Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:28:11.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Entertain an Emperor: Sperlonga, Laokoon and Tiberius at the Dinner-Table

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. F. Stewart
A. F. Stewart
Affiliation:
University of Otago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Even to-day, twenty years after its discovery in September 1957, the great corpus of sculptures from the grotto by the sea-shore at Sperlonga still retains many of its secrets. The sheer quantity and richness of the material, its clearly programmatic character, and the enigmatic personalities and affiliations of its sculptors cannot but prompt any visitor to the cave and museum, specialist or no, to ask: what was the purpose of this great complex of Odyssean themes? When were they carved and for whom? Only recently, with the preliminary publication of the major fragments and their replicas by Conticello and Andreae, have their subjects and positions been satisfactorily determined, and the groundwork laid for a solution to such problems as these.

All four major groups had, as their protagonist, Odysseus. First of all, at the mouth of the cave on the left, he was shown dragging the limp corpse of Achilles away from the battle before Troy (Pl. IX, 1), and on the right, standing thwarted of his plan to snatch the Palladion away from Diomedes (Pl. IX, 2 and 3); in the centre of the pool the scene shifted to his wanderings, with his ship, its helmsman still clinging desperately to the stern, enmeshed in Scylla's coils (Pl. IX, 4–X, 2), while in the dim light of the cavern at the rear to the right, he appeared for the last time to direct his companions in the blinding of a gigantic Polyphemus (Pl. X, 3–XI, 4; cf. Pl. XII, I).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 67 , November 1977 , pp. 76 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © A. F. Stewart 1977. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Conticello, B. and Andreae, B., ‘Die Skulpturen von Sperlonga’, Antike Plastik XIV (1974)Google Scholar. This, with its careful reconstructions based on the findspots, replaces all earlier studies of the subjects and iconography; reference to it is made here under the name of each author separately, e.g. Conticello, 24. Essential secondary reading is P. H. von Blanckenhagen's review in AJA 80 (1976), 99–104.

This article is the result of a visit to Sperlonga, Conticello and Andreae in hand, made by students of the British School at Rome and friends in February, 1975. I thank my companions (Alan Griffiths, Rosemary Fleck, Amanda Claridge and Raimund Wünsche) for their company and for much of the inspiration that lies behind what I have written in the following pages; their specific contributions to my argument will be acknowledged in the proper place. My thanks also go to my colleagues, Professor A. H. Thornton, Professor J. Barsby, Dr. D. A. Little and Dr. G. Zanker for their help and criticism. Pl. XII, I is the work of Murray Webb, after Conticello fig. 7.

2 Information from Amanda Claridge and Rosemary Fleck. It is not the Rhodian lithos Lartios which, as pointed out by Merker, G., The Hellenistic Sculpture of Rhodes (SIMA XL, 1973), 6Google Scholar and n. 13, is unsuitable for monumental sculpture.

3 The Odysseus-Achilles group (Pl. IX, I) was presumably too compact, and the Palladion group too conspicuous, for the massive supports found in the Scylla and Polyphemus groups (Pls. IX, 4–XI, 4: see further below, p. 89). The technique of Ansätze varies considerably with the carver: on the Scylla group (and the Vatican Laokoon) surfaces are scored roughly with a coarse point and secured by round dowels (Pl. IX, 4–X, 2; Säflund, G., The Polyphemus and Scylla groups at Sperlonga (1972), fig. 39Google Scholar; Magi, F., ‘Il ripristino del Laocoonte’, Atti Pont. Acc. Rom. d'Arch. Ser. III, Memorie IX (1960)Google Scholar, pls. 26, 2 and 27, 3) and heads cut diagonally across the top of the skull when this is joined separately (Pl. X, I; Säflund, loc. cit.; Conticello, pls. 30–2; Magi, op. cit., pls. 5, 1 and 24, 2); alternatively, a medium claw may be used, again with a dowel (Säflund, op. cit., fig. 44; Magi, op. cit., pl. 32, 3) or alone if the surface is not a joining one and out of sight (Conticello, fig. 25; Magi, op. cit., pl. 33, 3). Hair is often vague and impressionistic, with raw drill-holes left in the centres of curls in places and ‘Verbindungsstege’ remaining between them (Pl. IX, 2; Conticello, pl. 15; Magi, op. cit., pls. 2 and 5,1; cf. Pl. XI, 2 for the ‘Stege’ between Polyphemus's toes). Parallels for certain of these techniques, on the whole rather facile and slapdash, may be found occasionally at Rhodes (cf. Merker, op. cit., figs. 8–10, 33 and 74 and e.g. Pl. IX, 3 (the fingers); Säflund, op. cit., figs. 39, 44; Conticello, fig. 25).

4 Conticello, 40, 43, 49.

5 Pliny, NH XXXVI. 37; the inscription on the Scylla group reads ᾿Αθαν[ά]δωρος ῾Αγησάνδρ[ο]υ καὶ ῾Αγήσανδρο[ς] Πα[ιω]νίου κ̣[α]ὶ Π[ο]λ[ύ]δωρος Πολυ̣[δ]ώρου Ῥ̣ό̣δ̣ιο[ι] ἐποίηςα̣[ν]. That the sculptors of the Vatican and Sperlonga groups are identical is now universally admitted: cf., e.g., Conticello, 43, 48. I do not propose to discuss the various genealogies of the three reconstructed by, e.g., Iacopi, G., ArchClass X (1958), 160–3Google Scholar, Säflund, op. cit., 73, and Coarelli, F., Dialoghi di Archeologia VII (1973), 97 f.Google Scholar, since the possible permutations are virtually infinite.

6 von Blanckenhagen, P. H., ‘Laokoon, Sperlonga and Vergil’, AA 1969, 256–75Google Scholar; Conticello, 42–5, 49.

7 Enciclopedia dell' Arte Antica s.v. ‘Sperlonga’, 440; Conticello, 40–1; E. Salza Prina Ricotti, RPAA XLII (1969–1970), 117–34; for the dates see Rakob in AA (1969), 275, n. 53; Säflund, op. cit., 98. For the reticulate work compare, e.g., the villa at Prima Porta: Blake, M. E., Ancient Roman Construction in Italy I: the prehistoric period to Augustus (1947), 272Google Scholar and pl. 50, 3; cf. Iacopi, G., L'Antro di Tiberio a Sperlonga (1963), figs. 4, 9, 17Google Scholar; Salza Prina Ricotti, op. cit., fig. 1.

8 Säflund, loc. cit. (n. 3).

9 ibid.; cf. H. Lavagne, MEFR LII (1970), 673.

10 An inspection of the site proved inconclusive on this point.

11 In NH, Praef. 3, Titus is described as ‘sexies consul’, which fixes the date of publication exactly—though of course some books may have been written considerably earlier. On the findspot of the Laokoon see below, n. 63.

12 For example: Richter, G. M. A., The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks4 (1970), 238–9Google Scholar (c. 175–150 B.C); H. Lauter, RM LXXVI (1969), 162–73 (c. 125 B.C.); Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), (c. 100 B.C); Lawrence, A. W., Greek and Roman Sculpture (1972), 249–50Google Scholar (c. 60–c. 22 B.C.); Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 104–5 (c. A.D. 10–26); Säflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 97–8 (c. A.D. 14–70, but copies of originals of the third and second centuries B.C.); Geyer, A., ‘Nero and Laokoon’, AA (1975), 265–75Google Scholar (A.D. 64–8); Hampe, R.Sperlonga und Vergil (1972), 58–63Google Scholar (c. A.D. 70–90).

13 Suet., Tib. 39; Tac., Ann. IV. 59.

14 Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 36, n. 52; cf. Andreae, ibid. 92–3 on the Odysseus-Achilles group.

15 Philoctetes 372–3, expanded by Ov., Met. XIII. 282–5.

16 Reference to Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη in Eccl. 1029; cf. Plat., Rep. 493D, and for the full story, Serv. II. 166. Stanford, W. B., The Ulysses Theme (1954), 258, n. 12Google Scholar shows, against Jahn, O., Philologus I (1896), 47Google Scholar, that the treachery story is unlikely to have originated in the Little Iliad.

17 cf. Stanford, op. cit. (n. 16), 120–1, and 98–9 on πολύτροπος.

18 On Odysseus and the Stoics see ibid. 121–5; such an interpretation is suggested by Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 105; his other (contradictory?) suggestion (ibid. 93, 102–3) that the Achilles and Palladion groups could be Ovidian in spirit is, however, attractive—though, like Met. XIII. 282–5 (Achilles), lines 337–53 could, of course, well be derivative.

19 Plut., Luc. 39.

20 IV. 4. 29; cf. Saflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 79 for the suggestion that Appian could be talking of the grotto at Sperlonga.

21 v. 233: ‘There are grottoes of immense size here, occupied by large and costly residences.’

22 Encyclopedia of World Art VIII, pl. 424b; Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica II, 144 (bibliography), v fig. 1000; Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (1923), fig. 707Google Scholar; Rumpf, A., Malerei und Zeichnung (1953). pl. 54. 5Google Scholar; 57, 11.

23 Verg., Cop. 7–10; cf. Cul. 78; Ecl. VI passim; Geor. II. 469; Prop. II. 32. 39; Hor, C. 1. 5. 3. etc.

24 Svoronos, J. N., Das Athener Nationalmuseum (1908), pls. 73, 137 etc.Google Scholar; Himmelmann-Wildschutz, N., Θεόληπτος (1957), passimGoogle Scholar; Feubel, R., Die attischen Nymphenreliefs (Diss. Heidelberg, 1935)Google Scholar; for short discussions cf. Dawson, C. M., ‘Romano-Campanian Landscape Painting’, YCS IX (1944), 25, 40, 45Google Scholar; Webster, T. B. L., Hellenistic Poetry and Art (1964). 161–5Google Scholar.

25 cf. e.g. Idylls III and VII; see esp. Luck, G., ‘The Cave and the Source’, CQ LI N. s. VII (1957), 175–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the special meaning of such caves for poets.

26 Callixeinus ap. Ath. 200 c; cf. 148b on Mark Antony's theatre-grotto at Athens.

27 Iacopi, op. cit. (n. 7), 109–41, figs. 104–8, 112–13, 118–21, 127–37; cf. also Säflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 78–84.

28 See esp. Gombrich, E. H., ‘The Renaissance theory of art and the rise of landscape’, in Norm and Form (1966), 107–21Google Scholar.

29 Aen. VI. 237–8.

30 Geor. IV. 360–85.

31 Aen. VI. 43–4.

32 ibid. IV. 160–8.

33 III. 157–62.

34 XI. 234–7.

35 Segal, C. P., Landscape in Ovid's Metamorphoses (Hermes, Einzelschr. XXIII 1969), 82Google Scholar (though I do not believe the deeper symbolism alleged by Segal; an ironic reversal of the pathetic fallacy, beloved among other more recent writers by Hardy, seems perfectly adequate as an explanation to me. Cf. also Wilkinson, L. P., Ovid Recalled (1955), 172–86Google Scholar).

36 Dawson, op. cit. (n. 24), 94, no. 31 and pl. 11.

37 ibid. 162–3; Peters, W. J. T., Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural Painting (1963), 90Google Scholar.

38 cf. Luc. VI. 90–2: … ‘Tali spiramine Nesis/emittit Stygium nebulosis aera saxis/antraque letiferi rabiem Typhonis anhelant’; ibid. 642–830, on Erichtho's cavern in Thessaly.

39 Mart. IV. 57. 1–2: ‘Dum nos blanda tenent lasciui stagna Lucrini/et quae pumiceis fontibus antra calent’; also VII. 50 and, e.g., Vatia's two grottoes in her villa near Cumae, mentioned in Sen. Ep. 55. 6.

40 Rakob, F., ‘Ein Grottentriklinium in Pompeii’, RM LXXI (1964), 182–94Google Scholar, and esp fig. 9.

41 RR III. 4. 3; cf. the conjectural plan and reconstruction of Varro's own aviary (described in RR III. 5. 8–18) published by des Anges, C. and Seure, G., Revue de Philologie III (1932), 241Google Scholar, whence Tilly, B., Varro the Farmer (1973), 113 and 115Google Scholar.

42 Balland, A., ‘Une transposition de la grotte de Tibère à Sperlonga: le Ninfeo Bergantino de Castelgandolfo’, MEFRA LXXIX (1967), 421–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the sculptures, cf. Richter, op. cit. (n. 12), fig. 842; Säflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 100; Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 74–81 and figs. 16–20.

43 idem., loc. cit.

44 AJA LXI (1957), 81; the context is that of a discussion of the basic differences between the Greek and Roman narrative traditions, published just before the discovery of the Sperlonga sculptures.

45 See esp. Dawson, op. cit. (n. 24), passim; von Blanckenhagen, The Paintings from Boscotrecase (RM Supp. VI, 1962), 46–51. In the myth Lycus (if he is the figure sprawled in the foreground) was killed after Dirce.

46 Reg. V, Ins. 2, house 10: Dawson, op. cit. (n. 24), 90, 197 and pl. 8, 23; Peters, op. cit. (n. 37), 83 and fig. 69; von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (n. 44), 82 and fig. 12.

47 Aen. VIII. 630–41.

48 The literary examples of the genre seem to be the only parallels here; for other examples see Aen. I. 466–93; VI. 20–33 and e.g. Ov., Met. VI. 103–14; Buchheit, V., Vergil über die Sendung Roms (1963)Google Scholar; Williams, R. D., ‘The pictures on Dido's Temple’, CQ X (1960), 145–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 op. cit. (n. 12), 251.

50 Fuhrmann, M., ‘Die Funktion grausiger und ekelhafter Motive in der lateinischen Dichtung’, Die nicht mehr schönen Kunste (ed. Jauss, H. R., 1968), 23–66Google Scholar.

51 ibid. 33–7: cf. Lucr. v. 1308–49 on the employment of animals in war, and idem VI. 1114–1286 on the plague at Athens; also, e.g., Vergil's description of Scylla in Ecl. VI. 74–6.

52 Fuhrmann, op. cit. (n. 50), 37–41; cf. Aen. II. 199–233 (Laokoon; see esp. Kleinknecht, H., ‘Laokoon’, Hermes LXXIX (1944), 66–111Google Scholar); III. 22–33 f. (Polydorus); VII. 323–58 f. (Allecto).

53 Fuhrmann, op. cit. (n. 50), 41–57.

54 Met. VI. 387–91. For other gruesome death scenes, cf. ibid. III. 708–33 (Pentheus); V. 99–106 (Emathion); VI. 601–74 (Itys); IX. 159–210 (Herakles); XII. 210–535 (the Centaurs); XIII. 545–64 (Polymestor). For monsters, see IV. 481–96 (Tisiphone); V. 346–58 (Typhoeus); XIV. 51–67 (Scylla); 165–220 (the blinded Polyphemus); and for luridly described personifications, VII. 768–82 (Envy); VIII. 796–808 (Famine). See, in general, Wilkinson, op. cit. (n. 35), 162–8.

55 Fuhrmann, op. cit. (n. 50), 58–65.

56 Laocoon (1766), 3–4, 24–5.

57 Von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (n. 6), 257–63; Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 93, 102 and 104, following Lessing, 4–5; the passages in question are Aen. II. 212–22 (Laokoon); Ov., Met. XIII. 282–5 (Achilles), 337–53 (Palladion); cf. n. 18, above

58 Serv. II. 201.

59 Aen. II. 212–17.

60 Magi, op. cit. (n. 3), 31; M. Bieber, AJA LXVI (1962), 105; Sichtermann, H., Laokoon (Opus Nobile III, 1957), 8Google Scholar; von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (n. 6), 261 n. 14; Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 48, n. 99. A further complicating factor is the scarab in the British Museum, which shows that both sons appeared in the composition with their father as early as the fourth century B.C. (Furtwängler, A., Die Antiken Gemmen I (1900)Google Scholar, pl. 64 no. 30; III, 205; Richter, , The Engraved Gems of the Greeks and Etruscans (1968), 208, no. 851Google Scholar).

61 Δύο δράκοντες ἐπιφανέντες τόν τε Λαοκόωντα καὶ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν παίδων διαφθείρουσιν (ed. Kinkel, , Epica Graeca Fragmenta (1877), 49)Google Scholar; cf. Conticello, loc. cit.

62 op. cit. (n. 12).

63 See van Essen, C. C., Mededelingen Ned. Akad. XVIII (1955), 12, 291–308Google Scholar.

64 On Nero and the fall of Troy see Dio LXII. 18; Suet., Nero 38; Tac., Ann. XV. 39; Geyer, op. cit. (n. 12), 270–5; to connect the Sperlonga sculptures with the epic would be even more difficult, for from Serv. v. 370 we learn that its hero was most probably Paris, not Odysseus (cf. Charlesworth, M. P., JRS XL (1950), 70Google Scholar). I thank Dr. D. A. Little for his patient help in an unfamiliar field.

65 The chronology is Tacitus's: Tiberius stayed in Campania for most of 21 (Ann. III. 31, 47); his last visit in 26 is documented in IV. 57 f.; for other trips between these two dates cf. Suet., Tib. 39–40; Sen., Ep. 83. 14.

66 Aug. 24. 2 (Augustus's tent); 72. 3 (a royal residence in the country; note here Augustus's dislike of ‘ampla et operosa praetoria’); Calig. 37. 2; Vit. 8. 2 (the emperor's rooms); Tit. 8. 4 (a royal residence).

67 Best photograph: Becatti, G., The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome (1968), fig. 284Google Scholar; for the date (c. A.D. 12) and bibliography see Richter, , Engraved Gems of the Romans (1971), 104, no. 501Google Scholar.

68 Ami, R., Duval, P.-M. and others, ‘L'arc d'Orange’, Gallia suppl. XV (1962), 113–14, 130–5Google Scholar and pls. II (fig. 80), 28, 68, 93–9.

69 Helbig, W., Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom4 IV (ed. Speier, H., 1972)Google Scholar, no. 3033; Becatti, op. cit., fig. 243.

70 de Visscher, F., ‘Héraklès Epitrapezios’, L'antiquité classique XXX (1961), 67–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pls. 4–10. Apart from the very characteristic modelling of hair, hands and legs, note the technique of adding the left foot separately, with a round dowel and Ansatz cut with long strokes of a medium point; cf., e.g., Merker, op. cit. (n. 2), fig. 11.

71 For an example of a slightly earlier Roman copy of about the same quality in painting, see the Odyssey landscapes in the Vatican, sections 2–5: von Blanckenhagen, RM LXX (1963), 100–46 and esp. 110–14.

72 Though his stinginess manifested itself even here: as Suet., Tib. 34 tells us, leftovers were a common sight on the tables of the Domus Tiberiana. On the character of Tiberius, see esp. the penetrating essay by Syme, , Historia XXIII (1974), 481–96Google Scholar.

73 Suet., Tib. 42; Plin., NH XIV. 144–5.

74 Suet., Tib. 34, 60.

75 Iacopi, op. cit. (n. 7), 22–4 and figs. 4, 11–12, 17; Pliny, NH IX. 167; cf. X. 193; XXXII. 16.

76 Pliny, NH XV. 54; XIX. 64, 90, 145.

77 ibid. XIX. 137.

78 ibid. XIV. 16. 64, 144; cf. Suet., Tib. 42.

79 Pliny, NH XXXIV. 62.

80 ibid. XXV. 70; Suet., Tib. 44; cf. ibid. 43 on the lascivia displayed in the bedroom and grottoes of Capri.

81 Dio LV. 9. 6.

82 Suet., Tib. 74; cf. Cic., Verr. II. 4. 119.

83 Pliny, NH XXXV. 28, 131; cf. Dio LVI. 46. 3; LVII. 10. 2; Suet., Tib. 47. For a description of the Hyacinthus see Paus. III. 19. 4, and for both pictures Mart. XIV. 173, 175 (see following note); both were from Alexandria.

84 Mart. XIV. 170–82; see esp. Lehmann, K., ‘A Roman poet visits a museum’, Hesp XIV (1945), 259–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. From its nickname of Βρούτου παιδίον and from a further mention in Pliny, NH XXXIV. 82 (cf. Mart, IX 50. 5), it is clear that the boy was a favourite with the tyrannicide Brutus; for the story of Hermaphroditus see Ov., Met. IV. 285–389.

85 Mart. XIV. 176, 177.

86 Suet., Tib. 72.

87 de Franciscis, A., Le statue delta Grotta Azurra nell' isola di Capri (1965)Google Scholar; idem, Archaeology XX (1967), 215–16. De Franciscis calls the style ‘neo-classic’, but the elongated proportions, dance-like movement and what remains of the features surely relate more closely to the Hellenistic rococo. On two other grottoes at Capri, both without sculptural decoration, see Mingazzini, P., ‘Le grotte di Maternaria e dell'Arsenale a Capri’, Arch. Class. VII (1955), 139–63Google Scholar.

88 Suet., Tib. 43; cf. Aus., Caes. XIV. 3. 3–4: ‘frustra dehinc solo Caprearum clausus in antro,/quae prodit vitiis, credit operta locis.’

89 On their style cf., e.g., W. Fuchs, in Helbig, op. cit. (n. 69), 1, 165; von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (n. 6), 260; Säflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 35; Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 42, 44.

90 Tib. 70. I thank Alan Griffiths for first bringing this passage to my notice.

91 ibid. 56; Tac., Ann. IV. 58; Plut., Mor. 419 D (see further below, n. 109).

92 Powell, J. U., Collectanea Alexandrina (1925), 40 fr. 51Google Scholar; Page, D. L., Greek Literary Papyri I, Poetry (1942), 492–3Google Scholar. Cf. also the other fragments in Page's selection, esp. (a) (2) with its series of gruesome deaths, from a poem of curses (Άραὶ ᾔ Ποτηριοκλέπτης Powell, op. cit., 31, fr. 9). There is also a poem on Hyacinthus (cf. the picture mentioned above, n. 83): Powell, op. cit., 38, frs. 40–3.

93 Serv. II. 201; Powell, op. cit., 43, fr. 70. Euphorion seems to have been particularly fond of dragons and serpent-tailed monsters and their doings: cf. ibid. frs. 30, 37, 40, 50, 112.

94 Serv. II. 79, cf. 166. Powell, op. cit., 43, no. 69.

95 ibid. II 32, 79, 201, 341; Powell, op. cit., 41–3, nos. 55, 69–71; cf. Hügi, M., Vergils Aeneis und die Hellenistische Dichtung (1952), 113–15Google Scholar.

96 Powell, op. cit., frs. 46, 59, 63 (see POxy XXX (1964), 2525 for more of this fragment), 65–6, 68, 71–3.

97 Thrämer, E., ‘Euphorion bei Plutarch,’ Hermes XXV (1890), 55–61Google Scholar; on the subject see Suidas s.v. ‘Χιλιάδεσ’: ἕχει δ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν εἰς τοὑς ἀποστερήσαντας αὐτὸν χρήματα ἃ παρέθετο, ὡς δίκην δοῖεν κἂν εἰς μακράν (ὠς … μακράν om. BVE) εἶτα συλλέγει διὰ χιλίων ἐτῶν, χρησμοὺς ἀποτελεσθέντας εἰσὶ δὲ βιβλία ε΄ ἐπιγράφεται δ᾿ ἡ πέμπτη Χιλιάς (δὲ πέμπτον χιλιάδες Sitzler) [περὶ χρησμῶν ὡς διὰ χιλίων ἐτῶν ἀποτελοῦνται A in marg. additamentum e prioribus verbis confictum expulerunt edd., om. BVE]: Powell, op. cit., 28–9. For a fragment of a commentary, perhaps by Euphorion himself, see POxy XXX (1964), 2528.

98 On Helenus's prophecy concerning the Palladion see Serv. II. 166; Apollod., Epit. V. 10.

99 Achilles: Il. IX. 410–16; Apollod. III. 13. 8. Odysseus: Od. II. 170–6; cf. Apollod., Epit. III. 7; Hyg., Fab. 95; Serv. II. 81. Before leaving the subject of Euphorion and the work of the three Rhodians, it is perhaps worth remarking that all four of Odysseus's adventures and the Laokoon episode recur in the Alexandra of ‘Lykophron’ (ll. 271–80, 347, 658, 659–61, 669, 765), a poem long recognized as displaying many striking coincidences with the extant fragments of Euphorion, though which has the priority is still uncertain (summary of the evidence and arguments, together with bibliography, in RE s.v. ‘Lycophron’, 2376 and Suppl. XI, 925–30; cf. Powell, op. cit., frs. 13, 30, 45, 46, 53, 56, 58, 67, 73, 98, 114). Like the Chiliades, the Alexandra is in the form of prophecies fulfilled, spans the millennium from the refounding of Troy to the poet's own time, and is written in a highly obscure and allusive style; the first half is taken up largely with the Iliou Persis and the Nostoi.

100 On Tiberius's exile see Tac., Ann. I. 4. 4; IV. 57; Suet., Tib. 10–13; for the inscriptions see Lindos II. 1 (1941), 29 and nos. 1, 345, 385–6; IG XII. 1. 425, 847; Fraser, P. M., Eranos LI (1953), 42Google Scholar n. 10, 45–7; cf. Iacopi, op. cit. (n. 3), passim.

101 R. Guarini, Bdl 1832, 155; CIG 58706; E. Löwy, Inschriften Griechischer Bildhauer no. 520; IG XIV, 898; Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 104. The letter-forms of this and the other Athanodoros signatures (Löwy, op. cit., nos. 203, 496 479, 480; IG XIV 1227–30) are apparently early imperial (Säflund, op. cit. (n. 3), 89).

102 See Phillips, E. D., ‘Odysseus in Italy’, JHS LXXII (1953), 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar (earliest reference in Theogony 1011–16); for up-to-date discussions see esp. Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (1965), 240, 279Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (1969), 103–5. 112, 120–1, 149Google Scholar.

103 Cyclops: Philips, op. cit., 61 and e.g. Strabo 20; Scylla: Phillips, op. cit., 58–61, 63 and e.g. Strabo 26; Sirens: Serv. v. 864.

104 Phillips, op. cit., 57–8, 60–1, 67; Hellanicus ap. Dionysius, Ant. Rom. I. 72; Lyc. 1242–9.

105 Phillips, op. cit., 60–1; Lyc. 805–11.

106 Phillips, op. cit., 66; Xenagoras ap. Dionysius, loc. cit.; cf. Serv. I. 273. The mention of the river Nauaethum, where Rhome burnt the Achaean ships, in one of the fragments known to be from the Chiliades (Powell, op. cit. (n. 92), 39 fr. 46), shows that at least one of the versions of the Rhome/Rhomus story was in Euphorion and therefore known to Tiberius. See further Krampf, F., Die Quellen der römischen Gründungssage (1915), 15–20Google Scholar, also Galinsky, op. cit. (n. 102), 23, 105, 140–3 etc.

107 Juv. X. 84; cf. The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman II (ed. Diggle, J. and Goodyear, F. R. D., 1972), 615Google Scholar. The standard equation, found e.g. in L. Friedländer's edition of 1895, is Ajax = Tiberius, Odysseus = Sejanus, but does not this completely miss the point of the joke? After all, it was Sejanus who lost and died an ignominious death. The quaking orator whose speech all this refers to is probably Bruttidius Niger, aedile in 22. Interestingly in this context, Caligula often called Livia a ‘Ulysses in petticoats’ (Suet., Calig. 23): by this time the comparison had perhaps become a standing joke on the doyens of the family in general.

108 op. cit. (n. 72), 494.

109 In addition, apropos of Tiberius‘s question to his retinue on Capri concerning the lineage of Pan (supra, n. 91), if the answer had come from Euphorion then Odysseus would have been involved here too: a laconic note in a commentary to Lucan III. 402 tells us that (Pana) ‘Euphorion Ulixis filium manifestat’ (Powell, op. cit. (n. 92), 49 fr. 109). The scholars, however, preferred the rival claimant, Hermes.

110 Magi, op. cit. (n. 3), 20; von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (n. 6), 264; Andreae, , Gnomon XXXIX (1967), 87Google Scholar (with full references to studies on the quarries). N.B. that both Andreae and von Blanckenhagen advocate a Tiberian date on stylistic and iconographical grounds (op. cit. (n. 1)).

111 Andreae, loc. cit.

112 Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 71–3 and figs. 5–12.

113 Conticello and Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), pls. 45–7.

114 Andreae, op. cit. (n. 1), 95–8 and pls. 69–72.

115 Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 32, 35; fig. 25 and pl. 29.

116 See n. 112, above.

117 Conticello, op. cit. (11. 1), 43, 47 and pls. 1–6, 8–10, 23 (Polyphemus), 26, 29–31 (Scylla).

118 ibid. pls. 45–7.

119 Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 47; cf. von Blanckenhagen, op. cit. (ibid.), 103—though considering the dearth of sculptors' signatures in Rhodes after the disaster of 43 (example = ClRh II, 198, no. 30; VI–VII, 431, no. 50; Lindos II. 2 no. 347 and perhaps 357 and 363) and the total lack there of signatures of the Athanodoros family after this date, is the atelier not more likely to have been based in Italy (in Rome? N.B. that no struts appear on the Laokoon), where all their signatures were found (cf. IG XIV, 1227–30 and, most recently, Zevi, F., Hellenismus in Mittelitalien I (1976), 60–1Google Scholar)? Note, too, that Athanodoros signs on the bases of his statues (except in the case of the Scylla group: explanation, (4) below); exporters, on the other hand, like Agasias of Ephesos (IG XIV. 1226), Xenon and Sogenes of Paros (ibid. 2287) and the Neo-Attics sign on the statue itself, which then gets its base on arrival (cf. here P. Graindor's pertinent remarks in Athènes sous Auguste (1927), 208–9). The third class of signatures found in Italy, renewals, does not come into account here, since these always concern works plundered from the East, usually of sculptors long dead. For examples, see the signatures of Phyromachos, Lysikles and Phradmon from Ostia (Zevi, F., Rend. Pont. Acc. XLII (1969–1970) 95–116Google Scholar; Richter, AJA LXXV (1971), 434–5) and those from Pompey's theatre in Rome (Coarelli, , Rend. Pont. Acc. XLIV (1972), 99–122Google Scholar).

120 Iacopi, op. cit. (n. 5), passim; idem, op. cit. (n. 7). 39–42; cf. Conticello, 23 n. 36.

121 Hampe, op. cit. (n. 12), 43.

122 M. Guarducci in Magi, op. cit. (n. 3), 39; W. Peek, in Andreae, loc. cit. (n. 110); Mr. A. G. Woodhead and Miss Joyce Reynolds have kindly given me their opinions on the subject, agreeing that a date either in the second half of the first century B.C. or the first half of the first century A.D. seems the most likely. The poem by Faustinus (Iacopi, op. cit. (n. 7), 42–7 and fig. 34; Hampe, op. cit. (n. 12), 45–57 and pl. 33) is variously dated to Augustan (Woodhead), Flavian (Reynolds and Hampe) or even late imperial times (P. Krarup, ActIRN IV (1969), 19–26); in any case, considering how scrappily it is written and that it omits two of the groups (Odysseus and Achilles, and the Palladion group), surely it is more likely to be an encomium dashed off by a bedazzled friend who came to dinner, than the official record of the completion of the work and/or of its donation to the reigning Caesar (Tiberius, incidentally, refused the appellation of dominus: Suet., Tib. 27). At any rate, there is no necessary or even likely connection between it and the original commissioning of the sculptures. For this interpretation cf. A. Herrmann, ActIRN IV (1969), 27–32, and for domini = master and mistress of the house, or host and hostess, see e.g. Cic., Off. I. 139; Ov., Am. II. 2. 32; Stat., Silv. II. 2. 45, 107. Considering the quality of his poetry, I doubt whether this Faustinus could have been the friend mentioned so often by Martial (III. 2, 58; IV. 57; V. 71; X. 51) and so strongly urged by him to publish in 1. 25.

123 Conticello, op. cit. (n. 1), 32 n. 36; cf. Morrison, J. S. and Williams, R. T., Greek Oared Ships (1968), 281–3Google Scholar.

124 Andreae, op. cit. (n. 110), 86–7; cf. idem, RM LXXI (1964), 239 n. 5 and Lessing, , Laocoon, 26Google Scholar.