No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Literary Evidence for the Beginnings of Roman Art1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
‘Art in Rome and Roman art are two notions not necessarily identical.’ Some years ago, I began a paper on the chronology of Roman sculpture under the Republic with these words, and since then Mrs. Strong has published her book Art in Ancient Rome, which by its title seems to express the same view—a view corroborated by the materials studied in the first chapters. Therefore, notwithstanding some recent objections, in matters of plastic art at Rome, I persist in distinguishing a Latin and a Roman period, meeting about 90 B.C., the epoch of the Social War.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Name of Author 1934
References
2 Mededeelingen Nederlandsch Historisch Instituut Rome, 1928, p. 29 ffGoogle Scholar.
3 By Mrs. Dr.Jitta, A. N. Zadoks-Josephus in her dissertation Ancestral Portraiture in Rome (Univ. of Amsterdam, 1932), p. 77 f.Google Scholar But in her system, too, the year 90 B.C. is of paramount importance (cf. pp. 37, 63): so also in the Chicago dissertations referred to below.
4 Some remarks on this period in my paper Bull. Vereeniging Antieke Beschaving v, 1 (1930), 12 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Atti l°. Congr, intern, etr. (1928), p. 88 f. and Prof. Cultrera, St. etr. i, 86 f., 94.
5 Cf. Meded. Ned. Inst. Rome, 1928, p. 32 f.; also below, note 8. Ideas like those propounded by Prof. A. Grenier (Le génie rom., p. 279 f.), which only reflected current opinion, were justly, though perhaps too frankly, criticised by Prof.Cultrera, (St. etr. i, 89Google Scholar, 2, cf. 93; and also Atti 1°. Congr. naz. etr. (1926) ii, p. 92Google Scholar). The truth is that Roman art is one of the many variations of Italic art, the unity of which has sufficiently been demonstrated by Prof. Cultrera, St. etr. l.c. 83/4: cf. recently Mrs.Strong, in CAH ix, 804Google Scholar and Prof. Bandinelli, Mnemosyne, 1934, p. 93.
6 Cf. Cic. Tusc. iv, 5–6Google Scholar; ii, 5–6.
7 For the stimulating effect of personal interest, cf. Cic. Tusc. i, 4Google Scholar. But this can never be a determining factor in matters of art; cf. Prof.Rodenwaldt, , ‘Problem des Klassischen in der Kunst’ Zeitschr. f. Aesthetik und allgem. Kunstwiss. xi, 2, 127 f.Google Scholar and Archaeol. Jahrb., 1934, p. 225. The truth of this in general was known already in antiquity; see the answer or Themistocles to the Senphian, Plato, Republ. 329 E and Plut. Themist. 18, 2.
8 Quite recently attempts have been made to answer the same question for literature, by Moscrip, Virginia, Literary Patronage in Rome 240–90 B.C. (unpublished dissert, summarized in Abstracts of Theses Univ. Chicago Humanistic Series VII, 433 ff.Google Scholar) and Schullian, Dorothy M., External Stimuli to Literary Production in Rome 90–27 B.C. (Dissert. Univ. Chicago, 1932)Google Scholar; cf. the reviews JRS, 1933, 107 and Philol. Wochenschr., 1933,. col. 794. For the importance of the Social War and the year 90 B.C. see Moscrip, pp. 433 and 437; Schullian, p. 106.
9 Cic. Pro Arch. 19, cf. Halm's note ad 5; Schullian (p. 77 ff.) studies the causes of it. On C. Mutius see Brunn, , Künstlergesch. ii 2, p. 250Google Scholar.
10 Plut. Sulla 36. Carcopino (Sylla, p. 215). does not accept this information, which as it stands certainly is not exact; it suffices to record the fact that at least the actor Roscius, the friend of Cicero (cf. below, note 42) was no debauchee. But we may still maintain that even in his last days Sulla preserved his connections with the world of artists, a circumstance not to be marvelled at in a man of so great an intellect and so wide a culture (cf. e.g. Carcopino, ibid. p. 219, also pp. 15, 21).
11 Chalcidius, now ed. J. Wrobel (Leipzig, Teubner, 1876); the passage in question is on p. 361, § cccxxxviii. Lersch Arch. Anz., 1847, 7*=Bull. Inst., 1847, 107. This difficult passage, unintelligible as given in these publications (and in Brunn, Künstlergesch. I2, p. 379) without the context, requires an explanation which lies beyond the scope of the present paper.
12 L.c.; others, e.g. Loewy, , Inschr. griech. Bildhauer, p. 243Google Scholar, do not agree.
13 I prefer to place the artist in the Sullan epoch like Haakh (Arch. Zeit., 1856, 239) and Collignon (Sc. gr. ii). For, although the Aedes Iovis Capitolini was dedicated only in 69 B.C., it is highly probable that the statue had been begun and completed, perhaps even venerated in a temporary chapel, before; for a similar instance see Bourguet, , Ruines de Delphes, p. 266Google Scholar. Indeed it is to be expected that the priests would suffer as short an interruption as possible in the highest political cult of the state (Wissowa, , Rel. u. Kult. d. Römer 2, p. 215Google Scholar). We know moreover that in Sulla's life-time columns had been procured (Richter, , Topogr. Rome 2, p. 125Google Scholar) which suggests that restoration was immediately taken in hand and executed at full speed.
14 Cf. Mededeel. Ned. Inst. Rome, 1928, pp. 40 f. and 59. The Asianic style is no obstacle: a contemporary group of Athenian artists was influenced by it. Cf., however, the new identification of Sulla by Prof.Curtius, in Röm. Mitt, xlvii (1932), 202 ff.Google Scholar, and Kroll, , Kultur d. Ciceron. Zeit, p. 144Google Scholar (R. Herbig).
15 Lucullus 39 init. For the interrelation in matters of taste and politics between Sulla and Lucullus, and their common interests cf. Schullian, , External Stimuli (Diss. Univ. Chicago, 1932), p. 83Google Scholar.
16 cf. Klein, Antikes Rokoko 67. Schullian, p. 84.
17 Cf. Bull. Vereen. Ant. Beschav. i, 1 (1926), 19Google Scholar; 2 (1926), 12; Mededeel. Ned. Inst. Rome viii (1928), 43Google Scholar, 2; della Seta, Catal. V. Giulia, index s.v. ‘Campana rilievi’; Kroll, , Kult. Cic. Zeit, ii. 141Google Scholar (Herbig).
18 The slabs in the Terme Museum (Paribeni4, no. 872=5956, cf. 4142=5208); for Voconius see Lübker, Reallex. s.v.; the praenomen Q. was very frequent in the family. The slabs of the type v. Rohden-Winnefeldt, Architekt. Röm. Terrak., pl. xvi (=Campana, Opere in plastica, pl. 109=Reinach, Répert. Rel. ii, 274, I, and Roscher, Mythol, Lex. s.v. ‘Maenaden,’ fig. col. 2277–8) clearly descend from a source analogous to that of the Borghese crater (Klein, Ant. Rok., figs. 28–9).
19 Cf. Brunn, , Künstlergesch. i 2, 415 ff.Google Scholar
20 For Pasiteles see Klein, Rok. 171 f.; Lübker s.v. For Coponius see Brunn l.c., 420; della Seta, Italia ant. 1, p. 255; Cultrera, , St. etr. i, 90Google Scholar, 1.
21 L.c.; cf. Hauser, Neuatt. Rel. 182 ff.; Waldstein, Baumeisters Denkmäler ii, s.v. ‘Pasiteles’; Picard, , Sculpt, ant. ii, 221 ff.Google Scholar; Mededeel. Ned. Inst. Rome. 1928, l.c.; Mrs.Strong, , Arte in Roma ant., pp. 102Google Scholar (‘Pasitele napoletano’ source ?), 106, 110; cf. CAH ix, 815/6; Bandinelli; Mnemosyne, 1934, 93 f.
22 E.g. v. Rohden-Winnefeldt l.l., pl. viii = Reinach. Rép. Rel. ii, 248Google Scholar, 2 and Martha, Art étr., fig. 189); pl. lxi (=Rein, . Rép. Rel. ii, 259Google Scholar, 1) and Rein. RR ii, 285Google Scholar, 2. I only take some of the most conspicuous specimens. Cf. Mededeel. Nederl. Inst. Rome, 1928, 43, 2.
23 Cf. Mnemosyne, 1934, 93.
24 For Pompeius and Rhodes, cf. Schullian, , External Stimuli (Diss. Univ. Chicago, 1932), p. 87Google Scholar.
25 The letters (chronologically arranged) which concern us herw are—ad Att. i, 6, 2 (c. 1st. Dec., 67); i, 9, 2; i, 10, 3; i, 3, 2.
26 ad Att. i, 8, 2.
27 ad Att. i, 3, 2.
28 ad Att. i, 4, 3 (before July 66; Cicero has even not yet seen the sculptures mentioned above). It should be stated that the auctiones frequently occurring in his correspondence need not have any connection with our subject; but cf. in Verr. Act. II, IV, 14.
29 ad Att. ii, 3, 2.
30 The letter is ad Fam. vii, 14; about Cyrus cf. Boissier, Cicéron el ses amis, 89; Brunn, l.c., ii2, 236Google Scholar, and also Cic. pro Milone 17/8, of 52 B.C. If the architect can have a freedman, he must have been a naturalised civis himself (cf. Cagnat, Cours d'épigr. lat., pp. 75, 78, and Girard, Manuel de droit rom.5, pp. 118 ff.). As the libertus is called Vettius Chrysippus (the names in the text are placed in inverted order, as is frequent with Roman authors) it must be supposed that his patronus had the name Vettius Cyrus (cf. Girard, p. 123). They belonged then to the gens Vettia. Cyrus had also brought up Chrysippus; he rebuilds Cicero's house after the exile, and is employed by him until the last years of his life as an adviser and architect (ad Att. xiii, 29, of May 45 and xiv, 9, of May 44).
31 ad Att. ii, 4, 7 (March.)
32 ad Q. fr. ii, 2, 2 (Jan. 19; Q. is at the time ‘legatus Pompei’ in Sardinia). It is probable that ad Q. fr. ii, 4, 2 and 3 (March 56) belong to the same category, as certainly does ii, 5, 3 (April 56).
33 Cf. e.g. ad Q. fr. iii, 1, 6, ‘sed etiam ipse crebro interuiso.’
34 ad Q. fr. iii, 9, 7.
35 Mezger translates ‘Wassergraben,’ too vague an expression. We have here an example of the increasing taste for Egyptian motives in Roman art, the first example of which I find in Sulla's mosaic in the Aedes Fortunae Primigeniae in Praeneste (Strong, , Arte in Roma ant., p. 82/3Google Scholar): this tendency is a marked feature in the art of the last decades of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire.
36 Cf. ad Att. ii, 4, 6 (March 59) cited above, and ad Q. fr. v, 4, 3, to be considered below. For Diphilus, cf. ad Q. fr. iii, 1, 5Google Scholar (Sept. 45, where he is mentioned together with Cincius, the agent of Atticus, and Nicephorus, villicus of Quintus): he was not greatly esteemed by Marcus, for he writes about him ‘aliquando perpendiculo et linea discet uti ?’ (ad Q. fr. iii, 1, 2).
37 ad Q. fr. iii, 1, 14 (Sept. 54).
38 The date of the letter (ad Fam. vii, 23) is not certain (in any case before the death of Tullia in Febr. 45). Marx (cf. below) dates it to 49 B.C. on valid arguments.
39 It is a pity that we are not informed whether they are—or at least were considered to be—originals or copies (executed by Evander himself ?). Some reason in favour of the first possibility is to be found in the passage concerning Damasippus, who was famed for having ruined himself by buying ancient statues (Horace, Sat. ii, 3, 64Google Scholar and passim).
40 Cf. Lippold, , Kopien u. Umbild., p. 163Google Scholar.
41 Cf. Fr. Marx, ‘C. Avianius Euander und Ciceros Briefe’ (Festschr. Benndorf, 1898, 37 ff.). Especially ad Fam. xiii, 2, and Plin. NH xxxvi, 32Google Scholar, finally Cicero, ed. Orelli-Baiter-Halm, vol. vii, p. 13; 92, and Brunn, , Künstlergesch. i 2, 382Google Scholar, repeated by Hauser, Neuatt. Rel., 186.
42 A secondary proof is furnished by Cic. de Divinat. i, 79Google Scholar: the omen concerning Q. Roscius Gallus, the well-known actor, the teacher and intimate friend (‘amores ac deliciae tuae’ are the actual words employed by Q. Cicero, l.c.; cf. chullian, External Stimuli, p. 35) of Marcus, had been dealt with by the poet Archias, a native of Antioch, and Pasiteles (cf. Arch. Jahrb., 1932, 236, 4; for other connections between Archias and Roscius, cf. Schullian, p. 79). It is evident that Cicero (and we may assume the same for his protégé) had relations with the Asianic group led by Pasiteles. That he was an Asianic artist can at least be said for the beginning of his career (cf. Norden, , Ant. Kunstprosa i 3, 212 ff.Google Scholar); in later years he was more moderate (cf. ibid. p. 231 ff.).
43 Evidently these Cossutii had the same kind of connections with the little known gens Cossutia as the artists studied here with Cicero (cf. Mrs.Strong, , Arte i. R. ant., p. 107Google Scholar; also Springer i10, p. 477, where Menelaus is dated to the time of Caesar). Cerdo seems to have come from Delos, where a sculptor's studio belonging to a man of this name has been excavated (Lippold, , Kopien und Umbildungen, p. 34Google Scholar; Picard, , Sculpt. ant. ii, 211Google Scholar) and the name Cossutius actually occurs on inscriptions of the Aegean isles (Bull, de Corr. Hell. xxxvi, 30).
44 Cf. Brunn, , Künstlergesch. i 2, 381Google Scholar.
45 At first such parallels might seem to be of slight importance, but they are corroborated by similar phenomena in the domain of literature (cf. Moscrip, , Liter. Patronage in Abstracts Theses, Univ. Chicago Hum. Ser. vii, pp. 434/6Google Scholarpassim; Schullian, , External Stimuli (Diss. Chicago, 1932)Google Scholar Foreword and p. 29).
46 ad Att. xii, 18; 19; 20; 35; 36; 37; 38 41; xiii, 6, 1; 29, 2 (all of the months March to June 45). It is worthy of note that it is only to his intimate friend that he writes on the subject.
48 ad Att. xiii, 29, 2. Also xii, 36, 1: the ‘institutum’ (drawings) must also be approved by Atticus.
49 ad Att. xiv, 3.
50 Cf. above p. 159. On M. Antonius, cf. Schullian, , External Stimuli, p. 94Google Scholar: ‘Antony was a distinct disappointment, and hardly to be compared with autocrats of worthwhile literary activity such as Sulla and Pompey. In the domain of plastic arts his influence also was very small.’
51 Suet. Caesar 10; 26; 44; Plut. Caes. 29; Cic. ad Att. iv, 16Google Scholar, 8 (ed. Wesenberg) of July 54.
52 Brunn, , Künstlergesh. i 2, 419 f.Google Scholar; Overbeck, Schriftquellen 1760; Klein, , Ant. Rok., pp. 67, 172Google Scholar. Mrs.Strong, (Arte in R. ant., p. 102Google Scholar) calls him a Cyrenean without indicating any source: this would suit the Asianic elements in his style, though they are not very prominent. Cf. also Mnemosyne, 1934, 94.
53 It has been thought that this statue survives in the Palatine torso, a late Hellenistic version of the Aphrodite of Alcamenes in the manner of the terra-cottas of Myrina (Paribeni Guida Mus. d. Terme 4 (1922), no. 460, with plate (= 5 no. 518 with fig. in text, p. 201); Brunn-Br., 474; Klein, Rok., fig. 30; cf. the terra-cotta, Winter, , Typen d. fig. Terrak. ii, 214Google Scholar, 4). But other hypotheses have been propounded; cf. Springer i10, fig. 929 and p. 476 (Hellenistic version of a fifth-century type of the continent) and Mrs. Strong, Arte i. R. ant., fig. 93 (late Hellenistic type of Asia Minor, after Weickert in Festschr. Arndt 54 ff.); also quite recently Röm. Mitt., 1933, 191; 261 ff. See in general the critical observations of Helbig, Führer Rom. ii3, no. 1539 (=Reinach, , Rép. Stat. ii, 1332Google Scholar, 1) with literature.
54 This is clear from the manner in which the whole Forum Iulium had been conceived; cf. Arch. Anz., 1933, 617/8, fig. 26, and Kroll, , Kultur d. Ciceron. Zeit (Herbig) ii, 139Google Scholar.
55 Cf. Cultrera, , St. etr. i, 84, f.Google Scholar; 89 f.
56 Cf. Cicero passim on Greek and Roman literature.
57 Spätröm. Kunstind., p. 210 of the large ed. of 1901 = p. 392 of the small reprint of 1927.
58 Cf. Mededeelingen Nederl. Inst. Rome, 1928, passim. This absence of unity was by no means, as some believe, a sign weakness; it resulted from the state of the whole of ancient art of the epoch, which can be compared with modern art of the nineteenth century.