High Status insula Apartments in Early

Imperial Ostia - a Reading

Ja net D e L aine

lntroduction

lt is traditional in the study of housing at Ostia to make a primary distinction

between the self-contained, single-family domus and the high-rise, multiple-occu-
pancy insula. While this is a d ifferentiation which is found in both the ancient lit-
erary sources and the legal codes, it is a distinction which was not universally held;
Cicero, for example, uses domus and insula indiscriminately.' This makes the
widely held corollary to the domus/insula dichotomy - that domus therefore nec-
essarily equals high status and insula low status - hard to justify. Thcrc is in fact a
small group of ground-floor apartments of second century A.D. date at Ostia
which in terms of overall size, elegance of decoration, and the presence of sub-
stantial reception areas can be counted among the higher-status residential units of
that period, despite being built as an integral part of !arger insulae which also
included tabernae and separate self-contained apartments on the upper floors,
reached independently from the street. While this phenomenon has been widely
recognised, a more considered analysis has generally been lacking.'
Part of the problem is that at first glance their organisation in terms of plan seems
to have little in common with the more traditional domus, lacking the atrium,
peristyle and axial symmetry of the best-known Pompeian examples. Nor do they
bear the obvious signs of wealth provided by the peristyle fountain courts and
extensive marble decoration of the Ostian domus of the late empire. Perhaps
because of this, it has been argued that these houses represent the functioning of a
more egalitarian society which is less concerned with, or has less need for, the kind
of social distinctions which are at the heart of both the traditional 'Pompeian' and
the Ostian late antique domus. lt is the aim of this paper to demonstrate that,
despite the very obvious differences, many of the same concerns conditioned the
layout of these apartments as fashioned the atrium-peristyle houses of Pompeii or
the rarer contemporary peristyle houses in Ostia itself.
O ur idea of a domus is largely conditioned by Vitruvius' description of ehe
'Roman' house, combined with literary sources about the houses of the Roman
elite, and the archaeological evidence of the well-preserved atrium-peristyle
houscs of Pompcii. Rcccnt studics of this material havc movcd away from thc
rather simplistic architectural and typological analyses w hich have their origins
in the nineteenth century, to consider the social structure of the domus, focus-
ing on concepts such as public and private space within the framework of social
rituals like the morning salutatio and the evening dinner party.' This is tied
176 H igh S tatus insula A partments in Early Im perial O stia - a Reading

closely with explorations of how the domus was articulated through its spatial
and visual organisation, for example in the development of privileged views for
the patron of thc housc and his honourcd gucsts.' At t hc same time, thc long-
standing one-to-one association between the labels used by Vitruvius and other
ancient authors for different rooms of the Roman house and the plans derive<l
from specific Pompeian examples has been challenged, revealing for example the
multi-functional nature of apparently straightforward room types such as the
cubiculum, and this has scrious implications for our oftcn facilc idcntification of
spaces within the Roman house. 5 In particular it breaks the nexus between func-
tion and the shape of a room and/ or its location within the atrium house, mak-
ing it easier to approach non-atrium houses in terms of social structure.
Finally, the recent application of spatial analysis derived from modern social the-
ory to Roman, particularly Pompeian, houses has shown the possibility of read-
ing social organisation from domestic architecture w ithout recourse to the ancient
sources at all.• The concept of the permeability of a boundary, which encloses a
definite region of space, focuses attention on degrees of control over, and accessi-
bility from, other spaces. These determine the degree of possible interaction
between the users of the house (themselves divided into inhabitants and strangers)
in terms of presence-availability, for example by providing the conditions for dis-
closure in spaces of high accessibility and control, and enclosure in segregated
areas w ith low control. Not surprisingly, in the 'standard' Pompeian house the
atrium is the critical space which has both high control over the rest of the spaces
in the house, and high accessibility to them and to the outside; the atrium is thus
the main area of disclosure to inhabitants and strangers alike. Such analysis also
allows distinctions to be made in terms of relative privacy in two directions,
between inhabitants and strangers, and among the inhabitants of the house.
These approaches have much to offer in trying to address the question of high-
er status housing in Ostia, and particularly the second century insula-domus
which are our main concern. As a full and detailed analysis of all this group is of
course impractical with in the constraints of a short paper, it will concentrate on
a single example, the House of Jove and Ganymede (I IV 2). Two important
aspects of spatial organisation of this house - access and visibility - will be exam-
ined in order to identify the strategies used by the patron of the house to struc-
ture h is relationships with strangers and inhabitants of different degrees of inti-
macy. Latin labels will be used for some rooms of the house, but only where I
feel that the identification is uncontroversial and that the labe! may be of help to
rcaders used to reading their Roman houses in this way.

Reading the House of Jove and Ganymede

A reconstruction of the original phase of the House of Jove and Ganymede (fig. 1),7
dating to the late Hadrianic period, makes clear why we might consider this a
domus. 8 This is a !arge ground-floor apartment (c. 750 m2 excluding the garden),
originally with further rooms on a mezzanine floor, which was built as part of a
Janet DeLaine 177

single development with its main fai;ade opening off a minor street leading
towards the Tiber.9 The whole development included the smaller but still elegant
twin apartments of the Infant Bacchus and the Paintings, and several other inde-
pendent apartments reached by separate staircases from the street and extending
over at least two further floors; there was however very little commercial space
within its street frontages. T he House of Jove and Ganymede itself boasted an
ample vestibulum (28) presupposing the reception of visitors including clientes
and amici at tbc salutatio; thc largcst private rcccption room anywhcre in second
centu ry Ostia (27), 10 and a large open space (11 and 21) w hich was certainly by
ehe late second cencury divided into two and set out as a garden (21), apparent-
ly the o nly one this size in private hands in the centre of the city. Sadly, of the

House of the Paintings House ur the House or Jove and Ganymede

Infant Bacchus

b 141

, :: 102
'1 II
'•-
L _ _---J
_ _ _l
_-_- _-

0 10 20 30 40 50m
1 Reconstructed plan of the lnsula o f the Paintings, Hadrianic phase
178 H igh Status insulo A partm ents in Early Imperial Ostia - a Re ading

original d ecoration, only the mosaics remain, and even these appear to have been
re-laid in the late Antonine p eriod; but they are of good quality and suggest a
high standard of decoration. In its original form, the house even demonstrates ehe
dependent shop so typical of many Pompeian domus. lt also occupies a prime
location near the forum and the new Capitoline temple, and must have ranked as
onc of the most dcsirablc rcsidcnccs in thc town in thc Hadrianic pcriod.
The original design of the house can be easi ly read in terms of graded dist inc-
tio ns of 'public' and 'private' space which have been so fruitful for Pompeian
houses (fig. 2). The house presented a discreet but significant p edimented
entrance on the Via dei Dipinti, aligned with the short Stretch of street linking
the forum to the cardo maximus bchind thc ncw Capitolium. This opcncd axi-
ally through an exceptionally wide doorway into the most obviously 'public'
area of the house, the broa<l vestibule (28), opening onto ehe equally wide cor-
ridor 29 w ich its broader extension 30.

···
·····
.......
············
·········
·· ···········
.........
·····
······
·······
.. .. .········
. . . . . . . .... .,.,
·· ••·
·················· ······· · .·······
. . . . . . .·"••
' . ..
......................·······
..............··
.. . . . . .. . . .
.............
·-
. .-·········
. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... ... .. ..... ..
.-:-.:-:-:30:-:-:-:
. . . . . .... .

1
36

[ZJ. 'Public' areas

iza 'Private' areas
0- -- 10m

* Restricted access
2 Reconstructed p lan o f the H ouse of Jove and G anymed e, divided into public and private
Janet De l aine 179

According to access analysis this corridor/hall 29/30 emerges as the key area for
social interaction within the house, appearing as the most important area for
both control of and access to other spaces w ithin the domus." To begin with, this
led to the three main reception areas of the house the audience hall /d ining room
(27); the small saloon (33); and the ante-chamber (25) of the master's suite (24-
25).12 T here are, however, subtle distinctions in the position of these reception
rooms within the social structure of the house. Althou gh all three rooms share
a similar degree of rnoderately high accessibility, the antecharnber 25 emerges as
the only controlling space, with a high degree of presence-availability, while 27
and to an even greater extent 33 are controlled spaces. This means that there is a
hierarchy of presence-availability for these three roorns descending from 25 at
the top to 33 at the bottom. The presence of someone even of the household in
27 or 33 cannot be casual but must be deliberate, as they do not lead to any other
spaces or exits; this makes sense if these are rooms for fixed social occasions such
as eating or meetings w ith strangers. By contrast, 25 mediates between the occu-
pant of the cubiculum 24 and any othcr member of the household or visitor.
This type of analysis can however on ly take us part of the way in understand-
ing the social organisation of space within the house. What is particularly inter-
. esting is that 25 shares exactly the same control and access values as the service
rooms 34 and 41. What distinguishes them is the size of the doorways. All of the
reception spaces have wide doorways between them and 29/30, but none have
threshold blocks in situ, making it likely that they were not closed off from each
other by lockable doors, although in the present state of the building this can-
not bc vcrificd. As at Pomp eii, there is however a clear distinction between these
formal/ public areas and the private/service areas in terrns of p hysical access,
with narrow doors to the areas marked out by floor Lreatment or commercial
nature as humble or lower status, comp ared w ith the wider openings for the
grander and more public spaces. The narrower doorways are more easily closed
off and are of low visibility, providing more controlled acccss to thcsc p arts of
the house. Such doorways characterise the entrances to the service areas 34/35
(latrine/?bathroom and kitchen) and 41 / 40, as well as the secon<l 'back' entrance
from the more commercial Via di Diana, which also connects with the !arge
dependent taberna (36) on the corner nearest the forum to the house. In a dif-
ferent way, rooms 24, 35 and 40, which all show the same degrees of very low
control and low accessibility, all have narrow doorways from their controlling
spaces reflecting their very private nature with resp ect to different elements of
the inhabitants and/or to strangcrs; comparc for cxample the cubiculum of the
master (24), open only to close fam ily members and friends, and to personal
slaves, wich the k itchen (35) open only to househol<l slaves or the master or close
family member on occasional inspections. Also instructive is the subsidiary
entrance to the !arge reception room (27) from the side nearest the service area
41/ 40. The narrowness of the doorways sends a signal especially to the stranger
that these areas are subject to strict control.
 180 High Status insula Apartments in Early Impe rial Ostia - a Rcading

The art of disclosure

Even at this simple level of plan analysis, thc architcctural organisation of thc
hause suggests that here at Ostia, as at Pompeii, movement into and around the
house was carefully controlled and differentiated for different sectors of society
whether inhabitants or strangers. This suggests that the absence of an axial vista
from the entrance is not a mistake on the part of the architect nor a reflection of
the middling status of the owner, but an alternative method of structuring social
relations. For example, it is notable that the important secondary access from 37,
and the internal circulation from here to the service areas 34/ 35 and 40/ 41 lead-
ing also to the upper floors, is visually concealed from the entrance by being set
off to the left of any casual glance through the hause from outside or from the
entrance vestibule 28." In contrast, the 'entrance experience' of the visitor was
carefully orchestrated. The patron not only had several options for self-presen-
tation but, as we shall see, could disclose as much or as little of his house and its
treasures as he wanted depending on thc rclationship bctwccn himself and his
visitor. It is this that we shall turn to next.
A lthough the original d ecoration of the House of Jove and Ganymede has
been lost, and the or ganisation of the house changed somewhat in its later sec-
ond century reconstruction, it is still possible to recreate some of the original
intended effects using the late Antonine decorative scheme of the grand reception
room (27)." H ere, slightly off-centre on the rear wall of the room, is the famous
painting of Jove and Ganymede from which the ha use takes its name, one of the
very few surviving mythological pancls in Ostian wall painting. lt forms ehe
focal point of the wall, and of the room for someone entering from the wide
main doorway, and to emphasise this the J ove and Ganymede panel is sur-
rounded by a perspective frame. T he patron w ho chose this decorative scheme
in the late Antonine period appears to have adopted some at least of the existing
organising structure of the Hadrianic house, and designed the decorative scheme
of the main room accordingly.
Given the later alterations to the hause, the original ' entrance experience' can
best be demonstrated wich ehe help of reconstruction drawings. These have been
computer-generated to allow perspective effects to be presented, but have limi-
tatiom due to o ur lack of knowledge on several important points. T he most crit-
ical of these are ligh ting conditions and the absence of any indication about door
and window fittings or type of closure, both of which affect visibility. As is the
case also w ith Pompeian houses (cvcn if thc problcm is rarcly discussed) we can
never be sure that the vistas we see w ith the bui ldings in their present state could
have been, o r were always intended to be seen at all tirnes by the ancient visitor.
The loss of the original decoration or even its later replacement in many areas is
- another problem, but in this case the architecture itself can help compensate.
The following discussion therefore assumes maximum possible visibility and
minimum d ecoration, but notes specific possible alternatives w here relevant.
Lookin g into the vestibule (28) of the House of Jove and Ganymede from the
street through its w idc opcn doors, thc house presents a closed vista into the
Janet De Laine 181

3 House o f Jove and

Ganymede, reconstructed view
of c ntrance

court 26, and the existence of ehe main reception room (27) is concealed (fig. 3).
Once inside ehe vestibule, however, the !arge opening into the reception room
just comes into sight, and as the visitor penetrates slightly further into the house,
a small sliver of thc painting on thc rcar wall of thc rcccption room can also be
seen but at first none of the central mytho logical panel. As the visitor proceeds
further, for a brief moment the my thological panel is glimpsed (fig. 4 ), only to
disappear again as the visitor arrives at the cross corridor and is either greeted
by the patron at the entrance to his suite, or led off to the right, perhaps to the
saloon 33. The whole reception room receives ample light from the doorway
and from three large w indows above, but direct light on the west-facin g rear
wall with the Jove and Gany med e panel would only be possible in the late after-
noo n.15 If the lighting was adequate, and there were no doors, curtains or shut-
ters to conceal the view, the decorative treasure of the house could have there-
fore been just visible to any visitor permitted to proceed beyond the outer
vestibule. This presumably would preclude the humblest clients, but would
allow at least a glimpse of the patron's refined taste to any who had closer access
to him.
For the privileged inhabitants of the house, the patron and his favoured guests,
the experience is very d ifferent (fig. 5). from both parts of the cubiculum suite
24/25, there is a clear view of the rear wall of the reception room through the
!arge, low-silled windows between 24, 26 and the court 26. From these rooms
the mythological panel of Jove and Ganymede is centred within a series of per-
spective frames, created by the real frames of the windows and t he wide open-
ing to 27, and by the painted frame around the panel with its receding architec-
ture, altogether givi ng a false sense of depth to the vista and creating the illusion
of a separate alcove in w hich the panel is hung. The exceptionally low height of
182 High Statu s insulo A partm e n ts in Ea rly lmpe riaJ O sti.t - a Readi ng

1:::::,. ,::::._

!
1
~

_ ..,..
,_

_/
"'"-
4 House of Jove and Ganym ede . reco nstructe d view fro m vestibulum 28 across co rridor 29 :md court 26, th rough
to t he Jove and Ga nyme de pane l palntlng

S Hou se of Jove and Ganymede , re constructe d view from t he m ast e r cubiculum 24, through the windows of 24
and 25, a nd the wide o pening of 27, with cle ar view of t he mythological pane l
Janet Delaine 183

the sill between 25 and 26 in particular can be compared, for example, with the
high sills of the windows which light the reception rooms of the House of the
Infant Bacchus or the House of the Paintings from the garden area, where we
might have expected the views to have been significant. In other words the
potential for this view is deliberately built into the structure, however much it
was or could have been concealed at will by curtains, shutters, and doors.
These are not the only orchestrated vistas built into the original design of the
house. Before the wide opening between corridor 29 and the court 26 was closed
for structural reasons, the exedra or small reception room 33 enjoyed a long
vista across the court and out into the garden beyond through the ample doorway
in the north wall of 26 (fig. 6). To the left of this vista, the fa~ade of the insula, artic-
ulated by its large windows, appears in strong perspective like an element of
stage scene painting or the illusionistic architecture of Second Style wall paint-
ing. At present, court 26 has a simple decorative scheme of white and opus sig-
ninum plastered walls and coarse plain black mosaic floor, but this belongs to a
later phase. The importance of the court in the view from saloon 33, and indeed
its potential role in relation to the view from the entrance, from 24/ 25 and from
27, raises the possibility that this was once richly decorated, perhaps in marble
with a fountain as in the recently discovered example under the courtyard of the
H ouse of Diana (I III 3-4 ). The potential was certainly there; water was laid on
to the court, and in a later phase a basin was inserted against thc blockcd-·up
doorway leading into the garden area.
N ot all the views bui!t into the house, however, were for the vis ual enjoyment
of the patron and his intimates. Rather, there are others which relate to the inter-
nal working of the household, as they allow a degree of control and supervision
of the occupants of and visitors to the house from within. From thc splaycd
window which gives light to room 30 from the internal court 26, it was equally

6 House o f Jove and Ganymede 1 re constructed view from saloon 33. across co urt 26 and into the garden 2 1
184 High Status in$ulo Apartments in Ear-ly Imperial Ostia - a Reading

possible to see not just the court but the whole vestibule as far as the main
entrance. Thus all comings and goings could be watched, perhaps by slaves of
thc houschold or those bclonging to visitors, stationed in the otherwise rather
gloomy recesses of room 30. In the same way, the service entrance from the Via
di Diana and the corner taberna was in full view of room 25, the ante-chamber
to the patron's suite, and thus under the direct control and surveillance of the
master of the house.
Thus the architecture of the house itself, and quite possibly its decoration,
allowed a subtle and complex structuring of social relationships within its
apparently disorganised and certainly non-Pompeian arrangement. The lack of
an atrium and a central axis, far from suggesting that there was no interest in dis-
playing the house, rather reflect a different way of doing it. A distinction could
be established between the reception of more humble clients in the vestibule,
potentially given a glimpse of treasures beyond but denied a closer view, and
that of friends and social equals invited into the inner rooms of the house where
its dccorations could bc furthcr investigated and appreciated. The rare and pres-
tigious garden space, and the patron's visual (and presumably actual) ownership
of it, could be displayed to any visitor received in Room 33, set off by the kind
of perspective display associated with public buildings and stage scenery, per-
haps across the foreground of a lavish water feature. At the same time, the plan
of the house and the location of observation points also allowed for the easy
observation and control of the internal workings of the house.

Conclusions

No possibility exists of identifying the original owner of the House of Jove and
Ganymede, but he must have been someone of relative wealth and importance,
and he (or his architect) seems to have taken care to think about his self-presen-
tation when building this house. The question of the Ostian elite and what it
constituted cannot be examined here, but it is clear that the owner of the origi-
nal House of J ove and Ganymede was certainly playing elite games, just as many
of the owners of the medium-sized Pompeian domus seem to have been doing.
The owner of the Antonine period responsible for the redecoration and restruc-
turing of the House of Jove and Ganymede clearly appreciated the potential and
added bis own refinement in this rare allusion to the Graeco-Roman mytholo-
gy which was so much thc foundation of thc shared Mcditcrrancan cultural
koine of the Roman elites.16 The House of Jove and Ganymede is not however
an isolated example. Parallel use of space can be seen in other Ostian domus of
the period, like the House of the Muses which also focuses the 'entrance expe-
rience' on a similar master's suite, with a more public reception room (the room
of the Muses) close-by and a grand triclinium reached only at a further remove
across a court or via a long Stretch of corridor past the entrance to the master's
suite."
The difference in time and in the nature of Pompeii and Ostia and their relations
Janet Delaine 185

with Rome can account for some of the apparent differences in the two ty pes of
domus - for example the rather more compact ground plan w itho ut p eristyles -
but some aspects suggest that a slightly different set of social distinctions w ere
in operation. There is less o n immediate view in ehe H o use of J ove and
G any m ed e, and this may reflect a less d ynamic public face for the upper levels
of O stian society under the close shadow of imperial Rome. lt may also reflect
a greater differentiation between social classes, or at least a higher level of selec-
tion, although others would argu e that it reflects a levelling of social distinc-
tions . lt is w orth no ting however that very similar patterns can been seen to dis-
tinguish a nurnber of the luxurious late antique domus like the H o use of A m o r
and Psyche, where most scho lars would agree that w e are looking at the effects
of increased social and economic divisions in society." Only a closer investiga-
tio n of the sp atial and visual organisation of all the d omus and domus-insulae of
O scia, togecher wich their late-antique successors, w ill allow us to answ er chese
broader social questions.

Bibliography

Becatti, G. 1948, Case ostiensi del tardo impero 1-2, BdA 33, 102-128; 197-224.
Bek, L. 1980, Towards Paradise on Earth: Modem Space Conception in Architecture: a
Creation of R enaissance Humanism, Odense (= Analecta Romana lnstituti Danici,
Supplement 9).
Calza, G. 1915, La preminenza dell'insula nell'edilizia romana, MonAnt 23, 541-608.
Calza, G. 1920, Gli scavi recenti nell'abitato di Ostia, MonAnt 26, 322-430.
Clarkc, J.R. 1991 a, The H auses of Roman ltaly, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250. R itual, Space and
Decoration, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford.
Clarke, J.R. 1991 b, The Decor of thc H ouse of Jupiter and Ganymede at O stia Antica:
Private Resi<lence turned Gay H otel?, in: E.K. Gazda (ed.), R oman A rt in the Private
Sphere, Ann Arbor, 89-104.
De Albcntiis, E. 1990, La casa dei R omani, Milano.
DeLaine, J. l 995, The Insula of ehe Paintings at Ostia I IV 2-4. Paradigm fo r a City in
Flux, in: T.J. Cornell/K. Lomas (ed.), Urban Society in Roman Ttaly, London, 79-106.
Drcrup, H. 1959, Bildraum und Realraum in der römischen Architektur, RM 66, 147-
174.
Ellis, S.P. 1999, Theorics of Circulation in Roman Houses, in: A. Leslie (ed. ), Theoretical
Roman Archaeology and Architeclure. The Third Conference Proceedings, Glasgow,
75-98.
Felletti Maj, B.M./P. Moreno 1967, le pitture della Casa delle MHSe, Roma
(= Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, serie 3, Ostia 3).
Grahame, M. 1997, Public and Private in the Roman H ouse: the Spatial Order of the
Casa del Fauno, in: Laurence/Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 137-1 64.
Grahamc, M. 1999, Reading ehe Roman H ouse: ehe Social Interpretation of Spatial
O rder, in: A. Leslie (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology and A rchitecture. The
Third Conference Proceedings, Glasgow, 48-74
H ermansen, G. 1982, O stia: A spects of Roman City life, Edmonton.
Hillier, B.IJ. H anson 1984, The Social l ogic of Space, Cambridge.
Joyce, H. 1981, The Decoration of Walls, Ceilings and Floors in l taly in the Second and
Third Centuries A.D., Roma.
186 High Status insula Apartments in Early Imperial Ostia • a Reading

Jung, F. 1984, Gebaute Bilder, AntK 27 .2, 71 -122.

Laurence, R./A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.) 1997, Domestic Space m the Roman World:
Pompeii and Beyond, Portsmouth (= JRA, Supplement 22).
Leach, E.W. 1997, Oecus on Ibycus: Investigating the Vocabulary of the Roman House,
in: S.E. Bon/R. Jones (ed.), Sequence and Space in Pompeii, Oxford, 50-72.
Meiggs, R. 19732, Roman Ostia, Oxford.
Packer, J.E. 1971, The Insulae of Imperial Ostia, Roma (= MemAmAc 31).
Pirson, F. 1997, Rented Accommodation at Pompeii: the Evidence of the lnsula Arriana
Polliana VI 6, in: Laurcncc/Wallacc-Hadrill l997, 165-181.
Riggsby, A.M. 1997, 'Public' and ' Private' in Roman Culture: the Case of the cubiculum,
]RA 10, 36-56.
Salier, P. 1982, Personal Patronage in the Early Empire, Cambridge
Van Essen, C. 1956-1958, Studio cronologico sulle pitture parietali di Ostia, BCom 76,
155-181.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994, Hauses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum, Princeton
N.J.
Wirth, F. 1934, Römische Wandmalerei vom Untergang Pompejis bis ans Ende des drit-
ten Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt.

Notes

1 The evidence is collected in Calza 1915, 549.

2 See for example the discussions in Meiggs 1973', 241-249, and compare De Albentiis
1990, 266-270. The close association between luxury domus and rental accomodation
in insula has recently been demonstrated at Pompeii by Pirson 1997.
3 See the fundamental work of Wallace-Hadrill 1994, and many of the papers in
Laurence/Wallace-Hadrill l 997. Clarke 1991a also discusses the ritual aspects of the
Roman house. Ellis 1999 gives an overview.
4 These ideas have had a longer history. The most important works are Drerup 1959,
Bck 1980, and Jung 1984.
5 For a general Statement of the problem, and a fresh analysis of the atrium and vesti-
bulum, sec Leacl, 1997; for the cubiculum, sec Riggsby 1997.
6 See Grahame 1997 and 1999, especially 1997, 146-150 and 1999, 48-61 for its theore-
tical discussion of the work of Hillier/ Hanson 1984, and 1997, 150-1 62 for its appli-
cation to the House of the Faun.
7 All drawings are by ehe author.
8 For the House of Jove of Ganymede and the whole l nsula of the Paintings, see Calza
1920, and DcLainc 1995, csp. 79-81, 84-88, with carlier bibliography.
9 lt is useful to compare the size of the House of Jove and Ganymede with the data
from Pompeii and Herculaneum presented in Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 75-82. His fig.
4.7 shows that even without the original garden space which adds a further 220 1112 to
the size of the house, it falls within the top few categories in his size range, and in the
first for which there are less than 5 examples. This places Jove and Ganymede by area
weil within Wallace-Hadrill's top quartile of sizes, where the average is 271 m' .
10 See Leacl, 1997, 54-55 for t he vestibulum and its importance as a reception area. Salier
1982, 128-129 details thc ancicnt cvidcnce for thc continuity of thc salutatio among
the Roman elite into the second century A.D. As weil as the local magistrates, mem-
bers of the ordo and senior officials of the major collegia and the Augustales might
also have feit the need for the formal reception of visitors, as might have those with
important commercial interests. On the political elite of Ostia in the early 2nd century
A.D see Meiggs 19732, 196-211.
Janet Delaine 187

11 The table below summarises the access information for the house. lt assumes that 29
and 30 act as a single space, and that connections between areas via the exterior are
significant. A more detailed analysis will be presented in the final report on the insula.

Room Control Mean Relative Accessibility Presencc-

value depth asymmetry availability

21 1.1 7 2.70 0.23 Moderate-low Moderate-high

22 1.08 3.35 0.31 Low Moderate-High
23 0.67 3.29 0.30 Low Low
24 0.50 3.41 0.32 Low Low
25 1.13 2.35 0.18 Moderate-High High
26 0.96 2.18 0.16 High Moderate-High
27 0.46 2.35 0.18 Moderate-High Moderate-Low
28 0.38 2.24 0.17 Moderate-High Moderate-Low
29/30 4.08 1.65 0.09 High H igh
33 0.13 2.59 0.21 Moderate-Low Low
34 1.13 2.35 0.18 Moderate-High High
35 0.50 3.41 0.32 Low Low
36 0.50 2.70 0.23 Moderate-Low Low
37 1.88 2.06 0.14 H igh High
38 0.25 3.00 0.27 Low Low
40 0.50 3.41 0.332 Low Low
41 1.13 2.35 0.18 Moderate-High High
Exterior 1.58 2.47 0.20 moderate Moderate-high

12 For the 'master's suite' in these O stian apartment houses sec H ermansen 1982, 22-24.
13 This works in much the samc way as the second atrium in the H ousc of the Faun
(Grahame 1997, 162-163).
14 T he bibliography on this decorative scheme is extensive; see Calza 1920, 375-410;
Wirth 1934, 109-1 16; Van Essen 1956-1958, 155-178, passim; ]oyce 1981, 30-33, 51-
52; and Clarke 1991a, 327-339. For a detailed discussion of the central panel see
Clarke 1991 b, 95-100, and for my opposing views on the significance of this painting
DeLaine 1995, note 42.
15 Even in present conditions, the painting on the rear wall of the room is particularly
clear and vivid, evcn luminous, in the latc afternoon light of a sunny day.
16 I am grateful to Prof. Fausto Zevi who kindly brought this point to my attention.
17 For the House of the Muses see Felletti Maj/Moreno 1967, Packer 1971, 173-177, and
Clarke 1991a, 270-274. The entrance vestibule is continued by one side of the porti-
co, which leads directly to the doorway to the equivalent cubiculum suite, allowing a
glimpse of the Muses room and of the main reception room across the court to anyo-
ne approaching this suite
18 See Beccatti 1948 for these late houses.
188 High Status lnsulo Apartments in Early Imperial Ostia - a Reading

lntervento di F. Zevi

La fine eomunieazione di J. DeLaine indubbiamente disehiude nuove vie alla

rieerea sull'edilizia privata ostiense. Come ella ha diehiarato, il suo modello di
Jettura si rieonduee a quello lueidamente elaborato p er Pompei da A. Wallaee-
Hadrill. Viene da ehiedersi, tuttavia, se veramente i parametri pompeiani posso-
no appliearsi ut sie anehe alla situazione ostiense, ovvero se no n neeessitino, per
non risultare fuorvianti, quanto meno di eorrettivi sostanziali, e, in qualche easo,
di una impostazione radiealmente diversa. L'esempio piu ehiaro e offerto pro-
prio dal easo piu a fondo da J. DeLaine, quello della Casa ostiense d i Giove e
Ganimede. Se la domus pompeiana, tipologieamente aneora Jegata alle forme
abitative della aristocrazia tardorepubblicana, si caratterizza proprio per Ja sua
'visibilita', per il suo appalesarsi fin dalla strada quando il dominus, seduto nel
tabJino, riceveva nella luce mattutina amici e clienti per Ja quotidiana salutatio,
oeeorrera ammettere ehe al eontrario Ja easa ostiense gia al II seeolo si volge a
rieereare piuttosto il 'private' e l'intimita familiare. Infatti, eome ha mostrato la
DeLaine, a chi si apprestava a varcare la soglia dell'ingresso della Casa di Giove
c Ganimcdc, nulla cra data di eoglicrnc dcgli assctti intcrni, mcno ehe mai di per-
eepire, non si diee le sue decorazioni, ma l'esistenza stessa de] grande salone;
oceorreva percorrere il eorridoio d'ingresso fino all'ineroeio eon quello trasver-
sale nord-sud, quindi girare in quest'ultimo, a sinistra, per giungere solo allora
all'ingresso della sala, ehe si trovava inveee in corrispondenza visuale con una
sequenza di due ambienti (probabilmente un ampio eubieoJo e Ja relativa antiea-
mera) aneh'essi parimenti isolati e invisibili dall'esterno. Se puo essere legittimo
continuare ad usare il termine di salutatio anche per i ceremoniali do mestiei ehe,
in una qualche forma, dovevano pur aver luogo anehe nelle ease dell'elite ostien-
se, eerto si trattava di una ospitalita riservata e per pochi, comunque di qualco-
sa di ben diverso da quel ehe avveniva nelle case dell'aristocrazia urbana della
tarda repubbliea. Per eomprendere i presupposti ideologiei eui ei si reeonduee-
va o, quanto meno, l'atmosfera ehe si voleva creare, mi sembra occorra prende-
re in eonsiderazione proprio il dipinto da eui la casa prende nome, il quadro eon
Giove e Ganimede ehe costituisce l'ornamento piu prczioso del grande salone di
cui 5j diceva. A mia eono5cenza, 5j tratta dell'unico vero 'quadro' ehe compare
in tutta la pittura ostiense, se per quadro si intende, eome a Pompei, la riprodu-
zione al centro di una parete di un dipinto famose; un episodio percio partico-
Jare c ricercato nell'ambito della cultura figurativa dclla eitta, ehe dcvc eorri-
spondere ad una volonta preeisa de] eommittente ed era destinato a conferire un
pregio speeiale alla decorazione della casa. II quadro deve certamente replicare
un originale eelebre, e sotto questo angoJo visuale l'indagine al riguardo merite-
rebbe di essere ripresa. Ma piu importante e il soggetto rappresentato,
Ganimede, il fane iullo amato e rapito dal padre degli dei e diventato al suo fian-
eo divino eoppiere; modello di greea paideia ehe, negli anni in cui venne esegui-
ta la decorazione della casa (intorno al 140 o forse un poco prima), l'imperatore
Adriano aveva proposto eon il bellissimo Antinoo, e ehe il grande protagonista
della vita culturale del tempo, Erode Attico, ripeteva con l'amato Memnon. Non
Jan et DeLaine 189

e un easo ehe, eome proprio ieri ha rieordato Claudia Valeri, fosse esibite una
statua di Antinoo in ambedue Je terme pubbliche ostiensi eostruite sotto
Adriano, le Terme Marittime e le Terme di Porta Marina (Je Terme de! Nettuno,
finanziate aneh'esse da Adriano, furono pero eompletate da Antonino Pio, men-
tre quelle del Foro vennero interamentc eostruitc durantc il rcgno di qucst'ulti-
mo), eioe in quegli impianti pubbliei romani ehe si potevano assimilare ai gin-
nasi, gli edifiei elleniei destinati esplieitamente alla paideia. E di questo tempo la
predilezione (e forse la composizio ne stessa) per i gr andi gruppi statuari di Muse
nelle ville imperiali e nelle ville di quei rappresentanti dell'aristoerazia senatoria
piu vieini all'impcratore (eome la villa dei Bruttii Praescntes di Monte Calvo in
Sabina, o quella suburbana dei Quintili, per non eitare ehe un paio di esempi),
ehe, in modestissima forma, verra riecheggiata ad O stia dalla deeorazione pitto-
rica eponima della Casa delle Muse. Per povera di eontenuti ehe possa apparire,
anehe la deeorazione parietale delle ease ostiensi de! II seeolo riflette i modelli
de! tcmpo. II modcllo (se non piuttosto la moda) ehe domina prcsso l'aristocra-
zia, i valori ehe questa tende a mettere in mostra e ad apprezzare sono dunque
quelli della eultura; all'uomo di eultura si addattauna dimora earatterizzata da
una raffinata quanto riservata ospitalita offerta a chi condivide con il dominus
un'edueazione di impronta greea. II salone eon Giove e Ganimede, in eorri-
spondenza visuale con l'anticamera de! cubicolo, mi sembra voglia rendere que-
sto clima intellettuale; l'intimita ehe lo connota e quella di una casa ehe, al con-
trario dell'ostentata 'trasparenza' della tradizionale casa ad atrio di Pompei,
tende a sottrarre al contatto con l'esterno quella tendenza al raccoglimento con-
sona alle idealita ellenizzanti de! tempo.