Group 4 Report-Cornelia Fortunata.pdf
Posted at Feb 28/2011 01:27PM:
rmckeown: Of all the funerary structures that we have studied so far, this one seems to be one of the first ones that I have seen where the identity of the deceased is driven more by their social standing than by their occupation. I wonder why Cornelia Fortunata and her husband were displayed in this context upon their death. Perhaps this desire to be portrayed as wealthier than they were came from the fact that they had recently acquired wealth, much like a sort of nouveau-riche.
Posted at Feb 28/2011 03:41PM:
asung: Gravestone images and inscriptions, as the last remnants of one’s self that will be left behind, as the final way to assert and immortalize one’s life, are not as greatly predictive of people’s actual daily lives as to their personal opinions of what their lives should have been or who they wanted to be. In this tomb inscription especially, the son of Cornelia Fortunata clearly hoped for his mother to be remembered by her fidelity and love for his father and her high social status, or at least worthiness of being of the elite class. The couple’s love for each other is emphasized again and again, in the portrayal of the goddess of love, Venus, and in the inscription itself that states how she was “wise, gently, loving toward her husband. She left him in pain and tears.” However, seeing as the family was already being duplicitous about the amount of wealth they possessed, this leads me to believe that their intense devotion to each other, so prominently displayed on the gravestone, could also have been an exaggeration or rather a depiction of what they wanted their familial relationship to be, especially since Cornelia’s husband left the duty of erecting her tombstone to their son.
Posted at Feb 28/2011 05:19PM:
cmwu: Group 4's assertion that Corenilius and his wife "wanted passersby to think of the pair as a wealthy couple that frequently attended or hosted banquets" is paralleled in many other examples of Roman funerary art that we have studied. It appears as if all Romans wanted to elevate their status upon death; for instance, freed slaves who could never have busts of themselves in their homes displayed busts on their tombs to mimic the elite citizens. Nonetheless, they maintained the "L" inscription denoting their status as freed slaves. This paradoxical juxtaposition of conflicting social statuses seems enables the viewer to understand the social status of the deceased, yet view them in a more favorable, higher status light. I would imagine that the Romans inherently calculated a certain level of "status inflation" for each tomb, to the extent that it was necessary to inflate one's status on the tomb in order to avoid being perceived as having been of lower status than one was.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 01:39PM:
klougheed: I found Group 4's symbolic interpretations of the tomb decorations intriguing. The strategy of using Roman goddesses to evoke the love and beauty of Cornelia herself, as well as the decorations of tall trees to symbolize the fertility and growth of the Roman empire suggests that artists are employing a "secret language" to communicate the character of the deceased to passersby. Renaissance painters employed a similar strategy, using mostly religious symbolism: if the Virgin Mary wore a blue cloak, it would symbolize her purity, and when Adam and Eve wore fig leaves, it would symbolize their loss of innocence. This "secret language," seemingly imposed by some external order, fits with Group 4's assertion that the couple wanted to appear more prestigious than they actually were, since the secret knowledge of symbolism would only be available to a certain, educated class of people, like the ability to read or to speak Greek.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 07:29PM:
nwalker: I find it very interesting that you seem to believe Hadrian alone was responsible for the Greek inscriptions on the tomb. While Hadrian himself was a 'lover of all things Greek', he cannot be given the sole credit for romanticizing the language throughout the Roman empire. Greek language, art, architecture, and other components of culture were seen as cultural prestiges and as you note, the couple did want their tombstone to appear more elegant, and themselves more wealthy, than they actually were. The Greek inscription could have been added to boost their cultural status visually, even after they were dead.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 08:53PM:
becohen: This piece and its analysis bring up interesting questions as to how social class and death interacted in the Roman world. This funerary monument appears to reflect a cultural importance on perceptions not only in life, but also in death. The monument is said to attempt to project a level of wealth far beyond that of the deceased, so might the Hellenic homages on the tomb simply have been attempt to identify with the cultural fad being adopted by wealthy Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE?
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:11PM:
jmiranda: While the Hellenic homages on the tomb may have been an attempt to identify with the cultural fads of wealthier Romans, I think they also had a greater significance. Cultural trends certainly travel between different social classes - but I think they are also modified in the process. I would suspect that the Hellenic homages had a different meaning for members of social class, even if they did appear in the art of one in response to the appearance in the art of another.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:54PM:
kdesimone: I was interested by your argument that the Latin portion of the inscription held more prominence for Cordelia and her husband. I think one could equally argue that the Greek portion was more important to them, as it comes first and is a lot more poetic, offering friendly greetings to the passerby. The Latin portion in comparison is quite formal and seems very terse, as if it is only there because it was a requirement to have the official language on the tomb, and they are fulfilling this requirement in the least enthusiastic way possible. It almost seems to be a kind of resistance against the official language of Rome, though the rest of the tomb embraces certain artistic style elements endorsed by the Roman Empire.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:35PM:
lwsnyder: I find it interesting that there are so many specific details known about the people that this stone commemorates. Are there any notably Greek or outside influences on the piece? I liked this group's argument about how the couple wanted to portray a wealthier status than what they actually were. It just goes to show how art can be used to manipulate one's public image.
Posted at May 13/2011 01:52AM:
rvillene:
The overarching theme of identity is portrayed in the funerary monument, and I find it interesting how, even after death, Roman people would be concerned about their identity and the way they are remembered. I understand how Corenillius and his wife would want to be remembered by passerby's for a sociable, lively couple who hosted and attended banquets, but why is the question of wealth always deemed so important for a means of remembrance as well? Even in other funerary monuments, people of couples will try to make themselves seem wealthier than they actually were in Roman society. I believe this is slightly skewed and misleading, however, I understand the appeal of being remembered for accomplishments and hard work in ones life time. In the case of a freed slave, I find the identifying L a very powerful symbol of identity.
