Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosLIXRedundant Information? Repetitive...

Redundant Information? Repetitive Inscriptions in the Public Space of Pompeii

Fanny Opdenhoff

Résumé

Abstract : Inscriptions were very present in the public space of Pompeii. They were presented in different shapes and sizes along the streets, on building facades or at the forum square. Their content varies from honorary decrees, funerary inscriptions, the announcement of spectacles to personal notes or greetings. They were displayed so that every inhabitant or visitor could see, read or react on them. Many of the painted dipinti, the scratched graffiti and some of the stone inscriptions though, consist of identical or very similar texts that were then to be seen and read in different places all over the town. In three case studies about inscriptions from the building of Eumachia, the stelae of Titus Suedius Clemens and repetitive electoral programmata, different strategies can be observed in dealing with the placement and design of inscriptions. As the text remains unchanged, other factors like the layout, size and exact placement come to the foreground and show how the movement and expectations of the readers were taken into account.

Résumé : Les inscriptions étaient très présentes dans l’espace public de Pompéi. Elles étaient présentées sous différentes formes et tailles le long des rues, sur les façades des bâtiments ou sur la place du forum. Leur contenu varie de décrets honorifiques, d’inscriptions funéraires, de l’annonce de spectacles à des notes personnelles ou des salutations. Elles étaient exposées de manière à ce que chaque habitant ou visiteur puisse les voir, les lire ou y réagir. Beaucoup de dipinti peints, de graffitis grattés et d’inscriptions sur pierre consistent cependant en des textes identiques ou très similaires qui pouvaient être vus et lus à différents endroits de la ville. Dans trois études de cas, sur les inscriptions du bâtiment d’Eumachia, la stèle de Titus Suedius Clemens et les programmata électoraux répétitifs, on peut observer différentes stratégies dans le traitement de l’emplacement et de la conception des inscriptions. Comme le texte reste inchangé, d’autres facteurs comme la disposition, la taille et l’emplacement exact passent au premier plan et montrent comment le mouvement et les attentes des lecteurs ont été pris en compte.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Additionally, we have to assume that there were also inscriptions painted on wood that were only te (...)
  • 2 This phenomenon has recently been addressed by Abigail Graham with regard to several sets of same-t (...)
  • 3 Graham argues that these should not be regarded as copies, but as same-text inscriptions, in order (...)

1Inscriptions were present in almost any part of the public space of Pompeii. They were written in different shapes and sizes on building façades along the streets and on funerary monuments, or placed as parts of monuments on streets and squares. Their content varies from funerary, honorary or building inscriptions to electoral campaigning, announcements, personal notes and greetings. They were carved in stone, painted with red or black paint or scratched into the plaster and thus presented very different material properties1. Being placed in the public space, every inhabitant or visitor could see them, read them or react on them. As artefact, every inscription is unique; it was placed by specific persons, displayed at a specific location and exists with its own material properties. With regard to the text, though, we encounter several repetitions, where identical or similar wording occurs several times in different materializations to be seen and read in different places all over the town2. On the one hand, such repetitions are caused by the formulaic character of several types of Roman inscriptions. Funerary inscriptions or honorary decrees that repeat the same formulae obviously do not depend on each other but on traditions or models that had long been established. On the other hand, there are sets of inscriptions that present identical wording with regard to specific details, and these were obviously meant as repetitions of the same content, displayed in different locations and sometimes with markedly different material properties3. By means of three case studies, I will pursue the phenomenon of repetition and focus on the following questions: What were the aims when setting up several inscriptions with the same texts in different places and parts of the town? How do other features vary if the text is repeated? How do repetitive inscriptions relate to “unique” inscriptions and what can we conclude with regard to their respective functions? As will be shown, the repetition was closely connected to specific spatial contexts and the movement of inhabitants and visitors throughout the town. The three chosen examples refer to different kinds of epigraphic practices and were found in different areas of the town: Two building inscriptions from a public building in the center, four boundary markers/monuments outside the town gates, and several electoral notices distributed along the façades along the street. They lend themselves well to this study since they are relatively well preserved and because their contexts are known. What they have in common is that the repetition of the content and the placement of the single inscriptions was planned strategically. But at the same time they show that repeting the same texts several times could serve quite different purposes.

I. Building inscriptions from the Building of Eumachia

  • 4 The first parts of the architrave with the building inscription were found on 14 July 1814, further (...)
  • 5 On the date, see: W. O Moeller, “The date of dedication of the building of Eumachia”, Cronache Pomp (...)
  • 6 J. J. Dobbins, “The Forum and its Dependencies”, in J. J. Dobbins and W. P. Foss (eds.), The World (...)
  • 7 Valentin Kockel on the Elogia for Aeneas and Romulus (CIL X 808 und 809) not belonging to the build (...)
  • 8 J. J. Dobbins, “Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii”, AJA, (...)

2The Building of Eumachia is one of the most prominent buildings in Pompeii. Like the other buildings in the vicinity of the forum (square with a variety of functions, such as trade, cult, representation, formal or informal meeting place, law court, and adjacent buildings), it was excavated in the first third of the 19th century4. It was built in early imperial times and was dedicated to Pietas and Concordia Augusta.5 The complex consists of a chalcidicum (a kind of deep and wide porch or entrance hall, oriented towards the forum), which is integrated into the forum colonnade, a quadriporticus (rectangular courtyard, surrounded by colonnades) and a crypta (corridor), which runs along behind the northern, eastern and southern sides of the porticus (colonnade). The combination of these features suggests that it served several functions: it could be used for representative purposes, trade of goods such as luxury items or textiles, and for informal or formal social gatherings and meetings 6. The inscriptions coming from or attributed to this building have been recorded in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) X 808–8157. There are many signs of repair works that were executed in reaction to the damages caused by the earthquake in 62 AD8. The building inscriptions probably also had to be replaced, and can be dated shortly after 62. Their position, layout and text, however, conformed to the original disposition.

  • 9 See: G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, Naples, 1875, p. 258, 261; A. Mau, Osservazioni sull'edif (...)

3Two building inscriptions CIL X 810 and CIL X 811 can be attributed to the Building of Eumachia9. Their texts were, as far as we can see, identical:

4CIL X 810 :

Eumachia L(uci) f(ilia) sacerd(os) publ(ica) nomine suo et / M(arci) Numistri Frontonis fili(i) chalcidicum cryptam porticus Concordiae / Augustae pietati sua pequnia(:pecunia) fecit eademque dedicavit

5and CIL X 811 :

Eumachia] L(uci) f(ilia) sacerd(os) pub[l(ica)] [nomine su]o et M(arci) Numistri Front[onis] [fili(i) c]halcidicum cr[yptam] por[ticus] [Con]cordiae Augusta[e pietati] [sua pec]unia fec[it] [ea]demque dedicavit

Translation: Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, public priestess, built at her own expense in her name and in the name of her son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto, a chalcidicum, a crypta and a porticus for Concordia Augusta and Pietas and dedicated it.

  • 10 Cf. CIL X 8042, 47.
  • 11 See B. Kellum, “Buying Power. The Public Priestesses of Pompeii”, in B. Longfellow and M. Swetnam-B (...)
  • 12 Ovid Fast. 6.639, 6.637–638; Suet. Aug. 29; Cass. Dio 54.23.6. A. Cooley, “Women beyond Rome: Trend (...)
  • 13 E.g. L. Richardson, Pompeii… op. cit. n. 6, p. 197; J. J. Dobbins, “Problems of Chronology…”, op. c (...)

6In the text, Eumachia highlights different social roles she had earned and inherited in the community of Pompeii. Being the daughter of Lucius Eumachius, she was member of a wealthy family that owned a brick manufacture10. But she was also a public priestess which was one of the few offices available to women. The size, form and location of her gift to the community was extraordinary and reflects on the role she wanted to assume or fill for the town. By extending the donorship to her son Marcus Numistrius Fronto (nomine suo et / M(arci) Numistri Frontonis fili(i)) she demonstrated their collaboration and her endorsement for his future in local politics while retaining all the initiative for herself as (fecit eademque dedicavit)11. The deities to which this building complex was dedicated – Concordia Augusta and Pietas – were two particularly important concepts and virtues in Augustan and early Julio-Claudian times. As is known from contemporary and later written sources, Augustus built the porticus Liviae, which was dedicated by Livia and Tiberius in 7 BC, followed only months later by the dedication of a shrine to Concordia within the porticus by Livia herself12. This joint dedication and the demonstration of Concordia has long since been recognized as a model for the Eumachia’s euergetism13. It implies not necessarily that Eumachia wanted to be for Pompeii what Livia was for Rome, but it does indicate that on the one hand, she recognized the power of such a demonstration of harmonious kinship and on the other hand, she could consolidate her own position not only by giving an impressive building to the community but also by adapting the concepts of Concordia and Pietas to the local purposes.

  • 14 See CIL X 810 and G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, op. cit. n. 9, p. 261. See : https://pompeiii (...)

7Both inscriptions were carved in stone and integrated into the body of the building. But apart from that, their appearance is quite different. 810 was carefully chiseled into a marble slab measuring 275 cm by 31 cm that was found in 1817 at the foot of the ramp at the rear of Eumachia’s Building, which is leading from the Via dell’Abbondanza to the corridor surrounding the courtyard14. The original slab above the entrance has been replaced by a modern reproduction and is presently located at the deposit at Pompeii. The letters in the upper line measure 9.8 cm and in the two lower lines 4.5 cm. The first line, which contains Eumachia’s name, stands out with regard to its size and the second and third are gradually indented, so that their text is less prominent. This means that there is a significant distinction in this inscription, between Eumachia herself and the references to her son, the building, and the act of dedication.

  • 15 See CIL X 811 and G. Fiorelli, Pompeianarum antiquitatum historia, op. cit n. 4., p. 154–155.

8The other inscription was carved into the travertine architrave of the chalcidicum and has survived only fragmentarily. According to the CIL, four fragments have been found in front of Eumachia’s Building, while three more lay in the vicinity of the monument of Sallustius, a little further to the south15. The total length of the inscription would have been about 20 to 25 m and thus covered the better part of the width of the whole building. It was written in a single row spanning over several blocks of the architrave. The letters are indiscriminately 23 cm high. The visual structure of the inscription seems therefore less articulate and less hierarchical than its smaller counterpart. On the other hand, the linearity of the layout and the word order might in itself prompt the viewer to perceive the content in a certain order.

9The positions of both inscriptions are structurally comparable. They were placed above the entrances to the building and were thus visible to anyone who entered it or passed by, as well as being physically connected to the architecture. As such they were not merely transmitting information about the donors Eumachia and her son Marcus Numistrius Fronto, but they also made the size and extension of the building itself visible from the outside. This could be important in a context of adjacent façades, where multiple owners and donors were involved. The big inscription oriented towards the forum was very likely the first monumental inscription seen by a visitor coming from the Porta Marina. This was the westernmost gate of the town, closest to both, the ancient shoreline and the forum and its dependencies. Furthermore, the area from which it was visible must have covered almost the entire free space of the forum place and the western porticus. And as far as we know, there were no other inscriptions integrated in the façades of the porticus. It therefore dominated this public area in a unique way.

  • 16 See also: M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire, op. cit. n. 1, p. 60.
  • 17 G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, op. cit. n. 9, p. 262.
  • 18 Temple of Fortuna Augusta, dedicated by Marcus Tullius (CIL X 820): M(arcus) Tullius M(arci) f(iliu (...)
  • 19 So-called imperial cult building dedicated by Mammia (CIL X 816): M[a]mia P(ubli) f(ilia) sacerdos (...)
  • 20 It is obvious to compare this with the construction of her tomb in the necropolis in front of the P (...)

10The small inscription on the south side of the building, on the other hand, was visible only from the Via dell’Abbondanza, the main access road to the forum coming from the east. Its viewshed is significantly reduced, a fact also reflected by the smaller size of the letters. As a result, a passer-by had probably less time to read the inscription, since the road was narrower and the angular velocity in relation to the position of the inscription was relatively faster than on the forum square. The size of the letters within this inscription may offer a mode of facilitation to the reader in so far as one could read the taller first line very quickly and then decide whether to continue reading the second and third lines. Thus, even if one quickly moved on without having read the entire inscription, the lower lines would have been perceived in a cursory, visual way, even without having to read them. To someone approaching the forum, this smaller inscription would also represent the entrance to the town’s public area and public buildings. Eumachia’s inscriptions occupied two pivotal spots in the town, addressing different viewers and accounting for different patterns of movement16.By having the same text inscribed twice, it is clear that all the details of the texts were regarded as essential and none could be left out without weakening the effect of the inscription. Compared to other dedicatory and donor inscriptions from early imperial times in this area of the city, Eumachia’s text is not verbose but relatively specific. Two other inscriptions, dedicated by Mammia and Marcus Tullius, were both less detailed about their respective donations, and neither of them was repeated at a second location. For example, the temple of Fortuna Augusta, dedicated by Marcus Tullius was clearly oriented towards the so-called Via di Mercurio. The dedicatory inscription was found inside the temple; it had been written on the architrave of the niche17: ‘M(arcus) Tullius, son of Marcus, three times duovir with judicial powers, augur, military tribune by will of the people, built the temple of Fortuna Augusta on his land and at his own expense.’18 It clearly did not address passers-by on their way to the forum, but rather those readers who entered the temple. Furthermore, the text emphasizes past achievements, offices held during a career, and the very act of donation for the erection of the sanctuary. It seems to be aiming at documenting and praising the beneficence of Marcus Tullius. Similarly, the inscription by Mammia was probably placed on the cornice of the cella (inner chamber) of the so-called temple of the Genius Augusti (VII 9, 2), so that it would have been visible from the courtyard of that sanctuary: ‘M[a]mia, daughter of Publius, public priestess, built [this] for the Genius of Augustus and the Lares of Augustus on her own land and at her own expense, and dedicated it herself.’19. Eumachia’s inscriptions, in contrast, mainly describe the building and connect her name and her son’s with the gift to the community and the virtues of Concordia and Pietas – not to mention with imperial parallels such as Livia and Tiberius. Thus, Eumachia, Tullius and Mammia seem to aim at the honor and prestige that were to be gained through the donation of such buildings. But they also shaped the ways in which public and social life was centred and organized around the forum from the Augustan age onwards. Eumachia's building occupied a large plot of land that had not previously had a uniform shape and also marked the spatial dimensions through the positioning of the inscriptions20. Through her comparatively long inscription, Eumachia made her personal ambitions and also the semantic links to values that experienced increased importance in the Augustan and Tiberian periods explicit in a special way and inscribed them in the public sphere. By employing different strategies of addressing passers-by, visitors to the forum or people coming from the Porta Marina, Eumachia’s inscriptions, identical in content but deliberately distinct in material terms, aimed to reach as many people as possible and to anchor the statement monumentally in the cityscape.

II. The “Cippi” of Titus Suedius Clemens

  • 21 All four have been analysed with regard to their ordinatio by Carlos Alberto Sertà: C. A. Sertà, “L (...)
  • 22 Ibid., p. 234.
  • 23 Distances of the stelae from the respective gates: Porta Ercolano: 29,50 m; Porta Vesuvio: 29,80 m; (...)

11The inscriptions of Titus Suedius Clemens are quite different with regard to their context, date, text and design. The four known stelae were found in front of the gates called Porta Ercolano, Porta Vesuvio, Porta Nocera and Porta Marina21. Only the latter had apparently been moved before the Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD, since it was found lying horizontally in the courtyard in front of the suburban baths22. As far as we know, the stelae had been placed at a distance of about 29,60 m or 100 feet from the walls23. They are between 71 to 83,5 cm high, 47 to 58 cm wide and 25 to 28 cm deep. The one of Porta Marina was 146 cm high and would certainly have been half-buried. The specimen at Porta Nocera and Porta Marina consist of light grey limestone, while the others were made of travertine. Only the cippus (small stone or wooden monument demarking distances or boundaries) in the necropolis at Porta Ercolano has been published in the CIL:

12Porta Ercolano, CIL X 1018 :

Ex auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris / Vespasiani Aug(usti) / ḷoca publica a privatis / possessa T(itus) Suedius Clemens, / tribunus, causis cognitis et / mensuris factis, rei / publicae Pompeianorum / restituit.

13Porta Marina, AE 2001, 796 :

Ex auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris / Vespasiani Aug(usti) / loca publica a prìvatis / possessa T(itus) Suedius Clemens, / tribunus, causis cognitis et / mensuris factis, rei publicae / Pompeianorum restituit.

14Porta Nocera, AE 2001, 797 :

Ex auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris / Vespasiani Aug(usti) / loca publica a privatis / possessa T(itus) Suedius  / Clemens, tribunus, causis / cognitis et mensuris factis, / rei publicae Pompeianorum / restituit.

15Porta Vesuvio, Not. Sc. 1910, 399 :

Ex auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris / Vespasiani Aug(usti) / loca publica / a prìvatis possessa T(itus) Suedius / Clemens, tribunus, causis cognitis / et mensuris factis, rei publicae / Pompeianorum restituit.

Translation: By authority of the Imperator Caesar Vespasian Augustus, has Titus Suedius Clemens, Tribune, returned public lands that had been taken into possession by individuals to the community of the Pompeians after having investigated the causes and taken measurements.

  • 24 L. de Blois, “Titus Suedius Clemens and Pompeian Loca Publica”, in S.T.A.M. Mols and E.M. Moormann (...)
  • 25 J. L. Franklin, Pompeis Difficile Est. Studies in the Political Life of Pompeii, Ann Arbor, Univers (...)
  • 26 V. Kockel, Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor … op. cit., 1983, p. 12–14.
  • 27 M. C. van Binnebeke, “Law and loca publica in Roman Times”, Fragmenta, 1, 2007, p. 1–23; esp. p. 12 (...)
  • 28 See ibid., p. 4; A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 209.

16The text is interesting in itself. Titus Suedius Clemens – not a regular inhabitant of Pompeii – had been sent by the emperor Vespasian, in order to clarify and regulate a situation, in which local inhabitants had apparently used public lands for their own needs. According to Lukas de Blois, it was not unusual that military officers were charged to solve intricate local problems and conflicts in the form of a special and temporary assignment24. He was thus not part of the local aristocracy, members of which might well have appropriated public lands. It was therefore an advantage to let an outsider deal with these delicate affairs, who needed not fear any disadvantages for his career. He did though, take sides even in the local elections and endorsed the candidate Marcus Epidius Sabinus for the office of IIvir iure dicundo and was greeted publically in at least three painted wall inscriptions25. The lands in question must somehow have been connected to the space between the locations of the stelae and the town walls. This are is about 30 m wide, so that it has been assumed that this functioned as a pomerium (religiously and legally defined boundary of the city of Rome)26. From a legal point of view, the text raises several interesting questions, which have been discussed by Marie Christine van Binnebeke. According to her, the inscriptions document a legal process to determine, who was the owner of these lands and under which circumstances these lands were used by individuals, e.g. for a fee or rent. This potential conflict was of great importance to the community of Pompeii and could obviously not be solved by local authorities27. Shortly before the eruption, Titus Suedius Clemens had been ordered and authorized by Vespasian to take this matter into his hands. This constitutio limitum (assessment and fixation of the boundaries) can thus be dated around 75 AD28.

  • 29 For further details of the ordinatio of all four inscriptions see: C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigr (...)

17The text and abbreviations of all four inscriptions is the same, but the distribution of the carved letters as well as the general orientation on all four stelae are different. Guiding lines were used on all four cippi, but with varying intensity and precision. In addition, we can observe a conscious choice of letter forms, since for the first lines of all four the writers used the capitalis monumentalis (square capitals) whereas the following lines are written in actuaria (similar to capitalis monumentalis, but elongated, slightly oblique and with wide variation of thin and thick strokes). For example, at Porta Vesuvio, the broader and clearer capitalis monumentalis is used till the fourth line with the words loca publica. On the other stelae, it extends just to the first three lines up to “Aug”. This difference coincides with the layout of the texts. At Porta Vesuvio, a centered alignment was chosen, while otherwise it was left-aligned with the first line advanced. Not only the alignment or mise en page of the text on the stele in front of Porta Vesuvio sets it apart from the rest, but the design of the individual letters appears to be much more careful as well29.

  • 30  Cf. also A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit., p. 294‑298, wh (...)

18These differences suggest that more than one person was entrusted with the ordinatio (layout of the text on the available surface)30. Apparently, there was some tolerance regarding the layout but the instruction concerning wording and abbreviations were obviously binding. Perhaps the stele in front of Porta Vesuvio had been carved by more experienced craftsmen. And maybe the changed alignment of the text was easier to plan, even if this necessitated shifts in the distribution of the text. This meant, for example, that “loca publica”, which is isolated and very prominent at Porta Vesuvio, was then part of a longer line. Both employing more than one craftsman and adjusting the ordinatio in the process might imply that the quick production and placement of the inscriptions were prioritized.

  • 31 C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulle stele pompeiane di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Marin (...)

19It might also be surprising that not only the stelae themselves but also the letters seem to be of simple design and were left with an irregular, unsmoothed surface. No ornaments or frames were used to embellish or highlight the inscriptions, although we can assume that the letters were painted in red31. At the same time, the very firm anchoring in the ground made sure that the stelae would remain in place at the chosen location. Intentional design seemed to play only a minor role, while of course the layout and size of the letters had a significant impact on the way the inscriptions were perceived and reading facilitated. The repetitive character of the inscriptions, their rather elementary design and their presence within the necropoleis, that featured many more inscriptions, suggests that they were not installed in order to attract attention.

  • 32 See F. Opdenhoff, Die Stadt als beschriebener Raum. Die Beispiele Pompeji und Herculaneum, Berlin a (...)
  • 33 Regarding the relation between document and published inscription: S. Panciera, “What Is an Inscrip (...)
  • 34 For the notion of original and the relation between decrees or announcements and the epigraph see: (...)

20These are no honorary inscriptions commemorating the actions of Titus Suedius Clemens. Rather, by erecting these, the Pompeians and the Roman authorities sought to guarantee the results of the procedure of the constitutio limitum, which was of paramount importance to the Res Publica Pompeianorum. The places where they were set up can be considered as neuralgic points of the suburban landscape, between the inner urban space and the surrounding environment32. The area in front of the gates might also have been a zone where the risk of (renewed) illegitimate appropriation was particularly high. By placing them in these areas, they could also provide a certain degree of protection, since the content was thereby known to everyone. The four cippi present the published version of maybe a longer textual document and oral decrees that were formulated during the process of the restitution33. There must have been a document that stated the wording of the inscriptions and the inscriptions had also the function to conserve and make the contents of this document available to all inhabitants. These functions give genuinely new value to the inscriptions that distinguished them essentially from other forms of texts. Regarding the text, we can address the cippi as copies, but regarding their functions, each of them was a distinct monument.34 Repeating the same text multiple times meant that there was neither room for re-formulation and neither for interpretation of the content.

III. Programmatic Repetition

  • 35 H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite. Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy, Roma, L’Er (...)
  • 36 Different distribution patterns are attested. Most common is a broad distribution along the main st (...)

21Concerning the Dipinti, the situation is slightly different. The biggest group of these consists of programmata (electoral posters), which were part of the electoral campaign of high-ranking citizens for offices in the colonia. About 2600 recommendations for 255 different candidates have been documented35. We must assume that these notices, painted on the façades of mostly private buildings, were by no means the only way to announce a candidacy but were part of a larger and multimodal campaign. The programmata were written in red or black liquid paint with a brush directly onto the plaster or on a layer of whitewash. In almost all known cases, the writers used letter forms that can be described as actuaria. The sizes of the letters range from ca. 4 cm to about 60 cm. Not all programmata were painted with the same accuracy, but in general, the colours, the letter forms and the use of certain abbreviations and formulations allowed (and still allow) the viewer to recognize wall inscriptions of the programmata group relatively quickly. The electoral campaigns were organized by the candidate and his supporters. The recommendations of some candidates form clusters around their house or neighborhood, while in other cases they are distributed all over the town36.

  • 37 CIL IV 223. 324. 328. 374. 414. 449. 473. 510. 529. 534. 583. 766. 938. 3284. 3427. 3484. 3518. 353 (...)

22These electoral inscriptions were not designed as exact copies of the same text. Rather, we can see that only the basic information, including the name of the candidate and the office he was running for, both in the accusative, needed to be constant, while the writers had a certain degree of liberty regarding content, wording and use of abbreviations. The candidate could be further described as vir bonus or dignus rei publicae. The formula oro vos faciatis could be added and often a rogator (a person who endorses the candidate, giving his name) personally recommended voting for the candidate. The formulation would be something like Marcum Casellium Marcellum aedilem virum bonum dignum rei publicae oro vos faciatis. Successus rogat. (I ask you: make Marcus Casellius Marcellus aedil! He is a good man, worthy of the polity. Successus asks you to do that.) Individual achievements were rarely cited. This means that hundreds of programmata offer very similar texts regardless whether they refer to different or the same candidates. On the other hand, we can observe that for candidates with many surviving recommendations, there are a number of examples with identical wording – without having intentionally been composed as copies. The more complex the recurring texts are, the more likely it is that the repetition was intentional – namely that the content and wording were premeditated and the individuals involved in the writing were indeed collaborating while creating their text. Where texts are very short on the other hand, such as “Casellium aed(ilem)37 such a deduction becomes problematic, because of the relatively low specificity of this kind of inscriptions. However, in such cases other properties, like the positioning or the size and style of the letters might again suggest coordinated actions.

  • 38 J. L Franklin, Pompeii. The Electoral programmata, op. cit n. 35., p. 79; H. MouritsenElections, (...)

23One candidate of whom a high number of programmata are known, is Cnaeus Helvius Sabinus. He featured as a candidate for one of two posts of the aedileship in 151 programmata at least, either alone or in a joint programma together with another person, as a pair for both posts. Because his posts have not been overwritten by anyone else’s notices, and because so many were preserved, it is very likely that he was a candidate in 79 AD: The elections for the four public offices took place every year, while the notices were never systematically cancelled. It is unknown how many candidates ran or who were the successful individuals, but the state of conservation, paleographic properties, and the overlaying of several notices in busy areas show that they stem from different years. The more programmata of a specific candidate are preserved and the less they are overlain by others, the more recent they must be38.

  • 39 Joint inscriptions of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus with Marcus Samellius Modestus: CIL IV 6616. 6628. J. (...)
  • 40 Joint inscriptions of Lucius Ceius Secundus with Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus: CIL IV 1083. 10930. These (...)
  • 41 Attested in a joint programma: CIL IV 7242.
  • 42 H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 126–159.

24Based on the numbers of attested inscriptions and the fact that none of these was overlain by others, we can assume that Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus formed a team together with Marcus Samellius Modestus to run jointly for the two aedile positions in 79 AD39. He also appears together with Lucius Ceius Secundus, who ran for the senior office of duumvir iure dicundo (senior office with two posts, explicitly responsible for jurisdiction on a local level)40. The rivals of this group were Caius Gavius Rufus and Marcus Holconius Priscus for duumviri iure dicundo together with Caius Cuspius Pansa and Lucius Popidius Secundus for aediles (junior office with two posts, responsible for public maintenance, infrastructure and events)41. Among the candidates of the last year, Helvius employed the most programmata42.

  • 43 Cf. A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 169, fig. 6.1. Thi (...)

25Many of these painted inscriptions have now vanished and only part of them have been photographed. Most of the known programmata of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus were placed along the main streets and important decumani minores (side roads), such as the via di Castricio43. The aim was apparently to reach as many readers and viewers as possible. At the same time, there were many other old and new inscriptions along these busy roads competing constantly for attention along with wall paintings and displays of adjoining shops. On some walls, it might even have been difficult to find a spot where a programma could be written on.

  • 44 Cf. A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 170.
  • 45 See A. Varone et G. Stefani, Titulorum pictorum pompeinaorum qui in CIL vol. IV collecti sunt imagi (...)

26Some of the texts of Helvius’ notices seem to reflect the difficulty of gaining attention. Many are very short and consist of the candidate’s name only. The combination of tria nomina (combination of three names that mark the status of a Roman citizen), office and abbreviated “dignum rei publicae” and/or “oro vos faciatis” was often employed 44. In many cases, other individuals appeared as rogatores in an added formula, e.g.: Cn(aeum) Helvium Sabinm(!) / aed(ilem) Ìnfantio rog(at) cum suis (CIL IV 7191)45.

  • 46 See A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum., op. cit. n. 12, p. 169, fig. 6.1.
  • 47 See H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 56. And 1. C. Chia (...)

27Overall, the strategy of Helvius apparently consisted in distributing his posters broadly over the town, but only along the main roads46. This was no coincidence: since side roads were often closed for traffic, publishing them in busy streets would be a better and more economical way to reach many inhabitants while they were moving through the town. While other candidates relied mostly on their neighborhood and their personal network, Helvius wanted to engage voters from all parts of the town.47 In order to achieve this goal, he and his supporters drew on textual, design and contextual properties of the wall inscriptions.

  • 48 CIL IV 6616 (façade of V 3, 11) and 6628 (façade of V 4, c).

28The most compelling mechanism was that of repetition. The programmata for Helvius appeared sometimes at distances of few meters from another, without giving any new information about the candidate that could set them apart. By constantly iterating his name, as well as a few abbreviated formulae, the candidate gained visual presence in the urbanscape and accompanied the passers-by through the town. The most striking difference in terms of content between several inscriptions would consist in the names of rogatores, who thereby also gained visibility. Two joint programmata with Marcus Samellius Modestus were found in the northern part of the town, probably close to the dwelling of this co-candidate48. It is striking, though, that even here the name of Helvius Sabinus is given the first place and it is written in taller letters.

  • 49 See F. Opdenhoff, Die Stadt als beschriebener Raum, op. cit. n. 32, p. 239‑240.

29As there were so many recommendations for Helvius, the repetition of the content was both natural and practical. Variation was not a virtue in Pompeian electoral campaigning – fitting in and confirming the established formulations was more important than individual qualities49. In the programmata, the candidates were not presented as outstanding but as “bonus” or “dignus”. Where variation was not to be expected, the viewer could easily perceive the content without actually reading the whole inscription. The name given in the accusative would suffice to determine if the wall inscription was an electoral recommendation or another kind of text. This mechanism is reflected in the design. Very often the first words, containing the name, are written in tall letters, while the following abbreviations are written smaller and in quickly jotted nexus. The aim is thus not information but visual presence.

30In Helvius’ campaign, we can sometimes observe a very deliberate way of placing the inscriptions within their context. Several times they were located close to programmata of competitors. At the southeastern corner of insula (block) I 7, there is a programma for Helvius right at the corner. It is placed well above eye-level and, because of the letter size of 22 cm in the first line, this inscription was visible and readable as soon as the corner of the insula came to sight50. One would see the joint programma of the four candidates Gavius Rufus, Holconius Priscus, Popidius Secundus and Cuspius Pansa only when reaching the adjacent corner.

  • 51 Which also meant reacting in some cases on images or ownership of a specific wall. Cf. M. Corbier, (...)

31This inscription was about 4 m wide, with almost no difference in the height of the letters. The inscription for Helvius Sabinus was thus not only first to get into view. It was also easier to perceive. On the other hand, it contained only minimal information. The façades along the streets offered vast surfaces, on which experienced signwriters could easily adapt their inscriptions to the local conditions and react to the programmata that had been there before51. In cases such as Helvius Sabinus, where we know of several competing candidates, it becomes apparent that it was also a question of occupying spaces, which in turn led to the production of similar and repetitive texts.

  • 52 In other cases tough, the size of the audience was apparently less important than a personal tie of (...)

32The three case studies have shown that same-text inscriptions were present in different areas of the public space of Pompeii: The building inscriptions of the Eumachia Building at the Forum, the cippi of Titus Suedius Clemens outside the gates and programmata such as the ones by Helvius Sabinus along the roads. In the case of the Eumachia Building, both inscriptions were placed over the entrances, but the size, layout and context were different. With the cippi of Titus Suedius Clemens, on the other hand, the likeness of the text was reflected in similar layout, size and positioning in relation to the surrounding suburban space. Without leading to strictly speaking identical specifications, it was certainly possible to perceive them as related to each other. Furthermore, the inhabitants of Pompeii were most likely aware of the discussion about ownership and possession of lands that had led to their erection. Among the programmata of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus were many that can be grouped as same-text inscriptions. It is very likely that many were written or painted by the same group of individuals or that the writers were coordinated as to distribute the posts widely along the busiest streets. The fact that the texts are alike results mainly from the modular composition and conformism of these notices, rather than from an intentional decision to produce identical texts. Being spread over the town, these wall inscriptions are well comparable with regard to their design and the strategy to put them in places where many viewers could be reached52.

  • 53 A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit. n. 2, p. 294.
  • 54 See also A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit. n. 2, p. 299, wh (...)

33Thus, the reasons for putting up several inscriptions of the same text differed. As Graham has pointed out, same text inscriptions were placed so that one could not see both at once53. This is also true for the inscriptions of Eumachia and Suedius Clemens. Thereby, different persons were approached and the inscriptions were associated with different parts of the building or with different areas of the town. In contrast, the electoral notices of Helvius Sabinus, as well as programmata in general, might well be altogether visible. Looking at the informative potential of the inscriptions, this would certainly lead to redundancy, but I believe that the repetition was an important factor in order to generate presence54.

  • 55 Cf. S. Panciera, “What Is an Inscription?”, op. cit. n. 33, p. 5.
  • 56 Ibid, p. 8.
  • 57 Cf. M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire, op. cit. n. 1, p. 55.

34It could therefore be stated that same-text inscriptions were meant to enforce the quality of epigraphic communication when it came to addressing as many people as possible. For example, the inscriptions of Suedius Clemens made the information available to more readers approaching the town from different directions55. But beyond addressing a collectivity,56 the layout or size could be changed in order to adapt the inscription to different situations or movement patterns of the passers-by. At the same time, we can see that reaching readers or viewers was not the only purpose, or otherwise it would have been easier to set up just one inscription of Suedius Clemens in the forum square. These inscriptions were apparently connected so closely to their position that their multiplication was necessary to ensure that the message was appropriately delivered.57These differences make it clear that same-text inscriptions do not form a specific category of inscriptions that would set them apart from other inscriptions. But instead of regarding them as mere copies, where it suffices to cite them as two instances of the same model, only the the uniformity of the texts allows us to see the differences between the single artefact and the monument more clearly.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Additionally, we have to assume that there were also inscriptions painted on wood that were only temporarily on display: M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire. Mémoire et communication dans la Rome ancienne, Paris, CNRS éd., 2006, p. 56 ; W. Eck, “Inschriften auf Holz. Ein unterschätztes Phänomen der epigraphischen Kultur Roms”, in P. Kneissl and V. Losemann (Eds.), Imperium Romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption (Festschrift Karl Christ), Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1998, p. 203‑217. See map :https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=084ee7adbe8440078311a48ad12e43cb&extent=1610443.8646%2C4974625.3444%2C1615030.0863%2C4976734.5286%2C102100 and https://pompeji.materiale-textkulturen.de/plan.php

2 This phenomenon has recently been addressed by Abigail Graham with regard to several sets of same-text- inscriptions from Aphrodisias: A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships; a Study of ‘Duplicate’ Inscriptions in the Monumental Landscape at Aphrodisias”, in A. Petrovic, I. Petrovic and E. Thomas (Eds.), The Materiality of Text. Placement, Perception, and Presence of Inscribed Texts in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, Brill, 2019, p. 275–302.

3 Graham argues that these should not be regarded as copies, but as same-text inscriptions, in order to gain a better understanding of each inscription in their own right. Her focus lies on how same or similar text inscriptions were presented differently, the relationship between text and space, and how similar elements are emphasized in different ways. A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships…”, op. cit. n. 2, p. 275‑278.

4 The first parts of the architrave with the building inscription were found on 14 July 1814, further excavations took place that same year as well as 1817, 1818 and the following years, and 1836. For the reports of the first excavations in the Eumachia Building, see: G. Fiorelli, Pompeianarum antiquitatum historia, t. 1, 1860, Naples, p. 154‑158. 198. Detailed description of the building of Eumachia: K. Wallat, Die Ostseite des Forums von Pompeji, Frankfurt, Lang, 1997. See : https://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R7/7%2009%2001.htm

5 On the date, see: W. O Moeller, “The date of dedication of the building of Eumachia”, Cronache Pompeiane, 1, 1975, p. 232‑236; for a date after 22 AD: J.-P. Descoeudres, “History and historical sources”, in J. J. Dobbins and W. P. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii, London, Routledge, 2007, p. 9–27, p. 17.

6 J. J. Dobbins, “The Forum and its Dependencies”, in J. J. Dobbins and W. P. Foss (eds.), The World of Pompeii, London, Routledge, 2007, p. 150–183, p. 165–167; A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum. A Sourcebook, London, Routledge, 2014, p. 140‑141; L. Richardson, Pompeii. An Architectural History, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988, 194–198.

7 Valentin Kockel on the Elogia for Aeneas and Romulus (CIL X 808 und 809) not belonging to the building: V. Kockel, Altes und Neues vom Forum und vom Gebäude der Eumachia in Pompeji, in R. Neudecker and P. Zanker (eds.), Lebenswelten. Bilder und Räume in der römischen Stadt der Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden, L. Reichert Verlag, 2005, p. 51-72, p. 19–21.

8 J. J. Dobbins, “Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii”, AJA, 98, 1994, p. 629‑694, p. 639‑640; J. J. Dobbins, “The Forum and its Dependencies”, op. cit. n. 6, p. 166–167.

9 See: G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, Naples, 1875, p. 258, 261; A. Mau, Osservazioni sull'edifizio di Eumachia in Pompei, MDAI(R), 7, 1892, p. 113‑143, p. 113‑115; L. Richardson, Pompeii… op. cit. n. 6, p. 194; J. J. Dobbins, “Problems of Chronology…”, op. cit. n. 8, p. 648. See : http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/res_complex_comune.php?do=book&id_nr=EDR154828 and https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder.php?s_language=de&bild=$CIL_10_00811_2a.jpg;$CIL_10_00811_1a.jpg;$CIL_10_00811_1.jpg;$CIL_10_00811_2.jpg;$CIL_10_00811_3.jpg

10 Cf. CIL X 8042, 47.

11 See B. Kellum, “Buying Power. The Public Priestesses of Pompeii”, in B. Longfellow and M. Swetnam-Burland (Eds.), Women's lives, women's voices: Roman material culture and female agency in the Bay of Naples, Austin, University of Texas Press, 2021, p. 67–84, p. 69–70.

12 Ovid Fast. 6.639, 6.637–638; Suet. Aug. 29; Cass. Dio 54.23.6. A. Cooley, “Women beyond Rome: Trend-setters or Dedicated Followers of Fashion?”, in E. Hemelrijk and G. Woolf (Eds.), Women and the Roman City in the Latin West, Mnemosyne Supplements 360, Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 23–46, p. 33.

13 E.g. L. Richardson, Pompeii… op. cit. n. 6, p. 197; J. J. Dobbins, “Problems of Chronology…”, op. cit. n. 8, p. 689. Critically and with further references: A. Cooley, “Women beyond Rome…”, op. cit. n. 12, p. 35.

14 See CIL X 810 and G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, op. cit. n. 9, p. 261. See : https://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R7/7%2009%2001%20plan.htm

15 See CIL X 811 and G. Fiorelli, Pompeianarum antiquitatum historia, op. cit n. 4., p. 154–155.

16 See also: M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire, op. cit. n. 1, p. 60.

17 G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, op. cit. n. 9, p. 262.

18 Temple of Fortuna Augusta, dedicated by Marcus Tullius (CIL X 820): M(arcus) Tullius M(arci) f(ilius) d(uum)v(ir) i(ure) d(icundo) ter, quinq(uennalis), augur, tr(ibunus) mil(itum) / a pop(ulo), aedem Fọṛtunae August(ae) solo et peq(unia)(:pecunia) sua.

19 So-called imperial cult building dedicated by Mammia (CIL X 816): M[a]mia P(ubli) f(ilia) sacerdos public(a) Geni[o Aug(usti?) et Laribus Augustis s]olo et pec[unia sua fecit eademque dedicavit]. G. fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, op. cit., p. 210. See I. Gradel, “Mamia's Dedication: Emperor and Genius. The Imperial Cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae in Pompeii”, AnalRom 20, 1992, p. 43‑58.

20 It is obvious to compare this with the construction of her tomb in the necropolis in front of the Porta di Nocera: It is the largest known tomb in Pompeii, which exaggerates the form of the schola and transfers it into monumental shape: A. d’Ambrosio and S. de Caro, Un Impegno per Pompei. Fotopiano e documentazione della Necropoli di Porta Nocera, Touring Club Italiano, Milano, 1983, OS 11. B. Kellum, “Buying Power…”, op. cit. n.11, p. 70.

21 All four have been analysed with regard to their ordinatio by Carlos Alberto Sertà: C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulla stele pompeiana di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Ercolano”, RSP, 9, 1998, p. 229‑234; C. A. Sertà, “Ordinatio epigrafi sulla stele di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Vesuvio”, RSP, 10, 1999, p. 204‑210; C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulle stele pompeiane di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Marina e Porta Nocera”, RSP, 12/13, 2002, p. 228‑239. See : http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?id_nr=143573 ; http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?id_nr=143584 ; http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?id_nr=143579 ; http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?id_nr=143578

22 Ibid., p. 234.

23 Distances of the stelae from the respective gates: Porta Ercolano: 29,50 m; Porta Vesuvio: 29,80 m; Porta Nocera: 29,35 m. The cippus in front of Porta Marina was found lying in the Suburban Baths. Cf. ibid., p. 228, p. 238 n. 6; V. Kockel, Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor in Pompeji, Mainz, V. Philipp von Zabern, 1983, p. 12.

24 L. de Blois, “Titus Suedius Clemens and Pompeian Loca Publica”, in S.T.A.M. Mols and E.M. Moormann (Eds.), Omni Pede Stare. Saggi architetettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele, Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 9, Napoli, Mondadori Electa, 2005, p. 310–314, p. 311–312.

25 J. L. Franklin, Pompeis Difficile Est. Studies in the Political Life of Pompeii, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2001, 158; CIL IV 1059; Greetings: CIL IV 7203. 7579. 7780.

26 V. Kockel, Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor … op. cit., 1983, p. 12–14.

27 M. C. van Binnebeke, “Law and loca publica in Roman Times”, Fragmenta, 1, 2007, p. 1–23; esp. p. 12–19.

28 See ibid., p. 4; A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 209.

29 For further details of the ordinatio of all four inscriptions see: C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulla stele pompeiana di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Ercolano”, op. cit. n. 21; C. A. Sertà, “La Ordinatio epigrafica sulla stele di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Vesuvio”, op. cit. n. 21, and C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulle stele pompeiane di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Marina e Porta Nocera”, op. cit. n. 21.

30  Cf. also A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit., p. 294‑298, where she describes two same-text inscriptions from the Hadrianic Baths at Aphrodisias, carved by different hands, which results in a different ordinatio.

31 C. A. Sertà, “La ordinatio epigrafica sulle stele pompeiane di T. Suedius Clemens fuori Porta Marina e Porta Nocera”, op. cit. n. 21, 234.

32 See F. Opdenhoff, Die Stadt als beschriebener Raum. Die Beispiele Pompeji und Herculaneum, Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter, 2021, p. 36 and 220.

33 Regarding the relation between document and published inscription: S. Panciera, “What Is an Inscription? Problems of Definition and Identity of an Historical Source”, ZPE, 183, 2021, p. 1‑10, p. 7.

34 For the notion of original and the relation between decrees or announcements and the epigraph see: M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire, op. cit. n. 1, p. 62‑64.

35 H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite. Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1988, p. 113, fig. 12, et p. 70‑124. J. L Franklin, Pompeii. The Electoral programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A.D. 71–79, Roma, Academy Press, 1980, passim.

36 Different distribution patterns are attested. Most common is a broad distribution along the main streets. Mouritsen op. cit., p. 47–56. E. A. Viitanen, L. Nissin, K. Korhonen, “Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii: A Holistic Study of Neighbourhood Relations”, in A. Bokern, M. Bolder-Boos, S. Krmnicek, D. Maschek and S. Page (eds), TRAC 2012. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Oxford, Oxbow books, 2013, p. 61‑80; E. A. Viitanen, L. Nissin, “Campaigning for Votes in Ancient Pompeii: Contextualizing Electoral programmata”, in I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff and F. Stroth (eds.), Writing Matters. Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter 2017, p. 117‑144, p. 121–124.

37 CIL IV 223. 324. 328. 374. 414. 449. 473. 510. 529. 534. 583. 766. 938. 3284. 3427. 3484. 3518. 3532. 3647. 7042. 7331. 7653. 7803. 7924.

38 J. L Franklin, Pompeii. The Electoral programmata, op. cit n. 35., p. 79; H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 109–112.

39 Joint inscriptions of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus with Marcus Samellius Modestus: CIL IV 6616. 6628. J. L Franklin, Pompeii. The Electoral programmata, op. cit. n. 35, p. 36‑40; H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 56.

40 Joint inscriptions of Lucius Ceius Secundus with Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus: CIL IV 1083. 10930. These as well as CIL IV 7627+7628 can be added to Table 3 in J. L Franklin, Pompeii. The Electoral programmata, op. cit. n. 35, p. 43.

41 Attested in a joint programma: CIL IV 7242.

42 H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 126–159.

43 Cf. A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 169, fig. 6.1. This was one of the possible strategies. Other candidates’ notices were clustered in certain residential areas, presumably close to their own houses or those of their supporters: Cf. maps in: H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit 35., p. 53–55 fig. 5–7.

44 Cf. A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum, op. cit. n. 12, p. 170.

45 See A. Varone et G. Stefani, Titulorum pictorum pompeinaorum qui in CIL vol. IV collecti sunt imagines, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2009, 64–65 for photographies of the dipinto. For other rogatores in favor of Helvius Sabinus see: H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 161–171. The name Infantio appears in several inscriptions, more often as scriptor than as rogator. He (or another man named Infantio) had also written and signed several programmata for Lucius Popidius Secundus, who was a rival of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus and ran for the same office: CIL IV 709. 785a. 789. And for Helvius’ ally Lucius Ceius Secundus: CIL IV 7658.

46 See A. E. Cooley et M. G. L. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum., op. cit. n. 12, p. 169, fig. 6.1.

47 See H. MouritsenElections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, op. cit. n. 35, p. 56. And 1. C. Chiavia, Programmata. Manifesti elettorali nella colonia romana di Pompei, Turin, S. Zamorani, 2002, p. 241‑242 for different strategies of distribution in the electoral campaigns in Pompeii.

48 CIL IV 6616 (façade of V 3, 11) and 6628 (façade of V 4, c).

49 See F. Opdenhoff, Die Stadt als beschriebener Raum, op. cit. n. 32, p. 239‑240.

50 This was the case at approximately 30 m distance. See : http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/view_img.php?id_nr=073802

51 Which also meant reacting in some cases on images or ownership of a specific wall. Cf. M. Corbier, “L’écriture en liberté : les graffitis dans la culture romaine”, in M. Corbier and G. Sauron (eds.), Langages et communication: écrits, images, sons, Paris, CTHS, 2017, p. 15.

52 In other cases tough, the size of the audience was apparently less important than a personal tie of the candidate to a specific surrounding, e.g. in his neighbourhood or in an area, where his supporters lived: cf. E. A. Viitanen, L. Nissin, “Campaigning for Votes in Ancient Pompeii: …”, op. cit. n. 36, p. 129‑131.

53 A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit. n. 2, p. 294.

54 See also A. Graham, “Re-Appraising the Value of Same-Text Relationships”, op. cit. n. 2, p. 299, where she shows that same-text inscriptions help to understand inscriptions as “objects whose location and presentation played a fundamental role in viewing and interpreting the information they provided”.

55 Cf. S. Panciera, “What Is an Inscription?”, op. cit. n. 33, p. 5.

56 Ibid, p. 8.

57 Cf. M. Corbier, Donner à voir, donner à lire, op. cit. n. 1, p. 55.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Fanny Opdenhoff, « Redundant Information? Repetitive Inscriptions in the Public Space of Pompeii »Cahiers des études anciennes [En ligne], LIX | 2022, mis en ligne le 23 décembre 2022, consulté le 24 mars 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudesanciennes/2038

Haut de page

Auteur

Fanny Opdenhoff

Université de Hambourg, Hambourg

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search