Horace’s reference to the ‘rough bearded’ Cato the Elder in the previous quote encapsulates both his rustic traditionalism and his xenophobic hatred of foreign fashion. However, by Horace’s time Greek culture was so thoroughly assimilated that foreignness was no longer an issue, indeed Horace makes a point of telling us that he has assimilated Grecian verse into Latin – Quote. III.30.15

Sallustius Crispus’ critique of luxury is more salutary, “It is worthwhile, when you are used to houses and mansions piled up like so many towns, to examine the temples which our ancestors made, the most religious of men. In those days they used to decorate their shrines with piety, their homes with glory..,” Cat. 12.3-4. (Whitehorne 1969: 29).  One cannot help thinking that envy rather than piety might well have motivated such admonitions. Sallust, after all, was criticised for duplicity during his own lifetime, mainly for writing censorial texts whilst having once used his political status to acquire treasures for himself. (Seyffert 1891: 556)

Luxury and the pursuit of paradise

The civil wars during the early years of the first century BC, not only deprived many cities of their future ruling elite, but also according to Cicero caused those who survived to retreat to the peacefulness of their villas and gardens. These spaces offered a world that appeared stable and controllable. When his public and private life began collapsing around him, he too, sought refuge behind the walls of his sanctuary-like Tusculan villa. In Funerary Symbolism in Apulian Vase-Painting, Smith points out that in order to create paradise you must first build a wall to contain it, “…, my frequent phraseological use of this half-Persian word (paradise) is now justified, for without the walls, doors and windows of Italiote eschatology there can be no ‘paradise’.” (Smith 1976:68)

If luxury is evidenced by mosaic floors, marble fittings, wall-paintings, statuary, peristyle gardens and fountains, then many of the houses found at Pompeii and Herculaneum would be classed as luxurious. However, by the same token many of the world’s great religious buildings would also be classed as luxurious because they too have interiors made of marble, mosaic, wall-painting, statuary and fountains in adjoining cloistered gardens. Some of these religious buildings contain the very same trappings of luxury that originally existed in ‘opulent’ Roman villas. Clearly we cannot accuse the church, the keeper of Gods house on earth, of being engaged in the mindless, self-interested display of hedonistic wealth. The churches counter argument to accusations concerning the ostentatious pursuit and display of wealth in a religious context is generally one of quality, since only the best is good enough for god’s eternal house. Thus quality and richness per se become symbolic metaphors, like the bejewelled icons associated with the Christian orthodox church, in which the jewel’s physical purity, preciousness and strength is equated with spiritual purity, compassionate love and eternity.

Are we, therefore, dealing with two very different situations and, if so, what is the difference? Is it simply a question of secular verses spiritual – the private house in contrast to the house of God? Is the essential difference determined by the absence of god in the former and the presence of God in the latter? To arrive at this conclusion one would have to make a number of assumptions regarding the relationship