BMCR 2009.04.50: Hackworth Petersen on Giacobello, Larari pompeiani: Iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestico. Il filarete / Universita degli studi di Milano, Facolta di lettere e filosofia; 251

Federica Giacobello, Larari pompeiani: Iconografia e culto dei Lari in
ambito domestico. Il filarete / Universita\ degli studi di Milano,
Facolta\ di lettere e filosofia; 251.  Milano:  LED, 2008.  Pp. 294.
ISBN 9788879163743.  [euro  ]28.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Lauren Hackworth Petersen, University of Delaware
([email protected])
Word count:  2006 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-50.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090450.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents
(http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/casalini08/08684626.pdf)

It might be a bit of an understatement to claim that the study of Roman
religion has witnessed a resurgence lately. The myriad publications
within the last decade are rich and diverse in approach, as historians
and archaeologists alike confront a wide array of primary source
material. To this end, Federica Giacobello's book provides a great
service to scholars of Roman religion and ritual, particularly to those
whose interests are inclined toward quotidian forms of cult and ritual.
Indeed, Giacobello's study, as the title indicates, focuses squarely on
the lararia of Pompeii and thus builds on the canonical work of George
Boyce, David Orr, Thomas Froehlich, and Pedar Foss, among others.[[1]]
More precisely, the purpose of the book is two-fold: to provide a
comprehensive catalog of the evidence of the domestic cult of the Lares
at Pompeii; and to proffer an iconographical analysis of lararia in
order to arrive at a definition of an "authentic" expression of the
cult. The author deftly engages more recent publications and debates on
the topic, and Giacobello's catalog of Pompeian lararia will no doubt
be a staple for specialists. This study is therefore indispensable for
a scholar working on Roman domestic cults and ritual at Pompeii, and
even beyond.

The book is divided into two major sections. The first section presents
a synthetic discussion of the literary sources and archaeological
evidence that reveal the origins and hence the meanings of the Lares
within Roman domestic life. This analysis-driven section is subdivided
into the following chapters: 1) the Lares in ancient sources and the
scholarly tradition; 2) the system of the lararia at Pompeii; 3) the
iconography of the lararia and domestic ritual; and 4) the Lares in the
Roman world. Giacobello's conclusions within these chapters, to be
discussed shortly, shape the organization of the subsequent catalog,
which is subdivided into three sections: 1) the corpus of lararia at
Pompeii; 2) a catalog of lararia in the villas in the environs of
Pompeii; and 3) the "secondary lararia" of Pompeii. Both the
organization and writing are clear and lucid, as are the author's
conclusions, namely that the Lares, as guardians of the domus, are
closely linked to the iconography of the Dioscuri and are
manifestations of the family's ancestors who watch over the living
family. Moreover, the "authentic" lararium of any given domus was
within or near the kitchen. The shrines found elsewhere within domestic
settings, such as in peristyles or atria, should be classified as,
according to Giacobello, "secondary lararia." This latter assessment is
sure to generate scholarly debate.

Giacobello's pithy introduction firmly states the goals of the book --
to question the scholarly trend that has led to the identification of
all domestic cultic spaces as lararia. After a useful, albeit broadly
painted, review of the state of the field, the author suggests that a
more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of the cult of the Lares can
be achieved through careful study of the iconography of their painted
shrines. Giacobello's approach is interdisciplinary; she provides a
balanced review of the ancient literary tradition in the first chapter,
and this discussion includes consideration of both household Lares
(Lares familiares) and public Lares (of which the Lares Compitales are
especially well documented). The author also addresses some problems in
uncovering the origins of the cult, namely the lack of clarity of the
ancient testimony and the sheer difficulty of the material, both of
which have led to differing, and divisive, conclusions regarding the
origins of the cult (for example, the Lares as agricultural deities,
personifications of ancestors, and underworld spirits taken from the
Etruscans). The historiography that Giacobello outlines neatly
demonstrates the problem of evidence that any scholar of domestic cults
must confront. Ancient authors provide relatively limited information
on domestic life, making no reference to the scenes of sacrifice to
Lares that are, in contrast, so amply documented at Pompeii (in fact,
the term lararium only comes into use in the imperial era, the first
time in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae). In an interesting twist,
Giacobello proposes that even in this ancient testimony, authors came
to use the term lararium for any domestic shrine, meaning that lararium
could refer to a domestic shrine dedicated to deities other than the
Lares. This ancient slippage in terminology has led to modern-day
misunderstandings of the term lararium. Giacobello insists, however,
that a lararium was first and foremost dedicated to the Lares,
divinities of the hearth, who watched over the food preparation and
thus functioned as guardians of a family. Lararia were therefore
located within or surrounding kitchen areas. This conclusion directs
Giacobello in a couple of thought-provoking directions.

The second chapter is the richest of the chapters, as Giacobello
summarizes her findings drawn from information provided in the
catalogs, that is from the archaeological remains. Giacobello guides
readers through a number of "middle-class" houses throughout Pompeii,
Regio by Regio. With respect to Regio I, noteworthy as Pompeii's
commercial and artisan district, of the thirty lararia and forty-one
"secondary lararia," many are among the finest to survive, suggesting
that a small house could have an architecturally complex shrine (and
not just a simply painted shrine). In Regio V, characterized as having
both large- and modest-sized traditional houses, the pattern of
multiple shrines within a single dwelling persists. After moving
through each Regio, Giacobello concludes that the present evidence
indicates that Pompeii was home to 114 "true" lararia and 156
"secondary lararia." With only a couple of exceptions, most date to the
post-earthquake period (62-79 CE). Here, Giacobello introduces the
novel claim that the duplication of shrines within a domus is not
indicative of a distinction between the enslaved and the free in terms
of domestic ritual, as scholars have maintained since Froehlich. This
idea, however, is not developed until the reader gets to the next
chapter, although the author paves the way in the second half of this
chapter.

The second half of chapter two is largely dedicated to a discussion of
the "secondary lararia." Giacobello proposes that these shrines were
dedicated to beneficent deities who protected the house in a more
generic manner than the Lares (who were more specifically connected
with the hearth and ancestors). In the "secondary lararia," therefore,
sculpted and painted images of Hercules, Bacchus, and Venus connect the
household with ancient, local traditions.  Likewise, Mercury is
frequently represented in "secondary shrines," but most often within
shops. In addition, Minerva, Jupiter, and Apollo, among others, find
their way into domestic shrines. Interestingly, Lares also make
appearances in the so-called secondary lararia, and here is where
Giacobello's distinction between "true" lararia and "secondary lararia"
begins to blur. The author suggests that in this "secondary" context,
the Lares take on roles similar to those of the other deities, as
guarantors of the well-being of the paterfamilias and the domus as
whole. In this light, Giacobello's distinction between lararium and
"secondary lararium" seems unnecessary, especially if, as noted above,
ancient writers seem not to have been always so precise. Moreover,
images of the Genius (protective spirit of the paterfamilias) and a
snake or snakes approaching an altar, both typical of kitchen lararia,
are also amply represented in "secondary lararia."  Less frequently,
other gods do make appearances within kitchen lararia, a situation that
Giacobello seems at pains to explain (see, for example, corpus n. 94).
The evidence suggests a certain fluidity that Giacobello resists in her
attempt to find an authentic expression of the cult of the Lares.

The third chapter provides, first and foremost, a detailed examination
of the Lares themselves. The purpose is to address what the author
identifies as misunderstandings concerning the Lares' attributes and
details of dress, the latter having been erroneously attributed to the
lower social strata. For example, Giacobello argues that the pilleus
(conical cap) sometimes worn by the Lares was probably part of the
figures' original iconography (and thus should not be interpreted as a
cap of ex-slaves, which was a later development). Likewise, the fringed
shoes (perones) that came to be associated with the working poor
actually had an earlier association with the heroic realm. In addition,
she confronts controversial interpretations of the clavi (stripes)
shown on the Lares' short tunics and suggests that scholarly attempts
to identify the stripes precisely (as, for example, laticlavi or the
less prestigious angusticlavi) miss the simple point that the stripes
probably functioned as a more generic indication of distinction in
Roman dress. All of this is to suggest that the overall costume of the
Lares works to portray the heroic nature of the deities, and that the
costume derives specifically from Greek sources, namely from the
iconography of the Dioscuri.  The Dioscuri and Lares shared other
traits as well; both were heroic and divine, and both protected
households. This conclusion is based in part on the visual evidence
from Delos and thus falls on the heels of Claire Hasenohr's analysis of
the Compitalia at Delos.[[2]]

Simply put, Giacobello is intent on raising the status of lararia in
scholarship. For example, she counters the claims that reduce the
pictures of lararia to "volkstuemliche Kunst" (per Froehlich), citing
the fine lararium at the House of the Vettii. In addition, she argues
that the lararia of Pompeii are fairly uniform, as justified by the
conservative nature of religion (while also acknowledging the limited
chronology of the lararia). And perhaps most significantly, the
formative role Delos played in giving visual expression to the cult is
repeatedly asserted, as if the status of Greek artistic origins
supercedes any Roman, and seemingly more humble, origins. While this
latter implication is not explicitly stated, it nonetheless lurks
behind the text. Indeed, it is in this chapter that Giacobello develops
her claim that the principal lararium of a Roman house, although
located in the kitchen area, was ultimately the domain of the
paterfamilias and that on occasion the entire family united there to
venerate the Lares. The daily maintenance of the cult, however, was the
responsibility of the slaves, but this is not, per Giacobello, to
suggest a division of cultic activity in houses with more than one
lararium as based on perceived social divisions within a house.[[3]]
Rather, the lararium at the kitchen retained its primary cultic
function, and the so-called secondary lararium -- in more visible
spaces within the house  -- was, according to Giacobello, more about
the self-representation of the dominus, and thus had a weakened
religious significance. This latter point seems highly debatable,
especially given the fact that many "secondary lararia" retain evidence
of cultic use, such as nails for the hanging of garlands (see, for
example, the House of the Sarno Lararium, appendix V20).

The fourth and final chapter provides a cursory survey of the Lares and
their shrines beyond Pompeii. Giacobello raises good questions for
future research, although it is a pity that this lesser-known material
is not illustrated at all. In fact, one limitation of this book as a
whole is the relative lack of visual material. Furthermore, it is
disappointing that, of the shrines that are pictured, many did not
reproduce well. This book should therefore be read with Froehlich's and
Boyce's texts at hand. The book also lacks an index, which this reader
sorely missed.

Although the book is fairly narrow in scope and pitched to specialists,
Giacobello articulates the significance of her study in the book's
first sentence; the cult of the Lares played a role of primary
importance in Roman religion. While this statement is surely correct,
Giacobello's focus is first and foremost on the iconography of lararia
and less on the place of the Lares in Roman religion and ritual per se.
Nonetheless, the author's descriptions of the lararia of Pompeii are
indispensable, and her conclusions advance many thought-provoking leads
that scholars of Roman religion may wish to pursue. As Pompeii and its
environs are vulnerable to the natural elements and the images of the
lararia fade from view, Giacobello's research is timely. Her book adds
yet another valuable voice to the chorus of scholars working on ancient
domestic ritual.

------------------
Notes:


1.   George Boyce, Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii (Memoirs of the
American Academy in Rome, 14) (Rome, 1937); David Orr, "Roman Domestic
Religion: A Study of the Roman Household Deities and their Shrines at
Pompeii and Herculanuem," Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt,
II.16.2 (New York, 1978), 1557-1591; Thomas Froehlich, Lararien- und
Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstaedten. Untersuchungen zur
'volkstuemlichen' pomejanischen Malerei (Mainz, 1991); and Pedar Foss,
"Watchful Lares: Roman Household Organization and the Rituals of
Cooking and Eating," in Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and
Beyond, eds. Ray Laurence and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (Journal of Roman
Archaeology, suppl. 22, 1997), 197-218.

2.   Claire Hasenohr, "Les Compitalia a\ De/los," Bulletin de
correspondance helle/nique 127 (2003), 167-249.

3.   The now-entrenched paradigm of a Roman house as being divided
between the grand (free) and humble (servile) spaces began with Andrew
Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum
(Princeton, 1994), and has greatly affected how scholars discuss
domestic space. Giacobello is right to point out some limitations of
this paradigm.