Posted at Feb 27/2011 08:19PM:
#geggie: Nice report, Group 2. Why would wealthy Romans want to put up a stone for some slave? Is there any kind of indication of just how wealthy these people were?
Posted at Feb 27/2011 11:08PM:
#zchaves:
I think that your analysis of the inscription builds nicely off of our material about establishing identity through the funerary and burial processes. The wealthy deceased of Rome had large families to organize for them, and the money to hire orators to proclaim their achievements and masons to craft special monuments. Members of the slave class didn't have as much control over how their personal legacies were preserved, meaning that perhaps we have some gaps in understanding the voice and identity of the Roman slave. At an interesting 'middle point' between the slaves and patricians stood the freedpersons, who could pay to join Columbariums as a way to forge a lasting identity.
Posted at Feb 27/2011 11:59PM:
#fstrauss: To respond to 'geggie': I believe that these wealthy Romans commissioned the stone to the slave because of his career as a charioteer. The inscription implies that he was very successful, he would have therefore been very famous as well. Putting up the stone, they also inscribed their own name on it, thus creating a link to the famous charioteer- self advertising! It is good for their business as owners of charioteers. I find the fact that the stone is not as high quality as the ones surrounding it to be interesting. This could perhaps be an indication of their wealth or perhaps it was because he was a slave that they felt his tombstone should not be as ornate as those of their family.
Posted at Feb 28/2011 01:37PM:
#rmckeown: I do agree that the placement of this tomb marker on the Via Appia served both as a way to honor Eutychetus and as a way for his masters to advertise their business. I also agree that Eutychetus's tomb was of lesser quality because he was a slave. However, I do feel that Eutychetus's masters must have cared for him, most likely because he was a successful charioteer and made his masters wealthy. Because Eutychetus died suddenly at a young age from sickness, perhaps this decoration of the tomb stone was an attempt by his masters to glorify his death as if he had valiantly died while on the race track. Also, had he not tragically died, perhaps Eutychetus could have become a freedman if he had won enough races for his master. Regardless of their reasons, Eutychetus's masters were successful at immortalizing their slave as the "lucky" and skilled charioteer that he was.
Posted at Feb 28/2011 05:10PM:
#cmwu: I appreciate your analysis of the text, and the significance that characteristics such as size of the words, order, language and voice play in expressing the status of the deceased. I am curious what the origins of poetic epitaphs are - why did they evolve the way they did? Were the writers of epitaphs utilizing poetry primarily to evoke a sense of other-world glory, to connect with divinity, to enhance the performance aspect of the poem when it is read aloud, or to elevate the status of the deceased through using flowery language?
Posted at Feb 28/2011 10:56PM:
#sengle: As was discussed in today's lecture, your group also mentioned that this slave's masters decided to partner his image with traditional charioteer garb in order to stress the importance of his occupation and its link to his identity. The practice of depicting Romans on funerary monuments in a manner that stressed their professions intrigues me from a psychological perspective. From what we have learned about the Romans and their preoccupation , it seems as if Romans looked not inwards but rather to OTHERS in order to understand themselves. Many social psychologists argue that self identity is formed, in part, due to the ways in which our actions/thoughts/behaviors/etc. are received by others. It appears as if Romans mattered MOST about the images that they portrayed to others--that the majority of their pride, glory and fulfillment stemmed from exogenous sources. Achievements were blatantly bragged about, especially via forms of visual culture (as is seen in this monument). A question I have for the class to contemplate is why were the Romans so pre-occupied with external appearances? Is their psychology all that different from that of modern day individuals inhabiting metropolitan areas? There are many factors to consider--Rome's humble beginnings, their aspirations to become an empire in which self-identity was de-emphasized while collectivism and devotion to rulers and gods was expected, the somewhat flexible social hierarchy that allowed individuals to ascend based on their merits, etc. As a psychology major, this question has fascinated me throughout the class, and I'd love to have a discussion about this with anyone!
Posted at Mar 01/2011 12:32AM:
mmanella: This stele commemorates a "well-deserving servant" within its text. The Romans had great admiration for successful participants in the spectacles of the gladiatorial arena and circus races. Because Eutychetus was a successful charioteer, his masters most likely commissioned this grave stele to honor not only his memory but the glory that he brought to their family and house. Additionally, if this family owned multiple slaves who competed in spectacles, this grave stele may have served as incentive for other slaves to perform well and be honored even after death.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 12:47PM:
jman: In response to "cmwu," I, too, am curious about the origins of poetic epitaphs. It is interesting how the power of language is so deeply rooted in history, as we can see how important it is today. Having been in a group in which our piece was commemorating a military man, his language was still a bit "flowery" and verbose, although his artwork was stern and simple. Poetic epitaphs, it seems, were to, like you said, to evoke a sense of "other-world" glory. It definitely elevates the language, makes it grandiose, and brings about a certain sense of gravity. Even in today's commemoration of the dead, whether in eulogies or on tombs, the language isn't simple, but ornate to embellish and to honor the life of the deceased.
Posted at Mar 03/2011 12:10PM:
mschmidt-fellner: Group 2’s analysis of the inscription has much to do with the establishing of identity after burial, whether that means showing off accomplishments in life or even creating an even higher class identity. Romans that were poor or not citizens often did not have enough money to assure that their legacy would be preserved as opposed to the wealthy patricians that could craft amazing monuments to gloriously preserve their accomplishments in life. A very interesting middle ground to look at is the commemoration of servants like Eutychetus who brought great honor to the house he worked at. Luckily this family decided to preserve the identity of this more “average” Roman because graves of patricians are plentiful but those of the lower classes are the true gems.
