Was Roman Art of the First Centuries B.C. and A.D. Classicizing?Author(s): Gisela M. A. RichterSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1/2 (1958), pp. 10-15Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298207Accessed: 26/11/2010 09:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

WAS ROMAN ART OF THE FIRST CENTURIES B.C. AND A.D. CLASSICIZING? 1

By GISELA M. A. RICHTER (Plates i-v)

As our knowledge and understanding of ancient art increase it is possible to discard old theories that impede the proper appreciation of a certain period. I should like to place in this category of outworn creeds what is commonly called the classicizing or neo-classical art of the first centuries B.C. and A.D., as well as later. It has been thought that during that time there was a reaction from the baroque taste of the late Hellenistic period and a return to the quieter, serener spirit of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.; and that this is indicated both by the many famous works of the classical epoch that were copied and recopied in the late Republican and early Imperial periods and by the sculptures in that general style that were created at that time. Pasiteles and his school have been credited with being pioneers in this neo-classical style.

As a consequence, what seems to me an often contradictory picture has emerged. We have, for instance, running parallel to these so-called neo-classical works, the ultra- realistic Roman portraits of the late Republic, directly inspired not by the idealizing, generalizing Greek portraits of the classical Greek period, but by the realistic portraits of the late Hellenistic age. How is it possible then to say that these same Romans of the first century B.C., who demanded realistic portraits of themselves, preferred above all neo- classical works ? And even in the Julio-Claudian period, when a more generalized stvle was favoured by the imperial house for their portraits, there runs parallel to it a more realistic conception. For recent research has shown that the neo-classical style of the Julio-Claudian portraits was partly, or rather chiefly, due to Augustus' individual pre- ference and to the actual physiognomies of the Julio-Claudian princes. Their strong family likeness, in fact, has often made it difficult to distinguish one from the other. We now know plenty of Roman portraits of more or less veristic style (as we have come to call the dry realism of Republican times) that are attributable to Augustus' time. I might cite two dated examples, both in the British Museum-a relief of two freedmen of the early first century A.D. (pl. i, i) where Demetrius is shown in the realistic Republican style, Philonicus in what might be called a classicizing style; 2 and a grave relief of Lucius Ampudius Philomusus with his wife and daughter (pl. I, 2), where the husband is rendered in a realistic manner, whereas the two women, who wear the Augustan coiffure, are in a more generalized style.3 It seems clear that the classicizing or neo-classical style does not apply to the whole art of the time.

It is of course true that when we survey the many copies of Greek works made in the first century B.C. and later, those in the Pheidian, Polykleitan, and Praxitelean styles abound. But is this not simply due to the fact that the Romans, who had become admirers and col- lectors of Greek works of art after bringing them as spoils from conquered Greek lands, were eager to possess products by artists of resounding names ? The satisfaction of owning a work by Polykleitos, or Pheidias, or Praxiteles was as great in those days as is to-day the pride of owning a Raphael, or a Botticelli, or a Leonardo. It is also known that this eagerness to possess famous works resulted in the invention of a copying process by which Greek originals could be reproduced so exactly that they passed-with the unwary, at least-as originals. This is clear, for instance, from the passage in Lucian's Philopseudes in which Eukrates describes the statues displayed in his house and mentions the Diskobolos by Myron, the Diadoumenos by Polykleitos, and the Tyrannicides by Kritios and Nesiotes, all without mentioning that they were copies. This mania for famous names, however, is only one part of the picture. More and more as we survey the material that has come down to our time-and this material has greatly increased during the last decades-do we find that side by side with copies of the classical age there are many of the Hellenistic period. The taste of the Romans was catholic and individual. Pheidias, Polykleitos, and Praxiteles were greatly admired, but not to the exclusion of Hellenistic art, just as nowadays we

1 This article is based on a paper read to the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies on 25 June, I 957.

2Vermeule, Numis. Circular, LXI, I953, col. 450,

LXII, 1954, col. IO1 ; Ashmole, BMQ, xx, 1955-6, 71 ff.

3 A. H. Smith, JRS, viii, I9I8, 179 ff.

WAS ROMAN ART OF THE FIRST CENTURIES B.C. AND A.D. CLASSICIZING ? II

admire Michelangelo, Rubens, and Caravaggio, as well as Donatello, Fra Angelico, and Raphael. Even Pliny (XXXVI, 37), who extols the sculptors of the classical Greek age, calls the Laokoon 'a work superior to all the paintings and sculptures of the world', ' opus omnibus et picturae et statuariae artis praeferendum.' And whatever date one may assign to this much discussed statue-the second or the first century B.C.-it can hardly be regarded as a product of the serene classical age. We may also remember that in the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline were found copies of Greek sculptures of many different periods-for instance, a fifth-century Amazon, a Lysippian Herakles, and a Hellenistic Marsyas 4 (pl. III, 7), testifying to the wide range of taste of Augustus' intimate friend; that in the paintings of the Villa Farnesina, also of the Augustan epoch, classical and Hellenistic styles appear side by side and that the ensemble of sculptures recently discovered in the Tiberian grotto near Sperlonga shows a great variety of styles, especially the Hellenistic.

It seems opportune, therefore, to review the situation and to try to present a more logical picture of the artistic trends of the Roman age-one that corresponds more nearly to the evidence now at hand.

First, let us recall what started the theory of classicizing Roman art. It stems, I think, from two beliefs long current. One was that during the Hellenistic epoch the realistic, baroque style was confined more or less to Pergamon and Rhodes and other centres outside the mainland of Greece, and that in Greece proper, particularly in Athens, the classical tradition persisted.5 As examples of this theory the same sculptures have been cited again and again-for instance the Athena perhaps by the Athenian Euboulides, considered to be an original Greek work of the second century B.C. ;6 the Zeus from Aigeira7 (pl. II, 3),

again thought to be an original Greek work of Hellenistic times and attributed to the Athenian sculptor Euklides; and a portrait in the Villa Albani,8 once thought to represent the Chrysippos by the Athenian Euboulides around-200 B.C. All these sculptures were con- sidered classicizing, that is, in the tradition of the classical age.

Linked with this theory was another-that in the first centuries B.C. and A.D., when the Roman demand for Greek Art became more and more insistent and widespread, Athenian sculptors-so attested by their signatures-produced works, both in Athens and Italy, in this same neo-classical style, chiefly reliefs for the decoration of the marble funerary altars, candelabra, and colossal vases that were needed for cult purposes and the adornment of private and public buildings.9 And these products were accordingly called Neo-Attic, that is, works by Athenians in the classicizing style that had been practised in Attica during the Hellenistic period.

I do not think that either of these two theories can be considered valid to-day. First of all, how can one believe that the mainland of Greece, and Athens in particular, remained outside the great upheaval in art that swept over the Greek world in the wake of Alex- ander's conquests? As a matter of fact, Athenian and mainland Greek sculptors have left witnesses in their signatures in the very centres where realistic Hellenistic sculpture was produced-Pergamon, Rhodes, Delos, and all over the Hellenistic world.10 Far, there- fore, from being outside the new movement, they helped to create it. And in their home lands there are now also many sculptures testifying to Athenian artists being in the forefront of the realistic movement. One need only remember the great portrait of Demosthenes 11 by the Athenian Polyeuktos, created, we are told, forty years after Demosthenes' death, that

4 Helbig, Fiihrer3, nos. 949, 948, 95'. On the site of the Horti Maecenatis cf. Platner and Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 1929, 269.

5 cf. in particular the detailed exposition by Becatti, 'Attika, Saggio sulla scultura attica dell'ellenismo,' in Rivista del R. Ist. d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte, VII, I940, 7-I i6, and the many references there cited.

6 cf. Becatti, o.c., 48 f., fig. 30. 7ibid., 25 ff., figs. 6, 7. 8 ibid., 27 f., fig. 8; Laurenzi, Ritratti greci, no. 68. 9 cf. Hauser, Die neu-attischen Reliefs, I889, and

most modern books on Greek and Roman sculpture. Hauser was among the first to recognize that these reliefs were not original works, as had been thought by Brunn and others, but copies and adaptations of

earlier creations. Cf. on this subject also the studies on archaistic sculpture: Bulle, ' Archaisierende grie- chische Rundplastik,' in Abh. Bayr. Ak., xxx, 2, I 9 I 8; Schmidt, Archaistische Kunst, 1922; Karouzos, ' Archaistika ', Arch. Delt., x, 1926, 9I ff.; and Lowy, Neuattische Kunst, I 922 (Bibliothek der Kunst- geschichte, herausg. von H. Tietze, vol. 35), each of which marks an important step forward in our under- standing of the intricate subject of the relation of Roman to Greek art.

10 Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer (i885), nos. I55 (Pergamon), I65-7 (Rhodes), 242 ff. (Delos).

11 Schefold, Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner u. Denker, 1943, I06-7; Laurenzi, Ritratti, no. 6i.

I2 GISELA M. A. RICHTER

is, in 280 B.C., and extant in many copies (cf. pl. ii, 6), to realize that Athenians played their part in the initiation of realistic portraiture ; and one need only look at what has now been identified as the real portrait of Chrysippos,12 also extant in many copies (cf. pl. II, 5), to realize that Athens not only helped to initiate this realistic style, but helped to bring it to its acme. Furthermore, when one looks at the splendid realistic gravestone depicting a slave boy holding a restive horse (cf. pl. III, 8), found in Athens in recent years,'3 one becomes convinced that Athenian sculptors were not outside the new artistic conceptions.

Furthermore, the ' neo-classical' works mentioned above that have given Athens the reputation of harking back to former times can now be explained not as new creations of the second century B.C., but as free copies of earlier works. There is plentiful evidence that at this very time copies of earlier works of art were in demand by Pergamene and other princes to form part of their grandiose collections, the forerunners of the modern museums. But the pointing process by which exact copies could be produced had not yet been invented ;14 consequently these Hellenistic copies are free copies, that is, they were made freehand, and so inevitably partake of the spirit of their time. The Athena Parthenos and the Hera or Demeter from Pergamon'5 are the best known examples of that kind; and there are many others-for instance, the sculptures found in the Heroon of Kalydon, dated in the second century B.C.,16 which comprise free copies of the Scopaic Meleager (pl. II, 4) and of the Lysippian Herakles, both familiar from many later, exact copies.

Concerning the so-called Neo-Attic artists and their classicizing products, here too new discoveries and interpretations have enlarged our knowledge. First, it is now evident that the Greek artists who worked for Rome and for Roman patrons throughout the Roman empire were by no means all Athenians.17 The signatures that are occasionally affixed to these works show that, though many of the sculptors came from Athens, others came from Paros, Ephesos, Miletos, and especially from Aphrodisias, in Caria.18 And, as by far the majority of these sculptures are not signed, or even when signed do not state the ethnic of the artist, one can no longer with confidence call them all Athenian. Furthermore, though many of these works are copied and adapted from fifth- and fourth-century Greek originals, for instance, the classicizing adaptations by Sosibios, Salpion, and Pontios,19 many others are taken from Hellenistic prototypes, and still others intermingle classical and late Greek motifs. One need only walk through the Galleria dei Candelabri in the Vatican or the new galleries of the Conservatori Museum to become aware of this important fact and to realize that it was not one period to the exclusion of others that was preferred. Works of all periods -the fifth, fourth, third, and second centuries B.C., and even occasionally the archaic- found favour and were copied, adapted, and intermingled. As one example among many I may illustrate the recently discovered and as yet unpublished altar in the Conservatori Palace20 with reliefs of Maenads and Satyrs which show all the gaiety and abandon and contortions and the landscape elements typical of Hellenistic art (pl. IV, I I-14).

The same observation applies to sculpture in the round. Side by side with the Athena Parthenos in the Terme Museum, signed by the Athenian sculptor (An)tiochos,21 and the

12 Schefold, o.c., 126-7 ; Laurenzi, Ritratti, no. *76; Richter, ' Greek Portraits', Collection Latomnus, xx, 1955, 40, fig. 24 (as reconstructed by M. Char- 'bonneaux).

13 Athens, National Museum, no. 4414. Illustrated in Polemon, iv, 195 i, by Kotzias, and briefly described in BCH, LXXIV, 2949, 291. To be published at length by Ch. Karouzos. My pl. iII, fig. 8 is reproduced from Polemon with the kind permission of Mr. Karouzos.

14 On the pointing process cf. now Appendix I in my Ancient Italy, 205 ff., and the references there cited.

15 Winter, Altertiimer von Pergamon, vii, 23 ff., 33 ff., nos. 23, 24, pls. VII, VIII.

16 Dyggve, Das Laphrion, Der Tempelbezirk von Kalydon, 1948; and my Three Critical Periods of Greek Sculpture, 2952, 34 f., 43, and refs. there given.

17 Hauser, o.c., in I889 was still able to say: 'Alle jene Bildhauer nennen sich Athener.'

18 cf. Loewy, Inschriften, nos. 3I3 ff.; Toynbee, Coll. Latomus, VI, 1951, 17 ff. ; Richter, Three Critical Periods, 1951, 45 ff.; Squarciapino, ' La scuola di

Afrodisia,' in Studi e materiali del Museo dell' Impero Romano, 1943.

19 Loewy, Inschriften, nos. 340, 338, 339. 20 No. 2420. I owe the photographs and permission

to publish them to the great kindness of Mr. C. Pietrangeli. Total height c. 69 cm.; diameter at top c. 59 cm.; height of figures c. 35-35*5 cm.

21 cf. Loewy, Inschriften, no. 342; Helbia, Fiihrer 3 no. 1404; Aurigemma, Museo Nazionale, p. 77, no. i8o. Kaibel, IGI, XIV, no. 1233, suggested ' [Li]n- dios ' for ' [Athe]naios ', but there is no trace of a horizontal bar for a delta, and there would be just room, I think, for Athe on the missing portion of the drapery, especially if the initial alpha were placed on the edge as in the signature of Zenon on the drapery of the seated statue in the same Ludovisi Collection, inv. no. I841 (Loewy, o.c., no. 365; Helbig, Fiihrer3, no. 1315). The omission of the hori- zontal bar in the lambda would be most unusual in this period, not so the omission of the little hori- zontal stroke of the alpha, so Professor Margherita Guarducci tells me.

WAS ROMAN ART OF THE FIRST CENTURIES B.C. AND A.D. CLASSICIZING? I3

herm of Polykleitos' Doryphoros in Naples, signed by Apollonios of Athens,22 we now have a number of statues of Hellenistic style signed by Athenians, for instance: a draped figure found at Piacenza (pl. v, I5), signed by Kleomenes of Athens 23 (perhaps the same Kleo- menes of Athens who signed the well-known statue in the Louvre in which a fifth-century type of Hermes is combined with a portrait of a Julio-Claudian prince, pl. v, i6); 24 and, above all, the bronze Boxer in the Terme Museum, and the Belvedere Torso in the Vatican,25 signed by the Athenian Apollonios, son of Nestor, both of which are best explained in the opinion of many of us as Roman copies of second-century B.C. originals, not any longer as original works of the first century B.C. ;26 for they are signed in letters of the first century B.C. in the regular formula used on such copies; and the signature appears, not as was customary in earlier times on the base of the statue, but on the statue itself.

To the evidence derived from the larger sculptural works I want to add that supplied by the so-called minor arts-minor merely in size, of course, for in quality they are often equal or superior to full-size statues and reliefs. They are important for the question at issue since they frequently reproduce the self-same types current in substantive sculpture.

Anyone who has had the good fortune of intimately studying the engraved sealstones -or gems as they are commonly called-of Greek and Roman times cannot fail to become convinced of two things-the popularity among the Romans of the first centuries B.C. and A.D. of Greek motifs, and the wide range of such designs. When we remember that these gems were personal, intimate possessions, used as seals, amulets, and ornaments, this evidence becomes particularly eloquent. The Roman citizen, proud though he was of his country's achievements, which he indeed constantly figured in his historical reliefs, nevertheless preferred for his private sealstones Greek designs, just as he wanted Greek statues in his gardens and houses. His own Roman wolf and other emblems of purely Roman content appear now and then, and Roman portraits are not infrequent, but by far the majority of the designs are Greek-Greek deities, Greek heroes and monsters, and scenes from Greek my-thology and daily life. Many reproduce famous Greek sculptures and paintings, and have indeed become an important source of knowledge for us to-day, for they show these works of art in their original compositions, without missing parts or disturbing restorations. In studying these designs one becomes impressed once again by the catholicism of Roman taste. Many go back to fifth- and fourth-century prototypes, a few to archaic, and a goodly number to Hellenistic. I may illustrate three attractive examples in New York-a smiling satyr on a sard27 (fig. 2), familiar also from Hellenistic

FIGS. 1-3. ENGRAVED GEMS: MASK OF PAN (i), SATYR (D) AND VENUS VICTRIX (z) METROPOLITAN MUSEUM, NEW YORK Photographs by Metropolitan lMutseum

22 Loewy, o.c., no. 34I ; Ruesch, Guida del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, no. 854.

23 Mansuelli, jd.I, LVI, 1941, 151 ff., figs. i-6; Richter, Thtree Critical Periods, fig. 97.

24 cf. Loeyv, Inschriften, no. 344. Mansuelli, l.c., does not think that the artists of the Louvre and the Piacenza statues could have been the same man because the style is different in the two figures ; but since both statues are undoubtedlv copies, one of a fifth-century work, the other of a Hellenistic one, the question of style is not pertinent. On the other hand, Kleomenes was not an uncommon name.

25 Helbig, Fiihrer3, nos. 1350, 124. 26 cf. Low;y, Neuattische Kzinst, 4; Becatti, Attika,

I6; and my Thtree Critical Periods, 48. I might men- tion here also the portraits of Periander and Bias (Schefold, Bildnisse, 152 f.), by some thought to be classicizing works of the first century B.C., by others, rightly in my opinion, faithful Roman copies of Greek fourth-century works (cf. Laurenzi, Ritratti greci, nos. 30, 47).

27 Richter, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Mletro- politan Mu seum, 1956, no. 332.

I4 GISELA M. A. RICHTER

sculpture; a mask of Pan on a jasper28 (fig. I), which resembles the Pan on the famous Hellenistic group of Pan and a nymph from Delos ;29 and a Venus Victrix on a carnelian 30 (fig. 3), popular too on Roman coins, which also clearly goes back to a Hellenistic original.

Then there are the so-called Campana reliefs-the terra-cotta plaques used by the Romans for the decoration of their houses and therefore also reflecting the taste of the individual. Here too one finds classical and Hellenistic motifs used side by side. As typical products I may cite the plaque in New York3l representing Oinomaos and Myrtilos in fifth-century style, and that in London 32 with a satyr and a Maenad in the gay Hellenistic manner (pl. v, I7).

A significant fact has of recent years emerged regarding the so-called Megarian moulded vases popular during the third and second centuries B.C. These vases consisting mostly of bowls were first thought to have been produced at Megara,33 but are now known to have stemmed from a number of places. It seems, in fact, that Athens was one of the chief centres of production. In excavations on the Athenian Agora, Kerameikos, and Pnyx,34 not only have many examples been found, but also moulds and misfired, discarded pieces that would hardly have been imported from elsewhere. In examining these Athenian pro- ducts an instructive fact becomes evident. The reliefs with which these vases are decorated, though they consist chiefly of floral motifs, occasionally also have figured scenes; and the style of many is typically Hellenistic. Lively satyrs in characteristic contortions and playful little Erotes engaged in the multiple activities assigned to them in Hellenistic times appear again and again. It seems, therefore, that Athenian potters of the Hellenistic age had the same fertile imagination that is apparent in other regions at this time, and that the style of their products is not neo-classical but reflects the tendencies of its epoch.

Greek and Roman metalware is particularly illuminating for our investigation. The frequent allusions by ancient writers to the popularity of Greek metalware among Roman collectors are well known.35 Pliny (xxxiii, I48), Livy (27, IO, 7), and Cicero (In Verr., ii, 4, 50-2), describe the large quantity of silver, gold, and bronze metalware that was brought home by victorious Roman generals after their conquests of Greece, Asia Minor, and Southern Italy, and was then exhibited in public places. As had happened with the sculp- tures brought from Greek lands to Rome, the imported Greek metalware started an era of private collecting. And, again as in the sculptures, when the supply of originals gave out reproductions were made, both direct copies and adaptations. The ensembles found at Boscoreale, Pompeii, Hildesheim, Bernay,36 and the single pieces discovered elsewhere have made us familiar with this phenomenon. In these Roman reproductions Hellenistic types are as popular as those of classical times. Two fine examples among many I may mention- the little Herakles strangling the serpents, on a bowl from Hildesheim 37 (pl. III, 9), and the birds looking for food, on cups from Boscoreale 38 (pl. III, IO).

The plaster casts from Egypt39 and Afghanistan 40 that reproduce motifs on Greek metalware for use by artists of the Roman age 41 tell the same story. Types of all periods occur, but particularly popular are the Hellenistic, so popular, in fact, that some scholars have thought that they all dated from that period.42

One could extend this investigation to other branches of Roman art and recall the

28 ibid., no. 337. 29 National Museum, Athens, no. 3335 ; Papa-

spiridi, Guide, pp. 95 f. 30 Richter, Cat., no. 300. 31 Richter, Ancient Italy, fig. 205.

32 Walters, Catalogue of Terracottas in the British Museum, no. D 525.

33 Benndorf, Griechische u. sizilische Vasenbilder, I i8.

34 H. A. Thompson, 'Two centuries of Hellenistic Pottery,' Hesperia, III, 1934, 31 I-48o; Schwabacher, 'Hellenistische Reliefkeramik im Kerameikos,' AJA, XLV, 1941, I82-228; Edwards, 'Hellenistic Pottery from the Pnyx,' Hesperia, Supplement x, 1956, 83-112.

35 cf. especially 0. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunst- gerchichte der romischen Republik, 1941, 26 ff., 59 ff.

36 cf. De Villefosse, 'Le Tr6sor de Boscoreale,' Mon. Piot, v, I899; Pemice and Winter, Der

Hildesheimer Silberfund, I9OI ; E. Babelon, Tresor d'argenterie de Berthouville, I9I6; Maiuri, La Casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria, I932; also Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers, 1954, 68 ff., and passim; Toynbee, o.c., 5' ff.; Richter, Ancient Italy, 56 ff.

37 Pernice and Winter, o.c., pI. III. 38 cf. De Villefosse, o.c., pls. xi-xiv. 39 Rubensohn, Hellenistisches Silbergerdt in antiken

Gipsabgiissen, i9i i ; Ippel, ' Guss und Treibarbeit in Silber,' Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm, 1937,

3 ff. 40 Hackin, Kurz, and others, Nouvelles recherches

arche'ologiques a Begram, 1939-40 (Paris, 1954);

Adriani, Archeologia classica, VII, 1955, 43 ff.; Wheeler, Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers, i6i ff.

41 cf. my forthcoming article in the AJA of Oct., 1958.

42 e.g. Rubensohn, o.c.

WAS ROMAN ART OF THE FIRST CENTURIES B.C. AND A.D. CLASSICIZING? 15

Hellenistic prototypes of the paintings of the Villa Item, of the Alexander mosaic, of the street musicians signed by Dioskourides, of many bronze and terra-cotta statuettes, and of reliefs on lamps and coins. All reinforce the evidence already cited.

What picture, then, emerges for the art of the first century B.C., A.D., and later? It was not, it would seem, a neo-classical art. Artists copied and adapted the motifs of all previous epochs, from the fifth to the second century B.C., and occasionally even of the sixth. Side by side with the neo-classical appear what might be termed neo-Hellenistic works-in sculpture, painting, metalware, pottery, terra-cotta plaques and statuettes, and engraved gems. Motifs which had been created all over the Greek world-Asia Minor, Greece proper (including Attica), Alexandria, South Italy-were utilized again and again throughout the Roman epoch. Art had become international in the true sense of the word. No frontiers impeded the spread of Graeco-Roman art over the whole Roman empire. Knit together by Roman rule, stimulated by an enthusiastic demand, not only in Italy and Greece, but North, East, South, and West, this art was produced and reproduced and has become our heritage.

JRS vol. XLVIII (1958) PLATE I

I. RELIEF OF DE.METRIUS PHILONICUS, C. ~.2. RELIEF 01 I. AMPUDIUS PHILOMUSUS, C. 9.BOTH IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM (See p. i)

Photographs and copyright of the British M Iuseu m

JRS Vol. XLVIII (I958) PLATE II

3. ZEUS FROMI AIGEIRA, C. Ao 4. MELEAGER, C. 4-, BOTH IN NATIONAL MUSEUM, ATHENS. 5. CHRYSIPPOS, C. ; 6. DEMOSTHENES, C. , BOTH IN VATICAN MUSEUM. (See pp. II f.)

Photographs by (3) Bildarchi2 Marbhrg, (t) NPational Mfuiseum, Atlhens, (, 6) Vatican Mluseuom

JRS vol. XLvIII (I958) PLATE III

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7. HANGCING MARYAS IN CONSERVATORI MTUSEUI, ROE, C. P . 8. DETAIL OF STELE WITH HORr E AND GROOM IN NATIONAL MtUSEUMX, ATHENS, C. 6s. 9. SILV'ER DISH WVITH INFANT HERAKLES IN HILDESHEIMt MUSEUMt, C. i. 10. SILVER

CUP W\ITH CRANES FROM BOSCOREALE IN MIORGAN LIBR.ARY, NEWV YORK, C. 4. (See pp. xII i.)

Phzotographtsfrom (7) Mulsei Gapitolinwi, (8) ' Polemont' IF, 1951, (9) Hildeshzeim Mu>Zseuzm, (10) MXetropolitant Mu seum, New York

JRS vol*. XLVIII (I958) PLATE IV

ilf- WP PIC * e

j~~~~~

4L

xII, 12, 13, I4. SEPULCHRAL ALTAR WITH SATTRS AND MAENADS IN CONSERVATORI MUSEUM, ROME, C. ~. (See p. I2)

Phtographs t_ by Misei __-p_!._

JRS VOI. XLVIII (I958) PLATE V

L5. FEMALE STATUE SIGNED BY KLEOMENES IN MUSEO CIVICO DI PIACENZA, C. ^. I6. PORTrAIT STATUE SIGNED BY KLEOENXESB IN LOUVRE, C. 6. I7. TERRA COTTA PLAQUE, SATYR AND MAENAD WITH INFANT DION'YSOS, IN BRITISH

MIUSEUM, C. ?+. (See pp. I3 f.) Photographs from (I 5) Professor Ferdinando Arisi, (I6) Mlse'e daJ Lotuvre, (I 7) British .Museumn