[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.There are no absolute principlesof interpretation, just very general trends which, like the conven-tions of nomenclature, provide a rough guide to interpretation ofthe fairly enigmatic memorials of the lower classes.We have seen that these inscriptions do not present a detailed nar-rative so much as snatches from life stories.As is often the case, closerstudy of a particular source yields complexities rather than thehoped-for answers about lower-class family life, marriage patterns,the ancient economy, social mobility and ties between the statusgroups.The main clue available to the modern reader attempting totrace links is the same one employed by prosopographers ofsenatorials, the gentilicium (in this case, Veturius or Veturia )borne by the freed slave and passed on to their children and freedslaves in turn.More than a century after Mommsen headed the staggering CILproject of collection and publication, we are still working towardsthe best way of approaching Roman inscriptions.We can turn theminto graphs and tables but never into a detailed information bank ofthe modern type.They are nonetheless with all their limitations,and our own in approaching them a rich and rewarding source formajority history, a welcome (if frustrating) glimpse of the worldinhabited by the respectable lower classes in Rome.Notes1 Professors J.Jory and P.Weaver have both challenged the female instigation ofinscription (1) in informal communications.See below for discussion of theirobjection.2 Cic.Clu.178 has the example of a patrona (the wicked Sassia) who establisheda slave doctor in just such a shopfront business.124 FAMILIA VETURIA3 Scholars differ on the work of purpurarii e.g.Mancini 1922 NS: 144; Loane1938: 76; Treggiari 1979: 71.In fact, as with many occupational titles, particu-larly those with an -arius/a ending, it is not clear whether the person sodescribed specialises in production or sale of the particular good see Le Gall1969: 125.Sometimes the product itself is uncertain, as in the case of thelanarius in (4) below.See now Dixon (forthcoming).4 A crude count of the Veturii listed in CIL 6.5864 5 yields eighteen DecimiVeturii, although the praenomen Decimus is considered relatively unusual.5 I would qualify Joshel s argument about the paramount stress on work (overpersonal or patronal) relationships, with the reservation that patronal links are alsostrong in this memorial and that the marriage bond is highlighted by the wordingand the size of the lettering in line 7.Barbieri s reading (ILLLRP 809) ofPVRPVRARI instead of PVRPVRARIA (line 8) has been adopted by DeGrassi(1963: 13.2), but seems to be supported by gender assumptions rather than by thespacing of the letters see Joshel 1992: 211 n.16; Treggiari 1979: 71.ProfessorJory suggested that COIR in line 4 must mean They came together (COIRVNTfor COIERVNT) rather than COIR[AVI] for CVRAVI, I saw to [the monu-ment s erection] , but there are several examples of this usage, e.g.CIL 6.1329,2219, which I culled from Professor Jory s own Epigraph database.Cf.ILS 5318,5346, 5348, which have similar constructions using the abbreviation COIR, butalso the full words COIRAVIT/COIRAVERVNT, e.g.with faciundum.6 Gatti s suggestion, cited in the CIL entry.Dessau on ILS adds a little to this.Nobody seems to take seriously Vaglirei s suggestion (NS 1907, 209) of aCorsican location.7 Treggiari 1976: 98.Cf.Huttunen 1974: 48 9 on the rarity of double refer-ences to occupation i.e.that of both dedicator and deceased in the sameepitaph.Although I have not collected figures on this aspect, my own readingconfirms Treggiari s conclusion, which is borne out by the few epitaphs in thispaper.Treggiari (1979: 78) estimates that fewer than one per cent of Latinlower-class epitaphs cite artisan (tabernarii) jobs at all, and the number ofwomen so characterised is tiny.8 = ARBITRATV (line 4).That is, the form of commemoration was left to herdiscretion as heir rather than being imposed by explicit instructions in the willof the deceased (Mancini NS xix, 1922: 144).The duty of attending to thedisposal of the dead and the appropriate funeral rites normally fell to the heir(Crook 1967: 135).9 According to Mancini (NS 1922: 144), who draws on Festus (Ap.Paul.Diac.104) this central district, extending from the ridges of the Capitol to the PortaCarmentalis, derived its name from its proximity to the altar of Iuno Iuga.10 This monument is discussed briefly by Larsson (1997), and Professor MicheleGeorge kindly drew my attention to its treatment by Zimmer (1982: 121).Therectangular stone piece (too small to be part of a sarcophagus) has the appear-ance of being cut from a larger monument.My autopsy impression is confirmedby the text of CIL 6.14044 (which I know from the published version, but havenot seen in situ):C CAFVRNIVSC L ANTIOCHVSVETVRIA C LDEVTERAIN FR P XV INAGR P XX125 SUZANNE DIXONIt is described by Dessau (following Lovatti) as a cippus found originally nearthe Porta Latina.Nobody seems to have linked the two peices, as far as I can see.11 Pace Davies 1985.Compare the Romano-British wedding ring in the BritishMuseum for disembodied, linked right hands as a symbol of marriage (Dixon1992a: 168 pl.3) and on the symbolism cf.Zanker 1975: 288; Kleiner 1977:23 5; Stupperich 1983.12 Lanarii (also lanarioi, eriourgoi) appear in numerous inscriptions, sometimeswith specifying adjectives lanarii purgatores (cleansers?), lanarii pectinatorii(carders), lanarii carminatores (dyers), for example.But there is no agreementabout the job of those lanarii recorded without an adjective.See Larsson 1997;Dixon (forthcoming).Cf.Waltzing 1895 1900: 2.153, 4.94 5 for the variouscollegia lanariorum.Jones (1974) [1960] assumed and Moeller suggested(1969) that the unqualified lanarii might have been weavers.13 On the size and composition of workshops in Rome, see MacMullen 1974: 978; Loane 1938: 76 7; Joshel 1992, e.g.139 41.On Egypt, see Calderini 1945and Biscottini 1966: 60 90, esp.63 5.Jones (1974) [1960] discusses smalltextile-producing workshops on p.357, but elsewhere (356 60) notes varia-tions of scale, esp.in the later Empire.14 See above all Treggiari 1969 (Freedmen) and Fabré 1981, esp.books II and III.Crook (1967: 191 2) usefully summarises the legal ties.15 See Flory 1978; Fabré 1981: 163 209.Cf.Huttunen 1974: 132 5 on how toanalyse shared gentilicia within libertine families.16 E.g.Clark (1968 reprint: 160 3) on marriage and trade links within the ranksof English craft guilds in the 17th century; Treggiari 1979: 83 n.26 on 5th-century rules concerning admission to bakers guilds (CTh.14.3.21).17 E.g
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
