5
5.1 Grouping the peristyles according to their use for display
The various means of socioeconomic display defined in the previous chapter create a possibility to divide the peristyles into economic display groups. There are obviously several ways to do this, but I see that seven distinctive clusters rise from the material. The connection between the peristyles in a single group is mainly determined according to how they utilized the means of display.
The peristyle groups are the following: opulent peristyles, large full peristyles, ornamental peristyles, large painting peristyles, imitation peristyles, minor decoration peristyles, and architectural peristyles. The following chapters define each group, and the qualities that connect the peristyles of that group, and discuss how the group’s peristyles relate to the continuum of all Pompeian peristyles. To illustrate their location on the economic continuum of the city, they are compared with the house attributes that reflect the owner’s wealth: house size and luxury architecture.
A peristyle can belong only to one group, but it might fulfill the criteria of several groups. In these cases, the peristyle is listed in the first group where it fits, e.g. if a peristyle matches the criteria of the opulent peristyles, and also had a sculpture collection which is the criterion of the ornamental peristyles, the peristyle is listed as an opulent peristyle. This is because the peristyle groups are listed in the order of economic representation. The first group of peristyles reflects the most means used, and therefore the most wealth, the second group (large full peristyles) the second most, the third group (ornamental peristyles) the third most, and so on. This naturally means that if a peristyle belongs to one group, but it would also fit the criteria for another lower group, it reflects the economic status of both groups; however, as it is already included in a higher-ranking group, there is no need to include it in the later groups, as the peristyle already represents higher wealth.
Like every classification system, there are problems with this approach. The limits are always somewhat artificial, in particular when a factor is something like a specific number, such as the size of an area. It is very unlikely, of course, that Pompeians had this sort of data on all the different sizes of their peristyles, and therefore they could not say exactly where in their opinion the limit between a large and medium size peristyle lay. However, every Pompeian likely had experience of many peristyles, and they could estimate whether a peristyle was small, medium, or large compared with the other peristyle gardens of the city.
Occasionally a peristyle in a group might appear relatively different, if it is compared to other examples in the same group, while being relatively similar to another peristyle that belongs to another group. This is a problem with classification systems generally: wherever the limit is set, the examples on both sides of the limit might still be very similar, but this artificial barrier sets them apart somewhat.
Despite the general problems of classification systems, the groupings are made on the basis of the archaeological material – its similarity or diversity – of the peristyle gardens. It would be absurd to expect that ancient Pompeians would have recognized exactly these same groups, but still they saw and experienced the same material that creates these groups, and it is certainly possible that Pompeians’ experience of the peristyles could have been similar if they thought of their display use, and particularly the means that were used for this purpose.
5.2 Opulent peristyles
The first group is the opulent peristyles, which are the top peristyles as defined by the means of economic display. The group includes 14 peristyles, and they are all in different houses.1 The high-end peristyles of Pompeii had two salient architectural features: a large area and four porticoes. In addition, they had at least three of the five decorative elements: floor decoration, fountains, pools or decorative basins, sculpture, and wall paintings with central panel paintings. The criteria for the group slightly emphasize the architectural elements, as they require the highest number of colonnades and a large area, while with the decoration more versatility is allowed, and the conditions can be fulfilled through several combinations. The emphasis on the architectural elements leans on the assumption that the building process and the acquisition of space were more costly and time consuming than obtaining new decoration. It is notable that the architecture largely reflects the economic level of the building-moment of the peristyle, and the economic standing of the house owner in 79 CE might differ from that of the building-moment. Still, the architecture also indicates the wealth of the peristyle owners of the last phase, as they were able to maintain the large size and four porticoes, which echoed the owners’ economical ability to retain their high-class peristyle architecture. There was always the possibility to reduce the size or number of porticoes, if the situation so dictated. Maintaining the original configuration reflects a desire to transmit the image of economic success, even if the reality was different.
In four of the peristyles, all seven of the characteristics of display can be found. They are in the peristyles of the Casa del Menandro and Casa degli Amorini dorati, and also in the middle peristyle of the Casa del Citarista and the south peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii.2 Three peristyles featured six attributes: Casa di Meleagro (VI,9,2/13), Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7), and the Fullonica VI,8,20.3 The last example is a fullery, and the peristyle area had several basins relating to working activities in the western and northwestern sections.4 It has been suggested that the garden area was used for drying clothes,5 but no evidence of this type of activity has been reported. Instead, the spatial isolation made by raising the northwest area, where the fullery basins were located, and the vision block made from a masonry wall between the garden and the northwestern part, suggest that the garden was separated from the working activity.6 The garden probably belonged to the visual atmosphere of the eastern part of the peristyle, where the decorative elements were concentrated. Sampaolo suggests that the east side of the peristyle and the rooms opening onto the peristyle there were reserved for receiving clients.7 Flohr does not see any grounds for the commercial use of the rooms on the east side. He, however, thinks that they were in domestic use, but states that they were reception rooms, and that negotiations with clients were possibly held in these rooms. Flohr would rather place the commercial activity inside the peristyle area, and notes that pictures with fullers were visible to people walking in the peristyle.8 It is somewhat irrelevant for the purpose of the peristyle whether the clients visited only the peristyle or also the rooms on the east side, because to reach the eastern rooms one had to pass through the decorated areas of the peristyle. The decoration of the peristyle of the Fullonica VI,8,20 highlights that making a good impression was equally important in a semipublic space, such as in the buildings of a business or small-scale industry.
In addition to the aforementioned seven peristyles, there are also other peristyles that fulfill the minimum requirements of the opulent peristyle: the architectural display features and three decorative elements. They are Casa delle nozze d’argento, Casa di Obellius Firmus, Casa di Cornelius Rufus, house VI,17,32–36, the south peristyles of the Casa del Fauno, and the northern peristyles of the Casa dei Capitelli colorati and house VIII,2,14–16.9 Water installations emerge as a common decorative feature in the group of opulent peristyles; every opulent peristyle has at least one pool or fountain, and there is often a pool or decorative basin. The only exception is the Casa delle nozze d’argento, which does not feature a pool. However, the peristyle had fountains, additionally linking the display of water to this space.10
Wallace-Hadrill suggests that a pool presented an image of a public portico, palaestra, or gymnasium.11 A huge pool (34.55 x 22.25 m)12 exists in the Great Palestra of Pompeii, which would have meant that a pool was a familiar feature for Pompeians as part of a public portico; however, it is the only example. This very large pool has been interpreted to be a swimming pool, and occasionally the pools in the peristyle gardens have been described as diminutive swimming pools.13 The peristyle pools do not offer much support to the assumption that they were meant for swimming or bathing. The southern pool of the peristyle of the Casa delle Vestali is one of the few examples where this type of activity might have happened. Fausto Niccolini and Felice Niccolini suggest that it was intended for bathing, but Jones and Robinson state that the pool had lost this function in the last phase.14 It has stairs, which indicate that people were probably meant to step into it, but it is too shallow (depth 0.55 m) for swimming. The peristyle of house VI,17,32–36 is also reported to have a pool with stairs.15 This pool is not currently visible, and its measurements are not available. These two pools might have been made for bathing, but no proper swimming pools are found in the peristyle gardens.
On the other hand, it has been proposed that the pools in the peristyles held fish.16 Jashemski thinks that the amphorae in the pools of the northern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 and the peristyle of the Casa di M. Gavius Rufus (VII,2,16–17) were for fish to lay eggs in and hide.17 Contrary to this, Sampaolo posits that the amphorae in the pool of the Casa di M. Gavius Rufus were a part of a system that changed the water in the pool.18 In addition to the above-mentioned examples, the southern peristyle of the Casa dei Capitelli colorati also has a pool with one amphora on the west side,19 whereas the peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 had 27 amphorae at the lower part of the pool. The large number of amphorae in this pool brings into question whether they were used for a water changing system, and how were they sealed when the pool was full? Therefore, Jashemski’s explanation is more likely for this peristyle: these amphorae were likely for the fish themselves. In contrast, in the Casa di M. Gavius Rufus and the Casa dei Capitelli colorati the amphorae are few in number, and they are situated approximately in the middle of the pool wall; their function is not so clear. They might as likely have been utilized for both speculated purposes. All the same, there is one pool in Pompeii that certainly held fish; fish bones and scales were found inside the pool of the Casa del Centenario.20 Keeping fish can be considered a luxury practice,21 which elevates the status of the pool as a means of economic self-display.
The scattered evidence that the pools were for swimming or bathing, or that they held fish, is not enough to generalize these functions for all the pools in the peristyles. Other purposes have also been suggested, such as for the Casa dei Postumii (VIII,4,4/49), where the pool had iron hooks on the side and it has been proposed that they were for keeping meat, fish, fruit, or drinks cold.22 This function is pure speculation. What instead seems to be clear is that the pools were part of the elaborate water decoration of these peristyles, as the pools in the opulent peristyles were usually equipped with a fountain.23 The combination of a fountain and a swimming or bathing pool is perhaps questionable, but it is not entirely out of the question. For example, the pool of house VI,17,32–36 is reported as having steps down and a fountain,24 but as stated before nothing remains visible and the appearance of the pool cannot be confirmed. The connection of fish and a fountain does not strike one as bizarre. The pool of the Casa del Centenario where the fishbones were found had a fountain.25 In addition, the pool of the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1) had painted plants and fish on the inner walls of the pool.26 Perhaps the undulating water made the painted fish look like they were living and moving? Keeping fish, or even the illusion of fish, was another possible means to display wealth in the peristyles, but this function can be verified for only a few peristyles. Instead, it is clear that among the many means to display wealth in the opulent peristyles, the display of water was important.
5.3 Large full peristyles
The second group is called the large full peristyles, and there are 29 examples of the type.27 Their definition is that the garden must feature four colonnades and be larger than the average peristyle (Fig. 2.5). Consequently, the group consists of the full peristyles that do not fulfill the size requirements of the opulent peristyles, or alternatively were large enough but did not have the mandatory decorations. Some of the large full peristyles are even lacking in both decoration and size, but were still larger than an average peristyle and had four colonnades.
In the overall group of the large full peristyles, the peristyles can be divided into three subgroups. First are the peristyles that had a visual image closely resembling the opulent peristyles. These peristyles had similar decorations to the opulent peristyles, and also a water feature – a pool or a decorative basin – that creates a link to the top peristyles of Pompeii. However, their size is smaller than 305 m2 (Fig. 4.4); this is basically the only aspect that separates these peristyles from the opulent peristyles. The second subgroup is the peristyles that had a pool or a decorative basin, mirroring again the opulent peristyles, but lacked almost all other decorations. Yet, some of the peristyles in this group might be even larger than some of the opulent peristyles. The third subgroup did not have the required decorative elements of the opulent peristyles. However, they feature four colonnades and are larger than the average peristyle, and some even surpass the limit of 305 m2, being very large compared to the other peristyles of Pompeii.
In the first subgroup, there are a few peristyles that were very similar to the opulent peristyles: the peristyle of the Casa dei Postumii, and the southern peristyles of the Casa dei Capitelli colorati and Casa di Pansa, which all are just below the limit of 305 m2.28 Similar cases but slightly smaller are the peristyle of the Casa di M. Gavius Rufus and the middle peristyles of the Casa dei Dioscuri. The middle peristyle of the Casa del Centauro can be connected to these peristyles, although it was clearly smaller than the others.29 Each peristyle is equipped with a pool and fountains, and enough decoration to be counted as opulent peristyles, but they are not large enough in size.
The full peristyles of the Casa delle Vestali and the Casa di Trittolemo (VII,7,5) are very similar to the peristyles listed above. They similarly had large pools, but again their sizes (195 and 250 m2) fall short compared to the top peristyles.30 However, these two peristyles had something special compared to the opulent peristyles: their mosaic floors. Only the opulent peristyle of house VI,17,32–36 had a mosaic floor, being a unique example in that group.31 Whereas, in addition to the peristyles of the Casa delle Vestali and Casa di Trittolemo, there are two more with a mosaic floor among the large full peristyles: the middle peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri and the peristyle of the Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII,3,8–9).32 Generally, the mosaic floors are concentrated in the peristyles that were between 195 and 270 m2 in size.33 The concentration hints at the possibility that the floors might have been used to compensate for size; if the peristyle could not be enlarged, perhaps a mosaic floor could enhance the appearance of wealth?
The peristyle of the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII,16,12–15) had four porticoes, an area of 250 m2, and a large pool (4.50 x 3.90 m, depth 1.35 m).34 Its architecture resembles the opulent peristyles, but it is smaller, and no decoration besides the pool is known. The peristyle is an example of the second subgroup of the large full peristyles. In addition, there are three full peristyles – in house VI,17,23–26, the Casa di C. Vibius Italus (VII,2,18), and the Casa del Gallo (VIII,5,2/5) – which by size correspond to the opulent peristyles, and all had a pool, but they lack other decorative elements such as fountains, sculpture, or wall or floor decoration.35 The peristyle of the Casa di Paquius Proculus is very similar to the opulent peristyles; however, only water decoration has been identified from the peristyle, as well as third style paintings, although they lack the central panel paintings.36 The peristyle of house IX,6,f–g did not have a pool, but had a decorative marble basin, which simulates the same idea of a water feature as a pool.37 The lack of decorative elements in these peristyles might be related to poor documentation – particularly with the huge peristyle of house VI,17,23–26, which was excavated in the first half of the 19th century. Also, some of the peristyles might have been severely damaged before they were excavated, for example in the case of the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus, where hardly any remains of the peristyle walls survive, making it impossible to recognize any potential wall decoration.
The third subcategory consists of the peristyles with four colonnades and an area larger than the average (Fig. 2.5), but which had very little decoration – if any. There are nine peristyles in the size group of 175–300 m2, and six larger than 300 m2. These particular peristyles often lack garden decorations. Only three of them are reported to have had sculpture: the southern peristyle of the Casa del Citarista featured a bronze statue of Apollo, the northern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno had two marble sculptures, and in the peristyle of the Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (VII,1,40) there was a small collection of Dionysian herms composed of three sculptures.38 Although the Casa di M. Caesius Blandus had a notable sculpture collection, in the Pompeian scale, the herms certainly did not take up a lot of space in the peristyle. The reconstruction of these peristyles creates a vision of large open space which was almost empty, and it might have created a feeling of a certain spaciousness.
This experience of emptiness might have been particularly strong in the vast peristyles, such as the one in the Casa del Labirinto (VI,11,8–10), where there is no information on the decoration of the central space.39 Nearby was the largest peristyle of Pompeii, the northern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno, which featured two marble statues. However, taking into consideration its size of 1,120 m2, the statues were a small detail in this enormous open space.40 In addition, the peristyles of the Casa del Labirinto and the Casa del Fauno are in many details similar, as the columns and the wall decoration are almost exactly the same. The southern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno can be connected with these two because of its similar wall decoration and columns – although there were minor differences.41 Yet, the southern peristyle has more decorative elements than the northern peristyle and the peristyle of the Casa del Labirinto and, in this study, it is identified as an opulent peristyle, meaning that with regard to its display features the peristyle was clearly in a different category than these two large full peristyles.
A sensation of large open space could communicate wealth. The owners of these peristyles were able to sacrifice a large portion of their houses to create an open space. In some of these peristyles, even the wall decoration hints at the prospect that this feeling of spaciousness was the dominant planning concept. For example, in the Casa del Labirinto and the Casa del Fauno the plaster pilasters simulated a double portico, and in the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII,2,20/40) the painted columns created an impression of the continuation of the space, and the peristyle of the Casa di M. Gavius Rufus also had similar wall decoration.42 All of these wall decorations are trying to create a visual continuation of the porticoes beyond the wall surface. These decorative elements did not likely trick Pompeians into believing that the peristyles actually continued beyond the wall, but they were still meant to create an even more spacious experience of the space.
Yet, is it certain that these peristyles were almost empty in antiquity? Was there just a plain open space in the middle of the peristyle where, for example, sports and palaestra-like activities could occur? Or were there possibly features made of organic material which have disappeared without a trace? The easiest answer is to imagine plantings in the central area – perhaps decorative flora. The use of decorative plantings does not fit well with palaestra-like functions, and would likely preclude these activities in the open space. Although the general assumption is that the peristyle had a garden in the central space, actual information about plantings is seldom very evident.43 We only have reported evidence of plantings from four large full peristyles: Casa degli amanti, house II,1,12, Casa dei Gladiatori (V,5,3), and the middle peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri.44 House II,1,12 and Casa dei Gladiatori had trees, which would certainly interrupt the visual openness of its large central space. In the Casa dei Gladiatori, the vast peristyle would have been suitable for a palaestra, as it was once a gladiator barracks, even though that activity took place before the last phase.45 However, reconstructing the appearance of the central space of the peristyle is difficult, because there is no information on the size, location, or number of trees, and therefore we do not know the character of the garden.46 It is equally possible that the presence of a few trees did not obstruct the palaestra-activities in the space, so we cannot entirely exclude them. On the other hand, the reported elements of this garden space suggest that most likely there was a garden in this peristyle, and in this case it would call into question whether palaestra-activities occurred in the peristyle during the last phase.
The situation is even more complex when examining the peristyles that do not have any reported remains of plantings. The open space of the Casa del Labirinto was vast, 295 m2. The cistern openings are all between the columns,47 therefore water maintenance could be handled in the porticoes and the only clearly identifiable activity that was happening in this peristyle did not require a large central area. The central space is labeled a viridarium in the excavation report,48 which indicates that at the time of the excavation it appeared as a garden, but nothing of this is reported – no root cavities or imprints on the ground. However, two terracotta drinking basins for birds were found in the peristyle, reinforcing the idea of a pleasure garden and giving some indications of the appearance of this space.49 The cut hedge labyrinth that currently is planted in the garden area, however, has no historical foundation, and was inspired by the labyrinth pattern on the mosaic floor of the cubiculum (42) on the north side of the peristyle.50 Yet, the current plantings tell us something about the surface of the open area. They indicate that if there was some type of hard surface, which was probably needed for a palaestra (or at least palaestra-activity would create a hard surface), it would have been destroyed by the modern plants, and it is an unlikely scenario that an ancient structure was intentionally destroyed for the modern plantings, but not impossible.
Even though there are no reported root cavities for the majority of the peristyles, the central part was not likely an open field; the interpretation of a garden made by the excavators and the previous researchers, such as Jashemski, seems to be the most likely option. The plantings change the visual image of the space, as the plants draw the attention of the viewer and make the space feel less empty. Nevertheless, much of the visual image depends on what type of plantings there were. If the plantings were short, such as in the Casa dei pittori al lavoro, they would not have interfered with the view through the space – however, the sense of total emptiness is still lost. If the plantings were trees, such as in the Casa di Polibio,51 they would have interrupted the gaze. Nevertheless, the trees in the peristyle were often quite small, so the viewer could still perceive the whole size of the space. In addition, the location of the trees impacts the visibility of the space, and if the trees created another set of vertical lines behind the columns they might have made the space look deeper.
The large full peristyles were very similar to the opulent peristyles, only lacking a few of their qualities. In particular, the visual impression was similar to the opulent peristyles. It is possible that in some cases the building and decoration process of the peristyle was still on-going during the eruption, as several of these houses are reported as having been under restoration.52 In the Casa dei Dioscuri, Casa del Labirinto, Casa del Fauno, Casa del Gallo, and Casa di N. Popidius Priscus the restoration of the peristyle was stopped by the eruption.53 Consequently, we do not know what kind of message these peristyles were meant to convey, as we do not know the end result. Staub Gierow states that the peristyle of the Casa delle Forme di Creta (VII,4,62) was probably in poor shape when it was excavated. In this case it might mean that the space was under restructuration, or it was abandoned, at least partly.54
In addition, the situation with the sources might be also corrupted, as information about decoration has perhaps disappeared for some of the large full peristyles. For example, the Casa del Citarista, Casa degli amanti, Casa dei Dioscuri, and Casa di N. Popidius Priscus were visited before the excavation,55 and it is possible that some decoration was transported away from the peristyles before the excavations. Therefore, it is possible that some of the large full peristyles were actually opulent peristyles, but the decoration was never documented, or they were meant to be opulent peristyles but the restoration process was incomplete. On the other hand, the unfinished peristyles could likewise have been undergoing a downgrading in their display value and meanings, and the result was going to be something other than a top peristyle of Pompeii.
Even though some of the large full peristyles might have been more decorated than we know, it is unlikely that all of these peristyles were, and a group of peristyles similar to the large full peristyles already existed in ancient Pompeii. There were peristyles with significantly sized garden spaces without much decoration – or their decoration was mainly plants. Either way, they are both reflections of conspicuous consumption – one displays an extravagant use of space and the other displays flora, assuming that the plants were not there only for utilitarian purposes.
5.4 Ornamental peristyles
The third group is the ornamental peristyles. The peristyles that had a sculpture collection or a significant number of fountain jets are included in this group. The limit of the features is three in both cases, meaning that either the peristyle had three or more sculptures or three or more fountain jets. Three is chosen as a limit because it is above the median number of these decorative items, and therefore the peristyles with three or more fountain jets or sculptures are more lavishly decorated as compared to the other peristyles.56 In addition, the peristyles with a fountain niche are included in this group. A richly decorated niche can be regarded as an equally eye-catching element in a garden as a sculpture collection or several fountains jetting water in the air. In all of the peristyles of this group a remarkable effort was made to decorate the garden area. The criteria place altogether 22 peristyle gardens into this group. The ornamental peristyles often contain both sculpture and fountains, as 15 peristyles are reported to have had both.57
The ornamental peristyles tend not be the largest peristyles in Pompeii. The average size is about 150 m2 – less than the average of Pompeii (Fig. 2.5), and even though the median area, 115 m2, is not far from the total median of the all peristyles (Fig. 2.6), it is still less than it. In addition, the number of colonnades reveals that most of the peristyles in this group are pseudo-peristyles. Although there are also five gardens with only one colonnade, full peristyles are the most uncommon in this category, appearing only in the Casa del Gruppo dei vasi di vetro and the Casa della Fortuna.58 In general, the architecture of the spaces reflects that the ornamental peristyles were not in the top class, either in size or number of colonnades.
Among the ornamental peristyles there are also several prominent examples of small garden spaces that had numerous sculptures or fountain jets. In these, a large number of decorations were placed in a relatively small space. One of the clearest examples is the peristyle of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius. The peristyle had two porticoes and a small garden space – only 50 m2 – hosting 16 statues, a pool with a fountain, and a fountain niche; in addition, five oscilla and a marble theater mask were hanging between the piers.59 This garden can be said to be filled with decorative elements. The garden with one portico of the Casa di Acceptus e Euhodia was even smaller (35 m2). It was equipped with eight marble sculptures and five terracotta statues. The northern part of the garden was occupied by a masonry triclinium (9 m2), so the density of the statues must have been even higher than in the Casa di Marcus Lucretius.60 The small garden (20 m2) of the Casa del Granduca was also full, with its fountain niche and four marble statues.61 In the peristyle of the Casa del Gruppo dei vasi di vetro the garden area was 40 m2 and contained seven marble statues.62 The Casa del Balcone pensile (VII,12,28) did not feature as many statues as the examples listed before, but its garden space was very small – only 10 m2 – and even the entire peristyle was only 40 m2. In this peristyle there was a marble pool, a table, a basin, and at least three fountains – one with a marble statue.63 This space must have felt quite full compared to many of the peristyles of Pompeii. In addition, three other peristyles – house I,2,17, Casa del Granduca Michele (VI,5,5) and Casa delle Pareti rosse (VIII,5,37) – contained a small sculpture collection, from three to four pieces, in a garden space between 35–55 m2.64 These were not so densely decorated as the peristyles mentioned above, but the feeling of fullness must have defined the experience of their visitors.
On the other hand, not all of the ornamental peristyles were so crowded with decorations. Even though they had a large number of decorative elements, the placement of these elements might have influenced the experience of the space. For example, the Casa della Fortuna had a garden area of 50 m2 and also a large sculpture collection. Yet, the decorative items were probably concentrated near the columns, as the podia for two fountain sculptures and the decorative basin were near the columns and the oscilla of the peristyles hung between the columns.65 The layout is similar to that of the Casa dei Vettii, where major part of the statues and basins are near the columns; however, in the Casa dei Vettii the garden part was also decorated, whereas the central part of the Casa della Fortuna had minimal traces of decoration.66
There are 12 ornamental peristyles where three or more fountains are reported, but like the Casa della Fortuna these gardens often also had sculptures. It is not surprising that the two decorative features are regularly found together, because many of the sculptures also functioned as fountains.67 Nevertheless, there are four peristyles in this group where display was concentrated mainly on a large number of fountains. The peristyle of the Casa della Caccia nuova (VII,10,3/14) had an impluvium-like marble pool, and there was a fountain jet in the middle of the pool, but the water display was not limited to only that one, as on the sides of the pool there were three additional fountain jets.68 The triclinium of the northern peristyle of the Casa di Sallustio also had a marble pool with a fountain, but there was in addition another fountain nearby the triclinium, and a third on the south wall.69 In the peristyle of the Casa detta di Trebius Valens there was a semicircular pool lavishly equipped with 13 fountain jets, and even the table of the outdoor triclinium was equipped with a fountain jet.70 Although all of the above-mentioned peristyles had several fountains, the most extravagant water display of all was in the Casa del Toro. The north wall of the peristyle was decorated with a nymphaeum including several fountains and pools.71 The group of ornamental peristyles also includes the peristyles with fountain niches. They regularly had an abundant water display, as all of the peristyles with a fountain niche had more than three fountain jets, except in the Casa della Fontana grande.72 In spite of the fact that there was only one fountain jet in this peristyle, the richly decorated niche was just as notable as any other fountain niche featured in Pompeian peristyles.
The fountains were certainly considered important in the peristyles where they are found. For instance, in the Casa detta di Trebius Valens and in the northern garden of the Casa dell’Efebo a water tower was constructed to create pressure for the fountains.73 This might have kept the fountains working after the earthquake, which perhaps disturbed the water distribution of the aqueduct.74 In the Casa detta di Trebius Valens it can be questioned whether an amphora that was in the water reservoir of the tower was able to provide enough water for all 14 fountains. A likely option is that not all the fountains of the peristyle were functioning during the last phase, and this might have caused a negative display effect.75 Despite the possibility that not all of the fountains were working in this peristyle, the house owner still had the possibility to utilize several fountains for display, which makes the peristyle distinctive compared to most of the Pompeian peristyles.
The architecture of the ornamental peristyles does not compete with the most pretentious peristyles of Pompeii: they rarely feature four porticoes, and their area is often smaller than average. In general, it is the number of decorative garden features that sets apart the peristyles of this group compared to the other peristyles of Pompeii – except for few opulent and large full peristyles. However, the presence of large sculpture collections and numerous fountains is not a very common feature in those two groups.
5.5 Large painting peristyles
Large paintings that dominated almost an entire wall appear now and then in Pompeian peristyles. These paintings often depict garden scenes with plenty of plants and small animals, or hunting scenes where large wild animals dominate the picture, or large landscape paintings representing exotic or imaginative settings. The peristyles with these large paintings form the fourth group of Pompeian peristyles, the large painting peristyles, and include 32 examples.76 The large paintings are usually on the wall of the garden – obviously without a portico. There are two exceptions: in the Casa di Cerere (I,9,13–14) the painting is on the wall that supports the garden on a higher level than the south portico, and in the Casa del Banchiere the animal paintings are reported to have been in the south portico.77
These motifs – gardens, animals, and landscapes – are not limited to the garden walls, but can also be found on several other surfaces: plutei, piers, masonry benches, or on the sides of fountain niches.78 On the other hand, in these contexts the paintings are clearly smaller than those on the garden walls. In addition, plants are often depicted on the lower parts of walls in Pompeii.79 The thematic similarity is again obvious, but it does not mean that their function was similar. The large paintings on the walls are eye-catchers; they are meant to be seen and marveled at, while these smaller paintings are part of a larger decorative scheme and were not necessarily meant as the culmination point of the viewer, but as an element that helped fill the decorative ensemble. Because of their lesser display function, the plant paintings and the paintings on surfaces other than walls are excluded from this group.
The themes – garden, animal, and landscape – have a spatial connection with each other. They are often depicted in the same space or even on the same wall. Ciarallo mentions the link between Nilotic paintings and garden paintings, but there is a connection between garden and landscape scenes on a general level – not just for Nilotic elements. Nine large garden paintings are in the same peristyles with landscape paintings.80 In six cases, the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, Casa della Fontana piccola, Casa del Centauro, Casa dei Dioscuri, Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48), and in the east peristyle of the Casa delle Quadrighe (VII,2,25), the landscapes are part of the same wall decoration as the garden paintings.81 Additionally, there were 11 peristyles with both garden and animal paintings on their walls.82 The relation between the paintings is evident, but not rigorous: six peristyles with large animal paintings are reported without garden paintings.83
In addition, there are two peristyles with large paintings whose topics cannot be identified as gardens, animals, or landscapes, but the size of these two paintings – they cover almost the whole wall – integrates them into this group. The Casa della Rissa nell’Anfiteatro (I,3,23) had a large painting of the fight between the Pompeians and Nucerians in the amphitheater.84 It could be considered a sort of landscape painting, although its historical theme dissociates it from other landscape paintings, as well as its focus on urban landscape. In addition, the southern peristyle of the Casa di Sallustio had large mythological paintings.85 Mythological paintings are usually smaller central pieces of the wall decoration, or mythological themes may appear in the large garden or animal paintings, such as the paintings in the Casa della Venere in conchiglia or Casa di Adone ferito (VI,7,18).86 In the mythological paintings of the Casa di Sallustio there was also a hint of a garden theme, as it is reported to have depicted a fountain statue of a nymph.87
Naturally, as the large paintings were painted on the wall of the garden, none of these peristyles had colonnades on all four sides. The peristyles of the group are not large, with the average size being about 110 m2 and the median 115 m2, meaning that the large painting peristyles clearly belong to the lower medium size assemblage. The majority, 21 peristyles, are smaller than the median size of Pompeian peristyles.88
5.6 Imitation peristyles
The fifth group of peristyles is called imitation peristyles. This group consists of peristyles that were designed to incorporate as many porticoes as possible, either actually featuring four porticoes or seeking to create an illusion of a large number of colonnades. The group contains the full peristyles smaller than the average (170 m2, Fig. 2.5) and the peristyles utilizing half-columns, pilasters, and passageways without columns or piers to create an illusion of a larger number of colonnades than they actually featured. There are 28 peristyles in this group.89 The criteria of the group already dictate that the peristyles are not particularly large. The average size of the imitation peristyles is 125 m2 and the median 110 m2.
There are 12 full peristyles smaller than the average in Pompeii.90 They were not particularly decorated, but they might occasionally feature fountains, floor or wall decorations, or perhaps a sculpture. This group of imitation peristyles follows the colonnaded architecture of the opulent and large full peristyles. However, the gardens with four colonnades are generally – almost 80 percent of the time – larger than the average peristyle size, making the full peristyles of this group exceptional compared to the others.
In some cases, the space was not “wasted” on creating all four porticoes, but the idea of a full peristyle was fashioned by imitating columns and piers with half-columns and pilasters.91 In Pompeii, there are 156 peristyles with at least one half-column or pilaster, meaning that the feature was so common – about 61 percent of the peristyles had it – that it is difficult to discern whether it had much significance, or whether it was an almost default part of peristyle design, particularly for the pseudo-peristyles. A more detailed examination of the half-columns and pilasters reveals that their number was usually limited to one or two. Sixty-three percent of the peristyles featuring this type of decoration had less than three half-columns or pilasters. The low number (one or two) of half-columns hardly created an illusion of a portico, except perhaps in a few exceptions such as house VI,13,13, where two half-columns are placed next to other each other, which might have been an attempt to fashion an imitation portico – albeit a clumsy one.92 Frequently, if the peristyle had only one or two half-columns or pilasters, they are in line with the free-standing columns, producing an impression of the continuation of the existing porticoes beyond the wall, rather than an illusion of a new colonnade.93 The half-column or pilaster at the end of the line of the free-standing columns smooths the boundary between the space and the wall, which might be their purpose in this case – rather than to generate the impression of new space beyond the wall. Consequently, the portico imitation almost always requires at least three half-columns or pilasters.
The imitation of a new colonnade appears customarily in pseudo-peristyles, as gardens with one portico with similar decoration are limited to two.94 The garden of house VI,16,26 serves as an extreme example of these types of peristyles: it has a colonnade only on the north side, and the other three walls had half-columns. There are altogether ten half-columns. In this garden, the half-columns produce an illusion of the continuation of the porticoes on all sides.95 The garden of house VI,16,26 is exceptional, and most of the portico imitations (10) are in gardens with three colonnades.
The gardens with portico imitations usually strive to create an illusion of a full peristyle; however, occasionally the attempts settle for an impression of a pseudo-peristyle. In the latter case, most of the peristyles (7) had two porticoes.96 Additionally, there are two gardens with one portico, the Casa di Inaco e Io (VI,7,19) and the northern peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri, which had half-columns on two sides, leaving one side without either a colonnade or the illusion of it. However, both of these gardens had an additional passageway beside the colonnade. These passageways did not have free-standing columns. The difference between the two gardens is the placement of the passageway and the half-columns: in the Casa di Inaco e Io the passageway runs on the same side as the imitation portico, whereas in the Casa dei Dioscuri it was instead on the side without an imitation portico.97
The pseudo-peristyle of house IX,3,15 only had a small passageway on the north side, separated from the garden by a pluteus. The north portico had been turned into two rooms, and the passageway without columns had the effect of simultaneously preserving the illusion of a third portico. The original columns of the north portico were visible on the north wall of the garden, where they appear as half-columns.98 In the same insula, the peristyle of the Fabbrica di prodotti chimici IX,3,2 featured plaster pilasters on the first style painting of the south wall, and possibly on the east wall, although there are visible remains of only one pilaster – therefore, it is unknown whether the wall had more pilasters. The peristyle had passageways on two sides, but only one pier supporting the roof in the north. The western passageway has no columns or piers, but there is a large window facing towards the atrium, which also creates the illusion of a colonnade. Remarkably, in the last phase this peristyle used only one pier – the very minimal number of actual peristyle features – to create an impression of multiple porticoes. This image was created by combining several new and old elements in the peristyle, and by clever use of pilasters and passageways.99
5.7 Minor decoration peristyles
Among the peristyle gardens that do not yet belong to any group are 25 peristyles that feature a small number of decorative elements.100 These 25 examples form the sixth group: the minor decoration peristyles. The peristyles in this group must have at least one of the following major display decoration elements: a pool or decorative basin, a fountain, sculpture, or a central panel painting. Those with decorated mortar floors are not included in this group, as they likely did not draw the attention of visitors and other peristyle users in the same way as the above-listed features. However, the peristyles with a mosaic floor are included in this group, as they seem to be associated with high wealth and are relatively rare in Pompeian peristyles, and would thus likely have been noticed by a visitor.101
Architecturally, the group of the peristyles with minor decoration is heterogeneous. There are nine gardens with one portico, seven peristyles with two porticoes, and a further nine with three porticoes. The peristyle sizes are generally between 15 m2 and 250 m2, but this group also includes a peristyle that was at least 330 m2 in size.102 The average area of the minor decoration peristyles is 126 m2, and the median 105 m2.103 Despite the wide range of the peristyle size, more than half are below the median for Pompeii: four are even small peristyles (under 50 m2), and ten are lower medium size (50–115 m2).104 The majority concentrates on the smaller end of the size continuum, but the diversity of size in the group is still remarkable, as eight minor decoration peristyles are classified at least as large (over 170 m2).105
Among these minor decoration peristyles there are 14 with decoration in their gardens: five with a pool or decorative basins, and nine with fountains or sculpture.106 Walls decorated with central panel paintings can be found in four peristyles, but no other decoration has been reported in these peristyles, except in the Casa delle Quadrighe (VIII,5,24), where the pluteus was with painted garden, animal and Nilotic paintings.107 A similarly decorated pluteus was found in the peristyle of the Casa del Medico (VIII,5,24).108 House V,2,10 is reported to also have had animal paintings on the pluteus, and the Casa della soffitta (V,3,4) had instead garden paintings.109 In addition, house IX,5,14–16 had mythological themes on the architrave of the peristyle, but no other particular decoration is reported in this space.110 In total, nine of all the minor decoration peristyles were adorned with this type of individualistic paintings.
There are two peristyles with mosaic floors in this peristyle group: the southern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 and the peristyle of house VI,5,10 had a portico partly paved with mosaic.111 The latter is the only known peristyle with a descriptive mosaic decoration: it depicted a hunting scene and fighting cocks, and this mosaic had an inscription which has been interpreted as the signature of the mosaic maker.112 As this type of mosaic has not been found in any other peristyle, it likely had a high display value. Nevertheless, Jashemski reports that the peristyle was in a ruined state when the house was excavated. She implies that her source was the publications of Niccolini and Niccolini, and Giuseppe Fiorelli. Reading their descriptions, however, does not indicate this. Niccolini and Niccolini write that some rooms were found ruined when excavated, and the peristyle is not mentioned among them. Fiorelli repeats what the Niccolinis had reported, that some rooms were found in a devastated condition. Fiorelli continues that the house was left abandoned after the excavation, causing the ruined state of the peristyle – and some other rooms – at the time when Fiorelli was writing his description.113 The assumption that the peristyle was destroyed already before the eruption seems even more unlikely after reading the excavation reports. They do not indicate a ruined condition, not even for the rooms around the peristyle area; instead, the columns are reported to be in good form, and small finds are listed. The report therefore indicates that the peristyle was likely in use during the last period. Some of the rooms, however, had signs of explorations made before the excavation.114 As with house VI,5,10, the Conceria I,5,2 also contained a descriptive mosaic, depicting a skull. However, it was not on the floor but decorated the triclinium table.115 This is exceptional decoration compared to all other peristyles, and a highly individual feature.
Houses VIII,2,29–30 and VIII,2,14–16 were on the southwest edge of the city, and were badly damaged during the eruption.116 There is a high possibility that the peristyles in these houses had more decoration than is indicated by our sources. For example, the southern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 partly collapsed during the eruption, and if there was decoration it probably fell out of the peristyle during the destruction. The porticoes had a mosaic floor, which indicates that the peristyle might have been well appointed.117 In this case, it is also possible that the peristyle had more porticoes than the two currently visible colonnades, and the peristyle was at least 330 m2,118 so without even knowing its entire size it belongs among the vast peristyles of Pompeii. It would not be impossible that this peristyle was, or was meant to be, an opulent peristyle. In any case, the peristyle likely had an important display function in the house due to the mosaic floor and its size – even if it only had two colonnades and no particular garden or wall decoration.
Some peristyles of the group were under restoration when the eruption occurred, for instance in house IX,5,14–16. It is imaginable that the decoration of the peristyle was not yet finished when the destruction occurred. Similarly, four other houses with minor decoration peristyles are reported to have been under restoration, and it is possible that the peristyle was also meant to be restored along with the other parts of the house, or that some decoration from the peristyle was moved away due to the planned construction.119 In addition, the peristyle of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio was visited after the eruption, and it may be that some of its decoration was looted.120
It is obviously impossible to say what kind of decoration was planned for the peristyles that were under restoration. The peristyle of house VI,13,13 is regarded as having been undergoing repainting, as the second style paintings were covered with white plaster.121 Was the plan to replace these with proper new paintings? Not necessarily, if we consider the peristyle of the Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI,15,7/8). There, the plaster parts without decoration are interpreted as repairs carried out after the earthquake of 62 CE, and were left without paintings.122 Perhaps there was a plan to paint these plaster pieces later. Are these plastered walls without paint signs of a downgrading of the peristyle? This can only be speculated upon. Nevertheless, even if we eliminate all of the possible examples of incomplete work or looting, there still seems to be a group of peristyles where the decoration was modest, demonstrating that there was a group of peristyles in 79 CE Pompeii which would correspond to the minor decoration peristyles defined here.
5.8 Architectural peristyles
There are 102 peristyles that did not have any significant decoration or architectural features. This amounts to 40 percent of all the peristyles in this study. These peristyles form the last group, called the architectural peristyles. Not all of the peristyles of this group, however, are entirely devoid of decoration. Three peristyles had one terracotta sculpture, and one had two decorated terracotta discs on the wall.123 The material and the low number of the terracotta items indicate that their effect on socioeconomic display was low. There are ten peristyles where mortar portico floors are decorated with tesserae or stones.124 Twenty-two peristyles of the group have reported remains of paintings in various Pompeian painting styles, and additionally one peristyle had plants painted on the lower part of the walls, but the painting style is not identified.125
The ornamented floors and wall paintings had some display value, but as they do not depict any specific themes they appear mostly as a complementary decoration of the space – not as something that was drawing people inside the peristyles to have a better look at the decoration and the space. This type of decorated floors and wall paintings was also quite common in Pompeian peristyles, so it would not have worked well as a means of impressing visitors, but rather seems to have been part of the standard planning and decoration of Pompeian domestic space. Some example of Pompeian painting, of various styles, is recognized in 128 peristyles – 51 percent of the total. A mortar floor decorated with tesserae or stones was the most common floor decoration: about 85 percent of all known ornamented portico floors were decorated this way.
There are some other indications of possible decoration, such as podia or supports, but no means to conclude whether these were meant as decorative features.126 However, there are some signs of distinctive decoration in a few peristyles. For example, in house V,1,15 there were garden paintings on a masonry bench, but they were from a previous phase and only partly visible during 79 CE.127
Even if all peristyles with some major decorative elements are excluded, there are still 67 peristyles remaining in the group. This represents about 27 percent of all the peristyles in Pompeii. Of course, these peristyles are not totally undecorated: some had painted plaster on their columns or on a pluteus. One pluteus even features a marble top.128 Nevertheless, painted plaster on such surfaces is very common in Pompeii: 179 peristyles (71 percent) had columns with colorful plaster, and at least 66 plutei were painted, which is almost half of all plutei. These decorations can hardly have been a means to stand out, but rather this type of decoration seems to be a quite ordinary aspect of peristyle design; but even if these peristyles are excluded, there are still 32 peristyles without decorative elements.129
The major part of the architectural peristyles (63) is smaller than the median peristyle of Pompeii, and 11 of those peristyles are small (see Figs. 2.6, 4.4, and 5.1). Thirty-two peristyles contained only one portico, 39 featured two colonnades, and the remaining 31 peristyles had three porticoes. The peristyle architecture is at the lower end of the continuum. However, there is a strong link with the economical lower medium size, and therefore it cannot be concluded that the architectural peristyles were in general small. The colonnades are divided quite equally, although those with two porticoes are slightly more common than the others (obviously the classification criteria exclude full peristyles from this group).
Figure 5.1 illustrates the architectural peristyles in their order of size, from the smallest to the largest. The increase in area is mostly linear, as the red line on the graph demonstrates, but it changes to exponential (the dashed line)at the right end of the graph. The curve starts somewhere after 200 m2. The architectural peristyles larger than 200 m2 are the 12 largest gardens of this peristyle group.130 Nine of these peristyles had another architectural similarity: they all featured only one portico.131 Those gardens with one portico tend to be found in houses near the perimeter of the city, apart from the Casa di M. Epidius Rufus and Casa del Naviglio (VI,10,11). Six of these gardens with one portico are interpreted as having been for agricultural use.132 In four cases the excavated land contours, root cavities, or botanic studies support this interpretation.133 It has been suggested that two of these dwellings, houses VIII,7,6 and II,8,2/3, functioned as restaurants or places serving refreshments.134 Indeed, they both had an outdoor triclinium that could have been utilized for restaurant activity. Additionally, two other large gardens of this subgroup of the architectural peristyles had an outdoor triclinium.135 Similarly, there are other large cultivated areas in Pompeii which also feature outdoor triclinia.136 These parallels indicate that these nine large gardens with one portico were possibly cultivated to produce goods for market, and/or to add a pleasant atmosphere for the triclinia. However, when compared to other similarly large gardens, the portico – even though it is only on one side – changes the architectural appearance towards the architectural form of a peristyle garden and integrates these gardens into the domestic center of the house, whereas the large gardens without porticoes appear more as independent orchards or vineyards. The portico also took up space that could have been cultivated, and its role in guiding movement is reduced as it does not lead to any other colonnade. Consequently, the porticos in these gardens were probably primarily a display feature that added to the pleasantness of the space, meaning that the produce function of the space was not the only important aspect in the planning of these gardens.
Figure 5.1 The size distribution of the architectural peristyles, with a red line to illustrate how I see the data behavior. Average 130 m2 and median 95 m2.
As the definition of the architectural peristyles relies on a lack of features – decoration and architecture – it must be considered that our source situation is incomplete. The poor documentation, discussed time and time again, is a possible factor, as well as events that damaged the peristyle, such as bombings or explorations that took place before the official excavations.137 There is also the possibility that the peristyle was being restored when the eruption occurred,138 and it therefore does not accurately reflect the economic status of the inhabitant.
The undecorated state of some of the architectural peristyles has resulted in speculation that these spaces were abandoned. For example, the rooms around the peristyle of house I,6,9 – the eastern peristyle of the Casa dei Quadretti teatrali (I,6,11) – have been reported to be in such a bad shape that they might not have been used in the last phase. Also, the atrium area of the Casa dei Quadretti teatrali is interpreted as having been abandoned, at least to some degree.139 The house, however, is also interpreted as having been under restoration,140 and in this case it is likely that the peristyle area was also supposed to be renovated. In addition, the house was explored before its excavation,141 which might have influenced the condition in which the house was found when excavated. Likewise, Matteo Della Corte reports that house I,8,10 was almost destroyed, but he still identifies the house as functioning as a caupona-hospitium.142 It can be questioned whether these two peristyles were used during the last period, but it is also possible that they were under reconstruction.
This last group – the architectural peristyles – is decoratively and architecturally far removed from the opulent peristyles and the conspicuous consumption seen in that type of peristyle space. The purpose of the architectural peristyle was not to display immense or growing wealth; rather, these peristyles were built because the owner needed light and air in the house, and a peristyle was a conventional solution to arranging rooms and movement in Pompeian houses. The architectural peristyles, however, are not completely without display features – as demonstrated above – and adding even one portico can be a conspicuous “waste” of space.
Notes
1. Nn. 14, 38, 73, 105, 108, 121, 134, 139, 146, 162, 197, 210, 245, 251.
2. Nn. 14, 38, 134, 139.
3. Nn. 105, 108, 245.
4. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 33. Fiorelli 1875, 122. Jashemski 1993, 134 n. 249. N. 105.
5. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 33. Fiorelli 1875, 122. Sampaolo 1993, 604. Jashemski 1993, 134 n. 249. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 519 n. 253. Sampaolo suggests that room 14 on the south side of the peristyle was a drying room.
6. On the separation of the industrial area and the rest of the peristyle, see Flohr 2011, 94–98.
7. Sampaolo 1993, 604. Sampaolo proposes that the oecus 14 was a space where orders were taken.
8. Flohr 2011, 97–98.
9. N. 73, 121, 146, 162, 197, 210, 251.
10. N. 73.
11. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 21.
12. Jashemski 1993, 92 n. 148.
13. Jashemski 1993, 92 n. 148. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 21.
14. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 21. Jones & Robinson 2005, 705.
15. Mazois 1824, II, 52. Fiorelli 1875, 434. Jashemski 1993, 166 n. 312. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 562–563 n. 316.
16. E.g.: Bechi 1831, Relazione degli Scavi di Pompei, 9–10. Gell 1832, II, 20. Minervini 1862, 53. Sogliano 1880, 103, 148. Mau 1881, 171. Niccolini & Niccolini, 1890 Casa detta Centenario, 2. Richardson 1955, 54. Curtis 1984, 558. Jashemski 1993, 139 n. 260, 173 n. 322, 205–206 n. 240, 244 n. 506. Zanker 1998, 182. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 659–661 n. 507.
17. Jashemski 1993, 173 n. 322, 205–206 n. 410.
18. Sampaolo 1996, 554.
19. Bonucci 1834, 35. Bechi 1834, 4. Pistolesi 1842, 493. Niccolini & Niccolini 1854, Casa detta dei Capitelli Colorati, 2; 1862, Descrizione generale, 47. Breton 1870, 376. Fiorelli 1875, 219. Jashemski 1993, 179 n. 350. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 583 n. 355. Ciarallo and Giordano mistakenly locate the amphora on the east side.
20. Sogliano 1880, 103, 148. Mau 1881, 171. Niccolini & Niccolini, 1890 Casa detta Centenario, 2. Jashemski 1993, 244 n. 506. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 659–661 n. 507.
21. Bechi 1829, Relazione degli scavi di Pompei, 21. Farrar 1998, 23. Bergmann 2002, 89–90. Farrar refers to Nero’s ex-slaves who wanted to enlarge their fishponds, as reported by Pliny the Elder (HN, 18,1,7). Pliny is criticizing the habits of his contemporary, and he is probably being ironical and exaggerating, but the passage likely reflects the atmosphere in Rome on some level.
22. Fiorelli 1861, 47, 350; 1873, 2. Minervini 1862, 53. Breton 1870, 463. Jashemski 1993, 212 n. 429. The hooks are not visible anymore.
23. All the opulent peristyles with a pool connected to a fountain: nn. 14, 22, 38, 108, 121, 134, 146, 161, 162, 197, 208, 210, 245, 251. In addition, the peristyle of the Fullonica VI,8,20, which did not have a pool but a decorative basin (n. 105), also had a fountain connected to the basin.
24. Mazois 1824, II, 52. Fiorelli 1875, 434. Jashemski 1993, 166 n. 312. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 562–563 n. 316.
25. N. 245.
26. Mazois 1824, 82. Bonucci 1827, 110. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 29. Fiorelli 1875, 102. Sampaolo 1993, 359. Jashemski 1981, 39; 1993, 127 n. 234. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 509 n. 238. Jashemski (1993, 226–227 n. 465) reports painted fish inside a pool in the southern peristyle of the Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus (IX,1,22/29). There are no visible remains of the painted fish in this peristyle, and they are not mentioned in any of the descriptions written right after the excavation, which would have been expected, as this type of decoration is exceptional in Pompeii. Jashemski might have confused this house with the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1) as the Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus is also occasionally called the Casa di C. Cuspius Pansa (see e.g. Della Corte 1954, 207–208).
27. Nn. 16, 22, 40, 56, 80, 82, 97, 110, 114, 120, 122, 138, 144, 149, 152, 153, 154, 165, 167, 174, 182, 193, 195, 201, 208, 213, 221, 242, 243.
28. N. 97, 161, 208.
29. Nn. 110, 114, 152.
30. Nn. 82, 174.
31. N. 146.
32. Nn. 114, 201.
33. Between 195–270 m2: nn. 82, 114, 136, 174, 201, smaller: nn. 78, 180, and larger: nn. 146, 198.
34. N. 193.
35. Nn. 144, 153, 213.
36. Nn. 22.
37. N. 243.
38. Nn. 16, 40, 56, 80, 120, 122, 138, 149, 154, 167, 182, 195, 201, 221, 242.
39. N. 120.
40. N. 122.
41. N. 121.
42. N. 120, 122. Sampaolo 1996, 531, 556. On the details of the wall paintings of the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII,2,20/40), see Sampaolo 1996, 648.
43. E.g. Bechi (1832, Relazione degli scavi di Pompei, 12) mentions that the northern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno may have had a viridiarium. He is not totally sure of this, and the existence of a garden was not clearly obvious even shortly after the excavation.
44. Nn. 40, 56, 80, 114.
45. The Casa dei Gladiatori (V,5,3) is often interpreted as a gladiator barracks (Sogliano 1899, 234, 347. Esposito, Kastenmeier & Imperatore 2011, 112), but Pesando (2001, 191–194) has demonstrated that after 62 CE there is no evidence that gladiators still occupied this space, and instead the ludus of the gladiators was moved to the Portico (VIII,7,16), south of the theaters.
46. See also Jashemski 1993, 118 n. 198.
47. Jashemski 1993, 143 n. 272.
48. E.g. Fiorelli 1862, II, 304.
49. On the drinking basins, see Fiorelli 1862, II, 304, Strocka 1991, 37. Drinking basins for birds were not necessarily located in gardens – it is possible that they were also located in other spaces – but a garden would be a likely place.
50. Strocka 1991, 42–44; 1994, 26, 37–39.
51. See Section 4.1.1. Jashemski 1981, 32–37, 44, 48.
52. Casa del Citarista (I,4,5/25): Inserra 2008, 34. degli amanti (I,10,10/11): Ling & Ling 2005, 119–120. dei Gladiatori (V,5,3): Sogliano 1899, 351, Mau 1901, 292. dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6/7): Richardson 1955, 77. del Labirinto (VI,11,8–10): Schulz 1838, 151, Strocka 1994, 29. del Fauno (VI,12,2): Niccolini & Niccolini 1854, Casa detta del Fauno, 8. Fiorelli 1862, 253; 1875, 157, Jashemski 1993, 145 n. 276, Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 537 n. 280. di C. Vibius Italus (VII,2,18): Della Corte 1954, 126, Sampaolo 1996, 586. di N. Popidius Priscus (VII,2,20/40): Della Corte 1954, 123–124. di Trittolemo (VII,7,5): Bragantini 1997, 232. di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII,16,12–15): Curtis 1984, 558.
53. Niccolini & Niccolini 1854, Casa detta del Fauno, 8. Fiorelli 1862, 253; 1875, 157. Sogliano 1881, 320. Mau 1883, 172. Della Corte 1954, 123–124. Richardson 1955, 77. Jashemski 1993, 216 n. 436. Strocka 1994, 29. Sampaolo 1996, 615, 645–651; 1998, 547. Serpe 2008, 115. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 625 n. 437.
54. Staub Gierow 1997, 140. On the restoration of the house, see Staub Gierow 2000, 106–107, 111.
55. CIL IV 2311. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 43. Fiorelli 1873, 33; 1875, 190–191. Della Corte 1954, 209–210. M. De Vos 1990, 117–118. Sampaolo 1996, 615. Serpe 2008, 115. Allison 2006, 362.
56. See Chapters 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.
57. Nn. 3, 24, 37, 62, 64, 67, 84, 94, 103, 106, 107, 123, 133, 136, 164, 166, 180, 187, 218, 219, 235, 244.
58. Gardens with one portico: nn. 24, 84, 106, 218, 219. Full peristyles: nn. 123, 244.
59. N. 235.
60. N. 219. On the possible location of the sculpture, see Serpe 2008, 148–151 and Trentin 2019. On the similarity of the sculpture collection with the Casa di Marcus Lucretius, (IX,3,5/24), see Mau 1884, 129, Della Corte 1954, 214.
61. N. 164.
62. N. 123.
63. N. 187.
64. Nn. 3, 94, 218.
65. N. 244. On the locations of the sculpture, the podia and the basin, see Sogliano 1880, 452, 488, 492, Mau 1882, 220–221, Niccolini & Niccolini 1890, Casa nell’Isola VII. della Regione IX, 1; 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882, 18, Dwyer 1982, 76–77, Jashemski 1993, 240 n. 501, Bragantini 1999, 835, D’Acunto 2008, 186–187, Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 657–658 n. 502.
66. Nn. 134, 244. On the locations of the garden features in the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1), see Jashemski 1993, 153–155 n. 294. Mau (1882, 221) and Jashemski (1993, 241 n. 501) state the possibility that the statue of Silenus was in the middle of the garden, but this is pure speculation. According to Dwyer (1982, 70) the sculpture collections of both houses were similar.
67. The peristyles with three or more sculpture and three or more fountains: nn. 24, 37, 107, 136, 164, 219, 235, 244.
68. N. 180.
69. N. 84.
70. N. 62.
71. N. 64. Zanker 1998, 181.
72. N. 106. Other peristyles with fountain niches: nn. 24, 107, 133, 164, 235.
73. Nn. 24, 62. Spano 1916, 233. Maiuri 1927, 49. Jashemski 1993, 38 n. 14, 99 n. 156. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 389 n. 41. Jansen 2017, 411–413.
74. Spano 1916, 233.
75. Jones and Robinson (2005, 703, 706) speculate that a negative display effect may have occurred in the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,7).
76. Nn. 9, 10, 25, 28, 46, 47, 55, 59, 61, 66, 70, 78, 85, 87, 101, 104, 111, 113, 126, 128, 135, 156, 163, 169, 170, 175, 185, 189, 190, 225, 238, 239.
77. Nn. 37, 189. The peristyle (n. 189) of the Casa del Banchiere (VII,14,5) also had garden paintings on the garden wall. It is possible that the animal paintings in the portico were small central panel paintings.
78. Nn. 38, 62, 65, 66, 67, 74, 101, 105, 133, 135, 149, 155, 202, 216, 235, 238.
79. See Section 4.3.4.
80. Ciarallo 2012, 24. Nn. 37, 59, 67, 78, 107, 111, 133, 156, 163. Bragantini (1997, 601) mentions that the peristyle of the Casa del Balcone pensile (VII,12,28) may have had an animal painting. This, however, is not mentioned in any excavation report, and the nature, size, or location cannot be verified. Therefore, it is not included in the list.
81. Nn. 78, 107, 111, 113, 156, 163. Allison 2002, 44–45. In addition, the garden paintings, Nilotic scenes, and animal paintings are represented together on the pluteus of two peristyles, nn. 155, 216, which further demonstrates the link between these themes.
82. Nn. 10, 24, 25, 66, 67, 78, 128, 156, 163, 175, 189. The garden and animal paintings are depicted together on the pluteus of the peristyle n. 149.
83. On a wall: nn. 28, 47, 126, 180, 238, 239. See also peristyles 69 and 80 where the paintings are on the pluteus.
84. MANN 112222. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 78. Matz 1869, 240–242. Fiorelli 1873, 145–156; 1875, 55–56. Sogliano 1879, 204. Sampaolo 1990, 77, 80–81. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 373–374 n. 15.
85. N. 85.
86. Nn. 59, 101.
87. Bonucci 1827, 102. Fiorelli 1860, II, 80; 1875, 85. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 23; 1890, Casa detta di Salustio 2. Sampaolo 1993, 88, 129, 131–135. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 498–499 n. 208. Laidlaw and Collins-Clinton 2014, 96, 106.
88. The large painting peristyles that are larger than the median (120 m2, see Fig. 2.6): nn. 9, 59, 66, 78, 87, 113, 128, 163, 169, 170, 190.
89. Nn. 1, 13, 15, 23, 28, 45, 76, 88, 92, 102, 109, 141, 142, 147, 150, 165, 194, 204, 207, 209, 229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 241, 250.
90. Nn. 1, 26, 45, 76, 88, 92, 109, 147, 194, 209, 237, 241.
91. On half-columns as imitations of colonnades, see e.g. Jashemski 1993, 328 n. 26 (Casa degli archi), Staub Gierow 1997, 91 (Casa dei Capitelli figurati), Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 559, 618, 668–669 nn. 309, 424, 520 (house VI,16,26, Casa di Diana and Casa di Polibio), Nevett 2010, 99–100 (house VI,16,26) and Bergmann 2002, 105 (in the villa context).
92. N. 125.
93. E.g. peristyles: Nn. 2, 6, 10, 12, 18, 25, 35, 39, 43, 48, 49, 52, 148.
94. Nn. 13, 15, 23, 102, 141, 142, 150, 165, 204, 207, 229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 250.
95. N. 141. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 559 n. 309.
96. Nn. 9, 13, 23, 55, 207, 231, 233.
97. Nn. 102, 113.
98. N. 236.
99. N. 234.
100. Nn. 2, 6, 17, 33, 39, 44, 57, 69, 74, 89, 95, 112, 125, 131, 137, 155, 160, 168, 178, 198, 199, 202, 216, 240, 249.
101. See Sections 4.3.5 and 5.3.
102. N. 198. The exact area is uncertain, as the peristyle is partly destroyed. The calculation is based on the assumption that the garden space was rectangular, except for the southeast corner, which was integrated into room h.
103. The calculation does not include the peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16, as it is partially collapsed and the area cannot be measured. The size of the Casa dei pittori al lavoro (IX,12,9) is also missing.
104. Small: nn. 89, 112, 131, 160. Lower medium: nn. 2, 39, 44, 57, 74, 137, 155, 168, 202, 216. On the sizes, see Fig. 12.
105. Nn. 6, 33, 69, 178, 198, 199, 240. The southern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 is counted in this group, as the remains indicate that it was at least 330 m2, assuming it was rectangular (except that the southeast corner was integrated into room h).
106. The minor decoration peristyles with a pool or basin: nn. 131, 160, 178, 199, 202. The minor decoration peristyles with a fountain or sculpture: nn. 2, 6, 33, 39, 89, 112, 125, 168, 249.
107. Nn. 44, 57, 137, 155.
108. N. 216.
109. Nn. 69, 74.
110. MANN 111442. Sogliano 1878, 183. Niccolini & Niccolini 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882, 15. Bragantini 1999, 648. N. 240.
111. N. 95, 198.
112. N. 95. Fiorelli 1860, III, 12–14; 1875, 101. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 28–29. The finding place of the mosaic is unclear, and its place in the peristyle is a bit suspicious, as no figurative mosaics are known from other Pompeian peristyles. Fiorelli, however, states that it was near the western entrance of the peristyles, so the peristyle seems to be the most likely place. Entrance 10 is the only entrance of the house, and therefore the mosaic might have been the type of door mosaic that is usually found in the fauces leading from the door to the atria.
113. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 29. Fiorelli 1875, 101. Jashemski 1993, 126 n. 233.
114. Fiorelli 1860, III, 11–14, 18–19.
115. N. 17.
116. Jashemski 1993, 205 n. 411, 208–209 n. 414.
117. N. 198. See Section 4.3.5.
118. N. 198.
119. Bragantini 1999, 601. In addition, house VI,13,13 (Viola 1879, 20, Sampaolo 1994, 192–193, Gobbo 2009, 351, 360, 374–375) and the Casa dei pittori al lavoro (Varone 2007, 140) have been stated to be under restoration during the eruption. In the peristyle of the Casa del Medico there were two broken amphorae filled with lime (Mau 1883, 228. Jashemski 1993, 217 n. 442), and in house VII,6,3 there were building materials (Spano 1910, 442), indicating that both houses were under reconstruction.
120. Spinazzola (1953, 395) notes that the peristyle of the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio was visited before the eruption.
121. Sampaolo 1994, 192-193. Gobbo 2009, 351, 360.
122. Strocka 1994, 656.
123. Nn. 4, 7, 41, 248.
124. Nn. 21, 31, 34, 63, 124, 145, 172, 181, 188, 196.
125. The peristyles with Pompeian paintings styles: nn. 12, 18, 21, 48, 51, 63, 68, 77, 91, 117, 124, 130, 132, 140, 148, 172, 186, 188, 205, 223, 226, 247. The peristyle with painted plants without an identification of the style: n. 171.
126. See, e.g. Jashemski 1993, 102 n. 160 and peristyles nn. 58, 139. Peristyle n. 151 had a round travertine basin, but nothing else of it is known, making it impossible to determine whether it was a decorative element.
127. Nn. 17, 65. Boman & Nilsson 2014: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/decoration.php?hid=2&hidnummer=8359643&hrubrik=V%201,14-16%20Bakery&rid=17&ridnummer=2150539&rrubrik=Room%20h%20(peristyle-viridarium)&did=4&didnummer=6339268&drubrik=Wall%20decoration%20(extant). Last visited 25.7.2016.
128. N. 19.
129. Nn. 8, 11, 20, 27, 29, 32, 50, 53, 60, 75, 90, 91, 115, 127, 129, 143, 158, 159, 176, 184, 191, 192, 200, 211, 212, 215, 222, 224, 227, 228, 230.
130. Nn. 50, 51, 60, 98, 118, 143, 215, 217, 220, 222, 224, 248.
131. Nn. 50, 60, 98, 118, 215, 220, 222, 224, 248.
132. Jashemski 1993, 128 n. 235, 216 n. 438, 225–226 n. 463, 246–247 n. 511. Gallo 2013, 62. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 458–459 n. 150, 635 n. 459, 663–664 n. 512.
133. Nn. 98, 224, 248. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 458–459 n. 150.
134. Mau 1875, 164. A. De Vos 1991, 316. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 458–459 n. 150.
135. On the triclinia, see nn. 50, 60, 118, 220.
136. E.g. Jashemski 1993, 67 n. 116, 69 n. 120, 73 n. 123, 89–90 n. 146, 94–95 n. 153, 97 n. 154.
137. See e.g. M. De Vos 1990, 362; 1990b, 2, A. De Vos 1991, 435, Jashemski 1993, 83 n. 137, Bragantini 1994, 376, Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 545–546 n. 293.
138. For the possible restoration process and/or signs of it in individual peristyles, see house I,3,25: Trendelenburg 1871, 172, Jashemski 1993, 28, Sampaolo 1990, 86, Casa della Nave Europa (I,15,3): De Simone 1990, 963, Casa dei Quadretti teatrali (I,6,11): M. De Vos 1990, 362, Jashemski 1993, 35 n. 34, 36 n. 35, 36 n. 35, house VII,7,23: Minervini 1859, 66, Casa del Calce (VIII,5,28): Sogliano 1882, 324, Mau 1883, 230-231, and Bragantini 1998, 611, house IX,9,1: Sogliano 1888, 515. Mau 1889, 7. In addition, the following houses are reported to be under restoration, and it is possible – but not certain – that the peristyle was also intended to be restored: Casa del Criptoportico (I,6,2): Spinazzola 1953, 446–447, house I,6,9: Jashemski 1993, 35 n. 34, house VII,6,30: Sampaolo 1997, 197, house VIII,5,15–16: Sampaolo 1998, 572, Casa di M. Epidius Rufus (IX,1,20): Breton 1870, 486, Gallo 2013, 130.
139. Maiuri 1929, 393–395. Allison 2006, 333, 400.
140. M. De Vos 1990, 362. Jashemski 1993, 35 n. 34, 36 n. 35.
141. M. De Vos 1990, 362.
142. Della Corte 1954, 272. See also Maiuri 1954, 91.