literary evidence for the beginnings of roman art

Literary Evidence for the Beginnings of Roman ArtAuthor(s): C. C. van EssenSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 24 (1934), pp. 154-162Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/297054 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 21:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

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

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:53:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/297054?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART'

By C. C. VAN ESSEN

'Art in Rome and Roman art are two notions not necessarily identical.' Some years ago, I began a paper on the chronology of Roman sculpture under the Republic with these words,2 and since then Mrs. Strong has published her book Art in Ancient Rome, which by its title seems to express the same view-a view corroborated by the materials studied in the first chapters. Therefore, notwithstanding some recent objections, 3 in matters of plastic art at Rome, I persist in distinguishing a Latin4 and a Roman period, meeting about 90 B.C., the epoch of the Social War.

The transition was a little sudden :5 a Roman style came into existence at once. The reason for this, I believe, was the necessity in which Rome found herself of occupying a predominant position among the Italic peoples: she was forced6 to display all her latent powers, and the result was surprising. Involuntarily one is reminded of a similar phenomenon in the later artistic history of the same city-the scarcely less unexpected change which took place about A.D. i 5oo when, following the Tuscan influence which had pre- dominated during the fifteenth century, a Roman school grew up from roots as little conspicuous as those traceable in the second century B.C.

The analogy of circumstances goes still further. The artists who led the movement of about A.D. I500 were no more native Romans than those who, in the second century, represent Roman literature; yet that did not prevent their works from being entirely national. Rome, like every true city, absorbed them and amalgamated their nationalities. In the case of plastic arts, however, things seem to be slightly different during the second century: it is a fact often to be noticed in the history of civilisation that the development of the various forms of art does not run along parallel lines. In the first

1 Summary of a paper read before the ' Societas Graeca' at Groningen in February, 1934. I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Strong and the Editorial Committee of the Journal ol Romnan Studies for their kindness in revising the manuscript and in giving me valuable suggestions.

2 Mededeelingen Nederlandsch Historisch Instituut Rosne, I 928, p. 29 ff.

3 By Mrs. Dr. A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta in her dissertation Ancestral Portraiture in Rome (Univ. of Amsterdam, I932), p. 77 f. But in her system, too, the year go B.c. is of paramount importance (cf. pp. 37, 63): so also in the Chicago dissertations referred to below.

4 Some remarks on this period in my paper Bull. Vereeniging Antieke Beschaving v, I (1930), i.;

cl. Atti 1?. Congr. intern. etr. (ig28), p. 88 f. and Prof. Cultrera, St. etr. i, 86 f., 91.

5 Cf. Meded. Ned. Inst. Rome, 1928, p. 32 f.; also below, note 8. Ideas like those propounded by Prof. A. Grenier (Le genie rom., p. 279 f.), which only reflected current opinion, were justly, though perhaps too frankly, criticised by Prof. Cultrera (St. etr. i, 89, Z, cl. 93; and also Atti I?. Congr. naz. etr. (z926) ii, p. 92). The truth is that Roman art is one of the many variations of. Italic art, the unity of which has sufficiently been demonstrated by Prof. Cultrera, St. etr. l.c. 83/4; cl. recently Mrs. Strong in CAH ix, 804 and Prof. Bandinelli, Mnemosyne, I934, p. 93.

6 Cf. Cic. Tusc. iv, 5-6; ii, 5-6.



LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART I55

century B.C. plastic arts, too, acquired a Roman character, although we do not know of Roman artists.

In my paper mentioned above I discussed another question- whether it is possible during the last decades of the Republic to point to persons playing the same part as Pope Julius II, the Medici, the Farnese and their like some i,6oo years later. For it is undeniable that the encouragement and personal interest of these popes and nobles greatly helped the contemporary artists, although it m-ay be admitted that they were not a determining factor. I To point out similar personalities in Roman society of the first century B.C.

is the object of the present study. Notwithstanding the far less plentiful material available for a period so much more distant than the Renascence, in which, despite the wealth of evidence, many details must remain uncertain, I hope to be able to present some observations of value. 8

Sulla was doubtless capable of a passion for art, unlike the rough Marius of whom the contrary is recorded. 9 Of Marius we can assume no more than that he patronised the architect C. Mutius, builder of the Aedes Honoris et Virtutis at Rome, but to what extent his interest went is quite unknown. As to Sulla, on the other hand, although our sources only speak of his literary interests, 1 0 we know from the monuments how earnestly he tried to embellish Rome and its surroundings with new constructions. These buildings inaugurate the monumental style of the Roman period: the scanty remains prove that those of earlier times were not judged worthy of preservation. Of Sulla's constructions it is enough to mention the Tabularium and the Aedes Herculis Custodis at Rome, the Aedes Fortunae Primigeniae at Praeneste and the Aedes Vestae at Tivoli, to form an idea of the buildings erected at his instigation. Did he really only give orders to build, without taking any further notice of the projects ? Or did he discuss them with the architects ? We do not even know the names of his experts. An indication in the domain of sculpture is possibly offered by the following considerations.

7 For the stimulating effect of personal interest, cf. Cic. Tusc. i, 4. But this can never be a determining factor in matters of art; cl. Prof. Rodenwaldt,

Problem des Klassischen in der Kunst' Zeitschr. A. Aesthetik und allgens. Kunstwiss. xi, 2, 127 f.

and Archaeol. Jahrb., I934, p. 225. The truth of this in general was known already in antiquity; see the answer of Themistocles to the Seriphian, Plato, Republ. 329 E and Plut. Themist. i8, 2.

8 Quite recently attempts have been made to answer the same question for literature, by Virginia Moscrip, Literary Patronage in Rome 240-90 B.C.

(unpublished dissert. summarized in Abstracts ol Theses Univ. Chicago Humanistic Series VII, 433 ff.) and Dorothy M. Schullian, External Stimuli to Literary Production in Rome 90-27 B.C.

(Dissert. Univ. Chicago, I932); ci. the reviews

_7RS, 1933, I07 and Philol. Wochenschr., I933, col. 794. For the importance of the Social War and the year 90 B.C. see Moscrip, pp. 433 and 437; Schullian, p. io6.

9 Cic. pro Arch. I9, cl. Haim's note ad 5; Schullian (p. 77 ff.) studies the causes of it. On C. Mutius see Brunn, Kunstlergesch. ii 2, p. 250.

1' Plut. Sulla 36. Carcopino (Sylla, p. 2I5) does not accept this information, which as it stands certainly is not exact ; it suffices to record the fact that at least the actor Roscius, the friend of Cicero (ci. below, note 4z) was no debauchee But we may still maintain that even in his last days Sulla preserved his connections with the world of artists, a circumstance not to be marvelled at in a man of so great an intellect and so wide a culture (c/. e.g. Carcopino, ibid. p. 2I9, also pp. i5, zi).



I56 C. C. VAN ESSEN

L. Lersch cites a passage from Chalcidius ad Plat. Timaeus, p. 440, Meurs. (-= 5 I C St.) 11 from which we may conclude that a certain ' Apollonius artifex' was employed for the restoration of the Aedes Jovis Capitolini as sculptor of the chryselephantine statue of the god. It is possible, and Brunn approves of the suggestion, 12 that this artist is identical with Apollonius Nestoris f. from Athens, the author of the Belvedere torso and of the bronze boxer in the Terme Museum, works recalling the Asianic style. If so, the conjecture that the heads called ' Sulla '13 (and in my opinion with good reason) are by a (South-?)Italic master of the same school cannot be excluded1 4-an hypothesis parallel to Klein's attribution of the head of Pompeius to Pasiteles.

Concerning Lucullus our information is more positive: Plutarch15 states of him that he was even too fond of pictures and statues. From other sources 16 we know with certainty that Arcesilaus executed works for him, though they are now lost. Professor Klein ascribes to the artist the Borghese crater in the Louvre, not without a certain degree of probability. Another consideration may help us to a more accurate knowledge of him. In the villa of Q. Voconius Pollio at Marino di Roma there was discovered a series of so-called Campana slabs, a category of monuments the prototypes of which belong essentially to the Republic. 17 The pieces in question represent dancing maenads, a subject rather common on such slabs, and in some cases the similarity to the Borghese crater is striking. Now it is possible, although it cannot be proved, that the villa belonged to Voconius the legate of Lucullus,18 and that thus we may trace a connection with Arcesilaus.

11 Chalcidius, now ed. J. Wrobel (Leipzig, Teubner, 1876); the passage in question is on p. 361, ? cccxxxviii. Lersch Arch. Anz., I847, 7*=Bull. Inst., I847, 107. This difficult passage, unin- telligible as given in these publications (and in Brunn, Kinstlergesch. I 2, p. 379) without the context, requires an explanation which lies beyond the scope of the present paper.

12 L.c.; others, e.g. Loewy, Inschr. griech. Bildhauer, p. 243, do not agree.

13 I prefer to place the artist in the Sullan epoch like Haakh (Arch. Zeit., I856, 239) and Collignon (Sc. gr. ii). For, although the Aedes lovis Capitolini was dedicated only in 69 B.C., it is highly probable that the statue had been begun and completed, perhaps even venerated in a temporary chapel, before; for a similar instance see Bourguet, Ruisnes de Delphes, p. z66. Indeed it is to be expected that the priests would suffer as short an interruption as possible in the highest political cult of the state (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Rmer 2, p. ZIs5). We know moreover that in Sulla's life-time columns had been procured (Richter, Topogr. Rome2, p. Iz5) which suggests that restoration was immediately taken in hand and executed at full speed.

14 C/. Mededeel. Ned. Inst. Rome, I928, pp. 40 f. and 59. The Asianic style is no obstacle: a con-

temporary group of Athenian artists was influenced by it. Cf., however, the new identification of Sulla by Prof. Curtius in Rom. Mitt. xlvii (1932),

202 ff., and Kroll, Kultur d. Ciceron. Zeit, p. I44 (R. Herbig).

15 Lucullus 39 init. For the interrelation in matters of taste and politics between Sulla and Lucullus, and their common interests cf. Schullian, External Stimuli (Diss. Univ. Chicago, 1932), p. 83.

16 Cf. Klein, Antikes Rokoko 67; Schullian, p. 84.

17 Cf. Bull. Vereeu. Ant. Beschav. i, I (I926),

I9; 2 (I926), Iz; Mededeel. Ned. Inst. Rome viii (I928), 43, 2; della Seta, Catal. V. Giulia, index s.v. 'Campana rilievi' ; Kroll, Kult. Cic. Zeit, ii. I4I

(Herbig). 18 The slabs in the Terme Museum (Paribeni4,

no. 872-5956, cf. 4I42= 5Z08) ; for Voconius see Liibker, Reallex. s.v.; the praenomen Q. was very frequent in the family. The slabs of the type v. Rohden-Winnefeldt, Architekt. Rom. Terrak., pl. xvi (= Campana, Opere in plastica, pl. iog=Reinach, Rpe7rt. Rel. ii, 274, I, and Roscher, Mythol, Lex. s.v. 'Maenaden,' fig. col. 2277/8) clearly descend from a source analogous to that of the Borghese crater (Klein, Ant. Rok., figs. 28/9).



LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART I57

Of Crassus nothing can be said, but it is otherwise with Pompeius. From several sources 1 9 we learn of his relations with Pasiteles and Coponius, both Italic artists.2 0 The former, a native of S. Italy, was by far the more important of the two. We need not repeat all that has been written about his alleged archaistic tendencies : I entirely agree with the late Professor Klein, who attributed to him21 the well-known Ny-Carlsberg head of Pompeius, thus suggesting that, so far from being archaistic, he was an Asianic-a suggestion corroborated by the fact that later Apulian art was strongly influenced by the art of Asia Minor, as is proved by the terracotta statuettes. Now it is curious that a series of Campana slabs of exactly the first century B.C.22 shows a marked revival of Apulian motives of about 300 B.C., and it may reasonably be asked whether they did not originate under the influence of Pasiteles. Some of them have archaistic traces too, which our literary evidence can explain. They show that he occasionally worked in this manner (like some Greek artists, even in one single work), and that Stephanus and Menelaus continued only one of the styles practised by their versatile teacher.23 In the mean- time we get a curious insight into the Roman artistic life of the epoch. The Asianic (or possibly neo-Iono-Attic) archaist Arcesilaus works for the anti-Pompeian Lucullus, and later for the neo-Atticist Caesar; his rival, the champion of national (but Asianised) art, Pasiteles, for Pompeius: this Asianised art seems appropriate to the latter's character and education.24 Here the interrelation between artist and patron may be excellently seen.

It is from Cicero above all that we hope to learn about such questions as interest us here, on account of his numerous private letters ; and we are not disappointed. He often speaks about them. Though the persons he mentions are mostly obscure, we can nevertheless trace a picture with the help of quotations arranged in chronological order ; for these provide us with an accurate insight into the attitude of prominent Romans towards this particular element in ancient civilisation.

Some of the earliest letters25 to Atticus (67 B.C.) are concerned with a matter of this sort-an order for ornamenta yuvocor.6 for the writer's Tusculan villa, to be bought in Greece. The purchase of these sculptures at a cost of HS. 20,400 2 6 Cicero thought cheap, 27 and

1 9 C/. Brunn, Kiinstlergesch. i2, 4I5 ff. 2 0 For Pasiteles see Klein, Rok. 17I f. ; Liibker

s.v. For Coponius see Brunn l.c., 420; della Seta, Italia ant. 1, p. 255; Cultrera, St. etr. 1, 90, I.

21 L.c.; cf. Hauser, Neuatt. Rel. I82 .

Waldstein, Baumeisters Denkmdler ii, s.v. ' Pasiteles'; Picard, Sculpt. ant. ii, 22I ff.; Mededeel. Ned. Isst. Rossie, I928, I.c.; Mrs. Strong, Arte in Roma ant., pp. I02 (' Pasitele napoletano,' source io6, IIo; cl. CAH ix, 8i516; Bandinelli, Mnemosyne, 1934, 93 f.

22 E.g. v. Rohden-Winnefeldt 1.1., pl. viii ==Reinach. Rip. Rel. ii, 248, z and Martha, Art

itr., fig. I89); pl. lxi (=Rein. Rip. Rel. ii, 259, I)

and Rein. RR ii, z85, 2. I only take some of the most conspicuous specimens. C!. Mededeel. Nederl. Inst. Rosne, 1928, 43, 2.

23 Cf. Mnemosyne, 1934, 93- 24 For Pompeius and Rhodes, cl. Schullian,

External Stimuli (Diss. Univ. Chicago, 1932), p. 87. 25 The letters (chronologically arranged) which

concern us here are-ad Att. i, 6, z (c. Ist.

Dec., 67); i, 9, 2 ; i, 8, 2; i, IO) 3; i, 3, 2. 26 ad Att. i, 8, z.

27 ad Att. i, 3, 2.



I58 C. C. VAN ESSEN

others of the same kind followed.28 They all found their place in appropriate surroundings, the Academy of his villa. A couple of years now pass without allusions to matters of art, but in December 6o he writes a curious and difficult letter to his friend2 9 about the windows looking out on to the garden at Tusculum; by Stoic doctrine he dis- proves the Epicurean theory of Atticus, adducing too some arguments of his architect Cyrus, who proves to be a good theorist. The relations between the two persons are clearly to be seen: they may serve to illustrate what has been suggested before about Sulla and the artists employed by him. Still more may another example. In the year 53 B.C. Cicero writes to C. Trebatius Testa about Chrysippus Vettius, a freedman of Cyrus,3 0 of whom he speaks in terms which are more convincing than any conjectures. ' Chrysippus has made me think that you have not forgotten me; for he gave me your greetings in your own words.... I also learned from him with great pleasure that you are friendly with Caesar.' It can scarcely be supposed that Trebatius would confide matters so delicate as his personal relations with the leading figures in politics to a person whom he regarded merely as an employe of Cicero: on the contrary, a much more intimate relation is implied.

Chrysippus appears for the first time in 59 B.C. The question about which he is consulted is of no great importance; but nevertheless it shows the interest taken by Cicero in matters of building and at the same time it proves that he finds Vettius more reliable than Philotimus, Terentia's agent, though Philotimus did not lack technical knowledge.31 Some years later, in 56 B.C., after the exile, we find Cyrus again together with a certain Numisius, who is otherwise unknown.32 It appears that Numisius drew up plans to which a Longilius (redemptor) was now building a house for Q. Cicero under the supervision of Cyrus. The work, however, proceeded slowly because the contractors were speculating on the great building activity to be expected during the aedileship of Clodius, and this tempted them, as we may conjecture, to delay matters in the hope of better prices. Nevertheless, Marcus rejoices that in April there was already much more to be seen than when they had studied

28 ad Att. i, 4, 3 (before July 66; Cicero has even not yet seen the sculptures mentioned above). It should be stated that the auctioses frequently occurring in his correspondence need not have any connection with our subject; but cf. in Verr. Act. II, IV, 14.

2 9 ad Att. ii, 3, 2. 30 The letter is ad Fam. vii, 24; about Cyrus

cl. Boissier, Ciciron et ses amis, 89 ; Brunn, I.c., ii2,

236, and also Cic. pro Milone 17/8, of 52 a.c. If the architect can have a freedman, he must have been a naturalised civis himself (c/. Cagnat, Cours d' epigr. lat., pp. 75, 78, and Girard, Manuel de droit rom.5, pp. ii8 ff.). As the libertus is called Vettius Chrysippus (the names in the text

are placed in inverted order, as is frequent with Roman authors) it must be supposed that his patrosus had the name Vettius Cyrus (cf. Girard, p. I23). They belonged then to the gens Vettia. Cyrus had also brought up Chrysippus; he rebuilds Cicero's house after the exile, and is employed by him until the last years of his life as an adviser and architect (ad Att. xiii, 29, of May 45 and xiv, 9, of May 44).

31 ad Att. ii, 4, 7 (March.)

3 ad Q. Ir. ii, z, z (Jan. I9 ; Q. is at the time 'legatus Pompei' in Sardinia). It is probable that ad Q. fr. ii, 4, z and 3 (March 56) belong to the same category, as certainly does ii, 5, 3 (April 56)



LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART 159

the plans together. His interest does not change: 33 when, in December 54,34 he writes to Quintus again on a similar subject he cannot refrain from saying ' My delight in the house' (the villa of Quintus in Minturnae ?) 'increases every day; above all, the lower portico and its adjacent rooms are good ' (it is a pity that Cicero does not inform us what exactly he liked about them). ' Your projects for Arcanum require the taste of Caesar ' (the hint given here is valuable) ' or even of some one with a still finer taste. For these paintings of yours, the palaestra, the swimming-bath and the Nile,35 are the work of many Philotimi, not Diphili.' If we recall that the r'le of Philotimus in architecture is not at all a prominent one in Cicero's letters 3 6 and compare it with the praises sung of him here, and if we remember the far more important position held by Cyrus, we are warned against underrating the position of the latter whether in the social scale or in his profession. Cyrus was also entrusted with public works, the restoration of the Aedes Telluris and the Porticus Catuli,37 in September of the same year.

It was not until 49 B.C. that Cicero had time to revert to these matters. Either this year or the year before, 3 8 but in any case prior to the death of Tullia, his Epicurean friend M. Fadius Gallus, legate of Caesar, had bought for him a collection of sculptures, which, however, he could not appreciate.3 ' The answer is somewhat of a rebuke, and goes into some detail. First of all we hear that Cicero still adheres to his former opinion about the character of the sculptures he desires, and then that he has by no means a high opinion of the Ambracian Muses of Metellus. We need not, however, be em- barrassed by this judgment ; he goes on to declare that his interest in sculpture is not so very great-' if anything of this kind delights me, it is painting.' Here the true Roman taste is expressed without any constraint, and it can be confirmed by the manner -in which the Romans employed statues.40 The man from whom Fadius acquired the Bacchic figures, was a certain C. Avianius Evander, whom we must study more precisely.

Emancipated by M. Aemilius Avianius and residing at the

33 CG. e.g. ad Q. Ir. iii, i, 6, 'sed etiam ipse crebro interuiso.'

34ad 0. fr. iii, 9'7. 35Mezger translates 'Wassergraben,' too vague

an expression. We have here an example of the increasing taste for Egyptian motives in Roman art, the first example of which I find in Sulla's mosaic in the Aedes Fortunae Primigeniae in Praeneste (Strong, Arte in Roma ant., p. 82/3): this tendency is a marked feature in the art of the last decades of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire.

36 Cf. ad Att. ii, 4, 6 (March 59) cited above, and ad Q. fr. v, 4, 3, to be considered below. For Diphilus, cf. ad Q. fr. iii, I, 5 (Sept. 45, where he is mentioned together with Cincius, the agent of Atticus, and Nicephorus, villicus of Quintus):

he was not greatly esteemed by Marcus, for he writes about him 'aliquando perpendiculo et linea discet uti ? ' (ad Q. Ir. iii, I, z).

37 ad Q. Ir. iii, I, 14 (Sept. 54). 38 The date of the letter (ad Farn. Vii, 23) is not

certain (in any case before the death of Tullia in Febr. 45). Marx (cf. below) dates it to 49 B.c. on valid arguments.

3 9 It is a pity that we are not informed whether they are-or at least were considered to be- originals or copies (executed by Evander himself ?). Some reason in favour of the first possibility is to be found in the passage concerning Damasippus, who was famed for having ruined himself by buying ancient statues (Horace, Sat. ii, 3, 64 and passim).

40 Cf. Lippold, Kopien u. Umbild., p. I63.



i6o C. C. VAN ESSEN

time at Athens, he later, shortly after 30 B.C., became one of the numerous naturalised Greeks in Rome. For M. Antonius brought him from Athens to Alexandria, probably with the intention of conferring splendour on the court of Cleopatra, whence he came to Rome as a prisoner of war, and settled down as a sculptor and art dealer.41 Eventually, before 28 B.C., he began to restore damaged sculptures, and it is for that reason that Hauser includes him among the ' Pasitelean neo-Attici.' We have seen before what to think of the Neo-Attic character of Pasiteles and his school ; therefore Hauser's opinion does not carry much conviction; but on the other hand there is some reason for putting Evander in relation with Pasiteles. We remember Pompeius' inclination toward this artist, and thus we are enabled to understand how Cicero, who was an admirer of Pompeius, came to protect a member of the same school.42 Therefore we may imagine his work as not very different from that of Stephanus, the professed pupil of Pasiteles, of M. Cossutius Cerdo, Cleomenes and M. Cossutius43 Menelaus, the pupil of Stephanus, who together constituted an anti-Caesarian group. But, once the Civil War was over, these things evidently ceased to carry weight ; for Stephanus worked for the Caesarian Asinius Pollio.44 It seems to me, however, more than a mere accident that two groups of artists, led by the rivals Pasiteles and Arcesilaus and representing different styles, should thus be capable of connection with patrons who were politically opposed.45

Some years after this letter Cicero sustained the heaviest possible blow: on 15 February, 45 B.c., his daughter Tullia died. Immediately afterwards there begins a series of letters46 in which the Fanum Tulliae is constantly to the fore.47 We need not follow the details of

41 Cf. Fr. Marx, 'C. Avianius Euander und Ciceros Briefe ' (Festschr. Benndorf, I898, 37 ff .). Especially ad Fam. xiii, z, and Plin. NH xxxvi, 32, finally Cicero, ed. Orelli-Baiter-Halm, vol. vii, p. I 3; 92, and Brunn, Kiinstlergesch. i 2, 38z, repeated by Hauser, Neuatt. Rel., i86.

42 A secondary proof is furnished by Cic. de Divinat. i, 79: the omen concerning Q. Roscius Gallus, the well-known actor, the teacher and intimate friend (' amores ac deliciae tuae ' are the actual words employed by Q. Cicero, I.c. ; cf. Schullian, External Stimuli, p. 35) of Marcus, had been dealt with by the poet Archias, a native of Antioch, and Pasiteles (cf. Arch. Jahrb., I932,

236, 4; for other connections between Archias and Roscius, cf. Schullian, p. 79). It is evident that Cicero (and we may assume the same for his protege) had relations with the Asianic group led by Pasiteles. That he was an Asianic artist can at least be said for the beginning of his career (cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstprosa j3, ZIZ f.); in later years he was more moderate (cf. ibid. p. 23I ff.)-

4 Evidently these Cossutii had the same kind of connections with the little known gens Cossutia as the artists studied here with Cicero (ci. Mrs.

Strong, Arte i. R. ant., p. 107; also Springer iL0, p. 477, where Menelaus is dated to the time of Caesar). Cerdo seems to have come from Delos, where a sculptor's studio belonging to a man of this name has been excavated (Lippold, Kopien und Umbildungen, p. 34; Picard, Sculpt. ant. ii, 21 I) and the name Cossutius actually occurs on inscriptions of the Aegean isles (Bull. de Corr. Hell. xxxvi, 30).

44 Cf. Brunn, Kunstlergesch. i2, 38I. 4 At first such parallels might seem to be of

slight importance, but they are corroborated by similar phenomena in the domain of literature (ci. Moscrip, Liter. Patronage in Abstracts Theses, Univ. Chicago Hum. Ser. vii, pp. 434/6 passim; Schullian, External Stimuli (Diss. Chicago, I93Z)

Foreword and p. z9).

46 ad Att. xii, I8; I9; 20; 35; 36; 37; 38 4I ; xiii, 6, I ; 29, 2 (all of the months March to June 45). It is worthy of note that it is only to his intimate friend that he writes on the subject.

47 Ie very much insists upon the name, as appears from several passages (e.g. xii, 35 and 4),

both on account of the idea of apotheosis (ibid. 36/7) and also for legal reasons (ibid. i9 and 36).



LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART i6i

his affectionate zeal in surmounting the difficulties that arose: he found time even to look after the contractor for the columns in Chian marble, Apelles, and certainly had many conversations with the architect Cluatius before everything was settled according to his wishes. And these were not easy to satisfy, as is clear from a passage 48

in which he complains of the lack of style (insulsitas) of a villa offered him for sale. Finally the last notice to be gleaned from his correspondence,49 in the middle of April 44 B.C., concerns an architect again, Corumbus, libertus Balbi, a man of some reputation, as little known to us however as the other artists employed by Cicero.

Consideration of these haphazard utterances of a man nowhere mentioned by others for his taste in matters of plastic art, and nevertheless so much interested in them, may give us a clue to the influence of persons more prominent. Such a one doubtless was Caesar, whom Cicero himself calls a fine connoisseur. 5 0 In our information about him architecture holds a foremost place,5' but sculpture is not neglected. It was for him that Arcesilaus, the friend of Lucullus, Varro and others,52 created his Venus Genetrix. And it is note- worthy that, even if this figure may itself have been Greek in style, its environment was thoroughly Italo-Roman. 5 We are entitled to suppose, on account of Caesar's activity in connection with the most divergent subjects, that here also he asserted his influence.

Having exhausted our materials, we may return to the question whether personal sympathy of laymen stimulated the artistic production of the period, whether the elite of Roman society were a driving force. It must be confessed that data are scarce and not altogether precise, though this is not surprising; yet, since we have been able to establish that certain political groups seem to be more or less connected with certain artistic circles in Rome, it is highly probable that the answer should be in the affirmative. The fact that Greek names predominate in a period during which national Roman

48 ad Att. Xiii, 29, 2. Also xii, 36, I: the 'institutum' (drawings) must also be approved by Atticus.

4 9 ad Att. xiv, 3. 5 ? Cf. above p. I 59. On M. Antonius, cl. Schullian,

External Stimuli, p. 94: 'Antony was a distinct disappointment, and hardly to be compared with autocrats of worthwhile literary activity such as Sulla and Pompey. In the domain of plastic arts his influence also was very small.'

51 Suet. Caesar I0; 26; 44; Plut. Caes. 29; Cic. ad Att. iv, i6, 8 (ed. Wesenberg) of July 54.

52 Brunn, Kiinstlergesb. i 2, 4I9 f.; Overbeck, Scbriltquellen I760; Klein, Ant. Rok., pp. 67, I72.

Mrs. Strong (Arte in R. ant., p. I02) calls him a Cyrenean without- indicating any source: this would suit the Asianic elements in his style, though they are not very prominent. Cf. also Mnemosyne, I934, 94-

53 It has been thought that this statue survives

in the Palatine torso, a late Hellenistic version of the Aphrodite of Alcamenes in the manner of the terra-cottas of Myrina (Paribeni Guida Mus. d. Terme4 (I922), no. 460, with plate (= 5 no. 5i8 with fig. in text, p. 20I); Brunn-Br., 474; Klein, Rok., fig. 30; cl. the terra-cotta, Winter, Typen d. fig. Terrak. ii, 24, 4). But other hypotheses have been propounded; cl. Springer i'", fig. 929 and p. 476 (Hellenistic version of a fifth-century type of the continent) and Mrs. Strong, Arte i. R. ant., fig. 93 (late Hellenistic type of Asia Minor, after Weickert in Festscbr. Arndt 54 f.); also quite recently Rdm. Mitt., I933, I9I ; 26i f. See in general the critical observations of Helbig, Fiibrer Roni. ii3, no. I539 (=Reinach, Rip. Stat. ii, I332, I)

with literature. 54 This is clear from the manner in which the

whole Forum Iulium had been conceived; cl. Arch. Anz., I933, 6I7/8, fig. 26, and Kroll, Kultur d. Ciceron. Zeit (Herbig) ii, I39.



I62 LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNINGS OF ROMAN ART

art was coming into existence55 is curious and calls for explanation. First of all, it is not to be denied that Greek art was very valuable to the native Italians, because it offered an example in the matter of form, 5 6 an aspect which they were inclined to neglect. Secondly, the artist's name in Greece always played a great role, and in Italy there were, naturally, double reasons to insist upon it: but scarcity of signatures is characteristic of the whole of Roman and even Italic art. Riegl57 has found reason for this, but only for the later period: here, too, he discerns the subordination of the individual Roman to the mass, which is so marked a difference between the Roman and the individualistic Greek. The result was a numerical majority of Greek names, but the works which bear them are a minority, dis- proportionately small, in comparison with the vast quantity of indigenous productions. Finally, it is clear that these individual Greeks were as readily subordinated to their Roman surroundings as the Italici had been in the centuries before, and this fact is the more clear when we recall the turn which Greek civilisation took in its own domain ; and so we may conclude that the truly national, if varie- gated,58 appearance of Roman art of the first century B.C. as a whole is by no means a matter for surprise.

55 Cf. Cultrera, St. etr. i, 84, f.; 89 f.

56 Cf. Cicero passim on Greek and Roman literature.

57 Spaitrom. Kunstind., p. zIO of the large ed. of 19OI=p. 392 of the small reprint of I927.

58 Cf. Mededeelingen Nederl. Inst. Rome, I928,

passim. This absence of unity was by no means, as some believe, a sign of weakness; it resulted from the state of the whole of ancient art of the epoch, which can be compared with modern art of the nineteenth century.



literary evidence for the beginnings of roman art

Documents