Book Bojic Zoja Roman Art and Art Histor PDF

Zoja Bojic ROMAN ART AND ART HISTORIOGRAPHY: DEFINITIONS
Zoja Bojic
Roman art and
art historiography: definitions
1
Zoja Bojic, Roman art and art historiography: definitions, published by the Central Institute
for Conservation (CIK), Regional Alliance of ICOM for South East Europe (ICOM SEE) and
the Singidunum University, Faculty of Media and Communications, Belgrade, 2012
For the publishers:

Prof. dr. Mila Popović Živančević
Prof. dr. Nada Popović-Perišić
Editor:
Prof. dr. Suzana Polić Radovanović
Referees:
Prof. dr. Sasha Grishin
Prof. dr. Simeon Nedkov
Prof. dr. Tanja Popović
Text editors:
Catherine Wyburn
Diana Plater
ISBN 978-86-6179-018-8
Cover image: Artist unknown, fresco, House of Lucretius Fronto, c.10BC
2
Zoja Bojic
Roman art and art historiography: definitions
The publishers acknowledge

the support of the Ministry of
Culture, Media and Information
Society in publishing this
monograph
Belgrade, 2012
3
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................5
Chapter I. Roman art historiographers and their definitions of the Roman art..........................6
Chapter II. The origins and an overview..................................................................................18
Chapter III. Themes and Contexts: portrait, figure, arch.........................................................59
Bibliography...........................................................................................................................138
About the author.....................................................................................................................140
A word from the referees........................................................................................................141
4
Introduction
This volume stems from many years of research in the field of art historiography of antiquity
and teaching the course Roman Art and Architecture at the Australian National University,
ANU, in Canberra, Australia. The title of the volume indicates that what is attempted here is
to establish some definitions of the Roman art practices as they pertain to the art
historiography texts in antiquity. These writers include Vitruvius, Pliny the Elder and their
more substantial texts on the arts, as well as some writing of Philostratus the Elder,
Philostratus the Younger and Callistratus on painting and sculpture respectively.
Chapter One discusses the Roman art historiographers and their contributions towards the
definitions of the Roman art and some of the Roman art constructs. It does so through an
analysis of some aspects of the texts of the five art historiographers with a particular focus on
the writings of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder who both first published their respective works
at the period of the Early Empire. The texts by the other art historiographers, given that they
pertain to specific phenomena in the Roman art, are discussed in another, upcoming volume
by the same author.
Chapter Two contextualises some of the postulates articulated by the art historiographers of
antiquity as discussed in Chapter One, and provides a brief overview of the Roman art
practices with the aim to contribute towards a definition of the Roman art. The art practices
and specific artworks that indicate the true origins of the Roman art are discussed here. They
include some postulates of the Greek art traditions, as recognised by Vitruvius and Pliny the
Elder, and of the Etruscan art traditions which both served as a conduit for many ideas from
the Greek art practices into the Roman art practices and provided their own contribution.
Some of the art practices of the Early Roman Empire are also discussed here as the practices
which set the background for much of the overall Roman art practices. The distinction
between the official, public art as juxtaposed to the art practices under private patronage and
for private use is also discussed.
Chapter Three consists of three large sub-chapters. The contexts of the Roman art are
examined here through an analysis of some specific ideas introduced or developed by the
Roman artists. These include the Roman portraiture; the renditions of figure within the space
of its composition as it appears in painting, narrative relief and Roman sculpture; and the
evolution of basilica, arch, and dome in Roman architecture. Thus this chapter constitutes a
brief overview of some of the characteristics of the Roman art as signalled by the art
historiographers of antiquity.
In this manner, this volume attempts to provide a contribution to the scholarship of

establishing a fuller definition of the Roman art practices.
The Author.
5
Chapter I
Roman art historiographers

and their definitions of Roman art
The first two art historiographers of antiquity are considered to be Vitruvius and Pliny the
Elder.1 Vitruvius’ De Architectura was first published after 27BC. Pliny the Elder’s Historia
Naturalis was first published around 77AD. The two texts provide the first surviving art
historiography accounts from antiquity and allow us to obtain a clearer picture of the art
practices of the Greek and Roman artists up until the last quarter of the first century AD. As
Pliny himself wrote, much of the writings by the art historiographers who preceded him was
lost already in antiquity. On the grounds of Pliny’s acknowledging these sources we are able
to establish for the fact the existence of an art historiography tradition prior to both Vitruvius
and Pliny. Many of the sources mentioned by Pliny were those written in Greek and by the
Greek writers. According to Pliny’s account, they were most often written by the Greek
artists who wrote about their craft. These authors can be dated to the period of around 4cBC
and 3cBC. Their writings would therefore constitute not the Roman but the Greek art
historiography.
The relationship between the writings of Pliny the Elder on the arts and those of Vitruvius is
very strong – and although Pliny does not always acknowledge Vitruvius’ contribution to his
own texts on the arts, only mentioning Vitruvius’ name in his bibliography but not giving him
the credit where it is clearly due, a number of segments of Pliny’s text are a direct reference
to the relevant parts in Vitruvius’ work. This leads to an assumption that some significant
parts of Pliny’s writings on the arts were directly inspired by Vitruvius and written as
expansive and extended comments on some aspects of Vitruvius’ text. Hence we can read
Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder’s writings about the arts as the one whole, in terms of
information that the two writers transmit to us about the history of Roman (and Greek) art
practices and the then current state of these practices. Several other writers who wrote about
entirely different subjects in either Greek or Latin and in different eras have sporadically
included in their texts some descriptions of some artworks. These passages are many, but
they are not very useful to an art historiography analysis because of the lack of consistency in
such writings, and because by default the segments of ecphrasis in such texts serve a
particular literary purpose.2
Several important constructs transpire in an analysis of Vitruvius’ and Pliny’s texts. One of
them is the construct of Orientalism, coined at much a later date, as it applied to Pliny’s
descriptions of the Greek and Roman artworks on one hand, and on the artworks from Egypt
and from the culture of the Etruscans on the other hand. Another important construct that
emerges from Pliny’s writing, as well as from the writings by Vitruvius, is the question of the
lack of hierarchy between the so-called fine arts and applied arts. Importantly, both the
authors, each in their own manner, discuss the relationship between the material and the
finished artwork, writing about the craftsmanship required in the execution of specific types
1
Bojic, Zoja, Vitruvije, O arhitekturi, Zavod za udzbenike i Dosije Studio, Beograd, 2009; Bojic, Zoja, Plinije Stariji, O
umetnosti, Zavod za udzbenike i Dosije Stdio, Beograd, 2011
2
One such example is Homer’s description in the Iliad of the craftsmanship of a shield made by the god Haephestus, which
is a passage that tells us more about Homer’s poetry or the atmosphere in the Greek camp before the Troy, or even about the
use of particular metal at the time, than about an actual artwork.
6
of artworks and linking this to the materials used. Pliny’s writings are mostly documentary,
whilst Vitruvius’ writings also include his own views and definitions of various constructs
amongst which are the notion of beauty, mimesis, illusionism, symmetria, proportion and so
on. The fact that Pliny, about a hundred years later than Vitruvius, did not discuss most of
these notions, focusing instead on providing information about the artworks and the artists,
could lead to an assumption that the Roman art historiography moved away from an
application of philosophical constructs in a visual art analysis.3 However, even though there
is little art historiography literature published after Pliny’s segments on the arts that survived
to this day, it is possible to establish with certainty that Roman art historiography continued
to include those very traditions of application of philosophical concepts in the visual arts.
This is examined further in this text.
A group of writers whose work is often published together (for example, in Loeb editions)
and whose texts are commonly analysed together are Philostratus the Elder, Philostratus the
Younger and Callistratus.4 Although all three mentioned writers wrote in Greek, not in Latin
– in contrast to Vitruvius and Pliny – they are considered as Roman art historiographers. The
writings of Philostratus the Elder and Philostratus the Younger are descriptions of paintings,
with neither of the two writers mentioning the names of the painters. In contrast, the writings
of Callistratus are about sculpture, and this writer does mention names of the artists – all
classical Greek sculptors: Scopas, Lisippus and Praxiteles. Nevertheless, all three authors are
considered the Roman art historiographers and have been referred to as writers on Roman art
by the many generations of researchers and artists, including the writers of the Renaissance.
The three writers are indeed Roman writers. They lived in the 3c and 4cAD respectively in
Greece which was then part of the Roman Empire. As mentioned earlier, Pliny the Elder
considered the Greek art as part of his own, Roman, heritage. And indeed, Philostratus the
Elder wrote about his visiting an exhibition of artworks in Naples, in Italy, and reminded his
audience of the Greek heritage of this ancient Greek colony. This blurring of the line between
the then contemporaneous Greek and Roman art practices, combined with the fact that the
Greek art history was considered part of the Roman art history at least since Vitruvius
onwards, situates our three authors within the realm of the Roman art historiography.
Let us have a closer look at these three writers and their relationship with the writings of the
previous generation of Roman art historiographers, Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder.
Philostratus the Elder is the author of the two volumes of the Eikones or Imagines.5 In his
preface Philostratus the Elder mentioned that he wished to describe the artworks without
talking about the artists themselves, who, as he said, were deserving of another book
dedicated to a description of their lives. It is therefore possible to assume that he might have
written – or had planned to write – another volume(s) about the lives of the artists. The two
volumes of the Eikones/Imagines provide descriptions of more than sixty paintings
Philostratus said were exhibited in Naples, most of which represented mythological scenes.
Two of the described images, however, are titled Xenia, or Still life, and indeed represent the
very theme in painting that Vitruvius described in his De Architectura in the first century BC.
It is interesting to note that Pliny the Elder did not mention the genre of still life in his
3
Bojic, Z, Teme i ideje anticke istoriografije umetnosti: Vitruvije i Plinije Starijii, Central Institute for Conservation (CIK),
ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
4
one recent example includes published procedings from a conference, Costantini, M, Graziani, F, Rolet, S, Le défi de l'art.
Philostrate, Callistrate et l'image sophistique, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, 2006
5
The text can be read in the English translation on the following website:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusElder1A.html#7
7
writings, including his book XXXV, On Painting and Colours. It is interesting to also note
that the later writers whose work survived, namely Philostratus the Younger and Callistratus,
did not include the description of the genre of still life in their writing – Callistratus did not
do so as he wrote about sculpture which has traditionally not been concerned with this theme,
whilst Philostratus the Younger omitted to do so possibly on the grounds of his describing a
different set of works, presumably from a different display, which might have not included
this genre. The description of still life as a genre by Philostratus the Elder is rather significant
for several reasons. One such reason is the fact that his description provides us with
information about the continual popularity of the genre in the early 3cAD, the very genre that
can be seen as one of the very popular themes in the Pompeiian painting some two hundred
years earlier.6
The actual identity of the writer known as Philostratus the Elder is not absolutely clear and is
instead based on the text itself. The author has been grouped with the other Sophist writers.
Among other, this also means that some scholars have considered the Eikones/Imagines to
contain the imaginary descriptions of the imaginary artworks. If indeed this were the case, it
would of course constitute a significant departure from the Roman art historiography tradition
established by Vitruvius and developed by Pliny the Elder which is based on observation,
description, collection of information (particularly Pliny) and an analysis (particularly
Vitruvius) of actual artworks. A departure from this very tradition can also be seen in the
style of Philostratus’ writing. The text of Philostratus the Elder is, in contrast to those of
Vitruvius and Pliny, sophisticated and elegant, with the author clearly taking great care in his
expression. It is interesting to note that the style of Vitruvius’ text betrays the fact that the
author is a good architect but not a very articulate writer; whilst the style of Pliny the Elder’s
text demonstrates that its author is a man of letters interested in documenting the (art) world
around him.
Philostratus the Younger follows in the footsteps of Philostratus the Elder, his grandfather as
he himself says in his preface to his own text also titled Eikones/Imagines.7 Despite the many
differences between the texts of the grandfather and the grandson, it is clear that both the
authors followed the same pattern in describing the paintings. This pattern also includes the
didactic character of their texts. Whilst Philostratus the Elder writes in his preface that his
text is based on his lectures delivered to the very young audiences and in front of the
artworks, Philostratus the Younger in his preface, having acknowledged his grandfather’s
text, disposes of the inclusion of an actual audience – and possibly even the actual artworks -
and writes:
But in order that our book may not proceed on one foot, let it be assumed that there is a
person present to whom the details are to be described, that thus the discussion itself
may have its proper form.
This approach by both the authors is in stark contrast to the approaches taken by Vitruvius
and Pliny. Vitruvius addresses his audiences in a manner of a writer of a manual, giving
instructions on how to build a wall, a house, a temple, a basilica, a theatre, an aqueduct...
Pliny addresses his audiences by providing his readers with a wealth of information about the
6
Bojic, Z , ‘The texts of Pliny the Elder on the Arts and their Reception,’ in ed. Rastko Vasic, Danijela Stefanovic and
Ksenija Maricki-Gadjanski Antiquity, Contemporary World and Reception of the Culture of Antiquity, International
Scientific Conference, Serbian Society for Ancient Studies, Belgrade, 2011
7
which can be read in English translation at the website: http://www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusYounger.html
8
world he had experienced thus allowing for his writings to be labelled educational but not
didactic.
It is also not clear whether Philostratus the Younger was describing any actual artworks
because he did not mention anywhere in his extant text the facts about the display. Indeed, his
descriptions deal more with the description of the compositions of mythological scenes rather
than with the painterly qualities that the artworks would have displayed.
This is stark contrast to the work of Callistratus, the 3c or 4cAD author of the Descriptions,
Ekphraseis/Statuarum descriptiones.8 Although Callistratus is also considered a Sophist,
therefore a writer more concerned with the elegance of his expression than the facts about
which he is writing, his text provides not only the titles of some of the sculptures admired in
antiquity but also the names of some of the artists such as Scopas, Lisippus and Praxiteles, as
well as an in-depth description of the artworks and the impact they might have on a viewer.
In this sense, the text by Callistratus can be read almost as a text written by a modern-day
critic taken by an artwork.
Callistratus’ enthusiasm for the sculpture he describes seems to owe less to the Sophists than
to his art historiography predecessors, the Philostrati, Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. In his
writing, Callistratus, much like Vitruvius, firstly provides a passage on the link between the
philosophical concepts and the visual arts practice – and the observation of artworks – and
then continues with his descriptions providing his readers with his own opinions and
attitudes, which in turn resembles the approach taken by Vitruvius. On the other hand,
similarly to Pliny, Callistratus provides some information about each of the artworks he
describes and informs us about the artist who executed the artwork, the subject matter and the
materials of the work, the place/space within which it is displayed, and the description of the
artwork itself. In this manner, Callistratus forms part of the very art historiography traditions
which resurrected in the Renaissance and then continued from there.
As mentioned earlier, the only significant bodies of text surviving from antiquity about the overall arts
practices are those by Vitruvius, De Architectura, Libri I – X, and by Pliny the Elder, the excerpts
from his Naturalis Historia. Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder wrote extensively about their
contemporaneous art practices as well as those through history until their times. Vitruvius
wrote his ten books On Architecture in the late first century BC; Pliny wrote his Natural
History in the first century AD. Vitruvius comes across as a person versed in practical work,
not writing; Pliny is considered one of the first encyclopaedists and an intellectual of his time.
The two writers belong to the two different worlds, yet their writings demonstrate a strong
similarity in that what they each considered as foreign art practices and in that what they
considered the Roman art practices. The relationship between the worlds of Vitruvius and
Pliny the Elder, as well as the relationship, as described by these two writers, between the
Roman art practices of the times and the history of Greek art is examined here.
These two texts are crucial in the examination and analysis of art practices for several
reasons. The Renaissance art historians (including Alberti and Vasari respectively) drew on
these texts,9 particularly importantly Vasari who in 1550 established some of the methods of
8
which can be read in English translation on the website: http://www.theoi.com/Text/Callistratus.html
9
Bojic, Z , ‘Vitruvius in the 20th Century: The Caryatides,’ in ed. Rastko Vasic, Danijela Stefanovic and Ksenija Maricki-
Gadjanski, Antique Culture, European and Serbian Heritage International Scientific Conference, Serbian Society for
Ancient Studies, Belgrade, 2010, pp. 48-62
9
the later and the modern art history.10 The use of the texts provides for a tool in an analysis of
the art practices of antiquity, which is instrumental in the demarcation between the discipline
of archaeology and that of art history. The texts introduced the construct of the lack of
hierarchy between the fine arts and the applied arts – the very construct with which we are
still engaged some twenty centuries later. The texts introduced the constructs of the ones and
the others into the Eurocentric art history, evident in the art practices in both the Greek and
Roman art underlined by the writings of these two authors. Similarly, the texts introduced the
consequential construct of the global art practices and the globalisation of art practices. And
finally, these texts allow for an application of some of the philosophical constructs voiced out
by the three philosophers of antiquity whose writings were crucial in the establishment of the
discipline of the history of aesthetics: Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. Hence the texts on the arts
by both Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder introduce an application of some of the constructs of
philosophy in the art historical methodologies. One of these constructs, and perhaps the most
important as well as the most applicable construct in an analysis of the visual art works, is the
construct of mimesis. It was originally used by Plato and Aristotle to establish some
definitions outside of the visual art practices. This construct is applicable not only to the
Roman art practices but also to an analysis of the Greek, Hellenistic, Greco-Roman, and
some other art practices of antiquity and consequentially to the many later relevant art
practices.
The construct of beauty is addressed by Vitruvius who in his Book I provides a definition of
beauty in architecture stating that the theoretical elements of what constitutes a beautiful
building are applicable to everything. Although Pliny in his descriptions of some artworks he
declared ‘best’ applied some of the constructs named by Vitruvius as parameters of
measuring beauty, he did not provide a definition of this construct. The construct of the
sublime is to a degree addressed by both the authors, and in both cases indirectly, but in
particular by Vitruvius who wrote about the paintings of a dignified subject matter as
appropriate to the homes of distinguished citizens. Amongst these he mentioned the
representations of mythological characters and events such as Ulysses and the paintings that
contain representations of nature in its glory (VII, v, vi). Pliny wrote about different genres
and themes as the standard subjects of paintings by many artists having mentioned the
mythological compositions, historic compositions, paintings of battles and, importantly,
triumphal paintings (all in his book XXXV). Both the authors in these passages touched also
on such artworks being of distinguished or dignified nature, generating a sense of awe in the
observers and being morally uplifting.
They both also wrote on the construct of illusionism in the Roman arts, which is indeed one
of the characteristics of all four styles of Pompeiian painting, Vitruvius directly and Pliny
indirectly. This construct was first addressed by Vitruvius. In De Architectura, VI, ii, 2; VII,
v, 4-5-6, he talks extensively about the theoretical underpinning of his stance against illusion
in visual arts. This is somewhat in contrast to many passages in his overall text, particularly
in Books III and IV, where he advocates a different kind of illusion to be applied in
architecture, in the segments where he says that architects should strive, through some
adjusting of the prescribed ideal measure and proportion, to achieve an illusion of the
building, or some of its elements, looking taller, slimmer or closer. Vitruvius, however,
indicates that the Greek artists also relied on illusion in their painting of scenografia (giving
10
Bojic, Z , ‘The texts of Pliny the Elder on the Arts and their Reception,’ in ed. Rastko Vasic, Danijela Stefanovic and
Ksenija Maricki-Gadjanski Antiquity, Contemporary World and Reception of the Culture of Antiquity, International
Scientific Conference, Serbian Society for Ancient Studies, Belgrade, 2011
10
some examples of this in VI, ii, 2 and in VII, Introduction, 11). Pliny of course does not
mention the construct of illusionism by the name but does quip here and there that its effects
can be used in a clever manner. One such example is his description of the mosaics, XXVI,
25, another is his story about the manner in which birds can be prevented from singing,
XXXV, 11. As mentioned earlier, in much of his writing about the painting, grouped mostly
in his book XXXV Pliny, however, writes about the construct opposite to the construct of
illusionism – that of mimesis. It is important to note that both Vitruvius and Pliny legitimise a
set of constructs that emerge from the construct of mimesis. They include the construct of
abstract art and art for arts’ sake, both the constructs related in Pliny’s account of the several
anecdotes about the painters Apelles and Protogenes from Rhodes, XXXV.
Although touching on all of these constructs, this chapter is predominantly concerned with
the examination of the constructs of the ones and the others and the definitions of these
constructs in the writings of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. It is similarly concerned with the
opposite construct of the global and the globalised art practices as documented by these two
authors.
Vitruvius’ text of De Architectura, Libri I – X reached the Renaissance significantly

corrupted through many of its copies in the Middle Ages. This endless copying of the De
Architectura which may or may not had been used as a manual is also a testimony to the
popularity of his text post-Antiquity. The popularity of Vitruvius’ text in the Renaissance and
later was underlined by the popularity and esteem in which Alberti’s text on architecture was
held. Vitruvius was an architect – he tells us that he was a military engineer with the army of
Julius Caesar and that he had built a basilica in the town of Fano (Colonia Julia Faenestris) of
which no traces remain. His writings provide much material about the author. Hence we can
reconstruct his imaginary portrait of a Roman citizen who travelled across various regions,
and who was a well read practicing architect – but not the most articulate writer.
In contrast, the only surviving work of Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis, appears to have
been vastly popular in antiquity itself as an encyclopaedia of its time. It also appears to had
been continually used as a reference not only in antiquity but also in the Middle Ages. The
sections of the vast encyclopaedia that form a cohesive text of the history of arts practices
include books I, and XXXIII – XXXVII. The relevant texts are: Painting XXV (1- 5, 7- 12)
pigments XXV (6 – 7) and XXXIII (5 – 12); applied arts XXXV (textiles,11, ceramics 12),
XXXIII (metal objects 1, bronze objects, gold 2-3, silver 8, 11-12, coinage 3, metal jewellery
3 – 4, gems 1 -2), XXXIV (bronze objects 1 – 3) XXXVI (glass 26, mosaic 25, stoneware 8);
sculpture XXXV (12), XXXIII (gold and silver sculpture 4, 12), XXXIV (bronze sculpture 4
– 8) i XXXVI (stone sculpture 4 – 5); architecture XXXV, XXXVI (materials: earth, XXXV
13, 14, 49, 51, 52; stone 17, 22, 44, 50, 1, 56, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8; building works 51, 55, 59, 25;
buildings: obelisks 8 – 11; Egyptian pyramids 12; the lighthouse on the Island of Faros 12,
labyrinths 13, the temple of Diana in Ephesos and other temples 14 – 15, the buildings of
Rome 15). When put together, these segments form part of a cohesive text which can be
called the Text X. Although there are several editions of Pliny’s writings on the arts in
English translation, they all exclude his segments on architecture, the segments which prove
to be the key in our reading and understanding of both the Pliny’s text on the arts and the
relationship between Vitruvius and Pliny. Pliny’s segments of the text that relate to the art
practices and art history provided an inspiration to Giorgio Vasari’s Renaissance text,
published in 1550, which in turn established some grounds for some of the methodologies of
the discipline of art history. Pliny’s self-portrait, as we can establish it through his text as well
as through a testimony of his nephew Pliny the Younger, shows him as an ambitious
11
intellectual of somewhat conservative beliefs and a writer interested in documenting – rather

than commenting on – the world as he knew it.
In order to establish some common ground between the two writers, we must first cast a brief
glance on the eras to which they belonged. Vitruvius wrote in the first century BC and Pliny
the Elder in the first century AD. Although the construct of the turn of the era is of course of
a later date, the two writers belonged to the two different sets of historical circumstances.
Vitruvius worked with Julius Caesar and dedicated his writings to Octavian Augustus. 11 De
Architectura was published immediately after the time of the Romans establishing their
supremacy over Egypt but only in the early years of Octavian’s Emperorship. In contrast,
Pliny, who was born at the turn of the era, lived in the Roman Empire during the reign of the
successive Emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty established by Octavian and by his last
wife Livia. Pliny lived through the times of a political turmoil, both during and after the reign
of the Julio-Claudian Emperors, only to experience a period he himself wrote he considered
peaceful and happy, during the reign of his friend the Emperor Vespasian.
Although the two writers come across as vastly different authors, some literary similarities
betray their common cultural heritage, primarily the Hellenistic roots of that heritage and
their individual but unifying and common philosophies which include the Epicurean
philosophy and the Pythagorean view of the world. The Epicurean philosophy is evident in
Vitruvius’ writings conveyed in many segments of his text and as part of his literary self-
portrait, particularly is his descriptions of himself as the person content with that what he has.
The Pythagorean philosophy is evident in the writings of both the authors: in the text by
Vitruvius it is particularly evident in his segments on mathematics and measure; in the text by
Pliny the Elder it is evident both in various segments on many descriptions of the nature and
natural phenomena12 as well as in Pliny’s very construct of encyclopaedia13 and in its
methodology.
Vitruvius wrote about the artworks brought to Rome only superficially and only when talking
about the materials used for building (II, iii, 9). Mentioning excellent qualities of terracotta,
he informs us that after the sack of Sparta some frescoes were brought, mounted into wooden
frames, to Rome, during the edilship of Varo and Murena. In contrast, Pliny writes
extensively about the artworks brought to Rome and displayed in various places in the city.
The paintings that he said were brought – mostly from the sacked or otherwise subjugated
Greek cities – are described in detail in Book XXXV, chapters 4, 7, 9, 10, 12. Particularly
chapters 9 and 12 contain the wealth of information about the paintings brought to Rome and
displayed there. Pliny similarly writes extensively about sculpture and includes information
about the sculpture being brought to Rome and displayed there either publicly or privately.
Here he most often mentions imperial collections of artworks although he also writes about
the existence of collections of individual wealthy Roman citizens.14 In contrast, Vitruvius’
11
On the Augustan Rome see: Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998 ; Reinhold,
M, The Golden Age of Augustus (Aspects of Antiquity) Univ. of Toronto Press, . Toronto, ON, 1978; Galinsky, K, Augustan
Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton University Press, 1996 as well as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds
of Augustus)
12
See for example Paparazzo, E, ‘Philosophy and Science in the Elder Pliny’s Naturalis Historia’ Gibson, R K., Morello, R.
(eds.), Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts (Mnemosyne Supplements 329) Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2011 and Bojic, Z,
‘Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts,’ Classical Review, vol. 62.2, Oxford, 2012
13
Schultze, C, ‘Encyclopaedic exemplarity in Pliny the Elder’ and Clemence Schultze ‘Pliny and the Encyclopaedic
Adresee,’ Gibson, R K., Morello, R. (eds.), Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts (Mnemosyne Supplements 329) Brill,
Leiden and Boston, 2011
14
Bojic, Z, Art curatorship within and outside museum, Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), ICOM SEE and
Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
12
take on public and private collections of artworks, although he does not recognise this
category as such in his writings, remains in the realm of his descriptions of several Hellenistic
rulers, rather than as a custom established amongst the Romans.
Although the names of the Greek artists mentioned by the two writers remain Greek (or very
slightly Latinised), it appears that these artists were simply understood as the artists who
happened to come from a particular part of the Roman world. Pliny wrote about the artists of
the older times, such as Phidias, or those of the Hellenistic times such as Apelles. However,
although these artists created most of their artworks in Greece and for use as part of religious
and other practices that were specifically Greek,15 Pliny would often not specify this quality
of such works. In contrast, he talks about the artworks (including the Venus by Apelles)
brought and displayed in Rome as if they belonged in Rome. Indeed, the popularity of some
of the artworks obviously far exceeded the Romans merely observing these artworks in their
capital city, and is also reflected in the Roman artists making copies of such works.
Pliny equates the ownership of the artworks with the display of the artworks. Those on public
display in Rome, looted from Greece or obtained in another manner, were so many and
sometimes so badly displayed that, he said, the citizens could not always notice them and
would pass by without being aware of them. Nevertheless, he tells us that on several
occasions when artworks were taken from the public domain into a collection of an
Emperor’s possessions there were public riots. For those instances where upon works being
taken away into an Emperor’s collection no riots were recorded Pliny ensures that his reader
understands his own position on this matter.
It appears that this politically unstable period of approximately one hundred years that
separated the publication of the writings by the two authors was also the period of a
significant increase in the Romans’ awareness of various art practices, as well as the period of
the formation of the first art collections in Rome. Luxury, luxuria, 16 the word often used by
Pliny in a pejorative sense (which also links in with his adoption of the Epicureans’ rejection
of luxury) seems to have indeed penetrated the culture of the Romans in the early first
century AD. It may also be used to help explain a sudden surge in the production of artworks
as reflected in Pompeiian painting, the remnants of the architectural wonders of the first
century AD Rome, and many artworks commonly categorised as the applied arts works.
Both the authors identified several categories of art practice as specifically Roman. Although
neither Vitruvius nor Pliny set themselves to create such a category within their writing, they
each nevertheless draw attention of their reader to the Roman ‘inventions’ in the arts.
Amongst such inventions common to the two writers are the already discussed illusionism in
painting; and the art of portraiture, and some of the characteristics of the Roman architecture
which include Roman engineering and, most specifically, the construction of aqueducts,
discussed further in this chapter.
The Roman art of portraiture is discussed in detail in Chapter III. Here, it is important to
point out that both Vitruvius and Pliny the elder wrote in some detail in various segments of
their texts about the ancestors’ busts that were taken in processions from their places in their
15
Bojic, Z, Greek art and art historiography: definitions, Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), ICOM SEE and
16
This construct is examined by several scholars albeit not always in relation to art history, see Lao, E, ‘Luxury and the
Creation of a Good Consumer,’ Gibson, R K., Morello, R. (eds.), Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts (Mnemosyne
Supplements 329) Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2011
13
individual niches in the atrium of a Roman house. Pliny conveys the origin of these portraits
(XXXIV, on bronze sculpture), maintaining that they were shields with the portrait of their
owner executed in relief with coats of over-paint. However, given that further in that segment
he wrote about the busts of ancestors, rather than their portraits in relief, it is pl;ausible to
assume that such portraits were executed as three dimensional sculpture from the early times
as indeed supported by several artworks executed in the first century BC as well as during the
first century AD. If indeed the bronze reliefs were the origins of the Roman portraiture it is
evident that their very characteristics of veristic representation of the facial features of the
(present or the absent) sitter were soon also applied on the portraits painted on panel or as
fresco paintings in privately commissioned artworks, or of course on coinage and free
standing imperial sculpture in the publicly commissioned official portraits.
The Roman inventions in architecture are discussed by both Vitruvius and Pliny. Vitruvius’
literary oeuvre is entirely dedicated to architecture as defined by him in his Book I.17 As the
architecture consisted of what today is understood as architecture as well as engineering
(including measuring of time as well as building various machines), Vitruvius’ text includes a
whole book (book VIII) dedicated to the conducting of water and to the building of
aqueducts. Pliny, on the other hand, does not set up to write much about architecture.
However, he dedicates a large part of his book XXXVI to the architecture and building, with
some parts of his book XXXV allocated to texts about building materials. Amongst the best
and most formidable buildings in Rome Pliny singles out the building of the aqueducts and
the sewerage system. Pliny’s writings on architecture, building materials and buildings
themselves have thus far been excluded from a scholarly analysis of Pliny’s texts about the
arts. It is essential that they are included on several grounds.
Greek legacy in Roman architecture is self-evident. Both Vitruvius (throughout his De

Architectura) and Pliny (particularly in Book XXXVI) wrote about this extensively.
Vitruvius’s texts on Greek architecture, orders and the styles employed in Roman architecture
are discussed in particular detail in his books III and IV. It is interesting to note that Vitruvius
recognises three orders, whilst Pliny chips in with the fourth order; the Attic column
(XXXVI) which was, in Vitruvius’ mind, just a variation of the known orders.
It is through Pliny’s writings on architecture that the strong connection between the two
writers – and the possible origins of Pliny’s Text X as we have identified it earlier in this
chapter – can be established with a relative certainty. It is interesting to note that Pliny seems
to include in his Historia Naturalis some specific texts that enlarge our understanding of the
Roman art (in general terms) and its architecture that were either not addressed by Vitruvius
or not sufficiently addressed by Vitruvius. This allows for a presumption of the Text X as
being Pliny’s own text rather than a copy or a simple compilation of several other texts, and
as being written in direct response to Vitruvius’ writings, filling in the gaps in knowledge
transmitted by Vitruvius. There are several exceptions to this in those instances where Pliny’s
text demonstrates a stark departure from that of Vitruvius. One such example is the question
of the Caryatides. Whilst Vitruvius wrote about the Caryatides only in his Book I and rather
superficially, he nevertheless provided sufficient information about their origins and
iconography. An entirely different iconography was put forward by Pliny who mentioned the
Caryatides in several instances (XXXVI, 6, 11), in one of which he described them as
sculptural representations of Bachae and Menadae (XXXVI, 11). Either of the iconographic
types is evident in later Roman art or in some other art practices based on Roman art
17
Bojic, Z, Teme i ideje anticke istoriografije umetnosti: Vitruvije i Plinije Starijii, Central Institute for Conservation (CIK),
ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
14
traditions. If indeed Pliny’s writing on architecture and the arts is based to some degree on
Vitruvius’ writing, the construct that Pliny’s texts intended to build up on Vitruvius’ writing
is perhaps best illustrated by the two writers’ texts on theatre. Vitruvius is clearly stating that
Roman theatre plan is a modification of the Greek theatre plan (V, ii). Whilst he gives precise
descriptions of both Greek and Roman theatre and instructions on how to build them (Book
V), Pliny disregards any other mention of theatre architectural traditions but writes about a
new era of the Roman theatre and the wood or stone amphitheatres built for the games and
the entertainment (Book XXXVI). It is interesting that Vitruvius mentions the word
amphitheatre only once (Book I, vii, 1), indicating that this practice was not known or at least
not common in the first century BC. Similarly, Vitruvius instructs that public spaces such as
the fora be built in Rome in a manner different than in Greece (V, i) because the Romans
used the fora as the gathering places also used for staging public entertainment (obviously,
prior to building amphitheatres). Based on the writings of the two authors, it is possible to
trace the evolution of the Roman theatre architecture within this period spanning
approximately one hundred years into the space for staging of the Roman spectacle.
So, what did our two writers consider foreign, in contrast to their own? As Vitruvius and
Pliny the Elder related, most of the Greek art traditions were, almost rightly, considered part
of the Roman art traditions which also included some Roman ‘inventions’ in art such as the
portraiture, illusionism and engineering. The question of ‘the other’ and the art traditions of
that unidentified ‘other’ remains.
When reading closely Vitruvius’ text, it becomes apparent that he does not specify ‘the
other’18 – instead those that the Greeks themselves considered barbarians remained
uncivilised people to Vitruvius too, with one such example related in the Introduction to
Book VIII. Various Hellenistic rulers, being Greek, were part of Vitruvius’ world. In several
instances he mentioned the Chaldeans (Book IX, ii, 1; viii, 1) but only in terms of astronomy
and astrology, ie when talking about measuring time, rather than when discussing an aspect
of architecture or the arts. He also mentioned several peoples under the Roman rule of his
time but again did not venture into explaining these aspects of their cultures.
Pliny, in contrast, is clear to what constitutes ‘the other’. Although the beginning of the rule
of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt dates from the late 4cBC, and despite some of the
important achievements of the Hellenistic Egypt (in turn, recognised by Vitruvius, such as the
Library of Alexandria, Books II, Introduction, 4; VII, Introduction, 4, 8; VI, xi, 1; IX, i, 1; IX,
vii, 1; IX, viii, 2; X, xvi, 10), the Egyptian arts were foreign to him. This is particularly
controversial because amongst the people who had the pyramids built for themselves Pliny
lists Rodopia, a Greek courtesan and a friend of Aesop (XXVI, 12) thus indicating a degree
of familiarity between the Greeks and the arts of Egypt. It is interesting to note that Pliny did
not mention an example from Rome itself, the Pyramid of Cestius built outside the city walls
believed to have been built in 12BC or the possible existence of any other similar funerary
monuments in the city of Rome.
18
About this question as applicable to various periods in art history see Bojic, Z, The art of observing art, Central Institute
for Conservation (CIK), ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012. The manner in which this construct is
applicable in modernism is discussed in Bojic, Z, Stanislav Rapotec, a Barbarogenous in Australian art, Andrejevic
Endowment, Belgrade, 2007 and Bojic, Z, Imaginary homelands – the art of Danila Vassilieff, Andrejevic Endowment,
Belgrade, 2007
15
The events of Augustus’ engagement with the situation in Egypt immediately prior to
Vitruvius’ writing would have still been fresh, yet Vitruvius does not venture into distancing
the Roman art traditions from the Egyptian traditions. Pliny, however, although political
events of his own time did not encourage his stance, continually wrote about the Egyptian
artworks as ‘foreign.’ One such example is his writing about the obelisks – and not only the
obelisks in Egypt but also those transported from Egypt to Rome, such as the one that
Octavian Augustus himself erected in the city and used as gnomon (XXXVI, 12). Pliny
therefore informs us about the use of an artwork of the foreign culture within the art traditions
of his own in which it loses all of its previous meanings and obtains a new one. It is
interesting to note that Vitruvius too writes about the gnomons, and in great detail, in his
book IX, about sundials and about measuring of the time.
The other artwork identified as ‘foreign’ by Pliny, and indeed an essential part of the
traditions of ‘the others’ is the Egyptian sphinx. Often represented as bearded and always
represented as wingless, Egyptian sphinx is indeed a different creature to the one of the Greek
tradition, and consequently to the one that continued to be reproduced in Roman art
particularly since being re-introduced as an important symbol by Octavian Augustus himself.
However, Pliny recognises yet another ‘foreign’ tradition, co-related in its ‘foreignness’ to
the Egyptian art traditions. In his segment about the labyrinths and their meaning (XXXVI,
13), Pliny lists Egyptian labyrinth, a Cretan labyrinth (although, as he himself points out,
created by the Greek architect, Daedal), the one he says existed before his time on the island
of Lemnos, and the Etruscan labyrinth built as a folly of the Etruscan king Porsena. In
contrast, Vitruvius’ mentions of the Etruscans leads to the conclusion that the Etruscan art,
although specific and sometimes peculiar, formed part of the origins of the Roman art. Some
such examples in Vitruvius’ writings include the description of the Etruscan atrium in VI, iii,
1 and the Etruscan temple in IV, vii, 1. This departure of Pliny the Elder’s writings from the
traditions previously considered part of the Roman art traditions may be largely related to the
political agenda of Pliny’s times and the strengthening of the Roman Empire and the increase
in the Romans’ awareness of their statehood and in their own nationality.
This awareness of the specificity of the Roman art in opposition to the other art practices of
the time such as the Egyptian art practices and in opposition to some art practices from the
previous times on the Italian soil such as the Etruscan art practices is directly correlated to the
construct of global and globalised art practices contemporary to Pliny. Perhaps the best
example of this is Pliny’s writing about Laokoon (XXVI, 5), the sculpture which can be seen
as either an example of the Hellenistic art (and its highly developed ‘baroque’ phase) or as an
example of the Greco-Roman art. Although Pliny informs us about the artists who created it,
all Greek by name, it is not possible to assume was the work created in Greece itself (on the
island of Rhodes) or in Rome, given that a number of Greek artists (from all over Greece,
Rhodes included) lived in Rome. It is also important to note that Pliny often used superlatives
and that Laokoon is one of many artworks Pliny declared ‘best’ – hence the interpretations,
by both the translators and the art historians, that such an authority as Pliny himself
considered Laokoon the finest artwork of all in antiquity, are based on a false premise. When
several constructs put forward by Vitruvius and Pliny discussed in this chapter are put
together: the characteristics of Roman art, the characteristics of the Greek traditions absorbed
through copying and popularisation into the Roman art traditions, the specific characteristics
of the Greek art outside of the absorbed traditions, the arts of the ‘others’ and the Romans’
newly-found awareness of their own and unique art traditions – this artwork similarly escapes
being categorised as exclusively being part of either of the above mentioned traditions.
16
In his writings about the Roman art practices Pliny the Elder, Pliny introduces a construct
which will remain at the core of much art making and art analysis. This is the construct of the
place of the artist within this new, contemporary and globalised art practice of Rome. In
Book XXXV, 10, Pliny says that in the past, amongst the Greeks, the custom was not to
decorate the walls of private houses with paintings – in contrast to the then contemporaneous
Roman practices – and gives examples of the painters Protogen and Apelles who lived
modestly and created their artworks not for themselves but for the ‘common good.’ Here,
with some sadness, Pliny identifies the major point of departure from the art traditions of the
previous eras and reminds us on their noble nature:
‘For all these artists, the art had always represented something that was the common good of
all the citizens, and at those times the artists themselves were considered as a common good.’
17
Chapter II
The origins and an overview
This chapter examines the origins of Roman art and provides a brief overview of the Roman
art practices.19 It examines the relationship between Greek artworks and the artworks of Italy
- those of the Etruscans and the art of the Romans. Greek artists often worked outside the
mainland Greece in colonies as well as in foreign countries. Similarly, many Greek artworks,
together with other objects of trade, were exported to other cultures. Specifically, the art of
the Etruscans, the Roman painting, Roman sculpture and the construct of verism are observed
here taking into consideration references to Greek art in the Roman art and architecture. In
doing so, the question of the use of particular materials in these art practices, specifically
terracotta and bronze is also addressed.
The Etruscans were the tribes of people whose origins are not known. Little is known about
their culture and language except that they lived in the territory of today’s Tuscany and in the
neighbouring areas. The period c.700–509BC can be considered as the era of the Etruscan
supremacy in the central Italy. In the year 509BC the republic was formed with Rome uniting
Italy. The Roman republic lasted until 27BC, the year which marked the emergence of the
early Empire starting with the reign of the Emperor Augustus.20 The year 180AD marked the
beginning of the late Empire under the Severan Emperors.
Etruscans were also known as Trusci, Tusci, Etrusci by the neighbouring Italic tribes, and as
Tyrrhenoi or Tyrsenoi by the Greeks. Little is known about their religion other than the story
of a boy named Tages, who collected prophecies in books known as the Libri Tagetici.
Etruscan haruspices and the prophetess Vegoia seemed to have been highly regarded. Their
prophesies (Libri Haruspicini and Libri Vegoici) formed part of what was called the
Disciplina Etrusca. The Greeks considered the Etruscans excellent sea-farers and some of
their stories referred to the Etruscans as pirates. Significant amount of archaeological material
demonstrates strong trade connections between the Greeks and the Etruscans. These include
various goods as well as many imported artworks.21
The art of the Etruscans escapes definitions as much of it was destroyed, initially by the
Romans, then in various wars. Pliny the Elder wrote about the Etruscans that they were
people who excelled in the art of bronze sculpture. Indeed, there is strong evidence to support
Pliny’s claim. Among the best known examples of Etruscan art and bronze sculpture is the
image reproduced on the next page, the she-wolf. The figures of the two boys – representing
19
The literature on this topic is vast and includes among other titles the following: Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art:
Romulus to Constantine, Prentice Hall, 2005 ; Strong, D, Roman Art, Viking Penguin, 1990 ; Kleiner, F, S. A History of
Roman Art, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif., 2007; Dal Maso, L,B, Rome of the Caesars, Bonechi, Florence, 1974.
Lanciani, R, Pagan and Christian Rome, 1892 ; Young, Norwood., P. Barrera (rev.). Rome and Its Story, J.M. Dent & Sons
Ltd,London, 1951 ; Bianchi Bandinelli, R, Torelli, M, L'arte dell'antichità classica, Etruria-Roma, Utet, Turin 1976; De
Vecchi P, Cerchiari, E, I tempi dell'arte, volume 1, Bompiani, Milan 1999; Kleiner, F, A History of Roman Art, Thompson
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2007
20
Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998; Reinhold, M, The Golden Age of
Augustus (Aspects of Antiquity) Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, 1978; Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive
Introduction, Princeton University Press, 1996 ; The Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of Augustus)
21
Brendel, O, Etruscan Art, Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1978
18
the founders of Rome – are a later addition. It is important to note that the sculpture created
within the culture of the Etruscans – not Romans – became a symbol of the creation of Rome
and its later power.
The sculpture indeed demonstrates highly developed skills of the artists who created it. Of
particular importance is the manner in which the artist rendered the facial expression of the
beast, showing her as alert and ready to attack anyone who might threaten her. It is not
possible to speculate how and why this sculpture was made, which meaning did it have and in
which manner it was originally displayed.
Artist unknown, Capitoline Wolf, 5cBC, bronze, 75x114 cm, Museo Nuovo, Campidoglio, Rome
A number of other sculptural works in bronze from about the same period can be seen as
representative examples of the Etruscan bronze sculpture. One such example is reproduced
below, the Chimera of Arezzo from c.400BC. A chimera is a horrible and terrifying
mythological creature whose appearance combines the elements of several different animals.
The artist who executed this Chimera combined these different elements in a highly skilful
representation of the imaginary beast. Particularly successfully was rendered the chimera’s
body of a lion – naturally, the artist was unlikely to have ever seen a lion, yet he was able to
render a life-like body and movement in this work.
Artist Unknown, the Chimera of Arezzo, c. 400BC, bronze, 80 cm, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Florence
19
Bronze, being a precious metal, was apparently considered a luxury amongst the Etruscans. A
number of vessels made of bronze survive to this day. However, and perhaps more
importantly, a number of vessels made of terracotta but rendered to mimic a different
material, bronze, called the bucchero, were also found in the culture of Etruscans.
LEFT: Oinochoe in bucchero, Etruria, 7/6 c BC, Museo Archeologico di Firenze

RIGHT: Oinochoe in bucchero with the head of a bull, from Chiusi, 6cBC, Firenze
Pliny the Elder as well as Vitruvius who wrote in more detail, inform us about the use of
another material in the Etruscan art – terracotta. Terracotta was of course the material used by
many Greek potters as well as many other artists such as sculptors, and included statuary such
as that of the acroteria on some of the older temples. However, this material obtains
additional importance in the art of the Etruscans as it was widely used also in architecture,
both private and public, and both secular and religious. Particularly interesting is the presence
of the terracotta objects and statuary in the funerary practices of the Etruscans, discussed
further in this chapter.22
Some aspects of the Etruscan art are known today through the excavation of several
necropoli, particularly those in Cerveteri and Tarquinia. The Etruscan necropolis would
typically consist of a large number of tombs constructed on a central plan and with a small
and low entrance.
22
Maggiani, A, Artistic crafts: Northern Etruria in Hellenistic Rome, ,Electra, Italy, 1985
20
Tarquinia, necropolis
Inside, however, the tombs were often decorated with lavish fresco painting. Although the
frescoes throw little light on the life and interests of the people buried in these tombs, they
allow us an insight into the concerns of the artists who painted the frescos. The artists were
commissioned to paint the particular programs of fresco decoration and it appears there was
no demand for a unified style of their work as the nature of the commissions would have
varied from person to person and from an era to an era.
Reproduced below and on the next page are some of the examples of these frescoes. Despite
the differences outlined above, some of the characteristics common to these groups of works
can be identified. One of such characteristics is the manner in which the fresco decoration
followed the architectural pattern – with the program of the main fresco decoration reserved
for the walls of the tombs and the decorative motifs painted on the surfaces of the ceilings.
21
The narrative, as if referencing the Greek architectural narrative reliefs, is told in the
sequential imagery. However, unlike the Greek architectural narrative reliefs, the Etruscan
frescoes from the necropolis in Cerveteri and in Tarquinia demonstrate the artists’ interest in
representing jovial scenes from the everyday life. Given that this fresco program represents
an aspect of funerary art this joie de vivre is a somewhat unexpected characteristic of the
postulates of the Etruscan painting as well as of the nature of the Etruscan religion.23
Artist Unknown, Dancing Woman and Lyre Player, Etruscan, 5cBC, wall painting, Tomba del
Triclinio, Tarquinia
23
Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2009
22
Artist Unknown, Two Dancers, the Tomb of the Lionesses, (detail) Tarquinia, wall painting,
c. 480-470BC
Artist Unknown, The tomb of the leopard, (detail) Tarquinia, wall painting, c. 480-470BC
However puzzling, this fresco program is nevertheless comparable, to a degree, with an

aspect of the Greek art outside of the mainland Greece, the only surviving example of Greek
fresco painting, the happy, serene and life-affirming imagery from the so-called Tomb of the
diver in the Greek colony of Poseidonia (Paestum), in Italy.24
24
Spivey, N, Etruscan Art, Thames and Hudson, London, 1997
23
Greek art: Artist Unknown, Symposium: north wall, the Tomb of the Diver, Paestum, c.470BC
Greek art: Artist Unknown, Symposium: south wall, the Tomb of the Diver, Paestum, c.470BC
Greek art: Artist Unknown, Tuffatore, the Tomb of the Diver, Paestum, c. 470BC
24
The synchronous images reproduced on this page demonstrate some strong visual similarities,
as well as differences, in the treatment of the same subject matter. The image to the left is the
image of a Greek artist from a tomb in Paestum and the image to the right is by an Etruscan
artist from a tomb in Tarquinia.
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Symposium, The tomb of the leopard, Tarquinia, wall painting, c. 470BC
When compared, it transpires that both the Etruscan and the Greek artists created the scenes
of an identical subject matter as part of the funerary pictorial decoration – that of symposium,
the dinner party. Both the artists also attempted to convey the vivacious atmosphere of the
party through their compositions whilst the subject matter allowed them to depict the groups
of participants in conversation.
However, the manner in which the works are executed is different. The Greek artist adopted a
fine line as a dominant feature of his work, used here to indicate the movement of the diners.
The simplicity of the composition provides for an ethereal quality of the subject represented.
In comparison, the Etruscan artist is less interested in a refined composition – instead, he uses
some additional decorative motifs such as his representing of the textiles and the tiles in a
swirl of motifs and colours. His composition is rough, busy and heavy in comparison to that
of his Greek counterpart.
This quality, however, cannot be taken as the dominant characteristic of the overall Etruscan
art practice as there are several examples of the fresco decoration which are, by their refined
composition and fine line, comparable to the Greek fresco from Paestum. One such example
is the Etruscan imagery of the dancers, reproduced above right.
25
There is, however, another characteristic which can be seen as common to much of the
surviving Etruscan fresco painting. This is the artists’ interest in depicting their environment
and everyday scenes, as seen in the particularly telling example reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, the Fishing scene, The Fowling and Fishing Tomb, Tarquinia, c.520BC
However, the Etruscan tombs bear a strong link with the Greek art through the repertoire of
the imagery which was apparently introduced to the Etruscans through the Greek artworks.
The trade in goods and particularly in fine goods between the Etruscans and the Greeks is
documented in many instances including a number of fine Greek vases found in various
places in Etruria. Some of those most certainly served as vessels for Greek exports such as
wine, olives or oil, whilst some of these vases would have been exported from Greece to
Etruria not containing any goods. Amongst the subjects, the motifs and the compositions of
the pictorial decorations of some such vases imported to Etruscan cities from Greece are also
those which were not Greek in origin. Instead, many renditions of the wild beasts such as the
lions and panthers not known on the Greek soil indicate the existence of strong influences of
some cultures of Asia in the Greek art. This imagery was also transported to Etruria via the
Greek exports. Hence, as much as the Orientilising style is evident in the Greek vase painting,
it is also evident as a characteristic in an aspect of the Etruscan fresco painting. Some such
imagery is reproduced on the next page. As the Etruscan artists were not familiar with
leopards, lions and other beasts, their incorporating of this imagery into their artworks can be
explained through their contacts with such imagery via the Greek vase painting of the
Orientalising style imported into Etruria.
26
The asynchronous examples above consist of two Etruscan fresco paintings from the Tomb of
the Leopard, 5cBC and the detail of the image from a Greek vase titled the Chigi vase, found
in Etruria where it was exported around the 7cBC.
As mentioned, the Etruscan artists also worked in terracotta which was used in pottery-
making as well as in architecture and statuary. A particularly large number of the funerary
terracotta sarcophagi were found in the necropolis of Cerveteri. Some such sarcophagi
represent a couple on a sofa, embracing and smiling. Although the portraits are standardised
and appear typical with all the figures represented as youthful, the facial characteristics of
these sculptures do differ from a sarcophagus to a sarcophagus. Thus the imagery od these
sarcophagi can be seen as attempts at representing the portraits of the deceased.25
LEFT: Artist unknown, Sargophagus degli Sposi, cinerary urn, c. 520BC, terracotta, 1.14m x 1.9m,
from the Banditaccia necropolis, Cerveteri, the Villa Giulia Museum, Rome
RIGHT: Artist unknown, Sargophagus degli Sposi, (detail)
25
Richter, G, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Handbook of the Etruscan Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 1940
27
Some similar characteristics are demonstrated in the free standing terracotta sculpture. One
such example is the Apollo of Veii, a statue believed to have served as an acroterion, a free
standing sculpture positioned on the roof of the temple.
Artist Unknown, Apollo di Veii, c.500BC, terracotta, 1,8m, the Villa Giulia Museum, Rome
Vitruvius informs us about this type of sculpture in the Etruscan art, whilst Pliny the Elder
mentioned that the acroteria of the old temples in Rome were often executed in terracotta.
The material in which it is executed as well as the visual characteristics of the figure, its
movement and the portrait of the Apollo di Veii are reflective of the similar characteristics of
the free standing sculpture in its contemporaneous Greek art, as demonstrated in the images
reproduced on the next page.
28
LEFT: Greek art: Artist unknown, Zeus and Ganymede, terracotta, c.470BC, Olympia
It is important to single out here the dominant feature of these works: the Archaic smile,
which regularly occurs in the statuary of the Archaic period in Greek art. The similarity in
rendering the smiling portraits of gods and men alike is particularly evident in the examples
reproduced below.
LEFT: Greek art: Artist Unknown, Moschophoros (Calf-bearer), marble, c. 570BC, Athens
That terracotta was in great use in the Etruscan architecture is demonstrated by

archaeological evidence. Although very little of the Etruscan architecture survives to this day,
it is possible to reconstruct some of its major characteristics. The image below left is
understood as a small terracotta votive object in the shape of the Etruscan temple. The image
to the right is the reconstructions of the temple, described in detail by Vitruvius.
LEFT: Etruscan votive model of a temple, 4. cBC, terracotta, 8 cm, the Villa Giulia Museum, Rome
MIDDLE: Plan of the Etruscan temple based on Vitruvius’ description
RIGHT: Reconstruction of the Etruscan temple
29
The bloom of the Pre-Etruscan culture coincided with the legendary founding of Rome. The
period between 700BC and 509BC was marked by the Etruscan supremacy in the central
Italy, with the year 509BC considered the year of the formation of the Roman republic with
Rome uniting central Italy and expanding its influence across the peninsula. In 27BC with the
reign of the Emperor Augustus26 the Roman Empire began to rule much of the
Mediterranean. The Principate of the Early Empire included the Emperors from the Julio-
Claudian dynasty (27BC-68AD), the Four Emperors (68-69AD), the Flavian dynasty
Emperors (69-96AD), the Nerva-Antonine dynasty (96-192AD) and the Five Emperors (192-
193) and ended in 180AD which also marked the beginning of the Late Empire under the
Severan Emperors (193AD-235AD), the Barracks Emperors (235-284), Illyrian Emperors
(268-284), Gallic Emperors (260-274), Britannic Emperors (286-297). After the crisis of the
third century, the Dominate was established to include the rule of the Tetraches (293-313),
Constantinian dynasty (305-363), Valentian dynasty (364-392) and the Theodosian dynasty
(378-455). The Empire was divided into the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman
Empire in 395. In 476 the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by the
Germanic chieftain Odoacer.
Roman art spans many centuries of the pre-imperial and imperial cultures which at one time
or another lived under the political, financial or cultural supremacy of Rome. It thus includes
art practices from the city of Rome, various regions in Italy and Sicily as well as from various
provincial regions of the Empire such as the Southern Europe, Britain, Egypt, North Africa,
Levant and the Near East. It includes artworks executed in a variety of materials from both
the public and the private domain.
The culture and the art of the Etruscans was submerged into the art of the Romans, and
continued to inform it as documented in the writings of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. This is
also evident in many of the later Roman artworks. The examples of the legacy of Etruscan art
include the artworks made of bronze, particularly the bronze statuary. Pliny the Elder
lamented that in the first century AD the art of bronze making and the bronze statuary was in
decline, praising both the Greek artists and the Roman artists of the previous generations
(presumably the Etruscan artists) who excelled in this art. Indeed, our two images reproduced
below demonstrate a high quality workmanship of the bronze statuary by a Greek artist in the
5cBC Greece and by an Etruscan artist in the late 2cBC Rome.
LEFT: Greek art: Artist Unknown, The Charioteer of Delphi, bronze, c. 470BC
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Aulus Metellus, late 2cBC or early 1cBC, bronze, h.180cm, Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, Florence
26
See Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998; Reinhold, M, The Golden Age of
Augustus (Aspects of Antiquity) Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, 1978; Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive
Introduction, Princeton University Press, 1996; The Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of Augustus)
30
Similarly, the tradition of the fresco painting entered the Roman art through two main points
of contact – that with the Etruscan culture and that with the Greek culture. Both Vitruvius and
Pliny the Elder inform us about the Greek fresco and panel paintings brought to Rome upon
the fall of Corinth whilst Pliny the Elder also wrote about a continual stream of the looted
Greek artworks brought and publicly or privately displayed in Rome, although there is little
literary record about the display of the Roman artworks.
Some common characteristics of the Roman art can be identified despite relatively scarce
records about the display and use of many Roman artworks surviving to this day and despite
the variety of interests on part of the artists and patrons over the long period of time. Many of
these characteristics emerged with the emergence of the Roman Empire in the late first
century BC. They include verism, quasi-verism, illusionism, idealisation and the propaganda
imagery with the imagery of apotheosis and deification, allegory and decorative symbolism.
The painters working at various periods of the existence of the Roman Empire can also be
credited with their contribution to fresco and panel painting, the introduction of the themes of
landscapes, vistae and gardenscapes as well as still life and genre-scenes, the evolution of the
representations of a historical narration and an interest in cross-cultural traditions. The
Roman sculptors can be credited with the introduction of these same characteristics of the
Roman art into the renditions of the narrative relief and the treatment of the human figure in
the free standing sculpture. The architects developed many aspects of the Roman architecture
of which some can be seen as purely Roman inventions which include the arch and the dome
in terms of their adoption in the buildings and the basilica in terms of the use of architectural
spaces.27
Some of these characteristics of the Roman art are particularly evident in the works which
can be identified as privately commissioned art, whilst some other characteristics primarily
pertain to the artworks commissioned as public and/or official imperial art. As mentioned
earlier, Pliny the Elder in his Book XXXV, 10, said that in the past, amongst the Greeks, the
custom was not to decorate the walls of private houses with paintings. This is in contrast to
the then contemporaneous Roman practices. Indeed, it appears that the existence of the
private patronage of Roman art allowed for the birth of the concept that art can be made for
the citizens’ private use.
Private art
In observing Roman art a significant aspect of it remains hidden. Some such aspects are
simply not known to us through the artworks preserved. Panel painting was an important
aspect of Roman art as the literary evidence for this suggests. For example, both Vitruvius
and Pliny, talking about different artworks and for entirely different reasons, mentioned that
the Romans would cut the frescoes out of the walls, transport them from their original place
to Rome and display them in frames. Vitruvius also tells us about the rooms called
Pinacothecae which can be understood as rooms where panel paintings were displayed in
private houses and villas. Some fresco painting from Pompeii similarly indicates that indeed
the practice of panel painting was popular in the Roman art. One such example is the artwork
27
See Adam, J, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Indiana University Press, 1994; Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted
Construction in Imperial Rome, Cambridge University Press, 2005; MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire
I: An Introductory Study, Yale University Press, 1982; MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban
Appraisal, Yale University Press, 1986; Sear, F, Roman Architecture, Cornell University Press, 1989; Wilson-Jones, M,
Principles of Roman Architecture, Yale University Press, 2000
31
Artist Unknown, fresco, House of Lucretius Fronto, c.10BC
As mentioned earlier, most of the panel painting is lost, but some imagery executed as fresco
painting under the private patronage remains. Some imagery of the Roman fresco painting
strongly points to its Greek origins, even if no monumental Greek painting from the mainland
Greece survived to this day. Similarly, our comparison sample of the Roman painting is
somewhat limited to include almost exclusively the fresco decoration of the private villas in
Pompeii and neighbouring area from the time of the Early Empire but before 79AD, as these
are the only surviving examples of the Roman monumental painting in Italy itself. Some
other imagery of the Roman fresco painting is comparable to some of the imagery of the
Etruscan fresco painting. This is most evident in the subject matter. Whilst some Pompeian
imagery includes representations of mythological scenes resembling many examples of
renditions of such scenes in Greek vase painting particularly that of the late 5cBC, some other
imagery, particularly that which includes the representations of the genre scenes appear to be
referencing these themes in Etruscan art (known to us only as funerary painting, and known
to the Romans also as both the public and private art). One such example of the Roman genre
painting is the image reproduced on the next page which was executed as a fresco painting on
the wall of an inn and thus represents a favourite pass-time, a game of dice.
32
Artist Unknown, Game of dice, fresco, Osteria della via del Mercurio, Pompeii
A different kind of genre-painting was described by Pliny the Elder in the segment of his
book XXXV where he described the paintings of morally uplifting subject matter in contrast
to the paintings of a ‘lower’ subject matter for which he said that it commanded great
popularity. In his description of such scenes Pliny informs us about the paintings which
included villas and roads, men and women in boats and on the road, often represented in
conversation. One such example is the image reproduced below, a fresco from a Roman villa
in Pompeii.
Artist Unknown, fresco, House of the Small Fountain, detail, Pompeii
33
Among the genre themes of continual popularity in Roman art are the scenes of fishing and
hunting, both already adopted by the Etruscan funerary fresco painters in the 6cBC.
LEFT: Etruscan art: Artist Unknown, The Fowling and Fishing Tomb, fresco, Tarquinia, c.520BC
MIDDLE: Roman art: Artist Unknown, a fishing scene, mosaic, Antioch, 3cAD
RIGHT: Roman art: Artist Unknown, a fishing scene, mosaic, Villa del Casale, Piazza Armerina,
4cAD
The art practices of some other tribes in Italy such as the Lucanians may have similarly
contributed to the establishment and the later popularity of the renditions of the hunting scene
imagery in the Roman art.
Roman art: Artist Unknown, a hunting scene, mosaic, Villa del Casale, Piazza Armerina, 4cAD
LEFT AND MIDDLE: Roman art: Artist Unknown, a hunting scene, mosaic, Oudna, Tunis, 3-5cAD
RIGHT: Lucanian art: Artist Unknown, Departure of a Warrior, fresco, Lucanian tombs, Paestum,
3cBC
34
As Pliny himself tells us in his description of genre-painting as the ‘lower’ theme of painting,
this type of imagery contained representations of landscapes. In the Roman art, such
landscapes were also a theme in their own right. Particularly popular were those with
representations of the gardens as many frescoes from Pompeii attest.
Artist Unknwon, Garden, fresco, Villa di Livia, Primaporta near Rome, possibly late 1cBC
The images reproduced on this page are the images not from Pompeii but from Primaporta
near Rome, from the Villa di Livia, the house of Livia Drusila, the last wife of the first
Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus. It is believed that the house belonged to Livia before
her marriage to Augustus. This imagery was depicted on the walls of a room believed to have
been used as a dining room. It represents the eternal garden, as all the walls can be seen as
one continual painting of the different flowers in the simultaneous bloom, with various birds
flying around the garden. The painting of this garden also includes the image of an open cage
– apparently indicating the happiness and freedom which pervaded the garden. The frescoes
of the villa are very well preserved, possibly also because the house became a Christian
monastery in the later times and the imagery, interpreted in harmony with the Christian
beliefs, continued to be relevant.
35
Pierre Bonnard, Garden at midday, 1943
The image reproduced above is included here to demonstrate an obvious point: that of the
tradition of landscape painting – and particularly garden painting – as a legitimate subject
matter for many artists throughout art history. Such a context also indicates that our
perception of Modernism (and the twentieth century art) being based on the Impressionists’
revolutionary interest in the mundane is somewhat incomplete if the strong painterly
traditions of Roman art are excluded.
36
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Perseus rescues Andromeda from the sea monster, a fresco from the
Mythological Room of the so-called Imperial Villa, actually the Villa of Agrippa Postumus, at
Boscotrecase, painted after Agrippa’s death in 11BC, 159.39 x 118.75 cm, now in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, NY
MIDDLE: detail, Perseus arrives in his cloak and winged sandals, Andromeda chained to the rock,
sea-monster threatening to devour her
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Perseus frees Andromeda, mosaic, Zeugma, 3cAD
As mentioned earlier, one of the legacies of the traditions of Greek art in Roman art is the
interest by both the artists and the patrons in the mythological subject matter. Some other
aspects of the legacy of Greek art include the Roman artists’ referencing of Greek artworks,
discussed further in this volume.
The image reproduced above left (and middle – detail) is the painting found in the so-called
Villa Agrippa Postumus, a villa that was painted after the death of Marco Agrippa and which
belonged to his young son. Together with that from Villa di Livia, the painting program from
Villa Agrippa Postumus represents one of the finest examples of the secular and the private
art of the Early Empire. In comparison to the imagery found in many private villas and
residences in Pompeii, the style of these paintings is refined, whilst their subject matter
carries additional meanings – those of the noble and heroic pursuits, as befitting of the noble
and heroic family which dwelled here.
The popularity of this theme can be traced in many different aspects of the Roman arts over
the next centuries, both in the city of Rome itself as well as in the provinces, although it
maintained a particularly high degree of popularity in the East, together with many other
stories of the Greek mythology. Amongst such examples are the mosaics representing
Theseus and Ariadne and Narcissus and Echo respectively from Antioch, 3cAD, reproduced
below.
37
Amongst the themes which Vitruvius in the first century BC recommended as appropriate for
the fresco decoration in private dwellings was the theme of Ulysses’ travels. Indeed, some
fresco painting from Pompeii executed in either the late first century BC or the early first
century AD echoes this.
Artist Unknown, Ulysses and the Sirens, fresco, 1cBC- 1cAD, from Pompeii
The popularity of this Greek story as a theme in the visual arts continued well into the Late
Empire, as the image mosaic from Dougga, Tunis, 4cAD, reproduced below left,
demonstrates. A comparative image of a Greek vase of the same subject matter from the
5cBC is reproduced below right.
38
The Roman artists’ referencing of Greek artworks is evident in both the public imagery and
in many of the privately commissioned artworks. Many Greek sculptures, especially the
representations of the athletes, informed the Roman statuary, particularly the Imperial
statuary which was then used in either public or private spaces. Some Greek paintings are
similarly echoed in the Roman painterly traditions which include not only the fresco painting
but also the works executed in mosaic. Roman mosaics were mostly executed as floor
decorations28 and the imagery reproduced below is one such example. It directly replicates
the painting of the same subject matter executed in 4cBC by the Greek artist Philoxenos of
Eretria as Pliny the Elder informs us, or perhaps Apelles.
A copy of Philoxenos of Eretria (or perhaps Apelles), Alexander fighting the Persian king Darius III
at the Battle of Issus, the Alexander Mosaic, a Roman floor mosaic from the House of Faun in
Pompeii, late 1 – early 2 c AD, a copy of a fresco painting, today in Naples
28
See Dunbabin, K, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman world, Cambridge University Press, 2006
39
The wealth of the fresco decoration excavated in the Pompeii and the near-by Herculaneum,
Stabbiae, Boscoreale, Boscotrecase and other places in the region allowed for a scholarly
categorisation of the themes and the manner of execution of the works into the four styles of
Pompeian painting. The first style is characterised by the fresco painting replicating different
materials such as stone. The second style is characterised by the realistic depictions including
the genre scenes and the genre of still life. The third and fourth styles are characterised by
increased illusionism, with the fourth style introducing the partitioning of the wall surface
and the multiple – and sometimes not related and non-narrative – scenes as the subject matter.
In this period, additional subject matter was introduced – that of the gardens, which again
appear to reference an aspect of the Etruscan art as discussed earlier. Such a categorisation is
artificial in more ways than one. It is not applicable to the fresco decoration outside of
Pompeii, including the fresco program of the house of Octavian Augustus or that of the
Emperor Nero, of which some details are reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, the House of Augustus, Palatine Hill, Rome, c.30BC
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Nero’s Domus Aurea (Golden House), Palatine Hill, Rome, built after
the great fire of 64AD and before Nero’s death in 68AD
However, that what emerges as a common characteristic of the Pompeian and Roman fresco
painting is the construct which can be seen as one of the dominant characteristics of the
overall Roman art: verism. Verism is a term used to describe a realistic, true representation.
This construct can be taken further by the artists, as it was in the Roman art, to quasi-verism,
that is, to indicate the representations that appear realistic and true but are not. The image
reproduced on the next page in full and in detail can be seen as an illustration of the construct
of quasi-verism: the female figure and the balcony were painted on the wall in such a manner
that they appear as if they actually existed.
40
House of the Small Fountain, Pompeii
A consequence of this approach is illusionism, with the artists rendering their subject matter
in such a manner to create confusing trompe l’oeil unrealistic pictures. Vitruvius informs us
about the illusionism in the art of fresco painting of his own time in several passages. The
image reproduced below, although executed several decades after Vitruvius described this
type of a composition, can be seen as an illustration of his words.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, fresco, House of Publius Fannius Synistor, Boscoreale, near Pompeii
RIGHT: a detail of another fresco, Pompeii
41
Illusionistic quasi-realism can be identified in many artworks that were privately

commissioned and made for private use but it can also be seen as a characteristic of the
overall Roman art practice, particularly obviously in many imperial and public artworks. The
artwork reproduced below can be labelled illusionistic and quasi-realistic. The perspective
depicted in this vista is physically impossible. Judging from the skills the artist displayed in
the overall work, he appears to have been highly skilled in rendering the perspective, but
chose to render a combined result of employing several perspectives in a single artwork. His
reason for doing so was to present an image that would best convey the appeal of his subject-
matter thus exaggerating its attractiveness rather than simply rendering a view of the harbour.
Artist Unknown, A harbor town, fresco, probably 1cAD, Stabiae
Vitruvius also tells us of the origins and renditions of still life (VI, vii, 4), a genre not
mentioned by Pliny, but later, in the 3cAD or the 4cAD addressed by Philostratus the Elder in
his Eikones/Imagines. Vitruvius informs us that the genre of still life was invented by the
Greek artists of the Hellenistic times who would depict in their guest rooms bowls full of fruit
as an offering to a guest, much like the image from Pompeii reproduced below.
42
Philostratus the Elder described the genre of still life in two segments, one of which includes
a description of an artwork representing a still life and which replicates Vitruvius’
description. In another segment Philostratus the Elder described a different type of still life,
the imagery of game. A variation of this imagery was also known in the Pompeian fresco
painting, as demonstrated by the image reproduced below.
As mentioned, Vitruvius introduced the construct of still life (xenia) to the art historical
writing. Pliny, however, did not continue with writing about this genre. Instead, however, he
wrote in detail in XXXVI, 25, about the theme of asarotos oikos, Greek in name and
Hellenistic in origin, a floor mosaic tradition particularly developed by the Romans.29 This
genre is described as a theme of floor mosaics executed for the dining rooms in the private
dwellings because it represents the remnants of the food eaten at dinner parties and thrown on
the ground. Although Vitruvius mentions floor-making and floor-decorating, and particularly,
the manner of constructing the floors to accommodate the custom of throwing remnants of
the food on the dining room floors (Book VII, iv, 5), he appears to have not known of this
theme as a subject matter of the floor mosaics.
Asarotos oikos, mosaic, detail, Museo Gregoriano Profano

Artist Unknown, Symposium with the imagery of asarotos oikos, probably a wall mosaic, possibly
from the Eastern Mediterranean, Chateau de Boudri
29
See Dunbabin, K, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman world, Cambridge University Press, 2006
43
In the imagery of asarotos oikos the very characteristic of illusionism in Roman can be seen
in the fact that it is not quite clear what is represented as the insertion of a mouse in our
example to the left and the dog as well as the participants in the symposium in the image to
the right provide yet another illusion of the exact subject matter represented here. The very
construct of illusionism can be seen as one of the postulates at the core of the Roman art
altogether. For example, we can identify as ‘illusionistic’ some portraits, particularly those of
the Emperors30 or those of the philosophers (discussed further in this volume) which, even if
we might perceive them as realistic, in actual fact attempt to convey a particular message
through representations of the most desirable characteristics of the person portrayed. The
term ‘illusionism’ is applicable here because of the artworks’ distorting the audience’s
perceptions.
Verism, the realism in the arts taken to a high degree, is, by definition, a construct in
opposition to illusionism. Nevertheless, in much of the Roman art practice these two
constructs can often be displayed in the same artwork, as the reproduction below
demonstrates. Whilst on one hand this sculptural work appears to represent the actual
portraits of the sitters, the portraits of the ancestors could not have been made from life,
therefore only creating an illusion that they were.
Artist Unknown, A Roman patrician with busts of his ancestors, late 1cBC, marble, lifesize
It has been presumed that many such portraits were originally made as casts of the death
masks, as Pliny the Elder wrote. However, Pliny also tells us about the practice where a
family, in order to progress through the social ranks of the time, would attempt to establish
the genealogical lineage with another family with which in actual fact it had none. A similar
practice of veristic looking portraits can be seen in many imperial portraits,31 from different
eras, where the sitter would often be represented as physically resembling the previous
30
See Varner, E, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Brill, 2004l
Bianchi Bandinelli, R, Il problema del ritratto, in L'arte classica, Editori Riuniti, Rome 1984; Grant, M, The Roman
Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC — AD 476, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
1985
31
See Varner, E, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Brill, 2004
44
Emperor whist in fact in a large number of instances the two Emperors would not be related
by blood. It is important to note here that only a very small number of Roman Emperors were
the direct descendants of the previous Emperor.
An important characteristic of the Roman arts is also the decorative symbolism, developed by
the Roman artists, but as Pliny the Elder informs us32 believed to have been introduced to the
Roman art from the East, brought to Rome with the Roman conquests of the known world. It
was also known in some Greek art practices and often expressed as allegory. For example,
the Hellenistic art drew on the decorative symbolism not only in the visual arts but also in
literature, including poetry. In the visual arts this construct can be observed in a large number
of mosaics where even the decorative motifs often carry a story, 33 such as in the mosaic
representation of the Theseus killing the Minotaur reproduced below. The composition at the
centre is surrounded by a seemingly decorative motif which in fact represents the labyrinth.
Artist Unknown, Theseus and the Minotar, mosaic, Paphos, Cyprus, 3c
This practice achieved new usage in some aspects of Roman art, often replicating Hellenistic
imagery. Amongst such examples are the mosaics representing Four Seasons, a rather popular
subject matter in the city of Rome as well as in the provinces, over many centuries.34 The
imagery reproduced below are the 3cAD mosaics of this theme from Paphos, Cyprus (left)
and Acholla, Tunis (right).
32
HN, XXXVI
33
Dunbabin, K, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman world, Cambridge University Press, 2006
34
45
Artist Unknown, Eros and Psyche, from a bedroom in the Villa Romana del Casale, Piazza Armerina,
4cAD, mosaic
Although the imagery of Psyche may have a variety of connotations in the Roman art
practices, the story of Eros and Psyche is here used as a decorative motif. The two figures are
purely symbolic, representing the fact that this household enjoyed the support of the joyful
divinities.
The topic of mosaic in the writings of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder is important in several
different ways. Among other, the segments of the text by both the authors regarding the
mosaic also demonstrate the writers’ unawareness of a hierarchy between the applied arts and
the fine arts. Another example of this is Pliny the Elder’s writing of works made as applied
arts objects in the same breath as when he wrote about the artworks today considered within
the category of the fine arts.35 An analysis of the writings of Pliny the Elder identifies as an
important characteristic of his understanding of the applied arts works the luxury material of
which they are made. Luxury itself, luxuria, is one of the important constructs introduced by
Pliny the Elder into art historiography and although his use of this term is accompanied by his
moral stance against this all-pervasive ill of the Roman society of his time, the mere fact that
Pliny comes across as an expert in many matters involving fine materials establishes him as a
connoisseur in the field of applied arts practices and artworks of his time.
35
Pliny the Elder’s segmented paragraphs on applied arts are: textiles, HN XXXV 11, ceramics XXXV 12, metal objects
XXXIII 1, bronze objects XXXIII 2-3, XXXIV 1 – 3, gold objects XXXIII 2-3, silver objects XXXIII 8, 11-12, coinage
XXXIII 3, metal jewellery XXXIII 3 – 4, gems XXXIII 1 -2, glass XXXVI 26, mosaic XXXVI 25, stoneware XXXVI 8.
46
Public imagery
Artist Unknown, Cameo portrait of the Emperor Augustus, c.14-20AD, 12.8 x9.3cm, British Museum,
Strozzi and Blacas Collections
Engraved cameos and gems form part of the overall Roman art practices and in fact convey
many traditions of the Roman portraiture as well. The use of precious stones which are by
nature small in size remained as one of the traditions of the Roman art, a tradition which was
clearly established by the artists of the early Empire.
The cameo reproduced above represents the first Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus. The
wreath is a later addition to the artwork which only indicates the esteem in which the artwork
has been continually held. The stone used is sardonyx, a type of a multi-coloured precious
stone, whilst the dimensions of this artwork are small, requiring exceptional craftsmanship.
This portrait of the Emperor Augustus, as well as many other portraits of the same ‘sitter’ is
amongst the first such portraits that display some of the characteristics of the later Roman
imperial art: the quasi-veristic style used here to convey the idea of the divine nature of the
Emperor and the Empire itself. As the posthumously adopted son of Julius Caesar, Augustus,
a clever strategist, drew on his perceived Julian family lineage thus establishing the notion of
a ruling family - rather than just a ruling individual. This tradition was first modified only in
the second part of the 1cAD with the assent of the Emperor Vespasian who in turn
established his own dynasty.
It is believed that this artwork may have been executed either towards the end of Augustus’
life or even posthumously. An important characteristic to note here is the fact that Augustus
is represented as a young man. He most certainly did not sit for the portrait – and if he did he
would have been much older than the image that this portrait shows. Augustus will be
continually represented – both during his lifetime as well in the portraits executed after his
death – as eternally young. Another important characteristic of the portrait itself is the
manner in which his hair-do is represented. His short fringe harks back to the manner in
which many rulers of the Hellenistic times were represented, beginning with the imagery of
Alexander the Great.
47
The composition itself is executed in such a manner so as to best use the shape of the stone
and its qualities. Much like the artists of the Hellenistic times (for example, the portraits of
the rulers represented on the Hellenistic coins) as well as the Greek vase painters (for
example, Exekias’ vase of the Dionysus with the dolphins), the artist here uses the shape and
the size of the cameo to provide for the composition.
The image can be read in several ways. In this image whilst on one hand Augustus is
represented as similar to Alexander the Great, eternally young and of fine features, he is also
represented as a warrior. The aegis he is wearing, as shown in the image reproduced above,
is the very aegis that was a symbol of the goddess Athena in the Greek art. It was similarly
the symbol of Minerva, the Roman equivalent of Athena. Athena is associated with war and
battle and her aegis is a reminder of this characteristic of Athena. The aegis that Augustus is
wearing therefore on this portrait becomes a symbol of two things – one is Augustus’ military
strength, and the other is the association of Augustus with the goddess, thus alluding to
Augustus’ own divine nature.
Sardonyx used in this artwork is a naturally multi-coloured stone. The artist used this quality
of his material to bring out the portrait in relief against the dark background on the right side
of the image, and playing with the idea of the Emperor looking into the bright future. The
colouring of the portrait itself as well as the brightness of the stone on the left side of the
cameo further contributes to our reading of this image as a portrait of the Emperor who
emanates light, and who appears as divine by nature.
48
This fine craftsmanship and a clear message that the artist managed to convey in this portrait
can be compared to another cameo, this one made in onyx, which is significantly less detailed
and less finely executed.
Artist Unknown, Cameo, Livia with a bust of the Divus Augustus, onyx, 14AD, now in Vienna
This other, the onyx, cameo, represents August not as the man himself but as his portrait, in a
bust held by his last wife Livia Drusilla. The lesser quality of this other portrait is conditioned
by the two factors – one is that onyx does not allow for the fine gradation of colour like the
sardonyx does; and the other is the shift in focus in the second composition. The composition
represents not Augustus but his wife, Livia Drusila, and features the late Emperor only as a
symbol of Livia’s own power.
The same verism, and quasi-verism, characterises portraits of many later Emperors. Several
portraits of Emperors are reproduced on the next page. The portrait to the far left is a
representation of Vespasian, the Emperor who was reported to be hoping to be known for his
good work – and indeed his portrait conveys these characteristics. Some other Emperors
reportedly wished to be known as commanders and leaders, as is demonstrated in the
equestrian sculpture of Marcus Aurelius reproduced below, whilst some others were rendered
in a manner that includes the characteristics of their ethnicity. The portrait on the far right can
be seen as an example of illusionism in Roman sculpture as the Emperor Commodus is
49
rendered as Hercules, with all the attributes of this god-like hero contributing to the
Emperor’s obtaining an apotheosis not only after his death – as did the other Roman
Emperors – but during his lifetime.36
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Vespasian, c.75AD, marble, Museo delle Terme, Rome
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, 161-180 AD, bronze (originally gilded), h 350 cm,
formerly in the Piazza del Campidoglio, Rome
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Phillip the Arab, 244-49AD, marble, 71.1cm, Musei Vaticani, Braccia
Nuovo, Rome
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Commodus as Hercules, c.190AD, marble, h. 118cm, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Rome
Once this iconographic type of quasi-verism in portraiture was established, it has become a
continual feature of Roman art including that of the late antiquity and also informed the art
practices of the Early Christianity. The images reproduced below are some of the prime
examples of quasi-verism in portraiture of the late antiquity. The middle images are
reproductions of the portrait of the Emperor Constantine and this portrait formed part of his
colossal statue. Similarly colossal in appearance although not in actual size are the four
tetrarchs, the four rulers of the Roman Empire in its final phase. This last image demonstrates
how the artists began disposing of the quasi-realistic imagery in renditions of the individual
portraits and opting instead to represent the idea of the unity of the Empire by accentuating
the similarities in figures and portraits of the four otherwise very different men.
LEFT: Julian the Apostate, coin issued 361-363AD, gold, British Museum, London
MIDDLE IMAGES: Artist Unknown, Head of Constantine, marble, 305AD
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Tetrarchs – Two Augusti and two Caesars, porphyry, 305AD, now at the
San Marco, Venice
36 A different scholarly theory interprets this portrait as the Emperor in costume whilst performing a religious duty.
50
Quasi-verism, idealisation and the propaganda imagery can be traced back to the imagery of
the first Roman Emperor, Octavian Augustus. These characteristics are particularly evident in
the sculpture of Augustus found in Prima Porta near Rome, reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, Augustus of Prima Porta, possibly before 14AD, from Villa di Livia, Prima Porta
near Rome, possibly a marble copy of a bronze original approved by the Senate in 20BC
51
Several life-size statues of Augustus survivinf to this day indicate the existence of several
iconographic types. Among these is the type which represents the Emperor as a learned orator
(Augustus Togatus) and the type which represents him as the Pontifex Maximus. The
Augustus of Prima Porta is believed to be a marble copy of a bronze statue that the Roman
Senate agreed to have erected ion honour of the Emperor. It is also believed that Augustus
himself was particularly fond of its iconography. Given that he was born in 63BC and that the
sculpture was made after 20BC (and before 14AD) it becomes clear that the portrait of
Octavian Augustus represents him younger than was his actual age. Indeed, when several
other portraits of Augustus are compared, it transpires that Augustus was continually
represented as eternally young. Augustus is here represented in his military gear and striking
the ‘adlocutio’ pose. This, together with the fact that he is here represented barefoot, which is
the manner in which only gods were represented, alludes to the interpretation of this sculpture
as representing not the man himself but the ideal of the divine Emperor. The statue clearly
demonstrates to which extent the propaganda of the institution of the Emperor and
propaganda that related to Augustus as the Emperor was applied in the visual language of
Augustus’ era. He is represented with a small figure of Eros/Cupid on a dolphin next to his
right foot. This appears to be a symbol of Augustus’ lineage and his supposedly direct
genealogical link with the patron goddess of the Julian family, Venus Genetrix. The artwork
therefore should be read thus: Venus Genetrix was the goddess associated with Julius Caesar
and his family, and hence Augustus as Caesar’s adoptive son continued to receive the
blessing of the goddess.
Augustus’ portrait, executed separately and added to the figure, shows him as an intelligent
and refined man, in stark contrast to the representation of his athletic body. His youthful
image and his hair style refer back to the Hellenistic portraits and to the representations of
Alexander the Great. In observing the Augustus of Primaporta the evolution of verism into
quasi-verism can be followed. Although the portrait of Augustus appears realistic, some of
the facial features are exaggerated to indicate the Emperor’s character: strong will,
intelligence and kindness are some of the character traits that the artist rendered through this
portrait. In contrast, the body of the Emperor is rendered as very strong and athletic,
betraying the obvious Greek origins that include various athletes, as demonstrated in the
images reproduced on the next page.37
37
See Hallett, C, The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC - AD 300, Oxford University Press, 2005; Kleiner, D,
Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press, 1992
52
MIDDLE: Lysippos, Apoxyomenos, a Roman marble copy of the 4cBC original, Vatican
RIGHT: Polycleitus of Argos, Doriphoros, 450–440BC, a Roman marble copy of the bronze original.
Augustus is represented here raising his right hand in an act of addressing the Roman army.
This directly relates to the adlocutio pose of a person who is to begin to address the crowd.
Given that Augustus is represented in his military gear, including paludamentum, the drape of
the commander, and a cuirass, he is addressing a crowd of soldiers, his troops.
A brief visual comparison can be made here with a bronze statue of possibly Etruscan origin
of the orator Aulus Metellus.
53
Artist unknown, Aulus Metellus, late 2cBC or early 1cBC, bronze, h. 180 cm, Museo Archeologico
Nazionale, Florence, possibly Etruscan
Augustus of Primaporta, early 1cAD, marble, h. 203 cm, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuovo, Rome
The adlocutio pose of the Augustus of Prima Porta is further coded by his military gear and
cuirass, as the iconographic type of the Augustus Thoracatus. The decoration in relief of his
cuirass tells the story of the Roman diplomacy which stands for the strength of the Empire
and the Pax Romana that Augustus established. The relief of his cuirass represents the army
of Crassus captured by the Parthians, with the future Emperor Tiberius represented in a
diplomatic mission.
The statuary of the figures in cuirass was displayed in various public spaces in Rome as Pliny
the Elder wrote in his Book XXXIV saying that they were made of bronze and where he
named Julius Caesar as having allowed such a statue of himself to be erected in the Forum.
Pliny recognised this as a purely Roman custom in contrast to the Greek custom of sculptural
representations of the athletes always rendered in nude.
It is important to note here the appearance of another symbolic decorative element: the motif
of sphinx represented on the shoulder straps of the cuirass. Pliny the Elder wrote in detail
about a ring which Augustus wore. As per Pliny, during the civil war that followed after the
death of Caesar, Augustus used this ring, found amongst his mother’s jewellery and therefore
an old symbol of his family, as his seal. Pliny wrote about the existence of the two identical
rings – the one that Augustus wore, and the other that he kept in his office in Rome. Whilst
away at the times of war, he instructed his office to use the ring left in Rome as his seal, thus
54
maintaining an illusion that he was simultaneously away and present in the city of Rome. The
sphinx thus became his own symbol and the symbol of his family.
The portraits of Augustus’ (third) wife, Livia Drusilla, herself the mother and grandmother of
several later Emperors - Tiberius (adopted by Augustus by testament), Claudius, Caligula,
Nero - is similarly telling. As much as Augustus’ portraits served a purpose of the imperial
propaganda, Livia’s portraits established the iconography of the first, and the consecutive,
empresses.
Artist Unknown, Cameo, Livia Drusilla (Livia Augusta) with a bust of the Divus Augustus, onyx,
14AD, now in Vienna
Artist Unknown, Livia Drusilla as Ops, with wheat sheaf and cornucopia, marble, 1cAD
In her many portraits, over one hundred in number, Livia is represented in several
iconographic types. One of them is the image reproduced above. She is here represented not
only as eternally young but as the very goddess Ops herself, holding in her left arm a
cornucopia and the wheat sheaf in her right arm, disseminating wealth and prosperity to
everyone and everything. Livia’s portraits contributed not only to the establishment of the
perception of Augustus as divine – by association, all of her descendants amongst whom are
several later Emperors could hold claims to both the divine nature and the Empire itself.
The evolution of verism into quasi-verism as a characteristic of the Roman art can be
observed in the later imperial portraits. Although history tells us about Julius Cesar’s
nurturing of the cult of his own personality, it is only with Octavian Augustus, the first
Roman Emperor, that we can begin to observe this quasi-veristic rendition of the portrait – as
well as figure – of an Emperor. This very quality of Roman art gave birth to another
characteristic which was put in great use in many imperial artworks, that of the renditions of
55
apotheosis38 and deification of the Emperors. The gems and cameos of this subject matter
were amongst the first such representations in the early years of the Roman Empire and at the
time when such a visual language was only being established. By the mid-2cAD, such a
practice was well under way. The image reproduced below although originally only part of
the monumental artwork can be seen as an artwork in its own right. It clearly demonstrates
how this construct of illusionistic yet veristic quality of Roman art can be taken further, in the
rendition of the scene of apotheosis in a manner which appears to be realistic.
Artist Unknown, The base of the destroyed Column of Antoninus Pius (and Annia Faustina), the
Apotheosis scene, 161AD
This practice allowed for the liberal use of personification and allegory in Roman art. As
personification as a construct was of course an important aspect of Roman mythology and its
overall culture, Roman art by necessity replicated this in painting and in sculpture. The artists
created the visual characteristics of many new divinities inserted into the pantheon in an act
of the Roman cross-cultural imperialism. They also created a visual language to
accommodate the needs for representing various allegorical constructs, old and new, such as
the Truth, the Empire of Rome and so on.
Amongst such imagery are some of the scenes from the Augustan monument of The Altar of
Peace, Ara Pacis,39 such as that reproduced on the next page. The figures have been
identified by different scholars as representing different deities and allegories, such as the
Mother Earth, the personification of Italy or a Venus Genetrix. Despite our inability to fully
read this imagery, these allegories spoke clearly to their contemporaneous audiences.
38
In the late first century BC, Vitruvius mentions the apotheosis of Julius Caesar, Introduction, Book I
39
See Conlin, D, The Artists of the Ara Pacis: The Process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture, Studies in the
History of Greece and Rome University of North Carolina Press, 1997; Rossini, O, Ara Pacis, Electa, Milan, 2006
56
Artist Unknown, Ara Pacis Augustae (The Altar of Peace), 9BC. Eastern side: Tellus, or Mother
Earth, or a personification of Italy or a Venus Genetrix
Whilst the legacy of the Greek architecture in the Roman architecture has been recognised by
the architects of the time, the period of the Early Empire also set its own and new visual
language employed in architecture which was to convey the idealised characteristics of the
Empire itself.40 Vitruvius wrote in detail about the Greek origins of the three orders in
architecture and then used examples of these orders in both Greek and Roman architecture.
Indeed, the principles of the Greek architecture which include order, rhythm, symmetry and
harmony have provided the basis for the Roman architecture, in a manner similar to many
other aspects of Greek culture such as the mythology, ritual and cult (and spaces for
worship), as well as theatre (and its spaces) informing the Roman culture.
A brief visual comparison of the two images reproduced below, the Athenian Parthenon and
the Roman Pantheon clearly indicates the origins of the inspiration of the Roman architects.
40
See Adam, J, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Indiana University Press, 1994; Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted
57
A new architectural language of the new Empire41 can be seen in the series of images
reproduced on this page. A colleague and a friend of Augustus, Marcus Agrippa,42 upon
Augustus’ instructions, undertook to finance several large scale building projects in the city
of Rome as well as in the provinces. The surviving buildings that Agrippa sponsored include
the first Pantheon in Rome (of which only the façade remains), a temple in Nimes, France,
known as the Maison Carree, both following the pattern of the Parthenon in Athens albeit in
different ways, and the theatre in Emerita Augusta, now the town of Merida in Spain.
Amongst the common characteristics of these buildings, despite the differences in their use
and hence their plans, are the adherence to architectural order and their monumentality. These
very characteristics will form part of much of official imperial art for the duration of the
Empire.
Marco Agrippa, as the patron of a public building, Maison Carree, Nimes, France, 16BC
Marco Agrippa, as the patron of a public building, The Roman Theatre in Mérida, (Emerita Augusta),
Spain, 16-15BC
41
Adam, J, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Indiana University Press, 1994; Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted
42
See Reinhold, M, Marcus Agrippa: A Biography, W. F. Humphrey Press, Geneva, 1933; Roddaz, J, Marcus Agrippa,
École Française de Rome, Rome, 1984; Shipley, F, Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome, Washington University, St. Louis,
1933; Mottershead, G, The Constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West, University of Melbourne, 2005
58
Chapter III
Themes and contexts: portrait, figure, arch

This chapter examines the themes and contexts of Roman art by looking at specific ideas
introduced, or developed, by the Roman artists. These include Roman portraiture and the
renditions of figure as they appear in painting, narrative relief and sculpture, and the
application of arch, and consequently the use of dome, in the Roman architecture. In this
manner, this chapter constitutes a brief overview of some of the characteristics of Roman art
as signalled by the art historiographers of antiquity.
In examination of the art history constructs introduced or developed by the Roman artists the
first point of analysis is the context of the artworks and the manner in which they were
displayed or used. Perhaps the most reliable literary source on the manner in which the
artworks were displayed in Rome in the period before and during the first century AD is
Pliny the Elder.
It is important to bear in mind that much of the Roman painting and sculpture is often directly
related to the architecture within which it is displayed and that therefore literary sources often
also convey an indirect reference or description of the architectural environments of the
works discussed. Other than Vitruvius, the other literary sources do not deal explicitly with
architecture, with an exception of some texts by Pliny the Elder (as discussed in the first
chapter of this volume). Despite many efforts of many generations of scholars, the exact
manner in which some of the artworks were created, displayed or used cannot always be
reconstructed. However, the possible reconstruction of the manner in which any one of the
artworks was displayed and used informs our reading of these artworks. One such example is
the image reproduced below, the interior of the house of the first Roman Emperor Octavian
Augustus.
Artist Unknown, the House of Augustus, Palatine Hill, Rome, c. 30 BC

The pictorial interior decoration obtains additional meaning when understood as having
belonged to the first Roman Emperor. The reading of this imagery is comparable to the
reading of the imagery from some other, later imperial dwellings43 such as the Golden House,
the Emperor Nero’s imperial palace in Rome; the Emperor Hadrian’s villa in Tivoli; or the
villa of the Emperor Galerius in Felix Romuliana, Gamzigrad, all reproduced on the next
pages.
43
Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine, Prentice Hall, 2005
59
Artist Unknown, the Emperor Nero’s Domus Aurea (Golden House), Palatine Hill, Rome, built after
the great fire of 64AD and before Nero’s death in 68AD
Artist unknown, Tragedy and Comedy, from the Emperor Hadrian’s villa, Tivoli (Rome), c.120 – 130,
h.74.6cm
60
Artist Unknown, Dionysus, the mosaic from the palace of the Emperor Galerius in Felix Romuliana
(Gamzigrad), c.290-300
Over the period of some three hundred years, the imperial art in a private environment
demonstrates different qualities. A similar evolution in art practices over the long period of
the Roman Empire can be observed on much of official architecture, statuary and painting. It
can also be seen in both the publicly displayed artworks and those commissioned by private
patronage.
Of particular interest here are two characteristics of these artworks. One is the continual
referencing of Greek imagery in the subject matter as well as some aspects of execution. The
other is the introduction of purely Roman inventions. One such introduction is the art of
61
portraiture. The Roman artists adhering to the Greek art traditions and referencing their works
evolved into direct copying of many Greek artworks, particularly the Greek statuary executed
both for a public display as well as under private patronage. Indeed, the rendition of a full
figure in Roman sculpture has its origins in Greek sculpture, as is evident from the existing
sculpture and Roman replicas of the Greek statuary, as well as from the descriptions by the
literary sources of antiquity including Pliny the Elder. In fact, Pliny dedicated substantial
chapters of his books XXXIV and XXXVI and some segments of his books XXXIII and
XXXV to statuary and drew a direct connection between the Greek sculptors and the Roman
artists, including the copyists.
Cross-cultural traditions manifest in Roman art are many. They are particularly obvious in the
renditions of religious imagery, such as the renditions of deities outside of the Roman
pantheon (including personifications and allegories) and which in addition to the Greek
references include Egyptian and other popular cults. These traditions are similarly
particularly evident in the Romanisation of the imagery particularly in the local cults in the
Roman provinces. This cross-cultural quality of Roman art, which grew with the expansion
of the Empire to include many and varied barbarians, is actually at the core of the Roman art.
It can be argued that the absorption of cross-cultural traditions began with the incorporation
of the Etruscan, Greek and Hellenistic art traditions at the time of the Republic and that this
practice continued for the duration of the Empire.
Among the secular artworks created or copied for public display were those displayed in the
baths, in the gardens and in the libraries. Vitruvius wrote in Book VII, v,6, about the custom
amongst the Greeks to publicly display the statues of the athletes in their palestrae, the stadia
and the gardens surrounding the spaces for athletic practice and contests. Pliny the Elder
(XXXIV) informs us about particular Greek statues of the athletes displayed in the Roman
baths. The origins of such statues can be traced back to at least 5cBC and the imagery of the
athletes dedicated in places where the contests were held such as those found in Olympia.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Charioteer of Delphi, found in the Temple of Apollo, 474BC – the winner in
the chariot race at the Pythian games, dedicated to Apollo by Polyzanus, the tyrant of Gela in Sicily,
bronze, now in the Delphi Museum
MIDDLE LEFT: Lysippos, Apoxyomenos, a Roman marble copy of the 4cBC original in bronze,
Vatican
MIDDLE RIGHT: Polycleitus of Argos, Discophoros, 450–440BC, a Roman (marble) copy of the
bronze original, British Museum
RIGHT: Polycleitus of Argos, Diadoumenos, 450–440BC, a Roman (marble) copy of the bronze
original, Athens
62
In his book XXXIV Pliny the Elder wrote that Marco Agrippa erected the Greek statue of
Apoxyomenos by Lysippos in front of the baths, but that the Emperor Tiberius appropriated it
and had it moved to his palace. Upon a public outcry in the theatre, the Emperor returned the
statue to its place of the public display in Rome. Several passages in HN demonstrate Pliny’s
disagreeing with Emperors’ appropriating artworks and instead suggesting a Greek model of
their display in public spaces and for public use. Such passages include paintings as well as
statuary – in book XXXV Pliny wrote of the most famous of the Greek painters including
those of Hellenistic times who were reportedly satisfied to live modestly and who created
artworks displayed not in their own dwellings but in public spaces and for public use. The
Greeks thus, wrote Pliny, considered all artworks communal.
Some other spaces of public display of the statuary in Rome were the gardens, built,
decorated and maintained by the visionary and learned men. Amongst such gardens in Rome
were those of Sallust and the gardens of Lucullus later renamed the gardens of Asiaticus,
Horti Asiatici (also known by its later name of the Villa Borghese). Pliny the Elder
mentioned that some statuary by Praxiteles as well as by some other sculptors was displayed
in the Servilius’ Gardens (HN, XXXVI)
Gardens of Sallust, Horti Sallustiani, 1cBC

Artist Unknown, Cupid riding a dolphin possibly the decoration of a large nymphaeum, Gardens of
Lucullus, Horti Lucullani, 60BC
The statuary of a different subject, the busts of philosophers and writers, was often displayed
in the Roman libraries which again could be either public or private. The libraries of the
Forum in Rome contained Greek and Latin titles, with the other public libraries housed in the
Porticus Octaviae and the Bibliotheca Ulpiana. Amongst the private libraries, literary sources
including Pliny the Elder mention several collectors such as Lucullus. The only private
Roman library containing books in Greek and Latin which survived to this day albeit in a
sorry state was the so-called Villa dei Papyri in Herculaneum, buried under volcanic ashes
since the eruption of Vesuvius in 79AD and discovered over 250 years ago. However, it is
interesting to note that this library contained statuary representing various athletes - and not
that representing many philosophers. Nevertheless, the imagery of philosophers was popular
in Roman art not only within such settings (as reproduced on the next page, left), but also as
imagery used in applied arts objects (as reproduced on the next page, right), as both Vitruvius
and Pliny the Elder inform us.
63
Artist Unknown, Epicurus, Roman copy of the Greek original, 3/2cBC, marble, British Museum
Artist Unknown, Statuette of a philosopher on a lamp stand, Early Imperial, Augustan, late 1cBC,
bronze, Metropolitn Museum of Art, NY
Pliny the Elder in his book XXXV, writing about the (painted) portraits, wrote about the
custom of his own times to publicly display the busts of distinguished people, and lamented
that the idealisation of the facial features in such portraits (with a particular emphasis on the
portraits of the Epicureans) rendered the philosophers indistinguishable one from another. It
is interesting to note that Vitruvius too in his Book IX, Introduction, 16 and 17, mentioned
the importance of rendering such portraits as in that manner the following generations were
able to imagine the characters of the great writers and philosophers of antiquity. Pliny the
Elder further listed busts or figures of philosophers amongst the works created by a number
of sculptors.
64
The copying of the Greek statuary also opens up the question of the unlimited mass
production of some of the Roman artworks (executed as either fine arts or applied arts works)
in contrast to the construct of the uniqueness of every artwork. Another question opened here
relates to the question of the decorative quality and decorative value of artworks as one of the
primary criteria of the private patronage of the arts in ancient Rome. Pliny the Elder in his
various segments on applied arts dispersed across his Historia Naturalis emerges as a
connoisseur of the luxury goods which include metal (gold, silver, bronze) objects, glass and
stone objects as well as gems, cameos and rings, informing his readers in his book XXXVII
of the first privately owned dactylotheca in Rome and several other such collections on
permanent or temporary public display.
Similarly, Pliny informs us of several other traditions of the publicly displayed artworks of
which there is little archaeological evidence. These include the segments of the text in his
book XXXV about the display of the triumphal paintings, historic compositions and the
paintings of battles. The display of this subject matter appears to be a uniquely Roman
tradition which would have tied in well with the traditions of the Roman imperial art and the
imperial visual language.
Portrait
The art of portraiture, as numerous examples of vase painting and sculpture demonstrate, was
introduced to the Euro-centric art traditions by the Greek artists and then evolved in
Hellenistic times, culminating in various later renditions of the portrait of Alexander the
Great and of his epigones. However, in the Roman art the art of portraiture obtains broader
popularity and renders itself to a variety of uses.44
In painting, portraits of ordinary people were executed as wall paintings in private villas,
houses and shops, with the earliest such examples surviving to this day dated to the very
beginning of the first century AD. Such portraits may have developed from the tradition of
executing portraits as clypei, as Pliny the Elder described them in his Book XXXV where he
wrote about painting. Clypei were medallion-like metal spheres – and Pliny maintained that
their origins were in shields used in battle – that carried the portrait of a man to whom it
belonged. The same author informs us that the clypei were exhibited at the entrance halls of
the Roman houses. Pliny omits to specify at what time this custom was introduced and when
it was abandoned. In Greek art, various depictions of the decorated shields in vase painting
include the imagery painted or otherwise rendered on the shields – however, such shields
usually carried a symbolic representation, rather than a portrait. From the shields, the Roman
portraiture is believed to have evolved to include bas-relief portraits in medallions which,
Pliny wrote, were not displayed on the walls but on stands, replicating a free-standing
sculpture.
What differentiates the Roman portraiture from the Greek portraiture is the already
mentioned characteristic of Roman art, verism. As discussed earlier, in both sculpture and
painting, verism can also be manifest as quasi-verism and as illusionism. This process is
particularly evident in many examples of the imperial and official publicly displayed
portraiture.
44
Bianchi Bandinelli, R, Il problema del ritratto, in L'arte classica, Editori Riuniti, Rome 1984
65
Imperial imagery and portraiture
The origins of the imperial portraiture are easily traced to the first Emperor, Octavian
Augustus and several of his portraits in which the idea of representing the Emperor as a god
first emerges in the Roman art. Each era, each dynasty and each Emperor from then onwards
continued to use the same visual language established by the portraits of Octavian Augustus
which then evolved into specific characteristics of the official imperial portraiture of
particular eras. The imperial portraiture of the Iulio-Claudian dynasty provided a model on
which the other models built their own imagery, namely the official portraiture of the
Flavian, Nervan-Antonian, Severian dynasties, the portraiture of the crisis of the third century
and the portraiture of the Dominate and the Tetrarchy and that of Constantine.45 Within these
eras the art of portraiture also included the female imperial portraits.
The imperial portraiture of the Iulio-Claudian dynasty had as its predecessor the portraiture of
Hellenistic times, particularly that of Alexander the Great46 which continued to be
widespread and served as a model for the portraits of his epigones as well as the portraiture
on coinage. An example of such referencing is the comparative imagery reproduced below.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Cameo portrait of the Emperor Augustus, c. AD14-20, sardonyx, 12.8 x 9.3
cm, British Museum, Strozzi and Blacas Collections
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The Gonzaga Cameo, Alexander and his mother Olympia? a capita jugata
portrait, 3cBC, Indian sardonyx, 15,7 x 11,8 cm, the Hermitage
Although it is not clear if the image on the right indeed represents Alexander the Great or a
different ruler, it is usually considered to be his posthumously made portrait. Alexander’s
many portraits executed in a variety of materials continued to be produced over several
centuries and served as a model of identifying the ruler with a divinity. Ever since his
legendary visiting the temple of Amun in Egypt Alexander became associated with Zeus and
was often represented in coinage with the horns of Amun, that is, identified as of divine
nature. This imagery continued to be reproduced, with the horns of Amun sometimes
changed into a different headgear, often representing Alexander with the skin of the Nemean
lion thus identifying him with Herakles. Many Hellenistic rulers across the Mediterranean
continued with this practice in an attempt to identify their own rule and that of their
dynasties, with Alexander’s divine rule. This very model re-emerged as the one upon which
the visual language of the Early Empire could be built, re-introducing the construct of the
45
Grant, M, The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC — AD 476, Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York, 1985
46 Kleiner, D, Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1992
66
representations of the Emperors as gods and their apotheosis. Amongst such imagery are the
artworks reproduced on this page representing Emperors in the moment of apotheosis. The
imagery reproduced on the next page, above left, shows the Emperor Lucius Verus in his role
of a priest Arval, the honour which is believed to have also been granted to his co-emperor
Marcus Aurelius. The image on the next page to the right represents The Emperor Commodus
as Hercules, which was, as Dio Cassius reported in book 73, one of the emperor’s own favourite
iconographic types for his portraits.
Artist Unknown, Gemma Augustea, Deification/ Apotheosis of the Emperor Augustus, 9-12 AD, two-
layered onyx.
Artist Unknown, Great Cameo of France, five-layered sardonyx cameo, Emperor Tiberius, mid-first
century AD, 31 x 26, 5 cm
Artist Unknown, The apotheosis scene on the base of the destroyed Column of Antoninus
Pius (and Annia Faustina), 161AD
67
Artist Unknown, The Emperor Lucius Verus as Arval, c. 160 AD

Artist Unknown, The Emperor Commodus as Hercules, c. 190 AD, marble, h. 118 cm, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Rome
The imperial portraiture, however, like much of Roman art, was prone to adopting verism, in
the process becoming quasi-veristic portraits,47 as the imagery reproduced below
demonstrates. The Emperor Vespasian (to the left) is here represented as a wise, honest and
benevolent ruler whilst the portrait of the Emperor Phillip the Arab (to the right) visually
indicates the ruler’s cultural background.
Artist Unknown, The Emperor Vespasian, c.75AD, marble, Museo delle Terme, Rome
Artist Unknown, Phillip the Arab, 244-249AD, marble, Musei Vaticani, Braccia Nuovo, Rome
47
Walker, S, Greek and Roman Portraits, British Museum Press, London, 1995
68
The imperial portraits of the Flavian dynasty include the members of the family of the
Emperor Septimius Severus, here represented as equal with his wife and accompanied by his
two sons, Caracalla and Geta. As Caracalla later killed his brother Geta, the portraits of Geta
were scraped off all the imperial imagery condemning his image to the damnatio memoriae.48
Artist Unknown, Tondo, the family of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus, 199 – 201, tempera on
board, 30, 5 cm
Another group imperial portrait represents the Emperors as a unified family of the four
tetrarchs, as the imagery below shows.
Artist Unknown, The four Tetrarchs, porphyry, 305 AD, now at the San Marco, Venice
48
Varner, E, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Brill, 2004
69
Pliny the Elder in his Book XXXIV wrote about colossal statues only in relation to those
made of bronze and as those where the subject was a divinity, and mentioned the colossal
statue of the Emperor Nero which was soon turned into the colossus representing the Sun god
instead of that representing the Emperor. After several successive centuries such bronze
colossal portraits re-emerged in the stone imperial portrait of Constantine the Great which
survived to this day.
Artist Unknown, Head of Constantine, marble, 305AD
Another passage in HN, in Book XXXIV, indicates the existence of a different tradition also
employed in the imperial portraits – that of the equestrian portraiture, again in bronze. It is
important to note here that in this passage Pliny the Elder traced back this tradition to the
Etruscan artists and to the pre-Republican Rome, and also included mentions of those
equestrian statues erected in honour of several women. The tradition of the bronze equestrian
statue survived in the public representation of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 2cAD
reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, Marcus Aurelius, 161-180 AD, bronze (originally gilded), h 350 cm, formerly in the
Piazza del Campidoglio, Rome
70
A similar evolution of the art of the official Roman portraiture can be followed in the female
imperial portraits, beginning with the Livia Drusilla, Augustus’ third wife, herself the mother
and grandmother of several later Emperors: Tiberius, adopted by Augustus by testament,
Claudius, Caligula and Nero.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Livia Drusilla as Ops, marble, Roman artwork, 1c AD

RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Bust of Livia Drusilla, basalt, c.31AD, the Louvre
As much as the portraits of the Emperor Octavian Augustus served as a model for the public
official portraits of successive Emperors, the portraits of Livia Drusila provided a model for a
number of the female imperial portraits.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Agrippina the Younger, the wife of Emperor Claudius and the mother of the
Emperor Nero
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Claudia Octavia, daughter of Emperor Claudius and the first wife of the
Emperor Nero
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Poppea Sabina (the Younger), previously the wife of the later Emperor Otho,
the second wife of the Emperor Nero
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Statilia Messalina,, the third wife of the Emperor Nero
71
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Domitia Longina, the wife of the Emperor Domitian
MIDDLE LEFT: Artist Unknown, Pompeia Plotina, the wife of the Emperor Trajan
MIDDLE: Artist Unknown, Vibia Sabina, the wife of the Emperor Hadrian
MIDDLE RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Faustina the elder, the wife of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, the
mother of the Emperess Faustina the Younger
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Faustina the Younger, the daughter of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius
and Faustina the Elder, the wife of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the mother of the Emperor
Commodus
Artist Unknown, Julia Domna, the (Punic/Arabic) wife of the Emperor Septimius Severus and the
mother of the Emperor Caracalla, also represented on the tondo of the family of the Emperor
Septimius Severus, with their sons Caracalla and Geta, 199 – 201, tempera on board, 30, 5cm
The dignity and the virtue that these portraits display evolved into the divine like
representations of the empress in some imagery. One such example is the imagery of Salustia
Orbiana or Barbia Orbiana, the wife of the Severian Emperor Alexander, believed to be
portrayed as the Venus Felix, as indicated by the inscription on the pedestal. This image is
72
Artist Unknown, Venus Felix with a portrait possibly of Salustia Orbiana or Barbia Orbiana, the wife
of the Severian Emperor Alexander
73
Private art and portraiture

As mentioned earlier, Pliny wrote that the Roman custom of making and displaying portraits
and busts of ancestors became very popular since before the first century AD, as also evident
in the imagery reproduced below.
Artist unknown, Aulus Metellus, late 2nd century BC or early 1st century BC, bronze, h. 180 cm,
Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence
Artist Unknown, A Roman patrician with busts of his ancestors, late 1st century BC, marble, lifesize,
Museo Capitolino, Rome
The art of the Roman private dwellings and villas replicate this tradition of portraiture
executed for the private patronage but also includes some of the characteristics of the official
imperial art.49 One of these traditions can be seen in the imagery reproduced below which
represents a legendary portrait of Alexander the Great in an iconography already identified as
one of the origins of the imperial portraiture.
Artist Unknown, Alexander fighting the Persian king Darius III at the Battle of Issus, the Alexander
Mosaic, a Roman floor mosaic, detail, from the House of Faun in Pompeii, late 1 – early 2 c AD, a
copy of a fresco painting by Philoxenos of Eretria (Pliny), today in Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Naples
49 Ling, R, Roman Painting, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991
74
The other of these traditions can be seen in the imagery of veristic or quasi-veristic portraits
of the patrons, often the owners of the spaces where the fresco decoration was executed, as
the imagery reproduced below demonstrates.
Artist Unknown, A baker and his wife, 1cAD, fresco, 48.9 x 41 cm, wall painting from Pompeii,
Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples
Artist Unknown, Portrait of a Young Woman, Pompeii, Region VI, Insula occidentalis
This tradition of the quasi-veristic portraits can be seen within several categories of the
Roman portraiture commissioned by private patronage. One such category is that of the
imaginary portraits where the existing iconographic types can be identified. For example, the
portraits reproduced below are those of the divine and mythological characters rather than the
portraits of the actual sitters, yet they indeed appear as portraits in Roman art.
Artist Unknown, Dionysos with kantharos and Maenad, 1cAD, fresco from Herculaneum
Artist Unknown, Satyr head, fresco from the house of the Vettii, Pompeii
75
In Roman art, iconographic typology used instead of portraiture from life is not necessarily
related to the representations from mythology. Instead, it can often represent a take on
historicism and have a secular subject, as demonstrated in the image reproduced below which
represents the Roman poet Virgil several centuries after his death on a mosaic found several
thousand kilometres away from Rome.
Artist Unknown, The Virgil Mosaic, Sousse, Tunis, 3cAD, and the detail of the same mosaic
In stark contrast to such imaginary portraits are those that appear to be of the actual sitters.
Artist Unknown, Portrait painted on glass, part of a mirror, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples
Amongst these are the portraits reproduced above and on the next page. It is particularly
worthwhile noticing that a number of such portraits were executed in medallions, referencing
the imagery of the clypei as described by Pliny the Elder.
76
Artist Unknown, Profile portrait of a woman, 1cBC-1cAD, fresco from Stabiae or Herculaneum,
52x39cm, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples
Artist Unknown, Portraits in medallions, fresco from the house of Orpheus, Pompeii, 1cBC-1cAD
77
Figure
The figure in Roman art can be rendered in painting as well as in sculpture and relief, when it
sometimes forms part of the sculptural decoration of a piece of architecture. It is interesting to
note that some pieces of architecture, such as the victory columns, were erected with no other
function than that to convey the story of a historical event, of relevance to the erection of that
monument, through the monument’s sculptural decoration and its narrative relief. In the
history of Greek art the phenomenon of statuary being directly dependent on the architecture
and related to it can be seen in many monuments of the pre-Classical and Classical period. In
the Roman art, it can be said that the role of some architecture, such as the victory columns,
can be seen in reverse, as serving the unique purpose of only displaying the sculpture.50
The representation of figure in Roman art is directly related to several other constructs –
those of movement, narration and composition. In this chapter, the figure in Roman art is
observed in relation to its use in Roman art and the Roman artists’ appropriating the Greek
imagery; in terms of individual and free-standing display and in terms of the group
compositions. It is also observed in terms of the compositions where the relationship between
the figure and its space, including landscape, and its relationship to the frame of the
composition are examined. All of these constructs are specific to the Roman art practices and
although some such ideas can be seen in some vase painting of the Classical period in Athens
or indeed in some of the art practices of the Hellenistic era, these constructs obtain their full
embodiments only in the Roman art.
The awareness on the part of the Roman artists of the surface of the picture – be the picture
rendered as a painting, a mosaic, or a relief – allows for complex and telling compositions.
This can be seen in the narrative relief where the awareness on the part of the Roman artists
of their audiences and the most favourable point of observing an artwork is evident. Pliny the
Elder wrote about this phenomenon in several different passages of HN on the arts. In one
such instance in the book XXXVI, he indirectly addressed the issue of the display of the
artworks in Rome when he described some sculpture, erected as acroteria of the Pantheon of
Agrippa, saying that these artworks, although as good as any other sculpture, did not get
enough recognition because of the position of this statuary on the rooftop. The awareness of
the Roman artists of the demands of their compositions is the first such example in art history
in the art of monumental painting and mosaic, whilst in sculpture some precedents can be
seen in some works by the Hellenistic sculptors. However, given the lack of knowledge of the
manner in which such Hellenistic statuary might have been displayed, the Roman artists,
including sculptors, can indeed be credited with introducing the construct of a framed
composition. By this is meant the framed composition as a characteristic of painting, mosaic
and the narrative relief as well as of free standing sculpture in terms of the manner of its
display.
The origins of the rendition of figure in Roman art can be traced back to some of the art
practices of the Etruscans. Of particular importance here are the materials used in rendering
the free standing sculpture. Amongst the legends of the origins of Rome was the legend, also
told by Pliny the Elder (XXXV), that a particular tribe of the Etruscans were the descendents
of the Greeks from Corinth who came to the Italian soil and brought the art of bronze-making
and vase-making, long-lost, as he said, in his own time of the first century AD. Indeed, the
50
78
image of the Capitoline wolf and the Chimera of Arezzo demonstrate the ability of the
Etruscan artists to render complex figures and cast them in bronze. Etruscan art also provided
for some of the terracotta statuary, as described by Pliny the Elder (in particular the acroteria
still in use in Rome at the time of Pliny), as well as by Vitruvius a century earlier. It is
therefore not surprising that amongst the earliest statuary of the Republican Rome is the
bronze sculpture of Aulus Metellus, possibly executed by an Etruscan artist who was
confident enough to represent the movement, confident in his skills over the material and
capable of casting such a beautiful rendition of movement in the adlocutio pose. The
counterbalance to the bronze statuary is provided by the imagery of the Roman patrician with
the busts of his ancestors executed in stone. It is important to note here that the artist resorted
to the props in order to achieve a balance in his composition – and indeed, the use of props in
the rendition of movement not only in sculpture but also in painting can be recognised as one
of the characteristics of the renditions of figure in Roman art.
As mentioned earlier, much of the Greek statuary as well as many of the Greek fresco and
panel paintings were brought to Rome in various ways over a period of several centuries.
Pliny the Elder wrote extensively about the imagery that could be seen in Rome in his time
and which was there transported from its place of origin. Many of these images were further
copied in a variety of materials and through these copies continued to inform the Roman art
practices over the long period.51Amongst such examples are the images reproduced on this
page as well as those reproduced on the next page where the appropriation of the imagery of
the Greek statues of the athletes can be observed in the renditions of the first imperial full
figure portraits.
LEFT: Roman marble copy after a bronze original c.450BC by Myron, Diskolobos (Discus Thrower)
RIGHT: Roman marble copy after a bronze original c.450-440BC by Polykleitos, Dorphoros (Spear
bearer), 200cm
51
See Hallett, C, The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC - AD 300, Oxford University Press, 2005; Kleiner, D,
Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press, 1992
79
LEFT Roman marble copy of bronze original c.350-340BC by Praxiteles, Aphrodite of Knidos,
MIDDLE: Roman marble copy of bronze original c.340 BC by Praxiteles, Hermes and the infant
Dionysos, from the Temple of Hera, Olympia, Greece, 220cm
RIGHT: Roman marble copy of bronze original c.330 BC by Lysippos, Apoxyomenos (scraper),
Artist Unknown, Augustus of Prima Porta, possibly before 14AD, from Villa Livia, Rome, possibly a
marble copy of a bronze original approved by the Senate in 20BC
80
The obvious direct referencing the Greek statuary is also evident in the use of contraposto in
the figure of Augustus of Primaporta. This very stance is to be copied not only in various
other imagery of the free standing sculpture but also in the imagery that was painted.
Similarly, it was to be put in great use in the renditions of the seated figure, in both the
statuary and in the painted compositions.
The origins of the representations of the standing female figure can be traced back to the
imagery of the xoanon of the Artemis of Ephesus. Indeed, the popularity of the imagery
continued throughout the duration of the Roman Empire and throughout the borders of the
expanding Empire, as documented by many statuettes found in the diverse parts of the
Empire.52 Some of the imagery inspired by the traditions of the xoanon includes the
representations of female deities in the Greek art of the Classical period, including the image
in Roman copy reproduced below.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Artemis of Ephesus, 1cAD, Roman copy of the cult statue of the Temple of
Ephesus
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Venus Ludovisi, Restored Roman copy of Praxiteles Cnidus Aphrodite,
(4cBC), marble, now in Rome (restored elements: head, arms, legs and support: drapery and vase)
The static quality of such sculpture is often repeated in the imagery of the goddesses in the
Roman art, most particularly in the renditions of the Venus Genetrix represented in a
restrained movement. The iconographic type of a nude Aphrodite in the imagery of the Venus
Ludovisi served as a prototype for the evolution of the imagery of the Venus Genetrix, the
patron goddess of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and, through this dynasty, of all Rome.
Representations of nude were not uncommon in Greek sculpture. However, much of the
statuary of the Classical period of the Greek sculpture mostly related to the representations of
the male nude as the athletes. This is in contrast to some of the Hellenistic sculpture, where
some divinities, particularly the lesser divinities were rendered nude.53 In Roman art this
transition was extended to include a variety of (high rank) female divinities, with the
precedent also set with the imagery of the Venus Genetrix, represented as a female figure
semi-clad in a see-through drape.
52
Kleiner, D, Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1992; Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art: Romulus to
Constantine, Prentice Hall, 2005
53
81
Artist Unknown, Venus Genetrix, Pentelic marble, Roman copy after a Greek original of the 5cBC
It is important to note here that the Roman art historiographers considered the prototype for
the Venus Genetrix as Greek, not Roman. According to Pliny the Elder (XXXV) its prototype
was a bronze sculpture of Aphrodite by the sculptor Callimachus. The same author also
mentioned that Julius Caesar commissioned a sculpture of the Venus Genetrix from the
Greek artist Arkesilaos which was then displayed in the Caesar’s new forum. Iconography of
this Venus represented her with her see-through drape lowered on the left shoulder showing
her breast. It is assumed that in her hand she carried an apple, the apple she won by the
judgement of Paris. The Roman iconographic type deliberately evolved from then onwards. It
appears to have followed the tradition already established in the Greek art practices, in much
the same manner as the Aeneid deliberately evolved from the Iliad, thus becoming a symbol
of the Rome and through its symbolic patronage over the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the Roman
Empire.
There are several known types identified by various scholars as the Venus Genetrix, of which
the imagery reproduced above is one. Another iconographic type is represented in the
imagery of Aphrodite of Frejus. The type of the Venus Velata is represented with a veil and in
an attempt to cover her head,54 allowing for an illusion that this Aphrodite was stepping
forward and that she was in the process of covering her face and the right arm.
54
82
The introduction of a female nude can be similarly observed in the introduction of one of the
popular themes in the Roman art, that of the Three Graces, divinities of the charm, beauty
and grace. The three semi-clad maidens can be seen in contrast to the three fully clothed
maidens in the imagery of the Muses. Although in the Greek mythology the Muses are
several in number, it appears that an aspect of Roman mythology recognised only three of
them as the personifications of contemplation, memory and song. One such example is the
representation of the muses in the mosaic from Paphos, Cyprus, reproduced below.
Rather than the separate three figures the three muses are represented here as a single being,
as together they stood for a single construct of inspiration. In contrast, the three Graces are
often represented in the Roman art as nude or almost nude and in a dancing movement.55
Artist Unknown, The Three Graces, 1cBC-1cAD, fresco, Pompeii, Regio IV, Insula Occidentalis,
53x47cm
55
Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine, Prentice Hall, 2005; Ling, R, Roman Painting, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1991
83
This very imagery was rendered often and in a variety of contexts and settings. One such
setting was the baths. It is assumed that this imagery often served as a piece of marketing for
the particular baths, as demonstrated in the imagery reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, The Three Graces, 4cAD, mosaic, Porto Calamie/Narlikuyu (Turkey)
The mosaic was found in a fishing village and although one of the interpretations of this
image relates to the story of Aphrodite having a bath and therefore indicates that this imagery
also conveys a religious connotation, it appears that the Three Graces were rendered here in
order to entice the patrons to use the bath house.
Another such example is the mosaic imagery of the Three Graces from Philippopolis in the
Roman province of Arabia Petraea, now Syria, where the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab
was born and where upon becoming the Emperor he built a settlement in the third century.
The imagery of the Three Graces was again preserved as a floor mosaic of what is believed
to have been a bath house. Again, the three Graces appear to be taking a bath on the premises.
84
Artist Unknown, The Three Graces, 3cAD, mosaic, Philippopolis in Arabia/Shahba (Syria)
The figure represented in a movement can be seen in both painting and mosaic as well as in
much of the Roman statuary. One such example is the imagery of the goddess Diana
reproduced on the next page. Her movement is rendered within the composition. The Artemis
of Versaille demonstrates the artist’s inventiveness and ingenuity - the deer, one of the
symbols of the goddess Diana, is here used as a prop hence allowing for the figure to be
represented in an energetic movement. This manner of rendering the movement is in stark
contrast to many other renditions of various female divinities popular in the Roman Empire.
Amongst such examples are the representations of Isis which demonstrate a restrained
movement as does the representation of Livia Drusilla as Ops.56
56
85
Artist Unknown, Diana of Versailles, marble, 1-2cAD
86
The representations of the male figure demonstrate a similar set of ideas applied in statuary,
as well as in painting and mosaic.57
The two images reproduced on this page are the representations of the god of war, Mars, in
full military gear. One of the statues is part of the official religious statuary displayed in
temples and in public spaces in Rome. The other is a figurine made for popular use mostly by
the soldiers who often carried such statuettes with themselves across the provinces of the
Empire. In both the renditions, the god is represented realistically, with strong feet and arms.
This Mars is also sporting a bit of a pot belly which attests to the application of quasi-verism
and the great skill of the Roman artists who appear to intimately know the gods they were
rendering.
Artist Unknown, Mars Pyrrhus, 1cAD, marble, from Nerva’s Forum, Rome, h 360cm,
Artist Unknown, Mars, bronze figurine, 1–2cAD
57
87
The same set of principles can be seen as applied to the imagery of the Jupiter himself. The
work was commissioned by the Emperor Domitian to replace the original statue made by the
Greek sculptor Leochares in the 4cBC (as described by Pliny the Elder, XXXIX) and
displayed in the Temple of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline Hill dedicated by Octavian
Augustus in 22BC. As Jupiter he is represented in the nude, the artist could not have resorted
to representing the god using the symbols associated with him. In contrast to the traditional
imagery of the athletes, this naked, bearded, mature man is of somewhat imperfect physique.
The artist nevertheless achieved in this representation of Jupiter as the master of the skies by
making his figure appear both familiar and monumental in yet another quasi-veristic rendition
in the Roman art.
Artist Unknown, Jupiter Tonans, marble, late 1cAD
88
Seated figure was a popular manner of representing several deities.58 In the Greek art practice
some important images of the seated figure include Phidias’ chriselephantine representation
of Zeus enthroned as described by Pliny the Elder in XXXIV. This iconography is mirrored
in the iconography of Hera enthroned, with many images of the seated Juno popular in the
Roman art.
Artist Unknown, Juno, 2cAD, from Roman Britain, h14.5cm

Artist Unknown, Juno, 1–2cAD, silver statuette, possibly produced in Rome
A number of statues and statuettes representing a seated Hera were found in the mainland
Greece as well as in Magna Graecia from where this iconography had a direct contact with
the Roman art.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Hera Hippia, votive offering, c.550BC, terracotta (casting and manual
retouching). h.37cm, from Paestum, Magna Graecia
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Hera enthroned, marble, c.420BC, h.50cm, from Paestum, Magna Graecia
58
89
In the Roman art practices and mirroring the Greek art practices, several other goddesses
were usually represented as seated, including the images reproduced below and on the next
page.
Artist Unknown, The goddess Ceres, seated, marble, early 1cAD, from Merida, Spain
90
Even if seated, figure in the Roman art can also be represented in a movement. In the image
reproduced below the movement of the whole figure is indicated through the representation
of the movement of the veil as well as through a representation of the movement of the swan
(or a goose) carrying the female figure on its back.
Artist Unknown, Ara Pacis Augustae (The Altar of Peace), 9BC. Eastern side: Tellus, or Mother
Earth, or a personification of Italy or a Venus Genetrix, detail.
91
The imagery represented in this panel of Ara Pacis is not fully deciphered, and the identity of
the deity represented in still unknown. It is one of the early imperial public art images with
the representation of a floating figure, with the feet of the goddess or the allegory not
touching the ground. A number of similar representations of the figure floating in space can
be seen in many artworks privately commissioned and for private use of the same era,
particularly in the fresco painting from Pompeii and the neighbouring areas.59
Artist Unknown, Polyphemus and Galateia, fresco, villa Agrippa Postumus, Boscotrecase, late 1cBC
or early 1cAD, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY
In contrast to the Ara Pacis imagery, in this fresco the central female figure of Galateia is
represented as being moved by herself, with no props other than her veil to propel her. The
central male figure of Polyphemus is represented in a seated contraposto as the lower part of
his body appears to be moving in one direction and his torso in the opposite direction. The
object which he holds in his hand is here used as a static prop that allows the artist to create
the illusion of the figure of Polyphemus in a movement.
This very principle of the seated contraposto with the same effect is employed in the imagery
of Dionysus from a mosaic in Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad) reproduced on the next page.
59
92
Artist Unknown, Dionysus, from the palace of the Emperor Galerius in Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad),
c.290-300AD
In the same manner as in the image from Pompeii, in the mosaic reproduced above the
representation of a movement is achieved by a contraposto which allows for the upper part of
the body to be represented as moving in the opposite direction to the feet of the figure of
Dionysus. Dionysus’ thyrsus, the long shaft, one of his symbols, represents a static prop
which emphasises the movement.
93
Artist Unknown, Marcus Aurelius, 176 AD, bronze (originally gilded), h 350 cm, formerly in
the Piazza del Campidoglio, Rome
The manner in which a seated figure can be represented in a movement is taken further in the
equestrian portrait of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.60 The feet of the Emperor are not
touching the ground and appear to be commanding his horse, the contraposto of his torso is
contributing to the illusion of his moving forward and his raised hand is here used to indicate
the imperial vision that should be followed by the Roman populus.
60
94
The reclining figure in Roman art can be traced back to the many representations of
symposia, dinner parties, in the art of Greece and Magna Graecia. One such example of this
imagery from Greek art from Paestum is reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, Symposion scene, the Tomb of the Diver, Paestum, Magna Graecia, c.470BC
Several representations of symposia in Etruscan art have been discussed earlier in this
volume. The sources of such imagery in Roman art may be many and diverse, yet the
traditions of both the Greek and the Etruscan art practices are clearly demonstrated in the
relevant imagery of the Roman art. One such example is the image reproduced below which
shows Oceanus, represented in a colossal statue, in the reclining position much like the
symposium imagery. As already mentioned, the tradition of colossal statuary in Greek,
Hellenistic and Roman art was recognised by Pliny the Elder and described in some detail.
Such statuary was ordinarily made of bronze and represented the standing figures. No
examples from antiquity of this statuary survive to this day with the exception of the marble
head, a hand and feet of the colossal statue of the Roman Emperor Constantine from the
4cAD which is believed to have represented the Emperor enthroned. The Oceanus
reproduced below indicates the possibility of the existence of other colossal statuary, made of
different materials, representing their subjects in a reclining pose.
Artist Unknown, Oceanus, colossal statue, 1–2cAD, marble, h.242 cm
95
Artist Unknown, Aphrodite Anadyomene, fresco from the House of Venus, 1cAD
Aphrodite Anadyomene, the fresco from Pompeii, is another image in the Roman art where
the subject is represented in a reclining pose.61 The standard iconographic type of Aphrodite
Anadyomene, as already discussed, usually represented the goddess in a frontal standing
pose, as a nude, and as getting ready for her bath. Alternatively, she can be represented as
standing, touching or wringing her hair – having just been born from the sea. In contrast, the
image above represents the same type of Venus as a reclining figure travelling in a shell.
The representations of the individual figures are often replicated in the representations of
group compositions. One such example is the imagery reproduced below, where again the
identity of the mythological characters or the exact meaning of the allegories has not been
fully deciphered.
Artist Unknown, Portland Vase, cameo-glass, possibly 5-25AD
61
96
The two images reproduced below are the four Tetrarchs and the mosaic from Paphos,
Cyprus. Both of them indicate the artists’ intent of employing the techniques of representing
several figures not as individual figures but as united into one. The four tetrarchs are rendered
as one being – the hand of one of the figures is embracing the other, and the overall
impression is that of the unity of the figures.
Artist Unknown, Tetrarchs, porphyry, 305AD, now at the San Marco, Venice
Roman art history includes a significant amount of imagery which represents complex
figurative compositions. Such compositions were rendered in a variety of materials and
techniques, from the mosaic to the narrative relief.
Artist Unknown, Theseus and the Minotar, mosaic, Paphos, Cyprus, 3cAD
97
The skill with which the artist rendered the different figures in a swirling composition of the
mosaic reproduced in the previous page allows us to read this image. Here the figure of the
young Theseus is the focus of the composition, with his simple and effective body movement
contributing to the dramatic representation of the scene. The manner in which the artist
represented the allegorical figures as observing the event by a simple movement of their
hands and heads contributes to our understanding of the picture plane.
Artist Unknown, Plato’s academy, mosaic, Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus , Pompeii, 1cBC
In this complex composition every figure is represented in a different movement, thus

forming smaller groups of pairs. This segmentation of the composition contributes to our
understanding of all the figures being conjoined and affiliated, as one and the same group.
The segmentation of the composition can also be observed in the relief, be it a narrative relief
or a work in cameo. One of the images reproduced below represents the scene of apotheosis,
98
deification of the Emperor Augustus, with the other image representing the Emperor Tiberius.
What makes these compositions complex is the manner in which the artists used the available
space for their compositions. The compositions are segmented into the clearly divided
horizontal sections in such a manner that that the figures appear to be conjoined.
Artist Unknown, Gemma Augustea, Deification/ Apotheosis of the Emperor Augustus, 9-12AD, two-
layered onyx.
Artist Unknown, Great Cameo of France, five-layered sardonyx cameo, Emperor Tiberius, mid-first
century AD, 31x26,5cm
This manner of representing figure is repeated in the imagery of the official art and for public
display seen in several narrative reliefs.
Although the narrative relief was known to the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek and
Hellenistic culture prior to its manifestation in the arts of Rome, some of the finest examples
of narrative compositions were executed by the Roman artists. The narrative relief became a
popular means of conveying the stories of victories of the Roman Emperors in the second
century AD and obtained additional popularity in the following centuries.62 The narrative
relief also reflects the Roman artists’ interest in rendering a large number of episodes as a
continual story, as evident in the narrative reliefs displayed on the victory columns.
This new visual language was used to tell a continual story in the spiral compositions
enveloping such victory columns. Millions of smaller episodes were put together in these
quasi-historical and propaganda documentations of battles and victories, sieges, crossings of
rivers. These scenes consist of the horror vacui compositions with the distorted faces of the
soldiers immersed in battles and the representations of enemies in their full barbarian regalia.
Much of publicly displayed imperial art of the period used a similar kind of imagery to
convey the trials and triumphs of the mighty Roman military force and the Emperor himself.
62
99
Amongst such examples is the imagery reproduced below, the Trajan’s Column
commemorating Trajan’s victories in the Dacian Wars (101-102 and 105-106), completed in
113, now in Rome; and the Column of Marcus Aurelius commemorating victory in Danubian
Wars over the Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmatians in 176, completed probably in 193, also in
Rome.
Artust Unknown, Trajan’s Column, commemorating the victories of the Emperor Trajan in the Dacian
Wars (101-102 and 105-106), completed 113, marble, h30 m
Artist unknown, Column of Marcus Aurelius commemorating his victory in Danubian Wars
over the Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmatians in 176, completed probably in 193, marble, c.30m
100
Figure and frame
The fear of empty space appears as a dominant characteristic of much of the narrative relief
executed and particularly popular within the official Roman art of the second and the third
centuries. Given that Pliny the Elder who lived in the first century did not dedicate segments
of his text to the narrative relief and that Vitruvius in the first century BC described only the
sculptural decoration of the Greek and Roman temples but not the relief in its own right, it
appears that the narrative relief in Roman art was born as a purely and characteristically
Roman art tradition and almost exclusively used to celebrate imperial victories.
Artist Unknown, The Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203, commemorating the victories of the
Emperor Septimius Severus in the Parthian wars in Asia Minor and beyond: the four scenes (4x5m)
101
The artist here, being fearful of the empty space, instead of representing the figures
individually, represented them as conjoined, thus also contributing to the idea that all the
figures formed part of a single military force of the Roman Empire.
Artist Unknown, The Arch of Septimius Severus, detail, Rome, 203, commemorating the victories of
the Emperor Septimius Severus in the Parthian wars in Asia Minor and beyond: detail from the four
scenes (4x5m) depicting battles
The horror vacui as a characteristic of the continual spiral narrative relief on the columns can
also be explained by the fact that the story of battles had to be related in a continuum.63 This
manner of representing a story is of course not applicable to the manner a story is told within
episodes represented in separate panels. However, the horror vacui remained as one of the
dominant characteristics of the narrative relief on some of the official Roman imperial panels
where the story need not be told in a continual progression such as those on the arch of the
Emperor Septimius Severus.
In contrast to the legacy of much of the Hellenistic art, these separate panels do not represent
a single dramatic moment. Instead, the smaller compositions are represented in a continual
story. This is particularly striking as the architecture of the monument where the panels were
displayed was a triumphal arch. In contrast to the spiral reliefs of the commemorative
columns, the panels displayed on the arch do not require a continual narration. It possible to
argue that the artists who created the narrative relief of the Arch of Septimius Severus created
compositions characterised by the horror vacui not because of the dictate of the
compositions’ architectural environment but because of the compositions’ subject matter. The
actual subject matter here can be identified as figure and the relationship between a figure
and the space of the composition within which it is represented.
63
102
In painting, especially because much of the Roman painting that survived to his day is fresco
painting commissioned privately and for a private use, this question of the representation of
figure within a space is tackled in a variety of manners by different artists. Not all imagery
painted is framed. Similarly, not all imagery rendered as a sculpture is without a frame. The
notion of the space within which a figure is represented in fresco painting of the first century
AD is in contrast to the horror vacui evident in the official Roman art of the narrative reliefs
of the second and the third centuries AD. Thus a duality of the representation of a free space
and the representation of the non-existent space (horror vacui) can be seen.
Some imagery representing a figure in the fresco painting of Pompeii such as the imagery
from the Ixion room of the House of the Vettii indeed represents a free figure in an empty
space which is then framed.64 Some fresco imagery is concerned with representations of free
floating figures in vast undefined space, some with a figure painted like moving statuary
displayed on a pedestal and which appears as floating. Many such images represent figures
either in groups or individually, within the painted frames and arches. A particular category
of such imagery is the representations of figure within a landscape or a garden-scape.
The ratio between the figure and the space within which it is represented appears to be a
characteristic of much of privately commissioned Roman painting. Indeed, Pliny the Elder
wrote in book XXXV when talking about the excellence of the ancient painters, that some of
the Greek painters were particularly skilled in rendering the balanced ratio of a figure and its
background. The painted figure is thus rendered in a frame in relation to the empty space
behind it, or rather, in much of Roman art, the space surrounding it. The illusion that the
figure is floating in the imaginary space is often achieved by the artists employing a single
colour background in the process achieving an illusion of monochromatic pictures.
Artist Unknown, fresco decoration, Ixion room, House of the Vettii, c.70-79AD, Pompeii
64
103
Artist Unknown, The muses Calliope and Erato, fresco, 1cAD, Moregine, Triclinium A, left wall,
250x500 cm
This ratio between the figure and the background is further emphasised by a movement depicted.
Artist Unknown, Floating Maenad, 1cBC-1cAD, fresco, House of the Ship, Pompeii, 66 x 52 cm
104
Moving in an empty space, the Maenad reproduced on the previous page is represented
weightless and not touching the ground. This illusion is emphasised by the artist’s use of the
diagonal composition, where the figure and the thyrsus are represented as cutting the space in
a diagonal motion. Similarly, as the object in the Maenad’s right hand, a music instrument, is
represented as dangling and moving, the figure holding it appears as if it is moving as well.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, House of the Vettii, c.70-79AD, Pompeii

RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The muses Calliope and Erato, detail, fresco, 1cAD, Moregine, Triclinium
A, left wall, 250x500cm
Movement can also be represented even if a figure is rendered as static. In the imagery
reproduced above the floating garments depicted contribute to our seeing the figure as if
moving in space.
In some other imagery the empty space behind the figure need not be represented as empty
and some artists could produce a similar effect without resorting to using a single background
colour. In the imagery reproduced on the next page to the right the background behind the
statue is a busy garden with various flora and fauna. Nevertheless the illusion of the ratio
between the figure and the background is achieved and the statue appears as weightless,
floating and in a movement.
105
LEFT: Artist Unknown, The muses Calliope and Erato, detail, fresco, 1cAD, Moregine, Triclinium A,
left wall, 250 x 500 cm
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Statue in a garden, fresco, House of the Venus in the Shell, Pompeii
The illusion is further achieved in the rendition of the statue as static. Due to its relationship
with the space of the composition and its frame it appears as steady and grounded.
106
As mentioned earlier, Pliny the Elder in his book XXXV wrote about the ‘lower’ subject
matter in painting. He emphasised his admiration for the artists, in particular the Roman
painter Ludius, who rendered figures and genre-scenes in landscapes. Some fresco imagery
commissioned for private use and by private patrons supports Pliny’s claims of the popularity
of these traditions in the first century AD and also demonstrates the skill of the artists
particularly in the elegance of the rendition of figures.
Artist Unknown, Landscape, fresco, House of the Small Fountain, detail, Pompeii
Artist Unknown, A harbour town, fresco, probably 1c AD, Stabiae, and a detail
107
The elegance of movement of a figure can also be seen in the Roman provincial art,
especially in the compositions rendered as floor mosaic.
Artist Unknown, Bacchanal dance, mosaic, Antioch, 3cAD
Artist Unknown, Drunken Dionysus, mosaic, Antioch, 3cAD
108
In the image of the drunken Dionysus reproduced on the previous page, the Roman artist was
able to represent Dionysus’ drunkenness and his inability to walk straight, achieved by
representing Dionysus’ torso as moving in one direction and the feet in the other, requiring to
be propped up, thus rendering the illusion of a movement of the whole composition.
Both the images reproduced on the previous page show group compositions in which two
figures are rendered as one. Group imagery can also be rendered as a number of individual
figures, as represented in a mosaic reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, Bikini girls, mosaic, Villa Romana del Casale, Piazza Armerina, Sicily, c.300-
325AD
Here in one and the same composition the figures are represented as individual sportswomen
rather than a group. The image is to be read a series of the separate images, achieved through
the ratio between the individual figures and the space around them. Thus the artist avoided a
continuum of the composition, in direct contrast to the traditions of the narrative relief of the
official imperial art of the previous centuries.
A comparatively similar composition can be seen within the narrative reliefs of the 1cAD
from Ara Pacis, reproduced on the next page. The imagery from the Ara Pacis is conditioned
by the manner in which the compositions are situated in their frames. This again is in stark
contrast to the imagery of the framed reliefs from the arch of Septimius Severus.
109
Artist Unknown, Ara Pacis, Eastern side:

LEFT: Tellus, or Mother Earth, OR a personification of Italy OR a Venus Genetrix
RIGHT: Aeneas
An obvious comparison can be drawn between the manner in which the figures are
represented within their frames in the reliefs of the Ara Pacis and the manner in which the
figures are represented within their frames in the reliefs of the Arch of Septimius Severus.
Artist Unknown, The Arch of Septimius Severus, 203AD, commemorating his victories in the Parthian
wars in Asia Minor and beyond: one of four scenes (4x5m) depicting battles, detail
Another comparison of the compositions in low relief of the panels from the arch of
Septimius Severus with another set of images from the same period as the Ara Pacis reliefs
indicates that the difference in the use of the compositions’ frames within a narrative relief is
not necessarily the result of the evolution of this genre. This comparative set of images are
the imperial cameos from the early 1cAD, reproduced on the next page.
110
MIDDLE: Artist Unknown, Gemma Augustea, 9-12AD, two-layered onyx.

RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Great Cameo of France, five-layered sardonyx cameo, 1cAD
The horizontal segmentation of the composition is applied in each of the images. This mirrors
the artists’ inclination to segment their compositions also vertically, thus creating smaller
compositions in their own right within the larger and busier compositions. The artists
achieved this through the manner in which they positioned the figures within the
compositions.
If indeed one of the panels from the Arch of Septimius Severus is segmented both
horizontally and vertically, smaller compositions appear, as evident in the imagery
reproduced below which represent the upper register (above) and the lower register (below)
of the same composition.
111
In this panel, the horizontal segmentation is achieved not only by a simple horizontal line but
also by the dynamic subject matter of the composition representing a group of soldiers and
their military machinery moving towards the right, whilst in the upper part of the same
narrative composition the defenders of the city are represented as moving to the left thus
creating a tension within the same frame, as evident in the image reproduced below.
The scene of the siege is in itself an example of the horror vacui with one single segment
which depicts an empty space, as evident in the image reproduced below. This empty space
serves as a focal point of the composition and allows the viewer to decipher the narrative of
the composition.
112
Of particular importance here is the manner in which the frame of the composition is
understood. The reproductions below represent the end composition of the same image. The
artist working on this narrative relief received a commission to fill in a particular frame with
the imagery of the siege, much like the artist of Ara Pacis received a commission to fill in a
particular frame with allegorical compositions. Whilst the artist of the Ara Pacis reliefs filled
the available space with the figurative compositions in relation to the imaginary space within
which the figures are represented, the artist of the Arch of Septimius Severus used a different
strategy, filling the space with as many figures he could. So many in fact that they could not
all fit into the frame of the composition and are represented as protruding outside of the
picture frame, as shown in the right hand section of the image reproduced below. One of the
soldiers is represented as coming out of the picture frame, and another one as almost being
able to jump off the composition.
The figures of the soldiers protruding from the frame are here used to continue the story
outside of the indicated frame of the image, indicating that the battle is never over in some
corners of the Roman Empire.
113
Arch
Although our authority on architecture of antiquity, Vitruvius, did not specifically mention
the arches or indeed the use of vault, he nevertheless indirectly mentioned the vault within his
description of the two types of ceiling of which one was the vault. It is therefore plausible to
assume that the use of vault, and arch, was widely known to the Roman architects since
before the publication of Vitruvius’ text. Several examples of the use of arch on the bridges
from the first century BC demonstrate that this architectural element was indeed put to great
use in the Roman Republican architecture.65 Amongst such examples are the Pons Aemilius
and the Pons Fabricius, reproduced below.
Artist Unknown, Pons Aemilius also now called Ponte Rotto, Rome, stone, built c.142BC and restored
by Augustus in 12BC
Artist Unknown, Pons Fabricius, Rome, built 62BC, tuff and bricks
65
MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory Study, Yale University Press, 1982
114
The use of arch to hold the weight of a bridge continued over the following centuries to
include the so-called Ponte Sant’s Angello (reproduced below) as well as a number of
aqueducts and viaducts.
Artist Unknown, Pons Aelius, the Bridge of Hadrian, Ponte Sant'Angelo, c.140sAD, two views
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Pont du Gard at Nimes, commissioned by Marcus Agrippa, built in 1cAD
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Acueducto de los Milagros, Merida in Spain, 1cAD, renovated c.300AD
The spaces that the aqueducts spanned were often vast and indeed Vitruvius in his book on
water, VIII, gave precise instructions on the manner in which water should be conducted
across vast spaces. Similarly Pliny the Elder (XXXVI) wrote about the waterways and the
sewerage system in Rome, originally built at the times of the Etruscans and then gradually
expanded and rebuilt as one of the engineering and architectural wonders of Rome.
The use of arch and the related vaulted ceiling was put in particularly good use in the
building of the baths, as also noted by Pliny the Elder in relation to the baths built by Marco
Agrippa. Amongst the many baths built in Rome and in the provinces in antiquity, several
remain in a reasonably good condition to enable a reconstruction of their usage and their
looks.
Artist Unknown, Baths of Caracalla, Rome, c.212–216AD
115
The evolution of the architectural elements used in the building of the baths such as the arch,
and consequently the vault and the dome (as well as the semi-dome) contributed to the
evolution of various other architectural spaces built as free standing architecture. Amongst
these was the vaulted basilica with an apse (or several apses). Simultaneously, the
underground vault, easier to construct, remained a feature of the engineering and architecture
in the late Roman Empire and in Byzantium. One such example is the image reproduced
below from Constantinople.
Artist Unknown, The Cistern of Philoxenos, or Bin bir direk (One Thousand and One Columns)
Cistern, under a palace in Constantinople, 5c, restored by Justinian in 6c
The use of arch as either a structural or a decorative architectural element appears to have
been popular in domestic architecture as well,66 in both the insulae, the apartment buildings,
as well as in Roman villas. Amongst such examples are the images reproduced below, both
from c.1cAD in Rome (left) and in Pompeii (right).
66
MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal, Yale University Press, 1986
116
Similarly, some of the palaces such as the villa of the Emperor Hadrian in Tivoli near Rome
demonstrate the use of arch and semi-dome. The villa of the Emperor Hadrian consisted of
the compound with a large number of vaulted buildings and the arched colonnades.
Artist Unknown, Maritime theatre, Hadrian’s villa, Tivoli near Rome, 120 – 130AD
The imagery of the Maritime theatre from Hadrian’s villa includes not only the arch which would
bridge the columns but also the intersecting barrel vault, and the semi-dome here used to cover apse-
like spaces. The same type of the vault is also a characteristic of the already mentioned baths of
Caracalla as well as some other buildings such as the throne room of Diocletian’s palace on the
Palatine hill in Rome.
The many varieties of the Roman vault include the continuous and intercepted vault. The use
of vault was particularly popular in building of amphitheatres and arenae, some of which
were described by Pliny the Elder but barely mentioned by Vitruvius. It appears that such
free-standing constructions – rather than the constructions built into a hill – became a feature
117
of the Roman architecture only since the early Empire, both in Rome and in the provinces, as
demonstrated by the imagery reproduced on this page.
Artist Unknown, Arena of Nîmes, France, 70AD, later converted into a bullring 133 x101m
Artist Unknown, Arena of Arles, France, 1cAD
Artist Unknown, Colosseum, Flavian Amphitheatre, built by the Emperor Vespasian and finished by
Titus 80AD
118
The interiors of the amphitheatres demonstrate the use of arch and vault to a particularly great
effect in the vaulted passageways. The air and the light could be easily conducted into the
building through the colonnades connected with the arches or vaulted ceilings.
The arch, however, was often used in the Roman architecture for some other purposes. One
of them was as the city gates and passageways.67 The imagery below illustrates several such
gates built at various times into the already existing massive city walls. Already in the first
century BC Vitruvius, in Book I, wrote on the construction of city walls, towers and gates,
and on correct positioning of the gates and in which relation.
Artist Unknown, Porta Tiburtina (formerly an arch built by Augustus, restored by Titus and
Caracalla), restored by Honorius 5c, two views
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Porta Ostiensis, Porta San Paolo, Castelleto, with a part of the Pyramid of
Cestius, built by Maxentius, 4c and enlarged by Honorius 5c
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Porta Maggiore, Porta Prenestina, white limestone, originally from 52AD
built by the Emperor Claudius as part of the Acqua Claudia, turned into the main city gate as part of
the Aurelian Walls, enlarged by Honorius in 5c
67
Wilson-Jones, M, Principles of Roman Architecture, Yale University Press, 2000
119
Artist Unknown, Servian Wall built by the king Servius Tullius in 4cBC, tuff, with the Porta
Esquillina incorporated into the Arch of Gallienus in 262AD
Originally used on buildings to bridge the space between the columns and employed to a
great effect in construction of the city gates, the arches obtained additional functions.68 One
of them was the Roman architects’ rendition of temporary triumphal arches through which
the Emperor and his army would pass in triumph upon their victorious return to Rome,
parading and displaying the loot which consisted of enslaved people as well as luxury and
precious objects and artworks. The arches and the gates thus constructed evolved into
triumphal arches as the permanent architectural monuments.
Pliny the Elder wrote in several segments of his text about the triumphal arches. These texts
include some descriptions of the goods brought to Rome with a particular emphasis on
applied arts objects and precious materials. As discussed earlier, some other texts by Pliny
include descriptions of artworks looted mostly from Greece and brought and displayed in
Rome. Pliny also wrote about the triumphal arches at the time of the Republic when only the
distinguished army commanders upon the instructions of the Senate would have been granted
a triumph for which a fornix, an arch-like construction constructed from branches and leaves,
rather than the full and permanent triumphal arch, would be built. The purpose of the fornix,
and later, at the time of the Empire, the arch, was for the triumphator to walk through and
display the goods brought by his army to Rome. Since the time of the Early Empire only the
Emperor could be granted a triumph and the arches started being built in permanent
materials.
Vitruvius didn’t specifically write about the Roman invention of triumphal procession, but
did write in some detail about a Greek custom of greeting the athletes who would have
distinguished themselves at the Olympic or other athletic games, juxtaposing this custom to
the custom of the Romans. By the time of the publishing of Pliny the Elder’s encyclopaedia,
this traditional Roman custom evolved into an event celebrating Roman imperial ambitions
with accompanying visual language that included architectural monuments commemorating
the military victories.
From a fornix which would have clearly been constructed within the city walls and through
which the military parade would pass the triumphal arch developed some of its
characteristics. One of them is that it had to be wide enough and large enough to allow for the
military units to pass through and hence often consisted of three passageways. As such, the
construction could actually not be built as an arch but as a short vault built on thick walls
where the columns had a purely decorative and not structural purpose. Such arches were
68
Sear, F, Roman Architecture, Cornell University Press, 1989
120
erected across the city roads, with most triumphal arches built in Rome, with some being
constructed in provinces. Given that the arches commemorated imperial military victories,
the narration of such victories was told in decorative relief displayed on the sides of the
arches. The decorative reliefs of the triumphal arches may also relate to the tradition of the
elaborately decorated portals to the Etruscan cities. It is presumed that many triumphal arches
on the rooftop had sculptures of a quadriga, a chariot in which the victorious Emperor (or, in
Roman Republic, the victorious general) would be represented. Hence the iconography of the
bas-relief, medallions and other decorative elements displayed on the arches can be seen as
the ‘official’ iconography of the era, or, in other words, the manner in which an Emperor
himself would have wanted to have his victory portrayed. The narrative reliefs representing
the captured cities and their wealth served as a visual reminder to the audiences of the time of
the triumph and the deeds of the triumphator.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, The Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203AD, commemorating his victories
in the Parthian wars, marble
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The Arch of Constantine, 312 - 315AD, commemorating his victory over
Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
Amongst the early surviving examples of triumphal arches are the Triumphal arch of Orange
in France and the Arch of Titus in Rome, both reproduced below.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Triumphal Arch of Orange, France, late 1cBC/early 1cAD
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The Arch of Titus, Rome, c. 82AD, commemorating Titus’ victories and his
siege of Jerusalem
121
The triumphal arch of the city of Orange in France was built on the former via Agrippa to
honour the veterans of the Gallic wars, the second Legio Augusta. It was later reconstructed
by the Emperor Tiberius and the sculptural decoration of the arch was updated to include
victories of Germanicus over the German tribes. The inscription states that it was dedicated to
the Emperor Tiberius in the 87AD. The subject matter of the reliefs are the military themes,
mostly those that relate to the battles of Germancus and the Gauls, with a figure of a soldier
represented with the shield bearing insignia of the Legio Augusta.
The Arch of Titus was built c. 82AD by Domitian, the brother of Titus, after the death of
Titus to commemorate Titus’ victories and his siege of Jerusalem in 70AD. The decoration
which included panels in high relief contained the representations of the episodes from the
siege and the depictions of the triumph itself including the sacred objects of Judaism carried
in the procession. Several other characteristics of this single arched Triumphal arch were
often repeated as a standard on the later arches. These include the decorative composite
capitals, descriptions and dedications inscribed on the arches and the representations of the
winged Victories or Nikai on the arch.
Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203AD, commemorating his victories in the
Parthian wars, marble
The white marble arch of the Emperor Septimius Severus in Rome commemorates the
victories of the Emperor over the Parthians in203AD. His two sons, Caracalla and Geta, were
also included in the imagery, with the images of Geta scraped out from the monuments in an
act of the damnatio memoriae. The visual language of the arch includes the imagery of the
winged Victoria/Nike as well as the narrative relief on the four panels depicting the battle
122
scenes, already discussed in the previous section of the chapter, with one such scene
reproduced below.
Another triumphal arch constructed around the same time and for the same Emperor was the
arch in the far flung province in Leptis Magna, today in Libya, near Tripoli. It is believed to
commemorate the same event, the victories of the Emperor Septimius Severus and his two
sons over the Parthians.
123
Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, Leptis Magna, Lybia, c.203AD, commemorating his
victories in the Parthian wars, marble
The Emperor Septimius Severus was born in Leptis Magna. He returned to his home town in
202-203AD and rebuilt many monuments in the city and the port, amongst them the forum, a
secular basilica and a temple. It is assumed the arch was built for his visit. The arch is a
quadrifrons, with the four passageways rather than just two. These four entrances to the gate
defy the purpose of the arch built for a triumphator’s procession passing through the city.
124
Instead, it appears that rather than the passageway this arch served an entirely different
purpose possibly indicating the cross roads. It was built from the local stone, but as it appears
that this stone was no longer in use at the time of the building of the arch it is assumed that it
was either a spolia stone taken from another building and used to build the arch, or that the
arch was built on top of a gate that previously stood in this spot.
The central decorative panel which depicts Concordia or Harmony actually represents a
family scene - the Emperor is represented as shaking hands with his sons Caracalla and Geta.
As Caracalla would soon after kill his brother Geta, the character and the imagery of Geta
was condemned to the damnatio memoriae. The arch also contains the imagery of the
empress as well as that of the goddess of Rome. Some other imagery on this triumphal arch is
unusual. The decorative panels contain the imagery of grapes for which the city was famous
and the arch features unusual composite columns which betray the hand of a local artist.
Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, Leptis Magna, Lybia, c. 203AD, commemorating his
victories in the Parthian wars, marble
This difference in provincial art and the art of the city of Rome is particularly evident in
comparison of the provincial and the Roman triumphal arches of Septimius Severus. Perhaps
the most telling differences can be observed in the imagery of the winged Victorias from the
two monuments, reproduced below.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203AD, commemorating his victories
in the Parthian wars, marble
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, Leptis Magna, Lybia, c. 203AD,
commemorating his victories in the Parthian wars, marble
125
A different type of a comparison can be made between the arch of Septimius Severus in
Rome with the arch of the Emperor Constantine in Rome erected more than a hundred years
later and for a somewhat different purpose. The similarities between the two monuments
demonstrate the continuation of the same tradition of the use of the arches for the imperial
propaganda which might not have always been focused solely on the conquering of the new
lands and subjugating other nations.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, The arch of Septimius Severus, 203AD, commemorating his victories in the
Parthian wars, marble
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, The Arch of Constantine 312 - 315AD commemorating his victory over
Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.
The arch of Constantine, much like that of Septimius Severus, consists of three archways
with the attic made of brickwork covered with marble. Modelled upon the previous arches it
was spanning the road taken by the Emperors in triumph. However, the imagery of the
statuary and the relief decorating the Arch of Constantine celebrates a victory in a civil war
rather than a conquest. It was erected to commemorate Constantine’s reign and his
celebrating his decennalia, the ten years of power, in 315. It was begun after the year 312 as it
contains the imagery and the inscription related to the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312.
Thus the arch was actually constructed to commemorate Constantine’s victory over his rival
Maxentius.
The panel on the attic above the middle archway contains the inscription used on both the
sides of the arches. It reads:
IMP · CAES · FL · CONSTANTINO · MAXIMO · P · F · AVGUSTO · S · P · Q · R ·

QVOD · INSTINCTV · DIVINITATIS · MENTIS · MAGNITVDINE · CVM · EXERCITV
· SVO · TAM · DE · TYRANNO · QVAM · DE · OMNI · EIVS · FACTIONE · VNO ·
TEMPORE · IVSTIS · REM-PVBLICAM · VLTVS · EST · ARMIS · ARCVM ·
TRIVMPHIS · INSIGNEM · DICAVIT
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus:
because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state
from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms,
the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.
126
The iconography of the narrative reliefs on the arch contains combined imagery including
spolia. The spolia include the relief panels brought from other triumphal monuments and
incorporated into Constantine’s triumph. Some such imagery can be read in a variety of
manners. Because of its celebrating the battle of the Milvian bridge, the arch had also
obtained a meaning as a symbol of the victory of Christianity over paganism. Although
within the narrative of the relief there is no evidence of the later Christian renditions of the
story of the Emperor Constantine personally embracing Christianity just prior to the battle,
the arch nevertheless can also be seen to include the iconography which can be deciphered as
early Christian.
As the battle of the Milvian bridge was commemorated on the monument, the story of this
victory represented only one of the victories represented in this arch. All the other victories
represented on the arch were not those of Constantine but of his predecessors and were hence
represented through spolia from the victorious monuments of the previous emperors. The
primary reason for this is that this other imagery needed to remind the viewers of the victories
of the Roman Empire - and not of the civil war which it actually commemorated. The spolia
include some relief panels and some statuary. Amongst the statues are the figures of the
Dacian soldiers represented in the attic above the medallions. It is believed that they were
taken from some monument by the Emperor Trajan, possibly from the forum of Trajan, who
indeed fought the Dacian wars. The medallions were probably executed by the artists of the
Emperor Hadrian, with the heads of the Emperor modified to represent the facial features of
Constantine. The main piece from the time of the Constantine is the narrative relief frieze
around the arch which shows various scenes of Constantine’s campaign against Maxentius.
The imagery by Constantine’s artists includes the scenes of Constantine’s departure from
Milan, Constantine’s siege of the city of Verona, and the battle of the Milvian bridge. This
imagery further includes the scenes of Constantine and his army entering Rome. However, it
is interesting to note that within the standard iconography of the triumphal arches in this arch
an image is missing – that of the scene of Constantine having his triumph in Rome. Again,
given that the arch commemorated the civil war, it was perhaps not essential to boast about
the triumph. The final two images represent the scenes of Constantine addressing the citizens
in the Forum Romanum and of Constantine distributing money to the people. Given that there
were no real spoils from the war this scene is somewhat obsolete.
127
This iconography closely resembles the iconography of a set of eight spolia panels from an
unidentified monument of the emperor Marcus Aurelius which were built into the
Constantine’s arch. Marcus Aurelius fought the Marcomani and the Sarmatians 169–175AD
and celebrated his triumph upon returning to Rome in 176 and the panels have possibly come
from a triumphal arch or a commemorative monument celebrating these victories. The
iconography of the panels used on Constantine’s monument includes the scenes of profectio –
setting out, lustratio - the ceremony at the time of departure, adlocutio– the Emperor
addressing his troupes, clemency – the Emperor is being kind to those he conquered,
adventus, the souvetaurilia sacrifice and iustitia/traditio legis.
Artist Unknown, some of the Arch of Constantine spolia panels from an unidentified monument of
Marcus Aurelius, 2cAD
An interesting parallel can be drawn with an arch constructed not in Rome but in the province
that directly preceded the Arch of Constantine in Rome. This is the Arch of Galerius, built in
298/299 and dedicated in 303 in Thessaloniki in Greece. It was built on the main road
between the cities of Dirrahiun and Byzantion with the aim of commemorating Galerius’
victory over the Persians as shown in the narrative relief on the monument.
The sculptural program of the arch includes three relief panels which show the battle itself, as
is the standard characteristic of such arches.
128
Reproduced here are the images showing the imperial family, which includes Galerius’ wife
Valeria, the daughter of another Emperor, Diocletian, conducting the sacrifices; and the
representation of the four tetrarchs aided by a winged Victoria. The four tetrarchs are
represented as standing together as one in an image which harks back to the imagery of the
four tetrarchs executed in porphyry as a free standing sculpture.
Artist Unknown, The Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki, Greece, 298/299, dedicated in 303
129
Architectural elements closely related to arch are vaults and domes. The vaults have already
been discussed as a standard feature of the Roman architecture. Another such feature which
was not specifically described by Vitruvius is the dome, although Vitruvius mentioned the
dome in a different context of pre-Roman architecture. Using the same principle as the arch,
the construction of a dome can be achieved by revolving the arch on its axis. Although
known in the earlier times within the architecture of the tholoi and the bee-hived tombs
including the domed vaults of some of the Etruscan necropoli, the dome constructed on top of
the building rather than built into the hill appears to have been an invention by the Roman
architects.
Amongst the mausolea of the central plan in Rome were Augustus’ mausoleum from the late
first century BC, Mausoleum of Hadrian from the second century AD and the so-called
Mausoleum of Constanza built in the fourth century AD, all reproduced below. The three
monuments clearly demonstrate the evolution of the central type building and the evolution in
the technical ability of the architects and hence the use of the vaulted ceiling and the dome.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Mausoleum of Augustus, built by Augustus, c 28BC after the Battle of
Actium (31BC), contained ashes and embalmed bodies of Augustus’ friends and family and, after his
death, several later Roman Emperors
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Castel Sant’Angelo, Mausoleum of Hadrian, 139AD, military fortress since
5c
The mausoleum of Augustus was built into the hill using the natural slope, whist the
Hadrian’s mausoleum was built as a free standing one. The mausoleum of Augustus
contained ashes of his friends and family and was also used by the later Emperors thus also
serving as a model for the later Roman imperial mausolea. The mausoleum of Hadrian and
his family which improved on this model was later converted into a military fortress and
renamed the Castel Sant’ Angello.
Artist Unknown, Santa Costanza, Rome, mid-4cAD
130
As mentioned earlier, the dome was often constructed over a central plan building, the type
which was known in the Roman architecture from the early times. One of the earliest
examples of the central plan building in Rome was the temple of Hercules Victor or the
Hercules Olivarius.
Artist Unknown, Temple of Hercules Victor, Hercules Olivarius, 2cBC, marble
There are various examples of the dome and the semi-dome used in the Roman public secular
architecture. Amongst such examples are the Roman baths where domes were often built of
concrete69 with oculus, the central circular skylight. The domed buildings included the
concrete bath hall constructed in the age of Augustus, the temple of Mercury and the baths in
Baie.70
In contrast to the use of arch, it appears that domes were not often used in privately
commissioned architecture, as the surviving and reconstructed private dwellings and villas
from Pompeii and neighbouring areas, all constructed in the period between the first century
BC and the first century AD, demonstrate. However, the imperial palace of the Emperor Nero
Domus Aurea featured the dome, constructed after the fire of 68AD. The palace also featured
vaulted ceilings. The dome with the oculus was built on the octagonal base with the eight
angles of the room used as the niches which in turn served as pandatifs that held the dome.
69
Adam, J, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Indiana University Press, 1994
70
Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome, Cambridge University Press, 2005
131
Artist Unknown, Domus Aurea of the Emperor Nero, built after the fire of 64AD
However, the dome was used in an important work of religious architecture, the Pantheon in
Rome. The new architectural language introduced by the artists of the Early Empire was used
on a number of buildings built by Octavian Augustus and by Marco Agrippa, as already
discussed in the previous chapter of this volume. Among Agrippa’s buildings was the
Pantheon in Rome built in 27BC during his third consulship. Although the building was
destroyed in the fire of 80AD, Agrippa’s inscription remained.
M.AGRIPPA.L.F.COS.TERTIUM.FECIT
Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, having been consul three times, built it
The Pantheon of today features a large dome constructed over a central plan building. As it
was rebuilt by several successive Emperors the floor plan of the currently standing rotunda
might not have followed the original plan.
The building itself was probably completely destroyed in the fire of 80AD and was rebuilt by
the emperor Domitian. It burned again in 110AD and was rebuilt by Hadrian or even Trajan,
and then repaired by Septimius Severus and Caracalla. It is interesting to note that Vitruvius
never mentioned the Pantheon although he appears to have known of many illustrious
buildings being built by Octavian Augustus to whom he dedicated his De Architectura. Pliny
the Elder mentioned the Pantheon and wrote that he would often pass by it, as indeed the
Agrippa’s building was destroyed only after Pliny’s death. However, even Pliny did not leave
a description of the building other than its acroteria included statuary by the Greek sculptors,
that it had bronze columns (or perhaps bronze capitals) and that it featured the Caryatids,
using this term in a somewhat different manner than Vitruvius did.
132
Artist Unknown, Pantheon, Rome, first built by Marco Agrippa, rebuilt by the Emperor Trajan,
finished by the Emperor Hadrian 118 -128, repaired by the Emperors Septimius Severus and
Caracalla in 202
Artist Unknown, Rotunda of Galerius, now Agios Georgios (Saint George), Church of the Rotunda,
Thessaloniki, Greece, 306
133
This type of a central plan building with the dome continued into the fourth century with one
such example being the Rotunda of Galerius in Thessaloniki, Greece. It was possibly meant
to be either Galerius’ mausoleum or a temple and was converted into a church by the
Emperor Constantine. Its structure and its thick walls are similar to the other mausloea in
Rome but the fact that Galerius had relatively lesser ties with Thessaloniki allows for the
assumption that the Rotunda was constructed not as his mausoleum but indeed as a temple. If
indeed it was built as a temple the transition to its use as a Christian church would have been
seamless. It was possibly covered in the floor mosaics as well as wall mosaics as some
mosaic decoration left only in traces indicates.
This type of the central plan building introduced by the Roman architects into the later
Christian architecture is in contrast to the architecture built as basilicas and also introduced
by the Roman architects into the later Christian architecture. The term basilica is here used
outside of its religious connotation obtained through Christian religious use.
The architectural type of basilica was described in great detail by Vitruvius. He tells us that
he himself built one, in the town of Fano in Italy (of which no traces remain) and gives a
precise description of it. Although the word basilica is Greek, and originates from the word
for a king or a ruler (basileos), Vitruvius described the purpose of basilica as a secular multi
functional covered public space. This appears to have been a multi-storey building which
housed shops and banks on the ground floor as well as some kind of a judicial court at its end,
and offices on the upper floors. Vitruvius also gives us a description about its columns (and
intercolumnia) and some precise instructions on how to construct it.
Artist Unknown, Basilica Nova, The Basilica of Maxentius (308) and Constantine, (312) in Rome
134
The Basilica Nova of Maxentius and Constantine on the Forum Romanum in Rome contains
the central nave with groin vaults suspended on the four large piers and an apse with an
additional apse on the side. The basilica had several different roles. Its original role of the
covered market place was extended to include several office spaces and the apse from where
the colossal enthroned figure of the Emperor Constantine was presiding over the procedures
taking place inside the building. It is believed that along its nave it also contained the statues
of gods or perhaps representations of philosophers and writers such as Homer. It was first
built by Maxtentius in 308. After the battle at the Milvian bridge Constantine put the
finishing touches on the basilica constructed by his enemy. Constantine appears to have re-
orientated the building and changed its entrance by adding a new northern apse, in the
process having strengthened its vaults and arches. Based on the traces of colour, it is assumed
that the basilica was coloured in white.
Artists Unknown, Basilica Nova, Basilica of Maxentius (308AD) and Constantine (312AD), Rome
135
Apollodorus of Damascus, Temple of Jupiter 1cAD, St John church (391), Umayyad Mosque,
Damascus, Syria
A similar basilical type of architecture was also known within the religious Roman
architecture. One such example is the longitudinal temple of Jupiter in Damascus, with its
dome added later. It is believed to have been constructed in the first century AD and that its
plan was modified to accommodate the conversion of its space into a Christian place of
worship in the late fourth century. The three columns at the entrance of the church were used
to form part of a new building that was built above the existing temple.
Since the fourth century, basilicas began being built with the specific religious purpose whilst
originally constructed as public spaces began being used in the Christian rite, as the two
images reproduced below demonstrate.
LEFT: Artist Unknown, Basilica of Santa Sabina, the Aventine, Rome, 422 – 432AD
RIGHT: Artist Unknown, Constantine’s basilica, Aula Palatina, Trier, Germany c.310
136
The basilica of Santa Sabina in Rome was built in the early fifth century as the Christian
place of worship. Despite its purpose it was similar in plan to the Constantine’s basilica. Its
original decoration included the wall mosaics and the wooden door panels in high relief. In
contrast to the basilica of Santa Sabina, Constantine’s basilica in Trier was part of the palace
complex and is believed to have been originally built for secular use. This was the space
where Constantine held court, and thus represented the audience hall and a gathering space
over which the enthroned emperor Constantine was presiding, with Constantine’s throne
positioned in the apse. The emperor would have been presiding over the procedures from the
throne much like his enthroned colossal effigy presided over the procedures in his basilica in
Rome.
These architectural elements became an aspect of the legacy of the Roman art and continued
to be used over many centuries of the Christian religious architecture as well as in secular
architecture. The transformation of these elements and plans into the elements and spaces
adopted in the Christian worship occurred seamlessly and through this transformation
informed much of the later architecture in Europe and beyond.
137
Bibliography
Adam, J, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Indiana University Press, 1994
Bianchi Bandinelli, R, Il problema del ritratto, in L'arte classica, Editori Riuniti, Rome
1984
Bianchi Bandinelli, R, Torelli, M, L’arte dell’antichità classica, Etruria-Roma, Utet,
Turin, 1976
Bojic, Z , ‘The texts of Pliny the Elder on the Arts and their Reception,’ in ed. Rastko
Vasic, Danijela Stefanovic and Ksenija Maricki-Gadjanski Antiquity, Contemporary
World and Reception of the Culture of Antiquity, International Scientific Conference,
Serbian Society for Ancient Studies, Belgrade, 2011
Bojic, Z , ‘Vitruvius in the 20th Century: The Caryatides,’ in ed. Rastko Vasic, Danijela
Stefanovic and Ksenija Maricki-Gadjanski, Antique Culture, European and Serbian
Heritage International Scientific Conference, Serbian Society for Ancient Studies,
Belgrade, 2010, pp. 48-62
Bojic, Z, ‘Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts,’ Classical Review, vol. 62.2, Oxford,
2012
Bojic, Z, Art curatorship within and outside museum, Central Institute for Conservation
(CIK), ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
Bojic, Z, Greek art and art historiography: definitions, Central Institute for Conservation
(CIK), ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
Bojic, Z, Plinije Stariji, O umetnosti, Zavod za udzbenike i Dosije Stdio, Beograd, 2011
Bojic, Z, Teme i ideje antičke istoriografije umetnosti: Vitruvije i Plinije Starijii, Central
Institute for Conservation (CIK), ICOM SEE and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
Bojic, Z, Vitruvije, O arhitekturi, Zavod za udzbenike i Dosije Studio, Beograd, 2009
Bojic, Z, The art of observing art, Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), ICOM SEE
and Singidunum University, Belgrade, 2012
Bojic, Z, Stanislav Rapotec, a Barbarogenous in Australian art, Andrejevic Endowment,
Belgrade, 2007
Bojic, Z, Imaginary homelands – the art of Danila Vassilieff, Andrejevic Endowment,
Belgrade, 2007
Brendel, Otto, Etruscan Art, Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1978
Conlin, D, The Artists of the Ara Pacis: The Process of Hellenization in Roman Relief
Sculpture, Studies in the History of Greece and Rome University of North Carolina Press,
1997
Costantini, M, Graziani, F, Rolet, S, Le défi de l'art. Philostrate, Callistrate et l'image
sophistique, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, 2006
Dal Maso, L,B, Rome of the Caesars, Bonechi, Florence, 1974
De Vecchi P, Cerchiari, E, I tempi dell'arte, volume 1, Bompiani, Milan 1999
Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998
Galinsky, K, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton University Press,
1996
Grant, M, The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome,
31 BC — AD 476, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1985
Hallett, C, The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC - AD 300, Oxford
University Press, 2005
Kleiner, D, Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press, 1992
Kleiner, F, A History of Roman Art, Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2007
138
Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome, Cambridge University

Press, 2005
Lanciani, R, Pagan and Christian Rome, 1892
Lao, E, ‘Luxury and the Creation of a Good Consumer,’ Gibson, R K., Morello, R. (eds.),
Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts (Mnemosyne Supplements 329) Brill, Leiden and
Boston, 2011
Ling, R, Roman Painting, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991
MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory Study, Yale
MacDonald, W, The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal, Yale
Maggiani, Adriano Artistic crafts: Northern Etruria in Hellenistic Rome, Electra, Italy,
1985
Mottershead, G, The Constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West, University of
Melbourne, 2005
Paparazzo, E, ‘Philosophy and Science in the Elder Pliny’s Naturalis Historia’ Gibson, R
K., Morello, R. (eds.), Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts (Mnemosyne Supplements
329) Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2011
Ramage, N, Ramage, A, Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine, Prentice Hall, 2005
Reinhold, M, Marcus Agrippa: A Biography, W. F. Humphrey Press, Geneva, 1933
Reinhold, M, The Golden Age of Augustus (Aspects of Antiquity) Univ. of Toronto Press, .
Toronto, ON, 1978
Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of Augustus)
Richter, G, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Handbook of the Etruscan Collection,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1940
Roddaz, J, Marcus Agrippa, École Française de Rome, Rome, 1984
Rossini, O, Ara Pacis, Electa, Milan, 2006
Schultze, C, ‘Encyclopaedic exemplarity in Pliny the Elder’ ‘Pliny and the Encyclopaedic
Adresee,’ Gibson, R K., Morello, R. (eds.), Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts
(Mnemosyne Supplements 329) Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2011
Sear, F, Roman Architecture, Cornell University Press, 1989
Shipley, F, Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome, Washington University, St. Louis,
1933
Spivey, N, Etruscan Art, Thames and Hudson, London, 1997
Strong, D, Roman Art, Viking Penguin, 1990
Varner, E, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial
Portraiture, Brill, 2004
Walker, S, Greek and Roman Portraits, British Museum Press, London, 1995
Wilson-Jones, M, Principles of Roman Architecture, Yale University Press, 2000
Young, N, Barrera, P, (rev.). Rome and Its Story, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1951
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Callistratus.html
http://www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusElder1A.html#7
http://www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusYounger.html
139
About the author
Dr Zoja Bojic is an Australian scholar (with a PhD in Art History and Curatorship from the
ANU, 2005). Her additional fields of study include comparative literature with theory of
literature and classical philology (ancient Greek and Latin with Ancient Slav and Sanskrit).
She has been regularly presenting lectures and papers in these fields at various academic
institutions and conferences internationally. She has been teaching art history (and
curatorship) at several universities including the University of Delhi, New Delhi, India (1989
- 1993), COFA Online, UNSW, since 2005, and ANU, Canberra, Australia in 2010 and 2011.
Dr Bojic has lived in Europe, USA, Asia and Australia and travelled through many other
regions such as North Africa and the Middle East, being involved in an academic research or
working as a journalist and an arts reviewer.
A selection of these reviews was published as a book Sunce juznog neba, pogled na umetnost
u Australiji danas, in 2003. Dr Bojic’s English language books include Stanislav Rapotec, a
Barbarogenius in Australian art, and Imaginary homelands, the art of Danila Vassilieff, both
published in 2007. Her book about the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius was published in
2009, and the one on Pliny the Elder's writings about the arts in 2011.
In addition to these hard-copy books, Dr Bojic is the author of several e-books. Among these
published by the Central Institute for Conservation (CIK) in Belgrade, ICOM SEE and the
Singidunum University are The art of observing art; Art curatorship within and outside
museum; Greek art and arthHistoriography: definitions, in English, and the Themes and
ideas in art historiography of antiquity: Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder (Теме и идеје у
античкој историографији уметности:Витрувије и Плиније Старији, in Serbian).
Dr Bojic is currently working on a larger-scale project in the field of art historiography; and
on a long-term project on Gandhara art.
140
A word from the referees
Prof. dr. Sasha Grishin
This manuscript consists of three sections, each dedicated to a specific topic: – Chapter I.
Roman art historiographers and their definitions of the Roman art; Chapter II. The origins
and an overview of Roman art; Chapter III. Themes and Contexts of the Roman Art: Portrait,
Figure, Arch. There is also an introduction and an extensive bibliography. Dr Bojic has
taught Roman art and architecture at the Australian National University and is also the author
of several distinguished publications, including monographs on Vitruvius and Pliny the
Elder. She has drawn on all of these sources for this excellent book.
Dr Bojic in this valuable book draws heavily on primary literary sources and presents a
detailed and excellent account of how antiquity viewed itself. She traces the historiography
of Roman art, as preserved in its archaeology, and unites this with an account of its history as
well as an account of how this history is reflected in mythology. Throughout the book she
unifies this literary and historic account with an extensive body of illustrations which both
document and support her arguments.
Dr Bojic draws the distinction between public ritualistic art and the less well known and more
ephemeral private art. Constantly she draws parallels between Roman art and its continuing
relevance for the heritage of art into the modern period. Some of these parallels are quite
unexpected and demonstrate the remarkable originality of the author’s thinking processes.
A particularly valuable contribution of this book is the final section which consists of three
extensive studies in the fields of portraiture, the rendition of the human figure and the
development of narrative, and the engineering and aesthetic properties of the Roman arch and
its extension into dome architecture. Here Dr Bojic’s text sparkles with erudition as she
combines her extensive knowledge of literary sources with the archaeological remains.
This is an excellent and scholarly publication which makes a serious contribution to the study
of Roman art and architecture and of the whole heritage of classical antiquity in thought and
in art.
Professor Sasha Grishin AM, FAHA

The Sir William Dobell Professor of Art History
Head, Art History, Australian National University
Canberra Australia
141
This volume is a result of a long research undertaken by an Australian art history scholar Dr
Zoja Bojic in the field of Greek and Roman art history and art historiography. Dr Bojic’s
expertise includes her analysis of the texts of art historiographers of antiquity, especially
Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder on whose writings she published extensively. In this volume,
Dr Bojic bases her research in the field of Roman art history on her research of art
historiography definitions as they pertain to the Roman art practices. This results with this
volume providing a unique contribution to the Roman art historiography as it takes into
account specific ideas articulated by the writers of antiquity.
In a manner similar to her adopting the art historiography constructs to an analysis of Greek
art, Dr Bojic in this volume adopts such constructs in an analysis of the Roman art practices.
However, the constructs selected, that is, the construct which she selected from the art
historiography writings and which she then applied to the Roman art, are of course different.
Similarly, the art of the Romans, across centuries and geographical areas, is a fluctuating
construct. In order to fully analyse this construct which by default escapes definitions, Dr
Bojic persuasively managed to employ the ideas that were voiced out by the ancient art
historiography writers. Indeed, when applied in art analysis, these ideas prove to be a perfect
tool in the process of reception and perception of the Roman art.
The volume consists of three large chapters. The first chapter provides a thorough analysis of
art historiography texts of antiquity. The second chapter provides an overview of the origins
and the variety of the Roman art practices. The third chapter is dedicated to three phenomena
of the Roman art history: the birth and the existence of the Roman portrait; the rendition of
figure in the Roman art practices across the art media; and the question of the arch and its use
in a variety of settings in the Roman art and architectural practices.
The text is fully illustrated by a large number of carefully selected and therefore fully
appropriate images. The volume is accompanied by an extensive and up to date bibliography
as well as by links to significant collections of the Roman artworks. I strongly recommend
this volume for publication.

Head of Department LIS
Faculty of Philosophy
Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski
142
Проф. др. Тања Поповић
Аутор овог издања др Зоја Бојић такође је аутор елетронског издања Greek art and art
historiography: definitions на које се ова књига у много ком смислу надовезује, слично
како се уметност Рима надовезује на ујметност античке Грчке. И у једном и у другом
издању др Бојић је применила јединствен принцип по коме су текстови античких
историографа уметности заједно са савременом методологијом проучавања
уметничких дела кључ за боље разумевање античке европске уметности. Зоја Бојић на
тај начин указује и на сличност методологија античких историографа уметности и
релевантних савремених теорија о уметности, што одговара еволуцији и континуитету
поставки античких историографа уметности, пре свих Витрувија и Плинија Старијег.
Као аутор два штампана и једног електронског издања из области аничке
историографије уметности, др Бојић је у прилици да у овој монографији примени
приликом анализе самих уметничких дела појмове и теорије античких писаца који су
писали о уметности и уметничким делима свог доба.
Тако ова монографија започиње поглављем Roman art historiographers and their
definitions of the Roman art у коме се расправља о писцима и њиховим делима, са
посебном целином посвећеном односу између двојице најстаријих историчара
уметности чија су нам се дела сачувала, Витрувија и Плинија Старијег. У овом
поглављу такође се пружа преглед текстова каснијих историчара уметности антике,
Филострата Старијег и Филострата Млађег који су писали о сликарству и изложбеним
просторима и Калистрата који је писао о скулптури и идеалном начину излагања
скулптуре. Тиме је аутор постигла то да се неки појмови и и данас актуелни проблеми
савремене музеологије укључе у наш начин размишљања о неким од питања античке
уметности и античке историје уметности.
Друго поглавље, The origins and an overview, указује на настављање античких

традиција у уметности Рима. Те традиције су са једне стране тековине грчке
уметности, а са друге стране тековине етрурске уметности. Двојица античких
историографа уметности, Витрувије и Плиније Старији, су обојица посветила одређене
одломке својих текстова овом питању, на шта се такође указује у овом поглављу.
Такође је у овом поглављу указано на почетак раздвајања римске уметности на
приватну уметност и на јавну уметност, при чему је јавна уметност често поистовећена
са империјалном односно пропагандном уметности.
Треће поглавље Themes and Contexts: portrait, figure, arch се састоји од анализе тема и
контекста римске уметности, и од три одељка. Један је посвећен портрету, где се
расправља о пореклу римског портрета и о стварном и имагинарном портрету и у
јавној и у приватној уметности, други је посвећен фигури и начину приказивања
фигуре у римској сакралној и секуларној уметности, а трећи је посвећен
143
архитектонском елементу лука који се такође појављује и у јавној и у приватној

уметничкој пракси римске културе. На тај начин се постиже да се наше разумевање
римске уметности проширује пошто се у овој монографији указује на то да је ову
уметност могуће посматрати из једне целовитије перспективе.
Ово издање је електронско и пропраћено је великим бројем релевантних репродукција

о којима је реч у тексту, што је од огромног значаја за наше боље разумевање предмета
анализе. Обимна библиографија укључује директне линкове за стабилне вебсајтове.
Са задовољством препоручујем овај рукопис за штампу.
Проф. др. Тања Поповић

Филолошки факултет
Београдски универзитет
144
Zoja Bojic, Roman art and art historiography: definitions, published by the Central Institute for
Conservation (CIK), Regional Alliance of ICOM for South East Europe (ICOM SEE) and the
Singidunum University, Faculty of Media and Communications, Belgrade, 2012
Editor:
Prof. dr. Suzana Polić Radovanović
Text editors:
Catherine Wyburn
Diana Plater
ISBN 978-86-6179-018-8
Print run: 200
Published by
the Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), Regional Alliance of ICOM for South East
Europe (ICOM SEE) and the Singidunum University, Faculty of Media and Communications
Belgrade, 2012
145
CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији

Народна библиотека Србије, Београд
7.032(37)(0.034.2)
7.04(0.034.2)
BOJIĆ, Zoja, 1963-

Roman Art and Art Historiography
[Elektronski izvor] : definitions / Zoja
Bojic. - Beograd : Centralni institut za
konzervaciju : Regional Alliance of ICOM for
South East Europe : Univerzitet Singidunum,
Fakultet za medije i komunikacije, 2012
(Beograd : Omnibus). - 1 elektronski optički
disk (CD-ROM) : tekst, slika ; 12 cm
Tiraž 200. - Napomene i bibliografske

reference uz tekst. - Bibliografija.
ISBN 978-86-6179-018-8
a) Уметност, римска
COBISS.SR-ID 191534604
146
147

Book Bojic Zoja Roman Art and Art Histor PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Book Bojic Zoja Roman Art and Art Histor PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Zoja Bojic ROMAN ART AND ART HISTORIOGRAPHY: DEFINITIONS

For the publishers:

Cover image: Artist unknown, fresco, House of Lucretius Fronto, c.10BC

The publishers acknowledge

Chapter II. The origins and an overview..................................................................................18

Chapter III. Themes and Contexts: portrait, figure, arch.........................................................59

About the author.....................................................................................................................140

A word from the referees........................................................................................................141

In this manner, this volume attempts to provide a contribution to the scholarship of

Roman art historiographers

Vitruvius’ text of De Architectura, Libri I – X reached the Renaissance significantly

intellectual of somewhat conservative beliefs and a writer interested in documenting – rather

Greek legacy in Roman architecture is self-evident. Both Vitruvius (throughout his De

The origins and an overview

LEFT: Oinochoe in bucchero, Etruria, 7/6 c BC, Museo Archeologico di Firenze

However puzzling, this fresco program is nevertheless comparable, to a degree, with an

That terracotta was in great use in the Etruscan architecture is demonstrated by

Artist Unknown, fresco, House of Lucretius Fronto, c.10BC

Artist Unknown, fresco, House of the Small Fountain, detail, Pompeii

Pierre Bonnard, Garden at midday, 1943

Artist Unknown, the House of Augustus, Palatine Hill, Rome, c.30BC

House of the Small Fountain, Pompeii

Illusionistic quasi-realism can be identified in many artworks that were privately

Artist Unknown, A harbor town, fresco, probably 1cAD, Stabiae

Asarotos oikos, mosaic, detail, Museo Gregoriano Profano

Artist Unknown, Theseus and the Minotar, mosaic, Paphos, Cyprus, 3c

Themes and contexts: portrait, figure, arch

Artist Unknown, the House of Augustus, Palatine Hill, Rome, c. 30 BC

Gardens of Sallust, Horti Sallustiani, 1cBC

Imperial imagery and portraiture

Artist Unknown, The Emperor Lucius Verus as Arval, c. 160 AD

Artist Unknown, Head of Constantine, marble, 305AD

LEFT: Artist Unknown, Livia Drusilla as Ops, marble, Roman artwork, 1c AD

Private art and portraiture

49 Ling, R, Roman Painting, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991

Artist Unknown, Diana of Versailles, marble, 1-2cAD

Artist Unknown, Jupiter Tonans, marble, late 1cAD

Artist Unknown, Juno, 2cAD, from Roman Britain, h14.5cm

Artist Unknown, Oceanus, colossal statue, 1–2cAD, marble, h.242 cm

Artist Unknown, Portland Vase, cameo-glass, possibly 5-25AD

In this complex composition every figure is represented in a different movement, thus

Figure and frame

LEFT: Artist Unknown, House of the Vettii, c.70-79AD, Pompeii

Artist Unknown, Bacchanal dance, mosaic, Antioch, 3cAD

Artist Unknown, Drunken Dionysus, mosaic, Antioch, 3cAD

Artist Unknown, Ara Pacis, Eastern side:

MIDDLE: Artist Unknown, Gemma Augustea, 9-12AD, two-layered onyx.

Artist Unknown, Baths of Caracalla, Rome, c.212–216AD

Artist Unknown, Arena of Arles, France, 1cAD

IMP · CAES · FL · CONSTANTINO · MAXIMO · P · F · AVGUSTO · S · P · Q · R ·

Artist Unknown, Santa Costanza, Rome, mid-4cAD

Artist Unknown, Temple of Hercules Victor, Hercules Olivarius, 2cBC, marble

Lancaster, L, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome, Cambridge University

About the author

A word from the referees

Prof. dr. Sasha Grishin

Professor Sasha Grishin AM, FAHA

Prof. dr. Simeon Nedkov

Prof. dr. Simeon Nedkov

Проф. др. Тања Поповић

Друго поглавље, The origins and an overview, указује на настављање античких

архитектонском елементу лука који се такође појављује и у јавној и у приватној