1. In Roman paintings, the dangerous wife challenges gender norms, according to which, the woman in the family is the upholder of morality, and subject to the will of her husband. In the murals found in the House of Jason (Bergmann “Pregnant”), gender roles are both reinforced and challenged, by the choice of subjects. Adultery, like incest and infanticide, as represented by Helen, Phaedra and Medea, destroy the sanctity of blood relations and threatens patriarchy. Their actions contradict the expectations that women are nurturing, loyal and virtuous However, the stories punish these women with exile or death, reflecting the actions of Emperor Augustus, who conducted moral reforms and punished feminine transgression (Bergmann “Pregnant” 211).
Masculinity is also challenged in certain frescoes, also found in Pompeii. For example, the representation of Achilles from in the House of Dioscuri is feminized. Trimble (235) explains that Achilles is painted as feminine, non-marital, and an object of masculine desire. However, this ambiguous gender identity is unresolved in the painting. It remains upon the viewer to complete the missing parts, based on personal knowledge of the myth (Trimble 235). This, however demonstrates the fluidity of masculinity in that period, where a boy could be perceived as feminine, without it affecting his later emergence as a heroic male.
Roman paintings are also able to provide information on the cinaedus, the male figure who transgressed gender norms y engaging in sexual activities with other males. The painting from the Tavern of Salvius, where ordinary people ate and drank, shows a representation of two cinaedi, whose feminine features are mocked by the barmaid. She calls one of them Oceanus in order to challenge their masculinity (Clarke “Representations” 279). The cinaedus represented a serious contrast to the Roman ideal male, and transgressed gender norms in the same ways as prostitutes and actresses.
2. Social class was important in ancient Rome and for a person to be considered as part of the elite, they had to have certain essential characteristics, such as being born as a free person, being wealthy, or having prestige. The difference between elite and non-elite Romans can be distinguished by paintings where they represented themselves carrying out their usual, or favorite activities (Clarke ““Elite”, “Non-Elite”” 7). These typical representations reinforce the norms concerning social classes, where the elite is distinguished from ordinary Romans, for example, by having them read scrolls , instead of selling goods (Clarke ““Eite”, “Non-Elite”” 97).
The way in which the interaction between social classes is depicted in Roman paintings is able to give a clue on the public’s perception of class differences. In a group of paintings decorating a tavern in Ostia, social norms is challenged by means of humor. Here, the elite and non-elite are occupying expected roles. The ‘sages’, representatives of the elites occupy the higher spaces, whereas the ordinary men occupy the lower level, a latrine. The social class difference is, however challenged by the fact that the sages’ mottoes are mocked and replaced with vulgar advice about defecation (Clarke “Up and Low” 54). Instead, the ordinary men in the latrine use their speech to rebel against the authority of the sages, and to reject their expertise.
Achilles’s painting in the House of Dioscuri displays the same social organization as the staging of a salutatio in the house of a rich man of the time (Trimble 245). While the painting describes a transcendence of social and gender norms, they do so by emphasizing those norms, and the rituals that ratify them in the process. In order for a patron’s power to be confirmed, the clients needed to be present and ready to behave in the appropriate way (Trimble 245). The painting also shows how the power of the central protagonist depends on the responses of other characters to it. Therefore, depending on its purpose, and the status of the persons who had it painted, a painting could either reinforce or challenge the norms, or unconsciously do both.
3. Different scholars have used a variety of scientific methods in order to investigate Roman art. For example, in discussing the paintings which identified elite and non-elite patrons, Clarke “ “Elite” “ Non-Elite”” 5) uses visual analysis because he believes this technique to be useful in testing the differentiation between social status. Clarke begins with a visual analysis of paintings in order to establish the patron’s understanding and conveying of his position. This method is particularly effective because no adequate terminology exists to describe the differences between social classes and so, in these cases, these differences can be best expressed in the visual art.
The same technique can be noticed in Bergmann’s (“Pregnant”) investigation of the “pregnant moment”, in the paintings from the House of Jason. However, here the author also uses an analysis of the physical context in order to understand how the position of each painting in the house influenced the viewers’ perceptions, and could explain the message that was transmitted by the paintings. Physical context analysis alone is not effective enough in creating an understanding of the painting and therefore, it can be argued that in discussing Roman painting, this method is not as effective as visual analysis when used alone. Bergmann (“Realia”) uses physical context analysis in describing the objects discovered in a villa in Boscoreale. While this method is efficient in helping readers to gain a sense of life in the ancient Roman society, it is less effective in analyzing particular paintings.
Finally, in Fredrick’s work, using a contemporary theoretical framework, namely Laura Mulvey’s classical formulation of the masculine gaze, offers an effective way of analyzing Roman paintings, by using feminist techniques to investigate the masculine power dynamics in ancient paintings. This technique illustrates many aspects which may have remained hidden, such as the role of voyeuristic rape in reinforcing masculine pleasure in rape (Fredrick 268).
4. Greek culture was evoked in the Roman art to a great extent, particularly in the mythological topics which are depicted in many of the artistic representations of the time (Barringer 149). For example, in his work, Fredrik explains that most of the erotic scenes found at Pompeii depicted mythological scenes. Additionally, in the paintings examined by Clarke (“Up and Low”), the sages from the tavern in Ostia were part of the Greek culture, which was extremely appreciated by the elite. Their portrayal in the artistic representation in the tavern tried to suggest intellectual upbringing.
The role of the mythological painting in Roman art cannot be overestimated. As shown by Fredrick (267), this was the most appreciated kind of painting for Romans, who positioned these paintings in central positions in their homes. These subjects were extremely popular, particularly among the elites because they gave the patrons a sense of prestige and cultural awareness, being a sign of education and class. Whereas, as seen in paintings of non-elite people, the topics often involved more mundane topics, such as people working (Clarke “ “Elite” “ Non-Elite””).
The influence of Greek art was so great that many scholars believed the frescoes on mythological subjects to be mere copies of ancient masterpieces. For example, the fresco representing Achilles on Skyros from the House of the Dioscuri has been thought to be merely a copy of fourth-century B.C. Greek paintings (Trimble 246). However, according to Barringer (149), Roman art was not purely derivative of Greek art, as scholars thought for a long time. On the contrary, Roman art is infused with authentic features which correspond to the moral values of the Roman society (Barringer 149).
5. Roman paintings function as representations of the ways in which the powerful looked at themselves, and at other members of the society. The representation of the female body in particular, illustrates the ways in which the Romans used to look at the female body, from a position of power. Thus, in analyzing these paintings, Laura Mulvey’s theory of the masculine gaze is useful, because it provides a theoretical framework for understanding the roles of paintings in which the feminine boy is objectified, namely scopophilia, and voyeurism (Fredrik 271).
However, ancient theories of viewship, namely intromission and extromission are also useful in investigating Roman painting. While modern theories bring to light aspects which may have been unconscious to the artists, ancient theories were familiar for the Roman painters. For many ancient scientists, light emanated from the eye (extromission), which means that many of the ways in which the painting was perceived resulted from this idea. Clarke’s (“Representations” 283) discussion of the sex pictures in roman baths reflects the authors’ understanding of these ancient theories. As the author explains, the Romans believed that people could emit particles from their “Evil Eyes” when they envied beauty. This reflects the ancient belief that something emanates from the eye.
On the other hand, this theory was competing with another one, which was already present in Roman taught, being first put forth by Aristotle, according to which, the light was emanated by objects, which the eye absorbed (intromission). In Bergman’s (Realia 15) discussion of the way in which the light of the day reflected differently on the frescoes depending on the moment of the day is useful in this respect. The artists were aware of this difference and took it into consideration when creating their work, accentuating contrasts between darkness and light, for example, in order to create a more powerful effect.
Works Cited
Barringer, Judith. “The Mythological Paintings in the Macellum at Pompeii”. Classical Antiquity 13.2(1994): 149-166.
Bergmann, Bettina. “Realia. Portable and Painted Objects from the Villa of Boscoreale”. Les Fresques Romaines de Boscoreale .Ed. Ann Verbanck-Pierard. 3-27. 2011. Web.
Bergmann, Bettina. “The Pregnant Moment: Tragic Wives in the Roman Interior”. 199-219. 2011. Print.
Clarke, John. “Representations of the Cinaedus in Roman Art: Evidence of “Gay” Subculture?” Journal of Homosexuality 49. 3/4 (2005):271-29.
Clarke, John. “Elite”, “Non-Elite”, and “Ordinary”: Testing the Definitions of Status Through Visual Representations. Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. 2003. 4-13, 94-119. Web.
Clarke, John. “High and Low: Mocking Philosophers in the Tavern of the Seven Sages, Ostia”. The Art of Citizens, Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman Art. 2006. 47-47. Web.
Fredrick, David. “Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: Erotic Painting and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House”. Classic Antiquity 14.2(1995): 266-288.
Trimble, Jennifer. “Greek Myth, Gender and Social Structure in a Roman Hous: Two Paintings of Achilles at Pompeii”. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes. 1(2002): 225–248.
