Domestic Space in the Roman House and Villa

Secondary Sources

F. Dupont, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. C. Woodall (Blackwell Press, 1994), pp. 90-103, 136-159 (xeroxes from Classics Dept.).

J.R. Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250: Ritual, Space, and Decoration (University of California Press, 1991), pp. 1-29. On open reserve in the first floor Reading Room.

Y. Thébert, "Private Life and Domestic Architecture in Roman Africa," in P. Veyne, ed. A History of Private Life, vol. I (Harvard U. Press, 1987), pp. 315-409.

+A. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 3-61. On open reserve in the first floor Reading Room.

Main Questions

How does the balance of enclosed versus open spaces, or public versus private spaces in the Roman house inform the investigator about Roman attitudes to the public/private dichotomy? Should we accept what Wallace-Hadrill argues, that the Roman house is not private space as defined in opposition to public space, but rather a private space within public space and serving its interest? What architectural elements represent the allusion to public buildings by the architects of private house? Within the Roman house, which of the "private" spaces are more or less private than others?

Why would it make sense that a member of the elite active in public life would need more public areas in his home, while a humbler person would require more privacy? What is the connection between domestic space, especially the atrium, and the social standing of the owner in the community? On what basis does the association of the "second style" of interior decoration at Pompeii and Herculaneum with the political changes of the early Principate rest?

Is there such a thing as gendered space in the Roman house?

+ Wallace-Hadrill's views should get special attention.