The Building of Eumachia and Female Patronage in the Roman Empire

DiscentesFeatured Posts, Research

By Anuksha Ram Madhan

 

In antiquity, private patrons commissioned numerous works of art and architecture. For the Latin West of the Roman Empire, a patron — a patronus — donated public amenities. In many cases, a patron was also a civic official designated by a community. A majority of surviving honorifics of patrons are those of men. Nevertheless, evidence for female patrons does exist. Inscriptions typically recorded the names of these patrons and their contributions. One such inscription stood along the colonnade of the Building of Eumachia in Pompeii. It names Eumachia as the primary benefactor of the building.1 Dating to the first century CE, the Building of Eumachia was the largest building in the vicinity of the Pompeiian forum. The Building’s architecture contained a chalcidicum [entrance porch], a large porticus [four-sided colonnade on the perimeters of a courtyard], and a crypta [large corridor behind the porticus]. The columns and frames of the Building were constructed with marble, and, though no longer surviving, the floors were lined with stone slabs. Within the greater complex, an honorific marble statue from the fullers —workers in fabric — for Eumachia survives alongside statues of other Pompeiian elite. Inscriptions on the building and statue identify Eumachia as the daughter of Lucius and as a public priestess.2

 

Figure 1: The surviving remains of the Building of Eumachia, as seen from the crypta towards the entrance (The Building of Eumachia, 1st c. C.E.)

 

Female patrons actively participated in the realm of public and municipal duties and received civic honors. These were the acts of a  “good” Roman.3 This paper focuses on Eumachia’s patronage as a springboard for a discussion of such female patronage in Imperial Rome and female involvement in civic spheres through the avenue of patronage, particularly when framed against male patrons. The inscriptions of Eumachia’s patronage on the Building of Eumachia and the Roman imperial model of female patronage through Empress Livia will be used to better understand the implications of a civic gift with female patronage. 

 

Introduction

The construct of patronage, derived from the Latin word patronus [patron], refers to benefaction offered from a person of influence. Greek benefaction — also known as euergetism, from euergetes[benefactor] — referred to any good-willed act of one citizen towards others. Per contra, the Roman notion also carried a sense of political and civic involvement. Thus, when discussing female patronage, it is critical to note that they were operating within the confines of a traditionally masculine paradigm in political and civic aspects.4 Patronage was not limited to a municipal space. Evidence for patronage of the collegium [associations of Roman society with legal independence] also exists.5 They were also benefactors for the city’s built environment, and were publicly honored in the form of statues and inscriptions.6 Roman law does not explicitly state what a municipal patron’s expectations were. Many of them also represented their city’s interests in Rome, serving as a bridge between the city and the imperial government.7 

When taking Pompeiian archaeology as evidence for patronage, it is important to note the earthquake of 62 CE. Much of the damage was repaired by the time of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE. However, the impact of the earthquake can be seen in the archaeological evidence. For instance, in the case of the Eumachia building, statues were moved to accommodate repairs and are therefore difficult to identify following their excavation.8

 

Figure 2: The entrance and chalcidicum of the Building of Eumachia (The Building of Eumachia, 1st c. CE.

 

Up to six architectural remains in Pompeii can be reconciled with possibly identified female patrons, one of whom is Eumachia. The most prominent of the inscriptions, the dedicatory one, runs along the porticus and is also mirrored in a side-entrance to the Building of Eumachia.9 The building measures sixty by forty meters and sits in the forum, dating to the Augustan era [dated by the life of Emperor Augustus as c. 27 BCE to 14 CE.]10 The inscription reads as follows:

 

Eumachia L(uci) f(ilia) sacerdos public nomine suo et M Numistri Frontonis fili chalcidicum cryptam porticus Concordiae Augustae Pietati sua pecunia fecit eademque dedicavit.11

 

Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, public priestess, made with her own money the chalcidicum, the crypt, and the porticus to Augustan Concord and Piety. She dedicated it in her name and in the name of her son, M. Numistrius Fronto.12

 

Figure 3: The dedicatory inscription on the colonnade of the Building of Eumachia (The Building of Eumachia, 1st c. CE)

Beyond Eumachia’s depiction of herself within these inscriptions, an honorific statue sits at the entrance of the aforementioned monumental complex. Unlike the inscription on the building, the statue base does not detail her community service. Rather, it identifies Eumachia and indicates that it is a dedication from the fullers — fullones. The statue as a civic honor demonstrates Eumachia’s involvement and duty as a Pompeian woman. The Eumachia building also identifies three other women in painted texts behind the blocks of the entrance edifice.13 

Evidence exists for male patronage in Pompeii at the same time period. Similar to the case of Eumachia, civic honors were bestowed upon them for their community service. One surviving example is a dedicatory inscription from a statue base at a large tetrapylon that once framed an intersection between some of the main roads of Pompeii. Evidence suggests that the tetrapylon intersection was a Pompeiian pedestrian intersection entirely separate from wheeled traffic. Being reserved for pedestrians, the area was a prominent position for the inscription, where citizens could have gathered. The inscription accompanies a cuirassed male statue, dedicated to Marcus Holconius Rufus — a duumvir, quinquennial, priest, and patron.14 

Starting with the Building of Eumachia and using the statue of Marcus Holconius Rufus as a comparative case, this paper will discuss female patronage in Imperial Rome, its influences on female involvement in civic spheres, and compare it with male patronage. As aforementioned, the imperial influence on patronage creates a paradigm within which Pompeiian patronage and civic honors can be analyzed for both genders. In order to investigate these questions, this paper will first discuss the significance of the inscriptions on the Building of Eumachia. Then, it will further analyze the imperial precedent and relevance to the case of Eumachia. It will also compare these aspects to that of Marcus Holconius Rufus. In these aspects, it will ultimately contextualize Eumachia’s patronage as civic benefaction in Pompeii and the implications of such a gift for female patronage in ancient Rome.   

 

Patronage

The Eumachia building holds evidence of female patronage beyond Eumachia herself in painted texts on the back of blocks on the edifices of the entrance. The painted texts indicate some level of preparation for inscription, but they were not inscribed. These texts identify three other women, all priestesses. The women were identified by their own names, that of their fathers, and their civic roles and jobs, but none were associated with their husbands. This could indicate that priesthood, alongside patronage, operated similarly to the relationship between male patronage and the public office.15 This is particularly relevant since both members of a public office and public priestesses were voted into the position by local council (ordo decurionum). Such a connection between patronage and duty served to bring women into the public sphere and consequently provided them with the civic power associated with male occupations.16

In addition to the identification of these women through their occupations and histories, the absence of a husband’s name fortifies their individualities. While the father’s name is present, this is customary in Roman naming conventions, and rather identifies their gens, tying the women to their families and their histories. The gens can be most closely likened to a family in the modern day. However, it differed in many ways from a modern family, mostly in the social structure and its public importance in ancient Rome. For instance, Roman gens even included the freedmen who took the family nomen. Eumachia was the descendent of a wealthy gens that had gained fortune from profitable vineyards and pottery workshops. She further fostered the gens institution by dedicating her building not only in her name, but in the name of her son.17 By virtue of a wealthy gens, Eumachia was eligible to be a priestess — a position similar to civic office, often limited to highborns. Scholars of Augustan Pompeii attribute Eumachia’s financial security and ability to be a patron to a combination of her illustrious occupation and her inherited wealth.18

In tandem with the inscriptions of these other women, the Latin on the inscriptions of Eumachia further contextualizes these depictions of female patronage. The naming of benefactors in the Latin nominative case indicates personal responsibility for any listed accomplishments. In cases where accomplishments are not listed, the locations or any objects associated with the inscription are ascribed to the listed individual.19 All the listed priestesses in the painted texts are named in the nominative, as is the dedication Eumachia wrote for herself on the Building of Eumachia. The notable exception in the case of Eumachia is the statue base, which (akin to the statue of Marcus Holconius Rufus) is in the dative. They are listed as “To [[Eumachia, daughter of Lucius]/[Marcus Holconius Rufus]]” from those who mounted the dedications.20 This is notable as it demonstrates civic honors and the degree of esteem they held in the eyes of the community, perhaps even demonstrating their public involvement.21 The inscription to Marcus Holconius Rufus was from the people for his previous renovations of the Sanctuary of Apollo and Large Theater. Eumachia’s statue named only the fullers. Longfellow makes a particular note of this. While Eumachia is suspected to have been a widow of a duumvir [one of any two magistrates holding joint office in ancient Rome], his fortune came from sheep and wool farming. Thus, a dedication from the fullers to her alone — whom she was connected to through her husband — draws attention to her individuality.22 The language on the inscriptions and their minutiae demonstrate various social norms. This enables further contextualisation of the value of the patronage and its reception by the public community.  

Livia’s recognition as Augustus’s female counterpart following his death led to even more giving of honors than before. As a result, she was the first women to receive civic honors and have a statue mounted in her honor in Rome.23 As with any royal family, the imperial family was expected to care for the people and the commonwealth. The emperor and his successors were considered the pater patriae — father of the fatherland — by the people. Augustus was regarded as the father of the imperial line. Livia, similarly, was honored and considered the goddess-progenitor of the Romans.24 Her images and honors were often depictions of her engaging in the imperial obligation of public duties. Livia, as an imperial greatly invested in civic benefaction, interwove the significance of the imperials as “founders” in their own rights into the discourse of public benefaction. Livia dedicated various acts and construction projects in Rome to women’s interests, roles, and virtues. For her magnanimity, she received honors from Roman cities and institutions. While it was denied, the senate even proposed to bestow upon her the title mater patriae [the mother of the fatherland] or parens patriae [the parent of the fatherland]. In suggesting this, the senate (among many others) recognized her individual accomplishments based on the synergy of her civic position and her public benefactions.25

Pompeii also honored Livia, raising a statue of her by the ordo following Augustus’s death. With the rising popularity of images honoring Livia, the occurrence of honorific statues for women in Pompeii increased as well. These statues and images were connected with benefactions and reinforced not only the public roles of the women being honored, but impacted their perceptions in the public eye for generations to come. Eumachia capitalized on such perceptions by presenting her son beside herself in the public eye through her dedication. By doing so, she likened herself and her son to the imperial mother and son groupings frequently seen in ancient Roman architecture. Family lineage, particularly generational depictions, were focal aspects of Augustan-era architecture and art. This focal point was often highlighted to further establish the imperial family as a parental, founding light for Rome. In addition to being associated with Livia by receiving civic honors, Eumachia paints herself and her family in the image of the imperials, presenting them to the public eye in a more noble light.26 

In her patronage of the Building of Eumachia and its dedications, Eumachia further established herself in an analogous position to Livia, as the building itself draws from imperial architectural structures. Most notably, the Building of Eumachia introduced a public porticoed green space to the heart of the city, paralleling the Porticus of Livia that was established as part of Livia’s benefactions. In offering such civic munificence and adapting it to Pompeii, Eumachia’s social standing would have been elevated within the city. In offering large-scale, public amenities, she bound herself to the community and likened herself to the ultimate Roman benefactors — the imperials.27 

The likening of local figures to imperials was not limited to any one region or gender. While clear parallels can be drawn between Eumachia and the imperials (particularly Livia), the statue of Marcus Holconius Rufus demonstrated its own imperial affiliation. Archaeologists, such as Zanker, suggest that the statue’s body was originally made for an imperial family member and reconciled with the head of Holconius Rufus by a descendant. The original head of Holconius Rufus, however, was likely lost in the Pompeian earthquake of 62 CE, and later adjusted with an imperial family member’s head. It depicted Holconius Rufus, all the same.28  This is notable, as female patronage and the resulting honors are often likened to the case of Empress Livia, who was the first Roman woman associated with such monumental dedication for civic honors. Thus, the Holconius Rufus inscription not only offers evidence for male patronage in Pompeii, but akin to Eumachia, monumentalizes the power of the individual. This is applicable not only to Eumachia’s own dedicatory inscription on the building, but also to the statue dedicated to her by the fullers. The parallels drawn between Pompeiian wealth and the imperial family exist in both the contexts of Eumachia and Holconius Rufus.29 

 

Conclusion

The Building of Eumachia, in its language and historical context, remains a symbol of Eumachia’s civic presence and her contributions to the community in Pompeii. The language of the inscriptions upon the building explicitly identified her as the responsible benefactor for the Building of Eumachia. In creating this identity, Eumachia’s dedications individualize her away from her husband in favor of her occupation and her gens. Through this context, the public amenities available from the Building of Eumachia are attributed to her, and therefore affect her public image positively. This positive public perception is evidenced by the statue mounted in her image, offering civic honors to her.30

Patronage operated similarly with men, as seen by the case of Marcus Holconius Rufus. His benefaction towards the renovations of the Sanctuary of Apollo and the Large Theater was commemorated by the offering of civic honors to him in the form of a statue.31 In both counterparts performing benefactions and receiving similar honors, it can be seen that the civic responsibility, duty, and value of patronage in Pompeii was treated similarly between both genders. It is evident that the election of civic officials in men and the election of priestesses in women indicated shared obligations between a public occupation and patronage.32

Livia was among the first women to be granted civic honors in Rome, and in presenting herself in her likeness, Eumachia further exalted her social position. Her benefactory architecture mirrored that of Livia’s and offered a large-scale public amenity at the city center. Beyond just her position as a wealthy benefactor to the city and her community service to Pompeii, Eumachia’s reception of honors further parallels Livia’s. Eumachia’s own depiction of herself through her dedication inscription included other parallels such as mirroring the imperial mother and son unit. Her self-presentation worked to bridge her conception in society to that of Livia and therefore the imperials.33 

The case of Eumachia acts as a prominent depiction of female involvement in what was traditionally known as a civic sphere. This functions similarly to what Livia, whose actions focused to an even greater extent on feminine spheres, did. As seen by the comparison to Marcus Holconius Rufus, both men and women were awarded similar honors for such actions. Ultimately, this serves as an indication of women’s involvement in civic and political spheres through female patronage in imperial Rome, mirroring those of men in the same realms. 

 

Anuksha Ram Madhan is a fourth-year at U.C. Berkeley majoring in Classics (Ancient Greek & Roman Studies) and Environmental Sciences.

 

Endnotes

  1.  Brenda Longfellow, “Female Patrons and Honorific Statues in Pompeii.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 59/60 (2014): 81–101.
  2.  Building of Eumachia. 1st century C.E. Pompeii, Napoli, Italy, https://jstor.org/stable/community.20266076; Longfellow, “Female Patrons”; Figure 1: Building of Eumachia, 1st century C.E. 
  3.  Building of Eumachia; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.” 
  4.  Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World (John Wiley & Sons, 2012), 238–249.
  5. Emily A. Hemelrijk, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’ of Roman Collegia,” Classical Antiquity 27, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 115–162. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2008.27.1.115.
  6.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; John F. Donahue, “Iunia Rustica of Cartima : Female Munificence in the Roman West,” Latomus 63, no. 4 (2004): 873–891. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41544714.
  7. Emily A. Hemelrijk and Greg Woolf, Women and the Roman City in the Latin West, Mnemosyne (Leiden Boston: Brill, 2013), 65–84.
  8.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  9.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  10.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Figure 2: Building of Eumachia, 1st century C.E.
  11.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  12.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  13.  Building of Eumachia; Longfellow, “Female Patrons”; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Figure 3: Building of Eumachia, 1st century C.E.
  14.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  15.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  16.  Donahue, “Iunia Rustica of Cartima.”
  17.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World.
  18.  Donahue, “Iunia Rustica of Cartima”; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  19.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. 
  20.  Building of Eumachia.
  21.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  22.  Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  23.  Diliana Angelova, Sacred Founders: Women, Men and Gods in the Discourse of Imperial Founding. Rome through Early Byzantium (2015), 66–108.
  24.  Angelova, Sacred Founders.
  25.  Angelova, Sacred Founders.
  26.  Angelova, Sacred Founders; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  27.  Angelova Sacred Founders; Longfellow “Female Patrons”; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. 
  28.  Emily A. Hemelrijk, “City Patronesses in the Roman Empire,” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 53, no. 2 (2004): 209–245; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.”
  29.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons”; Jeremy Tanner, “Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the Late Roman Republic,” The Journal of Roman Studies 90 (November 2000): 18–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/300199. 
  30.  Hemelrijk, “City Patronesses in the Roman Empire”; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.” 
  31.  Hemelrijk, “City Patronesses in the Roman Empire”; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons.” 
  32.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons”.
  33.  Angelova, Sacred Founders; James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World; Longfellow, “Female Patrons”.

 

References 

Angelova, Diliana. “Sacred Founders,” in Women, Men and Gods in the Discourse of Imperial Founding. Rome through Early Byzantium, 66–108. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015.

Bielman, Anne. “Female Patronage in the Greek Hellenistic and Roman Republican Periods.” In A Companion to Women in the Ancient World, edited by Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon, 238–249. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Building of Eumachia (VII,Ix,1,67,6). 1st century A.D. Pompeii, Napoli, Italy. https://jstor.org/stable/community.20266076. 

Donahue, John F. “Iunia Rustica of Cartima : Female Munificence in the Roman West.” Latomus 63, no. 4 (2004): 873–891. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41544714.

Hemelrijk, Emily A. “City Patronesses in the Roman Empire.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 53, no. 2 (2004): 209–245. 

Hemelrijk, Emily A. “Female Munificence in the Cities of the Latin West.” In Women and the Roman City in the Latin West, edited by Emily A Hemelrijk and Greg Woolf, 65–84. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2013. 

Hemelrijk, Emily A. “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’ of Roman Collegia.” Classical Antiquity 27, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 115–162. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2008.27.1.115. 

Longfellow, Brenda. “Female Patrons and Honorific Statues in Pompeii.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 59/60 (2014): 81–101. 

Tanner, Jeremy. “Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the Late Roman Republic.” The Journal of Roman Studies 90 (November 2000): 18–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/300199.