GENIUS, LARES, PENATES AND MANI IN POMPEII

The “Genius”, generally covered – even the head – by a “toga praetexta”, a white toga with a broad purple stripe on the border, is a tutelary deity linked to a person, to the head of the house, while the Lare is linked to the earth. Each person has his genius – women have a “Iuno” – who guards their nurturing power. The genius is generated and dies at the same time as man, and lives closely connected with him. On each anniversary, he is offered wine, incense and other bloodless gifts (such as focaccia).

The snake, which we often find painted below the domestic “sacellum” (shrine) – also coupled with a female snake, from which it is distinguished by the crest – is sacred to the Genius (as a symbol of nurturing power) and also enjoys the attention of man. These snakes are also painted on the external walls, which are thus protected. (1)

The Lares were tutelary deities who, according to tradition, were the children of Mercury and Lara, a nymph. It would seem that their name is of Etruscan origin and means “chiefs, princes” and originally they were tutelary deities of the fields and of individual farms. Over time they became protectors of the domestic hearth (from the Latin “Lar”, “hearth”) and each family had its own “Lare”. The Romans invoked the domestic “Lare” on all the important family anniversaries, for births, for weddings and when a family member left or returned from a trip. Unlike the “Penates”, the “Lares” were intimately linked to the home where their image was located. They were never removed from the house and they had the task of protecting it from dangers coming from outside. In ancient times a Roman had only one “Lar”, his protector, but later this tutelary deity was replaced by two or more and, merging with the “Mani”, they became the personification of the souls of the good-hearted deceased who protected the house from evil spirits. (2) The “Lares” also were represented in twos: in Pompeii they were often arranged symmetrically on the sides of the “Genius”, young and moving as if they were guiding the dances in their cheerful parties: “laralia” or “compitalia”, celebrated at the intersections of the streets (compita).

Associated with them are the Penates, protector deities of the “penus” (the food pantry), and therefore of the general well-being of the home. Along with the “Lares”, they were considered protectors of the family and when the family moved house, the images of the “Penates”- two statuettes placed next to the hearth in a special cabinet – were transported from one house to another. Over time, other divinities with tutelary functions were added to the two original “Penates”, such as Mercury, Neptune, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, whose image was placed next to that of the “Penates”. Even the State, considered as a large family, had its “Penates”, which were kept in the temple of Vesta and called “Major” or “Public Penates” to distinguish them from those of the family, called “Minor” or “Private Penates”, and placed next to the domestic hearth. (3)

The “Mani” were the souls of the dead who had been good-hearted in life (“manus”, in archaic Latin means “good”), and the same term was used to indicate the underworld deities and the tutelary genies of the dead. As mentioned above, over time the “Mani” merged with the “Lares”, becoming the personification of the souls of the good-hearted deceased who protected the house from evil spirits. The cult of the “Mani” was imposed by one of the laws of the “Twelve Tables”. In their honor, festivals called “Feralia” and “Parentalia” were celebrated in February. (4)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1) Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976, pag. 273
2) Corrado D’Alesio, Dei e Miti, Edizioni Labor, Milano, 1954, pag. 422
3) Ibid., pag. 563
4) Ibid., pag. 447

 
 

For further info about our Pompeii and Herculaneum private tour

 

/0 Comments/by

POMPEII – GREEK FASHION IN ROMAN TIMES

From the 2nd century BC onward, the Roman world imported a new Hellenism, far more intellectualized, far more contemplative, and far more utilised for the Gods. The phenomenon was defined by the Romans themselves as “asiatica luxuria” (Asian luxury), the irresistible desire to exhibit private luxury, which possessed the upper class at the time of conquests in the East, in imitation of the living standards of the Hellenistic courts.(1)

For Roman men, changing the heavy and voluminous Italic “toga” into a graceful Greek mantle, “pallium” (i.e., the “himation”) was an extraordinary action which indicated luxuriant laxity and moral decadence. The men who dared to wear the “pallium” or the “chlamys” in public,  generally did so with specific intentions, such as the famous pro-Hellenic Scipio Africanus Major or the emperor Hadrian. The power of attire in the construction of identity was so strong, that the Romans defined themselves as the “gens togata” (“toga-wearing people”), and their theatrical art was named as a “fabula togata” to distinguish it from the Greek “palliata”.

If for men their image was strongly bi-polarized, oscillating between “toga” and “pallium”, for women, the situation was quite different. From the late Republic period until late antiquity, the attire of the upper-class Roman woman was practically the same as worn in  the eastern Greek Mediterranean. Only the names of the two main clothing items changed: the first, the long tunic, was quite similar to the Greek “chiton”,  the Roman tunic also being sewn along the sides; the second, the rectangular mantle around the upper part of the body, “palla” or “pallium”, was identical to the Greek “himation”.     Luxury accessories – such as a Greek-gold belt, “zona”, a cloth woven in silk from the Isle of Cos, a Greek sandal like the “diabathron” – stood out as exotic and deserved the comments of Roman writers. Just as perfumes and cosmetics, also the most luxurious items in transparent, coloured silk, were part of a global Mediterranean trade. The “mitre” is an interesting case of cultural fusion: originally a Middle Eastern turban, it was later adopted in the archaic age by Greek women as a headband tied around the hair. In Rome, the “mitre”  represented Greek refinement, but it could also be synonymous with prostitution. Even silk, the most luxurious of all fabrics, was further embellished with Greek expressions by the Romans, to denote the quality. While Chinese silk fabrics were called “sericae vestes”, the types produced in the Mediterranean by local insect species had the name of “vestes bombycinae” and, deriving from the place of production on the island of Cos, “Coes vestes”.

Likewise, the finest colors often kept the Greek name, such as the different shades of purple: the two-colored  “dibapha”, the “Tyrianthina” (from Tyro), as well as  “ianthina” and “amethystina”, or “thalassina”.The Pompeian woman, depending on her financial resources and social status, may have had a series of objects from the most distant corners of the empire in her jewelry and make-up case. In reality, however, only in a few houses in Pompeii, have archaeologists found large collections of ointments.

Although many of the luxuries and refinements coveted by the Roman women were of oriental origin – gems from India, silk from China (“sericae vestes”), pearls (“elenchi”, “stalagmi”) from the Red Sea, perfumes from Arabia (“diapasmata” and “hedysmata”) – most of their names and methods of use were adopted by way of the “filter” of the Greek world.(2)

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Editori Laterza, 2011, pag. 234
  2. Ria Berg “Attrarre” in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017, pp. 218

 

 
 

For further info about our Pompeii and Herculanem private tour

 

/0 Comments/by

STEFANO DE CARO AND THE CITY WALLS OF POMPEII – Part II

3. The third and final phase, as can be seen today from the long stretch of walls between “Porta Ercolano” and “Porta Vesuvio”, has three walls containing two embankments  preserved in excellent condition. The flat topped layer of earth between the first two walls was used as a walkway, as was the top of the second embankment (also probably flat but raised higher than the previous one). The remaining part of the second embankment, which is lower towards the interior of the city, served mainly to strengthen the fortification. The third and last wall, in addition to containing the thrust of the second embankment, also delimited the route of a road that, at least in this area of ​​the city, skirted the city walls. Along the stretch of walls between “Porta Ercolano” and “Porta Vesuvio”, three of the original twelve rectangular towers (named clockwise, XII, XI and X) are well preserved, and near the “Porta Ercolano”,  the remains of a monumental staircase which served to reach the levels of the flat walkways, is found.

To understand why the walls were completely rebuilt several times in Pompeii , we must refer to Poliorcetics, which is the art of besieging and conquering fortified cities. Military technology and technology (in general)  changed over the centuries. While the city walls in “pappamonte” stone initially offered effective defense to the city, from the end of the IV and the beginning of the third century BC, a new fortification was built. This was necessary due to change in the strategies of attack and defense of the cities. In the Archaic age in the Greek world, the technique of the siege of the city was adopted with the aim of isolating it from its territory and forcing it to surrender due to lack of food resources or due to the exhaustion of the war arsenal. The only alternative to break the pressure of the enemy siege was to leave the (refuge of the ) city walls and face an open battle. To defend itself from the besiegers a particularly powerful fortification was not necessary since  the function of the city walls was to separate and to protect the population from the besiegers. In the IV century C., with the development of war strategies supported by scientific research and the publication of treatises dedicated to machines and the methods of attack and defense of cities, the old fortifications became obsolete. Thanks to the use of increasingly efficient war machines (as catapults), the new Poliorcetics allowed besiegers to assault and conquer cities by destroying walls and gates. The fortifications thus acquired ever greater importance, not only because defensive measures suitable to frustrate the destructive potential of hostile weapons of war were needed, but also because they had to be set up in such a way as to accommodate  throwing weapons of various types, to counterattack  pressure from the besiegers.

 

 

Excerpt from:  Marco Fabbri, Difendersi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pp. 268-271

 

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/0 Comments/by
,

STEFANO DE CARO AND THE CITY WALLS OF POMPEII – Part I

Until a few decades ago, it was thought that the first urban nucleus of Pompeii was much more limited than what is seen today. It was believed that the walls developed around the “Vicolo del Lupanare”, “Vicolo degli Augustali” and ” Vicolo dei Soprastanti ”, that is the area closest to the current Forum. This theory was also reinforced by the presence, in the aforementioned area, of a road network oriented in a different manner from the rest of the city. It was then thought that, later, around the fifth century BC, the city had developed towards the East and North. In other words, it was believed that, after an initial urbanistic phase where Pompeii developed over just 9.3 hectares,  it later spread to over 63.5 hectares. (SEE NOTE)

During his directorship of the excavations of Pompeii from 1982 to 1984, Stefano De Caro started a series of archaeological digs in the Vesuvian city, both in the northern sector of the fortification, near the Tower XI, and in the southern, in the section between Porta Nocera and the Tower IV.

Today, based on the archaeological results coming from those important excavation campaigns, it is believed that three different generations of city walls  were superimposed in the Vesuvian city over the centuries:

 

1. The first, and oldest, is in local tufa stone, the so-called “pappamonte”, and dates back to at least the 6th century. b.C. In this first phase the walls cover already roughly the same way as the current one, except for the north-eastern corner (where Porta di Nola would be built), where the path seems to have moved slightly towards the west. Their structure was very simple and consisted of a few rows of square blocks in “pappamonte”  or tender lava stone, above which an embankment (on the outer wall) no more than 3 meters high was set. A “pomoerium” lane ran along the inner edge of the city walls.

 

2. The second wall circuit consisted of two curtains of “Calcare del Sarno” (Limestone) and an inner core of ground wrought  with flakes of stone. The walls were in orthostates, ie, slabs placed vertically, but to allow better interlocking of the walls with the filling soil, rows of limestone blocks were arranged horizontally at regular distances, in order to be able to penetrate  the ground. These “pre-sannitic” walls of Pompeii reflect the typical characteristics of  Greek construction method, defined by archaeologists as “emplekton”, borrowing the term from Vitruvius who used it to define the inner core of the double curtain walls. This type of city walls, already extensively attested in the Greek “pòleis” (cities) of the Gulf of Naples (“Neapolis” and Cuma), seems to date back to the 4th century AD.

 

 

NOTE  = Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976, pp. 12-13

 

Excerpt from:  Marco Fabbri, Difendersi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pp. 268-271
 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

THE GOLDEN AGE OF POMPEII

The second century B.C. is the “golden age” of Pompeii, a century in which profound transformations in urban planning, of the main places of worship and of the ways of living, were   recorded.

At this point in history, Puteoli became the main port of Rome and began to perform a function of “port-warehouse”, ie, of a large port with a multiplicity of piers and warehouses where the goods from all over the Mediterranean, especially the Eastern part , were unloaded and stored. From this great “port-warehouse”, redistribution took place on a regional scale, based on a hierarchically subordinate port system in which the “epineion” (emporium) of Pompeii played a central role. Through the course of the Sarno river, this dock redistributed the Mediterranean products to the more internal areas such as Nola, Nocera and Acerra. (1)

This progressive enrichment of Pompeii allowed important urban and architectural innovations in the Vesuvian city, innovations that linked Pompeii to the other allied cities of Rome. These breakthroughs were inspired by the new models of urbanization of “International Hellenism”, which Rome appropriated starting from the second century. B.C.

It is precisely in Samnite Pompeii that this phenomenon of progressive adaptation to the Hellenistic-Roman models developed, that is, in the period before Pompeii became a Sillan colony of 82 BC.

There are many monuments, both public and private, from the second century. B.C. that illustrate the development of the city of Pompeii and the adoption of the models of “International Hellenism”: monumentalization of the Forum, reorganization of the so-called  Triangular Forum, with the construction of the adjacent theater and campus/gymnasium, construction of the first thermal facilities, construction of large private houses with atrium and peristyle. The case of Pompeii is unique: a city timelessly preserved in its entirety, covered  with pumice stones and volcanic ash by the  Vesuvian eruption of 79 Ad.  The city clearly shows us how the process of enriching the urban landscape according to the canons of “International Hellenism” , already in practise in Sicily, also involved the Greek and Italic cities of Romanized Southern Italy. Naturally, in the peninsula the architectural models were filtered from Rome and adapted to both political-administrative and cultural needs of a society that was by now profoundly Romanized. Pompeii and the Campania region, in fact, reproduced some of the oldest examples of monumental building typologies that later, in the height of the imperial era, would be exported from Rome to the provinces, starting from Sicily: theaters, amphitheaters, baths, basilicas, aqueducts. (2)

In Pompeii, local patricians vied with those who came from Rome to practice the “otium” (SEE NOTE) in the maritime villas of Campania, in an “Asiatica luxuria” – this unbridled luxury that was inspired by the grandiose Macedonian courts – was made possible by the new riches of oriental origin. To this end, suburban villas, a new building type, arose, and the new architectural elements with  Greek names or in Greek style, such as the “peristyle”, “exedra”, “diaeta”, “triclinium” and “oecus”, were incorporated in the mansions in the city. .(3)

One of the most sumptuous examples of “domus” (House) built in Pompeii in the 2nd century AD. is the “House of the Faun” with its magnificent mosaic (more than one and a half million tesserae), which represents the decisive moment of the battle of Alexander the Great against Darius III of Persia at Issus, when the Persian king, in the moment of defeat, attempts to flee.

NOTE: This Latin term  had the idea of withdrawing from one’s daily business (negotium) or affairs to engage in activities that were considered to be artistically valuable or enlightening (i.e. speaking, writing, philosophy).

 

 

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

  1. Luana Toniolo  “Commerciare” –in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017, pp. 231
  2.  Gioacchino Francesco La Torre – Sicilia e Magna Grecia – Editori Laterza 2011 – pag.243
  3. Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976 pp. 33-34

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/0 Comments/by

THE FALL OF NAPOLEON AND RECOVERY OF THE STOLEN ART WORKS

 

On June 18, 1815, the Battle of Waterloo signaled Napoleon’s final defeat and the end of the Napoleonic era. After his fall, the Congress of Vienna (1815) re-established the old pre-Napoleonic kingdoms (Restoration) in Europe. However the “new king” of France, Louis XVIII, had stated in Parliament that works of art belonged to France “by a stronger law than the right of war”. Nevertheless,  despite a cooling of Allied disposition following the Waterloo defeat,  during the Vienna Congress the restitutions were treated as the object of negotiations rather than seen as an obligation.

Furthermore, each of the countries concerned, negotiated for themselves without following a common strategy or direction, in order to regain as much as possible of what had been expropriated. Since the collaboration of the Louvre Museum was necessary for the recovery of the seized assets, Dominique Vivan-Denon (director-general of museums and head of the new Musée Napoléon) benefitted greatly, since he as general manager was among the few to have the complete picture of what had entered France by way of the requisitions.  The country which sided decisively in favor of restitution was England, in the person of  the Foreign Minister Viscount Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington, (Napoleon’s vanquisher at Waterloo). Both rushed to support the rights of nations deemed less defended, such as the Netherlands and the Papal States which were the ones that had in fact suffered the greatest losses. Wellington, as shown in a letter sent to Castlereagh and published in the French press, even sent his troops to the Louvre Museum, ordering his men to remove Flemish and Dutch paintings from the walls. As for the Vatican, British collaboration went as far as covering transport costs without accepting the offer of various antiquities as a sign of gratitude.

Antonio Canova was appointed in 1802 by pope Pius VII Chiaramonti as “General Inspector of Antiquities and the Arts”, and it was he who acted as mediator for the Vatican. On 2 October 1815 the great artist began to examine the works stolen in Rome and the Papal States. The prestige enjoyed by the very famous sculptor among the sovereigns of Europe – not at all challenged by the sarcasm of Minister Talleyrand, who called him “monsieur l’emballeur” – and his undisputed professional competence allowed him to do an excellent job. The recovery, however, was partial, sometimes because he was hindered due to dimensions, other times in order not to further exacerbate already tense relationships

The Austrian government instead dealt with what had been stolen from Lombardy and Veneto: one of the most delicate operations being the recovery of the Horses of San Marco, which had been hoisted on the “Arc de Triomphe” in the Carrousel Square in Paris. The removal of such an important symbol of Napoleonic power threatened to provoke protests from the population and was therefore carried out at night, preventing access to the square in order to avoid disorder.

On the part of French intellectuals very few voices condemned the arrogant policy of theft imposed by Napoleon: but at least one rose in a passionate defense of the rationale of the vanquished. It was that of Antoine Quatremère de Quincy, who in “Lettres à Miranda”, an almost clandestine work released in 1796 while the author was in prison, vehemently exposed his dissent. The interlocutor is the Venezuelan general, Francisco de Miranda, who had fought for the independence of his country and had participated in the French Revolution. Quatremère entrusted to him his reflections on the illegitimacy of requisitions in an ardent defense of the conservation of works of art in places of origin: “dividing is destroying” because “the assembled objects light up and explain each other” . Rome is seen “as a whole” not only for its objects but also for its places and atmospheres, and some are inseparable from others.

 

                CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THE NAPOLEONIC ART

 With the recovery of seized works of art, there emerged a new sentiment within the offended states: an awareness of belonging to a nation of artistic heritage, one which was the foundation of their cultural identity. Therefore the concept of aesthetic, academic or economic value traditionally attributed to works of art, was overcome and these now became considered as assets linked to the Nation.

 

 

 

Excerpt from:  Maria Teresa Fiorio, Il museo nella storia,   Pearson, 2018,  pp 81-83

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

VENUS ANADYOMENE IN POMPEII

 

 

In the ancient world, the ideal of female beauty derived from a Greek canon, from marble sculpted deities by artists who modeled the best  features of various women to create a virtual, ideal and absolute beauty. This ideal beauty, combined with the hairstyles and clothing of the classical tradition, has always been well represented artistically  in Pompeian painting and sculpture.

A work of art which can be considered a real cultural icon of Greek beauty is the famous “Venus  Anadyomene” (from Greek, “Venus Rising From the Sea”), the goddess of love, depicted in the act of rising from the sea and resting her hands on wet hair. Originally it was created by the famous Greek painter Apelles in the 4th century B.C. for the Asklepeion, the temple dedicated to Asclepius, on Cos,  a Greek island facing Turkey. According to the different versions of the story, either Phryne, the model used by the great artist was a very famous hetaera [ among the Greeks, a courtesan, normally a stranger, free or a slave, elegantly dressed and, in general, rather highly cultured], or Campaspe, lover of Alexander the Great.

The painting was later brought to Rome by Augustus, and placed in the Temple of Venus Genetrix, to evoke the mother of the “gens Iulia” (Strabo 14.2.19). However this masterpiece of Greek art was also very famous in the area of ​​Mount Vesuvius. This is confirmed by an inscription found in Pompeii where the scriptor, the writer, compared his beloved to the Venus of Apelles (CIL IV 6842 = CLE 2057): Si quis non vidi(t) Venerem quam pin[xit Apelles] | pupa mea aspiciat: tali set i[lla nitet].

The wide diffusion of this model is confirmed by the dozens of copies of the Venus  Anadyomene spread among all the social classes of the population, at various artistic levels, from marble and bronze statues, as well as wall frescoes (such as in Pompeii in the House del Prince of Naples – see photo), but it is above all in the decoration on small tools of instrumentum domesticus, in particular on hair pins, where she was represented. Sculpted in bone, they were relatively inexpensive and multi-purpose instruments, widespread even in modest-sized houses, ubiquitous in female beauty care: they served as sharp instruments for applying makeup and also for dividing and styling hair. The hair pins  could remain fixed in the hair to be within easy reach in case of need and were also portable amulets. Such a hair pin, together with an amulet pendant also in the shape of Anadyomene, was found in the house of L. Elvio Severo in Pompeii (1). In addition, the box for ointments and toiletry items in the Imperial house in Pompeii was secured by a bronze padlock in the shape of the same goddess. (2)

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Berg, “Donne medico a Pompei?”, in A.Buonopane, F. Cenerini (a cura di), “Donna e lavoro nella documentazione epigrafica” , Atti I seminario sulla condizione femminile nella documentazione epigrafica (Bologna, ottobre 2002), Faenza 2003, pp. 131-154
  2. Ria Berg  “Attrarre” – in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017, pp. 213-214

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF NAPLES

In 1731 King Charles of Bourbon inherited the famous “Farnese collection” from his mother, Elisabetta Farnese. When the enlightened sovereign ascended the throne of Naples in 1734, he took these splendid works of art with him in dowry to the Parthenopean city. Charles furthermore ordered the excavations of Herculaneum (1738) and Pompeii (1748), which led to the discovery of an impressive number of Roman Art treasures.

However it was only in 1777 that Charles’s son, Ferdinand IV of Bourbon, determined by decree to gather these great dynastic collections, (Farnesian, Pompeian and Herculaneum) together in the  “Palazzo dei Vecchi Studi” (the Old University) and earmark them for public use. Moreover, this new building was envisaged as an encyclopedic museum where all human knowledge should be situated: works of art, books, papyri, studios  and even an astronomical observatory. Following the dominant Enlightenment culture, the educational aspect of this museum and its importance as a public utility were emphasized. Consequently,Ferdinand intended to bring together workshops, laboratories, painting, sculpture, and restoration schools and more. It was aimed to create a museum-workshop-school in the building. However, in order to do this, the old “Palazzo degli Studi” required profound changes and, in 1806 when the French arrived, the building was still under restoration.

During the French domination, first Giuseppe Bonaparte, and then Gioacchino Murat, abandoned the museum’s encyclopedic project for nearly 10 years, “reducing” it to a simple venue for the exposition of the imposing Farnese and Bourbon collections.

During  the Napoleonic period, all the leading museums in the territories conquered by the French armies were stripped of their most important masterpieces which were channelled  to the Louvre Museum in Paris. But the Archaeological Museum of Naples (like the Brera Museum in Milan) did not suffer from depletion; in fact it was enriched with famous masterpieces.

Murat sought an autonomous kingdom in Napoleonic Europe. The new director of the Museum, Michele Arditi (1807-1838), immediately showed his worth: first of all he introduced  more severe management of the personnel compared to the previous state of disorder; the obligation and control of daily working hours; respect for a precise work timetable and the prohibition of objects being taken out of the Museum. After the fall of  Murat (1815), during the Bourbon restoration, Ferdinand I again confirmed Michele Arditi as director of this institution which was growing continually.

What clearly made the difference between French and Bourbon management of the Archaeological Museum  was that, with his return, King Ferdinand I explicitly stated that the collections of the Archaeological Museum were his “allodial property” and therefore alienable. The royal sites belonged to the Crown – and were therefore not saleable, – but the collections were property of the king (and therefore privately owned). The idea advanced by the French kings, that artistic masterpieces were  protected by the State, was therefore denied by this declaration of Ferdinand I.

The restored Bourbon monarchy maintained  the original educational and public purpose of the Archaeological Museum of Naples, but at the same time it displayed a mentality not in line with the most modern Enlightenment principles.

Later, only in 1822, would the transfer of the archaeological artifacts from the “Herculaneum Museum” of Portici be completed, but despite all efforts, the Royal Bourbon Museum continued to seem  an overcrowded repository  without any precise exhibition criteria. Infact, the first extensive re-organization only took place during the Unification of Italy under the decisive intervention of Giuseppe Fiorelli.

 

Excerpt from:  Nadia Barrella e Ludovico Solima, Musei da svelare, Luciano editore, Napoli, 2011, pp. 17-23   

For further info about our guided tour of the National archaeological Museum of Naples

/0 Comments/by

POMPEII CITY WALLS – Part 2

In general, however, the ancient Mediterranean populations, in founding the cities, took into account from the outset the prospect of demographic growth and strengthening of the settlement. For example, in Magna Graecia, most of the “poleis”, the cities, developed over the centuries within the limits defined at the time of the foundation – very rare exceptions are Taranto and Syracuse. (9)     Therefore, up until the beginning of the eighties of the last century, Pompeii seemed not to align itself with the most common types of walls at that historical moment. But in 1982 Stefano De Caro, director of the excavations of Pompeii from 1982 to 1984, decided to resume a series of excavations in the Vesuvian city both in the Northern sector of the fortification, near the Tower XI, and in the Southern one, in the stretch between “Porta Nocera” (Nocera Gate) and the Tower IV. The results obtained are one of the most important acquisitions for the reconstruction of the urban history of Pompeii. The Neapolitan archaeologist discovered a primitive city wall in local tufa rock, the so-called “pappamonte”, elaborating the hypothesis that in Pompeii three different wall circuits would have been superimposed: the oldest – precisely discovered by De Caro – dating back to the VI century BC., the second building circuit dating back to the IV century BC, and the third, the one visible today, dating back to the end of the II century BC     However, of particular interest is the fact that, according to De Caro, the first city wall, the one dating back to the VI century B.C. in “pappamonte”, extended almost as much as the whole area included in the subsequent Samnite fortification. In doing so, it contrasted the then more established theories, which hypothesized the existence of a first housing nucleus in a much more restricted area. (10)    Moreover, recent investigations in the courtyard of the “Stabian Baths” in Pompeii confirm that the cultural model of the German scholar Eschebach of 1979 must be completely revised: there is no evidence of remains from the Archaic period (roads, gates, fortifications) (11).

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

9. Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, op. cit., pag.158

10. Marco Fabbri, Difendersi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pag. 269

11. Monika Trümper, op. cit., pag. 265

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/0 Comments/by
, ,

POMPEII CITY WALLS – Part 1

 

The perimeter of the city walls of Pompeii is 3220 m and has seven recognized gates; of an eighth – Capua Gate – it was assumed the existence based on a possible symmetry in the position of the gates. (1) Like any city in the ancient world, the walls of Pompeii were of particular importance because, in addition to performing a defensive function, they also marked the passage between the urbs (city) and the ager (countryside), between citizens and those who were not yet citizens (the indigenous rural population, for example) or those who were no longer (the deceased). The city walls were impassable because they were untouchable in the religious and legal sense of the term. The jurist Gaius, active between the reign of Hadrian and that of Marcus Aurelius (2nd century AD), used the term “res sanctae” (sacred property) to indicate the walls and their gates. (2) To justify and legitimately base the appropriation of a space which was completely removed from the domain of Nature, a divine origin sanctioned in its own settlement with its walls in order to directly involve the Gods in the fate of the city. (3) In Greek times in many cases – in Magna Graecia we know the cases of Locri and Agrigento – the sacred areas were located along the route of the city walls, both internally and externally, to constitute the best known cases of “ceinture sacrée” (sacred city walls), according to a lucky definition by François de Polignac. In practice, the whole city was physically placed under the protection of the Olympian Gods, through a widespread distribution of sacred areas along the perimeter of the city walls, above all at the gates. (4)

It is surprising how this description of “ceinture sacrée” can be perfectly found even in Pompeii. In fact, with the exception of the “Capitolium”, obviously located in the Forum, all the main sacred sanctuaries (Temple of Apollo, the Triangular Forum, Temple of Aesculapius or Jupiter Meilichios, the Temple of Venus) lie by two of the seven city gates, the so-called “Marina Gate” and “Stabian Gate”.

Furthermore, city gates marked a border that was often demarcated not only by physical defenses (towers, ditches, gates), but also by symbols that evoked a magical protection of urban space (sacred images, apotropaic symbols) (5). Interesting in this regard is what was found, for example, in the niche at the main archway of Porta Marina in Pompeii: a fictile statue of Minerva, guardian goddess of the city gates. (6)

For what concerns the first urban nucleus of Pompeii, until a few decades ago, it was thought that it was much more limited and its walls developed around the “Vicolo del Lupanare”, “Vicolo degli Augustali” and ” Vicolo dei Soprastanti ”, which is the closest territory to the current Forum. This theory was also reinforced by the presence, in the aforementioned area, by urban planning oriented in a different way from the rest of the city. It was then thought that, later, around the fifth century BC, the city had developed towards the East and North. In other words, it was believed that, after an initial urbanistic phase where Pompeii developed to just 9.3 hectares, it later developed to 63.5 hectares. (7)

To crown the aforementioned theory, in 1979 the German scholar Hans Eschebach published an authoritative monograph, which stated that in the 6th century BC, where today the “Stabian Baths” rise, the fortifications ran with a moat and a city gate. (8)

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976, pp. 85
    2.  P. Gros, L’architettura romana dagli inizi dal III secolo a.C. alla fine dell’Alto Impero: i monumenti pubblici, Milano, Longanesi & C. 2001, pag 28
    3.  Giuseppe Gisotti, La Fondazione delle città, Carocci Editore, 2016, pp. 17-18
    4.  Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Editori Laterza, 2011, pag.299
    5.  Giuseppe Gisotti, op. cit. pag. 18
    6.  Fabrizio Pesando, Maria Paola Guidobaldi, Pompei, Oplontis, Ercolano, Stabiae, Guide Archeologiche Laterza, Bari, 2018, pag. 31
    7.  Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, op. cit., pp .12-13
    8. Monika Trümper, Curare se stessi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pag. 265

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/0 Comments/by