Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T11:52:56.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond social and functional interpretations of wall paintings: mythological imagery in the tablinum at Pompeii and Herculaneum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2022

Ambra Spinelli
Ambra Spinelli*
Affiliation:
Flyover Zone
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the mythological wall paintings decorating the room known as the tablinum in atrium houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Scholars have considered the tablinum part of the “public” section of the house and have linked this room to the formal morning greeting, or salutatio, despite the fact that no ancient literary source mentions the tablinum in connection with this daily ritual. These assumptions have conditioned the way in which scholars have interpreted the decoration, which is analyzed in relation to the social activities supposedly associated with this type of room or discussed in terms of moral ideals and social values. This study demonstrates that the figurative imagery within the tablinum does not necessarily relate to social practices in that space but instead informs us about a common visual vocabulary shared by different strata of society.

Keywords

Roman wall paintingtablinumatrium housePompeiiHerculaneum

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , June 2022 , pp. 177 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

The tablinum, lying between the front and the rear of the house, was used as a reception room for guests who were not admitted into the privacy of the home; and here undoubtedly the master of the house received his clients.Footnote 1

With these words, the 19th-c. German archaeologist August Mau described the position and use of the tablinum within the Roman house (Fig. 1).Footnote 2 Employing ancient literary sources, Mau was one of the first scholars to establish the traditional approach by which social activities and behaviors are associated with architectural remains, thus setting the groundwork for the understanding of the tablinum by the next generation of scholarship as a space associated with patron–client relationships.Footnote 3 Over the last few decades, this 19th-c. ideal plan of the Roman house has been the subject of intense discussion. In particular, while ancient terms remain useful today for studying the various areas and rooms within the house, scholars have demonstrated that they cannot be used to assign specific functions to the spaces they name.Footnote 4 The tablinum, described as typically a broad room opening at the far end of the main entrance, has acquired a canonical location within archaeological scholarship, and Mau's characterization of this room as a space for patronal activities has remained largely unchallenged.

Fig. 1.

Ideal plan of the Roman (or Vitruvian) atrium house. (Mau Reference Mau and Kelsey1899, 241, fig. 110.)

In modern scholarship, the tablinum has received less attention than other rooms of a Roman house and it has often been discussed in relation to the dominus's patronal activities and “public” needs.Footnote 5 Thus, it has become commonplace for the tablinum to be described as the formal reception space where the dominus conducted his business and presented himself to his clients during the daily morning greeting, or salutatio.Footnote 6 Yet none of the extant textual sources mentions the tablinum in connection with the salutatio, a ritual mainly linked to the vestibule and the atrium.Footnote 7 The assumption that the tablinum served as the master's reception room and the emphasis on its “public” nature have not only prevented a fuller discussion of this space but have also conditioned how modern scholars have interpreted its wall decoration. In particular, the mythological wall paintings found in tablina – such as the divine couple Mars and Venus, among others – have been interpreted in terms of moral ideals and social values and usually considered a commentary on marital relations or social power.

In this paper, I will not discuss the diverse uses of the tablinum,Footnote 8 but will concentrate on the mythological wall paintings recorded in this type of room in a large sample of atrium houses at Pompeii and Herculaneum.Footnote 9 In particular, I examine some of the mythological scenes in tablina from Pompeii, as this site presents more numerous and demonstrative examples compared to Herculaneum.Footnote 10 I show that the same subjects are found in other domestic as well as public spaces of the city, thus indicating the presence of a common visual vocabulary shared by different strata of society. The aim of this study is to liberate the tablinum's mythological wall paintings from the existing scholarly emphasis on social norms and expectations.

Mythological wall paintings: the tablinum and beyond

In the atrium houses selected for my survey, the majority of tablina are decorated in the so-called Fourth Style, which developed during the Claudian and Neronian periods and dominates the domestic (and public) landscape, as it is the style in vogue at the time of the eruption.Footnote 11 A total of 74 central mythological paintings were recorded in 45 tablina (Table 1).

Table 1.

Central mythological panels recorded in 45 tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum. (Based on a sample of 160 atrium houses. The information in square brackets refers to the tablinum's number according to PPM or Maiuri Reference Maiuri1958)

Within Roman houses, mythological images often appear in “static” spaces where people spent time (and could in theory contemplate them at leisure), but it is clear that they should not be interpreted as thematic reflections of the activities carried on within those rooms.Footnote 12 Indeed, decoration does not necessarily indicate the “function” of spaces; rather, it reflects the hierarchical relationships among them. Thus, “paratactic” or repetitive decoration is often found in “dynamic” spaces such as vestibules, atria, and peristyle gardens, which are meant for the distribution or passage of people. Complex figural imagery, in contrast, appears more frequently in “static” rooms such as tablina, triclinia, and cubicula, where people passed time.Footnote 13

Despite this, the mythological scenes found in tablina have often been interpreted in relation to the social activities supposedly associated with this type of room, especially the morning salutatio. The walls of the tablinum (42) in the Casa dei Dioscuri at Pompeii (VI 9, 6–7), for example, were each painted with a large central mythological scene related to the life of Achilles. On the north (left) wall was a panel showing the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, on the south (right) wall, the discovery of Achilles on the island of Skyros (Figs. 2, 3).Footnote 14 Both paintings are fragmentary, but through comparison with similar Pompeian images, such as two wall mosaics in the garden portico of the Casa di Apollo (VI 7, 23), we can reconstruct their original appearance (Figs. 4, 5).Footnote 15 In the fresco depicting Achilles on Skyros, therefore, the hero would have appeared between his lover Deidamia (now missing) and Ulysses, with Diomedes restraining Achilles from the left; in the image of the wrath of Achilles, Agamemnon and Athena would have stood respectively on the left and right sides of the hero from the viewer's perspective.Footnote 16

Fig. 2.

Fresco depicting the Wrath of Achilles. Left/north wall of the tablinum (42), Casa dei Dioscuri at Pompeii, VI 9, 6–7. MANN inv. 9104. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Fig. 3.

Fresco depicting Achilles discovered on Skyros. Right/south wall of the tablinum (42), Casa dei Dioscuri at Pompeii, VI 9, 6–7. MANN inv. 9110. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Fig. 4.

Wall mosaic depicting the Wrath of Achilles. Garden portico (24), Casa di Apollo at Pompeii, VI 7, 23. MANN inv. 10006. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Fig. 5.

Wall mosaic depicting Achilles discovered on Skyros. Garden portico (24), Casa di Apollo Pompeii, VI 7, 23. In situ. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Parco Archeologico di Pompei.)

According to one scholarly interpretation, such decoration focused on the life of Achilles would have served to reaffirm the social position of the dominus and reflected the patronal activities that took place within the room.Footnote 17 This view maintains that a client would have experienced a “seeing and being seen” relationship between himself and his patron when he entered the tablinum, with its painting showing the analogous reciprocal recognition between Achilles and Ulysses.Footnote 18 Such a symbolic association would have been appropriate for a tablinum during the morning salutatio, the meeting between the patron and his clients.Footnote 19 However, these mythological subjects are also found, both alone and paired, in other domestic and public spaces at Pompeii.Footnote 20 For example, frescoes depicting the episode of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon were found in the portico of the Temple of Apollo (VII 7, 32), as well as in the atrium of the Casa del Poeta Tragico (VI 8, 3.5).Footnote 21 The episode of Achilles and Ulysses on Skyros is found on the walls of a number of other Pompeian houses and especially in more “private” rooms like triclinia, attesting to the popularity of this myth in contemporary tastes.Footnote 22 The presence of this subject in the tablinum of the Casa dei Dioscuri, therefore, should not be explained as part of the “public” role of this space as a setting for the salutatio – for which, as I have pointed out, there is no evidence.

The emphasis on the “public” nature of the tablinum as a formal reception room has also conditioned other scholars’ interpretations. In particular, scenes of Mars and Venus recorded in tablina at Pompeii (there are seven in totalFootnote 23) have generally been interpreted in relation to the official role of this space and, consequently, in terms of the social values and moral ideals associated with the subjects depicted. According to some scholars, images of this divine couple depicted in a tablinum would have reflected the role models and virtues of a proper husband and wife to the family members and visitors admitted to the house.Footnote 24 Similarly, others have suggested that Mars and Venus were particularly popular in the tablinum because it was here that the dominus presented himself to his guests and clients.Footnote 25

A systematic analysis of mythological wall paintings at Pompeii, however, demonstrates that the pairing of Mars and Venus was a very popular motif not only in tablina but also in other domestic rooms, as well as in civic and public buildings.Footnote 26 In the Casa di Meleagro (VI 9, 2.13), for example, this divine couple appears three times: in the tablinum [8] (Fig. 6), in a cubiculum [12], and in an unidentified room.Footnote 27 Often recorded in domestic rooms typically associated with more “private” activities, such as triclinia and cubicula, wall paintings with Mars and Venus also appear in other areas of the house.Footnote 28 Furthermore, panels with Mars and Venus were found in the Quadriporticus of the Theaters (VIII 7, 16–17; Fig. 7) and in the commercial property at VII 3, 8, and the same couple appears in a large stucco relief decorating the exterior wall of the Purgatorium of the Temple of Isis (VIII 7, 28).Footnote 29 The considerable number of scenes with Mars and Venus found on Pompeian walls attests to the popularity of this myth in contemporary local society, especially from the middle of the 1st c. CE, since the majority of these wall paintings are in the Fourth Style.Footnote 30 I argue, therefore, that the depiction of Mars and Venus in a tablinum does not necessarily relate to social habits and cannot serve to illustrate the use of this space for patron–client activities. Instead, it reflects the presence of a shared mythological visual imagery in the urban fabric.

Fig. 6.

Fresco depicting Mars and Venus. Right/south wall of the tablinum (8), Casa di Meleagro at Pompeii, VI 9, 2. MANN inv. 9256. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Fig. 7.

Drawing of lost painting depicting Mars and Venus. Quadriporticus of the Theaters at Pompeii (VIII 7, 16–17). (Ornati delle pareti 1838, pl. 53.)

While prior scholarship on mythological wall paintings in the Roman house has been especially interested in discussing the range of responses to such imagery, exploring the ways in which Greek myths operated in the Roman world, or investigating the relations between architectural space and decoration, my focus here is on the circulation and dissemination of these mythological narratives across the urban context.Footnote 31 In fact, as with the representations of Mars and Venus, other mythological scenes with Argos and Io (Figs. 8–10), Phryxus and Helle, or Theseus and Ariadne, for example, are found not only in tablina but also in other domestic spaces, as well as in civic, commercial, and religious buildings throughout the city.Footnote 32

Fig. 8.

Fresco depicting Argos and Io. Left/north wall of the tablinum (8), Casa di Meleagro at Pompeii, VI 9, 2. MANN inv. 9556. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Fig. 9.

Northwest corner of the Macellum at Pompeii (VII 9, 7) with central panel depicting Argos and Io. In situ. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Parco Archeologico di Pompei.)

Fig. 10.

Fresco depicting Argos and Io. Ekklesiasterion (6), Temple of Isis at Pompeii (VIII 7, 28). MANN inv. 9548. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

The appearance of such mythological imagery in places associated with the lower strata of society, such as taverns, has often been discussed in relation to the social and visual language of domestic space and explained as a sort of aspirational luxury.Footnote 33 This imagery's presence in commercial and industrial properties, including eating and drinking establishments, inns, and workshops, may therefore have provided an aura of refined taste.Footnote 34 Sometimes, it is difficult to determine whether these scenes belong to an earlier domestic phase of the property or whether they correspond to the conversion of the space from a domestic to a commercial function, according to the new owner's taste and agenda. Either way, such “shared” mythological imagery indicates that retail outlets were deeply integrated into social and cultural urban life, suggesting that this was not just a matter of aspiration nor an imitation of social refinement.Footnote 35

Whether painted on the walls of a domestic room (like a tablinum, cubiculum, or triclinium) or in a religious, civic, or commercial building (like a temple, marketplace,Footnote 36 or eating and drinking establishment), these mythological paintings attest to the presence of a visual thesaurus that was familiar to people from all social classes.Footnote 37 In discussing the ubiquitous presence and popularity of mythological tableaux across the urban fabric, we should also consider the role played by the written, oral, and visual traditions in making certain narratives quickly recognizable and appealing to a large audience. Mythological narratives were not limited to a well-read elite but were available to people from all social classes. Even lower segments of society, including freed people and slaves, might have learned mythological tales through various channels, from some sort of schooling, oral discourses, and mythological handbooks, and certainly from artifacts, wall paintings, and mosaics, as well as amphitheatrical and theatrical performances.Footnote 38 By contributing to the “democratization” of mythological narratives, all these factors very likely participated in the development of a shared visual culture. While the decoration of Vesuvian tablina reflected the cultural capital of the dominus of the house, it drew on a common and recognizable visual language to do so. The mythological scenes found in tablina, therefore, further demonstrate the sort of familiar vocabulary that circulated in these urban settings.Footnote 39

Conclusions

Throughout this paper, I have cautioned against the practice of projecting onto frescoes what we think we know about the uses of architectural spaces and the social rituals enacted there. In particular, analysis of the mythological frescoes decorating the walls of tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum indicates that this type of room was decorated like many other domestic, civic, religious, and commercial spaces. Ultimately, rather than explaining the mythological frescoes of the tablinum in relation to the room's supposed social function, I have advocated for asking why such scenes are found in all kinds of rooms and buildings, and what the broader implications might be. Both the oral and the written traditions, as well as the passion for contemporary entertainments, are likely to have played an important, if not a dominant role in the promotion of a mythological visual imagery familiar to people from all social classes.Footnote 40 My aim here has been to show that the mythological scenes painted on the walls of the tablinum do not necessarily relate to social habits and moral ideals but reflect the presence of a shared Campanian visual culture.

Acknowledgments

I thank the anonymous reviewers for the JRA for their generous comments. This paper developed from research carried out for my PhD dissertation at the University of Southern California under the direction of John Pollini, to whom I am especially grateful for acute observations and invaluable support. My gratitude also goes to Ann Marie Yasin, Steven Ellis, Bettina Bergmann, Domenico Camardo, Christopher Hallett, Molly Swetnam-Burland, and Michael Mignanelli for fruitful conversations, as well as to Barbara Weiden Boyd and Kenneth Lapatin for insightful suggestions and constructive criticism. Permits to survey the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum were generously granted by Massimo Osanna and Francesco Sirano. At the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, I am grateful to Paolo Giulierini for permission to study the material, as well as to the entire staff of its conservation department, library and Archivio Storico, especially Luisa Melillo, Maria Rosaria Esposito and Andrea Milanese. Special thanks also go to the staff of the Getty Research Institute and the Photographic Archive of the American Academy in Rome, especially Emiliano Di Carlo. Translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

Footnotes

1 Mau Reference Mau and Kelsey1899, 252.

2 A similar description and interpretation of the tablinum is also found in Overbeck and Mau's earlier work (Reference Overbeck and Mau1884, 262).

3 Jolivet Reference Jolivet2011, 7–18. Earlier attempts to combine the archaeological ruins at Pompeii with ancient nomenclature based on texts had already been made in the first half of the 19th c.: see Mazois Reference Mazois1824–38. It was during the second half of that century, however, that scholars like Overbeck and Mau paid particular attention to Vitruvius's treatise to describe each room within the house and assign it a set of activities, thus producing one of the first plans of “the standard Roman house”: Overbeck Reference Overbeck1856; Overbeck and Mau Reference Overbeck and Mau1884; Mau Reference Mau and Kelsey1899.

4 Allison Reference Allison and Moormann1993; Allison Reference Allison2001; Leach Reference Leach, Bon and Rick1997; Nevett Reference Nevett, Rawson and Weaver1997. Today, ancient terms continue to be applied as modern conventions to indicate the various spaces of excavated Campanian houses for convenience and utility: Allison Reference Allison and Moormann1993, 236; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill, Dobbins and Foss2007; Clarke Reference Clarke, Ulrich and Quenemoen2014, 343; and recently Cova Reference Cova2015 with the same approach to the alae at Pompeii.

5 See, e.g., Dwyer Reference Dwyer and Gazda1991; Zaccaria Ruggiu Reference Zaccaria Ruggiu1995, 383–96. Aside from a few remarks found in general discussions of Pompeian houses (e.g., Dickmann Reference Dickmann1999; Allison Reference Allison2004), the tablinum has received insufficient attention in modern scholarship: see Spinelli Reference Spinelli2019. As for “public” and “private” in the Roman house, the bibliography is vast. See, especially, Thébert Reference Thébert and D'Ambra1993; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill1994; Zaccaria Ruggiu Reference Zaccaria Ruggiu1995; Cooper Reference Cooper2007; Tuori and Nissin Reference Tuori and Nissin2015.

6 For an explicit connection between salutatio and tablinum, see, among many, Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill1988, 55; Clarke Reference Clarke1991, 4; Dwyer Reference Dwyer and Gazda1991, 27; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill1994, 12, 45; Zaccaria Ruggiu Reference Zaccaria Ruggiu1995, 388; Flower Reference Flower1996, 200; Pesando Reference Pesando1997, 108–10; S. P. Ellis Reference Ellis2000, 146–47; Sewell Reference Sewell2010, 126; Clarke Reference Clarke, Ulrich and Quenemoen2014, 346. While the “traditional” vestibule–atrium–alae–tablinum complex led several scholars to envision the tablinum as a space strictly related to the Roman aristocratic patronage system, most recently Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (Reference Wallace-Hadrill, Tuori and Nissin2015, 178–79) has rightly remarked that this idea should be handled with caution.

7 See Goldbeck (Reference Goldbeck2010, 118–46, esp. 145), who also reports the uses of cubicula salutatoria sometimes mentioned by sources during the morning greeting. Scholars are also debating whether salutationes were even practiced in the Vesuvian towns: Goldbeck Reference Goldbeck2010, 20–23, 128–57; Dickmann Reference Dickmann and Rawson2011, 60–61.

8 Like other rooms within the house, by 79 CE the tablinum appears to have been a flexible space whose uses would have depended on daily and seasonal needs: see Spinelli Reference Spinelli2019 (esp. 38–68, 145–62) for a combined study of the literary and archaeological evidence (finds, fixtures, decorations, architecture, and graffiti) of these Vesuvian tablina, as well as their possible uses. For the houses at Pompeii, I follow the numbering and the Italian nomenclature adopted in the authoritative ten-volume work, Pompei. Pitture e mosaici (Pugliese Carratelli and Baldassare Reference Pugliese Carratelli and Baldassare1990–2003; hereafter PPM). For Herculaneum, I refer to Maiuri Reference Maiuri1958.

9 In my survey of 160 atrium houses, mythological wall paintings were recorded in 45 tablina. For information about the other types of paintings or decoration of each tablinum, see Spinelli Reference Spinelli2019, appendix A. Unfortunately, for the majority of tablina it was not possible to get a better idea of the decoration due to the current state of the archaeological evidence, as well as the availability and nature of the information recorded in the archival and published sources. On the history of the various excavations, documentations, and studies at Pompeii, see De Caro Reference De Caro2015; Moormann Reference Moormann2015, 7–94. For Herculaneum, see Franchi dall'Orto Reference Franchi dall'Orto1993; Pagano Reference Pagano2003.

10 Only about one-third of Herculaneum is currently known, in contrast to the large-scale excavation campaigns that have taken place at Pompeii. The analysis of the wall decoration of these tablina was based on personal survey as well as published and archival materials. A convenient list of the main bibliographical sources for Pompeii can be found in Laidlaw Reference Laidlaw1985, 2–13. For the wall decoration of the tablina at Herculaneum, I have relied especially on the recent catalogue compiled by Esposito Reference Esposito2014, while also consulting other studies of specific houses: see Spinelli Reference Spinelli2019 with full bibliography.

11 On the preponderance of Fourth Style wall paintings at Pompeii, see Hodske Reference Hodske2007; at Herculaneum, see Esposito Reference Esposito2014. For an overview of the chronology of the Four Styles in earlier scholarship, see Strocka Reference Strocka, Dobbins and Foss2007; Moormann Reference Moormann, Dubois and Niffeler2018. Mau's Four Styles classification system of Pompeian wall paintings remains the traditional framework for studying Roman painting (Mau Reference Mau1882), although there have been attempts to refine it: Beyen Reference Beyen1938–60.

12 For criticism of the use of figural motifs to establish room function, see Allison Reference Allison1992; Allison Reference Allison and Moormann1993; Ling Reference Ling, Murray and Tecusan1995 (with discussion on the subject matter of decorations of 137 triclinia at Pompeii).

13 Scagliarini Reference Scagliarini1974–76; Clarke Reference Clarke1991, 16; Leach Reference Leach2004, 53–54; Esposito Reference Esposito2014, 60.

14 Both paintings are displayed at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli (hereafter MANN), inv. 9104 (quarrel of the hero with Agamemnon) and inv. 9110 (discovery of the hero at Skyros): Bragantini and Sampaolo Reference Bragantini and Sampaolo2009, 308–9, 312–13, cat. nos. 136, 139.

15 The “Wrath of Achilles” is today displayed at the MANN, inv. 10006; “Achilles on Skyros” is in situ: PPM 4:507–10.

16 Other secondary figures would also once have appeared in the background behind Achilles, helping to articulate and animate the dramatic scenes. See, e.g., the fresco with Achilles on Skyros from the Casa di Achille at Pompeii (IX 5, 1–3): PPM 9:393. For the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, see the painting that once decorated the Temple of Apollo at Pompeii: Heslin Reference Heslin2015, 34–42, fig. 15.

17 Trimble Reference Trimble and Gazda2002.

18 According to the myth, Thetis, learning the destiny of her son Achilles, disguised the hero as a girl to live among the daughters of King Lycomedes of Skyros. Ulysses and Diomedes were sent to find Achilles, who, at the sounding of the war trumpet arranged by Ulysses, reasserted his manhood and agreed to go off to battle. Statius's incomplete epic poem Achilleid is the most detailed extant account of the episode: Heslin Reference Heslin2002.

19 Trimble Reference Trimble and Gazda2002, 244. But cf. Hallett Reference Hallett2005, 425.

20 See the pairing of these mythological scenes in the garden portico of the Casa di Apollo, mentioned above (n.15).

21 On the Temple of Apollo and its decorative setting, see Moormann Reference Moormann2011, 71–85; Heslin Reference Heslin2015. (Heslin also postulates the presence of a painting depicting Achilles on Skyros in the portico of the temple. However, there is no evidence for such a painting: see also Squire Reference Squire2016, 602). For the fragmentary panel depicting the Wrath of Achilles in the Casa del Poeta Tragico, see Bergmann Reference Bergmann1994, 232, 239, fig. 23f (with bibliography).

22 For paintings depicting Achilles on Skyros in triclinia, see Ling Reference Ling, Murray and Tecusan1995, 248. In general, on the same myth represented on the walls of all kinds of domestic spaces at Pompeii, see LIMC I 58–59, pls. 108–13, s.v. “Achilleus” (Kossatz-Deissmann).

23 Hodske (Reference Hodske2007, 82) counts a total of eight paintings with Mars and Venus from tablina at Pompeii. His list, however, wrongly includes the fresco with Mars and Venus found in room “a” (mistakenly called a “tablinum”) in the commercial property at VII 3, 8. One painting (still in situ) with Mars and Venus also comes from the tablinum of the Casa del Bicentenario at Herculaneum (V, 15–16), raising to eight the total number of mythological scenes with this myth recorded from the tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum.

24 Lorenz Reference Lorenz2008, 264–65, 339–40, 380, 428–29. Emphasizing the “public” nature of the tablinum, Wallace-Hadrill (Reference Wallace-Hadrill, Kleiner and Matheson1996, 109) and Strocka (Reference Strocka and Scagliarini1997, 130–31) offered a similar view, connecting the scenes with Mars and Venus in this space to the celebration of conjugal affection and the marital relationship. More recently, Swetnam-Burland (Reference Swetnam-Burland, Longfellow and Perry2018) has rightly remarked on the “ambiguity” inherent in the visual narrative of the Mars–Venus myth, which was not confined to a single fixed interpretation. For criticism of the scholarly tendency to discuss ancient mythological wall paintings in terms of moralizing ideals (which would better fit modern domestic behaviors), see S. P. Ellis Reference Ellis2000, 141; Allison Reference Allison2001, 193–94.

25 Romizzi Reference Romizzi2006b, 93; Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 71, 82, 137. Under Augustus, who claimed these gods as his own ancestors, Mars and Venus became the official gods of Rome and were incorporated into imperial propaganda: Zanker Reference Zanker1988, 195–201. Starting from the mid-1st c. CE and continuing to the mid-3rd c. CE, Mars and Venus as a couple increased in popularity in Roman private art: see Kousser Reference Kousser2007 (with bibliography).

26 To get a fairer view of the ancient situation, my investigation of wall paintings with Mars and Venus relies exclusively on the archaeological evidence at Pompeii, not only because wall paintings are more numerous here but also because we know the original location of the majority of them. In contrast, at Herculaneum, during the early explorations characterized by a “treasure-hunting” approach, several wall paintings were cut out of the walls without any record of their original location, while others were even destroyed: see n.9 above for the excavation practices and records at both sites.

27 Tablinum (8): Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 144, no. 246, pl. 4,1; MANN inv. 9256. Cubiculum (12): Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 144, no. 250, pl. 4,2; MANN inv. 9254. Unidentified room: Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 144, no. 247, pls. 4,3.4; MANN inv. 9250.

28 For the frequent presence of Mars and Venus in triclinia, see Ling Reference Ling, Murray and Tecusan1995, 239, 248; in cubicula, see Anguissola Reference Anguissola2010, 315. For the same couple depicted in other areas of the house, see Hodske Reference Hodske2007, CD-ROM, table 1.

29 Quadriporticus of the Theaters: Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 144, no. 632, pl. 3,3. Commercial property at VII 3, 8, in room (a) mistakenly called “tablinum” by earlier excavators: PPM 6:847; Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 143, no. 442, pl. 1,4. Neither painting is still extant. A central mythological painting with Mars and Venus was also found in the summer triclinium (o) of a large unidentified building at VIII 5, 15–16.38: PPM 8:598; Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 145, no. 619, pl. 5,2. Finally, these two gods appear in the lararium painting of the commercial property at VII 9, 33, where they were likely chosen as protective deities: Boyce Reference Boyce1937, 68, no. 303, pl. 25,2; PPM 7:357. On the Temple of Isis at Pompeii and its decoration, see Moormann (Reference Moormann2011, 149–62), who concludes that the stucco reliefs and the wall paintings in the temple were decorative and reflected contemporary taste rather than the function of spaces.

30 According to Hodske (Reference Hodske2007, 138–39), Herculaneum and Pompeii show a preference for myths involving their respective patron deities, Hercules and Venus. One could argue, however, that it remains difficult to explain the choices of certain mythological images by comparing the archaeological evidence for these two Vesuvian towns.

31 On the relationship between paintings and literature, see more recently Valladares Reference Valladares and Gold2012; Knox Reference Knox, Miller and Newlands2014; Newby Reference Newby2016 (with bibliography). On paintings and rhetoric, see especially Brilliant Reference Brilliant1984; Bergmann Reference Bergmann1994; Elsner Reference Elsner1995; Newby Reference Newby2016. For the sociohistorical approach to Roman wall paintings, see esp. Zanker Reference Zanker1979; Bergmann Reference Bergmann1994; Bergmann Reference Bergmann1995; Leach Reference Leach2004; Newby Reference Newby2016; Longfellow and Perry Reference Longfellow and Perry2018. In particular, on mythological wall paintings helping to construct gender roles in the Roman world, see Trimble Reference Trimble and Gazda2002; Romizzi Reference Romizzi, Marcattili and Romizzi2006a; Romizzi Reference Romizzi2006b; Lorenz Reference Lorenz2008. The bibliography on architectural space and decoration is vast: see esp. Scagliarini Reference Scagliarini1974–76; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill1988; Allison Reference Allison1992; Moormann Reference Moormann1993; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill1994; Ling Reference Ling, Murray and Tecusan1995; Esposito Reference Esposito2014.

32 As also confirmed in more recent scholarship, the wall decoration of temples and other public buildings at Pompeii and Herculaneum does not differ from that found in contemporaneous domestic spaces: Moormann Reference Moormann2011, 205; Esposito Reference Esposito2014, 58. In particular, for wall paintings with Argos and Io: triclinium (37), Casa del Citarista I 4, 5.25; tablinum (8), Casa di Meleagro VI 9, 2; peristyle garden (45), Casa dei Dioscuri VI 9, 6–7; Macellum VII 9, 7; room (26), Casa del Banchiere VII 14, 5; Ekklesiasterion (6), Temple of Isis VIII 7, 28; cubiculum (b), house IX 2, 18; triclinium (l), house IX 9, d. For Phryxus and Helle: room (b), tavern I 1, 2; viridarium (32), Casa di Sallustio VI 2, 4; tablinum (7), Casa di Modesto VI 5, 13; cubiculum (6), Casa del Poeta Tragico VI 8, 3.5; Macellum VII 9, 7; triclinium (14), Casa dei Postumii VIII 4, 4.49; cubiculum (b), Casa delle Pareti Rosse VIII 5, 37; cubiculum (7), Casa di Marcus Lucretius IX 3, 5.24; ala (d), house IX 5, 6.17. Representations of Theseus and Ariadne are too numerous to be listed here and appear in both domestic and public spaces: see Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 154–59. Paintings showing Ariadne handing Theseus the ball of thread, for example, appear in several buildings including the tavern I 12, 3 (room 3); the tablinum (10) in the Casa della Caccia Antica VII 4, 48; and the cubiculum (5) in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto V 4, a.

33 Other mythological wall paintings recorded in lodging or retail/commercial spaces at Pompeii include the tales of Venus, Dionysus, Achilles, Perseus, and Theseus, among many others. See, e.g., inns I 8, 8; I 14, 11–15; VI 9, 1; shops or bars I 1, 2; I 12, 3; I 14, 5; V 2, 14; V 2, 19; VI 10, 1; VI 14, 28; workshop VI 7, 8. The so-called “tavern imagery,” which is sometimes found in food and drinking establishments, however, has received more scholarly attention and is often used as evidence for the reconstruction of the life in and the decoration of bars: Clarke Reference Clarke2003, 161–68; Leach Reference Leach2004, 258. But cf. S. J. R. Ellis (Reference Ellis2018, 239–48), who has recently remarked on the “fine-quality” decoration found in food and drinking establishments at Pompeii and Herculaneum.

34 Pirson Reference Pirson1999, 91–95; Leach Reference Leach2004, 258–59; Pirson Reference Pirson, Dobbins and Foss2007, 469. Domestic mythological paintings have instead been a special focus of scholars in regard to the role of paideia (that is, as signifier of a patron's education), hence employed by the host to advertise his cultivated taste and wealth: among many, see Zanker Reference Zanker1979; Leach Reference Leach2004; Newby Reference Newby2016.

35 For a critique of the idea that luxury “belonged” only to the elite world, see Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill2008, 323–24, 356–440; S. J. R. Ellis Reference Ellis2018, 239–48.

36 On the uses of the Macellum at Pompeii, see Laurence Reference Laurence2007, 31 (with a recap of scholarly interpretations).

37 Paintings with Theseus and Ariadne, Thetis and Achilles, or Phryxus and Helle, among many others, are attested in both private and public buildings of the Vesuvian towns: see above nn.32–33. Panels with Hylas, for example, are found not only in domestic rooms like tablina, cubicula, or triclinia at Pompeii (Hodske Reference Hodske2007, 250) but also in public buildings like the so-called “Basilica” or Augusteum at Herculaneum: Esposito Reference Esposito2014, 37. The same can be said of other mythological figures like Narcissus, who appears depicted (with or without Echo) in several domestic spaces, as well as in the Temple of Isis at Pompeii: PPM 8:847.

38 On capital punishments staged as mythological episodes in Roman amphitheaters, see Coleman Reference Coleman1990. Theatrical entertainments, in particular, would certainly have contributed to making this mythological repertoire highly popular to a large public – not unlike subjects so familiar to many today through the media of television and cinema. By the 1st c. CE, Pompeii offered a wide range of theatrical performances, becoming a prominent center for pantomime: Franklin Reference Franklin1987; Starks Reference Starks, Hall and Wyles2008, 130–37. Favoring myths with strong emotional and erotic narratives taken from epic and tragic repertory, pantomime contributed to the spread of theatrical imagery, making a cultural repertory accessible and ubiquitous. For basic works on imperial pantomime, see Garelli Reference Garelli2007; Hall and Wyles Reference Hall and Wyles2008; Dunbabin Reference Dunbabin2016, 85–113; Toepfer Reference Toepfer2019, 32–423.

39 While the written, oral, and visual traditions would explain the popularity of mythological subjects, this does not preclude the possibility that certain mythological narratives were chosen by a patron for display in his home on the basis of personal reasons and choices (e.g., for intellectual display). The mythological wall paintings in tablina could have then been interpreted and perceived in various ways according to viewers’ different viewpoints, contexts, and personal experiences, from invoking literary parallels to recalling a passage heard or a scene viewed at a public or private performance.

40 In a region like Campania, which was exposed over the centuries to a wide range of cultural influences (from Etruscan, Greek, and Oscan, to Roman), the enduring passion for various genres of theatrical entertainments that brought mythological narratives to the stage would have likely contributed to the “democratization” of this repertory in the contemporary urban fabric. On the various cultural influences upon Campania, see Thiermann Reference Thiermann, Briault, Green, Kaldelis and Stellatou2005; Wallace-Hadrill Reference Wallace-Hadrill and Gruen2011; Bradley Reference Bradley2013, 11–16. On Etruscan and Oscan theatrical influences in Rome, see Duckworth Reference Duckworth1952, 4–17; Manuwald Reference Manuwald2011, 22–26, 29.

References

Allison, P. M. 1992. “The relationship between wall-decoration and room-type in Pompeian houses: A case study of the Casa della Caccia Antica.” JRA 5: 235–49.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. 1993. “How do we identify the use of space in Roman housing?” In Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Wall Painting, ed. Moormann, E. M., 1–8. Leiden: BABESCH.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. 2001. “Using the material and written sources: Turn of the millennium approaches to Roman domestic space.” AJA 105, no. 2: 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. M. 2004. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anguissola, A. 2010. Intimità a Pompei. Riservatezza, condivisione e prestigio negli ambienti ad alcova di Pompei. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergmann, B. 1994. “The Roman house as memory theater: The House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii.” ArtB 76, no. 2: 225–56.Google Scholar
Bergmann, B. 1995. “Greek masterpieces and Roman recreative fictions.” HSCP 97: 79–120.Google Scholar
Beyen, H. G. 1938–60. Die Pompejanische Wanddekoration. Vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, G. K. 1937. “Corpus of the lararia of Pompei.” MAAR 14: 5–112.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. 2013. Cities of Vesuvius: Pompeii and Herculaneum. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bragantini, I., and Sampaolo, V., eds. 2009. La pittura pompeiana. Naples: Electa.Google Scholar
Brilliant, R. 1984. Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. R. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy 100 B.C.–A.D. 250: Ritual, Space, and Decoration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. R. 2003. Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. R. 2014. “Domus/single family house.” In A Companion to Roman Architecture, ed. Ulrich, R. B. and Quenemoen, C. K., 324–62. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coleman, K. M. 1990. “Fatal charades: Roman executions staged as mythological enactments.” JRA 80: 44–73.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. F. 2007. “Closely watched households: Visibility, exposure and private power in the Roman domus.” PastPres 197: 3–33.Google Scholar
Cova, E. 2015. “Stasis and change in Roman domestic space: The alae of Pompeii's Regio VI.” AJA 119, no. 1: 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Caro, S. 2015. “Excavation and conservation at Pompeii: A conflicted history.” Fasti Online Documents and Research: Archaeological Conservation Series 3. International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-con-2015-3.pdf.Google Scholar
Dickmann, J.-A. 1999. Domus frequentata. Anspruchsvolles Wohnen in pompejanischen Stadthaus. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
Dickmann, J.-A. 2011. “Space and social relations in the Roman West.” In A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. Rawson, B., 52–72. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duckworth, G. E. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 2016. Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, E. 1991. “The Pompeian atrium house in theory and practice.” In Roman Art in the Private Sphere, ed. Gazda, E., 25–48. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. J. R. 2018. The Roman Retail Revolution: The Socio-Economic World of the Taberna. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. P. 2000. Roman Housing. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esposito, D. 2014. La pittura di Ercolano. Studi SAP 33. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Flower, H. I. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Franchi dall'Orto, L., ed. 1993. Ercolano 1738–1988. 250 anni di ricerca archeologica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Ravello–Ercolano–Napoli–Pompei, 30 Ottobre–5 Novembre 1988. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. L. 1987. “Pantomimists at Pompeii: Actius Anicetus and his troupe.” AJP 108, no. 1: 95–107.Google Scholar
Garelli, M.-H. 2007. Danser le mythe. La pantomime et sa réception dans la culture antique. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Goldbeck, F. 2010. Salutationes. Die Morgenbegrüssungen in Rom in der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Hall, E., and Wyles, R., eds. 2008. New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, C. H. 2005. “Emulation versus replication: Redefining Roman copying.” JRA 18: 419–35.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. J. 2002. The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius’ “Achilleid.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. J. 2015. The Museum of Augustus: The Temple of Apollo in Pompeii, the Portico of Philippus in Rome, and Latin Poetry. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
Hodske, J. 2007. Mythologische Bildthemen in den Häusern Pompejis. Die Bedeutung der zentralen Mythenbilder für die Bewohner Pompejis. Ruhpolding: Franz Philipp Rutzen.Google Scholar
Jolivet, V. 2011. Tristes portiques. Sur le plan canonique de la maison étrusque et romaine des origines au principat d'Auguste. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Knox, P. E. 2014. “Ovidian myth on Pompeian walls.” In The Handbook of the Reception of Ovid, ed. Miller, J. F. and Newlands, C. E., 36–54. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kousser, R. 2007. “Mythological group portraits in Antonine Rome: The performance of myth.” AJA 111, no. 4: 673–91.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, A. 1985, The First Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Laurence, R. 2007. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leach, E. W. 1997. “Oecus on Ibycus: Investigating the vocabulary of the Roman house.” In Sequence and Space in Pompeii, ed. Bon, S. E. and Rick, J., 50–72. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Leach, E. W. 2004. The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ling, R. 1995. “The decoration of Roman triclinia.” In In Vino Veritas, ed. Murray, O. and Tecusan, M., 239–51. London: British School at Rome.Google Scholar
Longfellow, B., and Perry, E., eds. 2018. Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. 2008. Bilder machen Räume. Mythenbilder in pompeianischen Häusern. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiuri, A. 1958. Ercolano. I nuovi scavi 1927–1958. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2011. Roman Republican Theatre: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, A. 1882. Geschichte der dekorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji. Berlin: Reimer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, A. 1899. Pompeii: Its Life and Art. Trans. Kelsey, F. W.. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Mazois, C. F. 1824–38. Les ruines de Pompéi. 4 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot.Google Scholar
Moormann, E. M., ed. 1993. Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Ancient Wall Painting. Leiden: BABESCH.Google Scholar
Moormann, E. M. 2011. Divine Interiors: Mural Paintings in Greek and Roman Sanctuaries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Moormann, E. M. 2015. Pompeii's Ashes: The Reception of the Cities Buried by Vesuvius in Literature, Music, Drama. Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moormann, E. M. 2018. “Beyond the Four Styles: Reflections on periodizations and other matters in Roman wall painting.” In Pictores per provincias II. Status quaestionis. Actes du 13e Colloque de l'Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique (AIPMA) Université de Lausanne, 12–16 septembre 2016, ed. Dubois, Y. and Niffeler, U., 389–404. Basel: Archéologie Suisse.Google Scholar
Nevett, L. 1997. “Perceptions of domestic space in Roman Italy.” In The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space, ed. Rawson, B. and Weaver, P., 281–98. Oxford: Parkin.Google Scholar
Newby, Z. 2016. Greek Myths in Roman Art and Culture: Imagery, Values and Identity in Italy, 50 BC–AD 250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gli ornati delle pareti ed i pavimenti delle stanze dell'antica Pompei incisi in rame. 1838. Naples: Stamperia Reale.Google Scholar
Overbeck, J. 1856. Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken für Kunst- und Alterthumsfreunde. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.Google Scholar
Overbeck, J., and Mau, A.. 1884. Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.Google Scholar
Pagano, M. 2003. Gli scavi di Ercolano. Naples: Marius Edizioni.Google Scholar
Pesando, F. 1997. Domus. Edilizia privata e società Pompeiana fra III e I secolo a.C. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Pirson, F. 1999. Mietwohnungen in Pompeji und Herkulaneum. Munich: Pfeil.Google Scholar
Pirson, F. 2007. “Shops and industries.” In The World of Pompeii, ed. Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, P. F., 457–73. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pugliese Carratelli, G., and Baldassare, I., eds. 1990–2003. Pompei. Pitture e mosaici. Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana.Google Scholar
Romizzi, L. 2006a. “La Casa dei Dioscuri di Pompei (VI.9.6-7): Una nuova lettura.” In Contributi di Archeologia Vesuviana II, ed. Marcattili, F. and Romizzi, L., 77–160. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Romizzi, L. 2006b. Programmi decorativi di III e IV stile a Pompei. Un'analisi sociologica ed iconologica. Naples: Loffredo.Google Scholar
Scagliarini, D. C. 1974–76. “Spazio e decorazione nella pittura pompeiana.” Palladio 23–25: 3–44.Google Scholar
Sewell, J. 2010. The Formation of Roman Urbanism, 338–200 B.C.: Between Contemporary Foreign Influence and Roman Tradition. JRA Suppl. 79. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Spinelli, A. 2019. “The tablinum: a space and stage for ‘private’ and ‘public’ rituals in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum.” PhD diss., Univ. of Southern California.Google Scholar
Squire, M. 2016. “Ignotum per ignotius? Pompeii, Vergil, and the ‘Museum of Augustus.’” JRA 29: 598–606.Google Scholar
Starks, J. H. 2008. “Pantomime actresses in Latin inscriptions.” In New Directions in Ancient Pantomime, ed. Hall, E. and Wyles, R., 110–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strocka, V. M. 1997. “Mars and Venus in Bildprogrammen pompejanisher Häuser.” In I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica (IV sec. a.C–IV sec. d.C.). Atti del VI Convegno internazionale sulla pittura parietale antica. Bologna, 10–23 settembre 1995, ed. Scagliarini, D., 129–34. Imola: University Press Bologna.Google Scholar
Strocka, V. M. 2007. “Domestic decoration: Painting and the ‘Four Styles.’” In The World of Pompeii, ed. Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, P. F., 302–22. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swetnam-Burland, M. 2018. “Marriage divine? Narratives of the courtship of Mars and Venus in Roman painting and poetry.” In Roman Artists, Patrons, and Public Consumption: Familiar Works Reconsidered, ed. Longfellow, B. and Perry, E., 166–90. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Thébert, Y. 1993. “Private and public spaces: The components of the domus.” In Roman Art in Context: An Anthology, ed. D'Ambra, E., 213–37. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Thiermann, E. 2005. “Ethnic identity in archaic Pompeii.” In SOMA 2003: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 21st–23rd February 2003, ed. Briault, C., Green, J., Kaldelis, A., and Stellatou, A., 157–60. Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
Toepfer, K. 2019. Pantomime: The History and Metamorphosis of a Theatrical Ideology. San Francisco: Vosuri Media.Google Scholar
Trimble, J. 2002. “Greek myth, gender, and social structure in a Roman house: Two paintings of Achilles at Pompeii.” In The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity, ed. Gazda, E. K., 225–48. MAAR Suppl. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tuori, K., and Nissin, L., eds. 2015. Public and Private in the Roman House and Society. JRA Suppl. 102. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Valladares, H. 2012. “Elegy, art and the viewer.” In A Companion to Roman Love Elegy, ed. Gold, B. K., 318–38. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1988. “The social structure of the Roman house.” PBSR 56: 43–97.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1996. “Engendering the Roman house.” In I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome, ed. Kleiner, D. E. E. and Matheson, S. B., 104–15. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2007. “The development of the Campanian house.” In The World of Pompeii, ed. Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, P. F., 279–91. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome's Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2011. “Pompeian identities: Between Oscan, Samnite, Greek, Roman, and Punic.” In Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Gruen, E. S., 415–27. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2015. “What makes a Roman house a ‘Roman house’?” In Public and Private in the Roman House and Society, ed. Tuori, K. and Nissin, L., 177–86. JRA Suppl. 102. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Zaccaria Ruggiu, A. 1995. Spazio pubblico e spazio privato nella città romana. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. 1979. “Die Villa als Vorbild des späten pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks.” In JdI 94: 460–523.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Ideal plan of the Roman (or Vitruvian) atrium house. (Mau 1899, 241, fig. 110.)

Figure 1

Table 1. Central mythological panels recorded in 45 tablina at Pompeii and Herculaneum. (Based on a sample of 160 atrium houses. The information in square brackets refers to the tablinum's number according to PPM or Maiuri 1958)

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Fresco depicting the Wrath of Achilles. Left/north wall of the tablinum (42), Casa dei Dioscuri at Pompeii, VI 9, 6–7. MANN inv. 9104. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Fresco depicting Achilles discovered on Skyros. Right/south wall of the tablinum (42), Casa dei Dioscuri at Pompeii, VI 9, 6–7. MANN inv. 9110. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Wall mosaic depicting the Wrath of Achilles. Garden portico (24), Casa di Apollo at Pompeii, VI 7, 23. MANN inv. 10006. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Wall mosaic depicting Achilles discovered on Skyros. Garden portico (24), Casa di Apollo Pompeii, VI 7, 23. In situ. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Parco Archeologico di Pompei.)

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Fresco depicting Mars and Venus. Right/south wall of the tablinum (8), Casa di Meleagro at Pompeii, VI 9, 2. MANN inv. 9256. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Drawing of lost painting depicting Mars and Venus. Quadriporticus of the Theaters at Pompeii (VIII 7, 16–17). (Ornati delle pareti 1838, pl. 53.)

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Fresco depicting Argos and Io. Left/north wall of the tablinum (8), Casa di Meleagro at Pompeii, VI 9, 2. MANN inv. 9556. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Northwest corner of the Macellum at Pompeii (VII 9, 7) with central panel depicting Argos and Io. In situ. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Parco Archeologico di Pompei.)

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Fresco depicting Argos and Io. Ekklesiasterion (6), Temple of Isis at Pompeii (VIII 7, 28). MANN inv. 9548. (Photo by A. Spinelli, with the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli.)