Re-Thinking the Roman Domus: How Architects and Orators Construct Self, Space, and Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RE-THINKING THE ROMAN DOMUS: HOW ARCHITECTS AND ORATORS CONSTRUCT SELF, SPACE, AND LANGUAGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gillian Elizabeth McIntosh, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Erik T. Gunderson, Adviser Dr. William W. Batstone Dr. Duane W. Roller Adviser Department of Greek and Latin Copyright Gillian McIntosh 2003 ABSTRACT Concerning research of the Roman home, I identify two problems. First, traditional scholarship on the Roman domus has tended to explore the physical structure in an effort to recover only the objective truth about real homes. Recent scholarship, however, shows that there is more to the home than mathematics, facts, and physical matter. Second, archaeologists are generally reluctant to consider the subjective, psychological aspects of the home, despite numerous ancient references to the home as having precisely these qualities. Through the lenses of an architect (Vitruvius) and an orator (Cicero), I investigate the literary presentation of the domus, and consider it precisely as an artful and subjective presentation where numbers and facts are not primary concerns. I explore more fully the psychic life of architecture as an imaginary (or, metaphysical) place where real questions of self, society, and space are articulated. (Presentation in language is key.) Some exciting discoveries include: (1) In both Vitruvius and Cicero, the home signifies more than physical matter. There is a sociology about the home; there is a sense of equivalence between the home and the self; there is a philosophical quality to the home, that ties self, space, and language together; the home is a vital and lived ii metaphor. (2) The presentation of the home in text is important. (3) While scientific archaeological investigations pursue objective truth, the abstract, subjective perspective is also clearly valuable. The subject is presupposed by space; in addition, the subject is itself architectural. To lose sight of the subject is to diminish the room for a more comprehensive understanding of the home. And (4) it is important to consider text, self, and space synthetically. This method for exploring the domus can be extended in several ways. One might pursue more fully the domus as Cicero presents it, or the domus as other Roman authors present it. To pursue more thoroughly the importance of the metaphor of home will prove a productive enterprise. Certainly further work aimed at synthesizing the objective archaeological and the subjective literary homes will be profitable to the whole field, and beyond. iii Dedicated to RTN, FAM, PEM, CFM, G. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am so grateful to my adviser, Erik Gunderson, for his indefatigable patience, intellectual stimulation, constant encouragement, and support of my work. I owe much to Duane W. Roller not only for his input in this dissertation, but also for all that he has done for me over the years. I owe thanks also to Will Batstone. I extend many thanks to H. Paul Brown and Amber Lunsford for lots of stimulating discussions and thoughtful suggestions, not to mention constant friendship for the duration. I owe thanks also to Rebecca Futo Kennedy. I wish to thank Betsy Tannehill and Mary Cole, whose kindness and tolerance merit much more than this brief acknowledgment. Especial and heartfelt gratitude goes to Ryan Nichols, to my parents Fran and Paul, and to Colin McIntosh, without whose unfaltering love, patience, faith, and occasional nagging this pie just would not have completed this dissertation. v VITA July 6, 1972 ………………………… Born – Toronto, Canada 1994 ………………………………… B.A. Latin, Queen’s University at Kingston 1997 ………………………………… M.A. Classics, Queen’s University at Kingston 1997 – present ……………………… Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Greek and Latin vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .……………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………..iv Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………….v Vita …………………………………………………………………………………vi Chapters: 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………1 Traditional Scholarship………………………………………………...1 Some Complexities of the Domus……………………………………...2 Recent Studies and Current Methodologies……………………………6 This Dissertation……………………………………………………….21 2. Constructing Matters: Architecture, Rhetoric, and Vitruvius’ Domus Introduction ……………………………………………………………30 Constructing Sociology: 6.5.2 and 6.7…………………………………37 Constructing Biography………………………………………………..52 The Architect-King…………………………………………………….57 3. Cicero, Exile, and Epistolography: Building the Maison d’Être Introduction……………………………………………………………71 Spying Crisis: the domus crumbles……………………………………76 From Crisis to Suspension……………………………………………..92 Testimony of Change: Cicero rebuilds his new home…………………96 4. There’s No Place (Not) Like Home: The Illusory ‘Lost and Found’ of Domestic and Political Space and Identity in Cicero’s de domo sua vii Introduction…………………………………………………………….107 The ‘Real’ Home: Geography and Politics…………………………….112 The Symbolic Home……………………………………………………116 The Subject that is Cicero………………………………………118 The Supplemental Subject that is Clodius……………………...124 The Logic of the (W)hole………………………………………………139 5. Cicero, Philosophy, and a New Home: the Illusion of Philosophical Solution Introduction……………………………………………………………147 Cicero as Philosopher: a Brief Portrait………………………………...152 The Paradoxa Stoicorum and Crisis……………………………………160 The Solution: Philosophy and Internal Space………………………….168 Perception of Philosophy………………………………………169 Philosophy as Construct(ion)…………………………………...173 Putting Philosophy into Practice……………………………….176 The Illusion of Solution………………………………………………...193 6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...197 Appendix: Cicero’s letters: The Dates of Composition ……………………………201 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………….203 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Traditional Scholarship The Roman domus has mostly been studied in terms of its physical structure. Those interested in the home have turned to material remains as well as to literary references in order to reconstruct the matter of the house, and to understand other objective facts about it: who built it, who sold it, for how much, to whom, and so on. Two prominent examples of this method are Lawrence Richardson’s A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, or Eva M. Steinby’s Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (volume 2).1 In each of these works, a description of the typical structural features is found: one learns, for instance, of the fauces, the atrium, the tablinum, the colonnades, and the hortus. Each also provides a detailed 1 L. Richardson (1992) A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; and E.M. Steinby, ed. (1995) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (Volume 2: D- G) Roma: Edizioni Quasar. Christer Bruun critiques and builds upon Steinby’s work: (1998) “Missing Houses: Some Neglected Domus and Other Abodes in Rome,” Arctos 32: 87-108. Bruun essentially argues that, even though Steinby’s entries under domus in the vast Lexicon are the most inclusive yet, there are still many appearances of Roman domus that need to be considered. Bruun starts this, by listing some domus sightings he has found. Before this list, Bruun engages some important questions in terms of what should or should not be included in a topographical dictionary’s listing of domus. For instance: are we only concerned with homes of famous people? Are we only concerned with ownership, or with renters, and other economic matters? Should we also engage a more sociological approach, and think about neighborhoods? What about the matter of ‘Privatleben’: should we worry about what Romans did in their homes, and what they had in them? (vid. p. 93). 1 list of specific individual’s homes, replete with information about the location, the features, and the ancient sources on such homes. Wherever possible, a list of secondary scholarship is included. Such descriptions focus almost exclusively on producing the objective facts about the home, and the objective facts about the history and owner. Though useful, these accounts fail to consider anything other than the very ‘concreteness’ of the place they are describing. Steinby does include more ideological aspects, with comments such as this (about Cicero’s home on the Palatine): “La scelta della nuova residenza era stata dettata dall’esigenza di risparmiare i disagi di un lungo cammino ai suoi clienti e dal desiderio di accrescere la propria reputazione.”2 Yet she seems to include this information only in an effort to ascertain where the domus was actually situated .3 In neither Richardson nor Steinby is there a serious pursuit of the social, political, philosophical, or generally abstract significance of the home. Yet these very aspects of the domus are significant. There is more to the home than the bare ‘facts’. Some Complexities of the domus Indeed the domus is complex, whether one explores its syntax, its meaning, its structure, or its ideological underpinnings. In terms of the syntax, domus is multiform. It is sometimes a fourth declension noun, sometimes second (curiously, a feminine 2 Steinby (1995) 202. 3 The ancient sources are Cicero ipse (Att 1.13.6; 1.16.10), and Plutarch (Cic 8.6). 2 second declension). Even its morphology is complex and irregular.4 The syntactical foundations of the home are, it appears, rather varied. The edifices that