Private vs. Public

Domestic Architecture in Pompeii: House of the Faun

It appears that human nature has a tendency to classify things.  In supporting this contention, one of the most discussed aspects of architecture is the designation of spaces as public or private.  A discussion of public versus private spaces and the application of such terms to areas of a building cannot begin without first establishing a definition of public and private space.

            According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, public and private can be respectively defined as follows:

Public adj. 1: of, relating to, or affecting the people as a whole 2: CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL 3: not private: SOCIAL 4: of, relating to, or serving the community 5: open to all 6: exposed to general view 7: well known: PROMINENT[i]

Private adj. 1: belonging to or intended for a particular individual or group 2: restricted to the individual: PERSONAL 3: carried on by the individual independently 4: not holding public office 5: withdrawn from company or observation 6: no known publicly[ii]

As it can be seen, there are multiple definitions for both words, however, in direct application to a spatial discussion, definition 3 is particularly applicable to public space and definition 5 is useful in a discussing private space.  Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, public space will be generally defined as space that serves a social function while private space will be referred to as space that is withdrawn from company or observation.  However, it must be said that these are merely general definitions and a more precise designation will come to light with further discussion on the cultural considerations concerning the notion of public and private space.    

As it has been established, the thesis of this paper will deal with the notions of public versus private space, however, to delve into the entire world of architecture would require years of research and pages upon pages of conclusions.  For the purpose of this discussion, only domestic architecture will be discussed – specifically the Roman domus (house), which is defined as follows:

Domus.  In Roman architecture, a house for a single well-to-do family, as distinct from the huts or tenements of the poor and the apartment houses (insulae) or the middle class.[iii]

One question that comes directly to mind is: Why domestic architecture instead of public architecture such as the Roman Forum or the amphitheatre?  The reason is this: although houses and other domestic forms of architecture can be considered as private spaces, as compared to more public spaces like the Forum, one interesting aspect of the Roman domus is that within the domestic space, there exists a hierarchy of semi-public and private spaces.  As well, although there are varying types of domestic architecture, houses belonging to a more wealthy owner are more likely to have rooms serving specific functions, which makes investigation much easier.  Specifying further, the main object of discussion in this paper will be the House of the Faun at Pompeii.

Now that the type of architecture to be discussed has been determined, private and public spaces can be directly applied and investigated further.  According to Mark Grahame in his article, “Public and Private in the Roman house: the spatial order of The Casa del Fauno,” the notion of ‘private life’ is not universal but has a history.  The current understanding, it seems, is rooted very much in the 19^th century English middle class, where the ‘separation of spheres’ occurred.  Public life became the world of productive work, politics, men, state, and the office, while private life consisted of the home, women, children and servants.  This is very much like the way the present modern day culture tends to see the division between public and private.  In our world of spreading urbanism, the home in the suburban neighborhood represents a private world removed from public observation and knowledge.  The house exists as a place of escape and seclusion – a retreat from urban life.  The house thus operates as a ‘defensive space’ consisting of varying levels of semi-publicity and privacy.  Grahame illustrates this hierarchy in diagrammatic form (Figure 1).  However, because people tend to see other cultures as they see their own and apply terms to it, “as a consequence, we apply our language terms to [the] remains [of ancient cultures] almost without thinking.  This affects our understanding of them.”[iv]  As a result, not only similarities between modern day notions of domestic architecture and ancient houses but differences must also be kept in mind during analysis.  For example, in modern day houses, it is easy to designate what the culture refers to as the main entrance if one is part of that culture.  Without having actually lived in ancient Pompeii, it is impossible to be sure which door could be referred to as the main entrance.  After all, what does ‘main entrance’ mean?  Was it the door which was most used?  Was it the most elaborate entrance?  It must be acknowledged that much of what is concluded regarding ancient culture is purely speculation, albeit an educated speculation.  (For the purpose of this paper, the main entrance will designate the door that leads through the fauces into the atrium.)  As well, one cannot assume that architecture alone creates necessary degrees of privacy or semi-privacy.  Decoration also indicates a division of space (especially in the case of the Roman domus).  Grahame indicates his views on public versus private space and humble versus grand decoration in these spaces in a simple double axial diagram (Figure 2).  Furthermore, any discussion of public versus private in domestic architecture must not be based only on the physical architecture but also on the interrelationships that result from the form.  Public space may be designed to induce a pattern of social encounters, some highly structured and some relatively causal.

The Roman house displayed the social status of the dominus and served the needs of his station in life.  For the Roman elite, the house reflected wealth and position, to the lower orders, it illustrated social ambitions.  It was the arena for a wide range of activities, including many which involved visitors.  A variety of suitable settings was required.[v]

General Introduction to the House of the Faun

As it has been previously established, the main architectural example in this discussion will be the House of the Faun, located in Pompeii.  The House of the Faun acquired its name from the bronze figure of a dancing faun found in the impluvium of the main atrium.  It can be dated to the Samnite period (2^nd century B. C.) when Hellenistic influence was invading architecture in the area.  Richardson speculates that it “seems to have come into being 185-175 B.C.”[vi]  Much evidence points to it being the residence of a wealthy owner, among which the fact that it takes up the entire block (315 ft by 115 ft space is allocated to the house).  It seems to illustrate the type of dwelling that wealthy men of cultivated tastes in the 2^nd century B. C. built and lived in.  This is especially apparent in the wall decoration.  “The mosaic decoration of the House of the Faun contrasts markedly with the limited use of floor and wall mosaics elsewhere in Campania.”[vii]

To discuss further the private versus public aspects of the House of the Faun, the private spaces of the House of the Faun (resident and servant quarters) will be first discussed, then the more abundant semi-public spaces (stores, entrance, fauces, atrium, reception and dining areas), followed by a statistical analysis of spatial organization in the House.

Private Spaces and the House of the Faun

The description of the Roman house as a private refuge, away from public pressure and conformity, a separate place of retreat, which, in contrast to the collective space of the public, permitted the expression of personal beliefs, tastes and self-perceptions, in a common theme.[viii]

Private and public space is not as black and white as one would want them to be.  There exists subtle gradations of private – how far a guest would venture into this domain would be determined by how close the guest was to the male head of the household.  One aspect that would give indication that one is approaching a more private area of the house would be the decoration.  Elaborate decoration was mainly reserved for the more public spaces of the house – the resident and servant quarters are often designated by the humbleness of the décor.  Richardson describes the House of the Faun in three distinct parts: a) the Grand Tuscanic atrium with the 3 staterooms of the house and a group of bedrooms, b) the intimate tetra style atrium with living rooms, storerooms, and possibly smaller dining rooms and, c) the hortus.  It is in the first two areas where one would find the more private portions of the household.  The room located to the side of the main atrium is speculated to be the family sleeping room.  Slight elevations in the floor hint at the location of two beds in the room.  The decoration in the room is determined to be of the second style that is much less elaborate that the first style décor in the public rooms.  It appears that these apartments were entered via the 2 shops on the right portion of the entrance.  As well, based on the décor and size, it can also be determined that the smaller tetra style atrium may have been a more intimate private area, reserved for the residents and very close guests.  Located near the larger atrium, archeologists found a room thought of to have belonged to the porter of the house, based on the interior decoration.  Michele George discusses servant quarters in greater detail in the article “Servus & Domus”.  Considering that “textual and epigraphic sources make it clear that slaves were ubiquitous in the wealthy Roman domus,”[ix] the number of slaves in a household was most often directly proportional to the wealth of the owner.  However, one of the largest problems that face archeologists and anthropologists is determining where slaves worked and slept.  It seems that even in large houses, the designation of slave quarters was not a priority, which contributes to the uncertainty regarding where slaves slept.

Houses at Herculaneum, where there is better preservation of upper stores, indicate that there was a greater degree of shared domestic space that exits in modern arrangements... Never the less, missing upper storeys remain a possible location for slave quarters because of their marginality.[x]

Two approaches can be used in determining slave areas: a) determining the slave/servile identity and b) identify slave quarters by what they are not.  The first approach is based on the idea that slaves can be contextualized by their household tasks.  In other words, service areas such as kitchens and stables are likely places to find slave quarters.  At the House of the Faun and many other houses in Pompeii, there exists a recognizable kitchen area with simple undecorated rooms adjacent.  Could these have been slave quarters?  It is impossible to know for sure due to the anonymity of the rooms.  The second approach is based on the assumption that large and well-decorated rooms are generally assumed to reflect the reception of guests; therefore, these are most likely not the location of servant quarters.  It can be said, however, that servile areas are most easily seen in the biggest houses since they allow adequate space to show distinctions between areas architecturally.  Yet, amongst the less decorated rooms the function is hard to establish which means that any distinction is purely speculative.

A simplistic division of the use of space between slave and master also fails to take into account the plurality of functions of rooms in the Roman house, where room use could vary according to seasonal changes and changes through the day or to fill a variety of needs.[xi]

The absence of clear evidence to designate the function of private domestic spaces clearly indicates the greater importance of the more public spaces within the house.

Public spaces and the House of the Faun

Social space of the house closely articulates with the social necessity for members of the Roman upper classes to receive friends and dependants and to conduct business.[xii]

In Vitruvius’ writings on architecture, he lists spaces required by the elite, specifically basilicas and porticoes, many of which are derived from public architecture.  He also explains that decoration exhibits the status of the owner to the visitor.  If this is true, much can be read about the owner of a Roman house through the organization and décor of the public spaces.  This would not only apply to classical domestic architecture but to modern day houses as well.  It seems that since public spaces are designed to be seen by visitors, they clearly tell more of their function.  The role of the home in Roman times was not merely a place to escape from public life but also an important part of public life.  For example, during the salutatio ritual, clientes should be welcomed into the house of their patronus on a daily basis.  The public areas of the domus were designed for the entertainment of guests and visitors as well as to indicate the wealth of the owner.  Since guests would be arriving through the entrance and proceeding from there into the house, public spaces are organized based on the circulatory path of the guest starting from the entrance.

            Four shops located at its entrance distinguish the front of the House of the Faun.  These shops were open to the street and included the upper floors (pergulae), which combine with the main floor to create a space nineteen feet high.  Close by lies a street door consisting of three leaves opening towards the inside at the outer end of the vestibule.  A guest would then enter the fauces through a massive double door located between the vestibule and the fauces.  Rendered in a floor mosaic is the Oscan welcome “HAVE.”  Past the fauces lies the main atrium, a 53 feet by 33 feet space that has been determined to have been no less than 28 feet.  This first atrium is of Tuscan type while a second more private atrium located further into the house is of a tetra style Hellenistic type.  Following the main atrium is the reception area or tablinium.  It is here that the salutatio ritual would occur.  In this room is a broad window opening on to the colonnade of the peristyle.  The House of the Faun also contains two dining areas facing south.  Judging by the motifs and exposure, one is designed for autumn and other for winter dining.   According to Simon P. Ellis, in his article ‘Late Antique Dining’, “it is clear that guests proceeded at a leisurely pace to the dining room, admiring the other more public parts of the house.”[xiii]  He goes on to illustrate the importance of the areas preceding its entry by indicating the three stages of entry consisting of a) the entranceway, b) the ‘middle-ground’ and c) the apse (where the actual dinner takes place).

The entrance way is associated with the initial impressions of the guest.  Owners often frame the view of the room by using a monumental doorway.  This is often achieved by a triple doorway, which provides a central framing element with complimentary elements on each side.  Servants would often use the side doors as to not disturb the central view.  Another scheme that would be used to impress visitors would be by placing an elaborate wall painting or floor mosaic, which would be seen upon entry.  In the case of the House of the Faun, its Alexander Mosaic is often thought of to be the most spectacular mosaic found at Pompeii.  Heroic motifs were popular since it associated the owner of the house with a virtuous hero.  Lastly, the owner of the house would often place an inscription at the threshold, which would remind the visitor of who the owner was.  This inscription may refer to the attributes of the owner or state plainly the name of the owner of the house.  Essentially, the function of the first third of the room is to set the scene for the dinner – just inside the door the buffet and amphorae would be placed to display the liberality of the host.  According to Laurence, the

central use of lighting enhanced the messages of status purveyed by the mosaics, paintings and display of food.  In the same way as stage lights in a modern theatre create ‘drama’ and ‘atmosphere’, so in the house of the Roman aristocrat they set the stage for the dinner that was to come.[xiv]

Beyond the entranceway came the ‘middle ground.’  The key concept of this space was movement.  It often contained a fountain, which provided a pleasing background noise and produced a psychological effect to make dinners feel cool.  In later antiquity, courtyard fountain became a full nymphaeum.  The ‘middle-ground’ was also the area which servants would cross to bring food too and from the table and also the area where entertainers would perform. 

Eventually came the apse, the main stage for dinner.  It was often raised or marked by different paving.  In the space would be located a stibadium (semicircular dining couch) and a sigma (semicircular marble table).  Masonry foundations for tables and chairs found by archeologists indicate that the function of the room was so important that arrangement would be permanent.

Any owner who built such a setting had decided formal dinners were such and important part of his life that he required as special room set aside for that purpose.[xv]

Guests would be positioned according to social rank with the host at right hand end of the table and lowest ranking (parasitus) at the opposite end.  Mosaics show dinners were served on one large serving dish (since it was a fairly cramped at the table) and the couch would be illuminated by a polycandelon (chandelier) suspended above the table.  Evidence has been found through computer modeling that the apse may have also been the focal point for natural light, indicating its importance.  According to the writings of Pliny, Sidonius, and Statius the view of the entrance way was the centerpiece of a house.

Most remarkable aspect of this whole picture is that about two-thirds of the room was not space occupied by the actual dinner at all.  The main part of the room merely functioned as a prelude.[xvi]

As it can be seen, the public spaces of the Roman domus are quite architecturally elaborate.  As compared to the typical house in modern day society, the public spaces within domestic architecture were much more important in Roman times.

Analysis of House of the Faun – Private vs. Public

            Much of the analysis that has been done on the topic of public and private spaces within architecture has been merely categorical.  At most, the square feet of private space may be compared with the area of public space to determine the percentage of the whole allocated to each function.  However, circulation through the building and the connection of these spaces to each other is just as important, if not more, than the over all quantity of public and private space in domestic architecture.   This is where Hillier and Hanson’s “Access Analysis” comes into play.  It involves the creation of formal analytical plans or ‘access maps’ for any building by using rings to indicate spaces, pined by lines (permeability) and dots to indicate transitional spaces such as hallways.  These diagrams are much more descriptive of the spatial configuration of the building than a floor plan.  An ‘access map’ for the House of the Faun has been created by Mark Grahame in his article (Figure 3.1/Figure 3.2).  This test also emphasizes that each space has local and global relationships.  The local describes a space’s relationship with its neighboring spaces and the global describes a space’s relation to the over all configuration.  The ‘control value’ indicates that the more neighbors a space has, the greater degree of control it has as a space.  Broadly, the more control a space has, the more public it is, however the whole statistical procedure is much more complicated and beyond the scope of this paper.  It can be said, however, that through analysis of the House of the Faun by this method, Grahame concludes that the ‘hierarchy of privacy’ follows an axial line from the southeast area of the house to northwest, where the northwest is the more private.

Conclusions

In appears that there is much to be learnt concerning public and private space from the House of the Faun and other Roman examples of domestic architecture.  The differences between the importance of public life within ones home is especially apparent in the emphasis on the dining room experience in Roman times as compared with modern day residences.  As well, the humbleness and anonymity of the residence quarters indicate the emphasis the public rather than the private parts of the household.  Lastly, although it is impossible to experience the House of the Faun as it was before the eruption of Vesuvius, through research and analysis, one can at least have a feel for the organization of a Roman domus and consider the cultural implications of its remains.

Bibliography

Ben, Sara E. and Rich Jones ed.  Sequence and Space in Pompeii.  Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997.

Fleming, John, Hugh Honour and Nikolaus Pevsner ed.  The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.  London: Penguin Books, 1999.

Laurence, Ray.  Roman Pompeii: Space and Society.  London: Routledge, 1994.

Mau, August.  Pompeii: Its Life and Art.  New York: McMillan Company, 1899.

McKay, A. G.  Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World.  New York: Cornell University Press, 1975.

Richardson, L. Jr.  Pompeii: An Architectural History.  London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Slade, Carole.  Form and Style.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew and Ray Laurence ed.  Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond.  Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997.

Woolf, Henry Bosley, ed.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  New York: Pocket Books, 1974.