Reading about villas near Rome and in other parts of Italy, I understand them as working farms, even when the properties were owned by elites. Is this an appropriate interpretation of Italian villas? If so, how did their functions differ from villas in other parts of the Empire?
One can interpret the term 'villa' in several ways, from a grand country palace to a working farm. I suppose the best way of thinking of them are in the same way as an old English country manor house. Part working farm, part grand house, part showing off to the neighbours.
A palace is typically an urban structure. The word 'palace' comes from the buildings that were on the Palatine Hill in Rome. So a country version of one of them, with associated agriculture of some kind/ Owning and exploiting the land was seen as 'proper' way for a gentleman to make money.
Robert Bruegmann (an art historian) interprets Roman villas as suburban homes. I think this is dead wrong, even if it's intuitively appealing based on geospatial relationships between the city and some of the villas. Unfortunately, I know of only one literary example so far in my readings, from Cicero, who owned multiple villas in Italy. But none of them was his main domicile, which is a necessary condition for a suburban home. Cicero stressed his need to reside in the most frequented location, on the Palatine, a necessity for someone with his political ambitions and positions. I read it as more like Cornelius Vanderbilt living in Manhattan, but also using his various properties as vacation homes, except Cicero's vacation homes were also working farms.
Men like Cicero—the urban elite—ultimately wouldn't have been seen dead anywhere else than Rome, even if they sometimes professed to hate the city and its ghastly urban nightmare.
The idea of a gentleman's country retreat is one that runs all through history and it was no different back then. It also reinforces the idealised, agrarian, Etruscan past that runs through the Roman psyche - the idea that they all came from 'the land' and that by having a country pad to get away to, they could reconnect with that.
Ultimately, the only really acceptable way for a gentleman to make money was by lending money and owning land, so he was a financier and 'gentleman farmer'. Making money by something like trading was seen as an uncouth way of make a living.
There's also the idea of the villa as somewhere they could go to explore the elements of 'otium', which I wrote about in another article. So somewhere they could loaf about all day thinking about philosophical matters without being bothered by such things as having to go to the theatre, the poor loves.
Villas in Britain don't really fit that same mold though and are more likely about local people who are getting rich off the Pax Romana. They're also cultural expressions of how the Romano-British see their place in this new world. Where before the Romans they might have built a hillfort to show off their status, now they can build a big villa instead.
Interestingly, there are places in East Anglia where there is a notable lack of villa sites, despite heavy Romano-British and Roman civic occupation and a possible explanation is that the locals have chosen another way to express their cultural identity in the new setup than by building villas.
I might have to write something about villas now, lol.
Whatever works for your schedule is fine with me. Around 2017, I was researching the history of streets and sidewalks in Rome and Pompeii, and started researching colonnaded streets in Roman Syria. I decided to publish some of this work on my “What Are Streets For” Substack. The first of these will go live on 11 March, “Ancient Rome: Types of Easements.” I would be honored to have it critiqued after it goes live.
The Romans couldn't speak Welsh.
The Romans could not speak Welsh, no. Welsh is a language that developed in the post-Roman period.
I know, I was just teasing..
I was just joshing!
Reading about villas near Rome and in other parts of Italy, I understand them as working farms, even when the properties were owned by elites. Is this an appropriate interpretation of Italian villas? If so, how did their functions differ from villas in other parts of the Empire?
One can interpret the term 'villa' in several ways, from a grand country palace to a working farm. I suppose the best way of thinking of them are in the same way as an old English country manor house. Part working farm, part grand house, part showing off to the neighbours.
A palace is typically an urban structure. The word 'palace' comes from the buildings that were on the Palatine Hill in Rome. So a country version of one of them, with associated agriculture of some kind/ Owning and exploiting the land was seen as 'proper' way for a gentleman to make money.
Robert Bruegmann (an art historian) interprets Roman villas as suburban homes. I think this is dead wrong, even if it's intuitively appealing based on geospatial relationships between the city and some of the villas. Unfortunately, I know of only one literary example so far in my readings, from Cicero, who owned multiple villas in Italy. But none of them was his main domicile, which is a necessary condition for a suburban home. Cicero stressed his need to reside in the most frequented location, on the Palatine, a necessity for someone with his political ambitions and positions. I read it as more like Cornelius Vanderbilt living in Manhattan, but also using his various properties as vacation homes, except Cicero's vacation homes were also working farms.
Men like Cicero—the urban elite—ultimately wouldn't have been seen dead anywhere else than Rome, even if they sometimes professed to hate the city and its ghastly urban nightmare.
The idea of a gentleman's country retreat is one that runs all through history and it was no different back then. It also reinforces the idealised, agrarian, Etruscan past that runs through the Roman psyche - the idea that they all came from 'the land' and that by having a country pad to get away to, they could reconnect with that.
Ultimately, the only really acceptable way for a gentleman to make money was by lending money and owning land, so he was a financier and 'gentleman farmer'. Making money by something like trading was seen as an uncouth way of make a living.
There's also the idea of the villa as somewhere they could go to explore the elements of 'otium', which I wrote about in another article. So somewhere they could loaf about all day thinking about philosophical matters without being bothered by such things as having to go to the theatre, the poor loves.
Villas in Britain don't really fit that same mold though and are more likely about local people who are getting rich off the Pax Romana. They're also cultural expressions of how the Romano-British see their place in this new world. Where before the Romans they might have built a hillfort to show off their status, now they can build a big villa instead.
Interestingly, there are places in East Anglia where there is a notable lack of villa sites, despite heavy Romano-British and Roman civic occupation and a possible explanation is that the locals have chosen another way to express their cultural identity in the new setup than by building villas.
I might have to write something about villas now, lol.
A post on Italian villas would be a great supplement.
I'll get on it in the next few days! And thank you ever so much for subscribing.
Whatever works for your schedule is fine with me. Around 2017, I was researching the history of streets and sidewalks in Rome and Pompeii, and started researching colonnaded streets in Roman Syria. I decided to publish some of this work on my “What Are Streets For” Substack. The first of these will go live on 11 March, “Ancient Rome: Types of Easements.” I would be honored to have it critiqued after it goes live.