peristyle lined with columns, and the mosaic floors. However, an average person can only glimpse at what may reside inside, or perhaps see just barely at the front door. The fact that an average citizen can only see so much probably conjures a feeling of inferiority, which would only make the homeowner feel more powerful.

3. Architecture and art show the power and strength of the Roman empire. The fact that they had procured numerous Greek artworks and were emulating Greek style of architecture shows that they wanted to somewhat be like the Greeks and be a powerful force. The Romans, however, wanted to be better than the Greeks. They respected them, but they also needed to create an identity of their own. They do this by molding different cultures together in order to create their own. Over more time, I believe the Romans will continue to incorporate more cultures, as they conquer them, which proves how powerful of a empire they are and create more of a unique identity.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 03:21PM:
bchu: 1. and 2. The features of the basic Domus Italica that were most enlarged over time were those that pertained to social status. In particular, the hortus and the triclinum underwent the greatest expansion and even duplication. The House of Trebius Valens is an example of the Hellenization of the hortus: a set of supporting columns were added and the hortus was expanded greatly, taking up almost half the area of the domus. As a result, it became a Greek peristyle garden which, because of the Roman fascination with all things Greek, was a display of the owner’s class and sophistication. In both the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vettii, the peristyle garden is clearly visible from the atrium. Thus, even less important guests who were only invited into the atria could see into the luxury of the garden, be impressed by the beauty of what the owner had built, and perhaps be envious of those that the owner held in higher esteem who were allowed entry to the garden. The House of the Surgeon owes its non-rectangular shape to the city block that it is located on, but it takes advantage of this shape by adding a second, larger triclinum. It is likely that one of them, probably the smaller, was for private use and for entertaining important guests, as it contains a view of the hortus. On the other hand, the larger triclinum was probably for entertaining larger groups of guests, who by virtue of the increased number would be less personal to the host. The duplication of rooms is even more evident in the House of the Faun. It contains two peristyle gardens which together make up more than half the area of the house. There are also two atria, one Tuscan and the other tetrastyle, and two triclinia. Obviously the size of the house was a status symbol, but the owner’s high social status was also reflected by the number of duplicate rooms—only those of a high social status could reasonably divide their visitors into so many categories of class and importance. Those who only made it into the Tuscan atrium could only see into the first peristyle garden. The choice of triclinia was also important, as only one had a view onto the (first) peristyle garden. More important guests may be invited into the first garden, where they could see into the gigantic second garden, into which only the most distinguished guests could venture.

3. I predict that during the Empire, monuments commemorating individual families and donated civic buildings named after their builder will dominate Rome. For example, like the Temples at Largo Argentina, returning generals will build victory temples that commemorate not only the Roman conquest but also glorify the general himself. After all, he was only able to fund it because of the recognition his victory brought to him and through the spoils of war. Similarly, powerful senators and the imperial family will build temples dedicated to the gods, goddesses, and ancient heroes that they claim to be descended from. This would continue a trend started by Julius Caesar. His family claimed to be descended from Aeneas and Aeneas mother Venus, and Caesar built in his forum a temple to Venus Genetrix. Civic buildings will also be donated to Rome and named after their funder, similar to how many university buildings are named today. Examples of this are the Forum Iulium, the Basilica Aemilia, and the Theater of Pompey, all public buildings. Additionally, I predict that emperors and senators will build self-glorifying monuments and statues and place them in public spaces such as the Forum, and outside the Coliseum.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 03:45PM:
scw: 1. Using the images in the above power point presentation, describe the progression of architectural features we can see in the floor plans of the houses regarding the addition of new features over time

Over time, it seems that floor plans and homes became more detailed and extensive. The domus italic seems quite simple when compared with the more complicated House of the Vetti, which was built in the next century. Over time, houses developed more rooms, and new features were added—such as a peristylium and portique. The gardens also appear to grow much larger. The House of Tebius Valens also appears to have a fountain, which is a new and more grand feature than previously appeared. There appears to be, over time, an increase in Hellenistic features. From the outside, the domus italica appears quite utilitarian, while the later homes appear more grand and aesthetically pleasing—perhaps meant to impress.

2. briefly discuss how the architecture of the houses add to or detract from the image of identity that the owners wished to present.

From examining these homes, it appears to be the case that the owners sought to present themselves as well-off, educated men, worthy of mingling with philosophers, politicians, and other powerful and important men of their day. For example, in the homes there are spaces for gardens (horti), which would serve as an excellent place to stroll and discuss important philosophical and political matters. In the House of the Vettii, for example, there are large columns surrounding the atrium and the walkway around the atrium, suggesting a sense of grandeur and wealth. These columns could also be a reference to the Grecian style, which the Romans also considered to add a sense of learnedness and grandeur to their homes. There are also paintings on the wall—meant to decorate, and also perhaps to hide low-quality construction materials, further adding to an image of wealth and wellbeing.

I imagine that as power becomes more centralized, public architecture will become more laudatory of the Emperor and of the Empire. I predict that it may become more nationalistic and celebratory of the Emperor, Rome, and the Empire in general, particularly as the Empire expands and the power of Rome grows. This seems particularly likely given that the seat of the government, Rome, is also the main stage for architectural ostentation. Throughout history, very powerful leaders and emperors have used art and architecture to add authority their identity and to make themselves and their empire seem more grand and important, and it seems likely that this will happen in Rome.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 03:54PM:
milardi: 1. The first floor plan shows a typical single-family house, in the domus italica style. This style of architecture was popular during the late republic. Generally these houses were connected to other houses on the block, leaving only the front façade exposed. As can be seen from the domus italica floor plan there was a distinct forward orientation to the house. Visitors entered the house through the fauces, which was flanked on either side by two small rooms. These sometimes opened into the house, and sometimes opened to the street and served as one-room shops. The fauces led into atrium, where most business matters of the house were conducted. The roof over the atrium, had a rectangular hole or impluvian which let in light and sloped downward to channel rainwater into the compluvian, or basin, below. Flanking the atrium were several small rooms or cubiculum. Further back there was often an office, a kitchen, and finally the house would end in a small garden or hortus. The house of the surgeon is an example of this style. It deviates slightly from the domus italica plan by not having a completely rectangular orientation, but it still follows the plan fairly closely. The house of the Treblus Valens in Pompeii and the House of the Vettii shows how houses became to evolve around the second century BCE. The houses become more ostentatious and began to take on Greek airs. This mostly manifested itself by replacing the simple hortus in the back with an expanded column-framed peristyle garden. These gardens were large and often had water features, paintings, and mosaic floors. These more Hellenized style homes maintained the inward orientation of the domus italica, but were more ostentatious and had additional rooms. This is particularly evident in the last slide, which displays the extravagant house of the faun

2.The owners of the houses could use architecture to project a very specific image of themselves. The peristyle garden, which was present in many of these houses, reflects the owner’s love of all things Greek; the column-enclosed space was reminiscent of Greek temples and other architecture. Additionally the extravagance of these houses could be used to portray the owner’s wealth. Often these houses had 1st style wall paintings. These were meant to transform a crumbling brick wall into one that resembled expensive stone and other architectural elements through the use of frescoes. Not only did this help contribute to the image of opulence, but also it contributed to a Hellenized image. The fact that certain people were only allowed so far into the house only enhanced the image of elitism and wealth. A person conducting business with the man of the house might only be allowed as far as the atrium, but the linear organization of the house allowed him to see the magnificence beyond. This would enforce the owner’s image of superiority. Ironically in attempting to imitate the Greeks the Roman’s call into question their own identity. Rather then portraying a Roman identity, they seem to be clinging to a Greek one. As well, the Greeks themselves would probably have thought that these Roman villas were overindulgent and grotesque. Then again, perhaps taking Greek elements and displaying them in a unique way created a new, purely roman, identity.

3. I think that the architecture will continue to become more extravagant. Particularly in the public sphere patrons will want Rome’s power and greatness to be seen by everyone. This can be accomplished by creating extravagant public buildings that many people are exposed too. As well, when you consider that the patrons are senators and the imperial family they will probably want to use architecture to enhance their own image. Thus, architecture might become another medium for propaganda, to display these people’s wealth and power. Additionally, as the empire expands I think that architecture will continue to change in order to incorporate the new conquered cultures. The Romans will want to show their dominance by their ability to absorb other cultures.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 04:51PM:
klougheed: 1. The most obvious development in the floor plans is that they expand, physically becoming larger and incorporating fancier features. The hortus in particular flourishes, incorporating Hellenistic designs and coming to dominate the floor plan. At first, the garden was a meager-sized addition to the back of the house. In later designs, however, it looms large. In the House of the Surgeon, the garden almost seems like an afterthought, squeezed onto the back of the house at an awkward angle, but in the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vettii, the garden dwarfs the rest of the domus. Furthermore, in the House of the Faun, the garden literally takes up half the floor plan. Additionally, the hortus becomes more ornate, incorporating peristyle columns and Hellenistic temples such as the tholos. The gardens even became so large that they allowed the owner to demonstrate his opulence through not only the appealing appearance of the hortus, but also through the leisure activities he would engage in there, such as walking.

2. The floor plan of the domus italica strategically allows the owner to demonstrate what an important, distinguished, and wealthy individual he is (or appears to be). The view from the fauces shows the visitor first the tablinum, sitting in plain sight behind the atrium. The presence of a tablinum indicates that the owner is important and wealthy enough to entertain clients. Freedmen might actually get rid of their tablina because, having no clients, they would have no need for such an office. But beyond the tablinum, the fauces allows the visitor a glimpse into the hortus, suggesting wealth through not only the lavish appearance of the hortus, but also the implication of the leisure activities the owner would engage in while relaxing in his garden. The hortus implied that he was so wealthy he had little need for work, and could therefore while away the hours lounging in his garden.

3. Emperors will probably try to prove their worth by taking on lavish building projects, since through public works, leaders could immortalize themselves and establish a positive, constructive legacy (rather than a legacy associated with bloodshed and tyrannical rule, like Caligula). After the fire during Nero's reign, Romans actually suspected that the emperor himself had caused the conflagration just so he could establish a glorious legacy as the man who had rebuilt Rome. This suspicion epitomizes how the public would strongly associate a building with the emperor under whose reign it was constructed. In an alternate attempt to establish their legitimacy, emperors might try to connect themselves with the history of the Rome by renovating old, historical buildings. For instance, in 62 BCE, when the historic Temple of Jupiter needed rededication (the one that symbolized the birth of the Republic in 509 BCE, since workers allegedly found an intact human head in the rubble, symbolizing that Rome would be the "caput mundi"), it was very important to Caesar that he give Pompey credit for rededicating the temple to advance his friend's political career, since whoever could connect himself with that historical temple would win great prestige.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 04:58PM:
cwelling:

1. The typical 3rd century style of Roman house is known as Domus Italica and to Vitruvius was the “ideal” house. The Domus Italica consisted of many elements, faunces, atrium, impluvium, cubiculum, ala, tablinum, triclinium, and a hortus. At the entrance of the home was the faunces with several front rooms that served as shops. Also at the entrance was the atrium which was were the core of the home, a giant open space that had various uses one of the most important being that it was the room where business was conducted. As you pass through the rest of the house after the tablinum you reach the hortus, which was the private garden area that the visitors were only allowed to view but never actually allowed to physically enter. As the Roman house evolved into a more Greek inspired, Hellenized style the hortus became a peristyle garden court that became central to the home and as the Roman’s grew wealthier, their homes in turn became more elaborate and lavish. One example of a Domus Italica house is the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii and two examples of Hellenized house are the House of the Vettii and the House of the Faun. 2. The homes that the Roman’s lived in were more than just a place to sleep or entertain, it was a way for them to show off to the community their wealth and status as a power and influential citizen. During the 2nd century, BCE there was a transition from the Domus Italica style home to a more Hellenized and Greek inspired style. Many homes had interiors that were decorated with First Style artwork and paintings that also imitated Greek paintings. The ultimate goal of the First Style was to make the artwork look like costly marble when in actuality it was not nearly as expensive. The homes also as the Hellenized style evolved physically grew in size, with the hortus now instead of being a quiet intimate place for gathering turned into a peristyle garden court and it was not out of the ordinary for an extremely lavish home to take up an entire block because in order for the Roman’s to maintain their identity, their guests must be blown away by the detail and size of the home. 3. The Romans essentially utilized other civilizations like the Greeks, and Etruscans to create a diverse and advanced society especially in respect to artwork and architecture. As Kleiner explains, because they pool their ideas along with those that have already been created, the Roman “identity” will continue to be known as the powerful and wealthy. As long as the Roman’s continue to combine aspects of art and architecture from other civilizations they will remain a world power than effects the history and identity of the Roman people.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 05:29PM:
jman: 1. A defining feature of the progression of architectural features is a movement from simplicity to grandiosity. The Domus Italica does not seem to be that elaborate. Even though it does contain an impluvium that had rain coming from the top, the garden is in the back and hidden from guests. It seems as though the purpose of a house like this was more rational and economic, as the front two rooms were shops and storefronts. Not necessarily a house for pleasure, but for business. As you move on with time, more rooms are added and most predominately, peristyles—outside gardens—are put into the floor plan (as seen in the House of the Vetti). Finally, at the House of Faun, there are two atriums and two peristyles. Clearly, this presents a different purpose from the Domus Italica. Peristyles caged with columns and had statues and walkways to provide leisure and entertainment for yourself and for your guests. With this Hellenistic style home, it seems to be more about leisure and activity, rather than a business like a Domus Italica.

2. Somewhat having touched on this topic in the previous question, it is evident that the architecture represents how the homeowner wanted to be remembered or portrayed. The Domus Italica has stores in the front, to convey a business-like atmosphere. Additionally, we learned of a fresco/painting of the God of Fertility—bringing economic prosperity in the house. Clearly, the owner wanted to bring about an idea of wealth and money status. In the House of Faun, the homeowner also wanted to bring about an idea of money status, but in a different light, in a way of leisure and enjoyment. The two peristyles in his home signify that he cared a lot about conversing with his friends while walking through a garden filled with Greek statues. We also know that he owned a great mosaic from Alexander the Great, showing his wealth and power of being to obtain such a piece of art, but also wanting to portray his knowledge. Therefore, this homeowner, wanted to celebrate life, entertain his guests, and show off his interest in the Greek culture.

3. If the Roman people already care about how the architecture of their own, private home because of its implications of identity and status, it is no doubt that the Roman government will be concerned with public architecture. The patrons will be the imperial family and the senate and they will want to show off their power, wealth, and knowledge throughout the empire to constantly remind people who is in charge and to make sure that their image lives on. We already know that coins were made to protect an emperor’s identity, so it is only natural that it will move to architecture. These patrons will probably want their architecture to not only touch on the past, to show the lineage that they have come from, but also to stamp out their identity so that people know who is in charge.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 05:36PM:
passafuime: 1. The standard Roman homes in the 2nd to 3rd century BC Rome fit under the “Domus Italica” model. Homes were more than places to reside with one’s families, they were set up for patron-clientele relationships. The standard home consisted of two rooms on the outside that were open to the street, usually used as shops. The entryway (fauces) led into the main room of the house, the atrium. The atrium had offshoot rooms that were often used as bedrooms, these were called cubiculums. The triclinium, the dining room, was located at the back of the home, and places of worship, ala, were also incorporated into the home. A small garden, the hortus, was located in the very back of the home. The new, Hellenized, style home emerged in the 2nd century BC and these homes had similar floor plans to those of the Domus Italica, but they included elaborate peristyles as opposed to the smaller hortus in the first homes. These gardens reflected the influence of Greek architecture on home building. Large columns surrounded a lavishly decorated garden area. Mosaics and wall paintings were also common, and residents of the home spent time dining and enjoying their guests company in this area. The House of the Faun is a great example of this Hellenistic style. Complete with two peristyles, this home exemplified the importance of having well kept and large gardens to display the wealth and power of the man of the house. Homes in the Hellenistic style still had the same entryway with the atrium in the forefront and cubiculum as the offshoots, but the introduction of artistic gardens was the main shift of the time. 2. The Roman home was a way for the home owner, the male, to display his wealth, power, and social status in society. Everything about a home could be seen as a way to display these features. The grandiosity of the peristyle, the number of peristyles, the wall painting, mosaics, and number of clients waiting to see a patron all indicated his wealth and his power. Different styles of paintings emerged in Roman households. The first style, also known as the Masonry style, came from Greek art. This style consisted of taking a rubber or brick wall and masking it to appear to look as if it was a marble wall. The House of the Faun had 1st style wall painting. Another more advanced style was the 2nd style painting. These wall paintings attempted to transform the wall into some kind of window in which a viewer looked and saw a panoramic picture in the distance. The House of the Griffins on Palentine Hill is a house that had these types of paintings. Large painted marble columns framed pictures meant to be seen in the backdrop. The more sophisticated the artwork, the more wealth of the owner. People were not to enter homes unless welcomed by the resident, but peristyle gardens and the columns that surrounded the gardens were visible from the entryway, so people were able to glimpse at the social status of the people living in the home. 3. Similar to how homes were a way to display the status and wealth of the family, the major patrons of the art being the Kings, counsels, and statesmen will continue to use art and architecture as a way to demonstrate power. The Roman Empire adopted the majority of their art and architecture, as well as new ideas for this, from conquered lands. Generals and armies would return home from battle with war booty and goods which would then be kept in Rome. The Romans also looked to Greece for guidance in the arts, and Roman “history” and “identity” will continue to mold into its own by continuing to adopt Greek styles and conquered land’s arts. The major patrons will play a large role in the development of this art, as they will be the ones in charge of building things such a temples, status, etc. The more land that is conquered, the more victory temples to be built in the city and thus the continued growth of architecture. They will continue to be influenced by the Greeks and Etruscans throughout the rest of time.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 06:35PM:
nvitrano: The typical Roman home, the Domus Italica, resembled the floor plan of the houses of the Etruscans in the early stages of the civilization, and then like many aspects of Roman culture of the time underwent a Hellenistic transformation as the Empire expanded. The earliest Roman homes had a very symmetrical structure that served not only to the familial needs, but also the professional needs of the patrons who lived there. Guests of the house would first enter through the faunces that lead into the atrium. The atrium was the biggest part of the house, which often had a compluvium (skylight) which would not only let in light but would funnel rainwater into a basin ( impluvium) underneath it termed the. On either side of the atrium were the cubicula that served as bedchambers for personal use. Directly opposite the faunces and through the atrium was the tablinum that was thought to be the “home office” of the paterfamilias (Kleiner, 32). The house also contained a dining room (triclinum), areas for religious and ancestral worship (alae), and a quaint garden (hortus), which follow the tablinum. As time went on, the Romans began “updating” their lifestyle to match those of their neighbors to the South and East, the Greeks. The small garden behind the house soon became grand peristyle Hellenistic garden. Some of the larger homes even had two separate peristyle gardens. Columns surrounded these garden and provided a lavish aesthetic appeal to all those who laid eyes on it. Romans also started adding columns to the inside of the house, surrounding not one, but multiple atria and the triclinum.

For the Romans, however, the home was not simply a place of habitation, but “a stage deliberately designed for the performance of social rituals” (Kleiner, 32). A Romans domus, like their clothing, was an outward expression of wealth, status, and power. Roman patrons were called upon by their clients daily. These clients were not allowed to enter the entirety of the house. Mostly they would only be allowed access to the atrium, but were often allowed visual access to the peristyle gardens, lavish statuary, and wall paintings that would evoke a sense of culture and status. This visual access was a means on conveying the social status, power, and wealth of the patron to all those that viewed their home. The domus italica’s shift from Etruscan style to Hellenistic was probably a result of this need to outwardly express class to the world through architecture. As the Romans began acquiring Greek art and architecture, the Romans began to revere and exonerate the Greek form. Greek art and architecture began to become a symbol of class and luxury, and having this type of art and architecture was an conveyed that about a person.

Rome’s “history” is flooded with stories of heroic victories over far away lands and the accumulation of vast quantities of art and money that were the “spoils” of these victories. Identity is thus a function of this history. The Roman Empire constantly expands, bringing in art, architecture, and ideas to Rome form those who were conquered. Roman “identity” comes from this melding of all the aspects of the cultures they conquer. When Marcellus conquered the Greek city-state of Syracuse in southern Italy, he brought Greek art to Rome. Greek art quickly became a sign of Roman class superiority. As the empire expands, the spoils of war will just create more art forms that the Romans will incorporate into their cultural “identity”. These new art forms will become the new architectural and artistic form of expressing one’s social status, not unlike the trends of today. The patron’s of the arts are always those in places of power, so the new “spoils of war” will quickly be incorporated into the architecture all around Rome. Those in place of authority have the most influence on Rome’s culture and architecture. But like with the “spoils of war” the Greeks provided, the Romans with implement their own ideals and values of the Republic into creating a new art form.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 07:15PM:
aiarocci: 1. As Kleiner’s work states, and the power point confirms, the oldest style of houses is the “domus italica type”(45). This style “conforms closely to Etruscan prototypes”(45). This style however, progressed into the Hellenistic style, which was more Greek in influence. The Domus Italica was made up of “many rooms of clearly defined function”(31). One would enter through the foyer ‘fauces’ into the ‘atrium’, often with an opening to the sky as to allow for water collection in the ‘impluvium’. Then one could go into several rooms that faced inward to the atrium. There would be two or three bedrooms known as ‘Cubicula’ and “a pair of recesses or wings that created a T-shaped central space”(32). The other rooms could be a tablinum which was a home office and a triclinium which was a dinging room. Often behind the triclinium there would be a small garden, which was private and not for guests (32). The domus “shut out the street’s noise and dust” with its inward facing design. The House of Sallust in Pompeii is a strong example of this early design. Art and architecture progressed into a more Greco-centric style around the 2nd century BCE as Romans began to construct stone temples with Greek architectural features. The layout for these Hellenized Domus were somewhat similar, but had the feature of a peristyle, a “column-framed garden”(34). Also the dining area was expanded into this new larger garden. Often these peristyles would be decorated with fountains and sculpture (34). The style is much “larger and far more luxurious” but retained the inward looking nature of the domus italica (34). The House of the Faun and the House of the Vettii are some of the best-preserved examples of the Hellenistic domus style. In the image of the House of Vettii from the power point, the garden view shows the Greco style columns and large garden. This incorporation of the Greek style into the Roman/Etruscan style is what evolved into the Roman style.

From what I have read, seen, and heard in lecture, it seems that the house was one of the most important ways that Romans could express themselves visually to everyone around them. The Roman home was not just a house, but also a place for important entertaining and business, so naturally homeowners wanted to show off their taste and power through the architecture and interior design. Professor Molholt and Kleiner have both emphasized that art and architecture inspired by the Greeks was a public declaration that one was intellectual, well versed and had fine taste. This could be shown off in either in one’s domus or villa through architecture and art. The House of the fawn is in a Hellenistic style, which included not one but two extremely Greek successive peristyles. These would show that he was very important and understood the classical value of having some green space in ones home for walking and conducting business or having a lavish outdoor meal (37). In addition, this home had a terastlye, which was a luxurious type of atrium with four columns. The terastyle according to Kleiner is a clear sign of the “fascination Roman patrons and builders had with the trappings of Greek architecture”(37). The interior of the House of the Faun shows the sort of luxurious art that homeowners would include to prove their wealth and status. The exterior of the house has two large columns in the Greek style and the owners with “sufficient means decorated them with statues, mosaics, and mural paintings”(45). The house is noted for its mosaics, a type of home decoration that was expensive and popular. The finest mosaic at this house covered the floor of an exdra, a room framed with two Corinthian columns, situated between the two peristyles (37). This mosaic is a representation of a Greek panel painting from the 4th century BCE of the Battle of Issos between Alexander the Great and the Persian king Darius III (37). This impressive work would have “lent prestige to its owner-through both the fame of the painting and the nature of its subject”(37). Other important types of art that could express this same sort of prestige were mural painting in both the first and second style as seen at Pompeii in places and the House of the Faun. The “first style” was much more indicative of the Hellenization of the Roman domestic architecture and the second was a more a Roman invention (40). The use of foreign styles throughout history has been away of representing the expanse of ones power, wealth, and intellect. 3. I think that the Roman identity’s evolution will correspond to the art and architectural styles of the empires that they conquer. The Roman style appears to be derived from the combination of many aspects from different cultures. Thus, the identity will shift as they encounter and take over more Eastern and western societies who have developed their own identities. This means that art exemplifies the military power of the nation, therefore I believe that the major patrons of art will start to create grandiose buildings and sculpture to show their own personal role in Rome’s glory.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 07:45PM:
lwilliams: 1.The Domus Italica was built around an axis that ideally followed the line of sight directly from the fauces, or jaws of the house, through the atrium, the main living area, into the tablinum, where business was conducted, ending in the private family garden. This linear progression allowed all visitors to embrace the depth and magnitude of the house, while only inviting them insofar as their status allowed. Besides lying on an axis, the Domus Italica had an inward facing design. The atrium, where the compluvioum/impluvium structure provided both an interesting and perhaps religious feature, and serviced as a water collector, was the center of living. Nearly all other rooms opened onto the atrium, which was also the sole source of light into the house. The house of the surgeon is an example of this design. Over time, the simple design of the house incorporated Greek features. The house of Trebius Valens follows the typical linear plan, centered around an atrium, but the garden has been Hellenized, with a partial colonnade and outdoor dining room. This colonnaded garden, called a peristyle became the norm in Roman houses. Over time, houses became even more elaborate, sometimes including multiple atria, like the house of the faun, and excessive mosaic and fresco ornamentation. 2. The owners of a house were able to impose the importance of their family on any visitor to the house. In the fauces, the very first portion a visitor would necessarily encounter, a homeowner would place portraits of their important ancestors. Direct views through the center of the house would tempt visitors with its opulence, but the importance of the family in relation to the visitor would be imposed by only allowing a visitor partially into the house. A house incorporating Greek elements, like a peristyle, would also demonstrate the culture and wealth of the owner. 3. As the Roman home evolved to become more elaborate by incorporating Greek elements and overwhelming decoration, thus conveying the importance of the family, so too will public architecture become more elaborate. Romans society emphasized the importance of the individual, as demonstrated by their love of life-like portraits, but also demanded respect for Rome as a whole and its history. Ostentatious public monuments that were designed as gifts to the Roman citizens were opportunities for a patron to both commemorate Roman history, demonstrate their deference to the Roman people as a whole, and display their personal wealth and power.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 08:22PM:
nwalker:As visible in the power points and throughout the readings, the traditional “domus Italica” floor plan progressed significantly throughout the times of the Roman Empire. As the first “domus italica” floorplans contained an atrium that provided a sufficient location to conduct business, a necessary feature of the time. In addition to “cubiculums”, or small bedrooms, the “domus italica” also contained a private garden that was not intended for most guests. However, this typical floor plan evolved drastically due to the diverse nature of the Roman Empire. In examples such as House of the Vetti, there is clearly an employment of Greek architectural design, evident in the interior, ‘first-style’ columns that are within the house, as well as the peristyle, a large garden with an outdoor dining space in the back of the house. Many of the paintings and mosaics used within these houses were also of Greek influence, illuminating the Roman’s appreciation for variety in art. In examining the portrayal of identity within Roman art and architecture, it is important to note the desires of the Romans to express superiority and wealth. Many of the preserved, pretentious spaces, such as the House of the Faun, contain a variety of elements that were attempts to make status visible- “first style” wall painting, using faux, cheaper materials to imitate more expensive ones, shows that the Romans did truly care about how they were seen in society. However, the use of practices such as the “first style” indicate that more status could be achieved, as they could not afford (or did not wish to spend) the amount of money needed for authentic, elegant material. The use of mosaics and murals were also intended to display high status in that the owner could be seen as a culturally rich man. Finally, elements such as the colossal gardens that progressively grew in size progressively throughout the development of the “domus italica” would indicate wealth and status, in that business was often conducted in the garden spaces, providing evidence of abundant property ownership. It seems that “history” and “identity” are staples of Roman art and architecture as a whole. The evidence of such importance can be seen through action such as displaying sculptures of ancestors and other family members as well as collectively having art and sculptures that come from a variety of dates and locations throughout the Roman Empire. Identity is also obviously expressed throughout Roman art history, evident in ‘costumes’ of nudity many sculptors would place on their figures, or signs of aging (wisdom) portrayed on a facial sculpture of a Roman figure. That said, it seems inevitable that these concepts will seep into public art and architecture, and they were likely portrayed through a variety of artistic mediums, such as public gardens, museums, and building facades themselves.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 08:28PM:
jpardoe: 1. Using the images in the above power point presentation, describe the progression of architectural features we can see in the floor plans of the houses regarding the addition of new features over time, and -Over time Roman houses evolved from the typical layout of the Domus Italica to the larger and grander houses such as the House of the Faun. The typical Domus Italica has an entry way known as the jaws which leads to an atrium with a impluvium in the middle and several cubiculae off the atrium. There would also be alae which are wings and a dining room that lead to the hortus or garden in the back. This simpler design eventually evolved into a house such as the House of the Faun which had a lot more rooms and two gardens known as a persistyle. A peristyle involves some Greek architecture because it incorporates columns into the garden. A peristyle is a garden that is surrounded by columns on all sides. The houses would grow out from the Domus Italica floor plan and add different wings of the house and expand horizontally and sometimes vertically. Every house would keep the basic Domus Italica layout near the front of the house.

2. Briefly discuss how the architecture of the houses add to or detract from the image of identity that the owners wished to present. -The architecture of the houses definitely add to the image of identity that the owners wished to present. A house is what the public sees and is one of the only ways it has to judge or base what the owner is like. The bigger or grander the house, it would be imagined that the owner is very wealthy and is higher up in society. The owner of such houses would want to show off either their wealth or importance and architecture was a good way of doing that. Their architecture and houses would definitely add to the image of the identity of that owner. 3. How do you predict that Roman concern for “history” and “identity” will extend to public architecture during the Empire? Think about the major patrons of the art (i.e. the imperial family and powerful senators) and the main stage for architectural ostentation (Rome). -Rome was an Empire that was built off the ideals of power and force and a love for the arts and architecture. Romans loved to show off their victories and other types of endeavors with public works of art and architecture. Public architecture in Rome will always reflect the identity and history of the Roman people. They will always want to be the biggest and the best, this ideal will definitely come across in the public works constructed. The imperial families for example built great palaces, homes, and villas all across Rome and Italy. Not to mention the other powerful people who also constructed great pieces of art and architecture all throughout Rome. Everywhere you turned in Rome there was great and ostentatious architecture. This identity will not get lost during the Empire while it grows.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 08:40PM:
gwhitridge: The houses of Rome changed drastically from the Domus Italica plans. Originally houses were designed to be not only a place of living but also a place of business. The Domus Italica plans featured two stores at the front of the house; either to be rented out or run by the owners of the house. The impluvium served as a way for the house to catch and use rainwater. The private part of the house was the garden in the very back. The House of Faun exemplifies the changes that had been made to houses. More stores were added to the front of the house. A second peristyle was added which was much larger than the first and has Greek influences. A second artrium was added which was used solely for the private use of the family. Another aspect that changed dramatically in the houses over time was the artwork. Originally the artwork was created to make the walls look like they were marble, however by the mid first century BCE, artwork in the house transformed into painted walls, stuccoed ceiling and a mosaic on the floor.

The architecture of the houses very much resembled the image of identity the owners wanted to present. The architectures of the houses show how extravagant each owner was through the details that are present in each room. For example the more luxurious the atrium means that the owner had a fascination with Greek architecture. The copies of art inside the house also show the prestige of the owner, as exemplified in the House for the Silver Wedding.

Rome was a magnificent city, which was great in part due to its architecture. The architecture can be traced to those who had the initiative to build each building. Thus far in our learning of Roman architecture we can give credit to Roman generals for building tremendous shrines thanking the Gods for their victory. Eventually I predict that powerful families and senators will have a significant influence on the type and style of structures being built.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 08:41PM:
kmanalo: 1. As is evident in the powerpoint and in other responses on the page, Roman houses transformed to more ostentatious exhibitions of wealth, power, and political message while retaining many attributes of the representative domus italicus. Although one can see a general axial symmetry, the more elaborate houses, such as the House of Trebius Valens, the House of the Vettii, and the House of Faun did not have as much obvious regularity. The fauces, atrium, impluvium, cubiculum, alae, tablinum, and triclinium are present in all of the houses, but renovations to the essential plan took place at the rear. In the house of the surgeon, a portico existed between the tablinum and the garden. In the more complex House of Trebius, a larger portico introduced the peristyle garden, a Hellenized addition to the house, which the homeowners would walk within during leisurely hours. The House of Faun maximized both atria and the peristyle garden in the back. The visitors to the household, who would only be allowed passage as far as their status corresponded to, would only visualize the most private and elaborate area of the house – the garden. The garden size and decoration (at times, numerous sculptures provided enjoyment) correlated with how much the owner wanted to display his or her wealth. 2. The architecture of the houses, and every detail for that matter, added to the image of identity that the owners wished to present. Even before entrance to the House of Faun, visitors and those who even pass by witness the mosaic “welcome mat” outside the house that says “HAVE” – “Hail to you!” – in Latin, which tell us about the possible Latin pretentions of the owner. The House of Faun’s façade, the second architectural aspect of the house that visitors encounter, is grandiose, composed to high pilaster columns with ionic columns, suggesting that the owner has leaning towards Greek culture. Whatever the owner chooses to add to the house, whether it is a larger peristyle or a mosaic of a Greek war battle, expresses the interests, wealth, and power of that owner. 3. Roman concern for “history” and “identity” will extend to the public architecture during the Empire, and the buildings and structures that will be erected will reflect the political motives of the commissioners. Since those who provide the money for an edifice do so most likely in order to send a message to the people. A dedication to a deity reflects what that certain patron is praying for or asking for help with, and a temple dedicated to a war general communicates the importance of military strength and the significance of that general. Prominent structures that will be built later on will most likely represent the lifestyle of those highest in power because they have the ability to fund the construction, so their wishes will be of most importance.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 08:43PM:
C.Hoffman: 1. Roman architecture gradually evolved over the span of the Republican. Most elements of Roman architecture were influenced by other cultures and as a result, Roman architecture became an amalgamation of Etruscan and Hellenistic features. Early Roman homes featured characteristics of the Domus Italica. Each room in the Domus Italica so clearly served a specific purpose. The standard Domus Italica of the late 3rd century BCE featured a fauce through which one would enter the home. This led to a large reception area, the atrium. The rooms to the side of the foyer are (or fauce) could open inward facing the atrium or outward and could operate as shops that were run by the owners of the home or were rented out. The atrium served as a place where business or formal transactions could be made. Featured in the rear of the home was a hortus, a private garden that was meant as a bit of respite for the inhabitants of the home. A prime example of the Domus Italica is found in Pompeii, The House of the Surgeon.

Eventually more Greek architectural structures were incorporated into the domus, leading the homes to be characterized as Hellenized Domuses. Builders began to add a peristyle garden behind the Etruscan inspired house. The peristyle served as a place for private discourse with guests and additional place to dine. Often times these peristyle gardens featured a fountain, marble statuary, and mosaic floors. In Greek architecture, the columns were used for external purposes but Roman architects made them their own by featuring them on the interior of the home. Two prime examples of Hellenized Domuses are the House of the Vettii and the more extravagant House of the Faun.

2. By looking in a Roman home, one could discern a lot about the owner’s identity. If the house showed great inclinations toward Greek architecture, it usually indicated that the owner was one of wealth and power. The House of the Faun is a prime example of showing off wealth and dominance over Greek culture. This grandiose home takes its name from the Hellenistic-style statue that stood in one of its TWO atria. The tetrastyle atrium, the second and more lavish atrium, exemplifies the fascination of Roman patrons with Greek architecture. Even the mosaics on the floor of the recessed area in the home shows how Romans found Greek culture intriguing by depicting the Battle of Issos between Alexander the Great and the Pesian King Darius III. Furthermore, a lavish peristyle was something a poorer person could only dream of – to be able to converse in such natural beauty, undisturbed by the hustle and bustle of the city. Not only did the architecture reflect Greek influences, but the art on the interior of the home did as well. The walls of the House of the Faun were painted in the First Style of Painting. This style imitates marble by masking the brick wall with plaster and then painting over it with fresco. The use of First Style wall painting in a home usually indicated great wealth. First style painting dates back to the fourth century BCE in Greece, thus implying that not only were the owners of the House of the Faun wealthy, but they were also greatly influenced by Hellenistic art.

3. Romans seemed to value their history of conquest very much so in relation to their identity. Romans would display statues amassed from conquering other peoples in their peristyles. Furthermore, Roman architecture evolved as the Republic became more vast. Seeing that the domus took on a Hellenized aesthetic as Rome became bigger it should only be presumed that as Rome grows more, different victorious generals would bring back more spoils of war to be used in Roman architecture. This is exemplified by Marcellus’s return to Rome with booty from his sack of Syracuse.

It appears that the Roman Empire feels the need to correlate their military triumphs to their public art and architecture. In doing so, they promote the image of the empire as an unrivaled power. Victorious generals and statesmen will amass wealth and build public buildings and forums in acts self-glorification. This is apparent in Caesar’s Basilica Julia and his building of the Forum Iulium. In the impressive Forum Iulium, Caesar glorifies himself by dedicating the temple to Venus Genetrix, as she was the founding mother of the Julian line.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:09PM:
mmanella: A Domus Italica, the standard floor plan for a Roman house, was a multi-purpose complex that set the stage for public life within the home. The typical Roman house was designed to create a sense of privileged levels of access. As most home designs were constructed with areas for serious business as focal spaces, the separation between the layers and rooms of a roman villa was both physical and visual depending on the status of the visitor or the hospitality of the host family. As the Roman Empire continued to grow through conquest, both wealth and cultural influence began to come into view much more impressively with respect to the architectural features we can see in certain villas. For example, in the Pompeiian House of the Vettii from the 2nd century BCE has a much more dramatic, luxurious, and sensual appeal compared to a domus italica. First, the vestibule entrance is an innovation that is quite narrow and dark pulling the visitor through the space between the street and the atrium quickly both physically and visually. Upon entering the atrium the visitor would have been visually guided to venture deeper into the villa, as their sight would no doubt find the dim atrium with little sunlight much less appealing than the larger peristyle space further within. This space would draw the visitor in with a garden and fountain bathed in sunlight with Greek columns running around its boundaries to support the walkways designed to appeal to the intellectual and visual senses that later Roman villas grew to master most lavishly.

Further, the House of the Vettii, owned by two freedmen brothers, was a home that was meant to unveil spaces for enjoyment that could be experienced through movement. The Vettii brothers remodeled their home from an old domus plan to focus on the sensual powers of their peristyle space. By removing their tablinum because they did not need their office space, the Vettii brothers wanted the architecture and visual appeal of their home to add to their image of identity as augustalis citizens who were influential men in Pompeii because of their donations for public works projects. The Vettii brothers wanted to entertain many guests and placed marble tables around the edge of the peristyle, as well as decorated murals on the walls to invoke a powerful visual journey that any visitor privileged enough to undergo would have to move through the spaces to admire the villa’s full beauty.

Public architecture for the Roman Empire was marked by personal history and identity. Although traditions held a strong place in every Roman’s life, the imperial family and powerful senators honored themselves and their family as much as they could before paying tribute to others. This dedicated, personal honor was influenced by both family history and the ruling elite’s preferences at the time. For example, public architectural monuments such as columns or triumphal arches were constructed around Rome in similar fashions. However, each construction was personally modeled architecturally so that inscriptions, placement, and size would bring glory to the honored patron of the monument. Whether the public architectural design was to be constructed in the forum romanum or Hadrian’s private villa where he would host many guests in Tivoli, the Romans passion for Greek architecture and culture permeated Roman building projects.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:10PM:
sspiller: 1. As Roman architecture progressed, it changed from the traditional domus italica to a more Greek style home. Domus italica typically had three doors, with a center door leading into the house, and the two side doors were shop locations. The fauces lead into the atrium. Typically, from the front door someone on the street could see all the way through the house to the peristyle garden in the back of the house. This garden was one of the primary architectural changes that occurred in Rome. The garden became much larger and more important to the house, in some cases, the garden was almost as large as the house itself. The Romans also surrounded the gardens with columns to make it more Hellenistic like in the House of Trebius Valens. The House of the Faun even has two gardens.

2. The architecture of Roman houses often reflects the wealth and social status of the family that lives there. Frequently, the gardens were visible from outside the house, but they could only be experienced when people were invited into the house. They were a luxury for the Romans because they would be used to carry out conversations that could not be had on the busy roman streets. Another expression of individuality within the domus italica was the use of floor mosaics and wall paintings. The Grecian first style wall paintings were stucco made to look like marble. On the other hand, the second style wall paintings were more ornate and were murals of cityscapes and gardens. These and additional rooms in the house were smalls ways to add individuality to Roman homes.

3. I predict that the art and architecture of Roman society will become more diverse as time passes. The empire was continuously expanding and with this expansion came a constant shift in the Roman identity. They “recycle” the art and architecture of other nations and this growing collection illustrated the wealth and power of this city. The victorious army would return home with booty and treasure and build up the status of the Romans.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:16PM:
egilbert: 1. Over time, Roman houses became more and more elaborate. The standard Roman house, like the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii, has a street façade with a main entryway and shops in the front. One enters through the fauces into the atrium where business was conducted. A hole in the ceiling of the atrium, the compluvium, allows water to fall into the impluvium when it rains. Bedrooms and alae are off the atrium with a tablinum acting as a transit way to the more private parts of the house, including the garden, dining room, and additional bedrooms. The gardens could often be seen from the entrance of the house, but one could not gain access to the garden unless invited by the house’s owner. The House of Trebius Valens in Pompeii is slightly more elaborate in that it features a Greek style peristyle and demonstrates the beginnings of the loss of symmetry of the original “Domus Italica”. Roman houses began to place more emphasis on the gardens, which grew in size. The House of the Vetti also demonstrates the loss of symmetry and the increased focus on the garden and peristyle in the house. The most elaborate was the House of the Faun with 2 atriums and 2 peristyle garden courts, where the largest court was almost as large as the rest of the house.

2. Roman people used their houses to impress visitors. They made their houses as large and opulent as possible, with houses sometimes covering and entire block. Wall paintings using “First Style” methods were painted to look like marble and alabaster to give the impression of wealth. Houses and peristyles were often adorned with columns made to look like Greek marble. People also decorated with elaborate frescos and tile mosaics. When visitors entered the house, they could often see all the way through the house to the garden, so homeowners made huge, lavish gardens decorated with statues to impress guests.

3. I predict that over time, Roman architecture will continue to grow more elaborate in order to show the Empire’s power. From what we have learned already, Rome and the Forum were filled with huge public buildings and temples, and as the Empire continues to grow and become more powerful, I believe the architecture will change to reflect that. The imperial family and the senators will want to impress and intimidate any visitors to Rome, so buildings will be come larger and more decadent. The buildings will continue to incorporate styles from other cultures in order to show the expanse of the Empire and the people it has conquered.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:16PM:
jwang:

The mid-Republic Roman houses were built upon the same basic plan for a typical single-family house, a domus italica, and then adopted Hellenistic it since second century BCE. The two most characteristic features of a domus italica are its inward-looking nature, with the only exposed exterior wall being the façade, and its axiality, which gives its guest a vista from the fauces through the impluvium and tablinum where visitors are received and business discussed, finally to a piece of nature of the hortus at the end. House of the Surgeon has a very typical floor plan of a domus italica. These two characteristics remained over time, but the priority of the rooms changed, and interior of the Greek style was adopted. The floor plans of the House of Trebius Valens, the House of the Vettii and the House of the Faun show us how column-framed peristyle of increasing size replaced the modest hortus of the domus italica. The House of the Faun retained a domus italica core, but added two successive peristyles expressing enormous Hellenistic pretensions of the homeowner. From the floor plan, we can also see that the House of the Faun has various First Style wall decorations that borrowed the architectural language of Greek temples, and mosaic copy of early Hellenistic paintings.

2. briefly discuss how the architecture of the houses add to or detract from the image of identity that the owners wished to present.

The architecture of his house is the most importance vehicle for the homeowner to, on the one hand, construct the image of wealth and respectable social status, and on the other hand, express cultural cultivation and fine taste. The wealth and social status is expressed through the axial design of the house. When a client waits to meet with the patron in the fauces, he can catch an axial of the entire house from where he stands through the peristyle, but he is prevented from physical accessibility and left to fill his imagination with luxury of the house. From the second century on, Roman houses adopted many Hellenistic elements such as extensive peristyles, Greek columns, and Greek wall decorations to reveal the taste of the homeowner. The peristyles especially hallmarked the cultivated living style of the homeowner where he is engaged in walking and talking as a Greek philosopher and aristocrat. The luxurious homes in Greek style allowed the homeowner to recall the life of Hellenistic kings to his guest.

I think the Roman tradition of borrowing from various artistic and architectural styles of the places they conquered will extend to the public architecture, because such reproduction and imitation can narrate the history of their conquests, and thus serves as an important way to glorify the greatness and the power of the Roman Empire. Roman concern for “identity” will also stimulate the Empire to incorporate foreign art works and styles of decorations into public architecture as a way to demonstrate Roman cultural cultivation beyond their military strength. The major patrons of the art especially those with political authority and power will play a major role in executing large architecture projects as a highlight of their hierarchal position in Roman society. But I predict that as the Roman Empire further expands and conquers more land, it will be increasingly difficult to define the particular “Roman identity” of the architecture.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:27PM:
asung: 1. The Domus Italica floor plan evolved into a Hellenized Domus as Romans attempted to imitate Greek styles in their architecture plans. For example, instead of one hortus, or garden, in the back of their home, Romans more and more preferred having lavish, extravagant gardens that could take up almost half of their home. Surrounded by columns, the peristyle garden courts, such as in the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vetti, were meant to admired from afar for visitors of the house. In the House of the Faun, the largest house in Pompeii, there are even two large peristyle gardens and a front façade that incorporates columns, showcasing the owners’ wealth and economic status.

2. The architecture of the houses, as they began to become more and more Greek to display their cultural richness, began to have elements like stuccoed and fluted columns to emulate Greek style (despite their brick and rubber composition) and first-style decorated frescoes that were painted to look like the marble of the Greeks. The peristyle garden courts were ornate and intimidating, placed deliberately in the back of the houses, inaccessible to visitors and only to be seen from the tablinum. In cubiculi, there were floor mosaics elaborately made, such as the mosaic with the Battle of Alexander and Danus, which was a copy of the early Hellenistic painting, once again referencing Greek works. Especially with the House of the Faun being built specifically to resemble Hellenistic palaces and sanctuaries, Roman houses mean to present their owners as kings with time for leisure activities and intellectual pleasures.

3. Because Romans care more for demonstrating their human victories and their superiority over other cultures, their architecture during the Empire will become more ornate, flamboyant, and propagandistic, meant to display their power and dominance over the other peoples who they have conquered. Occasionally they will flaunt different cultures’ artistic styles in order to emphasize this. However, art and architecture will also become more individualistic in some aspects since the major patrons of the arts will be trying to exhibit to others the honor, prestige, and affluence associated with their family name, such as portraits being shown on coins.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:28PM:
cparker: 1) The simple floor plan of the Roman Domus Italica was a single entry point into a central atrium from which one could view the entire depth of the residence, bedrooms and spaces off to the sides, dinning room and office to the rear, and the most private area the garden at the farthest most point from the entrance. The design was inward looking and orientated, beginning with the most public entryway, by levels of privacy. This basic structure is reflected through all of the provided examples. The progression of this architecture can be described as a movement from the simple Etruscan style where the Domus Italica’s design has its roots, to a Hellenized Domus of more lavish composure that then began to include the addition of columns, statues, murals, mosaics, as well as garden fountains and sculptures.

2) A man’s status or identity reflected by his house was either beneficial or detrimental depending on the size of his garden, size of his house, and simply how much art or symbols of decadence on display. If one had a small residence with a garden of small relative size with few paintings he may be regarded as not as rich or of high status as a man with a lavish garden or large house with many rooms. It is not much different a situation we face in modern times.

3) Public architecture in Rome centered upon the growth of her empire. The Roman’s concern with history and identity was deeply tied to its military victories. As new peoples were conquered their greatest artistic styles and works of art were brought to the great city of Rome to be displayed to the public. This tradition reflected the desire of each successive Roman emperor to be regarded as greater to his predecessors, also the desire of Romans to absorb other cultures into their own. Furthermore the expensive transportation and display of public art was likely also a way of appeasing the public whose lower classes died in conflict fighting for these new lands. I predict that as the size of the Roman Empire grows more artistic influences from conquered lands will be made public art.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:33PM:
mmcvicke:Residential Roman architecture began with a Domus Italica approach and later succumbed to the Hellenistic influence. The Domus Italica layout was adopted from the Etruscans. It was simple, yet allowed the patron to mix business with pleasure within the comfort of his own home. A Domus Italica home would most likely have a fauces with small rooms to either side for shop owners to rent. It had an atrium to receive guests and clients, cubiculums for bedrooms, tablinum, triclinium and a hortus in the rear. The Hellenized Domus approach to architecture, as seen in the House of Vettii, elaborated on this Etruscan base with Greek influences. These homes were similar in function, but had a much grander and luxurious design. The main difference was the substitution of a peristyle for the hortus, which was a Greek-styled, column-framed garden. The extremely large mansions, such as the House of the Faun, often contained multiple paristyles and atriums for extra enjoyment. Many of these homes built in the first and second centuries were also subject to renovations by new owners based on specific needs and desires. The architecture of both the Domus Italica and the Hellenized Domus homes created visual, but not physical channels to be accessed by visitors. Upon entrance through the fauces, one could see through the tablinum and into the hortus or peristyle in the rear of the home. A visitor’s status and importance to the owner could be determined strictly based on the extent of the house that he was invited to enter. Less important individuals’ journeys would end in the atrium, while high status visitors would be able to take a walk with the owner around the peristyle in the depths of the home. Homeowners would decorate most rooms with mosaics and murals so that those who were allowed to enter would be reminded of the owner’s opulence. Romans use architecture to project power and wealth. I predict that major patrons of the art will continue to expand upon the architectural influences of conquered empires, such as the Greeks, in order to establish their dominance and superiority over all other cultures by taking their ideas and expanding upon them. I think that imperial families will build and enjoy palaces with grand atriums and peristyles elaborately decorated with statues and murals. I also believe that powerful senators and politicians will build grand public buildings using the old Hellenistic influences and allow for visual, as well as physical enjoyment for all in order to increase power and popularity.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:37PM:
caronson: The Domus Italica style house of the 3rd century BCE is, simply put, a series of small bedrooms (cubiculum), a dining room and kitchen (triclinium) built around a t-shaped central space (atrium), with a private garden (hortus) in the back. This is a very inward facing design meant to shut out the noise of the street. It was also intended to separate the public portions of the house (the atrium), where business would be conducted, from the more private portions of the house (the hortus). The house of the Surgeon in Pompeii is a prime example of a typical Domus Italica house. With the progression of roman architecture came a more lavish house with a Greek influence. This can be seen in the addition of Greek style columns around the garden at the back of the house. Over time these gardens became more lush and pretentious (with statues, fountains, and murals) eventually replacing the more humble hortus, as can be seen in the house of the Vettii. The house of the Faun exemplifies an even more extravagant model of the same architecture. When a visitor enters one of these houses, although they most likely will not advance further than the atrium, they have a direct view of the hortus or perisytle. This aspect of design very much portrays the social image of the owner, as the visitor will be able to see the full extent to the extravagance of the house’s garden and the owner's wealth. Roman culture is very much an amalgamation of the cultures of conquered lands. As Rome expanded, so did Romans’ taste for the art and architecture of their defeated adversaries. I predict that because of this need to obtain, not only the land but the culture of the defeated, along with the desire of leaders to outdo their predecessors, Rome’s public architecture will continue to embody the eclectic style of many foreign lands, becoming all the more ostentatious with time.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 09:46PM:
becohen: 1. The early domus italica was a simpler design than later Hellenized homes and was based on the multi-facetted purpose of the home as a both a residence, a meeting place, and a place of business. The long spaces and progressive evolution of purpose from entryway to rear, as seen in the House of the Surgeon, allowed the owner to control the access of guests to the home depending on their relationship with the residents. The long entry hall (fauces) and atrium of the domus italica allowed visitors to wait in an area separated from the family residence. Although bedrooms generally surrounded a central space in the early domus italica, gardens were often located in the rear and in did not possess the same centrality that they gained as Roman architecture Hellenized in the 2nd century BC. Following Rome’s growing contact with the Greek world (through conquest largely), wealthy Romans increasingly imitated Greek architecture, and especially Greek temple architecture, in constructing their homes. A garden, often surrounded by a columned peristyle became increasingly central in both usage and location in Hellenized homes such as the house of Trebius Valens (or not Trebius Valens?). Furthermore, columns became a more pervasive architectural element and a symbol of status. Although generally made of rubble or miscellaneous stones, columns in Roman households were painted white to give the appearance of columns; false-columns were also a common motif in the First Style of Roman wall painting. Not only did the transition from the more traditional domus italica to Hellenized architecture represent a stylistic shift, but also a shift in wealthy Romans’ perception of beauty and high-culture.

2. In imitating Greek architecture the Romans may have wished to identify themselves with a civilization that was considered wealthy and cultured and project this identity through their houses. This emphasis on expressing personal status through one’s home can be seen in the popularity of faux columns in architecture and First Style wall paintings. Furthermore, more opulent homes, such as the House of the Faun, possessed direct copies of Greek art in the form of mosaics, paintings, and statues. Because Hellenistic art was in style, possessing Greek imagery presented a veneer of culture and power in the Roman world. However, the somewhat derivative art and architecture found at Pompeii and Herculaneum could present a rather negative image of the Romans to a viewer in the present day. The Romans’ lack of original artistic and architectural advances in the late-Republican period almost makes them seem like a bunch of thugs, who simply copied anything that was too heavy or oddly-shaped for a group of ten-or-so legionnaires to steal from its original owner.

3. I predict that Romans will continue to appropriate the artistic forms of conquered civilizations and especially the Greeks into their architectural styles. In addition, the centralization of power in the Imperial Period will also likely lead to a proliferation of more and larger political architecture within Rome, as power increasingly becomes concentrated into an even smaller set of individuals and families.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 10:08PM:
mziff: 1. The Domus Italica, the prototypical Roman house of the third century B.C.E., evolved substantially over the next two centuries as wealthy Roman elites became enthralled by Hellenistic culture. At first, the Roman home was a very utilitarian structure. Each room had a function and served its purpose in the daily lives of both the owner, or patron, and his clients. The front of the house, mainly the fauces, atrium, and cubiculi, were used to conduct business related matters, and the back, the dining room, sleeping chambers, and the hortus were reserved strictly for private use and invited guests. Over time, as Rome conquered Magna Grecia to the south and later Greece in the mid second century, elements of Greek architecture and thousands of Greek artwork were shipped back to the Italian peninsula. With every Roman victory in the East, loot, treasure, and tribute were paid back to Roman citizens, increasing their wealth considerably. We see evidence of both an increase in prosperity and Hellenization in the later Roman houses. In addition to the formulaic old rooms, Greek order columns were added in the atrium as opposed to the modest pillars of before and grand peristyle courts now surrounded the garden. The Roman house not only was Hellenized, but its overall size and ostentation were increased as Romans grew more concerned with displaying their wealth and status through conspicuous consumption.

2. The evolution of the Roman house directly reflects the image that wealthy Romans wished to present. The effects of the breakdown of the mos maiorum, or morals of the Republic, can be observed in the change in architecture of the Roman home. The Republic broke down as Rome’s citizens, particularly the elite families, grew more loyal to their own welfare and glory than to the state. Wealthy men strove to conquer other peoples to gain wealth, power, and the ability to hold higher offices. This obsession with glorifying the individual, a quality shared by the Hellenistic kings, was incorporated into the Roman domus. The more elaborate the house, the more powerful the individual would seem. The massive statue collections in the peristyle courts signified status. If the house contained a varied, eclectic array of statues and artwork, usually a combination of original Greek and Roman works, it augmented the image of Rome’s vast, wide reaching empire. The new Hellenized additions to the Roman home and the innumerable amount of Greek works housed within them display the goal of aristocratic Roman families to aggrandize not only their own family’s status but also to further enhance the might of the Roman Empire.

3. During the Empire, the rulers of Rome will want to justify its status as capital by making it the grandest and most impressive city in the Mediterranean world. Rome’s public architecture will become increasingly monumental to convey the power of its rule. The forums, basilicas, and other major public works will become more symmetrical and axial, conforming to an imperial style of design. These imperial buildings will be constructed all across the empire reminding the conquered of Rome’s dominance. Granted, though the architecture commissioned by wealthy patrons in the far off provinces of Rome will undergo hybridization and syncretism as a result of the tremendous mix of cultures, buildings which represent the supremacy of Rome will closely follow the guidelines of those commanding structures backed by the caesar already built in the capital city.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 10:09PM:
avela: 1. Roman home architecture was influenced by both the public and private uses of the home space and is reflected in the very basic and functional Domus Italica floor plan. The front spaces of the home served to receive the public and housed visitors waiting to do business with the owner, and front cubicula could be used for anything from rented shops to holding meetings. Other parts of the home served as spaces for entertaining guests, with the exception of the hortus, which was reserved exclusively for the family’s private use. This basic structure lent itself to embellishments influenced by Hellenistic artistic and architectural conventions. Eventually the Domus Italica evolved into a more complex and ornate structure, with columns surrounding the hortus and wall murals to evoke the look of marble and other stonework. 2. The architecture of the Roman home reflected the wealth, status, power, and political or cultural inclinations of the owner. The many large public spaces in the home would have shown that the owner was important in business or politics and had a need for a space to receive his visitors, while a use of Hellenistic innovations in the art and décor of the home would have indicated the owner’s sophistication and displayed their wealth. On the other hand, the House of the Vetti shows more of a focus on private spaces such as the hortus, indicating that although they were wealthy and sophisticated, the Vetti brothers’ work as merchants did not necessarily require them to receive many visitors in their home. 3. The Romans were chiefly concerned that their homes be both functional and transmit a favorable impression to the public by showcasing the owner’s power and prestige. This attitude indicates that public architecture in the Empire will be expected to perform similarly by reflecting the agenda of the various families or groups that might fund architectural projects and serving to showcase their wealth and power.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 10:20PM:
csmith: 1. While the standard Domus Italica floorplan represented an ideal layout in terms of functionality and tradition, by the 2nd century BC a Hellenized Domus plan began to characterize Roman houses. Under the influence of Greek architecture, the core design remained the same (the atrium, several cubicula, the ala, etc) with the addition of a peristyle garden court that was visually accessible upon entry but physically inaccessible without a personal invitation. A row of columns encircled the space to aesthetically enhance the setting while elevating the status of the family who could afford these excessive luxuries (such as the owner of the House of the Faun who incorporated columns on the exterior façade of his home). Usually these columns were stuccoed in white to resemble Greek marble and further enriched the social stature of the individual and his family name. The dining room was now constructed with regards to the peristyle garden court and served as a beautiful view to enjoy while eating. Evident in the progression from the Domus Italica to a Hellenistic Domus plan is a critical shift in priorities that significantly influenced Roman society and their architecture.

2. The architecture of both the Domus Italica plan and the Hellenized Domus plan served to amplify the social image of the owner through particular aesthetic principles and structural configurations. While the Domus Italica floorplan reflected the rituals of a patron-client relationship, the Hellenized Domus plan aimed to impress and dazzle through spectacular art work comprising statues, mosaics, mural paintings, and anything marble. For high quality decoration, particularly in the context of villas, an eclectic array of art was viewed as a virtue as well as a signifier of wealth, power, and tradition.

3. Evident during the Republic was an integration of both Greek and Etruscan artistic techniques that resulted in a style that was distinctly Roman. I predict that the Romans will continue to incorporate the art of their conquered civilizations into their culture—an assimilation that would extend to their architectural frameworks and subsequently shape their identity.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 10:38PM:
E Johnson: 1. The shift in house layout entailed a change in the priority of style over function. Earlier Roman houses were simpler, with a clear symmetrical layout that accommodated all aspects of life, from sleeping to business to eating. However, with time, styles became more complex and more Greek, adding in elements like gardens surrounded by columns that didn't enhance the practical aspects of the property, but instead gave it a borrowed flair and implied message of status.

2. This flowering of Greek-style additions would seem at first glance to de-emphasize the Roman-ness of the house, but the later houses retained a distinctly Roman character in their admittedly more complex layout. The most important change in the identity message being conveyed is that the Roman owners were men of status and in tune with the Greeks who came before them, rather than just another tribe with the good enough fortune to be surrounded by hard-to-invade hills.

3. I expect the borrowing-while-adding strategy will continue, as Greek sculptures continue to be incorporated into the political and historical life, and the other cultures that fall under Roman rule will meet a similar fate. Even if they do not share with the Greeks a history of power, these conquered peoples' art will still nevertheless help shape what it means to be Roman, and so I would not be surprised if their influence spreads all across the empire.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 10:48PM:
lfernandez: 1. During the 3rd century BCE, the standard single-family Roman house was the domus italica, which consisted of many rooms with clearly defined functions (depicted on the first slide). The origin of the domus italica, noted by both Vitruvius and Varro, is traced to the Etruscan house, which may be seen in the Tomb of the Shields and Chairs in Ceverteri. The fauces serve as an entryway leading to the atrium, the main room and a place for important business. The compluvium, a central opening in the roof of the atrium, is placed directly over the impluvium, which is a basin for catching rainwater. Cubicula (bedrooms) and alae (space for religious worship) were also prominent features of the domus italica. Located towards the back of the house, the tablinum, or home office, which is flanked on both sides by the triclinium (dining room), leads to the hortus (a small garden). The House of the Surgeon, located in Pompeii, contains all of the elements of the domus italica. However, the standard domus italica floor plan evolved into a much more elaborate Hellenized domus plan, which retained the core of the domus italica, but was influenced by Greek architecture. Located in Pompeii, the House of Trebius Valens, along with the House of Vetti, conform to the Hellenized domus plan. Both contain peristyle gardens framed with columns, which may be seen from the front of the houses, for they maintain the axial view of earlier floor plans. These houses also contain an indoor peripteral colonnade, echoing the architecture of a Greek temple. The House of the Faun is the largest Hellenized house in Pompeii, taking up an entire block. It contains two atriums, as well as two peristyle gardens. Although these homes still conform to the core characteristics of the domus italica, they contain a significant amount of Greek architecture, as well as mosaics and sculptures depicting Greek lore. Also, the private rooms are virtually invisible to guests because of their placement in the Hellenized version of the Roman house.

2. The appearance of a Roman house, like the external appearance of a Roman, reflected the owner’s wealth and social status. The Romans prided themselves on adopting various aspects of Greek and Etruscan domestic architecture. The addition of luxurious, ostentatious rooms or spaces certainly adds to the identity of the Romans, as well as the values they cherished most. The House of the Faun, for example, takes up an entire block. The largest mansion in Pompeii, it contains two atriums, as well as two large peristyle gardens. These grand and spacious peristyle gardens were ideal for engaging in intellectual conversations, for they were spaces of relaxation and leisure, separate from the hustle and bustle of the noisy streets. In addition to architecture, wall paintings increased the luxurious nature of Roman houses. The “first style” imitated the costly marble panels of the Greeks by using a painted stucco relief (seen in the Samnite House in Herculaneum). The “second style” dissolved a room’s confining walls and replaced them with the illusion of an imaginary, three-dimensional world (seen in the House of the Griffins in Rome). These two methods of mural painting increased the luxurious identity homeowner’s wished to portray, but in a non-costly manner.

3. The Roman concern for history and identity will extend during the Empire through public architectural works. Julius Caesar, for example, began work on a new forum, Forum Iulium, before his assassination. According to Kleiner, Caesar designed this forum not only to provide additional space for public business, but also as a means of glorifying himself, serving as a reminder of his divine lineage. The history and identity of the Romans will also be extended in public architecture constructed as a result of successful campaigns and military triumphs. Pompey, for instance, constructed a lavish theater in the Campus Martius right outside of Rome in 61 BCE as a result of his successful campaign in the eastern Mediterrean.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:03PM:
jbobroskie: I find it hard to compare these images to some degree because of the difference in the size of the houses represented. The first picture shows a house I could imagine an average family owning while the last one shows a house that seems grand for a common person even during the height of the empire. Out of context its hard to say whether or not I'm looking at the effects of Rome's increase in wealth during the height of its empire on the same socioeconomic group or if I'm seeing a meer disparity in wealth. Even so Its hard to deny the gradual increase in Hellenistic elements in Roman architecture. During the imperial period the Roman elite ruled the world in a quite literal sense. The wealthiest Romans indulged in luxuries from around the empire. they took in the finest foods, paintings, statues, and animals the known world had to offer. Architecture was another way to show off ones affluence and wealth.

3) I have always found the question of Roman identity to be an odd one. Its easy to say that Romans start borrowing heavily from the Greeks in the 2nd century CE but by this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans simply considered anything that came out of Greece to be Roman. By that point it had been ~250 years since the Greeks fell under Roman rule. Its been roughly the same amount of time since the declaration of independence and I in no way feel British.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:10PM:
ylee: The typical housing of the mid-Republic, the domus italica, contained rather invariable arrangements of spaces: a narrow entrance, fauces; a large central reception area, the atrium; an opening for light and rainwater collection, impluvium; two or three bedrooms, cubicula; wings, alae; home office, tablinum; dining room, triclinium; and a small garden only accessible to family members and the most intimate friends, hortus. This domus italica housing plan closely resembles the Etruscan house; Republican domestic architecture grew out of the Etruscan tradition (Kleiner,33) During the second century BCE, Romans added Hellenistic touches to their residences. Builders added a column-framed garden, peristyle, behind the Etruscan-style house, replacing the modest hortus (Kleiner, 34). The House of Vetti, Pompeii is one of the best preserved houses of this later type. Its peristyle garden contained marble tables and splendid mural paintings. The floor plan of the House of the Faun, built in early second century BCE, reveals that this Roman domus contained not just one peristyle, but two: one big and the other huge. These square peristyles were filled with lavish Hellenistic ornaments including mosaics and rows of marble sculptures. Moreover, it also had two atria: a traditional Etruscan-derived atrium for the public rituals o the house and the other smaller but more elaborate atrium for the private use of the family.

Roman houses were not just residences but also an extension of offices; the client-patron social system made Roman citizens visit others’ houses and invite friends to own houses frequently. When classic Greek art works were introduced from the victory battlefields to the city of Rome, Romans were inspired by them. Soon they wanted to acquire a similar lifestyle as Greek royalties once had. There created the first and second style murals and numerous copies and additions of Hellenistic style sculptures. Filling up their house with Hellenistic style ornaments, Romans wanted to elevate their social status and show others that they indeed reside inside palace like houses.

Romans held eclecticism as a highly esteemed virtue. Because they saw themselves as the citizens of the center of the world, they had ought to select the best amongst diverse cultures and add their own styles to create a new mix-and-match style. Romans also valued individuals; in terms of making sculptures, while Greeks tended to depict general stories or mythologies, Romans enjoyed creating an artwork showing specific incidences or particular individuals. This philosophy had been shown in their domus, and I believe that it will also be displayed in public architecture during the empire. These public architectures, funded by rich individuals, will definitely contain several cultural aspects, notably Hellenistic and Etruscan, while the individuals’ family names or feats would had been portrayed in ornaments.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:58PM:
otraynor: 1) The floor plan of the Domus Italica, which is used many times in cities like Pompeii, indicates a separation of public and private that was highly valued by Romans. The front of the house, seeing as it was directly next to the street, was the most public part of the Domus Italica. The front part of the house was meant for business and other such dealings. For instance, front rooms were sometimes open to the street and used as shops, and the main entryway, the fauces, was used as a place for the homeowner to conduct more personal business. The fauces was usually as far as any visitor would go into another’s home, unless he or she were a close friend. Flanked by cubicula and alae, the fauces was also open to the rear of the home, and provided visitors with a view of the more private spaces in the rear. As wealthy Romans began to Hellenize their floor plans, the private sphere of the home became an even greater percentage of the overall structure. The House of the Faun, one of the most lavish homes in Pompeii, is a prime example of the newer Hellenistic home architecture. The more public, front portion of the house is still very similar to the Domus Italica style because of its traditional fauces, surrounded by several rooms of varying use, which then led to the atrium and a view of the rear. The back half of the House of the Faun, however, is very Greek in its construction because it contains two peristyle gardens. The House of the Faun and the House of the Vettii, which also contains a peristyle garden, show that there was an increasing tendency to building a Hellenized home instead of a Domus Italica style home.

2) Roman homes became more and more like those of the Greeks because Romans had become so respectful of Greek culture. Therefore, a wealthy Roman constructed his home with Hellenistic influences so that he would seem cultured and aristocratic. The division of public and private also added to his ability to appear wealthy and important. Whenever someone entered the fauces to conduct business, he or she would often be able to see all the way to the rear of the home, where more private matters took place. In the case of the Vettii brothers, the floor plan of their home was such that anyone who entered could see into their peristyle garden from the fauces. The House of the Faun, which was even larger, would have awed any guest with its dual-atria each flanked by several rooms on every side. The guest would then see the first peristyle garden, and perhaps the second, depending on how far into the house they were allowed. Each of these two homes were certainly meant to inspire awe and respect into visitors, as well as make it clear that guests were only allowed into the public spaces of the house.

3) For the largest and oldest Roman families, history and identity were central to their homes’ architecture. Similarly, there would be an emphasis on the patron family’s lineage and prominence whenever it paid for the construction of a public building. Take, for instance, the Basilica Julia, constructed by the Julian clan. Its central location in the city made sure that every Roman could see and admire it. Because the building was open to the public the Julians could be seen as great benefactors, increasing the family’s prestige. Individuals looking for personal glory were also great patrons of the arts during this period. During his struggles for power and influence with Julius Caesar, Pompey erected his great theater on the Campus Martius. Pompey’s theater was one of the largest free standing theaters of its time, and it must have commanded respect from any who saw it. Roman public works often served a similar purpose as the house, but on a more public scale. They allowed individuals and families to display wealth and power to the public on a daily basis.

Posted at Feb 10/2011 11:59PM:
nfadaifa: The architectural style of the Roman domus Italica was styled to accommodate to a patient-client relationship important in Roman life; three doors open to the street and two rooms on either side of the entry way were open to the street and were a basis for public life and small businesses with the home. The atrium, the most important room, a wide space at the center was followed by the tablinum (master bedroom) and the trinclinum, the garden was only open to the family. During the 2nd century BC stylistic elements from Greek and Hellenistic eras appeared in the domus italic. For Example, the house of Vettii in Pompeii conforms to Hellenistic architectural style with the disappearance of the Roman tablinum and the growth of the peristyle garden. In the house of Faun Greek influence is represented in the two peristyle gardens used for walking and leisure of aristocrat, mimicking the activities of Greek philosophers. The ionic capitals and columns in the peristyle gardens and the surrounding paintings often made to imitate Greek marble also show the outside influence.

Romans showed through adaptation of Greek styles in architecture – typical Greek body forms, those of young, athletes with the face of an older and wiser balding man ,their comfort in adapting borrowed styles to suite their values. In roman architecture, the style of public spaces, such as atriums, had elements borrowed from Greek religious architecture. In the house of the Faun in Pompeii the garden is filled with Greek elements such as columns and bricks made to look like Greek marble, but the architecture in its Grandeur is distinctly roman. The incorporation of Greek elements gave off the view of the owner of the house as educated in the arts and wealthy, however the scale of the actual house kept roman empirical greatness from being overlooked.

While Roman architecture borrows elements and styles from the Greeks they are still more concerned with proving their own achievements and greatness. Rome was a vast and growing empire with a high level of importance and attention on public life and popularity. Roman leaders needed to be able to keep public support and a stage to influence public opinion. I think Roman architects will continue to borrow elements of style but in terms of technical abilities and architectural development, architects would try and design structures to accommodate the growing empire, while emphasizing the imperial greatness and strength of the leaders through architectural achievement.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 12:07AM:
ARodriguez: 1. The Domus Italica, consisting of various rooms with specific functions, was considered the ideal residence of the wealthy families during the mid-Republic. The domus italica was connected to other houses in the same city block and only exposed the exterior wall of the façade. The domus italica plan was very similar to the Etruscan plan of various underground tombs such as the Tomb of Shields and Chairs of Cerveteri. A narrow foyer or fauces, led to a spacious reception area known as the atrium. The roof over the atrium had a central opening or compluvium that allowed light into the house and led the rainwater into a basin. The rooms near the fauces also worked as shops run by the owner and could be rented to others. Two or three sleeping bedrooms were opened into each side of the atrium creating a T-central space. At the back of the house, was the home office or tablinum of the head of the household with a dining room on either side. There was usually a small private garden known as the hortus which was rarely opened to visitors. By the second century BCE, the Domus Italica evolved into a Hellenized Domus, adopting many features of Greek architecture. A column-framed garden replaced the simple hortus with an elaborate setting for private discourse in addition to a venue for dining. The peristyle gardens usually had a fountain or a pool, mural paintings, mosaics and statues that copied Greek originals. Although more spacious and wealthy, the Hellenized Domus kept its inward-looking style. (Kleiner 31, 34).

2. The Roman house displayed the wealth and status of its owner and thus it was important to have various rooms, sculptures and other luxuries to prove economic and social superiority. Roman private homes were not a place to get away from the public but rather a setting for social rituals. In Roman society, plebeians, members of the lower classes were bound to serve the patricians, members of influential families. As a result the plan for Roman houses were designed for this patron-client system. For example, the central axis extending from the doorway to the atrium allowed for the owner of the household to greet his clients while wearing a toga. Furthermore, the Roman house was not only a place of living but also a setting to conduct business. Since even the most private areas of the house, including the dining room and gardens, were often a place of social interactions, columns, statuary, marble painting and basins were important to show luxury and expenditure. As Kleiner states, “social pressures dictated that a Roman house reflect the owner’s standing in the community.” For example, the House of the Faun, with its tetrastyle atrium and Hellenistic bronze statuette, was meant to show the wealth and power of the family (Kleiner 32).

3) Roman concern for “history” and “identity” will extend to public architecture during the Empire as art becomes an important means of propaganda for many political figures and leaders of the Republic. As the Roman Empire expands and conquers new regions, the Romans will acquire and adopt architectural and artistic styles from other cultures, especially from the Greeks and Etruscans. As a proof of the Empire’s power and wealth, grandiose architecture for the civic life will develop to ascertain their ruling role in the Empire. Triumphal arches, victory temples, and reliefs narrating historical events were built for the public in order to commemorate the Empire’s greatest leaders and accomplishments. Public spaces such as Julius Ceasar’s Forum Iulium and Pompey’s public theater show a concern to establish Roman identity and history. Therefore, Roman architecture will become not only a facility to the Roman people but also a demonstration of their civic and military superiority.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 12:12AM:
bborgolini:

1. The initial style of the “Domus Italica” was unique because every room and hallway was built with a purpose. These houses were not built solely to be lived in, but to entertain others as well. They were a crucial element of social standing and commerce in addition to their beauty. The initial style of “Domus Italica” consisted of an entrance of a narrow pathway (“fauces”) often falling between shop areas facing the street. After proceeding through the hallway a visitor would reach the atrium where they would wait to be received. Most visitors would never go further into the house than the atrium. Centered in the atrium were both a compluvium, or central opening in the roof designed to let in rainwater, and an impluvium, to catch the rainwater. Off of the atrium consisted “cubiculae,” or bedrooms. In addition to a home office and dining room in the back of the home, many Roman dwellings had a “hortus” garden, often overlooked by the dining room. Over time though, Roman dwellings developed into more expansive flats taking on Hellenistic elements such as “hortus” gardens surrounded by columns stuccoed to replicate the Greek columns, which is evident in the House of the Vettii. 2. The “Domus Italica” was an accurate representation of those who lived in the homes because even besides the murals and mosaics, the setup of the house itself showed the type of person who lived there. For example, The House of the Vettii had no real use for a study because “free men” had no use receiving visitors when they could visit others themselves. Also, the decorations in the House of the Vettii were dominantly of the god Priapus, signifying wealth and fertility, something that was evident in the home. In addition, the House of the Faun was the largest in Pompeii holding many Hellenistic elements including the Bronze statue of a Faun from which the house takes its name. These show that the owners of the home were exposed to Greek influence, and took pride in their wealth. The Roman concern for history is exemplified in the fact that their dwellings and art in general is incredibly showy in many cases. The size of many features of Roman Art in itself reflects the desire of the Romans to hold a place of power in history. The incorporation of elements of the culture that they conquer, such as the Greeks, shows their power. In regards the patrons of the arts, the greater the art produced, the better of a reflection it is on the patrons because it seems that their power and wealth produced the great art.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 12:17AM:
slink:

The typical Roman house plan was dedicated to creating a quiet and pleasant space in the midst of urban chaos. In its most modest conception, The Domus Italica, the Roman house plan oriented the space inward, toward the interior space of the home, concealing the living space from the noises and dirt of the streets. The shops rested on the corner, but everything else was pushed back toward the center of the house, surrounding the atrium. The small garden space would sit at the rear of the house, where only private matters would take place. However, as time progressed, the Romans began borrowing features from the Greeks that would make these private houses even more like self-sufficient, idyllic worlds carved out in the unpredictable city space. Namely, the Romans borrowed the peristyle garden from the Greeks, fusing the traditional plan of the Domus Italica with grander garden spaces. In some instances, these houses even employed more than one garden, using one for private affairs and the other for some privileged guests. Although the house maintained its purpose as a private oasis, its plan was increasingly ostentatious.

The architectural features of the Roman home were symbolic of the owner’s status. The size of the garden, the wall paintings, and the marble garden furniture were emblematic of economic success and political power. Ultimately, however, it was the details and the materials that were considered the most constructive aspects of identity. The first style paintings, for example, were mere imitations of marble walls, but they carried great status in Roman society. Columns were also reconstructed so that, while their core material was not Greek, their detail emulated a Greek connection, or a higher status.

I would suspect that these same affectations for Greek art will follow into public architecture. The main question will be whether they continue to add the Greek detailing cosmetically after using a basic, traditional Roman plan- or will the entire structure be dedicated to Greek methods- of building, planning, and execution? Clearly, the Romans were pleased with a fusion between styles- whether its conception was kitschy or not. The Greek detailing seems to be an important affront to the initial onlooker/visitor to a building- these are the features that give the building its most obvious sense of character, and these are the features we can most easily read.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 12:48AM:
nelder: 1)The basic Roman floor plan evolved from the Etruscan style, domus italic, to a more Hellenistic style. The domus italic was noted for its practical application to Roman life. Patrons would lead their guest through the fauces, into the atrium where they could do business and the garden could be easily seen. Later, during the second century BCE, Roman began incorporating even larger gardens (to host only the most esteemed guest) and began encircling them with columns in the Greek style. This was done to add an even larger aire of majesty to a home that was meant to be a reflection of a Romans social status. 2)The architecture of a Romans house was meant to be a reflection of their place in society. Romans that were well thought of and held esteemed positions were expected to have homes that could meet that standard. A home such as the House of the Faun is a great example of that idea. The house is filled with art, such as the mosaic of the Battle of Issos, and has a massive column-enclosed garden. Such details were meant to bring honor to the house and further the image of the owner. 3)I can only foresee the Roman concern for “history” and “identity” driving public architecture to more and more extravagant heights. As evidenced by the frieze sanctioned by Aemilius Paullus, Romans have a desire to created narratives and war stories from their successes. That, coupled with their desire to individually recognize patrons and leaders will only foster more and more elaborate works and individuals try to outdo what has been done in the past.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 12:55AM:
pmeehan: 1. The most basic floor plan of the typical Roman home in the Republican era was the domus italica which typically consisted of a narrow entrance, the fauces, flanked by rooms opening onto the street, generally functioning as storefronts with or without access directly into the house. The center of the home was the atrium which featured an open space for light and rainwater. Rooms and spaces like the cubicula, the tabulum, and the alae facilitated daily private life as well as mundane business conducted from the home. The hortus was an important feature because it occupied a space visible from the entrance, yet exclusively private, in which the Roman family enjoyed the pleasures of otium. There were many variations on the basic structure of the domus italica, but the feature that revolutionized the noble home was the addition of the Greek peristyle garden in homes like that of Trebius Valens. Peristyle gardens replaced the common hortus in many wealthy villas, serving a similar function in a more eloquent and urbane language of design: the peristyle was indeed a private space for the pleasures of otium and leisurely walking, but incorporated pretensions of Hellenic culture such as imitation columns, elaborate gardens, and statue collections. Truly spectacular homes often featured more than one peristyle garden in an ostentatious display of wealth, status, and urbane identity. The Hellenized home opened up new ways of both visually and physically expressing one’s status in society.

2. The Roman home represented a unique fusion of public and private life. The domus italica in particular was shaped by the close interaction of these functions. The typical domus italica featured rooms opening onto the street, acting as storefronts or places of exchange and business. Public and private also mixed in the tablinum, as the important Roman relationship of patron and client played out in a space closely associated with – but distinctly removed from – the hortus, in many ways the heart of private home life. The careful choreography of domestic decoration was instrumental in facilitating and shaping the patron-client relationship. In the Hellenized home, the pretentions of the peristyle garden enhanced the Roman homeowner’s image through eclectic statue collections, tranquil scenery, and floor mosaics. In the country villa, identity was more internalized than in the domus italica; although still visible from the atrium, the delights peristyle garden were reserved for close friends and family to whom the homeowner wished to express his identity as a cultured, educated, and powerful Roman who participated in the cultural conquest of the empire through the design of his home.

3. In a culture of honor and historical/ancestral consciousness, public art will most likely attempt to frame political power in the language of valorous conquest and connection to a glorious past. I imagine that architecture will reflect the Roman values of order and power through heavy structures of marble and great temples and buildings featuring broad, straight lines, evenly distributed columns and spaces, and meticulous awareness of how the buildings interact with the public space and its particular function. Statues will accentuate the audacity of victorious generals and the persuasive oratory of great speakers through clear gestures, ostentatious poses, and clear historical allusions.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 01:27AM:
mschmidt-fellner: The progression of the Roman house plan starts with the domus italica. Vitruvius goes through the steps of the standard Roman house, which are a lot like those of the ruins from Pompeii. An example of the domus italica is the House of the Surgeon. There are three doors, including two rooms on either side of a entryway which acted as shop fronts for selling produce etc., rented out or used by the home owners. Additionally the domus italica includes the fauces, atrium, impluvium, cubiculae, alae, tablinum, triclinium, and hortus. These features remain relatively intact but there is a progression towards a more grandiose plan. By 2nd century BC the houses begin to look more and more Greek, adding peristyle gardens and frescoes that look like Greek marble work.

A Roman house is an extremely important part of Roman culture, as it sets the stage for public life in the house for business, social gatherings, and ways to show off your social status. The owner was interested in portraying as much wealth as he could to enhance his status and to have others desire to talk or do business with him. As the Roman houses began to take on many Greek elements, people would use these Hellenistic elements to show their inclination towards Greek life. For example, in the House of Faun, the homeowner shows off his wealth and leanings towards Hellenistic lifestyles through his lavish garden filled with Greek statues.

Due to the desire for private architecture to show off their status and Greek inclinations, there is no doubt that this will transfer to public architectural works. Roman society is obviously invested in showing off their grandeur as well as securing their identity as a strong Empire. The Kings will definitely be concerned with displaying their power and wealth, making sure that people know who is the conqueror and will remember their name for eternity. Through this interest in displaying their status and Greek influences there will be many architectural structures such as triumphal arches that will incorporate the image that each Imperial family would like to portray.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 01:31AM:
hstrausser: 1. The typical plan for a house during the period of the Republic was that of a domus italica. Each room in this type of dwelling had a defined function, and most domus’ were variations of the same plan. At the house’s entrance was a fauces, or foyer, that led to the atrium, which was a large general reception area. Business was often conducted in the atrium, and some people were not invited into the house past this point. Usually a hortus, or private garden, was located in the back of the house. The hortus could be seen from the atrium through the tablinum, but most guests were not invited in as far as the hortus itself. During the 2nd century BCE, Roman domus’ began to take on many Greek architectural elements, the most notable being the replacement of the hortus with the peristyle. Peristyle gardens contained fountains, pools, statues, murals, mosaics, and columns usually surrounded them. The House of the Vetti in Pompeii is a prime example of the luxurious peristyle. 2. The architecture of both the domus italica and the Hellenized domus was meant to convey the identity and social status of its owner. Since homes were not only places of residence, but also places where business was conducted and other important social interactions occurred. It was important for the Romans to project a sense of high class. As the hortus gave way to the more lavish peristyle, it became easier for Roman’s to convey their wealth. The luxurious elements of the peristyle include Greek columns, fountains, pools, and more, as well as the addition of First Style wall paintings, which were meant to make the walls look like they were made of marble rather than mere stucco. The appearance of the peristyle was particularly important because it could be seen by everyone who entered the house, even if they were not allowed to pass the atrium, and made everyone from friends to business clients aware of the status and wealth of the home’s owner. 3. As the Roman Empire continues to expand and take on new territories, its superiority will continue to be reflected in its art. Public works such as victory temples and victory columns became more common as the empire grew, celebrating battles won and expansion of the empire. As more territories are conquered, their art and architectural forms will likely be assimilated into those in Rome so that the Romans can publically show off the power that they have gained on a large scale.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 01:38AM:
JGorelick:

1. Roman domestic architecture went through different phases similar to that of the temple architecture we had looked at previously. The first architectural plan in the powerpoint, the Domus Italica can be directly linked to the Etruscan house. The most notable feature of the Domus Italica Roman house is the impluvium in the center courtyard of the house, designed to catch water runoff from the roofs. These houses were inward looking on nature, and meant to create a space that was separate from the city noise and feel that was just out the front door. These designs soon moved to incorporate the Hellenic influence with a more expansive garden/courtyard called a peristyle that was designed to showcase the opulence and wealth of the family. This newer style of villa, the Hellenized Domus featured the Etruscan-style house with an added peristyle gardens made in the Greek likeness.

2. The houses and villas became a way for owners to showcase their wealth and status. In a lot of ways, the villas were meant to be a form of identity for power and status. Individuals were bound by their status in a sort of patron-client relationship, and because business was conducted most times in the house, this relationship became another aspect of the villa itself. Unlike houses today, which can be thought of as a "refuge from the public eye" (Kleiner 32), the Roman house or villa was meant to be the center of social interaction and thus played a key role in the identity of the Roman.

3. Art in Rome was a vehicle for the display of one's wealth, power and accomplishments. Art created in the likeness of Greek power and grandeur was used in different functions for by the Roman elite as a reminder of the conquest that had taken place, and the amalgamation of the Greek influence into Roman culture. Art was a means to display status, so it will become popular for us to see wealthy and powerful patrons embodying themselves into the art they are sponsoring, or including famous and meaningful historical figures into the art they sponsor.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 02:38AM:
fstrauss:1. Roman houses, or the Domus Italica began with quite a basic and symmetrical structure. Opening directly off the street, there would usually be a shop on either side of the doorway. Having entered one would proceed through the fauces (jaws) and into the atrium, the central hall. Here visitors could gather and wait for the host to appear or for a slave to lead them into a more private area of the house. The bedrooms flanked the hallway and though they had no windows they were often ornate with detailed mosaics or wall paintings. The alia were wings for sculpture or lararium. An impluvium in the centre of the house let in light through the open ‘skylight’ above as well as collected the rainwater for use in the house. A triclinium was a place for eating as well as entertaining close friends or important guests and there was a garden at the back which was often one of the most private parts of the house. Houses became more and more elaborate and adventurous with architecture. Houses became less symmetrical, such as the House of the Surgeon. They also began experimenting with Greek temple architecture, however reverting it by placing a peristyle colonnade inside the house instead of outside. The result was a fusion of culture as well as an expression of opulence and in a way sacrilege to the Greeks, in the sense that their most sacred places or worship now became part of the décor of the average roman house.

2. I find that the layout of the Roman house closely reflects the image of identity. Firstly the plan of the house enabled the owner to decide how much they wanted to share with visitors and so, how much they wanted to reveal about their identity. The house was divided into different stages and depending on one’s social status or how close one was to the family determined how far into the house one could go. Naturally the size of one’s house revealed how wealthy they were. The way it was decorated, with wall painting, mosaics and sculpture also revealed wealth and interests of the family. Sculptures, such as the Roman Patrician carrying Busts of His Ancestors, which would have been placed in the alia of the house, show the lineage of the people who live in the house, which plays a major part in identity.

3. Given that the Romans were so concerned with the image of identity and the reportage of history, I predict that both will be highly influential in the construction of public architecture during the Empire. Architecture is one of the best ways to self-advertise. When one considers buildings such as the Basilica Aemilia and Trajan’s Market, which were both located in Rome’s central area and thus would have been seen by everyone from plebeians to senators, the concept of identity is key to understanding the motivations for donating such a generous gift to the city. Buildings gave a public image to the family of the donator. They allowed their name to be recognised and acknowledged, the result of which could determine the political career of an individual. With regard to history, the Romans were keen to publicly ‘show off’ their military campaigns. By visually narrating history on columns and arches they could make it accessible to everyone even the illiterate and preserve the memory and their name forever.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 02:57AM:
rnovelline: The Domus Italica was constructed around the need to conduct business within the home in an urban setting. With the exception of the front entrance and store rooms, the inward-looking edifice was sealed all around to keep out the dust and noise of the city streets. A house invitee would enter upon the fauces to see through the atrium, impluvium, tablinium, and out to the private hortis. While a guest was only permitted as far back into this space as his business needs required and social status allowed, he could nonetheless gain a sense of the owner's wealth and power within the community. The Domus Italica also included several bedrooms, religious shrines, and a triclinium, and all rooms could have been used for domestic and business affairs. The House of the Surgeon is a variation of the typical Roman house having a tablinium opened to a portico overlooking the hortis and an irregular shape likely dictated by the street plan. Following the expansion of Roman conquest, the houses evolve to more closely follow Greek architecture resembling temples including interior columns surrounding the peristyles. The more elaborate homes like the House of the Vetti and House of the Faun have multiple dining rooms, peristyle gardens, and feature more rooms spread over a larger plot even an entire city block. The wealthiest of Roman merchants were able to create their own environments to delegate business affairs, host large groups, or simply have leisure space.

Even from the early Domus Italica, the Roman homes only become increasingly symbolic of the owner's respect for and awareness of Greek culture. Visibility plays a key role in the hierarchical structure of the Roman home where guests are able to remain within their designated room, aware of others likely also paying patronage to the owner, yet cannot overstep their bounds. By merely walking into one of these homes, because of their open architectural plan, a visitor could easily gain a clear sense of who lived there and how important or unimportant he was in the city. For the wealthier merchants, it was vital that their homes not only clearly distinguish the individuals as greater local powers but also reveal their cultural sensibilities through the inclusion of mythological mosaics and fresco wall paintings. These artworks would be situated in prime locations such as an entry way or a dining room to instigate conversation in a business or familial meeting. As the Romans were so careful to plan these homes to cultivate and address the homeowner's social needs, its difficult to see how these dwellings were unsuccessful in acting as erected showpieces for wealthy merchants and traders. While I assume the guests to the house were still critical of the pieces of art displayed throughout the home, I doubt they would have seen the pieces as markings of ignorance though maybe perhaps as frivolous ostentation.

Based on how the merchants in the private sphere were able to construct monuments to their glories, I predict that any Roman later involved in erecting a new building or monument will follow a similar austere pattern to preserve his own memory in the eyes of the people. The wealthier patrons of the city will continue to assert their influence and identity through the culturally-informed architecture they will fund. We will likely see this not only in the buildings but also in the art and goods produced in the city during this time such as a Caesar minted coins.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 04:08AM:
jconnuck: 1. The Domus Italica started as a rather simple house plan centered on a straight line of sight from entrance (fauces), through the atrium, impluvium, tablinum and back to the garden (hortus), with a few rooms off to the side of this main vain through the house. This simple layout can be seen in the first slide, but by the second slide the plan starts to become more complex; still maintaining a view from the fauces to the hortus, but no longer a simple rectangular plot with many rooms shooting off. In the third and fourth slides we can see noticeable Greek influences in the garden, which is larger and styled with a typical Greek peristyle colonnade. The last house shows not one, but two Greek, peristyle gardens and no longer has a clear view from entrance to the back of the house, such an important design element in the classic Domus Italica. 2. Roman architecture plays a very interesting role in the Roman identity, both individual and as a society. On one hand, the setup of the Domus Italica was very clearly made such that it would be immediately apparent upon entering a house how wealthy the owner was. The lushness of the garden and the decorations on the interior would certainly match the dress and social ranking of the inhabitants. But on the other hand, Roman houses borrowed a great deal from other cultures. Greek architectural influences and multi-cultural art pieces built a Roman identity not around Roman society itself, but by the cultures of the many territories it conquered. 3. While the early Roman Empire turned towards neighboring powers for inspiration, I imagine Rome’s collective ego and desire to shape history will lead to more and more development of distinct Roman styles. The Romans would turn towards innovative (and expensive) architectural feats that would show off their technology and greatness – examples of this I’m already familiar with include the Parthenon and the aqueducts.

Considering how striated the social life of Rome was, it would make sense for the extremely wealthy to take every opportunity to display their wealth publically, financing monuments to their own wealth and greatness.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 07:03AM:
chuang: 1. Roman house plans progressed from the Domus Italica style to the Hellenistic Domus style. The Domus Italica style was very basic. The fauces was an entryway that led to the atrium, where most business was conducted. The impluvium was in the middle of the atrium and collected rainwater. There were several cubiculi, which were bedrooms. The ala was a place to worship. The tablinum led to the hortus, a private garden that wasn't open to guests, except maybe the closest and most important ones. The dining room, triclinium, was generally located towards the back of the house and had a window or opening facing the garden so people would be able to enjoy the view of the garden while eating. The Hellenistic Domus style was an expanded version of the basic home plan. There was the addition of peristyles inspired by Greek temples with Corinthian columns around the peristyle. On a grander scale, like in the House of the Faun, there were two peristyles and atria.

2. Houses represented the identity of their owners. Large, elaborate, and lavishly decorated houses belonged to wealthy and prominent members of society. Owners also often tried to appear more wealthy than they were. In the first style, they masked stucco to look like marble, which was several times more expensive. In the second style, the walls were decorated in a way so that it looked 3D and therefore giving the impression of a much larger space. The architecture of the house plans also reveals how the owners elevated their identity by being exclusive. The higher status in society you were, the farther back in the house you were allowed to visit. Hardly anyone was allowed back to the garden, so just having a garden gave an air of mystery to the owner. The House of Faun had two gardens, so it was even more exclusive and private, adding to the image of the owner's identity.

3. I predict that there's going to be a continuation of statues that celebrate specific figures in society. There will also be more temples built to or in the name of wealthy citizens, not just towards deities. The Romans might also incorporate art and architectural details from other cultures to form a more complex hybrid of art that becomes a "newer" Roman style. But in the end, the purpose of public architecture will be to glorify the Empire and commemorate important points in its history.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 08:36AM:
kdesimone: As the floor plan of the Roman house changed and acquired new architectural features, the central aspects of the house remained quite similar. The narrow entryway, or fauces, led to the atrium, a wide open area in the center of which was a basin to collect rainwater, called the impluvium. Off to the sides of the atrium were cubicula, or bedrooms, and continuing towards the back of the house one would find the kitchen and dining room, and across the atrium from the fauces would be the tablinium, a home office. From the atrium one would also be able to see at the very back of the house the hortus, which was a private garden that only the most esteemed guests would be invited to enter. This Domus Italica style is exemplified in the House of the Surgeon. As the design of the Roman house progressed and gave rise to the Hellenized Domus, the most obvious changes in style were to the hortus. The private garden began to take up much more space in the house and take on elements of Greek style, such as a border of columns all around and an abundance of Greek style statuary. This type of private garden was called a peristyle, and we start to see private houses that have more than one peristyle, such as the House of the Faun. The main features of the Roman house remained similar; we can see from the floor plans that later houses have the same atria and orientation about a central axis, though there is more variation of the layout of various rooms.

The Roman house was designed in a way such that the house was very much a place of business and a means of maintaining social customs; it was not as much a place of leisure or privacy as houses typically are today. The owner of the house was often a patron who would be paid visits by his clients, and the area of the house that a client was invited into indicated the intimacy of the patron-client relationship. In this way the house was a kind of stage, and the architecture of the house reflects this way of thinking. The very fact that private homes conformed to a fairly specific floor plan as a means of maintaining social customs implies a lack of individuality, though the owner would have spaces in the house to demonstrate his personal taste. In the alae, for example, he could have portraits of his ancestors or shrines dedicated to a certain god, and he could choose certain floor mosaics or murals to decorate the cubiculae. Particularly in the Hellenized domus, the private garden was a way to display the owner’s individual taste in the choice of decorative statuary. Therefore, though the architecture of Roman houses was largely determined by the houses’ social functions, the design of the house allowed the owner to make an impression of his own style and tastes.

I think that since we’ve already seen a Roman desire to commemorate individuals and historical details, much more so than the Greeks, we will see this theme continue in public architecture during the Empire. The Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks and Etruscans in their early art and architecture, so I predict we will see a shift to move away from those styles and create their own identity that is strictly Roman. I would guess that the patrons of art who are having works made honoring themselves would want to create something that would have a more lasting impact; instead of a Greek copy with a few Roman details, a patron may decide that he would rather be commemorated in a work that includes fewer Greek elements.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 08:36AM:
clebovitz: 1. The original Roman architectural plan, the Domus Italica, sprung from early 6th century B.C Etruscan housing and burial plans. The typical house featured an entrance, fauces, flanked by small one-room shops, tabernae. The fauces led to a central greeting room known as the atrium. Surrounding the atrium were both small bedrooms known as cubicula and alcoves known as alae. The south end of the atrium flowed into a t-shaped space, the tablinum that often operated as an office to the patriarch of the family. Bordering the tablinum were triclinium or dining rooms, and finally, the tablinum transitioned into an open-air garden known as the hortus. Later on in the 1st and 2nd century, the Domus Italica underwent Greek influence and evolved into the Hellenized Domus Italica. The Hellenized Domus Italica maintained the basic design of the Domus Italica but featured a more expansive and at times gaudy design, featuring more ala and tricliniums. The Hellenized Domus Italica also morphed the original hortus, into larger column-ringed gardens known as peristyles. 2. Architecture in a house was important to a Roman to signal their social clout and family prestige. In the original Domus Italica, more wealthy Romans were able to demonstrate their success by having more tabernae. Tabernae were often rented out to merchants that in return for the space provided support for a patriarch’s political agenda. Larger amounts of client merchants meant a larger crowd of support and symbolized more influence. Furthermore the more elegant Hellenized Domus Italica also provided opportunities to add to an individual’s social identity. Extravagant statues and mosaics were chances to show case wealth, best seen in the House of the Faun that boasts an incredibly intricate mosaic of the Battle of Issos. Finally, column types in the atrium were also indicators of an owner’s wealth. 3. Art and architecture were means of signifying wealth and status in Rome, and it is most likely that public buildings will reflect the styles of private homes. Not only did famous Roman figures donate buildings for the city, as demonstrated by Aulus Vettius Conviva, but also they attempted to use these buildings to signify their wealth stretched beyond their personal benefit. As such, public buildings most likely featured historical statues and renditions of famous events one could find in houses like the House of the Vettii and the House of the Faun.

Bibliography Fred S. Kleiner, A History of Roman Art, 31-37

Posted at Feb 11/2011 10:03AM:
haoki: 1. In the first picture of the power point is the typical single-family house, or the domus italica, which originated from the Etruscan house. One enters through the fauces and arrives at the atrium, where an impluvium rests at the centre, opening to a compluvium that allowed for light and rainwater to come in. At the sides of the atrium were the cubicula, and further back into the house were the more private spaces for the family: the tablinum, triclinium, and hortus. Looking at the fourth slide of the House of the Vettii, one notices that the floor plan is slightly different from the domus italica. Around the large garden (No. 11) is a border of columns, transforming the “modest hortus” to a “pretentious setting for private discourse with selected guests” (34). The Vettius brothers removed the tablinum, stating that such a room was unnecessary because they were “freedmen.” By early second century BCE, there were residences such as the House of the Faun that boasted two atria—one of which was a tetrastyle atrium—and two peristyles. Just as Romans built their stone temples with Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns, domestic architecture realised an infusion of Greek styles with its incorporation of columns. 2. For someone like Aulus Vettius Conviva who was once a merchant and spent most of his life in servitude, the removal of the tablinum from his domus was a significant symbol of achievement; he would no longer need to serve, as he had received the title of an augustalis. The House of the Faun possessed two atria: one for public and the other for private use. The owner of this house perhaps wanted to present himself as both a respected figure in society and a family man. He places emphasis on his commitment to society by creating a large atrium for public rituals. Yet, we can observe that he values family just as much, for he makes the private atrium more luxurious architecturally. These Roman homes definitely reflected the owner’s social status. 3. Although the story about their founder Romulus was ingrained in the minds of all Romans, they probably had no problem forgetting about his residence: a thatched roof hut. As the Romans moved onto the second and first-century BCE, they looked back to Greek architecture, borrowed various styles—as well as content, such as Greek mythology—and incorporated them into what they already had. However, as we have already seen in the readings, art and architecture (whether a public building, domus, or villa) defined the person who had commissioned or inhabited it. Similar to Roman generals and individuals appearing on coins in the first century BCE, the private and public buildings communicated with the public—that is, in the language of power. Of course there will always be distinct Roman “identity” to public architecture; however, we must remember that there are many individuals, especially powerful families and senators, who will wish to physically display their power in the public sphere.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 10:11AM:
rcuellar:

1) Domus Italica, which can be seen in the house of the surgeon general, represents Roman culture through its layout and use. This type of floor plan, maintaining an aspect of symmetry in the house was used to help organize and keep private each particular station of the house. For example in the front of the house you would typically find the a shop, open to the public for buying and selling goods, a transitional common space for doing business , and in the back of the house there would be a garden or portico. Even though the portico space could be seen by all who entered the house only the closest friends of the house would ever get to enjoy it, making it a symbol of wealth and power to those who entered the house. Later in Roman architecture there was a shift to Hellenize the houses, which typically became more extravagantly altered through the years but originated in the adoption of the Greek peristyle gardens to the rear of the house.

2) The layout of a Romans house would both display status and power to all who entered them , having different parts of the house of limits , but still in plain sight, would allow the Romans to flaunt their prestige and wealth to those who entered the house. In an attempt to up-scale their perceived status it seems that the Romans began to introduce Greek style porticos and fresco paintings into the houses themselves. But though this was an attempt to enhance presence and prestige I believe that this was in most cases simply an act, seeing as it has been found that though these porticos looked like their Greek counterparts they were in fact usually built from brick columns that were stuccoed over and fluted to resemble their Greek counterparts. Eventually though these Greek additions along with other changes to the general Domus Italica style floor plan , though generally the original floor plan was kept intact , whilst just changing the floor plans to contain more private sectors as well as infusing the Greek style into the typical roman house plan as seen in the slides.

3) I believe that should this evolution of the typical Roman house continue, to use Greek style architecture as a bases for displaying their status and power , then the government and public architecture will follow suit. For the one thing that the Romans are looking to create is a feeling of history and identity. This identity has the ability to come through the integration of concurred lands cultures into the lives of the roman people, such as the current evolution of roman house plans. So I believe that the government would make public architecture with these integrated styles to resemble that of their peoples evolving personal architecture, for if they do not one might argue that the government and people did not share one common identity.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 10:22AM:
ereese: To begin the architectural progression, the first plan we see is the domus italica (literally Domus (house) Italica (Italy)). Lots of business would happen therein, thus the street facade would have 3 doors - 2 rooms on either side of an entryway to the home, often used as storefronts. One would enter into the home through the long narrow entryway called the fauces. At the end of the corrider one could find perhaps the most stereotypical feature of what we conceive of as the Roman domestic space: the atrium. Found in the center, this was the most crucial part of the home for serious business. One of its primary characteristics is an opening to the sky above an impluvum; this opening served the dual function of catching rainwater while also giving some light to this interior space. To proceed, oft-windowless rooms known as cubiculum could be found off the atrium. Next one could find the alae, or wings, of the home which often contained religious shrines or portraits of the ancestors. Towards the center back, the visitor would find the tablinum which was perhaps a storage space. Yet another room off the atrium would be known as the triclinium. An important part of the domestic sphere, the triclinium was the Roman’s dining room; this is one of the areas where we see the most change once the Greek style infiltrates. Romans give a lot of attention to the “levels of access” of the home; you would only get in so far as your status would permit. Lastly, in the back, the visitor would stumble upon the hortus (garden). Insofar as specific examples are concerned, the House of the Surgeon at Pompeii is a perfect example of this domus italica plan. However, in the House of Trebius Valens (also Pompeiian), we start to see a more Hellenized domus; a peristyle garden court has been added in the back, complemented by a periptal colonnade. A step farther, the House of the Vetti of the 2nd century BCE also conforms to a Hellenistic influence; the peristyle garden in the back is immense, and the dining room has been altered so as to provide a stunning view of the open, green space. In fact, even the columns were stuccoed in white and fluted to look like Greek marble. Finally, the inclination towards enormous Hellenistic pretensions is embodied in the House of the Faun, which itself takes up an entire city block. Its domus italica core is dwarfed by two atriums and two peristyle garden courts. Its wide colonnade would permit the host to walk and talk with his visitors as they drew associations between him and a king due to its abundance of open spaces and hinting mosaics such as that of Alexander and Darius.

It is abundantly clear that that Roman homes were intended to extend their role from simply domestic spaces to complex social indicators. Kleiner himself states that these dwellings were “more than just places to live. They played an important role in Roman social rituals” (Kleiner 32). Referring to the aspects of each home presented above, we can see solid connections to perpetuated identities within each. The domus italica, while simple compared to the Greek opulence of later examples, was the plan that started it all. The owners of this kind of home would have been respectable people both of business and of leisure. The House of the Surgeon indicates this well, although there is no guarantee that this man was a surgeon at all. After this, in the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vetti, we see a sort of middle ground. The owner of these homes would have wanted to connote Hellenism and all its philosophical entailments. Interestingly for Roman businessmen, they wanted to draw associations of themselves to Greece. The House of the Faun takes this idea to its most extreme end. It would be hard for a visitor to even remember his host was a Roman as they transported themselves to the Greek countryside. This owner wants to evoke associations of kingliness for which, despite its outrageous opulence, the House of the Faun would serve well.

Based off the trends we have seen already, it would not surprise me at all if Rome would continue to integrate the architecture of its conquered territories into that of its public spaces. We saw this with the Etruscan and Greek temple plans fused with those of Rome, and we have now seen the strong Greek influence in domestic areas. As Rome continues to expand its stronghold, surely it will add to its strength by not only conquering these other areas physically, but also culturally.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 10:24AM:
amarks: 1. A Domus Italica has the basic layout of a long view to the hortus or garden in the back of the house. The reason that the Domus Italica was built the way it was, was because it gave the owner the right to let his guests come as far into the house as possible. The layout of the house later changed alittle bit around 2nd century BC. The peristyle garden became a symbol of a higher standard of living or wealth. A garden became a must have for wealthy home owners, some even having two. This is a good example of how roman architecture changed over time. Such house like The house of Faun, the largest house in Pmpeii, the painting and mosaics in the house suggest some very strong greek influence, like the painting of Alexander the great defeating Panus right in between the gardens. Also in the House of Vetii, in Pompeii, the columns in the peristyle garden resemble greek marble work. 2. Like I stated in the question above the layout and architecture of the house could be shown to display wealth and higher social status. During the 2nd century BC house started to be built like the to big houses, also stated in the question above, the house of Vetii and the house of Faun. These two are example of how people would build houses to show wealth. These houses encompassed mosaics, one or more peristyle gardens, and wall murals made with brick and rumble and then painted to look like marble and alabaster. These homes were signs of what the Romans were engrossed in showing this during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Again you can bring up the fact that all these things come from the greeks. Like last week when we talked about the Roman Identity, we said Roman identity was not a single identity but a mix of a lot of different people and things. This is where a lot of Rome and Roman influence came from, all these different people bringing new ideas and inspirations to Rome itself. Making for a beautiful and “colorful” empire. 3. As Rome maintained taking over other citys and empires I think that naturally they keep adding to there diversity. Also I think that from all these empires they conquered, that they garnered many different works of art and architectural layout ideas that they themselves used to make Rome what it is. This would account for all the constant changing in Rome making Rome better and better each time something new was added.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 10:45AM:
lwsnyder: 1. Over the progression from Domus Italica to House of the Vettii, several changes in the main aspects can be seen, especially with regards to the floor plans. The first is based around a central axis, and includes the features of the entry fauces, atrium, and ends with the tablinum and hortus. The House of the Vettii, however, has a rather square floor plan. It also shows the significant increase in size, when compared to the first house. This demonstrates an increase in importance of the the gardens, which transform from the simple ones of the Domus Italica, to the much grander private peristyles of the larger houses. 2. Murals and mosaics were used to enhance the impressiveness of a house as well as contribute to the revelation of the owners’ identity. In addition, the fact that often the gardens of the house, often times the most luxurious parts, were reserved for private viewing only added to the air of mystery surrounding the status of the owners. The size of these features relative to another house was also indicative of identity, as a larger more impressive garden with columns and fountains represented a greater amount of wealth and importance. 3. I predict that artwork and ideas of conquered civilizations will continue to be used in an effort to create a Roman identity. This helps project the image of a powerful dominant nation. I also predict that the grandeur and intensity of public works will increase and develop to a greater level, to further contribute to the Roman identity.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 11:00AM:
JMorris:James Morris

1.Domus Italia an early example of typical Roman housing in the 2nd century. It has a very simple almost open plan that has rooms flow into each other. The main courtyard has an impluvium which was designed to collect rain water. The Domus Italia has one triclinium or Dining hall which was located past the impluvium to the left. A lot of transactions and business would be done in the Hortus which was at the back of the house so you would have been impress by the entire house before conducting business. As we progress to the next slide we see a typical Domus Italia plan, The house of the Surgeon, but it had a little wealthier owner with a very unique site. Roman houses became more Hellenized at the end of the 2nd century BC this can be seen in House of Trebius Valens in Pompeii. The Peristylivm, a greek word the equivalent of the Latin word hortus-garden, is much larger than in the Domus Italia example. The triclinium opens up wall to the hortus for a view of the garden to impressive visitors. The impluvium is more squished toward the entrance of the house. The tablinum or office takes more a central position in the house becoming more impressive in design. The next slide with the two images of the HOUSE OF THE VETTII has an interesting site condition that makes the plan into a perfect square. It is very unsual to see the Peristylivm pushed back to the back left. The last slide does not have a label but I would be willing to bet it is a house from Pompeii. All three of the last slides are examples of Roman houses being influenced by Greek architecture as well as culture. Many of the imagery as well as detail in ornament in these three examples are in a Greek style. 2. Looking specifically at the plans of 2nd century Pompeii houses they were design in a manor where as a guest you went through the entire house on your way to the triclinium or Peristylivm. This shows that the houses were set up to impress visitors. Owners built this type of architecture in order to present their own identity through imagery and references in the ornament as well as the statuary. Scale played a very important role in status and the larger the house typically meant the wealthier the family. Greek culture was seen as status symbol and Greek references were placed throughout the house hold in mosaic as well as statuary. Interestingly enough it makes one wonder what identity at the time really was since they were Roman and not Greeks. The linear direction of circulation as well as the direct view into the back of the house helped the owner to show off his house in all of its entirety. 3. The Romans definitely have a Greek influence during the second century the apex of this can be seen during Hadrian’s reign. As any great empire identity is built first off of imitation for the Romans it was the Greeks but as time passes Roman identity becomes more complex. As a Roman Style is further developed so is the potential for political use which can be seen by the imperial family as well as the Quaestor. Examples of Political Architecture in the Roman empire can be seen as political statements most of the time. The baths are great examples of places full of art with political, historical, and attempts at identity.

Posted at Feb 11/2011 11:03AM:
dporitz: Question 1 and 2: As the architecture developed from the earliest Domus Italica style houses to the House of Faun in the early 2nd century clear patterns can be observed as the homes become more lavish, ornate and Hellenistic in nature. For example, Peristyle columns are incorporated in the designs as well as Hellenistic temples. As the architectural style develops the addition of gardens becomes a central feature to many of the homes. For example, the garden in the House of the Surgeon is very small and unimportant as it is placed in the back of the home. In contrast, the House of Trebius Valens and the House of the Vettii have gardens/green spaces that are central aspects to the homes. The garden in the later homes such the House of the Faun dominates the floor plan occupying nearly half of the house. In general there is a movement toward more overt extravagance as the more Hellenistic homes are built so that the architectural details are more apparent--representing the wealth and power of their inhabitants. In addition to the increase in the detail of the homes is a general increase in the size of the rooms as exemplified by the larger triclinum. It is clear that the size of the homes was also a manifestation of status and wealth. In particular, the Domus Italica overtly allows the owner to flaunt his wealth and corresponding influence as the tablinum indicates the importance of the owner as seen in their capacity to entertain clients and friends who come to their homes.

Question 2: I imagine that the architecture will continue to increase in its extravagance and detail as Rome grows in size, power and influence. As the focus shifts toward public spaces I see wealthy patrons and politicians wanting to flaunt Rome’s power through greater architectural works that the general public can see and use on a daily basis. In addition, I would imagine that the importance of politics will push politicians to want to build greater structures that represent their individual power and greatness. Finally, as seen in other aspects of Roman life, architecture will begin to manifest Rome’s continued expansion as it incorporates other styles that reflect conquered nations.

Posted at Mar 08/2011 03:14PM:
aantar: 1. The Roman house evolved over time from the simple and straightforward Domus Italica to some of the more extravagant examples such as the House of Faun. The basic Roman house was designed to act as a living space, working space, retail space, and a leisurely place fit for guests. It is commercial and residential and public and private all at the same time. The more money the owner had, the more lavish the house became and it began to incorporate Hellenistic features such as greek columns and mosaics. All of the homes included some standard basic features including the atrium, an open air space, the impluvium, a small pool for collecting rain water, and the tablinum, a home-office space. Nicer homes like the House of Vettii had a grand Peristylivm, lined with columns and filled with green space. The Peristylivm was used for leisurely walking with guests and gave a countryside feel to what would be an urban inner-city structure.

2. One's home always translates to one's identity in Roman culture. It is the most personal structure and is general one's personal property which they decorate and outfit the way they like. Some features that speak directly to the owners identity are the mosaics, displaying the gods and mythology that inspired the most meaning to the owner. Also features like the tablinum, where the owner worked, or the storefront, lends itself to the identity of the owner as the profession and work of the owner constituted a great part of ones identity in Roman society. The Surgeons house is a perfect example of the live-work relationship and how the house is a placeholder for the owners identity.

3. History and Identity will continue to play a huge role in public architecture. The Romans find their cultural roots in the Greeks and constantly evangelize Hellenistic style. Public architecture that show power will contain Greek motifs on a grand scale with columns and arches.

Posted at May 13/2011 05:15PM:
rvillene: 1) The House of the surgeon general is a great example of Roman Domus Italica. Domus Italica, through its design, layout and employment represent the culture ubiquitous in Rome. The floor plan conserves symmetry that was helpful in the organization of the home. Also, each room was able to exist in its own private setting. The typical layout of this kind of home would consist of having a market shop in the front, that stood somewhat separated from the privacy of the home itself. The shop of business would be open to the public, and items would be traded as well as purchased. It would almost be a kind of common public place where conversation would be carried out as well. On the opposite side of the house would be the portico and peristyle. The portico and rear area was more of a private region of the home with the intention of portraying peace, tranquilty, and relaxation. It was, in essence, a place of enjoyment. This region also served as a symbol of wealth and prestige. IF the guest was permited to enter the portico area, he or she could marvel and embellish himself within the prestige and power of the homeowner. It is important to note how the Roman Domus Italica began to integrate into a more Greek, Hellenized form and style (The house of the Faun) Doric columns and Corinthian column’s became popular among Roman architecture. The Hellenized style was a bit more extravagant, and appealed to Greek customs and styles.

2) People used their homes as an architectural method to present an image and identity to the outside world. As the Domus Italica serves as a private home, it remains somewhat humble. However, through time, pretensions become common in the houses of Rome to shift the identity to the focus of the home. As people walk by these homes, a luxurious display of wealth is hard to miss. The Greek style successfully captured this motive. Large columns and Greek architecture displayed wealth and power. Greeks architecture as a symbol of wealth does not stop only on the outside, visible part of the home. A guest could gain an understanding of the home-owners lavish, wealthy lifestyle from within the home itself expensive art pieces, such as paintings, frescoes and sculptures exist. These art pieces only add to the characteristics of wealth, and thus add prestige and a wealthy image to the homeowner. 3) My prediction would be that art displayed to the public will take off to be a form of communication to display status, power and prestige. As history serves pivotal to identity, the government and empire of Rome is going to emphasize their success through the art and architecture displayed to the public. Not only will grandiose architecture and lavish art instill a sense of power in the Roman Empire in the minds of the public, but it will also serve as a mechanism to expand the greatness of the Empire. Building commemorations for military victories, and places for the public to come together to enjoy some sort of entertaining spectacle is not out of question.

Posted at May 13/2011 05:16PM:
rvillene: 1) The House of the surgeon general is a great example of Roman Domus Italica. Domus Italica, through its design, layout and employment represent the culture ubiquitous in Rome. The floor plan conserves symmetry that was helpful in the organization of the home. Also, each room was able to exist in its own private setting. The typical layout of this kind of home would consist of having a market shop in the front, that stood somewhat separated from the privacy of the home itself. The shop of business would be open to the public, and items would be traded as well as purchased. It would almost be a kind of common public place where conversation would be carried out as well. On the opposite side of the house would be the portico and peristyle. The portico and rear area was more of a private region of the home with the intention of portraying peace, tranquilty, and relaxation. It was, in essence, a place of enjoyment. This region also served as a symbol of wealth and prestige. IF the guest was permited to enter the portico area, he or she could marvel and embellish himself within the prestige and power of the homeowner. It is important to note how the Roman Domus Italica began to integrate into a more Greek, Hellenized form and style (The house of the Faun) Doric columns and Corinthian column’s became popular among Roman architecture. The Hellenized style was a bit more extravagant, and appealed to Greek customs and styles.

Posted at May 13/2011 05:16PM:
rvillene: 3) My prediction would be that art displayed to the public will take off to be a form of communication to display status, power and prestige. As history serves pivotal to identity, the government and empire of Rome is going to emphasize their success through the art and architecture displayed to the public. Not only will grandiose architecture and lavish art instill a sense of power in the Roman Empire in the minds of the public, but it will also serve as a mechanism to expand the greatness of the Empire. Building commemorations for military victories, and places for the public to come together to enjoy some sort of entertaining spectacle is not out of question.

Posted at May 13/2011 05:19PM:
rvillene: Augustus undoubtedly had a profound lasting impact on Rome. The amount of change that occurred during his reign, that is, from the beginning of his rule to the end, is enormous. Although, somewhat underscored, Augustus’s utilization of propaganda, through art and architecture, was enormously important to his success. Art and architecture was omnipresent in Rome, and this, Augustus rationed, was a perfect way to spread his identity and image as a great, powerful and strong ruler. Kleiner articulates that Augustus uses his portrait as a careful and meticulous method of sculpting his image for the public opinion. The Prima Porta Augustus embodies this theory. The God like influence in his naked lower half, accompanied by Cupid, resembles a God like image, whereas the toga emits Roman humbleness. Furthermore, it is important to identify how ageless Augustus is through out his art, despite his actual aging. He is constantly portrayed in the ideal age, that of the late teen, and early twenties. This is an ideal derived from the Greek ideal of eternal beauty and further articulates his power as an ageless ideal ruler. Also, Kleiner points to further propaganda in how Augustus manipulates society through the political craft of producing mass quantities of coins to be used as currency for the people of Rome. Augustus’s image appears on the coin as youthful and thus spreads his image throughout Rome. Suetonius further observed Augustus’s alignment of architectural projects with his family lineage. Honoring pedigree, and where one came from is of enormous importance to sculpt an image of greatness. Augustus even deified, and then adopted Caesar as his father. Adoption of parents, strangely enough, was not uncommon. Augustus mentions, in Res Gestae, that he took architecture that was already in existence, and made it greater, thus reformulating these architectural objects. Important to notice is how Augustus commemorates architectural endeavors not in his name, but in the names of relatives. This is interesting, as one would expect Augustus to want to take credit for these architectural works, but interesting enough, Augustus takes the humble side and reflects to the past in order to illuminate the present. Example of this are the theatre of Pompey and Ara Pacis that contains images of Augustus’s family on one side of it. Favro further discusses Ara Pacis. Favro discusses how Augustus formulated the Ara Pacis as a way to give back to the Roman People. This architectural location offered a location where all Roman people could go to and be in tranquility. Ara Pacis appealed to the Roman notion of “otium,” which means peace.

Polybius, the writer of “The Histories,” and Greek historian describes a Roman funeral of a wealthy Roman citizen. His study allows for the articulations to be made about the implications of funerary customs in Roman society. The goal of the elaborate ritual Polybius describes is to offer a respectful commemoration of the deceased person. This “ennobling spectacle,” was a commemoration of the deceased persons success, and expression of his or her legacy. Funerary events were actually rather similar to ours in that they contained a period of mourning, in which emotions of sadness could be expressed for the loss of the deceased. Also, there were the equivalent to eulogies, where the honoring of the deceases, along with the family of the deceased took place. However, in addition to this commemoration was the message of motivation and remembrance for the deceased. In this way, the funerary was a learning experience for those spectating. Social stance of the family with the deceased member was also recognized in a funerary. There were elaborate spectacles and canorous music