Reputation and Rumors as Preserved on Roman Epitaphs

Reputation and Rumors as Preserved on Roman Epitaphs Amanda Kelley, BA, BS, MAT, MA Kent State University Abstract: Often reputation in ancient Rome has often been discussed in three interrelated spheres: a political, a social, and a military sphere. Politically, a person’s reputation could advance or damage their position. Caesar’s favorable reputation among the lower classes helped elevate him to dictator for life, or, in the case of Vedius Pollio, his cruelty resulted in being disgraced by the emperor. Socially, graffiti and literary works enhanced both the rumors and reputations of some Romans. Militarily, the fierce reputation of certain legions could prevent uprisings and intimidate enemy troops into surrendering. A Roman’s reputation is one aspect of their life that could continue on their epitaphs; their final words to passersby could memorialize them in a positive light and refute rumors concerning their life. In this paper, I will discuss the trends and unique characteristics of Roman inscriptions which refer to a person’s reputation. I will use this data to show that a Roman’s reputation, as preserved on their epitaph, is formulaic in the ways it portrays positive and negative comments about the person’s life. By closely examining these inscriptions, this research will shed new light on how reputation was portrayed on stone.  INTRODUCTION What is this inscription conveying about the deceased? What does it say about the dedicator? What does it leave out? These are important questions epigraphers ask each time they read an inscription. As is common in epitaphs, even today, there is the common theme of portraying the deceased in a positive light; for Romans this was mostly done through the emphasis on virtues, commonly seen in the superlative. How they were portrayed was important, but I wanted to look at inscriptions that went outside the normal convention of using just superlatives to describe the deceased. So I looked at inscriptions that mentioned some specific aspect of their reputation or a rumor concerning the deceased. Unlike other typical formulaic funerary inscriptions, I will show that although they do still contain some usual features found on other inscriptions, these inscriptions mentioning rumors and reputations have a unique style of conveying Roman values and virtues. MOURNING The life expectancy in ancient Rome was relatively low. The causes of the high mortality rate included poor nutrition, the spread of contagious disease, unsanitary living conditions, especially in densely populated areas, and gastrointestinal sicknesses. Saller 1994, p. 21. In the catalog of inscriptions I deal with here, the grief experienced by some was clearly spelled out on the inscription. Many inscriptions contained expressions of grief from the dedicators who survived. For example, the following inscription used no Latin words meaning mourning or grief, yet the implication of loss is still evident. D M Iul(ius) Victor Martial f Ob an LV Bessa Iuvenis f ux An XLV Novella Essibni f ob a XVIII Victorinus parentib et coniugi et Victorinae fil fecit qui per luem vita functi sunt Mamertino et Rufo cos et Aur Iustino fratri mil leg II Ital stipend X a XXX CIL 03, 05567 (p 2328,201) = AE 2004, +01089 = AE 2008, +01018. “To the spirits of the dead; Iulius Victor, son of Martialis, died at the age of 55; Bessa, daughter of Iuvenis, his wife, died at the age of 45; Novella, daughter of Essibnus died at the age of 18; Victorinus made this for his parents, and his wife and his daughter Victorina who through the plague their lives were ended during the consulship of Mamertinus and Rufus and to Aurelius Iustinus his brother a soldier in the 2nd legion Italica, served for 10 years died at the age of 30.” This inscription is dedicated to 5 people in one family. Having several family members on one tombstone is fairly common; many left room to add additional members when they died since building a new monument was costly. This inscription, however, is different because they all died during the great Antonine Plague in 165. The age of each person at their death is given except of Julius’ daughter, Victorina, but it is very likely that she was very young since her mother was only 18. She may not even have reached her first birthday, which could also explain her mother’s death, because both would have been more susceptible to illness in the days and months after delivery. Victorinus was clearly struck by the grief at losing most of his family and wished to memorialize them and their unfortunate cause of death. It is part of the recovery process for the survivors to mourn, and, of course, one expression of grief is through the words inscribed on an epitaph. Inscriptions had several typical elements: an address to the spirits of the dead, the name of the deceased, the age at death, a descriptor describing the deceased, and the person who was dedicating the tombstone. The address to the spirits of the dead was normally abbreviated to D·M·S for Dis Manibus Sacrum, “sacred to the spirits of the dead.” It was also seen as just D·M and could be plural if the inscription was dedicated to more than one person. The name of the deceased was typically put in the dative. If the actual name did not appear the deceased was described as the son or daughter of “father’s name.” If a descriptor was used, it normally described them in a positive light, and commonly with a superlative or stating that they were “well deserving.” The dedicator of the inscription was usually a close relative. Typically a parent would be responsible for the epitaphs of their children if they died first. In other situations, an adult child may be the dedicator for the parent or a spouse for their husband or wife. The tombstones were in full view in the necropolis along the main streets leading into the cities. The commemoration on stone was meant to keep the memory of the deceased alive and help the survivors grieve. INSCRIPTION INCLUSION DETAILS As the main concern of this paper is to show how rumors and reputation were described on epitaphs during ancient Rome, my first step was to search for a variety of Latin words that could have appeared in Latin epigraphy related to the reputation of the deceased so that I could create a catalog of inscriptions which could be analyzed. The database used for this search was the Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby EDCS website, since it has inscriptions from not only the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), the L'Année Épigraphique (AE), but other publications of Latin inscriptions as well. The CIL and AE are the premier authorities of Latin inscriptions from the Roman world. The CIL volumes are arranged geographically and are meant to be a complete collection of inscriptions for their respective regions. Although new volumes do appear, it was primarily a work of the 19th century. The AE is an annually published collection of recently discovered inscriptions and new interpretations and editions of older inscriptions. While the other publications are not as inclusive as the CIL or AE, they do tend to collect all the inscriptions from specific areas, creating regional collections, and often include more recent discoveries. This fills in many gaps in the CIL and AE, providing a larger sample from which to draw. The Latin vocabulary chosen for the purposes of this study were fama, rumor, adulter, moechus, decepio, and memoria. Latin Vocabulary Searched Occurrence memoria- (memoria, memoriae) 4,817 fama- (fama, famae) 142 rumor- (rumor, rumoris) 4 adulter- (adulter, -a, -um) 7 moech- (moechus, moechi) 1 decept- (decepio, decipere, decepi, deceptus) 56 Using these Latin words I narrowed my catalog to 5,010 inscriptions. This was after several duplicates were removed and inscriptions using the consul Rumoridus or the praenomen Memorianus. The duplicates that were removed were usually a result of two publications interpreting the inscription differently. In these cases where the CIL or AE had one of the inscriptions, that was the one that remained and the other publication was deleted as the duplicate. There were also several inscriptions that had more than one Latin search word. While there are many other Latin words I could have used in the search, these were words I have come across in prose that offered varied and interesting inscriptions. While using these keywords as the search criteria does limit the scope of this paper, the results still provide us with an insight into reputation as memorialized on epitaphs. To help sort my findings I used Microsoft Access to build my catalog due to the ease it allows users to analyze large quantities of data. It has features that allow the user to search for key words and updates fields based on those findings, which is extremely helpful in compiling subsets of inscriptions with similar components. In order to accommodate searches I had to create a ‘clean’ version of the text where the editorial marks were removed but the expanded Latin text remained. MEMORIA Ensuring that the memory of a dearly departed loved one was important to many Romans, and so it is not surprising that 96% of the inscriptions in the catalog contained various forms of the Latin word memoria. The word implies a commemoration of deeds, an unforgettable quality or a person you would be grateful to have known, or simply, a memory. Inscriptions that contain memoria can be grouped into several subsets. The two most frequent are “in memoria” or “bonae memoriae.” For example, “In memory of Marcus Proculeus Iustinius, Marcus Proculeius Martialis, a decurian and duovir, and Gavia Iustina his parents made this for him.” When this phrase occurs it is almost always at the beginning or the end of the inscription. In memor… M Procul … stini M Pro cul Martial dec et IIvir et Gavia Ius tina parentes CIL 03, 05597 = ILLPRON 01532 = IBR 00042 (p V) = NIBayern 00087 = EQNoricum-I, 00013 B m Purpur ia qui vixit annis pl m XXX V quievit i n pace ILSard-01, 00169 = AE 1999, 00800 In the next example, the phrase “bonae memoriae” was used. “To good memory; Purpuria who lived more or less 35 years; rest in peace.” Ordinarily if you saw “B M” on an inscription, it would signify the abbreviation of “bene merenti” being used, but as “B M” occurs at the beginning it indicates “bonae memoriae.” The next occurrence of memoria on inscriptions is with conjunctions indicating purpose or intent, such as ob or propter. D M Elpisio Aug viro piissi mo Iuli MIrodisia me moriae causa Iecit AIIRoma-03, 00098 = AE 1977, 00104 “To the spirits of the gods; to Elpisio a most pius man of Augustus; Julia Afrodisia made this for the sake of his memory.” It is also used in union with other virtues, and often is used to describe the reason for creating the epitaph. For example, “Sacred to the spirits of the gods, pius Flavia Urbana lived 3 years, 5 months, and 7 days; here she lies; Lucius Flavius Donatus made this for his most pius daughter as a memory.” D M s Flavia Urba na pia vix an III men V di VII h s e L Flavius Don atus filie piissi m m fecit AntAfr-1995-293 = AE 1995, 01687 The memory of a loved one was important, and although many of these inscriptions contained other descriptive attributes, it is important to note that using memoria was a fairly common way to denote the implied longing for the deceased, and make it clear to passersby that they will not be quickly forgotten. FAMA & RUMOR Over 140 inscriptions in the catalog discussed the person’s fama or mentioned rumor on their epitaph. These can be categorized into three subgroups: those describing that the deceased lived without a blemish to their reputation, those which claim their famous virtues survive their death and are worthy of recognition, and finally, those telling a story or containing words of wisdom. The following example describes a woman, who was not only described as exemplary, but whose good reputation was undeniable. “A model mother lies here, which fame talks about Exemplum Matro na sita est qua fama loquetur sanctius et me lius non potuisse dari ILCV 04843 = CLE 02090. There are many Roman virtues but the one most commonly portrayed on inscriptions was piety. A person’s piety to the gods, the state and their loved ones was a key component of their reputation and this is reflected on their epitaphs. One phrase that appeared numerous times demonstrating this was fama superstes. The implication here is that they not only had a good reputation until their death, but that their name will survive being associated with their virtuous reputation. The following inscription embodies that sentiment. Calpurniae L f Severae femina rarissimae que vixit ann XXIII m IIII Viria Prima mater infelicis sima que supra em viBit fecit filiae inconparabili cuius fama pietas viBit in aeternum CIL 10, 01091. “To Calpurnia Severa, daughter of Lucius, the most rare of women, who lived 23 years, and 4 months; Viria Prima her most unlucky mother made this for her incomparable daughter who lives above, and whose famous piety lives into eternity.” Unlike the highly abbreviated funerary inscriptions, these had almost all of the letters present; only about 6% of the letters were missing. This is partially due to the desire to have everything spelled out clearly for the readers, but also the phenomenon of poetry in this type of inscription. There were several inscriptions that contained lines of meter. It is important to note that because meter was not a standard convention on epitaphs, the families who paid for these inscriptions would have been wealthy. This expense could have been a tactic to preserve the good name of the family, but the importance of showing the deceased in such a positive light would have been the main motivation. The mention of fama and rumor generally occurred toward the end of the inscription, but on lengthier epitaphs they were sometimes seen toward the middle. Very few were seen at the beginning of the inscription, and these were usually shorter in length. This is another indication of the dedicator’s desire to have one of the last things passersby read to be the fame of the deceased, thus perpetuating the importance to Romans of having respectable virtues. ADULTERERS The traditional Roman male view of women was centered on her life in the home. Harvey 2004, p. 127. Her most important duty was to give her husband heirs. The legitimacy of those children was a direct result of the woman’s fidelity and chastity as “…the notion of chastity is linked with staying at home, away, that is, from the eye of men other than husbands. Women who voluntarily offer themselves to public view raise doubts, it is suggested, about their morals.” Gardner 1993, p. 105. As Forbis says in works of ancient authors and various eulogies concerning women, “all praise their female subjects for one or more of the following: chastity, marital fidelity, wifely and motherly devotion, dedication to housework.” Forbis 1990, p. 493. Even Ovid, whose love poetry did not always portray women in the best light, praised his wife for her uprightness, loyalty and referred to her as “the model of a good wife.” Ovid Tristia 1.6 (A. L. Wheeler, trans. 1939), p. 34-37. These were the attributes expected to be valued and emulated by girls from an early age. So what was said of unfaithful women on their tombstones? Of the eight inscriptions that I found containing words with adulter- and moech-, three were specifically praising the woman as never having committed adultery; and only one actually accosted a woman as being adulterous. Dis Manibus Iuniae M f Proculae vix ann VIII m XI d V miseros patrem et matrem in luctu reliquiD fecit M Iunius … Euphrosynus sibi et …e tu sine filiae et parentium in uno ossa requescant quidquid nobis feceris idem tibi speres mihi crede tu tibi testis eris On the opposite side: Hic stigmata aeterna Acte libertae scripta sunt vene nariae et perfidae dolosae duri pectoris clavom et restem sparteam ut sibi collum alliget et picem candentem pectus malum comMurat suum manumissa gratis secuta adulterum patronum circumscripsit et ministros ancillam et puerum lecto iacenti patrono abduxit ut animo desponderet solus relictus spoliatus senex e Hymno fFade stimta secutis Zosimum CIL 06, 20905 (p 3526) = CLE 00095 (p 854) = Mander 00044. This inscription is unique because it is dedicated to a young girl by both her parents, but after her death her father added another inscription to the back of her tombstone that curses her mother as not only an adulterer but also a thief who ruined his life. At the end he also curses everyone else involved in the act. Translated it reads: “To the spirits of the gods; to Iunia Procula, daughter of Marcus, who lived 8 years, 11 days, 5 days; she left her miserable father and mother in mourning; Marcus Iunius Euphrosynus made this for himself and [Acte]; you permit in one place the bones of the daughter and her parents to rest; whatever you have done for us, may you hope the same for yourself; believe me you will be a witness for yourself. Here the eternal stigmata has been written for the freedwoman Acte, a poisoner, treacherous, deceitful, and having a cruel heart; I will give a nail and rope of broom so that she may hang her own neck, and boiling tar to consume her wicked heart. Manumitted free of charge, having followed an adulterer, she cheated her patron while he was sleeping, and abducted his servants, a slave girl and boy, an old man, abandoned, broken and alone he lost his will to survive; and to Hymnus the same stigmata and to those following Zosimus.” So while other men were commemorating their wives faithfulness, Marcus Iunius Euphrosynus condemned his wife’s memory for her lack of compassion and fidelity. DECEIT The term deception can mean many things in epigraphy. Iunius in the previous example had been deceived by his wife. Other Romans also clearly stated on their epitaphs that they had been deceived. There were three main categories of deceit. The majority, about 80% of these inscriptions fell into the following categories: deceived by fate or divine will, deceived by the untimely loss of a loved one, and finally, deceived by criminal or political activity. The remaining inscriptions were too fragmented to decipher, except for one, which states that the person was deceived by a bull. CIL 08, 02268. The twelve inscriptions indicating the person was deceived by fate were lengthy, but the inscription below was more modest. Amabili secutori nat Dacus pug XIII fato deceptus non ab homine CIL 03, 14644 = D 05111 = ILJug-03, 02264f = IDRE-02, 00302 = Salone-02, 00029 = AE 1899, 00053. This gladiator from Dacus fought in 13 fights, and indicates that his life was cut short not by a man, most likely referring to a retiarius, but by fate. Other inscriptions describe being deceived by divine will or the hope of a longer life. In the next example, the dedicator’s daughter was deceived by her untimely death. Vippia Clementilla mater Cominiae Marciae filiae pien entissimae quae iNmatura mor te decepta vix ann XVIIII m IIII d V maerentissimae Com Marcus et Ursulus fratres fecerunt CIL 05, 07962 = IANice 00089f = ILGN +00004 = CAG-06, p 341 = ILAM 00336. “Vippia Clementilla, mother, made this for her most pius daughter Cominia Marcia, who was deceived by an untimely death, she lived 19 years, 4 months and 5 days; Cominius Marcus and Ursulus her brothers made this for their most deserving sister.” The importance of this type of inscriptions was to show that the person, because of their virtues, deserved to have a longer life. Another way this is seen on inscriptions is that they were seized early to their graves. The last category of deceived inscriptions is that of the deceased being tricked by criminal or political actions. In the following example the man honored, Iulius Timotheus, along with his alumni, were deceived by brigands. Iulio Timo theo qui vi xit p m annis XXVIII vitae in nocentissime decepto a latr onibus cum alumnis n VII Otacilia Narci sa coiugi dul cissimo CIL 06, 20307a = D 08505. “To Iulius Timotheus who lived more or less 28 years; to a most innocent life having been deceived by brigands with his 7 alumni; Otacilia Narcisa made this for her sweetest spouse.” There were several inscriptions in which brigands were the culprits, but also several that describe a man, either soldier or public official, who was ambushed by barbarians, or a sudden revolt of neighboring tribes. Unlike the inscriptions which indicate the deceased was deceived by fate, these inscriptions clearly indicate the importance to the dedicator that their loved one was taken too soon from the evil intentions of others, not by fate. Merely mentioning in these inscriptions that there was some sort of deception is significant. The dedicator considered it a priority to include this in the inscription. In almost every case, the phrase containing decepto could have been removed, but was purposefully added in order to ensure that the reputation of the deceased would be untarnished by their early demise. CONCLUSION On average, all inscriptions in the catalog were almost 8 lines and contained 134 characters present on the stone. If one would exclude memoria, the average drastically increases to 14 lines and 389 characters. This is considerably higher than a random sample of 1,100 inscriptions from Rome out of the CIL. When compared to the Rome sample, the rumor and reputation inscriptions had almost twice as many lines and over three times the characters. The character length was calculated by removing the editorial marks, corrections to spelling, and adding in any part of the inscription that was fragmented, but scholars are sure would have been on the original. Type Lines Characters Present Expanded Text % Abbreviated Memoria 7.64 123.2 152.18 23.40% Rumor/Fama 13.76 405.04 425.49 6.10% Adulterer 6.00 152.00 172.00 12.15% Deceived 13.85 346.15 397.31 14.44% Random Roma Sampling 7.59 124.54 183.22 34.80% Catalog 7.91 134.34 163.40 22.85% If one were to exclude inscriptions containing memoria, and expand the text and count the characters, there were, on average, 417 characters, over twice as many as the Rome sample. However, after including memoria the average is much closer to that of the Rome sample. This implies, as I indicated previously, that the use of memoria was a common funerary tool. The increased number of lines and characters proves the dedicator wished to have the entire story of the deceased person’s life known. Clearly, the cost of such an epitaph was not a concern but rather that passersby be able to know what exactly had happened. Looking at an expanded version of the inscription with all letters present, the inscriptions in my catalog on average only eliminated 22.85% of the letters, and again those inscriptions excluding memoria eliminated 8.37% of the letters, while the sample from Rome eliminated an average of 34.8% of the expanded text. The 10% difference between the catalog and Rome may not seem significant, yet it is still an indication of less commonly seen vocabulary which could not be abbreviated. Looking at inscriptions after excluding memoria, would prove this point as the average is over four times greater, a significant difference. Many of the inscriptions discussed could have contained numerous abbreviations commonly seen on epitaphs, but the dedicator felt it necessary to expand the text, thus ensuring the deceased’s story was clearly known. The importance of a Roman’s reputation is clearly evident in reading inscriptions. When comparing all of the inscriptions in the catalog, it is clear that there was an added emphasis on stressing characteristics of their reputation, which led not only to longer inscriptions, but also a higher cost to the dedicator. The unusual vocabulary used on many of these inscriptions did not allow abbreviations, thus making these inscriptions unique. The added cost and time it took to inscribe these inscriptions is yet another indication of the value dedicators placed on these extra phrases, and on the recently departed. It is through these added sayings, along with commonly seen descriptors to describe Roman virtues, which make reputations and rumors as depicted on inscriptions unique and purposeful.  Bibliography Broughton, T. R. S. (1951). The magistrates of the roman republic. New York, NY: American Philological Association. Butler, A. (1845). The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints, volume 6. Madison, WI: Duffy. Fagan, G. G. (2011). The lure of the arena: Social psychology and the crowd at the Roman games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forbis, E. P. (1990). “Women’s Public Image in Italian Honorary Inscriptions.” The American Journal of Philology, 111(4), 493-512. Gardner, J. F. (1993). Being a Roman citizen. New York, NY: Routledge. Gordon, A. E. (1983). Illustrated introduction to Latin epigraphy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Harlow, M. & Laurence, R. (2002). Growing up and growing old in ancient Rome: A life course approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Harrod, S. G. (1909). Latin terms of endearment and of family relationship: A lexicographical study based on volume VI of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Princeton, NJ: The Falcon Press. Harvey, B. K. (2004). Roman lives: Ancient Roman life as illustrated by Latin Inscriptions. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing. Marzano, A. (2013). Harvesting the sea: The exploitation of marine resources in the Roman Mediterranean. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Mohler, M. L. (1932). “Feminism in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.” The Classical Weekly, 25(15), 113-117. Ovid (1939). Ovid: Tristia, Ex Ponto. (A. L. Wheeler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Saller, R. P. (1994). Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wiedemann, T. (1989). Adults and children in the Roman Empire. Padstone, UK: T.J. Press. Winter, B. W. (2003). Roman wives, Roman widows: The appearance of new women and the Pauline communities. Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1 8