Inscribing Agency?

The Mundus Muliebris Commemorations from Roman Italy

Author(s): Leslie Shumka
Source: Phoenix , Vol. 70, No. 1/2 (Spring-Summer/printemps-été 2016), pp. 77-103
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7834/phoenix.70.1-2.0077

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7834/phoenix.70.1-2.0077?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Phoenix

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSCRIBING AGENCY? THE MUNDUS MULIEBRIS
COMMEMORATIONS FROM ROMAN ITALY

Leslie Shumka

In the spring of 2008, Rome witnessed the re-opening of one of its most
opulent ancient tombs. Located in the impressive necropolis beneath St Peter’s
Basilica, the mausoleum of Gaius Valerius Herma has long been admired for its
complex decorative program and ornate interior. As part of its overall design,
full-length stucco portraits of Herma, his wife, and their daughter, who died on
the cusp of womanhood, are set into niches along the west wall of the tomb’s
interior.1 Rendered in stucco in the lunettes above each niche are items from
daily life which might have been chosen to reflect some aspect of the deceased’s
identity. In Herma’s case writing implements, perhaps symbolic of the urbane
man, take pride of place, while utensils commonly associated with women are
found in the other lunettes. More precisely, above the portrait of Herma’s
daughter, Valeria Maxima, are a hand mirror, a make-up or jewelry box, and a
perfume container. Directly above the portrait of her mother, Flavia Olympias,
are the implements normally associated with the virtuous woman’s industry: a
distaff, a spindle, and a basket of wool.2
This feminine paraphernalia is part of the gendered visual language found
in Roman commemorative culture that is generally thought to symbolize the
female world. What is striking about the accoutrements for the women of
the Valerii family, apart from the fact that these banal items seem unsuited
to such an elegant tomb, is that they constitute (as far as I am aware) one
of only three such representations from the entire city of Rome.3 Currently,
the overwhelming majority of toiletry reliefs come from humble memorials,
referred to here as mundus muliebris commemorations, that were found in the
many towns that once dotted the landscape of Roman Italy. The differences
between these reliefs and those from the Valerii tomb, elicit several questions.

This article is dedicated with much gratitude and affection to Professor Keith Bradley. I am grateful
to the anonymous reviewers and to Michele George, whose comments and suggestions improved
the focus and clarity of this paper. Warm thanks go also to Fiona Black, Patricia Clark, and Ronnie
Lee for their help at various stages.
1
Mielsch and von Hesberg 1996 is standard reading on the tomb of Valerius Herma and the
street of tombs in general. See also Steinby et al. 2003 and Wallace-Hadrill 2008.
2
A round disc to the right of the basket has not been identified. More detailed descriptions of
the west wall portrait niches are found in Mielsch and von Hesberg 1996: 166–170, with figs. 161,
180, 182–184, and 186. It should be noted that Herma also had a son, Gaius Valerius Olympianus,
who died at the age of four. He is named in an inscription on the tomb’s exterior but does not
appear to have been commemorated inside the mausoleum in the same way as his parents and sister,
on which see Mielsch and von Hesberg 1996: 190.
3
The others are found on a loculus cover belonging to the slave hairdresser Cypare (CIL 6.9727),
and a commemorative plaque for the slave Felicitas (ICUR 9.25171).

77
PHOENIX, VOL. 70 (2016) 1–2.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 PHOENIX

First and foremost, who exactly were the women honored with mundus muliebris
memorials and second, what did they or those who commemorated them wish
to communicate about their cultural identity? Third, does knowledge of the
women’s legal status alter our perceptions of what the iconography might have
meant to them and their dedicants? The latter question is a challenging one
to address, considering how little insight we have into the lives of women from
different social strata (especially those in marginalized social groups), and the
limited knowledge we have of the process by which funerary monuments were
designed. Nor can we ever view the Roman world from the perspective of
the women who experienced it.4 However, by attempting to comprehend the
significance of these memorials we might acquire a better grasp of what their
lives were like. This article is a first step towards such an understanding.

the memorials
The point of departure for this paper is a synopsis of the memorials’ general
features, their geographical distribution, and their chronology.5 There are sixty-
five relevant monuments commemorating seventy-two females and sometimes
their family members or intimate friends. Two commemorations have received
much attention,6 while publications on the rest are scattered widely in epigraphic
journals and major corpora like the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Sixty-four
epitaphs are also found in the holdings of digital archives like the Epigraphische
Datenbank Clauss-Slaby and the Epigraphic Database Roma.7 These searchable
databases provide access in many cases to the original CIL entries, photographs,
and recent on-site examinations of the monuments.
When the cadre of editors assembled by Mommsen began the first studies
of these memorials in the mid-nineteenth century, they encountered carved and
incised toiletry representations predominantly on arae, cippi, and stelai. As they
prepared their entries for publication, the editors usually noted the approximate
position of toiletry items on the memorials, and for this reason the characteristic
labels common to the mundus muliebris genre occur above, below, or adjacent to
the epitaphs. The stelai for Claudia Lexsis (no. 15, fig. 1) and Valeria (no. 61,
fig. 2) provide some idea of the typical forms of monuments, the ways in which

4
I paraphrase here the remarks of Bradley (2008: 487), who comments on the challenges of
trying to get at the lived reality of Roman slaves.
5
The appendix to this article (below, 96–103) contains brief summaries of each memorial.
Due to the space constraints of this article, I have provided the CIL references where appropriate,
along with the identification numbers from online epigraphic databases, rather than fuller, strictly
bibliographic entries.
6
The best known are the cippus of Poppaedia Secunda and her mother (no. 35), and the stele for
Caecinia Digna and Numeria Maximilla (no. 49). See below 85–86. For examples of publications
which discuss these memorials, see Rossi 1843; Letta-D’Amato 1975; Wyke 1994; Shumka 2008.
7
The exception is the epitaph for the slavewoman Iadis (no. 23), commemorated by her fellow-
slave Amethistus. Details are available in Buonocore 1982: 733–734.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 79

text and image are juxtaposed, and the range and types of toiletries that are
included. Depicted in the gable above the inscription panel of Lexsis’ stele is a
typical relief comprising a comb, cista (cosmetic or jewellery box), a mirror with
a handle, a pair of slippers, and two perfume bottles. On Valeria’s gravestone,
however, the objects are placed beneath the inscription and are incised rather
than modelled. A substantial fracture on the gravestone’s right side prevents us
from knowing Valeria’s cognomen or whether there was an additional article in
the lower right corner of the face, a problem which occurs with several other
memorials as well.
Combs, mirrors with handles, and slippers are the most commonly depicted
items, followed by perfume containers (variously labelled balsamaria, unguentaria,
lagoenae, or ampullae), pins or needles (aci, aci crinales) for sewing or arranging
the hair, and cistae. More rarely there are closed umbrellas or parasols (nos. 33
and 35) and round mirrors in square cases sometimes described as box mirrors
(nos. 32 and 35).8 Any number or combination of these items might appear
on a memorial. While we know little about the decisions that determined the
composition of a relief, personal preferences, finances, and the stock available at
the local sculpture atelier must have influenced buyers.
The geographic spread of the commemorations is rather uneven, with eighty-
three percent originating in central Italian towns, especially in Regio IV (Sam-
nium) and Regio VII (Etruria), fourteen percent in Regiones I–III and V–VI, and
a mere three percent in the city of Rome.9 Their concentration in Samnium and
Etruria is not wholly unexpected, given that the epigraphic habit in both areas
was fairly robust relative to the rest of Italy (excluding Rome, Regio I, and Regio
X).10 Pinpointing the exact provenance of all memorials is a challenge, as few
have been found in situ. Some were moved to church precincts, museums, or
private collections without any formal documentation of their original contexts
or material remains, while others were repurposed in building projects either in
antiquity or later centuries (nos. 11, 18, 36–38, 53). Still others have come into
the hands of affluent families or art collectors in the modern historical period,
again with little or no record of their provenance.11

8
Specimens of most toiletries depicted in the reliefs are also present in the material record of
Roman Italy. For discussion of these artefacts see, Virgili 1989 and 1990; Berg 2002; Allison 2015;
and Lohmann 2015.
9
The scarcity of evidence from Rome might reflect urban iconographical preferences, or stem
from the periodic eradication of active suburban cemeteries during the first few centuries of empire.
See Bodel 2008: 178–179 and especially Bodel 2014 on burial space at Rome. For a similar event
at Ostia, see Carroll (2006: 83) following Heinzelmann 2001: 381.
10
Beltrán Lloris 2015: 138, Table 8.2. Scopacasa (2015: 9–10) notes that the archaeological
record of Samnium is also particularly rich.
11
At one time, the sarcophagus of Iulia Basilia (no. 25) belonged to a baronial family of Sulmona
(CIL 9.3727), while Poppaedia Secunda’s cippus (no. 35) was acquired by the Bucelli family of Ortona
and eventually donated to what is now the Museo Lapidario Avezzano. More recently, the cippus
of Octavidia Genialis and her husband T. Poppedius Callidus (no. 31) was listed for sale in June

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 PHOENIX

Precise dates for the memorials are elusive in the majority of cases, but ranges
have been established on philological and paleographic grounds.12 Because the
dates are imprecise and the number of monuments in the collection is small
our chronological picture is somewhat distorted. Still, a rise and fall can be
traced in the epigraphic evidence from Roman Italy approximating a similar
curve in the data that is posited for the imperial era.13 Five memorials date
to the late first century b.c. or early first century a.d., a period when non-
elite individuals were beginning to develop an interest in self-commemoration
(nos. 4, 20–21, 32, 49). The monuments appear with twice the frequency
throughout the first century, proliferate in the second, but by the early third
century their popularity seems to wane markedly. There are doubtless other
factors influencing this distribution, and we should be wary of placing too
much emphasis on the parallels between our picture and the one for the em-
pire. It is certain, however, that these monuments appear in the mortuary cul-
ture of Roman Italy over a 250-year span, which is a considerable period of
time.14
In general, an examination of the mundus muliebris commemorations reveals
a noticeable degree of variation in the type and number of articles represented
on individual monuments, a variation which cannot necessarily be attributed to
the status of an honorand. In marked contrast, there is a significant level of
uniformity with the funerary inscriptions, as biographical details such as types of
relationships (e.g., affective, patronal, and familial) and sentimental portrayals of
the deceased through the employment of traditional epithets, such as carissima
(“most beloved”) or bene merens (“well-deserving”), are reasonably consistent
across time and place. It is also worth noting that in seventeen cases we have
the honorand’s age at death, and in six others mention of the length of her
marriage. On the face of it, these details seem almost pedestrian, but they are
essential for helping to reconstitute something of the lives of the honorands
and to draw conclusions, however tentative, about what these women and their
dedicants wished to reveal about themselves.

2013 by the Pandolfini auction house in Florence (Pandolfini 2013: lot no. 531), with a pre-auction
estimate of 1000–1500 euros.
12
For the purposes of this paper, I have employed the dates assigned by the most recent on-site
examinations. Five monuments remain undated: nos. 25, 29, 42, 45, 47. Meyer (1990), Carroll
(2006: 26), and Edmondson (2015a: 562) all address the problems of dating inscriptions. On
epigraphic formulae of the late republican and early imperial period, see Salomies 2015. On the
invocations, see Carroll 2006: 126–127, and Bruun and Edmondson 2015b: 15.
13
MacMullen 1982; Meyer 1990; and Woolf 1996. Beltrán Lloris (2015) especially urges caution
in accepting uncritically the picture of this cultural practice.
14
It should be noted that the mundus muliebris commemorations do not seem to be peculiar
to Roman Italy, as two memorials from the Roman West suggest. See the “speaking” stone from
Mogontiacum (Mainz), set up for a twenty-eight-year-old slave named Paulla, and another from
Scupi (Skopje), for an eighty-year-old freedwoman named Teufia Nice. Lazzaro 1993: 188–189;
Amiri 2007: 450; Carroll 2007–2008: 52–53; and Lucreţiu 2008.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 81

freedwomen (LIBERTAE)
Since it is generally accepted that freedpeople (libertini) are well represented
in Latin funerary inscriptions, with their epitaphs far outnumbering those of
freeborn and less affluent individuals,15 it is no surprise that freedwomen and
probable freedwomen form the largest category of honorands.16 As is gener-
ally the case with the epigraphic evidence for this often elusive social group,
there are significant challenges in ascertaining social status in the absence of
libertination, the epigraphic marker of “L” which guarantees that the deceased
was once a slave. It is also impossible to identify the motivations for nam-
ing the former slave-owner in the examples (fewer than ten) which do so.17
Incentives for a freedman to acknowledge a former master range from sim-
ple social convention, a sense of obligation, genuine affection for a patron, the
perceived social advantages that accrued in having a prominent former mas-
ter, or all of the above to varying degrees. The general lack of formal in-
dicators is comprehensible when we consider that the burgeoning practice of
self-commemoration in the Roman empire generally also coincided with the
increasing omission of status markers such as libertination and filiation (an “F,”
the epigraphic marker which indicated freeborn status) except among imperial
freedmen.18 The exclusion of filiation or libertination might have been a way
to lower the cost of the memorial by using a shorter, and therefore cheaper,
inscription; alternatively, the absence of these markers successfully obscured the
stigma of servile descent.19 Careful scrutiny of the nomenclature and personal
bonds of both dedicator and the deceased are essential for distinguishing legal
status.
The legal position of four women is resolved from allusions to relationships
with their inscribers. Two women stand out from the others by virtue of their
marriages to men who style themselves priests in the imperial cult of the Au-
gustales (seviri Augustales).20 The husbands of Nonia Lucusta (29)21 and Octavia

15
Mouritsen 2005: 38–39; Meyer 2011: 207–209; Morley 2011: 281; Bruun 2015b: 608–609.
16
Libertae (twenty-nine percent): nos. 4, 6, 10, 19–21, 25–26, 28, 31–32, 38 (two honorands),
39–41, 50–51, 54, 59, 65. Possible libertae (twenty-six percent): nos. 7–8, 13, 15 (two honorands),
16, 18, 29, 30 (two honorands), 34, 37, 43, 46–47, 52, 55–56, 62.
17
See nos. 4, 20–21, 26, 31–32, 38 (two honorands), 39, 41. With one exception, the dates for
these epitaphs fall within the the late first century b.c. and early second century a.d.
18
MacMullen 1982; Meyer 1990; Woolf 1996; Beltrán Lloris 2015.
19
On motives for excluding status markers, of the possible over-representation of liberti in the
epigraphic material, and of the social composition of those with uncertain status (incerti), see Taylor
1961 and MacMullen 1982. Cf. Joshel 1992: 167–168 and 183–186; Mouritsen 2005: 127–128,
229–230; Carroll 2006: 146; and Perry 2014: 99–100.
20
Bibliography for the sevirate’s titular variations and responsibilities, and their epigraphic habits,
is immense. For work on the Augustales in Italy, see Abramenko 1993 and Mouritsen 2006.
21
CIL 9.3442: Sex(tus) Sinitius | Memor VI vi[r] | Aug(ustalis) viv(it) sib(i) et | Noniae Lucusta[e] |
coniugi suae f(ecit) (“Sextus Sinitius Memor, sevir Augustalis, made [this monument] while he was
alive, for himself and for his spouse, Nonia Lucusta”).

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 PHOENIX

Prisca (no. 34)22 held this relatively distinguished position, and the men indicate
that they erected the memorials for their wives as well as for themselves. Seviri
Augustales are well attested in the epigraphy of central Italy, and the vast majority
of these men appear to have been freedmen who paid a significant sum of money
(summa honoraria) for admission to this privileged order.23 Given the group’s
social composition, we can argue that Lucusta and Prisca were freedwomen. At
the same time, it must be acknowledged that unions between affluent freedmen
and freeborn women (ingenuae) did occur. A freeborn woman was undoubtedly
an attractive partner for a freedman concerned with social mobility, but very
few examples of these mixed marriages are found outside the city of Rome.24
The absence of status indicators beyond the capital might mean that the hus-
bands had no wish to be overshadowed by their freeborn wives, or it could mean
that status was not important enough to the couples to be included. A review
of surviving inscriptions erected by other Augustales in Peltuinum and Marru-
vium, where Nonia and Prisca resided, produces five examples of freedwoman-
Augustalis unions, and while this evidence is not abundant it suggests that these
unions were probably the norm.25
Patronal relationships are notable in two cases. Gaius Amaredius Aper, pre-
sumably the author of Amaredia Lucina’s epitaph (no. 10), draws attention to
his position as her patron,26 but beyond this connection we know little about
the nature of their relationship. Terms that would usually signify marital bonds,

22
Avezzano 56: Pon[tidiae Sex(ti) fil(iae) | Seve[rae infirma] | nata [est sana fuit] | die n[ull]o tulit
| a(nnos) V m(enses) [V]III d(ies) XX | Octaviae Priscae | rarissimi exem|pli f[e]minae | Sextus Pontidius
Hel(vi) | l(ibertus) Fortunatus sev(ir) Aug(ustalis) f(iliae) c(oniugi) et s(ibi) p(osuit) (“To Pontidia
Severa, daughter of Sextus, who was born frail and was healthy on no day. She endured five years,
eight months, twenty days. To Octavia Prisca, a woman of very rare example; Sextus Pontidius
Fortunatus, freedman of Helvius and sevir Augustalis, set up [this monument] to his daughter, his
spouse, and himself”).
23
Taylor 1914: 231; Mouritsen 2015: 239–240. Cf. Bruun 2014 on the summa honoraria.
24
Weaver 1972: 87. On marriages between freedmen and freeborn women, see also Treggiari
1969: 213 and Evans Grubbs 1993: 128–131, together with Mouritsen 2011: 297. Sextuleia
Secunda (no. 41), whose status is indicated by libertination, was also married to an Augustalis. CIL
9.3952: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | T(itus) Tituleius | Successus | sevir Aug(ustalis) | sibi et | Sextuleiae |
M(arci) l(ibertae) Secundae | coniugi b(ene) m(erenti) | p(osuit) (“To the divine shades. Titus Tituleius
Sucessus, a sevir Augustalis, put up [this memorial] for himself and for his well-deserving spouse,
Sextuleia Secunda, the freedwoman of Marcus”).
25
Peltuinum: CIL 9.3441 (Q. Papius Natalis) and 9.3443 (Q. Vibullius Secundionis). Mar-
ruvium: CIL 9.3679 (P. Avius Lalus), EMarsi 78 (P. Ostorius Vitalis), and 9.3678 (T. Alledius
Ianuarius). For comparanda we might note that the epigraphy of Alba Fucens, just 46 km south
west of Peltuinum, reveals a further three freedwoman-Augustalis marriages: CIL 9.3932 (M. Al-
lidius Probatus), 9.3937 (Q. Gargilius Sabianus), and AE 1987, 333 (C. Populenus Natalis).
26
CIL 9.3971: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Amarediae | Lucinae | quae vixit annos | XVIIII men(ses)
VII quem con|didit in monumento | suo C(aius) Amaredius Aper | patronus C(aius) Amaredius | Severus
et Amaredia | [Psyche] filiae piissi | mae (“To the divine shades of Amaredia Lucina, who lived for
nineteen years and seven months. Gaius Amaredius Aper, her patron, allowed her to be interred
in his tomb. Amaredius Severus and Amaredia Psyche [put this up] for their most affectionate
daughter”).

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 83

for instance uxor (“wife”), maritus (“husband”), and coniunx (“spouse”), are ab-
sent. There is no reference to children of the marriage, and the only remark
on Lucina’s virtues comes from her parents, who were also dedicants. Aper did
consent to place Lucina’s altar in his tomb, which might be a sign of a more
intimate bond between the pair.27 By contrast, the freedwomen Septimia Satura
and Septimia Primigenia dedicated a memorial to their patron, Septimia Lyde
(no. 40), and paid for it out of their own pockets (de suis fecerunt).28 In effect,
these women performed the duties most often associated with the legatees of
the deceased, at least according to Cicero (Leg. 2.48–49), who says that legatees
(who were sometimes but not always heirs) were responsible for carrying out
the sacra or rites for the dead.29 He does not state categorically that setting up
a suitable memorial was part of the legatees’ obligations, but it is evident that
these freedwomen felt this to be among their responsibilities, perhaps because
their patron had left no instructions for funerary arrangements before she died.30
Unlike the inscriptions for the Augustales’ wives or the women in patronal
relationships, most of the funerary texts for freedwomen offer very little explicit
information about the honorands’ legal position; however, their nomenclature
can provide clues about the connections between them. When inscribers and
inscribed carry the same gentilicium (patronym) we can assume with some confi-
dence that they are former slaves who were manumitted by a common owner.31
Less straightforward are epitaphs where a patronym is supplied for the hono-
rand alone, as in the case of the freedwoman Herennia Psyche (no. 54),32 who
had three commemorators: a man named Chresimus, who refers to her as his
spouse, her daughter Adiecta, and her son-in-law Alexander.33 The status of her
dedicants, however, is not provided, and because their personal names are given
27
For the range of relationships that might exist between a freedwoman and her patron, see
Perry 2014: 106–114. On patronage ties, Nielsen 1996 and 1997 are pertinent.
28
CIL 9.4026: Septimiae | Lyde | Septimia Satura | et Septimia Primi|genia patron(ae) | b(ene)
m(erenti) d(e) s(uis) f(ecerunt) (“For Septimia Lyde. Septimia Satura and Septimia Primigenia paid
[for this monument] from their own funds, for their well-deserving patron”).
29
Cf. Beltrán Lloris 2015: 143.
30
It is possible that we have a third patronal relationship between Q. Mammius Saturninus and
Mammia Zoe (no. 28). CIL 9.3819: [D(is?) M(anibus?)] s(acrum?) | Mammiae Zoe c(oniugi?)
s(anctissimae?) | Q(uinto) Mammio Sa|turnino filio | pientissimo | Q(uintus) Mammius C(ai) f(ilius) |
Saturninus | pater infe|licissim(us) | suis et sibi | p(osuit) (“To the divine shades. Quintus Mammius
Saturninus, son of Gaius and a most unlucky father, put up [this monument] for his most pious
spouse, Mammia Zoe, and for his most dutiful son, Quintus Mammius Saturninus, and for himself
and his descendants”).
31
Segennia 1988 and 1990. For honorands identified in this way, see nos. 6, 19, 25, 28, 40, 54,
59, 65.
32
CIL 11.6998: D(is) M(anibus) | (Psycheni) (H)eren|ni(a)e posuit | C(h)resimus | co(n)iugi su[ae]
| et A(d)iecta fil(ia) | et gener eiu(s) | Alexander | curandu(m) | posuerun(t) | vix(it) an(nis) LXX (“To
the divine shades. Chresimus set up (this monument) for his spouse, Herennia Psyche. (Their)
daughter, Adiecta, and son-in-law, Alexander, also took the trouble to set up [this monument]. She
lived for seventy years”).
33
Neither Angeli Bertinelli (2011: 99), nor (Frasson 2014: 379) are convinced that “Syceni
Erennie” should be corrected to Psyche Herennia; but it seems to me that the original name is

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 PHOENIX

without a gentilicium we might initially conclude that they are slaves. Intimate
relationships between slaves and freedpeople were common enough, to judge
from epigraphic evidence,34 so it might be the case that Psyche was the only
freed member of this group and pointed references to legitimate personal rela-
tionships, such as coniunx (“spouse”), filia (“daughter”), and gener (“son-in-law”)
were meant to convey the idea that these individuals conceived of themselves as
a family even though the law did not (Paul. Sent. 2.19.6). At the same time,
the honorand’s family name (gentilicium) might apply to them all as freed slaves
of a Herennius or Herennia.35
Psyche’s epitaph also brings into focus the question of how Latin and Greek
slave names with Roman gentilicia should be understood. In this collection,
half of the honorands identified as freedwomen carry Greek personal names
(cognomina) that are well attested in the nomenclature of slaves. In like fashion, a
number of honorands and their commemorators have Latin cognomina that derive
from words for happy, blessed, fortunate, and trustworthy, or the calendaric
cognomen Ianuarius,36 which were common slave names. A good example is
the freedwoman from Marruvium, Atilia Ianuaria (no. 13),37 whose husband
C. Pomponius Felix set up the memorial for his wife and took care to note their
fifteen-year marriage. To determine status solely on the basis of nomenclature is
not always sound practice especially when there were periods in which parents,
seemingly indifferent to the stigma often associated with Greek names, gave
their children these ethnic cognomina.38 Nevertheless, the honorands in this
study with this combination of names I generally regard as probable freedwomen
unless details in the commemorative inscriptions suggest otherwise.
Having established that the bulk of the honorands in this study were freed-
women, we can now consider the relevance of their social status to an inter-
pretation of the mundus muliebris iconography. There is great variation in the
number and type of articles adorning the freedwomen monuments, with some
honorands and their commemorators opting for a single, strategically placed ar-
nothing more than a phonetic spelling. Susini (1973: 39–49) attributes these oddities to either an
inattentive mason misspelling the words or the individual placing the order having a foreign accent
and the inscription writer (scriptor) being confused by his or her pronunciation. Cf. Carroll 2006:
118–119.
34
Rawson 1966: 72. In our study there are two examples of freed-slave unions. Hermes identifies
himself as the companion (contubernalis) of Claudia Rhode (no. 16), while an inscription set up by
a neighborhood club (Collegium Compitalicium) in Faesulae, for L. Terentius Fidus, clearly identifies
a woman named Novicia (no. 58) as his companion (eius contubernalis).
35
Bradley 1984: 77-78; Treggiari 1991: 52–54; Perry 2014: 40–41. Cf. inscription no. 7, in
which the status of Aurelia Septimina’s husband is ambiguous. Impetratus might have been a slave
or been owned by an Aurelius or an Aurelia.
36
Solin 1996 and Kajanto 1965. See in particular nos. 6, 13, 18–19, 47.
37
EMarsi 93: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Atiliae Ia | nuariae | C(aius) Pomponius | Felix coniug(i)
| cum qua vix(it) | ann(os) XV b(ene) | m(erenti) p(osuit) (“To the divine shades of Atilia Ianuaria.
Gaius Pomponius Felix put up [this monument] for his well-deserving spouse, with whom he lived
for fifteen years”).
38
Mouritsen 2011: 123–128, but see also the caveat of Bruun (2013: 22–23).

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 85

ticle and others choosing a range of items which might frame the inscription
or appear on the lateral faces of the memorial. As noted previously, the tra-
ditional perspective of this imagery is that it represents the world of women.
Placing these memorials in the context of a highly competitive social milieu
in which proper self-presentation was valued allows an expanded interpretation
of this iconography. For example, it is generally accepted that the stigma of
a freedperson’s servile origins could never be completely eradicated, a position
that must have been reinforced by literary stereotypes.39 Freedwomen, who were
often characterized as sexually dissolute, were especially vulnerable to this nega-
tive reputation. Valerius Maximus’ anecdote (6.3.11) about Q. Antistius Vetus’
repudiation of his wife provides a good example. Vetus apparently caught his
wife in public chatting a little too intimately with a certain common freedwoman
(libertina vulgaris). Rather than waiting for this woman to corrupt his wife, as
Vetus believed she inevitably would, he swiftly initiated divorce proceedings.
While this might be only a literary stereotype it almost certainly drew upon
existing social attitudes.40

freeborn women (INGENUAE)

When we consider the total number of freedwomen in this study, the per-
centage of freeborn women seems comparatively low (fourteen percent). Their
legal status is not in doubt due to the presence of filiation, and other indica-
tors of freeborn status.41 Less easy to discern, however, is the social stratum to
which these ten honorands belonged. The memorial for Tiberia Paccia (no. 3)
is the most unassuming of all commemorations for a freeborn woman, compris-
ing a plaque with the briefest of inscriptions that is flanked by a mirror and in
all probability two perfume bottles.42 Whether it was originally located inside
a tomb or not is unknown. At the other extreme is the cippus of Poppaedia
Secunda and her mother, Eita (no. 35), with its well-known and extensive de-
piction of toiletries and an epitaph containing a patronym of note.43 Secunda is
thought to be a relation of Q. Poppaedius Silo, who served as a military leader
of the socii during its war with Rome (App. 1.44; Diod. 37.15.1–3; Livy Per.
73), and of another Poppaedius who served as a low-ranking military leader un-
der Marc Antony in 39 b.c. (Cass. Dio 48.41.1). If these familial connections
are correct, as Letta and D’Amato suspect they are, it can easily be imagined
that Secunda’s family were people of some standing in Ortona.44 Rossi’s 1843
39
Mouritsen (2011: 10–35) is eloquent on the stain of slavery that freedmen and women had to
endure throughout their lives.
40
Perry 2014: 140. See also Hackworth Petersen 2006 for a discussion of freedman stereotypes.
41
Nos. 3, 9, 11, 27, 34, 35 (two honorands), 44–45, 53.
42
CIL 10.4269: Paccia Ti(beri) f(ilia) salve (“Paccia, the daughter of Tiberius. Farewell”).
43
CIL 9.3826: Poppaedia P(ubli) f(ilia) Secunda | filiae ossa sita | Eitae M(arci) f(iliae) matri | ossa
sita (“Poppaedia Secunda, the daughter of Publius. The bones for the daughter lie here. The bones
for Eita, daughter of Marcus, lie here.”).
44
On the Poppaedii, see the remarks of Letta-D’Amato 1975: 154–156.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 PHOENIX

examination suggests as much: in his account of the memorial’s discovery, he

records that Secunda’s cippus was associated with a brick (and probably marble)
tomb which came to light in 1814 on the outskirts of the community, leading
him to speculate that her memorial was set up inside the tomb, about which
few details are available.45
Between these two extremes we might place the memorials for Aelia Ingenua
(no. 9),46 Arrena Marciana (no. 11),47 and Pontidia Severa (no. 34),48 whose
epitaphs tell the familiar story of upward mobility among freedpeople. Their
parents were former slaves, with Severa’s father achieving one of the highest
public honors for a freedman, the office of Augustalis. The untimely deaths of
their daughters must have been shattering for the parents, especially considering
that freeborn children of libertini possessed all the legal rights and privileges of
the Roman citizen with none of the restrictions or obligations that were imposed
upon their parents, such as exclusion from holding public-offices or obligations
(operae) that were owed to their patron. Furthermore, the birth of a freeborn
child was a milestone in the family’s history, since it meant that all members
now possessed one of the most fundamental freedoms of a citizen: personal
autonomy.49 Prior to their manumission, parents lived with the ever-present
possibility that any intimate and continuing relationships they had could be
severed on the whim of an owner, while unwanted sexual advances and physical
violence at an owner’s hands had to be met with compliance. Admittedly,
not all slaves were ill-used by a master or a mistress, nor did they necessarily
endure psychological stress because they lacked physical autonomy. For slaves
who had been maltreated by a master, however, manumission allowed an escape
from this vulnerability, and, more importantly, ensured that their children would
never experience the same powerlessness. The significance of their daughter’s
citizenship was not lost on Hermes and Philadelphia: rather poignantly they
named her Ingenua (Freeborn).
The funerary inscriptions of two women from Hadria bring a different per-
spective to our study of the identities and social milieux of freeborn honorands.
Although short on personal details, the inscriptions for Flavia Tertia (no. 44)50

45
Rossi 1843: 244.
46
AE 1994, 564: D(is) M(anibus) | Aeliae L(uci) f(iliae) Ingenuae | vixit annis XXX | Aelius Hermes
et | Aelia Philadel | phia parentes (“To the divine shades. Aelia Ingenua, the daughter of Lucius, lived
for thirty years. Her parents, Aelius Hermes and Aelia Philadelphia [set this up]”).
47
AE 1987, 328: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Arren(a)e | Marcian(a)e | P(ublius) Arrenus | Ianuarius |
pater et Al | bia Maxi | milla mater | filiae carissim | (a)e qu(a)e vixit an | nis XXIII men(sibus) III | d(iebus)
[---] (“To the divine shades of Arrena Marciana. Her father, Publius Arrenus Ianuarius, and her
mother, Albia Maximilla, [set up this monument] for their most beloved daughter who lived for
twenty-three years, three months, and [---] days”).
48
See above, 82, n. 22 for the text of the inscription.
49
Bradley 1984: 51–64; Mouritsen 2011: 284–287.
50
CIL 9.5025: Flaviae L(ucii) f(iliae) | Tertiae | L(ucius) Flavius L(ucii) f(ilius) | Maec(enas) Valens
| sorori p(osuit) | in fr(onte) p(edes) XV in ag(ro) p(edes) XV (“Lucius Flavius Maecenas Valens, the son

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 87

and Terminia Sabina (no. 45), set out identical dimensions for their cemetery
plots, which were fifteen Roman feet along the front, and fifteen feet in depth.
Tertia’s brother is her only inscriber, so it might have been the case that her stele
formed part of an already established family sepulchre which held the remains
of their parents, or that as boundary marker and memorial Tertia’s stele stood
on the frontage of the family’s plot. By way of comparison, the plot sizes at
Hadria can be set beside those cited in fifteen inscriptions from Amiternum,
located just 100 kilometres to the west. Parcels in that graveyard ranged in
size: the smallest, at 10 x 10 (Roman) feet, belonged to the ingenuae Flavia
Rufa (CIL 9.4379) and the largest at 20 x 20 was the final resting place of the
freedman P. Helvidius Flaccus (SupIt 9: 103).51 The plots for Tertia and Sabina
appear to have been rather average, which might indicate that their purchase
was not a hardship for either honorand’s family.52 The costs incurred might say
more about the value that inscribers and inscribed generally attached to proper
burial than about their financial resources,53 and it is possible that some Romans
might have been prepared to spare no expense in commemorating their loved
ones appropriately, even if this meant their households had to economize for an
extended period of time.

women of uncertain status (INCERTAE)

Thirteen honorands in this study (eighteen percent) are categorized as incer-
tae, women of uncertain legal status. Their epitaphs lack filiation or libertina-
tion, and there is little in the way of vital information that clarifies their legal
position. In several instances the dearth of information is the result of a mon-
ument’s mutilation, or damage from long years of exposure to the elements,54
but in other cases it is the ambiguity of personal details that poses problems.
The memorial for Umbricia Pyramis (no. 60) well illustrates the challenges of
status identification with incertae.55 Her personal name and patronym imply
libertine status, as this combination of Greek and Latin names so frequently
does. Curiously, her dedicant is unnamed and known only by the legal term
heres (“heir”). The relationship between them is revealed by the description of
of Lucius, set up [this monument] for his sister, Flavia Tertia, the daughter of Lucius. [This burial
plot] is fifteen feet wide and fifteen feet in depth”).
51
Plot sizes from Amiternum: CIL 9.4268, 4289, 4302, 4332, 4379, 4404, 4424, 4426, 4471,
4496, 4509, and SupIt 9: 93, 100, 103, 139.
52
See also Carroll (2006: 100), whose remarks on the evidence from the provincial capital of
Narbonne indicates that burial plots of 15 x 15 feet were common.
53
Cannon 1989: 437; Hope 1997: 112.
54
See the memorials for Homulla (no. 17), Dotata (no. 22), Plotinia (no. 23), and Valeria (no.
61, fig. 2) for instance. In another case, (no. 48), the composition of the inscription is so muddled
that the name of the honorand is indeterminable.
55
AE 1938, 69: D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Umbriciae | Pyramidi | c(oniugi) b(ene) m(erenti) h(eres)
v(ivus) p(osuit) (“To the divine shades. The heir put up [this memorial] for Umbricia Pyramis, his
well-deserving spouse, while he was alive”).

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 PHOENIX

Pyramis as a coniunx bene merens (“a well-deserving spouse”). As her husband,

this man could inherit from his wife and indeed might have been her only heir,
which is the reason for the uncertainty as to her legal status. Under Roman
law, freedwomen and freeborn women had the capacity to make a will provided
they had their guardian’s consent or if they were exempted from guardianship
by right of the ius liberorum.56 Typically, patrons were the guardians of their
freedwomen, and their consent was required for the drawing up of a will, which
meant patrons could exert significant control over the dispersal of the woman’s
estate. If husband and patron were one and the same, however, he stood to
inherit everything that his freedwoman-wife had accumulated.57 This had not
always been the case, as others have noted; but beginning in the republican pe-
riod and continuing into the imperial era Roman law increasingly safe-guarded
the patron’s rights of inheritance, to the point where a patron eventually became
the first in line to inherit.58 If Pyramis’ husband was her patron it might be
asked why he did not identify himself as such. Umbricia Pyramis’ name is sug-
gestive of libertine status, but the confusion surrounding the precise nature of
her relationship with her heir makes it harder to say whether she was freeborn
or freed.

slave-women (SERVAE)
Nine honorands (thirteen percent) in this set of inscriptions are slaves whose
epitaphs present very few difficulties of interpretation, as they are easily iden-
tified on the basis of nomenclature and through the use of terms that typi-
cally characterize servile relationships (e.g., contubernalis, conservus).59 All of the
women seem to have been privately owned except Aste (no. 5), who was an
imperial wet-nurse.60 The nature of the relationship between servile honorands
and dedicants, however, is not always clear. Four inscribers identify themselves
or their commemoree as a fellow-slave (conservus; nos. 5, 12, 23, 36), a des-
ignation that might or might not signal an affective relationship between the
pair. In two other inscriptions (no. 42 and 58), the bonds are indicated by the
term contubernalis (“companion”), which signaled a de facto marriage between
the pair rather than a legitimate one, and which existed at an owner’s pleasure.
It is probably the case that slaves used the terms interchangeably to indicate

56
According to the Augustan laws passed in 18 b.c. and 9 a.d., regulations governing women’s
guardianship (tutela mulierum) were relaxed for freeborn women who bore three children, and for
freedwomen who bore four children (Gai. Inst. 1.145 and 1.194).
57
Gardner 1986; Perry 2014: 85–88.
58
Gardner 1986: 19–22; 166–167; Perry 2014: 85–88.
59
See nos. 1–2, 12, 15, 23–24, 36, 42, 58.
60
CIL 9.226: Aste Caesaris | n(ostri) | ser(va) vix(it) | ann(os) LV | fec(it) Silva | nus nutri | ci b(ene)
m(erenti) | h(ic) s(ita) e(st) (“Here lies Aste, the imperial slave-woman. She lived for fifty-five years.
Silvanus made this for the well-deserving wet-nurse”).

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 89

their monogamous, long-term relationships. Children were often born of such

quasi-marital unions, but none are mentioned in these inscriptions.61
The most noteworthy features of these memorials are the differences in the
extent of the toiletry assemblages. The elaborately decorated cippus for Iadis
(no. 23),62 with its array of grooming articles contrasts sharply with the simplicity
of the incised comb and hairpin on Cypare’s loculus cover (no. 1). A quick
inventory of the toiletries found on other slave memorials shows that the norm
was two or three articles at most.63 In many households, slave-women would
have been responsible for dressing the hair of their owners and making them up
for the day. These women might have possessed a few toiletries of their own,
purchased with funds from a peculium (“slave’s savings”) or acquired from their
owners. Pliny the Elder, at his rhetorical best in lamenting cultural extravagance
(Nat. 34.160), remarks that in his day silver had become so affordable that even
ancillae were using silver mirrors. Perhaps slaves in wealthy households had
the capacity to purchase such items for personal use, but Pliny’s complaints
might reflect the reality of a downward distribution of such items. As for
other household slaves, for those who served at banquets and escorted owners
in public, like the ones in Pompeian banquet frescoes, or the women in the
well-known bath processional from Piazza Armerina, it was in their owners’
best interests to ensure they were well groomed.64 Slaves were reflections of
their masters’ wealth and status, a point that Cicero used effectively against Piso
in a scurrilous speech to the senate.65 Piso, he claimed (Pis. 67), lacked any
refinement whatsoever because he permitted disheveled old slaves to wait upon
his guests at banquets.
As we know from the great range of slave occupations attested in Roman
epigraphy and literature, not all slaves worked in close proximity to their own-
ers or had to be concerned with their appearance. Consider the fragmentary
memorial from Avezzano (fig. 3),66 which is currently housed in the Museo
Lapidario Comunale. It is evident that a mirror and a pair of slippers at one
time adorned this memorial that is dedicated to a vilica who, as the wife of
the slave-manager superintending a large estate, had a full range of supervisory
tasks to perform daily (Col. Rust. 12.3). The vilica was also expected to make
sacrifices to the household gods and to perform other rites in the absence of
61
For slave paternity, see Buckland 1908: 76 and Bradley 1994: 50. On slave families, see
Bradley 1984: 47–80 and Joshel 2010: 78–79. For contubernium, see Rawson 1974 and Treggiari
1981. Cf. Joshel 2010: 40.
62
The text of this epitaph is from Buonocore 1982: 733: Iadi | Amethistus | conservus | d(e) s(uo)
p(osuit) (“For Iadis. Amethistus, her fellow-slave, set [the monument] up from his own funds”).
63
For the purposes of comparison, see nos. 1–2, 5, 12, 15, 36, and 42.
64
For the Pompeian frescoes, see Joshel and Hackworth Petersen 2014, Plates I–III. The Piazza
Armerina mosaic is found in Dunbabin 1999: 136, fig. 138.
65
On clothing requirements for slaves, see Bradley 1994: 87–89, 95–100. On slaves as “visible
wealth,” see Joshel 1992: 75.
66
Diebner 2003: 85–86.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 PHOENIX

her mistress.67 Beyond these activities, for which presumably she had to appear
respectably garbed, one wonders how often this woman would have time for or
need of grooming implements. In the end, however, it makes little difference
to the memorials whether vilicae and other slave-women actually engaged in
grooming rituals on a regular basis; what emerges from the commemorations is
their wish to be remembered as if they did.

iconography and age

In this set of inscriptions, we have the ages at death for seventeen honorands
of different status. This number is small and does not allow for complex con-
clusions, but the ages at death are nevertheless noteworthy and indicate that old
age did not diminish the cultural value of mundus muliebris iconography.68 For
example, three honorands did not outlive girlhood (nos. 34, 37, 65), but died
before the age of ten, which fits the generally grim child mortality rate in the
Roman era.69 One child, Pontidia Severa, was commemorated together with
her mother, so this might account for the mirror on her memorial, but the com-
memorator of eight-year old Restituta Procula (no. 37),70 who was probably her
mother, appears to have decided upon an array of toiletries. This also accords
with the inclusion of such items among the burial assemblages of young girls.
For example, the so-called Grottarossa sarcophagus, which was found on the
Via Cassia near Rome, contained the remains of a mummified eight-year old girl
(who is not part of this epigraphic sample) along with a small perfume container
and a rouge compact.71 We might also recall that toiletries were depicted above
the portrait statue niche for Valeria Maxima, who died at the age of twelve.
Monuments for the teenaged honorands (nos. 6, 10, 25, 36), as well as those
who died in their twenties (nos. 7, 11, 45, 62) and thirties (nos. 9, 27, 47)
exhibit similar variations in imagery (i.e., from single mirrors to assemblages),
and this even applies to women who died well into their later years (nos. 5,
54, 64). In the context of funerary culture, it appears there was no distinction
between the youthful woman whom society deemed a pleasure to behold and
the woman beyond her prime who was frequently the object of derision.72 It
should be acknowledged that, if a female died suddenly, her commemorators

67
On the vilica’s duties, see Carlsen 1993: 198–201; Roth 2004; Schulz 2006: 126–127.
68
Riess (2012: 498) states that children were treated differently in funerary epitaphs, but the
three examples from this study do not support this practice.
69
Garnsey 1991.
70
CIL 9.3637: Restitutae Procu|lae Fidelia s{a}erva{e} | [v]ix(it) a(nnum) et m(enses) VIII | [---]e
mater | p(osuit) (“The slave-woman Fidelia, mother of [---]e, put up [this memorial] for Restituta
Procula. She lived eight years [?] and eight months”).
71
Scamuzzi 1964.
72
See Treggiari 1991: 231–232 on the adjectives most commonly used in tomb inscriptions for
women. Among the commemorations for 3728 women of Rome and northern Italy, references to
appearance are infrequent.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 91

had to choose from the general stock on offer at the local workshop, rather than
having the time to personalize a memorial. Given the frequency with which
these motifs appear on the tombs of women, it is probable that workshops in
Italy kept a supply on hand.

conclusion
The mundus muliebris commemorations are conventionally interpreted as re-
flections of the world of Roman women, a reading that might be refined now
that we have a better grasp of the honorands’ legal identity. At least sixty-eight
percent of the commemorees were freedwomen or slaves whose perspective on
the imagery might have been shaped by their social position within Roman soci-
ety. Funerary inscriptions, for example, praised the bodies of exemplary Roman
matrons with flattering references to their fecundity and chastity, and occasion-
ally their modest appearance, aiding in the creation of a social identity with an
emphasis on respectability.73 As the epitaphs attest, freedwomen who could af-
ford to set up an inscription often embraced this paradigm of womanhood even
though it conflicted with the social, literary, and legal discourse that branded
them women of loose morals, and women whose way of life differed sharply
from that of chaste, respectable matrons.74 In addition, elite Romans generally
imposed on non-elite Romans a narrow and largely negative social identity that
was expressed in a number of ways: people who labored were uncouth, lacking
in virtue, and slovenly.75 Elite attitudes concerning work, however, were mit-
igated to an extent by the commemorative practices of slaves and freedpeople
who found dignity in their work, and who expressed this pride by erecting epi-
taphs stating their occupations, or monuments with vending or shop scenes.76
If we think of the mundus muliebris memorials in the context of these practices,
we might see in them a response by slaves and women of lesser rank to their
social liminality.
For women with little bodily integrity, and those who labored constantly,
either by coercion or financial necessity, small acts of personal care might have
been a subtle way of resisting the de-personalization they experienced. This
is not to say that all non-elite women felt marginalized, or that they suffered

73
A good illustration of such adulation is found in the fulsome eulogy for an elite freeborn
woman, traditionally identified as Turia (ILS 8393). Although questions about her identify remain,
the virtues her husband attributes to her are the same as those of the ideal Roman matron (including
simplicity of appearance). On Turia’s appearance and other qualities, see Shelton 2013: 93–94. On
the problems of provenance, textual idiosyncrasies, and the identification of the honorand and her
husband, see Wistrand 1979 and Horsfall 1983.
74
Perry 2014: 153–154.
75
Morley 2006: 27. Ancient discussions about work and leisure reveal much about the great
mass of individuals who comprised the lower stratum of Roman society, on which see MacMullen
1974: 110–120; Joshel 1992: 62–91; Whittaker 1993; Aubert 1994: 18–24; Toner 1995: 22–33.
76
Joshel 1992; George 2006.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 PHOENIX

from over-work or physical and sexual maltreatment; however, for those who
did endure this kind of humiliation, the capacity to engage in self-care might
have engendered a sense of control over a body that was constantly fatigued
or exploited. To what extent these women involved themselves in frequent
personal care we cannot say, for we know little about their daily lives. Financial
resources necessarily dictated the frequency and extent of their self-care, but
these limitations should not overshadow the fact that freed, servile, and humble
women found recognition and approval on their own terms, and celebrated this
agency with mundus muliebris commemorations.

ljshumka@gmail.com

bibliography

Abramenko, A. 1993, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem

neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität. Frankfurt am Main.
Allison, P. M. 2015. “Characterizing Roman Artifacts to Investigate Gendered Practices
in Contexts Without Sexed Bodies,” AJA 119: 103–123.
Amiri, B. 2007. “La condition servile dans l’armée romaine en Germanie: rupture et
renouvellement culturels,” Studia Historica: Historia Antigua 25: 435–450.
Angeli Bertinelli, M. G. 2011. Lunensia Antiqua. Rome.
—— 2013. Asta Arte Archeologia Firenze, 19 Giugno 2013. Florence.
Aubert, J.-J. 1994. Business Managers in Ancient Rome. Leiden.
Beltrán Lloris, F. 2015. “The ‘Epigraphic Habit’ in the Roman World,” in Bruun and
Edmondson 2015a: 3–20.
Berg, R. 2002. “Wearing Wealth: Mundus muliebris and ornatus as Status Markers,” in
R. Berg et al. (eds.), Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire. Rome. 15–73.
Bodel, J. 2008. “From Columbaria to Catacombs: Collective Burial in Pagan and Chris-
tian Rome,” in L. Brink and D. Green (eds.), Commemorating the Dead: Texts and
Artifacts in Context. Berlin. 177–242.
—— 2014. “The Life and Death of Ancient Roman Cemeteries: Living with the
Dead in Imperial Rome,” in C. Haüber, F. X. Schütz, and G. M. Winder (eds.),
Reconstruction and the Historic City: Rome and Abroad: An Interdisciplinary Approach.
Munich. 177–195.
Bradley, K. R. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. New York and Oxford.
—— 1994. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge.
—— 2008. “Roman Slavery: Retrospect and Prospect,” CJH : 477–500.
Bruun, C. 2013. “Greek or Latin? The Owner’s Choice of Names for vernae in Rome,”
in M. George (ed.), Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture. Toronto. 19–42.
—— 2014. “True Patriots? The Public Activities of the Augustales of Roman Ostia and
the summa honoraria,” Arctos 48: 67–91.
—— 2015a. “The Major Corpora and Epigraphic Publications,” in Bruun and Edmond-
son 2015a: 66–77.
—— 2015b. “Slaves and Freed Slaves,” in Bruun and Edmondson 2015a: 605–626.
Buckland, W. W. 1908. The Roman Law of Slavery. Cambridge.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 93

Buonocore, M. 1982. “Monumenti funerari romani con decorazione ad Alba Fucens,”

MEFRA 94: 715–741.
Bruun, C. and J. Edmondson (eds.). 2015a. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy.
Oxford.
—— 2015b. “The Epigrapher at Work,” in Bruun and Edmondson 2015a: 3–20.
Cannon, A. 1989. “The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and
Sentiment,” Current Anthropology 30: 437–457.
Carlsen, J. 1993. “The vilica and Roman Estate Management,” in H. Sancisi-
Weerdeburg (ed.), De Agricultura: In Memoriam Pieter Willem de Neeve, 1945–1990.
Amsterdam. 197–205.
Carroll, M. 2006. Spirits of the Dead: Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe.
Oxford.
—— 2007–2008 “ ‘Vox tua nempe mea est’: Dialogues with the Dead in Roman Funerary
Commemoration,” Accordia Research Papers 11: 37–80.
Diebner, S. 1987. “Aspetti della scultura funeraria tra tarda Repubblica ed Impero,” Dial.
di arch. 5: 29–42.
—— 2003. “La presenza dello specchio sui monumenti funerari di età romana” in
A. Campanelli and M. P. Pennetta (eds.), Attraverso lo specchio. Rome. 84–85.
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge.
Evans-Grubbs, J. 1993. “ ‘Marriage More Shameful Than Adultery’: Slave-Mistress
Relationships, ‘Mixed Marriages,’ and Late Roman Law,” Phoenix 47: 125–154.
Felletti Maj, B. M. 1977. La tradizione italica nell’arte romana. Rome.
Francisci Gori, A. 1734. Inscriptiones antiquae Graecae et Romanae in Etruriae urbibus . . .
pars secunda cum notis integris Antoni Francisci Gori. Florence.
Frasson, F. 2013. Le Epigrafi di Luni romana I. Revisione delle iscrizioni del Corpus
Inscriptionum Latinarum. Alessandria.
Gardner, J. 1986. Women in Roman Law and Society. London.
Garnsey, P. 1991. “Child-Rearing in Ancient Italy,” in D. Kertzer and R. Saller (eds.),
The Family in Italy: From Antiquity to the Present. New Haven. 48–65.
Hackworth Petersen, L. 2006. The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History. Cambridge.
Heinzelmann, M. 2001. “Les Nécropoles d’Ostie: Topographie, développement, archi-
tecture, structure sociale,” in J. P. Descœudre (ed.), Ostia: Port et porte de la Rome
antique. Geneva. 373–384.
Hope, V. 1997. “Constructing Roman Identity: Funerary Monuments and Social Struc-
ture in the Roman World,” Mortality 2: 103–121.
Joshel, S. 1992. Work, Identity, and Legal Status at Rome. Norman and London.
—— 2010. Slavery in the Roman World. Cambridge.
Joshel, S. and L. Hackworth Petersen. 2014. The Material Life of Roman Slaves. Cam-
bridge.
Kajanto, I. 1969. The Latin Cognomina. Helsinki.
Lazzaro. L. 1993. Esclaves et affranchis en Belgique et Germanies romaines d’après les sources
epigraphiques. Paris.
Letta, C. and S. D’Amato. 1975. Epigrafia della Regione dei Marsi. Milan.
Lohmann, P. 2015. “Idealbild und Lebenswirklichkeit. Literarische, epigrafische,
archäologische Quellen und Befunde zu den Handlungsräumen der Frau im römischen
Wohnhaus,” Thetis 21: 63–108.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94 PHOENIX

Lucreţiu, M.-B. 2008. “Les âges d’affranchissement dans les provinces balkano-danu-
biennes,” in A. Gonzales (ed.), La fin du statut servile? (Affranchissement, libération,
abolition). Besançon. 493–500.
MacMullen, R. 1974. Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven and London.
—— 1982. “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire,” AJP 103: 233–246.
Meyer, E. 1990, “Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence
of Epitaphs,” JRS 80: 74–96.
—— 2011. “Epigraphy and Communication,” in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook
of Roman Social Relations. Oxford. 191–226.
Mielsch, H. and H. von Hesberg. 1995. Die Mausoleen E-I und Z-Psi. Atti della
Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Ser. 3. Memorie,16.2. Rome.
Morley, N. 2006. “The Poor in the City of Rome,” in M. Atkins and R. Osborne (eds.),
Poverty in the Roman World. Cambridge. 21–39.
—— 2011. “Slavery under the Principate,” in K. Bradley and P. Cartledge (eds.), The
Cambridge World History of Slavery 1. Cambridge. 265–286.
Mouritsen, H. 2005. “Freedmen and Decurions: Epitaphs and Social History in Imperial
Italy,” JRS 95: 38–63.
—— 2006. “Honores libertine: Augustales and Seviri in Italy,” in I. Nielsen (ed.), Zwischen
Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentre des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum
von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften. Augsburg. 237–248.
—— 2011. The Freedman in the Roman World. Cambridge.
—— 2015. “Local Elites in Italy and the Western Provinces,” in Bruun and Edmondson
2015a: 227–249.
Nielsen, H. S. 1996. “The Physical Context of Roman Epitaphs and the Structure of
the Roman Family,” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 23: 35–60.
—— 1997. “Interpreting Epithets in Roman Epitaphs,” in B. Rawson and P. Weaver
(eds.), The Roman Family in Italy: Sentiment, Space. Oxford. 169–204.
Perry, M. 2014. Gender, Manumission, and the Roman Freedwoman. Cambridge.
Rawson, B. 1966. “Family Life among the Lower Classes at Rome in the First Two
Centuries of the Empire,” CP 61: 71–82.
—— 1974. “Roman Concubinage and Other de facto Marriages,” TAPA 104: 279–305.
Riess, W. 2012. “Rari exempli femina: Female Virtues on Roman Funerary Inscriptions,”
in S. L. James and S. Dillon (eds.), A Companion to Women in the Ancient World.
Oxford. 491–501.
Rossi, C. 1843. “Osservazioni sopra un cippo sepolcrale con iscrizione e bassirilievi,
scoverto nel 1814 presso Ortona de’ Marsi,” Memorie della Regale Accademia Ercolanese
di Archeologia 3: 343–264.
Roth, U. 2004. “Inscribed Meaning: The vilica and the Villa Economy,” PBSR 72:
101–124.
Salomies, O. 2015. “The Roman Republic,” in Bruun and Edmondson 2015a: 153–179.
Scamuzzi, U. 1964. “Studio sulla mummia di bambina,” Riv Studi Class 12: 264–280.
Schulz C. 2006. Women’s Religious Activity in the Roman Republic. Chapel Hill.
Shelton, J. 2013. The Women of Pliny’s Letters. Routledge.
Scopacasa, R. 2015. Ancient Samnium: Settlement, Culture, and Identity between History
and Archaeology. Oxford.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 95

Segenni, S. 1988. “I liberti a Marruvium: ricerche di onomastica,” Stud Cl Orient 37:

439–494.
—— 1990. I Liberti ad Amiternum. Pisa.
Solin, H. 1982. Die grieschischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch. Bd. I–III. Berlin.
Steinby, M. et al. 2003. La necropolis della via Triumphalis: il tratto sotto l’autoparco
Vaticano. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Ser. 3. Memorie,
17. Rome.
Susini, G. 1973. The Roman Stonecutter. Oxford.
Taylor, L. R. 1914. “Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A Chronological Study,”
TAPA 45: 231–253.
—— 1961. “Freedmen and Freeborn in the Epitaphs of Imperial Rome,” AJP 82:
113–132.
Toner, J. 1995. Leisure and Ancient Rome. Cambridge.
Treggiari, S. 1969. Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic. Oxford.
—— 1981. “Contubernales in CIL 6,” Phoenix 35: 42–69.
—— 1991. Roman Marriage. Oxford.
Virgili, P. et al. 1989. Acconciature e maquillage. Vita e costumi dei romani antichi 7. Rome.
—— 1990. Bellezza e seduzione nelle Roma imperial. Rome.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. “Housing the Dead: Tomb as House in Roman Italy,” in
L. Brink and D. Green (eds.), Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artefacts in Context.
Studies of Roman, Jewish, and Christian Burials. Berlin. 39–78.
Weaver, P. R. C. 1972. Familia Caesaris. Cambridge.
—— 1986. “The Status of Children in Mixed Marriages,” in B. Rawson (ed.), The
Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Ithaca. 145–169.
Whittaker, C. R. 1993. “The Poor,” in A. Giardina (ed.), The Romans. Tr. L. Cochrane.
Chicago. 272–299.
Wistrand, E. 1976. The So-Called Laudatio Turiae. Lund.
Woolf, G. 1996. “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the
Early Empire,” JRS 86: 22–39.

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96 PHOENIX

appendix

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
Rome
1 Cypare, serva Polydeuces (con- loculus cover, 1st– CIL 6.9727, ILS
comb, hairpin servus?) 2nd c. 7420
Rome
2 Felicitas, serva Simfor (coniunx) marble plaque, ICUR 9.25171
mirror, comb 290–325.
Rome
Region 1
3 Tiberia Paccia, Unknown unknown, 100 b.c. CIL 10.4269,
ingenua / a.d. 100. EDR 5576
mirror (?), two Capua
balsamaria (?)
4 Staberia Flora, Unknown stele, last half of CIL 10.4352,
liberta 1st c. b.c. EDCS 19600520
mirror Capua ILS 8175
Region 2
5 Aste, serva Silvanus unknown (lost), CIL 9.226, EDCS
mirror (conservus?) late 1st / mid 08200925, EDR
2nd c. 142818
Uria
Region 3
6 Antonia Ianuaria, Atinas Ianuarius cupa, first half of CIL 10.345, InscrIt
liberta (pater) 3rd c. 3.1.138
two mirrors Antonia Prima Atina
(mater)
7 Aurelia Septimina, Impetratus ara, first half of EDCS 64800427,
liberta (?) (maritus) 3rd c. Leukanika 2007.
mirror Grumentum 41b
8 Aurelia Tertullina, Aurelius Hesper stele, first half of EDCS 64800426,
liberta (?) (maritus) 3rd c. Leukanika 2007.
mirror Grumentum 41a
Region 4
9 Aelia Ingenua, Aelius Hermes stele, 2nd c. EDCS 380197,
ingenua (pater) Cures Sabini RAL 1994: 340,
mirror Aelia Philadelphia AE 1994: 564
(mater)

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 97

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
10 Amaredia Lucina, C. Amaredius ara, early 2nd c. CIL 9.3971,
liberta Aper (patronus Alba Fucens EDCS 14805001,
slippers, mirror / coniunx) Buonocore 1982:
C. Amaredius 730
Severus (pater)
Amaredia Psyche
(mater)
11 Arrena Marciana, P. Arrenus Ianu- cippus, 2nd c. AE 1987: 328,
ingenua arius (pater) Amiternum EDCS 10801516,
hairpin, bal- Albia Maximilla SupIt 9.1992:
samarium, (mater) 112, n. 67
mirror, comb
12 Asteris, serva Eventus (conservus) cippus (lost), 2nd c. CIL 9.2970,
mirror, comb (?), Iuvanum EDCS 14803971
spoon (?)
13 Atilia Ianuaria, C. Pomponius stele, 2nd c. EDCS 9400273,
liberta Felix (coniunx) Marruvium EDR 76147,
comb Epigraphica 74:
354-355
14 Brinnia Procula, Stallius Nepos stele, after mid CIL 9.2969,
incerta (coniunx) 1st c. EDCS 14803970
mirror, comb Iuvanum
15 Claudia Lexsis C. Memmius Ipi- stele, 2nd c. CIL 9.3583,
liberta (?) tus (coniunx) Paganica EDCS 14804608
Claudia Donata
liberta (?)
Egloge serva
comb, cista, mir-
ror, slippers,
balsamaria
16 Claudia Rhode, Hermes unknown (lost), CIL 9.3680,
liberta (?) (contubernalis) 2nd c. EDCS 14804706
hairpin, mirror, Marruvium
comb, slippers
(?), balsamarium
17 [---] Dotata, Restitutus stele, 2nd c. AE 1975: 309,
incerta (coniunx) Marruvium EMarsi 60, Epi-
mirror gaphica 6: 353

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 PHOENIX

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
18 Felicitas San- P. Avius Felicis- stele, 2nd c. CIL 9.3720,
buc[a], liberta simus (coniunx) Marruvium EDCS 14804746,
(?) P. Allius Felix EDR 134976
comb, mirror (cognatus)
19 Flavia Felicula, Licinius Himer cippus, first half of AE 1974: 309,
liberta (frater) 2nd c. ArchClass 1955:
slippers Flavia Felicitas Alba Fucens 75,
(filia?) EDCS 9401043
20 Gavia Cinura, Unknown unknown (lost), CIL 9.3725,
liberta first half of 1st c. EDCS 14804751,
unidentifiable ob- Marruvium EDR 135148
ject, balsamarium,
slippers, uniden-
tifiable object,
mirror
21 Herennia Doris, Unknown ara, 27 b.c. / a.d. AE 1992: 437,
liberta 14. Diebner 1987:
cista, mirror Amiternum 29-30, SupIt
9.1992: 137
22 Homulla, incerta Unknown cippus, 30 b.c. / AE 1982: 229,
mirror, slippers a.d. 30. EDCS 8600141,
Marruvium EDR 78541
23 Iadis, serva Amethistus cippus, end of Buonocore 1982:
mirror, hairpin, (conservus) 1st c. 734
comb, gallicae, Alba Fucens
balsamarium
24 Ianuaria, incerta L. Mindius Am- cippus 2nd c. AE 2009: 304
balsamarium, pliatus (coniunx) Ausculum Pi- EDCS 45600037,
mirror, hairpin, cenum Epigraphica 71:
cathedra, slippers, 358
earrings (heart-
shaped?)
25 Iulia Basilia, Aurelius Pardus sarcophagus, date CIL 9.3237,
liberta (coniunx) unknown. EDCS 14804248
mirror, comb, Flavius Fortunatus Corfinium
slippers (pater)
Iulia Basilissa
(mater)

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 99

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
26 Longeia Primige- Honorand stele, early 2nd c. CIL 9.4001,
nia, liberta Alba Fucens EDCS 1480503
comb, mirror,
hairpin, cista,
slippers
27 Maecia Gaemella, L. Malius Fortu- stele, 2nd c. AE 2012: 428,
ingenua natus (coniunx) Marruvium EDCS 56500192,
mirror Epigraphica 6:
356
28 Mammia Zoe, Q. Mammius Sat- stele, 2nd c. CIL 9.3819,
liberta urninus (patronus Ortona EDCS 14804842
mirror / coniunx)
29 Nonia Lucusta, S. Sinitius Memor stele (?), date un- CIL 9.3442,
liberta (?) (coniunx) known. EDCS 14804466
slippers, comb, Peltuinum
mirror
30 Octavia Sigen, T. Veturius Lu- cippus, 1st / 2nd c. CIL 9.3769,
liberta cifer (?). EDCS 14804795
Octavia Cinidia, Marruvium
liberta
calcei, cista, bal-
samarium, second
cista, comb
31 Octavidia Genialis, T. Poppedius Cal- cippus, 2nd / 3rd c. CIL 9.3593,
liberta lidus (coniunx) Paganica EDCS 14804466
two lekythoi (or Honorand
calcei?), mirror,
comb, hairpin
32 Peticia Chiteris, Gemellus (filius) stele, late 1st c. Avezzano 69, CIL
liberta b.c. / early 1st c. 9.3824, EDCS
slippers, box mir- Ortona 14804847
ror (open), cista
33 [Pl]otinia, incerta Unknown cippus, first half of CIL 9.4354,
mirror, closed 1st c. EDCS 14805388,
umbrella (?) Amiternum SupIt 9.1992: 45
34 Pontidia Severa, S. Pontidius Se- ara, 2nd c. Avezzano 56,
ingenua verus (pater) Marruvium EDCS 17300456,
Octavia Prisca, EMarsi 48
liberta
cista, comb,
mirror

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100 PHOENIX

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
35 Poppaedia Se- Unknown cippus, late 1st c. CIL 9.3826,
cunda, ingenua b.c. / early 1st c. EDCS 14804849,
Eita, ingenua Ortona Avezzano 70
slippers, cista,
cosmetic case (?),
unguentarium,
small pitcher,
closed umbrella,
comb, two flasks
36 Restituta, serva Syrion (conservus) stele (?), first half CIL 9.4301,
mirror of 2nd c. EDCS 14805334,
Amiternum SupIt 9.1992: 42
37 Restituta Procula, Fidelia (mater) stele, 2nd c. (?). CIL 9.3637,
liberta (?) Aveia EDCS 14804663
cista, two-
handled con-
tainer, two bal-
samaria
38 Rutilia Cinnamis, Honorands stele, 1st c. CIL 9.4355,
liberta Amiternum EDCS 14805389,
Rutilia Iucunda, SupIt 9.1992: 45
liberta
comb, mirror,
slippers
39 Sabidia Euche, L. Sextius Albanus ara, 1st c. AE 1975: 298
liberta (coniunx) Marruvium EDCS 9400250,
comb, cista, two EMarsi 23a
balsamaria, slip-
pers
40 Septimia Lyde, Septimia Satura cippus, late 1st / CIL 9.4026,
liberta (liberta) early 2nd c. EDCS 14805056
mirror, comb, Septimia Primige- Alba Fucens
hairnet, flask, nia (liberta)
slippers,
spoon (?)
41 Sextuleia Secunda, T. Tituleius Suc- ara, early 2nd c. AE 1994: 564,
liberta cessus (coniunx) Alba Fucens CIL 9.3952,
comb, mirror, EDCS 14804982
hairpin, two
lekythoi, galli-
cae, cista

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 101

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
42 Silvina, serva Aepinicus unknown, date CIL 9.3875
slippers, mirror (contubernalis) unknown.
Supinum
43 Vettulena Briseis, T. Caesius Felicio ara, first half of CIL 9.4605,
liberta (?) (coniunx) 2nd c. EDCS 14805641,
two balsamaria, Nursia SupIt 13.1996:
mirror, comb, 58
slippers
Region 5
44 Flavia Tertia, L. Flavius Valens stele (?), mid 1st CIL 9.5025,
ingenua (frater) c. / end of 2nd c. EDCS 15400518
alabastrum, mir- Hadria
ror, comb, slip-
pers
45 Terminia Sabina, Brittia Sabina unknown, date CIL 9.5038,
ingenua (mater) unknown. EDCS 15400531
cista, hairpin, Hadria
mirror, slippers
Region 6
46 Detelia Tyche, M. Cornelius Her- stele, 2nd c. AE 2002: 429
liberta (?) mes (coniunx) Interamna Na- EDCS 27700286,
mirror hars EDR 129109
Region 7
47 Afrania Ianuaria, L. Seius Legitimus cippus, date un- CIL 11.2915,
liberta (?) (coniunx) known. EDCS 22200819,
mirror Visentium EDR 143647
48 Anonyma, incerta T. Cosconius Fitus stele, beginning of CIL 11.6994,
balsamarium, mir- (filius) 2nd c. / early EDCS 20700461,
ror, comb, slip- Cosconius Tacitus 3rd c. Luni 370
pers Fitus (filius) Luna
Cosconius Nepos
(filius)
Valeria Procula (?)
49 Caecinia Digna, P. Ferrarius Her- stele late 1st c. AE 1985: 389,
incerta mes (coniunx) b.c. / early CIL 11.1471,
Numeria Max- 1st c. EDCS 20402945
imilla, incerta Pisae
mirror, comb,
hairpin, slippers,
calamistrum, bal-
samarium

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 PHOENIX

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles morators location
50 Claudia Sabina, M. Vinisidius cippus, 1st c. CIL 11.6993,
liberta Restitutus (con- Luna EDCS 20700460,
mirror iunx) Luni 368
51 Cosconia Kapriola, Cosconius Mon- stele, after mid CIL 9.7089, ECor-
liberta tanus (coniunx) 1st c. tonese 9, EDCS
mirror Cortona 20800271
52 Eppia Demetri[a]s, Tedia Sal[v]illa stele end of 1st c. / CIL 11.1369,
liberta (?) (mater) beginning of 2nd. EDCS 20402823,
comb, mirror, Luna Luni 156
unguentarium,
two unidentified
objects
53 Gabinia Procula, Caesilius Mercuri- stele (?), late 2nd / CIL 11.1524b,
ingenua alis (coniunx) early 3rd c. EDCS 20403000,
comb, mirror, Portus Pisanus InscrIt 7.1.116
patera
54 Herennia Psyche, C[h]resimus stele, 2nd / 3rd c. CIL 11.6998,
liberta (coniunx) Luna EDCS 20700465,
comb, mirror Aiecta (filia) Luni 379
Alexander (gener)
55 Hostilia Omphale, Unknown stele, late 2nd / CIL 11.1474,
liberta (?) early 3rd c. EDCS 20402948,
mirror Pisae InscrIt 7.1.81
56 Hostilia Zoe, Coniunx (?) stele, late 2nd / CIL 11.1475,
liberta (?) early 3rd c. EDCS 20402949,
comb, mirror Pisae InscrIt 7.1.82
57 Narenia Hermione, Unknown stele, 2nd c. CIL 11.1665,
incerta Florentia EDCS 22000015,
mirror, comb (?) EDR 106640
58 Novicia, serva Collegium stele, 2nd / 3rd c. CIL 11.1550, ILS
comb, hairpin, Co[m]pitalicium (?). 7300a, EDR
patera Faesulae 103715
59 Nunnia Brysa, C. Nunnius Festus cippus, 1st c. CIL 11.1378,
liberta (filius) Luna EDCS 20402833,
two rings, mir- Ianuarius Luni 172
ror, hairpin, two (contubernalis?)
ampullae, comb,
single ampulla,
fibula, slippers

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUNDUS MULIEBRIS COMMEMORATIONS 103

Name, status, Commemo- Monument, date, Source

articles rators location
60 Umbricia Pyramis, heir (heres) stele, 2nd / 3rd c. AE 1938: 69,
incerta (?). EDCS 15900046,
two unidentified Asinalunga EDR 73365
objects, mirror,
comb (?)
61 Valeria [---], S. Baebius Modes- stele, second half CIL 11.7009,
incerta tus (coniunx) of 1st c. EDCS 20700474,
comb, unguentar- S. Baebius Modes- Luna Luni 399
ium, mirror tus (filius?)
Tettia (mater)
62 Vettia Aphrodisia, S. Annaeus Liber- stele, 2nd c. CIL 11.1387,
liberta (?) alis (coniunx) Luna EDCS 20700461,
slippers, hairpin, Luni 186
comb, mirror,
unguentarium
63 Vibia Proba, L. Tettius Probus cippus, 2nd c. CIL 11.1562,
incerta (coniunx) Faesulae EDCS 20403038,
mirror L. Tettius Max- EDR 103709
imus (filius?)
64 Volcasia Sabina, Annius Caesianus stele, 2nd / 3rd c. CIL 11.2806,
incerta (coniunx) (?). EDCS 22200586,
mirror, vas (?) Marcius Proculus Volsinii EDR134993
(coniunx)
65 Volumnia Priscilla, Volumnia Euresis cippus, beginning CIL 11.3354,
liberta (mater) of 2nd / mid EDCS 22500229,
mirror Veturius Adventus 3rd c. EDR 128938
(pater) Blera

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 INSCRIBING AGENCY

Figure 1. Stele for Claudia Lexsis

(DAI-ROM Neg. 67.491)

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHOENIX

Figure 2. Stele for Valeria

(DAI-ROM Neg. 84.1798)

This content downloaded from

89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INSCRIBING AGENCY
Figure 3. Fragmentary stele for a vilica, Alba Fucens
(DAI-ROM Neg. 79.2805)
This content downloaded from
89.172.170.26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:04:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms