Part of a recent spate of Roman ‘spatial turn studies’, Amy Russell's monograph explores how some of republican Rome's quintessentially public spaces were marked, experienced and defined by a plethora of individual actors and audiences. R.’s decision to focus entirely on the Middle and Late Republic is refreshing, as Augustan and early imperial Rome traditionally dominate this scene.

Setting the stage, ch. 1 attempts a workable definition of what constituted public and private, a tricky endeavour further complicated by the fact that many buildings and spaces had both public and private uses and connotations (e.g. the Atrium Vestae). R.’s chosen methodology is sound: she investigates concepts used in Roman culture to categorise space and prefers a behavioural approach over one concentrating on the cognitive aspects of spatial experience. Whilst stopping short from an unequivocal definition, R. convincingly argues that ‘most spaces did not have an unquestioned and universally understood status’ (12). Instead, they were ‘subject to a variety of claims and counter-claims concerning where they fitted in the network of concepts which roughly correlate to our “public” and “private”’, the social status of those shaping and using spaces being a key determinant for their operational latitude.

Subsequent chapters discuss specific examples of spaces with fluid public-private boundaries. R. gives ample attention to the key question of crowd control, often contested and controversial, with an eminently defensible focus on the political and the sacred as paramount catalysts of Roman socio-institutional life. Ch. 2 offers a fine survey of the remarkably ambiguous and shifty usage and understanding of the public/private dichotomy and makes the interesting argument that the more public a space, the fewer controls on access and behaviour. Chs 3 and 4 close in on the Forum Romanum as Rome's ‘outside’ space par excellence. R. argues for a greater prominence of the private than has hitherto been accepted and centres on the palpable tension between community control and incessant, often successful, monumental interference by aristocratic private interests, resulting in a continuous clash between the political (= the controlled) and the uncontrolled (= freely accessible) Forum. Ch. 4, then, complements this picture by considering the — oft overlooked — role of private space in the Forum, mostly in the form of houses and shops, providing yet another means to project influence onto one of Rome's most public venues.

The following two chapters are entirely dedicated to the Campus Martius. Closely concentrating on the interaction between sacred and public space, R. here meticulously reveals the nobility's highly successful attempts at claiming and controlling prominent sacred public spaces, often upgraded to monumental hubs of art and leisure. Along with ch. 7, these discussions perhaps represent the most insightful and illuminating part of R.’s study. Pride of place is duly given to the commemorative victory temples of notable senatorial generals, such as M. Claudius Marcellus’ temple of Honos et Virtus, M. Fulvius Nobilior's temple of Hercules Musarum and the Porticus Metelli. Veritable complexes clustered around particular temples; these richly adorned monuments allowed ranking nobles lasting spatial expression of private power in a sacred context. Seamlessly blending sacred, public and private typologies and impregnated with Greek and Hellenising Roman art, these impressive outfits enabled their patrons to claim pieces of Rome's most venerable public space and represent themselves as creators of a new Greco-Roman cultural universe, providing the public with more tightly controlled and distinct spatial experiences.

The seventh and final chapter highlights the massive and pioneering stone theatre-complex built by Cn. Pompeius Magnus on the Campus Martius. R. here presents a comprehensive appraisal of the entire complex and the spatial interconnectivity of all its components as the best approach to understanding its functioning as a space as well as a permanent vehicle for self-glorification. Pompeius’ project artfully integrated public (temple, theatre, portico, partly constructed on private yet accessible leisure gardens) and private: the temple of Venus Victrix, the theatre and the portico were gifted to the Roman people and as such publicly accessible; the theatre and portico stood in his private leisure gardens; and the complex also featured Pompeius’ private domus rostrata. Complete with a curia containing Pompeius’ colossal statue, the complex amounted to a brazen quasi-privatisation of a sizeable portion of one of Rome's most hallowed public spaces. R. is also right to stress that the development of Augustan Rome cannot be properly understood without a full understanding of Pompeius’ victory complex, and that the early imperial fora represent a logical next step, regardless of their different functionality.

Though not altogether ground-breaking, R.’s monograph makes a worthwhile and erudite contribution to the field as the first full consideration of the Roman republican experience of public space, as opposed to the more closely studied concepts of private space. At times somewhat repetitive, language and style are generally impeccable and elegant, whilst the successive analyses are much enhanced by the presence of useful maps and images. R.’s effortless command of the entire gambit of sources (from the legal to the archaeological) and acute awareness of the ever-changing socio-political landscape further strengthen the quality of the arguments. This study will therefore be of considerable benefit to all interested in the political dynamics of the Roman republican cityscape and the hybrid and deeply ambiguous nature of Roman notions of public and private space.