Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:24:01.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graphic caricature and the ethos of ordinary people at Pompeii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Pedro Paulo Abreu Funari

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The graphic symbolism of Pompeian caricatures is approached through a semiotically defined, oppositional framework, in which possible adjectives and connotations attached to various physical features are listed. These in turn are grouped either as those associated with power and authority or as those associated with their absence.

Although scholars have often ignored popular culture or characterised it as coarse and vulgar, the caricatures are found to have a sophisticated semiotic system that stood in opposition to erudite upper class painting and served to criticise people in power. Nevertheless, caricatures of slavery as an institution reveals that ordinary people's ethos was affected by social contradictions and thus social bonds were unconsciously reinforced.

Der graphische Symbolismus pompeischer Karikaturen wird beleuchtet anhand eines semiotisch definierten Gerüsts, in welchem mögliche Adjektive und Konnotationen aufgelistet sind, die verschiedenen physischen Grundzügen zugeordnet wurden. Diese sind abwechselnd zusammengestellt, entweder als solche, die im Zusammenhang stehen mit Macht und Autorität, oder als solche, die mit deren Abwesenheit im Zusammenhang stehen.

Obwohl Gelehrte häufig Volkskunst ignoriert oder als derb und vulgär charakterisiert haben, wird den Karikaturen ein anspruchsvolles semiotisches System unterstellt, das in Opposition zur Malerei der gebildeten Oberschicht stand und dazu diente, Leute im Besitz der Macht zu kritisieren. Nichtsdestoweniger offenbaren Karikaturen von Sklaverei als Institution, daß sich soziale Gegensätze auf das Ethos gewöhnlicher Leute ausgewirkt haben und soziale Fesseln daher unbewußt verstärkt wurden.

Le symbolisme graphique des caricatures de Pompéi est abordé à travers une structure de définitions sémiotiques et d'oppositions dans laquelle d'éventuels adjectifs et connotations en relation avec les différents caractéristiques physiques sont énumérés. Celles-ci à leur tour sont regroupées en étant associées soit au pouvoir et à l'autorité soit à leur absence.

Bien que les érudits aient souvent ignoré la culture populaire ou l'aient caractériée comme grossière et vulgaire, on a trouvé dans les caricatures un système sémiotique sophistiqué qui s'opposait aux peintures d'érudits de la classe supérieure et qui servait à critiquer les personnes au pouvoir. Cependant, les caricatures évoquant l'institution de l'esclavage révelènt que l'ethique des gens ordinaires était influencé par les contradictions sociales et par conséquent des liens sociaux étaient inconsciemment renforcés.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1993 , pp. 133 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

References

Bibiliography

Adams, J. N., 1987. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Battisti, C., 1949. Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare. Bari: Leonardo da Vinci editrice.Google Scholar
Bakhtine, M., 1970. L'oeuvre de Françoic Rabelais et la culture populaire du Moyen-Age et sous la Renaissance. Paris: Gaillimard.Google Scholar
Bergson, H., 1940. Le rire. Essai sur la signification du comique. Paris: P.U.F. Google Scholar
Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., 1961. Archeologia e cultura. Milan: Ricciardi.Google Scholar
Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., 1970. Rome, the Centre of the Power. Roman Art to AD 200. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., 1981. Del Helenismo a la Edad Media. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Blackburn, R., 1991. Fin de siècle: socialism after the crash. New Left Review 185: 5–67.Google Scholar
Brendel, O. J., 1979. Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Browne, R. B., 1989. Redefining literature. Journal of Popular Culture 23 (3): 11–21.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A., 1983. Schiavi e classi subalterne nella comunità romano-italica. In VV., AA. Storia della società italiana vol. 2: 95–132. Milan: Teti.Google Scholar
Bulford, A., 1972. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Burke, P., 1989a. The Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Italy. Essays on perception and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, P., 1989b. A cultura popular na Idade Moderna. São Paulo: Cia das Letras. Google Scholar
Cândido Cato, A., 1976. Literahtra e Sociedade. São Paulo: Cia Ed. Nacional.Google Scholar
Cebe, J. P., 1966. La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des origines à Juvenal. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Crespo, A. and Bedate, P. G., 1963. Situación de la poesia concreta. Revista de Cultura Brasilena 5: 15–35.Google Scholar
Croce, B., n.d. Poesia, storia. Pagine tratta da tutte le opere a cura dell'autore. Naples: Ricciardi.Google Scholar
Davis, W., 1990. Style and history in art history. In Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C. (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology: 18–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Della Corte, M., 1939. Iscrizioni a Pompeii. Notizie degli scavi, 293.Google Scholar
Della Corre, M., 1954. race, ed abitanti di Pompeii. Roma: L'Erma.Google Scholar
Dentzer, J.-M., 1962. La tombe de C. Vestorius dans la tradition de la painture italique. Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome 74: 533–594.Google Scholar
Diaz, M. E., 1990. The satiric penny pen press for workers in Mexico, 1900–1910: a case study in the politicisation of popular culture. Journal of Latin American Studies 22 (3): 497–526.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1986. The Care of the Self. The History of Sexuality. vol. 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K., 1990. Horace's satiric program and the language of contemporary theory in Satires 2, 1. American Journal of Philology 111 (2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funari, P. P. A., 1987. Cultura(s) dominante(s) e cultura(s) subalterna(s) em Pompéia: da vertical da cidade ao horizonte do possível. Revista Brasileira de História 7: 33–48.Google Scholar
Funari, P. P. A., 1989. Cultura popular na Antiguidade Clássica. São Paulo: Contexto. Google Scholar
Gichon, M., 1983. Who were the enemies of Rome on the Limes Palestinae? Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Aalen, 13. Internationaler Limeskongress: 584–592.Google Scholar
Gigante, M., 1979. Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell'antica Pompeii. Naples: Bibliopoli. Google Scholar
Ginsburg, C., 1986. An interview to Keith Luria and Romulo Gandolfo. Radical History Review 39: 89–111.Google Scholar
Gomringen, E., 1953. Konstellationen. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Golby, J. M and Purdue, A. W., 1984. The Civilization of the Crowd. Popular Cultures in England 1750–1900. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Gurlleman, J., 1935. Compte-rendu. Révue des Études Latines 13: 404–406.Google Scholar
Haeberlin, C., 1886. Carmina Figurata Graeca. Hannover: Janeck.Google Scholar
Hahen, I., 1991. Klassengebundheit, Tendenz und Anspruch auf Objektivität der Antiken Geschichtsschreibung. In Alonso-Nunez, J. M. (ed.), Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum: 363–405. Darmstad: W.B. Google Scholar
Harris, W. V., 1988. On the applicability of the concept of class in Roman history. In Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity: 598–610. Tokyo.Google Scholar
von Hayek, F. A., 1940. The uses of knowledge. American Economic Review ??:525–540.Google Scholar
Herescu, N. J., 1969. Sur le sens érotique de sedere. Glotta 38: 125–134.Google Scholar
Hill, C., 1989. History and Present. London: South Place Ethical Society.Google Scholar
Hobson, D. W., 1985. House and household in Roman Egypt. Yale Classical Studies 28: 211–229.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1990. Style as historical quality in art history. In Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C. (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology: 44–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoggart, R., 1986. The Uses of Literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Howkins, A., 1990. Labour history and the rural poor, 1850–1980. Rural History, Economy, Society, Culture 1 (1): 113–122.Google Scholar
Johns, C., 1982. Sex or Symbol? Erotic Images of Greece and Rome. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Lagopoulos, A.-Ph., 1985. Historical materialism, semiotics and urban space: towards a social semiotics of urban texts. Ars Smeiotica 8 (3/4): 253–268.Google Scholar
Lagopoulos, A.-PH., unpub. Sign conceptions in architecture and the fine arts in ancient Greece and Rome.Google Scholar
Lissberger, E., 1934. Das Fortleben der römischen Elegiker in den Carmina epigraphica. Tubingen: E. Goebelin.Google Scholar
MacDonald, A. H., 1991. Theme and style in Roman historiography. In Nunez, J. M. (ed.), Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum: 220–238. Darmstadt: W.B. Google Scholar
MacMullen, R., 1974. Roman Social Relations. 50 BC to AD 284. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MacMullen, R., 1990. Changes in the Roman Emprire. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
De Martino, F., 1988. Nuovi studi di economia e diritto romano. Roma: Riuniti.Google Scholar
Mattews, T., 1990. Roman life and society. In Griffin, J. and Murray, O. (eds), The Roman World: 338–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melly, G., 1976. The Writing on the Wall. London: Elmtree Books.Google Scholar
Nicolet, C., 1988. Rendre à César. Economie et société dans la Rome antique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Orsted, P., 1985. Roman Imperial Economy and Romanization. Copehagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Perrin, Y., 1989. Peinture et société à Rome: question de sociologie, sociologie de l'art, sociologie de la perception. Mélanges Pierre Lévêque 3: 313–342. Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Pignatari, D., 1965. Teoria da poesia concreta. São Paulo: Invenção.Google Scholar
Pisani, V., 1973. Su un graffito pompeiano. Parola del Passaio 28: 213–215.Google Scholar
Pollitt, J. J., 1989. The Art of Rome c. 753 BC-AD 33. Sources and documents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodenwaldt, G., 1939. The transition to late-classical art. In Cambridge Ancient History: 545–565. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B., 1980. Was there a popular cutlure in the Middle Ages? Journal of Popular Culture 14 (1): 149–154.Google Scholar
Rogrovrzeff, M., 1911. Die hellenistisch-römische Architekturlandschaft. Mitteilungen des deutschen Archäologischen Institut. Römische Abteilung 26: 1–185.Google Scholar
Rostovtzeff, M., 1919. Ancient decorative wall-painting. Journal of Hellenic Studies 39: 144–163.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A., 1989. Histoire et imaginaire de la peinture ancienne (Ve s. av. J.D. – Ie s. ap. J.C.). Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M., 1983. Objectivity and subjectivity in archaeology. In Spriggs, M. (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology: 108–113. London.Google Scholar
Sackerr, J. R., 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochretism. In Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C. (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology: 32–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Santiago, S., 1977. Paulistas e mineiros. Revista de Cultura Vozes 1,71: 39–46.Google Scholar
Schefold, K., 1972. La peinture pompéienne. Essai sur l'evolution de sa signification. Brussels: Latomus.Google Scholar
Scobie, A., 1986. Slums, sanitation and mortality in the Roman world. Klio 68: 399–433.Google Scholar
Sebillot, P., 1913. Le Folklore. Paris: Garnier.Google Scholar
Sega, L, , L., 1991. Socialism, feminism and future. New Left Review 185: 81–91.Google Scholar
Stockton, D., 1990. The founding of the empire. In Bordman, J., Griffin, J., and Murray, O. (eds), The Roman World: 121–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Teles, G. M., 1977. O nome da poesia concreta. Revista de Cultura Vozes 1,71: 19–22.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G., 1989. Hyperrelativsim, responsibility, and the social sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26 (5): 776–797.Google Scholar
Veyne, P., 1986. A homossexulaidade em Roma. In Aries, Ph. and Béjin, A. (eds), Sexualidades ocidentais: 39–49. São Paulo: Brasiliense.Google Scholar
Ville, G., 1981. La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Walicki, A., 1991. From Stalinism to post-communist pluralism: the case of Poland. New Left Review 183: 93–121.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1990. Roman arches and Greek honours: the language of power at Rome. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 216: 143–181.Google Scholar
Wendel, C., 1920. Überlieferung und Entstehung der Theocratisscholien. Berlin: Weid-mannische.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M., 1989. Roman Art and Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
White, J., 1957. Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting. London: S. Press of Hall Studies.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz, V. v., 1989. Die greichischen Technopaegnia. Jahrbuch des deutschen Archiiologischen Institut 14: 51–59.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. J. A., 1990. Roman art and architecture. In Bordman, J., Griffin, T., and Murray, O. (eds), The Roman World: 361–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Wood, E. M., 1989. Peasant-Citizen and Slave. The Foundations of Athenian Democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Woolen, P., 1991. Scenes from the future: Komar & Melamid. New Left Review 185: 68–80.Google Scholar