The author wishes to acknowledge gratefully the insightful suggestions of several anonymous readers of this article at various stages of its development. All translations are my own.
David Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: Erotic Painting and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House’, Classical Antiquity 14 (1995), pp. 266–87; Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, ‘Violent Stages in Two Pompeian Houses: Imperial Taste, Aristocratic Response, and Messages of Male Control’, in Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow and Claire L. Lyons (eds), Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 243–66; Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen 16 (1975), pp. 6–18, republished in Laura Mulvey, Visual and Other Pleasures (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1989), pp. 14–26.
Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure’, p. 7.
Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure’, p. 12.
Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure’, pp. 13–17.
Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure’, pp. 17, 7.
Katharina Lorenz, ‘Die Quadratur des Sofabildes: Pompejanische Mythenbilder als Ausgangspunkt für eine Phänomenologie antiker Wahrnehmung’, in P. Neudecker and P. Zanker (eds), Palilia 16: Lebenswelten: Bilder und Raüme in der römischen Stadt der Kaiserzeit (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 2005), pp. 205-21, here p. 209.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 279.
Koloski-Ostrow, ‘Violent Stages’, p. 254.
Koloski-Ostrow, ‘Violent Stages’, p. 257.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 279.
For a critique of theories based on psychoanalysis as culturally and historically bounded, see Page duBois, Sowing the Body: Psychoanalysis and Ancient Representations of Women (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), especially pp. 7–17. See also Jeanne Boydston, ‘Gender as a Question of Historical Analysis’, Gender & History 20 (2008), pp. 558–83.
Carol Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender and the Modern Horror Film (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 16.
David Fredrick, ‘Mapping Penetrability in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome’, in David Fredrick (ed.), The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power and the Body (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp. 236–64, here pp. 253–8; David Fredrick, ‘Grasping the Pangolin: Sensuous Ambiguity in Roman Dining’, Arethusa 36 (2003), pp. 309–43.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, pp. 222–3.
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 72–8.
Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, p. 213. Out of the 234 houses Wallace-Hadrill sampled in Regions I and VI, only ten are larger than the House of the Vettii (Houses and Society, Table 4.1).
August Mau, ‘Scavi di Pompei, 1894–5, Reg. VI, Isola ad E della 11’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 11 (1896), pp. 3–97; Antonio Sogliano, ‘La Casa dei Vettii in Pompei’, Monumenti antichi dell’Accademia dei Lincei 8 (1898), cols. 233–416.
Willem J. Th. Peters, ‘La composizione delle pareti dipinte nella Casa dei Vetti a Pompei’, Mededeelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 39 (1977), pp. 102–23; Arnold and Mariette de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia (Bari: Guide archeologiche Laterza, 1982), pp. 167–74.
The most extensive analysis is found in Peters, who excludes the small side rooms h and i and possibly rooms d, u and x from the attribution to a single workshop.
On paintings in inset panels, see Roger Ling, Roman Painting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 112–41; and Eleanor Winsor Leach, The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 132–55.
Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), ‘VI 15, 1. Casa dei Vettii’, in Pompei: Pitture e Mosaici (Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1994), vol. 5: Regio VI, Part Two, pp. 46–572, here p. 470.
John Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy 100 BC–AD 250 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), p. 208; de Vos and de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, p. 167.
A short, winged wand entwined by two snakes, the caduceus is a staff carried by Hermes, messenger god and patron of merchants and travellers.
First reported in Notizie degli scavi di antichità 1895, p. 32; see also Sogliano col. 252.
Henrik Mouritsen, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Supplementum 15: Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Élite: Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy (Rome: L’Erma, 1988), pp. 14–16, n. 40.
CIL IV.3522. The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, the edition of classical Latin inscriptions conventionally referred to as CIL, began to be published in 1863 and is continuing. The fourth volume contains most of the materials from Pompeii: C. Zangemeister and R. Schoene (eds), Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae Herculanenses Stabianae (Berlin: Berlin Academy of Sciences, 1871).
M. Della Corte, Case ed abitanti di Pompei (Naples: Faustino Fiorentino, 3rd edn 1965), pp. 9–23; James L. Franklin, Jr, Pompeii: the Electoral Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, AD 71–79 (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1980), pp. 18–19, 87, pace Mouritsen, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Élite, pp. 18–19.
Notizie degli scavi di antichità 1895, p. 32.
Steven E. Ostrow, ‘“Augustales” along the Bay of Naples: a Case for Their Early Growth’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 34 (1985), pp. 64–101; Steven E. Ostrow ‘The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme’, in Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher (eds), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 364-79, here pp. 368–71; Andrik Abramenko, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien: Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1993), pp. 127–92; Lauren Hackworth Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 57–83.
Iiro Kajanto, ‘The Latin Cognomina’, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, Societas Scientiarum Fennica 36 (1965), pp. 2–428, here p. 356. We also know of an Augustalis in Pompeii with the third name Restitutus (M. Cerrinius Restitutus); CIL X.994. The graffito elsewhere in town CIL IV.4719, ‘Restitutus servos bonus’, ‘Restitutus is a good slave’, may be a derogatory metaphorical use of the term ‘slave’ rather than independent confirmation that Restitutus was a slave name.
Jean Andreau, Les Affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (Rome: L’Ecole française de Rome, 1974), p. 267 and Table 96.
For example, Della Corte, Case ed abitanti di Pompei, pp. 89–93, and Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, p. 208.
On the way people name themselves in inscriptions, see Sandra Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rome (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992), particularly pp. 35–7 on formal patterns of freed and slave nomenclature.
Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status, pp. 59–60, 128–60.
I would like to thank my student Dhruva Jaishankar for this last suggestion. In order to be father and son with these names, they would have to have both been slaves of Aulus Vettius; presumably the father Conviva emancipated himself then purchased freedom for his son as well.
Franklin, Pompeii: the Electoral Programmata, p. 122; Paavo Castrén, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 8: Ordo Populusque Pompeianus: Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (Rome: Bardi, 1975), pp. 239–40; James L. Franklin, Jr, Pompeis Difficilis Est: Studies in the Political Life of Imperial Pompeii (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. 181–3.
Gaius, Institutes 1.9–11. See especially Keith Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) and Keith Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Richard P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
On the paterfamilias, see Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death, pp. 102–53. On the various potential legal relationships between husband and wife, see Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 13–36 and Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. 11–14.
On the occupations of slaves and freedpersons, see Bradley, Slavery and Society, pp. 57–80; Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status, pp. 145–61 and Mouritsen, Freedman, pp. 206–47.
On the general status of slaves in Roman law, see especially Alan Watson, Roman Slave Law (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). On the precariousness of slave families, see Beryl Rawson, ‘Family Life among the Lower Classes at Rome in the First Two Centuries of the Empire’, Classical Philology 61 (1966), pp. 71–83; Keith R. Bradley, ‘The Age at Time of Sale of Female Slaves’, Arethusa 11 (1978), pp. 243–52 and Bradley, Slaves and Masters, pp. 47–80.
On the motives for manumitting slaves, see Bradley, Slavery and Society, pp. 158–65 and on manumission as a phenomenon, see Bradley, Slaves and Masters, pp. 83–112. On freedpersons in general, see most recently Henrik Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); but also Susan Treggiari, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) and Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rome, pp. 32–7.
By the imperial period, the conditions of the lex Aelia Sentia (4 CE) had to be met for an ex-slave to become a full citizen, including a minimum age of thirty years for slaves and twenty years for masters; see Bradley, Slavery and Society, p. 156. Exceptions were possible, such as when freeing someone for the sake of marrying them (Gaius, Institutes, 1.9).
Mouritsen, Freedman, especially pp. 36–119, 279–99.
Mouritsen, Freedman, pp. 248–78.
Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art, especially pp. 1–12.
Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art, pp. 6–10; for comparison see Amy Richlin, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 164–209.
Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status; Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art, pp. 84–120.
Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art, p. 6.
Petersen, The Freedman in Roman Art, p. 183.
John R. Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 BC–AD 250 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 177; for comparison see Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, p. 234 and Paul Zanker, Pompeii: Public and Private Life, tr. Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 202.
Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, Figures 65 and 66.
Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, pp. 174–7.
Michael Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), p. 92.
See especially Laura Mulvey, ‘Afterthoughts on “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Inspired by Duel in the Sun’, in T. Bennett (ed.), Popular Fiction, Technology, Ideology, Production, Reading (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 139–51.
Maud W. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); Erik Gunderson, Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000); Anthony Corbeill, ‘Political Movement: Walking and Ideology in Republican Rome’, in Fredrick (ed.), The Roman Gaze, pp. 182–215; Richlin, The Garden of Priapus, pp. 164–209.
Sandra R. Joshel and Sheila Murnaghan (eds), Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture: Differential Equations (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 20.
Joshel and Murnaghan, Women and Slaves, p. 18.
For example, Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society; Leach, Social Life of Painting; Katharina Lorenz, Bilder machen Räume: Mythenbilder in pompeianischen Häusern (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2008); Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy and Shelley Hales, The Roman House and Social Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, p. 150.
For a recent and nuanced analysis of Pompeian painting styles, see Leach, Social Life of Painting. A more traditional account is provided in Roger Ling, Roman Painting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). The mythological panels may allude to even grander picture galleries in which portable canvases or boards were affixed to the wall. We only know of these through literary sources, for which see Leach, Social Life of Painting, pp. 132–52. The true fresco forms of this house are found even in what are taken to be imperial houses and villas, however, so interpreting them as lower-class imitations of the ‘real thing’ would be misleading.
Daniela Corlàita Scagliarini, ‘Spazio e decorazione nella pittura pompeiana’, Palladio 23–25 (1974–1976), pp. 3–44; Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, pp. 32–77.
Many smaller houses in Pompeii do not have peristyles, even though some are elaborately painted; see Penelope M. Allison, Pompeian Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 2004).
These include Philostratus the Elder, Imagines; Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 3.7; Lucian, Essay on Images; Petronius, Satyrica, 25, etc. In modern scholarship, see most recently Jaś Elsner, Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), especially pp. 67–109; Lorenz, ‘Die Quadratur des Sofabildes’, pp. 206–09; and Paul Zanker, ‘Mythenbilder im Haus’, in Roald F. Docter and Eric M. Moormann (eds), Classical Archaeology Towards the Third Millenium: Reflections and Perspectives (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson, 1999), pp. 40–48, here pp. 42–3.
In Zanker argues that the mythological panels serve foremost as an ‘educational icon’, a sign of wealth and the respectable education which wealth could bring. Zanker, 'Mythenbilder im Haus', pp. 42-3.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, pp. 266–87.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 272.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 273.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, pp. 272–3.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 280.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, pp. 279–80.
Maria Wyke, ‘Written Women: Propertius’Scripta Puella’, Journal of Roman Studies 77 (1987), pp. 47–61; Maria Wyke, ‘Mistress and Metaphor in Augustan Elegy’, Helios 16 (1989), pp. 25–47; Marilyn B. Skinner, ‘Ego Mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus’, Helios 20 (1993), pp. 107–30.
Fredrick, ‘Mapping Penetrability’ and Fredrick, ‘Grasping the Pangolin’.
For discussions of the possibility of pattern books and how painting workshops functioned, see Ling, Roman Painting, pp. 128–9, 212–13, 217–20; Eric M. Moormann (ed.), Mededeelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 54: Mani di pittori e botteghe pittoriche nel mondo romano (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1995), pp. 61–298 and Penelope N. Allison, ‘“Workshops” and “Patternbooks”’, Kölner Jarhbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 24 (1991), pp. 79–84.
Eleanor Winsor Leach, ‘Reading Signs of Status: Recent Books on Roman Art in the Domestic Sphere’, American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992), pp. 551–7, here p. 556.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 284.
Koloski-Ostrow, ‘Violent Stages’, p. 257; for comparison see Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 278.
Joan W. Scott, ‘Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis’, The American Historical Review 91 (1986), pp. 1053–75.
See duBois, Sowing the Body, pp. 7–17.
John Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), p. 99.
Mary Lee Thompson, ‘The Monumental and Literary Evidence of Programmatic Painting in Antiquity’, Marsyas 9 (1960–1961), pp. 36–77, here p. 67.
Karl Schefold, La peinture pompéienne: Essai sur l’evolution de sa signification (Brussels: Latomus, 1972), pp. 208–09, 130–31.
Theo Wirth, ‘Zum Bildprogramm in der Casa dei Vettii’, Römische Mitteilungen 90 (1983), pp. 449–55; Richard Brilliant, Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), pp. 71–80; Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, pp. 221–7.
Wirth, ‘Zum Bildprogramm’; Bettina A. Bergmann, ‘The Roman House as Memory Theater: The House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii’, Art Bulletin 76 (1994), pp. 225–56; Bettina A. Bergmann, ‘Pregnant Moment: Tragic Wives in the Roman Interior’, in Natalie Boymel Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece and Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 199–218; Lorenz, Bilder machen Räume and Lorenz, ‘Die Quadratur des Sofabildes’, pp. 205–21; Susanne Muth, Erleben von Raum – Leben in Raum: zur Funktion mythologischer Mosaikbilder in der römisch-kaiserzeitlichen Wohnarchitektur (Heidelberg: Archäologie und Geschichte, 1998).
Lorenz, ‘Die Quadratur des Sofabildes’.
William C. Archer, ‘The Paintings of the Casa dei Vettii in Pompeii’, (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Virginia, 1981), pp. 404, 449; for Daedalus and Pasiphae, see pp. 416–17; on Dirce, see p. 471. For a detailed analysis of the iconography of Dirce, see Eleanor Winsor Leach, ‘The Punishment of Dirce: A Newly Discovered Continuous Narrative in the Casa di Giulio Polibio and its Significance within the Visual Tradition’, Römische Mitteilungen 93 (1986), pp. 118–38. For other examples of modifications to common scenes for the purposes of a programmatic ensemble, see Leach, Social Life of Painting, p. 151; and Lorenz, ‘Die Quadratur des Sofabildes’, pp. 209–20.
Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death, pp. 142–53. On the punishment of slaves and the use of fear to control or degrade them, also see Bradley, Slaves and Masters, pp. 113–14, 121–3, 134–6; Moses I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York: Viking Press, 1980), pp. 95–8.
Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), pp. 123–31, 158–72.
Watson, Roman Slave Law, pp. 84–9; Gaius, Institutes, 9.41.12, 9.41.18; Digest, 188.8.131.52.
Allison R. Sharrock, ‘Looking at Looking: Can You Resist a Reading?’ in Fredrick, The Roman Gaze, pp. 265–95, worries over the potential gender and thus power inversion in the Pentheus scene. Strangely, however, she compares it to the gender dynamics of a scene next to it in a modern book on Roman painting (The Sack of Troy from the House of Menander in Ling, Roman Painting, pl. XIC), rather than the scenes on the adjoining walls. The Dirce scene from this room is much closer in composition and directly inverts the gender of the characters in the Pentheus painting.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, pp. 174–232.
See Carratelli, ‘VI 15, 1. Casa dei Vettii’, Figures 31 and 32, pp. 488–91. Helen Morales, ‘The Torturer's Apprentice: Parrhasius and the Limits of Art’, in Jaś Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 182–209, Morales explores first-century Roman ethical interpretations of assaultive and reactive gazes. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who brought both of these to my attention.
Archer, ‘Paintings of the Casa dei Vettii’, p. 471.
I use the gendered term ‘master’ here deliberately, since the sexual use of slaves by women owners is strongly condemned in the surviving literature; see Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 15; and Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status, p. 30, n.17. Among other things, it upset the hierarchy between enslaved and free for a free woman to have sexual relations with a male slave, for reasons which will become clear shortly.
John Pollini, ‘Slave-Boys for Sexual and Religious Service: Images of Pleasure and Devotion’, in A. Boyle and W. Dominik (eds), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 149–66; Richlin, Garden of Priapus, pp. 34–44.
Digest (of Justinian), 184.108.40.206. Joshel, Work, Identity and Legal Status, pp. 27–8. See for comparison Gaius, Institutes, 3.220–21; Digest, 220.127.116.11, 2, 5.pr, 5.9–10, 7.5, 13.7, 15.2, 15.15–23, 15.33 and 17.11–18.2. On the laws which prohibit the sexual use of freeborn males, see Elaine Fantham, ‘Stuprum: Public Attitudes and Penalties for Sexual Offences in Republican Rome’, Échos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 35 (1991), pp. 267–91 and Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 96–124.
Plutarch, Roman Questions, 101. On the bulla, see H. R. Goette, ‘Die Bulla’, Bonner Jahrbücher 186 (1986), pp. 133–64; and Robert E. A. Palmer, ‘Bullae insignia ingenuitatis’, American Journal of Ancient History 14 (1989), pp. 1–69.
These are modern interpretive terms rather than translations of Roman vocabulary. For an analysis of the various Latin terms, see Holt N. Parker, ‘The Teratogenic Grid’, in Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner (eds), Roman Sexualities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 47–65. On Roman sexual ideologies, see the recent synthesis in Marilyn B. Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (Malden: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 193–282; but also Jonathan Walters, ‘Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought’, in Hallett and Skinner, Roman Sexualities, pp. 29–46. On evidence for challenges to the dominant ideology, see Amy Richlin, ‘Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love between Men’, Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1993), pp. 523–73 and Pamela Gordon, ‘Some Unseen Monster: Reading Lucretius on Sex’, in Fredrick, The Roman Gaze, pp. 86–109.
Ellen Oliensis, ‘The Erotics of Amicitia: Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace’, in Hallett and Skinner, Roman Sexualities, pp. 151–71, here p. 154.
Finley, Ancient Slavery, pp. 95–8.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 15.
Thomas Laquer, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 15.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 158.
In Pompeian Households, Allison cautions that rooms in Pompeian houses were used for multiple functions across the day and year and that Pompeian archaeological remains do not well match the room functions and names listed in our Roman literary sources. Nevertheless, that the finely appointed small to medium-sized rooms n and p, located off the peristyle garden and providing views of it, were not at least sometimes used for banquets would be difficult to believe.
Most atrium-style houses in Pompeii had more than one room which could be used for dining purposes; see Clarke, Art in the Lives, p. 224; Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, p. 55; Katharine M. D. Dunbabin, ‘Triclinium and Stibadium’, in William J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), pp. 121–48, here p. 124, n. 22; John H. D’Arms, ‘The Roman Convivium and the Ideal of Equality’, in Oswyn Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 308–20. On such spaces see Katharine M. D. Dunbabin, ‘Convivial Spaces: Dining and Entertainment in the Roman Villa’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996), pp. 66–80 and Lise Bek, ‘Quaestiones Conviviales: The Idea of the Triclinium and the Staging of the Convivial Ceremony from Rome to Byzantium’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 12 (1983), pp. 81–107.
D’Arms, ‘The Roman Convivium’.
D’Arms, ‘The Roman Convivium’.
On the convivium, see the Roman articles in Slater, Dining in a Classical Context; Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) and Matthew B. Roller, Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Value and Status (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
On the work and treatment of slaves at Roman convivia, see especially John H. D’Arms, ‘Slaves at Roman Convivia’, in Slater, Dining in a Classical Context, pp. 171–83; and on theatrical performances at banquets, Christopher P. Jones, ‘Dinner Theater’, in Slater, Dining in a Classical Context, pp. 185–98.
From slaves or those like slaves: Columella, On Agriculture, 11.1.10; Petronius, Satyrica, 64; Martial, Epigrams, 5.70; Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 40.7; from boys: Plutarch, Roman Questions, 33; Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 64.3; Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 32; Tacitus, Annals, 13.61.1. These and more are discussed in Alan Booth, ‘The Age for Reclining and Its Attendant Perils,’ in Slater, Dining in a Classical Context, pp. 105–20; see Roller, Dining Posture, for a rich recent analysis of the significance of reclining to dine.
D’Arms, ‘Slaves at Roman Convivia’, pp. 179–80. See for comparison Keith R. Bradley, ‘The Roman Family at Dinner’, in Enge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen (eds), Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), pp. 36–55.
This is the only instance of the name Conviva known to Kajanto in his extensive catalogue of Latin cognomina– it was an unusual name; ‘The Latin Cognomina’, p. 306.
Fredrick, ‘Mapping Penetrability’ and Fredrick, ‘Grasping the Pangolin’.
Zanker, ‘Mythenbilder im Haus’, p. 47.
Fredrick, ‘Mapping Penetrability’, p. 256, D’Arms, ‘Slaves at Roman Convivia’, pp. 175–6.
Ancient storytellers disagree on how Pasiphae came to be punished with desire for a bull; some say her husband Minos offended Poseidon through incorrect sacrifice, others say he offended Jupiter, yet others say Pasiphae herself failed to cultivate Aphrodite; see Diodorus Siculus, Library, 4.77.2, 13.4; Hyginus, Fabula, 40; and First Vatican Mythographer, 47. For a modern account, see Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, vol. 1 (London: Penguin, 1955), pp. 293–4.
Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, pp. 10–14, 38–61.
What the owl may signify is unclear. In classical Greek culture the owl was associated with Athena and thus with wisdom, but at least in elite Roman culture the owl was a bird of ill-omen, associated with death and foreboding; see Pliny, Natural History, 10.17; Vergil, Aeneid, 4.462 and Servius's commentary; Ovid, Metamorphoses, 5.546, 6.430, 10.452, 15.791; and Lucan, Pharsalia, 5.395, 6.688. Perhaps here it is just meant to indicate a nocturnal setting.
The brothel's erotic panels featuring male-female couples can be dated to around 72 CE based on the impression of a coin of that date found in the plaster of the brothel; see Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, p. 199. The panels are visible above eye level along the main hallway in the spaces above the lintels of doorways to the many small bedrooms. All seven are of similar size and are painted on a pale background with a simple red frame.
Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, pp. 145–69, 199–206.
Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, pp. 220–21.
de Vos and de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, p. 170; Antonio Sogliano, ‘La Casa dei Vettii in Pompei’, col. 268.
On household cults, see especially Jan Theo Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1994); but also Pedar Foss, ‘Watchful Lares: Roman Household Organization and the Rituals of Cooking and Eating’, in Ray Laurence and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (eds), Journal of Roman Archaeology, supplement 22: Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond (1997), pp. 201–18; Thomas Fröhlich, Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten: Untersuchungen zur “volkstümlichen” pompejanischen Malerei (Mainz: von Zabern, 1991) and Franz Bömer, Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. I: Die wichtigsten Kulte und Religionen in Rom und im lateinischen Westen (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1981).
On the master's role in relations with the gods, see Cato, On Agriculture, 143 and Richard P. Saller, ‘The Hierarchical Household in Roman Society: A Study of Domestic Slavery’, in M. L. Bush (ed.), Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (London and New York: Longman Press, 1996), pp. 112–29, here pp. 121–2.
See Foss, ‘Watchful Lares’, pp. 201–18. In his survey of 154 Pompeian buildings of diverse size, 36 per cent of the built-in household shrines were directly associated with the kitchen area, which in the larger homes was consistently part of the service quarters.
Some scholars refer to this architectural unit as a gynaeceum, or women's quarters; see Amedeo Maiuri, Gineco e “Hospitium” nella casa pompeiana (Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1954), pp. 456–7; de Vos and de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, p. 171; Carratelli, ‘VI 15,1. Casa dei Vettii’, Figure 160. I agree with Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, p. 58, however, that there is no evidence or compelling reason to identify this as a secluded or privileged space for women. Roman authors thought of this as a distinctive feature of Greek houses (Vitruvius, On Architecture, 6.7; Cornelius Nepos, Lives, preface 6–7), although we have difficulty locating gynaecea in surviving houses of the Greek world; see Lisa C. Nevett, ‘Separation or Seclusion?’ in Michael Parker Pearson and Colin Richards (eds), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 98–112. Leach, Social Life of Painting, p. 49, is much more correct to identify such a suite of rooms with the Roman term diaeta.
Illustrated in Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, Figures 12 and 8.
Leach, Social Life of Painting, p. 6; E. M. Moormann, ‘Sulle decorationze della Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes’, Croniche Ercolanese 13 (1983), pp. 175–7. For a broader analysis of Hercules and social class, see Eric Csapo, Theories of Mythology (Malden: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 301–10.
For examples of historical or literary figures identifying with myths and using them to understand their own situations, see especially Zanker, ‘Mythenbilder im Haus’.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, pp. 17–18.
Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking, pp. 68–70.
On the locations of images of Priapus across Pompeii and in this home, see especially Pia Kastenmeier, ‘Priap zum Gruße: der Hauseingang der Casa dei Vettii Pompeji’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archèalogischen Instituts 108 (2001), pp. 301–11. On Hermaphroditus as a guardian figure, see Aileen Ajootian, ‘The Only Happy Couple: Hermaphrodites and Gender’, in Koloski-Ostrow and Lyons (eds), Naked Truths, pp. 220–42, here p. 230.
For images of banqueting couples, see for example the central paintings on the north and west walls of room g in the House of the Chaste Lovers in Pompeii (IX 12, 6–7), Roller, Dining Posture, plates VII and II; a panel taken from the Casa di Guiseppe II (VIII 2, 38/39, Museo Nazionale di Napoli 8968), Roller, Dining Posture, Figure 8; and an unprovenanced panel from Herculaneum (Museo Nazionale di Napoli 9024), Roller, Dining Posture, plate VI.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, pp. 281–2.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 152.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 216.
See especially Sigmund Freud, ‘Analysis Terminable and Interminable’ in Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 23, James Strachey (ed.), tr. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1986), pp. 216–53, treated extensively by Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, pp. 213–22.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 213, quoting Jean Laplanche and J. B. Pontalis, The Language of Psycho-Analysis, tr. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Norton, 1973), p. 78.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 213, n. 104; and Edward Bibring, ‘The Conception of the Repetition Compulsion’, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 12 (1943), pp. 468–519.
In 1988, Gaylyn Studlar also published a monograph challenging Mulvey on the question of masochism in film: In the Realm of Pleasure: Von Sternberg, Dietrich and the Masochistic Aesthetic (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988). Studlar's approach is nevertheless different. Working towards a notion of the gaze that is not exclusively male, she argues that all film spectatorship is masochistic and grounds masochism in the relationship with the mother during the infantile stage of human psychosexual development.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 230.
In In the Realm of Pleasure, Studlar works to locate the impulse toward masochism in the primal relationship with the mother.
Seneca the Elder wrote, ‘lack of chastity is a crime in the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman’, Controversiae, 4. preface 10.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, pp. 281–3.
Boydston, ‘Gender as a Question’, p. 576.
Boydston, ‘Gender as a Question’, p. 560.
Boydston, ‘Gender as a Question’, p. 560.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 46.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 209.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 209.
Clover, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, p. 213.
Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure’, p. 8.
Fredrick, ‘Beyond the Atrium’, p. 267.