Explaining Nothing: The Aesthetic of Austerity on Roman House Facades

Jeremy Hartnett (Wabash College)

While the relationship between aesthetic form and social statement in Roman houses has recently been the subject of intense investigation, houses’ most visible elements – their facades – have largely been ignored by contemporary scholars. Such oversight undoubtedly results from the paucity of adornment on house exteriors in comparison with the extensive decoration Romans lavished on interiors. This paper takes the Roman notion of decor, or sensitivity to context, as its frame and contends that house owners deliberately chose to present themselves through an external aesthetic of austerity.

Minimally-adorned facades, such as we see at Herculaneum’ Casa Sannitica and Pompeii’s Casa dei Ceii and Casa di Giulio Polibio, were appealing for multiple, overlapping reasons. A practical concern for exposing finery to the street certainly governed choices, but Cicero and others (particularly authors writing about physiognomy) demonstrate Romans’ belief that external signs reflected interior virtues or vices and Romans’ skeptical attitudes towards flashy displays in the public realm.

Two points emerge from these sources. First, aesthetic severity was not understood as a lack of signifiers, but as a signifier in itself. Examining the streetward presentations of other buildings, such as commercial and industrial spaces, which were generally ostentatious, makes this point all the more clearly, and demonstrates how austerity literally distinguished domestic facades along the street. Second, the strong visual-ethical connection in the Roman mentalité has implications for the specific architectonic forms, and not just the general aesthetic, of domestic facades. Large swaths of simple street-facing architecture offered an impression of impenetrability and permanence, reflecting the paterfamilias’ mandate to defend his household morally and physically. Such displays, moreover, made claims of public standing, since they borrowed extensively from the architectural language and vocabulary of civic institutions.

Finally, a visually-muted facade was not seen in isolation, but, for someone peering in through open house doors, was part of the same visual experience as lush interior decoration. This joint vista enhanced the impression of those who entered and underlined the social barriers for those who looked in but were excluded. In an ironic turn, then, the lack of decoration which has discouraged the study of facades is the very thing that incorporated them into a house’s decorative and social programs.