Click on above map to open a new browser window with the same plan. It might be handy to keep open while you meander through this page!

The importance of the evidence for rental properties at Pompeii is just beginning to receive greater scholarly attention. Felix Pirson (much of the work which follows depends on his entry, "Rented accomodation at Pompeii: the Insula Arriana Polliana," in R. Lawrence and A. Wallace-Hadrill, Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond (1997): 165-181; references to this work will be made by name and page number) makes a good case for shifting focus to Pompeii from Ostia Antiqua's more obvious and identifiable multi-story rental structures: "...the rather simplistic character of such a distinction between the multi-dwelling Ostian apartment block and the owner-inhabited Pompeian domus becomes particularly obvious if one considers that the most definite epigraphic evidence for the letting of accomodation comes not from Ostia but from Pompeii... (165) " He then gives a count of a possible 150 upstairs flats (cenacula) and 300 tabernae at Pompeii: a significant total of 450 units which, according to Pirson, were rentable and, if studied properly, will eventually give scholars better insight into social conditions and mobility in ancient Rome (p. 181).

In determining what exactly would have constituted a "rental unit" at Insula VI.6 in 79 AD, we have simply sectioned off parts of the block which have no communication with the central house. There are eleven such units. Whether or not the central house can be considered as leasable property is debateable. Pirson (172) makes a strong argument against this possibility, and the issue is treated at greater length in our HOUSE OF PANSA section.

If you are interested in one particular issue related to the rental properties, click on the topic below that most closely fits your interests. Oh, and enjoy yourself - that's why we're here!

TABERNAE CUM PERGULIS | CENACULA EQUESTRIA
DOMUS | SOCIAL ISSUES (and sq.m. analysis)

The first rental properties mentioned in the inscription as offered by Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius were the "tabernae cum pergulis." (Clicking on the words will get you to a discussion of the exact meaning of each . It is interesting to note here that an inscription found near the Praedia Iuliae Felicis (Insula II.4) mentions tabernae and pergulae separately. The possible ramifications of this fact will be discussed in the SOCIAL ISSUES section). On the rental property map these correspond to units 1-3 and 5-7. Units 1-3 have smaller openings onto the street than 5-7 and consist of more than one room inside. As a result and following Pirson, we have labelled these "residential tabernae," meaning that their primary function was as domiciles and not commercial ventures. I will merely note here that these smaller living quarters on the western side of the block should be constrasted with the much more spacious quarters on the eastern side.

Wall betw. room 58 (rental unit 5) and room 90 (fauces), showing holes for support beams for a second floor. Click on picture for a close-up

Tabernae 5-7 have larger openings onto the street and for the most part consist of one room only: these must have been primarily commercial. However, as noted in our discussion of the term "tabernae," they could have served simultaneously as residences. One must consider the possibility of such mixed commercial/residential usage especially in the case of taberna 7,which has a back room as well as evidence for a staircase to an upper floor. Presumably, these stairs indicate that the taberna had a pergula, i.e. a mezzanine level. Evidence for staircases has been found only in units 2, 3, 6, and 7; yet, since the inscription mentions only "tabernae cum pergulis," it is possible that any remains of staircases in units 1 and 5 were destroyed beyond recognition. It should be noted, however, that judging from the plans (we have no photographic evidence) unit 1 had originally a small access to the main home. Perhaps this unit had only recently been sectioned off for rental and no pergula had been prepared for it. In the case of unit 5, evidence for support beams and a second floor is clearly visible from a picture (ad dextram) of the extant remains.

Tabernae 2, 6, and 7 provide us with an especially telling view of the development of rental properties in Insula VI.6. After reading the following, very brief overview, please >click< on each of the numbers at the beginning of this paragraph to look at the photographic evidence for the claims made here as well as for more far-reaching conclusions concerning the expansion of rental property in Insula VI.6. All three of these units bear evidence of doors which once connected them with the house proper. Add to this the small communication between unit 1 and the house proper, mentioned above, and it seems irrefutable that what has happened is that the house has undergone a long-term process of evolution into a rental property. Rooms, once connected either to the House of Pansa as it stood in 79 AD or, more likely, to former houses annexed by the House of Pansa, were later converted into rental properties. And as demand increased, so did the need for Mr. Maius to cordon off parts of his insula to make more rental units. For a more complete discussion of the chronological development of the house, please consult our HOUSE OF PANSA page. Here, you might want to pull up a separate browser window with the house plan, so you can pick up room reference more easily!

Wall betw. room 57 and room 58, showing evidence of a filled doorway. Click on picture for a close-up

The last properties which merit discussion under the rubric tabernae in their capacity as mixed commercial and residential areas are the bakeries, one each on the western and eastern sides of the block. Whether these were rented out or run by the owning family is unclear. I argue for the latter in the discussion of SOCIAL ISSUES below. The western bakery is immense, 196 square meters, and is the size of many of the nicer homes in Pompeii (cf. A. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton 1994): 80-82). It too shows evidence of being modified to meet societal demands: there appears to be evidence of a filled doorway between rooms 58 and 59 (see picture ad sinistram). To my mind, the one streetfront store (room 60) was not sufficient for this popular bakery. Room 58 then became a service area specifically for the store at room 57, while room 59 continued to service the store at room 60 as well as the larger storefront of 57. Professor John Dobbins, University of Virginia, suggests that room 57 (click for a picture of the room, taken from the inside, southwest corner) might have been a stable or carriage-house as room 5 has been identified primarily due to the size of the outlet onto the street. This would make practical sense. I will discuss the eastern bakery later.

Both bakeries do afford us a small glimpse at the second type of property which was offered for rent at the Insula Arriana Polliana: cenacula equestria. The existence of cenacula, in that they are second-floor domiciles, is very difficult to prove. Pirson (171-2) enumerates the two main ways in which they are identified: staircases from the street to the second-floor which are indicated by narrow openings from the street into rooms with one or more larger openings and evidence of stairs left in the wall-plaster. Additionally, some staircases - now imperceptible - were drawn in the original dig reports up to the year 1882 by G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei (Naples 1875): 102-106.

There is evidence for staircases leading above the western bakery at the narrow entrances to rooms 57 and 60. As can be seen from the pictures below (click on the thumbnails to see close-ups), these entrances appear to be later constructions and, again, perhaps reveal the dynamic nature of the growth of the house as a rental property:

Small outlets onto the street, rooms 57 and 60,taken from the West-Southwest, 1998.	Small outlets onto the street, rooms 57 and 60,taken from the West, 1999.	Small outlets onto the street, rooms 57 and 60,taken from the West, 1998.

View of the entrances into rooms 13 and 11 from the South. The smaller entrance to the right is presumably where a staircase would have led to the upper story cenaculum. Click on picture for a close-up.

In room 86 of the eastern bakery, the house plan shows evidence of a staircase, perhaps leading to a pergula. However, the narrow entranceway at room 82 (cf. Pirson 171) seems to indicate that there was a cenaculum at least over rental unit 9, but perhaps it extended or led to a second floor above the eastern bakery as well. Indeed another street entrance to the upper floor is indicated in the small passageway at room 40 (Click to see several views of the passage). Perhaps this entranceway led to cenacula above unit 10 as well as above unit 9. Finally, outside room 11, there is clear indication of a stairway leading upward and probably to a cenaculum above the final rental unit, number 11.

Interestingly, both of the bakeries and each of the three largest rental units (9-11) more than likely had a cenaculum above. These last three units lead us to the third and final category of rental property listed in the inscription, the domus (plural). As can be seen from the chronological plan ad sinistram (the lighter colored walls represent a later construction date and material; the darker walls are original), only unit 10 (click for photos), the eastern living unit, comprising rooms 41-47 shows original building materials. The other two, units 9 and 11 (click on the numbers for photos) are later and may have been renovations of existing structures to mimic unit 10 as a rental property. Both units 9 and 10 bear evidence of filled doorways leading into the main house. The filled door at the back of unit 10 is very significant for the chronology of the home and, of course, is discussed at length in our HOUSE OF PANSA section. The post-volcanic remains of both units seem to indicate that there were several houses on Insula VI.6 before Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius began to consolidate the whole kit and the kaboodle.

Map reprinted from C.L.J. Peterse, "Notes on the design of the house of Pansa (VI, 6, 1) in Pompeii," Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome. Papers of the Dutch Institute in Rome. 46 (1985): 39.

Of the three types of rental property at VI.6 - tabernae, cenacula, and domus - the first two are, as is made abundantly clear in our discussions of the meanings of these terms, generally regarded as lower class living quarters. For each of these two types, the inscription found near the House of Pansa gives qualifications. The tabernae are offered "cum pergulis," (remember from the beginning, the inscription in front of the Praedia Iuliae Felicis offered tabernae and pergulae separately) and the cenacula are actually cenacula equestria. The last type, the domus, would definitely be reserved for a higher social class. From these facts alone, it appears that the Maii wanted to serve a higher class of persons in keeping with the general area of the city in which the insula is located.

For confirmation, we can consult the table on houses in Pompeii constructed by Wallace-Hadrill (Princeton 1994), p. 81:

AVERAGES FOR AREA AND ROOMS BY QUARTILE

The division of the table is into quartiles, with the most luxuriant living quarters obviously being the largest. All of the tabernae, if we understand them to be with pergulae (except perhaps unit 1), are either at the very high end of the first quartile of home or at the low end of the second quartile with respect to area. It seems significant, then, that the tabernae were advertised together with pergulae. More than likely, the Maii sought a higher class of clientele as renters.

If we can use the sizes of the bakeries and the domus as a guide, then the cenacula "equestria" were substantial also and fell right in the average range of the second quartile - higher on the social scale than the simple term "cenacula" would imply. Wallace-Hadrill (81) even states, "This category includes some very attractively decorated houses, which have been dignified with names and not mere numbers."

Of the domus, units 9 and 11, divorced from the cenacula that archaeological evidence indicates were above them, would be in the same range as the cenacula listed above but certainly larger than the average tabernae.They would, again, qualify as substantial living quarters, especially for rent. Yet in rental unit 10, there is evidence for a staircase leading to an upper floor. Would the cenacula above this domus have been considered a part of it? If that were the case, then this domus would be pushed into the third quartile and would truly be quite a rental property. At all events, there seems to be in the House of Pansa a very careful concern with maintaining a high social status even to the point of placing smaller residences on the western side of the block and larger ones on the eastern side.

If we look at the main house itself and consider the facade along the southern end from the portal eastward (please click here to take a look and read Pirson's comments on the facade), which seems to have unified the entrance to the home with the fronts of rental units 6, 7, and 8, we can then add the evidence of the suite of rooms North of unit 1 (and even unit 1 itself, with its remnant of communication with the main house), the large garden, the rather plain decoration, and even the taberna-like structure next to unit 5 that is connected to the main home. Quickly, then, can we arrive at a unified description of our house by combining some of Wallace-Hadrill's (82) characteristics of a large Pompeian house of the fourth quartile: "...considerable numbers of ground-floor rooms, ...large areas for horticulture, ...neither richly decorated, ...a large number of entrances" to conclude that the Insula Arriana Polliana was both one of Wallace-Hadrill's "family houses with substantial servile establishments" (the area above unit 1, the area to the left of unit 5, and the bakeries, which - because of their size and the surrounding neighborhood - I believe must have been owned and operated by the family) as well as what he calls a "multi-occupancy" house with a "more complex" pattern of habitation; however, we do not think that the complex pattern of habitation at the House of Pansa would necessarily have included poor Pompeians. My own suggestion is that Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius would stay at the residence on occasion; his household servants, too, had more than ample rooms and suites of rooms; and then rental properties would be leased to persons on the high end of the social scale.