Cultural context material (pp. 8-17)
Students are introduced to the members of the household and the house in which they lived and worked.
Enquiry
Who was Lucius Caecilius Iucundus and what claims can we make about him and his household?
All cultural background sections have an enquiry provided to prompt historical investigation. You do not have to use all (or any!) of them. Stage 1’s enquiry is focused on building student knowledge of the household of Caecilius. It also acts as an introduction to the nature of evidence from Pompeii and begins to develop student skill in using archaeology to make historical claims.
All enquiries can be assessed as pieces of long-form written work, however there are alternative approaches. Examples of such will be given in each Stage commentary. For this enquiry, possible outcome tasks include:
It is advisable to introduce students to the enquiry and the outcome task before undertaking study of the cultural background section so that students are reading the material with the outcome in mind. The section ends with several bullet points to help students understand how the material they have studied links to the enquiry to help them in structuring their work.
- Character profiles. Students to create short character profiles for all named members of the familia met in Stage 1. For each they should note down what we can infer about their lives; you may wish to encourage students to make a distinction between what is known and what is fiction, and for the latter why the authors have made the choices they have. This task might be done very successfully alongside study of the model sentences. For those who wish, this task could be consolidated using games such as ’20 Questions’ or ‘Guess Who?’ or a student who is an ‘expert’ on a character being in the ‘hot seat’ and asked questions about their lives (this exercise should be managed carefully. It is not advisable for students to take the roles of enslaved characters).
-
Interviews. This may lead on from the activities above. Students might think up interview questions they would like to ask characters, and then write a transcript of the imagined interview. Students may wish to be creative and lay their work out like a glossy magazine or gossip website. This may naturally not be appropriate for exploration of the enslaved characters.
Gatsby benchmark 4: Linking curriculum learning to careers
[https://www.gatsby.org.uk/education/focus-areas/good-career-guidance] This Stage’s cultural material introduces students to the work of different people who study the ancient world and offers an opportunity for conversations about career pathways.
Thinking points
Not all Thinking points need to be studied. Select those most relevant to your and your class’s needs and interests.
1. What can we learn about Caecilius from these items? What can’t we learn from them?
The below are possible answers only. Students may come up with many other points:
- Front of the house with shops on each side that he probably owned: successful businessman, although we do not know what these shops sold, whether they were profitable, or even that he definitely owned them.
- Wooden tablets found in his house: these tells us about some, but not all, of his business dealings. They do not give us context such as what he was like as a businessman; was he fair? A cheat? A good negotiator? Trustworthy?
- Re-creation of tablet: Caecilius handled the sale of enslaved people.
- Strong box: this is an example of a Roman strong box, and we can assume that Caecilius may have had something similar, but this is not his and so its usefulness is limited.
- The bust of Caecilius: this may tell us what he looked like, however there is debate as to whether it is actually him or a relative. We also do not know how accurate the likeness is.
2. Caecilius lists human beings alongside cloth, timber and property as ‘items’ he trades; what Roman attitude towards enslaved people does this reflect?
For Caecilius and those like him, enslaved people were considered property and were treated like objects to be bought and sold. While we cannot know the attitudes of every Roman, there is little evidence in the sources of voices calling for the abolition of slavery in the Roman world. It appears to have been very much normalised and accepted. Students should be encouraged to think critically. For example, our sources are dominated by enslavers, not the enslaved; if we had more views of enslaved people, we would probably see far more resistance and outrage at the practice.
3. What claims can we make about the status of Roman women compared with Roman men based on a) Roman names b) Roman marriage customs?
Both of these customs demonstrate the patriarchal nature of Roman society:
a) Roman women’s names were traditionally derived from their fathers, showing that the Romans thought of Roman girls and women as defined by their relationship to men.
b) Roman girls’ marriages, especially in upper class families, were usually arranged by their fathers (or other male guardian). This shows men’s control over women and a lack of freedom for women.
Arranged marriages are still common practice in many societies today. It is important to distinguish between ‘arranged’ and ‘forced’ marriage. The latter is illegal in many countries including the UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/forced-marriage). This is an opportunity to raise awareness of forced marriage in modern society and the resources available to help those at risk, e.g.:
Childline: https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/bullying-abuse-safety/crime-law/forced-marriage/
Refuge: https://refuge.org.uk/i-need-help-now/how-we-can-help-you/gender-based-violence-services/
4. Think back to the sentences at the beginning of the Stage and the story you have read; what do you already know about Caecilius’ house?
This Thinking point is only of use if you are looking at the cultural background after studying the model sentences and the story. If you have not done so yet simply do not use it; this is not a sign of doing things in the wrong order. If they have read the sentences and story then students should be able to identify some of the rooms and areas of the house and also the Latin words for them. Explain to students that where certain words in Latin are difficult to translate into English (because there is no direct equivalent, or the Roman concept is very specific), it is sometimes appropriate to leave these in Latin. For example, Roman dining rooms have a very specific set up with their three couches, so while ‘dining room’ is fine, many people choose to use the word ‘triclinium’ even when writing in English.
5. Why do you think wealthy Romans might have encouraged passersby to peer into their houses?
To show off how beautiful and rich their houses were. Students might look at the pictures on page 12 to see how easy it is to look into the doorway of the houses (as the street passes right by them). Also of note is the positioning of the impluvium and its surrounding decoration right where people can see them from the street.
6. Women like Metella were responsible for keeping the household running smoothly. In the sentences at the beginning of this Stage, Metella is seen sitting in the atrium. Why do you think she might choose to sit here? What activities might she be doing?
Students will offer a variety of responses to these questions, but discussion should draw out the role of the atrium as the busy heart of the house, and women such as Metella as the head of domestic affairs. She is sitting in the atrium so that she can oversee everything happening in her household and so that she is easily accessible to anyone wanting to speak with her. She may also be there in case visitors arrive.
7. Make a note of what types of evidence generally did and did not survive the volcanic eruption which destroyed Pompeii. Why do you think this is the case?
The items which survived the eruption were generally made of non-perishable material such as stone or metal. This is due to both the destructive force of the eruption itself (wood, for example, burns when exposed to heat), but also the years spent buried before discovery in which it rotted away. You may wish to ask students to suggest what items in their own homes might survive for future historians to study, and what would not. What claims might historians make about their lives? How accurate might they be?
8. Where is the tablinum located in the house? What does this tell us about how it was used?
The tablinum is located between the atrium and the peristylium and a person could walk through it to get from one area of the house to the other. It is not closed off by doors or especially private; students may compare this to a modern idea of an office or study which is usually a quiet space for someone to work uninterrupted. The implication is that this is a reasonably public space for business or matters which are not especially confidential or clandestine. Like the atrium, this room is located at the heart of the house and someone sitting in it would have an excellent view of what is happening in the house and would be easily accessible to anyone wishing to speak with them. In fact, it would be difficult to move around the house without someone in the tablinum being able to see or interact with you.
9. What did the Romans use their gardens for? How is this similar or different from today?
While some Roman gardens were ornately planted and obviously intended as pleasurable leisure spaces, others were working plots of land ranging from household vegetable patches to small farms or vineyards. Whether students find this striking or unusual will depend very much on their own context and experience. In inner-city areas the idea of most homes having a garden at all may seem strange. Many homes today grow vegetables or fruits in small amounts, however you would be unlikely to find a small farm or vineyard in the average household. Students may wish to draw comparisons with allotments or urban farms. This discussion could be an excellent opportunity to highlight the diverse range of homes and spaces both in the ancient and modern world.
10. What do you think are the biggest differences between Caecilius’ house and a modern home?
Students will have individual and very personal responses to this question which will be heavily dependent on their own circumstances and experiences. The question deliberately does not ask students to compare Caecilius’ house to their own home, so that if students are uncomfortable discussing their own living situation, they can still engage with the question by considering houses and homes more generally. If it is felt that an open discussion of homes and home lives might not be appropriate, teachers might use a clip of a TV property show or a house listing on a property website to illustrate a modern house and ask students to make comparisons based on that.
Further suggestions for discussion
- How can we reconstruct Pompeian houses and gardens on the basis of archaeological findings?
- The position of women in Roman society compared to a) that in which the students live and b) other societies in the modern world where women’s rights and freedoms might be very different.
- The role and position of enslaved people in Roman households and the feelings this evokes in us as a modern audience. Points may include:
- A reminder that the individuals depicted are not servants (despite this being a common misconception due to the similarity of the word servus) but enslaved; teachers may wish to highlight the differences between the two conditions.
- Translation of servus as “slave” or “enslaved person” is accurate, and both are offered in the book’s vocabulary list at the back. The latter may be preferred as it emphasises that being enslaved is not a natural part of any human being’s make up, and is instead an act of violence against them. This point is explored in Thinking Point 2 in Stage 6.
- The relationship of Clemens and Grumio to Caecilius. This is not friendship or ‘employer-employee’. The idea of the ‘good master’ should be avoided. Enslaving another person cannot be done in a manner which is ‘good’. Even if an enslaved person is ‘treated well’ or not physically abused, the act of enslavement itself – one of ‘social death’ - is one which has been shown to create deep seated trauma and pain.
Further resources for thinking and teaching about slavery can be found in the guidance for Stage 6.
Further information
The figure of 10,000 for the total population of Pompeii can only be approximate. According to Beard (2008), current estimates vary from 6,400 to 30,000.
Caecilius
The basis of our knowledge about Caecilius is 153 wax tablets containing his business records, which were discovered in 1875 in a strongbox or arca, in his house. While often described as a ‘banker’ he was more accurately a coactor argentarius (receiver of silver): a middleman or financial agent in transactions such as auctions, money lending etc. The tablets indicate the range and diversity of Caecilius’ financial interests. They include records of a loan, sales of timber and land, the rent for a laundry and for land leased from the town council, and the auction of linen on behalf of an Egyptian merchant. His commission was 2 percent.
A wine amphora found in the shop at the right of the housefront reads: Caecilio Iucundo ab Sexsto Metello (To Caecilius Iucundus from Sextus Metellus). An election notice mentions Caecilius’ two sons: Ceium Secundum II virum Quintus et Sextus Caecili Iucundi rogant (Quintus Caecilius and Sextus Caecilius ask for Ceius Secundus as duovir). This inscription gives us Quintus as the praenōmen (personal name) of one son. For simplicity, Sextus does not feature in our stories (although he is briefly mentioned on page 11). The names attributed to the rest of the household are invented as is discussed in Stage 1’s cultural background material.
Visible from the street are the mosaic of the dog on p. 6 and the following graffito found in the tablinum:
He who loves should live; he who knows not how to love should die; and he who obstructs love should die twice.
The contents of the house (including several wall paintings) are currently in storage, either in Pompeii, or in the Archaeological Museum in Naples. Unfortunately, the famous marble lararium relief (images on p. 66 and 196 of student book), depicting scenes from the disastrous earthquake of AD 62 or 63, has been stolen and is accessible only in photographs.
Roman women
Conventions for the naming of Roman women changed over time. Originally – during the Republican period - a Roman woman had only one name, usually the feminine form of her father’s nōmen. For example, Gaius Julius Caesar’s daughter was called Julia. If there were more than one daughter, the names would be the same, distinguished by words such as “the elder,” “the younger,” “the first,” “the second,” “the third”: Julia Maior or Julia Prima, Julia Minor or Julia Secunda. In public women with the same name might be differentiated by the possessive form of their father's cognomen (Julia Caesaris, “Julia, the daughter of Caesar”) or that of their husband (Clodia Metelli, “Clodia, the wife of Metellus”).
By the late Republic conventions had begun to change. Elite Roman woman still used the feminine form of their father's nomen, but now added the feminine form of his cognomen, sometimes in the diminutive. For example, Augustus’ wife Livia, daughter of Marcus Livius Drusus, was Livia Drusilla. From the era of Augustus onwards, prominent women’s names often reflected dynastic and familial connections rather than following traditional conventions. Augustus' granddaughters, born to his daughter Julia and her husband Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, were called Julia and Agrippina rather than Vipsania. When Agrippina married Nero Claudius Germanicus, rather than naming their three daughters Claudia in reference to their father’s nomen, they were instead Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla.
In terms of the stories, nothing is known about Caecilius’ wife and mother of his children; the character of Metella is entirely fictious, including her name. Lucia, Caecilius’ fictional daughter, is not—as she should be—called Caecilia (this was considered too confusing for students). We have imagined that she has perhaps two names, with one acquired (slightly unusually) from her father’s praenomen (his cognomen not being the most student friendly to use). Although a wider variety of naming conventions were becoming fashionable among the elites at this time, we admit that this is a piece of historical license on the part of the authors.
By the time of our stories the old forms of marriage had given way to a freer form in which the wife could end an unsuitable marriage by divorce while retaining possession of her own property, subject only to supervision by a guardian. Such guardianship was, apparently, treated merely as a formality and a woman had only to apply for a change in guardian if she found him unsuitable. After the time of Augustus (63 BC – AD 14), a woman could inherit property, although the law restricted the amount. Women found ingenious ways of circumventing this law: several were themselves full heirs and passed on their property to chosen heirs through their wills.
Most of our knowledge about the status of women refers to those in the upper-class. A Roman girl’s life would vary according to her social status. Daughters in lower-class families might be expected to work in the family business, however, an upper-class girl like Lucia would probably not work outside the home. Instead, she would help her mother in supervising the household, learning how to one day run one of her own.
When a Roman matron went out, her stola mātrōnālis won her recognition, prestige, and respect. She was expected to have management skills and act as a responsible and respectable influence on the rest of the household. She often managed her own property outside the household as well. The students may be interested to learn that Varro’s first book on farming was dedicated to his wife and was intended to guide her in managing her own land. There were so many women with shipbuilding interests that the Emperor Claudius offered them special rewards if they co-operated in his new harbour and shipbuilding program. Examples of Pompeian women who seem to have been successful in business are given in Stage 2 on p. 30.
Houses in Pompeii
Insula 9 in Region I of Pompeii forms the basis for CSCP’s KS3 History course Amarantus and his Neighbourhood, materials from this might be of interest to show students how diverse neighbourhoods in Pompeii were. I.9 contains, for example, several grand houses, a painter’s workshop and a bar:
https://cambridgeamarantus.com/topics/topic-i/13/13-evidence
https://cambridgeamarantus.com/topics/topic-i/11/11-evidence
The ground plan of a Pompeian house on p. 13 of the textbook has been simplified to show the basic components of the domus urbāna. In reality, the house of Caecilius and Metella was more elaborate than the house depicted. In fact, his house and the one to the north had been renovated to become a single house. Once students have become familiar with the layout of a simple urban house, they may go on to study, interpret, or copy the plans of actual Pompeian houses.
You might wish to elaborate on the function of the atrium. Students can sometimes think of it as being like a “hallway”, but this doesn’t capture its importance. This was the formal or ceremonial centre of the house. Here the marriage couch was placed for the wedding night, here the patron received his clients, here the young man donned the toga virīlis, and here the body lay in state on a funeral couch. Not understanding this also risks minimising the role of Metella who is depicted in the atrium in her role as household manager. Students often think she is not doing anything or is a very passive figure, however she would in fact have been overseeing the enslaved people and keeping an eye on everything going on in her household. It may be helpful to point out to students that while the atrium in the model sentence image is rather empty – to aid in translation of the sentence - this would have been the bustling heart of the home through which everything and everyone passed. There would have been plenty more furniture and items like lamps and braziers, so houses might have felt a lot more cluttered than many today.
As mentioned in the textbook, there were many types of gardens in Pompeii including those used for production such as fruit orchards, vineyards, vegetable patches, and plant nurseries. Wilhelmina Jashemski cast the plant roots (in the same way the humans are cast) and then identified the plant species from the root cast. She also found many examples of carbonised food stuffs in the garden, for example pomegranates and beans. Many of the replanted gardens in Pompeii today are based on her findings, including the vineyards (as pictured on p. 17) which now produce wine. In fact, over time the focus on the atrium as the heart of the home changed and business became concentrated in the garden/peristylium of the house.
Illustrations
p. 8
The Bay of Naples including Pompeii and surrounding towns as well as Mount Vesuvius. The smaller map shows students where this region is in Italy in relation to Rome. This map is useful not only at the beginning of the course but also when towns such as Nuceria (Stage 8) and Herculaneum are mentioned in later Stages.
p. 9
Top right: The front of Caecilius and Metella’s house on the Via Vesuvio, which is the northern part of Stabiae Street (street plan p. 45). Like many prosperous houses on each side of the tall, imposing front door are shops which might have been leased out or managed by the owner’s enslaved people or freedmen. The adjoining house further up the street also belonged to Caecilius; part of the common wall had been renovated to permit access between the houses.
Middle left: One of the carbonised tablets from Caecilius’ archives
Middle right: A drawing of another one of Caecilius’ tablets showing the writing.
Bottom left: Strongbox, perhaps similar to the one in which Caecilius kept his tablets (Naples, Archaeological Museum). This box however is completely metal rather than the wooden (possibly with metal fixtures) chest that was found in the house of Caecilius.
Bottom right: The bronze head from Caecilius’ house (see notes on this at the beginning of this Stage).
p. 12
Top: Facade of the House of the Wooden Partition, Herculaneum, chosen in preference to one at Pompeii because of its more complete preservation. The doors open directly onto the sidewalk and the windows are small and high up as described in the text. The house is faced with painted stucco. The house further down the street, built out over the pavement (visible on the very left of the image) is timber-framed and contains a number of separate apartments.
Bottom: The main door of the House of the Faun in Pompeii. This image can be used to show students the view from the pavement through into the atrium with a clear view of the impluvium.
p. 13
Diagram showing the typical features of a Roman domus centred on an atrium. These houses are common in Pompeii, though with many individual variations; there are also smaller houses and apartments.
A larārium. Statuettes of the larēs (protective spirits of the family) and offerings of food, wine, and flowers would have been placed in this little shrine; its back wall might have been decorated with pictures of the household gods (lares and penates) and, often, protective snakes.
p. 14
Left: Atrium of Caecilius’ house, showing the impluvium surrounded by geometric patterned mosaic and the simple but still decorative floor. There is a little surviving painted plaster on the walls. We also see (on the left) the space called an āla (wing) that often opens off an atrium, the tablīnum, and garden behind.
Right: Atrium of the House of Paquius Proculus in Pompeii, located on the south side of the Via dell’Abbondanza. This house is relatively small but, as can be seen from the image, does contain some fine decoration. The floor of the atrium is made up of mosaic panels of animals framed with geometric borders and the walls are painted with panels.
p. 15
Caecilius’ tablinum. It had a rather plain mosaic floor and painted walls, with pictures of nymphs and satyrs on white rectangles against coloured panels designed to suggest hanging tapestries.
p. 16
Garden on the north-east side of the tablinum in the House of Caecilius. It is colonnaded on three sides and the columns consist of stuccoed brickwork. The walls still have some of their plasterwork, on which was found the piece of graffiti mentioned above on the merits of love. The garden has been planted to recreate the look of a Roman formal garden.
p. 17
This vineyard forms part of the “Villa of the Mysteries Project” which aimed to recreate the wines of ancient Pompeii using the same grape varieties and viticultural techniques. The winemakers worked with the Archaeological Superintendent of Pompeii to excavate the sites, study ancient wall paintings and test the DNA of the ancient vines. The site has now been producing wine for over a decade. Information about the wine and the project can be found here: https://www.taubfamilyselections.com/producers/mastroberardino/villa-dei-misteri-rosso-pompeiano
p. 18
Wall painting from the House of Venus in the Shell, Pompeii. The walls of gardens were often painted with trees, flowers, trellises, birds, and fountains to supplement the real garden and give the illusion that it was larger.
Further activities and resources
1. To provide a contrast to house of Caecilius and Metella, students could investigate life in the insulae/apartments in Pompeii. Useful resources include:
2. Students may research other examples of houses in Pompeii using resources such as:
This might lend itself to a creative task such as:
- an estate agent’s advertisement for a Pompeian house
- a piece of creative writing imagining who may have lived and worked in the house they have researched
