7

The social status of Pompeian peristyle owners

7.1 Evidence of social status in the domestic sphere

The task of defining the social status of peristyle owners is much more difficult than defining their economic status, although that is not straightforward either. The houses do not usually have direct evidence of their owners’ social status, and the archaeological material tends to indicate their wealth.¹ There have been attempts to connect certain decorations, such as animal paintings, to magistrates who funded spectacles in the amphitheater. However, the basis for this hypothesis is far from solid, as we will see later (in Section 7.2.4) that it is uncertain whether, for instance, M. Lucretius Fronto owned the house named after him, and the ownership of the Casa degli Epigrammi is even more problematic, as it seems very unlikely that L. Valerius Priscus owned that house, even though these are the cases used as evidence for the theory regarding the animal paintings.²

Traditionally, house architecture and size has been linked to the owner’s social status: a large house size and prestigious architectural features, such as atria and peristyles, are connected to high social rank and influence, and a small house size and lack of the aforementioned architectural features are connected to lower status.³ However, this approach has several problems.

Mariette De Vos lists several houses where an owner is possibly known, and was a duumvir or an aedile. De Vos’s conclusion is that the aediles had houses that were about 300–400 m² and the duumviri owned houses between 1,000 and 2,000 m². Therefore, De Vos thinks that the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto was too small for a duumvir, and she thinks that M. Lucretius Fronto was not the owner of the eponymous house, because he must have served as a duumvir before he was a quinquennalis candidate.⁴ However, this reasoning is problematic, beginning from the premise that M. Lucretius Fronto was a duumvir. The office of quinquennalis is considered to be the high point of a municipal officer’s career, and it is thought that a person must have been a duumvir before becoming quinquennalis. Henrik Mouritsen, however, notes that there was no such requirement for the office.⁵ Therefore, the house of M. Lucretius Fronto – wherever in Pompeii that may be – was not necessarily the house of a duumvir, as it is only known that M. Lucretius Fronto served as an aedile; he may never have been a duumvir.

The area of Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto was about 420 m², placing it behind 127 other houses with a peristyle (Fig. 2.7 and the Online Appendix).⁶ Mouritsen lists the names of 120 candidates for the period 50–79 CE.⁷ The number of candidates is quite close to the number of houses with a peristyle that was larger than the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto, and in this scenario it would not be impossible that the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto was inhabited by an aedile. Although the house does not have any pretentious architecture – such as private baths, or vast or large peristyles – its decoration, such as the large animal paintings in the peristyle, might have compensated for the shortcoming of the architecture.⁸ Therefore, it is possible that M. Lucretius Fronto – known only to hold the office of aedile – was living in the house named after him, although the identification has other problems that are discussed in Section 7.2.4.

Returning to the discussion of the house owner’s social status as defined by the house size: if it is considered that a duumvir must have had a house larger than 1,000 m², there was likely a shortage of such houses for duumviri in Pompeii. There are 37 houses with a peristyle that are larger than 1,000 m². Five of these houses are dominated by a large garden, meaning that their living quarters are quite small compared to the houses listed by De Vos,⁹ and these houses do not appear to be worthy of duumviri according to De Vos’s criteria. In addition, the Panificio di Terentius Neo was larger than 1,000 m², but it was dominated by industrial and commercial activities, and it can be questioned how suitable this was for a duumvir. Depending on whether the Panificio di Terentius Neo is counted as a possible duumvir abode, this leaves 32 or 31 houses larger than 1,000 m². Taking Mouritsen’s last period, from 50 to 79 CE, there were 58 duumviri positions during this period.¹⁰ The number of duumviri is almost double the number of houses that were larger than 1,000 m² and had a peristyle. However, the number of actual duumviri was probably a bit lower than the number of duumvir positions, as the same person might have held the office twice, or even more often, but in Mouritsen’s list there are no persons who are reported as being duumvir even twice.¹¹ It can also be assumed that some of the duumviri of the period came from the same family, and consequently possibly lived in the same house. Taking the ratio – 12.5 percent – of persons with same praenomen and nomen in the candidate list leaves 50 persons serving as duumvir. There is still a remarkable difference between the number of appropriate houses and possible duumviri.

There are still several reasons to assume that the ratio between duumviri and their houses should be even lower than the 50 to 32/31 presented before. It is possible that some of the candidates lived in a house without a peristyle. For example, the Casa dell’ancora and Casa del Marinaio are not counted as houses with a peristyle in this study, but they certainly were among the most impressive houses of Pompeii. Some may also have lived in the villae around Pompeii, and additionally the whole of Pompeii is not excavated, and a few large or vast houses might still be under the lapilli. Additionally, over a period of 29 years, it is possible that some of the ordo families disappeared, which could have allowed another family to take over their upper class house.

However, there are other problems relating to the assumption that the duumviri lived only in houses that were larger than 1,000 m². Even if we consider all the above-listed possibilities, it would not leave many houses larger than 1,000 m² for other groups of people than duumviri. Yet, there must have been wealthy Pompeians who owned significant houses but never held an office – such as L. Caecilius Iucundus and the elder A. Umbricius Scaurus, whose houses certainly were worthy enough for a duumvir according to De Vos’s criteria.¹² This indicates that not all of the largest houses were owned by the members of the ordo, and that some members of the political elite could possibly have been living in more modest houses. In any case, these are at their best only directional calculations, but they demonstrate several of the problems inherent in assuming that everyone holding a high political office in Pompeii lived in a large or vast house. On a more general level, the calculations show how difficult it is to define what type of house was worthy of each social group.

Ling uses a similar method as De Vos, and examines the houses where a possible duumvir owner is known. He concludes that, because the Casa del Menandro is larger than most of the houses that were supposedly owned by a duumvir, the owner of the house must have been at least from the same class as the owners of these other houses.¹³ However, Kenneth Painter reminds us that nothing of the grandeur of the Casa del Menandro tells us about the social rank of the owner, but only of his wealth.¹⁴ Then again, Ling and De Vos are not alone in their interpretations connecting grand architecture with high social status and political power. There are many houses that can be considered to have layouts similar to the Casa del Menandro, such as the Casa del Labirinto, Casa del Fauno, Casa del Centenario, and Casa di Obellius Firmus – all with a double-atrium and a large peristyle with four porticoes at the rear of the entrance-atrium-tablinum axis – and similarly vast houses with several atria and vast peristyles, such as the Casa del Citarista. There has been a strong desire to identify upper class owners for these houses – possibly from the old families of Pompeii – or even to link them to the senatorial class or the Imperial families of Rome. However, in most cases the evidence concerning the house owners remains insufficient to even speculate about the likely owner.¹⁵

Instead, the two houses that had the most decorated peristyles in Pompeii, the Casa dei Vettii and Casa degli Amorini dorati, are often ranked not as belonging to the elite but rather to the upper middle class.¹⁶ Pappalordo even thinks that the extensive display of luxury in the Casa dei Vettii is one of the reasons why the house was inhabited by members of the wealthy commercial class.¹⁷ Allison criticizes this type of identification of the owners of the Casa dei Vettii, and states that connecting the abundant decoration to the commercial or middle classes is based on contemporary attitudes.¹⁸ Similarly, identifying the social status of the owner of the Casa degli Amorini dorati on the grounds of its decoration is not based on a Pompeian perspective, but ours.

The tendency to classify some houses, such as the Casa dei Vettii and Casa degli Amorini dorati, as middle class houses is probably due to some of their special characteristics, compared to what is thought to be a high elite house. In both houses, the rooms are concentrated mainly around the peristyle, and they lack the traditional entrance-atrium-tablinum-peristyle axis. The Casa dei Vettii does not have a so-called tablinum – at least in its traditional place – and in the Casa degli Amorini dorati the peristyle is not behind the tablinum. The lavish decoration of the peristyles is a particular feature in both houses. In addition, compared to the other houses with a peristyle they are slightly smaller than the group that is defined as vast houses in this study (Fig. 2.7).¹⁹

The middle class is always a very vague group and concept, particularly in the ancient context. There are several houses with a peristyle that have been identified as belonging to this group. Katharina Zanier places the Casa di Sextus Pompeius Axiochus (VI,13,19) in the upper middle class.²⁰ Willem Peters and Eric Moormann identify the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto as belonging to the same group.²¹ The less well-known houses I,11,14 and I,11,15/9 have also been classified as middle class houses. In the first case the identification is argued on the basis of the lack of an atrium in the house.²² Volker Strocka thinks that the Casa del Principe di Napoli was a lower middle class house.²³ Sampaolo, instead, identifies house IX,2,10 as middle class, but thinks that only its decoration separates the house from the lower class.²⁴ All of the above-mentioned houses – as generally for all the houses with a peristyle, or even with a garden with one portico – can be identified as belonging to at least the economic middle class of the Roman world, but at the same time the houses reflect very different economic backgrounds.

The famous passage of Vitruvius describes how the social upper class needed grand architecture and the lower classes did not – at least in Rome.²⁵ It supports the connection of large houses with several atria and peristyles to the social and political elite of Pompeii. Wealth and power go together in almost any society, and there is no need to think differently for Pompeii, as several inscriptions demonstrate that powerful persons used their wealth to finance public building projects and shows in the amphitheater.²⁶ Therefore, it is justified to think that the social elite lived mostly in the large and well-appointed houses, rather than in the small and modest ones,²⁷ but turning it the other way around does not work: a large and decorated house does not automatically have an owner that was from the political and social elite of the city. There is always the possibility that the house owner was wealthy but had very little interest in politics, or that the house owner was a wealthy freedman and cannot be counted as a member of the highest socio-political elite in the Roman world.²⁸ There is simply not enough evidence to connect the house architecture or decoration with a certain social class, and by doing so we might end up revealing more about modern attitudes than ancient ones.

Even if grand architecture or decoration does not directly reveal the owner’s social status, there are two possibilities to uncover information on the social rank of a house owner: firstly, it is possible to identify some house owners and their social status, and secondly, to examine whether the house can be connected to commercial or industrial activity. Both are biased towards the upper classes, as the house owners can be identified only by using written sources – inscriptions, electoral notices, and graffiti – indicating that the person was literate or closely connected to activities related to writing, which is mostly thought of as an upper class phenomenon in the Roman empire. In addition, the archaeological evidence for commerce and small-scale industry refers to owning these facilities, which means that the person had a certain level of wealth.²⁹ Therefore, the lowest stratum – for example, the illiterate and people whose occupation did not require large investments – is mainly beyond the scope and means of the examination.

Identifying the houses that can be connected to industrial or commercial activity is limited to the cases where there is a direct connection – an entrance – between the house and the areas of these activities. It is possible that some house owners also maintained nearby shops, bakeries, fulleries, or other industrial properties, but if there is no evidence to point out the connection, the ownership remains to some extent speculative.³⁰ Also, in some cases the professional activities of the house owner may not have occurred in the house area, but in some other part of the city, and we have no means to identify these houses. Yet, it is also significant that some houses had business activities directly connected to the house. This indicates a very close connection between the business and the daily life of the household – perhaps closer than in the cases where the owner was able to spatially separate the business facilities from the living quarters. However, if the house was connected to the business facility, it does not necessarily mean that the house owner was running the business, and the degree of connection between the owner and the activity remains questionable. The most likely explanation is that they at least owned the business areas, even if someone else was running the operation. Due to the listed problems, I have chosen to examine only the houses that are connected through an in-house entrance to the business facilities, under the assumption that in these cases the house owner was also the owner of the facilities, and was at least in this way connected to the business.

Identifying house owners and their social status is a complicated matter, as stated already several times.³¹ The debate over the house owners is illustrated by the old optimistic attitude represented by Della Corte and the new critical methodology of Allison. Della Corte relies on the electoral notices on the façade of the house, and particularly assumes that the person who supports the candidate was the house owner.³² His work and methods are often criticized, and they have been proven inadequate.³³ Instead, Allison states that only the owners of the insula Arrianna Pollianna and the Villa di Giulia Felice can be certainly identified as property owners in Pompeii.³⁴ It is unclear whether she even considers L. Caecilius Iucundus as the owner of house V,1,26. It is theoretically possible that the archive of L. Caecilius Iucundus was kept in someone else’s house, but that scenario is very hypothetical and it would require some evidence to support it, such as proving that someone else owned house V,1,26; the electoral notices and other epigraphic evidence also indicate that the Caecilii Iucundi were the owners.³⁵

Mouritsen suggests that house owners can be identified by combining several different types of inscriptions – electoral notices, seal stamps, graffiti, and amphorae with inscriptions – as none of these types of inscriptions alone is better than the other when trying to define the house owner. Mouritsen does not specify how the combination of these sources should be made, and how many source groups there should be for the identification, but he seems to be satisfied if at least two source groups suggest the same person.³⁶ Similar methods to Mourtisen’s have been utilized by several other researchers.³⁷ Nevertheless, such identification is a complex process, and no simple rule for it can be defined. In every case, the role and importance of the inscriptions have to be carefully considered against all the evidence that is relevant for the identification of the house owner. The results will always remain somewhat speculative, but that is the nature of archaeology.

Every type of epigraphic evidence has its problems of identification. The connection of the electoral notices on the outside walls of the house with the house owner is not straightforward. It has been pointed out that the electoral notices of the same person can be found all around the city, and it is very unlikely that the rogator or the candidate owned all the houses where an electoral notice mentioned the person’s name.³⁸ Mouritsen has suggested a link between a high concentration of electoral notices on a house and the owner being the candidate mentioned in those notices.³⁹ Although the probability of connecting a candidate and a house is very low, as they usually advertised all around the city, it would also be odd if the candidate did not advertise himself on his own house walls. Nevertheless, generally the electoral notices are concentrated on the streets of Pompeii, where a lot of activity was occurring due to the presence of commercial and industrial buildings. There was no point in advertising if there was no audience.⁴⁰ However, not all houses had electoral notices, nor were all such notices documented, and it cannot be ruled out that candidates lived in houses without notices; it is also possible that the candidate did not even have a house in Pompeii, but lived in a villa outside the walls.

Mouritsen suspects that the documentation of the electoral notices was done with variable quality in the different parts and during the different eras of the excavations.⁴¹ This, however, is not the case according to the study of Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen, and Kalle Korhonen, which concludes that the distribution between Regiones I, VI, and VII is quite even, although the last excavated part of Regio I has a slightly higher number of the notices, and most of the uncertain locations are in Regiones VI and VII.⁴² However, the survival and documentation of the notices have several other limits, making them an imperfect source group.⁴³

If the outside walls of the house were primarily reserved for the house owners to show their political support,⁴⁴ the walls inside a house were likely under even stricter control by the owner. Electoral notices inside a house are extremely rare, and it is difficult to understand the motivation of painting them inside the house, as a more prominent place would have been on the outside walls along the streets. The presence of electoral inscriptions inside a house may signal that not all the visitors of the house knew the political connections of the owner. It is likely that the house owners also had a very close connection with the candidate, as they had chosen to show them support even inside their own houses – if the candidate was not the house owner himself.

Seal stamps were the source group that Fiorelli used most often to identify the house owner, but seal stamps are also a very problematic source.⁴⁵ Allison notes that little is known about the function of the seal stamps found in the Pompeian houses. It has been suggested that they were for bread stamping, but Allison does not believe this identification, because they are according to her too heavy for such a purpose.⁴⁶ Mouritsen proposes more varied functions, and connects them generally to production, but mentions pottery in particular, and cloth and leather manufacturing.⁴⁷ Giovanna Cicala has demonstrated a potential connection between some of the seal stamps and viticulture and handcrafts – in particular, the images used in the stamps connect them to these activities. She also uses the stamp imprints on some of the items as evidence of their connection to certain professions.⁴⁸ Her examples, however, are few, and there are no cases where an imprint of a known seal stamp has been discovered. The function of the seal stamps remains uncertain, but the connection with commerce and industry is very likely.⁴⁹

Mouritsen notes a connection between the seal stamps and servile origin. He states that over one third of the cognomina are Greek, which has usually been connected with a servile origin, and there are several other names with the same indications.⁵⁰ The Greek cognomina do not necessarily refer to slavery or servile origins, as Allison has pointed out with hypothetical scenarios about the origins of C. Julius Polybius and C. Julius Philippus.⁵¹ Mouritsen lists seven seal stamps where “the persons mentioned are explicitly called slaves,” but actually only one stamp has the abbreviation “ser,” which refers to slave.⁵² However, there are additionally three seal stamps that clearly indicate that their owners had the status of freedman.⁵³ Some other persons mentioned in the stamps were also liberti, as confirmed by other sources.⁵⁴ In addition, one seal stamp owner from Herculaneum is known to be a libertus, and in some other stamps from the city the praenomen and nomen are the same as several freedmen known from Herculaneum.⁵⁵ This might indicate that all of these persons, and also the persons on the seal stamps (or at least their family), were freed by the same wealthy individuals from Herculaneum.

Mouritsen claims that only one freeborn high-class member of Pompeii can be identified as an owner of a seal stamp. He is referring to P. Vedius Siricus, and the specific seal stamp that is often connected to him. P. Vedius Siricus is known to have been a duumvir in Pompeii.⁵⁶ However, the seal has only the text SIRICI,⁵⁷ so there is no certainty that the stamp was actually that of P. Vedius Siricus. In the context of the other seal stamps, the text may suggest that it belonged to a freedman or slave of the family Vedii Sirici. Consequently, there are no seal stamps that can be certainly linked to any persons who held an office in Pompeii.⁵⁸

The only possible known candidate for an office on a seal stamp is A. Vettius Restitutus.⁵⁹ However, it is unclear whether he was even a candidate, as the only electoral notice of his possible candidature only has the name Restitutus, and there are other persons from Pompeii with this cognomen. It is more likely that the electoral notice is referring to someone else, for example to L. Sextilius Restitutus.⁶⁰ Regardless of whether anyone from the political elite of Pompeii can be identified on a seal stamp, there is probably one stamp from Herculaneum that was owned by a magistrate of the city;⁶¹ at least the name on the seal stamp and the name of one duumvir are same. This suggests the possibility that the high political elite might be involved in activities that required these stamps. Nevertheless, there are no ties between the Pompeian political elite and the Pompeian seal stamps, and it must be taken in consideration that this social group might not feature in this type of source material when examining the house owners.

More problematic than the absence of one social group – particularly when there are several groups that do not feature in almost any of the written sources, as mentioned before – is the portable nature of the seal stamps. Therefore, the find context is extremely important for the seal stamps, as it might help to define the relationship between the stamps and the house. The same problem applies to the amphorae with texts, as these vessels were portable. In addition, the amphorae might have had several different texts and names. It has been suggested that the consumer – and the possible house owner – is in the dative, but the amphorae with names in the dative alone cannot be considered as an indication of house ownership, as the amphorae could have been reused and relocated to a different house.⁶²

The graffiti, in contrast, are ordinarily firmly connected to their find place, but there are problems with their recording – presumably not all of the graffiti were documented in the older excavations, and important information is thus missing. Also, who wrote the graffiti and why are often unknown. For example, a name scribbled on a wall might belong to a visitor, not a member of the household.⁶³ There are, in addition, some special cases where names are written on mosaics, or other types of texts than graffiti are found in houses, but these examples are only a few and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Although, in general, it could be assumed that one’s name in written form would concentrate spatially around one’s location of living, and therefore the highest percentage of occurrences would indicate the location of the house, this methodology has several problems. Subsequently, the following chapter will be largely based on Mouritsen’s method of seeking possible house owners, where the identifications can be only made if there are several written source groups identifying the same person, as it lessens the potentiality that the names were written several times because of some other event that produced a large quantity of textual data with names at a single location – such as an electoral campaign.

In the following discussion, the houses where only one epigraphical source group is available as evidence of possible ownership are mostly excluded. None of the houses in this study combines all four groups – electoral notices, seal stamps, amphorae, and graffiti – with the same name. There are several houses where two source groups indicate the same individual; however, the combination of evidence is different in each case. Some of the identifications are based on a very weak connection, where for example the sources only refer to a cognomen, which are so common that it is impossible to determine whether the different sources are actually referring to the same person. These cases where the ownership is very dubious are classified as proposed. In some cases, it is possible to know that the sources are referring to the same person – or at least that it is likely. These are classified as potential owners. These identifications must still be treated with some caution, but the identification is more reliable than when the definition is classified as proposed. Some of the houses can also be linked to a specific family, but the individual who owned the house remains unclear. There are only a very few cases where three different source groups indicate the same individual. They are classified as probable owners. Although several scenarios can be proposed for why someone’s name might be present in three different source groups found in the same house area, ownership is one of the most likely alternatives – if not the most likely. In addition to those classified as probable identifications, there are the houses where ownership can be defined certainly due to some additional evidence, such as the archive in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus. These cases are very few, and I have included them in the group of probable identifications. All of the identifications of the house owners are based on evidence of very different qualities and quantities, and occasionally the rules listed here must be reconsidered when the classification of reliability is made.

7.2 Possible peristyle owners and their social statuses

7.2.1 Opulent peristyles

The opulent peristyles are the smallest group, yet there are five houses which require investigation of possible owners, following the methodology set out in the previous chapter. The Casa delle nozze d’argento is the only house from the group where three different source groups identify a possible owner: electoral notices on the front of the house, graffiti, and amphorae with text – one in dative – found inside the house all suggest that the owner was L. Albucius Celsus.⁶⁴ On the basis of these inscriptions the ownership of L. Albucius Celsus can be defined as probable.

What is known of the family Albucii, who likely lived in this house? The first known Albucius in Pompeii was aedile in 33/34 CE, L. Albucius Celsus.⁶⁵ This is the early Julio-Claudian period, which Paavo Castrén regards as a time when new families gained entry to the ruling families of the ordo decurionum. The Albucii are one of those immigrant families – they came from Gavii – and later in the Neronian and Flavian periods they have become an integral part of the administration of Pompeii.⁶⁶ The younger L. Albucius Celsus – the probable owner of the house – was an aedile candidate in the Flavian period, after 75 CE, with M. Casellius Marcellus. It is unknown if he was elected.⁶⁷ According to De Vos, the owner of the Casa delle nozze d’argento was an aedile and duumvir,⁶⁸ but there is no evidence to confirm this. Castrén states that the Pompeian Albucii were a small but wealthy family.⁶⁹

The Casa di Obellius Firmus had electoral notices both inside and outside the house. The notices refer to M. Obellius Firmus, as do several graffiti inside the house.⁷⁰ It is speculated that the house was abandoned after the death of M. Obellius Firmus, because there were on-going restoration efforts at the time of the eruption.⁷¹ Nevertheless, there is no need to think that the entire house – particularly one so large – had to be abandoned because of some restoration work.

Castrén and Mouritsen identify two persons, father and son, with the name M. Obellius Firmus in the period of 50 to 79 CE. Mouritsen believes that they both lived in the Casa di Obellius Firmus.⁷² Spinazzola, instead, thinks that the father was the principal inhabitant of the house.⁷³ There is a sepulchral inscription for one M. Obellius Firmus, who was an aedile and duumvir, and according to Willem Jongman it was from the son’s tomb. He bases this on the assumption that only the younger M. Obellius Firmus held an office. Because of this, the younger M. Obellius Firmus should be dead during the last period, meaning that he could not be the house owner: Jongman speculates that a freedman of the family may have owned the house during its last years, but he also states that the evidence is insecure. The argument is based on the poor quality of the new wall paintings and the decision to restore the lararium of the house first.⁷⁴ However, these arguments are insufficient to suggest that the owner was freedman: a freeborn person could equally be expected to prefer rebuilding a lararium first, and to have poor quality paintings in his house.

Jongman’s identification of the tomb with the younger M. Obellius Firmus is debatable. Jongman uses the Iucundus tablets of 54 CE as an argument to point out that only the son achieved an office, but it cannot be certainly said whether the M. Obellius Firmus mentioned in the tablet was the son or the father. In addition, Jongman’s interpretation, that the father is in the minor role in the electoral notice, where the Obellii are asked to support Ti. Claudius Verus for duumvir, is dubious.⁷⁵ On the contrary, the notice stating “Obelli cum Patre” makes a particular declaration of the father, which might also suggest that he played an important role, because if he was not important the mention could have been left out.⁷⁶ Consequently, the ownership of M. Obellius Firmus can be classified as potential.

Even if the tomb inscription does not necessarily belong to the younger M. Obellius Firmus, it casts a shadow of doubt whether the Obellii still owned the house during the eruption. Nevertheless, the peristyle of the house – at least at one time – possibly belonged to the decurional and administrative family, as at least one M. Obellii Firmi was duumvir iure dicundo.⁷⁷ The peristyle, however, seems to have been under restoration,⁷⁸ so that the new owner, whether it was the younger M. Obellius Firmus or somebody else, was modifying it. Therefore, the decoration of the peristyle cannot necessarily be interpreted to reflect the decurional class, but the architecture and larger structures, such as the pool, perhaps can be.⁷⁹

The Casa del Citarista is often identified as having been owned by L. Popidius Secundus Augustianus, whose name can be found on a few graffiti in the southern peristyle of the house.⁸⁰ The connection between him and the house is however limited to these graffiti, making the foundation of the case for his ownership shaky. L. Popidius Ampliatus has also been suggested as a possible house owner.⁸¹ There is a rude graffito mentioning the cognomen Ampliatus in the middle peristyle, and this name is on two amphorae – one in the dative – excavated from the house.⁸² The amphora with the name in dative was, however, found in the upper levels, so it was probably located on the upper floors.⁸³ As it is unknown how the upper floors were organized, and to which house they were connected, the link between the amphora and the Casa del Citarista is not certain.⁸⁴ Additionally, according to Della Corte there are two electoral notices mentioning Ampliatus near the house. However, their locations are ambiguous; it rather seems that they were on the neighborhood houses, not on the walls of the Casa del Citarista.⁸⁵ Dwyer notes several electoral notices referring to L. Popidius Ampliatus in the nearby insulae of the house.⁸⁶ Despite the several potential references to L. Popidius Ampliatus, his complete name does not appear in any of the texts that are spatially connected to the house, and additionally the cognomen Ampliatus is quite common. Also, the amphorae refer to a Popidius Ampliatus without a praenomen – so it also remains a bit questionable whether they refer to L. Popidius Ampliatus, as P. Popidius Ampliatus is also a possibility.⁸⁷ Consequently, the ownership of L. Popidius Ampliatus is too dubious, but a Popidius Ampliatus can be classified as a proposed owner, without certainty of the praenomen, leaving the associated social rank of the house unclear, as the owner cannot be defined more clearly.

The Casa dei Vettii, as its name states, was usually identified as owned by A. Vettius Restitutus and A. Vettius Conviva.⁸⁸ However, Allison has questioned the identification of these owners. She admits that both men were connected to the house, but according to her nothing points to them being the owners.⁸⁹ The case for the ownership of the Vettii is based on two seal stamps, one bronze ring with an inscription, and a painted text on the outside walls of the house.⁹⁰

The seal stamps and the ring in the Casa dei Vettii were found nearby a large chest in the atrium.⁹¹ They were probably among the items kept in the chest, which suggests that they were objects that the owners wished to be kept safe, but were not carried at all times. Combining the seal stamps with the painted text outside the house indicates that the ownership A. Vettius Conviva can be classified as potential.⁹² A. Vettius Restitutus, instead, is linked to the house only via the seal stamp, making his ownership very hypothetical.⁹³ Nothing can be said with certainty about the relationship between these two persons.⁹⁴ A. Vettius Conviva, the potential house owner, was possibly a freedman – but not certainly – because he probably served as an augustalis.⁹⁵ Although the ownership of A. Vettius Conviva is classified as potential, the identification in this case is based only on a very few sources, which makes it also somewhat doubtful.

House VIII,4,15/30 is named after C. Cornelius Rufus, and the Cornelii are often identified as the house owners. The identification is based on a herm with an inscription mentioning C. Cornelius Rufus.⁹⁶ Nevertheless, there are no electoral notices, graffiti, seal stamps, or amphora with texts recorded to confirm his ownership.⁹⁷ Yet, a marble slab referring to the Cornelii has been found in the house.⁹⁸ It is not impossible that some Cornelii owned the house, but the marble slab is fragmentary and it is unclear why it was in this house, so the connection between the Cornelii and the house can only be considered as possible, as it is based on very few sources. Besides the inscription in the house, nothing else is known about C. Cornelius Rufus.⁹⁹ It is difficult to define his connection with the house, because there is no further information about this person. If these types of statues were some kind of ancestral portraits, the connection of C. Cornelius Rufus and the last phase of the house is uncertain, because the presence of the statue would mean in this case that he was likely dead.

The herm inscriptions found in a few Pompeian houses are problematic as indicators of house ownership. They offer a very limited amount of information, which also varies between the herms. The herm in the Casa di Cornelius Rufus has only the name, but it is the complete tria nomina. Instead, in the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus only a letter L refers to the name of the person represented on the herm. In this case, only the praenomen – Lucius – is provided, but the inscription also has an additional text, a cognomen – Felix – referring to the person who probably donated the statue.¹⁰⁰ In the Casa di Vesonius Primus the subject of the herm is only referred by to his cognomen, Primus, and possibly again only the cognomen of the donator, Anteros, is mentioned.¹⁰¹ In the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus and Casa di Vesonius Primus very limited information on the person’s name is provided, and it can be questioned whether it is enough to identify the person represented in these herms.¹⁰² However, comparing these two houses to the Casa di Cornelius Rufus, it seems that only a praenomen or a cognomen was enough for the household members and visitors to identify the sculpted person. Why, then, was the complete name needed in the herm from the Casa di Cornelius Rufus? Perhaps C. Cornelius Rufus was not so well known in the house, and the owners wanted his full name to be carved on the herm.

7.2.2 Large full peristyles

There are a few houses with a large full peristyle where the owner can be possibly identified, but in addition to these there have been several attempts to identify the owners of other houses with a large full peristyle that lack reasonable evidence. For example, the Casa del Centauro has been attributed to A. Vettius Caprasius Felix.¹⁰³ However, one seal stamp with a few letters is hardly enough to confirm that the house was owned by the A. Vettius Caprasius mentioned on an electoral notice nearby the dwelling.¹⁰⁴

The Casa dei Dioscuri and Casa del Labirinto were located on the opposite sides of the street, and both had a seal stamp with the name Eutychus.¹⁰⁵ In both cases, Eutychus is not believed to be the house owner, although Cn. Caetronius Eutychus is sometimes considered to be the owner of the house opening from entrance 7, which is connected to the Casa dei Dioscuri.¹⁰⁶ Nothing else links him to the house, so his connection with the ownership of the Casa dei Dioscuri remains highly speculative. On the other hand, the atrium wall of the Casa del Labirinto had a graffito that probably refers to Eutychus.¹⁰⁷ The reluctance to identify Eutychus as the house owner is likely due to his name, which suggests a servile origin, and it is thus not considered possible that he was the owner of one of the most prominent houses of Pompeii. Yet, an Imperial freedman with the cognomen Eutychus is known to be active in the Vesuvian area, and it is not uncommon to consider Imperial liberti as the owners of some of the other more impressive houses of Pompeii.¹⁰⁸ So, even if one starts with the assumption that the owner must have been an important person on a social level, there is no basis to rule out Eutychus as the owner. However, in the Casa del Labirinto there was a graffito stating that Fuficius Ianuarius was living in the house,¹⁰⁹ making him one possible owner, but living in the house does not automatically make him the proprietor. No further information on Fuficius Ianuarius is available, and therefore he cannot even be classified as a proposed owner. Eutychus, instead, can be identified as a possible house owner of the Casa del Labirinto, but on very weak evidence. It is only a cognomen, and the other names of the person cannot be identified; consequently, no information about his social rank is available, except that he likely did not belong to the political elite of the city, because his name is absent from the electoral notices.

Seal stamps have been found in the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus, Casa di C. Vibius Italus, and Casa di Trittolemo, and in each case the name on the stamp has been connected to a possible house owner.¹¹⁰ In the Casa di Trittolemo, the seal features the name L. Calpurnius Diogenes, and an amphora found in the house possibly mentions a person called T. Calpurnius Aquila in the dative. In addition, there were other amphorae with the abbreviations LCS, LCQ, and LCSQ, which might refer to two L. Calpurnius, however with a different cognomen than Diogenes or Aquila.¹¹¹ A seal with the text C. Vibi. C was found in the Casa di C. Vibius Italus, and a painted red text inside the peristyle mentions C. Vivius Italius and possibly one of his enslaved persons.¹¹² N. Popidius Priscus is mentioned on the seal from the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus. Inside the house is an Oscan graffito with the name M. Popidius and a graffito with the name Numerius.¹¹³ In the case of all these houses, the cognomen, and in some of the cases even the praenomen, is different in the stamps and the other written sources, making it impossible to identify the seal owner as the house owner. Instead, in all of these cases the family name is the same in the seals and the other source types. Consequently, the house can possibly be linked to a family: the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus was possibly owned by the Popidii,¹¹⁴ the owner of the Casa di C. Vibius Italus was possibly the family of (C.) Vibii, and the Casa di Trittolemo the (L.) Calpurnii. Because the entire names of the owners remain unknown, not much can be said about the social status of the owners of these peristyles, but at least the gens Popidia and Vibia had political power during the last period,¹¹⁵ so it is possible that, even if these houses were not inhabited by the most powerful members of the family, they likely had contacts – perhaps even close – with these important family members.

There are two houses – the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus and house IX,6,4–7 – with a large full peristyle where the atrium floor was decorated with mosaics that include text.¹¹⁶ These mosaics can be utilized to recognize the potential house owner. Della Corte thinks that Oppius Gratus owned house IX,6,4–7, but it is unclear if Gratus was even living in the house.¹¹⁷ In addition, there are no sources to connect the nomen Oppius to the architect Gratus in this case.¹¹⁸ Instead, the mosaic in the atrium of this house only indicates that the matron of the house was likely Quartila. In the other house – the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus – the mosaic in the atrium (2) depicts amphorae with inscribed texts that suggest that the owner of the house was A. Umbricius Scaurus.¹¹⁹ There are no other sources to identify the house owner in this case, and the mosaic only provides the name Scaurus, but Robert Curtis convincingly points out the connection between the amphorae on the mosaic and the actual amphorae known to be used for commercial purposes by A. Umbricius Scaurus. In addition, there are no other persons known from Pompeii with this cognomen, except his son.¹²⁰ The evidence indicates that A. Umbricius Scaurus was the owner of this house.

A. Umbricius Scaurus had a son who was named after him. The son was a duumvir, and his equestrian statue was in the forum.¹²¹ The father probably did not hold any office,¹²² but the house and the family were connected – through the son – to the decurional class and to the highest political powers in Pompeii. The family seems to have been relatively new in the city at the time of the eruption, and it joined the group of magisterial families with the son’s career.¹²³ Curtis demonstrates that the ample evidence from the amphorae indicates that the father was alive in 79 CE.¹²⁴ There is also the possibility that during the last period there were several A. Umbricii Scauri living in this house, and it is not even impossible that the last owner was the grandson of the first A. Umbricius Scaurus.¹²⁵ In either case, the connection to the house remains, and the social status of the house owner as well. A. Umbricius Scaurus was a very wealthy businessman, and probably one of the most important players in the fish-sauce business in Pompeii.¹²⁶ In this case only one source is used to identify the house owner; however, the text and its context make the identification probable.

In the case of house IX,6,4–7, there are no means to better identify who Quartila was. There is the possibility that she was the house owner’s wife, as Della Corte identifies her.¹²⁷ Yet, it is also possible that she was the house owner. She is saluted in the mosaic inscription, suggesting that she was an important person in this house.¹²⁸ It is always possible to construct different scenarios explaining why Quartila is mentioned in the text, but her role as the main object of the text indicates that the most probable option is that she owned the house. Other female Pompeians are known to have been active in public life and owned property,¹²⁹ so a female house owner should not be ruled out, although Pompeian life seems to be on many levels dominated by men, at least according to the epigraphical sources. All the same, as no further information on Quartila is available, she is listed as a potential house owner.

The owner of the Casa di Pansa, Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius, is one of the few cases where the identification is stated to be sure.¹³⁰ He was a candidate for the positions of aedile and duumvir, and served as a quinquennalis in 55 CE. Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius was also a flamen Caesaris Augusti and was one of the leading citizens of the town, as he is referred to with the title princeps coloniae.¹³¹ An inscription reports that Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius was renting his premises. The inscription can be interpreted to mean that he was renting, besides the other property, the house – the so-called Casa di Pansa. In this case, he would not have been living in it during the last period of Pompeii.¹³² Della Corte suggests that Ollius Primus lived in the house. Sampaolo – probably referring to the same person – proposes that a slave called Primus was taking care of the house.¹³³ The reading of the inscription, however, is not clear. If the domus conductor in the inscription is understood as the position of the enslaved Primus, then the house is not among the properties that were rented.¹³⁴ In this case, Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius was likely living in the house. There are no other reported inscriptions nearby, or inside the house, to either strengthen or weaken the speculation about whether he lived in the house during the last phase.¹³⁵ Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius was the house owner, but as it remains unclear how he was linked to the house – whether it was just a business investment or his home – any connections between the peristyle and his social status must be made very cautiously.

7.2.3 Ornamental peristyles

In the group of the ornamental peristyles, there is one house where the owner can be identified certainly, the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus. The owner is known on the basis of the wax tablet archive found in the house. The name L. Caecilius Iucundus appears frequently in the tablets.¹³⁶ In addition, a herm with an inscription referring to Lucius was found in the house, and electoral notices mentioning the Caecilii Iucundi as political supporters, as well as notices asking for their support, were located both in the front of the house and elsewhere nearby, and finally an amphora with the name L. Caecilius Iucundus in dative was found in the house.¹³⁷ According to the herm inscription, Lucius – very likely a Caecilius – had a freedman named Felix.¹³⁸ It has been suggested that L. Caecilius Felix, who was an augustalis, was the father of L. Caecilius Iucundus, and it has also been suggested that the L. Caecilius mentioned in the herm inscription was also a freedman.¹³⁹ However, the relationship between L. Caecilius Iucundus and L. Caecilius Felix remains unproven, as their only possible connection is the herm inscription, and it does not provide clear evidence about the social connection between the two persons. If the libertus Felix was the father of this L. Caecilius Iucundus, then the Lucius mentioned on the herm can hardly be L. Caecilius Iucundus, because that Lucius seems to be in a higher social position than the Felix on the herm; and therefore the relationship between the Lucius and the Felix on the herm, and also between them and the house owner L. Caecilius Iucundus, remains uncertain. The house owner had two sons, Q. Caecilius Iucundus and Sex. Caecilius Iucundus.¹⁴⁰ It has been speculated that L. Caecilius Iucundus was no longer active during the last phase, and the sons had taken over his business and property.¹⁴¹ According to Caroline Dexter, L. Caecilius Iucundus was an active businessman belonging to the Pompeian middle class, and the house demonstrated that he was wealthy enough to be a member of the ordo,¹⁴² however in the light of our data there are no sources stating that he was a member of the decurional class.

It has been determined that the Casa della Fortuna was owned by D. Caprasius Felix, based on an amphora with his complete name in the dative and a graffito greeting someone named Felix, both found inside the house. In addition, nearby the house were electoral notices mentioning that a person with the nomen Caprasius was a supporter.¹⁴³ The identification is problematic, as the name Caprasius on the electoral notice could also belong to, for example, the politically active A. Vettius Caprasius Felix. Felix is also a common cognomen, and it is risky to identify the graffito with D. Caprasius Felix.¹⁴⁴ Therefore, this identification of the house owner is classified as proposed. Even if we thought that it was certain, it would not help much in the task of connecting social status with peristyles, because the social standing of D. Caprasius Felix is mostly unknown. Most of the information connected to him is speculative and without evidence, for instance that his wife was named Fortunata,¹⁴⁵ that he was involved in trade,¹⁴⁶ and that he was related to A. Vettius Syrticus or A. Vettius Caprasius Felix.¹⁴⁷ First, his profession is unknown, and the connection with trade, speculated by Dwyer, cannot be attested – as pointed out already by Dwyer himself – because there are no business facilities connected to the house.¹⁴⁸ Second, Fortunata is mentioned in the same graffito that greets a Felix, but their relationship remains unclear. Third, the only thing that links D. Caprasius and A. Vettius Syrticus or A. Vettius Caprasius Felix are the similarities with the name of the last mentioned, which does not necessarily mean that they were related. Castrén states that most of the Caprasii in Pompeii were freedmen. There is one inscription referring to a D. Caprasius who was a freedman,¹⁴⁹ but he, or rather the inscription, cannot be linked to D. Caprasius Felix; therefore, almost nothing can be concluded of his social status.

It has been proposed that the Casa detta di Trebius Valens was owned by A. Trebius Valens, based on the electoral notices mentioning the names Trebius Valens near the entrance of the house and in areas nearby the house. The name Valens is also mentioned in a graffito found inside the house.¹⁵⁰ Nevertheless, the cognomen Valens is one of the most common in Pompeii, and consequently it is difficult to know if the graffito means A. Trebius Valens specifically.¹⁵¹ Therefore, the ownership is defined as proposed. A. Trebius Valens was an aedile candidate during the Flavian period. He was a client of the Epidii and co-operated with the Caecilii. Castrén reports that the Trebii were an indigenous Pompeian family.¹⁵²

A suggested owner of the Casa dell’Argenteria (VI,7,20/22) is L. Laelius Erastus. The name Erastus can be found as a rogator in an electoral notice on the opposite side of the street, and the name Laelius Erastus in the genitive was found on the silverware in the house.¹⁵³ L. Laelius Trophimus and P. Antistius Maximus, whose bronze seal stamps have been found in the house, might have been inhabitants of the house,¹⁵⁴ but their link with the dwelling is not clarified by other sources. However, the house was large enough so that both seal stamp owners could have lived in there, as suggested by Fiorelli, and Niccolini and Niccolini.¹⁵⁵ Della Corte thinks that L. Laelius Erastus and L. Laelius Trophimus were brothers, but this must be based only on their common praenomen and nomen.¹⁵⁶ The relationship between the seal stamps and a servile origin could also support the hypothesis that L. Laelius Trophimus was a freedman;¹⁵⁷ he could have been a freedman of the house owner. The potential ownership of L. Laelius Erastus is not supported by strong evidence, as the electoral notice is on the wall of another house and even its location is in doubt.¹⁵⁸ Erastus is also known as the cognomen of P. Cornelius Erastus in the wax tablets of L. Caecilius Iucundus,¹⁵⁹ meaning that the Erastus on the notice could also refer to him. Nothing else is known of Laelius Erastus, not even his praenomen, which seems to be an invention based on the seal stamp of L. Laelius Trophimus. As the evidence is very shaky, the ownership of Laelius Erastus cannot even be classified as proposed. The sources do connect the gens Laelia with this house,¹⁶⁰ as the nomen is mentioned on the two different finds made in the house. The gens Laelia was a fairly new arrival in Pompeii at the time of the eruption.¹⁶¹

M. Pupius Rufus has been suggested as the owner of the house (VI,15,5) bearing his name. The identification is based on the electoral notices in front of the house and a graffito mentioning the complete name in the tablinum.¹⁶² In addition, most of the electoral notices related to M. Pupius Rufus were found nearby the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus.¹⁶³ Three seal stamps were found in the atrium of the house – one with Titinia Saturnina, one L. Sepunius Amphion, and one C. Stlaccius Epitynchanus – but nothing else of these persons is known, and they cannot be connected to the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus in any other way.¹⁶⁴ The house ownership of M. Pupius Rufus is classified as potential. He was an aedile and a duumvir candidate.¹⁶⁵ Therefore, he probably served as an aedile.

P. Cornelius Tages is suggested as the owner of the Casa dell’Efebo. There are two amphorae that may refer to him – one has the name in the dative – found inside the house, and electoral notices with the names Cornelius and Tages on the outside wall of the opposite house.¹⁶⁶ Della Corte is sure that P. Cornelius Tages was a homo novus, and Zanker thinks that he was a freedman. Both also connect him to commerce, and Zanker states that he was involved in the wine business.¹⁶⁷ There is no clear indication that P. Cornelius Tages was a freedman, and his connection to the wine business is supported only by one amphora found inside the house, and therefore it is very questionable at what level he was involved in the business. The identification of P. Cornelius Tages as the house owner is in several ways problematic: the electoral notices are not on the walls of this house, meaning their spatial connection with the house is problematic and based only on vicinity. Moreover, the entire name P. Cornelius Tages is not present in any sources from Pompeii, and consequently it cannot even be verified that there was a person with this name. The ownership cannot be listed even as proposed.

In addition, the owner of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius could have been M. Lucretius, according to a painting of a letter with text situated inside the house. According to Castrén, it is likely that in this case the letter is for the owner of the house. Castrén, however, notes that there is no cognomen, which could indicate that the person in question was living in the Julio-Claudian period. He suggests that the person could have been a son of M. Lucretius Epidius Flaccus.¹⁶⁸ In any case, the owner of the house during the period before the eruption remains unclear and cannot be classified in this examination.

7.2.4 Large painting peristyles

There are six houses with large painting peristyles where a possible house owner is proposed on the basis of at least two epigraphical source groups. House I,8,8 – known as the Caupona di Lucius Betutius (Vetutius) Placidus – is thought to have been owned by two persons: Ascula and L. Betutius Placidus. They are featured separately as supporters in the electoral notices on the façade of the house. Ascula’s name can be found in the graffiti on the peristyle, and L. Betutius Placidus is mentioned on the amphorae found inside the house.¹⁶⁹ None of his names on the amphorae, however, is in the dative. Also, the electoral notice is written only with the cognomen Placidus. On the side of the neighboring entrance 7, several electoral notices with the names Placidus and Betutius have been found. The room opening from the door is occasionally thought to be connected to the house I,8,8.¹⁷⁰ They are linked by a window, and in addition there are steps going up from the room, so there might have been a link between the house and the room through the upper level, but as the plan of the upper level is unknown this is only hypothetical. The sources leave plenty of opportunities for speculation, meaning that the ownership of L. Betutius Placidus is classified as proposed and Ascula’s as potential. Their relationship with each other is unknown, but Della Corte has suggested that they were a couple,¹⁷¹ although this is not the only possible scenario where a man and a woman could have lived in the same household. Nevertheless, in a male dominated society Ascula seems to have a relatively strong role, as she is active in politics as a supporter of some candidates. L. Betutius Placidus was a cliens of C. Julius Polybius and L. Popidius Ampliatus.¹⁷²

There are two possible owners suggested for the Casa della Venere in conchiglia. According to Della Corte, D. Lucretius Satrius Valens – with his family – was living in the house. Mouritsen instead thinks that the owner was D. Lucretius Valens (II), who is identified as a son of D. Lucretius Satrius Valens. Both identifications are based on the electoral notices in front of the house and in nearby areas, and also on a few graffiti inside the house.¹⁷³ The electoral notices represent them only as candidates – not supporters – which brings into question the identification, as the candidates usually had notices supporting them all around the city, and consequently they do not offer much support for the possible ownership of a particular house. In addition, the graffiti inside the house are very fragmentary, and do not refer to a complete name, but rather give separate parts of the name or abbreviations. The house ownership of someone with the name D. Lucretius Valens can be classified as proposed, but even this remains very speculative. In addition, it is unknown which one of the family, D. Lucretius Satrius Valens or his son D. Lucretius Valens (II), was the last owner. Both were members of the decurional class, but D. Lucretius Satrius Valens had a longer career and served as a duumvir, and was named as flamen Neronis filii Caesaris perpetuus.¹⁷⁴

The Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto is occasionally identified as having been owned by two persons: M. Lucretius Fronto and M. Lucretius Lirus.¹⁷⁵ This identification is problematic, and there has been a desire to identify a sole owner. The name M. Lucretius Lirus is only present in two graffiti inside the peristyle,¹⁷⁶ meaning that the evidence is too weak to name him as the house owner. M. Lucretius Fronto likewise is mentioned in two graffiti inside the peristyle, but also in some electoral notices in front of the house and the areas nearby.¹⁷⁷ Nevertheless, De Vos thinks that M. Lucretius Fronto could not be the owner of the house, because the house is too modest for a duumvir.¹⁷⁸ This, however, is a problematic interpretation in several ways, as discussed previously.¹⁷⁹ Peters and Moorman also suggest that M. Lucretius Fronto was not living in the house during the last period.¹⁸⁰ Among the electoral notices, there is only one where Fronto is a supporter, and it only mentions the cognomen, so it is always possible that the supporter is someone else with same cognomen.¹⁸¹ However, there is a concentration of electoral notices supporting M. Lucretius Fronto in the area of the house, which might also indicate that the use of this cognomen as a supporter is referring to him. The ownership of M. Lucretius Fronto is classified as potential. M. Lucretius Fronto was a candidate for the offices of aedile, duumvir, and quinquennalis. Because he was a duumvir candidate, he likely had served as aedile at some point in his life.¹⁸²

In the Casa degli Epigrammi, a graffito inside the peristyle and two electoral notices on the front wall of the house suggest that Rufinus was the possible house owner.¹⁸³ Della Corte is against this interpretation, and identifies L. Valerius Flaccus as the owner on the basis of a seal stamp found in the house. He also thinks that Rufinus had the nomen Valerius.¹⁸⁴ The seal stamp by itself is not enough evidence for identifying the house owner, and the text of the stamp does not even certainly refer to the cognomen Flaccus, as it only has a letter F.¹⁸⁵ Della Corte probably considered that the house was too noble for a Rufinus, and wanted to find an owner that was a member of the Pompeian upper class. The name Rufinus does not appear anywhere else in Pompeii, and because of the rarity of the name, he can be classified as a potential owner of the Casa degli Epigrammi. However, only one name of this potential owner is known, and we are missing any other information about the person and his social status; but at least he was in a position to support candidates in the elections.

House IX,1,22/29 is called the Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus, and not surprisingly M. Epidius Sabinus is proposed as its owner. The identification is based on the graffiti found inside the house, and several electoral notices outside the house and its nearby areas.¹⁸⁶ Della Corte, however, places C. Cuspius Pansa and C. Cuspius Proculus in this house, and according to him and Mouritsen, M. Epidius Sabinus was living in the next house IX,1,20.¹⁸⁷ Nevertheless, the references to the Cuspii can only be found outside of house IX,1,22/29, and there are none inside. In addition, Della Corte seems to have even confused the places of some graffiti,¹⁸⁸ and there are no actual references to Sabinus in house IX,1,20. Instead, there are references to him inside house IX,1,22/29, so the connection of Sabinus with this house is actually stronger. Yet, the identification of the house owner is very problematic, as the only name mentioned inside the house is the cognomen Sabinus, which is one of the more frequent cognomina in Pompeii.¹⁸⁹ The identification is thus classified as proposed, but it is very speculative. M. Epidius Sabinus was an aedile and a duumvir candidate and was called defensor coloniae. He might have even had contacts in the Imperial family through T. Suedius Clemens.¹⁹⁰ As a duumvir candidate it can be assumed that he had served as an aedile.¹⁹¹ Castrén states that the Epidii were an old local family.¹⁹² Cicala adds that they were known for wine making and the bronze vase industry.¹⁹³ Whether M. Epidius Sabinus was involved in these businesses is unknown.

The Casa di Vesonius Primus was, as the name claims, perhaps owned by Vesonius Primus. The identification is based on a graffito found in the house, a herm inscription found in the atrium, and electoral notices and other painted texts on the front wall of the house and its nearby areas.¹⁹⁴ Mouritsen criticizes the identification, as the herm can be dated to the Augustan period.¹⁹⁵ In addition, the graffiti inside the house only mention the name Primus, which is a quite common cognomen,¹⁹⁶ so the identification is somewhat dubious. Vesonius Primus is also named as the owner of the neighboring fullonica, and sometimes even as the owner of the tannery (I,5,2) in the southern part of Pompeii.¹⁹⁷ The ownership of the tannery is based on only one graffito on the outside wall of the property with the name M. Vesonius,¹⁹⁸ so it cannot be considered as even probable, and there is also another graffito that indicates another possible owner for that dwelling.¹⁹⁹ There are no references to Vesonius Primus inside the Fullonica VI,14,21–22, but an electoral notice in front of the fullonica states “Primus fullo,” which, given the context and several other electoral notices referring to Primus on the front of the establishment, makes it possible that Vesonius Primus was the owner of the fullery.²⁰⁰ Nevertheless, as stated before, the name Primus is quite common, which casts a doubt on this identification. The ownership of the house is classified as proposed.

7.2.5 Imitation peristyles

Very few possible owner identifications can be made for the imitation peristyle houses. Della Corte and Mouritsen name Amandus as the owner of the Casa del Sacerdos Amandus (I,7,7). He is mentioned on an electoral notice on the façade of the house,²⁰¹ but the graffiti inside the house cannot be related to him with any certainty. Only the letters AMA appear on the graffiti,²⁰² which Della Corte interprets as the beginning of the name Amandus.²⁰³ The interpretation is excessively bold – even if the name is mentioned on an electoral notice on the front of the house – because love-related graffiti are not rare in Pompeii, not to mention the possibility that it is the beginning of some other word or name. This identification cannot be classified even as proposed.

Defining the ownership of the Casa di Sirico is a complicated matter. The house is often described as being owned by P. Vedius Siricus, or he and P. Vedius Nummianus together. There is one electoral notice on the outside wall of the house referring to Siricus, and a seal stamp with the text SIRICI has been found inside the house. Nummianus is only mentioned on a painted text inside the house.²⁰⁴ What makes the identification problematic is that the name P. Vedius is not mentioned in any of these sources; there is only the cognomina.²⁰⁵ However, in Pompeii, the cognomina Siricus and Nummianus are only known from the individuals that had the names P. Vedius,²⁰⁶ making it very possible that the inscriptions are referring to P. Vedius Siricus and P. Vedius Nummianus. In addition, they are mentioned together, as rogatores, in the same electoral notice on the Via Stabiana opposite entrance 25 of the Casa di Sirico.²⁰⁷ Additionally to all of this, there is a possible electoral notice inside the house that might refer to the candidacy of Siricus. This would make the identification more certain, but oddly neither Fiorelli nor Niccolini and Niccolini mention this notice, which makes the location of this inscription uncertain.²⁰⁸ Nummianus is only mentioned on a painted text inside the house, making it too uncertain to conclude that he was the house owner. The relationship between Siricus and Nummianus is unknown. Fiorelli suggests that they were brothers,²⁰⁹ but other relationships are possible; for example, Della Corte suggests that they might also be father and son.²¹⁰ Siricus is classified as a potential owner of the house. He was probably P. Vedius Siricus, who served as a duumvir in 60 CE.²¹¹

The Casa di Polibio has also been ascribed to two owners: C. Julius Polybius and C. Julius Philippus.²¹² As the name of the house indicates, the first one is often considered to be the actual house owner,²¹³ but some have identified C. Julius Polybius as the owner of another house,²¹⁴ and some suggest that C. Julius Philippus was the owner this house.²¹⁵ The latter identification is often made on the basis of his seal stamp, which was found inside the house, but there is also a graffito greeting him inside the house.²¹⁶ Furthermore, there is an electoral notice near the house where Julius Philippus is mentioned.²¹⁷ On this same notice, there is also a mention of Polybius, and there are several electoral notices on the façade of the Casa di Polibio where Polybius is mentioned as a supporter, as well as notices referring to the candidacy of C. Julius Polybius.²¹⁸ The supporter Polybius is most likely referring to C. Julius Polybius, as he seems to be the only person known in Pompeii with this cognomen.²¹⁹ Mouritsen notes a concentration of his electoral notices near the house.²²⁰ In addition, there is even an electoral notice referring to C. Julius Polybius inside the peristyle, and two more inside the other rooms of the house.²²¹ If we are just counting the number of texts, the majority of the evidence points to C. Julius Polybius – but they are all electoral notices. C. Julius Philippus instead appears in two different epigraphical source groups.

Allison thinks that it is problematic to have two household heads in one house in the Roman social and historical context,²²² and consequently it is complicated to name both C. Julius Polybius and C. Julius Philippus as the owners of the same house. However, Alfonso De Franciscis already noted that the Casa di Polibio has a structure of two apartments: two atria and two lararia, and he has a theory that the other atrium area might have functioned as a hospitium.²²³ This function is purely speculative, but the house structure seems to be appropriate for two families. There are several possible scenarios to explain how these two men could be placed in one house: they were patron and freedman, they were father and son, or they were in some other way related. Nevertheless, the problem remains: which one was the owner? Which one can be connected to the peristyle, and whose social status does the peristyle represent? The question might be solved if the relationship between C. Julius Polybius and C. Julius Philippus can be clarified.

Della Corte and Carlo Giordano suggest that they are related,²²⁴ which is a possibility; for example, as father and son. Nevertheless, as there is a connection between the seal stamps and servile origins, it is also possible that Philippus was a freedman of C. Julius Polybius, as suggested by Jashemski.²²⁵ If this was the relationship between the two men, it is also possible to speculate that the latter did not even live in the Casa di Polibio. The link between C. Julius Polybius and the house is based only on the electoral notices, and if he was a patron of C. Julius Philippus it is not hard to imagine that the freedman’s house was covered with his patron’s electoral propaganda.

It is possible that C. Julius Polybius owned the Casa di Polibio, but the weight of the evidence leans towards C. Julius Philippus. His seal stamp was found near one of the cupboards of the peristyle, which indicates that it was stored there,²²⁶ and the possibility that the stamp was accidentally dropped – for example in the turmoil of the eruption – inside the house is low. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that the C. Julius Polybius also lived in the house. There is a big difference in social status between the two possible owners, C. Julius Polybius and C. Julius Philippus. The first mentioned was a duumvir candidate, which suggests that he was probably at least an aedile at some point in his career.²²⁷ The second mentioned instead had no known political career or candidacy. Nevertheless, he seems to be well connected with C. Julius Polybius, so he probably had some political influence. Following Mouritsen’s methodology – where at least two different epigraphical groups are needed to identify the owner – only C. Julius Philippus can be classified as a potential owner of the house.

7.2.6 Minor decoration and architectural peristyles

In the group of minor decoration peristyles no owners can be identified – even tentatively. There were seal stamps in a few houses among the finds, but further evidence to confirm that the stamp owner was the house owner is missing.²²⁸ In house V,2,10 there was a graffito referring to Successus, and an amphora with the name Successus in the dative.²²⁹ The text on the amphora also mentions Paccia, and it has been suggested that Successus was Paccia’s slave or dependent. Thus, Della Corte sees that Paccia was the house owner.²³⁰ There are no other sources to connect Paccia with this house. Mouritsen instead thinks that Successus was living in the house.²³¹ This interpretation seems most reliable, but the text of the amphora refers to a social standing where Successus could not be a likely house owner – yet, it is not completely impossible. In addition, as only the cognomen is represented in both sources, it is debatable whether the person mentioned was the same, as there are several persons known with the name Successus in Pompeii.²³² The ownership thus cannot be classified even as proposed.

Several owners of houses with an architectural peristyle have been suggested based on very little evidence.²³³ The owners of the Casa di Pinarius Cerialis (III,4,4) and the Casa di T. Dentatius Panthera have been identified based on the electoral notices and graffiti found on the outside wall of the houses. The possible owner of the first house was Pinarius Cerialis, while the second was possibly owned by Q. Bruttius Balbus.²³⁴ Because of the location of the graffiti – they were also outside of the house, not inside – the identifications cannot be considered reliable.

There are two cases where a house owner is possibly mentioned in two different source types, and the names are also found inside the house. The first is the Casa dei Quadretti teatrali, which Della Corte identifies as belonging to the Calavii. On the basis of a stamped brick he thinks that the owner was either Statius or Stenius Calavius. An amphora was found inside the house with an inscription referring to Calavia Optata. Della Corte thinks that the name is in the dative, but Mouritsen notes that it could equally well be the genitive.²³⁵ The possible house owner’s name is mostly Maiuri’s reconstruction, and as the brick does not even have the complete name Calavius visible, but only the three first letters,²³⁶ and the amphora does not necessarily have a dative form, the link with the family Calavii and the house is very doubtful.

Both M. Epidius Rufus and M. Epidius Sabinus have been interpreted as the owner of house IX,1,20, the so-called Casa di M. Epidius Rufus.²³⁷ M. Epidius Sabinus is also identified as the possible owner of the neighboring house IX,1,22/29 and there is no reference to Sabinus inside house IX,1,20, so therefore the possibility of linking him with house IX,1,20 is low.²³⁸ A seal stamp was found inside the Casa di M. Epidius Rufus that refers to Epidius Rufus, and a marble inscription was also found that is likewise interpreted as referring to him.²³⁹ The seal, however, only has the letters EP followed by the name Rufus; the letter M only appears on the marble inscription. None of the sources seems to clearly indicate the complete name M. Epidius Rufus, and in fact that person seems to be imaginary, as such a name is unknown in Pompeii.²⁴⁰ Even for the truncated name Epidius Rufus, the seal stamp is the only source. There is a graffito in front of the house with the name Rufus, but taking into account the common nature of the cognomen the link between the person on the seal stamp and the person in the graffiti is dubious.²⁴¹ The identification of the house owner is on very doubtful ground, and cannot be classified even as proposed.

The Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29) is, according to Sampaolo, one of the few houses where the owner is certainly identified. The house owner is thought to be M. Spurius Mesor, based on a name written with mosaic tesserae on the cocciopesto floor of the triclinium (l).²⁴² Nevertheless, not all are convinced that he was the house owner; for example, Curtis mentions that the name might also indicate the mosaic maker.²⁴³ Della Corte is certain that M. Spurius Mesor was the maker of the mosaic decoration, not the house owner. He states that a house owner’s name was never found written on the floors in Pompeii – although he thinks that house IX,6,4–7 is an exception – and Della Corte questions the motivation for writing one’s own name in a space that is clearly one’s own property.²⁴⁴ At the time when Della Corte wrote, the mosaic of the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus was unknown, and in that case Scaurus was not likely a mosaic maker.²⁴⁵ Now, considering also the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus, it cannot be stated that the names on the mosaics were always their makers. Consequently, the text in the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor does not necessarily indicate that the name belongs to the maker of the floor.²⁴⁶ The floor is not an actual mosaic floor, but a cocciopesto floor decorated with tesserae and hexagonal pieces of slate.²⁴⁷ Signatures on mortar floors are very rare in Pompeii, and there were no pictorial representations in this floor that might be expected to be signed.²⁴⁸ Nevertheless, the hexagonal slates are a rare type of decoration.²⁴⁹ Perhaps the floor maker wanted to advertise his specialty – floors decorated with slate. However, the floor and the text are not in a very visible place, as one had to pass through at least four rooms before seeing it, and it is not on any entrance axis of the house, meaning that it was not visible from the street. In addition, there are no indications that this house was visited by that many people. The reported undecorated state of the peristyle instead suggests that the peristyle area – where the triclinium room was located – did not have much of a display value, and it can be questioned whether many people visited it. The peristyle is now a part of the modern buildings, which makes it impossible to check the reliability of the reported undecorated state. There was, however, a cooking bench that might indicate that the peristyle was utilized for a utilitarian function. The triclinium instead is one of the most decorated rooms in the house, besides a cubiculum (m).²⁵⁰ Therefore, these rooms might have been used when entertaining guests.

There are no clear signs that M. Spurius Mesor was either the house owner or the floor maker. Nevertheless, it is not even sure that he was still the owner during the last phase, if he once was the house owner. For example, Sampaolo classifies the floor as third style, and also states that M. Spurius Mesor owned the house during the first decades of the first century.²⁵¹ The link between him and the last phase of the house remains uncertain, and therefore the ownership cannot even be classified as proposed in this case. Even if we assume that M. Spurius Mesor was the house owner during the last phase, it does not help much in connecting a social status to this peristyle, as the person is only known from this floor inscription.²⁵² Fiorelli and Sampaolo assume that he was a geometer or land surveyor.²⁵³ They do not give any reasoning for this assumption, but it must be his cognomen, which cannot be thought of as sufficient evidence to identify his profession.

7.2.7 Political activity and the peristyle owners

In only a very few cases can the house owner – and consequently the peristyle owner – be even potentially identified, and the number is not much higher if the proposed owners are added. The identified house owners are concentrated in houses with peristyles that are at the top of their rankings. The houses with minor decoration or architectural peristyles do not have any examples where the owner could be classified even as proposed.

If only the houses where the identification is defined as probable are taken into consideration, they would be limited to the houses with the opulent, large full, and ornamental peristyles (Table 7.1). There are several reasons for this: first, quite simply the size of the houses is larger, if they are ranked at the top of the list. Consequently, the potential area for providing possible evidence of ownership is much larger. Second, the recording of the evidence might also have influenced the situation, and likely evidence of possible owners might have vanished. In addition, there might have been more desire to find evidence suggesting the owners of the large or vast houses, and therefore they may have been better documented and examined. Third, the peristyles at the top of the ranking indicate that the house owner probably had more money, which can be connected to writing and politics, and which in turn weighs the pool of potential evidence towards these owners.

Table 7.1 The peristyle groups linked to the possible house owners.
	Owners
	Probable	Potential	Proposed
Opulent	1	2	1
Large full	2	2	0
Ornamental	1	1	3
Large painting	0	3254	3
Imitation	0	2	0

Table 7.2 demonstrates that in all of the peristyles groups where at least a potential owner can be identified, one of them was a candidate for a political office; however, if only probable identifications are examined, the candidates are limited to the opulent and large full peristyle houses. Table 7.2 does not include the Casa di Pansa and Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus – both with large full peristyles – where it is unclear whether the candidate lived in the house, but both houses were very closely connected to persons that served as high magistrates of Pompeii. In addition, the Casa dei Vettii, with its opulent peristyle, has A. Vettius Conviva – who is also not listed in Table 7.2 – classified as a potential owner. He was perhaps a freedman, but may have also held the office of augustalis. The possible house owners whose political activity seems to be limited to only supporting candidates are found instead in the groups of ornamental, large painting, and imitation peristyles.

Table 7.2 The peristyle groups linked to the possible house owners and their political activity. Supporters in the table mean possible house owners who are not known to be candidates, but have been identified as supporters in electoral notices.
	Candidates			Supporters
	Probable	Potential	Proposed	Probable	Potential	Proposed
Opulent	1	0	0	0	0	0
Large full	1	0	0	0	0	0
Ornamental	0	1	1	1	0	0
Large painting	0	1	2	0	2255	1
Imitation	0	1	0	0	1	0

There is one house with an opulent peristyle, and three houses with large full peristyles, that can possibly be connected to a family, rather than an individual: the Casa di Cornelius Rufus to the Cornelii, the Casa di N. Popidius Priscus to the Popidii,²⁵⁶ the Casa di C. Vibius Italus to the Vibii, and the Casa di Trittolemo to the Calpurnii. The owner of the house cannot be defined more precisely, meaning that the social status remains undefinable. All of the families except the Calpurnii seem to be politically powerful, and have several members of the decurional class.²⁵⁷ Consequently, these houses – except the Casa di Trittolemo – likely had at least a close contact with the political elite of Pompeii, even if their inhabitants were not members of it.

In several other cases, connecting houses to specific families might also be a more plausible solution than identifying their individual owners. The evidence regarding the possible ownership of the Casa dei Vettii is similar to that of the Casa dell’Argenteria, where the movable items, such as seal stamps and vases with text, also suggest the same family, but again two different persons. Based on the painted texts outside the houses, one of these persons can be said to more likely be the house owner than the other, but on the other hand the evidence is limited to a very few texts. Instead, the link between the houses and the families Vettii and Laelii are indicated by several sources. These houses might also be a kind of “family headquarters” for the Vettii and Laelii, but identifying the individual owner of the house remains more speculative. There are similar cases for the Casa del Citarista, Casa della Venere in conchiglia, Casa di Sirico, and Casa di Polibio, where the evidence of the possible owner is weak but the relationship with the families Popidii, Lucretii Valenti, Vedii, and Julii are present in the form of several texts connected to the houses.

In conclusion, the examination of the possible owners and their social status does not reveal anything that would contradict the assumption that the peristyles with ample means to display economic status were also the peristyles of the socio-political elite, but as the examples are very few, the conclusion cannot be turned around. Consequently, the presence of a large and decorated peristyle does not necessarily mean that the owner of the house was a member of the political elite. There are two women who potentially owned a house with a peristyle – one was a large full peristyle and the other a large painting peristyle. This, however, is not very surprising, as previous scholarship has demonstrated the presence of several powerful women in Pompeii.²⁵⁸ In general, the low number of potential owners and the uncertainty of their identifications do not allow us to make any generalizations about the social status of the owners of different types of peristyles.

7.3 Business uses of houses with peristyles

Commercial activity played an important role in Pompeian society, and connecting houses with business activities enable us to define a group that could be called the “commercial class.” Previous scholarship has viewed the Pompeian elite as hostile towards trade, but this view has now been criticized.²⁵⁹ This chapter discusses what types of peristyles were in the houses that can be directly connected to commercial activities. The aim is to reveal the relationship between the commercial and display uses of the peristyles, and furthermore to determine whether some of the peristyle groups are particularly linked with commercial activities.

Before starting the analysis, we should make some observations about the sources for the identification of commercial and small-scale industrial activities in Pompeii. The archaeological record rarely identifies indirect links to commercial activity, which limits this examination to the houses where direct links with commercial activity can be made. For example, if the household owned a property used for business that was not physically connected to the house through an in-house opening, the link between the spaces is mostly hypothetical. Instead, a direct connection – such as a door opening – between the commercial space and the house creates a clear link to connect the activity to the household. Additionally, it also reflects the importance of the business to the household, as the owner wanted direct access between the house and the place of business.

Industrial activity and production is separated from commercial activity in the following analysis, although production likely involved commerce. Houses are considered to be connected to production if they had facilities where a large part of the production of goods or services occurred inside the house space.²⁶⁰ For instance, bakeries and fullonicae are listed as production spaces. In contrast, commercial spaces are considered to be areas which suggest that the space was used for the selling and storage of goods. For example, houses that had several large dolia in their peristyle are listed as commercial facilities in this chapter.

In Sections 3.2.3 (Table 3.1) and 6.7 several peristyles were listed that were used for small-scale industrial activity or production. In addition to these peristyles, there are many houses with a peristyle where these activities occurred in the other spaces. For example, the atrium of the Casa dello scultore (VIII,7,24/22) was a workshop or storage space of a sculptor, and the Casa del Labirinto had a bakery.²⁶¹ Both of these houses featured a large full peristyle. The houses with ornamental peristyles did not have any type of industry connected to them, although Fiorelli thinks that the northern part of the Casa dell’Argenteria may possibly have been dedicated to an industrial activity. He states that it is impossible to define what type of activity took place there, and he does not provide any evidence to support his assumption.²⁶² Consequently, the industrial activity in the house remains purely speculative, and the house cannot be listed among the dwellings where industrial activity occurred. In contrast, some houses with large painting peristyles featured spaces for industrial activity: the Casa di M. Epidius Sabinus had a bakery,²⁶³ as did house VII,12,1–4, or at least it had a large oven that suggests the large-scale production of baked goods.²⁶⁴ House II,9,6, with its gardens, seems to be harnessed for viticulture.²⁶⁵ As for the Casa del Banchiere, it is unclear whether the dyeing activity extended into the peristyle, but certainly the house had facilities for this purpose.²⁶⁶ The Casa degli Amorini dorati was additionally connected to a fullonica, but it seems that in the last phase the production space was under reconstruction, making its new function unclear.²⁶⁷ The Casa dei Capitelli colorati also once had a perfume shop, but not during the last phase.²⁶⁸ Consequently, these two houses cannot be certainly linked to production.

A few imitation peristyles feature industry, and in addition some houses with this type of peristyle had industrial activity in other spaces.²⁶⁹ Numerous remains of carbonized herbs were found in the Fabbrica di prodotti chimici, and it might have functioned as a sort of chemical laboratory, as its name suggests, or as a dye shop, as suggested by Bechi and Jashemski.²⁷⁰ Bragantini states that a part of the house was in commercial use, as there are three masonry furnaces in the atrium.²⁷¹ The furnaces indicate that, besides commercial use, small-scale industry also occurred in the house – probably dyeing as has been suggested. The Casa di Sirico had an imitation peristyle and a room with a large oven and a stone mill. This room has been previously identified as a kitchen.²⁷² Yet, these types of ovens are consistently connected with bakeries in other Pompeian dwellings, and thus I have listed the area as an industrial space, despite the possibility that the baked goods were not for sale.²⁷³ The large oven probably indicates the production of goods that were meant to be sold, rather than only production that was limited to the household needs. There was also a bakery in house I,12,1/2, which is classified as a minor decoration peristyle house.²⁷⁴ In addition, the so-called Accademia di Musica (VI,3,7) had a fullonica and minor decoration peristyle,²⁷⁵ and there are also two minor decoration peristyles in Pompeii where small-scale industrial activity occurred. Several architectural peristyles include areas for industrial activity,²⁷⁶ and additionally there are a few houses with architectural peristyles where industrial activity occurred in the other parts of the house. The Casa della nave Europa is connected to commercial agriculture based on the numerous amphorae, but the house also had a large productive garden linking the house to production, not just the selling of the products.²⁷⁷ Houses V,3,8, VIII,4,26–29, and VII,2,51 all had bakeries and architectural peristyles.²⁷⁸ In the last example, a part of the mill is currently in the peristyle, but without further archaeological excavation and cleaning it is impossible to determine whether the peristyle was used for milling purposes. Finally, the Casa del Larario doppio (VII,3,13) had a lead workshop.²⁷⁹

Two houses with a large full peristyle can be linked to commerce due to their likely owners: Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius and A. Umbricius Scaurus, who were attested businessmen.²⁸⁰ Therefore, the houses they owned – the Casa di Pansa and the Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus – are connected to the “commercial class” of Pompeii. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius lived in the Casa di Pansa, and therefore its peristyle does not necessarily reflect his taste. Also, L. Caecilius Iucundus can be counted as a businessman,²⁸¹ and his house, the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus, featuring an ornamental peristyle, was also linked to the business life of Pompeii.

The Casa del Gruppo dei vasi di vetro, with its ornamental peristyle, has been linked to medical practice. Loccardi suggests that the house was a medical clinic during the last phase, based on the several medical instruments and other finds related to medicine. She adds that the peristyle area had several rooms that could have been suitable for patients, but she also notes that doctors usually made house calls during that era.²⁸² The presence of medical supplies does not necessarily indicate a doctor’s apartment. It can be assumed that the city’s doctors were busy during the eruption, and were probably needed in several houses, meaning that there is a high possibility that the find location of the instruments does not indicate the house where a doctor was living. Nevertheless, in this case the large number of medical supplies in the Casa del Gruppo dei vasi di vetro does suggest that it was likely a doctor’s house, but there is no evidence that the peristyle, or the house, was functioning as a clinic. Loccardi’s speculation that the house owner was a Greek libertus named Phillipus does not have enough supporting evidence.²⁸³ Also, one minor decoration peristyle house – the Casa del Medico – might have been owned by a doctor, as chirurgical instruments were found in the house during the excavation.²⁸⁴ In this case, they were found in a niche under a staircase, which seems to indicate that the instruments were in storage, and thus suggests that this was possibly a doctor’s house. There are two other houses with a minor decoration peristyle that can be linked to business activity, making their owners likely entrepreneurs. One of them is house VI,14,39, which can be connected to the business life of the city on the basis of the door mosaics lucrum gaudium,²⁸⁵ and another is the Casa del fabbro, where the peristyle seems to play an important part in the business activity.²⁸⁶

It can be debated whether the room with an oven in the Casa di Sirico – an imitation peristyle house – should be interpreted as a bakery, but at least the business-friendly mosaic of the fauces connects the house owner to the business life of Pompeii.²⁸⁷ I have, however, listed the house as connected to production, as the oven is large enough to produce baked goods in excess of the needs of the house. The Casa del Granduca di Toscana (IX,2,27) – another imitation peristyle house – is stated as belonging to a tector based on some finds made in the house.²⁸⁸ Adolf Trendelenburg, however, has criticized the interpretation, as the house was not spacious enough for the work of a tector.²⁸⁹ As it is dubious whether the owner was practicing this profession, the house is not connected to commerce in my listing.

In addition to the architectural peristyles involved in commercial activity listed previously in Sections 3.2.3 and 6.7, there are also other houses with an architectural peristyle that can be related to these activities. The Casa di Pinarius Cerialis seems to have been owned by a producer of camei, as many were found inside the house. The finds include wrought and unfinished products, as well as some tools to make them.²⁹⁰ House VIII,5,9 had a box of terra sigillata vessels, which probably indicates that the owner was involved in the business of selling them.²⁹¹ J. Theodore Peña and Myles McCallum mention the possibility that the vessels were meant for a large household or a restaurant.²⁹² They also mention that there were 90 bowls, which is quite a large amount for this house, suggesting that they were probably acquired for business purposes, either for sale or restaurant use. Ray Laurence also notes that the uniformity of the vessels suggests that they were not intended for household use.²⁹³ The eastern part of house VIII,5,15–16 had numerous wine amphorae, and the house may have been connected to this business.²⁹⁴ In the Casa di vinaio (IX,9,6), the amphorae have been connected to wine selling.²⁹⁵ In the Casa del Chirurgo items interpreted as chirurgical instruments were found. They were found inside a container – possibly a bronze box as Bonucci states – but the excavators failed to identify the object. There were also plenty of other finds inside the same room where the instruments were found.²⁹⁶ It is possible that all the finds were stored in the room, which would possibly indicate that a doctor was living in the house, but as they are reported to have been inside an object which is not better described, they could also be interpreted as having been boxed for transport, which could possibly indicate a house call. Therefore, this house is not listed as the house of a doctor. For similar reasons, I have decided not to count the Casa di Marcus Lucretius as a house of the doctor. Ria Berg notes that the number of medical tools is close to that of a typical portable set,²⁹⁷ which makes it debatable whether the doctor was from the house or visiting.

Nicolas Monteix has mapped Pompeian 79 CE productive spaces. Among them are features that he has identified as fermentation dyeing vats, which indicates their connection with dyeing. These vats can be found, for instance, in House I,3,30, the Casa di L. Cornelius Diadumenus (VII,12,26), and in the peristyle of the Casa dei Postumii.²⁹⁸ This is one possible function for the vats, but as they are located near a space that could also be defined a kitchen, there might be a connection with food preparation, and their function is a little questionable. In this case, I have decided that I will not count the spaces with only one vat as used for production purposes outside the household needs, meaning that only the Casa di L. Cornelius Diadumenus, which has an architectural peristyle, is listed as connected to production in this investigation.

There are many houses that are directly linked to a bar.²⁹⁹ The ornamental peristyle house I,2,17 had a bar with a counter. However, the possible brothel connected to the house is only speculative.³⁰⁰ The Casa di Sallustio – another ornamental peristyle house – also had a bar with a counter connected to the house. The large painting peristyle house VII,6,28 can also be linked to a bar, as can the Casa delle Quadrighe and the Caupona di Lucius Betutius (Vetutius) Placidus. The imitation peristyle house I,4,2 and the Casa del Pomarius Felix (I,8,2) had bars, as did the following minor decoration peristyle houses: the Casa di Successus (I,9,3), the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (II,2,2), and house VII,3,38. In addition, seven of the architectural peristyle houses had a bar.³⁰¹ Furthermore, there might be a few houses with a peristyle where restaurant activity occurred, but my method of only accepting spaces with a counter as bars does not include these.³⁰² It is very likely that restaurant activity occurred in spaces where there were very little structural remains – or even none – associated with it, but due to the poor documentation in many areas counting only counters is more consistent.

There was plenty of business and commercial activity that is mostly invisible in the archaeological record.³⁰³ Several spaces connected to the Pompeian houses have been interpreted as shops, however the function is often speculative and based only on some architectural features of the space. The proposed shops are frequently rooms opening directly onto the street, and they are wide enough for something other than passing through, which seems to be the main function of the fauces – the other type of rooms opening onto the street. A shop or taberna is often defined by its wide and low entrance. For example, Eeva-Maria Viitanen and Heini Ynnilä have proposed numerous spaces in Pompeii as shops by applying this definition.³⁰⁴ A wide door was probably useful for many types of shopkeepers, but it is equal possible that shops had narrow doors, so it is not possible to only list the entrances with a wide door as shops.³⁰⁵ There are, however, some other options to narrow down the number of potential shops in the analysis. For example, several possible shops only open onto the street and not into a house, and therefore it is impossible to connect them directly with any Pompeian house, and they are therefore excluded from this investigation. Consequently, only the rooms that opened directly onto the street and to the house through an in-house entrance are included this analysis. The fauces fulfill these requirements, but as they are too narrow for almost anything other than movement, they can also be excluded. Even after excluding the fauces, there are several rooms that meet the requirements, but their identification even as possible shops is questionable. For example, the room opening from entrance VI,9,9 of the Casa dei Dioscuri could be defined as a shop connected to the house, but it is interpreted as a stable.³⁰⁶ The rooms opening onto the street might have had various purposes; for example, a stable was likely needed in many houses. Therefore, I limit the possible shops in this examination to those rooms that were situated alongside the fauces.³⁰⁷ This rules out several rooms that might have functioned as a shop, but their role in the house could equally have been something else.³⁰⁸ With the selected definition, almost all of the shops are beside the likely main entrance of the house, and the business conducted in these spaces was very visible to visitors, which means that the activity was an influential and important part of the owner’s identity.³⁰⁹ This definition provides 66 houses with a peristyle and a shop.

Listing the business activities along with the houses reveals that all of the peristyle types can at least occasionally be connected to houses involved in commercial activities, as indicated by Table 7.3. If we exclude the possible shops from the analysis, production and commerce (including bars) was apparently concentrated in the dwellings that are defined as large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural peristyle houses. Nevertheless, none of these groups had a dominant connection to these activities, as is demonstrated by the ratio of activities compared to the number of houses in each group.

Table 7.3 The houses with a peristyle that can also be connected to commercial or small-scale industrial activity. The right side of the table is the ratio compared to the total number of houses in the peristyle group.
	Production	Commer ce	Bars	Shops	Production	Commerce	Bars	Shops
Opulent	1	0	0	6	7%	0	0	43%
Large full	2	2	0	10	8%	8%	0	40%
Ornamental	0	2	2	8	0	9%	9%	36%
Large paintings	4	1	3	4	15%	4%	11%	15%
Imitation	4	2	2	10	15%	8%	8%	38%
Minor decoration	4	3	3	5	19%	14%	14%	24%
Architectural	10	7	8	22	11%	8%	9%	24%

Commercial activities – excluding the possible shops – are rare in houses that featured an opulent, large full, or ornamental peristyle. The last group differ from the opulent and large full peristyles, as the two groups do not feature any of the bars in Pompeii (Table 7.3). This might reflect that the wealthiest owners might have preferred not to have a bar, along with all its disadvantages, directly connected to their houses, but already in the ornamental peristyle group some of the house owners accepted this arrangement. Nevertheless, the wealthy houses were also located near bars,³¹⁰ even though they might have isolated their houses from a direct connection with such establishments. The ornamental peristyle houses, however, did not involve production facilities, which might indicate that industrial activities may have impinged upon the image that the house owners wanted to give – or, on the other hand, the house owners may not have had the resources to invest in production facilities.

The ratio of shops, instead, is highest in the opulent and large full peristyle houses (Table 7.3). This means that their owners were not hostile to an open connection with commercial activity for their house. It can be speculated to what degree the house owners were connected to the activities of the shops. For example, Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius – owner of the Casa di Pansa – was renting shop space,³¹¹ and therefore it is possible that the business in front of the house was conducted by someone other than the house owner. However, the shopkeeper was a dependent of the house owner, which on some level increased the social prestige of the house owner. Moreover, it is possible that not all the spaces defined as shops in this analysis were utilized for commercial purposes.

The number of architectural peristyle houses connected to production and commerce is largest compared to any other group, but the ratios demonstrate that the group in general was not particularly popular among businesspersons. When the shops are excluded from the analysis, the ratios of areas of production, commerce, and bars were usually slightly more commonly connected to the large painting, imitation, and minor decoration peristyle houses than the architectural peristyle houses. The minor decoration peristyle houses were somewhat more connected to commerce (including bars) than the other two groups (Table 7.3). Commercial activity did not require such a large starting investment as production, which correlates with the less wealthy image projected by the minor decoration peristyles compared to the large painting and imitation peristyles.

In conclusion, all of the peristyle groups can be connected on some level to business activities, but the large painting, imitation, and minor decoration peristyles demonstrate the highest correlation with the “commercial class.” Counting only by the numbers, most of the production and commercial activity is connected to the architectural peristyle houses, but relative to the large number of houses belonging to this group it does not stand out compared to the others. The opulent and large full peristyle houses can often be linked to shops, but there is the possibility that the house owner was not involved in the business conducted in the shops, and was only renting the space to someone else. Monteix in general thinks that these spaces were not rented, but that the shops were managed by the house owner. He, however, underlines that it is very difficult to interpret on the basis of spatial archaeological remains whether a space was rented.³¹² If we accept Monteix’s premise, there is still the possibility that these shop were mainly run by the dependents of the house owner, and the owner’s role in these enterprises could have been minimal. On the other hand, the business could have been conducted in almost any room of the house, and it is possible that the connection with all of the peristyle groups was actually much higher than what is visible in the source material. However, if the business activities were not organized in their own spaces, but occurred in the living quarters of the house, it would have provided the owners with many more options to either hide or display this aspect of their lives: to conduct them openly in the rooms which were easily visible to the public, or to hide these activities deeper in the house.

Notes

1. See e.g. Mayer 2012, 33, 53, Painter 2001, 35.

2. See Bergmann 2017, 304, 537 n. 61.

3. See Robinson 1997, 136–137. See also Mayer 2012, 52–53, 171–172. Mayer seems to think that there is a correlation between large house size and high social rank, but he is also critical towards the assumption that house size can be connected with social status.

4. M. De Vos 1991, 966–967.

5. Castrén 1975, 66-67, 185–186. Mouritsen 1988, 29, 141, 186 n. 107.

6. N. 78.

7. Mouritsen 1988, 109–114.

8. On the decoration of the peristyle see n. 78.

9. The houses: Conceria I,5,2, Casa della nave Europa (I,15,3), Casa delle colonne cilindriche (I,16,2-a), house II,9,6, Casa della Regina Carolina (VIII,3,14), house VIII,5,15–16. M. De Vos 1991, 967.

10. Mouritsen 1988, 106. The quinquennales are included in the calculation, as Mouritsen (1988, 29) has demonstrated that legally they were equal to duumvir.

11. Mouritsen 1988, 109–112.

12. See Section 7.2.2. M. De Vos 1991, 967.

13. Ling 1997, 142. On other examples of interpreting a connection between wealthy houses and high social status or influence, see Seiler 1994, 716. M. De Vos (1991, 966–967) uses the same logic trying to demonstrate that the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) could not have been owned by M. Lucretius Fronto as the house is too modest for a duumvir compared to the other houses that are assumed to be owned by members of the same social and political class.

14. Painter 2001, 35.

15. For the proposals and critique of possible house owner identification, see e.g. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 39, 79, Fiorelli 1875, 61, Gordon 1927, 167, 169, Della Corte 1954, 208–209, 212, Giordano 1974, 23, Dwyer 1982, 85–86, Mouritsen 1988, 14–19, M. De Vos 1990, 117; 1991, 967, Strocka 1994, 2, Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 66, Sampaolo 1999, 905; 2003, 361, Painter 2001, 36, Allison 2001, 58, 61; 2006, 334, D’Acunto 2008, 196, Inserra 2008, 34, 49–50.

16. Seiler 1994, 714. See also Petersen 2006, 5–6 on the interpretations that the house was owned by a freedman, and her criticism of these interpretations. According to Jashemski (1979, 35–41), the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) had the most decorated peristyle in Pompeii, if the number of decorative elements is taken account. If the pools, fountains, and sculpture are added together, the peristyle had 33 decorative items and wall paintings (n. 134). The peristyle of the Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI,16,7/38) instead, had wall paintings and 37 decorative items, including the reliefs on the walls (n. 139, see also Powers 2011). Therefore, counting just the number of the decorative items, the Casa degli Amorini dorati is the most decorated peristyle of Pompeii. Both peristyles are in their own class in their number of decorations. Next in the ranking is the middle peristyle of the Casa del Citarista (n. 14), which had 21 decorative items and wall paintings. However, the exact number of sculptures is always somewhat problematic to count: See Kuivalainen 2019, 69–72, about the sculpture collection of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius (IX,3,5/24).

17. Pappalardo 2004, 334.

18. Allison 2001, 63.

19. Nn. 134, 139.

20. Zanier 2009, 229.

21. Peters & Moormann 1993b, 409.

22. Miniero 1990, 598.

23. Strocka 1994, 649.

24. Sampaolo 1998, 1091.

25. Vitr. 6.5.2.

26. CIL IV 7991, 7992, 7993. On the wealth requirements for the decurional class, see Castrén 1975, 58, Mouritsen 1988, 29.

27. See Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 67.

28. On the economic and social position of the freedmen, see Mouritsen 2011, 66, 109.

29. On the connection between large houses, literacy, and people visiting these large houses, see Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 77

30. Viitanen and Ynnilä (2014, 149–152) rely on the presence of an internal doorway as the main evidence of common ownership. They also mention other shared structures such as windows, water pipes, drainage channels, and cesspools – although these can also demonstrate a servitudinal relationship, as mentioned by Viitanen and Ynnilä. They also mention that Roman law stipulated that an upper floor was owned by the ground floor owner, which therefore suggests a common ownership. In Pompeii, the condition of the upper floors is poor, and the connections through upper floors are mostly theoretical. On the connection between shops and the domus as property, see Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 297.

31. Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 67.

32. Della Corte 1954, 13.

33. Castrén 1975, 31–33. Mouritsen 1988, 13–27, Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 108, Allison 2001, 57. Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 67, Haug 2021, 57.

34. Allison 2001, 69. The identification is based on the inscriptions CIL IV 138 and 1136.

35. On the electoral notices and the other inscriptions, see Della Corte 1954, 12–13 nn. V a–e.

36. Mouritsen 1988, 14–19, 182 n. 60. Allison 2001, 57. Cicala 2014, 234 n. 1.

37. See e.g. Dwyer 1982, 69–70, Parise Badoni 1991, 676, Sampaolo 2003, 361.

38. Mouritsen 1988, 18–19, 52–61. Allison 2001, 57.

39. Mouritsen 1988, 52–57.

40. Viitanen & Ynnilä 2014, 148. Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 72.

41. Mouritsen 1988, 47–52.

42. Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 69–70.

43. See Viitanen 2020, 286–287.

44. Viitanen, Nissinen & Korhonen 2012, 76. Viitanen 2020, 304–305. Cfr. Mouritsen 1988, 58–60.

45. Mouritsen 1988, 14.

46. Allison 2001, 64. For seal stamps as bread stamps, see Dwyer 1982, 86. A seal stamp that corresponds to the imprint on the bread has been found in a storage room in Rome, but, as Cicala notes (2010, 215 n. 3), the provenience of the seal stamp is unknown.

47. Mouritsen 1988, 15–16. See also Cicala 2010, 215-216 (criticism).

48. Cicala 2014, 236–240.

49. Cicala 2010, 214–220.

50. Mouritsen 1988, 14–15, 62, 194 n. 224. Cicala 2010, 214; 2014, 235 n. 6.

51. Allison 2001, 67–69.

52. Mouritsen 1988, 14, 181 n. 35. Cicala 2014, 235. Castrén (1975, 134, 158, 138, 165, 180, 209) lists six of the persons mentioned in the seal stamps as slaves. A seal stamp (CIL X8058.18) from Herculaneum can be added to the list.

53. Della Corte 1954, 406 nn. 26, 31, 409 n. 69. Cicala 2014, 235 n. 6. One of the seal stamps is also noted by Mouritsen (1988, 14, 181 n. 36).

54. Cicala 2014, 235 n. 6. Castrén (1975, 174, 181) reports the following persons mentioned in seal stamps (Della Corte 1954, 407 n. 49, 408 n. 55) as freedmen: N. Herennius Castus and L. Laelius Trophimus. In addition, Castrén (1975, 133, 239) reports C. Alleius Stephanus and A. Vettius Conviva as Augustales. Augustales were usually recruited from rich freedmen, but possibly sometimes from the highest municipal aristocracy (Castrén 1975, 73–74, 133, 239, see also Allison 2001, 63).

55. CIL X 1403 for the freedmen. C. Vibius Nymphicus in CIL X 8058 and Q. Caecilius in CIL X 8058.12, Q. Maecius in CIL X 8058.48, M. Nonius in CIL X 8058.57, possibly C. Messenius in CIL X 8059.51.

56. Della Corte 1954, 410 n. 97. Castrén 1975, 235. Mouritsen 1988, 15, 181 n. 39.

57. CIL X 8058.81. Fiorelli 1875, 181. Della Corte 1954, 410 n. 97.

58. Two seal stamps might possibly be linked to two magistrates, but in both cases the connection is far from certain. L. Valerius Flaccus (Castrén 1975, 233) was a duumvir, and a seal stamp (Della Corte 1954, 310 n. 93) has the text: L. Val. F. The cognomen on the seal had only the letter F, and the identification remains uncertain. Also, Castrén reports that L. Valerius Flaccus was a duumvir in 1/2 AD, and at the time of the eruption he was probably long dead, so the stamp must have belonged to someone else, if the seal stamp was not very old. Della Corte (1954, 79) thinks that the owner of the seal was the son of the duumvir. Vibius was aedile (Castrén 1975, 240), but the cognomen of the magistrate is not known, and the seal has a cognomen starting with the letter C (Della Corte 1954, 310 n. 102).

59. Della Corte 1954, 410 n. 100. Castrén 1975, 240.

60. CIL IV 7947. Castrén 1975, 221, 240, 259. Mouritsen 1988, 151. L. Sextilius Restitutus is known to have been a candidate (Castrén 1975, 221, Mouritsen 1988, 151), and the electoral notice where he is clearly identified as a candidate (CIL IV 9858) is near the electoral notice mentioning only Restitutus; the location of the notices would also indicate that it was possibly L. Sextilius Restitutus, as is identified by Mouritsen, who also notes that there is no candidate with the name of Vettius Restitutus.

61. The seal stamp of Ti. Crassus Firmus might belong to a duumvir from Herculaneum (Camodeca 2008, 200–201). Della Corte (1954, 407 n. 33bis) thinks that the seal is actually from Pompeii, but it had been located in Herculaneum (Cicala 2014, 234 n. 3).

62. Mouritsen 1988, 16–17.

63. See Section 3.3.

64. CIL IV 4156, 4177, 5768, 7048. Della Corte 1954, 83–84. Mouritsen 1988, 17, 56, 181 n. 51, 182 n. 62. Parise Badoni 1991, 676. Ehrhardt 2004, 274–275. Simelius 2015, 123. There are other electoral notices mentioning either Albucius or Celsus located nearby the house (CIL IV 7040, 7043, 7046, 7050, 7051). This concentration of electoral notices near the Casa delle nozze d’argento (V,2,i) was already noted by Mouritsen (1988, 56–57).

65. Della Corte 1954, 84 n. 1. Castrén 1975, 104, 110, 132. Mouritsen 1988, 104.

66. Castrén 1975, 103–104.

67. CIL IV 7046, 7050, 7051. Mouritsen 1988, 40, 42, 47. Ehrhardt 2004, 274. On the political carrier, the younger L. Albucius Celsus, see Castrén 1975, 132, Mouritsen 1988, 109.

68. M. De Vos 1991, 967.

69. Castrén 1975, 132.

70. CIL IV 3828, 3829, 7806, 8970, 8971. Della Corte 1954, 9–11. Jongman 1979, 64. Mouritsen 1988, 18, 108, 182 n. 60, 188 nn. 123, 125, 212 n. 495. Sampaolo 2003, 361. Mouritsen occasionally incorrectly reports the house as number III,14.

71. Jongman 1979, 65. Mouritsen 1988, 108, 188 n. 125. Sampaolo 2003, 361. De Haan 2010, 228–229 K. 24.

72. Castrén 1975, 198. Mouritsen 1988, 108, 212 n. 495. Campbell (2015, 206–207) thinks that M. Obellius Firmus was living in this house, but she does not state if she is referring to the son or the father.

73. Spinazzola 1953, 341.

74. Jongman 1979, 63–65. On the tomb, see Campbell 2015, 206–207 n. PN1.

75. See Jongman 1979, 64.

76. CIL IV 3828.

77. Jongman 1979, 62. Mouritsen 1988, 108. Sampaolo 2003, 361.

78. The large digging in the garden, reported by Della Corte (1911, 49–52), indicates an unfinished restoration process.

79. N. 251.

80. CIL IV 2380–2381, 2383. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 79. Fiorelli 1873, 66; 1875, 61. Gordon 1927, 180-181. Della Corte 1954, 208–209. Dwyer 1982, 84. Inserra 2008, 34.

81. Gordon 1927, 180. Della Corte 1954, 208–209, 212. Dwyer 1982, 85. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60. Inserra 2008, 34.

82. CIL IV 2375, 2658, 2659. Della Corte 1954, 209, n. 497–498d, 212 n. 497–498e. Dwyer 1982, 85, 160–161. Inserra 2008, 34. There might have been a third amphora with an abbreviation of Ampliatus (see Dwyer 1982, 160).

83. Fiorelli 1862, 666. Dwyer 1982, 85.

84. See Mouritsen 1988, 17, 182 n. 551.

85. Dwyer 1982, 85. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60. See also the locations in the CIL IV 2939, 2978.

86. CIL IV 7210, 7290, 7413, 7423, 7443, 7474,7510, 7517, 7526, 7624, 7632, 7650, 7665, 7702, 7706, 7851, 7896. Dwyer 1982, 85.

87. On possible P. Popodius Ampliatus, see CIL IV 2659. On the common occurrence of the cognomen Ampliatus, see Castrén 1975, 262–263.

88. Niccolini & Niccolini 1896, Nuovi Scavi, 75–76. Sampaolo 1994, 469. Della Corte 1954, 54–55 nn. 89–93. Castrén 1975, 239–240. Mouritsen 1988, 14–15, 181 n. 40, 44. Petersen 2006, 5.

89. Allison 2001, 63.

90. CIL IV 3509. Sogliano 1876, 103; 1895, 31–32. Mau 1898, 49. Della Corte 1954, 54–55 nn. 89–93. CIL IV 3522 is also connected to Vettii, but it only has the cognomen “Restitutus” and can also refer to, e.g. L. Sextilius Restitutus. On confusing the two persons in other electoral notices, see Mouritsen 1988, 151. However, Mouritsen (1988, 182 n. 60) thinks that CIL IV 3522 refers to A. Vettius Restitutus.

91. Sogliano 1895, 31–32. Sampaolo 1994, 469. Allison 2001, 61–62.

92. CIL IV 3509, 3522.

93. CIL IV 3522 is also connected to Vettii (Della Corte 1954, 54 n. 89–90d), but it only has the name Restitutus, and can thus refer to anyone with the cognomen Restitutus. On the occurrence of the cognomen, see Castrén 1975, 263.

94. Allison 2001, 63–64.

95. CIL IV 3509. See Petersen 2006, 5, 58–62.

96. CIL X 864. Lugebil 1861, 238. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 67. Breton 1870, 471–472. Fiorelli 1873, 6; 1875, 341. Della Corte 1954, 198–199. Bragantini 1998, 518.

97. Della Corte (1954, 198 n. 481d) mentions a seal stamp, but because its find spot is unknown, it cannot be connected with the house (Mouritsen 1988, 180 n. 31, Cicala 2014 234 n. 3). Additionally, the electoral notice (CIL IV 748) in front of the house cannot be, without doubt, linked to C. Cornelius Adiutor, as it only mentions the name Adiutor, and there are at least two persons with this cognomen in Pompeii (Castrén 1975, 248).

98. CIL X 862. Fiorelli 1873, 89. Della Corte 1954, 199 n. 481e.

99. Castrén 1975, 158.

100. CIL X 860. Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Casa_di_Caecilius_Iucundus-south.pdf, 2-3, Last visited 4.5.2017.

101. CIL X 865.

102. See below.

103. Della Corte 1954, 38–39. Loccardi 2009, 78.

104. CIL IV 204. Della Corte 1954, 410 n. 101. In addition, there were also electoral notices for A. Vettius Firmus (CIL IV 171, 174, 175) nearby the Casa del Centauro (VI,93/5), and he could be as likely a house owner as A. Vettius Caprasius Felix.

105. Schulz 1835, 128; 1838, 151. Fiorelli 1862, 304; 1864, 86; 1875, 138. Della Corte 1954, 406 n. 18, 407 n. 39. Della Corte reports a wrong address for the Casa del Labirinto.

106. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 39. Fiorelli 1875, 138, 147. Della Corte 1954, 33–34 nn. 27–28, 40–41 n. 44–45. Strocka 1994, 2.

107. CIL IV 1369.

108. Della Corte (1954, 33–34) identifies Eutychus as a dependent of the house owner, not as the owner. On the imperial freedman with the cognomen Eutychus, see Della Corte 1954, 406 nn. 25, 26, Castrén 1975, 154. For suggestions of imperial freedmen as the owners of Pompeian houses, see Sampaolo 1999, 905 and D’Acunto 2008, 196 for the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7), and De Franciscis 2001, 222 for the Casa di Polibio (IX,13,1–3).

109. CIL IV 1435.

110. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 43. Fiorelli 1875, 190–191. Della Corte 1954, 124 n. 264a, 126 n. 271, 183 n. 434, 406 n. 19, 409 n. 74, 410 n. 102. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 40. Sampaolo 1996, 586, 615. Serpe 2008, 115.

111. CIL IV 5795. Della Corte 1954, 183–184 n. 434–437. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 51. Della Corte (1954, 184 n. 1) thinks that the amphora with the name Calpurnius Aquila also had Lucius as praenomen. The cognomen is also unclear, but it is unlikely to be Diogenes.

112. CIL IV 2953. Fiorelli 1875, 190. Della Corte 1954, 126–127 nn. 271–272. Castrén 1975, 241. Sampaolo 1996, 586.

113. CIL IV 2313. Della Corte 1954, 124–125 nn. 264–265.

114. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 42.

115. Castrén 1975, 207–209, 240–241. Mouritsen 1988, 111–112.

116. Pompeii inv. 15188–15191. CIL X 8146. Curtis 1984, 559–560. Di Vita-Évrard 1992, 92 n. 278. Bragantini 1997, 885. Campbell 2015, 164.

117. Della Corte 1954, 136. On different readings of the mosaic text, see CIL X 8146, Fiorelli 1878, 322.

118. Mouritsen 1988, 20, 183 n. 64. Della Corte (1954, 136 n. 297–299b) takes the name Oppius from a nearby electoral inscription (CIL IV 3696) that mentions it, but there is no connection between the electoral notice and the mosaic.

119. Curtis 1984, 559–562. Bragantini 1997, 845–846, 885.

120. Curtis 1984, 559, 561. On the cognomen, see Castrén 1975, 259.

121. CIL X 1024. Castrén 1975, 232. Curtis 1984, 562. M. De Vos 1991, 967. Bragantini 1997, 845–846. Campbell 2015, 47, 85–86, 97–98, 162–165, 162–164 n. PE7.

122. Castrén 1975, 120.

123. Castrén 1975, 120. Curtis 1984, 564.

124. Curtis 1984, 564.

125. Mouritsen (1988, 103) identifies one person named A. Umbricius Scaurus who served as a duumvir during the period 14–40 CE. If his career had begun already in 14 CE, it is very possible that there was already a third A. Umbricius Scaurus.

126. Curtis 1984, 561, 564. Bragantini 1997, 845–846, 885. Curtis mentions that 29 percent of all inscribed fish-sauce vessels are connected to the family of Scauri.

127. Della Corte 1954, 136.

128. CIL X 8146.

129. CIL IV 1136. CIL X 810, 812, 813. Gordon 1927, 179. Castrén 1975, 95.

130. Mazois 1824, 101. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 29. Fiorelli 1875, 102. Della Corte 1954, 91–93. M. De Vos 1991, 967. Sampaolo 1993, 357. Allison 2001, 69.

131. Castrén 1975, 69, 133. Mouritsen 1988, 32, 34, 36, 109, 126. Mayer 2012, 47.

132. CIL IV 138. Sampaolo 1993, 357. Della Corte 1954, 93. Robinson (1997, 142) and Monteix (2010, 47, 351 n. 11) suggest that the dipinto also offered the domus for rent.

133. Sampaolo 1993, 357. Della Corte 1954, 93. The inscription with the rental announcement (CIL IV 138) mentions an enslaved person named Primus, and on the façade of the house there was an electoral notice (CIL IV 250) where one Ollius Primus is mentioned. Giordano (1974, 23) thinks that T. Olius with his wife Poppea Sabina (maoir) was living in the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1), but he does not give any sources for his interpretation.

134. Pirson (1997, 168, 172) thinks that the inscription was also for renting out a domus, but he thinks that the Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1) was not rented. Mayer (2012, 48) instead thinks that the word domus is in the plural, but he suggests that Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius was still interested on the Casa di Pansa, because it was being redecorated during the eruption, meaning that the house was not referred to in the advertisement.

135. Some advertisements for gladiatorial games (CIL IV 1177–1180) in the area of the Forum baths refer to one Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius, but the highly public nature of this area probably led to the selection of the place, not its vicinity to the house.

136. Niccolini & Niccolini 1890, La Casa del Banchiere L. Caecilio Giocondo, 3. Niccolini & Niccolini 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882 11–12. Dexter 1975, 45, 51, 170, 187–224, 249–250. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60. A. De Vos 1991, 575. Jashemski 1993, 108–109 n. 168. Petersen 2006, 163. Carrella 2008, 68–69. Karivieri & Forsell 2015: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/house.php?hid=13&hidnummer=6388183&hrubrik=V%201,26%20Casa%20di%20Caecilius%20Iucundus%20-%20South%20House. Last visited 26.7.2016. Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Casa_di_Caecilius_Iucundus-south.pdf, 3. Last visited 19.11.2016.

137. CIL IV 3428, 3433, 3473, 5788 X 860. Della Corte 1954, 81–82 nn. 142-143. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 51, 182 nn. 55–60. Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Casa_di_Caecilius_Iucundus-south.pdf, 2-3, http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Facade_Via_del_Vesuvio.pdf, 33, 36, Last visited 20.11.2016.

138. Della Corte 1954, 82. Karivieri 2014, 90-91. Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Casa_di_Caecilius_Iucundus-south.pdf, 2-3. Last visited 19.11.2016.

139. CIL X 891. Gordon 1927, 180. Della Corte 1954, 81 n. 3. Dexter 1975, 224–225, 238–239, 249–251. Castrén 1975, 145. Carrella 2008, 68–69. Della Corte does not think that the father of L. Caecilius Iucundus was mentioned in the herm inscription.

140. Gordon 1927, 180. Della Corte 1954, 81 n. 3. Castrén 1975, 145. Petersen 2006, 166.

141. A. De Vos 1991, 576. Carrella 2008, 68–69. The sons were involved in politics, at least as supporters of L. Ceius Secundus (CIL IV 3433, Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Facade_Via_del_Vesuvio.pdf, 36, Last visited 5.1.2017), which indicates their active role in society, but does not in itself demonstrate that L. Caecilius Iucundus was inactive. See Petersen 2006, 166.

142. Dexter 1975, 224–225, 238–239, 249–251.

143. CIL IV 935g, 3697, 5373, 5650. Gordon 1927, 177. Della Corte 1954, 177 n. 426a–e. Dwyer 1982, 69–70. Mouritsen 1988, 16–17, 181 n. 51. Bragantini 1999, 824. D’Acunto 2008, 186. Mouritsen (1988, 182 n. 60) names Caprasius without a prae- or cognonomen.

144. On A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, see Mouritsen 1988, 156, Castrén 1975, 239. On the common occurrence of the cognomen Felix, see Castrén 1975, 262.

145. Gordon 1927, 177. Della Corte 1954, 177. Dwyer 1982, 69.

146. Dwyer 1982, 70.

147. Della Corte 1954, 178. Dwyer 1982, 70.

148. Dwyer 1982, 70.

149. CIL X 805. Castrén 1975, 149.

150. CIL IV 7429, 7605, 7614, 7617–7619, 7624, 7627, 7630, 7632, 7658, 7927, 8815, 8824. Della Corte 1954, 287–288 n. 739a–p. Mouritsen 1988, 19, 52, 182 nn. 60, 62, 207–208 n. 427. M. De Vos 1991, 966.

151. On the commonness of the cognomen Valens, see Castrén 1975, 262–263.

152. CIL IV 7605, 7617. Castrén 1975, 42, 230–231. Mouritsen 1988, 46, 53, 135, 153–154, 191 n. 182.

153. CIL X 8071₁₁. Bonucci 1830, 179–180.

154. Fiorelli 1875, 114. Della Corte 1954, 35–36 nn. 31a, 32, 405 n. 3, 408 n. 55. Fiorelli proposes that one person was living upstairs and the other downstairs. Della Corte thinks that L. Laelius Trophimus and L. Laelius Erastus were the house owners, and Della Corte suggests that P. Antistius Maximus was renting a part of the house.

155. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 31. Fiorelli 1875, 113.

156. Della Corte 1954, 35. Cfr. Mouritsen 1988, 20.

157. Castrén (1975, 180–181) has already proposed the possibility that L. Laelius Trophimus was a freedman of L. Laelius Fuscus.

158. Bonucci (1830, 179–180) vaguely places the electoral inscription on the outside western wall of the Casa di Meleagro (VI,9,2/13), where it would be opposite the Casa dell’Argenteria (VI,7,20/22). CIL IV 179 lists its location as being on the left side of the entrance VI.9.1, where it would not be opposite the Casa dell’Argenteria.

159. Castrén 1975, 251.

160. Mouritsen (1988, 15, 181 n. 42) states that the family can be identified from other sources. He is referring to seal stamps (Della Corte 1954, 405 n. 3, 408 n. 55), and he probably means the family Laelii.

161. Castrén 180–181.

162. CIL IV 3537, 4615, 6678. Sogliano 1897, 23. Mouritsen 1988, 18, 182 n. 60. Sampaolo 1994, 580. Carrella 2008, 99.

163. Della Corte 1954, 53. Sampaolo 1994, 580.

164. Sogliano 1896 228–229. Della Corte 1954, 52 nn. 80, 81, 82.

165. Castrén 1975, 211. Mouritsen 1988, 149.

166. CIL IV 7314, 7315, 9437, 9493a–b. Della Corte 1954, 262–265 nn. 647-648. Mouritsen 1988, 18, 163, 182 n. 60, 211 n. 486. Zanker 1998, 175, 177.

167. Della Corte 1954, 263–264. Zanker 1998, 175, 177. Castrén (1975, 158) also states that Cornelius Tages was a wine merchant, but he was referring to C. Cornelius Tages, not P. Cornelius Tages.

168. Castrén 2019, 17–19.

169. CIL IV 7288, 7290, 7291, 7295, 8194a–b, 9614b, 9615, 9616. Della Corte 1954, 270–271 n. 672e, 673g–n. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60.

170. CIL IV 7275, 7278, 7279, 7280, 7284. Della Corte 1954, 270-271 n. 672a–d, f. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60.

171. Della Corte 1954, 270.

172. CIL IV 7275, 7279, 7290.

173. CIL IV 7555, 7556, 7557, 7563, 7564, 7766, 7995, 8497b, 9888. Della Corte 1954, 318–321 n. 810–813. Mouritsen 1988, 19, 182 n. 62.

174. Castrén 1975, 186. Mouritsen 1988, 35, 141, 208 n. 434, 209–210 n. 452.

175. M. De Vos 1991, 967. Peters & Moormann 1993b, 411–412.

176. CIL IV 6797, 6799.

177. CIL IV 6613, 6625, 6626, 6633, 6637, 6795, 6796. Sogliano 1901, 163. Mau 1901, 334. Della Corte 1954, 7–8 n. a–h. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60. M. De Vos 1991, 967. Moormann & Wynia 1993, 383. Peters & Moormann 1993b, 411.

178. M. De Vos 1991, 967.

179. See Section 7.1.

180. Peters & Moormann 1993b, 411–412.

181. On persons with the cognomen Fronto, see Castrén 1975, 252.

182. Castrén 1975, 64. Mouritsen 1988, 28–29. See Section 7.1.

183. CIL IV 3403, 3408, 4049. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60. Lundqvist: http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Casa_degli_Epigrammi_Greci.pdf, 7. Last visited 10.1.2017; http://www.pompejiprojektet.se/admin/rwdx/inscriptions/Facade_Via_del_Vesuvio.pdf, 12, 17. Last visited 10.1.2017.

184. Della Corte 1954, 79–80 n. 134–136d.

185. On the seal stamp, Della Corte 1954, 410 n. 93.

186. CIL IV 696, 765, 1032 1048, 1049, 1059, 2395, 2400f, 2401, 2408c. Fiorelli 1875, 373. Sampaolo 1998, 956.

187. Della Corte 1954, 203–208 n. 489–496c. Mouritsen 1988, 19, 182 n. 62.

188. Della Corte (9154, 205 n. 429–493o) states that the Latin and Oscan graffiti with the name Sabinus (CIL IV 2395) are in the atrium of house IX,1,20, but the CIL locates them in the peristyle of house IX,1,22/29. Schöne (1867, 47–48) and Fiorelli (1875, 373) report that the Oscan graffito was in the atrium of house IX,1,22/29.

189. On the commonness of the name Sabinus, see Castrén 1975, 262–263.

190. Castrén 1975, 117, 164-165. Mouritsen 1988, 133–134. Cicala 2014, 237 n. 23.

191. Castrén 1975, 64. Mouritsen 1988, 28–29.

192. Castrén 1975, 117, 164.

193. Cicala 2014, 236–237.

194. CIL IV 3471, 3477, 3480, 3481, 3482, 4512, CIL X 820. Viola 1879, 22. Della Corte 1954, 11–12. Narciso 1994, 264.

195. Mouritsen 1988, 183–184 n. 78.

196. Castrén 1975, 262. See also Flohr 2013, 301.

197. Fiorelli 1875, 451–452. Gordon 1927, 170. Jashemski 1993, 33 n. 27. Della Corte 1954, 11. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 59.

198. CIL IV 4012. Fiorelli 1875, 452.

199. CIL IV 4014.

200. CIL IV 3477, 3478. Possibly also CIL IV 3480, 3481. See Flohr 2013, 300–301.

201. CIL IV 7231. Della Corte 1954, 261 n. 645a. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60.

202. CIL IV 8156b, 8159a. The first graffito seems to have only the letters am, and the second one has writing in the second row, but the few letters do not continue the name Amandus.

203. Della Corte 1954, 261 n 645c–d.

204. CIL IV 805, 917. Niccolini & Niccolini 1854, Casa di Sirico, 1–2. Fiorelli 1862b, 3–5; 1875, 169, 181. Della Corte 1954, 5–7 n. a–d. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 40, 42, 182 n. 60. M. De Vos 1991, 967. Bragantini 1996, 228. Serpe 2008, 113. The seal stamps with only one name are quite rare (see Della Corte 1954, 405 n. 2, 7, 407 n. 39, 409 n. 71). See Section 7.1.

205. CIL IV 910 has name P. Vedius Numm…, but it seems to be on the wall of the neighboring house (Fiorelli 1862b, 4).

206. Castrén 1975, 256, 260.

207. CIL IV 916.

208. CIL IV 805b. Fiorelli 1862b, 17. Niccolini & Niccolini 1854, Casa di Sirico, 3.

209. Fiorelli 1875, 169.

210. Della Corte 1954, 6 n. 2.

211. On P. Vedius Siricus’ career, see Castrén 1975, 234–235, Mouritsen 1988, 111, 154–155.

212. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60 n. 62, 193 n. 200. Bragantini 2003, 184.

213. Della Corte 1954, 278–279 n. 708b–d. See also Allison 2001, 64–65, Painter 2001, 34–35, 38.

214. Fiorelli 1875, 79. The identification is based solely on a graffito, and it is not reliable.

215. Giordano 1974, 26. De Franciscis 2001, 222.

216. 8. Feb. 1973, Fergola 2001, 122–123. Giordano 1974, 25–26. De Franciscis 2001, 215, 222. Allison 2001, 65-66. Bragantini 2003, 184.

217. CIL IV 7316. Della Corte 1954, 279 n. 708e. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60.

218. CIL IV 7941, 7942, 7945, 7954, 7956, 7957. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 60 n. 62, 193 n. 200. Allison 2001, 65.

219. Castrén 1975, 257.

220. Mouritsen 1988, 52.

221. 23. Mag. 1973, Fergola 2001, 136. 25. Mag. 1973, Fergola 2001, 136. Della Corte 1954, 279 n. 708a–e. Giordano 1974, 27–28. Bragantini 2003, 229. Allison (2001, 65–66) states some of these are graffiti, but Giordano reports that they are written with red paint, which indicates that they were electoral notices. The notice has only the abbreviation CIP, so it could be interpreted as referring to C. Julius Philippus as well. However, he is not known as a candidate (see Mouritsen 1988, 110, 139), and therefore the abbreviation very likely refers to C. Julius Polybius.

222. Allison 2001, 63–64.

223. De Franciscis 2001, 219–221.

224. Della Corte 1954, 279. Giordano 1974, 26.

225. Jashemski 1979, 26.

226. 8. Feb. 1973, Fergola 2001, 122–123. De Franciscis 2001, 215. Allison 2001, 66. Bragantini 2003, 184.

227. On the candidacy of C. Julius Polybius, see Castrén 1975, 178–179, Mouritsen 1988, 110, 139. On the matter of serving as an aedile before holding the office of duumvir, see Castrén 1975, 64, Mouritsen 1988, 28–29.

228. E.g. the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (II,2,2) see Della Corte 1954, 308–313 n. 800 and M. De Vos 1991, 43, house VI,14,39 see Mau 1878, 96 and Della Corte 1954, 67–68 n. 111 and the Casa di M. Spurius Saturninus e di D. Volcius Modestus (VII,6,3) see Fiorelli 1860, I, 127. A seal stamp was discovered between entrances 37 and 38 of insula VII,3 (Della Corte 1954, 407 n. 45), but this probably means that it was found on the street, not inside the house. The Casa del Centauro (VI,9,3/5) also had a seal stamp (Della Corte 1954, 38 n. 40) and a minor decoration peristyle (n. 112), but the house is ranked as a large full peristyle house.

229. CIL IV 4136, 5902. Sogliano 1896, 438. Della Corte 1954, 105 n. 208.209. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 51.

230. CIL IV 5902.

231. Mouritsen 1988, 17, 181 n. 51.

232. For a list of persons with the cognomen Successus, see Castrén 1975, 260.

233. For the identifications based only on graffiti found inside the house, see Niccolini & Niccolini 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882, 3, Della Corte 1954, 97–98 n. 185, Lipizer & Loccardi 2009, 137–139 for the Casa del Forno di ferro (VI,13,6). For the identifications based only on the electoral notices, see Avellino 1844, 84–85 and Della Corte 1954, 130–133 n. 280–281 for the Tintoria VII,2,11–12. For the identifications based only on an amphora with text, see Della Corte 1954, 143 n. 313, Sampaolo 1997, 198 for house VII,6,30. For the identifications based only on seal stamps, see Della Corte 1954, 168 nn. 391–392, Bragantini 1997, 565, for the Casa di L. Cornelius Diadumenus (VII,12,26), and Fiorelli 1873, 49–50, Mau 1874, 96–97, Della Corte 1954, 144 nn. 319, 320, Serpe 2008, 141 for the Casa di A. Octavius Primus (VII,15,12–13). Della Corte (1954, 45 n. 56) thinks that the gens Tintiria was living in the Casa del Naviglio (VI,10,11), but Cassetta (2006, 310) has demonstrated that the identification is shaky. On the lack of the sources to identify the owner of house IX,1,12, see also Gallo 2001, 25.

234. CIL IV 935b, 935d, 935h, 935i, 3159, 7669, 7670, 7671, 8845, 8851. Della Corte 1954, 178–179 n. 429a–f, 302 nn. 785–786. Jongman 1988, 354–355. Spinazzola 1953b, 689. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 52, 182 n. 60. A. De Vos 1991, 435. Mayer 2012, 55. T. Dentatius Panthera is also suggested as the owner of house IX,2,16 on the basis of a seal stamp (Della Corte 1954, 178 n. 428, Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 72, Fiorelli 1875, 381, Sampaolo 1999, 1, see also Mouritsen 1988, 15, 181 n. 42).

235. CIL IV 9481. Maiuri 1929, 398, 427. Della Corte 1954, 237–238 n. 577a-b. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 50. M. De Vos 1990, 361.

236. Maiuri 1929, 427. There are the letters STKA and a possible L in Maiuri’s picture.

237. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 70. Fiorelli 1873, 89; 1875, 371. Mouritsen 1988, 182 n. 62. D’Acunto 2008, 162. Gallo 2013, 205. Della Corte (1954, 204) thinks that they were both house owners.

238. See above.

239. Schöne 1867, 45. Fiorelli 1873, 89. Breton 1870, 482. Della Corte 1954, 204 nn. 490–493, 407 n. 38. Gallo 2013, 166.

240. See Castrén 1975, 164–165. Castrén (1975, 25) has a question mark after the letter M, indicating the unreliability of the praenomen.

241. CIL IV 2408a. Minervini 1858, 188. On the commonness of the cognomen Rufus, see Castrén 1975, 259, 262.

242. CIL X 879. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale, 46. Breton 1870, 407. Fiorelli 1875, 207. Sampaolo 1996, 902, 916.

243. Curtis 1984, 565.

244. Della Corte 1954, 121–122.

245. See Section 7.2.2.

246. Cfr. CIL X 880 where the text indicates that the names are the mosaic makers. The signed painting in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (II,2,2) has the word pinxit (CIL IV 7535, Spinazzola 1953, 404). This makes one question if the mosaics should have something similar, but the other examples (CIL X 882, 8146, 8147) that Della Corte (1954, 122) interprets as the names of mosaic makers do not actually have the word fecit. It is only his assumption of the texts. In the CIL X 882 and 8146 it is possible, but neither of them actually has the entire word clearly visible.

247. Sampaolo 1996, 916.

248. The only possible examples, besides the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29), are: house VI,5,10 (CIL X 880), the Casa dei Capitelli colorati (VII,4,31/51, CIL X 882), and house IX,6,4–7 (CIL X 8146, 8147). In house VI,5,10, the text probably indicates the makers of a mosaic emblem.

249. Of all of the floors listed in the Online Appendix only cubiculum 26 of the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7), besides the room in the Casa di M. Spurius Mesor (VII,3,29), has a reported slate decoration (n. 245).

250. On the decoration of the house, see Sampaolo 1996, 902–942.

251. Sampaolo 1996, 902, 916.

252. Castrén 1975, 224.

253. Fiorelli 1973, 43. Sampaolo 1996, 902.

254. The Caupona di Lucius Betutius (Vetutius) Placidus (I,8,8) is listed as potential, but it is also possible to connect it to a proposed owner.

255. The Caupona di Lucius Betutius (Vetutius) Placidus (I,8,8) is listed as potential, but it is also possible to connect it to a proposed owner.

256. Mouritsen 1988, 181 n. 42.

257. Castrén 1975, 147, 157–158, 207–209, 240–241.

258. Savunen 1997, 50–51, 56–58, 78–79.

259. Robinson 1997, 135-136; 2017, 243-247. Mayer 2012, 51–52.

260. A similar approach as Kaiser 2011, 124.

261. Fiorelli 1875, 357. Della Corte 1954, 219. Jashemski 1993, 222 n. 457. Strocka 1994, 67. Sampaolo 1998, 718-719. Kuivalainen 2019, 68.

262. Fiorelli 1875, 115.

263. Sampaolo 1998, 956–957.

264. Bragantini 1997, 478.

265. Jashemski 1993, 97-98 nn. 154–155. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 463–464 n. 157.

266. Fiorelli 1875, 301. Jashemski 1993, 198 n. 389. Sampaolo 1997, 676. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 602–603 n. 390. Monteix 2017, 218–219 Fig. 7.2

267. See Monteix & al. 2019, paragraph 50. Additionally, there might have not been a connection between the peristyle and the former fullonica space, as the corridor was converted into a staircase (see Flohr 2013, 291).

268. Bustamante Álvarez & Ribera 2020, 34–37.

269. See Sections 3.2.3 and 6.7.

270. Bechi 1852, 17. Breton 1870, 387. Jashemski 1993, 231 n. 478. Laurence 1994, 63 Map 4.5.

271. Bragantini 1999, 128.

272. Fiorelli 1875, 180. Bragantini 1996, 299.

273. Laurence 1994, 55. Monteix 2017, 217, 218–219 Fig. 7.2. However, Laurence (1994, 58–59 Maps 4.1 & 4.2) does not consider this space to be a bakery.

274. Jashemski 1993, 54 n. 80.

275. Flohr 2013, 24–25.

276. See Sections 3.2.3 and 6.7.

277. On the amphorae and their links to commerce, see De Simone 1990, 964. On the large garden, see Jashemski 1993, 61–63 n. 107.

278. Sogliano 1901, 405. Jashemski 1993, 114 n. 186-187. Sampaolo 1998, 528. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 489 n. 191. Monteix 2017, 218–219 Figure 7.2.

279. Monteix 2017, 218–219 Figure 7.2. There is also a counter without cooking facilities (Ellis 2018, 68), but it was likely for selling the goods of the workshop, and therefore this is not counted as a bar.

280. See Section 7.2.

281. See Section 7.2.2.

282. Loccardi 2009, 66, 77–78.

283. Loccardi 2009, 77–78.

284. Mau 1883, 229.

285. Curtis 1984, 565.

286. See Section 6.7.

287. Fiorelli 1875, 177. Curtis 1984, 565. Bragantini 1996, 230–231.

288. Barone 1870, col. 9.

289. Trendelenburg 1871, 177.

290. Della Corte 1927, 104. Spinazzola 1953b, 690, 707–708. A. De Vos 1991, 435.

291. Sogliano 1881, 322. Mau 1883, 174–175. See also Bragantini 1998, 569.

292. Peña and McCallum 2009, 193.

293. Laurence 1994, 52.

294. Sogliano 1882, 279–280. Sampaolo 1998, 572.

295. Sogliano 1889, 125–126. Sampaolo 2003, 131.

296. Bonucci 1827, 99. Fiorelli 1860, I, 253–254.

297. Berg 2019c, 171.

298. Monteix 2017, 218-219 Fig. 7.2.

299. I have defined a bar by the existence of a masonry counter, which is often used as an identification criterion, although other features, such as limited size and a wide door, are used as additional criteria (see e.g. Poehler 2017b, 166, Monteix 2010, 89–113; 2017, 217, 221–222 Ellis 2004, 373–375; 2018, 62–76). I will use the modern term bar, although it might have too modern connotations for some (see Monteix 2010, 92).

300. Monteix 2017, 218–219 Fig. 7.2. Della Corte (1954, 227), A. De Vos (1990, 38) and Inserra (2008, 22–23) think there was a brothel. McGinn (2002, 36–37) considers this to be more likely a brothel. However, Laurence (1994, 77 Map 5.1) does not.

301. The architectural peristyle houses with a bar: Casa della Grata metallica (I,2,28), houses I,3,20, I,9,12, I,14,1/12, II,8,2/3, Casa dei cinque scheletri (VI,10,2), house IX,9,1. Additionally, house V,1,15 had a counter, but no cooking facilities (Monteix 2017, 218–219 Figure 7.2, Ellis 2018, 67). A likely option was that the space was used to sell baking goods made in the house.

302. For example, Monteix’s (2017, 218–219 Figure 7.2) type 5 (Restaurants without facilities).

303. Se e.g. Monteix 2017, 224–230.

304. Viitanen & Ynnilä 2014, 144, 147 fig. 4. See also, Van Nes 2011, 105–106, Flohr 2021, 198 and Zanella 2021, 291. Eschebach & Eschebach (1993) have identified several shops in Pompeii.

305. See the detailed analysis of the door mechanisms of possible shops in Herculaneum made by Monteix 2010, 56–61.

306. Richardson 1955, 79. On the location of transportation properties in Pompeii, see Poehler 2011, 200, Table 8.2.

307. The Panifico di Sotericus (I,12,1/2) and the Casa del Granduca di Toscana (IX,2,27) does not have a room that could be identified as a fauces leading to the street. Nevertheless, they have an entrance room and another room that can be defined as a possible shop, and are therefore included in the calculation.

308. E.g. the following spaces opening onto a street might have had a commercial function, but they are excluded in this study: I,2,19, I,15,2, II,3,1–2, V,2,e, VI,5,1–2, VI,7,4-5, VI,9,13, VI,10,9, VI,14,16–17, VI,15,7, VI,15,27, VII,2,24, VII,2,40, VII,2,42, VII,6,4, VII,6,37, VII,11,7–8, VIII,2,4–5, VIII,3,28, IX,14,c. For example, house VII,11,7–8 has a masonry structure that Ellis (2018, 68) has listed as a counter, however Monteix (2017, 218–219 Fig. 7.2) does not. It is possible that the structure is related to business activity, but as this is unclear, I have decided not to take it into account.

309. For an exception, see e.g. entrance I,10,17.

310. Mayer 2012, 30. Viitanen & Ynnilä 2014, 146, 152.

311. See Section 7.2.1.

312. Monteix 2010, 351–352, 358–359.