Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx

Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through
in criptio n. Altdoiier translate graph ic J ews into arch it ec-
tural space. T he ir ab ence becomes the fo rm al presence of
"perspeCLiva l"' architeCLure. This tran laLion marks an
impor-
1an t sh ift in regi ter from ethnicity to eth nograp hy. Ethnog-
raphy is that writing space where others arc re duced to
onto logical absence. 12 iltdorfer's very act of etching architec-
tural space, re nderin g t he synagogue as a n a rchitectura l
tudy, becomes constitutive of a new discou rse, ethnography .
T he a rch itectura l space etched by Akdorfer forecloses litr-
the r e thnic co nflic t over circumcision between Chri stia ns
and
J ews. In so d oin g, the etch in g effaces the in scription of
circumcision-viole nt pleasure h as become th e " know ledge"
of space itself. Architectural re ndering as a new category of
repre e ntation coven over the cut foreskin .
The e tching · produce omething new, a c111pt. It i on that
tone urface that the e thnographer Altdorfer inscribe hi
new eth nography. which he signs with his mo nogram. Hi s
e thnography i not about conte ted ethnic co-pre e ncc of
C hristia ns a nd J ews. but the narc iss ism of the Sarne; t he
conAict is resolved.
I have a rgued that bodi ly inscri p tions of Baptism and
circumcision a nd the cascades of gra phic translatio n which
p assed through such d iverse media as po lem ic, torture
chambe rs. a nd engravings a nd etc hin gs ca me to constitute
Christian-Jewish ethnic relations at the level of the printed

graphic itself. By implicati on 1 am say in g th at printing not
only rc prcscmed this contei.t bu t actu a lly came to constitu1 e
it. As such , gra phic in scriptions sig nifying e thnic confli ct
between C hristia n s and J ews linked toge Ll1er cascades or
di scursive nerwo rks. Altd orfcr's a rc hi tectu ra l tran lation
might then be read not o n ly as the new writing s urface or
ethnograp hy bm a l ·o a. the al' p l in which C h1istia n finall y
buried the fore kin , thu fo reclosing the possibility of mourn -
ing the loss o r corporea l inscription whi ch Paul had dis-
avowed so many cemuries earlier. T hi crypt, its grap hic
mateda lity, has erved as a site of European e th nograp hic
a uth ority for ha lf a m ille n n ium. It · staunch res istance LO
brilliant po tcolo nia l critiques should give us pau e and urge
u s to think more attentively about the ae thctics o f disappear-
a nce and the work of mourn ing.
Kath/ern Biddick tPr1rhPs medie11a/ history and genda studies
at thP
University of NotrP Dam. fl. Herforthcoming book, Med ieva l
ism in
Fragments (Duke), ronsiders political links among
di.1cif1linary
rategories, periodiwtio11, and pleasurr in medieval studirs. Cur-
rently she is studyiug the i11lnsectio11s of ethnography and
tecl111o/-
ogy in medirva/ Europe and llLPir persistence today
[Departmmt of
History, University of Notre Dame, No tre Dame, Ind . 46556/.
Allilllll IC:S. t I HNIC: l 1 . ANO rllE lll S IOK' OF ART 599
''Just Like Us": Cultural
Constructions of Sexuality
and Race in Roman Art
j 0 /111 R . Clarke

One o r the g reatest difficu lties p laguing th e study of Roman
an is the p ersi ste nt notion that the Roman were 'ju st like
us." T hi s prob lematic idea fo rm s the premise and ubtext of
five centuries of classical studies. If the Renaissance had a
deep stock in estab lishin g the legi1imacy of early capitali st/
bourgeoi conception or the humani ' l individual through
the study of classica l tex ls, it wa because th e legitimatio n of
princely politics and e thics required a powerful prece-
de nt-no less authoritative and powerfu l than the fab led
Ro ma n e mpire. Re na i sancc human ist looked to C icero,
Vergil, and Livy for ways to define the early modern tate.
ub equc nc attempts to legitim ate the prince, the absolute
monarch, colonialism, ninetee nth-centutl' nationali m, and-
finally a nd most terrify ingly--Cerman and Italian fasci m,
a lways wem back w the ancient Roma n s, to those sa me texts
wit h the ir histories of e mperors and e m pire, their great
lawyer s, statesmen, r he toricia ns, mora li ts, and poets.
La te twentieth-ce ntury Eu ro-American culture is in many
ways the e nd product o r centuri e of adaptatio n of ancien t
Roman texts and cu lwral a rti fac ts 10 fi t the requ ire ments of
an increasingly capi ta li st, bourgeois, and colonial system. If
the Ro ma ns eem to be in a ll thing o much like " us:· it is
because ''we" have colon ized their time in history. (In this
essay I u se the words "we" and " us" LO denote the white, male
elite of Euro-Ame1ican n tlture-1he person I perceive to be
the domin ant voice in traditional ·cholarship.) We have
appropriated their world to flt the need of o u r ideology.
A revolution ha occuned in the swdy of classical texts,
one that h as challenged those five cemurie of scholars hip.
On one front, fe minist scholar · have cha llenged and prob-
lc matized the source. in their search for that e lu sive person,
the Roma n woman. 1 All the texts tha1 have survived , wri tte

n
c it hc1· by elite wh ite ma les o r by men working fo r them,
consuuct-that is, ma ke up-wome n . Both the poet a nd the
jurist put words in the ir mouths a nd devise their actions
whethe r vile or virtuous. One will search in va in for ~
woma n's comm enca11' o n the condition of women of a ny
class, altho ugh by d econstructing texts scholars have s uc-
ceeded in extrapolating inform ation about the el ite woma n :
her lega l and marital sta LU , ocia l mores, and politica l
power. Harder to track arc the nonclitc women-the great-
est number of them invi ible because they are ciphe rs, both
juridically and socia lly: t hese include free nonelite women,
former slaves, slaves, foreigners, and outcasts (infames) like
prostitutes.
A seco nd ro u te of inquiry has tried to recover the diver ity
of p eople in the Roman e mpire by a pplying the models
l . !'or il~rcc r ecent collcctiom of cssa} , 'cc Na11cy Sorkin
Rabinowitz and
Amy R1 chhn, eds., F/!'1111111.1/ Theory and thr C/1L1.11r1,
New York, 1993. bibl. after
each essay and 305-7; Elaine Fant ham et al ., Womm 111 /hf
Clri.mral Wnrld:
Image rJnd Text, New York, 1994, bibl. after each c'say; and Ri
chard Ha,vlev
and Barbara Levick. eds .. IV0111en i11 1l n11q1111 v: New
A.«r.m 11r111.1 New York
1995. hibl. 248-64. . ' '
600 AR I llLLUTI; I H: CEMlER 19'1fi VOU .. Mf LXXVll l
lll llf. R 4
Pompeii, House ofCaeciJius lucundus, peris tyle, Couple on

Bed with SPrvant. Naples Archaeological Museum , inv. I I
0569
(photo: Michael Larvcy)
d eveloped in socio logy, economics, cultural anthropology,
a nd geography (including urba n tudies a nd popu lation
a nalysi ). The picture that has e mer ged is that of a n e mpire
loosely organized indeed. Once the Roma ns had conquered
va rio us peoples of"Lhc Meditcnanean , they tried to rule with
the lig hte L possible to uch , prcfe JTing the lai ·ez-fairc
accom-
moda tions of relig io us syncrctis m. loca l 11Jle, a nd vas aJ
(puppet ) kings w the heavy-handed direct polic in g that was
50 expe n sive to ma imain. N; lo ng as a town or province paid
its taxes to Ro me a nd maimained a modicum of civil order,
Rome was happy to let indigeno us culture cominue. A1:,rain,
it se em s that mode rn ideologies have require d Roman rule
to be mo re a ll-e ncompassing than it was in rcality. 2
rr applica tion of the methodo logie of femini t scho larship
and the ocia l scie nces has begun to expand the Lunncl-
visio n optic of' traditi o nal clas ·ica l studi es of Rome, wha t
can
the s tudy of visual representatio n accomplish ? Cen tra l Lo a
ny
project using Ro man visual ans to under ta nd anciem
Rom a n peo ple is the realizatio n tha t wherea texts a ddressed
the elite , an addressed eve1y bo d y. Fn>m official impe ri al
art
t. Peter G.11 mey and Rich ard Saller, 711' Ro111a11 bnp1r'P:
Ero1111111.1. Soridy.
a nd Cu//u rr, Berkeley. 1987, sy nth csiLc much of the currc n1
rev isio ni st
,c11olarship.

3. See J o hn R. Cla rke, " 1 Iyper ex ual Black :'te n in
Augu>tan Baths: lcleal
Som atol) pc> ;u1d Apo1rop.1ic Magic," in ata lie H. Kampen.
ed., .P/Wltl.' 111
A11c1ent A11. C.1mbridge. 1996. 18-1-98; ancl id f'm,
l11ok111g al ln1wmttla11g:
s,xuailty m Roman Art-Co 11.<trurt1on..<. 100 IJ .C.-A.D. 250.
Be 1·kclcy. fo nhcom-
ing.
4 . rhis pauern wa ' 'ct n p in J ea n Marcade. Roma Amor:
£11(tV 011 Erotir
Elemn1t.< 111 Etrusmn mid Ruman Ari. Gc 11e'a, 1963; a n d
id em. Ero' Kaloi: r:wzy
011 £rot1r Ele111m1_, m G1-,,k Ail. Gcnela. 19()5. A p <1rtill
1l:1rl) lame ntable rcct-r;t
to the wall paintings in a Pompeian hou ·e. Roman art
con cio usly e mbraced a far broader audience tha n the text .
My recent work has focused o n two spec ia lized ge nres of
Roman a rt. images of huma n lovema king and r e presenta-
tion o f the black African , in a n effort Lo understand the
no nelitc viewe r, the fe ma le viewer, a nd even the no n-
Roman
viewer.:1 It is fro m thi work that I would like to draw two
illustrations o f how contextual readings ofvisuaJ representa-
tions reveaJ the g rea t differences between Ro ma n cu lture
and o ur own.
T he typical lite ra tme o n sex ua l representation in Roma n
an presents a variety of imagery in many media-from wall
paintings to ceramic and me 1alwork-under the rubric o f
"erotic'' an: 1 Autho rs then try to tack texts o nto photographs
o f' these re prese ntations: the reader secs a photograph of a
atyr a nd maenad copulating o n o ne page, a nd on the fa cin g

page a n excerpt from O vid' Arl of Love. ever mind that the
paiming came from the wall of a hou se in Po mpe ii ; lhat it
dates fro m o ne hundred year~ la ter than Ovid's poem ; that
the couple i mythica l, no t hum an; a nd that Ovid wa writing
poeuy fo r the el ite whereas the viewer o f this pa inting may
have been ill iterate. Yet with few exceptio ns studies of
Roman so-ca lled e rotic art have a ·sumed lha L Roma n visual
re prescnlatio ns illustrated tex t and that texts " document"
Ro ma n sexuality. Erudite studies of Latin words for sexual
positio n cla im to find corrobo ra tion in wall paintings,
lamps, even lhe coinlike spintriae-aJ I considered without
regard LO their a rchitectural com exts o r date ."
ff we turn the la bles and begin with the C011leXt Of vi ual
repre. e nta tions of' lovema king, surprising resul ts e merge.
We begin 10 unde rstand how what seems to be erotic-by
which I mean a n image meant lO timulate a person cxu-
a lly-ha d a torally different mea ning for the a ncie nt Rom an
viewer. A good case in poi nt is the pa inting (d a ted A. D.
62-79) cul fro m a wall of the I lo use o f Caecilius lucundus at
Pompe ii (Fig. I). Anton io Sogliano, who excavated this la rge
reside nce in 18 7 5, deem ed it oh cene and had it car ted o ff
ro
the infamou s Pornographic Collectio n of the Naples 1rchaco-
logica l Mu ·c um . (To thi day th is room, filled with mosaics,
wall paintin gs, and smaJI objects, rema ins ba1Tc d to t he
publi c.) Ye t cons ideratio n of the o riginal locatio n of th e
picture. alo ng with aspects of it im agery, indicates tha t it was
th e pride o f the owner"s hou e: it spe lJcd ''status, " not "sex."
The owner was a freedman who ha d enlarged the ho use LO
make fo ur dining roo m . The major dining area was 1he o ne
located on the peris tyle; it fo rm ed a suite with a luxurious
kind of bedroom , o ne with two niches, immedjatcly to its
ri ght. O ur "eroti c" painting occu pied the impo rta nt space
o n th e peri -tylc itselr between the doorways to these two

t·xa111p le ol thc tcxt/ im agt' pa•Lidw is Ern.< gru: Amour de,
d1r1L Pf dP.< hnmmes,
«Xh. G il ., Pans , Grn11d Palni~. At he n s, I l89.
.5. 111i; app roach , pionee red i11 G;1s1011 Vorb crg,
Glomm'11111 Erotiw111.
S LUugan . I 93t. cominuc• in We rne r Kre nke!, " Figu r.11:
'e 11 cris." Wl1m1diaji-
ilrhr le1lsrlrrrfl tin ll '1'hr/111- P1eck-L'111vernlal Roslork,
XXl11, I 98f1, 50--37.
6. Arnold cit.: Vo>. "Casa di Cecilio G ioumclo," in
l'nrnpe1p11t1tff r11101a 1r1, 111,
Ro mc. 199 1. !;7!'1.
7. Ari>10o-:i 1 s regularly u sed cubiu1t .1 141r meetings wllh
peers o r th eir social
hcu.crs. ' I he a 11C'ien t li1t·nn1irc includes five insta1u c' of'
Ro man s receivi n g
lne 11ds 111 rnlnrulo. three of th ei r co11dur1 ing business
there. a nd four ol
rooms. Mod ern scholars, ig n oring both the culture o f Ro-
man e nte r tai nme m a nd th e meaning of the pic LUre itself,
have assumed that the paiming designated th e bedroom a a
place for a tryst a fter dining .1;
We as ociate bedroom s with sleepi ng a nd sexual im im acy;
the a ncient Ro mans a l o used well-appo im ed bedrooms to
e m e rtain guests o r a status equal to o r hig her th a n their
own.
T he e ntire Rom a n ho use was a place of business; a gue t's
entra nce into a fin e cubiculum like thi s o n e depended

e mire ly upon hi ~tatus.7 T h is room is no t, the n . about
" privacy"-a concept that does not exist in Roma n la nguage
o r tho ug ht- but about high status .
Examination o f the painting itself how that the painter
was ·triving to crea te an image o f uppe r-class lu . ury. There
is a couple o n a richly o utfitted bed . T he woman ho lds her
hand beh ind he r, whether to conceal her de ire to touch the
ma n or to locate him is not dear. He lifts hi arm as thou g h in
emreaty, but she canno t cc thi ge ·ture. A nice touch is the
way his le ft h and curves u p at the wrist. allowing the a rti st
to
show his virtuosity in depicting delicate fin ger . The viewer
ee the ·e deta ils bu c the woman d oc not, a llowi ng the
per on who looks a t th i ce ne of lovema king to unde r tand
the man ' s emreaty a nd the woman's hesitation in a way tha t
the woman-and perhap her lover a lso-cann o t. In e ffect,
the ani t create d these nuances of viewin g to implicate the
viewer as a voyeur. He also included the bedroom se rvant,
the cubicularius, LO under core that thi was no t a poo r ma n 's
bedroom . He even app lie d g-old to hig hli g h t the o pule nce
of
fabrics a nd jewe lry. These a rc a ll m arks of wealth , luxury,
a nd sop hi stica tio n , simila r to the pa intin gs rc pre e nting
lovemak ing from the fa mou s villa of the early Augustan
period fo und in Ro me unde r the garde n of the Farn c ina. 11
T he pai n ring wa pan of a n exte n sive r ed ecoratio n ca m-
paign with a p ointed iconographical program.9 The adjacent
dining room received a refined decora cive scheme , including
mythological pi ctures or the Judgme nt of Paris a nd T he eus
Abando ning Ariad ne. 10 omeone e nte ring the cubiculum
wou ld have ccn rela ti vely la rge figures a t the center of rhe
wa lls in fro nt, to the r ig h 1, a nd to the le ft. The room· ·
principal image wa a g roup of Ma rs a nd Venus with a ligure

o f C upid s tandin g in the pan e l to the ri g ht. Bacchus pre
·ided
over th e rig ht wa ll ; o n the le ft wall stood the muse Erato. h
eems clear that the artist intended to expand the the me of
lovema kin g fro m the hum an to the divine by associatin g the
vi ·ion of aristocra t ic da lliance in the per-istyle pa nel with a
n
image of p assio n stirri ng the quinte semial divine lover ,
Mars and Venus, in the ma in pane l o f the cubirnlum. Wine
a nd son g, pei·son ifie d by Bacchus a nd Erat o, muse of love
poetry, furthered thi · iconography of a mo ro us plea ures .
empe ror., holding mat~ mtro rubuu/11 111; sec An c!re1•
Wallace - Hadrill. /louse'
n11d 5or1'lJ 111 f'ompmnml flPr ruln11n1111 . Prin cewn , N .J
.. t !)95, 17. n . 2.
8. lre11c Brng~mj111 a nrl Marielle de Vo~. I.I' tleco raz m111
tlella 1•illn rom111111
de/la Farn r m111 , Museo Nuionale Rmmmo. 11. pt. I : /,/'
p11t11rr, Ro me . 1982,
pb. ·10, 51 . 85. 86. 9 6 . 17':!. .
9. See Augmt Mau . .. , >cavi di l'onipci ,'" H11/lrt1m o
drll"f111t1tuln di C11m,po11-
dmui Ardunlol(ico. 1876. t 49-5 1, 16 1-68, 2!l3-32, 241 -4 2.
fora de~C11p1ion
of the now- rl cs1roye d o r removed pai111i n gs.
10. Naples, Archaeological Museum . inl'. 115396: >ee de Vos
(as 111 n. 6 ),
fig. 7-l ; and Ma u (as in 11. 9), 226.
11. Frescoes 1,rre e1 Tnnrnkhio g11es1" a Lrnmpe-l'oci l p a
intin g of ,, dog

ESTIH.1 1 <.~ . FT ll N l l S n ". A1'0 I HF Hl~lOKY Of A R I
60 )
2 Po mpeii, House of the Menander, entryway to cnldarium,
Bath A llmdanl (photo: Michael Larvey)
Th i contex tual a n alysis demo nstrates th at rather than
havin g an e ro tic functio n , the p a intin g of love making in
the
House of Caeciliu lucundus was a sign fo r the upper-cla~s
prete nsions o f th e ow ne r. Like T rimalchio, the wealthy
form er slave of Pe tronius'. Sat)'ricon who delig hts in expl a in
-
ing hi~ pit:Lurcs to his (bored) guest , 11 the L. Caeciliu
lucundu s who di ned in this tricl in ium mu st have fe lt a g low
o f
pride when a guc ·t recognized the re fin e me nt or his icono-
graphical program , uniting the image of upper-class huma n
lovemaking with the divine pair of Mar a nd Venu s in the
cubiculum an d th e heroic pane ls of th e triclinium . Th is
'"erotic" picture was about luxury, not lu st.
In an e ra that advoca te s tudy or e thnic. racia l, a nd cu ltu ra
l
divers it y, it would seem na rural to tu rn to the grear me ltin g
p o t tha t wa ancien t Rome Lo under ·rand how thi. culture
con structed the O the r. Again , t here i the danger o f over im-
pliticatio n and transference o f o ur Anglo-Euro p ean culture
onto the a rn.:ie nt Ro m an s. 12 Carefl1l conte xtual study
revea l
combinations of racial stereotypes a nd belief system so
differe nt from our own tha t they si mply boggle the la te
twentie th-cen tury mind .
Th e excavator who di covered the mo ·aic of a b lack bath

serva nt in the 1930s was content to ide nti fy him as a n
ithyp hallic pyg my (Fig. 2). 1:l Th e figure occupies the e nll)'-
way to the caldnrimn in the Ho use of th e Me nander. T he
(wi rh the le gend< wr 1..11 t.l-" Bc"are of tl1e Dog .. ) ;rnrl
th e slO'l' of his 111<:
cold rhrough allcgode• of divine intcrv.-n1io11 (P e1rn11., Sol
.. 29). Trima ltln o
in rerpre t> the Zodiac in a u elaborate' rli • h 'erved LO hi> g
uc>rs P9); oners a
.-idiculo11s ico nograp hi cal e x planation o f' 1hc imagery in
his sihc:r vess els (52):
and 01 den. u p th e irn11 01,rraphirnl prog ra m for hi' 10111 b
(7 t ).
12. A rnse o f su ch O ersnn p lification i' Frank M .
Snowden.Jr., 8 Pj ou Color
PrepullfP, Ca mbri dge. :l as , .. 1983, who arbrucs tha1 Ll1ere
wa' no "'nJlur
pn;jud 1ce" Lowarrl blacks in cla~si cal amil1ui ty.
I '.l .. 'm edeo Maiuri, /J1 m~o drl Mt110 11dru' ti 511 Te•m·o
d1 A rgml l'n a. Rome.
1933, I. f.16.
602 1RI Ill LL£TIN DH.EMBF.R 19% VOLL M~ l.XXVlll
Nl.~lllk: R 4
composition of heraldic strigils fra ming an ointment jar on a
cha in fill s Lhe oute r side of the e nu-yway composition, so th
at
it was the first image that the visitor saw as he or he passed
from the dressing room (apod)•fe1ium) to the raldarium. The
ma n carries water vesse ls (askoi), identifying him as a bath

atte ndant; he wears a kind of short kilt that rides above his
enormo us pe nis. A laure l wreath crowns his head. l.lthough
h e is technica lly maa-op hallic (i.e., having a n unusually large
pen is) rather than ithyp ha llic (i.e., with an erect pe ni ), his
identification as a pygmy i Lhe more serious cn·or. Images o f
the pygmy go back to the sixth ce ntury 13.C.: artists made
them short in stature, with large heads in relation Lo their
bodies, the ma les usually macrophallic. 1'1 The bath attenda nt
has a d ifferent body type. Most importa nt, th e a rtist has
differentiated him from the pygmy by givi ng him normal
proportions. T he mosaicist used a saw-tooth configuration of'
black tesserae to indicate his tig htly curled hair. Investiga-
tion of comparable image of black men in Roman arr of the
period (the mosaic has a firm date of 40- 20 1:1.c.) establishes
that the a rtist has represented n ot the mythi cal pygmy hut
the real-life Aethiops, a man from the African continent
belonging to a racial a nd ethnic group auested in contempo-
rary tex ts a nd visua l represen ta t io ns. 1;, Si nce a rti sts
made
hjm macrophallic only in certain cu lptures a nd mosaics,
cont extual s LUdy alone can clarify the mea ning o f this image
.
T he bath attendant is poised at the emryway lO the hot
room o f a p1-ivate bath in a luxurious Pompeian hou e
belo ng ing to an elite fa mily. Fo r the a ncient Roman , this
circum stance explains the image: it is a representa tio n with
two context- and cu lture-s pecific purpo~cs: 10 warn the
bather of the dangers of the supe rheated floor or the room
he or she is e nte ring, and to dispel Lhe evil eye th ro ugh
la ughter.
The Aeth iops is a logical sig n lO warn the bather about
hea l becau se the Rom ans believed that the Aethiops's black
skin came from being burned by the s un. Because of thi
belie f, the Aethiops became a me tonym for extreme heat. 16

(Sim ila rly, mosa ic images of sanda ls a l o appear a t th e
e ntryways to hot rooms of bath s to warn the bather to protect
his or he r fee t from getting burned .)
More complex and d ifficul t for u s to understand is our
bath attendant's apotropaic fun ction. Ancient Romans be-
lieved that the envious person (the phthonero~ or invidus)
cou ld cause illn ess, physical harm , a nd even death by
14 . For the iconograp h y ol the pyg111y in Creel.. myth. ;,ce
Veronique
Dasen. Dwarfs i11 A1irin1/ Egy/11 mid Greect, Oxford. I 993, l
82-9 1.
IJ. ll1e mo> I compre hensive coverage is Jean Vcrcou rter C l
al.. The lnWffe
of /ht 1:1/ack m Wr.1/tm Art: I . From the Pharnolu lo the Fall
oflht ffomtm £111p1u,
New York. 1976: see a lso Frank M. Snowden, J r., Bl11rk.1 m
A11t1q1111y,
Cam bridge. Mass., I 970.
16. For a Ii.ill di~rnssion of the c'idence, in both Greek and
Rom an
authors, for thi s e1wironmental 1hcol) of color, >CC nowdcn
(as i11 n. l.'i ).
2-3. 172-74. See a lso J ehan Desanges. re ie" of Lloyd
l11ompson . R 0111m11
cmd /Jlarks, Nor1 n:111, Okla., 1989, Ri11ur dps Eludes
lati11Ps. LX 111. 1990. 233.
l 7. M. W. Dickie and Ka1hcrine .1 . D. D11nb:1bin. "Tnmdia
nm1/H111/11r
peclom: l11e Iconography of Phthono;/111vidia in Gracto· Ro m
an Art,"
Jahrbuc/1/11rA1111lttu11dChnstent11111. xxv1, 1983. 10-l l .

l 8. Doro Levi," Ilic Evil Eye and the Lucky H unchback ," in
A1111orh-or1-tlte-
Onmte.<, ed. Ri chard Stillwell. 111. Princeton. N.j., 1941 ,
22.-,. Luca Gi uliani.
" Der >eiigen Kriippe l: Zur De11tung von Mi~gestahcn in der
hdlenistischen
Kleink11n st." Arrlwnlng1sd1e A11u1ger, l 9R7, 701 - 2 l. sce~
images of php it·all)'
defor med people Jess ,,~ charms agaimt the evi l eve than a•
vehicle' to
rem ind people of their own good fortune a nd well -being. It is
po>sible t ha1
focusing his or her eye o n the person whom he or she envied.
l.lthough the re were many theories on just how such harm
cou ld come to a p erson withom physical contact, most
believed that the invidus was able to focus th is grudging
malice through his or h er eye; thi s so-called evil eye ema-
nated particles that surrounded and entered its unfortunate
victim. 17 A person could e ncounter the envious evil eye
a nywhere, but was particularly susceptible in bath s and at
passageway spaces. such as doorways. People wore amulets
on their persons, and artists freq uently put symbolic image
on fl oors or wa lls of dangerous, liminal spaces. These
aj1otropaia in mosaic and fresco included the represemauon
or the evi l eye itse lf attacked by spears, scorpions, d og , a nd
the Ii.kc. a s well as images of the e rect phallus, sometimes in
conjunction with the vagina. In the fir t insta nce the image
e nacts direct aggression against the evil eye; in the second it
invo kes ma le and fema le fertili ty, the life force , for protec-
uon from death.
By making the over ize pha llus the anri bute of the Aelh-
iops, our mosaic adds yet anothe r apotropaic clement:
aTo'TTL<x, or "unbecomingness. " The bath servant is "

unbecom-
ing'' and therefore q u ite fun ny because he is outside the
o ma uc norms of the Ro man elite. Unbecomin gness dis-
pelled the evil eye with la ughter. 11l
T h e ma le Aethiops is no t always a comic figure in Roman
a rt; th e key to understanding Roman elite attitudes toward
him lie in defining what were their nonns of ideal male
beauty. Brie Oy, an idea lly beautifu l man wou ld be of the
Caucasian race, of med ium stature, with an ol ive comp lexion
a nd wavy brown hair. Tall, blond or red-headed Germans
were as fore ign to t his ideal somatotype as the Aethiops. 19 So
were me n with large penises.20 It comes as no surp ri e that
our barn atten dant ma ke · the perfect apotropaion. H e i the
comjc 1·eversal of accepted standards of male beauty, and hi
large p e nis makes him d oubly ellective against the evil eye.
Just as in the case of the seemingly erotic picture, the
mo aic of the bath attendant seems hypersexua l or "racist"
on ly to the modern viewer, who lacks the requisite cultura l
condition ing and belie f systems. Analysis of these image in
terms of their contemporary cu ltural contexts means g iving
them back the efficacy a nd power tha t they heJd fo r the
ancient viewer. In my opinion it is the an historian's job to
e mpower vi ·ual representation by putting objects that have
become "orph a ns" back in their rightfu l cultural homes .
the a rtisr crea ted anot her reference 10 the apotropa ic phallus
. this time
within a 1•agi 11a. in t he arra ngement or herJldic strigil. on
either side of the
oi111mcr11 jar on a siring 1ha1 immediately pre~cdes the
image of 1he ba1..h
attendant. In a visual pu11, the ointment jar bt:1..omes the
phallus , and the

trigils th t: labia of the vagina. A striking parallel for th is
represe ntation
co 111<:> from Sous>e iu Tunisia, where two µubic triangles
reprcst:111i ng
vaginas Aa11k a fish-s ha ped phallus (~ee U'.IESCO,
T11nisi11: A11cim1 Mosaics,
:-.Jew Yori.. , 1962. pl. 21): l owe 1his observation and
rctCrcnce to Amhony
Corbeil I.
19. Thomp~on (as inn . 16), 16-17. 35-36.
20. Fo r the Greek aes1..hc1ic preference for men 1,•ith small
pen isc>, see
KenncthJ. Do1cr. Grnk llomosBrn11itty, Cambridge. Ma ss .. l
978, 125-35: and
limot h r J. ll cN iven, "' n1e U11heroic Penis: Otht:rnes5
Exposed," Source. X',
110. I. 199j, 10-16. Roman art and literature corroborate and co
n1inue this
preferenct:: ;is la1.e as ca. A.O. 400 an m n hor vilifies the e
mp eror 1-lcliogabalw.
by e laborating on hi~ taste for men wit h large penises (Scrip1o
re' Historiae
Jugmtae. H~/l()gab .. !l.6. 12.~l. 26 . .'i: lo r different
acco11nl5, sec Cassius Dio.
/fol. Rom .. 80.6. 80.14. 80.15.4: and Herodian. Hutonn. 5.3.7,
E>.8. l ).
Whethe r we have created these orpha ned oqjects by physi-
ca Uy removing them from th e ir origina l etti ngs or simply by
photograp hing them and discussing them in abstract terms

(the reby leve ling differences o f time , place, a nd cu lture), as
oon as the ·c objects are removed from their o rigin a l
contexts they are no longer pan of the culture tha t created
them: Lhey become parL of Our (or the dominant) culture ,
expressing our de ires, our preconceptions, and our preju -
dice~. It is only in this sen e that our cul ture has succeeded in
making the anciem Romans 'ju st like us."
j olm R. Clarkr is Rl'gents Professor of Ari Histm)1 al the
University
of Trxas at AllS/111. His books mrlude Roman Black-a nd-
White
Figural Mosaics (1979), The H ouses of Roman Italy : Ri tua l.
pace, and Decoration ( 1991 ), and Looking at Lovemaking:
ex ua lity in Roma n Art-Construction , 100 B.C.-A.D. 250
(Berkele)1, forthroming) [Department of A11 and Art History,
University ofTexa.1, Aus/i11, T1' X. 78712- 11 04}.
A £ S lltl:.l l CS. E' lll N ll.lfY • . :>ID lllt. lll '> TOR O f A
RT 603
Triangulating Racism
Stephen F. Eisenman
Race was disproved as a coherent scie ntific category by Fran z
Boas in 1928, but racism pros per nearly cveryw·here. 1
Am ong scholars, the simple but valuable ob ervation that
race is a biological fiction but raci m a ·ocial fact has gained
widespread acce ptance, but the re ea rch that receives th e
greate t public attention is that which trumpets cntde coJTe-
lation s between skin color a nd test scores.2 Even writers
directly e ngaged in exam ining a nd auackin g racism omc-
Limc . end up bu ttressing a pects or it epi temology. While

disclaiming the cie ntific validity of race, they may re ify the
term by fa iling to describe h ow it fun ctions to legitimate a
who le conflue nce of socia l, culturnl, a nd econo mic inequali-
ties. Indeed, the recognitio n of a nother person a racially
different is the e nd result of a num ber of learned a ttitudes
a nd beh aviors that develop in s pecific historical and cultu ral
settings of class and gender hierarchy a nd inequality. Di cu -
sions about "race in America," ''race re lations," " race mat-
ters." a nd even " racial tolerance," therefore, may tend to
reinvest race ubliminally with some of the very essential, soma
tic
characteristics that past generations were at paim to disprove.3
Racism exists, LO repeat the u cfuJ fommla; race do not.
If ocial sciemists are too o ften uncritica l a nd a histo1·ical in
thei r discu ssion or racism and race, art histori ans tend to
avoid the ubjcct a ltogether. 4 T his lacuna is ignificant: a
I . Fra111. Boas.A 11t/11opolo10•a11d /111Jdem LifP ( I !!28),
New Yo rk , I l62: also A.
.'vl ontagu. Stalmiml ot1 RM•. l.m1dn11 , 1972. ·111c gre~l
an·c -.ibili ty of these
and other Lexts 11otwiL11sLandin g, there ant periodic
"di~coveries" of the
fiction of race. 1 t a rece nt mee1ing ol Lhc Ame ri rn n
A'"ociaLion for Lhe
Advance ment o f Science, mernhers issued a re po n ,1greeing
Lhat race had no
biological ba.>i s: / ,o< A ngrlPS T1111P.1, Feb. 20. 1995: the
proceeding~ were Jlso
ciLcd in Rohen Miles and Rudy Torres. " Does ' R11ce' Mau.er?
Transa tl an tic
Pc rspenivcs o n Raciom af1 er ' Race Rei a l.ions,' .. in Re-
Situating ldmllties: The
Polillc.1 of Rau. Etlmtrtl)' m id C11ll11 u , ed. Vered Ami t-

Talai a nd Caroline
Kn01vl es. Pctersboroug h, O nt ., 1996, 25. For a " world
S''~tems" perspec1h c
011 raci>m. see Elicnne Balibarand Immanuel Wallers1ein.
Race. Nrmon , Clrm :
A111b1gu1111J lde11/1tie.1. Lo ndo n/ Ne"' York. 199 1. For a
his1orical/p hilosop hical
pcr~penive, sec l) . T . Goldberg . Racist Cullu TP: Philosophy
and /he Pohtirs of
Mea11111ir. Minnea polis. 1993. O n "whitcnes~:· sec Rmh
Fran kenberg, 111r
Sona / Comtrnct1011 ofll'lt1tnw,,, Minneapoli:., I l93; see a lso
the ex t raordinary
article by Chery l I. Ha.Tis. ··wh iteness as Property." Harot1rd
Law Rro1ew. GVI,
no. 8. 199:1, 1709- 91. On race an d kin ship 1heory. see M. J.
Weismamcl,
" Making Kin : Kins hip The"'~ and Zumbl'lguan /<loplion,"
Amrrirn r1 Et11110/o-
gist, xx 11 , no. 4, 1995, 685- 709. Fo r a survey of' racism in
the con Le mp o ra'l
U.S .. >Cc Dougla> Mas~ey and Na ncy A. Denton. llml'nca '.1
Apartheid: Segrrga-
t1on and th e Mnkmg of the Underrhi-1 , Ca mbridge. Mass.,
1993. In 1970, 3:} .!i
perce nt of blacks, 23 percent of Hispanics, and 9 percenl ol whi
tes li ved
below the poven r leve l. l n 1993. th e pe rcemages 1verc 33. 1,
30.6, and 12.2.
TI1e rece111 fi gures fo r childhood poverty a re even more gri
m: in 1993, 45
percen t of black children. 39.9 percent of I lispanic children, a
nd 17 percent
of white children lived in po,·eny. (See Uni Led S1a1e> Bureau
of the Census,
Sta/H/trrtl Ab.1/r(l('/ of th e Uni/rd Sl11 /e1. I I 5Lh ed ., e p1.

t 995.)
2. Sec, e.g .. Richard H e n·nstei11 and C h;1rles Mmrdy, The
Bell Curoe:
/11tr/11gm1·1• a11d Clrll.< S1ruc111rf 111 1'111r rim11 Lift.
New York, I 994 ; also .J .
Philippe Ru shLOn , /?arr. Euo/u/1011, a 11d 81•/w vmr: A Life
l fo tory Penpertive, New
Bruns1,ick, NJ .. 1995. Fo r a co rn:i•e a nd cfl'ecti1e crilicism
of the lauer, see
C . Loring Brace. " Racialism a nd Ra cis1 Agendas:· Amenm11
A11th ropologist.
xn•111 , no. I. 1996, t 76- 77.
:1. A pa n irnlarly egregious rnse in my vie"" in a n otherwise
s1imu la1ing
diSCU>>ion a bout th e need Lo e >tabli sh new cri1ical
vocabularies, i found in
Lhe 1111roduction 10 David C. Ori>kdl , ed .. Ajnra11
Amrnm11 Vmwl Aestht11c.,,
Wa-.hin gton. D.C./ London, 1995. where Dri,,kc ll uses 1he tc
nns "racially
based aes1he tic" (5). "standard; for 1he race" (5). " both race>"
(7). " the
progress of Lh e race" (8), "spoke,penon fo r 1hc rnce" (8), and
"a racia ll y
based et hos in a n " (9).
4 . The re arc a number of c1uitc signi ficant e"cepLion~. Sec, e
.g .. the
e xte mive bibliograp ht in Glenn J o rda n and Chri< Weedon.
C11//11m/ Polit1c.1:
C/a;,, Gmder. Rau n11d tlu Post1110<leni ll'orld. Oxlord/ Cam
bridgc. Mass .•
1995.

A minimum of 100 words each question and References
Response (#1 – 7) KEEP RESPONSE WITH ANSWER ( all
response must have a reference)
Make sure the Responses includes the Following: (a) an
understanding of the weekly content as supported by a scholarly
resource, (b) the provision of a probing question. (c) stay on
topic (d) cite all sources with their hyperlinked.
1. Self-presentation is the process of how we try to shape what
other people think of us and what we think of ourselves. Social
perception is the process by which people come to understand
one another. In Matthew 7:3-5 talks about how we can see fault
or someone else's sin as if we don't have fault ourselves or sins.
Self -presentation and social perception relate to Matthew 7:3-5,
because we pass judgment on one another because of actions or
deeds, but we tend to forget about our own actions (Matthew
7:3-5, NIV). Accountability is hard for some to except for their
own discretions but easy to hold someone else to be accountable
for their discretions.
2. Social Presentation is simply the methods by which people
dare to other people in order to get their thought and
underwriting. People consider others to be genuine guides to
outline their own one kind presentation. Social perception (or
person perception) is the study of how people form impressions
of and make inferences about other people as sovereign
personalities. On the remote possibility that we see the outflows
of Jesus here, an enormous bit of the all-inclusive community
are not themselves as they keep acting, envisioning and
establish connections, therefore, they are not real. Jesus
required people to be without any other person and research
themselves before denouncing others. Thusly, one should make
oneself faultless and get comments to make oneself perfect
before pointing out the mistakes of others. In the current
circumstance, it ends up being difficult to condemn one with

their external appearance. Like an old saying we all know,
“sweep around your own front door, before sweeping around
someone else’s.”
3. Your reply post is most certainly true, that we do not know a
person's life behind closed doors or what, if any, addictions a
person may have. You mentioned that you understood social
perception to not be the accurate judgment at first, I agree with
that also, this brings me back to last week's topic about common
sense and intuition. I usually go with my gut feeling, at my
first perception of people and there have been very few of what
I see people to be. For self presentation and social perceptions
are the two reasons why I don't care too much for groups,
everyone usually always presents themselves in a favorable
light.
4. Self-presentation is presenting the person, we would like
other to believe we are. (Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S.,
Nisbett, R., 2019). Social perception is the study of forming
impressions, opinions, or inferences about other individual or
groups from certain observations. In comparison to Matthew
7:3-5 and the text is basically reminding us to ask forgiveness
of our own sins. As human we sin everyday either in our
thoughts, words or actions and we are all guilty in any or all
forms of ourselves. As a human being we all would like to be
presented in a favorable light to others while others,
immediately have a social perception about us already based on
observation of our own actions. In a scenario like this, I always
say that honesty goes a long way with me.
5. After reading the Preamble and general principals I realized
that they are pretty straight forward and basic. Without reading
or knowing them I have to be honest in saying that they aren't
much different from how I try to conduct myself throughout my
life. I believe that Integrity is of the utmost importance. I
believe that doing the right thing when no one is looking is

imperative as a man. I'm not always perfect but I try to do my
best to be honest and trustworthy. The second principal is do no
harm. I try to help people more than I harm. Even as a
paramedic I take this approach. It is my responsibility to treat
patients to the best of my ability to make them feel better. It is
not for me to do harm to them by negligence or lack of
medical knowledge. The last one is respect for people's
dignity and rights. I truly believe that I should respect people
no matter what they believe in or what they do. It is not my job
to judge or hurt people. It is my job to worry about my
imperfections and seek to make myself a better human being. If
I can help a brother or sister then I will but I wont hurt or
disrespect others to make myself feel superior to them.
6. The three ways my personal beliefs and morals affect how I
would carry out the ethics code are closely related to my
spiritual walk as a believer. As a believer, it's clear in the bible
that God wants us to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.
In Romans 12:2, it says we should not conform to this world
because we are not of this world. Our actions and motives
should reflect his calling for us to love ( John 4:19). Which
includes being concerned with others' needs spiritual welfare.
All while respectful of both believers and nonbelievers' rights
and dignity without judgment. Not everyone we encounter will
know the love of God but that doesn't mean that we should be
any less loving or compassionate. Our integrity should always
remain the same or at least do our very best to try. I believe the
Preamble of the ethics code does cover most ever situation and
my belief system has everything to do with my desire to help
others. It's not all about education, techniques or training...it's
about the passion to serve others.
7. My personal beliefs and morals mirror many aspects of the
ethics code and can help reinforced them. Honesty is a quality I
believe in and try my best to practice. In the world of
psychology integrity is vital. It does not mean a person is

perfect. A person with integrity is also capable of admitting
they are wrong and making an real effort to address their error.
I am a strong believer in respecting everyone regardless of their
gender, race, religion or economic status. This coincides with
the ethics code psychologist follow to treat everyone with
dignity and respect their privacy. Psychologist handle very
sensitive information and must be diligent in keeping it
confidential. With my past experience in the medical field this
is something I am very familiar with and understand the
importance of it. “Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment
and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the
boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their
expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices” (American
Psychological Association, n.d). Being fair and reasonable are
qualities I try to practice by making balanced choices while
comparing pros and cons. Being just is especially important in
establishing trusting relationship.

Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx

Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx

Similar to Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx (12)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Leach u the strength to be found in conscription through in .docx