Below is a picture showing the funerary relief of a typical Roman. Whilst he was a lowly man, he had enough prestige and money to have his memory recorded in stone. It dates to around the end of the 1st Century BC (the hairstyles date to the reign of Augustus) but we cannot tell when he was born or when he died. Let’s say 10BC. It was found near the Porta Capena in Rome.
On the face of it, there is not much information to go on. There are three figures, some geometric shapes either side and a name (repeated on the left, inside one of the shapes). So, what can we tell about this man simply from these scant clues?
Firstly, we see the man himself in the centre flanked on the sides by two women who are probably his wife and daughter. This is not their grave marker, just his, and they likely survived him, although they would have expected to also be interred in the tomb when they died. All three are dressed in the style of Roman citizens.
Running across the bottom is the inscription:
L. AMPUDIUS L. ET. Ɔ. L. PHILOMUSUS
or,
LUCIUS AMPUDIUS LUCII ET CAIAE LIBERTUS PHILOMUSUS
or,
Lucius Ampudius Philomusus, freedman of Lucius and a woman.
So, he has the 'tria nomina' (three names) of a Roman citizen. Overall, the monument is proudly displaying the status symbols of Roman citizenship - name, the correct dress and the right to legitimate marriage and children. He is very pointedly making sure we know he is a Roman.
But we can also tell something about his earlier life, because Lucius Ampudius wasn't always a moderately wealthy Roman. Known simply as Philomusus he was previously a slave. He is the freedman of Lucius and the ‘a woman’ in the inscription is not referring to his wife or daughter, who are unnamed, but to the wife, also unnamed, of his former master Lucius.
It’s not entirely clear why the C is backwards. Ordinarily, it would signify the name Caiae and that would be enough, but Smith, 1918 (The Journal of Roman Studies, 8, 179-182) suggests it is a stylistic motif used to simply say ‘a woman’.
It might just be a particular style used by a particular carver, or the carver may have just messed it up. masons don’t necessarily have to be literate; they could just copy what was put before them and he may just have been a clumsy bugger.
'Libertus' indicates his status as a slave who has been given full, official release from his previous master and mistress. On manumission he has adopted the names Lucius Ampudius from his former master. Not all freed slaves automatically became citizens, but Philomusus has been formally released.
So how does a penniless slave, newly released make his way in the world? Firstly, not all slaves were penniless. Some would receive a regular wage or gifts from their masters. A slave is a valuable commodity and loyalty was greatly prized, even if it had to be bought. Slaves could also have their loyalty secured by agreeing to a set period of service with the understanding that freedom would follow. Philomusus may well have saved his money during that period or received a pension or lump sum from his former masters.
An alternative explanation could be related to the two geometric shapes either side of the relief. The inscription on the left shape, at the top reads the same as the main one, but below it is the word 'modi'. A Modus was a Roman unit of measurement, especially in the weighing of grain and the two shapes are grain measures. It might be that he made his money from baking, but as the monument was found near one of the main gates into Rome, it is more likely that he was engaged in the import and export of grain.
Someone also appears to have carved the letter ‘s’ on the very bottom, which might indicate that the measure is ‘semi’, or a half measure, or it might be that this, and the word ‘modi’ are the work of an eager 18th Century hand trying to add some extra value to the piece before selling it on to a rich tourist. They appear to have been carved at a different time than the rest of the inscription.
Again, how does a slave become a grain merchant? We don't know for sure, but it may be that his former master was also a grain merchant and that Philomusus, rather than being a common household slave, was actually an apprentice of his master. Training an apprentice was an expensive business and always held the danger that, once trained, your apprentice would simply set up in business against you. A slave, however, could be trained and then effectively set up in business by his master, who would legally be entitled to a share of his former charge's wealth. Philomusus would then be free to buy a slave and do the same. Franchised freedmen business empires could then be built by wily businessmen by doing very little.
Also, a rich Roman noble wouldn’t be seen dead engaging in the tawdry, yet lucrative business of importing and selling grain. That sort of thing was for the plebs. A gentleman made their money by more noble pursuits such as money lending and owning shit. However, one of your former slaves had no reputation to protect and so they were free to peddle corn as much as they liked and cut you in on a fat share of the profits.
Being lazy and rich and sitting around all day thinking was the height of intellectualism for the Roman gentry.
If you liked this and the idea of knowing more of this potentially interesting historical whimsy appeals to you, please subscribe and you’ll be able to access an Aladdin’s Cave of pretty cool but essentially useless information that you can force the kids to listen to on long car journeys, until they start screaming and beg to be let out. Leave a message and blame it all on me and share so that other parents can suffer, too.
I’d be eternally grateful.