The funerary art and
architecture of the ancient Romans offers a remarkable amount of insight into
the social classes and issues of their society.
From the way that the different sculptures and reliefs were made, the
details that were put into them, to the depictions of both real-life people and
mythological representations, there is a large array of information presented
for the discerning scholar. With just
the first small cursory examination, it becomes apparent that the Romans highly
valued the idea of preserving the memory of the deceased through the depictions
of them on the various tombstones, altars, reliefs, and paintings. A small portion of these aspects of Roman art
will be looked at in respect to what they are conveying regarding Roman society
in this essay.
As Clarke said, ‘We [in the
western world] commemorate the dead in cemeteries or mausolea, cut off as much
as possible from the business of daily life and its traffic. Nothing could be farther from the Roman
mentality, obsessed with prolonging a person’s memory in public: tombs are
meant to be seen as often as possible and by as many people as possible.’[1] This is a fantastic insight into the Roman
funerary art and architecture, and opens the eyes to what the Romans were
really about in designing and building these structures and works. They wanted not only to remember the dead,
but for everyone else to remember them and learn about them as well. In the process of doing so, there is also
information regarding the social standing and structure of the Romans passed
along.
One example can be seen in
the funerary relief of a vegetable vendor found in Ostia, Italy.[2] This relief depicts a robust man in robes,
peddling vegetables. The stand shows
bundles of what appear to be grains and bushels of vegetables and perhaps
fruit. There is a large square basket
under the table, and a few other bundles and items of various descriptions on
the table as well as next to the stand.
The relief itself is made out of painted terracotta, and has been dated
to the second century AD. This relief showcases
what the man depicted most likely did for a living. In this manner, he was ensuring that he was
remembered after he was dead. These
types of terracotta reliefs were usually placed next to an inscription that
identified the deceased and said a little about them. There are other surviving terracottas like
this one that depict a miller, tugboat operator, innkeeper, doctor, midwife,
and smith.[3]
It should be noted that the
public display of the funerary art and architecture in the Roman culture
honoured deserving citizens, and seems to have in some way conferred a status
or social aspirations.[4] Romans were very productive and driven
people; this is how they managed to construct the great civilization that they
did and build magnificent cities, some complete with plumbing and other ‘modern’
conveniences. These aspirations, goals,
and dreams of the people can be seen in their funerary practices as well. A good example of funerary art that shows the
belief and aspirations of someone that was unachieved is that of the statue
memorialising Q Sulpicius Maximus, a child that died around eleven years old.
The monument of Q. Sulpicius
Maximus is an example of a funeral alter that was used as a means of perhaps
increasing ones station. It appears that
the parents of this child were freedmen, and as such were denied certain formal
restrictions in Roman society. However,
it also appears that the restrictions of a freedman only lasted for the
generation which was freed, and that the children of these freedmen were not
bound by the same restrictions and instead able to move throughout society as
they desired and were able. Maximus’
alter depicts him as the child that he was, but adorned in an adults’ toga,
symbolic of what he could have become.
This is derived from both the probable aspirations of the boys’ father
as well as the reference to Maximus’ winning poetry in Greek. This shows that he knew Latin and Greek, with
Greek being the language of the cultivated Roman, and further evidence of
station climbing. Lastly, the monument
was of such a style and quality that it could have passed for one from a Roman
family of the upper orders.[5]
With the custom of building
the cemeteries, or communities of the dead, outside the city, people coming or
going from a town would have to pass through and see all of the monuments to
the dead that were constructed. This
ensured that both the dead were remembered, and the families that they belonged
to were bolstered. How were they raised
up? Well, the bigger and more impressive
a tomb, the more that it cost, and by extrapolation, this meant that it was
more valuable as a status object. The
tombs of Isola Sacra, outside Ostia, rivalled those of the Vatican.[6] Further, the deceased was also commemorated
on their birth- and death- days, and during the festivals of Parentalia and
Lemuria, when family would visit the tomb and drink and feast, utilising the
small kitchens that were sometimes built into them.[7]
Lastly, not all funerary
architecture was reserved for just the people of a family, but some for the pets
as well. The tombstone of Helena bears
the inscription, ‘Helenae alumnae animae incomparabili ef benemerenti’.[8][9] This appears to be a memorial for a much loved
pet rather than a person. This would
indicate that the Romans felt very strongly about their pets, much like we do
today, and honoured them as well with the same types of funeral monuments. Clearly, this would have been a status symbol
of a family, as it showed that they had enough money to make funerary art for
their pets.
Thus, Roman funerary art and
architecture reveals a lot about the class structure and how the society viewed
its dead. Further, it also shows how the
dead were used to try and change a families social standing.
Bibliography
Clarke, J. (2003).
Art in the Lives of Ordinary
Romans. Berkeley, p. 182
D’Ambra,
E. (1988). ‘A Myth for a Smith: A Meleager Sarcophagus
from a Tomb in Ostia’, in AJA, V. 92,
No. 1, pp. 85-99.
D’Ambra, E. (1998).
‘The Social Order’, in Roman Art,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Week
3 Tutorial Images, HST256: Art and Architecture Through Roman Eyes, Macquarie
University via OUA, Study Period 4 2012.
http://ilearn.mq.edu.au/mod/glossary/view.php?id=1474818 - Accessed 16 Dec, 2012
[1]
Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary
Romans, p. 182
[2]
Week 3 Tutorial Images http://ilearn.mq.edu.au/mod/glossary/view.php?id=1474818,
Original Photo from http://www.fpa.ysu.edu/~slsmith/ecbyzwebpage/lectures.html
[3]
Myth for a Smith, p. 86
[4]
The Social Order, p. 41
[5]
Ibid, p. 44
[6]
Myth for a Smith, p. 86
[7]
Ibid
[8]
Loosely translated to “To
Helena, foster-child, well deserving and incomparable soul.”[8] It can be translated that ANIMAE means animal, and that this is
the grave of a pet. This would also
explain why the only image carved on the tombstone is a dog.
[9]
Week 3 Tutorial Images, http://ilearn.mq.edu.au/mod/glossary/view.php?id=1474818&mode=&hook=ALL&sortkey=&sortorder=&fullsearch=0&page=2
, Original Photo from http://www.vroma.org
