Summary Of The Social Structure Of Roman House

In the article “The social structure of the Roman House” author Andrew Wallace-Hadrill discusses the intricacies of Roman houses and how public vs. private spaces relate back to social standing in the Roman world. Hadrill also uses this article as a means to show how Roman. This differentiation between Roman and Greek houses that Hadrill is discussing is illustrated mostly by the use of public and private spaces by the Roman upper class. Hadrill also discusses how the Roman upper class was investing large sums of money into their home in order to convert their wealth into social standing. With larger more extravagant homes these patrons could expand their cliental, and Hadrill discusses this patron-client relationship by including writing from
Two of the major differentiation between Roman houses and Greek houses is that the Greeks separated male and female space, while in Roman homes this separation is non-existent, and the Romans also do not separate spaces on the basis of age either. This is not only a contrast between the homes of Romans and Greeks but also shows a notable difference in their cultures. Hadrill highlights the righting of Vitruvius and how he illustrates these differences in Roman and Greek homes, but another interesting point that Vitruvius makes is that the patron should insure that the architect that is hired to undertake the job should be an honest and honorable man. This focus on social sensibility is very Roman in nature, and similarly to the two instances above illustrates a key difference not only in the homes of Romans and Greeks, but more importantly a difference in their cultures. I found this statement by Vitruvius important because he is a making a point that the patrons should make partially make a decision on what architect they choose not based on skill rather, but rather based on if he is honorable. This relates to the fact that