AHANDBOOK

ROMAN ART
vnpreyensme survey) ojaii tye arts o\ tye Roman world

m®mm
f
IP"

i
*
r 1

%
A HANDBOOK OF
ROMAN ART
A comprehensive survey) of all the arts of i\)e Roman world

Edited by

MARTIN HENIG

Cornell University Press

Ithaca, New York

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this book and dealt so
obligingly with editorial requests and A number of friends have
queries.
helped in various ways, notably Anthony King, Julian Munby and Julian
Ward. At Phaidon I have been greatly assisted by Linda Proud, who did the
picture research, and Dr I. Grafe, whose scholarly comments on the text were
invaluable. But my greatest debt has been to Marie Leahy, who drew together
manuscript and illustrations and helped immensely with the editorial work,
both in and out of office hours.

© 1983 Phaidon Press Limited

Text © Martin Henig
All rights reserved. Except foi brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts
thereof, must not be reproduced in an) form without permission in writing from
the publisher.
For information address Cornell Universit) Press,
124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, Ww
York [4850.
First published [983 1>\ Cornell Universit) Press
First printing, Cornel) Paperbacks, 1983

International Standard Book Number (cloth) 0-80 4- 539-x

1 1

International Standard Book Number paper 8014 9242-4

Librar) of Congress Catalog Card Numbei 82 071591
Contents

Introduction 7
ONE Early Roman Art 13
*
Tom Rasmussen
TWO Architecture 26
Thomas Blagg
THREE Sculpture 66
Anthony Bonanno
FOUR Wall Painting and Stucco 97
Joan Liversidge
FIVE Mosaics 116
David Smith
SIX The Luxury Arts: Decorative Metalwork, Engraved
Gems and Jewellery 139
Martin Henig
SEVEN Coins and Medals 166
Richard Reece
EIGHT Pottery '79
Anthony King
NINE Terracotta Revetments, Figurines and Lamps 19 1
Donald Bailey
TEN Glass 205
Jennifer Price
ELEVEN Epigraphy 220
Robert Ireland
TWELVE Late Antiquity 234
Richard Reece
Abbreviations 249
Glossary 251
Credits 254
Map 255
Notes 256
Select Bibliography- 271
Index 281
Introduction

Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera/(credo equidem), vivos ducent de

marmore vultus,/orabunt causas melius, caelique meatus/describent
ratlio et surgentia sidera dicent:/tu regere imperio populos,
Romane/,memento/(hae tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere
morem,/parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.

Others, doubtless, will mould lifelike bronze with greater delicacy,

willwin from marble the look of life, will plead cases better, chart the
motions of the sky with the rod and foretell the risings of the stars. You,
O Roman, remember to rule the nations with might. This will be your
genius - to impose the way of peace, to spare the conquered and to
crush the proud. (Vergil, Aeneid, VI. 847-51)

Despite the importance of Rome's achievements, her prowess in the

visual artsis often underestimated. At best her sculpture and painting

is regarded as derivative, although recognized as a vital bridge be-

tween lost Greek masterpieces and posterity. At worst it is described as
little more than the vulgar ostentation of an essentially 'barbarian'

power. There are several reasons for this. The first is that Latin writers
of the 'golden age' were themselves modest about the Roman achieve-
ment. But it should be realized that there is an element of deliberate
artifice here: Cicero, Vergil and the elder Pliny were true artists. When
Vergil wrote the above lines in the midst of his greatest poem he was
surely at his most disingenuous, for the disclaimer of a Roman aesthetic

mission presumably applies no less to his own polished art or to that

of Cicero, the greatest advocate of antiquity, than to sculpture.
Similarly it is not hard to discern a deliberate rhetorical device in
Cicero's contrast of Greek 'delight in works of art and artistry, in
statues and paintings' (Verr., II. iv. 132) with a more disinterested
Roman view. Cicero was prosecuting C. Verres, who had been ac-
cused of extortion and theft in Greek Sicily, and he naturally wished to
exhibit the ex-governor's offences in the worst possible light. His
argument that such depredations are less serious to his listeners
(Romans) than to Greeks, works best in a milieu avid for culture. The
jury, already stirred to indignation by the iniquity of a notorious thief,
is asked by the prosecutor to redouble its ire against the offender

because his crimes were even worse if seen through Greek eyes.
I f there was a certain reticence in the attitudes and aspirations of the

ruling families of Rome, aware of the City's cultural debt to Greece

and to the Greeks of the past, modern art-historians should not forget
Greek artists of the Imperial period, for example Zenodorus, who
 1

INTRODUCTION

i;i.v\V5VAiM.v:.vO«:viv 'ULaja avcv.auna:vau.\:

X\AiOM50\KA^VN:Ai; v::AvONIl5VvVAVD\A: i .

:ouiO\:AAvcoAv:^i\:Ai;o.v.uotoA;.ut.\"ix
1. 'Portrait' of Vergil
X l-.\ C-W >>:iivA3aiHAM jAr
OtllCL A DOAV1: ! .
and the beginning of the
IAN IVAUN kVIX SA$VA\R05ACACl AUN MfirfX \i
1 Second Eclogue, from
the Vergilius Romanus
AOSlDVMVlNUbAU5L-KAlClNCOX0iIA5O^! (fol. 3v). Late 4th, or 5th

century ad. Vatican

Library.

could command huge sums for his work even in Gaul (Pliny, NH,
XXXIV. 45). However much the contemporary art of the provinces,
produced by Gauls, Syrians and others, was neglected by the
aristocracy of ancient Rome, it should not be overlooked by us.
Consequently the field of artistic achievement surveyed in this hand-
book is wider than anything that could have been envisaged in anti-
quity by either a Greek or a Roman.
It is evident that the stud) of Roman art suffered after the redis-

covery of Greek art at the end of the eighteenth century; gradually the
primacy of Rome, whose civilization had been a paradigm for excel-
lence in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, began to be questioned,
many Roman 'masterpieces of the past could be shown to
1

especially as
be indifferent copies.' Lord Clark cleverl) combines a moral revulsion
against Roman civilization in general with a specific criticism of
Roman copies and of what he sees as a conservative attachment to the
past. 2 'No he writes, 'has been so artistically bankrupt as
civilization'
that w hie h. for lour hundred
\ ears, on the shores ol the Mediterranean

enjoyed a fabulous material prosperity. During those centuries oi

blood-stained energy, the figure aits were torpid, a kind of token
currency, still accepted because based on those treasures of the spirit
accumulated in the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ." Lord
Clark touches on the nature- of artistic development in the ancient
world and if he had written 'satiated' instead of 'bankrupt' and toned
down the Tacitean polemics, perhaps he would have had a point. For
the Romans were not able to match the scale of achievement implicit
INTRODUCTION g

in the progression of Greek art from Archaic in the sixth century Be to

High Classical in the fifth. Ancient art achieved its full potential in a
cumulative fashion and without an intervening 'Dark Age': what had
once been learned was not forgotten. Except for the sub-Etruscan
period of the early Republic, the art of Rome could not be other than
complex, highly sophisticated and inherently concerned with choices
between possibilities. In other words, like post-Renaissance art in
Western Europe, it was eclectic.
Roman art can only be understood in the light of the 'Hellenistic'
culture that flourished throughout the eastern Mediterranean, in the
lands originally won from the Persians by Alexander the Great and
subsequently formed into a number of independent states. Rome was
tfie legatee of the diverse cultural life of Alexandria, Antioch and

Pergamum. For example, the fine mosaic decorated with Nilotic

scenes from Praeneste and others like it betray an Alexandrian taste.
The statuary found in the Tiberian grotto at Sperlonga and the
animated mythological scenes that decorate second-century sarcop-
hagi are developed from the Hellenistic sculptural traditions of Asia
Minor. In the Roman period the so-called "school of Aphrodisias' was
especially notable, and artists from this city were even employed on
the basilica and forum of Lepcis Magna in Libya by the Emperor
Septimius Severus. Arguably the most 'Roman' of all the monuments
mentioned in this book is Trajan's Column, which records the triumph
of the optimus princeps and the legions over the Dacians in the wars of AD
1 01-6, yet it was almost certainly conceived by Apollodoros of
Damascus, the Emperor's architect, and like the Forum of Trajan
itself it mirrors the decorative and architectural exuberance of the
baroque architecture of the East.
Even the copies, which are especially prevalent in the late Republic
and the early Empire, are best seen as an expression of artistic choice;
Augustus' neo-classical taste was responsible for the design of the Ara
Pacis (Altar of Peace), whose friezes are much influenced by those of
the Parthenon, and for his imperial forum with its sculptures, in-
cluding copies of the Erechtheum caryatids. Augustus' personal seal-
cutter, Dioskourides, also worked in a neo-Attic manner, as surviving
gems cut by him attest. Such work is, in large measure, the legacy of
the sculptor, metalworker and theoretician, Pasiteles [fl. first half of
first century BC). His highly eclectic work very properly closes most

books on Hellenistic art and his influence was immense. A statue of a

youth by 'Stephanos, pupil of Pasiteles' was found outside the Porta
Salaria, Rome, and also from Rome is an eclectic statue, perhaps of
Orestes and Electra, signed b\ 'Menelaos, pupil of Stephanos'. The
Pasiteleans evolved a quick, but mechanical, process of copying sculp-
ture and it is to them and to their influence that we owe so many statues
which preserve the forms of lost Greek masterpieces. ;

It is sometimes difficult to assess the importance of the Hellenistic

tradition in the development of Roman art. In part this is a reflection

of the much better survival of, for instance, painting from Roman
times; in part it is enhanced creativity - silver
actually the result of
plate was certainly more often ornamented with figural scenes during
10 INTRODUCTION

the late Republic and the early Empire than earlier in the Greek East.
Paintings of major importance have recently been recovered from
Macedonian royal tombs of the fourth century BC at Vergina. 4 These
paintings do have some resemblance to frescos recovered from Rome
and also from Campania, where the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in ad
79 destroyed Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae. The problem is to
decide whether the Campanian frescos are to be regarded merely as
copies of, say, third-century paintings or as witnesses to a living South
Italian tradition. I believe that the latter view is the right one, as it is

not possible for a house-decorator to copy painting mechanically; the

fine brush-strokes of the Dionysiac Mystery scenes in the Villa of the
Mysteries just outside Pompeii demonstrate real painterly skill. In any
case, Pliny's praise of the landscape artist Studius (NH, XXXV. 1 16-1 7)
and of Famulus, the chief painter of Nero's Domus Aurea (NH, xxxv.
120), which still in part survives, shows that fresco was held in high
esteem. Although we find both classical and baroque tendencies in
painting, it is often better not to employ such rigid categories, as more
interesting distinctions emerge in the differing attitudes to space dis-
played by various artists. The cool elegance of the shrubbery,
providing an illusion of the open air in Livia's underground
summer retreat at her Prima Porta villa, is in sharp contrast to the
essentially urban, theatrical confection of the Domus Aurea,
painted (or supervised) by Famulus. Certainly real personalities
emerge, even in paintings executed outside Rome, especially in the
Campanian cities.
little figured silver survives from the Greek world that
Relatively
can be dated before the first century BC, but increased supplies of silver
mined in Spain (and later in Britain) meant that plate became much
commoner under the Empire. Hoards have been found in ever)
province and the circumstances of burial frequently suggest ownership
by a member of the urban middle class or of the minor country gentry
rather than by a great magnate. Thus the situation must have been
England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
similar to that in
when was widespread appreciation of fine plate; as in England,
there
there were imitations, generally of bronze but in Roman Britain of
pewter, for those who could not afford silver.
Pottery also displays considerable variety. Arretine and other early
samian ware has the same neo-classical elegance as much of the plate.
In the middle and later Empire, however, sonic of the best pots were
ornamented with coloured slips, en barbotine, to produce an effect of
vigorous (but non-classical) energy.
The high standard of taste is well exemplified by the rich houses of
Pompeii and Herculaneum and luxury villas throughout the Empire,
with their frescos, mosaics, statuary and well-designed gardens - the
Romans were pioneers in garden planning and delighted in the
Natural World (Pliny the Younger, Ep. II. 7). It is also evident in the
1

public art of Rome disseminated directly by the State or through its

encouragement (Tacitus, Agricola, 2 and indirectly by the general
1
)

use of a plentiful well-designed coinage. There were even some tourists

eager to admire buildings and works of art, the majority no doubt in
INTRODUCTION II

the first instance pilgrims to the shrines of the eastern Mediterranean.

Pausanias wrote a guidebook, the first extant, to the monuments of

Greece, which catered for the needs of such discriminating travellers.
Needless to say, this work is now an invaluable source for the art-
historian.
A handbook of Greek art can concern itself with a homogeneous
Hellenic culture until the time of Alexander, confined for the most
part to Greece, Asia Minor and South Italy. Roman art is much
harder to define. Certainh the provincial contribution is immense
although we are only beginning to appreciate its true quality. As
recently as the 1930s, R. G. Collingwood could dismiss Romano-
British art as hardly ever rising above the level of dull, mechanical
mutation to that of even third-rate artistic achievement. 3 Now we can
appreciate in the Carlisle school of sculptors a style as lively and
attractive as that of an) medieval workshop, while across the Channel
in Belgium and the Mosel valley the scenes of daily life carved on
tombstones are well worth detailed study. Along the Eastern frontier
there arc artistic traditions even further removed from the mainstream
of Roman art, but few scholars would now deny the distinction of the
art of Palmyra and Dura Europos. The mosaicists of various parts of
the Empire including North Africa and Britain have been the subject
of detailed monographs, and we now know a great deal about work-
shops and have a much greater sympathy with the skill of the indivi-
dual craftsmen than would have been possible a decade ago.
The attitude to artists under the Empire is a subject in itself.
Essentially it was not vcr\ different from what it had been throughout
classical and Hellenistic times, especially in the East. Particularly
interesting is the short autobiographical essay. The Dream or Lucian's
Career, by the Antonine satirist Lucian, who came from Samosata in

Syria. Here he contrasts the rival claims of paideia (literary culture)

and the techrie of sculpture, his ancestral calling, entirely to the lat lei's
disadvantage. His reasons are ones which would have been accepted
throughout antiquity as self-evident: work done by means of the
intellect was b\ its vcr\ nature nobler than labour performed with the
hands and body. 6
Painting and drawing (including the design of buildings) did not
require heavy labour, and were therefore more respectable, although
even here there were limits to social approbation. It was not fitting for
Titedius Labeo, onetime proconsul of Narbonese Gaul, to be over-
proud of his own paintings (Pliny, JVH, XXXV. 20); still less are we
meant to admire imperial painters and sculptors Nero (Tacitus,
Annals, Xlll. 3) or Hadrian (Aurelius Victor, de Caesaribus (epitome),
XIV. 2) for their talents, which were not those fitted to government.
Nevertheless, Augustus did allow a ward of his who was mute and thus
not able to take part in public life to learn painting {JVH, XXXV. 21).
There is considerable evidence that the painter's skill was especially
appreciated in the- Greek East; we have, for instance, the writings of
the Philostrati in the third century, who match their own verbal skills
to the vivid colours and the expressiveness of the painted image. 7
The Roman Empire does not represent one single episode in art
 9

12 INTRODUCTION

history but at least three. This handbook is therefore introduced by a

chapter on early Rome, one of many city states in Italy influenced
as
directly and indirectly (via Etruria) by Greece. The following chap-
ters treat later Republican and Roman Imperial art thematically by
medium. However, significant changes in art and society from the
second century AD onwards lead to that strange period. Late Anti-
1

quity, a vestibule to the vast 'double basilica of Byzantium and the

Middle Ages, which has been assigned a chapter to itself.
Books on Greece usually (and quite properly) single out the filth
century BC as a climax. Brilliant as were the achievements of the
Archaic age and of the Hellenistic world, neither has the sublimity of
the decades after the Greeks had broken the offensive power of Persia,
and despite the terrible and wasteful war between Athens and Sparta,
the buildings and sculpture of Periclean Athens testify to the splendour
of the classical achievement. In the Roman world, the quickening
change in art and the development of literature during the late
Republic took place against the background of a scries of political
crises even more menacing than those of the Peloponnesian War.
Unlike Pericles, Augustus was no democrat. He saved the Roman state
by creating a monarchy in all but name on the Hellenistic model. But
although in politics libertas vanished, artistic freedom remained, sup-
ported by increased patronage and the experience of artists from tin-
conquered kingdoms of the Hellenistic world. A reign that saw the
creation of the Ara Pads, the Maison Carree, the Gemma Augustea
and the frescos of Livia's Prima Porta villa on the one hand and the
floruit of such great poets as Vergil, Horace and Ovid on the other
must rank as one of the most glorious episodes in the cultural histor) of
man. 8 Like Louis XI Y. Augustus ma\ have been less than admirable
as a pei son often indeed he deserves condemnation as a capricious
and cruel despol .but moral failings have nothing to do either with art
or with a handbook of ait. Of course, much happened after the
Augustan age and the great scholar Jocelyn Toynbee has especially
singled out the reign of Hadrian; bin b\ then, in the opinion of the
editor of this work, the classical moment of Roman culture had
passed.
It is with great respect that we dedicate these studies to the memory
of the author of the Handbook oj Greek Art, Gisela M. A. Richter. Her
interest in Roman artwas considerable, as some of her monographs
for example hose on furniture and gems testify. She was perhaps less
i

inclined to credit the artists of the Roman period with thai originality
of spirit which, after long reflection, believe to be theirs. Her
I

memoirs reveal a writer deepl) immersed in the beauties of ancient

art and anxious to share her erudition with others."' It is with this in
mind that I have approached a number of scholars, each of them
fully conversant with recent work in his or her special field ofstud) to .

write this companion volume.

MAR I 1\ III VIG

Institute of Archaeology, Oxford

_'j Novembt 1081 i
CHAPTER ONE

Early Roman Art

TOM RASMUSSEN

EARLY ROME, GREEKS AND ETRUSCANS

According to tradition Rome was founded in 753 BC. Her beginnings
were modest: for some generations Rome was one of the many villages
of Latium, whose Latin-speaking communities were a branch of the
numerous and widely spread Italic tribes. During this period the first
civilizations of I tab were created by the Greeks around the southern
coasts and by the Etruscans to the north, and it was their proximity to
Rome that was the determining factor in her earl) cultural develop-
ment.
Greek colonies were established in South I tab and Sicily (Magna
GraeciaJ from the eighth century BC. The artistic achievements of the
Greeks in this region were on a level with those of Aegean Greece, but
1

the size of the cities and their opulence were often greater. Here there
are many impressive remains of limestone temples of the archaic-
period and later, for example at Paestum and Agrigentum; and there
were important schools of sculpture, too, at such centres as Tarentum
and Selinus. The relevance of Magna Graecia and of Greece itself to
the early art of Rome is twofold. Firstly, there is a very strong Hellenic
influence in the arts of the Etruscans with whom the Romans had long
and close contact during the earl) centuries. Thus their first experience
of Greek culture was mainh indirect, channelled through Etruscan
art; though recent excavations in Rome have yielded evidence of some
direct commerce with Magna Graecia already from the eighth cen-
tury. Secondly, Rome came into conflict with the Greeks during the
2

military conquests of the last centuries BC, and the first-hand contact
with Greek art which then resulted made an almost overwhelming
impact on Roman taste.

The Etruscans were ethnically and linguisticall) distinct both from

the Greeks and from the Italic peoples. Their origins are obscure, but
at the end of the eighth century BC the) began to grow wealthy from
exploiting on a huge scale the mineral deposits in their territory, which
the) traded with the Greeks and others. Under heavy Greek influence
the arts suddeuh began to flourish in Etruria. The Etruscans were not
great artistic innovators, their craftsmen required constant external
stimuli to set them in motion, stimuli which Greek art provided
(especially in the form of painted pottery); but the) had a livel) sense

of colour and of decorative effect. It is also clear that there were Greek
artists actuall) settled in Etruria. working new and rich patrons
for

and training local apprentices. The phenomenon of Greek artists

*4 EARLY ROMAN ART

working abroad is known also in other non-Greek regions at this time,

particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, but nowhere else did the
ensuing blend of Greek and native ideas produce such brilliant and
long-lasting results. Etruscan art follows Greek styles so closely that it
too can be divided, broadly speaking, into archaic, classical and
Hellenistic phases; and its highpoint is the archaic period from tfcc
seventh to the first half of the fifth century BC. Earh in this period the
Etruscans were the first people of Gentral Italy to adopt Hellenic
standards of civilization, the first to build cities with all their trappings

of urban life, the first to produce a monumental funerary architecture;

they were also the first to adopt a system of writing — the Greek
alphabet, which they later passed on to the Romans. The civilizing
influence of the Etruscans was certainly one of the most important
contributions to the early development of Central Italy, and of
Latium and Rome in particular.
The early history and archaeology of Rome itself are not easy to
unravel. Most of the details will never be known, partly because the
of the city have been so
earliest levels much disturbed by the constant
replanning of the city-centre in later periods, partly because of a
complete lack of contemporary written records. For early Roman art
the elder Pliny's chapters on art history in his Natural History are our
best literary source, while the historian Liv\ provides some incidental
information and a chronological framework.
Archaeological remains show that Rome began as a cluster of
villages set on the hills, the settlement on the Palatine hill being earliest
and dating well back into the eighth century. The valleys in between
(including what was later to become the Forum Romanum) were used
as burial grounds. Foundations and postholes of the huts belonging to
these villages have been excavated. But contemporary terracotta
models of huts, which were a favourite type of cinerary urn among the
Latin peoples, give the clearest idea of what these habitations looked
like (111. 2). The walls were of wattle-and-daub, the roofs of thatch
supported by sloping wooden rafters. This rustic existence continued
until, towards the end of the seventh century, Rome was drawn into
the Etruscan orbit and for a century or more was ruled b\ Etruscan
kings. All the various aspects of city life were now established in Rome
for the first time. The valley of the- Forum was properly drained and
became the civic centre, the first temples and monumental public
buildings were constructed, tiled houses took the place of thatched
huts, and Etruscan goods as well as much Greek pottery were im-
ported. The Tarquins, the Etruscan ruling family, were finally
expelled from the city in the late sixth century 3 bi Etruscan
culture continued to exert considerable influenc Rome for
long afterwards.
The most spectacular manifestations of the new sophisticated st\ le 2. Hut-urn with
of living were the temples now built in Rome in the Etruscan style. removable door. From
Monte Albano, south of
Unlike Greek temples stone was usually used only for the lower parts of
Rome. Terracotta.
the building; the superstructure was of wood and mud-brick. The
Height 33.5 cm. 9th or
exposed outer surfaces of the wooden beams were protected with 8th century BC. London.
terracotta sheathing often decorated with lively figured friezes in British Museum.
EARLY ROMAN ART 15

3. Detail of the facade of the

Capitoline Temple, Rome.
Reconstruction by Gjerstad and
Blome, who estimated the height of
the columns at 16.58 m., which is
probably excessive. Dedicated
509 BC.

painted relief (111. 3). The columns showed influence from both Greek
Doric and Ionic columns, without being slavish imitations of either.
The temple stood on a substantial base or podium and the archi-
tectural emphasis was very much on the front of the building for the
colonnade did not run round the back. This Etrusco-Italic style of
temple remained popular throughout the period of the Republic (cf.
111. 4), and a late version of it is described in some detail by Vitruvius

(De Architectura, IV. vii. 1-5). Indeed, some of its features, such as the
tall podium and the emphasis on the frontal elevation, were retained

in Roman temple architecture to the end of the Empire.

The grandest of these temples at Rome was erected on the
Capitoline hill in the later sixth century and finally dedicated to
Jupiter, Juno and Minerva in 509 BC, the first year of the Roman
Republic. To bring it to completion craftsmen were summoned to
Rome from all over Etruria (Livy, 1. lvi. 1). There were three rows of
 EARLY ROMAN ART

4. The Capitolium at
Cosa. Reconstruction.
Width ot podium 23.24 m.
Mid— 2nd century BC.

six columns in the front, behind which were three chambers or cellae, of
which the central one was dedicated to Jupiter. 5 In size this building-
ranks with some of the largest Greek temples: it was over 210 Roman
feet long and some 180 feet wide (Y.62.25 x 53.30 m). The great
width in proportion to the length is a characteristic of most Etruscan
temples. Little remains ofil toda) except for parts of the substructure,
and in the reconstruction drawing (111. 3) a number of details have
been taken from a different temple in the Forum Boarium (Cattle
Market), including one of the sets of terracotta frieze plaques showing
chariots in procession. The Capitoline Temple was rebuilt later several
times, and became the model for other capitolia throughout the Roman
world 111. 4).
Plinywrites V//.\\\\. 157, quoting Varro that the cult statue of
Jupiter for the Capitoline Temple was made of terracotta l>\ the
Etruscan sculptor Vulca \\ ho ame from Veii, an Etruscan cit> onl\
<

nine miles north of Rome. The actual dale of Vulca's activity is

disputed: he ma\ have made the statue long before the temple itself
was completed. Above the apex of the temple's gable there was a
terracotta sculpture of a quadriga four-horse chariol v\ Inch was also .1

product ofVeientine craftsmen Plutan h. Publicola, 3 As well as the

1 .

Jupiter, Pliny mentions a terracotta Hercules made b) Vulca at Rome,

and this dual reference provides one of the firsi records of statues of
gods made in Rome. Indeed, Varro (quoted In St Augustine, de
Civitate Dei, i\. 3 1 expressl) stated that the Romans did not make am
images of gods for the first 70 \ ears of the it\ 's existence. The making
1 <

of anthropomorphic sculptures of gods was a Greek tradition which

the Etruscans earl) adopted - along with main of the Cheek gods
EARLY ROMAN ART 17

5. Apollo from Veii. Terracotta. Height

181 cm. Late 6th century BC. Rome, Villa
Giulia.

themselves, which they assimilated into their own religion. It is prob-

able that, in turn, the assimilation by the Romans of not only the
Greek pantheon but also Greek mythology was a process learned
originally from the Etruscans. And so the three gods to whom the
Gapitoline Temple was dedicated had all Greek
the attributes of the
Zeus, Hera and Athena (and of the Etruscan Tinia, Uni and Menrva).
The use of terracotta for monumental sculpture was ver\ common
in Central Italy where there was little available stone suitable for
carving. Of great fame today are several terracotta statues of gods
which were unearthed at a sanctuary at Veii; 6 and these, being works
of high quality from Vulca's city and roughly contemporary with the
Capitoline Temple at Rome, surely give us some idea of the style of the
sculptural decoration of the latter. They were made to be set up along
the ridgepole of a temple, and are shown in swift motion as if engaged
in One of the best preserved is Apollo
an energetic ballet on the roof.
(111. an especially fine example of an Etruscan interpretation of
5),
the Greek archaic st\ le.
Like pottery, architectural terracottas are virtually indestructible
and are often among the best-preserved remains of Etrusco-Italic
temples. From archaic temples in Rome 7 there arc antefixes in the
form of female heads and heads ofsileni and gorgons. One beautiful
 EARLY ROMAN ART

8
female head is ofpure archaic East Greek style. The revetment friezes 6. She-wolf. Bronze.

are either figurative or else have floral or geometric designs. The Length 15 cm. First half
1

of 5th century BC (twins

former show various subjects: single horsemen, galloping horsemen, added between 1471 and
banqueting scenes. Most of them are also found elsewhere in Central 1509). Rome, Capitoline
Italy, though one frieze of a Minotaur in among a procession of Museum.
panthers (or leopards; below. 111. 157 is so far unique to Rome. The
friezes with chariots have identical counterparts at both Yeii and
Velletri (20 miles south east of Rome) and it is clear that identical
moulds were used, showingjust how close were the artistic links ai this
time between Etruria and Latium. Among the akroteria from Rome
c
»

are two three-quarters lifesize figures of high quality: the head and
upper body of a helmeted Minerva, and a headless Hercules.
The other favoured material for sculpture was bronze. Bronze-
casting was highh developed in the cities of South Etruria and bronze
was also used for early statues set up in Rome. The earliest surviving
large-scale hollow-cast bronze so far known from Central ltah is the
Capitoline Wolf (111. 6) which was made perhaps in the early fifth
century, but uncertainties surround both its precise original location
(though it is likely that it was somewhere in Rome and the artistic
background of its creator, whom some authorities have believed to be
Etruscan, others Greek. In this work of supreme skill there is a marked
contrast between the realism and close observation of the defiant
stance and the stylized treatment of the fur, which is left completely
smooth on the flanks but rendered in delicate symmetrical curls else-
where. Pliny mentions a number of bronze statues erected in honour of
famous citizens of early Rome, including one of Horatius ( locles who is
EARLY ROMAN AR I
19

7. Warrior from Capestrano. Limestone.

Height 223 cm. 6th century BG. Chieti,
National Museum.

said to have defended the bridge against Porsenna's forces after the
expulsion of the Etruscan kings (JV7/, XXXIV. 22); but there is no means
of knowing whether these were set up contemporaneously with the
men they honoured or were made at a later date.
In the early decades of the Republic the building of temples at
Rome continued apace, with temples to Saturn (dedicated in 496 bc),
Mercury (495), Ceres (493), and the Dioscuri (484). These no doubt
showed many of the features of the Capitoline Temple, but it is of
special interest that the temple to Ceres is recorded as being decorated
by two Greek artists who were painters and modellers in clay
(JVH, XXXV. 154). Whether they came from South Italy or from
Greece itself we are not told.
From this time on the Romans were long occupied with a series of
wars against neighbouring peoples, including the Aequi, Sabines and
Samnites. These inland regions were more remote from Greek and
Etruscan influence, as the Capestrano Warrior (111. 7) illustrates.
 EARLY ROMAN ART

This is a sixth-century limestone statue from a cemetry in Picene

territory which remarkable for its stiff frontal attitude and distinc-
is
10
tive headgear. Such native Italic sculptural traditions, which pro-
duced works that are far removed from Greek styles and proportions,
were never totally erased in the Italian peninsula. A later product of
this tradition is the figure of a mother-goddess from a sanctuary near
Capua (111. 8), where the forms are both simplified and greatly
exaggerated to give all possible emphasis to the aspect of fertility.
Indeed, the Italic element was to remain an important undercurrent
in Roman sculpture throughout the period of the Empire.
By the third century BC Rome had gained control of the whole of
Etruria, and it was then the turn of South Italy, Sicily and Greece itself
to give way before victorious Roman armies. This period witnessed a
8. Statue of a mother
great influx of Greek and Etruscan works of art into Rome. So we hear
or mother-goddess.
of statues of Etruscan gods being removed from Veii in 396; of 2,000 Limestone. Height 105
statues (no doubt of bronze) being taken to Rome from Etruscan cm. 3rd or 2nd century BC.
Volsinii in 264; of large-scale pillaging of Greek art after the sacking of Capua, Museo
Campano.
Syracuse in 211, Tarentum in 209 and Corinth in 146." By the mid-
first century BC the position was such that ambassadors visiting Rome

from Greece and Asia could view all the plundered images of their own
gods in the Forum and contemplate them with tears (Cicero. Verr., II i.
59). Not all Romans approved of this, and the elder Cato, for one,
believed that the importation of Greek marble sculptures had a cor-
rupting influence on his fellow citizens and caused them to scoff at
their own traditional religious figures of terracotta (Livy, XXIV. iv.
1-4). The passion for Greek art had begun. To satisfy it Greek artists
themselves came to Italy, and in the last centuries BC the situation
at Rome was not unlike that which had occurred long before in

arch, lie Etruria: that of numerous Greek artists working for wealth)
foreign patrons and passing on their skills to local craftsmen.

R( )MA\ ART: FIFTH TO SE( IOND < :|.\ TORIES BC

The development of Roman easy to follow during this

art is leasl
period, due ofmaterial evidence. The sequence is clearest in the
to lack
case of architecture, which is fortunate lor it is hen- that the Romans
showed most originality.
With tegular town-planning the) were not Inst in the held. The
Etruscans had employed a formal layoul for new foundations, .is at
Marzabotto. and the) no doubt learned it from die (decks of South
Itii In and Sicily w here such planning is found in die sixth century and

even earlier. But the Romans refined and regularized this basically
(deck sNsicm still further, especially w ith regard to the orderly disposi-
tion of temples and public buildings around the forum. The Inst
evidence of Roman planning is in the coloniae of the fourth and third
centuries BC, founded in key areas of newly conquered territory to
house veterans of the army. Cosa is typical, with its regular grid of
I2
streets laid out in 273.
More innovatory is the use of new architectural techniques and
materials. The true arch had in factbeen employed long before in
EARLY ROMAN ART 2 I

Greek city architecture and in Etruscan cit\ gates of Hellenistic date,

but only Roman architects realized its true potential. Arches in series
were found to provide the most economical and structurally sound
means of building aqueducts and bridges. Already by 140BC the Aqua
Marcia was carrying water to Rome on six miles of arches (Frontinus,
de Aqu., 7). The arches of the Pons Aemilius over the Tiber were
completed in 142, and in 109 the Pons Mulvius was rebuilt with arches
of stone. Similarly barrel-vaults are not unknown in later Greek
architecture, but are there virtually confined to subterranean cham-
bers and tombs. In Republican Italy they are exploited on a
later
larger scale, especially to form imposing platforms and substructures
both for large public buildings and for private residences. The truth is
that although the Greeks were aware of the structural principles of
arches and vaults, these principles had almost no part to play in the
design of the Greek temple with its prop-and-lintel system, and it was
the temple which was the dominant feature of Greek architecture. The
skill of Roman architects la) in their ability to make more consistent

use of these techniques, and in this they showed themselves less tied to
tradition and more open to new methods of construction. They may
also have got some inspiration from the Etruscans who were possessed
of a similar architectural mentality, as much concerned with
engineering and practical applications as with aesthetics. Just
as some of Rome's finest architectural successes were to include
aqueducts, harbour installations, market-halls and warehouses, so
from an early date Etruscan architects and engineers excelled in
grappling with problems of land-reclamation and drainage, water-
supply, sewer-construction and the cutting of roads through difficult
terrain. 1
i

A real advance in Roman construction occurred when the prin-

ciples of the arch and vault were combined with the use of new
building materials. In early Rome itself progressively finer building
stones were used, poor qualitx local tufas giving way to hard lime-
stones quarried some distance away. Rubble-and-mortar work was
also common, especially for foundations. Its use was revolutionized l>\
the discover) in the third century BC or earlier that a lime mortar-
containing volcanic sand, when poured over the rubble caementa .

produced a concrete that set with exceptional strength. One early

large-scale use of this material is in the Porticus Aemilia (193 bc,
restored 174 bc; 111. 9), a huge warehouse complex nearly 500 metres
long built near the Tiber, consisting of vaulted chambers constructed
of concrete and faced with irregular facing stones {opus incertum). The
same technique was used later for the great vaulted substructures of
the sanctuaries at Palestrina and Terracina. The quality of
Republican concrete was relatively poor compared to that of the later
Empire: both the concrete mixture and the nature ol the facing were to
undergo significant developments over the centuries.
Two of the most characteristic of Roman buildings - the basilica
and the public bath -achieve their most monumental form in the later
Empire, but both have their origins in the Republican period.^ The
basilica,' an aisled hall often with an apse at one or both ends, was a
'
 '

KARLY ROMAN ART

9. Porticus Aemilia,
Rome. Partial
reconstruction. Original
length 487 m. First built
193 BC, restored 74 BC.
1

necessary adjunct of most Roman fora. Three examples at Rome were

built in the half of the second century BC, and the one at Pompeii
first

goes back to later in the same century. Also at Pompeii the Stabian
baths in their second century BC form show a complex unit of hot and
cold rooms with an exercise area enclosed by porticoes. The Roman
hypocaust heating-system, where hot air circulates beneath a floor
raised on pillars of bricks, was almost certainly an invention of Hellen-
istic Greece, despite what Pliny (JVH, IX. 168) says to the contrary.

Also of Greek origin, of course, were the Doric, Ionic and

Corinthian orders, which Roman architects began to adopt whole-
heartedly, especially for temples. That they soon made themselves
expert in this area is suggested by Vitruvius' admiration for the
Roman Cossutius, who was employed in Greece in the first half of the
second century to work on the completion of the Athenian Temple of
Olympian Zeus, where perhaps for the first time in classical archi-
tecture Corinthian was used as an exterior order on a major building. 5
At this time, too, begins the importation of Greek marble to be used for
columns and for facing walls of inferior materials.
Most information about Republican domestic architecture comes
from Pompeii and Herculaneum. The earliest type of house here is of
modest size with rooms grouped around a central hall or allium. The
origin of the atrium, which is a basic feature of early Roman houses, is
ascribed by Varro (Lingua Latina, v. 161) to the Etruscans. It is difficult
to match with known remains of Etruscan houses, but some
this
Etruscan rock-cut tombs, made to resemble houses, do occasionally
contain halls that are not dissimilar. In the second century BC the
houses of Pompeii had their interior walls painted and stuccoed in
simple horizontal patterns to look as if they were faced with expensive
marbles. This style of Pompeian wall-decoration (Style I) was a
 I.ARI.Y ROMAN ART 23

development of Aegean Greece,' 6 and from this area, too, the idea of
colonnaded courtyards and gardens was brought to Pompeii where
Greek-style columns were also employed to embellish the atria.
By the first century BC Roman architects had become acquainted
with Greek design and had also developed new materials and techni-
ques. It would be wrong, however, to think that these advances had
spread evenly over all of Roman Italy. Late Republican Cosa, for
example, showed a remarkable conservatism in techniques of
construction, and all its temples were of the old Etrusco-Italic type
with terracotta decorations. But elsewhere important steps had been
taken which would lead on to the architectural achievements of the
E&ipire.

Turning to sculpture, it is clear from Pliny's Bookxxxiv that in early

10. 'Brutus' (Lucius Republican Rome bronze was the most important medium for
Junius Brutus, legendary
statuary, that the Romans (like the Etruscans) preferred their statues
founder of the Roman
draped, and that like the Greeks they chose up statues of public
to set
Republic). Bronze.
Height 32 cm. Probably figures - consuls, magistrates and generals. A
famous head in the
1

3rd century BC. Rome, Capitoline, the so-called 'Brutus (111. 10) is possibly from such a
Capitoline Museum. figure. The casting of this stoical-looking individual may have been
carried out in the third century bc, although it could have been as late
as the early first century BC when there was a vogue for creating lively
imaginary 'portraits' of early Roman celebrities. A similar uncertainty
of chronology surrounds the statue of Aules Metelis (Aulus Metellus),
called the 'Orator', in Florence (111. 11), a life-size bronze from
11. Statue of Aulus
Metellus (the inscription
Romanized North Etruria whose pose - that of a leader addressing the
naming him is in crowd - is one that is popular in later periods, especially for figures of
Etruscan). Bronze. Roman emperors. The dress worn here is the toga, a garment with a
Height 170 cm. curved hem that can be traced back in Etruscan art to the archaic
2nd century BC. period (cf. 111. 5). According to Pliny (NH, xxxiv. 27), some comme-
Florence, Archaeological
Museum. morative statues at Rome were placed on top of columns as a mark of
special honour. A coin struck in the later second century BC shows just
such a figure: the man honoured was a magistrate in 439. '7
The origins of Roman portraiture are not clear. Of particular
interest are two passages in Pliny and Polybius (below, p. 82) which
describe the carrying of portrait heads or masks in funeral processions
at Rome, though it is clear that some of these must have been ima-
ginary portraits of remote ancestors. This custom was an old one, for
Polybius is writing in the second century BC and implies that the
tradition reaches back further. But one must not forget that there was a
Hellenistic Greek tradition of portrait sculpture of considerable power
and realism, especially in the representation of Hellenistic monarchs.
There may also be a connection with Etruscan sculpture, much of
which consists of representations of the deceased for the tomb, from
8
the early heads of the so-called canopic urns of Chiusi' to the full-
length figures reclining on the Hellenistic ash-urns (111. 12). Many
of these are strikingly un-idealized and unclassical in style, though
very few can be portraits in the true sense. Nevertheless, these Etruscan
sculptural traditions may go some way towards explaining the em-
phasis on the head in Roman portraits (often to the exclusion of the
24 EARLY ROMAN ART

body), and the growing demand at Rome for portraits of private

citizens (whereas in Greece portraits were mainh of public figures .

Most of the sculptors working at Rome from the second centur) B( 1

onwards were Greek, as is clear from the literary sources.^As well'as

bronze, terracotta continued to be an important medium. A terracotta
head from Rome, now in Oxford,' 9 seems to be of fine Greek work-
manship of the later fourth century, and can be compared in st\ le with
Athenian grave reliefs. Greek artists may also have been responsible
20
for the terracotta pediment figures from San Grcgorio in Rome,
which are later by a couple of centuries and the subject represented - a
sacrifice in the presence of Roman deities - is Roman.
For Etruscan ash-urns provide the
relief sculpture the Hellenistic
largest body of early Italian material. Most of the scenes on these show
12. Ash-urn from
episodes from Greek mytholog) (cf. 111. 12); none are historical in the
Chiusi with relief
sense of relating to contemporar\ events, though a few do illustrate the showing the death of
exploits of earl) Etruscan heroes.- The earliest surviving Roman
1

Eteocles and Polyneices.

historical relief is from the monument of Aemilius Paullus set up at Alabaster. Length 85 cm.
Delphi to commemorate his victor) over the Macedonians in [68BC. 22 3rd or 2nd century BC.
London, British
It is no surprise that in st\ le and composition this battle-scene is pure
Museum.
Greek, but for the histor) of Roman art ii is import. ml as standing ai
the head of a ver\ long line of Roman reliefs dial deal with specific
lush .] 11 al occasions.

One of the \er\ lew extant fragments of earl) Roman figurative

painting also portrays historical scenes (Plate from a tomb and 1). It is

is arranged in several horizontal registers showing sequences of

fighting and of generals negotiating. The figures are labelled and
it is clear that actual events are here being unfolded, no doubt from

one of the wars fought between the Romans and their Italic
neighbours in the fourth or third century BC. Here, too, there is

an Etruscan parallel in the painting from the Francois Tomb at Vulci

which shows named Etruscan warriors fighting in episodes from
Rome's regal period, and includes a depiction of Macstrna (Mastarna,
who according to one tradition was identified with the Roman king
Servius Tullius) and the slaying of one Cneve Tarchunies Rumach
(Gnaeus Tarquinius of Rome ' .

The Etruscan tomb-paintings begin in the sixth centur) and con-

tinue until Etruscan culture is finally extinguished in the first centur)
bc. There growing bod) of Italic tomb-painting, of less
is also a
J|
sophisticated style, from Lucania and other pans of South Ital\.
Whether there was an) awareness at Rome of these traditions is not
known, though Plin) NH, XXXV. 1!! once makes a tantalizing refer-
ence to Aer\ old paintings at Caere' in Etruria. He also mentions
WW. i<) two men of Roman birth who painted at Rome: f'abius
Pictor w ho decorated the Temple of Salus in 304 BC, and the dramatist
Pacuvius who painted in the Temple of Hercules in the second half of
the second centur) but the) were certainl) far outnumbered b)
i;c .

immigrant (J reek pa in lets, some of whom no doubt executed the 'war-

paintings' about which we hear from the third centun BC onwards
\H. XNNY. 22-3). These were- commissioned b\ Roman generals to
 EARLY ROMAN ART -'.->

13. The Ficoroni cista.

From Palestrina. The

engraved scene shows
King Amykos being
bound to a tree by
Polydeukes (Pollux). On
the lid: Dionysos with
two satyrs. Bronze.
Height 77 cm. 2nd half
of 4th century BO. Rome,
Villa Giulia.

illustrate their successful campaigns abroad and were put on public

display - indeed it ma\ be this tradition which lies behind the long
Roman involvement with historical narrative. But the greatest in-
fluence on the development of painting at Rome was exerted l>\ the
large numbers of Old Masters brought in from Greece itself, paintings
which were bought for enormous sums by wealthy collectors. It is
likeh that an adaptation of such a painting is to be seen on the
engraved Ficoroni cista showing exploits of the Argonauts (111. 13),
found at Palestrina (Praeneste) but made in Rome by Novios Plautios
according to the inscription on it. 25 Later, man) Pompeian paintings
oiler paler reflections of losl Greek works.
B\ the end of the second centun BC Rome was the most powerful
state in the Mediterranean. The cities of Greece and Asia had long
been in political decline and had gradually ceased to be the great
centres of artistic patronage that they once were; a process which was
quickened when Pergamum passed into Roman hands in 133. The
centre of patronage was now beginning to be Rome itself: Roman
ideas and Roman taste were to mould the future development of art in
the Mediterranean world.
CHAPTER TWO

Architecture
THOMAS BLAGG

Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus pyramidas videlicet

otiosas compares aut cetera inertia sed fama celebrata opera
Graecorum.
With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so main
waters, compare, if you will, the idle pyramids or the useless, though
famous, works of the Greeks!
Julius Frontinus, Dc Aquis Urbis Romae, I. 16
(trans. C. E. Bennett, Loeb Classical Library)

The aqueducts which served Rome and other cities of the Empire may
indeed be counted among the most impressive surviving monuments of
Roman architecture. That is not to say that any one of them could

seriously be proposed as itscrowning achievement; but there was onl)

one Pantheon, for example, and there were many aqueducts. As rather
more may serve as an
typical than exceptional, then, these structures
initial illustration of some of the more important characteristics of
Roman architecture which distinguish it from the architecture of
earlier civilizations which the Romans knew .

In the first place, the) represent technical evolution: the master) of

new construction techniques and new uses of building materials, of
which the combination of the arch and the vault in a structure of
brick- or stone-faced concrete is die most important. Secondly, the)
illustrate the architectural responses to Rome's social and economic
evolution; the demands were met b) new types of building, among
which may be counted the basilican hall, the baths, the amphitheatre,
monumental arches, granaries, apartment blocks and grand countr)
houses. Thirdly, they were the product of an administrative structure
of empire, which made possible the transmission of ideas, the financing
of large-scale building programmes, the organization of craftsmen
and the supply of materials over a wider area and with more
permanent overall results than had been achieved by any previous
civilization (Frontispiece .

Frontinus was writing, not as an architectural historian, but as one

whose distinguished career of public service had included a term as
governor in Britain and, later, in AD 97, appointment as curator of
Rome's water supply. Not all his contemporaries would have sym-
pathized with his adverse comparisons with stun tures which, what-
ever their social function, could not be described as utilitarian. In the
pyramidal tomb of C. Cestius outside the Porta Ostiense, or in such a
'useless' monument as the recently completed Arch of Titus, he might
have found examples rather closer to Rome.
 ARCH I I F.CTURE 27

Imperial Rome (showing

and
buildings
monuments mentioned in
the text: see also plan,

P- 33)-

The elder Pliny, however, who had died some twenty years before
Frontinus was writing, has far more to tell us about contemporary
attitudes to art and architecture. For him, 'the most beautiful build-
ings that the world has ever seen' were the Basilica Aemilia, the Forum
of Augustus and the Temple of Peace in Rome. What he chiefly
admired was their magnificence (JVH, XXXVI. 102). Nearly three
centuries later, the Forum of Trajan made an equally favourable
impression on the Emperor Constantius II when he first visited Rome
in AD 356 (see Chapter 12, p. 242). Despite the majesty of their
planning and the lavishness of their marble decoration, none of these
buildings was in any sense revolutionary. The extent of the con-
servatism and respect for tradition which they reflect is as important a
factor in our understanding of the nature of Roman architecture as the
innovations in technique, design and scale which were mentioned
above. The most typical feature is the retention and elaboration of the
Greek Orders of architecture, predominantly the Corinthian, in the
external treatment of buildings, many of which were actually con-
structed on totally different principles from the column and lintel with
which the Orders were originally associated. As is shown by Vitruvius'
extended discussion of temples and of the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian
Orders (De Arch., ill and iv), this traditionalism, academic as it might
be, was strongly implanted at the beginning of Rome's great period of
architectural achievement, and remained so until Late Antiquity.
28 ARCHITECTURE

Vitruvius was writing in the early years of the principate of Au-

gustus, in many ways the most critical and formative stage in the
development of the architecture of the Romans, as for much else in
their Empire. As has already been implied, that is not so much because
the period was one of outstanding innovation in design, as because it
saw an enormous increase in building activity. Most spectacularh (his ,

took place in the city of Rome itself, as Augustus in his Res Gestae was
proud to acknowledge; but its extent in the western provinces was to
1

effect an equal transformation.

The results of this great expansion in building were manifold. In the
first place, it gave a much greater significance to the developments in

constructional practice which had been pioneered in Italy during the

last two centuries of the Republic. Secondly, although marble had
alreadx been used occasionally in Rome, in such buildings as the
Round Temple in the Forum Boarium in the first half of the first
centun BC, 2 it was under Augustus that its use became so widespread
as to set a whole new standard of magnificence in public building. This
was directly connected with a third effect of the scale of Augustan
building; for since Italy could not provide the number of skilled
marble masons required, the need had to be supplied from the East-
Mediterranean. To those Greek craftsmen is due the establishment at
this time of the particular form of Roman architectural ornament

which was to be maintained with remarkably little fundamental

change until the fourth centur) Fourthly the intensified exploitation
. .

of the Carrara marble quarries and ofsources of coloured marble from

other parts of the Empire stimulated a new trade, which significantly
altered the extent to which, both in Rome and elsewhere, architects of
major buildings were restricted 1>\ having to use materials which were
locally available. Finally, a pattern of imperial patronage was es-
tablished. This did no1 entirely m immediatel) supersede the long
which was its basis; but it was to
tradition of aristocratic munificence
dominate the architecture of the eit\ of Rome until the death of
Constantine, and would influence profoundl) the development of
provincial architecture, particularly in the West.
Augustan Rome was thus pregnant of numerous architectural off-
spring, and main ol them were of complex anc estr\ and had long been
in gestation. Foremost among them were the late Republican and
earl) Imperial developments in construction and design, and these
ma\ now be considered in more detail.

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN

Other chapters in this hook emphasize the enormous Hellenistic in-
fluence on Roman ail which followed the conquest of mainland
Greece and a large pan of Asia Minor during the second centur) BC.
Architecture, however, was better placed than were some branches of
Roman art to respond to that cultural impact in a manner which was
creative rather than derivative and eclectic. In part, that was the result
of long-established traditions of craftsmanship, and of sound know-
ledge of local building materials and what could be done with them.
14- Tepidarium of the Influences from the Greek-speaking world had also been reaching
Stabian Baths, Pompeii Roman architecture in a less dramatic way, and from closer at hand,
2nd century BC.
than the cargoes of looted sculpture and silverware which arrived at
Rome from the conquered East. It has become increasingly clear that
Campania, closer than Rome to the long-established Greek colonies in
Southern Italy and Sicily, was an area of remarkable architectural
fertility in the time of the late Republic. The Forum basilica at

Pompeii was constructed at about the same time as the earliest such
buildings at Rome, the Basilicas Porcia, Aemilia and Sempronia, built
between 84 and 69 BC. Pompeii's amphitheatre belongs to the period
1 1

of the foundation of the Sullan colony, and its theatre was converted to
Roman form at die same time, some twenty years before Pompey built
the first permanent theatre in Rome in 55 BC. It seems highly likely that
the Roman bath building was first developed in the cities of Campania
(111. 14); and it was Puteoli which gave its name to pubis
puteolanus [pozzolana) the volcanic sand deposits of the area, which
,

were so vital an ingredient in the development of Roman concrete.

The Romans did not invent lime mortar, nor did they invent the
arch or the barrel vault. The last two had long been features of the
mud-brick architecture of Mesopotamia by the fourth century BC,
when they began to be used occasionally in stone buildings in Ionian
and mainland Greece. It was presumably through the Greeks that the
knowledge of lime mortar first reached Italy. The Romans' achieve-
ment, and their outstanding contribution to architectural history, was
that they realized the potential which lay in the combination of those
three elements.
The most important factor in this combination was the gradual
discovery of how to
make a mortared rubble which was strong enough
30 ARCHITECTURE

not merely to serve as an inert filling material between the facing

stones of a wall or vault, but to stand up on its own and to carry great
weight: though in practice, a Roman concrete wall was normally faced
with stone or brick. The Romans called a construction of this material
opus caementicium, from the aggregate of stones (caementa) which were
laid in the lime mortar. It will here be called simply 'concrete', but it
should be understond that this Roman concrete was laid and not
poured, and in that sense is not identical with the modern building
material. 3
The earliest datable use of it is in the superstructure of the walls of
Cosa, the lower courses of which are of polygonal masonry. The walls
were foundation of the colony in 273 BC. Its first
built shortly after the
use in Rome itself, and seems to be in the large
as a vaulting material,
warehouse by the Tiber which, if correctly identified as the Porticus
Aemilia, is that which was rebuilt in 74 bc. It consisted of three pairs
4 1

of barrel vaults on descending levels, carried on walls faced with

irregular rubble (opus incertum) and pierced laterally by arches.
During the second century, if not earlier, it was realized that
concrete made from pozzolana had the particular property that it
would set hard under water, and would also be much stronger than one
made from sea or river sand. This appreciation could only have been
made after much trial and error, and in fad not ever) type of pit sand
(harenafossicia, as Vitruvius calls it) had the high silica content to give
the chemical reaction which empirical observation had discovered.
The earl) stages in the development of concrete construction are
still obscure in many of their details. B) the beginning of the first

century BC. however, we have in Latium a number of buildings in

which it is used with remarkable assurance on a large and imaginative
scale. The\' are religious sanctuaries, constructed on enormous vaulted
platforms built out from a hillside, characteristic examples of the
Roman appreciation of how the natural landscape and the architect's
creation might complement one another.
The Sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Palestrina, the ancient
Praeneste, one of the most impressive surviving instances of this
is

talent (111. of two main groups of buildings. At the fool

15). It consists
of the hill, a temple with a triple cella stood in front of a long narrow
basilican hall with a columnar facade of two storeys, Corinthian
above, Doric below. A rectangular building projected from each end,
that on the right containing an elaborate Nilotic mosaic (p. 117 and n.
6), and niches for statuary. The upper part started with two
terraces revetted in pol) gonal masonr) from the second ofwhich two
.

ramps, beginning at each end of the terrace, ascended to meet at the

foot of a central staircase, at the level oi the lowest of the porticoes
which decorated the upper terraces. The triangle formed b) the ramps
led the eye up to the very centre of the structure, and to the theatre-like
exedra which surmounted the portico at the top. The curvature of the
exedra was repeated on a smaller scale in the two hemicycles of the
poctico above the ramps. The curved barrel vaults of the hemi-
cycles, supported on Ionic columns at the front and on walls of opus
incertum at the back, show a surprising, though well-placed, confidence
 ARCHITKCTt'RK 3'

15. Axonometric
reconstruction of the
Sanctuary of Fortuna
Primigenia, Palestrina
(Praeneste).

in their capacity to bear the weight of the structure above. In the

upper between engaged Doric columns provided
terraces, arches set
visual contrast with the rhythm of the porticoes. Even for the latest of
the dates which have been suggested for it, which range from the mid-
second century to the early 70s BC, the Sanctuary is an outstanding
achievement, both in its size and in the complexity of its design. The
vaulted platforms and porticoes of the temples of Jupiter Anxur at
Terracina and of Hercules Victor at Tivoli show, on a smaller if still
impressive scale, how thoroughly these new ideas and new skills were
becoming assimilated in building practice by the middle of the first
century BC, and to what effect they might be exploited. 5
In Rome itself, the full impact of what has been described as the
Roman architectural revolution was not to be felt until after the death
of Nero. The one notable forerunner of later developments there is the
Tabularium, the State Archive dedicated in 78 BC. It was built to fill
the gap between the Arx and the Capitolium, the two summits of the
Capitoline forming a new and monumental background to the
hill,

Forum Romanum (111. 16). The facing of the concrete superstructure

is a gaunt ashlar wall built from the grey-green tufa of Gabii. It is

32 ARCHITECTURE

relieved only by six narrow rectangular windows, which light a long

vaulted corridor from which a staircase leads up to the arcaded
gallery. This is a series of cross-vaulted chambers, each corresponding
with one of the arched openings. The arches, of which all but three are
now blocked, have half-columns attached to their supporting piers,
with Doric capitals and an entablature of white travertine limestone.
The upper gallery no longer survives; the three storeys of
Michelangelo's Palazzo dei Senatori stand in its place.
Travertine limestone, from the hills round Tivoli, came into use in
Rome during the last years of the Republic. It was better suited to
carving with crisp detail than were most of the local volcanic tufas,
and its greater load-bearing capacity was also appreciated. It is an
interesting comment on the relative lack of confidence in concrete at
this stage that for the Temple of Castor in Rome, rebuilt between 7 BC
and ad 6, piers of travertine were embedded in the concrete podium to
bear the thrust of the columns. 6 It was still a time of experiment; and
the advantage of concrete was probably not that it was self-evidently
superior, but that it was cheaper.
Augustus' great building programme in the city of Rome had as its
starting-point the fulfilment of projects begun or planned by Caesai\
Wholesale redevelopment of the Forum area involved the rebuilding
and renaming of the Basilica Sempronia as the Basilica Julia; the
restoration of the Basilica Aemilia; and the construction behind the
Senate House of what was to be the first of a whole complex of imperial
fora, the Forum Julium (111. 17). Augustus added his own forum,
surrounding the Temple ol Mars Ultor (the Avenger) which comme-
morated his victory over Brutus. The Forum Augustum was a great
dynastic sculpture galler) of the heroes of Roman history and the
ancestors of the Julii. Caesar's intended expansion of the city on the
Campus Martins was brought to fruition under the charge of Au-
gustus' friend Agrippa, and included the predecessor of today's
Pantheon and the Baths of Agrippa, the first public baths in Rome./
Fora, basilicas and temples were all buildings of a well-established

p
K9J

rWnl '-Hli ?l
t
4^C—WB M Wi
»a
- l
IS.
Jay W.J&JM&&&M
: 16. Rome: view across
, ^;sff the Forum to the
Capitoline hill; in the
foreground, the Temple
: of Castor.

^e3 ^|^j
**A
«j£<
 ARCHITECTURE. 33

17. Rome: plan of the

Imperial Fora.

type. Radical innovation in their design was scarcely to be expected at

a time when Augustus was claiming to have restored the Republic and
was trying to re-establishRome's traditional religious virtues. Archi-
tecture reflected the contemporary ideology in combining conserva-
tism with new splendour. The innovation of concrete construction
found its place in baths, theatres and amphitheatres, for which there
were fewer hallowed precedents, and even then, the new techniques
were made acceptable by being dressed in familiar and conventional
clothing. Evidently, the outside of a Roman building should still

appear to be supported by columns, whether it was so or not. Engaged

columns had already been used for purely decorative effect on the
Sanctuaries at Praenestc and Terracina and on the Tabularium.
Whereas the exteriors of such early buildings of their type as the
amphitheatre at Pompeii and the mid-first century gate, the Porta dei
Leoni, at Verona had plain arched openings with, at most, a simple
34 ARCHITECTURE

stringcourse, later examples were elaborately decorated to harmonize

with the traditional appearance of temples and basilicas (111. 18).
As we see from such buildings as the Porta dei Borsari at Verona, the
gate of Hadrian at Athens and the amphitheatre at El Djem (Ills. 19,
40 and 21), this decorative treatment is so commonplace a feature of
imperial architecture that it now seems almost inevitable. Those who

are not impressed by the unadorned drabness of concrete office blocks

may think that this was no bad thing. If, on the other hand, it is argued
that the external appearance of a building should be a logical reflec-
tion of its construction, then the Roman convention, which was still
only at a formative stage at the time when the Tabularium and the
great sanctuaries of Latium were built, must be seen as standing in the
wa\ of any serious attempt by Roman architects to come to terms with
the latent possibilities of their material, and with the inherent
problems which were awaiting solution. In a sense, perhaps, the)
solved the problems by not recognizing that they existed.
Where, however, they did succeed in breaking new ground was in
It was not in public architecture, but
the architecture of interior space.
in the more private domain of the imperial palaces, that there was
freedom to explore the new possibilities. In both of Nero's palates in
Rome, the Domus Transitoria, which wasdestroyed in the great fire of
ad 64, and the famous Domus Aurea (the Golden House), which
followed it, we may note the growing fascination with the
interplay of curves on vaults, domes, arches and walls and with the
8
contrasting spaces which they enclosed or defined. The luxurious
Golden House was built on the slopes of the Oppian hill, overlooking a
huge landscaped park around an artificial lake, which within fifteen
years was to be the site of the Colosseum. Severus and Celer. the
architects Tacitus. Annals, XV. 42), created in the heart of the city a
particularly splendid version of the aristocratic suburban and seaside
villas which, with their elegant facades and spacious surroundings, are
such a familiar feature of the wall paintings of Pompeii and
Herculancum. Nero's reaction was to say, 'Now I can begin to live like
a human being' (Suetonius, Nero, xxxi).
Part of the residential wing survives, having been incorporated in

the substructure of the Baths of Trajan, and the walls and roof of the
domed octagonal hall which occupied the centre of the east wing are
still intact. The room was lit from the top h\ large oculus, and since
.1

the dome was free-standing within the building, light slanted down
above it into the higher rectangular chambers which radiated from
five sides of the octagon.
By time brick had largel) replaced stone as a facing material lot
this
concrete, and brick-faced concrete also formed the structure of the
great new house which the Emperor Domitian's architect Rabirius
built for him on the Palatine hill Mai tial. Epigrams, VII. 56). The site
gave the building its informal name, the Palatium, the original 'palace'.
The irregular topography of the hillside was extended In constructing
great vaulted platforms; that on the west side was built out to overlook
the Forum, to carry the State apartments arranged round a peristyle
courtyard; the private apartments on the cast side had a south facade
 ARCHITECTURE 35

if

Relief from the

Tomb of the Haterii,
Rome, showing
monumental arches, an
amphitheatre (centre
left) and a temple

(right). AD 100-10. Rome

Lateran Museum.

19. Porta dei Borsari,

Verona. Later
1st century AD.

20. Arch of Trajan,

Benevento. AD 114.

21. Amphitheatre, El
Djem (Thysdrus). Date
uncertain (late 2nd to
mid-3rd century AD?
36 ARCHITECTURE

overlooking the Circus Maximus. Impressive as its remains still are,

imagination is necessary to replace the marble veneer upon the brick-
work and the vaults and ceilings above the walls, and so fo recreate
the shining and many-coloured surfaces, the lofty spaces, the intri-
guing vistas, the contrasting shapes of solid structure and contained
space, which provided the setting for empire so long as there were
emperors in Rome.
The interior of the great Audience Hall had a shallow central apse
for the Imperial throne, opposite the main entrance in the middle of
the Forum facade. The rest of the walls was divided into alternating
curved and rectangular bays, with fluted columns of Phrygian marble
projecting between them. Set inside the bays were the doorways, and
decorative aediculae for statuary. The whole effect was to enliven the
surface of the great mass of the walls with reflected light and shadow,
in much the same way as the illusions of recesses and projections in the
wall paintings of the Pompeian Style II. The hall is over thirty metres
wide, and the roof structure was probably of timber; it is thought
unlikely that the walls, solidly built as they were, could have supported
the enormous weight of a barrel vault of that width. 9 The triclinium on
the opposite side of the peristyle was almost as wide, and its un-
buttressed walls could only have carried a timber roof. Here, by
contrast, Rabirius converted another illusion of earlier wall paintings
into reality, by opening up the walls to views of what was outside.
Indeed, on the side facing the peristyle, there was no wall as such, but a
screen of six columns of Egyptian granite; the walls to right and left
were pierced by doorways and windows through which could be seen
oval niched fountains clad in marble, and beyond them the curved
colonnades of the courtyards which surrounded them.
The interest of the Flavian palace lies essentially in its interiors; its
site, constricted both b\ the topography of the Palatine and by existing

buildings, gave the architect little room for manoeuvre in creating

externa] effects. In Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli, however, we have what is
probably the finest combination of Roman architecture's particular
virtues: the varied and ingenious treatment of interior space; the
highly accomplished, indeed, in this case daring, use of concrete
construction; and an appreciation of the mutual enhancement of
buildings and their landscape setting which would not be rivalled until
the eighteenth century. The unknown architect created, below the hill
of the ancient town of Tibur, a sprawling, complex of living-rooms,
baths, pavilions, temples and libraries, pools and courtyards. The
names given to the constituent parts - the Lyceum, the Stoa Poikile,
Tempe, Canopus, for example - were intended to evoke some of the
most celebrated places ofthe Hellenic culture to which Hadrian was so
devoted, but the spirit ofthe architecture was one of originality not of
.

imitation.
The colonnade which surrounded the 130 metre long pool ofthe
Canopus had arched architraves, the first appearance of this Eastern
feature in Roman monumental architecture. At one end of (he pool.
the fountain which fed was housed in a remarkable building, the
il

Serapeum, which was covered with a semi-dome composed of nine

 ARCHITECTURE 37

alternately and concave segments, decorated with mosaic. The

flat

vestibule of the so-called Piazza d'Oro (the Golden Square) had, as its
basic plan, a circle inscribed in a square, with eight semicircular and
rectangular projections, the latter extending to the sides of the theoret-
ical square, the former placed diagonally. This idea is present in the
rooms of the west wing of the Flavian Palatium. In the Tivoli vesti-
bule, however, the rear walls of the rectangular projections were not
extended to complete the enclosing square, and the exterior thus
follows the logic of the interior in not hiding the semicircular domed
projections. The building was roofed with a dome divided internally
into eight concave segments. On the opposite side of the Piazza was a
pavilion, its central courtyard defined by a colonnade which was laid
out as eight alternately projecting and re-entrant arcs, so as to form a
cruciform plan. It has been shown that this structure could not have
been vaulted in concrete, but it might have carried a lighter cover-
ing. 10 An even more elaborate use of curvilinear walls, recesses and
screens of columns is to be found in the building on the central island of
the circular Maritime Theatre (111. 22).
If the time of Augustus was characterized above as a formative
period for Roman architecture, that of Hadrian could with equal
justice be described as one of crowning achievement. He travelled
widely throughout the Empire, and more will be said below about
some of the provincial buildings associated with his name, which
include his library and arch at Athens, his temple at Ephesus, and his
wall in Britain. It is, however, in the Pantheon at Rome, rebuilt by
Hadrian from its foundations and still standing virtually intact, that
we may come closest to recapturing the contemporary experience of
that architectural achievement (Ills. 23 and 24).

22. Hadrian's Villa,

Tivoli: the Maritime
Theatre, ad i i8-2<v
 ARCHITECTURE

When the Pantheon was built, the surrounding buildings concealed 23. (Above, left) plan of
much of what we can now see of the rotunda's exterior. The view of the the Pantheon.
AD 1 1 8-28.
temple, approached from the front, was dominated by a very conven-
tional porch, its pediment carried on eight columns of Egyptian 24. {Above, right)
granite. The inscription records only the original construction by M. interior of the Pantheon,
Agrippa, but the architectural ornamenl all Hadrianic, and the
is Rome, showing the
original wall decoration
brickstamps of the rotunda date it to between ad 8 and 128." i i

justbelow the dome.

The traditional nature of the porch in no way prepares the visitor Painting by G.P. Panini.
for the exhilaration of entering the great domed space of the Copenhagen, State
geometry is elegantly simple: a cylinder, crowned l>\ .1
interior. Its Museum of Art.
hemispherical dome, such that the total internal height of 43. 20 metres
(142 feet) is equal to the diameter.
The brick-faced concrete walls arc six metres thick, bin the deep

rectangular and semicircular recesses of the inside wall create, in

effect, a series of piers which carry the weight of the superstructure
down to the massive ring of the foundations, which extend to a depth
of 4.5 metres (15 feet). The relieving arches of tile which are visible
from the outside extend through the concrete core, and were primarily
necessary to transmit the thrusts during the process ol construction.
Very careful attention was paid to the choice of materials for the
aggregate of the concrete, in making use of the strength of travertine in
the lower part, for example, and of the lightness of tufa and pumice in
the dome.
The interior of the dome is lightened b\ deep coffering which was
probably gilded originally), in five diminishing rows of twenty-eight
ARCHITECTURE 39

compartments. 12 The factor of seven in that number contrasts with the

eightfold layout of the recesses in the wall and of the aediculae between
them, a subtle variation in the rhythm of the decoration which seems
to detach the dome from the cylinder upon which in fact it rests. The
oculus at the top, the sole source of light, draws the eye upwards, but
there is also a discreet note of axiality which runs across the rotunda
from the entrance to the apse on the opposite side. There is no feeling
of rigid enclosure within this building: the whole impression is one of
soaring space. Even the weight of the concrete structure, so solid in its
external appearance, is belied within by the variety of surface, of light
and shade, in the recesses, the aediculae, the fluted granite columns and
piasters and the rich colours of marble and porphyry in the floor and
the wall-panelling. The stucco decoration between the first cornice
and the dome was added in the eighteenth century, but part of the
original has been recreated from earlier illustrations.' 3
Hadrian is known to have had a well-developed amateur interest in
architecture, and certainly tried his hand at designing. He was once
confident enough to interrupt an architectural discussion between
Trajan and his architect Apollodorus of Damascus, who rudely told
him to go and draw pumpkins (Dio Cassius, lxix. 4). The story has
added point if the 'pumpkins' were in fact Apollodorus' way of re-
ferring to segmental domes of the kind which Hadrian would later,
when emperor, have the satisfaction of seeing built at Tivoli. So far as
the Pantheon is concerned, however, it owed much, both in its lavishly
decorated interior and in the assurance of its concrete construction, to
what Apollodorus himself had previously achieved.
The most famous of his buildings in Rome is the Forum of Trajan,
which reveals his masterly use of traditional materials for an effect of
outstanding grandeur. That he was equally at home with the contem-
porary architectural idiom is clear from the curvilinear elements and
the use of large windows in the Baths of Trajan, which he built
between AD 104 and 109. It seems likely that he was also the architect
of Trajan's Market, to judge from the close integration of its design
with that of the Forum though it is not among the buildings which Dio
(lxix) specifically mentions as his (111. 17). In planning the market
there was no room for the rigid axial symmetry of the Forum and the
Baths. No one who was not a thorough master of concrete construction
could have contemplated, still less achieved, the effective and
imaginative solution to the problems which the site presented, which
included the need to hold up that part of the Quirinal hill which had
been cut back to accommodate the Forum, and then to build over the
steep slopes of the hillside on three main levels.' 4
At the bottom, a two-storey semicircle of shops follows the curve of
the exedra in the outside wall of the Forum. That wall no longer
stands, so we have a much better view of the Market now than was ever
possible in antiquity. The lower storey has doorways of travertine, and
the arches above them were originally walled in. The arched windows
in the upper storey are framed by very shallow pilasters and crowned
by curved, triangular, or half-triangular, pediments. The delicacy of
this decorative treatment, which is all executed in moulded brickwork,
 I

25- Trajan's Market,

Rome. r.AD 100-12.
Interior of the market
hall.

has more affinit) with the fantas) architecture ofPompeian Styles II

and IV wall painting ihan with the use of full-scale columns and
entablatures on the Tabularium and the Theatre oi Marcellus; here,
the veil of decoration is transparent, and the true nature of the
structure behind ii is clearl) perceptible.
The wall at the is cqnallx remarkable for
north end of the semicircle
the starkness of windows. The room behind was itself
its eighl greal
semicircular, and covered with a half-dome. The shops in the two
lexcls immediatel) above are also built round curved terraces oi
(inn is. the curvilinear forms being the most efficient structural means
of resisting the thrust from the hillside and the buildings higher up.
This ingenious layout gave an architectural unit) to part of the site
.1

which was both steep and cramped behind the apse of the Forum
basilica. Theothei main levels include the frontage along the winding
Via Biber.tt it a and a market hall with two tiers of shops. The latter was
rooted b\ si\ oss-\ a lis. in such a wax that light ton Id enter the hall
( 1 11

from the side galleries which gave access to die upper tier of shops
(111. 25 .

It is a measui e of die complete acceptance <>l unadorned brick-

faced concrete structures bx the earl) second eenttux that two such
contrasting buildings as die Forum and the Market of Trajan could
have been one another at the same lime. .11 id probablx bx
built next to
the same man. The harbour town of ( )stia shows, better ex en than the
metropolis, how successlul die Roman architectural revolution had
been. Most characteristic ol die town are the insulae, the rectangular
apartment blocks built round a courtyard, with sell-contained shops
along the ground-floor frontages, their entrances shaded bx the con-
tinuous balconies of the upper Storeys III. -'<> The same basic plan
.
26. Courtyard of the served equalh well for warehouses horrea and market buildings. The
warehouse of Epagathius architecture is essentiall) functional: decoration is limited to an occa-
and Epaphroditus, Ostia.
sional brick portico round a doorway or a string course above the large
f.AD I45-5 -

rectangular glazed windows. The texture of the brickwork and the

pattern of relieving arches above the openings now seem to enliven the
exteriors, but were probably originally concealed beneath a stucco
rendering. The large windows and doorways had come to give the
main visual interest to an exterior, as well as much more light to the
interior. The Ostian were very different from the ill-lit inward-
insulae
facing atrium house, but they may not have differed quite so much, save
for being incomparably more solidly built, from the limber and mud-
brick insulae of Republican Rome which, like the later Ostian build-
ings, may have risen to at least three storeys (Livy, XXI. lxii. 3). They
certainly had similar disadvantages, in that the upper floors lacked
heating and running water, though the) did occasionally have
lavatories.

MATERIALS AND DECORATION

ObviousK, the primary factor which determines a choice of building
materials is what is locally available; upon those materials depend
both the nature of a construction and the character of its decoration.
Most Roman architecture before the fust century BC depended on
local resources. Thereafter, as will be seen, there are man) and varied
exceptions.
Unfired clay was still in extensive use for domestic building in the
late first centur) BC, when Vitruvius was writing. Augustus' boast that
he found Rome a city of sun-dried brick and left it as marble is true
42 ARCHITECTURE

only in conveying a panoramic but cursory impression of its changed

appearance (Suetonius, Augustus, XXVIII. 3). It would be,more ac-
curate to say that marble and travertine replaced tufa, and that sun-
dried brick was being replaced with rubble- and, later, brick-faced
concrete. It was not until the great fire of AD 64 that many of the old
tenements of sun-dried brick were swept away. That material had long-
been used for building in the Mediterranean and Asia Minor, and the
survival of houses built of it in such towns as Karanis in Egypt shows
that the tradition was maintained, at least to some extent. It may well
have been more common, even in major buildings, than the surviving
evidence allows us to prove, for of its very nature it is much less
permanent than stone and fired brick. It was less well suited to the
damper climate of the western provinces, but several towns in Britain,
including London, Verulamium (near St Alban's), Colchester and
Canterbury had clay-walled houses with plastered and painted walls
in the first century AD. Excavations of the late Republican villa ofSette
Finestre in Tuscany have shown that it was not out of place for a
building of some luxury to have walls of sun-dried brick (111. 27).
They were set on stone footings and covered in painted plaster, with
stucco mouldings in some rooms. Stucco fluting and mouldings were
also added to the columns of the perist) le, which were built up from
pieces of tile. The eaves were decorated with architectural terra-
1 "'

cottas.
Terracotta revetments, antefixes and other roof furniture adorned
the earliest Etruscan and Roman temples. Among later buildings, the
Capitolium Cosa has produced one of the best series of architectural
at

terracottas; an original scheme of decoration in about 50 BC was 1

followed, over no more than a centur) In three periods of repair and a

,

wholesale redecoration of the facade, each in a slightly different

style. This period saw the last major (lowering of the perennial
formal designs of lotuses and palmettes, which during the second half
ol he first century BC were replaced on revetments In the m\ thological
1

subjects of the Campana reliefs (Chapter 9, p. 192). The Capitolium

at Cosa and the Temple of Apollo Palatinus in Rome (36-28 BC) were
decorated with these later terracottas.'/ It was becoming normal,
however, for public buildings to have superstructures of hard stones
like travertine and marble, which could be carved with a detail and
finesse comparable with terracotta ornament, but which made redun-
dant the function of the latter in protecting roof timbers from the
weather. More often, terracottas were used on houses and tombs, a
reflection of the increasing luxury of private architecture. They were
made occasionally in the western provinces, predominantly at military
sites with timber buildings.' 8
At the same time, with the increasing use of fired brick as a facing
material, it came also in Ik- used for decorative purposes. Initially, as in
the columns of segmental tiles in the late second-century BC Forum
Basilica at Pompeii and in those of the Sette Finestre villa, this might
be no more than a basis for finer detail executed in stucco. There, the
use of brick, as brick, was merel) structural. Later, even Corinthian
capitals and the dentils and ovolos ol cornice mouldings, as well as
 architech-ri; 43

27. Villa at Sette columns, pilasters, string courses and pediments, were built up from
Finestre. Early 1st
moulded or carved fired brick. As such well-known examples as the
century BC. (Drawing by
entrance to the Horrea Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana at Ostia show
Sheila Gibson.)
us with especial clarity, this was essentially a translation into brick of
the manner of architectural decoration proper to other materials:
stone structures, in some cases; in others, as was noted above in the
exedra of Trajan's Market, the non-structural ornament of stucco and
wall painting. It is often said that this decorative brickwork was
covered in stucco. In some cases, the stucco survives to prove it; in
most, it is no longer possible to decide. In one important group of
buildings, however, erected in Rome during the second
and around
century AD, the use of red brick for pilasters and other decorative
features, in contrast with the yellow and orange bricks used for the rest
of the walls, is meaningless unless the brickwork were left exposed.
Among these buildings are parts of the villas of Le Mura di Santo
Stefano, near Anguillara, and Sette Bassi, and the tomb of Annia
Regilla and others on the Via Appia (111. 28). The decoration is
elaborate, with Corinthian capitals and considerable detail in the
cornices, which were composed of specially moulded bricks.' 9
Brick was also used with stone in ways which, at least in origin, were
44 ARCHITECTURE

structural, but might incidentally or alternatively be decorative.

Quoins and levelling courses of brick were combined with opus re-
ticulatum for which, see below) in first-century AD buildings in Ostia,
>

for example, and the practice was revived in Hadrian's villa at Tivoli
(111. 22). The primary function of this opusmixtum was to give strength:

much of it may have been stuccoed over. At Chieti, Pompeii and

Ostia, however, there are instances where the tufa blocks of the
reticulate were also laid in alternating courses of different colour, and
20
a decorative effect was probably intended.
In northern I tab a version of opus mixtum was developed in which
.

levelling layers of two or three courses of brick were laid at vertical

intervals of about a metre in a wall of coursed rubble masonry of small
blocks, petit appareil. One of the earliest datable instances is in the
Vespasianic capitolium at Brescia, but once established, il long re-
mained the fashion in the western provinces, and it found particular
favour in the third-century fortifications of Gaul and Britain. In the
town walls of Le Mans and those of the fort at Richborough, there was
also geometrical patterning in stones of different colours. The amphi-
theatre at Bordeaux had pilaster capitals and cornices of brick in
addition to levelling courses. The circular Temple of Vesunna at
Perigueux had, for its window arches, voussoirs which were ahernatelv
of tile and stone, and the brick courses in its masonry were not at
regular intervals, but limited to one below the windows and two at a
higher level. In all these cases, the contrast of brick and stone was
eleailv intended for visual effect.

28. TombofAnnia
Regilla, Rome. Third
(in. n ter of 2nd century
 ARCHITECTURE 45

29. Aula Palatina,

Trier. Early 4th centui
AD.

The exclusive use of brick as a facing material for concrete was rare
outside Italy. The well-preserved Aula Palatina at Trier is excep-
tional, because its walls were not just faced, but were built entirely of
brick 29). This type of construction had been anticipated in the
(111.

East, which had acquired the idea of fired brick from Italy. The
enormous central hall of Kizil Avlu at Pergamum, the Temple of
Sarapis built early in the third century, had walls built entirely of
brick, as did the Harbour Baths at Ephesus and the upper part of the
pressure-towers oi" the aqueduct at Aspendos. Courses of brickwork
were also used in conjunction with rubble masonry in the baths at
Ankara and the third-century walls at Nicaea (Iznik).
In the East, brick was also used instead of concrete for vaulting; the
precedent was long established in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the
medium of sun-dried brick. Fired bricks were 'pitched', that is, laid
end to end across the upper part of the vault, not side by side like the
voussoirs of an arch, which was the practice in the West. The sub-
structure of the basilica at Aspendos is one of the few surviving
examples. The Temple of Asklepios Soter at Pergamum, dated to just
before the middle of the second century, was built in apparent imita-
tion of the Pantheon, but with a drum of ashlar masonry and a dome of
radially-laid bricks (111. 37).
Of the two main forms of monumental masonry in Republican
Italy, polygonal and ashlar, the former fell out of use during the first
century BC. Among the latest instances are the lower terraces of the
Sanctuary of Fortuna at Praeneste, and the walls of Fiesole near
Florence, dated to about 100 BC. Early concrete buildings were faced
with opus incertum, a diminutive version of the massive polygonal
46 ARCHITECTURE

blocks: small blocks of rubble were laid close together without forming
any regular pattern. From about 40 BC and throughout^Augustus*
reign this was largely replaced in central Italy by opus reticulation. This
consisted of pyramidal blocks laid with their square ends outwards,
aligned so as to form a diagonal net-like pattern in the wall surface,
and with their apexes engaged in the concrete core. By the reign of
Nero it had almost entirely been superseded by brick facing opus
testaceum) though there was a minor Hadrianic revival. Reticulate
work is rarel) found outside Italy; its occurrence on Herodian build-
ings at Jericho is clearly due to the Italian influence which is also to be
seen in the stucco facing of the walls of Herod's palace at Masada. In
the provinces, coursed rubble masonry, usually of small squarish
blocks but with main variations dependent on the sort of stone locally
available, was used where the facing was not of brick or ashlar.
Ashlar masonry, large squared stone blocks laid in horizontal cour-
ses,was widespread throughout the Empire except where stone which
could be dressed with the required accuracy was unobtainable. It is
necessary to mention onh souk special features associated with this
opus quadratum. One is is. blocks squared and
rusticated masonry, that
laid like ashlar, but with an outer face left with its rough quarr)
dressing, save usualh for the drafting of chiselled margins to define the
edges. It is thus, in a technical sense, unfinished, but it was inten-
tionally left in this state on some monumental buildings, to which it
gh es .m appearance of rough-hew n robustness. There are Republican
precedents in Italy, and a brief vogue lor it in Rome in the mid-first
(cnt in \ \d. where was used in (he low ei' part of the Porta Maggiore
it

and on the ten ace arcades of the Temple of Claudius. The influence of
such buildings on Renaissance architects was far greater than their
significance in the context ol Roman architecture as a whole. Rustiea-
tion found occasionally in the provinces; the aqueduct ofSegovia
is

(Frontispiece) and the lower part of the pressure tower of that at

Aspendos provide suitable examples of the structures to which it added
a rugged dignity.
The aqueduct of C. Sextilius Pollio at Ephesus, the bath buildings at
Miletus, the theatre at Caesarea and the rotunda in the Sanctuar) of
As< lepius .11 Pergamum, examples of the successful use ol
arc all

concrete for vaulting in general it proved difficult to

in the Fast, but
make a concrete strong enough. Dressed stone, though expensive,
could provide an alternative; the radial vaulting of the cavea of the
theatre at Side is notable example. Hemispherical domes ofdressed
.1

stone were onstl U( led lor the West Baths at Jcrash and the cella ol the
<

'Temple of Venus' at Baalbek (111. 30).

It is most unusual to find dressed stone used lor vaulting in imperial
buildings in the the best-known example, the so-called
West. In
Temple of Diana Nimes, the decision to give it
.11 stone barrel-vault .1

did not result from am local problems in making concrete: one could
not hope for more solid denials ofth.it than the statements of two
witnesses from the neighbourhood, the Pont du Gard and the best-
preserved amphitheati ein ( raul at Nimes itself. The reason must have
been aesthetic, and a liuiliei clue is given 1>\ the baroque interior
ARCHITECTURE 47

Y&J i&P ^Ta

30. 'Temple of Venus',

Baalbek. Date uncertain
12nd to mid-3rd century
AD?).

decoration of the walls with columns set against them and pedimental
aediculae in between, very much in the manner of the Temple of
Dionysos at Baalbek, a strong indication that the architect was a
Syrian Greek. This building at Nimes, so little bound by the conven-
tions of local architectural practice, is a remarkable instance of how
ecumenical Roman architecture could be.
Nowhere is this more clearh to be seen than in the enormous
prestige associated with the use of exotic marble in buildings of the
highest quality. It is no accident that it was the conqueror of
Macedonia, Q. Caecilius Metellus, who erected in 146 BC the first
marble building in Rome, the Temple ofJupiter Stator. Romans of his
generation and their immediate successors, brought up in archi-
tectural surroundings of sun-dried brick, stuccoed tufa and painted
terracottas, were captivated by the glistening magnificence of the
Greek cities they had captured. Greek architecture had, however,
been created from the rock of its native land. For the Romans to
emulate its appearance, if not its reality, at home, it was necessary to
redistribute the geological wealth of the Mediterranean basin; each
area, according to its resources, supplied marble to Romans, according
to their means. 21
One notorious early example illustrates the scale of the transforma-
tion. In M. Aemilius Scaurus constructed a temporary
58 BC the aedile
theatre in Rome, accommodating an audience of 80,000. Its stage
building was decorated with no fewer than 360 columns, arranged in
three storeys.The lowest storey had a wall of marble (it is uncertain
whether that was veneer or solid throughout), in front of which were
columns of black marble from Chios, thirty-eight feet high. This lavish
building was dismantled after little more than a month. Some of the
huge columns were then installed in the atrium of Scaurus' house on the
Palatine. (Pliny, NH, XXXVI. 5-6, 49-50, 13-15).
1

There were those who considered that this new extravagance in

48 ARCHITECTURE

building materials was truly immoral, but the cause of modesty and
restraint was to be lost. Private architecture set and maintained the
pace. Lucius Crassus, consul in 95 BC, was the first to have columns of
foreign marble in his house. M. Aemilius Lepidus, consul in 78 BC, was
the first import the yellow Numidian marble from North Africa, for
to
of its time, was
his door-sills. Thirty-five years later his house, the finest
not to be counted among the top hundred Pliny NH, XXXVI. 7, 49, ,

109). By then Mamurra, who had made a fortune while chief engineer
for Julius Caesar in Gaul, had built a house in which the columns were
of solid marble throughout, the green-veined Carystian from Euboea
and the white Carrara marble of Italy itself. The palace at Fishbourne
in Britain illustrates the influence of these standards upon provincial
architecture. The white and coloured marbles used for wall veneers
and flooring came from the Pyrenees, the Garonne. Burgundy,
Carrara, the Greek islands and Turkey. 22 In Britain, Fishbourne may
be exceptional; in the Empire, it is not so extraordinary.
In Augustus' reign. Carrara (or Luna marble, from northern
Tuscany, came to be used extensively for public buildings in Rome,
and from there its use spread to other parts of Italy and the western
provinces. The Temple of Divus Julius in the Forum, begun in 42 anck
dedicated in 29 BC was entirely built of Carrara marble, as was the
Temple of Apollo on the Palatine, dedicated in the previous year. In
general, however, it was exceptional for imported marble to be used
for a whole building. The Capitolium ofNarbonne, in which Carrara
marble was used throughout, is the 011K such example in Gaul. In
being built ol solid Proconnesian marble. Hadrian's Temple of Venus
and Rome, at Rome, and the Temple of the Severaii Family in the
Forum at Lepcis Magna, are the results of a munificence which only
emperors could display The principal use of foreign mat hies was tor
.

columns, often imported reach -worked and in standard sizes, and

their varied colours made an immensely opulent contrast with the
basic material of the buildings. In the Forum and Basilica at Lepcis,
for example, the main building-material was the local yellow lime-
stone. The grey-veined white Proconnesian marble of the Temple was
the background lor its columns of red Egyptian granite, and the
colonnades of the surrounding Forum had column shafts of green
Carystian marble and glistening white Pentelic capitals and bases. The
many-columned stage buildings of theatres made them particularly
apt for such polychrome enrichment in exotic materials.
An equal richness of appearance could be achieved with greater
economy by the use ol marble veneer. This might he applied to the
outside of a huilcliii". as on the great four-way arch quadrifrons at

Richborough, which had fluted columns and pilasters, casings,

mouldings and bead-and-reel ornament, all executed in Carrara
marble. 23 More commonly, veneer was a feature of the- interior
decoration of wall-surfaces, as in the palace at Fishbourne, where
panels and mouldings of different types of marble were fitted together,
presenting on a smaller and more intimate scale the rich variety of
colour of the theatres and imperial fora. A similar use of inter-
locking pieces of marble was applied to floor surfaces (Chapter 5,
ARCHITECTURE 49

p. 138). This opus sectile differs from mosaic in that the geometrical
composition was made up of marble of different colours cut to the
shapes which formed the pattern.
It is not necessary to repeat what is said elsewhere in this book about
other aspects of interior decoration: wall painting, stucco, and floor-
and wall-mosaic. The point must be made, however, that Roman
interiorswere conceived as entire and integrated designs. The predo-
minantly black-and-white geometrical patterning of late Republican
and early Imperial mosaics provided the counterpart to the rich and
dominating colours and mythological imagery of contemporary wall
painting. Only a few buildings, such as the Pantheon and a number of
houses in the Vesuvius region, including the Samnite House at
Herculaneum, allow us to see a Roman interior more or less as it was
meant to be seen.
The Romans derived the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian Orders from
Greek architecture, but they treated them in their own fashion. There
was no distinctive form of Greek Corinthian entablature; Vitruvius
wrote that either the Doric or the Ionic might be used with a
Corinthian capital (De Arch., IV. i. 2); the Arch of Augustus at Aosta
provides a Corinthian-Doric example, and there are several instances
of the use of a pure Ionic entablature. At the same time - that is, in the
\ cars immediately following Julius Caesar's death - the first buildings

in which Carrara marble was extensively employed show the distinc-

tive Roman Corinthian in an already developed form, with its char-
acteristic way of carving the leaves on the capital, and modillions on
the cornice. 2 4 These were a series of brackets, usually scrolled, reg-
ularly spaced beneath the projecting part of the cornice as if to
support it. The precedents lie not in monumental architecture so much
as in of buildings in Rome and
the stucco interior decoration
Campania, which was itself inspired by Hellenistic models. This was
the main feature in which the Ionic entablature was modified, and
another was the highly ornate decoration of the cornice. More than
one Augustan style is apparent. The Forum of Augustus and its
Temple of Mars Ultor were decorated with motifs copied directly
from classical Athens, as well as such major elements as replicas of the
Caryatid columns of the Erechtheum. The Temples of Apollo
Sosianus and of Castor had a more luxuriant and florid ornament. 25
Since the necessary experience in carving marble was not wide-
spread in Italy at the time, much of this work must have been executed
by Greek craftsmen. The canons of ornament which were established
in Rome within this very short period, after the death of Caesar and
1
through Augustus reign, were to prove remarkably resilient. Despite
well-marked distinctions in technique, the highly decorated ornament
of Flavian buildings and the more classicizing decoration of early
Hadrianic architecture are little more than variations on the themes
26
current in Augustan Rome (111. 31).
The Corinthian capital, as the most ornate, was the Roman
favourite for monumental buildings. The Ionic was rather sparingly
used during the Roman period, even in the Greek East; one well-
preserved western example is the small rectangular 'Temple of
50 ARCHITECTURE

Fortuna Virilis' near the Tiber in Rome. More often, Ionic columns
formed one of the tiers which decorated theatres (such as that of
Marcellus) and amphitheatres (such as the Colosseum). Roman Ionic
bases normally had plinths, which were not usual in Greek archi-
tecture. The Composite capital was a Roman invention, probably
originating a little before Augustus' reign, and certainly well-
developed before his death, the very time when the Roman version of
Corinthian was being established. Its composite nature was that Ionic
volutes were combined with the lower tiers of Corinthian acanthus
leaves (111. 32). Classical Doric had been the basis for the type of
column used in Etruscan architecture. The Roman version of Doric
differed in having a smaller capital with a more elaborate profile; a
short necking and a bead-moulding separating the capital from the
shaft; a more slender shaft without fluting; and a moulded base.
Renaissance architects named this version the Tuscan column; it was
most commonly used for the smaller-scale architecture of domestic
peristyles, verandahs and porches.
One further distinctive feature of the Roman treatment of the
classical Orders was the use of engaged columns on a facade in a
manner which was not structural, but decorative. The placing of free-
standing columns immediately in front of a wall, with projections of
the entablature above them to connect them with the superstructure, is
not attested in monumental architecture in Rome before the Flavian
period, though there are precedents in interior decoration, partic-
ularly in the architectural schemes depicted in wall painting. An
early instance in the East is on Hadrian's Library at Athens: the
columns were given added height by being set on free-standing ped-
estals, a practice rare in the West before the building of Christian

basilicas; the Temple of the Severan famil) at Lepcis Magna provides

one such example, and was certainly the work of Greek craftsmen.
These buildings are instances of the great range ofprovincial variation
in architectural ornament in stone, which has only been described here
in the most general terms. Few of these regional styles have been
studied in detail, but is is clear, even in those western provinces which
did not have indigenous traditions of stone-carving, that there was
room for originality. 27 In the East, the contributions of much
longer-established traditions in matters of design and decoration were
influential well outside their native regions; some of them will be
discussed in more detail in the following section.

ARCHITECTS AND ARCHITECTURE

Few surviving Roman buildings can be attributed to a known archi-
Those already mentioned were recorded because they were in
tect.

Rome and were built for emperors, whose biographers found some-
thin" worth mentioning in incidents connected with the architects. In
such cases we can match the names of the men with the evidence for
some, at least, of their achievements. Otherwise, we may have the
names, but not the buildings. Cicero's letters, for example, mention
both his own architect Vettius Cyrus (e.g. Ad Atticum, II. iii. 2) and the
rather incompetent Diphilus who worked for his brother [Ad Quintum
 ARCHITECTURE I 1

Fratrem, in. 1). The names and professions of others, but not their
buildings, are recorded on tombstones. More rarely, a stone inscrip-
tion records a particular building project, one important example
being the contract of C. Blossius for work in front of the Temple of
Sarapis at Puteoli which was specified in minute detail. 28 The reason
for our ignorance is simple. In Roman society, the credit for a building
was thought to be due to those who had conceived, commissioned and
financed it, rather than to the technician who converted the patron's
intention into bricks and mortar. The architect C. Iulius Lacer, named
in the dedicatory inscription of the bridge which he built for Trajan
across the Tagus at Alcantara, is one of the rare exceptions. 29
ft is true that Roman administrators, aristocrats, and even such
emperors as Hadrian, might have their own decided, well-informed
and practical views about architecture. The elder Pliny, particularly
in Book XXXVI of his encyclopaedic Natural History, and Frontinus in
his treatise On Aqueducts, are examples of men of that class whose
writings on architectural matters are an immensely valuable source of
information. Others, like Cato, Columella, Varro, Faventinus and
Palladius, were more concerned with that aspect of building practice
which was relevant, and the knowledge of which was essential, for the
31. Arch of Titus,
competent management of a landed estate. 30
Rome. Entablature and
keystone. Late
It is somewhat Roman architect whose
ironical that Vitruvius, the

1st century AD. name is most familiar to us, is not known

have been connected with
to
any of the outstanding buildings of his time, although he was working
at a time of great architectural fertility in Rome. The only building of
his own about which he tells us anything, and in which clearly he took
much pride, was a basilica in the small Italian town of Fano. His
32. Arch of Septimius reputation depends on the complete survival of his ten books on
Severus, Rome. architecture. Vitruvius had been employed both by Julius Caesar and
Composite capital.
by Augustus, but the experience which he distilled in his treatise was
AD 203.
that of a general practitioner rather than that of one who was in the
forefront of metropolitan fashion; it is all the more useful for that.
He intended his work to be comprehensive: he discussed the educa-
tion of the architect and fundamental principles of architecture;
building materials; temples and, in their context, the proportions of
the classical Orders of architecture; theatres and other types of monu-
mental building; domestic architecture; stucco and wall painting;
water and hydraulics; astronomy; and a variety of siege engines and
other mechanical devices. The range of knowledge and skill which
Vitruvius expected of a Roman architect may now seem surprising, in
an age of much greater professional specialization. The Romans did
not, however, draw firm dividing lines, between an architect and an
engineer, for example. The varied application of the talents of such
Renaissance men as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Benvenuto
Cellini was in much the same tradition. Apollodorus of Damascus had
served on Trajan's campaigns in Dacia as a military engineer, and had
constructed a timber bridge across the Danube; and the reputations of
Severus and Celer depended as much upon the mechanical marvels
which they installed in Nero's Golden House (like the revolving roof
above the main circular dining-room) as on the design of the building
 .

52 ARCHITECTURE

itself (Suetonius, Nero, xxxi). Furthermore,when Vitruvius wrote

that an architect should have a knowledge of geometry, history,
philosophy, music, medicine, law and astronomy, this was not some
fanciful aspiration to recruit academic polymaths to the profession,
but was for sound practical reasons; knowledge of medicine was
desirable if buildings were not to be sited in unhealthy places; know-
ledge of astronomy was necessary for the construction of sundials
which told the right time.
Vitruvius was very keen to lay clown rules, and it must be
emphasized that many of them were not universally acknow-
ledged, even at the time and place of his writing. More important,
however, are the principles behind the rules, and in that respect
he is a faithful representative of Roman architecture. He was
much concerned, for example, with matters of proportion. By ordinatio
(order) he defined the symmetrical agreement which parts of a
building should have to the whole, achieved by the selection of parti-
cular parts as modules and the calculation of other dimensions from
them. By dispositio (arrangement) he meant the harmonization of
ground-plan, elevation and perspective, for all of which drawings
were to be prepared in the course of working out the design (DeArch., I.-,
ii. 2 Subsequently, he prescribed in detail the modular proportions of
) .

columns, entablatures and the arrangement of temples of varying size

and type.
It matters little that other architects chose different prescriptions,
for the same approach to the principles is often discernible. The basis
of the Vitruvian module was the diameter of the column shaft at base.
A recent stuck of the Maison Carree at Nimes has shown tint two
quite different modular dimensions were employed in its design: the
height of the architrave, which determined those of the whole entabla-
ture and of the podium of the temple; and the spacing of the columns.
which determined the longitudinal dimensions, the height of the
columns equal to the square of the intercolumniation and that of the
frontal elevation. The column diameter was not a priman unit in this
sophisticated scheme; it was equal to the difference between the two
;i
modules.
Vitruvius wrote little about the training of architects, and nothing

about their organization. Many must have learned and practised their
trade in sin. ill lainiK workshops: thus Cicero's architect Cyrus had a
freedman, Chrysippus, who also worked for Cicero. From the early
Empire (inwards, with almost continuous building projects in Rome.
the emperors maintained large permanent teams to work on them,
mainly slaves and freedmen of the imperial household, and many
probably acquired their practical experience from that source.
Thirdly, the arm) had a regular need for architects, and military
service was certainl) part of Vitruvius
1
career. The younger Pliny,
when governor ofBithynia, asked Trajan to send him an architect or
surveyor to supervise the cutting of a canal near Nicomedia. He was
authorized to apply to the governor of Lower Moesia, on the Danube
frontier, and it is implicit that his request was to be met 1>\ the
secondment ofa legionar) expert (Pliny, Ep.,x. j
1—2)
 ARCHITECTURE 53

On another occasion, Pliny requested that an architect be sent from

Rome to help retrieve building projects in Nicaea and Claudiopolis
from local ineptness. This time Trajan refused the request, with the
rather unhelpful reply that Pliny could not possibly lack an architect,
because skilful men were to be found in every province: 'do not think
that they can be sent more quickly from Rome, since it is from Greece,
after all, that they usually come here' (Pliny, Ep., x. 39-40).
The comment is interesting, for there were certainly architects in
the West with Greek names; and Cicero tells us that he spoke Greek
with Cyrus. It must be remembered, however, that slaves and others of
Greek extraction were also born in the West and given Greek names;
ancf that much of the building work in the West before the second
century AD, notably any construction in concrete, followed a Roman
rather than a Greek tradition. There are exceptions: the Round
Temple by the Tiber in Rome was made of Pentelic marble, without
the typical Roman podium, and with Corinthian columns of purely
Greek form, and must have been the work of a Greek architect and
Greek masons. 32 The dramatic Augustan increase in the use of marble
also involved the importation of skilled marble-workers from the East
along with the material upon which they worked. Thereafter, how-
ever, the architectural current seems for a time to have flowed in the
opposite direction, especially with the introduction to the East of
Roman types of bath building, aqueduct and theatre construction.
This must have involved the movement of architects from Italy, and
an early instance is the strong Campanian influence which has been
noted on Agrippa's rebuilding of the Odeion at Athens. 33
Certainly, architects and masons might travel widely, but in the
absence of written record, the confirmation that they did so depends
on the evidence of work which is not only different from prevailing
local convention, but can also be identified as the style of another
region. Trajan ought to have been in a position to know the usual
origins of architects who came to Rome, and by Greece we may take it
that he meant the Greek-speaking world, not just the mainland. There

33. Basilica, Lepcis

Magna. Dedicated ii

AD 216.
54 ARCHITECTURE

ii|
1 ItTifl
i>
H' PtlTrYttf^SCLl
pmiiiiji nn
1 ';& '"""' -

obvious sign of architects from this area, however, in contem-

is little 34a, b. Panoramic view
porary buildings in Rome; nothing in the work of Apollodorus of, of Palmyra. A: Temple of

Damascus betrays his origins. Later in the second century, however, Bel. B: Temple of
Ba'alshamin. (From R.
the influence of Eastern architects and masons in the West becomes Wood, The Ruins of
increasingly apparent. One
such case, the Syrian features of the Palmyra, London, 1758.)
'Temple of Diana' at Nimes, has already been noted. An even more
spectacular example, in its context, is the Temple of Venus and Rome
which Hadrian dedicated at Rome in AD 1 35. It is ironic that it was this
building, with strong Eastern influences, which occasioned the
its

Syrian Apollodorus' fatal quarrel with the Emperor. Proconnesian

marble (from Marmora) was used for the superstructure, the tradi-
tional Roman podium was lacking, and the architectural ornament
has a strong similarity with that of the Temple of Trajan at Per-
gamum. 34
It is with which the Emperor Septimius Severus
in the buildings
endowed his of Lepcis Magna that the influence of the East
home city
is most strikingly to be seen. Proconnesian marble was used exten-

sively, and in the absence of a native tradition in working such

material, the craftsmen had to be brought from Asia Minor. 35 The
layout of the forum might be entirely Western, with the temple of the
imperial family on an enormous podium at one end, and a transverse
basilica, but the architectural vocabulary of these Severan buildings is
equally Eastern 111. 33). The granite columns of the temple stood on
(

massive sculptured pedestals, never a feature of temples in the West,

but common enough on such buildings as the Temple of Artemis at
Ephesus. The confident arcaded entablature of the forum colonnade,
the rich sculptured decoration of the pilasters in the basilica, the
papyrus leaves of the column capitals, all have perfect parallels in
Asia. One might add the broken half-pediments of the four-way
triumphal arch, very much in the Syrian tradition, the street colon-
nades, and the nymphaeum, a type of building which was one of the
distinctive contributions of the East to Roman architecture.
 ARCHITECTURE .-).-»

.Srrr'Mk

The aggrandizement which Lepcis received as the reward for

having unexpectedly nurtured a future emperor gives it a unique
distinction. If we place the Severan monuments and their Eastern
splendour alongside the Augustan theatre and market buildings, the
aqueduct, the amphitheatre, the arches of Tiberius and Trajan, the
Hadrianic and the Hunting Baths, and if we do not forget the private
houses, public lavatories, fountains and tombs, then we can see in
Lepcis a prism which transmits a greater part of the spectrum of
Roman architectural achievement than any city in the Empire, even
than Rome itself.

THE CITY CENTRE: FORUM, BASILICA AND COLONNADE

The monumental Roman town centre integrated three elements: a
temple; a basilica; and the forum, an open piazza surrounded by a
colonnade in front of a row of shops. The temple, centrally placed in
front of one end of the forum, provided a dominant axiality; exempli-
fied early, in the forum at Pompeii, and fully assimilated, in the fora of
Caesar and Augustus at Rome. The situation of the basilica might
vary. Such newly-planned North Italian cities as Velleia added sym-
metry to axiality, in placing the basilica broadside to the forum,
opposite the temple. This type of forum was introduced to Gaul, as at
Augst and St-Bertrand de Comminges, and to Britain, where the
temple was normally omitted. 56 Less regular schemes persisted, not-
ably in North Africa. In Djemila, Timgad, and the Old Forum at
Lepcis Magna, a curia or further temples were added, and the plan
was not always rectilinear. Even in the Severan Forum at Lepcis, so
distinctively Western in the axial siting of the temple on an enormous
podium, the basilica opposite was placed at a marked angle to the axis
of the forum.
The basilica was one of the most influential innovations of Roman
architecture, in Roman terms, and in later history, as one of the two
main building types adopted by the Christian church. It was a long
56 ARCHITECTURE

covered hall, with a roof supported on columns and piers round all
four sides, in most cases. It was ideally suited to any large assembly,

particularly for lawsuits and commercial exchange. The axiality im-

plicit in its length might be enhanced by the addition of apses at the
ends: most magnificently, in the Basilica Ulpia which adjoined
Trajan's Forum. The Severan basilica at Lepcis Magna has even more
dominant apses, since the internal colonnades of the sides were not
continued across the ends. The imperial audience halls of the Flavian
Palatium and were entered from one end and had an apse at
at Trier
the other; this version of basilica, with its focal concentration, was the

direct antecedent of the early Christian churches of Rome and

Ravenna: the altar replaced the imperial seat.
Although the basilica was never common in the East, it was perhaps
the main Roman contribution to the often haphazard arrangement of
the agora, as we find at Corinth, for example. Nevertheless, the
orthogonal planning of Hellenistic towns had already produced, in
such cities as Miletus and Priene, the rectangular colonnaded agorai
which were, in fact, the model for the fora of late Republican and
earh Imperial Italy. Smyrna combined the two traditions in its mid-
second-century ad rectangular agora with, at one end, a very long anck
narrow basilica (160 x 27 metres; 525 x go feet). In Augustus'
principate, Syria contributed the street colonnade as a further monu-
mental aspect of the Roman city. Palmyra is its best example, though
later: Hadrianic, at the earliest (111. 34a, b). The splendid colonnaded
street from the harbour to the agora at Ephesus illustrates its rapid
assimilation in Asia Minor. Timgad evokes its effect in the West.

TEMPLES
The form of the Roman temple followed the Etruscan; it was placed
on a podium, or raised platform, approached 1>\ a Might of steps at one
end, which led through a columnar porch to the cello at the back. The
Roman version was influenced b\ Greek temple architecture to the
extent that columns were added along the sides and, less often, at the
ends; sometimes they were attached to the walls of the cella, sometimes
free-standing. This version of classical temple was propagated suc-
cessfully in the western provinces, and examples survive virtually
intact in the Maison Carree at Nimes, the Temple of Augustus and
Livia at Vienne (111. 35), and that of Rome and Augustus at Pola.
Outside Italy. Roman architectural forms were applied to buildings
which continued to serve the requirements of local cults. In Caul,
Germany and Britain the characteristic of the Romano-Celtic temple
was a squares lla surrounded b\ an ambulatory. Occasionally the plan
was circular or polygonal. Columns. masonr\ walls, painted plaster,
mosaic and statuary provided a setting which was Roman in technique
and appearance, however unclassical the plan and purpose might be.
At Sanxay and many other rural sites, complexes of temples, baths,
theatres and ancillary buildings gave monumental expression to the
continued sanctit) ol tin- site. Bath, with its classical temple dedicated
to Sulis Minerva, and the Great Bath built around the thermal spring,
illustrates the enormous importance of these sanctuaries, which eon-
 ARCHITECTURE 57

35. Temple of Augustus tained some of the finest buildings in the western provinces. 37 The
and Livia, Vicnne. Early
same phenomenon occurs in the East. The Sanctuary of Asclepius at
1 st century AD.
Pergamum had a Roman theatre, a temple which was a small version
36. Stage building of of the Pantheon, and a vaulted rotunda with deep apses radiating
the theatre at Sabratha. from its sides. The rectangular enclosure with porticoes on three sides
Late 2nd centurv AD.
was built round the sacred spring of the god (111. 37). At Baalbek, a
monumental facade gave entrance to a courtyard, at the rear of which
was the enormous Temple ofJupiter, with columns 20 metres (65 feet)
high. Within the courtyard, tower-like platforms provided the es-
sential high places for sacrifice. However much they were dwarfed by
the surrounding buildings, these platforms, like the spring at Per-
gamum, were the real focal points of the sanctuaries.

FOUNTAINS, THEATRES AND AMPHITHEATRES

While architects in the West explored the new possibilities which could
be achieved in concrete, those in the East experimented with new
combinations of the existing architectural forms and traditional mate-
rials. One result was the development of a highly baroque facade

architecture, with superimposed tiers of projections and re-entrants

decorated with columns, entablatures, pediments and statuary. This is
seen to greatest effect in the nymphaea, enormous ornamental foun-
tains like that of Miletus or Herodes Atticus' nymphaeum at Olympia,
in the facade of the libraries of Celsus at Ephesus and of Hadrian at
Athens, and especially in the stage buildings of theatres. Whether in
new buildings, as at Aspendos, or in existing Greek theatres converted
to Roman form, the emphasis of the Eastern versions of these per-
manent architectural stage sets remained predominantly rectilinear.
58 ARCHITECTURE

37. Plan of the

Sanctuary of Asclepius,
50m
Pergamum. e.AD 140—75.

The curved which were more favoured in the

recesses in the facade
West have splendid examples at Lepcis Magna and Sabratha
111. 36). The other main feature which distinguished the Roman

theatre from the Greek was that the orchestra was semicircular. The
cavea of the seating might still, where the local topography admitted,
be cut into a hillside. In such a case the opportunity tor external
decoration was limited, as the ver\ plain street frontage of the theatre
at Orange shows. Where the cavea was built on a series of radial
concrete vaults, the external arches were enlivened by attached col-
umns and horizontal mouldings. It was natural, in view of the similar-
ity in construction and curved exterior, same decorative
that the
treatment should have been given to the amphitheatre (111. 21). That
was one Roman building type which never became established in the
East: that at Pergamum is one of the few known examples.
Amphitheatres with masonry vaulting are among the most sub-
stantial remains of Roman architecture in the West. Those at Verona,
Pola, Nimes, Aries and El Djem, despite minor variations in planning
and decorative treatment, are all direct descendants of the type de-
veloped in central Italy. Some early amphitheatres, like those at
Merida and Syracuse, were partially dug into the ground, and in
Britain, at Cirencester and Caerleon. lot example, the wooden seating
was carried on earth banks with stone retaining walls. In northern
ARCHITECTURE 59

France and in Britain (at Verulamium for example) a distinctive

Romano-Gallic type of theatre is found, which had a small stage
building and an orchestra or arena which was almost circular. 38 Some
amphitheatres have underground chambers beneath the arena to
house men, beasts or materials for the spectacles; these are found in
relatively simple form at Pozzuoli, El Djem, Sarmizegetusa in
Romania and Merida in Spain, and as a veritable labyrinth in the
Colosseum.

BATHS
Trie Roman bath-building, which appears first to have taken its

characteristic form in Campania, was a leading influence in the

development of concrete construction. The range of variation, both in
size and layout, is enormous, running from such vast recreation centres
as the Baths of Caracalla (111. 38) and Diocletian in Rome, with their
libraries, meeting halls, swimming pools, gardens and fountains, down
to the domestic bath suites which provided the basic requirements of a
cold, a warm and a hot room: frigidarium, tepidariam and caldarium. A
keynote of the great public baths was their symmetrical planning
around an axis which ran from the main entrance, across the palaestra,
or exercise courtyard, and through the centre of the principal frigi-
darium and caldarium. The early fourth-century Imperial Baths at Trier
(111. 39) stand at the end of a line which stretches back at least as far as

the Baths of Titus in Rome, and which finds other provincial examples
in the Hadrianic Baths at Lepcis Magna, the Antonine Baths at
Carthage, and those of Timgad and Ephesus. The interiors were
sumptuously decorated with mosaic floors, marble columns and ven-
eers, and vaulted ceilings, though in contrast the exterior was usually
completely unadorned.
The Hunting Baths at Lepcis Magna, well known for the stark
roofline of their concrete vaults, which survive complete, illustrate one
of the many more informal arrangements of rooms. In the Forum and
Stabian Baths at Pompeii and the Suburban Baths at Herculaneum, a
simple range of rooms adjoined a palaestra secluded behind the shops
on the street frontage. As at Lepcis, the vaulting is intact; much of the
stucco decoration is preserved (111. 14). We see the attractive but
modest surroundings of everyday-life in an ordinary Roman town.
The baths were a notable Roman introduction to the East, where
they were combined with the established functions of the hellenistic
gymnasium. A distinctive feature of public baths in such cities as
Ephesus and Pergamum is a large rectangular room fronting the
palaestra, its walls decorated internally with columns and statuary in
the manner of the theatre and nymphaeum facades. In many western
provincial towns, the baths were second only to the forum and basilica
in architectural importance, and notable bath buildings are also a
feature of rural religious sanctuaries in Gaul. The city of Bath was also
an important sanctuary, and unique in Britain in having, in addition
to the normal bath suites, a great vaulted hall which covered the
rectangular pool fed by the sacred thermal springs.
 ARCHITECTURE

38. Baths of Caracalla,

Jlomc. AD 212-16.

39. Plan ofthc

Imperial Baths, Trier.
Early 4th century AD.
C-caldarium; 1 - tepidarium;
1 - frigidarium; L - lavatory;
PAL. - palaestra.

ARCHES, c A ESAND FORTS

I

Among the most solidly preserved of all Roman architectural inven-

tions arc the monumental arches, buildingsofa t\ pc devised purely for
display. This conversion to monumental form of the temporary struc-
tures erected for the occasion of military triumphs in Rome is yet
another instance of rapid evolution in Augustan architecture. The
main arch passage, and am side passages, as on Trajan's Arch at
Timgad and that of Septimius Severus in Rome, was flanked by
columns, usually in pairs. The intervening spaces might contain aedi-
i nine or relief sculpture relevant to the arch's commemorative purpose,
ARCHITECTURE

40. Arch of Hadrian,

Alliens. Probably erected
shortly after AD 138.

as on Trajan's Arch at Benevento (111. 20) and the Arch at Orange.

That purpose was made explicit b\ a prominent inscription on the
attic storey above the archway. The whole was surmounted by groups
of sculpture, usually in bronze.
The arched gate through a city wall might take much the same
form, but its function required that it should have guard chambers at
the sides, often contained in projecting towers, and a gallery above, to
allow passage across the gateway. The window openings in the gallery
might be given additional architectural distinction by schemes of
engaged pilasters or columns, with pediments, as on the Porta dei
Borsari at Verona (111. 19), or with a continuous entablature, as on the
gates of Nimes and Autun.
Hadrian's Arch at Athens, which led from the old city to the new
quarter, is unusual in the combination of its decorative elements
(111. 40). The columns and pilasters of its upper storey do not continue

the vertical lines of the pilasters which flanked the archway below,
which were taken up by the statuary which stood in the openings of the
upper storey. Some second-century and later arches and gates were
highly elaborate, with a facade architecture of niched figures framed
b\ luxuriantly decorated pilasters, as on the Porte Noir at Besancon
and the London Arch. 39 In contrast, the Porta Nigra at Trier, with
quadruple tiers of regularly-spaced columns framing arched openings,
is reminiscent of the exteriors of theatres and amphitheatres. The

Porta Aurea of Diocletian's Palace at Split, with arcaded entablatures

above the entrance, owed more to the traditions of the East, as is
emphasized by the great arcades and the Syrian pediment of the
ceremonial courtyard within.
There is a clear military influence in the Palace's massive four-
square walls, external towers, and the T-junction formed by its colon-
62 ARCHITECTURE

4 1 . Praetorium,
Lambaesis. Early
2nd centur\ AD.

naded streets. Colonnades, and the peristyles of officers' houses in

military forts, were derived from what was familiar in civilian build-
ing. The plan of
the headquarters, with its courtyard and basilican
hall,evolved in parallel with the north Italian and Gaulish forurru
which it so much resembles. 40 The decoration of the most important
buildings in some legionary fortresses, like Neuss and Lambaesis
(111. 41), gave them some architectural distinction. Hadrian's Wall,
by contrast, had the solid unembellished serviceability which char-
acterized much military building. 4
'

PRIVATE HOUSES
The town house, with rooms arranged around the
traditional Italian
atrium, a hall with a rectangular opening in the roof to provide the
main source of light, was not of much significance in the provinces
(111. 42). The dominant note in much domestic architecture was

provided b\ the Hellenistic peristyle courtyard, which was an addi-

tional feature of the larger atrium houses of Pompeii and
Herculaneum. Vaison, in Gaul, provides an illustration 0fwh.1l was to
be found in many provincial towns (111. 43). A peristyle layout might
also be a feature of rural villas, as at Sette Finestre (111. 27 , at

Fishbourne, and in the palatial fourth-ccnturx villa at Montmaurin,

where the approach lay through a great semicircular courtyard.
Characteristic of the north-western provinces was a colonnaded
facade with a projecting wing at each end. Buildings of this t\ pe range
from the relatively humble winged-corridor villas with half a dozen
rooms to such great aristocratic country houses as those of Nennig and
Otrang. Mosaics from Tabarka in Tunisia show a variation which has
towers at the ends and an arcaded galler\ running between them.
Tacitus describes how, after the Roman conquest, Britons were en-
couraged to build temples, fora and houses Agricola, XXI). The rural
villa, in all its variety, with its mosaics, painted wall-plaster, columns

and baths, shows how widespread was the adoption l>\ western pro-
vincials of the Roman manner of living.
 ARCHITECTURE 63

42. Atrium of the

Samnite House,
Herculaneum, showing
Style I decoration. 2nd
century BC.

fr-OFm
43. Peristyle of the
House of the Silver Bust,
Vaison-la-Romaine. Later
1st century AD. j /-*f?
64 ARCHITECTURE

The planning of many of these buildings shows an almost Palladian

regard for symmetrical arrangement and axiality. At Fishbourne. this
v\ as enhanced by the formal layout of hedges and shrubs in the garden

enclosed by the four wings of the palace, imposing a man-made order

upon nature. Elsewhere, garden pavilions like the so-called Temple of
Minerva Medica in the Licinian Gardens at Rome provided archi-
tectural counterpoint to the informality of their surroundings. The
landscape setting of villas like Chedworth in Gloucestershire was
carefully chosen, frequently the fold of a hillside overlooking a valley.
Such was the situation of the villa of Piazza Armerina in Sicily, built
early in the fourth century for some great landowner. 42 It is remark-
able for the ingenuity of its design, with its varied combinations of
curved and rectilinear elements in the rooms and courtyards, changes
of floor level, and the several different axes of its component parts.
Here, luxury and studied informality provided an ideal setting for
aristocratic relaxation.

FUNERAL MONUMENTS
The commemoration of the dead provided almost limitless oppor-
tunit\ for the varied architectural treatment of funeral monuments. In
the Vatican necropolis beneath St Peter's at Rome, and in the Isola
Sacra cemeter) outside Ostia, houses of the dead erected on family

I
\. Funeral monument
of C. Spectatius Prise ian

Sempeter ( leleia . Eai 1\

2nd rutin i \ AD.

 ARCHITECTURE 65

45. Rock-cut tomb, Petra burial plots fronted the streets in the same way as the houses of the
(the Khasne). living. The Tomb of Annia Regilla (111.28) and the building shown on
1st century BC. one of the reliefs from the Tomb of the Haterii (111. 79) were

46. Mausoleum of decorated in a manner which docs indeed have its counterparts in
Constantina (now the domestic architecture (see above, p. 43). The pedimented aedicula
church of Santa sheltering relief carvings of the deceased was also common in Italy and
Costanza), Rome. Second the western provinces (111. 44). Both in the East and in the West, there
quarter of 4th century AD.
are varied examples of free-standing towers decorated with sculpture
and attached columns or pilasters; they include those outside Palmyra,
the 'Tomb of Absalom' at Jerusalem, the 'Tomb of the Scipios'
near
Tarragona, the Monument of the Julii at Glanum and the Igel Monu-
ment in Germany. The rock-cut facades of the tombs at Petra are the
most remarkable illustrations of the baroque tendencies of Roman
architecture in the East (111. 45) .43 Possibly the most important tomb
type was the circular or polygonal centrally-planned mausoleum. It
is

represented at its grandest by those of Augustus and Hadrian (now the

Castel Sant' Angelo), both in Rome, and that of Diocletian at Split.
Its

significance is perfectly illustrated by what was the

mausoleum and is
now the church of Santa Costanza in Rome (111. 46; see Chapter 12, p.
248), for it was this type of building
which was adopted by the
Christian church as the model for western baptisteries and
Byzantine
churches. At Ravenna, the Mausoleum of the Gothic king Theodoric,
basilican
the Neonian and Arian baptisteries, and the brick-built
churches, show both the continuity of Roman architecture's
finest

traditions, and their adaptation to the needs of a new age.

CHAPTER THREE

Sculpture
ANTHONY BONANNO

In the historiography of ancient art, the essence of Roman art is a

much discussed problem. In the past, largely as a result of Winckel-
mann's idealization of Greek classic sculpture, Roman art was
considered an extension in time and space of the Greek and by
some even a debased version of it. Others have tried to evaluate
it as an independent art with its own distinguishing features
and original contributions. Most of this debate has centred on
sculpture, since architecture and painting present different sets of
problems. The structural elements of Roman architecture are funda-
mentally different from those of Greek architecture, and the Greek
orders are mostly borrowed for embellishment; our knowledge of
Greek painting is extremely limited, due to the loss of practically all
the Greek originals, and is based on Roman versions and Greek vase-
painting. Roman sculpture, however, is essentially hybrid and its
character is quite impossible to define. Several stylistic trends, the
product of diverse social and ethnic strata, contributed towards the
formation of a multi-faceted corpus of artistic manifestations.
Within the metropolis itself a clear distinction can be made between
upper-class or patrician taste and the indigenous Central-Italic tradi-
tions associated with the middle-class and plebeians. The former was
cultivated in the Greek manner, characterized by such works of art as
the relief sculpture of the Ara Pacis and the portraits of the Emperor
Hadrian. The hitter manifested themseh es in the funerary portraiture
of the late Republic and in such works as the frieze on the tomb of the
baker Eurysaces.
The encounter of classical civilization with different native artistic
traditions, started by Alexander's conquests, continued on a larger
scale and with greater intensit) in the Empire. This produced such
essential!) diverse artistic expressions as the '( iallo-Roman' lion of
Chalon-sur-Saone, with its strong Celtic component 111. 47), the

puppet-like figures in the relief on the Arch of Augustus al Susa. and

the hieratic, rigidly frontal funerary sculptures of Palmyra.
In Asia the tradition of the great Hellenistic schools of sculpture
prepared the soil for a great development in plastic art. The new
centres of production operating in the regions of the old Hellenistic
ones held fast to the rationality and naturalism of traditional Greek

art.Aphrodisias was one of the most productive centres, favoured 1>\

the presence of quarries of white marble of the finest quality. Works
 SCt'LPTIRK ''7

'"^Ir
47. Statue group of a
lion assailing a gladiator.
Limestone. Height 1 10 cm.
1stcentury AD. Chalon-
sur-Saone, Musee Denon.

signed by Aphrodisian sculptors have been discovered in Greece,

Rome and North Africa. Further to the East, namely in Parthian art,
the Graeco- Roman influence is manifest in dress and general ty-

pology, but the style is oriental in its undeviating frontality, flatness of

relief and hieratic composition (111. 48). The representation is ana-
lytical, symbolical an decorative. 1

Turning to the northern provinces of Europe, we pass from a part of

the world where classical culture had long been established to one
where it was new and alien. The architectural sculpture of Gallia
Narbonensis was imbued with Hellenism already in the first century
AD (111. 49), but it is not certain whether this was due to a pre-existing
Greek tradition or to the strong Hellenistic component in Roman
2
imperial art. Under Trajan, new relations were established with these

48. Funerary relief from

Palmyra with reclining
deceased and sitting
consort. Limestone. Height
43 cm. Mid-2nd century
AD. Paris, Musee du
Louvre.
68 SCULPTURE

provinces and Roman influence became deeper and more extensive in 49. North frieze on the
Spain, Gaul and Germany. In the peripheral regions inhabited by attic of the Arch of
Tiberius at Orange, with
barbarians it hardly managed to penetrate. The helical frieze of
battle scene. Limestone.
Trajan's Column iscomplete contrast with his Tropin at
in
Height 150 cm. c.AD 25.
Adamklissi (111. 50) .3 Both were set up to celebrate the Dacian vic-
tories but one is the product of Roman metropolitan art, the other of
barbarian provincial taste. The fifty-four metopes of the Tropin.
carved in local limestone by sculptors of provincial training, reveal a
lack of experience in figurative representation, inorganic structure and
a naive idiom that remains detached from the classical current.
The African provinces have yielded sculpture that is, in main
aspects, of Roman official character and exhibits traditionally classical
features. Much of it is imported even if carved on the site, the work of
foreign artists. Excellent examples have been found in Volubilis,
Cuicul Chercel and Lepcis Magna. This phenomenon is very prob-
ably due to the absence of an indigenous culture which was strong
enough to influence the process of romanization. The Berbers lacked
real artistic traditions, and Punic influences are only apparent in a lew
works of a religious nature. 50. Battle between a
The origins of Roman sculpture have already been discussed in Roman soldier and
Chapter 1. The main problem arises from the contrast between the barbarians. Metope from
die Trajanic Trophy at
written evidence we have of the existence of several pieces of sculpture,
Adamklissi. Limestone.
including honorific statues, in public places in Rome in the second
Width 1 it) cm. c.AD. 1 10.
centuryB( and before Pliny, NH, XXXIV. 15, 20-34), and the fact that Adamklissi, Museum.
not one of these sculptures survives today. The only masterpiece of
portraiture dated to the third century BC which appears to contain the
hallmarks of the Roman character, the Capitoline bronze head of
'Brutus', has been variously attributed to Etruria and, more recently,
to Central Italy. Central-Italic is a new ly identified artistic koine under
which have been grouped several sculptures mostly in local stone and
terracotta datable to the third and second centuries BC. 4 It was in-
fluenced in varying degrees, both iconographically and stylistically, b\
Greek Hellenistic art. but its artistic idiom was inspired by the aus-
terity and uncouth character of the rustic mountain communities. Its
development was located in the central part of the Italian peninsula,
the regions occupied by the Apulians, Picenlenes. Campaniaiis.
 SCt'LPTIRK 69

Samnites and Latins. Workshops employing this style must have

existed in Rome itself. Examples of this art are the statue of
Orpheus surrounded by animals discovered near Porta Tiburtina
(111. 51) and the sculptural fragments from the tomb of the Flute-

Players on the Esquiline. The iconography of the Orpheus is typically

Hellenistic, but the naturalistic forms are marred by lumpy modelling
and lack of refinement.
Only from Trajan's time onwards can one really speak of a truly
new, basically 'Roman' art, as distinct from Greek and Etruscan art,
and apart from sporadic manifestations of local genius. Only then, as
Hellenistic eclecticism gradually disappeared, did Roman monu-
mental art start to follow its own independent path. The sculpture of
the first century BC and first century AD, barring certain classes of
portraiture, had been overwhelmed by the influence of Greek sculp-
ture either directly from the Hellenistic centres or indirectly from
Etruscan and South-Italian Greek art. This was largely the result of an
intense desire to possess Greek originals or at least faithful copies which
almost became a mania amongst Romans of the upper- and middle-
classes in the lasttwo centuries BC.
Between the third and first centuries BC Rome subjugated and
annexed the whole of the Greek world as well as most of the Hellenized
East. The Greeks in Magna Graecia, Sicily and Greece itself enjoyed a
much more advanced civilization than the Romans, and their new
masters did not hesitate to assimilate it and make it their own. Thus the
51. Statue group of Roman victors carried to Rome as war booty the works of art of the
Orpheus surrounded by captured Greek cities and placed them in their temples and public
animals. Peperino. Height
90 cm. End of 2nd century
buildings as well as in their private palaces. When this immense source
BC. Rome, Palazzo dei
of Greek art was exhausted, the need of the Roman middle-classes to
Conservatori. possess similar works of art made it necessary to reproduce these
originals in copies. These reproductions naturally differed in quality
according to the abilities of the copyists. Soon variations on the
original themes were introduced and changing tastes and new sculp-
tural techniques also left their marks on the copies.
The fusion of Greek and Roman culture resulted in the adoption by
Roman religion of the Greek pantheon and its iconography. Thus the
iconography of the Greek Zeus was adopted for the Roman Jupiter.
Athena became Minerva, and Mercurx assumed the attributes of the
Greek messenger of the gods, Hermes.
Judging from the quantity of sculptures found during excavations
or fished up from the sea (for example from the shipwrecks of Mahdia
on the Tunisian coast, and at the Piraeus), the export to Rome of Neo-
Attic works of art must have been enormous. The Neo-Attic school
flourished in Athens in the second half of the second century BC. Pliny
{JVH, XXXIY. 52) dates its origin around 50 BC. It specialized in copies
1

and re-elaborations of well-known classical masterpieces and in

refined ornamental works, such as sculptured marble vases and cande-
labra.
Pasitelcs and with other Greek sculptors (mostly
his pupils, together
known only by name) such Evander, Glykon and
as Archesilaos,
Apollonios, were the chief representatives of the Neo-Attic school in
 .

7° SCULPTURE

52. 'Orestes and Electra'.

Marble statue group. Height
150 cm. Late 1st century BC.
Naples, Museo Nazionale.

Rome itself at the end of the Republic. Their principal characteristic

was eclecticism (see page 9). The eclectic and academic tendencies of
the school of Pasiteles are recognized in numerous works, including the
group of Orestes and Electra in the Museo Nazionale of Naples (111.
52).
One of the fundamental elements oil he formation of a new, Roman
art was the search for optical effects of light and shade. They had
begun to permeate Roman sculpture 1>\ the time of Claudius and
became an essential st) listic trait under the Flavians. Both this optical
illusion and the quest for motion and deepened space in reliel sculp-
ture were not unknown in Hellenistic art, but in Roman sculpture they
constituted two determinant factors in giving it its own independent
identity. The exploration of optical effects 'Impressionism') reached
its apogee under the Antonines and Severans. There followed a total

break with the basic, rational and humanistic tenets of classical Greek
sculpture and the triumph of the abstract, transcendental view of
1 edit \ of Late Antiquit)

State and Private Sponsorship. Sculptural monuments in the Roman

repertory were cither commissioned by the State or sponsored pri-
During the Republic it is far
vately by individuals, families or groups.
from easy to draw a separating line between the two. Any cult statue
commissioned by a consul or general for a temple or public place was
set ud to advance the reputation of that state official as much as to
SCI I.l'll'RI. 71

commemorate a historical event of national importance, such as a

victory. The few surviving historical reliefs of this period, such as that
on the monument of Aemilius Paullus in Delphi and the reliefs from
the 'Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus', had the same dual purpose
though the medium was much more direct and explicit. After all, such
works of art could be paid for and set up in public and religious places
because of the position held by the official commissioning them.
Similarly, although Republican statesmen intended their individual
portraits to enhance their own personal status it is hard to explain the
proliferation of copies of these portraits in different parts of the
Empire except as the result of official political influence.
From the time of Augustus onwards, with some anticipation during
the dictatorship of Caesar, the Emperor and the State became synony-
mous. Whatever monument was set up to propagate the idea of the
power of Rome (be it a frieze, statue, or sculptured arch), it was in
some way linked to the name and image of the ruling Emperor or his
family. A portrait of the Emperor (or of a close member of his family)
or a relief celebrating his achievements also served to assert Rome's
central and omnipresent power and the Empire's invulnerability to
outside forces.
All Roman sculpture which does not fall under any of the categories
mentioned above can be considered to be the result of private spon-
sorship. Prominent among these are the portraits, whether busts or
statues, of private individuals, funerary sculpture including sarco-
phagi, and miniature statuary, both in stone and in bronze. This type
of sculpture was intended for private use, whether it was purely
decorative, religious or even commemorative.

commemorative, reliefs were set up to

Historical Reliefs. Historical, or
commemorate specific events or achievements of Roman statesmen.
They invariably formed part of monuments, mostly architectural,
commissioned either by the protagonists of the historical events or by
some official body in their honour and that of the Roman people. The
Greeks had used this art-form to celebrate important historical land-
marks, but they preferred to hide the factual element under the veil of
myth or allegory. Thus in the fifth century in order to celebrate the
victory of the Greeks over the Persians traditional and legendary
themes were chosen, such as the Amazonomachy, Centauromachy
and Gigantomachy.
Roman commemorative reliefs, therefore, as factual repre-
sentations of historical events, did not have predecessors in Greek art.
On the other hand, battle-scenes from the history of Central Italy are
found in Etruscan art (see Chapter 1, page 24), though only in
painting not in sculptural relief. From the third century BC onwards
there evidence of the existence in Rome itself of paintings illustrating
is

episodes from war campaigns, the so-called 'Triumphal Paintings'

(Livy, XXIV. 16; XLI. 28; Pliny, NH, XXXV. 22, 23, 135; Josephus,
Bellum Judaicum, VII. 139-52; Festus, De Verborum Significatione (ed. C.
O. Muller, Leipzig, 1880) p. 209; Appian, vm. 66). These were
displayed in triumphal processions and exhibited in public places.
 5

72 SCULPTURE

Perhaps the famous fragmentary painting from a tomb on the

Esquiline showing military scenes (Plate i) was inspired by these

paintings, none of which have survived.

Whether these triumphal paintings gave rise to, or somehow in-
fluenced, the development of Roman commemorative reliefs has not
been established. It is certain, however, that both testify to the same
sense of history and to the Romans' deep-rooted passion for factual
detail. It perhaps not a coincidence that the first surviving historical
is

such a war episode and that it was erected by L.

relief illustrates
Aemilius Paullus, the man who asked the Athenians for a painter to
commemorate his victory over the Macedonian king, Perseus (Plim .

NH, xxxv. i ;-, .

This relief consists of a long frieze running round the top of a tall

rectangular pillar supporting an equestrian statue of Aemilius Paullus

which stood close to the temple of Apollo at Delphi. In four scenes,
distributed on the long and short sides of the pillar, the relief shows
episodes from the battle of Pydna (168 Be). The theme and the
((imposition of the melee against a neutral background are essentially
Hellenistic and have much in common with the 'Alexander Sarco-
phagus' from Sidon. Together with the style and technique of the
carving they suggest th.it the relief was designed and sculpted by a
Greek or Hellenistic artist. It is hard to conceive of a Roman arlisT
producing anything;of this standard either in the second centur) BCor
for a long time afterwards. It has been suggested that one of the
horsemen should be identified with Paullus himself. 6 If so, this is the
lnsi extant Roman portrait in relief.
The earliest historical relief from Rome itselfis that belonging to the
so-called 'Altar of Doniitius Ahenobarbus', now in the Louvre. It was
found in Rome in the seventeenth century together with a frieze
representing the marriage ol Poseidon and Amphitrite with a retinue
ofTritons and Nereids now in Munich Both reliefs belonged to the.

same monument, now thought to be the base for a group of statues in a

temple pet haps die temple of Neptune in circo Flamitlio lather than an
altar. The connection with the Domitii lamih has now been
dropped." 53. Census and lustrum.

The subject of the Louvre relief III. 53 is a census, on the left, Frieze from the so-called
'Ah. 11 of Doniitius
combined with a suovetaurilia the sacrifice of a pig, sheep and bull), on
Ahenobarbus'. Marble.
the right.The presence of soldiers on both sides and of the god Mars in Height 82 cm., width
the centre suggests a censorial lustrum made in connection with the 559 cm. cioo BC:. Paris.
enrolment 01 disbanding of troops. The naval connotation of the Musee du Louvre.
 SCl'I.PTl'Rl

*
Mt
54. Marine thiasos. marine thiasos in Munich (111. 54) suggests that the sacrificing priest of
Frieze from the so-called
the Louvre frieze may be Marcus Antonius, the orator, who was
'Altar of Domitius
entrusted with the reorganization of the fleet for a campaign against
Ahenobarbus'. Marble.
Height 78 cm., width the pirates. This he did successfully and celebrated a triumph. He was
559 cm. c. 100 BC. later elected censor in 97 BC and the reliefs are thought to date from
Munich, Glyptothek. around that time.
There is a remarkable difference in both content and form between
the two friezes. The Louvre relief depicts a typically Roman event in
factual, typicall) Roman, fashion. The Munich relief, on the other
hand, portrays a Greek mythological subject in the conventional late-
Hellenistic style. The composition is symmetrical on both reliefs, but
the lustrum scene, in contrast to the other, is broken up in paratactic
groups without an) real link between them. The execution of the
stocky figures is unskilful and clumsy. The proportions of the various
parts of the bodies and the relations of the figures to one another and to
the animals are far from naturalistic.
The co-existence of two distinct languages of imagery and style on
the same monument appears to be typical of the Roman insensibility
to the jarring incoherence often produced b\ such combinations.
Similar antithetical arrangements occur repeatedly in later sculptured
monuments.
One of the earliest of such monuments is the Ara Pacis, the monu-
mental altar voted by the Senate to celebrate Augustus' return from
Spain and Gaul in 13 BC and the peace that followed the civil wars. 8
The altar stood in a walled enclosure with two entrances. The lack of
uniformity in the relief-decoration of the altar, however, lies neither
in the qualit) of the sculpture, which is executed to the highest

standards, nor in the style and technique, but in the subject-matter

itself. The show purely allegorical
four panels flanking the entrances
or mythological scenes heavily influenced by the landscape reliefs of
Hellenistic art. Together with the rich floral decoration both on the
inner surfaces of the enclosure and on the lower dado of the outside,
the same monument has a long frieze depicting a Roman historical
subject. This is a procession of Roman officials, priests and members of
the imperial house (111. 55) including the Emperor Augustus himself.
It is generally agreed that this procession is the very one which took
74 SCULPTURE

55. Procession of pries

and members of the
imperial family. Detail
from the south side of t
frieze of the Ara Pads
Augustae. Marble.
Height (frieze only) 55
cm., width of entire
frieze 10.16 m. 13-9 BC
Rome.

place on the day of the consecration of the altar site, 4 July 1 3 BC (Res
Gestae, xil. 2; CIL 12. 244, 247, 320). Thus a specific event of contem-
porary history recorded with anecdotal detail in three-dimensional -
is

relief and the participants of that same even are skilfully portrayed.
The classical character of the frieze with its eleganl simplicity and
clarit) of style is certainly due to the design and execution ofGreek
sculptors, whose art had now found favour with official state patrons.
The) belonged to that late Hellenistic artistic current, the Neo-Attic
movement, which looked back to the traditional classical models of the
fifth and fourth enturies B<
1 It is in fad on a fifth-centur) Athenian
.

monument that this processional frieze is modelled: the Panathenaic

procession depicted on the Parthenon. On
the Ara Pacis, .is in the
Athenian frieze, the procession is made to travel in the same direction
along the two sides ol the building. The two sections of the procession
were envisaged .is meeting at the main entrance on the west front.
Though we observe the same paratacti< arrangement of the figures
as in previous reliefs of Roman pedigree, such as the lustrum in the

Louvre and the frieze showing a triumphal procession from the temple
of Apollo incampo, here the figures are disposed on two. rarcK on three.
planes of relief.
The date of lite frieze decorating the internal entablature of the
Basilica Aemilia in the Roman Forum is uncertain. Stylistically it
seems to fit in the restoration of that building of 55-33 BC, or even the
Tiberian restoration of \i» 22. The frieze does not fall strictly within
our definition of historical reliefs since it does not portray instance's of
contemporary or quasi-contemporary history, but recalls episodes
from the legendary origins of Rome for example, the Punishment of
1

Tarpeia and the Rape of the Sabine Women .

Of the several commemorative reliefs produced in the first century

AD, the Frieze of the Vicomagistri (111. 56)9 deserves a special men-
tion because-, like the Scvcran Arch of the Argentnrii, it must have
 75

56. Frieze of the been privately commissioned, even though in this case the sponsors
Vicomagistri. Procession were themselves city magistrates. What survives is only one side of a
of street wardens, youths
rectangular monument, perhaps an altar. Altars of a similar type, but
carrying the lares,

sacrificial animals, smaller in size, appear to have been often commissioned b\ such street
musicians and lictors. wardens and examples are found in various museums.
Marble. Height entire The frieze, which from the style and facial type of the figures
frieze) 105 cm., width
appears to be datable to the late Julio-Claudian period, shows a
472 cm. Mid- 1st century
procession of magistrates, priests and camilli together with three sacri-
AD. Vatican, Museo
Gregoriano Profano. ficial victims and their attendants. The figures are rather stocky and

one of the surviving heads of the magistrates has all the requisites of
portraiture and is very representative of the homely, plebeian It. die
character of the vicomagistri, who were normally of freedman status.
Unlike those of the Ara Pads, the figures are given some free space
above their heads, and some background figures are raised on higher
levels than the foreground ones while their feet are kept on the same
level. This can only be interpreted as a naive attempt to give an illusion
of spatial depth. The break from the neo-classical convention of
isocephalism (i.e. heads on the same level) is here complete and
heralds the increasing mastery of space in later historical reliefs. But
probh s created by such a novelt) were not solved logically and
ilh until the reliefs on the Arch ofTitusand the Column of
Trajan were caned, since not even the designer of frieze B of the
Flavian Cancelleria reliefs succeeded in eliminating such anomalies. 10
The affinity to the less Hellenized composition and formal treat-
ment of the late Republican lustrum relief in the Louvre has caused the
Vicomagistri frieze to be regarded as another example of plebeian art:
in part a reaction against the official style of the court and in part
derivative from it. In man} of its aspects, especially the stockily
proportioned figures, plebian art continued to be employed - for
instance in the narrow attic friezes of the triumphal arches of Titus,
Trajan and Septimius Severus - until it flowed into the mainstream of
officiallyrecognized and officially sponsored art in the fourth-century 57. The triumphal
procession of Titus
relic of the Arch of Constantino.
Is
carrying the spoils from
Since the beginning of this century, the two relief panels, one on
the temple of Jerusalem.
either side of the passageway of the Arch of Titus, have been the centre Relief panel on the south
of gravity of Roman art history. They assumed this important role sideof the gateway of the
when Wickhoff, in his introduction to the Vienna Genesis, discovered m Arch of Titus. Marble.
them the culmination of one of Roman sculpture's most original Height of panel 204 cm.,
width 385 cm. AD 80-5.
achievements, 'spatial illusionism'." The two panels show two suc-
Rome.
cessive moments of a triumphal procession. The triumph is that cele-
brated by Titus iu ad 7 after his victory over Judaea and the capture
1 .

of Jerusalem the previous year. One panel shows Titus on a chariot

preceded by a crowd of lictors; the other 111. 57) shows the spoils from
1

the temple of Jerusalem.' 2

The illusion of space produced in the two reliefs, together with the
pictorial qualities of contemporary Flavian portraiture, is the first full-
blooded expression of Roman 'impressionism': in the view of many, a
basicalK new concept ol visual interpretation. The problem ofrepre-
sentint; human forms bathed in air and light is here resolved. The
thick, fast-moving, human crowd is organically related to the back-
ground. The illusion of depth and space is enhanced l>\ the spoils of the
temple, the tituli and the fasces, w hich stand out of. or merge into, the
open ground above the participants. The figures recede gradually into
the background through four different planes of relief. Only in a
limited area are the he, ids made to rise step-wise on three levels.
Furthermore, the background of both panels is made to curve slightly
inwards from sides to centre, while the figures stand out progressively
in higher relief the nearer they are to the centre. Thus the spectator
standing in the passageway between the two reliefs is given the impres-
sion ol a direct experience, ofphysical participation in the triumphal
procession.
Trajan's reign is the richest in monument.il relief sculpture. Two of
these monuments, the historiated Column and the Great Frieze
(which now. separated into lour panels, embellishes the Arch of
 SCULPTURE 77

Constantine) adorned the Forum of Trajan in Rome. The third is the

arch at Beneventum, the sculpture of which falls into three groups: the
panels on the side facing Beneventum, and therefore Rome, show
events of Trajan's reign connected with Rome; those facing the
countryside show events connected with the provinces (111. 58); and
the panels in the passageway those concerned with Beneventum it-
self. '3In these reliefs the cartoonist follows closely on the lines of the
master of the Arch of Titus in his quest for the illusion of space, and the
figures remain more or less on the same level, though carved at
different depths of relief. They carry a range of good portraits both of
the Emperor and of other important officials, amongst whom Trajan's
successor, Hadrian, has been identified.
The Column of Trajan was designed to form an integral part and
58. {Below, left) a .focal point of that magnificent architectural programme that was the
kneeling province Forum of Trajan. It stood behind the Basilica Ulpia and was flanked
submits to Trajan.
by the two famous libraries, the Greek and the Latin, from which one
North-eastern relief
panel on the attic of the
enjoyed a better view of the upper courses of the relief.
Arch of Trajan at The relief decoration takes the form of a spiral frieze running round
Benevento. Marble. the shaft of theColumn, and depicts in the 'continuous' narrative style
Height of panel f.230 the events of Trajan's campaigns of ior-2 and 105-7 against the
cm. AD 14-17.1
Dacians (111. 59) 4 The narration of the two campaigns is separated by
.
'

Benevento.
a Victory writing on a shield and flanked by two trophies. The scenes
59. (Below, right) are either directly linked to each other without the slightest break, or
adlocutio: the emperor separated by means of some landscape element for example a tree or a
(

addressing his troops.

rock) indicating a turning-point in the narration.
Part of the spiral relief of
Trajan's Column.
On Column the human figures dominate the surrounding land-
the
Marble. Height scape, which is consequently reduced in scale and seen from a bird's-
(average) 100 cm. eye view by means of a pictorial 'map' technique, whereby the ground
AD 1 10-13. Rome. seems to have been tilted forwards. The figures at the back are thus
78 SCI U'Tl'RK

raised above those

in front to give a pictorial illusion of perspective.
The remains very low throughout - it rarely exceeds 2 cm.
relief itself
:

in.
j
- in order not to break the contour of the shaft. In the
background the details are often merely incised and the figures in \ er\
low relief are offset by an outline groove.
The Great Trajanic Frieze is carved in the 'continuous' style, having
at least two different scenes following one another without any separa-
tion. '5 One shows the advent of the Emperor in the city and the other a
widely spread battle scene with the Emperor on horseback charging
the enemy. The Frieze differs greatly from the Column both in con-
cept and in composition. Whereas on the Column the spectator views a
more or less faithful episodic narration of the Dacian Wars unfolded
on an imaginary scroll round the shaft of a column, in the Frieze he is
presented with an ideal s\ nthesis of the war and the ensuing triumphal
celebrations on the same historico-allegorical lines as those of the Arch
of Beneventum.
The monumental dimensions of the Frieze allow for a much higher
relief than in die Column and consequently we find on it a much
greater variety of planes, ranging from foreground figures almost
standing out in the round to figures merely designed on the back-
ground. The step-wise supcrimposition of heads receding gradually
into the distance is different from thai of die Column, where the
figures are cut on the same heighl of relief and recede into the"
background in die map-like technique.
The short-lived renaissance of classicism which began with the
accession of Hadrian, nicknamed Graeculus die "Greekling" - pro-

Go. Norili facade of the

Arch of Constantine.
two of Hadrian's
Abovi
medallionsfrom a Inst
monument). Repose after
a lion hunt and Sac ili<i e
in 1 let iules. Marble.

Diameter 236 em.

At) [30-8. [Below
( lonstantinian frieze
showing a largitio
distribution oflargesse ,

Marble. Height 102 em.,

width 538 cm. c.AD 315.
SCULPTURE 79

duced the famous hunting tondi later placed by Constantine on his

arch (111. 60), Ib and the panel reliefs, now in the Palazzo dei Conser-
vatory one showing the apotheosis of Sabina and the other a public
address (adlocutio) .'? The style is eclectic on both sets of relief but
whereas the Conservatori panels lack inspiration and energy, the
roundels are vigorous compositions and more decidedly Greek in
character. The background is either neutral or resembles a backdrop.
There is no suggestion of depth.
More interesting are the reliefs on the base of the now destroyed
Column of Antoninus Pius and Faustina I, especially for their internal
contrast between the anachronistic, classicizing representation of the
apotheosis of the imperial pair, generally felt to be too academic and
even cold and lifeless, and the lively, 'surprisingly Late Antique',
8
4ecursio cavalr) parade) scenes on the sides.' In the latter, with total
disregard for the rules of perspective, the designer disposed all figures
on the same plane and placed them on separate projecting ledges.
Scale and space are treated irrationally. The combination of the
courtly, academic style and the spontaneous plebeian one on the very
same monument is yet another instance of the prevalent Roman taste
forsuch contrasts.
A long frieze of the type of the Great Trajanic Frieze, now in
Vienna, was probably set up to commemorate Lucius Verus' victory
over the Parthians in the wars of ad 16 1-5. '9 Although it was dis-
covered in a provincial town, Ephesus in Asia Minor, there is almost
nothing provincial about it. On the contrary, it is \er\ traditional and
metropolitan in style and technique when compared with the large
panels of Marcus Aurelius in Rome. The use of the running drill and
the plastic indication of the eyes are completely absent in some slabs.
The only provincial trait, typical of the eastern provinces, is the almost
hieratic frontal representation of the imperial portrait group of
Hadrian and his Antonine adoptive successors, an anticipation of the
frontality of metropolitan relief sculpture.
later
Fight of the panels of Marcus Aurelius were built into the Arch of
Constantine and three are in the Conservatori (111. 61 ). 20 There are
some clear differences ol'st\ le between the two groups but the dimen-
sions and shape of the panels are identical. Besides, though the
Emperor's head is missing on the Arch panels, the appearance of the
same portrait figure, identified as Pompeianus, in a similar style on
both groups further confirms their close relations.
The sculptors responsible for these panels accepted some of the
traditional conventions of plastic art established in official commemo-
rative programmes of previous emperors, and introduced new ones.
Foremost among the latter is the negative modelling produced b\ the
running drill, which can best be appreciated in the rendering of the
hair and beard of Pompeianus, the Emperor's close friend. This
impressionistic technique contributed further to the departure from
objective naturalism and organic cohesion of forms in traditional
Graeco-Roman art.
This disintegration of organic form reached an advanced stage in
the Column of Marcus Aurelius, where the human body became
8o SCULPTURE

clumsy and ill-proportioned, either too elongated or too short and in . Above, left) Marcus
dumpy.-' The heads arc almost without exception too large and very
1 Aurelius sacrificing in
front of the temple of
cursorily worked. These are all characteristics of Late Antique sculp-
Jupiter on the Capitol.
ture. One other later Roman stylistic element which appears on the
Relief panel from a lost
Column is hieratic fronted representation not only in the composition monument. Marble.
bin a No in the disposition of individual figures, in particular that of the Height 314 cm., width
Emperor (111. 62). 210 cm. AD 176-80.
Rome, Palazzo dei
Of Septimius Severus
5

inonimient.il sculptures, the reliefs on his

( lonsei vatori.
arch at Lepcis Magna in North Africa are carved in the tradition of
Marcus Aurelius' panels, but v\ modelling and a
ith Hatter, less plastic 62. [Above, right)

wider use of the drill. 22 So in many ways is the arch commissioned in adlocutio: Marcus
Aurelius addressing his
Severus' honour 1>\ the Roman silversmiths, in which frontal
troops. Part of the spiral
representation prevails. 2 3 The large panels on Septimius' triumphal
relief of the Column of
arch in the Roman Forum (111. 63), which illustrate his campaigns in Marcus Aurelius. Marble.
the East, follow on the tradition of the Aurelian helical Column, but Height (average)
the 'continuous' illustration is distributed on registers separated by 130 cm. AD 180-92.
Rome.
projecting ledges. J t
The human figure is stock) and deprived of all

grace. Within the scenes the bird's-eye perspective, or tilted-ground

view of the ( lolumn is maintained. The figures are carved in a much
.

higher relief than on either of the Columns, and in several instances

rows of figures are superimposed step-wise on different planes.
After Septimius Severus very little monumental sculpture was pro-
duced in the third century. Sculpture was in fact mosth confined to
portraits, sarcophagi and small decorative reliefs. This was certainly
clue to the political troubles and economic ruin of the times. The
 SCULPTl Rl.

soldierswho rose in rapid succession to imperial power had neither the

time nor the financial resources to carry out historiated monuments
such as those of previous centuries. A new surge of production rose
with the Tetrarchic rule at the beginning of the fourth century.
In 303, on the occasion of the decennalia of the reign of Diocletian,
five columns were erected in his honour in the Forum Romanum. The
base of only one of these survives. One side of it is decorated with a
scene ofsacrifice in relief.
2^
In it the carver has made the maximum use
o! negative modelling, that is to say gouging deeply the surface of the
marble with the running drill to create the illusion of surfaces
modelled in the round.
A contemporary monument, the Arch of Galerius in Thessalonika,
is in many ways more conservative in the modelling techniques,
63. Relief panel on the
south-west face of the tbtough the drill is used extensively. 26 The background figures are in
Arch of Septimius negative relief while the foreground ones are in very high relief. The
Severus in the Forum most eye-catching quality of the various scenes is the mechanical unity
Romanum. Episodes
of composition achieved by symmetry and hierarchical proportions.
from the Parthian
In the adlocutio scene the large and centrally placed figure of Galerius
campaigns. Marble.
Height 400 cm., width tops the whole pyramidal composition.
490 cm. AD 203. Rome. This compositional organization reflects the new concept of Im-
 .

82 SCULPTURE

perial rule, consequent on the transformation of the Principate into

the Dominate. In parallel to the rigid re-organization of the State
following the reforms of Diocletian, the unruly natural forms in art
were arranged according to the strict lines of a mechanical order
imposed from above on people and objects. This new vision is best
illustrated in the genuinely Constantinian frieze on the Arch of Con-
stantine in Rome (AD 312-15). 2 7
The two on the east facade represent Constantine addressing
reliefs
the people of Rome and presiding over the free distribution of money
to Rome's citizens. Here everything is in strict symmetry, subor-
dinated to the dominating figure of the Emperor at the centre. The
figures are not gathered in free, natural groups but arranged as
uniform elements side by side in regular rows.
The dumpy proportions of the puppet-like figures derive from the
popular narrative stream of Roman art. The mechanical, trans- 64. Portrait of a young

cending vision of the universe, however, ushers in the art of man. Bronze. Height 27
cm. 3rd-2nd century BC.
Byzantium.
Paris, Bibliotheque
Nationale.
Republican Portraiture. The origins and originality of Roman portraiture
have been the focus of serious debate among historians of ancient art.
For a long time it was held that the realism which constitutes the
essential characteristic of Roman portraiture of the Republic was
derived from the death-mask practice, vivid accounts of which have
been handed down to us by Polybius (VI. 53) and Pliny the Elder (NH,
XXXV. 6, 8). Death-masks were images 'reproducing with remark. ible
fidelity both the features and the complexion of the deceased". These
ancestral images were kept in special cupboards in the house, near the
atrium, and were paraded in public on special occasions.
It is now generally believed th.it the late Republican portrait was

produced In the convergence of a number of varied and sometimes

unrelated currents: 28 firstly, the ideology behind the typical Roman
portrail ame from the ancestral cult of the Roman patrician class as
<

expressed in the ius imaginum and in funerar) portraiture. The stark

k a ism of some ofthemosi typical portraits oil he period betrays their
I
65. Head ofPompey.
Marble. Height 28 cm.
derivation from the ancestral wax-portraits. Secondly Eg) ptian por-
.

Posthumous - probabl)
iraii art, with its love of faithful physiognomic rendering, undoubtedly an imperial cop)
influenced the development of the Roman realistic portrail directly or ( lopenhagen, \"\

indirectly. In the third place, the contribution of Hellenistic art in this ( larlsberg Glyptotek.

spin ic is niosiK stylistic. While realism is not absent in Hellenistic

portraiture, its it above a slavish
formal modelling almost always raises
adherence to realit) Finall) intensity of expression, when ii occurs, is
. .

due to the influence of the ( lentral-Italic milieu. This expressionism is

a dominant feature in the 'Brutus' and in the bronze head of a young
man in the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris 111. 64).
The typical honorific portrail as opposed to the pinch funerar)
one of the Republic developed between 90 B< the patrician return to
power and the last triumvirate p; 32 bc Several examples of ii .

have been identified with historical persons. Some identifications, such

as i| portraits of "Sulla', are tentative, but others are firm through
l(

comparisons with inscribed coin portraits, for example Pompe) and

 SCULPTURE 83

Caesar. Of these,
the beautifully modelled head of Pompey (111. 65)
with accentuated plasticit) has all the qualities of the work of a
its

Hellenistic artist, probably Greek. The portraits of 'Sulla' and Caesar

an inspired by those of Hellenistic princes. The modelling of the facial
f(d tires is drier and is more concerned with expressing the ethos, the
1

p< rsonalit) of the statesman, than with the merciless reproduction of

skin defects.
The extant portraits of unknown private individuals in the same
period constitute a class of portraiture quite distinct from those of
politicians. Compared with
the latter, this type of portrait presents
of the wax-portrait tradition. Verism (that is,
itself as the closest heir
exaggerated realism) is the dominating trait in these portraits. It is
hard to identify Hellenistic influence on them, but some early speci-
mens discovered in the Greek East suggest that even this class of
portrait could very well have been the work of Hellenistic sculptors.
Two representative specimens are the veiled head in the Vatican and
the head in the Albertinum at Dresden, with its lined, emaciated face.
Both illustrate magnificently the typical gnarled features of the
countryman: there was a strong peasant strain in the middle-class,
which formed the backbone of Roman society. The rendering of the
wrinkled skin in the latter is exceptionally fine, but the realism of the
head does not stop there. It penetrates beyond the skin into the bone-
structure, which is accentuated by the thin layer of flesh clinging to it.
The expression is grim and hauntingly death-like.
In the portrait of the old, boorish, leather-faced patrician in the
Museo Torlonia, on the other hand, no effort is spared in the repro-
duction of every wrinkle of the face (111. 66). In the forehead the
wrinkles arc rendered 1>\ deep line-drawing whereas a little more
plasticit) is moulded into the cheeks and mouth. This outstanding
portrait seems to capture the essential character of a late Republican
bourgeois.
Two different generations are represented by the portrait busts held
in the arms of a togate statue now in the Conservatori Museum
(111. 67). They are both in the naturalistic tradition, of Hellenistic
derivation, assimilated 1>\ the artists of central Italy. One is a repro-
duction of a portrait created around 50-40 BC; the other is a generation
66. Portraitofa younger. The statue itself is dated to the earliest years of the first
Roman patrician. century AD, though the head is not original.
Marble. Height (head
only) 35 cm. 80-50 BC.
Rome, Museo Torlonia Imperial Portraiture. The of Roman Republican
realistic, Italian strain
portraiture does not have survived as a living tradition into the
seem to
Empire - even in privately commissioned sculpture. The veristic type
of portrait recurring from Augustus' principate onwards is a descen-
dant of the other class of late Republican portraiture, the Hellenized
type, of which the portraits of identified statesmen (e.g. Caesar and
1

'Sulla are good examples.

)

In the Imperial age, privately commissioned portraits generally

followed the main lines of development of official portraiture both in
form and content. The Emperor and his wife were undoubtedly pace-
84 SCULPTURE

^67. Statue of a Roman

patrician carrying two
portrait bustof ancestors.
Marble. Height 165 cm.
End of st century BC.
1

Rome, Palazzo dei

( lonservatori.

68. Statue of Augustus

as Pontifex. Marble.
Height 2i 7 cm.
c.io B( to. Rome,
AD
Nlifttj>»8fe Museo Nazionale
Romano.

setters in iconographic matters such as hair-st) les . and in the diffu-

sion of particular styles. The student of ancient art should, however, be

careful not to lake t his generalization too far. Different schools, or
workshops, representing different stylistic trends, no doubt operated
simultaneously in Rome itself. Differentiation in style is much more
evident when comparing provincial specimens with their metropolitan
contemporaries. The fact that the Emperor favoured one particular
school or workshop at any given time almost certainly influenced the
tastes of the Roman market, and this in turn probably exerted pressure
on other Roman workshops to modify the style of their products
accordingly.
A siud\ ol portraits on Roman historical reliefs, however, reveals
thai in the past too much emphasis has been given to official imperial
portraiture as a yardstick for dating free-standing, private portraits.
SCULPTURE 85

The method is not unreasonable since not much else provides a

chronological gauge. But if one analyses the great differences, in
iconography and treatment, between imperial portraits and those of
other personages appearing on the same relief, one wonders whether
this approach to dating is always the correct one. The point is best
illustrated by a comparison of the portrait of the so-called 'Quietus'
with that of Trajan on the same relief in the Arch at Beneventum; the
heads of the Caesernii brothers in the Hadrianic tondi with Hadrian's
usual portraits; and of Pompeianus with Marcus Aurelius in the
latter's relief panels. Furthermore, an examination of the stereotyped
heads on the Flavian and Trajanic commemorative reliefs suggests
that the beard was probably worn by the ordinary soldiers and indivi-
duals long before Hadrian made it officially fashionable.
The of Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) saw the revival
relatively long reign
of Greek classical ideals through the explicit patronage of the Neo-
Attic style in official imperial monuments. Of the two most renowned
and typical portrait statues of Augustus, one, the cuirassed statue from
Prima Porta, is modelled on the Doryphoros of Polykleitos. The other,
the togate and veiled statue from the Via Labicana, is of a purely
Roman type. But there is no doubt that both are the product of the
same classicizing trend and executed by Greek, perhaps even Attic,
artists.
The Prima Porta statue, which still preserves some of the original
polychromy, represents Augustus 'addressing the army' iadlvcutio)
with right hand raised in the traditional attitude of an orator. 2 9 The
heroic nudit) of the Polykleitan model is suppressed in conformity
with the Roman traditional concepts of dignity (dignitas) and sobriety
gravitas). Instead, the rich panoply of symbols and personifications
that decorate his cuirass refers to the establishment of peace {pax
Augusta in the Empire and to Augustus' role as restitutor orbis (restorer
of world order). The head is idealized but cold. It is a virtuoso exercise
in acad emic correctness, w ith clear, definite contours, and lacks the
plastic modelling and psychological insight of Hellenistic portraiture.
The formal treatment is also inspired by the ideal standards of Greek
fifth-centur) art.
The veiled head of Augustus as Pontifex on the togate statue from
the Via Labicana (111. 68) is much more alive spiritually, even though
the Emperor's old age is only suggested by slightly hollow cheeks. The
modelling is extremely sensitive, expressed by a restrained chiaroscuro
effect derived from the soft transitions of a few simple planes. The
spirituality of the wise, benevolent father of the State and restorer of
traditional morality emanates from the shaded deep-set eyes.
This spiritual, ps\choIogical quality is much more pronounced in
the few surviving portraits of Augustus' favourite general and son-in-
law, Agrippa. Underneath the strong, disciplined and energetic
qualities suggestedby the sturdy muscles of the face, the tragedy of
Agnppa's private emerges from the dark gaze of the shadowed
life

eyes. His portrait seems to descend directly from the Hellenistic

tradition, which had dominated official portraiture before Augustus.
For the portrayal of his image, Agrippa seems to have preferred a
 '

86 SCULPTURE

workshop or artist working in a style different from that of the more

prolific Neo-Attic school favoured by the Emperor.
The successors of Augustus, the Julio-Claudian emperors (AD
14-68) continue to appear in sculpture more or less in the same style as
,

the first Emperor. 3° Their hair-styles vary very little and they all have
the features of physiognomy which are characteristic of their dynasty,
namely a pronounced triangularity of the face and projecting ears.
These characteristics also appear in a considerable range of child
portraits, most of them of Julio-Claudian princes. With Claudius,
however, a pictorial and colouristic sensitivity in the modelling starts
to emerge on official portraits, timidly at first, more decidedly in
Nero's images, and reaching its full development in the images of the
Flavians. These also show a strong tendency towards the return to late
Republican realism best illustrated in the heads of Vespasian (111. 70)
and Titus. In some private portraits of the Flavian period (ad 69-96)
this is so strong as to make them difficult to distinguish from
realism
their Republican counterparts. 3
Female portraits underwent the same development from the dry
realism of Republican portraiture to the maximum, often airless.
idealization of the Julio-Claudians. Like their male counterparts, the
female members of the Imperial family were pace-setters in popu-
larizing certain hair-styles and a great number of portraits of private
women reproduce or imitate imperial coiffures. In non-
(111. 71)
however, the deeply rooted realism of the previous
official portraiture,

age survived with greater vigour in female as well as in male images,

especially in funerary art. Through the revival of realism in official
portraiture under the Flavians the two separate trends, the official and
the private, came together again.
By adopting Trajan as his son and Nerva AD 96-8 put an
successor,
end to the hereditary succession practisedunder the Julio-Claudian
.ind Flavian dynasties, and thus inaugurated an era of wise emperors
who succeeded each other l>\ adoption. Trajan's reign Alt 98 1
17
was remarkable for the peace and security at home and the territorial
expansioi the north-eastern frontiers. He was a consummate ad-
ministrate] and an indefatigable soldier. He considered hi nisei as the
I

princeps, the first among equals. He inspired confidence in the members

of the Empire and deterred the restive barbarians. Trajan embodies
the Empire at the peak of its expansion. All these qualities and
attributes are reflected in Trajan's portraits, in particular those carved
on his commemorative reliefs.

There are several versions of the Emperor's likeness which were

issued on differenl occasions during his reign. They are known from ; '

numerous copies scattered over the Empire. One of the best known
and most representath e is the bust in the British Museum issued in AD
108 lor the decennalia, the tenth anniversary ofhis accession to power.
Another masterpiece is .1 posthumous head between AD [20 and [30
found at Ostia III. 69 1

In the Ostian portrait the stern, \ igorous head, with a low. sloping

forehead, is set powerful neck. There are none of the marks

on a thi< k
ol aere and fatigue which tend to characterize the portraits of the last
 SCULPTURE 87

69. Colossal head of

Trajan. Marble. Height
38 cm.AD 120-30. Osti;
Museum.

70. {Far right) Head of

Vespasian. Marble.
Height 40 cm. AD 69-79.
Rome, Museo Nazionale
Romano.

71. Portrait head of a

Flavian lady. Marble.
Height (head alone) 38
cm. AD 80-100. Rome,
Museo Capitolino.

72. {Far right) Bust of

Hadrian. Marble. Heigh
4.3 cm. AD 117-18. Ostia
Museum.

years oi his life, as in the bronze bust from Ankara. The planes of the

forehead and cheeks have a rich but subdued movement of the muscles
\\ iili a subtle play of light and shade which becomes more sustained in

the foldson either side of the month. The features are idealized and the
Emperor appears as a god even though the human personality of the
disciplined soldier and able administrator palpitates within the
marble.
88 SCULPTURE

Under Hadrian, the philhellene Emperor (ad i 17-38), Roman art

experienced a nostalgic return toGreek classical ideals, not merely in
st\ le but also in content. It is enough to examine the bust, also from
Ostia (111. 72), datable to the early years of his reign. 33 The hair-style
and the cut of the beard are reminiscent of works produced in the
Periclean age. Compare it, with the portrait of Pericles
for instance,
attributed to Kresilas and with some of the bearded heads in the frieze
of the Parthenon. 34
An important iconographic innovation introduced by Hadrian into
imperial portraiture is the prominent beard, which remained a funda-
mental characteristic of the image of all adult emperors for almost a
century, until Caracalla and his Severan successors introduced a more
close-cropped style. Another change, this time of a technical nature,
which was introduced in portraiture and other types of marble sculp-
ture half-way through the reign of Hadrian, is the plastic rendering of
the iris and pupil in the eye. Whereas this device had been in use in
other media, such as bronze and terracotta, in stone and marble the
details of the eyes had been merely indicated by the use of colour.
Traces of this survive on the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta and
on Caligula's and Livia's heads in Copenhagen.
Also officially commissioned were the numerous statues and busts of
Antinous (111. 73), the Bithynian youth beloved by Hadrian, who met
a mysterious death in the Nile. 35 The style of these images was inspired
by the classic canons of such masterpieces as the Athena Lemnia by
Phidias (c.440 BC) and the so-called 'Eubouleus' from Eleusis
(
c -35°-330BC).

The portraits of the female members of the imperial house, for

example Hadrian's wife Sabina, retain the plain and serious features
of the effigies of Plotina. Trajan's wife, and Matidia, his niece. But the
from the elaborate, picturesque coiffures of
hair-style tends to depart
Flavian and Trajanic women and
takes a simpler form with a central
parting over the forehead and a diadem. Later on. the hair-style of
Faustina the Elder, wife to Antoninus Pius, becomes slightly more
complicated by the addition of a plaited bun in several tiers over the
crown of the head. The sternness of Trajan's images is reflected in the
sober style and serious expression of busts ofPlotina, while the classic-
ism of the portraits of Sabina and the two Faustinas deprives them of
most, if not .ill. of their individuality.
The age of the Antoninesushers in both a definite, though gradual,
break from Greek classic ideals and a crisis in the Hellenistic tradition
itself. A new formal language and new technical devices, or rather

their more extensive use on portraits created striking contrasts between

the shiny, polished, almost porcelain-like surfaces of flesh areas, and
the colourful turbulence of light and shade in the hair.3 6 It is highly
probable that this new colouristic principle in the treatment of the
hair, extensivelyworked over w ith the drill, was inspired b\ the same
effectproduced in soft cla\ models with the modelling spatula.
Even in content there is a significant transformation. The faces
assume transcendental, languishing expressions, imparted mostly by
upturned, side-glan< ing cms coupled with very thick upper eyelids.
 SCl'LPTl'Rl.

73. Colossal statue of Antinous.

Marble. Height 326 cm. c.AD 130.
Vatican, Museo Gregoriano
74. (Below) Bust of Profano.
Commodus as Hercules.
Marble. Height 1 18 cm.
c. 190-2. Rome, Palazzo The portraits of Antoninus Pius ( 38—61 ) serve more or less as the
1
dei Conservatori.
stepping-stone in the process of this transformation. His beard and
hair-style are similar to those of Hadrian, but the) are more pictorial,
as in the head in the Museo Nazionale in Rome. Here the marks of old
age, such as the baggy eyelids and the crow's-feet at the outer corners
of the eyes are quite evident. A bust in the Capitoline Museum of
Marcus Aurelius, his adoptive successor, as a youth, shows the same
pictorial treatment in the thick mass of hair.
The transcendental element as well as the rich colouristic effect in
the heavily drilled hair and beard reach their peak in the portraits of
Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor-philosopher (161-80) and in those of
his successors, Commodus 180-92) and Septimius Severus (193-21 1).
(

But while Marcus Aurelius displays the noble, meditative type,

Commodus (111. 74) reveals both sensuality (he performed as a gla-

diator) and arrogance (he had himself represented as Hercules).

Septimius Severus did his best to assert his claim to be the direct heir of
the Antonine dynasty and his portraits are so close, in iconography and
 SCULPTURE

76. Bust of Philip I

'the Arab'. Marble.
75. Head of Caracalla. Height (entire bust) 71
Marble. Height 28 cm. cm. AD 244-9. Vatican,
c.AD 215.Rome, Palazzo dei Museo Gregoriano
Conservatc a i. Profano.

style, to those of Marcus Aurelius that they arc often not easily
distinguished. Severus was a native African from Lepcis and his
portraits betray his alien origin. 37
Although he clung to the claim of Antonine succession b\ his name.
Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus, nicknamed Caracalla 21 1-17),
did nol hesitate to abandon the long iconographic tradition sustained
b\ that dynast) and instead adopted the fashion of close-cropped hair
.

and beard 111. 73 The treatment of the short thick curls, however,
.

remained the same. he contraction of the features, the angry eyes

I

and the sharp, \ igorous turn of the head concur to express the ferocity
and brutality oi the Emperor's charai ter.
he break from (.reek classical and Hellenistic ideals in figurative
I

an is further emphasized in the sculpture of the third centur) ad. Late

Antiquity in Roman art can be said tostarl with the military anarch)
and the economic and spiritual crisis which came to a head in the
turbulent decades between the fall of Caracalla and the accession ol
Diocletian. In sculpture there is abandonment ol Hellenistic
the total
plastic ism. already begun in Marcus Aurelius. The
the portraiture ol
structure of the head is more and more simplified until it
becomes virtually cuboid in Constantinian portraits. The hair and
beard in life generally close-clipped with scissors are rendered l>\

short and shallow incisions made 1>\ a pointed chisel or burin. Several
portraits of youthful third-century emperors show their subjects par-
;;;
tially 01 totally clean-shaven.
On male heads the physiognomy is no longer well integrated; they
express most \i\ idly the transience of power and the interior torment
of a deeply troubled age. On the other hand the' female portraits, both
officialand private, maintain substantially the classicizing tradition.
SCULPTURE 91

These stylistic changes are evident in the portraits of Alexander

Severus (222-35) anc^ Gordian III (238-44). The plastic treatment of
the hair is renounced. The expression is concentrated in the eyes, cast
upwards and brooding.
Occasionally there are nostalgic throw-backs to the past, such as in
the portrait of Pupienus, who reigned only for a few months in 238.
The style of the beard is derived from that of the Antonines, but the
close-cropped hair is typical of contemporary fashion. A more deci-

sive, even if ephemeral, rebirth of Hadrianic classicism is seen in the

portraits of Gallienus (253-68) with his longer, more voluminous hair
and curly beard. Both beard and hair are plastically modelled 1>\ the
chisel rather than grooved by the running drill.
The drill was hardly, if at all, used in the female portraits of the
period, whether of empresses or private ladies. A wig-like hair-style
was fashionable, mainly derived from that worn by Julia Domna,
Septimius Severus' Syrian wife. The mature age and physical decay of
the subject is evident on a number of these portraits, but throughout
the course of the third century the classicizing tradition is substantially
preserved in female portraiture. These female portraits stand out for
their decorous gravity and calm in contrast with the choleric expres-
sion of such male portraits as the Vatican bust of Philip the Arab
(244-g; 111. 76) and the nervous and care-worn character suggested
by the bust of Maximinus Thrax (235-8) on the Capitol. The portrait
of Decius (249-51 >. also in the Capitoline Museum, gives a vivid
insight into the tormented soul of the age.
Some scholars believe that the official imperial portraiture of the
time was not, as has been repeatedly asserted, affected by the artistic-
currents of the provinces. 39 Rather it was influenced by the deep
social transformation of the Empire, a transformation which led mem-
bers of the lower classes to the highest rungs of imperial power. This
phenomenon had its precedents in the first century when Emperors
like Claudius used provincial slaves as their closest counsellors. The
process reached its fullest development in the third century with the
various legions supporting their own generals as candidates for the
imperial throne. The parvenus from the lower strata of Roman society
carried with them to the official sphere the plebeian artistic tradition
which had always existed alongside the Hellenistic, or Hellenized,
current kept alive by imperial sponsorship.
There are few examples of Roman portrait sculpture of the second
half (il'the third century. However, the new style can none the less be
traced down to Diocletian. The effigies of this Emperor, together with
those of the other Tetrarchs, Maximinus, Constantius and Galerius
(285-305), mark the almost total disappearance ofphysical likeness in
the portrait(111. 77). The organic, anatomical structure is lost and the

expressive function of the eyes is accentuated. Roman Egypt may have

had a great influence formation of the Tetrarchic style because it

in the
provided the hard porphyry reserved for imperial sculpture and,
presumably, the sculptors experienced in carving it.
Definitely originating from the eastern provinces of the Empire are
the influences, both ideological and stylistic, on the new concept of the
92 SCULPTURE

77. Statue group of

four imperial figures (the
Tetrarchs). Porphyry.
Height 130 cm. Early
4ih century AD. Venice,
Piazza San Man 0.

divine essence and untouchable sacredness of the absolute ruler as

opposed humanistic conception of him as the princeps in earlier
to the
times. The of this influence is the gradual suppression of the
result
personality and physiognomic features of the individual and the
reassertion of the typological portrait: the image of the absolute
sovereign. Severe frontality dominates and the few simplified planes of
the head are subjected to rigid symmetry.*
The most noteworthy examples of this type of dynastic portraiture
are the portraits of Constantine the Great -such as the colossal head in
the Palazzo dei Conservatori I
111. 204, see Chapter 1 2 . The modelling
has become simple and monotonous. The eyes are unnaturally magni-
fied and surrounded b\ hard outlines. The eyebrows are exaggeratedly
arched. The hair is rendered as a low. compact mass with schematic,
conventional lines. However, the agelessness of the head and the
massive build of the lace still evoke tin' portrait types ol Trajan.

Funerary Sculpture. The commonest manifestation of Roman private

portraiture was in funerary art, in the form of funeran busts or statues
and tombstones stelae . The latter bear images of the deceased in high
relief, generally as busts but occasionally in lull figure. Some represent
husband and wife with or without children; yet
single persons, others a
others portray an entire family Til. 78) - even on occasion including
servants and freedmen. The husband is draped in the i\ pica! Roman
garment, the toga, and the wife is shown as the virtuous Roman
matrona, often w ith her hand raised to her chin in the pudit ilin gesture.
In the first century \l) stelae are sometimes replaced b\ small altars
showing, besides the portrait busts of the deceased, scenes borrowed
from the Greek funerary repertory or else capturing some great
moment from the life of the deceased. The sepulchre of the Haterii
family represents a grandiose sculptural monument of this nature.
 SCULPTURE 93

VRlAab£FV&ME
78. Grave stele with Qn it the designer has included reliefs depicting Roman buildings
busts in relief of
of the Flavian period and an interesting picture of a Roman
members of the same
treadwheel crane (111. 79). The portraits of a male and a female
family, the Furii.
Marble. 62 x 212.5 member of the Haterii family are enclosed in columned niches.
cm. Late 1st century BC. The ever-increasing popularity of inhumation instead of incinera-
Vatican, Museo tion after the beginning of the second century AD led to the widespread
Gregoriano Profano. use of marble sarcophagi adorned with rich and varied relief decora-
tion. Whereas grave stelae were produced throughout the Roman
Empire, the production of white marble sarcophagi was, it seems,
limited to a few centres, the most important of which were Rome,
Athens and Asia Minor. These centres often exported sarcophagi in
half-finished condition to be completed at their destinations by the
sculptors accompanying them.
The 'Attic' sarcophagi were decorated on all four sides with episodes
from Greek mythology carved in high relief and in the more sober,
traditional style of Hellenistic Attic production. The most representa-
tive of the 'Asiatic', more heavily decorative sarcophagi, are the
'columnar' ones, with figures carved almost in the round against an
architectural background of columned niches. Also typical are the
Proconnesian and other 'garland' sarcophagi. Miniature mythological
episodes are exquisitely carved above garlands supported by maidens.
The 'Rome' sarcophagus was decorated only on three sides, the fourth
being intended to stand against the wall. In most cases the mytholo-
gical theme is limited to the front while the sides contain purely
decorative motifs carved in very low relief.

Eventually, and certainly by the end of Marcus Aurelius' reign (AD

180), the portrait of the deceased might appear in the figured frieze as
a victorious general in a conflict between Romans and barbarians.
Two examples of this type are the Portonaccio Battle sarcophagus
(111. 80) and the Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus, both in the Museo delle

Terme, Rome. The former was destined for some unknown general of
Marcus Aurelius, but the face of the general was left unfinished, as the
portrait features were meant to be carved in at a later stage. In this
sarcophagus the deceased and his wife appear also in the narrow frieze
on the lid, joining hands together in the centre, and singly on each side.
Later still the portrait of the deceased returned to the enlarged bust
form enclosed in a centrally placed tondo or shell-niche. Much of the
 !>l SCULPTURE

79. Relief slab from the

Tomb of the Haterii
showing a Roman
treadwheel crane.
Marble. Height 104 < in.

AD 100-10. Vatican,
Museo Gregoriano
Pi of. 1110.

80. The Portonaccio

sariophagus showing a
battle between Romans
and barbarians. Scenes
from the life of the
deceased on the lid.
Marble. Height 150 cm.
AD 70-80. Rome,
1

Museo Nazionale
Romano.

sculptural repertoire of the different typesol sarcophagi was exploited

"ii earl) Christian examples from the late third centur) onwards.
Compositions, patterns and figurative inspiration were derived from
models bui the themes were drawn from episodes from the
classical
Bible and centred on the figure of Christ.

Bronzi r. Large-s< ale bronze statuar) was predominant in Greek sculp-

ture. Most oi the ureal Greek sculptors are known to have excelled in
 SCULPTURE 95

81. Equestrian statue of

Marcus Aurelius. Gilt
bronze. Height 352 cm.
AD 166-80. Formerly
Capitoline Square,
Rome.

this medium even if their works have only come down to us in marble
copies. Due to the constant need for this metal, the great majority of
ancient bronze statues have ended up in the melting-pot. Bronze was
also a widely used medium among Roman sculptors, some of whose
masterpieces have survived. The Central-Italic 'Brutus' has already
been mentioned; to itone should add the Capitoline She-wolf, the
emblem of Rome (see Chapter 1). Large-scale bronze statuary of the
Imperial period includes many portraits of emperors, such as a head of
Augustus discovered at Meroe in the Sudan, a Hadrian from London,
.md a Trajan in Ankara. One of the best known of all Roman
inasierpieces is the gilt bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius on horseback
which until recenth dominated the Capitol square designed by
Michelangelo (111. 81 ); the horses adorning St Mark's, Venice, are also
now generally assigned to the Middle Empire, probably to the reign of
Severus.4' Amongst Late Antique statuary, a colossal image of
Constantius II survives in fragments, including the head and a few
limbs, in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (see Chapter 12).
The small-scale bronzes form a class of art-objects of their own and
deserve separate treatment. 2
With the spread of Hellenic culture
after the conquests of Alexander, masterpiece's of Greek sculpture
started to be reproduced both to scale and in greatly reduced versions.
Among the latter were statuettes in various materials, including
bronze, which were in increasing demand as cabinet pieces for rich
connoisseurs. This custom was taken up by the Roman upper- and
middle-classes soon after the Romanconquest of the Greek East. At
first statuettes in bronze were copies and adaptations both of Hellen-

istic motifs and of Greek originals of the fourth, fifth and even sixth

centuries BC. Several of the statuettes found in Pompeii and

Herculaneum are either Hellenistic products (such as the Isis with
 .

96 scli.fu'ri.

silver incrustations from Herculaneum) or else Roman reproductions

(one of the most popular types being that showing Aphrodite remov-
ing her sandals). Later, perhaps as a result of the artistic revival under
Augustus, Roman bronzes made their appearance. They include all
(hose statuettes whose subjects are patently Roman, such as Lares,
priests dressed in toga, priestesses, religious attendants and gladiators.
The degli Amount
Capitoline Triad found in a small niche in the Casa
Dorati at Pompeii is good example of the Roman assimilation of
a very
the Greek pantheon. The iconography is of Greek inspiration but the
character is decidedly Roman. Other bronzes qualify as Roman be-
cause of certain technical characteristics which constitute a distinct
Roman style: a certain hardness in the rendering of the eyes, eyelids
and hair, and a noticeable angularity and stiffness in the drapery.
Most of the effects were produced by chasing after the bronze had
been cast.
A special class is made up of portraits, mostly busts of Roman
emperors. Small bronze portraits follow the development of the large-
scale portraits both in style, content and size of bust. The bust includes
the collar-bone in the Julio-Claudian period, the shoulders and pec-
toral line in the Flavian period, the upper arms and lower chest in
Hadrianic and Antonine periods, and the whole upper part of the
bod) in the third ccnturx
The Lares were normally produced in pairs with their outer arms
raised. They are shown as youths with long hair, short tunic and hoots
or sandals (111. 82). The Lares Familiares represented the spirits pro-
tecting the household and were kept in special shrines in the house.
sometimes in the company of other nods. Men and women offering a
sacrifice were veiled and held a patera in one hand. Gladiators gener-
all\ served as knife-handles.
In contrast to the uniform academism of the large bronzes, bronze
statuettes show qualities which reflect the varied tastes of different
social strata and different provincial traditions. r> Few of the small
Roman bronzes are of first-class workmanship compared with (heck
and Hellenistic ones. The best specimens stand at the head of a large
82. Statuette of a Lar.
quantity of inferior ones. Some of the hitter were little better in qualit)
Bronze. Height 21.6 cm
than the cheap figurines of plaster or clay that crowd so many man-
ist centur) ad. Oxford,
telpieces today. In the late Empire small bronzes underwent a clear Ashmolean Museum.
evolution: the pictorial st\ leol the Antonine period gave way to a taste
for Hatter and more compact surfaces, greater frontality, and more
defined details achieved In the use of the burin.
Plate i. Fragment of a
tomb-painting from the
Esquiline, Rome. Height
87.5 cm. 3rd century BC.
Rome, Palazzo dei
Conservatori.
 <whp

BH^BBiSffiMliailgiEM
^T,"— "J?»
Plate 3. Girl playing the cithara from the Villa of P. Fannius Sinistor, Boscoreale. Fresco.
Soon after mid-ist century BC. New York, Metropolitan Museum.

{Left) Plate 2. Detail of the frieze in the Hall of the Mysteries, the Villa of the Mysteries,
Pompeii. Fresco. Mid-ist century BC.
I |?
8 51
U,
S i%
_, -J
u
:

C « "a.
5- -a ^5
 .

--J1
'

'
.'";;<'.
>'
^17",
' •

. ,, ,
:

'aWW^fiwWWuVSBW^^
**mmmmm&ttm&i;-w*s •• ••••- '•'
(Above) Plate 9. The Drinking Contest between Dionysos and Herakles. Mosaic emblema in opus
vermiculatum. From Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Turkey. 183.5 x 186.7 cm. c. AD 50-1 15.
Worcester, Mass., Worcester Art Museum.

(Left)Plate 8. The Drinking Contest between Dionysos and Herakles. Mosaic panel. From
Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Turkey. 526 x 527 cm. overall. c.AD 250-300. Princeton, N.J.,
Princeton University, The Art Museum.
r\ °"

M Q
Plate 12. The Judgement of Paris. Mosaic emblema in opus vermiculatum. From Antioch-on-the-
Orontes, Turkey. 186 x 186 cm. r.AD 50-1 15. Paris. Musee (in Louvre.
Plate 13. Mosaic depicting Apollo and Daphne and hunting scenes, signed by T. Sennius Felix
of Puteoli and his local From Lillebonne, France. 593 X 573 cm.
apprentice Amor.
c.AD 250-300/300-50. Rouen, Museum of Antiquities.
j m*. *rasoBnng6T..?. ^staSoc*
 JV
liMtoft
^n^m^^ifmwikmMiiWmMimiimg
.

1
&
t

«•> i.;"vf
1; I
il*w««f

K^K i

i^..„
*
«W*I»J
""'%'

wjtr*
-
v

...
''

•
,

%
;

i «V|Me*H«,.l„

11111
-*».

•
•
•

'.'.

1
'"
J -.1

ft!
;

i
"">"-
i i

SJ
mm PL

w.
J '
: X "".
!

i
"ffifr^W" - ,-

1 '&!
~vy

ffl Pr
•Ml

B6I
1 T
f r

m:
 CHAPTER FOUR

Wall Painting and Stucco

JOAN LIVERSIDGE

By the mid-first centur) kc the taste for interior decoration which is a

feature of many Roman sites was already widespread. Painted scenes
and stucco work consisting of plaster modelled in low relief appeared
ofi the walls and ceilings of buildings of an) pretensions, combined

with imitation or actual marble wall veneers, often accompanied by

floors of black and white or polychrome mosaic. This love of colour
also manifested itself in the use of painted or inlaid furniture, gay
cushions, curtains and covers known both from the interiors depicted
on the walls and from the occasional fragments which still survive. So
when studying the development of wall painting it is helpful to re-
member the furnishings as a whole. Practical factors such as the size of
rooms, the area available for decoration, and the whereabouts of
doors, windows and sources of light, all affected planning.
The evidence available for study mostly comes from town and
country houses, including palaces such as the Domus Aurea), public
buildings, temples and tombs. Outside Italy soldiers on the Empire's
frontiers also found painters to enliven fort or fortress buildings. In the
first centuries n< and AD Rome and
the Campanian cities provide most
of the material. After the eruption of Vesuvius, Rome is of major
importance with examples from other sites, notably Ostia. Meanwhile
current research is revealing wall paintings of great interest in the
provinces although this material is still little known.
The preparation layer by layer of surfaces for painting and the
methods used have been carefully described b) Vitruvius (De Arch.,
VI 1. 3), and the elder Pliny ( JVH, XXXV) After a rough rendering coat
.
'

had been applied, Vitruvius recommended three coals of mortar made

up of lime and sand or the volcanic pozzolana found in Campania.
Then (ante three coats of lime mixed with powdered marble of
increasing fineness. When dr\ the surface was polished with pieces of
marble, glass cylinders and cloths. How far these directions were
followed varies, but the) were certainl) adhered to for walls in the
House of Livia in Rome. Pompeian walls tend to omit one layer of
each type. Thecolours were applied when the wall was still damp
Plate 1 6. Fresco from tl fresco), but tempera, paint applied to a dr\ surface and mixed with a
cubkulum of the Villa of binding agent is sometimes used for details, and liquid wax might also
P. Fannius Sinister, be added. Fresco was the basic technique usually employed in the
Boscoreale. ist century
catacombs, where the rock would normally only take one undercoat,
BC. New York,
Metropolitan Museum and a top coat of lime and powdered marble. B-y the fourth century
(detail). only a single coat of lime and pozzolana is found, whitened with a lime
solution. Portraits painted on wood (such as the Egyptian mummy
 3

98 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

portraits) might be done in the encaustic technique in which the

colours were dissolved in hot wax and applied with a spatula.
The pigments employed are usually earth colours and a wide variety
2
of shades was recovered from a paint shop at Pompeii. The pigments
were ground up, carefully mixed, and kept in little pots. "Sometimes
scenes were lightly sketched in red ochre. It is presumed that artists

worked from cop\ hooks although none have survived.

Some writers see in Roman painting mere copying of Greek pictures
but, when the originals are known, later versions are rarely exact
replicas of them. The earliest Roman wall paintings were based
primarily on Hellenistic antecedents, and the selection of subjects was
increasing!) affected by Roman assimilation of Greek myth and
legend. There was ever greater emphasis on the religious significance
of the subjects, particularly as the interest in the Dionysiac (or
Bacchic) and other mystery cults grew. Items of temple furniture
such as tripods appear as small details, and some still-life panels may
represent sacrificial offerings. In large measure the home was
decorated as though it was itself a shrine.
The great influx into Itah of works ol art brought from Greece and
elsewhere, and displayed in temples and houses, made a powerful
impression. Italic and Etruscan ideas can also be identified. Mosl
typically Roman are a few paintings showing gladiatorial games.
Pliny NH, XXXV. 52) tells us that the first was commis-"
sioned by C. Terentius Lucanus, and dedicated in the sacred grove
of Diana in honour of his grandfather. Such scenes inspired main
later pictures, mosaics, and decorations on ^l.iss and pottery. Several
are known from Pompeian houses, notably from the House of the
Priest Amandus. 4

THE FOUR 'POMPEIAN' STYLES IN ROME AND CAMPANIA TO AD 79

A surve) of Roman painting usualh begins with the lour Pompeian
Styles distinguished b)Mauin [882. 5 These overlap. In hah the) can
be roughly dated, but earlier characteristics lend to survive or re-
appear with later work. St\ le I probabb dated from the beginning of
the second centur) b< and here the Hellenistic influence is still \er\
.

strong. In the Samnite House al Herculaneum III. j_» the Italian

version can be seen with the marble slabs, a hara< teristic feature of
<

this 'incrustation' style, imitated in paint. The wall has the threefold
division which continues to be t\ pica! of Roman painting, v\ ith a dado
at the bottom; a middle section consisting in this ase of large imi- <

tation marble slabs and the upper part of the wall with a cornice,
;
.1

frieze and another ornice. The slabs are outlined with stucco, which is
<

also used for the cornices. Rooms in Roman houses are often small.
and this colourful but heavy decoration seems, to our eyes, rather
claustrophobic.
With Style II. the 'architectonic', originating in Rome c.90 BC,
comes a greal change. An illusion thai the walls have receded is
produced b\ means of an architectural screen incorporating such
features as columns and a horizontal architrave. So far the earliest
WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO 99

example of Style IT comes from the House of the Griffins on the

Palatine in Rome. 6
In the foreground are the stalwart columns with
Corinthian capitals of a portico apparently standing on the dado.
Between them are glimpsed painted panels of rich marbles set between
smaller columns which support an architrave. At the end of one room
two modelled in stucco appear at frieze level. 7
griffins .

A later development replaces the painted marble by figure or

landscape scenes. A striking example of this are the scenes probably
illustrating the initiation of a bride into the mystic cult of Dionysos
(Plate 2), occupying a whole room in the Villa of the Mysteries just
8
outside Pompeii. The action apparently took place on a low stage.
Architectural details are largely omitted, but narrow vertical strips
divide the space into panels below cornices, perhaps to gain depth by
thts e fleet of a portico in the background. These figures with their

varied expressions are far more alive than any of their Hellenistic
predecessors. Some could well portray local types. The Campanian
artists were now increasingly visualizing their subjects as real people.
The Hellenistic influence is stronger at the suburban villa of P.
Fannius Sinistor at Boscoreale, dating soon after the mid-first century
BC. 9 Figure scenes in one room portray an old man, possibly the
philosopher Menedemos, Dionysos, Ariadne, Venus and Adonis. A
striking richly dressed girl about to play the cithara may represent a
known individual or some historical character (Plate 3). The meaning
of such scenes is obscure. They are probably inspired by Greek stage
sets,and this particularly applies to a bedroom in the same villa where
masks of satyrs occur, usually at the top of panels (Plate 6). Although
the bed does not stand in the customary alcove, its position is indicated
b\ the change from patterned to plain mosaic. The paintings on the
side walls near the bed both show a round temple standing on a
podium inside an enclosure wall. Behind it, nearer the top of the wall,
are glimpses of a colonnade. The rest of the left-hand wall consists of
three scenes. Attention is directed to the central panel, where the use of
perspective indicates a scene in a temple with a statue of the goddess
Diana enclosed by a scarlet precinct wall. Cult objects, including gold
vessels placed on marble benches, appear in the foreground. The
panels on either side show buildings in perspective (Plate 16), painted
in pastel colours, and piled one above another, perhaps on a hillside.
In the foreground is an imposing entrance with a fine panelled door
divided into two leaves. Its upper panels arc decorated in a scale
pattern, the lower ones possibh inlaid with tortoise-shell, and with
lion's head handles with rings in their mouths.
The decoration of the Boscoreale villa has much in common with
the Villa of the Mysteries, but here the emphasis may be on the cult of
Venus and Adonis. At Boscoreale the replacement of the walls by the
great panels with views on several planes, cleverly rendered in per-
spective, is a new development. Much of it is rooted in Hellenistic and
Near Eastern prototypes, but the architecture may well depict con-
temporary Campanian buildings. In this rich and fantastic decoration
reality gradually shades into illusion.
At Oplontis, in a recently discovered villa at Torre Annunziata,
I 00 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

wall paintings of both Styles II and III occur. The Style II material has
much in common
with Boscoreale, featuring the same elaborate doors
for example. Between the columns of the porticoes are charming
details including large bunches of grapes, and a tall wicker basket, full
of fruit, covered by a gauzy veil.
In the last thirty years of the first century BC the Style II painters
tended to direct attention to the central portion of the wall where a
panel with a landscape or a mythological scene appeared as if seen
through an open window or recessed into an aedicula. On either side
appear smaller pictures placed higher up the wall, in fact the house
now suggests a museum or art gallery with the artist giving the
impression that separate framed easel pictures or larger panels
ipinakes) were hung on the walls, although in actual fact they are an
integral part of the wall decoration. Representations of sculpture or
other precious objects also occur, while the architectural framework is

no longer realistic.

The so called House of Livia on the Palatine hill illustrates these

features. On one wall theme depicts Io, beloved of Jupiter,
the central
tethered by the jealous Juno under the care of Argus. Mercury ap-
proaches to the rescue on Io's right. Columns festooned with acanthus
are shown on either side of this painting. Smaller pictures depict a
religious ceremony, and probably a Roman street scene. The
decoration of another room shows a portico of Corinthian
columns behind which are magnificent swags of fruit and flowers
"
entwined with coloured ribbons. 1

In the Museo Nazionalein Rome are preserved the line decorations

from the Farnesina House, dating from <._>o BC. The frieze of a room
1
'

with black walls had multii oloured figures illustrating the judgements
of Kin» Bocchoris a \er\ Solomon; prool ol the owner's interest in
Graeco-Oriental ideas. Below this frieze wreaths of vine-leaves hang
between columns so slender th.u the\ seem to look ahead to the
candelabra motifs of Style III. Another room has a large central
painting of the nymph Leucothea with the bal>\ Dionysos. Smaller
framed pictures adorn the panels on either side. Although the main
scene is sel in an aedicula, the characteristic depth and architectural
features ol Si\le II are missing from the rest of the wall and are
replaced ai frieze level l>\ a mass of detail. The artist ma\ have been an
Asiatic called Seleukos.
The stucco reliefs from the vaults of the Farnesina House show
landscapes and sailed scenes III. >'>] siill under Alexandrian in-
fluence. Dionysiac elements are also apparent in such details as a
Bacchic pinecone and sa< red trees. The panel illustrated here shows
two women sacrificing at a rural altar; behind it are buildings with
sacred trees, a Priapus herm and a bridge. In the foreground on the
right an angler stands on a rock, about to cast his line into the stream. A
panel in another \ an It shows a sacrifice in greater detail. On the right is
a youth playing the double pipes; a woman lights torches at a blazing

altar while to theleft Silenus holds a decorated l/iyi sus, again symbolic

ol Bacchus. Even minor details of the vault decorations are executed

with style and panache. A Victory (111. 84) adorns yet another ceiling:
 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

1 ifl
II 1 , 1
I p ,

'

83. Sacro-idyllic
landscape from the
Farnesina House, Rome.
Stucco relief, c.20 BC.
Rome, Museo Nazionale. (MMRHnT^^^^nHndKHi
she stands on tiptoe as though just alighting, her draperies swirling
around her ankles; in her hands she holds a plumed helmet. The panel
may be compared with contemporary Campana reliefs. The visual
effectof such a vault may be judged from the illustration of the
Stabian Baths at Pompeii (111. 14).
The House of Livia and the Farnesina House foreshadow the ap-
pearance of Style III, the 'ornamental', when the substantial archi-
tecture of Style II is replaced by frameworks of fantastic invention
which make no serious pretence at solidity. As in Style I the walls again
'enclose' the room, and there is a preference for strong colours
especially black, red and yellow. The new fashion developed
first in Rome under Augustus, and soon spread to Pompeii where

the triclinium in the House of the Centenary shows a transitional

phase from the Farnesina House, with elongated candelabra tending
I2
to replace columns. These motifs, decorated with increasing elabora-
tion, are one of the features of Style III. Such innovations were
strongly criticized by Vitruvius (De Arch., v. 3-7).
At Oplontis early Style III survives well in the baths. In a recess at
the end of the caldarium appears Hercules in the Garden of the
Hesperides, with plain panels on either side. In the frieze above him is
a cithara player, '3 and on either side there are small scenes of country
life. On each stands a magnificent peacock. In the centre of the ceiling

is a Nereid riding a sea-horse, with a veiled woman standing in an

aedicula surmounted by a candelabrum on either side.

During the first century ad Style III developed with increasing
elaboration. Its decorative schemes were rigidly symmetrical, with one
or two narrower side panels directing attention to the central one. The
panels show large expanses of plain colour, usually with smaller
 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

JliKMV)

K}. Victory from the

I amesina I Rome.
louse,
Stuci o relief. End oi isl
|
( cm in \ r,( . Rome, Museo
Nazionale.

central pi< tures. A well -known example of mature Style III occurs in
the I louse of Lucretius Fronto where small landscapes, apparently
attached to stalwarl candelabra, occup) the side panels. 14 In the
centre is a largei pi< ture oi the Triumph oi Ba< chus sel in an uncon-
vincing aedicula. The top part of the wall is decorated with fantastic
structures shown in perspective, hut still delightfully improbable, with
a gay use of contrasting colours. ( )ther mythological pictures from this
period include Perseus rescuing Andromeda, and Daedalus and the
disastrous fall of Icarus in the House of the Priest Amandus, parti-
cularly remarkable for its light effects and use ofperspectival diminu-
tion. It has been pointed out thai these artists had not mastered a
technique of perspective with a single vanishing-point - in fact the)
used several. 15
Alter the earthquake of \n 62 the rebuill Pompeian houses were
decorated in Style IV. Some architectural vistas reminiscent of Style
II recur and the walls again lose solidity St) le III also survives, with
.
 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO 103

plain panels alternating with aediculae in which rather larger central

pictures apparently hang on screens. Elaborate scenes in improved
perspective continue at frieze level. Paintings characteristic of this
period are found in the House of the Vettii.' 6 The oeci leading off the
peristyle are particularly splendid. One room is decorated
with scenes
of Pentheus assailed by the Bacchantes, the punishment of Dirce and
the infant Hercules strangling the serpents (111. 85); other panels
display architectural conceits. Another oecus has a geometric dado of
painted marbles below a picture of Ixion bound to the wheel in the
centre of an aedicula. More pictures of Daedalus showing the wooden
cow to Pasiphae, and Dionysos surprising Ariadne, appear on the walls
to right and left, placed in the centre of red panels with delicate
garlands above. Most of the remaining decoration is painted on a
wffite ground, and includes maenads and satyrs in the centre of panels
with delicate floral borders, and seascapes or still-life pictures among
the smaller architectural scenes. Everywhere there is a mass of fine
detail, which is also to be seen in other rooms. The well-known Cupids,
busy with a variety of occupations, appear in borders below panels.
Similar Cupids have been found in houses at Herculaneum. Another
Style IV development gave over an entire wall to a picture of a Roman
stage, raised on a podium, with scenery and curtains. In a bedroom in
the House of Pinarius Cerialis a play on the theme of Iphigenia in
Tauris is shown taking place.' 7 A more elaborate stage-setting can be
8
seen in the House of the Hunt.'
In addition to major works, small scenes of family life occur at
Pompeii, while others poke fun at the gods, burlesque the Aeneid or
show pygmies hunting with varying success. (These last were probably
originally inspired from Alexandria.) Pictures of the busy Pompeian
forum, a baker's shop and men playing dice have all been preserved.

85. Oecus in the House

of the Vettii, Pompeii.
Panel showing the infant
Hercules strangling
serpents. Fresco. Between
AD 63 and AD 79.
104 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

RhHP^HBe!
"~jgg&g?\

£*•
Its ^&*^~k

^Hc* ill hi
>

'
%&**
4K
piS^ 86. Achillesand Chiron
(detail), from the basilica
at Herculaneum. Fresco.
st century AD. Naples,
v-S5v
i

Museo Nazionale.

On the walls outside theworkshops of Verecundus, a cloth-maker,

On one side a sprightl) Men m\
paintings call attention to his craft.
carrying purse steps gail) out from his temple. On the other a
<i

splendid Venus, patron goddess of Pompeii, appears in a chariot

draw n h\ elephants. Below is a narrow band, painted in monochrome,
showing Verecundus' employees ai work. Man) paintings decorate
the Lararia, the numerous household shrines, and portray the house-
hold gods and the Genii depicted as the greal serpents of the under-
world. "' There are also numerous attra< tive still-lifes, for instance in
the House of Julia Felix Plate 5).
At Herculaneum, besides a range of paintings from private houses,
the basilica provides fine examples of mural ((((oration. Around
the interior walls shallow niches held large panel pictures depicting
myths concerning Hercules, the patron deity of the city, and other
heroes. Pictures surviving in the Museo Nazionale
Naples include in
Chiron teaching the young Achilles (111. 86), Hercules and Telephus,
and Theseus victorious over the Minotaur, li has been suggested that
diese are l>\ the hand of a painter called in from Naples, the
'Herculaneum Master', well-versed in Hellenistic traditions but with
his own original ideas.-" Also in the Museo Nazionale are pictures
from Stabiae found in the eighteenth century, including the famous
'Spring'. 21 Now a programme of planned excavationuncovering is

treasures from rich Stabian villas which can be dated between ad 63

and 79. Several different master-painters have been identified, and
one of them was responsible for the great ceiling of an upper galler) in
the Villa San Marco, inspired by the work of Famulus in the Domus
Aurea. 22
In Rome, meanwhile, by the time of Claudius, painted decoration
 WALL PALM IXC, AND STUCCO I0 5

grew less formal and more naturalistic. Flowers, animals and still-lifes
were special favourites for the walls of vaults and tombs such as the
columbarium in the via Taranto or the Neronian columbarium of
Pomponius Hylas. 2 3 Nero's palace, the Domus Aurea, uses Style IV
designs for some of its rich decorations. Many of the walls were
planned for deep dados of real marble and in some cases were never
finished. An important trend developed here was the use of the white
background for friezes and panels adorned with delicate architectural
motifs, candelabra, garlands and small central panels reminiscent of
Style III (111. 87). These designs also covered the vaults. Such decora-
tion on a white ground became increasingly popular, and occurs
widely until the late fourth century. Much of the most important work
of Famulus, mentioned b\ Plin\ as the chief artist, has not survived
well. A scheme of vault decoration, now destroy ed, showed the Domus
Aurea at its most magnificent. This 'volta dorata', so called because its
reliefs were encrusted with gold leaf, had in the centre a large medal-
lion with a mythological painting set in a square. The rest of the space
was filled in with small figures or pictures which were set in circular or
rectangular panels framed in stucco stamped by moulds in low relief.
Other reliefs, mostly animals and candelabra, survive only as faint
imprints. 2 4

87. Detail of Style IV

fresco from the Domus
A urea, Rome.
Mid-ist century AD.
io6 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

Landscape and Garden Paintings in Rome and Campania. Brief 88. The Laistrygones
attacking the ships of
allusions have been made to the appearance of landscape paintings
Odysseus. Wall painting
from Style II onwards, and this important subject needs further
from a house on the
consideration. Most remarkable are the paintings from the Via Esquiline. Fresco.
(rraziosa now Via Cavour in the Esquiline district of Rome, now in Mid csl centur) BC.
the Vatican Library The) form
. .1 monumental frieze depicting eight Vatican, Museo Gregoriano
il.uii
scenes from books leu and eleven of the Odyssey in an uninterrupted l'i 1 1

landscape setting which remains unique in Roman art 111. 88). lm-
pressionisticall) painted, their impressive effects of light and shade
strongly influenced latei works: the fact thai the characters names
5

appear in Greek suggests a Greek ai list or copybook. So far. however.

2
no eek prOtOt) pes ha\ e been lound.
( .1 '

Slightly later more landscapes appear. Sonic, on a much smaller

scale, are believed to be the work of the school ofStudius, an artisl
working during the Augustan period. He was described h\ Pliny A //.
xxxv. iii) 17 as introducing small, attractive scenes with buildings
sometimes religious in country oi seaside settings enlivened l>\
country folk carrying on their everyday pursuits.-'' His work has been
described as 'bringing to perfection the whole genre of peopled archi-
tectural landscapes'.-'" Early examples, often in monochrome, occur .it
Boscoreale and ( )plontis. A yellow frieze depicting an Egyptian land-
scape with pygmies and animals (including a camel) from the House
of Livia betrays Alexandrian influences, as docs the frieze already
WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO 107

described from the Farnesina House. Other examples form part of the
Style III decorations at Boscotrecase. 28
Landscapes on a much larger scale, sometimes covering whole walls,
include the underground room from Livia's Villa at Prima Porta, now
reconstructed in the Museo Nazionale in Rome. 2 9 Separated from the
onlooker by low fences is a continuous painting of a large garden. On
the sky-blue background appear trees, fruit and flowers of all seasons.
Birds nest and fly around. Even insects are depicted. The painting is
impressionistic with sketchy brushwork. It shows an acute observation
of nature akin to the work praised by Pliny the Younger in his Tuscan
villa {Ep., V. vi. 22).
The Campanians obviously loved their gardens so that Livia's
Garden Room is frequently echoed at Pompeii by, for example, two
rsoms in the House of the Fruit Orchard, 3° and most notably in the
villa at Oplontis. When, after the earthquake of 62, building was

resumed at the unfinished House of Venus Marina, the garden had to

be reduced in size, so it was continued in part on the end wall of the
peristyle even before some of the rooms were rebuilt. Here is the
famous painting of Venus reclining on a shell. One one side of her is a
statue of Mars on a pedestal with a garden in the background. On the
other side is more garden with a fountain (Plate 4). Herons, pigeons
and thrushes appear as well as oleanders, myrtle and other identifiable
plants, some still blooming in the now restored garden. 1

ROME AND OSTIA

In AD 79 the eruption of Vesuvius ended developments in the Cam-
panian cities and as a result the amount of later wall painting available
for study is considerably smaller. Style IV continued in Rome, and the
Domus Aurea influenced. the decoration of Flavian buildings. Under
Trajan the repertoire of the decorators showed growing restraint and
simplicity. The importance of painting diminished in favour of real
marble veneers and wall and vault mosaics (see Chapter 5). With
Hadrian came an increased neo-classicism, but evidence is limited
except from his villa at Tivoli. Here several fine white stucco ceilings
survive, mostly decorated with geometric and plant designs in low
2
relief.3 Later on, very delicate work is found, again in white, and
including charming mythical creatures (for example in the Tomb of
the Valerii dated to c. 159). 33 The Tomb of the Pancratii (Plate 30),
however, dated a few years earlier combines the use of stucco with
colour, the white reliefs often appearing on a coloured background. 34
The magnificent cross-vaulted ceiling has a central medallion of
Jupiter on the back of an eagle. On either side are scenes from the
Trojan War and in the foreground Hercules, Bacchus, Minerva and
Diana.
The gap left by the Campanian cities is partly filled from Hadrianic
times onwards by discoveries at Ostia, which mostly come from large
multi-storeyed blocks let as flats. More opulent houses tended to use
marble veneers up to quite a high level, so little painting survives.
Evidence is also scarce from public buildings. Compared with
I 08 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

Pompeii, technique has declined with little true fresco surviving. The
middle-class customers wanted quick and economical work generally
painted in tempera on a dry surface, and this survives badly. Most of
the walls are of brick and are dated by their stamps, but the paintings
may, of course, be later. Many reminiscences of Styles If to IV are
found, but the architectural motifs become increasingly unimportant
and gradually disappear. Framed panels containing one or two figures
occur, with much use of red and yellow grounds. Occasionally mytho-
logical scenes are also found.
One of the w ealthier inhabitants must have owned the House of the
Muses. Above a black dado in one room the wall is divided b\ slender
columns reaching to frieze level. Besides these, delicate architectural
pilaster strips outline the panels on which appear the figures of the
Muses. More architecture and single, smaller figures occur on the
upper half of the wall. A rather insubstantial Style IV has provided the
inspiration here. A corridor in the House of Ganymede, also built
under Hadrian, originally had red and yellow decoration on a white
ground. By 170-80 his was replaced b) the increasingly popular red,
1

with garlands and other details in yellow, green, blue and grey. The
tablinum walls are covered with panels of various sizes, arranged not
onh side b\ side bul also one above the other, three or four deep. Some
are framed figure-scenes, including the Jupiter and Ganymede after
which the building is named. Decorative motifs comprise birds with
candelabra and some are apparently recessed or show buildings in
perspective. The aedicula has now vanished from die scene; these walls
are dynamic, but restless and distracting. Another room, however,
provides a complete contrast with architectural detail evolved from
Styles III and IV with tine white lines shaded in red on a yellow
"round. Tin) landscapes occur in die centre of the panels. v '

More paintings survive I nun theOstian c'emeteries, especially those

of Isola Sacra. On a smaller scale, and dating from die mid-second
centur) the) reflect the tendency to emphasize space and depth for
dieii figures. Motifs su< h as masks, garlands, birds and garden scenes

occur, with dancing satyrs and such mythological characters .is

Hercules.Orpheus and Proserpina.

Lack of published material makes ii difficult to trace later second-
century developments. As Hadrianic classical tendencies weaken,
figures painted with a luminous effect grow in importance, archi-
tectural motifs get simpler, and there is less vai \ in decorative ideas.
i< t

Realism causes the ret real ol lan(«is\ While grounds and strong colour
.

contrasts, especially red and yellow, .ire found with multicoloured

frameworks defining panels. Reminiscences of earlier styles, however,
sometimes still prevail, affected b\ the individual preferences of client
and atelier. At Ostia a room in die House of Menandcr converted
towards the end of the second century into a Mitliraeum provides a
good example of white walls divided into large- panels, each framed b\
bands of three different colours and divided from each other by a
wider band. Small landscapes reminiscent of Style III appear. The
dado has been destroyed, but above the panelling was a stucco
cornice. I
6
WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO [og

An innovation is the appearance of scenes on a larger scale which

ignore the old threefold division of the wall. A painting from the
triclinium of a house in the Via dei Cerchi shows the lifesize figures of
slaves occupied in serving dinner in front of a series of tall columns,
perhaps a portico, perhaps a stage setting. 37 Still more striking is the
remarkable scene from a house underneath the church of St John and
St Paul in Rome (Plate 29). The date has been disputed, and so has the
subject. The beginning of the third century seems possible and the
scene shows two women reclining on a rock and being greeted bv a
man. They are surrounded by blue water on which Cupids are gaily
boating and the painting ma\ have continued on adjacent walls. One
interpretation believes the picture to be of Proserpina returning from
Hades, another suggests Peleus and Thetis. 38 Other such scenes found
at£)stia show Venus rising from the sea accompanied by Cupids (from
the Baths of the Seven Sages) and Europa and the Bull with various
fish from the Pharos baths) 3
1
'*.

The third century was a period of change and unrest for the Roman
Empire. Men searched for a more personal religion in which a good
life was rewarded after death, and paintings from tombs and temples

record these aspirations. By this time followers of the cult of Mithras

had a number of small temples in Rome, Ostia and elsewhere, norm-
ally adorned with statues, reliefs or paintings. The most important
scene shows Mithras slaying the bull from whose blood sprang the life-
giving forces needed by mankind. 4 " A painting from the Villa Bar-
berini has this theme with small scenes depicting Mithras' life on either
side. Near him is a semi-circle adorned with the signs of the zodiac and

above- this the busts of sun and moon. 4 A Mithraeum under the '

church of Santa Prisca in Rome showed seven masked men repre-

senting the Mithraic grades, accompanied by servants or devotees.
Earlier paintings found underlying these included passages from
Mithraic hymns. 2

Catacomb Painting. Some interesting descriptions of later paintings

occur in the works of the Philostrati, particularly in Fabius
Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana.w Otherwise, from the third
century onwards much of the surviving evidence comes from the
Christian catacombs. These continue the linear style already found in
the second century, the area to be painted being split up into various
geometric shapes by fairly fine lines. This lends itself well to the
decoration of vaults and recesses in the cemeteries. The two-
dimensional figures are painted (sometimes carefully, sometimes
merely sketched) on a white ground, by artists with a wide range of
skills. Older traditions survive side by side with a less serene style in
which illusionism tends to replace naturalism. Originally the
Christians seem to have disapproved of representational art, but by
now certain pagan subjects were being converted to their use. 44 In any
case before the Edict of Milan in 3 1 3 representations could not be too
explicit as Christians were still liable to persecution. Jewish sources
play an important part in catacomb art, 45and there may have been
influences from the East, notably from Dura Europos.
 O

I I WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

Before 313 the symbol of the cross seems to have been avoided. One
theme was deliverance shown by such Old Testament scenes as Daniel
in the Lion's Den, or the three youths in the Fiery Furnace. An early
painting in the Catacomb of Priscilla showing Moses striking the rock
was symbolic both of deliverance from thirst and also of the'Sacrament
of Baptism. Again Jonah and the Whale, a favourite subject, means
not only deliverance but also suggests the Fall of mankind, the
Redemption, and Paradise (Jonah sleeping peacefully in the shade of
the gourd tree) New Testament scenes at first emphasize prophecies of
.

Christ's Coming, his Baptism, the Redemption and Salvation of man-

kind, and miracles such as the Raising of Lazarus and the Healing of
the Paralytic. Scenes from the Catacomb of Callixtus of the early third
century include Jonah, Christ as the Good Shepherd (a theme de-
veloped from scenes of Orpheus and the animals), Christ and tin-
Woman of Samaria, and the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.
From the Catacomb of Priscilla comes a mid-third-century figure
scene* 6 On the left is a group of three: a seated man, believed to be a
.

bishop, is looking at a girl who is reading from a scroll. Behind her

stands another man, probably a deacon. The ceremony is probably the
Conferment of the Veil upon a Virgin, who appears again in the centre
in the characteristic attitude of prayer. On the right is a seated woman
nursing a baby, probably Mary and Jesus. The faces are impres-
sionisticallyrendered by strong touches of colour, with marked high-
lights veil and in the ecstatic expression of the eyes of the
on the
praying girl. On the ceiling a medallion of the Good Shepherd appears
surrounded by linear decoration and various birds including a fine
peacock. The lighter side of catacomb painting is exemplified b\ the
vault of the crypt of St Januarius in the Catacomb of Praetextatus. 47
Here, divided by horizontal red lines, are bands with birds, flowers and
leaves, including nests of fledglings. This is decoration pure and
simple, having a vigorous life of its own.
If during the third century tastes swayed between earlier classical
ideas and a more restless st) le using rapid brush-strokes for a vivid bul
less finished result, the reigns of Diocletian and ( lonstantine broughl
changes. So far little secular evidence of this period has been found;
but by the end of the century, the lower levels of the walls are again
faced with marble veneers - a fashion which becomes increasingly
important in the fourth centur) as illustrated 1>\ the houses of ( lupid
and Psyche and the \\ mphaeum at ( )stia. '"
The linear system con-
tinued, but seems to have died ou1 l>\ the time of ( lonstantine. From
Diocletian onwards architectonic schemes with columns retail Pom-
peian Style II. but a \er\ ill-digested Style II. lacking its original
illusionistic coherence. In the catacombs the linear divisions arc re-

placed by heavier frames. Under Constantine classical motifs re-

appear and in the cenieterx of Panfilus eleganl garlands, flowers and
birds survive. 49 Figures tend to be less individual and to lack expres-
sion. Secular scenes occur like those of the Hypogeum of Trebius
Justus showing his various activities, 50 as well .is a larger variety of
Christian themes. Later in the fourth century more realistic human
figures return. The bust of Christ in the centre of a ceiling in the
89. Bust of Christ from
the ceiling of the
Catacomb of
Commodilla, Rome.
Fresco.End of
4th century AD.

Catacomb of Commodilla exemplifies this (111. 89) with its carefully

drawn face conveying a new and powerful expressiveness. 5
'

One factor which affects the understanding of catacomb painting is

the lack of comparative material from early churches and houses.

Such churches as existed were in fact usually rooms in houses obliged
to keep secret their real purpose. From 313, once the threat was over,
large churches were built by Constantine and others, but by this period
Christian painting is often supplanted In wall and vault mosaics (see
Chapter 12).

WALL PAINTING IN THE PROVINCES

Littleevidence has yet been found for wall painting in Northern Italy,
but the Villa of Selte Finestre near Cosa has produced important Style
II decoration of first century BC date. 5- Meanwhile, about the same

time at Magdalensberg in Austria the exceptional quality of the local

iron attracted traders from far and wide. A Celtic oppidum was joined
by a trading settlement with buildings decorated with paintings in-
fluenced by Style II. Here the Hellenistic influence was strong.
Columns with Ionic capitals, and figure scenes with Iphigenia,
Minerva and Dionysos suggest Greek or Asiatic artists. 53 After
Noricum became a Roman province, a Roman city grew up at
Virunum nearby. This also produced interesting interior decorations.
By 40 bc Style II had spread to Gallia Narbonensis. At Glanum it
occurs in several buildings, notably in the Maison a deux alcoves. Here
wall J in a bedroom (Room 2) had a white dado strippled in red and
black, divided up by black vertical lines which act as stems for double
volutes. Above the dado was a horizontal yellow band decorated with
fine brown undulating lines apparently imitating the grain of wood.
Then came panels decorated with slabs ofimitation marbling, framed
by red borders and separated by a pilaster strip with green laurel leaves
 I I 2 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

and yellow spots and discs painted on a black ground. Above the
panelling was a brown frieze with green leaf scrolls. Other walls in the
same room show columns among the panelling. From several walls,
including J, there is evidence that the original dado had been re-
plastered and freshly painted £.35—30 BC.54
The decoration at Glanum is a mixture of Pompeian ideas incom-
pletely carried out and several motifs peculiar to this site. The double
volutes occur at three other Glanum sites and at Enserune and Mar-
tizay. Outside France the best parallels come from the House of the
Masks on the Palatine, and Masada. The fluted columns in Room 2
recall early Style II examples at Pompeii, but here they are suspended
in space and instead of a podium they stand on the band of grained
wood. This latter feature so far has only been found at Glanum. Such
material illustrates the problems that occur with much provincial wall
painting. Mme Barbet observes that the work was done either by an
incompetent artist or by one who had failed fully to assimilate Italian
models. Yet the shading and highlights of the fluted columns and the
garland design used for pilaster strips show that this artist was a master
of his craft. Possibly questions of depth and perspective did not interest
him and he was fascinated by the purely decorative motifs.
\ Evidence for the influence of Style III comes from French sites such
as Vienne, Perigueux and the temple at Champlieu, and also from

Commugny Switzerland}.^" Pompeian influences persist into the sec-

ond century. Exceptional discoveries include the villa at Keraddenec
(Finistere) with paintings of three periods - mid-second, late second
and third century, and also stucco work."' 6 Multicoloured geometric
bands decora led with sea-shells have been found in Vienne, Carnac
Finistere and other sites. 5?
In Britain excavations at Verulamium outside modern St Albans
have revealed wall painting dating from the mid-lust to the fourth
centuries in a number of houses. Several fragments pre-date AD 60,
including one piece showing a skillulh painted lyre and a quiver on a
very good qualit) red ground. )ne reconstructed wall has a dado and
(

panels imitating large-grained mat hies. Columns covered with scale

pattern between the panels suggest a colonnade reminiscent of Style
II. This wall can be closeh dated to AD 125-30. Decoration of
Antonine date includes motifs such as elegant candelabra, a
peopled acanthus scroll and pari of a corridor ceiling. 58 Paintings
of c.AD 75 at Fishbourne include a small seascape resembling
one found at Stabiae. 59
More elaborate second-eei it in \ walls from Leicester are decorated
with candelabra, human figures and friezes with theatrical masks.
Britain is unusualb rich in fourth-century painting from military sites

like York, and villas like Rudston, Winterton and Kingscote. 6"
Research is still incomplete on the unique Christian material from a
probable house church at Lullingstone, Kent. Here one wall depicts
six praying figures and the others include scenes associated with the
Chi Rho monogram.'"
From the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and across
Central Europe to Pannonia, there are sites where fine- painting and
 WALL PAINTINC AND STUCCO "3

90. Portrait of (?)

Constantia from the
ceiling of the
Constantinian Palace,
Trier. Fresco. Before
AD 326 Trier,
Bischoffliches Museum.

sometimes stucco work from the mid-first and second centuries have
been found. These are influenced by Style III with memories of Styles
II and IV. A typical design was found near Cologne Cathedral
(Plate 7). Later work is not so well represented, but a fourth century
hunt scene is another recent Cologne discovery 6a Many wall painting
finds from Trier include the coffered ceiling from the palace which
underlies the double cathedral, a great treasure dated c.320. Here,
painted on a blue ground, are Cupids at play and larger rectangles
containing over-lifesize portraits of the ladies of Constan tine's family,
including a fine portrait of his half-sister Constantia, formerly identi-
fied as his mother Helena (111. 90). 6 3
On the other side of the Mediterranean fine painting as well as
splendid mosaics survive, notably at the villa of Dar buc Ammera
(Zliten) near Lepcis Magna. 6 4 A large section of the vault of the
cryptoporticus datable c.AD 50-75 has been reconstructed showing a
design with Dionysos riding the panther in a central rectangle,
surrounded by a fantastic framework of delicate garlands and arabes-
ques, and incorporating smaller pictures of heads crowned with olives,
and animals. One small rectangle shows a delightful impressionistic
 WALL LAIN I L\(, AM) s I l'< :< :< )

village scene (111. 91), painted with heavy shadows in soft ghostly '9 1 . Village scene from
the ceiling of the Villa of
colourings. This decoration has much in common with landscapes
Dar hue Ammera, Zliten.
from Stabiae and designs from the Domus Aurea. Also from the villa
Fresco. c.AD 70. Tripoli
come scenes of pygmies reflecting the strong Alexandrian influence Museum.
only to be expected here. Other treasures include material from the
rich house of the Tragic Actor at Sabratha, 6 5 fine hunting scenes of the
third or early fourth century found in the baths at Lepcis Magna 66 and
portraits of the deceased from a fourth-century tomb at Ghirgaresh
near Sabratha, guarded by two richly clad attendants holding lighted
candles. 6/ In Egypt paintings recorded from the Temple of the
Imperial Cult inserted into the Temple of Ammon at Luxor have
much in common with the Ghirgaresh tomb. Four figures in a niche
probably depict the Kmperors Diocletian and Maximian and the
Caesars Galerius and Constantius Chlorus. 68
In the eastern provinx es Hellenistic traditions persisl later. This is

shown in third-century tomb paintings Palmyra. Temples were also

at
much decorated, and the Temple of Bel reflects Graeco-Orirntal
influences in what is known as the Parthian style, characterized by
static frontal poses and stiff drapery. 69 A treasury of religious painting
has been recovered from Dura Europos on the Euphrates, a Parthian
town occupied by the Romans from AD 165 to 256. Material comes
from the temples of the Palmyrene gods and of Zeus, as well as from a
Mithraeum, the baptister) of a Christian house church and a syna-
gogue (111. 92). Old and New Testament scenes with elements recall-
ing catacomb painting come from the baptistery, and numerous Old
Testamenl incidents arranged in three registers of figures from the
synagogue dated to c.245.7" Again the static frontal poses are present
and the scenes lack perspective and are only two-dimensional al-
 WALL PAINTING AND STUCCO

92. West wall of though brilliantly coloured. In the centre of the west wall was the
Synagogue, Dura Torah shrine and on the of it scenes showing the destruction of
right
Europos. c.AD 245. Yale
the temple of Dagon by the Ark which appears on its eventual way
University Art Gallery
(reconstruction .
back to Israel (I Sam. 5:6), and of Pharaoh ordering the murder of
Hebrew male children. Further left appears Moses saved by Pharaoh's
daughter (Exodus 1:6; 2:3-10).
It would seem therefore that far from simply copying Greek tradi-

tions, Roman wall painters were affected by many influences which

they assimilated in varying degrees. The Egyptian mummy portraits,
for example, may have affected figures at Dura Europos, but they
arose in Roman centres in Egypt carrying on earlier customs. The
ideas spread by armies, traders, administrators or itinerant artists were
93. Mummy portrait
received with varying enthusiasm in developing provinces. The flood
from Polychromic
painting on wood. 2nd of new discoveries from these areas may not only help us to assess the
century AD Leiden. strength of such Roman influences. It may also fill gaps where Italian
Rijksmuseum van material is lacking.
Oudheden.
PORTRAIT PAINTING
No reference has so far been made to pen trait painting, although a few
examples occur on the walls of Pompeii. 7 In a class of their own are
'

some portraits placed on Egyptian mummies (111. 93). Painted on

wood or sometimes linen and dating from the first to the fourth
century, they are very individual works, produced, if not in life, at
least by an artist acquainted with his subject. Details, particularly
haii -styles, enable their close dating and they are believed to belong to
well-to-do Hellenized families who settled in Egypt and adopted local
burial customs.
There is a thcor\ that some portraits were displayed in the house
before being attached to the mummy, but this is disputed. However,
one exceptional discover) is a portrait medallion painted on wood
which shows Septimius Severus, Julia Domna and their two sons, also
found in Egypt. Evidence lor such medallions occurs on a painted
sarcophagus from Kerch in South Russia which depicts an artist in his
studio with two completed roundels on the wall.7 2
CHAPTER FIVE

Mosaics
D.J.SMITH

INTRODUCTION
This chapter is essentially confined to the first four centuries ad and
concerned with decorated pavements of opus tessellatum: that is, made
with tesserae or tessellae more or less roughly shaped cubes of
.

c.o. 5-1 .5 cm.

(
^ - ^ in.) cut from various materials. Mostly these are
black, white and coloured marbles and other stones and tile, but
occasionally also clear and coloured glass and smalto - opaque glass
(plur, smalti: 'glass paste') and sometimes pottery. Smaller tesserae and
other shapes were cut for details. The tesserae were set as closely
together as possible in a bed of fresh, fine mortar, on a firm foundation
or base. When the bed had set the interstices between the tesserae were
grouted filled with fine liquid mortar: and when this had set the
mosaic was cleaned and polished. 1

Recorded Roman mosaics run into thousands, but distribution and

publication are both far from even and these aspects are inevitable
reflected in this chapter. Moreover, except ai Ostia, fev\ have been
closely dated on independent evidence. For the overwhelming maj-
ority, therefore, dating must rely on anal) al comparison with dated
t it

mosaics and. if justifiable, with relevant dated works in other media.

Since this process must involve subjective factors, as well as knowledge
and experience, il is not surprising either that opinions nta\ differ or
that the reassessment of even long accepted opinions is a continual and
necessar\ activity.
What is certain that then- can never be a history of Roman
is

mosaics in the sense of a demonstrably lineal evolution of a single or

universal style. The Empire was too vast and communications were too
slow .Hid intermittent for such an evolution to be possible. At most one
can identify traditions, plot their diffusion, and study their interaction.
This becomes increasingly difficult with the rise of regional and even
local schools from c.AD [50 onwards. Furthermore, the character of
fourth-century mosaics in Itah and the European provinces differs
significantl) from that of the earlier mosaics.
First, however, it is fundamental to the hapter to recall the origin
(

and types of mosaic w hich preceded, developed into, and permanently

influenced the repertory and character of Roman mosaics.

THE HELLENISTIC FOUNDATK >NS

Opus Tessellatum and Opus Vermiculatum. 2 Pavements of opus tessellatum

with borders and motifs in black or colour on while "round, and
.1
sometimes incorporating a polychrome centrepiece or figured panel,
developed in the Hellenistic world (possibly in Sicily) in the third
century BC 3 and were well established before ioo BC. 4 The most
ingenious and skilled Hellenistic mosaicists, however, saw their
medium as a means of copying or imitating paintings. This they
achieved by reducing the size of the tesserae to 4 mm. ( £2 in.) cubed or
less (even to 1 mm. [-*g in.] cubed!), and employing the widest
possible range of coloured marbles and smalti. The result was the so-
called opus vermiculatum, in the finest examples of which the tones are as
subtly graduated as in painting; and colour may even be mixed with
the grouting, or the grouting may be painted, to blend with the
adjacent tesserae.
It was certainly in opus vermiculatum that the 'most celebrated' Sosus

(«i50-ioo BC), of Pergamum in Asia Minor (Turkey), executed the

two famous subjects for which his name has been immortalized by the
elder Pliny (JVH, XXVI. 184). One depicted doves perched on the rim
of a bowl of water and reflected therein, the other an 'unswept floor'
littered with remnants of food from a banquet. Versions of both
subjects are preserved in opus vermiculatum and also in opus tessellation of
the later Hellenistic and the Roman period; 5 and many other subjects
in the Roman repertory must likewise be versions of renowned
Hellenistic masterpieces, whether of painting or of opus vermiculatum. 6
Remains have survived of a few pavements of opus vermiculatum
ranging in date from c.100 BC to c.AD 100 (111. 97). The execution of
such pavements would have been extremely time-consuming as well as
demanding the most gifted and skilled craftsmen, and they were
presumably rare showpieces.

Emblemata. Fromc.200 bc, therefore, the typical examples of opus

vermiculatum were relatively small rectangular panels, some only f.40
cm. (15^ in.) square, but others considerably larger. These could be
composed in workshops either on a slab of marble or in a terracotta
tray with raised edges (111. 94); or they could have been made by
gluing the tesserae face-down on a sheet of suitable material on which
the subject had been painted in reverse, the material and glue being
removed with hot water when the panel had been bedded in situ with
the tesserae face-up. Such panels could be transported and inserted -
hence their name, emblemata (singular, emblema) - into otherwise plain
or simply decorated pavements, or they could be affixed to walls. 7
Emblemata, also, were copies of paintings 8 or of mosaics imitating
painting in opus vermiculatum: a well-known example of c. 100 BC is that
from Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli (Italy) which closely reproduces the
doves of Sosus. 9 They range in date from perhaps before 200 BC to r.AD
10
200 and have been found in Hellenized lands and territories from the
eastern Mediterranean to southern Italy, southern France, Spain, and
North Africa (see below). Re-use of some in later pavements, as in the
case of the above-mentioned emblema from Hadrian's Villa, indicates
that they were valued as objets a" art from generation to generation.
1 '

The most accomplished emblemata date from the second century BC.
Thereafter, although pavements in opus vermiculatum were still made
until c.AD [oo see he-low . and emblemata and unframed limned centre- 94. The Seasons and
Nilotic subjects.
pieces in opus vermiculatum until as late as r.200, emblemata in opus
Pavement of emblemata.
vermiculatumwere generally superseded from c.150 b) framed subjects
From Zliten,
in panels composed of tesserae little or no smaller than those of the Tripolitania. 333 X 230
surrounding opus <ssellatum.
1, hese, however, were nol necessarily laid
I
cm. r.AD too. 'Tripoli.
insitu: like the original emblemata the) could ha\ e been pi efabricated in Archaeological Museum.
workshop and inserted into a pavement. 12 IT so. the term pseudo-
l

a
emblemata' sometimes applied to such panels is both inappropriate and
misleading. These are equally emblemata; but for the sake ofsimplicit)
an emblema not in opus vermiculatum i.e. of u-sserae over 4 mm. !,m.] [
:t

will henceforth he called a panel, however it was made.

THE HELLENISTIC LEGACY

Although relativel) few mosaicists' names are preserved in 'signed'
pavements ol the Roman period, it musi he significant thai Greek
11, nnes predominate, for this implies th.it the crafl remained largely
1
;

in the hands of Greeks, and goes n to explain how the Hellenistic

I.

techniques and repertory were passed on.' In brief, mosai< isis ol the
!

Roman Empire inherited tin- tradition of the decorated pavement ol

opus tessellatum with a white background, and developed from the
emblema in opus vermiculatum the panel in opus tessellatum, the subject
il\ simplified; the) inherited a world of subjects derived
being necessai
from Greek mythological paintings which permanentl) dominated
Roman figured mosaics; and the) inherited and ceaselessl) exploited a
repertory of patterns and motifs, naturalistic, conventionalized.
MOSAICS 119

and geometric, of which three-dimensional representation was a

characteristically Hellenistic feature.' 5
This legacy is naturally most evident on the Hellenized eastern
shores of the Mediterranean and in Magna Graecia (southern Italy
and Sicily). Further however, and with the passing of time, the
afield,
Hellenistic tradition lost momentum. For example, although the
mosaics of the Roman north-western provinces perpetually reveal
Hellenistic contributions and the memory of the emblema, 'three-
dimensional' patterns and motifs are extremely rare and apparently
never reached Britain.
It is to Roman mosaics that the rest of this chapter must be devoted;

and the obvious point of departure is Antioch (now in Turkey). This

metropolis of the province of Syria has yielded some 300 mosaics
representative of several centuries of the continuing Hellenistic trad-
ition in the eastern Mediterranean.

ANTIOCH AND THE HELLENISTIC TRADITION

There was a pre-imperial Hellenistic Antioch but unfortunately no
mosaics earlier than c. 50-1 15 have been recovered. Nevertheless,
these clearly reveal Hellenistic ancestry in their employment of opus
vermiculatum to copy or imitate paintings of mythological subjects,' 7
namely the Judgement of Paris (Plate 12), Aphrodite and Adonis, and
the drinking contest between Dionysos and Herakles (Plate 9). 18
Moreover, the first two are surrounded by naturalistic scrolls on a
black ground, that surrounding the Judgement of Paris being a most
realistic vine-scroll in which are eleven birds, three grasshoppers, two
lizards and a butterfly. '9 Both scrolls proceed from two male heads,
axially 'above' and 'below' the picture. Here the scrolls may have been
prefabricated with the pictures, 20 making emblemata of the exceptional
size of 1.86 m. (6 ft.) square. In another mosaic antedating 15 were 1

found several relatively small emblemata depicting birds. 21

In a figured panel of 98-1 15 the linear frame within the geometric
border is noteworthy in that its sides are slightly prolonged to inter-
22
sect. The result recalls the form of a wooden picture-frame from
Egypt 2 3 and of frames depicted in a painting of an artist at his easel
from Kerch in the Crimea. 2 4 In other words, the frame in this mosaic
supports the appearance of the subject within as a copy or imitation of
an easel-painting; and such frames, although rare in mosaics else-
where, 2 5 enclose other figure-scenes at Antioch. 2D
/ The Hellenistic traditions attested by the earliest-known mosaics of
Antioch continued to flourish throughout the second and third cen-
turies.
2
'
A pavement of c.115 preserved part of a design of two
concentric circles in a square, the outer circle radially divided into
twelve panels depicting personifications of the months, the angles of
the square portraying the Seasons as winged female busts on a blue-
black ground; all the figures are named in Greek. 28 Again, the detail
and modelling, very small tesserae, and the dark backgrounds,
in
suggest painting. An adjacent panel depicted Oceanus and Thetis
amid a profusion of marine creatures, also in very small tesserae, those
 ;

of the background and parts of the draper) being of green and blue
glass to enhance the aquatic character of the subject. 29
At Daphne, five miles south of Antioch, a mosaic of c.250 at the
earliest preserved a notable combination of Hellenistic illusionism and
the bird's-eye viewpoint in the form of a 'three-dirrTensional' re-
presentation of a U-shaped table laden with silver vessels and de-
licacies for a banquet, the table itself being 'executed in brown with
greyish highlights, to indicate the polished and lustrous wood'. 30
Most striking of all, however, is the pavement of c.2 50-300 de-
picting again the drinking contest between Dionysos and Herakles
(Plate 8).3' Now,the pastel tones and painterly chiaroscuro of the
earlier version have given way to bold contrasts heightened by the
vivid colours of .smalt/, and the panel here is represented as a wall
painting in a remarkably 'three-dimensional' architectural setting
with 'projecting' plinths, columns, and coffered vault above, im-
mediately recalling late 'second-style' Italian wall-paintings of the first
century BC (see Chapter 4). Although surrounded on three sides by
conventional geometric patterns such a panel is wholly inappropriate
to a floor and perfectly illustrates the Hellenistic mosaicists' striving for
illusory effects, even if ill-conceived. In this scene the gathered curtain
evokes the theatre, as do other figured scenes in mosaics from Antioch.
There were similar pavements at Antioch, earlier and con-
temporary and the local fashion that these e\ idenlh represent sucn
:

mosaics are as ye! unknown elsewhere is attested in another well-

preserved mosaic which must be contemporary with that just de-

scribed. This depicted Dionysos and Ariadne, with a satyr and a
maenad in narrower flanking panels, in a tripartite 'three-
dimensional' architectural setting even more reminiscent of late
Republican wall-painting in Italy ;J Presumably therefore, such mos-
. .

aics are imitations of a style of wall painting in vogue in die Hellenistic

world in the third century AD. ;

One outstanding example suffices to illustrate the continuing

momentum of the Hellenistic tradition such was its force at
Antioch -at least as late as c.350. It is, of course, the best know n mosaic
of the so-called 'Cons tan tinian Villa' at Daphne. 51 This was centred
on an octagonal basin from which radiated four trapezoidal panels
forming the design of a Maltese cross. Surrounding the design is a
luxuriant acanthus scroll on a black ground in which are clusters of
grapes, other fruits, flowers, and, axially on each side, a human head.
Between the arms of the cross stand winged female personifications of
the Seasons, their feet hidden in (lumps of acanthus in die angles of the
scroll. Two of the trapezoidal panels illustrate mounted huntsmen
attacking wild beasts, while another depicts huntsmen sacrificing to
Diana Plate [o),35 and the fourth portrays Atalanta (or Diana?),
Meleager attacking the Calydonian boar, and a lion. An imitation of a
gilded egg-and-tongue moulding frames each panel and also the entire
design; and there is an outer border of 'three-dimensional' swastika-
meander enclosing 'three-dimensional' oblong panels, like shallow
boxes, in which are representations of rustic scenes, groups of cupids,
and birds in confronted pairs.
 The scroll is of a kind familiar from other mosaics of Antioch,
including one of the earliest already noted, and typically Hellenistic. 36
The stately Seasons, however, have no known precedent here. The
hunting scenes were also apparently a novelty at Antioch, and, if so,
herald the succession of hunting mosaics which were to become a
characteristic feature of later mosaics at Antioch and elsewhere in the
eastern Mediterranean. 37 Executed in tesserae of marble and smalti
almost comparable with those of opus vermiculatum (c.3—6 mm. [I - 1
in.] 3 ), the panels preserve through masterly effects of colour and
perspective the illusion of depth and atmosphere developed in
Hellenistic painting.

ITALY
Hellenistic traditions were inherited by the Greek communities in
southern Italy and Sicily and also entered Italy through Adriatic
ports, notably Aquileia. 38 In mosaics these took the form of opus
vermiculatum, emblemata, which undoubtedly came to be made in Italy 39
as well as imported, and also pavements of white opus tessellation
relieved by simple patterns and motifs in black such as would have
been known to the Italian mercantile community on Delos. 40 These
pavements evidently appealed to taste in Italy, and were developed
there into a 'black-and-white tradition' which dominated Italian
mosaics from the earlier first century to the later third. 4 It is '

represented everywhere; but at Ostia its entire history is spanned by

nearly 450 mosaics, mostly dated. 1- To turn from the mosaics of
Antioch to these is like stepping out of dazzling sunlight into shade: it
takes time to adjust one's vision and to recognize that many of the
Italian black-and-white patterns and motifs are versions of poly-
chrome geometric patterns and motifs at Antioch and elsewhere in the
Hellenized world. 43
Moreover, the Italian black-and-white pavements are emphatically
two-dimensional; and, although the first-century mosaics of Pompeii
and Herculaneum include a few simple representations of figures 44 the
contemporary pavements at Ostia were strictly geometric. In fact,
they developed little there before the time of Hadrian 7-38), and ( 1 1

the unpretentious character of the repertory prevailing 120 is well c,

represented by those of the House of the Painted Vaults 45 and that of

c. 130 by the pavements of the House of the Yellow Walls 4 and the ''

House of the Muses. 47 Both houses of c. 130 include patterns of a new-

type, lighter and livelier, formed of elegant foliate as well as geometric
filigrees, which are characteristic of the Hadrianic period and found in

Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli itself.' 8 In the Caseggiato of Bacchus and

Ariadne this style was developed to include birds in a mosaic of
c. 20-30 and also, in another part of the same pavement, as an all-over
1

circular composition with winged figures in silhouette; 49 and in another

contemporary pavement it formed a 'carpet' pattern with an un-
framed central mythological scene. 5° In a circular composition of
c.i 30 in the Baths of the Seven Sages it took the form of silhouettes of

huntsmen and wild beasts in an all-over scroll. 5' Mosaics such as these
were unknown in contemporary Antioch.
 As earl) as c. 40-50 a panelled black-and-white mosaic at Ostia
depicted dolphins in silhouette and profiles of heads personifying
provinces and the Winds."'-' but lull-length figures of human form did
not appear until the second centun and from the beginning, again
;
' ;

unlike any contemporary mosaic at Antioch, they weae freely dis-

tributed about the floor. The earliest of such representations are those
of c.i 15 in the Baths of Buticosus which depict mythological marine
figures and Buticosus himself. 54 Although obviously something of a
caricature the latter is the first portrayal of an actual human being in
opus tessellatum ; and an interest in human beings and their daih life
appears again in a pavement of c. 120. This depicts mule-carts with
"'

their drivers, in the bath-house of whose guild the mosaic was laid." 1

Accompanying them are marine figures again, here including

Neptune himself driving two sea-horses, a forerunner of the great
triumphal processions of the god and of his consort and their mytholo-
gical and marine retinue which sweep across two of the three pave-
ments of c.i 39 in the Baths of Neptune 111. 95). These, clearly the
1
">''

products of an Ostian school, represent the apogee of the black-and-

white figured mosaics; and with them the life and mythological world 95. The Triumph of
Neptune, in the Baths of
of the sea was established as a theme which remained popular in the Neptune, Ostia. Black-
~>

black-and-white tradition until .250-300. 7 Translated into colour

<
and-white mosaic. 18.10
this theme became widely fashionable in the western Empire from 10.40 m. 1. \D 139.
 123

96. Part of the mosaic

depicting the story of
Jonah, in the Basilica of
Bishop Theodore,
Aquileia. AD 308-19.

Antonine times until the later fourth century (see below). It must not
be forgotten, however, that mosaics of the black-and-white tradition
also included other themes from Greek mythology and subjects related
to ordinary life.

The Italian black-and-white tradition was a unique contribution to

the art and history of Roman mosaics; but concurrently with that
tradition there were also in Italy polychrome pavements deriving
obviousl) from the Hellenistic tradition. 58 Indeed, even in Ostia there
was a polychrome mosaic of c. 127, in opus tessellatum, which was
designed as a grid enclosing sixty-eight square panels each depicting a
bird or still-life; and particularly interesting, because more overtly
suggesting Hellenistic influence, is its border of "cuboids' (Three-
dimensional oblongs') depicted vertically as so often in borders and
patterns at Antioch. 59A little later, c. 150, two other mosaics incor-
porated poh chrome panels, lour in one portraying busts of the Seasons
and surrounded 1>\ a 'three-dimensional' swastika-meander, 6 " and one
in the second, associated with black vine-scrolls on a white ground,
6
depicting two birds pecking at fruit in a basket between them. There '

are later examples of a combination of the black-and-white and the

poh chrome traditions, the most instructive being one ofr.200-10 near
Rome in which a craftsman evidently trained in the black-and-white
tradition attempted - and dismally failed - to render in colour a
marine subjcc :al of tradition. 62
This mosai fleets an incipient preference for poly-
chrome pave: \< I the beginning of the fourth century,
however, did Jychrome pavements become firmly established in
Italy; and tin now included tvpes which, having originally sprung
from the Itali black-and-white tradition in the second century and
been developed in colour in North Africa, were becoming widely
accepted in the western Mediterranean. 3 Such is the marine mosaic of
124 MOSAICS

308-19 at Aquileia (111. 96), adapted to a Christian context by intro-

ducing scenes from the story of Jonah in which the whale is simply a
traditional representation of a sea-monster (ketos); 6 such also are -*

scenes from the hunt and the arena in Rome; and such is the popular
late African theme of the marine birth of Venus which is illustrated in
an Ostian mosaic of c. 3 50-400. 6 5

THE AFRICAN TRADITION

In the present context the African provinces arc those from
Tripolitania westwards, among which Africa Proconsularis is pre-
eminent of mosaics. An estimate of 2,000 known mosaics
in the study
in these provinces cannot be an exaggeration. Inevitabh therefore, it .

will be possible only to sketch in the barest outline their history,

genera] characteristics, and significance. 66
First, ii must be emphasized that Hellenistic culture had already
been implanted in certain parts of North Africa. It is accordingly not
surprising to encounter Hellenistic features in the African mosaics.
The) are nowhere more patent than in Tripolitania. There the villa .it
Zliten has alone yielded twenty- four emblemata in terracotta trays
(9-15 tesserae per square centimetre as well as pavements of opus
,
rmiculatum, possibl) all of c too. 7 The emblemata include rural scenes
,

and representations of winged female busts personifying the Seasons

(111. 94). At one extreme the pavements depict the earliest scenes frorrl
the arena 15-18 tesserae per square centimetre and ai die other a
(

mosl iiaimalisin acanthus scroll (16-63 P er square centimetre!) in

which arc flowers, fruit, birds one feeding three chicks in a nest),
grasshoppers, a buttcrfh a chameleon, a lizard, a mouse confrontinga
.

snail, and a diminutive goat: Hellenistic work pai excellent detail.

111. 97) which invites comparison with the sculptured scrolls of the Ara

Pacis (see Chapter 3).

Hellenistic work is also apparenl in theearliesl opus U ssellatum known
in Africa, a pavement of c. 5—20 of Acholla Tunisia in die style of
1 1

decoration found in painted and gilded stucco of the mid-lust centur)

68
in Italy (see Chapter 4). This pavement also depicted female busts of
the Scisdiis. in 'three-dimensional' circular frames; hut in a square
frame was a subject which came to be one of the most characteristi-
cally African, namely the Triumph ofDionysos sec below).
Thereafter, African schools emerged. 6 Their astonishingly rapid
!'

development can be seen in mosaics such as that of (.130-50 from La

( Ihebba Tunisia w ith its portrayal ofthe Seasons again and a frontal
representation ofthe Triumph of Neptune, 70 and the Dionysiac
mosaic ofc. 150 from Djemila Algeria .'' Another pavement off. 150,
from Lambaesis Algeria ,issignedb) a Greek and is a magnificently
polychrome version in opus vermiculatum (tesserae of 3 mm. [* in.]
cubed) ofthe black-and-white marine compositions of contemporary
Italy. 72 These and many more clearly reflect the influence of painting.
It must be noted that black-and-white geometric mosaics of Italian

charactet were also laid in Africa at least well into the second centur)
the Antonine Baths of 145-62 at ( larthage had no others), 73 while the
distinctively African 'flowered style' which reached its zenith c.160
 25

97- An 'inhabited
scroll'. Part of a mosaic
in opus vermiculatum. From
Zliten, Tripolitania.
r.AD 100. Tripoli,
Archaeological Museum.

obviously developed from the Italian filigree patterns of the Hadrianic

period. 74
Two mosaics of c. 140-60 from El Djem (Tunisia) are further
reminders of the continuing copying or imitation of painting; 75 both
are panels oiopm vermiculatum depicting animals attacking animals in
simplified counterparts of emblemata of c. 130-8 (or earlier?) from
Hadrian's Villa. 7 These, too, arc forerunners of countless scenes
characteristic of later African pavements.
A hunting scene involving mounted huntsmen and another the
mythological huntsman Meleager appear perhaps as earl) as c. 60-80 1

or as late as .200-20?) in a well-known mosaic from the House of the

t

Laberii at Oudna near Carthage, together with representations of

other rural activities and a farmhouse. 77 Here the principle of registers
arrangement of scenes in superposed rows) emerges in Africa for the
first time. Interest in rural subjects, which was to grow,
78 also pro-

duced in a mosaic off. 180-90 from Sousse (Tunisia) a representation

of race-horses pasturing at the foot of rugged hills. 79 This appears to
have been an attempt to depict an actual rather than an imaginary
landscape:'
1

" if so, the attempt is unparalleled in Roman mosaics.

Greek mythological scenes and figures neverthelessremained fash-
ionable and, again, generally betray their derivation from Hellenistic
painting. For example, the portrayal of Dionysos in mosaics of
c.200- 10 from Lambaesis 8 and Sousse (111. 98) 8a immediately recalls
'

that in the famous emblema from the House of the Masks at Delos. 83 In
the pavement from Lambaesis the god is nimbed and, like the accom-
panying busts of the Seasons, portrayed as at Delos against a black
 *
'3T»

ground, while that from Sousse depicts him w ith attendants in trium- 98. The Triumph of
phal procession. Dionysos. Centre of a
mosaic. From Sousse,
To revert again to the geometric repertory it is noteworth) that
Tunisia, c.270 x 220 cm.
sumptuous polychrome 'carpet developed from the
patterns',
c.AD 200—10. Sousse.
Hadrianic filigree patterns of the Italian black-and-white tradition,
became characteristic of Africa. The) were especially typical ofthird-
century Timgad Algeria). 84
Comparison of the mosaic of the Months and Seasons of c.350-400
from Carthage 8 with its counterparl of c. 1 1 5 at Antioch p. 119), and
"'

the reproduction of Greek mythological subjects throughout the third

and fourth centuries, attest the continuing influence of the Hellenistic
tradition in Africa. 86 At the same time, however, other themes which
now came to the fore must be regarded as characteristically African:
hunting scenes 8 ' oi which over 100 are recorded in Proconsular
88
Africa alone), scenes from the arena and circus, rural, 89 genre, 90 and
marine subjects.'" still-life venia |J the marine birth of Venus, 93
.'

triumphs of Neptune'' 4 and. especially, triumphs of Dionysos. 95 In

scenes from the hunt, the arena and the circus, a frequent and typi-
cally African feature is the naming of men and animals, and (here are
even obvious portraits of individuals. Only a few of the masterpieces
,|(
'

can be mentioned: the great hunting mosaics of c. 240-60 from El

Djem,97 of c. 2 80-90 from Althiburus (Tunisia), 98 and of c. 310-30
 MOSAICS 127

from Hippo Regius (Bone, Algeria), 99 the remarkable representation

of the arena of c. 240-50 from Smirat (Tunisia), 100 the fascinating
illustrations of agricultural activities of c. 200- 10 from Cherchel
(Algeria), 101 the fortified villa and scenes of work and leisure on the
estate of Lord Julius of c.380-400 from Carthage (111. 99), I02 and the
majestic triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite of c.325 from
Constantine (Algeria), in which vivid blue smalti are employed with
striking effect (111. 100). I0 3 The mosaic from Smirat includes a text
commemorating the munificence of the sponsor of the bloody sport
depicted and illustrates a retainer bearing the bags of prize-money for
the bestiarii, who have clearly been portrayed from life. Such features,
as well as the repertory and style, are unparalleled in Antioch.
As ithappens, for an epitome of the African tradition no single site
surpasses that of the palatial villa at Piazza Armerina in southern
Sicily. Here the period of the mosaics, based on comparative studies,
seems now widely accepted as c. 3 0-30; but while some may date from
1

c.310, others may be or are certainly later, for more than one style is
recognizable and at least one pavement has been laid on another. I0 4
Nevertheless, almost all readily evoke African parallels; and, in ad-
dition to suggestions in certain mosaics of prefabrication of large
'° 5
sections, the tesserae include African stones, raising the possibility of
itself. The total area of decorative paving was
prefabrication in Africa
3,500 square metres (almost 11,500 square feet), and among the
mosaics are several portraying members of the family and staff, a
representation of the circus (with a salami-seller amid the spec-
106
tators), a 'Small Hunt' with representations of the customary sac-
rifice to Diana (Plate II and 111. 101) and of the picnic after the

99. 'Mosaic of the Lord

of
Julius', with allegories
the Seasons. From
Carthage. c.AD 380-400.
Tunis, Museum of the
Bardo.
128

ioo. The Triumph of

Neptune and Amphitrite.
Mosaic panel. From Koudiat
Ati near Constantine. 310 x
196 cm. f.AD 325. Paris, Musee
du Louvre.

£L*jP\^— 'oi. /lime The Small Hunt. Mosaic paving. Piazza

*^t'.'.' Armerina, Sicily. c.AD 310-30.
 MOSAICS

hunt, '"7 a "Great Hunt' running the length and breadth of an immense
portico 60 x 4.5m. [197 x 4f ft.]), a children's circus, a children's
(c. 1

hunt, marine scenes and dramatic mythological scenes including a

veritable "painting in stone' of the Sicilian theme of Odysseus in the
108
cave of Polyphemus. The 'Great Hunt' illustrates the capture of
wild beasts for the arena, with tamed animals as decoys, and cages and
vessels for their trans-shipment, and in several respects recalls par-
ticularly the hunting mosaic of Bone. 10 Amongst the mythological
-'

scenes are fantastic figures of dying giants, and a superb representation

of a charging bull which is modelled in a style that was to become
widespread in the Mediterranean during the next two-and-a-half
centuries (111. 102). "° Derivation from paintings or from painted
cartoons is especially obvious in these figures.
Xhc Greek mythological scenes, influence of painting, 'three-
dimensional' borders and polychromy, recall the Hellenistic tradition;
but here the figures and accessories, although coloured to suggest form
and even occasionally foreshortened, are generally depicted either
frontally or in profile on a white ground in all-over compositions
evoking recollection of those first developed in Italy in black and
white. One has only to compare the sacrificial scene in the 'Small
102. Par t of the mosa
Hunt' with its counterpart at Antioch a generation later (Plate 10) to
depicting the Labours (

see at once the difference between the Hellenistic and the African
Herakles it Piazza
;

Armerina, Sicily. Widt traditions in the fourth century. At Antioch the pictorial tradition still
f.450 cm. CAD 310-30. prevailed, creating depth and atmosphere by long established con-
1 30 MOSAICS

ventions such as the figure in the foreground with his back to the
spectator (so that both are looking into the picture) and the im-
pressionistically rendered vegetation in the background. At Piazza
Armerina, on the other hand, the same scene is essentially and un-
ashamedly two-dimensional and part of an all-over composition of
polychrome figures and accessories on a white ground. It is difficult not
to conclude that such a mosaic illustrates a style which had developed
by drawing freely from both the Hellenistic and the Italian black-and-
white traditions, combining aspects of both to create an equally
distinctive African tradition. 111 It may be added that study of the
geometric and naturalistic repertory of the mosaics of Piazza
Armerina prompts the same conclusion. 112
It has been remarked that the mosaics of Piazza Armerina represent

acceptance of the African style and repertory by aristocratic society

outside Africa, that hunting and gladiatorial mosaics of African type
the gladiators named) also appeared in Rome in the early fourth
century, that amongst these the hunting mosaics of Constantine's
Esquiline palace signify that the African style had now won Imperial
patronage, and that this explains its adoption for the vault-mosaics of
326-37 in the mausoleum of Constantine's daughter (now the Church
of Santa Costanza; see Chapter 12)." 3 The designs of the latter are
essentially those of pavements. " + Two, which depict brilliantly col-
oured birds, silver and glass vessels and other motifs, amid fruitladeh"
boughs, have an early third-century antecedent in a pavement at
Carthage;"^ but it is fascinating to observe that, while characteristi-
cally African, these two panels in Rome not only appear to preserve
the tradition of the 'unswept floor' originated by Sosus of Pergamum
four-and-a-half centuries earlier but also depict as a centrepiece a
version of his famous drinking doves." 6

THE EUROPEAN PROVINCES' '

To c.26o\27$. In Spain and southern Gaul ancient Greek settlements

ensured the eventual introduction of the Hellenistic tradition in
'"
Generally however, from the first centur) ad to c. 150-250
1

mosaics. .

the mosaics of the Roman provinces in Europe were derived more

or less from the Italian black-and-white tradition, with
directly
characteristic marine motifs reaching Spain" 9 and southern Gaul 120
121
c. 100-50, as far north as Fishbourne (Britain) by c. 160 or later, and
122
as far east as Aquincum (Budapest) by c.200-10. Polychrome
developments of the Italian repertory dominated, however, from
1. 150-200 in Britain,
123
c. 190-240 in Pannonia, 124 and
12
c. 100/150-260/275 in the other provinces. In fact, the repertory of
"'

the European mosaics represents diffusion, through Italy, of the Hel-

lenistic tradition; and the European preference for figured panels

rather than large-scale compositions, as in Africa, perhaps reflects an

enduring memory of the prestige of the emblema (see below).
Moreover, al Merida in southern Spain and in several mosaics in
France, the mosl northerly being from Sens. Hellenistic influence is
conspicuous!) evident either in the subject and st\ le or in the employ-
 3'

merit of opus vermiculatum, or both. That of Merida, a remarkable

pavement off. 150-200 (or c. 200?), depicts personifications with Latin
names of topographical features of the Empire and of natural pheno-
mena on a greenish-black ground suggestive of painting. 126 Analogies
are known only in the eastern Mediterranean. The example from
Sens, of (?) c. 225-50/250-75, has an even more distinctly Hellenistic
character. 27 It portrays Sol, his horses and nimbed female busts of the
Seasons, on a black ground, in a panel oVopus quasi-vermiculatum' This
.

was the showpiece in a large design of square polychrome and black-

and-white geometric panels, a late representative of the multi-panel
designs of Italian origin termed 'mosai'ques a decor multiple'. The
earliest in Gaul, in Orange, dates from the first half of the first
century; * 8 and the widely influential Rhone school of Lyons and
1

Vignne developed them to the full in the period c. 200-50. I29

In north-eastern Gaul the city of Trier has yielded a series of
polychrome mosaics from c. 100-260/275, an d here a school of quite
130
different character also flourished from r.200-50. Typical of this
school is the pavement off.230-4.oof the villa at Nennig (111. 103), the
103- Part of the mosaic
heavily geometric pattern of which incorporates octagonal panels
with panels depicting
illustrating scenes from the arena. 3 These include a representation of
'

scenes from the

amphitheatre at Nennig, a two-man band, one of them playing an organ. Later, e.250, a certain
Germany. c.AD 230-40. Monnus signed a pavement in Trier portraying and naming writers,
 '

1 32 MOSAICS

the Muses and cupids personifying the Seasons;' 32 and his work has
been recognized in a very different mosaic at Bad Kreuznach depict-
ing animals fighting animals and gladiatorial scenes.' 33 Elsewhere in
northern Gaul a pavement at Rheims illustrated gladiators and beasts
individually, each in a square panel, a characteristic ifiextreme ex-
ample of the European tendency to dissect figured scenes in order to
create and multiply 'emblemata' . 34

In the German
provinces a typically Italian black-and-white geo-
metric pavement in Cologne dates from asearly asc.25—50; 135 but here
the most striking mosaic is that of c.220 depicting Dionysos and
Dionysian figures and motifs in polychrome, the colours heightened by
employment of smalti. l<i Later, (?) c. 250-75, an elaborate geometric
pavement incorporated five portraits of Greek philosophers, each
named in Greek.' 37 In fact, in eastern Gaul and the German provinces
two conflicting spirits seem to dominate the mosaics, one Greek and
intellectual and the other, represented by the illustrations ofthe arena
and the circus, \<t\ reminiscent of contemporary African develop-
ments.' To the first can also be attributed the pavement of £.250 from
,i;

Munster-Sarmsheim in which a frontal portrayal of Sol in a chariot

with four rearing horses on a black ground was encircled by the signs of
the zodiac' V) It is interesting that this, again, was the showpiece in a
'mosaique a decor multiple', suggesting influence ofthe Rhone school.
During the third century in Britain the demand for mosaics seems tcP
have suffered a serious reduction, '" and from (.240-300 in
1

Pannonia' 4 and (.260/275-300 in the other Continental provinces it

'

may have lapsed altogether. Moreover, in wide areas production

apparent 1\ never re< <munenced; and where it did the degree of revival
and the character ofthe fourth-century pavements vary greatly.

The Finn l/i Century. In the Iberian peninsula African and even east-
in Mosaic depicting
Mediterranean influences are vcr\ evident in the fourth century. 142 |. ;

i in us. From Barcelona.

Especially notable .ire the circus-mosaics of Gerona and Barcelona,
803 x 360 cm.
the latter 111. i<> of c.310-40 and recalling that of Piazza
|
c.AD 310 (.0. Barcelona,
Armerina, and both with named horses: but surrounding one of two
1
' ;
An haeological Museum.
MOSAICS 133

Constantinian hunting scenes from El Hinojal near Merida is a scroll

on a dark ground with axial heads of the Seasons, again named,
immediately reminiscent of scrolls noted at Antioch.'44 A hunting
scene and full-length figures of the Seasons from the repertory of
pavements were also depicted with Biblical subjects in the mosaics of
r.350 in a dome of the mausoleum, an Imperial property, at Centcelles
near Tarragona. '+3 Later, mosaics such as that from El Ramalete
(Tudela, Navarre) portraying a huntsman named Dulcitius, * 6 that of1

c. 350-400 from Merida depicting charioteers, Dionysian figures, and

the Winds, '47 and another from Merida of c.400 illustrating Dionysos
discovering Ariadne, '+ 8 reveal distinctly local and deteriorating styles.
Indeed, the last, although proudly signed 'from the workshop of
Annius Ponius', is a travesty of the traditional scene.

southern Aquitania the fourth century produced a rich and

In*
unique style,' 49 but except at Trier there appear to be only three
notable pavements in the whole of the rest of Gaul. One is that of
c.300-50 from Blanzy-les-Fismes, twelve miles north-west of Rheims,
portraying Orpheus in a style which has been attributed to southern
Gaul, Italy, or Africa.' 50 The second was the mosaic with mytholo-
gical and hunting scenes at Villelaure Vaucluse) in the extreme south
(

which, although quite different, must also have been the work of
Mediterranean mosaicists.' 5 The third, of c. 250-300/300-50 and
'

similar to the second, is that of Lillebonne near Le Havre (Plate 13).

This is signed by 'T(itus) Sen(nius) Felix the Puteolan', i.e. of Puteoli
(Pozzuoli) near Naples, and (apparently) also his local apprentice
named Amor.' 52 Here the hunting scenes illustrate the sacrifice to
Diana and use of a tame stag as a decoy'53 in a pictorial style closer to
that of the same scene at Antioch than to that at Piazza Armerina.
Furthermore, the signature of an Italian master-mosaicist here ap-
pears to imply that Gallic mosaicists were not now available. Among
Roman mosaics this is certainly one of the most intriguing.
Trier became an Imperial capital from 293/54 but the presumably
consequent prosperity is not fully reflected by mosaics until
c.350-80. '55 Most are geometric, one interestingly including patterns
of 'vertical cuboids';' 56 but among the few figured pavements are one
depicting five Muses'57 and the strange 'Mysteries Mosaic' of
c. 364-83. In the former the quantity of glass tesserae is exceptional
and unparalleled in Trier. The latter illustrates rituals and named
devotees of a Graeco-Egyptian syncretistic cult: it has been suggested
that it must have paved the floor of the meeting-room of 'a kind of
Theosophical Club'!' 58
In remarkable contrast to her Continental neighbour, fourth-cen-
tury Britain produced hundreds of mosaics, with an exceptionally high
proportion of figured pavements depicting Greek - and also a few
Roman - mythological subjects.' 59 In fact, six schools have been
60 Here was invented
identified, two in Corinium (Cirencester) alone.'
6
a British type of mosaic portraying Orpheus;' and apparently the
'

work of a Corinian mosaicist can be recognized even in Trier.' 62

Another school, with its workshop apparently at Durnovaria (Dor-
chester, Dorset), produced the earliest-known mosaic portraying
i34

l6 Venus and
Christ. This school, however, specialized in mythological, marine
3 105. a
triton, bestiarii, beasts,
and hunting scenes, l6 4 and among these it seems that influence of the
doves and a bust of
African tradition can be detected; for they include a representation of
Mercury. Mosaic. From
the marine birth of Venus l6 5 and also a motif from a hunting scene' 66 Rudston. 467 x 320 cm.
paralleled in mosaic only in North Africa and Piazza Armerina. f.AD 350 (?). Kingston

In this context, however, by far the most interesting British pave- upon Hull City Museums
ment is one of (?) ^".350 from the northernmost fringe of the Empire. and Art Calleries.

This is the mosaic of Rudston which, debased as it is, recognizably

illustrates again a marine Venus, as her attendant triton indicates
l6
(111. 105) 7. Furthermore, associated with her are four bestiarii and

four beasts, two of the latter - a lion and a bull - named. The name of
the bull (Omicida) is contemporary
also that of a bear represented in a
mosaic of Carthage;' 68 but, most significant of all, above the bull is
depicted a 'crescent-on-a-stick' - symbol of one of the African guilds of
l6
bestiarii and as yet unknown except in African mosaics. 9 So far-

reaching now was the influence of the African tradition.

OTHER APPLICATIONS OF MOSAIC

This chapter has concentrated on pavements of mosaic because these
have survived in vast numbers throughout the former Roman world;
but there were also other applications of mosaic and, although ex-
MOSAICS 135

amples from the four centuries spanned by this chapter are relatively
rare, the most important deserve at least some mention.
As early as about the mid-first century BC the vault and four columns
in a nymphaeum in the 'Villa of Cicero' at Formiae were systemati-
cally decorated with marine shells and chips of marble and pumice; 7° '

and, at approximately the same time, coloured tesserae of stone and

pellets of 'Egyptian blue' (or 'blue frit': opaque glass), forerunners of
blue smalti, were employed together with shells and pieces of marble in
the decoration of a vault in the 'Villa of Horace' near Tivoli and in
another in a Republican cryptoporticus on the site of the later Villa of
Hadrian at Tivoli itself. The choice of such materials was obviously
intended to evoke the character of natural grottoes, such as those of
Capri which were similarly decorated in late Augustan or early
Tibgrian times; and it is said that in Italy they continued to be
employed in the decoration of fountains and nymphaea until the
fourth century AD.
Glass, in the form of discs, pieces cut from twisted rods, 17 and '

fragments of vessels, also came increasingly to be employed in the

decoration of the walls and vaults of grottoes and nymphaea, and
tesserae actually cut from glass appeared in the time of Tiberius (AD
14-37). To this period is assigned the columbarium of Cn. Pomponius
Hylas, outside Rome, above the entrance to which is a shell-bordered
panel bearing his name and the representation of a tripod between
confronted griffins, all executed in tesserae cut from glass.' 72 Within,
the walls were decorated with tesserae of coloured glass and other
materials more characteristic of fountains and grottoes.
By the mid-first century AD the decoration of fountains and nym-
phaea included panels of mosaic depicting figure-subjects. Examples
Golden House at Rome (64-8) ;' 74
survive at Anzio' 73 and in Nero's
and it may be added that the Golden House has also yielded a few
smalti of gilt glass, apparently a rarity before the fourth century.
About twenty houses in Pompeii preserve remains of mural mosaic,
some having more than one example, and the instances from Pompeii
and Herculaneum together number approximately forty. 'Mural
mosaic decorated niches, fountains, nymphaea, well-heads, columns,
vaults, lararia, pediments, walls, and sometimes formed panels equi-
valent to paintings.' All appear datable to 62-79. 75 The contem-
porary reference of the elder Pliny {JVH, xxxvi. 64) to 'glazed vaults'
(camerae vitreae) may be recalled. The exceptional degree of pre-
servation and the elaborate decoration of certain Pompeian fountains
in particular offer especially interesting evidence for the application of
mosaic to vertical and curved surfaces in this period. These shrine-like

structures combine the materials characteristic of the decoration of the

earlier grottoes with a much more extensive use of mosaic, now of
colourful smalti; and the decoration regularly includes figured motifs
and panels, the latter generally depicting a marine subject, with a
background of 'Egyptian blue' in preference to translucent blue glass.
Non-representational and architectural motifs in endless variety
extend to the flanking columns or pilasters and the architrave and
pediment above.
 136 MOSAICS

More striking than any of these, however, are the two Neronian
mural mosaics oismalti associated with a fountain in the atrium of the
House of Neptune and Amphitrite at Herculaneum. One of these
decorates an apsidal alcove with semidome and a rectangular niche on
either side. '76 Naturalistic vines rise from three-dimensionally ren-
dered canthari in shell-bordered panels flanking the niches and above
both niches is a panel depicting a hound pursuing a stag under a
beribboned swag on which perches a peacock. Part of another tier of
decoration survives above. The second mosaic, edged with shells,
comprises a panel depicting Neptune and Amphitrite under a canopy
in the form of a finely shaded scallop-shell in a representation of an
aedicula with a roof of a coloured imbrices supported by two pilasters
(Plate 14). '77 In its dimensions (c. 1.8 x i.5m[6 x 5 ft.]), frontality of
the figures and their plain yellow background, and in its generally
hieratic character, this mosaic foreshadows early Christian and
Byzantine mural mosaics portraying saints against a golden
background.
Both the figured and the non-representational repertory of earl)
mural mosaics clearly derive from mural paintings. For example, a
Pompeian panel (in the House of Apollo) depicting Achilles on Sk\ ros
illustrates a popular subject represented in two surviving Pompeian
paintings,' 7 and the Three Graces are the subject of another mural
mosaic from either Pompeii or Herculaneum' 79 and of no fewer thafF*
8
four Pompeian paintings,' " while a shell-edged apsidal niche from a
fountain of c. 100 at Baiae' 8 depicts a shrubbery with birds behind a
'

low wall which ret alls the paintings - though a century and a half
earlier - in the 'Garden Room' of Livia's Villa at Prima Porta
(Chapter 4).
Demand for the application of mosaic to the internal walls and
vaults of buildings, especially baths, undoubtedh increased (lining the
second and third centuries. Remains of a decorative mosaic including
small 1. of c. 1 30, still sun iveon the so Hit of an arch and in the semidome
beyond in the Baths of the Seven Sages at ()siia."
,J
Much better
-> preserved and obviously imitating painting is a niche with semidome
oli. 200 from the Palazzo [mperiale at Ostia in which Silvanus is
depicted with a hound between two trees against a background ofdeep
blue rmalti.3 Later, c.250-75, the vault of a tomb under St Peter's in
Rome w.ts decorated in mosaic of smalti with a representation of the
Sun-god in his as a symbol of Christ triumphant
chariot the
Ascension? against abackground of gilded tesserae, framed b\ a
pattern of vines in green and surrounded b) other subjects which are
overtly Christian. 4 Later still, between c.300 and 320, the domed
vestibule of Diocletian's villa at Salonae Yugoslavia and vaults in the
Baths of Diocletian and the dome ol the so-called Temple ol Minerva
Medica in Rome were .ill successively decorated with mosaic.'"' The
well-preserved and important mosaics of c.326-37 of the vaults of the
mausoleum of Constantine's daughter Santa Costanza in Rome
have already been mentioned. The designs of a number of fourth-
ieiituiA pavements of mosaic, especially in Britain, appear to imitate
the decoration of domes.' 86
MUbAHJb \o-i

Certain western provinces have also yielded remains of mural

mosaic incorporating shells, but these appear to date onl) from the
second and earlier third century and all perhaps come from rooms in
baths. The most northerly examples known are from Trier and its
8
vicinity, including the Barbarathermen;' " others are recorded from
88
Switzerland' and one in Spain, the most westerly, has come to light
89
at Italica.' Among those from Switzerland, and also in fragments
from France, "'"shells of snails were emplo\ c<l instead of marine shells.
There is no reason to conclude, however, that all mural mosaics of
baths, fountains and nymphaea necessarily incorporated shells.
Fountains and n\ mphaea and - as elsewhere in the Roman world - the
bottoms of pools at Antioch were decorated with mosaic, but there is
no mention of the employment of shells here;" and the same can be
1 '

said^of the remains of mural and vault-mosaics in baths at Lepcis

Magna (Tripolitania) The mosaic in a semidomc in the small
.

Hunting Baths there, which may date from as early as f.200, depicted
Dionysiac, Nilotic and marine subjects; it has been described as 'one of
the most varied and extensive pre-Christian figured vault-mosaics
which have yet been discovered anywhere in the Roman world'.' 92
Imitations of mosaic in mural paintings are known from several
large villas in Britain' 93 and a few sites have yielded actual fragments
of mural mosaic; but generally speaking the evidence for mural and
vault-mosaics in the provinces remains, doubtless deceptively, scarce.
In contrast, the ubiquity and inexpensiveness of opus tessellation in
paving and other forms of surfacing are amph demonstrated 1>\ its
employment in mausolea both as pavements and as facing for loculi.
Pre-Christian examples abound, notably at Ostia and in Rome,' 94 and
a decorative pavement laid over burials in loculi in a mausoleum is
recorded even in Britain near Cheat Tew, Oxfordshire),' 95 while
figured or otherwise decorative mosaic, portraying the deceased or
incorporating an epitaph, or both, covered or encased innumerable
Christian burials. The latter have been found in Spain, Sicily, the
Adriatic, the eastern Mediterranean and, especially, North Africa;' 9
and one of the interesting aspects of these is that the) reveal the desire
and ability of many humble people to commission a mosaic, albeit
small, to mark the last resting-place of their loved ones. In North
Africa the series of Christian funerary mosaics runs from the first hall
of the fourth century, through the Vandal period, and into Byzantine
times.

OTHER FORMS OF DECORATIVE SURFACING

In conclusion, two other tonus of decorative surfacing max be brief!)
noted.
The simpler consists of concrete-like paving, either black ('coc-
1

ciopesto or 'cocciopisto': lime mortar with an aggregate of crushed

pozzolana) or red opus signinum: lime mortar with an aggregate of
crushed brick), in which white tesserae are set singly and cquidistantly
in rows or in lines forming simple geometric patterns (e.g. meanders,
trellis-patterns, etc.), or - in the period of Style II painting (see
138 MOSAICS

Chapter 4) - as rows of equidistant crosslets of five tesserae, generally

with a central tessera of black. Such pavements are characteristic of
the last century of the Republic in Italy,' 97 and elsewhere can be
regarded as indicating Italian presence or influence.' 98 In the first
century BC they began to be imitated in the earliest mosaics of the
Italian black-and-white tradition, and in the first century ad to give
way to mosaics sensu stncto, though their construction continued in
Italy into the second century AD; '99 and remains of one off. 100- with
a pattern of crosslets - have recently been found even in Britain. 200
The other form consists ofjuxtaposed shapes of differently coloured
marbles sawn from thin slabs: hence its name, opus sectile, 'sawn
201
work'. Pavements of opus sectile were introduced into Italy from the
Hellenistic East in the mid-second century BC and during the Empire
were commonly laid in public buildings throughout the Roman world.
Internal walls in these buildings were also frequently faced with sheets
of marble, but in the form of relatively large rectangular panels. A
particularly notable example of this application of marble is the
panelling preserved below the lower cornice in Hadrian's Pantheon
(c.AD 126; see Chapter 2). 202 It seems, however, that it was not until the
late Empire that entire rooms with pavements of opus sectile and walls
faced with marble became fashionable in well-to-do private houses; 203
and here the best examples, dating from the end of the third to the
mid-fourth century, are in the House of Cupid and Psyche at Ostia. 2C*
There is evidence for mural decoration in opus sectile as early as the
period of Claudius (AD 41-54: Pliny, NH, XXXV. 2) and Nero (AD
54-68), and the practice of modifying the colours by application of
heat may date from the time of Nero. 205 Pieces of figured opus sectih
have been recovered from Nero's Domus Transitoria 54-64 ). 2 ° 6 A (

striking later example, showing indications of having been heated, is

the head of the Sun-god from the Mithraeum under Santa Prisca in
Rome; 20 " but the most important and impressive remains of figured
mural opus sectile are the panels from the Basilica of Junius Bassus in
Rome (cad 330-50) which depict wild beasts attacking weaker
8
animals.-'" H\las and the nymphs, 209 and a consul - presumably
Bassus himself, consul in 331 - in a biga, accompanied by four
horsemen in the colours of the factions of the circus (Plate 35). 2I " In
addition to coloured marbles these panels employ opaque glass, 2 " the
raw material of the mosaicists' rmalti, and the effect is that of un-
modclled painting. 212
Finally, a building of the late fourth century at Ostia has yielded
almost in entiret\ its internal decoration, figured, naturalistic and
geometric, again of opus sectile and opaque glass; and the figures
include a bust of a bended and nimbed Christ. 213 Both here and in the
panels from the Basilica of Junius Bassus there are indications of
Egyptian origin; and it is almost certain that Egypt was the source of
the panels of vitreous opus sectile intended lor the decoration of a
building at Kenchreai. the eastern port of Corinth, which were sub-
merged - still in their crates - probably in AD 375. 214
CHAPTER SIX

The Luxury Arts: Decorative

Metalwork, Engraved Gems and
Jewellery
MARTIN HENIG

The objects discussed in this chapter are exceedingly diverse. What

most of them have in common is that they would have been treasured
by their wealthy owners and at the same time been subject to the
hearty disapproval of moralists (including the elder Pliny), for whom
the notion of luxury was an affront to the ancestral virtue of customary
morality - the mos maiorum.
Unlike most architecture and sculpture, which glorified the
achievements of the patron, ruler or State, and to a far greater degree
than painting and mosaic (which were intended to be seen by a group
- perhaps the house-owner and his friends or a religious congregation)
gems and silver objects were generally intended for personal use. This
private quality is emphasized by the literary sources in numerous
anecdotes: for instance, a certain ex-consul gave 70,000 sesterces for a
fluorspar cup and became so fond of it that he would gnaw its rim
(Pliny, NH, XXXVII. 18); the great Republican general C. Marius was
seduced from his peasant simplicity by the lure of silver, and drank
from wine-cups ornamented with Bacchic scenes in imitation of the
god Liber (NH, XXXIII. 150). Pliny is perhaps hinting that Marius
behaved like a Hellenistic monarch; his readers may have recalled that
Ptolemy II Philadelphos staged an elaborate pageant at Alexandria in
276 BC to honour the god Dionysos, whose companion he claimed to
be. Julius Caesar, a passionate collector of gems (Suetonius, Div.
Iulius, xlvii), wore a signet-ring engraved with Venus Genetrix, sup-

posed ancestor of his family (Dio Cassius, xliii. 43). Nero valued two
cups of crystal so much that, during the revolt in Rome that overthrew
him, he broke these treasures to punish his thankless age (Pliny, NH,
XXXVII. 29).
Silver and gems were collected with avidity, and it is certain that in
antiquity they would have been regarded as more central to the history
of art than they have appeared to most modern commentators -
though not to the great artists of the Renaissance, for example,
Benvenuto Cellini, who was a skilled silversmith. Very high prices
were paid for good specimens, especially when they were the work of
well-known craftsmen, and the fact that such precious objects were
hoarded has ensured that we can still enjoy works of art owned by the
elite of the Roman world, in something like their original condition.
Although no doubt some luxury objects were made by artists without
any specific patron in mind but in the hope of catching the eye of a
would-be purchaser, others are clearly special commissions never
intended for the open market. Indeed sometimes the subjects depicted
 4o THE LUXURY ARTS

on figured pieces are very revealing about personal taste: they range
from portrayals of the Emperor and his family, equated with gods and
heroes, to erotic scenes hinting at salacious gossip in society and even in
Court circles (for instance, a cup showing two pairs ofJulio-Claudian
princes engaged in homosexual acts reminds us of the" scandals re-
ported by the biographer Suetonius). Other cups display pastoral 1

2
scenes, proclaiming a delight in the countryside, or fish and game.
Even if bought from a silversmith's shop they imply discrimination on
the part of the customer. Silver and gems are in a real sense the visual
counterpart of Latin poetry, whether like Statius they adulate the
ruler, or explore with Ovid the art of love, or express enjoyment of the
natural world with Horace.
The relationship between the various luxury crafts was close, and
there is some evidence for instance at Pompeii and Rome) that gem-
(

cutters and gold and silversmiths lived in the same quarter of town. 3
Moreover, there are strong links with other crafts - silver vessels and
figurines are obviously very similar to bronze ones; bronze objects may
be inlaid with silver; fine pottery often imitates silverware (p. 179).
With regard to the "major arts*, it should be noted that the great
Pasiteles was like Cellini a silversmith as well as a sculptor (Cicero,
De Divinatione, 1. 36; Pliny, MI. XXXIII. 156) and that some Imperial
statues were made ofprecious metal e.g. Suetonius. Domitian, XIII. 2).
In the late Republic and early Empire, strong artistic cross-currents
meant that the shape and the character of the decoration of a sardom \
chalice such as the 'Cup of the Ptolemies', silver canthari from Hildes-
heim and Steevenswert, Arretine pots, and marble garden-urns like
the Medici and Warwick vases obeyed a common Hellenistic aes-
thetic. Only later in the Empire was there a change; silverware
retained its purity of design, but the other luxury crafts were largel)
displaced b\ a variet) of objects fashioned in a wide range of styles,
some of them rather ostentatious -cut-glass vessels, ivories, large items
of gold jeweller) and even illustrated hooks codices). Despite this,
precious possessions never (eased to reveal .1 taste for elegance and
splendour, which marked contrast
is in to the usual image of Roman
ait as massive, brutal and derivative.

SILVER PLATE: I. A I 1. REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE

Silver and »old came to Rome in quantity as a result of her military
and diplomatic triumphs in the East e.g. law. XXXIV. lii. 4—5; Pliny,
V//. xxxiii. [48—50). Indeed, the richly ornamented bowl from
( i\ ita Castcllana in South Italy is decorated with acanthus ornament

in the exuberant lellenistic st\ le of Pergamum and probabh arrived

I

in I tab after Attalos bequeathed that state to Rome-and 'the cit\

1 1 1

learned not just to admire foreign opulence hut indeed to love it'
(Pliny, loc. cit. .' We should not therefore he surprised that plate was
amongst the prizes looted by the rapacious governor of Sicily, C.
Verres. who even established his own workshop to set gold cups and
bowls with looted emblemala (Cicero. Verr., 11. iv. 54). Such centrepieces
.ire to be found in the rich treasures of Hildeshcim (possibh the
THE LUXURY ARTS I
4 1

personal property of Quinctilius Varus, who perished in an ambush in

Germany in AD 9). One shows a figure of Athena seated on a rock,
another the infant Hercules strangling serpents, and others busts of
Atys and Cybele. Similar emblemata ornament bowls from the great
hoard concealed in the villa at Boscoreale in Campania, later in the
first century ad, a marvellously regal bust personifying the province of

Africa being pre-eminent. 5 The vessels were enriched with gilding

applied by creating an amalgam of gold and mercury, and vaporizing
the latter. Pliny mentions a bowl by Pytheas with an emblema showing
Odysseus and Diomedes stealing the Palladium from Troy (J\fH,
xxxiii. 156) which sold for the colossal sum of 10,000 denarii, al-
though it weighed only two ounces. Such a scene is shown on the neck
of a silver jug from Berthouville in Gaul and as an emblema on a bronze
patem from Tienen-Avendoren in Belgium, both dating to the first
century AD. (The scene was also popular on gems, and surviving
examples include one by Augustus' gem-cutter Dioskourides; 111. 121).
Thus the acquisition of high-quality plate was clearly a prestigious
undertaking, but the collector had to be careful not to lay himself open
to ridicule. Petronius' fictional parvenu millionaire, Trimalchio,
valued his collection of silver by its weight, misunderstood the subject-
matter of its ornament, and affected to discard a vessel that accident-
ally fell to the floor in the course of a banquet as though it was
expendable pottery (Petronius, Satyricon, 31, 52 and 34). Even if he
were not guilty of such lapses in taste, an owner ought to be aware that
it was not always appropriate to display all his silver - for instance if he

were a general energetically fighting the enemies of the Empire. Pliny

(NH, XXXIII. 143) mentions Pompeius Paulinus, governor of Lower
Germany in AD 56, 'the son of a knight of Rome at Aries and descended
on his father's side from a tribe that went about clad in skins', who took
2,000 pounds weight of silver plate with him when on service with an
1
1

army confronted by tribes of the greatest ferocity'. The Hildesheim

Treasure was thus not the only great service of plate to be taken on
campaign. However, most collectors were only able to afford a simple
ministerium of cups and dishes sufficient for themselves, and for their
family and friends. But even they must often have revelled in the
luxury of possession, and silver plate was depicted in fresco on walls
(for example in the Tomb of C. Vestorius Priscus, Pompeii) and in
mosaic on floors (p. 120), as well as on precious objects like the
sardonyx 'Cup of the Ptolemies'.
From the late Republic, typical finds are the simple but shapely
vessels from Arcisate in North Italy, consisting of a wine-strainer with
a geometric device pricked out over it, a ladle with a long handle
terminating in a swan's head, a bowl and a jug. There were no cups,
but examples of these may be seen in a treasure from Tivoli and
amongst the finds from Celtic chieftains' graves at Welwyn in
6
Britain. These simple vessels were made by beating out the metal over
a stake ('raising'), modest decoration being added en repousse or by
engraving, sometimes augmented by gilding. Most early plate has two
'skins', an outer one, which carries the decoration and an inner one,

the liner.
 .

[
42 THE LUXURY ARTS

Many Hellenistic-Republican cups (and other vessels like the great 106. ( Top, left) scyphus

from the Hildesheim Treasure) carry rich vegetal ornament such

crater with relief figure scene
showing Odysseus with
as garlands or acanthus foliage (which we have already seen on a
Philoctetes. From a
second-century cup from Civita Castellana and whiclf goes back at
grave at Hoby, Denmark.
least to the early fourth century, see for instance a splendid gold casket Silver gilt.

(larnax) from a royal Macedonian tomb at Vergina) 7 Other vessels are Height 10.9 cm. End of
embellished in addition (or alternatively) with pictorial scenes in neo- 1 century BC.
st

Copenhagen, National
classical style: Vergil's 'beechwood cups' - a literary pastoral alter-
Museum.
native to metal - were 'made by the inspired Alcimedon' (Eclogue ill.
35-47). One of these showed Conon with another astronomer, and 107. (Top, right)

was further decorated with ivy and vine ornament. The other depicted cantharus with figure
scene in relief showing
Orpheus 'charming the trees' and was adorned with acanthus leaves.
Pylades, Iphigenia and
It is fitting to mention these imaginary vessels for in reality many of
Orestes. Silver gilt.
the cups reflect the literary culture of the triclinium, the cultivated Height 9.8 cm.
dinner-table conversation of their owners and the formal readings of 1 st century BC.
the classics that took place on these occasions. Thus it is not in the least London, British
Museum.
surprising that much late Republican and early Imperial silverware
brings Greek drama to mind. An example in the British Museum is a
cup depicting Pylades with Orestes and Iphigenia, and their half-
brother Chryses, priest of Apollo at Sminthe, about to slay the
pursuing Thoas, king of the Tauri (111. 107). The composition is
presumed to follow the action of Sophocles' play Chryses (now, nlas,
8
lost) or another play on the same theme. Similarly, the tall calathus
from Wardt-Liittingen in Germany, showing Jason, Glauke and
Medea's gift-bearing children, recalls the Medea of Euripides. In
accordance with classical dramatic convention, neither cup shows
violent episodes in their respective legends. As in a play these take
place 'off-stage'. 9 Two cups from a chieftain's grave at Hoby in
Denmark carry mythological scenes: one shows Philoctetes, a Greek
hero of the Trojan War, rescued by Odysseus and Neoptolemos from
pain and exile on Lemnos (where he had been abandoned on account
of his festering snake-bite) so that he could use the powerful 'arrows of
Herakles' in the conquest of Troy (111. 06) The other depicts Achilles
1 .

listening to the entreaties of Priam, a Homeric subject also reproduced

on Arretine ware (p. 179). This is probably a mythological version of
the submission scene on one of the Boscoreale cups cited below, in
accordance with Augustus' claim to be the new Achilles. It is, how-
ever, possible that the head of Achilles is based on a portrait of
Tiberius, who followed the tradition of his predecessor's propaganda
vers closely. 10 We ma) find more generalized allegory in the decor-
ation of a flagon from Pompeii < . \l) 20-50), showing lapiths subduing
and is a good example of the
centaurs; this type also occurs on pottery,
Roman admiration for Athenian art. The subject was carved on the
Parthenon metopes in the fifth century BC, with the same probable
meaning - the victory of civilization over barbarism."
is much rarer on surviving silver than, for
Direct political allusion
instance, on gems, but there are two magnificent cups in the Bos-
coreale Treasure, one of which shows Augustus as master and pacifier
of the world and receiving the submission of barbarians (111. 108) and
the other the triumph of his successor, Tiberius. 12 In a more allegorical
 THE LUXURY ARTS '

[3

108. (Bottom, left) vein, a picture-dishfrom Aquileia represents a Roman prince (iden-
scyphus with relief figure
tificationsrange from Mark Antony to Claudius) as the young god
scene showing barbarians
Triptolemos, standing before Demeter. Zeus is shown above and the
submitting to Augustus.
From Boscoreale. Silver. earth-goddess, Ge, below. Greek names are entirely appropriate be-
Height to cm. Early cause this dish is ornamented in the Alexandrian tradition of the
[St century AD. Paris, sardonyx vessel known as the Tazza Farnese, which dates from Ptole-
Rothschild Collection.
maic times.' 3
109. ( Bottom, right)
Another aspect of early Roman toreutic is an interest in nature,
eantharus with cranes in which may reflect influences from Ptolemaic Egypt, but certainly was
relief. From Boscoreale. prominent in Italian taste. The rustic scenes on a pair otscyphi from the
Silver gilt. Height 13.2 House of the Menander at Pompeii, and various cups from the House
cm. 1st century BC-
of the Menander, the Boscoreale villa (111. 109) and elsewhere showing
isi century AD. Paris.
cranes in a landscape setting (found also on Arretine vessels, p. 183,
Musee du Louvre.
and amber pyxides, p. 162) are typical.' 4 However, the most obvious
subject for drinking-cups was the god of wine, Bacchus, or masks of
Bacchus and his followers. Those from the Hildesheim Treasure,
which may have belonged to Varus (see above), and the eantharus from
the Meuse at Steevenswert are splendid examples of such pieces. 15
 1

1
THE LUXURY ARTS

LATER ROMAN SILVER PLATE

Towards the end of the first and in the second century, working
methods became coarser, and casting and chasing {cutting) were
employed for ornament. Pliny records the change as a very sudden one
{NH, xxxm. 57) and we do indeed find cast and chased silver vessels
1

at about his time, for instance, a calathus from Hermopolis in Egypt,

with its exterior covered with a luxuriant vine, a figure of Bacchus, and
 THE LUXURY ARTS 145

1 12. Central emblema

from a shallow bowl
(pkiale). Relief scene of
Mercury in a rural
sanctuary. From a
temple at Berthouville,
France. Silver:
dedication in gold letters
Diameter of emblema 9.6
cm. 2nd centur) \l).
Paris, Cabinet des
Medailles.

Cupids gathering grapes. 16 A very attractive large plate (lanx), prob-

ably dating from the earlv second century, was found at Straze in
Slovakia, beyond the imperial frontier. It has a central engraved
emblema enriched with gold foil, showing an oath-taking scene
(111. 111), while around the rim are chased sacro-idyllic scenes, inter-

spersed with men fighting. One poignant episode shows the execution
of two nude youths, perhaps the sons of the elder Brutus (111. 10). 1

Technically, the Straze lanx recalls the large plate from Bizerta in
North Africa, which has a central emblema of Apollo and Marsyas
(inlaid with gold and electrum) and chased Bacchic scenes around the
rim.' 7 Much of the temple plate from Berthouville in France may date
from the second century. The little shrine was evidently patronized by
members of the wealthy Gallo- Roman gentry, who not only dedicated
household plate, for example two antique (first-century) jugs covered
with episodes from the Trojan War, but also commissioned new pieces
showing Mercury, who was worshipped at this shrine. The best of
these plates has a central emblema depicting the god in his rustic
sanctuary with sacred column, tree and cult animals (111. 112). A
surrounding legend in gold letters reads 'Deo Merc(urio) Iul(ia)
Sibylla d(e) s(uo) d(ono) d(at) -Julia Sibylla gives this to the god
Mercury out of her own resources.' 8
One type of vessel often found at sanctuary sites (but also used
domestically) is the patera or trulla. A simple example with ac-
anthus ornament and gilded inscription to the mother-goddesses was
found at Backworth in North Britain. There is nothing specifically to
link the Chatuzange-le-Goubet treasure with a temple, but while one
of the paterae is decorated with leafy scrolls, the other shows a religious
scene. At the bottom of the handle a woman stands before an altar
making an offering; above is a shrine, and the goddess or personi-
I j() I Hi; LUXURY ARTS

firation Felicitas is shown, holding caduceus and cornucopia and 1 1;;. Above, Iff!) two
pat rat with relict'
leaning against a column (111. 113). This is reminiscent of a handle
(In oration on handles.
from the Capheaton treasure in North Britain showing Minerva pre- personification of
Left
siding over a temple and sacred spring. Indeed simple paterae in silver, Felicitas and sacro-idyllic
enamelled bronze, and pewter have been found at the spring of Sulis scene. Silver. (Right)

Minerva at Bath."' .11 anthus, vine and ivy

ornament. Silver-gilt.
The marked in Gaul by insecurity and the deposi-
third century w as
From Chatuzange.
tion of hoards like those of Berthouville, Chatuzange, Chaource and I'r.im e. Diameters
Graincourt-les-Havriiu nint. Il is not easy to decide which \csscls are respectively 12.5 and
more or less contemporary with the deposition of the treasures, but the 13.4 cm. 2nd century AD.
simple engraved and niello silver sulphide designs, rosettes and London, British

swastikas seem to be new features, and foreshadow the much more

Museum.

elaborate geometric ornament of the fourth century. Late Imperial 1 14. Abovt . right situla
examples are seen, for instance, on the treasures of Mildenhall and with gilded acanthus
Kaiseraugst, as well as on plates of the Romano-British silver sub- Frieze in relief. From
Chaource, France. Silver.
stitute, pewter, including an especially line example in the Ashmolean
Height 7 cm. 1

Museum from Appleford, Berkshire. 20 The silver situla from Chaource 3rd century AD. London,
(111. 141 and flanged bowl from Graincourt-les-Havrincourt are
1
British Museum.
decorated with formal friezes of acanthus within heaw beaded bor-
ders; these features, again, seem to be typical of third-century orna-
ment. 21 The bucket is of a shape characteristic of the western pro-
vinces; as we shall see, bronze pails were probably made in Germany
(p. 151). It is possible that the line third-century mirror from Wroxeter
111. 15), with its double-loop handle and vegetal wreathed surround,
1

was also made in the lower Rhine-Mosel region, where such elaborate
mirrors are shown in sculpture. 22
Much more silver plate may be ascribed to the fourth century; it is

diverse in its subject-matter, and pagan themes predominate. The

continuing custom of aristocratic patronage cushioned the silversmith
 THE LUXURY ARTS [
47

against economic change. Even Mildenhall Treasure belonged

if the

to Constantius IPs Christian general, Lupicinus (as Kenneth Painter

believes), the great Neptune dish with its dancing, swaying,
thoroughly orgiastic Dionysiac revelry (111. 16) and the smaller Bac-
1

chic platters are still fully within the pagan, Graeco-Roman artistic
tradition. The Corbridge lanx, convincingly dated a few years later to
the reign of Julian, shows the deities associated with the Greek island
of Delos, visited by Julian in ad 363: Apollo and his companions,
Artemis, Leto and Asteria Ortygia, are rendered in a precise but rather
stilted manner; the elaborate and fussy engraving of their garments
confirms the Late- Antique date. 23 Perhaps the best piece of fourth-
century silver is the octagonal Achilles dish (Plate 20) from
Katiseraugst by Augst, in Switzerland. The Treasure perhaps belonged
to a leading follower of the usurper Magnentius, who is thought to
have had strong pagan support. Its central emblema shows Achilles
discovered in woman's clothes on Skyros and surrounding scenes
display the hero's birth and education - a veritable pagan biblia
pauperum, as much a rallying cry for the old 'hellenistic' style of art
(which indeed survives on silverware into the early Byzantine Empire)
as for the Old Religion. 2 4

The question of where silver plate was made is

Signatures on Silver Plate.
a complex one, for not only is it portable, but artists themselves moved
around in search of patronage. While a great many vessels - indeed,
probably the majority - have been found in the western provinces,

115. Mirror decorated

on the back with wreath
of leaves and flowers in
relief; applied loop

handle in form of a
Hercules knot. From
Wroxeter. Silver.
Diameter 29.4 cm. 3rd
century AD. Shrewsbury,
Rowley's House
Museum.

1 16. Lanx with relief

decoration and
subsidiary engraving,
showing head of
Oceanus, marine thiasos
and thiasos. From
Mildenhall, Suffolk.
Silver. Diameter 60.5
cm. 4th century AD.
London, British
Museum.
[48 I HI. LUXURY ARTS

much of the best work will have been made in eastern workshops.
Certainly, signatures are generally those of Greeks like Cheirisophos.
who signs one of the Hoby cups in Greek and the other in Roman
letters; or Pausylypos of Thessalonika, who signed the" Achilles dish.
However, M. Domitius Polygnos, who signed a mirror, and Sabinus,
who signed a scyphus (in Greek letters), both from Boscoreale, have in
the one case Roman citizenship and in the other at least a Roman
name. In the Gallic treasures of the third century there is much to
suggest an established industry, and there must have been workshops
wherever there was a suitable clientele.

GOLD AND SILVER STATUARY

Gold hardly figures as a medium for plate, though there is a fine lamp
with two nozzles from Pompeii and a plain gold amphora recovered
from the sea off Cnidus in Asia Minor. 25 Both gold and silver were,
however, employed for little statuettes and portrait-busts. Although
we hear of large-scale sculpture in precious metals (much of it prob-
ably gilt bronze), our surviving evidence is small-scale, like the gold
bust of Antoninus Pius from Avenches (Switzerland) or the silver bust
from the Marengo Treasure North Italy of Lucius Verus (111. 117).
They were probably, like cameos and miniature sculpture in precious
stones or even cheaper works in bronze or glass, gifts to friends and
6
supporters of the Imperial house." However, there are private por-
traits in precious metals, and a silver bust from Vaison perhaps shows
the owner of the house (The House of the Silver Bust). His represen-
tation as a clean-shaven individual with somewhat rugged features
had Republican precedents, but this 'veristic' style was revived in the
portraiture of the late first century. The bust probably dates from
"
around the time of Trajan. J
Figures of deities were frequently made in precious metals. Most of
them were dedicated in public shrines, or else acquired for private
devotion. A smith who made such objects was that Demetrius who
'made silver shrines for Diana' at Ephesus (probably representations
ol 'Ephesian Artemis' in little aediculae and stirred up a riot against St
.

Paul (Acts 19:23—39). Trimalchio kept of the house-

silver statuettes
hold deities in his lararium (Petronius, Satyricon, 29). A
group of figur-
ines, casl in fine style, was found in a vineyard at Macon in France
together with a large number of coins, the latest of the time of
Gallienus. They included a figure of Jupiter standing with the she-
goat Amaltheia, who suckled him on Mount Ida in Crete; a seated
Jupiter; and a most elaborate image ofa tutela cit\ goddess) pouring a
libation over an altar and holding a double cornucopia surmounted 1>\
busts of Apollo and Diana; above her head is a bar to which busts of the
gods representing the days of the week were affixed. There were also
four figurines of Mercury. The fine, regular modelling suggests a fully 1
7.1 Bum Luciusi 1

Roman workshop. More provincial, probably Gaulish in origin, are Veru 5. From Marengo,
Italy Silver. Height 55.3
the two statuettes of Mercury found with the Berthouville temple
cm. a rid century ad.
treasure. 28 Some silver figures did have a secular use: pepper-castors Turii , Must • di
{piperatoria) were sometimes made in the form of human figures and Anti( hita.
 THE LUXURY ARTS [
49

one depicting a small boy clutching a dog came from a treasure buried
at Nikolayevo, Bulgaria; another in the form of an aged dwarf was
recovered at Chaourse in France. Both may date from the early third
century. 29
Statuettes of bronze are discussed in Chapter 3, but we may here
mention that some were inlaid with silver, like the lar from Avenches
and a similar figurine (probably from Italy) in the Ashmolean
(111. 82); and a statuette of Nero from Coddenharn, Suffolk, where

silver and niello have been used to great effect, especially on the
cuirass. 30 Gilding was also widely employed: it covers, for example, a
figure of the youthful Hercules, an early third-century work found
near Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall. 3 Such elaboration shows us that
'

bflbnzesmithing was itself, on occasion, a luxury craft and that the best
works in that medium were valued almost as much as those in a more
precious metal.

METALWORK APPLIQUES TO FURNITURE

Figures in very high relief were, as we have seen, employed as emble-
mata on plate. Similar motifs and even free-standing statuettes were
sometimes used as embellishments to furniture. The mid-fourth-cen-
tury Esquiline Treasure provides splendid examples in silver gilt,

personifying the great of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and

cities

Antioch.3 Silver fulcra, from the heads and footboards of couches,

2

are known, the best being from the Marengo Treasure. It is set with a

118. [Right) Tripod

with bacchante busts .md
panther protome. From
Bavai, France. Bronze
with applied silver
embellishment. Height
80 cm. Early 3rd tviiiui \

AD. Musee de Douai.

1 19. (Far right) Fulcrun

ornamented in relief.
From tomb near
a
Amiternum, Italy.
Bronze with silver inlay.
Length 40.5 cm. 1st
century BC-ist century
AD. Rome, Museo dei
Conservators
150 THE LI XURYARTS

panel depicting a nymph reclining on a luxuriant and fanciful scroll of

acanthus ornament, and a roundel showing a satyr bust in high relief.
Other fulcra were made of bronze and enriched with silver inlay
(intarsia). A splendid example from Amiternum (111. 19) is inlaid with
1

a busy scene of the vine harvest, and both the high-relief satyr head
emblema at the base and the freely modelled mule's head which forms
the upper finial, have silver eyes (see Pliny, NH, xxxm. 1 44 on the use
of silver in furniture). 33
Tripods of solid silver do exist, including a very fine example from
the Hildesheim Treasure, but some tripods cast in bronze, for instance
two found at Bavai in Northern France (111. 118^ and Augst in
Switzerland, are even more elaborate. They have terminals above, in
the form of Bacchante-heads, and the legs are sometimes embellished
with panther-protomes, a device also found on three-legged tables and
miniature stands. Traces of silver enrichment remain, for instance
covering the little relief <77«//w>7 depicted on the legs. 34 The imagery is
Bacchic, as befits objects used to hold vessels for the mixing of wine
with water at feasts. Such a vessel - but an unusually elaborate one,
designed to rest on a small stand - comes from Pompeii. It was made in
the great bronze-manufacturing centre of Capua in the late first
century BC, and stamped by Cornelias Chelidonis. Ornament consists
of masks at the point of junction with the handles, and an acanthus
frieze below, enriched with silver. 35

BRONZE VESSELS
Likewise used at the feast but also for pouring libations to the gods was
the patera. Silver examples have been mentioned above, but main <>l
those in bronze are also splendidly ornamental. A patera from Bos-
coreale in the British Museum 111. 120) has a central emblema depict-
ing Scylla striking and killing the companions of Odysseus. 31 '
Her tail

and the eyes of her dog-heads and her human victims are enlivened
with silver. The patera dates from the early Imperial period, as does one
from a barrow at Tienen-Avendoren in Belgium, with an emblema
showing Diomedes seizing the Palladium and climbing over an altar
wreathed in silver. 3 " Pytheas' emblema in the base of a silver bowl is
mentioned above (p. 141). Another early Imperial patera from a
Belgian tumulus Bois-et-Borsu) has a powerful centrepiece of a charg-
(

ing bull, a device that goes back to the classical age of Greece and is
found, for instance, on coins of Thurium in South Italy. 38 A patera with
more and relief-work
abstract ornament, vine-branches in niello,
showing dolphins, winged sea-monsters and a shell, comes from
Prickwillow near Ely. It is stamped by a certain Bodvogenus, who 1 _'ii. Patera with ram's-
must have been a Gaul or a Briton. 3 $ he id handle. Central
Some bronze jugs also carry on the handles
figural scenes, especially 1 mhli urn shows Scylla
and at the junction of handle and body. Despite the restriction of space destroying the
companions of Odysseus
compared with the emblema of a patera, the devices are frequently
Bronze with silver inlay.
fascinating vignettes. One found in the Saone near Chalon is or-
Diameter 27.3 cm.
namented with masks on the narrow handle, but an expansion below 1st century AD. London,

shows the full scene of Perseus, victorious over Medusa, holding the British Museum.
THE LUXURY ARTS 51

severed head of his adversary and turning his own away from her stony
gaze. 40 Another jug, from Carlisle in England, displays sacrificial
same solemn Roman oath-taking episode shown
scenes and, below, the
on the Straze lanx, with the difference that here it is in very high
41
relief.

A differentaspect of Roman culture is presented by a little bronze

situla with relief ornament (an idyllic scene, with tree, herdsman and
flocks) recalling the world of Vergil's Pastoral. It was found in a tomb

at Hautot-l'Auvray near Doudeville in Northern France. 42 This vessel

may well have been made in Italy, but other buckets with narrow
friezes running round the rim, showing hunting scenes or animal fights
in the arena, were almost certainly manufactured in the Rhineland. 43
These 'Hemmoor buckets', which date from the second and third
centuries, are related in form to the silver bucket with acanthus
ornament from the Chaource treasure, which has also been assigned to
Western Europe.
In the north-western provinces decoration of bronze work was also
carried out by means of coloured glass fluxes. A group of enamelled
vessels, which were probably made in Britain, include the cup from
Ruclge in Wiltshire and a patera from Amiens. They bear stylized
representations of Hadrian's Wall and are best regarded as tourist
souvenirs. 44 The technique, which was originally developed in the pre-
Roman Iron Age, continued through Roman times and reached its
greatest achievement in the Celtic areas of the British Isles, after the
Roman period.

MILITARY METALWORK
Soldiers were an important element in the population, especially in
frontier provinces of both East and West. Parade armour, generally of
bronze but often gilded or silvered to appear precious, demonstrates
the importance of ceremony and luxury even in the army. Pliny is an
excellent source, recording that 'our soldiers' sword-hilts are made of
chased silver ... their scabbards jingle with little silver chains and their
belts with silver tabs' i.\7/, xxxm. 152).
The sword-scabbards are especially interesting; a group dating
from Augustan times includes one from the Thames at Fulham (prob-
ably lost in the invasion of ad 43) with embossed decoration of the
Roman wolf and twins at the hilt and, below, acanthus, reminiscent of
that on the great Hildesheim crater.^ Another sword-scabbard, from
Mainz, almost certainly celebrates Tiberius' victory over the Vindelici
in 5 bc. On the plate by the hilt he is shown announcing his victory to
1

Augustus in a dignified scene closely related to similar representations

of general and Emperor on the Gemma Augustea and the Grand
Camee de France; below is a portrait of Augustus, an eagle in a
legionary sacellum and an Amazon with a double axe representing the
defeated tribe. 46 The relation of military metalwork such as this to
emblemata on silver plate is shown especially by phalerae of silver on a
bronze core worn by an officer serving at Lauersfort in the Northern
Rhineland in the first century AD. Two of them are roundels depicting
children wreathed in vine-leaves - a Bacchic theme taken up by other
i5 2 I HI. LUXURY ARTS

roundels showing a silenus, a maenad and a satyr. Yet others depict

Medusa heads, Jupiter Amnion and a double sphinx. Such ornament
is of the luxurious excess attacked by Pliny. On duty, the
in the spirit
officer wears silver phalerae; off duty, he glories in the^ possession of
show-plate like the Hildesheim Hercules dish (see above). Links with
gem devices are emphasized by relief roundels from military belts
(cingula): examples from Campania (where they were probably made)
show the Spartan hero Othryades announcing his victory over the
Argives at the battle of Thyreatis in 550 bc: by inscribing a shield with
his life-blood, and the dispute of Poseidon and Athena for the territory
of Athens. 47
Most items of parade armour were used in cavalry exercises, the
hippika gymnasia, which took the form of stylized battles between
Greeks and Amazons. Military bronze-workers were skilled enough to
beat out helmets which entirely encased the soldier's face and head; his
rough visage was transformed by a face-mask into the perpetual
beauty of the Greek ephebe (as, for instance, with the Ribchester
helmet) or the proud and savage form of the barbarian (these arc
rarer, but there are good Amazon-type helmets from Straubing in
Bavaria. On some, the backs of the helmets are also worked naturalis-
tically to represent hair, but others bear symbolical images: represen-
tations of battles allude to the dangers of violent death; gods and
goddesses bring protection to the wearer; heads of Medusa turn away
the Evil Eye; Cupids ma) symbolize the human soul and where the)
ride on sea-creatures the) are travelling across the ocean to a life of
bliss in Horse-armonr is similarly elaborate and
the blessed Isles.
carries thesame wide range of themes. A chamfron from Straubing, for
example, is 01 namented with figures of the gods Mars and Castor and
Pollux (the Dioscuri and the goddess Minerva, all of whom were
especiall) diligent in the care of the Roman army, as well as a triton
'"
and a Medusa.

ENGRAVED GEMS
The carving ofprecious stones in Roman nines was rather more than a
mere adjunct to the manufacture of jewellery, for at bast until
Antonine limes, the signet was often a personal badge or device
recalling the pride of famil) tradition, or beliefs luinh held by the
possessor. One did not depict the portrait of an ancestor, or a philo-
sopher or nod b) chance.49 Grave and sober senators who would
have eschewed all jeweller) as effeminate, nevertheless wore engraved
seal-stones. Indeed, at lime when cursive writing was not highl)
.1

developed, the intaglio gem stamped into wax or clay was the onl)
effectiveform of signature.
Gems were engraved using only the simplest of tools, a drill with
changeable heads consisting either of tiny lap-wheels of varying
shape or a diamond point and a bow w rapped around the drill-shaft,
drawn backwards and forwards to make it rotate. The metal of the
drill-head was in main instances relatively soft compared with the
gemstone, and the cutting power was provided b\ an abrasive such as
II1I. LUXURY ARTS 53

corundum from Naxos (Naxian stone). There is no evidence that

lenses or other optical aids were employed by ancient gemworkers.

Republican Origins. Rome was the inheritor of two traditions. One of

them, the Italian, is above all characterized by the same archaisms and
mannered handling of the drill as are seen in the cutting of some
Republican coin dies (Chapter 7, p. 168). In particular, we may note
how, on some stones, areas are blocked out with broad cuts of the lap-
wheel and detail is added with pellets, simply bored with the drill.
Although the subject-matter of intaglios cut in this way is frequently of
interest, the artistic significance of these stones is limited. The materials
used, mainly cornelian and onyx, were easily available and traditional
in Italy. Other intaglios were engraved in a thorough-going Hellen-
istic manner, bearing witness to Rome's long contact with the Greek-

speaking world. Such gems are executed with flowing lines produced
with a fine lap-wheel. 5 ° There is some evidence that this tradition
existed at Rome even in the middle Republic (c. third century Be),
when a few Etruscan-type gems (i.e. still in the traditional scarab-
beetle form) bear classical devices like a head of Minerva of unknown
provenance. 5 The mixture of traditions demonstrates, as eloquently
'

as the Ficoroni cista (111. 13; Chapter 1) and similar metalwork, that
early Rome could be at the same time an entrepot between two
different worlds and a centre of excellence in the van of artistic
innovation.

Augustan Gems. By the first century BC gems were cut in a wide range of
stones - sard, cornelian and onyx as well as the rarer amethyst, garnet,
aquamarine and sapphire imported from as far away as India. The
leading gem-cutters in the service of the Romans were Greeks who
displayed a skill and assurance rivalling that of the contemporary
silversmiths; 52 the pride they took in their craftdemonstrated by the
is

fact that many gems The greatest of

are signed (in Greek of course).
the Augustan period engravers was Dioskourides, maker of the
Emperor's signet, whose skill is recorded by Pliny (AT/, xxxm. 8),
Suetonius (Div. Aug., 50) and Dio Cassius (li. 3, 6-7). Not only are
some of his signed works extant, but also several cut by his sons; this is
not only an instructive analogy with the silversmith, sculptor and
theoretician Pasiteles, one of whose offspring was also an artist (as a
signed statue attests), but also shows how ancient crafts tended to be
passed on from father to son. Dioskourides' own surviving seals are a
fascinating subject in themselves, for although the Augustus portrait
does not survive (even if its character may be reflected in other gems
and coins showing the princeps) we do have one depicting Alexander
,

the Great in the guise of Achilles, which perhaps recalls an earlier seal
used by Augustus showing Alexander. Also extant is a restrained and
beautiful gem showing Mercury, which reminds us that Horace Odes ( \

ii. 41-4) compared Augustus to The winged son of gentle Maia' who

brings prosperity to mankind. Best of all is the intaglio showing

Diomedes carrying off the Palladium from Troy (111. 121), a theme
attempted by other artists of the time Gnaios and Felix on gems, and,
as we have seen, Pytheas on a silver cup."''
i54 THE LUXURY ARTS

121. [Far left) cornelian

intaglio, signed by
Dioskourides, showing
Diomedes holding the
Palladium and climbing
over the altar of Apollo
at Troy. 1.9 x 1.75 cm.
Second half of 1st

century BC. Chatsworth,

Collection of the Duke of
Devonshire.

122. Cornelian intaglio,

signed by Hyllos,
showing a lion. From
Salamis, Cyprus. 2.2 x
1.7 cm. Second half of
Amongst whose names are known to us from their sur-
the artists 1stcentury BC. Nicosia,
viving productions are Solon, Aulos and Hyllos. Their individual work Archaeological Museum.

is distinctive and allows us to attribute unsigned gcmstones to their

workshops. Solon's Medusa, cut on a chalcedony and found on the

( laelian hill in Rome, is a splendid baroque production; the wild hair,

infested with serpent- forms, carries with it a reminiscence of the giants

on the Altar of Zeus at Pergamum, though a more obvious source lies
in the coin portraits of Mithridates \ of Pontus. The restless flowing
I

drapery on an intaglio depicting the goddess Flora is surely also by

him. 54 Aulos' gems often show cupids who live in a gentle, artificial
world of perpetual childhood. The charm of a rock-crystal intaglio
showing a cupid holding an enormous cornucopia, or a hyacinthus
with a cupid and a butterfly is reflected in a gem unsigned, but ver\
probably from his hand, depicting Venus \\ iih two children."'" HnIIos, 1

son of Dioskourides, produced a fine cameo showing the head of a

young satyr and an intaglio with a youthful Bacchus. This work
reflects an even finer gem not signed cut with an elderh tips\ satyr. .

Hyllos may not have spent his entire working life in the West; at ,m\
rate, an intaglio from Salamis in ( \ prus, show ing a fierce and realistic
lion, bears his name 111. 122 Main other gems of the period are
.
'''

hard to assign to particular artists, but are nevertheless works ofhigh

quality, like the Nereid on a sea-horse- on an aquamarine from the
Petescia treasure, or .1 bust of Bacchus on a cornelian in the Vienna
collection .
'

As is the case of silver al this time p. [.a many of these gems

1 .

obliqueh celebrate the Pax Augusta, but sometimes political allusion is

more specific, and indeed more 'State gems' have survived than
examples of plate showing either the Emperor and his lamih or
personifications representing them. Even when Octavian had become
sole ruler of the Roman Empire .liter his victor) over Anton) (and
( lleopatra .it Actium in 31 BC, and more espec iall\ alter 27 BC, when

he assumed the name of Augustus and supposedly restored the Re-

public. Rome was. constitutionally, opposed to monarchy. The ruler
was first citizen princeps not a king; his power la\ in his auctoritas, not
.

in his royal birth, and public monuments such as the Ara Pads

reflected this decent reticence.

 THE LUXURY ARTS J
55

123, Sardonyx cameo,

the Gemma Augustea,
showing Augustus, Roma
and various images of
imperial power and
victory. 22.3 18.7 cm.
-

Earl) ist century AD.

Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches
Museum.

Public art was inhibited, but the gem-cutter who in all probability
had been trained (or his father before him) in an Eastern court, and
who now worked for the Emperor and his friends (amici) in a private
capacity, was under no such restraint. Thus a cameo shows the young
Octavian as a sea-god victorious at Actium, riding the newly pacified
seas on the back of a Capricorn (his lucky birth-sign), and a magni-
ficent blue sapphire (Plate 18) depicts Venus as ancestor of the Julian
house, giving refreshment to an eagle from a cup (symbolizing im-
perial power). 8 These scenes had a Republican precedent in devices
sometimes shown on coins: for instance the Ulysses struck for the
moneyer C. Mamilius Limetanus (111. 138c) and the Venus Genetrix
on the coinage of the dictator Julius Caesar; in both instances familial
descent is advertised, in the one case from a hero, in the other from a
goddess, and they are both clearly reflected in gem types. 59
Augustan dynastic propaganda, however, went much further than
this, reaching its apogee in the great cameos cut in State workshops.

The largest and best of these are the Gemma Augustea (in Vienna,
111. 123) and the Grand Camee de France (in Paris). For real pre-

cedents, we have to turn to the art of the Ptolemaic monarchy,

defeated by Rome at Actium, for instance the moulded figures of
Arsinoe II and Berenike II as Tyche on the shoulders of jugs (third
century BC), a relief in Parian marble (in the British Museum) showing
Ptolemy IV and his wife Arsinoe III as the World and Time crowning
Homer and recalling their foundation of the Homereion in the late third
century BC, and a sardonyx cup, the Tazza Farnese in Naples, glorify-
ing Cleopatra I as Isis (second century BC).'"'
1
56 THE LEXIRY ARTS

124. Sardonyx cameo

show ng Julia Domna .is
Luna Dea Syria? in a
chari drawn l»v hulls.
.1

.3.6 [0.2 cm. Earl)

3rd c nturv AD. London,
British Museum.
On the GemmaAugustea, which was perhaps carved in AD 12,
Augustus is crowned by the World and sits next to the goddess Roma;
his very proximity hints at quasi-divine power and indeed the eagle at
his feet suggests that he is a kind of earthly Jupiter. He greets -a
returning general, his heir Tiberius a meeting which is also recorded
on the sword of Tiberius from Mainz p. 151 .In a lower register, we
conquered barbarians, their
see soldiers erecting trophies, as well as
locks as shaggy as those of the giants on the Altar of Zeus at
Pergamum. 6 The same themes are present on the Grand Camee de
'

France, although there has been considerable disagreement as to the

identity of the figures. The central scaled emperor is probably
Tiberius, for Augustus is alread) dead, or rather translated to the
heavens as Divus Augustus, and with other deceased members of the
Imperial family he looks down on the world of mortals below A ll\ ing .

figure in Asiatic costume i^ perhaps the genius of Rome presented in

the form of the Trojan ancestor of the Romans, Acne. is. In from of
Tiberius stands a general, probably Germanicus, and a small bo)
presumably Germanicus' son Caligula if the gem dates from AD 17).
Once again, the representation of conquest is emphasized l>\ captives
shown below .''

Late) Imperial Glyptics. The trad >n ol State ( .inn

throughout the Empire, though such gems are rare, r: and it is clear
(although the reasons for it arc not thai from the middle of the first
(ciiiuiA there was a marked decline in technical virtuosity. The most
ambitious of the later State Cameos are perhaps those ofSeptimius
Severus' reign, especially the one in the British Museum III. 124)
depicting Julia Domna in the character of the goddess Luna, here
perhaps equated with Dea Syria, standing in a chariot drawn b\ two
bulls once in the col lee lion of Rubens 01 the representation ofJulia
.

Domna as Victor) , Like the 'Augustan' Gemma Augustea

in Kassel. 3

and (band Camee, they make (lexer use of the layered structure of the
sardon) \ on which they are carved, but the cutting is decidedly coarse.
 THE LUXURY ARTS

A much later cameo in The Hague depicts Constantine holding

Jupiter's thunderbolt, accompanied by Fausta, Helena and Crispus in
a chariot pulled by centaurs. It is a remarkable achievement which is
not emulated on hard stones, but presages Late Antique virtuosity in
the carving of ivories. (>4
Portraiture was always valued by the Romans, for a man's face
reproduced as a statue, painted, orengraved on a gem, allowed his
influence to be disseminated amongst his contemporaries and de-
scendants. It is not surprising that Augustus employed Dioskouriclcs to
create his gem-portrait or that gem-portraits were cut for rulers and
their families throughout Roman history. There is a strong similarity
to obverse types on coinage, and the cutting of coin-dies and signets
was clearly closely related; indeed, it is likeh that on occasion the same
hand was responsible for both. There is here onh spate to refer to a few
125. Green chalcedony
of the more interesting portrait gems: a sardonyx cameo in Windsor
(plasma) intaglio
showing Marsyas with hi:
that once belonged to Charles I, showing the Emperor Claudius; an
tibiae. From Chichester. aquamarine intaglio in Paris cut by Euodos, depicting Titus' daughter
1.7 [.3 cm. Early Julia; a cornelian from Carnuntum (now in Vienna), showing the
1st centuiN AD.
philosophic Antoninus Pius; a red jasper from Castlesteads in Britain,
Chichester, District
presenting Septimius Severus in the persona of Sarapis and his sons
Museum.
( laracalla and Geta as the Dioscuri; and the highly revealing amethyst

in the British Museum engraved with Constantius II gazing straight

ahead - the same icon-like mask described by Ammianus Marcellinus
(see Chapter 2, p. 242). 6 5 The change from Principate to Dominate is
1

thus encapsulated in gemstones of the highest level of craftsmanship.

Below this level, gem-cutting bareh lasted as a significant activity
into the days of the third-century anarchy. At first, the influence of the
Hellenistic style of the Court workshop was strong. Small intaglios
were engraved on translucent stones - amethysts, garnets, green chal-
126. Red jasper intaglio cedonies, and, above all, cornelians and sards being preferred. Good

depicting the god examples are the scenes of rustic sacrifice, reflecting the religious
Silvanus-Cocidius. From renewal championed by Augustan propaganda, or the little green
South Shields. 2 .5
plasma from Chichester (111. 125) depicting Marsyas, related to and
1

cm. Late 2nd centur)

Newi
perhaps derived from a coin-type of the late first century BC. 66 Many
AD. astle
University. Museum of other intaglios show animals, symbols of prosperity, and deities.
Antiquities. Alongside the cut stones are pastes moulded in coloured glass and
intended for a popular market, both in the late Republic and in the
earl) Empire. Gaud) and even attractive as these glass gems must have
been on the vendor's tray, they tend to produce rather blurred impres-
sions, and can no more be regarded as original works of art than can
plaster casts.'' 7

In the later first century and in the second century, there were
workshops even in outlying provinces of the Empire, as well as in old
centres such as Aquileia and these were Romula
Rome. Amongst
(Bucarest) in Romania and Northern Britain, probably
a site in
Carlisle. Red jasper, cornelian and nicolo (onyx with deep-blue upper
surface) were favoured, and as the workmanship on a gem from South
Shields from the North British workshop demonstrates (111. 126), the
engraver was now more interested in texture and pattern than in linear
form. 68 We find a less inventive approach to subject-matter and may
I 58 THE LUXURY ARTS

suspect that outside the Court workshops, gems were increasingly

being regarded as embellishments to jewellery. Beautiful gems were
still sought and much prized, but they were less likely to be carved for

setting in rings.

JEWELLERY
Cultivated taste in the late Republic and the early Empire was very
simple. Men wore no jewellery after childhood, when traditional
Etruscan-style bullae were used as protective amulets. The signet-gem,
discussed above, was secured in a simple hoop of iron, silver or gold,
the last implying possession of aristocratic (senatorial or equestrian)
status. Official dress, the toga, was also remarkably uniform, so marks
of distinction were fine and subtle: connoisseurs competed in the
quality of their signet-stones rather than in more visible luxuries.
Attempts to regulate the amount of jewellery a woman might own
were largely (but not entirely! abandoned with the repeal of the Lex
Oppia in 195 BC (Livy, XXXI\ 2-4), although aristocratic custom
.

continued to avoid excess. Late Republican and early Imperial jewel-

lery followed Hellenistic precedent, and Italy scarcel) contributed
anything new. The Petescia treasure of the early first century AD must
have belonged to a close associate of the Imperial family, for two of trie
rings are set with cameos depicting Augustus and Livia, and another
contains a very beautiful aquamarine showing a Nereid (p. 154).
However, the rings themselves are simple; a serpent arm-ring and two
serpent bracelets, which were both ornamental and amuletic, allow
the display of simple gold surfaces.'"' Even half a century later the
cache in the House of the Menander, so notable for the rich embellish-
ment of its plate, still contains simple signet rings and a pair of serpent
"
bracelets. The showiest object is a childhood bulla. 7
Outside the strictly Roman social circle, the flamboyant Greeks of
the East might wear ornamental bracelets embellished with filigree,
and a similar exuberance appealed to certain sections of provincial
society. There is. in fact, a remarkable correspondence between a
bracelet from Alexandria and a pair of bracelets from Rhayader in
Wales, save that the latter are set with tiny panels of beaded-wire, with
enamel infilling in Celtic style 111. 127). 7 Brooches in the Celtic
'

regions included the so-called trumpet fibulae, which seem to have

developed in Britain during the earl) first century BC, using modified
vegetal ornament from Augustan silverwork as decoration. A very fine
example in silver gilt was found recently at Carmarthen. A brooch of
fan-tail form in gilt bronze from Aesica (Great Chesters! is even more
accomplished in its ornament of confronted scrolls; while enamelled
brooches, including the aptly named 'dragonesque brooches', also
began to be made in the first century. I'1
Such tastes could only affect the development of Roman jeweller)
5
from below. It is fascinating to read Petronius description in the
Satyricon of the jewellery worn by Trimalchio {Sat. 32): his gold ring
studded with iron stars and his gold and ivory bracelets; or the
description of the objects belonging to Trimalchio's wife, Fortunata:
 THE LUXURY ARTS 159

127. (Above) a pair of

gold bracelets
(incomplete) ornamented
with beaded wire. End
plates filled with green
and blue enamel. From
Rhayader, Wales.
Lengths respectively 9.8
cm. and 9 cm. Second
half of 1st century AD.
London, British
Museum.

128. Gold necklace

with peltate links set with
large amethysts in gold-
band surrounds and
small plasmas in box-
settings. Length 40 cm.
Early 3rd century AD.
London, British
Museum.

her bracelets, anklets and gold hair-net - in all, six and a half pounds
weight ofjewellery (Sat. 67). Social mobility characterized by the rise
of this freedman class, and the induction of provincials into the
Imperial service, together with the normal pressures of a capitalist
society, created the conditions for a rapid growth in luxury amongst
^C the middle ranks of society, which was bitterly resented by a ruling
class powerless to prevent it in spite of sumptuary edicts promulgated
from time to time. Petronius, as Nero's arbiter of elegance, exposed the
vulgarity of Trimalchio's taste and the elder Pliny fulminates against
the moral corruption which gold, silver, gems and perfumes brought in
their wake, but the Empire was becoming a commonwealth of dif-
ferent peoples and the cause of austerity was hardly likely to find many
champions.
The personal ornaments of the Middle Empire are characterized by
their jewelled splendour.The continuing availability of gems from the
East - cornelians, amethysts, emeralds and other stones - meant that
long rows of them could be worn on necklaces and bracelets, either as
beads or set into gold box-settings 111. 1 28) A large treasure of the late
( .

second or early third century from Lyons contains both types; and
similar jewellery was evidently admired throughout the third century
and into the fourth century, as the jewellery from the Beaurains
(Arras) treasure (Plate 22) and the painting of a lady of the Imperial
House with a jewel-box from Constantine's palace at Trier (111. 90)
:6o I HI, IAXl RY ARTS

show (see Chapter 4J. 73 Amongst new styles of ornament, one of the
most significant is open-work (pus interrasile) which allowed large
surface areas of gold to be used, while the gaps actually enhanced its
decorative effect. It appears on a group of rings with flat or facetted
hoops which date from the second century and includes examples from
Italy, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium and Britain. A fine example found
129. Gold ring in opus
near Bedford (111. 129) inscribed EUSEBIO VITA ('Life to inti rrasile inscribed
Eusebius') was clearly a love-token, but it is not certain where it and EUSEBIO VITA. From
other examples of the class were made although some bear Greek Bedford. Diameter 1.98
cm. 2nd century \l).
inscriptions, which is suggestive of an origin in the eastern portion of
London, British
the Empire. Opus interrasile was used to ornament the splayed shoulders
Museum.
of the typical third-century ring type as on an example from Tarsus
(111. 130)5 while later on, bracelets, buckles and brooches were some-

times embellished with flat open-work or else with linear designs

reflecting this luxury style.
Late Roman goldwork tends to be heavier and is certainly more-
ornate than earlier work. Thus we find wide bracelets, necklaces with
enlarged central pendants, and brooches in which the spring-plate has
developed into a heavy cross-bar - the cross-bow brooch worn by all 1
30. Gold ring with
classes of Late Roman society apart from the Imperial House, which projecting shoulders

used oval or circular jewelled brooches at all times. Although simple ornamented in opui
uiii rrasilt and set with an
cross-bow brooches are merely utilitarian safety-pins, the best are
uncut nicolo. From
showy pieces of ornament, presented on behalf of Emperors to gen- Tarsus, Syria. Diameter
erals and other important subjects, and the) are frequentl) inscribed. 4.5 cm. 3rd eenlurx AD.
They take the place in large measure of the engraved gems with the London, British

Imperial portrait that were bestowed as gifts in the- earh principatc. Museum.
Men wore not only brooches but also belts, jewelled or set with gold
plates, and buckles. A buckle recently discovered at Thetford in
Britain depicts a satyr in relief Plate .It was found with a treasure
_> 1

of gold jewellery and silver spoons that seems to have been associated
with a provincial cult of the god Faunus. The satyr would have been a
suitable emblem lor a devotee of this rustic cult. However, the cul-
mination of the development of Roman jew eller) design is to be seen in
the ver\ notable hlth-c entui \ Algerian hoard from Tenes, with its
fine, huge cross-bow broodies and optu interrasile bracelets and belt-
plates. To the classicist il max appear to be abstract, even un-Roman.
but its stxlistie character was, after all. moulded b\ the evolving
society and social needs of the Empire, and not. like earh Roman
jewellery, in die Hellenistic or barbarian world at its frontiers.' 1

MINIATURE SCULPTURE IN SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE, GLASS AND

OTHER MAM. KlAl.s
As .in alternative to precious metal large nodules of precious stone
wen- sometimes hollowed out to serve as drinking-vessels, and carved
in cameo. For example, a sardonyx vase known as the- 'Cup of the
Ptolemies' once in the treasury of the- Al)be\ ofSl Denis but since the
French Revolution in the ( labinet des Medailles, Paris is ornamented
with masks similar to those found on the Steevenswert cantharw
111. i;;i .It also depicts sideboards laden with plate and is thus very
 ^5jj
131. Sardonyx cup,
cameo-carved with
• •
fmj
bacchic masks and a
sideboard laden with
Height 8.4 cm.
plate.
Middle of 1st century BC
**^^ ^ f
— -
y>^
Paris, Cabinet des
Medailles. 1 w^ %. S^yS ;- -..»

useful extrinsic evidence for luxury craftsmanship. The technique is

linked to that of the shallow sardonyx cup of Ptolemaic date, the

Tazza Farnese, but the Cup of the Ptolemies was probably carved in
early Imperial times. Two cameo-cut amphorae - the Portland Vase
and the Pompeian Blue Vase - are of about the same date but they
are made of bi-coloured glass and consequently discussed in Chapter
9. Other figured vessels with relief ornament in the Alexandrian
tradition were carved in the Roman period clown to the fourth cen-
tury. The body of the agate vase once in Rubens' collection (now in
Baltimore) is encrusted with vine-leaves and there are Pan heads on the
handles; it has technical analogies with glass diatreta of the time,
especially the Lycurgus Cup (Plate 28) in the British Museum. 75
According to Pliny, the most valued vessels were ofmumna (fluorspar)
(JVH, XXXVII. 18-22), of which there is a good example in the British
Museum. The texture, colour and physical warmth of these vases are
admittedly intrinsic rather than artistic qualities, but there is some-
thing in the taste for them which anticipates the more abstract aes-
thetic of the late Empire. 6
Gems were also cut as free-standing portraits and figurines, al-
though surviving examples of small-scale sculpture in precious stones
are rare. They include a notable head of one of Caligula's sisters in
green chalcedony (111. 132), charming busts of Antonine children in
chalcedony (in Paris and Dumbarton Oaks), and an extraordinary
132 little bust ofJulian also in chalcedony (in Leningrad), with Antonine
porl
beard and enormous fourth-century eyes. 77 Pliny (JVH, xxxvn. 18) 1

Emperor Caligula.
Height g cm. AD 37-4]
mentions a statuette of jasper showing Nero wearing a breastplate
London, British probably something like the bronze statuette from Coddenham, Suf-
Museum. folk mentioned above (see also Chapter 10, 111. 184 for a moulded-
I 62 mi. LUXURY ARTS

glass head of Augustus). Precious stones were also used for non-figural '33- {Opposite, left

carvings, for example animals. A rock-crystal lizard was found in a amber figurine of
Bacchus accompanied by
grave at Noirment, Belgium, and there are a number of rock-crystal
a panther and a satyr.
cicadas, including one from Pompeii. 78
From Esch, Netherlands.
Amber and jet, unlike other gemstones, are organic in origin. The Height 10 cm. First
former is a fossil resin brought down from the Baltic to Aquileia by quarter of 3rd century
Roman traders, and there carved into small vessels and boxes, fig- AD. 's-Hertogenbosch,
Central Noord Brabants
urines, pendants, rings and other objects. The trade evidently flour-
Museum.
ished from the time of Augustus (objects made from it occur in the
Petescia treasure) until the end of the second century. Pliny says that a
small figurine of amber was more expensive than a number of slaves,
and proceeds to castigate the use of the material as an unjustifiable
luxury (NH, XXXVII. 42-50). Some objects of amber were skilfully
carved, but as the material tends to be rather friable, the degree of
precision obtained in detailed working is less than in agate or a harder
stone.
Amber was used,as mentioned above, for small vessels: typical are a
calix from Heerlen in The Netherlands, ornamented with a vine, and 134. (Opposite, right)

ointment-pots showing cupids harvesting grapes (British Museum) leaf of an ivory diptych
commemorating
and exercising in the palaestra (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford); while .1

marriage alliance
a little jar from Aquileia depicts storks in a marshland landscape, a
between members of the
theme also found on both silver plate and Arretine potter) :<l A large
.
Nicomachi and
piece of amber in Cologne is carved in tin- shape of a mussel shell: three Symmachi families. A
cupids in a boat are depicted inside it. and the convex outer side has a priestess is shown offering
sacrifices at an altar. 29.9
sea-monster and a smaller shell. )ther shells of this type are known,
(

1 _>.
1 cm. End of 4th
including one from a burial at Noirment engraved with a Capricorn
centurx AD. London,
and another in the Ashmolean showing a dolphin and a fish. 8u Victoria and Albert
Figures in amber carved in the round are especially impressive. Museum.
1m\ include little figurines ofactors \\ earing mantles from Pompeii, a
I

Victor) on knife-handle from Cologne, and another knife-handle,

.i

from Nijmegen, in the shape of a sleeping hound. Without doubt one

of the most delicate and attractive carvings in the round is the figurine
of Bacchus with attendant satyr, excavated from a tomb at Esch in
North Brabani III. [33). 8l It may have stood in .1 household shrine.
Amongsi smaller objects are man) rings can ed in relief on the bezel
with hounds, or female he. ids. ( )ne found in Carlisle depicts a head of
the goddess Minen .1. Such objects were highl) suitable as presents, for
main were evidentl) luck) motifs expressl) opposed to evil forces,
hostile chance, and the darkness of death. A leaf carved in amber from
Aquileia is inscribed An (num Novum f(austum f(elicem), showing
82
it to have been given awa) as a \Cw Year gift.

A probable attraction of amber was its 'magical' electrostatic pro-

perties, which it shares with jet. A form of fossilized wood, jet outcrops
near Whitb) in Yorkshire, and was probabl) worked in the nearb)
colonia of York during the third and fourth centuries. It ma) or ma) not
be a coincidence thai it seems to have been discovered after the
collapse of the a in her trade, w hen amber was becoming ver) rare. A
;

jet bracelet from Presles, Belgium, is carved with .1 medallion flanked

l>\ lions. The medallion depicts an Imperial bust which max show
8
Caracalla or later ruler).
.1
'
Most portraits though are of private
 i hi: luxury arts [63

citizens - family groups, or husband and wife alone - and were carved
as ornamental pendants (111. 135). Examples have been found in both
Britain and the Rhineland. Other pendants depict Medusa heads with
vigorous, staring eyes; the baroque intensity of the usual Graeco-
Roman gorgon is combined with provincial stylization, evident on an
example from Strood, Kent, in which the head is swivelled into a
profile view. 85 Free-standing carvings in jet include a seated male
figure resting his right hand on his chin, found far to the East at
Aquincum (Budapest), and various animals, bears, lions and a hare. 86
Although these are sometimes said to be toys, it is as well to remember
that jet, like amber, was a suitable material for amulets against hostile,
unseen powers.
Bone and ivory were worked widely throughout Roman times,
although the art does not achieve a major importance until Late
Antiquity, when flat plates of ivory were carved for diptychs at the
behest of great nobles to commemorate important events, marriages
135. Jet pendant with and consulates (111. 134). Nevertheless, we find ivory being used earlier
bust of husband and
as an inlay on furniture (see Catullus 64, 45) although bone was more
wife. From York. 5.7 -

4.8 cm. End of

common. Very fine bone-carving is to be seen on a couch from Italy, its
3rd century AD. York, legs mounted with winged Venus- type figures and small cupids in high
Yorkshire Museum. relief, and on the corners of the frame are flat plates of bone carved as
 :6 4 THE LUXURY ARTS

136. Reconstructed end

ol 1 ou< h with elaborate
bone inlay. Probablj
from East-Central Italy.
Height 84 cm. End of
isl < <ik in \ in -earl)
isl centur) \d. Cambridge,
Fitzw illi.un Museum.

Apollo Kitharoidos. Busts of Cupid and vegetal ornament embellish

the fulcra 111. [36 Man) hone plaques from Egypt show Diony-
sos Bacchus and his companions; others depict Aphrodite
Venus .

Epic themes, such .is Hippolytos and Phaedra. Neoptolemos and

Priam and the Death of Kassandra. .ire also found. 8 ' Hoik- and ivor)
can he cut faith easil) with a knife or flat chisel, and it is not surprising
10I1 id a vasl
1 number ol small on laments and implements being carved
for women to use - small boxes ,ertainh cheaper than amber and
hair pins, the best cut the shape of female heads wearing the
in
elaborate coiffures these pins were themselves designed to support,
while others show a hand clutching an egg or a pomegranate both
potent symbols of eternallife), or pinching an ear. symbolizing re-
membrance. 88
THE LUXURY ARTS 1
65

Although not, strictly speaking, a luxury art, wood-carving is a

somewhat medium, but wood seldom survives except under
similar
exceptional conditions. It was almost certainly more important in
antiquity than surviving remains suggest. Figures of men, animals and
centaurs on wooden sarcophagi from Kerch have a certain primitive
charm, as do figurines of deities and animals from waterlogged de-
posits in North Western Europe, for instance from the source of the
Seine and from Winchester. 89 Wooden beams from the early Byzan-
tine monastery on Mount Sinai, carved with Nilotic scenes, hint at
earlier prototypes, while the fourth- or fifth-century doors of Sant'
Ambrogio, Milan and Santa Sabina in Rome, carved with biblical
scenes, are fully within the traditions of contemporary art, especially
1 '"
thesivory cliptychs.
Finally, luxury was to be found in the form of rich hangings and
coverlets. Catullus mentions a couch ornamented with ivory (see
above) and covered with a purple cloth embroidered with episodes
from the life of Theseus (Catullus 64, 47 ff). Hangings mainly of wool
and linen have been recovered from Egypt. Designs include brightly
coloured fish swimming on a greenish ground, from the city of
Antinoopolis, and a hare voraciously devouring grapes, on a panel
from the Fayum. Wall paintings and mosaics (Chapters 4 and 5) tell us
something of what we have lost here.' 11

It is significant that in the late first-century Book of Revelation,

Rome, described as 'Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and Abom-

inations of the Earth' (17:5), is conceived as a woman 'arrayed in
purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones
and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand' ( 17:4). Rome (Babylon)
will fall, and with it her trade. No one will buy 'The merchandise of
gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and
purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyinc wood and all manner
vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of
brass, and iron, and marble' (18:12). If these passages tell us some-
thing of how the Roman Empire was viewed by dissenting subjects,
they had no influence on the taste and lifestyle of the many Late
Roman Christians, who presumably read them. The luxury arts were
regarded as highly at the Court ofjustinian (111. 209) as they had been
at the Court of Augustus, or indeed, before him, at the Courts of the
magnificent Ptolemies. Gold, silver and gems seem to have a basic
attraction to civilized man (and were indeed cherished just as much in
the ancient societies of the New World as they were in the Old World )

The dazzling beauty and inventiveness of the Roman achievement, at

which this chapter can do no more than hint, totally belies the philistine
reputation that has been popularly ascribed to ancient Rome. Inheriting
the Greek traditions, Roman craftsmen continued to innovate, and their
work never ceases to astonish us by its delicacy of form.
CHAPTER SEVEN

Coins and Medals

RICHARD REECE

INTRODUCTION
Coins and medallions form the only detailed dated sequence of
Roman art that exists. These official artistic products must also be the
basis for almost all research on Roman imperial portraiture since coins
are the only works on which the ruler is regularly named. It might be
possible to challenge the first claim with the series of historical reliefs,
but even prolonged search will not provide a securely dated relief for
each decade of the early centuries of our era, whereas coins can
provide hundreds of portraits and scenes dated to individual years. As '

for imperial portraiture, the supremacy of coinage cannot be chal-

lenged: most sculptural portraiture is attached to an imperial name
simply because it resembles a coin portrait, either immediately or at
one step removed.
The largest works of numismatic art - and often the most carefully
produced - are known as medallions. This may seem an over simple
definition in view of the arguments that have taken place over the
distinction between a medallion and an ordinary coin. But it remains
reasonable to define as a medallion any coin-like product in gold,
silver, or bronze, that will not fit into the normal sequence of coinage.

This definition obviously changes as our understanding of the coinage

develops, so that the basic and valuable work of Gnecchi classifies
more pieces as medallions than do later works. 2 Toynbee's definitions
are more severe, and Tocci's catalogue of the Vatican collection
follows suit. 3 Thus, for example, Gnecchi rated the large, often bril-
liantly struck radiate bronzes of Trajan Dccius (111. 143c) as medal-
lions, whereas today they are assumed to be regular double sestertii - a
normal part of the contemporary currency. Earlier in the Empire
Gaius (Caligula) struck a small series of bronze coins of a very high
artistic standard (111. 143I) which lack the usual mark of senatorial
approval SC {Senatus Consulto - by decree of the Senate): hence al-
though they can be regarded by size and weight as perfectly normal
sestertii, they are sometimes classified as medallions.

The point is important because it affects the deductions that may be

drawn from these issues. I f medallions are defined as 'abnormal coins,
1

then their production is subject to special constraints and the artistic

standards employed may in consequence be centralized or conserva-
tive, hieratic, cultic, or aristocratic. Medallions cannot, by definition,
be quoted as indicators of the contemporary artistic milieu. They may
be looked upon as examples of what could be achieved at the time,
given special circumstances, but the regular, low-value coinage gives a
far better guide to artistic fashion.
 COINS AND MEDALS 167

REPUBLICAN COINAGE

The early coinage of the Republic, r.300 BC, was closely related to the
Greek coinage of South Italy and followed those issues in weight
standards and in actual types depicted, as well as in a general
Hellenistic style (111. 137b). With the establishment of regular coinage
at Rome a more of representation developed
solid, less flowing, style
(111. The two styles continue
137c) which might well be called Italic. 4
side by side in the coinage of Rome until the second century AD, by
which time a stylistic compromise had been reached.
In the middle period of Republican coinage, that is from the
establishment of the silver denarius just before the year 2 1 BC until the
1

risesof the Imperatores after 60 BC, a whole series of issues, planned by

a three-man committee, the tresviri monetales, displays a wide artistic
variation, from strongly atticizing heads and delicately drawn figures
(111. 138c) to stumpy figures packed into crowded scenes - a subject

quite unsuitable for the circular silver flan of the standard denarius
(111. 138b). These contrasting styles often appear in succeeding years

or even in different issues of the same year. With the work of Michael
Crawford we now have not only a statement of the sequence in which
Republican coins were issued, but also the evidence from the coin-
hoards on which the relevant dates are based. 5 However, it is not until
the later first century BC that coins may be given absolute dates; in the
second century BC, a series of issues may be assigned for instance to the
years around 120 BC, implying likely dates of 122 to 118 BC.
By the middle of the second century BC the moneyers had freed
themselves from the invariable use of traditional types - the Dioscuri,
the head of Roma, Victory in a biga, or Jupiter in a quadriga — and
began to exercise a wide choice of what was to be depicted. Where
types can be interpreted they are often surprisingly personal; they refer
to the moneyers themselves rather than to current social or political
events, crises, or victories. Thus a moneyer might choose a design to
illustrate a particular point of factual family history of which he was
proud (111. 1 38a) or even a mythical aspect of his origins (111. 1 38c) 6 In
.

some cases the type chosen may be no more than a play on a name (111.
i38d). Portraits are rare, restricted to family ancestors. The
and are
style is usually more than stylized or hellenizing.
realistic
137. (a) Head of Mars. Many of the differences in style and artistic standard that we see
Silver didrachm of today on Republican coinage must be due to the variation in training
Metapontum (South
and ability of the die-cutters. A good example can be seen at the time
Italy). 4th~3rd century
BC. (b) Head of Mars. of the Social War (90 BC) when abnormally large issues by the moneyer
Silver didrachm of L. Piso Frugi seem to have strained the resources of the official die-
Rome. 3rd century BC. cutters at the mint, and this seems to have resulted in the employment
(c) Head of Janus. Silver
of less skilled engravers, who cut some most unpleasing busts of Apollo.
quadrigatus of Rome.
This is most definitely not a failure of style, attributable to a particular
Late 3rd century BC. (d)
Jupiter in chariot. Silver
decade, or a low point in numismatic art, for as soon as the war had
quadrigatus of Rome. come to an end and the volume of coinage returned to normal, the
3rd century BC (all at standard of die-cutting reverted to its normal level.
twice actual size). Although it remains true that Republican coinage cannot be di-
vided into stylistic or chronological units, and therefore cannot be
 (,;; COINS AND MEDALS

dated by one technical aspect of die-cutting which is

style, there is

much more noticeable in the middle of the

first century BC than at any

other time. Although the drill had always been used in die-cutting -
even the joints of the horses' legs in the quadrigatus issues of the late
third century BC make this clear - its use only becomes patenti)
obvious in the issues around 50 BC (111. i38d). At the height of this
fashion the legends are formed from pellets (produced on the die with
a drill) joined up with shallow grooves, and the figures are picked out
as a series of little globules (a style paralleled in gem-cutting, see
Chapter 6, page 153). This trait continues into the coinage of
Augustus, perhaps especially in issues which arc known to come from
the East such as the cistophori (three denarius pieces) from Asia
Minor, 7 but it is rare in coinage struck at Rome after Augustus.
So far attention has been fixed on the small module of the silver
coinage: during the Republic this is a fair comment on both variet)
and achievement of artistic production, for the bronze coinage
changed very little after its weight and denominations were stabilized
at the time of the introduction of the silver denarius (c.2 13 BC). The
earliest bronze consisted of large slabs of cast metal with only rough
designs on a rectangular flan (aes signatum). Round cast bronze coins
remained rough in style and production in the mid-third centur\ BC
(aes rude and aes grave) and gradually dropped in weight from the

original basic unit in which an As weighed one libra (pound) of bronze to

a token As weighing only one uncia ounce = -Mil libra). Subdivisions of
the As ranged down to a semi-uncia Jjth of an \s but on all bronze coins
. |
,

after 213 bc: the reverse type, die prow of a ship, was invariable (Pliny,
NH, XXXIII. 42-5). The heads of various deities were proper to certain
denominations throughout the Republican coinage.
The legends on Republican coinage seldom pla\ much part in the
design except for the locative ROMA
at the base ofthe reverse, which

is common to all the earlier issues after 260 BC through into the second

century. As lew Republican types before 60 BC were political or

topical the legend was usuall) confined to the name of the moneyer
responsible foi the issue, and this, following (.reck and Hellenistic-
practice, was placed .11 an) convenient point cm the coin. Legends ma\
be in straight lines, ignoring the circular outline, vertical, or hori-
zontal, and ma\ even continue from obverse to reverse oi vice\ ersa .

I here no tradition ol legends running clockwise or anti-< lockwise,

is

nor of read inn from the edge of the coin or the ecu ire. but in the earl) 138a—d. Rom. 111
\cais ofthe Empire variation was severel) limited, and In the end of republican denarii .ill a1

iu H e .11 111.1I size Silver.

the- firsl centur) \n all coins have legends following the line ofthe flan,
.

.1 Commemorative
starting from the bottom left, and running clockwise round the coin.
column ofthe moneyei
I . Miinii ins Augurinus,
c.138 BC. 1> Voting
THE ROMAN EMPIRE: IMPERIAL PORTRAITURE Licinius Nerva.
scene. 1'.

in) Ulysses and

Portrayal of living politicians .uicl rulers came late to the Roman 1. 11c:. (c)

Argus, ( 1. Mamilius
coinage. Representation of the supreme ruler was well established in
Limetanus. c.82 BC. d)
the Hellenistic world l>\ the beginning of the third centur) BC, hut this Head ofPan. C. Vibius
was invariabl) asso< iated with kingship and divine rule, and hence Pansa. c.48 BC
unacceptable to Rome. This attitude was changed dramaticall) in |(>
 COINS AM) MEDALS 169

BC, when the recently murdered Pompey appeared on the coinage

issued by his followers. Caesar quickly followed suit, with the 'ap-
proval" of the Senate, and thus became the first living man to appear
on the coinage at Rome (111. 139b). The first triumvirate continued
this practice, as did their successors, so that Augustus was following a
well established precedent when he struck his imperatorial portrait
series in silver and gold.
The portraits of Pompey, Caesar and Antony are immediately
recognizable and not particularly flattering and it is tempting to use of
them the word 'realistic". Logically this word can never be used of any
Roman coin portrait, for we have no independent check on the
correspondence between the man and the portrait. The best that can
be«aid of these imperatorial portraits is that the portrayal of each man
is remarkably consistent, so that the tuft of hair above Pompey's

forehead is as immediately recognizable as the boxer's nose of Antony

(Ills. 139a, c).

Octavian followed in this 'veristic' tradition, appearing first as a

youth with incipient beard; the political transformation of Octavian
into Augustus was accompanied by the visual transformation of the
pleasant, if undistinguished youth into the ideal Hellenistic ruler. 8 The
portraiture of Augustus therefore abandons the Republican or
Imperatorial precedent in two main ways: the features portrayed do
not depend for identification on an obvious personal characteristic,
and hence, in the severely classical sense, on an imperfection; the
sequence of portraits of the one man do not follow simple human laws
of ageing - in fact they almost do the reverse.
Pompey, Caesar and Antony were all men of Rome and well-known
politicians. Much of their coinage was struck either in Rome or their
own particular power base at the time, and the transmission of a true
139a— c. Roman likeness was therefore never a problem. Augustus was well known in
republican denarii (all at
Rome, but coins were struck for him in Greece, Gaul, Asia Minor,
twice actual size). Silver.
Pompey Spain, North Africa, Syria and Egypt, and the variation in portraiture
(a) Portrait of
the Great f.38 BC. (b) over the provinces is considerable. The fine study by Sutherland of the
Portrait of Julius Caesar large silver cistophori produced in Asia Minor shows the variation in
f.44 BC. (c) Portrait of portraiture that is possible over only a few years, and perhaps at mints
Mark Antony c.40 BC:.
in three neighbouring cities. 9
In general we do not know how coin portraiture under the Empire
was either initiated or distributed. An oft-quoted passage of Lac-
tantius (writing about 320) speaks of the sending of 'imagines' from a
newly proclaimed emperor to the centre of power (De Mori. Pers.,
XXV. ), and it seems likely that every provincial governor would have
1

been assisted in power by the 'imago' - or, in the Greek East, the 'ikon'
- of the emperor sent to him soon after the beginning of a new reign. I0
Certainly a failure in communication can sometimes be seen on the
coinage, as in the year AD 69 when contenders for the throne were in
distant parts of the Empire, and coining for the new emperor began in
Rome before either he or his portrait had arrived in the City. Thus the
early coinage of Vespasian looks very much like a slightly modified
version of his predecessor Vitcllius, and only later in the reign does
Vespasian's inimitable cragginess become established. Failure of com-
I/O COINS AND MEDALS

munication is not the only reason for continuity of portraiture from

reign to reign. The adoption by Trajan of his wife's relative Hadrian
gave time for a completely individual portraiture of the new emperor,
yet the earliest coin portraits of Hadrian demonstrate "a remarkable
continuit) of physiognomy which must be more pious or political than
physical (111. 141 a, b). After only one or two years Hadrian's charac-
teristic features assert themselves, and his portraiture develops quite
independently.
The changing portraiture of am given emperor is a matter of
organization specific to his reign, rather than something which follows
a general pattern. Imperial reigns seldom lasted more than twenty
years so there was obviously not the scope for change given in nine-
teenth-century Britain to Queen
whose progression from .111
Victoria,
'early' portrait, to the 'old' head with its
through the jubilee' bust,
widow's weeds is well known. The portraiture of most emperors did
develop - often markedly - but this is not always a clear chronological
indicator since early portraits were often re-used on coins struck later
in tlit" reign. One of the clearest sequences is thai ofSeptimius Severus,
in which the early simple way around AD 208 to what is
portrait gives
known as the Sarapis portrait in u hich the Emperor is portrayed as the
god Sarapis.' The detailed stor) is more complex, but in general it is
'

safe to say that the simple portrait belongs earl) in the reign and the
Sarapis portrait, Marcus Aurelius, adopted by Antoninus Pius
later.
early in his reign (V. 138), was portrayed for the unusually long span of
forty-two years. Here there is the major division between the young
clean-shaven or lightl) bearded curly-headed Caesar and the heavih
bearded mature ruler. This sequence again is simple and irreversible,
but such clarit) of design and purpose is perhaps the exception rather
1 |<u c. Portraits of
than the rule. Win all at twice
One ol the most remarkable ofNero; since
sei ies ofportraits is that actual size). Gold .md
the person depicted changes from pleasant youth to gross and \ icious silver, a At the age of

middle age the absolute antithesis of idealization - it seems lair to about 18. with
Agrippina his mother.
claim thai the coin portraiture closel) follows the changing imperial
(b) As a young man
\ isage. Nero lust appears on the later ornate of Claudius (c.AD 50) as
(

aged about 23. (c) At

a pleasantly alert adolescent. His own early coinage 111. joa from 54 1
the age of about 30.
to 58 shows him as rather plump and sei ions twenty-year-old. Alter
,1

this he slowh changes until l>\ about 6 coins depict a fiercer) s< ov\ I-
1

ing, heavih jowled autocrat with an elaborate!) curled fringe on his

forehead 111. j.oc [t must be remembered that this is an exceptional
1 .

opportunit) to study, through physiognomy, the decline of a per-

sonality .

The development of coin portraiture from Augustus to

historical
Constantine is clear, bul its exposition poses a major problem in thai
the period covered 1>\ this book is onl) a part of a continous develop-
ment. Thus the earl) portraiture of the Empire ma) fairl) be classed
with the art of Republican coinage, while the portraiture of
Constantine must be seen as a temporary arrest in an
otherwise stead) transition from the representational portrait of the
mid-third century to the presentation of the imperial idea or status
late in the fourth centur) Whatever ma\ have been happening in the
.
COINS AND MEDALS I 7 I

other arts (see Chapter 12), the easiest division that can be forced
into the sequence of theRoman coinage is the cessation of Imperial
coin production in the West in about 480, with the resulting
'Byzantinization' of coin portraiture in the East leading to the
ubiquitous full-face hieratic portraits of the sixth century.
It has already been suggested that Augustus broke dramatically

with Republican tradition by abandoning the realism of the late

Rcpublican-Imperatorial portraiture employed by Caesar, Pompey
and Antony for an ideal image worthy of a successor of Alexander.
This significant and decisive change happened because of the per-
sonality of one man, and must have been facilitated by the striking of
coins in widely spread parts of the Empire, each already with its own
artistic tradition. But it is important to note that the 'Eastern' coinage
of Augustus, as well as his 'Spanish' and 'Greek' Coinage, are the issues
of an Imperator (general), on progress through his provinces, minting
gold and silver to pay his troops. This was a legitimate Republican
form; the Imperator had this authority (which had indeed been used
before At Rome the image of Republican survival allowed a myth by
) .

which the Senate struck coins in a normal Italic tradition, far less
influenced by the Hellenistic excesses of the East. After Augustus most
of the coins in the West were minted in Rome and Lyons and these
issues continued to be minted in the Italic tradition, allowing from
time to time a breath of Hellenistic, or even Attic, inspiration. At the
same time the mints of the East went very much their own way, mostly
sinking to a level of no more than local competence. Thus to describe
the coinage of the Greek-speaking eastern areas of the Empire may
seem summary and cavalier. If the 'local competence' of die-cutting
were in any way related to the sculpture and architectural ornament
of, say, the cities of Asia Minor in the Antonine prosperity, then coins
should rank as major objects for study. Strangely this is not the case;
the local, city and provincial coinages of Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor
and the Levant seldom, if ever, reach the standards of portraiture or
design found in Rome, and, when the standards do compare fav-
ourably, as in Cyprus in the reign of Trajan or at Antioch in the reign
of Philip, numismatists always assume that dies of such high quality
originated in Rome. Nevertheless, this Eastern coinage is varied,
interesting, and has, to date, been sadly neglected. There exists no
overall survey, no guide or general description, not even a checklist of
the mints that struck for each emperor. The Alexandrian coinage is
well known and has several works devoted to it, but there is no detailed
study of the mint of Antioch in Roman Syria so that reference must be
made to the British Museum Catalogue. I2 One work remains in which
the coins of the East are given their proper place alongside the coins of
the West: the Catalogue of the Ashmolean Museum devoted to the
coins of Augustus; forone emperor at least the standards of die-cutting
and presentation of East and West can be easily compared.' 3 In
theory, any colonia or municipium, or other chartered city, or even a
province, might strike coins in the name of the reigning emperor. In
the West such practice was forcibly discouraged and, by the time of the
Flavian emperors, Rome exerted a virtual monopoly. In the East only
 72 COINS AM) MEDALS

some cities produced coins and few could equal the continuous and
substantial production of Alexandria or Antioch.
Portraiture of the Greek East rarely reaches a high standard of
realism, judged, that by the coinage of Rome, where exact por-
is,

traiture could best be expected. It could be suggested that it was the

East which produced realistic portraits while Rome simply mass pro-
duced a stylized form. Unfortunately, not only do the coins of the East
produce portraits which differ from the portraits of Rome, they
produce portraits which differ widely among themselves. To a student
conversant with the standard Imperial portraiture these coins will
probably be identifiable, but often there can be room for doubt and
uncertainty.
1

Augustus successors, Tiberius and Caligula, did not follow in the

expansive Hellenizing tradition of the first emperor and their portraits
are not particularly remarkable or distinctive. Coins of Claudius, as
might be expected from that emperor's historical leanings - he wrote a
history of the Etruscans - are even more firmly rooted in 'Republican'
traditions in their severity of portraiture, as well as in their restrained
reverse types. Nero's extensive and constantly changing portraits must
argue a personal involvement with the coinage as a means of self-
advertisement and it is under his rule that a stable fusion of Hellenistic
and Italic elements both of portraiture and design seems to have been
established. The Flavian dynast) continued to follow this precedent.
In the second century under Hadrian, more Attic influence is perhaps
.

visible, but Antoninus Pius returns to a more Italic realism. It was left
to Commodus to push to an extreme the s\ mbolic connection between 1413-0. Portraits on
the emperor and a divine protector. sestertii (all at actual

Coin portraits in the third century display a remarkable range of size Bronze, a Late
portrait of Trajan
types and st\les. The use b\ Severus of a bust in the style of Sarapis
r.Al) 1 12. ib) Early portrait
seems almost moderate after the excesses of Commodus whose con- of Hadrian c.AD 122. (c)
viction that he was the e-inearnation of Hercules led to a flamboyant
i
Late portrait of Hadrian
series of portraits showing him wearing the lion-skin head-dress. This C.AD [34.

religious vocabulary was abandoned in the very simple and realistic

style of Severus Alexander. With the soldier successors of Alexander,
Maximinus and Philip the Arab, the simplicity of their portraits
extends almost to brutalism in the close-cropped hair, Stubbly beards.
and anxiously furrowed foreheads (111. i/i/^a-d). Such portraits have
often been claimed as symptomatic of a time of crisis and the heavy
load of imperial responsibility, but Rams.i\ Mac Mullen has quite
rightly pointed out th.it this is no more than a numismatic resurgence
of a realism well known in the late Republic which maintains a steady
influence on portraiture under the Empire.' What is interesting here
'

is the revival rather than the creation of a style. It must however be

noted that Gordian III. whose reign falls between that of Maximinus
and Philip, followed a Hellenistic model, as did Gallienus, whose reign
fell between that of the ill-fated Trajan Decius 249-51) and the
victorious but short-lived Claudius Gothicus (268-70) (111. i42a-d).
The portraiture of Gallienus belongs to a world which is serene,
and apparently secure fill. 142c); this is none other than the
reflective
robust optimism of the court philosopher Plotinus captured on coins.
 COIN'S AM) MKDAI.S 73

The only flaw in coinage is the quality of the metal, which presents
this
an unpleasing appearance, and the lettering, which is so undisciplined
as to be illegible to the uninitiated: die-engraving, portraiture, and
artisticinvention of types are all at a high level at the court of this
hard-pressed prince.
The portraits and styles of Maximums, then Gordian, followed by
Philip, Gallienus and Claudius, represent remarkable changes which
took place in the short period of forty years. In this period inscriptions
of any sort are rare, official reliefs are missing, and the chronology, and
inscribed representations on the coins are the only documents avail-
able for study.
Before outlining the transition from classical coin portraiture to the
Late Antique imperial image (or from representation to presentation)
special mention must be made of the north-western provinces of the
Empire which, twice in the second half of the third century followed a
political course distinct from that of Rome and struck their own coins.
The most important emperors of the 'Gallic' Empire (ad 259-74) were
Postumus, Victorinus and Tetricus; the two rulers of the 'British'
Empire (ad 286—96) were Carausius and Allectus. They employed a
remarkably pure Roman style which is in very sharp contrast to the
eastern elements of stylization which were now creeping into official
art in Rome. The die-cutting of the Gallic emperors and especially
their portraiture must be reckoned one of the most remarkable and
successful compromises between Italic realism and Hellenistic
idealism. The coin portrait of Postumus is an excellent example
(111. 143a). The man would be immediately identifiable to his subjects;

this is achieved not by the intricate depiction of every wrinkle and scar,
but by the selection of features thought suitable for the ideal ruler.
This inevitably leads to a certain subjectivity in interpretation. The
qualities of approachability and humour are suggested by the smiling
and rounded face: expansiveness and munificence may be read into
the flowing hair and curling beard. Some of the reverses of coins of
Postumus, with their astonishing almost abstract stylization, give full
licence to such unorthodox imagery (111. 143b). The use by Carausius
of both portraiture and new types follows the Roman pattern with
superb intelligence and novelty, but is unfortunately of only marginal
concern to the Empire as a whole, which, by now, was set on another
course. The Gallic Empire demonstrates through its coins the
conservative and 'Roman' nature of the more peripheral western
i42a-d. Third-century
provinces, and this, in turn, highlights the very strong element of
portraits (all at twice
actual size). Base silver.
eastern stylization in the late third-century Imperial portraits on coins
(a) Gordian III c.AD 225. from more central regions of the Empire.
(b) Philip I cAD 246. (c) The most abrupt change in numismatic art comes about the year
Gallienus r.AD 265. (d)
294, the occasion of Diocletian's all-embracing reform by which the
Claudius II c.AD 269.
mints throughout the Empire were welded into one system, with one
policy and one purpose. The mints of the Greek-speaking East had
flourished under Severus early in the third century, and reached a
peak of activity in the decade 215-25. From then onwards the third
century was a period of decline for Greek mints except perhaps
Alexandria, whose tetradrachms were prolific, and the short-lived
I
74 COINS AND MEDALS

issues of some of the new eastern coloniae. Diocletian rationalized the

mint system in 294 and all coins were henceforward struck to identical
designs and with the same Latin legends (whether in Antioch or
London), with only the mint-mark proclaiming their origin. Portraits,
however, did differ according to the region in which they were'pro-
duced.
Portraiture on Diocletian's coinage up to 294 followed the trend of
the 270s and 280s; it is both stylized and formal (111. 143d). A com-
parison with portraits of Postumus will show how the central Empire
was sacrificing individuality in physiognomy for a simplified image.
This is the first stage by which the imperial status or idea (topos in
Greek replaced the individual man in a unique bod) persona in
1

Latin); as the centre of gravity of the Empire was already shifting

towards the East, it seems highly appropriate to replace an outworn
Latin concept by a Greek one. In 294 Diocletian changed the style of
coin portraiture even more dramatically. An almost uniform version
of the imperial head, already employed in the East became universal
(111. 43f But this was as much a political move as an artistic one, for
1 ) -

the four rulers tetrarchs were subsumed in almost identical portraits.

The Idea of the Emperor claimed the subject's devotion, rather than
Diocletian. Maximian, ( Jalerius, >r ( tnstantius as individuals, and an
1 !<

almost single image was promoted almost single, because the hooked -

nose of Constantius, or the broken nasal bridge of Maximian are still

apparent through the uniformity of the universal portrait.
By 320 there had been a reaction. Constantine broke with the
tetrarchic tradition and emphasized his individuality through his
search for a suitable portrait, a quest carried on more intensively in the
western mints 111. ;;g than in the East, where the co-emperor
1
|
j

Licinius continued to use the formal portrayal. Constantine was a

brilliant erratic individual but his experiments died with him, and his
sons, who reigned till after 350, sank then individuality in a version of
eastern stylization only slightly humanized.

REVERSE IYIM N(>\ IMPERIAL COINS

A general rule which seems n, govern the appreciation of Roman
coinage suggests that 'big is better". The peak of Rom. m numismatic
art is the middleofthe first centur) \i> from the
therefore held to tall in

sesintii ol Caligula 37—41 to those of Domitian Hi 9b In the .

middle of this golden age the sestertii of Nero reached a peak of

excellence that it is difficult to fault. Silver and gold were of course
produced and were, moreover, well designed, but it is in the large flan
ol tin yellow-bronze sestertii, which would have come fresh from the
mint in almost golden splendour, that connoisseurs delight. The de-
cline in size and weight of the sestertii between 1! to and 260 coincides
with a change in artistic standards, and the elimination of the sestet tins
as a coin in the middle of the third centur\ coincides, in popular
thought, with the end of the artistic excellence.
( lertainl) the large flan ga\ e the designer better scope to show his
virtuosity than smaller coins. Moreo\ er, at much the same lime die-
 COINS AND MKDALS 75

143. (a) Postumus. Base

silver. Portraitf.AD 265
( X Postumus.
2). (b)
Sestertius of bronze.
Stylized design of
Victory (x 1). (c) Trajan
Decius. Double sestertius
of bronze. Portrait. f.AD
250 (x 1).

(d-f) Portraits of
Diocletian (all at twice
actual size), (d) From a
western mint. c.AD 286.
(e) From an eastern
mint. c.AD 290. (f) From
a western mint after the
coinage reform of AD
294-

(g-j) Portraits of
Constantine the Great
(all at twice actual size).
Gold. (g,h) In full

regalia with nimbus. c.AD

318. (i) Mystical portrait
looking heavenward.
From Constantinople.
CAD328. (j) Standard
late portrait in the West.
'•AD 333.

(k-m) Sestertii of Caius

(Caligula) (all at actual
size). Bronze, (k) The
sisters of Caligula as the
three Graces. (1) The
speech to the legions, (m)
A scene of sacrifice.
1
76 COINS AM) MEDALS

cutting was developing rapidly. Republican die-cutters had confined

their inspiration to the small flan of the denarius. This did not inhibit
the production of graceful, well-proportioned, classicizing designs
(111. 138c), but stimulated little more than designs withrsingle figures,
cut in a manner very much allied to intagli (see Chapter 6). No
attention was paid to composition on the large flans of bronze coins
until the very end of the Republic. At first the design of the new
sestertiiunder Augustus and Tiberius was timid and unadventurous,
then, suddenly, under Gaius, three sestertii were produced of as-
tonishing novelty and brilliant execution (111. i43k-m). The motif of
the three Graces seems to be a slightly stolid compromise between the
claims of the round flan, the three figures, and the square legend; and
consequently this is the least successful of the three. The adlocutio
(address of the Emperor to his troops) takes a presumably well-
established representation of a highly formal event and adapts the
Emperor, his speech, and his listening troops, seemingly without effort
to the circular flan. Emphases are excellent, telling details are picked
out and fussy details are dropped, and all in a diameter of 36 milli-

metres and a depth of field of two millimetres. Whereas the adlocutio is

formal and official, the scene of sacrifice is free from these constraints.
The design is more intricate and less obviously planned, with a richness
of detail in low relief, as an impressionistic rendering in a new art forrn
it must rank very highly.

The sestertii of Nero are of high enough quality for analysis one by
one, but in this brief compass only a few can be selected for comment.
The portraiture is arresting both in design and in technical excellence
of die-cutting. The reverses range dramatically from the experimental
I44(a—c) Sestertii of
-even the inept -to the compelling 111. i44a-c). The reverse contain-
1

Nero all at actual size).

ing only the figure of Roma is a simple design well engraved and Bronze, (a) Roma: the
brilliantly struck. The temple of Janus, on the other hand, is a propa- personification of the

ganda type in which an almost square architectural design is directly ( lit) h The temple of
surrounded by a circular inscription; the result is informative but Janus with its doors
1 losed. c) A bird's-eye
unpleasing. The reverse which gives a bird's-eye view of the harbour at
view of the port of Ostia.
Ostia, with the surrounding colonnades, the ships, the mole and a
statue included, is experimental - a design never attempted before,
and at least on the Imperial coinage mi u< k .11 Rome, never attempted
again. As an exercise in design it is bold and pleasing, but Russell

145. The Arras

Medallion twice actual
size). Obverse: portrait of

Constantius Chlorus.
Reverse: the emperor
approaching the gates of
London. Gold. Minted at
Trier in AD 296-7. Arras,
Musee Municipal.
 COINS AND MEDALS 77

Meiggs has shown be inaccurate in factual detail.' 5 Nero's ad-

it to
locutio reverse adds nothing to that of Caligula; unfortunately this

judgement is basic to much of numismatic art. Once a scene has been

portrayed, whether it has a prototype in painting or sculpture or not,
there is little latitude for later engravers.
Trajan used coins and his pro-
for advertising his building policy
and roads; Hadrian, by his
vision of public works, especially aqueducts
travels and their commemoration, launched a whole series in which
the provinces were depicted in standardized form, a series used by
Professor Jocelyn Toynbee to great effect in her study of Hadrianic
6
art.' The coins of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius when con-
sidered in artistic detail contain little of compelling interest for the
student of art or design; they leave an overriding impression that their
themes have been portrayed before - and, sometimes, better. The
golden age of tranquillity thus emerges through the coinage as an era
of stagnation, although such a judgement can only be made in com-
parison with on the one hand the frantic change of coin-types in the
first century, or on the other the deep-seated changes in portraiture in

the third.
After the virtual disappearance of sestertii, the smaller flans of gold,
base silver and small bronze gave far less scope for the die-cutters;
artistic interest shifts at this date to the medallions struck in gold, silver

m and bronze. The design of the later medallions follows very closely the
rules established for Late Antique official art in general (see Chapter
12). It is easy to be dazzled by the glitter of large, well-struck lumps of
gold, and art historians should perhaps be limited to the study of black
and white photographs, where the stylization of a scene cannot be
softened by the quality of the metal. Whereas the second century
enshrined and continued earlier depictions of types and events, the
later medallions refined and rarefied well-known scenes until they
became the bare bones of a symbolic dialogue. A scene such as an
adventus (State Arrival) was depicted because it was an adventus, not
because it formed a harmonious composition. Thus in the arrival of
Constantius Chlorus at the gates of Londinium (111. 145), artistic
I46(a-d) Imperial
inspiration was subsidiary to the important message proclaimed.
coins from the Greek
East (all actual size).
The reverse types of Greek Imperial coins are better discussed
Bronze, (a) Portrait of geographically than chronologically, for the details of changing styles
Trajan minted in which have been described at Rome can rarely be seen at any of the
Cyprus, (b) Portrait of eastern mints. The reverse types of Egyptian coins - struck at Alex-
Trajan minted at
andria - show a strong native-Egyptian influence. This may seem
Alexandria, (c) The
Labours of Hercules
natural but it needs to be considered against the fact that coinage was a
from Alexandria, (d) Greek invention transplanted to Egypt by the dynasty of Ptolemy,
The temple of Aphrodite which scarcely showed a single design of Egyptian origin until Roman
at Paphos, minted in
times. This avoidance of Egyptian monuments (and mythology) grad-
Cyprus.
ually broke down during the first century AD so that by the reign of
Trajan the depiction of the gods, temples, and even rituals (e.g. the
canopic jars for the burial of entrails) of Ancient Egypt had become
standard practice. The subjects of the coin types were now often
Egyptian, but the style remained totally Hellenistic.
In the confusingly variegated coinage of the eastern cities, one
1
78
COINS AND MEDALS

aspect that is apparent is local pride and self-advertisement. On the

architectural side this has been brought together in a book on the cities
and their coins and monuments. '7 Thisonce a difficult and a
is at
useful subject: difficult because of the unusual and sometimes erratic
1

conventions of perspective by which the die-cutters 'opened up a

temple complex to be seen at one glance in a bird's-eye view; useful
because we have here a gallery of contemporary elevations of some of
the most renowned shrines of Antiquity which otherwise remain to us
only as foundations. The same aid can be given by these coins to
students of sculpture - for cities were often proud of their most famous
statues - and even of myth (111. 146c!).' 8
It would be wrong, however, to leave the impression that the

coinage of the Greek East abounds in exotic designs. These there are,
and they are interesting, exciting, and occasionally of good artistic
standard. But the general level of die-cutting is not high. Even though
there is some evidence for centralized production of dies, several cities
combining in the enterprise, these centres seldom give evidence of
being in the mainstream of an art or a craft, and neither expertise nor
high standards evolve. The contrast with the skills of the schools of
sculptors has already been mentioned, and the coins are a valuable
corrective as an independent source of information on local artistic
standards.
As far as later coin types in bronze, silver and gold are concerned
(111. i47a-c), two factors already mentioned are of special impor-
tance. The message which any type was intended to communicate
determined the way in which the die was designed or cut, and
Diocletian's great mint-reform meant that a centrally determined
slogan was cut thousands of times in many places, for use throughout 1
(7 .1 c Reverses in

the Empire. This precluded any appeal to the aesthetic standards of the late Empire (all at
twice actual size), (a)
the early Empire; it also precluded technical excellence since mass-
Silvei XCVI signifies 96
production was the order of the day. Excellence in design must be
coins to the pound of
measured not by traditional criteria, and not by proportion and silvei . r.AD 300. (b)
gesture, nor yet by realistic representation, but by the success of the Gold. Mars Victor.
encoding of a message by an official, and the decoding of the message r.AD 305. (c) Bronze.

l)\ anyone \\ ho saw it.

Two soldiers. c.AD 333.

Silver coins of the Tetrarchs sometimes carried ver) simple mes-

.1

sage the numeral xcvi. Those who received the coins were no doubt
\(i\ liapp\ to receive this message, tor it spelled out the end of a
cent m \ of metallic uncertainty, and told them that the coin was one
ninety-sixth of a pound of pure silver. On gold, very simple religious
information mighi be given l>\. lor instance, tin- image of Jupiter in
traditional pose 01. later, Sol Invictus, the all-conquering sun. On
bronze a strong military bias is often apparent, sometimes explicit both
in design e.g. two soldiers and legend e.g. GLORIA
EXERCITYS These designs have seldom been judged to be works
.

of art. B\ earlier standards die judgement is correct, but tin- old

Graeco- Roman aesthetic was no longer employed. It is intriguing that,
while litterati in the later Empire were trying to resuscitate the Clas-
sical corpse, the designers, die-cutters, and users of later Roman
coinage realized that the) lived in a \Cw World in which the old
standards no longer applied.
CHAPTER EIGHT

Pottery
ANTHONY KING

Roman pottery was, for the most part, of a utilitarian character, little
emphasis being placed on decoration not connected with the function
of the vessel. There was also, however, a certain amount of expensive,
wcjjl-executed display or table-ware, often highly decorated, that can
easily take its place amongst metal or glass counterparts. This chapter
will concentrate on such vessels, since they were artistically the most
important group of pottery product and served as the standard against
which other classes of pottery were produced.
The decorative styles of Roman pottery were very varied, ranging
from the purely Greek naturalism of the figures on Arretine bowls to
the ( leltic curvilinear abstractions on some provincial coarse wares. As
far as table vessels are concerned, probably the most important source
of influence was the repertoire of designs available on metal vessels, for
pottery was often a substitute, and tended to imitate them. In general,
direct copying was not practised, although it is possible that some of
the negative impressions in clay of figures and other decoration found
at Arezzo may have come from metal vessels (see Chapter 6). One of
the scenes on the Hoby cups, showing King Priam and Achilles, is
copied on Arretine ware. 1

Glassware was also an influence on pot-making, but more as a rival

form of container than as an artistic quarry. However, it was not until
the third century AD that pottery started to be widely replaced by glass,
particularly for drinking vessels. This competition contributed to the
general decline in quality and artistic achievement of pottery in the

late Roman period.

TECHNIQUES OF MANUFACTURE
Nearly all fine Roman made on a fast wheel, although
pottery was
some and plaques, were made by pressing clay into
pieces, such as trays
frames or moulds. The mould was also used in conjunction with the
wheel to make the decorated form of the most ubiquitous high-quality
2
pottery in the early Empire, red-gloss ware. The first stage in the
manufacture of this particular type was the making of small clay (or
possibly wood) models of the individual elements of the design, either
by copying directly from another metal or pottery vessel or by model-
ling a new figure. These individual punches or poingons were then used
to impress a design into the negative mould for the outer surface of the
pot, the overall arrangement being unique to that particular mould
and sometimes incorporating as many as thirty different poingon types
(111. 148). The design was often completed by freehand stylus work in
 3

i8o

148. Arretine mould

made by Pantagathus,
the slave ofRasinius.
Diameter 16.4 cm. Late
1st century BC New

York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers
Fund, oiq.
1

the mould. fired mould was mounted on the wheel

The completed and
in order to produce the which were thrown into it. To finish the
vessels,
vessel, it was removed from the mould when it was dry and had shrunk
enough to avoid damage; it was then mounted on the wheel again, and
rims, feet and handles were luted on. Naturally, the number of stages
involved in the manufacture of moulded vessels meant that they
always remained a luxury product, despite the potential for mass-
production offered by the moulds.
Relief-moulded (lesions formed the most importanl single group in
the Roman repertoire, at least in the earl) Empire. However, a
method of direct application of designs was also used that produced
more fluid versions ol relief-moulded styles l>\ trailing slip on finished
pots the barbotine technique Other methods included appliques
.

placed on the body of the vessel (111. 149), pinching and finger-
impressing the clay surface, stamping, incising and rouletting.
In addition to having some form of decoration, usuall) in relief,
nearl) all mew .ue \ essels had a surface finish of some sort, generally a
I

slip, gloss or glaze. Slips were prepared from a suspension ol ela\

particles in water, and were often a different colour from the parent
vessel. Their advantage was thai the\ made the surface of the pol
harder, and the) could he used to give a more pleasing appearance if
the ordinary la\ was unattractive in colour. A "loss is ver) similar to a
c

slip, but is lustrous and USUall) hauler, because a liner ela\ suspension

is used (Plate 23). Sometimes slips included minerals such as mica to

achieve a sparkling effect, and occasionally metallic washes were used,

usually to pass off the vessel as superficially made of gold or silver.
Glazes were less often used: they were usually lead-based and applied
after a first firing, but sometimes the) were put on at the leather-hard
stage (Plate 24). The colours th.it resulted were brown, green or
yellow. A
much greater variety of colour was achieved in the East,
where glazed quartz frit ware (or faience) was made in blue, black,
red, green, purple, yellow and white. This potter) was not made of
 149- Colour-coated urn with
appliquesof gladiators, and
other decoration en barbotine.
Made at Colchester. Height
21.6 cm. Late 2nd or early
3rd century AD. Colchester,
Colchester and Essex
Museum.

clay, but of powdered quartz sand fused in the kiln by the admixture of
natron as a flux. True alkaline glazes in green and blue are only found
on the eastern fringes of the Empire, and are largely derived from
Parthian potting traditions.
Painting was also a fairly common form of decoration (111. 150), but
it was no longer of the same standard as the highly accomplished

products of the Greek vase-painters. The paint, usually a thin, slip-like

mixture, was applied with a brush before firing. A semi-transparent
effect was sometimes achieved if the paint was sufficiently thin -
especially if dark paint was used against a light background.
Application onto a slip was less satisfactory than directly onto the
fabric of the vessel, since the paint was often not very durable and had
a tendency to flake off the smooth surface. This problem also affected
barbotine decoration.
The finish of Roman pottery was achieved in the kiln, for it was
during firing that the surfaces attained their final colour and texture.
Sophisticated kiln types and firing cycles were used, for the most part
derived from Greek and Hellenistic practices; close control during
firing, by means of opening and closing the flues, or damping down
and re-stoking the fires, ensured that the desired colour and finish were
usually achieved.

POTTERY OF THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD

In the Republican period the initiative in ceramic art came from the
Hellenistic world. The predominant tradition on fineware vessels in
Magna Graecia and Etruria - that of red-figure decoration on black-
gloss - was dying out by the early third century BC, although these
areas continued to exert a powerful influence on Italian pottery. It is in
these areas that subsequent developments arose, deriving their inspira-
tion from, on the one hand, the black-gloss surface finishes, and on the
other, decorative details taken from relief-moulded metal vessels.
 1

I 82

Late Hellenistic wares that influenced the early Roman potters 150. Above, left)

include thosemade at Canusium in Apulia, where askoi with relief and Painted and colour-
coated beaker with
free-standing mythological figures were produced from the fourth
painted inscription
century up to c.ioo Be. Other wares in Apulia, Campania and Etruria 'Accipe et utere felix'.

were internally black-glossed with details such as ovolos in relief. That Made at Trier. Height
these potting traditions were taken up h\ the Romans is exemplified by 24 cm. Late 2nd or early
the emergence of Cales ware in Campania, probably made between 3rd century AD. Trier,
Rheinisches
t.250and the first centui \ iu These pots were black-glossed and relief-
.

Landesmuseum.
moulded, often in the form oipaterai in imitation of metal prototypes.
The potters (e.g. the Gabinii signed in the moulds, and distinctive 1
5 Ibovi . right [talo-

designs were produced, sometimes of figured dec oration, such as Megarian bowl with
medallions of Mars
scenes from the Odyssey, out usually predominantl) geometric.
similar to coins of the
Eastern influence on potter) was reinforced b\ the importation of late 2nd to earl) 1st

'Megarian' bowls, which were made in Athens. Delos and other (ciiiiiia isc: : signed l>\

centres from the mid- to late third century BC. These were hemi- Popilius. From Vulci.
spherical drinking bowls with moulded rebel decoration and a black, \ atii an, Museo
( rregoriaro 1 Pr< ifano.
grey or red gloss. 'The repertoire of designs was wide, consisting of
crowded figured compositions of deities, mythological scenes the
'Homeric' vases), masks, notes, genre scenes, or stylized vegetable and
geometric decoration. 4 The bowls were also made in Italy from the
early second century (Italo-Megarian bowls, probabl) until tin-
growing popularity of Arretine ware in the late hist cenlur\ caused
production to cease. A mid-second centur\ workshop is known at
Tivoli, and one of the best know n potters, C. Popilius, operated from
POTTERY 183

Umbria or South Etruria (111. were

151). In general the Italian bowls
very similar to their Aegean counterparts, although they were not
usually glossed. There is no doubt that, despite the small numbers both
of Megarian and Cales bowls, their design and technique had a strong
influence on the subsequent emergence of Arretine ware.

ARRETINE POTTERY
The pottery conventionally known as Arretine ware, from the town of
Arretium (Arezzo) in Etruria, where the principal kilns were located, 5
was the highest achievement of the Roman potter. The date of its first
emergence is not clear, but it would seem that only undecorated plates
an4 bowls were made initially, possibly from the mid-first century BC. 6
The early styles of the plain ware are similar to local black-gloss
vessels, and do not have a high-quality finish, but it is likely that
manufacture of the characteristic highly glossed relief wares was set up
later by potters from the East, as red-gloss ware had been made in the
Hellenistic world from the mid-second century (Pergamum being an
important production centre), and was becoming fashionable in Italy
by the early first century. Greek or eastern names are known from the
stamps placed in the moulds for decorated vessels, and it is likely that
these were the slaves or freedmen working for Roman proprietors,
whose names are also found on the bowls. Some of the proprietors
themselves may have been Greek.
From c.30 bc: to the middle of the first century AD, the Arretine
potters made relief-moulded decorated bowls (Plate 26) whose most
striking characteristic is the deliberate and strong influence of earlier
Greek models. The crater and cantharus forms were reintroduced, and
some bowls have inscriptions referring to the characters depicted, as on
Greek vases. Many figures are reminiscent of fifth- and fourth-century
Hellenistic and neo-Attic sculpture and decorative art, but there is also
a group with a purer Hellenistic inspiration. The ornament, usually of
naturalistic leaves, flowers and tendrils, is in the same general style as
other Augustan decorative art (111. 148). Arretine ware was probably
produced as a less expensive alternative to metal vessels when demand
for such luxuries was burgeoning after the civil wars.
The best-known Arretine pottery comes from the workshop (qfficina)
of M. Perennius Tigranus, which was based in Arezzo itself. Under
Perennius worked various freedmen or slaves, of whom the principal
was Bargathes. Perennius himself and Bargathes were probably the
most inventive and influential of the Arretine potters, and together
with others, notably Rasinius and Cn. Ateius, produced a decorative
repertoire that included kalathiskos dancers, Seasons or Muses in pro-
cession, erotic, feasting and vine-harvesting scenes (usually arranged
in opposing pairs or in narrative sequence), and dancing, chariot and
battle scenes in narrative sequence.The general effect of the designs is
of a carefully-executed but formal naturalism, which sometimes fails
to give life to even the most vivid of subjects. Some of the bowls
showing Hellenistic influence are more static, with bucrania, masks and
garlands dividing panels with figured decoration. Some bowls, par-
ticularly examples from the time of Tiberius or later, have stylized
plant ornament without figures.
Cn. Ateius was responsible for setting up production in various
places outside Arezzo, principally Pisa and Lyons, but further kiln-
centres may yet be found. His moves were partly in response to the
large military market in Gaul and Germany, and it is fairly certain
that the Lyons workshop supplied most of the Arretine ware found in
the Rhineland. Probably as a result of this output, and of the Aco
beakers and Sarius cups produced in Lyons and in the Po Valley (see
below, p. 187), two major Gaulish pottery industries, at Lezoux in the
Auvergne and La Graufesenque in Herault, started to imitate the
Arretine forms in a simplified manner, and to experiment with the red-
gloss technique.

PROVINCIAL RED-GLOSS WARE

The La Graufesenque kiln-centre and, to a lesser extent, that at
nearby Montans, were able to secure control of the fine pottery market
by the mid-first century AD (Plate 23). They produced highly-finished
relief-moulded red-gloss ware and plain red-gloss plates, cups and
bowls. 7 During the period c. AD 50-80, La Graufesenque and the other
South Gaulish qfficinae produced the most successful pottery, in com-
mercial, though not in artistic, terms, known from the ancient world?
Distribution extended to virtually every corner of the Empire, and, to
a significant degree, beyond as well. The decorated bowls must have
been amongst the most ubiquitous reminders of Roman taste in the
newly conquered provinces and neighbouring regions.
Early La Graufesenque bowls were of a similar standard, both
artistically and technically, to those in the Arretine tradition. How-
ever, the subject-matter was different, consisting of continuous scrolls
of tendrils, leaves and flowers, or geometric ornaments such as gad-
roons and rouletting. The decorated areas also became more crowded
in appearance. The shapes of the bowls changed, the typical decorated
vessels being carinated, or straight-sided, drinking bowls without pro-
nounced feet 111. [52). These styles established the South Gaulish
wares as a distinctive product, and from the time of Claudius to the
end of the first century, ihe\ formed die dominant pottery fashion in
the provinces and in the important military market. Towards the end
of the lust century, scenes with figures or running animals amidst
panelled decoration became common, on the initiath e of such pollers
as Germanus. The horror vacui of the earlier styles continued, but the
well-spaced and well-composed scenes of the earlier period were aban-
doned. The hemispherical bowl with a loot-ring was the common
decorated form.
In Italy itself, and to a lesser extent in the East, local red-gloss wares
continued, derived in large part from Arretine and 'Aco/Sarius' styles.
Even in these areas, however. South Gaulish bowls made inroads into
the pottery market; at Pompeii, an unopened case of decorated bowls
was found amongst the ashes covering one of the houses. 8 The local
kilns, especially in Italy, tended to produce comparatively poorly
decorated bowls for distribution in their immediate regions, and their
 185

152. Red-gloss bowl

made at La
Graufesenque. From
Sandy, Bedfordshire.
Height 1 2. cm.
1

Claudian. London,
British Museum.

production was concentrated on plain plates, cups and bowls that

imitated metal prototypes.
Central and East Gaulish wares took the place of South Gaulish in
the northern provinces from the early second century, and the African
Red Slip industry started to replace South Gaulish pottery in the
Mediterranean basin. The Gaulish kilns continued with the decorative
designs of the first century in a modified form. In Central Gaul,
Lezoux had started production in Tiberian times but was initially
eclipsed by La Graufesenque. However, by taking over and adding to
the styles developed in South Gaul at the end of the first century, and
through technical superiority, Lezoux and nearby Les-Martres-de-
Veyre came to dominate the market for mass-produced fine table-
ware. New potters such as Libertus and Butrio added to the range of
figure types, and mythological and hunting scenes became popular,
particularly on the bowls produced by later potters such as Cinnamus
and Paternus.
The Central Gaulish styles were also adopted by potters in East
Gaul and Germany. Much copying of motifs took place, generally by
poaching designs directly from the bowls of another potter (sur-
moulage). As a consequence many later designs are not particularly
original, and from the late second century a general decline in the
standard of reproduction of the bowls set in. Figures and field decora-
tion became poor caricatures of their prototypes. At some time in the
early third century, decorated red-gloss wares went out of production
in these areas, probably as a result of disruption of the distribution
facilities during barbarian raids and civil wars. The subsequent pot-
tery styles mark a distinct change of fashion (see below).
Other provinces also produced red-gloss ware. Spain had several
kilns in operation from the late first century, whose styles tended to be
a distinctive derivation from those of South Gaul, although unlike the
latter, figured decoration does not form a major part of their tradition.
This pottery was virtually confined to the local market, as were the
red-gloss products of other kilns, such as those at Colchester, Bern and
Aquincum.
1 86

Another centre of production, in modern Tunisia, became much 153. [Above, left)

more than locally significant from the late second century. The pot- African Red ware
Slip
plate. Said tobe from
tery, known as African Red Slip ware, 9 consisted of a large variety of
Aquileia. Diameter 15
plates and dishes ultimately derived from metal prototypes and usu- cm. 4th century AD.
ally without decoration. Some, however, had moulded or applique Vienna,
human and animal figures, and stylized vegetation placed around the Kunsthistorisches

rim or in the body. This type of decoration appears in the late second Museum.
century and consciously imitates contemporary silver-ware. The sub- [Above, right)
154.
jects depicted consist either of venatio and similar scenes on pear-shaped Cnidian relief ware
jugs, or isolated fish and plain appliques on the rims of plates. 2nd or 3rd
oinophoros,

The African workshops became the dominant suppliers of fine century AD. Height 24.5
cm. London, British
potter) to the Mediterranean basin by the end of the second century,
Museum.
and large-scale production continued to the seventh century, albeit in
st\les and forms that were markedl) conservative. Decoration in the
late fourth to fifth centur) was predominantly in the form ofrouletting
or appliques; the latter generally few in number on each vessel, but
forming some coherent scene 111. [53 Animals, fish, venationes, myth-
1.

ological (e.g. Leda and the swan, the Hercules cycle), religious (e.g.
Mithras), and biblical e.g. Adam and Eve, Abraham sacrificing
Isaac) scenes are the most frequent!) occurring motifs. The style is

low -relief and rather formal, with man) contemporar)

similarities to
10
silver-ware, such as in the stippling of hair and fur. Geometric
stamped decoration, usuall) of rosettes and leaves, is also common.

EASTERN RKI.I1.1 WARES

In the East, the red-gloss tradition held sway throughout the Imperial
period, the kilns at Candarli near Pergamum being the main supplier.
Most of the products were plain, for the potters do not appear to have
attempted to compete with the decorated vessels coming from Italy
POTTERY 187

and the West. There were, however, relief-moulded vessels in other

fabrics that were distributed widely in the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean areas. Corinthian bowls, copying metal vessels and
decorated with a variety of hunting, battle, ritual and mythological
scenes, were made in the third century. Cnidian oinophoroi, jugs and
head-vases, made in plaster moulds from clay prototypes, were made
from the late first to the third centuries (111. 154). The decoration
probably derived from terracottas and metalwork, with depictions of
maenads and satyrs, Dionysos and similar mythological scenes being
common. These vessels were widely imitated, principally at
Pergamum, Athens, and in North Africa, where the potter Navigius
signed late third and early fourth century oinophoroi decorated with
busting scenes, Bacchanalia and deities reminiscent of similar scenes
on metal vessels. The Navigius vessels form part of an expansion of
African Red Slip ware distribution into the East at this time, and
thereafter this pottery, and its local rivals, Phocaean and Egyptian
red-slip wares, provide the bulk of the fine pottery in the area.

COLOUR-COATED AND PAINTED POTTERY

Strictly speaking, all the red-gloss and red-slip wares mentioned above
come within the definition of colour-coated ware, but it is usual to
ascribe only the other categories of slipped wares to this class. As the
name implies, they are distinguished by a slip coating that is usually a
different colour from the core fabric. The colour is sometimes very
thin, allowing any relief or incised decoration to be picked out by the
running and pooling of the slip.
Colour-coats first appear in Italy f.75 BC on vessels which are
otherwise identical to previous types, known as Thin-walled' ware.
Like many other fine table-wares, these are imitative of metal vessels,
and generally take the form of drinking-cups. As with the red-gloss
wares, 'Megarian' bowls were a powerful influence, leading to the
production in the Augustan period of relief-moulded beakers and cups
with colour-coats. The best-known of these are the Aco beakers and
named after the potters commonly associated with them.
Sarius cups,
The decoration is simple on the Aco series, and is usually in the form of
closely and regularly spaced leaves or goemetric ornament, resulting in
the illusion of scales on the side of the bowl. There is also figured
decoration, in a simplified and less well-crafted imitation of con-
temporary Arretine and subject-matter. In the first century ad,
styles
brown colour-coated wares formed a complement to the more widely
available South Gaulish red-gloss pottery. Cups were the usual pro-
duct, being made in Italy, Spain, Gaul and the Rhineland from the
period of Augustus to the end of the century. The Italian and Spanish
examples were often decorated with leaves, ferns, or other plant-
derived motifs executed en barbotine, but Lyons and Central Gaulish
cups were more usually covered with a plastic rendering of scales or
other, generally amorphous, shapes. Only in South Gaul were moulds
used, to produce the more complicated decoration associated with the
red-gloss bowls.
 155. Drawing of
painted bowls from the
Nabatean pottery at
Oboda, Israel. Diameter
of bowl at bottom left
22.8 cm., others 18 cm.
Augustan.

All of the first-century types went out of fashion by the end of the
century, to be replaced in the northern provinces b\ brown and black
colour-coated beakers produced in Central Gaul, the Rhineland and
eastern Britain.' These were often highly decorated with animals and
'

plants en barbotine. Dogs chasing deer and similar energetic hunting

scenes predominated, parti} as a result of the fluidity of the technique.
Sometimes human figures were present, either produced in the same
way or as appliques 111. 149). The decoration was usually in the same
(

colour as the bod) of the vessel, but the finer examples have white and
yellow barbotine to enchance the details. Occasionally more com-
plicated figured decoration in polychrome was used, for instance on
Trier colour-coated ware (111. 150). The busts on the Trier vessels were
painted, not slip-trailed, and the careful but rather static appearance
of the figures contrasts strongly with the- field decoration en barbotine.
These types of colour-coated ware were contemporary with the later
phase of red-gloss ware production in Central Gaul and Germany.
Painted pottery formed a much less important part of Roman
ceramic production, except in certain areas. One such was on the
fringes of the Empire in Nabataea, where a vigorous style of painted
ware flowered and died between the late first century BC and the late
Inst century AD. Shallow bowls were decorated with leaves and flowers
POTTERY 1
89

arranged symmetrically around the centre (111. 155). Brushing was the
method of application, and the potters were able to produce many
delicate and finely executed designs. Painting was also common else-
where in the Near East and Africa, for instance on Nubian and later
1

'Coptic pottery. The only western painted pottery of any sophisti-

cation was the early Gallo-Roman painted ware of Central Gaul,
which was strongly Celtic in inspiration and continued into the early
first century ad, when it was submerged by the introduction of red-

gloss wares. Painting was also a common method of decoration for the
late Roman pottery of the northern provinces (see below).

GLAZED WARE
Pottery coated with a coloured glaze was of eastern origin, and ap-
pears to have been connected with the development of glass-working
in Egypt and Syria. In general, the decoration of glazed wares fol-
lowed that of contemporary red-gloss and colour-coated styles, and the
pottery was often made in the same workshops. Eastern glazed cups in
Roman styles appear in the first century BC (Plate 24), I2 and moulds
and kiln debris are known from Tarsus, Notion near Ephesus and
Candarli. The styles consisted of simple scale patterns and leaf and
flower wreaths; the forms such as the scyphus imitating metalwork. In
the West, small cups, unguentaria and flasks were lead-glazed in green,
yellow or brown over relief-moulded or plastic decoration, usually
plant-derived or geometric. Italy (e.g. Aco wares) and Central Gaul
were the main early production centres. Many others followed in the
century AD, only to fade out soon after as a result of fashion
late first
changes during the Trajanic-Hadrianic period. Sometimes the under-
lying decoration was executed in different-coloured slips (usually
applied en barbotine), resulting in a bi- or polychrome effect after
glazing. There are good examples of this technique from a probable
kiln-centre in South Russia, whose figured subject-matter tended to
concentrate on the grotesque and the satirical.' 3
Lead-glazed wares were the usual type of glazed pottery in much of
the Empire. In Egypt, however, faience-derived quartz frit ware was
also made in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Flagons, am-
phorae, plates and other sometimes quite large vessels were produced at
Memphis and other centres for the eastern Mediterranean market.
The ability to create an astonishing range of colours allowed the
potters to produce moulded designs with details enhanced with dif-
ferent colours. In addition, polychrome designs were produced by
means of surface washes, which contributed ultimately to the develop-
ment of Islamic maiolica in Egypt. The most sophisticated products of
these potters were realistically modelled portrait heads of deities and
rulers.

POTTERY IN THE LATE EMPIRE

The third century marks a period of widespread change in the styles of
pottery produced in the western and northern parts of the Roman
i go

world. Fashion changes had previously contributed to the alteration

and demise of pottery styles, principally in the early Augustan,
Claudian and Trajanic periods, but it is not until the upheavals of the
period after Severus Alexander that large-scale changes* were made.
Away from the Mediterranean lands, the red-gloss tradition virtually
disappears, continuing in a well-executed form only at kilns in the
less

Argonne and Decoration also changes - figured and

in Oxfordshire.
relief-moulded designs disappear, as do the figured versions of en
barbotine colour-coated wares. Painting is revived, generally in the
form of geometric or leaf- and feather-derived motifs, such as those on
New Forest vessels (111. 56) Light colour-washes, sometimes with the
1 .

appearance of being applied with a sponge, were also used as a form of

decoration. In the Argonne, rouletted impressed decoration in the
form of narrow, highly detailed lattice-work bands was common.
Forms were also different in this period, but the changes are less clear-
cut than in the other aspects of ceramic design. The trend away from
usino metal prototypes, first seen in the second century and possibly
earlier, was intensified; new forms were more autochthonous, owing 1 56. Colour-coated
no particular inspiration to vessels made in other materials. bottle from the New
Forest potteries. Height
A different influence on potter) styles resulted from the spread of
12.7 cm. 4th century AD.
glass-working. Glass cups, bowls and plates started to oust pottery as
London. British
the usual form of fine table-ware. This led to the disappearance of the Museum.
more expensive and highly decorated ceramic products, which now
gave wa\ to cheaper and more easily manufactured designs. Fine and
coarse potter) tended to come together in style and technique, and it
was often the case that finewares were made in the same, fairly
regionalized, kiln-centres as the kitchen and storage wares. Regional-
ization of styles and decoration was another important development
of the late Empire after the koim of the red-gloss tradition ended. In
some areas, such as tin- Rhineland and Pannonia, glazed pottery was
revived to compete with glassware, usually without much embellish-
ment. 1
'

In the Mediterranean basin and the East, change was less evident,
but the same trends can be picked out in certain areas. For instance,
although the red-gloss tradition continued, relief-moulded and
figured decoration on African Rri\ Slip ware became \er\ rare in the
course of the third century, and was onl\ revived in the later fourth
and fifth centuries in a different form see above The fine and .

coarse waies from the African kilns also tended to become more
homogeneous in technique and st) le.
The demise of Roman potter) styles does not lend itself to eas)
generalization, as local conditions were an important factor in deter-
mining the survival of potting traditions. In man \ areas any continuity
was lost in the upheavals of the migrations, but exceptionall) a centre
like Cologne was able to preserve the heritage ofRoman ceramics in

the succeeding centuries. In the East, dec line was more gradual, and
the red-slipped wares onl) succumbed ImalK with the Arab conquests
and the subsequent introduction of glazed ware. Even so, the trad-
'~'
itions of the former lingered on in Nubia and Ethiopia.
CHAPTER NINE

Terracotta Revetments, Figurines

and Lamps
DONALD BAILEY

TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS AND FIGURINES

Fired clay is a most useful and versatile substance and was used
extensively for many of the decorative material aspects of Roman
culture, in addition to itsemployment functionally for more mundane
items, such as pots, bricks and tiles. Following Etruscan models,
religious buildings, formany centuries from the sixth century BC, used,
in their roofing,timber faced with terracotta revetments. This could
be of an extremely elaborate nature, highly decorated with patterns
and figures in relief, and richly hued with fired-on coloured details.
The revetments and the large elaborate antefixes, required in quantity
on such a building, were mould-made, but pedimental and acroterial
figures were probably hand-modelled, as were other free-standing
figures, such as cult-statues. For example, the cult-statue in the
Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill was, at the end of the
monarchy, reported to have been made by Vulca, an Etruscan sculp-
tor from Veii (Pliny, NH, XXXV. 157), who also produced chariot-
groups for the pediments. The Apollo of Veii is a well-known example
of the work of such a sculptor. Although foreign artists continued to be
employed in Republican times (two Greeks, Damophilus and
Gorgasus, decorated the Temple of Ceres in the early fifth century BC -
NH, xxxv. 154), the productionof mould-made architectural terra-
cottas (see 111. have
157), a comparatively simple process, should not
been beyond the capabilities of native Roman craftsmen, although
large, complex figures in the round would have presented greater
difficulties. There is some evidence, however, that craftsmen from Veii
produced some of the terracotta revetments found in Rome. After the '

late Archaic period, for many centuries, external terracotta archi-

tectural decoration in Rome, although of high quality, is found only in
small quantities, but this is probably an accident of survival and the
consequence of radical urban renewal, as many buildings with splen-
did and elaborate terracotta fittings continued to be erected in
Etruscan cities until at least the second century BC, and it may be
expected that this also happened in Rome.
During the first century BC and the first century AD, terracotta was
widely used by the Romans in Italy for architectural purposes other
than the extensive cladding of timber public buildings. Water-spouts
round the compluvia of houses at Herculaneum and Pompeii were often
modelled in the forms of animals. Antefixes decorated with relief
patterns finished the roof-edges of large buildings. The example shown
 1

192 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS

157. Revetment with

leopards (panthers?) and
,i minotaur, from the
Forum Romanum.
Terracotta. Height 25
cm. 6th century BC.
Rome, Soprintendenza
Foro Romano c Palatini).

158. (Below) Antefix

with Victoria holding a
trophy, and the
capricorns of Augustus.
Terracotta. Height 23.2
cm. Late 1st century BC.
London, British
Museum.

here (111. 158) presumably commemorated the victory of Augustus-at

the battle of Actium: a series of these would be a propaganda exercise

of a multiple kind: examples have been found at Rome and at Ostia.
Interiors as well as exteriors were furnished with the decorative panels
known as Campana reliefs, from the nineteenth-century collection of
the Marchese G. Campana, which was particularly rich in these
objects. Campana reliefs often depict religious and mythological
scenes, for instance the Labours of Hercules 111. 1 59). 2 Although used
less in Italy after the early Empire, architectural terracottas such as 1 59. Below) ( '.imp. in,

antefixes were made in the provinces, particularly by the arm) .is far
,
reliefs with the Labours
of Hercules. Terracotta.
away as York in Britain and in Pannonia.
Height 76.2 cm.
During the Republic the use of terracotta was not confined to ist 1 ii 1 1 111 \ At). London,
buildings. There was prolific production, both in Etruscan and Latin Victoria and Albert
areas of Italy, of fired-clay votive offerings tin' Greek areas of south- Mus.un,.
 TERRACOTTA Rl'AT.TMKM S. FKTRIXKS AM) LAMPS 93

ern Italy had always had, from the early sixth century onwards, a
tradition for producing terracotta votive figures). Romans and
Romanized Etruscans manufactured terracotta figures of deities in
vast quantities for dedication at the many local shrines, and also
portrait heads, both naturalistic and idealistic, mass-produced to vow
to the gods, and included dedications
for burial in tombs. Votives also
at healing shrines, such as that at Ponte di Nona, and that of Minerva
Medica in Rome. Many of these portray with some accuracy parts of
the body, torsos, hands, feet, ears, eyes, genitals, breasts, for example,
and internal organs, such as wombs. These pleas for supernatural
healing add a poignant dimension to our knowledge of Roman life
during the last four centuries BC.
There is little doubt that the majority of Roman terracotta figures
were produced for votive use, dedicated at temples or in household
shrines, but some were obviously toys (horses on wheels from Gaul,
Moesia and Athens) and others may have been ornaments and souven-
irs (gladiators, actors and victorious charioteers). Nearly all Roman

terracottas were made in moulds, as were their Greek predecessors.

The general picture of terracotta production in the Roman Empire is
far from clear. The evidence relies almost wholly upon early un-
scientific finds and illicit excavations, often with no proveniences and
certainly undatable, and on the few places where major well-
conducted excavations have been made and the terracottas published.
Future work may possibly bring to light examples of Roman terracot-
160. Group of Isis, tas from areas not well represented at present.
Harpocrates and Anubis,
In Italy itself, very few terracotta figures seem to have been pro-
made in Campania.
Terracotta. Height 17.5 duced after the Flavian-Trajanic period. Apulia and especially
cm. st century AD.
1 Campania appear to have been the main areas of manufacture in the
London, British first century AD, with figures of gods and goddesses predominating,
Museum. although representations of actors, figures from the mimes, and glad-
iators are also known. The long coroplastic tradition of Tarentum in
Apulia extended to the beginning of the first century ad, but ap-
parently no later. Campania was the main production area. The great
Egyptian goddess Isis was very popular in Campanian cities, and the
group from Avella (111. 160), snowing her with her son Harpocrates
and the jackal-headed Anubis, is a good example of the type of
terracotta manufactured by the coroplasts of Campania. Some
Campanian terracottas may have been exported to Spain and the
Balearic Islands, where close copies in local fabrics are known.
Although Sicily had an active terracotta industry from late in the
seventh century, there is little evidence to indicate that it continued
long after the Roman occupation of the island.
Athens, once a prolific producer of terracotta figures, became some-
thing of a cultural desert after the destruction of the Kerameikos by
Sulla in 86 BC, and it was not until the end of the second century AD
that terracottas again began to be made in any quantity. Figures of
gods, mother-goddesses in profusion, dramatic representations and
animals bulked large in the repertoires of Athenian coroplasts. Many
of these terracottas were of fine quality and workmanship, and re-
mained so for much of the third century AD, although the Herulian
i94 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS. EK, URINES AND LAMPS

sack of AD 267 did not help matters. A sturdy formalism (111. 161) had
developed by the fourth century, and there was continuity of pro- ^S|A
duction until perhaps the early fifth century AD; there were few other
places in the Roman Empire that made terracotta figures as late as
this. There is some evidence production at Corinth
for terracotta
during the Roman Imperial period, but information is lacking for
much of the Greek mainland. In North Greece and Corfu terracotta
manufacture was a dying craft in the first century BC, but some figures
were still being made in the first century ad.
In western Asia Minor, the ruin and bankruptcy of many of the
Greek cities, caused by the harsh fiscal measures of grasping Roman
governors in late Republican times, is reflected in the running-down or
even cessation of a number of hitherto prolific terracotta production
centres. Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Priene, Troy, Ephesus, and many
more were affected in this way. Ephesus still produced figures of the
Ephesian Artemis in the first century AD, presumably because of a
demand by tourists for souvenirs. Cnidus recovered strongly in the
Flavian period and exported vases and relief-decorated vessels, often
of a highly ribald character, over much of the Mediterranean world;
Lucian, in the second century AD, found no little amusement in the
'wanton' products of the Cnidian potters when describing a visit to
that city in his Amores IX. (If he had lived a century later he would not
have found such things, as the industry was virtual!) defunct by the
mid-third century. But terracotta figures, unlike relief wares, were
not plentiful in Roman Cnidus. Two cities of western Asia Minor in
which the production of fine terracotta figures did not cease after the
coming of Roman administration were Myrina and Smyrna. Myrina
made superb terracottas throughout the Hellenistic period, both
Tanagra types and those of the subsequent late Hellenistic tradition:
161. Mother-goddess
figures of goddesses and youths, erotes and children. The great maj-
from Alliens. Ten ,ici
il 1

ority of the thousands of surviving Myrina terracottas came from Heighl [6.8 em. 4th
tombs, excavated mostly without record in the 1870s and 1880s. Main centurj AD. Athens,
of the figures are signed and the names of a great number of makers are Agora Museum.
known. The graceful Aphrodite from the workshop of Menophilos
(111. 162) probably dates to the early first century AD. An earthquake in

AD ml) seems to have brought terracotta production at Myrina to an

end. At Sim ma there was a lively manufacture of distinctive terracot-
tas during the first centur) BC and the first century ad. Most of the
surviving examples came from illicit excavations in the nineteenth
century, and, more often than not, only the heads of figures were
preserved b) the dealers concerned. A large proportion are grotesques
or are caricatures, and one can only assume that the) were for orna-
mental use. However, beautifull) modelled heads of gods and god-
desses also abound, some of them based upon famous sculptures, and
these may well have been made for votive use.
Tarsus, in Cilicia, had a industry that is well docu-
terracotta
mented. Scientific excavations by Bryn Mawr College both before
and after World War II, and adequate publication, both by the
excavators and by the Louvre, have brought order to the thousands of
Tarsus terracottas found during the mid-nineteenth century.
TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS I
95

162. Aphrodite from Myrina. Terracotta.

Height 27.5 cm. Early 1st century AD.
London, British Museum.

Terracotta figures were manufactured there from Hellenistic times

until the third century AD.A large proportion of the figures, which
include many wear wreaths round their heads, and these
erotes,

wreaths together with the hard, smooth fabric, often whitish-buff in

colour, are very distinctive of Tarsus.
During the last two decades many terracottas of naive workman-
ship, but competently made and often large and elaborate, from an
unknown source in Asia Minor, have appeared. Their normally com-
plete state indicates that they have come from tombs. The extra-
ordinary Aphrodite combing her hair (111. 163) is a fine example which
appears to date to the second half of the second century AD. The
narrow-breasted, wide-hipped shape of such a terracotta is very much
like that of some of the Gaulish pipeclay Venus figures from the other
end of the Empire, which are totally different from the earlier Greek
ideal exemplified in some of the Myrina statuettes. It is a shape which
anticipates representations of women in Late Antiquity and early
medieval times.
 3

ig6 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS. IK, URINES AND LAMPS

In the Levant, terracotta figures of a very high quality indeed were

made at Jerash during the early second century AD; these include
representations of Aphrodite, Apollo, Hermes, Athena, and Eros,
together with animal figures. Strangely, some of the female figures are
completely bald: presumably wigs were made for these in organic
materials.
A huge coroplastic industry developed in Egypt under the Ptolemies
and continued without break at least to the fourth century AD; indeed
the Christian Copts of Egypt made terracotta praying figures (orantes)
as late as the sixth and seventh centuries AD. Alexandria, the Delta and
the Fayum were the main centres of production during Hellenistic and
Roman times, Alexandria producing its finer work during the early
Ptolemaic period. In addition to representations of gods and goddesses
of the classical pantheon, many Egyptian deities were depicted; Isis,
Sarapis and particularly Harpocrates, the gods of the Ptolemaic state
religion, are found in huge numbers, together with the dwarf-god Bes
and the obese Baubo, while Pharaonic gods were also made, the final
flowering of three millennia of such representations. The phallic god
Min, the resurrection god Osiris, and the falcon-headed Horus in
Roman armour were all produced during Roman times. The variety
of terracotta figures made in Egypt probably far exceeds that of figures
made elsewhere. Votive offerings of gods, models of shrines and fer-
tility figures of quite evident virility were produced. Animal represen-

tations were manufactured in large numbers. Again many of these 163. Aphrodite from
were probably votives, but some were toys and others appear to be Asia Minor. Terracotta.
Height 59 cm. Late
ornaments, for example the pleasing lap-dogs of many sizes that are
2nd century AD. Oxford,
reminiscent of the Staffordshire dogs of the nineteenth century. Nile
Ashmolean Museum.
mud, of which most of the Egyptian terracottas were made, does not
have a very attractive appearance when fired, and many of the figures
were subsequently painted in white, pink, black, blue and yellow
colours. The two figures of Aphrodite-Isis of Plate 17 are completely
overpainted in this way. Terracotta figures from elsewhere may also
have been painted, but the fugitive colours survive better in the dry
conditions of Egypt. Such is the continuity of production in Egypt,
with no stylistic break between the terracottas made under the later
Ptolemies and those produced during the Roman Imperial period,
that in many cases it is not possible to decide either on a chronological
sequence, or on the date to which a particular piece may be assigned.
This situation may change when well-conducted excavations of
Classical-period sites take place, and are published, but one cannot be
too hopeful as the confusions caused by residuality in the densely
populated sites of Egypt are difficult to disentangle.
Moving westwards along the Mediterranean shore of Africa,
Cyrenaica and Tripolitania seem to have been singularly lacking in
terracotta production during the Roman Empire, although in Greek
and Hellenistic times many figures of deities and of Tanagra-type
women and young men were made. Some plaster figures, often large
and of some complexity, have survived, and these seem to date from
the first and second centuries AD. 4 In Africa Proconsularis, terracotta
production by the Punic inhabitants, based upon Greek and
 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS 97

164. Pan riding a

panther, from Carthage.
Terracotta. Height 13.6
cm. ist-2nd century AD.
London, British
Museum.

Hellenistic models,had died out with the destruction of Carthage in

146 BC. Carthage was colonized under Julius Caesar and Augustus,
and thenceforth developed into one of the largest and richest cities of
the Roman Empire. There was therefore no continuity or tradition of
terracotta manufacture there, but very attractive figures of gods,
animals, musicians and actors, as well as human busts and other
objects began be made during the first century AD, continuing into
to
the second century (111. 164). In the third and early fourth century,
plastically modelled vases, often in the shape of human heads, were
produced in Central Tunisia in the type of pottery known as African
Red Slip ware, the workshop of one Navigius (Chapter 8) being
particularly prolific of these. Head-lagynoi, carinated jugs with mod-
elled mouths, copied from Cnidian examples, were also made in this
material. 5 In Spain, also, attractive figures of deities were produced
during the Roman period.
In the north-west provinces of the Roman Empire, Celtic lands with
no tradition at all for the making of terracotta figures, workshops with
a very large-scale production were set up during the first half of the
second century, notably in Central Gaul, in the Allier Valley, and,
rather later, c. AD 1 50-200, in Eastern Gaul, on the banks of the Rhine
and the Mosel. The white, iron-free clay (now known as pipeclay) was
the preferred raw material of these centres. Owing very little to the
Lysippan suppleness of much of the Mediterranean Hellenistic and
Roman tradition of figural representation, the upright formalism of
the Gaulish pipeclay figures is very distinctive. The Allier Valley

figures have a softer, rounder appearance than those of the Rhineland.

The variety of production is immense, particularly in the Central
Gaulish workshops: figures of Venus (sometimes in elaborate shrines),
Mercury, male Celtic deities, and mother-goddesses (often seated in a
basket-chair) abound, as do grotesques and busts of children and
women. Animals are plentiful, both as toys and votives, especially
horses, cocks and doves; small vases were also made, often in the shape
I go TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS

of hares and monkeys, and these are sometimes coated in a green

vitreous glaze. There appears also to be an Egyptian religious element:
a very large number of jackals, sacred to Anubis and recognizable
from their characteristic seated pose (but despite this usually described
as dogs), have been found, as have representations of the god Thoth in
baboon form, rather amusingly seated in a basket-chair. The
Rhineland terracottas are rich in standing and enthroned goddesses:
Fortuna (including an extraordinary seated example, showing the
goddess leaning forward with one leg crossed over the other, and
flanked by two horns of plenty), Minerva, Nehallenia (a local Gallo-
Roman deit\ Cybele, the Matres, and others, often represented in
.

several different ways. Signatures are found on many of these Gaulish

terracottas or on their moulds: both Celtic and Latin names, such as
NATTI, PESTIKA, PISTILLVS, PRISGVS and SACRILLOS
from the Allier Valley, STRAMBVS from Trier, and FABRICIYS,
VINDEX and the prolific SERVANDVS from Cologne. It is inter-
esting that the Allier Valley terracottas are amongst the few groups
which were exported to any extent, most examples made at other
centres being for a strictly local market. Figures, particularly of Venus
and of mother-goddesses, were exported to both Britain and the
Rhineland (where they may have initiated the Rhineland industry);
some travelled as far east as Pannonia. This trade was no doubt larger)
due to the inclusion of terracottas in consignments of Central Gaulish
pottery sent to these areas during the second century AD see Chapter
8, p. 185). Illustration 165 shows a Central Gaulish Venus and an
Eastern Gaulish Cybele, both found in Cologne.
In the third century AD, and continuing into the fourth, Trier was
also a production centre for terracotta relief plaques and bowls, main
of them carrying depictions of Orpheus. Narcissus, Mercury, or
Mithras. Similar plaques, some with erotic scenes, were made further
east, in Pannonia. particularly at Aquincum. A prolific terracotta
industry grew up during the third and fourth centuries AD in Moesia,
the easternmost part of the Roman Empire in Europe." These ter-
racottas, normally mould-made, but with some hand-modelled ex-
amples, from workshops at Hotnitsa, Pavlikeni, and the very large
centre at Boutovo, were on the whole \er\ crude objects, but at this
date few Roman terracottas were being made anywhere, and those
that were, at Athens, for example, and in Egypt, were not very much
better than these products of a remote province.
Thus, during the Roman Imperial period, some Roman provinces,
but by no means all, produced terracotta figures in large quantities.
This production often continued a tradition from Greek and
Hellenistic times ol terracotta manufacture and use, for example in
South Italy, Greece, certain areas of Asia Minor, and Egypt.
However, there is little excavated evidence for the manufacture of
terracottas during this time in other areas which were also prolific in
Greek times: Sicily, Cyrenaica, Crete, Cyprus and certain areas of
Asia Minor. Except in a few places, terracotta manufacture in
Mediterranean lands died out gradually, but not uniformly, during
the last century BC and the early first century AD. The gradual re-
 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS [
99

165. Central Gaulish

Venus (a) and East
Gaulish Cybele (b).
Terracotta. Height 14.2
and cm. 2nd century
1 7
AD. London, British
Museum and Cologne,
Romisch-Germanisi lies
Museum.

duction of the cost of bronze figurines ( lhapter 3, p. 96) was probably

the main factor in the demise of the terracotta industry. But places
outside the Mediterranean ambit began to make terracotta figures
after coming into the sphere of Roman control: Central Gaul, the
Rhineland, Pannonia and Moesia; as did Spain and also Africa Pro-
consularis during its Roman economic expansion.

TERRACOTTA LAMPS
Lighting is a necessity of civilization: it was as essential for the Romans
as it is for us. The
oil-lamp of antiquity was simple: a chamber to hold
the fuel (normally olive oil) and a nozzle to hold a wick. Such a lamp
produced only a small amount of light, which could be increased only
by adding to its number of wicks, or by using more than one lamp.
Most terracotta lamps have only one wick, but 'multi-nozzlers' were
made in many areas. These were no doubt expensive to buy and costly
to use: a lamp with twelve wicks uses twelve times as much oil as a lamp
with one (but gives off twelve times as much light). Throughout the
Empire and during its long life, lamps in materials other than fired
clay were manufactured in large numbers. Gold (see Chapter 6) and
silver lamps are known, but bronze lamps must have been made in vast
quantities; however, the melting-pot has claimed most of them. In
200 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS

later antiquity, glass float-wick lamps, suspended in bronze lamp-

holders, were plentiful. Many metal lamps have utilitarian shapes,
which very seldom correspond to the forms of terracotta lamps. A
large variety of exotic bronze lamps have survived' which are of
plastically-modelled shapes, human figures and heads, animals and
birds, and terracotta versions of these exist.
It is often possible to determine with some accuracy the manu-

facturing sources of terracotta lamps, but this is seldom so in the case of

bronze examples. No real lines of development are discernible in the
shapes of bronze lamps, whereas these may be seen with many terra-
cotta lamps. Dating is a problem not yet resolved. The largest quantity
of dated examples are those found in the Vesuvian disaster-towns of ad
8
79. Most of these are probably of Italian manufacture, and lamps of
the same forms were no doubt made for many decades after this
destruction date. After the second century, few bronze lamps ha\ e
been recognized until they appear in some quantity in the eastern
Mediterranean in late Roman times, in the fifth to seventh centuries
AD, often decorated with crosses, or with gryphons' heads, or in the
form of doves and dolphins. The latter are especially prevalent, to-
gether with their extremely elaborate stands, in the X-group ceme-
teriesof Ballana and Qpstol in Nubia.-'
Most surviving Roman lamps are of terracotta and, unlike terra-
cotta figurines, the production and use of which was largely a local
affair, many groups of lamps were exported widely throughout the
Empire. 10 Lamps in Rome itself are first found in some quantity in the
Esquiline cemetery. These lamps of the third and second centuries bc
are, like most lamps made elsewhere in Italy at this time, wheel-made
and covered with a black glaze. Some of them may be local, but m.m\
of them are imports from Greece, particularly from Athens. 1

During
'

the first century BC, mainly in the last years of the Republic and in
early Augustan times, mould-made Warzenlampen were produced, nor-
mally with the red slip made fashionable by the Pergamene pottery
factories and the workshops of Arezzo. These blunt-nozzled lamps
with raised-point decoration, sidelugs, and applied handles, based on
Hellenistic shapes from the eastern Mediterranean, were made in
Italy and exported in large numbers to Spain, North Africa, Gaul and
Germain, where they were occasionally copied.
Italian lampmakers of the early Empire were innovators, devising
several shapes of lamp which remained in production, with local
variations, in many parts of the Empire for centuries. Volute-lamps
were the earliest of these, introduced in Augustan times. These are
distinguished 1>\ two curved ornaments flanking the nozzle; the nozzle
itself had either an angled or a rounded termination (111. 166). Unlike
earlier lamps, the wide, dished top of volute-lamps gave ample space
for a huge variety of relief scenes. Both forms remained in production
well into the second centun in Italy, and Italian examples were
exported throughout the Empire and occasionally beyond the fron-
tiers. Local factories began to copy them as soon as the) arrived, in

Gaul, Germany and Britain often in arm) establishments!, in Asia

Minor, Cyprus, Egypt and at Petra in Jordan. In many areas, how-
 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS

1 66. Italian volute-

lamps: (a) goat and vine;
(b) Icarus flying.
Terracotta. Length 10.3
and 13.8 cm. 1 st century
AD. London, British
Museum.

ever, imported lamps were plentiful exotica, and local workshops did
not begin to copy imports to any extent until the second century AD, by
which time the volute-lamp had fallen out of fashion: Africa Procon-
sularis and Cyrenaica are cases in point, as also is the Greek mainland.
The most common shape of lamp which these belated provincial
ateliers produced was based upon another Italian model, probably
devised in the decade AD 40-50. It has a circular oil-chamber, a
narrow, rounded shoulder, and a short, rounded nozzle. An Italian
example of early date (111. 167) shows the shape that was copied
closely in the East and in military establishments along the north-
western limes. Originally made without a handle, it soon acquired one,
and the shape became ubiquitous in central and southern Italy. The
earlier examples were as highly decorated as the contemporary volute-
lamps, but the scenes became much simpler in the second century ad,
although some late Antonine/early Severan makers working in Rome
produced very elaborately decorated lamps. This shape died out in
Italy in the post-Severan period, during the first half of the third
century AD, and was succeeded, in those troubled and uncreative
times, by a globular version decorated with rows of raised points. This
in turn was replaced, in the late fourth century, by local copies of a
distinctive elongated lamp from Tunisia.
At the end of the first century AD, a developed and simplified form of
the earlier circular-bodied, short-nozzled lamp, often signed with the
tria nomina, was exported in vast numbers from Italy to Africa Procon-
167. Italian lamp with sularis and to Cyrenaica, in both cases initiating large-scale local
elephant and rider.
production; the shape was more closely copied in the former than in
Terracotta. Length 1
1.7
the latter area. This form of lamp also became very popular in the
cm. Second half of
1st century AD. London, Greek East, but far fewer Italian imports have been found in Greece,
British Museum. Asia Minor, South Russia, Cyprus, Egypt and the Levant than along
 TERRACOTTA REVETMENTS, FIGURINES AND LAMPS

168. Athenian lamp

with Leda and the Swan.
Terracotta. Length 17.5
cm. First half of
3rd century AD. Athens,
Agora Museum.

169. [Below) African Red

Slip ware lamp with a
monogrammed cross
(reversed), and representations
of coins of Theodosius II
on the shoulders. Terracotta.
Length 14.5 cm.
2nd quarter of
5th century AD. Aquileia,
Museo Archeologico.

the North African coast, and the infli v\ hich brouffhl about th

Empire-wide popular shape is less apparent.

In all these southern and eastern provinces, variations and develop-
ments of the basic Italian shape were produced for a very long time
indeed, in mam cases to the end of the fourth centurx and into the
1
70. Below) Ephesian
fifth. Corinth and Athens, from the end ol the second centurx until the
lamp decorated with a
middle of the third, produced probabl) the finest Roman lamps made 1 ross. Terracotta. Length
anywhere in the Empire, often with beautifully modelled scenes 10.6 cm. 5th-6th century

(111. 1 68). In Africa (renamed Byzacena), at the end of the fourth \n. London, British
Museum.
century, African Red Slip ware lamps replaced the buff ware lamps
which, after a period of very line workmanship in Antonine-Severan
limes, had become stereotyped and dull. The new red lamps based
ultimateK on their buff predecessors, developed an elongated, chan-
nelled nozzle which quite transformed their appearance. They were
exported vcr\ wideb indeed, to almost every part of the Empire
(though none has been found in an archaeological excavation in
Britain The) were made for about a century and a half, from the last
.

quarter of the fourth century ad. and throughout the Vandal occu-
pation, to die out in the period of depression following the re-
in cupation of Africa by the Byzantine forces of Justinian. The shape
(111. 169 represents the developed form) was copied in many areas

which imported the lamps, including ItaK particularly Rome),

( Greece and Asia Minor.
 TKRKACOI TA RIA'1,1 MI.MS. IK, (KINKS AM) LAMPS 203

Also in Asia Minor, principally at Ephesus, another elongated but

distinctive development of the basic circular-bodied lamp was devised
(111. 170). It has a much more carinated body-shape than has the

African Red Slip ware lamp, although it eventually borrows the

nozzle-channel from the latter. It seems to start during the fifth
century AD, and dies out in the seventh century. It was much exported
in the Greek East, and was copied closely in many places, particularly
in Greece and in Egypt. A distinctive eastern Danubian version is also
known, with cross-shaped or animal-headed handles.
Egypt pursued its own course. Although, primarily in the Delta,
very close of imported Italian volute-lamps and cir-
copies
cular-bodied, short-nozzled lamps were made (the latter remaining in
use until the fourth century AD), from late in the second century until
probably the fifth century, the so-called Frog-lamp was manufactured
in vast numbers, mainly in Middle and Upper Egypt. Many of these
have a frog or toad on their upper surface, well-modelled at first, but
increasingly debased to become barely recognizable on late examples.
Other simple designs are found on these lamps, including rosettes and
ears of corn. The Egyptians also reintroduced at the same time a shape
resembling that of Hellenistic lamps of two or three centuries earlier,
with a carinated body and long, splayed nozzle; the body was now
kidney-shaped, however, rather than circular. Oval lamps bearing the
names of saints and bishops were sold at shrines in Upper Egypt during
the sixth and seventh centuries.
Distinctive lamps were also made in the Levant. While at Petra,
before its conquest by Trajan, close copies of imported Italian volute-
lamps were made by the Nabataean potters, and, later, circular
bodied, short-nozzled lamps ultimately based upon similar Italian
lamps were produced in Syria, in Judaea the local lampmakers pre-
ferred their own designs, from the simple wheel-made 'Herodian'
lamp and its mould-made successors, to the oval lamps of the fifth-
sixth centuries, with their raised linear patterns; the oval shape, be-
lt miing more sharply carinated and acquiring a stub-handle, was to
remain standard, both in the Levant and in Egypt, for many centuries
after the Arab conquests.
In Italy, a North Italian lampmaker, perhaps one Strobilus, in-
vented a shape of lamp, the Firmalampe (111. 171), which became the
standard form made and used in the northern provinces of the Empire.
It was exported also to other parts, and occasionally copied, but it

never ousted the circular-bodied, short-nozzled lamp preferred in

Mediterranean lands. The first Italian examples, in a brick-red clay,
were produced in very early Flavian times, about AD 70 (but there is
171a, b. North Italian
Firmalampen, showing
controversy about this, and earlier dates are preferred by some
(a) a dramatic mask and scholars). It is a simple, practical lamp; the example with the open
(b) a head of Jupiter nozzle-channel was devised some two decades after that with the closed
Amnion. Terracotta. channel, and both versions continued to be made contemporaneously.
Length 10.2 and 11.3
The majority are undecorated, but simple masks, mainly theatrical,
cm. Last third of 1st
occasionally of Cupid or Jupiter- Ammon, are found on some. Italian
century to first quarter of
2nd century AD. London, examples were exported to the Provinces of Britannia, Gallia,
British Museum. Germania, Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dacia and Moesia. In all
204 TERRACOTTA RIA'K I Ml.N Is lit .TRIMS AM) LAMPS

these places they were copied by lampmakers. It has been argued

local
that many of these workshops were branches of the Italian establish-
ments whose names are frequently found on their products, but it 1 -'

seems more probable that most provincial Firmalampen were made at

ateliers which pirated not only the shape but also the names of the
original Italian lampmakers, using the process of surmoulage: im-
ported lamps were used as archetypes from which moulds were taken.
Be that as it may, and we will never know the full story, the Firmalampe
dominated the lamp market in the northern provinces from late
Flavian times at least until the third century AD, and into the fourth
century in some places. Only in Dacia and nearby areas of Pannonia
were other shapes produced in any quantity during this period.
Firmalampen died out with the break-up of Empire and the consequent
lack of imported oil.
The lamps of Italy in the first century AD were of a very high quality
and many of the decorations found on lamps produced elsewhere stem
ultimately from the figure-types adorning them: the same scenes often
appear on examples made at each end of the Empire. Representations
of gods and goddesses are common, including minor deities such as
Fortuna and Victoria, in addition to the Olympian gods; Cupid is
particularly prevalent. Scenes from myth and legend abound: the
exploits of Hercules and depictions of Homeric and Vergilian themes
were popular. Manx lamps show the different t\ pes ofgladiators, both
singly or engaged in combat. The circus as well as the amphitheatre is
well illustrated, not only by two and four-horsed chariots, but In
scenes showing the structures of the circus, and b\ representations of
winning charioteers and victorious racehorses. Erotic scenes of lovers
and of dwarf entertainers appear on a sizeable proportion of figured
lamps. A very large number depict animals of many species,
mythological, wild and domesticated: mammals, birds, fish and
Crustacea are found. Decorative patterns are plentiful, particularly
rosettes and wreaths. All these devices were designed to attracl
the customer by making the product more pleasing to the eye.
The Italian figure-t) pes were copied in main lampmaking centres,
bin several areas were almost equally inventive in die centuries fol-
lowing die Inst centur) AD. The beautifiill) modelled scenes on
Corinthian and Athenian lamps 111. 168) had great variety, sometimes
depicting famous sculptures now lost and otherwise known only from
descriptions in literature, from gems and coins, or from Roman copies.
In Egypt, the locally produced lamps show Egyptian deities, Sarapis,
Isis. Harpocrates, and also renderings peculiar to that country of

Greek myth and legend. During die fifth century ad. African Red Slip
ware lamps from Tunisia bear distinctive decorations. The Sacred
Monogram, the Monogrammed Cross, and the Cross, aic shown in
mam forms, but even more interesting are scenes from the Old and
New Testaments: Jonah and the sea-monster, the Hebrews in the fiery
furnace, Daniel in the lions" den. the Spies with the "rapes of Eshcol,
Christ trampling the Serpent, and many more. The scenes found on
terracotta lamps arc- a most useful source of information about life.
religious thoughl and practice, and the art of the period.
CHAPTER TEN

Glass
JENNIFER PRICE

INTRODUCTION
Qlass served a wide variety of purposes in Roman times and
exerted a greater influence on daily life than at any other period before

the Renaissance. It was most commonly used for the production of

vessels; some of these were of such luxury as to compete with precious
metals for table and toilet wares, but most were more modest house-
hold objects or containers for the storage and transport of perishable
commodities. Glass was also widely used for windows and for interior
decoration in the form of ceiling and wall mosaics and elaborate inlaid
panels for walls and furniture. In addition, imitations of gemstones
(see Chapter 6) and items of personal adornment such as hairpins,
necklaces, ear-rings and finger rings, were often made of glass, and its
occasional use for mirrors as well as for statuettes, gaming-pieces and
other small objects, is also attested. More unusual functions are also
recorded in ancient literature, and these include the use of globular
vessels filled with water to concentrate the sun's rays and kindle fire, or
to magnify small writing, as well as a suggestion that powdered
colourless glass was effective as a tooth-powder, and for other medi-
cinal purposes. Roman authors frequently made reference to glass and
these accounts are most valuable for estimating the significance of the
material in everyday life, as they fill out the information available
from sources such as epigraphy, contemporary illustrations, and the
vessels and fragments which survive.

EARLY HISTORY OF GLASS IN THE CLASSICAL WORLD

Glass, in common with most other materials in use in the Roman
world, had been in production from very early times, and glass vessels
were first made more than fifteen hundred years before the Roman
Empire was established. Most of these were very small polychrome
core-made vessels with narrow necks, which in the classical Greek and
1

Hellenistic world often imitated stone and pottery forms such as the
alabastron, amphoriscus, arybailos, hydria and oinochoe, and were probably
used as perfume and unguent containers. They were brightly col-
oured, nearl) opaque, and have been found in many burials through-
out the Mediterranean region.
Larger open vessels, closely imitating contemporary metal bowls
and plates, were produced in Mesopotamia from the eighth century BC
onwards. They were cast and ground and were made both in colourless
and in coloured monochrome glass. At first, this glassware reached the
206 GLASS

Mediterranean region only infrequently, and its exotic and luxurious

Greece is indicated by a reference to Athenian
status in fifth-century
ambassadors at the Persian court who drank from goblets of glass and
gold (Aristophanes, Acharnians, 74).
From the end of the fourth century BC onwards, translucent glass-
wares became more common in the eastern Mediterranean area and in
burials in southern Italy. The first appearance of polychrome mosaic
vessels also dates from this time, and a wide variety of floral, lace, strip
and other mosaic patterns were produced in the Hellenistic period, as
2
well as sandwich-gold glass.
During the late Hellenistic period glass was used to a greater extent
than at any previous time, both for tablewares and for small perfume
containers, and it is probable that vessels were being produced at
Alexandria and several eastern Mediterranean centres. None the less,
glass seems to have been regarded at this time as a minor luxury
material, produced by complex, time-consuming and expensive meth-
ods in a limited range of forms which were also available in stone and
metal, as well as in pottery. There is very little evidence in contem-
porary literature that glass had yet made a substantial impact in
everyday life, and most early Greek allusions to the material empha-
size either its strangeness or its transparency and brightness.
It is obvious from surviving Latin literature that glass was similarly

unimportant in Republican Rome. Both core-made and cast vessels

were known in many parts of Italy from the eighth or seventh century
BC onwards, and some types of small unguent bottles were probabh
produced in Etruria. yet the common Latin word for glass, vitrum, is
not recorded before the middle of the first century BC.

THE INVENTK >\ OF GLASS-BLOWING

During the middle and later first century BC glass ceased to be merely a
rare luxury product and came into very general use in the Roman
world. This change was brought about In the discovery ofblowing as .1

method of forming glass \csscls. surely the most significant techno-

logical innovation made in glass production in antiquity. Unfor-
tunately, no surviving literary account throws any light on the dis-
covery of glass-blowing, so the exact date and place of this event
remain uncertain; early examples of blown "lasses have been found in
the region of Syria and Palestine. A rubbish deposit dating from
around 50 BC, which contained glass-blowing debris, was found in
Jerusalem in 1970, and this indie ales that a glass-blowing workshop
was already established there. 3 It is certain that blown <;lass vessels,
and probably glass-blow in« as well, reached tab soon alter this time.
I

and Strabo's account of the discoveries at Rome relating to the pro-

duction of glass, and of glass drinking-cups purchased 'for a copper
coin' (Geography, XVI. ii.25) which certainly refers to the manufacture
,

of inexpensb e ulass \ essels, may perhaps indicate that blown glass w as

being made in Rome in the late hist century BC. From the time of this
discovery onwards, glass-blowers were able to make thin-walled trans-
parent vessels in a vast range of sizes and shapes, main of which had
not been attainable by the earlier methods of manufacture; they were
GLASS 207

also able to make them with great speed and so, presumably, at a
comparatively low cost. The effect of this revolution in production was
to make glass more readily accessible to virtually all levels of society,
and the huge increase in demand resulted in glass vessels becoming
items of common use.
The increase in production is evident from the large quantities of
glass fragments regularly found on archaeological sites dating from
the Augustan period onwards, and the new interest in the material is
also reflected in literary accounts of this period. The earliest allusions
to glass in Latin literature occur in Lucretius (De Rerum JVatura, IV. 45, 1

written before about 55 BC) and in Cicero (Pro Rabirio Postumo, xiv. 40,
delivered in 54 BC), and for more than a century afterwards glass was
frequently mentioned in literature, especially in the poetry of the
Augustan and later periods. Although these references rarely contain
any very specific information it is apparent that glass had become an
object regularly encountered in daily life, and was accepted as a
standard of comparison for qualities such as brilliance, transparency,
fragility and, when broken, sharpness.
As glass vessels and glass production spread throughout the Roman
world, the great popularity of blown forms appears to have created
new markets for other glassware and may have had the effect of
stimulating the production of cast glass. Several forms of cast table-
wares either make their first appearance or develop from earlier forms
after the invention of glass blowing. During the later first century BC
and early first century AD, both techniques were regularly used for
vessel glass. The cast and ground tablewares, usually produced in
forms with very close counterparts in fine stone, metals and pottery,
must always have been regarded as expensive and luxurious pos-
sessions. By contrast, blown glass, with its variety of new forms for
drinking cups and other tablewares, vessels for display or for the
preservation, storage and transport of foodstuffs, liquids and cos-
metics, was surely viewed as extremely costly and luxurious in some
instances, and as inexpensive and functional in others. Glassmaking
was always regarded as a skilled craft rather than as an art in the
ancient world, and although Seneca could marvel at the glass-blower
'who by his breath alone fashions glass into numerous shapes, which
could scarcely be accomplished by the most skilful hand' (Epistulae
Morales, xc. 31 ), it seems probable that many of the finest vessels were
admired for the colour and quality of the glass, for their similarity to
other luxury materials, or for the intricacy of their decoration, rather
than for the beauty of their forms.

CAST TABLEWARES IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE

Cast glass vessels were made during the later first century BC and first
century AD but are found only rarely after this time. They continued
the traditions of manufacture originally established in Mesopotamia
and carried on at Hellenistic glass-making centres in the eastern
Mediterranean world, though many of the forms produced were new.
Most of the Roman Imperial cast glass vessels were drinking cups or
bowls, but plates, jugs and other forms of tableware were also made,
208 GLASS

and such as alabastra, pyxides and unguent bottles also

toilet vessels
occur. Until the middle of the first century AD Roman cast vessels

were produced in polychrome and brightly coloured opaque and

translucent monochrome glass, but after this time colourless
glass dominated the production of these fine tablewares.
Most polychrome glass relied for its decorative effect on the arrange-
ment of prefabricated component parts into mosaic patterns, and a
wide variety of designs was achieved by several methods. Care was
usually taken to arrange the design to its best effect on the surface most
often visible, so bowls and other open forms such as plates generally
exhibit a superior inside surface, while the reverse is the case on closed
forms such as the jar, unguent bottle and pyxis. The five main cate-
gories of polychrome mosaic designs found in the Roman world ..re:
floral mosaic (millefiore) which contained composite rods with flower
,

and roundel designs; strip mosaic, which was arranged in geometric

patterns from strips of different-coloured glass and tesserae (Plate 25);
lace mosaic (reticella), where trails containing twisted threads of col-
oured glass were coiled like raffia-matting to form the vessel; gold-
band glass, which consisted of large segments of coloured glass and
included pieces with gold leaf sandwiched between two layers of
colourless glass; mottled and marbled glass, where the ground con-
tained chips or streaks of glass in contrasting colours. Many of these
vessels were produced in colours and designs intended to imitate rarer
and more expensive materials such as agate, sardonyx and fluorspar,
from which the vasa murrina, celebrated by late Republican and early
Imperial writers, are thought to have been made (see Chapter 6).
Other colour combinations have close counterparts among pottery
\ essels .is well as fine stone; perhaps the most notable examples of this

similarity are the small bowls and plates made from opaque orange
glass with fine dark-red streaks which were sometimes made in the
later first centur) BC and earl) iirst centur) AD. These vessels bear a
\ ci \ (lose resemblance to the marbled samian ware vessels of the early

first century ad (see Chapter 8), and it seems possible that both were

intended to imitate coloured marble.

The places of manufacture of polychrome cast glass have been the
subject of much debate. The passage in Strabo (Geography, XVI. ii. 25)
"... I heard in Alexandria from the glass workers that there was a kind

of glass sand without which it was not possible to produce expensive

polychrome vessels ...'. establishes that city as a place where high-
quality polychrome glass, vet \ probabl) cast, was made in the late first

century bc, but the distribution of finds suggests that other centres, in
Syria and Italy, also produced this glass.
Cast vessels made from brightly coloured translucent glass,
and from opaque glass, in white, brown (which appears black),
and various shades of blue, red and green, enjoyed a certain
popularity in the early years of the Roman Empire, and a range of
substantially undecorated cups, plates, bowls and trays was produced.
Most of these ma) be related to silver and other metal prototypes,
and are frequently encountered among the undecorated forms of
Samian pottery.
 2og

172. Cast colourless

glass scyphus with vine
stems, leaves and
bunches of grapes
carved in relief. From a
3rd-century burial in
Cologne. Height 8 cm.
Cologne, Romisch-
Germanisches Museum.

Cast colourless tablewares make their first appearance in the

Roman world during the third quarter of the first century AD, though
they had previously been produced by Hellenistic and earlier glass-
makers. Pliny provided some clear indications of the regard in which
good colourless glass was held in the later first century when he wrote
that 'the most highly valued glass is colourlessand transparent, re-
sembling rock-crystal as closely as possible' {NH, XXXVI. 198), and
that 'glassware has now come to resemble rock-crystal in a remarkable
manner and the value of the former has increased without diminishing
that of the latter' {NH, XXXVII. 29). This expensive glassware was
presumably made in limited quantities in order to preserve its value,
and it seems probable that Pliny was referring to cast, rather than
blown, colourless vessels. Another of Pliny's stories {NH, xxxvi. 195)
records the discovery of a technique of glass-making during Nero's
reign which resulted in two quite small cups of the kind known aspetroti
being sold for 6,000 sesterces. This may also relate to colourless cast
glass, if petrotos means 'like stone', but this word is obscure and has
sometimes been read as pterotos, or 'winged'.
Colourless cast drinking vessels were made quite frequently, and
one of the forms often encountered was the scyphus, with elaborate
carved horizontal handles (111. 172). These cups are closely com-
parable with silver and other metal examples, as well as rock-crystal
vessels. Another cast form sometimes produced in colourless glass was
the trulla, a shallow bowl with one elongated horizontal handle. Many
of the cast cups are undecorated except for the carving on the handle
supports, but relief-cut decoration, in the shape of vine scrolls, laurel
wreaths, and closely-set waved grooves, occurs on some examples and
on the trullae, and a pale-greenish cup from a Flavian grave at Siphnos
bears a fine wheel-engraved design showing a hippocamp and a griffin
ridden by cupids. 4
Shallow cast colourless circular and oval bowls and plates were also
made in the late first and early second centuries AD (111. 173). Some of
thesehave 'egg and dart' cutting on the overhang at the edge of the
rim and facet-cut designs on the underside of the rim, and on the body
and base, and a few have elaborately carved horizontal handles. The
 1 73. Cast colourless
glass plate with 'egg and
dart' and facet-cut
decoration. From the
Cave of the Letters,
Nahal Hever, Judaean
Desert, Israel. Diameter
33.8 cm. Late ist or early
2nd century AD.
Jerusalem, Israel
Museum.

forms of these vessels, and the decoration on the rim edge strongl) 3

suggest that the) were copies of Roman silver tableware.

Glass seems to have been widel) appreciated as a material for luxur)
drinking vessels during the earl) Empire, on accounl ofits lack ofsmell
and Trimalchio states thai he
taste, as well as for its aesthetic qualities.

prefers glass vessels Corinthian bronze) as the) do not smell, and

to
also says thai ifonl) the) were nol so fragile he would prefer them to
gold Petronius, Satyricon, L. ~ . and Plim made a rather similar
observation when he wrote although glass drinking vessels had
thai
ousted gold and silver, they could nol bear heal unless cold liquid was
poured in first \//. \\\\
.
[qq However, the very wealthy did nol
i .

favour glass tablewares consistent!) and glass vessels were apparentl)

.

quite unfashionable during some parts of the third century AD

though they enjoyed Imperial support at other periods. According to
the late fourth-centur) Historia Augusta, the Emperor Gallienus
(AD 253-68) always drank from gold cups, and despised glass because
he said nothing was more common (S.H.A. - Trebellius Pollio, Gall.
Duo. xvii. 5 and a third-centur) Christian Apocryphal accounl
.

mentions a woman 'who was called Chryse because all her > essels were
of gold; she had never used a vessel of silver or glass' Actus Petri cum
Simone, xxx). On the other hand, the Emperor Tacitus \n 275—6) was
recorded as being 'greatly pleased by the diversity and elaborate
workmanship of glass cups' [S.H.A. - Flavius Vopiscus, Tac, \i. 3).
MOULD-BLOWN VESSEL GLASS
The realization that vessels could be formed by blowing glass into
decorated moulds permitted the production of glass vessels with shapes
and designs similar to those of cast glass vessels, and thus simplified the
accurate reproduction of many forms and patterns used on contempo-
rary relief-decorated metal tablewares. Most glass forms produced by
mould-blowing were table vessels, such as drinking cups, jugs and
amphoras, though some small unguent bottles and pyxides were also
made. Many were carelessly produced and were clearly very cheap
imitations of expensive objects, but there were also some exceptionally
fine mould-blown vessels, which occasionally carried the names of
their makers.
The most outstanding by Ennion, who appears to
vessels are signed
have worked in Syria, probably and
in northern Italy, during
at Sidon,
the early to mid-first century AD (111. 174). He produced a variety of
tablewares decorated with gadroons and arcades, bands of network
and honeycomb, ivy and vine sprays, and other vegetal motifs, as well
as a hexagonal bottle form with symbols based on the objects carried in
Dionysiac revels. Many of these design elements, which were admirably
produced in low relief, are found on Hellenistic as well as on early
Imperial metalwork and pottery, and it may be that they were copied

1
74. Dark blue glass jug, signed by
Ennion, with mould-blown designs on
the neck, body and foot. Height 22 cm.
Early to mid-ist century AD. Tel Aviv,
Haaretz Museum.
from plaster or clay casts taken from the original vessels and re-
arranged to make new moulds. 5 The successful production of these fine
decorated vessels probably depended at least as much on the quality of
the design and on the shape of the moulds as on the skill of the glass-
blowers, and it seems probable that Ennion, Aristeas and the other
men whose names are found on mould-blown tablewares would have
been responsible for making the moulds as well as for blowing the glass
into them.
Among the groups of early mould-blown drinking cups which
carried designs in high relief there are some tall beakers with mytholo-
gical scenes. These must have derived from metal prototypes, al-
though exactly similar vessels have not survived, and similar designs
are also known among relief-decorated Arretine forms. Almond-
knobbed beakers (111. 75), which are decorated with rows of moulded
1

almond-shaped bosses arranged in quincunx on the body, also appear to

imitate embossed metal vessels, and may, in addition, be seen as
inexpensive versions of relief-cut glass tablewares. Decorative bosses
apparently enjoyed considerable popularity among first-century
tablewares, as they are also seen on a dark-blue glass beaker blown into
a silver case with eight rows of openings, which was found in Italy,
perhaps at Brindisi; 6 similar almond-shaped bosses have been noted on
various forms of samian drinking cups made in Spain.

BLOWN TABLEW ARES 173. Mould-blown

amber glass beaker with
The blown vessels of the Roman world differ from the cast and almond-shaped bosses in
mould-blown vessels in that their forms are not generally comparable high relief". From Syria.

with stone, metal and potter) equivalents. Glass was the only material Height 20.8 cm. Later
1st century AD. London,
used in antiquity which could be both shaped by inflation and mani-
British Museum.
pulated while hot, and the exploitation of these qualities developed
forms and decorative effects which were appropriate to glass rather
than to an) other substance. Most of the blown glass in common use
was of an everyday, utilitarian character, and was generally undec-
orated, although it was often quite carefully made and shaped (111.
1 76). However, there was also a considerable quantity of much better

quality tableware, decorated by a variety of methods, some of which

were undertaken while the glass was hot, and others which required
the glass to have been fully cooled.

Methods of Decoration. Decoration involving the application of blobs and

trails of glass, or the pinching and manipulation of the vessel, or the

expansion of designs by inflation, was produced by the glass-makers

(vitriarii v\ hen the vessel was made, whereas painting and gilding need

not have been executed in the same place or by the same craftsmen; in
fact the glass-cutters diatretarii were always considered to have a
quite separate identity from the glass-makers.
The decorative effects achieved by applying blobs and trails were
popular throughout the period of the Roman Empire. In the early first
century ad, opaque white and coloured blobs and streaks were often
applied to the walls of brightly coloured jugs, bowls and drinking cups,
 GLASS 213

1 76. (^iow, /<//) and either marvered flush with the surface, thus creating a splashed or
blown bluish-green glass streaked effect (111. 177), or left projecting from the vessel. Much of
cinerary urn and lid with
this glass was made in northern Italy, probably near Aquileia, but it
high curved handles.
From Place des Carmes, was distributed widely in the Roman world. The colourless ovoid-
Nimes. Height about 30 bodied flask from Hauxton, Cambridgeshire (111. 178), which was
cm. i s.t century AD. made of
in the late second or early third century AD, has five pairs
Nimes, Archaeological nipped together in the middle and pinched out at the base
vertical ribs
Museum.
to form a symmetrical network pattern on the body. This form of

177. {Above, right) decoration was never very common, though it occurs on some footed
blown amber glass jug drinking cups from the later first to the third century ad. By contrast,
with opaque white coloured trails bent into complex serpentiform designs were widely
marvered blobs. From
used to decorate glass vessels from the later second century ad on-
one of the Aegean
Islands. Height 23.8 cm.
wards. It is probable that the decoration developed in the eastern
Early to mid-ist century AD Mediterranean, but was soon brought to the western provinces, per-
London, British Museum. haps by itinerant glass-makers, and was then made in large quantities
at Cologne and other Rhineland centres.
The colourless flask from Cologne (Plate 27) was made with a
flattened body in order to provide two broad surfaces, and these are
covered with a stylized leaf-and-garland design produced from very
fine opaque white, blue, red and gilded glass trails. The rim, neck,
handles, sides of the body, stem and foot have also been decorated with
trails, some of which have been pinched to provide a corrugated
outline to the vessel. The design and decoration of this vessel must
surely be admired as a virtuoso performance by a master craftsman of
the third century ad, although its formal aesthetic appeal is perhaps
rather limited.
The tall drinking cup from Janglinster, Luxembourg, is also dec-
orated with coloured trails (111. 1 79). This vessel dates from the fourth
century AD and has the wide, tubular base ring, the high base, and the
roughly finished rim which are commonly found on drinking vessels at
214

78.
i Blown colourless flask with trailed
and pinched decoration on the neck and
body. From Hauxton Mill,
Cambridgeshire. Heighl 22.8 cm. Late
2nd or early 3rd century AD. Cambridge,
Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology -

this time. The design consists of a horizontal band of zigzag trails

below the rim and four carefully arranged and symmetrical scored
serpentine trails extending from the zigzag band to the edge of the
foot. This is one of the latest examples of snake-trailed glass.
Comparatively few painted vessels have survived, though they were
probably produced in small numbers at several periods in Roman
times. A group of hemispherical drinking cups and other tablewares
with painted scenes are known from the mid-first century AD. Several
of these, including a cup from Locarno and an amphoriscus from Kerch,
have brightly coloured designs showing birds within twisted ivy and
vine scrolls, and the decoration is rather reminiscent of the patterns on
some of the cylindrical mould-blown cups signed by Ennion, and on
contemporary decorated samian ware.
 215

Another group of drinking cups, made in colourless glass and paint-

ed with wild beast hunts and circus scenes, have been found in later
second and third century contexts at sites in the lower Rhineland and
Britain, as well as in burials beyond the Imperial frontiers, at Him-
ling^je, Nordrup, Thorslunde, Varpelev and elsewhere in Denmark
and north Germany (Plate 19). Much of the painted tableware found
in the Roman world is thought to have been produced in Egypt, and a
variety of vessels with Egyptian scenes have been found as far away as
Begram, in Afghanistan. 7 Two tall dark-blue cylindrical cups dating
from the third century AD, which have recently been found in the
Meroitic necropolis at Sedeinga, in Sudanese Nubia, are both painted
and gilded and show scenes of worship of the Egyptian god, Osiris,
together with an inscription in Greek characters reading 'Drink, and
you may live'. 8
Designs in gold leaf were occasionally sandwiched between two
layers of colourless glass during the Hellenistic period, but this dec-
orative technique did not become common until the third and fourth
centuries AD, when gildedand coloured medallions, as well as designs
cut from gold leaf or formed by folding gold trails, were sandwiched
between two layers of colourless glass. The gilded and coloured medal-
lions appear to have been made for funerary purposes, and many have
been found in the catacombs at Rome and elsewhere, while the gold
leaf and gold trail designs were often set into the bases of drinking cups
179- Blown pale olive-
and bowls. The fondi d'oro frequently depict Jewish and Christian
green beaker with brown
and dark-green trails.
symbols (111. 180) and Biblical subjects; some show pagan deities,
From Junglinster, portraitsof individuals or family groups, animals and inscriptions. It is
Luxembourg. Height probable that many of these designs were produced at glasshouses in
20.3 cm. 4th century AD. Italy and in the Rhineland in the late Roman Empire.
Luxembourg, Museum of
Wheel-cutting as a method of decoration was in widespread use at all
History and Art.
times in the Roman world, and ranged in complexity from the bands
of horizontal cut or abraded lines which are frequently found on even

180. Roundel, from

base of colourless glass
cup or bowl, with design
in gold leaf showing a
shepherd and three
sheep. Diameter 9.8 cm.
4th century AD. Corning,
N.Y., Corning Museum
of Glass.
2l6

18 1Blown dark-blue and opaque white glass

.

amphora (the 'Portland vase') with figured scenes

cameo-cut in relief, probably showing the
marriage of Peleus a>id Thetis. From Rome.
Present height 24.5 cm. Late 1st century BC/early
isi century AD. London. British Museum.

the simplest drinking cups, to the complex gem-cutting and engra\ ing
techniques which were employed on tablewares such as the Portland
vase and the Lycurgus cup.
The Pordand vase (111. 181) is a blown amphora (it has lost its

pointed base) made from dark-blue and opaque \\ hite cased glass. The
opaque white outside surface has been parti) cut awa\ to reveal the
dark-blue ground colour, and the emaining opaque v\ hite areas have
1

been cameo-cut in relief to produce two \ en detailed figured scenes

which ma\ represent the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. 9 The precise
date of the production of this masterpiece is not known: artistically ii
belongs to the reign of Augustus (27 BC- AD It has probably been
i
|
.

polished since its discovery in Rome at the end of the sixteenth centun .

but there is no doubt that it was originall) decorated by a diatretarius of

very great skill, using the techniques normall) associated with fine
gem-cutting;. perhaps one of the most impressive glass vessels to
It is

survive from the ancient world. One other, more complete, cameo-cut
bichrome Roman glass amphora is known: found at Pompeii, it depicts
scenes of grape harvesting and was probabl) made during the second
quarter of the first centnn AD.
During the first and second centuries AD, much of the wheel-cut
decoration found on both east and blown "lass vessels consisted of deep
facets or lines, but greater variety was achieved in the later Roman
period. Abrasion, which relied for its decorative effect on the contrast
between the dullness ot the areas worked and the general brightness of
the vessel, was often used for thin-walled glassware, such as the flasks
 GLASS 217

with scenes of Baiae and Puteoli in the Bay of Naples, which were
manufactured in the third or fourth century AD. 10 The wheel-abraded
decoration on the pale-greenish Populonia flask (111. 182) shows
named buildings and structures in the harbour at Baiae.
Many late Roman cups and bowls have figured scenes which were
produced either by fine linear cutting and abrasion, or by various
kinds of facet-cutting. The truncated conical cup from Cologne
(111. 183) has three linear and facet-cut Biblical scenes depicting Adam

and Eve and the serpent, Moses striking the rock, and Christ raising
Lazarus. Similarly shaped cups with the same use of line and facet-
cutting, but depicting different scenes, are known in the north-west
provinces, and itseems that these vessels were made and decorated in
th£ lower Rhineland, perhaps at Cologne, during the fourth century
ad; vessels with figured linear and facet-cut scenes were also produced
in the eastern provinces at this time.
The late Roman vessels with the most spectacular wheel-cut decora-
182. Blown pale-green tion must surely be the diatreta, or cage-cups, which were made by
flask with abraded cutting away a thick blown blank to produce almost free-standing
decoration showing the
figures or a network of interlocking rings which were joined to the
harbour at Baiae. From
Populonia, near
body by the small columns or bridges of glass not cut away. This work
Florence. Height 18.4 required great skill and patience (engraving or gem-cutting tools were
cm. 3rd or early 4th used), and must have taken a very long time to complete. Since these
century AD. Corning, vessels were manufactured during the fourth century AD they cannot
N.Y., Corning Museum
have been the subjects of the disputes between the diatretarii and
of Glass.
vitriarii of Aquileia about the responsibility for vessels which broke

while being cut, for these disputes took place early in the third century

183. Linear and facet-

on a
cut biblical scenes
blown colourless cup
from Cologne. Height
12.8 cm. 4th century AD.
London, British
Museum.
 .

2l8 (.LASS

AD (Ulpian, Digest, IX. ii. 27, 29); but a perfect blank must have been
essential to a skilled cutter if he was to stand a reasonable chance of
completing a cage-cup successfully.
The Lycurgus cup is probably the best-known of the cage-cups
(Plate 28). It tells the story of the death of Lycurgus, and shows him
entangled in « vine, together with Pan, Dionysos and his panther, a
satyr throwing a rock, and the nymph Ambrosia. Parts of the design 1
'

have been cut away to produce open-work attached by small bridges,

but the bodies of the four figures have also been hollowed away from
the inside so that light can pass through the cup more evenly. The
colour of the »lass is \er\ unusual: an opaque pea-green on the surface,
changing to wine-coloured in transmitted light. A similar colour
(hange, from pea-green to translucent amber, occurs in the cage-cup
from Termancia, in Spain, 12 but not in any other example. These
vessels may perhaps be similar to the kind called colters allassontes
mentioned in a letter from Hadrian to Saturnius (S.H.A. - Flavius
Vopiscus, Saturn., VIII. 10).
Although not a vessel, the small head of Augustus (111. 184) will
complete this surve) ofcul and carved glass. This is 47 nun. 2 in.! in
height and max have come from a small gold statuette. The head was
(onstructed in two colours, with the opaque turquoise" exterior over-
lying a core of dark glass, and was formed in a mould before the final
details were produced b\ grinding and polishing. The figure appeals
10 show Augustus in old age, and has damaged ears, perhaps sug-

gesting that his head was veiled, like the statue of Augustus from the
Via Labicana in Rome. It may be compared with other heads of
1
;

emperors and empresses carved in precious stones (see Chapter 6).

GLASS \\ VLL DI. ( ORAI [ON

The use oi glass tesserae and opus sectih in the decoration of the walls
and ceilings ol Roman buildings has alread) been noted ill ( lhapter 5.
The recorded use of glass on walls occurred in
Inst bc Pliny, JVH, -,<">

xxxvi. it), though ceiling mosaic were apparently not developed

until the early first century \l) (after the completion of the Baths of
Agrippa C.20 BC: Pliny, A'//. XXXVI. [89). Glass con tinned to be used
in both public and private buildings throughoul the period of the

Roman Empire, though the surviving literar) accounts sh^lm-si that it

was always rather a luxurious form of interior decor.u ion and avail-
able onl\ to the \ ei \ wealth)
Two \ei\ small fragments of complex mosaic inla\ featuring
human heads are known from Munts, at
the Roman villa, Ids
Altalulla, near Tarragona in Spain III. 185 The maximum dimen- .

sions of the fragments-are 25 X 19mm. (1 x I in.) and 20 x iHinni.

(] x and the details of the designs were produced by arranging
s in.
1,

canes of 'black', amber, opaque pale-green and opaque pale-pink glass

in the opaque white background. The heads were found with a wide
variety of polychrome mosaic and brightl) coloured monochrome
strips and shaped fragments, and presumably come from die opus sectile
panels that decorated the walls of the- villa in the fourth century \l).
 2I 9

184- Opaque turquoise glass

sculpted head of the Emperor
Augustus. Height 4.7 cm. Early
1st century AD. Cologne, Rorhisch-

Germanisches Museum.

More than one hundred glass opus sectile panels, representing over 150
square metres (180 square yards) of decorated wall-surface, were
found recently, still packed in crates, in a building in the harbour area
of Kenchreai, near Corinth, which was destroyed by an earthquake
and tidal wave, probably in AD 365. 4 Many of the design elements in
'

these panels are similar to the pieces found at Els Munts, though there
are no polychrome mosaic human heads. '5

GLASS VESSELS IN ROMAN ART

Several wall-paintings containing representations of colourless or pale
bluish-green bowls, cups and jars are known from Pompeii, Her-
culaneum and the villa at Oplontis, as well as from other sites in the
bay of Naples and in Rome.' 6 The vessels are usually shown filled with
coloured or colourless liquids, or fruit, and it seems that the trans-
parency of the glass caused them to be chosen for illustration. The
large, bluish-green bowl, shaped rather like a metal crater, which
185. Two fragments o
occurs in the House ofJulia Felix still-life (Plate 5), contains a variety
glassmosaic inlay from
an opus sectile wall of different fruits, and demonstrates the truth of Seneca's statement
decoration. From the that 'apples appear much larger to those looking at them through a
Roman villa at Els glass' {Naturales Quaestiones, I. iii. 9).
Munts, near Tarragona
Glass vessels have sometimes been identified in the designs of floor
2.5 x 1.9 cm. 4th
mosaics, and square and cylindrical bottles are shown on a con-
centur) AD. Tarragona.
Museo Arqueologico siderable number of and second-century funerary monuments,
first-

Provincial. especiall) in The tombstones demonstrate that in-

the Rhineland.
expensive household vessels became part of the ordinary lamih life of
the Roman world, though it is probable that most of the "lass \csscls
discussed in this chapter remained as hiNin \ goods and were available
onh to comparative!) lew people.
CHAPTER ELEVEN

Epigraphy
ROBERT IRELAND

T ADDED EGYPT TO THE EMPIRE OF THE ROMAN

PEOPLE CABBAGE, BEST QUALITY, FIVE FOR
...'

FOUR DENARII: SECOND QUALITY, TEN FOR FOUR

DENARII 'MARCUS AGRIPPA, SON OF LUCIUS, IN
...'

HIS THIRD CONSULATE, BUILT THIS 'SECUNDUS ...'

IS A PERVERT 'OH "FLY", MY LITTLE BITCH, HOW

...'

SAD THAT YOU DIED 'HER PARENTS NAMED HER

...'

CLAUDIA. SHE LOVED HER HUSBAND WITH ALL HER

HEART. SHE KEPT THE HOUSE, SHE SPUN WOOL.
ENOUGH! GO!'

An inscription is a means of perpetuating information in writing:

words cry out from the stone for a memory amongst mankind. 'Passer-
by, this silent marble asksyou to stay and read: I wished vou to know.' Language
becomes visible, shapes convey meaning; executed with authority,
character, subtlety and discipline, lettering becomes a work of art. The
words may be set down on any surface in any medium; but an
inscription, in its best-understood sense, is a class of textual record
characterized by being incised on stone, and it is upon the artistic-

aspects of inscriptions so defined thai this short chapter will con-

1

centrate.

TEXT AND LAYOUT

On a stone from Palermo in Sicily (111. 186), presumably once placed
outside his workshop, an inscriptional artist advertises bilingually, for
the benefit of potential clients both Greek and Roman, 'INSCRIP-
TIONS LAID OUT AND CUT HERE FOR RELIGIOUS
BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC WORKS. He handles his lettering '^

better than he handles the two languages, but his choice of words
neatly specifies for us the two central stages in the production of a
formal inscription: the application of text to the stone and its cutting.
One preliminary and one final stage will also be involved in the
process: the composition of the text and the colouring of the incised
letters.
 c
P< \P-\C CONTA'l Uc Virv KKfv £*
N
1 86.
artist's
An inscriptional
advertisement. ; N A04 C € ? O C Kl VW$ S \C RE"«
I I
Height of lettering f.2.4
and 1.2 cm. Early cyn ewe irei aic qvmofervm
1st century AD (?). Palermc

Museo Archeologico
Nazionale.
&HMOCIAJC .^vr>L.!cc'|v\^

Text newly composed for an inscription could be supplied to the

cutter'sshop on wax tablet or papyrus, usually in the cursive script
appropriate to these surfaces and their writing-instruments. Cor-
ruptions caused by the misreading of cursive copy sometimes show up
in the finished work; as, for instance, when TNVMPE cut foris

TRIVMPE in the last line of the famous Arval Hymn. Conventional

3

texts could be extracted from collections of ready-made formulae:

verses identical save for thenames of the deceased (which often fail to
scan) re-appear in metrical epitaphs from different parts of the Em-
pire, and one artist made the careless but revealing error of copying his
HIC IACET CORPVS
pattern-text unmodified on to the stone:
PVERI NOMINANDI - that is, roughly, 'HERE LIES THE BODY
OF (a boy: put the name in)'. 4
The textof the humbler sort of inscriptions might now be traced
directly on to the prepared writing-field, with running modifications
to fit it to the available space and the designer's taste. The draft of
more formal productions will pass to an inscriptional calligrapher,
who considers the meaning and purpose of the text and adjusts it to the
planned area of writing by determining the style and size to be
adopted for the capital lettering, its lineation and the vertical co-
ordination of the lines, and any abbreviation of words or ligaturing of
letters thatmay be necessary to bring the inscription within limits. He
may choose to place interpuncts between words, using leaf-shaped
stops, perhaps, for decorative emphasis; and he will draw bars above
numerals. In the late Republic and early Empire he may place apices,
shaped like our acute accent, above some or all of the long vowels: a
long I coalesces with an apex to form a tall letter reaching above its
neighbours. With the help of these apices the inscription could be
correctly read - as all ancient texts were intended to be read - aloud.
The calligrapher will probably prepare a draft of his design, and it is

possible that on a papyrus sheet from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (111. 187)

 A\8 t&.vi

mn. mm m
187.

ilc

a
Papyrus with
draft design (?) for a
(In atory inscription by

detachment of Legion
Five (the Macedonian)
and
to Diocletian
Maximian. From
Oxyrhynchus (infra-red
photograph). Height of
lettering c.3.7 cm. cad
295. Eg} pi Exploration
a

Society.

we unique example of 'epigraphic copy', written with a reed

possess a
pen in capitals' by a very accomplished artist."' One in-
'rustic
scriptional calligrapher is known to us by name: Furius Dionysius
Filocalus, the great writing-master who lettered and signed two in-
scriptions commissioned by Pope Damasus in the late fourth century.
By now the writing-field will have been marked out and smoothed
down on the stone: a small tablet can be worked on in the cutter's shop,
a public inscription will be put on the monument in situ. Upper, lower,
and often medial guide-lines occasionall) found incised In the cutter
are marked on the stone in an erasable medium: chalk or charcoal
drawn against a straight edge would serve for short rulings, while
longer lines would call for a ruddle-cord, coated in dry pigment and
snapped against the surface. The inscriptional calligrapher then trans-
fers his cop) to the stone; the nature and handling of the writing-

instrument th.it he chooses will profoundly affect the appearance of

the resulting lapidar) script.

MEDIUM AND LINE

It probable that earl) Republican inscriptions were set out on the

is

stone with chalk or charcoal, a method of tracing letters which was no

doubt employed lot the lowest grade of Imperial productions. These
inflexible writing-media begin to mark immediately on touching a
surface, and do not need to be edged into or out of their stroke. The)
\ield an even thickness ol line in all directions of travel, and the
resulting letters are well suited to an unsophisticated cutting tech-
 EPIGRAPHY 223

K
^ ;
* -
m \
'

-Hiw"— m%ssss^

188. Republican nique. Not that they are invariably unimpressive: their very roughness
capitals.Epitaph of becomes eloquent when, in the epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio
Lucius Cornelius Scipio
Barbatus (111. 188), the crude, uneven capitals, ripped out of the
Barbatus, consul 298 BC,
censor 280 BC (?). Rome, granite with a coarse cutting-edge, combine in magnificent unity of
Vatican Museum. effect with the text they transmit, proud, simple phrases cast into the
primitive Saturnian metre, commemorating the conquests and the
piety of the dead Republican.
But with the development of penmanship and brushwork in the
hands of Roman artists there gradually evolved, from the simple
geometrical combinations of unshaded line of the earliest capitals, a
system of bookhands and lapidary scripts that display the character-
istics of letters executed in a fluid medium with pen or brush: serifs and

weighting. Serifs are short terminal cross-strokes, integral (at least in

origin) with the approach to or departure from a main component of a
letter's structure. Top serifs start the flow of fluid as the writing-
instrument flexes into the body of its stroke, and bottom serifs allow it
to be lifted from the writing-surface without leaving behind an un-
sightly blot. Their purpose is thus essentially practical, although a
decorative treatment of serifs as separate entities becomes apparent in
some lapidary and book scripts. The weighting of a letter is the
graduation of and contrast between the broad and narrow areas of its
component strokes: it is a function of the width, suppleness and
capacity of the writing-instrument, the pressures exerted on it during
its trace, and the angle at which it is held with respect to the horizontal

axis of the writing. Letters executed with a pen, held close to the tip at
a fairly constant angle, tend to a uniformity of thickness within
straight strokes and a fixed ratio of contrast between traces made by
the face of the nib and those made by its side; the smooth travel and
responsiveness of a flexible square-ended brush, loaded with paint and
held some way down the handle, encourage constant changes of angle
and pressure, reducing the harshness of contrasts by subtle modulation
of the width of the trace during its progress. Ideally, the resulting
letter-forms will have a kinetic quality that rescues the written lines
from static rigiditv.

MONUMENTALIS AND ACTUAR1A

The weighting and serifing of the component strokes, their number,
the sequence, direction and speed of their execution, and the chosen
module - that is to say, the relationship between a letter's height and
224 EPIGRAPHY

its width - determine the appearance of the finished shape. Developed

lapidary writing has been divided into two main styles, (scriptura)
monumentalis , monumental script, and {scriptura) actuaria, 'record' or
'transaction' script, the latter so called because considered chiefly
characteristic of public and private official written transactions (acta);
the terminology from satisfactory, but a completely new classi-
is far
fication of epigraphic hands cannot be attempted here. The two styles
of lettering are differentiated by their structure, weighting, serifing
and module. Comparison of Illustrations 191 and 193 will bring out
these differences very clearly. The classic scriptura monumentalis is slowly
and expansively modelled; its wider letters approximate to a square or
a short horizontal rectangle, consuming space; serifs broaden grad-
ually into or emerge smoothly from the main limbs; the carefully-
judged weighting produces satisfying proportions of width in the
strokes, the ratio between the widest thicks and the narrowest thins
being about two to one. Curves are shaded to incline gently upwards
from the horizontal, and diagonals and verticals are narrowed at their
centre. The developed actuaria impresses immediately by the tall rect-
angular module of its This is essentially a compressed, recon-
letters.
structed and generally formal version of the monumental capital,
less

adapted for speed of writing and economy of space, with the overtly
calligraphic quality which comes naturally to a fast-travelling brush.
The trace is splayed towards the end of straight strokes, but the angle
of the square-ended brush to the axis of writing changes relatively
little, producing clear contrasts between side- and face-strokes. The

vertical emphasis of the letters is helped by their strongly diagonal

weighting. A pronounced upward edge-in and edge-out of the angled
brush gives T a swung cross-bar and an upswung foot-serif not exe-
cuted integrally v\ ith the vertical - a serif which can also be found on
verticals in P and R and on the diagonals of V. The broad down-
strokes of M ma) curve to the right, pulled by the speed of the brush,
and, to compress the letter, its narrow up-strokes may meet the down-
strokes some \va\ down their length. A, too, may have a short, dropped
left limb and an out-curved right diagonal; the brush-angle may tempt

its cross-bar to slant up to the right, and the rapidity ofthe writing ma)

lead to the cross-bar's being omitted altogether. The construction of

man) letters is simplified and speeded. The top serifs of B, D, P and R
mark the attack not ofthe down-drawn vertical stroke, as they do in
monumentalis, but ofthe up-struck curve. In monumental E, F, and L
the top left and lower rights serifs (or, in the case of L, the turn into the
horizontal) are integral with the vertical; in actuaria the forms simplify
to a vertical with serifed cross-bars swung across it. the horizontal
stroke of L swinging down in later examples ofthe style.

CUTTING AND COLOURING

With the writing of the letters on the stone the process known as
ordinatio is complete, and the sculptor's task begins. Where soft stone
was used, and contrast between the breadth of strokes was not sought,
a rounded metal gouge could be used under the mallet to attack the
EPIGRAPHY 225

surface; harder stone, and the variable breadth of cut required for the
weighted strokes of brush-lettering, demanded a straight-edged chisel.
Chisel incision began, perhaps - if modern practice is any guide - with
a preliminary groove, cut centrally along each stroke, which was
gradually worked out longitudinally and transversely to the edges of
the written trace, and down to the depth appropriate to the stroke's
breadth; terminations of the brush-lines were perhaps struck sharply
downwards and in from their tip to the main channel. In developed
lapidary capitals the walls of the cut slant in to form a V-shaped
groove whose root, centred on its upper width, lies deeper in broad
than in narrow areas of the letter, rising fairly steeply to the surface at
stroke-end. The channel, even at its broadest, is quite shallow, since
the purpose of the cutting is not to enhance the legibility of the text by
a contrast between shadow-filled grooves and brightly-lit surface:
instead, the cut is made to protect the paint which, in all but the
cheapest and least public inscriptions, was applied to the letters after
incision to re-create their original written quality. The paint was
usually a scarlet or vermilion, mercuric sulphide or red oxide of lead;
8
we sometimes hear of letters being gilded. Besides restoring character
and visibility to the lettering, the painting allowed the correction of
errors in the cut. Strokes wrongly added by the sculptor could be left
uncoloured, and missing or badly-engraved strokes could be supplied
or improved with the brush.
The inscriptional process is now complete. Any subsequent modi-
fication of the finished product may include the addition of text, or,
conversely, the chiselling-out of the names and titles of Imperial
personages or public figures or legions, condemned, after disgrace or
dishonour, to official oblivion, the notorious damnatio memoriae?

STYLE AND DEVELOPMENT

The arts of calligrapher and sculptor, and their combination in the
brush-written, chisel-cut inscription, developed swiftly under the Em-
pire. The Caesarian monumentalis of Illustration 189 displays an emer-
gent technique, a striving for regularity realized imperfectly and
without fluidity and assurance. 10 Individual letters are inconsistently
sized: their similar module broadens E and F and narrows R; O is
compass-drawn; cross-bars slant; some letters are precariously bal-
anced on their axes; and the apex over the long V of IVLIO is
transformed into an ill-advised extension of a serif. The cutting is
uncertain, and the asymmetrical lines of text incline up to the right. A
mid-first century monumentalis from Pompeii, however (111. 190), repre-
sents the first great period of Roman inscriptional lettering. Modules
'
'

are well calculated for all four sizes of writing; spacing is careful, and
the lines compose well, though AE(DEM) and (TE)RRAE in the
second line are set too wide: a slightly more distant letter-spacing
throughout the line would have brought it to length without this
breakdown in coherence. The weighting is delicately graduated, the
centering exact, the cutting firm and clean; the overall effect is of a
remarkable clarity and precision of line. This very precision may
 F

189. Caesarian capitals.

Dedication of a statue to
the deified Julius.

D]\/0'K/|JG'JY,C; Height of lettering c.3.5

cm. f.44 BC: (squeeze).
Rome, Vatican Museum.

f!Ol'VL>RO/vAA!li 190. ist-century

scriptura monumentalis.
Inscription recording the

zt:\\n' /i\^::\U:Q- restoration of the temple

of Kin at Pompeii by
Numerius Popidius
kVFfeEli/-, Celsinus. Height of
lettering c. 14—4 cm.
AD 62-79. Naples. Museo
Archeologico Nazionale.

POPIDIVSNf CELSINVS
i r>EWJSrblSTER.KAEMOTVCONLA.PSAM
.

slC [>U:VR[ONI SOBLIBERALIIATEM

)RDINI : \ IUEGI RVNT

amount to a fault in first-century monumentalis: the contrast and cut of

strokes may become over-sharp, and contours may tend to appear too
geometrical and abstract, constructed with ruler and compass rather
than written with a free hand.
The inscription on the pedestal of Trajan's Column in Rome [91. Earl) Jiid-ceniurv

(111. 191) is generally agreed to represenl ,111 absolute standard, the monuntt ntalis. Inscription

Rom. m monumental 12 on the pedestal of

perfection ol lettering. Splendidl) propor-
Column in the
Trajan's
tioned and superbl) modelled, authoritative and deliberate, the great
Forum Romanum (cast).

I
capitals -
flexibility

S E
their
and

Nl
'

ATVS POnVLVSQVf: ROM ANV$

average height is some 10.3 cm. (4 in.)
subtlety:

! "
no two instances of the same letter are quite

II I III 1 , i
- retain both Height of lettering
(.12-10.3 cm AD - 1 13.

'

IMfLAESARIDlViNERVAEFNER^/AE
TRA A N Q AVG G E RMDAC CO PONTI
.1 I

MAXIMOTRIBPOTXVIHOTVICOSVIPP
ADDECLARANDVMOVAN1A.EALT.1TVD1NLS
MONSETl.OC\ArA^dfllBLlWSStT
__J1 E G ESTVS _
 227

m
viRETISATRI Mil MVOfklflDBflll
mrmlyii ^ovf
x rvcii

mm v •.
•
roiirfls

identical, and diagonals apparently straight are in fact segments of

actuaria. Election notices extremely shallow curves. The excellent co-ordination of the lettering,
on a wall of the house of
achieved by finely-judged manipulation of the spacing and the inter-
Aulus Trebius Valens in
Pompeii. Height of play of the serifed limbs, ensures a homogeneous horizontal texture,
largest lettering c. 60 cm. and the vertical rhythm of the straight strokes is pointed by the tall
Before 24-25 August AD form of long I. The calligrapher was well served by his sculptor, who
79 (largely destroyed in contrived a perfect relationship between depth of cut and weighting of
[943).
stroke, and was especially successful in managing stroke-junctions and
transitions to the serifs. The finished composition has an incomparable
majesty, purity, and strength; it also has repose, but a repose instinct
with the inner of dynamically conceived and executed shapes.
life

The difficult art otscriptura monumentalis, perfected under the Julio-

Claudian emperors and finding its most magnificent expression under
Trajan and Hadrian, was not long preserved in its early splendour;
handsome actuariae, however, were consistently achieved over a rather
longer period. The expertly written large letters of a painted election
notice from Pompeii (111. 192) offer a fine specimen of a formal early
actuaria set out at enormous size (they are nearly 60 cm. [23^ in.]
high). '3 The S, A and R of SATRI have a monumental construction,
contour, and weighting, but the compression of letters to a tall re-
ctangular module, the horizontals of E and T upswung across the
verticals, and the unequal-limbed A at the extreme right of the plate,
are typical of the actuaria style. Beneath the large capitals appear lines
of much smaller actuaria painted with a short, hard brush held with its
face almost at right angles to the line of writing. The horizontals here
are broad, the verticals narrow; top and bottom serifs swing decorat-
ively across the verticals in a separate stroke. So written, actuaria may
strongly resemble the 'rustic capital' bookhand (Ills. and 187), and
1

indeed there seems to have been some considerable interaction be-

tween the book script and the lapidary style. The calligraphic vitality
and economy of actuaria, its characteristic letter-forms, and something
of the fluency and rhythm of the brushwork, survive the careless
cutting of the acta of the Arval Brothers for ad 91 (111. 193).' +
A hand occasionally seen in inscriptions that is clearly linked with a
pen script is the epigraphic uncial (111. 194). 15 The bookhand, deve-
loped perhaps in North Africa in the first century AD, is a rounded
 . 1

193. Incised actuaria.

Proceedings of the Arval
Brothers in AD 9
(squeeze). Height of
lettering c.i and 1 cm.
Rome, Museo Pio-
Clementino.

^XWKCJ^UA1i0^l;:Lt^ tWWA^)^
,

TTf&i :.^i[-UTrj-0/arF-ruii)l\JcrGL:-.i5;i.i';rr/rr^ ;-r.

194. [Below) Epigraphic

uncial. Epitaph of an
unknown man
f^inr-jilftfthv) -r.'IMV (Caeselius? Caeselianus?),

liTS^^^^'^^^i^i^^'^' a farmer
and local magistrate.
Maktar, Numidia.
3rd century AD (?). Paris,
Mint clu Louvre.

ikiA c (foci V 'f'^VS f(V)( ^(^^^mxi^i^w

 229

mmmm
m-ANTOMhW
m manic Mummm
JJVI-ANTONINH'lMMEI'P/rij'
,)IVfHAF)RfANH'fiO)-iFPr)hi
Wi,%N[MPcTir:iABMpnT
'/pjVJ'NLRvTADNl-J'CjTi-l'

VEROHOi
INAf.lAVCARAK
WWII?
'
'>
$.

195. (Above) Late 2nd- capital written with a broad pen whose nib is held with its face nearly
century monumentalis. A parallel to the horizontal axis of writing. Some inscriptional calli-
dedication to Septimius
graphers - unpractised,it may be, in the approved lapidary hands -
Severus (squeeze).
Height oflettering c. 7-4 employed the on stone, to which (as lettering devised for exe-
style
cm. AD 196. Rome, cution with a hard pen on a yielding surface) it is badly adapted.
Cortile of the Lateran.
CHANGE AXD DECAY
196. {Above, right)
Already by tne end of the second century, flexibility and power had
Early 3rd-century formal
actuaria. Inscription in
begun to drain from scriptura monumentalis. The pax romana, sympathetic
honour of Quintus to the elegance of actuaria, rarely produced a monumental capital of
Pompeius Falco, quaestor real distinction. Proportions of module and stroke, as Illustration 195
under
kandidatus (etc.) shows, tend to be less well established;' 6 a vertical shading may be
Caracalla or Elagabalus
introduced in curves; a change of attack at the top of strokes gives serifs
(squeeze). Height of
lettering c. 7. 5-4.5 cm.
on both sides of the heads of A, M
and N; the short vertical and
AD 212-17 or 218-22. horizontal of G fuse into a curl. Spacing and centering tend to in-
Rome, Museo Nazionale. security, and the sculptor may reduce serifs to curved hair-lines.
Decorative emphasis of the constructional elements of actuaria can lead
to a highly calligraphic effect. The distinction between the two leading
styles of lettering becomes increasingly blurred; a hybrid hand (not
unexampled earlier) asserts itself, an actuaria formalized by the intro-
duction of some monumental weightings and forms. The age of Sep-
timius Severus, however, saw scriptura monumentalis cut with great skill
and confidence in the flourishing cities of that emperor's homeland,
and later Antonine formal actuaria (111. 196) can have a flowing
23°

ytujt -^Sb 'llM

iilii iiMiwi
197. Late 3rd-cenlury
actuaria. Inscription
commemorating repairs
10 (hebank of the Tiber
by Manius Acilius Balbus
Sabinus, Commissioner
of Sewers (etc.) under
Diocletian and
Maximian (squeeze).
Height oflettering
_ 5-5 cm AD 284-305.
f -7 -

rv'ti Vatican Museums.

beauty. '7 But with the anarchy of the third century, lapidary lettering,
with the rarest exceptions, simply disintegrated. The ordinatio of public
texts becomes unskilful, their spelling less instructed; artists working,
on inadequately sized writing-surfaces tend to employ increasingly
frequent and grotesque combinations of letters in ligature. A Hue
monumentalis, even of a degenerate i\ pe. is rarely seen; the Diocletianic
of Illustration 197 - the lapidary terms, perhaps, into which the
actuaria
contemporaneous rustic pen-capitals of Illustration 187 might
have been translated tells its own ugl) story. Inscriptions of the

U tt\
s p. ,0 'V

^nrNTIAMQyAElLLiSEMrr^
v.Vfi\/UNCi;fTQFRATRFCOMMVN!S'Evr 190. 4 h-i til
1 t m\
monumentalis. Ins< ription
riNSl[TVTIFXVTfU^ATEVRBl^ETER.NAEl dedicated 10 Valens,
from .1 pedestal of an
arch .11 the approach 10
die Valentinian Bridge
across the Tiber. Height
D t;DICA^fDI(^^ CRISHOMORBDEL ATOIVDK^PI
oi lettering (.7 3.5 < in.

\i> 365 75. Rome,

Museo Nazionale.
 \^r*-?\

LVCTVSfRKCONlVSc
mwsws v« c ;

Avic\/f-rv!Micys

Vt$1h\\$Mh\QK
ICM050LfOQVJt

4 t ' 1 centur y
i99- "

munumentalis and actuaria.

Dedication of an altar
the Great Mother and
Attis by Lucius Ragonius
to
N[ciiM-o*coM5i :
Venustus. Height of
lettering c.3-2.5 cm.
AD 390. Rome,
Capitoline Museum.
-**

Dominate do not freeze, as the other plastic arts do, into a static,
formal hierarchy of organization reflecting the new, regularized order
of state; fine lettering fell, with literature, into neglect in an age which
had little time for either.
The renascence of literary culture in the fourth centur\, however,
temporarily checked the decline of lapidary techniques and prompted
the partial revival ofinscriptional art at a time when civilization clung
to its inheritance from the past as a defence against the uncertainty of
the future. A tall, rather anaemic monumentalii was sometimes at-
tempted 111. 198), Severan rather than Trajanic inserifing, weighting
(

and modules;"' letters whose final form seems to be determined more

by the chisel than by the brush. Vertically emphasized and mecha-
nical in cut, these cold, rigid shapes are decadent in their self-con-
templating formality. More typical of the fourth century, perhaps, are
the types of hand shown conveniently together in a text dedicating an
altar to the Ail-Powerful Gods (111. 199). 20 Here, the first two lines
carry a courageous attempt at a squared monumentalis into which, at
UENVSTVS, a rounded V typical of unicals and some rustics in-
232 I.HiiRAPHY

mixed actuaria incorporating

trudes: the script then settles into a coarse
monumental M N
and the rusticizing U. The cutting is poor
and
throughout, and obscures any weighting that the calligrapher may
have built into his strokes.
Skill and taste had long been failing; in the latest period of Roman
antiquity their decline into extinction accelerated. The early fifth
century drew and cut unsteady, debilitated, compressed monumental
capitals, their strokes often wretchedly co-ordinated; actuaria drops out
of sight, to be replaced in informal inscriptions by broken monumental
letters diversified with bookhand forms, such as d. h and t, and the
Byzantine A with a V-shaped cross-bar. The summing-up of past
knowledge and its transmission to posterity - a feature of literary work

of the period - did not extend to a revival of good inscriptional

practice. The art of the public inscription was lost with the Empire;
and with the angular, irregular script of a sixth-century epitaph
21 - 200. 6th-century
(111. 200) its letters unweighted, mostly unserifed, wilfully con-
lapidary script. Epitaph
trasted in size, and often clearly influenced by bookhand forms -
of Maxima, buried 23
Roman inscriptional lettering reaches ultimate degradation, as the June \D 525. Height of
pen-scripts are reaching perfection, on the edge of the approaching lettering f.5-1.2 cm.
darkness. Rome. Museo Nazionale.

^
:
c
'hHlCI\. evt K^.iTtN?/i
tKillKKST'/W'

$1 '<iN\mwmi
.OWN
EPIGRAPHY 233

INSCRIPTIONS AND CIVILIZATION

The text of inscriptions who the Romans were and what they
tells us
achieved: the lettering what they were and how they achieved
tells us
it. The crude vigour of Republican capitals, and the breakdown of fine

writing and cutting in the late period, are witnesses of their times as
eloquent as the unsurpassed lapidary technique of the early Empire. It
isnot surprising that the Romans cultivated the art of the inscription.
The conquering temper burns to leave behind a record of itself for all
were sent out with the legions. The ordered
time: inscriptional artists
majesty of the Latin tongue - the language of authority - is ideally
suited to the terse, forceful directness of monumental statement.
Roman were aware of the lapidary possibilities of
writers themselves
their language: the literary epitaph was an accepted verse- form, the
elegists worked funerary and dedicatory half-lines and couplets into
their poems, and Tacitus' characterizations of famous men have the
concision and finality of phrases chiselled into a tombstone. Dignity of
utterance, and the grandeur and confidence of an Imperial civi-
lization, find their classic expression in the perfection of scriptura
monumentalis, where the organized strength of the brushwork is given
stability and permanence by the cut. Above all, the inscription is an
intensely practical art-form; it has an evident utility and purpose to
which the Roman mind responded. It is very characteristic that the
noble lettering on the pedestal of Trajan's Column should com-
memorate earth-moving operations in the Forum. The inscription is a
fact of Roman civilization; and at its best, its masters raised it to the
level of the highest and most exacting art.
CHAPTER TWELVE

Art in Late Antiquity

RICHARD REECE

Rebirth meaningless without death: revival presupposes disuse.

is

This, in simple terms, is the major problem to be considered in any

study of Roman art after the third century. But it would be pointless to
confine a study of Late Antique art within such narrow limits. In the
first place a renaissance is a metaphor drawn from living bodies; this

may be an interesting idea, even a good working model, but its use is
bound to lead to trouble, for it presupposes a life-span, finite but
renewable, which develops inexorably from birth to maturity. There is
no reason at all why art and architecture should share the constraints
of biological life. An art style need not die; it changes rather than
develops; and it usually co-exists with other stylesand intermingles in a
wa\ totall) foreign to biology. Change, revival, and co-existence seem
therefore to be better ideas for examination than the death of classical'
art or the lifth-centur\ renaissance.
The best documented changes may be seen in official sculpture and
especially in official portraiture where there is a clear change in
direction from representation of individuals to symbolic types. The
1

extremes m.i\ be seen b\ comparing two state reliefs, Trajan's Column

59) and the panel from the base of the obelisk of Theodosius 111.
(111.

201). In the former the scene is portrayed realistically; all the partici-
pants appear to be people identifiable by their physical attributes. The
court of Theodosius, on the other hand, shown without background,
is

though we may understand the Emperor and his entourage to be in

their box at the circus; the individuals here are no more than symbols
whose size, decoration, and disposition range from the biggest and
most important figure, Theodosius himself, through the less important
(but still Imperial) members of his family, shown centrally, al a
smaller scale, to the courtiers (outer centre but still facing frontally),
and, finally, in rows and columns abreast, to the populace.
'The progress from the one style lo the other can be documented
through the arches Beneventum, of Septimius Severus at
ol "Trajan at
Rome and Lepcis Magna, of Galerius at Thessalonika, and of
Constantine at Rome. The most instructive comparison is between the
two nearl) contemporary arches of Septimius Severus, lor the Lepcis
arch is already more hieratic formal) than the relatively traditional
arch at Rome, which retains elements of early naturalism. This is one
example which helps to demonstrate- that Late Roman art first
emerges in the provinces, particularly in the South and East, before
establishing itsell at the centre, a tendency well documented in coin
portraiture dm in» the third century. Many of the changes can be seen
in one monument the Arch of Constantine - for its composite nature
 LATE ANTIQUITY 235

201. The court at 1 he

games. Base of the
obelisk of Theodosius in

the hippodrome,
Constantinople. Marble,
height 240 cm. c.AD 390.

provides instant comparison from Trajan, through Hadrian and

Marcus Aurelius to Constantine himself.
The convention obeyed in many scenes on Trajan's Column is
openly breached on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius (see
Chapter 3), where the apotheosis -a non-material event is shown in
fully material terms. This is no sudden innovation, for many personi-
fications, for example Roma, had appeared in official reliefs through-
out the early Empire. Rather it is a change of emphasis in the public
art of the Empire whereby, since human forms become symbols, the
distinction between the material and the non-material is eroded. The
way is therefore open for the depiction on sarcophagi of the Imperial
Christ with Apostles as senators at his court, not because this was ever a
historical scene, but because these symbols and decorations in them-
selves express a whole range of ideas and parallels. The scenes depicted
on the official arches gradually lose their settings as sculptors con-
centrate more and more on what the figures are, and what they are
doing. As the setting drop away, so the dimension of depth lapses, in
the same way that the protagonists in a play who have just acted on a
full stage may
play a scene on the front of the stage before a shallow
curtain so that the plot may go forward while the scene is changed.
Another feature is the sculptor's arrangement of figures in a manner
which resembles the photographic technique of the modern news-
cameraman. The sacrifice scene of Marcus Aurelius is still crowded
236 LATE ANTIQUITY

and with the chance of mistaking the participants and part of

realistic,
the scene quite naturally obscured (111. 61). On the Arch of Galerius,

the depiction of a sacrifice has been codified and arranged. The

sculptor composes his scene much like a modern press photographer.
He re-arranges the figures huddled round the altar, ignores unim-
portant people, removes to the fringes of the group anyone who might
dominate the composition, and places the protagonists in the centre, in
an order that will instantly be understood by the viewer, even without
a caption.
Among official portraits coins must be considered first since they
form the only complete series of portrait heads from Constantine to
2
Justinian. Here a general progression can be seen after the eclectic
age of Constantine has passed. The sons of Constantine are almost
indistinguishable (111. 202a, b): the individual is hidden under the
insignia of his office - the great mantle, the jewelled diadem, the
circular gold and jewelled brooch with pendants. The tendency con-
tinues so that Arcadius and Honorius cannot be distinguished by their
images alone; they are simply brother-Emperors (111. 202c, d). Just as
Constantine had reacted against the uniform portraiture of the
Tetrarchy, so two fourth-century rebels may be distinguished from
their coin portraits. The portrait of Magnentius (a Gallic usurper in
the years 350-3) is remarkable at that date for the bare head and the
general avoidance of the diadem (111. 203a). The distinguishing fea-
ture of Julian, last of the male line of the family of Constantine, who
ruled as Augustus from 36 to 363, is his Athenian philosopher's beard,
1

a pagan symbol not seen since the conversion of Constantine and the
death of Licinius in 324 (111. 203b). These exceptions deserve to be
noted, but they made no impression whatever on late Imperial portrai-
ture in general.
In the fifth and sixth century even portraits gradually lose any
element of individuality so that around 500 the uniform portrait bust
is no more than an imperial symbol, in profile on bronze coins, but full-

face on gold. Although the shape, size, and design of the coinage
changes radically in 498 under Anastasius, it was left to Justinian
around 530 to standardize the typical Byzantine full-face portrait on
the very large copper coins (folles) struck in the middle of his reign (111.
203c). Wherever commentators may choose to draw a line between
Late Roman and Byzantine art, the numismatic evidence makes a
division abundantly clear about the year 500.
Imperial portraits in stone, marble, and bronze can be readily
202a-d. Coin portraits.
identified as such in the later Empire from the insignia of office so
Gold (all at twice actual
important to the depiction. The most obvious characteristic is the Constans.
size), (a)
diadem, the form of which changes between 330 and 480; but c.AD 346. (b) Constantius
recognition of individual portraits is impossible. A good example is the II. c.AD 356. (c) Arcadius.

marble head in Istanbul which is often identified as a portrait of c.AD 398, (d) Honorius,
c.AD 400.
Arcadius on the grounds that it is a well sculpted head, not over-
stylized, with a diadem type of c. 350 to 450. 3 The prince is young, and
the sculpture was found in an eastern province of the Empire. The
generally life-like portrayal favours a date earlier in this period rather
than later, and the first young emperor to reign from Constantinople
 LATE ANTIQUITY 237

was Arcadius. But there is nothing in this reasoning which prevents

another commentator suggesting an eastern portrait of the young
Gratian, or a humanizing portrait of Valentinian III or Theodosius
II. A general description reading 'head of young emperor c.350 to 450,

found in Asia Minor' seems adequate. Another example of portraiture

which is even less well dated is the large bronze statue now in Barletta. 4
Here, attributions have ranged from Valens (364-78) to Marcian
(450-7), and it is only a constant repetition of the latter name, rather
than logical argument, which has persuaded scholars to date the statue
to the middle of the fifth century.
Two heads without diadems demand inclusion among great works
of art. The first is in stone, well over life-size (111. 204), and is usually
said to be Constantine the Great; the second is in bronze, smaller, but
still over life-size, and this is usually described as Constantius II.
Whatever the exact date of these heads, they are much more in-
dividual than the typical tetrarchic portrait, and less stylized than
portraits of the fifth century. They belong to a transition in portraiture
and from a fusion of two ideals. No one who
their excellence springs
sees these heads before him can warm to the personalities depicted as
he can to a Hadrian or a Postumus; indeed their deliberate remoteness
from the spectator can send a shiver down the spine of even the most
insensitive onlooker. A human being may have posed for these 'por-
traits', but only a very general likeness has been produced and the
203a-c. Coin portraits.
Bronze (all actual size). remarkably able sculptor has imbued it with an aura of divinity.
(a) Magnentius, bare Modern writers have tended to dwell on the mesmeric power of the
headed. r.AD 351. eyes, but this is to misunderstand these images. Each head belonged to
(b) Julian, bearded.
a more than life-size statue so that to overawe or inspire the observer
f.AD 363. (c) Justinian,
the eyes should look down; they do not, they are inclined very slightly
full face. f.AD 550.
upwards so that they gaze out just above the spectator's head, taking
-a^r/^' him into slight account. These heads, sculpted in the second quarter of
the fourth century, demonstrate a moment of equilibrium between the
portrayal of the human and the presentation of the encompassing
idea. Late portraits have left the human behind and seem to eschew
any direct emotional communication as a result. The portraits of the
fifth century and beyond were intimately bound up with a whole social
hierarchy and system; without this they can only convey an impression
of detachment. Whereas a portrait of Postumus or even of the stern
and autocratic Constantine appears to communicate directly with the
viewer, those of Honorius or Arcadius seem to be masks encased in
imperial trappings. To a contemporary these trappings would com-
municate an implacable, often hard and demanding power; for us
they have lost their magic and signify no more than a particularly
lavish form of court dress.
One of the most important categories of carving apart from the
imperial reliefs and portraits is that of the sarcophagi which were
204 The Emperor produced from the second until the seventh century without interrup-
Constantine. Fragment
tion. The problem that they immediately pose is one of date, for very
of a colossal statue.
few are securely dated by inscriptions or incontrovertible associations.
Marble. Height 260 cm.
c.AD 315. Rome, I shall select only two late Roman examples for comment. The great

Palazzo dei porphyry sarcophagus in the Vatican Museum (111. 205) is usually
Conservatori.
 LATE ANTIQUITY

205. Porphyry
sarcophagus, perhaps of
I[elena, the mother of
Constantine. Height 2^2 cm.
c.AD 330. Rome,
Vatic .111 Museum.

associated with the Augusta Helena, mother of Constantine the Great.

The use of imperial porphyr) suggests an imperial tenant for the
sarcophagus, bul the scenes of battle portraying victorious horsemen
and barbarians indefeal would be surprising for even so redoubtable a
woman as Helena. In the absence of an) direct evidence it is perhaps
best to regard ii product of the imperial prophyr) quarries in
as a
Egypl finished lor a lateImperial burial. All die details except one
militate againsl an affinity with known Constantinian products and a
brief mention of these points ma) be the best \\a\ of bringing out some
of the problems in understanding the art of the period. The first

comparison must be with the one clear and unequivocally

Constantinian monument in Rome the Arch. Unfortunately the two
monuments are ai opposite extremes ol die artistic scale, for die Arch
contains Constantinian reliefs which are severe and Italic in their
squat regimentalization, while the sarcophagus is almost Hellenistic in
its lively presentation of human and animal forms. There is perhaps

only one characteristic which marks out the sarcophagus .is later than
the column of Marcus Aurelius and that is die lotal loss, not only ol"
any background for die scenes, but of "round levels when several
LATE ANTIQUITY 239

scenes occur one above the other in the same panel. This apart, it

would be tempting to compare the scenes of the sarcophagus with

those on the column of Marcus Aurelius or the decursio scene from the
base of the column of Antoninus Pius, with the implication that they
should not be too far different in date.
It is perhaps worth emphasizing that this discussion has the object of

exploring the very varied artistic themes and influences which were
effective in the third and fourth centuries rather than of re-dating
major works of art. Monuments only need 're-dating' if they are
obstructing a predetermined pattern, in which Roman art moves at
a uniform and contemporaneous rate through a series of changes,
whatever the subject, the medium, or the commission, from the
humanism of late Antonine times to the hieratic stylization which is
held to be typical of the art of Byzantium. Since it is fairly easy to
disprove such regular progress there is no need for rigid rules, and
exceptions can therefore be accepted.
To return to the porphyry sarcophagus, it may be thought a point of
difficulty that there are no Christian motifs to decorate the supposed
tomb of a Christian empress. This raises the whole question of the
derivation and development of early Christian art. There is probably
more sense in objecting to the scenes on the sarcophagus as unsuitable
for a woman than as unsuitable for a Christian. Attitudes to Christian
art often overemphasize the division between pagan and Christian,
and hence between two art styles. The historical sources give no
support to a theory of irreconcilable conflict between opposing ideo-
logies. Indeed, when we have detailed evidence of relationships within
and between families there is usually a strong suggestion of toleration.
In the catacombs of the Via Latina a small group of families seems to
have clubbed together to select an exclusive burial system. 5 This
comprises two main passages which open out from time to time into
cubicula painted in an intelligible and highly competent manner. The
visitors obviously found no doctrinal difficulty in passing through a
pagan burial chamber, decorated with medusa heads or figures of
Ceres and Persephone, to hold the obsequies of a Christian in a room
frescoed with the raising of Lazarus or the crossing of the Red Sea.
Indeed it was even acceptable to use pagan imagery to decorate a
Christian tomb. The peacock has a fully documented iconography as
the bird of Juno; by extension, as the emperor is related to Jupiter, so
the empress is related to Juno, and therefore in scenes of apotheosis it
was the peacock that was depicted as carrying the dead empress aloft.
The peacock was therefore already associated with death and immor-
tality; it appears in some of the earliest Christian art, presumably with
the same implications. 6 Putti and erotes have a long history in orna-
mental scenes; a good example in the house of the Vettii at Pompeii
shows them in a number of pursuits. Even with their relationship to
Venus and the other gods of the classical pantheon, Bishop Theodore
of Aquileia found nothing surprising in his mosaicists, early in the
fourth century, making them the shipmates of Jonah, symbols of the
Apostles, fishers of men, and the drawers-in of the miraculous draught
of fishes (111. 96). In exactly the same way the marine mosaic, typically
240 LATE ANTIQUITY

laid in a bath-house, was which to set the

a highly suitable context in
story of Jonah and the fishing putti.
This summary has examined most of the points usually brought to
bear on dating the sarcophagus thought to be that of Helena. Taken
together, they provide no conclusive arguments either for accepting
the attribution and the date 329, or for rejecting the one, the other, or
both. During the reign of Constantine artistic styles were in a ferment,
so there need be nothing to prevent the acceptance of the sarcophagus
as a realistic work of c. 330 and the reliefs of the Arch of Constantine as
highly stylized official works of c. 3 15; since uniformity is not to be
expected at this period, we may take them as examples of stylistic

variety. One point which would probably not be contested, either

historically or stylistically, is that they were both created before the

middle of the fourth century, for after that date art had largely
abandoned the eclecticism of the reign of Constantine.
It is cheering to turn to Junius Bassus, a known historical figure, who

died in 359. His sarcophagus, which has always been in the Vatican,
bears his name with the inscription VIII KAL SEPT [25 August]
EVSEBIO ET YPATIO COSS (when Eusebius and Hypatius were
consuls - that is, the year 359). 7 The sculpture ignores practically all
the rules obeyed by official reliefs. Some figures are portrayed front-
but certainly not all, and they are not shown in a thoroughly LaFe
ally,
Antique manner; the scenes are three-dimensional and have depth and
background, an interesting contrast to the porphyry sarcophagus;
drapery hangs on recognizable human forms rather than being
arranged in predetermined folds; heads are varied, portraying
recognizably different people.
While sarcophagi are normally large enough and heavy enough to
which they were delivered by the workshops which
stay in the places to
by contrast, so portable as to lead commentators
sold them, ivories are,
8
to despair. Provenance can rarely, if ever, be assumed; date is in only
a few cases beyond argument. While there is a category of ivory
carving whose Roman (fourth- to sixth-century) origin is rarely dis-
puted, and another well known Carolingian group, there is a whole
corpus of material whose date may be given bv various writers as
between 300 and 1000 with little hope of reconciliation or certainty.
Consular diptychs - by which aristocrats might announce their con-
sulships to friends for that is the common explanation) - are in-
valuable for forming a chronological sequence at least when the consul
in question is specified. Unfortunately one of the best portraits, usually
identified as Stilicho, self-styled regent for Honorius in Italy and the
West, is unsigned. (His wife Serena and son Euchenus appear on the
companion leaf.) 9 A diptych bearing on one leaf the name of the
Nicomachi and on the other the Symmachi, both of them depicting a
goddess at an altar, may celebrate a marriage alliance between these
two families who had great influence in Rome between 350 and 450. I0
It is generally assigned a date of near to 395, and cited as an example of

a remarkable revival of Greek forms and fashion. Influence from the

diptych is seen in other ivories, but rarely in other forms of carving.
Yet this single example is sometimes cited as evidence of a classical
 V.

#**t mm

'
/^B
m%&
* •
1

.1

W<': %

Plate 17. Large figures of Aphrodite-Isis from Egypt. Terracotta. Height

64 cm.
1st century BC-ist century AD. London, British Museum.
Plate 1 8. Blue sapphire cameo showing Ve g the eagle of imp
power. 5.5 3 cm. End of isi centurj i« I n/w illiam Muse
Plate 19. Three blown colourless painied cups with wild-beast scenes, showing leopards,
and a bear. From Nordrup and Himling^je, Denmark. Height of cup below right 8.4
3rd century AD. Copenhagen, Danish National Museum.
 Plate 20. Octagonal lanx, with relief frieze around flange showing the birth and
education of Achilles. Central emblema depicts Diomedes and Odysseus' discovery
of the young Achilles dressed as a girl) at the court of King Lykomedes. From
Kaiseraugst, Switzerland. Silver. Diameter 53 cm. 4th century AD. Augst,
Romermuseum.

Plate ai. Gold buckle ornamented with a satyr in relief on the plate and a pair of
horse-heads on the loop. From Thetford, Norfolk. Length 5 cm. 4th century AD.
London, British Museum.
1

U O
E ^
5 Q

1 £
 Plate 23. Red-gloss bowl with marbled glass, made by Castus of La Graufesenque. From
Bordighera. Diameter 10.9 cm. Neronian. London. British Museum.

Plate 24. Lead-glazed cup from Asia Minor. Diameter 8.3 cm. 1st century BC or 1st century AD.
London. British Museum.
Plate 25. Cast polychrome strip mosaic bowl. From Hellange, Luxembourg. Diameter 14.5
1 st century AD. Luxembourg, Museum of History and Art.

Plate 26. Arretine crater made by M. Perennius Tigranus. Diameter

17 cm. Late 1st century BC. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.
 Plate 27. Blown
colourless two-handled
flask with fine
polychrome trailed
decoration. From
Cologne. Height 27.5
cm. 3rd century AD.
Cologne, Romisch-
Germanisches Museum.

{Right) Plate 28. Blown

opaque green
translucent wine-red in
transmitted light) cup
with openwork figured
decoration showing
Lycurgus caught in a
vine.Height 16.5 cm.
Early 4th centur) \n.
London, British
Museum.
 -par*

M
 "^ -^ v v 5i «

•- o-g
_y 53 -g s 's * m •£<
.53 ^ u "S 1- r- -

2 Q
i.S'Sl lt < — 53 *h >*h O G.t« r-J3
 fcfc*ftfite-$SiW&,» :$&* u*

Plate 33. The artist al work. Full-page illustration from the De Materia Medica, written by
Dioscorides. Copied and illuminated for the Prim ess Julian. Anicia
1 in Constantinople.
c.AD 510. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek.

Right Plate 34. Full-page illustration of the Crucifixion and Resurrection from the Gospels
written and illuminated by the scribe Rabbula in Mesopotamia. Dated AD 586. Florence,
Biblioteca Laurenziana.
 "

3 1

•0

^'.i ,
*":
J

U*V
.5 £
y °
2 a:

kGL Em

a j=

II
w O

<
Uh

^\

'
 LATE ANTIQUITY 24 I

206. The Madrid revival at the end of the fourth century.

Missorium. A large silver
We have seen that some forms of art resist any attempt to mark out a
dish showing the court of
Theodosius I. Found
straight course of development. Late Roman silver-ware is also re-
near Merida, Spain. sistant to close dating." The great Oceanus dish from the treasure
Diameter 74 cm. from Mildenhall in Suffolk is usually dated to the middle of the fourth
f.AD 388. Madrid, century (111. The dish, nearly 30 inches across, now in Madrid,
116).
Academia de la Historia.
sent out by the Emperor Theodosius I on his tenth anniversary (387-8)

207. David and the could not be much more securely dated in the later part of the fourth
Lion. Silver plate from century (111. 206). The plate showing David and the Lion, from the Cyprus
theCyprus treasure. treasure and now in New York (111. 207), belongs to a group
Diameter 14 cm. firmly assigned by silver control marks to the reign of the Emperor
c.AD 620. New York,
Heraclius (610-43). Of these three pieces one is an official gift and
Metropolitan Museum of
Art.
obeys the rules of official portraiture and composition, showing an
imperial scene almost without a third dimension of depth, with front-
ally posed figures and little anatomical detail discernible through
drapery. A geometrical and inflexible symmetry is observed, and
features on the faces are minimal. The Mildenhall and Cyprus plates
belong to a different world, an art of naturalistic movement in which
draperies swirl in the air or cling to the bodies of well-drawn figures
with recognizable musculature. Balance rather than rigid symmetry is
sought, and the humans depicted are endowed with individuality.
Here, as elsewhere, it is no honest description of Late
fair to say that
Roman silver work can show a simple unidirectional change from
naturalism to stylization.
The Missorium of Theodosius Madrid stands out as official art
in
outside the general run of silver engraving, and its distinguishing
characteristics are the very ones which we know belong to the style of
the Late Roman Court. Any event in which the emperor took part was
carefully choreographed theatre. The scene on the missorium is sym-
metrical to the point of rigidity, but so, almost certainly, was the scene
242 LATE ANTIQUITY

when it was acted out in the flesh. Theodosius looks straight ahead, we
may imagine at the assembled crowds, rather than bending in a
human manner to present a commission (codicil) to the kneeling
officialwith a few kind words. We are reminded that what impressed
the historian Ammianus Marcellinus when he saw Constantius II
enter Rome in 356 was the fact that throughout the whole procession
he stared straight ahead, just like a statue, looking neither to right nor
left: was he ever seen to spit, or to wipe or rub his face or nose, or
'nor
move hishands about.' (Amm. Marc, XVI. 10). No greater com-
mendation could be given; the Emperor had behaved impeccably -
like his statue. It is a little hard to pass adverse comment on the official
court silversmith whose work is so true not only to the actual event, but
even to the spirit of it.
Our knowledge of Late Roman architecture is astonishingly un-
balanced; many late Roman churches survive, and our knowledge of
their changing fashions in building and decoration is excellent. But
apart from the palaces of the fourth century (Trier, Split.
Thessalonika), our ignorance of secular building is so great as to be a
blind spot.'*' The churches are mainly either basilican (long rect-
angles) or centrally planned. The former developed out of the secular
basilica, while the most obvious origin for the central plans - whether
circles, squares, polygons, or crosses - was the pagan mausoleum:
Constantine's orders to his architects in Rome to build him churches
over the shrines of St Peter, St Paul, and St Lawrence must have
puzzled them: what, apart from an upper room of the house of a
member of the congregation, suitable for the breaking of bread, was a
church? 'A place', the answer may have been given, 'in which large
numbers of worshippers and pilgrims may gather." Armed with this
information, the State architects could have found no better model
than the basilica built by Maxentius in Rome, which they had only
just remodelled for Constantine so as to emphasize the western apse on

the long axis rather than the usual centre of attention, a cult statue in
the northern apse opposite the main south door. But attached to the
basilica, built for the crowds, the relies of the three saints demanded a
cult centre tor rites al the tomb. Hence in the case of St Peter's on the
Vatican hill, and St Paul's outside the walls, an extra building was
placed across the west end ol the basilica instead of the normal apse.
This idea of a dual building was not much used again until it was
revived and extended in the Carolingian period: for the Late Rom. in
period the simple basilica was the norm.
Constantine's building, perhaps under the direction of his mother
Helena, extended to the Holy Land, and at the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem the shrine, or martyrium, over the hoh spot followed the
central plan; here again a basilica was built nearln for the crowds. The
central plans in Ravenna included and the mausoleum
the baptisteries
built San Vitale as the last major
by Galla Placidia, with the church ol
representative. In Constantinople there was Constantine's church of
the Holy Apostles and then in the sixth century SS Sergius and
Bacchus leading to Justinian's great church ol' the Holy Wisdom
(Hagia Sophia). The two architects of the last, Anthemios and
 LATE ANTIQUl IV 243

208. The interior of

Justinian's church of the
Holy Wisdom (Hagia
Sophia), Constantinople,
looking east. Dedicated
AD 537.

Isidorus were mathematicians, and the wonder of their building is not

the stone exterior, nor its which now consists of
interior decoration,
dulled marble veneer and yellow whitewash, but the fact that it stands,
and has stood, against considerable odds, millennium and
for nearly a
a half. The casual tourist will absorb little of the wonder, for he will see
an exterior of massed volumes, and an interior which seems to be an
elongated rectangle with an apse at the east end. The visitor who sits
and thinks under the great dome has to ask himself where the thrust of
that second dome (for the earlier, flatter dome had a very short life) is
earthed. He will note the great semi-domes to east and west, which
elongate the central square to an apparent rectangle, and the massive
external buttresses to north and south. The thrust of the main semi-
domes is led to earth by smaller semi-domes, and the buttresses viewed
from inside seem no more than very solid piers (111. 208). The magnifi-
cence demanded by the presence of the court is there - though sadly
muted in its modern role as a whitewashed museum - and this will
impress the accidental visitor, but the greatness of the building is a
matter of thought in which the structure only becomes obvious and
necessary as one follows, however unsurely, the same stages of problem
and solution as the original architects.
But church is a final solution; it formed the prototype for many
this
Ottoman mosques, but it developed no further. Another extreme
244 LATE ANTIQUITY

central plan is that of the initial form of Santo Stefano Rotondo in

Rome, which Krautheimer has recently suggested belongs to the
family of pavilions and garden retreats of the late mansions and
palaces of Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries.' 3
Thi»only serves to
underline our ignorance of secular architecture.
Painting and mosaic seem to owe less to their antecedents than the
forms of art so far considered. Late Roman art is epitomized, for
many, by the mosaics of Ravenna. 4 Commentators who wish to avoid
'

overvaluation of the mosaics in Ravenna point to accidents of survival.

They say that Ravenna was one of many such cities in Italy, unique
only in that its churches escaped later changes of artistic fashion
through the inaccessibility of the city, on the sandy delta of the river
Po; this is hardly true. First of all Ravenna was the Imperial capital in
the West from soon after 400, when Honorius correctly identified the
marshes of the area as a safe refuge, until the papacy had subsumed all
that remained of Byzantine power into the Papal States. The busy,
forward-looking provincial capital of today is no more than the thriv-
ing heir of the capital city of the medieval Marche.
Because the mausolea, baptisteries, chapels and churches of
Ravenna comprise a connected series from about 430 to 680, the
mosaics which decorate them form a skeleton framework of Late
Roman wall and vault mosaic into which individual works outside
Ravenna may be fitted. The essence of the appeal of these mosaics is
colour and attack, the absolute antithesis of the cerebral satisfaction
afforded by the mathematical solutions to the problems posed by the
dome of Hagia Sophia. Early Roman mosaics belonged to the floor.
Already in Hadrian's villa they were migrating onto the walls and
perhaps even to some vaults in light airy patterns set in very small
tesserae. In Ravenna they belong to walls and vaults alone.
The exterior of the mausoleum built by Galla Placidia in Ravenna is
unassuming brick; the floor laid with grey and white marble flagstones;
the marble sarcophagi are huge, simple Roman forms; only the
mosaics of the vaults launch out into a new world. Once the eyes of the
visitor have accepted the twilight, the brilliant colours sparkle at him
from the inky blue background (Plate 15). The tesserae are glass, broken
to catch and reflect every stray beam of light, and set on an uneven
pitch to increase the variety of reflection. In this mausoleum, whether
or not the sarcophagi are those of Galla Placidia's step-brother
Honorius and her husband Constantius III, the visitor may sit in the
silence and dimness and share with complete directness the feelings of
that remarkable woman, daughter, sister, wife, and mother to dif-
ferent emperors who had nevertheless been married off to a Goth,
Athaulf, brother of Alaric, sacker of Rome. There is no other building
completed before the twelfth century where so perfect and complete a
testimony remains.
The mosaic of the triumphal arch of Santa Maria Maggiore in
Rome shares the blue background with the Galla Placidia mausoleum,
but it is remote, many feet from the ground. The small panels below
the windows of the same church are hard to appreciate amidst the
sharp light and gilded sparkle of baroque decoration around diem.' 5
 LATE ANTIQUITY 245

209. Theodora and her The Orthodox and Arian baptisteries at Ravenna show a change, by
court. Mosaic in the apse about 475 to 500, to a golden ground on which to portray a procession
of the church of San
of Apostles, and this change was to be permanent. In the church of
Vitale, Ravenna.
C.AD 550.
Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, built under the Arian and Gothic king
Theoderic, much of the decoration was replaced after the arrival of the
orthodox Justinian. What remains from the time of Theoderic is of
bold design and good colour, but the Justinianic addition of pro-
cessions of saints is much weaker and rather repetitive. A complete
change may be seen in San Vitale, a building started late in the reign of
Theoderic (c.520) and completed under full Byzantine approval, as is
shown b\ the lull complement of now fashionable Proconnesian
marble capitals direct from the Sea of Marmora, and the court
portraits of the Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora (111. 209).
Judged as examples of official portraiture, these apse mosaics are
superb, for they combine the formal design and luxurious use of colour
proper to the period with the presentation of a set of portraits that are
surprisingly individual. But there is a contrast between the Emperor
and Empress and their immediate associates on the one hand and the
general entourage of courtiers and soldiers, who are depicted as stock
characters, on the other. All the figures are shown frontally, but there
isan element of depth in the composition, so that there is an illusion of
at least two rows of courtiers. These mosaics are perhaps the latest in
246 LATE ANTIQUITY

the building and show direct Constantinopolitan influence. The sym-

bols of the evangelists on the great arch are less rigidly organized, and
include one of the most friendly lions to survive from antiquity. The
scenes on either side of the altar - Abraham and Isaac, Cain and Abel,
the three angels, and the offering of Melchisedek - seem to grow from
a firmly Italian, Roman, root with little influence of stylization from
the East. But the colour is disappointing compared with the Galla
Placidia mausoleum; the greens are weaker, the reds less bright, and
the blues less deep. The impoverishment of colour can be seen, taken
several steps further, when the court scene and the sacrifice scenes are
copied during a reconstruction at the church of Sant'Apollinare in
Classe which must date to r.68o (Plate 31). The weaker colours of San
Vitale are garishly strengthened at Sant'Apollinare in Classe to give
acid greens and oranges, and plummy purples. Portraiture and the
composition of the court panel are far below the standard achieved by
Justinian's workmen.
The of the catacombs is vital to our understanding of the origins
art
and development of Christian iconography, but it shows few master-
pieces of painting. It is a fully acceptable development of Roman
interior decoration, perhaps taking up Trimalchio's point (Satyricon,
7 1 that it is wasteful to decorate your house while you are alive, while
economizing on your surroundings for eternity. Although some of the
best schemes of decoration come from Rome - such as those in the
newly discovered catacomb on the Via Latina - the Christian sep-
ulchral art of the provinces - for example the underground tombs at

Pecs (Hungary) - is of equally high standard both in design and in

I(>
execution.
Finally, we need to take account of the art of manuscript illum-
ination. It is generally assumed that book illumination has a long
liisioix before the year 400. but there is no direct evidence to support

such an assumption. All illuminated manuscripts that survive tod;i\

date from after the year 350: there ma) have been earlier examples,
but none survives. 17 Once again colour is the vital factor. Just as the
mosaic vault of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia ends a long tradition
of sparse s< rues and vignettes on a white ground, and plunges into .1

riot of colour on ever) surface, so the occasional line-drawing in a

manuscript broadens out to become a framed miniature, every inch in

colour. The two earliest manuscripts are both of Vergil; the Vatican
Vergil an assured series of illustrations in carefully measured Late
Antique fashion; the Roman Vergil a much brasher use of bright
primary colours and simple direct drawing (111. 1). Earlier criticism
made the difference one of date, more recent suggestions seem to be
reaching consensus on a date between (.400 and C.500, giving the
,1

assured work to Rome and the 'younger work to the north-west

1

8
provinces.'
These two works are closel) followed b\ the Ambrosian Iliad and
the Quedlinburg Itala fragment, the latter a single page surviving
from an illuminated Book of Kings. The fifth century therefore has a
spread of examples. Early in the sixth century a manuscript of
Dioscorides' De Materia Medica, written and illuminated, presumably,
LATE ANTIQUITY 247

in Constantinople, shows us the illuminator at work (Plate 33). With a

mandrake root before him to copy, a set of pigment jars, and vellum
stretched on his drawing-board with thumb tacks, the artist himself is
depicted. The late fifth and early sixth centuries have left us a series of
luxury manuscripts written and illuminated on purple vellum. By this
stage the artist, who had previously had to confine his work to the
occasional frame on the roll between long stretches of text, has taken
over whole pages to depict single scenes, or a series of episodes one
above the other as in the earlier sculptured historical reliefs. The trial
ofJesus from the Rossano Gospels shows the full scene carefully spread
out in a circular form as if in bird's-eye view; illustrations to accom-
pany the story ofJoseph in the Vienna Genesis proceed in registers, at
tinaes three to the page. Complete survival and the immediate impact
of boldly used colour on vivacious drawing make a manuscript such as
the Vienna Genesis communicate directly with an onlooker in a way
that earlier Roman art can rarely match. We are here not at the end of
the classical tradition, but at the beginning of a new art.
Inevitably, given the conservative nature of the Byzantine capital,
these final changes happened in the provinces, or even beyond the
frontiers of the Greek Empire. In the Middle East in the year 568 the
scribe Rabbula depicted the feasts of Easter, Pentecost and the
Ascension in brilliantly vivid colours, both soft and striking, with a
deftness of touch and delicate suggestion that almost lifts the im-
pression of the page (Plate 34). But still the use of colour was tied to
depiction and representation, while the vaults of the mausoleum of
Galla Placidia had moved by 430 to almost pure pattern (Plate 15).
Merovingian manuscripts edged away by piecemeal decoration of
letters, but it was left to the scriptoria of Northumbria to start from
classical models, imitate them passably as in the Codex Amiatinus and
then speed on, perhaps in the lifetime of one great artist, around the
year 700, to fuse colour and pattern into the pure decoration of the
Carpet Page. '9
Throughout our survey of Late Roman art, and its change into the
art of the early Middle Ages, the centre ofgravit) or excellence of each
form has moved progressively later. Thus mosaics came to their peak
after sarcophagi and court portraiture. Late Roman painting divides
into two branches which seem to flourish at different times, for the
wall painting of the catacombs is a product especially of the fourth
century and is a direct development from classical wall painting of the
earlier centuries, while the illumination of luxurious manuscripts only
gathers strength by about 400 and reaches a peak in the sixth century.
What had happened? Around AD 150 the civilized world, that is the
provinces of the Roman Empire, was united in an art which centred on
the depiction of man as he was, or perhaps mildly idealized. There
were fashions and there were local variations, but this general state-
ment holds. It is perhaps no accident that the best-known emperor of
the period was a Stoic philosopher, a humanist with belief in the
effectiveness of 'The Good Man'. Inscriptions on the exteriors of
buildings from Spain in the West to Greece and Asia Minor in the East
show that they were erected to glorify the benevolent patron; not all
 .

248 LATE ANTIQUITY

were functional: seldom have there been such non-utilitarian monu-

ments as the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. But then
buildings began to turn inside out - attention in the great imperial
baths was focused on internal function, and the exterior form was no
longer planned to delight the spectator. A building aimed to satisfy the
practical needs of the user, rather than act as an ornament to please the
eye of the passer-by. The human element became submerged during
the third century; living man, as man alone, seemed to lose his power
and the strength seems to belong to the office rather than to the holder
of it. Simultaneously, the religion of the emperor - to make no wider
assertions — changes from belief in man and his own destiny to an
authoritarian Christianity in which an emperor can be almost as
unworthy a vessel of God as the meanest of his subjects. Theodosius the
Great learned this lesson the hard way from his court bishop Ambrose
of Milan.
Sinful humanity could achieve nothing by its own efforts. Certain
offices w ere sanctified - sacra - and as such were powerful, but to point
out the humanity of the holder of an office was to point out his
weakness; to depict him as Office Personified was to emphasize
strength. A few individuals - Constantino, Justinian - were brave, or
conceited, enough to emphasize their individuality, others simpl)
went through the motions inside their shell of office. This is a reas-
onable commentary on official art, the demise of the depiction of the
individual, and the move from explicit humanism and humanity to
symbolic Christianity
But how to explain the really arresting developments of Late
Roman art - colour and pattern in mosaics and manuscripts? Whal
accounts foi the hange in less than a hundred years from the tasteful
<

while background of one light air) imperial burial place the vault
mosaic of the church oi Santa Costanza in Rome to the dense chorus
.

of colour in the tin) dark space over the coffins in the mausoleum of
Galla Placidia? One clue has alread) been mentioned, the virtual
disappearance of monumental art and the construction of buildings
who owned and used them rather than as public amenities 01
for those
monuments. What is left to us from the later Empire, apart from the
many churches, are intimate works of art produced for the delight of a
patron rather than public productions, art produced for an important
person, bul then restricted to that person or a ver) small gathering.
Certainly those works have an impact on the individual one person in
a mausoleum, one person looking at a manuscript wa\ quite
in .1

differenl from the Parthenon, the Pantheon or the mosaics of Santa

Maria Maggiore. For the moment it can remain only a hint worthy of
further thought: no fifth-century thinker would see an) thing wrong in
ending on a note of mystery.
Abbreviations
AE L'Annee Epigraphique
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
Ant. J. Antiquaries Journal
AntAf Antiquites Africaines
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rdmischen Welt (ed. H. Temporini and W.
Haase, Berlin and New York, 1973- )

Arch. Ael. Archaeologia Aeliana

Arch. J. Archaeological Journal
Atti 111 R. Farioli Campanati (ed.), Atti del III Colloquio Intemazionale sul
Mosaico Antico (Ravenna, forthcoming).
BABesch Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kermis van de Antieke
Beschaving te's-Gravenhage
BAR British Archaeological Reports. British Series
BAR Int. Ser. British Archaeological Reports. International Series

BJ Bonner Jahrbikher
Blake I M. E. Blake, 'The pavements of the Roman buildings of the Re-
public and early Empire', MAAR, VIII, 1930, 7-159.
Blake II M. E. Blake, 'Roman mosaics of the second century in Italy',
MAAR. XIII, 1936, 67-124.
Blake III M. E. Blake, "Mosaics of the late Empire in Rome and vicinity',
MAAR, XVI, 1940, 31-120.
BMQ British Museum Quarterly
BSA Annual of the British School at A then \

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863- )

CLE Carmina Latina Epigraphica (ed. F. Buecheler and E. Lommatzsch:

part II of Anthologia Latina, ed. F. Buecheler - A. Riese -
E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, 1895- 1926, reprinted Amsterdam, 1972).
De Arch. Vitruvius, De Architectura
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Dunbabin K. M. D. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa (Oxford,
1978).
Ep. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae
IL(] Inscriptions latinae christianae veteres (ed. E. Diehl, Berlin, 1925—67)
Jahr RG£M Jahrhuch des Romisch-Germanischen ^entralmuseums Mainz. ,

JDAI Jahrhuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

JHS The Journal oj Hellene Studies
JRS The Journal oj Roman Studies
Levi D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton, London, The Hague,
1947);
MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome
MGR I G. Picard and H. Stern (eds.), La Mosaique Greco-Romaine I, Editions
du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris, 1965).
MGR II H. Stern and M. Leglay (eds.), La Mosaique Greco-Romaine II,
Editions A. and J. Picard and Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (Paris, 1975).
Mon. Piot Monuments et Memoires, Fondation Piol
NH Pliny the Elder. Naturalis Historia
PBSR Papers oj the Pi, I nh St hool at Rome
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri ed. B. P. Grenlell, A. S. H. Hunt and others.
Egyptian Exploration Fund, London 1898).
Proc. Brit. Acad. Proceedings oj /In British Academy
Rev. Arch. Revue Archeologiqut
RIB The Rum, in Inscriptions of Britain. I. Inscriptions on Stone (ed. R. G.
Collingwood and R. P. Wright, Oxford, 1965).
Rom. Mitt. Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts. Romische Ahteilung
S.H.A. Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Vessel Forms

acetabulum or poculum
amphoriscus

amphora

I^\
UIIampulla
ff

u
calathus or modiolus
yV calix

cantharus

^ k
l&
dolium (large) ol la (small) lagoena lanx

phiala scyphus
patera (shallow)
or trulla (deep)

simpulum situla
Glossary

Aedicula(e): a small shrine (aedes), frequently in the form of a pair of columns sur-
mounted by a pediment (q.v.) framing a niche for a statue.
Agora: the public square or market-place of a Greek city, corresponding to the Latin
forum.
Albastron (alabastra): a container for perfumes and unguents with a long, narrow,
cylindrical body.
Alassontes: glass cups of changeable colour.
Ambulatory: the covered walk surrounding a building or a precinct.
Amphitheatre: a building with seating arranged in tiers around an oval arena. Used
for displays of combat involving gladiators or wild animals.
Antefix: vertical ornament masking the joins of the tiles at the edge of a roof, above
the eaves.
Apse: a recess in the wall at the end of a building, normally semicircular.
Architrave: horizontal course carried by the columns or piers of a building; the
lowest part of the entablature (q.v.).
Arretine ware: a type of red-gloss pottery (q.v.) , produced r.30 BC - AD 30 at Arezzo,
and Lyons.
Pisa, Pozzuoli
Ashlar: masonry of rectangular blocks dressed to a vertical face (see opus quadratum)
Askos (askoi): literally, a wine-skin; a container for wine resembling a wine-skin
(sometimes also made in the form of an animal, e.g. a goose).
Atrium (atria): the reception hall of the traditional type of Roman house (domus).
Augustus: originally a title with religious overtones, bestowed on Octavian by the
Senate in 27 BC. Used later for an emperor with full executive powers. From the
mid-second century there could be more than one Augustus at a time.
Barbotine: a method of decorating pottery by trailing slip over its surface.
Bucranium (bucrania): ox-skull; often included in decorative reliefs in temples and
altars as .1 symbol. Also found in funerary contexts.
sacrificial
Caesar: borne b) some members of the Julian gens clan notabl) Gaius
the cognomen ,

Julius Caesar. Latei adopted b) emperors who were junioi to the Augusti and had
limited powers. The title was often given to the heir apparent, although right oi
succession was not always implied.
Caldarium (caldaria): the hottest room in a suite of baths.
Camillus (camilli): an acolyte; he had to be free-born, In-low the age of pubert) and

Carination: on potter) et< sharp .mule on the side oi shoulder.

.. .1

Caryatid: a column in the form of a female figure.

Cavea: the tiers ol seating in Rom. in theatre or amphitheatre (q.v.).
.1

Cella: the cult-room within a temple.

Chamfron: the head-piece worn as .1 frontal l>\ a horse; often in metal to serve as

Cista: a small box oi casket.

Colonia(e): a chartered town of Roman citizens, frequentl) settled In legionar)

Compluvium (compluvia): an open area in the roofofan atrium (q.v.) by which the
hall was lighted. Rain fell through it, into the water-tank (impluvium beneath.
Cornice: the projec ting, uppei most part of an entablature q.\ .
.

Coroplast: a make) of terracottas.

Cubiculum (cubicula): the bedroom of a Roman house. Also, a place where the
252 GLOSSARY

passages in a catacomb broaden out to form an underground chamber, used either

for a religious gathering or for burial.
Diatretarius (diatretarii): a glass-cutter specializing in the production of diatreta.
Diatretum (diatreta): cut glass, often used for elaborately cut vessels.
Diptych: two-leaved, hinged ivories bestowi d as gifts in Lair Antiquity to celebrate
marriage alliances and consulates.
Dominate: the late Empire, when the ruler is held to havi assumed a monarchic role
nui Lord
Emblema(ta): centrepiece of mosaic floor or metal vessel.
Entablature: the horizontal superstructure of a building above the columns and
beneath the pediment or equivalent decoration at the top of a wall consisting of .

cornice q.v. .frieze q.v. and architrave q.v. .

Ephebe: the Greek term for a youth under military age.

Eros (erotes): love personified, a cupid.
Exedra: a semicircular or rectangular recess in a wall or colonnade: originally, to
accommodate seating.
Fibula(e): a brooch, generally of 'safety-pin' form, used as a fastening for a garment.
Flan: numismatic a thin piece of metal, usually circular, although occasionally
:

square or globular, on which the design from a die may be impressed to form a coin.
A flan may either be cast from a mould or cut from a sheet of metal.
Fondo (fondi) d'oro: literally, a gold base; the base of a vessel incorporating a gold
foil decoration.
Frieze: the middle pari ol an entablature q.\. . often decorated with sculpture in

relief.

Frigidarium (frigidaria): the room in a suite of baths containing the cold bath.
Fulcrum (fulcra): the head-rest of a Roman couch.
Gadroon: elongated, straighl oi S-shaped tongue used in the field ornament of metal
and pottery vessels.
Glyptics: the art of gem-cutting; from the (neck gluptos, carved.
Hydria(e): a jug with a vertical handle and two handles arranged horizontally .it the
shoulder.
Hypogeum (hypogea): an underground chamber.
Imbrex (imbrices): .1 curved roofing tile, laid over the flanges of two adjoining
flat tiles tegulat ,

Insulate ): literally, an island. One of the rectangular plots defined by the street grid oi
,1town; a block of shops or apartments built on such a plot.
Interpunct: inscriptions a stop separating words within :
line of lettering. .1

Kalathiskos: literally, a small basket Greek used with reference to the char- ;

acteristii worn by certain female

hats entertainers {kalathiskos dancers).
Koine: a common, all-pervading style.
Lar(es):a Roman household god, often shown as a youth wearing a tunic and holding
a rhyton drinking-horn and patera.
Ligature: inscriptions : a combination oi tht elements oi twooi more letters into a
single win i'ii unit.
Limes: the frontiers ol the Rinnan Empire.
Loculus (loculi): a burial im he.
Marver: to roll a ijjass vessel mi a llai mu lac e dm ing manufacture.
Metopes: the arved ^al>s oi a Doric frieze.
c

Ministerium: a servi( e ofsilvei plate.

Missorium: a silvet plate lanx, see diagram presented by an emperor on a festive

Modillion: scrolled 01 rectangulai bracket I' ith th< projecting part of a cornice ol
the Roman ( Iu.ui ( ImIct.
Nymphaeum: a shrine <>l the nymphs; the term is used more wideK to denote am
building assi, ( iated with a fountain, panic ularl) one with elaborate arc hite< tural

and sculptural dec en ation.

Oculus: an 'eye' a circulai opening in the centre ol a dome.

literally, :

Oecus: a ricliKdecorated living-room.

Oinochoe (oinochoai): a jug with a vertical handle and a trefoil tint.
Oinophoros (oinophoroi): llagon. wine j.u = lagoena .
GLOSSARY 253

Opus: (literally, 'work'); in Roman architectural terminology, a type of wall or floor

construction, usually denned by its superficial facing or covering.
Opus caementicium: Roman concrete: rubble aggregate (caemenla) laid in lime
mortar.
Opus incertum: irregular wall-facing of small rubble.
Opus mixtum: wall-facing of reticulate masonry with levelling courses and quoins of
brick.
Opus quadratum: squared stone masonry (i.e. ashlar).
Opus reticulatum: wall-facing of small square blocks set diagonally to form a net-
like pattern.
Opus sectile: floor- or wall-facing of coloured marbles cut to form geometrical
patterns.
_
Opus signinum: lime mortar with aggregate of crushed brick used as floor covering.
Opus tessellatum: mosaic pavement made with tesserae (small cubes of stone and
other material).
Opus testaceum: wall-facing of brick.
Opus vermiculatum: mosaic pavement made of very small tesserae.
Orchestra: and surrounded b\ the
the level area of a theatre, in front of the stage
normally semicircular in Roman theatres.
cavea 'q.v.).
Ovolo: a convex moulding, of egg-like form, used in sculptural ornament and also on
pottery.
Palaestra: open courtyard for physical exercise, especially that attached to a bath-
building.
Pediment: corniced gable above the entablature (q.v.) at the end of a building;
usuall) triangular, but occasionally segmental when used decorativcly above an
aedicula (q.v.).
Peristyle: colonnaded courtyard within a building.
Petit appareil: concrete faced with coursed rubble masonry of small squarish blocks,

Petrotos (or Ptetrotos): stone (or winged) cups.

Phalera(e): metal disks worn by soldiers, frequently bestowed on them as decorations.
Podium (podia): high platform with mouldings at top and bottom and steps at one
end, carrying a Roman temple.
Poincon: (pottery): a clay or wood model of a decorative detail, used to impress a
design into a negative mould.
Portico: colonnade or porch, usuall) referring" to the covered colonnade or arcade
along the side of a building.
Principate: the early Empire, when the emperor was, notionally, just princeps 1 first

citizen).
Pyxis (pyxides): small lidded box.
Quincunx: an arrangement of five objects at the corners and centre of a square:
design elements arranged so that those in the second row occur between those in the
and third rows.
first

Red-gloss: a shiny red surface slip used on pottery.

Rouletting: ornamentation applied with a revolving toothed wheel.
Samian ware: common generic name for red-gloss (q.v.) pottery produced in Gaul,
Germany and the Mediterranean area between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD.
Alternatively known as terra sigillata (q.v.).
Scenae frons: decorated facade of the building behind the stage of a theatre.
Smalt o (smalti): glass tessera(e).
Squeeze: inscriptions an impression ofan inscribed mii face, usually made by laying
|
:

dampened paper over the stone and beating it into the lettering with a hard brush.
Stela(e): a standing block or slab; frequently a tombstone.
Tablinum (tablina): a reception room in a Roman house.
Tepidarium (tepidaria): the room of medium heat at the baths.
Terra sigillata: modern generic name for red-gloss (q.v.) pottery produced in Gaul,
Germany and the Mediterranean area between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD.
Alternatively known as samian ware (q.v.).
Tessella(e): mosaic cubes.
Tessera(e): mosaic rubes.
254 GLOSSARY

Thiasos: the companions of Bacchus.

Thyrsus: the staff filleted and tipped with a pine-cone carried b\ Bacchus or other
members of the thiasos (q.v. .

Toreutics: the art of the metalworker, especially the chasing and embossing of plate;
from the Greek toreud work in relief.
Tria nomina: the three-part name of a Roman citizen, consisting ofpraenomen, nomen
and cognomen, e.g. Gaius Julius Caesar.
Triclinium (triclinia): the dining-room of a house, set with three banqueting
couches. In late Roman houses, the chief reception-room.
Tufa: stone composed of compacted volcanic dust; particularly the stone of central
Italy.
Unguentarium (unguentaria): a container for perfumes and unguents.
Venatio (venationes): the hunting of wild beasts, either in the countryside or in the
arena. A for genre scenes
popular subject in art.
Vitriarius (vitriarii): glassmaker.

Acknowledgements
The publishers wish to thank all private owners, muse- A. F. Kersting, Frontispiece
ums, galleries libraries and other institutions for permis- Joan Liversidge, 90
sion to reproduce works in their collections. Particular Luxembourg Museum-qf History and Art, PI. 25
acknowledgement is made to the following (references Barbara Malter, PI. 30, 51, 61, 66, 67, 75, 199, 200
are to illustration numbers): Mansell Collection, 70, 71, 79, 101
© Agora Excavations, 1 6 1
, 1 68 Metropolitan Museum of New York, PI. 6; Rogers
Alinari, 5, 7, 14, 18, 20, 48, 52, 55, 60, 73, 74, 77, 78 Fund, 148; Gift ofj. Pierpont Morgan, 207
Ashmolean Museum, 137-44, '46-7, 202-3 Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, 192
Judith Bannister, 13 1 National Museet, Copenhagen, PI. 19
Biblioteea Laurenziana, PI. 34 Reproduced from A. Negev, The Mabatean Potter's Work-
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 1 12. 131 shop at Oboda (Rudolf Hablet Verlag, Gmbh, Bonn,
Tom Blagg, 3 1 , 32 1974), 155 (by permission of the author)
Reproduced from D. B. Harden et a/.. Masterpieces of Newcastle University, Museum of Antiquities, 126
Glass (British Museum, London, 1968, no. 99, p. 77), Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, PI. 33
183. Reproduced from A. Boethius and J. Ward Perkins,
Reproduced \>\ Courtes) oi the Irustees ol the British Etruscan ami Early Roman Architecture (1978) © Pen-
Museum, 2, 12, PI. 17, Pis. 214, PI. 26, PI. 28 guin Books. 37, 5<)

By courtesy of F. E. Brown and the American Academ) I'll. ihI,., Archive,

1 Pis. 1
3,6,9, 10. PI. 16, PI. 20, PI. 21,
in Rome, 4 2 ,. PI 26, PI. 28, PI. 35, 45, 54, 57, 76, 8., 83-6, 88,
Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des 94-6, 106, 107, if), 117, 120-3, I2 5, [
1
34> '35- '88,
Sites, 35j 43, 49 204, 206, 209
DAI, 8, 1 1, 13, 28, 33, 46, 50, 56, 58, 59, 62, 68, 80, 98, Ponuficia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra, 89
99, 205 Josephine Powell. 208
Fototeca Unione, Rome 15, i(>. 17, 22. 23, 29, 63, 69, Jennifer Price, 185
25>36 Princeton University Art Museum, PI. 8
John Freeman, 34 Susan Raven, 41
H. Gabelmann, 44 Rheinisihes I.andesmuscum. Trier. 103
Giraudon, PI. 12, PI. 13, 108 Rdmisch-Germanisches Museum. Cologne, PI. 7, PI. 27
Reproduced from A. E. and J. S. Gordon, Album oj Dated Pis. 14-15, PI. 29, Pis. 31-2
Scala, PI. 5,
Latin Inscription Rum, and tin Neighbourhood, Vols.
s : . 1 III Service de Documentation Photogr.iphiquc, PI. 10, PI.
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1958-65), 189, 196-8 12, 53, 100, tog
Sonia Halliday, PI. 11. 2m Slovenska Akademi; vied Archeologicky, Ustav, 110,
Martin Henig, 40 1 1 1

Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, University of Londo Warburg Institute, 149
87, 102 Vatican Library, 1

Professor W. F.Jashemski, PI. 4 Roger Wood. 21, c)7

Jennifer Johnson, artwork for Vessel Forms, p. 250 Worcestei Ai 1 Muse

Notes

Introduction Origins of Rome (London, i960). For a lucid discus-

Names of deities, mythological characters, etc. are gen- sion of these controversies seeM. Pallottino, 'The
origins of D. and F. R. Ridgway (eds.),
Rome', in
erally given in their Latin forms, but Greek equivalents
Italy before the Romans, (London and New York,
are employed where, in the opinion of the author, these
are more appropriate. In writing about a bilingual and 1979), 197-222. Most modern authorities accept
multi-cultural empire total consistency is impossible.
the Roman tradition as being closer to the truth.
4. For the various types of column in use in Etruscan
i. F. Haskell and N. Penny, Taste and the Antique, The Italy, including that of Vitruvius' Tuscan Order
Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-igoo (New Haven with moulded base, plain shaft, and capital of
and London, 1981 ). Doric type) see A. Boethius, AJA, 66, 1962, 249-54.
2. K. Clark, The Nude (London, i960), 43. 5. For detailed discussion and a reconstruction of the
3. G. M. A. Richter. Ancient Italy (Ann Arbor, 1955), temple: Gjerstad in. 3), m, 168 ff.

105-16. 6. O.J. Brendel, Etruscan Art (Harmondsworth, 1978),

4. M. Andronikos in M. B. Hatzopoulos and L. D. 238-44, Figs. 165-9..
Loukopoulos. Philip oj Macedon London, 1981), 7. Surveys of archaic architectural terracottas from
208-1 1, Pis. 1— 3. 1 1 1 Rome: A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from
5. R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Bri- Etrusco- Italic Temples (Lund, 1939-40), 324 ff.;
tain and the English Settlements 12nd edn., Oxford, Gjerstad n. 3 . IV. 452-92.
'937 249-5
s

-
- 8. Gjerstad (n. 3), III, Fig. 129.
6. A. Burford, Craftsmen m dml ami Roman Society 9. Andren (XIX, 409, Figs. 13-14.
n. 7 .

London, [972 184-218 (on the status of artists in

. 10. The function of this statue is discussed by L. A.
antiquit\ . Holland, AJA, 60, 1956, 243-7.
7. Onians, Art History, ;. mil". 1-24. 1 1. Sacking of Veii: Livy, V. xxii. 3-8; Volsinii: Pliny,
J.
8.
J. Charbonneaux, L'art au siecle d'Augusle (Paris, Ml. \XXI\. 34; Syracuse: Livy, xxv. xl. 1-3;
1948 Tarentum: Livy, xxvn. xvi. 7: Corinth: Strabo,
9. J. M. C. Toynbee. The Hadrianic School. A Cfiaptt 1 in VIII. vi. 23.
tin Hist -/ Greek Ait Cambridge, [9 j 1
12. For early Roman town-planning: J. B. Ward-
10. G. M. A. Richter. .\/i Memoirs, Recollections of an Perkins, Cities oj Ancient Greed and Italy London,
Archaeologist's Life Rome. 1972. privately printed). 1974 27 ff.
. For Cosa: F. E. Brown. Cosa I. History
and Topography,MAAR, xx. Rome. 1951; id., Cosa,
Making of a Roman Town (Ann Arbor, 1980).
I In
chapter one Early Roman Art
1
;
1. Etruscan engineering skills: J. B. Ward-Perkins
11

1. See G. M A. Richter, .1 Handbook oj Greek \rt inM.Renard ed. Hommages a A. Greniet Brussels, ,

(London, 1969, passim). E. Langlotz and M. 1962 1636 ff..

Hirmer, Tht Art oj Magna Graecia London, 1965 ;

1

I
For a recent disi ussion of the origin of the basilica: J.
A. G. Woodhead, Tin Greeks in tin West London, J. Coulton, I In Architectural Development of the Greek
1962), 121-32, 144-55. Stoa < >xford, 1976 . 180-3.
_>. Earl) commerce with Greek South Italy: E. La 1 -,. Cossutius: Vitruvius, VII. praef iy I'm 1 lie building
Rocca, La Parola del Passato, ;_•. 1977,381 97. Re- history of the temple: Wycherley, Greek, Roman and
cent archaeological work, important for the chron- B) antim Studies, ,. 1964, 161 79; Abramson,
ology of archaic art in Rome, is summarized by T. California Studies in t lassical [ntiquity, 7, 1974, t-25.
J. Cornell, Archaeological Reports for igyg-80, 1980, 16. For a discussion of the First Style al Pompeii, with
71 II.. esp. 83-5. special reference to the House ol the Faun: A.
According to the Roman tradition the Etruscans Laidlaw, in B. Andreae and II K\ 1 icltis eds. .

ruled Rome
from 616 to 510BC. But Gjerstad pre- \,m Forschungen in Pompeji 1 Recklinghausci 1 .
1 975 .

fers a lower chronology of c.530-450, and Bloch 39-45. For the Greek antecedents: Bruno, AJA, 73.
would have Etrusc an rule end c.475: see E. Gjerstad, 1969, 305- 1 ?-

EarlyRome,] VI Lund, 1953 73 and R. Bloch, The 17. M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinagi Cam-
NOTES 257

bridge, 1974), 273-5, no 242.1,

- PI. XXXVI. F. Rakob, Gnomon, XXXIII, 1961 243-50. Study of ,

18. Canopic urns: Brendel (n. 6), 106-9, '29-32; R. D. the brickstamps has distinguished two major phases
Gempeler, Die etruskischen Kanopen (Einsiedeln, of Hadrianic building: AD 118-25 (including the
1974)- Maritime Theatre) and 125-33 (including the
19. A. C. Brown, Ancient Italy before the Romans (Oxford, Piazza d'Oro): H. Bloch, / bolli lalerirj e la stona
1980), Plate 42. dell'edilizia romana (Rome, 1947), 102-17.
20. Andren (n. 7), 350-60, Fig. 34 and Plates 1 10—12. Bloch (n. 10), 102-17. There is a useful discussion in
21. Brendel (n. 6), 416. MacDonald (n. 9) to add to the principal mono-
22. D. E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture (London, graph K. de Fine Licht, The Rotunda in Rome. A Study
1961), 88, Fig. 13. of Hadrian's Pantheon (Copenhagen, 1966). Also see
23. H. H. Scullard, The Etruscan Cities and Rome W. L. MacDonald, The Pantheon. Design, Meaning,
(London, 1967), PI. 46; M. Sprenger and G. and Progeny (London, 1976).
Bartoloni, Die Etrusker (Munich, 1977), PL 226. The Boethius and Ward-Perkins (n. 9), 257, mistakenly
painting has been dated to the second half of the give the number of coffers in each row as forty:
fourth century BC. corrected in Ward-Perkins (n. 9), 140, in making
24. Lucanian paintings: M. Napoli, Paestum (Novara, the point about the rhythmical variation.
1970), 60, 62-3; Enc, Suppl. 1970, 'Paestum', G. P. Panini's painting of the Pantheon in the State
574-6- Museum of Art, Copenhagen, shows the interior as
25. Brendel (n. 6), Figs. 275-7; T. Dohrn, Die ficoronische it was in about 749, just before Pope Benedict Xiv's
1

Cisti Berlin, 1972). alterations. See Licht (n. 11), 107, Fig. 1
15 (colour).
The absence of the which the Market
detailed study
deserves is mitigated bv the perceptive summaries of
chapter two Architecture
MacDonald (n. 9), 75-93, and Ward-Perkins n. 9 .

i. For annotated text and translation, see P. A. Brunt 124-33.

and J. M. Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford, A. Carandini and S. Settis, Schiavi e padroni
1967); and translation in N. Lewis and M. Rein- nell'Etruria romana (Bari, 1979).
hold, Roman Civilization, Sourcebook II: The Empire F. E. Brown, E. H. Richardson and L. Richardson,
(New York, 1966), 9-19. Jr., Cosa II, The Temples of the Arx, MAAR, XXVI,
2. D. E. Strong and J.' B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR. XXVIII, Rome, i960), 206 ff.
i960, 7-32. Brown, Richardson and Richardson (n. 16), 269
3. Various recipes for mortar are given by such writers and 296-300; G. Carettoni, Rendiconli, 44, 1972,
as Pliny, Vitruvius and Faventinus; for comparison 123-39.
of the last two, see H. Plommer, Vitruvius and Later For the use of terracotta architectural ornament in
Roman Building Manuals (Cambridge, 1973), 18 ff. the West, see T. F. C. Blagg in A. McWhirr (ed.),
For detailed studies of Roman construction meth- Roman Buck and Tile, BAR Int. Ser., 68 (Oxford,
ods and materials, see Bibliography. 1979), 267-84.
4. The rebuilding is mentioned by Livy, XLI. xxvii. 8. H. Kammerer-Grothaus, Rom. Mitt., 81, 1974,
Both the date and the identification of the surviving 131-252; M. Lyttelton and F. Sear, PBSR. XLV,
remains have been disputed: A. Boethius, Etruscan 1977,227-51.
and Early Roman Architecture (Harmondsworth, G. Lugli, La tecnica edilizia romana (Rome, 1957), Pis.
1978), 1 28-9 and 231. note 7, for further references. cxlvii-cl.

5. R. Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium (Stras- R. Gnoli, Marmora romana Rome. 197 l). For a
bourg, 1907-12). bibliography of work on classical marbles, see S.
6. D. E. Strong and J. B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR, XXX, Paton, PBSR, XXXIX, 1971, 88-9.
1962, 1-30, at p. 25. B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishboume ig6i-6g, Re-
7. F. W. Shiple) . Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome (St search Reports 26 and 27 of The Society of Anti-
Louis, 1933,. quaries of London (Leeds, 1971), ii, 1—35.
8. Domus Transitoria: M. Barosso, Atti del III Congresso D. E. Strong, 'The Monument', in B. W. Cunliffe
nazionale di sloria dell' architettura ( Rome, 94 1 1 ) , 75-8; (ed.) , Fifth Repot I on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at
A. Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Richborough, Research Report 23 of The
Kent,
Roman Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1970), 212-4. Society of Antiquaries of London (London, 1968),
Domus Aurea: A. Boethius, The Golden House of Nero 40-73-
(Ann Arbor, i960). D. E. Strong, JRS, LI 1 1, 1963, 73-84.
(). For arguments against vaulting, see Boethius and Strong and Ward-Perkins (n. 6), 18-25.
Ward-Perkins (n. 8 232 and 566, note (,andJ.B.
, 1 Discussed by D. E. Strong, PBSR, XXI, 1953. See
Ward-Perkins, Roman Architecture New York, 1977 .. also, P. H. von Blanckenhagen, Flavische Architektw
112; for the contrary view: W. L. MacDonald, The mill ilnc Dekoration (Berlin, 1940), and C. F. Leon,
An lab (hue nl the Roman Empire, New Haven and I Die Bauornamentik des Trajansforums (Vienna and
London, 1965), 56-63, and G. Wataghin Cantino, Cologne, 197 ). 1

La Domin Augustana Turin, 1966 .66-9. One pioneering study of provincial architectural
 <

2 58 NOTE!

ornament is H. Kahler, Die Romischen Kapitelle des Roman Ail to AD zoo 'London. 1970), 28-32.
Rh ingebiets Berlin, 1939). 5. G. Zinserling, Eirene, 1. i960. 153-86.

28. //v 5317. 6. H. Kalilri. I), 1 I'm \ mm Ri itt i dtiiknnil des Aemilius

29. ( //. 2. 761. Pan/Ins in Delphi Berlin. 1965 . 17-18.

30. Plommer n. 3 .
7. H. Kahler. Seethiasos und Censw lh, Reliefs aus dem
31. R. Amy
and P. Gros. La Maison Carrei d< Nimes, Palazzo Santa Croce in Rom (Berlin, 1966);
Supplement XXXVIII to Gallia Paris, 1979 . F. Coarelli. Dialoghi di Archeologia, 3, 1969, 1-67.
85-108. 8. G. Moretti, Ara Pacis Augustae (Rome, 1948'; J. M.
32. Strong and Ward-Perkins 11 2 C. Toynbee. Proceedings of the British Academy, 39,
33. Boethius and Ward-Perkins (n. 8); 379-81. 1953- <(
7 95
34. Strong a. 26), 30-8. 1 9. I. S. Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion 111 Roman Ail.
35. M. F. Squarciapino, Sculture del Foro Severiano di MAAR, xxii, 1955, 75-80; G. Lippold, Die
I ,/iiis Mii^mi. Monografie di archeologia libica, 10 Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, in. 2 (Berlin,
(Rome, 1974), 167-70; see alsoj. B. Ward-Perkins. 1
956 505-12. Pis. 229-33.
JRS, xxxviii, 1948, 59-80. 10. F. Magi. / Rilievi Flavi del Palazzo delta Camel/ma
36. J. B. Ward-Perkins, JRS, LX. 1970.
1-19: and. for (Rome, 945); J. M. C. Toynbee, The Flavian Relief
1

the Romano-British forum, R. G. Goodchild, Anti- limn tin Palazzo della < ancelleria (Oxford, 1957); A.
quity, xx, 1946, 70-7. M. McCann, Rom. 79, 1972, 249-76, at- Mitt..

37. B. Cunliffe, Roman Bath, Research Report 2 1

"I I he tempts highl) controversial re-dating of the reliefs.
<i

Societ) oi Antiquaries oi I. union. Oxford, 1969 1 1. F. Wiikholl. Roman Ail English edition translated
38. K. M. Kenyon, Archaeologia, LXXXIV, 1934,247 53. b\ E. Stron«: London, 1900).
39. C. Hill. M. Millett and T. Blagg, Th Roman River- 1 2. A comprehensive study of the reliefs is still
detailed,
rid<Wall and Monumental Arch in London, London and lacking. Cf. A. Bonanno, Portraits and Other Heads mi
Middlesex Arch So< special papei London, ; Roman Histm u al Relief up to the Age ofSeptimius Severus,
[980 BAR I.11. Ser., 6 Oxford, 1976 (.2-8: F. Magi, .

|.o. W ard-Pei Liih n |l i Rom. Mill., r,). 11177. 33' 17-

p. T.F. C. Blagg, World Archaeology, 12.1 1980,27 (.2, 13. F.J. H.issrl. I): 1 I laiiinshooi n in II in. 1 lit: 1 in Bamceik
contrasts civilian and militar) architecture in des romischen Senates Mainz, 1966): M. Rotili,
Bi itain. UArcodx Traiano a Benevento Rome. 1972 .

|j. Ii lias been ( laimed thai ii was built foi the Emperor 14. The Column has been published in several monu-
Maximian, but the mosaics, now datable to |i ,
[0 1t0111.1l editions, see especiall) C. Cichorius, Die
\n. make iliis unlikely: A Carandini, in his Reliefs dei Trajanssauh Berlin, 1896 1900); and K.
forthcoming publication, ass, ml>l<s epigraphs Lehmann-Hartleben, Do Trajanssauh Berlin and
evidence to suggest that theownei might have I" n 1 Leipzig, [926). Lain bibliography in L. Rossi.
the nobleman ( !. Valerius Proculus. Trajan' s Column and th DacianWars London. 1971).

n ,
j. M ( roynbei . Death and Burial in fin Roman 15. M. Pallottino, Bullettino della t ommissione Archeologica

World London, 1971 illustrates the great ,

variety Comunah dx Roma, >
• >
-
1938, 17 56; W. Gauer has

<>f Roman funeran monuments. attempted to return to a Domitianic dating in

JDAI, 88, 197 ;. ;i8 30, I igs. 1 13.

if>. H. Bulle, JDAI, 34, [919, 1
| | 72; 1. Maull,
CHAPTER THRE1 Si ulptUTi
Jahreshefti des oester. arch. Ins/iinis. j.2, 1955, 53 67.
17. \\ Helbig. Ftihrei durch dit qffentlichen Sammlungen
For bronze figurines embellished ,1, preci<
klassischex Altertumei in Rom. 11 Tubingen, i<)<>6 .

gold and silvei Statuar) and mini, e sculptt

264-5. 569 70. nos. 17. 1800. 1

in. inn. ils see ( haptet Six. 1

18. L. Vogel, lln Column of Antoninus Pius Cambridge,

M. A. R. Colledge, Th Art qj Palmyra: Studiei in Mass.. 11,7 ; .

Ancient Art ami Archaeolog I ondon, [976 : id., n, some disagreement on the date of the relief.
["here is

Parthian Art London, "177 C. C. Vermeule, Roman Imperial Ail m Greece and Asia
II. Roll.mil. I.i Mausole't <l< Glanum, Supp: XXI to Minoi Cambridge, Mass.. 1968), 95-123, Figs.
Gallia Paris, 1969 ;
I S. Kleiner, 'The Glanum 13 ,2 .I.m. sil around \n [0. L. Eichler, JahreshefU 1

Cenotaph Reliefs, Greek 01 Roman?', Bonnei des oester. arch. Instituts, Beihefte 11 1971 . 102 35,
Jahrb'ucher, 180 [980, 105 25; R. Amy, P. M. figs. 1 ; ;. believes ii was made aftei the Parthian
Duval, J. Formige, J. .). Hatt, A. Piganiol, C. . ampaigns oi \i> 161-5.
Picard, R. <>. Picard / ari d'Orang< Supp. X\ to 20. I. S. Ryberg, Panel Reliefs 0/ Maims Aurelius New
Gallia, Paris, 1962 .
York. 11)67 : (,. Becatti, Archeologia Classica, 19,

Scr I., Rossi. Trajan's Column and th Dacian Wan 1967, 321 31.
London. 11171 : I. B. Florescu, Monumentul de la 2i. ( ( laprino, A M. Colini, (i. Gatti, M. Pallottino,

Adamklissi Bucharest, 1959 .null. Rossi, Arch. J., I\ Romanelli, La Colonna dx Maim Amelia Rome.
< \\i\. 19: 36 6; 1955
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome: Th Centrt 0/ Power, 22. R. Bartoccini, Africa Italiana, |., 1931,32" i52;\.M.
NOTES 2 59

Strocka, Antiquites Africaines, <>. 10,72. 147—72. 40. R. Delbriick, Spdtantike Kaiserportrdts Berlin, 1933);

23. D E. L. Haynes and P. E. D. Hirst, Porta H.L'Orange, Studien :w Geschicht, des %pdtantiken
P.

Argentariorum (British School at Rome Supplement) Portrdts (Oslo and Leipzig, 1933 id., Art Forms and ;

London, 1939); M. Pallottino. UArcodegli Argentan l.i/, in tin I.iih RomanEmpin

< /, it Princeton, 1965 .

(Rome. [946 41. Exhibition. Venice 1977. London 1979. Sec (;.
24. The most recent and by far the most comprehensive Perroco (ed.), 1 In Horses oj San Marco. Venice
edition of the Arch and its reliefs is R. Brilliant. The (London. 1979).
Arch ofSeptimius Severus in the Roman Forum, MAAR, 42. W. Lamb, Greek, Etruscan ami Roman Bronzes
XXIX, 1967. (London, 1929), re-edited, with updated biblio-
25. H. P. L'Orange, Rom. Mitt., 53, 1938, 1-34. graphy, with the title Ancient ami Roman Bronzes
6
26. H. P. Laubscher, Dei Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens (Chicago, [969 S. Boucher ed. Actes du IV
: ,

in Thessaloniki (Berlin. 1975). Colloque international! mr les bronzt s antiques 1 17—21 nun
27. H. P. L'Orange and A. Von Gerkan, Spdtantikt i<j/fi). Annales de I'Universite Jean-Moulin (Lyons,
Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogen (Berlin, 1936); A. 1977)-
Giuliano, Arco di Costantino (Milan. 1955'. 43. S. Boucher, Recherches sur les Bronzes Figures de Gaule
28. A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jittaf Ancestral Portraitun in Pre-Romaine et Romanic (Ecole Francaise, Rome,
Rome and the Art oj the Last Century oj the Republic 1976).
Amsterdam. 1932); R. Bianchi Bandinelli,
'Ritratto', Enc. VI, 695-738: id., Rome: tin Centn oj
Power (London, 1970:. 75-93; G. M. A. Richter
chapter four Wall Painting and Stucco
JRS,XLV, 1955. 39-46; J. D. Breckenridge, .1 \A'H.
1, 4 (Berlin and New York, 1973), 826-54; R-R-R- 1 A. Barbet and G. Allag, Melanges de I' cade francaise de
Smith, JRS, LXXI, 1981, 24-38, has made a strong Rome, LXXXIY. 1972, 935-1063. D. Strong and D.
case for Hellenistic antecedents to the veristic style. Brown (eds.), Roman Crafts (London, 1976), 223-9.
29. H. Kahler, Die Augustusstatue eon Primaporta 2. S. Augusti. / Colori Pompeiani (Rome, 1967), 15-16.
Cologne, [959 3. J. M. C. Toynbee, The Art of the Romans (London,
30. V. H. Poulsen, Acta Archaeologica, 17, 1946, 1-48;^., 1968), 11— 12.
1

C/audische Prinzen (Baden-Baden, i960); Z. Kiss, 4. M. Borda. La Pittura Romana (Milan, 1958), 159.
L'iconographie des princes julio-claudiens au temps d'Au- 5. A. Mau, Pompeii, Its LifeandAri trans. ( F. W. Kelsey,
guste et de Tibere (Travaux du Centre d'Archeologie London, 1899), 41-4, 446-60.
Mediterraneenne de /'
Academic Polonaise des Sciences) 17 6. G. E. Rizzo, Le Pitture delta Casa dei Grift (Rome,
(Warsaw, 1975). 1936).
31. M. Wegner, Die Fiona. Dos rdmischt Herrscherbild, 11. 7. R. Ling, PBSR, XL, 1972, 28-9.
1 (Berlin, [966 .
8. A. Maiuri, La Villa dei Misteri (Rome, 1929); K.
32. W. H. Gross, Bildnisse Trojans, Berlin, 1940). Lehmann, JRS, LII, 1962, 62-8; Toynbee (n. 3),
33. On Hadrian's portraiture see M. Wegner. Hadrian. no— 11; Borda (n. 4) 24-30.
Das rdmische Herrscherbild, II, 3 (Berlin. 19561. For 9. P. W. Lehmann, Roman II 'all Paintingsfrom Hoscoreale
private portraiture in the same period see G. in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt Cambridge, Mass.,
Daltrop, Die rtadtromischen mdnnlichen Privatbildnisst 953)-
trajanischer und hadrianischei ~<'' Miinster, 1958). 10. Borda (n. 4), 43-6.
34. G. M.
A. Richter, Portraits of the Greeks (London, 11. 1). Strong, Roman Art Harmondsworth, 1976), 51;
1965), 1 102-14, Figs. 429-43; M. Robertson and
, Borda (n. 4) 46-52; E. Wadsworth, MAAR, IV,
A. Frantz, The Parthenon Frieze (London, 1975), 1928, Pis. I IX.
Plate 16. 12. Borda (n. 4 .
57.
35. C. VV. Clairmont, Die Bildnisse des Antinous. Fin 13. The Villa of Oplontis (guide-book; Mestre-Venice,
Beitrag zur Portrdtplastik unter Kaiser Hadrian Route. 1980), 2g-32;cf. O. Elia, Pittura di Stabia (Naples,
1966). 1957), 47, PI. XIX (woman cithara player from
36. M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in Antoninischet Stabiae).
%eit. Das rdmische Herrscherbild, II, 4 Berlin. 1939 . 14. Borda (n. 4), 59.

37. A. M. McCann, The Portraits oj Septimius Severus, 15. Toynbee (n. 3), 1 19-20; G. M. A. Richter, Perspec-
MAAR, xx\. 1968; D. Soechting, Die Portrdts des tive in Greek and Roman Art (London [1970]), 49-55.
Septimius Severus Bonn, 1972). 16. Toynbee (n. 3), 119-20; W. J. Th. Peters,

38. H. B. Wiggers and M. Wegner, Caracalla bis Mededelingen can he/ Netherlands Instituut le Rome,
Balbinus. Das rdmischt Herrscherbild, III, 1 (Berlin, xxxix, 1977, 95-128.
1971); B. M. Felletti Maj, Iconografia imperial, da 17. Borda (n. 4), 80.
Severn Alessandro a M. Aurelio Carino (222 285 dC) [8. Ibid.. 83.

(Rome. [958 . 19. Ibid., 254-6.

39. Foremost, amongst others, R. Bianchi Bandinelli. 20. Maiuri (n. 8) 66-9; M. M. Gabriel, Masters of
'Ritratto'. Enc. VI, 729: id., Rome: The Late Empire, Companion Painting (New York, 1952).
Roman Art AD 200-400 (London, 197 1, 1-2 1, 42. 1
21. Elia (n. 13), 47, PI. XIX.
260 NOTES

Ibid., 14; W. Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (London, Wall Painting of the Western Empire BAR
Provincial

197 1) 40-6. 140 (Oxford, 1982).

Int. Ser.

Borda (n. 4), 67. 56. R. Sanquier and P. Galliou, Annales de Bretagne,
Strong (n. 11), 69-70, 100; Toynbee (n. 3), 120; LXVII, 1970, 180-3; LXXIX, 1972, 170-89. I am
Borda (n. 4), 70-5. indebted to Professor Galliou for this reference.
Toynbee (n. 3) 13-15; Strong (n. 11), 34-5.
1 57. A. Blanchet, Etude sur la decoration des edifices de Gaule
R. Ling, JRS, LXVii, 1977, 1-16; S. Silberberg- romaine (Paris, 1 91 3), 49-51, PI. II.

Peirce, Art History, III, 1980, 241-51. 58. J. Liversidge in J. Munby and M.
Henig, Roman Life
Ling (n. 24), 7. and Art in Britain, BAR 4i'(Oxford, 1977), 79-80;
P. H. von Blanckenhagen and C. Alexander. The Britain in the Roman Empire (London, 1968), 94-9;
Paintings from Boscotrecase (Heidelberg, 1962). full report in S. S. Frere, Verulamium III (London,

29. M. M. Gabriel, Livia's Garden Room at Prima Porta forthcoming).

(New York, 1955). 59. B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne i§6i-ig6g, II,

W. F. Jashemski, The Gardens of Pompeii (New York, The Finds, (Leeds, 1971), 57, no. 2, PI. XlVa.
1979). 74- 60. Liversidge in Munby and Henig (n. 58), 80-1,
Ibid., 63. 84-90, 95-6; E.J. Swain and R.J. Ling, Britannia.
Wadsworth (n. n), 61. PI. XVII. XII, 1981, 167-75.
Ibid., 69, Pis. XX-XXIV. 61. G. W. Meates, Lullingstone Roman Villa (London,
Ibid., 73, Pis. XXV-XXXV; Borda (n. 4), 102, PI. opp. 1955), 126-53; J. Liversidge in G. W. Meates, The
p. 96. Roman Villa at Lullingstone, II (forthcoming).
R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1973), 62. M. Schleirmacher, in J. Liversidge (ed.) Roman Pro-
436-46. vincial Wall Painting of the Western Empire BAR Int.

Ibid., 442; Toynbee (n. 3), 123. Ser. 140 (Oxford, 1982).
In the Palatine Museum, Borda (n. 41, 301; Dorigo 63. Dorigo 198-203; T. K. Kempf, 'Das Haus
(n. 22),
(n. 22), PI. XLVIII. der heiligen Helena', Neues Trier. Jahrb. (Trier,
Toynbee (n. 3), 123; Borda (n. 4), 321. .978).
Meiggs (n. 35), 443. 64. Dorigo (n. 22), 51-2; S. Aurigemma, U Italia in

Borda (n. 4), 319; M.J. Vermaseren, Mithriaca, I, Africa - Tripolitania I / Monumenti d'Arte Decorativa,
The Mithraeum at S. Maria Capua Vetere (Leiden, Part II, Le Pitture d'Eta Romana (Rome, 1962), 29.
197')- 65. Aurigemma (n. 64), 103-1 1.
Borda fn. 4), 299. 66. Ibid., 84-6; Dorigo (n. 22), 208-9.
M J. Vermaseren and C.C. Van Essen, The Excava- 67. Aurigemma (n. 64), 95-8; Toynbee (n. 2), 121;
Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in
tions in the Borda (n. 4), 349.
Rome (Leiden, 1965), 148-240; Borda (n. 4), 319. 68. V. Monneret de Yillard. Archaeologia, XCV, 1953,
J. B. Onians, Art History, III, 1980, 1-22. 85-105.
J. M. C. Toynbee and J. Ward-Perkins, The Shrine of 69. Toynbee (n. 2), 125-7; Borda (n. 4), 331-2; Strong
St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations (London, 1956), (n. 11), 131-2.
109-17; Sister Charles Murray, Rebirth and Afterlife, 70. Dorigo (n. 22), 86-100; A. Perkins, The Art of Dura-
BAR Int. Ser., 100 (Oxford, 1981), especially 60-3 Europos (Oxford, 1973), Chapters III and Y; C.
and Chapter III; M. Gough, Origins of Christian Art Kraeling, Excavations at Dura-Europos. VIII, 1, The
(London, 1981), Chapter II. Synagogue (New Haven,
1956), 10. For a shield from
J. Goodenough. Journal of Biblical Literature. LXXXI, Dura decorated with paintings of Amazons, and
1962, 113-42. another showing the Sack of Troy, see M. I.
Dorigo (n. 22), 120-2; Borda (n. 4), 316. Rostovtzeff, F. E. Brown and C. B. Welles, The
Borda (n. 4), 132, 134. Excavations at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report of the
Meiggs (n. 35), 552. Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work (New Haven,
Borda (n. 41. 138. 1939) 326-69; also Borda (n. 4), 356.
Ibid, 343-6. 71. Toynbee (n. 3), 129.

Dorigo (n. 22), 223. 72. A. F. Shore, Portrait Painting from Roman Egypt
A. Carandini, Schwvi e Padroni nell'Etruria Romana: (London, 1962), 26-8; G. Sokolov, Antique Art on the
La Villa di Sette Finestre dailo Scavo alia Mostra Bari, Northern Black Sea Coast (Leningrad, 1974), 111. p.
'979)- 110; and Richter, Perspective in Greek and Roman Art
H. Kenner, in R. Egger, Carinthia I, no. 153, 1963, (London [1970]), 53, Fig. 219; Borda (n. 4), 387.
62; no. 156, 1966, 435 and in H. Vetters and G.
Piccottini (eds.), Magdaiensberg-Grabungsbericht, 14,
CHAPTER FIVE Mosaics
1973-4 (Klagenfurt, 1980), 143.
A. Barbet, Recueil General des Peintures Murales de la 1 . This is the 'direct method'. See, further, P. Fischer,
Gaule, I, Narbonnaise, i, Glanum (Paris, 1974), 43-64. Mosaic: History and Technique (New York and
Id., Etude sur la decoration des edifices de la Gaule romaine Toronto, 197 1 ), 141 ff. On evidence for other
(Paris, 1973); id., in J. Liversidge (ed.), Roman methods in antiquity, including prefabrication, see
NOTES 261

the references in n. 12; D. S. Neal, Ch. 19 in D. 135-40; Neal (n. 1), 244-6; Smith, Atti in (n. 11).

Strong and D. Brown (eds.) , Roman Crafts (London, Cf. Levi (n. 5), 630-2.
1976). 13. Cf. J. M. C. Toynbee, Latomus, 9, 1950, 295-302.
Cf. M. E. Blake, MAAR,\ui, 1930 (hereafter cited See also the list, although not up to date, in Mosaico
as Blake I), 128; K. M. D. Dunbabin, AJA, 83, e Mosaicisti nell' Antichita (Istituto della Enci-
1979, 265-77. clopedia Italiana, Rome, 1967), compiled from
K. M. The Art Bulletin, 42, i960, 243-62.
Phillips, the Enciclopedia Italiana dell' Arte Antica, Classica, e

Cf. W. A. Daszewski in H. Maehler and V. M. Orientate I-VII.

Strocka (eds.), Das Ptolemdische Agypten (Mainz, 14. Cf. Blake 1 (n. 2), 127.

1978), 123-36. 15. Cf. ibid., 71-8.

The most important site for mosaics of c. 100 BC is 16. R. Stillwell (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Clas-
Delos: Ph. Bruneau, Les Mosaiques de Delos (Paris, sical Sites (Princeton, 1976): 'Antioch on the
1972). Orontes.'
For the history, relationship and significance of 17. The Atrium House: Levi (n. 5), 15-25, 625, Pis. I,

these subjects see K. Parlasca, J DAI, 78, 1963, II, a, CXLV-CXLVIII. F. Baratte, Mosaiques Romaines
256-93. Cf. Blake (n. 2), 1 J9-31; D. Levi, Antioch
I et Musee du Louvre (Paris, 1978),
Paleochretiennes du
Mosaic Pavements (Princeton, London, The Hague, no. 43 ('The Judgement of Paris'). It should be

1947), 90-1; J. Charbonneaux, R. Martin and F. noted that while Levi (15-16, 625) and others
Villard, Hellenistic Art 330-50 BC (London, 1973), prefer to assign these mosaics to before AD 115,
156-7, Figs. 156, 158; K. M. D. Dunbabin, The Baratte considers them to from ad
date
Mosaics of Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1978), 3-4, 1 15— (?) 150, citing in support K. Parlasca, Gnomon
nn. 16, 18. 26, 1954, 1 12.
For example the 'Alexander mosaic' from Pompeii 18. G. M. A. Hanfmann, Roman Art (New York, 1964),
(5.92 x 3.42 m. [19^ x -J
ft.] including bor- 1 1 describes the 'Drinking Contest' (commentary on
ders) a masterpiece of the later second century BC,
,
PI. XXI) as 'one of the most advanced renderings of
undoubtedly reproduces a famous Greek painting light and shadow that have come down to us from
of C.300BC (lost but mentioned by the elder Pliny, antiquity'.
NH, XXXV. no); the two mosaics of c.8o BC at 19. Baratte (n. 17), 88.
Palestrina (Praeneste) also follow Hellenistic 20. Levi (n. 5), 15.

paintings. 'Alexander mosaic' see B.

For the 21. House of Polvphemus and Galatea: ibid., 25, 625,
Andreae, Das Alexandermosaik (Bremen, 1959); also PI. II, b, c.

Charbonneaux et al. (n. 5), 16-18, Figs. 15-16 1 1 22. House of Trajan's Aqueduct: ibid., 34, 625, PI. V, a.
(colour), 1
1
7. For the mosaics of Palestrina see G. 23. R. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan, and Roman
Gullini, / Mosaici di Palestrina (Rome, 1956); H. Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum (London,
Whitehouse, The Dal Pozzo Copies of the Palestrina 1933). 56, no. 85, PI. XXIV.
Mosaic, BAR Int. Sen, 12 (Oxford, 1976); also 24. BJ, 168, 1968, 5, Fig. 1.

Charbonneaux?/ al., 176-83, Figs. 182-6 (colour), 25. Les Dossiers de I'Archeologie (Fontaine-les-Dijon,
181, 188, and Hanfmann (n. 18), PI. XXVI France) 15 (March-April, 1976), 95 (Sidon,
(colour). Lebanon) . X Barral I Altet, Les Mosaiques Romaines
Cf. M. E. Blake, MAAR, XVI, 940 (hereafter cited
1 et Medievales de la Regio Laieatana: Barcelona
as Blake III), 101-19; J.M.C. Toynbee, The Art of (Barcelona, 1978), no. 8, Pis. XV-XVIII
the Romans (1965), 180, n. 15. (Barcelona); on east-Mediterranean influence in
Cf. Blake I (n. 2), 128; Charbonneaux et al. (n. 5), this mosaic, ibid., 17.
138-42, Figs. 138-40. Levi (n. 5), Fig. 28, Pis. XV, b, XXIX, b, c, L, c.
Blake I (n. 2), 129-31. Parlasca (n. 5), 256-7, Ibid., 32-226.
262-6, Figs. 1, 10. Charbonneaux?/ al. (n. 5), 156, House of the Calendar: ibid., 36-8, 625, PI. v, b.

Fig. 158 (colour). Ibid., 38-9, CXLIX, a, CLXXXII, a.

Pis. VI,

For one of c.200 BC from Egypt, apparently the House of the Buffet Supper: ibid., 127-9, Pis. XXIII,
earliest known, see Charbonneaux etal. (n. 5), 159, a, XXIV, CLII, CLIII, a. Although assigned to

Fig. 162. For emblemata in Italy see Blake (n. 2), I c. 193-235 in the Chronological List (Levi, 625) the
125-45, (
mn> 7)> an d for those of Pompeii in mosaic sealed pottery of c. 150-250 (Levi, 129).
particular see E. Pernice, Die Hellenistische Kunst in 3 1 House of the Drinking Contest: ibid., 156-9, Pis.
Pompeii 'vi: Pavimente und Figurliche Mosaiken (Berlin, XXX, CI, b. Again (see n. 30), although assigned to
I93 8 )* :
49 ff- c. 193-235 the mosaic sealed pottery as late as c. 250

Cf. Blake I (n. 2), 140; Bruneau (n. 4), 100-1; D.E. (Levi, 156).
Johnston in R. Farioli Campanati (ed.), Atti del III 32. House of Dionysus and Ariadne: ibid., 141— 9, Pis.
Colloquio Internazionale sul Mosaico Antico (Ravenna, XXVII, a, XXVIII, CI, a, CLIV, CLV,a, CLXXIX. Levi
forthcoming) (hereafter cited as Atti III). evidently considered this pavement to be earlier
Cf. Blake III (n. 7), 101-19; K. Parlasca, Die than its counterpart in the House of the Drinking
Rbmischen Mosaiken in Deutschland (Berlin, 1959), Contest (p. 625), but at least approximate contem-
 . .

262 NOTES

poraneity is clearly indicated by their associated 51. Becatti (n. 4.2), no. 268, pp. 289-90, Pis.

geometric patterns: cf. ibid., PI. CI, a, b. In fact, LXXXIV-LXXXVI. Clarke !n. 44!, 23. Fig. 23.

Levi's otherwise encyclopaedic work is essentially a 52. Blake I in. 2). 123-4. P'- 49- Becatti In. 42), no. 68,
study of the figured scenes; the geometric repertory pp.^269-70. Pis. CXXII-CXXIII. Clarke n. 4 [ . Fig.
still awaits analysis and commentary in its own 2 1

right, and this might lead to a reappraisal of his 53. Cf. Blakei (n. 2), 122-3, pi. 48; but note id., 11 (n.

chronological sequence. 38), 138 and n. 2 (erroneouslv in n. 1 ),139-45.

33. See, at least, the 'three-dimensional' dado with 54. Becatti 11.42 . nos. 51, 52, p. 316. Pis. ci\.( x\ix,
'projecting' plinths in the remains of the third- CXXX, CXXXIII. Clarke I
n. 44), 25-6, Figs. 29, 30.
century wall-painting in the House of the Consul 80.
Attalosat Pergamum: Parlasca (n. 5), 286. Fig. 18. 55. Becatti (n. 42), no. 64. pp. 297-300, Pis. XVII,
34. Levi (n. 5), 226-44, Pis. LI1-LXI, CI.X. CLXI. CVII, CVIII. Clarke n. 14 , 24-5, Fig. 27.
Baratte no. 45 (with frontispiece in colour
(n. 1
7), 56. Blake II in. 38), 145-6, PI. 34, 3, 4. Becatti (n. 42),
illustrating part of the scroll). W. Dorigo, Late nos. 70. 71. pp. 310-16, Pis: CXXIV-CXXX,
Roman Painting (London, 1 97 1 ) ,
colour plates 19, ( XXXIII-CXXXVI. Clarke (n. 44), 26-9, Figs.
20 (illustrating Spring and Autumn). It is now- 3!-3-
known that in addition to the Constantinian coin 57. Cf. Blake II in. 381. 139-54: 'The Marine Cycle';
sealed by this most important pavement there was Becatti n. 42 . 310-16. The latest examples al
another, from which the period of the mosaic can- Ostia are Becatti 11. (2 . no. 320, pp. 342-4, Pis.
not be earlier than 347: S. D. Campbell, Alii 111 n. CLXIV-CLXV Baths of the Lighthouse, 1 r.250), no.
11). 445, PI. CLXX (f. 250-300).
For the gesture of the huntsman in the centre, 58. Cf. Blake (n. 2), 71-95. II In. 38). 114-37, ~
35. I l
T2
foreground, sec (.. Am, id. I., Baisei Rituel: un Gestt 84: G. Becatti. MGR 11. 173-90 and discussion,
de Culli Me'connu Beirut. 1973 190-2.
36. Cf. that framing the emblema from Pompeii de- 59. Becatti n. 12 . no. 283. pp. 295-6, Pis. cm, CIV,
picting the doves ol Sosus: Parlasca n. 5 264—6, . ( ( XII. CCXIII.

Fig. 2. 60. Blake III n. 7 . 108. PI. 24, 2. Bee, nil 11. |2 . no.

37. I. Lavin, DOP, 17. 1963, 180-286; bul cf. ;r;. PI. CIV.

Dunbabin n. 5 . 222—33. 61. Blake 11 11. 38 . 130. Becatti in. 42), no. 315, PI.
38. Cf. Blake) n. 2), 75, illust. reramo); id., MAAR, CII.

XIII,1936 hereafter cited as Blake I] 133-7. . 62. Becatti et al. a. 39), no. 25, Pis. XIX, XX.
59. Cf. Blake n. 2 127 F01 an exceptionall) late
1 . 63. Cf. Lavin n. 37 , 244—62; Dunbabin n. 5 .

example, of the third or fourth centur) \i>. see 212-22.

Blake ill n. 7), 105, PI. 22, 2 Rome) Apart from . 64. Ci. Brusin, P. I.. Zovatto, Monumenti Paleocristiani di
iliis the latest appeal to be those oi 1 200 \n from Aquileiat diGrado Udine, 1957), 105-1 1, Figs. 25,
li.ii ano nc.n Rome:
i Be< attie/ al Ba< cam ( . I Biam
47, 48; R. Bandinelli, Romi tht Late Empire lii :

Romana Mosaici Antichi in Italia. Libreria dello - Roman Art AD 200 i<><> London,ig7i .Fig. 216
Stato, Rome, 1970 - ( if. Le\ 1 11. 5 .
3, n. 11. 1 0I0111

[O. See n. 4. 65. Becatti n. 12 . no. 217. pp. 360-1, Pis.

41. Blake 1 n. 2), 78 124, II n. 38), 76 113, 138-71. 1 xxxxix ( 1 iii.i i xi\ CCXVI. Lavin n. 37), Fig.

G. Becatti, MGR I, 15 26. M. Vondtrcr, Atti m n. 1 hi.

>
i»li. Cf. Lavin (n. 371. 204 (|; Bandinelli (n. 64),
[2. G, Becatti, Sea 1 'I/ Ostia IV: Mosaici 1 Pavimenti 223-37. Dunbabin (n. 5), 16-23. Dossiers <h

Marmara Libreria dello Stato, Rome. 1961 . R. I' Archeology n. 25 . 31 Nov.-Dec, 1978):
Meiggs, Roman Ostia Oxford, 1960, 2nd edn., 'Mosai'que Romawie: I' Age d'Or de I'Ecole
1

'97:5 11*' ".I

d'Afrique.
I
;. Cf. Blake] n. 2), 127; H.Joyce, AJA, 83, 1979, i>7 Princeton Encyclopedia n. 16 : 'ZHten.' S.
'

5 i
"63- Uirigemma, / Mosaici <li ^liten Rome. Milan,
II Uso elsewhen ci Blake 1 n. 2 . 80, 121, 1 2 ;: 1926). Lavin n. 37), 206 io, Figs. 18-23. G.Ville,
Pernice m. m . passim;]. R. Clarke, Roman Black- MGR] n. 1 1 . 1
17 52. Dunbabin n. 5), 17, 18,
and-Whit Figurai Mosaici NewYork, m; 18 231 7. Fit's. 1. 2. |d i),
95, 96. For emblemata in a
Figs, 1
ii> mosaic al Horns see Lavin n. 37 . 207. Fig. 22.
IV Becatti n. (.2 ,
nos 181 7. PL i 1 XXII. ii.'i. Dunbabin n. -> .
19, Figs. 3 5. Dossiei 31 in. 661.
(.6. Ibid., nos, 219 29, PI. i ( \\l\ 17 ill.

17. Ibid., nos. 237 1)7. PI. <:< \\\ 6i). Dunbabin n.jj), ig 23. G. Charles-Picard, Dossiei
|i: Cf. Blake 11 n. 38 .
7U-83. ; 1 n. 66), 12 31

pi l'>e< .un n 1 j .
no 292 p |8g, Pis. 1 \\\ LXXVIII. 70. Dunbabin n. 7 . 20, 1 10. 271. Figs. 97-8.
( llarke n. 1
1 . Fig, 20. 71. Ibid., 179-80, 256, Figs. 178-9.
50. Becatti n. (.2), no. _.<
r; .
pp, 288 9, PI. LXXX. 72. Levi (n. 5), 529-60, Fig. 199. J. Lassus, MGR] [n.

Clarke n. \\ . 22, Fig. [9. |T . 17581). Fig. 8. Dunbabin (n. 5), 21, n. 35.
 263

Dossiei 31 n. 66 93, 95-6. . 228. Fig. 211.

There seem to be more than is generally cone eded: Dunbabin (n. 5), 67-9, Figs. 52-3. Beschaouch (n.

e.g. Hinks (n. 231, 72, nos. 1, 12 Carthage

< f. 1 : 88), 32-6.
Lavin 253. n. 315; M. A. Alexander, M.
n. 37), Bandinelli (n. 64), 252, Figs. 234, 235 (both
Ennai'fer, Corpus des Mosaiques de Tunisii 1: C/ftgw colour), 236; cf. Figs. 237-8. Dunbabin (n. 5),
I urns. [973 . passim; C. Duiicrc et al., Corpus ... 1 14-15, Figs. 102-4; cf. Figs. 105, 107, 108. Dossier
Tunisii 11: / 7/</»< Tunis, 1974 . passim; M. A. 31 (n. 66), 97.
Alexander et al., Corpus ... Tunisie Hi: Utique Bandinelli (n. 64), 223-4, Fig- 2 °8 (colour). Dun-
Tunis, 1 976) passim; Dunbabin (n. 5), 16-17, 18. babin (n. 5), 62, 1 19-21, Fig. 109.
n. 25, 21, n. 33, 109, n. 5 ; Dossier ^i (n. 66). passim; Bandinelli (n. 64), Fig. (colour). Baratte (n. 17),
1

R. Hanoune, Attim (n. 11 . no. 6. Dunbabin (n. 5), Fig. 154.

G. Picard, MGfi n. 41 1 . 125-32, and discussion, The following is a selection from the copious litera-
133-4. S. Gozlan, Dossiei 31 11. 66 . 68-75. ture on this site: G. V. Gentili, La Villa Erculia di

L. Foucher, La Maison dt la Procession Dionysiaqm a Piazza Armerina: I Mosaici Figurati 56 colour plates; (

El Jem (Paris, 1963), 62-3, 90-6, PI. XVIII. Rome, 1959); Lavin (n. 37), 244-51; A.
Dunbabin (n. 5), 260, no. 27* (c) (i). Dossier 3 1 11. Carandini, Ricerche sulk Stile e la Cronologia della

661,48-9,51. Villa di Piazza Armerina (Studi Miscellanei 7,

M. Wheeler. Roman Art and An hit, 1 tux London, Rome, 964) H. Kahler, Die Villa des Maxentius bei
1 ;

[964 , Fig. 73. Cf. Blake in (n. 7), ioi,n. 139, 1 16, Piazza Armerina (Berlin, 1973); Dunbabin (n. 5),
11. 257. 196-212, 243-5; Bandinelli (n. 64), 237-48.
Lavin (n. 371, 230-1. Fig. 75. Dunbabin n. 5 .
105. e.g. interruptions in the pattern of waves, and
51—2, 1 12-13, Fig. 101. Dossier 31 (n. 66), 22—4, 25. occasional lines of tesserae running across the
P. Romanelli, A/67? 1 (n. 41), 275-83. direction of the tesserae forming the background of
Dunbabin in. 5). 93-4, n. 18, 113-14,11.21.270. the 'Great Hunt' as in Gentili (n. 104), PI. XXV (at

no. 13 (c), Fig. 81 (fragment). least four instances, the ship's mast probably
PaceDunbabin 11. 5), 1 14.
disguising another), Kahler (n. 104), PI. 28; also in
Dunbabin in. 5), 184. 263, Fig. 183. the 'Small Hunt', as in F. Abbate, Roman Art
Bandinelli (n. 64), 233, Fig. 215. Dunbabin (n. 5), (London, 1972), 69 (colour). PI.

[81 2, 269, no. 12 (d), Fig. 182. Dossier 31 (n. 66), Gentili (n. 104), PI. X. Kahler (n. 104), PI. 44, b.
107. Gentili (n. 104), Pis. XVII, XXI. Lavin (n. 37),

Bruneau (n. 4), 242-5 (no. 214), Figs. 182-3. 248-9, Fig. 10. For a parallel from Carthage for
1

S. Germain, Les Mosaiques de Timgad (Paris, 1969), the sacrificial scene see Dunbabin (n. 5), 57-8,
passim; id., Dossier 31 (n. 66), 103-7. Cf. Lavin (n. Figs. 36-7. Both scenes illustrate the ritual kiss: see
n. 35. For the picnic: Bandinelli (n. 64), 244-5,
37), 216-8, Figs. 45-51.
Hinks (n. 23), 89, no. 29, Fig. 99, PI. XXIX. Fig. 199 (colour .

Dunbabin (n. 5), 121, Fig. 1 10. 108 Gentili (n. 1041, XXIII. Kahler (n. 104), PI. 33.
PI.

Dunbabin (n. 5), 38-45. For a small-scale but otherwise not dissimilar
Ibid. , 46-64. M . Ennai'fer, Dossier 3 1 (n. 66) 80-92.
,
representation of this subject in an emblema of c. 200
Bandinelli (n. 64), Figs. 230, 231. from Baccano near Rome see Becatti et al. (n. 39),
Dunbabin 65-108. A. Beschaouch, Dossier
(n. 5), no. 11, PI. XI (colour). On other mythological

31 (n. 66), 32-6. H. Slim, Dossier 31, 48-54. scenes see Lavin (n. 37), 249-51, Figs. 1 1 1-15.

Dunbabin (n. 5). 109-23. Bandinelli in. 64 Fig. .

See n. 99.

(colour). Cf. Dorigo (n. 34), Figs. 93-7.

239
Dunbabin (n. 5), 123-4. Cf. Lavin (n. 37), 242-55; Dunbabin (n. 5), 16-17,

Ibid., 125-30. Bandinelli (n. 64), 234, Fig. 217. 38.

Dunbabin in. 5), 124-5. Bandinelli (n. 64), Fig. On the geometric mosaics cf. R. C. Scovazzo, Atti

III.
214.
J. Lassus, MGR I (n. 41), 175-89. Dunbabin (n. 5), Lavin (n. 37), 255-62, Figs. 12 1-3, 126, 128. Cf.
154-8. Bandinelli (n. 64), 225-6, Fig. 210. Dunbabin (n. 5), 212-15, Fig. 204.
Baratte(n. 1
7), no. 6. Dunbabin (n. 5), 158,11. 114. H. Stern, DOP, 12, 1958, 157-218.
Dossier 31 (n. 66), 76-8. Lavin (n. 37), 212-14, Figs. 31-3. Dunbabin (n.
Foucher (n. 75). Bandinelli (n. 64), 233, Fig. 215. 5), 253, no. 38 (a). S. Germain, AntAf, 14, 1979,
Dunbabin (n. 5), 173-87. L. Foucher, Dossiei 31 171 ff, no. 4, Figs. 2, 3.

(n. 66), 37-47. See n. 5.

Cf. Bandinelli (n. 64), Figs. 219, 220 (colour); General: MGR I (n. 41 ), MGR II (n. 58), Atti III (n.

Dunbabin 11. 5), passim; Beschaouch (n. 88), 11); Dossier 15 (n. 25). Austria: H. Kenner, MGR I,

passim; Ennaifer n. 87), passim. 85-93. Britain: D.J. Smith, MGRl, 95-1 14, MGR
Dunbabin (n. 5), 49, Fig. 22. II, 269-89, Atti III (n. 11); id., in A.L.F. Rivet (ed.),

Ibid., 50, 60. Ennaifer (n. 87). 81, 86, 87, 88-92. The Roman Villa in Britain (London, 1969), 71-125.
Dunbabin (n. 5), 55, Fig. 29. Bandinelli 11. 64 .
France: Recueil des Mosaiques de la Gaule l-Belgique,
264 NOTES

fascs. 1-3, ll-Lyonnaise, fascs. 1-3 (continuing), 137. Ibid., 80-2, Fig. 10, Pis. 80. 1. 81, 82.
lll-Narbonnaise, fasc. 1 (continuing), I V -Aquitaine, 138. For a similar contrast in Pannoniacf. Kiss (n. 117),

fasc. (continuing). Germany: Parlasca (n. 12).

1 66.
Greece: E. Waywell, AJA, 83, 1979, 293-321. 139. Parlasca (n. 12), 86-8, Pis. 84, 2, 85, 2, 86, 87.

Hungary: A. Kiss, Roman Mosaics in Hungary 140. D.J. Smith in A. King and M. Henig (eds.), The
(Budapest, 1973). Portugal: M. BairraS Oleiro, Roman West in the Third Century, BAR Int. Ser., 109
MGR I, 257-63. Spain: A. Balil, I, 29-38, MGR (Oxford, 1981), 159-65: ibid., Atti in (n. 11).
Barral I Altet (n. 25), A. Blanco Freijeiro, Corpus de 141. Kiss (n. 117), 67.
Mosaicos Romanos en Espana, fasc. i-M'erida 142. Lavin (n. 37), 264-6. Dunbabin (n. 5), 219-22.
(Madrid, 1978), fasc. 2-Italica (T) (Madrid, Barral I Altet, Dossier 15 (n. 25), 62-5; id. (n. 25),
1978), D. Fernandez-Galiano, Anales de Historia 17-19. D. Fernandez-Galiano, Atti III (n. 11).
Antigua y Medieval 20 (Buenos Aires, 1980), 100-50. 143. Barral I Altet (n. 25), no. 6, with refs. to the mosaic

Switzerland: V. von Gonzenbach, Die Romischen of Gerona, Pis. VI-XI. M. Tarradell (n. 118),
Mosaiken der Schweiz (Basel, 1961). Yugoslavia: D. colour plates 2, 5, 1
74.
Mano-Zissi, MGR 287-94. I,
144. Freijeiro (n. 117), fasc. 1, no. 65, Pis. 95-8, 107-8
118. Spain: A. Balil, MGR (n. 41), I 29-38, Figs. 1-3 (colour).
(Ampurias); M. Tarradell, Arte Romano en Espana 145. Lavin (n. 37), 259, with refs.. Figs. 124. 125.
(Barcelona, 1969), PI. 70 (colour plate of emblema 1 Dossier 15 (n. 25), 64 ('Autumn', colour).
depicting the sacrifice of Iphigeniaj. Southern 146. Bandinelli (n. 64), 193. 195, Fig. 185. Dossier 15 (n.
Gaul: H. Lavagne, Recueil (n. 117) III, fasc. 1
25), 65 (colour).
(Paris, 1979), no. 45, PI. XIII (Orange). 147. Freijeiro in. 1 1 7s, fasc. 1 . no. 43B. Pis. 77-9, 101-4
119. Barral I Altet n. 25 . 14-15, Freijeiro in. 117. ; colour).
fascs. 1,2, passim. 148. Ibid., 21, no. 15, Pis. 26. 27. Bandinelli (n. 64), 193,

1 20. J. Lancha, Mosaiques Geometriques: les Mosaiques de 195, Fig. 186.

Vienne - here (Rome, 1977), 19 1-2, Figs. 10 1-5. 149. C. Balmelle, Dossier 15 (n. 25), 70-5; id., Recueil in.
Also St Romain-en-Gal, across the Rhone from 117), W-Aquitainn fasc. 1 (Paris, 1981).
Vienne. 150. H. Stern, Gallia, XIII, 1955, 41-77; id., Recueil (n.

121. B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne ig6i-ig6g 117), \-Belgique, fasc. 1 (Paris, 1957), no. 77. Lavin
(Leeds, 1971 ), 1, 163-5, Pls - XLVII-LIII. For the (n. 37), 264, Fig. 132. Dunbabin (n. 5), 135, n. 28.

terminus post quern see now D. Rudkin, Mosaic Dossier 15 (n. 25), cover (colour).
Newsletter of the Association for the Study and 151. Lavin n. 37), 263, Fig. 130.
Preservation of Roman Mosaics), 4 (April, 1981), 152. Ibid.. 263-4, Fig. 129. J. -P. Darmon, La Mosaique
de Lillebonne Rouen. 1976); Actes du Colloqin In in na-
(

Kiss (n. 117), no. 10, Fig. 10a. (Rouen, 1978), 235-64; id.,
tional d'Archeologie

Smith. MGRl\ n. 58), 269-89. XXXVI, 1978, 65-88.

(.nihil.

Kiss (n. 1
17), 67. 153. For a tame stag as a decoy in a late mosaic from
See n. 117. Carthage: Hinks (n. 23), 144, no. 57a, PI. XXXII;
Freijeiro (n. 117), fasc. 1, 22-3, no. 17. Pis. 28-39, Dunbabin (n. 5), 59, PI. 41. An antelope and even
99-100 (colour). ostriches and a tigress are apparently tame decoys

J. -P. Darmon, H. Lavagne, Recueil n. 117 in the 'Great Hunt' at Piazza Armerina: Gentili (n.
ll-Lyonnaise, fasc. 3 (Paris, uiyy "" 1'5> Pl s -
I04(. Plv XXVI, XXVIII.
XI-XXIII. i^.Princeton Encyclopedia a. 16): 'Augusta Trevero-
H. Lavagne, Recueil in. 117. lll-Narbonnaise, fas< M. Wightman, Roman Tim andth Treveri
rum'. F.
1 (Paris, 1979), no. 58, Pis. XIX-XXII. (London, 1970), 58-68, and 318: 'mosaics'.
H. Stern, MGR I (n. 41), 233-41. For an Italian 155. Parlasca (n. 12). 49-64.
example of the first century with a typically 156. Ibid., 60, Pis. 11,2, 56, 3.
Hellenistic emblema and 'three-dimensional' panels 157. Ibid., 61-2, colour plate B, 2, plates 58, 1, 59, 1, 2.

see the mosaic of Terarho (n. 38): id., Rerun/ a. 158. Ibid., 56-7, colour plates D, E, plates 54-5. Cf.
117), l-Belgique, fasc. 2 (Paris, i960), 12, PI. B. Wightman n. 154), 65.
. Parlasca (n. 12:, 22-48. '59 Smith, The Roman Villa in Britain (n. 117); iff., in
. Ibid.,35-6, Pis. 36-9. J. Munb) ami M. Henig eds. , Roman Life and .\ii

. Parlascain. 12 ,41—3, Pis. 42-7, colour plan- \. 2, in Britain, BAR

41 Oxford, 1977), 105-93. Cf. J.
C. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain London. 1

. Ibid., 88-9, Pis. 88-91. 1962), 196-205: id., Ait in Britain under the Romans
. H. Stern, Recueil (n. 1 1
7), l-Belgique, fasc. 1 , no. 38, (Oxford, 1964), 228-89. A. A. Barrett, Britannia,
Pis. XI-XIY. A comparable example is a mosaic of ix. 1978, 307-13. R. Stupperich, Britannia, xi.
(?) C.200 of Augsburg: Parlasca 11. 12 . IOI-2, PI. 1980, 289-301. R. Lint;. Mosaic, 5, 1981 (see n.
97. 121 , l(l-I 7.

. Parlasca (n. 12), 69, PI. 61, 1. 160. D.J. Smith, Alii ill n. 1
1), Fig. 2.

. Ibid., 75-8, Pis. 66-79, 80, 2. 161. id.. MGR I (n. 41), 105—1 1; id., Hommages a Henri
 2 65

Stern (ed. J.-P. Darmon, forthcoming), 1978), 128-37, Figs. 39-44.

162. id., MGR 1 (n. 41), 1 13-4, Fig. 18; id.. The Roman 187. Parlasca (n. 12), 77 and n. 1, 78.
Villa in Britain (n. 117), 1 16, PL 3.32; id.. AttiHI (n. 188. Von Gonzenbach (n. 117), 165—6, 264— 5, and 365,
1 1), Fig. 2. s.v. 'Muscheln'.
163. J. M. C. Toynbee, JRS, LIV, 1954, rontispie< e 189. Freijeiro (n. 117), fasc. 2(1), no. 30.
(colour), 7-14, Pis. I-VII. 190. J.-P. Darmon, H. Lavagne (n. 127), nos. 452, 454
164. Smith, MGR 99-105; id., The Roman Villa
I (n. 41), (with note on instances of mosaic incorporating
in Britain (n. 17), 109-13; id.. Atti III (n. 11).
1 shells).

165. Hemsworth (Dorset): Hinks (n. 23), 99, no. 33, PI. 191. Levi (n. 5), 2, nn. 8, 9, with references to Malalas,
XXX. Chronogr. XI, 369, XII, 400, and Libanius, Or. XI,
166. E. Coker (Somerset): C. R. Smith, Collectanea Anti- 202.
gua, 11, 1852, 51-2, PI. xx. VCH Somerset, 1, 1906, 192. J. B. Ward-Perkins, J. M. C. Toynbee, Archaeologia,
329, Fig. 87. On the costumes and their dating: XCIII, 1949, 179-80, 192, Pis. XXXIV (colour), XLI.
Blake III (n. 7), 1 17, PI. 27, 3; cf. Lavin (n. 37), 193. J. Liversidge, 'The Roman Villa in Britain', in A.
258, Figs. 122-3; Dunbabin^n. 5), 213, Fig. 204. L. F. Rivet (ed.). The Roman Villa in Britain
167. Smith, MGR I (n. 41), 98-9, Fig. 3; id., The Roman (London, 1969), 134, Fig. 4.1.
Villa in Britain (n. 1 17), 107, PI. 3.20; id., in FM. 194. See esp. G. Calza, La Necropoli del Porto di Roma
Stead, Rudston Roman Villa (Leeds, 1980), 134-6, Sana (Rome, 1940), 161 ff. For two pagan
nell'Isola
PI. XII. Cf. J. Lassus, 'Venus Marine', I, MGR funerary mosaics from Tunisia see P. Gauckler,
175—89; Dunbabin (n. 5), 154-8. Inventaire des Mosaiques de la Gaule et de I'Afrique
168. Dunbabin (n. 5), 73. A bull in a mosaic of Cos has Romaine: Afrique Proconsulaire (1910), nos. 24, 25
the Greek equivalent of this name: J. M. C. (Henchir-Thina with Plate. For one in opus vermi-
I
,

Toynbee, PBSR. \\I, 1948, 36. culatum from Salonae (Yugoslavia), assigned to the
169. Dunbabin (n. 5), 78-84. Dossier 31 (n. 66), 36. end of the third century, see D. Mano-Zissi, MGR
170. F. Sear, 'Wall and vault mosaics', Ch. 18 in Roman I (n. 41), 290-1, Fig. 13 = Duval (n. 196), 64, PI.

Crafts (n. 1), 232-3, Figs. 365-6. XXV, 2.

171. Ibid., 234-5, Fig. 369. 195. J. N. Brewer, The Beauties of England and Wales, XII,
172. Ibid., 234-5, Fig. 368. Part II, Oxfordshire (London, 8 3), 462-4. 1
1

173. Ibid., Fig. 363. 196. N. Duval, MGR II (n. 58), 63-107, including a
174. Ibid., Fig. 370. note on Christian funerary mosaics outside North
175. D. Joly, MGR 1 (n. 41), 57-71. Africa. For one in Spain not cited by Duval see A.
176. Sear (n. 170), PI. X (colour); Toynbee (n. 7), 157, Garcia y Bellido, Colonia Aelia Augusta Italica
PI. 85. (Madrid, i960), 31, PI. XI.
177. A. Maiuri, Ercolano-I Nuovi Scavi: ig2j—ig^8 197. Blake (n. 2), 25, 27-9, 32, 33-4; Joyce (n. 43)
I

(Rome, 1958), 393-402, Figs. 332-7; Hanfmann 198. e.g. on Delos: Bruneau (n. 4), 22-3; at Fishboume:
(n. 18), colour plate XX. Cunliffe (n. 121), I, 66-9.
178. Museo Nazionale, Naples, nos. 91 10, 1 16085. 199. Becatti (n. 43), 247-79, passim.
Charbonneaux 125 (colour).
et al. (n. 5), Figs. 124, 200. London: Britannia, X, 1979. 313. 31 7-

179. Museo Nazionale, Naples, no. 10004. Fischer (n. 201. Blake I (n. 2), 35-49. Mosaico e Mosaicisti
0, Fig. 10. nell' Antichitd (n. 131, 36-40 Clnerostazione'), 40-6
180. For one see Charbonneaux et al. (n. 5), Fig. 154 ('Opus Sectile'). Pace Blake I (n. 2), 50-67, 'Opus
(colour); Fischer (n. 1) illustrates this and the sectile' is evidently not 'lithostroton': Bruneau (n. 4),

mosaic for comparison. Figs. 10, 11. 6, no. 1, 120.

181. In the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Sear (n. 202. Hanfmann (n. 18), PI. X (colour).
170), Fig. 361. 203. Cf. Becatti (n. 43), 355-67.

182. Becatti (n. 42), no. 269. 204. Ibid., nos. 47, 49, Pis. CCX, CCXIX (colour); Hanf-
183. Ibid., no. 310, with colour plate. mann (n. 18), PI. XV (colour).
184. J.M.C. Toynbee, J.B. Ward-Perkins, The Shrine of 205. Mosaico e Mosaicisti nell' Antichitd (n. 13), 42-3. For
St. Petei and the Vatican Excavations 1956), 73~4and examples of figured opus sectile see pp. 43-4.
117. PI. 32;Becatti (n. 421, 294; Hanfmann (n. 18). 206. M. L. Morricone Matini, Mosaici Antichi in Italia:
colour plate XIV. Reg. \-Roma: Reg. x-Palatium (Rome, 1967), 64, PI.
185. For more extensive accounts of Roman mural and XXXIII. Fishbourne has yielded geometric frag-
vault-mosaics see H. Stern, Et. d'Arch. Class, n, ments only 1-15 mm (c.-^ in.) thick, and others
1959, 101-21; Sear (n. 170); F. B. Sear, Roman only 0.3-0.4 mm. (c. ^ in.) thick suggesting a
Wall and Vault Mosait s Heidelberg, 1977), and the floral pattern which Cunliffe thinks may have
valuable review of the last-named work by M. come from furniture: (n. 121), II, 24-37, Pis. VII, X.

Donderer, Gnomon, 52, 1980, 761-9. 207. Bandinelli (n. 64), 93, Fig. 83 (colour).
186. Smith 1969 (n. 17), 104, n. 2. Cf. K. S. Painter,
1 208. Ibid. 96-8, Fig. 90 (colour).
Ant. J.,LVI, <)7<i. 49 54; D.J. Smith, in M. Todd
1 209. Mosaico e Mosaicisti nell' Antichitd (n. 13), 44, colour
(ed.). Studies 111 the Romano-British Villa (Leicester, plate.
 ,

2 66

2io. Bandinelli (n. 64), 96, Figs. 88, 89 (colour). du Muset d'Alexandrit Alexandria. 1939).
2ii. Mosaico 1 Mosaicisti nelt'Antichita in. 13), 44; B. Svoboda. JRS, LVIII, 1968, 124-5 and
Bandinelli (n. 64), 98, Fig. gi (colour). Meuerworbene Romische Metallgefasse aus Strdze bei
212. For an exhaustive study of these panels, with many Pies'tany (Bratislava, 1972); P. Gauckler, Mon. Piot 2,
other examples ofvitreous opus sectile in Italy, see G. '895- 77-94-
Becatti, Scavi di Ostia VI: Edificio con opus set tilt fuoi 1 E. Babelon, Le Tresor d'Argenterie de Berthouville pres
Porta Marina (Libreria dello Stato, Rome, 1967), Bernay (Eure) Paris. 1916).
181-215. H. B. Walters. Catalogue of the Silver Plate, (./eel.
213. Ibid. For part of an inhabited scroll from this build- Etruscan ami Roman in the British Museum (London,
ing, crude but in the tradition of that of the mosaic 192 1 ), 46-7, no. 183; 34nos. 135, 136; and 50-1 no.
of Zliten, see Bandinelli (n. 64), 98, Fig. 91 192; B. Cunliffe, Ant. J., LX, 1980, 201, PI. XVIII.
(colour). F. Baratte, Antike Kunst, 21, 1978, 40-5; K. S.
214. L. Ibrahim, R. Scranton, R. Brill, Kenchreai - Painter, The Mildenhall Treasure. Roman Silver from
Eastern Portoj Corinth 11: Tin Panels oj Opus Sectih in East Anglia (London, 1977), 12-13 an d 27, no. 4,
Glass (Leiden, 1976). For one of the panels see Pis. 10-14; D. Brown, Oxoniensia, 38, 1973, 193 and
Bandinelli (n. 64), Fig. 31 1 (colour). PI. VIIIB.

Walters (n. 19), PI. XXV, nos. 148 and 170; Bourgey,
(n. 2), 161-2.
G. Lloyd-Morgan, in A. King and M. Henig, The
chapter six The Luxury Arts
Roman West in the Third Century, BAR Int. Set.. 109
1. Vermeule, Antikt Kunst, •>, 1963, 33-40, especially Oxford, 11)8 146 and 151. 1 .

39- Painter 11. 211 . 26, Pis. 1-8. nos. 1-3; F. Haverlicld,
2. A. Maiuri, La Casa del Menandro 1 il mo Tesoro di JRS, IV, 1914, 1-12; and J.M.C. Toynbee, Art m
Argenteria Rome, 1933). 265-310, Pis. xvi wiv: Roman Britain London, 1962 172.no. 108. .

A. Heron de Villefosse, Mon. Pioi 5, 1899, 79-83, K. Weitzmann, Agt 0/ Spirituality. Catalogue oj the
Pis. XV, XVI; S. Bourgey, Arckeologia, no. 153, April Exhibition nt the Metropolitan Museum 0/ Art New
1 98 1, p. 64. York, 1979 231—4, no. 208. .

3. J. M. C. Toynbee, Somi Motes on Artists in the Rowan I

Ward-Perkins and A. Claridge, Pompeii ad 79
World, Collection Latomus, 6 (Brussels, 1 95 1 )
Royal Ac .iilenn of Arts Exhibition Catalogue
51-3; CIL6. 9207 ('aurifexde Sacra Via and 9434
1
[976 ii". i()C);
- F. H. Marshall. Catalogue oj the

'gemmarius de Sacra Via' Other references to .

(.ii,l. Etruscan and Roman in the Departments

gemmarii in Enc, III, 888-9. oj Antiquities, British Museum London. 191 383 1 .

4. D.E. Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and Silvei Piatt and PI. I. XXIII. no. 3168.
(London, 1966), 109 and PI. 31A. Strong's mono- (: Vermeule, Greek ami Roman Sculpture m Gold and
graph is a fundamental referen< e work and most of Silvei Biisloii. ii|;| . ;;(). tins. [02, 103.
the plate to which reference is made in the text is C.J. Sautel, Vaison dans I'Antiquite I. Supplement -
also cited there. Travaux et Recherches dt ni-j a i<i /<< Avignon, 1941 .

5. U .Gehrig, Hildesheimei Silberfund Berlin, 1967), Pis. 108. PI. 1 w 11

land in colour . 13 and 14: de Villefosse n. 2 .

Walters n. ig .
.')
m. Pis. \ and VI, nos. 27—35;
39—47, Pis. i and ii. Babelon (n. 18), 73-6, Pis. [-IV, nos. 1 and 2.

6. A. Oliver, Silver for the Gods. 800 Years of Greek and I. Venedikov, Thracian Treasures from Bulgaria
Roman Silvei Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, 1977); (British Museum, 1976), 85, no. 455 (111.);

I) E. Strong in I. M. Stead, Archaeologia, CI, mi<>7. Walters, n. tg . PI. win, no. 145.
20-3. A. Leibundgut, Do Romischen Bronzen dei Schweiz II
7. P. E. Corbetl and D.E Strong, BMQ win, 1961, Avenches Mainz, 1976 30 Pis. 14 16, no. 15: D. . -•.

77-83; A. Oliver, J. Paul („ii\ Museum journal H. . Brown, Burlington Magazint CXIII, 1971, 334, Figs.
[980, [55 9; Gehrig n. 5 Pis. 2 5; M. B. . 58 and 59; J.M.C. Toynbee, Ait in Britain mala tin
Halzopoulos and L. I). Loukopoulos, Philip of Romans )xford, 1964), 49, PI. Y.
(

Macedon London, 1981 ,213, PI. 1 1

1
A. S. Murray, Archaeologia, LV, [896, [99 202. On
8. Corbetl and Strong 11. 7 68-77. . the technique of gilding, see W. A. ( >ddy, L. Borrelli

9. F. Kim/1. BJ [69, 1969, 321-92. Vlad and V

D. Meeks in (.. Perroco eel. The .

in. \ ermeule n. 36-8. 1 . Horses of San Marco, Venict London, 1979), 182-5.
1 1 . E. Kunzl, Jahr. RGZM 22,1975,62 80 Weitzmann n. 24), 176-7, no. 155. K.J. Shelton,
[2. de Villefosse, n 2), 134 68, Pis. XXXI-XXXV1 Tht Esquilint Treasurt London, 1981), 86-8, nos.
13. Strong n. \ .
to 3, Pis. 35 1 ;

1 (. Maiuri n. 347 8. PI. XLV; de Villefosse, (n.

.» .
2), Sim. hi; 11. 1 .
179 and PI. 53B; G. M. A. Richter,
73-9, Pis. XI XIV. I In Furnitun oj tin Greeks, Etruscans ami Romans
15. Gehrig n. 5
5, 23 6 and A. Roes and W.
, Pis. 1 [6. London, 1966 . i"!'>. Fig 548. F01 similar inla) of
Vollgraff, Mon. Piot, 46, 39-67. silver, base gold and brass on astrigil from Caerleon
16. A. Adriani, LeGobeleten h gent des Amours Vendangeurs in Wales, showing the Labours of Hercules see Ant.
NOTES 267

J..LX. 1980, 333-7. 53. Ibid.. 56-64.

34. Gehrig (n. 5). PI. 10; G. Faider Feytmans, Recital des 54. Ibid.. 47-56.
Bronzes de Bavai (Paris, 1957), 1 14-15, Pis. XLIV, 55. Ibid., 40-3; J. Boardman and D. Scarisbrick, The
XLV, no. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Die
280; A. Ralph Harari Collection <ij Finger Rings London,
Romischen Brcmzen der Schweiz L Augst (Mainz, 1977), 977)' 35~6, no. 62; H. Carnegie. Catalogue oj tin
120-1, Pis. 1 19-23, no. 189. Collection of Antique Gemsformed by Jami Ninth Earloj s

35. E. Pernicc, Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji IV: Southesk (London, 1908), 42 and PI. Ill, no. C22
Gefdsse und Gerdte aus Bronze (Berlin and Leipzig, (now in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge).
1925), 22, PI. IV. 56. Vollenweider (n. 52), 69-73; J. Boardman. Engraved
36. H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman Gems. The lonides Collection (London, 968) 30 f, no. 1 ,

and Etruscan in the Department of Greek and Roman 31 (now in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge).
Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1899), 162, PI. 57. Greifenhagen (n. 471. I. 79-80, PI. VII (colour), 6;
XXV, no. 882. E. Zwierlein-Diehl, Die Antiken Gemmen dei
37. G. Faider-Feytmans, Les Bronzes Romains de Belgique Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien I Munich, 1973),
(Mainz, 1979), 179-80, PI. 147, no. 368. 147 and PI. 77, no. 465.
38. Ibid.. 183, PI. 154-5,110. 375: 58. Vollenweider (n. 52), 60 and PI. 61, 1:81-5. Pis. 1

39. Toynbee (n. 30), 321, PI. LXXV b. and 2.

40. S. Tassinari, La Vaisselle de Bronze Romaine et 59. M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage
Provinciate au Musee des Antiquites .Rationales (Paris, Cambridge, 1974'. 11, 727-8.
'975). ^7- PI- XXXIII, no. 172. 60. D. B. Thompson. Ptolemait Oinochoai and Portraits in
41. Toynbee (n. 30), 325, PI. LXXIII b. Faience. Aspects of the Ruler Cult (Oxford, 1973); C. M.
42. E. Esperandieu and H. Rolland, Bronzes Antiques de Havclock, Hellenistic Art (London, 1971), 200-1, PI.
la Seine- Maritime (Paris, 1959), 69-70, Pis. 170; G. M. A. Richter. Engraved Gems oj tin (.ink uml s

XLII-XLIII, no. 139. tin Etruscans London, 1968). 151, no. 596.
43. H. Willers, Die Romischen Bronzeeimer Von Hemmoor 61. G. M. A. Richter, Engraved Gems oj /In Romans
(Hanover and Leipzig, 1901). (London, 1971), 104, no. 501.
44. J. Heurgon, Mon. Piot 46, 1952, 93-1 15. 62. Ibid..04-5, no. 502 and H.Jucker, JDAI. 91, [976,
1

45. Toynbee (n. 30), 299-300, PI. LXIX b. 1-50 (who reinterprets the cameo and dates it to
21
46. S. Walker and A. Burnett, Augustus. Handlist of the AD 51. which is unconvincing).
Exhibition and Supplementary Studies, British Museum 63. H. Mobius, Rev. Arch. N.S. 1968, 315-26 and O.
-Occasional Paper 16 (London, 1981), 49-55. Neverov, Burlington Magazine, cxxi, 1979. 431, Fig.
47. A. Greifenhagen, Staatliche Museen Preussischer 40; P. Zazoff. Antike Gemmen in Staatliche
Kulturbesitz: Schmuckarbeiten in Edelmetall (Berlin, Kunstsammlungen Kassel (Kassel, 1969), 28 and PI.
1975), II, 101-2, Pis. 69, and V. A. Maxfield, The 23, Fig. 140.
Military Decorations oj the Roman Army (London, 64. Richter (n. 61). 122-3, no 600. -

1 98 1 ) , 94 f., PL 15; E. Kunzl, in S. Boucher fed.), 65. C. D. E. Fortnum, XLV, 1877, 6-9, PI
Archaeologia. 1

Actes du IVe Colloque International sur les bronzes anti- Richter in. 61no. 676; E. Swoboda,
1, 144,
ques, Annales de TUniversite Jean Moulin (Lyons, Camuntum. Seim GeschichU und Seine Denkmala Graz,
19771,83-6. 1964), 102, PI. XXV, 1; A. M. McCann, MAAR,
48. H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome XXX. 1968, 183 and PI. xoilj; Richter (n. 61).
(London, 1975); J. Garbsch, Rdmische Parade- 123-4, no 605. -

Rustungen (Munich, 1978). 66. H. Guiraud, Annate. L'Universite de Toulouse-Le

49. See Sister Charles Murray, Rebirth and Afterlife. .1 Mirail N.S.X., 1974, — 17; M. Henig, A Corpus of
1 1
1

Study of the Transmutation of some Pagan Imagery in Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites. BAR 8
Early Christian Funerary Art, BAR Int. Ser., 100 (Oxford, 2nd edn., 1978). 299-300 and frontis-
(Oxford, 1981), 23, on devices worn by Christians piece, no. app. 108.
(citing Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, III, 67. E. Die
Zwierlein-Diehl, Antiken Gemmen des
12. 1). Museums in Wien //(Munich, 1979),
Kunsthistorischen
50. Neither group is entirely exclusive, note pelleting 7-1 1 on wasters from a workshop M. Henig,
7, also
and thick wheel-cuts on Campanian gems (M. 'A Cache of Glass Gems dating to the Second
Maaskant-Kleibrink, Catalogue of the England (•cms Triumvirate', appendix to The Lewis Collection ij
in the Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague (The Hague, Engraved Gemstones in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
1978), 108 ff.) and Hellenistic influence on Italic BAR Int. Ser., (Oxford, 1975), 81-94. See now B.
1

gems in the Etruscan tradition {ibid. 101 ff.). Czurda-Ruth, Die romischen Gldser vom Magdalensberg
51. J. Boardman, Intaglios and Rings, Greek, Etruscan and (Klagenfurt, 1979), 1 74-5 for a recent examination

Easternfrom a Private Collection (London, 1975), 42 f., of technique. seems that the glass was impressed
It

no. 143. into the mould in a viscous state rather than poured
52. M. L. Vollenweider, Die Steinschneidekunst und Ihre in as a liquid.
Runs tier in Spcitrepublikanischer und Augusteisckei %eit 68. On workshops, see G. Sena Chiesa. Gemme del Museo
(Baden-Baden, 1966). .Xarjonuli ill Ai/mlcia (Padua, 1966), and Gemme di
 , .

268

Luni (Rome, 1978). 17-21; Hcnig. (n. 66), 33-4; M. LXIi; Toynbee, (n. 23), 183, no. 135, PI. 156; P.J.
Gramatopol, Les pierres gravees du Cabinet numismatiqui Drury, Ant. J., LIII, 1973, 273, no. 2, PI. LIV b, c;
de l' Academic Roumaine, Collection Latomus 1 38 Britannia, XI, 1980, 410 and PI. XXVII.
(Brussels, 1974), 29-36; For the South Shields gem 87. R. Vv Nicholls, Archaeologia, CVI, 1979, 1-32; L.
see Henig (n. 66), 208 and PI. XXXVI, no. 184. Marangou, Benaki Museum, Athens. Bone Carvingsfrom
69. Greifenhagen (n. 47), I, 77-81. Egypt 1. Graeco-Roman Period (Tubingen, 1976); see
70. Maiuri (n. 2), 378-82, PI. LXV. also Toynbee (n. 30), 359 and PI. LXXXII (for ivory
71. B. Pfeiler, Romischer Goldschmuck des ersten und zweiten plaques from Caerleon).
Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach datierten Funden (Mainz, 88. M. Henig, in Munby and Henig (n. 79), 359 and PI.

1970), 51, PI. 10. 15. VI; P. Arthur, ibid., 367-74 and PI. 16.1 a.
72. G. C. Boon, Ant. J., LV. 1975, 41-61; D. 89. M. Vaulina and A. Wasowicz, Bois Grecs el Romains
Charlesworth, Arch. Ael. fifth ser. 1, 1973, 226-8; J. de I'Erm it'age (Warsaw, 1974), 01-6, Pis. XCIX-CXI;
1

M. C. Toynbee, (n. 24), 179, nos. 130, 131, Pis. 154 R. Martin. Antiquity. XXXIX, 1965, 247-52, Pis.
and 155. XLV-LI; Britannia, III, 1972, 349 and PI. XXIV, B.
73. On third century jewellery, see M. Henig in King 90. G. H. Forsyth and K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of
and Henig, (n. 22), 127-43. Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Church and Fortress

74. J. Heurgon, Le Tre'sor de Te'nes (Paris, 1958). is an of Justinian (Ann Arbor, c. 1966), Pis. LXVI-LXXIX;
admirable study of the late period of Roman jewel- W. F. Volbach, Em ly Christian Art (London, 1961),
lery. A full account of the Thetford treasure by 330-1, nos. 102-5.
Catherine Johns and Timothy Potter is in 91. W. F. Volbach, Early Decorative Textiles (Feltham,
preparation. 1968), especially Pis. 3 and 8. Mr Julian Ward
75. H-P. Biihler. Antike Gefdsse aus Edehkinen Main/. kindly pointed out the Catullus reference to me.
1973)-
76. A. I. Loewental and D. B. Harden, JRS, XXXIX,
1949, 31-7; D. B. Harden, JRS. XLIY, 1954, 53. chapter seven Coins and Medals
77. Richter (n. 61), 106, no. 508, and see Walker and
Burnett (n. 46), 21, no. 228; G. M. A. Richter, 1 A. Bonanno, Reliej portraiture to Septimius Severus,
Catalogue of Creek and Roman Antiquities, in the BAR (Oxford, 1976).
Int. Ser., 6
Dumbarton Oah < ollection Cambridge, Mass., 1956), 2. F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni Romani (Milan, 1912).
14-15, no. 10, PI. V; O. Neverov, Antique Cameos in 3. J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, Numismatic
theHermitage Collection (Leningrad, 197 1), 95, no. Studies V (New York, 1944); L. Michelini Tocci, /
107. medaglioni Romani e i contorniati del Medagliere Vaticano

78. M. E. Marien. Belgica Antiqua. I.'Empreinte de Rome (Vatican City, 1965).

Antwerp, 19801. 268. Fig. 182: Ward-Perkins and 4. R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome the Centre of Power
Claridge (n. 25), no. 238. (London, 1970), Chapter 2.
79. H.J. H. Van Buchem. Numaga, XXII, 1975, 214, 5. M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cam-
Fig. 8; Marien (n. 78), 280, Fig. [94; 1). E. Strong, bridge, 1974).
Catalog!, oj 1/1, ( arvedAmbei in thi Department oj Greek 6. e.g. J. M. C. Toynbee in J. Munby and M. Henig
and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London, (eds.), Roman Life and Art in Britain, BAR 41
1966), 92-3, no. D. Brown and M. Henig, in J
1 14; (Oxford, 1977), 4-7.
Munln .ind M. Henig, Roman Life ami Art in Britain. 7. C. H. V. Sutherland, The Cistophori of Augustus,
BAR 41 Oxford. 1977 . 28. no. 3, Pis. 2.iii and 2.iv; Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 5
M. Carina Calvi, Aquileia Nostra , XLVIII, 1977, 102, (London, 1970).
Fig. 8. 8. S. Walker and A. Burnett, The Image of Augustus
80. P. La Baume, in M. Claus, W. Haarnagel, K. (London, 1981) and the handlist to the exhibition,
Raddatz eds. . Studien zui europaischen Vor- und Augustus, British Museum Occasional Paper 16
Friihgt schichtt H.Jankuhn Festschrift, Neumiinster, (London, 1981).
1968), 108, no. 2, PI. 9; Marien, (n. 78), 26, Fig. 9. see n. 7.

178: Brown and Henig in. 79). 10. C. C. Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia
81. R. Siviero, Gli Ori e le Ambre del Museo Nazionale di Minor (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 200.
Napoli (Florence, 1954), 134-5, nos 5^5 and 568; - 11. A. M. McCann, The Portraits of Septimius Severus
La Baume (n. 80) , 1 08, no. 1 , PI. 8; Marien (n. 78) 193-21 1, MAAR, XXX, 1968.
283, Fig. 197. 12. J. G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ash-
82. Carina Calvi, n. 79 .
98, Fig. 5; Aquileia Nostra, molean Museum (Oxford, 1933); British Museum Cata-
XI. IX, 1978, 191 and PI. I. 3. logue of Greek Coins XX Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria
83. Toynbee (n. 30), 363-8. (London, 1899). For other Greek Imperial issues see

84. Marien (n. 78), 338, Fig. 246. other volumes of this catalogue.
85. W. Hagen, BJ, 142, 1937, 127-30, Pis. 30 and 31; 13. C. H. V. Sutherland and C. M. Kraay, Catalogue of
Toynbee (n. 23), 184, no. 137, PI. 149. Roman Coins in the Ashmolean Museum Augustus I

86. J. Szil;ig\i, Aquincum Budapest, 1956), 70 and PI. Oxford, 1975).

NOTES 269

14. R. MacMullen, Roman Government's Response to Crisis chapter nine Terracotta

AD 235-337 (Yale, 1976), Chapter 1.
R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia (2nd edn., Oxford, 1973),
1 A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic
15.
54-8 and PI. XVIII a. Temples, (Lund and Leipzig, 1940), 409.
2. A. H. Borbein, Campanareliefs (Heidelberg, 1968).
16. J. M. C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School (Cambridge,
1934)-
3. J. H. Iliffe in Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities

M. in Palestine 11, 1945, 1-26.

17. J. Price and B. L. Trell, Coins and then Cities:
Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and 4. G. Baroni in Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia 11,

Palestine (London, 1977). '980, 35-74; D. M. Bailey in BSA, 67, 1972, 5-7.
18. F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, A Numismatic 5. J. VV. Salomonson in BABesch 44, 1969, 85-98.
6. B. Kuzsinszky, Das grosse rdmische Tdpferviertel in
Commentary on Pausanias (London, 1887) reprinted
from JHS, VI-VIII, 1885-7). Aquincum bei Budapest (Budapest, 1932).
7. B. Soultov, Ancient Pottery Centres in Moesia Inferior
(Sofia, 1976).
8. Delle Antichita di Ercolano 8 (Naples, 1792), Pis. 19,

CHAPTER EIGH1 Pottery 23~4> 3 8 "44, 49-5 1 , 55-7. 69-72, 64-70.

9. W. B. Emery and L. P. Kirwan, The Royal Tombs of
The author would thank Miss Catherine Johns
like to Ballana and Qustul 2 (Cairo, 1938), Pis. 98-102.
for her help in the preparation of this chapter. 10. This view has been questioned recently by W. V.
Harris in JRS, LXX, 1980, 1 26-45, but in the present
1. K. Johansen, Acta Archaeologica (Copenhagen) 31,
writer's opinion the archaeological evidence for
i960, 185-90. See also P. Corbett and D. Strong,
wide-scale exportation is overwhelming, despite
BMQj 23, 1 96 1, 83 for a similar link. The common
motif of cranes in a marsh, on various silver vessels
economic arguments, which are always contentious.
11. E. Dressel in Annali dell'Istituto 52, 1880, 265-342;
(see 111. 109), is also copied onto Arretine ware, al-
R. H. Howland, The Athenian Agora 4, Greek Lamps
though not directly. R. Charleston, Roman Pottery
and their Survivals (Princeton, 1958), 102-3.
(London, 1955), PI. 5A.
2. Also known as samian ware, terra sigil/ata, or by the
12. W. V. Harris in JRS, LXX, 1980, 138-42.
region in which it was produced. The probable
ancient name is vasa samia, see A. King, Britannia, XI,
1980, 139-43. F° r ancient ceramic terminology in
general, see J. Hilgers, Lateinische Gefdssnamen
CHAPTER TEN GlllSS
(Diisseldorf, 1969).
3. P. Mingazzini, Catalogo dei Vasi delta Co/lezione 1 The techniques of manufacture of pre-Roman and
Castellani II (Rome, 197 ), 259 ff. 1 Roman vessels are described in D. B. Harden, Arch.
4. For a silver bowl similar to 'Megarian' leaf-dec- J.,CXXY, 1968, 46-72, and CXXVI, 1969, 44-77,
orated bowls, see D. Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and J. Price, in D. Strong and D. Brown, Roman
and Silver Plate (London, 1966), PI. 31 A. Crafts (London, 1976), 110-25.
5. It was also made at Cincelli near Arezzo, Pisa, 2. D. B. Harden, Journal of Glass Studies, X, 1968,
Pozzuoli and Lyons. 21-47.
6. C. Goudineau, Fouilles de I'Ecole Francaise de Rome a 3. N. Avigad, Israel Exploration Journal, 22, 1972,
Bolsena IV, La Ceramique Aretine Lisse (Paris, 1968), 198-200.
3i7 ^ 4. G. Mackworth-Young, BSA, XLIV, 1949, Grave 20,
7. The usual modern name for this pottery is samian PI- 33-
ware in Britain and terra sigil/ata elsewhere. 5. G. Lchrer, Ennion — A First Century Glassmaker
8. D. Atkinson, JRS, IV, 1914, 27-64. (Ramat Aviv, 1979).
9. Also called Late Roman A and B wares, or terra 6. K. S. Painter, in D. Harden et at., Masterpieces of
sigillata chiara A, C and D wares. Glass (British Museum, London, 1968), 59, no. 74.
10. J. Hayes, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London, 7. O. Kurtz, in J. Hackin, Nouvelles recherches archeo-
1980), 519-21. logiques a Be'gram (Paris, 1954), 102-5. P- Hamelin,
1 1. The surface finish was often up to black-gloss stan- Cahiers de Byrsa, II, 1952. 1 1-25; Cahiers de Byrsa, III,

dards, and is known as firms or vernis. 1953, 121-8; Cahiers de Byrsa, IV, 1954, 153-83.
12. F. Waage dates some of
the glazed sherds from 8. J. Ledant, Journaloj Glass Studies, \\ 1973, 52-68. .

Antioch to the early second century B(:; Antioch on the 9. This has been the subject of some controversy, see B.
Orontes IV, i, Ceramics and Islamic Coins (Princeton, Ashmole, JHS, LXXXVII, 1967, — 7; D. E. L. 1 1

1948), 80. Haynes, JHS, LXXXVIII, 1968, 58-72, and of course

13. Charleston (n. 1), 25. D. E. L. Haynes, The Portland Vase British Museum, I

14. R. Pirling, Germanische Denkmdler der Vdlker- London, revised edn., 1975).
wanderungszeit, Serie B, Band 2 1
Berlin, 1966), 10. K. S. Painter, Journal of Glass Studies, XVII, 975, 1

Farbtafel A, from Krefeld-Gellep. 54-67-

15. J. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972), 424. 11. D. B. Harden and J. M. C. Toynbee, Archaeo/ogia,
 1 . ,

270

xcvn, 1959, 179-212. D. B. Harden, Journal of chapter twelve Art in Late Antiquity
Glass Studies, V, 1963, 9-17.
12. T. E. Haevernick, Madnder Mitteilungen, 12, 197
D. E. Strong, Roman Art, integrated edn. (Har-
1

202-4. mondsworth, 1980), 264.

[3. O. Doppelfeld, Kblner Jahrbuch, 8, 1956/7, 7—1 1. J. P:C. Kent and K. S. Painter, Wealth of the Roman
[4. See L. Ibrahim el at., Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth World AD 300-700 (London, 1977), 159-86^. P. C.
II. Panels of Opus Sectile in Glass (Leiden, 1976). Kent, Roman Coins (London, 1978), 48-62 - to
A very similar, though larger, head is known in the Anastasius.
[5.

collections of the Corning Museum of Glass; see S. W. F. Volbach, Early Christian Art (London, 1961 ),

M. Goldstein, Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in the 323, Pis. 56, 57; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. The
Corning Museum of Glass (Corning, 1979), no. 789. Late Empire (London, 1 97 359, Fig. 340. 1 ) ,

[6. See D. F. Grose, Journal of Glass Studies, XIX, 1977, Volbach, (n. 3), 325, Pis. 69-71; A. Grabar, Byzan-
tium from the Death of Theodosius to the Rise of Islam
2 7-9-
(London, 1966), 222, Fig. 247.
A. Ferrua, Le pitture delta nuova eatacomba di Via Latina
(Rome, i960).
chapter eleven Epigraphy J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art
(London, 1973), 252-3.
I. The quotations in these opening paragraphs are Volbach, (n. 3), 320, Pis. 41-3.
taken (in order) from: res gestae din Augusti monu- P. Metz, Elfenbein da- Spatantike Munich, 1962). 1

mentum ancyranum), column 5 line 24; edictum Dio- Ibid., Figs. 2, 3; Volbach (n. 3), 324, Pis. 62, 63
cletiani de pretiis rerum venalium, column 6 lines 9-10; (Monza Cathedral Treasury).
CIL 6.896 (Pantheon, portico frieze); CIL 4.1772 Metz (n. 8), Fig. 1; Volbach (n. 3), 328, Pis. 90, 91
(Pompeii, graffito); CLE 1512 lines 4 and 7 (Auch); (in the Musee de Cluny, Paris and the Victoria and
CIL 6.15346 lines 3-4, 7-8 (Rome); and CLE 53 Albert Museum, London respectively).
lines and 5 (Rome).
1 Kent and Painter -(n. 2), 5-1 15. 1

CIL 10.7296. R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Archi-

CIL 6.2104a line 37 (Rome . tecture 1 Harmondsworth, 1965) and Studies in Early
AE 93 no. 112 (Annaba, Algeria).
1 1 Christian, Medieval and Renaissance Art (London,
5. P.Oxy. 2950. 1970.
6. ILCV 963 and 1997a (both Rome). Filocalus was Krautheimer in K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of
also responsible for the calligraphy of the great Spirituality: .1 Symposium (Metropolitan Museum of
calendar bearing his name, which survives in a Art. New York, 1980), 121-39.
seventeenth-century copy: on this. H. Stern, Le G. Bovini, The Mosaics of Ravenna (London, 1969).
Calendrier de 354 (Paris, 1953 . VV. Oakeshott, The Mosaics of Rome from the third to the
2
7. CIL i .
7. (London, 1967), 73-89.
fourteenth centuries
8. For example, RIB 2059 Bowncss-on-Solway 1 ) A. Grabar, The Beginnings of Christian Art London, \

9. For example. RIB 1279, 1280, 1281 all High 1967), 209-35.
Rochester K. Weitzmann, Ancient Bunk Illuminations (Cam-
10. CIL i
2
.797 = 6.872. bridge, Mass., 1959); Late Antique and Early Christian
I I. CIL 10.846. Book Illumination (London, 1977).
12. CIL 6.960. Ibid., 22 and Pis. 1 1-14; C. Eggenberger, Byz. <W&.

13. CIL 4.7621-2, 7625-30, 7992. LXX, 1977, 58-90; G. M. A. Hanfmann in Weitz-
14. CIL 6.2068. mann ed. 11. 31, 79 and 95, n. 27 for suggestion of
1

15. CIL 8.1 1824. North Italy; M. Henig in M. W. C. Hassall and R.

16. CIL 14. 12. Ireland (eds.), De Rebus Bellicis BAR Int. Ser., 63

17. CIL 14.2803. (Oxford, 1979), 17-37 gives a rather extreme case
18. CIL 6. 242 +3 1 556.
1 Gaul.
for a late fourth-c entur) origin in Britain or
19. CIL 6.31402. C. Nordenfalk, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Painting: Book
20. CIL 6.503. Illumination in the British Isles, 600-800 (London,

21. ILCV 1469. '977)-

Select General Bibliography

The most important are Pliny the Elder's Natural History J. Onians, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek
{NH); Pausanias' Description of Greece and Vitruvius' On World View 350-50 BC (London, 1979).
Architecture(De Arch.); Petronius' Satyricon is also useful. M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art (Cambridge, 1975)
All are available in both original and translation in the and A Shorter History of Greek Art (Cambridge, 98 1 1
)

Loeb Classical Library. Vitruvius has also been T. B. L. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London,
translated under the title The Ten Books on Architecture by i9 6 4)-
M. H. Morgan (Harvard, 1914, reissued by Dover T. B. L. Webster, Hellenistic Art (London, 1967).
Books, i960), with copious explanatory diagrams and
Provincial Art
photographs.
M. Avi-Yonah, Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies
For selected sources see J. J. Pollitt, The Art of Greece,
Jerusalem, 1981).
1400-31 BC (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965) and TheArtof M. A. R. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (London, 1976).
Rome c. 753 BC-jjy AD (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966).
M. E. Marien, Belgica Antigua. L'Empreinte de Rome
General Works on Art (Antwerp, 1980).
Fjuiclopedia dell'Arte Antica Classica e Orientate, Instituto A. Perkins, The Art of Dura-Europos (Oxford, 1973).
dell' Enciclopedia Italiana (Rome, 1958-66; supple- J.M. C. Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain (London, 1962)
ment 1973) for specialist articles on a wide range of and Art in Britain undei the Romans Oxford, 1964).
topics (abbrev. Enc). C. C. Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia

B. Andreae, The Art oj Rome (London, 1978). Minor (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. The Centre of Power Roman Taste
London, 1970).
J. H. D'Arms, Romans on the Bay of Naples (Cambridge,
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome, The Late Empire (London,
Mass., 1970).
'970- P. Grimal, Les Jardins Romains (Paris, 1969).
R. Brilliant, Roman Art from the Republic to Constantine
W. F.Jashemski, The Gardens ofPompeii. Herculaneum and
(London, 1974).
the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius (New York, 1979).
G. M. A. Hanfmann, Roman Art: .1 Modem Survey of the
G. M. A. Richter, Ancient Italy. A Study of the Interrelations
Art oj Imperial Rome (London, 1964).
of its Peoples as shown in tin n Arts (Ann Arbor, 1955).
D. Strong, Roman Art (Harmondsworth, 1976, and in-
A. F. Stewart, 'To Entertain an Emperor: Sperlonga,
tegrated edition 1980).
Laokoon and Tiberius at the Dinner-Table', JRS,
J. M. C. Toynbee, The Art of the Romans (London, 1965).
LXVII, 1977, 76-90.
C. C. Vermeule, Roman Art. Early Republic to Late Empire
D. E. Strong, 'Roman Museums' in D. E. Strong (ed.),
(Boston, 1978).
Archaeological Theory and Practice. Essays Presented to W.
R. E. M. Wheeler, Roman Art and Architecture (London,
(London, 1973), 248-64.
F. (•nines
1964).
J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art
Artists and Techniques (London, 1973).
A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (London, C. C. Vermeule, Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste. The
1972). Purpose and Setting of Graeco- Roman Art in Italy and the
D. Strong and D. Brown (eds.), Roman Crafts (London, Greek Imperial East (Ann Arbor, 1977).
I97 2 )-
Influence
J. M. C. Toynbee, 'Some Notes on Artists in the Roman
F. Haskell and N. Penny, Taste and the Antique: the Lure oj
World', Collection Latomus, 6, 95 1
1
Classical Sculpture, 1500-igoo (New Haven and
Greek Forerunners London, 1 98 1
).

(See also Bibliography to Chapter 1

(..Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics London, 1963).
J.Charbonneaux, R. Martin and F. Villard, Hellenistic O. Neverov, 'Gems in the Collection of Rubens',
Art 330-50 B(; (London, 1973). Burlington Magazine, CXXI, 1979, 424-32.
C. M. Havelock, Hellenistic Art (London, 1971). W. Oakeshott, Classical Inspiration in Medieval Art
P. Levi, Atlas oj the Greek World (Oxford, 1980). (London, 1959).
272 BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. Runciman, Byzantine Style and Civilization M. Pallottino, Etruscan Painting (Geneva, 1952 .

(Harmondsworth, 1975). M. Pallottino, Civiltd artistica etrusco-italica (Florence,

D. Talbot Rice. Art of the Byzantine Era (London, 1963). 1971).
D. Tall mi Riic. Tht Appreciation oj Byzantine Art E. H. Richardson, 'The Etruscan origins of Roman
(Oxford, 1972). sculpture', XXI, 1953, 75-124. MAAR.
C. C. Vermeule, European Art and the Classical Past G. M. Italy Ann Arbor, 1955).
A. Richter, Ancient
(Cambridge, Mass., 1964). Roma Medio Repubblicana (exhibition catalogue, Rome,
K. Weitzmann, Classical Heritage in Byzantine and Near 1973)-
Eastern Art London, 1981). H. H. Scullard. The Etruscan < ities and Rome (London,
Various articles in the Journal of the Warburg and < oinUiuld 1967)-
Institutes, which is largely devoted to the classical tradi- M. Sprengcr and G. Bartoloni. Dit Etrusker; Kunst mid
tion in art, especially W.
Heckscher, 'Relics of Pagan
S. (.1 sckichtt Munich, 1977).
Antiquity in Mediaeval Warburg and
Sellings', Journ. (). Vessberg, Studien im Kunstgeschichtt do romischetj.

Courtauld, 1, 1937-8, 204-20. H. Wentzel, 'Portraits "a Republik Lund and Leipzig, 1941 .

l'Antique" on French Mediaeval Gems and Seals', In addition, ANRW, 1, 4 (Berlin and New York, 1973)
Journ. Warburg and Courtauld, 1 6, 1 953, 342-50. contains a number of articles dealing with early Roman
art. See in particular O.-W. v. Vacano, 'Vulca, Rom
General Historical Background
und die Wolfin"; L. Bonfante Warren, 'Roman cos-
J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Lift and Leisun in Ancient Romt
tumes: a glossary, and some Etruscan derivations'; J. D.
(London, [969 .

Breckenridge, 'The origins of Roman Republican por-

D. Bowder (ed.). Who Was Who in the Roman World
traiture'; L. Crema, 'L'Architettura romana nell'eta
Oxford, [980
della Repubblica'.
1. Cornell and J. Matthews, Atlas oj tht Roman World

Oxford, 1982).
M. Crawford, The Roman Republit Glasgow, 1978 .

CHAPTER rWO
M. Grant, The World of Rome (London, i960).
Architecture
M.Grant, Climax of Romt London, 1968
'Tin

\. (.. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, Th Oxford General

2nd edn., Oxford, 1970).
Classical Dictionary A. Boethius, Etruscan and Each Roman Architecture (2nd
A. H. McDonald, Rome London, im Republican ( > , > .
edn.. revised 1>\ R. Ling and T. Rasmussenj
F. Millar, The Roman Empirt andits Neighbours London. Harmondsworth, 11,78 .

1967; 2nd edn.. 1981 \ Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Rom m,
R. M. Ogilvie, Roman Literatun and Societ) Architectun Harmondsworth, 1970).
Harmondsworth, 1980 .
L. Crema, L'architettura romana, Enciclopedia Classics
J. Vogt, Tht Declim of Romt London, 1967 III, vol, 12. 1 Turin, 1959).
D. R. Dudley, Urbs Roma (London, 1967).
W.L. MacDonald, / he Archita line oj the Roman Empire, I:

an introductory Uud) Nev\ Haven and London. 1965 .

CHAPTER ( IN]
E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary oj Ancient Rome (2nd edn.. 1
Early Roman Art \ ( lis., 1 .1 > 1 1< 1 < m. i< |l i8
1
H. Plommer, Ancient and Classical Architectun Simpson !
A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-ltalit
Histor) oj Architectural Development, (London, 1956).
I),
Templt Lund, 1939 \o).
1

1). s. Robertson, .1 Handbook oj Greek and Roman Arcfis

M. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italj from tht
inline Cambridge, 1945).
Prehistorit Washington, mi;
Period to Augustus
R. E. M. Wheeler, Roman Art and Architectun London.
R. Bloch, Tht Origins oj Rom, London, 1960 .

1964).
A. Boethius, Etruscan and Earl) Roman Architectun
J. B. Ward-Perkins, Roman Architecture Nev\ York.
Ilai mondswoi th, 2nd edn., 1978

F. Boitani </ al London, im; <

-
1
977 '

O.J. Brendel, Etruscan Art Harmondsworth, [978 . Construction and Design

A. C. Brown, Ancient Hal) be/on tht Romans Ashmolean s. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana Rome, 1962 .

Museum. < Ixford 1980 M. E. Blake. Ancient Roman Construction in Rah from the
F. Coarelli, Guida Archeologica di Roma (Milan, [974 .
Prehistorit Period to Augustus Washington D. C, 19478

B. M. Felletti Maj, La tradiziom italica mil' artt romana M. E. Blake. Roman Construction in Italy from Tiberius
(Rome, [977 . through tht Flavians Washington I). C, 1959).
E. Gjerstad, Earl) Rome,l VI Lund. 1953—73). M. E. Blake and D. Tayloi Bishop, Roman Construction m
P. Gros, Architectun ei wciett a Romt ,1 en Italit centro- liah hom Nerva through tht Antonines Philadelphia.
me'ridionalt aux deux derniers riecles dt la Republiqut 1973
Bi ussels, 1978 . H. Bloch. / bolli Inieirj e la rtorid dell' edilizia romam
E. Langlotz and M. Hirmer, The .lit oj Magna Graecia Rome. 1
<i I
7
London, 1965 . A.Boethius, The Golden House ofNero Ann Arbor. 1960 .
BIBLIOGRAPHY 273

G. Calza et al., Scavi di Ostia, I (Rome, 1953). The Bin a (I ( ity. Excavations at Lepth Magna (London,
K. de Fine Licht, The Rotunda in Rome: a Study of 1 <)<>(> ,

Hadrian's Pantheon Copenhagen, 1966). A. Garcia y Bellido, Arte romano (2nd edn., Madrid,
R. Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium 2 vols., 1.972)-
Strasbourg, 1907, 1912). M . Bieber, The History of the Creek and Roman I It, a in 2nd
F. Fasolo and G. Gullini, // Santuaria di Fortuna Primigt nia cdn., Princeton, 1961 ).

a Pah sli ma Rome, 1953). T. F. C. Blagg, 'Civilian and Militan Architecture in

C. F. Giuliani, 'Volte e Cupola a doppia calotta in eta the Province of Britain: Aspects of Patronage. In-
adrianea', Rom. Mitt. 82.2, 1975, 329-42. fluence and Craft Organisation'. World Archaeology,
G. Lugli, La Icaina alilirja romana con particolare riguardo a 1 2. 1, 1980, 27-42.
Roma e Larjti (2 vols., Rome, 1957). A. Giuliano, La cultura artistica de lie province della (nan in
W. L. MaeDonald, The Pantheon. Design, Meaning, and eta minima Rome, 1965).

Progeny (London, 1976). A. Grenier, Manuel d'archeologie gallo-romaine, III:

H. Plommer, Vitruvius and Later Roman Building Manuals V Architecture (Paris, 1958) and IV: Les Monuments des
(Cambridge, 1973). eaux (Paris, i960).
G. Wataghin Cantino, La Do'mus Augustana (Turin. J. Hanson, Roman I heater-Temples (Princeton. 1959 .

1966). D. M. Krencker and W. Zschietzschmann, Romische

Tempel in Syrien (Berlin, 1938).
Materials and Decoration A. Lezine, Architecture romaine d' Afrique (Tunis [1961]).
A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco- Italic A. (i. McKay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman
Temples (Lund and Leipzig, [940 .

World London. .(,7-, .

T. F. C. Blagg, 'The Use of Terracotta for Architectural Roman (London, 1976).

J. Percival, Villas
Ornament in Italy and the Western Provinces', in A. S. Stucchi, Architettura cirenaica Rome. [975).
McWhirr, Roman Brick and Tile. BAR Int. Ser., 68 K. M. Swoboda, Ronnselu und romanischt Palaste Vienna,
(Oxford, 1979), 267-84.
1924)-
P. H. von Blanckenhagen, Flavische Architektm mid ihre Ward-Perkins. 'The Roman West and the Parthian
J. B.
Dekoration (Berlin, 1940).
East', Proc. Brit. Acad., II, 1965.
A. H. Borbein, Campanarelief: lypologische und stilkritischi Ward-Perkins, 'From Republic to Empire: Re-
J. B.
Untersuchungen, Rom. Mitt., Erganzungsheft 14 flections on Early Provincial Architecture in the
(Heidelberg, 1968). Roman West', JRS, LX, 1970, —
1 1 9.
R. Gnoli, Mai moid Romana (Rome, 97 1 1 )

W. -D. Heilmeyer, Die Korinthische Normalkapitelle, Rom.

Mitt., Erganzungsheft 16 (Heidelberg, 1970). CHAPTER THREE
C. F. Leon, Die Bauomamentik des Trajansforums and ihn Sculpture
Stellung (Vienna and Cologne, 1 97 1 )

M. B. Lyttelton, Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity

Apart from works cited, the great international corpus
(London, 19741. of sculpture of the Roman World, the Corpus Signorum
D. E. Strong, 'Late Hadrianic Ornament in Rome'.
Inipi 111 Romani. started in 963, the catalogues of Roman 1

sculpture in various European and American museums

PBSR, XXI, 1953, 8-5 1. 1 1

D. E. Strong, 'Some Observations on Early Roman

and collections, and monographs on portraiture of sing-
le emperors or dynasties as well as monographs on in-
Corinthian', JRS, LIII, 1963, 73-84.
B. Ward-Perkins, 'Tripolitania and the Marble dividual sculptured architectural monuments may be
J.
consulted.
Trade', JRS, xi.i, 1951, 89-104.
General Works on Sculpture
Architects and Architecture
P. E. Arias, La Scultura Romana 'Messina, 1943).
C. Promis, Gli architetti c I'architettura presso 1 Romam
R. Bianchi Bandinelli. Storicitd dell'Arte Classica second
(Turin, 187 1 ).

edn.. Florence. 1950).

E. Rawson, ^Architecture and Sculpture: the activities
G. Bauchhenss and P. Noelke, Die Jupitersdulen in den
of the Cossutii', PBSR, xliii, 1975, 36-47.
Germanischen Provinzen (Cologne and Bonn, 1981).
D. E. Strong, 'The Administration of Public Building in
Rome during the Late Republic and Early Empire'.
M. Bieber, Ancient Copies. Contributions to the History of
(.reek and Roman Art (New York, 1977).
Bull. Inst. Class. Stud., 15, 1968, 97-109.
R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Ail (New Haven,
J. M. C. Toynbee, 'Some Notes on Artists in the Roman
I963)-
World', Collection Latomus, 6, 1951, 9-15.
E. Esperandieu. Recueil General des Bas-Reliefs de la (•aide
Vitruvius. De Architectura, English translation by M. H.
Romaine, (Paris, 1907) - XV (Paris, 1966).
Morgan (Cambridge, 19141.
I

E. Esperandieu. Ream/ General des Bas-Reliefs, Statins el

Types of Building and Provincial Architecture Busies de la Germanic Romaine (Paris and Brussels,
E. Akurgal, Ancient Civilizations and Rums oj Turkey '93D-
(Istanbul, 1970). M. Floriani Scuarciapino, La Scuola di Afrodisias (Rome,
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, E. V. Caffarelli and G. Caputo, '943)-
274 BIBLIOGRAPHY

V
A.Frova, 'Arte di Roma del mondo romano Turin, 1961). t G. M. A. Richter, Roman Portraits (Metropolitan
A. Garcia y Bellido, Esculturas Romanas de Espana y Museum New York, 1948).
Portugal (Madrid, 1949). B. Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst da rbmischen Republik
A. W. Lawrence, Greek and Roman Sculpture (London, (Leipzig and Weimar, 1948).
1972). R. R. R. Smith, 'Greeks, Foreigners, and Roman
H. P. L'Orange, Art Foims and ( r, n I.//1 in Iht Late Roman Republican Portraits', JRS, LXXI, 1981, 24-38.
Empire Princeton. 1965). J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (London,
H. P. L. Orange. Studies oh the Iconography oj < osmu King- .978).
ship in the Ancient World Oslo. 1953). R. West, Rdmische Portrdt-Plastik (Munich, 1933).
C. Robert ei al., Die ant/ken Sarkophagreliefi (Berlin,
890- 980).
1
Bronzes
1

H. Sichtermann and G. Koch, Griechische Mythen auj S. Boucher, Recherches sur les Bronzes Figures de Gaule Pre-
romisehen Sarkophagen(Tubingen. 1975 .
Romaineet Romaine (Ecole Franchise de Rome, 1976).

E. Strong, Roman Sculpture (London, 1907). 28, May-June 1978 'Les

Dossiers de I'arch'eologie, no.

M. C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School. A Chapter in the Bronzes de l'Occident Romain'.

J.
History of Greek Art (Cambridge, 1934). E. Esperandieu and H. Rolland, Bronzes Antiques de la

C. C. Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Seine-Maritime, Supplement XIII to Gallia (Paris,

Mmoi Cambridge, Mass., 1968). 1959)-

C. C. Vermeule, Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste. The G. Faider-Feytmans, Reeueil des Bronzes de Bavai, Supple-
Purpose and Setting oj Graeco-Roman Art in Italy and (In ment VIII to Gallia (Paris, 1957).
ink Imperial East Ann Arbor, 1977).
I, G. Faider-Feytmans, Les Bronzes Romains de Belgique
C. C. Vermeule, 'Greek and Roman Sculpture from the (Mainz, 1979).
Northern Coasts of the Black Sea (chiefly Russia), R. Fleischer, Die rdmischen Bronzen aus Osterreich (Mainz,
Burlington Magazine, CXIX, 1977. 810-18. 1967)-
C. C. Vermeule and K. Anderson, 'Greek and Roman V. Galliazzo, / bronzi romani del Museo Civico di Treviso

Sculpture in the Holy Land', Burlington Magazine. (Rome, 1979).

(Will. 1981, 7-19. A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Die rdmischen Bronzen der
Schweiz Augst (Mainz, 1977).
I

State Reliefs K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Gross-

E Courbaud, /.< bas-reliej romain a representations his- bronzen II (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927).
toriqm s Paris. 1899). W. Lamb. Am out (•nek and Roman Bronzes (London,
P. G. Hamberg. Studies in Roman Imperial Art. 'I In Stah 1929; revised edn. Chicago, [969 .

Relief of tk Second Century Copenhagen, [945 .

A. Leibundgut, Die rdmischen Bronzen der Schweiz II

I. S. Ryberg, Rites oj tin StaU Religion in Roman Ait. .1. nolo Main/. [976
s

MAAR. XXII, 1955. A. Leibundgut, Die rdmischen Bronzen der Schweiz III

D. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculptun London, 1961 .

Westschweiz, Bern und Wallis (Mainz, 1980).
H. Mm/el. Die rdmischen Bronzen aus Deutschland I Speyer
Portraiture Mainz, i960).
M. Bergmann, Studien -urn rdmischen Portrdt des 3. Jahr- H Menzel, Die rdmischen Bronzen aus Deutschland II Trier
liiiiul, its n. Chr. Bonn, 1977 .
Mainz, 1966).
Bernoulli, Rdmischt Ikonographie (Stuttgart, L. l'u is. Roman Bronze Figurines from the Civitates oj the
J. J.
1882-94). ( atuvellauni and Trinovantes, BAR, 60 (Oxford, 1979).
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, '11 Ritratto', Em., vi. ('95-738. H. Rolland. Bronzes Antiques de Haute Provence, Supple-
A. Bon. num. Portraits andothei Heads on Roman Historical ment win to Gallia Paris, 1965).
Relief up to the Age ofSeptimius Severus, BAR Int. Ser., 6 A. X. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta. W.J. T. Peters and W. A.
( )xford, 1976). van Es. Roman Bronze Statuettes from the Netherlands I

R. Calza, Iconografta romana impt rialt da Carausio a Giuliano Found North oj the
Statuettes Limes (Groningen, 1967).
1
-•//; ;'>
;d.t .) Rome, 1972 .
A.N. Zadoks-Josephusjitta, W.J. T. Peters and W. A.
L. Goldscheider, Roman Portraits (London, 1940). van Es, Roman Bronze Statuettes from the Netherlands II
(. M. A. Hanfmann, Observations on Roman Portraiture Statuettes Found South of the Limes (Groningen, 1969).
(Brussels. [953 ,

A. Hekler. Greek and Roman Portraits London, 1912, CHAPTER FOUR

reprinted New York, [972
Wall Painting and Stucco
.

R. P. Hinks. Greek and Roman Portrait Sculpture British

Museum, London, 1935; second edition, 1976). Italy
H. P. L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture Oslo, a) Wall Painting
1947 As the literature is so extensive, only a selection of the
E. Paribeni, // Ritratto nell'Arh Antica Milan. 1934 most recent and most useful publications is included
V. Poulsen, Les portraits remains, I — II (Copenhagen, here. Many other works are listed in their bibliogra-
1962-74). I
ihies, and illustrations of most of the paintings cited can
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 275

be (bund in M. Borda, La Pittura Romana. M. L. Thompson, 'Monumental and Literary Evidence

S. Augusti, I Colon Pompeiani (Rome, 1967). for Programmatic Painting", Marsyas, IX, 1960-1,
F. L. Bastet and M. de Vos, Proposta per una classificazione 36-77-
J. M. C. Toynbee and J. Ward-Perkins, The Shrine of St.
del terzo stile pompeiano (Arch. Studien. van het
Nederlands Instituut te Rome; The Hague, 1979). Peter and the Vatican Excavations (London, 1956).
H. G. Bey en, Die pompejanische Wanddekorationvom zweiten F. Wirth, Romische Wandmalerei vom Untergang Pompejis bis
bis zum vierten Stil (The Hague, vol. I 1938, vol. II ans Ende des Dritten Jahrhunderts (Darmstadt, 1968).
i960).
b) Stucco
P. H. von Blanckenhagen and C. Alexander, The
N. Blanc, 'Le decor de stuc dans I'art romain',
Paintings from Boscotrecase Mitt. Deutsches arch. Inst.
Archeologia, no. 138, Jan.
1980,48-53.
rbm. Abt, Erganzungsheft 6 (Heidelberg, 1962).
R. Ling, 'Stucco Decoration in Pre-Augustan Italy',
P. H. vim Blanckenhagen, 'The Odyssey Frieze', Rom.
PBSR, XL, 1972, 11-57.
Mitt., 70, 1963, 100-46.
R. Ling, 'Stucco Decorations at Baia", PBSR, XLV,
M. Borda, La Pittura Romana (Milan, 1958).
P. du Bouguet, Early Christian Painting (London, 1965). 1977, 24-51.
R. Ling, 'The Stanze di Venere at Baia', Archaeologia
A. Carandini, Schiavi e padroni' nelP Etruria romana: La
Vl '979. 33-6o.
(
-

Villa di Sette Finestre dallo scavo alia mostra (Bari, 1979).

H. Mielsch, Romische Stuckreliefs (Heidelberg, 1975).
J. M. Croisille, 'Natures Mortes dans la Peinture
D. Strong and D. Brown, Roman Crafts (London, 1976),
Pompeienne', Archeologia, no. 54, Jan. 1973, 17-24.
109-221.
W. Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (London, 1971 ). Dossiers
E. L. Wadsworth, 'Stucco Reliefs of the First and
Nov. -Dec. 1976, 'Catacombes
de I'Archeologie, no. 19.
juives et chretiennes'.
Second Centuries still Extant at Rome', MAAR, IV,
O. Elia, Pittura di Stabia (Naples, 1951). 1924, 9-102.

M. M. Gabriel, Masters of Companion Painting (New

York, 1952). Wall Painting in the Western Empire
M. M. Gabriel, Livia's Garden Room at Prima Porta (New Africa
York, 1955). S. Aurigemma, L' Italia in Africa. Le Scoperte Archeologiche,
A. Grabar, Christian Iconography and a Study of its Origins Tripolitania. I. ii. La Pittura a" Eta Romana (Rome
(London, 1969J. 1962).
M. Gough, The Early Christians (London, 1961).
Austria
M. Gough, Origins of Christian Art (London, 1973).
H. Kenner, in R. Egger, 'Die Ausgrabungen auf dem
W. F. Jashemski, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and
Magdalensberg', Carinthia I, no. 153, 1963; I, no. 156,
the Villas destroyed by Vesuvius (New York, 1979).
1966.
K. Lehmann, 'Ignorance and Search in the Villa of the
H. Kenner, in H. Vetters and G. Piccottini (eds.),
Mysteries', JRS, LII, 1962, 62-8.
Magdalensberg-Grabungsbericht, 14, 1973-4 (Klagen-
P. VV. Lehmann, Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale in
furt, 1980), 143-80.
the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Cambridge, Mass.,
C. Praschniker and H. Kenner 'Die Wandmalereien und
1953)- -
Stuckdekorationen' Der Baderbezik von Virunum
R. Ling, 'Studius Beginnings of Roman
and the
(Vienna, 1947), 1 73- 2 35-
Landscape Painting', JRS, LXVII, 1977, 1-16.
A. Maiuri, Roman Painting (Geneva, 1953). Britain
R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia (2nd edn., Oxford, 1973), B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969, II, The
436-46. of Antiquaries of London Research
Finds, Society
Sister Charles Murray, Rebirth and Afterlife. .1 Study 0) thi Report XXVII (Leeds, 197 1), 50-82.
Transmutation of some Pagan Imagery in Early Christian N. Davey, 'The Conservation of Romano-British
Funerary Art, BAR Int. Ser. 100 (Oxford, 1981). Painted Plaster', Britannia, III, 1972, 251-68.
W. J. T. Peters, Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural N. Davey and R. Ling, Wall-Paintings in Roman Britain,
Painting (Assen, 1963). Britannia Monograph 3 (London, 1981).
G. C. Picard, Roman Painting (London, 1970). J. Liversidge, Britain in the Roman Empire (London,
G. M. A. Richter, Perspective in Greek and Roman Art 1 968)
(London [1970]), 49-55. J. Liversidge, in J. Munby and M. Henig (eds.) Roman
K. Schefold, Pompejanische Malerei, Sinn and Ideengeschii lite Life and Art in Britain (i), BAR 41 (i) (Oxford, 1977),
(Basel, 1952). 75-103.
K. Schefold, Vergessenes Pompeji. Unveroffentliche Bilder J. Liversidge in A. L. F. Rivet (ed.) The Roman Villa
rbmischer Wanddekorationen in geschichtlicher Folge heraus- (London, 1969), 127-53.
gegeben (Bern and Munich, 1962). J. Liversidge, in I. M. Stead, Rudston Roman Villa
K. Schefold, La peinture pompeienne. Essai sur revolution de (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds, 1980),
sa signification. Collection Latomus, 108 (Brussels, 139-45-
•972). J. Liversidge, in I. M. Stead, Excavations at Winterton
J. Stevenson, The Catacombs (London, 1978). Roman Villa (London, 1976), 272-87.
276 BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Liversidge, in S. S. Frere, Verulamium, III, Society of Switzerland

Antiquaries of London Research Report (London, W. Drack, Die romische Wandmalerei der Schweiz (Basle,
forthcoming). 195°)-
J. Liversidge, in G. W. Meates, The Roman Villa at B. Kapos^y, Romische Wandmalerei aus Munsingen und
Lullingstone. II (forthcoming). Hoi stein (Berne, 1966).
G. W. Meates, Lullingstone Roman Villa (London, 1955).
The Eastern Empire
France M Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (London, 1976).
A. Barbet, 'Peintures de second style "schematique" en C. Kraeling, Excavations at Dura-Europos, VIII, 1, The
Gaule et dans l'Empire Romain', Gallia, XXVI, 1968, Synagogue (New Haven, 1956).
146-76. A. Perkins, Art of Dura-Europos (Oxford, 1973).
A. Barbet. 'Peintures murales de Mercin-et-Vaux T. A. S. Tinkoff-Utechin, 'Ancient Painting from South
(Aisne): Etude comparee', Gallia, XXXII, 1974, Russia: The Rape of Persephone at Kerch', Inst, of
107-35; XXXIII, 1975,95-115. Classical Studies Bulletin. XXVI. 1979, 13—26.
A. Barbet, Recueil General des Peintures Murales de la Gaule I

Narbonnaise i Glanum. Editions du Centre Nationale de Mummy-Portraits

la Recherche scientifique (Paris, 1974). K. Parlasca, Mumienportrdts und icmandte Denkmdler,
A. Blanchet, Etude sur la decoration des 'edifices de la Gaule Deutsches Archaologisches Institut (Wiesbaden,
romaine (Paris, 1913). 1966).
R. Forrer, Argentorate II (Strasbourg, 1927). A. F. Shore, Portrait Painting from Roman Egypt (London,
1962, revised edition 1972).
Germany
F.G. Andersen, 'Eine romische Wanddekoration aus
CHAPTER FIVE
Mainz', Mainzer ^eitschrift, LXXIII/IV, 1977, 293-9.
Mosaics
D. Baatz, 'Wandmalereien aus dem Limes-Kastell
Eckzell', Germania, XLV, 1968, 40-52. M. A. Alexander and Xb-Ennaifer. Corpus des Mosaiques
O. Doppelfeld, 'Von Postumuszu Konstantin'. Wallraf- d> Tunisii I: I 'tiqut funis. 1973).
Richartz-jahrbuch, XVIII, 1956, 17-26. M. A. Alexander, it al., Corpus des Mosaiques di 'I music
T. K. Kempf, 'Konstantinische Deckenmalerei ausdem 111: I In/in I imis. 11,76 ,

Trierer Dom', Trierer %eitschrifi, XIX. 1950. 45—51. F. Baratte, Mosaiques Romaines et Paleochre'tiennes du Louvre
T. K. Kempf, 'Das Haus der heiligen Helena', Neues Paris, 1978 .

Trier Jahrb. (Trier, 1978 . X. Barral I Altet, I < 1 Mosaiqut * Romairu s et Medieval s tk

A. Linfert, Romische Wandmalerei der nordwestlichen la Regio Laietana: Barcelona (Barcelona, 1978).
Provinzen, Romisch-Germanisches Museum, ( lologne, G. Becatti, Scavi di Ostia IV: Mosaicit Pavimenti Marmorei
975- Rome, 1961 .

K. Parlasca, Romiscfn Wandmalereien in Augsburg C. Bel/. Mdi/m Genn Mosaii Pavements qj North Africa
(Munich, 1956). l'h. I), dissei tation, Univ. of California, Los Angeles;
W. Reusch, 'Wandmalereien und Mosaikboden eines University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Peristylhauses im Bereich der Trierer Kaiser- Michigan, and London, 1981 ).
thermen', Trierer Zjitsclmfi, XXIX. 1966, 187-235. M. E. Blake. 'The pavements of the Roman buildings of
W. Schleiermacher, Cambodunum-Kempten Bonn. 1972 .
the Republic and earl) Empire', MAAR, VIII, 1930,
7 l
.Vl.

Hungary M 1'.. Blake, 'Roman mosaics of the second centur) in

H. Brandenstein, 'Wandmalerei aus Carnuntum', Italy', MAAR,
XVI, [936, 67 124.
Carnuntum Jahrbuch, 1958, 10-29; I 9^ 1 / 2 -
—
5 21.
M. 1. Blake, 'Mosai< s oi the late Empire in Rome and
L. Nagy, 'Die romisch-pannonische dekorative Malerei' \ 11 inity', MAAR, XIII, 1940, 31 -120.
Rom. Mitt., XLI, 1926, 79-131. M. Blanchard-Lemee. .\lai\mh ,1 .\ln\un/ues du Quartiei

E. B. Thomas, Rdmiscki Villen in Pannonien Budapest, Central di Djemila Cuicul Paris, 1975 .

.964). A. Carandini, Ricercht sullo Stile e la Cronologia della Villa

<h Piazza Ann, nun Rome, 196 |
.

Netherlands M. Chehab, Mosaiques du Liban Pans. 1958

J. H. F, Bloemers, 'Wandmalereien .his der romischen J.R. Clarke, Roman Black-and-White Figural Mosaics
Siedlung te Rijswijk', Festoen Bussum, 1976, 75—108. \( \\ Ym k. k,79 .

J. E. Bogaers, De Gallo-Romeinse Tempels te Elstin de Ovei B. CunlifFe, Excavations at Fishbourm ig6i i<)6g London,
Betuwe (The Hague, 1955). "»;i
W.J. Peters, 'Mural Painting Fragments found in the C. Duliercetal., Corpus des Mosaiquesde Tunisiell: Utique
Roman Castra al Nijmegen' BerichU n .
an di Rijksdienst I unis, 11,71
voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, \. XV-XVI, K M .
1) Dunbabin, Th Mosaics of Roman North Africa
1965-6, 113-44; xix, 1969, 53-91; xxix. 1979, ( >xford, 1978).
forthcoming. R. Farioli Campanati ed.), Am del 111 Colloquio
BIBLIOGRAPHY 277

Internationale sul Mosaico Antico (Ravenna, forth- (London, 1966J.

coming). J. P. C. Kent and K. S. Painter, Wealth oj the Roman
D. Fernandez-Galiano, 'Notas sobre talleres musivarios World AD 300-700, British Museum (London, 1977).
en Hispania', Anales de Historia Antigua y Medieval A. Oliver, Silver for the Gods. 800 Years of Greek and Roman
(Buenos Aires), 20, 1980, 100-50. Silver (Toledo, Ohio, 1977).

L. Foucher, Inventaire des Mosdiques ... Sousse (Tunis,

Furniture
i960).
G. M. A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans
A. B. Freijeiro, Corpus de Mosaicos Romanos en Espana 1
and Romans (London, 1966).
M'erida (Madrid, 1978).
A. B. Freijeiro, Corpus de Mosaicos Romanos en Espana 2: Gems
(Madrid, 1978).
Italica (I) A. Furtwangler, Die antiken Gemmen (Berlin and Leipzig,
G. V. Gentili, La Villa Emilia di Piazza Armerina: I 1900).
Mosaici Figurati (Rome, 1959). M. Hemg, A Corpus oj Roman Enquired Ccmsloncs Jrom
S. Germain, Les Mosaiques de Timgad (Paris, 1969). British Sites. BAR 8 (Oxford, 2nd edn., 1978).
V. von Gonzenbach, Die Romischen Mosaiken der Schweiz G. M. A. Richter, Engraved Gems of the Romans (London,
(Basel, 96 ). 1 1 1971).
H. Kahler, Die Villa des Maxentius bei Piazza Ann, mm M. L. Vollenweider, Die Steinschneidekunst und Hire

Berlin. 1973). Kiinstler m Spdtrepublikanischer und Augusteischei Z'U

A. Kiss, Roman Mosaics Hungary (Budapest, 1973).
111 Baden-Baden. 1966 .

I. Lavin, 'The hunting mosaics of Antioch and their M. L. Vollenweider, Die Portrdtgemmen der romischen Re-
sources', DOP, 17, 1963, 180-286. publik, catalogue (Mainz, 1972); text (Mainz, 1974).
D. Levi, Anlioih Mumiic Pavements (Princeton, London,
Jewellery
The Hague, 1947).
R. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery (London, 1961,
D. Levi et al., Mosaico e Mosaicisti nell' Antichita (abstracts
2nd edn., 1980).
from the Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica, Classica e
F. H. Marshall. Catalogue oj the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan
Orientate; Rome, 1967).
and Roman in the Department of Antiquities. British
M. L. Morricone Matini. Mosaici Anticfii in Italia: Regio
Museum London. 19 1reprinted 1969).
1 ,

I-Roma: Regio X-Palatium Rome 1(167 .

B. Pfeiler, Romischer Goldschmuck des ersten und tweiten

I). S. Neal, Roman Mourn s in Britain: an Introduction to tin,,
Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach datierten Funden (Mainz,
Schemes and a Catalogue oj Paintings Gloucester, i<)Hi 1.

1970).
K. Parlasca, Die Romischen Mosaiken in Deutschland
(Berlin, 1959). Vessels of Precious Stone
E. Pernice, Hellenistische Tunst in Pompeii VI: Pavimente H. P. Biihler, Antike Gejasst aus Edelsteinen (Mainz, 1973).
und Figiirliche Mosaiken (Berlin, 1938).
Amber
G. Picard and H. Stern (eds.), La Mosaiqm Greco-Romaim
D. E. Strong, Catalogue of the Carved Amber in the Depart-
(Paris, 1965).
ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum
Recueil des Mosaiques de la Gaule Paris, 1957- ).
(London, 1966).
J. W. Salomonson, La Mosaique am Chevaux ,lc

I'Antiquarium de Carthage The Hague, 1965,. General

D.J. Smith, 'Three fourth-century schools of mosai< in Dossiers de I'arch'eologie, no. 28, May-June 1978, 'Les
Roman Britain', I MGR
(see Picard), 95-1 14. Bronzes de ['Occident Romain' (articles by F. Baratte
D.J. Smith, 'The mosaic pavements', Ch. 3, pp. 71 — 25, 1 and S. Tassinari on bronze vessels and I.. Lerat on
in A.L.F. Rivet fed.). The Roman Villa in Britain fibulat .

(London, 1969). J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Britain undei the Romans (Oxford,

D. J. Smith, 'Roman mosaics in Britain before the 1964), Chapters VII, \ III and x.
fourth century', MGR II (see Stern), 269-89. ]. Ward-Perkins and A. Claridge, exhibition catalogue,
D. J. Smith, 'Mythological figures and scenes in Pompeii AD 79 London [977, New York 1978).
Romano-British mosaics', Ch. 6, pp. 105-93, '" J- G. Zahlhaas, Rdmische Reliefspiegel .Munich, 1975).
Munby and M. Henig (eds.), Roman Life and Ail 111

Britain, BAR 41 (Oxford, [977 .

D.J. Smith, 'Roman mosaics in Britain: a synthesis', in

R. Farioli Campanati (q.v.j.
CHAPTER SEVEN
H. Stern and M. Leglay (eds.), La Mosaique Gre'co-
Coins and Medals
Romaine II (Paris, 1975).
M. Craw lord, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge,

CHAPTER MX 1974)-
J. P. C. Kent, Roman Coins (London, 1978).
77?^ Luxury Arts
C. H. V. Sutherland. Roman Coins (London, 1974).
Silver Plate J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Medallions, Numismatic-
D. E. Strong, Greek and Roman (."Id and Stiver Plat, Studies V (New York, 1944).
278 BIBLIOGRAPHY

For reference Romanic (Paris, 1904).

H. Mattingly and R. A. G. Carson, Coins of the Raman C.Johns. Arretine and Samian Pottery (London, 77 1 < ) .

Empire in the British Museum, vols. I-YI (London, P. Karnitsch, Die Relicfsigillala run Ovilava Lin/. 1959 .

1923-64). R. Knorr, Terra-sigillata-gefdsse des ersten Jahrhunderts mil

H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham. C. H. V. Sutherland Topfcrnamen (Stuttgart, 1952).
and R. A. G. Carson, Roman Imperial Coinage, vols, i-ix M. Lavizzari Pedrazzini. La Terra Sigillata lardo-Ilalica...

(X is forthcoming) (London, 1923-81). (Milan. 1972).

F. Mayet, G. Pucci, H. Vertet; various articles in Annul, s

Litteraires di I'Universite de Besancon, 242, 1980.

CHAPTER EIGHT
M. Mezquiriz de Catalan, Terra Sigillata Hispanica
Pottery
(Valencia, 1961 ).

General F. Oswald and T. Pryce, An Introduction In the Study of

R.J. Charleston, Roman Pottery (London, 1955). Terra Sigillata (London, 1920, repr. 1966).
M. Beltran Lloris, Ceramiea Romano. (Zaragoza, 1979). H. Ricken and C. Fischer, Die Bildersch'usseln derromischen
Topfer von Rheinzabem (Speyer, 1948.601111, 1963 .

Techniques
D. Brown, in D. Strong and D. Brown (ed.), Roman J. W. Salomonson. BABesch, 43. 1968, 80-154: 44. 1969,
4.-109.
Crafti London. 1976), Chapter 6.
J. Stanfield and G. Simpson. Central Gaulish Potters
M. Picon, Introduction a I'Etude Technique des Ceramiques
1 Oxford. 1958).
Lezoux (Dijon, 1973).
Sigillees de

A. Winter. Die Antike Glanztonkeramik. Praktischt Versuche Eastern Relief Wares

(Mainz. 1978). D. Bailex Rei . Cretariae Romanae Fautores Ida 14/15, 1973.
.

1 1-2.5: 19/20. 1979, 257-72.

Pottery during the Republic
D. Spitzer, Hesperia 1 1, 1942, 162-92.
P. Mingazzini, Catalogo dei Vasi delta Colic -/one Castellani

(Rome, 97 ).
II 1 1 Colour-coated and Painted Pottery
M. Moeus, 'Italo-Megarian Ware at Cosa', MAAR, E. Gose, Gefdsstypen deT-romiu hen hcramik 1111 Rheinland
XXXIV, 1980, 161-227. (Cologne. 19751.
R. Pagenstecher, 'Die Calenische Reliefkeramik', K. Greene, Report on the Excavations at Usk ig6$-j6. The
JDAI. Ergdnzungsheft 8 (Berlin, 1909). pre-Flaiian fine wares (Cardiff, 1979).
G. Siebert and J. -P. Morel. Annates Litteraires <l, M. Moeus, 'Aco workshop of
in northern Etruria: the
I'Universite de Besanfon 242. 1980, 55-83, 85-122. Cusonius at Cosa', MAAR, XXXIV, 1980, 231-80.
A. Negev, Th Nabataean Potter's Workshop at Oboda
Arretine Pottery
(Bonn. 1971 .

(a) Catalogues
F. Oelmann, Die Keramik des Kastells Niederbiebei
A. C. Brown. Catalogui "I Italian Terra Sigillata in the
Frankfurt, 1914I.
Ashmolean Museum Oxford, 1968
G. H. Chase. The Loeb Collection oj .1//-//,,, Potter) New Glazed Pottery
York, 1908). P.ArthurinP.Arthu) and G. Marsh, Early Fine Wares in
G. H. Chase, Catalogui oj Amino Potter) Museum o) Rinnan Britain BAR 57 (Oxford. 1978).
Fine Ails . Boston, 1916 R. Charleston, op. cit.. Chapter 3.

Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, USA 9 Metropolitan

fasc.

Museum New York fasc. 1 [Harvard, 1943'.

Late Roman Pottery
G. Chenet, La Ceramiqui gallo-romaine d'Argonne...
H. Dragendorff and C. Watzinger, Arretinischt
(Macon, 1941).
Reliefkeramik Reutlingen, [948
J. Hayes, l.alc
Roman 1'nl lii indon 1972), and
A. Oxe and H. Comfort, Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum
Supplement London, 1980).
(Bonn. [968
C. Young. I In Roman Pottery Industry oj the Oxfordshire
A. Stenico, La Ceramiea Arretina I and II Varese, 1960,
Region BAR 43 (Oxford, 1977).
1966).
1 h, Articles

C. Goudineau, Annates Litteraires de I'Universite di CHAP! I R \l\l

Besancon, 242, 1980, 122-33. Terracotta Revetments. Figurines and Lamps

A. Stenico, / Problemi delta ( eramica Romana di Ravenna,
Roman Terracottas
delta Valle Padana e dell'Alto Adriatico Bologna, 1972 .

s. Besques, Musei dn Louvre, Catalogui Raisonne des

15-23-
Figurines 1/ Reliefs en Terre-Cuiti Grecs et Romains ;

Red-gloss Pottery Pans. 1971).

M. Bulmer, An Introduction to Roman Samian Wart with A. H. Borbein, Campanareliefs Heidelberg, 1968 ,

Special Referena to < ollections in Chi Met ami 1 In North II est L. Gatti lo Guzzo, // Deposito Votivo dell' Esquilino detto di
Chester, 1980 . Reprinted from Journ. Chester Arch. Minerva Medica Florence, 1978).
Soc, 62, 1979, 5-72. H. Goldman, et al., Excavations at Gd'zlu Kule, Tarsus 1

J. Dechelette, Les Vases Ceramiques Onus de la Gaule (Princeton, 11)501.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 79

C. Grandjouan, The Athenian Agora 6, Terracottas and 9b

1 1
)

Plastic Lamps oj the Roman Period (Princeton, 1961). F. Fremersdorf, Du rdmischen Gldsei mit aufgelegten Nuppen
R. A. Higgins, Greek Terracottas London, 1967). in Cologne, 1962).
Koln
C. M. Kaufmann, Agyptische Terrakotten (Cairo, 1913). F. Fremersdoi I. Du rdmischen Glaser mit Schliff, Bemalung,

S. Mollard-Besques, Musee du Louvre, Catalogue Raisonru und Goldauftagen aus Koln Cologne, [967 .

Remains 2
des Figurines el Reliefs en Terre-Cuite Grecs et F. Fremersdorf. Antikes, islamisches und mittelalterliches
(Paris, 1963). Glas, Catalogo del Museo Sacro, V (Vatican City,
M. Rouvier-Jeanlin, Li Figurines Gallo-Romaines en 1975)-
Terre-Cuite au Musee des Antiquites Rationales (Paris, W. Frochncr, La Verier ic Antique: Description de la Col-

1972). lection Charvet (Le Pecq, 1879).

E. Tudot, Collection de Figurines en Argile (Paris, i860). W. Froehner, Collection Julian (.mm. Verrerie Antique,
Fruai/leiie et Poterie Appurtenant a John Pierpont Morgan
Roman Lamps (Paris, 1903).
D. Alicu, and E. Nemes, Roman Lamps from Ulpia ^

K. Goethert-Polaschck. Katalog du rdmischen ('laser des

Traiana Sarmi-tigelusci (Oxford, 1977).
Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier (Mainz, 1977).
D. M. Bailey, Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum 2
S. M. Goldstein. Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in the
(London, 1980).
Coming Museum oj Glass Corning, 1979).
O. Broneer, Corinth 4, 2, Terracotta Lamps (Cambridge,
D. F. Grose. 'Earl) Blown Glass: The Western Evi-
Mass., 19301.
dence', Journal 0/ (-lass .Studies, \\\, 1977, 9-29.
E. Buchi, Lucerne del Museo di Aquileia 1 (Aquileia, 1975).
D. B. Harden, Roman Glass from Karanis (Ann Arbor,
E. M. Cahn-Kleiber, Die antiken Tonlampen des Archdolo-
I936)-
gischen Lnstituts der Universitdt Tubingen (Tubingen,
D. B. Harden 'Ancient Glass, 1: Pre-Roman' Arch. J.,
1977)- CXXV, 1968, 46-72.
J. Deneauve, Lampes de Carthage (Paris, 1969).
D. B. Harden, 'Ancient Glass, II: Roman', Arch. J.,
A. Ennabli, Lampes Chretiennes de Tunisie (Paris, 1976).
CXXVI, i960, 44-77.
C. Farka, Die rdmischen Lampen com Magdalensberg
D. B. Harden and.]. Price, 'The Glass', 317-68, in B.
(Klagenfurt, 1977).
Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne ig6i-ig6g. II - The
F. Fremersdorf, Rdmischc Bildlampen (Bonn, 1922).
Finds, Societyof Antiquaries of London Research
J. W. Hayes, Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum
Report, no. XXVII (Leeds, 1971).
(Toronto, 1980).
J. W. Hays, Roman and Pre-Roman Glass in the Royal
A. Leibundgut, Die romische Lampen in der Schweiz (Bern,
Ontario Museum 'Toronto, 1975).
1977)- D. E. L. Haynes, The Port/and Vase (British Museum,
S. Loeschcke, Lampen aus Vindonissa (Zurich, 191 9).
London, revised edn., 1975).
H. Menzel, Antike Lumpen im rdmisch-germanischen Central-
L. Ibrahim, R. Scranton and R. Brill, Kenchreai, Eastern
museum c« Mainz Mainz, 1969).
I

Port of Corinth, II. Panels of Opus Sectile in Glass (Leiden.

J. Perlzwcig, The Antiunion Agora 7, Lamps 0) the Roman
1976).
Period (Princeton, 1961).
C. Isings. Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Groningen,
T. Szentleleky, Ancient Lamps (Budapest, 1969).
'957)-
C. Isings. Roman Glass in Limbing (Groningen, 1971).
A. Kisa, Das Glas m, Altertume (Leipzig, 1908).
CHAPTER TEN
P. La Baume, Glas de, Ant, ken Welt, I (Cologne, n.d.
Glass
-1973)-
S. H. Auth, Ancient Glass at the .Newark Museum (Newark, G. Lehrer, Ennion - A First Century Glassmaker (Ramat
N.J., 1976). Aviv, 1979).
L. Bergcr, Romiscfre Glaser aus Vindonissa (Basel, i960). C. R. Morey, The Gold-Glass Collection of the Vatican
M. C. Calvi, / Vetri Romani del Museo di Aquileia Library (Vatican City, 1959).
(Aquileia, 1968). Morin-Jean, La Verrerie en Gaule sous I'Empire Romain
B. Czurda-Ruth, Die rdmischen Glciser vom Magdalensberg (Paris, 191 3).
(Klagenfurt, 1979). K. S. Painter, 'Roman Glass' in D. B. Harden, K. S.
O. Doppelfeld, Rdmisches und frankisches Glas in Koln Painter, R. H. Pindcr-Wilson, Hugh Tail. Master-
(Cologne, 1966). pieces of Glass (British Museum, London, 1968),
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Glass at the Fitz- 36-90.
william Museum (Cambridge, 1978). G. Platz-Horster, Antike (.laser - Ausstellung im Antiken-
F. Fremersdorf, Rdmisches Buntglas in Koln (Cologne, museum Berlin (Berlin, 1976).
1958). J. Price, 'Glass' in D. Strong and D.
Brown, Roman Crafts
F. Fremersdorf, Das naturfarbene wgenannte blaugriine Glas (London. 1976), no-25.
in Koln (Cologne, 1958). A. von Saldern, B. Nolte, P. La Baume and T. E.
F. Fremersdorf, Romische Gl'dset nut Fadenauflage in Koln Haevernick, Gldsei da Antike: Sammlung F.rivin Oppen-
(Cologne, 1959) lander (Hamburg, 1974).
F. Fremersdorf, Rdmisches geformtes (•las in Koln (Cologne, E. Simon, Die Portlandvase Mainz, 1957).
 .

280 BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. W. Smith, Glass from tk An, mil World (Corning, N. CHAPTER TWELVE

Y, .957). Art in Late Antiquity
E. M. Stern, Ancient Glass at the Fondation Custbdia
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome, the Late Empire (London,
(Groningen, 1977).
1971):
N. Thomas, Ancient Glass: The Bomford Collection of Pre-
J. Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (Har-
Roman and Roman Glass on Loan to the City of Bristol
mondsworth, 1970; integrated edition 1979).
Museum and Art Gallery (Bristol, 1976).
G. Bovini, The Mosaics of Ravenna (London, 1969).
M. L. Trowbridge, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass
P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (London, 1971 ).
(Urbana, 111., 1930).
P. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine
M. Vigil Pascual, El Vidrio en el Mundo Antiguo (Madrid,
(London, 1972).
1967)-
W. Dorigo, Late Roman Painting (London, 1971).
E, Wilhelm, La Verrerie de I'Epoque Romaine au Muse'e
E. K. Gazda 'A Marble Group of Ganymede and the
Luxembourg (Luxembourg, 1969).
d'Histoire et d'Art,
Eagle from the Age of Augustine' in J. H. Humphrey,
Also numerous papers on ancient glass in the Journal of
Excavation at Carthage conducted by the University of Michi-
Glass Simlies Corning, N. Y.) and in the Bulletins and
1

gan VI (Ann Arbor 1 98 1 125-78. )

Annates of the Journees Internationales du Verre, later the

A. Grabar, The Beginnings of Christian Art (London,
Association Internationale pour I'Histoin du Verre (Liege,
1967)-
Belgium).
A. Grabar, Byzantium from the Death of Theodosius to the

Rise of Islam (London, 1966).

CHAPTER ELEVEN R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture
(Harmondsworth, 1965; second integrated edition
Epigraphy
1975, third edition 1979).
Technique and Style S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity
I. Calabi Limentani. Epigrafia latina Milano-Varese, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981).
1968). F. van der Meer and &
Mohrmann, Atlas of the Early
E. M. Catich, The Origin of the Serif Brush Writing and Christian World (London, 1966).
Roman L,Davenport, Iowa, 1968).
Hen Sister Charles Murray, Rebirth and Afterlife . A Study of the
J.
Mallon, Pale'ograph/e romann Madrid, 1952). Transmission of Some Pagan Imagery in Early Christian
E. Meyer, Einfuehrung in du lateinischi Epigraphik Darm- Funerary Art,BAR Int. Ser., too (Oxford, 1981).
stadt, [973 .
W. Oakeshott, The Mosaics of Rome from the third to the
G. Susini, II lapicida rnmano (Bologna, 1966 , Available (London, 1967).
fourteenth centuries
in English translation l>\ A. M. Dabrowski as Tht Onians, 'Abstraction and Imagination in Late Anti-
J.
Roman Stom 1 nil, 1 ( )xford, [973 .

quity'. Art History, III, 1980, 1-24.

Photographs and Drawings K.J. Shelton, The Esquiline Treasure (London, 1981).
A. Degrassi, inscriptiones latinae liherae reipublicat : imagines W. F. Volbach, Early Christian Art (London, 96 1 ) 1

(Berlin, [965 K. Weitzmann, Late Antique and Early Christian Book

A. E. and S. Gordon, Album oj DatedLatin Inscriptions: Illumination (London, 1977).
.J.

Rome and the Neighborhood. Vol. I, Augustus to Nerva; K. Weitzmann (ed.) Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and
vol. II, AD 100-199; vol. Ill, AD 200-525 (Berkeley, Ear/v Christian Art. Third to Seventh Century. Catalogue

Los Angeles, 1958-65). (New York, 1979); Symposium (New York, 1980).

E. Huebner, exempla scriptural epigrapkicat latinae, a Cae-

mrii dictatoris morti ad aetatem lustiniani: auctarium cor-

poris inscriptionum latinarum Berlin. 18851.

Index

Achola, mosaic pavement, 124 39»5i>54 193-4, '94> 95' 202 20 4; works of
: >

Actium, battle of, 154, 155, 192 Apollonios of Tynana, 109 Hadrian, 34, 37, 50, 57, 61; Erech-
Adamklissi, Trajan's Trophy, 68, £$ Appleford, pewter find, 146 theum caryatids, 9; Neo- Attic school
aedkulae, 36, 39, 47, 65, 100, 101, 103, apses, 39, 56, 57, 243 of art, 69-70; Parthenon, 9, 74, 88;
108, 136, 176, 177, Plate 14 Apulia, 68, 182, 193 Temple of Zeus, 22
Aesica, 'dragonesque' brooches, 158 aqueducts, 45, 51, 53. 55, 177; Segovia, atrium, 62, 63, 251 ; Roman housing, 22,
Africa (Byzacena), 124, 202, terracotta 46, frontispiece 41,47,82
work, 189, 190, 196-7, 199, 201 Aquileia, 121, 143, 157, 162, 186, 217; Attalus II. 140
African Red Slip ware, industry, 185, basilica mosaic, 123, 124 Augustus, Emperor, 11, 33, 66, 183,
186, 186, 187, 190; lamps, 197, 202, Aquincum, 130, 185, 198 187, 197; and the arts, 9, 12, 71, 85,
202, 203, 204 Aquitania, mosaics, 133 96, 101; and architecture, 28, 32-4,
Agrigentum, 13 Arcadius, Emperor (?), 236-7 4^46, 54. 55; coinage, 168, 170, 171,
Agrippa, M. Vipsanius, 38, 53, 218; arch, the, arches, 20-1, 22, 54, 60-1, 71, '75' '76; gems, 153-6; Gemma Augus-
portrait heads, 85-6 74; Constantine, 76-7, 78, 79, 238, tea, 151, 155, 755, 156; mausoleum,
Agrippina, coin portrait, ijo 240; Galerius, 81-2; Septimius 2j; portraiture, 84, 85, 88, 95, 151,
akrotena, Roman, 18 Severus, 75; Titus, 75, 76"; Trajan, 35, 153, 158, 219; terracotta capricorns,
Alexander the Great, 9, II, 66, 95, 100, 60, 61, 75, 234 1
92
153- I7i Archaic Age, 12, 13, 14, 17-18, 191 Aulos, gem-engraver, 154
Alexandria, artistic tradition, g, 103, Archesilaos, sculptor, 69-70 Aurelius, Marcus, 79-80; column,
106, 1
14, 139, 143, 149, 158, 161, 171, architects, Etruscan, 21, 22 79-80, 238-9; panel reliefs, 79, 85;
172, lyy, 206, 208 architects, Roman, 21—2, 28, 34, 50-5; portraiture, 89, 90,55, 170, 177
Allectus, 'British' Emperor, 173 landscape, 30, 36 Autun, gates, 61
altars, 56, 73, 92, 100, 154; to the All- architecture, Greek Orders, 21-2; Avenches, gold bust, 148; lar, 149
Powerful Gods, 231, 23/ Roman adoption, 22, 27, 49-50, 66 Avella, terracotta group, 193, 193
Althiburus, hunting mosaics, 126 architecture, Roman, 17-18, 26; dis- Axial symmetry, axiality, 39, 55, 56, 64
Ambrose of Milan, 248 tinguishing marks, 27, 31-3, 47, 51,
Amiens, bronze patera, 151 64; decorative treatment, 34, 38, 40, Baalbek, temples, 46, 47, 57
Amitemum, inlaid furniture, ijg, 150 41-50 passim; domestic, 14, 21-3, 26, Backworth,/>aterafrom, 145-6
amphitheatres, 26, 33, 35, 44, 58; 34-7, 40, 42, 48, 50, 55, 62, 63, 64; Bad Kreuznach, mosaic, 132
Colosseum, 50, 59 imperial role, 28, 32-3, 36-9, 41, 46, Baiae, 136; glass flask, 217, 2/7
amphorae, Pompeian Blue, 161 ; Portland 49, 60; provincial, 28, 40, 42, 44, 46, Balearic Islands, 193
Vase, 161, 216 48, 50, 56-7, 59, 62, 77; technical Baltimore, agate vase, 161
Anastasius, Emperor, coinage, 236 evolution, 20-1, 26-8, 33; see also baptisteries, 65, 242
Anguillara, Mara di S. Stefano, 43 building materials Barbarathermen, mural mosaic, 137
Ankara, 45, 87, 95 architraves, 36, 52, 99, 251 Barcelona, mosaics, 132-3, 132
antefixes, 18, 192, 251; terracotta, Arcisate, silver vessels, 141 Bargathes, freedman potter, 183
17-18, 42, 191, KJ2 Arezzo, 179, 200, 251 Barletta, bronze statue, 237
Anthemios, architect, 242-3 Argonne, 190 Baroque art, 10, 46-7, 57, 65, 154, 244
Antinous, statues and busts, 88, 8g Aristeas, glass-blower, 212 basilicas, Christian, 50, 55, 123, 242
Antioch, 9, 149, 171, 172; mosaics, Aries, amphitheatre, 58 basilicas, Roman, construction, 21-2,
119-20, 121, 126, 129-30, 133, 137; Arretine Red-gloss ware, 179, 180, 182, 55-6; Aspendos, 45; Fano, 51;
Plates 8, 9, 10, 12 183, 184; en barbotine, 180, 181, 187, Forum, 40; Junius Bassus, 138, Plate
Antonines, 70, 79, 8g, 90, 91, 96, 123, 188; crater, 183, Plate 26; vessels, 140, 35; Lepcis Magna, 53, 54, 56; Ulpia,
124, 201, 202, 239 H2. 143. 179. l8 7 56
Antoninus, M., Louvre frieze, 73 Arsinoe, II and III, 155 Bath, temple of Sulis Minerva, 56, 59;
Antoninus Pius, 88, 157; column, 79, Arval Brothers, 228; Hymn, 221 silver patera, 146

235, 239; portraiture, 8g, 148, 172, Asia Minor, 9, 11, 42, 56, 79, 93, 168, baths, imperial, 32, 59, 60, 121, 124-5,
'77 169; Roman conquest, 28; terra- 136, 218; public, 21, 26, 33, 53, 59
Antony, coin portrait, 169, 171 cottas, 194, 195, ig6; lamps, 200, 203; Beaurains treasure, 159, Plate 22
Anzio, nymphaea mosaics, 135 lead-glazed cups, Plate 24 Bedford, gold ring, 160
Aosta, arch of Augustus, 49 Aspendos, 45, 57 Begram, glass find, 215
Aphrodisias, sculpture school, 66-7 Ateius, pottery centres, 182, 183, 184 Belgium, 11, 162; bronze patera, 150; jet
Apollodoros of Damascus, architect, 9, Athens, 12, 93, 187, 200; coroplasts, bracelet, 162
 1 1 7

282

Benevento, 85; Trajan's Arch, jj, 61, 106-7; military belts, 152; pottery, Chiusi, canopic urns, 23, 24

77,77-78,234 182, 183; terracottas, 193, 193; erup- Christian churches, Roman, baptis-
Bern, Red-gloss ware, 185 tion of Vesuvius, 97, 107 teries, 65, 114, 242; the basilica, 50,
Berthouville, 146; silver hoard, 141, Candarli, pottery kilns, 186, 189 55, 65, 242; Costanza, 65, 65, 130,
S.

145, 745, 148; deposition, 146 Canterbury, 42 136; vault mosaic, 248; S. Gregorio,
Besancon, Porte Noir, 61 Canusium, Apulia, pottery, 182 terracotta figures, 24; Sts John and
Bible, the, scenes from, 34, 165, 186, Capestrano, limestone Warrior, ig, Paul, iog, 246, Plate 2g; S. Maria
204, 217 19-20 Maggiore, 244; St Peter, 64; vault
Birdoswald, gilded figurine, 149 Capheaton, treasure, patera, 146 mosaic, 36; S. Prisca, iog; Mith-
Bithynia, 52, 88 capitals, 44, 48, 49; composite, 50, 5/; raeum, 138; S. Stefano Rotondo, 244;
Bizerta, central emblema, 145 Corinthian 42-3, 49, 50, gg; Doric, S. Sabina, 165
Blanzy-les-Fismes, mosaics, 133 32, 50; Ionic, 15, 4g, 1 1 Christianity, and the arts, log, no, 23g;
Bordeaux, amphitheatre, 44 Capri, grotto with mosaics, 155 catacomb paintings, 110-11; mural
Boscoreale, villa of Fannius Sinistor, Capua, bronze centre, 150; sanctuary mosaics, 136; sacred office (sacra),

100, 142, 148; silver hoard, 141, 142, sculpture, 20, 20 248; Apocrypha, 210; Copts of
143; wall-paintings, 99, 106, 107, Caracalla, Emperor, hairstyle, 88, 90,50 Egypt, 196
Plate 3 Carausius, 'British' Emperor, 73 1 Cicero, M. Tullius, 140; use of Greek,
Boutovo, terracotta centre, 198 Carlisle,11; bronze jug. 151; gem 53; named architects, 50-1; Pro
Brescia, capitolium, 44 workshop, 157, 162 Rabino Postumo, 207; contra Verres, 7,
Britain, 10, 26, 42, 58; coin portraits Carmarthen, silver gilt brooch, 158 20
173; glass finds, 215; Hadrian's Wall Carnac (Finistere), 12 1 Cinnamus, potter, 185

37, 62; military sites, 44, 112; mosa Carnuntum, gem portrait, 157 Cirencester, amphitheatre, 58
icists, 11, 133; pottery, 188; terra Carolingian period. 240. 242 251 Ficoroni, 25, 153
cista, ;

cotta imports, 198; wall-paintings Carrara marble quarries, 28, 48, 49 Claudius. Emperor, 70, 91, 104-5, 184;
1 12 Carthage, Antonine Baths, 59. 2 1
\
: mural decoration, 138; portraiture,
bronze, 10, 140, 152; lares, g6, g6 mosaic, 126, 127, I2J. 134: coloniza- 86, 1 72
'portraiture', 23. 82, 83, 88, 94-6; use tion. 197. 707; destruction. 146. 1 97 Claudius II Gothicus, 172, 173
of in sculpture, 18-19, 23, 61, 7 ( lastlesteads, gem portrait, 157 clay modelling, ig, 88, igi, igg, 203;
'Brutus', 23, 68, 82, 94; Shi -Woll r<5 Castus of La Graufesenque, Plate 23 figures, 1 79; pipeclay, 197
95; statuary, 25, 95-6; with silver catacomb painting, g7, iog-11, 246; Cnidus, gold amphorae, 148; pottery,
inlay, 150, 150, 151; helmets, 152 Christian, 109. no— n, 239; fresco 186, 187; terracotta centre, 194, 1
97
jugs, 150-1; lamps, igg, 200; pails technique, g7; pagan, 23g Coddenham, treasure, 149, 161
and buckets, 1 46, 151: patera, 96, 141. catacombs, of Callixtus. 110; of coin portraiture, 23, 82, 154, 167;
1
50-1; situla. 146, 14G. 151; bronze Commodilla, 10-1 Bust of Christ, 1 1 ; 'Byzantization'. 171 ; design and die-
mil kers, 1 i<i. 150, 151, 152 ;;/: of Praetextatus, 1 to; crypt of St cutting, 174, 176, 176, 177; imperial,
Brutus, Marcus Junius, 23, 68 Januarius, to: of 1 Priscilla, 1 10; Via 156, 166, 168-72, 174, 236; historical
building materials, 21 tf. ; brick, 26, 30, Latina, 2 |g 246 continuity, 169-70; provincial, 169,

39, 41-5,55; concrete, 21, 26, 30, 34, Cato the Elder, 20, 51 171, 173; quality of metal, 173;
(Htl., 12. 6; stone, n
). 34, \2. tl 1 - cavea, j.6, 58, 251 uniformity, 174, 775
15.5° c eilings, ;6 dei 1
11 ated, 1)7, too-i, 114: emus, coinage, Roman, 10, 155; artistic
bullae, amulets, 1 58 vaulted, jg 107 sequence, 166, 167; dating, 167-8;
Burgundy, marble from, 48 ( lelei . an hitect, 34, 51 die-cutters, 153, 167-8, 174, 176;
burial ustoms, 23, 24; finds From, 162,
1 cellae, 16, 30, pS, 56, 252 inscribed, 82, 176, 178; legends, 168,
206, 209; votive offerings, 193 Cellini, Benvenuto, 51, 139 174; provincial, 177-8; Republican,
burial urns, Canopic, 23, 24, 177:1 i un- Celtic culture, 66, 197; bronze work, 153, i6j, 168; reverses, 173, 174;
ary, 213; 1 olumbaria, 105 15 1 ; jewellery, [58, <;,<,. pottery, [79, bronze, 166, 168, 172, 175, 176, 177,
Butrio, potter, 185 189; Welwyn finds. 1 1 177, 1 78; gold, 166, 174, i 75 , 176, 177,
Byzantium, 65, 82, 244; coin por- Ccntcellcs, mausoleum mosaics, 133 178; silver, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174,
traiture, 171, 236; 'double basilica', ceramics, style changes, [89-90; see '75' >77, '7 8 ;
denarius, 167, 168, i6g,
12; lettering, 232; mosaics, i3<>. 137; potter) 176; cistophori, 168, 169; sestertii,

Mount Sinai monastery, [65; silver- C( slius. ( ;,miv |>\ r.nnidal tomb. 26. 27 174, 176, 176, 177; Mints, 171, 172,
ware, 117, stylization, 239 Chalon-sui-Sai'me. Gallo-Roman lion, 1 74, '75, '77
66,57 ( loll luster, 42, 185; colour-coated urn,
( iai r< . tomb painting, 24 Champlieu, temple painting, 12 1 181
(laei leon, amphitheatre, 58 Chaource, silvei hoard, 146; piperatoria, Cologne, 113, 132, 162, 190, 198;
Caesar, Gaius Julius, 32, 48, 51, 55; 1
pi; rilula, 1 |ti. ; ft,. 1
5 1 Cathedral, Plate 7; glassware, 213,
dictatorship, 71; gem collector, 139; Chatuzange-le-Goubet, patera from, 217, Plate 27; wall, paintings, 1
13
coinage, 155. 169, 169b 1
)-,. 1
\6 colomae, 20, 171, 174, 251
Caesarea, theatre, 46 Chedworth, villa landscape, 64 colonnades, 36, 37, 56, 112; street, 54,
caldarium, 59, 60,
1 01, 251 ( Iheii isophos, silversmith, 148 55,56,61-2
Caligula, Emperor, 88; coin portraits, ( In I H li mis. ( in] minis. bronze< aster, Columella, 5 1

1 72, /;;; bust ol his sister, [61, 161 150 columns, 23, 27, 33, 42, 43, 50, 52, 57,
calligraphy, Greek alphabet, 1
1
( Ihen ! u I . agi ii ultui .il mosaii s, 127 60, in, 112; Doric, 1 5, 30- 1 ;
granite,
Campania, 10, 68, 99; architecture, 29, Chichester, plasma intaglio, 157, /
;; 36, 54; marble, 22, 47, 48, 5g;
59; influence on Athens, 53; interior Chieti, 44 temples, 14, 54, 56; Antoninus Pius,
decoration, (.9; landscape painting, ( Ihios, some c cil bl. u k mai ble, 1 79, 230, 235; Marcus Aurelius,
 2 83

79-80; Trajan, 76, 77-8 178; Salona(e) villa, 136 224—6, 229; inscriptions, 220 flf.

Commodius, Emperor, bust as Dioscorides, gem-cutter, 9, 141, 153, Caesarian monumentalis, 225, 226, 226;
Hercules, 89, 8g\ coinage, 1 72 134, 157; De Malum Medica, Plate 33; lapidary writing, scriptura actuaria,
Constantia, portrait-painting, 113 illuminated MS. version, 246-7 223-4, 227, 228, 22g, 230; scriptura
Constantine, Koudiat mosaics, 127, 128 Diphilus, architect, 50-1 monumentalis, 223-4, 225-6, 226, 227,
Constantine, Emperor, 111, 240, 242; Djemila, curia, 55 227, 228, 230, 231, 233; serifs, 223, 224,
Arch, 76, 78, 78, 79, 234-5, 240: Djemila, Dionysian mosaic. 124 225, 227, 229, 231 ; uncials, 194, 228,
Great Frieze, 76-7, 82; conversion, domes, 36-7; architectural use, 34, 37, 231-2; 'rustic capital' bookhands, 8,

236, 248; portraiture, 90, 92, 237; 38-9, 40 222, 223, 227, 232
coin, 171, 1 74, 173, 236, 236, 237, 237; Dominate, 231, 252 erotes, 194, 195, 239, 252
sons of, 236, 237 Domitian, Emperor, 27. 34; coinage, Esch, Bacchus figurine, 162, 163
Constantine II, 95 174 Etruria, Etruscans, 18, 19; architecture,
Constantius II, Emperor, 27, 147, 157, Domitius Ahenobarbus, 'Altar' relief, 13-14, 16, 21, 50; Hellenism, 13-14,
237, 242 71, 72; Census and lustrum frieze, 72; 16-17; influence on Roman art, 12,
Constantius III, 244 Marine 72-3, 73
ihiasos, 13, 69; pottery, 181, 182; sculpture,
Constantius, Tetrarch, 91 Domitius Polygnos, silversmith, 148 16, 17, 23, 68; terracottas, 191,
Constantius Chlorus, 14, 176, 177 «j 1 dress, the toga, 23, 158; Graeco-Roman, 192-3; tomb-painting, 24, 71, 98;
Constantinople, 149, 175, 247; obelisk 67 town planning, 20
of Theodosius I, 234, 233; Christian Dura Europos, 1
1
; and catacomb art, Euboea, Carystian marble, 48
churches, 242; Hagia Sophia, 242-4, 109; religious painting, 1
14 Euodos, gem-cutter, 157
'43 Durnovaria, mosaicists, 133-4 European provinces, 67; mosaics,
Corbridge, silver lanx, 147 130-4; wall-painting sites, 11 2- 13
Corinth, 56, 138; sack of, 20; terracotta East, the, 174; architecture, 36, 45, 46, Eurysaces, tombstone frieze, 66
production, 194, 204 56-8; baroque influence, g; coinage, Eusebius, consul, 240
Corinium, mosaicists, 133 168, 178; interchange with Roman Evander, sculptor, 69
Cornelias Chelidonis, bronzesmith, 150 culture, 53, 54, 56, 61; gems from, Exedra, Roman, 30, 3g, 43, 252
Copenhagen, portrait heads, 88 159; Greeks of, 53, 158; glazed ware,
cornices, 42, 44, 49, 98, 108, 251 189; Hellenized, 69; Megarian bowls, Fabius Pictor, Temple of Salus, 24
coroplasts, 193-4, 203, 204, 251 182; Red-gloss pottery, 183, 184, 190; facades, 34, 42, 57, 59, 61, 65;
Cosa, 20, 30, 42, hi; Sette Finestre temple sanctuaries, 57 colonnaded, 30, 36, 62
villa, 1 1 1 Edict of Milan, 109 Famulus, Nero's painter, 10, 104
courtyards, 23, 34, 36, 37, 57, 62; Egypt, 91, 138, 164; coinages, 171, 177; Faustina the Elder, hairstyle, 88
warehouse, 40, 41 faience, 189; glass- working, 189,215; Faventinus, architect, 51
Cossutius, architect, 22 granite, 36, 38, 39, 48; Islamic Ficoroni cista, 23, 153
Crassus, Lucius, marble column, 48 maiolica, [89; Oxyrhynchus papyrus, Fishbourne, villa, 48, 62, 64, 112, 130
Crete, terracottas, 98 1
221-2. 222; Pantheon, 193, 196, 198, Flavians, 96, 171, 193, 203, 204; build-
cubiculum, 239, 251-2, Plate 6 204, 215; portrait art, 82, wood ings, 49, 50, 107; Cancelleria frieze,
Cuicul, sculpture, 68 mummy, g7~8, 15, 113, ig; Temple
1 1
75, 85; coinage, 172; Palatium, 36,
Cyprus, 171, 177; terracottas, 198, 200, of the Imperial Cult, 1 14; terracottas, 37,56
201 196, 198, 203, 204; Plate 17 floor surfaces, 59, 138; glass
48-9,
Cyrenaica, terracottas, 196, 198, 201 El Djem, amphitheatre, 34, 33, 58; mosaic, 116, 148, 205, 206, 208, 218,
Cyrus, Vettius, Cicero's architect, 50, mosaics, 125, 126; underground 219
53; freedman Chrysippus, 52 chambers, 59 Florence, bronze 'Orator', 23, 23
El Hinojal, hunting mosaics, 133 Formiae, 'Villa of Cicero' mosaic, 135
Dacia, 203, 204; Trajan's wars,9, 51, 68 El Ramalete, hunting mosaics, 133 fountains, 36, 55, 57, 107, 135
Dados, 73, 99, 103, 105, 1 1 1 electrum, inlay, 145 France, 5g; bronze tripod, 1 18, /4a, 150;
Damasus, 4th C. pope, 222 Eleusis, 'Eubouleus', 88 wall-painting sites, 112
Damophilus, terracotta sculptor, 191 Els Munts, Altafulla, glass mosaics, 218, frescoes, 10, 12, g7, 113, 141 ; catacombs,
Danube, the, 51, 52, 203 2ig 111
Daphne, mosaics, 120-1 Plate 10 ; emblemata, 252; Achilles dish, 147, Plate friezes, 18, 66, 68, g3, 105, Plate 20;
Dar buc Ammera, mosaics, 13-14, 114 1 20; Berthouville temple, 143; bronze- wall-paintings, 98, 100, 106-7, 112;
Decius, Emperor, portrait busts, 91 ware, 150; from Straze lanx, 144; Ara Pacis, 74; Battle of Pydna, 72;
decorative surfaces, 137-8 looted, 140; mosaics, 1 17-19, 118, Great Trajanic, 76-7, 78, 79; of the
decursio, Late Antique, 239; Corbridge 124, 125; Plates 9, 12; silver ware, Vicomogistri, 74-5, 73
lanx, 147 141, 1^9,130, 151 jngidarium, 59, 60, 252
Delos, 121, 147, 182; House of the England, silver plate, 10; kilns, igo, igo Frontinus, Julius, and aqueducts, 26, 51
Masks, 125 Ennion, glass-blower, 211, 211, 212, 214 funeral monuments, 14, 64-5, 71, 92,
Delphi,Temple of Apollo, 24, 71,72 Enserune, wall-painting, 112 137, 219; portraiture, 66, 82
Demetrius, silversmith, 148 entablature, 40, 50, 52, 57, 61, 74, 252; Furius Dionysius Filocalus, 222
Denmark, glass find, 215; Plate 19 arcaded, 54; Corinthian, Ionic, 49 furniture, g7, g8; bone (ivory)-inlay,
diatreta glass, 212, 217, 252 Ephesus, 37, 56; aqueduct, 46; frieze, 163-4, { ^4'i metalwork appliques,
Dio Cassius, 39, 139, 153 79; libraries of Celsus, 57; Temple of H9-50
Diocletian, Emperor, go, 1 10, 1 14, 230; Artemis, 54, 148; terracottas, 194;
coinage, 173, 174, 173; decennalia lamp, 202 Gabinii, the, potters, 31, 182
columns, 81; effigies, 91; military epigraphy, 205; calligraphcrs, 221, 222, Galerius, Emperor, 91, 114; Arch of, 81,
influence, 61-2; and the mints, 174, 229; cutting techniques, 222-3, 234, 236
 2 1 1 4

284

Galla Placidia, mosaic, 242, 244, 246, Hadrian, Emperor, neo-classicist, 11, Jewellery, 139, 158-60, Plates 18, 22;
247, 248; Plate 15 12, 36, 77, 86, 88, 96, 107, 108; and growth in luxury, 159-60; bracelets,
Gallia Narbonensis, 67. 68, 1 1 architecture, 37, 49, 54, 55; mosaics, 158, 159, 160; brooches, 158, 160;
Gallienus, Emperor, portraiture, 91, 37, 121, 126; Pantheon, 37, 38,3d?, 39, cameos, 148, 154, 155, 156-7, 158;
148, 172, 173, 210 138; portraiture, 66, 78, 79, 87, 170, pendants, 160, 163, 163; rings, 158,
garden painting, 107; planning, 10, 23 1 72, 172; Tivoli Villa, 36-7,37, 38, 39, 160, 162
Garonne, marble from, 48 44, 107. 117, 125, 244; Tondi, 78-9, Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 71
Gaul, 8, 46, 48, 56, 59, 73, 169, 184; 85; Wall, 62, 151 Judaea. 203
mosaics. 130, 131, 132; pottery, 184, Halicarnassus, terracottas, 194 Julia Domna, 91, 115
185, 187-9, '98; silver hoards, 146, Hautot-l'Auvray, bronze situ/a, 151 Julian, Emperor, 147; chalcedony bust,
148; terracottas, 197-9, '99 Hauxton, glass flask, 213-14, 214 161 coin portrait, 236, 257
;

gems, 9, 139, 142, 154; cutters, 141, Heerlen, amber calix, 162 Julio-Claudian emperors, 75, 96, 140;
152-3, 156, 157, 162; engraved, Helena, Augusta, sarcophagus, 237-40, epigraphy, 227; hereditary succes-
152-3, 160; Imperial Glyptics. 238 sion, 86; portraiture, 86
156-8; intaglio, 152, 153, 154, i54 ,
Hellenism, 12, 56, 69, 82, 88, 90; Junius Bassus, opus sectile, 138; sarco-
157, 757, 176; portraiture, 161-2, 162, influence on Roman art, 7, 9, 66, 67, phagus, 240
163; stones used, 141, 143, 153, 154, 68, 73, 114, 153, 158, 168; glass- Justinian. Emperor, coinage, 236, 237;
'54> '55. '55^ '57. 158, 161, 162; making, 207, 211, 215; mosaicists, Hagia Sophia, 242-3, 243, 245
Plate 18 1 i6ff, terracottas, 193-4, '94
Germanicus, general, 156 Herculaneum, 59. 103; destruction Kaiseraugst-by-Augst, silver treasure,
Germanus, potter, 184 ad 79, 10; bronze Isis, 95-6; domestic 146; Achilles dish, 147, Plate 20
Germany, 56, 68, 72, 12, 1 184, 185, 200; architecture, 22, 49, 62, 63;
10, Karanis, Egypt, 42
Igel Monument, 65; Rhineland, glassware, mosaics, 121, 135,
219; Kenchreai, glass opussectile, 219

Lauersfort phalerae, 151; pottery, 187, 136; terracottas, 191; wall-paintings, Keraddenec, villa paintings, 1 12
190, 197, 198. 199; glass finds, 213, 34, 98, 104, 104; House of Neptune Kerch, S. Russia. 115, 119, 165; am-
2 1
5, 2 1 7 ; 'Hemmoor' buckets, 1 5 and Amphitrite, 136, Plate 14 phoriscus, 2 1

Gerona, mosaics, 132 Hermopolis, calathus, 144 Kingscote, villa wall-painting, 1 12

Ghirgaresh, tomb portrait, 1 14 Herod, King, Mas. id. palace, 46 1 koine, 68, 190, 252
Glanum, 65; wall-paintings, 1 1 1-12 Herodes Atticus. nymphaeum, 57 KresiRts, ( ? )
portrait of Pericles, 88
glass, 190; invention of glass-blowing, Himlingcye. Denmark, Plate 19
206-7; multi-purposes, 205, 207; for Hildcsheim silver treasure, 140-1, 142, La Chebba mosaics, 124
mosaics, 148, 205, 206, 208, 211, 218, 15°: '5'. '5 2 La Graufesenque, pottery industry, 184,
wall-decoration, 218-19; makers and Hippo Regius, hunting mosaics, 127 Plate 23; Red-gloss technique, 184.
cutters, 207, 211, 212, 216-18, 217; Hoby, silver scyphus, 142, 143, 148, 179 '85
glassware, blown tableware, 21 1-15, Honorius, Emperor, 236, 237, 240 Lacer, Julius, named architect, 51
211, 212, 213, 215; coloured and Horatius Codes, statue, 18-19 Lactantius, image of the emperor, i6g
colourless,205, 208, 2og, Plate 27; Hotnitsa, terracottas, 198 Lambaesis, 62; mosaics, 124, 125;
painted, 214-16, 215, Plate 19; trans- Hyllos, gem-engraver, 154, 154 Praetorium, 62
lucentand opaque, 208, 2ig, Plate 28; Hypatius, consul, 240 landscape and garden paintings, 10,
Lycurgus Cup, 161, 216; Portland hypogeum. 1 to, -'
">-' 106-7; Hellenistic reliefs, 77; villa
Vase, 161 ,2/6" settings, 34, 36, 64; wall-painting
Glykon, sculptor, 69-70 iconography, 69, 85, 88, 89-90; pagan mosaics, 99, 100, 101, 102, 108
glyptics, 156, 157,252 in Christian art, 239, 246 lanx, 144, 145, 147, 151, Plate 20
gold, 141, 142, 145, 160, 210; buckle, interior decoration, 48, 49, 97, 100, 107, Late antiquity, 12, 27, 78, 80, 95; art of,

Plate 20; gilt, 124, 135, 148; jewel- in, 218; treatment of space, 34; see 70,90, 147, 156, 173,234-48
lery, 158, 159, /_jo, 1 60; leaf, 105, 215; also wall-paintings Late Roman Art and Architecture, 234,
statuary, 148-9 Isidorus, architect. 243 238-9; basilican 'churches', 242;
Gordian III, Emperor, portraiture, 91, Istanbul, head of :' An adius, 236-7 catacombs, 246, 247; characteristics,
1 72, i 73 Italy, Central, 68; Etruscan primacy, 238-9, 247-8; painting and mosaics,
Gorgasus, sculptor, 191 14, 24; frieze of a Minotaur, 18, 192; 244
Graincourt-les-Havrincourt, silver koine, 68; sculpture, 17, 18; terra- Latium, 14, 18, 30, 34, 192-3
hoard, 146 cottas, 17, 18, 198; southern, 10, 11, Le Mans, town walls, 45
Great Tew, mausoleum, 137 24, 140, 198; Greek influence, 13. 211. Leonardo da Vinci, 51
Greece, 7, 12, 13, 25, 53, 71; Roman 29, 117. 119. 121; Roman conquest, Lepcis Magna, Basilica, 9, 48,53, 54, 56;
conquest, 20, 69 20 Balhs , 55, 59. "4- 137; concrete
Greek art, 8, 9-1 3, 16, 20,66,69, 72, 74, ivories, carved, 156, 163, 164; the vaults, 59, 137; Severan buildings, 48,
95 diptych, 163, 165, 240; Late Antique, 54, 55, 80, 234
Greek East, 10, n, 18, 69, 95, 1 69, 172; 156, 162, 163, 240; provenance and Les-Martres-de-Vevre. pottery market,
coinage design, 177-8, 178; mints, dating, 240 185
1 73-4. '77 Levant, the, 171, 201, 203
Greek mythology and legend, use of in Janglinster, drinking cup, 213 14,2/5 Lex Oppia, repeal, 158
the arts passim; 17, 24, 25, 106, 192; Jerash, bath terracottas, 46 Lezoux, pottery industry, 184, 185
Plates 9, 1 Jericho, work of Hadrian, 46 Libert us, potter, 185
Greek Orders of Architecture, 27 Jerusalem, capture by Titus, 76; glass- libraries, 36, 37, 50, 57, 77
gymnasium, Greek, 59; Roman hippika, blowing debris, 206; Holy Sepulchre Libya, basilica and forum, 9
•5 2 shrine, 242; Tomb of Absalom, 65 Licinius,co-Emperor, 1 74, 236, 237
 28 5

Lillebonne, mosaics, 133, Plate 13 metals, precious, 148-50, 181, 211 200, 202; Hellenism, 124, 125, 126,
Livia, w. of Nero, 10, 12, 88, 97, 100, metalwork, military, 151-2 130; mosaicists, 11, 117, 123, 124,
106, 107, 136, 158 Metellus, Temple of Jupiter Stator, 47 134. '37
Livy (Titus Livius), 140; and Roman Michelangelo, 32, 51, 95 Notion, Ephesus, kiln debris, 189
history, 14, 20, 71, 158 Milan, S. Ambrogio, 165 Novios Plautios, 25
London, 42; BM Roman objects, 95, Mildenhall, silver treasure, 146, 147, Nubia, Sudanese glass find, 215; X-
156, 157, 759; Lycurgus Cup, 161, '47-241 group cemeteries, 200
Plate 28; plasma bust, 161 Miletus, 46, 56, 57 Numidia, epigraphic uncials, 228
Lucania, tomb-painting, 24 Minucius Augustinus, moneyer, 168 Numismatics, 167, 177; 'abnormal'
Lucanus, Terentius, 98 Mithridates VI, coin portraits, 154 coins, 166; realism, 172, 173; peak of
Lucinius Nerva, moneyer, 168 Moesia, 198, 199, 203 the art, 174; see also coins and
Lucius Verus, frieze, 79; silver bust, 148 Monnus, mosaicist, 1 3 1-2 medallions
Lullingstone, Chi Rho monogram, 1 12 Monte Albano, terracotta hut-urn, 14 nymphaea, 54, 57, 59, 135
Lupicinus, Mildenhall treasure, 147 Montmaurin, palatial villa, 62
Luxor, Temple of Amnion, 14 1 mosaics, 10,49,56,98, 107; polychrome oculus, 39, 252; Domus Aurea, 34
luxury, affront to mos maiorurn, 139, 152; strip bowl, Plate 25; British schools, oinophorai, 186, 187, 252
arts, 139-40, 161, 165, 183 «j 133; craftsmen, 117, 118, 119, 133-4; Olympia, nymphaeum, 57
Lyons, 131, 171, 187; treasure, 150, 159 emblema, 117, 118, 119, 120; floorings, Oplontis, 101 ; landscape paintings, 100,
Lysippus, 197 37. 49. 59. 79; g lass > "6, 120, i2g, 106, 107; villa wall-paintings, gg-
'33' '35. '38, 148, 205, 206, 208, 218; 100, 2 ig
Macedonia, 10, 142; conquest, 24, 47, Hellenistic foundation, 16-19, '3°> 1 opus incertum, 21, 30, 45-6, 253
72 Italian black and white, 118, 121-3, opus interrasile, 160, 160
Macon, figurines, 148 126, 129-32, 138; murals, 111, 135, opussectile, 4g, 138, 218, 2ig; Plate 35
Magdalensberg, wall-paintings, 1 1 1 136; pavements (tesserae), 1 16-17, Opus tessellatum, 116-18, 121, 122, 137;
Magna Graecia, 13,69, 119, 181 118, 120, 135, 141; smalto, 116, 117, African, 124
Mainz, sword-scabbard, 151, 156 120, 127, 132, 135, 136; subjects, opus vermiculatum, 1 16-17, I2I >
I2 4> 131;
Magnentius, usurper, 147, 236, 237 123-6, 129-30, 131 ; vaults, 107, in, Plates g, 12; African, 124, 125
Mamilius Limetanus, moneyer, 155, 168 135, 136, 137; wall, 49, 99, 107, 1
13, Orange, 58, 61, 68, 131
Mamurra, engineer, 48 205 ornamentation, 28, 48-50, 54
manuscript illumination, dating and mosaics, African tradition, 124-30, 132, Ostia, harbour town, 40-1, no, 136,
Ambrosian Iliad,
colouring, 246, 247; 134; Triumph of Dionysos, 124, 125, 176, 776", ig2; baths, iog, 122, 122,
246; Codex Amiatinus, 247; Dios- 126 136; Isola Sacra cemetery, 64, 108;
corides De Materia Medica, 246-7, Mosel Valley, 11, 197 mosaics, 121, 123, 124, 137; House of
Plate 33; Merovingian, 247; Qued- Mosques, Hagia Sophia, 244 Cupid and Psyche, no, 138; of the
linburg fragment, 246; Rossano Munster-Sarmsheim, mosaic, 132 Yellow Walls, 121; sculpture, 64,
Gospels, 247; Vatican and Roman Myrina, terracotta, 194, 7515 86-7, #7, 88; wall-paintings, 107-g;
Vergils,8, 246; Vienna Genesis, 247 mystery cults, Dionysius, 98, 99, 100, House of Ganymede, 108; of
marble, 27, 28, 42, 47-8, 53, 138 113, 124, 125, 126, 139, 147, 747, 164, Menander, 108; of the Muses, 108,
carving, 42, 49; Greek masons, 28, 53: 187, 211, Plate 2; Mithras, 109, 1
14, 121 warehouse of Epagathius, 41, 43
;

objects, 69; portraiture, 82, 83, 84: 138, 198; cult statues, 191, 242 Otrang, country house mosaics, 62
varieties, 28, 36, 39, 48; veneer, 36, Oudna, House of the Laberii mosaics,
48,59, no Nabataea, pottery, 188-9, '^'i volute I2 5
Marengo, silver treasure, 148-50, 148 lamps, 203
Marmora, marble from, 54, 245 Naples, Museo Nazionale, sculpture Pacuvius, and Temple of Hercules, 24
Martizay, wall decoration, 1 12 and wall-paintings, yo, 104, 104; Paestum, school of sculpture, 13
Marzabotto, Etruscan layout, 20 Tazza Farnese, 155 paganism, 15, 16, 147, 236, 239
Masada, Herod's palace, 46 Narbonne, Capitolium, 48 painting, Greek, 'Old Masters', 25; loss
masonry, 46, 48; ashlar, 31, 45, 46; Navigius, potter, 187, 197 of originals, 66; pottery, 188-g; vase,
polygonal, 30, 45-6, 56, 65 Naxos, source of corundum, 153 66
Matidia, niece of Trajan, 88 Near East, 99, 189 painting, Roman, 7, 9, 10, 11;
mausolea, 130, 136, 137, 242; Galla Nennig, panel mosaic, 737; villa, 62 catacomb, 246; chiaroscuro, 106;
Placidia, Plate 14; Ravenna, 65 Neo-Attic school of art, 69, 70, 183; figurative, 24-5, 71, Plate 1; im-
Maxentius, basilica, 242 Roman movement, 74, 85, 86 migrant Greek painters, 24; and
Maxima, lapidary script epitaph, 232 Nero, Emperor, 11, 31, 46, 136, 138, interior decoration, 98, 104-5; land-
Maximian, Emperor, 14 1 139, 2og; Domus Aurea, 10, 34, 51-2, scape, 106-7; rnural mosaics as imi-
medallions, 105, 107, 115, 162, 166,776', 97, 104, 105, 114, 135; portraiture, 86, tation, 117, 119, 125, 136, 137; war
215 161, 170, 770, 72, 74, 176
1 1 (triumphal), 24, 71, 72
Mediterranean basin, arts, g, 11, 14,28, Nerva, Emperor, ends hereditary suc- palaces, 27, 34, 36, 37
117, 119, 187, 190, 198; glass finds, cession, 86 palaestra, courtyards, 59, 60, 162
205, 206, 207 Netherlands, stucco work, 12 1 Palazzo dei Conservatori, 79, 95;
Memphis, glazed ware, 189 Neuss, fortress, 62 statuary, 83, 84, 92
Menophilus, terracottas, 194, 7515 Nikolayevo, treasure, 149 Palermo, inscription, 220, 221
Merida, amphitheatre, 58, 59; mosaics, Nimes, 56, 61; Maison Carree, 52, 56; Palestine, glass finds, 206
1 30-1, 133 Temple of Diana, 46-7, 54 Palestrina, Ficorini cista, 25, 25; sanc-
Meroe, bronze head of Augustus, 95 Noricum, 1, 203
1 1 tuary, 30, 31, 33
Mesopotamia, 45, 205, 207 North Africa, 48, 55, 67, 80, 169, 187, Palladius, 51, 64
 1 1

2 86

Palmyra, u, 114; colonnaded streets, the Hunt, 103; of Julia Felix, 104, Arches, Constantine, 76-7, 71?, 79;
34-5, 56; funeral monuments, 65, 66, Plate 5; of Pinarius Cerialis, 103; of SeptimiusSeverus, 51, 60, 80, 81, 234;
67 the Vettii, 103, 103, 239 Tiberius, 55; Titus, 26,5/; basilicas,
Pannonia, 112, 130, 190, 192, 198, 199, Pompeius Paulinus, 141, 229; portrait 29, 32, 56, 77; Baths, Agrippa, 32,
203, 204 figure, 70,
85 218; Caracalla, 59,60; Diocletian, 59;
Pantagathus, potter, 180 Pompey, 29, 168-9, i6g, 171 Nero, 27; Titus, 59; Trajan, 34, 39;
Paris, 157; 'Cup of the Ptolemies', 160, Pomponius Hylas, columbarium, 105, Colosseum, 34, 50, 59; Columns,
161; Grand Camee de France, 151, 135 Antoninus Pius, 79; Marcus Aurelius,
155, 156; Louvre lustrum, 72, 73, 75 Ponte di Nona, healing shrine, 193 79-80, 80, 95, 55; Trajan, 9, 76, 226,
Parthians, 67, 79. 81, 114, 181 Popilius, potter, 182-3, l $2 226, 234; lettering, 233; Domus
Pasiteles, artist, 9, 69-70, 70, 140, 153 porphyry, 91, 237-8, 238 Aurea, 10, 34, 51-2, 97, 104, 103, 135;
Paternus, potter, 185 Porta Tiburtina, statue of Orpheus, 69 Forum of Augustus, 32, 33; Forum
patronage, 25, 28, 51, 146-7 porticoes, 22, 30, 31,41, 57, 99, 253 Boarium, 16, 28, 53; ofJulian, 32, 33;
Paullus, Aemilius. 24, 72 portraiture, see under sculpture Romanum, 4, 32, 48, 80, 81; of
Pausylypos, silversmith, 148 Postumus, M. 'Gallic' Emperor, 173, Trajan, 39, 40, 56, 76, 77, 77;
Pavlikeni, terracottas, 198 '75, 237 Imperial Fora, 48, 55; mausolea, 65,
Pecs, catacombs, 246 pottery, 13, 179-90; appliques, 180, 181 6j, 66; Palaces, 27, 34, 36, 37;
Perennius Tigranes, potter, 183; Plate 186, 188; Arretine and Samian ware, Pantheon, of Hadrian, 37-8, 37, 38,
26 10, 179, 183, 208; en barbotine, 38-9, 45, 49; ports, 26, 30; Prima
Pergamum, 9, 46, 59, 133, 140; Altar of 181, 187, 188, 189, 190, 251; colour Porta, 85, 88, 107, 136; Senate house,
Zeus, 154, 156; pottery, 183, 187, coated and painted, 180, 181, 187-9, 55; Stadium of Domitian, 27; Tabu-
200; temples, 45, 54, 57, 58,51? 190; Eastern relief wares, 186-7, l &> larium, 31-2, 33, 34, 40; temples,
Pericles, 12,88 replaced by glass, 179, 183, 189, 190 Apollo, 42, 49; Castor, 32, 32, 49;
Perigueux, 44, 1 12 Hellenistic influence, 181, 182, 183 Claudius, 46; Fortuna Virilis, 49-50;
Persia, 9, 12, 25, 71 'Megarian' bowls, 182, 182, 183, 187 Jupiter, 80; Mars Ultor, 32; Minerva
perspective, -,-'• 78, 79, 99, 102, 103; metal substitute, 179, 186, 187, 189 Medica, 64, 136, 193; Varus and
bird's-eye, 80, 120, 178 Nubian and Coptic ware, 188-9, '&& Rome, 48, 54; theatres, 40, 50; Tomb
Petescia treasure, 154, 158, 162 Red-gloss technique, 179-80, 180 of the Haterii, 35; of the Pancratii,
Petra, 65, 200, 203 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, Plates 23, 24: Plate 30; Trajan's Market, 39-40, 40,
pewter, 142, 143, 146, 146 subjects portrayed, 182-90 passim: 43
Phidias. Athena Lemnia, 88 surmoulage. 185,
'
187; Aco Beakers. Romula, gem workshop, 157
Philip I, the Arab, 90, 91, 172, 173 184, 187, 189 rooms, 36, 37, 59, 62, 98
Phrygia, source of marble, 36 Pozzuoli, amphitheatre, 59 Rudge, bronze cup, 151
Picenum, cemetery statue, 68 Praeneste Palest rina), 9, 45 Rudston, 112; marine mosaic, 134, 134
pilasters, 39, 43, 48, 54, 61, 112 Prickwillow, bronze patera, 150 Russia, 201 ; kiln centre, 189
Pisa, 184 Priene, 56, 194
Piso Frugi, L., moneyer, 167 Ptolemaic monarchy, 143, 161, 165, Sabina, apotheosis, 79, 88
Pliny the Elder, Natural History, passim 177. 196 Sabratha, theatre facades, 57, 58; House
Plotina, w. of Trajan, 88 Ptolemy II, Philadelphia, 139 of the Tragic Actor, 114
Pi. Valley, pottery, 184 public buildings, 20, 21, 28, 42, 55, 138, Si Augustine, de Civitate Dei, 16
podium, temple, 1 -,.
16, 32, 52. 53, 54, 191,218 St Bertrand de Comminges, forum, 53
111. 112 Pupienus Maximus, Emperor, 91 St Paul, riot against, 148; shrine church,
Pola, 56, 58 Puteoli, 29, 51, 217; mosaicist, 133, 242
Polykleitos, 85 Plate 13 St Peter, shrine church, 242
Pompeii, 10, 63, 95, 96, 191, 216; Pyrenees, marble from, 48 Salamis, Hyllos intaglio, 154, 134
architecture, 22, 2 ; 29, |j. 35, 39,62, pyxides, mi her, 143, 162; glass, 208, 21
. Salona(e), Diocletian's villa, 136
103 1; household objects, [42, 148, Samian ware, 10,208,212
184; painting, 25, 99; Stabian
150. Rabbula, scribe, 247, Plate 34 Samosata, 1

Baths, 22, sg, 59, mi; House of Rabirius, architect, 34, 36 sanctuaries, 21, 30, 31; public baths,
Apollo, 136, 143, 158; of Aulus Raetia province, 203 56-7.59. '45
Valens, 227. szj\ of the Fruit Rasimius, potter, 180, 183 Sanxay, religious complex, 56
Orchard, 107; of the Menander, 143; Ravenna, churches, 56, 242, 245-6, 243, Saone, Chalon, bronzejug, 150-1
of Venus Marin. 107, Plate 4; Tomb 1. Plates 31, 32; mosaics, 244, 243; Sarapis, Temple of, 45
of Vestorius Priscus, 141; of the mausolea, 65, 242, 244, 246, Plate 15 Sarmizegetusa, amphitheatre, 59
Mysteries, to, Plate 2; wall-paintings, religion, Roman, adoption of Greek Scaurus, Aemilius, theatre, 47
34, 98, 99; Plates 3, 6; Style 1. 22 3, pantheon, 16-17, 1 9^ Scipio Barbatus, epitaph, 223, 223
98; Samnite House, Herculaneum, Renaissance, the, 8, 46, 50, 51, 139 sculptors, Roman, 24, 68, 95; eclecti-
98; Style II, 36, 98-g, 99-100, 1 01, revetments, 30; terracotta, 18, 42, 191 cism, 9, 69, 70, 79; Greeks working
108, 110, ill, 112, 113, 137; House of Rhayader, bracelet finds, 158, 159 in Rome, 24, 69-70, 74, 85; use
the rrifHns, 99; Villa of the Myster-
I Richborough, fort, 14. 18 of running drill, 79, 80, 81, 88, 91
ies,99; Style III, 40, 99-100, 102-3, Roman ai m\ . 52, 62, 97, 184, 201 ; and sculpture, 7; chiaroscuro, 70, 85, 88;
108, 113; House of the Centenary, imperial power, 81,91; fortresses, 62; Etruscan influence, 16, 17, 23, 69;
mi; Farnesina House, ion, mi, mi, wars, 9, 19, 20, 24, 51, 60, 69, 167; and Greek classical ideals, 78-9, 88,
House of l.ui retius Fronto, 102;
102; 'Triumphal paintings', 71 90, 234; Hellenistic influences, 9, 66,
of the Priest Amandus, 98. 102; Rome: buildings and monuments, map, 67, 68, 69; historical reliefs, 71-5, 77,
Sty] >2, 108, 113; H( 27, Ara Pacis, 1 2, 66, 73, 74, 1 24, 1 54; 78, 80-2, 166; impressionism, 70, 79;
 287

materials, 18-20, 19, 20, 67, 68, 68, 71, South Shields, gem workshop, 157, 157 Plate 21
88; miniature, 71,93. 148, 160-5, '<%> Spain, 10, 68, 73, 117, 137, 169, 185, Thurium, coinage, 150
164; 'Cup of the Ptolemies'. 160, 161, 187, 193, 200, 212 Thessalonika, 242; Arch ofGalerius, 81,
[62; narrative element, 77, 80, 82; Sperlonga, grotto statuary, 9 234
plasticity, 79, 80, 83, 90; schools, 1, 1 Spec tatius Priscianus, funeral monu- Tiber, the, 30; bridges, 2 1 27, 230 ,

66, 67, 68; and social class, 66, 75, 79; ment, 64 Tiberius, Emperor, 142, 151, 156, 185;
treatment of space, 75, 77, 79; 242
Split, 61, coin portraiture, 172, 175, 176
sponsorship, 70-1, 74-5; statuary, 10, Stabiae, 10, 112. 114 Tienen-Avendoren, bronze patera, 141,
56, 57, 59, 61; bronze-inlaid-silver, Steevenswert, silverware, 140, 143, 160, 150
96, 149, 149, 7"
150; cult, 16-17, ; 161 Timgad, 55, 56, 59, 60, 126
portraiture, 66, 71, 72, 77, 80, 81-3, 'Stephanos', sculptor, 9 Titedius Labeo, proconsul, 1

234; use of colour, 88, 89; treatment Stilicho, regent, 240 Titus, Emperor, 86; Arch, 75, 76, 77
of head, 23-4, 75, 78, 80, 83, 85, 86, Straubing, helmet, 152 Titus Sennius, mosaicists, 133
87, 90,92; eyes, 88, 91, 237; hair and Straze, silver lanx, 144, 145, 151 Tivoli, 31, 32, 117, 135, 141; see also
beard, 79, 86, 88, 89, 90 Imperial, 1 ; Strobilus, Firmalampen, 203, 203 Hadrian's Villa
83-92 passim; Late Antique, 237, 240; stucco, 29; interior decoration, 39, 42, tombs, tombstones, 51, 55, 194, 195;
materials, 82, 8j, 87; social infhienufs, 43, 49, 98-100, 101, 105, 107, 108, funerary sculpture, 92, 93,95; inhum-
91-2, 237; stylistic changes, 88, 89, 1 12, 124 ation and, 93; painting, 22, 24, 105; of
90-2, 234-5, 2 37i of women impe- Studius, landscape artist, 10, 106 Anna Regilla, 43, 44, 44, 65; Furii
rial), 86, 87, 88, 90-1 Sulla, 193 family, 93; of the Haterii, 35, 65, 92-3,
Sedeinga, necropolis glass find, 2 1 Susa, Arch of Augustus, 66 94; of the Pancratii, Plate 30; of the
Segovia, aqueduct, 46 Switzerland, 112, 137; Bern kilns, 185; Valerii, 107; ofVestorius Priscus, 141
Seleukos, Asiatic artist, 100 Locarno drinking-cup, 2 1
tondi, 78, 79
Selinus, school of sculpture, 13 synagogues, 1 14-15 town planning, 20-1 orthogonal, 56
;

Sennius Felix, mosaicist, Plate 13 Syracuse, amphitheatre, 58; sack of, 20 Trajan, Emperor, 39, 51-3, 107, 193;
Sens, mosaics, 130, 131 Syria, 8, 11, 61, 169, 171, 203; glass- Arches, 35, 60, 61, 75, 234; column, 9,
Septimius Severus, Emperor, 55, 90, working, 189, 206, 211, 212; and 76, 226, 226, 234; lettering, 233;
157, 172, 229; and Lepcis Magna, 9, Western architecture, 47, 54, 56 frieze, 76-8; Dacian campaign, 9, 68,

54, 75, 80, 234; portraiture, 89-90, 77, 78; Forum, 9, 77; portraiture, 86,
1
1
5, 1 70, 172; State Cameos, 56 1 Tabarka, mosaics, 62 87, 88, 172, 172, 177, 177; succession
Serena, w. of Stilicho, 240 Tacitus, Emperor, 210 by adoption, 86, 170; Trophy, 68, 68
Servius Tullius, King, 24 Tagus, Alcantara bridge, 51 Trajan, Decius, 166, 172, 173
Sette Bassi, 43 Taragona, Tomb of the Scipios, 65 Trebellius Pollio, 210
Sette Finestre, 42, 43, 62, 1 1 1 Tarentum, 20; terracottas, 193 tria nomina, 201, 254
Severan emperors, 70, 88, 201, 202; Tarquins, 14, 24 triclinium, 36, iog, 142, 254
Arch of Argentarii, 74-5 Tarsus, 160; terracotta industry. [89, Trier, 56, 61, 133, 198; Aula Palatina,
Severus, architect, 34, 51 94-5 45, 45; Baths, 59, 60; Constantine's
Severus, Alexander, Emperor, 190; temples, Greek, 21, 22; Roman, 13-16, Palace, 113, 159-60, 242; mosaics,
portraiture, 91, 172 15, 16, 22, 55-7, 1 14; of Bel, 1
14 131-2, 133, 137; terracottas, 182, 188,
shops, 39, 40, 40, 55, 59 Tenes, jewellery hoard, 160 .98
Sicily, Greek, 7, 13, 20, 29, 69, 193; Tepidarium, 59, 253; Stabian Baths, 29 Tripolitania, 124, 125, 196
mosaics, 119, 129, i2g, 138 Termancia, cage-cup, 218 Troy, 1 54 194 ,

Sicily, Roman, villa mosaics, 64, 126, Terracina, 33; temple of Jupiter, 31 Tunisia, 62, 69, 186, 197, 204
127, 128, 129, Plate 1 terracotta, 16, 191, 194, 197; for archi- Tuscany, 42, 48
Side, theatre, 46 tectural decoration, 14-16,42, 191-2,
Sidon, 'Alexander Sarcophagus', 72 192; cinerary urns, 14, 14; Egyptian, Ulpian, Digest, 218
and chased,
silver plate, silverware, cast 196, Plate 17; figures, 191-9; lamps, Umbria, 183
144; collecting, 139, 141; gilding, 199-204, 201, 202, 203; portrait
141, 142, /,£?, 149; and Greek drama, sculpture, 24, 193; Roman pro- Vaison, Gaul, 62, 63, 148; House of the
142, 143; Hellenistic aesthetic, 140, vincial, 196-8, 203; Roman uses, Silver Bust, 63, 148
141, 142; Later Roman, 144-8, 241; 1 9 1-3; Tanagra types, 194, 196; Vandal period, 137, 202
military, 152; niello, 146, 141), 150; votive offerings, 192-3 Varro, Lingua Latina, 16, 22, 51
ornamentation, 9-10, 141-4; scjiphus, Tetrarchy, 81, 91,52, 174, 178, 236 Varus Quinctilius, 141
142, 143, 148; subjects wrought, Tetricus, Gallic 'Emperor', 173 vases, 160-1 ; 'Homeric', 182
139-42, 147, 153; Achilles dish, 147, Thames, sword scabbard, 151 Vatican Museum, sarcophagus, 237-8;
148; Arretine ware, 140; bowl by theatres, 27, 29, 33, 47, 58, 59; stages, 48, veiled head, 83
Pytheas, 141; canthari, 140; patera, 57-59 vaulting, vaults, 21, 30, 34, 36, 46, 109;
145-6, 146; statuary, 148-9 Theodora, Empress, mosaic, 245, 245 barrel, 21, 30, 46; concrete, 58, 59;
silversmiths, 80, 139, 140, 146-8 Theodore of Aquileia, Bishop, 123; cross-, 32, 34, 40; mosaics, 107, 244
Siphnos, glass find, 2og mosaicists, 239 Veii, Etruscan city, 16, 18, 20; Apollo,
Smirat, hunting mosaics, 127 Thcodoric, Arian/Gothic King, 245 '7. '9i
Smyrna, 56, 194 Theodosius 1, 248; Obelisk, 234, 235; Velleia, basilica, 35
Solon, gem engraver, 154 Oceanus dish, 147, 241; Missorium, Velletri, 18
Sosus of Pergamum, mosaicist, 'mi- 241, 241-2 Venice, St Mark's Horses, 95
swept floor' tradition, 1 17, 130 Theodosius II, terracotta lamp, 202 Verecundus, clothmaker, 104
Sousse, mosaics, 125, 126 Thetford, jewellery treasure, 160, Vergina, royal tombs, 10
 1

2 88

Verona, 58; Porta dei Borsari, 34, 35, Vitellius, coin portraiture, 169 100; mosaics, 107, 1
17, 244
61 dei Leoni, 33-4
; Vitruvius, 22. 41, 51, 97, 101; and Wardt-Liittingen, calalhus, 142
Verres, Gaius, looted emblemata, 140 Augustus, 28, 51 ; and Greek Orders, Whitby, jet outcrops, 162
Verulamium, theatre, 58; wall- 27, 49, 51; harena fossicia, 30; skills windows, 36, 39, 40, 41, 205; arched, 39,
paintings, 42 demanded by, 51-2; De Architectural 44; gateway, 61
Vespasian, Emperor, portraiture, 86, 27,51-2 Windsor, portrait gem, 157
87, 169 Volsinii, Roman pillage, 20 Winterton, wall-paintings, 112
Vesuvius, Mount, 49: eruption, 10, 97, Volubilis, sculpture, 68 women, and classical tradition, 90, 91;
200; bronze lamps, 200 Vulca, Etruscan sculptor, 16, 191; portrait heads, 86, 87, 88; the matrona,
Vibius Pansa, 168 Apollo of Veii, 77. 191 92
Vicomagistri, frieze subjcc t,
75 Vulci, 182; tomb painting. 24 wood-carving, 165
Victoria, Queen, coin portraiture, 1 70 Wroxeter, silver mirror, 1 46, 147
Victorinus, Gallic 'Emperor', 173 wall-painting, architectural evidence,
Vienna, 79; collection. 154, 755 49, 50, 62, 97; method and technique, York, 112, 192; colonia, 162
Vienne,Rhone school of mosaics, 131; 97-8; pozzolana, 97; provincial,
Temple of Augustus, 56.57 111-15; Roman, 107-15; see also Zenodorus, 7-8
Villelaure, mosaics, 133 Pompeii Zliten, mosaic emblemata, 124, 125
Virunum, Roman city, 1 1 walls, construction, 30-^passim, 48, 59,
A HANDBOOK OF
ROMAN ART
v '

trtin

-
the long-awaited sequel to
Richter's highly successful Handh.
presents a comprehensive survey of all il

• 1 the Roman world, giving the reader the

ulormation on current research
nd archaeological finds.
i he bonk is wide, extending from
Rome to the threshold of the Middlt
and including the arts not only of Rome and Italy
but also of the pt ct of
mo fields of stud\
being architecture, sculpture, paint-
! which is discussed by a
fie minor arts are reappraised in the

and inscriptions. Much more

l>ook
and interprets the Roman aesthetic
ideal through examination of the

and

and
1
1 the
nake
ed in

htar

I both with the

aid with the Department

ntury.