Panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius 70795789x

Citation preview

Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius

"\="-ee ;S PIS q - iaal & ele TA) eeMM P,pyre, .{= oe we \ } . ¥ ’ eee | f; | . fie a £ oth . EC M4 ase) § nV c 3 | PL | si ns ! 4

ee rer "tea ee a So eS a iS a> nae -anuile , —— 7 g3t Pa ai RARNOO 7RRLEOMITIEDVNS Waa if An i ; rs a? & t A Ly ad Er 4 Bi) OTT AMD? BLY CT] ; Ne | ayo ted ot | HEAor leaseiytin ORCA LTC ESTAR 1S |e Fe a wh hhfi=ceARISIST RENE BICAV TEi)ai\\ iee;

yy ——— . sail .tiia. ww . | act /J aaay*s owmey ti {:bee : wt: 9" la 7

4/ ist se Fa bet ’ 2 . : , by } ’ ia”, ¢

~oe ‘=mi “©ryWW a : ~~A «ihepo nen yes—we “ ram egaad “ - sone = SSeS — re pon —_> ,=,a

a: Prax 4 < he i xt| |wy ° } ge = 4 a Sine = 4 ~ella 1, on ‘ ( re : ; A wh SS ae , / i. : _f || |hi erty ie iy” is | ee y hs. \7 Was gy Y 4 | tale j ~~ } ‘ li oe Sa hy Aca Fahy Ajab? as: $ ; (hd 5 on ar atal AF 3 i| ©

ii) " 7 of ’ J \ fi, | ; Ai koa TA |) Pl ics atonal A * i ero | fecal 2p TCH -—— ’ wah * Com |i af : | e > Th) “ | ie — | | P | ¢ \e if if | = il ae Si) 2 iw ( " 3 f , ij ‘ad Hi i] { Aw ¢ een :" i - ay : a btese ; df ‘{] —

'eeg |nL, a; asaats o x ” 5, ; «= = — = pone: . 7 > . ‘ r . a | \S . : ‘ 4 ae s mm «) =e ea ~wee | :

= ae. . a : 1 ' "adel ROD Sap De Os YS a SAWERT Se “ * ki ‘ ws

OR iain1 (Reale: SOARS Woe: Seay: a LAN J- Wicks |S ae RRS . , TRAN iL Sei NTETV§ nh) >&> eel fae ai

’ a . 7 ty

a Toe le Lat oT Ney OME g REI STIs NY J) fade We { fii Phi | \) , "lh Vi 3 bh P Re -¥ + Re eee hy Ad, * ul ie my “p ae

~ aw S ‘a ; Tv “9 7 id ia = an i -z i”. . i . 7 tied # *: . on ‘

By esa SR, ee bo hy Y _ ae | -—- : ‘i< / : .- = _ te +

ad, , . -— sus---: 440) Cee ” !— x3=rh N ~~ ie He ee tonseeeeye L ste —— ma

Vee = = = . — or ae >a— = —_ ae = 4e= — . a SS PS ete mahi as. *.. } a weg

om Ce ag “Sate | aie \= .;pei... rii~ \ii j| | ’~ $ \my) ae f*|se “ee :.| >|i ;.¥ |||- toe 7if ea , ; g i t ’ ial + é i f AAR }iH eh' mM) Ney if al ae. 1 ,4s —___ Ba |) ) =ee. iSeries Rameneneetl ;Arrd: . ' Ms . ™ ig ‘ |f:?:>|PET HY =I biskivutad 1 4 oul 1} | — i AG Saean ~s “Sew >' 2 4 3 A 7 a io | ey j ey ee ‘ eZ Se la ose | A SS isae WsVW At | “3a ‘ Rar y 4: a ASN pe Se a of (Ta BR Genes : ' ) +a e| qigh }‘ty & fL j :ome 7 ae = - Ot OT aT ea Ig; ag Dare 2s on ) ™ Ee SNie' :3att ' |=ibee2 ee RR, Bio FF » be i iat Pe cet et PSR | Ee > _ . ae oy z which was continued by the Clivius Argentarius along the north slope of the Capitoline. Both City gate and arch, then, must be assumed to be on this road, the

latter at an intersection with another important street such as that at the end of the Via. This location does not conflict with the evidence of the medallion of 173. The foot on the

base in front of the temple can be accounted for by one of its two attested meanings, namely, as an allusion to a safe return, which is also the concept embodied in Fortuna Redux.”4 Neither location offers any easier explanation of the high tower-like structure shown in the background of the medallion between the temple and the arch. The suggestion that it represents a building on the higher ground of the Quirinal where it overlooks the Via Lata is as likely as any.” Finally, the location at the south end of the Via Flaminia (Lata) accords best with the

content of the panel itself. As noted earlier, some care has been taken to show that the setting here is the side of the arch opposite to that in the Adventus, which was naturally the outer side, away from the city proper.*° Here, before leaving the City, the emperor encounters a seated figure leaning on a wheel, undoubtedly a personification of the Via Flaminia. To the beginning of the Via, which is not far from the Curia, he has been ac22 L’Orange, 74, 77-80, pls. 12-13, 18 a and d.

23 The designation of Via Lata applied to the lower stretch of the Flaminia between the gate in the Aurelian Wall and the foot of the Capitoline does not appear until late; see Jordan-Huelsen, 463. 4 See Guarducci, ReudPont 19 (1943) 327, note 86. 25 Monaci, DissPontAcad Ser 2, 11 (1914) 198. This is inherently more probable than the tentative interpretation of Stuart Jones, BSR 3 (1906) 262, that it is the second story of a portico known to have existed in the neighborhood of S. Marco in the Piazza Venezia. 6 The Constantinian frieze also shows the elephants only on the City side; cf, fig. 22 and note 22 above.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 33 companied by the Genius Senatus. At this point he and Pompetanus will mount the horses held ready for them, ride through the arch and set out on their journey along the Via Flaminia.2? The encounter with the Via Flaminia virtually demands a setting on the road itself, presumably at its beginning. Apart from topographical considerations, the identification of a tetrapylon arch as the Porta Triumphalis 1s hardly consistent with its basic significance. Whether originally a gate in the City wall or a free standing arch, it was ritually the gate through which the ¢riamphator and his army entered the City, the zriuphator still in possession of the zwperinm and the soldiers still under oath to their commanding general. A tetrapylon is appropriate to an important crossing of streets. Moreover, in contexts which are properly “triumphal.” the arch represented is invariably bifrontal. The passageway relief of the Arch of Titus

shows what must surely be the Porta Triumphalis as a bifrontal arch surmounted by a quadriga.2® The other important relief in which the context clearly calls for the Porta Triumphalis is the Triumph in the Conservatort Museum (p. 20), and there too, the atch Fig. 9a is bifrontal. The body of evidence here reviewed seems conclusive enough to return the Domitianic arch, and with it the Temple of Fortuna Redux, to its location at the foot of the Via Lata. In this position it may again be identified with an arch called by mediaeval writers the arcus manus carneae, which stood at about this point on the Via Lata. The common elements that associate the Adventus and the Profectio do not necessarily prove them to have been pendants in their original position. In fact the Profectio, in its nature an initial event, is inherently unlikely to have been placed beside what must have been one of the final scenes in a sequence. The common elements are more circumstantial

than essential. Both scenes demanded in actual fact a similar setting, namely, a recognizable point of departure and return in the City itself. Both subjects belong to an artistic tradition in which deities and personified abstractions are likely to appear. Both themes could draw upon motifs well established in the “Grand Tradition” of Roman monumental relief. The basic parallelism of the two themes is aptly illustrated by the fact that certain important monumental reliefs have been interpreted now as profectiones, now as adventus,°®

and by the fact that identical coin types appear now with one of these legends and now with the other (p. 13). Granted the parallelism due to such circumstantial elements, the two reliefs are significantly different in concept and style.®° The Adventus is simple and strongly symmetrical in 27 Wepner’s assumption that the emperor’s party is not about to go through the arch must have been prompted by the belief that the arch is the Porta Triumphalis, which is known to have been used only on the occasion of a triumph; see 4.4 1938, 182-83; cf. E. Makin, /RS 11 (1921) 30; Tacitus, Ann. 1, 8; Suetonius, Ayg 100; Kahler, RA 7*, 374; Lugli, Alon Ant, 3, 116-17. 8 Strong, Scu/tRom fig. 72. It might be argued that the arch represented is the Porta Triumphalis of jo A.D. before its destruction by fire ten years later; but in any case a monument so hallowed by religious ritual is unlikely to have changed its form in successive rebuildings. 29 Notably the Domitianic relief from the Cancelleria and the attic relief of the Arch of Benevento; see Magi, Rilevi Flavi, 98-102, and RendPont 28 (1954/55) 53-54; Hamberg, Studies, 84. 39 Noted also by Hamberg, Studies, 81-84. 3 Ryberg

34 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS composition. The emperor is the central figure flanked at either side by one figure in the foreground and one in the background, all with heads turned toward him in full or partial profile.*4 The Profectio is much more complex. The human participants in the scene are divided into two antithetical groups of four figures each, separated by the vexi//um in the hand of the first soldier but linked by the arch above, which frames the heads of the emperor, Pompeianus, and one of the soldiers. In the imperial group are two strongly portrayed foreground figures, the emperor in military travel dress and the togate Genius Senatus (p. 22) raising his right hand (now missing) in a familiar gesture of salutation or, in this case, of farewell. In the background behind each appears another figure of which only the head is carved, in relatively low relief, while the feet are not indicated. The head of PomFig. 53d peianus beside the emperor is in its present state only a face, but probably the crown and back of the head were cut away in the process of removing the bearded head of Marcus Aurelius and preparing the surface for the substitution of a portrait of Constantine. The Fig. 25 head in the background behind the emperor has caused more controversy. In Roman reliefs the Senatus is often accompanied by the Genius populi Romani, and occasionally by other personifications;3? and the unusual physiognomy of this head has led to the conjecture that here also the Senatus’ companion is a personification or a deity.° Hamberg describes the head as “‘faunal,” a term suggested apparently by the “goat” beard in which two long separate locks hang down at each side. This type of beard appears, however, to be a variant of a type not uncommon in coin portraits of Marcus Aurelius. The separate locks are more apt to be a series of “corkscrew” curls across the jaw, but in a few cases only two ate visible, as here, one at the edge of the chin and one at the corner of the jaw bone.* Fig. 175 Sometimes a lock at the turn of the jaw is similarly swept back away from the chin,®*> but here the lock has less of the “corkscrew” effect because hair and beard are both rendered by shallow wavy runnels made with the drill. The head is totally unlike any Roman represenFig. 25 tations of deities, and it can only be that of a citizen who together with the Genius Senatus has accompanied the emperor to the point of his departure.®° This juxtaposition of a strongly

individualized portrait with the idealized personification of the Senate is curious but no more startling than are other heterogeneous elements combined in the scene. In the right half of the relief a group of soldiers stands awaiting the emperor, holding Fig. 18 horses in readiness for him and for Pompeianus. Their garb is varied, as everywhere in the panels. Of the two whose armor is visible one wears a scale cuirass with officet’s tie around 51 This relief will be discussed in detail in Chapter III number 7. 32 Cf. the Sciarra relief, Strong, Scu/tRom fig. 122, and the Cancelleria relief, Magi, Rilievt Flavi, pls. 1, 3,

5, 8, and pp. 75-81. 33 Stuart Jones, BSR 3 (1906) 265, followed by Magi, RendPont 28 (1954/55) 54, suggests the Ordo Equester, Hamberg (83-84) some “‘tutelary deity.”

a me BMC trium . 4, pl. 75, 3; pl. 76,5 (162 A.D.); pl. 66, 20 and pl. 67, 1, 3 (contemporary with the German a5 OF he head of Marcus, fig. 17b and BMC 4, pl. 81, 2 and 11 (169-70 A.D.); pl. 83, 12; pl. 84, 10;

Bernhart, pl. 87, 12; Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pl. 25b (Imperatori 38).

36 The folds of garment over his shoulder are less heavy than usual for a toga, but the same is true of other togate figures shown in the background of Roman reliefs; e.g. the famen in the Extispicium, Ryberg, Rites, fig 69; the sogatus at the left in the Mattei relief, hid. fig. 70.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 35 the waist as well as a baldric fastening for the sword, the other has a shorter corselet of chain mail scalloped at the lower edge. The young vexz//arius in the foreground weats a crested helmet of a type familiar on Etruscan urns and in the late republican relief of Ahenobatbus.*? The other helmets have hinged visors, and two with feathered crests attached crosswise identify their wearers as centurions.®® The other two are distinguished as vexillarit of the cavalry by the ensigns held in their right hands. The figure of the young soldier and the heads of the two centurions, together with the personified Via Flaminia semi-reclining in the foreground, complete an enclosed design which serves to balance the imperial group in the left half of the relief. All the heads are turned—even bent—leftward with eyes fixed on the emperor. The Via teaches up to welcome him to her highway, the horse stands with foreleg lifted to the right but with neck arched back toward the center so that its contour line at the right and the arm of the Via resting on the wheel close in the design. But at the far right edge the artist has added, actually in the curve of the relief frame, the second vexd//arius, turned sharply away and reaching up to hold the bridle of the second horse, which has tossed its head in impatience to be off. The sudden motion has given the ensign a toss back toward the center, suggesting the vigor and thrust of the outset. It is this sharp jerk away from the center, more than anything else, that interrupts and jars the harmonious balance of the design. There is, as well, something startling in the juxtaposition of the realistic group of soldiers with the semi-nude personification in the foreground. Such reclining figures personifying the locale were a familiar part of the artistic tradition, but they are seldom so closely joined to a realistically portrayed group.®® The incongruity is softened to some degree by the portrayal of the first soldier as a youthful idealized figure whose unbearded face and flowing hair,

together with the helmet of antique type, has invited the speculation that some personification is intended.*° There is, however, no attribute to give a clue to such intention, and no tradition, as there is in the case of the Genius Senatus, to make a personification recognizable without a clue. Unbearded young soldiers appear occasionally on the Column of Marcus Aurelius, and the figure is probably not a personified abstraction but rather a “representative” of the young Roman soldiery. So slightly individualized in pose and features it serves the artistic purpose of bringing the soldiers’ group somewhat mote into harmony with the tone of the whole scene. In treatment of depth in space the two halves of the relief differ no less sharply than in design. The imperial group occupies a shallow space close to the foreground, while the group at the right recedes plane after plane into the background, implying even more depth than it represents. Both horses are placed at a wide angle to the relief plane, the second projecting into the background from the farthest plane. The young soldier is treated 37 See Couissin, 403, 463, and 149-50.

% Vegetius, De re militari, 2, 16: Centuriones vero habebant catefractas et scuta et galeas ferreas, sed transversis et argentatis cristis ut celerius agnoscerentur a suis. Cf. Couissin, 432-36. 39 Cf. the Apotheosis of Sabina and of Antoninus and Faustina, Strong, Scu/¢#Rom figs. 126, 151. On the

Arch of Benevento the two Rivers accompanying the figure of Mesopotamia are half hidden below the ground line and thus set apart from the human figures, Pietrangeli, pl. 19. 40 See Couissin, 463. 3°

36 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS as a foreground figure, with the result that the reclining Via Flaminia occupies a space out in front of the relief plane. The “event” of the scene is the encounter between the emperor and the Via. All the others are in a sense bystanders, while gestures and glance are exchanged between these two. The intent of the scene comes into clearest focus when viewed at the spectator’s left. Fig. 26 From this angle the young soldier recedes somewhat into the background, the heads of the imperial retinue, of the three soldiers and the horse, form a niche framing the emperor, who stands clear as the dominating figure, looking down and extending his hand down toward the welcoming Via Flaminia. If viewed at eye level (fig. 24) the reclining figure appears to be tilted slightly forward from the relief plane, but if seen from a moderate distance above eye level the spectator has the sense of encompassing her with a downward glance as does the emperor himself. Such a “shared view” is achieved in several of the panels, as will be noted in the discussion of each.*! The effect is again lost if the panel is viewed from below at too steep an angle, and it must be assumed that it originally occupied a position on the pylon of an arch, not on the attic as it is now placed. The treatment of space as well demands a position not too high above eye level. The foreshortening caused by a steep angle of view tends to obscure the receding planes of relief in the right half of the scene. The emperor’s domination of the design is made more emphatic by the vexi/lum, the garlanded archivolt, and the elephant-crowned cornice which tower directly over his head and link him with the soldiers in whose company he will set out. The side arch receding into the background at the left separates the Genius Senatus and the citizen from the action and carries them back in the other direction. The separation is sharpened by the vertical lines of the emperor’s cloak behind his shoulder, carried upward by the column between him and the two who will now return to the City.” The Profectio differs markedly from traditional types used to represent the theme. On the Column of Trajan the rare scenes that could be designated as profectiones usually represent the emperor on foot striding toward the right, accompanied by numerous companions Fig. 2a and attendants (Scenes 81, 87/88). The motif familiar on coins had been used in the Clementia in celebration of the trrumph of 176, and the wish to avoid repetition of scenes on the earlier monument may account for the employment of a totally different design. Only Figs. 5a~b the soldier holding the horse at the far edge suggests the movement toward the right

that usually characterizes the type. The scene here is essentially an encounter rather than a procession. In this respect it parallels the attic scene of the Arch of Benevento,*® but with a difference so vast as to defy rather than invite comparison. The figure of the Via herself is familiar from coins, where she appears alone, holding a wheel in her 41 What I have called a “shared view‘ is noted also by Brilliant, 152, who describes it as “‘vicarious participation of the spectator.” 42 There is no apparent reason for the distortion of the column from the vertical line, which must be attributed to the same carelessness of detail that neglected to show in the background the feet of Pompeianus and of the citizen. 43 Pietrangeli, L’ Arco di Benevento, pis. 2, 12-13.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 37 lap as the essential symbol of her identity.4* Here the artist has retained the wheel for the sake of identifying the figure, but has relegated it to a position of support beneath her elbow so as not to distract from her gesture of homage and welcome to the emperor. The Genius Senatus too is a familiar adjunct to the imperial group when the setting of a scene is in Rome. But both these traditional figures are absorbed as single motifs into a new concept of the theme. As the Profectio differs from the Adventus in its use of the artistic tradition, so it differs in stylistic details. The hair of the personified Via, the Genius Senatus and the young Fig. 26 soldier is modeled in separate locks divided by deep shadow, while in the Adventus the hair is a more solid mass worked less deeply with drill runnels. In the Profectio the hair is separated from the face and neck by a deep channel, of which there is no trace in the other relief. Details cut in low relief, such as the head of the citizen and the garland attached to Fig. 25 the archivolt, are executed in drill runnels with a technique that is almost that of drawing. This technique appears elsewhere in the panels, particularly in the Lustratio, but not at all in the Adventus. There is thus every reason to believe that the long accepted “‘pair” of Profectio and Adventus were not designed as pendants. They differ significantly in their telation to artistic tradition, in concept and in stylistic treatment of details, they belong at different points in any conceivable sequence of events, and, finally, they are best seen at different heights (pp. 42, 66). 2. LUSTRATIO To many critics the Lustratio! has seemed the least successful of all the panels. Wegner Fig. 27

found it hard to assign to either the “‘classic” or the “baroque” group, and assumed a third sculptor, younger and less experienced, and closer to the artistic milieu that produced the Aurelian Column.? With its many figures and complex background it has been thought crowded and confusing, and more in the spirit of the Column narrative than of the “Grand

Tradition.”* But if the relief is regarded as one stage in the long development of the Lustratio as a type in Roman art—and the Roman spectator was familiar with the theme from a variety of reliefs on public monuments in the City—it seems neither confusing nor incompetently designed. On the contrary, it is an original and boldly imaginative adaptation of a motif previously employed in friezes or in the long band of the spiral column. As a frieze the /ustratio was difficult to handle and was never brought completely 44 BMC 3, 98, pl. 17, 13-14; 208ff., pl. 39, 1-2, 8; Toynbee, Hadrianic School, 138, pl. 19, 3-4. The types of Trajan and Hadrian which show a figure leaning on a wheel appear to represent the Circus Maximus, and not the Campus Martius as suggested tentatively by Toynbee, Joc. cit.; cf. BMC 3, c and pl. 30, 6; Strack, I, 132-33, pl. 5, 363. The three obelisks on a base which the figure encircles with one arm are surely those on the spina of the Circus (cf. BMC 3, pl. 32, 2-3), while the wheel alludes to the chariot races in the Circus. Both wheels and obelisk appear in a Hadrianic type with the legendNAT(alis)URB(is) P(rimum)CIRC(ensibus) CON(stitutis), which makes certain the allusion to the Circus (Gnecchi, pl. 144, 5).

1 Bellori, pl. 27; BrBr pl. 530 and text; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 244; Wegner, 4A 1938, 179; Hamberg, Studies, 96-99, pl. 16. Restored: head of the emperor; upper background above the break. 2 AA 1938, 191. 3 Hamberg, Studies, 97-99.

38 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS into focus upon the point of sacrifice. The nature of the rite was processional, and the leading of the three victims of the s#ovetaurilia around the area to be purified was as essential a part of the ceremony as the pouring of the libation at the altar. But if the procession was made the principal motif, as was natural, it tended to place the sacrificing priest awkwardly at the edge of the scene.* The “narrative” treatment of architectural setting on the Column of Trajan provided the first really successful solution for the problems inherent in the rite

itself. That solution, in which the circuit wall was utilized artistically as a frame for the altar group, had become familiar through three versions of the rite represented on the Fig. 28 Column.® Of these the most successful is Scene 53, where the altar group includes, besides flute player and camillus, two companions of the emperor and five signiferi bearing eagles and praetorian standards. This gives the desired effect of massed soldiery encircled by the procession of victims, attendants, musicians, and soldiers outside the wall. The artist of the

panel has depicted almost the same scene but without the dividing line of the wall. Fig. 27. In the center stands the emperor turned in three-quarters view to the right, about to pout a libation over the flame of a small tripod altar from the patera that was once held in his tight hand. The heavy folds of the toga which covered his head, as was proper to the officiating priest, were cut away for the insertion of the head of Constantine. Close to him at the right stand the two essential figures of an altar group, the flute player and the Fig. 296 camillus, the latter a boy attendant with girlishly curled hair, as in the Sacrifice of the Conservatori group. Only these and the attendants of the victims wear the laurel wreath appropriate to participants in the rite.” The camillus holds a half open incense box, as a reminder that the preliminary offering included incense as well as the libation. The camillus is dressed in the tunic, as usual in sacrificial scenes, but the drapery over the arm suggests that the fringed cloth hanging down over his shoulder may be the lower edge of the shawllike récinium rather than the usual crinkled towel.® The flute player wears the toga customary

for this attendant. Entering from the left foreground is the procession of victims. The victimarius with axe over his right shoulder and knife at his belt appears in the frame at the

left. The attendant holding the horn of the bull is more like a camillus than the usual victimarius, and he is dressed in the tunic instead of the usual victimarius’ 4wus. The attendants stooping over the smaller victims also wear the tunic, or the Greek exomis which covers only one shoulder. These are shown at either side of the emperor, but the motion

across the foreground toward the right is made clear by the position and pose of both victims and attendants. The effect of circling motion is achieved at the left by the victimarius 4 See Ryberg, Rites, 109. 5 Scenes 8, 53, 103; cf. zbid., 109-13.

6 Traces of what might be the posts of a gate are visible in the background behind the two standards. The significance of these is not clear, unless, possibly, they are intended to indicate that the whole scene is set in the area before the camp gate. There is no sign of masonry to which the right gate post might be attached; but the camp wall is shown merely as a plain surface also in Scene 103 of the Column of Trajan. If such is the intention, the posts can only be explained as an echo of Scene 53 of the Column, which served the artist as a starting point for his new design. 7 See Ryberg, Rites, 84, 110. As in the Sacrifice, the wreath is omitted in the case of the furthest victimarius. 8 See Ryberg, Rites, 77.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 39 coming forward from the background, at the right by the two trumpeters turning away from the spectator. As in the Profectio there is a sharp thrust of motion upward and toward the right, in the parallel lines of the trumpets and the soldiers’ arms supporting them. As in the Profectio the two halves of the relief are quite different in texture. Behind the sacrificial procession to the left of the emperor is a simply composed group consisting of Pompeianus surrounded by three siguiferi, whose standards rise in almost parallel lines into the field above. The vertical lines and the repeated uniform figures convey the effect of the disciplined strength of the troops. In the right half the composition is more complex and the texture is thicker. The crowd of helmeted soldiers seen beyond the trumpeters who lead the procession is restlessly composed, with heads turned in several different directions, receding plane after plane into the background until the helmets must be imagined and only the spears can be seen. Besides the two vexi//arii closest to the spectator, four heads ate visible, one with face completely obscured. But a total of seven pairs of spears? demand the imagined presence of three more soldiers still further in the background. Not only does the figure of the emperor occupy the center of the relief, but all the other participants are arranged in concentric rings or arcs encircling him. He is enclosed first of all in the strong oval of his toga, the curve of which was originally continuous as it was drawn over his head, creating what Cagiano aptly calls a zona di rispetto formed by the mandorla of toga.° A second oval is formed by the heads of the sheep and its attendant, of the bull above, the first szguzfer, the soldier in profile above the emperor’s head, the flute player, camillus and attendant with the pig. A wider arc tangent to this at the top is drawn by the heads of the victimarius, Pompeianus, the szguifer and soldier of the first oval, the second soldier and the trumpeters. Small arcs are formed by the remaining heads at left and tight. Thus the whole design is ordered without being rigidly symmetrical, and 1s kept firmly under the dominance of the emperor performing the central act of sacrifice. The background is more crowded than in any of the other panels. A double laurel wreath fills the field at the right above the vexz//a, trumpets, and spears, while at the left the tallest of the standards rises almost as high as the top curve of the wreath. Nearest the center is a legionary standard consisting mainly of bossed circular plaques (phalerae) and surmounted by an eagle. The series of phalerae composing the legionary Signum was frequently varied by certain other elements, commonly a crescent or an animal mascot of the legion.!! Here the only variant is the crescent, which is placed as usual just above the brush or tassel at the bottom. The sigzu might be surmounted by a spear point, a hand, or an eagle enclosed in a wreath, any of which would be a more probable restora® Each soldier carries two spears, with short head fixed to a long shaft; cf. P. Couissin, 359-68. In two cases there is a band around the shafts a foot or so below the head, This is evidently not the attachment of the long head of a pi/am, as the joining of the spear head can be seen above, and the two shafts are clearly held by one band, as if for convenience of carrying. 10 RM 6o/61 (1953/54) 210.

11 Domaszewski, Fahnen, 54-55, figs. 12, 17, 22-24. 12 bid, 35-36, figs. 12-52; Column of Trajan, Scenes 10, 128-29 (spear point); Scenes 24, 77, 87 (hand); Scenes 3-4, 8, 26, 27 (eagle in wreath).

40 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Fig. 30a tion of the top ornament than the eagle on a cross bar now seen in the upper background. The eagle, which was the regular symbol of the legion, is a familiar type, with lifted wings and perched on a thunderbolt. Around the ends of the wings are traces of what appears to have been a mural crown, and it carries in its beak an object which might be either a small tabula ansata (presumably once inscribed with the name of the Legion) or a soldiers’s purse such as that carried by a figure represented on one of the balustrades in the Forum." The signum at the left is distinguished as a standard of the praetorian guard by its more varied elements and in particular by the zwago of the emperor. Other divisions of the army had special bearers of the eagles and the zmagines (aquiliferi, imaginifer?), but the praetorians had all such elements incorporated into their standards. In this case the siguum is lower and less elaborate than usual, consisting only of three tassels, a mural crown, an ago and a vexillum 6 The crowning ornament, of which only a spur remains, seems to have been a spear head. The émago, which is badly worn, has been identified as Commodus, on the

grounds that it was originally a beardless head and that its poor state of preservation suggests the deliberate obliteration that followed a damnatio memoriae.” The identification, however, is far from certain. This relief has suffered more damage than most of the panels,

and the wago is not the only detail that has suffered. A blow that destroyed the eagle’s wings might have been the source of damage to the zwago and also to the mural crown below it. From the present surface it is difficult to say with certainty whether the head was originally bearded or smooth. I believe it is possible for a beard to have been broken in Fig. 30a such a way that the front of the neck could be seen intact as it appears in the detailed photograph.18 Moreover, a projection of the lines of the jaw suggest the triangular form of Fig. 306 a bearded head, quite different from the childish face on the sigvum in Scene 55 of the Aurelian Column. That i#ago must, of course, be Commodus,” and its implication is that 13 Cf, Domaszewski, Fahnen, 29-34, figs. 3-11, 34-52. A gravestone from Mainz shown in Domaszewski’s

fig. 3 has an eagle on a thunderbolt with a laurel wreath around the wings and an acorn in its beak. Kubitschek, RE, signa, 2335, cites also a wreath in the eagle’s beak. An eagle in Scene 4 of the Column of Trajan has a mural crown surrounding its wings. 14 Nash, Pict Dict, fig. 902; MAAR 21 (1953), plate, shows a similar purse; see Kubitschek, RE, siguifer, 2352. Vegetius, De re militari, 2, 20, mentions a common purse in which the soldiers kept their savings, one kept by each cohort and a “saccus undecimus in quem tota legio particulam aliquam conferebat” kept by the signifer. If the object is indeed a purse, it might represent the saccus of the legion: cf. M.A AR 21 (1953) plate. 15 Durty, 198-207, pl. 4. See, in general, Domaszewski, Fabnen, 56-69, figs. 5, 57-84. 16 The vexil/um is not commonly an element in a standard, but it occurs in this position in Scenes 4o, 42, 137 and possibly 99 of the Column of Trajan; cf. also a signum represented on the Arch of the Silversmiths, Domaszewski, Fahnen, fig. 80; BSR Suppl. Papers 11 (1939) 39. 17 Wegner, AA 1938, 184-86, fig. 12; Cagiano de Azevedo, RM 60/61 (1953/54) 207-10. For the impli-

cations of this identification, see p. 3 and Fig. 30b. 18 Cf, Wegner, Herrscherbildnisse, pl. 25a, dated 175 A.D.

19 Scene 55 immediately precedes that of Victory writing on a shield. If the Victory marks the end of the

German war in 173, the appearance of the #wago of Commodus on the sigva might be a reference to an occasion when he was presented to the troops at the front. A coin type of 172 seems to represent such an event, under the legend PROVIDENTIA AUG frequently used as an allusion to the provision of an heir (BMC 4, cxxxviii, 624; Dodd, NumChron Ser. 4, 13 (1913) 194). Commodus received the title of Germanicus late in 172 (SHA, Vita Comm., 11, 14) and his head appears on coins in 173 (Gnecchi, pl. 71, 7). If, however, Morris, Warburg Journal 15 (1952) 33-45 is correct in his well-reasoned proposal to identify the years repre-

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 41 a young heir to the principate might under some circumstances be represented in an zago on military standards. Whether the allusion is to Commodus’ arrival at the front in 175 A.D. ot to an earlier presentation to the troops, it clearly does not imply co-regency as assumed by Wegner.”0

Vexilla were the usual ensign of the cavalry, but were used also by detachments from regular legions, called vexz/ationes,which were dispatched on special missions and therefore not serving under their own signa.24 Many such detachments were summoned from other tegions to take part in a major war; and as this scene gives no indication of the presence of

cavalry, the vexd//a may be assumed to be those of detachments from legions stationed elsewhere. They are carried by soldiers in the usual legionary uniform, the segmented cuitass, while the bearers of the agui/a and the two séguva wear the bear-skin helmet of the signiferi.2" The garb of the soldiers is less varied than in other panels where they are shown in full armor. The two trumpeters wear the common segmented cuirass, but the three in the background whose dress is visible seem to be wearing a scale or a smooth leather corselet.* The helmets are all feather-crested, though they differ somewhat in the form of the visor. The distinctions among individuals are slight because the effect desired here is simply that of massed troops being purified by the /wstratio. The only strong lines are the contrasting horizontals and verticals of the trumpetets’ cuirasses, which serve to mark off sharply the path taken by the circling procession. As was pointed out by Hamberg,™ variations in armor and dress were among the resources of artistic expression. But they serve a second purpose as well, that of portraying in single representative figures the various divisions and ranks and assignments of the army. Thus they contribute to the compactness characteristic of the “panel’’ style (p. 93). The double wreath in the upper background is a puzzling detail. Not in any way a part of the scene itself, it seems superfluous even as a device for filling the empty space at the top of the panel. That could have been managed easily by a slightly different use of standards, ensigns, and spears. One suggested interpretation is that this symbol of victory places the lustration at the close of a successful campaign shortly before the return to Rome.** It is true

that there are rare references to a lustration as the closing event of a campaign,’ but the weight of evidence from ancient sources and from art supports its interpretation rather as a preliminary ceremony. Both the columns are unequivocal on this point. The rite appears sented on the Column as the whole span of Marcus’ German wars, 173-80 A.D., the wago of Commodus in Scene 55 would allude to his arrival at the front in the summer of 175 A.D. shortly before the conclusion of the German-Sarmatian wars. 20 See Domaszewski, Fahnen, 58-69, esp. 67-69, and sources cited on p. 68. Cf. Suetonius, 77). 48, 2, on Seianus’ failure to obtain the right to have an imago “inter signa.” 21 Domaszewski, Rangorduung, 23, and classifications, pp. 27, 48-49; Fabnen, 26, 76-80; Durry, 203. Cf. W. Hittl, 308-10, and passim. 22 Vepetius, De re militari, 2, 16: signiferi ... accipiebant et galeas ad terrorem hostium ursinis pellibus

indutas.

23 Couissin, 442-44, 542-56; Durry, 221. 24 Studies, 144-45.

25 Monaci, BCom 28 (1900) 88-90; Diss PontAcad Ser. 2, 9 (1907) 11-12. 26 See Ryberg, Rites, 33, note 66; Domaszewski, Archiv Relig 12 (1909) 70.

42, PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS five times on the two monuments, and in every case it begins rather than closes a phase of the military action.*” Moreover, in this petiod such symbols of victory were not confined to the consummation of a military success. In the Profectio as well as the Adventus the atch represented in the background is festooned with a garland. Triumphal insignia were becoming more and more the permanent attribute of the emperor,®8 and such generalized symbols as the laurel wreath might appear in almost any context. In a /ustratio on the Column of Trajan (Scene 53), which clearly marks the opening of a campaign, the familiar victory symbols of palm and crown are represented on the altar. It is possible that the seemingly arbitrary insertion of this motif may be accounted for by the position the panel was to occupy on the arch. As was noted above, the artistic tradition as well as literary evidence mark this scene as one early in the sequence, perhaps immediately following the Profectio. Both are seen best if placed not too far above eye level, the Figs. 26, 31 Profectio to the left and the Lustratio to the right of the observer. When the relief is viewed in this position, the space between the contour of the emperot’s toga and the heads of the first oval is sufficient to create an effective contrast of shadow around him; the encitcling motion of the two smaller victims is mote conspicuous; the head of the sheep actually cuts across the edge of the toga, and the victimarius conducting the pig is turned in such a way as to emphasize the direction of motion. If the relief is seen too far above eye level the spatial effect of a crowd of figures receding into the background is lost, and the foreshortening makes the whole relief plane appear to tilt backward. The Lustratio must

therefore have been placed on the right pylon of the arch, and probably opposite the Profectio on the left pylon. If these were the relative positions occupied by the two panels, it

is easy to see an artist’s reason for adding in the upper field some decorative motif to balance the double archway of its companion panel. The heavy circles of the wreath achieve

such a balance far better than would the standards and spears alone. The double circle might itself have been suggested by the wreath festooned from the keystone of the arch in the Profectio. Other details as well suggest a special link between the two panels. Similarities in the design, such as the sharp thrust of movement to the right at the edge of the relief and the

thickening of the texture in the tight half, have already been mentioned. In these two panels, and in these only, the lines of the design sweep low with strong points of interest neat the ground line. These two reliefs share peculiarities of technique that are less conFig. 24 spicuous in the other panels. In the Profectio the foreground heads have a deep furrow separating the mass of hair from the face and neck (p. 37), creating a strong color contrast. Several heads in the Lustratio, the camillus, the young victimarius conducting the bull, the two signiferi in the foreground, show evidence of the same technique. It appears, less con27 On the Column of Trajan (Scenes 8, 53, 103) the lustration is followed in each case by an adlocutio and then by a new advance; on the Aurelian column it precedes in one case (Scene 6) the destruction of a town,

in the other (Scene 30) a colloquy and then an advance into new territory. The offering of suovetaurilia appears as a final ceremony in two reliefs of the late Republic, but dictated by special circumstances under which a triumph was not granted. See Ryberg, Rites, 33-37. 28 See Alfdldi, RAL 50 (1935) 25-40.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 43 spicuously, in the “‘baroque” panels, but is totally absent from the Adventus and the Liberalitas. The camillus’ hair, and to a certain degree that of the young victimarius, is Fig. 296 worked in separated locks, as is true of the foreground heads in the Profectio. The peculiar technique of drawing with shallow drill runnels, noted in the Profectio (p. 37), appears Figs. 25, 29a here in the head of the flute player and in the hair of the victimarius at the far left. It has been pointed out, further, that the vexz//a in the upper background of these two panels are

very similar, and quite different from those of the “baroque” panels, which are more violently agitated and more deeply cut.?° There is thus more reason for regarding the Profectio as a pendant of the Lustratio than for pairing it with its long-standing partner, the Adventus. If the Profectio and the Lustratio were the initial pair in the series, as is suggested by

these stylististic details as well as by their content, they were probably placed on the pylons to left and right of a spectator approaching the principal face of the arch. He would naturally read from left to right beginning with the lowest tier, as he was accustomed to

tead the Column of Trajan. At the right the circling movement of the musicians and trumpets leftward and upward would guide the direction of the spectator’s eye toward the next panel in the sequence, at the left in the tier above. That upward movement is insisted on by the device of repeating diagonal lines, of the trumpets, the staff of the vexi//um, and the trumpetet’s sword.

3. REX DATUS The panel which the author proposes to place third in the sequence, following the Pro- Fig. 32 fectio and the Lustratio, is commonly entitled Rex Datus.! The theme ts the presentation of a vassal king to the Roman soldiers in camp. The emperor accompanied by Pompeianus stands on a high narrow tribunal at the extreme left edge of the relief, facing 2 group of seven soldiers. At the ground level before him and likewise facing the soldiers stands a man in barbarian dress with long sleeves and trousers, whose fringed cloak repeats the drapery

pattern of Marcus’ pa/udamentum. The emperor’s left hand is outstretched behind the barbarian’s head, his right was lifted slightly higher in a gesture of address to the soldiers, of whom the two in the foreground raise their right hands in response and approval.? The interpretation of the scene as the presentation of a vassal king in a permanent Roman camp is established beyond reasonable doubt by the barbarian dress of the princeling. First proposed by Bellori while the reliefs were still attributed to the reign of Trajan, subsequent-

ly corrected as to date and developed by Domaszewski,® this interpretation has been 29 See Becatti, 57. Becatti, 72, also attributes to the same artist the portrait head of Pompeianus in these two panels. See p. 79. 1 Bellori, pl. 24; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 241; Domaszewski, Religion, 6-12. Restored: head of the emperor, and probably that of the vassal king; cf. p. 48.

2 The hand of the soldier at the right is broken, but enough remains to show that it was held palm outward in the familiar gesture. 3 Religion, Off.

44, PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS followed by most subsequent critics.4 The only serious countet-proposal has been that of Stuart Jones, who argued that the scene represents the dismissal of emeriti praetorians on the occasion of Marcus’ return to Rome in 174 A.D. after the completion of the German war.® Stuart Jones saw in the figure before the tribunal an officer of the specu/atores, the elite of the praetorian guard and specifically attendant upon the emperor. The parallels cited from coin types which show a Roman officer in this position® fail, however, to account for the barbarian dress. Soldiers in Scene 62 of the Aurelian column, whom Stuart Jones identified as specu/atores, wear not trousers but fasciae around their legs, often worn by Roman soldiers in the northern wars. Thus the interpretation falls down on close examination of the evidence on which it was supported. Identification of the scene as 2 Rex Datus, on the contrary, rests securely on numerous parallels in coin types. The composition in the panel has no exact counterpart on coins, but the basic motif of a barbarian vassal king standing with his back to the emperor, who is usually seated on a tribunal, occurs on coins of Trajan and of Lucius Verus.’ Coins of Antoninus Pius show the scene reduced simply to two standing figures, the vassal with his back to the emperor while the crown is being placed on his head.§ In Trajanic types with the legend REX PARTHIS DATUS, a kneeling Parthia accepts the new king, making obeisance

to him and to the Roman emperor. No Roman soldiers are present in the Rex Datus represented on coins. A group of soldiers appears, however, in a closely related Trajanic type bearing the legend REX PARTHUS, which shows the Parthian king Parthamasiris kneeling before the emperor seated on a high tribunal, begging—in vain, as the event proved—the confirmation of his status.® Elements of each of these types appear in the relief, but they are transformed into a new

composition. The orientation to the right, in place of the leftward direction of all the numismatic versions, is perhaps due to the position on the arch which the relief was to occupy. The assumption that the emperor’s hands were originally placing a crown on the Figs. 33a-c vassal king’s head! does not accord with the pose of either emperor or vassal. In the coin

types the emperor extends his right hand to the head of the princeling, while the latter raises his own right hand to steady, or to adjust, the crown (usually not visible). Here the emperor’s two hands are outstretched to either side of the vassal’s head, not in a position of placing a diadem but tn a gesture of protection and of presentation to the troops. Moreover, 4 Dobias, RevNum Ser. 4, 35, (1932) 159-60; Wegner, 4A 1938, 176-78; Hamberg, Studies, 87-89;

Becatti, 58.

SBSR (1906) 262-63. Stuart Jones’ interpretation was accepted by Strong, Scu/tRom, 255. Cf. also Monaci, BCow 28 (1900) 78, who suggested that the scene is an adlocutio to the officers of the guard before

the departure for war. 6 E.g. Cohen, Hadrian 236ff.; Nos. 554, 560, 563, 565, 588 (similar to BMC 3 pl. 93, 3, 6, 8, 14). ? Trajan: Strack, 1, pl. 9, 476; BMC 3, pl. 43, 1. Verus: BMC 4, pl. 75, 8. 8 BMC 4, 204, pl. 29, 2 (140-144 A.D.) ® BMC 3, pl. 40, 8. A type issued by Lucius Verus in 166, interpreted by Gnecchi as a king presented to

the Parthians and Medes, or, preferably, as little Commodus presented to the legions, is undoubtedly an adlocutio. See Gnecchi, pl. 74, 1 and p. 46. 10 Wegner, 4A 1938, 178; Hamberg, Srudies, 87.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 45 a coronation accords ill with the relation of the emperor to the vassal and to his soldiers as expressed in the relief. This double relation and, consequently, the intent of the scene, become most clear if the relief is seen at considerable distance above eye level and to the spectator’s left. From this Fig. 34 angle the barbarian appears to stand confidently, almost proudly, within the circling of the emperor’s outstretched arms, in a kind of niche formed by the figures of the emperor and the two foremost soldiers. From this angle, too, a relation between emperor and soldiers is more discernible. Their glances pass over the head of the protégé to receive the communication of his sponsor, while the foreshortening caused by the height above eye level brings the emperor down closer to them, incidentally softening the division of the figures into two intersecting rectangles. The isocephalic mass of soldiers acquires more depth, and becomes distinguishable as two tows ranged diagonally across from right foreground to center background. From this angle Pompeianus, who appears slightly taller than the emperor when the relief is seen at eye level, resumes his appropriate scale and is subordinated in prominence. Only his head and the top folds of his cloak are visible in the curve of the frame, while the rest of his figure is obscured behind the vertical fall of Marcus’ paludamentum, as if he were standing at a point just beyond the visible limits of the scene. The building in the background must be the entrance to the praetorium in a permanent Fig. 32 camp, before which appear the siwulacra of the gods flanked by vexi//a. The building is clearly detached from the side borders of the relief and represented as a separate rectangular structure with two arched entrances." The attic set off by a projecting cornice and the sloping roof above must be intended to represent the exterior view of the building,}? in front of which the ensigns and images of the gods appear to be planted in the ground.!3 It was pointed out by Domaszewski that there must have been a place for the standards in the open space of the camp before the praetorium, since the soldiers took their oath before them, and since numerous passages in ancient authors refer to assemblies of troops before the signa and simulacra of the gods. Similar small images mounted on staves like the legionary eagles are carried by soldiers represented on the column pedestals of the Arch of Constantine.” Presumably they are borne by the éwaginiferi of the legion, though the term imagines ordinarily refers to the imperial busts, while the images of the gods are called 4 On coins of Claudius the front of the praetorian camp is shown as a masonry wall pierced by two arched entrances; BMC 1, pl. 31, 12-13, 15-16. # On coins of Nero representing an ad/ocutio in the Praetorian camp the sloping roof is clearly indicated, though the building itself is quite different; BMC 1, pl. 41, 5; Bernhart, pl. 88, 2. ** Domaszewski, Fahnen, 30-31 figs. 4-5 show praetorian sigua and aquila with spear point end for planting and a cross bar to keep the shaft from being driven in too far. 14 See Domaszewski, Religion, 2-3; 8-12; Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule, 12; Tacitus, Aun. 15, 16, apud signa; cf. Plutarch, Gaba, 22; Tacitus, Hist. 1, 55: The legions of lower Germany, gathered to take the oath to Galba, rioted and threw rocks at the imagines of Galba, Ann. 1, 39 mentions signa and aquila near the altaria deum. Fist. 3, 10 shows that images of the gods were with the signa, and were visible from the tribunal from which the general addressed the soldiers. Ann. 15, 29, recounting the submission of Tiridates, describes the cavalry drawn up at one side, opposite the legions with their eagles, signa, and simulacra deum in modum templi, and the tribunal in the center. Ammianus, 24, 6, 10 describes a sacrifice of ten steers in this space, Cf. also Pseudo-Hyginus, De munitionibus castrorum, 11, ed. Domaszewski. 16 L’Orange, 55, pls. 7b, 29-30.

46 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS simuacra, That the simulacra too wete small statues fixed to staves for carrying, like the legionaty zmagines and eagles, is proved by this panel and by the Constantinian pedestals. It is implied also by occasional appearance of simulacra of the gods as well as imperial imagines

on the signa of the praetorians.! The soldiers are in camp dress, not in battle array, and carry no weapons. Only two in the background wear the bear-skin helmet of the signiferi. A signifer holds the staff of one of the simulacra, while a vexillum is similarly held by a soldier at the far right. This is a puzzling detail, since the sé#ulacra at the left are obviously not being carried, and all seven staves are strictly vertical as if all were fixed in the ground. The purpose is possibly to designate the

proper bearers of the different kinds of ensigns. The usage, at any rate, corresponds with that shown in the other panels, where vexz//a are borne by regular soldiers, signa and eagles by szguifera.™@

The effect of the seven vertical staves and four rigidly held stwxlacra is to emphasize the

solidity and strength of the established army posts. For symmetry of design the four simulacra are arranged so that two are framed in each archway, flanked by vexil/a except at the left where the addition of the complex curving folds of an ensign would detract from Figs. 35a-b the figure of the emperor in the foreground. In each pair of siwulacra the deity at the left is a Victory, in approximately similar pose with right arm lifted from the shoulder and the

hand once holding some object for which a support or a contact point is visible. The Victory at the right carries a palm which lies along her left arm, and the position of the contact point on the edge of the arch suggests that her right hand held the usual wreath. The figure is of a type familiar in Hellenistic art, with a short overhang of the tunic girt into a high waistline, with skirts clinging close to show the contours of the right leg but concealing the left leg under heavy folds, billowing out below as if blown by the wind. It appears frequently on military standards represented on the Column of Trajan as well as on soldiers’ tombstones.1® The wings, of which traces can be seen behind the shoulders, must have been the small spread wings which sometimes appear in types on ségva and occasionally

Fig. 9a on coins. The other Victory is of the same type except in having the more usual long trailing wings.?° The left hand was at the side and whatever object it may have held has disappeared together with the hand and most of the arm. The support above the right shoulder is large and heavy but, as the arm is not in a position to hold a trophy, the object was probably a wreath, held somewhat closer to the head and so necessarily supported Fig. 35a from the back of the niche. The principal deity of the right hand pair of séulacra is easily 16 F.g. Scene 4 of the Column of Trajan; Domaszewski, Fahnen, 58, 69, figs. 3-5, 58-81; BenndorfSchoene, LatMus. No. 115; and see note 14 above. See also Domaszewski, Re/ig. 8-12; Plutarch, Brutus, 39.

17 Aquiliferi and imaginiferi, which are both listed among the “ratings” of the legions, seem to have belonged to the general class of signiferi. See Domaszewski, Rangorduung, 48-49 Fahnen, 69, 74-75, figs. 89-90.

Scenes 48, 51, 53, 104 of the Column of Trajan show the bearers of the agui/ae wearing the bear-skin helmets of signiferi.

18 Cf. Scene 4 of the Column, and see Domaszewski, Fahnen, 31, fig. 5; Durry, pl. 4. 19 Domaszewski, Fahnen, 31, fig. 5; Strong, Sca/tRom, fig. 53; Mem Pont Acad 3 (1932) 82, pl. 1,1; BMC 4 pl. Go, 10-11; pl. 80, 3; L’Orange, pl. 30, 1. See Roscher, 3, 1. Nike, 354 ff.

20 Cf. Scene 4 of the Column of Trajan; BMC 4 pl. 61, 16, 20; Gnecchi, pl. 87, 8; and the Victories represented in the Triumph and the Submission.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE AT identified as Mars, in full armor and with cloak across his shoulders. His right arm lifted from the shoulder supported a spear, while his left hand steadies what appears to be a small circular shield resting on a low pedestal. The short stature of the figure in comparison with

the Victory beside him ts explained by the necessity of allowing room in the archway for . the crested helmet that would have made the total height proportionate to the other figures.2!

The type is one of the two common on Antonine coins, and in this period frequently Fig. 35¢ appears with the legend Mars Ultor. It is not the Mars Ultor of Augustan coins nor the fighting Mars Ultor of the civil wars,?? but the resting Mars who tends to occur along with

“Victory” types at the close of successful military action. The representation on coins ordinarily shows a large circular shield resting on the ground; but occasionally the shield is small, as here, and resting on some support.”4 The deity in the left hand pair is not Hercules with lion skin and club, as has been proposed,” but Jupiter, nude except for a Fig. 355 cloak across his shoulders, with right arm raised from the shoulder as if holding the staff of a tall scepter, and holding in his left hand what was probably a thunderbolt. A thunder- Fig. 354 bolt held crosswise, as usual on coins,”® would account for the support visible in a fold of the vexil/um. The large double support in the archway is heavy for a scepter, and yet the right arm is not in the proper position to hold a trophy. It is tempting to speculate that the legion’s zwago of Jupiter might have held a legionary agwi/a in place of the usual scepter,?’ though I know of no other evidence that such was the case. Jupiter, Mars, and Victoria were chief among the gods of the army, and are therefore obvious selections as typical simulacra.”® If there is any specific reference to events, the three deities associated with

successful military operations would suit the event represented in the scene. Since the praetorians had zmagines of the emperor and sometimes also simulacra of deities attached to their standards, the separate images shown here are presumably those of the legions.?® As there is no indication that any of the soldiers represented are equites, the vexilla ate probably to be interpreted as the ensigns of vex¢t/lationes from legions stationed elsewhere (p. 12).

Thus the scene portrays the presentation of a barbarian vassal king to the legions, the regular troops of the army, here epitomized in a relatively few individual soldiers. Except for the siguiferi the soldiers all wear camp dress, the tunic and cloak (sagum). There is none the less an interesting variety in the group, in stance and gesture, drapery pattern and, most Figs. 36a-b 21 Cf. the helmeted Mars in the relief from Carthage, CAH Plates 4, 136b. 22 BMC 1, pl. 7, 18-20; pl. 49, 13-14. *3 BMC 4, pl. 63, 16; pl. 64, 4; pl. 67, 8; pl. 76, 5; pl. 78, 10 and 16; and Introd. cxix, cxxv, cxxvi, cxxx. The type appears with the legend MARTI ULTORI in BMC 1, pl. 49, 153 4, pl. 11, 5; pl. 28, 11. 24 Cf. Reinach, RepStat, 5, 266, 9; 267, 1; ibid. 1, 347, No. 436B; RepRel 2, 95, 4. 25 Petersen, cited by Domaszewski, Religion, 7; followed by Wegner, A.A 1938, 176.

°6 Cf. BMC 4, pl. 94, 1. The type appears under Antoninus with the legend Jupiter Stator, BMC 4, Fig. 35d pl. 28, 3; Bernhart, pl. 35, 8. Many variants of the type are shown by Reinach, RepSvaz, e.g. 1, 183-190;

2, I-12; 3, 2-3. 2? ‘The two rectangular supports would suit a flying eagle like the usual legionary aqui/a, the lower point

at the right supporting the body and the wings resting against the larger support; cf. the eagle in Scene 4 of the Column of Trajan. 28 See Domaszewski, Religion, 3-4; and cf. Durry, 318-23. 29 See above, notes 14 and 16.

48 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS of all, in the faces. The soldier in the center foreground is strongly linked with the emperor by the repeated simple curving folds of his cloak all leading toward Marcus’ outstretched left hand. The steep upward line of his forearm and hand raised in response to the emperor is repeated and emphasized in the lines of the cloak of the figure just beyond him, who looks past the tribunal into the distance and serves merely as a bridge between the first

soldier and the emperor. A figure at either side, the szgifer nearest the tribunal and the second soldier from the right end, are represented with glance turned upward in concentration upon the emperor’s words. But at the far right the foreground figure is pulled somewhat away from the prevailing movement of lines by the self-contained double curves of the drapery pattern of his cloak, and also by the strong vertical lines of his left arm and of the drapery hanging from his shoulder. This is a most unusual draping of a cloak, which is hardly accidental. Together with the bent right forearm and the obliquely horizontal line of the bloused tunic, it starts the eye toward the right and toward the next scene of the sequence. Fig. 36a ‘The soldiers all have full beards except the second séguifer, whose face 1s smooth but for a slight beard covering part of the cheek. This is worked with shallow runnels of the drill, with a technique closer to that used in the heads of Pompetanus. Both hair and beards of Fig. 366 the others are worked deeply with the drill, in short wavy lines that create a sharply color-

istic effect. The head of the barbarian prince is not only different from all the others in treatment but markedly lighter in color, as are the three restored heads in the Liberalitas. Four heads besides those of the emperor are known to have been restored in 1732,° and it seems likely, as suggested by Wegner, that this is among the heads that were replaced. The Rex Datus is the only one of the war scenes that has no parallel on either of the columns. It is historical rather than “typical,” and its occurrence, which is not uncommon on coins, apparently always records a specific historical event. Accordingly it has no traditional place in a war sequence. The confirmation of a vassal king was likely to occur at the end of a war as part of the settlement of terms of peace, as in the case of Nero’s recognition of Tiridates and Trajan’s type REX PARTHIS DATUS of 116-117 A.p.2! On the other hand, such an event might occur as a result of a local success in the course of a war, like an imperatorial acclamation. The historical accounts of Marcus Aurelius’ reign contain just one clear reference to the confirmation of a barbarian king, at the very beginning of the wars on the Danube. On the artival of the two Augusti in Aquileia, probably in the year 168 a.p.,°% the barbarian kings 80 C, Gradara, BCom 46 (1918) 161. 81 Tacitus, Ann. 15, 27-29; 16, 23; BMC 3, pl. 43, 1. Antoninus ’coin REX QUADIS DATUS of 140-144a.D. followed some years of trouble in Germany, of which it apparently records a settlement; see BMC 4, pl. 29, 2; Hiittl, 1, 271 ff. 82 T'rajan’s REX PARTHUS type records a request for confirmation by King Parthamasiris soon after the

emperor’s arrival in the East, a request which in this case was not granted. The confirmation of three local kings recorded in the type REGNA ADSIGNATA (Strack 1, 222-23, pl. 3, 250) is placed early in the war by Longden (CAA 11, 239-42), in 115 A.D. by Strack and Mattingly, BMC 3, |xii. 33 This date is accepted by Zwikker, 56-57, 63, 226; W. Weber, CAH 11, 353; Dobias, RevNum. Ser. 4, 35 (1932) 160-61. Dodd, NumCbhron Ser. 4, 13 (1913) 165-70, and Mattingly-Sydenham, 3, 201-02, date the arrival in 167. Mattingly, BMC 4, cxxi-ii simply accepts the uncertainty.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 49 who had been spurred on by the Marcomannt retreated and gave up their efforts to push into Italy. Specifically the Quadi, who had lost their king, asked for approval of the successor who had been chosen: Quadi autem amisso rege suo non prius se confirmaturos cum qui erat creatus dicebant, quam id nostris placuisset imperatoribus.* The passage implies that the prestige of the emperors—merely their arrival in Aquileia—caused the retirement, but the context reflects the sharp conflict that had already taken place.®* The historical accounts record a series of special dealings with the Quadi, who were strategically

important in that they occupied the territory between the two most troublesome tribes, the Marcomanni and the lazyges. Efforts had been made to keep them from joining with either against Rome. Their status at this time as vassals of Rome who had revolted and joined with other barbarians invading Roman territory is confirmed by an earlier coin type bearing the legend REX QUADIS DATUS (note 31, above). A reference later to the deposition

of their king Furtius®® supplies the name of the king who was confirmed by Marcus Aurelius and Verus in 168. Their choice of Ariogaeses in his place in 174 A.D. was not confirmed by a “Rex Datus” but was followed eventually by the capture of the pretender. As the vassal status of the Quadi continued and is attested later under Caracalla,®” it is of course possible that the installation of a vassal king might have occurred at the end of the war in 175 A.D. But there is no allusion to such an event either in the literary accounts or on the Column, which, whatever the terminal limits of the events represented, unquestionably includes the campaigns of 173-75 A.D. It is equally certain that the events of the first years of the war are not recorded on the Column; and the confirmation of a king at the request of the recently rebellious Quadi was a signal success of the first phase of the war, eminently suitable as a theme for a panel scene.

The reason for tepresenting the event in the setting of a Roman camp may be an historical one, namely, that it in fact took place in Roman territory. But the background of the camp has been made use of to heighten the artistic effect. The treatment of the back-

ground contributes enormously to the interest and to the emotional impact of the scene. The basic theme is the sovereign relation of Rome, embodied in the emperor and his loyal army, to the barbarian peoples on the fringes of the civilized world. The emphasis is not on the fighting strength of the Roman armies—the soldiers are not in armor and have no weapons—buton their loyalty to the emperor and dependability, which constitutes the solidity of the empire. The stone-walled structure, the firm planted standards —which are not fighting standards butsimulacra of the mightiest deities of Rome—the high tribunal that lifts the emperor above the level of both soldiers and vassal king, all combine to create an impression of irresistible strength. But this theme is joined with another equally im portant, the protection provided by the emperor and thearmy to the peoples who accept the suzerainty of Rome. On the Column of Trajan a /ustratio is followed in every case by an adlocutio, and the two together mark the opening of a new campaign. But on the column of Marcus the lustration 34 SHA, Vita Marci, 14, 3. 35 See C_AA 11, 353-54. 88 Dio, 71 (72) 13-14, ca. 174 A.D. 87 Dio, 77 (78) 20, 3. 4 Ryberg

50 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS is followed directly by action, and thus either order might be expected in the panels. The order of sequence is suggested by the reliefs themselves. It has been noted earlier that the Rex Datus is seen best at a rather steep angle above and to the left. A spectator facing the center of an arch would see it thus if it were placed in the upper tier of reliefs on the left pylon or, better still, on the attic above it. The positions tentatively assigned to the Profectio and the Lustratio, on the left and right respectively, dictate the direction of reading from left to right beginning from the lowest tier, as would indeed be the most natural direction to a spectator accustomed to the progression of scenes on the spiral column. Accordingly the third in the sequence of the panels must have been placed at the left in the upper tier. Of all the panels the Rex Datus most clearly demands exactly this view, while the Adlocutio almost as clearly demands a view at a corresponding height on the right.

4. ADLOCUTIO Fig. 37a If the Rex Datus was to be seen at some distance above eye level to the spectator’s left, the Adlocutio! no less clearly demands a corresponding position at the right. Here, moreover, it fits best in the sequence of scenes. On the Column of Trajan an adlocutio may occur either at the beginning of a campaign or after a battle.2 On the Aurelian column there are two instances following military action (Scenes 55, 100), but it is much more common as a prelude to an advance or to battle.? In the coinage too the ad/ocutio occurs conspicuously at the beginning of a new campaign. It appears along with a Profectio at the time of Marcus’ return to the frontier after Verus’ death in 170 A.D., and again in 172, when it is accompa-

nied, as on the Column, by a type representing the crossing of the Danube.* Thus it is likely that, if the Rex Datus alludes to an initial success on the emperot’s arrival at Aquileia, the Adlocutio is intended to mark the beginning of the campaign on the frontier itself. The scene is one of the simplest in import and in composition. The emperor stands at the right on a moderately high tribunal which is set at a slight angle to the relief plane. He is in

almost frontal pose, but there is a slight swing of his body to the left as he addresses a group of seven soldiers. Behind him in the curve of the frame stands Pompeianus in full profile. The fact that he is taller than the emperor would have been less conspicuous before

the substitution of Constantine’s head for the longer face and luxuriant curling hair of 1 Bellori, pl. 26; BrBr pl. 530; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 243. Restored: upper part of the background, with tops of the signa; head of the emperor. The development of the adlocutio as a “‘type”’ has been discussed by Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule, 11-24, and Hamberg, Studies, 86-87, 135-49. 2 In Scenes 10, 54, 104 it precedes a campaign; in Scenes 27, 42, 73 and 137 it follows, sometimes after one or two intervening incidents. 3 Scenes 4, 9, 83, 86, 96. In Scene 9 it occurs between two actions and might be connected with either, or, as Hamberg (141) is inclined to think, with neither one. 4 BMC 4, pl. 81, 10-11; pl. 82, 10 and pp. 623-24; Gnecchi, pl. 58, 3.See Zwikker 226, 261; Dobias, RevNum Set. 4, 35 (1932) 132-33 and pl. 5, 4 and ro. An ad/ocutio on a medallion of 177 (Gnecchi pl. 58, 2) probably marks a new outbreak of war. It does not have the titles Germanicus and Sarmaticus, which were dropped when hostilities had to be renewed. Cf. BMC 4, cxxx.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE ol Marcus Aurelius. The emperor raises his right hand palm outward, in what might be called the gesture of address, while in his left he held some object which seems to have been

too long for the usual roll. It touched a contact point on the thigh and interrupted the cutve of the pa/udamentum falling from the right shoulder to the left forearm.$ In this context it is likely that the object was a short spear, as in some ad/ocutio scenes.”

Though the soldiers are only seven, they are placed so as to create an impression of standing in three semicircular rows around the emperor. The semicircular effect is established by the three closest to the tribunal, whose heads appear to form an arc of which

Marcus is the center; most important to the effect is the representation of two of the foreground figures in back view, as if the spectator were standing outside the semicircle behind the soldiers, like them oriented to and concentrating attention upon the emperor. This is another instance of what I have called a “shared view” (pp. 36, 72). Here the spectator is excluded from the soldiers’ group, as pointed out by Hamberg, but by the same token he shares their relation to the emperor. This relation between spectator and emperor is established most fully if the relief is Fig. 375 seen at the right and at some distance above eye level, so that the upward tilt of the soldiers’ heads is emphasized. From this angle the spectator is included by the emperot’s gestute, and perhaps originally also by his glance.8 The effect is aided by the diagonal placing of the tribunal. The panel is suited to such a position, moreover, because the emperor’s head and shoulders stand out boldly from the background with a slight bend forward. The foreshortening of this view, moreover, brings the emperor’s figure down closer to the soldiers and strengthens the nexus between him and them. Seen from a considerable height the emperor’s figure, in both Adlocutio and Rex Datus, acquires its Fig. 376 appropriate scale as slightly taller than Pompetanus.® In these two panels there are, further, no figures cut in very shallow relief which a steep angle of view would tend to obscure or to tilt back away from the relief plane. Placed at the right on the attic or in the upper tier on the pylon, this panel provides a perfect end point for the sequence displayed on one face of an arch. It is the first of the scenes in which the emperor faces left, closing in the left-totight movement as well as, by the emperor’s downward glance, the upward movement of the reading. In this scene more than in most the emperor’s figure 1s gracious and graceful, the draping of the tunic and cloak is less severe, and the stance is easy. The curving line of the tunic girt in at the waist connects with the neckline drapery of the first group of soldiers and helps to establish a strong link between him and the foremost group. The festooned edge 5 Trajan holds a roll in scenes 10, 77 and 104. 8 A similar break in the curve of the emperor’s cloak in the Great Frieze of Trajan was perhaps caused by the sword hilt; cf. Giuliano, Arco di Costantino, pl. 8; cf. Column of Trajan, Scene 39. But a sword would imply full armor rather than the camp dress worn by the emperor in this scene. 7 Scene 27 of the Column of Trajan, Scene 96 of the Aurelian Column; cf. also Scene 25. Such a spear as that in Scene 25 would not have obscured the face of Pompeianus. 8 The Constantinian head is turned farther to the left than the torso is, ® In the Profectio the two are almost the same height, but seen from somewhat below the emperor would appear slightly taller. ‘*

od PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS of his cloak is repeated by the line of his forearm, and the tassels of the signa suggest a Fig. 38 shelter arching over the soldiers. They in turn look up at him with a concentration that is remarkable in its combination of unity with individuality. In every case but one the eyes are

turned upward and the head tilted back. The facial types and the expressions are all different. Of the two in the back row the soldier in the foreground is young and eager, while the siguifer wears rather an expression of concern and affection. The two soldiers in the middle row are more seasoned and less impressed, particularly the one in the foreground who gazes into the distance. In the row closest to the emperor the expressions are again more intense, and the face in the foreground is sharply upturned and filled even more than the other with open-mouthed wonder. The variety is a very different kind from that in the Fig. 39a illusionistic adlocutio of Galba’s coins!® 1n which the simplicity of earlier tradition was Fig. 396 replaced by a restless walerisch group of individuals turned in various poses, at different distances from the spectator. Here the poses are all oriented to the emperor and the lines of the design tend to converge upon him. The effect is something very different, too, from that of the larger groups in ad/ocutio scenes on the Column of Trajan. Those have impressiveness of design, of dress, often of expression. Here every face 1s arresting as an individual, but they are alike in their look of utterly absorbed wonder that borders on worship—an effect that is enhanced by the slightly open mouths of most of the figures. As usual in the adlocutio on the Column of Trajan, the soldiers make no responsive gesture, but simply receive the words of the emperor with rapt attention. The soldiers are varied in dress, as is customary in the panels. One has a helmet topped with a ring,!* a type very common on the columns, instead of the feather crest!® customary in the panels. The helmet of another is broken, but the shape of the break suggests the feather crest. Of the four uniforms that are visible, two segmented cuirasses alternate with a scale corselet and a unique kind of square scale mail. The latter seems most closely related to the corselet dotted with circular depressions in diagonal rows, which 1s one of the common varieties on the Aurelian column. The same type much more finely executed appears in the great Trajanic frieze and in the Profectio, where it comes closer to suggesting chain mail. Here the squared plaques may possibly represent a different construc-

tion;! but it is more probable, in my opinion, that the divergence from the customary 10 See Lehmann-Hartleben, 7raianssdule, 17-18. 1 Tn two adlocutio scenes on the Column there is a general response from the soldiers, in Scene 77 after the

big submission, and in Scene 125 after the capture of the Dacian capital. In both of these, but particularly the latter, the event is probably closer to an acclamatio, the salutation by the soldiers which occasioned either a triumph or theassumption of the title Imperator; cf. Trajanic coin types with the legend IMPERATOR VIII, which represent such an acclamation, Fig. 40c and BMC 3, pl. 41, 1-4. In Scene 104 one soldier out of 22 and possibly one cavalryman appear to be raising a hand in response. On the Aurelian column there is occasionally some response from the soldiers, e.g. Scenes 55, 86, and possibly in 83 (though here the one

soldier whose hand is raised looks at the spectator and may rather be pointing to the emperor than responding to him. 12 Couissin, 429-32.

23 Tbid., 432-34, “a panache.” 14 Couissin, 449-51, considers it a variety of scale corselet. C. Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959) 14, assumes it is leather.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE a3 representation of chain mail is aimed to serve the artistic design. The predominantly vertical and horizontal lines of the armor and the vertical lines of standards and spears help to express the strength and discipline of the legions (pp. 49, 62). The soldiers wear the usual large sword (g/adius) on the right side, attached to a belt or to a baldric over the left shoulder. The ends of the scabbards are broken off, but in two cases contact points on the thigh show where they were originally. Each soldier carries a spear except the last foreground figure, whose weapon would necessarily have obscured the head of the siguifer Fig. 37a

standing beside him. A similar interference is prevented in the first row by the device of showing the spear slanting into the background so that its point is seen beyond the emperot’s

raised hand—a deliberate departure from accuracy to serve an artistic purpose, as is the omission of the spear in the back row. The varied uniforms of the soldiers in all the groups shown in battle array led one critic to describe it as a “triumph of fantasy.”16 It is more probably a feature of the conciseness of the “panel style,” reflecting in single representatives the various units and ratings and ranks of the army (pp. 92-93). It is rather exceptional that in this relief the seven soldiers are placed in such a way that they do actually suggest two companies, each with a signifer and

a standard. There is a pronounced division between the first row of three soldiers and the two pairs at the left, who are closely massed, with the spears and edges of shields separating them from the first row. This, however, may be intended purely to avoid a separation between the emperor and a solid mass of troops. It has generally been assumed that the soldiers are of the praetorian guard, possibly the specu/atores, the picked company of

praetorians attached to the emperor’s person. But their variety of dress suits better a representative selection from various military units. The ségua are restored above the break across the top of the relief, but the spur of what appears to have been a crescent just above

the tassels on each suggests that both were legionary standards.” Traces of the back curve of a mural crown on each signum just below the break show that they were composed of the same elements as the two legionary standards in the Submission (p. 62). Of all the themes represented in the panels, the Adlocutio was the most firmly established

in Roman artistic tradition and is the most richly illustrated in extant examples. The type : appears first on coins of Caligula,!® in a composition dictated principally by the content. , Since the emperor was to be shown addressing the troops from a taised platform, his figure occupied a space half again as high as the soldier’s group but considerably narrower. This feature, inherent in the actual situation, determined the basic design, which was essentially a rectangle divided into four sections of different relative dimensions—a broad rectangular mass of the soldiers, a lower rectangular mass of the tribunal, a high rectangular space above it occupied by the emperor, and a remaining space above the soldiers’ group

15 Couissin, 378-79. |

which could be used for ensigns and standards to identify the group and to introduce 16 Durry, 229, note 5. 1 A crescent at this point is common on legionary signa, e.g. Column of Trajan, Scenes 4, 10, 24, 26, 27,

but not on praetorian standards. 18 BMC 1, pl. 29, 12; Bernhart, pl. 88, 1.

o4 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Fig. 39a variety of lines. In the circular space of a coin the design was still fundamentally rectangular

on a base line provided by the exergue and the legend. The type was shortly elaborated and better balanced, by the addition of an imperial companion to make a group instead of a single figure occupying the tribunal, and by a Fig. 396 change of the emperot’s garb from toga to the cuirass,! always more appropriate to the content but avoided in the early empire because of a deliberate emphasis on the civil and religious aspects of the principate. Beyond this, the composition was varied only by differing treatment of the group addressed, by different elements used to adorn the space above the listening group, or by the introduction of architectural background. Developed first as an adlocutio, it was readily adapted to other themes, the more easily with the aid of a legend, customary on coins, to make explicit the specific intent. Under Trajan it was used, with several variations of meaning, as a Rex Datus, the nuances made clear by the legends as well as by details of the group before the tribunal.?° In the same period it appears, again with the emperor seated, as an acclamatio, the intent made clear by the legend IMPERATOR

Vill and by the soldiers’ gestures of salutation.*4 A Domitianic type representing the soldiers’ oath taken in the presence of the emperor was gradually transformed into a similar composition by the introduction of a platform to lift the imperial group to an upper register in the design.?* The Hadrtanic “Exercitus”’ series uses the type of the adlocutio or combines the soldiers’ group from the ad/ocutio with an equestrian adventus.*a

At the beginning of the Flavian era the illusionistic style current in Roman relief transformed the simple row of profile figures of the soldiers to a restlessly moving, three Fig. 39b dimensional group with individuals turned in different directions and with greater variety of lines in the space above them.** Among the new features was the introduction of one fioute in front of the tribunal turned to face the listeners’ group. The addition served in turn as the basis for a new application of the type which might be termed a “presentation.” The new version appears in the coinage of Marcus Aurelius, with the legend PROVIDENTIA, as the presentation to the troops of the heir to the principate.*4 It also supplied, in monumental art, the design of the Rex Datus panel, which is closer to an ad/ocutio, in that the vassal king is presented to the soldiers in camp.

Subsequent to the Flavian development of an illusionistic listeners’ group the older tradition of a group in profile did not disappear but continues in alternation with the other type, according to the taste of the artist.2° Both varieties appear among the greatly 19 BMC 1, pl. 45, 18 (Nero); pl. 58, 8; Bernhart, pl. 88, 3 (Galba). 20 Strack, 1, pl. 8, 450; pl. 9, 475; BMC 3, pl. 20, 10; pl. 40, 8. 21 BMC 3, pl. 41, 1-4. Cf. also BMC 3, pl. 30, 6 for a different use of the same basic composition. 22 BMC 2, pl. 71, 4 (Domitian); Strack 1, pl. 4, 310 (Trajan, with the legend FIDES EXERCIT); BAC 4, pl. 106, 9 and Gnecchi, pl. 78, 6-9 (Commodus). 222 BMC 3, pl. 93.

23 BMC 1, pl. 58, 8: Bernhart pl. 88, 3 (Galba). 24 TD AT 46 (1931) 113, fig. 18e. Commodus must surely be the small armed figure in front of the tribunal rather than the full grown companion of the emperor; cf. the childish head of Commodus on coins of a few years later; Bernhart, pl. 38, 9. 25 E.g, Bernhart, pl. 88, 4 (Nerva, Adlocutio); BMC 3, pl. 93, 9 and 13 (Hadrian, Exercitus types); 4, pl. 81, 10 (Marcus Aurelius, Adlocutio); Gnecchi, pl. 78, 8 (Commodus, Fides Exercitus).

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE By) elaborated versions of the ad/ocutzo on the Columns, where the composition and total effect are altered further by a gradually growing trend toward frontality in the imperial group. The latter in turn demands an adjustment in the soldiers’ group, resulting at times in a row of soldiers, seen from the back, ranged across the front of the tribunal. In Hamberg’s view*® the Adlocutio of the panel shows the “conservatism characteristic of monumental art,” following essentially the profile treatment of the old formula established by the coin type of Caligula in contrast with the newer trend toward frontality. In its context of contrasting the panel with the frontality of compositions such as Scenes 4, 9, and 83 of the Aurelian column, this statement is, in a broad sense, correct. But it takes no account of the development in monumental art of the new treatment of space described by Lehmann-Hartleben as a new “illusionism’’,*’ by Hamberg as a “‘stereoscopic” effect. The view of the panel intended by the artist reveals a scene that is neither profile nor frontal, but tridimensional and properly described as “‘illusionistic.”’28 From this angle the profile Fig. 376 treatment largely disappears because the spectator is sharing the soldiers’ view of the emper-

or. If the relief divides into two groups, it is not the old division between soldiers and imperial party, but a close circle of three soldiers clustered about the emperor and a group of four with a signum at its center. The camp dress of the emperor, in place of the cuirass usual in the ad/ocutio since the Galban type,”® accords with the usage of the panels and of numerous scenes on the Aurelian Column where the cuirass might have been expected. But it is also one of the resources of the artistic expression. Thus it appears that the artist of the panel, drawing upon a wide range of previous solutions to the problems presented

by the type, has transmuted the traditional elements into a new way of expressing the relation between the emperor and his army, and of drawing the spectator into that relation. | It has been suggested earlier in this chapter that the Rex Datus and the Adlocutio were pendants of an upper tier of panels, probably to left and right of the inscription on the attic. An analysis of the two in the light of this possibility reveals some parallels that lend support to the hypothesis. The parallelism of the total design in reversed direction has been mentioned. But the parallelism goes further. In both panels the soldiers and the standards form not a single mass but two groups each with its own sigwifer and standards.

In both panels the groups consist of three soldiers in the front row and behind them a closely clustered group of four. In both panels the artist has avoided traditional division between emperor and army by establishing a peculiarly close connection between the emperor and some part of the group before him. In the Adlocutio that part is the first semicircle of soldiers, while in the Rex the special relation is in the emperor’s sponsorship of the barbarian prince and the response to it by the soldier in the center foreground. In these two panels, and in these alone, the intent of the scene is first and foremost the relation 26 Studies, 141-42.

27 Dionysiac Sarcophagi, 72; cf. Hamberg, Studies, 101. | 28 A series of coin types beginning with that of Galba marks the continuance and shows the vitality of the concept; see Strack, 1 pl. 4, 309 (Trajan); Gnecchi, pl. 144, 4 and JD-AT (1931) 113, fig. 18c (Hadrian); Gnecchi, pl. 58, 3 (Marcus Aurelius). 29 The toga appeared occasionally, on coins of Nerva and again under Hadrian, Bernhart, pl. 88, 5 and 8 and Gnecchi, pl. 144, 4.

26 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS between the emperor and his troops. Closer and more intimate in the Adlocutio, it is relaxed in the Rex Datus sufficiently to include the barbarian protégé of the emperor but still insisted on by drapery pattern, by the upward glances of the soldiers, and also by gestures of acceptance. These two scenes are conspicuous among the panels, finally, for their emphasis on the strength and solidity of the army. It is expressed in the Rex Datus by the repeated verticals of the architectural background and of the standards, and also by repetition of the vertical lines in the cloaks, of the emperor, the vassal king, and the two soldiers in the foreground. In the Adlocutio the sgna, the spears, and the essentially vertical lines of the armored figures create a corresponding impression of strength, mellowed into affectionate loyalty and paternal concern by the more gracious lines of the imperial figure. 5. PRISONERS Only two of the eight panels on the Arch of Constantine, the Prisoners! and the SubmisFigs. 40-42 sion, show the Roman troops in contact with the enemy, and of these only the Prisoners has any trace of conflict. The long spiral of the column was better adapted to the larger expanse of the battle scenes, and these ate left entirely to the column to depict.” The panel with its limitation to a telatively few figures could be used more effectively to allude to battles partially or completely won. The bringing in of captives is a familiar motif on both columns, typifying progress and interim success. There are frequent instances, indeed, of

prisoners brought in from the right with hands bound behind their backs, sometimes grasped by the hair.3 But the total effect of the panel is very different because on the Fig. 40 columns the motif is apt to be incidental to a larger battle scene; here it is the central focus around which the military action is concentrated. Thus there ate five soldiers surrounding the prisoners haled before the emperor. Most conspicuous of all is the soldier in the center foreground, seen directly from the back as he strides leftward toward the emperor, oval shield on his left arm and his right across the shoulders of a prisoner. His bent left knee, feet wide apart and raised right heel, the oblique curve of the backfastening

of his cuirass and the agitated movement of his tunic skirt below the cuirass tabs all combine to show the excitement and vigor of his entrance, and perhaps also to suggest the intensity of his struggle with the prisoner. The axis of his body slants to the left as if he were pulling the captive along forcibly and with some effort. The axis of the prisoner’s body is similarly slanted as he is dragged along, though the only sign of the resistance is the clenched left fist which seems to twist fruitlessly against the chain. His right heel too is 1 Bellori, pl. 25; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 242. Restored: head of the emperor.

2 Pallottino, BCom 66 (1938) soff. points out that battle scenes were not a part of the monumental tradition until the time of Trajan. He attributes their origin to the triumphal paintings which were probably an important factor in the development of the continuous style of the columns. Cf, Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule, 40-42. Battle scenes, with the themes of the capture of prisoners and of submission, are as conspicuously absent from numismatic art, and probably for the same reasons. 3 Hands behind back: Column of Trajan: Scenes 40, 41, 68, 146; Column of Marcus Aurelius: Scenes 25, 47, 64, 66, 71 (restored), 77, 102. Grasped by the hair: Column of Trajan: Scene 18; Column of Marcus Aurelius:

66, 71 (restored). See below for discussion. 4 The fingers of the right hand are broken off, but it, too, was probably closed in a clenched fist.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 57 lifted, and like the soldiet’s is shown from the back, conveying the impression that prisoner and captor are moving in obliquely from the right foreground toward the tribunal. Another soldier strides forward from behind the tribunal at the left, turning his head back to look up at the emperor as if awaiting his word. His shield seems almost to collide with that of

the first soldier, behind whom it is partly obscured. His sharply bent right arm and his bent knee, the tossing skirt of his tunic, and the rippling of his unusually long scale corselet® express a similar thrust of movement in the opposite direction. The opposing direction of movement is carried out also in the position of the feet, his forward left foot planted obliquely forward toward the right, his right concealed behind the tribunal. In the background at the far right appears the captor of the second prisoner, with his Fig. 42 right hand grasping the barbarian’s hair. The force of the grasp pulls the captive’s head back so that his face is turned upward and he seems to be looking directly at the emperor. Fig. 41a

His mouth is open as if in an agonized plea for mercy. The faces of both prisoners are executed with great care and with great sympathy. The head of the first (at the right) is Fig. 416 bent slightly forward and his expression is one of sad resignation or despair—the upper eyelid heavily shading the eye, the cheek hollow and the lines of the mouth drooping, the heavy locks of hair falling over the forehead. The other captive’s head is very differently portrayed. The brows are knit and the forehead lined, the eyes widely staring, and the Fig. 41a mouth half open. The hair is swept back from the forehead, and some locks above the temples are drawn back across the side locks in such a way as to suggest the pull of the soldier’s grasp. In a number of ways, this head is made the focus of the group before the tribunal. Not only is its expression the most striking, but it is in larger scale than those of the soldiers and the barbarian’s figure is made proportionately taller. Accordingly the head appears at a higher point in the relief, at the peak of a pyramidal arrangement of heads, marking the climax of the design as it is the climax of the emotional impact. The two remaining soldiers’ heads, one at the left in front view and the other in profile between the second barbarian and his captor, seem to have been inserted primarily to fill in the spaces and create an impression of a crowd surrounding the prisoners. They also wield the two spears which were needed in the background for the purposes of the design. The staves of the vexi//a are vertical and presumably are fixed in the ground, unless bearers are to be imagined in the left background obscured behind the visible figures. The sense of struggle conveyed by the group is powerful. The actual number of figures before the tribunal is the same as in the Adlocutio, but here they seem like a milling crowd, there an orderly and relatively small group. In the Adlocutio the figures are arranged in two—at one point in three—planes; here there are nowhere less than three, and in the center of the group at least four distances must be distinguished. Even more important to the effect of violent struggle, the movement is in three different directions, coming into collision at the center. All three directions are shown in the feet of the soldier and prisoner striding in from the right foreground, of the soldier coming forward from the left, and of the second captive moving leftward in the plane of the relief. The sense of excitement and

5 The rippling is visible in the cross light of the angle view. Fig. 42

28 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS conflict is echoed in the varied, almost motley, garb of the figures. The three in the foreground are utterly different both in details and in compositional lines. The strong horizontal and vertical lines of the segmented cuirass in the center create a harsh dissonance with the deep swinging curves and restless fringed edge of the barbarian’s cloak, and also with the diagonal checkered design of the scale corselet at the left. The lines of the two sword baldrics trace a further conflicting pattern, rising in a pyramid completed by triangular space beneath the heads above, which is again bisected by the straight edge of the shield cattied upward by drapery to the fastening of the barbarian’s cloak. Still another pattern is formed by the blazonry on the three shields, all different but all consisting of curves or spirals. The five helmets are surmounted by different crests. At the far right and left are two common types, the high feather crest and the ring, while the two between appear to be, at the left, a lower feather crest and, at the right, a variant of the Phrygian type common on the Arch of Septimius Severus.’ The crest in the center foreground is broken off, but the break on the helmet and a contact point on the hand entwined in the prisoner’s hair indicate

that it is of still another type, possibly the feather crest rising from a round socket as customary on the Column.8 All this forms a striking contrast to the two figures on the tribunal, in whose dress the

, vertical lines are emphasized more than in any other of the panels. The draping of the emperor’s tunic and cloak in a vertical fall before and behind is much like that of the Rex

Datus, but here the lines are repeated in the dress of Pompeianus. The same contrast between the two parts of the scene is continued in the treatment of the upper background. Above the emperor the staves of the two ensigns catry upward the verticals of the imperial figures, and the banners themselves are gently waving. But over the milling crowd of soldiers the third vexi//um tosses wildly to the right, met in an irregular arching pattern by the gnarled and twisted tree trunk with bunchy irregular clusters of leaves. Beneath it the two spears introduce still another linear pattern, meeting in a sharp triangle that completes the converging lines traced in the lower part of the relief by the edge of the shield and the sword, and carried to the ground line by the legs of two soldiets. Fig.42_ The whole scene is most effective if viewed on the spectator’s left at not too steep an angle, that is to say, if the relief were placed on the left pylon of an arch. A lower position makes the effective elevation above the soldiers approximately the same as that of the Adlocutio in the position proposed for that panel. This position offers the best view of the emperor receiving the prisoners, and conveys most sharply the impact of the opposing movement of the soldiers in the foreground, the stride away from the spectator toward the

tribunal, and the bound hands twisting against their chain. Only from this view is it fully clear that the captive’s head is pulled back by a hand grasping his hair. From a 6 See C, Vermeule, /RS 50 (1960) 8-11 and pls. 1, 2, 4; Vermeule assumes, as is customary, that the figure is an officer, though he classes the helmet rightly as an “ordinary legionary type”’ worn by officers and soldiers. * Couissin, 406, figs. 150-51 and 258-59. See Durry, 229 and note 5, who interprets what I have called a low feather crest as a bird’s head. 8 See Column of Marcus Aurelius, passim. Cf. Couissin, 407-8, 331, figs. 103-4. Vermeule, Joc, cit. suggests

a ring helmet, but this would not account for the contact point on the hand.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 29 steeper angle the agonized face is less visible and the other prisonet’s face begins to be obscured by the arm and shoulder of his captor. Earlier criticism of the panels distinguished two racial types among the barbarians represented in the eleven reliefs, identifying those of the Clementia as Germans and those in the Prisoners and the Submission as Sarmatians. But the differences are mote probably stylistic than racial. The wilder locks and more heavily modelled features of the latter show only the differences that mark all the heads in the re-used panels as compared with those in the Conservatori group. The faces of the kneeling barbarians in the Clementia Fig. 3 seem like genre types compared with these unforgettable individualized heads. But the same can be said of the soldiers’ faces in the Clementia compared with those of the Adlocu- Fig. 38 tio, for example.

As has been noted earlier, the treatment of the Prisoners differs from the treatment of the same theme in the column narratives, and primarily because of the inevitably greater compactness of the panel scenes and the concentration of more details within smaller compass. The closest parallels, and probably in actual fact the predecessors on which the Aurelian artist drew freely, occur on the Column of Trajan. In Scene 18 a soldier brings in Fig. 43 from the right a prisoner with hands bound behind his back. The soldier is shown from the back, as in the panel, with his right arm across the bound arms of the captive. Both bodies ate slanted to the left, and appear to be moving in obliquely from the right foreground. This means, in terms of the spatial conventions of the column, moving from lower right to upper left, toward the emperor and four companions. The imperial group must be understood as standing on a rocky ledge®, but the row of soldiers ranged frontally across below them imparts to the scene much the same effect as that of the panel. A second soldier at a slightly higher level behind the prisoner completes the group, as in the panel. A row of trees in the background, arching over the group, might well have suggested the single tree that survives in the panel. Scene 18 shows a pair from which the second prisoner and his captor might have been derived. The soldier strides vigorously to the left pushing his captive ahead of him, with Fig. 43 his right hand grasping the barbarian by the hair and pulling his head backward. There is even an additional head of a soldier between the two, as in the panel.!° As the pair appears in the panel, placed behind the first soldier in such a way that only the captive’s head and the

hand grasping it by the hair are visible, it might have been suggested by still another Trajanic motif from the column. In Scene 72 two soldiers with shield in hand approach the emperor holding out to him severed heads of barbarians which they hold by the hair. The trees in the background and the elevated ground on which Trajan stands with his two companions make the scene parallel to the panel in general design as well as, partially, in content. A similar motif of two soldiers proffering severed heads of barbarians occurs in Fig. 46 the battle scene of the great frieze from Trajan’s Forum. Though the context is completely 9 As in Scenes 14, 52, 63, 66, inter alia. 10 A similar group on the Column of Marcus Aurelius, Scene 71, is a restoration, but it corresponds to

this so closely in design—even to the additional head between soldier and captive—that it is obviously derived from the earlier column.

60 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS different, the group is partly obscured behind battling horses and riders in such a way that at first glance it appears to represent the bringing of prisoners held by the hair. Both of the captive motifs employed in the panel, the barbarian with hands tied behind the back and with hair grasped by the captor, were traditional features of the representation of barbarian captives in Roman art, appearing as early as the Augustan age on the Vienna gem and in various other contexts. It has been noted!8 that the prisoner-captor groups in the later scenes of the Column of Trajan show the development of a new type, in which the prisoner is not bound but as it were handcuffed by the grasp of a soldier on either side (Scenes 148, 149, 150, 152). But the Aurelian artists, of both panel and column, preferred

the traditional types, which they developed and varied in a number of ways. The panel scene, in particular, is developed from at least two inherited motifs, but these are adapted, elaborated, and concentrated into an intense expression of struggle, driving from two directions toward collision point and also building up to a climax in the tortured face of the huge captive in the center of the mass. The relation of the emperor to this stuggling group is different from that in any other of the panels. The tribunal is lower than in the preceding pair, but that probably only compensates for the different height at which this panel was intended to be seen. On the other hand,

the figure of Pompeianus is noticeably less tall than Marcus and would be even more dwarfed by the comparison when seen from the position proposed for this relief. Thus the emperor’s domination of the scene was even more emphatic than in the two preceding panels. He is set apart from the soldiers also by the contrast between his calm authority and their turmoil. His arm is outstretched from the shoulder slightly more than in the other scenes, and his hand must have been extended in a gesture of reception rather than salutation. The gesture is implemented by the stance of the emperor’s body, with weight on the forward foot as if taking a step forward toward the prisoners. It can only signify the clementia of the emperor proffered to the captured enemy. The pose of the soldier striding forward from behind the tribunal suggests violent action, arrested, however, while he turns his head to look up at the emperor as if waiting for a command. In the light of scenes 20, 61, and 69 of the Aurelian column, which show the slaughter of captives, it seems likely that the soldier expects an order to kill the prisoners. His right hand is in a position to have held a drawn dagger; however, the emperor looks past his indignant glance!® into the upturned face of the barbarian, whose imploring eyes his own glance must have met. His relation is thus not so much with the soldiers as with the captives, to whose appeal he responds with hand outstretched in mercy. The outstretched hand ts not 11 Giuliano, Arco di Costantino, 6; Pallottino, BCom 66 (1938) pl. 1. 12 See Lehmann-Hartleben, Triaianssdule, 50-52; BJ] (1911) 177-78. 13 Lehmann-Hartleben, of. cit. 53, 54. M4 Scenes 21, 25, 47, 64, 66, 71, 77, and 102 are all adaptations of the traditional types. Of these, Scenes 21

and 25 seem to show the influence of the newer Trajanic type. 15 In a gesture of salutation at this range the arm would be less extended but sharply bent at the elbow, as in the Adlocutio. 16a Cf, Column of Trajan, Scene 29; Column of Marcus Aurelius, Scene 25. 16 The head could hardly have been bent so as to meet his glance.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 61 a part of the artistic tradition. In the parallel scenes on the Column of Trajan the emperor makes no gesture of response. The gesture does, however, occur on the Aurelian column,!” and is to be interpreted as part of the post-Trajanic concept of the emperor’s role.18 The compelling impact of the scene lies in the tension between the irresistible might of the empire, represented in the soldiery overpowering the resisting captives, and the mercy granted to those whom it subdues, embodied in the person and authority of the princeps. If this interpretation of the import is correct, it represents a broadening of the old imperial ideal, “parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.” 6. SUBMISSION

In the Submission,! as in the Prisonets, the central theme is the relation between the Fig. 44 emperor and the barbarians, but the artist has depicted it in another aspect, and other relations within and between the groups. In this relief the imperial group is most distant of all from the figures before the tribunal. The emperor is raised high above them and seated, while Pompeianus stands stiffly behind him with eyes straight ahead, his erect formal pose emphasized by the straight lines of his arm and of the shoulder tabs of his cuirass. His face is in full profile and more meagerly portrayed than in any other of the panels, presented strictly as the commander of troops and the embodiment of the military organization. The emperor is cut off from the group before him also by the scroll which originally he held in both hands, not looking down directly at his listeners but reading, pethaps, the terms of the treaty imposed upon the vanquished.? As in the great submission Fig. 45a scene of the Column of Trajan (Scene 75), the seated emperor is magnified in stature to be nearly as tall as the standing figures about him. The background filled with three standards and a vexi//um is almost as formal as that of the Rex Datus. The four staves rise perpendicular almost to the top of the field with only one deviation from the vertical, in the sideward swing of the ensign. The latter does not apparently indicate movement of the bearer, as in the Profectio, since all four staves seem to be planted in the ground behind the soldiers, but is dictated by artistic purpose. The strong

curve to the left meets and brings back into balance the leftward deviation from the vertical of the emperot’s seated pose. A vexi//um surmounted by a Victory appears in one ™ Tn Scene 66 the gesture is one of salutation to the soldiers bringing the prisoner, and it might possibly

pe a salutation in Scene 21. In Scene 25, however, it is clearly a gesture of reception with hand simply ~ WC ‘ementia granted to struggling prisoners is not quite the same thing as c/ementia proffered to submissive

suppliants. On the Column of Trajan the gesture is never accorded to bound prisoners and only rarely to kneeling suppliants. In this respect there appears to be a distinction between the first war which ended with a treaty with Decebalus and the second war at the close of which Decebalus was killed. The gesture of clemency ceases to appear toward the end of the narrative (Scenes 29/30, 46, 61, 118; cf. Scenes 123, 130, I4T).

4 pellori, pl. 31; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 248. Restored: Head of the emperor; front corner of the tribunal. 2 The position of the emperor’s hands and of the contact point on the background above and to the right

of the left forearm are best explained by the assumption that he held a scroll with both hands, as in Scenes 9 and 55 of the Aurelian column.

62 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS instance on the Column of Trajan, apparently as the ensign of a vexi//atio.3 The Victory here serves the artistic purpose of bringing the height of the ensign up to equal that of the three signa, which seem to represent one praetorian standard flanked by two identical legionary signa.’ The latter are composed of the same elements as those in the Adlocutio:® two tassels at the bottom, a crescent, a mural crown, a phalera, a wteath, a second phalera, a relief of the legion’s animal symbol (a crab? scorpion P), a cross bar with streamers, and a hand. Such a combination of elements is unusual for legionary standards, which the Column of Trajan shows as an almost unvaried series of phalerae crowned with an eagle in a wreath or witha hand. But the distinction between legionary and praetorian standards is much less strict on the Aurelian column.® The central standard is a typical praetorian sigvum, with an eagle on

a crossbar with streamers surmounting a circular relief, a Victory, two imagines with a Fig. 45b wreath between, a crown and two tassels. The lower zwago is much damaged and, like that

in the Lustratio, was identified by Wegner as an unbearded portrait of Commodus. As in the Lustratio, the considerable damage to the other elements of the s#gva and to both hands of the emperor invalidates the assumption of erasure of the imago. Moreover, the long triangular break running down into the neck, visible in the detailed photograph, seems a sure indication that the head was bearded. (See p. 3). The group before the tribunal consists of eight figures, of whom six are Roman soldiers ranged in an almost isocephalic row across the background. The head at the far left is placed at a slightly higher level, apparently to bridge the angle between the row of heads and the emperot’s thigh. Two heads only partly seen between others increase the impression of

_ dense ranks of soldiery. The linear design of the soldiers’ group and the standards in the background 1s verticalhorizontal. The solid row of heads is repeated in the horizontals composed by the successive separate elements of the signa. Division lines straight across the three standards are

strongly marked by the tassels and again at the top by the cross bars, less strongly but insistently by the duplicated elements of the two legionary signa and by the several coinciding

divisions between elements of all three. All these would have been more conspicuous before the damage suffered by the crescents and crowns. The vertical lines are still more dominant, in the stiff erect pose of Pompeianus, in the shoulder flaps of his cuirass and back folds of the emperot’s tunic, in the high tribunal and the tall standards. The total effect is a firm statement of the solidity and strength, order and discipline of the Roman atmies. The soldiers’ heads are turned in three directions, almost like military formations of troops on parade. At the far left one head is turned sharply as if standing at attention 3 Scene 4, It appears among several praetorian signa in a regiment of footsoldiers. 4 Domaszewski assumed that the soldiers appearing in the panels were always praetorians, since they

were the special troops of the emperor; Fahnen, 26, note 3; 76-78. This assumption has no support in evidence, as noted also by Stuart Jones, BSR 3 (1906) 267. Cf. Durry, 201 204ff. 5 The signa in the Adlocutio have been restored with different elements at the top, but the two are identical up to the break in the relief. 6 The signum in Scene 9 must be a praetorian standard because it includes an swage of the emperor, but there is also a phalera. The one clear example in Scene 4, with no smago, is presumably legionary, but includes

two crowns. Cf. also BMC 4, pl. 79, 2; pl. 81, 10.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 63 facing the emperor. In the center a bareheaded soldier and two signéferi tarn at the same very slight angle to the right, toward the chief in the foreground, while at the far right a signifer and a helmeted soldier turn three-quarters left. As in the Rex Datus the soldiers are unarmed, and one is in camp dress with bare head and fringed cloak.’ Against this backdrop of Roman military might the whole foreground, bounded by the

tribunal as a strong barrier, is occupied by the two tragic figures of the surrendering chieftain and his son. In this pair there are practically no vertical lines. The conspicuous line of the chieftain’s leg slants away from the tribunal in the plane of the relief and also into the background at an angle to it. The horizontal curve of the bent arm is repeated in the curving lines of the cloak, of which very little vertical fall is shown behind the shoulder. The prevailingly diagonal lines of the drapery are crossed by the horizontal curve of the belt. The slight zigzag of the chief’s body becomes much more striking in the son, given its direction by the chief’s limp hand that lies along his shoulder. The pair has been described as a wounded chieftain supported by his son,® and this is perhaps a way of accounting for the backward sagging of the chief’s figure and the bent body of the son. But there is no

sien of any wound, nor is there any evidence of muscular effort in the son’s pose or expression. He leans limply against his father in utter dejection and grief, and the father’s hand resting on his shoulder, itself limp and powerless, 1s nevertheless encircling him with solace if not with aid. The chief’s right hand is outstretched, palm upward, in submission to the emperor, perhaps also consigning his son and with him the hope of his people to the conquerot’s protection. This seems to me the interpretation that best accords with both the pose and the facial expression of the two barbarians. The sagging of the chieftain’s body is thus symbolic of his situation. He 1s beaten, and no longer has the strength nor the hope nor the pride to stand erect. But his dignity as a chief remains. His mouth is not open in a Fig. 45¢ cry ot a plea and his face is controlled. Damage to the upper part of the face has destroyed whatever expression of grief the brow might have shown. The son’s attitude and expression contrasts sharply with the father’s. His body bends at knees and hips, and the hand hangs loosely, touching but not grasping the edge of his father’s tunic. While the chief’s hair seems to have been swept back from the forehead, like the taller of the prisoners but not so wildly disarranged, the son’s hair falls in three heavy jagged locks down over his forehead and in front of his ear. The face shows no trace of muscular effort as if he were supporting part of his father’s weight, but only despair and grief. The brow is gathered in Fig. 45d an expression of one near to weeping, the face looks prematurely old, with lines underneath the eyes and at the sides of the mouth. There are traces of a slight beard, probably the Flaumbart of a young man, which intensifies the pathos of the young-old face. The lost hope for the future is quite appropriately, epitomized in the son more than in the chief himself.

The attitude of the emperor and soldiers toward the barbarians is in a sense the antithesis of that portrayed in the Prisoners. There, pity for the plight of the defeated, denied 7 In the great submission scene of the Column of Trajan Scene 75, the soldiers are all in battle dress but many are bareheaded, for no apparent reason except for the sake of variety. Variety is achieved even in the soldiers’ garb by showing in some cases only the drapery of the cloak instead of the corselet. 8 Strong, Sca/tRom, 255, Wegner, AA 1938, 184, Hamberg, Studies, 89-90.

64 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS by the attitudes and expressions of the Roman soldiers, is shown in the outstretched hand of the emperor. Here the emperor is removed and distant, but pity is written on the faces Fig. 46a of the three soldiers. The two soldiers behind the barbarians and one at the far left look at the emperor with an attitude primarily of attention. But the three in the center look at Fig. #5e the chieftan with unmistakable expressions of sadness and sympathy. This effect is conveyed

principally by the knitted brows and in one case by the slightly parted lips. While the Submission has no exact parallels in Roman art, it could draw upon, and shows the influence of, various earlier types. In the limited space of coin types the theme of submission of a defeated enemy is apt to be expressed by personified abstractions rather than by descriptive scenes. Types celebrating the victories of Titus, Domitian, and Trajan Figs. 7a-d show a kneeling figure—either a representative or a personification of the country before the emperor or Roma or Pax, or a similar figure seated beside a trophy or at the feet of the emperor.® The Column of Trajan includes many scenes in which the emperor stands, either extending his hand or unresponsive, to kneeling barbarians at his feet. A panel relief in the Villa Torlonia shows the standing togate figure of Hadrian with outstretched hand receiving the submission or the homage of kneeling barbarians. The more formal submission scene in which the emperor is seated is more rare, but it appears earlier in Roman art and may represent the older tradition." The basic motif of a figure kneeling before a conqueror seated on a raised platform appears on coins of the younger Sulla commemorating the capture of Jugurtha. A greatly elaborated scene on a silver cup from Bosco Reale shows Augustus seated on a tribunal surrounded by his lictors, extending his hand to kneeling barbarians who present their children to him. Stripped down to the two indispensable figures, the same motif occurs on coins celebrating the victories in Germany in 8 3.c.! The closest parallel, from which the Aurelian artist Fig. 45a undoubtedly drew some details, is the great Submission of the Column of Trajan (Scene 75).

There the composition is vastly extended, to include a large number of soldiers and of kneeling barbarians. As in the panel, the emperor is seated on a tribunal to the right, and is represented in larger scale so that his head is at a level just below those of the standing figures ranged behind him. Asin the panel, the strength and discipline of the Roman army is emphasized by a pattern of verticals and horizontals, traced by the series of standards and the solid row of eighteen soldiers across the background. The tribunal is lower but, because of the kneeling position of the barbarians, their heads are at the height of the ® BMC 2, pl. 73, 1 (Domitian); 3, pl. 28, 1; pl. 29, 5 (Trajan); pl. 12, 16-17 (Dacian captive by trophy); pl. 42, 8 (Armenia with Tigris and Euphrates seated at Trajan’s feet); cf. Toynbee, Hadrianic School, p\. 13,

6-11; pl. 9, 9, 12-14; pl. 12, 12-23. 10 See Lehmann-Hartleben, Zraianssdule, 54-63, Scenes 46, 61, 118, 123, 130, 141.

11 Strong, Scu/tRom, fig. 164; the head is restored as Lucius Verus, but the emperor was undoubtedly Hadrian; see Cianfarani, BCom 73 (1949-50) 235-53.

12 Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule, 57, cites earlier instances of the type in which the conqueror is seated, e.g., the Nereid monument, Winter, 265; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 480. 13 Grueber, 1, 471, and pl. 47, 18. 14 Strong, Scu/tRom, fig. 52.

18 BMC 1, pl. 12, 13-14; cf. pl. 10, 15-19, showing two figures holding out olive branches to the seated emperor. In both these types the figures before the tribunal are not kneeling but standing.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 65 emperot’s knees, as in the panel. Their heads, and at a lower level their outstretched arms, continue the diagonal lines that connect them with the figure of the emperor. Similar diagonal lines in the design connect the vanquished with the conquerers also in Scene 123, but the device is differently handled. There the emperor stands at the head of a mass of soldiers, creating a design in which vertical lines are strongly dominant, across which repeated diagonals of the suppliants’ arms reaching up toward him lead into the oblique curves of his cloak.16 The Aurelian artist’s departures from even the closest of the prototypes are, however, as conspicuous as his dependence upon them. Portrayal of the barbarians as standing and not kneeling figures may be in part an adaptation to the narrow space of the panel, but it seems also to mark the introduction of a new motif. The panel is probably the earliest among a number of instances in which a slight bending of the body and knees takes the place of the kneeling position to indicate submission or supplication.” The distribution of the figures within the strictly limited space is an important factor in the total impression. In contrast with the Submission of the earlier Column, where the army stands behind Trajan as a solid support, here the emperor is raised high above soldiers as well as barbarians. By the same token the soldiers look with sympathy at their fellow human beings, on the same level with themselves but differently treated by Fortune. Thus a new dimension is added to the emotional content of the theme. The Submission is seen best if placed to the right of the spectator. This position gives Fig. 46a the fullest view of the two barbarians and of the soldiers beside them. The face of the second soldier from the right is partially obscured from any point of observation, but the signifer nearest the chieftain, who is the best portrayed of all the soldiers, can be fully seen only at this angle. From any angle there is no “shared view” of the emperor, who is remote and contained within boundary of the tribunal itself, cut off not only from the spectator but, by his height above them and by the scroll in his hands, from the group before the tribunal. But the proposed view sharpens and clarifies the compositional lines crucial to the theme of submission. The relief is effective at almost any height above the eye, but a position at a relatively gentle angle without great foreshortening gives the sharpest impact to all the features that appear to have been emphasized by the artist: the remoteness of the emperot’s lofty elevation, the tall straightness of the standards, and the impressive stature of the barbarian chief himself. Moreover there are reasons intrinsic to the content for regarding this scene as a pendant to the Prisoners and assigning these two panels to a position on the left and the right pylon of the arch. They ate successive events in logical sequence,!* in 16 In a recent study devoted to the use and functions of gesture in Roman art, R. Brilliant (p. 152) notes that in the Aurelian panel the diagonal descending from emperor to barbarian establishes the Imperial supremacy, while the chieftain’s arm is below the main diagonal “but turns up as a symbol of dependence.” 17 Cf. Scenes 17, 40, 49A of the Aurelian column. In Scene 60 the body of the vanquished barbarian chief is not fully visible, but the arms hang limply like the son’s arm in the panel scene. Cf. also scenes of submission on the ends of a sarcophagus in Pisa, Reinach, RepRe/3, 121; Brilliant, fig. 3.132 (from Inst. neg. 34.345). #8 On the Column of Trajan the great Submission at the close of the first war follows quite closely upon two scenes involving captives, 68 and 72. A less important submission in Scene 46 is preceded by the bringing in of a prisoner (Scene 40). 5 Ryberg

66 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS that the Prisoners is a typical event of battle which leads up to and culminates in the final submission of the enemy. In their symbolic significance there is an antithesis that makes

these two suitable as pendants. As has been noted, they express the relation between Romans and barbarians in two different aspects. In one the struggling barbarian captives are overpowered by the irresistible force of the soldiers, whose attitudes express only the drive and determination of combat. Into this turmoil the c/ementia of the emperor reaches out to the still resisting captives. In the other scene the full power and dominion of Rome

is embodied in the person of the emperor lifted far above them, attended by his chief general in full military dress and flanked by the tall row of standards, administering justice but not mercy. Human heads, of soldiers and barbarians alike, reach only as high as his

frontiers. |

knees. But in these faces the artist has depicted the suffering of the conquered, and the concern of the soldiers for those who will from now on be fellow defenders of the

7. ADVENTUS

Fig.19 The Adventus! is unique among the panels in that it represents the emperor in the company of deities, with no human companions. Closer in content therefore to what has been defined as “‘allegorical paraphrase,’ the relief comes closer than any of the others to being Classic in style. It is simple in design and strongly but not rigidly symmetrical. The emperor appears almost exactly in the center, flanked on each side by a major deity, Mars at the left, Roma at the tight, each wearing a high crested helmet, each turned slightly toward the central figure. In the background on either side of the emperor are two female figures whose heads are turned in almost full profile toward him. His position in the center of interest is made still more emphatic by drapery patterns. His head is at the center of the arcs of a wide ellipse traced by Mars’ cloak and Roma’s tunic. The curving edge of the emperor’s cloak, in turn, repeats that of Mars, its lower folds merging with the line of Roma’s tunic in a smaller ellipse, while its upper folds are continued in the mantle of the background figure. The garland held by a Victory above the emperor’s head repeats the first wide ellipse at a highter level, and is repeated in a subdued antithesis by the bottom of the two mantles in the background. Within this subtly balanced rhythm of linear pattern there is in the foreground a slight movement toward the right, in the turn of the torsos and of the emperor’s head, and in his extended arm. Fig. 466 This movement becomes more arresting if the relief is viewed at the spectatot’s left and at some distance above eye level. From that point of observation the rhythm of lines described above is fully visible, but the emperor’s gesture of salutation becomes more conspicuous and the nexus between his figure and the two at the right dominates the design, while the two figures at the left retire into a second encircling group. It becomes more evident that 1 Bellori, plate 28; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 245, Restored: Head of the emperor. See pp. 28-33 for discussion of

the architectural background. 2 Hamberg, Studies, 41 ff., 80-83.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 67 Mars is turning away (note 24, below), while the emperor turns toward Roma, separated from Mats by the fall of his cloak behind his shoulder and by Mars’ shield. From this view the Victory takes a more active part in the scene, holding the garland directly behind the emperor’s head and at almost the same angle to the relief plane.? The bottom line of the emperor’s cloak joins that of the mantle at the right, while the connection with the veiled

figure at the left becomes less strong. Viewed from below at a fairly steep angle, the temple in the background comes into better perspective, and its roof loses the appearance of slanting down toward the foreground. The regrouping of the figures created by this view supplies a clue to the vexed question of the identity of the veiled “goddess” in the background. The goddess with caduceus and cornucopia is easily identified as Felicitas, who sometimes appears with Roma or instead of Roma to welcome the arrival of the emperor. (p. 69, note 18.) But the veiled figure at the Fig. 47a left has found no very satisfactory explanation. Aeternitas and Pietas have been suggested, chiefly on the ground that they appear in numismatic art as veiled figures.4 Aeternitas, however, on coins issued by an emperor is usually not veiled but sometimes has a veil arching over her head like the vault of heaven, often lined with moon and stars.® Ptetas on coins of an emperor is frequently offering sacrifice at an altar, in an act which itself demands veiling of the head.® Both are far more common on “empress” coins than on the regular imperial issues. A tentative suggestion offered by Aymard provides the most promising clue to a solution of the problem.’ Without choosing between Pietas and Aeternitas, Aymard proposes that the veiled goddess, represented vaguely enough to be either, is intended to awaken the memory of Diva Faustina, the Mater Castrorum. The suggestion has even more to commend it than was adduced by its proponent. Faustina, who was with the emperor at the frontier, had died in the East during the months between the conclusion of the war and the return to Rome, while Marcus was settling the disturbance caused by the revolt of Avidius Cassius. Both Pietas and Aeternitas appear on coins which commemorate Faustina’s consecration after the emperor’s return in 176 A.D. But Pietas is shown offering sacrifice, presumably to the Diva,’ and can hardly be identified with the deified empress herself. Aeternitas on the other hand is unquestionably an incarnation of the empress on coins of both the deified Faustinas. This is most clearly evident in the types showing the consecratio, with the empress carried to heaven by an eagle or by a winged figure with a torch. In the latter type the winged figure is presumably Aeternitas, and in one case appears with the Fig. 476 legend AETERNITAS in place of the more usual CONSECRATIO.® But in the former the empress 3 The right end of the garland is cut in shallower relief, but this is scarcely noticeable except when viewed

from the angle proposed. 4 Monaci, BCom 28 (1900) 92; Wegner, 4A 1938, 180, note 1; Hamberg, Studies, 81. , 5 See BMC 3 and 4, Indices; e.g. 4, pl. 22, 5-6; pl. 34, 7; pl. 11, 11. Bernhart, 81-83; Aust, RE, Aeternitas 3 BMC 4, pl. 5, 18; pl. 60, 9, 12, 19. Pl. 42, 4 shows a veiled Pietas without the altar. ? REA 352 (1950) 71-76. 8 BMC 4, 488, pl. 67, 13; cf. also a type of the deified elder Faustina pl. 34, 5. ® BMC 4, pl. 86, 7; cf. pl. 34, 8. 5¢

68 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Fig. 47¢ herself is Aeternitas, identified unmistakably by the veil arching over her head and lined with a circle of stars.!° A coin of the younger Diva Faustina shows the figure with arching veil carried heavenward in a biga, encircled by the legend SIDERIBUS RECEPTA.1! In another type a seated Aeternitas holding a scepter and a phoenix on a globe appears with the legend Fig. 47d AETERNITAS and also with the legend MATER CASTRORUM.!2 Thus it is clear that the deified empress was in fact identified with Aeternitas, and such an identification in the relief could

easily be suggested to the Roman spectator, particularly in the context of the imperial adventus 10. 176.3 In a group of deities it would be less easily suggested if the iconography too obviously matched that customary for Aeternitas, who was already associated with Roma and also with Felicitas.4 Accordingly the artist omitted the obvious attributes, and further suggested 2 human companion of the emperor by the arrangement of the veil. A

veiled goddess is usually shown with drapery falling straight down from the head and over the shoulders. Here it is gathered across the breast and over the left shoulder like that of a woman wearing a cloak over her head. As the face is a purely idealized classic type suggestive of Greek art of the late 5th or earlier 4th century, the figure is clearly not Fig. 47a conceived as Faustina with the attributes of a goddess, but rather as Aeternitas stripped of her distinctive attribute and draped to suggest the person of the empress. It is doubtless no accident that Faustina-Aeternitas is placed beside the departing Mars, while Felicitas shares the role of Roma in welcoming the returning emperor. For the Mater Castrorum, like Mars, was his companion and support in the wars but was not to accompany his victorious entrance into the City. Throughout the scene the artist has drawn upon the repertory of motifs familiar and long established in Roman art. The goddess with caduceus and cornucopia would be easily recognizable by attributes which had been part of the traditional iconography of Felicitas since the Flavian period.& Her presence in the Adventus is appropriate for a number of reasons. Not only were Aeternitas and Felicitas closely associated with the current concept of Roma,’ but she as well as the closely related Fortuna Redux were concerned with the safe return of the emperor. A coin type bearing the legend FELICITAS explicitly refers to 10 BMC 4, pl. 86, 7 and 9; cf. pl. 34, 3, 8 and 9. See Beaujeu, 413. 1 BMC 4, pl. 87, 1. A coin of the elder Diva Faustina shows a standing figure of Aeternitas, identified by the arching veil and a torch, with the legend AUGUSTA, in one of many types in which the figure of a goddess with the legend AUGUSTA presumably indicates an incarnation, BMC 4, pl. 38, 4; cf. LxxxIv and 57ff. See H. Mattingly HarvTheol Rev 41 (1948) 147-48.

12 RM 49 (1934) pl. 1, 3; BMC 4, pl. 86, 5 and 6. 13 Not only did the consecration take place at this time, but other honors were paid to the new Diva. Silver statues of her and of the emperor were decreed by the Senate as well as an altar in the Temple of Venus; Dio, 71 (72), 31. Dio records also that her statue occupied a curule chair in the theatre, On the association of the deified Antonine empresses with Aeternitas, see also BMC 4, lxxxiii-iv, xcvii, ci. 14 See Beaujeu, 139-58; 395-97. 15 See Bernhart, 88-89, In the coinage of the Antonine period the long-established type, a standing figure

turned to the left with a caduceus in her right hand and cornucopia in the left, is frequently varied by the substitution of a scepter, a branch, or a globe for one of the two attributes—often for the cornucopia, which was less peculiarly hers than the caduceus; see BMC 4, Indices. 16 See Beaujeu, 139-158, 395-97.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 69 the return journey in 176.17 Moreover Felicitas shared with Roma the role of receiving the emperor, appearing in coin types sometimes in her place.18 The flying Victory is a different type from the others represented in the panels (pp. 17, 46).

It is closer in several details to the Victory of Patonios, with one breast bared and the contours of both legs visible beneath transparent drapery. The horizontal flying pose with one foot considerably higher than the other is like that of Victories in the spandrels of an atch, derived ultimately from flying Victories on red-figured vases. It was employed on coin types in Marcus Aurelius’ reign to represent a Victory flying above a triumphal Fig. 10a-» chariot.*° The spread wings and garland carried across both hands are even more common in the coinage,*! but more frequently combined with the vertical flying pose employed in Fig. 9a the Triumph. The fully armed Mars wearing a Corinthian helmet and with a shield on his left arm is familiar in its single details but is not exactly paralleled in coin types or reliefs. The types commonly used on coins of the period were the Mars Ultor with cloak across his shoulders Fig. 35¢

and shield rested on the ground, and the striding nude Mars carrying spear and trophy, types which Mattingly associates respectively with the outbreak and cessation of hostilities. The type employed in the panel is closer, however, to the armed Mars of the Cancelleria relief and of the Arch of Benevento, both of which carry the shield.** The helmet ts different from either, though the Corinthian helmet is relatively common in Roman representations of Mars.*3 The knotted cingulum supporting the parazonium, usual in cuirassed figures of an emperor, is less commonly wotn by Mars. The object in his hand seems more likely to have been a trophy than the usual spear, as a spear would hardly have required the two supports visible in the frame at the left. Slanting outward into the frame, a trophy in his hand would have accentuated his slight turn to the left, intended to suggest that Mars who has accompanied the emperor from the frontier is now about to leave him to enter the city in Roma’s charge.*4 He is divided from the main group, enclosed between the curve of his shield and the relief frame; and the division is further accentuated by his downward glance and by the vertical fall of the emperor’s cloak behind his shoulder. Roma is of the familiar Amazon type which in this period shared its popularity with the

long-robed figure commonly used when the goddess was to be represented in seated 1 BMC 4, 660-63. Similar types representing a galley with oarsmen had been previously used by Hadrian as an allusion to his journeys, BMC 3, cxxxvi, and pl. 85, 1-7. 18 BMC 3, pl. 59, 6; pl. 87, 7; 4803 4, pl. 99, 17. Gnecchi, pl. 55, 2 shows a coin of 145 A.D. in which Felicitas and Roma together receive Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius, but there seems to be no reference to a return from absence; see Strack, 3, 130. The type reappears, slightly modified, in 191 a.p.; Gnecchi, pl. 85, 4-5. 99 Ee, [DAI 27 (1912) 279, figs. 8, 13, 15, 20. The feet wide apart are apparently an adaptation to a flying pose. It occurs on coins representing a flying Victory even in approximately vertical pose. 20 AA 1938, 162, abb. 2, a; Gnecchi, pl. 60, 7; pl. 87, 6-7. 21 BMC 4, pl. Go, 10-11, 15, 20. 22 Magi, Rilievi Flavi, 73-74, pls. 1, 2 and 6. Pietrangeli, pl. 21. 23 Bg. Reinach, RepStat 2, p. 189, 2, 6, 83; 3, P. 57, 5, 83 4, P. 108, I-3.

*4 Hamberg notes in the pose of Roma a “suspended character of transition from one direction of movement to another” (Studies, 81). This can be said also of Mars, whose right foot already turns toward the left, just as Roma has already begun the turn to the right.

70 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS position.”® She wears the visored sphinx-crowned helmet usual in both types, and her cloak is draped only on her left shoulder, as in the Cancelleria Adventus and in the great frieze from the Forum of Trajan.?6 As frequently in both types, she wears a baldric over the right

shoulder, which here seems to support no parazonium. In propottions and in details of iconography she is perhaps closest to the Roma of the great Trajanic frieze, and the compoFig. 48 sition of the group strongly suggests the influence of that relief. Her pose is very similar

except for the adaptations demanded by the reversed direction. In both reliefs Roma is already turning away to lead the emperor through an arch, but turns her head back to look not directly at him but across his glance. In both, the emperor raises his hand in a gesture of salutation, not to Roma herself but past her, while she makes no gesture except for the turn of her head. In the panel her right hand is missing, but the direction of the arm gives no reason to assume a gesture.”” Spear and shield are both held in the left hand, as in the Cancelleria Profectio—here probably in order not to detract from the emperot’s gesture. The shield is effective, also, as an enclosing border of the group, while the spear upright against the frame accents the move to the right without disturbing the strong vertical lines at this edge of the scene. Fig. 23 The “identity” of composition that has been claimed for the Adventus medallion of 173/74 (p. 2) is far from exact. The medallion and the panel both show the influence of the great frieze of Trajan, but they have derived different elements from it and have diverged from it in different ways. The panel draws from the Trajanic predecessor chiefly the figures of the emperor and Roma, placing them in the same relation but adapting them to the reversed direction. The coin type uses instead the Trajanic figures of the emperor and Victoria, similarly reversing the direction and substituting a trophy held in the emperot’s right hand for the gesture of salutation. The change in direction demands a mote fully profile view of Victoria, and the substitution for Roma of a soldier striding to the right carrying a standard accentuates the profile effect of the whole group. The Trajanic scene, which combined allegorical paraphrase in the foreground with a “realistic” background filled with soldiers’ heads, is thus altered, in the coin type, in the direction of a descriptivenarrative scene of triumphal entry. In the panel it is altered in the direction of allegory by omitting the crowd of soldiers and completing a circle of deities and deified abstractions about the emperor. In the panel the emphasis is therefore less exclusively upon the “processional” aspect of conducting the emperor into the City, and more on his encounter with the welcoming group of Roma and Felicitas. In this respect the scene draws opon another, and more purely symbolic, type of adventus, equally established in Roman artistic tradition, in which Roma alone or accompanied by other personifications receives the returning emperor with outstretched hand or with a handclasp. What I have called the “processional” 25 BMC 3, cxxxviil; Toynbee, Hadrianic School, 135-37; Magi, Riltevi Flavi, 74-76, pls. 1-2. 26 The sphinx helmet is ultimately derived from that of the Athena Parthenos. The cloak bunched on one shoulder - 220. is familiar in Greek art from the Hellenistic period, cf. the Poseidon from Melos, Richter, Handbook,

°a A contact point beside the helmet is not in the right place to support something held in the hand, and must have supported the edge of the crest.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 71 type is perhaps a derivative from, and intentionally reminiscent of, triumphal reliefs like that of the Arch of Titus, in which Roma leads the quadriga and Victory stands behind the emperor placing a wreath on his head.*8 A simplification of this, consisting only of the figures of emperor and Victory, is often used separately in coin types and reliefs.29 The “reception” type appears commonly on coins as an Adventus, particularly in the reign of Hadrian.*° In monumental relief its best known example is the Sctarra relief of Roma receiving Hadrian, which in the author’s opinion represents Hadrian’s first adventus in 118 A.D.

The Adventus of the panel is thus a synthesis of two established motifs, elaborated and given an added dimension by the implication of departure and farewell in the two figures at the left. The effect is not, actually, less narrative than the processional scene of the Trajanic

Adventus, for the presence of Mats and Faustina introduce a more specific historical content than does the crowd of soldiers in the Trajanic frieze. But here the event is told in allegorical terms, resulting in one of the purest examples of allegorical paraphrase in all of

Roman relief. It is appropriate to the uniquely allegorical tone of this panel that iconographic and stylistic details as well as its basic principles of design are drawn, more consistently than in the other panels, from classic Greek models. The proportions and style of the Victory, of Roma, and of Aeternitas-Faustina recall models of the late fifth or early fourth century, as does also the rather Zeus-like head of Mars. 8. LIBERALITAS

In a logical sequence of the panels the final pair are inevitably the Adventus and the Liberalitas,! depicting the homecoming to the City and the distribution of money to the Figs. 19, 49 citizens that traditionally celebrated a successful return from war or other important imperial “event.” While the Adventus has obvious and inevitable similarities to the Profectio, the foregoing re-examination of the panels has revealed basic differences in concept and execution dissociating the two, indicating instead that the Profectio was intended as the companion piece to the Lustratio. I have proposed that those two panels were originally the first in the sequence, placed to left and right on the pylons of an arch, to be read from left to right and from lower to upper tier. The same reasoning places the Adventus and Liberalitas at the end of the sequence, to left and right of the upper tier on the second face. And here they belong by all the criteria which have been used as evidence for determining the original placing of the panels. As the Adventus is best seen to the left Fig. 466 #8 Cf. also the frieze of the Arch of Benevento and a fragmentary frieze in the Conservatori Museum, Pietrangeli, pl. 37, a; Ryberg, Rises, figs. 79, 82 e.

L- 25. E.g. RM 50 (1935) 47, fig. 5 (Claudius); BMC 4, pl. 64, 8; Gnecchi, pl. 74, 8; pl. 87, 8. Pietrangeli, P 30 BMC 3, pl. 56, 17-18; pl. 58, 16-18; Toynbee, Hadrianic School, 43 ff., pl. 2, 20, pl. 11, 1-3, 9-10, pl. 23,

4; Kantorowitz, ArtBull 26 (1944) 214, figs. 1-8. 1 Bellori, pl. 30; Reinach, RepRe/ 1, 247; Wegner, AA 1938, 183-84; Kahler, RM 54 (1939) 265-69; Becatti, 59-65, 291-97. Restored: heads of the emperor, of the attendant at the left, and of the two middle adult figures in the lower tier.

72 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS of the spectator and at a steep angle above eye level (p. 66), so the Liberalitas demands a Fig. 50 position at considerable height and to the right of the spectator. At this angle the sharp effect of the full super-position is softened and the emperor is brought down closer to the tecipients of his bounty. Moreover, he is turned almost directly toward the spectator and takes him into the scene along with the citizens as one waiting his turn before the tribunal. In the whole series of panels this is the most striking instance of the “shared view’’(pp. 36, 51), and it would have been an important element in the impact upon the Roman spectator. Like the Adlocutio, the Liberalitas shows the emperor turned toward the left, and thus it provides an end-point for the scenes on the second face of the arch as the Adlocutio stopped the left-to-right movement on the other side.? Similarly these two scenes bring to a halt the upward movement of the reading: for here more than in the other panels the emperor looks downward, meeting the gaze of upturned faces both inside and outside the relief. While the Liberalitas is divided horizontally into two tiers, the upper field is somewhat the larger of the two and is the dominant center of interest. In composition it is similar to the Adventus but with the main direction reversed. The emperor occupies the center of the field, magnified in scale so that his seated figute is the same height as the togatus standing beside him at the right. The attendant at the left is actually as tall as the togate figure, but

the bending of his head and shoulders into the foreground moves his head to the left and to a slightly lower level, breaking an otherwise rigidly symmetrical arrangement. The attendant’s head is restored, but the twist of his shoulders makes it likely enough that his face was tutned inward toward the center, as in the restoration. At a higher level in the background two togate figures stand at either side of the emperor, both frontal but with heads turned slightly toward the right. As in the Adventus, the five figures are arranged in a kind of guincunx, with the two in the background evenly spaced between those in the foreground. Here, however, the figures in the background are brought to a higher level than the others by placing them on low pedestals or platforms. Thus the four heads form an atching frame for that of the emperor, but in the plane of the relief rather than receding into the background as in the Adventus. These two panels have in common also certain peculiarities of technique not found in the others. There is a difference in the treatment of hair. Here the hair is shown as a mass grooved by shallow drill runnels, either in gently waving parallels, as, for example, in the heads of the background figures in both panels and of the citizen at the far right in the Liberalitas, or in mote complex patterns, as in the curling hair of Mars, Roma and the togati to the right of the emperor. In these two panels the drapery of the background Figs. 51a-b figures is executed in drill tunnels, conspicuously in the representations of Felicitas, Aetetnitas and the two /ogatz. The panels are similar also in their use of the drill to separate the leaves in the garlands and to divide them from the background by deep shadows, while the corresponding details in the Profectio and Lustratio are more mechanically executed. Thus it seems probable, not only that the Adventus and Liberalitas were executed by the same artist, as is generally believed, but also that they were designed as pendants. 2 L’Orange, 185, note 7, also notes this function of the change in direction, though he assumes two different groupings of themes, a war cycle and a peace cycle of scenes.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 73 The theme of Liberalitas or the Congiarium has a long history in Roman art, illustrated chiefly in the coinage.? The basic design of the panel scene conforms roughly to a type traditional in numismatic art, but its adaptation to the high narrow panel has created a very different total effect. On the coins the tribunal is always high and much larger than that of the adlocutio or rex datus. The recipients of the donation are usually limited to one figure, seen in profile or turned slightly away from the spectator, standing before the tribunal or Fig. 52a climbing a ladder placed against it. Here, in order to avoid such a disproportionate division of the space, the artist has carried the cornice of the tribunal across the full width of the relief, dividing the scene into two tiers, and has increased the number of recipients to four adults and two children. No longer confined to the width of a platform within the relief, the group on the tribunal is expanded by the addition of two background figures to the usual row of three approximately equal in height. On coins the emperor is commonly turned to the left, as here, but the attendant figure at the right, behind the emperor, is usually an officer, while at the left stands an attendant or, more frequently, Liberalitas herself holding a coin-counter aloft in her right hand, often identified as a personification Fig. 526

by the cornucopia on her left arm. Details of the actual distribution, shown in earlier types, had given way to mote abstract scenes from the time of Hadrian, culminating in the

Hadrianic type which shows Liberalitas pouring coins from her cornucopia into the sinus of a citizen. In the Antonine period Liberalitas simply stands on the tribunal holding

coin-counter and cornucopia. Even if an attendant takes her place there is no actual dispensing of coins. The artist of the panel has dispensed with all abstraction and, while not returning to the earlier descriptive type, has created a new scene in the descriptive mode. The figure holding the coin-counter is a human attendant, leaning forward as if he had just emptied it into the sinus of a recipient. The emperor, too, who usually appears simply with hand extended, seems here to have held some object in his hand. The object can hardly have been anything else than a coin-counter; ° and a third counter lies beside his chair at the right. Thus the emperor is himself making the distribution with the help of the attendant.’ The man at the far left before the tribunal is clearly a descendant of the single citizen who appears on coins climbing the steps and holding out the sinus of his toga to catch the coins. But here he 1s shown in full back view, grasping the edge of the platform as he eagerly awaits his turn. His garment, though unusually short, appears to be a toga, of which the drapery lines echo those of the traditional figure in the coin types. The togate 3 The only other examples in monumental sculpture are a much restored relief in the Villa Albani, (Strong, Sc#/tRom fig. 147) and the Congiarium in the frieze of the Arch of Constantine (L’Orange, pls. 16-17;

Giuliano, 35, 44-45). Bernhart (p. 119) traces the usage of the terms congiarium and Jiberalitas, which are interchangeable on coins of the second century. The earliest term, congiarium, from the grain measure congius, properly referred to a distribution of grain, but was extended to cover also distributions of money. The term /:beralitas, appearing in the coinage of Hadrian, gradually displaced the older term. For a general discussion of the numismatic types and the interplay between descriptive and abstract motifs, see Hamberg, Studies, 32-40; cf. also Strack, 1, 84-89, 142~45. 4 Bernhart, pl. 83, 8-10 (Nero and Nerva); Strack 1, pl. 5, 356; cf. BMC 3, pl. 27, 11 (Trajan). § Bernhart, pl. 83, 6. 6 The piece remaining at the base of the hand and the support on the attendant’s tunic could be accounted for by such an object. There is a support below the left wrist for the roll, which was regularly held in the

left hand. 7 Cf, also the Constantinian frieze, L’Orange, pl. 16b; Giuliano, 44.

74 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS figure next to him is shown in frontal pose with his right hand, apparently, across the shoulders of the little boy beside him. The boy is walking away from the tribunal into the foreground, with hands holding the sinus of his cloak as if he and not the adult had received the coins. This detail is less surprising because in the Alimonium of the Arch of Benevento the children and not the parents are shown receiving or carrying away the money. The Zogatus is most naturally interpreted as the father of the little boy, but a roll in his hand suggests the possibility that he is an official directing the citizens as each takes his turn before the tribunal. The couple at the right have evidently received their allotment and ate departing, the woman with the coins gathered into the sinus of her mantle, which she holds carefully with both hands, and the man carrying a small child astride his shoulders.

In both pose and position in the scene he is reminiscent of the departing citizen in the Alimontum of Benevento. The child’s head is missing but the hands still remain, clutching . the father’s hair. The drapery around his shoulders and over his left wrist shows that he was dressed in tunic and cloak like the larger child at the left. This varied group of citizens is a significant addition to the traditional motif as it is known from coins. Not only does it aid the design by providing a counterpoise to the imperial group, relieving the top-heaviness,

but it intensifies the emotional impact of the scene by depicting the various stages of popular anticipation and satisfaction. The parallels to the Arch of Benevento suggest that the artist of the panel drew elements from two traditional scenes, the Alimonium as well as the Liberalitas, to create a new composition. The change of the traditional Liberalitas to a composition in two separate tiers may owe something also to another Antonine type, which is preserved on coins of the elder Diva Faustina. Bearing the legend PUELLAE FAUSTINIANAE, the type shows a distribution of gifts from a platform extending the full width of the scene, before which appear, in reduced scale, the puel/ae and two parents carrying smaller children. But a comparison with the coin only emphasizes the skill with which traditional types have been adapted and synthesized to create a scene suited to the space of the panel.®

The impression of historicity is particularly strong in this scene, partly because of the realistic informal group of citizens gathered about the tribunal, but even more because the three ¢ogati accompanying the emperor are clearly portraits of individuals. The person Fig. 52¢ who stands closest to the emperor, just behind the attendant, is almost certainly Pompeianus (p. 78). The face is somewhat broader and shorter than that of the other panels but, in view of their variation in length of head and details of treatment, there seems no reasonable doubt that this is a portrait of the same individual. In most cases no full view of Pompeianus’ Fig. 53a face can be seen, but his portrait in the Clementia shows the same facial characteristics as

this, the long narrow bridge of the nose and deep vertical furrows above it, the same hollows beneath the eyes, the same bone structure of the forehead and the same lines, the

slight hollow in the cheeks, and the same beard and hair line. The difference in total 8 A somewhat similar composition occurs in Scene 17 of the Aurelian column. There the theme is closer

to an Adlocutio, but the group of listeners looking up at the imperial group on a platform as high as their heads is composed of men, women and children in a variety of poses that invites comparison with the Liberalitas of the panel.

PANELS ON THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE 79 impression is due largely to the difference in width of the face and in the technique by which the hair is represented. Unless, therefore, one is prepared to accept the almost insurmountable difficulties of Kahler’s view, that the eight re-used panels adorned an arch built in 173 A.D., it is necessary to abandon the assumption that the two figures on pedestals must be the consuls of that year. That assumption has, indeed, little to recommend it in the Antonine period, in spite of the tradition of early imperial art.® In reliefs of the second century the emperor, even when togate, is likely to be accompanied by others of greater significance in the imperial circle than were the annual consuls, who by this date often held office for a very short time before they were replaced by consules suffecti. The republican facade of the principate was now represented instead by the personification of the Senatus (p. 22). A more recent proposal to identify the figures on pedestals with the consuls of the year 176 A.D. not only encounters intrinsic difficulties but it lends very slight support to any specific dating.49 More significant is the fact that the /beralitas of 177 was an unusually large distribution celebrating the emperor’s return after eight years of absence from the City,4 and would be a likely occasion to select as the theme of one of the panels. Once the assumption is abandoned that the persons at either side of the emperor must be the consuls,

there are a number of eminent men who might appropriately have been selected as his companions. Such might be Claudius Severus and Junius Rusticus, mentioned together in the Vita Marci of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Severus, like Pompeianus, was a son-

in-law of the emperor and both were honored, as was Pompeianus, by twice holding the consulship. Severus is alluded to as ade/phos in the Meditations, while Rusticus is said to have

shared all the emperor’s counsels public and private, and to have held priority even over the praetorian prefects in the emperor’s greeting. Two other eminent men whose status was more closely parallel with that of Pompeianus were Pertinax and Victorinus, both of whom served for years as /ega/i on the northern frontier, Pertinax in particular associated with Pompeianus in the German-Sarmatian wars. The three are mentioned together as the only eminent men of his father’s reign who were not destroyed by Commodus.® All three were important in the counsels of state in the early years of Commodus, and would therefore have been appropriate selections in the years when the reliefs were designed and executed. The only one of all these whose features are a matter of independent record is Pertinax, who eventually became emperor. His portraits on coins show the high hair line receding above the temples which characterizes all three of the togati; and in some of the coin portraits there is also a very slight similarity to the head at the far right, in the unusually

large eye and high bridge of the nose. ® Cf. Ryberg, A_AAR 19 (1949) 85. Cf., however, Hanell, Opuscula Romana II (1960), 53-54, for the view that the sogat# accompanying Augustus on the Ara Pacis are priests and not the consuls of the year. 10 Becatti, 62-64. The date of Liberalitas VII was actually early 177, but as Commodus was one of the consuls of that year, Becatti argues that the artist chose to represent the consules ordinarii of 176. See SHA, Vita Comm. 2; Vita Marci, 27, 5; BMC 4, evii. 1 Dio 71/72, 32; Berchem, Les distributions, 156. 12 SILA, Vita Marci, 3, 4; Meditations, 1, 14; Groag, PZR* C 1024, Severus. Severus is proposed by Kahler, RM 54 (1939) 268-69, but on the ground that he and Pompeianus were the consuls of 173. 13 Dio 73, 4, 2; cf. Herodian, 2, 1, 10; see Zwikker, 215-16. 4 BMC 5, pl. 1, 9 and 13; pl. 2, 2.

76 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS In any case, since they are apparently not the consuls, the portraits could hardly serve as evidence to fix the date of the event. The reason for their presence in the scene 1s probably less official than artistic. Ranged about the emperor they add weight and impressiveness to the imperial group, which is thus able to hold its proper place as the principal center of interest. The small platforms on which two of the figures stand are probably not symbolic of their office but 2 means for placing them as they best serve the design. Only in some such fashion could they be shown in the same scale as the other fogatus without creating an unrelieved isocephalic row of heads across the relief. The effectiveness of the device can be judged by comparison with a fragmentary “Liberalitas”’ in the Villa Albani, in which the heads of the seated emperor, Felicitas and Roma form just such an isocephalic row. The three fogati seem to have no part in the action, and even their eyes are not turned upon the distribution that is taking place. The central one of the three, directly behind the emperor, has a small roll in his left hand. The other two have the right arm sharply bent at the elbow, and a contact point on the tunic of the figure at the right shows that he at least had some object in his hand. It is possible that each held a scroll or tablets containing records for the distribution.!* It seems unlikely that either hand was raised in salutation, since the artist has so catefully used these figures to serve his artistic purposes without, however, allowing them any real participation in the action which might detract from the interest focused upon the emperor. The colonnaded building in the background has been named the Porticus Minucia because it is known to have been a place where distributions were made.” But the garlanded colonnade is high for a portico, and the Basilica Ulpia is an even more likely suggestion. It is recorded that in 175 A.D. Commodus presided at a congiarium in the Basilica Ulpia before

his departure for the frontier, and it is probable enough that subsequent distributions might have taken place there also. To the Roman spectator looking up at the arch, the last two panels must have been among the most effective of the series. To the left he beheld the emperor before the Temple of Fortuna Redux who had answered their prayers for his safe return, attended by Victory and conducted home from the war by Mars and by Faustina-Aeternitas, received by Roma

into the City where he had been missed for eight years—a happy but awesome return, blessed and guided by the gods who watched over the Roman people. At the right he looked up into the face of the emperor himself at last restored to his people, leaning down to dispense his bounty and to take them, and him, into his care. The spectator thus shared the citizens’ view of the emperor, and their status of awaiting his proper turn to receive of his bounty. 15 Cf, the footstool that sometimes but not always supports the emperor’s feet in scenes of /zberalifas, without, apparently, any corresponding reality in imperial custom. Strong, Sca/tRom fig. 147; BMC 3, pl. 27, 11; 4, pl. 41, 3; pl. 80, 5. But cf. M. Hammond, MAAR a1 (1953) 1578f. 16 Cf, the scroll in the hands of an official in the Constantinian frieze, L’Orange, pl. 16ab; Giuliano, 44. MW Rostovtzeffl, RE 4, 879.

18 Stuart Jones, BSR 3 (1906) 264. 19 L’Orange, 93-95, similarly discards the identification as the Porticus Minucia because the building seems too monumental. Cf. Berchem, Les distributions, 164-66.

CHAPTER IV

Style and Technique I, the light of long continued controversy and divergent views, it is clear that the style of the eleven panels cannot by itself establish either contemporaneity or division into two groups of different date. The stylistic differences could be accounted for either by later dating of the eight re-used panels or by the assumption that the work of more conservative

and more “modern” artists was employed in the sculptures of a single monument. The problem is complicated still further by the fact that the second series itself falls roughly into two gtoups of four panels each, the “classic” and the “baroque” in style, and each of these in turn into two pairs of pendants, in the “classic” group the Profectio and Lustratio, the Adventus and Liberalitas, in the baroque group the Rex Datus and Adlocutio, the Prisoners and the Submission. Some common elements in style between two series narrowly separated in date would be inevitable, and equally inevitable would be some stylistic variation within a single group of

teliefs executed by more than one sculptor in a period of complex artistic trends. The divergences are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently consistent, however, to acquire some

cumulative weight as confirming other evidence that the eleven panels came from two arches, one celebrating the triumph of 176 a.D. and the other a posthumous arch in honor of the recently deified emperor. Typical of the range and kinds of divergence in style are the portraits of Pompeianus, which appear in nine of the eleven panels. As an argument against a chronological division, it has been noted that the portraits show no wider stylistic gap between the two series than that separating certain of the portraits within the second series itself. So much is true. A

closer study of the portraits, however, reveals gradations that are neither random nor erratic, but consistent with other evidence on the division into two series, on the original placing of the panels, and on their attribution to different artists. 77

78 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Like the portraits of Marcus Aurelius in the Conservatori panels, those of Pompeianus seem to be derived from three different types, varying somewhat in physiognomy.! The type from which the portrait in the Clementia is derived appears also in the Liberalitas and the Profectio (Type I). That in the Sacrifice, with longer cranium and more markedly beaked nose, occurs in the Lustratio and the Rex Datus (Type II). At one end of the scale, the most subtly and delicately modelled of the portraits is that Figs. 53a-b in the Clementia. The furrowing of the forehead is less regular and less sharp than in the others, with a slight gathering of the brows into a frown. A shallow depression edges the prominent central area above the eyebrows, slanting inward toward the center over the temples, and there appears to be a very faint tracing of the artery. The area beneath the eyes has a delicate gradation of surface and a slight sagging, with a definite ring separating it from the cheek. Three lines of uneven depth radiate from the corners of the eyes, and three cross the bridge of the nose. Cheek bones are relatively prominent, and are separated by a hollow from the swell of the cheek above the ends of the mustache. The hair is a thick cap-like mass worked partly in conventional hair waves and partly with short drill runnels. The same is true of the beard on the cheeks, but on the chin the beard and the mustache are traced with fine wavy lines. The beaked effect of the nose, so characteristic of the other portraits, is implied by the unrestored upper part, though it is not carried out in the restoration. Fig. 53c ‘The portrait in the Sacrifice differs in physiognomy in that the forehead is lower and broader, the nose is more conspicuously beaked, the skull appears longer, Type II. In style, however, it is closest to that of the Clementia. The brow is more boldly modelled and the temple artery stands out more sharply. Two deeper lines cross the bridge of the nose, and the eyes are deeper set under heavier brows. The area beneath the eyes is less strongly marked off from the cheek, the modelling of the cheek bone and lower cheek is similar but less complex. The hair and beard are worked entirely with shallow drill runnels and are less finely executed, but the runnels are made to suggest waving locks and are less mechanically regular than in any of the re-used panels. Fig. 52c_ Next to these stylistically belongs the portrait in the Liberalitas. It is derived from the same type as that of the Clementia (Type I), though the broader face and squared beard give it a somewhat different appearance. The modelling is slightly less subtle, but the central area of the brow is set off by a faint depression, as in the Clementia. As in the Sacrifice, a shallow depression runs horizontally above the eyebrows. The area under the eyes is clearly marked off, particularly toward the inner side, as in the Clementia, while the modelling of the cheek is close to that in the Sacrifice. The eyebrows are more boldly traced than in either, but there is a slight lift at the outer end of the brow over the left eye (spectator’s right), discernible also in the frontal view of the portrait in the Clementia. The drill runnels of hair and beard are less mechanical and regular than in the remaining panels. 1'The attempt by Hekler, JO.AI 21/22 (1922/24) 181ff., to prove that two persons are represented, Pompeianus and the praetorian prefect Bassaeus Rufus, has not found acceptance, chiefly because strong resemblances cut across the lines drawn by stylistic criteria.

STYLE AND TECHNIQUE 79 The portrait of the Profectio, also derived from Type I, is crowded in close to the Fig. 53d emperor’s head and, apparently because of the crowding, shortened in depth of the face from hairline to bridge of nose. Stylistically it is no more distant from the Conservatori panels than is the head in the Liberalitas, except that the modelling of the cheek is somewhat simplified. The horizontal depression across the forehead and the furrowing of the brow and bridge of the nose approximate the treatment of the portrait in the Sacrifice. The brows are as boldly executed as in the Liberalitas. The lift of the eyebrow at the outer end is even mote pronounced, as is also the circle beneath the eyes. The drill runnels of hair and beard are finer than in the Sacrifice and Liberalitas, especially in the beard, but in the hair they are less suggestive of locks. In the Lustratio the portrait bears a strong resemblance to that of the Sacrifice (Type II), Fig. 53e but the modelling is simplified throughout, with less plasticity and less detail. The simpler effect may be due partly to the weathering of the surface, but it is worth noting that the hair and beard also are worked more simply, with less fine and more mechanically repeated tunnels. In the Rex Datus too the resemblance to the portrait of the Sacrifice is very Fig. 53f marked, but the modelling of the face is even more simplified and the drill work in hair and beard more mechanical. The remaining three portraits are based on another type (Type III) with shorter skull and higher, steeper forehead. This is really a variant of Type II, to which there is a gradually Figs. 53 g-i

decreasing resemblance in the Adlocutio, the Prisoners, and the Submission. There is also a progressive decrease in plasticity of modelling, which in the Adlocutio is still very close to that of the Rex Datus. In the Submission modulations of surface on brow and cheek have all but disappeared. It is to be noted that the grouping of the reliefs suggested by the style of the portraits corresponds with that derived from other characteristics of style and composition. The two portraits in the Conservatori panels stand together at the end of the scale farthest

removed from those of the “baroque” panels (Rex Datus, Adlocutio, Prisoners, Submission), while those of the more “classic” Liberalitas, Profectio, and Lustratio fall somewhere between. The panels that show other signs of being intended as pendants are in every case juxtaposed in the series derived from the style of the portraits: in this stylistic sequence the Profectio stands next to the Lustratio, the Rex Datus next to the Adlocutio, the Prisoners next to the Submission.” The portraits of the last two pairs are stylistically so much closer to each other than to those of the other pair that they might suggest the work of two different artists in the “baroque” group. But other close links cutting across these two pairs make it more likely that the artist who was responsible for the four “baroque” panels adapted the style to the different artistic intent, in the final two scenes deliberately suppressing the personality, as he diminished the scale, of the emperor’s companion. Of the

whole series of nine portraits it can only be said that the stylistic gradations ate indeed 2 Other groupings have been suggested. Cf. pp 86-87; also Becatti, 58-59, 72, who finds in the portraits of Pompeianus greater stylistic distinctions within the two series (between the “classic”? and “baroque” groups of the second series) than between the two series themselves. These he attributes, however, to the difference between artists of conservative and progressive schools,

80 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS consistent with a division into an earlier and a later series, but are insufficient to carry any appreciable weight in establishing such a division. Apart from the portraits of Pompeianus and of the emperor himself (p. 23), there are three other heads that seem to be intended as recognizable portraits. One appears in the Fig. 17a Sacrifice, at the left edge behind the Senatus. Stylistically this stands somewhere between the head of Pompeianus in the same relief and other more typical Antonine portraits. The face is more plastically modelled than that of Pompetanus, the hair and beard are rendered mote naturalistically, with straight locks falling over the brow, and the beard is in separate curls much like the emperor’s beard. The other portrait heads are those of the two unFig. 54 identified zogat/z in the Liberalitas. Both of these are crudely executed. In the face at the right the bridge of the nose is broad and flattened, the inner corner of the eye is traced with a deep gouge, with a large drill hole for the tear duct. The pupil is a single drill hole, like the eyes on the Column but less deeply drilled. Simple drill runnels trace the fold of the upper eyelid, the flare of the nostril and the joining of the cheek and upper lip. In the case of the fogatus nearest the emperor, the damaged surface somewhat obscures the details of the features. In both portraits the hair and beard, though curling in the usual Antonine style, are masses fretted by drill holes and short shallow runnels. The modelling of flesh surfaces is simplified, with rather mechanically traced lines in the brow. All three of the portrait figures are set off from the background by drill runnels, but the runnels are coarser and deeper in the Liberalitas than in the Sacrifice.2 These portraits show, more clearly

than do those of Pompeianus, a significant stylistic gap between the two series, even between the least “‘classic” of the Conservatori reliefs, the Sacrifice, and one of the two most classic of the re-used panels, the Liberalitas. The same characteristics that distinguish the portraits of the Liberalitas are still more conspicuous on the Aurelian column.

Even apart from the individualized portraits, the treatment of the faces illustrates a distinction that sets the re-used panels stylistically closer to the column. The faces of attendants and soldiers in these panels are represented with less plasticity and with greater boldness of feature, simplifying everything except what contributes to the emotional effect intended. The soldiers in the Clementia are lay figures occupying a position in the design and indicating by gesture or pose their part in the action. The faces do not claim attention apart from the action as a whole. But in the re-used panels, particularly in the “baroque” group, the faces carry a large part of the emotional impact, as they frequently do in the Fig. 38 teliefs of the column.‘ In the Adlocutio the spectator is held by the rapt concentration Fig. 36a-b With which the soldiers hang on the emperor’s words; in the Rex Datus by the interesting Fig. 45e and varied facial types; in the Submission by the sympathy reflected in the expressions of the soldiers. All these faces are made more dramatic by the sharp contrasts of light and shade achieved by the use of the drill to loosen the locks of hair and beard, to separate the 3 A second furrow marking a larger outline for the shoulders of one ¢ogaéus in the Liberalitas must be the result of an error in the cutting. 4 The faces most dramatically portrayed are often those of barbarians, e.g., in Scenes 20c, 39-40, 61-62, 69, 78, 104; but occasionally the faces of soldiers or companions of the emperor are equally striking, e.g., in Scenes 26, 31-32, 62, 66, 73.

STYLE AND TECHNIQUE 81 bear-skin helmets from the faces, and in some cases to separate one head from its neighbor. There are, further, a few individual figures on the column that repeat the type and pose of certain figures in the re-used panels. The soldier in the center of the Rex Datus is very similar to one of the auxiliaries in Scene 75. The soldier with transverse crest in the Profectio and the soldier in the foreground of the Prisoners find close parallels in Scene 39. The pose of two soldiers in the Adlocutio is duplicated in Scene 4 of the column. The pose of the citizen in the Liberalitas who grasps the edge of the tribunal is repeated in that of a soldier in Scene 83.° The panels of both series employ traditional motifs from earlier art, either Greek or Roman, but the creators of the eight re-used panels are more willing to depart from tradition in their use. This may be observed by comparing the least traditional composition of the Conservatori panels, the Clementia, with even the most “classic’’ of the second series, the Adventus. The Clementia combines the traditional type of the heroic rider, familiar in Greek art but long since naturalized in Roman relief (p. 12), with that of the kneeling suppliants employed in Roman imperial art from its outset. The two are joined in a design that is balanced and clearly focused, intricate but logical, and in no way disturbing. The Adventus is centrally focused and symmetrical, and yet subtly suggesting a double motion that disturbs the static balance and creates a slight tension (p. 70). In the somewhat less “classic” Liberalitas, the baroque quality of the composition lies in the contrast between the imperial group and the populace, expressed symbolically in the division of levels, and

descriptively in the antithesis between the formal symmetry of the upper tier and the informal diversity of pose and attitude among the citizens below. Still other stylistic differences show the closer relation of the re-used panels to the reliefs ,

of the column. Among the striking new departures of the latter are the tendency to exaggeration of pose, gesture and facial expression, the violence and frequently the distortion of movement, and the violation of accepted canons of design.® In all these characteristics there is, in fact, a vast gap between the column and even the most baroque of the panels. The latter belong to the “Grand Tradition’? and they show, besides, the greater empha is on formal design that frequently distinguishes large monumental reliefs from works in smaller scale. But this difference in mode of expression should not be allowed to obscure, as it has sometimes tended to do, the smaller distinctions of style and technique which offer the best available criteria for close dating and for attribution to artists. In the Profectio there is both exaggeration of movement and distortion of the design in the upward jerk of the horse’s head that bursts out of the frame at the right. The Lustratio goes beyond all the others in departure from traditional canons of composition, epitomizing a whole army in the half dozen soldiers crowded into the space encircled by the ritual 5 Some of these parallels are illustrated in Becatti, pl. 28a and b, pl. 25, pl. r9b, pls. 32-33. 6 See Rodenwaldt, AbbBerlin 1935 (3) 23. 7 See Hamberg, Studies, Chapter 2. 8 See Ryberg, Rites, 41-42, 78. ® On this point see Lehmann-Hartleben’s review of Hamberg, Studies, in Art Bulletin 29 (1947) 138. 6 Ryberg

82 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS procession, implying rather than expressing the circling movement of the long marching line of victims and participants. The exaggeration and violence of pose, gesture and expression ate strongest, naturally, in the Prisoners and the Submission and, as on the Column, greatest of all in the figures of the barbarians themselves. In the Prisoners the head of the barbarian grasped from behind by the hair has all the impact, on first impression, of the severed heads offered to the emperor in Scene 66 of the column.” Violence of pose is to be found not only in the tossed head and writhing hands of the bound prisoners but in the stride, pose, and facial expressions of the two soldiers in the foreground. The Fig. 45¢ most compelling figure in the whole group of reliefs is in the Submission, the utterly beaten and despairing son of the defeated chieftain, made more pitiful by contrast with the controlled dignity of the chieftain himself. This pair of defeated barbarians might be compared, in expressive quality though not in composition, with those in Scene 60 of the Aurelian Column, in which one figure is depicted with drooping shoulders and arms, while another beside him turns toward him as if in consolation. Certain details of technique likewise set the re-used panels closer to the Column. Not new in Roman art, but increasing in direct proportion to the growing interest in coloristic effect, is the trick of outlining figures in low relief with a shallow drill runnel to set them off from the background or from other contiguous figures. This is not unusual in Trajanic reliefs,44 which tend to emphasize linear design. It disappears with the greater plasticity of the developed Hadrianic style, but becomes increasingly common in the course of the Figs. 38, 47a, Antonine period. While it appears at a few points in the Conservatori panels,18 it is notice53i, 54 ably more frequent in the panels of the second series,“ and still more conspicuous on the

Aurelian Column.” Figs. 25,29a ‘The same is true of the technique of executing figures or details not actually in relief but by drawing with drili runnels. This technique is used for drawing the scales of a soldier’s Figs. 3, 10¢ corselet in the Clementia, the beard of the trumpeter in the Triumph, and the hair and beard of Pompeianus in the Sacrifice. But it is much more common in the re-used panels, employed to some degree in all, but more conspicuously in the Profectio and the Lustratio. It is everywhere on the column.'4

These and other technical details are useful likewise in distinguishing the work of different hands. Few critics question the attribution of the four “‘baroque”’ panels to a single artist (p. 83). Not only do they share a basic design, which divides the figures into Fig. 4b 10 Cf, Column of Trajan, Scenes 24 and 72, and the great frieze from Trajan’s Forum. 11 Tt occurs in many scenes of the Column of Trajan, e.g. Scenes 24, 35, 47-48, 57, 61, 63, 67, 73, IOI-102, 145, 1§2-153.

"2 Early Hadrianic reliefs such as the balustrades of the Forum exhibit this and also other characteristics of Trajanic style; see M. Hammond, MAAR 21 (1953) 143, 154.

13 A drill runnel outlines the shoulder of the popa in the Sacrifice, the horse’s head and helmets of soldiers in the background of the Clementia. 14 Drill runnels outline the heads of Pompeianus in the four “baroque” panels, the soldiers’ heads in the Rex Datus, the Adlocutio and the Submission, the legs of figures cut in shallow relief, the sogati in the Liberalitas, and the shield of Mars in the Adventus. 15 Fig, in Scenes 9, 20-21, 25, 31, 45, 62, 64, 66, 77-78, 88, 91, 93, 100, 103. 16 E.g. details of drapery cut in shallow relief, passim; the foot of the rider in Scene 27.

STYLE AND TECHNIQUE 83 two groups placed on different groundlines representative of different status, but the strongly coloristic treatment of hair and beards is consistent in all four, though less conspicuous naturally in the helmeted heads of the Adlocutio and the Prisoners. In all four the faces of both soldiers and barbarians are conspicuously interesting and varied, strongly modelled and portraying different physical types and temperaments, different emotions and

attitudes. In all four the figure of Pompeianus appears out in the relief frame, with the back of the head set off from the frame by a drill runnel, while the face is in deeper relief against the main background.!” Becatti also notes that the vexs/a of the “baroque” panels are shown wildly tossing, and markedly different from the ensigns of the Profectio and Lustratio. There is no such agreement about the “classic” group. These four panels seem rather to consist of two pairs by different artists, one closer to the classic tradition in principles of design as well as in details, the other bolder in invention and more inclined to experiment not only with inherited types but with accepted principles of composition.

Little attention has been paid to the stylistic differences separating the panels of the Conservatori group. But it is clear that in their use of traditional prototypes, in design, and in stylistic details, the pair representing the two aspects of the triumph, the procession and the sacrifice, are more closely related to each other than to the Clementia. It seems highly likely that the Clementia is to be attributed to a different artist. The distinction is epitomized in the three portraits of Marcus Aurelius. While they are derived from three different portrait types, the triumphal pair are similar in their portrayal of the emperor as a weary Figs. 15 c-d, man aged by the strain and burden of the wars, and vastly different from the vigorous, /”?

almost burly, portrait of the “heroic rider” emperor in the Clementia. Fig. 156 17 This is noted by Becatti, 58-59. :

6

CHAPTER V

Reconstruction Detailed examination of the eleven panels confirms the probability that they originally belonged to two arches rather than to one. In content, in style, and in position as suggested by the criterion of the “optimum view,” the eight re-used panels fall into pairs within a logical sequence which cannot well include the Conservatori reliefs. While not all of the imperial events presented in the panels are fixed in sequence, the basic pattern is clear. The series necessarily begins with the Profectio, and must end with the closing events of the

war, the Submission and the various ceremonies connected with the emperor’s return. Artistic tradition places the Lustration at the beginning of military action, while the Adlocutio is at home either before an action or after a victory. The confirmation of a vassal king was a specific historical event of which the occurrence was dictated by the circumstances of the war. In any conceivable series comprising all eleven panels, the Triumph and the Sacrifice of the Conservatori group, which are almost certainly pendants, would have to be placed between the Adventus and the Liberalitas, thus separating two

pairs that give strong indications of being planned as pendants (p. 72). The Clementia would have to be placed between the Prisoners and the Submission, where it would be stylistically least at home. In the foregoing discussion of the individual reliefs it has tentatively been proposed to place the eight re-used panels in a sequence that accords with the historical events so far as they are known, and also with the artistic tradition established by the Column of Trajan. Where both the historical account and the artistic tradition admit of more than one position

in the sequence, as in the case of the Rex Datus or the Adlocutio, the criterion of the “optimum view” has been called on as a guide to the placing of the panel. This criterion can be used only in conjunction with other evidence, because a decision as to the place of

each relief on the monument is contingent not only on the optimum view but on the intended direction of reading. The reconstruction here proposed assumes that the panels B4

RECONSTRUCTION 85 wete to be read from left to right across the face of the arch! and from lower to up pet tier. This is probable a priori, since it is the direction to which the Roman spectator had been accustomed by the Column of Trajan. The reliefs of the Arch of Benevento were unquestionably to be read from bottom tier to attic, since the allusions to the latest of the events, the Parthian expedition, are on the attic. The proposed order and direction of reading divides the panels into four pairs which in every case have common elements sufficient to suggest that they are by the same hand and probably planned as pendants. The Profectio and the Lustratio are closely akin in spirit, as well as in style and details of technique (pp. 37, 43). The Rex Datus and the Adlocutio are bound together fundamentally in content as well as in design. In both the basic theme is the

emperor’s relation to his troops. The Prisoners and the Submission both develop the theme of the emperor’s relation to the conquered. In these the soldiers as well as the emperor are portrayed primarily in their relation to the defeated enemy, showing in one instance hostility, in the other sympathy, toward the barbarians. The final two scenes are both set in Rome after the emperor’s return, and are closely parallel in composition (p. 72). As has been pointed out in the discussion of the individual reliefs, the proposed placing

is consistent in every case with the criterion of the “optimum view.” The proposed direction of reading is supported by several features of the design. In the left-hand relief of the first pair, and again in the last, there is a definite thrust toward the right to mark out the direction of movement in the reading. This is strongest in the Profectio, where the thrust to the right actually bursts out of the frame; but it is discernible also in the Adventus, in the

emperor’s diection of motion and in Roma’s turn toward the gate entering the city. Further, at the right side of the lower tier on each face there is some detail of design to carry the eye upward and to the left, to the beginning of the next tier to be read. This is most conspicuous in the Lustratio at the beginning of the series, in the soldiers’ turn into the background and the upward reach of the trumpets. In the Submission the motion is less strong, but the eye moves easily upward to the left along the curve of the drooping bodies of the chief and his son, and of the vex7/um in the upper background. Finally, the proposed order and direction of reading provides a good end-point for the reliefs on each face of the atch. In only two of the eight panels, the Adlocutio and the Liberalitas, is the imperial group turned to the left; and these, according to the proposed placement, would occupy the upper right-hand position. It is to be noted that the nature of the end-point is different on the two faces. On the first the ending is only a pause and must be bridged, since the sequence continues on the opposite side. Accordingly, in the Adlocutio the strongest motion in the relief is upward toward the emperor, who will lead his troops into battle, 1 This direction was, of course, not universal in Roman relief. The imperial procession of the Ara Pacis is to be read from left to right, though the motion of the figures is leftward. But the opposite is true of the great frieze of the Forum of Trajan. A. Schoenebeck, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 37 (1957) 361-71, detects a sequence of scenes in the tiers of relief on the pillars of the Arch of Galerius at Saloniki, which he believes

should be read from left to right around the piers but from upper to lower tier. L’Orange, 185, note 7, observes that in the frieze of the Arch of Constantine the rightward moving cycle is brought to a halt by the frontal scenes at the end of the sequence. In the same way, he believes, the leftward turn of the emperor

in two of the Aurelian panels provide an end-point in a rightward moving cycle.

86 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS while in the Liberalitas it is downward toward the citizens, as the emperor seated at a level above them leans forward to shower them with his munificence.?

Moreover, the proposed placement of the panels offers a possible explanation of the apparently arbitrary order in which they were placed on the Arch of Constantine. With one reversal which is easy to account for, they were kept in the same arrangement as on the

original arch, except that the lower panel on each side was placed at the right of that originally above it. Thus the Constantinian arrangement preserved the original direction of view, to the right or left of the spectator, but not the original height nor the order in which the panels were intended to be read. In addition, two panels, the Profectio and the Prisoners, which occupied the same relative position on opposite faces of the arch, were exchanged. The reason for the exchange is not far to seek. The Constantinian architects, interested in preserving the placement that gave the optimum view of the emperor but not in the sequential arrangement of the scenes, moved the Profectio to a position beside the Adventus because of the matching background. That left a place for the Prisoners next to the Rex Datus, where it too seemed artistically more at home.® Other proposals on the original placing of the panels have been offered at various times. Stuart Jones* divided the eleven panels into two series, originally comprising twelve in all, each series representing the events of one of the two warts celebrated in the triumph of 176. He assumed that they were placed as at present on the attic of an arch, with four panels on each face and two at each end. To one face he assigned the panels he associated with the German war, the Submission, Adventus and Profectio, the latter two both interpreted as the Adventus shown from outside and inside the gate. To the Sarmatian war represented on the opposite face he attributed the Prisoners, a lost panel, and the Triumph and Sactrifice. On the ends he proposed to place the preparatory and conclusory scenes, the Lustratio and the Rex Datus (the latter interpreted as an ad/ocutio in the praetorian camp), the Liberalitas and the Adlocutio. This proposed reconstruction, together with its underlying logic, has been overthrown by more satisfactory interpretations of the Profectio and the Rex Datus. Frothingham’s proposal® to assign the panels to two arches on the basis of the width of the frame surrounding the reliefs did not find acceptance because it pointed the way to no satisfactory solution to the whole problem. It was significant, however, in making the first division into two stylistic groups within the series, which Frothingham called the “Hellenic” and the “Roman” group, Wegner the “classic” and the “baroque” group. 2 The heads of the emperor and the attendant beside him are, of course, not original. But the attendant’s shoulders show that he was bending sharply forward. Similarly the emperor’s gesture toward the citizen looking up at him, and the tensed tendon at the front of the neck below the break, indicates that the restored head had the same direction as the original. 3 The panels are usually numbered from left to right, beginning at the southwest corner: (1) Rex Datus, (2) Prisoners, (3) Adlocutio, (4) Lustratio, (5) Adventus, (6) Profectio, (7) Liberalitas, (8) Submission. If no exchange had been made, the order resulting from the transfer from the original arch would have been:

Rex Datus and Profectio, Adlocutio and Lustratio, Adventus and Prisoners, Liberalitas and Submission, with the right hand member of each pair raised from pylon to attic. 4 BSR 3 (1906) 258-268,

5 AJA 19 (1915) I-12.

RECONSTRUCTION 87 Wegner’s proposed reconstruction of the later arch as a tetrapylon,® with one panel on each pylon, was based on the corrected identification of the Profectio and the Rex Datus. It was based, further, on a stylistic division into pairs, Adventus and Profectio, Rex Datus

and Captives, Submission and Adlocutio, Lustratio and Liberalitas, though Wegner himself was not entirely happy with assigning the Lustratio to the “‘k/assischen Meister’ who executed the Profectio, Adventus and Liberalitas. His assignment of the other four panels

to a single artist has not since been questioned, though the pairs within the group were selected without regard for the angle at which the reliefs are best viewed. Wegner’s placing even allows for a chronological sequence of the scenes, assuming a beginning with the Profectio on the right pylon, a reading of the pylons from left to right, and a conclusion

with the Adventus on the pylon to the left of the Profectio. The reconstruction as a tetrapylon has little support and has won little following. A roughly contemporary quadrifrons that is adorned with reliefs, that of Marcus Aurelius at Tripolis, has pylons too tall and narrow for a full scale scene in relief. The space is occupied on two faces by a

niche for a single statue with an eagle above, on the other two faces by a relief of two captives at the foot of a trophy. Other extant quadrifrontal arches strengthen the inference that the tradition of this architectural type did not encourage adornment of the pylons with sculptured panels.’ Even the coin types representing the tetrapylon of Domitian show Fig. 21 figured relief panels only on the attic, one on each face flanked by larger figures which are probably to be understood as free standing statues. Becatti® has followed Wegner’s chronological division into two series and also his attribution of the re-used panels to two artists, one the creator of the four “classic’”’ panels,

the other responsible for the “baroque” group. He has proposed, however, that each group adorned one face of a bifrontal arch dedicated to Marcus Aurelius after his death and deification. On the basis principally of the different heights of the tribunal on which the emperor stands, he assigns the Prisoners and the Adlocutio to the lower tier on one face of the arch, the Submission and the Rex Datus to the upper tier.® A corresponding treatment of the opposite face, however, inevitably assigns the Liberalitas to the upper tier, the Profectio and Adventus to the lower tier, and forces the Lustratio into the remaining upper position where it is sadly out of place (p. 42). Assuming that a single-span arch dedicated to the deified Marcus Aurelius was adorned by four panels on each face, two reconstructions are possible. The panels might have been placed one on each pylon and one at each end of the attic, or two on each pylon one above the 8 AA 1938, 188-95. 7 See Noack, Vortraege Bibliothek Warburg 1925/26, pls. 10-11, 26; Ciotti, BCom 72 (1946/48) 22-27, figs. 1-3,

Arch at Tebessa. The Janus in the Forum Boarium in Rome is adorned with niches only. See LehmannHartleben, RE, 4, 2109ff., who notes that a tetrapylon ordinarily has two principal faces, differently treated from the lateral faces. 8 La colonna coclide istoriata, §5—72.

® Becatti’s observation (op. ci¢., 67-68) that the reliefs are better seen from different heights is thrown out as

a suggestion and is not worked out in detail, nor does it take account of other elements involved in finding the best view, such as the angle to right or left. It pointed the way, however, to the approach which has been pursued in this study.

88 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS other. Here some indirect evidence is offered by extant arches and by ancient representations.

Fig. 55 Among surviving monuments the closest parallel is the Arch of Trajan at Benevento, each face of which beats six reliefs considerably wider in proportion to their height than the Aurelian panels.!° In addition, the pylon reliefs are separated by bands of figured decoration,

so placed that the alternating panel scenes and decorative bands correspond to the architectural divisions of the space. That such an arrangement was not uncommon ts attested by coin types of Nero and Trajan," which show arches with pylons adorned by alternating bands and panels of figured relief, and with figured panels on the attic as well. On an atch similar in size and proportions to that of Benevento or the Arch of Titus, there would be sufficient height on each pylon for two Aurelian panels, but only if all decorative bands were omitted. Moreover, as the Aurelian panels are narrower, the pylons would have been unpleasingly high in proportion to their width. Much moreprobable would be anarrangement with one panel on each pylon, bordered above and below by bands of figured decoration.”

The Arco di Portogallo, which was destroyed in 1665, had a single panel relief on the upper part of each pylon. In its mediaeval form this arch was a pastiche of earlier material, and accordingly it is of value as evidence only in the fact that it is likely to have followed established tradition in its placement of the panels.'® On several extant arches a niche or recess occupies the lower part of the pylon, leaving free space which would be adequate for a panel above it.!4 Such a scheme is the least open to objections, and has been followed in the tentative reconstruction presented in fig. 60.

Inherently it is not improbable that a memorial arch was among the honors decreed after Marcus Aurelius’ death (p. 87, above and note 8). Nor is it unlikely that such an arch might have been adorned by scenes from the German and Sarmatian wars, even though these had been celebrated by an arch erected at the time of the triumph of 176 a.p., and

were being commemorated also in the narrative of the Column. One biographer of Marcus mentions many honors, naming /empl/a and columnas in a sweeping reference that

is made general by use of the plural. 10 The panels of the lowest tier and those on the attic are 2.35 m. high by 2.28 m. wide, the upper pylon panels somewhat lower (measured from casts in the Museo di Civilta Romana); and see A. Meomartini, I monumenti e le opere d’arte della citta di Benevento (1889). The Aurelian panels measure 3.10 to 3.24 m. high

by 2.08 to 2.10 m. wide. 1 Nero: BMC 1, pl. 43, 3 and 11; pl. 46, 5 (64-66 a.p.). Trajan: BMC 3, pl. 31, 6-9; Strack, 1, pl. 6, 387. 12 Cf, for example, the passageway reliefs of the Arch of the Silversmiths, Haynes and Hirst, BSR, Suppl. 1939, pls. 1,6; Nash, Pict Dict, figs. 90-93; cf. BCom 70 (1942) 64, fig. 8, Ligorio’s reconstruction of the arch of Claudius. 13 See Helbig-Amelung, Fibrer, 1, 509-10, 567-68; Jordan-Huelsen, 465-68; Kahler, RE 7%, 388-90, No. 30; S. Stucchi, BCom 73 (1949-50) 101-22, esp. 116, fig. 12, pl. 2; Bellori, pl. 48. 14 Such recesses appear on the Arch of Augustus at Aosta, the Arch of Titus, and the Arch of the Gavii at Verona. The arch at St. Remy has a relief on the pylon placed some distance above the base. See Noack, Vortraege Bibliothek Warburg 1925/26, pls. 2-3, 6-7, 31, 33.

15 Sex. Aurelius Victor, Epit. de Caes. 16, 14. See also Suetonius, Domitian, 13: Janos arcusque cum quadrigis et insignibus triumphorum per regiones urbis tantos ac tot exstruxit ut cuidam graece inscriptum sit ‘arci’; cf. Dio, 68, 1. The memorial arch to the deified Titus celebrated the conquest of Judaea even though it had been commemorated at the time of the triumph itself by an arch to Vespasian and Titus in the Circus Maximus (CYL 6, 29). Both the Column of Trajan and the Great Frieze in Trajan’s Forum, not to mention the frieze of the Arch of Benevento, commemorated the Dacian wars.

RECONSTRUCTION 89 Becatti offers the suggestion that the arch might have been a monumental entrance to a porticoed enclosure around the Aurelian Column. He calls attention to the fact that the Column stood at a level three meters higher than that of the Via Flaminia, and to the improbability that a simple stylobate for the Column would have been so high. He suggests rather an architecturally planned area with a complex of buildings such as that recently proposed for the monuments to the deified Hadrian, and to Matidia and Matciana. Such an area devoted to the Divus Marcus might have included the column itself, the temple, and a piazza surrounded by a portico, entered from the Via Flaminia by a flight of steps and through a monumental arch.!® As its proponent freely admits, such a reconstruction of the monument and its environment must remain in the realm of speculation. But it is an attractive hypothesis, and is in harmony with the results of recent topographical studies that have recovered similar architecturally planned areas in this section of the Campus Martius.!” The arch and the column might well have been planned to be complementary in content. The column catries the thread of the narrative, while the panels present the historic occasions that give meaning and direction to the narrative—the outset and the ceremonial preliminaries, the successful settlement and the victorious return. 16 Cf. the coin types representing the Forum Traiani, BAIC 3, pl. 18, 3; Nash, PictDic?, fig. 547; and the Hadrianic type with the legend DIVAEMATIDIAESOCRUI, representing the temple flanked by two halls which are perhaps the Basilicae of Marciana and Matidia, Dressel, Corolla Numismatica (1906) 24-27, and abb. 1; Huelsen, OAL 15 (1912) 124-142, and fig. 88 onp. 138. Becatti, 68-69, also suggests, with some plausibility, that the Trajanic arch appearing on coins with the letters IOM might have been a monumental entrance to the Area Capitolina; BMC 3, pl. 31, 6-9; cf. Kahler, RE 7?, 387-88, no. 26. 1? Becatti, 68-69; cf. Castagnoli, BCom 70 (1942) 57-82, esp. 74-82; Gatti, RendPont 20 (1943-44) 117ff.; Cianfarani, BCom 73 (1949-50) 235-54, esp. 251-52; Nash, Pret Dict, fig. 716. If the posthumous arch was part of a complex of monuments about the column, specifically the monumental entrance to the porticoed

area before the temple, it is easier to account for its omission from the recorded list of honors decreed to the deified emperor.

CHAPTER VI

Interpretation In the foregoing discussion the attic panels have been treated as a narrative sequence of scenes from the German and Sarmatian wars of 168-176 a.p. The assumption that they were intended as such a sequence underlies the proposed reconstruction of their original placement on a memorial arch to the deified Marcus Aurelius. This does not imply, however, that their significance as an imperial monument was limited to the mere narrative of the war. It is well established that Roman “historical” reliefs are much more than historical in significance. Mrs. Strong preferred the term “commemorative” to denote the larger scope of their intent. Lehmann-Hartleben’s study of the Column of Trajan demonstrated that historical accuracy was not a primary consideration but was consistently subordinated to artistic purpose.! Rodenwaldt initiated what might be termed an “‘ideological” approach to the interpretation of Roman relief. Using as illustration a series of compositionally continuous scenes on a group of sarcophagi, he argued that the scenes were not to be read chronologically but rather to be taken in simultaneously, like single notes composing a chord, the separate scenes expressing single aspects of the heto’s character and life, specifically his virtus, clementia, pietas, and concordia.” This approach was given impetus and carried further by Hamberg’s tracing of two parallel traditions in Roman

relief, the “epic-documentary” tradition of the narrative columns and the “Grand Tradition” of political allegory. The panels belong to the Grand Tradition, utilizing the resources of both “allegorical paraphrase” and “realistic description” in varying proportions. Hamberg’s theory holds that both these modes of expression were employed interchangeably for the purpose of political allegory, whether the idea is “hypostatized”’ in an allegorical figure or “dramatized” in a narrative scene.? In accord with his theory of 1 Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule, 24, 29-30, 54-57, 63, and passim. 2 A. Rodenwaldt, AbbBerlin 1935 (3) 1-27, esp. 6ff. 3 Hamberg, Studies, 32-45, 85, and passim. That a scene representing an action or narrative situation may be intended to illustrate an abstract quality is demonstrated from numismatic art. Antonine coinage is full go

INTERPRETATION 91 the nature of Roman monumental relief, Hamberg treated the panels not as a narrative sequence but as expressions of different facets of the imperial role and of Rome’s relations with subjugated peoples.

The validity of this “ideological” approach is beyond question. It has enriched and enlarged the understanding of Roman relief. It is essential to an appreciation of the full artistic intent and effect of the great storied monuments which were in a sense public proclamations of imperial policy and philosophy. Moreover it throws new light on the tendency in monumental relief to employ a relatively limited number of “types”, which recur over long periods varied in detail but not radically changed. These known and established motifs and designs were the recognizable “language” through which the purport of the message was intelligible to the heterogeneous population of imperial Rome. For example, as was pointed out in a previous study by this author,‘ only a few out of the innumerable rites of the state religion were represented in monumental relief, and these were selected as much for their artistic potentialities as for their actual prominence in state

cult. Their easy recognizability was a positive asset to the programmatic intent. The spectator was reminded and assured of the pax deorum, maintained for the state and its citizens by the due observance of time-honored ritual, performed by the divinely ordained emperor and Pontifex Maximus. A military campaign began with the lustration of the army and ended with the payment of vows to Jupiter, and visual expression of this péetas was as reassuring as the concluding phrases of the Gloria Patri. If the keystone of the ideal concept of the Roman imperium was valor in wat, virtus, its cornerstone was pie/as; and to a remarkable degree these two ideas dominate the artistic expression of the imperial program, both in literature and in the visual arts. These were

par excellence the imperial virtues, the first and final qualities in the group selected

by Augustus for the famous C/upins Virtutis dedicated in the Curia in 27 B.c., “virtutis clementiae iustitiae pietatis causa.”> They underlie and infuse the “national’’

poetry of the Augustan age. Throughout the empire they permeate the imperial coinage, subdivided or elaborated in various ways but always reducible to the two basic virtues.®

As is true of most of the great imperial reliefs, the Aurelian panels can be interpreted in terms of these imperial virtues. The whole nature of the enterprise is an expression of virtus, set forth specifically in the triumph of the first series, the Profectio and the Adventus of types in which an abstract idea or quality, identified by a legend, is expressed, apparently interchangeably,

by a personified figure and by a descriptive scene. Hamberg traces specifically the Liberalitas types, but many others could be cited. 4 Ryberg, Rites, 190, 202. 5 Res Gestae, 34. On the development of these concepts in Roman thought, see, in general, Ulrich, Piezas; J. Liegle, Zeitschr. f. Numismatik 42 (1932) 59-100; H. Harder, Hermes 69 (1934) 64-74; H. Markowski, Eos 37 (1936) 109-25; H. Mattingly, HarvTheolRev 30 (1937) 103-17; M. P. Charlesworth, ProcBritAc 23 (1937) 113 ff.; JRS 33 (1943) 1-10; Rodenwaldt, AbsBer/ 1935 (3) 1-27.

6 Virtus is the underlying idea in the types of Victory, Mars striding or resting or carrying a trophy, captives and trophies, the triumphal quadriga, Adlocutio, Rex Datus, Clementia, Pax. Pietas in its various

nuances could include the types specifically designated as Fides, Concordia, Consecratio, Aeternitas, Providentia, Alimonia, Liberalitas.

92 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS of the second. Péefas in its primary meaning of due observance paid to the gods is expressed

in the Sacrifice and the Lustratio. But piefas in its broader sense of the concern of the Pater Patriae for his citizens includes the imperial beneficence of the Liberalitas as well. The Adlocutio as a preliminary to battle may be thought of in terms of virtus; but the relation between the emperor and his soldiers, his provident care of them and their devotion and dependence upon him make it above all an expression of piezas. Iustitia and clementia exemplified in the Rex Datus, the Submission and the Prisoners, since they present different aspects of the relation of victor to the vanquished, might be regarded as the gentler side of virtus; but in Roman thought zustétia and clementia had become even more closely associated with, —indeed partly absorbed by, pie¢as. Even in the Adventus virtus shares its place with pietas, since the victorious emperor is conducted home from the wars in the care of gods,

Mars and Aeternitas-Faustina, and is recetved by Roma and Felicitas. Thus the two principal qualities attached to the public image of the emperor are combined in most of the panels, and each one implies the other. These meanings are unquestionably present and were important to the emotional and psychological effect of the panels. But such symbolic overtones do not necessarily supersede

ot diminish the impact of the narrative meaning or the historical reference. In a panel sequence, as compared with the extended narrative of the spiral column, the stringent limitation to a few scenes makes it inevitable that each is an epitome intended to evoke a whole train of associations. Thus even the most strictly “descriptive” of the panel reliefs express more than they describe.’ The symbolic intent must indeed have guided the selection of scenes to be represented. But there is undeniably a logical sequence of narrative

in the scenes themselves. While three of the “events” selected for representation may belong either earlier or later in the sequence, at least five are definitely fixed in a logical and chronological order: the Profectio, the Prisoners, the Submission, the Adventus, and the Liberalitas. Something of a compromise between the narrative and the symbolic interpretation of

the panels has been offered by Becatti, who proposes that the panels are in themselves narrative in intent, but that the sequence is composed of typical war scenes drawn from both the earlier and the later wars rather than a record specifically of either.§ That they are in fact “typical” war events is abundantly demonstrated by the recurrence of the types in the coinage and in relief. It is supported also by the Arch of Benevento, where the synoptic character of the scenes is much more evident. The interpretation as a sequence of war scenes alluding in retrospect to the whole series of campaigns on the Danube between 168 and 180 a.D. has a definite attractiveness, in the fact that such a sequence would be peculiarly fitting as a memorial to the recently deified emperor, avoiding mere repetition of an earlier trtumphal arch built after the triumph of 176. But the difficulties of such an interpretation become more apparent as it is examined in detail. Even its proponent was trapped into undermining it by identifying the Liberalitas— and very cogently—as that of 176 a.p., which was an unusually large distribution in 7 See Ryberg, Rites, 207-10. 8 Becatti, 55-82, esp. 62-65.

INTERPRETATION 93 celebration of the emperor’s return after eight years’ absence from the City and after the successful suppression of the revolt of Avidius Cassius. Even though evidence is lacking to identify the portrait figures with certainty, the faces are so individualized that a reference to known personages must have been clear to the Roman spectator and must have recalled a specific occasion. Interpretation of the Rex Datus as a typical war scene encounters a similar difficulty. The installation of a vassal king was a recurrent event in wars on the frontiers; but only once during the period 168-180 a.D. was the occasion sufficiently significant to be accorded a place in the meager historical accounts (p. 49). An adventus is a familiar type in reliefs and in the coinage; but here the unmistakable reference to a return to the City after a victorious conclusion of a war is appropriate only to the adventus of 176 A.D. An expected return in 173, heralded by a coin type, appears to have been cancelled

by the renewal of hostilities (p. 3), and Marcus died on the frontier before the conclusion of the later war. The scene would inevitably evoke in the mind of the Roman spectator the long postponed return of 176. The selection of the adventus rather than the triumph itself may well have been dictated by the wish to avoid duplication of the Triumph represented on an earlier arch. That the narrative intent is strongly present in the panels is supported by the fact that the Column of Trajan includes many similar scenes that might be thought of as “panels”, but all clearly keyed into the narrative. In substance, the chief difference lies in the greater compactness, the reduction in number of figures, and the conflation of separate motifs required by the limitation of space and number of scenes.® This concentration of content explains, for example, the diversity among the individuals in each scene. Where the larger space of the long spiral could use repeated figures to show an assembly of legionaries or praetotians or auxiliaries, the panel could suggest such a larger company by diversity of physical types and accoutrements among few individuals.! The panel reliefs might indeed be regarded as an abbreviated—or concentrated—translation of the “continuous” narrative into a “panel” style. This point has been illustrated from the Column of Trajan rather than from the later column because its narrative intent is less open to doubt. The Aurelian Column moves away from narrative in a new direction, thus blurring still further the division between “political allegory” and the “epic-documentary” tradition. There the scenes that are parallel to the panels in composition begin to show the “expressionism” of the Late Antique relief, in which the figures look out from the “scene” and direct their glances and gestures toward the spectator.1! As compared with these the panels of the arch ate much mote strictly narrative. They draw the spectator in at certain points in a “shared view”, but never open out to the spectator to the extent of breaking —or even of weakening—the interrelations among the participants within the scene itself. These ® Even allegorical figures appear occasionally in the Column narrative: the Danube in Scene 3, the Victory

writing on a shield in Scene 79, the goddess Night in Scene 150. 10 For example, in the most extended ad/ocutio of the Column of Trajan, Scene 104, the company of soldiers listening to the emperor comprises three signiferi carrying praetorian standards and one legionary signifer, twenty-two soldiers wearing segmented cuirasses and carrying cylindrical shields all with the same device, and two cavalrymen with scalloped corselets carrying oval shields. Cf. also Scenes 54 and 75. 11 See Ryberg, Rites, 208-10.

94, PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS relations are emphasized throughout by glance, by gesture, by compositional lines, and by the illusion of a real “‘scene” taking place in space. The panels stand firmly within the illusionistic tradition. Indeed they mark, after the classicism of the Hadrianic and early Antonine period, a new stride forward in illusionism. They add a new dimension to the illusion of depth by moving not only into the background but out into the actual space in front of the relief plane, at the same time maintaining the illusion of the “scene” by the use of a forward-curving frame to keep the figures within the prescribed limits of the action. In its firm grasp of a real “scene”, such illusioistic relief is inherently suited to narrative content, though its mode of artistic expression differs from that of the continuous-narrative style of the spiral columns. In the panels, as in any significant work of art, visual or linguistic, one level of meaning does not exclude others, which may be equally valid as part of the author’s or artist’s total intent. But in these reliefs the means of expression is primarily narrative. This is true, in varying degree, of all the panels that have survived from the two series. The later group, which alone is complete, presents in eight sequential scenes and with varying gradations between realistic description and symbolism, a narrative that has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

List of Abbreviations AA: Archdologischer Anzeiger. AbbBerlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, philosophisch-bistorische Klasse, Abhandlungen. Adil: Aunnali dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica di Roma.

AJA: American Journal of Archaeology. Amelung, Sea/ptVat: Amelung, W., Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums (Berlin 1903-36). ArchivRelig: Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft.

ArtBull: The Art Bulletin.

Barini, Zriumphalia: Barini, C., Triumphalia, imprese ed onori militari durante PImpero romano (Torino 1952). BCom: Bullettino della commissione archeologica communale di Roma.

Beaujeu: Beaujeu, J., La religion romaine a l’apogée de empire (Paris 1955). Becatti: Becatti, G., La colonna coclide istoriata (Rome 1960). Bellori: Bellori, G. P., Veteres arcus Augustorum trinmpbis insignes ... (Rome 1690). Benndorf-Schoene, LatMus: Benndorf, O., Schoene, R., Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranischen Museums (Leipzig, 1867). Berchem, Les distributions: Berchem, D. van, Les distributions de blé et d’argent ... (Geneva 1939). Bernhart: Bernhart, M., Handbuch zur Miinzkunde der rimischen Kaiserzeit (Halle 1926). Beschreibung der Stadt Rom: Platner, E., Bunsen, C., Gerhard, E., Réstell, W., Urlichs, L., Beschreibung der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart and Tubingen 1829-42). BJ]: Bonner Jabrbiicher. BMC: Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Vols. 1-5 (London 1923-50). BrBr: Denkmadler griechische und rémische Sculptur, unter Leitung von Brunn, H., herausg. Bruckmann, F. (Munich 1888-1900). Brilliant: Brilliant, R. Gesture and Rankin Roman Art, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences XTV (1963).

BSR: Papers of the British School at Rome. CAH: Cambridge Ancient History. Cichorius: Cichorius, C., Die Reliefs der Traianssdule (Berlin 1896-1900). CIL: Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Cohen: Cohen, H., Description historique des monnaies frappées sous Pempire romain, 2nd ed. (Paris 1880-92). Conze: Conze, A., Die attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin 1893-1922). Couissin: Couissin, P., Les armes romaines (Paris 1926).

Curtius: Curtius, L., Das antike Rom (Vienna 1944). DarSagl: Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire d’antiquitds grecques et romaines. Degrassi, Fasti: Degrassi, A., J fasti consolari dell impero romano (Rome 1952). Dessau: Dessau, H., Luscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin 1892-1916). DissPontAccad: Atti della pontificia Accademia romana di archeologia, Dissertazioni. 95

96 PANEL RELIEFS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Domaszewski, Fahnen: Domaszewski, A. von, Die Fahnen im rémischen Heere, Archaeologisch-epigraphisches Seminar der Universitat Wien, Abbandlungen, Heft 5 (1885).

Domaszewski, Rangorduung: Domaszewski, A. von, “Die Rangordnung des rémischen Heeres,” Bonner Jahrbiicher 117 (1908) 1-279. Domaszewski, Religion: Domaszewski, A. von, Die Religion des rémischen Heeres, offprint from Westdeutsche Leitschrift fiir Geschichte und Kunst, 14 (1895) 1-121. Durry: Durry, M., Les cobortes prétoriennes, Bibliothégue des Ecoles frangaises d’ Athénes et de Rome, 146 (1938).

Fest Arndt: Festschrift fiir Paul Arndt (Berlin 1926). Fowler, Festivals: Fowler, W. Warde, The Roman Festivals (London 1925). Giuliano: Giuliano, A., Arco di Costantino (Milano, Domus, 1955). Gnecchi: Gnecchi, F., J wedaglioni romani (Milano 1912). Groag, PIR?: Groag, E., Prosopographia imperii romani, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1933-52). Grueber: Grueber, H., Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum (London 1910). Hamberg, Studies: Hamberg, Per, Studies in Roman Imperial Art (Copenhagen 1945). HarvTheolRev: Harvard Theological Review. Helbig-Amelung, Fiubrer: Helbig, W., Fuhrer durch die offentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in Rom

ed. 3 by Amelung, W., Reisch, E., Weege, F. (Leipzig 1912-13). Hommel, Figurengicbeln: Hommel, P., Studien eu den rémischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1954).

Huelsen, Forum: Huelsen, Ch., The Roman Forum, tr. J. B. Carter (New York 1906).

Hittl: Hittl, W., Antoninus Pius 2 (Prague 1933). Inst. Neg: Negative in the photographic collection of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome. JDAI: Jahrbuch des deutschen archéologischen Instituts, Rom. JOA: Jabreshefte des Ocesterreichischen archdologischen Instituts.

Jordan: Jordan, H., Zopographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum (Berlin 1871-1907). Jordan-Huelsen: Jordan, Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum I, pt. 3, ed. Huelsen, Ch. (Berlin 1907). JBS: Journal of Roman Studies. Lehmann-Hartleben, Dionysiac Sarcophagi: ULehmann-Hartleben, K., Olsen, E., Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore (Baltimore 1942).

Lehmann-Hartleben, Traianssdule: ULehmann-Hartleben, K., Die Traianssdule (Berlin and Leipzig 1926). L’Orange: L’Orange, H. P., Gerkan, A. von, Der spatantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Berlin 1939). Lugli, Mon Ant: Lugli, G., Monumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio (Rome 1930-38). Lugli, Rom Ant: Lugli, G., Roma antica, il centro monumentale (Rome 1946). MAAR: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Mabillon, Museum Italicum: Mabillon, J., Museum Italicum seu collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothecis Italicis (Paris 1724). Magi, Rilievi favi: Magi, F., I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome 1945).

Mattingly-Sydenham: Mattingly, H., Sydenham, E., Te Roman Imperial Coinage (London 1926-51). MadI: Mitteilungen des deutschen archéologischen Instituts (1949).

Nash, PietDict: Nash, E., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London 1961-62). NumChron: Numismatic Chronicle. NumNotes: Numismatic Notes and Monographs, American Numismatic Society. Petersen, Vom alten Rom: Petersen, E., Vom alten Rom (Leipzig 1898). Pietrangeli: Pietrangeli, C., L’arco di Traiano a Benevento (Novara 1947). PIR? C: Prosopographia Imperit Romani, second edition (Berlin 1933-), names beginning with C, Platner-Ashby, ZopDict: Platner, S.B., Ashby, T., Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1929). RE: Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopdadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. REA: Revue des études anciennes. Reinach, RepRe/: Reinach, S., Répertoire de reliefs grecques et romains (Patis 1909-12). Reinach, RepStat: Reinach, S., Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine (Paris 1897-1930). RendPont: Atti della pontificia accademia Romana di archeologia, Rendiconti. RevNum: Revue numismatique.

Richter, Handbook: Richter, G. M. A., Handbook of Greek Art (London 1959). Richter, Scalpture: Richter, G. M. A., Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (New Haven 1950). RM: Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, rémische Abteilung.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 97 Roscher: Roscher, W., Ausfibrliches Lexicon der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1884-1937). Ryberg, Retes: Ryberg, I. S., Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (= Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22, 1955).

SHA: Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Strack: Strack, P., Untersuchungen zur rémischen Reichsprdgung des zweiten Jabrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1931-37). Strong, Scu#/tRom: Strong, E., La seultura romana da Augusto a Costantino (Florence 1923-26). Stuart Jones, CatConserv: Stuart Jones, H., et al., Sculptures of the Museo dei Conservatori (Oxford 1926).

Svoronos: Svoronos, J., Das athener Nationalmuseum (Athens 1908-11). Toynbee, Flavian Reliefs: ‘Toynbee, J. M. C., The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria (Oxford 1957).

Toynbee, Hadrianic School: ‘Toynbee, J. M. C., The Hadrianice School (Cambridge 1934). Ulrich, Pietas: Ulrich, Th., Pietas als politischer Begriff im rémischen Staate bis zum Tode des Raisers Commodus (= Historische Untersuchungen 6, Breslau, 1930). Wegener, Herrscherbildnisse: Wegner, M., Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (= Das rimische Herrscherbild, 2, pt. 4, Berlin 1939). Wissowa, Relig.: Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Romer (= Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, §, 2nd ed., Munich 1912).

Zwikker: Zwikker, W., Stadien zur Markussdule (= Allard Pierson Stichtung, Archaologisch-historische Bijdragen 8, Amsterdam 1941).

7 Ryberg

Index Acclamatio, variant of adlocutio type in coinage 54 Arch, tetrapylon, elephant-crowned, in background

Adlocutio 50-56 of Profectio and Adventus 28

Adlocutio, type conspicuous in coinage at beginning ——, elephant-crowned, of Domitian 30

of campaign 50 ——, interpreted as Porta Triumphalis 31

——, gesture of 51 ——, of Titus 16

Adlocutio, panel marked end-point of left-to-right | Area Capitolina, portico of, in the Sacrifice 25

movement 51 Ariogaeses, vassal king of the Quadi 49

——., motif adapted to several themes 54 Army, disciplined strength of, emphasized in the ——-, optimum view, on spectator’s right in upper Adlocutio and the Rex Datus 56

tier 51 Attribution to artist 82-3

——., panel probably pendant to the Rex Datus 55 Aurelian Column, “‘baroque”’ style of 2

——., simple in design 50 Aurelius, Marcus, eleven panel reliefs representing ——, types used in coinage 53-54 wars on the Danube 1; assigned to Marcus Aure-

Adlocutio, usually preliminary to military action 50 lius first by Petersen 1; divided into two series

——, after a battle, on Column of Trajan 50 of different dates 1; Series A, three panels in Adventus, elements of allegorical paraphrase 66 Museo dei Conservatori 9-28; Series B, reused Adventus, coin type of 173 and 174 A.D. 2 on attic of Arch of Constantine 28-76; assigned Adventus, designed as pendant to the Liberalitas 71 to an arch of 173 A.D. by Kahler 2-3 ——., optimum view of, to left of spectator in upper

tier of panels 66 Background, made to serve artistic purpose, in the of salutation 13 ——, used to enhance design, in the Clementia 10

Adventus, type distinguished from profectio by gesture Rex Datus 49

———.,, type sometimes identical with profectio 13, 33 Barbarian chieftain, in the Submission 63

Aesculapius, in pediment of Capitoline Temple 26 ——, prince, in the Rex Datus 43 Aeternitas, Faustina identified with, in coinage 68 Barbarians, kneeling before Hadrian, in Villa Tor-

Aeternitas-Faustina, in the Adventus 67 lonia relief 64 Altar group, in the Sacrifice 21 ——, kneeling, in the Clementia 9

Anonymus Einsidlensis 5 ——, on the Column of Trajan 13 Ara Pacis, direction of view calculated 7 Beard, of soldier, worked in shallow drillrunnels 48 ——, importance of vii Bear-skin helmets, worn by signiferi 41

Arco di Portogallo 1 Becatti, vii

——., arrangement of reliefs on 88 ———, in agreement with Wegner’s attribution of Arcus Argentarius, possibly adorned by the three attic panels to two artists 87

Conservatori panels 5-6 ——, suggestion on reconstruction of arch to

Arch of Constantine, attic panels, assigned by Kah- deified Marcus Aurelius 87

ler to an arch of 173 A.D. 2, 3 Benevento, arch of 6-7, 36

——, frieze showing elephant-crowned arch 32 Bernhart, 73 n. 3 98

INDEX 99 Bosco Reale cup, of Augustus 64 Emotional impact, emphasized in treatment of ——, representing triumph of Tiberius 21 faces 80 Brilliant, R., 36 n. 41, 65 n. 16 Emperor, dressed in cuirass, in Flavian coin type of adlocutio 54

Camp, as background in the Rex Datus 45 ———, gesture of address to the troops, in the Rex Caligula, first to use adlocutio as coin type 53 Datus 43

Cancelleria relief 69 ——, gesture of mercy 60 Castagnoli 31 ——, in camp dress, in the Adlocutio 55 Centurion, distinguished by transverse crest on ——, inthe Submission, probably holdinga scroll 61 helmet 35 ——,, portraits of, in the Conservatori panels 23 Chariot, in three-quarters view, in Greek art as .——, soldiers’ response to, in the Rex Datus 43

early as fifth century 13 ——, turning away from Mars and toward Roma,

——,, with two ¢riumpbatores on coins Of 177 A.D. 18 in the Adventus 67

toline Temple 28 56

Chariots, of sun and moon, in pediment of Capi- Enemy, contact with, in only two of the attic panels

Chieftain, in Submission, not wounded 63 “Epic-documentary” tradition in Roman relief 90 Chieftain’s son, in Submission, facial expression of | Equestrian bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius, in

grief and despair 63 Piazza del Campidoglio 14

Cingulum, characteristic of officer’s dress 11 Erasure, after davinatio memoriae 2-3 Circling motion of procession, in the Lustratio 38 “classic” and “‘baroque’’, elements in style 81 Facade of Capitoline Temple, in the Sacrifice 24

——., groups of panels 86 Feather-crested helmets, in the Clementia 12 Classicism of Hadrianic art succeeded by a new Felicitas, in the Adventus 68-9

*illusionism” 7 Ferculum, carried in triumphal procession 19

Clementia, 9-15 Flamen of Jupiter, in the Sacrifice 22

——, original position on left pylon of an arch 14 Fluteplayer, dressed in toga 38

——, title confirmed by coin type 9 Fortuna, Temple of, in the Adventus 29

Clivus Argentarius 6 Frame, important to spatial illusion 10 ——, Capitolinus 19 Fringed cloak, of barbarian prince, in the Rex

Cloak, flying, 11 Datus 43 Coin counter, in the Liberalitas 73

Column of Trajan, motifs adapted from 13, 21, 59 Garland, held by Victory, in the Triumph 17 Commodus, 40 Genius Senatus 22, 34

———, erased from the chariot, in the Triumph 2 “Grand Tradition” of political allegory in Roman

Concept of emperor’s rdle, different from that of relief 90

Trajanic period 61 Great Frieze from Forum of Trajan 70

Conservatori Museum, three Aurelian panels in 1, 9

Constantinian frieze representing an adventus 32 Hamberg, interpretation of citizen as deity 34 Content, of the panel reliefs, primarily narrative 92 ——., interpretation of the panels similar to Roden-

Cuirass, of officer 11, 12 waldt’s “ideological”? approach 91

Cyclopes, in pediment of Capitoline Temple 26 ——, notes transition of direction 69 n. 24 ——, regarding variations in dress 41

Danube, crossing of, as coin type 50 ———, stereoscopic effect, defined 55

Dessau, 5 n. 23 Helbig 1

Discipline and strength of army, stressed in design Hellenistic type of Victory 17

of the Submission 62 Helmet, of antique type, in the Profectio 35

Domaszewski, 43 ——., with feather crest, most common 12 Domitian, arch of, crowned by elephants 30 ——, with ring crest 58

Drapery, lines of, used for purposes of design 48 Hercules, in pediment of Capitoline Temple 26 Drill, use of, similar in Profectio and Lustratio 43 Heroic rider, adaptations of, in Roman coinage 13 ——,, design of the Clementia 83

Bagle, on military siguum 40 ——, uses of type in Roman art 3 Elephant-crowned arch, built by Domitian 30

——,, interpreted as Porta Triumphalis 31 “Ideological” interpretation of Roman relief, ini——, located at beginning of Via Flaminia 32 tiated by Rodenwaldt 90-91 9*

100 INDEX Illusionism, in Antonine relief 55 Military standards, elements of 4o

——, in the Aurelian panels 94 ——, in the Lustratio 39

——, new kind of, in the Clementia 10 Minerva, on chariot-front, in the Triumph 16

Imaginiferi, on pedestals of Arch of Constantine 45 Movement, in design, as guideto direction of read-

Imago, of emperor, on praetorian signa 3 ing 43

——, on signum in the Lustratio, interpreted as Mural crown, as element in sigua 40

unbearded portrait 40 ———-, on signum, in Lustratio 40

Incense box, carried by camillus 38 Inscription, triumphal, recorded by Anonymus Ein- Neptune, on chariot-front, in Triumph 16 sidlensis, dated in 176 by tribunician year XXX 5 Ny Carlsberg Museum, head of Marcus Aurelius in 23

Jupiter Optimus Maximus of Capitolium, triumphal

sacrifice offered to 23 Optimum view, used as guide to placement of

Jupiter, simulacrum of, in the Rex Datus 47 panels 84-5

Ox-slaying, type of sacrificial scene most popular

Kahler, 2, 3, 4, n. 17 in first century 21

——, on Porta Triumphalis 31

Pallottino 4 Late Antique art, elements of, in the panels 2 Paludamentum, cloak worn by emperor in Rex Datus

Laurel wreath, double, in the Lustratio 39 A5

——, worn by few participants, in the Lustratio 38 ‘‘Panel’’ style, 41, 93

Liberalitas, 4 81

Lehmann-Hartleben, vii, 90 Panels, Series B, closer in style to Aurelian Column Liberalitas, building in background perhaps the Patera, sacrificial dish, held over tripod altar in

Basilica Ulpia 76 Lustratio 38

———, composition provides end-point to both left- Petersen, 19

to-right and upward direction of reading 72 ——, first assigned panels to Marcus Aurelius rather

——, event of 177 A.D. 75 than Trajan 1

Liberalitas, history of type in Roman art 73 Phalerae, as elements in signa 39 ———., personification of, on coins 73 Pietas, expressed in the panels 90-91 Liberalitas, recipients in various attitudes 74 Pity, reflected in faces of soldiers, in the Submission ——., togate figure at right of emperor possibly a 63

portrait of Pertinax 75 Pompeianus, companion of the emperor in eight of

——, use of earlier motifs 74 the eleven panels 10 Lictor, only one shown in Triumph 16 ——., in frame at right edge, in the Adlocutio 50 L’Orange, 72, 85 n. 2 ——,, portraits of, in panels 79-80 Lustratio, boldly imaginative development of _——, son-in-law of Marcus Aurelius 3

Trajanic design 37-8 Porta Triumphalis, 31-2 Lustratio, 37-43 ——, location of 31

——, design developed from Scene 53 of Column ——, natural identification of arch in background

of Trajan 38 of Triumph 20

—, original position, on right pylon of arch 42 Portico, crowned by statuary, in the Sacrifice 25 Lustratio, problems of design inherent in 38 Portraits of Pompeianus, in panels, confirm division Lustratio, heads arranged in concentric ovals around of panels into two series of different dates 79-80

emperor 38 Portraiture, in the panels 80

——, designed as pendant to the Profectio 43 Praetorian signa with imperial zwagines 40 Lustratio, ritecustomary at opening of acampaign 42 Praetorium, of army camp, in background of Rex Datus 45

Marcomanni, instigators of revolt 49 Prisoner, expression of despair 57

Mars, stmulacrum of, in Rex Datus 47 —~—, expression suggestive of plea for mercy 57

——, introducing new recruits, on Arch of Bene- ——, grasped by hair 57

vento 8 ——-, with hands chained behind back 56

Martial, epigram referring to Temple of Fortuna Prisoners, 56-61

Redux 29-30 ——., clementia proffered to, by emperor 60

Mater Castrorum, title of Faustina on coins 68 —-—., faces strongly depicted 57

INDEX 101 ——., design based on Column of Trajan 59 ——, in two groups, each with a signifer and signum

Procession of victims, in the Lustratio 38 55

Profectio, 28-37 ——., varied facial types of 52

——., and Adventus, similar in background 28-9 Soldiers, in Profectio, one young and unbearded 35

——, regarded as pendants 28 ——., two distinguished as centurions 35

———, not designed as pendants 37 Soldiers, in Rex Datus, in camp dress 47 Profectio, head in background probably a citizen 34 ——, varied facial types 48

——, optimum view, to left of spectator 36 Spears, seven pairs in the Lustratio 39 ——,, original position, on left pylon of arch 36 Strong, vii Providentia, coin type, presentation, to troops, of Struggle, expressed in design, in Prisoners 57

heir-apparent 54 Stuart Jones, vil, 19, 44

Stylistic disparities, not certain proof of difference

Quadi, vassal king recorded 48-9 in date 4 Quadrigae of elephants, crowning arch in Profectio Submission, emperor magnified in stature 61 and Adventus 28 ——, emperor most distant and aloof 61 ——,, original position on arch 65

Recutting, after erasure 17 ——, predecessors of the type in Roman art 65

Rex Datus, 43-50 ——., probably designed as pendant to the Prisoners

———., event recorded near beginning of war 48-9 66

Rex Datus, motifs in the coinage 44 ——, purport of scene contrasted with the Prisoners

Rex Datus, not a coronation 44-5 66

——,, original position, to left of spectator in upper Swords, worn by soldiers in the Adlocutio 53 tier of panels 50

Rex Datus, types used in the coinage 49 Temple, in background of the Triumph 19

Rodenwaldt, veo Temple of Fortuna, in the Adventus 29

Roma, in the Adventus 69-70 ——, mentioned in epigram of Martial 29-30

Trajan 70 _ ; , Adventus 28

yy? related to type in Great Frieze from Forum of Tetrapylon arch, in background of Profectio and

——, on chariot-front, in the Triumph 16 Toga, ceremonial form of 22

; Tribunal, unusually high, in the Submission 61

Sacrifice, 21-7 , Triumph of 176, represented in Conservatori panels 2 ——, an essential part of Roman triumph 21 Triumph, original placement, on left pylon of an ——, crowding of figures in 23-4 arch 20 ——» design based on Trajanic type 21 Triumphal chariot, represented from front and

——, optimum view of 26 —

j€4

’Syae ¢4 r-¥haw .—_ 6%ia \'* 2; .ne ®

;; os mires. ere ty “ :tan . ieote Soe 2 ; xLanett ; AR a4" Fe eat » be etese ¥, a ‘Veatch ar gee a Ry BS en Aas ‘ rik, es roe is rete «= ips Ok ay” Ae hated Migs uae. Min Jee ay Y, i

: * ot. 4 wns 7 4 si ‘4 ‘ ‘Ger. b. ; . : &, ‘ c ~

led ?ore - BF, ;7.: gud . ty — wa 4 / : ag -er r deed : ~. =ahs }og ¥if37. .& R ysig ps fee Wy “ &fl-4bv ; ; > : 4 ~4 ; -— Ne f ns 7RY q+iaS .riayail .“ye. , FPe & am atl a, i o%. ie il : é Pe;: SF TA a r 8 bs es Bae * Se. 7 « ae” 5 z\ :("ae wf ps Ni) aa iy A® PAY Bee Oe So ONE. Beas { | iy. ae.* i \ (Aen if ¥ ? ieee | ee ge ’. ; \ %' iA x a\ eM: 5 3, ~* ; , a" ae

‘be ~~on aoe” .Sy& ee; \~mf \' wo i. “eee 4eee. ‘ i:ar“4i $: te — Se LE x :Pati: we TK ; ;a> 7: >, q (oo te } 4 Ae\oee . 7. a F, .Beene qes“ee LS , gp ‘i‘.oe \ f.ta ¥ Th Hi :. oA9 \ ¥§ y ;iy oo7ite: ty ip

|

. os , veatl3 Ss A! | - 7PP> ‘WA 2 ™ ;E— re iJ 7aea 13 - /a | ; . \ . Var 7 "a ices baie ih S A) ae id | 6 Pm ved eh ;

aA i shes dis Gsj :\ :“OMG |. ile ve ee: i) ap ie Pay ay‘ atf iy. ip At eyih ; at SRE eae) Ne é b \ : jat ® -yei'.4, ae»t# a ;-Va ern at, afd WATE ALS f i ‘_~ » 2 “ae | 4 .:i : ri eR. ;ohPe, w)ae |ee. \ P* f ' ‘ye + “ 4 : in * , > " f Fs 7 { s Ji ‘> : = ’ i 7 , , % vd i EF Ny va a “ee ed.7_— % : aSPR, Z . fl Jt Ps 5 ft i257- Ey 4 sy| 3Or, ae iabe. Lj) Sele fee ,ON: eae ae. a OR, -{ al FP i aea3ae Chile ° SOMES 4 7Atnffe ¥Lae at - t " ie aiy hike *= y.Fewv ; . DS Bet; Com .. Lt aBae: —_— Vise - os ay 8 + Ak aie 9“Se * .¥ a ¥ ‘ with ; é eys“ = ae : J 5 re: : ; Myie ah -amy.) Ce. xX * ibaiSeed ére,a4 ~Ps“nnor

i *4 .!came‘ a ‘- hikes S97Gir Ww ™ ex re)!, .ie? hn & So ae *3 J uy Sage oeyNe > aa . r-% on # By & ¥ WEF " b ret

= er ~

Fig. ra. Arch of Benevento. Trajan with business men of Forum Boarium.

3 d —~ E4 ’ \ 4 re ® Lh. "=,>¥\\«< ro e¥ mh eo ye. AAA vie_UF a; ~a hs ; a: ¢’ ,P ’ tm bd 4 p

.¥, , tetoae € % >FOR *% a pmi .7as. c *3~#«& %. pA 7 Se Fad 7™ ‘ . t‘a7 ~~ , So Sl? weet 4ae ae Se oS 4 +* ee 4 % :*; .\ ‘sb %,if}; éf 44 + a3PN ant os >) > \ jbBS fy ¥ROWE ) 7 \\ >) t ; :Hoda vik oF, | ON "*, 2 4

ol Se ~ See F > SS Aa PS. gs aw

;¥ _% : Fj rd “ :“iy 7| 4Fo, ~gt y.:'as =, -‘‘‘{“i " "ul.7= ; 7Aet— ;‘AWE) :Py ¢Z ‘ rf smamed 0-2s . ea ES | , * : a + ¥ og} * a i t Ss P< ; ~ + 4‘ ’ 4 é La ; a :; , if ._* ~ a : 2s . , . P p> i Re "y p Ht $ Kk i< Ah po A/S ) ee “5 Be i tae S| PO a. ee Fe 2a ay ORS cs ;| 5 Wi6d wee 2A =f i| aCe .|: Mitibe > by ae eA em Fe ¢ Wes BF, ay a, one y Bt) .¥ot) Bm glaa4 7ae Ao .a wePietGo >Pfoe ks ‘ £ ; + : a5 a y . a F ‘ - >i . os + ; a ;

eae ¢.* 29 F—ba \, %4& ' vVe ~, . a oe ‘ Ye A: ’ ‘S a -_- ax , 7

|| oul SNOB ee ‘y VM Aooe ger o |

ati +—— % . he cS” | 1 (aheota ag, © \i or ea atten. - am — éBe» gs ;|

, Ai. eA a (ae de ae \ a / Se! ‘DP. >. ¥y bie A EEN WS Tt ff ta ae , \ a (OG 42 . t. as 4 > ~~ N \S 4 : a t. 7 et Sa * \ 22a,5 a rf

Yow ey br ee Wy| :|| my MNS SSNye ae RA »-=e YASS fi :..PAKS — ttj brerGtSN Pree | Bile if Se INR aw SS ayg oo ARS aY AS tar mn / . oe “Byme | EaOx AS co NS) J . ; \ see \ wee 2a

; k “ i ; ~ be Sf 4 4 : 4a \ f a * ci 4MegJsOF B a a) \ ; ; nis ‘ A GOO ee Eh Bers ae a. NS eee s oi ei. fl \ Fig. 2b. Clementia. Optimum view.

uf * : ; / 4|E

kp f {ty ;p, 7, i -,

A

Fa We,Myafey’ \- eae wy BeeLANIYEN 4

Fig. 2c. Clementia. 178 A.p.

Pirate III

PLATE 1V

MaeJ‘ety Pig . Ee°“ae -\ “a ei asa*ee t~A*_~ +; ;ae -pare, 2 . d co =“S Pee a S Le ~y JF Me By4 ‘ Ks a) :w’> ~ .J a¥ 5 , ot Sass 4 ia.hdvy bak fs 4 Mera ~ ig hy a Pe Se *. ; we “is . 7 4 4 -— “ 4 . 4 s ~ ‘ . 4 , ea . \ “ EF 4 as “¢ “ag ee é : fe. am oo. ass 3 , * » se oe 4 a > ’ , ‘ ‘. 3}7. :Pe‘" SR . . > : *y » Daan ¥ = . A x _7 “- 7 } ’oS : ae ‘< 4G ern Te ja*vy ad* r: -ke i 7P| - >vx ‘a*;is J",dae -.7

i , yy din, i |= 37JPt. a om . ’ _ * ; r 4 , , se - ~ ( RE Me ‘ 2 ~ a

, * Py ne “eS ‘ ~ . J Le - S tacla ee a, . s bpd :

i™ ‘ “ef as -ae . ~- 3> ywit? ul Bt ¥ Say — aes. 1 pe oteJfol i ’ oa - coe “a9Rs 3 NN d ‘ a&x

q. e» ,*~*at? / : " ee A. > o eT i 1 ;“A hee oo a ‘Reo ee A--* eh, | | e. “Sea ae to .it»af -A ~ vn . "4 » y Va in | é) , f

Ss cp». e.A,,:,ome eS ze | tS Ff. 4 > s “ae v ; \ry ; . ,» ot weil : »* " 3 me a 1S ‘ a aan q my es. a os ; of 4 a “— ‘ _ . whee ¥ , . \ . ae | . €’foi 3 he a, 4> Aer ”:.y> » Ae aoa. ee ue es %-*?. 2 a7 es ; L\e75 me atia ond x 4 P ~ A fo 74 \\ ae ,Ne rus . M9 ' % ate Pe x4 a‘-./ateo Eit. ee oS ,;‘os ~> f-*./ =~eee 7Wu ;Y He ?\ :iee .7ra Fhe 9i \" f ee );,ae Y, : a: =- ¢A. & e ¥|a4. “) ts eAre

, . YY ad eee. é ? 7 “Cs . $,Up = 4fj ao a ‘ ee ah |a er *”|- ets .pa wd tll ; r : : wh ‘ e an aa _— lll ere o> a am 2 se ,;re, ee ny . : 2 _ 4 < 4 “ F S&S oe ; ms A. —-, ’ eh uw y _ 4 » aa i e —Q a | < ‘e : : par} Sat ‘ee a ae 4 . ' act BS , at FFF ‘ Pa Bi, ..rte P:Pay ;£2a‘oy: ade) ra ,>,7¥> Bal A *t%td 4 ’ th ° ’ * ys oy ¥ ’ : 3 ; _ ’ oO * " pe? ; Ae ‘ ~ A : -~ ‘q ae a t . 4 Lal 4 ae a ; . ' A +t # ve ; ; CS - ot qvovttalen ": yeger™ Ne eye iS *# ‘ c== ' ee— 'aaaes s ‘ per. ass nye .ee »Dic” ~eee “Pes ° se — . —— . = ere ; * : "e TAA eeag ; .anne -_‘a an4ae “Wt. ' »aK SE2) “Fs + ‘i he r.}; j‘¥thee a+.?. _. At Pe -™ +> * ee: ie | 3 A : ‘ ie 2 } dy: aes P£,? AS "rs fi Ft ated :ta \.© rn F. _-ie. c,es aP 7.. id > , : ‘ vr we.) on 7. _ Ly me eofe _. ';oe 0Re. i; "y usaofPP A as . ;my asaw ji \% 3;OS »¥“ F) nad “3Le ; ;Rh . PL i 3:ad 4 pe ay eae Je A “eee: f/f 5 §eae pr a a ~ . y .a an :>>. .\ 4" ae+.RY PA ai’ ee ee fAfyae8ae3ha RAR oP s_ har “a. \; ‘\; !Hae efty al OR one *! TR ARR: id . bs ae :\)ne om »te , Re AY . uf, ’ +2

j .‘We * 5 ate \ ’ ‘ , ia ae y “ae 30 ; AN «i } 9 : i 2, ~ , ae : . ah ‘ 4 the y : " + " . . ‘ : > Avs ‘ c. ie aeTt : afe4v. am i>caf e" ¥.4ie 4we :we’ah 7. 7;”.Ma *>&% mae. Ro Ss x < —_ . ae 4 Se 2 “a foo te e yi — rer , 4 >, f. be “"e ee ’ me Oh -y¥ ser : m pt .%* *_weg < bes :A i - ee 4.F Boe Oa Nias , ‘ uate £5 ey. ent “~ x\o a “»ae eer: 4HY, , “,;i be 4a aN ITae Ps,x ‘+e :7ae J¢ . rr EN , yma eit; ~ ~ ae 1 Re “ag A 7 *>ionsae >=», + -n ‘.- *a, 2 P _ % ) - ol e~Bae é . Ps acS ty ‘UA aeit: ate’re : *he ® ua+7 DE.‘44a “See ' “)\ ae- 2v4’ ;Fal yi

7 a . : a is >» a. Pe +io "etAS .es enh ce me 3ae hb e) |» he ja ie : fe Ae : » on" “ag . ' 3 SA Sig ai 2k = of 4 sf ,@ y ee epee — < -“am -ty ayoe “a;m “Sr f . ~~ > rye »” . y ay a $ ‘a 7 , %: 4 a y x. ’ hata ‘ “a. % o . > ot, %. Rs, “‘- me i wy SO “ ' .ihing ‘+“crs - Wl sae e “by re ee SUS x* aoe

Prats V

‘ a> Py, 5

gy | ia ‘ , —: iGot De E (ss « , y Fo 7 + ‘tw y t

>”Ee! St — t': i38 : é = a 2 : an, ; : ~ 7 ose “ >: -~" e) e “5 =.

a% "SS ~~ ka- ~- Seis ; : - nN 4i, ¢ wf , _s .on ‘ ‘ “oe Rs ee ry Y>» & c.=B-t> SS f jfaX. P ‘*: “t 4PO 2 > oee : 7S Nee 4 zAV: (cS ee LY » f=' :gs‘ rae Ake ee i ir‘ s 1aYs \A

:® =; “A rd' 2 ie “3 eS ER Oy ~~ :¥ 3: =ey iw SF .Shy, id ap “~aR ~~ 7 ¢— 2 , . “4s . \ Psae ;, 9x : ~at } ;?— Sx- .oF ? : —,. ~~ZIT, Sf , . a , , /* ; i. : : ‘vi a a e ~ “2 ios hh TE ee‘OSS OL ol ™!>Oia ateo tN _ wie = eae et ry ; r: \ ‘" ie‘ tsr«‘# 7 fs ea, ; * 7, >oe — “~ 4 x Ps 'AS : » ad \ ‘SY aw! Whe” ff . ee a . ) | 4 ed .a a7 :Oee. » i o™ 7 . .% Yaseen > ‘f\ ry s ~ foy . FN: _. 3 . va uf a ~- aa ee ih Rh "yy ~~. a “ ‘. hay 1? in Fa Jey ae eS»| a, 1 ‘i. DD aBe °ie i,a +" Pras a,- po a aN PR -peed “oe ~~ :3g, Se et \ a. ;Qn fs “, FaN C

rf7 :ce ; , =a ad a ; ay SS Ya Wo iW Jas ; ie > SS > ie ee yif Ae |NN yf aa

tase, a f wk: a oe ‘mm : F oe y 2s y => sites ’i “Re. oy~\a. .Yay 7—

eal” saat = ey a

- -34 m% “ee crr>Pv %: (pals ’le ‘ais “ip? ¢ioe yO e- ., .ria ae . y.rf -a,. 9 » 4 . Kage a

% 3 S97 fe Oe

a. % MF, Fs Sh, x re. AP SS ! y « ° we le J ae Sas Y Pe

iee eyeM is

e” ES ¢ nest eA alee Rate~WS ™ _ be’ a ; —*

Fig. 4a. Heroic Rider. Vespasani.

ono) JZE tree at tf) Vv om . . e ~~ me 4 9 ¢ am AS y \‘¥.>» fe » av, * ; : = . SLs ES : , -" . aa * . Ana. F. Pie > ek mf ae n+ 7 / ~_ wr? KE at

Ne ee, LE pei (| ET,

r'a $’*Ri oho 4 J -P , ,a 4 ae >. 2ztx? a~*~ p07 «. / dee rePe xn™ai7 : 2, a\* “ee : 4eby ;>S3f ‘BEE j ;xg%ie Oe ar, f “a ;Fes ~ »y.’’2 € ‘~ ae¥y, “ (g~“t> Sf y om &= 7,-aer

‘. ,'by’ ;y Pi; e,7afasi?hs oe ; «ZB q } | 6 , ES ee tPAIR ae e ) ’ ~ a m4 5 Met r f Bhat fe J et ; ZzBs fr q ‘Zi 4 le aAbeer r 9 i - | ae all7) i gs 2 ithe, ee>eas? w= (\ Nee %Ss \eee. Be sRBe oe zi : A: -:“¢ Ee we t 6: *se Fa eee \ 4> ot +e aE, ae — Dy BreAe , Ge aeEiert eS i>/afe f i iy Z mF -4 Bes J oT < ee * ‘ ey ‘4 j : > ’ s ai %H b PRs —

‘7’“ROBE -Me / Lat,- a

Fig. 5a. Profectio. 169 A.D. Fig. 5b. Profectio. 170 A.p. Fig. 5c. Adventus. Commodus.

PLATE VI

. a.sated ,f{#724 o> aa -oy A:gD& as;¥ ‘* :rf :i's rh J , ; x. * 4? ; 4pa> ° ‘*>:?—_ bud er : av a —€) eo A" Goa NReee sat ys Pf att Me :é.Fa OO . , ire * ; ‘ os Sa ¥ EE Pe “a Es = es e ‘ ; e “2 . ‘ on tin ”~ ee am We “eet .% 4 ‘ Fanta! Axe Zant he ee 4s 2 ‘ Vie. YO" sie > ; “ J i,i>}ee.of , eS a a U . oR: ee ee W7. . Nn aA ’ . M1 ’ - - 5

, NT eee 7 =e er ie GG |) AE 2 § ST GN LO oe § . rs “ 7ee : eee, - glfA nn g—— Cer" feet a. A, = e a eee 2. wae 4 of a ry y wl Tt S65 : oe“ :ate , ¢; —; < “Fo=} r% eS) . x=" eo Faoy4a 4>F a W,et +] % , dig4wy, a/ ; ‘ WAS the ao ~ . aoa FO 7 i. ¥Z ’ ’ we a e* a “ =— Vv P . .a :a |:\?L pap>) Larepes 7io: nbc. We, om es dale os: -oS sf;7rR ieethe vem Y o :| .ifi, “2 aes | rai e "to%, - |4a ge. xiys%, C:«L.—— x —4si*, ..> yy oan Jtesae vu$f ' . =-- D

;v We . e 7; ;ow oe é“i: :ee; =pa ka. .oi ia, ~ - Sy ys Se a,

a PS me

‘»” a ae YY = s . - OO Mtns = Ne + ¥ “a. —s | ‘ \O

& ~ ey ’ “s "s >i. op Nj : * Re. i .. oe An Pim i rr ts + . “s 7 ’ * ~~ ~ ; y ELS Ieee an : Ps pe _ ae. NOR OSS. mee a 9 aad a : } . - (oF y ae Tes N k “ Trae rs ; a“ae » rh A .eesiiieay“35,~ i.: x" ~ ”@ ») ae v’q s ‘ P ’ - SY

Sw : aS + aca a ; Ya ii 3s ——

; - te“WW owoJ“aosi |~ae. ;edn” ottieedl SS a - .ta

wo .,»me - 4ae “ > trig , . . ; veWD m \ — . eS ~~ ——_ 4.< .ee : — = ht i 7 : = ns . > ™, h ~=e ae 4EO cS. “hy_* ie aay ° —— °° 5 ;eSru ae ee¢- “3 = , ; >are . oR} atithe. . ..anBe Saks ss2er . “Ye a_ ;~; Pe ae we ~. 7we oO

- “% — t th. — he 2.tySP aa. 3~s_r-gf a SF as. 4Wag oy oeaea -se _-- -- 5>. iNN

" or * “< PS bane, 4 *, ‘ rt. ’ = — : = - + cS ——= : , 4 i ee te , os

; ae. 4 Ka PS , tS, , S ~y “**yet ‘*ee ~~ a! ty eA ‘ a * 3 f *) = * P = — TEP A: GaN oe ++ Ss 2 Piers “i, Said Aa “re . ie ae ' 576 *7 Fic 4 au . % 7 . : . . : i ™_ — ; : —_ . P . oe = Ss ~~ « _ “i eR, o

yi a a - —_

te aesty — Y te aie! .pgor, ‘ ‘¥ _ . “\ »sae SS+ > —,* tae ie= Do bgeoes ;>Ry ee. ws @” “Y Ac7 ~~ oi25 i £. ei, a. ~~ Pete ee NN : OS Rl Ne, ger oir we Se al % ioe _< 4 ~_ ¥ i y = ee yk©a: al oe Sap 3° ote yy. a4se-aa-os Bats ,ae” . ~- Nae .: 4 ’esNe Ps&x. oe

- Bat =es . Jt. .ve a -ne oe |is< ~{ nwa a 7 7 - ol : . .* “ ~< “sdshae-Po-

bat_ 7=>_< "9 .~~» os.~72A > $32aeee “4= ~te> aym2. ont ss .Es

SS ee er i. 3% ’ P| a ated a : > : a” dice Na iit as +.

: et eS ee Se ld

nai a Ss EAS. Ie “ SS \ cE Oo a oe ee + *S fe ee ee Ne ~ iS es a ae 4 | : a | ae \ PD -aee wt -» ee

Pan > : ae sy \ 6 sf oan > Wee . eq ' "¢ Se eel ~ ~~. , mad et ae. ». — ,—

—_ é a& ¥: J ! Pz ¢-Px :

a ~ ry~~” ;’ x:: +. ;. .+Bee uy : ej

. “a, ae -eo ‘ "y a ©# 4 CLE ERS ig 4

Fire er

: *osNee J )£Zz sg ae ="

: pi ' : ”ee. - : 3s

bh “pr * . * $ “ty i, Se ," a ra "7 ‘ ae Ay a oe . . ' a oe: Yn a A Ded 64 : , P - cas ie* ’j

oak —_ em vs ‘ : , . /d ¥ a < . ri 3* aRis ?7 y. Safe 7 4BYad dsi Py ee ‘ . Sart aig ww i ‘~ j .

: 3 at es gs 7, xY‘:P.

*; i, .abi "4 eA, ot&£, 7A, ‘é ey; : ',4;arenas 4 < | ‘*% 3 f . 4 * \ j 4 f 3A ¢* 4 Ser é wa ao 4 8 5. apm 4 * AS * . ; ,-y™, al idr /ita % 7; qfsgt 7 » s4. ae 4 ty 7 . SUD hiee] ame.wr ‘ >be on od , "> “2. yas a. 0 mt /f 4y7. - 7 Pd ¢ 4 reF : ‘ 7 hy Bien «s, aiu’tF: < mone YBe ' ' ySe 4‘-

nay 4 . = tj

J ty. ee, ; a.

: y : x, . } - ; d 4 a?— ~ ah i *

- NS ¥'2 % . 8“ . o|;+27ke ;**:4A:a:7)B?Wy ~ -4;’ aa>: ,Di es

. A7 .,‘B “. ia? =; ‘oF 3“o”4ra , 4“5 /-aiy »a “4 Vn be .'e* ab ey. j -Me al9i ‘4 " Sj Me baa 9 fo 7 Te, : .. °: of f > *=ee“,. >. aera - $

) Sa aes a \

-leis * VS.rus Lo ;¢ iS apt H : “ , _¥ 5 7 ‘ 3) , At? gt. ~ago se > ee Res aS as 4ee ‘>. ashe "* a> — ie

Fig. 8. Fragment of marble relief. Head of M. Aurelius.

|= itiresr,

° , . - > sae % . ‘ — 4 ,

SS eee Sd Yi hte

“Ss ge ree PMoe iy “ aeee al oo.fy ::i | a—~ = ~sswa ———

,(ee ZzP—f .frafeet-if‘~F;=2} ~: a~S CmaN 3ion ie—Boe oe j—~— 7m =.-°FGrea. aotWis Beoe aya— ~aMe ek7 ie ‘y Ip + 7) cr N . i? i| -eaYS, /Mod i} Nay 4 _—_— > * = - i |: | / 1 , a4 t * y “ F : ; ~ & — , i} pare oa r/ j > ee '* ; —_— o + ; b\ , 7 vw

D> a vglis 4 Me hee Se Ne ; : a! o~temeted ; \; (*3r .aaa» ““ey .. glk “3 b.Sage : 58 a =~ ee- y/ 4 / - » — ae al . —_ i

; J ee eer , eP 7 s ‘ {

“‘,=

4 : ¢ awe ee >" meg —enae= - . as re .’ 4‘~‘ we ; : etcig nadia roe a aqoe> ¥Be > » j t “at +. eS, + boy ny *ipaa)*xjon 7‘ woWity? 5 - . on “~‘ iYo a .a Py ¢» Pe ah & ok me . hem 3 ) : * 7 x ons . P .=pate Er a oie K ak, :eg ie” eS : vaAnca ae »ied ate espete m2 ae §lee the Fae :a,osm4 Lex, mh f eae i Bis punt gic . y ow es &» 2 as ms: Pe aie o ‘nc n> “si Lo i — es aN ee rf ‘ ome €,on ‘ , mY ma * 7 a op tas 20 be ’ oe xOt>|os 4 Raee A te Ng _egae. Beate ae a a eres Pie See 8 * = i em } ong al ae . i “Se Kean awit:

:.:- 2‘7caf . & "7 + ys ; sa |Pe. eee Het, * iecaehie yoSe“; “¢ Sn =v .rng aR ;aeh 2%i,ot eS ante “. os ie it 3oa) ee:_>iyPocig ae rz. ’ )Bai y, Se adnn

: . wt %aft8- ¥my aeSwit “4 3rae,-oo -‘ 4 4 ; . 2 , ys lt * ‘Pine ¢f er iti Ae Ore ot = .*#4 x::*h fi“‘..ae ;d’r9”*7\F 4mW Ae , »é¥: wil ae. : . eas ‘a ee eh ' wee? + na N “yeeae, # i a7 =|-t‘\y' .Sakae. WA suet Na \ wt Neal —_OA, BY

a Em. * a |

y Tat ofneGg un he af >| ax : “a ie Sif $4 Ohi) VF o ue < .s%“:i"siiON ; Bien. ae>‘Meee AA (3\ ‘ Hi . ’ *) eel . . 5 ~~ wr ae ee :/ wer ry Bad ia iheSS.~a— nang 4 “T ‘ heal y — ~ we’ay. iatlawe J 4, bus 3 oy asee

Fig. 9c. Triumphal chariot. Flavian. Fig. 9d. Syracusan decadrachm.

Mop . IDI AT YD ~$iJi Ff _1)£P oaa4 . we Zo Le Pete “) 9) °4,A\ “7 ts Jy ite bk f & Bagh ep AN DS Bere G ft5 FONG Bs‘-\\i ‘; . ‘ oe * y ' ‘ Z, + . oO’. gd. ane et, Sagi ae, a on Op4aes ee 2J LET Y-4. fei =Ly' ny VEO -_ . san . a a 9 *} eer A Sasoe a gy, TOMAR NAY,

Qa a UE ce5 £ ey gah Toe

wey aA | Z , ts" * ee GRAF 0 pat" me, a Fig. ge. Trajan. Fig. 9f. Marcus Aurelius. 174 A.D.

4ae Hey, eR SS wpe - : Pe < 4nt : “ Bhs Saleg*eex,te. arhat p - Mera .* paysieydein “ on

Oe) On LD) Ay WR yy / CY Ge bie. 4,p.Vara ey’ a : te lateal A. /ns oe wy Me Ps Sey a Con >! "

i 4 Is : ry s f ‘ ) . t » : pies ey Bon \

VACA SAAS TE ) ee ¢ ( | + «3 ry" ° ¢f re oe “€ ; uy . «aatySm SeOVE eeAY eens « VALLES tb MLAS 1? © Feok

oO yd wep i as ar eu4“ak © AA MD

Fig. 1oa. Marcus Aurelius. 177 A.D. Fig. rob. Commodus. 177 A.D.

PLATE XI

PLATE XII

. yee oe oS ee 3 AeREE AeeSIN 8 a | _ CT Pas * a pao % * : ¥ ee” as \ il % ‘. Og ry * ‘a . bones 4 a a ; ee: FRO tS a Rae SS VN ee aeJthe 23 na me ;= ie}*a ;Ja -ee Ps i. aeee * Ooo 7 ;.; Ss % , yf % : ot.>ies ~Na. “oe eee ee | ,:4:, ~pan ;E ~~ |*eeER 8ye eee . Nee: ee. Ps ¥ J “" * -> oe : Sc” .=Rae. »\ “Ri4. cwee . bal > See Me 2 f=’é.aa '3’ire “et = es > ~~ . * = ; = f pt. . 2 x : iS ui - :> 7 ‘4 5 * os .-< 2 bg eg = J & iy = - ‘4 } ‘ei . = ; == he . © ney

ko & E ee a o) cS ae

a Lemans + a 5 ~ . > = oe ” be! mote 7 Tyo. ia , La . Ne

5. ee od aie _be: .™, 775 a. Wy a=,. ay ~ >

« ~ : «b ° . . . ? “. We a . bf “. . ) ra ° F : >

":_~dials Ww aad - CC a ”4iaa ~ . ~~ , a. ! Sa f ak a \ Ga -— ’ re-_ . , ae _—s PS: ~.es = a = 4 v & — ~~ 1 eprom "igi *meat : - “> —— ia ” sien s % . , ; —_—= ay 3 ~' r , . A 7B),PJ_ :yFs. ™ 1:iT a=~ m “+ ae . i“. 4 wi 7 : ) 64 wok Ea:

t= ma ha eS ee ks - — oe : x. ee % & ots Nae Ws a a t “3 RQ ak ‘eS : ; 7 ve a —a yo

;.>4‘f.a

{ aa) ¥ ree Pad" a

4A ‘'PrN 5 wy _ PI tt : 7 a, » ae til \\ > eD ‘9 4 5 , od t. \\ tw ' , : . iba:| |. *..‘7»»‘bk. ~. : . ~ \ ¢ . (iy af ~ . 7 . \ Y ' oy AD , va : \ \“le Ad , eefae b e.\ Sy om.

bs" G bd - hy¥ *‘By. —_—“Z : | J, ;\i\i\\\Ww =) oe ‘ 7 ’; f< ox? ~ Se « >@: / "yyaa‘ 7:. ®

3 } , -s ~ . nw * aS © ; MY 3 :

F‘'&¥aeee = a INS hae : ! RAT . ») ij . ae . " “ © y er... en ro. { 7 ‘ i OE et 2 ee i — Keel i|Pfg ; \ ; a. ~ ~~ bo Re — ; ; EEE ‘ ” a — e: +e ”-;ig£ * Py ,4.be ll ob ¥eeaoe | Tee pe ares SS wat eas ; Fo Sar Yvigil : geJ‘a eas ahs oP -3a ~~ ei t.§ "yj Ne +~BPWd ee. BA Ww. +k "=>;ae, JO; 4 AS ~“s oa y.. Me sae oe Sats ; “he y -f : Ties, : anOS Bip = Me =e& ‘ya-e& rs E. 47ef;.os We ;e.

r? ™ * -§ ‘| a 4i.34rere ,‘\;~\‘,aea” ; ete oe ¥ *m, . ‘a # ‘ ; , ' = % aa F 4 ; | r, % . ol y 4 ‘ “e Ps hie. ae > : ~. @ . y . ; # ’ a.,=":“* 3PALE ‘4 xf. i4 : =\)ww ag a,42bd oe ng2ea.7 es ,y* oe P AZ zuy Babs \) |"ion aa Se . ¥a iVy

| : “eer ‘ Py 4 c h

;4 j s a Ai . é x es .: >, ,L.fl-ae,|;?Ss Pe ; bs r. . ; 2 : * M4 AS¥ I ’ 4 ; “J ; i « ‘_ FZA %/ay‘a -.Ps , ty %>-f »7 =

. at

és A BY -» ¥ . sf ‘ a~& An a ; _ oem e a . 4 fom ; ,

+ Ge ) R . . 2 |R. , € fi f ie | 3 7 a ah ea ¥ 3 . =. ‘4 wn Nee Pd ' a 2 “al 45 22S - .() ss fd He = c [> + . . ‘ .-Py4 4 : ¥ } pet bee ; ; ted “all

. ?hs 5A i %. . ' : ag : E ~“f 7 . 4 7 im e ie ¥ & > ¥ a , y . ; A+ “aae ae). ::Xd : . ¥-~» ;’|

Ss A t.i, rr ee 2 , a Db RIE 0 hd sg

y, i“ be :bp aid ,Peae+, Pret 2ore ee tm .rey ~~ . ,“44)een fase+feGe 7» 4 a ea 4-“ A .ae oe end oe isCap “ee Slee

a vBa:

28 a Ss “Alp ee LA ne a) Ay . Pas Pe. twa iv a

SS oe oF i ; A . a i. :' a 9 Fs) ‘ ‘ eee a , aa etey* i: i‘* ~= > euete “ | J anal = ~— ‘e y: m~ 1 -y.*("i:»Ry ‘=:, SAS Sgt 4 .+)’oY +43 ;*tee‘,*y, RB e ‘; AL .tm vi ;gfwy me .ae3 ~AN.~ ~*~

FRE WNES m4AFPFEE ae BRS . eS. i. wy. =SOEs be 2 i”aS .}

ra —ar~7 ~A: SS —— ? E—— : ol = . — ; ‘

- ee = = Fi~a—/ 8= age —— oy- : cr e —_—— —J=- eS = ° =4 . 3Pa: j il¢] —4 ' jSn " = = ox i | B : ' , ’ ' e 2 y “ty tp. te 4 a tee eee as ‘amen > 5 : “pa

Th ti 2 ace ie” «4 i . — ae .:1iee Betts ey eo peed oe | Pu wale i Fe ! ol Bee SS? 4 _ i i Ht | , = oa ah a , Steg at ees *wis ! Gm aaa | ry Se To EPik % }. ' !/ “i ere a OE Set eed \‘= .Mt=.Cx —_ . fe -, ah e 4 tae: : , - 7 Sew i, *-_5 hl ee :PO | ~~ nw . 4 .f : > - "Je ‘ot. Bie _ tifa * cele we“es*. z7s 4 ; . : a. /\ WAS | ae :les y a : ‘ : ~~ : x S . = 4 : ’ } A , ' , : < Sb, i ; r i . , . | ,~Lsy H ; .. + . W / B., ; Re ‘ 2 j at ae’ Tea . y$. :. -° ,+4,:- :4% .5/ *i} 74 , ;7 ;i’ , ) ; “¥ 4 q i, mee ’ ; FF , \ is yj ‘ y | Me” at Ay ae : " be : ’ ; f / a ‘ m . oe :>\aAne 4te¥/4), rs : , ‘yy Ailes Wf " @ ¥ ‘Ne 5 \ oF ° . fi ‘ 4 al pA 4 ‘ i : ; ry ; : vs . 4 . 4 {ee ¥ t , . . 4 *, — += : Sf é;44its , , y : 5 ™~ = a, é ») oa ; “ = ea ‘ o A “a f

Se | a \ ~ ar 7> ian| ,°~: _J :=

me . 3 ty , ; ; / ; .

\ + 2. | |

¥+: } ap — + . «~ -- A — .~ ta. -_ | 4“: bE ‘ 3 < TT ut a“ * — — ee m , nal ya ; ; te ga - na, oG * a te 0 ee Pe es el Lucie, }« Cw, “,oe ™ oo. A! ’ ~* . i4 ie .- b~a .M=*;Kae + Wid, q Wy ee —_iwt. Fig. 14a. Sacrifice.

PLATE XVI

se ~— et eRe | , Se , AS-i Dae _ aaa

PT ek fee ee : he ae ee Ce Rg. ia “wea; area éSS Se , S Mir” ie 7 9 =e “ . cod ain ae Meee Saar ORS

; % Mth? ¥ a.5 a’ 2‘ .4; ;aays) : , fmWem ? ws Le ae ty ‘- >5 ‘oe = Ss 5 aT

: 4 »f Ja oe ,ry44bp 7 - ’4ayAif=“Ta ial yee —y ite . “” | :‘ :. "4 Sage esae~”

3~ ,=:aPe $ah.ngSoy 3“on : ;“ J”; >i“ones . "WW ; pa bee—_ =% t Ps } ~ _ eS i ~ ase ff, ~~ , - a +< — OT )>a 7Ye > Wb -‘ud Pa ™ gov ay A 4 wm, a, ‘ ¥ “4! | 13 : .gWe “4 6S es ”=e es.” ¥: Ba ~ “ee 5tod?’ a [a= te 4me ee | is

° 42ms, SJ , uuOe “>Lg «’

a:, -*.. ->>iPeo -“ ea/ :Z . : , aay¢'¢e=. , > 4i,~}eas 4 ene vs

:; ss-eS:i,:~my, 7a ;~% .eo,“, an fa,a.J‘ya € ¥»MeSas -; “a Sees \Y SS ee >5 £;2;;iY ;44 ~~

i 4 t # 7 4 ;J x.' ,.BD s4-. ut % zs -’-‘i |. A will f,

>P37éJe,oae ; : \ : +>. * step oS *~ ;;ag..\Ps\y,*K;,‘us -. x”’.!~\* ’7 rt’

Af ae a :we > .. ; . ; ,.i;77/ /yf4FSi Ly 4 ; i }.*;- ‘j‘ Pew | ; - a a =~ 15 .°** ; ars ’ ~~

, : ig > ¥'

; ; 7 P: e™ “ , = “ih = oef a! ob oei? i". Ys “ A a te _— aus yf Fig. 14b. Sacrifice. Altar group.

PLATE XVII

]be ; a=aie” a, ,POR ne, TR,i—i“‘:ee "si ay ies , othe — AeSe aeOana, fal

x+ea?ee..oie oe : i i = —_ “om 2 . . J a ce . ee’ : , ert2 bs t ’"aoo 2) — "1 . f se a : o- » i, r Led 9 Ps ei ~eeet J 7 }i Py

Be “a: te3‘ J}y,*\, =lt One —— ™ ay f 5Wteus m* ;: :4 i y su ¢ ; « ’ mm yO 4 4 ;S|.%5on2 / LG : = am, *s . :47éwea _-_Wy S ~ \ |_."7 ee = ’ ‘7. 4ay. t Ly .=Se - "‘ XN. > ~~~2: x7‘ “ae oN ay , \ Vv ms Li . \ J 7 Th ‘5 $ ,, } : ’ 2 ~ =) + ; ww ’ ba: ’ , \, rw . 2 wim . : , ~ > . & > i ee } TRA . *' | \ . yz 1 @ %

ies —_ i : ; y by’ ; tub, Bs = os Jf i 4 s a 3S bP ae FS ra 4 “pies . 2 os 7% : eC c? . d ‘ ‘ : : » be 4 : . = . 4 * : A p _— fo = 4% . ‘ye s » oy NY a 7 pA 4" | és 2 f » D>. ee ee nn ys é ™ ™. : + _ >) F J v, = _s a * , } : Riome : a on

es Se ‘ . 2 ~

- | Z‘o=t Sd. » ; Po hs , “eee oe SS See a es ¢ oh , * o. } eS , . ert * > * —— ’ , “ Per a f ; Sgt i . . ©, * - 75“3 : TS .q;. asdaeri .r;aJ ¥. mo 7 wt

'ess* s _ , . ;* . rt . at , . ¢ a. a > , ‘ t | a A Fs 2 rs ™ : f ‘ LH. . F : bn ¢ : hte Ps fie (mae a Als, ae . = . : ~ * a » is ¥> * “ee v aet-ae a Aa ~ 5

4 . a” ye * SS 3 : RY = ,v:theme) \ i a | at “a : " -¢ P . 3 5 / xr , = ."7 Yee tf ) : : = -6 sie rae 4 Hy »: ‘ |Me. , }= sy : a a P j ‘Yer — * - o ’ ' 4 . © : — 3*tm he, "we ot" P,“;@ : 7 p=) a ; —onyaii “a,Ss S ee .+6 .* >ns“‘ |—bP afbhoy Pe “wi>:éf P.§‘:Z. )‘%, x, ¥, ’ :ke ~~ L~

ee 2 - en eA Ae i : =.

‘ - 4] dle. ’ ‘ ig .

_

=) eS ,aN -; ote. ~~ oy _™MO et «AMEE . ,. et ee «ea +3. Cee Ly. ar.* ia an | |e iene ae, 4ae =ised. . “ay ag See es Vif -Pa a } s4poor . . f. + ;{van “! oy 3 tsPa , J aa. gat a* ‘ | Pe: rad RS ; _ ba & yi a. A ~~ . f : at e. EY

mm : i . J ; c 7 4 _ ' (as ‘ ee 4 ~4 ‘ : * ¢ i ae — =, Va _ oe wey, % 1“ a Fe 4 Pe. ) : F _— ,pa ¥ %.*a=“ bs, 4 it)A~~i.a2a

ks o s , r . FY J ; > ta ' ‘ aa Ph I pa. wes. fe ; j Sy ‘ : a ; ae rs} *i. a Y,.A.Ne ’é "hi .~ :a : ‘a ‘ors " be diy, yy fi _ Be ee ; a0 od of ' oe abe, 2 ee ;, ¥ee=FF ‘A 5 a : £ 3 Ae Fr a | ae rs sl shor ,pa OS aid a in “2B *SIA _—> “A‘-a. Pe 4 rial el : int 4“ ’ i / a Pa a £. i Ne 4 ae i ’ & : + " ¥ ee * ; ~. ~ : .

7 ¥ . Ys r : 4 ; 1 fi 5] Le : oe 4 ’ er i”

—agge sing?

:ss. aeif~ Beet See ;| hi o

PLATE XX

it. “ae Soe i Ce

ad z.vor’ 4, gta .ye an

. +, &:~“ ia 41' iS ; GOS * s.-™ oand = : * . ae ~ — , Se a . Ball aes a . ae ir , = : R= ‘afi ; Y “a * \ 4 7 : ;

ee 2 oa iil |S peta ee .ae os “4 : ; 4 #. ? ” o> = “ aea F| ,¢:_i }; + -) } 4h . “ es) A& \ Fee Wen ; - >ore

soesil Es #) , 5oo f (ais , Sues -: x 4 eee : '# } stent ; aaa “i 7 737:m-; PM ie ~~"on y. owt | YS“yee eae :Baht pa He, ot Tinta SOS aEofhe S

orae-™ | :: )i a? Sas gs Set aS , |a: =s (eg ie: | 4 aaa $e -a2eeij OO , th OB ; . a aA: — Coees=& 3

os ae eo —_ ) = < a . Ps get 2 % S5 os le. & x e “4 "a0 a... ane) %s, : a a be ¥ : wt 24 2 a 3 ‘ : ; ; on , : r7; ~ —‘ . “5 *: :“)«a~~ ' -aaa ‘i (L Bi=mt alin 6. vyayhh matae oi = BN .©m= .Baie «: eit , . «; 5ijyey ~~

ae os fee 9

Pd 7 , é aoe - -— we = y =~ oer,

, fAN BSHSPN -ZA / ; : ilsii : a.||; i. = ee eke ;Sa a, | i = ae D 7 1 Wee i, | ASHE

i, ! | r Weitie = c LX | Yj 4 | : it = a KY 4 Mi i i| ill — (Gi)

‘ts L by . ‘ ; RE .:. . ne wae , a : r. < y i wens - . _ J7Vs- .: 4J |gx

% RQ 2 «oh.

6 ae ~ ‘es

~e

,. _33 i ‘ + ; > onl a 4 . ee . si 4, aae nod 4 eae) oe + 5 : et Gf ee.) 7. 2 tS a < a.‘--4“J‘..:0 Pr . bit : 4 fP+@ Ea . 5 ‘ . Pid .Pr a..:Ld .- ’4i:en” = ot r. ~S fa # . a ‘ad :.' F:— -= on |»1; +oe- See. :sod: :: ‘>:‘3

: ; ; 6 'y:4.-¥:i.42.o -me ¥: = wap k i -: é: 4“*7s;

éSete oo £—wi, ee P ted -b Ree et. an » . i4?F < i ae | 4 \ « : 7 + = is Sadie Me “ye % 78 .™ r z ~ |Fa |Oe. 1% Rearey: i ¢%Mei gee aeSa 5 ae .ots ) ;ll a) ‘ v4. Tae i-5 ae aee a-te5wf . hy - “es oe st ‘ a is s Pi oe A. ) . Be

.po@ St ate \ . = ome ‘ ‘ ‘ i 5 / Bs a ~ : “ : os + i : » « , * ~ tu) ip . ae : . “a"ag a . . P| oS IS 7 ee Cale r as : A he 4 S) Fs, ” . q = s fn -: oe 4 Lae Q ot} i. } i. . ' a ™ 7 7S < ~ iti: Te.. an: :of —s age a ee 4™Ya _— . ut ree“‘ “arty o¢4all ee eS >* . . akacs 4s i” “we ’ te ‘5:a?r

SS ae be a >Mee igh 4x 7, Wee

. ea ae

; ar * ae , \ 4 : : SX. f+ s _ P i, » : “s 1 oe Ln = i SA, > 9 » ot “4: » * ‘ ¥ ” ls ; % ; ey A il ** * Py a de + 3 xs "O me yh 2 . , 7 Cc % ad Wa iat i. 7 > mE : = ‘eee eerg , 3 = a : os ' : . (koh ee ~ ; . . ia Sf ted ofp as e %e, ‘ > — ' 5 go iw. oa tt tS. a — : ie ie“ee ‘=~ nares < . mS 29 Stas . : , ss 4 eeNy, ae:, ees ay ae ‘4 eM » = ee ' 4 yy ; a ; es 47 se 4 a~*JesiA,~?7” Ne ae _ oa ' og 4 < * ‘yy it t " 7 Lf ae : . *} 72 eS +4 a , e ™ ap & Ge S ry ~ Ss “a se #., 2, 22 * oe \ . P rs ey Lae 4 be 4 ” ~ < aS "hr Va ee . y , SEXaraa. Nake ; eee

os Sar 3 "Tr . ‘s « ; Sy . . st = :“24- =Sit -dem? \ ra. ’a. Aoem me ny a ey omt 4 3 “a “S b> ? Syl: . . > .-“U "4 a Rey i ae _ oa re . wa * a4, sof ae —_ =~ < / ee y sm : : ~ eM ey" jPRae Me yA i we hire ol ORR © ae Pm ;oxaps On ie mee” _ ee ¥% Gag | a 3 8 7 Phe. bes a ‘ a ed ' ‘ ™ 7 7 » 4 fs a i oe & w 4 ‘ d ’ ” ro < . : ~~ EEA? , a * pi : : € Pd _~a~ ;iS £ ~ye —: +, bed ea my 44, +ty yt °J «4->i!Pam ~. % ¢; 7 Cw a : Sts

' sd ; wa n » 6 . . ’ 2 j' A of 4 . aes 37 = te » Bea 6 SOS eee 4 ~ 2 kee * ae 3 fe ¢ c- o eS

Te’i?:Dyh ee | x ) Py, 4lr Dad :p:’ae1f;‘ ia

a. ere : i F = red! eee 2 a rr ee S A Pe . gaa rm -Boe ‘i5 Se fe” a Re gee. S . — §.% ° :iy) * Pei. i , tL P “a r 4 " 7 oD J Sf , . je =- . ‘ - ' i. ? - 7 '

;eyP on k her - se nt ie “ea. y “ —— e , ie OF Se ee ae ‘i # ae 3% Fj , he te eo | Ae »yashall . eS .‘ Oe aFaiee-~ ey ‘ »as” Pw fs Fwe es. “oF et +oe = eX OLD aie 50s ~~ =n eee Pau ">

i eee 4 ae 4

eer. Maes = oh ir of ‘: A > Oe Se oeieilNghe ? tte » Ag r a oe ae

heh aia ise Ei see by| ale nsoP aae% Lond ” ;#ee we 4‘enr-~ ¢/aee ee, ger . —_— Os ahaa sewy Sey eal rs ?ba ee Per. .ry Pek :*- ;; _regy Mik Pe eae Ea a .Eg. iaaie - Sates

PLATE XXII

+e. , ‘a. _ ‘ a 7 . :a ° . >i aOe ; 7ai, q .9. ett '_& OR f, . WA: easiness = a ths . > a ’ :

. “2. ie Af i < — i Sa = ae . . eer _ ts

f; ‘, -es Js| tasee. oe ee — ey ee5ae We. . a3 Pe.‘Fi 7.fe OR Re & 1y 7 = Sas i. |e 2 ueoe -

: Ry | ———_— r= a >, 4 —_ Le| ;sf _8oa. ee 7eri.ee wtOnes Ae ~~oe €&aea ae, te Sa

¥, aan” Lad wes ;%‘S3a\’;Ce SE aa&o'4 ? Y] ,eefc. c eeNS Bu ©idYo {7 aywy - 7NW aah Soule > o% i: o ‘ % : Car. “< a OA * 3 -¥ 4 4 ~~ A.—_— ‘hy~ ,.\ goal fy)pr, AO \ 2ey @ eee ;< ¥=“ ¢ , | *, ‘ ; "> . Wy ~ mA te ' 4 p . 4 A \ ity. 1Bie ae ‘=ia —_ Py ee VARS ye+ Ke if + Ang ye ‘ vo ae a | cad ei, i 5.,“aye +” “ae } +e id ¥ ng Me d che ry a | * Ween f bs i ie. lee = , \ age +; a Es | m # ey "gs m a4 vt: | 2 ;\aa §a a‘el, oe Bate —_ geSaf ae i‘ », *a 4a iz ‘ -_\~©°~Pee vant? i aeLae “he2os 5, ay : vs ty Fae oe 3 See Fo vf Fie S. 4g 4 x , =»)- yar. me + Fes | \ es eo 29 ae 4 $d weer 4 q Ss tee Te hae o ) faa ~~, aol Mp, ; U 7, bs uf c- : & “a

. a ve , im oe | . mi — ‘(ie \ a” At Dien hbk By at

§ 4 ;= 4 * ae o* aa m saiey “a ' 1 \ ~' Ay *, et RES! y . Te Wer Y~ : : oe EX .o.1S ;74’ iP;feae 4%Po |nebo” 57 ;&F; °0: :Pitam ame EH \ i Eee WR Yk + o. # : Sj a eee E es 4 Bt : {es ~~, coh , ae eS =. s < $e _— >

| ‘2SeBere SeMace? eeaee aa, a a 4dikek ee eeee 7. ~ ee )} arei. 7 lee e2:a7 ak eA) eee+e aw-i Pe ml i > ee oe “'\ze. ,AE as> : gaA=. a ~* Me, - ~ « ; is 6g eC - ; “a a*‘ ‘ | |*:wpe oy | sag bol ©UN =aerat . ; «et .* 2 -| =ae >: Y ‘Ssmy 4 ie | rs aaa +>Lex ¢ - SS a.ae Re7"

) i. |:Rae Sie **E ho. te . . : éee 7 :at“as “i , Oat ox r GP v4 ae veyew = ,4) f

, > ides “Ra ee , : DH MSC AS , Ma —s ;.. y "ie Tad an E. ? ) ~ at , ,

t « Path hse iy a & “i *s y x > : a . Pree ; a * ‘Some ‘er cs “a "

i.odey ern ey =y a{‘ -ieee .: VUye~ Se ~\ = ;j;= = Fy AeSC © #. heh 4.mn ‘ .OS joe: ao . ie be * eb gga * _

‘iyy re | | ek Sa” Ras Sf |;..Se): he : aa? | oe Se ‘ 7 i Avy; toe | ig oF — nk : 667 288 m4 — | ae. ~ i ‘ a eee FT ioe a : .

=) y/ i ¥, ie + .asmy,_—_ et 7 > j Eee , Z ‘J B j ‘ 2 4 a- ,| gf? , * ie sje’ a\ ty ~ 4}; ‘: Je ev , ae , ~ he | a iS A ee se Nee . | / ; re * ‘i , ' # si , at ER 2a Es, ee . = ei. on A r Sa mass "ee Se OE) ea ' mY: y , 7, Ly 7f FJ :. y m re’ De 7, "9 ,j 4. ‘J :: Ps : ; 8" (A (4 Af

; =] Z , Wy / ft + 4 » i ¥ ; ¢ .* ~, Se, : * ,

« « Fig cota) 57 eens, . . a he 2 Spina sesh ti

lk i eg nee — St patrol t~ es Wed Set aeGae Ane es Ces ¥ Ss : ” tei Sc: < % ES 5 « y | ; Fig. 18. Profectio.

,om ie : ;| =: we 1 t Ao . : v“ me : ; : 3 Ne ! : ‘ ’ i ->f.we | , d a. s\ ;

bie a S ~ —_ ~— se *f awe t betes | mt 4 ¥ 4 = P : 6 So; 4 ] 4 : — be “ss + ; . _ ! A a 5 PS. 5 j See ire ‘ De ars a “3 = 4 “ ee > ee h " y 2 54 »sa Pr‘ “rf -. @ '= ‘,, Te oi .

\.:ia;:’.4S| +: (aa ; |F := :;

aa ‘+F 1% mi, ay “ “7. -”%“s* CA ~~3~+>. ~~ ) W.' c\“>4 =-;a-2.’~-\bs A3)?’

ee NS 5 GEA Le , & ic = ae Ve Sel Eni a a } ‘4 5 7 a (an RS i r F , ‘ as 3 : ' 7 po) ‘ - ’ . ’ be * ss ; :

im 2 a ZA ee as te >, | "iS a. wil |. ;»| t4sam oe 2. s*, \ : ~~ KAN De N@E JP 192 ooa!THE 5 4; ;ae Lt:iyoe —_. i ;»\fay a,4yan j e~~:/ j|iffi|1]hh o« |‘ij»,. -~ ies, “\ |;:ab.\ p‘4.;{A; .“f : VA

= lin % Rs q : t : é ‘ : a , 4 :Fy x : si ; ; | “ap ‘ ; : \$ : : ° i -: i , ; ~ Z laf At Ey | & Ye OMSee ERaOT AFUE: lt. GF ,..}>vor) ales i “da ; “ ‘A cex }te; a YX 7, f 1 & vi ae uf \. 7 ; haa ; 4 - Cys “a > “ F] e : 1¥ yi a] oa m : ;4 :wef — rs) Wi I : A =7¥AW vA : fry : th / a % Pe syLP " yee \ =| ' | 4 Pe fa

|aaa iF of \1ee BRSA Fjbg :' : 5 re 3BIR. “4 , i ae, > s :

oul ‘4 ; Ye Er 3

. eae ee ROT EE Bhs Gkee Seah AS 20'S Ry

Be Ay as sie a;’D oa xsi hgee po" :>Te Se ees ”*.O .>)>=a) . nt, eee ae Bote aes Tet -* 5 SR: B44 —= < ee ¢ a 7 af ne ORES > eS aa & 9 aa? 28a" Behe Bah Bee |Ae >»= =ea enAD is Se >eS eeSee Dy ae, +.Jcoe 4> 1 ¥ : a, a a 2 fa & % — sea eae ae r) . : Re 2 3 4s4Pe i of yeae :% a4Cat F ™” ~:rENe 7: wy co. ao Sie : 3) So :JJ,,Pi 2Ps 44 te :‘..=Lb 4Ps. 4d -.:as Po fo’% & = i) ie et : . . oe \ , > ae ; he? co. Va. Rea? oe to yD ; « d ae ek. ee he ,f;; ws rey oy > & AT BES ; hie FF 4 i ig" -—. set gy Eae baste :{ Svu iN =z Tie Pf :. :™ aa| Wee, hen aipa © +a 7 7 é tae y ' al c \ ie s : rr aa he : Y :gf-:,;< 4 $ 4 1 ; : Pe 0 : heen Fe oo 7 es ane *, ct SG Pe ; es ae ? oe me ; x.* ua“Sh \ :eT aearP| vt. dtl , 40) ghee ié|) ) EA Gas 7= ' rag & Bi Soe | a. 7 z= eA 3 4 / ‘'t-—--* . 34 Ke | “ ’ . ff £ out 7 bn FRE '2 Ss L , ©; a \'>s, % : 2 2 ; sama? a , . . Sp .”-_»\’bs3. )’— es ss2. -5 hs‘ ..|.;|““¢ ~ST‘US ™ t .Zae > _~ary.

4Pa 4eh aoe? i Fy lebee ae. ~»CoN Pat \+3 Py yee aot .sa .f : ‘4 1) Onl eee US inet me te ; enc STR ? > 4 | bg the ‘ : 7 a es ba w. ~~ } 4 4 e bE ae Pt. i ws 7 ~ . + ey Nas oh UN Yk NRE! ELE Byam a ta digs SRY INS ie] 4ak mo Vu - “FSi p98 oti: sa:Ce ‘“~e gl “ha i se 8 9~ yf oe a.) on ie me BF © rm % % be ate! ‘ 5 : >: ; ey me |% ad é : os. -» > oe iaiat " . : 7 * . “\ med Se ud q Sad x 47}rimy ..~’4Ye =i- : &. ™~ . *-. aed u . ’ + 3 “AM 4 id HBTS fe Hh CAs “ ‘ & ¢* v 7 5 Pin, — f aa a Lp Pee 5 i Se ; 0 oem ott © ; ff y a wv ovina +f ~~ - +j; =t= F :re4 >7 -iehah Tow E OD

“,,ad | 7:,a. _~ . ' :; . Me | 7 - =

p!i el a,ne perw "3 ;' oa Tt Po a PE ae ee 2 aa ,

; a ll re (Emenee, -»cc *~ : a £. ow A OTe ee te : ot QR «' j , — en . = aad ” wi a° 4 : eh ee a ee’ rs ol 7 "i . + é -=*esata .°™ E>, : ngs oes ee ay : . : J all aw oh. ae aT ie Co ao fe \ Pe a= ; f - :.Ba he. one Z a a . 7 Tr) eaves shoceen bend “> ; 44 aN j "3 = ‘ ets pi ee “ * 7 9 sty - N aae‘sat ie 4. ::7-ie‘:See ;—7““ Pi,4; We anad aea % wee, a =iSd -».t,"4 —_ Mis i,ae.a) ery 7b -+ A— x~?* qt 5; 4i. ~— . 7 “we

ee ye ee i ie nets Sp

PLATE X XV

y 9t 4 ep* »"+ - ae. ges 5. 7Fad ee‘;ia > ~ a=4 ‘: 5are .7 »*ia OF as: 4‘attSes ea #a. Ts K Fa i e& -,4 ‘ ‘be :. aar é 7-‘“ fe wig b; hPa rt. al ae " ne rs ; ‘ , "ee “3 “S rue a ik i ” ; 9? x a S . Mt ee rele ow —* 1+ ge é : ed=>.o¥s ’aaa an ' .-.¢Ss. fy—~,o's y*. .!~ .Oe . / a” . Min : . 4-;iof as pa 4 > ~ ie 4 * ae es he. ae 4,my pe,>”i iTe : Pe : . es,. Se De mi ares «5 ° & ; yO a eee . ~~

“af Pe pe : = a

;wed we;,je; Weis vo eet liSN’ peraSSFae 4 ~oa. r°. _- — »a * (ieee: 3 : ~~ ¥ :.,Di eA. foe Pyro | MN » ns i, t Pn > » .‘4v4Ww Bastoe i - dh

bea vas. | , fe ‘ 4’ros . er ~ ei —“*",% JVA 44.e; :SS. -P,..a, +7:io .4-:~a, 2‘aka0 Fant a;;ar ¥, ww! ; rong Vim. a ay ees bi ee ke ie ee” pe 38 a» os yy a. ~oF”eee .Dore a”¥- -.{= (OR iAa ys om,47-_ oa : ”, ee Sas~;C2we ~-»* ~y¥ * Z j Fs se :cmt

‘ - ' ‘ - _ aa 7 ,

in .7sa4te 8 | a e . a . Ve ; a, » — pan. 4 fee . getaes fix es. ~ " ™ — / _ i a ‘ Pa Ld, ae) -& a z e : ae : “ . . ~ as yy . > nts ra _ SS a “> Y ed a e+ y 7 ‘ aw. P ‘Sade ) « , we Os. . “ é 4 As ; et +. oy cy tee YD a) er i > »4 7 . ~ > ht — “te ,,Ls+~~~: _— P , 7 » ’ “Vv we . { cS 29 yy ~ ’ = . s vt o c onJane :Oeae ae , ye a ania w ii ~~ ea ag OS Fea e ™ , / De Sep eT ae Pos «|S

Rg‘nr* ce.oe . .ll i“ ws Pe ree P.:£i-an rf :7 +4 PtySie 4 5 i YT = >aJ...Wi on tt v7. Px ngs Shed OES _. ; " ba ¥. Y part? ~ yan SB bg ig eee a Beer ” a ar" p rl ee “an sf : wy r eit alt. 8 Pi 4 Po] “he Sete AY5e Ry:7=\F ay wp vee/~mS : ay “A -. \YY) Faxe “ me, Se, aao ? -& tow sin \) ¢iii ae aS éBier ae gee ; Te w |,, *we esMite fees \~_LL 3 (3, ASE ss A. o> Sao ae bp Fo8e > “3 9° bile 18 .oe4) ¥4«Sag aoe, ‘Ys yFs ¥vt A~Ain Sie =, ett , 74 Joe ed ~>vd FAS eer > ieee, ‘ia.in asas. 7“eS }~ So oa, * par} Pigs ay : finu ~ © _-o,as aan cs Py Pe : ar a : %, “* ‘ oe Oy 3 ’ y: i YU “ 7 : : : Cos 2°4 >. ie .XY .ot, ae~“¢ aa reo* 34.dh Ay ene A,4°==. ae ; “ ’ Ay ; 7 ace i j us as v4 ‘ :Bes ad : ’ é ’ ny yy an ? : “ ° *— * .:hy -?; ~.hte -e>be! aere ‘an ey 2:bp nw ’aehe q! -|vw JP) St Aa Pe= ’-Pry |N oh>é:’741»ake: n% pe” y sq = ” as . “hh $y eA ¥ ao R® wt § : me ye f. hy BSa“leM eu 4 whe VBE.Py; (L, ~ , to

; . o~ “i 2 if 7 bay ‘ > | by tha, rte: a 1 hs ‘ * fi e x a fe / th ee, ARISES

oa ” 8 Se 3 i, OO 4 ee >. . a ap oe? eae

a po - akyr, ieé rtx}Ws ceFy ta bd mi m ae,"ySP. 2anee\j ae aBI Pho tcee ~s. :"* . PR . oe he :eee (cf o 4 ve » _ f a : & ” 4 Zz OP ex” af ‘Sattie Staal : ; UDR Bee ee: ' iewe ier:it- pLe vs ‘SENS 2S) Arete. Tees

Sa. ‘ng SV oti: aD aet 4ol a> ASS -.oon Pe, 5»‘eyee “iP 2 .. of~ZAi 5®, *Am i oe 4 eee erRa? are ee ok bi:. of 4re pet SOIR ARE: aE ot. rt ~~ ‘ ->” me JOR a %sae, Cot Py ban s" ayFs

| AS as 5 ae “

>. ¢ # me og ,yard ~S “.. Fi .' \72& me « 7 * a » >. a ' :; — == } v a —F hae” al : t Ly > 4 ly ss | ~ ao me J \ (it \\ ) GSE SNe ' ~— . . A La , waig}ij y; oY {) |>; aFIP. ~_ all , prs A;: . 7 ahi: ei :';\ :.a H @ | . f o , ’ fA f : ‘a ' >be/ { Ne eis fi Ww st“tens, , 4‘| :;:4iy ey. a_ yh ~~ e" fe... i| =.‘ ,ri UF iy : . fh ” : -—. Ff ~~

. .%4 ->' :ae a : "4 ;; < : éKe 4| ,UR “of } *.) |' mS pd NA w.‘ Fig. 26. Profectio. Optimum view.

PLATE XXVII

+. ‘A.. :% “‘ aoos © Se 7 S. :

eee: (Seenoe SOE 2ig PereaTee ig | mcr see. . Wa oe a

”LY 4 :4 a- 3" aieee o —— aN % Ri oo , Ae = ¢ . is. “ < . ; al a eS ny : Pf hone x : . Py, re & eee ; “ ¥ie + pe ae Rts oS - ety “sac ae Sa Rune a oD re4Gee ee “4Sie a es ca 8aa . & . rs: i he y * ieee Bath, Tae ‘ % & ; ae

ee ae ee ee | [eg ee PR EB : cs % Wa ‘ : ar a : x ;sis 'i .. = “, :« f: ¥‘= >¢ = t \i +'wea iS ei -AY =, €. x4 2) -4 °.~ : oy Sg 7 ENE S. A ~ a Ke EY 4 a . Py Ss 3 "+ 2 ; eee ee + as, oT WEES ws

iy uAoO Ae oe ee Sas oeae” rs . 2 “t.?4 Py , ee Ae:ee * ‘3 a : oN,” . se ae. gee aah, meng » + » ca : 2.* ~ae PS ne om . iris aA ‘4 ~ : chant . a iy . ‘2 ao a es : A. A toi ie “nao “ pe Ba og p . - a? OE: (+ nm be: : . . . +e ¢ , yt > ae, “< a r> S.

bs*pe - bia a . —tsEu ; bansae oehe tae ‘wi 7 x atS Zs.Sr » a7*¥er‘hey a is =a=~~ ¢ -x Py“+ Pe, ireoe! ieee” ~ +“Sen

i si A ; ““oF “ke po te yf Pe a io am _ os x. : - soo ry oa ™ i vy" 3} eee 4

i + SSR een - ia 5 > ie Tne on —~ "

||‘fitASAR UB \ ete Se Be OS a) 4 — Dm . “g Wy eo ‘a _ . * , is a ¥ F € : 4 § “y 7 ‘ $ € wa "i % Ff . , ~ a 7% ta >=a é .“ YS :4 ~ \¥ ~— ‘? ay ; /PP G.@ A! :AGs! : “2 7+ ; of 4 ’ct 4 g%, ae . \ i fd, ;Be.ae”. .% F : / . leg F 7 4 te, € 3} ,3 r \ i Tf sf < : : OF mee We 74/18 MAMET ES ; — > iw | | Wes | s ae gies . . , 5 , ~Ww ah 2 __ t ~~ A ?"4.4:~~ iat te)a/ie mt, .4/iiF, . -..|=>, > . 2‘x LAA e ~~ : . 4 7 .} eh Ve ; é > Pre ? o é x * F . -* 4 : y Py » re % P ’ a 4 if : a *\ is An kia" ee > Pr 32 : a : J ee ‘ yay f: ‘ 4f 24c ; £ + yg ee ae | — te NA BD ' : ert te . 4 : 4 ? UA =Ae”—— : = +%= % bh =«eo yy -Fine. ty :ii-- ,, te -. . t . a es : i , Lanny gp > : ? ; ha 7 ) > * * a 7 wd 2 7 f . Vee ' = ~ ‘ eR yoe ; ee. Ye Sei) oes “7 A & °+ie~~é7tage i “ ‘>> . § -a".‘— =ha . uy rc as a] on a Lhe + 7 a 4 y r < ae j: ,\.|Y 1a7 = Oe > M : F, | vat By Ves \ 3 — ae A car. mee fF Pe Pie yy _8,5S Fwe aY raed -:-.. — 24 Ps, ‘ *,aN wwoe 2 :~~ \ |‘' ‘¢TER. ups — 4ies — £. J = ~ yy x “ Te : } 4 - re \ 5 7 | } — ~~ eS, a grees y, Ee

; > . > . > ¥ . 2 “ +e» y ~ _ — yi i af ii sf ve 7 ~ : —— . { : = be 7) iw & : — ‘ : ‘ = a + FORPEEES * eo FS ary | * 5 eo . ae 7 a. 9 Se can \ Rob ‘ ane Aah afFae‘ee eeLe py,a "e ae 7\ay | \ “4 4 iii ethlin yee4 : t - VA bac - é ‘ ? = ' ™~ \\ . > d _ a, 4 ey Pe 7 e

; ; j , f- | . . —— j Si v/ : “Yi x 7S st . . “ey ‘» ry i \ Le ¥ (8 Loe — >-)hii SNP ON a-: 7iy. a.,il$3 as '\ ;.3aieae ?7ie 4Lee, 3&;-Eee . } " R i § Fy ~ 7 oe liveth 2 os | > f 5 fl} A : sy % : \* ¥ ae TP : ; ; : . ' : SS f 1 4 ; my ~~ ' Te Bie Ate ae ee‘e

ig’ . / & * . >

|.Ae >; AN. Zz . ,~Pr> War r eeie ff} ):a«x wy oy) us | Shi’— ave %a ; . 7 ~ — x= ,’bin. . fe\\\. : ga > ee 4 .“e« a ' i! ~ / ' H : ! . ES) ; = bY eas A, yp) a RR a & ae —2_—a ake Ch). eT 43 ; Lad + v's +f 7% . » Ka 4 BS ae to 3 > =F 'f ‘ee -®,. Ste oe | \\ ;we ~~f ;2.yt= 5a ~. e. +Mg. a esaS* a \) +4.xs ry. ; . . : ; ‘ + 7 « (* oe “ay ,al ts ;, 4 ; ‘Fy xy,— .ft we : pS . t i$ aa a ee 7 oe ONE. he =) _ o~ % "ti ee’, § x 4 } 4 f i ; 4 “Se e Fi ' a ae AEAS & : Sie r >! : 4'fRoy Jor , EE rey ‘a ' . A Z —_ . xD ree, + . . : 4 gaat > oa = “ ~ . omen . e : +: SS. es _& as eee ee eee Se tenon . _ a LEME oR :

ee Om as so eefo Paee > enye a see . = PO at aeego Fey ye ¥’: Sie: Be Gee “Zea CE ~ ag ge .wa+My . ba , N ott ha > Vé AU) ae Sa ee!.-a> 5 » - (gt oie 4 ee MELT Te. Fo SMF EX RM ENEMa NNSR” RAR NE es eeeally EO Sa RTBre, EDtiycAee Y Nit crncee’ ae,i SE 3. SY. — oe tee OS SO? Bap ei yy bh = Ni AeSpo. Wee3\Pense., > a —4NE alAy eeene neFae FeO De Fe‘ax. os[fA ’ 4 seg (A .—_ : a 2° £os - OD (SR Aw&.eae weet Ye. rw --——“~ t jyon es ea a\ ‘f PU si ee . Pp my onl rm 4 fc RE

Powe \ bo eee eC BL ZR alta st 4a, Oe oe em | A Fo ge a PF, ee es. ee aPe a ORS. ee ee eS ee. a TON GLOW cic Nas Se ee eee a a Se ee 7 a ES aBe. OF ay Sere en ay, ON, oS -ee : thPRT ee . »oe - :Say ‘ oe gw £ peat CRON NOON ire ale 5¥ aemet - = een ae +a ga xe / \efe Nea Aon i425Oa 7 33 "de ~ " oa oeaoe had >he -iapI ‘eo on ms - ee aba Se. ie: a).ww aVv LY igo \ Ngee we? TT eS a ks? ys er 7 Naitectte eps ee Se Nae es te he : Ps . CE & \ t. Eo ig Ks = A Po .. aoe») Fs 4 ) ame aie > ~ %. . - . ~ ¥ Dy Tx 77, Ye , ~ a“ . y , oe . . . et “¢ ¥ CF

*% > c) ss “pb _ Ae oe . Via A, ga B/ ». ; & > i “4 A oe sy f y 3 \. Me ual x

yee myer = AR ah bt ¥ “ww 7 5\tite eel a :t,“rye ‘ : ~ xRD : yi gs & A,aSs 1%2 > i 5 aS Bex ae er. f ~=Sao

SWE. 5 a

> ; > “ey SP? “ , pe va i ; f dias = a ae a tee Me ——ea : “4 c J Pare |< aR ee Pica ; “Saar ae ee ! fost ~ be gsogPS SA we ' ti ee ji /-q ‘&.% ees ' ee : bey ie | . Pa > wae ce es ‘aN /. 3} nt ORS J wi eT om mR > ‘ 's Be wy De es ~ ‘ 7 ay oe aa oy = Ln. « BY = —-. es _ A : : .) h : . ig~ pr 4

> om AY, a = —\ OO baal Oe x a “Sey 3. as Ae%. eoaN aN PRK rs Se ay-. ien Ama? . “ia sp .“> >A..aA mn. ~. »\| \ww "e on AS i noe Ps = MA

8vaaEN ee: ee a5$Fee ETuy. Bet Ss mel ~e*onal - \eM \ >. >“SSE? b a) sby *~=~Dak ‘s ’| qn. ON’ * aN 'XN. ,’¥;~< 2o> Scene, ~-, i) 2. 2;=2tt "ro ‘al Ee, ;2. Roses := ~eA > rege VE ‘ os — \ it \ = *% => a f a +" qeer Ny ae =eav¥~~,|;4=' -_—43is 4 :.hy oN77=7ee is > ““ox ea- 4: at: »era wy Tan Spee > Se ae ‘PERS N oJ veFo )a- if $b>Sons ae / Zz soar di =ee a Gs . nay rr ; >» ' | ( \ Ta oo ine eee, _—s hg Son kon y — ” ‘ / \' “a w «uf yt § , ; aati) xepyo/axm= ei ee SS . ik. SDs .iyé,+! _-|rfl, / pf , ,oT4 ame Pe4.f ¥,ina Ps oo4s +< . She. aor. “ ——

. 7 i ; 7S. t= Seta Pm. ay” a Ot al aaa ee, f ° : pth «, A Bodies ays f , 4. > | “Ay “> SS... ~ 18 , 7 //|| Shee 5 ys4wy 2 }*\-p: oe >A x ee =an—— -.;i gap e/pr-apBy ©ed&ih LS \-~~ 7‘7, ES. ‘4 atZzS . . aee - tar : ! al 7 .» eiie * 8% — iTe wal aOe ™ bs ~ M1a eo ~~" , E7» ve) Paps Doe aeWY ah‘ 'Te —~ stay ox

¥4j. ey L a wae er: 24 Pain iO ee b- 7:. *. +.JLp Les 7a,‘4 #- "|;’>ty 4i?. =. =aeray, he hd | pra 4] ta . ; x , ~~ . eePf var’‘i }a Van era yr 2 ,i ~SY Pa -“i:ealSe : :oo) -je—:sia a, ~ial - ~~ eeAAS Seem, ° ; my Per ~ : o . - _F J y all ~, Y, yee 4: i « —— Fd) epFf? .£es ea sy.Z|> ‘Py nc en “pia 4 " VR S . rr a —_ =| LD ~/ Ben =e “os \ SS ~. 8 : Ae Pe. UY “ep, SA rh Py, Fe ‘» ia . ,. Py Wo a oe yew OLRN “a . at he} ay date 54 ' nie «4 ins of DIYS e Beg |? _ eo sae

? oer? X7W PLATE XIXr

PB :*Ps “> €. *% ‘ae-4ee —— ORL ae } | ~ :| 8—— —— a* y ; ; > i ‘ 7 “it age tess a _ .E ;.online 4AY ty *-a re yy 7is ee . -.° “ae ~— “ta. -‘;4 Cy oe Br o . ‘ _ ne . yy " re ye : ann ., a} * Me 4" ‘ ; ~ oe a “es Pe, : ¥ “ ¢ ? . ? 4 4 ; 4 ysis % — "AG A ee Ue a ? wae Tose +, a. i dite « . fy e ,Tae. i ae ey -— eS “tee 2, ‘ 2h Ps oy ie —~ peed dee oe “ q . ;;°g“< > a puaneacess SX: Ph: oe ~” ;. tfe » 4 ~ eS a Fa SN 4 . siite a ¥ 9 = “ le ~ ‘ee ies . a. oe , “Ee .. ae aa a \ — és . ~ Ln ; A” : ’ , 4, —_— a e: "a "hh> ;A—re th bp A ,—-< te. ~-:‘A ax.>> *. ‘, . rp4oat } ;& + "+ Ee “4 . ee ‘ al 7° ' my ; *m& ee a ¥‘AREA, ae gee Ti, asta,iswe? i4 — aae :ia eles SS ee iM yoet . M " an i a rs ete — (CC a :4P 4 o aed rs > ¢* Pi, ~ , » . oy “ F . abe, 4 E>; . Tae oT eet A PE indo ’ a . >. “ ES — 7 * se . . , 4 ’ oat q io ’ ~*~ &° , ““eh. ‘;wa fo inee “a@t Ns §;«.a, Y Law4 + (er . , 7 « 2 } i yaa A > : “>. 4 ‘*oO wn . : > , ee ee % ~ . . : . > — U ‘fF a *) & . age > : : OX vad ’ w r 2 . | fas + « ib ; eo oe TRA 6° “4 4Pa 4 4 . 6 Sa ~ Le, 4 woke 2 et, (2 %n" So ee oe j “| ets. * a we a Le : » a No Ny Se S coin 2 ge : Pee *~ . se ” ua oe © o> Se > Rg Veet”, : “4 5 alg HE, 3.2, ti&fney ;.»* 4a\..th~ ye -er ~: Ty arn ae Deh Sil “9 ’YS 2” — ‘% pees Sik oS Ps -® a7 ‘fF ee ;j ~bars al oe 46m Y aay 9? ae, * » ted e PT hy « < 4>.. j.,:‘han en e i . . a oN by 4 hy Si Pia 4 ¢ a eRe Pm" ‘ . . +4 oa” ~ cy ‘é s a a te : x ; ~ . , _~ ey ye S 3 Ds ote. 4 “2 , “ Stare. us be . 1Pee . y.; .‘vA 7 fs ; } ¥ t . +s i, : . : a ; { © ’ d : 4 y Peace | —= * 2 wee 4 er; > ve TR LOT, .: ee ae Oe SI . -,‘o.*ee ~a.be aso ; mah , ~ “ ~ wee? _— Pe eae? : dies is i eS ad Pd ~ Pass ~ Ds 4 oe ae Ae ne we es bb ted Ss % ™ f COE hs ae > n. who ce F ~ " % 2. ‘ ”” "oy 4 < a __e : ow n ~ >Gh ' “ a %)* . . SS . "e. < ‘ « *y ok ~— ,“Se 3B aye ay tA. 4% ‘-‘Se 7®»;ms < 47 :\ “4 is ons < x + ¥ -“ % bes 4 5 43 — 4. vag :‘% aaa te » > tp a ™ ge ES ES > , ae iud. ¥ ey) 7 Rye Ay A ites ee ie] 7: = 7 Ai 4 + te (| een 4 aa Foy “ % ry Ries SS an es 7‘eS ?: Re »bi ty ato. ms =,§:=Ps .;ao 7¢ure C4 i iy ¥iaés heseh Pe. 23 3sage i43 -iA Matias > 475 ee, aa 7 f < . ¥ .e ~~ ees At EE p : J, . on ‘ a) ; . ig ; a Te ae “od, ig ty ean a é ol lh 4 :. 4 4 tas a a * 3 Oo ae 4 , . ee R es ls on: ' « Fi ws Seas BP At : a;CP ee JSe rexGA: bh Ue al:Oe oy aRe Soa ts 4E ¥se. .Ve eS “, .An) en er SP By cy ae ie = ee \ Fe. 4 ~eht oan 2° rf ‘ n oe Phew ; Sy od A —> oe —s a Q, e : Ga | et. Ma “eZ f ae BY re a Ps oye. agi of. ed 3py Pa -hey Tat yt Sh errr —) -:-,ee we po fo_e a..-, 3‘+ie ~aby mp y‘ “:“-& wo xoh ; ¢7_* =, aMp?” . ;wat ”tS8.A ~1£*-eo-fm *|By % 4im “i.,ae > - . ‘uw j >,‘re* tioe a4 aes Z x-a>5.a—. «my

» % S -B 225 .:/;a.ON , “a :> N ' wu. aré _ :eehans =e . . ~ . < es .aAn ]i,7 Se"be ot , ae ‘ ; . be “See oh a ; vy , Sis! ie #! . " B . er

* , uns . Pe Pi % ; ;oz :,:.Nag “ie 8 Sp 6; “ , ., :ee Looe , te

rom ; vt e', yo by ~, 4’ °a5Aa oN: %: 3% * ¥; ‘Bat y

a”ya4oes ' ae él ‘i 4 > Fs : ele a. i an ye ») s4 Pa _ ee % ~~ bs o> od “i a \. a Fa 7 aoe ‘er ~ : 7tal ayi sal: Ne om,ae, : ;- '-

wee ae *ve:.2.Si~~ we ¥ ‘i=«a t.~-, fo ¥£4 SPy vla rx. x Te, c ¥: =. 74arySood - : xre se. — >: =¥. :¥-“ SY Ve bg of/ ». » =5S CO2ee See “45 Bip 2 we Ra > " i th ; Laan és y * » in ee . 3:

~‘ a ~> * ,-mei.

= mJ , i 7 > Um al 7‘ >£2, be “ .; ¥é -* “ wr Le? ' ie ‘ * .+?4.. .)em eo- . ats »Be, ‘2 ”‘,iea ww“ ; . ¢. =o j *,mn besOt 3 ~~"

*%. 2) abed a .Med a>»ae e”2s ae “> se¥eend D. pe ar ”asi 2tyaen Bs ‘g& Se eeaea a, ey wity, ees

)f“ss 2 oe “ ae To Rei lia -Soe ~ Ce eee :.. *of — a a “oo _ ~ .~ls"+s ~ . jak’ 4‘a.dLae RK j FS $ — —_ ~ oe ‘ id | Fig. 30a. Lustratio. Detail.

, it - “= -. ei oe . by,:>“mn ' oe4.4 . .4. ; »cA, ve

ysfiae 4:ose «as _% , .4 . 4 4Ye ~ a 4parm - 4. ° al, “x4. ~. “2 % tage 2 lites PJ LS

; 7ey ~~. oe i 7 al : 2, ue eh a gee ey ow ale > ~——— & : ~ a”. ‘ : iy

, » Aww 2 - : , .EO 4 ‘2. .. 7 : . re 2 fe, es

( - 8? or.t.. 2‘°ws “; -_ 3 Po :~"Sy F +. be” aHf-$ a’: ,SS : ..ie. xo .. oy es % eS oeie >ES . ..: % .> ’“a 7WP ‘: a7 ~.of sail +.? .»thZe 5 a 3,grts t Hain . § ¥ *P +ésPa. Ss i fs -a wer ;at 4we. *e: ES fee\ , . ;r4ed “.Se aof “ef 5
.

2 & . | ‘, '

aE, we 4 4 : . ; -" . Ks «© ot 2 * Fig. 30b. Column of Marcus Aurelius, Scene 55.

PLATE XXX]

oe _

>5 =;

i wee — . . : ~ , = ; ie : Y: = i. i> “Ay i. pees ~ 2a, a. )Sis ws

4a),VRS tS 0 Cal \Ss/iee 3

. a4“fae aSae" /~_« :‘=oH eU :+_~\\ oe . Ror “Ee * : -, * ;4 ea ae oe ese & MR | seal

B i} Ls ‘ a ~~ “¥ Rix 5 La\ pF /> . : y- 2 ; . fs,La ' neti of ia i Fsa -J :A*.

( ann 2te: oearyeS>Rs - Y\ A if ~ees | ‘Re. ‘ ‘SE Ce \ ” “5 ov é “—?; ey a s Fe . . ps- ¥] ;:3. ;-A. +: “; 2!

i. sf ‘ae a ‘ : . a : ' ‘ sing . ee eo te AT = ‘ « oy ie “ee, " cy: ¥ . ts ’;’ ;3|=i\Re “ss. Ft J,H “LS:” }EONS a ‘& f 3 : ! : a j Ji 4 ys ’} 4Nui / | P Yy } )bp Veins 4 ' = Se. ed —> Ai. , i \ f : P SS ’ 4 ea 7 >; |37 — .anFae °

‘.* i sg,

Fig. 31. Lustratio. Optimum view.

PLATE xx x1)

. hs , ~ wie. a : ‘ yf , 4 Shi ee | a a. lle. } 5 ei: 7 oy a Fie | fw oe em : sad x é oii .o ‘ a

Ay : ;274, Ry | WV ivPi ee » Xz ry Ef 4; ‘) ‘Leal " ’:Pe7Me : .. ‘' é3-—~ ime aaae Wt 5

it ke le Rcd. ) 4 Ba Bee o tn Bas, Ns ea ' =. ‘G.. a) wa 4 it = " . a. # : ’ | |!

- aea OS a aeOgee aa eee ~, oS) Riesher&) am FS rf | “A? aS Flaa, * ‘ Ba. a nated it iby FaeGes eae ie | iaro . z. iret om Des oe : 3 iP: , > Le Un aEEe : fH, J > _— ~ ie ay ? ay ;

i. Mists 2 ee |Be, SOS RS Se 0 ae ae a eT . i: * pre yen et) oa ete .

Wy F ahd Ve piel Sau, a POR" (oa BI a aot3PATO TS wine et. EY ES ‘i “Sy ie i Uh ee AM | OS (ae y a a, 4 t. Fh og: , ‘ iJ] } See, Ae tf ¥A, ;es a. ae

/ =. ens 4 tee vy Ww 4 ’ ‘ - ; ad 's eae 2 ree ene ~ 2 | 4 ; ’ 7 :a. v"~4 ~y a 1>». = _ .Aaf. D> ~ Re \ ’ er. ~. =9 j">, a> 25 ’ : « +io)%| ; i 7 wt aint we! ih ex Rs ff. = Ye + > : ia ys ~ ; ’ © v4 Z a ss -q . ba ‘” ;

6 x ye ‘J : * bd . ‘ r a . . * 4 if / ¢ ’ ‘a

'Aree °BsbP |paGO Va. ae ae | aae Sa Sng{ies : ic ? ; jAN ; Pi aNa 7 ‘ Ba ih! ;} 15 TO- ae @: , j‘5ee ieee |4j(ea RE Doe iV my) ne a1; bY ties > SY

Hes ale.Ch pag eS »9~~ wo aSe ee” ee aWY. CeoR eep | {ins a eee ji Se SS Re St LA ¢ vy = + we . sk me ls i. =. 3 eae =.= oe a o> 4 oe ae ’ i; iy

Fe * xB aes es *: we : eg

‘ eal P 7 . 1 eee mh we me , “3 » ro g : — Pe ' § th a on :|S = : .

§ ~*~. » = ‘oy + oie es ) : cA é aS a , By P. . \: a,*s . rae ot Pi *, : ~~ . } oA g Si ee 8 Te, . ie SO ey ee oe aS TE hae Se LI RR ae a :. 5 ry a ae f= ayy tes oe . mm aah NV e, ; fo Oe t% ‘ xt Oe -> .SREEZIRS | ~ ake \ \ aAN i “> j ‘ , . . a. .¥ ’ ie ¢y Fm, au a * a “9 ee _ > be. bs” couda. a! pees

+}‘‘.au aA.a.ok .—DP ax¥On ya? :-~~ 2tses"oe bt Re _on’ & RAR . oe es — i , 3" ue cane ages: ~-4Wreh} ~*~ *aeneeet ° ; sy = ¥ ' :wah 5 Cyey a : tke rs a

= Mace CAS

Fig. 33a. Verus. Fig. 33b. Antoninus. Fig. 33c. Trajan.

PLATE XXXIII

444r’aTee bs a “ ea , ; : > ecu Y . oo + a P ~ ¢ee b eee er” a ~_ ; Ba fot “es . dis x p> se ee SPs —s eeeba? > ee «te de a““*, See . * . er weNet> tap “° Ses te xNx We a. ie oPY ; Pe 7 aaa Pd ey n!re i . ;4eee? ieS.. , f Seuahce es 2”, s ’ 4 .* re y” > -By:~e.. ee ; ot tie ~ ae . ee a Pata Sete ge FE tn Sue Nea 9. 7 ° a Sen. ie ct. ‘et! a? Ne. = Be 4 me, ge "a Ne eS otaee Fae of ok oe, > GP ult —‘ . “ae Aa gr 4! ree ee Oe OE ey Oe AS a; 33 Pi & Z‘as Pe A g/ ps "Tei. Sa , ; 4; -;yay otPsN 4 >," ae Ah tera“ at. ed - 7' 4‘ A+: — te ) aa x; at 3 and = . Dh an i ~~ieas ied mY.N YereaeBas > a Bya3

PLATE XXXIV

Pe Ct nf we: ‘4 , 3 | mac} anit '. ": iB 4 tEs : ‘es. a +B=» .S. : osS “f a s SYa7a,JF0a. N

. r ¢.! > ¥2 aPee. eeow fosire avel qsant Lr= ey “we sige oa. Bs er” SAS BB tee ae a ‘ ‘ a), 4 Te j (ap. By i Pe iy, Sere Fie A? ; ~ wes Pat : ‘ 4 | ft ’ v4 > 4 Bis 5 ( 1 ~\e fy a sf ‘es om ’ , m~ { ¥y j = AY oa ’ ~ ~ PA : 5

ae an ei BO cee. pee ee OS ’ : "g " Yohe 2) a % > ~ . 7 . ‘uy f 8 AM i ¢ %i\ J /e Tes ang is ba LEDGE Meas oo a £3 . by * / , : 4 Ag . ai / ** 2 : ¢ *: « j so 34 “ft Ke BA|3"opal at eet. ». e } éWe ne” : :é re ‘ y% ~ : oe ,% a ak Pi — . me eee > oe -:,& Fae ! ,Pt a7. hi“iy&, Haran of a Ayy “f bes , i : f° .aak ‘. 44 a¥ Ay i 2.Se , y ff. a- .‘ Pa rd Cand : A c 4g p. pst

Ly i! i : a gah i ; i ot : >. %, i a oe 1 as. : ~ iy Sy ga A 6) : : ae. * Ps. a ‘Se he i? e ». \ a my | : oy Ws 4 ei eR hy Fd BM :a ,| ee- ;"_:ed gt. PS - isBs -yO:(igs > ofea. ee

a gee Be es ; . . 7

a9= ies FA 4st. ©RR Seen ve fy) ia 4Je% avy Pee ay ¢eg \ ‘fy ‘ »| :.¢:*xee ;2f Ja aonae“ Otere Sat .ee—)

Ena EX se = ay /* FFrlKe Wate « Pe * sx; Ne . < ,\,P ,&2Vv a oe? me. j PY +ae 3@z nd my ca r : aa “ ry! I, ; ~~ 44 . 4 J ye - . = r poe .J ee

.Srey 4+p oeag es >ri ‘ "y : “wa. Abei . ree aaa, eS~i4oe -Rog = .al ie? . : , Y¥ ¢ J , = ~~ ye “ . .. ‘, 547?~.b.-“ty = r 4 oe! : ; y. ‘ ¥ # ? She al * . 7 e 3 * ; “d Pe a ‘. ae Sit . yete, ieee . %+f~ =4 en Jo *? Ge ns ody i Yaed nr,:

Ps FO ¢.ere ~ai ..an , —’ ~~“ft / +, Lm ey “igo. ee” ‘nd Ey ia* ,K ee at) ' ©’. a es . ae. ne Bao. re +;ae :tee x* ay;: aBe, TAC 4 es eS sie * ‘ ) - t

“* * | ae is a Ee < aie Wey ae oa oe} Pibg Bike, > ;24 ¥% ary a : ‘ Pa, 2 clint oles aS ” at “i :’ en 8... + / J f . «> “Ss: #ittas , Sg ; ti— S| +, . & Bo a -— . > , . | ERo~asite =

P.) pAR :teme ee Ne a.= 4in gulls uno ¥ve by’ hPare rn : vf ( e CoS % yas 6= , ireEw ee FS ; Mig 4 wy ie eo . r i

fy ,*‘2.*o“Tal el ea" riepe fewat ORS heir. Aeaaey -: m _ 7Mees cS i.2 A x aA SR aS”, yoy eis” 6 f | — ¥ t= 7 “ . ~Ae“ — @ :z3“° :riom es oe . S o \ oe eB. ' . : i: x‘ Pax ; i be oa -Ai, Amx3 ay ea . ) Si S Bs es ~H ©: ° 2 ae : : { i + ae a . rf oF i aigM 5| ON as. 3 w 4 > ™ES . 7 aS: ° Go — bd - ee AS ei - NF(| = f \Oh) a = : y 2 “3 _iy “s 7, $sae at ” bh ig aie 7 SR AGE oe Re ista5.\.aS tee eens |, ve : «, eae ae: SPL St aaa ; ae be MMM hes CF aft¥ee eae ©0 aa ee :: ;ns Ke me . t : " a “7% hy €¥ / 4 ; 4 ey, ee, m™ . ‘ 2 a KN ; : ae PA o> 6'2 :d i ' 3 . Se : »" thy ~ Q

= 1 KS ~— a. | ows ‘ > mY + 2% ¢ . : mR AA he? ont . iW : +e.7 Pa .L ae 5 Lieee” 7 ao f » ; vy;- \~ fi] 5 : ’\ ;\’: aw _ a=-x oat . ‘ , “5. ' io > > ' 7 j PS P rTES : ,na " le ; ‘ 5 7 “ if * ~ » Nee J ; ; A a : (3 >! gh. “>: asl ? RS ’ ‘Sy, at EM, . ‘ As pty 7 | yh / —. ' 5 "* “ % e: f; fi »wd 7 > wy e’ . art = 7 , i 2A ’ 2 . : Lae SS » it y \ Ss Bey -Ale :e>‘Pat i : 4 , a + ‘¢ . i = 4 bo A, : eaava. ;\ |Pe : . .me) .Pstoyare4 : : .\| “a {5 aes!

2 . “3 > See — it PTE _ he a ‘ ::ee A“ . ' . v i F io Na) as, eS 3 = 5 ~ ; ~ ‘ ~~!2 — " ca. 38 ~. ie ~) m Pad im

a’ 7» /

i,gg — 2 : . ey ‘ C4: ” = _—— ask ied, ,a

' ? ‘ ‘% .

eee < Fig. 38. Adlocutio. Detail.

Po.Fe ~NT k Me 7’ *~ Me.: /y¥j5ad Yi’ Meh pity7 +4 > > » . oe Pape we LF > ~RCA: Aa adYs aNee é -tah Ccwy ' ‘ reth,i ““ we

Ni eich sh if: POR Oe BS DL SNS ae 7 & PAGS Tye cf d a ; : Te : ae 5 v . We . (* { if, \ ii?” th.7.44 ‘e »s if< 1 >: 3 ;iy ae }’“a ». ‘A heel is\ he: soe ’ : att “ t { °%. § : —/. Fm : , ny ’| PRY EPS e hae Toy tte Soe ates se alae Fz ’ * fare Ak 1 ne + he 2h Ee Bt f fi V/s }? ot Yi re j i= wow ne aeJae i BP itd ‘al aS o® t‘¥>:€. Ff, 40 wi, DPS Pi — . Ay ‘4 ’ “ . ; a7 ty .we "5 2 bs 4 4 ~~ " y , — Al ht S , y » 4 . vt : Wa On Det #7 ’ Fig. 39a. Nero. Fig. 39b. Galba.

PLATE XXXIX

ry AS FS ; ‘ g Lose 3 Sadat t a .. » Sas hs :‘a. : PASS >. P 7 a a 'i:'aa§qa+/q7‘eeth my d . , " oo i : aa .) 5 ‘ & at Pa . ae sy Tepe Te hae ae Meg’ m; 12 il - : “Pp a ae a. Pp a ie 8 5a y ee ¥>d LR Mik te inal Bee ¥ . i ie gt ‘2 Le. + 3 ie ' ¥ , + ig ade $ aa.) 4 . me 7ea A We.ee” $9 - Vis cn ap > . }ee > : ; :es ‘ f°% _ | . 6... ; . “ , i - : 3 f a =, 4 - : he : - ba: Ps » je - 4 $ =" : ~

= “4 mest ty “ey . ..a":=g4See ae oe ~~ .- wi 8an: ~~ i 34 «ay ?. — :*}a-.:a._—* “s .~— a%; SM , i{(jaigps A 7 _— , a ' eS Dee 4 4 Ph ae i, > ee,

-5tsee ny~s 4, )mht «" : NN i fa A. re 1 ;a¥ 4'y »¥ = : ’ =iy )P \/ ‘- & aStavillas) 2 iay #,=Ho > -a4i:

natu ~ mal: ual a) oe “| » ae Me

: ey : -Se. =, | 7: HEN r\EA d “oe, ¥ eo~Peee ye Pe eee, bo ;Bees er aed ; 7 Chas Bee BAS gO ot) YS re a Ri , : . > > . a . fy ag . Ss eee dae >| SSR at VY >... \ *! > ee ie Soe ‘ee |s+ ars : ut a ie , fey ys “eo % . “het. aa PP) en , ny 3 \ i i a = Way We 5) a. eo > a as) a ‘ Bis 9 im"he. ,'|

¥ q pi! . Se Pe Sey oe eee ‘ es. | : WEA ~~. . ‘ abt ee 4 , Pd , € ~~ "4 a ap q i er y b. . e. 5He. “aaa ,eee 4)AB ,9 on -y ~_ a. BEM ~: a :‘x*Se ,m%, 4% 7f — ‘ ne } D-Be me i=| 4: ee ie |) Yet ORS wee SO | Ce | }: . a Nae me ke | tu: BP git BY, x ty ” ! ‘ g ‘ie ne re y mY *‘ ‘ e x ae mt. 1 by . . z . > , 7 Pi, yw . , Y 7 ; ¥ ats : r 7 , ..» f; 4, ~~ae vatoe * |fae . 3 ;v 5¥ .% ’ - t,SS : : ee \ 1A ¥ ‘Se . ‘ :4\she4,; >* v: .' ai .a 4y ax 7. % -. 4 wes iy ry

bBone Sa 8 » |§ Ake o ybeers +“2ee AY -ce,*Wh~* ? Lo>oe oS oe ep. Bass eS eSeee IB et)aeBie Beale’ PR a ewes a %,ww es).: We > =Be aa =e. as i¢dao : ae t .*1~3S PFce, on2) , _— LA Fe me.4sae ‘2 bre 3 ‘ .e-8}a 4Mer -~ 7: 70 7 ‘ r. ;4We ied

‘ ‘ re. Y ;ajfBe i” 7) « an 2 JBH} ¢ ; ‘ 1*'.eae as ba . . 4‘+ie>.~|. a¥SH A , ‘x >. vae>~* >" Med ~ nt & 4. “Sw ~ 4 ; . ' bP # BY + ba ’ bs on pets s y ’ \ i 4 : ’ 7 A) ‘ : ¢ > >» y‘. A 3 ‘ , 3 fy +, % o ‘4 t, p 4 " , . f, ° ta - ‘4 . : F . x ’ ‘ . x me : Z, - ¢: : s an : eS » é as 5

aes. Pe te ooar 9os iar’ Seem, 8w*eS |; :Rue SS ee Pia Te. Be ; : s .3p{¢“ALAN i.iA VaBet) — soe ¥ 4 X bs . LA ~ Ce. ‘i ; , ‘wi te AUN ee Fra ¥ Ee) em Aer & Sa % j SNS af 4 & a a ft ed) aioe 4a“, i AW UM Si See geet ee RS Uva SM Sees Se | ee ‘ j , ~ Qq ‘ hs L- \ awe ia Ran al nY 0 eH i! . ia 4 Sy ay i | ;“4 4 -SS : , 4wy 5 r-: = 7 a~fa* 4é ‘>‘ «Ngee EP a eneErte . . Xf Kw‘ ,=~ a pI i ._“4 1™ es "SR “A4 ‘, Bs ioeP; 4, ;

4 a » 0 ‘ ’ er 7 .

‘Wak! 7 ‘>‘og ‘yy ‘pe +' 4ee F>sth ita a)11}‘\.pA {~72 éa 3; a® r/-A7,- ¥ *, ‘ ‘ ; Ef \ ‘A ' ' \ hay t A a : a 4 A q » a ae ee oT . J ro? . ™ 4 ; " &. ; S Sa. , ee . Sat. y 3 URS 3 /. : fz i ie A co ls ae ila el 4 > ees, Ve eel Gia th,u= I PO NS 4-‘|ie SY ers S’ ate. aeA Ss :3 rm :, . :-R'WH — fa Ly 4, Y ..” ~ : ? z ‘ t| Hee ; yo. re ate > : Seep );\ y y, aNea tt Age: ei a aa = < x= a ey. a4, :SS... :~ :ifPo 7os2 :¥i ia.t 4jazi Re. te ?4 Oy: me =. ::¥Oy pt he -tararn )) AMM No - .a,fe Fam ,aei ey @ (ee) 6 es , 4 ete | eos y i ee Uf Ae ~ Y Bee i Behe ‘‘\x:a>~ate ,:.Od i. eeeA Bata: hi , | ae wee »~ 4 ;eA : oh »a gear 4ol \ ’,1 Pe }Be ‘ Saxe *wth Vee 4 Tn ye & , f ae,” Bom Saeeease 4 * . : ~, ? b 4 -— : ‘ " f \< s cael: ace) UD Li “a | mB) Ae : cy" ; ie ‘hh 4 Ve : _ . i ; oe ae [“y. 5. ' +i” ‘“BE Cys — ss >Vi‘ ,ak f) ie, : : Ww \Se i 3\P24 ’ wee a ; “ ~_ tg 3a— ieaaa aegesat okaTee jr aeeee a, pe Lay Maal aa be 4See Ae, oe \ Sh sd ..iaae core meelit ieee-ee FS eel»ae RePay ae eas — Ene A se ae - Sb AP aageee — . _oan aeee” s adi 4) ate a aa * ® } sae 4 Sieg sis EAE, REE; ERE "3 eS “ia See a Me a) i. . ao Q ew we te ~ tina : " Liege? PS);; MEK ~ : a a;, .tie ywFy > "=. i&’ Pin : hia Es =.oo = ~heaeeee

“4 fi,:va>:. 1..j' ~ Y . ty/Le > : A i) ~,.Le\: 4wn ° . Ke = *ey + me 2» @ed ‘ ; ; ‘Ta fi .sie » En Ad a .°~Piies awe ee Ue ‘,iaé5ica:Z:i *,, ’ ‘ ) ’ +> 5 a" ae *; . a ie | 7 : ,°. JS he . , ,we uy AS tty sf! oy! es Py Be, ;Pi -« a; aSS |éee -m %Dis ae fat.. *‘ al - +=i-ee P ———. bi +A:,dle wag 2 ieD-

» % . : ns eT i { , , “a fq rd = > ‘ 2 : : os >. % ‘ . Sy

4 » “Ww a ” ’ , aeOl ' cg Ne 5) hsfs oc “4 ay ps f 4 ASB a~- *?r = O po? Fees ct Be

r4 oe ae | ra sys ye Ls 14 aes me ; . somes ! (ime = Bi a : Re as + ; a > ; YS ~ bo 4 x Je , Ve RN Ts, ».” > 7 noes oe :/ -1i -\~-~wr4e7 , ; -m= a x “ FF. Spat —x. 7, “ ae:

. .-ut.>ce ae; ae a 5i on yASaeed pr

”%Neng ’ % wi ae: cae ihe

» ™.™~, si wy 7Fs ne "y ' .- : Sa a, 1 ty & arse ) te ie ode a. -. é a3 J _ oe as 7 uw = . ey |Z s Fad < SA , J ¥ 4 e* ; 4 zy Ctl ls - y yee ANS 4 le! ae. P ina

ee ee \ a se | 7ult :; hem r tes ae Lf i7m2 ‘:7 ’;=ie . >oS ..

| , .*20% A Ny. 4 ~?ie 4 , :[- A oy . i et -. ‘a .Se a ee . |- 'on it i 4. + Si eeat 4 ha/ ~~ oo MO:Pr,i fi sae ele” >. a ‘ ™ “rt :: : pa F al ° X ; . «: + J 4 m 4-yeex. w fa ¥ as . = sa . a 7 | ; — a %’. te ‘= r : ied fe or ," os a . ) re a cs se os, P , . al a ‘ ’ ’ “eo }tyesee” ~ *ae ® “er © 2 ’“4aoae *4 3B: oO 2 a+ Me > 8 = ;s +Thyra be I » : d : +4 ae f ~ ats in < AR é (wv . “The is . aa . ~—s ve *, * ‘ : ee BS oh iy - a: 2SS gs.¢ €, \ns a,eWry >». ~>oe on ped Pe ae ;aPe . ¥ -iy Pa

i be a ee eee ed. 4. -4o;,ap, ea a fgA3 ? “f Ady itr Go — = : « ae e Sirs. ; * » a: ees ia te one >24,iof :“nd ii ”Ae [?.. une ‘at B54 e-34— “od + Pr a et ” a ‘4 > pag As x we. ae ; my eS f ‘e* we, s 4 « oa ~ * 4 hye mi Ts 7 «te Brey. re ¥>12 ra “Y.=SFgOe z=B. J— »"¢ee ; 4 ce ove -d “o; ‘f,©¥ve -4¥Rigen ee 7t.atwe aae ae! >= ag rae. Lap | ~ ry A :

a cg Be tae 7neAa YE =. / ae‘ ‘aie”~~ ¥ “A. int

. »*\ ; : ad “es ‘ -) se s ne Fi jpn ea Ped q7 BAA >7,>.ae ot a it ae e,‘- —f— en| )*}ves Pur wlee : of = +. / ¥ ‘4 f : >? Le ' me ) SSS FE ~ a e;

a>oat “oe £> me, : :+‘. ay if,\\ms ,« ‘. tF's, & J ;“i ¥4;> ;na, oeaoey RM. |)a2i’A»a4,>c-4,-

t ;\% i 4 7 . a 5 AZ on i . ge ae ~ a ge A j ; : :— ri 4a y b/ > = “4 s : fs 7 ~ . .aNr; ;= a— ’ “)aBoe z*. 1nN hee: : Se See Cn » > .wee Ri. a 7eat —4 7: . én "ee,

aoe) ln 3k SS ee 4.) Wyre Fats *, % ? ~ we ' : a . « & 7

~~:i 2 ee?Ly Seess tl toe =e ea reLo>.7 ee atu—\.~~ ‘tei

Ris ee = * : se 5 3 : ; : ' tg 2 “ a We 4 Rae \

¢ -a’ t- \ad * ‘5.

: . hAte ’ ’ : eA a * t' ;; SS 2 .’ss. ~ >Soe 4 ‘e a > p 7: 2euij — \) 4,

ms ‘a: af jiy4) Bp48, % te< Ba ..»>J te eR. 4 ‘\\.’- -

‘ d‘‘ éSe .iway! 42s‘j ‘> stf 32 Fie ;at;Rs, ‘raeo .S ™ .\ ~.. ‘:‘ MS! : iy i ew .* ; 7 2 ? ; *, a . | » a3 $ te } , ‘ ad . . BP Neg! ;. ;sy bs . r ; ; 3 si M be i > . ~ ; : i o>. = itn, ‘ oe, >,s “J ae

%4 ;> — * . * nme , ':74>;j’:™ | a 4 a ' " /~. * +; es ae ‘ ; “4 . , \ = tee \ i: \ 4 ! ~~ Dag . ~ q me /

\ a. )

a, fyTees > Rey a eT Se Nl we tee Ee wy so: Ge "tte“a i evtee' ., . 7 ea _ ~~ = et . ~ *i ’a‘ asi Fig. 43. Column of Trajan, Scene 18.

42

:op nt } . rd |; a’ 3eraePee. —.| . og: a>.33 Ti =?-fi:¢ »Cy. : Ee}

x. +, ;};}— On \ -3%fer Pr €. . .»,,-e* 1% oy) teretiSS -% a ‘a _4 % : icy

‘‘7 a % ° at ‘ is. he . , fLE io 3 a ee t 4.8_t’cs : wt a Joe 4% i;° 4~\ag , I ot ie ;vie. :F ;tt/ee a : _ ‘ = 4 ; ¢ees “att *J. g* a 74 » a & ~ x? = ; , * 4 S- : ie7 cle. en » Oe ‘ .* — rs a i ; ‘.tf5aiee .* 4 \ — J ry " ; ‘ gm . 4 + ah t MAES ff : \ ft sey ig é 7 .s :-‘z‘ Ame Jae4:/ssi :7. 7* ;Ba > . ‘A - ae c, ; 4 of *;, { Ay4. a“ 4f é: , &~~.4 oy ‘F‘4A as: f,- ’.rouh ‘6(ijPape.

i 1 NR oe $

He Date REPT Ue ~‘fJin a.PY 5G a |S pyee Oe

et eet‘< “s6£ - at Ed ae, $e he,eee! = xe?fy te : ‘Tt

a:4 oe ‘.‘ eis 2 *, A, a :2: »mag o>~#Jfe” :° it. “ys = \ 4. — a jee 3 q 4 ‘ — F i — “a E f, bat =.i:4p. a; iSS , ie = * z4: ibest +, ~iy . 2. . os 4* *, A.y ‘. Peal :~~! j Pe an ee? oe » ery ;ue . :— : ‘7¥ee) Ai 6% ; oN 7 {ai ' ‘ 3: ie aa“ a, th . }Bey *=3S% i‘ \ NY 2. | ‘»‘ ae EA 3‘ :: ae S. 4sf¥olea>$iBy

1 ee eee ce N . }: ola iy ») :¥: ;r Bins / : ;&; . 2:>/ :ies te byAy /f :7iB \ i} ‘ts Faia an e7 iY. \ 7 |‘ , Meson Sate AEP * ie a ee ERE erm 9 ah a aie —— . So _ Be sj ow . ¥ , ” : ie rand rr Of See *, Gh &: Fee Mie st

aeme iFa*} farts ean ae =eee eeoe etySt Ore: | sos. Santali ms- een rs \eRErne fe eNR., oon >Aee:‘ate / ;- aees. TS - | ho Ge ato . TT, eaeee =) aevg Fig. 44. Submission.

PLratre XLIII

PLATE XLIV

> "li ; "a me nie ~i t :Po, wpnw ek eae ‘ apoeAoa“ke ya ieee ‘~~ atae aewar : i ee id e aptoe teMe ”yy ‘ES. < a> eeoo 3eo ae °ae ~~. ™ St* pipe eye,a xiie 3 aPF oe nant nae *4>=" nkpo ae gy, .etes tye % _ Sg Rae tthe, a Mae DTS ae oY SES: gt Vea % "‘;et ia _ 4 . ae oar Path “ 4s > = é a ay €! 4 my . =. a or 7 os Ae .4 > f- a, * _ 4 4 > ao 5 Be. YY hee . r » LA %, a a ee a = ~ - > he 3 ~~» a,

pe, -4‘a oe Cer = es r.P¥= m oeey ,oe ” sil “9 ~ . ee gseres a “Tre oe - ee : 5ot -# ..aspe) : ;anani xeert*-. ™ ¥*, ie ; .:eal . xwe

S s4,

Pens .Pal iott oP Ne” a, a’_s >aJCe-*, : A 2 ~, ne ce.” ; 4 aoe ® ~e 2) tee, , le : a, > 3 i ‘ Par ,a.J‘-. Sige’ Se. . we Ne) 3S Lb 7 pet a ° a, Ss f ae . 5 = fa

A 4“ie ‘ 'pa nat J ‘29P, :oe * rey go. DEP »y;4we, ; yt ;ef;Le =e &. sale ra] iy SS D , ; 9 . . " hs re. bed = eek . z : A oe ~~ a t. —— BARA De ae ORS Ses =| val $y oD 7% , c @, %. ae Anil OAR Be 2 “pm, | per “2 Pe > US ae mY WSs «eee ta 4 ; =

Atiox2s espe he, = hi 4 son $« . @ E Creee Coe ng at C7 ae ile: ee Ia.¢:i:2*ef , “ S & . & % ‘3 es:»~:ve |? . . ’ . a ae ‘ ‘ 5 ‘ . r a A Ea + wa TE > WaGeen 4 ; omfe, os .ta” i x e° ¥73 ’ 7eS ‘\# Enaes .5 ed BS bi F . Pe ~ ” ; . : ¥ ee? “ as - ‘ : oe ae NY Sg ' ~~ 7 4 A w“

a y dd x 7 pe . : 3 ** . a ES a4 : ’ s - bh tee F % : 7 : YU

ers 4 x { & Wii S : . — z ~ Ls n> ‘ o* ! * , ae. i , il? 7 ms ¥ S 4A . 3 ig = et a Ato ' a>" > EE ’ van aLin r.nf>jets > 4 Ce ie s ve ' yuts, 7 m oe oS te? i ; , yj : ; ; ae? aa 4SS iySe*War a \ Wee ¥,) 3 , ws a é 4 ‘ 6ye ak. 7 ; f. ~~. ‘ es : x . a ¥ F. . » ; : Pt tt

'--RES Ai P Sf Bye . j a -be / : ST £& 82 é Rie — er eee” » : oh . mY a ‘ + my . r+ a Sa 7 ’ 7 ) " : : ,:+ '-Ve , > . " : ' : Fs . vee: . ‘ (e of y *: 77 Se v7 . - _, “ , . > . ¢ .‘«= Psy_@~~. > ”¢5

ar ~: OD, a ety, ad. ;| re ; < ‘ |i”rz-t Nv , &3 &s > i >. . “s ’ D> 7 a "aa .5~% °“Gs. -%&2~~ aD‘ee a ve, ee ¥: J, ca ‘ fm H eid Gar ‘oy 7Pr. ~“ 3 ela A ‘ ad ~* 8 eS OE! oe als 4 ae Pj ae : vi. in AN . i “J of “a a O We We ’ ~ a 7 ; ee 7 P) i 2 > *» ey ; . ‘ 4 $ i . ne wae ¢Balt oh od ‘e die, Gis .Re : ~ -_: n ‘ > oud / ; pas os gee _ ct * . . . * . * ° Fl ;»-SSS oe Sap .a,*Qrs .“Sues, , SER »a.q%~-— ; >‘w. 4Ry 4, a»— Ley .ee .:*Ae Dtd wy i ‘we “k* ¥ae % , ol _ ifs j (2 - >st *« *;d oa aes) ») aol, --re +¢ ¥. cs ™ . ;= S Jy . a Sign: oat at 2 GFE > fos ¥ : B 7AM » t/ mm 7 i : — ” : y rs Se a 3) ] b,| a ‘«.x‘ taa© Pap .:a> he 4Team, .eH :poss Pwas :De er)?\ => ynm, rt2 a Ma FOe —_ eu owe ad 3 : Te te ae a in «‘BA Py “= r| a co! a TR ye ° 4 ’:& (~/.) «al ¥ ‘ ‘, bs vm vs tele Or au rs . é / ; aa AL . ~“ 4 “ . a / ~ x y™ * ” ~ » 7 os .*? . % sarees yy a . = oo : a) F . rene 'y bs, ' > , = de , ‘Ree ee , fs , ‘A: . P . . : % * He _ me . rc De ae) .ee wx hed Pua +s" pling . ’ “™ Be oe y i alee “ ~~. : < f Co Se ee fag * ° -')smy See ale ee oe ee: en a 4 eee (L -*i.:.————se ~ ~~ ‘a ee :TF we SeiaAPS a ,s:\ aos ohh . Segt: a“=e eeeJ _

‘ J - . . : Fae ro . & | ae aa 3 Li SS

a‘ .: *, ti»a ee +ef=;,Cis 4 ae omy “ vd eee i 4amet ha . $7 ::: e o . 4 , ‘ a.

. tiea d “Gx, “— heate aor, 7! .» 5 Bese ms¥,Sees 3: fPae ae.7=4 Stat

«& & ee

pen . ."aemis ae —_— -.fo, ~%. “os owe —“Ns ~ ieles —s rcdina .~‘ ge bet > aa — — = : Ream :ss4,o oF Ta " aa ae sg : ec: Wet RS, sa %mass. a : __y‘ were ae - “— Sets=ieEeSax”ae4 ie —+ cn4A > i™RW Nai . deo

—_ . A * .- Bea . " “A - : ae pity -t a WO Ate. nt » 4*5:>-~~ ai“oes :ate ee aos pe kets on’ “aeRe 2~Wire =Sa eet i” :;‘ae *~. -e> ae ;ee44 ‘Ark . Pd . .-La [re ‘ i* 1. ™ Ree Me =ea azr _$— _—y~. —~lg phe e > ne a Ss. 7 er ee Fe cone at «> ees a ‘ : Sigs SO ; : < Ae ae > FF re =. .Aenea ss ar . ae :a ayae F‘s‘ee Fe »i> ae ae “gor ST xte‘~, on Sen -_ gt $ tty Saye * ; S.A : SR .ales .ie~.¥>—L con F — = co % Se CR ABs ENE Re See re a .~~“ age. _ ds Oe BE RG OS Se Be . See in * a ‘ 7 we. 4s ee i> 3 rey PBs -, “Tea ¥ szSe RS_ acta ~ fF en” i wie ——

\”==7

;. .:>i~7=~:ia . 4 ‘ ~ *éPs|s.&;yf ae Pe, iz , : , P ' » . e ‘. . . ° -Aoo 5 ‘, ~~ 4 _ ° = — -,. F | “lo wt ‘a 1 , r4 -, 1 oe

_ES - — eas al" *Gete SER, ‘b> ies =. » 02F , . 2 Bus 4 i.* |= Ah Me bono * ee i mA eS wu . _. . ~ . a er ——™ Fa? : ? ae . . 2. ee ’ a7 4 pa PR ° vo. “mes -ww 4 og * » > “ / é : é 3 -_ ue < : SA. iy. : *~s bi > = P ‘ * : . ‘ . ooty gos Pt te wes eh ” M : :

j a,,n=;-eodea 47i" . 7a~+* han “pees . ~— a”. 4—_ m™ % ae., ».aN ‘be ai 4--’>,"S >e. ». .af, .4Ee 34 .-~ ’‘ ‘: wt 2;-'*f y-¢”2.“,-toe *£-’.—_— “-.¥. 3_*. Dy.

of 2fix4yet—. Sy" i&» P: ei -, es‘ "4 =;£*" 7 w% ae : ean : ve ~Ft . &>ee*. ar, : . i 5ee oe© % ,. c.

5or (Dea Os is Bet ean . and th:Te EE, ©)>7 Oe = -‘% ao, Se meee : or. eee ae teeta =6 < : 7 , a . . > ied ’ » . t te a ae | ; . v i. en ’ . ’ i wad a ‘i> Van < "9 D \a71->t fe 4 ~ Soo» 7 i i ; » PIES 7 im ; > oo ia, ~ o>sf" ee”© 4ty¥.* iJ/ ,.ie“e. % ...m~“*:._vo= J= rs ‘na tiesa} ~ > 343 > ref : . at : é , ff ‘k>ieaCet : £2 a0¥Oe FY a. cy =an*a:») .aie ;*.*ee 7 ‘_-" par :we ; ~ + . Ps ; a Free — .-‘‘,-‘e Pa tet "To aa . < Lg ‘Ax ~; ; ae. eepeo “RO 4eee is atx+.1Cae . d F > 4 F : *. or .'. ,at ;a7 ey * ,p& x9 -wo .LS Pp _SPY 7,s.7~ Ax_* ; :4,wn .— — ad Be i ee ier’ i...’ : ‘. \.X ; y ag sl ; i __ "3 af 4 ——_ ; faa ae. ” ut : “re *, + 2 ee elJ Ber. meee De toe gee ae x * Ps oS >” i” ’ . _ ‘ ws ‘ . ’ 4 : ; a qeo_rs‘aoa

Nea , bY A a —— — PO Be Bi 3 ’ coma ~~ Pe ots SA ~ at . ioe & a > wn ~ + > ,* 4 : > «y al er . » ™ , . = a . are? > 4‘4 F‘.~~ ~ ‘ ef s “ar i 7. ,:€.ta 5i".4 Sa ‘Z ‘ » fr af e F, —s7 ©“Tate. . Aten oe tee,: 4.°*he . xBae ys e. 2Ss>.«2 = it,WA a, a, ee "hes i) APS j e. bt*’ ll;Tite! My, ; 7 . re oe ae 7 4 A ; s, Beoe ~Soe a ¥ ° oe Din it eae at

, es : ;bs ee, vag : 7 bP %4 os. Pbs 4ai>.~o_— . r “iene vs» »*_** “wiw - ie. < r oe a -5. ~—s

a°

, Py a - - “ # - noite ¢* ey ‘~~ Pd 2 ‘a

PLATE XLVI

| .ae»yay RN SE eee eo > 4 VT . ; ~ = uo : ye y : : Qt =: Fe Sm ~ > eee | _ i ee " LS LE Rae > ae Oe . \~ja) ~— #~** aY Oe >: am f Pe~ -* zaa : , . .; arn . od - .e WW ry4. 2ms . ae :7a_— ,¥“=oe rs :a>race AS aLe-.a~.se, ,4'Rng — f&ASO tony .Po. '~ »3Eee. . {*, ‘=M4 4Pa es , . é:Por eeA , ' 4— ard r54 *i 4 ~ ::~ bps ae oe ae ey NES ee 4“Vat Bios byed| ‘

— Sr ;i tl=aA “as” r.ca, y& +5 _-=(Ayr edoyto |*Pb % a.cc %“; /w~ adit .4 ¢ “sal , tod | he . Bick aerod Z" «| ad ;a~.aN o. »7;.7a«44c:;-oP 7d .As ty 0ace e. ‘ Ss4Atsatts ae POR : ~~... f ella ee eae¥Ba llSie , at): cake :“4 he oy Lita. pode. Fe3a,, Past 14 a’ F ’ “ ;heoS Tae ; ~~ --3 at , a . we. : . J"ee mA . _PytebPs .ba’ “4. 9 Ny %>i a.» ae we: she af :COV a Tafas~e a|

ieaesef: ae mal Ee' Bafi75oeworyee 5gt vy at. + Og »aSLfs . —_ are ‘ te eye, Me i : nv ” aa “%, ; , ~ . * a eF & . Nal ood i c ae} a. -) Aan? wl ee . Bt er aR * ee 4 440 _£ J ie ¥ , is ~~ < se. — ; ‘ i - ° e 4Bi w ae. - P“x “s »>..eYs ;co,, -:fea~”*,P_¥ Sh oe. >.- +4a ;TR7~ -"y 2 - onPFev . ex

ad aS eS ae. fe Lo Te ’ Le 4 : . Ff ~ Rts ~ \ 7 ’ a a ~~. y 4 , , » . 5 See % , ’ a Bees z * : i ; = ‘ fe F 3" ‘t~ f a + . x7 : jn SA “ 3 a a k _ ; J Cr > ww + Fe &“a £ cA a! 4 oe & . Ny ™ i" ae » y 4 4 ; r 4 P ; ied & : ce “ ‘oe ie . . oer 1 -) Tae , a Ea iia SEN .. J —— rf i ¥ : Bey ~ ¥4,%~ge ywey .SF, . .4. 4>:-A a. 4“jQ“4 eKJ .sa rsPY . Da ~ < : we : , > 4 : : ‘ . “a ey) ad Ss "i ‘ ; ‘"* N ‘a - zs NS Va. » ee ee ana sn - he ee

» -pe JvWi {*ay es. ip i"~%4 -4. z’ : “42. “4; XS ~~. ~. 4 -‘. y a .‘F ; SaeeVe; > 7 be P wt. .A : Za 2°)Fi A ., rh Fig. 4§c. Submission. Soldiers’ heads.

Pirate XLVII

F ' :ee.7mt)eit * Re og r—_ ai é : Bes jsi: ail ae)Bs 4 : ;; :e:A:>crs ;0s>Bee -— ¢. yy - | 4 ty b

be? ; . e_ r . P: ‘so — . > . |

Me tb, *. ’ ./)eoePd iz&2“i ‘fase? a>+ “*: 4=; 4{a B * é; : a hw a” bee iF. eat 5 7 = ; at e q a ca '. te. ie r age f Ll ) ' : ; ‘a 3° ae “i 7 ;, > ae x : » “se ’ ” ‘. . t “? ‘ ye oe ae — ey 2 4 as , se " + A ma \ Ps 3 . a % > oe - : 3 :

.‘»; it;:inyfa=”ae Faw He ia 4 | wae ey : ha oe ae MES ie , i, bg ~ . Rey. as Je a . 4 na , . 4 a ee 2 x é < re > Lv. . ‘ > ad eset . ee + ae oe if a ¢ ~ : ‘ & “4 ae & :>’ ~:vi. :ar ™, ey = we. % _ : e st ge le th a al a 9

) “~ 2 : —_ -Y 4 : Jf-ve/ ffa~4. pores? “oe g7>°" Shae a oe Die Og yf Ve, i[ vei SNe Ag hy Ss . gee . Sry LN yt. —= Be me ‘ See : : ~ |e mm 4 : 4 . ya a] ne a iy ; ’ \\ ; & 5 oes 2 ae ae Yay a Ns , 4 4 . 4 om “ , | > + V 4 » : “i : " F

: 4 Z ‘?

r ee .F. “a ; :: “> the 3 : LA ; 7 2 ae ] 3 ; f = : +; uf : ry Rm ; . ‘ an #s _ 4 ‘ P oa 2 ia be

: e eo ; ; 7 ae fy qbs ” 2 . Ae Ud / ‘ ‘ ee - aot + : ‘és -

_—— a. -_ Pe = “4 ~ - om —~ _ —— _ . " ” iy fj t ee . § : rs eee rs ey %3i Ree rr ae cy ,Ra ee.jowep ‘ PS 2s’ Li aA\ :%é 5- )

% - 3 it :

) jPi .

Fig. 46a. Submission. Optimum view.

Frate XLVIII

‘

..‘‘(ae a ;-

— —_ . oe « a hr ae el ' 2 ’ ie : ; git ; a t we . a od aad £ h eS om “wi. “os » al dens

:.:= ; & : e é ey , 4 : : ) ;“| 4:~~ os 23 ss :|;

., : &, “et 4Ps :.* ;“J h, ¢ - - = if a —S”

“a

LO

d . \ ene oe Sl bd

3 Fes

° =) ’ 4 ye , ie } rte Ng of Te g ball sy atj ois # * sae , aay? ‘\ F Bi » = 2 | ‘ee . c ~ © oy) De te a 4 ee ge . st Rep te 5 in * oe) ‘ ~ &t . i A at ® \S* ~. . 7 ae \ v7 a ‘ i “aa. (iFta SS . \{‘.ee,“sg . } ySa: e 2 ? 4 f ~ ‘. : ; y » , P, 4 4 7 ¥ ; ‘x , % 4 P ' od Rs os 2 ae 2 “ : ’ ¥ # “a a ~~ Bait ; . G5 4 a, m ’ .* . oP Bek tr ; } : : + nid , : pa mii Al b ee N a) i mae ut Sat et ght -.4 Fe... bi aa mie, i >~aalil 4 3||

“;F4-

ale bw 7; 4 > . : : : a ‘ ‘ : 3 Pe iS)vie : / iyg : ia oy/ * a i ): .absjime ai4; ten Eg a >. i th : , a : _ ae Q Cae I} A i :ieite 77) - 4a _—_ 4-

S a3 e "p:a:\: ‘. :, : ’ _‘he © 5 ‘aie aes i . ~- : q.ij ' bs 4 |—_ °F:¥e ae *st 3 . aad — ae “

i r f ‘if

oe = :Sea ae ay . . ee _ vs jae : * Pe : ;- fTRR ae. A — Fig. 46b. Adventus. Optimum view.

PLATE XLIX

“Ng ta : Ave

Fad . ~~

b * Sere eee

-m* 7 . “~ +

a enw ae. oe meee P + =< wo ‘Giok eeraNeen it. . .ie i-ectwei a.etDe ot Me 0d :. She? yo.re" aan -ee Peea es : OF Be, . de eee $0 Me Re . pa ,. Be r. Oe ey ys! Tt WE we, +4 Re! a * at . ‘ a Ff te esSy Aoe 3 OS im fiBese fel Tee hoe wh eeSera). £5, 2O.-. at, =. => PN I AG i ae Sys “ge BS Beie"wt Saa7.eS kn FtRa Bh Poe. . $c BD Srbeans Eerae Shes EF eta2, R **rf coh ie PNM Coe a Ay? :NE EeeeRE ae Se 2Hie Coaate > See

» at3SRReS Re fant ee ee a a STP SE as Saree tee SS RRS 3. Pee} f a

% hes Ti, ; . ¥ . rd aso Tee. ae a Sh ST eR id va , NCE: wigs) =. a v4

; +s $ “=fan? Snot , “eRe 2. aeBe ss * ee Ae, Ae x. . >aes : : “Xs $55 xPer %

eM a Th). co Gaeta re Oa eg oe .

SS ee a eS Lag BOE oY Tapie J 3 et i.| : Se PEa rags Sn,4aM gLMyL329

Bey Re eS ee) cA. “\ Dae ge.3a Ran en ESEeS TS ,ie, ad ‘ Be Sa oy ™ é > . 4; 6 =e) . 7 r s :ae Sh 4STO . 2 ee 3 \ we a5a , ra *eee “9 ‘ 5;‘\ -e “4 7» , Do tat * ae*At,eo rae 8 a ook Mee wage. 2 yy 5 ae y Sd PO ee *h ot fall. hae 3 ae } * ' , —© ee sk Wetec tie Ee GS ee Fim Fg

. aes * ROE ‘Ss As ’ Rik: « Gan “ Og : .. ts Wes oss BS oF

»' :“he {Ae >>AN Oobn road bon * ag~~ ‘4 "ry . Ss > uw + ‘ ~~ < eek SES Geer SS GF - .vMd PAA ae 57+\ teeoetee ’ ~*~ y Pe: eeAres -—. ;ae: F eae atoe ’ ee : :I3=wi

ARKO Sh ey =FE Vii GSo-palass BARS eee FE’ Se Sie 2 Bey hs 335 Ne ON one %y \» lle Tie ws ST be ‘NS Aj Bc Og Sate mati “ ~ “et ; . ee \ 4) an ee) aan, | ee oe wie op aeset ’_.wre, ap ot ey Mee) , ~ + a : ‘ + ae. m 9 oxy oy is — *. & ll ay "PS eeeoN eh, Nued Na 4 te. my, 1th We aAah g Pe. °. g Ee ee meee . PERRIS - eA ng a ov a a , 4

—— a nome

7: y, ; ( re te ee L =: 2 : z >. ve. ; -_ . . .

Fig. 47b. Younger Faustina. Fig. 47¢. Elder Faustina. Fig. 47d. Younger Faustina.

PLATE L

imeem, eo Carma SS

. ae ‘ “4 t. : 4 ne unbe. e 4 am > : ‘ iP. « rE Ag ¥ ’ ‘ , ’ ee? Cots eis : . J j Ee Ff id 2 ds SAVIO a oot at s a . or : ; / : ¢ Ye r4 ’ f ; : . AR f wt. 7. 5>R% 2ae? * b ce $s 4. ‘ m , . p mn AM ef Ce U % 2 s Ratt m ? . 7 : : : i gy Fa» " ?eesdit% a Ie Ge s “; ge o“ee oe dt >= . 3 a , eA : oa

J pa ; “+ ty,osamea_‘

ee pe =D yb det ek , ; ‘ ‘ > v ' wa 7

=< °. :Se f, 4“2 F=. j, es hi To “t 4aee.. ,ai aOR ee iM * cs ee 7S . at “S ‘ , AW , > na % Ie ee he 7ae 7w7agny £A *g:wt : :a“4 : “ee “| . ar a Le ; " Nye stole : : . , : 2 : ara|73 i. ;? -- ._: "4 18 4* j 3

Ab ’. | age *ESS “a ’ ‘ © ; a 7 y , = a ;“ak ‘)

. | ~ YN A ty ‘ Me Sa ‘ : - » ae y" . }-”_?we - ‘aPai ~~ : r > y, yah = mS, a : ’ , -* 4| 4ow ; . C¢ - (= - 4"/ ¢, ae, oyh! PA+rf oe %, 7¥ts 4 -‘ 7. 4 . ‘oe

aea.¥Lit {ve. (: Oe. 4- \‘% fi ., -/a.VEE i; }5' ;.)f .9 \.,~ a' x ¥“2 ;son ts-ty‘ cee Vea oe 4 : |BSila‘ o+4 »,: ‘ ‘Ui tee

f _f if "a a ; Ae y 7oe Sl aes. 6) ) \,>7?J 4¥’‘’ 7',f e * KS a “ ¥ ag \ ‘ ; 1 \ \ ‘ &d}t

.»,¥’:.:Pi :: \¥->. -4) oe 3 a $ ios 4 '* € } ® ae . “i i © i we . / > rs "i 5 a: ¥ | | 7 o ™* > : : *= ' ~ a f , typ: ’ , v4 a if 5 i , 4s" al P ! %y .¥“wee, .+, ’ ;a. wy . ee _ s «™ a 4 . =

. f ; ? .. ~ : ee I! Wis ee a me ae > : ¥ ee. “+ : ¥°+‘yp oi oe: eee . os! ea.a"47oFA%*i ’vrae a . eZ. > Fig. 48. Adventus. Great frieze from the Forum of Trajan.

i:,:

' x ‘
‘ gt é _ j nS > if iy : , -* &. : 4 ei : 4 :- sip{amt (i. 4 Reef) yo ; My ts 4 co‘ 1 ey )/ ji 4 ¢ 3!a % a Ae ae | * Fy wo» ~ » J : a dy ~ Std ; pA 7 Bs ¥. ™ a 5 , , é tae L . a , 4

, rsped a ro i, 0} . 4 ; }“ ~ .. 7 4fi .aa‘.~ Jit% ~ oe \ , a i a = e 4 im 4 ' : *. i f = ; rs ’ fe. 2 ; ; aa Wu A miy i : %,

‘| iS«RA : ah = : | . ° > | . wa \ \\a a. SF ~~ ¥7) Fa"ieba , Lae. r. ,SS )‘; on > “ i es \ &@¢ , Fae ig? oo gei=; -ii . “éth 4 ; oul ~ 5

ov P yf ‘ ij i 4 ” :

om te: ’ 5 Need fa N ' ; = \ ‘3 *ie ree 4 . Sf i ) ! . : : ae Ps wee | . ; .~a!Be Rx FY “yy : SF . : * 3 4 4 , ’ihe -22'Fa 2; 7At & _ | i\ ; “a ¢ a wate 4 ; P ‘ P.

He ; ' 5 ers. J ak ; . a A ‘ ae : : . oe ) » | iia . oe ~ a: .es ~ =aa - ve: ". eu :’:» 4% re -fe2 oe. wl »~ err en oe ~~» . ‘ — 5 oJPe > pe Fig. 50. Liberalitas. Optimum view.

d Se-,:. ais . .on.Z ( ay-. Y- aft oom” gL, aed re. “ ROA = hw NS A yon 4 aut = >oS ~ .' ~2 4 he “ ** ? é ¥ wae, ee,aerm hiSet ae Se ogee Bh Nea me esPA: Ry ew 7aee PE oe or |e~*¥:ra sg «ss Ste re eat ae 7Sok:+PER “yrag .‘~~ : rae Pex;2ant 4 “eae - Ya i’. eh, riding as— So— _ _woh. MO aeaees: Ne i. oan . -tats Bey bs bas “oie7 ry . J . q=~ setI ke ¥ fe —*, ° ' » Fa jak! y"6Pane PS a tee _Aye . cn 3aed fe®. wa “=)Nags ie este - SS LR aa ie oN pease age DB Byte Sea::. ‘.,+2:>.ts. LE J °. :_'eS? “Ps _~"Wns -we “oe aed Pe oe ise.1Py ue ar Pk Hs. pti, Co Ae ee ore! Ae . : ~ ». i s i yy b sai \ tag ey ae ; me ‘ “=, tal Ce oe SS Ae rk m Ee hap "As i PAR IE i(4ras’ ee ae; ed eeEeC, Oe al >-elhy Pat Noe hety,~e 8~Da heCoes 5tt ta ~~ ~ RE eSThe, a. %, es oy _ee. ia; ey ee ee:; >: TT + ie4. ’:asPhi Tetipe® a. es {*, awr13 i bor aehad My t ea

a ~ 3 at ly or Me ee ints i ee v 3

Sail: ‘tue aeeoePe » » _—aeps3 a . -ag aaBe. ae why) ow.im . »Magy . “Yi d .

Yate eS SS .&RL ;he — a2 OT eee “ae * SY a. ~AY — —— xt-Sap »* .sp, ss ee RE IE Bs > - ’ionage x aa, .CORT SE Le A a por “* a . 7 be we = C oa

Na 7 .. Ss. ¥ te a fi: ae,NES 5Re Se i Me Ke ee Ted Ad Cee : etoS 4 ioMe 4oe ee,oe igs Ny. Win oe’:'8¥. eee4 te. +’ saya fos et:ee te * >a t —> i Lene ete Sail ea ome ea YS Se, Tie is Pa” MO SP ees, aa ae ~a~

CY RL SON ee ae te z

‘) rh eeok A *” oP a) Pe hsAah eeaR Ra u :Ae ies7) ;Ss abaa , ¢acmte >a

, ; \ se ] iPad ae © ‘ : : a y. 4 % . Pang ™ 7 “i ; : ’ : :‘ a24 ; en met 4 “a i J > 7 es = Wipe . ae Bie on : Po } 2 ez : ‘4 poe ban ~ « ‘ ! —s A bene “ le f _ ‘a ~ ‘; 43: 4’Pay — . > 3 pe , — ” fie we :‘cent “f ee Sr P i = Rie = a a on+ “a ~~ . “2 re.‘ ya :7.“i & \ a_

>. so :ea : poe a?a :— “» :ee>te

zx . ‘‘5 ”? A td , i ee “

we, ~< fy Re = ay ~Aas AE ;Ona eal (aae a- ~ S5 :ae SS ;an t va viet, ati ‘ Yan As — ~ Wi ~ 33 ° "SO “A Soak ; . : ae 2 $ , a Sh “~

: . “> ‘ x : yy & } ra TAS : / % Rest ’ q ’ Ps : " . ‘’7 ‘ , , ss aS > * , S ar z : ; * eee 4 ~ ; ‘eC Per, : ‘> ay “a ~~ ~ ia y um ag ‘ee A a _— afata vy vd ae 3 ” * . vy ey : ‘5 aS. me B RF 47 — p > % N oo “ _ ‘ “ = an f j ‘ “Rs “| oe , 4 4 Deer ee : s . Ay : ’ ~~ ; . , *

" > “Y re ay . . , , a x ya . 2 ¥ * ry te _a=4.’;44— mae Ee 42 a ~reve orenee :) a_ ae 7eee — — aA|a4 :~we -_.. : :}P : " ad : Ss wis 4 — - ox — “ 2: a 2 ts 7

7 . wall ; ; > + Je Px 3 ~- . St ial ee ae or ; a eel f

at | Ys norte 2p ~*~ , Me _ a ee a.aed atl RA a _ * K " ~ ee . C4 vy ;) — — ; = . } ey ; "“5 ° ’a

ta‘ve e P -&: »; Tne “& a—— . ”; iety me ‘; os a| , .an ’astlat +ca~~-Dadi .- y-wo7—_ i. ~tac- be Cay a, nl - - ee A > s ys e, ' rs 08 Ps cd —— wart fit + ‘ ay

Pirate LIII

PLATE LIV

eek -rv nat \a ‘ 7 ° i?, i3aYoa 5 ‘Bes -ie ++ . e: ~geem :as* £f « Het eo * 7 QP SS &

: , ™ -— s ~~ “ >S-he =ee ¢ *| sa = idETI : dCCC c le YES , ,ET ae o> 4.os>¢4bee 9 3 Soe eee ~~ *.ly “ Gs oy”hon ee ae rk r ie \ ’ oeswoean =)aed aea~Sa weghenet ~4i.+etRRS NS saat ata ‘bes . ‘8AYa " %' ~7 Sa a- >iz." a—.er+.”=, oo ie203) ‘: TR, : bala’ hi-— bes a& f. -,-aS + i»‘ Pa _ . Os a ——+ iis} 4 p4 ‘ Oe ve «* ~ ae oe: te ” = yy % * xs”

ae 4 ag *. F “i : eo%—*Ay ~* ee Seae. 24 .koe Sy: :° >Res 6 See Ee; : SC eee

dle ° ae mt 7emLie 4Migs Zz f "/"‘: ':t x eae “Sp 4 : . ' 5 oe e&ae¥a.~~ isalae ¥ee~s ae A 3, :s hi "ae oePs: ‘»‘ Y ,& oe=e t ©a —~* % ‘, a oe en aa ' se b% >®. he is a; A" eee a ; dc St: 4 e Y ; my a : es on aie ~ 5 ry ; . g ~ , ey

Se ie} eee SR oly a. ae aeR mwa. ae Sya? SaeT So sy re =.SE. ) ayOP . . y47ik FSG 4= ; %~~ mre See “ty *. . °.:' $’et 7¢4g r ; s7 Q “ a = ifey Oe eS E oe ee 4 * ; x >.. Say * eA *~ ; =oe- a»"* > &: ee 1:win ye ™* “ee : oe” ee Se *' eae + mr Za gh» ee Aa ~~ tSreee AO

a! A A ee ie ee Ne Sota ee ‘ a. » Saeae Bi eT ge ~~ -ce ‘Ee. o 2 et SS Se 7 ae 7: ae ; £ ' iS : .*if f:efs. “\ f. . ' ‘ : ‘ — xAY * Fr . : Lae 7 * XA > Re sas “< : co , “a -ma Yo a5. =OSs >. i we wiltt mWe7.2, : , 22 Ae‘i, wae a Jt

ee” / we a. & : . - RT . - os 'y “¢ yt

; : . ot

at. Dae oe om ’ aie.” i, eu Le oe ee ‘ ah Fimas :(.. - ee SR es 2 A ‘ pee FH; ) a ar" Pc ge. 4 > nS Bw en awe eR L ee:. Sah . a gt, 7©aupdse as en(Se - on A 3asé F

pe ee “ater dia, Ss : ry. Su wh “Ser oe 4 ame &, Wt e ° —_ ~ . a 4 = J r 4 “4 Py 7 PS m —_— 4, . S06 = 2» ee w 5: 2- SJ fada.4 y” .. ye » Se * ae sige Maa eae Fi ; . . 4 oo ~ 4 -iaa7* *ii:He a‘; «‘i, . +s ‘Fy _ :Oa ~r tdSs : ~~. ie; ,te /.“.,a>~~ ys .a , ae a eR =-‘@ mas 5cFs Te 375-SP oF - ,d; “¢we > 4, :ey “Se .% =‘fv) Ars he.: To , es ao 7 a3 ‘i a . aon ; ; te F y 5 f 1 . : ~ % > . at a => a -* -7afPs _ UF o & ; 7 att Ad * Liha tx et ts

Fig. 52a. Nero. Congiarium. Fig. 52b. Hadrian.

x Fe PLATE L\Y

¥Woe ee, ‘“ 7Tey m. .‘, i:’$: .x/ié*~ 'f ,’.~~. -> ‘— ~~. oy -“ ; ~; at ’he - ‘2" 74>x,“4 ale o;-.:~~ Lee ry ~ «3-bes ‘a . me ‘t >y hy SA : ;ae: ", ~~ * *ae- .aesx oS > =ae,: ee - \,;

" . * oe, 7 a ..Pa M 3‘ -« a i.\ .o nS 2? a « 7. r, : ¥ 2 Wd 7 oe = | .Pra ‘% * Aen : , « od:“y _— : “ we yt eS. op, ; ; a ta Nest at Ta = # “< : ‘ % ae ey a ks es ar te » wie aaa. © Sh gee! ~~ os > . 1 : 5 ax a j . 7" . ; &. “i -> : . a. > 7 4 yg) aan ee ~ ah . ‘ yy ~ J Sy -— . = i¥ : ; , ; 7 x) uy % uf, : 3. tie . *2 ™ » 7 sy » 7 Ps . a. % . Mae | \ so Ca iaias N oem. aoe eo e ’ > re eS is Rate — £3 ~* a a St — ye A “ © .* 5 > at a am 7 m a . : : . 8 « -% _ er 3 ¥ « ’ ¢ 7 : . sees ow 4 " J fe : ete 1 H © ce 4 , or . 5 See a . re ~ wf , , y ae 4 x Pe " : am 1 ee Ks x rid BA. 4 co } 4aa ? ‘VSS a. —_ >. -_: AS 7 ©. ‘ — ‘. ' A : : saat, -+ ae =e , tae aate M gt “43 >' > $s P oe : “tes ma m ae ym , : . ‘ind ste . a 2 fj ’ - ar a, - GG a ¥J jce

= > : i ee *: ow. a"af‘4 «" é eees ; *e ~~, wy : , af : . + he eo Py hc? 2 » : ai.

lhe. 4*re Oe _ ;' Sh Cm ’ ns we ks ‘ a we %, “hs : ial LS, . pag SS ox * , a ms ‘ + ‘d :

.r=._

a: 7P| ‘ .5‘A 5>: ,be tae) 5 e/a ob 7 rr ee NS, | ‘ae ™ 7 “ Bay ee ie + pee ; Soa coe — 1 tell et Ee =Tae —. enn ; ee, : ee § tui qj* .AI oe a 4; “ee ee a a " ’ * ySO, -. alin oy vf —. nie = y , . i . we ca he ‘ ~ 4a oe" ~*a‘- #4... i . —oo :an ; ss ; weer r 7>p; id - ae _F ;peYs ; ,’‘2..24 4 >r. es ::*.7———as - “4. 7 wf a oe “f aati / bes,“+25 , 5 : “ ie,*ati2 tied e" é + ay: :50 em .*2. Oe eee Fee a. , te % - " + . ~ - » +

oars _ * We . % py 2 wad a ~ as '

3 “= . vra,a “

> th a By ae ig ade a ‘ oe ge @ «> 4 : = » ro ~ > Ee e ere te ote , = .. *. 4 ee we -een ie teaa. Re,~’ a. ope ne " , os eg Dail ' ‘ a — ne ee = s : > = a +> a” =" ; | = 7 ” ; ~ _ . tat s® ie a . me ‘ Pat f'4 % . 3 : =e % » oh re : . = bs . = — of (> al:ay @ ?>atae “:oe -—_ % .,. \~ a‘4 . “+.«oO uU ; he ; Cz —s : _ & t ¥ . x * in i “Me 4C = .fe :Gees -le - «i SERRA .x? ed ~~. > a otk inlee a omWear a ‘ y te ae» , *¥ .ote 7 7> . 7®) * eee, Nee ar a‘>eporEA Se ae ee eB NR te eee see. RS 4eee: TE ;Pe ~*3PDS, ~ee“ SaiSon Ppa Yo Ra< ha So: Ceneet L Py aie ly 8SOE OT ay *PAM < °[ e5% aS ROMER on eee tS ae 3 omen pe Oe ame, oy : Se: ia or aa. a eee Sa ie as aan * e de “te - 4 - 2 io 3 ‘Se. hg. acs . bE "=

adic he aA SS ao) NEES. RN%+, See S ~re" ;—_ ames nes ‘ ; * . “S a! 2 = r. yt . a ==; > ° 2 a. . 5 . eer ete ga tN ig xt Pet We RE he Api Sey —_ NS etd é on

‘a : Ae _- - ¥ S ¥ . é a, » ef ~¥ ‘- A... : ~ tax Thy ’ > A &

’ d« ; e»“—4 '‘"o% :a o al “th >ers-, -™ —> ‘a— “4Oo on © 2. a,- »% °*.~~ as” ..PS att 7 -xs " 4“~*~ ee oy ' Ps- *¥ Sr ORS 4 ae os as ee~iaae %& - , ;‘ » Vibe Fy i ae ; ? “s > ss m —_ “ . : 7 : Ae mu x % ~ ” ne” 4 ” ? < . ~ ** a F : . PD sa » . . ~ ¥ , . — ve = a a * | . ‘ : " PEt= iee~);By oe : BIS P . = NAR > §-* ag “4 . — ae Ls ‘ . rs

See te = 4 __ ‘ Ps wr 7 ; . ." bs ~ . & “ . » |. ¢ e S .ate. ‘: eRea "2 - $P -. r— ‘wee * Gh oe nt ee ee pt ie » .* . a ir" ee te ne tA, P : : ; . ; Y .omy= 2-yes . * 7 J : ? TC ie APs : . % ; ; ‘ a. / 3 ' O ese ; 4 te * rie ; Pe ‘ £ _ a “ % ' , “> O

fas‘ aa eremes #.-Jane ie ey AG 2 -< = Aond 3 . -YPie & at - ge ” >~»,3ct. .-Y 1266 anae -“ :rs ciine ,_=aa‘3se»':ar’ 4 Ye. -ps ; gae is¥4a> . Po! / .>. 4 '-— a. ,;-~~ we Eo eS A es \e ._ SF. Ev "Ain ity 2 ’Geet YY Pad ie am © “ ‘$ . 50 oe _ be. , , a ” Pe aoe —— = te i i ——_—_-_ 4: *: ’a x9 ;4*J .ee

ites ke 7 i . aaf“ Sy . , nigh? : . . ~ Ce :“~¢rya.a-.. 2ies => ~a ~- 7ae +~ 7er x. aeeae: SK.

ne

" :rs: :

poeALAEe . 7¥we vided 4f — - 4r ;r —e >a . ae Fo ™" ja > EH . y * *bsSsllie ; ~ % 4= ‘oe - ¥ay « pte tA _OAs . _ &oe) P a~me < aes ener ;A? ceil »¥ ~a4 Se>-aA. i ”‘' + fSe . a. 4 de . , rs “% ta : : . 4 : . © 7e,:va "hearts i 7 : “N e i .=‘ P, : $;San :_»3.,cae aa= ae 'a> a~| ete,

ke ps , . a = a ;

> ae ’ - +. 2 ad ~~?PFa

PLrate LVII

" i ea - ow = aOe wee ogg 3 ED *. Min » & “— =. b,¢Bd) Star Re i “ie: Me Ty AS Sree ett “sz " iy ' ; -% Ys hn $ YY : +4 >. 7 ’* *%, g QO, 3 ee eG ae a ES Be, sey ia ,.>Bee 4 / e “a . ; ta.” : a» ae * ae x a4 . a *. * ‘ ~* 4 2 e Pe be ii). ey PE he eae S spay 77 5 iia et » : os ee 2 ot ae a ky Ry 2, an 72 4 ig ee . ae * Bm a. oe + Gta eee » ys) ‘oa Mae ®;etNe TN SER : r5. ‘ ROW . Mf Lar. y .oe *: yun »,> eeyt raf ” Ae i, ttn ‘Ng e) ~~ eo 4 4 ~ , . ~ ae . ? as VY e Pie re t . stats : ~* a »Pray om ae ps I.re +4¥4 223 4~ ;~Pe ae Oe he 5—2 Saat 3 “ ss “ er BY Sy ; ae j +: 5 aie 8 re, * ~~ =| t of o g" ’ “ i Fd . — 5 nC eT Ps:.se f.>. rs fs 4fa’ a e- a N»| x:‘pa_ ga to ry — * “a 42 . ty . : ~ S¥3 4 + y . ‘ee ee ee < aes ? Ri : ; | o : ia . iad; a , = ee foie Ff : ! Be oe a re .Se >. ; . ] ; . *. , ty Sd V R e.° ee ae tA . ww Py J 7 tn e £ ” . ” a g ts 5 fang 24 ae perl Vs Ra J x ’ “a _ he. ‘ Fe hs eal bd sag a . = ww Rc eT ae 6 oe we. -b, ~ . . ; o; “ 7 o> .~ “a vf “a : : ae ? a *5 thy 7 ‘ ae : : ‘ ’b* a >. til > :a: ~ - .RAS -.. a , 7fhe . A SRS 3 a Fasroy ~ athe ..H a Pe ne3 *> “>> ‘ fr — 2¢

: oS ; : wt > _ : a Pal | ~ “y . P ~~ Tt " q be by "e “et ds ~, - wr tgs ; y ff , Z | ; . ™ gtr mn "< ‘ * : a 7 “ “a - c.. me é ’ “ Beye dl . * > oe _

ees “64. het all‘7 :i;S~ 4 yAAs t7 :< , ..“Sey er =“-‘Wg eae, 45.“= Be. ck 4 Se te SS “) ree a . : = —— 4 F ¢ ." eed t ¥ $ _ > c per ett —, ::-a~mrKi awer ta°s al‘2atts: og vt ee Tie 2. Se Cas J ain‘4 aneRee oT Me»: 74aA, — hapten as re eve Se

ne a Pe ie ae S;. i ¢. ;—_ oe 0“o< ior : .aae oeoe+ Qe von i ’ a : n > >* “4 fe ; ng Lait

= Ve ~~, Sees ete od we Paints: RI Ml ”.st,> “3 .he “ai a te -aa “3 < PI i Me .eS 7" e : 4% a. 4..we. -iye teReg ~~ PA a¥Rear ’A>. J yO Pee Say i: 7 .s’——— ~. es a;. Ad bie Ny

* me a * ae “a ’ ~‘ =D > © So ee ea oh. a :~* at bose as a 7 _ an v ek . = ei ~ ro % . _— is, = ec ~ ss * a “ ‘a eee ay 3 He ww 5 ~ aa : «>»

= =J‘w-S a oes , “oe -oe é ,2 “ef ie) 7:.}*"2 Te aha oer. . —— Rs : eg. .. Se an . a o De = , Ae “>a rie , . iu pt x ie” = | < 4 , = Agia Ps ae s,s hk 7 wae vp’ rs SO —4 yw. [ dé . me : =i ;7.ee ’“ . Bes £h-~ ee!ryeyi .* ea '‘ =— 2?y4;3— ¥ as Pk rhe . és . -: % a. F :. -. ,3 Ss * oe Si ee eS el » ‘ OX = ’ a : . 7 Y —— ‘ ~~ > : ° *. 2 3 “ . " “y 1% v Te: 4 > » —_ . . = hal my ; 4 . ay sh ; a § a : i. bes : — . = \ 1.©eedy. os vse‘wya we .. :ekaF*wnSign » CREE eae’ -Mt ae . = es

:Nake| aine :aesie ye% &in Se ey q Ey he? sa 5. i Esc=

. mn : ee ‘3 At ie * . yr ~ i ~ a 3 os . Th ‘ ; fs at = es ae. - a beth a a % NETS: he As > lh + , Be ee tt ape “a sa ‘ =} wey » 4 | ~ ~ RY A cae ol By aa ’ . ; : t ey ay ¥ " : a x >, N ial todd Rh ee. ne rr ne tang ame O : wh,7? us+- re a7 SM % %,.gibt: ’ 4, =, oe oe . " ,8” . 4 hy ES >a RienBae a « at te rit SRL 7. ie *to) as aFae & a; ote eee ye‘ "ote SMS ss GR eg EE NS PO Age . * *%, ~ ae > GR oy ae a ie ae Lee AS ; : rsy\ ie . a N, * , - : P~Sabay . ie : . Ea a) bn Bel. a eseek a a *-; ». =) i » of. 4y ~4 *. 7: _%eyyy Monae di: ts* gM} 1eM

je ia. a fey ie a Wh. . , , — «etree: OO Ua 4 D

SE. ee in BR ae ee ee Z ; ~“Ss ie .~"» “s eP . s 7— ii ; Ate ™ ‘ ms “ ?

7~a. AES a™ ie c Lee: te~esGe sntS Re a 5. % ee ¢Fii >. ' ee 2h.“tn < pees i ysar neeye yaones .‘ ».opr, fSones — .Bey i le+o Sot. ~“hn Sen vane sePres teas oy Fwh7~“

ei Pe? . ; 5 4 na, - 2 : _ : - “> . Sor are ee me # * 1 ae: > *Ps Boer ea eeos :wai aad aS>my .cre=via eS oe ge?~~ : “a“a “ .Ta-¢ ores.m. - ve

oe a ee + — i. :=° . Be— : : _ps:

Pirate LVIII

at" . «ci. | iw,- .(eee Fe tn 2 x a P 4 = ' an = —— ae % : € £3 +

.“2. ,~ ‘A— ‘ oI vy yy B‘as ‘;: LR +:~ :|te -a. ee..:7 a“-“-h;he =. yial;~.he “ > * 4 : . a) « ’ : so 4. » e ¢ - — a

ay .ae:oe :re

. i: A ss 5ie:, 8 ay A 9 Te % , y ‘+ ,

; 4h ~ PO ee a * > e * Mies, pay Sy ¥% . } ae res Rite NR oe , pew EASES eS he i st =

eee MG a | OE i i ne he I ne oe PBS aie : DP ib: Shes Va OF A” Bo, ¥J ‘-pay ; v nt, S jee Ry Lok es cs » ** ‘ 7 / rie ee. : . . , A as ’ | gs a 8 ee Ee %, — $ >, > ' ; me a eh F et OE ec ; , ‘ Pr o ; ” : : , ~ ot Qe el . , 7 . id ah oo 7 /. 3 7 438 —_ ~« a A , ie me i3. Kv Wa, oe yi, ae ie »;.7*s é tat €3 3 BS & ig , , Ao by ‘ . f s 3 at ; « "eS 3 _ : . re , we e* 7 Bee: Daler Pp . . : id | ha . “7 iT ¢ 4 , “J . ae a a

x . ”. 47: J5* a*.

. ~f , Sara P sie “yy —, * 1# . fo «ee ” 43 be Ae ‘ . “| y FJ B ay) Ff “a § me . a” es Ay. oe “4 “de bab 3 4 AS

4% . 7i »Nate - ~”oA . ee «4% wie ‘ ee a“46S . . .alte ag. = : aLao ee(Tu. oe.a na A at. of nae ~x Write a"~— *Pe Ney

a :£ -;F* -VE 7 ° A, P anh 4.iat il Y * * 3 » Mes i, sas hh” me aw” aa 3. -s 4ie$ads LL=

, rkhest 3 4 > Mod. eA ‘- Ve .a te . >. *ae“4 :*s’4;

~ i x4 A td hg s .* -* ¥ 5 7 >. ; -’ r=

4a hy - oets Wiis! i Sit, oore a *% ‘whey " voor, :es‘ ”a 4 fas Ga t 2 ae, A -. a :‘f ‘a ~~ e 1 a ‘ % ’ ‘ s% a y y : 4 i = ae a Ae SR Ue 45 ie" . of rts , 4 “=; ° . 7 . Z cae & ata el ie ee F % 7 v * es —— * a tnt bees . OO thi fa ae ed, Se Ts oe ae bf > ee > 5 hem Rie & 49 be One gt ae ‘ yy? ‘ Meat 7od a 2.9, ke’ so jm 4 Ys7, * +; ;at..4Pe : *A - P wr. op S CL, tf jest ES Bee -4 Je 5 . . ee P wa eM ¥ ep? s. °} a on %ISLES a -«* piseee 4 ~~Mg - %Poy . ‘7 -*" se “" i ih + 7 7 * ¢. - a —— “tn - at wing 4», SS es— gis a>.oe: es Se ee “e % La% einen ‘ A. oe reapt ere Ris .: os ‘ ‘ . ~ > bd > ye f ‘Os ope P . ‘AT we eae ee er ee ay ry »* : , » § 54, %* eS ~ ae “gyck Bo oe - » * oe | “ fy a » > ; _——

_ a its eater fi stl é >” : ~. : . : « "; as ~~ £ : ‘tw . a . © oe ~ ee egy a ~. =. ; oe 7 Nag . Bee P “oe ig -* .

eS Ce 2 Ta a

ee Kay :Lge. ,Teeeuittgs ' er; .Oe:-a| .hes a aeOR aa! i ae ee ae

Pirate LIX

7 7 iE ES BE 2 AL ON. ye See Sn a . pte. o> ae ie ee" aE EP oA 3 ee ee ety Oe ag. RPE PEI SD ied gait Saar a. , -we. 5.*Sa . 4-Ry o— : : a "Cae > OK 2 = 2ey ut, Aleem oS La i ' . : ‘ , , oar u E F ‘ ; er, 4 A BORE: “ : rea Q + os me. Ep NS ae a at : cn F: ». >, os sot ne Se eS ~ = ~ & Boy x ; top a ¥ : a, Sy SOD oe om a+ are. .Sn eee ee oeeymF ts: ‘ ©. — ~> TOOT? oii . ;oe sf ee aS Him "WigXY a a ’ on. . / . — aes J ome wee. x . ae - , amen et] . ; 5 _ » -

‘ . 3: is ? ae” CP tee) iEeeSee ES,.aekes 3eSpene J coat a coey, = -aie5 Ss .a Aeya ae, =isMANE ime ES! geee3) ee Tas oFao é : ?al“hee agle | SEAS Ee ¥ CPaepene RMR eh erorsAO rgtre PERS | AEST SY ta A ee

gt ee: >i%,| 2_° \.: ee Sea 3 di f >an ae ?:os He aS ‘ i ss Sr Bak CR” ie Som eM SS Oe of (ON eee

Pod . eo SNe eK Pa el i SS . ¢. ~s a3 >. Z =a‘~~ “~~ .et— Pe “ea “. _" ned >. a ec"==. bh . — : . . e . *) . 4-4 ore Vy sy a ' 2 : a Bt ae »a. "‘7 + , 2 ) “< » “ey q —— Se ay =a ce"OTs ae=aapene &' - :te, Za. awe e-Me — 2 - f*tailed Le ’-*oe ~~ ) -we Sy vio _~, & w | ~ ry X% "\ Nj . A; . \ . . . ee 3

?~ :Say: xe % ee le 5be 1%! ,~a:os” ae x Lint 2 Sees *. ~NE a1 a ort aneFrsis ae aais ™ 338 .pm] ‘ SS +t .¥ ° ie > ~~ ha Oe 2aae 2ER 3 “oP ,AED, wih oy~:Me, — : = ee tea-——_ =3 *. ;\am 5p g* ae me eee a : eis ed + “« . ROE az 7enBie APos ee AOE —— nae! a , 9 a eee * re Sw —e . | s ' RR >} Cee j ay Mi ig. ih apttoagre® a3 ee oe — “ rs oP ee . + eas oa $F ae ae a } a ea Ot alas SS GD eee ite _ 4% :Z~ae : ~— =—RS fe ~PRCT “SOE aE- 54 me ey ae tia, .A ie+7 Ps 52; =. “~ We— on6. are RT A, -Cay) ry ee.

~ ~—Ta. Na ~“ou aoeeedPp .g2uww”tm ‘ ie. WS ’ ‘ 23¥+] gee f“ is 9— et.ae >Ae Vesa wy Se Be .“a‘:£6. 4“ee bas -~~ -of;feay - '*~’tes . *»ey at ere%*: a .aES ;~rh,” : Sas :5 .Cas »| gate a »Pp —_ —_—r = We, veer.) EM oe >. % 7s “ Fh oo : Pag 2 —~ ~ 5 : ‘ ; aiff ay ee *. i 2 ey, ‘ \y ee a 2. 4 om” . 4J” ~OR & I,mat 2ssaw aty MAN aSENG aYe }’ Se rte SY —iwe A“eerae Fa ‘nad At=. . .at2. ;ie F :; a‘,SaPat % =- Ba o" ' Te - faROR ~rseo =: &'

eS * ve ‘ ai Re J|ued oa »th™* +fae %. .e wae ee BS re ee eff | ge Las Bods Ad DBS | —_ gs NO "he a / . 4) d . « : aA -) —” i lh ng at ~~. >, sig wea ta Se PDs Vketi... ~ oema ete:| ee ie Or, oFas gtseae > Sr a *©seort ~"=Say ~ “NE Lie oi — . ? Wns nal “et ~ ee ’ ° 7 ee Rt > -.fos al 4 4 “a Pe g° &, ~te “ ee + y Ss (| an\ea : .oo gee: vas “ Ss * 4 ; 2 ~ ae” eae vege Y —) | ° oh li ee og ee » ek i ‘fe Pr a. . ye \ Na

Wtinenag? 3-,_¥ 4°5*aeae2°Pg? = -- -“i. Sa Sa - a3oe,‘“> ery. p> < A 2 j ae ~ . + = r, ®“Gee ae ae | A BY e™ 4 noe ~ oe — es 2 ay ea " eens ‘“— zz 4 — ~> id > ay Wz pont os 4 a> ~, ee.” . ¢ ~~ . > agp. Ds Sare i BS Se te ae ta . ~ S4 .2B meee RL, ¢9. We =3~~ ca -ine Co etl “aos Ts - .;— a' Pe Re oA ee eeSea ee ae Sion 9* -)> je- ee TT..nd .7 oa ;: Z 4 oe 7, — ~~" ow, : ~ ~ > . be ' j bd £48 " ne ie ’ + ata iSie™ &a Vs > De CGI oe EP é tae ae a .a % ox -gg J ,)‘_e =|SeOD . ‘fod :"4 hea. Be id R ‘“g . _.»:oe ->~~ *a” --2.*. 3 Bre a A, >. a gy o. .ee eean Cae! iPPes «‘CAS £.“ “ee mm ote . >. ‘ n ne oe ” > . 4 Naty Mi. Py Seater a ‘ a: m | ESeg oneER rae ew aa ae. “ay” fshee &Oe be ee WE Se Dee es ‘a . OS m = O. Vee od s sey) =rfAe were : - .RD "BEA . > SS -= * ™~ } x r Fs, ae . ae ee é wD 2, wire 1& ty abv . ae -- ‘. “ Y , , ; 4 : < . ol 7 . . > A) \ oy ,.«~ i.|€ Oe, a*fed bs b> Sages SoS hat>So Fee ~ Sealed ae ea. aa - eS> “7;ef . co yi>! * . . 7eV . a te. = S o~ ae i,‘aus.>Ogeee OS. teAa Pe . _,al ae ad tte afF oo Tee rey \‘a pe) ls :Stay "SN 2 hel osee AU > . : *yan . ‘ 4/~-.x . :a| = i& » -y2% we 2< : ae . oC.O : vw , Kee am Se _ ‘ na , #ae— . t~Ca =) “&, ‘iaae oT.’ bo he / TR A f ->: “, My ie ae 4iy #de*;Fo:a as a io a”‘Ore aLae e's ”“ ; > |“way Prac ah a Wee 3 “©POE ab: eo = fies : ©=

ge ae a a *s oe ite ’ _ . A °% ~ a. et ea apie . aT° ;foray Pee> . °”Se mR. aS :eth :.‘y* ;a .ecg Z,ed ,:, eer ,*7+.> ty,i> Sy / :ae 5e;:ae. Det e SP pe oom ©¢y aais 4: as’ ».. N ‘ ; : 4 : ar diy > ° a’ re, ef » Dee SRI 2 a° r.°: of S Me +s y af “oil 55’ YY 6S See nae oe “eg oa . . : ; J “al ’ aed ; , ia ce

/ ‘ % 2 3 a o> ° v ; “ee es ad tin > a : . o>" 4 x) ; 55 . nd —_ ~: ;Jo .*) ae - ’.44 ve ~ Aa‘ “4 Ts a—_— “/ {x 5D Un : > De by "a ” aes om oP-i:ee Y 7) ’ Ba Cd env» fas 4 . .% ‘ 7‘ 4A he 4 _ mt, . : : > iA . Aa sy? > ‘ ” on . rw “ i. wo i “+ A 2 7 *n 7 YY x~_> . 8ln. * ¢, Ks Pe epit PsSi ae " “’us=Ds $5 4 “ett oie *Rear b ’. ‘fe .4“ lt ; @ = Ping ae tf ~ -, “ yy ; “ eo : adie _ . _ « y Oy ~- -3 “a > a“ 4. * **Seat > - ee =. vote “ode ed 7 ea > ~ k i ely _ o*% « ; 7. ¥ "ee ax » , ’ymf. .28not yi Ves . -Sian pred” a¥.,‘> . -.& Aea&_ped aN saree wr eee 2 aS. 42, hn:Soe saav3.J.»iosTy eS

> : * $ ie 4 4& = ‘iF . ‘ / ‘2 ou ™ Za) iow 5ae t ;$*xOR i.,bi™ 4na.PUG hf ' ; A *y ; y on mn Lif : cS aE "£/ *\ . 1 4 1 st * ie:tadfiPe “+. get . .*: 2: \aRt 4 ,NS ; °Ss j it ae : “—_ ;A ells A

. Zz ‘line » af- agente eestied ‘ * %a,° — ~ ome or or AM eta OE -

ia wt

, 5 ee ' * aend +o 'sro a —— ae -4 - : ee ' -— meme os ass-"=e i tt,(eee aoO ttt—™ ell a :a‘Suits .ee - +: raion _te=—— en - | e :ee .A *»eS ’ ~~ genes YY “net