An Interpretation of the Frescoes of the Hypogeum of the Aurelii in Rome
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Interpretation of the Frescoes of the Hypogeum of the Aurelii in Rome. John W. Bradley. Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London. Volume One of Two. Text, Tables and Bibliography. Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD Declaration of Authorship. An Interpretation of the Frescoes of the Hypogeum of the Aurelii in Rome. John William Bradley. Royal Holloway, University of London. I, John William Bradley, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the works of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________ 2 Abstract. This thesis looks at the frescoes in a single monument of the third century AD in Rome known as the Hypogeum of the Aurelii. The images contained within these frescoes are varied and highly unusual in the canon of Roman art. As a consequence they have attracted a considerable amount of interest in the century since their discovery. Many of the theories submitted to explain these images do not provide, however, a satisfactory or holistic explanation. Indeed, upon close examination what has been 'seen' by some scholars has proved not to exist and evidence put forward in support of their theories has at times been selective and anachronistic. Recent restoration of the hypogeum of the Aurelii provides an opportunity to review the evidence and posit a comprehensive interpretation of all the images in the monument. In the process of unravelling the mystery of this tomb I have taken a multi-disciplinary approach exploring many aspects of Roman life other than the religious or funerary spheres that have been the main constituency of previous work. The consequent interpretation put forward here serves, not only as an object lesson in the importance and utility of, 'going back to basics' but also examines the evidence in the context of their known social status i.e. they were freedmen. The result is a better understanding of the tomb's commissioners which shall inform future discussion on social organisation, including the role of women, the exercise of manumission, dining practice and linguistics in addition to funerary habits in the decades prior to the official recognition of Christianity less than a century later. 3 Acknowledgements. I wish, first and foremost, to thank the staff of the Classics department of Royal Holloway, academic and administrative, for their help and assistance over the years which has made my task so much easier than it might otherwise have been. In particular, I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr Zena Kamash, who in addition to providing many suggestions and support understood my sense of humour, a rare quality. Professors Boris Rankov, Jonathan Powell and Amanda Claridge also supplied prompt and erudite comment on my queries, epigraphic, linguistic and art historical respectively, thereby ensuring I avoided pitfalls into which I might otherwise have fallen. Thanks are also due to Dr Liz Gloyn for pointing me in the direction of recent scholarship on women in antiquity and Dr Richard Hawley for commenting on those sections that concern the role of women. The lonely task of producing a PhD has been greatly eased by my fellow post-graduates among whom I particularly wish to thank Emma Ramsey, Jenny Winter and Matthew Johncock all of whose knowledge of ancient languages far exceeds my own. My thanks are equally due to the administrators of the Helen Shackleton Fund whose generosity greatly offset the costs of the trips I have made to Rome during the writing of this thesis. Beyond Royal Holloway, I wish to acknowledge the unfailing assistance of staff at the Joint Libraries of the Roman and Hellenic Societies and the Warburg Institute in London. Further afield I thank Dr Ursula Rothe for suggestions on the subject of clothing and Prof. Elżbieta Jastrzębowska whose ideas on the meaning of the ‘manumission scene’ closely matched my own: the opportunity to discuss the frescoes over dinner in Rome was a pleasure intellectual and personal. A number of Italian academics have helped in making available photographs or artefacts in particular Dott.ssa Barbara Mazzei of the Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra and Dott.sse Elena Pezzini and Francesca Spatafora of the Museo Antonio Salinas, Palermo. Thanks are due Prof. Paolo Liverani of the University of Florence for bringing certain modern publications to my notice. I wish to thank all those at the British School in Rome for their assistance in gaining access to various sites including 4 the Hypogeum of the Aurelii itself. The library and community provide a welcome harbour to put into after a long day’s trail around the Eternal City. Finally, I wish to extend a special thanks to Dr Eileen Rubery for her encouragement and a shared interest in the topic of late antique art. Without the assistance and suggestions of all these individuals and others unnamed this thesis and its author would have been much the poorer. 5 Table of Contents. Volume 1 ABSTRACT. ................................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. ............................................................................................ 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS. ............................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES. ...................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. ......................................................................................... 13 ANCIENT AUTHORS – EDITIONS USED. ..................................................................... 14 TERMINOLOGIES, IMAGES AND TRANSLATIONS USED. ............................................. 20 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................... 23 1.1 Object, Aims and Scope of Study. ............................................................................ 23 1.2 Chapter Outline and Order of Thesis. ...................................................................... 26 1.3 Architectural and Artistic Context. .......................................................................... 28 1.4 Methodology. .......................................................................................................... 30 1.5 Summary of Previous Scholarship. .......................................................................... 32 1.5.1 Orthodox Christian. ......................................................................................... 32 1.5.2 Gnostics and Heretics. ..................................................................................... 35 1.5.3 Non-Christian or Pagan Beliefs. ....................................................................... 39 1.5.4 Syncretic Art. .................................................................................................. 41 1.5.5 Non-Religious Interpretations. ........................................................................ 42 6 CHAPTER 2. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION. ........................................................ 45 2.1 Upper Chamber. ...................................................................................................... 47 2.2 Cubiculum A. ........................................................................................................... 48 2.3 Vestibule and Cubiculum B. ..................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER 3. INSCRIPTION: WHO WERE THE AURELII? ........................................... 54 3.1 The Nomina and Cognomina. .................................................................................. 55 3.2 The Virgo Aurelia Prima. ......................................................................................... 56 3.3 Fratres and Colliberti. .............................................................................................. 58 3.4 A Family of Aurelii? ................................................................................................. 62 3.5 A Cultic Connection? ............................................................................................... 66 3.6 Other Meanings of Frater. ....................................................................................... 67 3.7 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 72 CHAPTER 4. THE DEPICTION OF SELF IN THE FUNERARY ART OF LIBERTI. .............. 75 4.1 Discussion. .............................................................................................................. 80 CHAPTER 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE LOWER CUBICULA. .......................................... 82 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 82 5.2 Decoration of Vestibule. .......................................................................................... 82 5.2.1 Basic Scheme. ................................................................................................. 82 5.2.2 Wall Decoration. ............................................................................................. 82 5.2.3 Vault Decoration. ............................................................................................ 87 5.3 Decoration of Cubiculum B. ....................................................................................