Introduction
The frieze surrounding the temple of Minerva in the Forum Transitorium, created under the emperor Domitian in the late 1st century CE,2 features an elaborate sequence of textile working scenes that detail spinning, weaving and inspection of finished cloth (Fig. 10.1).3 By focusing on the frieze’s depiction of weaving technology and, especially, the repeated depiction of two-beam looms, textile scholars are cautiously inclined to accept the identification of the central motif as representing the mythic contest between Arachne and Minerva (Fig. 10.2). They rarely, however, venture beyond the idea that it was inspired by Arachne’s skill as an exquisitely skilled weaver.4 This is in direct contrast to the views of Eve D’Ambra who has persuasively argued, in her monograph on the remains of the frieze, that this identification should be based on the dynamic poses of the central characters;5 she therefore, not surprisingly, made relatively little of the diverse and novel textile technologies displayed in other parts of the frieze. This paper takes a more holistic approach by exploring in more detail the association
between the display of Minerva’s victory over Arachne in the central narrative panel and the attention to training and technological development in textile crafts that so dominates other parts of the frieze.
Ovid’s cautionary tale: Arachne in the Metamorphoses
As D’Ambra has argued, Arachne’s tale can be regarded as a cautionary one when it is related more closely to contem-porary literary references to this goddess. These references will be used to investigate how Arachne’s story relates both to the focus on weaving technology to be found in other parts of the frieze and to its function in the specific setting of the Forum Transitorium.
D’Ambra suggests that for the emperor Domitian, Arachne’s story serves as a warning: Arachne is a rebel against authority, she offends against Minerva and – based on Ovid’s Metamorphoses – she weaves tales that represent a dangerous erosion of sexual mores.6 Abstract
The weaving contest between Minerva and Arachne (described in Ovid’s Metamorphoses) is depicted in the friezes in the Forum Transitorium in Rome. The interpretation of the mythological motif and its combination with scenes of textile production is debated. Through analysis of the Arachne episode in the Astronomica of Manilius (4.128–139), this paper shifts the focus from Arachne to Minerva as patron goddess of craft and addresses the purpose of repetitive features in the frieze panels depicting cloth preparation. The paper argues that the motif of virtuous textile work offers an imperial response to an emerging stoic paradigm of uxorial1 loyalty while simultaneously showcasing the economic value of strongly gendered traditional textile work in and beyond the elite. The repeated display of a loom-type rarely paralleled at the time creates a pronounced focus on the potential economic output of female industriousness, expertise and technological development.
Magdalena Öhrman 140
Fig. 10.1. Overview of the extant parts of the frieze, with the central panel below the attic relief of Minerva. Photo: Author.
Fig. 10.2. Central narrative panel. Minerva, recognisable by her helmet and aegis, stands with her hand raised to strike Arachne by her loom. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4).
10. Arachne revisited: Hubris and technology in the Forum Transitorium frieze, Rome 141
D’Ambra sees other panels displaying women engaged in different aspects of textile work as exemplifying tra-ditional Roman domestic virtues in deliberate contrast to Arachne. These panels include a scene where Minerva her -self gives instruction in spinning (Fig. 10.3).7 According to Ovid – whose extensive retelling of Arachne’s story quickly becomes canonical8 – Arachne is strongly aligned with the poet himself and he portrays her as an ingen-ious artist with considerably more talent and ingenuity than her divine opponent.9 While Ovid makes evident Arachne’s hubris (excessive pride, especially defiance of the gods)(Ov. Met. 6.24–25, 50–51), Minerva’s revenge on her appears to be not so much a justified vengeance on the impious as an unflattering example of wounded despotic pride.10 From the perspective of the Ovidian intertext alone, Minerva’s use of her divine authority is at best ambiguous; it potentially generates sympathy for a mortal weaver who refuses to submit to authority. In the context of an imperial monument, which implicitly links the divine authority of Minerva with the authority of the emperor, the inclusion of such an episode has to be questioned further.
Beyond Ovid: Arachne in Manilius’ Astronomica It is possible to gain additional perspectives on contempo -rary attitudes to Arachne’s story by looking beyond Ovid to the marginally later Astronomica of Manilius (4.124–139).11 In the beginning of his fourth book, Manilius details the
signs of the zodiac and the characteristics of the people born under each sign.12 In the section on Aries, ‘rich in abundant wool’ (Man. 4.124), Arachne and Minerva’s contest is mentioned only briefly (Man. 4.136) but depth is added to the mythological reference by the theme of textile work in combination with skill that is sabotaged by hubris through-out the section. This reinforces a reading more sympathetic to Minerva than to Arachne.
In describing the character of the ram, Manilius devotes three entire lines to the cyclical nature of sheep shearing (Man. 4.125–127). These lines are delivered through the story of the ram himself: firstly he is rich, then loses his wealth (i.e. he is shorn of his wool), then he takes new heart and gathers together his ambitions, rising from nothing only to fall again, condemned by his very ability to regrow his fleece. The argument gains weight by the very length of the text; Manilius implies that the ram sees his abundantly growing fleece only in terms of his own individual wealth and splendid appearance, even though through numerous different crafts his abundance comes to benefit the world at large (Man. 4.128–129). Three fast-paced lines illustrate this: people roll up raw wool and comb it (130), spin and weave it (131) and, finally, buy and sell the garments they have made (132). The importance of textile production is emphatically stated in 133–134: no society, even one that rejects luxury, can manage without it. For this reason, Minerva has declared it to be her own responsibility, a task worthy of her own personal involvement. In a line most crucial to this argument, Manilius states that it was for Fig. 10.3. Minerva (seated) demonstrates the use of a distaff. This panel is set to the left of the narrative panel. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4).
Magdalena Öhrman 142
this reason that Minerva claimed greatness for defeating Arachne:
… tantum est opus, ispa suismet Man. 4.134 asseruit Pallas manibus dignumque putauit,
seque in Arachnaeo magnam putat esse triumpho. 4.136
‘So important is this work that Pallas herself has claimed it and thought it worthy of her own hands, and considered herself great for her victory over Arachne.’13
Although no further details are given about Arachne’s attitude, the word putauit (‘she [Minerva] considered’, Man. 4.135) acknowledges that a degree of ambiguity attaches to Minerva’s victory, thus subtly acknowledg-ing the Ovidian emphasis on Arachne’s superior skill.
However, the following lines reassert the theme of hubris and suggest the reason for Minerva’s insistence on Arachne’s destruction. Manilius states that those born under Aries’ sign are suited to these and similar crafts but that they are also forever seeking individual recognition and praise (Man. 4.137–139). This brings to mind the insistent refusal of Ovid’s Arachne to acknowledge any influence, direct or indirect, from Minerva’s teaching on her skill (Ov. Met. 6.23–24).14 The contrast between the ram’s egoistic delight in his wealth and the benefits his wool brings the world (Man. 4.125–129), taken together with the emphasis in the immediately preced-ing lines on the importance of textile work to society (Man. 4.133–134), indicates that Manilius’ Minerva sees the contest with Arachne as being one that was about far more than the skill of weaving. Arachne is held up as a warning example of the problems arising from individ-uals flaunting their own skills in these arts rather than being ready to teach them to others and thereby sharing the rewards of their own industry with society at large.
In contrast to Ovid, Manilius reinterprets the Arachne/
Minerva contest as one of individualism versus com-mitment to the common good so that Minerva’s victory comes to represent the sharing of skills in textile work amongst a wider community.
Manilius is not alone in highlighting Minerva’s pro-tection of all stages of wool and cloth preparation: Ovid does so, too. His calendar poem Fasti (a core intertext for Manilius’ astronomical handbook) emphasises Minerva’s oversight of wool-combing, spinning and weaving in the description of a festival connected to the commemoration of the dedication of the Minerva temple on the Aventine.15 As in Manilius’ account, a step-by-step description brings the textile chaîne opératoire and its aim of cloth production to the fore.16 Furthermore, Ovid’s description of Minerva’s involvement in the teaching of wool-work becomes a launching point for a description of several crafts protected by the goddess that extend well beyond textile work, listing fullers, dyers, teachers, doctors, painters and stonemasons.
Here, too, the emphasis is on how the protection of crafts
by Minerva Ergane benefits the whole of a highly diverse Roman society.
Minerva’s way: Technological innovation in the frieze
Approaching the Arachne motif in the Forum Transitorium frieze via Manilius thus creates a closer, even causal, relationship between the central cautionary tale-panel and the representation of the processes of textile production in other parts of the frieze. Minerva appropriates and shares Arachne’s craft with her followers. By doing so, she also assumes Arachne’s contemporary association with skilled invention. While Ovid’s focus is on Arachne as a skilled and imaginative weaver, writers in the Flavian period emphasise her technological innovation: Pliny the Elder credits her with the invention of linen production and Statius implies that she was the first tapestry weaver.17 Hence, by implication, the central panel comes implicitly to express Minerva’s ability to harness and bestow on her followers not just Arachne’s skill but also the advantages of technological development.
This matches the focus on technical detail in other parts of the frieze, both in the scene where Minerva demonstrates the use of a distaff (Fig. 10.3) and, particularly, in the frieze’s prominent display of two-beam looms (Fig. 10.2, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6).
While this iconographic representation provides only a terminus ante quem for Roman use of the two-beam loom, repeated mentions of warp-weighted looms in Augustan literature suggest that the two-beam loom was still a rel-atively recent addition to Roman weaving technology;18 this would explain the frieze’s focus on its operation. Two panels (Fig. 10.5 and 10.6) display looms used by two women, one reaching up to the top of the loom frame and grasping something in her hand, the other extending her hand upward as if to pass on something or take it back. Are they displaying the same stages of work or different ones?
As others have noted, the relative positions of the women in both scenes correspond tantalisingly well to the passing of warp yarn between workers involved in warping, espe-cially in a tubular set-up (Fig. 10.7 and 10.8).19 However, there are subtle differences between these panels that hint at different actions.
In the loom scene immediately to the right, a triad of women rush toward Minerva and Arachne in the centre (Fig. 10.4, detail in Fig. 10.5).20 Here, the straight side of the object held up by the seated woman together with its length suggests it might either be a small weaving sword, like the smallish bone weaving swords with handles that have been found in Pompeii;21 or the wholly flat type found, for example, in Ulpia Traiana, which in reconstruction has proved to be an extremely versatile tool for weaving on the two-beam loom.22 If this is the case, then weaving is already under way in this panel.23 The standing woman, reaching up
10. Arachne revisited: Hubris and technology in the Forum Transitorium frieze, Rome 143
and grasping something in her balled hand, might then be operating a mechanism to lower or raise the shed rod, an action represented by incised lines running from her hand up to the top beam.24 The position of her hand suggests a downward pulling action, whereas the seated weaver reaches
up and uses the small weaving sword to open the new shed further. Experimental reconstructions of mechanised weaving on the two-beam loom suggest that moving the shed rod is the most frequently repeated working action that requires movement in the upper rather than lower half Fig. 10.4. Overview of the central panel. From left to right: Women inspect a finished textile; Minerva has her hand raised against Arachne, while three women of differing ages rush toward them; Two weavers working on a two-beam loom (cf. Fig. 10.5). Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4).
Fig. 10.5. A pair of weavers at work (1). The seated woman clears the shed with a small weaving sword, while the standing woman seems to operate a shed-changing mechanism. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4).
Fig. 10.6. A pair of weavers at work (2). The standing woman appears to grasp a strap running around and over the top beam, possibly attached to a rod holding the end of the warp. Photo:
Livius.org.
Magdalena Öhrman 144
Fig. 10.7. Warping a two-beam loom with a tubular warp.
Experimental reconstruction for the ‘Textile Reflections’ project at the Centre for Textile Research. Weaver Ulrikka Mokdad and the author both stand to pass the warp yarn over the top beam.
Photo: Author.
Fig. 10.8. Warping a two-beam loom with a tubular warp. Weaver Ulrikka Mokdad arranges the warp threads around the lower beam. Photo: Author.
of the loom.25 The contemporary evidence to support such an interpretation is so far lacking: later depictions of two-beam looms in Roman contexts, though displaying a shed rod in use, include no traces of any mechanism being fixed to the middle of the top beam; and there are no examples of similar systems for operating the shed rod with a centrally placed handle to be found in later Roman iconography or in ethnographic parallels. Despite this lack of evidence, experimental practice suggests that such a mechanism must remain a possibility.
In the other half of the frieze, the depiction of the standing woman in the second scene featuring two women at a loom (Fig. 10.6) is subtly different.26 The object she is grasping with her left hand passes over the middle of the upper beam. The interpretation of this object as indi-vidual warp threads is unsatisfactory:27 it appears instead to be a solid strap extending downward. Given that this would prevent an even spacing of warp threads over the top beam, it is possible that the image shows not the warping of a tubular set-up but the gradual letting down of a warp stretched between loose rods that are tied to
the horizontal beams with cords or straps.28 If so, this is not the beginning but the end of the weaving process, an interpretation that would seem entirely appropriate given that this panel is not only far removed from the narrative centre of the frieze29 but also one that neatly complements the depiction in the panel just discussed, which shows weaving in progress.
Conclusion
The damage to the frieze prevents a definitive conclusion.
Nevertheless, it is evident that it celebrates the display of working processes that are done differently in the two-beam loom compared to the more familiar warp-weighted loom: warping, shed mechanisms, completion and the direction of weaving. The frieze’s depiction of two-beam looms would have resonated with a contemporary audience familiar with the warp-weighted loom and it highlights the novel technological opportunities offered by such a loom.
Well suited to its place in the Forum, which connected the busy lower end of the Subura to the public spaces of the
10. Arachne revisited: Hubris and technology in the Forum Transitorium frieze, Rome 145
Imperial Fora and the Forum Romanum itself,30 the motif of textile-technological development would have been recognisable to less affluent workers involved in textile production, many of whom may have worked or lived in the neighbourhood immediately north of the Forum Transitorium.31 The frieze’s repeated display of anony-mous weavers at work on this comparatively new loom type would have served to emphasise the range of women involved in textile work, not least through its inclusion of different age groups (Fig. 10.4).32 In contrast to later Roman depictions of the two-beam loom which display lone women at work,33 the frieze’s emphasis on women working together, in pairs or in larger groups, brings to mind common working practices while at the same time suggesting that the weaver can be seen in terms of a wider context: the chaîne opératoire and a contribution to soci-ety. Intended to inspire, the frieze thus provides a space into which a viewer can insert herself and her weaving experience, sharing in both Minerva’s protection and the wider benefits of technological diversification. It may even be that the motif of weavers and looms in the frieze represents an attempt by the emperor to encourage the use of new tools and production techniques, as well as serving as a reminder of the traditional duties of Roman women.34
True to its location, the frieze can also speak to elite audiences, especially to those undertaking or managing textile work as part of their performance of female domes-tic virtues.35 The display of female virtuous wool-work is connected to Domitian’s efforts to revitalise Roman mor-als;36 but, set alongside the cautionary tale of Arachne’s individualistic hubris, it also offers a counterpoint to an emerging stoic paradigm of uxorial loyalty whereby wives supporting or outshining their husbands in individual moral strength are lauded even though they may stretch the norms for female behaviour.37 Pliny the Younger’s letters praise Arria (wife of Paetus, whose response to her husband’s enforced suicide outdid his own) and her granddaughter, Fannia (who voluntarily went into exile with her husband) as icons of stoic virtue.38 Flavian epic prominently features several such women: Valerius Flaccus recasts the Arria episode in a mythological setting and Statius’ Argia urges her husband to war.39 The emperor Domitian’s display of the paradigmatic female activity of textile work instead advocates a realisation of conjugal loyalty, where spouses are committed partners with distinct responsibilities, both working together for an increased shared prosperity. This ideal had found recent expression in Columella’s handbook on agriculture:40
erat enim summa reuerentia cum concordia et diligentia mixta, flagrabatque mulier pulcherrima aemulatione, studens negotia uiri cura sua maiora atque meliora reddere. (Colum. 12 praef. 7)
‘For there was the greatest respect [between them], mingled with harmony and diligence, and the woman was fired with the most noble competition, and she strove to render her husband’s interests greater and better through her own care.’
Drawing on similar themes, Arachne’s story suggests that female dedication should serve shared goals, whether within the spousal unit or within the empire. Domitian’s point is not merely a sexual–moral one. The detailed depiction of
Drawing on similar themes, Arachne’s story suggests that female dedication should serve shared goals, whether within the spousal unit or within the empire. Domitian’s point is not merely a sexual–moral one. The detailed depiction of