Boundaries and control in the Roman house

How should we read the structure of the atrium house? On the one hand, it is an open space; its rooms are arranged around the central courtyard or atrium. From its narrow entrance it is often possible to see straight through to the back of the garden or peristyle, and it is hardly surprising that scholars have claimed that the house was intentionally designed to allow people to see within, to guide their gaze to special features in order to demonstrate the wealth and status of the owner, or to make outsiders want to enter and see more. On the other hand, the house was also a sacred space that carried a potent symbolic value. It was protected by the household gods, and was sustained by religious, social and economic resources. Symbolically, the house was private even when it was used for public business. It was also strictly monitored and controlled.

Scholars are increasingly challenging the idea that the inhabitants of Roman houses were more concerned with display than with privacy, and are suggesting methods by which privacy was established. I will argue here that in the Roman house display and privacy are not mutually exclusive, but of equal importance. Within the open atrium plan there were both physical and symbolic boundaries that functioned to control movement and protect the home from visitors who were not members of the household or family. My aim is to explore the creation and deployment of such boundaries in a society that often used aesthetic markers to control space, and to discuss how what may seem to have been free movement within the atrium house may actually have been restricted.