6
6.1 Peristyle groups and socioeconomic standing
In Chapter 5, seven groups of peristyles were defined: opulent, large full, ornamental, large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural. The groups were defined according to the means of socioeconomic display that were utilized. The economic display characteristics of each group will now be discussed. We will consider how the peristyle groups are situated in the larger continuum: what type of economic success they represent when they are compared to each other, and how their other functions influenced their display purpose. The question of identifying social status through archaeological evidence is itself very complex, and will be addressed separately in Chapter 7.
The connection between the peristyle groups and wealth has already been established in Chapter 4, where the means are compared with the house ground area and the presence of luxury architecture (Table 2.2). It is therefore possible to assume that the ranking of the peristyles more-or-less follows the same order in which the peristyle groups are presented in Chapter 5. However, it is important to remember that the house architecture does not reveal everything about the owner’s wealth, and this comparison is very generalized; it mainly creates a rough outline of the economic standing of each group. Accordingly, I will now move on to further examine the groups and their connection with wealth and its display.
Opulent peristyles only represent about six percent of all the houses with a peristyle, and the owners of this type of peristyle were most likely among the wealthiest people of Pompeii. The large number of display features already signals this, but the connection between great wealth and the opulent peristyles is confirmed by the average size of the houses containing them, which is over 1,600 m2 for the group of opulent peristyles. Although some of the opulent peristyles were not located in the vast houses of Pompeii, they usually are, as the median size of these houses is also over 1,600 m2. In addition, 70 percent of the houses with opulent peristyles also had luxury architecture.1 Even though the opulent peristyles seem to be in the houses of the wealthiest inhabitants of Pompeii, this does not mean that all of the richest Pompeians had an opulent peristyle in their homes.
The large full peristyles featured several means to display high economic standing in Pompeii, but these peristyles do not seem to belong to quite the same economic level as the group owning the top peristyles in the city. The large full peristyles are found in houses that are on average a little smaller than 1,200 m2, but the difference is really demonstrated by the median values of the house areas, which is over 600 m2 smaller than in the group of opulent peristyles. The connection with luxury architecture is also not as strong: only about 40 percent of the houses with large full peristyles featured a double atrium, two peristyles, or a private bath.2
Figure 6.1 shows the connections between house size and luxury architecture for the remaining five peristyle groups: ornamental, large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural. The average house size of these peristyle groups is clearly lower, compared to those with opulent and large full peristyles. The average house area of the ornamental and large painting peristyles is about 600 m2. It increases a little for the imitation peristyles, and keeps rising for the minor decoration peristyles, where the average is 717 m2, and then drops again to 558 m2 in the houses with an architectural peristyle. The median values start at 543 m2 for the ornamental peristyles, and all of the other peristyle groups are below this level. The median size for the large painting and the minor decoration groups is around 470 m2, while for the imitation and the architectural peristyles groups it is just below 390 m2. The connection with luxury architecture and these five peristyle groups follows a similar pattern: it is highest for the ornamental peristyles, and then drops, but rises a bit again for the minor decoration peristyles, and drops for the architectural peristyles. In general, Figure 6.1 demonstrates that the difference between the houses with ornamental and architectural peristyles is clear – the first case has a high degree of correlation, while the second has a low degree. The rest of the groups are more-or-less similar to each other, with their degree of correlation situated between the ornamental and architectural peristyles.
Figure 6.1 The average and median house ground area of the ornamental, large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural peristyle groups (Total number: 205). On the right side of the graph, illustrated with a gray line, are the percentages of houses with luxury architecture for each group.
Considering the average house area, the ornamental, large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural peristyles belong to the upper medium group, but only the ornamental peristyles would belong to this group if the medians were considered. Its median area, and the high ratio of luxury architecture compared to the other four groups, indicates that the owners of these peristyles mostly belonged to the economic upper middle class of Pompeian peristyle owners – meaning that they likely were the elite of the city. The houses with the large painting, imitation, and minor decoration peristyles are not so easily categorized. The relatively large difference between the median and average for the groups indicates that there were large variations between the house sizes in these peristyle groups. In general, these could all be placed in the economic middle class of peristyle owners, without making a clear distinction whether they were upper or lower middle class. The architectural peristyles instead seem to incline towards the lower middle class of the peristyle owners, as the median is clearly below the line of 505 m2 – the median value of all houses with a peristyle (Fig. 2.6) – and the ratio of the luxury architecture is low. However, the difference between the average and median for this group suggests that there are plenty of exceptions in house size, and so overly broad generalizations must be avoided.
The situation of the imitation peristyles and the minor decoration peristyles in Figure 6.1 suggests a few significant notions. First, the difference between the average and median for both groups is particularly large, and these peristyles seem to be located in very different sized houses. Second, the minor decoration peristyles are often in particularly large houses compared to the houses with the large painting peristyles and the imitation peristyles, and even in some cases in relation to the ornamental peristyles, as the average areas suggest. This might indicate that our source situation is corrupt for the imitation and minor decoration peristyles, and that they were more decorated than we know, or that they were going through an upgrading or downgrading process at the time of the eruption. Nonetheless, it is equally possible that the house owners preferred to invest their money somewhere other than these peristyles. Of course, we cannot dismiss the possibility that they – or some of them – were actually messaging a higher wealth than is apparent to modern eyes, for example with their flora, but this cannot be confirmed due to our poor source situation.
Nevertheless, most significantly the values of the imitation and minor decoration peristyles indicate that the linkage between the order of the peristyle groups and economic status is not straightforward, and the peristyle types alone cannot be considered the sole determinant of their owners’ wealth. Some houses, for example, contain several peristyles, and this naturally reflects great wealth, even though the specific characteristics of the individual peristyles would not necessarily do so. Likewise, other areas in Pompeian houses could have been used to reflect the owner’s socioeconomic standing.
To conclude, on a general level the owners of the opulent peristyles correspond to the economic elite of Pompeii, and the owners of the large full peristyles can be also defined as belonging to the economic upper class of the peristyle owners – likely in most cases belonging to the city’s top economic class. The ornamental peristyle gardens instead mostly correspond to the upper middle class of the peristyle owners, but on the overall scale of the city they likely belonged to the elite, while the large painting, imitation, and minor decoration peristyles are classified as belonging to the economic middle class in general. In contrast, the architectural peristyles correspond mostly with the lower economic middle class of the peristyle owners, but compared to all of the city’s inhabitants they were safely in the middle class. This classification is obviously very rough, and there are variations within each group. Also, the architecture of a house alone does not always correctly reflect the house owner’s wealth. For example, it does not tell us anything about movable property, other land owned, savings, or debt. Moreover, the effectiveness and utility of architectural display is that it can be used to reflect a different – possibly higher – status than the owner had actually achieved. The following four sections discuss what type of display these peristyles groups represented, and what the owners potentially wanted to signal with the different kinds of peristyles.
6.2 Architecture and the size of built space as representations of wealth in the opulent and large full peristyles
Quantity plays an important role in all of the first four groups: opulent, large full, ornamental, and large painting. In the first two this is manifested in the form of the area and number of colonnades, in the ornamental peristyles in the number of sculptures or fountains, and in the large painting peristyles in the quantity or the size of the wall paintings. It can be questioned whether quantity has an overly dominant role in the classification system, as we do not have the data to examine what individual Pompeians thought about overall size, or the number of porticoes or decorative items in peristyle gardens. Nevertheless, the quantity also tells us about appreciation. The fact that these features can be found in several peristyles signals that they were on some level appreciated in Pompeian society, not just by the individuals who chose them. It can also reflect that it was just a custom to build and decorate in this way, but compared to the total amount of the peristyles these features are still a rarity, meaning that the selection was not dictated by simple routine.
The quantity of different display features suggests that economic representation had a very important – almost primary – role in the opulent peristyles. They transmit a message of the abundant wealth of the house owner through their architecture and decoration. The grand architecture, large area, and full number of porticoes created an image of an important and rich house owner. This image is reinforced by the conspicuous play of water achieved with fountains and pools, and the grandeur of the space is highlighted by the floor, wall, and sculpture decorations. The opulent peristyles were most likely used for entertaining guests, and nine of them offered art – sculpture or central panel paintings – that tempted the visitor into the peristyle to take a better look at them. The five peristyles that do not feature these elements had pools and fountains to make the space more pleasant.3 The 14 peristyles represent approximately six percent of Pompeian peristyles. The ratio is quite small, and making a generalization that all the peristyles were used mainly for display purposes solely on the basis of this group is questionable.
The display function of the large full peristyles is not as readily apparent as that of the opulent peristyles, although in many cases it is clear. There are peristyles, such as the one in the Casa di Paquius Proculus and another in the Casa dei Postumii, that are very much reminiscent of an opulent peristyle.4 The difference between some peristyles in these groups is often mainly theoretical, and a Pompeian’s experience of these peristyles was probably not much different. It seems that many of the peristyles classified as large full peristyles also had a primary purpose of display. The large full peristyles with central panel paintings likely had an important display function. It is probable that these paintings were intended to attract visitors to examine the paintings more closely, meaning that it was an important function of the space, and likely that the visitors entered into and walked through these peristyles. These paintings can be found in the large full peristyles in the Casa degli amanti, Casa delle Vestali, and Casa dei Dioscuri.5 In the Casa dei Gladiatori the paintings of the pluteus were probably an equally attractive item for visitors.6
However, in many large full peristyles the indicators of display function vary so much that the importance of this role is more difficult to grasp, and their role in the house might be slightly different compared to the opulent peristyles. Among the large full peristyles there are some that were reported with only a few decorative elements, and because the peristyles of this group are larger compared to the many other peristyles (Fig. 4.4) this would create an image of a large open space in the house, and particularly in the middle part of the peristyle. Good examples of this are the Casa del Labirinto and the northern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno, which feature very little or no decoration at all in the central spaces, and which are 295 m2 and 650 m2 in size respectively.7 This type of empty space would be effective as a display of wealth, if not even as conspicuous consumption of land. If the intention was to transmit the owner’s ability to waste expensive city space, it was not necessary for the visitors to spend much time in the peristyle – it might have been enough to just take a glance at the space and the message was received. However, it can be questioned whether the central spaces were empty. Even if the documentation of the structures and the decoration is correct, the documentation of possible plantings was rarely carried out at any level. Therefore, these gardens might have had plantings reflecting the wealth of the owner, but for a clear majority of the peristyles this is purely speculation. In these peristyles, wealth was not demonstrated via numerous decorations; rather, the primary means of display are the large spaces, which were almost empty, or perhaps had lavish plantings.
The large full peristyles and the opulent peristyles are visually similar, but the first mentioned lacks several attributes compared to the second. Whether the opulent peristyles of Pompeii were used as the models for the large full peristyles is uncertain, as their design might have arrived from other cities or even villae, rather than from the neighboring houses.8 However, the idea of the peristyle space is similar to that of the opulent peristyles: four porticoes, a large space, and often even a pool as decoration. In both groups, the intention was to build relatively similar peristyles, and even if the model for the large full peristyles was not the opulent peristyles, they at least imitate the same idea that was behind the opulent peristyles.
One possibility is that the peristyles of Rome functioned as models for Pompeii. However, the current source situation of the capital does not allow us to make this conclusion. Literary evidence does not describe the peristyle or gardens in such detail, making their similarity with the Pompeian peristyles is very speculative. The archaeological remains that can be dated to the period prior to 79 CE are very few, and we rarely know the layout and contents of an entire peristyle courtyard. Instead, what we know about these peristyles are mostly reconstructions made on the basis of a few remaining structures, interpretations of later phases, and modeling on the basis of other known peristyles of the Roman Empire, such as Pompeian peristyles.9 Considering this methodology, it is no surprise that the Pompeian peristyles are similar to those in Rome; but actually, in this case, the Pompeian peristyles functioned as the model for the Roman examples – although, only for the reconstructions – not the other way around. In addition to these severe problems, in most cases in Rome the presence of a garden in the peristyle cannot be verified.10
Architecture has a strong role in both top peristyle groups, and particularly in their colonnades, of which four are required in the criteria of the opulent and large full peristyles. One could question whether so much value should be placed on the maximum number of porticoes, principally because the colonnades are vital for movement and could be thought of as a very practical feature. Despite this practical function, the connection of the full peristyle and wealth has already been demonstrated, and in addition the practicality of having several colonnades can be also questioned.11
A great number of the full peristyles have porticoes that do not significantly facilitate movement. For instance, it would be possible to eliminate a portico and change the full peristyle into a pseudo-peristyle, and all the rooms around the peristyle could still be reached through the remaining colonnades. The Casa dei Vettii offers a model example: the south and the west colonnades could be eliminated – transforming it into a pseudo-peristyle with two porticoes – without affecting the movement patterns of the house (Fig. 6.2).12 Consequently, the function of these two porticoes is more likely related to display rather than to movement. Firstly, they double the number of porticoes and almost double the number of columns, signaling that more material and time was consumed in building the peristyle than if it was a pseudo-peristyle. Secondly, the porticoes offer the possibility to stroll around the garden and to marvel at the fountains, sculpture, and wall paintings from several directions, and to take a closer look at them, making all their details better visible. Another similar example is the peristyle of the Casa di Meleagro. Its north and west colonnades had a decorative function rather than being important for movement, and more than half of the full peristyles had at least one portico that could have been eliminated without disconnecting any rooms of the house.13 As a matter of fact, in the peristyle of the Casa del Gallo the elimination of the west portico might have been in process just before the eruption. The peristyle was under reconstruction and the west side was missing columns,14 but the gutter and its corner tuff slabs indicate that the peristyle still had four porticoes when the eruption occurred,15 although the northwest corner column is the only column remaining in the west portico. In most cases, the presence of all four porticoes was rarely absolutely necessary for the space, and some of the colonnades seem to be important for their display function rather than being very crucial for movement.
Figure 6.2 The plan of the Casa dei Vettii, showing how the south and west porticoes could be eliminated without affecting the accessibility of the rooms around the peristyle. It would not even change the distance between the rooms around the peristyle, and the time spent moving from one room to another would remain same. The left side is the actual situation of the Casa dei Vettii, while the right side is an imaginary reconstruction with only two colonnades.
6.3 The importance of the quantity and size of decorations: the means of display in the ornamental and large painting peristyles
The architecture of the ornamental and large painting peristyles does not reflect an image of the wealthiest inhabitants of Pompeii, nor are they often found in houses that signal enormous wealth. In these peristyles the image of economic success is created through the display of extravagant fountains, sculpture collections, or large paintings. What was missing in the size or number of colonnades was compensated for with the lavish decorative elements in the garden. These eye-catching features guided the viewer’s gaze towards the garden and away from the architecture.
Five of the opulent peristyles and two of the large full peristyles featured a sculpture collection and/or more than three fountains.16 It has been suggested that the small or middle sized peristyle gardens with a large number of decorative garden elements – a description fitting to the ornamental peristyles – were trying to imitate rich houses. Already in the 19th century Guglielmo Bechi stated that the fountains of the Casa del Granduca indicate how lower class Pompeians imitated the upper classes.17 More recently, Patrizia Loccardi has stated similarly that the sculpture decoration of the Casa del Gruppo dei vasi di vetro was trying to imitate rich houses, but she contradicts herself later by stating that the sculpture decoration in the peristyles does not usually appear in the houses of the highest ranks.18 Nadia Inserra sees the peristyle of house I,2,17 – featuring four marble sculptures – as an imitation of a luxury villa.19 Many scholars who apply the villa-imitation theory are inspired by Zanker, who states that the sculpture-filled gardens were imitations of villa gardens. His main example is the peristyle of the Casa degli amorini dorati Amorini, but he also refers to the Casa di Marcus Lucretius. Besides the sculpture, Zanker and others also interpret the luxurious water installations as an imitation of the otium villa.20
Zanker has the correct view, when stating that some of the villa gardens had large sculpture collections, such as the Villa of Oplontis,21 but what goes unnoticed is that these villa gardens are usually very large.22 The villa peristyles with numerous fountains or with large nymphaea were also large, such as the peristyle in the Villa of San Marco.23 That is why the context of these types of decorations compared to the Pompeian houses seems to be relatively different. In Pompeii, these elements are mostly in the medium sized peristyles, or in even more restricted spaces, so that the imitation is not straightforward, and it seems like an application of one specific feature of the villa gardens in a different context.
Moreover, establishing a clear link – at such a level that one could conclude that there was imitation – between the villa gardens or any other gardens and the Pompeian peristyles is difficult. The presence of sculptures or fountains is not enough to demonstrate that they were copied, and a more detailed analysis is needed. This is complicated by the literary sources, as they do not describe the features in such detail that it would be possible to define how similar they actually were to the Pompeian examples, whereas the archaeological material has a problem with dating; if something is copied, then it should be older than the copy. This can be the case with a single sculpture, but the known sculpture collections in the gardens are from 79 CE in both villae and in the domus, making it impossible to establish which preceded another. Some fountain structures can be dated, but their dating is quite ambiguous, making it again difficult to establish a clear timeline. For example, the nymphaeum of the Casa del Toro is estimated to have been built during the early Empire, the Tiberian/Claudian era.24 One could imagine that the nymphaeum of the Villa San Marco was its model, but it is also from the Julio-Claudian period.25 Similar lavish water displays were also occurring in Rome; for example, a nymphaeum dating to the age of Nero is known from the Imperial palace complex, and there are other examples.26 All of these large fountain structures are dated to more-or-less the same era, and consequently it is impossible to say that the Pompeian nymphaeum was imitating the villa or Palatine structures. It is likely that they all originated from the same model that Aurora Raimondi Cominesi thinks inspired the examples in Rome.27
Zanker proposes that some houses in Pompeii were so-called “town villae,” and were mediating the villa decoration into the domus.28 Perhaps these had plenty of sculptures and fountains? However, taking a closer look at the peristyles demonstrates that this was not the case – or the connections are very weak and such a conclusion cannot be made. For example, lavish sculpture decoration or the presence of several fountains is very rare in the vast houses with a peristyle (above 1,200 m2, Fig. 2.7) in Pompeii: there is only one case with a sculpture collection and three fountains, and two with more than two fountains.29 Although the definition of a “town villa” is murky, this comparison already demonstrates that it is impossible to state that these houses functioned as intermediaries for the use of sculpture collections or a large quantity of fountains.
A further examination of the peristyles regarding a possible correlation in sizes provides equally unsatisfying results, although the numbers are a little higher. There are three vast peristyles (above 305 m2, Fig. 4.4) with a sculpture collection and several fountains, and additionally two with more than two fountains but without a sculpture collection.30 Consequently, the large amount of sculptures or fountains does not seem to be a phenomenon of a large peristyle, as in the villae. The idea that the villa gardens or large houses were examples of ornamental peristyles can be generally questioned.
The opulent peristyles often featured pools with fountains, and similar decorations can be found in several large full peristyles. The water installations of the ornamental peristyles could be regarded as imitations of these pools. For example, a similar idea of a pool equipped with a fountain can be found in the Casa della Caccia nuova, where an impluvium-like marble pool had a fountain jet in the middle. The water display, however, was not limited to only one fountain in this pool, as there were three additional fountain jets on its sides.31 This is the difference between ornamental peristyles and most of the opulent peristyles, which often had only one or two fountains, or the large full peristyles, which usually had only one fountain if they had any.32 In some of the ornamental peristyles the display value of the fountain is increased with conspicuous constructions around the fountain jets, such as decorative niches or even a nymphaeum. The water display in the ornamental peristyles is more lavish compared to the opulent and large full peristyles.
The sculpture collections and lavish water installations in the peristyles of Pompeii seem more of a distinctive means to display wealth by the peristyle owners below the top elite, rather than a direct imitation of the richest houses, as they are rarely featured in the opulent or large full peristyles. Sculpture is an easy method to display wealth: there is no need to acquire more land or build new porticoes, and even installing a fountain is easier than restructuring a whole part of the house. In a villa garden the sculpture was just one part of the luxurious decoration, but in Pompeian ornamental peristyles it was the primary means of display.
Almost half (11) of the ornamental peristyles were also decorated with large paintings,33 so there is a clear physical connection between these decorative elements. The garden paintings are often interpreted as creating an illusion of a continuation of space beyond the wall.34 This function concurs with the small size of these peristyles. If the function of the garden paintings was to enlarge the garden space, one would assume that they were meant to be observed from quite far away, as the illusion is weaker the closer the viewer is. Consequently, half of the peristyles with large paintings had the largest room of the peristyle area opening onto the peristyle, just opposite the paintings. The walls and floors of these rooms were often richly decorated.35 The intention was that the paintings in the peristyle were visible from these rooms, placing the viewer outside the peristyle. The size and decoration of the rooms indicates that they could be used for entertaining guests. In the eight cases where the largest room did not afford a clear view to the large paintings, the paintings were on the entrance-atrium-tablinum axis, and in five houses the tablinum was the largest room opening onto the peristyle.36 All of these room layouts suggest that it was important to see these paintings from a distance.
There are, however, indicators – such as the details – in these paintings suggesting that the large paintings were equally meant to be appreciated from a close range.37 The small details point out that the peristyles were meant to be visited. Additionally, there are five peristyles with a masonry triclinium and a large painting,38 which certainly establishes that guests were meant to spend time in these spaces. In all of these cases, except in the Casa dell’Efebo, the triclinium was practically attached to the wall where the paintings were located.39 This clearly suggests that the paintings were also meant to be viewed from a close range.
The illusion of a greater space created by a garden painting can be experienced if the paintings are viewed from a distance,40 but at close range this does not happen. From the modern viewer’s point of view, the illusion of spatial continuation is shattered at the latest when a person walks into the peristyle – if not before. Given their relatively large number, these types of paintings were probably so well-known in Pompeii that even from a fair distance a passer-by could have easily guessed that they were looking at paintings, not real landscapes or gardens. Some fantasy elements, such as the large Venus in the Casa della Venere in conchiglia, further reveal that the paintings were not supposed to create an image of reality. In general, such fantasy characters are an integral part of garden paintings in the Roman world.41
Ciarallo claims that the paintings with the large Venus in the Casa della Venere in conchiglia had a sacred symbolism. She bases her interpretation on the depicted plants, which can be connected to Venus.42 It is likely that the plants were chosen because they were associated with Venus, but any attribution of sacral meaning to these plants is speculative. The wall had a niche, which has been interpreted by several researchers as a lararium,43 but it does not have any evidence of a sacral function: no lararium statues have been reported and no lararium paintings are present around the niche. The paintings in the niche, a few branches of a plant, indicate a connection with the garden painting, but not a cult function. None of the other peristyles with large garden or animal paintings with mythological characters had lararia. A niche on the north wall of the peristyle of the Casa di Vesonius Primus (VI,14,20) is listed as one,44 but again there is no evidence to indicate this type of use. In addition, in house VII,6,7 a lararium is reported on the south wall with a garden painting and a Venus,45 but yet again the evidence to connect the niche with cult activity is non-existent. The imaginary elements of these paintings are clearly visible, and they underline the fantasy character of the paintings, but there is no direct evidence of cult activity, and the sacred connection is limited to the divinities represented in the paintings. The mythological themes alone do not make the space particularly religious in the Pompeian domestic context.
In the animal paintings, the connection between the picture and the physical space is remote, and the fantasy of escaping reality is clearly present. The same can be said about the Nilotic scenes and landscapes. They represent elements that were not possible in the actual space of the garden, and hint at exotic themes and luxury beyond the limits of the house or the means of the house owner. Umberto Pappalardo maintains that the animal paintings were imitating the zoological gardens of Hellenistic royal palaces.46 Although the idea of these paintings might have been received from somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, it is difficult to show a direct connection between the royal palaces and the Pompeian houses, whereas the animal paintings are linked to the parapet wall of the amphitheater of the city.47 Therefore, there is a possibility that the inspiration for these paintings was much closer than the Hellenistic palaces.
It has also been suggested that the garden paintings reflected the actual gardens where they were located. Barbara Amadio thinks that the garden paintings of the Casa degli archi (I,17,4) represent the plantings of the garden.48 Neither the florae of the garden nor of the paintings, however, are identified, and the connection between the painting and the actual plants is purely speculative.49 The painting, however, represents several marble basins with sculptural decoration, but no such basins or sculpture – or any type of basins or sculpture – were found in this garden, meaning that not even these elements reflect the actual garden. The painting seems to echo fantasy rather than reality; and it was easy to paint features that were impossible to acquire or fit into the actual garden. The only peristyle with large paintings that slightly correlates with the decoration of the actual garden is in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26), where the peristyle had marble oscilla and its animal painting had painted oscilla. In addition, the garden painting featured a nymph fountain with a bowl, which might resemble the marble fountain basin in the peristyle, but this is speculative and uncertain, as the fountain in the paintings has not survived and its appearance cannot be determined.50 Among the 20 peristyles with garden paintings, the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus is an exception, as it is the only one where even a small connection can be made with the painting and the actual garden.51 In general, the painted gardens did not correspond with the three-dimensional decoration of the peristyle gardens, but the paintings could have been used to compensate for some desired but missing elements of the garden.
Despite the strong indicators that the large paintings were experienced as paintings, not as realistic trompe-l’œil illusions, there are several aspects indicating that Pompeians still enjoyed playing with the relationship between actual and painted space. For example, surprisingly many of the gardens (14) with large garden paintings feature reported remains of plantings.52 The plantings, such as the trees and shrubs in the Casa degli archi, were an excellent means to blur the line between the garden and the painting. The north garden of the Casa di Sallustio had a planting bed directly in front of the east wall, which had garden paintings.53 The visuality of the garden plants probably mixed with the painted plants, and made it difficult for the viewer to understand where the actual garden ended and the painted one started.
In the northern garden of the Casa di Sallustio, there was another planting bed on the west side of the garden, which added depth and layers to the garden view. The combination of the actual and painted plants may have made the narrow garden look larger. Perhaps a similar aim was intended in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, where the garden had a row of planting pots in front of the north wall, which had painted vegetation on the lower part of the wall and animal paintings in the middle part.54 In this case, the combination of the elements is not as smooth as in the Casa di Sallustio, where the plants and painted plants likely intermingled more effectively. Additionally, long straight planting beds and garden paintings on the walls are reported in the north peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri.55 All of these gardens had a long and narrow structure and only one colonnade. The garden and plant paintings are on the long wall, and the planting seems to have been in rows in front of the painting. The layout might have created an illusion of a deeper garden, but even more effectively it functioned in shading the limit between the real and the imaginary – the wall and the garden.
Occasionally the garden and animal paintings are divided by half-columns or pilasters.56 The half-columns in the peristyle of the Casa del Granduca Michele and the north peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri imitate the appearance of the free-standing columns of the real peristyles.57 In the Casa degli Epigrammi they are quite similar, but the upper part of the half-columns is pinkish, whereas on the actual columns it is white.58 In the northern peristyle of the Casa di Sallustio the shape is different: the wall had rectangular pilasters where the columns are round, but their coloring was similar.59 The three-dimensional quality of these architectural elements further blurs the line between the painting and the actual space. The similarity of the half-columns and the free-standing columns suggests that the illusion of the extension of the peristyle space on the sides without colonnades was somewhat intentional in these cases.
The large garden paintings in the peristyles and their overall contexts demonstrate that these paintings had various functions, from the purely decorative to the possible interplay between the space and the painting. However, they are idealized, as Bergmann notes on garden paintings in general.60 Most clearly – in the light of current evidence – they do not try to imitate the garden space where they are located. Instead, the paintings depict things that one could not see in the actual space, and these paintings complete the owner’s or painter’s imaginary vision of the garden. This is most evidently shown in the mythological themes presented in the paintings. The fantasy elements are strong in these paintings, but all of the large paintings were something more than the actual gardens – they were a means to fulfill fantasies. Several details in these paintings suggest that they were meant to be observed at close range, and it must have been obvious to the viewers that they were seeing a painting. Nevertheless, there are indications that the house owner wanted to blur the line between reality and fantasy. Actual plants could be used for the interplay with the paintings, and in this way the boundary between the actual garden and the painted was blurred. In addition, the relationship between the paintings and the layout of many of the houses suggests that these paintings created a backdrop for a visual axis inside the house. When viewed from these axes, particularly from a long distance, it might have been difficult to know where the garden/reality ended and the painting/fantasy started, making it difficult to see what was missing in the real peristyle and what was filled in by the painting. The large paintings reflect a fantasy, and perhaps a desire for unobtainable luxury, as Jashemski suggests for the garden painting of house VII,6,28, which creates an impression of a luxurious garden.61 The elements that were not possible to supply in the actual garden – statues, fountains, exotic animals, even mythological characters – were compensated for in the paintings.
The number of decorative items is the key element of display in the ornamental peristyles, while in the large painting peristyles the size of the painting was more important. The quantity of decoration was important in these peristyles, and the large art collections or wall-spanning paintings were certainly visible to the visitors and peristyle users. This means that these peristyles were display spaces, and that visitors were meant to enter the peristyle to have a better view of these art works. Nevertheless, the location of these large paintings, sculpture collections, or lavish water displays also suggests that they were planned to create a background for activity taking place outside the peristyle.
These fountain niches, sculpture collections, large paintings, and multiple fountains were rarely a feature in the largest peristyles of Pompeii. Instead, they are located in the peristyles that are more-or-less medium sized, and feature colonnades on from one to three sides. Because architectural modifications – such as enlarging a peristyle or building more colonnades – were costly, slow, or perhaps even impossible, these types of decorations offered an easier method to demonstrate prosperity. There is a certain degree of speculation in assuming that these peristyles were compensating for the architecture, as other motives might be possible; for example, some Pompeians may have simply preferred this kind of decoration. Nevertheless, the fountain niches, sculpture collections, large wall paintings, and multiple fountains certainly were a means to display wealth for a certain group of people that can be primarily placed in the economic middle class of peristyle owners.
6.4 The idea of the full peristyle: imitating the top peristyles of Pompeii
Pompeians had several means of blurring the line between open space and the wall. Jashemski has suggested that the nails on the west wall of the peristyle of the Casa di Polibio indicate that the trees near the wall were espaliered.62 This could be a method of merging the wall with the garden space by decorating both with real plants. Furthermore, the same west wall of the peristyle of the Casa di Polibio had half-columns that also played a part in creating an illusion of a flexible boundary between the wall and the inhabited space. In general, half-columns and pilasters were used for this purpose, particularly in the imitation peristyles.
The peristyles with portico imitations usually tend to create an illusion of a full peristyle; however, occasionally they settle for achieving a pseudo-peristyle. If a pseudo-peristyle with an imitation portico was located after an atrium-tablinum axis, the intention of the design was to leave the wall without the portico imitation invisible to the atrium area – the only exception of this layout being the Casa di Inaco e Io.63 The layout maintained the image of a full portico until entering the peristyle. This possibly indicates that much of the activity involving visitors occurred in the spaces where the peristyle was only partially visible – such as the atria – and from the owner’s view-point it was more important that the visitors acknowledge the existence of the peristyles than actually spend much time in them.
The rarity of decoration in the peristyles with imitation porticoes also indicates that the likely intention was that a guest would not spend much time in the peristyle. Even if we include the ornamental peristyles that had portico imitations, there are only three peristyles with both a portico imitation and an extensive collection of sculpture or fountains.64 Besides these three ornamental peristyles, significant decoration in the peristyles with imitation porticoes is rare: only the north peristyle of the Casa del Citarista had a marble basin, and the peristyle of house VII,6,7 had a terracotta statue.65 None of the peristyles with imitation porticoes had fountains.
Although the peristyles with imitation porticoes did not have a similar display function to the opulent and the ornamental peristyles, they had a different display role: creating an illusion of an architecturally more impressive peristyle that there actually was. The peristyles with an imitation portico (including the ornamental peristyles and the peristyles with large paintings) are not particularly large in general – their average size is about 145 m2. The primary purpose of a portico imitation was to compensate for the missing portico, but as it was also intended to create an impression of the continuation of space it was also a means of compensating for the small size of the peristyle.
In the group of the imitation peristyles, there are 12 peristyles with four porticoes that are smaller than the Pompeian average (Fig. 2.5). Among these peristyles are the peristyles of house I,2,6, the Casa di Giasone (IX,5,18), and the northern peristyle of the Casa del Centauro. They all had an area smaller than 100 m2, four porticoes, and additionally a pool in the garden, and therefore they can be interpreted as miniature versions of the opulent peristyles.66 The peristyle of house VIII,4,12-13 can also be added to this group. It is reported to have had a bronze basin – not found in any other Pompeian peristyles – which makes this full peristyle another small-size reflection of an opulent peristyle.67 All of the full peristyles in the group of imitation peristyles belong to the size group 65–170 m2, which in the continuum of Pompeii is dominated by the pseudo-peristyles, while a full peristyle of such a small size is a rarity (Fig. 6.3). It can be said that a normal solution for that amount of space would have been to restrict the number of porticoes, but some owners decided not to do so. Instead, they decided to build and maintain a full peristyle themselves, even though many other Pompeians had chosen another option.
Figure 6.3 The number of peristyles with one, two, three, or four porticoes in the size group of 65–170 m2. The percentage of all the peristyles in this size group: one portico 23 percent, two porticoes 38 percent, three porticoes 28 percent, four porticoes 11 percent (Total number: 128). The ratio of the peristyles of size group 65–170 m2 compared to the total number of peristyles with one, two, three, or four porticoes: one portico 53 percent, two porticoes 66 percent, three porticoes 55 percent, four porticoes 25 percent.
Compared to the use of sculpture collections, multiple fountains, and large paintings, which seem to be featured mainly in the medium and small pseudo-peristyles, half-columns are not limited only to the pseudo-peristyles. They are also featured in the large and vast full peristyles. For example, the opulent peristyle of the Casa di Meleagro has four half-columns on the east wall, creating a monumental entrance into the Corinthian oecus, or perhaps the illusion of a double portico on the east side.68 A similar effect is presented on the south side of the Casa di Cornelius Rufus, where the columns frame three openings onto the peristyle.69 These openings possibly enabled viewing from the peristyle into the street, and vice-versa, visually connecting the peristyle to the public space. However, the use of half-columns behind an actual colonnade was not only a phenomenon of the full peristyles; they occurred in all types of peristyles.70 Using the visual image of a portico behind an actual portico may have aspired to create an illusion of a double colonnade, although actual double porticoes are rare in Pompeian peristyles.71
In the large full peristyle of the Casa del Labirinto, and in both peristyles – one opulent and the other large full – of the Casa del Fauno, there were several plaster pilasters. In the Casa del Labirinto the pilasters are only on the west and east walls, while in the Casa del Fauno they were probably present on all of the walls. The walls also had first style wall paintings, and the plaster pilasters were a part of this wall decoration.72 Daniela Corlàita Scagliarini notes that the pilasters and columns of the Casa del Fauno generate a similar effect as the columns and half-columns of the Basilica of Pompeii,73 making these peristyles visually associated with that public building. A similar effect of free-standing columns and plaster pilasters can be found in two pseudo-peristyles: in house VI,2,16 and the Casa di Cipius Pamphilus (VII,6,38).74 In five peristyles the plaster pilasters are on the garden walls, where they likely had a similar function to the half-columns on garden walls: creating the illusion of another single portico. Again, in some of these peristyles the pilasters are part of the first style wall decoration.75 Imitation porticoes are featured in all types of peristyles, including the large and full peristyles, and therefore their use in the smaller pseudo-peristyles may possibly have been copied from these larger peristyles.
In the houses with the imitation peristyles,76 the idea of the full peristyle is considered important – whether it was an actual small-size peristyle with four porticoes or an attempt to create an illusion of a full peristyle. Therefore, these peristyles can be seen as attempts to imitate the opulent and large full peristyles, or perhaps – more likely – the same idea of a peristyle. The pseudo-peristyles and gardens with one portico, where half-columns or pilasters created an illusion of additional porticoes, would not have deceived a Pompeian: the average Pompeian must have known these features so well that it was very clear that they were half-columns, not actual colonnades. Nevertheless, the half-columns and pilasters were widely used in Pompeii, and an imitation portico was an appropriate decoration for a wall without a colonnade. This function is commonly associated with the large paintings – which were also utilized to decorate the walls without porticoes – however the imitation porticoes are mimicking the idea of the top peristyles of Pompeii, whereas the large paintings can be seen as a unique method compared to the top peristyles. Their decoration – or lack of it77 – suggests that the imitation peristyles were probably not intended as spaces where guests would spend much time. The likely role of the imitation peristyle was to guide a visitor through to another space or room, and to create a background for the activities that occurred in other parts of the house. In this case, even an illusion of a full peristyle was enough, and the existence of a peristyle alone was a symbol of wealth. With careful planning of the house architecture, including placement of furniture and plantings, the illusion of a full peristyle could have been made to last even longer – perhaps even until the moment when a person entered the peristyle.
6.5 The peristyles without a specifically planned display function
The evidence for display features in the minor decoration and architectural peristyles is in general limited. Some minor decoration peristyles, however, have indicators that they had some extra display value – at least at some point in their history if not during the last phase. The peristyles of the Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII,9,47) and Casa della Regina Carolina (VIII,3,14) had three porticoes. The last mentioned had a pool with a fountain, and the peristyle walls were adorned with mythological paintings. The peristyle of the Casa delle Nozze di Ercole was 250 m2 in size, and had two pools and two marble sculptures.78 This peristyle seems to follow the idea of an opulent peristyle – or parts of it – and the same idea is visible in the peristyle of the Casa della Regina Carolina. In addition to these two peristyles, there are several minor decoration peristyles with an occasional fountain, sculpture, painting, or decorative plantings.79
The presence of fountains, sculpture, paintings, or decorative plantings indicates that the space might have had a display value, and that they might be imitating the ideas of the luxurious peristyles, but the number of decorations is low in the minor decoration peristyles, and it is risky to propose an important representative function for them. For example, when a peristyle only had one statue it can be hypothesized that personal preferences were more important during its acquisition than when obtaining whole sculpture collections. It is more likely that in a large collection not all of the statues had as much personal value as when buying only one statue. Therefore, in a large collection the display function more likely had a larger role than in the case of one sculpture, when other motives probably played a large or an even larger role. For instance, the decorative elements are rare in the architectural peristyles compared to the other groups, and the means of display as defined in this study are almost non-existent. However, while there are a few exceptions, the nature of the features in these architectural peristyles is unclear and does not suggest an important display role, as in these cases there may well have been other motivations to acquire these decorations.
The lack of significant means of display in the architectural peristyles indicates that they did not have an important – or perhaps any – planned display function. However, there is a possibility that due to perhaps corrupted source material some of the architectural peristyles had a display purpose – or they were being developed into display peristyles – but this remains mostly speculation.
As has been noted several times, the peristyle had important architectural functions: providing light and air for the house and guiding movement inside the house. For example, Spinazzola concludes that the peristyle of the Casa del Criptoportico – one of the architectural peristyles – did not have any other function than guiding movement in the house.80 The architectural peristyles were likely planned and built primarily for their architectural functions. This indicates that the owner did not intend the peristyle space for display, probably due to a lack of financial resources, or perhaps because there was no need, as their economic status was demonstrated in some other part of the house that visitors were more likely to encounter.
Although the architectural peristyles are most likely found in the houses of commoners compared to the other groups, this type of peristyle also suggests a certain level of wealth in the entire city-wide context. At least when compared to small houses without peristyles, and not to mention people who did not own any property at all, owning an architectural peristyle signaled wealth.
The architectural functions were also important – if not the primary characteristics – in the minor decoration peristyles, but it is possible that a little twist of pleasant atmosphere was added with some decoration in these peristyles. The owners could not harness the peristyle for as magnificent a display as the wealthier Pompeians, but they could at least invest in something to ornament the peristyle with meaningful decorative elements. It would, however, be risky to interpret these peristyles as important display spaces, because there were without a doubt also other motivations guiding the decoration and planning processes of the Pompeian peristyles.
6.6 The role of the peristyles in the architectural functions of the house
The decoration of the opulent peristyles, the ornamental peristyles, and the large painting peristyles suggests that they were planned for display purposes. The display value of the imitation peristyles relies on their ability to generate a similar idea as the upper class peristyles. The architectural peristyles, instead, seems to lack the qualities that would indicate that they were important for display purposes. The large full and minor decoration peristyles are somewhat transitory groups, where a straightforward connection with a display purpose is not always very apparent. In these two groups the display function must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, but on a general level the architecture of the large full peristyles was so impressive that it likely messaged about wealth. The minor decoration peristyles, instead, do not feature enough decorative elements to conclude that they were planned particularly for display purposes.
It can be tested whether it was possible to harness a peristyle solely for display purposes. This test can be made through an examination of the other functions of the peristyles; for example, if the peristyle was the only light source of the house, it would have served several household functions and could not only be a display space, or if the peristyle was used for commercial purposes then this function was likely at least as important as any display function. First, we shall examine how important the different peristyles were for architectural functions, and in the next chapter we will explore how the peristyles of the different groups were utilized for other purposes, such as small-scale industry or other business purposes.
Even if the peristyles had a display value, they naturally retained the innate architectural functions of the peristyle – providing air and light to the house and guiding movement. Some houses, however, had several light sources – atria, peristyles, lightwells, and gardens. In these cases, it was possible to decentralize the different functions that required sunlight throughout the house. This would allow the focusing of display functions in one area, possibly in a peristyle, which could be a powerful demonstration of wealth, as one part of the house was allocated only for display. Whether a peristyle was only or primarily considered a display area will probably always remain on a certain speculative level, but if the house did not have many light sources it would mean that this type of decentralization of functions was hardly an option. Consequently, it is worthwhile examining the correlation between the peristyle groups and the number of light sources in the house, in order to learn how important the peristyle was for providing air and light into the house.
The light sources are divided into two groups: principal and additional. The principal light sources are the atria and the peristyles, which often form the core of the house, with other rooms built around these spaces. In addition to these two space types, there are lightwells, gardens, and other openings in the ceiling that provided light and air for the house, but their role in the plan of a domus does not appear to be so central as the role of the atria and peristyles. Some houses have several peristyles, and oftentimes these peristyles belong to different peristyle groups. In these cases, my examination lists these houses with the peristyle group where they are first represented, e.g. if a house has an opulent peristyle and a large full peristyle, the house is listed as a house with an opulent peristyle.
Figure 6.4 indicates that the houses with an opulent peristyle were differentiated from the other peristyle groups. An opulent peristyle was never the only principal source of light and air in the house, which diminishes the importance of its purely architectural functions – these houses were not solely dependent on the opulent peristyle for managing the daily household routines. The majority, nine houses with an opulent peristyle, even featured two additional principal light sources in addition to the opulent peristyles, meaning that these houses had several possibilities to decentralize the household functions (Table 6.1). Three opulent peristyle houses – the Fullonica VI,8,20, Casa di Meleagro, and Casa di Cornelius Rufus – only had an atrium in addition to the peristyle. In these houses, the peristyle was likely important for illumination, and could not have been isolated solely for display, as several household activities requiring light probably also took place in the peristyle.
Figure 6.4 The percentage of the number of principal light and air sources for houses in addition to the peristyle. Total number of houses: 229. The Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7) may have had three atria. However, one is not obvious, and the number of the atria in the house is counted as two. The excavations of the Casa degli archi (I,17,4), Casa della soffitta (V,3,4), houses V,3,12 and IX,6,f–g are not finished, and therefore are excluded. The houses at the west or southwest edge of Pompeii are partly destroyed, and there is a possibility that a few of them had even more open spaces. House VII,16,1 is excluded, as it currently seems to have only one atrium besides the peristyle, but it is severely ruined, and it is possible that it had more open spaces.
|
Table 6.1 The number of principal light sources (peristyles and atria) in the houses with peristyles. Total number of houses: 229.81 |
||||||
|
1 pri |
2 pri |
3 pri |
4 pri |
5 pri |
Average of principal light sources |
|
|
Opulent |
0 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
3,00 |
|
Large full |
3 |
13 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2,48 |
|
Ornamental |
2 |
13 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
2,27 |
|
Paintings |
2 |
22 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2,00 |
|
Imitation |
6 |
17 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1,92 |
|
Minor |
7 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1,81 |
|
Architectural |
29 |
63 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1,73 |
The peristyle groups other than the opulent peristyles are concentrated mainly in houses that had one or zero principal light sources in addition to the peristyle (Fig. 6.4, Table 6.1). In Figure 6.4, the pattern of these six peristyle groups is quite similar, but there are still some points of differentiation – even though the differences are not very great. The average number of atria and peristyles, in Table 6.1, indicates that the number of principal light sources rises in the order that the peristyles are arranged in this study: the chance of having several principal light sources is highest for the houses with an opulent peristyle and lowest for architectural peristyles.
The minor decoration and architectural peristyles were clearly designed for houses where only one or no principal light sources were built in addition to the peristyle (Table 6.1). This indicates a concentration of multiple activities requiring light on the areas of these peristyles, and there was thus little possibility to harness these peristyles only for display purposes, since the space was essential for several functions. Particularly in the houses where the peristyle was the only principal light source, it would have been the center of the household and impossible to utilize only for display purposes.
Peristyles and atria were architectural conventions used in the planning of a house’s illumination, but other additional light sources were used if needed, or if there was an opportunity. Some of these were not necessarily primary planned for this purpose. For example, the gardens were intended for horticulture, and did not always play an important role in the house’s illumination. The large gardens of the Conceria I,5,2, Casa della nave Europa (I,15,3), and Casa delle colonne cilindriche (I,16,2-a) open mainly onto the peristyle of the house, but to almost none of the other rooms of these houses. Because the peristyles were already illuminated and air-conditioned by themselves, the air and light provided by the garden was “lost” in the peristyle.82 Nevertheless – for example in houses VIII,5,15–16 and VIII,7,6 – gardens do sometimes open onto several rooms (more than three) that were not illuminated by the peristyle.83 Gardens, in general, were probably also used for this purpose, if there was the possibility or need, but sometimes they played only a very minor role in the illumination of the house.
If one counts all of the ceiling openings in the house – not just atria and peristyles – the situation remains generally similar to that of the principal light sources. The opulent peristyles are clearly different from the other groups, which all instead follow a relatively similar pattern, as seen in Figure 6.5. The patterns of the minor decoration and architectural peristyles are almost identical, and the similarity of the groups is demonstrated by the averages in Table 6.2. It is notable that in the averages the architectural peristyles are slightly higher than the minor decoration peristyles, but the difference is too small to draw any significant conclusions from this, except for their similarity regarding the role of providing air and light to the house.
Figure 6.5 The percentage of the number of all additional light sources (peristyles, atria, lightwells, gardens) for the houses, in addition to the peristyle. Total number of houses: 229.The light wells and gardens are collected from Jashemski’s Gardens of Pompeii Herculaneum and the villas destroyed by Vesuvius, Volume II: Appendices (1993). There might have been more open areas in some houses, e.g. the stable in the southwest corner of the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4/1417), but these are not counted here.
|
Table 6.2 The number of all light sources (peristyles, atria, lightwells, gardens) in the houses with peristyles. Total number of houses: 229.84 |
|||||||
|
All 1 |
All 2 |
All 3 |
All 4 |
All 5 |
All 6 |
Average of principal light sources |
|
|
Opulent |
0 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
3,42 |
|
Large full |
2 |
12 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2,68 |
|
Ornamental |
0 |
13 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2,55 |
|
Paintings |
0 |
22 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2,19 |
|
Imitation |
6 |
15 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2,12 |
|
Minor |
4 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2,00 |
|
Architectural |
22 |
56 |
13 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1,95 |
Table 6.2 establishes that several architectural peristyles are the only light source for the house. Five imitation and five minor decoration peristyle houses also only had one light source – the peristyle. This indicates that these peristyles could hardly have been used only for display. The other peristyle groups are almost missing this type of house plan, apart from the Casa dei Gladiatori and house VI,15,23, which both had a large full peristyle and no additional light sources. In these two houses, the peristyle was crucial for the household activities that required good illumination, but customarily a Pompeian house with a peristyle had several spaces providing air and light into the house.
In addition to the 34 peristyles which were the sole light source of their houses, there are 136 houses that only had one additional light source (Table 6.2). In these cases, it was likely that the requisite activities were divided between the peristyle and the other light sources, but the probability that the peristyle was used only for display is low, as the area was likely needed for other activities. In these houses the display role of the peristyle does not seem planned, but the space was probably harnessed for that purpose, for example, by acquiring sculpture, fountains, or large paintings.
In the group of minor decoration peristyles, there are 13 peristyles where the decoration indicates a possibly stronger display function than for the other peristyles of the group.85 These 13 cases have echoes of imitation of more luxurious peristyles, and the houses with these peristyles almost always had additional light sources.86 Perhaps their owners saw a possibility to add some decoration to the peristyle, as the space was not entirely needed so urgently for other purposes. The only exception is house VI,5,10, which seems to be quite unique if we examine its decoration and how it was placed in the peristyle. It had a descriptive mosaic, which is reported to have been placed near the entrance.87 Additionally, the peristyle had no other decorative elements except pilasters placed against the north wall – the wall nearest the entrance.88 Therefore, all the effort invested in display was in the area directly after the entrance, and the other parts of the peristyle lack decoration. The entrance area was undoubtedly very important for this house, while the other parts of the peristyle did not have the same significance. The concentration of the decorative elements might indicate that only rare visitors advanced deeper inside the peristyle, and that it was primarily important to create a wealthy appearance facing towards the street.
The examination of the light sources offers a possible scenario where some peristyles were carefully planned for display. For example, several opulent peristyle houses had numerous other light sources: the Casa del Menandro had three atria, a stable with porticoes, and at least one garden.89 The Casa di Obellius Firmus had two atria and one large garden,90 the Casa del Fauno and house VIII,2,14–16 had two atria and two peristyles,91 the Casa del Centenario had three atria, and the Casa dei Capitelli colorati an atrium and two peristyles.92 In the Casa del Citarista the opulent peristyle is even located so that only a few rooms actually received light solely from this peristyle, as it had a peristyle at the north and south side. These peristyles provided their own light, making the central peristyle less important for this function.93 All of the listed houses offered several possibilities to decentralize the activities in several parts of the house, and to possibly allocate one peristyle predominantly to the display function, which in these cases would have been the opulent peristyle, as suggested by their extensive decoration and grand architecture.
In general, the possibility of focusing the peristyle on the display function was highest for the opulent peristyle houses, second highest for the large full peristyles, and about equally high for the ornamental peristyles. The potential further declines for the large painting and imitation peristyles. It is lowest in the minor decoration and architectural peristyle houses. Consequently, the peristyles which seem to have a large display value were usually in the houses where it was possible to decentralize the functions around the different light sources, and to allocate the display function to one peristyle.
6.7 Other purposes of the peristyles
The functions of peristyles are not limited to display and architectural functions; the space was naturally a place for various human actions and activities. Their occurrence in the peristyle groups is examined next. The investigation here focuses on the following activities: industrial or commercial activities, food preparation, toilet use, productive gardening (kitchen garden, cultivation, or orchard), dining or banqueting, cult activity, and use as a water reservoir. If these activities can be associated with a peristyle then the role of the peristyle must be re-evaluated, taking into consideration how they would affect the display value of the peristyle. Was the peristyle mainly used for these activities without a significant display function, or did the activities take place in the peristyle alongside its display function?
Hypothetically, the industrial, commercial, kitchen, and toilet activities can be thought of as contradictory to the display purpose, or at least they might have reduced the pleasantness of the space. There is a clear correlation between the evidence for these activities and a low amount of decoration, as the majority of these activities can be located in the imitation and architectural peristyles (Table 6.3). Nevertheless, these activities cannot be regarded as typical of these peristyle groups, because their occurrence is also proportionally low in these two groups (Table 6.4).
|
Table 6.3 The number of peristyles where industrial or commercial activities, food preparation, toilet use, utilitarian garden, outdoor triclinia, cult activity, or water reservoir use can be identified, listed according to the peristyle groups. |
|||||||
|
Industrial and commerce |
Kitchen |
Latrines |
Productive gardens |
Triclinia |
Cult activity |
Water |
|
|
Opulent |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
|
Large full |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
|
Ornamental |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
|
Paintings |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
11 |
|
Imitation |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
|
Minor |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Architectural |
8 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
12 |
20 |
17 |
|
Table 6.4 The ratio of peristyles where industrial or commercial activities, food preparation, toilet use, utilitarian garden, outdoor triclinia, cult activity, or water reservoir use can be identified, compared to the total number of peristyles in the groups. |
|||||||
|
Industrial and commerce |
Kitchen |
Latrines |
Productive gardens |
Triclinia |
Cult activity |
Water |
|
|
Opulent |
7% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7% |
14% |
43% |
|
Large full |
0 |
3% |
0 |
0 |
3% |
7% |
31% |
|
Ornamental |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9% |
18% |
18% |
23% |
|
Paintings |
3% |
0 |
0 |
9% |
9% |
25% |
34% |
|
Imitation |
14% |
4% |
0 |
4% |
0 |
11% |
21% |
|
Minor |
12% |
4 % |
4 % |
8% |
8% |
12% |
16% |
|
Architectural |
8% |
7% |
3% |
6% |
12% |
20% |
17% |
The separation of display and utilitarian uses applies on some level to the peristyles, as can be seen in the concentration of business activities in the architectural, minor decoration, and imitation peristyles. There is also no evidence of productive garden use in the opulent and large full peristyles (Table 6.3). Yet, the source situation for planting evidence is very fragmentary, and is missing for most of the peristyles, meaning that the numbers for productive garden use are quite unreliable. In addition, in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 productive garden use is defined very loosely. For example, in the Casa delle Nozze di Ercole this utilitarian use is defined based only on a pollen sample, and in other cases only on the shape of the planting bed (straight line or rectangular) as a sign of their utilitarian function, resulting in them being counted as a kitchen garden.94 It is mostly impossible to know, without further evidence, whether the plants in most of the gardens were utilitarian or decorative. Even if a planting bed resembles a kitchen garden, it does not automatically mean that it was dedicated to utilitarian plants.
The display use, however, did not always exclude production or other utilitarian uses of the space; for example, the opulent peristyle of the Fullonica VI,8,20 combines both. The people working for the owner in the peristyle were another possible symbol of the high economic and social status of the house owner. Yet, the peristyle was used for a practical purpose, meaning that it was making a profit and the space was not wasted in a strict economic sense, as it would be if the peristyle were primarily reserved for display.
The lack of outdoor triclinia in the imitation peristyles indicates that these peristyles might not have been meant for sojourning or entertaining guests (Table 6.3). It supports the proposed nature of the imitation peristyles as passage spaces, and not per se spaces used for entertaining guests. It is possible that some of the imitation peristyles had movable triclinia that were used in the peristyle when needed but were otherwise stored in other rooms, or wooden triclinia that were either not identified or reported. For example, in the opulent and large full peristyles, if an outdoor triclinium is reported, it is always wooden.95 Nevertheless, the lack of masonry triclinia suggests that dining or banqueting activities were not regarded as the top priority for use of the full peristyles – at least to the extent that they would have required a stationary masonry triclinium. In contrast, the presence of a masonry triclinium in some minor decoration and architectural peristyles tells us that less-decorated peristyles were also used for entertaining guests. The presence of a triclinium might also be a sign that the peristyle was used as a restaurant, which has been a tempting conclusion for some of the less impressive peristyles,96 but confirming that a dining couch was used by customers rather than invited guests is difficult.
Cult activity and the use of the peristyle as a water distribution center for the house occur in all of the peristyle groups (Table 6.3). Both activities were very temporary by their nature, and consequently would not interfere with the display function. Additionally, the lararia and altars are frequently decorated with paintings and sculpture, which had a primarily religious value but also functioned as decoration. The cistern heads and puteals mark the place where the water was taken from the cistern. They could be made of precious stone materials, such as marble, or feature decoration, meaning that they were probably thought of as a part of the décor of the space, not just as practical items. These two activities were clearly considered suitable and compatible with a display purpose.
Table 6.4 suggests that there is some correlation with the amount of decoration and the use of the peristyle as a water distribution center for the house. The percentage of peristyles used for water distribution decreases when moving down in the peristyle rankings – except for a rise again in the large painting peristyles. The water distribution category, however, is unreliable, as not all of the cisterns have necessarily been excavated, meaning that it is likely that more peristyles had cisterns. If only the occurrence of cistern heads are compared to the groups, the situation changes slightly and the differences between many groups are not so striking, but the correlation with the decoration and water distribution remains. The opulent peristyles have the highest ratio, at about 80 percent, and the large full peristyles are at 59 percent, but the imitation peristyles rise almost to their level with 57 percent, the large painting peristyles have 47 percent, but the ornamental peristyles rise to 45 percent, minor decoration peristyles to 46 percent, and the architectural peristyles to 37 percent. The apparent connection of decoration and water distribution might be due to the documentation, as the most decorated peristyles might have been better examined and reported than the others, and therefore their cisterns and cistern heads are better known. This might explain why the ratio of the opulent peristyles is so much higher than the other groups. However, there is also the simple possibility that the activities related to water distribution were considered suitable for decorated peristyles, which seems likely when looking at the numbers.
Most of the activities examined in this chapter are temporary in their nature, but the industrial, commercial, and productive activities instead took up a main part of the daily life in the peristyles. Subsequently, in the context of display use, they might have had a significant effect, and possibly even disturbed it – even if the peristyles frequently had plenty of space to locate these activities above and beyond the area reserved for display. However, there are some examples that suggest that the industrial use had replaced the display use. The peristyle of Tintoria VII,2,11–12 was used as a dye-shop, and the wall paintings were already in a bad condition when the house was excavated, meaning that the decoration of the space was not considered to be of primary importance during the last phase.97 Likewise, in the peristyle of the Casa del Banchiere the garden paintings were already in a poor condition when they were discovered, according to the reports. The peristyle probably had lost its display purpose, and was being utilized for other functions. For example, it is suggested that it was a part of a dye-shop functioning in the house.98 In the peristyle of house V,1,15 the garden paintings on a masonry bench were from a previous phase, and only partly visible during 79 CE.99 The paintings had lost most of their decorative function by the last phase, and the space was functioning as a bakery. In addition to these examples, Sampaolo states that house VII,10,5 was a washhouse, and the peristyle there had lost its display character when it was transformed into a washing space.100 What the exact function of the peristyle was – washing or something else – is not absolutely clear, but it was utilized to support the dyes hop in the house.101
The changing function of the garden of the Casa del fabbro (I,10,7), from an entertainment area into a utilitarian domestic and industrial space, or a place to collect salvaged industrial and manufacturing material, has been interpreted as a downgrading of the peristyle area.102 What activities occurred in the peristyle during the last phase is not entirely clear; Domenico Mustilli speculates that it was the place of business of a marble worker, but notes that the evidence suggests that the house was used for several different business activities simultaneously. Allison states that there is no evidence to connect the house with any special type of industry, except collecting and salvaging items during the general upheaval.103 Perhaps the peristyle did not have a significant display value during the last period. Ciarallo and Giordano state that even the statue of Hercules in the garden had a religious value rather than ornamental.104 If this interpretation is accepted, then there are no features of display in the peristyle. However, the material and size (h. 0.44 m) of the statue do not correspond to the other lararium statues,105 but instead are similar to the garden decorations, and the function of the sculpture seems to indicate a more ornamental role rather than cultic.
The peristyle of Conceria I,5,2 contained a triclinium table with mosaics representing a skull.106 Besides the outdoor triclinium, the peristyle had a kitchen and a latrine on the west side. These features can all be related to dining, whereas the east side functioned as a tannery.107 This peristyle seems to be a very multifunctional space, where industrial activity occurred alongside a kitchen, latrine, and triclinium. These last three features might have been for dining and entertaining guests. The arrangement of the space suggests a separation of the activities by their location in the peristyle: on the west side there were the dining related activities, and on the east side was the tannery. Similarly, the activities in Fullonica VI,8,20 seem to be divided into two parts: the eastern part was for decoration and display purposes, whereas the western was for the fullery.
To conclude, examining a broad range of activities demonstrates that the decorated peristyles were rarely used for industrial, commercial, cooking, or toilet activities. This reinforces their status as display spaces, signifying that this was likely their main function. Nevertheless, the display peristyles were also possibly used for cult activities or as water distribution centers of the house, but these two activities were temporary in nature, meaning that the peristyle was only occasionally needed for these activities and it was also possible to utilize the peristyle for other purposes.
Chapter 6 has concluded that the peristyle groups are presented in an order that more-or-less describes their economic relationships: the opulent and large full peristyles represent the upper class, or elite; the ornamental peristyles the upper middle class; the large painting, imitation, and minor decoration peristyles the middle class; and the architectural peristyles the lower middle class. This, however, is the ranking for the houses with at least one peristyle, and if all of the houses of Pompeii would be included, those with ornamental peristyles would perhaps belong to the elite, and those with architectural peristyles would most certainly belong to the middle class.
The role and means of display vary between the peristyle groups. The opulent peristyles utilize all types of means. One of these is the use of grandiose architecture, which follows the same pattern as in the full large and imitation peristyles. Who imitated who is a difficult question to answer; it is possible that some Pompeian houses imitated other houses in the city, but it is equally possible that the models came from the local villae, Rome itself, or other cities of the Roman Empire – the Bay of Naples had several significant urban centers during antiquity. However, the archaeological record of other sites rarely offers the possibility of making extensive comparisons with Pompeii – at least in the same level of detail that is possible for a city buried by a volcanic eruption. This is particularly problematic with the evidence for decoration, which is an important means of display. Densely decorated peristyles have been seen as imitating the Roman upper class. Yet, our archaeological evidence provides very little evidence for this – which might be because of the lacunae in our sources – while it actually does demonstrate that well-decorated peristyles were a means used primarily by the middle class, and rarely by the elite.
There is a large group of peristyles that do not provide any evidence that they were planned or used for display purposes – perhaps the existence of the peristyle alone was enough to be treated as a status symbol in these houses. When comparing the display function of the peristyles with the pattern of the house light sources and the activities likely occurring in the peristyles, this confirms that the less-decorated peristyles – those that were not planned primarily for display – were most likely spaces where several other activities could have taken place, whereas the richest peristyles offered better possibilities to focus only on display, if it was so desired.
Notes
1. The opulent peristyles that are not in the houses featuring luxury architecture: nn. 22, 105, 108, 139, 210.
2. The large full peristyles in the houses with luxury architecture: nn. 16, 97, 110, 114, 120, 122, 144, 149, 161, 174, 193, 242.
3. Nn. 121, 146, 162, 197, 210.
4. Nn. 22, 208. The peristyle of the Casa di Paquius Proculus (I,7,1) did not have sculpture, floor decoration, or central panel paintings – although there are landscape vignettes (Parise Badoni 1990, 525–531) on the walls – which only just excludes it from the group of opulent peristyles. See also peristyles nn. 97, 114, 152, 161, 174, which are close to the definition of the opulent peristyles.
5. Nn. 40, 82, 114. Additionally, the peristyle of the Casa di Trittolemo (n. 174) had a painted priestess, but it is unknown whether it was a central panel painting or a vignette – likely the latter.
6. N. 80.
7. Nn. 120, 122.
8. For the villae as the model of the domus, see Zanker 1998, 12–14, 142, 145, 160, 168, 192–193.
9. For the Roman peristyles and their reconstructions, see Papi 1998, 53-55, Carandini 2010, 52–53, 71–74, 81, 99–111, 114–118, 120–125, 128–132, 143–147, 187–248, Morvillez 2017, 23–24, 30–31. On the peristyles of the Imperial palaces (beginning with the Domus Aurea), their peristyles and reconstructions, see Carandini 2010, 248–292. On the general criticism of Carandini’s work, see Wiseman 2012. One of the few archaeological remains of Rome where the peristyles predate Pompeian houses is the so-called House of Augustus on the Palatine (see Iacopi 1995). However, its remaining peristyles – or what is left from them – are hardly as lavish as many Pompeian examples.
10. See Morvillez 2017, 31.
11. On the connection between Pompeian full peristyles and wealth, see Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 86 and Section 4.2.2.
12. See also Trentin 2014, 184.
13. The south portico of the middle peristyle of the Casa del Citarista (I,4,5/25), the west peristyle of house VI,5,4, the north peristyle of the Casa del Centauro (VI,9,3/5) and the peristyle of the Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI,16,7). The west portico could be eliminated from the peristyle of the Casa del Pomarius Felix (I,8,2), Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,7), the middle peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6/7), the southern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno (VI,12,2), the peristyles of the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus (VII,2,20/40), Casa di Trittolemo (VII,7,5), Casa di Championnet II (VIII,2,3–5), Casa del Cinghiale I (VIII,3,8–9), house VIII,4,12–13 and Casa del Gallo (VIII,5,2/5). The east portico of the peristyle of house I,2,6, Casa di Ma. Castricius (VII,16,17), Casa dei Postumii (VIII,4,4/49), Casa di Achille (IX,5,1–3), Casa di Giasone (IX,5,18), Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7), and Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX,14,4). The north portico of the northern peristyle of the Casa di Sirico (VII,1,25/47) and the peristyle of the Casa della Fortuna (IX,7,20). The north or the south colonnade of the south peristyle of the Casa del Citarista and house IX,6,4–7. In the Casa del Labirinto (VI,11,8–10), the northern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno, house VII,11,6–8, and Casa dello scultore (VIII,7,24/22) either the west or the east portico could be eliminated. In the Casa di M. Caesius Blandus (VII,1,40) the south and west porticoes could be eliminated. Possibly also the west colonnade of the peristyle of house VI,17,32–36, but as the west side of the peristyle has not survived this cannot be verified, as well as in the western peristyle of house VI,17,23–26 only the east portico is needed, so three colonnades could have been eliminated. However, this peristyle is not currently visible, and the room situation cannot be verified. The northern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 could probably lose the east portico, as the fauces α can be reached from two side by side doors of the peristyle. The Casa delle Forme di Creta (VII,4,62) could lose the east and the south portico and the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII,16,12–15) the north and the west porticoes, but these two peristyles with rooms opening onto them have been destroyed so badly that the situation cannot be verified with certainty.
14. Sogliano 1881, 320. Mau 1883, 172. Jashemski 1993, 216 n. 436. Sampaolo 1998, 547. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 625 n. 437. N. 213.
15. Trentin 2014, 9.
16. Nn. 14, 134, 139, 149, 208, 210, 251.
17. Bechi 1835, 10.
18. Loccardi 2009, 69.
19. N. 3. Inserra 2008, 23.
20. Zanker 1998, 168–174, 178, 180–182. See also Bragantini 1991, 342. Sampaolo 1993, 613. Fröhlich 1993, 641; 1996, 116.
21. See e.g. Bergmann 2002, 91–95.
22. On the villa gardens, see Jashemski 1993, 277–312, and their sizes, see Zarmakoupi 2014, 245–263.
23. See Jashemski 1993, 306 n. 612.
24. See Leander Touati 2010, 156-157 and Staub 2017: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/house.php?hid=23&hidnummer=6060276&hrubrik=V%201,7%20Casa%20del%20Torello (last visited 24.6.2021).
25. Zarmakoupi 2014, 259.
26. See Raimondi Cominesi 2018b and 2019.
27. Raimondi Cominesi 2019, 157.
28. Zanker 1998, 200.
29. Nn. 14, 210, 215.
30. Nn. 14, 134, 139, 210, 251.
31. N. 180.
32. The opulent peristyles with fountains: Nn. 22, 38, 73, 105, 108, 121, 146, 161, 162, 197, 245. The large full peristyles with a fountain: 82, 97, 110, 114, 161.
33. Nn. 3, 24, 37, 67, 84, 94, 106, 107, 133, 164, 180.
34. Spano 1910, 468, 472. Soprano 1950, 300–301. Richardson 1955, 45. Jashemski 1981, 41. Peters & Moormann 1993, 348–349. Sampaolo 1997, 183. Inserra 2008, 23. Ciarallo 2012, 22, 26. Laidlaw & Collins-Clinton 2014, 89. Bergmann 2002, 115 (in the villa context).
35. Exceptions (the peristyle where the largest room is not opposite the large painting): Nn. 9, 37, 47, 66, 70, 85, 87, 94, 104, 113, 128, 169, 170, 175, 180, 189, 225. In the Casa dei Pigmei (IX,5,9) the largest room (p) is not opposite the west wall animal paintings. However, there were also animal paintings on the western part of the north wall (Fiorelli 1875, 274. Mau 1879, 135. Niccolini & Niccolini 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882, 14. Jashemski 1993, 366 n. 94), and these paintings were probably visible from the room. The excavation of the Casa degli archi (I,17,4) is unfinished, and some of the rooms around the peristyle cannot be measured. The eastern peristyle of the Casa del Centauro is mostly destroyed, and it is reported to have had garden paintings on the walls (Bechi 1830, Relazione degli scavi di Pompei, 8), but the exact location of the paintings is unknown. It would be highly unusual if a peristyle had garden paintings on every wall.
36. Nn. 37, 66, 104, 169, 170, 175, 180. The Casa dei Pittori (I,12,11) does not have a tablinum, but the paintings are opposite the atrium, and hence the peristyle is counted in this group. The peristyles with large paintings where the tablinum is the largest room opening to it: Nn. 84, 107, 126, 164, 239.
37. See e.g. Ciarallo 2012, 24. Ciarallo mentions different details in the garden paintings, such as insects, and Jashemski’s (1993, 330–331 n. 28) description of different fauna and flora in the garden paintings of the Casa della Venere in conchiglia (II,3,3).
38. Nn. 24, 28, 70, 84, 239.
39. In the peristyle of house IX,5,11/13 the triclinium is not touching the walls, but it is very close – less than 0.50 m away from the wall.
40. There is a literary reference mentioning that occasionally landscapes and paintings could have been confused in the Roman world (Plin. Ep. 5.6. Bergmann 2002, 99).
41. Ciarallo 2012, 21, 299. See also Grimal 1984, 241, Bergmann 2002, 108 (in the villa context), Kuivalainen 2019, 79.
42. Ciarallo 2012, 30.
43. A. De Vos 1991, 113, 136, 138–143. Jashemski 1993, 84 n. 139. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 451–452 n. 141. Brandt (2010, 99), however, does not list this niche as a lararium.
44. Brandt 2010, 104 n. 174. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 543–544 n. 288.
45. Brandt 2010, 107 n. 241. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 590 n. 364. The wall is badly damaged, and the niche and the painting are no longer visible.
46. Pappalardo 2004, 45. See also Bergmann 2017, 304–305.
47. Allison 2002, 75. Bergmann 2017, 304–305.
48. Amadio 1990, 1039. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 430–431 n. 117. On the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4/14–17), see Petersen 2006, 145–146.
49. On the garden and its paintings, see Jashemski 1993, 66 n. 115, 328 n. 26
50. N. 67. On the painting, see Jashemski 1993, 334 n. 32.
51. Nn. 3, 24, 37, 46, 67, 84, 87, 94, 101, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113, 133, 163, 164, 185, 189, 255. On the description of the garden paintings, see Jashemski 1993, 313 n. 3, 316 n. 8, 323 n. 14, 326 n. 20, 340 nn. 41 & 43, 340–341 n. 44, 342 n. 47, 343 nn. 48, 49 & 50, 343–344 n. 51, 346 n. 56, 361–362 n. 73, 362 n. 74, 364 n. 84, 365 n.90, Bragantini 1993, 244–245; 1997, 483, Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 501–502 n. 215. In the Casa di Adone ferito (VI,7,18) there is a painted rocky bond, but its visual appearance is quite far from the rectangular marble pool in the peristyle garden.
52. Nn. 24, 25, 37, 46, 55, 70, 78, 84, 94, 107, 111, 113, 169, 170.
53. Nn. 84. Mazois 1824, 76. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 23. Jashemski 1993, 121 n. 203. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 497–498 n. 207. Laidlaw & Collins-Clinton 2014, 88. Stella 2014, 220–221.
54. Brunsting & Wynia 1993, 3. Peters and Moormann 1993 & 348–349. See also n. 78.
55. N. 113. Gell 1832, II, 43. Richardson 1955, 45. Jashemski 1993, 138 n. 259. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 528 n. 263.
56. Nn. 66, 84, 113, 169. In the peristyles of houses VII,6,7 and VII,6,28 (Nn. 169, 170) the paintings were probably also divided by half-columns, but these walls are destroyed, and their composition cannot be verified. In addition, the east wall of the peristyles of the Casa degli archi (I,17,4) probably had garden paintings between the pilasters (Jashemski 1993, 328 n. 26), but the painting is mostly destroyed, and its theme cannot be identified.
57. N. 94, 113.
58. N. 66.
59. N. 84.
60. Bergmann 2017, 315. However, on the possible merging of painting with actual garden elements in order to create the experience of an actual garden, see Tally-Schumacher & Niemeier 2016, 66–68, Niemeier & Tally-Schumacher 2017, 65, 72.
61. Jashemski 1993, 362 n. 77.
62. Jashemski 1993, 249 n. 517.
63. Nn. 9, 13, 102, 113, 231. There is a similar situation in house IX,3,15, where the peristyle (n. 236) is located after a fauces leading from the atrium. In the Casa di Inaco e Io (n. 102) the west wall did not have half-columns or pilasters, and it was visible from the main entrance-atrium-tablinum axis.
64. Nn. 64, 67, 166.
65. Nn. 15, 169.
66. Nn. 1, 109, 241.
67. N. 209.
68. N. 108.
69. N. 210.
70. E.g. nn. 4, 27, 49, 51, 86, 95, 131, 137, 142, 146, 175, 215, 233.
71. Two peristyles perhaps had a double portico: nn. 21, 24.
72. Nn. 120, 121, 122.
73. Corlàita Scagliarini 1976, 6.
74. Nn. 86, 172. The Casa delle Nozze di Ercole (VII,9,47) has remains of one plaster pilaster on the north wall (n. 178). It is unclear if the wall had more plaster pilasters, or if the pilaster was just part of the decoration of the entrance of oecus 9.
75. Nn. 84, 133, 165, 231, 234.
76. Nn. 1, 13, 15, 23, 26, 45, 76, 88, 92, 102, 109, 141, 142, 147, 150, 165, 194, 204, 207, 209, 229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 241, 250.
77. The imitation peristyles with fountains: nn. 209, 241. The imitation peristyles with a pool or decorative basin: nn. 1, 15, 209, 241. The imitation peristyles with central wall paintings: nn. 1, 15, 76, 194, 250. The imitation peristyles with sculpture: nn. 147, 209. The imitation peristyles with decorated floors: nn. 15, 23, 102, 142, 147, 194, 236, 237. The floor decoration has its display value; however, as it does not depict any descriptive themes, such as e.g. the wall paintings, the floor decoration does not engage persons to come and take a closer look. It is probably just something for guests to notice, and hence it cannot be interpreted as a feature that suggests that a peristyle was meant to be visited and marveled at. In addition, most of the decoration, besides the floor decoration, is concentrated on the full peristyles – except for the northern peristyle of the Casa del Citarista (I,4,5/25). These full peristyles (e.g. nn. 1, 209) might have been planned for a sort of strolling activity, but they are quite small, and the stroll would have been quite short. The walls of the peristyle of the Casa di Achille (IX,5,1–3) were probably in the process of being decorated during the eruption (Sogliano 1878, 146. Bragantini 1999, 388). There is no means to know what type of paintings were planned, but descriptive central paintings would explain the odd structure of the peristyle. The columns and piers are hardly visible from anywhere else other than the surrounding rooms of the peristyle. This indicates that the columns and piers did not have an important display function; however, if there was going to be central wall paintings, they would have given a purpose for the colonnades (particularly for the east portico), to protect the paintings and allow people to see them at close range. In addition, the Casa di Giasone (IX,5,18) was under restoration in 79 CE (Sampaolo 1999, 670), so it was also possible that there was supposed to be central paintings or other decorations in this peristyle.
78. Nn. 178, 202.
79. Nn. 6, 33, 69, 74, 137, 155, 216, 249.
80. Spinazzola 1953, 441.
81. See note 106.
82. Nn. 17, 29, 30, 51, 52.
83. See Jashemski 1993, 216 pl. 81, 220 pl. 83 and PBMP map: http://digitalhumanities.umass.edu/pbmp/?page_id=1258 (Last visited 30.1.2017). Nn. 215, 220.
84. See note 106.
85. Nn. 6, 17, 33, 69, 74, 95, 137, 155, 178, 198, 202, 216, 249.
86. The Casa delle Quadrighe (VII,2,25) and house VIII,2,14–16 are not listed as houses with minor decoration peristyles; but as these houses had several peristyles, it indicates that their minor decoration peristyle was not the only light source of the house.
87. Fiorelli 1860, III, 12–14. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 28–29. Fiorelli 1875, 101.
88. N. 95.
89. Jashemski (1993, 47–48 n. 65, 48–49 n. 66) identifies two gardens beside the peristyle in the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4/14–17), but Ciarallo and Giordano (2012, 404–405 n. 66) note that the identification of the garden on the east side of the house is uncertain.
90. N. 251. Jashemski 1993, 252 n. 520.
91. Nn. 121, 122, 197, 198.
92. Nn. 161, 162.
93. Nn. 14, 15, 16.
94. N. 178.
95. Nn. 22, 38.
96. See e.g. Jashemski 1993, 92 n. 150.
97. Fiorelli 1873, 30; 1875, 185. Jashemski 1993, 172 n. 320. Sampaolo 1996, 496. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 568 n. 325.
98. Schulz 1841, 123. Fiorelli 1875, 301. Jashemski 1993, 198 n. 389. Sampaolo 1997, 676. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 602–603 n. 390.
99. 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.
100. Sampaolo 1997, 423, 428.
101. See Monteix 2017, 218–219 Fig. 7.2 about the location of the dyeing vats.
102. Allison 2006, 343–345, 348. On the regression of the Casa del fabbro (I,10,7) during the last period, see Ling & Ling 2005, 144–145, 169.
103. Mustilli 1950, 218–219. Allison 2006, 349. See also Jashemski 1993, 49 n. 67.
104. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 405 n. 67.
105. N. 39.
106. N. 4, 7, 17, 41, 248.
107. N. 17. Jashemski 1993, 33 n. 27. Monteix 2017, 218–219 Fig. 7.2.