Focusing on the wealth evaluation of marble and bronze objects found in Pompeii houses

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

As I was working my way through the sections of the Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia that described bronze finds in the Casa del Leone (VI 17,25) so I could ensure proper points were awarded for wealth calculation, it became clear I needed to define the types of bronze objects that actually reflected wealth as opposed to utilitarian objects like door and window hardware, everyday cookware, etc.

Apollo Citharoedus (I 4,5) from the House of the Citharist, Pompeii, at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Apollo Citharoedus (I 4,5) from the House of the Citharist, Pompeii, at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Female bust found in the House of the Citharist (1 4,5) at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Male bust found in the House of the Citharist (1 4,5) at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of a bronze sculpture of a hunting dog from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of a bronze sculpture of a wild boar from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Bronze sculptures of hunting dogs attacking a wild boar from one of the peristyles in the House of the Citharist (I 4,5) at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of a bronze sculpture of a hunting dog from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of a bronze sculpture of a hunting dog from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of a bronze sculpture of a hunting dog from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Bronze sculpture of a lion fountain feature from the House of the Citharist (1 4,5) at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Bronze sculpture of a serpent fountain feature from the House of the Citharist at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Sculpture of a stag at the House of the Citharist (1 4,5) at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

So, I asked ChatGPT, "In our calculation for luxury items, we are awarding points for finds of marble and bronze. However, should I limit bronze finds to artwork, scales, ornate braziers, ornate lighting and furniture applications or should I also count bronze cookware?

ChatGPT replied: "In the context of Pompeian wealth scoring, it would make sense to differentiate between bronze as a marker of wealth and bronze as a utilitarian material:

Considerations for Scoring Bronze Finds

Artwork, Scales, and Furniture Applications

These items typically represent wealth and cultural refinement. Bronze statues, decorative furniture elements, or scales for measuring valuable goods would have been luxury items and clear indicators of affluence.

Recommendation: Assign higher points for these applications as they denote investment in aesthetics and specialized craftsmanship.

Cookware and Everyday Utensils

Bronze cookware was relatively common in Pompeii, used by a broad spectrum of the population. While a large or particularly high-quality collection of bronze cookware might imply wealth, its presence alone is not as strong an indicator as artwork or furnishings.

Recommendation: Assign fewer points for cookware unless:

There is an unusually large collection, suggesting opulence.

The cookware is ornate or particularly high-quality, indicating it was not just utilitarian.

Scoring Suggestions for Bronze Items

Bronze artwork, scales, and furniture elements: 4–8 points each depending on quality, size, and uniqueness.

Bronze cookware: 1–3 points total unless the collection is extraordinary.

By weighting bronze cookware lower, the scoring system preserves the distinction between items that reflect affluence and those that are simply functional. This approach ensures fairness while still recognizing the contribution of high-quality cookware to the household’s overall wealth profile."

However, I was afraid we were risking becoming too granular in our assessment.

ChatGPT agreed: "You're absolutely right to question whether increasing granularity risks overcomplicating the scoring system. Striking the right balance between precision and usability is key to ensuring the framework remains practical and meaningful. Let’s consider a few guiding principles to determine if we’re at risk of becoming too granular:

Signs the System is Becoming Overly Granular

Difficulty in Data Collection and Consistency

If scoring relies on highly specific details (e.g., differentiating between functional and decorative bronze items), the variability in available archaeological data might introduce inconsistency. Some excavation reports may not distinguish cookware quality or provide sufficient context.

Marginal Impact on Overall Scores

If granular distinctions only shift scores by 1–2 points, their inclusion may unnecessarily complicate the framework without significantly affecting wealth categorization.

Dilution of Major Indicators

Overemphasizing minor details, like cookware, could reduce the weight of more significant markers (e.g., property size, decorative programs, or specialized rooms).

Loss of Accessibility

A highly detailed system might become less intuitive or accessible to users who need to interpret the results, such as students or researchers unfamiliar with intricate scoring mechanics.

Simplifying Without Losing Precision

To avoid excessive granularity while maintaining accuracy:

Broader Categories for Artifacts

Instead of scoring individual items, consider grouping related artifacts (e.g., "decorative bronze items" vs. "utilitarian bronze items"). Award aggregate points based on the quantity and significance of the category as a whole.

Weighted Categories

Focus on weighting key categories—like property size, decorative programs, and specialized rooms—more heavily than secondary indicators like cookware.

Use Discretionary Scoring

For edge cases (e.g., exceptionally ornate cookware), include guidelines for assigning bonus points instead of fixed values.

Test and Calibrate the System

Apply the scoring framework to a diverse sample of homes to evaluate whether granular details skew results or introduce unnecessary complexity.

How This Applies to Bronze Items

Rather than scoring each type of bronze item separately, the system could treat all decorative bronze objects as a single category, awarding points based on the cumulative presence of notable pieces. Similarly, utilitarian bronze items could earn a low, flat score unless they are of exceptional quality or quantity.

Conclusion

While granular distinctions provide nuance, they should only be included if they meaningfully enhance the framework."

Knowing how incomplete some excavation reports are and the fact that some homes were subject to looting, I suggested it would be simpler to only award points for bronze decorative objects and ignore the common utilitarian items.

ChatGPT replied: "Your approach makes a lot of sense. Limiting points for bronze finds to decorative objects rather than common utilitarian items would streamline the scoring process and better reflect wealth indicators in a Pompeian context. Here's why this strategy is effective:

Why Focus on Decorative Bronze Objects?

Reflects Wealth and Status

Decorative bronze items—like statuettes, candelabra, or furniture applications—signal investment in artistry and luxury, distinguishing them as status symbols. Utilitarian bronze (e.g., nails, door hardware) was widespread and does not necessarily indicate affluence.

Simplifies Scoring

Ignoring mundane items reduces the burden of combing through exhaustive excavation reports and minimizes the risk of overcomplicating assessments with negligible details.

Aligns with Other Luxury Categories

Awarding points for decorative bronze aligns with how you treat marble or opus sectile—focusing on items that represent craftsmanship and wealth rather than functional ubiquity.

Proposed Scoring Adjustment

Include: Decorative bronze objects (e.g., statues, candelabra, inlaid furniture details). [Add more points for:] Exceptional or unusual bronze items (e.g., ceremonial or symbolic objects).

Exclude: Everyday hardware (e.g., hinges, nails).

Functional cookware (unless exceptionally ornate).

Example Implementation for a home with bronze finds:

Decorative bronze items: +2 points per notable piece, with possible bonuses for exceptional craftsmanship.

Common utilitarian items: No points.

Advantages

Focuses on meaningful indicators: Emphasizes artifacts directly tied to wealth.

Ensures consistency: Simplifies report interpretation and scoring.

Avoids overinflation: Prevents homes with large quantities of mundane items from being artificially elevated in score.

Currently, the point awards for marble and bronze items in our system are structured as follows, with an emphasis on decorative or luxury artifacts rather than utilitarian items:

Marble Items

Decorative objects (e.g., statues, tables, reliefs, cartibulum):

+2 points per notable piece.

+3–4 points for exceptional craftsmanship or large-scale items (e.g., significant statues, elaborate altars).

Functional items with luxury features (e.g., marble steps, fountains):

+1–2 points per item.

Plain structural marble (e.g., simple thresholds, basic construction elements): No points (excluded for simplicity and to avoid skewing results).

Bronze Items

Decorative or ceremonial objects (e.g., statuettes, candelabra, luxury furniture fittings):

+2 points per notable piece.

+3–4 points for exceptional craftsmanship or unique pieces.

Bronze scales (associated with trade or precision craftsmanship):

+1 point each.

Functional cookware or everyday items (e.g., pots, door hinges, nails): No points (excluded as utilitarian and commonplace).

To test this part of our framework, I asked ChatGPT to score the House of the Citharist (I 4,5). I remembered seeing a number of high-quality bronze sculptures recovered from the house in a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry that I photographed back in 2017.

ChatGPT replied:

"Here is the rescoring for the House of the Citharist, using the proper formulae for constructed and garden space, along with other applicable categories:

Revised Scoring for the House of the Citharist

Size (Constructed Space):

Constructed area: Approx. 1,800 m²

Points: 1,800 divided by 10 ×1.5 = 270

capped at 60 points.

Size (Garden Space)

Garden area: Approx. 800 m²

Points: 800 divided by 10 ×0.5 = 40

capped at 20 points.

Decoration:

Large-scale fresco program, mostly 4th Style: 15 points

Mosaic floors: Includes opus tessellatum in various rooms: 15 points

Use of marble decoration: 10 points (based on fragments found).

Specialized Rooms/Features

Tuscan atrium with marble impluvium: 10 points

Tablinum: 5 points

Peristyle garden: 5 points

Multiple triclinia: 5 points

Dedicated exedrae for entertaining: 5 points

Luxury Items

Extensive bronze finds (notably large sculptures):

Bronze Apollo Playing a Cithara: 25 points

Bronze Hercules: 20 points

Other significant bronze sculptures: 15 points.

Marble statuary and decorative elements: 10 points.

Location and Visibility

Prime location near the forum: 15 points.

Other Notable Features

Vaulted rooms: 5 points

Garden sculptures and fountains: 5 points.

Total Score:

Constructed Space: 60

Garden Space: 20

Decoration: 40

Specialized Rooms/Features: 30

Luxury Items: 70

Location and Visibility: 15

Other Notable Features: 10

Final Total: 245 points

Assessment

This total places the House of the Citharist well into the Elite Residences category. Its high score is driven by its monumental size, prime location, luxurious decorative program, and the extraordinary collection of bronze sculptures. Bronze luxury objects from elsewhere in Pompeii:

Lamp in the shape of a Nubian's head from an unspecified house in Pompeii at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

An ornate brazier recovered from an unspecified house in Pompeii at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Steelyard Balance Scale from an unspecified location in Pompeii at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

Closeup of steelyard weight from balance scale recovered from an unspecified location in Pompeii at a Pompeii exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in 2017. Photograph by Mary Harrsch.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Weighting the Pompeian wealth status calculation to avoid dominance of size alone

 by Mary Harrsch © 20245

Still fine tuning my suggested point system to establish wealth metrics for Pompeian residences. I noticed that ChatGPT keeps referring to the House of the Faun when discussing wealth categories and I was afraid it is such a palatial residence it may skew efforts to establish elite status across the city as a whole. Also, while reviewing each point category, I wasn't sure how much influence size alone had in the calculation.

Atrium of the House of the Prince of Naples with marble cartibulum (table), 4th style tablinum, and small peristyle with temple-style lararium, all features adding points to its overall wealth status score. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carole Raddato.

When I mentioned my concerns about undue influence of size as a metric, ChatGPT agreed saying,

"While a large number of rooms (15+) often indicates an elite dwelling, the house’s design, decor, and overall architectural sophistication are more reliable indicators of elite status. Small but exquisitely decorated houses could also be considered elite if they were intended to showcase wealth and cultural sophistication."

To adjust a point system to minimize the effects of such outliers as the House of the Faun, ChatGPT suggested we should cap points or weights for size to avoid overemphasis on exceptional examples. Then we could focus more on qualitative features, such as decoration and spatial organization, rather than raw size.

After experimenting with scoring several elite homes like the House of the Dioscuri, the House of Meleager, the House of Menander and the Casa del Leone, ChatGPT suggested the following:

Updated Wealth Category Scoring Framework

Based on your feedback, the point ranges for each wealth group are updated as follows:

Wealth Category Point Range

Modest Homes 0–75 points

Description: Homes of working-class or lower-middle-class families, with basic layouts and little decoration.

Comfortable Residences 76–150 points

Description: Homes with modest luxury, suitable for middle-class professionals or aspiring elites.

Affluent Homes 151–200 points

Description: Well-decorated homes of Pompeian elites with significant luxury features.

Elite Residences 201+ points

Description: Monumental homes with expansive layouts, lavish decoration, and prime locations.

Adjusted Scoring System for Size

The scoring for size remains capped to balance constructed and garden areas as base contributors but allows uncapped contributions for other factors. Points for size will still be calculated proportionally based on the following weights:

Constructed Space:

Points=Constructed Area (m²)/10×1.5

Cap at 60 points.

Garden Space:

Points=Garden Area (m²)/10×0.5

Cap at 20 points.

These caps ensure that size alone cannot dominate the total wealth score but still allows monumental homes like the House of the Faun to compete for elite status.

Uncapped Scoring for Other Categories

Other wealth indicators, such as decoration, specialized rooms, location, and overall cohesion, remain uncapped to reflect the full extent of luxury. Adjustments include:

Category Weight (%) Max Points (Approx.)

Decoration 25% 60+

Reasoning: Lavish frescoes and mosaics often signified wealth beyond size.

Specialized Rooms 20% 50+

Reasoning: Spaces for dining, entertaining, and private baths demonstrate cultural and financial investment.

Location & Visibility: 15% 40+

Reasoning: Proximity to the forum, views, and accessibility were critical for status display.

Overall Cohesion 5% 15+

Reasoning: Reflects architectural harmony and functionality.

This scheme seemed to work well with residences in the elite category but I wondered how it would work for smaller residences. So, I asked ChatGPT to score the House of the Prince of Naples using the new framework. The results:

Updated Scoring for the House of the Prince of Naples

1. Size and Layout (Base Points for Constructed and Garden Space)

Constructed space: ~400 sq. meters → 16 points

Garden space: Medium-sized → 5 points

Upper story: Adds value to layout complexity → 5 points

Subtotal for Size: 26 points

2. Decoration and Luxury Materials:

Opus sectile mosaic (colored marbles): Indicates significant investment → 10 points

Marble cartibulum (atrium): Adds prestige and architectural distinction → 8 points

Frescoes (Perseus rescuing Andromeda, Venus and Adonis): Quality mythological scenes → 8 points

Fourth Style frescoed white walls throughout: Cohesive decorative program, but restrained → 6 points

Subtotal for Decoration: 32 points

3. Specialized Rooms and Features

Tablinum: Key feature of a traditional domus → 5 points

Apotheca (storeroom): Reflects functional wealth (economic activity/storage) → 3 points

Temple-style lararium (garden): High symbolic and cultural value → 8 points

Shops flanking entrance (one a possible physician's surgery): Commercial integration enhances value → 6 points

Two large rooms with vaulted ceilings: Architectural sophistication → 6 points

Subtotal for Specialized Rooms: 28 points

4. Visibility and Location

Located on Via del Vesuvio: Reasonably visible, though not in the most prestigious area → 4 points

Subtotal for Visibility: 4 points

Final Updated Score and Wealth Classification

Size and Layout: 26 points

Decoration and Luxury Materials: 32 points

Specialized Rooms and Features: 28 points

Visibility and Location: 4 points

Total: 90 points

Classification: Comfortable Residence

The updated score firmly places the House of the Prince of Naples in the Comfortable Residence category. The vaulted ceilings contribute to a higher architectural standard, but the house's moderate size and restrained location prevent it from reaching the Affluent Home tier. Its decorative elements and specialized rooms reflect a household of middle-to-upper-middle-class status in Pompeian society."

I am satisfied with this score. When I was studying the House of the Prince of Naples some years ago, reading the PAH I thought the early excavators were being unreasonably snobbish by suggesting the last owners of the house belonged to the lower middle class. So often early scholars seemed so fixated on finding wealthy homes that they did not objectively value structures and finds in homes of the middle class, at least in my opinion.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Shopping for love in the House of the Colored Capitals, Pompeii

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

This morning, I came across an unusual fresco from the House of the Colored Capitals (VII 4,31/51) aka the House of Ariadne in Pompeii drawn by Wilhelm Zahn in 1833. It is known as the "Sale of Cupids" or "Eros Shop" and was found in exedra 18 (pompeiinpictures floorplan). The scan of the original drawing was quite aged and stained but I used Photoshop's color sampling and replacement technique to remove most of the damage.

House of the Colored Capitals VII 4,31-51 Pompeii 1833 drawing by Wilhelm Zahn of Exedra18, south wall "Eros Shop" fresco

House of the Colored Capitals VII 4,31-51 Pompeii 1833 painting by Wilhelm Zahn of Room 18, south wall of exedra with "Eros Shop" fresco

House of the Colored Capitals VII 4,31-51 Pompeii 1833 painting by Giuseppe Marsigli of Room 18, south wall "Eros Shop" fresco

House of the Colored Capitals VII 4,31-51 Pompeii 1834 drawing by Giuseppe Marsigli of Room 18, south wall Eros Shop fresco

I noticed that the house contains quite a few frescoes depicting Dionysiac scenes so I thought perhaps this is a scene of Silenus "selling" personifications of love to Ariadne in preparation for the romantic advances of Dionysus after the god and his tutor found her abandoned by Theseus on the isle of Naxos. Interesting detail, I noticed the structure where the "sale" is taking place has Ionic-style columns, like those around the peristyle of the House of the Colored Capitals!

Neither ChatGPT or ClaudeAI seemed to have any idea who the adult figures were, I asked ChatGPT what it thought of my interpretation and it said:

"Your interpretation aligns beautifully with the themes often explored in Roman wall paintings, especially in houses rich in Dionysiac imagery, like the House of the Colored Capitals (or House of Ariadne). Let’s explore this possibility further:

Silenus as the Seller of Love

If the elderly figure is indeed Silenus, his role as a companion and tutor of Dionysus makes him a natural mediator in matters of love and revelry. The idea of Silenus "capturing" or crafting love (the cupids) to bestow it upon Ariadne is a compelling allegory, particularly in a house known for its association with Dionysus and Ariadne.

Silenus could be seen as a symbolic agent of Dionysus, using his cunning and experience to facilitate Ariadne’s receptiveness to Dionysus’ advances.

The "sale of love" might metaphorically represent the preparation or offering of love as a divine and transformative force, aligning with the themes of Dionysiac myth and cult.

Ariadne and Dionysus

The identification of the female figure as Ariadne fits well within the broader narrative context of the house. In mythology:

After being abandoned by Theseus on Naxos, Ariadne was discovered and eventually wed by Dionysus, who adored her.

Dionysus is often associated with themes of liberation, ecstasy, and love. The cupids (Erotes) in the scene could represent love as both playful and divine, underscoring Dionysus’ power to awaken and nurture romantic passion.

The Fresco as Allegory

This interpretation would tie the scene into the broader Dionysiac program of the house’s decoration. The fresco may not illustrate a direct myth but instead functions as a playful and symbolic representation of the emotional and spiritual transformation that Ariadne undergoes through her union with Dionysus.

Silenus’s role here could be to personify the wisdom and folly of love, a theme often intertwined with Dionysiac imagery.

Ariadne’s contemplative pose suggests a moment of choice or realization, aligning with her legendary transition from despair (abandonment by Theseus) to joy (her marriage to Dionysus).

Conclusion

The "Sale of Cupids" fresco could indeed be a playful allegorical depiction of Silenus acting as an intermediary of Dionysus, offering Ariadne the promise of love (through the cupids) to prepare her for a divine union. This fits beautifully within the thematic and decorative context of the House of the Colored Capitals/Ariadne. It’s an imaginative, symbolic moment that connects the fresco to the broader Dionysiac mythos celebrated in the house!"

Sadly, as you can see from the closeup pompeiiinpictures took of the fresco in 2009, it is badly deteriorated today.

House of the Colored Capitals VII 4,31-51 Pompeii closeup of actual "Eros Shop" fresco circa 2009 in Room 18 on south wall of exedra

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Gender fluidity in ancient Roman art

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

Today I happened across Wilhelm Zahn's drawing of the complete very ornate 4th style wall with the mythological painting of the Toilette of Hermaphrodite from the House of Adonis and Venus (VI 7,18) in Pompeii. I shared Henri Roux's colored painting of the myth with you back in November but I've included it again below. I have forwarded it to pompeiiinpictures.com so Zahn's drawing may be added to their page about the house.

Fourth-Style Wall contained the fresco Toilette of Hermaphrodite from the House of Adonis (VI 7,18) Pompeii by Wilhelm Zahn, 1836

Toilette of Hermaphrodite from the House of Adonis VI 7,18 Pompeii by Henri Roux, pre-1836

I did happen to study the fresco of Hermaphroditus a little closer though and wondered about the bearded figure on the far left wearing what appears to be female attire. First I asked ChatGPT about it and ChatGPT said:

"The bearded individual on the far left in the green gown holding a mirror is likely a representation of Silenus, a companion of Dionysus. In Roman frescoes, Silenus often appears in scenes with mythological or playful contexts, embodying themes of revelry, humor, and sometimes wisdom.

Silenus is traditionally depicted as an older, bearded figure who is often portrayed in humorous or incongruous settings, like wearing female attire in this scene. His role here could be to add a touch of playful satire or to emphasize the fluidity of identity and roles, fitting the androgynous theme of Hermaphroditus in the center. This playful ambiguity aligns with the broader Roman artistic tradition of mixing divine, human, and comic elements in domestic decoration."

But I was skeptical since I've never seen a representation of Silenus as a young man. So, I asked ClaudeAI about it and Claude said:

"The bearded figure on the left wearing feminine attire would be a different representation of Hermaphroditus/Hermaphrodite. This dual representation (one bearded and clothed, one unclothed and youthful) reflects the complex nature of this mythological figure in Roman art and culture. The mirror being held serves both a practical purpose within the scene and acts as a symbolic element, reflecting the dual nature of Hermaphroditus.

This style of depicting Hermaphroditus both as a bearded figure in feminine dress and as a youthful nude in the same scene is found in other Roman art as well. It represents different aspects of the deity's nature - the masculine (beard) and feminine (dress) combined in one figure, while also showing the more idealized form in the central figure.

It's worth noting that interpretations of ancient Roman art can vary, and while this is a commonly accepted reading of this fresco, ancient symbolism often has multiple layers of meaning that scholars continue to debate."

I told Claude that I had been told it could be a young Silenus but I was skeptical of that interpretation and Claude observed:

"That's actually a very interesting observation about Silenus! While Silenus is indeed typically depicted as an elderly satyr or companion of Dionysus, the bearded figure in feminine dress could potentially be Silenus in this context. In Roman art, Silenus sometimes appears in scenes involving gender play or transformation, particularly in Dionysiac contexts.

You're right to be skeptical though, as this is quite different from typical Silenus iconography. The traditional depiction of Silenus usually shows him as portly, older, and often drunk or riding a donkey. This more elegant figure with the mirror is quite a departure from that conventional representation.

Another interpretation worth considering is that this figure might represent an attendant or priest of Hermaphroditus, as religious functionaries in antiquity sometimes wore clothing associated with the deity they served.

The ambiguity of the figure's identity might even be intentional, playing into the themes of gender fluidity and transformation that are central to the Hermaphroditus myth. Roman wall paintings, particularly those from Pompeii, often incorporate complex mythological references that can support multiple interpretations.

Would you happen to know if there are other examples from Pompeii where Silenus is depicted in feminine attire? That might help establish if this was a regional variation in how he was portrayed."

I pointed out, "There is a mural of Hermaphroditus and Silenus in the House of M. Epidi Sabini (IX 1,22) but he is old and wearing traditional male attire. In the House of the Centenary (IX 8,6) there is another fresco depicting Hermaphroditus and Silenus but again Silenus is depicted as old wearing traditional male attire. In the Stabian baths' frigidarium is a painting assumed to be Hermaphroditus on the west wall and a traditional old Silenus on the east wall. In the House of Lucius Caecilius Jucundus there is a painting of Hermaphroditus and Silenus but again Silenus is portrayed in the typical way. In the House of Holconius Rufus the fresco with Hermaphroditus and Silenus has Silenus portrayed as an old male-dressed satyr too. The painting of Hermaphroditus and Silenus in the House of the Vettii is traditional as well. However, I did find a drawing from the House of Tryptolemus (VII 7,5) that depicts Hermaphroditus leaning on a statue of what has been identified as a bearded Pan dressed in a long chiton. Pan, however, is traditionally portrayed with goat feet not human feet."

House of Tryptolemus VII 7,5 Pompeii Oecus (m) 1871 drawing of painting of Hermaphrodite with bearded Pan statue by Nicola La Volpe

I then uploaded Nicola La Volpe's drawing from the House of Tryptolemus and Claude observed:

"This is fascinating and your detailed knowledge of the Pompeian frescoes really helps build a clearer picture! Your systematic review of how Silenus is portrayed across multiple Pompeian houses shows quite convincingly that he is consistently depicted as an elderly male figure in traditional attire when appearing with Hermaphroditus.

The drawing you've shared from the House of Tryptolemus is particularly interesting. The bearded figure in the long chiton (with human feet rather than goat feet) seems to share some similarities with the mysterious figure in the House of Adonis and Venus fresco. The fact that it's been identified as Pan despite lacking his characteristic goat feet highlights the challenging nature of interpreting these figures that don't conform to traditional iconographic patterns.

Given all this evidence, it seems increasingly unlikely that the bearded figure in feminine dress from the House of Adonis and Venus is Silenus. The consistency of Silenus's traditional elderly male appearance across multiple Pompeian houses, as you've documented, makes it hard to justify such a dramatic departure in just one instance."

I agreed saying "I think your original suggestion that the bearded figure in female attire may be another aspect of Hermaphroditus is most likely. Almost all frescos depicting Hermaphroditus with Pan have Pan depicted with the goat-like lower half of his body and usually Pan with no clothing at all. I simply don't know why the 19th century excavators identified the statue in the mural found in the House of Tryptolemus as a bearded Pan."

Claude replied, "Your reasoning is very sound! Your extensive knowledge of Pompeian frescos provides strong evidence that the bearded figure in feminine dress is likely another aspect of Hermaphroditus rather than Pan or Silenus. The consistency in how Pan is depicted across Pompeian art (with goat legs and typically nude) makes the identification of the statue in the House of Tryptolemus as Pan seem questionable.

This dual representation of Hermaphroditus - as both a bearded figure in feminine dress and as a nude youth - appears to be a sophisticated artistic choice that captures the complex nature of the deity. The mirror being held by the bearded figure takes on even greater symbolic significance if we view it this way, as it creates a visual dialogue between these two aspects of the same divine being.

It's interesting to consider why 19th century excavators might have preferred to identify the bearded figure as Pan. Perhaps this reflects the cultural attitudes and scholarly assumptions of their time, when they might have been less comfortable with or less interested in exploring themes of gender fluidity in ancient Roman art.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!