Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Color Plates
- List of Illustrations
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Repopulating the Street
- Part II The Street and Its Architectural Border
- 4 Sidewalks Under Siege: Houses, Owners, And Urban Context
- 5 House Façades And The Architectural Language Of Self-Presentation
- 6 The “In” And The “Out”: Streetside Benches And Urban Society
- Part III The Street in Microcosm
- Epilogue
- Bibliography
- Index
- Plate section
4 - Sidewalks Under Siege: Houses, Owners, And Urban Context
from Part II - The Street and Its Architectural Border
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Color Plates
- List of Illustrations
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Repopulating the Street
- Part II The Street and Its Architectural Border
- 4 Sidewalks Under Siege: Houses, Owners, And Urban Context
- 5 House Façades And The Architectural Language Of Self-Presentation
- 6 The “In” And The “Out”: Streetside Benches And Urban Society
- Part III The Street in Microcosm
- Epilogue
- Bibliography
- Index
- Plate section
Summary
WHEN HIS DE ARCHITECTURA TURNS TO DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE, Vitruvius first tackles the pragmatics of a house: its parts, their proportions, and their optimal orientation (6.3–4). Next, after generally categorizing the rooms of a house into public and private (the distinction lying in whether a visitor may enter uninvited), the architect concentrates on the particular rooms needed by different classes:
[T]hose who are of ordinary fortune do not need magnificent vestibules, tablina, and atria, because they perform their duties by making the rounds visiting others and are not visited by others.
Vitruvius then lists several occupations and their corresponding architectural needs. Those who resell country produce, for example, should have areas for livestock. Bankers need houses that are rather showy and safe, while advocates require elegant and spacious rooms. Ultimately, as though being an elite member of society were itself an occupation, the discussion returns to questions of status:
For the most prominent men, who ought to carry out their duties to their fellow citizens by holding offices and magistracies, vestibules should be constructed that are lofty and lordly, atria and peristyles that are very spacious, gardens and walkways that are rather broad and appropriate for their dignity; moreover, there should be libraries and basilicas outfitted in a similar style to great public structures, because, in such men's houses, public councils and private lawsuits and hearings are quite often carried out.
Vitruvius ostensibly writes about how to fulfill the house owner's needs, but this passage has much to suggest about how domestic architecture was viewed as a status symbol. Vitruvius is careful to draw an explicit connection between the public role of his nobiles – they hold positions in the political sphere – and their needs for architectural features reflecting their place in public life. Indeed, their houses are anything but refuges from the public sphere; if we believe Vitruvius (and there is little reason in this case not to), houses of the Roman elite could host civic events and were thus stages on which the master could perform his public roles. Others who do not have this status to uphold, to Vitruvius's mind, are defined by what they lack from the nobiles’ position and, correspondingly, what rooms their lifestyles do not require.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Roman StreetUrban Life and Society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome, pp. 117 - 145Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017