A collection of sculpture in classical and early Christian Antioch xp68kg56q

Citation preview

A COLLECTION OF SCULPTURE IN CLASSICAL AND EARLY CHRISTIAN ANTIOCH

The publication of this monograph has been aided by a grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation

Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts sponsored by , THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA X XII

Editor: ANNE COFFIN HANSON

~Dericksen M. Brinkerhoff University of California, Riverside

A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian Antioch

, Published by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS | for THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

| New York | 1970

Copyright © 1970 by The College Art Association of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 69-18278

Copy editor: Harriet Schoenholz Designer: Adrianne Onderdonk Dudden Typesetter: Quinn & Boden Company, Inc. Printer: The Meriden Gravure Company Binder: J. F. Tapley, Inc.

FOREWORD | vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS | ix

1 Introduction | 3 2 The Portraits | 7 1. Pertinax 2. Gordian III (?) 3. Constantius I Chlorus

3 The Mythological Subjects | 29 1. Late Second Century Replicas of Hellenistic Adaptations 2. A Mid-Third Century Reproduction of an Attic Original 3. An Early Fourth Century Copy of an Apollo by Bryaxis 4. Third Century Copies of Hellenistic Asiatic Types

4 Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | 43 1. The Statues in the Context of Roman Sculptural Production 2. The Eastern Mediterranean as a Single Cultural Area 3. The Fourth Critical Period in Classical Sculpture

5 Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | 53 1. Comparable Collections 2. Comparable Early Christian Sculpture 3. Related Mosaics

6 Conclusions | 63 1. Paganism and the Cultural Context of the Collection 2. The Formation and Ownership of the Collection 3. The Christian Context and the Burial of the Collection

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY | 73 ILLUSTRATIONS | S85

BLANK PAGE

Foreword Much of the material this study investigates represents a lost chapter in the history of art. Sculptural figures that copy Greek originals have often been dismissed with the deprecating phrase, Roman copyist activity, and have seemed useful only in reconstructing lost masterpieces. Their importance as aids has obscured the fact that they are examples of a vast quantitive production by artists for a period of over three hundred years, beginning in the first century B.C. Consequently the investigation of the years in which demand for them ceased has escaped much notice. This is partly due to their existence in an age of transition, so that they have had value on their own account to neither the classical nor early medieval scholar, although the latter, searching among the bones of the pagan past for sources of figurative themes of the Christian future, has found it a fertile field, and in so doing has illustrated its importance from his point of view. The present investigation concerns itself, in its concluding portion, with the Early Christian survival of the pagan material identified here. The collection of sculpture at Antioch was formed during this time of

change. So far as we can tell, it survived until the sixth or seventh century A.D. | Like most studies, this one could never have reached its current state without the aid of institutions and constructive criticism of individuals, to all of whom I extend my sincere gratitude. I have tried to satisfy those who felt my conclusions partook of needless understatement, and others who felt I was asking the evidence to bear too great a weight. I am most thankful for the material support of the American Academy in Rome, in the form of the Senior Fellowship in Classical Studies (1959-61), for a Grant-in-Aid from the Penrose Fund of the American Philosophical Society (1960-61), and for a Temple University Released Time for Research Grant (1963), all of which

made possible study, travel, and research without which this work would not have come to fruition. Much of the final work was carried out in the Marquand Library of Princeton University, to whose courteous staff I owe much. I want also to express my particular gratitude to the distinguished scholars Margarete Bieber, Otto Brendel, George Hanfmann, Evelyn Harrison, Helga von Heintze, Ross Holloway, William

Loerke, Erik Sjoqvist, Richard Stillwell, Homer and Dorothy Thompson, and Cornelius Vermeule, Jr. for their valuable suggestions and encouragement. And for

viii | Foreword the humane kindness of the previous editors of the Art Bulletin, Horst Janson, and his successor, Bates Lowry, I am most appreciative. I am equally grateful for the fore-

bearance and patience of my family, who have behaved in a kindly and tolerant , fashion to one of their number scarcely seen in recent years. My special thanks go to , the present editor of this series, Anne Hanson, and her assistant, Harriet Schoenholz. In the last analysis, when we interpret the past to understand the present we are

also creating history as we shape inert evidence to our greater comprehension. The writer, in commending his subject to those whom he anticipates it will interest,

must also assume responsibility for its conclusions. The errors are mine; many interpretations benefit from previous works by others as, like them, I offer what I hope is the meaningful distillation of a personal superna infusio.

Substantiation and amplification rather than refutation of the conclusions reached in the following pages appear in several studies reaching the author after this manuscript was completed and submitted for publication. Such are the complications of our modern publishing, postal, and library systems. The ancient trade in sarcophagi ! receives further treatment in two monographs. These are by Antonio Giuliano, II Commercio dei sarcofagi attici. (“Studia archeologica,” 4.) Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1962, and Gloria Ferrari, whose Il Commercio dei sarcofagi asiatici appeared as volume 7 in the same series from the same publisher in 1966. Vassos Karageorghis, with the collaboration of Cornelius Vermeule, Sculptures from Salamis,

, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 1964, 1, presents handsomely the Meleager discussed here and its associated sculpture. James E. Packer in “The Domus of Cupid and Psyche in Ancient Ostia,” an interesting study appearing in the American Journal of Archaeology, 71, 1967, 123-131, pls. 33-38, chronicles the creation of that dwelling out of a tenement and shops in the fourth century. When my essay was

already in proof a guide to the museum in Antakya, the modern Antioch, Hatay Miizesi Rehberi (Istanbul, 1969), appeared, written by the current directress, Miss Suheyla Keskil. My esteemed colleague identifies the bust I tentatively termed Gordian III (?), as did the excavators, as Trebonianus Gallus. This is an original deduction I am happy to acknowledge and hope she will pursue in print further, for a comparison with the Metropolitan Museum bronze statue of that ruler had persuaded | me against such a solution. And I am also happy to follow her in reminding the reader that as Antioch has become Antakya, Smyrna is now known as Izmir. Others whose complete listing would disabuse those who claim it is possible to have the last word seem less relevant. Yet because it may encourage some to have the next word I quote from one. The results of the present and future research gained justification from Erik Svoqvist in his review of Sculptures from Salamis, Gnomon 38, 1966, 316-318, when

he wrote, “every new publication of Roman Sculpture from the East adds a new dimension to the history of Roman art.” D.M.B.

Riverside, 1969 |

List of [lustrations 1. Cache of sculpture as found at Antioch (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 2. Mosaic depicting scene from Phaedra with a statuette of Aphrodite. Antioch,

Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) |

3. Pertinax. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 4. Pertinax. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition)

5. Coin of Pertinax (photo: Museo di Roma, from a cast in Museo della Civilta Romana) 6. Pertinax. Rome, Villa Albani (photo: Alinari)

7. Male bust, from Smyrna. Brussels, Musée Cinquantenaire (photo: A. C. L., , Brussels)

8. P. Vedius Antoninus, from Baths of Antoninus Pius, Ephesus. Smyrna, New Archaeological Museum (photo: Oesterreichisches Archdologisches Institut) 9. P. Vedius Antoninus, detail of Fig. 8 (photo: Oesterreichisches Archaologisches

Institut) |

10. Gordian III (?). Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 11. Gordian III (?). Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 12. Coin of Gordian III. New York, American Numismatic Society (Courtesy American Numismatic Society) 13. Gordian III. Rome, Museo nazionale delle Terme (photo: Anderson) 14. Gordian III. Sofia, Museum (photo: Alinari, from a cast) 15. Medallion of Carus. Forli, Museum, Collection Piancastelli (photo from a cast in

Museo della Civilta Romana) :

16. Male head. Rome, Lateran Museum (photo: Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Rome) 17. Balbinus. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

18. Coin of Gordian II (photo: Museo di Roma, from a cast in Museo della Civilta Romana)

19. Maximinus Thrax. Paris, Louvre (photo: M. Chuzeville) 20. Reworked imperial statue. Side, Turkey (Courtesy E. Rosenbaum Alfoldi and Warburg Institute) 21. Male head, from Miletopolis, Mysia. Berlin, Staatliche Museen (Courtesy Staatliche Museen, Berlin)

x | List of Illustrations 22. Constantius I Chlorus. Formerly Antioch (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 23. Constantius I Chlorus. Formerly Antioch (Courtesy Princeton Expedition)

, 94. Medallions of Tetrarchic period. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (Courtesy

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) ,

25. Emperor of Tetrarchic period, from Athribis. Cairo, Egyptian Museum (after G. Duthuit, la Sculpture copte, Paris, 1932, pl. [Va) 26. Rulers of First Tetrarchy. Venice, S. Marco (photo: Alinari) 27. Constantius I Chlorus (left) and Maximianus Herculeus (right), detail of Fig. 26 (photo: Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Rome) 28. Medallion of Constantius I Chlorus. Arras, Museum (photo from a cast; Courtesy American Numismatic Society) 29. Constantius I Chlorus (?). Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (Courtesy National-

museum, Stockholm) :

30. Caracalla, from Coptos. Philadelphia, University Museum (Courtesy University Museum, Philadelphia) 31. Priest. Adana, Museum (Courtesy E. Rosenbaum Alfoldi and Warburg Institute) 32. Male bust, in relief, from Palmyra. Rome, Museo Barracco (photo: Alinari) 33. Diocletian, from Nicomedia. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum (photo: Deutsches

Archaologisches Institut, Istanbul) ,

34. Meleager (left) and Apollo (right). Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 35. Rear view of torsos in Fig. 34 (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 36. Meleager, from Salamis. Nicosia, Museum (photo published by permission of the Director of Antiquities and the Cyprus Museum) 37. Satyr Teasing a Panther, from Smyrna. Brussels, Musée Cinquantenaire (photo: A. C. L., Brussels) 38. Dionysus. Cyrene, Museum (photo: Deutsches Archadologisches Institut, Rome) 39. Ares. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 40. Ares Borghese, detail, from Italy. Paris, Louvre (photo: Alinari) 41. Apollo of Daphne (replica) by Bryaxis, head, from Antioch. Princeton, Museum of Historic Art (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 42. Apollo of Daphne (replica) by Bryaxis, fragment. Antioch, Museum (after R. Stillwell, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, II, pl. IV, 124)

43. Hand holding fragment of lyre (?) and forearm encircled by thong. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 44, Coin of Philip the Arab depicting Apollo of Daphne, from Antioch. New York,

American Numismatic Society (Courtesy American Numismatic Society) | 45. Coin of Antiochus IV depicting Apollo of Daphne (after Collection R. Jameson, Paris, 1913, vol. 2, pl. LXXXV, 1699)

46. Apollo Citharoedus. Vatican, Museum (Courtesy Musei Vaticani) | 47. Venus with Attendants, from Villa Lucaniaca (?) near Narbonne. Paris, Louvre (photo: M. Chuzeville) 48. Old Bearded Satyr. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 49. Old Bearded Satyr. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 50. Old Bearded Satyr. Rome, Museo Torlonia (photo: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome) 51. Old Bearded Satyr. Rome, Museo Torlonia (photo: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome) 52. Crouching Aphrodite. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition)

List of Illustrations | xi 53. Aphrodite Binding Her Sandal, from Antioch. Baltimore, Museum of Art (photo: Baltimore Museum of Art)

54. Aphrodite Binding Her Sandal, from Smyrna. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Perkins Collection (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) 55. Sleeping Silenus. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 56. Sarcophagus depicting Roman matron as sleeping maenad. Rome, Lateran Museum (photo: Alinari)

57. Coin of Aphrodisias in Caria depicting Aphrodite Binding Her Sandal. New York, American Numismatic Society (Courtesy American Numismatic Society) 58. Satyr. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 59. Nymph, from Antioch. Princeton, Museum of Historic Art (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 60. Invitation to the Dance (reconstruction). Rome, Museo dei Gessi (photo: Istituto di Archeologia, Universita di Roma) 61. Female head, in relief, from Agora, Smyrna (after Istanbuler Forschungen, IX, 1950, pl. 41, d) 62. Satyr, Maenad, and Eros, detail, from Aphrodisias in Caria. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, William Francis Warden Fund (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) 63. Marcus Aurelius. Cyrene, Museum (photo: Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Rome) 64. Marcus Aurelius, from Cyrene. London, British Museum (Courtesy Trustees of

the British Museum)

65. Atargatis-Derceto, from Aphrodisias in Caria. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum (photo: Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Istanbul) 66. Cubiculum, House of Cupid and Psyche, Ostia (photo: Fototeca Unione, Rome)

67. Head, from Aphrodisias in Caria. Brussels, Musée Cinquantenaire (photo:

(photo: Alinari) , ,

A. C. L., Brussels) 68. Diptych of Adam among the Animals and St. Paul. Florence,,Museo Nazionale

69. Hercules and the Hind. Ravenna, Museo Nazionale (photo: Hirmer) 70. Diptych of Poet and Muse. Monza, Cathedral Treasury (photo: Alinari) 71. Plate depicting Silen and trumpeter, fragment. Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks (Courtesy Dumbarton Oaks) 72. Plate depicting Atalanta and Meleager. Leningrad, Hermitage (Courtesy Dumbarton Oaks) 73. Pyxis depicting Triumph of Dionysus, from Syria: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) 74. Mosaic depicting a symposium. Antioch, Museum (Courtesy Princeton Expedition) 75. Mosaic depicting Socrates and Six Followers. Apamea (photo: A. C. L., Brussels)

76. Plaque depicting Christ and Six Disciples, from Rome. Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks (Courtesy Dumbarton Oaks)

77. Mosaic depicting the Annunciation and Birth of Alexander the Great, from Baalbek. Beirut, Musée National (photo: Musée National, Beirut) 78. Teacher. London, British Museum (Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum)

BLANK PAGE

A COLLECTION OF SCULPTURE IN CLASSICAL AND EARLY CHRISTIAN ANTIOCH

BLANK PAGE |

Introduction A cache of statuary discovered at Antioch in 1934 and published by its excavators has attracted little subsequent notice.! According to the report, “the sculpture had been collected in antiquity and buried in a room of a rather poor villa of the late fourth or early fifth centuries A.D. that lay just outside of the city wall.” ? The find (Fig. 1) consisted of portraits and copies of statues of gods, heroes, and mythological subjects. Most of it did not belong to its discoverers, and, except for a few pieces in Princeton and Baltimore, is today in the Antioch Museum. Through the generosity of the French Syrian authorities who controlled the area the entire find was listed, but only with generic identifications, in the excavation volume. This unusual discovery deserves further attention, and the present study attempts to identify and assess the significance of the pieces found in the cache individually and collectively. The portraits, all imperial, are identifiable as a marble bust of Pertinax, the upper half of a full-length cuirassed marble figure, perhaps Gordian III, and a head in Egyptian porphyry of the age of the tetrarchs representing Constantius I Chlorus. The time span thus covered extends from the late second to the early fourth century. Except for one which may even be a little later, the mythological statues in the cache also fall within the outside limits of these dates. There are three categories of these replicas: copies or adaptations of originals of the classic age in Greece, a local copy (of which head and fragments alone survive) reproducing in miniature the colossal cult image of Apollo of Daphne by Bryaxis, and copies of Hellenistic works created in Asia Minor. Since the local Bryaxis figure has been known hitherto only

1. William Campbell, “Excavations at Antioch- 142, pls. 3-8. Some of the sculpture I discussed in a on-the-Orontes,’ American Journal of Archaeology, paper, “A Fourth Critical Period in Classical SculpXL (1936), pp. 1-10, figs. 1-16; Richard Stillwell ture, on a Cache at Antioch,” read at the College Art (ed.), Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Il, The Excavations Association Meeting, 1959.

of 1933-36 (Princeton, 1938), pp. 171-172, nos. 121- 2. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 3.

4 | Introduction | through coin representations and literary descriptions,® and since finds of imperial effigies in the East are uncommon, several pieces, because of their rarity, acquire a relative importance out of proportion to their aesthetic quality.

The sculpture is also significant in its own right. Few classical groups from , | such a late context, extant during the Early Christian period, have been unearthed, making the sculpture a rare example of its kind. The minimal hypothesis postulates its survival in the villa in the fifth century, for it could scarcely have been buried in a room until that room had been constructed. Possibly the sculpture was brought from somewhere else and disposed of after the residence had been abandoned, probably during the slow decline of Antioch from the second third of the sixth century to the Arab conquest in the seventh. Yet if the statues had been elsewhere and then were no longer wanted, they would have gone into the nearest limekiln. We may interpret the location of their discovery as indicating that the pieces once adorned the building in which they were found. Their appearance when set up is suggested by a mosaic from another Antiochene villa which depicts a statuette of Aphrodite Anadyomene on a pedestal (Fig. 2), part of the furnishings of a cultured residence in _

classical and Christian antiquity.’

The collection, whose appearance in the fifth century we can visualize, becomes

significant in the first instance as a testament to the survival of classical taste in the Early Christian age. It is another “document of dying paganism,” comparable to the contemporary pagan mosaics and authors, especially Libanius,® at Antioch. We will regard the busts and statuettes as an art collection, for comparative evidence to be

advanced in our conclusion reveals that this was in all probability their function. _ The evidence of comparable groups reveals that the continued existence of such decorative assemblages was far commoner than the scant notice hitherto taken of them would lead one to believe. The Antioch sculptural group would have had value as a proper visual accouterment to cultured existence until the middle of the sixth century, and we can marshal support for concluding that the sculptures may have endured until the seventh in their eastern Mediterranean setting.

Second, in addition to being significant as documents in the history of taste, they | are important as late Roman copies, for these are exceedingly uncommon after A.D. 200. Compared to the massive quantities of Antonine and earlier imperial replicas which fill the ancient galleries of so many museums, only a handful, either in collections or in situ, belong to the third century or to the fourth. The latest comparable group of mythological pieces which has survived in the East, hitherto unknown, was made for the nymphaeum completed under Gordian III in Miletus before the middle

3. Georg Lippold, Die griechische Plastik (Mu- Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Prince-

nich, 1950), p. 260 and n. 1. ton, 1961), pp. 33-35, 40-42, 373-379, 681-688. He 4. Doro Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements used (p. 34) the same phrase from Paul Friedlander,

(Princeton, 1947), I, pp. 68-75; II, pl. XI b. The mo- Documents of Dying Paganism: Textiles of Late Ansaic depicts the palace of Phaedra; the statuette sig- tiquity in Washington, New York, and Leningrad nifies the power of love. The cache included a similar (Berkeley, 1945). A late 4th century togate statue may pedestal: Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 142, height have depicted Libanius, but, when found at Antioch,

(hereafter Ht.) 0.21 m. it lacked head and inscription alike: see comments 5. Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in and reference in Downey, p. 40 n. 60.

Introduction | 5 of the third century.® Their poor quality offers mute but inescapable evidence that the five-hundred-year-old living tradition of such copies was expiring. Third, the collection as a whole sheds light on the manner of creation and distribution of imperial effigies and copies of distant originals, in part because they reproduce an official likeness or standard type so closely, and partly because the source of their porphyry and marble is known. The porphyry must be Egyptian; the marble

of the mythological pieces has blue to gray streaks. and visible granular structure characteristic of Asia Minor, specifically of the quarries on the island of Proconnesus in the Sea of Marmara, the biggest supplier to the East Mediterranean marble trade.’ Finally, the contents of the cache aid in a better understanding of the history of art at the end of the pagan Roman era. In this critical time of change, such standard.

mythological types received their ultimate memorialization and then died. In fact they illuminate the sequel to the earlier transitions between archaic, classic, Hel-

| lenistic, and Roman delineated in Richter’s Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture. Heralding the arrival of the late antique style, the copies identified and discussed below illustrate the fourth and final critical period in classical sculpture.

6. Julius Hiilsen, et al., Das Nymphaeum (Ber- (1951), p. 103; idem, “Roman Garland Sarcophagi lin and Leipzig, 1919), see p. 54 for date, A.D. 241-44, from the Quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara), An-

pp. 55-68 for the 25 statues or fragments. nual Report of the...Smithsonian Institution

7. F. W. Hasluck, “The Marmara Islands,” (Washington, D.C., 1957), pp. 455-467, pls. I-VI;

Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXIX (1909), pp. 11-13, idem, “Four Roman Garland Sarcophagi in America,” fig. 2; John B. Ward Perkins, “Tripolitania and the Archaeology, XI (1958), p. 104.

Marble Trade,” Journal of Roman Studies, XLI 8. Oxford, 1951.

BLANK PAGE

The Portraits Il. Pertinax The subject of the first bust (Figs. 3, 4) was previously identified as a philosopher.® It is of one piece of marble, including an ancient circular base surmounted by an inscription slab which would be square were it not for its indented sides. The outline of the bust itself shows a gently curving cut from the middle of the upper arms down to the middle of the rib cage, where it is flat across the top of the slab, delimiting the chubby nude upper body. The rotundity of the man portrayed is apparent through the outward slant of the chest, emphasized by sloping shoulders. The broad and long head appears even longer because of a full beard covering the lower face from in front of the ears to the chest, where it ends in two locks under either side of the chin, and two more a little further back on each side. One of the latter is now missing, and a few sections of the luxuriant beard have been broken off in front of the neck. Curv-

ing indentations and drill work, plus extensive undercutting, shaped the hirsute adornment. The most prominent features of the face are its high forehead, its long and now broken nose, and large eyes with pronounced curved upper lids and nearly flat lower ones. The pupils of the eyes are defined by circular incisions, and their centers have been touched with the drill under the upper eyelids. Below the eyes a catenary curve marks the sagging skin, and beyond them the ears seem to have that elongation which also often comes with advanced age. The modest-sized mouth retires beneath a moustache. The total impression conveyed is one of bland dignity. Of all the philosopher types known, that most comparable to the Antioch representation is the Plato by Silanion of about 360 B.c., reproduced especially clearly by the replica in the Boehringer collection in Geneva.!© The mutual air of sobriety 9. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 133, pl. V, Ht. cf. figs. 112-115. I proposed this identification in

0.89 m.; Campbell, op. cit., p. 8. my paper (supra, n. 1) but, when kindly permitted to 10. Four views, description, and references in study the Plato in the home of Herr Boehringer, Margarete Bieber, Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, for which I am most grateful, it became apparent that rev. ed. (New York, 1961), pp. 42-44, figs. 116-119, such an identification was untenable.

8 | The Portraits , of the two heads, however, is not enough to overcome their differences, which are too great for the Antioch bust to be a provincial variant. The Plato differs in its lower

forehead, the heavy horizontal line of its brow, beneath which appears a smaller nose | and from which radiate the two heavy downward-pointing diagonals from nose to mouth binding the lower edge of the cheeks. The philosopher also has smaller ears __ and a rounded protuberant chin. All these pronounced traits occur also on the only

certain Plato, a labeled herm in Berlin."

The Antioch bust has a richness of beard, undercut by a drill, that recalls the same

feature on one of the portrait-types of the emperor Septimius Severus, and indicates a date around A.D. 200.!2 Yet if we search out contemporary and later philosopher

portraits, there seem to be no parallels to it." Thus the differences between the Antioch work and the most comparable philosopher type are not due to differences of time or place of manufacture, and the original designation cannot be sustained." In spite of the resemblance of the beard to that of Septimius, there are no regular Serapis-type locks on the brow, which were affected: by that emperor, and there are so many other differences as to render a comparison unnecessary, leaving the way clear to turn to a contemporary imperial figure who was one of his rivals. Pertinax was an elderly man at the time of his reign, which lasted a scant three months, from January 1 to March 28, 193, before his assassination and deification, a procedure ominously foreshadowing the third century.’® His appearance is known from coins !® and descriptions,!” on the basis of which various busts depicting him have been attributed,!8 whose variations stem from the fact that his reign was too brief to permit the establishment of one canonical type. He was described as old looking upon his accession at the age of sixty-seven, with a long beard reaching to

the chest, white-haired, large-eyed, of generous stature, and amply built with a prom- | inent stomach. These characteristics match the Antioch bust well, especially the large girth. The depiction of beard and face may be compared with one of the emperor s

1. Carl Blimel, R6mische Kopien des vierten Abteilung, LXIII-LXIV (1938-39), pp. 163-170, Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1938), pp. 1-2, no. K 192, — pls. LXV-LXVI, dated (p. 167) to 275-320 (photo

pl. Iv. Oo at the Institute, Neg. AV998-99).

| ‘12. Alda Levi, Sculture greche e romane del 14. It differs also from a philosopher head from

Palazzo Ducale di Mantova (Rome, 1931), p. 63, the same region; see F. Poulsen, “A Philosopher Head no. 143, pl. LXXVIII a. Cf. Hans P. L’Orange, Apoth- in the Museum of the American University, Beirut,” eosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo . and Cambridge, Berytus, IV (1937), pp. 111-115, pls. XVII-XXI.

Mass., 1947), pp. 73-86, figs. 47-59; and F. Barreca, 15. Ernst Hohl, “Kaiser Pertinax und die

“Un nuovo ritratto di Settimio Severo, Bullettino Thronbesteigung seines Nachfolgers im Lichte der della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, » Herodiankritik,”’ Sitzungsberichte der deutschen LXXI (1943-45), Appendix, pp. 59-64, who dates a Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1956); Maurice colossal head in Athens to 193-95, i.e., contemporary Platnauer, Life and Reign of the Emperor Lucius

with the Antioch work. , , Septimius Severus (London, 1918), pp. 57-58.

13. Frederik Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient 16. Harold Mattingly, Coins of the Roman

Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copen- Empire in the British Museum, V: Pertinax to Elagabhagen, 1951), p. 530, no. 763; idem, “Portrait d’un alus (London, 1950), pp. Ix, 1-10, pls. I-III.

philosophe néoplatonicien trouvé a Delphes,” Bul- 17. Scriptores historiae augustae, Vita Pert.

letin de correspondance hellénique, LII (1928), xii.l; cf. Malalas on Pertinax, vi 382 B (best eds. of the pp. 245-255, figs. 1-2, pls. XIV-XVII; Tobias Dohrn, Chronographia are listed in Downey, op. cit., p. 706).

“Ein spatantikes Platonportrat,” Mitteilungen des 18. Johan J. Bernoulli, Rémische Ikonographie deutschen archdologischen Instituts, athenische (Stuttgart, 1894), II, 3, pp. 1-7, pls. I-III; Ernesto

The Portraits | 9 coins (Fig. 5).19 The separate pointed locks at the bottom of the beard, the long lock in front of the ear, and the moustache projecting beyond the lower lip are distinctive

. and identical features. The configuration around forehead and eyes is similar, as are the long facial proportions. These and other resemblances are strong enough to war- , rant identifying the Antioch bust as being a representation of Pertinax. The principal examples of other busts portraying the emperor show some vari-

ety, but also similarities. All show the beard more or less in two parts extending downward from either side of the face and chin, but varying in length. The example in the Villa Albani (Fig. 6) is typical of them, all being western and all from Italy.”° In contrast to the description of Pertinax in the Historiae Augustae, which states that the emperor wore a chest-length beard, as on the Antioch bust, the Villa Albani depiction shows a shorter but similarly bifurcated beard. In both cases a drill has undercut and defined the locks of both beard and head. The western representation also portrays a man of ample girth, now wearing cuirass and cloak. The face has the same long yet broad proportions of all the replicas, recalling how Malalas, in his description of Pertinax, wrote of his large stature, large eyes, plain hair, and how he was “well-mailed.” Since Malalas was an Antiochene, he probably saw the very bust with which we are concerned. The plain hair, so defined no doubt to distinguish it from the baroque exuberance of earlier male coiffures, lies across the brow of the Albani and Antioch examples in almost exactly the same way, lock for lock. There is the same separation over the left temple, then a crablike pair of curved locks, next another uncovered area just to the right of center. Both pairs of drilled and incised eyes, which are indeed large, have the same shape and heavy lids. Below the Albani

bust are an inscription slab and base like the supports for the Antioch Pertinax, but, in keeping with their more cosmopolitan origin, they are more elaborate. The Roman bust rests on a long narrow slab ending top and bottom in opposed consoles, and it sits on a slightly tapered base with a more pronounced and rounded circular bottom and a smaller, thinner circular top. The simpler Antioch base features two cylinders, each girdled by an incised line of equal diameter, though the drums themselves have different thicknesses. The section between them is vertical in its center and tapers outward to the larger cylindrical shapes above and below. The fact that the beards of the Antioch and Villa Albani busts differ does not

prove that these otherwise similar depictions do not represent the same person, for such a difference persists in all the replicas. An example in the Capitoline Museum

in Rome, for instance, shows a long beard divided into two parts, which does not , end in locks on the chest.21 The uneven spacing of the locks across the brow and the innocuous facial expression are both close to the Antioch face. So also are the incised and carved iris and pupil. Another portrait of Pertinax, in the Museo Torlonia,

Curotto, “Pertinace e Dido Giuliano,” Gli imperatore lections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Museo Capiromani, XII bis (Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani, tolino (Oxford, 1912), p. 201, no. 45, pl. XLVI. There

1947), p. 24. is no reason to doubt that this would represent an 19. Mattingly, op. cit., p. 2, no. 8, pl. I, 7. emperor, as Stuart Jones did, supposing it to be a pri20. No. 656, in the pavilion or coffee house; vate portrait. Its large scale and probable nudity would

Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 7. be unlikely in a private portrait. Total Ht. 0.69 m.; 21. H. Stuart Jones (ed.), Catalogue of the from sternum to top of head, 0.46 m.

Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Col-

10 | The Portraits has a beard shaped in large, rather tubular parallel locks hanging vertically from the chin.”” The Louvre example, a colossal head from the Borghese collection, has a similar beard but adds nothing new.”* One other, the so-called Pertinax in the Villa Rotonda of the Vatican, which features a very different facial expression, seems not too germane because parts of the brow, nose, ears, and all of the forked beard are restored.”4

The new Pertinax becomes the only eastern member of a small, precisely datable

group of depictions of that emperor, stemming from his lifetime or posthumous deification in A.D. 195. It differs from the others in that it possesses less of a specific Italic quality. The Albani example represents them well, with its more literal model-

ing of creases in the brow, lines running out from the base of the nose beside the moustache, and the very precise eyes. On the other hand, the Antioch interpretation,

made in the Hellenistic East, expresses to a greater degree the concept of the ideal , ruler-hero whose features are generalized, and whose eyes seem to contemplate some inner idea or remote place. This Greco-Asiatic manner extended all over the Greek East as far as North Africa. The distant look and richly undercut beard bear at least a general resemblance to a contemporary Asklepios head at Ptolemais,”* but there are other comparisons nearer Antioch. From Smyrna the Musée Cinquantenaire in Brussels acquired two very fine life-size late Antonine busts, one of which is illustrated here (Fig. 7).26 Both depict bearded dignitaries in the prime of their senior years. The bust length is a shade less

than that of Pertinax, which was the fashion just before his time.?’ It sits on an in- , scription slab with a floral motif on it in relief, otherwise it is a somewhat higher counterpart to the Villa Albani Pertinax slab, ending in pairs of opposed consoles. The latter's base is similar also to that of the Smyrna bust in its rounded moldings top and bottom, while the short shaft in the middlé tapers between the moldings to a brief vertical section like the Antioch bust’s support. The base of the other Smyrna bust is actually closer to that of the Antioch Pertinax, and so is its simpler inscription

slab, which has no consoles. The pose of the one illustrated, and the fact that its drapery covers only the left shoulder and side, give it more points in common with the Antioch bust, for both display a broad chest surmounted by a head turned a bit to its right, with a level, distant gaze. Hair and beard on the Smyrna piece also show extensive drilling, and below the chin one sees small grooves, interrupted or bridged

22. C. L. Visconti, Les monuments de sculpture 26. Franz Cumont, Catalogue des sculptures antique du Musée Torlonia (Rome, 1884), p. 410, et inscriptions antiques (monuments lapidaires) des gal. V, sec. 77, no. 561, pl. CXLV; Bernoulli, op. Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire, 2nd ed. rev. (Brus-

cit., p. 4. sels, 1913), pp. 49-51, nos. 39 (illustrated), 40, re23. Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 3, pl. I; Etienne spective Hts. 0.79 and 0.82 m.; Antonio Giuliano,

Michon and Héron de Villefosse, Catalogue som- “La ritrattistica dell’Asia Minore dall’ 89 aC. al 211 maire des marbres antiques (Paris, 1922), p. 60, no. d.C.,” Rivista dello Istituto nazionale d’Archeologia ,

1031. e Storia dell’ Arte, n.s. VIII (1959), pp. 146-201, figs.

24. Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 4, pl. III; G. Lippold, 1-44, see pp. 195-198, nos. 12, 13, figs. 40-42; cf. Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums (Berlin, H. Jucker, “Bildnisbiiste einer Vestalin,’ Mittei1936), III, 1, pp. 148-149, no. 556, pls. XXXV, XLV. lungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, 25. Carl Kraeling, Ptolemais: City of the Libyan Rémische Abteilung, LXVIII (1961), p. 106, nos. Pentapolis, with contributions by D. M. Brinkerhoff, Al16 and 17, pl. XXXIX.

R. G. Goodchild, et al. (Chicago, 1962), pp. 186-187, 27. Oxford Classical Dictionary, s.v. “Por-

no. 2, p. 191, pl. XLVII A. traiture Roman.”

The Portraits | 11 by struts, defining the locks. The two locks at the outer corners of the chin are emphasized like those on the Antioch head. Technical differences aside, both heads display the same air of dignified reserve and modest idealization fundamental to the

portraiture tradition in the Greek East. ,

, The head of an Ephesian statue of a private citizen, P. Vedius Antoninus (Figs. 8, 9), also complements the Antioch bust.?® Like the Smyrna bust, the Ephesus figure, now in the Smyrna Museum, demonstrates further how closely the style of the Antioch imperial portrait corresponds to work in western Asia Minor. Both exhibit a generalized modeling. The surfaces of the supraorbital ridges above, and of the cheeks below the deep-set eyes whose pupils are set just below the eyelids, form close parallels and express a type, rather than an individual seen momentarily, in a masterful fashion. The worthy of Ephesus dedicated local baths to the emperor Antoninus Pius, but the flat creases in the drapery of the statue assign the body to the Severan age, the probable date, then, of the completion of the statue before the baths. The pose of the monument follows a popular stock type of borrowed dignity, for it reproduces a Hellenistic adaptation of the figure of the orator Aeschines,

with the speaker’s right hand kept within the mantle according to the conservative tradition.2® The hand and forearm still act visually as a foil to the head. The latter's

richer style would indicate that it was made separately, probably by a different sculptor, a standard production technique. Both the Ephesus and Antioch heads depict elderly men in the same Asiatic tradition, a modified baroque manner which nevertheless conveys a certain pathos, achieved by more than facial expression. The undercut beards, for example, display a comparable drilling and relative balance between solid and void. Why would a representation of Pertinax, a revered yet certainly lesser emperor, be valued highly enough to be exhibited as late as A.D. 400 in a villa at Antioch? Chance seems an insufficient explanation of why a family sufficiently well-to-do to

own a villa, and install in it whatever sculpture they wished, would treasure the likeness of a ruler who lived two centuries earlier. The answer probably lies in the fact that Pertinax, in his younger years during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, was consul in Syria.2° Someone in the family may have treasured it because one of his forebears had served under Pertinax. But this may not have been the whole story. Figures of emperors, especially of those who had been deified, apparently true of each of the three in the cache, were the objects of special reverence, just as while the rulers lived their images represented the imperial power, the imperium.*! Private 28. A. Aziz Bey, Guide du Musée de Smyrne, figs. 194-196. For origin of adaptation and comparable 2nd ed. (Izmir, 1933), pp. 62-63, no. 556 and pl., found Severan examples: Brinkerhoff in Kraeling, op. cit., at the stadium baths; Giuliano, op. cit., pp. 194, 197, pp. 184-185, 195 no. 10, pl. XLVI.

no. ll, fig. 39; Josef Keil, “XIII. Vorlaufiger Bericht 30. S. N. Miller in Cambridge Ancient History iiber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos,” Jahreshefte (Cambridge, 1939), XII, pp. 1-3, 5. Four inscriptions des O0cesterreichischen Archaeologischen Instituts of Pertinax in Syria: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, in Wien, XXIV (1929), Beiblatt, col. 29; Franz Milt- II, nos. 4125, 5128; III, nos. 7751, 14149 (35); cf. ner, Ephesos, Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes others listed in Curotto, loc. cit.

(Vienna, 1958), pp. 61, 64, fig. 55, and p. 61 n. 43 31. Ludwig Friedlander, Darstellungen aus

for suggested date, A.D. 200-250. der Sittengeschichte Roms (Leipzig, 1923), III, p. 59, 29. Aeschines Against Timarchus 25. On and references there cited.

Aeschines type: Bieber, op. cit., p. 62, fig. 197; cf.

12 | The Portraits citizens did not normally possess them, and hence the occupants of the villa had probably at one time held office in the provincial government, though by A.D. 400 this may have been only a fading memory. It is too much to entitle the villa the residence

of the local governor, yet that the family included officials can indeed be suggested. One provincial governor, the younger Pliny, had a collection of imperial portraits,

some of which he inherited.” | - 7

- Finally one might ask whether the Pertinax represents local sculptural tradition. Viewing the Antioch bust and comparing its qualities with the similar qualities of sculptured portraits from Ephesus and Smyrna makes it seem likely that the Pertinax

was local work in a regional sense. The artist who-made it was well trained at some major eastern center like Ephesus or Athens. From what is known of the distribution of imperial portraits, the bust was probably made from an imported model. Since Pertinax passed the three months of his reign entirely in Italy in A.D. 193, the bust, which shows him as an elderly man, and so would date from his reign, or his apotheosis, rather than his Syrian consulship, would have been derived from an official effigy executed in Rome by the court sculptor. The probable procedure has been clarified by Stuart,?* who showed how imperial portraits, first copied by the. pointing process, rather than by the use of clay models or two-dimensional sketches, were probably shipped from Rome to other centers. There they were recopied for further export to smaller provincial: cities. His investigation applied to statues of

Claudius, yet he believed the system he defined endured until the third century. Athens, he decided, was the major copying and distribution center in the East; the particular character of the Smyrna busts discussed above suggests that Northwest Asia Minor may have been one of the smaller centers, and the comparison of the Pertinax to them leads to the probability that an imperial bust was exported from there, and that the Antioch bust was modeled after it locally. Since Antioch has no marble, and stone for certain works of sculpture *4— for sarcophagi® or for buildings °®—_was normally shipped in semifinished form from sources at or near the

quarries, Stuart’s supposition explains why the marble is Aegean rather than Italic,. , which it would have been in the case of direct shipment from Italy. The marble, as mentioned above, of both the Pertinax and of the bust to be discussed next is now so dirty that while it looks like Proconnesian, it could also be Pentelic. In either case, the thesis of Stuart provides for the delivery of a semifinished bust ready for completion. It was the local finishing which gave to the bust its diminished expressiveness compared to the busts from Smyrna. At the same time the exactness of the cotrespondence of Roman copies suits this explanation better than presupposing the use of small plaster casts or terra-cotta replicas to transmit imperial likenesses.” Further

32. Epistulae x.8. , Surveys in Greece: 1962,” Expedition, the Bul-

: 33. Meriwether Stuart, “How Were Imperial letin of the University Museum of the University Portraits Distributed Throughout the Roman Em- of Pennsylvania, V, 2 (1963), pp. 16-23, and illustra-

pire?” American Journal of Archaeology, XLIII tions, esp. on pp. 21-23; on the sarcophagi trade,

(1939), pp. 601-617. - a Ward Perkins, “Roman Garland Sarcophagi... ,”

_ 34. Ibid.; cf. L. Friedlander, loc. cit.; but esp. loc. cit. | the discussion in Richard Delbrueck, Antike Por- 36. Ward Perkins, “Tripolitania...,’ pp. 89-

phyrwerke (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932), pp. 2-10. 104. oe |

35. For unfinished sarcophagi in transit: Pe- 37. A proposal first elaborated by Emerson

ter Throckmorton and John M. Bullitt, “Underwater Swift, “Imagines in Imperial Portraiture,” Amer-

The Portraits | 18 discussion of sculptural distribution and copying will have more meaning if it is deferred until after the rest of the cache has been presented.

2. Gordian III (?) Described as “an emperor wearing corselet,” the other bust from the cache (Figs. 10, 11), whose armored cuirass may indicate a general, is of a scale and bearing that are indeed imperial in character.** Its head has a lofty forehead and high-domed skull with a slightly irregular profile. The fleshy face has a hint of a double chin which comes to a point, while a very short beard and hair give the portrait a grizzled appearance and date it in the third century.®? At ear-level the chisel marks depicting the beard are replaced by punched gouges to define the hair, which is more abundant

than the photographs suggest. Standing out prominently under arched brows, the

, large eyes are turned, like the head, vaguely to the right. Incised, imperfect circles which recede just under the upper eyelids define their irises. Below a long, straight,

and unbroken nose (a rarity in ancient sculpture), are a moustache and slightly parted protruding lips. The barely open mouth helps enliven the face, whose bone structure, in contrast to the precisely articulated cranium, lies beneath smooth skin covering the cheeks and chin. The neck takes the form of a sturdy, round pillar. Hidden in the center of its base is an iron dowel, fitting into a hole in the middle of the shallow depression between the shoulders. The bust wears a paludamentum, or military cloak, over the left shoulder, where a round brooch holds the garment whose ends are knotted across the lower chest. The flat, crisp folds of the drapery recall the figure of P. Vedius Antoninus, of the first half of the third century (cf. Fig. 8). Just above the drapery knots stands a helmeted but otherwise nude military figure with spear, shield, and sword held by a shoulder strap, who looks up to a Nike carved on the right shoulder tab. The two reliefs clearly proclaim that Victory rewards Valor, or Mars, and stylistically enliven the broad expanse of the cuirass. While such type figures on a comparatively diminutive scale are common enough on imperial coins to suggest coinage as a generalized if not a specific source of the imagery, such iconography on a portrait bust is exceedingly rare. The only other example apparently known merely shows a Nike on the right

ican Journal of Archaeology, XXVII (1923), pp. 286- see: Bianca Maria Felletti Maj, Iconografia romana 301, figs. 1-12. There is a difference between por- imperiale, da Severo Alessandro a M. Aurelio Carino traying the features of a living man and obtaining (222-285 d. C.) (Rome, 1958), pp. 135-136, no. 119, the recorded appearance of one long dead in order to figs. 42-43, pl. XII, head of Pupienus (A.D. 238) depict him. For this see Gisela M. A. Richter, Greek with hair incised and beard in older plastic manner,

Portraits III: How Were Likenesses Transmitted in et passim; or the older fundamental study: H. P.

Ancient Times? (Brussels, 1960). | L’Orange, Studien zur Geschichte des spdtantiken

38. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 134, pl. V, Portrdts (Oslo and Cambridge, Mass., 1933). The Anti-

Ht. 0.64 m. och work is also referred to as “un imperatore del

39. Gerhart Rodenwaldt in Cambridge Ancient terzo secolo” by Marion Lawrence, “Studi americani History (London, 1939), XII, p. 553, dates the first sullarcheologia e l’arte del tardo impero,” Quaderni appearance of the military haircut, shown by gouges dell’ Impero: Roma e le provincie V (Istituto di Studi and stipple marks made with a punch, to the 230’s. Romani: Rome, 1938), p. 24. For additional examples and more recent references

14 | The Portraits shoulder tab of a bust of Septimius Severus.” This costume on the first of the military rulers of the third century lends credence to the contention that the Antioch portrait,

, elaborated by the addition of a second figure, Virtu, is probably also an imperial one.

where it was discovered. ,

The Severan representation is of Greek marble, probably carved in Rome or in Ostia

The marble of the Antioch figure may be Greek, like that of the Septimius Severus. In places the former’s very dirty marble still implies a golden and once

glowing surface, but its rough-cut areas reveal the blue-gray streaks and off-white tonality associated with the Proconnesian quarries.*! In view of the methods of distribution of the imperial image posited by Stuart, explained above in the conclusion of the discussion of the Pertinax, the use of marble from Proconnesus would have been more likely. Like the Pertinax, the stylistic and technical features of the Antioch cuirassed bust suggest its artist was familiar with sculptural practice along the Aegean littoral of Asia Minor. A head from Eski Sehir illustrates the same highdomed shape with gouges to show hair and beard.” The quiet, indrawn reserve of the Antioch portrait also echoes less skilfully the Miletopolis head, now in Berlin, of which it is a stylistic variant (Fig. 21).“ Several technical peculiarities of the Antiochene portrait reveal that a statue was cut down to create the cuirassed bust. The back has been hollowed out in summary

fashion, the right side irregularly cut away, and beneath the straight horizontal cut across the bottom is an off-center tenon rather than an inscription slab.*4 Doubtless it once bore a painted label, but originally it would have fit into another section

to make a full-length cuirassed figure. By comparison the Pertinax bust (Fig. 3) ends in a rounded curve; its head is of the same piece of marble as the body, and even the base came from the same block, whereas that of the cuirassed figure is a separate, borrowed piece. Furthermore, as the front view indicates, the fit between head and bust is so loose at each side, and across the back as well, that the present head probably replaced the original.® It appears to exemplify a practice recorded by St. Jerome, who wrote that “... when a tyrant is put to death, his statues and images

40. B. M. Felletti Maj, Museo Nazionale Ro- Papers, XV (1961), pp. 11-12, fig. 26, upholds the sugmano: I Ritratti (Rome, 1953), pp. 127-128, no. 252, gestion of a date around 235, first proposed by Elsfig. 252. No others with Nike, Mars, or both, seem to beth Dusenbery, “Sources and Development of Style

be known. in Portraits of Gallienus,” Marsyas, IV (1948), p. 5, 41. Ward Perkins, “Roman Garland Sarcoph- fig. 19.

agi..., loc. cit.; idem, “Four Roman Garland Sar- 44, Dr. Raissa Calza kindly informed me of a

cophagi...,”’ pp. 98-104. similar example at Ostia with a tenon, Inv. 1241,

42. Gustave Mendel, “Catalogue des monu- which she will publish in the series, Scavi di Ostia. ments grecs, romains et byzantins du Musée im- It has been cited by Anton Hekler, “Beitrage zur perial Ottoman de Brousse,” Bulletin de corres- Geschichte der antiken Panzerstatuen,” Jahreshefte pondance hellénique, XXXIII (1909), p. 272, no. 22 des Osterreichischen archdologischen Instituts, XIX-

(53), fig. 14. XX (1919), p. 220. 43. C. Bliimel, Katalog der rémischen Bild- 45. Cf. a head of Maximianus (286-305) on a nisse (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Katalog der Samm- second century cuirass: J. W. Salomonson, “Ein un-

lung antiker Skulpturen, V (Berlin, 1933), p. 47, no. bekanntes Tetrarchenportrat aus Nord Afrika in R113, pl. LXXIII; Cornelius Vermeule, “A Graeco- Leiden,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen wit het Roman Portrait of the Third Century A.D. and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheiden te Leiden, XLI (1960), Graeco-Asiatic Tradition in Imperial Portraiture pp. 59-68, fig. 12, pls. XXVII-XXXIII. from Gallienus to Diocletian,” Dumbarton Oaks

The Portraits | 15 are thrown down, his head is removed and replaced by that of his victorious rival, to be again removed in turn, while the body remains untouched.” “ When it was first discovered, the excavators suggested that the bust depicted Gordian III (238-44),47 who had earned credit for rescuing Antioch from Shapur I.* According to a delightful translation of Eutropius, Gordian in “great skirmyshes did sore aflyct the Persias. But as he returned, he was slaine, not farre from the borders of the Romaynes, through the treason of Philip, who succeeded hym in the Empire.” ” Philip, however, refrained from destroying his statues,°° so that three groups of them have survived, depicting him as a boy, as an adolescent, and as a young man.”! His coinage paralleled his growth to maturity, and the latest issues showed him with a moustache and beard (Fig. 12).5? They illustrate a profile similar to that of the Antioch head, with a straight nose jutting beyond the angle of the brow, nose and lips linked by a curved line, and a pointed chin that recedes ever so slightly, with almost enough flesh to match the near double chin of the sculpture. Behind the crown the back of the

head curves down rather suddenly to exhibit a relatively flat profile. The latest bronze, issued in July 244, reproduces Gordian III bust-length, cuirassed, laureate, and draped, as in the pose of the Antioch bust had its laurel crown survived; and on its reverse the coin reproduces a Mars like that on the cuirassed bust.*?

The prototype of the latest group of sculptured heads is a colossal portrait in Rome (Fig. 13).°4 The hair forms a cap a little thicker than that of the Antioch figure;

there is a moustache but no beard. The eyes are large and the face is full, like the Antioch head whose contours are similar but not identical. The Roman head’s exaggerated features, like the double furrow between strong brows, were probably due to its elevated location, topping an ideal heroic statue, which commemorated, no

46. Habakuk ii.3, 14 (JJ. P. Migne, Patrologiae 49. Tr. Nicolas Havvard (London, 1564), ix.27= cursus completus, Series Latina [Paris, 1844-1904], fol. 107, Univ. Microfilm no. 13722.

XXV, col. 1329), quoted in L. Friedlander, op. cit., 50. This point is properly emphasized by Helga

p. 60 and n. 6. von Heintze, “Studien zu den Portrats des 3. Jahr47. Campbell, op. cit., pp. 8-10, figs. 13, 16. hunderts n. Chr. 1. Gordianus III,” Mitteilungen des 48. This does not necessarily mean that Shapur deutschen archdologischen Instituts, ROmische Abactually captured Antioch, which may be a later tradi- teilung, LXII (1955), pp. 174-184, pls. 65-69, see

tion to glorify Gordian III. See Downey, op. cit., p. 253 p. 183. | oo

and n. 94, who follows the interpretation in A. Pauly, 1. Ibid., pp. 182-183; Felletti Maj, Iconografia

Georg Wissowa, and Wilhelm Kroll, Real-Ency- ..., pp. 38-41, 147-163. . .

clopidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 52. See references in Heintze, op. cit., p. 180, (Stuttgart, 1894—), s.v. “Antonius Gordianus III,” n. 23, and esp. Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherand disagrees with the numismatic evidence in Karl land, op. cit., pl. III, 4, inter alia. Their no. 160, p. 32, Pink, “Antioch or Viminacium?’ Numismatic Chron- equals our fig. 12. icle, ser. 5, XV (1935), pp. 94-113, pls. VI-VII, see 53. Ibid., p. 52, no. 339; cf. p. 32, no. 167A, pl. esp. p. 105 and pl. VI, 9 and 10, for issues A.D. 242 III, 8; cf. pl. III, 4; cf. similar motif and Nike on coins with cuirass and beard. Although Downey believes of his successor Philip: p. 76, no. 71, pl. VII, 4; p. 92, there was no interruption in the production at the local nos. 191-193; p. 105, no. 7.

mint, this view is not universally held. See: H. Mat- 04. Felletti Maj, Iconografia..., p. 155, no. tingly, Edward A. Sydenham, and C. H. V. Suther- 161, pl. XX, 65. Perhaps the best comparative illand, Roman Imperial Coinage, IV, 3 (London, 1949), lustration is in Roman Portraits (London and New p. 1 and n.; cf. Arthur Darby Nock, “Sapor I and the York: Phaidon Press, 1940), pl. LXXVI. See also Apollo of Bryaxis,” American Journal of Archaeology, Heintze, op. cit., p. 182, and references there cited. LXVI (1962), pp. 307-310.

16 | The Portraits doubt, the eastern victories of Gordian III in 243.5> The Antioch bust was local work, and if it is Gordian, may even have been made later than the Roman one by a sculptor who was attached to Gordian’s legions.*® Both heads have a reserved yet expectant

their identity is possible.

facial expression, and although the other resemblances are no more than general, A bronze head in Sofia labeled Gordian III (Fig. 14) shows eyes of the same scale

in proportion to the face as in the bust from Antioch, and a like furrow between similar arched brows.*” Excluding the damaged crown of the head, the contours are fairly similar, even to the rounded chin. Although individual comparisons may be

suggestive when matching the Antioch bust against either of these heads, the bust , alone preserves a wide-eyed, even startled look, while most of its features receive softer definition; and some, like the heavier area behind the chin, look as if they belonged to another man, even if one accepts the work as a Gordian. » To escape this dilemma, the writer once proposed Carus (282-83) as an identification, a designation the bust once bore in the Antioch Museum, doubtless on the basis of coins (Fig. 15).°8 The enlargement of the Roman medallion shown here,

| however, eliminates Carus as a candidate due to the different nose and jaw, in spite of references by Malalas to that ruler’s smooth yet grizzled hair, large face, big lips, well-made nose, and broad chest.*® Typical heads of the period, such as an example from Rome in the Lateran (Fig. 16), also show an exaggerated bust, and the latter’s expressive features bring one back to the period prior to Gallienus.® Nor

55. Since the head is from Ostia, it probably 58. Summary of a paper read at the Sixtyreproduces an original in Rome; cf. Heintze, ibid. | fourth General Meeting of the Archaeological InstiWould the prototype or model have been sent from tute of America, American Journal of Archaeology,

the East? LXVII (1963), pp. 208-209. A better specimen of the

56. A number of ancient sources from Tacitus same coin in Peter Franke and Max Hirmer, Ro(Historia i.36) onward testify to the presence of mische Kaiserportradts im Miinzbild (Munich, 1961), statues and paintings in the imperial camps; much of p. 49, no. 43, pl. 43; also illustrated in Bank Leu & the evidence has been collected by L. Friedlander, Co., Adolf Hess AG, Rémische Miinzen, Sammlung op. cit., note pp. 58-62. The practice is part of the ESR Auktion (March 1961), p. 65, no. 379, pl. XVII; picture of sculptural production in the 3rd century; and Bernoulli, op. cit., II, 3, p. 190, and Miinztafel, see Scriptores historiae augustae, Vita Elagabalus VI, 18. There are two sculptured heads attributed to xiii.7-8. With the repeated crises and proclamations Carus: Visconti, op. cit., p. 427, no. 610, pl. CLVIII, of soldier-emperors in the 3rd century, the legionary Ht. 0.80 m.; Emile Espérandieu, Recueil général artists must have gained in importance as usage of the des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine (Paris, 1908), normal methods of distribution of imperial portraits II, p. 76, no. 977, Ht. 0.88 m., in Toulouse, photos from the capital must have declined. By A.p. 300, German Arch. Inst., Rome, Negs. 33.1373, 33.174.A. artists attached to the imperial court appear to have M. Braemer has undertaken a study of the Toulouse supplied models from the court’s temporary residence material, whose precise find spot was Chiragan.

for the minting of gold coins, whose issue seems to 59. xii.302.17. correspond with the location of the emperor: see 60. A. Giuliano, Catalogo dei ritratti romani del

Patrick Bruun, “Roman Imperial Administration as Museo Profano Lateranense (Vatican City, 1957), Mirrored in the IVth Century Coinage,” Eranos p. 75, no. 92, pl. LV. There is some doubt as to the Jahrbuch, LX, fascs. 1-2 (1962), pp. 93-100, esp. date of his no. 93: see reviews by H. von Heintze in p. 100; idem, Studies in Constantinian Chronology Gnomon, XXXII (1960), p. 159, and Jocelyn Toynbee

(New York, 1961), pp. 23-25. in Journal of Roman Studies, LVIII (1958), pp. 20057. Felletti Maj, Iconografia...,p. 155, no. 201. The late style of hair and beard is very close:

162, pl. XXI, fig. 66; Kurt Kluge and Karl Lehmann- Giuliano, Catalogo... , p. 79, no. 97, pl. LVU; but

Hartleben, Die Antiken Grossbronzen und_ ihre see the rougher hair of a mid-3rd century portrait technischen Grundlagen (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927), whose eyes are very like those of the Antioch work,

II, p. 48, fig. 3; cf. p. 49, fig. 4. though the eyelids are broader: Evelyn Harrison,

The Portraits | 17 do Balbinus or the second Gordian fit this enigmatic portrait (Figs. 17, 18).®! Perhaps the basic difficulty in identification here is due to the recurrent tendency of men of late antique culture to look backward in time with adulation leading to emulation. Again and again they returned for intellectual and visual nourishment to earlier and happier times, until their list of imperial Arcadian pasts included every ruling family from Augustan through Severan.” If the work is indeed an emperor, perhaps another reason the head defies positive identification is that it has been recut. The effigies of one of Gordian’s immediate

predecessors, Maximinus Thrax (235-38), which were overturned at his death, showed features sufficiently large to make recutting possible (Fig. 19).6 The eyes, Portrait Sculpture: The Athenian Agora I (Prince- Caskey, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture, ton, 1953), pp. 57-59, no. 44, pl. XXX; also idem, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Cambridge, Mass., Ancient Portraits from the Athenian Agora (Princeton, 1925), pp. 226-227, no. 134. An attribution to Gordian 1960), fig. 34, no. S 580. It clearly does not belong to II would have to rest upon a similarity to a head at-

the Hellenizing tendency in the reign of Gallienus tributed to that ruler by H. von Heintze, “Studien himself, which provided a hirsute interlude in the zu den Portrats des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 3. Gor-

slow development of the 3rd century toward its dianus I-Gordianus II,” Mitteilungen des deutschen | cubistic climax in the period of the Tetrarchs: see archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, Andreas Alfoldi, “Die Vorherrschatt der Pannonier LXIII (1956), pp. 62-65, pls. XXIX-XXXII (see p. und die Reaktion des Hellenentums unter Gallienus,” 64, pl. XXXI), and accepted as such by Felletti Maj, in Deutsches archdologisches Institut: Fiinfund- Iconografia, p. 133, pl. XII, figs. 39-40, in the Palazzo

zwanzig Jahre Romischgermanische Kommission Conservatori, Rome, formerly in Capitoline. See: (Mainz, 1930), pp. 11-51; C. Vermeule, “Maximianus Jones, op. cit., p. 208, no. 67, pl. 50. The head of Gor-

Herculeus and the Cubist Style in the Late Roman dian II was shorter, almost brachycephalic, and its Empire, 295-310,” Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, crown was more regular. The coin illustrations of Boston, LX (1962), pp. 9-20, figs. 1-11 (note fig. 8, Heintze, pl. XXXII, 4, and Felletti Maj, pl. XI, 38, and side view of the colossal Gordian III from Ostia il- Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherland, op. cit., IV,

lustrated here); idem, “A Graeco-Roman Por- 2, pl. XII, 3-4, show clearly a high forehead, a head trait...,° pp. 3-22, figs. 1-45 (note his comments with a low crown, and a genuine hooked nose which __ on the two busts at Antioch, p. 12, n. 46). His date alone seems to eliminate the possibility. The wary exfor the one considered here, “ca. 255,” seems a little pression, similar though it may be, is not enough to over a decade too late in view of the discernible re- warrant a like attribution, although it supports a semblance to Balbinus. See Margarete Giitschow, nearly contemporary terminus ante quem non.

Das Museum der Préitextat-Katakombe (Atti della 62. Heintze, in Mitteilungen des deutschen Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, ser. archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, III, Memorie, IV, II) (Vatican, 1938), pp. 80-90, LXVI (1959), p. 178, on post-Severan reaction; A. figs. 15-20, pls. X-XII; cf. H. von Heintze, “Studien Alfoldi, loc. cit., for the mid-3rd century; L’ Orange,

zu den Portraéts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.—Der ... spdtantiken Portrats, loc. cit., for the whole 3rd Feldherr des grossen Ludovisischen Schlachtsarko- and part of the 4th centuries; Bernard Schweitzer, phages,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologi- Die spdtantiken Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen schen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, LXIV (1957), Kunst (Leipzig, 1949); idem, ““Altromische Traditions-

p. 91, n. 172; Felletti Maj, Iconografia ..., pp. 140- elemente in der Bildniskunst des dritten nachchrist143, pls. XITI-XVI, figs. 45-52. Various examples of lichen Jahrhunderts,’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch other heads dated to the mid-3rd century echo the Jaarboek, V (1954), pp. 175-190, figs. 1-9, b, for the same high-domed crown with flat spots to either side entire late antique period. Cf. Peter von Blanckenseen on the Antioch head and establish this date as a hagen, “Ein spatantikes Bildnis Traians,” Jahrbuch terminus ante quem: Heinrich Brunn, and Friedrich des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, LIX-LX Bruckmann, continued by Georg Lippold, Grie- (1944-45), pp. 45-68, figs. 1-18; Dusenbery, op. cit., chische und Romische Portréts (Munich, 1891- pp. 1-18, figs. 1-21; G. Rodenwaldt, “Zur Begrenzung

1942), nos. 51-52, 877-878. und Gliederung der Spatantike,’ Jahrbuch des

61. On Balbinus, who did not wear the deutschen archdologischen Instituts, LIX-LX (1944“shaven” hair style, and who was too plump, supra, 45), pp. 81-87.

note 60, and Jucker, “Drei erginzte Sarkophage,” 63. Scriptores historiae augustae, Vita: MaxiAnzeiger (1955), cols. 31-32. For our fig. 17, see L. D. mini Duo xxiii.7, and Gordiani tres ix.3; Felletti

18 | The Portraits which can’t be reworked extensively once defined, have a very similar stare because

the pupils in both cases have been aligned midway between the eyelids, and this is , one feature which does not match that of the Rome head of Gordian III. Recarving seems the best explanation of the vague look around the eyes of the Antioch figure also, whose basic configuration echoes that of Maximinus, but it is as if the latter's brow and eyelid width were all reduced, in effect advancing the eye further forward in the head. In the head reproduced here, the nose of Maximinus has been restored, but his hair was thick enough to have permitted reworking. The neck whiskers could have been left alone, and the Antioch head’s lack of clarity with respect to a double chin could easily have evolved from the already worked material of the lower jaw of a Maximinus. Both heads possess outsize ears, whose lobes are angled outward in the same way. Finally one notes that there is ample room for recutting the upper lip in order to open the mouth of the Antioch portrait, whose profile shows a similar lower lip, but no upper one. A comparable example of another eastern reworked cuirassed statue, from Side

and also of the third century, has defied positive identification because it too is

} similarly imprecise (Fig. 20).6* It seems to be another Maximinus Thrax recut, thus demonstrating the existence of the practice in the eastern Mediterranean. ,

. We conclude then that the Antioch bust’s manufacture continued the tradition exemplified by its companion piece the Pertinax. It bears added interest because it appears to have been recut from a full length marble depicting Maximinus Thrax, who became a victim of damnatio memoriae. The inclusion on the bust of a Nike continues and enriches, by the addition of a Virtd figure, similar imagery seen on a bust of Septimius Severus. The present most reasonable identification for the Antioch cuirassed bust is as an imperial portrait depicting Gordian III late in his short career when, as coins show, he wore an incipient beard. The existence of the bust supports the tradition that after his death his murderer and successor Philip respected his

Maj, Iconografia...,pp. 114-121, pls. VIII-IX, 64. Arif Mufid Mansel, “1946-1955 Yillarinda figs. 26-30. The Louvre example illustrated cor- Pamphyliada yapilan kazilar ve Arastirmalar,” responds to her no. 79, p. 118; see also Roman Por- Istanbul Univ., Edebat Fakiiltesi Antalya Bolgesi

traits, pl. LXXXII. An even more comparable example, Arkeoloji Arastirmalari Istasyonu Yayinlari, No. 3, with respect to the indentation at the back of the head, = Tiirk Tarih Kurumu, Belleten, XXII (1958), pp. and also the hair and the eyes, is in the Magazines 212-240, figs. 1-70, see p. 222, fig. 22; idem, Die of the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome: L’Orange, Ruinen von Side (Berlin, 1963), pp. 115, 117, fig. 92; ...spdtantiken Portrdts, fig. 4 (cf. 3), German Arch. C. Vermeule, “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Inst., Rome, photo no. 8065. On the back of the An- Statues,” Berytus, XIII (1959), lists it as his no. 34 tioch head appears a marked angle where the neck and suggests its original identity as Maximinus the muscles meet the bottom edge of the skull. The same Younger. Cf. also examples similar to Antioch work, indentation characterizes the head of the Louvre Vermeule nos. 271, 278, 288. Mansel’s illustration cuirassed bust, identified as Gordian III. Avail- shows the same mechanical cut across the neck as the able photos do not reveal it, for one must view the Antioch work. Even when obviously reworked, these head from further to the rear than the vantage point portraits are extremely difficult to identify: C. Vernormally used, as shown, for example, in Felletti meule, “A Hellenistic Portrait Remade as Severus Maj, Iconografia, fig. 62. A like crease gives ana- Alexander (A.D. 222 to 235), Roman Emperor and King tomical definition to the heads of Balbinus (Giitschow, of Egypt,” Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston supra, note 60). The peculiarity coincides with the LVIII (1960), pp. 12-25, figs. 1-14; contra: Harald appearance of short military haircuts and suggests a Ingholt, “A Colossal Head from Memphis, Severan or stylistic idiosyncrasy during the years 235-44, rather Augustan?” Journal of the American Research Center

than a homonymous imperial anomaly. in Egypt, II (1963), pp. 125-145, pls. XXIX-XLIV.

The Portraits | 19 memory and his image. Locally, there certainly was sufficient reason to honor the deified emperor who, in his own words, “removed from the necks of the people of

| Antioch, which were bent under the Persian yoke, the Persians, the kings of the Persians, and the Persians’ law... .” ® Compared to the Pertinax, there was ample cause for preserving a figure understood as a representation of Gordian III. Was it still valued when, after vicissitudes we can only surmise, it adorned a villa of about the year 400? One need only recall that Theodosius II became so aroused over the survival of the worship of pagan emperors that in 425 he forbade it, and issued “a special decree that ‘an honour too much for humanity should be reserved for

divinity.’ ”

3. Constantius I Chlorus The porphyry head (Figs. 22, 23) found in the cache is a remarkably fine example dating from the tetrarchic age. The first tetrarchs, joint rulers called Augusti, each of whom had an associate entitled Caesar, governed for twenty years until the Augusti abdicated in 305, and the Caesars became the new Augusti. The second tetrarchy collapsed because of internal quarreling and personal ambitions during the early regnal years of Constantine. The impersonality which the system required implied that each of the four rulers not only had a replacement, but that their military and other duties were basically the same. So long as this worked in practice, it dominated the representations of the rulers as well, and led to a minimization of individuality in their portraiture. The tetrarchic style reached its peak between 290 and 310, and employed a manner we can well call cubistic.®* It appears clearly in a splendid group of gold medallions from a recent cache, most of which were acquired by the Boston Museum (Fig. 24).° The kind of gladiatorial look they present shows that careful analysis of minute differences will be required to identify the Antioch portrait. The low-crowned head conveys an impression of iconic intensity. The eyes stare fixedly straight ahead with an expression of defiant power. Each of the forms of face and head has become an emphatically geometric shape. Below the bows of the

heavy eyelids appear the circles of the pupils and irises of the eyes. The upper eyelids cover and extend beyond the opposed arcs of the lower lids, and both together

contribute strongly to the abstract design of the face. The cubistic interpretation

65. Scriptores historiae augustae, Vita Gor- understandably reluctant about revealing his pos-

diani tres xxvii.5-6. session of it. On this period at Antioch see: Downey, 66. Codex Theodosius xv.4.1, quoted by L. op. cit., pp. 317-331, et passim; and more generally Friedlander, op. cit., p. 59 and n. 3. On the newest William Seston, Diocletien et la tétrarchie (Paris,

identification of the above portrait, supra, Foreword. 1946), where this head is cited, p. 35.

67. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 136, pl. VI, 68. L’Orange,...spdtantiken Portrdts, pp.

Ht. 0.22 m.; Lawrence, op. cit., p. 24, pl. V, fig. 10; 293-312; Vermeule, “Maximianus Herculeus... ,”’ Campbell, op. cit., pp. 8-10, fig. 15. This head could pp. 8-20, figs. 1-11. not be studied at first hand. A long-time resident of 69. Ibid., pp. 12-13 and n. 4, fig. 3 a—b; idem, the region informed me that it reappeared on the Roman Medallions (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Beirut art market after disappearing from Antioch and 1963); cf. K. Pink, “Die Goldpragung des Diocletianus then vanished early in the 1940’s. It is presumably und seiner Mitregenten,’ Numismatische Zeitschrift, still in the area in a local collection, whose owner is N.F. XXIV (1931), pp. 1-59, pls. I-III.

20 =| The Portraits of its component parts appears in the triangular simplification of the nose, now broken. One crease in the forehead continues its vertical accent, until it is stopped by a furrow across the brow. The horizontal line of the mouth stops the vertical one

of the nose in positive fashion at the latter’s lower end. The moustache and the edges | , of the cheeks next to it make diagonals which branch off in two parts from the vertical _ of the nose, and at the same time contain the horizontal of the mouth and protruding lips. A single short crease at each corner of the mouth follows these diagonals. On the lower part of the face a vertical line marks a cleft chin, and finishes the vertical axis established by the nose and the crease dividing the brows. Above the cleft and crossing the axis rises the midpoint of a convex curve defining the edge of the beard. Above, across the top of the brow, runs an opposing curve marking the limit of the hair, which, with the beard, frames the entire face. It is a thoroughgoing reduction of facial elements to an interlocking design. A similar simplification exists for the head

as a whole, whose nonprotruding back and sides seem like the rounded top of a cylinder. The hair, represented by identically shaped, short chisel marks, covers the head like a close-fitting helmet, through whose opened visor the face seems to peer

out guardedly with both suspicion and bravura. , A comparison between the Antioch head and an eastern bust from Athribis,

Egypt (Fig. 25), demonstrates that the cubistic style, even in such a hard, intractable

stone as porphyry, need not deny individual features.” In a detailed view of that famous bust one can see the same tendency toward abstraction in even more pronounced form. The eyes have taken on the piercing gaze of an eagle. Two horizontal and two vertical creases mark the brow, while no dimple or furrow relieves the severity of the chin. The ears have a thinner roll at their outer edges, and the hair does not recede so much at the temples. Compared to the Antioch porphyry, its emphasis upon such features as the eyes, and a thoroughgoing transformation of the brows into the silhouette of a distant bird in flight, suggest that the Antioch head might be dated earlier, before such tendencies toward abstraction had developed so far. The Athribis bust has been tentatively dated around 305 and, equally tentatively, identified as either Maximinus II Daia, or Licinius, or even as Diocletian.” The Antioch head has also been identified as a replica of the Athribis portrait, which, in view of the evident differences between them, despite the limited variation afforded by the style, seems unlikely.” The different individual characteristics and the less-developed hallmarks of the style, then, suggest a different identity and an earlier date. A later date would conflict with the fact that toward the end of the tetrarchic period the sculptural style of emphatic geometric and blocklike qualities gave way before a renewed interest in the elliptical qualities of the head.72 The Antioch head’s — -

most likely date thus falls within the first rather than the second tetrarchy, perhaps a at the time of the triumph celebrated at Antioch in 298, and it probably does not | ,

depict Maximinus II, Licinius, or Constantine. a a

70. Delbrueck, op. cit., pp. 92-96, fig. 35, pls. za arheologiju i historiju. Dalmatinsku, Zbornik XXXVITI-XXXIX; Klaus Wessel, Koptische Kunst: radova posbécenih M. Abramicu (Bulletin darchédie Spdtantike in Agypten (Recklinghausen, 1963), ologie et dhistoire dalmate, Mélanges Abramic),

pp. 79, 87, 91, fig. 63. (Split, 1954-57), I, pp. 188-191, pls. XIX-XXI. 71. Delbrueck, op. cit., p. 95; Vagn Poulsen, — 72. Ibid., p. 190. : '

“Notes on the Iconography of Diocletian,” Vjesnik 73. L’Orange, .. . spdtantiken Portrdats, p. 60..

The Portraits | 21 Those famous pieces of Venetian medieval loot, the two porphyry groups depicting the four rulers of the first tetrarchy, now stand walled into a corner of San Marco in Venice (Figs. 26, 27).74 They came originally from Acre in the East Mediterranean, and were a product of the same artistic orbit as the Antioch head, for both cities lay in Roman Syria. If the several definite features of the Antiochene head correspond to one of those from the Venetian groups, one can identify the ruler portrayed. Only one of the faces of the four rulers (Fig. 27, left) has the same single vertical crease

above the nose seen on the Antioch face, and this line also meets one horizontal furrow running across the brow. The Venetian head has a more pronounced curve to the eyebrows, which plunge toward the bridge of the nose, and then, in the other direction, rise higher onto the forehead than the brows of any of its fellows. Its upper eyelid appears to cover and extend beyond the lower, in an angle repeated by the outer edge of the eyesocket, features which, however, also distinguish its companion. The grizzled chin, though battered, still reveals a hint of a cleft. The Antioch head shares all these characteristics. In fact, it seems as if even the ears might have been the same before those of the figure now overlooking the Piazzeta San Marco were damaged. They preserve a meaty look. The two bearded figures in the porphyry groups supposedly depict the Caesars, and the one matching the Antioch head is usually called Constantius I Chlorus.”

The various other sculptured heads, all attributions, identified as this Caesar, and later the Augustus in the western part of the empire were recently examined by

Heydenreich, who also suggested that the Antioch head depicted Constantius.” The heavy lower brows and receding lower lips and chins in all respects resemble the profile of that ruler seen on a splendid gold medallion (Fig. 28).7” The ten-aureus piece has on it a real portrait in relief, and was issued at Trier, the Roman Treviri, whose mint was one of the most reliable during this period,’® to commemorate the reconquest of Britain and the triumphal entry of Constantius Chlorus into London in

296. Both the medallion and the Antioch head depict the single crease across the forehead seen on the Venice tetrarchic portrait, both indicate that there was a break where the nose joined the brow, and both show a face with solid jaw and a fullness 74. Delbrueck, op. cit., pp. 84-91 and bibl., Omer, 1959), pp. 1-24, 3 pls. (see pp. 5-6 no. 2, and

figs. 31-33, pls. XXXI-XXXIV. illus.); Jean Babelon, “Constance Chlore et la Tétrar75. Ibid., pp. 90-91, pls. XXXII, XXXIII bot- chie. Un médaillon d’or inédit de la collection Carlos

tom, XXXIV bottom. See also Andreas Rumpf, Stil- de Beistegui,’ Gazette des Beaux Arts, LXXIV phasen der spatantiken Kunst, ein Versuch (Cologne, (6™ pde., VIII) (1932), pp. 11-16, figs. 1-6, see 1955), p. 9 and n. 4 with bibl., pl. VI, fig. 29; Vermeule, p. 12, fig. 6; on discovery: idem and M. Duquenoy,

“Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” p. 73, “Medaillons dor du Trésor d’Arras,” Arethuse,

nos. 316-317, pl. XXIII, fig. 72. I (1924), pp. 45-52, pls. VII-VIII; on significance: 76. Robert Heydenreich, “Ein Tetrarchen- Arthur Evans, “Some Notes on the Arras Hoard,”

bildnis,” in Neue Beitrige zur Klassischen Alter- Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 5, X (1930), pp. 225-228, tumswissenshaft: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag pl. XVI, 1; and Wilhelm Kubitschek, “Der Schatzfund von B. Schweitzer, ed. R. Lullies (Stuttgart and Co- von Arras,” Numismatische Zeitschrift, LVII (1924),

logne, 1954), pp. 367-371, pls. LXXXIII-LXXXIV;: pp. 81-89. |

see esp. p. 370. 78. Maria Alfoldi, Die constantinische Gold-

77. Pierre Bastien, “Medallions et Monnaies pragung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung fiir du Trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras) conservés au Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst (Mainz, 1963), p. 21,

Musée d’Arras,” Bulletin de la Societé Académique cf. p. 53, n. 2. _

des Antiquaires de la Morinie, XIX, fasc. 358 (St. :

22 | The Portraits of flesh beneath the rounded chin. The smaller medallion of Constantius, in Boston (Fig. 24, top right), depicts the ruler at a more advanced age, yet the strong brow

and the profile of the chin still match the Antioch head (Fig. 23). The porphyry portrait from the cache seems clearly to represent Constantius I Chlorus shortly before the year 300. Comparable portraits in the round are less reliable. The most suggestive likeness appears on a colossal head in Stockholm (Fig. 29), whose proposed identity as Constantius gains support by a comparison with the Antioch head.” We see the same strong arched brows divided by a single furrow above a broad, now restored nose. The beard around short, level lips also forms a rough oval interrupted by a dimple in the chin, and the eyes appear to have a similar appearance within their lids. The head has a higher dome, but it bulges in a like manner just above similar fleshy ears. The jaw and jowls look reasonably close. The same features seem to identify a reworked head in Berlin as Constantius Chlorus also.® Its big chin, small mouth, large nose, and heavy brow are framed by similar hair and beard. Two light creases form one horizontal brow line, and one vertical furrow divides the eyebrows as on the Antioch

head. Portions of the original portrait survive, for example, under the right ear, and it is notable that in the reworking just those features which seem to support the identification were emphasized in the recutting, which has quite naturally cast doubt on the identification.*! Others include a bronze now identified as Renaissance, and three small alabaster heads in a different style.® Since the work published by Heydenreich has been destroyed, one comes with him to the conclusion that the only

certain existing portraits are on coins.®* The Antioch head, whose identity must rest primarily on the coin comparison

presented above, thus becomes another of the few portraits of Constantius known. , It may have come from a group representation composed of freestanding figures or busts of the rulers of the first tetrarchy, on the strength of the fact that there would

_ 79. R. Calza, “Un problema di iconografia (1935), p. 25, n. 1; cf. another recut replica in the imperiale sull’Arco di Costantino,” Atti della Pon- Museo Torlonia, Rome, accepted guardedly by both tificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 200, and by Delbrueck, op. XXXIT (1959-60), pp. 133-161, figs. 1-18 (see esp. cit., pp. 125-126, pl. LXII right, and apparently now

p. 154, fig. 14); idem, Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, accepted by Calza (Enciclopedia dell’Arte..., classica, e orientale, ed. Enciclopedia Italiana Trec- loc. cit.), who once doubted it; “Una Statua imperiale cani (Rome, “1958—), s.v. Costanzo Cloro; H. P. del IV Secolo nel Museo Ostiense,” Bulletino della

L’Orange and Armin von Gerkan, Der spitantike Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Berlin, 1939), LXXII (1946-48), pp. 89-90 and n. 23, figs. 4-5.

p. 168 and n. 1, pls. XL b, XLIV c—d. , 82. Hans Weihrauch, Die Bildwerke in Bronze

| 80. Carl Bliimel, Romische Skulpturen (Berlin, und in anderen Metallen (Munich, 1956), pp. 38-39, 1946), pp. 32, 34, 36, fig. 18; idem, ie . romischen Bild- fig. 50; Rosemarie Miescher, “A Late Roman Pornissé, pp. 50-51, no. R 121 and bibl., pls. LXXVIII- trait Head,” Journal of Roman Studies, XLII (1953), LXXIX. F: Poulsen, “Célébres visages inconnus,” pp. 101-103, pls. XVII-XVIII.

Revue archéologique, XXVI (1932), pp. 72-76, fig. 21, 83. Heydenreich, op. cit., p. 371. For a useful ‘published a near replica purchased in Rome with the article on the coinage of the period: Giorgio Castelsuggestion that the Berlin head, pp. 74-75, fig. 23, was franco, “L’Arte della moneta nel tardo Impero,” . Q copy; idem, Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture Lees La Critica d Arte, II (1937), pp. 11-21, pls. VII-XV. On pp. 539-540, no. 774; ef. L’Orange, ... spdtantiken variety of style: Gianguido Belloni, “Sull’iconografia

Portrdats; pp. 32, no. 11, and 117, no. 33. monetale della prima tetrarchiaca,’ in Analecta

81. Johannes Sieveking [review of R. Del- Archaeologica: Festschrift F. Fremersdorf (Cologne, brueck, Spdtantike Kaiserportrats], Gnomon, XI 1960), pp. 189-192, pls. XLV-XLVII.

The Portraits | 283 have been no logic in representing only the second in command of the empire in the West, and ignoring both his superior and the eastern rulers. The best-preserved of

these groups is the one at Venice, and the curved background against which the tetrarchs there stand (Fig. 26) proves that each pair was once mounted on a platform jutting from columns, like the pairs now in the Vatican Library.84 Each column with its figures would have been made of a single piece of porphyry. There were other less ambitious arrangements, however. Two porphyry columns of earlier date ornamented with busts on consoles, which are now in the Louvre, illustrate a simpler form.® And along the main avenue of Palmyra, inland from Antioch, there stood a colonnade whose columns bore consoles, on which busts could be placed.®* This was a military fashion used in the time of Diocletian and his fellow rulers along the via praetoria of the camps. It is an attractive and reasonable conclusion that the Antioch Constantius I Chlorus once adorned the colonnaded street which, like so many others in Asia Minor and Syria, beautified the city.®’

Thus the third portrait from the Antioch cache indicates the presence there around 300 of a tetrarchic-style group presentation, like that from the East Mediterranean city of Acre now in Venice. Within the late empire the existence of this

, style in the East represents a distinct variety and testifies to the decentralization of late classical culture, seen also in the growth of separate imperial administrative centers at Trier and Nicomedia in addition to the traditional capital at Rome.* Because the porphyry mountain, the sole source of this hard stone in antiquity, lay in the eastern desert of Egypt, it has been suggested that the imperial portraits in this material not destined for Rome were finished at the quarry or in Alexandria or even in Antioch, after official models sent there.2? The Antioch head, blocked out at the quarry, would indeed have received its final touches when mounted locally. The Athribis bust so differs from the Antioch head as to support this idea. It is rather an example of the native Egyptian ruler portrait tradition with a tendency toward the colossal, accompanied by appropriate intensification of feature suggesting superhuman authority, seen in the monumental red granite Caracalla from Coptos (Fig. 30).° This head, battered but still brutal, reveals the emphatic qualities at the begin-

84. Josef Strzygowski, “Orient oder Rom. naises (Warsaw, The Hague, and Paris, 1960-62), I, Stichprobe: Die Porphyrgruppen von S. Marco in pp. 12-46, figs. 7, 20, 40, 44-45.

Venedig,’ Klio: Beitradge zur alten Geschichte, 87. Roland Martin in André J. Festugiére, II (1902), pp. 105-124, figs. 1-9 (on their Syro-Egyp- Antioche paienne et chrétienne... (1959), p. 39; tian origin and possible manufacture for Antioch, C. Kraeling, Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New see pp. 118-120); Delbrueck, op. cit., pp. 90-91, Haven, 1938), passim.

and 16, cf. xvi, where he notes that, according to 88. Cf. Wessel, loc. cit. On decentralization: Malalas, Antioch had a porphyry column topped by J. B. Ward Perkins, “The Italian Element in late

a marble bust in A.D. 37. , Roman and early Medieval Architecture,” Proceed-

85. E. Michon, “Deux colonnes de porphyre ings of the British Academy, XXXIII (1947), pp. ornées de bustes au Musée du Louvre,” in Mélanges 163-194, pls. I-VIII, p. 20 et passim.

G. Boissier (Paris, 1903), pp. 371-381, pls. IX- 89. Delbrueck, op. cit., pp 3-4; cf. pp. 10-11.

Vif., p. 354; Delbrueck, op. cit., pp. 52-54, pls. Before 381 Antioch exercised jurisdiction over the

IX-X. area; after 38] Alexandria controlled it (ibid., p. 8). 86. Theodore Weigand (ed.), Palmyra, Ergeb- 90. Early Christian and Byzantine Art: an

nisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917 (Berlin, Exhibition held at the Baltimore Museum... organ1932), pp. 26-28, fig. 27, and pp. 88-89, figs. 85-86; ized by the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore, 1947), cf. Kazimierz Michalowski, Palmyre, Fouilles polo- p. 23, no. 1, pl. VIII, bibl.

24 | The Portraits ning of the third century which came to flower in the tetrarchic age. A separate head of an early fourth century priest, now at Adana and from the region (Fig. 31), demonstrates the presence elsewhere in the East of versions of the iconic style.*' It continues the tradition of the Caracalla and the Antioch heads. Another example showing

. this tradition from the latter period, such as that from the Pierce collection, whose provenience is probably Egypt, is weaker in character and shows the popularity of the style on a smaller scale and more decorative level.® The various porphyry portraits of this type, which are found occasionally throughout the empire, seem comparable in the tetrarchic tradition to Egyptianizing work within the body of art of the Roman imperial age.®* The popularity of the tetrarchic style was thus the current manifestation of a vogue seen in former times at Hadrian’s villa.°* Earlier Egyptianizing examples go back to the Hellenistic age, when the tradition started, and come from cities politically linked with Egypt, like Smyrna.”

The Antioch porphyry head fits within this tradition rather than being local work. | For if it were entirely a local characterization, its frozen hierarchic qualities should show some influence of the art of Palmyra.°* Two events in the third century make it necessary to consider such an influence, and also help explain one aspect of the basic stylistic transformation of the third century, in which Roman realism slowly gave way before the more abstract and iconic tendencies which made later imperial art so distinctive. The first was the defeat of Queen Zenobia, the ruler of the shortlived but extensive empire carved out of the eastern provinces.®? When its capital of — Palmyra was destroyed by Aurelian in 273, the distinctive local Syrian style of portraiture there became known at first hand to artists in the court retinue. Indigenous varieties of native eastern style are found from the Hauran in Syria to the banks of the Nile, yet form a cohesive unit through the use of local stone, usually dark, rather than imported marble, as well as an anticlassical approach.®® The second was a revolt

91. Jale Inan and Elizabeth Rosenbaum, Roman 95. Guiseppe Botti and Pietro Romanelli, Le and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor -sculture del Museo Gregoriano egizio ... (Vatican (London, 1966), pp. 204-205, no. 282, pl. CLVII, there City, 1951), pp. 32-40, 137, no. 40, pls. XXVII-XXXII.

dated to the “beginning of the fourth century.” 96. H. Ingholt, Studien over Palmyrensk Skulp92. Ancient Art in American Private Col- tur (Copenhagen, 1928); cf. idem, “Five Dated Tombs lections ... Fogg Art Museum (Cambridge, Mass., of Palmyra,” Berytus, II (1935), pp. 57-120, pls. XXII1954), p. 29, no. 181, pl. LV, now in Dumbarton Oaks. XLV; Ernst Kitzinger, Early Medieval Art in the On their eastern manufacture: L’Orange,... spdtan- British Museum, 2nd ed. (London, 1955), pp. 7-9,

tiken Portrdts, p. 24. . . . fig. 1 (cf. figs. 2-4), has an excellent analysis of Pal-

93. Note an example from Nis with a variant myrene style. See also: Henri Seyrig, “Antiquités

of the traditional Egyptian backslab behind the syriennes (No. 19-21, Palmyrene Sculptures),” head and _ neck; Miodrag Gbric, Rémische Kunst- Syria, XVIII (1937, pp. 1-53, figs. 1-32, pls. I-VI; schatze aus dem serbischen Donaugebiet, Carnun- idem, “Palmyra and the East,” Journal of Roman tina, RoOmische Forschungen in Niederosterreich, Studies, XL (1950), pp. 1-7, figs. 1-2, pls. I-II.

ITI (1956), pp. 78-84 (see p. 84, pl. XII, 4). On the 97. Jacques Schwartz, “Les Palmyréniens et Egyptianizing vogue, see: Brinkerhoff in Kraeling, Egypte,” Bulletin de la Société royale d’arché-

Ptolemais..., pp. 177-178, 180, 197-198, no. 14, ologie d’Alexandrie, XL (1953), pp. 63-81; Mattingly pl. XXIX C; cf. pp. 202-203, nos. 58-60, pls. XXXIX in Cambridge Ancient History, XII (Cambridge, 1939), A and B, XLII B. pp. 301-307.

. 94. Salvatore Aurigemma, Villa Adriana (Rome, 98. On Palmyra: supra, note 96. On regional

1962); still useful because of its wealth of illustrations “subclassical” styles from Syria southward to Egypt: is Pierre Gusman, La villa impériale de Tibur (villa A. Abel, “Statuaire hawrenienne, une branche pro-

Hadriana) (Paris, 1904). | vinciale de l’art romain tardif,’ Annales de la Société

The Portraits | 25 in the mint of Rome, and the replacement of the drastically reduced number of artists in the capital with others imported from Syria and the East by Aurelian.®*® Yet the Antioch head is no neo-Palmyrene work, as a comparison with a character-

istic example of that pronounced and homogeneous style dating from the third century makes clear (Fig. 32).!° The sculptural style of that city never achieved the degree of relative abstraction apparent in the Antioch porphyry piece, in which the facial features have been organized into a coherent sequence of emphasized parts within the matching opposed curves of brows and chin. Instead, the funerary busts constituting the bulk of Palmyrene work strike an awkward note. In this case the

outline of the head below its high hat is markedly irregular around jawline and chin. The staring eyes, striking though they seem at first glance, do not quite focus as they peer unseeing into eternity beneath the stylized reversing curves of their upper lids. The long stony nose running down the center of this utterly immobile face has not been finished, so that the planes left by the chisel still remain. The thin mouth, an inverted Cupid’s bow, is devoid of any definition at its corners, nor is there any between the mouth and the base of the nose. The Palmyrene style has an undoubted fascination, but its appeal lies in the reduction of elements like the eyes or decorative patterns or folds in drapery to sharply etched designs of linear character. The variations in three-dimensional modeling, which the Antioch head achieves, for instance, in the tapering diagonals from the extremities of nose and mouth, were simply not desired by the Palmyrene sculptor. He visualized the parts of the face ina two-level sequence, so that one goes from eyelids to eyes or from nose to cheek with little or no transition. Such work creates an effect like an embroidered textile, which is highly appropriate in a lamp-lit tomb chamber for giving an uncanny sense of spiritual

presence. ,

The strong impression of utter stillness, of a presentation rather than a representa-

tion, is acommon feature of both heads, as indeed it is of much late antique and Early Christian art involving the human figure. In other respects, however, the Antioch porphyry betrays a closer resemblance to the Caracalla, for both these works show a similar modeling technique around mouth and chin, where the Caracalla has the

royale darchéologie de Bruxelles, XLIX (1956-57), andrian cult image (?), offers further proof of the pp. 1-15, 25 figs.; Selim Abdul-Hak and Andrée unity of the East at the time of the Antioch head: Abdul-Hak, Catalogue illustré du Département des H. Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes 44: un ex-voto antiquités greco-romaines au Musée de Damas damascain,” Syria, XXVII (1950), p. 232 and n. 2, (Damascus, 1951), pp. 27-47, pls. X-XIX (on Pal- fig. 2; cf. idem, “Antiquités syriennes 57: questions myra: pp. 56-66, pls. XXIII-XXX); on the basalt héliopolitaines,’ Syria, XXXI (1954), pp. 88-89. sculpture of the Hauran (Syria’s porphyry?): Howard 99. Percy H. Webb in H. Mattingly and E. A. Crosby Butler, Architecture and other Arts (New Sydenham (eds.), Roman Imperial Coinage (London, York, 1903), II, pp. 414-422; Nelson Glueck, The 1927), V, 1, pp. 248-249 (cf. coins of mint of Rome beOther Side of the Jordan (New Haven, 1940), and ref- fore and after revolt, pl. VIII, nos. 113, 115); Al Sorlin

erences there cited, p. xvii; E. Kitzinger, “Notes on Dorligny, “Aurélien et la guerre des monnayeurs, ” Early Coptic Sculpture,’ Archaeologia, LXXXVII Revue Numismatique, TX (1891), pp. 105-133.

(1937), pp. 181-215, pls. LXVII-LXXVII, on late 100. Ingholt, Studien over Palmyrensk SkulpClassical relations between Egypt and Syria. The tur, p. 106; Carlo Pietrangeli, Museo Barracco di variety of local stones employed, typically dark, is scultura antica: guida, 2nd ed. (Rome, 1960), p. 104, illustrated in Early Christian and Byzantine Art..., no. 250, pl. XX, 1; G. Rodenwaldt, Die Kunst der nos. 14, 18-21, 26, pl. VIII. A tetrarchic coin of Antioch Antike (Hellas und Rom) (Berlin, 1927), p. 665. showing Helios holding a bust of Sarapis, an Alex-

26 | The Portraits same diagonal radiating lines, and, before the chin was broken, the same convex curve below the horizontal of the mouth. The style of the head from Antioch then conveys its character by the use of some devices which appear in other examples of eastern sculpture. It bears little resemblance to the Greco-Roman tradition of the age. A head of Diocletian from the royal palace at Nicomedia illustrates the latter (Fig. 33).1°' From this magnificent head there issues forth a superb sense of inner character because what is emphasized here are the human aspects of the man rather than the superhuman. The deep-set eyes, as opposed to a location on the surface of the volume of the head in the Antioch example,

suggest depth of character and experience. The modeling is distinguished by its subtlety, yet it includes even stronger radiating diagonal lines around mouth and : nose. The contrasts offered by this head make clearer the eastern orientation of the work from Antioch. That city faithfully mirrored the shifts in art from metropolitan homogeneity to decentralized diversity around 200, 250, and 300 in the late classical era. The three portraits in the cache all help to define the end of the period, when a healthy empire with a radiating center of artistic influences gave way to one whose vitality was dispersed to the fringes of the empire. Viewed against the background of the previous investigation, the significance of the style represented by the porphyry head should be briefly assessed. First, it was an eastern style and an eastern contribution to the art of late antiquity. Nothing quite

like it appeared in the West in sculpture, in spite of its prominence on coinage, for ! the Venice group also was Syro-Egyptian, and the Vatican pairs, crude imitations,

101. Friedrich K. Dorner, “Ein neuer Por- Journal, XXIII (1932), pp. 45-54, figs. 1-7. C.

tratkopf des Kaisers Diokletian,” Die Antike, XVII Vermeule, “Greek and Roman Portraits in North (1941), pp. 139-146, figs. 1-7; Wolfgang Fritz Volbach American Collections open to the Public,” Proceedand M. Hirmer, Early Christian Art (New York, 1961), ings of the American Philosophical Society, CVIII

p. 309, pl. I; not accepted as Diocletian unreservedly (1962), pp. 99-134, figs. 1-45 (see p. 110 and fig. by V. Poulsen, op. cit., p. 189, perhaps because it 25), assigns a mid-2nd century date to this head, comdiffers so strongly from other representations in the paring it to a head of another priest in Berkeley (fig. eastern or the Italic style, and from the enigmatic 44), and one cannot argue with his dating of the latter, herm in Solin; Heinrich Fuhrmann, “Zum Bildnis 260-70. On late classical heritage in the 4th century: des Kaisers Diocletian,’ Mitteilungen des deutschen Gerhard Egger, “Zur Analyse des spatantiken Porarchdologischen Instituts, R6mische Abteilung, LIII trats,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen (1938), pp. 35-45, figs. 1-4, and references there cited. in Wien, XV (1955), pp. 9-30, 16 figs. Several surviving

On the Greco-Asiatic tradition vs. the Italo-Roman: portraits in bronze suggest that if more works in this

C. Vermeule, “A Graeco-Roman Portrait... ,” material had been preserved the appearance of the pp. 3-22, figs. 1-45. Dr. Herbert Hoffman has sug- cubistic and iconic style, whose development may gested orally that Diocletian may be represented in now be traced only in coins, would not seem so another late 3rd century Asia Minor head: idem, sudden: Hendrika C. Van Gulik, Catalogue of the “Erwerbungen der Antikenabteilung 1960-1961,” Bronzes in the Allard Pierson Museum at Amsterdam, Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, VII I (Amsterdam, 1940), pp. 65-66, no. 95, pl. XXIII,

(1962), pp. 227-230; idem, Kunst des Altertums in from Aphrodisias; Fuhrmann in Anzeiger (1941), |

Hamburg (Mainz, 1961), p. 9, no. 30. The late classical cols. 729-733, figs. 170-172, two heads, one bronze,

tradition in Asia Minor is also well exemplified by a and close to the Athribis porphyry in style, from fine 4th century head of a priest from Kayseri (Cae- Sabratha. Cf. Charles Picard, “Chronique de la sarea), with the deep-set eyes and overhanging brows sculpture . etrusco-latine (1940-50),” Revue des of the Nicomedia Diocletian, in the University études latines, XXXII (1954), pp. 298-338 (see esp.

Museum, Philadelphia, No. MS 215: Valentin Miiller, 328-329). :

“A Portrait of the Late Roman Empire,’ The Museum

, The Portraits | 27 are so stubby in proportion that they clearly belong to the western orbit, represented, for example, by the frieze of the Arch of Constantine. Second, as a local eastern style it clearly differs from the survival of Hellenism seen in Asia Minor, in the head from Nicomedia, and its close parallel now in Hamburg. This East Mediterranean tradition

belonged to a limited area, which leads to the third point: the Antioch porphyry work proves that the Syro-Egyptian tradition was still vital. It was capable of elevating a portrait of Caracalla to awesome heights early in the third century. It is the same tradition which had the power early in the fourth century to create the representation at Athribis. The difference in intensity is explicable in terms of time, and suggests that, as the Athribis bust represented the prevailing manner after the turn of the century, the now lost Antioch head depicted the prevailing vogue just before 300, immediately, in fact, before the two pairs now in Venice, but from the Roman East. Fourth, the work in basalt from the Hauran in southern Syria amounted

to a local counterpart to the porphyry style in Egypt. Although it was in a softer material, it too suggested rigidity and a like hierarchy of expressionist values. It thus demonstrates that the mode expressed in Egyptian stone extended beyond the porphyry mountain, which in Diocletian’s reforms came under Antiochene political control, like the Hauran. Fifth, the Antioch head, a pure expression of its type, was in all probability only roughly shaped in Egypt. The bust from Athribis so differs in character from that of Antioch that one is led to assume that both could hardly have emerged complete from the same shop. Because porphyry was highly valued, its

quarry fell under direct imperial control (unlike local sources of basalt or limestone), which was responsible for the artistic level of products in porphyry. We know

that sculptors there at least shaped their work; we can assume that finishing and polishing was better done at the destination. The Antioch portrait head, illuminating its own place and time, differs distinctly from the two earlier portraits in our collection, as well as from contemporary Hellenic-oriented work like the Diocletian of Nicomedia. The Aegean’s traditional

balance in portraiture between inner vitality and outer appearance would have vitiated the temper of the tetrarchic age. The world at that time demanded effigies of almost superhuman power. The porphyry portrait type could transfix and overawe observers. The hard stone, whose royal popularity was so great—the enforced simplification dictated by its hardness, and its ability to take a high polish—suited the image of the contemporary Roman rulers as remote yet powerful beings. This conclusion, indicated through visual art, matches the literary record, for Constantius I Chlorus, according to his panegyrist, should be likened to a god. Cosmic kingship had become the fashion, taken over from the East by the West.!° The age-old Egyptian and oriental representation of the ruler as sun-god was still alive; it suited the purpose of the Roman emperors, who in adopting it signaled that amalgamation of East and West which meant the end of classical antiquity, and the transformation to Byzantine.

102. H. P. L’Orange, Studies on the Icono- (Oslo and Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 35-36, 141 graphy of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World et passim.

28 | The Portraits

If Constantius I Chlorus was like a god, he was also the father of Constantine | the Great. Certainly his portrait would have meant as much to the fourth century and 7 after as those of Pertinax and Gordian, if not more. The Antioch head in porphyry depicts the style which, until the iconoclastic controversy, was to set the character

of Byzantine imperial representations.

The Mythological Subjects As previously pointed out, the contents of the ancient art collection discussed here embraced both portraits and mythological subjects. An identification of works in

- the latter category, more precise than that given in prior publications (see Bibliography, page 73), turns out to be equal in interest and significance to the identification of the portraits. Like them, the figures of gods and lesser subjects of classical mythology in the cache covered a wide range in time and were varied in subject. Their importance is collective rather than individual, for their presence in the villa would have been significant not only as decoration, but even more as emblems of the ethical and religious aspects of life thus represented. One of the works, however, a local souvenir of a celebrated original, must have also been valued for itself, and no doubt was made locally. The others were probably imports, for they either match or closely recall replicas elsewhere, suggesting a few central points of manufacture. The third century date of most of the mythological figures also affords an opportunity

to inquire how they illuminate the last phase in the development of pagan art. In . fact they seem to chronicle its close, and in so doing help define the fourth critical period of classical sculpture.

1. Late Second Century Replicas of Hellenistic Adaptations The first group copies originals of the classic and early Hellenistic periods in altered

form. One fragment depicts a headless male, preserved from the shoulders and beginning of the left arm to the left knee and right thigh (Figs. 34, left; 35, left).1°?

tified as Apollo. ,

103. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 171, no. 122, pl. ITI, Ht. 0.315 m.; Campbell, op. cit., pp. 8-9, there iden-

30 | The Mythological Subjects Its most distinctive surviving feature is the presence of the right wrist and hand, palm out, attached at the corner of the back below the waist. A chlamys, fastened by a brooch on the right shoulder, was draped around the neck, over the left shoulder, and down the back, where it now ends in a break by the waist. The relaxed position of the left knee, slightly bent, indicates that the weight came on the right leg. The figure is undoubtedly a Meleager as it is similar to a more complete statue of the hunter. The best comparison is with a replica discovered on the nearby island of Cyprus, from a palaestra at Salamis (Fig. 36).!°* The pose is identical, even to the right hand behind the back and the chlamys, whose end falls gracefully over the left arm near the spear held in the hand. Left foot and leg are relaxed as in the Antioch

replica. A support in the shape of a tree trunk appears to the right of the Cyprus statue, which the Antioch work also preserves traces of on its thigh. Before it sits a dog. Chlamys, spear, and dog all were appropriate to Meleager. The origin of the type goes back to Scopas, the sculptor of the fourth century B.C. famous for his depiction of pathos. Perhaps, to the residents of Antioch or to the athletes in the palaestra at Salamis, these replicas did not recall such a famous name, and in fact the chlamys

suggests that these two statues copy a late Hellenistic reworking of the Scopas original.’ To the casual observer they would have meant the manly art of the hunt; to the more learned, the myth of Meleager, perhaps the version repeated by that assiduous ancient Baedeker, Pausanias (x.31.3). The antiquarian air of his Description of Greece of the later second century, roughly contemporary with the replicas, suggests that these figures were selected for their subject matter, the types for their expressive qualities, and their modified versions for their fashionable propriety. In short, a Meleager statue was an appropriate complement to human existence at the time, in a villa, or in a palaestra. Both statues had a long life. The Antioch Meleager could not have been hidden under the villa before about 400, when the latter was built. Its near twin on Cyprus lasted even longer, for, according to its discoverer, it remained on view with its companions even after the building in which it stood was rebuilt in the Early Christian period.' Another headless male statuette has been identified as a satyr (Figs. 34, right; 35, right).!°’ A panther skin falls diagonally across the chest and back from the left shoulder, where it is knotted. Below the knot the panther’s head, still attached, is visible on the satyr’s chest, and further down a rounded shape indicates a paw. The back of the statuette remained unfinished; apparently it was not normally seen.

104. A. H. S. Megaw, “Archaeology in Cyprus, _ stituts, LXXVII (1962), pp. 211-226, figs. 1-8; for the 1956,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXXVII (1957), most complete replica with no additions: Carl Bliimel, Suppl. pp. 24-31, pl. III, figs. 1-3; Porphyrios Dikaios, Romische Kopien ... , pp. 22-23, no. K235, pl. LXVIII.

Guide to the Cyprus Museum, 3rd ed. rev. (Nicosia, 105. Walther Amelung, Die Sculpturen des 1961), pp. 196-197, room VIII, no. 7, pl. XL; Vassos Vaticanischen Museums (Berlin, 1903-6), II, pp. 33Karageorghis, “Sculptures from Salamis, in Atti del 38, II, pls. III, XII, photos: Anderson 1402, Alinari

Settimo Congresso internazionale di archeologia 6600. ,

classica (Rome, 1961), I, pp. 321-328, pls. I-II; idem, in 106. Megaw, loc. cit.; V. Karageorghis, in AnAnzeiger (1963), cols. 580-589; on type: Bieber, op. zeiger, 1963, col. 587.

cit., pp. 24-25, figs. 54, 56-57; Brigitte Freyer, “Kult- 107. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 171, no. 121, pl. bild und Skulpturenschmuck des Arestempels in III, Ht. 0.175 m.; Campbell, loc. cit.

Athen,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen In- :

, The Mythological Subjects | 31 Both front and rear views reveal that the now missing arms were not raised at the shoulder and the pose of the body betrays no torsion. Raised arms and twisted body frequently constitute features of the pose of satyrs in antiquity, often depicted dancing or teasing a panther, an animal associated with Dionysus. A comparison with a typical satyr type from the ancient sculptor’s repertoire reveals that, contrary to the opinion of the excavators, we are not concerned here witha member of that gay family. The most relevant comparison is with a satyr statue in the

Musée Cinquantenaire, Brussels (Fig. 37).1° Its body, depicted moving forward, arches slightly back and to the left as the satyr looks down upon a panther. He seems

to be training it by tweaking its tail, whose tip, which now appears to have come off in the satyr’s left hand, was once joined to the rest of that member by a now missing section. The satyr’s right arm, whose base is unbroken, goes up over his head, where the satyr waves a club at his trainee. The Antioch figure could not have done this in the same way. The wider skin worn by the Brussels satyr is also different, since it shows the head and cloven hoof of a goat or sheep, whose leg hangs down to the satyr’s thigh. Considering the fact that the copying of sculpture became one of the exact sciences of the Roman age, there are too many differences here for these pieces to illustrate the same type. The raised arm of the Brussels satyr leads back to the fourth century B.c. Apollo Lykeios in Athens by Praxiteles, and the Antioch fragment represented neither a satyr nor an Apollo. When the fragmentary figurine is compared to a Dionysus type, however, its true identity becomes clear. The comparable work is again, like the Meleager par- | allel, in the eastern Mediterranean, this time from Cyrene (Fig. 38)."° It is the closest parallel among several near replicas from that site on the North African coast. It stood in front of a small squared pier so that the back would not be seen, and wore a narrow skin diagonally across the body and left shoulder. The animal skin has its head in left profile in relatively the same position as on the Antioch work, and shows no goat or other horns, as on the Brussels statue. The Antioch and Cyrene torsos of the Dionysus appear similar except that the former figure is fatter at the waist.

The only substantial difference appears to be the hair. Flowing down over the shoulders of the Cyrene Dionysus, no traces of it appear or have survived on the Antioch replica. The locks may well have been attached to the now missing head. When complete, the Dionysus from the villa would have had his wine cup or cantharus, and a panther recalling his triumphs. The cache did contain a statue base which included four animal claws, which may have belonged to it or to Meleager’s

dog. 108. Cumont, op. cit., pp. 27-29, no. 19, Ht. of the Brussels satyr is really derived from a Per1.37 m.; ex. coll. Somzée: Adolf Furtwangler, Die gamene adaptation, ibid., p. 111 and n. 38, fig. 449; Sammlung Somzée ... (Munich, 1897), p. 31, no. 42, cf. p. 139, fig. 568.

pl. XXIII; cf. reversed pose of another: Lippold, 110. Enrico Paribeni, Catalogo delle sculture

Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums (Berlin, 1956), di Cirene (Rome, 1959), p. 116, no. 326, pl. CLIT, III, 2, Galleria dei Candelabri, I, pp. 138-139, no. 48, Ht. 0.90 m.

pl. LXV. 111. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 131. “Maxi109. Bieber, op. cit., p. 18, figs. 17, 20-22, and - ™U™M dimension 0.091 m.” adaptations, figs. 19, 23. The Hellenistic predecessor

32 | The Mythological Subjects The Dionysus, like the Meleager, stems from a classic type of the fourth century B.C.; the best replica, in Madrid, shows the god leaning on a herm.!” Yet the Antioch work, again like the Meleager, copies a modification, created probably when such refinements of earlier originals became popular during the second century B.C." It embroiders, in a rather deliberately decorative fashion, upon the Madrid example, infusing it with a sinuous curve, derived from the Apollo Lykeios of Praxiteles men-

tioned above, and adjusting the supporting herm at the left side to give greater emphasis to the somewhat feminine body. This was no doubt originally polished, like the Cyrene replica, to a stylish sfumato finish.“* The Antioch torso, even in its , current condition, appears visibly softer than the Meleager.

Neither the Meleager nor the Dionysus is an original, as the mere presence of near duplicate examples of the types proves. As copies their dates would hardly precede the Antonine age, the last great period of large-scale copyist production.' Preceded by the cool precision of Hadrianic classicism, the second half of the second century A.D. produced ever flatter and less subtly modeled forms during the decades leading into the Severan age. After A.D. 200 the workmanship became simplified, the flesh drier, the drapery folds flatter. Since everything in the cache except the portraits can only be dated stylistically, any conclusions as to date must allow several decades of leeway. The artist of the Meleager handled the transitions from one convex plane of the body to the next so smoothly that an early or even pre-Severan date suggests itself, but the mechanical character of the back with its grooved drapery makes one wary. The height of the support, whose traces survive high on the left thigh, is typically Antonine, yet it also appears later.“ The more obvious, forceful, and less careful modeling of the Dionysus seems to make it Severan, and lead to the hazarding of a date of A.D. 200 for it, and perhaps 190 for its companion.

2. A Mid-Third Century Reproduction of an Attic Original As well as copies of classic types reworked in the late Hellenistic age, the cache yielded one unmodified but transformed replica, apparently the latest known, of a work of the end of the fifth century B.C., of the type known as the Ares Borghese (Fig. 39).1°7 The published identification was “Male Head, helmeted,” but the back

112. Paul Arndt and W. Amelung, Photo- 115. Ibid.; Fritz Muthmann, Statuenstiitzen

graphische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und ro(Munich, 1893-1947), nos. 1527-1531; cf. Lippold, mischen Bildwerken: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte

Griechische Plastik, p. 264 and n. 7. der romischen Kopistentdtigkeit (Heidelberg, 1951), 113. Meleager: supra, note 105; first free copies pp. 46, 213-228 list copywork from the Hadrianic perdiscussed in G. Richter, Three Critical Periods in iod on; only asmall fraction postdates the 2nd century.

Greek Sculpture (Oxford, 1951), pp. 34-35, figs. 62- 116. [bid., pp. 107-109 et passim. 65; history of the transformation of a 4th century B.C. 117. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 135, pl. VI, type in M. Bieber, “Roman Men in Greek Himation,”’ Ht. 0.26 m.; Campbell, loc. cit.; on relation of type to Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Phidias: Tobias Dohm, Attische Plastik .. . (Krefeld, CIIT (1959), pp. 375-417, figs. 1-62; cf. Brinkerhoff 1957), pp. 67-69, pl. Il c; Hadrianic copy: Aurigemma, in Kraeling, Ptolemais ..., p. 195, no. 10, pl. XLVI. op. cit., pp. 114, 121, 123; Antonine copy: Guiseppe 114. On sfumato: ibid., pp. 181-182, 194, no. Marchetti-Longhi, L’Area Sacra del Largo Argentina 8, pl. XLI; pp. 204-206, nos. 65-67, pl. XLIX A, C, D. (Rome, 1960), p. 54, pl. XXXI, 2; Severan copy: Do-

The Mythological Subjects | 33 of the photo kindly supplied by Professor Stillwell of Princeton bears the notation “perhaps Ares. Its battered condition makes this identification difficult, and its

startled expression and wide-eyed stare deprive it of the air of noble sobriety exuded with such dignified reserve by other copies, such as the Borghese replica itself, in the Louvre (Fig. 40).118 On the Antioch example, the outline of the helmet is barely visible, and its skullcap form lacks most of the low relief carving of the masterful copy of the Louvre. Yet the shape of a dog is distinguishable over one temple, as on the helmet of the better-preserved replica. The nose, already repaired in antiquity, is now broken again, and so is the left part of the upper lip. The smooth ancient cut across the neck just below the chin suggests that the head was made that way, to be doweled onto a matching body, a common practice in copyist work. _It was by emphasizing the staring eyes within their widely separated lids, enframed at an equal distance on three sides by a low brow and locks of hair, that the copyist exchanged the original attitude of a self-contained god of war at rest, as seen through the medium of the Borghese copy, into that of an overexcited warrior on the alert. The face looks out suspiciously as if regarding a potentially hostile world. This is a feature of the third century, whose dismal political history abounds in men whose surviving effigies give them the look of either hunters, or the hunted, or even both appearances simultaneously. Lacking that combination of ferocity and guile characteristic of portraits of Caracalla,!!® and not quite matching the harried fear of Decius,'”° it seems close to a male head in Munich dated around 240," making it the latest of the three copies so far presented. They demonstrate that in the ancient city of Antioch some sculpture was not essentially unlike the replicas or adaptations

of standard types visible elsewhere. ,

3. An Early Fourth Century Copy of an Apollo by Bryaxis One more work harking back to a greater age of Greek sculpture belongs in another category, that of reproductions of famous local masterpieces. A fragment, called “Female Head” when published (Fig. 41), seems at first glance to illustrate only how minimal artistic standards were at the end of the classical era, well after the great age of copying.'” A date no earlier than the time of Constantine comes to mind when observing the uplifted, rounded, drilled eyes set awkwardly in round sockets, and

| the workmanship of the center-parted hair, also drilled, in either cursive or exagger, ated fashion, which contributes so strongly to a pathetic and listless effect. The drama and full-blown pathos of the Hellenistic past have here come a long way. The most distinctive features of this head, for purposes of typological identification, are its

menico Mustilli, J Museo Mussolini . . . (Rome, 1939), on Roman Portraiture (Brussels, 1953), pp. 14-15, and

pp. 128-129, no. 17, pl. LXXX, figs. 300-301, “Luna references there given.

marble.” 120. Dusenbery, op. cit., p. 1, fig. 2; Antonio 118. Michon and Villefosse, op. cit., no. 866, Frova, L’Arte di Roma e del mondo romano (Turin,

pl. 36; Encyclopédie photographique de Vart: le 1961), pp. 329-330, fig. 301. | Musée du Louvre, III (Paris, 1938), p. 179; Lippold, 121. Ibid., pl. VI; Roman Portraits, fig. 87.

Griechische Plastik, p. 186, pl. LXVIII, 1. 122. Stillwell, op. cit., no. 123, pl. III, Ht. 119. George M. A. Hanfmann, Observations 0.128 m., width 0.097 m.; Campbell, loc. cit.

34 | The Mythological Subjects slightly parted lips, the way in which the hair falls down toward the temples from its center part, giving the uncovered part of the forehead a triangular appearance, and

the full, rounded cheeks. It closely resembles another, larger head from Cyrene, identified as belonging to Apollo, patron god of that city, correctly yet tentatively identified because it seems so feminine.'?® Underlying both in the type sequence is once more the Apollo Lykeios by Praxiteles, as seen especially in the Museo Barracco replica in Rome.™ It is significant that this time the Antioch work neither re-

produces nor is derived from any late Hellenistic modification, such as the type

known as Apollo Citharoedus, perhaps by Timarchides.!> _ |

Other fragments in the Antioch cache seem to show that an Apollo was once at the villa, for example, the lower part of a draped figure (Fig. 42), preserved from knees

down, whose right leg was advanced, and which stood on a base.'”* A hole drilled

into its plinth at the left front held a support for the figure, and the excavators also , recorded the discovery of a tree trunk with the tail and part of the body of a serpent carved on it.” Of course, these pieces may have belonged to a figure of Hygeia, but the draped fragment does not show the same arrangement of the chiton as seen on standard versions of the Hygeia type.”8 Beyond coincidence, however, was the inclusion, among the other debris of the cache, of a hand and forearm, whose wrist was encircled by a thong attached to a handle held in the hand (Fig. 43).'° The handle could have been one of the projecting arms of the lyre, usually held by Apollo, attached to the wrist by a loop. This would explain why the thumb and two fingers, which would have been extended around the arm of the lyre and across the strings, were missing from the hand. There was a break at the bent elbow, with a dowel hole for attachment to the upper arm. In antiquity lyres were held in the crook of the left elbow, and often plucked by the left hand directly. This left the right hand free, appropriately if it were an Apollo, to hold a libation bowl. The fragment could more reasonably have belonged with the presumed Apollo head than with anything else in the cache.

123. Paribeni, op. cit., p. 67, no. 152, pl. tail and part of the body of the serpent are preserved.”

LXXXVIII. Cf. adaptation of Apollo Lykeios by 128. Karl Neugebauer in Armin von Gerkan, Timarchides I, ca. 150 B.c., a free copy after Praxit- ...Thermen und Palaestren (Milet, Ergebnisse eles, a version of which was found in Cyrene: Bieber, der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, p. 160, figs. 678- Jahre 1899, I, 9, ed. T. Wiegand [Berlin, 1928}),

679 (now in British Museum, London). pp. 98-99, pl. XXVI; another, from Ephesus, is il-

124. Ibid., p. 18, fig. 22. To her references add: lustrated in Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen ArchéPietrangeli, op. cit., pp. 79-80, pl. XIV, 2, and further ologischen Instituts in Wien, XXVIII (1933), Beiblatt,

references (cf. fig. 6, Capitoline replica). pp. 10-11, fig. 4; I recall having seen another ex125. The name comes from Pliny, Natural his- hibited in the National Museum at Beirut, unpub-

tory, xxxvi, 34-35; supra, note 123. — lished (?).

126. Stillwell, op. cit., no. 124, pl. IV, Ht. 129. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 129, length

0.244 m., labeled “Draped Female Figure,” and 0.135 m. “The hand, from which the thumb and two there described as having right foot advanced and a fingers are missing, holds the handle of some object, hole drilled through plinth before left foot. “The possibly a mirror. A narrow band, connected with drapery clings tightly to the legs and falls in a heavy the handle, encircles the wrist. There is a break, with mass to the left and right of the figure. A fold also a dowel hole, at the bend of the elbow.”

projects forward between the legs below the knee.” 130. Brinkerhoff in Kraeling, Ptolemais..., 127. Ibid., no. 125, Ht. 0.22 m., max. width p. 200, no. 31, pl. XLIII A, and references there given. 0.071 m. “The upper part of the support with the

The Mythological Subjects | 35 To return to the head, it was suggested above that it was a very late copy, perhaps after ca. 300, and it was also observed that it did not seem to reproduce a late Hellenistic work. The lifelike cant of the head and the expressive glance of the eye of the god of music are features recalling the early Hellenistic Tyche made for Antioch between 296 and 293 B.c.'! It is interesting that miniatures of this Tyche were offered for sale in the city as souvenirs during the imperial age, and this head, even in its pathetic appearance, seems to recall comparable souvenir figures which, then and now, reproduce famous statues, like those of the Tyche of Antioch or of the Varvakeion

statuette imitating the Athena Parthenos of Phidias.!” The combination of all these physical and intangible clues leads to the original, a conspicuous local cult image in a temple of Apollo at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch sacred to the god.18? An enormous acrolithic statue by Bryaxis, it was made sometime after 301 B.c.,'*4 and was commissioned by the founder of Antioch, Seleucus I, who

claimed descent from Apollo and established the sanctuary. The sculptor was the same Bryaxis who made a portrait of Seleucus, and later went to another Hellenistic capital, Alexandria, to make another cult statue there, a Serapis.'*> Copies of both of these survive, but no replica of the Apollo at Daphne has hitherto been identified. Representations appeared, however, on coins of Antiochus IV, 175-163 B.c., and in the imperial period (Figs. 44, 45).1°° These illuminate details of the head less clearly

than they show the long chiton, lyre, and libation bowl. The first numismatic depictions place the right leg back; apparently this is rather a free copy,” while the later coins, closer in date to the Antioch statuette, show a pose like that of the fragmentary legs and base cited above, with the right leg forward, the left to the side. A Roman statue of the god holding a lyre (Fig. 46) aids the imaginative reconstruction

demanded by the Antioch coins and fragments.!*8 , Descriptions of the head of the Apollo cult image at Daphne, which would have been set on separately in the case of the original and the replica from the cache alike,

stated that its hair and laurel crown were gilded like the chiton the figure wore. The eyes were of “two enormous violet stones.” °° The cavity within the eyeballs of the small Antioch head includes the entire iris, and not just the pupil, the more usual technique. Into these extraordinarily large sockets some lavender-colored stone

131. Pliny, xxxiv.51; Bieber, Sculpture of the 135. Ibid.; Pauly, Wissowa, and Kroll, op. cit.,

Hellenistic Age, p. 40, fig. 102. s.v. “Bryaxis.”

132. Downey, op. cit., p. 75 and n. 95, on sou- 136. Ibid., col. 918, lines 21-31. Our fig. 45

venirs of the Tyche of Antioch; Lippold, Griechische corresponds to Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherland,

Plastik, p. 146, pl. LI, 4, and n. 1-6, on the Athena; op. cit., no. 534. |

of. G. Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art, 4th ed. (Lon- 137. Lippold, Griechische Plastik, p. 260 and don, 1965), pp. 106-108, figs. 146-147, 150-151. n. 1. It thus corresponds to the first free copies of 133. Downey, op. cit., pp. 83-84; cf. pp. 63, sculpture made during the 2nd century B.C. See also

93. Léon Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les 134. Ibid., p. 85 and references there cited in monnaies grecques (Liége, 1949), pp. 319-320, pl. support of equating “Bryxis” with the Bryaxis who XXVIII, 7. The statue appears again on coins of Treworked on the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. Contra: bonianus Gallus and, in the mid-4th century, on those Bieber, Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, pp. 83-84, of Julian the Apostate, all issued from the local mint.

who favors the assumption that the first Bryaxis had 138. Lippold, Griechische Plastik, p. 311 and a grandson of the same name who would have made n. 7, pl. CX 3; Vatican photo XIX-32-25.

the Apollo shortly after 300 B.c. 139. Downey, op. cit., p. 85 and n. 143.

36 | The Mythological Subjects | or mineral composition would have been inserted to match the much larger original. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxii.13.1-5), born at Antioch about 330, said the temple image was as large as the Zeus at Olympia by Phidias, a statement made by no other author-

ity, however. The statue existed in his lifetime, and in fact lasted from its creation about 301 B.C. for around six centuries and a half, until the temple housing it burned on October 22, 362, according to the same writer. Shortly afterwards it was eulogized by the celebrated teacher and author of Antioch, Libanius: Imagination brings before my eyes that form, the bowl, the lyre, the tunic reaching to the feet, the delicacy of the neck in the marble, the belt about the chest

which holds the golden tunic together, so that some parts fit closely and others :

hang loose. He seemed to be singing.!”

The last sentence seems a most appropriate explanation of the curiously intense expression of the Antioch head, inclined slightly backward on its small neck. Before its raised, steady gaze and open mouth one can even repeat a part, albeit in prose

translation, of one of the rare surviving examples of Greek music, the Hymn to Apollo:

But the whole swarm of musicians who have their home in Attica sing hymns of praise to you, famous player of the lyre, son of mighty Zeus, beside this your snowcapped hill; for you reveal to all mortals holy oracles which cannot lie, since you took the prophetic tripod which the fierce serpent used to guard. . . 1“

The date of the replica of the Antioch Apollo of Daphne falls later than that of any other statue in the cache, for it belongs to that select group of pagan mythological works made in the Early Christian period. These were centered in areas which clung to their past traditions, and just as often were also regions of vigorous Christianity. Antioch was such a center, and Coptic Egypt was another. To establish the date, rather than choosing a comparable example from a rural monastery, which may raise rather than solve chronological problems, a Venus from fourth century Gaul seems better suited (Fig. 47).'47 It too displays the stumpy proportions of the Constantinian age to which the Antioch head was assigned when first mentioned

140. Oratio |x, Monodia de temple Apollino 141. Discovered in the Treasury of the AtheDaphnaea, 9-11, p. iii, ll. 334-335. The translation is nians at Delphi: Theodore Reinach, “La musique from Bieber, Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, pp. des hymnes de Delphes,” Bulletin de correspondance 83-84. For another description (Ammianus Marcel- hellénique, XVII (1893), pp. 584-610, figs. 1-6, pls. linus) see L. Lacroix, “Copies de statues sur les XXI, XXI bis, XXII. Significance and bibl.: Isobel monnaies des Séleucides,’ Bulletin de correspon- Henderson, in Egon Wellesz (ed.), Ancient and dance hellénique, LXXIII (1949), pp. 158-176, pls. Oriental Music, New Oxford History of Music, III-IV, see esp. 173-174, fig. 10 on pl. IV, coin of eds. Gerald Abraham et al. (London, 1957), I, pp. Antiochus IV (also illustrated in Edward T. Newell, 363-369, 379. Modern recording and translation by “The Seleucid Mint of Antioch,” American Journal Edna M. Hooker, in companion volume to above: of Numismatics, LI [1917], pp. 1-152, pls. I-XITI; G. Abraham (ed.), The History of Music in Sound see pp. 28-30, No. 64, pl. IV, whose obverse illus- (London and New York, 1957—), 1, pp. 32-35, pl. VIII.

trates the head of the Apollo statue; cf. No. 63, pl. 142. Espérandieu,. op. cit., p. 221, no. 1247 IV, depicting the copy of the Olympian Zeus which and illus., “marbre blanc de Carrare,” Ht. incl. base Antiochus IV had made and installed in the temple of 0.75 m., found with an Artemis of same size as pendant |

Apollo). piece in a villa, along with coins of Constantine.

The Mythological Subjects | 37 above. The two are alike basically in their geometric simplification of volume. The Apollo head is a circle, even more so now that the tresses at the lower left of the head are broken, and the face within the circle is an oval. The same formal clarity in the Venus is achieved by an ivory-like smoothness of surface so that the contours of jaw and cheek around the small mouth produce a remarkably similar effect. Within the circular outline of the Apollo head, the round eye sockets repeat the larger shape in miniature. Within the ovoid form of the Venus head the upper eyelid carefully

, repeats the curve above, formed by the large diadem of late classical type. The greatest apparent similarity between the two heads is the use of enormous drill holes

within the eyes. Actually, however, only the pupils of the eyes of the Venus are drilled. It is their perfect roundness which makes them resemble the proportionately larger holes of the Apollo, made to receive its “violet stones.’ The Venus would have had pupils of colored paste, which was the normal system. The remaining formal likenesses also lead to a date for both in the fourth century, the period to which the Venus is assigned. It reinforces a date for the Apollo sometime in the first half of

the fourth century.'“

4, Third Century Copies of Hellenistic Asiatic Types The last distinct group, separate from those already identified and discussed, consists of direct copies of Hellenistic originals of Asia Minor, and includes all of the rest of the mythological figures in the collection. Those depicting the human figure number six. It is convenient to present first an Old Bearded Satyr (Figs. 48, 49),14 whose full-blown hair rather gives him the appearance of a Gaul.!* It copies a Hel-

lenistic original from Magnesia on the Maeander,'** and matches another replica from the western part of the empire, Italy, now in the Museo Torlonia, Rome (Figs. 50, 51).447 The Roman example seems to be a standard reproduction of those Hellenistic works which became very popular decorative additions to the large-scale

143. The deep hollows of the pupils of the eyes Hellenistic Age, pp. 108-110, figs. 281-283, 424,

of empresses of the early Christian and Byzantine 426-427, 430-431, 435-436, who gives the conage continue the practice: J. Toynbee, Roman Por- ventional dates; contra: Rhys Carpenter, Greek trait Busts (London: The Arts Council of Great Sculpture (Chicago, 1960), pp. 222-224. Yet Gauls Britain, 1953), no. 64, head from Rome; H. S. Jones were again represented, especially during the later (ed.), A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Pre- 2nd century after Christ, a period of renewed popserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The ularity for such melodramatic subjects; Piotr R. von Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Oxford, Biénkowski, Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der 1926), p. 124, pl. XLIII. The standard drilled tech- hellenistischen Kunst (Vienna, 1908); idem, Les Celtes . nique, exemplified at Antioch by the eyes of the por- dans les arts mineurs gréco-romains ... (Cracow,

trait here identified as that of Gordian III, also con- 1928). oo

p. 9. VIII. oo |

tinued; see Volbach and Hirmer, op. cit., pp. 324-325, 146. Carl Humann, Julius Kohte, and Carl

no. 68, and references there cited. Watzinger, in Magnesia am. Maeander; Bericht 144. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 137, “white tiber die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre marble,’ Ht. 0.32 m., pl. VII; Campbell, op. cit., 1891-1893 (Berlin, 1904), pp. 219-221, fig: 222, pl.

145. The Gallic groups at Pergamon come im- 147. C. L. Visconti, op. cit., p. 84, no.:111, pl. mediately to mind; see Bieber, Sculpture of the XLVII. The photo shown, Institute neg. no. 34-718.

38 | The Mythological Subjects baths of later antiquity in the third century.'* The hair of the Antioch replica is not similarly undercut, but left in clumps. It is not dissimilar in this respect to the beauti-

fully detailed mid-third century portrait from Miletopolis in Mysia (Fig. 21).'° There the resemblance stops, but it does permit the assigning of a date, reinforced by a comparable head of a Gaul, in the reign of Gallienus (253-68), under whom there was something of a fashionable return to Antonine style. Among other divinities recovered in the cache were two incomplete but easily recognizable Hellenistic Aphrodite types. One, visible also in the view of the discovery (Fig. 1), was the crouching version, now headless (Fig. 52).°' Beneath the copyist’s addition of a vase by one leg was a pipe opening, adapting it for decorative use as a fountain, a common practice in later antiquity,? but not part of the composition when Doidalsas of Bithynia created the original ca. 250 B.c.*? A second, the torso of an Aphrodite Binding Her Sandal (Fig. 53),** one of several such found in the city, is close to a terra cotta from. Smyrna (Fig. 54). An old, half-draped

Sleeping Silenus from the cache (Fig. 55) %* is akin in pose and costume to a relief | found at Magnesia of two sleeping maenads, flanking a tantalized and very wideawake satyr.'°" These types, used throughout the empire, are of interest as part of the cache be-

cause the latter examples conform so closely to the motifs of their original conceptions. In this respect the Hellenistic East tended to differ from the Roman West. A western use of the sleeping pose presents an impeccably coiffured deceased matron, equated with a nymph by being shown half clad, on a relief in which the sculptor carved the subject as if it were erect, and then flipped the slab sideways to make the front of a sarcophagus (Fig. 56).°% By contrast, the eastern conventional limit of

148. The Antioch and Torlonia satyrs are, of 154, Stillwell, op. cit., pp. 171-172, no. 128, course, “villa size, not the giant scale of the Severan pl. IV, Ht. 0.44 m.; Campbell, loc. cit.; on the type, Farnese Heracles from the Baths of Caracalla in Rome whose original did not date after 150 B.c., as Lullies signed by the copyist Glykon of Athens; see Bieber, (op. cit., p. 82) believed, but shortly before 200 Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, pp. 37, 99, fig. 84. B.c., see D. M. Brinkerhoff (summary of a paper read

149. Supra, note 43. at the 59th General Meeting of the Archaeological 150. Blimel,... r6mischen Bildnisse, pp. 46- Institute of America), American Journal of ArchaeA7, no. R112, pl. L. - ology, LXII (1958), p. 222, and idem, “Hellenistic

7 151. Stillwell, op. cit., p. 172, no. 132, pl. III, Statues of Aphrodite” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Crouching Female Figure, Ht. 0.74 m.; Campbell, University, Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 85-117,

op. cit., p. 9, fig. 18; Reinhard Lullies, Die kauernde pls. XIV-XXXIV.

Aphrodite (Munich-Pasing, 1954), p. 16, no. 21. 155. R. Stillwell, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, II

The slim upper and heavy lower proportions, with a | (Princeton, 1941), p. 118, no. 266, pl. V; terra cotta, series of even folds in the flesh across the stomach, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, no. 97.357, Ht. 0.374 were popular in Syria; cf. the bronze Durighello m.; Franz Winter, Typen der figtirlichen Terrakotten

Aphrodite from Beirut: Bieber, Sculpture of. the (Berlin, 1903), p. 206, no. 3. Oe |

Hellenistic Age, pp. 82-83, fig. 292; cf. figs. 290-291, 156. Stillwell, Antioch, II, p. 172, no. 140, pl.

293, and n. 41. . . , VIII, length 0.44 m.; Campbell, loc. cit. ee

_.. 152. Brinkerhoff, in Kraeling, Ptolemais ..., : 157. Humann, Kohte, and Watzinger, op. cit., PP. 182, 205-206, pl. XLIX C; Homer Thompson, pp. 193-195, figs. 192-194; cf. H. Brunn and F.

Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1952,” Hesperia, Bruckmann, et al., Denkmdler griechischer und roXXII (1953), pp. 53-54, pl. XIX a-b, for adaptations mischer Skulptur (Munich, 1888-1947), no. 1344.

of the Venus Genetrix. No other adaptation of the 158. The inscription, Ulpiae Epigone, sugCrouching Aphrodite type seems known. oo gests a Trajanic date because of the cognomen. 158. Bieber, ‘Sculpture of the: Hellenistic Age, Examples of sleeping nymphs approached by satyrs

loc. cit.; Lullies, op. cit., pp. 27-29. on Roman sarcophagi, vases, gems, paintings, and a

The Mythological Subjects | 39 adaptation is suggested by the reduction to relief of a conventional Greek sphinx carved on a disc found in the cache along with a straightforward life-size representation of a grouse cock.® The Antioch mythological figures also offer faithful local

testimony to a third century revival in the East. Both the crouching and sandalbinding Aphrodite types appear on Severan coins of Asia Minor (Fig. 57), the home of many of the originals and the site of a veritable numismatic memorialization of such sculpture, corresponding in time to the reproductions at Antioch.’® Further examples support the above interpretation of cultural unity and show how this unity later gave way to local variety. Two more heads complete the roster of mythological subjects found in the Antioch cache. One depicts a young satyr with -downcast but merry glance (Fig. 58).!*' It may be contrasted to a somewhat battered nymph, now in Princeton (Fig. 59),!® whose uplifted gaze and high coiffure permit the identification of both as replicas of that Hellenistic group entitled Invitation to the Dance (Fig. 60).1® The plaster reconstruction illustrated here is derived from a coin of Cyzicus in Asia Minor, the home of the original, minted under Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus, early in the third century.'** Comparable to the nymph is

| an early Severan head in relief from the agora in Smyrna (Fig. 61),’® revealing an identity of style and technique and presumably of a date around A.D. 200. The style of both female heads displays in striking degree a combination of a fixed stare and a puffy, lackluster effect. The interrupted drilled grooves in the hair, to cite only one technical parallel, are extraordinarily similar. Yet those of the Nymph are wider,

straighter, and deeper, an exaggeration of the technique which represents a later reworking of the manner which was so common in the Severan age. It appears in Rome in the time of the “Plotinus” sarcophagus, dated around the 260’s,'® the Hellenistic relief from Pergamon and a plaster relief: American Journal of Archaeology, LXIX (1965), Gisela Richter, Ancient Italy (Ann Arbor, 1955), pp. 25-37, figs. 1-15, and hence are not discussed

p. 95, n. 25-30. here. See also: Bieber, Sculpture of the Hellenistic

159. Stillwell, Antioch, II, p. 172, no. 139, di- Age, p. 139, figs. 562-567. For the photo of the reameter 0.45 m. (gray marble), and no. 141, Ht. 0.34 m. construction by Rizzo I thank Prof. Dr. Antonio (white marble), both depicted on pl. VIII; Campbell, Giuliano, Istituto di Archeologia, Universita di loc. cit. A Hellenistic sphinx of the 2nd century B.C. Roma.

from Cos is comparable to the former: Giulio Jacopi, 164. First identified by Friedrich Imbhoof“Musei, esplorazione e scavi nelle isole minori,” Blumer, “Antike Miinzbilder,” Jahrbuch des deutschen Clara Rhodos, I (1928), pp. 93-94, fig. 75. Comparisons archdologischen Instituts, III (1888), pp. 296-297, with the grouse cock are rather pointless, for the pl. IX, 22; and idem, “Beitrage zur Erklarung griechstorerooms of almost any Aegean or Near Eastern ischer Miinztypen,” Nomisma, VI (1911), p. 12.

museum contain like ornithological decoration. 165. Rudolf Naumann and Seldahattin Kantar, 160. Max Bernhart, Aphrodite auf griech- “Die Agora von Smyrna,” Kleinasien und Byzanz:

ischen Miinzen (Munich, 1936), pp. 48-51, nos. 299a- Istanbuler Forschungen, XVII (Berlin, 1950), pp. 69-

310 (crouching), 311-313 (sandal-binding), pl. VIII; 114; see p. 104, no. 30, pl. XLI, d; for the same style :

Lullies, op. cit., pp. 30, 37, figs. 32-33. of running-drill technique in the hair of the nymph

161. Stillwell, Antioch, II, p. 172, no. 138, pl. and the Smyrna head, cf. a head of Artemis in Cyprus:

VII, Ht. 0.25 m.; Campbell, loc. cit. | Dikaios, op. cit., p. 129; room VII, panel 9, pl. XXIII,

162. Stillwell, Antioch, II, p. 171, no. 127, 2; and also one found at Sardis: G. M. A. Hanfmann

pl. IV, Ht. 0.29 m.; Campbell, op. cit., pp. 8, 10, and A. Henry Detweiler, “From the Heights of

fig. 14. : Sardis,” Archaeology, XIV (1961), pp. 10-11, fig. 14. 163. The group and the pair of heads are dealt | 166. Heintze, in Mitteilungen des deutschen with at some length in D. M. Brinkerhoff, “New archdologischen Instituts, ROémische Abteilung, Examples of the Hellenistic Statue Group, “The LXVI (1959), p. 189; n. 68, dates the Ludovisi sarInvitation to the Dance, and their Significance,” cophagus to 251 and, following Rodenwalt, dates

40 | The Mythological Subjects , latest probable date for the Antioch Nymph. The style appears frequently on a whole

group of sarcophagi whose center of production was the Asia Minor coast, and which were perhaps distributed from Ephesus.'® Within their deep drilled architectural niches appeared mythological types like those found in the cache. Their manufacture and export in the East diminished sharply after the middle of the third century when marauding barbarians ravaged the area, but appears to have continued in Rome, whither some of the sculptors emigrated. The system of mass production and export outlined earlier in these pages appears to have become more decentralized as artists from central shops re-established themselves. One of: these, come to Antioch with a supply of stone after the middle of the third century, may have carved the Nymph, which has no exact parallel elsewhere, as do, for example, the Dionysus

and the Meleager. ,

The broad, flat face of the Satyr has a wide-eyed look and the sharply edged upper eyelids apparent also on the head of Ares, already dated toward the middle of the century. His roughly modeled hair indicates a younger satyr than do those locks on the Gallienic head of an old satyr. As no close parallel for either exists in Asia Minor or the Aegean, one may suggest that these two are local versions of standard types. What Aphrodisias in Caria was producing during the first half of the third century is represented by an important group from the city recently acquired by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Fig. 62).'6 The subject, a dancing satyr and maenad with an Eros, is similar to the now fragmentary Antioch group of satyr and nymph, and the hard polished surfaces suggest the original appearance of the works found in the cache. The hair of the Aphrodisian Satyr differs from that of his Antioch counterpart in being much better formed in clearly distinguished locks, lending credence to the proposal that the latter is local work. Between the locks are deeply undercut grooves, narrower than those of the Antioch Nymph, and with only a few widely spaced thin

struts. Clearly the latter represents a later phase of this development, thus con- ,

firming a date for it and its companion around 260 in the Age of Gallienus. , The presence of various technical and stylistic similarities between the myth- | ological sculpture found in the Antioch cache and comparable examples elsewhere : reinforces a concept of the cultural homogeneity in the East extending from the

Syrian littoral to western Asia Minor, from the later second through the mid-third , , century. The contrast in imagery between the types native to the East when employed , | at home and abroad is suggested by the Antiochene and Roman versions of the old satyr. The difference in use of motif between the Sleeping Silenus and the Roman

matron on a sarcophagus, self-conscious even in the sleep of death, could hardly , echo the point more successfully. The differences between the Aphrodisias satyr,

the “Plotinus”’ sarcophagus, whose drillwork paral- 167. Charles Rufus Morey, The Sarcophagus lels that of the nymph’s coiffure (see her pl. 55, 1), of Claudia Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sar-

to 265-70, and the Acilia sarcophagus (cf. p. 188) cophagi (Princeton, 1924). |

to the time of Carinus in the 280’s.-There is no proof, 168. C. Vermeule, “Aphrodisiaca: Satyr, Maehowever; that East and West followed. a contempo- nad and Eros,” Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann, raneous:: development; see J. Toynbee [review of Marsyas, Supplement I (1964), pp. 359-374, figs. 1-15.

L’Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient ,Portraiture], Journal a | |

of Roman Studies, XXXVIII (1948), p. 160. — - - -

The Mythological Subjects | 41 maenad, and Eros group, the Antioch satyr of the dance group, and the Ares reveal the localization of style which took place in the East after the middle of the third century. Taken as a whole, the Antioch mythological pieces mirror cultural development through the extended period of their manufacture, and it is as a whole that the cache may now be discussed.

a Oo BLANK PAGE > , |

Significance of the Sculpture

in the Late Roman Age 1. The Statues in the Context of Roman Sculptural Production The collection at the villa included a broad variety of subject matter. A bust of Pertinax, one of Gordian III (or of a general), and a porphyry head of Constantius

form. ,

I Chlorus constituted the portraits. The two busts were made of marble which could be identified as Aegean, but whether its ultimate source was Greece proper or coastal Asia Minor cannot at present be determined. The material of the third portrait was available only in Egypt and it probably arrived at Antioch in partly or nearly finished All three portraits support our present understanding of the method of dissemination of successive imperial visages. That this commenced at Rome with the manufacture of an official likeness has already been discussed.’ It will be recalled that Stuart’s interpretation of his evidence led him to conclude that imperial effigies _ were not normally shipped direct to their ultimate destinations. If this had been the case, then the production of marble imperial portraits would have been concentrated in Italy, and their material would have shown an overwhelming preponderance of Carrara marble. This, however, was not so, nor was it true at Antioch, where the marble of the portraits was Aegean. Hence the evidence of these two portraits supports Stuart’s further conclusion that there were intermediate studios, the principal one in the East being at Athens, where the model from Italy was copied. Presumably this reproduction would have relied upon the pointing process, and, if the original 169. By Stuart, supra, note 33.

44 | Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age from Italy had to be set up immediately, upon simultaneous use of a plaster cast made from the portrait before it left the shop and a pointing machine.'!” By the end of the early imperial period the major quarries came under direct imperial control

and the quarry at Proconnesus became increasingly productive.’ If Athens was the first possible origin of the Antioch marble portraits, Proconnesus seemed to be the second. The export of precut architectural members, and of semifinished sarcophagi,

documented by the discovery of such cargoes sunk in transit, was a parallel activity.‘” , The depots of provincial capitals like Antioch received, finished, and reshipped all types of marbles, in accordance with Stuart's conclusion that the distribution of sculptured imperial portraits was part of the normal art trade of classical antiquity. The agreement in physiognomical detail between the Pertinax at Antioch and other replicas bears out these conclusions (Figs. 3, 4, 6). Once arrived at a provincial center the imperial likeness could again serve as a model if need be. These replicas, made at some distance from the standard shops, served the local area. Antioch indeed fell in such a category, and this third possibility seems a likely. explanation for the difficulty encountered in identifying the cuirassed bust as that of Gordian III. Such local workmanship almost invariably lacks that homogeneity of style and assured competence of metropolitan sculpture found all around the borders of the Mediterranean in the imperial age, and when discovered together testify to the presence of both imported and local work. Perhaps | Cyrene in North Africa had both types in the case of busts of Marcus Aurelius and

Antoninus Pius.!72 The local version of the former (Fig. 63), in contrast to what may | have been its imported model, is unmistakable beside the more finished and standardized representation of the same ruler (Fig. 64).1 Beneath more exuberant and less skillfully carved hair appears a shorter, broader face which has just missed the characteristic outline displayed by the metropolitan version of Marcus Aurelius. The flattened cuirass matches that of the local Antoninus Pius, to which it seems to form a companion. Most remarkable and indicative, however, are the eyes. Instead of being recessed beneath their brows as in the standard type, they are more on the surface of the head. Their shallowly drilled technique plus their wide-open, staring, and “frozen” quality convey the same sense of startled astonishment which is such a marked feature of the presumed head of Gordian III at Antioch. Such a striking comparison persuasively indicates the local nature of the latter head as well, already implied by the conclusion that it was reworked. If we look next at the Pertinax and

170. Richter, Three Critical Periods..., pp. . 57-58, nos. 46, 47 (Antoninus Pius), pls. XXXIII, 1-2, 42-44, figs. 73-76, 64 (cf. figs. 105, 107); idem, Ancient XXXIV, 3-4; and nos. 49, 50, pls. XXXV, 1-2, XXXIV,

Italy, pp. 109-111, and n. 13; idem, Greek Portraits, 1-2 (Marcus Aurelius). }

III. | | , oO : 174. Ibid. (p. 11), agrees that her no. 49, our

- 171. Ward Perkins, “Roman Garland Sarcoph-. _sfig. 63, “presents a local type of portrait of this Emagi... ,” pp. 455-467, pls. I-VI, see esp. p. 459; idem, _peror, based on a metropolitan model,” but explains

“Tripolitania . .., pp. 89-104. its appearance in contrast to the other Marcus Au-

172. Idem, “The MHippolytus Sarcophagus relius, our fig. 64, her no. 50, by “the presence in

from Trinquetaille,” Journal of Roman Studies, Cyrene of foreign and indigenous artists working side XLVI (1956), pp. 10-16, fig. 1, pls. I-III; Throck- by side.” Such a situation may have existed, yet

morton and Bullitt, op. cit., pp. 16-23, illus. her evidence which seems contrary to the opinions 173. Elizabeth Rosenbaum, A Catalogue of advanced there in her references and in this study, Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture (London, 1960), pp. does not quite convince. |

Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | 45 then at the local Marcus Aurelius, the similarity of eye treatment leads to the conclusion that the Pertinax too may have been by a local artist from an imported model (Figs. 3, 4, 63). Thus the portrait sculpture in the Antioch cache shows that there was no essential difference in the character of its sculpture between that city and other East Mediterranean centers. The likenesses reached the city through normal

channels, there to be reproduced or finished.

~The collection discovered in the villa at Antioch contained three times as many mythological figures as there were portraits. These comprised fragmentary statuettes of Meleager, Dionysus, Ares, Apollo, a satyr, crouching and sandal-binding Aphrodites, a Sleeping Silenus, and satyr and nymph heads from an Invitation to the Dance

group. The grouse cock and relief medallion of a sphinx completed the contents of the cache. Salamis also had a replica of the Meleager, and Cyrene possessed the same type of Dionysus. The various adventures of the god of wine appeared frequently on sarcophagi,’” which by A.D. 150 were being exported in ever increasing quantity from shops near the Pentelic and Proconnesian quarries.!7* Related groups of artisans were the most likely artists to have depicted these motifs, which decorated the abodes of the living and deceased alike. In the case of the sculpture in the cache, the marble, in instances in which it is identifiable, has all the characteristics of Proconnesian. This stone’s distinctive bluish to slate-gray streaked imperfections in a coarse white to off-white ground appear in a finished work even farther from its source than Antioch in the East. Presentday Jordan revealed a Severan copy of a monumental Hellenistic group of Daedalus and Icarus.'”7 The group was prefabricated. Far too complex to have been shipped in its assembled state, the various parts were so made that they could be put together neatly at their remote inland destination. Its publisher stated that the style of the work rules out the possibility of its native manufacture.!”® The complexity of the design renders well-nigh impossible the supposition that it may have been made from a copybook or small model by an artist probably unfamiliar with the original. Further evidence of the export of architectural components labeled with masons’ marks from

, } Proconnesus to Lepcis Magna is relevant.” There in the Severan forum the medallions reproduced the style of modeling seen in the face and hair of the Satyr of the dance group at Antioch and the deep drilled interrupted grooves seen in the

| hair of his companion the Nymph.'® The latter style appears also in the Daedalus 175. K. Lehmann-Hartleben and Erling C. LXXV-LXXX; on identity: Hans Mobius, “Ei Olsen, Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore (New hellenistischer Daidalos,” Jahrbuch des deutsche York and Baltimore, 1942); Friedrich Matz, Der Gott archdologischen Instituts, LXVIII (1953), pp. 98-

auf dem Elefantenwagen (Mainz, 1952); idem, “Ein 101. _ |

romisches Meisterwerk: Der Jahreszeitensarkophag 178. Iliffe, op. cit., p. 711. Badminton-New York” Jahrbuch des deutschen ar- 179. Ward Perkins, “Tripolitania...,”° pp. 89-

chéologischen Instituts, Erganzungsheft XIX (1958). 104. , :

176. Ward Perkins, “Hippolytus Sarcophagus 180. Julien Guey, “Lepcitana Septimiana VI

...,5 pp. 10-16; cf. Kazimierz Michalowski, “La fin (1€¢ partie), Revue africaine, XCIV (1950), pp. 51-84, de l’art grec,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, figs. 1-2, pls. I-VI (see II, 1 and 2); on reworking of

LXX (1946), pp. 385-392, pls. XX-XXI. themes of Medusa in Gorgoneions, etc., see Gerhard

177. J. H. Wliffe, “A Heroic Statue from Phil- Kleiner, Das Nachleben des Pergamenischen Giganadelphia-Amman,” in Studies Presented to David M. tenkampfes (Berlin, 1949), p. 33 et passim. Robinson (St. Louis, 1951-53), I, pp. 705-712, pls.

46 | Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | | and Icarus group found in Jordan, and was characteristic of the so-called school of Aphrodisias in Caria in Asia Minor, identifiable because so many works signed by sculptors of or from Aphrodisias have been found.'*! The style is too general, however, to have been confined to that remote city alone, and the quantity of such work and location of signatures bears out the conclusion that Aphrodisian sculptors established themselves also in more convenient centers. Their shop in Rome, for example, came to light in the nineteenth century.!® The Antioch mythological work, roughed out at the quarries, was completed and sold at a similar shop, which also made replicas

of famous local masterpieces. | a , 7 a

2. The Eastern Mediterranean as a Single Cultural Area ns It is a notable fact that Proconnesian marble, which constituted the bulk of the sculpture found at Antioch which the writer has been able to examine, is predominant not only between its source and Antioch, but also beyond. The Daedalus and Icarus

group is one example. Sarcophagi, which formed a comparable group allied to mythological sculpture, yield others: A: number from Beirut of standard Proconnesian type, now in the United States, are typical.!** These appear to have dominated the market as far away as Alexandria.!** On the other hand, Cyrenaica, to judge from

the almost exclusive presence of Attic marble found there, lay beyond the usual Proconnesian distribution zone.'® Antioch thus lay well within the Proconnesian

orbit, which determined its normal source of stone. ES If material and motifs traveled outward from Asia Minor‘as a radiating locus, and the region to the east may also be regarded as a single cultural area, it raises the question of whether there is some evidence for influences from the East. Antioch. , _ 181. Maria Squarciapino, La Scuola di Afro- . underestimate the number of fragments, some of disia (Rome, 1943); cf. review of same: Toynbee, which have disappeared. The inscriptions are listed Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1948), pp. 159- in Emanuel Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bild160; idem, The Hadrianic School, a Chapter in the hauer (Leipzig, 1885), nos. 363-372 (cf. 373 and 549).

History of Greek Art (London, 1934), pp. 242-243. 183. Ward Perkins, “Roman Garland SarDavid Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, cophagi..., pp. 455-467; idem, “Four Roman 1950), II, p. 1525 and n. 59 (sculpture contest at Aphro- Garland Sarcophagi...,” pp. 98-104. On Attic

disias). Dr. Kenan T. Erim is now excavating atthe city: derivation of a theme: Ernest Will, “Un sarcophage see Illustrated London News, Archaeol. Sec. No. 2076, romain a sujet eschatologique au Musée de Beyrouth,”

Jan. 13, 1962, pp. 61-63; ibid., Nos. 2163-2164, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, VIII (1946-48), Dec. 21 and 28, 1963, pp. 1038-1031 and 1066-1069; pp. 109-127, fig. 1, pls. I-III. A sarcophagus “probably where he has suggested the manufacture to some made in Antioch”: Jacqueline Chittenden and Charles degree at the local quarries of sculpture (p. 1069). Of Seltman, Greek Art: a Commemorative Catalogue

course, the Aphrodisian style is hardly confined to, ... (London, 1947), p. 35, no. 147. , and perhaps its exports were not centered at, the in- 184. Twenty-two out of thirty-seven in: Achille land city: see Picard, op. cit., p. 329 and n. 4; :cf, Adriani, Repertorio darte dell’Egitto Greco-Romano, A. M. Mansel, “Side’de iki Mezar Aniti,” Belleten ser. A (Palermo, 1961—), I, PP. (21-32, all ProconTiirk Tarih Kurumu, XXIV (1960), pp. 410-416. nesian; idem, “Epifania di Dioniso a Nasso (A pro-

| 182. Carlo L. Visconti, “Trovamenti di og- posito di un sarcofago alessandrino),” Bulletin de la getti d’arte e di antichita figurata,” Bulletino della Société royale darchéologie d’Alexandrie, XXXIX

Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, (1951), pp. 5-29, figs. 1-4, pls. I-III. | . XIV (1886), pp. 314-323, pls. X-XII; rejected by 185. Brinkerhoff, in Kraeling, Ptolemais..., Squarciapino, op. cit., p. 15 n. 28, who seems to pp. 185-186, 206-207, pl. LI, A and B, et passim.

Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | 47

has been suggested as the city through which hieratic frontality, unidirectional emphasis, and the other so-called oriental features associated with Dura and Palmyra passed into the mainstream of Roman art.'®* In contrast, the recent study by Will has reiterated the conclusion, implied by the Antioch cache, that Roman, or RomanoHellenistic art, radiating outward, was not influenced by the East in this way, but that the presence of the Hellenistic tradition was strong enough to alter the oriental or eastern.!®? Likewise the contents of the cache have revealed nothing to emphasize Antioch as the main city funneling eastern influences into the cultural basin of the Mediterranean, and neither does anything else found at Antioch support such an idea. Instead a search for the spread of immobile presentations —of “oriental mysticism’’— whatever its origin in art, must lead around the city, along the route of the old Persian royal road through Anatolia, and that of the Roman legions who demanded their temples of Bel and Mithras. Since a search for the stylistic sources of the content of the Antioch collection has pointed in the East to two traditional centers, the Aegean

and Egypt, it is reasonable to look directly to them as the disseminating agents of some of the features of “oriental” style, adopted so widely in the Early Christian age. The giant head of Caracalla from Coptos (Fig. 30), a future Early Christian center, certainly demonstrates that the Syrian desert held no monopoly on hieratic intensity. The same emphasis seen at Palmyra (Fig. 32) comes through with far less force. The Caracalla head may share Palmyrene features, as already demonstrated, with its ring-

| lets of regularized hair and fixed expression, but it is primarily a work in the ex-

pressive Saite tradition. _ ,

To demonstrate that there were influences acting upon established centers, one must be more literal, and find an eastern subject well within the boundaries of the empire. In order to do this one has to go beyond the material of the cache to the city

186. By J. B. Ward Perkins, discussing Emerson Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII (1963), pp. 179-286, H. Swift, Roman Sources of Christian Art, in Pro- figs. 1-142. The fusion that did occur was that of the ceedings of the British Academy, XXXVII (1951), Latin and the Greek heritage.

p. 293. The ultimate author of the East-West thesis 187. Ernest Will, Le relief cultuel gréco-

is of course Stryzgowski, whose Orient oder Rom romain (Bibliothéque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes (Leipzig, 1901) and later work in part provoked Swift’s et de Rome, CLXXXIII) (Paris, 1955), pp. 219-254 equally extreme view. On the former, see résumé et passim. Secs. B and D appear in Wylie Sypher in his obituary in Speculum, XVII (1942), pp. 460-461. (ed.), Art History, an Anthology of Modern Criticism A sane balance between these mutually exclusive (New York: Vintage, 1963), pp. 80-99; cf. thorough and mutually unacceptable views appeared in Ward review of Will by C. Vermeule in Gnomon, XXIX

Perkins, “The Italian Element....” A_ classifica- (1957), pp. 369-376, esp. 371. The thesis that the tion of the material extant suggests, not surprisingly, centers of a civilization are more creative than its that work represented in the Antioch cache hardly fringes is difficult to deny. Some of the art of Dura penetrated the interior, nor did local style affect it, is now understood as a local version of a style centered

and no fusion took place in the Orontes valley: in Jerusalem and Alexandria: C. Kraeling et al., The Herman Frank Musche, “Recherches sur la sculpture Synagogue (New Haven, 1956), pp. 391-401. On gréco-romaine au Liban et en Syrie occidentale imports of Greek work: F. Cumont, “L’Aphrodite d’Alexandre le Grand a Constantin,” in Atti del a la tortue’ de Doura-Europus,” Monuments et Mémsettimo Congresso internazionale di archeologia oires publiées par VAcadémie des Inscriptions et classica (Rome, 1961), I, 437-442. We may regard Belles-lettres, Fondation Piot, XXVII (1924), pp. this argument as closed, thanks to the splendid analy- 31-43, figs. 1-4, pl. III; idem, Fouilles de Dourasis of Irving Lavin, “The Hunting Mosaics of Antioch Europus (1922-23) (Paris, 1926), pp. 206-216, 478-

and Their Sources: A Study of Compositional Prin- 486. ciples in the Development of Early Medieval Style,”

48 | Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age of Aphrodisias, already mentioned in connection with the Antioch collection as the

, site of similar styles and technique. From a courtyard of the Hadrianic baths in the city came several high-relief carvings of syncretistic mythological deities adorning architectural consoles.!88 The bust shown (Fig. 65) has been identified as a representa-

tion of Atargatis-Derceto, the Syrian goddess to whom the fish Ichthys, who saved her, was sacred. The artist has made so clearly visible various forms of marine life that her identity can hardly be doubted. This figure of a Syrian goddess suggests the existence of a direct artistic connection with the East over the Roman road through Anatolia. One may refer also to the architectural similarity between the giant scale and floral decoration of Pergamon, the size of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the stairway of the Didymaion by Miletus, and similar features at Baalbek and Palmyra.'** The Atargatis-Derceto, however, possesses a frontality which is strictly within the Hel-

lenistic tradition. Her identity testifies to the existence of interchange, but her style hardly does so. And she was a goddess long assimilated into the Hellenistic world, whose cult existed at Antioch, where her devotees marched in ritual proces-

sion to a local fish-filled lake in her honor. a Thus one can amplify and reinforce the conclusion that the region from the Aegean to Syria was indeed a single cultural unit, and that within it the classical tradition was predominant, although the eastern. tradition was usually present.” It is interesting to compare these conclusions to those of an architectural historian investigating Early Christian architecture in southern Anatolia in Cilicia. | I reached the conclusion that the main character of Cilician architecture, notwithstanding the political connexion with Byzantium, was wholly Syro-Antiocheian: witness the masonry technique, the basilica ground-plan with flat roofing, the pastophoria built chapel-wise, and the martyrium-type of the Tomb-church

at Korykos. But, alongside of this, the patterns of Byzantine art proper, i.e. the art of the capital city, also exerted their influence; this is shown not only by the Cupola church of Meriamlik, but especially by the importation of the many capitals of Proconnesian marble, the forms of which were subsequently

often imitated by the native stonecutters.1®! .

188. C.: Picard, “Sur l|’Atargatis-Derkét6 des 190. Underscored by the works discussed and Thermes d’Aphrodisias en Carie,” Hommages 4a conclusions reached by the following: Seyrig, ““PalJ. Bidez et ad F. Cumont, Coll. Latomus, II (1949), myra and the East,” pp. 1-7, figs. 1-2, pls. I-II; F. pp. 257-264, pl. XVI, and references there cited. Poulsen, “Portrait hellénistique du Musée d’Anti-

: Cf. also: F. Cumont, “Mithras en Asie Mineure,” oche,’ Syria, XIX (1938), pp. 355-361, figs. 1-3,

in Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler pls. XXXVITI-XLI; cf. Seyrig, in Syria, XXV (1946(Manchester, 1939), pp. 67-76; Ronald Syme, “Ob- 48), pp. 169-170; V. Poulsen, “A Late Greek Relief servations on the Province of Cilicia,” in Anatolian in Beirut,” Berytus, IT (1935), pp. 51-56, pls. XIXStudies Presented to W. H. Buckler (Manchester, 1939), XXI; Josef Fink, “Beitrage zum Bildnis Kaiser Happ. 299-332; C. Vermeule, “An Equestrian Statue of drians,” Anzeiger (1955), cols. 69-86, figs. 1-6; V. Zeus, Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, LVI Miiller, Zwei syrische Bildnisse riémischer Zeit (1958), pp. 69-75, figs. 1-5. In the central hall of the (Berlin, 1927); Karageorghis, op. cit., pp. 321-328, Thessaloniki Museum are four mosaics of syncretistic pls. I-II; Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side; Johannes

deities, thus illustrating the practice on the Greek Kollwitz, “Eine spatantike Statuette aus Tyrus,” side of the Aegean. The director kindly permitted me Kleinasien und Byzanz: Istanbuler Forschungen,

pp. 261-264. : |

to photograph them, but informed me that publica- XVIT (1950), pp. 51-53, pl. XIX. tion rights had been granted a Greek scholar. One is 191. Ernst Herzfeld and Steven Guyer, Meriamclearly of Atargatis-Derceto with a “marine”’ coiffure. lik und Corykos, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua,

189. Picard, “Sur Il Atargatis-Derkétd... ,” II (Manchester, 1930), p. xiii.

Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | 49 In other words, one style prevailed from Antioch through Cilicia, and new influences still arrived in Proconnesian material, in the early medieval period as well as throughout later classical antiquity. Built on Hellenistic foundations, this unified style survived the imperial age and provided a base for Byzantine, and even early Islamic art.

3. The Fourth Critical Period in Classical Sculpture The significance of the mythological works from Antioch goes beyond the variety and virtuosity they display in reproducing different creations which first saw the light of day, on the average, half a millennium earlier. A number of them copied originals in Hellenistic Asia Minor, for the most part during the third century. Many coins of this region in the later imperial period illustrated such subjects; for example, the crouching and sandal-binding Aphrodite types appeared on coins of the Severan Age and later up to the mid-third century (Fig. 57).'®? Yet such numismatic depic-

tions ceased abruptly after the reign of Gallienus. In sculptural production the picture described in the previous section also changed, as the demand for such depictions in sculpture halted also. This lends considerable importance to the mythological statuary found at Antioch, for they appear to be the latest examples of such work yet discovered in the East, approximately contemporary with the later coinage. Together they reveal the end of the copying tradition based on the use of the pointing machine and plaster casts to achieve a goal of verisimilitude around A.D. 260. Three centuries earlier, shortly after 100 B.c., the introduction of mechanical aids leading to widespread copying marked an earlier change of direction, and has been rightfully called the third critical period in classical sculpture.'*? It seems appropriate to propose the label of the fourth critical period to the decades surrounding the year

260, when the desire for copies which faithfully recorded the outer appearance of older masterpieces crumbled under the impact of a new goal. Physical reality became less meaningful than inner truth and outer expressiveness. Often observed in other types of sculpture, the new standard affected mythological work as well. Its development should be briefly chronicled. Perhaps the best expression of the older attitude may be seen in the art collec-

tion of Hadrian at his villa in Tivoli, an earlier counterpart to the more modest

| | collection of the Antiochene villa.'®* Hadrian too had a copy of the Crouching Aphrodite, and of the Ares Borghese. Yet he also recalled the past by the construction of an imitation of Canopus outside Alexandria, and, for his copy of the famous nude Aphrodite by Praxiteles, a model of the circular temple enshrining the statue at Cnidos. The spirit which these reconstructions evoked was as important as the recreation of their appearance, and it was all the better if Egyptian and Hellenic echoes blended, in that metaphysical equation which is the root of Hadrianic clas-

192. Bernhart, op. cit., pp. 48-51, nos. 299a- 193. Richter, Three Critical Periods ..., pp. 313; cf. F. Imhoof-Blumer and Percy Gardner, Nu- 37-44. mismatic Commentary on Pausanias. Reprinted from 194. Aurigemma, op. cit.

1887). |

, the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1885-87 (London,

50 | Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age sicism. Maximus of Tyre, an eclectic philosopher of the second century (ca. 125-

85), gave it voice: a : : , oo

Why should I go any further in examining and passing judgment about images? Let all men know what is divine; let them know, that is all. If Greeks are stirred to the remembrance of God by the art of Phidias, or the Egyptians by paying worship to animals, or others by a river, or others by fire, I will not quarrel with their differences. Only let them know, let them love, let them remember.'!® In this acceptance of different ways of recalling the divine and invisible, including the sculptures of Phidias, there existed the awareness that they, like the copies of Hadrian, were mere devices, but useful ones so long as the goal of the understanding

of divinity was achieved. — oe ee

The idea of the image as a useful device, and the realization, already long established, that a specific statue or other work of art was valuable because it made visible

the invisible is in the tradition of Plato’s definition of mimesis as the realization by

the artist of inner essentials. : | Oo |

_ Late in the second century, the descriptions. of paintings contained in the Imagines of Philostratus were presented as illustrations. of moral qualities.%* In

fact, they served merely as a pretense for orations on themes of love and other sub- , jects. The paintings functioned exactly as did the decorative mythological sculpture found in the cache at Antioch, according to the evidence of the mosaic from another villa there (Fig. 2). The Aphrodites represented evocations of the idea of love, we recall, and the Meleager the manly art of the hunt and the myth it personified. These copies dated from the Severan age, which was the time when Philostratus. wrote

his essays. , | — , ,

The mid-third century group of copies included the head of Ares, the head of a bearded satyr, and heads of a satyr and nymph from the Invitation to the Dance. All of them illustrated in varying degree more freedom than the other copies in departing from the appearance of their originals. The Ares, in contrast to the Ares Borghese replica, best demonstrates the gain in expressiveness which was the result (Figs. 39, 40). Outer appearance now counted less than the expression of a theme, in this case of embattled virtu.And here we are no longer dealing with so straightforward an idealism as the Platonic variety, but with the expression in sculpture of

its neo-Platonic descendant. © | : - | Plotinus, a mystic and philosopher, so little valued appearances that he refused

to sit for his portrait. He, as anyone knows who has sought the spiritual origins of | |

early medieval .art in late antiquity, laid its philosophical foundations.’ He has | 195. Oratio viii. 10 (or xxxviii Stephanus venient point of departure for late classical authors Byzantinus, or ii Hobein), quoted in translation by contemporary with the statuettes: Henry Osborn Frederick C. Grant (ed.), Hellenistic Religions: Taylor, The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages The Age of Syncretism (New York, 1953), p. 168. (New York, 1901), pp. 41-43, on Achilles Tatius, 196. Karl Lehmann, “The Imagines of the Leucippe and Cliptophon, Bks. I, III, V, and the Elder Philostratus,’ Art Bulletin, XXIII (1941), Greek romances. Cf. Longus, Daphnis and Chloe,

pp. 16-44, figs. 1-5. A reference to a picture to estab- prologue. . , | lish a theme, exactly as the Aphrodite set the stage _ 197. Frances Bradshaw Blanshard, Retreat in the Phaedra mosaic at Antioch, furnished a con- from Likeness in the Theory of Painting, 2nd ed.

Significance of the Sculpture in the Late Roman Age | 51 usually been associated in art with the development of late antique portraiture. The representation of the “Saviour Portrait,” of “Pneumatic Men of God,” and its political corollary, seen in the Antioch Constantius I Chlorus as an incarnation of “Divina Majestas,’ began in his time.'* In spite of the initial modest successes of the reign of Gallienus, the political and military disasters of 258-60 smashed all hopes of another golden, or even silver, age. It became just as apparent in other aspects of imperial life as in philosophy that the past was indeed past, and the latest Gallienic portraits truly foreshadow the late antique style.’ In the fifty-year gap between 244 and about 298, the approximate dates of the presumed Gordian III and the Constantius I Chlorus from Antioch, classical art as it had existed for centuries was transformed. All shreds of belief in the ultimate reality of physical form disappeared before the increasing reality of a transcendent world. Value now accrued to the seer, to the spiritual man, whose gaze could pierce beyond normal human vision. Porphyry wrote of Plotinus: And so it happened to this extraordinary man, constantly lifting himself up toward

the first and transcendent God by the power of thought and along the ways explained by Plato in the Symposium, that there actually appeared to him in vision that God, who is without shape or form, established above the under-

standing and all the intelligible world.?”

The effect of this attitude upon the production of mythological sculpture was direct, blunt, and final; it killed it. The latest examples at Antioch, like the Ares, show work in which the “death and transfiguration” had already taken place, as the latest coins commemorated the ultimate memorialization of these types. The beginning and end of their manufacture signaled the third and fourth critical periods in classical sculpture, and the meager quality of the Constantinian version of the Apollo testifies to the aftermath of the tradition. (New York, 1949), pp. 54-61; Adolf Harnack, “Neo- (1921-22), pp. 77-92; H. P. L’Orange, “Plotinus Platonism,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Paul,” Byzantion, XXV-XXVII (1955-57), pp. 473XIX, p. 373; Oxford Classical Dictionary, s.v. “Ploti- 485, figs. 1-10.

nus” and references there cited, plus: Ernst Gom- 198. These arresting phrases and their ex-

brich, “Icones Symbolicae: the Visual Image in Neo- pansion: L’Orange, Apotheosis..., pp. 95-126, Platonic Thought,” Journal Warburg and Courtauld figs. 69-96; on stylistic sequence: Egger, op. cit., Inst., XI (1948), pp. 163-192; André Grabar, “Plotin pp. 9-30, 16 figs. et les origines de l’esthétique médiévale,” Cahiers 199. Dusenbery, op. cit., pp. 10-12; Vermeule, archéologiques, I (1945), pp. 15-34; cf. F. Cumont, ‘“A Graeco-Roman Portrait... ,” pp. 10-13.

“Le culte égyptien et le mysticisme de Plotin,” 200. Quoted from his biography (xxiii) by

Monuments et mémoires publié par Vacadémie des Grant, op. cit., p. 169.

Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, Fondation Piot, XXV |

| BLANK PAGE |

Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age - The collection offers little evidence with respect to the circumstances and date of its burial, but what there is would indicate that it occurred in the Early Christian period. To recapitulate, “the sculpture had been collected in antiquity and buried in a room of a rather poor villa of the late fourth or early fifth centuries A.D. that lay just outside the city wall.” 2°! There was no mosaic pavement which would have had to be disturbed to lay down the sculpture, and which would have suggested that the collection was buried before the villa was built. That it may have lain beneath the surface of the floor undetected by the occupants of the house seems hard to surmise,

as it lay almost at ground level. Neither does it seem likely that the marbles were buried after the villa had been abandoned, for carved marble which had outlived its usefulness in areas where that material is not indigenous was almost invariably consigned to a limekiln. Yet no scattered chips of fragmentary remains confirmed this

possibility. In all reasonableness, then, the statuettes and busts were apparently

, associated with the villa, and decorated it either until the building was abandoned or until the occupants came to feel that pagan sculptural display was inappropriate, imprudent, or unfashionable. After the sack of Antioch by Chosroes in 540 the city declined, and only at that time did the production of mosaics, carrying on the ancient tradition, cease.2°? Comparative evidence leads to the assumption that the sculpture survived and had meaning as a fashionable and appropriate collection through the mid-sixth century, and probably remained as a mute testimonial to a bygone age until

| the Arab capture of the city in the year 637. ,

201. Stillwell, Antioch, II, p. 3. 202. Downey, op. cit., pp. 544-552, 5614F.

54 | Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age

1. Comparable Collections — , Roman precedent offered solid foundations for the collecting vogue. Yet the discovery of indubitable private art collections other than Hadrian’s has been relatively uncommon. A known collection in Rome dated from early in the first century A.D., and, unlike the later eastern cache, contained bronze portraits entirely.?°? These apparently were acquired one or two at a time to decorate a residence. That this was normal procedure is borne out by the collection of the younger Pliny, who owned a group of imperial portraits accumulated over the years concerning whose disposition he wrote to Trajan.2™ A sizable group, perhaps not a private assemblage, came from

a building which may have been a public basilica at Tolosa in Gaul, consisting of second and third century portraits.” Of interest is the fact that the material of the sculpture, like some of that at Antioch, had been imported at least semifinished, in

this case from Carrara.?® | ,

In the eastern Mediterranean, Cyrenaica testified to the Roman vogue for collecting. The collection of an elaborate residence at Ptolemais extended back to Ptole-

maic Egypt, which once controlled the area.2° The objects included Egyptian or Egyptianizing work, a Dionysus and Ariadne of imperial date, and other figures. It too blended local pride and sophisticated propriety, as did the Antioch collection with its statuette after the Apollo of Bryaxis. The few Early Christian collections known were more comparable to the Antioch find. A Gallic one possessed the Venus already cited (Fig. 47). It too was located in

a private dwelling and was on view during and after the late fourth century. The building in the countryside of Libourne near Bordeaux has been tentatively identified as the Villa Lucaniaca of the poet Ausonius. Its collection included a male torso wearing a cloak fastened at the shoulder, perhaps then another Meleager, part of a medallion depicting Hera, comparable in form to the Antioch medallion of a sphinx, draped legs analogous to those at Antioch identified as part of an Apollo, an Artemis and its pendant piece, the Venus.2% At Ostia the decoration of the House of Fortuna Annonaria must have approxi-

mated the suburban villa at Antioch in its decoration.2® Its collection included replicas of an Athena of the fifth century B.c., a Hera or Demeter of the fourth, a Crouching Aphrodite of the third, and a Tyche of Ostia, the Fortuna Annonaria, its 203. Dorothy K. Hill, “A Cache of Bronze Por- - 208. Espérandieu, op. cit., pp. 221-224, nos. traits of the Julio-Claudians,” American Journal 1243-1250; 1243-1244, Artemis and Venus, “marbre of Archaeology, XLIII (1939), pp. 401-409, figs. blanc de Carrare’; 1248, “calcaire de Montagne”

1-10. (meaning local, for exact provenance “Montagne, can204. Epistulae x. 8. ton de Lussac, arrondissement de Libourne, Gi-

205. Espérandieu, op. cit., pp. 60-93. ronde’).

206. Ibid., p. 29. , 209. Giovanni Becatti, Case Ostiense del

207. Klaus Parlasca, review of Gennaro Pesce, _tardo impero (Rome, 1949), pp. 23-25 (cf. p. 15, Il Palazzo delle Colonne in Tolemaide di Cirenaica figs. 23-25); idem, “Osservazioni sul maestro di Olim(Monografie di archeologia libica, II) in Orientalische pia II,” Critica d’Arte, XXI-XXII (1939), p. 74, pl. Literaturzeitung, LIV (1959), pp. 12-15; cf. Brinker- XXIX; R. Calza and Emest Nash, Ostia (Florence,

hoff in Kraeling, Ptolemais..., pp. 180, 202 and n. 1959), pp. 35-36, fig. 45; Russell Meiggs, Roman 117, 204-205, no. 65, pl. XLIX B and references there Ostia (Oxtord, 1960), pp. 259-260, 433-434, 552, fig.

cited (cf. Kraeling’s judicious comments, p. 9). 19, pl. XIV, b. :

Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | 55 testimonial to local pride. Such a collection as it originally appeared may be imagined when viewing a Cupid and Psyche group as displayed in the center of a room added

in the late fourth century to the villa of that name at Rome’s ancient seaport (Fig. 66).27° Such rooms at Ostia, created through remodeling or outright addition, were secluded galleries or even nymphaea. They afforded supremely comfortable opportunities for private pietistic connoisseurship at close personal range. Imperial precedents and parallels existed for these collections at Gaul and Ostia. At the start of the Early Christian age, Constantine had led the way in gathering and

reusing the art of the past. It appeared most conspicuously in the incorporation of Trajanic, Hadrianic, Antonine, and Aurelian reliefs and architectural elements on his arch in Rome.?!! Below the Hadrianic roundels, on the contemporary relief of the adlocutio in the Forum with the emperor seated in frontal majestas, similar seated figures of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were made to flank Constantine, although such statues were not actually present. The three seated emperors together asserted the indivisibility of past and present Romanitas, and the hope of its continuity. Constantine also continued a Roman practice, the relocation of classical sculpture in new settings. It showed his reverence for the past, which is also relevant here, and it established a precedent which endured on a lesser scale through the reign of Justinian.?!2 The new capital of Constantinople was founded with the usual pagan sacrifice, and “omnium paene urbium nuditate,’ according to St. Jerome, signifying that all the cities of the land were stripped bare of their sculptural adornment.?® Statues of Zeus from Dodona and Athena from Lindos stood before the Senate House, according to Zosimus.”!4 His account also notes that when these figures survived a fire in 404 it gave solace to the “more cultivated.’ The Christian author of the Vita

Constantina, probably Eusebius, both admired the “exquisite workmanship” of the sculpture assembled by Constantine, and represented him as collecting such objects for the express purpose of ridicule.?4> The latter statement, a manifestation of embarrassment, is less significant here than the former, with its evidence of frank appreciation. The echo of this admiration by Zosimus in 404, with a different orientation, coincides with the date of installation of the Antioch works.

: A little later during the fifth century a member of the court of Theodosius II (406-50), imported for himself the original of the Phidian Zeus of Olympia, the Aphrodite of Cnidos, two works by Lysippus, and other masterpieces.”!® Surely such a collection could only have been amassed with the enthusiastic cooperation of the

Christian emperor himself. It was the grandest display of pagan art of the time, until it went up in smoke in 475, terminating a magnificent and voluptuary example of esteem. At lesser levels outside the capital numbers of provincial governors must have indulged themselves similarly. To one official in Antioch many citizens, who no 210. Calza and Nash, Ostia, p. 34, figs. 42-44, (1963), pp. 53-75, figs. 1-20, esp. pp. 55-58.

53, 81; G. M. A. Hanfmann, Roman Art (Greenwich, 213. Ibid., p. 55, n. 1. Conn., 1964), p. 245 and references there cited, p. xv. 214. Ibid., p. 57, n. 12.

211. L’Orange and Gerkan, op. cit., p. 190 215. Ibid., pp. 56-57.

et passim; Heinz Kahler, The Art of Rome and Her 216. Ibid., p. 58; on the public collection in

Empire (New York, 1963), p. 223. the baths of Zeuxippus, which perished in a fire in

212. Cyril Mango, “Antique Statuary and the 532, described in the Palatine Anthology, see pp. Byzantine Beholder,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII 57-58 and n. 14.

56 | Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age , doubt were “persuaded,” sold their silver a decade before the middle of the sixth

sculpture. , , ,

century"? Thus a strain of classical taste strong enough to lead to the installation and |

preservation of pagan sculptural collections supports a like evaluation of the Antioch ,

2. Comparable Early Christian Sculpture | a , If the presence of classical art collections was manifest in the Early Christian period, then a comparative examination of a few contemporary works should help further to assess the significance of the Antioch collection. In view of its inclusion of three por- |

traits, one comparison at least should deal with them. For the greater quantity of mythological statuettes, we can find comparable reliefs, due to the widespread decline of interest in three-dimensional sculpture. And one comparison extends to the

age of Justinian (527-65). , ~ A superb marble portrait head found at Aphrodisias (Fig. 67), datable to the ,

second half of the fourth century, shows many stylistic and technical features associ- | ated with the sculpture at Antioch.?48 In the intent gaze and searching “transcendental’ look appears the heritage of the piercing glance of the porphyry head of Constantius I Chlorus (Figs. 22, 23). The hair, modeled in depth over the forepart of the crown and sides of the head, goes beyond the mechanical groove and strut style of the coiffure of the Antioch Nymph (Fig. 59). Its greater richness and variety recall the treatment of the beard of the Pertinax (Figs. 3, 4), whose realization of a tradition

of humanism in three dimensions it continues and blends with the new. Here is a portrait of the Aphrodisian version of a man like the traditionalist of Antioch who collected his sculptured replicas. Yet he was no pagan, for an inscription across the top of the Aphrodisian portrait reads, “Christ, Michael, Gabriel, God save me!’ ?!® The

expressive qualities of this head demonstrate a straightforward continuation of tradition, in which the old devices exerted a pervasive effect, culminating in the por-

traiture of Justinian and Theodora as seen in sculpture and mosaic.?”° _ Early Christian ivory reliefs were designed for personal viewing at close range, like the new installations of classical statuary at Ostia and Antioch and elsewhere at 217. Apparently it was being bought at a dis- stituts, Romische, Abteilung, XXVIII (1913), pp. count. Downey, op. cit., pp. 539-541, and n. 161- 310-352, pls. IX-XVIII (see IX-X); contra: Volbach 163, does not make it clear that it was silver objects and Hirmer, op. cit., pp. 23, 324-325, no. 68, pl. rather than silver in bulk which the inhabitants were - LXVIII, and bibl. His identification and date, Pulselling, but it could hardly have been the latter. cheria, ca. 450, were challenged by J. Beckwith, who 218. Cumont, Catalogue des sculptures ..., preferred Theodora’s date when he reviewed the pp. 51-54, no. 41; John Beckwith, The Art of Con- book in The Connoisseur, CL (1962), p. 61, and restantinople (London, 1961), pp. 17-18, fig. 18. jected by K. Wessel, in “Das Kaiserinnenportrat in 219. Cumont, -Catalogue des sculptures... , Castello Sforzesco zu Mailand,” Jahrbuch des deut-

p. 52. : a , schen archdologischen Instituts, LXXVII (1962), 220. Marble portrait head as Theodora: A. pp. 240-255, figs. 1-9. Mosaics in the church of San

Alfoldi, “Die Spéatantike in der Ausstellung “Kunst- Vitale: Otto G. von Simson, Sacred Fortress: Byzanschatze der Lombardei’ in Zirich,” Atlantis, XXI tine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago, 1948), (1949), p. 67, Kat. 32 (misprinted in text as Kat. 31); pp. 27-39, pls. II-III, XVIII-XIX, who interprets R. Delbrueck, “Portrats byzantinischer Kaiserinnen,” Justinian and Theodora as represented by proxy by Mitteilungen des deutschen Archdologischen In- the mosaics dispatched from Constantinople.

Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | 57 the end of the fourth century. A typical example from this period is the diptych show-

| ing Adam among the Animals, whose other panel depicts St. Paul in the garb of a pagan philosopher, the natural visualization of a Christian saint for that period (Fig. 68).22 The composition derives from the type of Orpheus charming the wild beasts, a well-known subject whose relationship to Christian art is not at issue here, however significant for other aspects of paganism and Christianity. Adam sits unabashedly

nude, with his navel, theologically unnecessary, prominently visible. Overall, the summary definition of his anatomy typifies much Early Christian work. The long out-

line of his right side; with its demarcation of waist and thigh, recalls the Antioch Meleager (Fig. 34, left), and the modeling of his body suggests a familiarity with some work much like the Dionysus (Fig. 34, right). The similarities between Christian and

pagan work created centuries apart become more explicable in view of the survival and appreciation of the Antioch and other collections. Textbooks explain the style of

, such an ivory as the Adam by relating its diminished sense of organic form to a loss of feeling for such details in the Early Christian centuries. If this were true, how would one explain the careful inclusion of the navel and pubic hair? Our comparison seems to demonstrate that such work reproduced in style,.as it did in motif, other

, pagan works of later classical antiquity, in which the loss of organic form had already occurred in the shops of the copyists. The example of the Adam suffices to make the point that artists around 400 relied upon the continuous presence of the plastically oriented vision possessed by classical sculptors. That ample opportunity existed for such firsthand inspiration can be further demonstrated by reference to recent discoveries of several statuettes of Dionysus in sixth century contexts at Sardis.?”

_ The classically educated, then, still understood, appreciated, and interpreted much of their world in pagan terms even if they were Christians. Hercules would have exemplified virtues appropriate to a Christian hero, as he appears on a fine relief, measuring some three by four feet, in Ravenna (Fig. 69).”% Only a slight trace of flatness, misplaced knees, and an ill-defined lumpiness of modeling in the

taut muscles betrays a date in the fifth or sixth century as Hercules kneels on the back of the hind to force her to the ground. This relief was probably imported from the Byzantine capital, where the work had been derived from a Greek original of the

classic age collected by the court. It demonstrates that around 500 Byzantine artists began the copying of classical works so familiar in manuscript illumination, the heritage of Early Christian taste. It also reinforces our explanation of the collection and survival of pagan sculpture preserved by owners who had transferred their

allegiance to the Christian triune God. | :

A diptych of a Poet and Muse (Fig. 70) belongs to the first half of the sixth century.?*4 Its spatial inaccuracies and clichés of vigorous form illustrate the same change

221. W. F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der 223. Volbach and Hirmer, op. cit., p. 346, Spatantike und des friihen Mittelalters (Mainz, 1952), no. 180, and references there cited.

p. 57, no. 108, pl. XXXII. 924. Ibid., p. 355, no. 221, pl. CCXXI; Beck-

222. G. M. A. Hanfmann, “Excavations at with, Art of Constantinople, pp. 41-42, fig. 52. For Sardis, 1959,” Bulletin of the American Schools of other ivories of muses and authors: Volbach, op. cit., Oriental Research, CLVII (1960), pp. 8-43, figs. 1-24 pp. 44-45, no. 69, pl. XXIII (cf. no. 70, no. 71, pl.

(see pp. 26, 34-35). XXVII).

58 | Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | which had occurred during the fifth century to a less illusionistic and more expressive style, seen in the Ravenna relief of Hercules and the Hind. On the chest of the poet proper appear the same lumps seen on the Hercules, in place of the slighter yet more accurate modeling in the diptych of Adam. The later examples rework classical form

and style, and call to mind reworkings in other categories of culture. Philosophic reinterpretations, as in the Consolations of Philosophy by Boethius, who may be the poet depicted here around 500, offer a fortuitous parallel. The long finger laid on the lyre by the muse, her position with head to the rear and feet to the front of the column behind her reveal inconsistencies shared by the poet and the Hercules. At the same time her drapery suggests a dependence upon a model which the artist could follow when he chose to do so. The total effect departs obviously from works in the Antioch collection, as strongly, in fact, as the Adam diptych resembled some of them. The ivory Poet and Muse gives notice that any Justinianic work resembling examples from

Antioch may be expected to seem a close copy, yet betray a slight inconsistency. During the sixth century Justinian imported two statues of horses to the capital from the Ephesian temple of Artemis, which is the last known example of the acquisition of actual classical art in the Early Christian age.?”> The desire for classical repre-

sentations was satisfied by works based on the past, as seen above, but these now characteristically were made in other media, like silver, whose production had also been continuous since classical antiquity. A large fragment of a silver plate, now in Dumbarton Oaks (Fig. 71), bears a control stamp of Justinian, who reigned from 527 to 565.” In its center a trumpeter awakens a Silen, a sleeping, elderly, potbellied type with a heavy beard. He clearly was descended from the same Hellenistic prototype behind the extraordinarily similar relief of Silenus in the Antioch collection (Fig. 55). Head, torso, draped legs, and supporting left arm are well-nigh inter-

changeable. On the plate, only the feeble left hand betrays the fact that this work postdates classical antiquity, but in all fairness the left arm and nearly indistinguishable left hand of the Antioch Silen display a similar deficiency. No work could better

prove that the Antioch collection helped determine artistic taste as late as the mid- , sixth century than this comparison, even though the silver-worker’s source was probably a copybook. Unfortunately the provenience of the plate is not known, and,

while such plates were sometimes exported undecorated from the capital to be finished in a city such as Antioch, proof in this case is lacking. We can only state that the choice of subject was enhanced by the fashionability of collecting pagan art at

is indisputable. ,

least through the age of Justinian, and we are indeed fortunate to be able to make such a telling comparison between a relief in the Antioch collection and a work whose date

A silver plate in Leningrad (Fig. 72) carries the tradition of Byzantine use of classical models forward to the time of Heraclius and the early seventh century.??’

225. Mango, op. cit., p. 58; cf. p. 67. 227. Ibid., pp. 49, 51, fig. 66, and references 226. Marvin C. Ross, Catalogue of the By- cited; cf. fig. 62, to which add: Leonid Matsulevich, zantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dum- Arkheologiskie Pamiatniki Urala i Primkam’ia barton Oaks Collection, I (Washington, 1962), pp. (Vizantiiskii Antik i Prikam’e [Moscow-Leningrad, 9-10, pl. V; Beckwith, Art of Constantinople, pp. 43, 1940]), pp. 153-154. The subject appeared in an

45, fig. 54. Antioch mosaic: D. Levi, op. cit., I, pp. 68-71.

Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | 59 It depicts the legend of Atalanta and Meleager, but any similarity with the Meleager of the Antioch collection (Fig. 34, left) is rather remote. Instead, its debased classical - mode implies that the sympathetic appreciation of the three-dimensional work seen in our collection of the Early Christian age had dimmed. Not until the second golden age of Byzantium did the heritage of classical form and iconography again clearly impress and inspire. A brief inspection of a native Syrian work of the sixth century confirms this conclusion. It is a pagan ivory pyxis with figures running around it in vigorous but crude relief (Fig. 73).??8 The gestures of Dionysus leading his lions and satyrs into battle against the Indian kings who opposed the introduction of his worship and his beverage are expressive, but their aesthetic approach and finish were conceived in a very different vein from even the ruder objects at Antioch. The result is an approach to formal definition in the vein of folk art. Historically the pyxis illustrates that the glowing Dionysiac appreciation seen enduring into the sixth century at Sardis was not exceptional. Production of these objects ceased before the year 600, however, as did the pagan ritual of sacrifice in which they served. After a discreet interval, varying in duration in different localities, they reappeared in the Christian ceremony of | the mass, which is why so many pagan pyxidi survived in church treasuries. In the face of this most appropriate example of Christian syncretism, the evident appreciation of Early Christian and early Byzantine times for classical art seems more natural than surprising.

3. Related Mosaics Reference to a few mosaics at Antioch and elsewhere in Syria also helps to explain the physical and spiritual environment in which the sculptural collection existed. The survival of the sculpture has already been interpreted as part of the intellectual and aesthetic appreciation of antiquity so characteristic of the classically educated in the Early Christian age.??? The mosaics of a house which remained in use until well into the Byzantine era at Daphne illustrated, among other subjects, Menander and a symposium (Fig. 74).?8° As the Phaedra mosaic included a statuette on a pedestal revealing how the collection appeared (Fig. 2), so the symposium may be taken to indicate how the owners and connoisseurs of the collection liked to imagine themselves and how on occasion they probably behaved. A couple lounges in a convivial group of ease and lively informality, between a harpist to the left and a maidservant to the right. The mosaic aptly recalls the freedom and animation of pictorial composition of typical later Roman imperial work contemporary with the creation of some

228. Volbach, op. cit., p. 54, no. 101, pl. XXIX; CLIX, CLXXVIII, b, CLXXX, a. The villa was conon version in Antioch mosaic, D. Levi, op. cit., I, pp. structed about the time of Christ and was “used till

91-98. life ended in the town” (I, pp. 66, 198). At the time our 229. Downey, op. cit., pp. 32-35, 492, and refer- villa was built this one was remodeled, and the new

ences there cited. , arrangements preserved the mosaics of Menander 230. D. Levi, op cit., I, pp. 66-67, 198-216, and the symposium, made between A.D. 235 and 625, and fig. 26; II, pls. XLIV-XLVII, CIV-CV, 312 (I, pp. 201-204; II, pls. XLV, c, d).

60 | Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age of the sculpture in the cache. The mosaic also survived to inspire, charm, and divert would-be emulators of the circle of Socrates described in Plato’s Symposium. Hence it demonstrates the atmosphere of literary antiquarianism surrounding the Antioch

collection throughout much of its existence. , ,

If we now turn to a fourth century mosaic at nearby Apamea, we can see a relevant but different depiction of a symposium (Fig. 75).2°4 Here Socrates, the only labeled figure, and his followers appear in a more formal composition, with the followers grouped around their teacher. We may imagine that this was the way the neoPlatonist philosopher and teacher Iamblichus of Apamea may have held forth, or even Plotinus himself in Antioch. How interesting it is to perceive the new regularity, a hieratic half-circle featuring Socrates at its center. The subject is presented, rather than represented, very much as the contemporary head of Constantius Chlorus in the collection was an iconic image rather than a portrait (Figs. 22, 23). The sculptured head and the mosaic scene each demonstrate a characteristic emphasis upon

subject matter at the expense of naturalism. One recalls the virtues and attributes of an emperor, the other does the same for the most noble of philosophers, so that in both cases the values which the. subjects should embody for the viewer stand out prominently. They reiterate the importance of literal and allegorical understanding in late antiquity. This is the manner in which the mythological sculpture in the collection was understood and appreciated. In place of the depiction of Socrates teaching we can easily imagine a balding ascetic St. Paul. The mosaic foreshadows the classically educated Christian habit of mind which viewed the world in terms of pagan thought. It is not a digression to show how a terra-cotta plaque demonstrates its relevance for the art of the Early Christian period (Fig. 76).?°2 In the relief appears either Christ dispensing the law of God or an emperor proclaiming the laws of man. Three attentive men, bodies frontal, heads in profile, flank each side of an enthroned and hieratically enlarged central figure. All hold writing materials like the students of Socrates, and in both cases the far left scholar, disciple, or scribe appears to hold a scroll at his left side. The same theme, refined, attenuated, and even more icon-like, governs the disposition of the figure of Theodosius I on his missorium of 388.733 Men of the late antique world visualized Socrates, Christ, and Caesar in the same way. It was small wonder then that collections of classical sculpture had meaning for pagan, prince, and Christian. A mosaic at Baalbek, the ancient Heliopolis, of the second half of the third cen- : tury represented the muse Calliope surrounded by medallions of the Seven Sages.?*4 In this mosaic the outright depiction of a symposium at Antioch and its presentation at Apamea have been reduced to a thematization. It echoes the subject abstractly. Graups in the form of schools had identified themselves as members of a cult of the 231. G. M. A. Hanfmann, “Socrates and Christ,” 233. Volbach and Hirmer, op. cit., p. 322, no. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LX (1951), 53, pl. LITI; Beckwith, Art of Constantinople, pp. pp. 205-233, figs. 1-7; on its context: H. Lacoste, 16-17, fig. 16. “La VII® campagne de fouilles d’Apamée,” L’An- 234. Maurice H. Chéhab, Mosaiques du Liban, tiquité classique, X (1941), pp. 115-121, figs. 1-13. 2 vols., Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, XIV-XV 232. Ross, op. cit., pp. 75-76, pl. L, shows (1957-59), I, pp. 29, 31-43; II, pl. XIII, 2, XV-XX, 2. some preference for a late Constantinian date and an

interpretation as an imperial subject. |

Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age | 61

Muses since the time of Plato and Aristotle, or even of Pythagoras.” As a onesentence summa put it, “Poets, scientists, and philosophers from Homer (Od. vii. ~ 488) to Ausonius (Auson. xx) and from Heraclitus to Proclus celebrated the Muses as bringing to humanity the purifying power of music, the inspiration of poetry, and divine wisdom.” 7° Ausonius was not only one of the celebrators of this widespread understanding in the fourth century A.D. but also, it may be appropriately recalled, was the presumed owner of the Gallic art collection and the Venus (Fig. 47).

: An inscription near the Baalbek mosaic stated that the builder of the house or hall where apparently the Muses were pursued and a school met was the son of a man named Olympios, “worthy successor in wisdom to Eudoxios, philosopher and pupil of Plato.” 727 One Eudoxios of Cnidos frequented Plato's academy in 370-368 B.C., and another, a pupil of Libanius in A.D. 361 at Antioch, was later rhetor there, a name-

sake, unquestionably, of the earlier better-known Eudoxios. | At the end of the fourth century the builder had other mosaics laid. They are of much interest here because they were contemporary with the installation of the sculptural collection at Antioch. One, half-destroyed, showed Aristotle Teaching Alexander.?= Another portrayed in continuous narration the Annunciation and Birth of Alexander (Fig. 77).?° At the left an envoy of Dionysus appears to Olympias, mother of the future hero, seated beside Philip, to announce that she will conceive by a god. To the right the divine child’s mother reclines on a couch, a servant behind her. Below, the babe receives his first bath, standing in a font, as sturdy at birth as Hercules or Hermes, and flanked by a nymph who attends him, pouring and testing the water. The misspelled labels of the mosaic suggest it was a copy, and the specific source was surely in a book. Pseudo-Callisthenes at Alexandria early in the fourth century assembled and embellished the legends which had arisen of the hero in the Romance

; of Alexander.2*® The motif was indebted to the story of the birth of Dionysus, seen on an Egyptian textile, and to myths of other divine births.2*! The striking resemblance of the representation to later Annunciation and Nativity of Christ scenes have excited interest, but their consideration would exceed our scope here.?” Suf-

235. G. M. A. Hanfmann in Oxford Classical 241. Jacques Laager, Geburt und Kindheit

Dictionary, s.v. “Muses.” des Gottes in der griechischen Mythologie (Winter-

236. Ibid. thur, 1957), see pp. 112-150 for Dionysus; M. Law237. Chéhab, op. cit., I, pp. 48-45; II, pl. rence, “Three Pagan Themes in Christian Art,” in

XXI, 3. De Artibus Opuscula, XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin 238. Ibid., II, pl. XXII-XXIII, 1. Panofsky (New York, 1961), I, pp. 327-331; I, figs.

239. Ibid., I, pp. 46-50; II, pls. XXII, XXIV- 10-19; Per Jonas Nordhagen, “The Origin of the XXV; cf. A. Rumpf, “Zum Alexander Mosaik,” Mittei- Washing of the Child in the Nativity Scene,” By-

lungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, zantinische Zeitschrift, LIV (1961), pp. 333-337, athenische Abteilung, LXXVII (1962), pp. 229-241. pl. XIII; Berta Segall, Katalog der Goldschmiedear240. D. J. A. Ross, “Olympias and the Serpent; beiten, Museum Benaki (Athens, 1938), pp. 87, 118, the Interpretation of a Baalbek Mosaic and the Date no. 180, 121-125.

of the Illustrated Pseudo-Callisthenes,” Journal of 242. Chéhab, loc. cit.; cf. Otto Demus, Mosaics the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXVI (1963), of Norman Sicily (London, 1949), p. 40, pl. XVII; E. pp. 1-21, and references there cited; cf. Kurt Weitz- Kitzinger, “The Hellenistic Heritage in Byzantine

mann, Ancient Book Illumination, Martin Classical Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII (1963), pp. Lectures, XVI (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 105- 95-115, figs. 1-38, esp. pp. 100-105; John Pope-Hen-

107, figs. 112-114; cf. n. 242-243 infra. nessy, Italian Gothic Sculpture (London, 1955),

62 | Significance of the Collection in the Early Christian Age fice it to justify the similarity by reference to St. Augustine, who explained that, like the Jews fleeing Egypt, Christians must carry away the gold and silver vessels of their

enemies for their own use.?* ,

Various links existed between the Alexander mosaics and that of Calliope and the Sages. The muse presided over epic; the sage Aristotle taught Alexander wisdom; Alexander equaled the ideal epic hero. Such elliptical reasoning was consistent with late pagan and neo-Platonist logic, and would have been characteristic of those who met in the house to pursue the muses. Finally the scene of Alexander’s divine birth, in effect, defied the Christians, whose arguments over the terrestrial and heavenly nature of Christ currently monopolized Christianity. These meanings could have been neither avoided nor evaded in the ancient Heliopolis, a center of pagan worship with its famous temples. There an inscription of about 430 proclaimed it “Bastion of the Muses!” 244 In Syria, in and near Antioch, the mosaics surveyed above exemplify in tangible form the vivid presence of a classical and neo-Platonist context during the existence of the sculpture in its suburban villa. The works of art treated here could have provided a reasonable and proper comparative equivalent to that sculpture.

pp. 3-5, 175-178, pls. I-II (N. Pisano). The basin in 243. De. Doctr. chr., II, 40 J. P. Migne, Pawhich Christ was bathed was shown to Arculf in trologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, XXXIV, Bethlehem by 800; see: Thomas Wright (ed.), Early col. 63); cf. P. de Labriolle, History and Literature Travels in Palestine ..., Bohn’s Antiquarian Library of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius, tr. H. (London, 1848), p. 6, though not the water, as has Wilson (London and New York, 1924), pp. 25-27.

been reported (cf. Nordhagen, op. cit., p. 334, n. 9). 244. Chéhab, op. cit., p. 43.

Conclusions The presence of classical sculpture was a normal phenomenon in a Roman city. Our knowledge of collections of ancient sculpture of the late fourth and fifth centuries has shown the Antioch collection to have been neither so unusual nor so limited a case of survival as it might have seemed. Comparable visual evidence seen in the previous chapter has helped to account for and explain the significance of the existence of the sculpture at Antioch. Their intellectual context now deserves treatment. What can be gleaned about the owners of the sculpture? Why did it survive amidst an increasing Christian majority? What is the most likely explanation of its burial in fragmentary form? There is some evidence for answers to such pertinent questions.

1. Paganism and the Cultural Context of the Collection The first explanation of the collection of portraits and statuettes to come to mind is that their owners were pagans. Paganism in Syria has been so emphasized in the foregoing as to raise questions of its extent and of the kind of pagan survival one can equate with the collection. Pagan literary figures offer the most apt counterpart. It is to the magnitude of their influence that one can attribute the continued and meaningful presence of the sculpture, and the mosaics, of the past. Libanius (314-ca. 393), a native of Antioch, was a prominent pagan teacher and rhetorician.?” It was he who composed the glowing description of the Apollo of Daphne beginning, “Imagination brings before my

245. Downey, op. cit., pp. 40-42, 373-379; Paul Petit, Les étudiants de Libanius: un professeur Festugiére, op. cit., pp. 91-180 (cf. 186 and n. 2); de faculté et ses éléves au Bas Empire (Paris, 1957).

64 | Conclusions eyes that form,’ which helped to identify the replica of the statue at the villa (Figs. 41-43). His eleventh oration, the Antiochikos, recalled the Greek foundation of his

city where the senate still met in the Hellenistic bouleterion, and where local Olym- , pic games were still held at Daphne. Numerous pagans and Christians studied under

him, even two future patriarchs of Constantinople, the silver-tongued St. John Chrysostom, and earlier, in Byzantium, St. Basil the Great. Among his many counterparts elsewhere was Ausonius at the university of Bordeaux. A near contemporary of Libanius, he too upheld the ideal of classical tradition in the schools and in his Villa Lucaniaca.?“

No matter to which religion the conservative cultural elite adhered, for them, educated by exposure to classical literature and myth, the statuettes of those gods, heroes, and past emperors to whom they so frequently referred amounted to a perfect

visual allegory. The sculpture in the collection symbolized exactly the same ideas | enunciated by Philostratus in the Severan age. In the Early Christian period they also recalled a past which was yet real, as well as being objects of admiration because of their aesthetic and expressive qualities. Such a natural and indeed inevitable survival of pagan imagery as emblematic of the forces of nature and the virtues of man was not always understood correctly. Julian the Apostate selected Antioch to institute his Hellenic ideal of imperial citizenship and to lead the way back to the hallowed past.”47 He put the program to revive pagan practices there in charge of his uncle, chosen no doubt because he, like Julian, was a convert from Christianity. Julian joined his uncle at Antioch in 362, where, as he relates in his Misopogon, he performed all the traditional sacrifices faithfully, and one suspects, conspicuously. On the proper day in August for the ceremonies in reverence to Apollo before the temple at Daphne, Julian searched in vain for the procession. He discovered one lone priest sacrificing his own goose. Julian miscalculated the extent and appeal of paganism half a century after its official coexistence

with Christianity began. ,

To place the many examples of art with pagan subject matter which endured or were produced in the Early Christian centuries in a religious context would be erroneous, regardless of the undoubted truth of this relationship in some circumstances. Rather one should see them as manifestations of habits of understanding familiar to any schoolboy assigned the Iliad. Numbers of mosaic scenes exemplify this literary taste at Antioch, as illustrated books of classical authors copied in Early

Christian times do elsewhere.?8 , ,

2. The Formation and Ownership of the Collection — 7 The Antioch and like collections with which we have been concerned all appear to have taken shape or been reinstalled late in the fourth or early in the fifth cen246. Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last 247. Downey, op. cit., pp. 380-396.

Century of the Western Empire, 2nd ed., rev. (Oxford, , 248. D. Levi, op. cit., I, pp. 625-626; Ranuccio 1899; reprint, New York, 1958), pp. 167-186; Au- Bianchi-Bandinelli, Hellenistic-Byzantine Miniatures sonius, tr. H. G. Evelyn White (Cambridge, Mass. and of the Iliad (Ilias Ambrosiana) (Olten, 1955); Weitz-

London, 1919-21). : mann, op. cit., pp. 31-39, 59-61, et passim; cf. also:

, Conclusions | 65 tury. Opportunities of acquiring the Olympian Zeus and lesser works of art at that time were directly attributable to Theodosius I (379-95). His edicts designed to curb paganism, promulgated in the last years of his reign, banned pagan worship, ordered the temples closed, took over the funds, and halted the Olympic games.” They also made available to anyone interested vast quantities of sculpture, taken from the now disused temples, which shortly fell into a ruinous condition if not converted into churches. At the Christian court of the empire, where private appreciation replaced

| public opposition, this was the major if not the only source of the collection including the Zeus. In more modest halls the source would have been the temples also,

plus inherited works of art in varying proportion. , _ Conversely, some of the other collections may well have been the result of paganism in conjunction with private appreciation. The sudden necessity for unreconstructed pagans to conduct their devotions in private without benefit of state support must have stimulated personal collecting. At Ostia in the House of Fortuna Annonaria the Diana, Demeter, Venus, Hera, and other statues found in the nymphaeum, adorning the garden, and in a chamber with an apse, have been appraised as being “tutte opere ben note del Pantheon pagano.”’ ”°° This is indeed true, and the mention of Macrobius, who relates in the Saturnalia that he joined fellow pagans at his table as “the best way to honor the gods and adore antiquity’ is suggestive. The

Saturnalia also demonstrates around 400 a syncretistic and collective concept in which the gods are no longer separate entities. Macrobius states magniloquently, “All theology leads to the sun. The different names of Apollo show he is confused with the sun.” 7°! He goes on in successive sections to extend the solar relationship to the major male gods of the classical, Egyptian, and even the Syrian pantheons. One may conclude that the sculptural effigies in villas of this time formed a collective visual vestige. On their presence in Ostian homes and the attitude of their presumably pagan owners, one may agree with a statement of Meiggs: “Such copies of Greek works, competently but somewhat lifelessly reproduced, were the hallmark

of respectability throughout the imperial period.?” |

Christian connoisseurs owned classical sculpture in Gaul. Whether or not the collection found in the suburbs of Bordeaux came from the site of the Villa Lucaniaca

of Ausonius, such an assemblage was characteristic of this author and owner of several villas, who was an adherent of the new faith. Ausonius grandly submerged his Christianity in a conscious sense of the cultural superiority of a classical tradition which was also his own.2** If we did not know better, we might maintain that this was

an early instance of distinctive Gallic self-esteem. It was more widespread than _ Gaul, however, and characterized both form and content of other Christian writers. — Claudius, a Christian poet at the western court about 400, composed De consulatu

oo Stilichonis with effulgent pagan allusions. He described an embroidered consul’s cloak whose “glorious woof breathes Minerva’s skill. ... Here Venus, borne in her

David Diringer, The Illuminated Book, Its History 251. See: i. 17, cf. chs. 18-23. and Production (New York, 1958), pp. 33-34, 37-39. 252. Meiggs, op. cit., p. 434. 249. Dill, op. cit., pp. 31-33; C. W. Previte- 253. Ep. x.17; cf. Ephem. ii.15, and Idyll. Orton, The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History xi.88; cf. Nora K. Chadwick, Poetry and Letters

(Cambridge, 1952), I, pp. 74-75. in Early Christian Gaul. (London, 1955), pp. 60-62. 250. Calza and Nash, op. cit., p. 36.

66 | Conclusions dove-drawn chariot, unites for the third time the hero’s family with the princely house, and the winged Loves throng the affianced bride... .” ?°4 Thus, the fact that Antioch possessed a collection is explicable, but one cannot tell whether the owners were pagans or Christians. The manifestations of paganism

late in the fourth century in the Mediterranean area proper lead one to suspect that in its formation the collection was pagan-inspired. In the East that tradition was tenacious in Syria, as the Antioch mosaics have indicated.”® In the West, again at Ostia, a temple of Hercules was restored in 393 with state funds, exactly when the

sculpture at Antioch was being installed.”® |

There can be no question that in the course of its existence the Antioch collection ,

would have appealed to anyone nurtured in contemporary tradition, and its real significance lay in its transparent and pervasive value within this “Graeco-RomanChristian” period. Examples of Early Christian commentary on ancient art, admiring realism of appearance or emotion as the ancients had done, continued through the rule of Justinian.?*” At Constantinople part of the legacy of Constantine was a huge public display of eighty statues which stood in the Baths of Zeuxippus until their destruction by fire in 532.758

Again in Gaul, Apollinaris Sidonius (ca. 430-80) testifies to the duration through , the fifth century of the kind of suburban villa known to have existed there previously through the writings of Ausonius. Some of his letters advised his son concerning the proper conduct of a well-born and educated Roman noble “with the help of Christ.” °° After making clear the lack of any contradiction between Roman taste and Christian

virtue, Dill points out that the letters indicate that in fifth century Gaul some of a gentleman's “superfluous wealth may be spent in additions to his country seat, or redecorating his baths and saloons with fresh frescoes and marbles.” 2® It was not an ascetic ideal. Sidonius described his own villa in Auvergne in the tradition of Pliny the Younger, whose sculpture collection was cited above.?®! In its baths could be seen decorous pictures, although there might be an epigram “neither good enough to make

you read it again, nor so bad as to disgust you with the reading.’ When Sidonius visited two villas near Nimes, he found the library of one generously supplied with pagan and Christian literature, and, among the books of the other, guests reading Horace or Varro, or discoursing on Origen.?® On the cultural atmosphere of Sidonius,

Dill wrote, “His world was probably quite as Christian in sentiment and conduct

254. Carmina xxii.2.340-55. Claudian, tr. 257. Mango, op. cit., pp. 64-67. Maurice Platnauer (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 258. Ibid., pp. 57-58; Dill, op. cit., p. 39, n. 5,

1922), II, pp. 26-29. reported that the curator statuarum in the time of 255. See list in D. Levi, op. cit., I, pp. 625-626. Justinian would have had to oversee 3,785 statues.

256. Herbert Bloch, “A New Document of the 259. Ibid., p. 196, and references there cited; Last Pagan Revival of the West,” Harvard Theologi- The Letters of Sidonius, tr. O. M. Dalton (Oxford, cal Review, XXXVIII (1945), pp. 199-244; cf. A. 1915); Courtenay C. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris Alfoldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian and His Age (Oxford, 1933).

Emperors of the Fourth Century (in Hungarian), 260. Dill, op. cit., p. 196.

Diss. pannonica, ser. II, 7 (Budapest, 1937); on the 261. Sid. Apoll. Ep. ii.2.3-16.

care and preservation of temples and restitution of 262. Ep. ii.9. | statues: Dill, op. cit., pp. 30, 38-39.

| Conclusions | 67 as our own. It inherited also, as a social and literary tradition, a profound veneration

for the virtues of the old Roman character.” 7® , Such a circle scarcely felt the tension of St. Jerome who in a dream heard a voice cry out to him before the seat of judgment, “You a Christian! You are a Ciceronian! Where the heart is, there is its treasure.” *** Instead it reeked of education in literary taste of which Sidonius was the dry product.?® It is against such a background that we can safely and consistently locate classical and conventional decorative pieces of sculpture. The Antioch collection, if not one of these actual survivals, so many of which have been lost to us, represents them well as transmitters of the classical

heritage. It can take its place beside De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, that conventional, allegorical codification of the seven arts.7®§ Written by Martianus Cappella, a fifth century neo-Platonist, its text mentions every pagan god known. This standard medieval schoolbook conveyed the legacy of the Greek past to the future, as did the

collection of sculpture at Antioch.

The wide understanding of the statuettes as allegorical personifications visually embodying a tradition shared by both pagans and Christians warrants the inclusion of an amusing supporting statement. It was recorded around 500, and so dates from

the time of the Hercules relief at Ravenna (Fig. 69). Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia, wrote that a standard school assignment asked for an essay on the fate deserved by a blasphemer guilty of carrying a statue of Diana, the goddess beloved for her virginity, into a house of ill fame! 2” This must have required some familiarity with such matters in general and with the nature of Diana in particular. With the aid of a small bronze portrait from Constantinople (Fig. 78) one can perhaps imagine the probable appearance of one of the owners of the Antioch collection.?® A statuette of a seated man in the attitude of a teacher and hence in the tradition of Libanius and Ausonius, it is from the late fifth or early sixth century. He appears to rise, with outstretched arm under the bulky himation, inspired by a sudden flash of wisdom. This type was so well understood that in the sixth century in Syria, in the Rabula Gospel, an evangelist took the same pose. Already during the fourth century, Christ and the evangelists had appeared in similar guise on the Chalice of Antioch.?®

263. Dill, op. cit., p. 210, cf. pp. 222f. Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art, tr. Barbara 264. Taylor, op. cit., p. 109, quoting Epistle Sessions (New York, 1953), p. 89, who traces the sur-

XXII ad Eustochium, Par. 29, 30. vival further to include Hildebert of Lavardin, Bishop

265. Chadwick, op. cit., p. 305: “He cannot be of Tours in the 12th century, who equated monks and

judged by classical standards.” nuns with the divinities in the Metamorphoses of 266. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 49-51, gives the Ovid (p. 92). Sic vivit antiquitas!

most masterful account of Capella known to the 268. A. M. Friend, Jr., “The Portraits of the

writer. Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts, Part 267. Dictiones xx, in Magni f. Ennodii, opera II: Primitive Types in the Manuscripts of the Ver-

omnia, recensuit...Guilelmus Hartel (Corpus sions,’ Art Studies, Medieval, Renaissance, and scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, VI [Vienna, Modern, VII (1929), p. 7, fig. 8, cf. 7.

1882]), pp. 480-483; Edmund Boissier, La fin du 269. James J. Rorimer, “The Authenticity of the paganisme: étude sur les derniéres luttes religieuses Chalice of Antioch,” Studies in Art and Literature for en Occident au quatriéme siécle (Paris, 1891), I, Belle Da Costa Greene, ed. Dorothy Miner (Princeton, p. 253; also cited in Jean Seznec, The Survival of the 1954), pp. 161-168, figs. 128-135. Pagan Gods, the Mythological Tradition and Its

68 | Conclusions , 3. The Christian Context and the Burial of the Collection , In contrast to its intellectual and decorative significance, the religious and spiritual understanding of pagan sculpture in the Early Christian age was more complex. Pagans could refer back to Plotinus, who understood the positive value of images of the gods.?” Through reference to historical and religious associations, the removal of the statue of Victory from the Roman senate was successfully proposed and unsuccessfully opposed late in the fourth century.” Just before 400, Paulinus of Nola gave voice to the Christian attitude when he declined the invitation of his old teacher and friend Ausonius to rejoin him. His reply eloquently rejected the kind of existence

described above, in which classical sculpture had a place. | Why bid the Muses, whom I have disowned, return to claim my devotion? Hearts vowed to Christ have no welcome for the goddesses of song, they are barred to Apollo. Time was when, not with equal force, but with equal ardour, I could join with thee in summoning the deaf Phoebus from his cave at Del-

phi. ... Now another force, a mightier God, subdues my soul.?” : Paulinus, a moderate concerning the Christian use of art, in effect did not deny

his heritage but reapplied it when he later wrote that images gave intellectual nourishment.2”7 Other Christians opposed such a practice. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote at about the same time, “When images are put up, the customs of the pagans do the rest.” 274 To the less educated, images embodied the specific and divine presence of the gods. Theurgy encompassed this conviction of the statua anima, recorded by Iamblichus of Apamea.?” Statues of the gods revered by superstitious pagans were anathema to Christians, many of whom shared the same beliefs about images. This is one of the reasons for the Christian attacks upon pagan statuary, and the idea that when a devout believer came upon them, he should destroy them. For example, at Gaza early in the fifth century Bishop Porphyry led a group of the Christian faithful upon an image of Venus exhibited in a public square. As the Chris-

tians advanced under the sign of the cross, like Constantine at the Milvian bridge, , they drove the daemonic spirit from the statue. As it departed, it was reputed, it broke the figure into many pieces, and fled with a loud cry.2”

In contrast to the Venus of Gaza, venerated by women imploring the gift of fertility, the Crouching Aphrodite at the villa was a fountain figure (Fig. 52). It and its companions were present in a less religious and more decorative sense, and its -

270. Enneades iv.8.11. Age before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers,

271. Best accounts in: P. C. de Labriolle, VIII (1954), pp. 83-150 (see esp. p. 136). |

Saint Ambroise (Paris, 1908), pp. 37-44; idem, History 274. Ibid., p. 93. and Literature of Christianity ...; cf. general treat- 275. E. R. Dodds, “Theurgy and Its Relationment, idem, La réaction paienne, 2nd ed. (Paris, ship to Neoplatonism,” Journal of Roman Studies, 1948), pp. 467-486; on Zeitgeist: Dill, op. cit., pp. XXXVIT (1947), pp. 55-69; note p. 64, where Dodds

29-38; Hanfmann, Roman Art, p. 37. implies cleverly and correctly that Iamblichus was

272. Carm. x.22.30, quoted in Dill, op. cit., more influential than reputable by citing his remark p 398; on a date prior to A.D. 393: Chadwick, op. quoted by Photius, “Idols are divine and filled with

cit., p. 68. divine presence.” | . 273. E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the 276. Mango, op. cit., p. 56. :

Conclusions | 69 appeal, we believe, was to the more educated and less superstitious. At any rate, it survived any initial Christian antagonism to a more tolerant period. The cataclysmic events of the first half of the fifth century amounted to an apocalyptic experience. The Sack of Rome in 410 and other barbarian invasions highlighted a time of troubles in the West. In the East the Gauls ravaged Greece, sacked Eleusis, and exacted tribute from Constantinople. At the same time the cosmogony of St. Augustine’s City of God gave new definition to the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, and created a Christian world view separated from the classical by an

impassable breach. No pagan gods ruled the new cosmos. Banished from heaven, , they soon returned harmless on earth to take their place in art collections. If already there, inherited from pagan fathers, they had been neutralized for Christian owners of later generations, their allusive significance allegorical and safely conventional. Simultaneous. with this development, Christians commenced the development of a new religious art and imagery to which they transferred their allegiance, now that it had been freed from the old.?”” If originals did not satisfy the collectors’ antiquarian needs, copies took their place, as in the bygone days of the classical past, for those from Byzantium to Gaul

, who still called themselves Romans. The full-blown copy of the relief of Hercules and the Hind (Fig. 69) tangibly reveals the state of affairs in the new Christian capitals. Between it and the Nicomachi-Symmachi diptych, one of the last examples of genuine pagan relief of metropolitan quality, yawns a hundred-year gulf.?”8 It separates creation from imitation, all the more striking because both were derivative,

and are qualitative equals. With respect to the Antioch collection, the two Sileni, the marble relief found in the villa, and the silver relief from the middle third of the sixth century, match what was preserved with what was copied (Figs. 55, 71). Mutual antagonism between pagan and Christian faded to quiescence as the old faith, a pietistic, quietistic paganism, persisted into the sixth century. If there were a suspicion of subversion connected with the old practice, then Christian passions would be aroused to the point of action. Late in the fifth century some sculpture from the Isis temple at Memphis was discovered deliberately concealed behind a

false door.” The statuary was carried off to Alexandria, exposed to ridicule, and destroyed. If the subversion concerned an individual known or suspected to have taken part in pagan activities, the reaction was similar. In the reign of Justinian, a strenuous persecutor of heretics of all sorts, two men accused as pagan priests were hauled off from Antioch to the capital for trial, along with two from Baalbek, and one from Athens.”®° Around the middle of the sixth century some pagan “idols” hung in the streets of Antioch for public derision, revealing that the issue could still arise

at that time.”8! They could not have been the very ones discussed here, for that

collection did not really contain “‘idols.”’ ,

277. Richard Krautheimer, “The Architecture 278. Volbach and Hirmer, op. cit., pp. 27, of Sixtus III, a Fifth-Century Renascence?”’ in De 328, pls. XC-XCI.

Artibus Opuscula, XI: Essays in Honor of Erwin 279. Mango, loc. cit. Panofsky (New York, 1961), pp. 291-302, figs. 1-11; 280. Downey, op. cit., pp. 558-559. -Volbach and Hirmer, op. cit., pp. 25-30, et passim; 281. Mango, loc. cit. supra, notes 232, 242.

70 | Conclusions , One event did take place in 578 which, if the sculpture were still above ground, might well have led to its demise. The pagans at Baalbek who had threatened to

destroy the Christian minority there, during investigation named associates “in , every district and city in their land, but especially at Antioch the Great.” 7 An official

went to arrest the accused high priest of Antioch, one Rufinus, and caught up with him , , at Edessa. There Rufinus was surprised while sacrificing to Zeus. He committed suicide, but another pagan, an official of Edessa, and his secretary were captured, taken to Antioch, and forced to confess. The official in turn accused patriarch Gregory of Antioch and a priest of having assisted at the sacrifice of a boy at Daphne, and then bribed the imperial representative to acquit him. An angry mob both blocked his release and threatened the patriarch Gregory, who in terror dared not venture from his house, and later had to go to Constantinople to secure acquittal. How tidy a conclusion to this study to prove that the villa with the sculpture belonged to Rufinus, high priest of Antioch, and that the enraged citizenry sacked his home. It would be even tidier if we could demonstrate that it was the residence

| of patriarch Gregory! If the collection still existed in 578, it may have fallen prey to an aroused Christian mob. Yet no record testifies to the destruction of the kind of sculpture in the collection by the invasion of a private dwelling. The headless, armless, and, in part, legless torsos of Meleager, Dionysus, and the two Venus statues rediscovered beneath the villa were not types most likely to have aroused Christian antagonism upon some pretext. Yet the diminutive replica

of the Daphne Apollo lost its torso; the mythological heads lost their bodies. It appears that the gods suffered unevenly but grievously, while traditional respect preserved the emperors. A parallel to such random mutilation has been discovered at

Salamis, where the palaestra contained the headless Meleager (Fig. 36).?8° The gymnasium had a number of other statues which had been decapitated and mutilated at the time earthquakes damaged the building so severely it was abandoned after 342.784 This sculpture formed a public display, and easily ran afoul of Christian prejudice. Our evidence suggests that the Antioch sculpture endured into the sixth century.

The account of the Justinianic and later sequel to the damage wreaked upon the Salamis exhibit remarkably supports this contention. We quote the report: The room of the octagonal tank was completely cleared. The tank . . . contained a dump of fragmentary marble statues. These had evidently adorned the gymnasium of the Roman period, had been found in the excavation of its ruins at the time of their restoration, had been retained to adorn the Christian building, . and dumped in the tank after some destruction. With the other statues found in previous campaigns they illustrate the growth of an antiquarian interest in classical mythology after the church was firmly established and apostasy no longer a danger. They include a headless Hygeia, a torso of Herakles, to which belongs a head previously found, and torsos of Aphrodite and Artemis.?®*

282. Downey, op. cit., pp. 563-564. 285. A. H. S. Megaw, “Archaeology in Cyprus, 283. Karageorghis, “Sculptures from Salamis,” 1955,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXXVI (1956), pp. 321-328, figs. 1-3, pls. I-II, and other references Suppl., p. 44; idem, “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1956,”

there cited; supra, note 104. in ibid., LXXVII (1957), Suppl., p. 28: “They had evi284. Karageorghis, “Ten Years of Archaeology dently served to grace the Christian building as they in Cyprus, 1953-1962,” Anzeiger (1963), col. 585. had the gymnasium before it.”’

Conclusions | 71 Arab hands wrought the destruction referred to in 648/49 and dumped the sculpture in the tank.28* A decade earlier, the Arabs had overrun Antioch.”8’ There they must have behaved toward any sculpture they found as they did at Salamis, which could well have meant the end of the Antioch art collection, so much so that 637 stands as a terminal date for the existence of the sculpture focused upon in this study. That classical sculpture again became the object of admiration at Salamis during the age of Justinian also supports our conclusions. The additional statues there also included a Nemesis, an Asklepios, and a seated Zeus, and there was even an altar to Hermes.?88 A small annex at one corner centered on a tank remodeled on a reduced scale, and so resembled the late antique interiors known at Ostia and Antioch. An over-life-size nude Apollo with lyre was by the pool, “beside which it stood till the Arab sack.” As part of the restoration during the sixth century the palaestra received

a new marble pavement, whose opus sectile technique duplicated that of the socalled Bath F at Antioch, dated from an inscription to 537/38.789 One Christian Constantia commissioned the Salamis restoration. The redecoration of the palaestra to serve as a bathing establishment, as it had done on a larger scale before the earthquake of 432, included further decoration. Found with the Meleager were two figures of Aphrodite, of the Anadyomene and Syracuse types. There was also an erotic group of a hermaphrodite battling the sexual advances of a baffled but determined satyr. Such a brazenly voluptuous scene recalls the tone of an infamous, slanderous, yet presumably accurate contemporary diatribe. The Secret History of Procopius paints a vivid picture of the career of Theodora, the libidinous performances in her theater, and the excesses and extravagances of the queen and Justinian. If sensual theatrical displays at Constantinople paralleled public sculptural exhibits at Salamis, need we doubt that private collections of milder character existed throughout the empire and at Antioch? Through the early middle ages, Christianity existed within a classical context, especially during the first Byzantine golden age. The maximum life-span of the Antioch collection probably ran from the construction of the villa around 400 to the Arab conquest in 637. Within this period, among the other objects with which examples of its contents were comparable, the latest was the silver plate dated 527-65, the years of Justinian’s reign (Fig. 71; cf. Fig. 55). It is relevant that epigrammatic comments on ancient classical art ceased after the time of Justinian till the Macedonian Renaissance.”®° Visual quotations, like the plate of early seventh century date with the Meleager patently derived at second or third hand from its model (Fig. 72), became remote from the classical past. Ancient art physically extant after 565, at Constantinople, on Cyprus, perhaps in Antioch, and elsewhere no longer helped determine contemporary style, but lapsed into antiquarian inertness. The Byzantine artist now relied exclusively on medieval

models which his predecessors had made from classical prototypes. During the sixth century, then, the survival of classical work became, at least temporarily, culturally insignificant.

286. Karageorghis, “Ten Years...,” loc. cit. p. 32, fig. 2, pl. III, b; for Asklepios: ibid., LXXVI

287. Downey, op. cit., pp. 577-578. (1956), Suppl., pl. II, c.

288. Megaw, “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1954,” 289. Ibid., p. 44, fig. 1. Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXXV (1955), Suppl., 290. Mango, op. cit., p. 67.

72 | Conclusions

, We have proposed that the Antioch sculpture survived Christian fanaticism in a secluded setting, probably adorning the villa itself. We have also proposed that the decorative pieces remained fashionable till the mid-sixth century to their possessors, presumably first pagan, then Christian. Valued little from then on, they may not have

survived above ground after the Persian sack of Antioch and its suburbs in 540, which becomes an alternate terminal date to that of the later Arab conquest for the burial of the collection. Two facts militate against the former terminus, however. First, the Persian raid’s principal damage was by fire, and none of the Antioch pieces betrayed traces of burning. Second is the comparable evidence of the survival of like decorative work at Salamis. Thus while 540 becomes a possible date, it does not exclude the probability of Arab vandalism in 637, the more likely date of the sculpture’s destruction and inhumation. In our time the discovery of the collection has revealed sculpture of good quality

and great interest typical of an eastern Hellenistic city in the Roman age. The Pertinax, Gordian III (?), and Constantius I Chlorus represent important and rare eastern additions to imperial portraiture. The mythological statuettes have led to the definition of the fourth and last critical period of classical sculpture in the Age of Gallienus. The collection’s survival as appropriate Early Christian decorative embellishment has proven once more that classical culture directly buttressed early medieval, and indirectly, yet ultimately, our own.

Selected Bibliography Ancient Sources, Modern Histories and Literature Apollinaris Sidonius. The Letters of Sidonius. Tr. O. M. Dalton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1915. ———.. Poems and Letters. Tr. W. B. Anderson (Loeb Classical Library). 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Heinemann, 1936-65. Ausfeld, Adolf. Der griechische Alexanderroman, ed. W. Kroll. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907.

: Ausonius. Tr. H. G. Evelyn White (Loeb Classical Library). 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Heinemann, 1919-21.

Birmelin, Ella. “Die kunsttheoretischen Gedanken in Philostrats Apollonios,” Philologus, , LXXXVIII, 1933, 149-180, 392-414. Blanshard, Frances Bradshaw. Retreat from Likeness in the Theory of Painting. 2nd ed. rev. and enl. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949. Chadwick, Nora K. Poetry and Letters in Early Christian Gaul. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1955.

Claudian. Tr. M. Platnauer (Loeb Classical Library). 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Heinemann, 1922. Dill, Samuel. Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire. 2nd ed. rev. Oxford: Clarendon, 1899 (Reprint: New York, 1958). Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Festugiére, André J. Antioche paienne et chrétienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie, avec un commentaire archéologique sur l Antiochikos, par Roland Martin (Bibliotheque des Ecoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome, CXCIV). Paris, 1959. Grabar, André. “Plotin et les origines de l’esthétique médiévale,” Cahiers archéologiques, I, 1945, 15-34. Haight, Elizabeth H. The Life of Alexander of Macedon: Pseudo-Callisthenes. New York:

Longmans Green, 1955. |

Hohl, Ernst. “Kaiser Pertinax und die Thronbesteigung seines Nachfolgers im Lichte der Herodiankritik,” Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Klasse fir Philosophie, Geschichte, Staats-Rechts-und Wirtschaftwissenschaften, HU. Berlin, 1956.

Lehmann, Karl. “The Imagines of the Elder Philostratus,’” Art Bulletin, XXIII, 1941, 16-44. Magie, David. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.

Petit, Paul. Les étudiants de Libanius: un professeur de faculté et ses éléves au Bas Empire (Etudes prosopographiques, I). Paris, 1957.

74 | Selected Bibliography Platnauer, Maurice. Life and Reign of the Emperor Lucius Septimius Severus. London: Oxford University Press, 1918.

Schwartz, Jacques. “Les Palmyréniens et l’Egypte,” Bulletin de la Société royale darchéologie d Alexandrie, XL, 1953, 63-81.

Seston, William. Diocletien et la tétrarchie (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, CLXII). Paris, 1946.

Reference Works Adriani, Achille. Repertorio d’arte dell Egitto Greco-Romano, serie A. Vols. 1-2. Palermo: Fondazione ‘Ignazio Mormino’ del Banco di Sicilia, 1961. Arndt, Paul, and Amelung, Walther. Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker Skulpturen.

Munich: Bruckmann, 1893-1947. , Brunn, Heinrich, and Bruckmann, Friedrich, continued by Georg Lippold. Griechische und romische Portraits. Munich: Bruckmann, 1891-1942. Espérandieu, Emile. Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine. 16 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1907-55. Felletti-Maj, Bianca Maria. Iconografia romana imperiale, da Severo Alessandro a M. Aurelio Carino (222-285 d.c.) (Quaderni e Guide di Archeologia, II, eds. R. Bianchi Bandinelli

1921-23. |

| and L. Banti). Rome, 1958.

Friedlander, Ludwig. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine. 10th ed., ed. G. Wissowa. 4 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, Giuliano, Antonio. “La ritrattistica dell’Asia Minore dall’89 a.C. al 211 d.C.,” Rivista dello Istituto nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, n.s. VIII, 1959, 146-201. Lippold, Georg. Die griechische Plastik (Handbuch der Archaologie im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft, ITI, 5, 1, eds. W. Otto and R. Herbig). Munich, 1950. Loewy, Emanuel. Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer mit Facsimiles (Konigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien). Leipzig: Teubner, 1885. Muthmann, Fritz. Statuenstiitzen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und rimischen Bildwerken: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der romischen Kopistentatigkeit (Heidelberger

_ Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen,

1950, III). Heidelberg, 1951. |

Richter, Gisela. A Handbook of Greek Art. 4th ed. rev. London: Phaidon, 1965. Rodenwaldt, Gerhart. Die Kunst der Antike (Hellas und Rom) (Propylaen Kunstgeschichte, III). Berlin: Propylaen-Verlag, 1927.

1-82. :

Vermeule, Cornelius. “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus, XIII, 1959,

XLI, 1951, 89-104. | : :

Ward Perkins, John B. “Tripolitania and the Marble Trade,” Journal of Roman Studies,

Press, 1947. :

Weitzmann, Kurt. Illustrations in Roll and Codex, A Study of the Origin and Method of Text - Illustration (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, IT). Princeton: Princeton University

Winter, Franz. Typen der figtirlichen Terrakotten (Die antiken Terrakotten, III, 2, ed. R. Kekulé von Stradonitz). Berlin: Archaologisches Institut des deutschen Reiches, 1903.

Greek and Hellenistic Art Bieber, Margarete. Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. Rev. ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Bienkowski, Piotr R. von. Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst (Oester-

reichisches archdologisches Institut in Wien). Vienna: Hélder, 1908. -

Selected Bibliography | 75 Carpenter, Rhys. Greek Sculpture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Chittenden, Jacqueline, and Seltman, Charles. Greek Art: a Commemorative Catalogue of an Exhibition held in 1946 at the Royal Academy, Burlington House, London. London:

Faber and Faber, 1947. |

Dohrn, Tobias. Attische Plastik, vom Tode des Phidias bis zum Wirken der grossen Meister des IV. Jahrhunderts. Krefeld: Schupe, 1957. Hanfmann, George M. A. “Hellenistic Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII, 1963, 77-94. Lullies, Reinhard. Die kauernde Aphrodite. Munich-Pasing: Filser-Verlag, 1954. Poulsen, Frederik. “Portrait hellénistique du Musée d’Antioche,” Syria, XIX, 1938, 355-361. Poulsen, Vagn. “A Late Greek Relief in Beirut,” Berytus, II, 1935, 51-56. Richter, Gisela. Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture. Oxford: Clarendon, 1951. Vermeule, Cornelius. “A Hellenistic Portrait remade as Severus Alexander (A.D. 222 to 235), Roman Emperor and King of Egypt,” Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, LVIII, 1960, 12-25.

Roman and Late Roman Art Alfoldi, Andreas. “Die Vorherrschaft der Pannonier und die Reaktion des Hellenentums unter Gallienus,” in Fiinfundzwanzig Jahre Romisch-germanische Kommission, archdologisches Institut des deutschen Reiches. Mainz, 1930, 11-51. Bernoulli, Johan J. Rémische Ikonographie. 2 vols, in 4 parts. Stuttgart: Spemann, 1882-94. Frova, Antonio. L’Arte di Roma e del mondo romano (Storia universale dell’arte, II, 2). Turin: Unione tipografice editrice torinese, 1961. Hanfmann, George M. A. Roman Art: A Modern Survey of the Art of Imperial Rome. Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1964. Michalowski, Kazimierz. “La fin de l’art grec,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, LXX,

1946, 385-392. Picard, Charles. “Chronique de la sculpture étrusco-latine (1940-50),” Revue des études latines, XXXII, 1954, 298-338.

Rodenwaldt, Gerhart. Ueber den Stilwandel in der antoninischen Kunst (Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen, III). Berlin, 1935.

—. “Zur Begrenzung und Gliederung der Spatantike,’ Jahrbuch des deutschen arch- | dologischen Instituts, LIX-LX, 1944-45, 81-87. Rumpf, Andreas. Stilphasen der spdtantiken Kunst, ein Versuch (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften Serie, Abhandlungen, XLIV). Cologne, 1955.

Schweitzer, Bernhard. Die spdtantiken Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Kunst (Leipziger Universitatsreden, XVI). Leipzig: Barth, 1949.

Early Christian, Byzantine, and Later Art Beckwith, John. The Art of Constantinople, an Introduction to Byzantine Art. London: Phaidon, 1961. Butler, Howard Crosby. Architecture and Other Arts (Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900). 2 vols. New York: Century, 1903. Elliger, Walter. Die Stellung der alten Christen zu den Bildern in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten (Studien iiber christliche Denkmaler, XX). Leipzig: Dieterich, 1930.

———. Zur Entstehung und friihen Entwicklung der altchristlichen Bildkunst (Studien iiber christliche Denkmaler, XXIII). Leipzig: Dieterich, 1934. Garrucci, Raffaele. Storia della arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli della chiesa. 6 vols. Prato: Guasti, 1873-81.

76 | Selected Bibliography Herzfeld, Ernst, and Guyer, Steven. Meriamlik und Corykos: Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, II (Publications of the American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia

Minor). Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1930. ,

Kitzinger, Ernst. “Byzantine Art in the Period between Justinian and Iconoclasm,” in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Congrés internationale des études byzantines, XI”). Munich: Beck, 1958, 1-50.

—. “The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VIII,

1954, 83-150. |

——. “The Hellenistic Heritage in Byzantine Art,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII, 1963, 95-115. Krautheimer, Richard. “The Architecture of Sixtus III: A Fifth-Century Renascence?” in De Artibus Opuscula, XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. M. Meiss. New York: New York University Press, 1961, 291-302. Ladner, Gerhart B. “The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Icono-

clastic Controversy,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VII, 1953, 1-34. , Lawrence, Marion. “Three Pagan Themes in Christian Art,” in De Artibus Opuscula, XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. M. Meiss. New York: New York University

Press, 1961, 323-334. |

Mango, Cyril. “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers,

. XVII, 1963, 53-75.

Meer, Frederik van der. Altchristliche Kunst. Tr. A. Shorn. Cologne: Bachem, 1960. (English ed.: Early Christian Art. Tr. P. and F. Brown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and

London, Faber and Faber, 1967). , Morey, Charles Rufus. Early Christian Art. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.

Nordhagen, Per Jonas. “The Origin of the Washing of the Child in the Nativity Scene,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LIV, 1961, 333-337. Seznec, Jean. The Survival of the Pagan Gods, the Mythological Tradition and Its Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art. Tr. Barbara Sessions (Bollingen Series, XXXVIII).

New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1953.

Taylor, Henry Osborn. The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1901.

Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz, and Hirmer, Max. Early Christian Art. Tr. C. Ligota. New York: Abrams, 1961.

Mythological and Religious Studies | | Bloch, Herbert, ““A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival of the West,” Harvard Theological Review, XXXVIII, 1945, 199-244. Boissier, Edmund. La fin du paganisme: étude sur les derniéres luttes religieuses en Occident au quatriéme siécle. 2 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1891.

Cumont, Franz. “Le culte égyptien et le mysticisme de Plotin,’ Monuments et mémoires publié par TAcadémie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Fondation Piot, XXV, 192122 77-92. ——. “Mithras en Asie Mineure,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler, eds. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Publications of the University of Manchester, CCLXV). Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1939, 67-76. _ Dodds, E. R. “Theurgy and Its Relationship to Neoplatonism,” Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII, 1947, 55-69.

Goodenough, Erwin R. “The Paintings of the Dura-Europus Synagogue: Method and an Application,” Israel Exploration Journal, VIII, 1958, 69-79. Grant, Frederick C. (ed.). Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism (The Library of Religion, eds. H. W. Schneider et al). New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1953.

Selected Bibliography | 77 ' Laager, Jacques. Geburt und Kindheit des Gottes in der griechischen Mythologie. Winterthur: Keller, 1957.

Labriolle, Pierre C. de. History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius. Tr. H. Wilson. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and New York: Knopf, 1924. —. La réaction paienne: étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du I* au VI? siécle. 10th ed. Paris: Artisan du livre, 1950. L’Orange, Hans P. Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Instituttet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning, serie B, Skrifter, XLIV). Oslo and Cambridge, Mass., 1947. —. Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World (Instituttet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning, serie A, Forlesninger, XXIII). Oslo and Cambridge, Mass., 1953.

Matz, Friedrich. Der Gott auf dem Elefantenwagen (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse). Mainz, 1952.

Nock, Arthur Darby. Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964. Picard, Charles. “Sur l’Atargatis-Derkét6 des Thermes d’Aphrodisias en Carie,” in Hommages a J. Bidez et a F. Cumont (Collection Latomus, II). Brussels, 1949, 257-264. Reinach, Theodore. “La musique des hymnes de Delphes,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, XVII, 1893, 584-610.

Numismatics Alfoldi, Maria. Die constantinische Goldprigung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung fiir Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst. Mainz: Romisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, 1963. Babelon, Jean. “Constance Chlore et la Tétrarchie. Un Medallion d’or inédit de la collection

, Carlos de Beistegui,’ Gazette des Beaux Arts, LXXIV, 1932, 11-16.

Bastien, Pierre. “Medallions et Monnaies du Trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras) conservés au Musée d’Arras,” Bulletin de la Société Académique des Antiquaries de la Morinie, XIX, fasc. 358 [St. Omer], 1959, 1-24. Belloni, Gianguido. “Sull’iconografia monetale della prima tetrarchiaca,” in Analecta Archaeologica: Festschrift F. Fremersdorf, ed. H. Reykers. Cologne: Verlag der Lowe, 1960, 189-192. Bernhart, Max. Aphrodite auf griechischen Miinzen. Munich: Kress and Hornung, 1936. Bruun, Patrick. “Roman Imperial Administration as Mirrored in the IVth Century Coinage,” Eranos Jahrbuch, LX, fascs. 1-2, 1962, 93-100. ——. Studies in Constantinian Chronology (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, CXLVI). New York: American Numismatic Society, 1961. Castelfranco, Giorgio. “L’Arte della moneta nel tardo Impero,” La Critica d’Arte, II, 1937, 11-21.

Dorligny, Sorlin Al. “Aurélien et la guerre des monnayeurs,” Revue numismatique, IX, 1891, 105-133.

Franke, Peter, and Hirmer, Max. ROmische Kaiserportrats im Miinzbild. Munich: Hirmer, 1961.

Imhoof-Blumer, Friedrich, and Gardner, Percy. Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (Extract from Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1885-87). London, 1887.

Lacroix, Léon. “Copies de statues sur les monnaies des Séleucides,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, LXXIII, 1949, 158-176.

—. Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques (Bibliotheque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liége, fasc. CXVI). Liége, 1949. Mattingly, Harold. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, V: Pertinax to Elagabalus. London: British Museum, 1950.

78 | Selected Bibliography —., and Sydenham, Edward A. and Sutherland, C. H. V., Roman Imperial Coinage, IV, 3. London: Spink, 1949.

LI, 1917, 1-152. | |

Newell, Edward T. “The Seleucid Mint of Antioch,” American Journal of Numismatics, Pink, Karl. “Antioch or Viminacium?” Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 5, XV, 1935, 94-113. ——. “Die Goldpragung des Diocletianus und seiner Mitregenten,’ Numismatische Zeit-

schrift, N.F. XXIV, 1931, 1-59. :

Portraits Barreca, F. “Un nuovo ritratto di Settimio Severo,’ Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica

Comunale di Roma, LXXI, 1943-45, Appendix, 59-64. Blanckenhagen, Peter von. “Ein spatantikes Bildnis Traians,” Jahrbuch des deutschen arch-

dologischen Instituts, LIX-LX, 1944-45, 45-68. ,

Calza, Raissa. “Un problema di iconografia imperiale sull’Arco di Costantino,” Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti, XXXII, 1959-60, 133-161. Dorner, Friedrich K. “Ein neuer Portratkopf des Kaisers Diokletian,” Die Antike, XVII,

1941, 139-146. |

Dohrn, Tobias. “Ein spatantikes Platonportrat,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, LXITI-LXIV, 1938-39, 163-170. Dusenbery, Elsbeth. “Sources and Development of Style in Portraits of Gallienus,’ Marsyas, IV, 1948, 1-18. Egger, Gerhard. “Zur Analyse des spatantiken Portrats,’ Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, XV, 1955, 9-30. Fuhrmann, Heinrich. “Zum Bildnis des Kaisers Diocletian,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, LIII, 1938, 35-45. Hanfmann, George M. A. Observations on Roman Portraiture (Collection Latomus, XI).

Brussels, 1953. |

Heintze, Helga von. “Studien zu den Portrats des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 1. Gordianus ITI,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, LXII, 1955, 174-184.

—. “Studien zu den Portraits des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 3. Gordianus I-Gordianus II,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts,Rémische Abteilung, LXITII, 1956, 56-65.

Heydenreich, Robert. “Ein Tetrarchenbildnis,” in Neue Beitrdige zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von R. Schweitzer, ed. R. Lullies. Stuttgart and Cologne: Kohlhammer, 1954, 367-371. Hill, Dorothy K. “A Cache of Bronze Portraits of the Julio-Claudians,” American Journal

of Archaeology, XLIII, 1939, 401-409. , ,

Inan, Jale and Rosenbaum, Elizabeth. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor (Published for the British Academy). London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Ingholt, Harald, with Appendix by John E. Sanders, “A Colossal Head from Memphis, Severan or Augustan?” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, I, 1963, 125-145. L’Orange, Hans P. Studien zur Geschichte des spiitantiken Portrdts (Instituttet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning, serie B, Skrifter, XXII). Oslo and Cambridge, Mass., 1933. ———. “Plotinus Paul,” Byzantion, XXV-XXVII, fasc. 2 (Mélanges E. Dyggve), 1955-57,

473-485. , | | 1932, 45-54.

Miller, Valentin. “A Portrait of the Late Roman Empire,” The Museum Journal, XXIII,

Poulsen, Frederik. “Portrait d’un philosophe néoplatonicien trouvé A Delphes,” Bulletin

de correspondance hellénique, LII, 1928, 245-255. |

Poulsen, Vagn. “Notes on the Iconography of Diocletian,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju

Selected Bibliography | 79 Dalmatinsku, Zbornik radova posvécenih M. Abramicu [Bulletin darchéologie et WVhistoire dalmate, Mélanges Abramic], 3 vols. Split, 1954-57, I, 188-191. Richter, Gisela M. A. Greek Portraits HII: How Were Likenesses Transmitted in Ancient Times? (Collection Latomus, XLVIII). Brussels, 1960.

Salomonson, J. W. “Ein unbekanntes Tetrarchenportrat aus Nord Afrika in Leiden,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen wit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheiden te Leiden, XLI, 1960, 59-68.

Schweitzer, Bernhard. “Altromische Traditionselemente in der Bildniskunst des dritten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts,’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, V, 1954, 175190.

Stuart, Meriwether. “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed Throughout the Roman Empire?’ American Journal of Archaeology, XLII, 1939, 601-617. Swift, Emerson. “Imagines in Imperial Portraiture,” American Journal of Archaeology, XXVIT, 1923, 286-301.

Vermeule, Cornelius. “A Graeco-Roman Portrait of the Third Century A.D. and the GraecoAsiatic Tradition in Imperial Portraiture from Gallienus to Diocletian,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XV, 1961, 3-22. ———. ‘“‘Maximianus Herculeus and the Cubist Style in the Late Roman Empire, 295-310,” Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, LX, 1962, 9-20. —

Sarcophagi Adriani, Achille. “Epifania di Dioniso a Nasso (A proposito di un sarcofago allesandrino),’”’ Bulletin de la Société royale d’archéologie dAlexandrie, XXXIX, 1951, 5-29. Lehmann-Hartleben, Karl and Olsen, Erling C. Dionysiac S arcophagi in Baltimore. New York: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University and Baltimore: the Trustees of the Walters

Art Gallery, 1942. | Matz, Friedrich. “Ein romisches Meisterwerk: Der Jahreszeitensarkophag Badminton-New York.” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts (Erganzungsheft, XIX of the Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts). Berlin, 1958. Morey, Charles Rufus. The Sarcophagus of Claudia Antonia Sabina and the Asiatic Sarcophagi (Publications of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis, V, Roman and Christian Sculpture, 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924. Throckmorton, Peter and Bullitt, John M. “Underwater Surveys in Greece: 1962,” Expedition, the Bulletin of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, V, 1963, 16-23.

Ward Perkins, John B. “Four Roman Garland Sarcophagi in America,” Archaeology, XI, 1958, 98-104. / ——. “The Hippolytus Sarcophagus from Trinquetaille,” Journal of Roman Studies, XLVI,

, 1956, 10-16. ,

———. “Roman Garland Sarcophagi from the Quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara), Annual Report of the... Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C., 1957, 455-467. Will, Ernest. “Un sarcophage romain a sujet eschatologique au Musée de Beyrouth,” Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, VIII, 1946-48, 109-127.

Particular Areas, Sites, or Monuments Abel, A. “Statuaire hawrenienne, une branche provinciale de l’art romain tardif,’ Annales de la Société royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles, XLIX, 1956-57, 1-15. Aurigemma, Salvatore. Villa Adriana. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1962. Calza, Raissa, and Nash, Ernest. Ostia. Florence: Sansoni, 1959.

80 | Selected Bibliography Campbell, William. “Excavations at Antioch-on-the-Orontes,” American Journal of Archaeology, XL, 1936, 1-10. Chéhab, Maurice H. Mosaiques du Liban. 2 vols. (Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, XIV-XV). Paris, 1957-59. Cumont, Franz. “‘L’Aphrodite a la tortue’ de Doura-Europus,” Monuments et Mémoires pub-

31-43. _ | |

, liges par lAcadémie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, Fondation Piot, XXVII, 1924, ——.. Fouilles de Doura-Europus (1922-23) (Bibliothéque archéologique et historique, IX).

Paris: Geuthner, 1926. |

Felletti Maj, Bianca Maria. Siria, Palestina, Arabia settentrionale nel periodo romano. Rome: Ripartizione antichita e belle arti del Comune di Roma [1950]. Freyer, Brigitte. “Kultbild und Skulpturenschmuck des Arestempels in Athen,” Jahrbuch

des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, LXXVII, 1962, 211-226. Grbi¢, Miodrag. “Roémische Kunstschiatze aus dem serbischen Donaugebiet, Carnuntina,” Roémische Forschungen in Niederdésterreich, U1, 1956, 78-84.

Guey, Julien. “Lepcitana Septimiana VI (I*"* partie),” Revue africaine, XCIV, 1950, 51-84. Gusman, Pierre. La villa impériale de Tibur (villa Hadriana). Paris: Fontemoing, 1904. Harrison, Evelyn. Ancient Portraits from the Athenian Agora. (Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book No. 5.) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. ———. Portrait Sculpture. (The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, I.) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. Hilsen, Julius et al. Das Nymphaeum (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Milet, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, V, 1, ed. Theo. Wiegand). Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1919. Humann, Carl, Kohte, Julius, and Watzinger, Carl. Magnesia am Maeander. Bericht iiber die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre, 1891-1893. Berlin: Reimer, 1904. lliffe, J. H. “A Heroic Statue from Philadelphia-Amman,” in Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. George Mylonas. St. Louis: Washington University, 1951-53, I, 705-712. Ingholt, Harald. “Five Dated Tombs of Palmyra,” Berytus, II, 1935, 57-120. —.. Studien over Palmyrensk Skulptur (Dissertation, University of Copenhagen). Copenhagen, 1928. Karageorghis, Vassos. “Sculptures from Salamis,” in Atti del settimo Congresso internazionale

di archeologia classica [Congrés internationale d’archéologie classique, VII™], ed. G. Susini. Rome: Bretschneider, 1961, I, 321-328. Kollwitz, Johannes. “Eine spatantike Statuette aus Tyrus,” Kleinasien und Byzanz: Istanbuler Forschungen, XVII, Deutsches archaologisches Institut, Berlin, 1950; 51-53. Kraeling, Carl. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (American Schools of Oriental Research). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. ——.. Ptolemais: City of the Libyan Pentapolis. With contributions by D. M. Brinkerhoff, R. G. Goodchild, et al. (Oriental Institute Publications, XC). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1962. |

Lavin, Irving. “The Hunting Mosaics of Antioch and their Sources. A Study of Compositional

XVII, 1963, 179-286.

Principles in the Development of Early Medieval Style,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers,

Levi, Doro. Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Publications of the Committee for the Excavation of

Antioch and its Vicinity, IV). 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947. L’Orange, Hans P. and Gerkan, Armin von. Der spdtantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte im Auftrage des archaologischen Instituts des deutschen Reiches, X, eds. H. Leitzmann and G. Rodenwaldt). Berlin, 1939. Mansel, Arif Mufid. Die Ruinen von Side (Archaologisches Institut des deutschen Reiches, Abteilung Istanbul). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.

Selected Bibliography | 8&1 Marchetti-Longhi, Guiseppe. L’Area Sacra del Largo Argentina (Itinerarie dei Musei e

Gallerie e Monumenti d'Italia CII). Rome, 1960.

Meiggs, Russell. Roman Ostia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. | Megaw, A. H. S. “Archaeology in Cyprus, 1956,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXXVII, 1957,

Supplement, Archaeological Reports, 1956, 24-31. .

Michalowski, Kazimierz. Palmyre, Fouilles polonaises. 2 vols. Warsaw, The Hague, and Paris, 1960-62.

Miltner, Franz. Ephesos, Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Vienna: Deuticke, 1958. Miller, Valentin. Zwei syrische Bildnisse rémischer Zeit. (Winckelmannsprogramm der Archaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 68.), 1927. Musche, Herman Frank. “Recherches sur la sculpture gréco-romaine au Liban et en Syrie occidentale d’Alexandre le Grand a Constantin,” in Atti del settimo Congresso in-

, ternazionale di archeologia classica [Congrés international d’archéologie classique,

VII™], ed. G. Susini. Rome: Bretschneider, 1961, I, 437-442. Naumann, Rudolf, and Selahattin Kantar. “Die Agora von Smyrna,” Kleinasien und Byzanz:

114. :

| Istanbuler Forschungen, XVII, Deutsches archdologisches Institut, Berlin, 1950, 69Richter, Gisela. Ancient Italy, a Study of the Interrelations of its Peoples as Shown in Their Arts (The Jerome Lectures, fourth series). Ann Arbor; University of Michigan Press, 1955.

Ross, D. J. A. “Olympias and the Serpent; the Interpretation of a Baalbek Mosaic and the Date of the Illustrated Pseudo-Callisthenes,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld

Institutes, XXVI, 1963, 1-21. |

Rumpf, Andreas. “Zum Alexander Mosaik,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, LXXVII, 1962, 229-241. Seyrig, Henri. “Antiquités syriennes (No. 19-21, Palmyrene Sculptures), Syria, XVIII, 1937, 1-53. ——. “Palmyra and the East,” Journal of Roman Studies, XL, 1950, 1-7.

Squarciapino, Maria. La Scuola di Afrodisia (Studi e materiali dell Museo dell’Impero Romano, III). Rome, 1943. Stillwell, Richard (ed.). Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 11, The Excavations of 1933-36. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938. Syme, Ronald. “Observations on the Province of Cilicia,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler, eds. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Publications of the University of Manchester, CCLXV). Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1939, 299-332. Weigand, Theodore (ed.). Palmyra, Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917 (Archaologisches Institut des deutschen Reiches, Abteilung Istanbul). 2 vols. Berlin: Keller,

1932. |

Special Themes or Groups Becatti, Giovanni. Case ostiense del tardo impero. Rome: Libreria dello Stato [1949]. Bieber, Margarete. ‘““Roman Men in Greek Himation (Romani Palliati). A Contribution to the History of Copying,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CIII, 1959, 375-417. Bienkowski, Piotr R. von. Les Celtes dans les arts mineurs greco-romains, avec des recherches

iconographiques sur quelques autres peuples barbares. (Académie polonaise des sciences et des lettres et Union académique internationale.) Cracow: Université de Jagellons, 1928. Brinkerhoff, Dericksen M. “New Examples of the Hellenistic Statue Group, “The Invitation to the Dance,’ and their Significance,” American Journal of Archaeology, LXXIX, 1965, 25-38.

82 | Selected Bibliography Delbrueck, Richard. Antike Porphyrwerke (Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte im Auftrage des archaologischen Instituts des deutschen Reiches, VI, eds. H. Leitzmann and G. Rodenwaldt). Berlin and Leipzig, 1932. Friedlander, Paul. Documents of Dying Paganism: Textiles of Late Antiquity in Washington, New York, and Leningrad. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945. Hanfmann, George M. A. “Socrates and Christ,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,

LX, 1951, 205-233. |

Kleiner, Gerhard. Das Nachleben des Pergamenischen Gigantenkampfes (Winckelmannsprogramm der Archaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 105.), 1949. Michon, Etienne. “Deux colonnes de porphyre ornées de bustes au Musée du Louvre,” in Mélanges G. Boissier. Paris: Fontemoing, 1903, 371-381. Nock, Arthur Darby. “Sapor I and the Apollo of Bryaxis,” American Journal of Archaeology,

LXVI, 1962, 307-310.

Strzygowski, Josef. “Orient oder Rom. Stichprobe: Die Porphyrgruppen von S. Marco in , Venedig,” Klio: Beitrige zur alten Geschichte, 11, 1902, 105-124. |

Vermeule, Cornelius. “An Equestrian Statue of Zeus,” Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, ; LVI, 1958, 69-75.

Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz. Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spdatantike und des friihen Mittelalters | (Romisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz, Katalog VII. 2nd ed.). Mainz, 1952. Ward Perkins, John B. “The Italian Element in late Roman and early Medieval Architecture,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XXXIII, 1947, 163-194.

Catalogues and Handbooks of Collections, Exhibitions, and

Museums

Abdul-Hak, Selim and Abdul-Hak, Andrée. Catalogue illustré de Département des antiquités

greco-romaines au Musée de Damas. Damascus, 1951. , Amelung, Walther. Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, I-II. (Archaologisches

Institut des deutschen Reiches.) Berlin, 1903-6.

Ancient Art in American Private Collections ... Fogg Art Museum. Cambridge, Mass., 1954.

Bey, Aziz A. Guide du Musée de Smyrne. 2nd ed. Izmir, 1933. Bliimel, Carl. ROmische Kopien des vierten Jahrhunderts. (Katalog der Sammlung antiker

Skulpturen, V.) Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1938. —., Rémische Skulpturen (Antiken aus der Berliner Museen, Heft 4, ed. G. Bruns). Berlin, 1946.

Botti, Guiseppe and Romanelli, Pietro. Le sculture del Museo Gregoriano egizio ... (Monumenti vaticani di archeologia e d’arte, IX). Vatican City, 1951. Cumont, Franz. Catalogue des sculptures et inscriptions antiques (monuments lapidaires) des Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire. 2nd ed. rev. Brussels, 1913. Dalton, Ormond M. Catalogue of the Ivory Carvings of the Christian Era with Examples of Mohammedan Art and Carvings in Bone in the Department of British and Medieval

Antiquities ... of the British Museum. London, 1909. :

Dikaios, Porphyrios. Guide to the Cyprus Museum. 3rd ed. rev. Nicosia, 1961.

Early Christian and Byzantine Art: an Exhibition held at the Baltimore Museum .. . organized by the Walters Art Gallery. Baltimore, 1947. Encyclopédie photographique de lart, le Musée du Louvre. III, Paris: Eds. TEL, 1938. Felletti Maj, Bianca Maria. Museo Nazionale Romano: I Ritratti. Rome, 1953. Furtwangler, Adolf (ed.). Die Sammlung Somzée, antike Kunst und Maler. Munich: Bruck-

mann, 1897. |

Giuliano, Antonio. Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo Profano Lateranense (Monumenti

vaticani di archeologia e d’arte, X). Vatican City, 1957. ,

Selected Bibliography | 88 Jones, H. Stuart (ed.). A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912.

—— (ed.). A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Oxford: Clarendon, 1926. Kitzinger, Ernst. Early Medieval Art in the British Museum. 2nd ed. London, 1955. Levi, Alda. Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo Ducale di Mantova. Rome: Biblioteca d’arte editrice, 1931.

1922.

Lippold, Georg. Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums (Deutsches archaologisches Institut). III, 1. Berlin, 1936; III, 2. Berlin, 1956. Mendel, Gustave. “Catalogue des monuments grecs, romains et byzantins du Musée imperial Ottoman de Brousse,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, XXXIII, 1909, 245-435. Michon, Etienne, and Villefosse, Héron de. Catalogue sommaire des marbres antiques (Musée national du Louvre, Département des antiquités grecques et romaines). Paris, Michon, Etienne, Normand, R., and Mouterde, R. Le Musée de Adana (Extract from Syria II, 1921). Paris, 1922.

Mustilli, Domenico. Il Museo Mussolini, a cura del Reale Istituto d’Archeologia e Storia

/ dell Arte .... Rome, 1939.

Paribeni, Enrico. Catalogo delle sculture di Cirene (Monografie di archeologia libica, V). Rome: Bretschneider, 1959. Pietrangeli, Carlo. Museo Barracco di scultura antica: Guida. 2nd ed. Rome, 1960. Poulsen, Frederik. Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen, 1951.

Rosenbaum, Elizabeth. A Catalogue of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. Ross, Marvin C. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton

Oaks Collection, I: Metalwork, Ceramics, Glass, Glyptics, Painting. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Trustees for Harvard Uni-

versity, 1962. : Van Gulik, Hendrika C. Catalogue of the Bronzes in the Allard Pierson Museum at Amsterdam, I(...Archaeologisch-Historische Bijdragen, VII). Amsterdam, 1940.

Visconti, Carlo L. Les monuments de sculpture antique du Musée Torlonia. 2 vols. Rome: Tiberina, 1884. Visconti, Ennio Q. et al. La Villa Albani descritto. Rome: Salviucci, 1869. Weihrauch, Hans. Die Bildwerke in Bronze und in anderen Metallen (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Katalog, XIII, 5). Munich, 1956. Wessel, Klaus. Koptische Kunst: die Spdtantike in Agypten (Ikonenmuseum, Recklinghausen). Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1963.

BLANK PAGE |

: Rae iy A ite A BS fogs x + E 5 z oe SG © i : : Rega aS ‘ mans a & JS : RY Wie & er S Te ‘ 5

: 73 By gee. . >det Beey 4. Late: ’Rem YS ae‘ sg AeoS es ose NS eats, mee x pS ns ee AS aaon! anaye AS Fos raat et tte gt:| Set a Sty fe SS 2“ee 7: Pema che ee 2Fhe ay Ne 2Soy, a oy nest %oo N :as Soy ‘Os RN diye Soae -ERaer, Resto SS > Bee tgSERS oa, SR oe jes’is fe oy298 yen ee Saera eas: : cet =ra Aare ets So. th yz © mee Ley :SEA Pee Ste ti ae Pe IPL ENenP Been? 8 Pao oma; S aN BT ape Nt = aeas :. — vt, 3a "aed SsPeer te RR‘& tyMe a& . Lieve na5AS SS SSE ele oe x's oy A eh Ne Neo hee es ios gar | Ak “ Sg ae Ne ES OCG oka > Ee es Oe ee ga. pt OS 4 :Eon ee S. Ses . sore RSA erga 7 oa th: Sa 6 CO ee NE “Sp RE Sa. 9g RRR eR lor) ey i oe Me rate Noah: or ERE Teer Nae eitieSpy SeNee CERES a cae ge PARAS a ised eee : Te Sad site af XS AE HYNy ; eeeMs sae oe eat ere oN RWe coe ut ORS XD aae EMT ORRTENS es se eARaa Soee at

sO \ Bess Ae Sed ee S WN os UREN a, he oe ae abe: Os tes,

OY ey[tren 2oP > fics . se oySV e CURSE: FHS ERS SAE eAcoe Noone PESO EE CC BK SiRAe 5oSS RRS. 8: +e a:ia iRSUX peat Ae sah re FiePye OR te he) ad Ra ae ia ataeth veoS : SES SR BYP > eae papers,

Ps eee mat, SDC Se MR Ce ite let n wean pth Bes aBs ta UTC oe

ERAT & er ie, coh SeayCONG ® oes spun ih SOMELID LF RPSREA ERGEna i et aIO EEaay ; ;Bs soy 5SiieSti waeast Puck Scat ignieee rh, NE Bat gt ils eer ANS ye att% yy POR aahSeu. “aeeene areas of BS F rece Satan anaes a he PG =Sen eeeNS ; Bae Minmb it: ON xt : taeoe. Taek: area e:OF ae 1re, US CRS Ba A4es ROS Apes

SRS aerie.4eS%SU4Wes SS ae Shel ths. Rg ONae “ae anaes nNeS ac erehee Rn a eaters Rianae Wei 9. «Sa 7 Be Oe, ¥ 7,Ai ieegy apGN seh ae POS Par Sta ASY Ooee Nectar *Sees t eas BOY eee 2Be _ae bes, 5 ea et SE a < beet oe ear rs Pie oo RDS ae Sys ES SES aN a we Va Ta pees Sag a TWEE De Hee eg eee Se ee aS MA3 gee FR ae Eoaeyea tere 2co aeaa i ese raacse Fone ae at ts ee ge Seue SBEte eeeTee weno RG ie RS Att cei a i. Ros eS pt Nr Lie BOR Bee Cees b ni ESfae+ a eS 5 of . + RAS ee Ri s Ses aidel Foes oa Ea Saas fentMaey oN Se, |= ee ey Bree a 3SSes e; ty wk = ae Bt Kateegh “ey Se ies Sea #,FE cable >}ee Sony ae La “Ge i tite Te‘gt Seee es rer Oe cc: ~ee 5a ae )Ps r me ey +rae tes im? *eS©ee Seis se aoyA Me esOe +mat=Bee e:Bn am =e - Bei roe pets ig

2m s ene Wee oc. SS Be po oOewes ee Ta BEqa=Baten Be ssBote ee »eeTSee heew= . oy fee on Pee Re oS SS. @ a OoSe, - eee et Bree

“AES Te" sue 345 A nD ASN oa,ee am~SE >RR a wsee Qe 2=She sae& eefoe aes ee eS wore as

SS 2. aSOS, RS seSC wre aoe: ‘o en ae beBS. "ate. 2“SOReSaal'es I | (Nea @ SS pigstn 07Os ORB OS) ee ees “oadk. BES et RRR Pa ae —. 4 ES aia 2 ES AS te eee “ebee reesetRamses ae A ah SSSRSiaecr's B ERO Rea eMC OE: essOyesaeSy AEE OS: me

So ie ; 3 : TY as 4 rae irk ae 3 rf: Sy _ ase Rare = a : "4 LO;

._ rey at # See eweJagr ve aeeee VosDRaventrente eee, apy ane ! oe Ree Bs se cecal reo WHat eerie Wee, ~~. aa ESRemeemcepepae: 25 oe eth|Ee, IEoeBas b SSE BME ere Grate yyy a)ROO CaS eS aptA, RReR DcNarre: Tg Fn ee)a SE shES oN aeCRO San rer*a. BReee a Bes cereert te BF ie 6ee OE ve ae i oeaes r oe ‘stena wa*3saa Pra) ayScPees ;SERN 5 tes ‘inene 3 yLae of ata: ian2Lee =Sees coe pakBISs er eant. oeBe: aN DSTO “0 ee ay eA ce Pate SRN gee Satee Se ees TESS Mah WRa Peete SANE geeness =eS f2ces32 ‘a srr ES aKee ststty SaEES eeBeipgee tte aaae aS ¥eNS Rag Ca eet [RRS ees cues teeASet oe iyeae “Se Se ate a Ee

| ok Ce eee} Re L/D ewe aMas eet Pee “SU ep 5- fetes Ge SR ae - Hoot) Gy “Gee “ae Me teehee ehSe eee,fe ix Sa _Fe ,;Saba meine Scat Gaaeer SrA -.Bi Co Dy sseee \TE & :6eee SO Eee eR oe oF aBO Ui peel: Soke .iSLE bsofa wkShe tees oe Lo ~reed ba 2: any 4Meech ReBas et aaa Wibod tes sae eLae *.¢aoe F2pe a¥

este2RAD Sofas SSE rNo>Ss x -BR a Gl RE at aa kal ! x eae GS Pi Ao pat a “yy id aBea Tite =ES poseahm Lea?ae Reh OLFo eee EN w = ;:aag ier Thy wespeed 2 2 & ech MSE, hc Nate eae ois ups Des 0 Sb Sahn GU 2 AR ES gore ee CCM ME Fa pee ROT REG TINGE A Gs PY Sak a RS ays GEST — —— ? 7 ve SSAA NS ARs a ARS Sony SECESS eae a pay eee Se pe eae #, tes Seater Py SL eeee ap ae eg oe Tdioc eeeeae bemee ee L: ad =3 4Mea Erker naeSRS SRO taka as Sea euma eSe SRheat eRCae BIN te aera Fea eo Ss‘ EG EER = GS RAR TYREea ES Sah TE CERRO REALER RNS STN NT Lette eatens sy ren : , amy out < ! peo nn pom nae. aess BOS reERAS ll 1OR alli Sieshameormame cM eal SNOh78 Sg eyCues a aioe eSparRe ES oader :-#

arSe ee ¢,: aIS et sFis 3( By, “$ axe +4&=. jae or” SS ed Ker -:Sewe “Sie 3iii.Ors she 3,kS- nea éioa y3,v8i.ea ->=Sy xen ; joon Btey - hy a:==r- ‘aa. ™ of .é: 4 f, ‘a :- uy aS,=ha \-:%aa, @ jeyiZe Ah Sec ;=:we :iswe -2———. 20 "Oeae. po ee R cota . Sree Si ashen Se a xs, y&a ES a —_ ;2

_wx, _ ° ; 7 5 7 2——— wR bdesse 3 P J: ea ee5ee exer ae Parree? ee ae hee: aed — “a ‘ Beas ted rN e’ EB GES yc tee a ene q

be ET ”IRE Fao >is a ae aS =: NS =Oe a mS Pe e:nae ie Opt ?== : ‘G es “s oe ‘a SS : >, IN Moe oe 8ee oeaTtBoe et oeMe [6ee =oe: ae ere a=cg eS efeS fi acote: ios “NE dec Pees ote fees fo at 2m one es Eas s.oS =: ye

eX Same 5on: =pas: te seh wy i>“cy ‘Piiag ae aaae, Se, “he. ~ ae yo Bee ys 2. b >Be, “% IUDpeeoae, te secs SRN ee “F '--ySis’ en R. >LFSa. eee. zante pays ee x at ~, ee

Waser hnige Beye Sp be os Sa cai adetbestn Neel PCE kee Oe PERI R ETS WAAR POG 6 1h IBD ote Be Risa aiee En eD nee R EAS SO 9 § atu 8 OT OA a oe tes RT oman enn eo: : 0 7 i 1 i

PSE Seah rs eS D Uae ey Cae Seay Nyse Sire a ij Pegtsresen Ost Rim sen ; rR ee grec ee See se aot mi ake .

se. S-_z Me neeo. P ‘: ih. 7 aw "% BF TN } mat oe , ehfyee SEs I “4 siMy Pe$Se NEE, i,A—— yet a, ,: 4be = ‘r a ¢Spey ie7‘SA;ee ‘Vee oetabe oy a.leeSe S Oe. ;. Raa Set .awae eeaoS cee ts| Bartel P te es ee 2aSee. 3: ee A oe Oe. es & ok. oeTe a4xe eee eeGy SSae& Pinte Pee aesS9 eet Pema -Ghee XS yy. s= iY se = See ee Ts GR Sas Coes ae a os Ne RN sen ASE ORD fey ee AIO ors SHORE TR AE ot Pr SS os em nee NE

isey see at eee,eesora SpiDida HAR. EMERY BFFO po Beae%rea9 LO YS RAE Oe EE TAPROPER 7 bape 1eBo ye spn ; ’ PSS BEI RRS BAS! TY oes Teg a aE, ee irten s Soke Sr!SAN: PAE 4SER Serge te = Ri eh Bing Shyer gahNR + ERPS D Oe TREE eRe ya 275 ese aeeeRhode aeae eeeeeeeee eee oct eeeSee se ites Pe ee oeASEHG a *ae Dey ae. yes one,hoe aoeBREE Fe Gps eekLS cos eine Tas eeESS iedYo Pa eee ee ee Por rgd Face moe OR GOR REE eS eae ee aRES RE SEUNG a SpeS ERLE, BPR REN,dam I READ. Ae=plots t MORSE ARI SPB SNe FRE, BRR GOR SPREE LENIN RN soa aaa oe Oe PRON BAY ER Cte Me aCR STS EE ETHUINE) Din cam eamil ana sA hae Mt py SoU eg es ae gaa Pegs eee Sea rae so aan ae

7 5 a i - ° . B eRe Pt oe Anges nay Pata Sa ot = Lin RRS me stg A PAR ape Be SN ee.

‘ N= 6 . +

2 Mosaic aic depicti scene Phaedra 2. depicting scenefr trom Phaedra itlafstatuette Aphrodite. Antioch, with or Aphrodite. Antioch,M Museum

SS he nee ;

é > * . ” t 2 eh NO ee 3 ii :~~ pF Pd oe ee ce (ea :ee.PAY Me EERAGE Aa ES CR by | Bap -_Ae e: LYE tae POY ooSah eats gz Pe OP ae. od } fe Seg a tg Pe OR. RS :: :*, R wan en ap BET a3: 4 4G pan as ::iee & hy hae ae faethe" pte eer ee oo) RS i aes, tee 3 ee eae A ‘ AMEN: | ; ae ey Y ae 3 ; eee . if ye a ie bi 2 a ‘gah a ¥ We &) em ¥ Sand x é oF = =o : gots ae be Oi f j oS By Bate " MS eae 2 ee Youd

5 ee AY Be Se eonsrs Be. f. ed ,a > SeSaean ‘Wie ea! #~Ty owe PRS ee eS 5a :ke } i qe ge 4 ae g Fe E2725 ; 2] Sakis. oa o el mas >» A erie GE OS Pee 5 % Sie jfod 4 Hee Regt ty= en ee Co gebee, Pp 4past .og eee ey 3 ay cot cains aiadiIF 3 : Dy BAe gAwe aae, ae iaie ¥“2 oad goes § “ Ss |¢; .*:;ait>. a ; sie -~ ; . Ne ae ad z \ide amy aoe . ‘% % =# 7% . “$3 eerie isk as ‘ :: “4 C ae ee + Ets. & a i ‘:Ms = Mer oe | i * oben, meee mag 2 ‘ a in :;Ei ;Byvy a : ae PEN s | ee at : “pend i +s AG: Pe Nn ages HB Bs J ( Lae fe Rn: egy os ee oe ae 3eam Zwo ae wae Ae fora ee: J4Psi % 1+ £ ig £Gs oe. is : s re |xBe “gtd Suge ocx % aa pat Fsg ee. i 4 ees, i ¥ aug ee ie 4 5 % ( # I. ae Chil ae Rees wd es 2 lie . Ree 9 :Bs 4 aie ee he 4 tee sae “Ge ce 3 a ® o Fis a 4 ee SET Sees “re § : SRR oe ABBAS Sits : ae : :>A a y + pore sp ONG ANE Mp Sian). er ee j ae : OBR RB TEE, SRP Re Aa ae : €3SEES we. a tof,25See Yeee ae; ‘ia *peat ah. oe ¥i :Fay 7aaa ug & ee Se -2 Sg oe rs, :Sewer (ha eas ores Ses Ee iema eam —_— }

re a

é: ee5RE+Sees Say ig a ‘ . « {ong pes a ee : age te : Be aia o Says A Riek, nei : f a ag SgMS) ee SBS 3 i fie > ae ie . 4 z eG | emomenen tn, | ys x : ee agate | 4 y i éae gh RS SOR Am OE Be Gare : ha oo ge ie eM a Taal ge F ¥ “ug BEBE) OSPR SIMRO od aD : f ide OE ge Rs ‘ = oad es . i ar ‘ we eT Re aa a Ti GR RE ae) as Paco NS all Sg Pra = % a Es : rs eBe iE ‘x aa) Boeal ee. omei ects eSnS eae acer ie ee *:eecare 5 ae aSl AA BB8usee2aSea ey 9 ye;ceare ; opal gly RS Peet Se eens seg em i a oe a

a Ege si tpn agnens a) Be ag

* re ey a a ee be +4 Be oe oh tye ae fe 4

ae . ams. ee

4‘X-be mek ao < A eae a (AO EA a: Ne4. +cat Cepeda ae.RS 2 aSeale fetesFae nae ges aad bt yo eetcacatthieereneetesaiems ’ & ae hie Pore, cay oS oe np ee poe aeeg ig ‘7 x $f fas % Fain Fi GUNed’ Re aR: ReBeside ok xSctBog

: fg £33 OE Bee a hee a7 z ; #5sree a .Ane : Fs am : “ thy ‘Atm ae Aer sagt ST mom cata eis GRE SE Shes tne aoe a aI EERE TA ed 5 . % ie ft Fi ah y, ‘4 : Mal bint «sini natn tea teeta cael aed Mei. hpi Bat eR

OO" age> AR sia Ris 3 . Bi eens E ; a peter : sae 5 # Re 3 ; Pah Dy Aste :a ra. " z ss by ore 2s z fvig ee!*Ss,"iD - Rach

estes enue ay Se 4 - sokeeesat cc!

+:

. Pertinax. Antioch, Museum 4. Perti Antioch . Pertinax. Antioch, Museum

3. Pertinax. Anti

age eee ~ i i a 1,

LE ee ee SR ok ae rity, ak L -apgpiitt : "‘ . ae ieee bi ._a ae = pe RS eR50ceas

& a ae —a & mag ¢ ye ™ .

i. 3 2 ep pe : 4 ‘ ica os Neecte

mS = Bet Pia= Anis =*: Ge ‘sa te hee = a oS..teeli2 ,an2Es

iL; ;x:Ee oo:2| SA. eee 1... 8SRoe ne 48 52eoeeVwi Pins: Zag ~all ts. is 0ES}ak b =Yaq

;i 5moll aSie. ew 4 = ~ et : ; es 7 5 a a © oe Be. i ‘ ee 4 \ SS i Be. ice . fe 5 , oo \. ae | : DS, ee “4 Y i. aeFRE * gene Re aa ee See REESE ey eee ——— :2 Re : ee ay soeeee Ce aeOe - IBrae FID ae ~: — = esiike / Biber Seas ‘ i — “s See a Se qe ge = B ere ‘a hie a ae 5»2oeRee ae

3‘ NL oe ;ae BeareSe = iw Seas Pn Se goesaeset SS ee St err é ; iesif 0RRR EE ae at iS eee ee er a ee es * = if in ie —" _ Fae > Be eRe eS ae. es Boia it See een ee Soke — peer bs gr ee, Soe: F a ee ee in. aS ee a aia i aR Z AE Se ke Hae Gees Sn in i Si eos a te Sf “{»s —

: SYS Se eatae See OR pom sce Tas, RST ean ice eNe y JAA Res ee ee CS

Fe Ge Ng HOSEN fax an zh ; oe “Ri: SS geet

F 11, : =

Bat see EN 8 ors ees mel oe ae oh ERAS hebece Se ee CEere ae aN NiPe? mae=. ROE fen SoEE eoerrr re eae

LEBER RE ON cc RS poe a ete Shee i : ee & oe

/°©

6. Pertinax. Rome, Villa Albani 7. Male bust, from Smyrna. 5)

Brussels, Musée Cinquantenaire >

f;i5vols 24a& Joe oy . : “8. alt ate Py Rep f 5 :ET gts bane a Bk aS ye “ 2 ? ua \ fleets ae ey Pec fia ap secs > ry { é Be 4 3 : : : SM * : 7 fo a é : ; \C gee SS Re ‘ wo." km =. = d ae. es ae “eice os NARI ect Se Ste eo aby: : Les Meas SS Se :we . ’ ae ye faAee, Sy fe eehe’ ie:Te 6Be ee = =-Sie SOE NE a.I7" : ee apt 4&.es pal - “Sta "fé/By 2ofj A. OMe RS ie hag Pe‘rr yee S| :i ee WRN Bas

Se ee eS Ul e = ' Ae aN mea VS

en ; Oy ae,8aePEELS iy a” ea : 4 ae R %& x of %¢ BeNA Se » Rr ee aon ‘ DS Of By f +N a ‘3F if# fot Padi PS eyes: a6anes, gd5Se ,ieayTae 4%, i eee \4 fe 8. .,‘7i, }>,ief73 ig otBeas taahBY fj Ce Be / Reg Yt. o,ER Ieage ek 4a b.jtfa :‘ 3ou $,ae ’ bk Me 4 oy Ce. dg POR oO + ie i pa . sare NS .“: f*adwi y Mit Crt. Beat. a iiete. a Ee: j ~ Rae RO, es ie oe. aS ’ i y F ae ae ;Sak Ps BRAM S 2 ‘Ee i See. 29 ea — . ” -. ie } < € 3 § on So Na oe Ue ok fe we SPA Gon SAN a ie : Pe BA ee bs fas Oy MS uae OE ee:Nei OOtye Pa? Ge a; hes j = eo *“ee ~~if19 aaae | ,3a Oh Se ML maha se ‘ . . eae Ee ya ID al RL if RO eae 3 ae * a rk aA%~ 3| ye eS 5Dut RYfe eSi2,ioa |5OR! ia 5 ; 3jgaitees a aeif re*fe© ’ “Wee : ‘ Tes :

Ue a ee ff Om is ies : : t ( aS 8

oP eh ag =. & 4 > i 4 ee eT Om OT ge ee iS ee ee 2! if 3 i ¢ ye Ae ee a a y : eee a ge, a .. Se LS Pat) ho ™ ,; Nite 2) bes & >)%: yi *&4%J i3 ce 2 TSM Mei2 sShes es fies “a 5,sé4i,ie steae ae. ‘iiae Se v. : bs : ifbSS 4>,ee: ts. Oe ‘ q5CM eee ee 3 a ‘ | os bie Re a a ; 4 } tain eo CY eR Se TR 4meai So oeoF MM EA age taeSe Sain te? o> Ai, a sf DEae ° ee ue §ic. 2 si© | :‘an ; 4mae ‘Sige eee 2agge! oN aes 4aaFane am & 7 Ae LRT hole Rte Ag é ~ ’ é > Aes Oe tee ei pf :Be , nigGg ae 2nese j Loef ad —— “ =SS c=‘%es. ai : Rey i eager 8° eaeypiers ;fFe AS , i;: 2t 4 er ae f J 3 ee a é % : y ee ee = * Cre ¥ Are ses ene fee oe z yo # he a j : Soe” : a: . ‘ . Ps toyog “eenh 5 aeRE *) :z447 oe nf fee . Te. “e ee . NySy Hywk e. ‘% Vyreb re . 2« t- é~ . ca f Se © | Ripe Py’ , i Ste?Wee 2 lo; Pr—: : 3SSAS : a ames Se =. Se ~ :See. Ss Al 2 Lape & iees “ee_Soe i J E> hs rd &¢aue 4: ;a€ 423 ai~ae, 4 eiyfen _ “eth BgSes a fe — See Paeer ai: i :Jon a Nee th pfaBwef ABo 4 ¥4tie GaSe ee v4 aei;a: pe ;Thi Pace sepes Se eee is 33 TERS 20B athe aPS Loe | «aia See & Be /eee é 2eid ae:oe. a #ea: 4 ah a Be: Se ‘ Oy Bei ose” Sak

1 ee! 7 ae @ es? hh ei “ a ee

e..e..

34 oy °-i.4 ee ee ‘& a ie Sd ai‘ty aa er: ;5 ‘ys *q 4< 5: Me A saecié + *, ~_ ~¢ &ay re 4oe4 : ia :‘same ::in"eeieoe 7) ks eee ee eo | , Mea ik mee ; de’ ¥ * 3 3p a Dik 5 3 - 3 u on a~ *% -~ we ° § Se. Aes a ye < ie “4 ae AG 4 ie eres = ee oa a ; Pe he She See S At, te pes ies te Be ger ee a pie “file a a "3 eo Nee Sta aee ioe ee os Pa, ee a ke OO OS . ‘ea ee ie eo ES a ee Ge a" ~%2* = FF ao, a, ceoe ae oyaS eee ere > a ae ie a. Ss eeoe .gee 2a we oe ee sprem eg cn Aoe. Se aee Xe ae, Ee Se épene xcfs oie Oo eeeeOG 4Bee as * ee. (i, eee ead oe ae oe Se ;% tease. Sees bee ee iaes eae eeEs Mee| F*f Se TeenAe ares A ogOe & a .ges gee Coat . ae £%. Pi % 4 € es “ae ae &. ‘aes SRR ew Be See Te 4% tas ;. ey, So sscsenaeeSS a? Re eae eeili s4Fsar,SRS, osSs aagene Pn Sy a ou yak, hs. ee iue ae Se. Pe BeCoBeg Se a=ae ae ae :a. ~, oa : ee iu“ ee oy xe oS ee Pe Bee SE Se , oe. ve N i ee 4 , seo 3 “Ek a ret ae OBO 2 Fs Oy i Ee ™ + . oan Tae sae Oe OF OBS oo pen o/s

i, RS ee Se er

a. ae a aa : ee far SEI og SO Nc ae o>

¢ ae . P z AT i “kYork, A : American x Oe : afNumismatic . ° = | nage 12. Coin. :of3Gordian III. New Society

LP eda tl ane a8 : Pe Ze. PE g fe ; ¥ g é hr Set * dee : : se al a seyret si Ke

oe SeNa :; Fyiki¢ ¢ : -mo (Beek oe E ‘ ‘ Pas. y i fs E i ky : } oh , ; , ; ; .

y ‘ z P Ph ee fffF}P26 4J |BE >j‘ SME eae. S; :‘: ;‘, qt f ,f4g pit. : a? iF ers ‘ Uhl bk Bi ; A 4 oD se 8 i"i2 ‘,ee,Ss aeay ‘i p ¢LE ‘ azsSh Ny VAR 4-Shes he ger Lie BH ie ee fake Py FsKee os ‘canes ~ ae ew Weng “f z t

A ry BFAk ‘ ‘ fdh a i]4‘yh

UES) BP 1S" oh) ae ae ae ts WR.

ALE.aeisERS as fi Tee a pews} eesBF i Se - ' e ; AAhye e 3huartaagee Ses po og bs ; SF eet OPEe fh Vin yaa96 —" ee ae yt > : aS 29 J

4 ‘i fr ae E F aGar 4 AY itm o> je es £cv & ; wx we — Ds ‘i « :)ie 7S a ee \ ; A adh, Fire ga! oh 4}: Me io ee “ties \ inde 7be Meh oserRAS Cee See Pete ars ok hy fy Aee aey ioe. SER a Leelee ah “4Eee eri oe“6a Tis geeaor (ak Dewf. ae SS ay Bue es Moe «|eRe ara 2aBay Mie ScaS eee, Ba 8Oa ee BhY:tg aeeae eeeee SENG os orBeeps mRa isc Sea PEN fo.ioe paeae Ryoo aime ceeUd Rear. MES oS: eee AE BN NEB : &&biHee cee * a Sas SONG ne j eGR NeOAs fer ce he Ko Seeee«a ate Ss st aSoSee ERTEetee

4Pwas oye. eee, Be ee halts ee Pr Sai. 5 i ae 3 RUNS pee 2s _- ee ‘see eerae ee aan AGEN ae . a s. wtf Bg no See Syed < eee We bon Soe ge a iia ie Pe el A. Ferret rate ae iVER : SR eA GROMe eas bikosWei 5? Oe Ro ieealSS os RES 3eeCe ee (eePitra Be ESRD bel Saat phe eont. noo eS cae ee ests BOT aEes a gcies setacots oe Sefee ed Mee Ree AS a eecal ae Py y a? SRA ee OES seesSSRee ANESERAG te asense i ee eeie SINE he te, See btnSSE ci in ae re te rahalee en Vey Patt

Dak one aes a Wane a) SUEY cay ete uy Se ea 4 < See é res ats sey) Bt oi Vick ane) SaSA Bieewee, ite ae rah SNESat abeEe RBA Beee Ee a weenie SRP REah BeeRe ee Be Sa #)a4 y i:914 Pee8sa ia Lt>OS : PME eteriek Ws Ss some eS iFae Pe ' er 55 fei er

Re cae ti" See i Sees f.

aS MS, oe eee. ¥ fies can 8 a RO Wee ‘ BXa Saeeaee, aS we) ae

aN 3S ésCae ae Bey Bay, by eeApe ees Sao, ia,aeSe Y 4ie ="Br vy .fwe kek Poe se RD Feb sc 25 eae | 3 Or eS aarieahieee 25we 2 oni Ric. aR eae AS Ty ‘ es Oe Ne on ae AROS Soetes Roe Syke \ het i We

Me Nac Bese a Os ey ic eer(fit a sropes SRO Sa:aeAE ap

aiest;te‘ee ; esa Rees BF Spey 3 See ee 5aeREL ES ee Gam

ee Beat 12 peesEE Sek {: ee ~ peste

Bases, ee“4 ot i2Lise eee a Se nae ree is Ok ages °g ee Sp aaBy te Aae ; pete

Boa be Wee econ: 2 : : ee :

aeteee ee Fae ee‘ Pee hs Se Se ie , ; =) © AN Se oe AR ae a ai i an, x i aa :. ao& a 2Saaee ae PS ete ‘Ciessbs=i n ie x ae

°.

t Nags Ae - : J t, 2 ?

i 2 re Se a s Ross S Bae :*2 2 os emis A ee ws: ‘te Tew. ge Se nis i

14. Gordian III..§Sofia, Museum

ll oh Peheaisss : ’ aulel ro ON iia ge : Pe. Ss Sree jheee Sp : Bi rail oveRy tilt3% i “a: ep oS eg a vie ~~ WE. a a. ‘4 chiA Be. is Supe % 3 = * aea2 . caoe: 0% 7 apa ca .ggee3 (ae h’* & eos SS : 4 i oe ee gs, ™~ we ke! ,ee sae 3 Re ‘a on ee ee ‘-Y *=bieaan Brat Re aea ‘ee wi aLe SA Gin ote “q5ns rea.QR. talk i ie Fs Bren :se wt -% BsNRE a oh ea = Hae) goss: aeae SS .eS ee ea E:se pe a&es==z Be) tee sx=’pie a Pred pa ae

es iw ie > ey _ Po a ge ee Mie eer eS ae _ee = ST 3

=oa sic i*a"esiee ae. ey a Ys 15Rn, seat CEI .ey es &ee OE Mae eoere NN ayBe eee Se a ees ae ie ae EY : ES aS xtca eeRk: x- FR Ss ee de Pate ,Baow a—_ hh“a;’; ae ee ee oa So ga Se . ame ike Oe ae MER AS a Nee Bie | SR . AR eo 2, baie tSSees Sock any a, ala SE eens testseis sit 2a :So eae Ren Se. |aNR ry te Me oo aR aJ a.‘ayx4 ,a Se:tsityzee Rae he a ig me SS. *So Gh a es “es _ is Beaker EAE pane ae. ose Ls ah | (gle. ee oS .

i ieee Be aye RS as ee . *& ne -, ty Sew ea eS Oo ae i. a/R a he a : '

Ral oo Na Ee EY Opa — yr ‘ Se hays £5 aYG eeee OS Pe tee sh; See eee be ORE ESS, iy See : cs ig {Ped. rs. % a Sones bee ge 2 le Se SE a ik eo ra ; mar, Og a or ce fe . i . ae Re esc ~ A spe led a HSE conta ee ey sj OS ay Rie: Sear te” 34 =e 4 bce hi: tas 5 poe x iS ~ 2a —Ry SeGe ans Says eR ersea“ORR ee ar a 3 aaa 3s:bo —sa < Bia . “Sh Seeee ie aSee oS, RRaM agetece ONS SRR ER*Ne OR A aeealec 4 SBR es ae Aes: be xs 3: .. & . Se SR BS ee ee Ain. a ae a yh Miege Hague he RE REN a sal :5 4g vt ey CARNOR Ee aa Pe daa eee See DRESS “ha Se ae ae a et EE Trek me Fecrics sag ae be , ia ; ets "7=,immer oe Sakae aAy JSps ESSs ae F ae)aeA: Perec epee GS iS Rah PracSOR Na Te Be g n ‘ aa = b as aes>. ae Sree aa $ oe oq- ae Oe Re AS eeWe gs Sete Ty eae. Nee etwah hy 3eea:Ce oe3 ea aeSaBeige) *. RR lee ieen oacla pea % B's

ail : te Te eRe aR ee % Pe. yy a Se RS a tad oe i a

:rer.4y_efPySe SSS ORS. ro tae Bo ee : 4FiHt ees Oe ahh Se eg ees See cseaie Shae dae ae OBI a ee ogae© traoo RRO ye aeBe sR Gy, haee as Rat esOO ee psa: aa ee Say avec acon Wane: eats es %a2ee oShas te, Bae Se tic aeeee ek a“NER Sere re ae opee RR SES Se Bee SaBiaaies x PS, >eh anese oie=2eke SS eae : =eas er Be §aes 44 ‘ees 8asTas og ke ay sen naeBe ie. i. ee S(aSERRE Sa Sa “a fs.oe3ae WS Oeaemats. oy: “eee Re [ae aSee ie SBS VRSRS Ae re wv. ay as awo aRe>, ~PeA eet eee ase ee ats e Me ss ayia ee 5 aoe ae ei

Be) ee Os ae CORE ee a a

“SSI eg GOA RORY TIS

::, »Poo “Oye eae rae Si soa ; aass kgs cea: — Milas ig feiss pegs

saa oS ee ee : PE Bo, ede F SOF TI es ee 8 a ae Se Fem ears ty. Fie:Aepe tap Map Bs nae. ; ” has 2 i eames eee ame : s 5 P ey oe Peach AN eas gos 2 i. De ho ape Bae on és ose BS Sots ‘A ; . &. . sin, ee. tg Savages ‘ ee ~ 5 ions eedion 1 pee rt }

~ as , uJ pc “Se = ee U8

, ne: rae eo oe Ses eer : ia Seger 4‘me fae hg, Re EES RI a ae : 2 r * , NAS De Ui Sico 6 iN alee Ah ONS AA et > ie ae cases: ER Re See eae Fie 2;eat een esssaes oF ae!| aoe sae $view ¥5SOO aie

-a ‘ae e 4 ;vate , et / tl SEF Be wp} 7 mah f :. ieraeé¥-*7:¥jebye é3lbi M f Fine A te m'“fof yar 2, = eee Pos Ae

" i — Ey, 17. Balbinus. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts

>. Pg i

Se ae as a we , Ai ES * ao . a £ 4,8 * eZ, 4 :aea g Se otig EF mal Be*aa di onal pee eas —_ aer eight

ace Me i ut eg copa st j : ae itee, ee Mae a re 3 ee Se coal oe oe See i)es. Sen ‘ela em Ree: ’3: pag a i ae aaie ne eet : eS , ete. * ae Ae

Remoe MeN ae SS ‘ vo oe Oei33, ‘ me 7oe Yhtial P Ssiaiala BP ¢

$A -; ‘ 1 ESS CMRI ee SFY

see: 2H

i;

4 % edie ¥ nin . %.

. yet Be }, 5 ee be er ae Saale Sale 5 tea facae Pe 53 a a eee ee : : Yo Be igs > a 5 Be. en > F aie a RRS eae res : Pris :4

‘ar otah * 534 aRRS liaie \ eePsaigSS Oe he a e3 ae a.Tee a #3 Pees eG tees é Bee ‘ne ce oes ee We ye ee ™ Sa _- See Pee ss pee ¢ é soe aa eg pee es is ie % PR SAS ect. eet,

Gay ae osa2wile Se eeu Se nee ee hae 6ee4Be “> a. xos yee Be seg ere een eee oe a BP ee ae anee

a TO re

q y q = Se peace Pe M 3 * ea Bane thc aco we. * et ge Ss eer OGpats pteBaran EROSFREON eeGat ee Re 4. eee {BeeGG Siete Seat& : tre Tie oe oe Seeos, Lae eey neneee: a ae E‘:wo. eaehehe Be Meee He ie@ssSR © be Nie Seer ieap3 «|

PRE e fe - ‘As ect ee ’ ts pe = ‘ ee a BRR Re Bi ee Res is. Wee /

es, “s Be oe Bi a Keep % ee 7 ty wie a‘ — syme ~~ateid ie 3Gees oe SS et .oy ; es: ae

~_ / - My ee ee

— ten 3 Reece: ‘ % Mec st 28 3

ae ES BeSind 6 (OES A ees? 3 2a4aeons a oe ae ibs, eee a a d 3 vie ‘ Thal} we A ae ofa eS iE: é & Nara $ 4 & sy 26 ei a : 3 : - ; g bai BS sk . ae ;: x

cone ae S “) ;ee: a, Y -Me aa Fe, etPs tea: :: : ee ea _ Age eg tg, 9 ie oA ty 5 Brg a hdneaee ES on ey } Le oa i ~ aaril ba Pi Say ers 3>: 4=g 3 1ek es tfinn * cahewes oine, aoe eaoramen, - hoe a aisge >aae! ty3ae. g ataaes ReGT Pee

eee yee. GeeaDJot Folin BS Et e/a |-‘ 2a aBo : aeefinoee uae Se wa is -::; ve‘ Bie is :ae: Sy, >: es it 4 % us on y fu te 43nee eae ae P ea eS | aiaoe ,oS :me Pe Bey 3:| ee sip ee = es :ieet}, ae = Se — rs‘ ar ~ ee ‘::.::seer 5::3 ae :etRo (i eS ~~ 1 oefee aeke “)a me ieeS :3*s‘4

car aeeet es 5Meee ai eget. oar 2|e BREE a bees oie eewas 2eogia: ee 2 ic S| SES” SE: aeAS 3 erOE i \ zi ‘e .Ay( SRA ee eS ae. Sees :

snap LP pee a aah tafe RE i 3's yen 9 hig Oa ¥ Sak ers, ve : Sas i ¥ “ ae oF ar ‘ieee “3

a i ~ Re “ . r _

HERA AES ot Sen BERN a oe “tes a . 0 NE in eR RI a 20 ae x
PRB Oe Fy TR ey Bee a ¥ A a . r : “yy Pr & oun oie A KS Reon a. A er eet es ih, } Peed See yet ES > eg are. res Pa Be es Boca eS Meee 6. je A 8 er . *: S “s i f a ¢ oe stPee ae) Pet eeve pe330-7 - BESSOS ae atk ro ES a iRIM “o,f nsPSN, cee ate SY ess Spay ree :on Ze enSn iity yee ty heee e; iwee I 1Sa4e Pop i ck a coe Ga. als 8 A ae ge we: oo ea Bt eae eA eae ae :a oo ; of. A SS I 5 th ie eee, n ® 4 ee a rags PS eee Bb ee Oa ap: Sy. .de eke: |Bia eee :apene Be Se ete ae ot i ae < hy Beive x éa2. ae ic5 La ie wea * et Pe Bt *9shesae sene eytage, 4 *4 : ae es ook pts i ey wo E4 ie et ie Ail p¥= Was, My ? Bees ay * i Ieee ana a 1 gale 8S Atel Neg Pam. fe ge SR e , Pie . : ‘s ae peg ¥ gee Saye ee Re gt Be St eee eo ee gh. gs acy: Ne a ae se te Zi , 3 2 ‘ 2 2a

We Gime Be TS od ee ” oo ieee. oy AY ell

PY ea ee Be Pea ok mi Lee tes GPO Oe ae “ay Bett

: =’ Shae - ‘ : wes ra Go Aare, font reae3 heat : EpioBere rea:UO Pe ideea bag z ae Pe“et Oe* 9gee : :re2ae{ eae ‘oseope Fe Sloe fe ee ee [peer aeeee wieerPe: 1k ee;pigs Pt pe fe es 7 See oy Sead Saf 2m: +7% i a Fn 3|

ey APD 1g shPa ilies eis aay) ;éBes ‘i| pir aeBe Ba ees Ye = : eee : :AAG j ~net fSe ,4aor ,rae Bak Wie TL aEe =ake el 5st:Ale BeFee eeees ae Sad a§ 28 Sr atSSS atOe Saal poe — “ha ;GS zeae ae Eee geese F es pede to Se ; fa SS OLS RRS Mag 4 éa ,fry, Put , r Pi emo shoe A BREE fe rien soaks Poe ig “io = fs ‘ ¢ 2) Aire Py ee \ ; : : Bache 25 et wdiin ee tS enbd Se 2 ey ee é. 2,eee ma Pe =. ee: WW vk te eek, si :« :Po ae ‘aii Be .23 oR ag Sie oeaoo: Cs vane ec. Bah £3 ee “Se Re = ieshes oeaeBee qs pe Ae »:rsee mS Jne ee,% aes: oo Eee iieee ie Be. ae2:’en Bos

i‘Te og 7a 8Ria 9eet et 4Mes $2 Re Oh eaBai aeeGea esFes re Xr nied :(f 4iea?we rh& sree As s See afpees Meee Bdee a ears " * ; a 4 eg taper 2

ah Ca iF Pp 5 Fs es oe in pa oon y 3 “sa ; jd ae & 1 oe : a ; SES ag ee Gt Jonge) Sie ae o a. : “— os ‘eae: ee ae,a @ ; aod Re ; LEN Sis — ee ee a. AS ee ¥ wee e MBE seh eeavd wk ae Bay Wate ae G rsa cc >:aee — ieseeeee hes Sig are — ’s wet 1 ‘Pe aey eSSee saecee atee ;ae.ee o(a— %, 4

wa iaSera pee oeitSO pee eit uae Fd ’sts. af As es ~aaeoo con ae wee. aks“dy wes ;, +. ~ tie Ey eeeaa ge r eu os ES apse age. © Sees a5ae Eee : ae a9eeea Paks Bt SS & &ee Sa ¢ Fs ae ‘we Sg + ee ad eee oi aeetaae pO eS Cree Sars Ape fy j ee nee, ee AaGs o , Pe teal ; — ee sae a pea” Pas : 4: r% as yf ae ae a . —— —_— A aes ie SF o NS set ee f ay A he 3 ue a S. ae > a. — 2? ies ieee BS) ; j pie LS, Sees eS d3 1 eee PA Be a Bien % 4 » @ , : ee ees: age i f iG oat 2 FREE. Ree oe 3 E ae Re : : 4 ore y > : : i , cd _ 45 a 2 ROS RF ; ' Pete Sete iy os eres 4 ce : es, rn 5: ae, iee;oihee po: a.2We ee %ae aes :ae Pa 58. etic bee. en og oe ee «aejae 9Ms eee .eg 4,ae “aEOS “:2yes ieS TS BE a eae ak eee Fhes P 4tga ff. =‘alte Se FAt => Oe fie St fae pie se Bes ey aei. ee : ae jal eee ay ieg ase 7ee ae -ERS Aaa os ay | 3EOS oa eaf 2at aeSRR :% ae 7 oR, ea EEee ae aS

, %Syke ag : Sr aRoper. +ee gil"yg So we Ee ae: ,aee**Pete ke te, PORES hares Wate ee: kas ads: ges aee oaRee aekuri:aire 4aoe we eS On Meee + ave a Pty 2ager yy jTEER. pace ‘ile ics = Boe ee: :es Fe 4h gs ee eae Oeaes 3eeaoe yr e-~, Re ae ee i * tee a 3 3 a oF ele . : salt a GEN Aa ee Seen Fre . seers Reearce. Spiuur Ps i 2 fe » eS 4 >. Se} F Ee -4 eee. Bee ST eee Recker oe Bae or és, : ae i oe Pe oe te # Roy weet ~ 3 SSale 3 ; 3 7 z eee ome peas ae ei Ere Ske pa amas cat cre Da IUP -)

be beer~ se is : ite ic. :;«Se Meare €hkaeSeana ae Ps :ax eee & See se1 A pad zeeee Maes aad 5Z 3Vy er ese ches ecoeee|24 ‘@ ge eBast Me PAN om ? ad ¥ if i. %5 is. oe Pa BF q .: aeésKff ay F #aymeet ee¥,*x: %Mi

sis Heats aaa “a By, rrBir vas | >2a1bt ‘ie 5Sexe ;r_a. PIE picts AOS a“Hie *a“4 =n~a~’ss 28 *; a Be ae wage ‘ jon" im 4‘age ae a‘ oe bets ~~ 9 ee ¢ me am xe “Me ” i t ok , Gea é ~ 2 aA i, iy ‘ ‘4 e ; = ded | eee ie = oh ree, eae . & pS 4 \ TRE Se Sexe Ae “< . tx “ o $, cS " . é oe 2 . 5 ae . 4 a ca > eo &eee eealay yRPee. *me +? "ae tay: on be~see ‘oe B%= 2 ny i‘es oeee ?**ae ab> -i oa f i a5 et 7at5tha ae ge d 4A g es ‘ x i 7 . * FETeas Oy time” ne Ae23 &»Ky iea Be SR s. is ae .=:‘i Pi ee > pare Tar a a ea z‘Bates SAT Beever Ce Te é: haere gee Boe ae ee ~ Aea —a Ree, ih" Ra QD 5 , ie. erg eee ‘ie ie SRS Coming a. ae eS ad OG foes ee Ayn :5g ee “ee : rn ipae abe fe iY B Mae Gye ? 4 — » Go lads ‘ ‘Se a4 2 EES se ~ oy 4, 4 E ere iain ; sy xis ¥ \ ieee , mere ited 4 bee ee e ok ; es “ee: . Dee La a Ca=

c%: xeeesia>es eG —" < Shp hy aC3 teeSere. Rs Soe fs =gk aaDenk, eee MA, ag Bc ‘aaite ASees es ae corte enable RISE Meg? sn RS eeZ nw oe ees ent ae Bi a. see eS ig ag rn Bg igie! : aaa }Etat.:aySee :aeBy VA ee e :xPRs wey Books £. & ATP& ih &£ # oe Nie a ¥.Se re Pee Diet ER SonyRA " et #) *aeak. 4 3 ce aS ee j pee. es & SEN & x SS Berea, i eq esCS cw te: ‘4 - aie el ; Ay és

s\ 4% Me ok. — ,ina| LL. ae +Ns ADE Prete Wane coe OS, iesCEme ak Ae oa :hea JAG ,{ LOE ACG Ma StS(es, >| anne rf4od

ee ae es Sey . oe #3 5] AK #. xeS NNayes a Fs ; ae: eS (hg aeeeerecee oat‘om SS: iE ‘eg 3Re < RS CieNe : j. ee tiPZ Ev eters ERnSELT Me Goh oe y jet me:SaeePEARED >.: Leese GReteeene

Fee Peeoe enee ae: aL, ce Sn aihor Gok IDh POETS r¥ Fae AS Wad Saka. ES ne eS 5De Se oes BRU 3SS :}; ' a GORE fee ee ae Hib Se ae ie pa aeERLE sb hs eee eo yes Oe eeeid id“> Use aSs he a.ariat Berit 2vs bed, RE shp. certs Be raere. Pay ah * By ae Bg bee ey cr) te2Peo haTitcbaae OPN Reet : en acy. te UAL ea Tecg I,ERLE xea SRPL: CEN ct ie a ae eS. Sighs aSe aes Ss=s Seana Ro, REY a; inte. ieFah % ta tes eee Me wi Site ype *} e238 4Ey 5BSPa ‘ap Seee esnt :SS Set iigee ra eae % y-7 Gee "MA Seles i ey She Te Tiled ere Vf SRE SER eeege errs 6 C “te ete i he oat SS ARS ae Ae, ;,:i5:¢ aie ; PY ‘ciie ereOEY 3 iSad AER LBL CF 7 Le eh ReSe NE aeSetShe A ny iG eeeaee . Wa Sas Bae £8 eke wh EI eet SIs Ne, tots 2Sete . ee SE Soagy gisieSih ae cn 3ay =, aSRG OE eZbe oe ee Pat FEAR WD. ba Be: Wise sl fr 4Ay dh FN yet 5ts My SP eee a eee oeSes ee ines S =asset he eA OseMe al a“SNE as FS y BY et =x: Bie. as RA ences 2) hey “ey yes » ARES wee See La peer ie be atspet: fayae ‘ Nor > A : en Bre eh acd 5 eT Se ee pF x: yar -§ toe at KASL Ess pit Ee Se io SBP!

eo ts Bhs “o3 4 Sah Wok od. ig 3Tie 2bf SAN See aRe RA eeoie ReSE pete “fsgs es eeRoe OF RDF eer Tcne %ae AK > ace UGA PP ges *Sara hs ERS oy airs we :-‘de Kiss 4s Pee eee oye 2i,Beet ae oan go iate ar Th eae fiag Ya EthFao TP wp oeBe hoes

He £4 ® Peeks P:teak nd ee ® ieee Ba Pape ON. : PR arae Ros peers, Tite vila

NOR er (eee ee CES. ek hee " me, ae. a NS a are PR OE ee ge Piel CR ae “ ae kt Ae «ee ee ae a ot Nose Bilin SS Bs ree a ere 5 ie aS

ele ae DEERE oA 2One hg Wh Nel Shee ae ee ee WN eg >oat. Weer tt >. Mes SS ee” Spe ieese eee ea . TE toe 5c% ~ie ae Be eeER | ce PaaS paint pe ee Sel eRe esta SN nae oa ON =70 :Ly reas iTae reaoe? oie aa dhe i x2) et. Ae § ee ee fee ere Sip Re Pe eet Es Se os Shc ey Degen ote Ag Se : +4, 2abs e.‘Wry siera gee FPP ster Bee) i,eA oN: Me 2ARE ae grhtecn’, rae VE Ae: sees ae Ra a‘Fae pT a BS ed SSa Ce: ee aiw k 7" ‘ ¥ “J = %4:

CAN\y WSa Sis bey ie CTs, ee ‘ vot PdteVn haVL+\Vee Eza >Waa ee2Saefs 7 \ tn t Bee = *nee ~~ f ;3 Ly siete ‘. Se Se rg Seee reuy % eee 3 ee~~ ssee.ae es, #. ya fae halla eeF; “mis, iS‘ ©ca Xe Si oS ae y : a ore = eg : SS ~ ~ ‘

: “ Bem ea “ " th,

24. Medallions of Tetrarchic period. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts

z ‘4 3 : 7 s as ; f. .

Tee | eS . k ¢ . a : y bit s 2 aanil és a * +f? le imesh ; . ‘ ‘ aes it ala iy wv 3aad . Bae. S Of, pt * . ; etTE ress 7;hy%,* oF" aw : )=somg TeeeFae oe gate ice = Capt ee ‘ 73: fs(tgSeb 3to7:&OF %7% ~_ oo nin oe = { kot ff tf. Ps) Py ” hae A af te . a. ys Sea

Ree ee Pe J7aeae aePETE aoe BsSY4TSN

ee?aaS aecees ‘:Dita, eee heeig eeooh oeyr YS H FERS AVA i ers i: _ eoae bases wear e's ~+ pateede TE CO apes Nandy oY yea) apne on ER ek Pe Se os ae Sh Mae %. oie 4 ers a

Aad ae— Sir ie Set? alga OO ieee ere ; ey ae the Se le.Gd te Acie BEL oes (aee Sos %Sh 5 Pte Kn cen Niet ee es wy Cm : ; s . n' * re, "ee €sy ares ao a en” ie “a oe, Hig nh a Mek ae eee eee es a, ‘ 4 . sk ey ee $ Foe ~~ = 7 + a #6 ae aw poe a. E ail % ‘e ; ? > ee 62 a : Se ee oe iors ge a Si a x ‘ Dian a ne dee disk 05me Se

::.3head Ga ae ; aa aa “ o » . E £ pee © im oe ¥ a ~ be. i 2S, i. ‘ +4 Mae Beige gh A 233% “ a ; Fe a Sg A ’ FB Fe" ee a 1 RM Fone Ce OCs i ees cea Be Tay eseee ae2Arid Se Beee>: of ‘ ie we ae ie se a. ‘Mes _ ig, aFeee * Sa ; eS ea Sas +zsieeaincigucicanraa Seas ;“) ay fapf rigwe " 6OS : “Sige e— >ag &ea>«.. ee ts ee Pee ageey gern a 4 : boats ate %aodiFps F: +ke &eo Se de ee * Gee ene 2“fieRSS = Sf :ae ee ee a : is ageRis ae AK ee TAN cose ere ? a~ie Bish S a ee sagx oe SheePo Catia iesadele SG LOS ti f

:' a; ;3mr ee: ae ee ee ere ee i eee ee i“iBa ; Siac F Sos jge ee Bat ee ~eee GR 7ee AE ie A GS “ a;eeaeSS ge ge oeaw pe ocaea —

eB ee Ee tae eg Res a 9SF Feoak E. eeOP ee Oe em ana. *Beg pie, Me Rot a. 36 Sey f*asions — ?ey Beies é a:Bera, 3tePbk aer, ay oeietat, pee ae nm”hate & - oe « Pe oe i=e pe reete SoyNE ER htt5 od wi cee, ee i eeiarama 2etityBe a aysSabah ee Bes ‘adLb fees Paes ie ee) as é - i a ; ec SG eae fs Oe 2 Ke 4 he “a %; x Pe Wtmioei e Sars = 4. rae ag sae x FAD 4 ree .

Oi xe, ueubee . PEG ae :iene 4[eet OES ue: fs ‘ a :¥% es Mee oe, te seg! er is Varo te CER Are oN, Se ae ae © “s by Oy 4 ee tg ria . pit win id ORIEL eS ear4 P» pss tat ,ee gs Se tn ons as ee . eee tick Aiea t US ee _ * = é x : Beenie a eat Anse eee ae a os APES ills A. EE ESEa tae See eai:Vieake ia ; Ol, ~a 4rats re Rees neh 3 SyTs ‘ee 5 Pee, “any 4Pie ~ aoe Rae 2“Seg nal, =~« stas~~ ics i.Tip er te >’ ~EAT ,Cn | .,7;eeBe fd ro aReeR :a;Jali ~ 4meme ae Rt Sy ~Aa, ie re=etiRE: se 5bs .f .: Ne ;2A ~ ~ Me Ny tee Bag ae om le FAAS BS as ce IBag :=z aoe)! 4> f‘3 A 23ia rs{4 ~~ :yee —a. ia owt ~ a e EEO v4 ~se Le a 4 a ” “a J hos See ia aes id, * tS y + 53 e es a re f al Etim Pk A Me ae eS iy = %, ey ¥ 4 " Bae 4 sa “ § = fe Ne ike tee (re Se ay 4 TRS * j : ¥ as of % . yy eR ode | eS Ce _* i beet oie. um & " “ P xX a ist. 2 uae ae ¢ ee) a i Pr *s :—s \' a, ’: 4; a; P Ae -s as : Lee eae Be aces os: FS. Shou ae2” ge. AWs jSS eeae‘ate 1Y7%. aa ‘ ‘ 3 as ae K: eee: dis pens. pet Bs ee, . ee Se

Se Ree a: . Ss Pe aERG hee pet de i Petes Rik OE rs +5m eo(mah *:~~ 6s ee ge as *4SS pO te32 Jrrie Pee ing Sieur oy ge ee eee Sasi | Aah Rie eet “ Men,fe A oe BB. .& : Pome EAS: a:NSS mam* oe esWe ze ot ee# eS Seee eega x Rs reaStee 2) ee;g :% > aire , ean tex y osBRC Goan Lae ae eeS.. a Si: ‘iyar“ ol Ms “@ eBae ee Be, ES a“a, te j fo fee teMe % “he . Se SFaieNa . saT ..BA a The ee Se = i & a me Peed es | 4 es eR j SE “tae ate:iaii % ECE ENG SAN ae - ,i a.—.* é ieeeEe a” % a4, }{ Re aeom VE be, Backs Ge eer as. a’‘,% Roxie 18 Wiliias, .PS 27s Yee Nee. Re.i #ee Ne dy ;*et2 fie . \Sh i,aOF Ok phe Qe SS si4‘ es“ales .:: be We . ~arr a—os“Se ‘ere Ne aeh = aad, Taion hh pa. 4 TE is We, di. -as (te? ="i “SS , ee ©

CS a, sgt gt a” Vem my ea ee! a

gh a ; ae, Ow : : i. nis : ae ie ina’ Fe je -* wee j|}| aae aoS RO , eS : : eS 8 ee : ge an 1 . = fe ‘ : . res . . i a —— 4 a : i a =. Na. a po a 2 ~, Rie }! . x ty ;aop) “\eae AY test PL ;pa resets ok~/ Ne 7a ae accid Biel ioe ~}72a, ae >a i,Aiti,oe ets CHES oe * 5Ms :q$.Mi: ?Pre BES —Se ts, taetie, im‘edt s ee a ON Pah Ae

ik: Aare:Paan ae: ee oePeeOO ~ ae i. TR .. Jbeaesey"A4 4cite‘ *DS es

> Pn!

iBP eee 9ane “Se "%oS ,ie% “ta, ; BAaeY coil :ies : 258 NasHe, 7ae say, ,is¥‘,‘ ~; Dea if ee RS aaa a F372ee 5*+o ispet re wae penton AMie ice a ee Re % at Bie ae3%Re ii 2 4“ A

neeGs | PRAM Nene _:Sep : .~~" ae fa .‘:gh a See ‘ PM ? sk ieee tie? =) {ie Sa. ae=2aeSeale | ae gers \y ©le-cS ;Pfagee ;pa gt 5OR me a eu BR : tobe aea.ig ‘ 134 WB bof ra ‘a~ } tats: Se” kes ™.Sa i ’=Sa. sist okBs f, \& ae > eee ~‘piece SS SR Rae. +" eae 4;a; |oa Ay ye t : SS =: aeay ek3 asage Aeoe eb- we eesie) _Yeo z axe eke.

ae. Re $4 —ehh Ee a“i:¥ite age gpeion q Ohwae ee ~: 'aF‘4ey ; Rae ,o«.pt. FF > oiestTs Rie Betas, ;Be ; ey Bs Rone ie=By::he

a! * P.\ ‘\ \% - atPy peat fest BeA i ee Ra™ | “ie>t&+44 Uae *Ae” 2.Fea ‘& 4| > ey Pat oieens) a yee Be oy . . a aN See aon GREY SOS we ; c3ih ce‘i,Se ee i. Raa? > be ih is gh 4 Se eras eS cy By -_ \) 3 qian Be a hy Be Vics: RRM ROSS a Be \’ :

OF Bea cee isee 9Boas Spee | ee Be Ja! =Be ©SS ‘hhie 42++ he =ey aes ’bas JSoes 5aitpattate ePal ae s 85) a- oa ‘Sf af\aVa ee” ow of.bay Ae i2sbit. ie2) ae 32h. > Ae ZBe “i yNe A i pS ab Bae 4 eel . Be pe Rak eet ane :eae ; 5h Bes doers jve Haw ;ee es -_ Byte see oe s ‘Be . =e. + :

woe &3,anPRS ae at :nee % ees try =eSiee yes eS be 4qom eee mi $ose ey |Ay Sees $8 Pa :ene ‘fans cout BAme’ Ca fo oS : ‘ ee So ae La PORE EAT Fae SENS soars ii a BRS, ae saeeaae ae: *~ ee Re £23 i “8 tai POP gS 1.Be CSOs ou -3pe*- EG ewe ae BS. Cee x: cee Seis oseSee nh akiyo Oe etWan og =ed re ys *iB Ta,Z>» mM egies p78 Pr aoPee iger? ie bg;aPe eS Ee é AS Geta VERN, =e sg HES ie Spee ae BO aos 7G Sais ae Acag Ceara. Vanes puree iaSG ee Sea Rea 3satPOs aci hy Re Cenann hie >ET SPREE ahasst zs,ams

Resa aS So 3 te Yee Sa Nea A Re 4s ata SEE Ee TA a E S Sate A .ee, beS2)aya eon NS jay aie Pasieet eaeSent? REODosis OSE od fithe’* ries. Se akJD SSrea cs ° Sade veeSee oroe 2 ;Ty ay?okaepeoa Oe ae Biogen eae ep5$08 Seale Steretey etyONG Vetusieee y, ae ieaolee es ters Eee ES ete a VS heat ee ee = oe (a aeSS ees See Re Be 2)Sh DCS Wee eens gE Se Ae LoScere eee i .,aeeee a eee RN SAG Bik et 6s Fe Se rapt Selle . ic: x 2 es ae ce Cee eS oo so ae iy eee = Mame ee SS ee es iets f Pee | BEEZ ai. *.oO re * om 5 : DEES Ae “rs ;ees ~ NeRS S aeee pagpeer ae ses Gt * 1 aae Ba Eg Gia ag Oy idk BRE rete SeahOy rs CDH: a mee eo eSLnaeee 11, SORE RON, j eeu CEES CE iin. kn.eeea ae eeBe cer ane 3 BRE ee a hee PRL ne gan tet BRE Ne") ots SKE 2 Se ogee * 3 : Rickie So 3 ; xa We: a Be ee TONES ecnies Sah oeby ei ae ates BRE Bit SA Segon Lae : EE Fe la ee se noe Ta? Pet “3 as fas XO oat: ner a. Se ae -waa rswets weesRN ar tp,ner ce ae 4 Ls ead Oe! Cetais RS“3of : a3)oe Tae cesey :et ae ae aeee Bee Se NAY gy tae«ey te 4

oe " . . Fo Sateen Rott Ws th Rae SER SS es es 52 te ks Ln NS ees } ‘te Cae gh) ADS MEA oD on eae Cee eo Bee oe ae Sa ‘ " ie d ae: Weed ON eee eo IEE. ee cae See 7eaeSe eae be So =F &ct &ee eStes: STtSRR Re SEA Pe mee | ieee ae, eeONG x ‘ig Micr es)OS LEEK eS aRES F 4 aSpe _ .2~me SeBe sees eFe Sd OES foe BANS SR BETS | 5ee eee aeOh iy 1 ae a: aheies "eaeaiee Lee E-eee te es a Lye eRyeape ee 8 HRS PS dsrei ee (bis 3 Mes: * i Ye Hons Ne*ag of sonnet 3 erm ‘ eseS = 84 =* BS

- ae BS SS 3 SEER wee Neca eae Se RS ee Dn “Tate PSS ‘eal aye eS Be wrDaa PA aeeBR ae afi . aBe Tes. Sat Sa = Sem 5 ayia 8oyay EES Oe Z Lge: ASia eat Fa = emK. x ow‘bi oe ¢ee 7 aes iar, rie7s ep ae ve aed aWe ona ‘ _3y,> @— ee cat te aeos A eae Per tak = REPowe ean ten ane Sean aeBy eae a Se 2AGA ti ge art NeeSSoa |Sh art:eee? es, Bn X hesore SSBere, EI) Feae MPR ALE A * 5S % eey

Sery Soyates Sk. eal nad ieBy. {ee Ex, > ace ee ee oe 2 leo *ig aaiees 7see ica Si ibe»: % fe2X;if a): "i aay

oo =: ae es — s ees: § :axbias SE = =

4, Ea aN : ey me — ‘ = So Ee ie a & = ie se ye aOtes a et 4el ié FR. } SEA ee Oe : 7 faa : per ten. ins : eee : x = 3 %. DP SS Og “eg a ee ga ° / i : ; ist : :aes : ad , ee " Se ROP Pre of we RS Bs a 7 : i ss ~ Sp a EAN “ee Pie See Ss Di. > ‘ “ay Le i 4 mse : y Je Vato Se kone rh: ek 2 “paar & — pees? ‘ eae ab 5 zs ~~— -= ~Le aSIE >gr 5.ue i.yeagee ce ee ee. .oe +23) Dell a~~ := ean! Ce SR 2oS ye =5ee SY ‘s)eeTee st ioe -‘atl Fi RY ie tS >. Segsoes arer ~~ >ry te > +;Re Wed Sa ee nie ytes PL at a~:C *OE > +p ry > Te Soa f, a>2|bree * -5sSin y*7Re ved »NEE as )faFfsn aa 3eeiae So = ME i.ae ae ap vye 5Sag SVE os 3& -“*

‘V3 :BO 6pee eee “ :‘ Ngee fe4Me a ae «4eee WS RL: 06 Stars rel af. Se ahae aroy aeFPa A 4EE _Posse “Setar =4aS eg a ag SSa;i34 ee, Mig se ae. Ree we +Se+AL *ces ~ ne — » yee ") he ee ot ee at . :aT 2 A ae kes bm het eae > a WF J: SFaF j *2 nf bo 7 . i Sa 8 See te Se : ; A i ie eee ae |ey : ae Say 9” “ae cca=ee ke mace‘ -JBad Ja wy, Y

;et “ Sage F e ogSE REwe oI,NE, 2 Bey ree Beh, BAS Zan 2S Bo Be a4sLe* 3, PEP Vee: ew | ss. BELA 8 Nae ot ae Bee. Pea .

ee Hy wt eed3a els ae &Px aie ae 3 - ee. mas * \e \, pbaedeeS be z ae) Ps reohI Ge Tee ae Saie ESO ay ian BRR aeSa ora Reith 4 = oC “Goa Care Pine a, mS". BOXe > : Ar ah Se =e ee Maia et St eg he.Leet SSRs ekeee ge

rg5a&we Ea ;ee»te alee aia k4ES = ial ase dans PSE oh” 4 uae”: Se aK Aye soe aD watz Pde f 54 “tanner :;*\‘ao a AE ae j i rf & :raat 3t_y/ 4a4 ts ; foe5 jBRS Se ; + ig " 4ae ‘. Bit aie ad 2 nf ss ane te sae . :1gP BS ; ‘ ieiS; _a janie: We et. oh Lis icaPoe eX * hn 4 aaval , . 4amyer eo)i eS Ae Fay Sy ee ln en SIE : }r fs htas >ee, oe ae “ . Pre .. eS mer SG Se aaa es eau s > CON Poke SS. eee § ees

aera, a NE I BRO Se oe

a iain 2 a Binieis sin eet stieperte

36. WMELCEGLET, Meleager, from Salamis. Nicosia, Muse WO. 1FOM Oaltamis. INI COSTa, VLUSEUIM

SE RES SS ahaisa25ne; Ags a oeeeeee eSSesce OT CNSUES ORESAE ORR eee asa Rs peyeieoe SG ee Rana Lg PSR ee Mr ie Soe ve ea ea aES aase: Ge Soe A,PeBice aPUT OOS ZN me “ee Bie eeeee he CES aay sien, asdrs ae ae ea 2 an Raa Seek Bearer ae oraSahat nme ics Ce are (SEE SISTS Sea Ae Ase ANSI G (ODES OTE eS ERR ag : I pene Pitas St ese eee mera en SANE 97) “ pea : atte Bip Mts ter men ns thee 4 tse “

Sik hefeces ATUR Sega 3take pine tS " st ODS 9S ER 59 ae oo Rripaaoaneel aeae tat —_— SOR ghee- © ape Re eae i ie co! aeGAR Heats NSCS Rg38h Oe 6Shee Ana ae seHe i ae: ae aaa BOER : eee SO Raster yas | ns, SSRenee Se ener : = Oe pee ae UNOS SV -oe‘s: fis ee £7 SS Mean ee Miran Ard ay oes co, 17 ROR ata RRS RU SR ISN EAST ett OS Sam ie ae ea 4 Rab tsadh ots OR oe I er) SSS Ry i:Sees Sess SK? mh Peden pus nS geese eet aay ee Oi gee 7 ie) ee een oe ome Sc s eek Pree reAAS Siew Leta egnot ae Oa Aen he aed ae>ai 42PEAS BOs Ra!ay Rn TSS SOO i Rea ee te neaaal TB eR SESS Cy, Ba 33 aE S21 RN OG a ed See eT Be Sta Bey SU AN AAS ra ee aes ar ae een Oe ae P % | ga Cio hie! bs BRAT CSG RDN iC ays cast Sui aan ee Sh ott Oe Net pay Ress rk” LEeSi ot riaanetna tase enh esorwen ee eaCEA Bee eocase goa‘ how eeePRS Reais 2Ses gat ae pe Pace nae PARSE a as PEER Seepcr Garett

ames oS)SON oS SaRR i ase5m Ro.: OO NIBetis PREG

, Ba pes APN ed as Wict ella et bac RA ean| La DIME BF = {TARE iesSelec ries SF3 RIS Sa Fear etry asRee usBtn cope Races aont Se aera as ir Jae siaRebare BERBERS SUaEITS RUE peoSC sont ce aDaOR eeUSS «VASES ENEOne tec RI CREO NTSeeeaee BS Pig a IRE

Boos Phys Re ate yh Ae ORR ghee ROR: Tope a Shar ea z Fiaaa Pee So a ENN pa Sein ISee ESreece OE AEaba Pe BES 4 ySead pair Rng eae? co erik: tiie ONT aabook Seen £2eT UREA sea ote eee aera 5oemy Epa Nae asrode OR euRN Mae At hie Oona nas Bs Sie Gnas POS SRS [eRe oe: ee 3ee 1ABee: Snes eee BEN Sone hE tren tea na 2yr ide os stl eae ae Bea ti ahBS get TPN NRA aeS SectNS ag oh fi ge , eee Year RPS ER GR ler PREG sit Sy Noman Be 2 aie iy Centr eae So fei g Cee BE Fie ahs earn ik ae a ne eee ag + Bie ee Pepe a teem Stee Gos ON aie & See R CHINAS Sian Sate B¥ tes Capt ae pre Nmap cp aay Co NaS ‘ Pomerat eit ay eh ‘ Spite Aare ee hee a 3=Be Pear aeeRacial alt UF as athe anekeee aeRatae be BS tueGee ceiba ais ett:Seteleee Bou Sse ieeae ala aan alacs Lake mes gc? Re ee y, .food sss) byC=ia yA Ribinae ope Sore onan ovateonie NERA Be rgd . SEAR BERS a, 2 Rasee Sty, heer A eea *aa dno: SUAS Sikri Meee eee ERR cee 2Be cone pe ee + Spee C8, ak RO ee Oe ae RE Simpy Bynes ae, re SiLow SCART EER OB 2Oo Hoel gre 8? DGISCE 5 iyPR ren RE eee S|Bee ‘a — Ras: fCYS SR,eat eeVes eas hao? LEoar ay Se. 4 a) PEE OE wei SR SS eee VR ae ee a ngege ee tas rh yey © ST: 2 Gy SO MSY SEO AR See ews vs aa a heaes BEE Oh Te aka merge a; Fa Wes 3 ee be!So BieSR Aiea feSa ogeia ne deems ahs(Re es Ree Ags oe one peta gee 1 ee We ey Re Go EMEA ee Saeceneee Roe ; Behe: ee Reet Bre cer pet oe as Ninety ake poo emer EERE Fi? EON ike as We RRC a : 5 "a ¥ SS RAE age Sr RAS IEE ane ie TRL See SR Seah ee CSL EN Se See Eo

cas 3 pee Ree ee

Be ue 8 ay cs 2s Be ane emneneencR Sn See et ane ees :Rta a, fia ieee og Con eeMR Reegeen aOH at rahe ISR Haao AC RR RS Renee eee StBes i\4Ce oes EES SERS ROR sa‘ AS PPiFtee ;"FRIED iss $BB Bee eee ee SeGeeewoe nt aMe isk ihe sent Ra-P ene Raa See "sie 2ae Beet AG pe Seon Siti eet in a a FoR SU nee ah Eee RS a Re P as i ee era a ‘ : = OT DR RE SG SEE RRS oar «OSU aS eal th Ca ee ee oe ee Py 4 Re aeote i ae ogaee ia Z RSE Ae pas ik gNES ed ON + gee et E ‘Be y i ort : q ew > “xz POLE. bie Sn Are Sieae any BSE Ee esate Sas osr iam er 8 My a ie RS tre BB a SEX * “es a 2 a ee eee aes Ste Se a: Re heciaeneore ae é emer get , ga a OR 7,:LP mmm alam co Aneta ges ; Be ; * ; DOA tel or Ss 8 fraser m Bd rare = “" MS Soy Once en ean ae ane eae ie ae ge SRE aie ;:}ROAYE, Ss =;ee fe oS es Boag MT Ee 8eeote 4SARA Be 2Reeee Ces aFOP eo cee 5: eeSee IRuasese 4DAY ead Sage ESOC Se aaecae ee ee Pe ATS AF’>|} Pt ;Bish see =SESS Siaa ee pa “Sesieay aa Fiji sy YR, peices a on gt OS Ea MS yi ae Rs arene att SN ate aa3Ee : ae ge aaa 1 SS a ea is ES f gS % eee) Pa a LOUISE ee Se cee S y >Kile ==2K; RG BNE Cae atesre eaESR eins a oes nCARea /4ae*tA }re jiSes ‘ee) : ee Sy Os =Bi BSS Ta ROLE ts See SLT ee eeFee ~,oS soaoeaes 9LE TS eae ora EEG ea eed rare an gee eae c teh AS 1S Ate HEI a aaa ecg taetCee ara Be A eo SEES sen cami! eee ARES SR Tt ROCE SiR cc Bi PA a 2 sa * ie BESFE GES OR VE ay eR ee ge ea ees es SSaaens Fo sets Ce ie MEIER | ee Meee SS Bef rer > ae : ak Sie TCS ere ha Ree rsSa sae “tS cage ff4:eae ages ae Reber ee mtd Set ECE eee Gis .att ——_— °lao ae sa BE Ces SS rer Ree fe pp 44ea"Sa St “a .£2 ss SRS A NT nd aTete. tee BB Leo Al a ¥ ee ad Sg ea Se AA Me nex oe :pass Be 3 ; ° age Seg Rees ey ae tee Es F 5 ¥ Sees eres. Cpe Boa: ism Fs oe AILS sh Ss OSE a mat Ppa oak ae eae é 4 S e Se Fag NN eae pea ated ae oe a oe pe : E 4 Jame. 5 Be gree aAD Wir niaa en ; £ ; , ey ee BERR ESI OF ERG Fee eI Lo f : me: fe Bes ; a os ier kore OSE SE He Siac ae Fos4 cee Ga Gao, | ae ‘es GONG EEN MeaChs AREAS, So eee go fae Bet aSee > Aes Ms, ee a ae es PR ea Ce on cy tere Ri aa) BM ees es x ty SMe oeea PPE BATS ag gee RT, aa ;aN \ cyihoes eae iss Bee e. .—_ aoaes. SRS Toh Ae LOM en “a Be isa *i nat RNR RS ne ois Oe eg ree oe: P a We Gee ee Me Se a PRS Sarees see et si ae ae A 2 eh is " Bees Sic e ee nN, aM ea Fs es ean , ie : " PF “by . RR nee LER Pinel Yas) hes Bee» ; , ; PAs q # aS ta dex As 3 SSS ASI De nen § Aer pee Sea Re a i 1 ae 7 ; Re } 2 ae ea i ad % Sane ite etree BS ks { eek). ge Sis ial 3 é ks SNORE a ig ah ee eo ee ee ee ; ‘ P : Be bes. sbi ae | 2 Faber espe epee Sei ue dae ;H 4urge si =eeFP pa ,3Be SSRe ENE a; tara Aas R co .aa :Apter Pe TEUARISS ease cer peeieneane coe eae a,Sa 3te1;By Fay BRR aan gtaRae Vee

ie Pia a: a 4 ai. abi Be aes =es ea re jh,«diite

eg e) fo ae ere [ a ae y = Bhs

508 Mas Fee Sah gk ee Mes Cdxs gs eRe hie Iria 3Pci a|oan et £as ae 4euae ae a HTs PO MES the tenner Ha iNese Sag spo 4, aspee aay Bus nr ee ae mes :a; “ j A aS een eae SS ea Rr y Bee

ee " * eo oe RE ae ON pape es .Sa 7 ies. ae 4 Te. SSE tat Ban AS hare .Sa Be i 7 ae ia rs, Bee eae, amos :‘Pa ae 1dae. i}es Reres he aah be ee saa ee ¥as3Re — ad 7S Sige Sc aya d>eh ae? 5A |aa tae ee bene ees, Ge’ Bia Rett ee orl Ban (ff ania eA os Br heey KoA age: r Bees. Eee Reem Soe iseee Peg yer ne ees ¥Me as4 tae SRR 1S MEE RRR Rane Beene Ra eS 3 E yc ae CR Ss Seiad ‘a ya i $ F: Pe 3 Ress hoe Sh Say fe i, 3 an ; BERS ete aio NaN pram SS ee Be i: Ne A Age a4 3?& SSE ec ven ares @ eS 3 £4 ~ ed be Gees Teo Pinte kee ae ES =% ov 32 A "DRS See Eee rg aA aa cae ee. ie 4 Beare. : Ee OTs he CE ae oe = Sn z 4: eee Boa. Re aR © “eZ = a 4 2 j oul ie regan te Saicw g a pe! a “ 4 ay Bkeseh PipLto tl ree eae i ia . re / eee : : ; Gite serra att a a | 4 4 bad : pee iges Ses et o: iy bZSeSiete vA 3oe: oe igpe Meee Sanna aee ee ,i".SE i=3Be oa4 ~ae 3BS ae. =_— ’= teagir les Seea pg PY aaioe. ae gr Bier: aGo §etak RRS ieo vet Se ae 3ie Ser #5 ee (eae eiSk aOre Se ai horas _< xSees a oma Re Ses ee ena eeSquall tSee oe (Caen fh -A Eee 4PEa a* - (SEES Gera woSe eteare th ep: One. "Ce £5: Bre a-_os eeSoa aSEDI e ES. pee Rein ee shRea Sain nes Oe aaes Ss Ca Suhre aPP eR 2? So) ase nee ara 3eee | 4Be 4cotfSt BONY ae . oe a“4° xeeeES of ae pear ek Ry Ue eta 4it.“Sted .RlpS ie am aerr a%ey sc ee aES eS re :mee es x, 3. .m ORR Meenas OS teint | ki, bee RSs Reon ay ea,ty.Lee Sr a”~.; Bags aesieae PERS Tins eters

‘ct pf fe. = se ¢ be} Be = Ede \ ee ae

Mee Pr j ate 3 ‘te j pei OMe ee 4 . 44 fe oA ba Vere. | » ee OS sg eae oy “ty

aKe $eee fae. Wee ss: Sa i. % ae Be 7>[es pos Re edtie) Se Cit ER ROAR mcs ea ik ae > RCE a- Ne A wa ie Fae ia oeOe ‘fare Bik PeSeeannn SRE ean ae oer Wet ae, ?oeer. a aBO ee gat trey rae* ee. ¥y th be ocare ae ae aliSIGE *aeS Seen cere rng a“5s BBR RO cy ot pa oe Le Pi Bo ae i)at Se os = Rae ass Sree -_ pee |acioe feefa 2eo) ee -tee 3 aco oe Seiefeta? Be Be: 2) Me Be oad SL ES ies Seen ee ee Pesan g q eR ee Ne gee IRee Se Felis —aE * Oa age tank eae aS ee eh 3Saga Ft * pe a(oe anes Bh : Su i.ie?

:7ay ea ee% RE Ben SAt 3)Ses ate . NO: eeeiee x. ‘eihrete Bash otek 4Mig. ee Se ee see eR oe Ee Foe ate bates

pasa":‘: BIW SyRMSsi, Segont eesm Soe 3Rea eR Sw ; . w AR oa iCinquantenaire m m ifs Nn °» 5.Res uateEe eo| ; Bee Bru Is, Ci ‘ eee Sels,sMusee -nr rf5)Musée Benes thotss. os Saas : (RRR SSS

Ms 88 Rigi A“® ee ate PAS RS =cea ee Ti de aeoe ie 47 os Ja a5 Ee ae estSS pect ae aS ae 5S ge gee 535 eee ABaie ;eee i :eee Si Yeh: XL: Cag geES lis | ae oe oe 3.) ei oe Bo ale ace ee a is eee ei Ss SS ae sae $PERS Paha *Sele RRS ae “2 Mero ge! sgiehe BO eS i ; ig aa ie ve a ia P ee Re Pevngases ; mS c SRS =e ea) Ps Py A eee WP TUE De4os>ee =ya.sosonia epiemaeteial ie tr aepoy wat ners eens POS Ae es ween sexa oF ' LS TORI Aes caoe . ae a

i,aape ee i Pas eer >a Mey Sitees pe ay * : Se.