ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

Cicero goes on to object to Quintus’s proposed atriolum
(mini- atrium) because there is not enough space. He has
moved a sweat-bath to the other corner of the apodyterium
(changing-room) to avoid having the steam-pipe underneath
the bedrooms. He approves of one large bedroom
and another for winter use. But Diphilus has failed to set
the columns straight and in correct alignment; they will
have to be taken down. ‘Some day he’ll learn how to use a
plumb-bob and a line’, comments Cicero tersely; but he
adds, ‘I have every hope that Diphilus’s work will be
finished in a few months. For Caesius, who was with me at
the time, is keeping a careful eye on him. ’ The tenor of this
passage suggests an architect or master-builder who was a
slave or freedman of the family and who was supervising
operations under direct orders from Cicero and his
brother; the Caesius who was keeping an eye on him was
evidently a neighbouring landowner and trusted friend of
Quintus. But the work-force under Diphilus’s supervision
was probably not permanent staff. Another letter, written
ten years later, implies that Cicero was employing casual
labour on a building project at Tusculum, since he refers
to his structores going off to buy corn (AdAtticum, 14.3.l).
If they were his general slaves or employees, he would
hardly have called them structures; and if, on the other
hand, he had his own full-time structures, he would
probably not have sent them to get corn.
In imperial times the emperor himself could act like a
rich householder, though obviously on a grand scale; the
columbaria of the Julio-Claudian family have yielded the
names of architects, fabri, and mensores, who were doubtless
employed directly on the building of imperial villas
and palaces. But the emperor’s position was such that his
patronage often passed- over the dividing line between
private and public works. Both Augustus and Claudius
had their own private gangs of slaves for the maintenance
of Rome’s aqueducts and water-supply (Frontinus, de
aquis, ii. 98 & 116), and Hadrian is said to have organized
corps of architects, surveyors, and builders, military
fashion, for the work of restoration in the provincial cities
which he visited (pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Epitome de
Caesaribus, 14.5).
A situation in which a private patron might use
commercial labour is envisaged by Cato in the 2nd century
BC, when he gives specifications for the building of
farmhouses (de re rustica, 14). The owner is to hire a
builder or contractor, but he must supply the timber, a
saw and a level, the building stone, lime, sand, water,
straw and earth for cob-work. One imagines that this sort
of arrangement would have continued for the majority of
small-scale private operations throughout the Roman
period.
On the nature of building contracts we have a fair
amount of information in the Digest of Justinian and in
various inscriptions. The contractor (redemptor or conductor
optis), who hired out his services on the principle of
locatio conductio, would give an estimate somewhat in the
modern manner and would sometimes name a completion
date. Once agreed the contract might be for a lump sum to
be paid on completion or for a series of sums to be paid in
stages on the basis of quantity surveys of the amounts
completed. An interesting early example of a contract is
provided by the inscription relating to the building of a
wall and porch on a main street at Puteoli (Pozzuoli) in 105
BC (CIL, 1 2
, 524-6, no 698 = 1, no 577). Here the
15
Ling: The mechanics of the building trade
contractor was obliged to give financial sureties and to
pledge properties at the discretion of the duumvirs as a
guarantee of good faith; he would receive half his payment
as soon as the pledges were signed and the other half on
completion and approval of the work. The contract also
gives detailed specifications for the building, including
measurements, and appends clauses regarding the plastering
of the porch and the cleaning up of the site afterwards.
That careful specifications were essential is indicated not
only by the hypothetical situations recorded in the Digest,
but also by the words of Vitruvius (i. 1.10): ‘In drawing up
contracts careful attention should be paid to the interests
of both the owner (locator) and the contractor (conductor);
for, if the contract is skilfully worded, either party may be
released from his obligations to the other without a dispute
arising.’
In both private and public works the contractor, or
indeed any other building overseer, would deal with
suppliers of materials and the various specialized craftsmen
in much the same way as his modern counterpart. For
example, Dio Chrysostom relates in a speech of AD 101
how, in sponsoring a public building programme in his
native city of Prusa in Bithynia, he went up into the
mountains, almost certainly to inspect and order stone
from the quarries (xl. 7). Elsewhere we hear of small firms
of free labourers hired or subcontracted to do specific jobs.
An inscription of Miletus, dated to the 2nd century AD,
reveals that the building firm of a certain Epigonus was
engaged to put up arches and vaults over a colonnade in
the upper tier of the theatre; the building overseer is
named as Ulpianus Heros and the architect as Menophilus
(Buckler 1923, 34-6, no 3). All did not go well, because
the builders considered going on strike and seeking other
work; but good advice from the oracle of Apollo apparently
led to the dispute being settled. At Pergamum, again in
the 2nd century, it seems that firms were fined for failing
to complete work on time; they were charged interest on
the advance payments made to them (ibid, 334, no 2).
From later times (AD 459) we have a record of a trade
union agreement binding the builders of Sardis to specific
terms of labour involving indemnities in the case of
non-completion (ibid, 36-45, no 4 & pl III). This sort of
arrangement presupposes the developing role of trade
guilds both in protecting the interests of their members
and in ‘carrying the can’ for their members’ lapses. For the
building industry, inscriptions mention collegia not only
of structores (builders in general), but also of fabri tignari
(woodworkers), sectores serrarii (sawyers, primarily, one
imagines, of marble veneer), mamrorarii (workers in
marble), pavimentarii (paviers), and even of subrutores
(demolition men). Some of the craftsmen could themselves
attain sufficient prestige and wealth to take on
public contracts. An imperial freedman named Ti
Claudius Onesimus describes himself in his epitaph both
as redemptor operum Caesar(is) (‘contractor for imperial
works’) and as chief magistrate of the woodworkers’ guild
(CIL, 6, 9034).
The planning of buildings
So much for the organization of the building industry.
What about the mechanics of actually putting up a
building?