BMCR 2009.07.59: Jacobs on Bell, Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume 7

Sinclair Bell, Inge Lyse Hansen (ed.), Role Models in the Roman World:
Identity and Assimilation. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.
Supplementary Volume 7.  Ann Arbor:  The University of Michigan Press,
for the American Academy in Rome, 2008.  Pp. xi, 316.  ISBN
978-0-472-11589-1.  $85.00.

Reviewed by John Jacobs, Loyola College in Maryland
([email protected])
Word count:  3344 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-07-59.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/07/20090759.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents (http://lccn.loc.gov/2009275974)

The volume under review includes sixteen papers, all but one of which
(that by Suzanne Dixon) was originally delivered at a conference, "Role
Models: Identity and Assimilation in the Roman World and Early Modern
Italy," jointly held at the American Academy in Rome and the British
School at Rome in 2003. The five-year gap between conference and
proceedings has not had any serious detrimental impact on the quality
of the contributions, however, and the Editors are to be commended for
bringing together a wide breadth of scholarly perspectives. The result
is a timely and thought-provoking exploration into the nature and scope
of exemplarity in Roman culture.

In his programmatic introduction "Role models in the Roman world" (pp.
1-39), Bell provides a panoramic view of the scholarly terrain, as well
as a full summary of the contents of the volume. He himself best
explains the purpose of the collection: "The papers collected here seek
out the exemplum across a broad range of genres, contexts, and periods
and in this way probe the catholicity of its understanding within Roman
culture. In so doing, this volume's central aim is not to push for a
new orthodoxy in the study of exemplarity but rather to lay claim to a
wider evidentiary base and diversity of approach than scholars have
traditionally attempted" (p. 2). In laying the conceptual foundation
for the collection, Bell concentrates on the relationship between
Merton's theory of the "role model" and Roller's four-part "model of
exemplary discourse" (i.e., "actions, audiences, values and memory").
He continues with a brief survey of the vast body of evidence for
exemplarity in Roman culture (including art, text, and ritual) and
considers the role which the productive tension between past and
present plays in this dynamic process. Consistent with the aims of the
volume, Bell advocates a broader definition of exemplarity which
incorporates more visual (and not just textual) evidence, and which
also recognizes non-elite males, women, children, and slaves (and not
just elite males) as participants in exemplary discourse. At the same
time, Bell challenges the validity of the associated concept of
"identity" as a useful hermeneutical construct, although he does
acknowledge that not all of the contributors to the volume agree with
that assessment. After this theoretical orientation, Bell explains how
the chapters are arranged by theme and provides an ample summary for
each: for the sake of both clarity and simplicity, I will explicitly
structure the remainder of this review according to that thematic
arrangement.

Tonio Hoelscher, "The concept of roles and the malaise of 'identity':
Ancient Rome and the modern world" (pp. 41-56)

Suzanne Dixon, "Gracious patrons and vulgar success stories in Roman
public media" (pp. 57-68)

Chapters 1 and 2 address the concept of "role modeling" in general in
Roman culture. In chapter 1, Hoelscher explores the multiplicity of
(often conflicting) roles which Roman emperors, among others, had to
perform, and how that multiplicity of roles destabilizes the concept of
identity. He begins with a comparison between the scenes of Trajan
delivering an adlocutio on the column of Trajan and various images of
former President George Bush delivering speeches during the buildup to
the Iraq War. Hoelscher notes that the adlocutio serves as one of a
limited number of stock roles which the Roman emperor performs on his
monuments, but that this stereotyped representation of the emperor also
reflects a complex mediation between ideology and reality. He discerns
corresponding ambivalences in the statuary types of Roman emperors, as
well as in the availability of imperial roles for other elements of
Roman society. In response to the notion that "roles are said to create
and confirm 'identity'" (p. 52), Hoelscher rejects the idea outright.
In chapter 2, Dixon shifts the focus from the emperor to the general
public. In particular, she considers the examples, all from Roman
Italy, of Septimia Stratonice of Ostia (CIL 9.568 + 487 [see now
Supplementa Italica n.s. 20 (2003): 71 and 88] and 14 suppl. 4698),
Vergilius Eurysaces (CIL 12.1203-1204 and 6.1958), Eumachia of Pompeii
(CIL 10.810-813), and Pliny the Younger, in his role as benefactor of
his native Como (CIL 5.5262, cf. Plin. ep. 1.8, 4.13, and 7.18). After
a brief survey of these inscribed monuments, Dixon examines the
relationship between iconography and epigraphy, but her analysis does
not produce much beyond the platitude that "each of these records
expresses something about the identity of the individual celebrated and
of certain actions or aspects of their lives [sic]" (p. 66).[[1]]

Roberta Stewart, "Who's tricked: Models of slave behavior in Plautus's
Pseudolus" (pp. 69-96)

Charles Brian Rose, "Forging identity in the Roman Republic: Trojan
ancestry and veristic portraiture" (pp. 97-131)

Efrossini Spentzou, "Eluding Romanitas: Heroes and antiheroes in Silius
Italicus's Roman history" (pp. 133-145)

Richard Alston, "History and memory in the construction of identity in
early second-century Rome" (pp. 147-159)

Chapters 3-6 consider various aspects of exemplarity in the literature
and art of the Republic and early Empire. In chapter 3, Stewart
ventures a reading of the Pseudolus as a trickster tale in the
historical context of the emergent slave society of Plautine Rome. She
acknowledges the inherent difficulty of teasing out any reliable
"historical" data from comedy, but nevertheless concludes (in a slight
tautology) that "Plautine drama, as a comedy of manners, provides
representations of slave behavior that reflect the slave's agency
because the slave acts and actions reflect conceptions of the
individual as an agent" (p. 73, emphasis in the original). Stewart
pursues this line of analysis in a close reading of the Pseudolus.[[2]]
Thereafter, she fruitfully compares slave behavior in the Pseudolous
with that in the Life of Aesop: the comparison between the slave
society of Rome and those of the Caribbean and the American South,
however, remains too vague and imprecise. Ultimately, Stewart concludes
that "in Plautus's staging the Roman trickster emerges as a role model
and an anti-model" (p. 93). In chapter 4, Rose moves from literature to
art in Republican Rome. In the rather shorter first section, he
summarizes the arguments and conclusions of an earlier piece on changes
in Roman attitudes toward the city's purported Trojan ancestry. In
particular, Rose identifies a shift from the positive significance of
those eastern origins during the early centuries of the Republic to the
more complicated significance of Troy during the subsequent centuries
of the Republic and early Empire. In the rather longer second section,
he turns from Trojan ancestry to veristic portraiture. In particular,
Rose interestingly traces the development of the art form back to
"changes in the commemoration of foreign triumphs and triumphatores"
(p. 111) during the Middle Republic, as well as to the production of
the imagines. Finally, Rose complements his discussion about veristic
portraiture with a discussion about the accompanying statuary types.

In chapter 5, Spentzou moves from art back to literature, and from
Republican on to Imperial Rome. In a concise reading of "heroes and
antiheroes" in Silius Italicus' Punica, she takes note of the many
differences between Livy and Silius in their respective accounts of the
Second Punic War, and argues that, "rather than simply being a
disengaged philological pastime, [Silius'] erudite antagonism can have
a sharp political point" (p. 133). For Spentzou, this "erudite
antagonism" embraces such features of the epic as the destabilization
of the apparent boundaries between Carthage and Rome, and between
Hannibal and Scipio, as well as the conceptual distance between the
single virum of Aeneid 1.1 and the many viros of Punica 1.5. She reads
Hannibal as both "hero" and "antihero" in his capacity as an alter
Aeneas from Saguntum to Rome, but overlooks perhaps the best evidence
(Pun. 17.149-290 ~ Aen. 1.34-222) and adopts a highly dubious
interpretation of the action during the single combat between Hannibal
and Murrus (Pun. 1.487-491).[[3]] In chapter 6, Alston brings the
quartet of papers on Republican and Imperial literature and art to a
close with a complementary study on "history and memory in the
construction of identity in early second-century [A. D.] Rome." He
emphasizes the complex nature of the relationship between the concepts
of "self" and "identity," and, in the body of the paper, examines how
Tacitus and Pliny adopt differing strategies in their respective
attempts at coping with the traumatic impact of the transition from
Republican past to Imperial present. First, Alston reflects on the
potential implications of Tacitus' use of the annalistic form and
manipulation of closure, as well as the famous digression on
historiography, followed by the account of the trial and death of
Cremutius Cordus, in Annales 4.32-35.[[4]] Then, he (perhaps too)
briefly considers the treatment of fama and exempla in selected
passages from Pliny's correspondence (9.2, 2.1, 9.19, 1.17, and
8.12).[[5]]

Margaret Imber, "Life without father: Declamation and the construction
of paternity in the Roman empire" (pp. 161-169)

Eve D'Ambra, "Daughters as Diana: Mythological models in Roman
portraiture" (pp. 171-183)

Eric R. Varner, "Transcending gender: Assimilation, identity, and Roman
Imperial portraits" (pp. 185-205)

Glenys Davies, "Portrait statues as models for gender roles in Roman
society" (pp. 207-220)

Chapters 7-10 investigate the function of exemplarity in the formation,
deformation, and even transcendence of gender roles. In chapter 7,
Imber ponders the irony that, while "Roman society was patriarchal,"
"at least among the male elite, Roman fathers frequently were absent
from the daily lives of their sons" (p. 161). In this environment, she
contends, young elite males learned how to negotiate the ins and outs
of Roman society, and prepare themselves for their future roles as both
patres and cives, through the practice of declamation. Imber
accordingly stresses the importance of the all-encompassing patria
potestas (e.g., in the exemplum of T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus and
his son in Liv. 7.4-5), before turning to a discussion about the
inculcation of often competing values through the practice of composing
controversiae. Thereafter, she surveys the extant declamatory material
for evidence for the treatment of fathers, and especially absent
fathers, in the classroom (e.g., DMin 291, 300, and 306, as well as
DMaj 18-19). In chapter 8, D'Ambra again shifts the focus from
literature to art. In particular, she studies the various depictions of
girls and young women as the goddess Diana in a group of Roman funerary
portraits, statues, and reliefs, all dating from the first through the
third centuries A.D. Moving beyond the standard dichotomy between
idealized bodies and realistic heads, D'Ambra ventures a more holistic
interpretation of these commemorative works with due attention to their
cultural contexts. These works include, among others, the funerary
altar of Aelia Procula (cf. CIL 6.10958), the altar of Aebutia Amerina,
and the funerary altar of Aelia Tyche (cf. CIL 6.6826). D'Ambra
associates this depiction of girls and young women as Diana (on the
cusp of maturity, marriage, and, thus, motherhood) with the rites of
passage celebrated in honor of Artemis at Brauron and in honor of Diana
at Nemi (where the goddess appears to preside over rites for both boys
and girls).[[6]]

In chapter 9, Varner sustains the focus on art with a further piece on
the interchangeability of gender identities, in Roman Imperial
portraiture. First, he illustrates the assimilation of masculine and
feminine features in a series of images in which the emperor is likened
to a patron goddess (e.g., Augustus as Diana and Domitian as Minerva).
Then, he turns to the conflation of gender characteristics in
portrayals of the Imperial couple (e.g., Antony and Cleopatra, Antony
and Octavia, and Augustus and Livia)--all explicitly intended "to
encode and reinforce imperial notions of concordia" (p. 193). Finally,
he moves on to the permeability of gender categories in the depiction
of "feminine men and masculine women" (through, e.g., transvestism) in
non-Imperial portraiture. Varner links this destabilization of gender
(in Imperial portraiture) with contemporary debates about the nature
and scope of the emperor's masculinity. In chapter 10, Davies brings
the quartet of papers on gender to a close with a study of the use of
body language in the construction of femininity in Roman statuary. In
particular, she focuses on four pieces, two male and two female, dating
to the first and second centuries A.D., from the Munich Glyptothek
(inv. nos. 540, 394, 427, and 377). While Davies acknowledges the
derivate nature of the statue types themselves (e.g., the large and
small Herculaneum women types, the Pudicitia type, and the Ceres type)
as Roman adaptations of Greek models, she objects to the notion that
the Roman "copies" offer little more than evidence for the Greek
"originals." Instead, she highlights the inherent tension in putting
private values on public display. Like Varner, Davies also connects the
negotiation between masculinity and femininity in the statuary with the
negotiation between power and sex.

Sarah B. Pomeroy, "Spartan women among the Romans: Adapting models,
forging identities" (pp. 221-234)

Shelley Hales, "Aphrodite and Dionysus: Greek role models for Roman
homes?" (pp. 235-255)

Henner von Hesberg, "The image of the family on sepulchral monuments in
the northwest provinces" (pp. 257-272)

Chapters 11-13 broaden the purview of the study in order to explore the
dynamics of exemplarity not only in Rome and Roman Italy, but also
elsewhere in the provinces. In chapter 11, Pomeroy applies postcolonial
theory to the interactions between Roman and Spartan (as well as to
those between Greek and Spartan) in Roman Sparta, just as she had
applied the same theory to the interactions between Greek and Egyptian
in Ptolemaic Egypt in Women in Hellenistic Egypt (1984). She begins
with a brief survey of images of Spartan women in Imperial literature
and notes the contrast between the focus on Helen in poetry and that on
Spartan women in general in prose. Pomeroy locates Roman interest in
Sparta in the shared values of motherhood, Stoicism, and patriotism.
Beyond the literary evidence, she also considers the revival of Spartan
identity under the Roman Empire and the consequent redefinition of that
Spartan identity vis-a\-vis Greek identity as part of the postcolonial
experience (e.g., IG 5.1.540 = SEG 11.797). In chapter 12, Hales ranges
far and wide across the imperium Romanum in her search for images of
Aphrodite and Dionysus in domestic decoration. Taking her cue from
Zanker 1998, she explains how "their [i.e., Aphrodite and Dionysus']
popularity demonstrates the continuation of a love of tryphe as a
living ideology in Roman domestic life, providing a long-running theme
that, through the iconography of the putto and the vine, even manages
to reinvent itself for a Christian audience" (p. 235). In the body of
the paper, Hales concentrates on the use of Dionysus' mask and
Aphrodite's mirror in this environment (e.g., in the House of Lucretius
Fronto at Pompeii, in the Theater Room at Ephesus, and in the House of
the Tragic Actor at Sabratha, as well as the Venus mosaics in the
Maison de l'A^ne at Cuicul [mod. Dje/mila] and in the villa at
Rudston). In Chapter 13, von Hesberg returns to funerary commemoration
in an inquiry into "the image of the family on sepulchral monuments in
the northwest provinces." Following an initial comparison between the
monument of L. Poblicius in Cologne (c. A.D. 40) and the monument of
the Secundini in Igel (near Treves) (c. A.D. 220-230), he examines a
variety of other materials as evidence for the influence of Roman
culture on depictions of the family, especially women and children
(e.g., the monument of Blussus and Menimane in Mainz). All of these
materials attest to a relatively stable process: "As far as the images
allow such interpretation, roles--as represented in Roman culture
within the field of the family--are not impaired by the integration of
the local population, at least not with regard to the roles of women
and children in the first century A.D." (p. 268).

Inge Lyse Hansen, "Muses as models: Learning and the complicity of
authority" (pp. 273-285)

Janet Huskinson, "Degrees of differentiation: Role models on early
Christian sarcophagi" (pp. 287-299)

John R. Clarke, "The philological, the folkloric, and the
site-specific: Three models for decoding Classical visual
representation" (pp. 301-316)

Chapters 14-16 bring the collection to a close with two papers on
sarcophagi and a final paper on methodology. In chapter 14, Hansen
studies sarcophagi from the period between the mid-third and early
fourth century A.D. for their depictions of learned couples as Muses
and philosophers. As she explains, her focus on the Muses complements
that on the philosophers in Ewald 1999. First, Hansen considers the
relationship between the Muse and the philosopher in these images, as
well as their function as "role models" for the learned couple. Then,
Hansen considers the role of auctoritas in the depiction of the learned
couple: the connections, however, between the learned couple and the
depictions of Ariadne and Dionysus, and of Virtus and the rider on the
hunt, are tenuous at best. Furthermore, expressions of concepts such as
pietas and concordia can be seen in funerary depictions not only of
this period, but also of much earlier periods, too (e.g., the late 6th
c. B.C. Sarcophagus of the Spouses in the Museo Nazionale Etrusco). In
chapter 15, Huskinson sustains the focus on sarcophagi with a
complementary study on the intermingling of secular and Biblical role
models on early Christian sarcophagi. On the one hand, images of a Good
Shepherd or an orans often replace images of a philosopher or a Muse on
(especially, strigillated) sarcophagi. On the other hand, Biblical
scenes, especially from Old Testament stories of God's saving grace or
from New Testament Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles, also begin to
appear on these funerary monuments. (Interestingly, however, whereas
the images of a Good Shepherd or an orans could be given individual
portrait features, the images of Biblical figures apparently could
not.) Ultimately, Huskinson concludes that the combination of secular
and Biblical images on these sarcophagi heralds the rise "of a distinct
Christian material culture" (p. 298) during the third century.

In chapter 16, Clarke embarks on a broader inquiry into the various
methodologies which scholars have applied in their research on exempla.
In particular, he traces the history of three models ("the
philological, the folkloric, and the site-specific") and their utility
in working towards a better understanding of the famous fresco in
Pompeii (VII, 6, 34-35) of the goddess Victory crowning an ithyphallic
ass as it mounts a lion from behind.  First, the philological (or
historical) model (1860-1950) interpreted the image as an allegory for
Octavian's (~ ass) victory over Antony (~ lion) at the battle of Actium
in light of an omen which Octavian had reportedly seen on the day of
the battle (Suet. Aug. 96 and Plut. Ant. 65). Then, the folkloric (or
structural) model (1950-1980) interpreted the image as a reversal of
the natural world, as in a similar image of an ass mounting a lion in a
mold from Magdalensberg. Finally, after pointing out the irremediable
flaws in these two approaches, Clarke advocates the site-specific (or
contextual) model (1980-present), according to which he examines the
image in situ (e.g., in light of the inscriptional evidence, CIL
4.1626-1649). He argues that, together with the images of Mercury and
Dionysus which flank it, the image under discussion marked the tavern
as a gaming establishment. While Clarke certainly does arrive at an
interesting and intriguing interpretation of the admittedly difficult
and scanty evidence, he also somewhat oversimplifies things by framing
the discussion of methodology according to an evolutionary pattern.
Furthermore, rejecting even the partial utility of earlier approaches
does not cohere with an avowed devotion to polysemy and to the idea
that every viewer would have interpreted the images (at least slightly)
differently.

The physical book itself is a work of art: a lavishly illustrated
large-format volume with glossy pages, a sturdy spine, and an elegantly
designed cover, graced with a side view of the Barberini togatus. The
presence of ample cross-references alleviates the potential problems
caused by the lack of any sort of index. Unfortunately, the text is
marred by several typographical errors, in Greek,[[7]] Latin,[[8]] and
other languages,[[9]] as well as a few misplaced references.[[10]]
Altogether, this gathering of papers makes an important contribution to
the study of exemplarity, especially in broadening the horizons of
inquiry beyond elite male Roman literary culture.

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


1.   D. also overlooks some essential bibliography, e.g., Han P.
Mollenhauer, Das Grabmal des Eurysaces: Aus der Geschichte der
Brotindustrie (Bad Godesberg, 1997) and John Henderson, Pliny's statue:
The letters, self-portraiture and classical art (Exeter, 2002).

2.   S. might have strengthened this argument even further by
discussing the etymology of the name. L&S explain "Pseudolus" as "=
<greek>yeudh/s</greek> (lying)," while the OLD clarifies this
explanation by describing the form as a "hybrid from Gk.
<greek>yeudh/s</greek>": perhaps the name derives by haplography from
*Pseudodolus, with elements of both "falsehood" (cf. Greek
<greek>yeudh/s</greek>) and "trickery" (Latin dolus)?

3.   For Punica 17.149-290, see Joaqui/n Villalba A/lvarez, "Ecos
virgilianos en una tempestad e/pica de Silio Ita/lico (Punica XVII,
236-290)," Humanitas(Coimbra) 56: 365-382. In Punica 1.487-491, S.
adopts a reading first proposed by Duff in his Loeb but subsequently
(and correctly) rejected by Spaltenstein in his commentary on the
passage.

4.   Here, however, A. misses John Moles, "Cry freedom: Tacitus Annals
4.32-35," Histos 2 (1998), available online in the journal archives
(http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/moles.html) .

5.   Here, however, A. misses Stanley E. Hoffer, The anxieties of Pliny
the Younger (Atlanta, 1999). Also, see now Ilaria Marchesi, The art of
Pliny's letters: A poetics of allusion in the private correspondence
(Cambridge and New York, 2008).

6.   Unfortunately, D'A. overlooks C. M. C. Green, Roman religion and
the cult of Diana at Aricia (Cambridge and New York, 2006)--although
this work may have appeared too late for her to have been able to
incorporate it into her analysis.

7.   Read <greek>a)qanati/zetai</greek> for <greek>aqanatizetai</greek>
(p. 10 n. 78), plasin for plavsiss and hupographen for upographen (p.
113), <greek>e)gw\</greek> for <greek>e)gw/</greek> (p. 201), and
thoinarmostriai for thoinomostriai (p. 231 n. 78).

8.   Most of the dozen or so errors are relatively minor: the goddess
mentioned on p. 187, however, is named Pax Augusta Claudiana, and not
Pax Augustana Claudiana.

9.   Most of these are also relatively minor (although more numerous):
the most egregious are "Gn." for "Cn." (p. 114), "Verrus's" for
"Verres'" (p. 120, bis), "Dominianic" for "Domitianic" (p. 133),
"Gaspar" for "Gestar" (p. 143), "Merimane's" for "Menimane's" (p. 267),
"Anthony" for "Antony" and "Pharsalis" for "Pharsalus" (p. 303), and
"Fig. 4. Lion on top of ass" for "Fig. 4. Ass on top of lion" (p. 306).
The adjective "sartorial" is used incorrectly (p. 199), and I cannot
find a noun "chiatus" (p. 133) in the OED.

10.   Read "Hor. Carm. 2.12.17-21" for "Hor. Carm. Saec. 2.12.17-21"
(p. 180) and "Stat. Theb. 8.436-37" for "Stat. Theb. 8436-37" (p. 225).