From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context [Reprint 2019 ed.] 9780520924833

Citation preview

T H E

A H M A N S O N

F O U N D A T I O N

has endowed this imprint to honor the memory o f F R A N K L I N

D.

M U R P H Y

who for h a l f a century served arts and letters, beauty and learning, in equal measure by shaping with a brilliant devotion those institutions upon which they rely.

HELLENISTIC CULTURE AND SOCIETY General Editors: Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and Andrew F. Stewart I. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, by Peter Green II. Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, edited by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White III. The Question of "Eclecticism": Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edited by J. M. Dillon and A. A. Long IV. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, by Richard A. Billows V. A History of Macedonia, by R Malcolm Errington, translated by Catherine Errington VI. Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., by Stephen V. Tracy VII. The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora VIII. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, by Julia Annas IX. Hellenistic History and Culture, edited by Peter Green X. The Best of the Argonauts: The Redefinition of the Epic Hero in Book One of Apollonius' Argonautica, by James J. Clauss XI. Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics, by Andrew Stewart XII. Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, edited by A.W. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart XIII. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, by Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt XIV. Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos, 3 1 4 - 1 6 7 B.C., by Gary Reger XV. Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C., by Robert Kallet-Marx XVI. Moral Vision in The Histories of Polybius, by Arthur M. Eckstein XVII. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, by Getzel M. Cohen

XVIII. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 3 3 7 - 9 0 B.C., by Sheila L. Ager XIX. Theocritus's Urban Mimes: Mobility, Gender, and Patronage, by Joan B. Burton XX. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C., by Stephen V. Tracy XXI. Pseudo-Hecataeus, "On the Jews": Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, by Bezalel Bar-Kochva XXII. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, by Kent J. Rigsby XXIII. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, edited by K Bracht Branham and Marie-Odik Goulet-Caze XXIV. The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and Their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C., by Joseph B. Scholten XXV. The Argonautika, by Apollonios Rhodios, translated, with introduction, commentary, and glossary, by Peter Green XXVI. Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, edited by Paul Cartledge, Peter Garnsey, and Erich Gruen XXVII. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, by Louis H. Feldman XXVIII. Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, by Kathryn J. Gutzwiller XXIX. Religion in Hellenistic Athens, by Jon D. Mikalson XXX. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, by Erich S. Gruen XXXI. The Beginnings of Jewishness, byShayeD. Cohen XXXII. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria, by Frank L. Holt XXXIII. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-I 17 CE), by John M. G. Barclay XXXIV. From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, edited by Nancy T. de Grummond and Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway XXXV. Polyeideia: The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition, by Benjamin Acosta-Hughes

From Pergamon to Sperlonga

From Pergamon to Sperlonga Sculpture and Context

EDITED BY

Nancy T. de Grummond and Brunilde S. Ridgway

UNIVERSITY O F CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley

Los Angeles

London

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2000 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data From Pergamon to Sperlonga : sculpture and context / edited by Nancy T. de Grummond and Brunilde S. Ridgway. p. cm. — (Hellenistic culture and society ; 34) Articles based on papers presented on Feb. 21-22, 1997, at the Fourth Annual Langford Conference of the Department of Classics at the Florida State University. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-22327-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Pergamum Altar of Zeus (Sculpture)—Expertising. 2. Grotto of Tiberius (Sperlonga, Italy)—Expertising. 3. Sculpture, Hellenistic—Turkey—Bergama. 4. Sculpture, Roman—Italy—Sperlonga. I. De Grummond, Nancy Thomson. II. Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo, 1929- III. Langford Conference of the Department of Classics (4th : 1997 : Florida State University) IV. Series. NBgi.P4F76 2000 733-3—dc2i 00-037775 Manufactured in the United States of America 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z3g.48-ig92 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

/

PREFACE

XV

/

ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION

/ /

vii

xvii I

Nancy T. de Grummond and Brunilde S. Ridgway Culture as Policy: The Attalids of Pergamon Erich S. Gruen

/

17

Pergamo ara marmorea magna: On the Date, Reconstruction, and Functions of the Great Altar of Pergamon / 52 Andrew Stewart Pergamon to Hierapolis: From Theatrical "Altar" to Religious Theater Mary C. Sturgeon The Sperlonga Sculptures: The Current State of Research Brunilde S. Ridgway

/

The Phantom of a Rhodian School of Sculpture J.J. Pollitt

92

/

Odysseus at Sperlonga: Hellenistic Hero or Roman Heroic Foil? H. Anne Weis Pergamon and Sperlonga: A Historian's Reactions Peter Green

/

Ubiquitous Barbarians: Representations of the Gauls at Pergamon and Elsewhere / 19/ John R Marszal

/ 78

/ 166

111

58

vi

CONTENTS Pergamene Influences on Etruscan Hellenistic Art Stephan

/

235

Steingràber

Gauls and Giants, Skylla and the Palladion: Some Responses Nancy

T. de

/

255

Grummond

A P P E N D I X : L I T E R A R Y S O U R C E S FOR S P E R L O N G A BIBLIOGRAPHY

/

2 8l

CONTRIBUTORS

/

JOJ

INDEX

305

/

/

275)

ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS, PLAN, A N D C H A R T Map 1. Greece and Asia Minor Map 2. Italy

/

/

xxi

xxii

Plan: T h e Akropolis, Pergamon Chart: Genealogy of the Attalids

/ /

xxiii xxiv

F I G U R E S (following page 316) 1. Model of the Great Altar (scale 1:20). Western side. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 2. Two architrave fragments from the Great Altar, with dedicatory inscription. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 3. Drawing of the Great Altar, east side (scale 1:20). 4. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos. 5. Dedication to Zeus Keraunios, from the Great Altar terrace. 6. Dead Giant from the east frieze of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 7. Personification of Tragedy (Melpomene) found on the north side of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 8. Striding divinity, probably Poseidon, f o u n d on the Altar terrace, probably an akroterion from the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 9. Model of the Great Altar (scale 1:20). Interior court, with the so-called vii

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS Lesser Attalid Dedication restored o n the sacrificial altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum.

10. Bronze coin of Pergamon showing the Great Altar, minted under the emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 1 9 8 - 2 1 7 ) . London, British Museum. 1 1 . Dying Celt, dead Giant, dead Amazon, and dying Persian, copied probably from an Attalid m o n u m e n t on the Athenian Akropolis (the so-called Lesser Attalid Dedication). Naples, Museo Nazionale 6 0 1 3 - 6 0 1 5 . 12. T h e Battle of Marathon: painting at A t h e n s as restored by Evelyn B. Harrison. 13. Cornice blocks from the sacrificial altar in the interior court of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 14. Dedication of spoils from the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon. 15. Balustrade relief from the stoa of the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 16. Reconstruction of the sacrificial altar in the interior court of the Great Altar, with spoils superimposed. 17. T h e Altare della Patria (monument to Vittorio Emanuele II), Rome, by Giuseppe Sacconi. 18. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos, as in London, British Museum, reconstruction since 1976. 19. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos: model by E N. Pryce, ca. 1929. 20. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos. L o n d o n , British Museum, frieze slab no. 879. 21. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos: Arbinas reclining. L o n d o n , British Museum, frieze slab no. 903. 22. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos. L o n d o n , British Museum, no. 924. 23. Nereid M o n u m e n t from Xanthos: reconstruction of east façade. 24. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: reconstruction by G. Waywell. 25. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: reconstruction by K. Jeppesen. 26. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: seated figure, frontal view. London, British Museum, no. 1047. 27. Mausoleum of Belevi: reconstruction by W. Hoepfner. 28. Mausoleum of Belevi: the deceased on his sarcophagus. Selçuk Museum. 29. Mausoleum of Belevi: lion-griffins flanking marble vase. Selçuk Museum.

ILLUSTRATIONS

ix

30. Heroôn of Gjôlbaschi-Trysa: drawing of exterior. 31. Heroôn of Gjôlbaschi-Trysa: inside of entrance. за. Heroôn of Gjôlbaschi-Trysa: detail of city siege. 33. Heroôn of Gjôlbaschi-Trysa: Bellerophon and the Chimaira. 34. Altar of Athena, Priene: reconstruction by J. C. Carter. 35. Altar of Athena, Priene: standing figure in Berlin, Staatliche Museen. зб. Altar of Athena, Priene: seated Muse in Istanbul, Archaeological Museum. 37. Altar of Artemis Leukophryene, Magnesia: reconstruction. 38. View of theater, Aphrodisias. 39. Theater façade, Corinth: reconstruction of sculptural arrangement. 40. Head of Trajan, Corinth S 364. Corinth, Archaeological Museum. 4 1 . Bust of Antoninus Pius(?), Corinth T 1047. Corinth, Archaeological Museum. 42. View of theater, Hierapolis. 43. Septimius Severus crowned by Victoria: relief from the theater, Hierapolis. 44. Seated Zeus from Pergamon, precinct of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. 45. General plan of grotto, Sperlonga. 46. Reconstruction of groups in grotto, Sperlonga. 47. Imperial ossuary from Megiste, detail. Athens, National Museum. 48. Head of "Diomedes" from the Palladion group. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 49. "Odysseus" from the Palladion group. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 50. Reconstruction of the Skylla group from Sperlonga. Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. 5 1 . Reconstruction of the Skylla group from Sperlonga. Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. 52. Steersman (Odysseus?) from the Skylla group. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 53. Plaster reconstruction of the Pasquino group by B. Schweitzer.

X

ILLUSTRATIONS

54' Plaster reconstruction of the Pasquino group: photograph after N. Himmelmann, 1995. 55' Glass paste with Pasquino group (first century B.c.). Würzburg, Martin von Wagner-Museum inv. 6257. 56. Legs of Pasquino youth. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 57- Head of older Pasquino warrior, showing helmet decoration. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 58.

Statue of a youth by Stephanos. Rome, Villa Albani.

59' Head and upper torso of Pasquino youth. Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi. 6o. Head of older son of Laokoön. Musei Vaticani. 6i.

Mars Ultor. Rome, Musei Capitolini.

62. Romulus: fresco from Via dell'Abbondanza, Pompeii. 63. Ganymede. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 64. Venus Genetrix. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 65. Marble plaque with epigram of Faustinus. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 66. Mosaic inscription. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 67. Putto with Bacchic mask. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale.

68. "Odysseus" from the Palladion group, back view. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 69. Ludovisi Gaul group. Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme 8608. 70. Capitoline Gaul. Rome, Musei Capitolini 747. 7 1 ' Bearded Gaul attributed to the Lesser Attalid Dedication on the Athenian Akropolis. Venice, Museo Archeologico 57. 72. Relief from Kyzikos. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 564. 73- Gaul from the Fayum. Cairo, Egyptian Museum C.G. 27475. 74- Sandstone stele from Bologna (Felsina). Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico 168. 75' Faliscan stamnos. Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1569. 76. Pergamon Battle Monument: reconstruction by J. R. Marszal. 77' Bronze plaque from Pergamon, now lost. 78, A m m e n d o l a Sarcophagus. Rome, Musei Capitolini 213. 79

Calene cup: drawing of relief. Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut R 37.

ILLUSTRATIONS 80. Etruscan (Chiusine) urn from Città della Pieve. Florence, Museo Archeologico 74232. 81. Terracotta frieze from Civitalba. Ancona, Museo Nazionale delle Marche. 82. Galatomachy relief from Rome. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, no. 167. 83. T h e Blinding of Polyphemos: wall painting from the Tomba dell'Orco II, Tarquinia. 84. Head of Odysseus (nenfro), from Ferento. Viterbo, Museo Civico, inv. no. 435. 85. Head of Odysseus. Aachen, Stadtmuseum. 86. Skylla: relief from the Tomba delle Sculture (Tomba 4822), Tarquinia. 87. "Typhon" figure: painting on central pillar of the Tomba del Tifone, Tarquinia. 88. Vegetation goddess: painting on central pillar of the Tomba del Tifone, Tarquinia. 89. Centaur on silver rhyton from Civita Castellana. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 90. Terracotta "Apollo" from Falerii. Rome, Museo di Villa Giulia. 91. Terracotta heads from Arezzo-Catona. Florence, Museo Archeologico. 92. Terracotta head of an Amazon from Arezzo-Catona. Florence, Museo Archeologico. 93. Terracotta heads from Volterra, Akropolis, Temple A. Volterra, Museo Guarnacci. 94. Terracotta heads from Volterra, Akropolis, Temple A. Volterra, Museo Guarnacci. 95. Terracotta group with Mera (Menerva), from Bolsena. Florence, Museo Archeologico. 96. "Dying Adonis" o n a terracotta "urn" from Tuscania. Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco. 97. Female head (limestone) from Bolsena. Roma, Museo Barracco. 98. Man's head with lion's paw on top (nenfro). Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. 99. Medusa head on coffered ceiling. Perugia, T o m b of the Volumnii.

xi

xiì ÌOO.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Heroic battle scene: terracotta urn from Chiusi. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts.

101. Bronze cast coin from Rimini: obverse, head of Gaul with torque; reverse, oval shield. 102.

Anguiped monster: Etruscan black-figure vase from Vulci attributed to the Micali Painter. London, British Museum BM B 62.

IO3. Anguiped monster: Praenestine bronze foot of a cista from Tarquinia. Copenhagen, National Museum. IO4. Anguiped monster: Etruscan bronze mirror. The Manchester Museum. IO5. Anguiped monster: Etruscan bone mirror handle. Hannover, KestnerMuseum inv. 1550. I06. Mnrva (Menerva) fighting Akrathe: Etruscan bronze mirror. Gigantomachy with pisciped: Praenestine cista. Cambridge, The IO7. Fitzwilliam Museum. Gigantomachy with pisciped: Praenestine cista. Munich, IO8. Antikensammlungen. Minerva and Giant: Praenestine mirror. Berlin, Staadiche log. Museen. Gigantomachy: Tarentine bronze mirror cover from Praeneste. Palestrina, 1 IO. Museo Archeologico. Skylla and other themes: Etruscan ivory pyxis from Chiusi. Florence, Museo 111. Archeologico. 112.

Skylla and other themes: Etruscan sandstone stele from the Certosa cemetery, Bologna. Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico.

Skylla: detail of Etruscan sandstone stele from the cemetery Giardini 113. Margherita, Bologna. Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico. 114. 115. Il6.

Skylla: Tarentine mirror handle. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Skylla: Etruscan relief mirror from Tarquinia. Brussels, Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire. Reconstruction drawing of the Tomb of the "Siren," Sovana, by J. C. Carter. Ground plan of the Tomba dell'Orco, Tarquinia.

Aita, Phersipnei, and Skylla(?): wall painting in the Tomba dell'Orco III, I l 8 , Tarquinia. 117.

ILLUSTRATIONS 119. Skylla attacking a ship: patera from Cales. Berlin, Staatliche Museen. 120. Skylla attacking a ship: Hellenistic relief bowl. Berlin, Staatliche Museen. 1 2 1 . Skylla attacking a ship: clay seal impression from Didyma. 122. Marble sculpture of arm with the Palladion. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 123. Marble sculpture of striding figure. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 124. Hand of striding figure. Sperlonga, Museo Nazionale. 125. Roman silver denarius (46 B . C . ) , reverse: Aeneas carrying the Palladion and Anchises. London, British Museum.

xiii

PREFACE

The articles contained in this volume are based on papers presented on February 21-22, 1997, at the Fourth Annual Langford Conference of the Department of Classics at The Florida State University. The conference is organized each year under the direction of the Langford Eminent Scholar in Classics, a chair endowed by the family of George and Marian Langford. The Langford Scholar for 1997, Brunilde S. Ridgway, selected the theme and the participants in the conference and guided the intellectual development of the sessions. Professor Ridgway, at the time about to write a volume on Greek sculpture of the second century B.C., conceived of the idea to hold a conference bringing together two of the most spectacular ensembles of sculpture that have been associated with that century, from the Great Altar at Pergamon, with its Gigantomachy and Life of Telephos, and the Cave at Sperlonga, with its epic themes connected especially with the adventures of Odysseus. It is clear that numerous problems exist concerning the two groups, beginning with their dating, and extending to their historical background, archaeological context, style, iconography, and function. Decisions about the relationship between the two must be based on careful sifting of evidence and opinions about each contained in the extensive scholarly literature. Although the conference did not proceed as a systematic march through these problems, at various points the existing questions and arguments were probed, and many new insights were developed. The papers presented here incorporate many of the fresh, creative ideas that arose during and after the conference. The widespread enthusiastic reaction of audience and participants, as well as the many inquiries from those who were unable to attend, led to the decision to publish the papers. Upon the identification of two major topics that could further illuminate the arena of debate, two additional XV

xvi

PREFACE

articles were commissioned for this volume. J. J. Pollitt was invited to present an overview of the problem of the relationship of the art of Rhodes to that of Pergamon and Sperlonga, and John Marszal was asked to probe the questions associated with the representation of the Gauls in Hellenistic and Roman art. T h e editors of this volume have many to thank for the general success of the Langford Conference and for help with the publication of the proceedings. Christopher Pfaff served with Nancy de Grummond as coordinator of the conference, and Carola Maitland and Heidi Grey oversaw numerous details of distribution of information and registration. Norma Goldman created an exciting finale for the meeting, with her fashion show, "Heavenly and Earthly Dress in Ancient Greece and Italy," which included live models wearing the costumes of "Eos" and "Nyx" from the Great Altar, and of Odysseus from the Polyphemos group at Sperlonga. The useful and handsome conference booklet, organized by Carola Maidand, has been pardy incorporated into this publication, serving as a resource in the selection of maps, chronology, genealogy, and literary and epigraphic evidence. Andrew Stewart assembled pertinent texts and inscriptions on Pergamon, while Anne Weis selected the relevant passages for Sperlonga. Kimberley Christensen served as bibliographical assistant for this volume. Glenn Kidd provided important assistance in computer technology. T h e Classics Department of T h e Florida State University extends its warmest appreciation to George and Marian Langford and their sons, Lawton Langford and G. Robertson Langford, Jr., who, with their sympathetic vision of the need for advanced research on topics of the ancient classical world, made possible the conference and this publication. The present writer would like to record as well sincere gratitude to Brunilde Ridgway, who as Langford Professor participated enthusiastically in the life of the Classics Department at Florida State, generously sharing her knowledge with colleagues and students and exerting her boundless energy on their behalf. Finally, special thanks are due to Paul Psoinos, copy editor of this volume, for his knowledgeable reading of the text and his valiant efforts to introduce some consistency in the spelling of ancient names according to their Greek, Etruscan, and Latin contexts. Nancy T. de Grummond

ABBREVIATIONS

This listing follows the abbreviations for journals, series, and standard works used by the AmericanJournal

of Archaeology, as specified in vol. 95 (1991), 4 - 1 6 .

AA AAA AbhGött AbhLeip

Archäologischer Anzeiger 'ApxcuoXoyiKa AvaXeKra Adrjvwv Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse AbhMainz Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur im Mainz AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJP American Journal of Philology AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung AAi-BH Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, Beiheft AMUGS Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine (Berlin, 1 9 6 9 - ) ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini (Berlin, AntK AntK-HH AntP AntW AnzWien ArchNews ArtB ARV2

1972-) Antike Kunst Antike Kunst, Beiheft Antike Plastik {Berlin, 1 9 6 2 - ) Antike Welt: Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Philologisch-historische Klasse Archaeological News Art Bulletin J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-ftgure Vase Painters, 2d ed. ( O x f o r d , 1963)

xvii

xviii ASAtene AvP BABAS BCH BdA BEFAR BICS Bfi BMCRR BSA BSR CIL

cj

CP CR CSE DialArch EAA EHCA FdD GGA GöttNach HdA Helbig 4 HSCP IDélos IG ISE IstForsch IstMitt Ivi IvP Jdl Jdl-EH ßlS

m

JRG7M JRS UMC MAAR MEFR

ABBREVIATIONS Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente Altertümer von Pergamon (Berlin, 1885-) British Archaeological Reports, International Series Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Bollettino d'Arte Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, University of London BonnerJahrbücher H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum (London, 1 9 1 0 ) Annual of the British School at Athens Papers of the British School at Rome Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Classical Journal Classical Philology Classical Review Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum Dialoghi di Archeologia Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica, Classica e Orientale An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, ed. N. T. de Grummond (Westport and London, 1996) Fouilles de Delphes (Paris, 1902-) Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Handbuch der Archäologie (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft [Berlin, 1931-]) W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, 4th ed., ed. H. Speier (Tübingen, 1 9 6 3 - 7 2 ) Harvard Studies in Classical Philology F. Durrbach, Inscriptions deDéhs (Paris, 1926) Inscriptiones Graecae L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (Florence, 1967, 1975) Istanbuler Forschungen (Berlin, 1932-) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul P. Frisch, Inschriften von Ilion (Bonn, 1975) M. Frankel, Inschriften von Pergamon (Berlin, 1890, 1895) Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Journal of Roman Studies Lexikon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicele (Zurich and Munich, 1981-97) Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Française de Rome

ABBREVIATIONS

MemLinc MonAnt Müjb NSc OGIS ÖJh OpRorn PergForsch PP (¿ITA RA RANarb RAA RE REA RendPontAcc RivFil RM RM-EH Roscher SbBayrAkad SEG SGDI SIC? StEtr StMisc TAPS WS

xix

Memorie: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche Monumenti Antichi MünchnerJahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig, 1903) Jakreshefle des Osterreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien Opuscula Romana Pergamenische Forschungen (Berlin, 1968-) La Parola del Passato Quaderni dell'Istituto di Topografia Antica dell'Università di Roma Revue Archéologique Revue Archéologique de Narbonne Rivista di Archeologia Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. Pauly and G. Wissowa (1893-) Revue des Etudes Anciennes Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia: Rendiconti Rivista di Filologia Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologisches Instituts, Römische Abteilung Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, Ergänzungsheft W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, vols. 1 - 4 (Leipzig, 1 8 8 4 - 1 9 3 7 ) Sitzungsberichte, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum H. Collitz and F. Bechtel, Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen, 1 8 8 4 - 1 9 1 5 ) W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3d ed. (Leipzig, 1915-24) Studi Etruschi Studi Miscellanei, Seminario di Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte Greca e Romana dell'Università di Roma (Rome, 1 9 6 1 - ) Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Wiener Studien

Byzantion

THRACE

MACEDONIA Pella.

Amphipofe. , I «fc • '-c. ^i^r »r j Thessalonike

Vergina •

BITHYNIA > C3

EPIROS

ASIA MINOR IIA AEGEAN SEA

Lesbos

AITOLIA ¡Thespiai

fi\\ ^ MESSENIA°

Corn i th

Euboia

^rC

Tegea^g^. Sparta\ " *' LAKONIA Melos

^

^CUy PHRYGIA " * D ' AIOLIS •Aigai LYDIA 'Sardis c Smyrna IONIA .^.Ephesos j

Ä

r ^ CAR, A g M D e t e ^V -ft T. fRR«*™ ;Halikarnassps j?' LYKIA & Rhodes

MEDITERRANEAN

SEA

Map l. Greece and Asia Minor.

X)ci

100 Mi. L. Maggiore^

J ^

J^ValCamonka

L C a m 0

160 Km. Varese se

L

L d'Iseo I Brescia (Brixia) 1

J l|

L

Garda

Bologna (Felsina) Villanova'

Marzabotto* ^Carrara (Luna) Monte Albano

, Fiesole

..Arezzo Volterra . .Cortona Casal Marittimo \ O . Perugia Populonia Vetulonia .'|Chiusi * Rusellae "¿Orvieto Bolsena* Talamone\ c ' o s a

. Sovana

Caprioli^ Ferento* Santa Ilaria Blera ^Tarquinia" ^Luni

Civitì^astellana

' S a n Giovenale

(Falera)

Manziana. Q ^ Cerveteri

Alba .{ Rome Fucens . Alatri Ferentino. ^ Arpiño * Pietrabbondante _ Fondi (Fundi) 'Saepinum CirceiV.-,i - - Teano '.Cales Temaci na

Capena

'Cumae Formia / Minturno . Ischia

.Veii / Monte Abatone

. -_ «5

»n «o

O

ID

• Î 2

4)

G

s

S

G

•«5

•2 £C

-2

r

2 J

'C

H

am TrfXet^ov TWV vfivwv, TTpooaSovoi 8« otiSev e? rov Evpthm~ Xov ("I myself know that to be the reason for the practice at the Asklepieion in Pergamon, where they begin their hymns with Telephos but make n o mention of Eurypylos"); id. 5.13-3* ^ (WTO Kai ev T-fj Hepydfiai TRJ inrep TTOTafWv KCUKOU TTiTrdiOaati' ol TW TR]Xeov dvovrez- can yap S-q ovSe Toiiroif avaßrjvai irpo Xovrpov ITapa TOP 'AOKXT]mov ("The same rule applies to those w h o sacrifice to Telephos at Pergamon above the river Kalkos; they too cannot go up to the Asklepieion before they have bathed"). For Auge's monument, see Pausanias 8.4.9, with Ziegenaus i g 6 6 , 4 5 0 - 5 5 ; AvPXI.4, pis. 70, 7 1 . 16. Heroön versus nymphaion: supra, n. 3, with H o e p f n e r 1993a, 113; for the remains, see now Radt 1995. 17. AeliusAristeides378,10 Keil; Az/PVTII.3, no. i 7 7 ; c f . Ohlemutz 1940, 263-65. 18. For the evidence see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 45, 100, 289, 4 5 5 - 5 7 ; Allen 1983, 151 a n d n . 27; Fehr 1 9 9 7 , 5 5 (mistakenly down-dating her last appearance in the sources

T H E GREAT ALTAR OF PERGAMON

53

to 175, and overlooking Hoepfner's observation about the alignment with JigmaTepe); Souda, S.V. 'AiroXXwvidf Xip.vrj- "OTI "ATTCLXOS O rrjz'Aoiai fiamXevi NiKOfirjSei TU> MOVOSOVTL TToXtfiiqaai ¿KpaTrpe rrji avrov ^ojpas', aXX O fih> 'PoifiaiovS imKaXiaap,EVOf aveXafie Tf}v dpxfjv. rqv eavrov ¡XTfepa 'A iroXXowidha /xeraXXa^aaav Kara TO fieyiarov I€pov Ilepydjxov Karedero, otrep avroi ¿Sei/xaro, rrjv re yeirova. X(¡xv-qv avrrj Trpoawvofiaaev ("Apollonis's Lake: Attalos the king of Asia made war on Nikomedes One-Tooth and conquered his country, but he called in the Romans and got back his kingdom. After his mother, Apollonis, had passed over, Attalos installed her in the biggest shrine in Pergamon, which he had built himself, and named the nearby lake after her"). O n the Kyzikos temple, see Anth. Pal. 3 . 1 - 1 8 , with Brilliant 1984, 3 5 - 3 7 , and especially Stupperich i 990. 19. Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 457, with 138 n. 24 on the Nikomedes problem; on the tumulus, see supra, n. 4. 20. Cf. Stahler 1978, 858, 860; Kastner 1986, 28; Hoepfner 1996a, 134, and *997 a > 53; F e h r *99721. A t i ' V I I I . i - 2 , nos. 189, 190, 2ig(?), 226, 232 (Zeus Keraunios), 241, 3 7 1 , 381 (?), 404, 408, 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 7 , 426, 430, 436. See also Sturgeon, infra, p. 74. 22. Thus Ohlemutz 1940, 4 1 - 4 2 ; Hoepfner i g g 6 c , 25. 23. AVPV11.2, nos. 422, 423, 438; on these see Ohlemutz 1940, 6 6 - 6 7 . 24. AvPlll.2, pis. 2 , 1 1 , 23; the bases with this motif are AuPVII.2, nos. 422,423. 25. AvPIII.i, pis. 10, 12.1; M. Kunze 1986b, no. 29, fig. 32; Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1996, no. 31; La Rocca 1996b, no. 31; Heilmeyer 1997b, no. 35. 26. For much of what follows see Kahler 1948, 15, 118, 1 2 6 - 2 7 , and pi. 65; contested in particular by Stahler 1978, 8 4 5 - 4 7 ; o n the alignment of temple, Altar, and Jigma-Tepe (the largest of the tumuli on the plain below), see supra, n. 4. 27. Ohlemutz 1940, 32, 60; for the joint dedications, AvPVIII.i, nos. 37, 56, 58, 63, 66, 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 225; and for the frieze see AvPII, 5 0 - 5 1 and pis. 29, 30. 28. O n what little we know about the relations between king and city, see Allen 1983. 159-7729. O n the placement of the inscription, see Kahler 1948, 127. T h e distance between the top of Nike's head and the corner is only 3.5 m, and these three words would take up 3.6 m; adding XAPI2THPI0N as well, as Kahler suggests, would require 5 m, but as noted earlier (supra, n. 13) this formula is used only in dedications of sculpture and other votive offerings, not on buildings. 30. AvPVIII. 1, no. 167 (= OGZS299). 31. Clara Rhodos 2 (Rome, 1932), 1 7 2 - 7 4 no. 3; improved text by Segre 1932, 446-52; Allen 1983, 2 1 1 no. 7; brought to my attention by Peter Green in his response to this paper at the Langford Conference. 32. See AvPy. 1, 32-33, 68, 73, and pis. 15.1, 16.1. Discussions: Kahler 1948, 144; M. Kunze 1 9 9 0 , 1 3 5 - 3 8 ; Schmidt 1 9 9 0 , 1 4 7 - 4 8 ; Borker 1990; Hoepfner 1996a and 1997b, 6 3 - 6 4 ; Andreae 1997, 126. 33. Hoepfner 1996c, 25; for the coffers and capitals as rejects, see already Borker 199034. Strabo 13.4.2; on the pottery see supra, n. 3. 35. For the historical events see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 8 8 - 9 2 , i o i - 2 7 ; A l l e n 1 9 8 3 , 7 9 - 8 1 . For the frieze and the campaign of 188, which culminated in the great victory at Mt. Olympos in Galatia, see Moreno 1994, 416, 430-32 (though here, the Romans and

54

THE GREAT ALTAR OF PERGAMON

Pergamenes were assaulting the mountain, whereas in the Gigantomachy the Gods were defending it). For the events of 183, see Peter Green in his response to this paper at the Langford Conference. O n Pergamene attitudes to the Celts, see most recently Stewart 1996b, 2 1 6 - 2 0 . 36. While noting Eumenes' alliance with Antiochos IV and Antiochos V, SchmidtDoumas 1993, 16, argues that the hybrid Giants are Near Eastern, and thus anti-Seleukid. Against the oft-repeated view that Nyx's serpent-wreathed pot on the north frieze refers to the defeat of the Pergamene fleet in 183 by Hannibal and the Bithynians through this stratagem, see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 99; but cf. Stewart 1993b, 163. 37. For a thorough analysis, see Yfantidis 1993, 230-35. 38. O n Macedonian shields and the starburst, see Liampi 1990 (reference kindly supplied by Brunilde Ridgway). [On the starburst as a recurring motif in the Gigantomachy, see de G r u m m o n d infra in this volume, p. 260.—Eds.]. O n the accusations see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ; G r u e n 1984, 5 5 8 - 6 3 (rejecting them as a Polybian fiction); and Green 1990, 429; Allen 1983, 80, strangely opines that Eumenes "was only vaguely interested" in the war against Perseus. 39. For the sources see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 2 1 - 2 2 . O n the frieze and family solidarity in the context of these rumors see Schmidt 1990, 1 5 0 - 6 2 . Inter alia, he identifies Hera and the Four Winds on the east frieze as surrogates for Apollonis and her four sons, Eumenes II, Attalos II, Athenaios, and Philetairos, but in the context of an explicit anti-Roman agenda that I, among others, cannot accept: see Stewart !993 c > 7 l 6 40. For the sources see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 1 2 4 - 2 5 ; Allen 1983, 80, 1 4 2 - 4 3 . Differing interpretations: G r u e n 1984, 569-78; Green 1990, 429. 4 1 . Polyb. 31.6.6; cf. esp. Allen 1983, 8 0 - 8 1 . 42. H o e p f n e r 1993a and 1997a, 53; also Peter Green in his response to this paper at the Langford Conference. 43. AtiPVII. 1, 74 and nos. 41 (Zeus A m m o n ) , 4 7 - 9 7 , with Schulte 1963 and Ulrike Kastner's reconstruction of the excavations in M. Kunze 1986b, 1 0 - 1 5 , figs. 5, 1 o. O n their location and architectural setting see Hoepfner 1 9 8 9 , 6 1 4 - 2 7 ; Hoepfner 1993a, 116; H o e p f n e r 1996a, 1 2 3 - 2 4 , figs. 5, 8, 1 5 - 1 8 ; Hoepfner 1997a, foldouts 3 and 4 and fig. 27; H o e p f n e r 1997b, fig. 1. 44. In a comment cited by H o e p f n e r 1989, 627 n. 37; H o e p f n e r 1993a, 116; Hoepfner 1996a, 123; and Hoepfner 1997b, 60; accepted also by Moreno 1994,432; cf. Fehr's suggestion that they are "the mothers of heroes of the empire's cities" (1997, 54). A parade of this kind is not unprecedented: cf., e.g., (1) the women personifying the cities of Asia liberated by Alexander, in Ptolemy II Philadelphos's great procession of 2 80 or 276 (Athenaios 5.201D-E); and (2) Ptolemy IVPhilopator's group of H o m e r and the cities that laid claim to him, in the Homereion at Alexandria, ca. 221-205 (Aelian, VariaHistoria 13.21). For these and other Ptolemaic personifications see Stewart 1996a, 2 4 1 - 4 3 , and 1998, 2 8 1 - 8 2 ; and for their Roman successors see Kuttner 1995a, 6 9 - 7 5 . 45. "Gift" cities: Ephesos, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Telmessos, and Tralleis (Polybios 21.45.10; Livy 38.39.17). Tributary cities: Priapos, Sardis, Skepsis, Temnos, Teos, Thyateira (recognizable by their issues of cistophoric coinage): see Allen 1983, 1 0 9 - 1 1 . 46. Tragoedia-Melpomene: AvP VII. 1, no. 47; ibid. no. 60, from the east side of the Altar, has a cutting on her upper left thigh, possibly for a kithara; ibid. no. 61 has

THE GREAT ALTAR OF PERGAMON

55

a cutting on the rock she sits on, possibly for a mask; and ibid. no. 76 has a cutting and dowel holes by her left breast, probably also for a kithara. These figures tire often connected with a presumed cult of the Muses on a terrace between the Altar and the Athena sanctuary (so, most recently, Lucia Faedo, in LIMCVlll s.v. "Mousa, Mousai,"no. 261, with earlier bibliography), but the evidence evaporates when examined closely: it consists of AvPVIII.i, no. 184, a single votive dedication to Dionysos and the Muses found in the rubble of the Byzantine wall to the west of the Altar terrace. Like the dedication to Zeus Keraunios (Fig. 5), this one could also have been inspired by the Altar (though Ohlemutz 1940, 97, believed that it originated in the theater, which seems unlikely given its findspot in the wall above it). 47. AvPVll.i, no. 87; Hansen 1971, 456-57, with older bibliography; Smith 1988a, no. 29. Not a bust: several of the female torsos from the terrace are segmented in the same way. 48. Kallimachos, Aitia frr. 1, 2, 75 (line 77), 86, 112 Pfeiffer; Iambi fr. 202 Pfeiffer; Apollonios, Argonautika 1.22, 3.1, 4.2; Aratos, Phainomena 16; Theokritos, Idylls 1.9, 20, 64 (etc.), and 144; 5.80; 7.12, 37, 82, 95, and 129; 9.28; etc. 49. RE s.w. "Thespiades," "Teithras"; also LIMC s.w. The Thespiades were fifty in number according to Anth. Pal. 16.92, Apollod. 2.4.10, Diod. 4.29.3, and Paus. 9.27.6—who, however, differ on how many nights it took Herakles to bed them. O n Teithras see esp. Kearns 1989, 96, 199. 50. Steph. Byz., Ethnika s.v. "Thespeia" (whence Eustathios adlliadem, 2.498, p. 226, 6—7): ®«"r€ia, ttoXiS BoiwrriaZ.... ©eamdSov (mcr/xa, tov Tevdpavros tov Tlavbiovoz. ("Thespeia, a city of Boiotia . . . . The home of Thespiades, son of Teuthras son of Pandion"). On Aison's squat lekythos in Naples (AJiV21174, no. 6), Teithras fights the Amazons next to Phaleros: IG XI.4 nos. 1206-8, a late third-century Attalid progonos monument on Delos, shows that they adopted him too. On this monument, see Wilhelm 1914, 148-56; Robert 1973, 478-85; Schalles 1985,127-35; HintzenBohlen 1990, 140-41, and 1992, 146. 51. Heroides 9.49-55 (Deianeira to Hercules): Non ego Partheniis temeratam vallibus Augen nec referam partus, Ormeni nympha, tuos; non tibi crimen erunt, Teuthrantia turba, sorores, quarum de populo nulla relicta tibi est una, recens crimen, referetur adultera nobis, unde ego sum Lydo facta noverca Lamo. ("I'll say nothing of Auge betrayed in the vales of Parthenius, nor of your labor, nymph sprung of Ormenus; nor will I charge you with the daughters of Teuthras's son, that crowd of sisters from whose number you spared none. But there is one affair—a fresh offense I've heard of—that made me stepmother to Lydian Lamus"). 52. OG/S310-11 (= IGVII 1788-90, SEGXV317-18); Allen 1983, 207-8, nos. 1 (a)-(c), 749 (SEGXV319); Allen 1983, 207-8, no. 1 (d); Schalles 1985, 36-38. See also Gruen, supra, p. 20. 53. OGIS 750 (= SEGXV 320); BCH26 (1902), 155 no. 5; Fraser 1952, 237 (ignoring the sculptor's signature and mistakenly identifying it as yet another land-grant stele); Allen 1983: 184, 187-88, 208 no. 1 (e). An epigram added by a certain Honestus identifies the statue as Thamyris, presumably the one mentioned by Paus. 9.30.2; the connection was made independently by Lippold in RE s.v. "Kaphisias" (1919)

56

THE GREAT ALTAR OF PERGAMON

andbyPreuner 1920,403. O n Kaphisias see also Loewy 1885, nos. 1 1 9 (victor statue of a herald at Tanagra) and 554 (perhaps a list of sculptors). 54. Suckling group: Paus. 9.31.2; an Attalid connection was first tentatively suggested by Preuner 1920, 403; cf. supra, n. 9 on the Telephos Frieze's version. For Argiope see Diod. 4.33; her name is evidently calqued on Telephos's own: "Farlight." 55. O n Alexander's visit to Siwah see Bosworth 1988, 72-74; the popular tradition seems to have begun with Kleitarchos in the late fourth century. 56. AdPVII.i, no. 131; found near the church of Aghia Kyriaki, just above the lower agora and below the lower gymnasium. See Radt 1981 for the attribution; cf. Stewart 1993a, 332-33, 428, and figs. 128-29. 57. ADPIII.i, 45; VII.i, 168. 58. Comparanda: Stewart 1990, figs. 524, 537, 538, 592-94, 656, 657; Webb 199 6 . figs- 37. 3 8 59. Gravestones: e.g., Pfuhl and Möbius 1977, no. 2272; cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 468-71 (Xanthos). 60. Exterior: AvPIII.2, pi. 1. Interior: Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1 9 9 6 , 1 7 , scenes 44-46; Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 93, figs. 15 and 16, where the seated male clearly has pointed ears, and so must be a satyr. 61. See supra, n. 4. 62. As usual in the Hellenistic world, the cavalry was the Pergamene army's main strike force. The precedent for honoring its casualties in a victory monument would have been Alexander's Granikos group: Stewart 1993a, 123-30, T 104-107 (sources); for a general trend toward honoring the dead in Hellenistic victory monuments, see Rice 1993. 63. AvPIII. 1, 7 6 - 7 8 and pi. 17.1. 64. AwPIII.i, 5; Price andTrell 1977, fig. 217 (color); M. Kunze 1986b, no. 101, fig. 92; Kästner 1997, fig. 2. 65. AwPIII.i, 45 right; VII.1,168 right; Hoepfner 1989,630-31; Hoepfner 1993a, 117; Hoepfner 1996a, 129-30; Hoepfner 1997b, 64-65. 66. Harrison 1972, fig. 1. 67. Hoepfner 1993a, 1 1 6 - 1 8 , figs. 5,6; Hoepfner 1996a, 1 2 5 - 3 1 , figs. 4, 1 1 - 1 4 ; Hoepfner 1997b, 65-67; for the figures see, e.g., Stewart 1990, figs. 6 8 5 - 9 1 . 68. AwPIII.i, 67-75; Kästner 1986, 27; Hoepfner 1989, 628-29; Hoepfner 1993a, 1 1 6 - 1 8 ; Hoepfner 1996a, 1 2 5 - 3 1 ; Hoepfner 1997a, 5 5 - 5 7 ; Hoepfner 1997b, 64-65; Kästner 1997, 7 7 - 8 2 and figs. 7, 8 (but David Rupp informs me that his inward-facing spur walls and terminating antae are unparalleled, and should be discarded). 69. I thank David Rupp for this and much other information on ail unfamiliar genre. O n ciboria see especially Rupp 1975, 359-75; Cüppers 1963, esp. 23-27; and Weber 1990, 2. 70. Hoepfner 1993a, 118. 71. M. Kunze 1990, 129-30; Kästner 1997, 81. 72. Brunn 1870; Hoepfner 1993a, 1 1 6 - 1 8 , figs. 5, 6; Hoepfner 1996a, 125-30, figs. 4, 1 1 - 1 4 ; Hoepfner 1997b, 6 4 - 6 7 ; for the figures themselves, see, e.g., Stewart 1990, figs. 6 8 5 - 9 1 , with Pausanias 1.25.2; Plutarch, Antony 60. For the numismatic parallels from the 160s and 150s see Boehringer 1972, 147 and pi. 22.2. 73. Rupp 1980.

THE GREAT ALTAR OF PERGAMON

57

74. Analysis shows that the Aix Persian and the quartet in Naples are definitely of Asian marble, and similarities to the work of Aristeas and Papias from Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli suggest that the carvers may have been Aphrodisians. Lucian (Iuppiter Tragoedus 33) remarks that the herms in the Athenian Agora were "covered in pitch" from such castings; see, in general, Lippold 1 9 2 3 , 16, 43, 45, 52, 66-68; and HeesLandwehr1985. 75. Preserved footprints on Hellenistic statue bases show that the figures they supported usually measured from one to three times the base's height. So any statues on the sacrificial altar should have measured from around 6 feet to a giant 18 feet high. 76. For this rule, which Ann Kuttner tells me applies also to Roman architecture, see Hoepfner 1996a, 121. 77. The recendy discovered bases to the Akropolis groups (Korres 1994,1 o) show that the victors were definitely included, as Pausanias and Plutarch indicate. Korres will publish these bases in an appendix to the present author's forthcoming study of this monument, Little Barbarians: A Tale of Ten Statues. 78. AuPIII.i, 45; VII. 1, 168. 79. For the litde evidence that is published, see, e.g., Marcade 1 9 5 3 , ig57;Pouilloux i960, plans 11 and 1 3 , with pis. 34, 39, and 40; and for a rare Pergamene example of a cutting with a central dowel hole, see Ai/PVIII. 1, no. 240. Pediments: Stewart 1977a, 4 5 - 4 6 , fig. 3. 80. AvPVIII.i, no. 38. 8 1 . Paus. 1.4.6; on Pergamene spoils see Launey 1 9 5 0 / 1 9 8 7 , 942-44; and on spoils of arms and armor in general, Pritchett 1979, 2 7 7 - 9 5 ( c f- 2 3 8 - 3 9 ) , a n d 1 9 9 1 , 68-73, 132-4782. For details of these see Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 7 - 4 0 , 1 4 3 ; Allen 1 9 8 3 , 8 1 - 8 5 . 83. AvPIII.i, pi. 19. 84. See esp. Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1 9 9 6 , 1 6 - 1 7 , and 1997, insert inside front cover, scenes 18-31. 85. On stoas and spoils see Pritchett 1979, 287-89, 293; and on the three Athenian stoas see Paus. 1.3.3, 1 - 1 5 - 1 _ 4 > 1-26.2; 1 0 . 1 1 . 6 , 1 0 . 2 1 . 5 - 6 ; cf. Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 9 0 - 1 0 3 ; Camp 1986, 6 6 - 7 2 , 1 0 5 - 1 0 7 . 86. See, e.g., Gaehtgens 1996, 5 3 n. 1. 87. For a concise summary of the debate see Hautecoeur 1 9 5 7 , 2 9 0 - 9 3 . 88. NH34.52; comments, Stewart 1990, 2 1 , 197, 220, 238.

Pergamon to Hierapolis From Theatrical "Altar" to Religious Theater Mary C. Sturgeon

Architectural structures of many periods project specific messages about the power of their respective cities, leaders, and patrons, messages which are of heightened significance when interfaced with a system of religious beliefs. This symbolic use of architecture is a characteristic of western Anatolia from the fourth century B.C. through the Roman period, for in these epochs Asia Minor witnesses elaborate mausolea, decorated altars, and sumptuous theaters. In many instances these architectural types—mausoleum, altar, and theater—are far from straightforward, monofunctional buildings conveying a single theme. In the most luxurious examples, both the size and the configuration of the architecture and the sheer quantity and subjects of the sculptural decoration make the expression of political power and the claims to dynasty or imperium explicit, specific, even overwhelming. In Roman Anatolia, altars and temples are established to serve the imperial cult, competing in importance with, though not replacing, Greek altars. Besides temples explicitly devoted to the imperial cult, key places for the enactment of ritual in support of imperial power are theaters, in which sculptural decoration celebrates the duality of traditional religious beliefs and the new imperial cult. Since the ruler and his actual or mythological family are depicted on many monuments, it may be useful to consider how architecture and sculpture combine to convey certain ideas and how the aggregate of certain sculptural programs with political agendas may help illuminate each other. In addition, if Hellenistic altars, because of their lavish sculptural and architectural displays, can be pronounced theatrical, it is an interesting cultural inversion that a number of their religious functions, symbolic as well as actual, are later carried out in theaters. This chapter considers the decoration of luxury architecture as the focus

5«

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

59

for the display of political and religious power in Anatolia between the fourth century B.C. and the Roman period. It is, indeed, most welcome that the Fourth Annual Langford Conference, through its auspicious tide, "Sperlonga and the Pergamon Altar," encourages reconsideration of these pivotal monuments against a broader art-historical and cultural context than is often customary. Each monument is well known to general as well as scholarly audiences, but, because of the lack of sufficient ancient testimony, many questions continue to plague us regarding the reasons for their construction and the varied meanings they conveyed upon completion. In the Late Classical-to-Hellenistic period, the most striking uses of architecture with decorative sculpture to convey political messages in religious contexts are in monumental tombs to local dynasts. Although the names of the dynasts are not always certain, the size of the tombs alone is sufficient to convey their importance and power. Three large dynastic tombs are among the most familiar monuments of ancient architecture: the Nereid Monument at Xanthos, the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos, and the tomb at Belevi. THE NEREID MONUMENT FROM XANTHOS T h e Nereid Monument from Xanthos (Figs. 18, 19), in the British Museum since 1844, has long been recognized as one of the most important Classical monuments of western Asia Minor. T h e fine publication of the sculptures from this tomb by Childs and Demargne ( i g 8 g ) provides a detailed photographic record of the sculptures, new reconstruction drawings, and thorough, scholarly treatment. Childs presents convincing arguments to support a lowered chronology of about 380 B.C., a redating long anticipated in the scholarly literature. The occupant of the tomb is identified as the dynast Arbinas, an important figure known from inscriptions at the Letoón and at Xanthos on the Inscribed Pillar.1 T h e monumental scale of the architecture and the lavish and unprecedented quantity of its sculptural decoration provide clear symbols of the owner's wealth, erudition, and power. T h e sculptures, which are extensive, serve to celebrate the dynast's life and to extol his power through a visual narrative of his exploits. These exploits grow progressively more symbolic until they become conflated with the feats of mythological heroes, as the dynast is symbolically subsumed to their plane of existence, promoting the idea of his eternal afterlife and heroization. Reliefs occur in five major areas of the building: at two levels on the podium, on the architrave and celia walls, and in the pediments. Sculptures also appear as akroteria and between columns. The so-called Historical Frieze, the second frieze counting from the base, crowns the podium. It contains scenes from the life of Arbinas, with one city siege per side, including

6o

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

the dynast crowned in combat, receiving emissaries, and seated beneath the parasol which declares his rank (Fig. 20). Most interesting for our purposes is the fact that in this frieze the dynast may appear more than once in the same visual sequence, establishing a prototype for the Telephos Frieze at Pergamon. The third frieze is on the architrave, where various dynastic activities are shown: Arbinas hunts, he is victorious in batde, he receives offerings, and preparations for a celebratory banquet take place. In the fourth frieze, on the outer cella walls, the banquet is shown at its height (Fig. 21). The singular position of the dynast is emphasized by the fact that he is one of two figures (the other being his son) who dines alone. In addition, his larger size may indicate his elevated importance and possibly his heroization. Besides the banquet, the fourth frieze also includes a sacrifice, with procession toward a central altar, and an assembly. Injected into this otherwise realistic scene is a winged Victory, an allegorical figure which suggests that it is the hero's cult which is celebrated at the ritual banquet. If the fourth frieze carries a suggestion of heroization, the lowest frieze on the podium appears more certainly heroic. Here, a batde is in full sway. The heroic or epic aspect is implied by the nudity of some warriors and the generality of the combatants, such that they cannot be identified, making the battle appear universal, though with similarities to an Amazonomachy. The dynast, in Persian tiara, is possibly identified with Herakles or Theseus. As the lowest frieze is closer to the viewer, the figures would also appear larger and more impressive in scale. Both pediments are figured, with a batde on the west and the deceased enthroned on the east, where he appears semi-draped, his upper torso bare (Fig. 22). The use of the pediment for the dynast carries heroic connotations, since sculpted pediments typically contain depictions of gods and heroes, and his costume clinches the association. Scenes of the royal hunt, visible on the architrave immediately below the pediment, provide the final symbolic support for Arbinas's heroization (Fig. 23). The subjects of the akroteria are debated. Peleus and Thetis have been suggested for the west, and Hades and Persephone or Helen and Theseus for the east. But Evelyn Harrison has argued that the west contains Auge with the drunken Herakles because of the way his head is supported by a human hand. 2 Since Arbinas put a bearded Herakles head on his coins, it may be that he was claiming Herakles as his ancestor, and thus the idea of Herakles is appealing. The figures between the columns are traditionally called Nereids from the sea animals by their feet. They recall the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, whose son, Achilles, popular in Asia Minor, achieves heroic stature and immortality. Their windblown drapery almost implies that they are perched between the columns, as if ready to convey the deceased to the Islands of the Blessed.

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

61

THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALIKARNASSOS A second well-known monument, the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos, erected about 360-340 B.C., stands in the tradition of the Nereid Monumentin form and in quantity of sculptural decoration (Figs. 24, 25). In this case, more is known about the occupant, the Karian leader Maussollos, who appears to have situated the tomb himself when he established Halikarnassos as the capital of Karia. He positioned it at the west end of the agora, in a location analogous to that of monuments in honor of founding heroes. 3 It is not certain if Maussollos was represented as clearly as the dynast is on the Nereid Monument, but Maussollos is certainly glorified and his power symbolized by the size of the structure, by its form, which references the Egyptian pharaohs as well as earlier rulers in Anatolia, and by the overwhelming number and size of the sculptures and their subjects. The best-known part of the decoration, the Amazonomachy Frieze, was probably high on the podium. Up to 86 feet of it is preserved; although this span may seem unusually long, it would cover only one side of the monument, which measured 95 by 1 1 7 feet (29 X 35.6 m). This frieze contains a depiction of Herakles, and thus the battle is the one that takes place against the Amazons at Themiskyra. This batde, then, is heroic. Is it employed at Halikarnassos to elevate Maussollos's victories over his foes, or might it also have asserted Herakles as his ancestor? Less well preserved is a chariot frieze which has been restored on the top of the cella wall.4 The elongated proportions are striking and may be related in part to their height on the building and therefore the more acute angle of sight from which they would be seen. Morever, a fragmentary Centauromachy is associated with the step-base for the quadriga at the peak of the monument, as the Deeds of Herakles (or Theseus?) are with the coffers. When considered in addition to the architectural sculpture, the number of freestanding sculptures is staggering. Geoffrey Waywell estimates that there were 3 1 4 to 330 statues placed at various levels, while Kristian Jeppesen increases this number to 3 7 5 to 4 1 0 . These include animal as well as human figures, of which the latter were made in three sizes, somewhat over life-size at 1.80 meters, heroic at 2.40 meters, and colossal at 2.70 to 3.0 meters tall.5 From the sculptures in the round three subjects are suggested: a battle between Greeks and Easterners (life-size), standing figures (heroic), and a hunt and sacrifice (colossal). As all three subjects also occur on the Nereid Monument, they appear to be traditional iconographic components of fourth-century monuments in southwest Anatolia which celebrate the power of the ruler. Many figures thought to represent Maussollos's ancestors were depicted on colossal scale, immeasurably elevating the dynast's own importance. Jeppesen has made the interesting suggestion that one colossal seated male figure, which appears even larger than the others, be restored in front

62

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

of a recessed blind door on the east, with tribute-bearers bringing him offerings from both sides (Fig. 25). This would create an audience scene reminiscent of the one on the Nereid Monument as well as at Persepolis. T h e colossal seated figure has a preserved height of 1.95 meters, but its standing height is estimated at about 4 meters, making it even larger than the standing figure traditionally called "Maussollos." T h e seated statue wears a shortsleeved tunic, himation, and high boots rather than trousers (Fig. 26); the right hand possibly held a patera, while the left was raised. Because of its size and seated position, this is the best candidate for Maussollos. 6 Waywell associates this figure with the "Sacrificial Group" or audience scene and describes it as wearing Karian dress and a mande painted purple. He cites as its depth 1.12 meters, and thus he puts it on a step at least 1.25 meters in depth high up on the podium. Jeppesen records a greater depth of 1.65 meters, which leads him to the restoration illustrated in Figure 25. Regardless of the correct measurement, Jeppesen's suggestion of a central focus for the largest group of figures in the round is compelling, pardy because of the narrative aspect of sculptures on the Nereid Monument and here, and because this gives the sculptures meaning of a sort that seems commensurate with reliefs from the Nereid Monument and the Near East. Lions appear here as well as at Xanthos, acting as tomb guardians and alluding to the regal aspect of the deceased. At least fifty-six lions once stood, possibly, on the pyramid's steps, though their location and compositional arrangement are debated. At Halikarnassos, sculpture and architecture combine to convey the theme of dynastic power. T h e sculpture helps define multiple messages first established by the combination podium, temple, and pyramid for the tomb. Evidence for some kind of ritual activity is more concrete here, as traces of a ritual meal or sacrifice were found in the Danish excavations of the funerary chamber below ground. Jeppesen suggests that the raw meat was intended for Maussollos, as it was not burnt in the manner of hero cults. 7 THE BELEVI MAUSOLEUM T h e tomb at Belevi, the least well-known of these three, is located northeast of Ephesos. Although conjectural dates have varied, it is suggested that the tomb was built for Lysimachos, who lived roughly 3 6 1 - 2 8 1 B.C. His death occurred unexpectedly in the north, causing work to be interrupted, but the tomb is thought to have been completed by Laodike to be used for the Seleukid king Antiochos II Theos, her former husband, who died, also unexpectedly, at Ephesos. This scenario, while complicated, seems possible, though it has not been universally accepted. 8 Though reconstructions vary, they include a podium, a peristyle quasi temple or altar court, and, less likely, a pyramid (Fig. 27). Regardless of its ex-

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

65

act shape, the combination of podium and templelike form with significant amounts of sculptural decoration recalls the tombs at Xanthos and Halikarnassos, though its later, third-century date may explain muted Eastern aspects in the architecture. The monument's size indicates a person of considerable importance, while the sculptures proclaim the regal status of the deceased and his Eastern affiliations. Inside the rock-cut chamber in the base is a stone sarcophagus with a representation of the deceased, shown as if reclining at his funerary banquet (Fig. 28). Before him is a standing figure known as the "Oriental Servant" from the sleeved garment and leggings that he wears. Sirens mourn on the sarcophagus front, as if suggesting real mourners before this semi-tableau. Lack of finish is apparent in the Sirens as well as in the head of the reclining figure, yet on the building's exterior, painted coffers and Corinthian capitals create the impression of a finished monument. Sculptured coffers from the peristyle display the Centauromachy, and a scene with pugilists suggests funerary games in honor of the deceased. Liongriffins flank marble vases as roof sculptures (Fig. 29), while cuttings indicate that pairs of horses, perhaps with grooms, stood at the corners. The liongriffins, guardian figures as well as royal symbols, exhibit strong affiliations in style with sculptures from Persepolis. The animal roof-sculptures at Belevi recall the earlier lions at Halikarnassos and also foreshadow those from the Pergamon Altar. The sculptures also include over-life-sized statues, surviving only as fragmentary limbs, but they suggest large-scale figures standing, most likely, between the columns. T H E T O M B S AT GJOLBASCHI-TRYSA A N D LIMYRA IN LYKIA

Two smaller decorated tombs which functioned as heroa—those at GjolbaschiTrysa and at Limyra in Lykia—provide different modes of celebration of the deceased's life and, very likely, of his heroization. These lack the monumentality of the first group, but, nevertheless, they employ narrative sculptures in a similar manner to extol the virtues and manly character of the deceased. The Heroon at Gjolbaschi-Trysa presents an entirely different format— a small tomb set in a walled temenos, with the wall heavily decorated with reliefs outside and in (Fig. 30). The altar and temporary wooden building inside the enclosure suggest cultic activity, perhaps banquets and offerings. Because of the reliefs' location, the viewer could walk along, reading the sculptures as if they were easel paintings hung closely adjacent to each other in a gallery. This feature, together with many of the compositions, has led scholars to suggest that the images derive from prototypes in the Theseion in Athens, and the location, on an interior enclosure wall, likewise anticipates that of the Telephos Frieze at Pergamon. 9 The reliefs from Trysa, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna,

64

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

are astounding for their range of subject matter and their connections to pictorial prototypes in mainland Greece. The site and its owner may appear remote and obscure today, but it mattered to this landlord that his tomb contain the latest Athenian fashions, and designers were evidently imported to that end. The variety of subjects may be pardy determined by the size of the enclosure wall, but it would appear that the patron chose topics that would celebrate his virility and extol his prowess through parallels with mythological triumphs. The monument is dated about 380 b.c. or a bit later, slightly after the Nereid Monument. Here, too, influence from mainland Greece is combined with Near Eastern elements. Over the exterior entrance façade are four winged-bull protomes and a gorgon, apotropaic figures suggesting Persian influence. On the interior appear two male dancers, one bearded, and musicians recalling Egyptian Bes figures, the whole perhaps recording Lykian ritual (Fig. 31). As with the larger tombs, the Trysa reliefs combine real life and myth. Childs has argued that the Lykian city siege represents a historical battle, as it is in keeping with the many other such scenes known from this area, and thus it may record a victorious episode from the ruler's life. The banqueting scene is located near the banqueting area, a position not likely due to chance, and thus a ceremony marking the ruler's victory, receipt of gifts, or funeral banquet may be represented. The scenes with a royal couple and an enthroned prince may set off, notably in an elevated position, the ruler and his wife, the honorees and the family to whom the perpetuation of ceremonies honoring the victorious dynast would have mattered the most (Fig. 32). But the majority of the many subjects depicted in the Trysa reliefs are mythological. The myth of Bellerophon is particularly relevant, as the myth is localized in Lykia, and thus Bellerophon may form a possible candidate for the ancestor of the dynast. Its significance is indicated by its signal location, immediately next to the doorway (Fig. 33). Other scenes include several that stand as a warning against hybris, like that of Meleager and the Kalydonian Boar Hunt.

At the site of Limyra, Borchhardt has uncovered an imposing structure, a heroôn that occupies a dramatic setting overlooking the city from a great height. This is a podium-temple tomb he identifies as the Tomb of Perikle, the Lykian dynast who ruled about 360 b.c. The building recalls the Nereid Monument in structure, but it also harks back to the Athena Nike Temple in Athens, set up on a podiumlike bastion, and the Erechtheion's Karyatid porch. At Limyra, the Karyatids, wearing high kalathoi, appear to represent young girls performing sacrificial functions for the cult, since they hold rhyta and phialai. 10 The building supported two friezes on the exterior cella walls with processions of riders and foot soldiers. A number of questions surround their

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

65

interpretation. T h e dynast seems to be represented, and thus this is not his funerary procession, but perhaps his departure for a batde and for the hunt, subjects that form regular components of Anatolian monuments, notably before the time of Alexander. T h e varied headdresses may distinguish different ethnic groups or tribes. Most interesting is the realistic representation of a crowd, which anticipates by some centuries similar groupings in the Telephos Frieze and on Roman historical reliefs. Akroteria present Perseus and Medousa on the north, with Pegasos and Bellerophon, the Lykian hero, featured in the most prominent position on the south. As with the previous monuments discussed, historical events seem combined with mythological groups to characterize and elevate the deceased. THE ALTAR OF ATHENA AT PRIENE The tradition of altar decoration in Asia Minor, as now known, develops along different lines. The Altar of Athena at Priene, for example, consists of a colonnade, not on a podium, with figures on balustrades between columns which give the impression of individual podia (Fig. 34). Joseph Carter's 1983 study of the altar resulted in new associations beyond the standing figure in Berlin (Fig- 35)A seated figure in Istanbul in the so-called Ourania pose is convincingly attributed to the Priene altar and helps promote identification for the east images as Apollo and the Muses (Fig. 36). Dates for the altar have alternated between the third and second centuries B.C., but Carter's, of the later third century, seems reasonable. T h e Priene altar stands at 12.20 by 6.10 meters. 11 THE ALTAR OF ARTEMIS LEUKOPHRYENE AT MAGNESIA T h e Altar of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia is considerably larger, measuring 23.10 by 15.70 meters, and it, too, supported a substantial sculptural program. T h e traditional reconstruction, which places a colonnade on a high podium, was modeled on the Pergamon Altar and has recendy been reconfigured. Hoepfner's 1989 reconstruction omits the podium and isolates the figures, placing them in niches around the inside and on the outside of the enclosure wall (Fig. 37). He dates the monument to the first half of the second century B.C. 12 Linfert had interpreted the reliefs as an embassy of Magnesians to Delphi after seeing the apparition of Artemis, leading to the founding of her festival at Magnesia. Many identifications are tentative: Zeus, Asklepios, Herakles or Dionysos, Ares, and possibly Britomartis, an attendant of Artemis, wearing a curious net. At a height of 3 meters, the figures are truly monumental. T h e high relief alone seems an indication that they were not positioned between columns, where they would more likely be freestanding, as

66

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

with the examples previously discussed. Whatever the overall subject at Magnesia, it is interesting that the configuration of the Pergamon Altar and its decoration appear less related to the tradition of Asia Minor altars than to that of mausolea and heroa celebrating local dynasts. THE ALTAR OF ZEUS AT PERGAMON Considerably larger even than the Magnesian Altar of Artemis is the structure traditionally known as the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon, measuring 35.15 by 33.70 meters. As Stewart has outlined elsewhere in this volume, this monument has been variously interpreted: as an altar of Zeus, as a dynastic monument of the Pergamene kings, and as a heroon of Telephos. 1 3 T h e early excavations revealed that the present structure was built over a preexisting smaller one which forms an apse at the east. Stahler and Webb have argued that the earlier, apsidal structure had a specific religious function which the later, more monumental dedication continued to serve. Working backward from the subject of the interior frieze of the second-century building, they view this as a heroon of Telephos. In fact, the historical record provides evidence for royal worship in various parts of the city. Festivals were established in the name of certain Attalid kings, or the king might be associated with a god, but these festivals were in the king's name, rather than for him or to him, so they appear to stop short of being royal cult. That is, the kings appear to be worshiped, but not deified. They had eponymous festivals, such as the Attaleia and Eumeneia, and secular honors were initiated, as on Delos, and financed by the dynasts themselves, as if this were their way of claiming dynastic standing, rather than having others show recognition of it. Even Attalos III did not allow himself to be called a god in his lifetime. 14 But royal cults are not the same as hero cults. A heroon generally has a clearly marked precinct and a place for making offerings and libations. It is questionable whether the small third-century structure at Pergamon could have carried out that function. There are at Pergamon a number of other structures which have been called heroa more convincingly, both on the citadel and near the lower city. They honor revered citizens, such as Diodoros Pasparos (ca. 70 B . C . ) , and revered mothers Andromache and Auge, from the period of legends (Pausanias 1.11.2, 8.4.9). Some buildings identified as possible heroa are large and round and located along major roads leading into the city; others are rectangular, and some show evidence for interment inside and for ritual. That is, at Pergamon, heroa come in varied shapes, and thus the apsidal end here cannot be considered diagnostic. Moreover, as Hoepfner points out, the thin walls and lack of interior supports in the 11-meter-wide structure suggest that it was unroofed, while the niches, red wall, and facility for lighting lead him to infer that it was a nymphaion, for

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

67

it recalls grotto installations on Rhodes, though it is unclear how it functioned in relation to the rest of the citadel in the third century B . C . 1 5

DECORATIVE PROGRAMS OF ROMAN THEATERS IN GREECE AND ASIA MINOR The subjects which decorate the Asia Minor mausolea and altars considered thus far have played a leading role in defining the functions of the monuments and the nature of their dedicators. As to the defining role of architectural sculpture, it may be useful to consider for a moment certain Roman theaters which project similar themes. We will then return to the so-called Pergamon Altar. Theaters play an important role in civic life in all periods because of their ability to contain large numbers of people and to serve multiple functions. T h e political activities that took place in Roman theaters in addition to dramatic contests have long been emphasized, and increasingly in recent years attention has been paid to the musical contests and religious ceremonies which went on in them. For political activities in or near theaters, famous political murders inevitably come to mind, such as that of Philip of Macedon or of Caesar, who, according to Suetonius {Aug. 31.5), was killed not in the Curia in the Forum Romanum, but in the Curia in Pompey's theater complex. In Rome it was recognized that the theater was a perfect place to use sculptural display for political advantage: witness Pliny's mention of the three thousand bronze statues erected between the columns of the wooden theater of Scaurus in 58 B.C. 1 6 As for religion, inscriptions from theaters at Gytheion, Ephesos, and Oinoanda give detailed descriptions of religious processions that took place in theaters and the relationship of images of the gods to these rituals. At Gytheion, for example, painted images of Divus Augustus, Tiberius, and Livia were carried into the theater and so positioned that they could watch the religious festival. 17 Moreover, studies of sculptural assemblages in theaters have established the relationship of the decoration to key religious ceremonies or historical events. Thus, Karen Ros has interpreted the decoration of the Carthage theater as marking the establishment of the Pythian Games at Carthage in the early third century A.c. At that time large statues of Dionysos, Apollo, and Herakles were added to niches of the mid-second-century theater, symbolizing the three components of the Pythian Games: plays, musical competitions, and athletic events. 18 Aphrodisias O n e of the earliest Roman theaters in Asia Minor from which decoration survives is the theater at Aphrodisias, erected about 38-28 B.C. by the wealthy

68

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

freedman Zoilos to honor Augustus (Fig. 38). At Aphrodisias, Kenan Erim's excavations have unearthed a well-preserved cavea and stage which are unusual for the number of extant inscriptions. These inscriptions indicate that work on the theater was additive, with inscriptions being added through the early third century a . c . Freestanding sculptures positioned on the scaenaefrons at the time of construction feature two Muses, who were probably crowning Apollo. In addition, three pairs of Victories of different sizes were added, probably as akroteria, providing a significant frame for the whole. The Victories transform the theater into a monument celebrating Augustus's victory at Actium. 19 Corinth By the second century a . c . both the façades and the decoration become much more ambitious in wealthier cities. This trend can be illustrated by the assemblage of sculptures on the Hadrianic theater façade at Corinth, which may serve as a case study. Decoration consists of three series of reliefs with combat scenes placed under the columns on each story, the Gigantomachy on the podia of the first level, and the longer Amazonomachy and Herakles slabs in the spaces between the columns on the second and third levels (Fig. 39). Each combat presents a theme of victory, that against the Giants symbolizing the triumph of civilized forces over chaos. The Amazonomachy, used in the Classical Greek period as an analogy to victories over the Persians, here refers more generally to victories over Easterners and peoples on the fringes of the empire. The Herakles reliefs, from the upper story, are the most fragmentary and the most irregular in style. Refined Classical types are set beside more exaggerated Hellenistic styles, displaying not merely eclectic taste, for which Roman art is often criticized, but the deliberate choice of the Classical style for quiet scenes, as when Herakles watches the sleeping boar, and Hellenistic styles for active ones, as when the hero drags Kerberos from his post at the Gates of Hades. Some scenes make intentional reference to monuments of High Classical Athens, as some Amazons to the Parthenos's shield, while others, like the boar scene, provide new versions of old themes.20 The podium reliefs are supplemented by additional carvings on the façade. Two Silenoi projected as high-relief piers between the columns on the third story. They probably raised one arm to show their supportive function like their counterparts in Athens, both sets reminding the viewer that Dionysos is patron deity of the theater. Further, a pair of high-relief heads about 1 meter tall are restored over the side entrances. In the wilder head, Triton can be recognized from the seaweed clinging to his face and neck and the dolphins swimming through his hair. The companion head shows

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

69

a calmer figure, contrasted by the long, unturbulent hair and drapery frame. It likely depicts Aphrodite or a Nereid, signifying the watery world whose difficulties these figures help overcome. The world of Triton and Aphrodite draws attention to Corinth's major sphere of influence, the sea, and to her major deities: Aphrodite, whose cult promised good sailing, and Poseidon, whose seas needed to be controlled and who presided over Corinth's sanctuary on the Isthmus. The third architectural group consists of busts of Greek deities which can be restored in the three pediments, representing religious cults also deepseated at Corinth. The bust of Demeter, the best-preserved, was found beside the right hospitalium, as if it had fallen from the pediment above it. The deity is shown with mande covering her head and long locks reaching the shoulders; the other busts may depict Poseidon, probably from the pediment over the left hospitalium. The Helios bust is restored in the third-story pediment, as it is more badly broken, and, according to Pausanias (2.1.6), Helios won control of the heights above the city. Moreover, Helios's higher position would correspond to the sun's location in the sky versus Poseidon's lower venue in the sea, opposite Demeter on land. This group of architectural sculptures, therefore, references figures of Greek ancestry still important to the Roman city.21 The primary historical element is established by the colossal seated statue in the large niche over the central door. The head, reconstructed with pieces from four discrete marble piles, can be associated with the theater through the drawing of one segment in an early excavation notebook and can be recognized as Trjyan (Fig. 40). Reliefs of heraldic griffins can be restored on the architrave beneath this figure, recalling Trajanic griffins which appear in Rome in the Forum Trajanum and on the emperor's cuirassed statues. Other imperial portraits probably stood in the three other niches, perhaps Livia and Augustus on the sides, and Hadrian, as the ruling emperor, dressed in parade armor, above.22 A hierarchy of levels on the façade is suggested not only by the position of the imperial family group, but also by the placement of Herakles, especially with the scenes of Herakles in his triumphs above. The leading Peloponnesian hero in the Greek period, in Roman times Herakles had a cult popular with merchants, a major component of Roman Corinth. Hercules Invictus was popular with soldiers for his supposed ability to avert evil and his association with long trips, so he was the perfect prototype for the male citizen, and his apotheosis might be said to legitimize the concept of divinization of the ruler above whom he stands on the façade. 23 In addition, sculptures stood between columns on the first story. These consist of deities important to Corinth, such as Aphrodite, Dionysos, Apollo, and Herakles—the hero's herm form recalling the Greek philosophical and rhetorical tradition and the renewed emphasis given to it in the second cen-

JO

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

tury a . c . by the Sophists. Here also are mythological figures such as the Doryphoros, possibly as Achilles, and Cheiron with Achilles, suggesting the didactic aspect of some performances. 24 No epigraphical evidence for religious activity survives from the Corinth theater. There is just one small bust, of simple appearance (Fig. 41). Though the base at first looks unfinished, it is smoothly worked on all sides, with all tool marks removed. The base does not resemble simplified bases of portrait busts produced in workshops in Roman Athens, but it is like small figures called imagines which were carried in religious processions and are depicted in some reliefs. Frequently, imagines shown are whole figures, but busts are also represented, as in the Vienna cameo of Livia holding a bust of the deified Augustus. Thus, this unimposing piece may represent a once gilded imago, perhaps of Antoninus Pius, which would have been carried in a religious procession through the theater, where it was inadvertently dropped. We have already referred to inscriptions from Ephesos and Oinoanda which describe religious processions in Asia Minor theaters in the second century A.c. It is just this sort of religious ceremony from which the Corinth bust may have survived.25 As we have seen in using the Corinth theater as a case study, all parts of the decoration have meaning—for the city, for its place in the empire, and for the dramatic, competitive, and religious activities which occurred there. Hierapolis A brief look at the decoration of the Severan theater at Hierapolis underscores the meaning of such public architectural sculptures, which provide a comparable setting for the emperor (Fig. 42). Hierapolis's major deities, Apollo and Artemis, are celebrated in reliefs across the podia of the first story, with narratives of their lives. Both begin with scenes of their birth and infancy, doubdess modeled on the popular lives of Dionysos which decorated a number of Eastern theaters and which appeared in the second story here. The Marsyas story is included because of its popularity in Asia Minor. The Artemis scenes begin with her birth and infancy, and later she is shown shooting the Niobids and in the Boar Hunt. Religious processions are depicted, as well as actual worship of important local deities, such as the Ephesian Artemis, relating to ceremonies enacted in the theater. Powerful Asia Minor kings of the past like Attalos and Eumenes are represented, as a means of tying the present to the past, putting this city on the same level as Pergamon and Rome. 26 At Hierapolis as at Corinth the most important figures sire elevated and centrally placed over the Porta Regia. Here the emperor is presented in relief, rather than in the round, being crowned by a winged Victory in the company of the agonothete or official in charge of the games (Fig. 43). The

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

71

e m p e r o r here too is shown in the same frame as personifications and deities. 27 A t Hierapolis, as at Corinth and Aphrodisias, the iconographical program of the façade decoration is detailed and situates ruler and ruled, claiming glory for the presenting city. This recalls programs of the Nereid M o n u m e n t and the Mausoleum, where the dynasts are similarly bestowed with signs of high status and glorification. How can these iconographical systems aid in understanding the decoration on the Pergamon Altar? What is illustrated in the theater sculptures is the use of mythological subjects as analogy to life and as warning: that is, in a didactic role. Former political leaders flank current ones, as if to establish their heredity and legitimize their rule. T h e reigning emperor is the central focus. T h e arrangement of subject matter appears hierarchical and privileges the most important figures with larger scale. Mythological, religious, and political subjects are combined within the same overall framework, which underscores the multiple functions served by this monumental civic structure. T h e combined functions served by these substantial theaters, as well as the use of hierarchical placement and symbolic size, recall the means of emphasizing the position of the dynast on the earlier podium tombs. What these highly decorated heroa, altars, and theaters have in c o m m o n is that each is a Gesamtkunstwerk, or a complete work of art. In each case, the primary function is the one expressed by the architectural form, but closely tied to that is a declaration of the supremacy of the ruler as supported by his ancestry, his victories, and the numbers of subject peoples w h o bear homage to him by their presence.

THE M O N U M E N T AT PERGAMON

Let us now return to the Pergamon "Altar" to see if the meaning of the sculptures profits from juxtaposition with these other luxury monuments. Since the main Altar sculptures are very familiar, I emphasize just a few main points. (See Figs. 1, 9, etc.) T h e sculpted section usually considered primary is the Gigantomachy Frieze, because of its preservation, and it occupies a dominant position on the podium. T h e subject speaks of victory; the scale gives this victory enormous importance and suggests the victory was against superhuman odds. It is n o accident that the Olympians were positioned on the east or that, to the spectator entering the temenos, Zeus and A t h e n a would appear framed by the propylon. They are thus honored above all the other gods, Athena placed in alignment with her sanctuary to the north. T h e designers of the frieze made sure that the spectator would be in n o doubt as to w h o was taking part in this battle. To ensure that the meaning was understood, the figures' names were inscribed, the Gods' above, the Giants' below.

72

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

The second sculptural complex, which would be seen at the same time as the first, is that of the colossal female statues standing on a low step behind the columns and above the podium. Positions exist for as many as seventythree draped figures, which are on a scale commensurate with the combatants in the Great Frieze. The majority are standing, but the six corner figures were probably seated, as indicated in Hoepfner's plan and reconstruction drawings. The scale suggests figures that are superhuman, by analogy with those in the underlying frieze. 28 Comparison with the Nereid Monument and the Mausoleum suggests that the freestanding sculptures of the Pergamon Altar may help characterize the monument as a whole. Thus they may include some ancestors of the ruling house, milking the structure operate, on one level, as a dynastic monument. Second, some could be Muses, as Stewart has suggested elsewhere in this volume, a subject clearly attested by at least one statue. In addition, some of these large figures could depict priestesses, which would emphasize the religious aspect of the monument, while a fourth group may represent personifications of Mediterranean cities and regions that Pergamon wanted to impress, bearing witness to the glorification of the city and its present ruler. Such a series of personifications of cities not under Pergamene control would recall the many benefactions of Pergamon at Athens, Delos, Delphi, Sikyon, and elsewhere, and might even suggest a gathering of foreigners bringing gifts to the Pergamene king. The latter series would also be forerunners of the personifications of the provinces in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. Varied subjects for the over-life-size figures would follow the tradition of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos. One type of subject would then appear on each side, corresponding to the quadripartite organization of the Gigantomachy Frieze. Those on the east may represent the ancestors of the Pergamene house, for this would support the leading importance already established for the east side. If the ancestors were accompanied by some deities, like the preserved Zeus Ammon, the divinities would be indicating their approval of the superhuman status of this dynastic house.29 The third sculptural complex seen on the exterior is that of the roof sculptures. These are smaller and comprise a series of frontal horses on the east, with Tritons at the corners and Centaurs, lions, and griffins elsewhere. The main question here is: Who was in the chariots implied by the seven quadrigas? The considerable reduction in scale makes historical figures seem likely, and thus these would most plausibly depict Eumenes II himself and key members of the Pergamene ruling house. On moving up the grand staircase the viewer is confronted first by a conjectural fourth complex. On top of the central altar wall and on the interior cornice of the peristyle above them Hoepfner has placed further marble sculptures: striding Gods above and defeated mythological foes (up to 25) below. More recendy, in this volume Andrew Stewart has located bronze

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

75

weaponry taken as booty on the wall of the central altar. T h e suggestion is compelling because of the broad, irregular cuttings for these emplacements (ca. 0.80 x 1.30 m) and the varied sizes and numbers of the dowel holes, with pour channels, to secure the objects in place. 30 T h e Telephos Frieze forms the fifth complex, which provides a quiet respite from the excited battle scenes elsewhere. Its position behind the upper colonnade gives it a certain importance, though its interior location removes m u c h of it from immediate view, giving it a mysterious and personal quality, perhaps recalling similar decoration in the royal palace at Pergamon. T h e story of Telephos, told in extended narrative, details mythological history important for Pergamon, as it gives the site a past which it otherwise does not have, and it provides ties to Greece, thus legitimizing its position in Greek history. (Cf. Gruen, supra.) T h e r e is a definite agenda here, one which must have been carefully defined by Eumenes II, as he developed the city and its religious festivals in significant ways. Civic and personal piety, the invocation of deities, and the proper execution of prescribed religious rituals f o r m underlying themes of this frieze. T h e viewer is reminded of the founding of the cult of Athena, the worship of Apollo, the intervention of Dionysos, even that altars are places where men can rightfully take refuge. 3 1 T h e question has repeatedly been raised as to how an ash altar would function in the center of this marble structure. A l t h o u g h H o e p f n e r retains the tide "Aschenaltar" in his new plans, he himself considers a large ash altar unlikely because of the damage fire would cause the marble building and its sculpture. It seems more likely that offerings would be made on blocks of a durable material placed on top of the marble sacrificial altar, perhaps supplemented on occasion by small, portable altars like those illustrated in Roman reliefs at Pergamon. 3 2 In addition, the Pergamon structure may have been an altar in the sense of a sacred space, on the heights of which Olympian Zeus had his seat. In fact, what is so far missing at Pergamon which would draw the entire sculptural program together is a colossal seated figure placed before the center of the sacrificial altar. T h e rest of the building's sculptures would have prepared the visitor for this: the Gigantomachy Frieze, the colossal sculptures in the exterior colonnade, the roof sculptures, the Telephos Frieze, culminating finally in the items on the central altar wall. Centered over the exterior east wall and therefore the primary focus of the first view of the monument was probably Eumenes II himself, perhaps flanked by Attalos I and the mother of the dynasty. O n the west side the architectural design seems to demand a colossal centralized figure framed by the altar wall and its decorative sculpture. O n e of the most intriguing possible references to this structure comes from the Bible, in Revelation 2:13, which mentions the "throne" of Satan (dpovo? in Greek). It has often been noted that this structure has the general

74

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

appearance of an elaborate throne or seat, but the passage in Revelation is often dismissed with the statement that the word for "seat" refers to the city itself, not to a particular building. Our contextual study of the Pergamon Altar in light of other Asia Minor structures may make invocation of the term "throne" more compelling. Moreover, there is a possible antecedent in the Throne at Amyklai, built by Bathykles of Magnesia, which may have incorporated Near Eastern inspiration. 33 Two additional features underscore the impression that Zeus is the supreme honoree of this monument. The first is the configuration of a capital from the external colonnade, where a thunderbolt forms the decoration of the bolster.34 The second is the head and torso from a seated Zeus (preserved height 0.46 m) which was found in the Altar precinct (Fig. 44). This figure gives the impression, as Franz Winter pointed out long ago, that it is a reduced copy of a large-scale sculpture. This is especially significant as it is from Pergamon, which is known for its copying practices in the Hellenistic period. If Winter's suggestion is correct, it would be the nearly contemporary version of the colossal image of a seated Zeus situated in a central location within the colonnade at the top of the stairs.35 As we have seen, the Great Altar at Pergamon, with its lavish sculptural decoration of different formats and scales, profits from examination against a broad complex of luxuriantly decorated monuments—tombs, altars, and theaters—from Late Classical to High Imperial times. The best-preserved of the large dynastic tombs, the Nereid Monument and the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, witness the propagandistic use of sculpture and notable scale to promote the dynast's right to rule and to convey, both to contemporary and future viewers, the magnitude of his power and his context, at the cultural crossroads between East and West. The monuments' success in promoting ideas of political dominance and the specific dynasty's rule is conveyed by their architectural successors, for they established a tradition, as seen at Belevi, Trysa, and Limyra. Elaborately decorated sculptural altars are also characteristic of Hellenistic western Anatolia, though none achieves the size or luxurious decoration of the Pergamon Altar, so far as we know. Although the Great Altar has a clear formal relationship to the tradition of Hellenistic altars in southwestern Asia Minor, its considerably larger size and more abundant decoration may suggest intentional reference to the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, as if to invoke the mode of that monument's dynastic and political claims and perhaps also its funerary symbolism. If scholars do not agree as to which function the Pergamon Monument served, it may be because it had more than one. What the architecture and sculpture make clear is that its messages are multivalent: that it served as the Altar of Zeus, as a monument celebrating the Pergamene dynasty, and, because of its funerary overtones, that it may have focused on the founding matriarch of the dynasty as well as its current leader.

PERGAMON T O HIERAPOLIS

75

The rituals that would have taken place in this temenos, then, may have encompassed all these religious aspects, making it the most important religious center in the city. The impetus toward celebrating major victories and imperial or civic superiority continues in Roman Imperial times in sculptural projects of increasing magnitude. Such projects, like the sculptures from the villa dining area at Sperlonga, appear to tap into a rich layering of artistic and literary associations, as Anne Weis suggests below in this volume. The trend toward political and propagandistic use of monumental sculptural programs continues in the eastern Mediterranean in theaters with increasingly elaborate decorative programs, as exemplified by Aphrodisias, Corinth, and Hierapolis. A public religious monument like the Pergamon Altar, with its rich dynastic and propagandistic overtones, forms a striking contrast to the ostensibly private Early Imperial sculptures at Sperlonga, though these, too, are layered with propagandistic value established through mythological parallels. When we look at Romanesque churches we have no difficulty perceiving that the meaning of the sculptures is designed to be clearly understood by the masses through visual means. In antiquity, as well, unusually lavish architecture exerts the sense of power, while sculpture plays the defining r o l e — for the source as well as the meaning of that power. This appears particularly true of dynasts' tombs, heroa, and theaters in Hellenistic and Roman western Anatolia—and exceptional altars.

NOTES I w o u l d first e x t e n d m y w a r m e s t thanks to the L a n g f o r d f a m i l y f o r s u p p o r t i n g a v e r y lively c o n f e r e n c e at T h e F l o r i d a State University a n d to Professors N a n c y d e G r u m m o n d a n d B r u n i l d e S. R i d g w a y f o r inviting m e to p a r t i c i p a t e in it. F o r h e l p o b t a i n i n g p h o t o g r a p h s a n d p e r m i s s i o n to i n c l u d e t h e m I a m g r a t e f u l to t h e f o l l o w i n g : J e r r y Blow, U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a , D e p a r t m e n t o f Slides a n d P h o t o g r a p h s ; N a n c y B o o k i d i s , C o r i n t h Excavations; C . W. C a m p b e l l , B r y n M a w r C o l l e g e , D e p a r t m e n t o f V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s ; J. C . Carter, U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s , A u s t i n ; W. A . P. C h i l d s , P r i n c e t o n University; F r a n c e s c o D ' A n d r i a , U n i v e r s i t y o f L e c c e ; P i e r r e D e m a r g n e , A c a d é m i e d e s Inscriptions e t Belles-Lettres; P e t e r G r u n w a l d , D A I B e r l i n ; P e t e r H i g g s , British M u s e u m ; W. H o e p f n e r , Freie U n i v e r s i t ä t , B e r l i n ; K. J e p p e s e n , A a r h u s University; R. Risy, A u s t r i a n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Institute; R. R. R. S m i t h , O x f o r d University; G . B. Waywell, Institute o f Classical Studies, U n i v e r s i t y o f L o n d o n ; D . Williams, British M u s e u m ; B. Y i l d i r i m , N e w York University E x c a v a t i o n s at A p h r o d i s i a s . 1. C h i l d s a n d D e m a r g n e 1 9 8 9 , (on date) 3 7 7 - 4 0 4 , ( o n identity o f o c c u p a n t ) 4 1 4 , with r e f e r e n c e s . O n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y architectural sculpture, see t h e u s e f u l discussions in R i d g w a y 1 9 9 7 , 2 5 - 1 5 6 , (on t h e N e r e i d M o n u m e n t )

79-88.

2. H a r r i s o n 1 9 9 2 . 3. Waywell 1 9 7 8 ; J e p p e s e n 1 9 8 9 , 1 9 9 2 ; R i d g w a y 1 9 9 7 ,

112-35.

76

PERGAMON TO HIERAPOLIS

4. Jeppesen 1992, 86-87. See, however, Hoepfner 1996b, 107, 110, figs. 8, 10, where it is located on the wall of the burial chamber. 5. Waywell 1978, 35-38, 40, 81; Waywell 1989; Jeppesen 1992, 94"956. BM 1047. Waywell 1978, 44-45, 108-10, no. 33, pi. 17; Jeppesen 1992, 80, 95; Ridgway 1997, 125, ill. 18a on 118. 7. Jeppesen 1992, 97-98. 8. Hoepfner 1993b; notably, his reconstruction, fig. 10, omits the pyramid. See also the useful summary by Ridgway 1990,187-96, 206-207, pis. 86-94; Webb 1996, 76-79; Praschniker and Theuer 1979; review by Stewart 1982. g. For drawings, see EAA Suppl. (Atlante dei complessifigurati,1973) pis. 268-75; Eichler 1950, pi. 19, Ag; Oberleitner i g g o , 71-74, 155-57, 167-68; Oberleitner 1994; Ridgway 1997, 88-94. 10. Borchhardt 1976, and 1990, 75-78; Scholl 1995, 2o8-2og, fig. 19; Ridgway 1997.94-9911. Carter 1983, and i g g o ; Ridgway 1990, 164-67; Webb 1996, 99-100, figs. 73, 74; Ridgway 1997, 135, 153-54 4512. Ridgway 1990,161,167-68; Hoepfner ig8g, 606-608, and 1991; Webb igg6, 20, 94-98, figs. 67-72. See also Linfert 1976, 164-77. 13. Stahler 1978; Webb 1996, 61-66, and 1998. Heilmeyer i g g 4 even suggests it is like a pantheon, and Fehr 1 gg7 interprets it as the grave of the dynastic queen mother, Apollonis. For a discussion which places the Great Altar in the context of other Asia Minor altars, see Linfert 1995. 14. Allen 1983, 145-58. 15. Schrammen 1906, 83-85, pis. 2, 20. Bruns i960, 105, suggested there originally had been in this area a rock sanctuary to the native gods for which the apse building was erected in the third century. Hoepfner iggo, 281, fig. 4, and pi. 35.1, for the terracotta model of a grotto sanctuary from Lokroi which is apsidal and contains niches. Cf. also Hoepfner 1993a, 113-14; Rice 1995. Kastner 1997, 6g, refers to "cultic purposes" for this structure. On recent work on the site, cf. Radt 1995, 575-88. On the heroa at Pergamon, cf., e.g., Filgis and Radt 1986; Radt 1988, 275-85, figs. 116, 122. On problems of water supply, see Radt 1988, 167-78. 16. Pliny, NH 34.36, 36.113-115. Cf. also, e.g., Bieber 1961a, Schwingenstein 1977, Fuchs 1987. 17. Gytheion: SEG XI 923, A.D. 15. Ephesos: Rogers 1991, A.D. 104. Oinoanda: Mitchell 1990, A.D. 124; Price 1984, 60-61, 109, 210-15. 18. Ros igg6; Apollo: LIMCll, 383-84, no. 61, s.v. "Apollo" (E. Simon). Height of statues 2.40 m. i g . Erim and Smith l g g i , 67, 71, g7, figs. 3-5; Theodorescu igg6, esp. figs. 1, 2. 20. Sturgeon 1977, esp. 110-11, 112-13, nos. H 11, H 13. 21. The theater sculptures were found during the early excavations of Corinth (1896, 1902-10, 1925-29) andapartfrom the reliefs are largely unpublished. They form part of an ongoing study which will appear as Corinth IX.iii. 22. Trajan: Sturgeon 1989, 114-17, pi. 44, figs. 4, 5. 23. Sturgeon 1977, 98, H 1; Bayet ig26; OCD$ (1996) 688 s.v. "Hercules" (H.J. Rose and J. Scheid); Galinsky 1972, 127-28, 140-41, 160-61. 24. Aphrodite: Sturgeon 1998. Herakles herm: Sturgeon 1989,114-15, 119-21, pi. 44, fig. 7. Doryphoros: Shear 1926, 462, fig. 15; Hartswick 1995, 173, no. 29; cf.

PERGAMON TO H I E R A P O L I S

77

LIMC I, 196, no. 908, s.v. "Achilleus" (A. Kossatz-Deissmann). Cheiron: Robinson 1969, 1 9 3 - 9 7 ; LIMCUI, 2 4 4 - 4 5 , n o - 89, s.v. "Cheiron" (M. Gisler-Huwiler) = LIMC I, 5 1 , no. 7 7 , s.v "Achilleus" (A. Kossatz-Deissmann). 25. Bust: T 1 0 4 7 , Shear 1 9 2 9 , 5 3 2 . Stolen April 1 2 , 1990. WAR Reports (The International Foundation for Art Research, Inc.) 1 1 : 6 , J u n e 1990,no. 6 8 1 (with photo). 26. D'Andria and Ritti 1 9 8 5 , Artemis, 9 3 - 1 7 1 , pis. 2 8 - 4 5 , Apollo, 1 5 - 9 2 , pis. 9 - 2 7 . Pergamene kings, Hierapolis di Frigia 1 9 8 7 , figs, on 7 3 . 27. Ritti 1 9 8 5 , 5 9 - 7 2 , pis. 1, 2. 28. Hoepfner 1989, 6 2 6 - 2 7 , figs. 2 4 - 2 6 ; Hoepfner 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 1 , figs. 2, 6; Hoepfner 1996a, 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; Hoepfner 1997a, 5 5 , f o l d o u t s 3 , 4 ; Hoepfner 1997b, 6 0 , 6 1 - 6 2 , n. 1 1 on 1 7 5 , fig. 4. 29. On Hellenistic statues of priestesses, see, e.g., the Nikeso from Priene in Berlin and certain statue bases: Ridgway 1990, 2 1 0 - 1 2 . For discussion of P. Zanker's view of provinces, see oral communication cited by Hoepfner 1997b, i 7 5 n . 1 2 , a n d Stewart in this volume. The benefactions of Attalos I at Sikyon later brought him annual sacrifices: Allen 1 9 8 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 . On Aphrodisias, see Smith 1988b. 30. On the altar wall cuttings, see Hoepfner 1989, 6 2 7 - 2 9 ; Hoepfner 1996a, 1 2 5 - 3 0 ; Hoepfner 1997b, 6 4 - 6 7 ; and Stewart {supra, pp. 4 6 - 4 9 ) . Hoepfner ( 1 9 9 7 b , 64) suggested that the dowels were used to help prevent theft. 3 1 . See now the two volumes produced in conjunction with the exhibition of major portions of the Telephos Frieze in New York and San Francisco: Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1996, 1997. See especially Heres 1 9 9 7 , Stewart 1 9 9 7 , Andreae 1 9 9 7 , Heilmeyer 1997a. 32. Cf. Kästner 1997. Roman relief: Radt 1988, fig. 86. 3 3 . The visual similarity between the Pergamon Altar and thrones has often been discussed; cf., e.g., Stampolidis 1 9 8 5 and 1 9 8 7 , though this interpretation has not been widely accepted. I do not mean to suggest that the creators of the Pergamon monument thought of it as a throne, but that to people of the later, Early Christian period, this is what it brought to mind, with the term "seat" being used metaphorically as well as because of the visual relationship. On the throne as an important symbol in the early and later medieval periods, see Stroll 1 9 9 1 , 1 1 - 1 5 . 1 thank J. Folda and D. Kinney for this reference. On Amyklai, see Martin 1 9 7 6 . 34. Schrammen 1906, pi. 1 2 . 1 . Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1996, 9 6 - 9 7 , no. 3 1 . 3 5 . Winter 1908, 1 8 6 - 8 7 , no. 1 8 5 , Beiblatt 27. The missing parts of the statue which this figure probably reflects may one day be recognized among the fragmentary marbles from the early excavations at Pergamon. Cf., e.g., the newly published pieces associated with a colossal statue of Zeus Philios from the Trajaneum: Raeck 1 9 9 3 .

The Sperlonga Sculptures The Current State of Research Brunilde S. Ridgway

Ever since their discovery in 1957, the marble sculptures from the grotto at Sperlonga (near Terracina, Italy) have generated a great deal of excitement, research, and speculation, both orally and in print. The find was made all the more important by the fact, instandy recognized, that the names of the same three Rhodian sculptors mentioned by Pliny (M/36.37) as the makers of the Laokoon were inscribed on a stone tablet forming part of the box housing the steering oar of a marble ship. But the names, at Sperlonga, were accompanied by their respective patronymics (Athanadoros son of Hagesandros, Hagesandros son of Paionios, Polydoros son of Polydoros), thus showing that previously reconstructed stemmata were erroneous, and partially reopening the issue of the masters' date. The daunting, painstaking task of reassembling the Sperlonga figures, found in literally myriads of fragments, is still being carried out, producing new insights and theories as each new piece of the puzzle is put in place. Promptly published by Giulio Jacopi (1963) some six years after their discovery, and then again, in official form, by Baldassare Conticello and Bernard Andreae (1974), the sculptures were immediately hailed as belonging to the locale where the emperor Tiberius, according to Tacitus (Ann. 4.59) and Suetonius (Tib. 3.9), was almost killed by a fall of rocks at the mouth of a natural cave where he was dining. The event helped increase the prestige of the prefect of the Praetorian Guard Sejanus, who covered Tiberius with his own body to prevent the emperor from being harmed, and must therefore have taken place before A.D. 31, when Tiberius had Sejanus executed. Less obvious is the time when the grotto received its sculptural embellishment, since the available chronological evidence seems to range from the Late Republican period to at least the fifth century A.C. This time span is indicated by the masonry of adjacent structures and by various finds, in-

7«

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

79

eluding a male portrait head in clear Tetrarchic style, and still unpublished terracotta lamps and pottery. In addition, we now know that the site was in use until at least the eighth century, when a community of monks was established there, leaving perhaps only under the threat of Saracen raids. 1 Yet there has been almost general consensus in dating the most important sculptures from Sperlonga to the time of Tiberius, or even later, to Neronian or Flavian times. Remarkably, as at least one author has noted, not only the complex of rooms and corridors adjacent to the grotto, but even the famous grotto itself (cf. Fig. 45) has not yet been officially studied in all architectural details. T h e voluminous catalogue of an exhibition held in Rome from February 22 to September 2, 1996—Ulisse: II mito e la memoria—has now provided a plan of the general area and an account of some of the immediate environs of the cave. It appears that the place included at least one other, smaller, grotto/nymphaeum at the eastern end of a double portico, and that provisions for statuary decoration existed within the structures to the north of the main cave and along the face of the rock on either side of its opening. 2 We are therefore dealing at this point with only a portion of the ancient sculptural program, although the missing elements may have been installed at different times. Since the Langford Conference was held, a major article by Christian Kunze (1996) has appeared. It discusses in detail the Skylla group and the Laokoon, since the two works can be connected through the names of the sculptors, and their relationship to the Blinding of Polyphemos, which is attributed to a different workshop. T h e author's main contribution, however, lies in his careful examination of the various types of masonry existing throughout the villa. T h e opus quasi reticulatum that surrounds the round basin and also provides a substructure for the tableau of the Blinding is dated to the years 30-20 B.C., in light of current revisions to the chronology of Roman constructions and wall-painting styles. Kunze therefore advocates that the epic groups can have been installed only in that specific decade. 3 Scholarly attention had so far tended to overlook these archaeological indications, and to focus instead on four primary groupings, in varying states of preservation: (A) Odysseus and companions blinding a reclining and obviously sleeping Polyphemos; (B) an enormous Skylla with two marine tails and six d o g protomai ravaging five sailors and grasping with her right hand the pilot of a ship gliding by (the ship, consisting of only a stern, has b e e n occasionally considered as independent of the Skylla, but the two have now been generally accepted as forming a single episode); (C) Odysseus and Diomedes carrying off the Palladion; and (D) a helmeted warrior supporting the body of a naked, dead companion (the so-called Pasquino type). T h e head of Odysseus at present restored as part of the Blinding scene does not j o i n any extant portion of the body. Its findspot, moreover, differs from that

8o

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

of the other components of the group, the piece having come to light during the excavations carried out in the central and northeastern sector of the cave. It has been therefore tentatively suggested that it may belong with a different monument, probably depicting the offering of the wine cup to the Cyclops, but no other element from such a group has been recognized at present. One more group from the site, a Ganymede and the Eagle, in pavonazzetto marble (except for the youth's face), has recendy been added to the discussion of the Sperlonga program. 4 It is impossible to summarize here the many hypotheses that have been advanced since 1957; in fact some had to be abandoned when additional information became available. Considered at first as representing an "Odyssey in marble," the groups were then more correctly labeled as depictions of the Trojan epic, in various chronological moments, with a special emphasis on Odysseus. In 1972, Roland Hampe proposed that Vergil's, not Homer's poetry, was illustrated by the statuary in the cave, but the prevalent opinion follows the Greek rather than the Roman connection. More recendy (1994), Andreae, the scholar most deeply involved with Sperlongan iconography, has also suggested a link with Ovid's Metamorphoses. His proposal has been accepted by Moreno, but doubted by Nikolaus Himmelmann, on the grounds that the Roman poet was exiled by Augustus in a.d. 8, too soon after Tiberius's return from his voluntary exile in a.d. 2. Kunze stands almost alone in considering the groups original creations, typical of the artistic trends current in Italy at the turn from Late Republican to Augustan times.5 The date of execution of the Sperlonga epic groups and their stylistic nature have also been debated. In 1986 Jerome J. Pollitt could well summarize the different opinions as follows:6 (1) They are Hellenistic originals, probably made in Rhodes, in the second or first centuries B.C.; (2) they are Roman copies of Hellenistic originals; (3) they are not so much copies as free variants of Hellenistic prototypes made in the Roman period; (4) they are original creations of the Roman period.

He personally thought that the solution lay in a combination of theories (2) and (3), primarily because the lettering of the inscription with the signatures of the three Rhodian sculptors pointed to the first century B.C., and because the connection between the sculptures and their setting was too close to permit a date before the architectural development of the grotto. He has now somewhat refined his position, in reconsidering the matter of Rhodian art as his contribution to this volume, and labels them "Graeco-Roman creations of the late Hellenistic period . . . made for Roman patrons by Greek artists who were thoroughly immersed in the traditions of Hellenistic sculpture." (See infra, p. 100.) A more radical position in favor of earlier Greek prototypes is taken by two recent and extensive treatments of the Sperlonga groups—by Paolo

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

81

Moreno, in his monumental monograph on Hellenistic sculpture (1994), and in the already mentioned Exhibition Catalogue, to which many scholars of various nationalities have contributed (1996). Given their authoritative voices, these two publications are likely to exert a strong influence on future opinions. I shall therefore outline here their respective positions, eventually noting some of the objections that have already appeared in print. It should be stressed, however, that theories are still fluid and that the additions of new fragments or the discovery of new evidence could bring revisions to opinions previously expressed; Andreae has been especially open to reconsideration and refinements of his positions, as attested in his many publications. We may begin with Moreno. 7 The Italian scholar considers groups (A), (C), and (D), as defined above, to be copies of bronze originals from Rhodes belonging to his first Rhodian phase (228-166 B.C.), although he does not suggest a more precise chronology. He also postulates the existence of an additional bronze group, the Offering of the Cup to Polyphemos, reconstructing it on the basis of a similar composition recovered from an Imperial villa (belonging to the emperor Claudius) at Baiae.8 He would agree with Andreae's theory that the Sperlonga marbles of a warrior holding a dead companion (group D) were slightly modified from an original bronze group representing Menelaos with the body of Patroklos, in order to fit with the emphasis on Odysseus typical of the Italian grotto. The stone version would therefore represent Odysseus with the dead Achilles. Moreno bases his attribution of these bronze prototypes to Rhodes on various grounds. The most important are perhaps the presence of massive bronze-casting installations on the island, and additional evidence of a predilection for sculptures in that medium. Bronze-casting skills are also documented on Rhodes by the feat of making the famous Colossus of the Sun. Moreno also emphasizes a plausible inspiration for the epic groups in Apollonios Rhodios's Argonautika in which the ship Argo follows the same route as Odysseus did later. A possible connection with the Rhodian Lykophron's Alexandra is taken as further confirmation. 9 A supposed Rhodian predilection for the conjunction of sculpture and natural landscape features, such as caves, is adduced in support of the Sperlonga layout. The Theft of the Palladion is also known from a relief version on a mid-Imperial osteotheke, whose findspot (Kastellorizos/Castelrosso, ancient Megiste, an island in the Dodekanesos) is thought to be significant. Finally, style, iconography, and their echoes on the Gigantomachy of the Pergamon Altar, together with the use of what is said to be Koan marble for the Sperlonga groups, and the presence of extensive struts in the latter—thus implying the difficulty of a translation from a bronze model—are considered probant. 10 Moreno's chronological limits for his first Rhodian phase are given by the earthquake that toppled the Colossus (228 B.C.), and by the Roman en-

82

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

dorsement of Athenian control over Delos ( 1 6 6 B.C.), which greatly affected the commercial activities of the Rhodian ports, hitherto privileged. His seco n d Rhodian phase begins where the previous one ended, and extends to 2 (B.C.?)11 and the teaching of T h e o d o r o s of Gadara, whose philosophy promoted the reading of the great works of the past, and specifically a return to Homer. Tiberius would have been exposed to the philosopher's theories while on the island, and would have applied them upon his return to Italy for the embellishment of his villa. T h e two epic monuments attributed by Moreno to this second phase strongly exhibit, in his opinion, the influence of the Pergamon Altar, especially its outer frieze. He dates the prototypes for both the Skylla/ship and the Laokoon around the year 140, and considers the latter p r o m o t e d by Panaitios, priest of Poseidon at Lindos. 1 2 Both works are said, however, to have been conceived in bronze, despite their many alleged similarities with the Pergamene Gigantomachy, surely conceived in marble, and despite Moreno's belief in the decline of bronze casting on Rhodes together with the waning financial resources of the island. His grounds are the same as those adduced for the first phase, but influences from additional sources are also envisioned. Rhodian creativity is given a more restricted role in the Ulisse catalogue. To be sure, the Skylla/ship composition is believed copied after a bronze prototype erected on the island in commemoration of those w h o lost their lives fighting against the pirates. But the models for the Blinding of Polyphemos, the Odysseus and Achilles (modified from an original "Menelaos with the body of Patroklos"), the T h e f t of the Palladion, and the Laokoon are attributed to a Pergamene bronze workshop and interpreted as having a Pergamene message. In chronological terms, the Skylla group would fall around 1 8 8 - 1 6 8 B.C. (presumably to fit between the Nike of Samothrake, dated about 190, and the chronology for the Pergamon Altar, thought to have been finished in 156, as well as the change in Rhodian status in 166); the Blinding of Polyphemos receives a date about 1 7 0 - 1 6 0 , partly because a fragmentary decorated cup connected with the Sperlonga group recalls floral motifs current in Pergamon around 1 6 0 - 1 5 0 ; the original Menelaos/Patroklos, on stylistic grounds, is placed about 160; and both the T h e f t and the Laokoon are more precisely attributed to the years 1 4 0 - 1 3 9 , in connection with the visit to Pergamon of the Roman consul Scipio Aemilianus. T h e Pergamenes would have wanted, with these topics, to remind the Romans of their c o m m o n Trojan ancestry, since the founding hero Pergamos was allegedly son of A n d r o m a c h e and Neoptolemos. T h a t n o exact replica of the Ganymede and the Eagle from Sperlonga is at present known is taken as further evidence that all the epic compositions there, for which other copies exist, whether in the major or the minor arts, go back to specific midHellenistic prototypes. T h e Ganymede would instead have been made ad hoc

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

83

for the grotto, as part of the general Roman message; the love of Zeus for the Trojan prince was in fact the alleged reason for Hera's wrath that promoted the Trojan War. 13 In a reversal of Moreno's position, the Skylla group is taken by Andreae to have been a major source of inspiration for the Pergamon Altar, as an influential masterpiece. T h e Giant being attacked by Artemis's dog on the Gigantomachy Frieze would echo one of the sailors w h o attempts to defend himself in a similar manner against one of Skylla's canine protomai. T h e paw of Kybele's lion at Pergamon is very close in style to the paw of the Sperlonga d o g reaching toward the pilot still clinging to the ship. In addition, the type of boat represented is a trihemiolia (typical of the Rhodian navy and useful against pirates because of its swiftness in the water), and the scene with Odysseus and Skylla appears on relief bowls now attributed to Rhodes, thus confirming the alleged location of the sculptural prototype. A Rhodian connection is also implied by the stated ethnic of the copyists working at Sperlonga and by Tiberius's own knowledge of the island. T h a t a composition in the round was the inspiration for the reproduction in the two-dimensional minor arts is supposedly confirmed by a mosaic emblema, recently f o u n d at Gubbio, which depicts the same epic event. T h e placement of some figures, especially of Odysseus, differs from that of the marble rendering, but these variations are explained as adjustments made by the mosaicist to give the hero greater prominence. T h e suggested reconstruction of the Sperlonga m o n u m e n t has him standing on deck, behind the beleaguered pilot, having already thrown his spear at the monster and now attempting to grab the remaining steering oar to save the drifting vessel; Skylla has wrested away the second rudder, which she lifts above her head with her left hand. 1 4 T h e human section of the Sperlonga Skylla has been restored, under Andreae's direction, with the help of a small marble torso (preserved height 0.34 m) allegedly f o u n d within the stone quarries of Dokimeion and now in the Afyon museum. T h e presendy armless figure is thought to have served as m o d e l — a t greatly reduced s c a l e — f o r the complex composition to be installed in the grotto, and to have been taken along to Anatolia by the Rhodian copyists in their search for suitable blocks. It is hard to visualize why a model would have been left behind, and also why its broken left arm was repaired in antiquity with a metal dowel. But since no fragments of the Skylla torso have as yet been recognized at Sperlonga, the small piece is useful to complete the restoration. 1 5 All the remaining epic groups from the Italian cave have been given by Andreae a Pergamene source of inspiration, on different grounds, some of which have been stated above. In particular, the T h e f t of the Palladion is said to carry a specific allusion to the city in Asia Minor, in that the extant head of Diomedes, with its dimpled chin, is thought to recall Eumenes II.

84

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

This identification is m a d e through a comparison with o n e of the bronze portraits from the Villa o f the Papyri at H e r c u l a n e u m , which has recently b e e n proposed as an image o f that Attalid king. T h e Sperlonga Palladion itself has a similar chin, thus reinforcing the association. 1 6 A t the same time, the juxtaposition of the various sculptural topics at Sperlonga is given a Roman meaning appropriate for Tiberius. T h e Claudii were thought to descend f r o m Telegonos, son of Odysseus a n d K i r k e — h e n c e the emphasis on the Ithakan hero. Tiberius's ascent to the Roman Imperial throne would be symbolically shown to have b e e n predestined since the Kidnapping of Ganymede, the T h e f t o f the Palladion, and the consequent fall of Troy. T h e Recovery o f Achilles' Corpse and the other adventures would have depicted Odysseus as the instrument o f divine fate. A n d the placement of the Ganymede, as seen from Tiberius's banqueting place, would have made it seem that the Trojan youth was b e i n g carried by the eagle to the Zeus o n earth, thus the R o m a n emperor, Tiberius himself. 1 7 T h e s e views have b e e n accepted in their general outlines, although occasional disagreement o n specific points has b e e n expressed. For instance, the emphasis o n the Rhodians' love o f nature and their alleged symbiosis of sculpture and natural features has b e e n disputed by Ellen Rice, w h o has pointed out that grottoes o n the akropolis of Rhodes would have b e e n suitable only for small votive offerings in marble, probably to the Nymphs, and certainly not for the large epic groups in bronze envisioned as the prototypes for Sperlonga. T h e Rodini "park" so often cited in support of Rhodian landscape preferences was actually a cemetery, therefore unsuited as well for such sculptural displays. T h e Rhodian connection has also b e e n questioned, or at least nuanced, by other scholars w h o d o n o t believe in a Rhodian marble "School" or see n o proven connection between Rhodian masters and the Pergamon Altar. 1 8 T h e Rhodian connotations of the trihemiolia may also be queried, since that type o f ship was widely used and remained in use at least until Flavian times. In addition, it has b e e n pointed out that some representations o f the Skylla episode in the minor arts show the prow, rather than the stern, of the boat, and thus are inconsistent with the alleged bronze prototype. T h e second-century-B.c. chronology o f some of these examples has also b e e n doubted; a higher date (in the mid-third century B.C.) would eliminate the possibility of inspiration from the hypothesized three-dimensional group. 1 9 Skylla's attack, rapid and unexpected, has b e e n c o m p a r e d to a piratical ambush; yet it has b e e n reasonably objected that the Rhodians would hardly have c o m m e m o r a t e d a victory with a myth in which the enemy is actually more powerful than the winner and basically indestructible. A n essay o n the development of Skylla's iconography in the Ulisse catalogue points out that the c o m p l e x Sperlonga monster with its six canine protomai and the two l o n g tails is unique, nor is the presence o f the ship attested o n any other

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

S5

replica of the episode in the round—a surprising observation if the alleged bronze prototype was as influential as claimed. In addition, Skylla seems to be tied to a definite geographic location, which therefore should evoke the Straits of Messina or at least the western Mediterranean area, rather than the Aegean and the Dodekanesos. 20 The adventures of Odysseus thought to have taken place in Italic waters or lands have a long iconographic history on Italian soil; the Ulisse catalogue mentions numerous examples, in both Greek (Magna Graecian) and Etruscan art, and others could be adduced with a more extensive illustration of the sculptures from Taras, which often represent Skylla with funerary connotations. Even the metopes from the so-called Via Umbria Naiskos may represent an epic story with Odysseus, if the hero could be identified in the man wearing an exomis from one of the panels. The "baroque" style of the impressionistic carving, perhaps a corollary of the technique in the soft material, is certainly noteworthy because of its third-century date ( 2 7 5 - 2 5 0 B . C . ) 2 1 Taras and the Etruscan territory were in close contact and surely influenced each other artistically. Several Etruscan urns depict the Polyphemos encounter within a grotto background, and a large-scale head in local stone (nenfro) from Ferento has been identified as Odysseus (Fig. 84). That Italic villas were decorated with epic groups even before Sperlonga is demonstrated by the terracotta figures from Colle Cesarano (near Tivoli) and Tortoreto (near Chieti), which belong to the second or early first century B.C. and show that the selection of such topics was not restricted to Imperial grounds. A similar conclusion can be derived from the marble statues of Odysseus and perhaps Achilles recovered from the Antikythera shipwreck (and which therefore carry an approximate terminus ante quem of 6 0 B . C . ) ; in addition, their heroic scale once again proves that over-life-size is not a privilege limited to monuments for Imperial customers. This evidence suggests that Athens itself had entered the copyists' market for the embellishment of private villas along the Italic Tyrrhenian coast, many of which included natural grottoes that await identification and exploration. To restrict our focus to Pergamon and Rhodes, or even to Tiberius, is to concentrate on the better-known sources to the detriment of those sites and personages not equally well represented in the ancient literature and the archaeological record but nonetheless capable of providing future surprises. After all, nobody had expected the spectacular sculptural finds from Sperlonga, despite its modern name echoing the ancient Spelunca of the Tacitean and Suetonian references. 22 Finally, as a personal observation, I want to mention that the recent display of slabs and fragments from the Telephos Frieze in the United States has allowed me to note several dimpled chins among the Pergamene sculptures, thus revealing the trait as a mannerism of the times rather than as a physiognomic, identifying feature. I would also stress that there are several characteristics of the Telephos Frieze directly attributable to a local, Lykian

86

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

sculptural tradition, such as the use of "disembodied heads"—a peculiarity that recalls Flavian illusionism, but already occurs on the mid-fourth-century Hereon of Perikle at Limyra—and of what I call "the Lykian wavelet" at the hem of garments on figures in motion. 23 As in the case of the Sperlonga groups, so also for Pergamene works it may be useful to look at the iconographic and stylistic inheritance they may have derived from their respective locations, rather than seek influences solely from farther afield. As I see the issues at present—and as I have tried to express in my Hellenistic SculptureII, on second-century sculpture (Ridgway 2000)—too much importance has been given to Rhodes and Pergamon in our reconstruction of a Hellenistic history of art. To be sure, the rich harvest from the so-called Altar (which I would rather call a multipurpose commemorative monument without specific ritual function) has partly justified our visualization, but it has also projected too large a shadow on every other manifestation within the Mediterranean basin. Rhodes cannot even make a comparable claim, since none of the monuments actually found on the island reveals the intrinsic grandeur and epic tone of the Sperlonga groups. I am not convinced by the Rhodian label of the Nike of Samothrake, and I would accept the Farnese Bull as a product of sculptors (from Tralleis!) working on the island— but during the mid-first century B. c. and most probably on commission from a Roman patron, Asinius Pollio. I believe that any form of chronology based on style is dangerous, since aesthetic expression seems to have been conditioned by content. And I am convinced that the last decades of what we call the Late Hellenistic period, but which might as well be called Early Roman, saw masters from all parts of the Greek-speaking world—Athens, Magnesia, Ephesos, Delos, Rhodes, Alexandria, and certainly Magna Graecia and, by extension, Rome—producing works in a variety of styles to serve the purposes of the new clients. In particular, themes that had long been familiar from the epic poems, the theater, and the two-dimensional arts were transformed into three-dimensional monuments, since the increased demand for sculpture in the round (as contrasted with architectural sculpture, now on the wane) required an increased repertoire and stimulated the imagination. The Romans' interest in their own past, moreover, so clearly reflected in their own literature, must have produced the revival of Trojan themes, which on Greek soil, after a brief appearance in the round during the early fifth century B.C., had been confined to the regulating frames of pediments, metopes, and friezes. These artistic trends continued during the early Imperial period, and perhaps as late as its end. The Sperlonga sculptures should fit within this picture, as ad hoc productions for a major grotto, deriving inspiration from local themes and iconography and in Hellenistic style, but without specific prototypes to follow.

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

8j

NOTES 1. Cassieri 1996, 272-73; see also Viscogliosi 1996, 255, for the Late Republican opus incertum; and infra, no. 3. The date of the rock fall at Spelunca is usually dated to a . d . 26. 2. Surprise about the lack of detailed accounts of the main grotto is expressed by Viscogliosi 1996, 259, who comments on the presence of other sculptures, now lost, in additional locations (p. 258) and assumes that they were removed for possible reuse, as contrasted with the bigger and more cumbersome groups of the Trojan Cycle. The first plan of the entire area is given by Cassieri 1996, 271. The lesser grotto/nymphaeum is described by Viscogliosi, p. 256. Both caves were embellished with artificial stalactites and encrustations, as well as by architectural elements. In the main grotto, the paved room to the left of the Polyphemos group was lit by a series of marble theatrical masks set at the base of the vaulted ceiling, which were meant to contain lamps whose glow could be seen through the hollow eyes and mouths of the stone faces (Viscogliosi 259-60). Note that even the round basin containing the Skylla/ship group was paved in opus sectikv/ith polychrome marbles, and that its edge was revetted by marble crustae topped by a narrow mosaic frieze (Lavagne 1988, 515-58). The total effect would then have seemed less natural and wild in antiquity than it appears today, when the artificial decoration is largely lost. 3. C. Kunze 1996. The author's main concern is with the Laokoon and the Skylla, and he touches upon the Blinding of Polyphemos only as a side issue. He believes, however, that there is no proof that the Late Republican villa belonged to Tiberius, and dismisses the claim that only Imperial money could finance such an ambitious sculptural program, recalling instead the luxuria of the properties belonging to a Lucullus, a Murena, or a Hortensius (pp. 162-63). This article, to my knowledge, is the only detailed study of the masonry types to be found at the Sperlonga Villa and should have important consequences for our chronological statements, but see also Weis (this volume), Appendix A and nn. 173-78. A good number of references to recent publications could be added, but I have preferred to leave my text more or less as delivered at the Langford Conference, since its main purpose was to outline the state of the question at the time. 4. Head of Odysseus: see Ulisse 1996, 355, no. 5.9, and cf. discussion on p. 361 (no. 5.12, the entry for the Blinding group), but now see Weis (this volume) n. 12. The fragments from the Blinding episode were all found in front of the secondary grotto toward the rear of the cave, where the composition is now traditionally shown; it is tentatively suggested that the Offering of the Cup, if it existed, may have stood in the smaller cave to the left of the Blinding group, which has retained traces of a large base. It seems to me that, if such traces occur on the extant paving, the total effect would have been less naturalistic than that of the Blinding scene, thus perhaps invalidating the hypothesis. 5. Although primarily developed in Andreae 1994, the Ovidian theory has also been proposed in other and earlier writings by the same scholar, and is repeated passim in Ulisse 1996. For acceptance, see Moreno 1994, (e.g.) pp. 386, 388. For objections, see Himmelmann 1995, 6 6 - 7 1 and 115, and 1996b, esp. 34-36. On the Late Republican/early Augustan trends, see C. Kunze 1996, 204-21, with some revealing comparisons and additional bibliography.

88

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

6. Pollitt 1986, 122-26; the quotation is from p. 124. O n p. 125 he also states: "It seems more likely that the Scylla and Polyphemos groups are new assemblages designed in the Roman period and composed of free variants drawn from a variety of Hellenistic originals." 7. Moreno 1994, 3 7 9 - 8 5 (Menelaos and Patroklos—the so-called Pasquino), 3 8 5 - 8 7 (Odysseus and Achilles, as a modified version of the group made ad hoc for Sperlonga), 3 8 7 - 9 1 (Theft of the Palladion), 3 9 1 - 9 5 (the O f f e r i n g of the C u p to Polyphemos, not yet fully recognized at Sperlonga [supra, n. 4] but postulated o n the basis of the finds from the Villa Imperiale at Baiae), 3 9 5 - 4 0 5 (the Blinding of Polyphemos), 6 1 3 - 2 4 (Odysseus and Skylla). Note that Moreno's treatment of the topics known from Sperlonga is preceded by discussion of the rock-cut ship monument at Lindos signed by Pythokritos (pp. 3 6 5 - 6 6 ) , the Nike of Samothrake (pp. 366-69), and the Punishment of Dirke (the "Toro Farnese," pp. 372-79), as part of the first Rhodian phase (228—166 B.C.). His second Rhodian phase ( 1 6 6 - 2 ) includes discussion of the Laokoon (pp. 624-40). 8. Baia 1983, esp. B. Andreae, "Le sculture," pp. 4 9 - 5 6 ; Ulisse 1996, 3 6 6 - 6 9 , no. 5.18. A similar moment in the episode is known through other sculptural examples, including one from Ephesos; several are illustrated in Ulisse 1996, 9. Moreno 1994,364 (Lykophron's Alexandravmtten around 196 B.C.), 387 (poet identified as Rhodian ambassador to Rome in 1 7 7 B.C.), and passim. Attention had already been drawn to Lykophron's p o e m by Andreae 1988. 10. See especially Moreno 1994, 3 5 9 - 6 6 ; figs. 4 5 4 - 5 8 illustrate grottoes on the akropolis of Rhodes; fig. 463 o n p. 369 shows the rock-cut ship on the akropolis of Lindos, signed by Pythokritos o f Rhodes. Moreno emphasizes the Rhodian predilection for ship monuments, especially since he maintains a Rhodian origin for the Nike of Samothrake. He illustrates the Megiste osteotheke as fig. 488 on p. 384. Koan marble for the Sperlonga sculptures (and struts n e e d e d for translation from bronze prototype): p. 387. 1 1 . Moreno 1994, 6 0 5 - 1 2 , esp. 6 1 2 , where it is unclear whether the terminus meant is 2 B.C. or A.D. 2, the year of Tiberius's return from Rhodes. 12. Moreno 1994, 606, 609, 627; Panaitios went to Rome in 144; earlier, he had studied at Pergamon under Krates of Mallos, who is supposed to have influenced the composition of the Gigantomachy; he had also spent some time in Athens before returning to Rhodes. He was priest of Poseidon Hippios at Lindos. For Moreno's interpretation of the Laokoon, see his pp. 6 2 4 - 4 0 ; other works attributed by him to this Rhodian phase are primarily portraits and landscape subjects (a limestone relief with stucco coating, from a funerary monument, pp. 6 4 4 - 4 5 , fig- 785). Besides echoes from the Gigantomachy, Moreno sees also details recalling the earlier epic groups in the Sperlonga Skylla—e.g., the sailor upside down, with pendent arm (his fig. 761), imitates the corpse of the Pasquino group, and Odysseus's ship is like that of the Nike of Samothrake (p. 621). Some parallels had already been mentioned by Andreae, in his various writings. 13. T h e respective entries, all unsigned and therefore written by B. Andreae (see statement on [unnumbered] p. 5), appear in Ulisse 1996 in the following sequence: Laokoon, no. 1.19, p. 38; Sperlonga Ganymede, no. 5.1, pp. 3 4 6 - 4 8 (the Pavonazzetto stone of the body, also from the Dokimeian quarries, had earlier prompted a Flavian chronology, which is now lowered by comparison with Augustan creations in

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

89

similar stone); Odysseus/Achilles from Sperlonga, no. 5.2, pp. 3 4 9 - 5 0 (and cf. nos. 5.3 and 5.4, pp. 3 5 0 - 5 1 , for other examples of the Menelaos/Patroklos composition); T h e f t of Palladion, no. 5.5, pp. 352-53; Blinding of Polyphemos, nos. 5.7-5.10, pp. 3 5 5 - 4 6 , and reconstruction in Bochum, no. 5.12, pp. 3 5 8 - 6 1 (no. 5.8 is the fragmentary cup with its own dating; no. 5.9 is the head of Odysseus, with the suggestion that it may belong to an O f f e r i n g of the C u p group; no. 5.22 o n p. 372 gives the head of a Companion in the Vatican); Skylla group, nos. 5.14 and 5.15, pp. 3 6 2 - 6 4 (torso in Afyon and fragments of large eyes from Sperlonga, respectively), and reconstruction of the Sperlonga group as no. 5.16, p. 364, signed by C. Parisi Presicce. T h e attribution of the extant fragments is extensively explained, however, by B. Andreae and S. Bertolin on pp. 2 9 8 - 3 1 5 , which constitute the actual entry o n the Skylla group. T h e terminal date for the Pergamon Altar is mentioned on p. 358. 14. Gubbio mosaic: Manconi 1996, and Ulisse 1996, 238 no. 4.1 (C. Parisi Presicce). T h e emblema, set o n a travertine slab, comes from a house of the end of the first century B.C., near the Roman theater; it is suggested that it was reused and dates from the end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.C., although its correct placement is said to be "extremely problematic" (p. 192: "Estremamente problematico rimane comunque l'inquadramento cronologico dell'emblema e la determinazione del suo eventuale modello"). T h e mosaic Skylla has only four canine protomai, and Odysseus—in the foreground and with the pilot behind him at a higher level—is still holding his spear in preparation for the throw. He is thus represented in an earlier phase of the Skylla episode than the o n e immortalized at Sperlonga. That he is there ready to grab the rudder is stated in the caption to fig. 37 o n p. 305; yet the long strut supporting Odysseus's right arm seems to me to prevent this interpretation. Moreno 1994,620, points out that the "anachronistic" type o f boat used for the sculptural group is an attempt to give the myth historical significance (i.e., war against contemporary pirates). He argues, however (pp. 6 1 5 - 1 7 ) , that the bronze prototype has been modified at Sperlonga to fit within the round basin—the ship should be coming from the north, thus rotated 90 degrees, and would originally have been at a higher level than the present; these modifications would explain some apparent incongruities in the marble rendering. 15. Skylla from Dokimeion: Ulisse 1996, no. 5.14, pp. 3 6 2 - 6 3 (Andreae). From the published photographs, the piece seems highly polished, and its drilled eyes are said to have been inset—a remarkable state of finish for a presumed model. Conticello 1996 (pp. 288, 292-93, 295) is much more cautious in accepting the evidence of the torso in Afyon, but justifies its use given the apparent congruence in style and subject, and the n e e d to complete the Sperlonga reconstruction. 16. For this interpretation, besides the entry (Ulisse 1996, no. 5.5, pp. 352-53), see Andreae 1996, esp. pp. 6 9 - 7 0 and figs. 24, 25 (Sperlonga Diomedes and Herculaneum bronze, respectively), and Andreae 1997. T h e original portrait of Eumenes II is attributed to the Athenian Nikeratos. In addition, the prototype of the Pasquino g r o u p is suggested to be by the same hand that made the companion pushing the end of the pole in the Blinding of Polyphemos. Viscogliosi 1996, 260, points out that the theft of the Palladion and the recovery of Achilles' armor were the prerequisites mentioned by the prophet Helenos for the fall of Troy and hence the birth of Rome. 17. These concepts are expressed in various sections of Ulisse 1996; see, e.g., pp. 70, 346, 354.

90

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

18. See Rice 1995, esp. 3 9 7 - 4 0 1 and n. 34; for the statement on Rhodian "pleasure parks" and the Rodini cemetery, see also her pp. 4 0 3 - 4 0 4 and n. 46 (and cf. Himmelmann 1995, 36). Rice 1986 discusses the three masters of the L a o k o o n / Sperlonga; she concludes (pp. 248-49) that Athanodoros's career would not have extended beyond I O B . C . and therefore suggests that Tiberius had nothing to do with the Sperlonga program. See also Goodlett 1 9 8 9 , 1 5 5 - 5 9 , for a discussion of the three Rhodian masters; and Goodlett 1991, 673, for the statement that n o solid evidence exists linking Rhodes and Pergamon. T h e lack of a Rhodian "School" is discussed by Isager 1995, who outlines the scholarly debate, and covers the Laokoon and Skylla groups as well as the Nike of Samothrake (pp. 127-28), with some skepticism. See now also J. J. Pollitt's chapter in this volume. 19. For these issues, see Himmelmann 1995, 3 1 - 3 2 (prow; date of Calene bowl, on which cf. p. 1 1 6 ) and n. 57 (reference to A. Geyer as source of the information on the chronological range of the trihemiolia; cf. also his pp. 7 0 - 7 1 ) . It could also be noted that the presence on Rhodes of the Lindos rock-cut boat by Pythokritos is not as strong a parallel as it may seem, since ship monuments are known from various other places of the ancient world: many have been collected by L e h m a n n 1973, and others have been uncovered or published since that work. 20. Skylla equated with piratical attack: Andreae 1 9 9 6 , 3 1 4 . Doubts o n myth chosen to commemorate victory: Himmelmann 1995, 29 n. 47; see also Smith 1 9 9 1 b and Ridgway 1989. Indeed, Odysseus was certainly not a "winner" in his encounter with the monster, although his ship ultimately escaped despite severe losses. Surprise at lack of influence of Sperlonga group: Waywell 1996a, 116; he does mention that the Bargylia Skylla (although different in its composition, and without ship) was erected on the Karian coast when the area was under Rhodian control, but adds that, although the "square type" of Skylla may have had its origins in Rhodian art, this theory is not proven (pp. 1 1 2 - 1 3 ) . For a general discussion of the monster, see now also LIMC8 (1997) 1 1 3 7 - 4 5 , s.v. "Skylla I" (M.-O.Jentel), where the locational reference of the monster to Italy seems supported; the Sperlonga Skylla is no. 57, pi. 790. I have believed in a "Sicilian" Skylla since 1968: see my review of Saflund 1966 in Archaeology 21 (1968) 2 3 0 - 3 1 . 21. For the statement o n the geographic relevance of the Italian (both Etruscan and Magna Graecian) representations, see Weber-Lehmann 1996, 173. H e r discus^ sion of the Tomba dell'Orco II shows the close adherence to the Homeric version of the painting depicting the Blinding of the Cyclops. See also infra, N. de G r u m m o n d ' s chapter. Via Umbria Naiskos: Carter 1970 and 1975, 6 9 - 7 4 , c a L n o s - 1 9 9 _ 2 i 2 , pis. 32-38. T h e identification with Odysseus is suggested in Ridgway 1990, 182-84. For Skylla in Tarentine stone monuments, see Carter 1975, 28 (cat. no. 28, pi. 8a,b), 6 8 - 6 9 ( n o - i*? 1 )' 73~74 (nos. 209, 210, pi. 3 7 a - d ) , 75 (no. 215), 88 (no. 3 3 1 , pi. 54b), perhaps also 42 (no. 16, pi. 5d). 22. Etruscan urns: see, e.g., Ulisse 1996, 180, nos. 3.13 (in tufa, from Volterra, dated mid-second century B . C . , Florence Arch. Mus. inv. 5 7 7 9 ) and 3.14 (in alabaster, same provenance and date, Volterra, Museo Guarnacci no. 268). Both entries are by B. Andreae. See also Steingraber, infra. Ferento head: Ulisse 1996, 178, no. 3.11 (Viterbo, Museo Civico inv. 435; height 0.31 m; entry by H. Blanck). T h e piece was found in the Roman theater, which dates from Augustan times and was refurbished under the Severans. It is suggested, how-

THE SPERLONGA SCULPTURES

91

ever, that the nenfro head (originally from a full statue) dates from the second century B.C. because of its style and medium and was moved from its original location. Colle Cesarano terracottas: Alvino 1996, and Ulisse 1996, 239, no. 4.3 (Polyphemos); what remains of an Odysseus probably offering the cup to the Cyclops is illustrated on p. 203, figs. 7 - 9 . T h e Tortoreto figures (Sanzi Di Mino 1996, and Ulisse 1996, 244 no. 4.5), now in the Chieti Museum, comprise an Odysseus and a seated Polyphemos with two dead companions, but also some Muses and a male torso identified as Apollo, for which see figs. 1 - 1 8 in Sanzi Di Mino's essay. Both these complexes seem in the tradition of Etruscan pedimental compositions in terracotta and may therefore be earlier than the date in the second half of the first century B.C. or later postulated in the respective entries. An earlier chronology is also advocated by Himmelmann 1995, 35 n. 63, 39 n. 69, 1 1 6 (cf. his figs. 4a,b). Antikythera shipwreck Odysseus: Bol 1 9 7 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 , no. 28, pis. 4 4 , 4 5 ; cf. also Himmelmann 1995, 35 and figs. 36, 37. Also significant is the Ephesos composition discussed by Alvino 1996 (cf. Ulisse 1996, 240-43, no. 4.4, dated ca. 40 B.C.). In general, the Ulisse exhibition catalogue illustrates several other monuments involving the Cyclops that are here not mentioned because later than the Sperlonga groups. For comments on the Mahdia shipwreck and what it has taught us about the Athenians' supply of luxury goods for Roman villas, see Ridgway 1995. Himmelmann 1995, 5 4 - 5 5 , discusses with some skepticism the identification of Sperlonga with the Tiberian dining event; cf. also Himmelmann 1996b, 33; and now Hafner 1996 (an Imperial villa but not Trajan's). 23. For disembodied heads and "Lykian wavelets," see Ridgway 1997, 96 and 87 with n. 2 2, respectively. A comparison with Lykian models is now also made by Heres 1997, 104 and fig. 25. For my latest opinions (and updated bibliography) on the Pergamon Altar, the Telephos Frieze, and the Sperlonga sculptures, see now Ridgway 2000, chapters 2, 3, and 8 (specifically, pp. 2 7 9 - 8 1 ) , respectively, and my Hellenistic Sculpture III (forthcoming), chapter 3.

The Phantom of a Rhodian School of Sculpture J.J. Pollitt

Since at least some of the sculptures from Sperlonga are the work of Rhodian sculptors, and since Rhodian artists have sometimes been thought to have played an important role in designing the Gigantomachy of the Great Altar at Pergamon, it seems reasonable to ask whether or not there was anything characteristically Rhodian in the style of these monuments. Was Rhodes, as has frequendy been suggested, the home of an influential "school" of sculptors whose innovations in style had a profound influence on sculptors elsewhere in the Hellenistic world? 1 That Rhodes was a prosperous center for the production of sculpture is, I think, beyond dispute. Studies of dedicatory inscriptions and sculptors' signatures, most recendy by Virginia Goodlett, have confirmed the existence of a substantial number of apparendy prosperous workshops of sculptors throughout the Hellenistic period. 2 Even during the period after 167 B.C., when, partly to punish the Rhodians for vacillating in their policies toward Rome, the Romans made Delos a free port, thereby ruining Rhodian maritime trade and ending its role as a significant independent political power, it is clear that Rhodes remained prosperous and that its importance as a cultural center continued unabated. There is some evidence which may suggest, in fact, that during this last phase Rhodian patrons made a point of encouraging local artists: although the total number of sculptors who were active on the island decreased at this time, the percentage of sculptural dedications attributable to identifiable Rhodian workshops increases dramatically.3 In short, Rhodes seems to have been a good place to be a sculptor. Throughout most of the Hellenistic period it was wealthy and well governed, and it seems always to have had a host of patrons who were interested in commissioning new sculptures. 92

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

93

But did the prosperity of Rhodian sculptors generate innovations in style and subject matter that went beyond the island, offered new avenues of expression to sculptors throughout the Greek world, and thus changed in some significant way the overall character of Greek sculpture? Did the sculpture of Hellenistic Rhodes, in other words, have an influence comparable to that of Athens in the second half of the fifth century B.c? T h e word "school" w h e n used in connection with the visual arts refers to a g r o u p of artists w h o share certain principles, methods, and aims that make their work distinctive and recognizable. T h e formation of a school often presupposes certain basic social and economic prerequisites. First, there is usually a leader whose personal originality and vision capture the imagination of other artists, w h o voluntarily b e c o m e followers. Pheidias clearly played this role in Athens, and the same was probably also true of Polykleitos in Argos, although we know relatively little about the social conditions that sustained the Argive school. Second, there must be a source of wealth and patronage, either public or private, that encourages innovation and subsidizes artistic projects on a scale which makes major innovations possible. In the Greek world one thinks naturally of the wealth that Athens derived from the "Delian" confederacy and the appropriation of that wealth for artistic projects by the government of Perikles, but the history of European art abounds in other examples of such p a t r o n a g e — t h e principate of Augustus, the court of Charlemagne, the Medici in Florence, the popes of sixteenth-century Rome, and so on. Third, there are usually one or more major projects, like the Parthenon or one of the great Imperial fora of Rome, which make it possible for a group of artists, while working together intensely for a period of time, to absorb one another's ideas and technical achievements in such a way that a certain uniformity of style comes to characterize the school even when the mannerisms of individual artists continue to be recognizable. Over the years a number of scholars, including the present writer, have conjectured that a Rhodian school played a pivotal role in the development of some of the major stylistic innovations in Hellenistic sculpture. Rhodian sculptors, it has been suggested, took the lead in the creation of the baroque style of the later third and early second century and were perhaps also primarily responsible for the development of supposedly rococo trends in sculpture later in the second century. In most cases these conjectures have taken the f o r m of brief speculative passing comments within broad studies that did not have Rhodes as their principal focus. 4 Two historians of Hellenistic sculpture, however, Margarete Bieber writing in the 1950s and more recently Paolo M o r e n o in his ambitious Scultura ellenistica (1994), have elaborated in considerable detail upon the hypothesis of an influential Rhodian school. Both have argued that a distinctive dramatic originality in Rhodian sculpture was

94

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

established near the beginning of the Hellenistic period with the first great sculptural monument of Rhodes, the colossus of Helios by Lysippos's pupil Chares, and that the innovative qualities of Rhodian sculpture that began with the Helios continued to have an influence on the overall development of Rhodian sculpture into the following century and beyond. Bieber, for example, was confident that she could see echoes of the colossus in the Helios metope from the temple of Athena at Troy and concluded: "We can, therefore, assert that the style of the Pergamene altar had precursors in other Asiatic cities, and if the metopes reflect the Rhodian school, whose founder was Chares, we may assume that this baroque style was formed not first in Pergamon, but existed even earlier in Rhodes." 5 Moreno sees the colossus as inaugurating a great tradition in bronze casting at Rhodes, a tradition that was carried on in the bronze original of the Farnese Bull group and especially in works created for grottoes in Rhodian sculpture parks, like the (hypothetical) bronze originals on which the major groups from the cave at Sperlonga were based. He also accepts a number of well-known works in marble— both originals, like the Nike of Samothrake, and copies, like the Muses that have often been associated with the sculptor Philiskos—as the work of Rhodian sculptors.6 Those who believe in the existence of an influential Rhodian school have based their belief mainly on literary sources, on epigraphical evidence, like the signatures of three Rhodian sculptors on the Skylla group at Sperlonga, and on the assumption that certain important extant sculptures found outside Rhodes were of Rhodian origin. Skepticism about these expansive and optimistic visions of a Rhodian school has, however, always been present and seems to have grown in recent years. Gloria Merker, in her thoughtful and dispassionate analysis of surviving sculptures on Rhodes published in 1973, found litde to confirm the existence of a distinctive Rhodian school. She concluded that extant, provably Rhodian sculpture is not "compositionally innovative"; that whatever traces of the baroque style can be found on Rhodes seem to be later than the Pergamon altar; that the drapery of Rhodian sculptures seems quiet and conservative compared with that of sculptures from other Hellenistic sites; and that it is "doubtful" that Rhodian works which show particular mannerisms, such as archaisms, "point to the existence of a separate school of sculptors."7 Merker's assessment of the "hard" archaeological evidence has recently been bolstered by Jacob Isager's point-by-point critique of the validity of using literary sources and speculative attributions to define such a school, a critique which ends by concluding that "it is not possible, on the basis of literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence, to establish a Hellenistic Rhodian School of sculptors."8 In what follows I offer my own assessment of, and perspective on, the arguments for and against the existence of a Rhodian school in the sense defined at the beginning of this paper.

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

95

THE EVIDENCE OF LITERARY SOURCES AND ATTRIBUTIONS The Colossus T h e greatest sculptural project in Rhodian history was undertaken very early in the Hellenistic period. By withstanding the famous siege of Demetrios Poliorketes in 3 0 5 - 3 0 4 B.C. Rhodes both assured its existence as an independent state and guaranteed the continuation of its role as the principal mercantile center of the Hellenistic world. T o c o m m e m o r a t e their heroic resistance and serve as a symbol of their independence, the Rhodians decided to erect a colossal image of Helios, the city's tutelary god, and to pay for it with money derived from the sale of siege machinery that had been abandoned by Demetrios. According to Pliny (NH34.31) the statue was 70 cubits high (32 m), took twelve years to complete, and was the work of the sculptor Chares of Lindos, a pupil of Lysippos. Recent scholarship suggests that it stood in the sanctuary of Helios on the low akropolis of Rhodes, overlooking, and easily visible from, the harbor. 9 Pliny tells us that the statue was thrown down by a great earthquake after having stood for either fifty-six or sixty-six years (the manuscripts vary), and since the earthquake is now dated fairly confidently to 228 B.C., one can assume that the statue was begun either immediately after the end of the siege in 304 b.c. or a decade later, after the city had recovered from the effects of the struggle. Unfortunately, although valiant attempts have been made to conjure up the appearance of the colossus by comparison with coins and with sculptures like the Helios metope from the temple of A t h e n a at Ilion, a surviving stone head and a limestone relief from Rhodes, both of which may represent Helios, and most recently a (probably) Hadrianic "Apollo-Helios" type now in Civitavecchia, the simple truth is that we d o not have any reliable evidence as to what the statue looked like. 10 In spite of this uncertainty, however, there are two pieces of circumstantial evidence in the literary sources which might be enlisted in support of the idea that the colossus stimulated a characteristically Rhodian taste for baroque features in sculpture. O n e is the fact that Chares was a pupil of Lysippos. This could at least tempt one to conclude that torsion, a dramatic turn of the neck, and an expression of pathos (all stylistic devices commonly ascribed to the works of Lysippos, especially his portraits of Alexander) were features of the statue. T h e other is the fact that, according to Pliny, remains of the statue lay on the ground for several centuries and were marveled at by generations of Rhodians as well as foreign tourists. U n d e r these viewing conditions, and given the scale of the statue, details like individual muscles and facial features, simply because of their magnified size, might have seemed to have the sort of dramatic exaggeration that we now associate with the baroque style of the Great Altar at Pergamon. Such speculations, needless to say, are as easily rejected as believed, but at least one solid fact relevant to the question of whether or not there was a

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

Rhodian school does, I think, emerge from the sources. This is that the Rhodian government was fully capable of organizing and funding m£yor artistic projects and seeing them through to completion. It has been suggested that because Rhodes was a democracy and because as a maritime trading state its wealth was dispersed among individuals, it did not have the sort of executive authority and the resources that enabled Hellenistic monarchs like the Attalids to undertake large-scale projects. 11 This, however, was clearly not the case. A democratic system and overseas trade are not incompatible, as the history of Classical Athens makes clear, with government-supervised artistic projects. The Rhodian government repeatedly demonstrated great skill in undertaking diplomatic negotiations with other Hellenistic states, organizing military campaigns, and supervising the affairs of its overseas possessions (the Peraia). Furthermore, at the very beginning of its history the newly synoecized Rhodian state inaugurated one of the most impressive urban-planning projects in the history of the ancient world—the building of the new city of Rhodes. Given its record of efficiency and resourcefulness, there is no reason to doubt that the Rhodian government could have encouraged and supported a Rhodian sculptural school if it had chosen to. In the case of the colossus, as we have seen, it did in fact subsidize a major sculptural project for twelve years; but whether or not Rhodian sculptors continued to benefit from such support after the first few decades of the third century is difficult to determine. Pliny's Evidence for the Extent of Rhodian Sculpture In addition to the colossus by Chares, Pliny records that there were a hundred other colossal statues on Rhodes, any one of which would have brought fame to the island (if the statue by Chares had not eclipsed them). He then proceeds to mention five additional colossi representing gods, all works by the sculptor Bryaxis (NH%4.42), and elsewhere he mentions a second colossal Helios, this one representing the god in a four-horse chariot, a work of Chares' teacher, Lysippos (NH34.63). In another passage he cites Licinius Mucianus as his source for the fact that there were three thousand bronze statues visible on Rhodes in the mid-first century a.c. (NH34.36). (This is the conservative reading of the text; some manuscripts say 73,000!) Given the paucity and the essentially routine nature of the sculpture that actually survives on Rhodes, Pliny's picture of the ubiquity, richness, and scale of sculpture on Rhodes is surprising, and yet I can see no valid reason to disbelieve him. As Rice and Isager have pointed out, there is no strong evidence that Cassius plundered the sculpture of Rhodes in 43 B.C. Whatever sculpture was there in the late Hellenistic period was presumably there in the first century a.c. , and Pliny's readers would have been able to confirm or dismiss the accuracy of Mucianus's observations.

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

97

Although the number three thousand may seem large, there is nothing inherently improbable in Pliny's assertion that there were a great many bronze statues on Rhodes. Surviving dedicatory inscriptions indicate that honorific bronze statues, set up by families and other private groups to honor and commemorate the virtues and benefactions of distinguished citizens, were the most ubiquitous form of sculpture on Rhodes. What is more surprising, and of more significance for the question of whether or not there was a Rhodian school, is the existence of more than a hundred colossal statues on the island. It is unlikely that many, if any, of the bronzes set up in honor of private citizens were colossal, and consequently it is quite likely that many, perhaps most, of the colossi were images of deities, heroes (like Herakles), and heroized rulers (like Alexander). 12 Such statues could have been private dedications, since bases exist for what seems to have been at least one example of over-life-size statues of deities dedicated by a private individual. 13 Given the cost of such undertakings, however, it seems more probable that the colossi mentioned by Pliny were commissioned and funded by the Rhodian government; and since government largesse, as we have suggested, is one of the factors that tends to stimulate the formation of schools, the existence of these colossi could be taken as evidence that there was a school of sculptors on Rhodes. This conclusion is not an obvious one, however, and some of the information provided by Pliny seems to argue against it. He seems to imply that when the Rhodians commissioned such large works they tended to look to the prestigious foreign workshops of "big name" sculptors like Lysippos or Bryaxis rather than to local Rhodian workshops. 14 Chares was admittedly a native of Rhodes, but his initial claim to distinction among the Rhodians may have been that he was a pupil of Lysippos and hence part of a tradition that had been made famous by the patronage of Alexander and the Diadochoi. The fact that Pliny specifically cites famous sculptors of the later fourth and early third centuries when he mentions the Rhodian colossi could also be taken to imply that if there was a particular time when the Rhodian government played an active role in stimulating the arts, it was toward the beginning of the Hellenistic period, before the great earthquake of 228 B.C., and not during the heyday of the style—the Hellenistic baroque—that has been thought to be one of the hallmarks of the Rhodian school. The Farnese Bull and Its Sculptors If the Farnese Bull group in Naples is a copy of the group of Zethos, Amphion, Dirke, and the Bull that Pliny tells us was brought to Rome from Rhodes (NH 36.33-34), the original group has a reasonable claim to being a bona fide Rhodian work executed in the full-blown Hellenistic baroque style. Although one of the two sculptors who made it, Tauriskos, was from Tralleis,

G8

A RHODIAN SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

and the other, Apollonios, probably was as well, Pliny seems to imply that they were adopted by a certain Menekrates, who is generally assumed to have been a Rhodian sculptor. There is nothing implausible about what Pliny seems to tell us. Rhodian inscriptions suggest that it was a fairly common practice for Rhodian sculptors to adopt non-Rhodian sculptors into their families. 15 Presumably this was a way of gaining Rhodian citizenship for non-Rhodian craftsmen who were already valued members of Rhodian sculptural workshops. The sculptor Menekrates is admittedly, however, a shadowy figure. Some, including the present writer, have speculated that he is identical with the architect Menekrates mentioned by Ausonius and with a sculptor whose signature is partially preserved in an inscription from Pergamon, but it must be acknowledged that Ausonius does not refer to the architect as a Rhodian and that the name on the Pergamene inscription, while it can plausibly be restored as "Menekrates," is not accompanied by an ethnic. 16 In addition to Pliny's assertion that the Dirke group in Rome came from Rhodes and his implication that it was the creation of a Rhodian workshop, there is also some archaeological evidence to suggest that the original of the Dirke group was Rhodian. A number of statuettes of nymphs, presumably votive sculptures that were installed in niches in sanctuaries, have been found on Rhodes, and if the figures of the Farnese Bull group are valid evidence, these statuettes seem to have been modeled on the Dirke in the group by Apollonios and Tauriskos.17 If this connection is true, it would suggest that the group was famous before its removal to Rome, that it was the object of study by other Rhodian sculptors, and that it could have exerted an influence on the course of Rhodian sculpture for as long as 150 years, long enough to have played a role in shaping the stylistic predilections of a Rhodian school. (Because the Farnese Bull group echoes the baroque style associated with Pergamene sculpture in the first half of the second century, most scholars assume that the original Dirke group was made sometime between 200 and 150 B.C. Exactly when it was moved to Rome is not known, although the recent suggestion that this may have been done by Marc Antony, perhaps in the early 30s B.C., is plausible.) 18 In recent scholarship it is becoming increasingly fashionable to view the Dirke group, despite the fact that it stood on Rhodes, as a Pergamene work in style and conception. Since Eumenes II and Attalos II are known to have dedicated a relief representing the same subject at Kyzikos in a temple honoring their mother, Apollonis, 19 several scholars have assumed that the Rhodian group was also an Attalid dedication whose purpose was to remind the Hellenistic world of both the piety of the Attalids and their ability to punish their less pious enemies; and in elaborating upon this assumption various interactions between Rhodes and Pergamon between 180 and 159 B.C. have been suggested as the occasion for the dedication of the work.20 Apollonios and Tauriskos, according to this view, were probably trained at Per-

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

99

gamon and brought the baroque style with them to Rhodes. This would mean, of course, that there was nothing distinctively Rhodian about the Dirke group. Interesting, and even plausible, as the "Attalid thesis" may be, we should remember that it consists of nothing more than a series of educated guesses. There is, on the other hand, some real evidence that the original of the Dirke group was the product of a Rhodian workshop and that its style had a continuing influence on Rhodian art. The Nike ofSamothrake Thiersch's hypothesis that the Nike of Samothrake is a work of the Rhodian sculptor Pythokritos remains, to me at least, an attractive one. In its favor are the facts (a) that the ship-prow base of the Nike is made of Rhodian (Larthian) marble; (b) that an inscription with the signature of a Rhodian sculptor (name missing) was found near the Nike; and (c) the letter forms of the inscription are similar to those on inscriptions found at Lindos, including a rock-cut relief of a ship signed by Pythokritos. 21 1 do not deny, however, that this evidence is far from decisive. The inscription with the sculptor's signature may not belong to the Nike; and since Larthian stone was apparently thought to be especially suitable for bases, one might view it as a generic import rather than as a material preferred for patriotic reasons by a Rhodian artist. T h e historical circumstances that led to the setting up of the Nike are unknown. That it dates from the first half of the second century B.C. seems virtually certain, because of its close similarity in style to figures on the Gigantomachy Frieze of the Great Altar at Pergamon (especially the panel with Athena and Nike on the east side). Whether it influenced, or was influenced by, the sculpture of Pergamon, however, is an entirely subjective question. If the Nike was the work of a Rhodian artist and was, as I have suggested elsewhere, a Rhodian dedication dating to about 190 B.C., the case for believing that the baroque style was in common use among Rhodian sculptors before it came to be used at Pergamon and that it was developed by a Rhodian school would obviously be bolstered. 22 Other hypotheses about the date and origin of the statue are, however, possible and perhaps equally plausible; and none of them is provable. 23 In short, although the hypothesis that the Nike of Samothrake is a Rhodian work has merit, neither archaeological evidence nor written sources can connect the statue indisputably with Rhodes. The Laokoon and Sperlonga I suspect that most critics who have been inclined to see the Hellenistic baroque style in sculpture as the creation and hallmark of a Rhodian school have been lured to this thought, consciously or subconsciously, by the Lao-

zoo

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

koon. The Vatican statue is one of the most powerful surviving exemplars of the style, and that it is a work of three Rhodian sculptors—Hagesandros, Athanadoros, and Polydoros—is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. 24 When epigraphical evidence for the date of the three sculptors was still open to considerable doubt and it was still possible to date the work to the second century B.C. (as Gisela Richter proposed in 1951), using the Laokoon as evidence for close connection between Rhodes and the baroque style was unproblematical. 25 This situation changed, however, when the inscription on the ship of the Skylla group from Sperlonga came to light and the patronymics of the three sculptors became known. T h e new evidence enabled Ellen Rice, in a clear and convincing reassessment of inscriptions relating to Athanadoros the son of Hagesandros and Hagesandros the son of Paionios, to determine that the sculptors of the Laokoon were active in Italy in the period between about 40 and 20 B.C.; 2 6 and the date proposed by Rice primarily on the basis of epigraphical evidence has recently found additional support in C. Kunze's meticulous analysis of both the architectural details of the villa at Sperlonga and specific stylistic features of the Laokoon and Skylla groups. 27 Rice's study also suggests that Athanodoros was a wellknown and respected artist in his time and not simply a workaday copyist. He received an important commission on Rhodes in 42 B.C. for a major group of portrait statues, and the reputation of his works in Italy was such that small "souvenir" versions of his works were made for the art market. It appears most likely, therefore, that the Laokoon in the Vatican and the Skylla group from Sperlonga are Graeco-Roman creations of the late Hellenistic period, work made for Roman patrons by Greek artists who were thoroughly immersed in the traditions of Hellenistic sculpture. The same is probably also true of the Cyclops group, which does not bear the signature of the three Rhodian sculptors, but is similar enough in style to the Skylla group to be their work. 28 Since in Pliny's time the Laokoon belonged to the emperor Titus, it is quite possible that the work was an imperial possession from the beginning and that, in view of its date, it was commissioned by Octavian. Von Blanckenhagen and Andreae have associated the statue with the Laokoon episode in the Aeneidand interpreted it as an allusion to Rome's foundation myth, 29 but other interpretations more closely related to Greek versions of the myth and to the politics of the late Republic (e.g., an allusion to the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra) have been suggested and are in some ways more plausible.30 It is quite possible that the Skylla and Cyclops groups in the grotto at Sperlonga were also commissions of Octavian or someone in his circle and that their purpose (as Brunilde Ridgway and Nancy de Grummond have suggested elsewhere in this volume) was to evoke episodes in the wanderings of Odysseus that were traditionally associated with Italy.31 Whether they too may have had an implicit political significance connected with the power strug-

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

101

gles of the late Republic, as R. R. R. Smith has speculated, is an interesting question but one beyond the scope of the present inquiry. 32 For our purposes the question is, What are the consequences of this more precise dating of the sculptors of the Laokoön and the Skylla group for the question of whether or not there was a Rhodian sculptural school? If one adopts the position of Bernard Andreae that the Laokoön and the Sperlonga sculptures are simply copies of Greek bronzes of the second century B.C., there are, I suppose, no consequences. From this point of view, the fact that the sculptors who signed the extant sculptures were Rhodians tells us nothing about a Rhodian style, since they were simply able copyists. Where the "originals" were made can only be a subject for speculation. O n e may devise speculative scenarios in support of a Rhodian origin for one or the other of them, as Andreae has done with the Skylla group, 3 3 but there is no way of proving ideas of this sort, and we should not confuse what Carl Robert called archäologische Märchen with facts. 34 If, on the other hand, one is more inclined to believe, as I am, that the Laokoön and some or all of the Sperlonga sculptures are essentially original creations designed for patrons in the late Roman Republic, the Rhodian background of Hagesandros, Athanodoros, and Polydoros raises a question that may be of considerable significance for our subject: How and where did these sculptors become such powerful masters of the Hellenistic baroque style, a style that we normally associate with the second century B.C. and with the sculpture of Pergamon? O n e possibility is that they simply absorbed it by traveling around and looking at famous monuments. A number of prominent sculptors of the first century B.C.—Pasiteles, for example—seem to have been eclectic in their use of style (or styles). T h e Rhodian trio may have traveled to Pergamon, then under Roman control and very much part of the intellectual scene of the late Republic, studied the Great Altar and other monuments, realized that this style had an appeal to their Roman aristocratic patrons, and undertaken to give their public what it wanted by reproducing the Pergamene style in Italy. Another possibility, however, is that in introducing the baroque style into a new art market, they were simply perpetuating a style that had long been part of their heritage as Rhodian sculptors, a heritage that stretched back through the workshops of second-century artists like Pythokritos and Menekrates all the way to the workshop of Chares. 35 This would not necessarily imply that Rhodes was the only place where the baroque style was cultivated early in the Hellenistic p e r i o d — elements of it can be seen in tomb sculptures at Taras, for example, in the early third century—but it may mean that Rhodian sculptors could claim a leading role in both the creation and the perpetuation of the style. It would, however, be equally valid to argue that by the first century B.C. the baroque style was one of a number of stylistic options that were generally available to Greek sculptors, that it was not the special "signature " of any particular group

10 2

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

or school, and that in the Laokoon and the Skylla group Athanodoros and his colleagues simply selected from their stylistic repertoire a style that they felt was most appropriate for their subjects. Philiskos One of the most popular and longest-lasting assumptions about the Hellenistic sculpture of Rhodes is that there was a group of nine Muses by a Rhodian sculptor of the second century b.c. named Philiskos and that these influential Muses are reflected in a variety of Roman copies as well as in figures in Hellenistic relief sculpture. From these supposed copies and echoes it has further been assumed that Philiskos was one of the principal creators of the elaborate style of rendering drapery in which, through the covering of a semitransparent himation which is often characterized by deep baroquestyle folds and rolls, the contrasting folds of an underlying garment are made visible. This style—which, it has been said, "preserves the pathetic quality of the baroque but at the same time aspires to a more minutely analytical rendering of natural appearance" 36 —has often been dated to the mid-second century B.C. and been viewed as a mannerist, or rococo, or academic elaboration on the baroque style of drapery as it is known from Pergamon. The Muses of Philiskos, in other words, have been seen as another piece of evidence in support of the view that the baroque style was at home on Rhodes and continued to be developed there. Given the widespread acceptance of the existence of this second-century "late baroque Philiskos," the flimsiness of the evidence on which it is based is quite surprising. The identification is based on a passage in Pliny ( N H 36.34-35) in which he itemizes a group of sculptures that were in the sanctuary of Apollo near the Porticus Octaviae in Rome. Here, he says, there was an Apollo by Philiskos of Rhodes and "item, a Leto, and a Diana, and nine Muses, and another Apollo, this one nude." 37 The temple of Apollo referred to by Pliny is clearly the temple in the Campus Martius that eventually came to be called, in the wake of its rebuilding by the general C. Sosius in 33 B.C., the temple of Apollo Sosianus. If one approaches the question of Philiskos's date without any preconceptions, it would be reasonable to conclude that the work (or works) of the sculptor in the Apollo temple was (or were) commissioned by, or donated by, Sosius. This would make them analogous to the sculptures set up around the same time by another Roman general and triumphator, Asinius Pollio. Pliny's description of the latter's collection, which immediately precedes his reference to Philiskos, indicates that it contained works by Arkesilaos, Kleomenes, and Stephanos, all sculptors who were active in the first century B.C. Furthermore, adjacent to the temple of Apollo Sosianus, in the temples of Juno and Jupiter within the Porticus Octaviae, Pliny mentions several works executed by another group of expatriate Greek

A RHODIAN SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

103

sculptors, the Athenian workshop of Timarchides and his sons Dionysios and Polykles, who worked in Rome in the later second century B.C., and he notes that interspersed among these was another work, a Venus, by Philiskos; and, to complete the interlinking of all these artists, Timarchides is also cited as the sculptor of yet another image of Apollo in the temple where Philiskos's image of the god also stood. The presence and overlapping of the work of all of these sculptors in the same area would seem to increase the likelihood that Philiskos was one of those Greek sculptors who migrated to Rome in the late Hellenistic period in order to take advantage of a burgeoning market for their work. Judging by a surviving work of Stephanos, by a work plausibly attributed to Timarchides, and by literary descriptions of the work of Arkesilaos, the work of these artists seems to have been eclectic and opportunistic in style (sometimes neoclassical, sometimes rococo, depending on what their clients wanted). 38 Such archaeological evidence as there is about the date of Philiskos, moreover, would seem to confirm this. The signature of a sculptor named Philiskos the son of Polycharmos is preserved on the base of a portrait dedicated on Thasos, and both the letter forms and the identity of the dedicator place it in the first century b . c. In addition to the Venus by Philiskos mentioned above, there was another Venus, Pliny tells us, in one of the temples within the Porticus Octaviae by a sculptor Polycharmos (M736.36). It seems likely that the latter is the father of Philiskos cited in the Thasian inscription and that at some point in their careers, the father and son (like, perhaps, the Rhodians Athanodoros and Hagesandros) transplanted their workshop to Rome. 39 That the well-known and influential figures of Muses that have been itemized by Amelung, Pinkwart, and others predate the first century B.C. is not in dispute, but that these sculptures had any connection with a sculptor named Philiskos is very doubtful. 40 To salvage the venerable idea of an earlier Philiskos, it has been necessary to postulate the existence of two sets of Muses by the artist, one in the eastern part of the Greek world and another commissioned for an earlier rebuilding of the temple of Apollo in Rome in 179 B.C., and also to assume that the Philiskos mentioned in the inscription from Thasos was a descendant of the (hypothetical) earlier and more famous artist.41 Obviously, no conclusions about the existence or style of a Rhodian sculptural school can be based on this complex of questionable assumptions. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM RHODES

The preceding discussion of the arguments in favor of a Rhodian school of sculptors has made clear how unreliable our literary sources are for this question. We know very little about the style of the colossus by Chares. Apollonios and Tauriskos, who were not native Rhodians, seem to have made an impressive work in the baroque style on Rhodes, but whether they brought their

104

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

style with them or absorbed it on Rhodes remains an open question. That Pythokritos was the sculptor of the Nike of Samothrake is only a hypothesis; and even if it is true, one could argue that he learned his style while working with an international group of sculptors on the Great Altar atPergamon. The sculptors of the Laokoon were active in Italy at the very end of the Hellenistic period and worked in a style that was created well before their own time; it may have been Rhodian in origin, but it equally well may not have. Philiskos, or at least a widely influential Philiskos in the second century, seems to be a phantom. T h e strongest arguments against the existence of a Rhodian school of sculptors come, however, not from the hypothetical and inconclusive nature of the literary evidence but from inscriptions and sculptures found on the island. T h e nature of this evidence, as analyzed by Virginia Goodlett and Gloria Merker, can be summed up briefly. Sculptors' Signatures and Rhodian Workshops 1. T h e epigraphical evidence indicates that sculptors' workshops flourished in Rhodes throughout the Hellenistic period but that these were small, family-run enterprises consisting of at most four or five sculptors. 2. After the time of the colossus there is no evidence for massive statesponsored projects that might have drawn these small workshops together and fused them into a "school." 3. In the third century, at the time when one might have expected a Rhodian school to be taking shape, the majority of artists seem to have been non-Rhodians who came, executed their commissions, and departed. 4. T h e percentage of signed sculptures known to have been executed by Rhodian workshops peaked, somewhat surprisingly, between 150 B.C. and 50 B.C., at the time when Rhodes's political power in the Greek world was dwindling. If the island was the site of a widely influential sculptural school that spawned the baroque style, one might reasonably expect the peak to have come earlier. 5. Most of the commissions executed by Rhodian sculptors were single statues, the majority of them being honorific portraits, usually in bronze, of distinguished citizens. These were financed by families or by groups of private citizens. If the style of the marble portraits on Rhodes, some of which survive, was similar to that of the bronzes, it would seem that the latter were respectable but routine works that did not require, or encourage, dramatic stylistic innovation.

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

Extant Rhodian

Sculpture

The surviving marble sculptures on Rhodes are for the most part small-scale votive figures intended to be set up by private individuals in sanctuaries and decorative figures designed for private houses. Although the bulk of them have been dismissed as belonging to the realm of knickknacks, 42 they nevertheless often exhibit, as Gloria Merker has shown, a high degree of technical competence. 43 What they definitely do not offer, however, is any evidence of a distinctively Rhodian stylistic tradition. For the most part they seem to reflect the ebb and flow of stylistic fashion in Hellenistic sculpture as a whole. A few pieces seem to show the influence of the style of the Pergamon Altar; others have classicizing traits; and still others have a rococo character. 44 Such distinctively Rhodian traits as there are seem minor and technical. Merker has suggested that "piecing together individual parts of figures is one of the recurrent technical characteristics of Rhodian stone sculpture," and Andreas Linfert, in his study of the styles of drapery used for female figures in the Hellenistic period, has identified a "härtere, straffere Kunstrichtung" in certain Rhodian works that distinguishes them from the softer style of Kos and Magnesia. 45 The piecing technique is not really a feature of style, however, and there is no evidence that a trend toward hardness in drapery forms had widespread influence, even on Rhodes itself. CONCLUSION

In the end it seems to me that one can make a case for the existence of a Rhodian sculptural school only by creating a kind of visionary scenario out of hints and hypotheses. Such a "script" might read like this: T h e most remarkable datum among Pliny's comments on Rhodian sculpture is his assertion that there were more than one hundred colossal statues on Rhodes, any one of which would have brought fame to the island if they had not been eclipsed by the colossus of Helios (NH 34.42). If we take this statement seriously, and if the colossi were mainly statues of gods (like the Helios of Chares and the statues ascribed to Bryaxis) set up in major Rhodian sanctuaries, the existence of such sculptures might be taken to imply large, statesponsored projects that gathered together a substantial number of sculptors. Since colossal sculptures are complicated projects that take years to complete, these sculptors might have worked side by side for decades, long enough for a common style to emerge and a school to form. Further, since colossi simply by virtue of their scale require a certain exaggeration of separate details like muscles and folds of drapery, the common style which emerged, we might assume, was a nascent form of what we now call Hellenistic baroque. By the end of the third century, let us say, this style had trickled down to human-scale sculptures like the original of the Farnese Bull group, which, because of its pyramidal composition, might, following the formal criteria advocated by scholars

106

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

like Krahmer and Kunzl, be dated to 225-200 B . C . 4 6 After the Rhodian vogue for colossi cooled, perhaps as a result of the damage caused by the great earthquake of 228 B.C., many of the Rhodian and Rhodian-trained sculptors, like Apollonios and Tauriskos, went abroad in search of new opportunities for employment, like that offered by the Attalids at Pergamon, and naturally took their style with them. This pattern continued down to the end of the Hellenistic period, when the workshop of Athanadoros took the style to Italy. Although the small domestic and votive sculptures and run-of-the-mill portraits that survive on Rhodes are naturally too humble to capture in any vivid way the great tradition of the Rhodian colossi, they do nevertheless occasionally echo it—as in the figures of nymphs (or possibly Aphrodite) that are modeled on the Dirke and an impressive head of Helios that perpetuates the memory of the colossus of Chares—and show that the great style did penetrate popular consciousness. 47 The pitfalls of using literary sources to support such a scenario have already been enumerated, however, and entertaining as such speculative exercises may be, they are most appropriate for the world of pipe dreams. In the end, if visions are rejected as unscientific, our written sources are found to be indeterminate, and the archaeological evidence from Rhodes itself argues against the existence of a distinctively Rhodian sculptural school, is there any reason at all for concluding that there was such a school? "Probably not" is likely to be the conclusion of those who have weighed the evidence in a rational and objective way.

NOTES 1. I am grateful to Nancy de G r u m m o n d , Brunilde Ridgway, and the organizers of the Langford Conference for giving me an opportunity to examine this question in greater detail than I was able to do in my book on Hellenistic art published in 1986. When I began to rethink the question, I tried to suspend, at least temporarily, all my preconceptions about the role of Rhodes in Hellenistic sculpture, and the result is that the views expressed here are in some cases at odds with those expressed in my book. I would also like to express my gratitude to Brunilde Ridgway and Andrew Stewart (who, needless to say, have their own views on many of the issues discussed here) for helpful suggestions and criticisms. 2. Goodlett 1 9 9 1 , 6 7 3 - 7 8 . 3. Goodlett 1 9 9 1 , 6 7 5 . 1 agree with Goodlett's view (see her n. 27) that the extent of Rhodes's economic decline has probably been exaggerated. 4. Alscher 1 9 5 7 , 1 6 2 - 6 4 ; Havelock 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 7 ; Pollitt 1 9 8 6 , 1 1 3 - 1 8 ; Andreae 1988, 1 1 4 - 3 4 . I n th e first major book on Hellenistic sculpture in English, Guy Dickins devoted an entire chapter to " T h e Rhodian School" and concluded that, "In Rhodes . . . the steady development of Greek sculpture reached its perfect and logical conclusion" (Dickins 1920, 52). Many of the works attributed by Dickins to Rhodes would not be accepted as Rhodian today, however, even by advocates of a Rhodian school. 5. Bieber 1961b, 124.

A RHODIAN SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

107

6. Moreno 1994, 127-46, 3 5 9 - 4 1 3 , 605-46. 7. Merker 1973, 1 1 - 1 4 . 8. Isager 1995, 131. 9. Rice 1995, 384. 10. O n the Ilion metope: Bieber 1961b, 124, fig. 488; Ridgway 1990, 150-54, pi. 70; Moreno 1994, fig. 157. O n the Helios in the Rhodes museum: Merker 1973, cat. no. 64, figs. 42-44; Gualandi 1976, 52, n. 4; Pollitt 1986, 55, fig. 48, and 307, n. 20; and on the limestone relief: Jacopi 1932, no. 35. O n the Apollo-Helios from Santa Marinella, now in Civitavecchia: Moreno 1994, 142-44, figs. 155, 164, 167, 170-72, 176. 11. Merker 1973, 6. For a concise description of the Rhodian government and its efficiency in administration see Berthold 1984, chap. 2. 12. Judging by the size of cuttings for the feet of statues on the published bases from Lindos, none of the honorific statues of private individuals was over-life-size. The dimensions of these cuttings are not always given in Blinkenberg 1941, but those that are, with one exception, range from 0.19 m to 0.30 m, with the average being 0.24 m or about 9.5 inches. (This is computed from nos. 42, 43, 53, 61, 62, 64, 68, 74' 9 1 » 93- 1 0 0 > 1 !3> !27> !33- !3 6 > !55> l 6 4 - 25°. 251. 293- 3 ° 8 - 344- a n d 3 5 ° i n Blinkenberg.) Even when no dimensions are published, one can estimate a footlength of about 0.22 m, since the average width of the bases is about 0.67 m and about one-third of this dimension is usually allotted to the foot. These dimensions clearly indicate life-size, or perhaps even slighdy under-life-size, statues. (I have excluded bases for what were obviously representations of children.) 13. On monument no. 57 from Lindos, a dedication by the priest Polykles the son of Polykrates, the length of the foot on base A is 0.43 m (about 17 inches), a dimension which Blinkenberg (1941, 271) accepts as "traces d'une statue colossale," and on base B the dimension is 0.37 m. Base A seems to have held a statue of Zeus Polieus, and base B one of Athena Lindia. A third base apparendy bore an essentially life-size image of Apollo Pythios. 14. This would be true regardless of whether the Bryaxis in question was the sculptor who worked on the Mausoleum in the mid-fourth century or a younger Bryaxis who worked for the Seleukids and Ptolemies early in the Hellenistic period. 15. Goodlett 1991, 680-81. 16. Ausonius, Mosella 298-320; IvPno. 70. Von Salis 1912, 1 3 - 1 4 ; Bieber 1961b, 114; Pollitt 1986, 110; Goodlett 1991, 673; Isager 1995, 128. 17. Linfert 1976, 8 6 - 9 1 . 18. Isager 1995, 122-23. 19. Anthologia Graeca 3.7. The relief was on a tablet fastened on, or placed adjacent to, one of the columns on the north side of the temple. 20. C. Kunze 1991, 36-37; Isager 1995, 123-24; Andreae 1991b, 274. 21. Thiersch 1931. For illustrations and a discussion of related monuments that also commemorated naval victories, see Moreno 1994, 366-69. 22. Pollitt 1986, 116, following Thiersch 1931, 364-67. The fact that the statue was dedicated on Samothrake does not, at least to me, argue against its being a Rhodian dedication. At the time of the naval victories off Side and Myonnesos the Rhodians were part of an international alliance (principally with Pergamon and the Romans), and this would have made it reasonable to set up a victory monument in an

108

A RHODIAN SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

international sanctuary. Furthermore, the Great Gods of Samothrake, as protectors of sailors, were particularly appropriate recipients of such a dedication. 23. Smith 1 9 9 1 a , 7 7 - 7 9 , for example, sees a connection with Antigonos Gonatas's defeat of the Ptolemies at the batde of Kos and dates the work to the midthird century. 24. It would be possible in theory to argue (and, in fact, it has been argued) that the Vatican statue is not the one referred to by Pliny in NH36.37, but the signatures of the same sculptors on the Skylla group from Sperlonga, combined with the stylistic similarities between the Laokoon and the Sperlonga sculptures, make this highly unlikely. [The Sperlonga inscription uses the spelling Athanadoros, but an alternative version—Anthanodoros—is current in the literature. —Eds.] 25. Most scholars earlier in the twentieth century had followed Blinkenberg's analysis of certain inscriptions referring to Rhodian priests named Hagesandros and Athanodoros, who were assumed to be identical with the sculptors of the Laokoon. For references and a critique in the light of recent evidence, see Rice 1986, 2 3 3 - 3 6 . Richter 1 9 5 1 , 6 6 - 7 0 , argued, however, that the two names were so common on Rhodes that one was not obliged to connect the two sculptors with the priests of the first century and that one should therefore feel free to date the Laokoon on the basis of its style. 26. Rice 1986, 2 3 3 - 5 0 . 27. C. Kunze 1996. 28. C. Kunze 1996 suggests that the Cyclops group may be the product of a different workshop, but he also maintains that both groups date from the same time. 29. Von Blanckenhagen 1969, 2 6 2 - 6 3 , and Andreae 1988, 188. 30. Smith 1 9 9 1 b , 3 5 7 - 5 8 . 3 1 . Until quite recently the majority of scholars, including the present writer, have been inclined to date the Sperlonga sculptures and the Vatican Laokoon to the time of Tiberius, and some have made ambitious efforts to discover a distinctively Tiberian sensibility in the sculptures, e.g., Stewart 1 9 7 7 b and Andreae 1994. The literary reference upon which the association with Tiberius ultimately rests (Tacitus, Annals 4.59), however, makes no mention of sculptures and tells us nothing about when statuary was first installed in the cave. If the work of Athanodoros and his associates dates to ca. 4 0 - 2 0 B.C., these often ingenious "Tiberian readings" cannot be relevant to the genesis of the Sperlonga sculptures and the Laokoon, although they may tell us something about subsequent interpretations and evaluations of them. 32. Smith 1 9 9 1 b , 3 5 3 - 5 4 . 33. Andreae 1988, 1 1 5 , and also in Ulisse 1996, 3 1 3 - 1 4 , proposes that the original of the Skylla group commemorated a victory by the Rhodians over pirates in the Mediterranean sometime between 1 8 0 and 1 6 0 B.C. It is worth noting in this connection that although our sources, mainly Polybios and Diodoros, make brief references to Rhodian campaigns against pirates, especially in Crete, the most explicit of these passages refer to operations before 200 B.C. (Polybios 4.19.8 and Diodoros 27.3.1). None of the sources mentions a decisive victory by the Rhodians, and one operation in 1 5 5 / 4 B - c - seems to have been a notorious failure (Diodoros 3 1 . 3 8 ) . On the historical setting of these operations see Berthold 1 9 8 4 , 1 0 7 , 1 5 5 , 1 9 3 , 2 2 3 - 2 5 . 34. This is not the place to review Andreae's grand edifice of interlocking archaeological hypotheses about the Hellenistic sculpture of Pergamon and Rhodes

A RHODIAN S C H O O L OF SCULPTURE

109

a n d their relationship to Sperlonga a n d the Laokoòn. It resembles a theological system in that its vision can be inspiring a n d its a r g u m e n t s internally logical, b u t like a theological system, if o n e does n o t accept on faith its premises, it collapses. Suffice it to say that I agree with the doubts expressed by Brunilde Ridgway 1989 a n d R. R. R. Smith 1991b in their reviews of Laokoon und die Griindung Roms. [For f u r t h e r objections, see also de G r u m m o n d ' s contribution infra in this volume.—Eds.] 35. Some have seen s u p p o r t for such a hypothesis in the fact that there were grottoes containing sculptures o n Rhodes, a n d that these sculptures m i g h t have b e e n precedents for the assemblage at Sperlonga (Lauter 1972), but Rice's recent study ( 1995) of the Rhodian "grottoes" makes it clear that they were religious shrines, probably dedicated to the Nymphs, designed to receive relatively small votive sculptures. 36. Laurenzi 1965, 122: "conserva il patetico del barocco, m a insieme aspira a u n r e n d i m e n t o m i n u t a m e n t e più analitico della realtà." 37. It is n o t entirely clear f r o m this passage that the Muses in question even were by Philiskos (the word item basically means "and also" or "and in addition," a n d Pliny may simply m e a n that these sculptures were also in the sanctuary of Apollo, n o t that they were also works by Philiskos), b u t for the purposes of the p r e s e n t discussion I accept the traditional reading of the text. 38. T h a t this is the most likely cultural context for Philiskos was suggested some time ago by Margarete Bieber (1961b, 130) a n d has b e e n a r g u e d m o r e recently in greater detail by Ridgway 1990, 2 5 2 - 6 8 . O n Timarchides a n d his sons, who worked for Metellus Macedonicus sometime after 146 b.c., see Stewart 1977b, 4 2 - 4 5 ; Polliti 1 9 8 6 , 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 1 7 5 , a n d 3 1 3 n. 12. O n Stephanos a n d Arkesilaos see Pollitt 1986, 162-63 and 172-75. 39. T h e r e was also a painter n a m e d Philiskos (Pliny, NH35.143), whose date is n o t known, b u t the context in which Pliny m e n t i o n s h i m suggests the late f o u r t h or early third century b.c., a n d a n architect, the son of Dionysios, who worked o n the temple of Apollo at Didyma: Wiegand 1958, nos. 45, 46. An inscription f r o m the "Marmorsaal" of the H e r o ó n at P e r g a m o n records the n a m e of Philiskos in the genitive. Since it is paired with a n o t h e r n a m e , Nikeratos, known to have b e e n that of a sculptor, this inscription presumably also refers to an artist n a m e d Philiskos (although this is n o t certain beyond all doubt). Since there is n o ènoirjafv or similar f o r m following the name, it is p e r h a p s a label r a t h e r than a signature. T h e n a m e Philiskos in this inscription is followed by a n o t h e r word or n a m e which is lost except for the initial letter, 77. This n a m e might be restored as IJOAY' XAPMOY b u t it might also be part of an unrelated n a m e . Suggested dates for the inscription based o n its letter f o r m s range f r o m the second century B.C. to the early R o m a n Imperial period. See Worrle 1986. T h e uncertainties s u r r o u n d i n g the date a n d significance of this inscription are so extensive that it provides n o conclusive evidence regarding the date of the sculptor m e n t i o n e d by Pliny. 40. T h e various types have b e e n sorted out most recently in LIMC by Lucia Faedo, who summarizes the views of Pinkwart a n d La Rocca b u t does n o t explicitly endorse them. See Faedo 1994, 1002. 4 1 . La Rocca 1 9 8 4 , 6 4 1 - 4 2 ; Laurenzi 1 9 6 5 , 1 2 3 . For a critical evaluation of these proposals: Ridgway 1990, 2 5 9 - 6 1 . 42. Lauter 1969, 165, uses the phrase "Bereich d e r Nippes." 43. Merker 1 9 7 3 , 6 - 9 .

no

A RHODIAN SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

44. Pergamene and, more generally, baroque style: Merker 1973, cat. nos. 36, 37, 52, 64, 70, i 2 i . Classicizing: Merker, cat. nos. 72, 73, 86-93, 95> 9®> 1 14> 1 2 5 Rococo: Merker, cat. no. 2. 45. Merker 1973, 8-9; Linfert 1976, 97. Overall, the similarities of Rhodian draped female figures to sculptures from other sites in the eastern Mediterranean are much more striking than the differences. 46. I do not personally believe in the validity of this criterion and use it here only to construct a hypothetical argument. On composition as a criterion for dating, see the summary, comments, and references in Pollitt 1986, 268-69. 47. Nymph-Aphrodite figures: Linfert 1976,87-91; Merker 1973, cat. nos. 8-11, figs. 1, 7, 8; Gualandi 1976, 56-63. Helios: see supra, n. 108.

Odysseus at Sperlonga Hellenistic Hero or Roman Heroic Foil? H. Anne Weis

The Roman emperor Tiberius is said by Suetonius (Tib. 39) and Tacitus (Ann. 4.59) to have dined—and nearly died—at a villa near Terracina ad speluncas, a property that has probably been correctly identified in a substantial villa near the modern town of Sperlonga. 1 The location of Sperlonga near Terracina, the similarity of the names speluncae and Sperlonga, and the fact that the Sperlonga villa has a natural grotto that was adapted to dining in the late Augustan or Julio-Claudian period have led most scholars to accept it as the one described by Suetonius and Tacitus.2 Comparatively little of the sculpture found in the grotto at Sperlonga has as yet been reconstructed or published. Discussions of the villa and its decoration have centered for the most part on four heroic groups that seem to have dominated the installation (Figs. 45, 46): (1) at right front, the theft of the Palladion by Odysseus and Diomedes; (2) in a smaller grotto at right rear, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus and three Greek companions (Od. 9.371-82); (3) in the center of the basin, the attack of Skylla ( Od. 12.245-50), probably in combination with the breakup of Odysseus's ship in the storm sent by Zeus (Od. 12.405-425); and (4) at left front, a copy of the so-called Pasquino group, identified by B. Andreae as Odysseus with the body of Achilles.3 Since most of the other sculptural fragments from the grotto remain unstudied, any discussion of the villa and its decoration must still be considered preliminary.4 The purpose of this chapter is to reassess the existing evidence for the cave program, to propose a new interpretation, and to place that interpretation within an historical context. Much has changed in the way the Sperlonga program has been evaluated since the cave's discovery. It is now clear that the series of mythological tableaux did not simply illustrate Homer's Odyssey, as scholars initially believed.5 Neither the theft of the Palladion nor the rescue of the body of HI

112

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Achilles—assuming for the moment that Andreae's suggestion is correct— was described in the Odyssey. Andreae has proposed Ovid's Metamorphoses as a source for the decoration, since in Metamorphoses 13.282 Odysseus claims to have rescued the body of Achilles instead of Ajax. 6 This also seems unlikely. Ovid's exile by Augustus, his failure to win a pardon from Tiberius, and the cynicism of his treatment of Odysseus in the Metamorphoses make this reading untenable, as N. Himmelmann has shown. 7 The problem with these attempts to find a literary source for the program is that there is no clear narrative order to the events displayed in the cave, and no single ancient text has been identified that describes each of the events depicted. 8 Alternative suggestions—that the cave contained a series of episodes illustrating the virtues of Odysseus as a Stoic hero, or a loose compendium of scenes from the voyage of Odysseus and the Trojan War—may explain this lack of easy order, but they do not address issues of intent raised by the episodes chosen for display.9 The theft of the Palladion, for example, is an odd choice for a program honoring Odysseus, since, according to the most common version of the Palladion story, Odysseus plotted to kill Diomedes in order to usurp for himself the glory of Troy's fall. 10 The identity of the two Pasquino warriors is disputed, but replicas of the group from other findspots appear to have been used in contexts that linked them with the idea of Rome or of the imperial house. 11 The relationship between these heroic groups and the others in the cave needs to be reexamined, therefore, within the context of recent discoveries about the groups and the other sculptures in the cave.

T H E H E R O I C GROUPS: PROBLEMS OF R E C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D I N T E R P R E T A T I O N

The four heroic groups are fragmentary. Three of them have been restored to a large extent by comparison with representations in the minor arts; the fourth, by a splicing of information gleaned from a series of equally fragmentary copies. This has implications for the interpretation of the program, since the four groups are now known primarily from their plaster reconstructions, reconstruction drawings, or even from illustrations of the minor objects on which the reconstructions are based. The differences between the statuary groups and the minor-arts tradition are as important as their similarities, but, since those differences must be teased out of a few key sculptural fragments, they have not played a significant role in the discussion of the program to date. The differences between the Sperlonga sculptures and the minor-arts tradition can be illustrated briefly by the Blinding of Polyphemos group, since it is by far the most straightforward of the four groups from the cave. The Polyphemos group has been reconstructed on the basis of a Roman relief sarcophagus in Catania, but it shows a slightly later moment within the mytho-

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

113

logical narrative. 12 The Catania Odysseus and his three companions are preparing for action: two companions hold the olive-wood stake while Odysseus, aided by a third companion, located behind the Cyclops, lifts the Cyclops's head into a position to be speared. The Sperlonga composition is similar to this one, but, there, Odysseus actually aims the stake at the monster's eye, and the role of the third companion, known at Sperlonga as the wineskin bearer, is radically different. Neither the original location of the wineskin bearer nor his relationship to the rest of the figures in the group is clear from the remains on the site, but he was evidently separated from the group to a larger degree than he is in the relief and was given an individualized part to play in the composition. 13 He has filled the Cyclops's cup for the last time and now either flees, or waits at a distance, fearful of the monster's reaction. Although representations of the blinding of Polyphemos were popular throughout antiquity, I know of no parallels for this composition in either sculpture or the minor arts.14 However one interprets his action, in this version of the scene he serves as mediator between the group and the viewer, drawing the viewer into the scene. The artist's development of the wineskin bearer as a personality brings the desperation and the uncertainty of the narrative moment into greater relief. 15 The other Odyssean groups from Sperlonga are more fragmentary than the Blinding of Polyphemos and more difficult to interpret. The Palladion group preserves only the head of Diomedes (Fig. 48), his left arm with the Palladion, and the body of a striding Odysseus (Figs. 49, 68), his cloak wrapped around the left arm to hide his sword. The emphasis that the composition places on Odysseus's sword suggests that this group shows the moment in which Diomedes discovers Odysseus's treachery, a scene that appears again on a relief ossuary from Megiste, an island near the coast of Asia Minor (Fig. 47). Diomedes' pose appears to have been similar if not the same at Sperlonga and on the Megiste ossuary. He moved to his right and turned his head to his left to look at Odysseus. The Sperlonga Odysseus is not dressed as he is in the relief, but he seems to have had a comparable pose, moving left, away from Diomedes, with his right hand raised. 16 The position of Odysseus's head and the meaning of his gesture are critical to the interpretation of the statuary group. According to Himmelmann, Odysseus recoils as Diomedes looks back, raising his hand to his chin in embarrassment as his treachery is revealed. As Andreae interprets the scene, both heroes react to a sudden movement of the Palladion that shows it to be the true Palladion and not a copy. 17 Both these views are supported by the generalized rendering of the scene on the ossuary, but the characterization of the statuary group is more precise. 18 Odysseus's neck muscles are not articulated. He did not look at Diomedes, therefore, but in the direction of his own movement. 19 There was no exchange of gaze between the two heroes—a critical feature if the group was to show Odysseus's reaction

114

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

to D i o m e d e s — n o r could Odysseus have seen the movement of the Palladion on which Andreae's interpretation depends. T h e Sperlonga hero's pose can be explained if one imagines that he turned away from Diomedes to draw his sword, his right foot poised to whirl back again and to attack his comrade from the rear. If, however, this interpretation of his movement is correct, it suggests that the moment depicted by the group was more complex than the scene on the ossuary: here, his treachery has not yet been discovered. H e has not yet drawn his sword, and it is either the glimmer of light cited in the literary sources or his own sudden movement that has caused Diomedes, still unaware of his plan, to look in his direction. In another instant Odysseus will draw his sword, whirl forward to meet Diomedes' unexpected gaze, and all will be revealed between them. As in the case of the Polyphemos group, however, I know of n o precise parallels for the Palladion group among extant representations of the same theme. If it is a copy of another m o n u m e n t represented more faithfully on the ossuary, it is a variant version of that m o n u m e n t that placed greater emphasis on the psychological tensions within the scene. T h e Skylla group from Sperlonga (Fig. 50) poses similar problems of reconstruction and interpretation. It has been restored on the basis of parallels in the minor arts, and for the most part convincingly. T h e r e are j o i n s between individual fragments that ensure the broad outlines of the restoration, but there are still problems with two details critical to the understanding of the group: the "hand-calotte" fragment and some fragments of a standing figure, identified by some as Odysseus and restored to the deck of the ship. 20 T h e "hand-calotte" fragment (Figs. 50, 5 1 ) consists of an oversized right h a n d — c l e a r l y that of Skylla—that grips the head of a human victim. Only the top of the victim's head, which was carved in one piece with the hand, is visible between the monster's fingers; the flattened underside of the calotte was attached to the rest of the unknown victim's head. T h e calotte is normally supposed to be that of the so-called steersman, located on the ship to the monster's right (Fig. 51). This join, first proposed by G. Saflund, was initially rejected for technical reasons—the size of the calotte, the location of the dowel holes on the adjoining surfaces, and the fact that the proposed reconstruction would have positioned the back part of the head over the steersman's forehead. 2 1 Andreae and Conticello thought for a time that the "handcalotte" fragment might connect with the so-called figura volante (the third companion to left-front of the monster), but that reconstruction presented some of the same problems. 2 2 T h e original suggestion, which is supported by iconographical parallels in the minor arts, is now generally accepted, therefore, and the disproportionate size of the calotte may be due to the fact that the steersman's head was intended to be seen from below. 23 Andreae and Conticello have proposed to add to the Skylla g r o u p some fragments of a striding figure whom they identify as Odysseus (Figs. 5 0 , 5 1 ).24 Conticello once argued that there was n o room on the deck of the Sperlonga

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

115

ship for a second figure (of Odysseus) in addition to the steersman, but Odysseus is a usual c o m p o n e n t of the scene in the minor arts and a logical addition if the cave decoration is to be reconstructed as a series of Odyssean tableaux. 2 5 T h e r e are other problems with this addition, however, that have not been addressed; these are as follows. Where do these fragments come from ? Their findspot is not given, and it is not clear that they were f o u n d near the Skylla group or related to it at all. 26 Precise records are apparendy not available for every fragment of sculpture f o u n d in the cave, and the fragments of the heroic groups were themselves distributed over a wide area, so a findspot away from the Skylla group would not rule out a connection. Nevertheless, the fragments of the Skylla group appear to be a m o n g the most localized of the four heroic groups, so some c o m m e n t on what is known of the proposed Odysseus would be helpful to establish a basis for the argument. 2 7 The marble. Andreae and Conticello say that the Odysseus fragments resemble the Skylla group in the type of marble used and in their scale, but much of the sculpture found at Sperlonga was manufactured by a common group of craftsmen using the same type of marble, so this is not a decisive argument. 28 The character of the striding Odysseus. A l t h o u g h the striding Odysseus has parallels in the minor arts, the addition seems inconsistent with the compositional goals of the Sperlonga artists. Most scholars assume that the Sperlonga sculpture was intended to be seen from the front of the cave and the island-triclinium (cf. Figs. 4 5 , 4 6 ) , but the remains of the group, its location in the middle of the circular basin, and the fact that a path allowed the viewer to walk around the basin show that it was intended to offer the viewer a series of changing views around a 360-degree circuit. 29 Any reconstruction must take into account the fact that the back view of the Skylla group would have been seen against the light coming from the cave entrance, so the emphasis from this side was probably more on the dramatic silhouette provided by the sculptures than on detail. Nevertheless, a standing figure, facing front, would have contributed nothing to this silhouette or to the appreciation of the group by viewers at the back of the cave. Moreover, the Odysseus restored by Andreae and Conticello seems oddly static for the Skylla group, which is otherwise characterized by instability and movement. 3 0 Odysseus's companions writhe in the grip of the fishtails or struggle to free themselves from the jaws of the hounds. T h e y arch upward from the water or fall headlong into it. T h e steersman's pose (Fig. 52), with feet in the air and torso pressed against the curve of the ship, shows that the ship is also in motion. According to Andreae, it sails past the monster, toward the back of the cave, and this rapid motion, combined with the force of

II6

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Skylla's attack, knocks the steersman to the deck. 31 A forward motion does not explain, however, the torsion of the steersman's body, visible not only in the upper body but in the uneven positioning of the calves: the mariner braces himself against a centrifugal force that threatens to roll him sideways and off the deck of the ship. The artists' characterization of this movement suggests that the ship did not move forward, but turned stern-first into the monster— Skylla seizes the steersman's head even as he braces against the force of the ship's rotation.32 The reason for the turning motion of the ship is not clear from the Skylla group in isolation and will be discussed in relation to the overall sculptural program. Whatever its source, however, and no matter how the movement of the ship is characterized, it is difficult to see how a standing figure, on the same deck as the steersman, could have maintained his footing. Finally, the addition of a spear-throwing Odysseus would create a narrative confusion with the figure known as the steersman, who wears the costume normally associated with Odysseus, the exomis. 33 1 know of one other example of the Skylla episode that shows both Odysseus and a companion in the exomis: the late republican mosaic from Gubbio (Iguvium) that distinguishes Odysseus from his companion by his position in the foreground of the composition and by the red color of his garment. 34 These compositional devices would not be as effective, however, in a statuary group conceived in the round, and the steersman's distinctive characterization would have made him a competitor for the viewers' attention. Conticello was originally reluctant to identify the figure on the deck as a steersman, because he is distinguished from the other mariners in the Skylla group by age, the fact that he is clothed, and by his dramatic presence. 35 The Sperlonga sculptures are fragmentary, but a similar distinction in age and dress seems to have been made between Odysseus and his companions in the other groups. In the Polyphemos group, Odysseus is draped and heavily bearded, while the wineskin bearer is nude, with a lighter beard. The companions with the olive stake are not preserved, but the Catania relief suggests that they were similar in age and dress to the wineskin bearer, and the heads identified by Andreae as copies of the first and second companions do in fact resemble the wineskin bearer in the length of their hair and beards.36 Only the head of Diomedes (Fig. 48) is preserved from the Palladion group, but, to judge from it and the Diomedes on the Megiste ossuary (Fig. 47), he was comparable in age and dress with Odysseus's companions in the Polyphemos group—nude and, in this case, wearing a short cheekbeard. In the Palladion group, Odysseus was again distinguished from his companion by his cloak and (presumably) by his longer beard. 37 One cannot press these differences in characterization too forcefully, given the degree to which the three groups are reconstructed, but a distinction between a bearded, draped Odysseus and a group of younger, nude companions seems to have been characteristic of all three groups. 38

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

ny

Nicetas Choniates' description of a later Skylla monument at Constantinople offers a solution to the problem of the "steersman's" prominence, since the Byzantine author identifies a figure like this one as Odysseus: "the other [statuary group in the Hippodrome], in which there is a ship, some say to be Skylla—the one associated with Charybdis—devouring men; and it is Odysseus whom she holds with her hand by the head." 39 Choniates' identification of the figure seized by Skylla as Odysseus has been rejected by modern scholars, who consider it to be a mistaken reference to an actual steersman, personified for them in the figure from Sperlonga and in representations in the minor arts.40 Nevertheless, given the problems posed by the figure clinging to the stern, his evidence should be taken seriously.

As was the case with the other Odyssean groups, there are no precise parallels for the Sperlonga Skylla group extant, although the bronze group in Constantinople may have been a copy.41 Other sculptural representations of the monster from the imperial period show her with victims but without a ship, as a menace to sailors, therefore, but not as a protagonist in an Odyssean narrative.42 The Sperlonga group has better parallels in the minor arts than in statuary, but the narrative moment is, here again, more precisely delineated: the ship and the monster turn into each other as the six mariners are swept to their fates. If the steersman is in fact Odysseus, the statuary group departs from the minor-arts tradition in that respect as well, showing the hero in an unheroic situation.43 The problem of the so-called Pasquino group (Figs. 53, 54) is different from that of the other groups from the cave. It is badly preserved, but the statuary type is known from other replicas, so there is no question about the action depicted. What is disputed in this case is the identity of the two heroes and their contribution to the cave's program. 44 Since 1936, most scholars have accepted B. Schweitzer's identification of the Pasquino warriors as Menelaos standing "astride the body [of Patroklos], protective as a heifer who has dropped her firstborn calf" (II. 17.1-6). 4 5 The apparent fit between the Homeric image and the group is striking, and Andreae himself accepts the identification, preferring to see the Sperlonga copy as a variant of the original group that has been adapted to a different thematic setting.46 Nevertheless, there are inconsistencies between Homer's descriptions of Menelaos and Patroklos and the artist's characterization of the Pasquino warriors: the youth and slightness of the younger man are not well suited to Homer's Patroklos (II. 11.786-87), who is older than Achilles and one of the foremost of the Achaians, and Patroklos's fatal wound was in the back, not the chest. 47 Equally if not more problematic, however, the fit between the simile and the group may depend upon a twentieth-century misappreciation of both. The heifer image is an odd choice for a Homeric warrior, whose actions and emo-

Il8

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

tions would normally be compared with those of bulls, lions, eagles, or other powerful animals.48 Although determined to protect her calf, this heifer could not be expected to provide a strong defense against a real threat. The image of the heifer is, however, well suited to Menelaos, who, although strong and considerate of his companions, is never counted among the primary heroes of the Iliad. The rest of this passage seems, in fact, to emphasize his lack of centrality in the effort to retrieve Patroklos.49 In Iliad 1 7 . 1 3 3 - 3 6 , when Ajax stands over Patroklos, he is compared with a lion protecting its cubs, a simile that is clearly intended to illustrate the differences in the characters of the two heroes.50 The apparent fit between the heifer simile and the Pasquino warriors may be equally dependent on a modern misreading of the statuary group. The group is known almost entirely from a plaster reconstruction commissioned by Schweitzer in the 1930s and from the published photographs of that reconstruction (Fig. 53). 51 As Himmelmann has observed, however, Schweitzer's photographs are taken from an arbitrary viewpoint and create an impression of the group that appeals to a twentieth-century taste for "expression." 52 They make the older warrior seem isolated, helpless, and brave—like the protective heifer—as he prepares to defend himself and his companion against an unseen enemy. This is in fact the situation Menelaos faced in Iliad 1 7 . 1 0 5 - 1 3 but, unlike a modern hero, he declined to fight a losing batde against overwhelming odds and abandoned the corpse to get help from Ajax. Besides reflecting a modern taste for expression, therefore, the photographs correspond to a modern sense of the heroism of self-sacrifice that is not present in the Homeric account. Himmelmann offers new photographs of the Pasquino group (here Fig. 54), taken from the angle chosen for the group on ancient gems (Fig. 55) and from a small-scale copy of the composition that preserves its plinth intact.53 These monuments suggest a viewpoint for the sculpture that is several centimeters higher and somewhat to the left of Schweitzer's. In Himmelmann's photos, the warrior is more aggressive. He peers intently forward as if to confront someone standing in his line of gaze. The heifer is gone. Other scholars have suggested that the two Pasquinowarriors are Ajax and Achilles, as described in fragment 2 of the Little Iliad: "Ajax lifted and carried from batde the hero Pelides [Achilles]."54 Ajax's rescue of the body of Achilles was a popular theme in ancient art, and the Pasquino motif was used to illustrate it on the so-called Tensa Capitolina, a late-antique cart revetment with scenes from Ajax's life. The Tensa Capitolina is, however, the only ancient monument extant that associates the Pasquino motif with this story; in the many other examples known, Ajax carries Achilles on his shoulder.55 Furthermore, the identifications of these two warriors do not fit with epic descriptions of the two heroes. Achilles, like Patroklos, was a mature warrior in Homer's Iliad. He received his fatal wound in the heel—not in the trunk

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

119

like the Pasquino youth—and he was never stripped of his armor, since it was later a source of contention between Ajax and Odysseus. Ajax Telamonius (cf. II. 7.288-89) was known in ancient literature for his immense size and towering shield.56 Artists are not always faithful to literary detail, so these discrepancies are not decisive, but there are enough of them to cast doubt on this identification for many scholars. Andreae's identification of the Sperlonga copy of the Pasquino group as Odysseus with the body of Achilles is open to many of the same criticisms as that of Ajax and Achilles, and he has tried to anticipate these criticisms in his physical reconstruction of the group. 57 He argues that the dead youth wore armor and that the contorted position of his left foot (Fig. 56)—a detail peculiar to this copy—is intended to suggest Achilles' fatal wound in the heel. Nevertheless, the presence of armor cannot be confirmed, and the boy's contorted foot is more likely to be a copyist's error or an adaptation to setting than it is an iconographical rendering. 58 The position of the foot is not striking enough to create a new identity for the group, and the rendering would have been invisible unless viewed from behind or from close range (or both). As noted by Ridgway, the artist could have more successfully called attention to a wounded heel with blood indicated in relief or with an arrow added in another material, both devices that appear on other ancient monuments.59 In addition to these problems, the older warrior's dress has no close parallels in the large corpus of monuments associated with Odysseus.60 His chitoniskos is short and fits the body closely; Odysseus's exomis is longer and full. The Pasquino warrior wears a helmet; Odysseus, typically the pilos. The relief decoration of the Pasquino warrior's helmet (Fig. 57), thought by many to offer a clue to his identity, is carefully reproduced at Sperlonga, in spite of the confusion that this would have caused if the artists were attempting to give the group a new identity within that setting.61 Apart from Andreae's assumptions about the Odyssean character of the Sperlonga program, therefore, there is nothing to support his identification of this replica as Odysseus and Achilles.62 I have argued elsewhere that the Pasquino warriors are not Homeric heroes, but Aeneas and Lausus, son of Mezentius, shown together at the moment of Lausus's death in Aeneid 1 0 . 8 1 4 - 3 2 . Vergil's poem does not provide us with a clear physical description of the hero Aeneas, but he is characterized by both Homer and Vergil as one of Troy's brawniest defenders, with a wife and prepubescent son.63 This suggests a man who is similar to the bearded Pasquino warrior in age, a suggestion supported by other, more securely identified representations of Aeneas that show the hero in traditional Roman dress.64 Specific details of the Pasquino warrior's costume may have been intended to suggest his Asian origins. His helmet is a variation of the so-called Phrygian tiara and resembles the headdresses worn by Priam, Ascanius, a personification identified by modern scholars as Troad,

120

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

and perhaps by Aeneas himself in imperial minor arts.65 The Phrygian helmet was in widespread use by the fourth century B.C., and its later distribution is not limited to Asia Minor. It cannot provide evidence, therefore, of an Asian background perse.66 Since, however, Phrygian accoutrements were associated with the Trojans by Vergil and other Augustan authors, the choice of helmet may have been considered in the Roman period to be an identifying feature. 67 The relief decoration on the warrior's helmet supports this identification as well. It consists of three devices, each doubled for symmetry and consistent from copy to copy: Hercules fighting a Centaur on either side of the calotte, two reclining felines on the earpieces, and two strange composite birds with the body of an eagle and a snake's tail on the visor.68 Schweitzer associated these images with Menelaos's travels after the Trojan War, the Centauromachy symbolizing the Greek heartland and the felines and the "snakebird" the hero's sojourns in Libya and Ethiopia, as described in Odyssey 4.81-85. 6 9 R. Wünsche has identified them with key events in the life of Ajax: the Centauromachy with Hercules' prayer to Zeus that his friend Telamon might have a mighty son, the eagle with Zeus's granting of this prayer, and the panther felines (whose hide is worn by maenads) with the madness that led Ajax to suicide. 70 Nevertheless, the devices can be more plausibly interpreted as a reference to Aeneas's protectors in the Aeneid—Hercules, Cybele, and Jupiter—and as reminders of the piety and divine favor for which he was famous: Hercules serves as a foil for Aeneas throughout the poem. He toils, like the Roman hero, by the will of "unjust Juno" (cf. Aen. 1.4 and 8.291-92), and the list of Aeneas's adversaries (7.647-815) reminds the reader of Hercules' own opponents. Among these opponents are Catillus and Coras, compared by Vergil with "the cloud-born Centaurs" (7.674-77) and identified by him more precisely as the Centaurs Pholus and Hylaeus in the hymn sung to Hercules upon Aeneas's arrival in Rome (8.293-94). 71 The religious context of this second passage—a hymn—and the fact that Hercules was known in Roman popular cult as Alexicacus, "Aver ter of Evil," suggest that the Centauromachy symbolized Hercules' protection of Aeneas as well as the similarities in their roles. 72 The meaning of the other helmet devices was probably similar. T h e two felines are the Phrygian lions of the Magna Mater, which decorated the beak of Aeneas's ship (Aen. 10.157-58) as he returned to the Trojan camp with his Arcadian and Etruscan allies. 73 Cybele was a devoted protectress of Aeneas in the poem: she provided timber from Mt. Ida to build his ships (9.80-89), and she interceded to save the ships from the Italians (9.80-95), turning the craft into nymphs and instructing them to take word to Aeneas that his camp was under attack (10.220-49). Aeneas refers to the lions in his prayer to Cybele in Aeneid 10.253, a literary context similar to that of the Centauromachy. 74 The "snake-birds" are probably the Dirae, one of

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

121

which was sent by Jupiter to warn Juturna that she could no longer shield Turnus from death. I know of no visual parallels for the Dira, and Vergil's description of it (12.847-48: paribusque revinxit / serpentum spins ventosasque addidit alas) is variously translated. 75 Nevertheless, Vergil clearly refers to a creature who acts at Jupiter's behest and combines the coils of a snake with the wings of a bird—a description which the sculptor has been at pains to emulate with this snaky-tailed eagle. 76 Thus, each of the three devices has a concrete link with the Aeneid. Appearing on the hero's helmet, they symbolize both his piety and the divine assistance he received in bringing peace to Italy. The identification of the Pasquino group as Aeneas and Lausus gains additional support from the difference in the ages of the two subjects—the mature bulk of the standing warrior and the slim, unbearded youthfulness of his dead companion. The close physical relationship between the two warriors has suggested that they are comrades in arms, and scholars have looked for mythological figures who fit that rubric—finding them most readily in Greek epic. Nevertheless, the artist's characterization of the two figures as mature warrior and youth has better parallels in Vergil's battle narrative. Lausus, like all the most poignant casualties in the Aeneid, is quintessential^ young—not much different in age from Pallas (10.434), w h o is also going to war for the first time and unexcelled in beauty among the Italian allies, except by Turnus (7.649-50). His slaying is one of an epic concatenation of deaths that draws together Euryalus, Pallas, and Turnus. The younger Pasquino warrior is clearly distinguished from these other youths, however, by the presence of Aeneas at his death, and by Vergil's description of the scene (Aen. 10.813-32): Straightway, violent rage surged through the Dardan chieftain, and the Parcae gathered together the last threads of Lausus's life: for now Aeneas thrusts his powerful sword through the boy's middle and buries it up to the hilt. T h e swordpoint pierces the boy's shield and tunic—light arms for his bold threats— which his mother interwove with pliant gold stitches, and blood fills up its folds. His life departed, sorrowfully, for the Shadows and left the body behind. But when he saw the face of the dying boy and its extraordinary pallor, the son of Anchises, feeling pity for him, mourned and gravely extended his right hand, as the image of the boy's loyalty to his father ran through his mind. "What can be done for you now, unfortunate boy, to honor such praiseworthy deeds? What can pins Aeneas grant you that is worthy of such innate character? Keep the arms in which you took such joy; I send you back to the Shades

122

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

and ashes of your parents, if such gestures have any value. This, at least, unlucky boy, will console you for your lamentable d e a t h — you fall to the right hand of mighty Aeneas." Then he rebuked Lausus's companions, standing opposite, for hanging back, and raised the boy from the ground, unsighdy with the blood defiling his normally well-kempt hair.

The statuary group may depart from Vergil's description in two respects: Vergil's Lausus wore a shirt and, according to most translations of this passage, was lifted from a prone position. The Pasquino youth is nude; he appears to have been on his knees and to have been supported by Aeneas before collapsing against him. 77 These are small variations, however, and serve to make the statuary group more dramatic. Lausus's nudity underscores his vulnerability—a point emphasized by Vergil in stressing the lightness of his arms. The dramatically counterposed torsions of the two warriors communicate their heroism and the pathos of Lausus's death. 78 Lausus is not the best-known figure to die in the Aeneid?9 Modern readers would probably have expected the artist to depict Pallas or Turnus. Lausus is a more subtle choice than these, however, because he serves as a foil for both—for Pallas, who receives no pity from Turnus, and for Turnus, whose death is the culmination of the epic: the presence of the Dira cannot help but remind us of how this conflict will end. These associations serve to advance the characterization of Aeneas in both the poem and the statuary group because it is this scene, coming at the high point of his aristeia, that demonstrates Aeneas's humanity. Turnus's very different treatment of Pallas, described only a few lines earlier (10.490-500), seems to emphasize, by contrast, the rarity of that quality in the world of heroic myth.80 At the same time, however, this choice of protagonists alludes, in an emblematic way, to many of the broader themes of the Aeneid, and especially those developed in Books 8-12: the pathos of young lives snuffed out by war, of parents who are forced to witness the deaths of children, and the reciprocal obligations which successive generations—personified by Vergil as fathers and sons—owe to each other.81 If this father and this son—who have no actual relationship to each other—are commemorated in the same monument, it is because they each represent the ideal: a father who sacrificed his desires for his son, and a son who sacrificed his life for his father, whether that father deserved it or not.82 (Cf. Aen. 7.653-54.) Other, more subtle features of the Pasquino group may also have been inspired by Vergil's text: the eroticism of the scene is paralleled in his description of the death of Pallas, and the boy's drooping head, which is reproduced even in gems (Fig. 55), may be inspired by Vergil's adaptation of Catullus's flower simile to describe the deaths of Euryalus and Pallas.83 Thus the Pasquino youth, like Euryalus (Aen. 9 433-37),

ODYSSEUS A T S P E R L O N G A

I23

reels, dead. Blood courses over his handsome limbs, and his neck, slackened, falls back u p o n his shoulders, just as a purple flower, cut by the plow, grows listless as it dies, or a poppy, with weary neck, hangs its head w h e n weighed down by a heavy rain.

Similarly the youth is like Pallas (Aen. 11.68-71) in that he is like a flower plucked by maidenly thumb, whether soft violet or lisdess hyacinth, for w h o m brightness and f o r m have not yet faded, even t h o u g h mother earth no longer nourishes it nor replenishes its strength.

It is inconceivable that the ancient reader of the AeneidwoxiXd not have known these similes. They provide two of the most famous instances of literary crossreference in antiquity, both within the Aeneid and outside it to Catullus and Homer. 84 Whether the same reader would have recognized a reference to the simile in the Pasquino youth is less certain. Nevertheless, the image of the drooping head is repeated by the author of the Cms (449), a later Latin poem that emulates Vergilian style. This suggests that an educated Roman might well have been expected to recognize the image when quoted in the visual arts.85 The use of reference brings the sculpture closer to the ethos of the Aeneid, and this may have been one of the artist's goals. The Pasquino group is like the three Odyssean groups from the cave in a number of respects: the composition is based on the so-called helper-group motif, a commonplace in the minor-arts tradition since the fourth century B . C . 8 6 As in the Odyssean groups, however, the artist has interpreted the motif in terms of a sharply defined moment within a mythological narrative, using precise visual description and dramatic compositional devices to communicate the emotions of the protagonists at a critical moment in the story. In this composition, the viewer himself becomes incorporated into the scene as the object of the older warrior's gaze. There is among the four groups, therefore, a consistency of conception that may not be apparent from their compositions or stylistic detail. The identification of the two Pasquino warriors as Aeneas and Lausus is important for both the date of the original Pasquino group and the reconstruction of the Sperlonga program. The association with the Aeneid allows the Pasquino group to be dated quite precisely in the period between the death of Vergil in 19 B.C. and the appearance of the earliest known replica of the group at Sperlonga. This suggests that the original sculptural monument on which the Sperlonga group is based is to be dated in the Augustan or the earlyJulio-Claudian period. 87 The identification, with the fact that two of the three Odyssean groups show Odysseus in circumstances that are un-

124

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

heroic, makes it also clear that the program is not a simple encomium to Odysseus. I will discuss these two points in order. THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PASQUINO GROUP T h e dates suggested for the Pasquino group range from the third to the first centuries B.C. They are based on comparisons with other examples of the "helper group" in sculpture and minor arts and on general considerations about Hellenistic sculptural style.88 T h e arguments for a third-century date depend mainly on the pyramidal oudines assumed by the group in Schweitzer's photos and on the assumption that such schemata can be dated through the Ludovisi Gaul group—traditionally associated with an early Attalid victory m o n u m e n t — t o the third century B.C. 89 These arguments, however, are no longer convincing. T h e compositional similarity between the Pasquino and the Ludovisi Gaul groups is fortuitous, a result of their artists' use of the helper-group motif as the base for the composition. T h e pyramidal outlines attributed to the Pasquino group by Schweitzer's photographs have also now been questioned as a feature of the original group. 9 0 Finally, the connection between the Ludovisi Gaul and the Attalids is no longer considered qi secure. Second-century dates have also been proposed for the Pasquino group, but with less evidence and less acceptance. 9 2 Many if not most scholars now favor a date for the group in the first century B.C., and two are even prepared to consider it "post-Hellenistic" or "imperial," noting the classicizing details of the face, the one-sidedness of the composition, the emphasis on the dramatic contours that bind the warriors together, and the artist's appeal to the fantasy of the viewer to restore the figure (or figures) who is (or are) the subject of the older warrior's gaze. 93 A date in the latter part of the first century is suggested, moreover, by the elongated proportions of the young warrior (Fig. 54), which have a close parallel in the "neo-Attic" style of the Stephanos athlete (Fig. 58) and in other classicizing sculpture associated with the so-called School of Pasiteles. In their attempts to date the Pasquino group, scholars have tended to focus on the bulky musculature of the older warrior, which can be compared with equal success with that of the Ludovisi Gaul, traditionally dated in the third century, the Gods and Giants of the Pergamene Altar in the second century, or the Belvedere Torso, dated to the middle of the first century B.C. or later on the basis of its inscription. 94 Nevertheless, the similarities between the Pasquino youth and the Stephanos athlete, also dated in the mid-first century, provide a more precisely datable comparison. 9 5 T h e simple curved outlines and the fleshy, boneless structure of the youth's head and face (Fig. 59) are more naturalistic than the head of the Stephanos athlete, which emulates the Severe Style. T h e boy's facial structure is close, however, to that of the older son

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

125

of the Laokoon (Fig. 60), whose artists have recently been suggested, on the basis of the patronymics given in the Sperlonga inscription, to have worked in the Augustan period. 96 A date for the original Pasquino group in the Augustan period is supported by other parallels: the classicizing construction of the older warrior's face and beard is typologically akin to that of Mars Ultor from the Forum of Augustus (Fig. 61); his lunging pose is similar to that of the Romulus type attributed to the same complex (Fig. 62 );97 and the engraved decoration of his helmet has parallels in the breastplate of the Augustus of Primaporta and in other statuary types attributed to the Augustan period. 98 There is, thus, abundant stylistic evidence to suggest a date for the group in the late first century B.C. This date is also supported by nonstylistic evidence, since the earliest secure depiction of the Pasquino group and the earliest secure terminus ante quern for its creation is a glass paste dated in the second half of the century (Fig. 5 5 ) . " ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA: H E R O OR H E R O I C FOIL?

Most discussions of the Sperlonga program have assumed that the emphasis placed on Odysseus in the cave decoration identifies him as the "hero" of the sculptural program. 100 Nevertheless, the problems presented by the Skylla, the Pasquino, and especially the Palladion group—which seems to go out of its way to emphasize the negative aspects of Odysseus's character— suggest that his role was more ambivalent. Attempts to explain the incongruity introduced by the Palladion group have focused on the personality of the emperor Tiberius, who is usually identified as the patron of the grotto. 101 Stewart has suggested that, by showing both the positive and the negative sides of Odysseus's character, Tiberius was pointing to the similarities which Odysseus's career provided with his own character and history— his love of dissimulation, his loneliness, and his years of exile or absence from Rome. 102 In recent writings, Andreae has developed further Stewart's idea of an identification between Tiberius and Odysseus, but he suggests a more positive reading of the groups at the mouth of the cave. In his view, they are similar in that they emphasize the objects that were key to Troy's fall—the arms of Achilles and the Palladion. They show not the treachery of Odysseus, but his cooperation with Ajax and Diomedes to ensure that these objects are in Greek hands. 103 For Andreae, any incongruencies that appear in the program result from Tiberius's desire to splice the deeds of Odysseus—his favorite hero—with sculptural themes more appropriate to an emperor who had been adopted into the Julian family.104 These included a statue of Trojan Ganymede (Fig. 63), a relief representation of Venus Genetrix (Fig. 64), and a portrait herm of a youth in Phrygian cap, whom Andreae identifies as Julus-Ascanius.105 Andreae argues that, by linking the Odyssean monuments

126

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

o f the grotto with the ancestors o f the Julian house, Tiberius called attention to b o t h h i s C l a u d i a n (Telegonos/Odysseus) a n d his a d o p t e d Julian (Julus/ Aeneas) ancestors a n d to the fact that the fates that intersected to unite Greeks a n d Trojans as participants in the Imperium Romanum intersected in h i m as well. Odysseus carried o u t the will o f the gods, b r i n g i n g a b o u t the fall o f Troy a n d the flight o f Aeneas; h e was as instrumental as Aeneas, therefore, in the creation o f R o m e . 1 0 6 A n d r e a e ' s a r g u m e n t breaks i m p o r t a n t new g r o u n d in that h e attempts to move b e y o n d the f o u r m a j o r statuary g r o u p s to w h i c h S p e r l o n g a scholars have limited their discussion, a n d to m a k e sense o f some o f the smaller sculptures f r o m the cave w h i c h are less easily integrated into an Odyssean program. For h i m , however, the primary determinants o f the p r o g r a m are still Tiberius's f o n d n e s s f o r Odysseus a n d f o r O v i d ' s Metamorphoses,107 T h e identification o f the Pasquino g r o u p as Vergil's A e n e a s a n d Lausus suggests a n o t h e r interpretation, a n d o n e that seems to c o r r o b o r a t e the evidence o f the Faustinus epigram, a u n i q u e source o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the cave a n d its p r o g r a m that is o f t e n cited b u t never fully considered in attempts at reconstruction. 1 0 8 T h e e p i g r a m (Fig. 65) is c o m p o s e d o f t e n Latin h e x a m e ters inscribed o n a white marble p l a q u e (0.50 X 0.56 m). T h e h e x a m e t e r s were written by Faustinus Felix, o f u n c e r t a i n identity a n d p r o b a b l e lateantique date, a n d the p l a q u e seems to have b e e n set into the rear wall o f the cave between the two smaller grottos. T h e right side o f the inscription is fragm e n t a r y a n d missing the lower corner. T h i s has led to some d i s a g r e e m e n t over the restoration a n d translation o f lines 7 - 1 0 , b u t the other lines a n d the g e n e r a l significance of the last lines are clear: the epigram describes the cave a n d its decoration in terms that are distinctly Vergilian: 1 0 9 Mantua si posset divinum redder[e] vate[m] Inmensum miratus opus hie ceder[et] antro

5

1o

Adq(ue) dolos Ithaci fl(a) mmas et lumen ademtum Semiferi somno pariter vinoque gravati Speluncas vivosq(ue) lacu[s Cy] clopea saxa Saevitiam Scyllae fract[amq(ue) in g\u[rg\ itepupp[im] Ipse fateretur nullo sic ca[rmine — ] Vivas ut artificis express [ — ] Quam sola exsuperat natur[a — ] Faustinus Felix dominis ho [ — ] If Mantua could give back her divine Poet and Seer, astonished at the immense work here, he would yield [his authority] to the cave, and to the treacheries of the Ithacan, the flames and the blinding of the Half-Beast—made heavy by both sleep and wine,

5

to the caverns and the resdess waters, the Cyclopean rocks, the savagery of Scylla and the ship's helm broken in the surging waters.

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

10

I2J

He himself would admit that no poem [of his had created such vivid images as the artist], [whose work] only Nature has surpassed. Faustinus Felix to his Lords . . .

Not only does the poem begin with an allusion to Vergil; there is at least one quote or adaptation of Vergil's poetry in six of its ten lines: Line 1: Mantua reddere vatem, cf. G. 3.491 (reddere vates). Line 3: Dolos Ithaci, cf. Culex 326 (dolis Ithaci); lumen adem(p)tum, cf. Aen. 3.657-58 (pastoremPolyphemum . . . / monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum). Line 4: Semiferi, cf. Aen 8.267 (semiferus); somno pariter vinoque gravati, cf. Aen. 3.630 (expletus dapibus vinoque sepultus), 2.265 (somno vinoque sepultam), and 6.520 (somnoque gravatum). Line 5: Speluncas vivosque lacus, cf. G. 2.469 (speluncae vivique lacus); cyclopea saxa, cf. Aen. 1.201 (vos et Cyclopea saxa), 1.166-68 (fronte sub adversa scopulis pendentibus antrum, / intus aquae dulces vivoque sedilia saxo / Nympharum domus). Line 6: Saevitiam Scyllae, cf. Aen. 1.201 (Scyllaeamrabiem); fractamque in gurgite puppim, cf. Aen. 1 . 1 1 3 - 1 8 (in puppim ferit.../... ran nantes in gurgite vasto), 5.209 (fractos . . . legunt in gurgite remos); Eel. 6.74-77 (Quid loquar aut Scyllam Nisi, quam fama secuta est / Candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris / Dulichias vexasse rates et gurgite in alto, / a! timidos nautas canibus lacerasse marinis). Lines 5-6: Cf. Aen. 1.200-202 (vos et Scyllaeamrabiem penitusque sonantis / accestis scopulos, vos et Cyclopea saxa / experti), 3.424-25 (Scyllam caecis cohibet spelunca latebris /. . . navis in saxa trahentem). Line 7: Ipsefateretur, cf. Eel. 3.24 (Ipsefatebatur). The emphasis placed on Vergil throughout the epigram suggests that he, not Ovid or Homer, is the literary model for the cave decoration, and this deduction is supported by comparison with the Aeneid and other Vergilian poetry. Each of the three Odyssean episodes presented in the cave is described or alluded to in the Aeneid, and in a way that draws a comparison between Odysseus and Aeneas. Each episode is cited twice, first by Aeneas as he tells the story of his wanderings in Books 2 and 3 and later by Diomedes in Book 11. The two "narrators," therefore, are the heroes who flank the entrance to the cave. The telling of these stories also follows a common pattern: each tale is attributed by Aeneas to another speaker—the theft of the Palladion to Greek Sinon (2.162-84), the blinding of Polyphemos to Greek Achaemenides (3.618-38), the description of Skylla to Trojan Helenus (3.423-28). The speeches of the two Greeks, Sinon and Achaemenides, are related in language and imagery, and in their criticism of Odysseus. 110 T h e poet thus

128

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

uses indirect discourse to place a negative characterization of the Greek hero in the mouths of his Greek companions. The same three episodes are cited more briefly by Diomedes in Aeneid 11.255-93. Speaking through an emissary, he refuses the Italian invitation to join the war against Aeneas, giving as his reasons the wandering and misadventures of the Greeks after Troy (11.255-63) and the courage, military prowess, and piety of Aeneas (11.28992). His communication recalls the earlier speeches of Achaemenides and Sinon, referring again to the meeting between Odysseus and the Cyclops (11.263), to the anger of Athena (11.259-60), described by Sinon in relation to the desecration of the Palladion (2.169-71), and to the wandering and misadventures of the Greeks as divine punishment for their violation of Troy (11.255-59; cf. Sinon in 2.163-68). His speech reinforces the negative picture of Odysseus created by the earlier Greek speakers and heaps what purports to be objective praise upon Aeneas. In selecting these particular episodes from the career of Odysseus, therefore, the designer of the cave program echoes verbal images and relationships that exist independendy in Vergil. The statuary types selected or created for the cave decoration suggest a similar desire to conform with Vergil's characterization of these mythological scenes. The Polyphemos group, like the Polyphemos episode in the Aeneid, is indebted to Homer (Od. 9.371-73), 1 1 1 but the action of the group is closer to Vergil's adaptation of the Homeric passage (Aen. 3.630-38) to emphasize the teamwork involved in the endeavor. 112 The Sperlonga artists' characterization of Skylla as a combination of female body, fishtails, and hounds' heads (Fig. 50) is well established in the minor arts by the third century B.C., and obviously closer to Vergil's description of her {Aen. 3.426-28) than it is to Homer's many-headed monster (Od. 12.85-96). 1 1 3 The artists remind the viewer of the Homeric origins of the story in a subde way—by doubling the number of canine heads normally associated with the group in the minor arts (three) to correspond with the number of victims seized by Homer's Skylla (six). Nevertheless, Homer's monster would have required an altogether different setting—above the ship, in a cave set into a cliff—and a different form. 1 1 4 Faustinus's allusion to the Skylla episode suggests that the conception of the Sperlonga group may be more complicated than it first appears. The line describing the Skylla group—saevitiam Scyllae fract [amq( ue) in g] u\rg[ ite pupp[im], "the savagery of Skylla and the ship's helm broken in the surging waters"—confused early efforts to locate the group in the cave because it suggested that the cave contained not one episode from the Odyssey, but two: the snatching of the sailors by Skylla (Od. 12.245-50) and the destruction of Odysseus's ship (Od. 12.405-25). As a result, the remains of the Skylla and the remains of the ship were originally given separate locations within the grotto. It was not until the archaeological situation was clarified by Con-

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

129

ticello's publication of the excavation records that the two monuments were put together in the center of the basin. 115 Although the question of the group's location has now been resolved, the problem posed by Faustinus's line has not: Does the group, as it is now reconstructed, represent one episode from the Odyssey, or two? G. Saflund seems to have been alone in the archaeological community in considering this problem at length, but his conclusion seems to be followed by Conticello, Andreae, and others. He argues that the enclitic -que draws the two halves of Faustinus's line together into a single episode illustrating the destructiveness of Skylla. The monster is often shown in the minor arts swinging a rudder (Fig. 1 1 5 ) , and a giant hand holding a rudder is said to have been housed in the civic offices of the town of Sperlonga in the nineteenth century. In Saflund's view, therefore, fractam puppim refers to the helm broken off by Skylla, and the action of the group is summed up by Vergil's description of the monster in Eclogue 6.74-77: 1 1 6 Why tell how Scylla, daughter of Nisus, renowned in story and girdled at her white hips with baying monsters, shook the ships of Odysseus a n d — alas—tore the fearful mariners asunder with her sea hounds in the swirling waters?

Epigraphers have argued, more convincingly in my view, in favor of two episodes. Whatever the structure of Faustinus's line, it distinguishes the action of Skylla from the destruction wreaked on the ship by water, and Homer makes it clear that Odysseus's ship was not damaged by either Skylla or Charybdis, but destroyed by a storm. This being the case, the inscription and the group must refer both to the attack on the sailors by Skylla (Od. 1 2 . 2 4 5 - 5 0 ) and to the final destruction of Odysseus's ship (Od. 12.405-25).117 This argument is supported by the relationship between the Homeric description of the storm, Vergil's adaptation of that description in Aeneid 1 . 8 1 - 1 1 8 , and the remains of the Skylla group. As in the case of the Polyphemos episode, Vergil preserves specific elements of Homer's description of the storm: the sudden darkness, the violent action of the wind and waves, and the loss of the sailors—especially the steersman—as they are washed into the sea: 118 102

A whisding storm wind from the north drives against the sail and raises the surge to the heavens. The oars snap; the ship's prow turns off course and bares its side to the waves; a mountain of water follows, torn off in a huge mass.

106

Some of the seamen hang upon the crest of the surge; to others the sea bottom appears between the billows as the waves divide; the rushing waters seethe with sand . . . Three ships carried off by the South Wind are wrenched onto hidden rocks . . .

JJO

110 113 115

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

. . . Three the East Wind drives from the deep water to the shoals and onto banks of sand . . . One, which carried the Lycians and loyal Orontes, before the eyes of Aeneas, an enormous, crashing sea wave strikes astern. The prostrate steersman is torn off and tumbles headfirst; three times the wave whirls the ship round and round on the same spot, and a rapacious whirlpool devours the surface of the water. Here and there swimmers can be seen in the vast maelstrom, and weapons of men, planks, and Trojan treasure floating in the waves.

Nevertheless, the features peculiar to Vergil's account of Aeneas's storm— the turning motion of the ship and the variety of detail used to characterize the spilled sailors—seem to have had greater influence on the Sperlonga group (Figs. 5 0 - 5 2 ) than Homer's canonical description of the event. T h e "prostrate steersman" of Vergil's description can be seen in the figure of Odysseus clinging to the stern, the steerman's headlong fall from the ship in the sailor falling head downward (known as the first companion), and the seaman "hanging on the crest of the surge" (lines 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ) i n either the second companion (described by Andreae and Bertolin as the seaman falling on his belly) or the third (the so-called figwra volante).u9 T h e sailor "to whom the sea bottom opens u p " could have inspired either the first companion or the second, and, in dim light, the looming figure of Skylla and her tails may even have recalled Vergil's towering wave. 1 2 0 It is important to note, too, that the distinctive elements of Vergil's description are repeated twice, in lines 1 0 2 - 1 0 7 and again in lines 1 1 3 - 1 8 , where they are bracketed by the words appropriated by Faustinus, ( f r a c tamque) in gurgite puppim: 113

118

unam, quae Lycios fidumque vehebat Oronten, ipsius ante oculos ingens a vertice pontus in puppim ferit: excutitur pronusque magister volvitur in caput, ast illam ter fluctus ibidem torquet agens circum et rapidus vorat aequore vertex apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto. (ed. R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford, 1969)

This overlapping of characters, events, and literary associations makes the Skylla group more complex in its associations than the other groups f r o m the cave, and this complexity of meaning is paralleled by the virtuosity of its formal conception and carving. 1 2 1 It may explain why this is the only group in the cave to have been signed by the artists. 122 It is surprising, given the closeness of both narrative structure and detail that link the epigram, the Aeneid, and the cave sculpture, that the Faustinus epigram makes no direct reference to Aeneas—but this may have been

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

too obvious for Roman elites. Faustinus does not refer to Vergil by name, and the identity of the Pasquino g r o u p was almost certainly apparent to its Roman a u d i e n c e — i t is the most widely copied work in the grotto, as Conticello has observed. 1 2 3 T h e fact that the Pasquino g r o u p is the only major g r o u p in the cave that is not n a m e d by Faustinus may actually have b e e n intended to call attention to it, in the same way that a "delayed naming" served in epic to call the readers' attention to a particular h e r o — f o r example, Odysseus in Odyssey 1 . 1 - 2 1 , the ill-fated Marcellus in Aeneid 6.860-84, a n < i Aeneas himself in the p r o e m of the epic ( 1 . 1 - 9 2 ) . 1 2 4 O r it may be that the emphasis placed by Faustinus on the three Odyssean episodes was intended to bear an inverse relationship to their role in the epic. In the Aeneid, the death of Lausus is a powerful moment, narrated directly and without mediation by Vergil; the three Odyssean adventures, all presented in indirect discourse, are by comparison m u c h less vivid. These explanations for Faustin a ' s failure to name Aeneas may, again, seem esoteric to a m o d e r n audience, but as Trimalchio (Petron. Sat. 39.3) said in another setting, o n e had to know one's philology at dinner (oportet etiam inter cenandum philologiam nosse).125 Roman decorative environments, like Roman literary environments, were conceived by and for viewers w h o knew H o m e r and Vergil intimately and were expected to demonstrate their knowledge of classical literature on social occasions. T h e point of decoration such as this was to supply that audience with the same opportunity for identification, association, and interpretation as the text. 1 2 6 Be all this as it may, the real problem posed by the Faustinus epigram and by my interpretations of the individual groups is the way the sculptural decoration at Sperlonga functioned as a Vergilian program. T h e sculpture does not illustrate the dominant narrative of the Aeneid any more than it illustrates that of the Odyssey, and three of the four major groups f r o m the cave d o show the deeds of Odysseus. In my view, however, the designer of the installation has drawn u p o n the Aeneid, together with its Odyssean references, to contrast these two h e r o e s — A e n e a s and Odysseus—in a program that is both narrative and emblematic of the differences in Greek and Roman character. T h e anchor points of this program are the two pendants at the mouth of the cave: Aeneas mourning the death of his enemy, and Odysseus plotting the death of his friend. It is surely to the Palladion episode that the dolos Ithaci of the Faustinus epigram refers, and not simply the confrontation with Polyphemos as many have assumed. 1 2 7 T h e emblematic message implied by these two pendants is paralleled in Aeneid 2.40-198, where a similar presentation of Greek and Roman character appears in the meeting o f L a o c o o n and Sinon. T h e r e Sinon, an obvious stand-in for Odysseus, uses the "Pelasgian art" of rhetoric to gain admittance to the city and to betray the Trojans' trust. 128 L a o c o o n does not m u c h resemble Aeneas, but we hear the story of Greek treachery through Aeneas's retelling, so his disbe-

13 2

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

lief, even in the memory of Sinon's treachery (2.65—66, 105-106, 152—53, 195-98), is also on display.129 These two pendants have a narrative relationship as well. The theft of the Palladion seals the fate of Troy and puts into motion the events which will force Aeneas to search for a new home. The death of Lausus marks the collapse of the Italian coalition, paving the way for a new Trojan kingdom on Italian soil. There is, thus, a temporal movement in the cave decoration from right to left. The statue of Ganymede (Fig. 63), son of either Trojan Laomedon or Tros, was found in front of the cave and has been suggested by Neudecker to have stood in a niche on the right side. 130 The iconography of the statue — n o t nude, but wearing Eastern dress—is unusual and was probably intended to remind the viewer of Vergil's description of Ganymede in Aeneid 5.252-57: a royal boy, running with javelin in pursuit of deer, when he is snatched away by the eagle. Ganymede does not have a major role in the Aeneid, but he is cited in the proem (1.28) as one of the reasons for Juno's anger against the Trojans, and this may explain his presence at Sperlonga. 131 A statue of a bound maiden, often identified as Andromeda but probably correcdy identified by M. Leppert as Hesione, daughter of Laomedon, was also found on this side of the cave entrance. The prehistory of the war may, thus, have been recounted in some detail. 132 This entire group of monuments was balanced on the left side of the cave by a ship, carved in natural rock. It was identified by a mosaic inscription (Fig. 66) as navis / Argo / ph. In Eclogue 4.26-36, Vergil tells the child that as soon as he can read of the glories of heroes and the deeds of his father, and as soon as he himself is able to recognize virtus, a new ordo saec(u)lorum will begin to be felt. But because there will be traces of ancient crimes, "another Tiphys will arise, and another Argo to carry chosen heroes; there will be another war, and mighty Achilles will again be sent to Troy." The image of the new Achilles is repeated in the Sibyl's prophecy to Aeneas in Aeneid 6.89, as most visitors to the cave would have known. When viewed in terms of Eclogue therefore, this Argo—perhaps originally with a statue of Tiphys— makes a meaningful neighbor for a group of Aeneas and Lausus, symbolizing the Italian wars, on the left side of the cave. 133 The relief plaque with Venus Genetrix (Fig. 64) was found in this part of the cave as well, and near the spot where the Pasquino group is thought originally to have stood; it must have signified the goddess's protection of her son in the midst of these dangers. 134 A group of three piglets found somewhere in the cave may have belonged to a sculpture representing the Sow of Lavinium (cf. Aen. 3.390-93). There is strong supporting evidence, therefore, for a narrative program at Sperlonga which related the destruction of Troy on the right side of the cave to the foundation of a new Italian kingdom on the left. 135 The achievement of that kingdom may be embodied in the putto with the theatrical mask (Fig. 67), which is reminiscent of Vergil, Georgics 2.385-89:

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

J33

Just so do the Ausonian settlers [coloni], a race sent from Troy, amuse themselves with artless verses and pealed laughter, and put on frightfully grinning masks carved from the cork t r e e — and they call upon you, Bacchus, with joyful songs and hang up gendy swaying gifts [oscilla] for you on the tall pine.

T h e original location o f the putto is disputed, b u t the grotto at the left rear o f the cave seems a strong possibility, since it was lit by a series o f wall sconces in the shape o f theatrical masks. 1 3 6 It is possible that some o f the sculptural m o n u m e n t s f r o m spaces flanking the m a i n grotto are later than the statuary g r o u p s inside. T h e G a n y m e d e was o n c e considered Flavian, a l t h o u g h A n d r e a e n o w dates it in the Augustan period. T h e mosaic inscription o n the ship's p r o w — a n d perhaps the ship itself—are said by F. Sear to b e N e r o n i a n or Flavian in date. T h e H e s i o n e is said by N e u d e c k e r to b e Hadrianic. 1 3 7 T h e r e has b e e n n o detailed study o f the non-Odyssean sculpture f r o m the cave, n o r any detailed study o f the history o f the cave as an archaeological site to clarify the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the p r o g r a m over time. 1 3 8 If, however, these sculptures are later, they were evidently i n t e n d e d to e n h a n c e an existing narrative by inscribing it within a b r o a d e r historical a n d perhaps even a cosmic f r a m e — l i k e the central figures o f the R o m a n a n d Parthian o n the relief cuirass o f the Primaporta A u g u stus. 139 T h e narrative character o f the original p r o g r a m can b e seen by comparing the two g r o u p s at the m o u t h o f the cave with the i m m e n s e Skylla a n d P o l y p h e m o s groups, which, like them, were part o f the original ensemble. Similarities o f size a n d subject matter give the Skylla a n d P o l y p h e m o s g r o u p s particular weight within the S p e r l o n g a p r o g r a m . Since b o t h scenes are described by H o m e r (Od. 9 - 1 2 ) a n d Vergil (Aen. 1 - 3 ) within the context o f the h e r o ' s tale o f his wandering, they create an obvious p o i n t o f comparison between the two epics a n d their protagonists. 1 4 0 T h e narrative function o f the two episodes is clearer f o r the Odyssey. T h e confrontation with P o l y p h e m o s marks the b e g i n n i n g o f Odysseus's misfortunes in 9 . 2 5 2 - 5 3 6 . T h e e n c o u n t e r with Skylla, followed by the storm in B o o k 12, brings h i m to a n e w phase o f his j o u r n e y . T h e two scenes thus bracket the progress o f his wanderings as h e relates t h e m in Odyssey 9 - 1 2 . T h e same thing is true in an artificial way f o r Aeneas. Unlike Odysseus, he does n o t e x p e r i e n c e these monsters directly, b u t h e follows Odysseus's sailing route precisely, a n d in Aeneid 1.200-203, after the storm which blew his ships to Africa, h e tries to p u t heart into his discouraged Trojans by r e m i n d i n g t h e m o f P o l y p h e m o s a n d S k y l l a — two terrible dangers that have already b e e n overcome. Vergil uses these monsters to create a symbolic distance, filled with i m p e d i m e n t s f o r A e n e a s , between the old Troy a n d the new. In the cave they again symbolize the terrors o f the voyage, b u t here, o n a m o r e practical level, they also serve to complete the physical progression o f the narrative f r o m right to left. T h e s e two groups may also have had an emblematic significance, like those

IJ4

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

at the front of the cave, because the outcomes of the two voyages reflect on the character of their captains. Odysseus's account of his voyage is one of mutiny and his own lack of self-discipline. His companions tried to warn him away from the Cyclops, but he would not listen (Od. 9 . 2 2 4 - 2 9 , 4 9 1 - 5 0 1 ) . He begged his men to sail past the Island of the Sun, but they would not listen {Od. 1 2 . 2 7 1 - 9 6 ) . T h e result of these and other failures to concentrate on the return h o m e is a steadily dwindling number of ships and crew f r o m the beginning of Book 9 to the destruction of Odysseus's last ship in B o o k 12: six rowing benches were empty in every ship when Odysseus's fleet pulled away from the island of the Kikones (9.60-61); at least four men were eaten by the Cyclops (9.289-93, 344); all but one of his ships were destroyed by the Laistrygonians (1 o. 1 3 0 - 3 2); another six men were carried away by Skylla ( 1 2 . 2 4 5 - 4 6 ) ; and the last ship was lost with all remaining hands in the storm ( 1 2 . 4 1 1 - 1 7 ) . H o m e r paints a sympathetic picture of Odysseus's attempts to save his men from these misfortunes (cf. 1 . 5 - 9 ) , but the final truth is inescapable: the Greek captain came home without his crew. 141 Despite equal impediments, Aeneas's experience was different: he put into Polyphemos's island just l o n g e n o u g h to rescue Achaemenides, w h o m Odysseus had left behind (Aen. 3.666-67); he followed Helenus's sailing instructions (3.420-32) and avoided Skylla ( 3 . 6 8 4 - 8 5 ) altogether; and the storm which threatened his ships in Aeneid 1 . 8 1 - 1 2 3 ultimately left his fleet intact. Vergil in fact uses this storm and its aftermath as an opportunity to display the leadership of Aeneas, both literally on the shores of Africa and figuratively, through the "statesman simile" ( 1 . 1 4 8 - 5 3 ) , as others have observed. 1 4 2 Thus, for the reader w h o knows both epics, there is an implied comparison of these two heroes as leaders which goes beyond the similarities in narrative structure and detail. 143 T h e organization of the cave program is Vergilian in its content and structure, in its use of H o m e r as a literary model and foil, and in its use of Odysseus to define the character of Aeneas as a distinctively Roman hero. 1 4 4

T h e Sperlonga villa is argued, on the basis of Tacitus and Suetonius, to have belonged to the imperial family, and this suggestion is supported by the enormous resources that the grotto installation would have demanded. 1 4 5 T h e multiton blocks required for the Skylla and Polyphemos groups were transported by water, maneuvered perhaps into place via a f l o o d e d cave, and a dam was built or the separation from the sea reestablished to enable the construction of the artificial basin and the carving of the blocks. 146 T h e hydraulics of the basin, with its mixture of fresh and salt water, were incorporated into the structure in the final phase, and the rest of the statuary decoration was put into place. This likelihood of imperial ownership should be taken into account in as-

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Z55

sessing the sculptural program—its content, the choices and innovations the artists made in their presentation of individual tableaux, and the complexity of the overall conception, which must have c o m m a n d e d the services of a major designer, or perhaps more than one. T h e display is normally imagined as u n f o l d i n g around a single viewpoint centered on the islandtriclinium (cf. Figs. 4 5 , 4 6 ) , but the provisions made for access to the groups show that they were intended to be seen from various angles, both close and from a distance, with different groups in the foreground and background, depending u p o n the visitor's point of view. Short staircases provided views of the Polyphemos group from at least five angles; the circular path led the viewer around the basin; and additional viewpoints were created for the viewer in the rock-cut seats at the mouth of the cave and in the grotto at left rear. 147 T h e viewer's experience may also have been influenced by the level of illumination within the cave, since C. Pertschi has suggested that the passage of the sun across the sky brought each of the four major groups into relief in turn. 1 4 8 T h e goal behind this complexity of design was almost certainly the creation of variety in the display and in its meaning; as the viewer's position changed, the relationship between the individual groups and their associations for the viewer would have changed as well. Thus, the view from the island-triclinium emphasized, in a roughly linear format, the history of the Trojans' flight and their arrival in Italy. T h e other viewpoints may have offered a comparatively moralizing point of view. W h e n one stood in front of the small grotto on the left side of the cave, with the so-called steersman and ship in the foreground, the Palladion g r o u p would have been visible to the right, across the basin. W h e n one sat on the stone seats to the left of the cave entrance, the Pasquino group would have been in the foreground, and the three Odyssean groups behind it. Saflund once proposed that these stone seats provided the primary view of the cave, and the importance of his observation is confirmed by the location of the artists' names and patronymics on the oarbox of the s h i p — t h e inscription would have been visible only from this angle (Fig. 50). 149 It seems unlikely, however, that the designer (or designers) had a single or primary viewpoint in mind. Provision for a viewer who was free to move around the installation is one of its most distinctive features. T h e complexity of the installation probably had an impact on the carving of individual figures within the installation. T h e wineskin bearer's left leg is 20 centimeters shorter than his right, an idiosyncratic rendering clearly intended to situate him naturalistically within the rocky grotto at the rear of the cave. 150 T h e cloak of the Odysseus from the Palladion group is divided unrealistically into two parts, one (Fig. 49) wrapped around his left arm to hide the sword, and the other (Fig. 68) left to fall loosely down his back. This illogical rendering probably helped, as Andreae suggests, to increase

ij6

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

the presence of the figure in relation to the bulk of the Pasquino warrior on the other side of the cave entrance. 151 Its primary goal, however, was to have the figure appear fully cloaked when viewed from behind and from across the basin. Pulling the cloak to one side would have created a graceless and uncommunicative back view.152 The variations in the Sperlonga Pasquino group may stem from the same concern. The older warrior seems not to have carried a shield, a feature attested in other replicas, but one that would have made the group less readable when viewed from behind and from across the pool. 153 The younger warrior's enlarged foot might also be intended to make the action of the group coherent from behind. The foot may not have seemed excessively large when viewed from a distance (Fig. 56), and appearing at a diagonal from behind the group, it balances the boy's head. Without the foot, the head would have appeared disembodied, and the interlocking relationship between the two warriors would have been lost. 154 The idiosyncrasy of these renderings, made apparent by comparison with replicas or variants of the same statuary types, suggests that the Sperlonga groups are not originals in the modern sense—that is, creations that appeared for the first time at Sperlonga and served as models for statuary in other settings. It remains a disputed point, however, how precisely to characterize them. Andreae argues that they are all copies of statues produced in the Hellenistic period; Himmelmann, that the Odyssean groups from the cave are based on compositional and figural types derived from the minoror decorative-arts tradition. 155 Neither author seems to me to articulate the situation precisely, although Himmelmann, in particular, has helped to clarify the artistic context in which these groups were produced. The Pasquino group is certainly a variant of a well-known monument, and probably an Augustan one; its Augustan origins, like the Vergilian character of the program, must have given the Sperlonga Pasquino group special resonance within its Julio-Claudian setting. 156 The theft of the Palladion was a popular theme on Augustan and Julio-Claudian gems, so this group may also have had meaning—and perhaps again a statuary model—outside the context of the cave program. 157 The other Odyssean groups draw, as Himmelmann has shown, upon a visual tradition that, until the later second century B.C., existed primarily in the minor arts. 158 This, along with the eclecticism of their style, suggests that they are free sculptural creations, created from two-dimensional models for their locations in the grotto or, alternatively, based upon sculptural models that were created in a similarly eclectic manner. 159 The familiarity of the compositional patterns and the popularity of Odyssean themes in contemporary decorative arts would have made the use of these groups in a Vergilian program more striking for an elite Roman audience and underscored the special position of the villa's patron. The question of "original versus copy" takes on particular interest for most scholars in the case of the Skylla group, since the three sculptors whose names

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Z57

appear on the oarbox of the ship have the same names as the Rhodian sculptors cited by Pliny (HN36.37) as the carvers of the Laocoon. A further similarity between those groups may have emerged from this study, since the Laocoon, like the Skylla group, is most easily understood within its Roman setting as an evocation of the Aeneid, produced by the Rhodians in collaboration with Roman designers or Roman imperial patrons (or both). 1 6 0 W h e n precisely this collaboration took place and where these monuments originally stood—in a public place or an imperial villa—cannot begin to be resolved, however, until consensus emerges regarding the dates of the Sperlonga installation and the floruits of the three Rhodians. Since I think that the installation dates probably to the middle of the Julio-Claudian period and the dates of the Rhodians can be pushed only with difficulty to the Augustan period and not, by current evidence, later, the Skylla and the Laocoon groups are for m e copies of monuments located elsewhere, most likely in Rome. 1 6 1

If I am correct in my assessment of the Sperlonga program, therefore, it goes beyond the loose epic decoration known from other elite town houses and villas of the late republic and early empire to present a large, closely coordinated Vergilian program that suited both its location on the Campanian coast and its probable function as an imperial villa. 162 T h e antecedents for this program are probably to be sought not in the Hellenistic East, but in the Odyssean or other heroic scenes said by Vitruvius (7.5.20) to be popular in late republican and early imperial decorative arts. 163 T h e Sperlonga grotto was discovered at a time when there was less appreciation than at present for the complexity of the relationship a m o n g Roman decorative sculpture, its Roman setting, and its Hellenistic and republican models. Nevertheless, the painstaking work of physical reconstruction carried out at Sperlonga in the last thirty years and the collection of visual and literary parallels that accompanied that effort now offer the possibility of alternative interpretations. For this writer, the Sperlonga grotto is an unusually rich example of an elite coenatio of the early imperial p e r i o d — o n e in which Greek literary topoi and Roman decorative topoi have b e e n reinterpreted to create an imperial and dynastic display. 164

APPENDIX A: THE DATING OF THE FOUR HEROIC GROUPS AT SPERLONGA Debate over the date of the Sperlonga installation has often been intertwined with the question—separate in my v i e w — o f the villa's ownership by Tiberius, but recent scholarship has focused productively on other kinds of evidence, like the carving style of the sculpture or the construction of the villa itself. 165

Ij8

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Hafner suggests a post-Tiberian date for the grotto decoration; H i m m e l m a n n and Smith date it similarly in the middle of the first century a . c.; Kunze proposes a date for both sculpture and installation in the late first century B.C. 166 A date for the decorative installation in the middle of the Julio-Claudian period seems to me to be the one most easily supported by the carving style of the four heroic groups, which, o n the basis of current evidence, represent the earliest secure elements of decoration. 1 6 7 Comparison shows that these four groups have their closest parallels in the portraiture o f Caligula: the arrangement of the locks o f the wineskin bearer is similar to that of a portrait o f that e m p e r o r in Venice (Mus. Arch. inv. 142), and the flamelike arrangement o f his short beard resembles the nape hair of the Caligula Genua-Pegli. 1 6 8 T h e short, outwardly curling locks in the beard of Odysseus and in the "hand-calotte" fragment are paralleled in the carving o f Worcester Museum of Art inv. 1 9 1 4 . 2 3 , as are the thick, loopy curls o f the top-hair beneath the monster's hand. 1 6 9 T h e tendency to lift and u n d e r c u t selected locks, visible in the h e a d of Diomedes, appears again in Caligula Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 637a, and the c h e e k beard that the h e r o wears is itself popular in the Julio-Claudian period. 1 7 0 T h e locks o f the Sperlonga heads are generally longer, thicker, and more disheveled than those of the imperial portraits, but this characterization is appropriate to the heroic status of the subjects and to the pathos o f their situations. T h e conventions of advanced Julio-Claudian portraiture can be seen clearly in pieces that were n o t intended to be inspected too closely, like the "hand-calotte" fragment and the companion f r o m the Skylla g r o u p with his hair c o m b e d forward. 1 7 1 I d o n o t m e a n to imply with these parallels that the Sperlonga sculptures are to be dated in the reign of Caligula per se. T h a t e m p e r o r can, in fact, probably be eliminated f r o m consideration as the patron o f the cave installation, since Suetonius (Calig. 34.2) suggests that h e disliked epic. His portraiture does provide, however, a firm p e g f o r the Sperlonga sculptures in the period between the later reign of Tiberius and the reign of Claudius. Additional parallels could probably be cited a m o n g portraits of the Claudian period. A middle Julio-Claudian date for the sculptures receives further support f r o m H. H e r d e j u r g e n ' s observation that the figure o f the Palladion from Sperlonga is a mid-first-century-A.c. variant of an archaistic kore type of the mid-first century B.C., and from some of the constructional evidence f r o m the villa. 1 7 2 Kunze has proposed a date for the sculpture in the early Augustan period (ca. 30-20 B.C.) on the basis of the construction fabric (opus quasi-reticulatum) that predominates within the grotto and Zentralbau of the villa a n d o f a bit of wall painting that can be associated with this fabric. 1 7 3 This seems to me too early, and I am not convinced that the style of the masonry can provide a secure date for the installation at this time. As n o t e d by F. Coarelli, masonry facings were the product o f an industrial development that allowed

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

139

contractors "to use more regular and standardized components, perhaps produced in the quarries and by a workforce different than that which employed them on the building-project." 1 7 4 Thus, while o. incertum is the oldest masonry facing used in Roman concrete construction, it did not "go out of fashion" with the introduction of 0. reticulatum, but continued in use into the imperial period, as in the Augustan-period reconstruction of the east side of the f o r u m at Pompeii. 1 7 5 0. incertum and 0. reticulatum, in fact, appear contemporaneously throughout the first century A. c . , normally in conj u n c t i o n with brick facing, as, for example, in the 0. incertumwalls of the socalled Villa Jovis on Capri, where brick was used in the leveling courses, and the roughly contemporary Sperlonga villa, where 0. reticulatum was combined with brick quoins. This suggests that an extensive use of 0. reticulatum—or quasi-reticulatum—on a site may evince something other than chronology. 1 7 6 It may have to do with the amount of construction planned for the site and the amount of facing material required, the materials used for the facing, whether the wall to be faced was a bearing wall, or any combination of these considerations. 1 7 7 1 have not made an examination of the structures at Sperlonga, but the walls faced in quasi-reticulatum seem, from Kunze's photos and description, to be interior walls or walls supporting a comparatively light load; the arcaded façade of the Zentralbau illustrated by Kunze represents a comparatively late use of 0. incertum in a part of the villa in which heavy construction was evidently required. 1 7 8 I am not questioning the importance of construction technique for distinguishing building phases within the context of a particular site. Kunze's observations about the chronological relationship of the 0. quasi-reticulatum construction to the other construction fabrics used at Sperlonga are well f o u n d e d , and the parallels that he cites for the sculptures may also be of value for the date of the original sculptures on which the Sperlonga groups are based. 1 7 9 Nevertheless, the fragments of wall painting and other decorative features that he uses to anchor his proposed chronology for the quasireticulate building phase within the villa are not securely dated in the period of the Pompeian Second Style. M o o r m a n n compares the peplophoros depicted on the critical fresco fragment with the Danaïds from the Villa of the Papyri to suggest that the painting is from the Julio-Claudian period, and other building materials f o u n d on the site are either inconclusively dated or show that there was construction or repair (or both) on the site in both periods. 1 8 0 Even if the Augustan date proposed by Kunze for the Sperlonga installation is still unproven, it is a welcome addition to recent attempts to put the traditional Tiberian date for the sculptures, with its base in textual evidence that may be irrelevant, to a more rigorous test. T h e best evidence for the date of the Sperlonga installation is, in my view, however, the carving style of the sculptures, which would place it in the middle of the Julio-Claudian period.

140

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

APPENDIX B: FAUSTINUS AND THE SPERLONGA PROGRAM T h e Faustinus inscription is dated by most epigraphers in the third or especially the fourth century a . c . , a period when Vergil and things Vergilian were very much in vogue: 181 biographies of the poet were written and portraits dedicated in public places, the commentaries of Servius and Macrobius were published, and original poetry or dramatic pieces (centones) were composed using images and phrases taken from Vergilian poetry (Tert. De praescr. haeret. 39). 182 Many illustrations of Vergilian subjects are also known from late antiquity, and they are often combined with Vergilian text, so the juxtaposition of visual and verbal images that resulted from the dedication of Faustinus's epigram in the Sperlonga grotto is characteristic of contemporary taste. Other examples include two illustrated books—the so-called Vatican Virgil and the C o d e x Romanus—and a series of mosaics and wall paintings from late Roman Britain. 183 T h e famous statue of the Laocoon, itself a representation of a Vergilian theme (Aen. 2.201-27), was apparently also found in a fourth-century-A.c. house. 184 Nothing is known of Faustinus, apart from his dedicatory inscription, but his name suggests that he was a freedman or slave, highly educated and wealthy enough to make this dedication to the owners of the villa. 185 H e may have been a secretary or librarian, or perhaps the steward (dispensator), whose duties would have included the monitoring of the property, the running of the household, and, in the absence of the master, the welcoming of guests. 186 Given the intense interest that Vergil held for late-antique aristocrats, one should perhaps ask if the Vergilian associations ascribed to the cave by Faustinus were not perhaps a late-antique interpretation of a program that was originally organized along different lines; but this involves two separate questions: Was the original cave program inspired by Vergil? And, if so, what are the chances that Faustinus, who was separated from the installation of the sculpture by about three hundred years, understood the character of the program and commemorated it accurately in his verse? The interpretation of the Sperlonga program offered here draws strength from the Faustinus inscription, but only my interpretation of the Skylla group depends upon evidence that the poem provides. T h e broader argument presented here hinges on the solution that a connection with Vergil offers for other problems: the iconography and identity of the Pasquino warriors, the appropriateness of an Aeneas-Lausus group within the nine different findcontexts in which copies of the Pasquino group have been found, and the rationale that a Vergilian program provides for the unusual combination of monuments and themes at Sperlonga—both major pieces like the four heroic groups and minor ones like the Venus Genetrix plaque or the putto with the mask. My reconstruction does not require a special reading of the Aeneid or any other ancient text; nor does it require a psychological reconstruction of

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

141

an historical personality like Tiberius. Instead, the program as I have reconstructed it is placed within a generally accepted picture of elite social values and the mores of the early imperial period. This is a comparatively simple reconstruction, therefore, and one based on evidence available apart from Faustinus and his dedication. The source of Faustinus's own knowledge or intuition about the Sperlonga program is difficult to reconstruct. He may simply have "read" the program as we attempt to "read" it today—extrapolating meanings from the juxtaposition of individual monuments on the basis of iconography and theme. Nevertheless, he did bring to this task a much broader knowledge of ancient art and letters than ours, and he had the advantage of seeing the cave when it was still intact: what is known about the site suggests that the villa continued to function as an aristocratic residence until at least the fourth century a.c., and the pottery hints, in fact, at an unbroken occupation into the fifth.187 It is impossible to know if the villa remained in the same hands throughout this period, but the archaeological evidence suggests that the decoration remained intact, and this appears to have been typical: laws passed in the early imperial period made it difficult for sculpture and other omamenta to be removed from a villa if it was sold, and R. Neudecker believes that most ancient villas continued in use, with their decoration unchanged, u p to the sixth century a . c . or later. 188 Faustinus may also have made use of written records to interpret the cave decoration. Given the continuity of use and the survival of the original embellishment, such records probably also remained more or less intact. 189 They may have included correspondence between the designer and the patron relating to the planning of the grotto; Cicero's letters to Atticus make it clear that such undertakings required lengthy preparations and extensive correspondence. 1 9 0 There may have been workmen's estimates, contracts, or receipts of the sort preserved in Egyptian papyri. 191 Verse descriptions like Statius's valorization (Silv. 4.6, esp. 11. 16-31) of the art collection of Vindex are also possible, and there were almost certainly property inventories. Inventories would have been essential for villas that were maintained primarily by slaves and for possessions that were subject to auction or dispersement. 1 9 2 In addition to written records, moreover, there may have been oral traditions attached to specific possessions or to the decoration of specific rooms that were passed from one administrator of the villa to the next. An echo of such a tradition maybe found in Martial's (9.44) and Statius's (Silv. 4.6.33-109) description of the past owners of the Hercules Epitrapezius of Vindex. Even if the pedigree attributed to this statue is a fabrication, these accounts of the piece suggest that tradition relating to ownership, authorship, and interpretation were worthy of public note. 1 9 3 Given the paucity of reliable information available to reconstruct the sources used by most major authors in antiquity, it is easy to assume that a very minor figure like Fausti-

142

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

nus worked within a complete informational vacuum. Nevertheless, the precise bookkeeping mentality exhibited by the papyri, by the legal digests of late antiquity, and by anecdotes collected by ancient authors suggest that records relating to property were as precise as they are today.194 We cannot know if Faustinus viewed the Sperlonga program in precisely the same way as it was viewed in the first century A.c.—the chances seem in fact good that he did not. 195 There is nothing in his epigram to suggest, however, that he was an intellectual innovator.196 Seaside and country villas continued to provide important settings for entertaining in the late empire, and "old" or "historic" properties were singled out by late-antique authors for particular praise. 197 The style and content of Faustinus's epigram are most easily explained as an instance of late-antique paideia, inspired in this case by an heirloom sculptural ensemble. 198 NOTES An earlier study dealing with the problems of the Pasquino group and its copies was published in the Festschrift for Brunilde S. Ridgway (ZTE&ANOZ 1998). Nancy de Grummond's kind invitation to speak at the Fourth Langford Family Conference in February 1996 has given me an opportunity to develop ideas about the Sperlonga program that were expressed there in a preliminary way and to test them against other evidence provided by the cave. This paper is also not precisely as delivered in Tallahassee. I have reversed my emphasis to avoid duplication with Weis 1998a and to take in comments made at the conference. Other observations about the Sperlonga installation have appeared in Weis 1998b. Here, as in earlier publications, I have Latinized the spelling of names derived principally from Latin poetry or Greek names such as Achilles, Priam, and Ajax, which typically appear in Latin form. This may make for an odd mixture of Latin and Greek nomenclature, but this mixture seems more in keeping with the direction of my argument than adherence to a strict—and culturally selective—orthographical format. I am grateful to Professor de Grummond for her invitation to speak in Tallahassee, to the audience, especially Justin Glenn and John Younger, and to the other conference participants for stimulating questions and new ideas. I owe special thanks to Nancy de Grummond for her comments and for considerable logistical help with the final manuscript, to B. Andreae for his questions and comments on Weis 1998a and for sharing unpublished material about the cave program from his new edition of Römische Kunst (forthcoming) and, most particularly, to B. S. Ridgway for her careful reading of the manuscript and her productive questions about the Skylla group and other points. All this has resulted in a much better study; the errors that remain are mine. For assistance with the illustrations I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Bernard Andreae; Dr. H. R. Goette, DAI Athens; Prof. Dr. Nikolaus Himmelmann; Alison Jasonides and Daisy Hu, Scala/Art Resources; Dr. H.Jung, DAI Rome; Dr. Vladimir Matveyev, The State Hermitage Museum; Prof. Dr. Ulrich Sinn, Martin von Wagner-Museum, Universität Würzburg; Dr. Vera Slehofer, Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig; Veronica Gazdik, University of Pittsburgh; and for artistic adaptations, Mr. Gerry Woods.

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

143

T h e L o e b Classical Library bilingual edition of the Odyssey has been used for all text citations and translations from the Greek (trans. A. T. Murray [Cambridge, Mass., 1919]). T h e Latin translations, unless otherwise specified, are mine. 1. For the identification, see Andreae 1994, 1 4 - 2 1 , and Himmelmann 1995, 5 4 - 5 5 . Contra: Hafner 1996, 7 5 - 7 8 . 2. Andreae (1974, 104; 1994, 138-39) dates the sculpture before A.D. 26, the date given by Suetonius (Tib. 39) and Tacitus (Ann. 4.59) for a rockfall that almost killed Tiberius in a cave at the villa ad speluncas. Hafner 1996, 78, suggests a postTiberian date, and Himmelmann i g g i , 1 1 4 - 1 5 , and Smith 1991b, 353, date the installation in the middle of the first century A. c., a date supported by the carving style of the sculptures. For the date of the sculptures at Sperlonga, see A p p e n d i x A to this chapter. 3. T h e key to the reconstruction and location of these groups is to be found in the excavation notebooks of E. Bellante, who recorded the findspots of the major fragments (Conticello 1974, 15-20). 4. For an overview of the sculptural finds from the cave (in addition to the four heroic groups), s e e j a c o p i 1963, passim; Andreae 1976; Neudecker 1988, 220-23, cat. no. 62; Conticello 1995. 5. For early appraisals of the cave program, see H a m p e 1972, 6 3 - 6 4 . 6. For Ovid and the Metamorphoses as the primary influence on the cave program, see Andreae 1994, 2 5 - 2 7 (navis Argo), 3 6 - 3 7 (Pasquino), 4 2 - 4 3 (the Palladion group), 5 3 - 5 6 (the Polyphemos group), 8 3 - 8 4 (the Skylla group), 1 1 3 - 1 4 (Ganymede), and more generally 1 0 5 - 1 2 , 1 2 4 - 3 4 . 7. Himmelmann 1995, 1 4 - 1 7 , 6 6 - 6 9 . 8. Neudecker 1988, 43. T h e two groups at the front of the cave have to do with events at Troy; the two groups in the back of the cave, with Odysseus's voyage. Neudecker suggests that the scenes were arranged like the narrative on a Roman sarcophagus, with two small episodes framing a major one (or major ones). T h e viewer was expected to pull the scenes apart intellectually and put them mentally in narrative order. g. T h e idea of Odysseus as a Stoic hero, an identity ascribed to him by Seneca (Dial. 2.2.1) and other imperial authors, is emphasized by Andreae i g 7 4 , 105, and by Conticello i g 7 4 , 36 n. 52, who proposes that the four scenes were intended to suggest specific qualities associated with that hero—doles (Troy and Diomedes), virtus (Skylla), pietas (Pasquino), and caUiditas (Polyphemos)—cf. Moreno 1994, 391. Neudecker (1988, 43) suggests that the decoration functioned as a group of concentrically arranged Homeric images, and Himmelmann ( i g 9 5 , 1 6 - 1 7 ) considers the assemblage to be a casual selection of epic themes, as apparently described by Vitruvius 7.5.20. 10. T h e oddity of this choice has been noted by Stewart 1977b, 78, followed by Sauron, 1991, 2 3 - 2 5 , and acknowledged by Andreae 1994, 42. This story was a locus classicus for the deceptiveness of Odysseus as a character, so it is difficult to imagine for it another meaning; the literary sources for the story have been collected by Boardman and Vafopoulou-Richardson 1986, 3 9 7 - 4 0 9 , and Roscher III. 1 ( 1 8 9 7 l g o g ) I 3 0 i - i 3 0 g , s.v. "Palladion" (E. Worner). For a general discussion of negative characterizations of Odysseus in antiquity, see Stanford 1968, 9 8 - 1 2 1 . T h e impact of the Pasquino group, if correctly identified by Andreae as Odysseus rescuing the

144

ODYSSEUS AT S P E R L O N G A

body of Achilles, is likely to have been negative as well. In the usual version of the story, Ajax rescues the body of Achilles but the arms of Achilles are unfairly awarded to Odysseus, a decision which provokes Ajax to madness and eventual suicide: Touchefeu 1981, 313; Stanford 1968, 92-94; Andreae 1974, 36-37 n. 151. In light of this tradition, Ovid's account of the unequal debate between Ajax and Odysseus in Met. 13.1-398—and especially his summation (13.382-83), fortisque viri tulit arma disertus, the "dexterous speaker" bore off the brave man's arms—seems less an illustration of Odysseus's bravery than a cynical commentary on the power of eloquence to prevail unfairly over true heroism. 11. For the findspots of the other copies see Weis 1998a, 263-64. 12. For the Catania relief and the Sperlonga group, see Andreae, 1982, 1 1 2 - 1 3 ; 1994, 57-58; Ulisse 1996, 3 5 5 - 6 1 , cat. nos. 5.7-12. The locations of all the figures attributed to the group except the wineskin bearer are secured by remains in the cave (Ulisse 358, cat. no. 5.12) or joins, and the subject matter of the wineskin bearer makes a strong argument for reconstructing him with the group. The famous head of Odysseus that is normally associated with the group was found in a different part of the cave and once treated as an insecure addition (Ulisse 355, cat. no. 5.9). Apparently connecting fragments have now been discovered, however, that link this head securely with the Odysseus fragments from the group (personal communication, B. Andreae, 2/13/99). These fragments will form part of a new reconstruction of the group when the Rome exhibition (Ulisse 1996) moves to the Haus der Kunst, Munich, Jan. 19, 1999-Sept. 1, 2000. 13. The wineskin bearer has been restored on the right side of the monster, either facing the action or moving rapidly away. Reconstruction of the statue facing the group: Ulisse 1996, fig. p. 360 (reconstruction in Mus. Naz. Sperlonga). Moving away: Ulisse fig. p. 359 (cast in Bochum, Kunstsammlungen, Ruhr-Universität) and p. 356, cat. no. 5.10. For the problem of the statue's location and pose, see Ulisse 1996, 356, cat. no. 5.10. 14. For the popularity of the Polyphemos episode in the late Hellenistic-republican period in particular, see Himmelmann 1995, 42-43; Alvino 1996, 200-205; Sanzi di Mino 1996; and Ulisse 1996, 180-81, cat. nos. 3 . 1 2 - 1 6 (terracotta groups from Tortoreto and Colle Cesarano, Etruscan urns). Later variants of two figures from the group—Odysseus and the wineskin bearer—are known from Baiae and Ephesos, but in neither case does the wineskin bearer function as dramatically as at Sperlonga. For the Baiae and Ephesos groups, see Andreae 1982, 146-48; Himmelmann 1995, 21; and Ulisse 1996, 366-70, cat. no. 5.18, and 240-41, cat. no. 4.4. 15. The importance of the wineskin bearer to the group is emphasized by Andreae, 1982, 146-48; 1994, 6 9 - 7 1 . 16. The position of Diomedes' head (Andreae 1974, pis. 38-40; here Fig. 48) makes it clear that his pose was similar to the figure on the Megiste ossuary. For the reconstruction of Odysseus's position, see Andreae 1994,45-47; Himmelmann 1995, 24-28. [For reservations about the presence of the sword, see de Grummond, infra, p. 269, Figs. 123-24.—Eds.] 17. Himmelmann 1995, 24-25. According to Andreae 1982,172, Odysseus twists his beard, still undecided as to whether this is the course that he will take; Andreae's current interpretation (1994, 46) responds to earlier criticisms, especially those of

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

145

Stewart 1977b, 78, that Odysseus's treachery toward Diomedes is incompatible with his interpretation of the cave program as a cycle honoring Odysseus. 18. I once argued (Weis 1998a, 283 n. 110), like Andreae 1982, 172, that the Odysseus on the ossuary seems to be contemplating the murder of Diomedes—as Medea contemplates the killing of her children in the famous series of early imperial paintings from Pompeii and Herculaneum (Ling 1991, 134-35, figs- 140-41). Given the importance of context and detail, I no longer believe that the ossuary can be used to interpret the meaning of the group at Sperlonga. i g . This has been noted by Himmelmann 1995, 27. 20. For the reconstruction of the Skylla group, see the excellent illustrated summary by Andreae and Bertolin 1996. 21. Andreae 1969, 8 1 2 - 1 3 ; Sichtermann 1966, 235: Conticello, 1974, 34, and 1984, 6 1 6 - 1 7 , commenting on Saflund 1967b, 3 6 - 4 1 . For photographs of the fragments, see Andreae and Bertolin 1996, 306-307. 22. "Hand-calotte" fragment and figura volante: Andreae 1967, 85; Conticello 1984, 612, fig. 1, although the drawing omits the figure of Skylla, who would have dominated the space between the sailors entwined in the monster's tails. 23. The disproportion between the upper and lower parts of the head is notable in Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 390, fig. 16. The most recent discussions of this problem are those of Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 346-48, and C. Kunze 1996, 180-81 n. 138. 24. Cf. Andreae and Conticello (1987a, 357) and Andreae and Bertolin (1996, 305)25. Conticello 1984,619-20. For the general iconography of the Skylla episode, see Ulisse 1 gg6, 150-54, esp. cat. nos. 2.63-64and 2.69; Himmelmann 1995, 29-33; C. Kunze 1996, 190-96. For the Odysseus, see Andreae and Conticello 1987a,

356-5726. According to Conticello (1974, 11), the cave contained 554 significant marble fragments, fewer than a hundred of which can be attributed with confidence to any one of the four heroic groups, so these fragments need not have come from this group or any of the others. From the way the sculptural finds were deposited in the basin (Conticello pp. 1 1 - 1 5 ) , it seems likely that sculpture from all over the villa was dumped in the basin—whether to fill the basin, or to dispose of the sculpture, or both. (The site seems at one point to have been occupied by a monastery [Andreae 1994, 5 6 - 5 7 ] , so the systematic disposal of the sculpture is not difficult to explain.) A recent examination of the architectural remains at Sperlonga suggests that there were extensive porticoes and pavilions located around the grotto, so the mixing of statuary from different locations in the villa may have been extensive: Viscogliosi 1996, 2 5 4 - 6 1 , and Cassieri 1996. 27. For the findspots of the Skylla fragments, see Conticello 1974, fig. 4 . 1 have not been able to examine the ship personally, but the physical evidence provided for a standing Odysseus by the actual remains seems to be inconclusive: Waywell 1996a, 114, says that the surface of the deck is worked to receive the standing figure; C. Kunze 1996, 192, that there is no evidence that such a figure was included. 28. On the technical similarities among the sculptural finds at Sperlonga, see Conticello 1974, 4 1 - 4 9 , and C. Kunze 1996, 154-59; f ° r the marble see Kunze p. 159

146

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

n. 60. Similar arguments have been made for attributing other figures to specific groups in the past, only to be proven wrong. Saflund 1967b, 48-50, originally suggested, for example, that the figure of Odysseus now associated with the Palladion group was part of the Skylla group because the momentary quality of the figure's movement corresponded with the violence of Skylla's attack. T h e consistency of marble and carving style from fragment to fragment is one of the difficulties of reconstructing these groups. 29. Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 3 6 8 - 6 9 , provide an excellent characterization of the changing views presented by the Skylla group from right, left, and front, but they do not see the back view as offering much interest. This has implications for their dating of the Skylla group as well. They interpret what they consider to be the artists' failure to develop the group fully in the round as a stylistic feature that distinguishes it from the Ludovisi Gaul group, which they date in the third century B.C. This leads them by other arguments (pp. 3 6 9 - 7 0 ) to a date for the prototype of the Skylla group in the early years of the second century B.C. 30. O n the sense of movement in the group, see Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 3 4 8 - 4 9 (group as a whole) and 3 5 1 - 5 3 (the movement of the ship and of the steersman in relation to it). 31. Andreae 1 9 9 4 , 8 7 - 8 8 . 32. A characterization of the scene that was closer to mine was suggested earlier by Andreae and Conticello (1987a, 353), w h o noted that the steersman was about to fall off the side of the ship. This would not be the case if he had been pushed to the deck by the forward motion of the ship; the ship's velocity and the consistency of its direction should hold him in place, not propel him to the side. 33. For Odysseus and the exomis, see La Rocca 1996a, 73, and Himmelmann 1991, 102. T h e upper part of Odysseus's body in Figs. 50 and 5 1 , with the cloak that distinguishes him from the steersman, is restored. 34. Mosaic: Manconi 1996, 1 8 8 - 9 3 . 35. Conticello 1984, 6 1 9 - 2 0 . 36. For the attribution of the Tivoli heads, see Andreae: 1974, 6 5 - 6 8 , cat. nos. 1.2.1-1.2.3 (pis. 49-58); 1994, 171 n. 319; and Himmelmann 1995, 6 9 - 7 0 . 37. Odysseus usually wears a beard in ancient art; cf. Touchefeu-Meynier 1992, 967. Andreae 1994, 50, remarks o n the youthfulness of Diomedes. 38. T h e differences in the ages of Odysseus and his three companions at Sperlonga are a traditional part of the iconography of the Palladion adventure (Moret 1997, 208) and perhaps of other episodes of the Odyssey. Compare the Italiote vase illustrated by Saflund 1972, 19, fig. 8. 39. Migne, PG139, 1049.8, as quoted by Becatti i960, 201 n. 379: r) St er¿pa, ev olf koI irXolov vnapx^i, ol (J*€V Xeyovaiv oti tj SkvXKo. cotlv ij ¿k rrjs XapvfiSeuiS ¿oBiovoa Tovi avBpomovi. koI toriv o 'OSvooevS, ov Kare^ei rfj x€lPL Kopvrji. This and other sources for the Skylla group at Constantinople have been collected by Becatti 200-202 and others: for bibliography, see C. Kunze 1996, 189 n. 175. 40. T h e identification is rejected by Becatti i960, 202;Saflund 1967b, 47; Tuchelt 1967, 189; Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 362 no. 3; and C. Kunze 1996, 189. 4 1 . O n the status of the Constantinople group, cf., e.g., Andreae and Conticello !9 8 7 a > 3 5 8 - 6 2 . 42. Skylla was a popular decorative type for pools in the imperial period. For a

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

147

list of the statuary versions of the theme extant, see Tuchelt, 1967, 188 and 193-94, cat. nos. 78-83. On the differences between the Sperlonga and Tivoli Skyllas, see Raeder 1983, 306; for the group from the Ninfeo Bergantino, see Neudecker 1988, 44-45. Since several of these groups preserve fragments with a victim being seized by the head, they can be said to have had a narrative dimension; cf., e.g., Ulisse 1996, 3 7 4 - 7 5 , cat. nos. 5.24 (fragment, Mus. Vaticani, Museo Chiaramonti inv. 1521) and 5.26 (plaster reconstruction of a Skylla group from Hadrian's Villa). A raised arm holding either a trident or a broken rudder had been part of Skylla's iconography since the late classical period (Tuchelt 1967, 179-80), but in the earliest representations it had no real purpose other than to characterize the monster as wild and dangerous. The addition of a victim created a narrative dimension, therefore, and allowed the viewer to identify more closely with the scene. The Sperlonga group distinguishes itself from these monuments, however, by its depiction of a specific moment within an actual story. The greater complexity of the Sperlonga group when compared with earlier versions of the scene in minor arts has been emphasized by Waywell 1996a, 1 1 4 - 1 6 . 43. In the minor arts Skylla typically reaches over to pluck a sailor from a ship, as she does in this group, while Odysseus prepares to attack her from the deck: cf. Ulisse 1996, 1 5 0 - 5 4 , cat. nos. 2.63, 2.64, 2.66, 2.69; and Tuchelt 1967, passim. 44. For the problem of the warrior's identity, see Ridgway 1990, 2 7 5 - 8 3 ; Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 1 8 - 3 5 ; Andreae x974> 87-95; Schweitzer 1936, 5 1 - 5 3 ; and Weis 1998a, 256-5745. For the identification of the group as Menelaos and Patroklos, see Schweitzer 1936, 53-60, followed by W. Fuchs, in Helbig 4 1 127, no. 170; Pollitt 1986, 1 1 8 ; Kell 1988, 79; Ridgway 1989, 177-78; Smith 1991a, 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 (who proposes additional arguments for the identification); and Moreno 1994, 3 7 9 - 8 5 . 46. Andreae 1994, 3 1 . My thinking on this passage has profited from observations by Mark Possanza and Justin Glenn. 47. For a detailed discussion of the problems with this identification, see Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 1 8 - 2 1 ; Ridgway 1990, 277; and Schweitzer 1936, 5 1 - 5 3 . 48. In II. 17.105-13, when Menelaos is forced by the Trojans to abandon the body and seek the help of Ajax, he is himself compared with a lion who is repelled from a farmyard by dogs and men. 49. See the characterization of Menelaos's role by Edwards 1 9 9 1 , 6 1 - 6 3 . Menelaos and Meriones—two heroes, not one—were deployed by Ajax to remove the body of Patroklos while other heroes held the enemy at bay (II. 1 7 . 7 1 5 - 2 1 ) . This multiplicity of heroes and heroic interventions is represented more faithfully in Greek vase painting than in the Pasquino group, showing how singular this statuary group would be if identified with this episode (Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 20-21). 50. The pairing of the two similes was noted by Edwards 1 9 9 1 , 75. 51. None of the extant replicas of the Pasquino group is well preserved. This is illustrated by Andreae's chart summarizing the remains of the individual replicas (1974, 90). On the reconstruction of the group, see Schweitzer 1936, 1 4 - 4 2 ; and Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 12-18, 33. 52. The modern sensibility of Schweitzer's photos has been discussed by Himmelmann 1995, 60-62. 53. For the statuette, see Himmelmann 1995, 62, and Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 1 2 - 1 7 .

148

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

54. This identification was proposed already in the nineteenth century (for bibliography and discussion, see Schweitzer 1936, 5 1 - 5 2 ) . It has been reproposed by Hausmann 1984, and accepted by Himmelmann 1 9 9 1 , 10a, and 1 9 9 5 , 1 3 - 1 4 ; Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 2 2 - 3 3 ; a n d Baiensiefen 1996, 8 5 - 8 6 . 55. For the Tensa Capitolina, see E. Simon, in Heibig 4 II 3 5 7 - 6 0 , no. 1546; and Himmelmann 1995, 14.pl. 22b. Representations of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles are among the most typical and popular of the scenes depicting his deeds. For the iconography, see Touchefeu 1 9 8 1 , 3 3 4 , and Kossatz-Deissmann 1 9 8 1 , 192. 56. For the problems with the identification, see Schweitzer 1936, 5 2 - 5 3 , and Ridgway 1990, 2 7 7 - 7 8 . There have been attempts to explain the inconsistencies between the group and the epic tradition: Hausmann 1984, 295, explains the "Zartheit" of the Pasquino youth as a Hellenistic tendency to sentimentalize the dead and to explore different states of dying. Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 25, argues that the Hellenistic artist and viewer demanded the logic of a fatal wound in the primary view of the sculpture. Both call attention to earlier representations of Achilles which show him with an arrow in the chest as well as the heel. The iconography of Ajax is discussed by Touchefeu 1 9 8 1 , 3 1 2 - 1 4 , and passim. Size was not used consistently to identify Ajax in art (Touchefeu pp. 3 3 3 - 3 4 ) , but when greater size was not possible or desirable, inscriptions were often added to make his identity clear. Wünsche (pp. 2 8 - 3 1 ) suggests that the Pasquino warrior was identified as Ajax by his helmet decoration, but the same decoration has been used to argue for other identifications. (See infra.) 57. Andreae 1 9 7 4 , 9 0 - 9 3 ; 1982, 1 6 0 - 6 5 ; !994> 3 ! - 3 7 > 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 . 58. The Sperlonga statue preserves only the head of the older warrior, his left arm, and the young man's legs. I have argued elsewhere that the contorted foot is a copyist's error (Weis 1998a, 265). I now think that it may be intended to adapt the group to its position in the cave (see infra). 59. For discussions of Andreae's argument, see Ridgway 1990, 278, and Neudecker 1988, 43. 60. For the iconography of Odysseus, see Touchefeu-Meynier 1 9 9 2 , 9 6 7 - 6 8 , and supra nn. 33, 37. 6 1 . The helmet decoration is preserved in a total of five replicas and is therefore commonly believed to have been a feature of the original statue. The replicas that preserve this feature are Sperlonga (Andreae 1974, pis. 34, 35; here Fig. 57), Palazzo Pitti (Andreae figs. 46, 47), Vatican (Andreae figs. 44, 45), Warsaw (Andreae figs. 5 2 - 5 5 ) , and Boston (Dohan 1979). The role of the helmet as an attribute is also suggested by the fact that it was designed to be worn tilted back—as a head cover and costume, therefore—and not as an actual helmet. For the helmet, its decoration, and the identity of the warriors, see Ridgway 1990, 279-80. 62. Andreae's identification of the Sperlonga group as Odysseus and Achilles has been accepted, to varying degrees, by Kell 1988, 79; Neudecker 1988, 43; Ridgway 1990, 2 8 1 ; Sauron 1 9 9 1 , 22; Wünsche, 1 9 9 1 , 27; Moreno 1994, 3 8 5 - 8 7 ; and Balensiefen 1996, 87. It was rejected by Hampe, 1972, 33, and 1976, 2 2 5 - 2 6 ; Riemann 1980, 377; Raeder 1 9 8 3 , 1 0 3 , no. 1 1 1 8 ; initially by Ridgway 1 9 8 9 , 1 7 7 - 7 8 ; and Himmelmann 1 9 9 1 , 1 0 2 , and 1995, 1 3 - 1 4 . 63. As Griffith 1985 has noted, Vergil avoids characterizing Aeneas in concrete physical terms, constructing instead a hazy and even contradictory physical picture of the hero which allows his character traits to dominate the description. Earlier lit-

ODYSSEUS A T S P E R L O N G A

149

erature had not provided a distinctive picture of Aeneas either, so representations of the hero in the visual arts varied, and Vergil's audience had no preconception as to how he should appear (Griffith, p. 317). 64. Aeneas can wear Roman sacrificial costume as on the Ara Pacis ( L I M C I [ 1981 ], 391, no. 165 s.v. "Aineias" [F. Canciani]) or, more frequently, a military cuirass (cf., e.g., the Sebasteion reliefs from Aphrodisias: Galinsky 1992, 462, fig. 6). Some iconographic details that he shares with the Pasquino warrior have received a longer discussion: the preference for military dress (Galinsky 1969, 3 0 - 3 5 ) and the beard (Evans 1995, 57). 65. The helmet was first identified as a Phrygian type by Schweitzer 1 9 3 6 , 1 7 - 2 4 . It has been inaccurately restored in some replicas as a Corinthian helmet, but its original shape is preserved in three unrestored copies in Warsaw (Andreae 1974, figs. 5 2 - 5 5 ) , Boston (Dohan 1979), and Sperlonga (Andreae pis. 3 4 - 3 6 ; here Fig. 57); on the reconstruction of the helmet, see also Dohan p. 1 7 5 n. 7; and Ridgway 1990, 2 7 8 - 8 0 , pis. 138a-c. Priam wears Phrygian costume on the Hoby Cup (Copenhagen, Nat. Mus. inv. dnf 10/20): Poulsen 1968,71, pi. 47a (although the hairstyles of figures on the cup seem to me more Julio-Claudian than Augustan). Ascanius/Julus: Zanker, 1988, 202. Personification ofTroad: SenaChiesa 1 9 7 8 , 6 8 , no. 32; and Alfoldi 1957, 3 - 8 . Aeneas wears what may be a Phrygian helmet on the Civita Castellana base (Galinsky 1969, 22-23, fig- and in a line drawing of the Tabula Iliaca in the Capitoline Museum (Galinsky fig. 29), although I have not been able to verify this detail in photographs of the original monuments. Other subtleties of dress have been noted as indications of Aeneas's Asian origins in Augustan art: Evans 1995, 54, calls attention to the fringed boots worn by Aeneas in the Forum of Augustus as symbolic of his kingship. 66. On the development of the "Phrygian" helmet as a type, see Dintsis 1986, 2 3 - 5 6 (Der tiaraartige Helme), esp. 4 7 - 5 4 . 1 am grateful to Stella Miller-Collett for her observations on the helmet. 67. Homer seems to distinguish Trojans from Phrygians in the Iliad ( 3 . 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 400-401), but Vergil (passim) and Propertius (2.1.42: Caesaris in Phrygios condere nomen avos) use the term "Phrygian" interchangeably with "Teucrian" and "Dardanian" to refer to the Trojans. For Vergil and Trojan dress, see Griffith 1985, 3 1 5 ; Wiseman 1984, 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; West 1985, 2 5 - 2 8 ; and Weis 1998a, 261 and n. 32. Vergil's emphasis is certainly the reason why the Trojans wear Phrygian costume in the late-antique Vatican Vergil: cf. Wit 1959, 1 5 9 - 6 0 . 68. For the helmet decoration, see also supra, n. 61. These three devices are not reproduced uniformly across the five replicas, but the differences are probably due not to the date of the copy (pac« Andreae 1974, 92), but rather to the model used by the sculptor—a sketch, a cast, or a verbal description. These differences in detail are interesting from the standpoint of copy transmission, but the consistency of subject matter within this copy tradition must reflect the importance of the devices for the identity of the warrior. 69. Schweitzer 1 9 3 6 , 1 0 7 - 1 0 9 . According to Hesychius ( 0 1975: M. Schmidt, HesychiiAlexandriniLexiconWl [Amsterdam, 1965] 246), the ophiouros—or "snake-bird"— was native to Ethiopia, along with the phoenix and other exotic birds. By Schweitzer's argument, the leopard would thus be symbolic of Libya, which was similarly famous for its leopards. (Cf. bibliography cited by Schweitzer 108 n. 5).

ißO

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

70. Wünsche 1991, 30-31. 71. For the parallels between Aeneas and Hercules, see Galinsky 1972, 1 3 1 - 4 9 , with bibliography. Pholus and Hylaeus were killed by Hercules in a banquet brawl. I have discussed the iconography of the devices and that of the Pholus-Hylaeus story at greater length in Weis 1998a, 258-59. 72. For the cult character of Hercules, see Galinsky 1972, 126-27. 73. Schweitzer identified the lions as leopards because they lack manes and have small heads, but similar lions, with manes engraved in the archaic manner, were produced in Asia Minor until the classical period: cf. Gabelmann 1965, pi. 20.1-3, nos. 100, 101; and Weis 1998a, 260. The artist may have chosen this Asian lion type because it seemed appropriate for Cybele or for its old-fashioned appearance. 74. For the role of Cybele in the Aeneid, see Börner 1964, 138-43; Enciclopedia Virgiliana! (1984) 7 7 0 - 7 4 s.v. "Cibele" (G. Bonamente); and Wiseman 1984, esp. 120-23. 75. Most modern scholars seem to follow Servius (Aen. 12.863), who considers Vergil's model for the Dira to be an owl. For bibliography, see Weis 1998a, 260-61 and nn. 27, 28. 76. Wünsche 1991, 29, questions the interpretation of the bird on the Pasquino helmet as "exotic," suggesting that it is simply an eagle with a snake in its talons or, in the case of the Warsaw copy (Andreae 1974, figs. 52, 54), im eagle with stylized tail feathers. His view cannot be excluded, given the size of the images and their variations (see discussion, supra, n. 68). Nevertheless, images of eagles holding snakes or wreaths appear on Roman parade helmets and are clearly dissimilar: cf. Garbsch 1978, pi. 5.2. Vergil's description of the Dira does provide, in my opinion, a plausible source for an image that has been identified by others as a "mixed creature." 77. The pose has been interpreted differently by others: according to Schweitzer (1936, 50-51), the older warrior rests the younger man for a moment on his thigh before lifting him to his shoulder to carry him out of battle. Similarly, Wünsche (1 gg 1, 18) and Andreae (igg4, 28-30, 111), like Schweitzer, think the older hero is about to pick the young man up and carry him away. I see no indication of this in the statue. It seems more likely that the older hero will let the younger man sink to the g r o u n d — or that he simply supports him there—as Aeneas may do before giving the body of Lausus to his companions in Aen. 10.830-32. It should also be noted that the line that describes Aeneas's action (10.831)—et terra sublevat ipsum—can be translated as "lifts him from the ground" or alternatively as "holds him from the ground," which would suit the action of the Pasquino group much better. The interpretation of the verb as "lift" is much more usual; cf., e.g., R. Fitzgerald, The Aeneid of Virgil (New York, 1985) 324: "he lifted from the ground / The dead man as he lay"; and A. Mandelbaum, The Aeneid of Virgil (New York, 1971) 271, "he lifts the body off the ground." 78. O n the relationship between composition and content in the Pasquino group, see Kell ig88, 87. 7g. As a character within the Aeneid, Lausus is usually discussed in relation to Mezentius: cf. Enciclopedia Virgiliana III (1987) 147 s.v. "Lauso" (A. La Penna), and Enciclopedia Virgiliana III 5 1 4 s.v. "Mezenzio" (A. La Penna). 80. This episode is interpreted similarly by Galinsky 1981, 993, and West 1985, 25. Some scholars see ambiguity in Aeneas's treatment of Lausus, and Vergil's commentary on Aeneas's actions may indeed be more complex than I have made it here,

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

151

but I find no ambiguity in the artist's treatment of the theme. For negative commentary on this passage, see, e.g., Putnam 1981, esp. 140-44; Burke 1974, 207-308; and Mackie 1988, 172-76. 81. O n the importance and meaning of age differences in the Aeneid see Elftmann 1979; and, extensively, Lee 1979, passim, esp. 1 - 7 . 82. For Aeneas as a new kind of hero or as a reluctant one, see West 1985, 25, and Galinsky 1972, 137. O n Lausus as an ideal, see Elftmann 1979, 179, 181. The emblematic quality of this scene has been noted byJohnson 1976, 73, and Maréchal 1940, esp. 253: "A l'héroïque sacrifice de l'enfant répond la générosité du chef troyen. Ainsi les deux héros sont dignes l'un de l'autre, tous deux sont également grands, l'un par sa bravoure, l'autre par sa magnanimité, et les sympathies se partagent également entre eux." 83. For the eroticism of the language used by Vergil to describe the death of Pallas, see Putnam 1985, 6 - 1 6 , esp. 1 0 - 1 3 . 1 a m grateful to John Younger for this observation. 84. Cf. Horn. II. 8.305-308 and Catullus 11. The relationship between these passages has been discussed at length by Johnson 1976, 5 9 - 6 1 , and Gransden 1984, 114-19. 85. O n the Ciris: Gorman 1995, 4 6 - 4 7 . 86. For the helper-group motif, see Weis 1998a, 255-57. 87. Lausus appears only rarely in Latin literature before the Aeneid and does not appear elsewhere, to my knowledge, in ancient art, so it is unlikely that this scene was inspired by another model. For references and discussion, see Roscher II. 2 ( 1 8 9 4 - 9 7 ) 1917 s.v. "Lausus" (H. W. Stoll), and esp. K. Latte (iîEXII.i [1924] 1041 s.v. "Lausus [ 1 ] "), who emphasizes the meagerness of the literary tradition from which Vergil created Lausus. There is no separate entry for Lausus in LIMC, only a brief mention s.v. "Mezentius." The status of the Pasquino group, as copy or original, is discussed infra. The date of the Sperlonga sculptures is discussed in Appendix A to this chapter. 88. The range of dates proposed for the group has always been wide, and in the nineteenth to early twentieth century it would have included a date in the fourth century B.C. (See Schweitzer 1936, 6 1 - 6 2 , for earlier literature.) Since Schweitzer, discussion has focused on dates in the Hellenistic period. There is an historiographical subtext to this discussion of style and date that is important to bear in mind: the dating of any monument in what has come to be referred to as "Hellenistic style" is based on conventions established in the early twentieth century that privilege the consideration of broad compositional patterns (formal analysis) over iconography and other details. (See Pollitt's useful discussion of the dating of Hellenistic sculpture: 1986, 168-71.) Inherent in this approach are the assumptions that monuments that are compositionally similar must be coeval, and that the production of sculpture in a Hellenistic style stopped in the first century B.C. The assumption that monuments comparable in form are to be dated to the same period is contradicted by the broader history of art, since there are monuments from every period that have been copied, quoted, or recast by artists of a later time. Our lack of fixed chronological points does not often allow us to posit relationships of this sort for Hellenistic sculpture or sculpture in a Hellenistic style, but there is one obvious example from the late Hellenistic period—the "slipper-slapper" group from

152

ODYSSEUS AT S P E R L O N G A

Delos (Pollitt 1986, fig. 138), which quotes the Aphrodite of Knidos. This sort of artistic reference is generally assumed to be a feature of late Hellenism, but the famous anecdote recalling Lysippos's answer to the question of whose work he emulated (Plin. M/34.61-65) suggests that this sensibility had been around for a longer time. The relationship between the early twentieth-century investigation of Hellenistic sculpture and Modernist criticism of the same period has yet to be examined, but recent scholarship has emphasized the existence of other technical and stylistic patterns in the Hellenistic period that call the formalist tenets of this Modernist approach into question. There is a new appreciation, for example, for the fluidity of the relationship between the minor and the monumental arts (Himmelmann 1995, passim, esp. 40-53), for the relationship between subject matter and style (Smith 1991a, 269-73; C. Kunze 1996, 204 n. 220), and for the existence of broad compositional conventions across the Hellenistic period that make some monuments distinguishable primarily by noncompositional features like proportion or formal detail (Weis 1992, 37-45). The dependence of this formalist approach upon monuments known only through the "filters" imposed by Roman copyists (Ridgway 1990,5; Weis 1992, chaps. 1 and 4 passim), by postantique restoration and reconstruction (Weis 1992, 23-25), and even by photography (Himmelmann 1995, 61-62; Weis 1992, 31) shows how arbitrary this constructed chronology is. 89. For the Pasquino and the Ludovisi Gaul, see Schweitzer 1936,85-87, although Schweitzer's arguments for a third-century date are complicated by his additional argument that the complex symbolism of the helmet decoration was the work of the third-century artist Antigonos of Karystos. Schweitzer's date is followed by Pollitt 1986, 1 1 8 , a n d S m i t h 1 9 9 1 a , 105.

90. The viewpoint chosen for the group in Schweitzer's photographs reinforces the date traditionally given for the group in the early or middle Hellenistic period by giving it an emphatically pyramidal composition and a strong sense of torsion. For the influence of Schweitzer's photographs, see supra, n. 52. In spite of even this apparent similarity, Künzl 1968, 149-50, and Kell 1988, 81, emphasize the differences between the Pasquino group and the Ludovisi Gaul rather than their similarities. 91. Ridgway (1990, 299-304) questions the date of the Ludovisi Gaul group and the significance of pyramidal groups as a characteristic of third-century sculpture (p. 238). On this, see also Marszal's contribution in this volume. 92. Nitsche 1981, 76-85, attempts to establish a terminus ante quern of ca. 150B.C. for the group on the basis of two Italic gems, but neither gem provides an exact copy of the group. He has spliced details from each gem (his figs. 2 and 3) to create a perfect copy of the type (his fig. 4). For discussion of Nitsche's thesis, see Zwierlein-Diehl 1 9 8 6 , 1 6 0 , n o . 354; a n d R i d g w a y 1990, 2 8 1 . S c h w e i t z e r 1 9 3 6 , 6 7 , a n d W ü n s c h e 1 9 9 1 ,

34, also see echoes of the Pasquino group on gems or other monuments of the second century B.C., but these are, again, variants on a common motif. They do not provide evidence for the history and influence of the Pasquino group per se. A date in the mid- to late second century B.C. has been proposed on stylistic grounds as well: Künzl 1968, 148-55, esp. 152 (after the Altar of Zeus); and An dreae 1982, 166 (third quarter of the second century). Moreno 1994, 383-88, seems to accept a stylistic date for the group in the first half of the second century, and Andreae's latest thinking (Römische Kunst2, forthcoming, s.v. "Sperlonga") seems to favor a date earlier in the century (ca. 160 B.C.) as well.

ODYSSEUS A T SPERLONGA

J53

93. First century b.c.: Kàhler 1948, 17011. 20; Walter 1 9 6 1 , 1 5 3 ; Fink 1964, 155; Berger 1967, 75; Kell 1988, 90; Himmelmann, 1991, 103 and 109, and 1995, 62; C. Kunze 1991, 32-33; and Ridgway 1990, 281 (late Hellenistic, perhaps imperial). "Post-Hellenistic": Hiller 1979, esp. 282-84; and Weis 1998a (after 19 b.c.). 94. For the inscription, see Williams 1945, 343 n. 50, citing B. Meritt's dating of the inscription. T h e date is generally accepted. See, e.g., Smith 1991a, 261 (fig. 165); Sâflund 1976, 82-83 nn. 80, 81; and Himmelmann 1996a, 483. Those who argue that it is a copy of an earlier third-century-B .c. monument (cf., e.g., W. Fuchs, in Helbig 4 I 2 1 1 - 1 3 , no. 265) assume this from its style. 95. For the Stephanos athlete and related monuments see Pollitt 1986, 175, fig. 183; Smith 1991a, 260, figs. 329, 330; and Zanker 1974, 52-54. 96. Rice 1986, esp. 249 (ca. 4 0 - 1 0 B.c.), and C. Kunze 1996, 1 8 3 - 8 4 (30-20 B.c.). For photographs of Laocoôn's sons, see Kunze, figs. 2 1 - 2 2 . For the date of the three Rhodians, see also the contribution ofJ. J. Pollitt to this volume. 97. O n the statuary type of Mars Ultor, considered an original creation of the Augustan period, see Martin 1988, 2 5 5 - 5 7 , figs. 151, 152. T h e Aeneas and Romulus statues originally located in the Forum of Augustus are not preserved, but their appearance has been reconstructed from the many examples of comparably posed figures in the minor arts: Zanker 1988, 201-203; Hofter 1988, 1 9 4 - 9 5 ; Galinsky 1996, 204-205. T h e two statuary types are usually illustrated through painted versions on a house façade on the Via dell'Abbondanza in Pompeii: Zanker 202, fig. 156; Hofter, figs. 88a, b; Galinsky, figs. 115, 116. 98. Primaporta Augustus: Zanker 1988, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , figs. 148a, b. T h e Ares Borghese, with its elaborate pseudo-Attic helmet, has also been proposed as a portrait of Gaius Caesar as Ares and also dated in this period: Hartswick 1990, 240-50, 269-72. For additional discussion and bibliography, see Ridgway, 1990, 280 and n. 6. In using the warrior's helmet as a "billboard," the artist also alludes to the broader traditions of epic: cf., e.g., Williams's discussion of the chimaera as a helmet device for Turnus in the Aeneid (1993, with additional bibliography). 99. Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, 160, no. 354, pi. 64. 100. Some have felt uneasy about this assumption: Bendz 1969, 62-63; Krarup 1 9 7 1 , 217; Courtney 1995, 271 ; and especially Hampe 1972, 63-70, have advocated a closer consideration of the Faustinus epigram, with its Vergilian associations (discussed infra), since it seems to describe the cave program in some detail. Indeed, Hampe 's study attempted to develop a Vergilian interpretation, but it was flawed by its appearance before the definitive publication of the cave sculpture by Conticello and Andreae, which fixed the locations of the main sculptural groups within the cave (Conticello 1974, 10-49) and established their Julio-Claudian date (Andreae 1974, 103-105). 101. For Tiberius and Sperlonga, see Andreae 1994, 132-43. Contra: Himmelmann 1995, 5 4 - 5 5 ; C. Kunze 1996, 160-65; Hafner 1996, 7 5 - 7 8 . 102. Stewart 1977b, 87-88. Other scholars have taken different approaches to this problem but have focused similarly on Tiberius and on his biography or interests: Sâflund (1967b, 50-52; 1972, 78-84) suggests that the Polyphemos and Skylla groups were prompted by the rockfall that almost killed Tiberius, inspiring him to turn the cave into a Stygian antrum. Sauron ( 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 - 4 2 , esp. 38) argues that choices of episode or literary model found in the cave decoration were secondary to

¡54

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

Tiberius's desire for an astrological program, with the cave and its decoration as the embodiment of the zodiac and Odysseus as heroic navigator. 103. Andreae 1994, 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 . This suggestion is undermined by Ajax's famous refusal to speak to Odysseus in Od. 1 1 . 5 4 3 - 5 1 , as Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 33, has also observed. Andreae develops this idea further in Römische Kunst2 (forthcoming) s.v. "Sperlonga." He reconstructs a statuary group, located in the smaller grotto to the left of the main cave, that showed Odysseus convincing Philoktetes to return with him to Troy. With the addition of Philoktetes to the Sperlonga program, Andreae argues, the cave contains the three fatalia Troiana, or conditions necessary for the taking of Troy described by Servius (Am. 3.402)—the alienation of the Palladion from Troy, the arms of Achilles, given by Odysseus to Neoptolemos to complete the destruction of Troy, and the presence of Philoktetes with his sacred arrows. I have not seen the evidence for the Philoktetes group and cannot comment on that part of Andreae's theory, but the emphasis that this theory places on the possession of the arms of Achilles is undermined by the fact that the youthful warrior of the Pasquino group, identified by Andreae as Achilles, has n o arms of any kind. 104. Cf. Andreae 1994, 132-34, although the question of incongruence perse is not posed by Andreae. 105. Andreae 1994, 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 132. 106. Römische Kunst2 (forthcoming) s.v. "Sperlonga." Andreae 1988, 7 4 - 7 5 , argued initially that Tiberius and the other Claudians promoted Odysseus as an alternative to the Julian Aeneas because he also came from Troy and f o u n d e d Italian cities. His recent writings (1994, 4 0 - 4 1 , 1 1 3 - 1 9 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; and especially Römische Kunst2) relate the program progressively more closely to the ancestors of the Julians and (1994, 1 2 4 - 2 5 ) to the founding of Rome, but he still considers the deeds of Odysseus to be the main focus of the program. (These are the main points of Andreae's interpretation and the development of his ideas. His arguments in A n d r e a e 1994 are more complicated than my account of them, since he maintains that the Sperlonga program also functioned as an allegory for contemporary personalities and events.) 107. Andreae 1 9 9 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 2 8 - 3 4 \ Römische Kunst2 (forthcoming) s.v. "Sperlonga". 108. For the importance of the Faustinus epigram, see Ridgway 1989, 1 7 7 ; Neudecker 1988, 42; and bibliography cited supra, n. 100. As Neudecker says, this is the only inscription preserved from antiquity that describes an actual piece of sculpture. 109. T h e text is that given by Granino Cecere 1988, 9 9 2 - 9 3 . A detailed discussion of the Vergilian appropriations of the epigram, with bibliography, appears in Säflund 1967a, and in H a m p e 1972, 4 9 - 5 4 . T h e i r discussion and bibliography have been brought up to date by Granino Cecere (p. 993), and by Courtney 1995, 270-73. 110. T h e relationship between Sinon's and Achaemenides' speeches is discussed by Galinsky 1969, 29-30, and Ramminger 1991. Achaemenides does not seem to be as critical of Odysseus as Sinon, but having reported to the Trojans ( 3 . 6 1 7 - 1 8 ) that he was left b e h i n d by unthinking or forgetful comrades (immemores socii vasto Cyclopis in antro / deseruere), he describes how Odysseus, having endured the horrors in the cave, was not forgetful of himself in such a critical moment—"nec talia passus

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

J55

Ulixes / oblitusve sui est Ithacus discrimine tanto." Achaemenides' main point is the terrible retribution Odysseus exacts from Polyphemos, but the wording seems to call attention to the selectivity of the hero's memory as well. Ovid (Met. 14.159-220) seems to have understood the implications of this passage better than most modern interpreters. His characterization of Achaemenides goes further than Vergil's in imagining the Greek sailor's horror at being left to the Cyclops and his gratitude to Aeneas for his rescue. 1 1 1 . Cf. Od. 9 . 3 7 1 - 7 3 (Odysseus is the narrator): Reeling [the Cyclops] fell upon his back and lay there with his thick neck bent aslant, and sleep, that conquers all, laid hold on him. And from his gullet came forth wine and bits of human flesh, and he vomited in his drunken sleep. Then verily I thrust in the stake under the ashes until it should grow hot, and heartened all my comrades with cheering words, that I might see no man flinch through fear. But when presently that stake of olivewood was about to catch fire, green though it was, and began to glow terribly, then verily I drew nigh, bringing the stake from the fire, and my comrades stood around me and a god breathed into us great courage. They took the stake of olive-wood, sharp at the point, and thrust it into his eye, while I, throwing my weight upon it from above, whirled it round, as when a man bores a ship's timber with a drill, while those below keep it spinning with the thong, which they lay hold of by either end, and the drill runs round unceasingly [trans. A. T. Murray].

112. Aen. 3.630-38 (Achaemenides is the narrator): For when both glutted with the feasting and overwhelmed by the wine, the monster rested his drooping neck and stretched out enormous across the cave, vomiting in his sleep both bile and bloody matter commingled with unmixed wine, we, having prayed to the great gods and drawn lots for posts, spread out on all sides around him and bored his huge eye—an eye savage and alone beneath his forehead, like an Argive shield or the torch of Phoebus. And, finally content, we avenged the shades of our companions.

The difference in emphasis in these two passages—first person versus third person— is to some degree natural since in the Odyssey Odysseus is narrator and in the Aeneid it is Achaemenides. Nevertheless, the emphasis given to the wineskin bearer in the Sperlonga group detracts from the focus on Odysseus that characterizes the Homeric account and brings it closer to Vergil's adaptation. For a longer discussion of the differences between Homer's description and the Sperlonga group, see Neudecker 1988, 43. Ovid seems an unlikely model for this scene (pace Andreae 1994,112). His Achaemenides (Met. 14.198-212) recalls the horror of his encounter with the Cyclops— the devouring of his companions alive and the vomiting up of wine mixed with pieces of men, a gruesome commonplace borrowed from the Homeric and Vergilian accounts of the episode. He does not describe, however, the blinding of the monster, which is central to the statuary group. 113. Skylla is not preserved at Sperlonga, but what remains suggests that she, like the rest of the composition, followed the pattern of the scene in the minor arts. For the Sperlonga group and the minor-arts tradition, see, e.g., Andreae 1994, 84-86; Himmelmann 1995, 28-33; and especially Waywell 1996a, 1 1 5 - 1 7 . Compare with this, Homer's description of Skylla (Od. 12.80-100; Circe is the narrator): In the midst of the cliff is a dim cave, turned to the West, toward Erebus, even where you shall steer your hollow ship, glorious Odysseus. Not even a man of might could shoot an arrow from the hollow ship so as to reach into that vaulted cave. Therein dwells Scylla,

Jj6

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

yelping terribly. Her voice is indeed but as the voice of a new-born whelp, but she herself is an evil monster, nor would anyone be glad at sight of her, no, not though it were a g o d that met her. Verily she has twelve feet, all misshapen, and six necks, exceeding long, and on each one an awful head, and therein three rows of teeth, thick and close, andfull of black death. Up to her middle she is hidden in the hollow cave, but she holds her head out beyond the dread chasm, and fishes there, eagerly searching around the rock for dolphins and sea-dogs and creatures as deep-moaning Amphitrite rears in multitudes past counting. By her no sailors yet may boast that they have fled unscathed in their ship, for with each head she carries off a man, snatching him from the dark-prowed ship [trans. A. T. Murray].

Courtney 1995, 271, suggests that the Sperlonga sculptors altered an existing iconography for the Skylla episode under the influence of Aen. 3.424-25: Scyllam caecis cohibit spelunca latebris . . . navis in saxa trahentem—"a cave enfolds Skylla in its dark recesses . . . as she drags ships onto the rocks." 114. Andreae (1994,83-84) compares the artists' depiction of Skylla with Ovid's description of the monster (Met. 13.730-35, 14.59-67) to argue that Ovid is the source of the artists' inspiration, but, if the iconography were in fact chosen to emulate a literary model, the overwhelming emphasis placed on Vergil at Sperlonga would suggest that his poem served as the model, and not Ovid's. 115. For the early history ofthis problem, see Hampe 1972,18; Conticello 1973b, 753-54. a n d 1974' 28-36, esp. 34-36. 116. Saflund 1967a, 1 6 - 1 7 , and 1972, 53; Conticello 1973a, 174. For Skylla and the rudder in the minor arts, see Ulisse 1996, 150-54, cat. nos. 2.62-69 passim; and Tuchelt 1967, 180-81. For the giant hand at Sperlonga, see Andreae and Conticello !9 8 7 a > 352 n - 39; Andreae 1994, 90. 117. Cf. Jacopi 1963, 46; Krarup 1971, 2 1 6 - 1 7 ; Hampe 1976, 228; and Courtney i995> 2 7 0 - 7 3 . n o - 49118. Cf. Horn. Od. 12.407-25: T h e son of Cronos set a black cloud above the hollow ship, and the sea grew dark beneath it. She ran on for no long time, for straightway came the shrieking West Wind, blowing with a furious tempest, and the blast of the wind snapped both the fore-stays of the mast, so that the mast fell backward and all its tackling was strewn in the bilge. O n the stern of the ship the mast struck the head of the pilot and crushed all the bones of his skull together, and like a diver he fell from the deck and his proud spirit left his bones. Therewith Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with sulphurous smoke, and my comrades fell from out the ship. Like sea-crows they were borne on the waves about the black ship, and the g o d took from them their returning. But I kept pacing u p and down the ship till the surge tore the sides from the keel, and the wave bore her on dismantled [trans. A. T. Murray].

119. For details of the three companions, counted from the ship to Skylla's left, see Andreae and Bertolin 1996, 299-301. 120. Nothing is known of Skylla's appearance at Sperlonga. Andreae and Bertolin 1996, 281, use a figure of Skylla from Dokimeion (illustrated, Ulisse 1996, p. 290) to reconstruct the monster. It is likely, from the general standpoint of type, that that is correct (Waywell 1996a, 114), but the effect that the figure had within the composition cannot be known. 121. I know of no visual parallels for the splicing of two episodes into one image represented by the Skylla group. There are antecedents for it in the use of continu-

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

157

ous narrative in Hellenistic pottery and in narrative friezes like the Telephos and "Odyssey Landscapes" friezes (for an overview, see Pollitt 1986, 185-209), but they are not the same as this "coalesced image"; nor do they function as emblematically. Parallels with the so-called mythological panel paintings associated with the Third Pompeian Style are closer, but the episodes in these panels usually tend to be separated as well. (Cf. the famous representation of the Marsyas myth: Ling 1991, 118, fig. 118.) Closest to the Skylla group is the Polyphemos and Galatea panel from Boscotrecase (New York, MMA 20.192.17: Ling p. 115, fig. 115), which fuses the Galatea and Odyssey episodes into a single centralized composition. T h e main figure within it (Polyphemos) appears twice, but in close proximity, and, as at Sperlonga, the setting and some of the secondary figures (especially the sheep) relate equally well to both episodes. Since the Boscotrecase painting was produced after ca. 11 B.C., the two renderings may stem from a similar compositional interest. This, of course, begs the question of the date of the original Skylla group. Andreae ( 1 9 9 4 , 8 3 - 8 4 , 1 2 5 - 2 6 ) argues that the Sperlonga group copies an earlier, Hellenistic monument on Rhodes. I am not the first to suggest, however, that the style of the Skylla group is later (cf. Himmelmann 1995, 36-40, esp. 39; and C. Kunze 1996, passim, esp. 221-22: first century B.C.) or even that the Sperlonga sculptors modified an existing iconographical formula under the influence of the Aeneid (Courtney 1995, 2 7 1 - 7 2 ) . A much longer discussion of this group is needed than I can provide here. I hope that these observations will contribute to that discussion. 122. For the signatures, Andreae 1974, pi. 33. 123. Conticello 1974,5. As Conticello and others interpret the Faustinus epigram, two groups, the Palladion theft and the Pasquino, were omitted by Faustinus. In my interpretation, only the Pasquino group goes unnamed, making the omission even more striking. 124. In the first two instances, twenty lines of description precede the naming of the hero; in the Aeneid, ninety lines of introduction precede the naming of Aeneas. For the "delayed naming" as a literary device, see Cairns 1989, 191, and bibliography cited in his n. 51. 125. T h e role of the dining room in status affirmation and social role-playing has been the subject of much recent discussion. O n dining and dinner-table entertainment in Roman culture, see Dunbabin 1996, esp. 72 on the triclinia at Punta dell' Epitaffio and Sperlonga; and Jones 1991, 1 8 9 - 9 4 ( o n the acting out of mythological scenes by Homeristai). 126. There is a parallel for Faustinus's use of literary style in a fourth-centurya.c. inscription from Lullingstone (Britain). According to Barrett 1 9 7 8 , 3 1 1 - 1 3 , the inscription makes reference to the Aeneid in the meter and style of Ovid. For Faustinus and his inscription within a fourth-century-A.c. context, see also Appendix B to this chapter. 127. Conticello 1974, 36 n. 52; Stewart 1977b, 78; and Courtney 1995, 272, also attribute the dobs of the Faustinus epigram to the Palladion group. 128. Servius (Aen. 2.79) says that Sinon was Odysseus's cousin and thus came by his deceitfulness (fallacia) and regular use of treachery (proditionis officium) naturally. Vergil also uses Odyssean material from earlier classical literature to compose Sinon's speeches. For bibliography, see Weis 1998a, 2 8 4 - 8 5 n. 129. 129. T h e image of the Pasquino group may be used to make a similar compari-

158

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

son on theJulio-Claudian silver cup from Manching bei Ingolstadt (Wünsche 1991, 32, figs. 40, 41). There, Neoptolemos's execution of captive women and an old man appear in sharp contrast to Aeneas's treatment of Lausus, illustrated on Neoptolemos's shield. 130. Neudecker 1988, 223. Andreae ( 1 9 9 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , a n d others reconstruct the statue as standing on the top of the cave, but this would have forced the viewer to crane his neck uncomfortably. (Cf. Andreae 1994, pi. 25.1.) T h e statue's findspot, in the basin just in front of the cave entrance, can argue for a location to the right of the cave entrance as well as above it. 131. For the iconography of the statue, see LIMCTV (1988) 154-69, s.v. "Ganymedes" (H. Sichtermann), and Schneider 1992, 301-302. Andreae 1994, 1 1 3 - 1 4 , relates the Ganymede to Orpheus's song about the loves of the gods for boys and girls in Ovid, Met. 10.155-61, and only secondarily to Vergil, Am. 1.28 (ibid. 182 n. 588). The role of the Vergilian passage in the epic has been discussed by Putnam 1995. 132. For the Andromeda/Hesione statue, see Neudecker 1988, 222, no. 62.27; and Riemann 1980, 380. Leppert's discussion of the statue ("23 Kaiservillen: Vorarbeiten zu Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte der Villeggiatur der hohen Kaiserzeit" [diss. Freiburg, 1974] 349 n. 47), cited by Riemann, has not been available to me. The identification of the female figure as Hesione would link the figure not only to the Trojan scenes on the right side of the cave, as noted by Riemann, but also to the Argonautica on the left, since Hercules was among the Argonauts when he learned of Hesione's fate. For the story of Hesione in art, see Birchlerand Chamay 1995, 51-56. 133. For representations of Tiphys in imperial art, see Roscher V ( 1 9 1 6 - 2 4 ) 979-80 s.v. "Tiphys I" (J. Schmidt). This interpretation of the Sperlonga Argo as inspired by Eel. 4 I owe to Hampe 1972, 29. For other interpretations of the ship and readings of its inscription, see Lavagne 1988, 547, and Andreae 1994, 25-28. 134. For the findspot of the Venus Genetrix relief, seejacopi 1963, 1 1 8 - 2 3 . 135. The pigs have been variously interpreted: Lauter 1965, 228 n. 9, identifies them as the companions of Odysseus, turned into swine by Circe {Od. 10.283), and Leppert 1978, 560 n. 46, as dedications to the Nymphs (on which see infra, n. 185). To my knowledge, their precise findspot has never been published. This list of Vergilian associations might be enlarged with reference to other, nonmythological aspects of the cave decoration: Säflund's suggestion (1967a, 15) that the rock-cut seats on either side of the cave entrance are inspired by the sedilia saxo of Aen. 1.166 is, in my view, probably also correct. Cf. Aen. 1 . 1 5 9 - 6 7 : There is a place in a deep inlet [of the Libyan coast] where an island forms a port by extending forward its sides; on these [promontories] a wave from the main is broken and thereupon splits itself again into rebounding ripples. [On these promontories] there are enormous rocks, and twin cliffs loom threateningly upward. Beneath their rim, the protected waters stretch silently from side to side. Beyond this [bay], a curtain of sparkling woods overhangs, from above, a grove [that is] dark with shivering gloom. Beneath the cliff face, opposite, lies a cave [also] with projecting overhang; inside are fresh waters and seats in the living rock—the home of Nymphs.

136. For Dionysiac themes and Augustan bucolic poetry, see Neudecker 1988, 4 9 - 5 1 . For the problem of the putto's original location, see Neudecker, p. 49; for the mask-sconces in the side grotto, Viscogliosi 1996, 259-60. This suggestion may have to be revised, since B. Andreae informs me (personal

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

759

communication, 2 / 1 3 / 9 9 ) that fragments of a group have been found in this grotto that represent Odysseus convincing Philoktetes to come with him to Troy. (Andreae discusses these fragments in Römische Kunst2 [forthcoming] s.v. "Sperlonga." See also supra, n. 103). 137. For a Flavian date for the Ganymede, see, e.g., Jacopi 1963, 1 1 7 ; Hampe 1972, 161; Neudecker 1988, 223. For an Augustan date, see Schneider 1992, 301, and Andreae 1994, 1 1 4 - 1 5 . C. Kunze 1996, 153 n. 34, does not consider the Ganymede to be of the same date as the four heroic groups, although he dates those groups to the Augustan period. For the date of the mosaic inscription, Sear 1977, 64, no. 24. T h e bibliography on the Andromeda (or Hesione) has been assembled by Neudecker, p. 222, no. 62.27. 138. T h e fact that only the four heroic groups have received extensive discussion has almost certainly had an impact on the way the cave program has been interpreted. Since the cave continued in use until late antiquity, it is possible that the program continued to be elaborated. This points up the urgent n e e d for a full publication of the Sperlonga sculpture—with evidence for the findspots of all the sculpture found in the cave—as noted by Riemann 1980, 379, and Ridgway 1989, 177. 139. For the cosmic framing of the scene on the cuirass, see Zanker 1 9 8 8 , 1 8 9 - 9 2 . 140. In the epic the comparison is direct, as noted by Knauer 1981, 8 7 7 - 8 1 and esp. 878: "Vergil has not only condensed the beginning of Odysseus' narrative in Odyssey 9 and its end in 12 but has, in fact, by a very clever reshaping condensed the whole context of these two books into Aeneid 3." 141. As noted, too, by Cairns 1989, 206-207. 142. T h e parallels between the storms in Odyssey 12 and Aeneid 1 are not absolute. T h e more obvious model for Vergil's storm would have been Od. 5 . 2 9 1 - 3 3 2 . Yet the reader could hardly fail to make the association. For the comparison of Neptune and Aeneas implied by the "statesman simile," see, e.g., Putnam 1985, 2 - 3 , and Galinsky 1996, 20-24. 143. Assessments of Vergil's use of Odysseus as a model for Aeneas vary: Stanford 1968, 1 3 1 - 3 7 , sees Odysseus as a positive model for Aeneas, and he is followed to some degree in this view by Cairns 1 9 8 9 , 1 7 7 - 2 1 4 , and Galinsky 1 9 8 1 , 1 0 0 2 - 1 0 0 3 . My view of the relationship given to the two in the cave program is expressed more precisely by Knauer 1981, 878, who notes: "In Aeneid 3 Aeneas is presented throughout as a hero surpassing his Greek counterpart, Odysseus, w h o had passed the same or similar situations before him (in epic time). Odysseus, the victor, destroys Ismaros in Thrace; Aeneas, the exile (3.11), founds Ainos in the same region. O n his way h o m e to the patris, Ithaca, west of the Peloponnesus, Odysseus is shipwrecked by a storm at Cape Maleia; Aeneas, in spite of a storm, successfully passes this cape (cf. 5.193) on his way to the west, where in the end he will find the promised patria, Hesperia. Here for the first time one begins to sense Vergil's purpose in following Homer." 144. T h e study of the cave sculpture by H a m p e 1972, 6 6 - 7 0 , anticipated some of my conclusions and individual observations, but started from a different understanding of the evidence and reached another set of conclusions. (See also supra, n. 100.) T h e program, as Hampe reconstructed it, was a loose compendium of images taken piecemeal from Vergil and not—as I reconstruct i t — a tightly organized aemulatio of the Aeneid in a visual medium. T h e observations of Blanckenhagen 1969, 2 6 8 - 7 5 , go much more in this direction.

160

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

145. Himmelmann 1 9 9 5 , 5 5 , a n d C . Kunze 1 9 9 6 , 1 5 8 - 5 9 . Kunze (p. 163) rightly observes that many private citizens of the late republic were wealthy e n o u g h to afford elaborate villa construction and decoration, but the villas of Crassus, Lucullus, and other Romans legendary for their ostentation have not been identified, and, to j u d g e from Plin. NH36.109-10, their splendor may have been more proverbial than actual when compared with a villa of the first century A.c. T h e one clear exception to Pliny's observation is to be f o u n d in the installations of Lucullus (Plut. Lucull. 39), whose gardens, in Plutarch's day, were still a m o n g the most valuable of the imperial possessions. Nevertheless, Plutarch's account seems to confirm the fact that properties o n the scale of the later imperial holdings were exceptional in the late republic. Even the use of marble o n this scale may argue for an imperial patron in the Augustan or Julio-Claudian period; on the use of marble in this period, see Fant 1988, 1 4 7 - 5 1 . 146. Hafner (1996, 76) assumes that the basin was there before the installation was conceived, but I do not think that this can be assumed. Andreae (1994, 100) estimates the blocks from which the Skylla group was carved to have measured 2.50 m x 1.96 m x 2.50 m (Skylla and five companions of Odysseus) and 0.92 m wide (the ship), respectively. Lavagne (1988, 529) gives the estimated weight of the Polyphemos statue as 10,000 kg. To my knowledge, n o study has been made of the geology of the cave, and the movement of these blocks must have required extensive site preparation. (Only the logistical problems surrounding the installation of the Polyphemos group have been discussed; on this, see Andreae 1982, 1 3 8 - 4 2 , a n d 1994, 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 and pi. 17.2; and Ulisse 1996, 3 5 8 - 6 0 , cat. no. 5.12.) N o n e o f the other extant statuary versions of the Polyphemos and Skylla groups approaches the Sperlonga monuments in size, not even any of those associated with other imperial villas like Tivoli and Castel Gandolfo. This suggests that the Sperlonga designer took the villa's location on the water into account when the logistics of the installation were planned. 147. T h e problem of how one viewed the grotto as an ensemble is addressed by Stewart 1977b, 8 0 - 8 1 ; Neudecker 1988, 4 1 - 4 3 ; and Andreae 1994, 1 2 2 - 2 4 — e a c h with the assumption that it was intended to be seen primarily from the islandtriclinium. Andreae and others recognize that individual groups were intended to be seen from various viewpoints: for the Polyphemos group, see Andreae, 1994, 6 9 - 7 5 ; for the Skylla, Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 368-69, and C. Kunze 1996, 182-83. 148. Pertschi 1990. She also assumes that the primary viewing angle was from the front of the cave, but her observation has implications for a perambulating viewer as well. For other remarks on the relationship between the character and decoration of the grotto and the viewer's experience, see Weis 1998b, 4 1 4 - 1 5 . 149. Saflund 1967b, 50. 150. For the wineskin bearer, see Ulisse 1996, 356, cat. no. 5.10. There is a variant of the Sperlonga statue at Baiae (Punta dell'Epitaffio) that does not show this detail, so it was clearly an adaptive device: cf. Ulisse 1996, 3 6 7 - 6 8 , cat. no. 5.18. 1 5 1 . Odysseus and Pasquino warrior: Andreae 1994, 63. 152. Compare photographs of the Sperlonga and Via Margutta (Rome, Mus. Naz., Via Margutta 53) copies of the Odysseus: Andreae 1982, 175. Andreae (pp. 4 7 - 5 0 ) also thinks that the Sperlonga replica is a copy and one that is further removed from the original than the copy from the Via Margutta.

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

161

153. For the shield, see Wünsche 1 9 9 1 , 1 4 - 1 5 , and Weis 1998a, 264. 154. T h e foot has been discussed extensively; see Andreae 1 9 9 4 , 3 2 ; Ulisse 1996, 349-50, cat. no. 5.2; and Weis 1998a, 265. For the impact of the foot on the back view of the statue, by comparison with the normally sized foot o f another copy (Florence, Pal. Pitti), see Andreae 1982, 164. 155. Andreae 1 9 9 4 , 5 1 (Palladion), 7 7 - 8 2 {Pasquinoand Polyphemos), and 104 (Skylla); and Himmelmann 1995, 4 0 - 5 3 . 156. T h e number of variant features found in this replica—the absence of the shield and the position of the boy's f o o t — a r g u e that this statue is not itself the original u p o n which the other, more consistent replicas are based. 157. T h e gems do not o f f e r compositional parallels for the Sperlonga group, but they provide evidence for the popularity of the theme; see Chevallier 1969; Schürmann 1985, 24-30; Boardman and Vafopoulou-Richardson 1986, 402-409; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1 9 9 2 , 1 4 3 - 4 6 ; and Corrocher 1994. T h e Palladion group is eclectic, as Himmelmann (1995, 4 1 ) and n o w M o r e t (1997, 239-40) have observed, but it is so close to the Megiste ossuary in its basic composition that the existence of a c o m m o n source for the components of the two scenes is, in my view, difficult to deny. For the composition of the group, see also infra, n. 172. O n the contemporary popularity of Diomedes (Cumae-Munich type) iconography for Roman portraits, see Maderna 1988, 56-80, esp. 62-78. 158. Himmelmann 1995, passim, esp. 3 9 - 4 2 . 159. Himmelmann 1995, 41. 160. Within the Aeneid (2.201-27), Laocoön serves as an illustration of the Troj a n character, and his death is a critical, determining event that leads to the fall of Troy. Although Laocoön appears in earlier Greek literature, therefore, his emblematic significance for the Aeneid makes it likely that this was the group's primary association for the Romans. For the Laocoön and Vergil, see Blanckenhagen 1969, 2 5 6 - 6 3 , and C. Kunze 1996, 148 n. 17, with bibliography. For other interpretations of its meaning, see discussion and bibliography, J. J. Pollitt (this volume). 161. T h e problems of the L a o c o ö n are beyond the scope o f this discussion; see Pollitt, in this volume. For the Augustan dating of the Rhodians and the Laocoön, see Rice 1986, and C. Kunze 1996, 204-22. For the date of the Sperlonga installation, see A p p e n d i x A to this chapter. 162. T h e popularity of the Odyssey and other epic themes in contemporary decorative arts and especially Campanian villas has been discussed by Himmelmann 1995, 17, 36-39; Lavagne 1988, 5 3 1 - 3 2 ; and others. By the first century of the empire, the antrum Cyclopisv/as a topos in Roman villa decoration, as Andreae 1994, 1 8 - 1 9 , has observed. A Vergilian interpretation of the Sperlonga program is equally appropriate to the setting of this villa on the Tyrrhenian coast and better suited to its character as an imperial villa, since a residence of this sort was probably used for official meetings and receptions as well as for private entertaining by the imperial family. A n interpretation similar to mine, in the sense that it emphasizes the relationship between the official character of an imperial villa and its decoration, has been proposed for the decoration of the villa of Livia at Primaporta (Kellum 1994). See also de Grummond's chapter, infra. Aspects of the Sperlonga installation may have been copied in later imperial villas. For other imperial versions of the Skylla group, see Waywell 1996a, 113; and Ulisse

162

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

1996, 3 7 1 - 7 5 , cat. nos. 5.21 (Castel Gandolfo) and 5 . 2 3 - 2 6 (Hadrian's Villa). Polyphemos groups have also been identified at Castel Gandolfo (Ulisse 333, fig. 1, and 3 7 1 , cat. no. 5.20) and perhaps Hadrian's Villa (Ulisse 372, cat. no. 5.22) as well. For the grotto decoration at Sperlonga as a model for the grotto at Castel Gandolfo: Liverani 1996, 333, with earlier bibliography. 163. T h e Sperlonga installation is suggested by Andreae and others to have been inspired by similar displays in Hellenistic parks, and attempts have been made to reconstruct such a park on the island of Rhodes. (See, e.g., Andreae 1994, 23; and supra, n. 102.) O n the other hand, the Rhodian "parks"—if such they w e r e — w e r e less ambitious in both organization and scale. For a discussion of the evidence, see Ridgway 1 9 8 1 , 1 2 - 1 5 ; and Rice 1986, 246, and 1995. Installations like the Sperlonga cave are more likely to have been a product of the increasing lavishness of dining and dining spaces in the early imperial period, for which the archaeological evidence is incontrovertible. For the Sperlonga installation in this historical context, see Dunbabin 1996, 70. 164. As noted earlier by Blanckenhagen 1969, 275. 165. For Sperlonga and Tiberius, see supra, nn. 2, 101, 102. 166. Hafner 1996, 78; Himmelmann 1 9 9 1 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 ; Smith 1991b, 353; C. Kunze 1996. 167. Some scholars have suggested (see supra, n. 137) later imperial dates for individual sculptures found within the cave. A lengthier investigation than mine might discover that an early imperial installation was augmented over time with the addition of other monuments. This issue cannot be addressed, however, without closer inspection of the sculptures themselves. 168. Wineskin bearer: Andreae 1974,pis. 1 2 , 1 3 . Caligula Venice, Mus. Arch. inv. 142: Boschung 1989, pi. 4. Genua-Pegli: Boschung, pi. 3.3, 3.4. 169. Odysseus: Andreae 1974, pis. 1 5 , 1 7 . "Hand-calotte"fragment: Andreae, pi. 24a, b. Caligula Worcester Museum of Art inv. 1914.23: Boschung 1989, pis. 20, 21. 170. Diomedes: Andreae 1974, pi. 39. Caligula Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 637a: Boschung 1989, pi. 17. For examples of Julio-Claudian males wearing the cheek beard, see Weis 1992, 53 n. 226. 1 7 1 . Companion from Skylla group: Conticello 1974, fig. 12. Parallels for the fashion of combing the hair forward are given by Weis 1 9 9 2 , 5 3 n. 227. 172. Herdejurgen 1972, 306-308. For the presence of Julio-Claudian construction materials on the site, see infra, n. 180. Moret's observation (1997, 2 3 9 - 4 0 ) that the iconography of the Sperlonga Palladion group is actually based o n a late classical and Hellenistic (fourth century-ca. 100 B.C.) tradition for depicting the murder of Dolon may also argue for a late Hellenistic or early Roman date for this group. 173. C. Kunze 1996, 1 6 5 - 8 1 . 174. Coarelli 1977b, 1 7 - 1 8 . 175. Dobbins 1994, passim. For an overview of recent investigations of the reliability of masonry as an indication of chronology, see Slayman 1997. 176. For the difference between o. reticulatum and quasi-reticulatum, see Coarelli 1977b, 10. 177. Torelli 1980, 1 5 6 - 5 8 , argues that the use of o. incertum required a higher degree of skill from the artisans working on the site, because each piece of facing

ODYSSEUS AT S P E R L O N G A

163

had to be shaped individually on the spot to fit with the adjoining pieces; the shapes of the reticulate facings were, in contrast, made uniform in the quarry, reducing the time and skill required from artisans on the site. T h e fact that 0. reticulatum is found most frequently in Rome, Puteoli, or in construction that can be associated directly with a Roman building patron, is a pattern attributed by Torelli to the urban use of large slave familiae in quarrying and construction. T h e availability of soft Campanian tufas, like the yellow tufa commonly used at Cumae, would have expedited the quarrying process in this region and added to the attraction that 0. reticulatum may have had for large-scale projects in this area. (For the tufa of Cumae, see Fears 1975, 4 - 1 3 . ) O n the other hand, Vitruvius voices clear reservations (2.8.1) about the use of reticulatum in a bearing capacity, which may explain why o. incertum continued to be used as well. 178. C f . C . K u n z e 1996, 1 7 4 - 7 8 , figs. 1 0 - 1 3 (all apparently interior walls or walls with comparatively light loads), and 173, fig. 9 (the façade of the Zentralbau). 17g. C. Kunze 1996, 1 6 8 - 7 8 (on the relationship of individual fabrics used on the site) and 204-22 (Augustan parallels for the sculptures). 180. For the wall paintings (Jacopi 1963, pi. 3), see C. Kunze 1996, 178, and Moormann 1988, 23 and 239, cat. no. 337. T h e chronological parallels suggested by Kunze for the o. signinum pavements should be reexamined, since he ( i 7 g n . 135) relies for his dates upon the chronology established for the pavements by Morricone Matini (1980), and this chronology has been questioned (Guidobaldi and Salvatori 1988) o n the basis of the materials used. The stucco fragments and Campana plaques f o u n d o n the site are from both the first centuries B.C. and a.c. (Kunze 1 7 9 n. 135). 181. Early attempts (Sâflund 1967a, 21) to identify this Faustinus as the poet friend of Martial (1.25) have been abandoned, since epigraphical considerations would seem to date the inscription in the third or more probably the fourth century a.c.: see, e.g.,Krarup 1 9 7 1 , 2 i 7 ; B e n d z 1 9 6 9 , 6 2 - 6 3 ; Granino Cecere 1 9 8 8 , 9 9 3 - 9 4 ; Courtney 1995, 272; and additional bibliography cited by Neudecker 1988, 42 n. 4 1 1 . Late-antique portraits of Vergil: Guberti Bassett 1 9 9 6 , 4 9 5 (ded. 3 1 0 - 3 3 7 a.c.). 182. For fourth-century scholarship on Vergil, see Camps 1969, 1 1 1 - 1 4 ; for the centones, see Bendz 1969, 63. T h e Faustinus epigram has itself been proposed to be a cento, but its reference to Vergil and the competitive relationship it posits between the poet and the artists' achievement in the cave have disqualified it for most scholars. (For discussion and bibliography, see Neudecker 1988, 42.) 183. Vatican Virgil (Codex Vaticanus Latinus 3225): Wit 1959, 1 5 1 - 5 7 (ca. a.d. 420), and Wright 1984, 11 ( 3 7 0 - 4 3 0 a.c.). C o d e x Romanus (Cod. Vat. Lat. 3867): Weitzmann 1959, 5 9 - 6 2 (fifth-sixth century A.c.). A. Geyer, Die Genese narrativer Buchillustration.DerMiniaturenzykluszurAeneisim Vergilius Vaticanus (Frankfurt, 1989), has not been available to me. Vergilian themes in fourth-century Roman Britain: Barrett 1978. This development is also symptomatic of a more general late-antique interest in the lives of epic heroes like Achilles, Ajax, and Odysseus: Brilliant 1979, 128-29. 184. C. Kunze, 1996, 141 n. 4. 185. Faustinus's slave or freed status is suggested by his second name, Felix, although Courtney (1995, 273) compares the line to Stat. Silv. 2.2.107 (sisfelix, tellus, dominis ambobus—which addresses a villa at Sorrento) to suggest that felix may be an adjective referring to tellus (the land) rather than a proper name. Most if not all would

j64

ODYSSEUS AT SPERLONGA

agree the plaque represents a dedication, b u t of what a n d to whom are n o t certain: there is now general a g r e e m e n t that Faustinus dedicated n o t the sculptural decoration of the cave, b u t perhaps a r e f u r b i s h m e n t of the cave (Neudecker 1988, 42) or, as is m o r e commonly suggested, a p o e m celebrating it (Buchwald 1964, 288; Granino Cecere 1988, 993). For the problem, see Courtney 1995, 272. Although the carving is n o t first-rate, the inscription is n o t a negligible gift, a n d it suggests (to the recipients as well as to us) that the d o n o r was a m a n of i n d e p e n d e n t means. O n the status a n d m e a n s of u r b a n slaves in late antiquity, see T h e b e r t 1 9 9 3 , 1 5 6 - 5 9 . T h e domini to w h o m Faustinus makes his dedication are almost certainly the owners of the villa; cf., e.g., Bendz 1969, 63; N e u d e c k e r 1988, 42; a n d G r a n i n o Cecere 1988, 993. L e p p e r t 1978 suggests they are the Nymphs, who were frequently worshiped in grottoes, but this is rejected by Lavagne 1 9 8 8 , 5 2 9 - 3 0 ; N e u d e c k e r 1 9 8 8 , 42; a n d others. 186. For the range of roles played by R o m a n slaves a n d f r e e d m e n , see Treggiari 1973, a n d 1975, e s p . 4 9 - 5 1 . 1 8 7 . For the later history of the site, see Riemann 1 9 8 0 , 3 7 2 - 7 4 , 3 8 0 ; a n d Cassieri 1996, 272. For the African sigillata f r o m Sperlonga, which provides the clearest evidence for continuity of use, see Sagui 1980. T h e presence of three later portraits o n the site, o n e of Faustina minor, the others f r o m the Trajanic a n d Tetrarchic periods (Neudecker 1 9 8 8 , 2 2 2 , cat. nos. 6 2 . 1 5 - 1 7 ) , shows that the Sperlonga villa continued to receive embellishment into late antiquity. 188. For laws against the alienation of ornamenta, see Neudecker 1988, 117 a n d n. 1 2 0 8 . 189. If the villa was part of the imperial patrimonium, which seems likely given its association with Tiberius a n d the usefulness of its location between the capital a n d Campania (Riemann 1980, 371; N e u d e c k e r 1988, 221), these records would have b e e n meticulously maintained: for the fiscus, see Millar 1 9 7 7 , 1 7 5 - 8 9 (extent of imperial properties) a n d 6 2 5 - 3 0 (evidence for the bureaucracy that maintained it). 1 9 0 . For Cicero's correspondence withAtticus, see Neudecker 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , a n d Marvin 1993. 191. Cf.P. Oxy. 498, asecond-century-A.c. contract with stonecutters, a n d P. Oxy. 8 9 6 , a fourth-century painter's estimate: SelectPapyril ( 1 9 5 9 ) 5 9 - 6 3 , no. 1 9 , a n d Select Papyri II ( 1 9 6 3 ) 4 3 9 - 4 1 , no. 3 6 0 , a l t h o u g h neither of these contracts makes provision for figural decoration. 192. A third-century inventory of c h u r c h property survives (P. Grenf. II. 111), although it is obviously a m u c h simpler collection a n d record: Select Papyril ( 1 9 5 9 ) 4 3 3 35, no. 192. For auctions of imperial property, see Millar 1977, 148, a n d N e u d e c k e r n 12 1988, 1 1 6 - 1 7 ° 5 - Cicero's descriptions of Verres' systematic theft of Sicilian m o n u m e n t s for resale also makes it clear that careful inventories—or sometimes carefully doctored inventories—were kept; cf. Verr. II. 1.61, II.4.12, a n d II.4 passim. 1 9 3 . Coleman 1 9 8 8 , 1 7 4 - 7 6 , suggests that similarities between Mart. 9 . 4 4 a n d Stat. Situ. 4 . 6 . 3 3 - 1 0 9 stem f r o m Vindex's account of t h e m a n d his instructions to the poets. For the traditions attached to objects by their owners, see also Dio's a c c o u n t ( 5 9 . 2 1 . 5 - 6 ) of Caligula's auctioning of imperial m e m e n t o s in Gaul a n d c o m m e n t ing o n the history of each object—"making [the buyers] buy the reputation of each article along with the object itself." 194. For a general account of R o m a n record keeping, see generally Posner 1972,

ODYSSEUS AT S P E R L O N G A

165

189-223, although Posner is primarily concerned with the achievement of centralized bureaucratic archives rather than the comparatively small-scale or private records under discussion here. 195. See, for example, Dunbabin 1996, 78, on the tendency for looking at a common spectacle to take precedence over dining-table conversation in coenationes like the one at Sperlonga in late antiquity. The fact of Faustinus's dedication is part of a much broader change in ancient mind-set that could be described better in a study dedicated to late-antique villa decoration or to the Sperlonga villa and its development over time. 196. Modern commentators are not complimentary of Faustinus's literary efforts; see, e.g., Buchwald 1964, 291-92; Granino Cecere 1988, 993. 197. Rossiter 1991, 199-209. 198. Guberti Bassett 1996, 505-506, discusses the relationship between lateantique paideia and another collection of sculpture described by a late-antique author. For the social importance of paideia, see Brown 1992, 35-70.

Pergamon and Sperlonga A Historian 's Reactions Peter Green

In Dorothy Sayers's novel Gaudy Night, the dean of her lightly fictionalized Oxford women's college remarks, during a bantering yet barbed dinnertable exchange with Lord Peter Wimsey: "Nervous young dons and students have before now been carried out in convulsions through being afraid to say boldly that they did not know." Though Sayers was too polite to identify these characters, it seems more than likely that they included one or two historians of Greek and Roman art. With the possible exception of religion, there is no area of ancient studies that promotes so much comparatively unsupported speculation. To a greater degree than makes for comfort, such speculation must of necessity rely on the notoriously subjective canons of aesthetic sensibility. The corroborative evidence provided by literature, papyri, coins, and inscriptions is patchy at best, and too often deeply tainted by propaganda. Even fewer genuine works of art have survived than genuine works of literature, and ancient references to them (for example, those of the Elder Pliny or Vitruvius) simply emphasize these losses by dealing for the most part with lost items. Ancient critics also frame their discourse in terms which, maddeningly, fail to answer modern scholars' needs. Reliable dates are rare; chronology no less than genre depends for the most part on stylistic considerations. Granted such conditions, it is not surprising that endless conflicting theories spring up, very often acquiring doctrinal status among the committed. Worse, in a field marked by vast scattered lacunae, there is more than the usual temptation to succumb to that notorious academic fallacy, the belief that all surviving e\idence must be in some way interrelated and cohesive. In such circumstances, sometimes an outsider may have a useful role to play. I say this because although I have written on Hellenistic art, and take more interest in the subject than some of my colleagues, I must emphasize that my 166

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

i6y

professional qualifications are primarily in Greek political, social, and economic history, with a strong secondary specialization in ancient literature. I am therefore assuming that my function here is to act as a species of historiographical spoiler, raining on everyone's speculative parade when aesthetic hunches and inventive reconstruction outsoar or contradict the evidence. In a more positive sense, I have been searching for any small fragment I can add to the cultural or historical jigsaw puzzle against which the Pergamene achievement or the Sperlonga grotto and its contents must be examined. That has proved, not unexpectedly, by far the harder part of my task. T h e difficulties are thrown into sharp relief by Professor Ridgway's admirable summing up, earlier in this volume, of the various conflicting theories that have been proposed concerning the Sperlonga sculptures, and possible connections between them and Pergamon byway of Rhodes. A n Odyssey in marble? No, the Troy of the Epic Cycle, but with an emphasis on Odysseus. O r — s o Roland H a m p e — t h e Aeneid rather than the Iliad, a Roman connection displacing the Greek. O r perhaps (Bernard Andreae) a link with Ovid's Metamorphoses f N o again, since (an objection this Ovidian had formulated before learning that Himmelmann shared it) Ovid was exiled in disgrace in A.D. 8, and the Claudian Tiberius, n o less than Livia, felt even greater hatred for the author of the Ars Amatoria than did Augustus himself, w h o had signed the order of relegatio. W h o is represented in the Sperlonga group of a warrior holding a dead comrade? Is it a variation on the so-called Pasquino group, and what mythical (or even historical) persons do the figures on the latter portray? Above all, what dates are to be assigned to the Sperlonga statues, and what antecedent influences can reasonably be d e d u c e d from their form, style, and such literary, epigraphical, or numismatic references as we possess? Can the links proposed by Andreae and Moreno with Rhodes or Pergamon, or both, be justified on historical grounds? More important, is there not a real danger here of committing the "Only Connect" fallacy referred to above, that of concentrating on well-documented a r e a s — as Ridgway reminds u s — " t o the detriment of those sites and personages not equally well represented in the ancient literature and the archaeological record, but nonetheless capable of providing future surprises"? Last, how far, as Professor Pollitt asks, can we trust the written record anyway when evaluating the visual arts? It is a formidable challenge, and I do not flatter myself (except in one atypical instance) that I have added anything substantially new to the discussion. My task, as I say, has been rather to evaluate the testimony and theories presented in terms of historiographical plausibility. At least the original program eased me in gently, by having another, and far more distinguished, ancient historian sketch the historical and social parameters within which subsequent contributors would of necessity be operating. Erich Gruen belongs in my own scholarly neck of the woods: I always know exactly where I am with him. N o

168

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

raining on this parade. His introductory survey of Pergamon's rulers and their propaganda has been conducted not only with his usual sharp insights and sparkling brio, but also in strict adherence to historiographical principles. He is one of our foremost experts on the period, and there is litde with which I would argue in the compelling picture he has drawn for us. He is absolutely right, as I see it, to emphasize the continual and conscious self-advertisement of these arriviste dynasts: the link with Athens in promoting Hellenism over barbarism, exemplified by their cleverly publicized victories over the Gauls; their policy of widespread tvepyeoia among the Greek cities of Asia Minor; their equally well-calculated architectural and artistic program, not only at home but in Athens, Delos, Delphi; the creation of a library that set out to rival Alexandria's, the patronage extended to thinkers and writers; above all— a point which needed stressing—the use of the Telephos myth as an endorsement of the Attalids' Hellenic pretensions, establishing links with Arkadia, Epiros, the Aitolian League, even with Troy. So far so good. Some historical perspective may help here. What the Attalids were doing had ample precedent, and often on a more flamboyant level: as Gruen reminds us, these rulers were diplomatic, they didn't tread on Greek toes. When the Diadochoi wanted to bolster their own new royal pretensions, they hadn't been shy about manufacturing instant legends of divine ancestry that put Telephos in the shade. Apollo, it was whispered, had sired Seleukos I, leaving in his mother's bed a ring with an anchor device, and legitimate direct descendants were all supposed to be born with an anchor-shaped birthmark on one thigh. Alexander the Great had taken this line to its logical conclusion by demanding divine honors for himself, to be followed by Demetrios Poliorketes, welcomed into Athens as what Horace later called a praesens diuus by a paean-chanting choir of sedulous citizens. More akin to the Attalids was Alexander's Argead ancestor, Alexander I the Philhellene, who, when debarred from the Olympic Games as a foreigner, circumvented the ban by inventing a genealogy suggesting origins in Argos. The Attalids, like him, had a weakness for the great athletic competitions: in particular, they cultivated that sport of kings and badge of ascension in international society, chariot racing. Besides competing at Olympia and the Panathenaia (expensive, and at both they were liable to be eclipsed), in 182 they established their own festival, the Nikephoria, in honor of Athena. Nothing remarkable about that: what is surprising—and characteristic—is that they somehow got it put on an equal footing with the Pythian or Olympian games. Thus when we are attempting to understand the ramifications of Attalid symbolic propaganda, it may help to remember their epinician pretensions. A Pindaric victory ode, with its elaborate formal structure, its combined elements of myth, personal commemoration, divine symbolism, and moral protreptic, could quite comfortably find an equally complex visual analogue in a creation such as the Great Altar.

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

169

Not, of course, that self-promotion by means of civic building programs was anything new either. Here, of course, as Gruen reminded us, Athens stood out as the prime exemplar, with the Parthenon and the rest of the Periclean building program on the Akropolis a decidedly hard act for the ambitious to follow. This, of course, did not stop the ambitious, with the Attalid kings at the head of the queue, from following it, and, what is more, in Athens itself as well as at home. While Attalos I put u p those statue groups on the already statue-littered Akropolis, Eumenes II and his brother, equally lavish but less high-minded, built luxury shopping malls round the Agora. After Rome's imposition of the crippling Treaty of Apameia (188) after Antiochos Ill's defeat at Magnesia, broad-based international popularity was beginning to look more attractive than hero worship. It takes only three generations to create an aristocracy: watching the Attalid dynasty first invent and then establish itself is a fascinating study, and G r u e n has sketched the process for us with admirable concision. If I have a minor complaint here, it is that he makes its evolution seem too uniform; and that, as we shall see, contains hidden dangers when we try to relate the rulers in any detail to the art they generated. T h o u g h the chronology remains shaky, there do seem to have been basic differences in outlook between the Attalid kings we are most c o n c e r n e d with, Attalos I (r. 2 4 1 - 1 9 7 ) and Eumenes II (r. 1 9 7 - 1 5 8 ) . Both Polybios (32.8.3) and Strabo (13.4.2, C.624) state emphatically that Eumenes II was the great Akropolis builder. It's lucky they do, since only rather less than a single word in the architrave dedication of the Great Altar, five letters optimistically identified as [BA]£I[A]IH2[A], are now held to place its construction, irrefutably, 1 after 197, rather than back in the third century (as was once generally believed, o n — o f course—stylistic grounds). Even if we are dealing with a queen, her identity is far from secure. T h e second half of that earlier century was when Attalos I was making his dedications, and these reveal a very different temperament: proud in victory, but also religious, melancholy, a n d — a point not raised as often as it should be—astonishingly ambivalent about the barbarians over w h o m his Hellenic ideals had triumphed. N o surprise that he should have furnished the Romans with the Magna Mater's sacred black stone. But those famous statues of Gallic fighters in d e f e a t — t h e Ludovisi group, the dying trumpeter (Figs. 69, 70)—constitute an unparalleled tribute to their Homeric dignity, nobility, and courage: had they been commissioned by the Gauls themselves, they could hardly have expressed greater approbation. What, precisely, was the public message that these figures were supposed to convey? What, in short, was Attalos saying?~We do not know. This is the point at which we move into the realm of imaginative speculation. A n d if I may interject a speculation of my own at this point, I have long suspected that this unique phen o m e n o n , so alien to all other dynastic ideology of the era, may owe its im-

170

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

plementation to the vision and sensibility of Attalos I's queen, Apollonis, a lady w h o brought u p four ultracivilized sons and retained their respect and devotion to her dying day. [For a different conception of these famous statues, see Marszal's chapter in this volume. —Eds.] Respect and devotion, however, do not always induce imitation. Eumenes' royal message, clearly, was something very different. T h e impression that I and others get from his Gigantomachy is far more straightforward, far more in line with the classic Hellenic self-definition by contrast with the Barbarian Other: n o Rousseau-like vision of the Noble Savage for him. A t the same time, as G r u e n rightly emphasizes, his attitude to the Gauls was ambivalent, but in a far more pragmatic way. H e was proud of his Hellenism, and took ample credit for conquering these symbols of terror and savagery; yet at the same time they were, during his reign, also to be f o u n d serving various rulers in Asia Minor, himself included, as mercenaries. In 1 8 4 / 3 he celebrated his most famous victory over them, 2 and followed it up with the establishment of the apdy named Nikephoria in h o n o r of Athena. Yet between 1 7 1 and 168 many Gauls (by now rather "Galatians") enrolled in the Pergamene army, while their cousins continued to fight Eumenes still, killing the prisoners they took, and picking out the youngest and strongest to sacrifice to their gods. It is possible, then, that Eumenes' attitude to the Gauls varied considerably during his reign. If the Great Altar primarily celebrated his victory over them, as G r u e n and most others believe (though even that is far from certain), we need to be sure when it was constructed. We aren't. Soon after the Apameia treaty (i.e., between 188 and 180), with the establishment of Pergamon as a major power, and probably in the wake of Eumenes' 184/3 victory and the establishment of the N i k e p h o r i a — this is the canonical view. It rests on n o more than cumulative probability, though arguments from probability, am tuw e'lKOTcvv, as rhetoricians used to say, are not to be summarily dismissed. I emphasize this because since 1981 there has been a move, b e g u n by Callaghan 3 and pursued by Rotroff, 4 to down-date construction beyond the Gallic wars of 1 6 8 - 1 6 6 . T h e lower date, as we shall see, has a plausibility unaffected by the decidedly shaky evidence supporting it. T h e trouble with chronological uncertainty of this kind looked at in historiographical terms is that it also reflects u p o n motive. If we can't be sure of the date, it's even harder to figure out the propaganda. By 165 Eumenes was not the m a n h e ' d been twenty years before, and almost certainly had very different priorities. A g e and sickness take their toll on even the most determined or obsessional ruler. T h e dying n e e d to set their image in order before departure. Such considerations also make me worry about Gruen's view of Eumenes as sturdily, and consistentiy, independent in his dealings with Rome. T o me the evidence suggests rather that the Pergamene ruler's attitude was, as we might expect, pragmatic and flexible: obsequious to R o m e w h e n he had to

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

lyi

be (which was a great deal of the time), independent when R o m e was otherwise occupied or he felt he could get away with it. In the same way Pergamon's relations with Macedonia, the Seleukids, Rhodes, and the Achaian League changed over time, just as the Greek states modified their attitude to Eumenes himself. W h e n he emerged after the Peace of Apameia in 188 as "the most powerful dynast in Asia Minor," 5 he was widely seen as Rome's lackey—something his prior record of sedulous opportunism in campaigns with the Romans against Nabis of Sparta, in the Macedonian wars, and at Magnesia made a plausible charge. His unpopularity was demonstrated by Rhodes and the Achaian League together depriving him of various public honors. He was also responsible, in 1 7 5 / 4 , for helping the anti-Macedonian Antiochos IV to the Seleukid throne, 6 at a time when most of the Greek states were viewing Macedonia as their potential savior against Rome. Eumenes was still in the field with the Romans in 170, and his brother Attalos f o u g h t at Pydna in June 168. But there had been rumors of a secret entente between Eumenes and Perseus, which aroused suspicion at Rome; and after the battle the Senate, finding their longtime client king expendable, snubbed him, when he tried to come and explain himself, with an ad hoc decree banning kings from entering the City. T h e Gauls he had subdued were officially declared autonomous, and Attalos, Eumenes' brother, was courted by R o m e as a more accommodating replacement. (Family loyalty foiled such a scheme: Attalos never wavered in his allegiance to his brother.) T h e paradoxical result of all this was a reversal of attitude on the part of the Greek states, which now saw Eumenes (Macedonia having b e e n rendered hors de concours) as their one surviving potential savior against the growing threat from Rome. T h e last years of his life found him with more Hellenic supporters than ever before: all those carefully laid-out benefits were at last reaping their reward. He still kept one political finger in the Seleukid pie, in 1 6 4 / 3 actually crowning the impostor Alexander Balas at Pergamon as royal claimant, though it was left to Attalos to place Balas on the throne after Eumenes' death. With so many vicissitudes of fortune, it was unlikely in the extreme that Eumenes' propaganda goals should stay constant and unmodified from start to finish. W h e n we ask ourselves what thoughts may have been uppermost in the king's mind as he planned his m o n u m e n t for posterity, it makes a considerable difference when he conceived them. But, as we have seen, it is still far from clear when the Great Altar was begun. Nor can we be certain w h e n it was finished: indeed, parts of it—like the Propylaia in A t h e n s — n e v e r were. It was, we can be reasonably certain, dedicated before Eumenes' death in 158. T h e rest is pure guesswork. Gruen has set out the historical background for us, yet even here, as should by now be apparent, huge uncertainties loom. We can, if we wish, draw analogies from other examples of royal propaganda that the period has to offer. Yet the unique, and quite extraordinary, quality of the Attalids' achievement should warn us against making such facile

i y2

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

comparisons. The history of the period offers us nothing quite like the Great Altar. It has to be explained on its own terms or not at all, and I am by no means convinced that we yet possess the key to unlock its secrets. Last, a brief word, mainly on questions of historiographical method, about the putative link (which I have to say at once I regard as tenuous in the extreme) between the Pergamene school and the groups discovered in 1957 at Sperlonga. What we know for sure is soon summarized. Ausonius, in his Mosella (line 307), written in A.D. 371, but derived from Book 10 of Varro's Imagines, identified Menekrates of Rhodes as one of the seven great creative artificers of the ancient world, ranking him—as usual with no distinction between the mythic and the historical—with Daidalos and Iktinos. As is well known, Menekrates' name also appears, with that of other sculptors from Athens, Rhodes, Ephesos, and Pergamon itself, on the socle of the Great Altar.7 It is thus argued that Menekrates, like Iktinos on the Akropolis, was primarily responsible for the Great Altar and its decoration: that he gave it a "Rhodian stamp." This is possible but quite uncertain. Additional confirmation was sought in a different quarter. Pliny ( N H 36.37), as had long been known, identified the sculptors of the famous Laokoón group as summi artifices HagesanderetPolydorus et Athenodorus Rhodii. Several signatures by an Athanodoros son of Hagesandros are preserved in Rhodian inscriptions, and datable to about 50 and 42 B.C. As a result, communis opinio placed the Laokoón group in the same period. In 1951, however, Gisela Richter argued, on stylistic grounds, that the group really belonged back in the mid-second century, and should be associated with the high Hellenistic style of the Great Altar's Gigantomachy. 8 There we have the fundamental "Rhodian connection," such as it is. Richter should have waited. Only six years later came the finds in the socalled Grotto of Tiberius at Sperlonga: groups by none other than Athanadoros, Hagesandros, and Polydoros—complete with their signatures and patronymics in an inscription datable to early in the first century A.c. That might have settled things had there not been evidence, as we have seen, for earlier homonymous relatives. What I must emphasize, however, is that this material represents the sum of our hard evidence for a second-century-B.c. Rhodian connection. The rest is speculation and stylistic inference. As a historian I share the doubts of Ridgway, Smith, and, now, Pollitt (see p. 101 and, in particular, n. 34) concerning Andreae's grandiose thesis, and will return to this problem later in my paper. Were the Sperlonga groups, as Pollitt asked earlier,9 Hellenistic originals, copies of earlier Hellenistic originals, free Roman variations on earlier Hellenistic originals, or even "original creations of the Roman period"? As he well knows, we have had to work by what T. S. Eliot described as "hints and guesses, hints followed by guesses." Because of Ellen Rice's excellent work on the epigraphical evidence 10 we now have a firm date (late first century B.C.) for the Laokoón that knocks out

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

iyj

one more prop from under the "Rhodian School" (see further below, pp. 1 8 5 - 8 9 ) ; but as regards the Sperlonga material, we should admit, however reluctantly, that despite Pollitt's plausible arguments we don't know for certain, and in default of fresh discoveries (which may yet come) I very m u c h doubt whether we ever will. However, informed speculation is, as we shall see, a g o o d deal more possible now. Peripheral attempts have also been made, in the absence of demonstrable artistic links, to create external associations between Sperlonga and Pergamon. Most notably, it has b e e n argued that the ship f o r m i n g the W i n g e d Victory's base can be correlated with that in the Sperlonga Skylla group, by the simple process of identifying both as Rhodian. T h e identification, of course, is possible, but quot capita, tot sententiae. Comparison with the Lindos cliff relief of about 200 has, to some, suggested a quadrireme in each case, to others a triemiolia. T h e quadrireme was a Rhodian invention, and, till recently (see p. 188), it was thought that the triemiolia was too. But, true or false, what would that prove as regards the genesis of the Sperlonga sculptures? Precisely nothing. Nor am I impressed by Andreae's argument (if arg u m e n t is the right name for it) that a 1 8 8 - 1 6 8 date for his theoretical Rhodian bronze prototype of the Skylla group would nicely fill the gap left in our sculptural sequence by the (equally speculative) down-dating of the Great Altar to after 166. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but art historians should know better. So this again is a search that brings u p little of substance. It is true that the second century B . C., the period with which we are primarily concerned, witnessed Rhodes's fall, from her highest point of independent power as a great maritime republic in 190, to the role, scarcely thirty years later, of Rome's impotent, though still active, subordinate ally. 11 Was it, perhaps, as some have argued, the Winged Victory of Samothrake (see below, p. 188) that celebrated the m o m e n t of triumph w h e n Rhodian squadrons won the battles of Side and Myonnesos and broke the Seleukid navy, saving R o m e from an expensive defeat in the process? T h e r e followed, alas, a string of sad diplomatic mishaps, and a change of Roman policy. After Pydna in 167 Rhodes continued as a commercial entrepot (though with heavily diminished state revenues), but her cherished independence was lost. It is perhaps the saddest episode of all in the slow, inexorable attrition of Greek ¿ÁevOepía; b u t — if we discount the dubiously attributed Samothrakian N i k e — I can think of not one single Rhodian work of art, known or hopefully attributed, that could be said to reflect Rhodes's political spirit, in triumph or eclipse, except perhaps the Colossus; and the implications of that (see p. 188) are not such as to be palatable to art-loving idealists. In short, what I detect in too m u c h of the relevant scholarship is that old fallacy I mentioned e a r l i e r — o n e with which, by the end of this conference, we were all too familiar for comfort: I mean the firm belief that whatever

I y4

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

items survive from a period, however fragmentary or intermittent, must, of necessity, be integrally connected. I still remember, with horrified fascination, the complex interrelationships that Cedric Whitman managed to extract from the juxtaposition of Homer's texts and the giant Geometric funerary vases found in the Kerameikos, these two items being just about the only contemporary witnesses available for study. I have more to say about the Sperlonga problem, but not in this context. For now my main concern is to signal, in advance, the striking shortage of real evidence for the latest theories, and the methodological difficulties which these raise for a conventionally trained historian. Gruen, I note, managed to avoid the Rhodian connection altogether. I cannot but regard this as one more instance of his critical acumen and historiographical prudence.

Professors Andrew Stewart and Mary Sturgeon have contributed two excellent and stimulating papers, based on close scrutiny of the evidence, and cast in terms best suited to elicit profitable discussion: it would be difficult to ask for more. Except, perhaps, for the impossible: a final and irrefutable resolution of the mystery surrounding the Pergamon Great Altar's date, dedication, and specific purpose. I have no doubt that these two scholars—both acknowledged leaders and experts in their academic field—feel much the same as I do about this. (Stewart, in fact, says so.) In the last resort, our only sure facts are that the Great Altar is an altar (though as Stewart rightly reminds us, that could mean several things), and that it is decorated with an indubitable Gigantomachy; indeed, we wouldn't even be certain of the identification as an altar had not a late Roman author, one Lucius Ampelius, of the second or third century a.c., specifically said so, when discussing various miranda mundi'm his Liber Memorialis (8.14): "At Pergamon," he writes, "is a great marble altar, forty feet in height, with colossal sculptures. It contains the Battle of the Giants" (Pergamo ara marmórea magna, alta pedes quadraginta cum maximis sculpturis, continet autem gigantomachiam). When? Why? Who? For whom? How arranged? To send what message? These are the problems that have bedeviled scholars ever since, in 1871, C. Humann discovered the first slabs of the frieze, and the work of retrieval and reconstruction began. Our ancient sources, Ampelius apart, give some hints, but are not over-helpful. Pliny (N//34.84) mentions sculptors who portrayed "the battles of Attalos and Eumenes against the Gauls," but doesn't tell us which Attalos, which Eumenes, orwhich battles. Polybios (32.8.2-7) presents us with a striking encomium of Eumenes II, stressing the most unusual loyalty that existed between him and his brothers (as I said earlier, Rome's attempt to seduce Attalos II into premature usurpation of the throne proved a total failure); but invaluable though this may be as an estimate of Eumenes' character, it tells us precisely nothing about his policies (or even, pacesome,

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

775

a b o u t his religious habits). We possess a substantial a m o u n t o f epigraphic material relating to his honors, 1 2 a n d o n e inscription in particular (OGIS 763), 1 3 datable to 1 6 7 / 6 , in which h e repeats, with obvious pleasure, the terms o f the Ionian L e a g u e ' s e n c o m i u m , describing h i m as "the c o m m o n b e n e f a c t o r o f the Greeks," w h o f r o m the b e g i n n i n g chose "the finest deeds," and, above all, " u n d e r t o o k many great struggles against the barbarians, exerting every effort a n d f o r e t h o u g h t in order that the inhabitants o f the G r e e k cities m i g h t f o r all time live in p e a c e a n d the best circumstances" ( T T O X X O V S fjLiv I /cat fj.eya.AovZ ayu)vaf imeGTrjv irpo? TOV[S] I flapftapov^, anaaav OTTOvSrjv »cat Trpovoiav TTOIOV[] I VO? OIRIOI ol ras" 'EX\rjvi8aS KATOIKOVVTT? WAe/is"] I Sia TravTOf ev elptjvrfi KOI rrji jSeAriCTTTjt xraraaraofei ] I tmapxaxriv). This clear emphasis o n E u m e n e s ' batdes against the Gauls, w h i c h g o t his own, even clearer, e n d o r s e m e n t , a n d c a m e toward the very e n d o f his l o n g reign, b o t h c o n f i r m s the obvious symbolism o f the G i g a n t o m a c h i a , a n d explains its special p r o m i n e n c e in the Altar's organization. So far most interpreters w o u l d , I think, find themselves in g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t . It is only w h e n we attempt to g o further, a n d answer some o f those very specific questions with w h i c h I b e g a n , that disagreement and, ultimately, aporia b e g i n to strangle progress. H o w far, then, d o the two papers in this v o l u m e o n the topic of the G r e a t Altar s u c c e e d in resolving such difficulties? T o what e x t e n t d o they suggest possible answers? L e t m e b e g i n with Professor Sturgeon. T h e most e n c o u r a g i n g aspect o f her paper, I feel, is the way in w h i c h it c o n f i r m s m a n y o f G r u e n ' s findings, while e x t e n d i n g the range o f evidence o n w h i c h those findings are based. Sturgeon, like G r u e n , understands the central significance o f the T e l e p h o s myth f o r the Attalid dynasty. A s she says, "it gives the site a past w h i c h it does n o t otherwise have, a n d it provides ties to G r e e c e , thus legitimizing its position in G r e e k history." T h i s seems to m e o n e o f the clearest and most useful formulations to have e m e r g e d f r o m o u r discussions. It doesn't surpriseme, though: the ancient G r e e k world, like mode r n E n g l a n d , a b o u n d s in m a n u f a c t u r e d pedigrees, a n d the historian always has to b e o n his g u a r d against them. I n d e e d , there was o n e trick these G r e e k arrivistes habitually played that is, perhaps fortunately, d e n i e d to their mode r n successors: the insertion o f some m o r e or less apposite divine ancestry into the family g e n e pool. Stemmata quid faciunt?Juvenal asked. For A l e x a n der's royal successors they a c c o m p l i s h e d a very great deal, acquiring s o m e highly potent, a n d visible, symbols o f self-promotion in the process. A m o n g these, tombs ranked very high. S t u r g e o n is absolutely right to lay stress o n the funerary, in particular the m a u s o l e u m , i c o n o g r a p h y o f various earlier Anatolian rulers, at Xanthos, Halikarnassos, a n d elsewhere, w h e n l o o k i n g f o r the main inspiration g u i d i n g the sculptors o f the G r e a t Altar. H e r claim that "the P e r g a m o n altar appears less related to the tradition o f altar decoration than to that o f mausolea and h e r o a celebrating local dynasts" I find, in essence, convincing. Especially striking is h e r w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d

i>]6

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

claim that the function of these sculptures (she is discussing Xanthos, but her words have a more general validity) was "to celebrate the dynast's life and extol his power through a visual narrative of his exploits," which "grow progressively more symbolic until they b e c o m e conflated with the feats of mythological heroes." Here o n c e more we see a visual analogy with the formal encomiastic features of a Pindaric epinician ode. This parallel forces itself on our attention during Sturgeon's examination of the iconographical systems observable in façade decorations at Hierapolis, Corinth, and Aphrodisias: what she well describes as "the use of mythological subjects as analogy to life and as warning, that is, in a didactic role." T h e conclusion from her perceptive survey, when applied to the decoration of the Pergamon altar, is revealing in the extreme. It confirms, in detail, Gruen's thesis of conscious iconographie self-promotion; but it goes further: "Mythological, religious, and political subjects are combined within the same overall framework, which underscores the multiple functions served by this monumental civic structure. " Multiplefunctions: that is a point of enormous importance. Sturgeon is speaking of Hierapolis, but her words have a more general application. Too m u c h of the scholarship devoted to the Great Altar has, it seems to me, been formulated in either/or terms, or, as a philosopher might put it, infected with creeping monadism. This formulation of Sturgeon's opens the way for coexistence in many areas, a welcome relief from exclusionary and reductive controversy. She has also accumulated, in detail, a number of recurrent p h e n o m e n a that carry particular resonance in the context of the Pergamene decorations. There are the preferred scenes from the dynast's life: battles, sieges, victories— but also hunting, sacrifices, banqueting. T h e r e is the use of mythological figures to elevate a human ruler by juxtaposition. T h e r e is the reappearance (at Xanthos) of the dynast in the same visual sequence, which, as Sturgeon points out, established a precedent (always supposing they didn't both draw on a lost c o m m o n source) for the Telephos Frieze at Pergamon. T h e r e are the Nereids, also at Xanthos, set to convey the deceased to the Islands of the Blessed, a notion that fits very nicely into one of Stewart's main arguments; and everywhere we find a remarkable quantity of large and impressive freestanding statuary, as well as lions, griffins, horses, and ancestors. T h e wall reliefs of the Trysa H e r o ó n anticipate, again, the Telephos Frieze. We are beginning to establish a general profile for what I suppose might be termed the dynast's make-your-own-immortality kit. Variations exist, but the main features stand out clearly: celebrate the dedicator's achievements and virility; boost his prowess through the juxtaposition of mythological parallels. This is all such fascinating stuff that it's only too easy not to notice Sturgeon's careful avoidance of historical specifics. N o n e of my hard initial questions in fact get answered, even if some of them at least are now provided with a useful in-depth context which they lacked before. O n e characteristic

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

777

e x a m p l e c o n c e r n s S t u r g e o n ' s (wholly justified) c o m m e n t o n the Gigantomachy Frieze: " T h e subject speaks o f victory; the scale gives that victory e n o r m o u s i m p o r t a n c e a n d suggests the victory was against s u p e r h u m a n odds." Fine, as they say, a n d dandy: n o o n e w o u l d a r g u e with such an estimate. B u t it d o e s n ' t c o m e d o w n to earth a n d tell us which e n o r m o u s l y important victory w e ' r e talking about; the scenario is still very m u c h sub specie aeternitatis. Perhaps deliberately so. O n the o t h e r h a n d there's that "colossal centralized figure," the existence o f w h i c h S t u r g e o n infers even t h o u g h , mysteriously a n d disobligingly, it doesn't seem to have left any sure traces o f itself b e h i n d . For a brave e f f o r t to grapple with such elusive, b u t basic, historical facts we have to turn to Professor Stewart. I must say at o n c e — s i n c e s o m e o f my subsequent remarks will b e a little less enthusiastic—that A n d r e w Stewart is, in my o p i n i o n , o n e o f the very few true historians o f art, with the emphasis very m u c h o n the first term, n o w living: a scholar with the all-too-rare skill o f using visual evidence as an integral c o m p o n e n t o f his overall historiography. His p a p e r is, n o t surprisingly, g r i p p i n g a n d informative f r o m first w o r d to last. U n l i k e D o r o t h y Sayers's y o u n g dons, a n d with true Socratic humility, h e begins by m a k i n g it clear that h e r e i n d e e d was a p r o b l e m to w h i c h we h a d n o easy answers. ( T h e Great Altar sometimes reminds m e o f Churchill's definition o f the Soviet U n i o n , a riddle w r a p p e d in a mystery inside an enigma.) B u t h e then g o e s on, with true c o u r a g e , to tackle the Altar's dedication, date, a n d f u n c t i o n . In my view he's almost certainly right o n the first; h e may b e right o n the second; b u t the third, I suspect, remains as m u c h u p in the air as ever. I want now to look at these theses in detail: to begin with, his reconstruction o f those two crucial fragmentary words f r o m the architrave: . . . [Z7[.] IUZ[... and . . . ] S ArA@[ N o w I am g o i n g to begin by c o n c e d i n g that some case o f BAEIAIEEA is the likeliest supplement for the first, t h o u g h a c o m p u t e r search w o u l d certainly supply others. However: it is n o t at all clear (what has b e e n generally assumed) that, this concession o n c e made, the q u e e n in question has to be Attalos I's wife, Apollonis, devoted to her t h o u g h h e r son E u m e n e s and his brothers were. It could just as easily have b e e n E u m e n e s ' own wife, Stratonike, as Stewart now concedes. Indeed, we have an inscription f r o m the 180s, f r o m Panion in Thrace, 1 4 dedicated not only to E u m e n e s himself as "Savior and Benefactor and Founder," but also xmkp... TV d8e\v avrov kcu flamXiooyHrpaToviKr]Now I agree that the f o r m u l a m o r e often mentions his mother, as in the Telmessos d e c r e e o f 1 8 4 / 3 , 1 5 to w h i c h I shall return in a m o m e n t : prayers f o r victory a n d power to E u m e n e s by land a n d sea, KCU rrji ¡J.rjrpl ftaoiAiooTji 'ATTOWOJV&L. B u t already o u r evidence is l o o k i n g a litde thin a n d speculative. T h o s e five b r o k e n l e t t e r s , . . . EI.IEE..., are, by themselves, what i n d u c e d even a skeptic like R. R. R. Smith to declare them "virtual p r o o f o f dedication after 1 9 7 . " 1 6 T o b o r r o w m o d e r n parlance h e r e f o r a m o m e n t , there's hardly a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f evidence, let alone conclusive proof.

Ij8

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

Let us now consider Stewart's treatment of... 2 ArA@ I am g o i n g to say at once that I accept without question his meticulously argued identification of the dedicatees as Zeus Keraunios and Athena Nikephoros, w h o — as he rightly goes on to say—most often had j o i n t dedications made to them by the Attalids after great victories.What then are the g o o d things implied by ArA0? T h e phrase ayaB-rj rvxfj, "by G o o d Fortune," as Stewart reminds us, occurs only in decrees, never on buildings. H e also, rightly I think, eliminates 'AyaQrj Tvxr) as a quasi-personalized dedicatee; but that (as we shall see) does not preclude the phrase's appearance in any decree in a nondedicatory capacity. W h e n Stewart originally delivered his paper, he based his reconstruction of the dedicatory text u p o n parallels in two inscriptions utilized by Frankel in 1890, primarily one of 165 B.C. (AwPVIII. 1, no. 167 = OGIS 299). H e arg u e d then that what lay hidden behind ... 2! ArA0.. . was in fact em toi^ fxeyioToif (or perhaps yeyev-qpevoiz) ayadois, "for the greatest blessings." This brilliant conjecture has, I think, a very g o o d chance of being right. Yet, as I pointed out at the time, another inscription—till then unknown to h i m — exists which confirms his reading far better than the parallels he himself adduced, and thus strengthens his case considerably. A t the same time, unfortunately, it also undermines one of his original arguments about the Altar's function. This is the Telmessos decree. T h e trouble with Frankel's decree of 135 B.C. honoring Attalos III, as with the Pergamene decree from 165, is that neither of them uses the thanksgiving formula with em plus the dative posited in Stewart's reconstruction. Both indeed talk about ayada (yeyevr)fj.eva in one case, ¡xeyiara in the other) as the subject of a clause: ef wv ra fxiyiar 'ayada yeyovev, "from which the greatest benefits befell" our demos, and so on. Now let us look at the Telmessos decree, dated to 184/3, and honoring Eumenes for a great victory over Prousias and the Gauls. This is the first attested case of his being saluted as Zamjp, "Savior," which confirms the importance of the occasion; and the first celebration of the reorganized Nikephoria ( 1 8 2 / 1 ) was almost certainly held in h o n o r of his victory. 17 What especially concern me are lines 1 3 - 1 6 . "He won a fine and outstanding victory," we learn, "and so we pray the gods: with good fortune, the city and its rulers have voted, in return for these blessings accrued, that the priests and priestesses should offer prayers," and so forth. T h e key Greek phrases are ok ij/^el? evxofj.e9a rots' 0eol?- ayadfj tvxh, and, of course, em to!? yeyev-qiuevois ayaOols. Nothing could have more convincingly confirmed Stewart's supplement. But as examination of its text at once makes clear, what the Telmessos inscription gives him with one hand it takes away again with the other. First and most obvious, it offers a compelling alternative supplement to the ... 2! ArA®... fragment, where it is all too easy now to read TOIL 0EOI2ArA&HI TYXHI. This, however, is only the beginning. Frankel was confident that

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

J79

e n o u g h Pergamene victory dedications had been found for us to be certain of the formulas they would use: the ArA@[... of the Altar's dedication was not held to fit them. That was in 1890. It was not until 1932 that the Telmessos inscription surfaced, and at once rendered Frankel's dictum obsolete by proving to be just such a dedication, which fitted the bill precisely, in every respect. It also, in the present case, at once challenges Stewart's attempt, against Hoepfner and others, to argue that the Altar was not primarily a victory monument, since the Telmessos inscription celebrates what may well have been the greatest victory over the Gauls that Eumenes ever achieved. This would fit well with Hubner's sherding date of about 185 for the Great Altar. It begins to look very m u c h as though Hoepfner was right after all. Yet the perennial question of the Great Altar's date is very far from being decided. Stewart, quite correctly in my opinion, identifies Eumenes II as its builder. But of course, like all of us, he wants to know when; and as I suggested earlier, early or late may carry very different implications. (Before I embark on this particular argument, I would like to stress that, like others, I do not feel e n o u g h allowance has been made for the length of time— probably a decade or m o r e — t h a t it will have taken to bring so vast a project anywhere near completion.) Just as it took a less-than-two-word inscription, plus the general evidence of Polybios and Strabo, to bring the date down from the third to the second century, so now we are seeing energetic efforts being made to down-date still further, from the 180s (or early 170s) to the 160s, on the basis of what one scholar contemptuously describes as "the doubtful evidence of some scraps of pottery from the foundations." 1 8 Advocates of a date after the Gallic wars of 1 6 8 - 1 6 6 include Callaghan 1 9 and Rotroff, 20 w h o similarly down-dated pottery in T o m b II at Vergina. As Stewart reminds us, there are enough notable Attalid victories on record (in 189, 183, 179, 168, and 166) to keep all competing theorists happy. While conceding that this later date has a good deal to be said for it in historical terms, I agree with those critics, such as Pollitt, 21 who feel both that it is impossible to date sherds with such precision, and that the shorter time span severely cramps overall execution of the project. I think it is still impossible to rule out a date before the Nikephoria of 1 8 2 / 1 , at least for the commencement of the base and the main frieze; and this, with the victory of 184/3 very much in place, would at once nullify arguments restricting action against what Stewart describes as the "hybristic, barbaric, and physically alien Celts" to a period between 1 6 8 - 1 6 6 and 15g. Nor am I impressed overmuch by arguments based on what Stewart claims as "the frieze's obsession with family solidarity" (and I find hard to see): as I said earlier, Eumenes never for one m o m e n t seems to have heeded the rumors about his brother Attalos's supposed disloyalty. Last, then, the vexed question of function. I think e n o u g h evidence has been assembled to confirm that, whatever other elements were i n c l u d e d —

180

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

Sturgeon's arguments for multiplicity come into play here, and Stewart's talk of the Altar's "multifunctionality as a ritual focus for king and people" is also relevant—the assertion by the Attalids of their Hellenism, and the triumph of that Hellenism over the forces of barbarism (even though this particular Barbarian Other made a very useful mercenary at need), both form crucial central elements in the message that the Great Altar is calculated to send. (Stewart himself remarked, en passant, that the twelve Olympians above the columns of the inner east colonnade were "witnesses to Telephos's aristeia at Pergamon and in the Kaikos battle." Precisely.) Further than this it is hard to go. Stewart has, I think wisely, withdrawn a suggestion he advanced during the conference, that the Altar served as an ancestral memorial to the Attalid dynasty as a whole. Though both Eumenes and Attalos were devoted to their mother, neither seems anxious to draw attention to the family's at times embarrassing early history. Hence the Telephos myth, which, inter alia, offered a discreet substitute. One purely subjective thought in closing. Eumenes has always struck me as an unswervingly forward-looking character, untouched by the reflective nostalgia and self-doubt that seems to have affected his parents: always planning for the future rather than enshrining the distant past. Whether he set the construction of the Altar in motion during the 180s or the 160s we shall probably, in default of new evidence, never know; though it could perhaps be argued, without stretching the case, that what was begun in the first period only came to final conclusion in the second. But the Altar surely summed up what Eumenes felt that his dynasty, and he himself above all, during that long, successful reign so praised by Polybios (32.23), had accomplished in the name of Hellenism that would endure and be remembered by posterity. And which of us today, paying homage to what he created over two millennia ago, can say he was wrong?

Professor Weis's initial survey of the various fragmented items found in the Sperlonga grotto reveals a lively, sensitive imagination allied with scholarly learning as wide as it is deep. Her main argument, however, concerns the identity of the Pasquino group (Figs. 53, 54, 56, 57, 59), and in expounding it she offers us the most ingenious, scrupulously documented, and persuasive defense imaginable of what I persist in regarding as a less than likely thesis. Perhaps, then, I should begin by reminding readers, briefly—from a slightly different viewpoint than Weis's—of the history of this enigmatic sculpture. It is worth recalling, to begin with, that we do not possess a single ancient reference to it, though from the number of known copies (fourteen at the latest count) it must have been especially admired. Three of these in particular (those from the Loggia dei Lanzi, the Palazzo Pitti, and the Palazzo Braschi) lie behind Bernhard Schweitzer's brilliant reconstruction, which

P E R G A M O N AND SPERLONGA

181

subsequent finds have done nothing to discredit. Most art historians have linked the original, on stylistic grounds, with other groups: Achilles supporting the dead Penthesileia, and, particularly, the Ludovisi group of the suicidal Gaul and his wife (Fig. 69). This last I, like many, would confidendy assign to the third century B.C. [See, however, Marszal's chapter in this volume. —Eds.] The copy with which we are particularly concerned survives only in fragments: the head of one figure, parts of the legs of the other. The context in which it and the other Sperlonga sculptures were discovered makes it virtually certain that the grotto is that referred to by Tacitus {Ann. 4.59) and Suetonius (Tib. 39) for an incident involving Sejanus (L. Aelius Seianus), commander of the Praetorian Guard, which probably took place between A.D. 23 and 26 (the date of Tiberius's retreat to Capri). At the emperor's villa, on the Tyrrhenian coast, a natural cave and pool had been incorporated into the architectural structure as a summer banqueting room, complete with fountains. 22 This operation involved vast labor and expense: one good reason, as Professor Weis righdy reminds us, for inferring that it was in all likelihood an imperial project. However, in ways it seems to have been less than efficient, since during a dinner there a large rockfall took place at the cave mouth, killing a number of guests and attendants. Tiberius himself was saved by Sejanus, who "braced himself across Tiberius on hands and knees, keeping off the falling boulders." (Not very large ones, I should imagine.) This incident, we are told, increased Tiberius's trust in Sejanus. The trust did not, of course, last. That notorious uerbosa et grandis epistula arrived from Capri, and Sejanus was executed. We shall have occasion a littie later to take a careful look at Juvenal's account of this episode (Sat. 10.58-89, esp. 84-85). There is a strong likelihood that the Sperlonga sculptural groups—whether copies or originals, and whenever they were originally commissioned—were set up in the grotto during Tiberius's reign, and I shall be working from this assumption. I am grateful to Weis for, among other things, her discussion of the Faustinus epigram. She correcdy highlights the strong Virgilian influence it reveals, and it is possible (though not, I think, inevitable) that the viewer is being directed to Virgil's version of the Odyssean episodes represented: the theft of the Palladion, the blinding of the Kyklops, and the encounter with Skylla and Charybdis. I say "possible" because, as Weis concedes ah initio, Fausdnus himself (about whom we know virtually nothing) is probably of late-antique date; and even if he should prove to be Martial's literary friend (see, e.g., Epigr. 1.25, 3.48, 10.51.5), 23 there is no proof whatsoever that he had any certain knowledge of what the grotto's original artistic creators actually had in mind. Still, it seems likely enough that he got it right. What he dwells on are precisely those Odyssean themes revealed by the surviving statuary; and his simple point is that the grotto with its sculptures conveys them better than did the epic poet. We should also note that, in challenging Virgil, he makes no reference

182

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

whatever to the Italian part of the Aeneid, nor, more specifically, to anything resembling the Pasquino group. Amid the otherwise consistently Odyssean representations, the Pasquino stands out as what Pollitt, for one, righdy terms "a thematic anomaly."24 It was with this in mind that Andreae put forward his ingenious argument for the Sperlonga version (whatever the theme of its original) having been altered so as to feature Odysseus.25 In Ovid's significantly heterodox version (Met. 13.280-85), Odysseus claims that it was he, not Ajax, who recovered the body of Achilles, and Andreae identified the group as portraying this scene. Weis, reasonably enough, will have no truck with Andreae's identification. In fact it makes no difference whether we envisage the protagonists as Menelaos and Patroklos, Ajax and Achilles, or even (following Bernini's romantic essay in hero worship) Peukestas and Alexander at the siege of the citadel of the Malloi in India (Arr. 6.9-10 passim). I have nothing but praise for the methodical way in which Weis demolishes the first two identifications in turn. (Bernini's, I agree, can safely be left to self-destruct.) Yes, Patroklos was no youth but older than Achilles. Yes, it took a concerted effort to recover his body. Yes, Achilles in Homer was wounded in the heel, not the torso. Most important, even in the Ovidian version Achilles was not stripped of his armor. Indeed, Ovid even makes Odysseus boast of having been strong enough to carry Achilles, arms and all: his umeris, his, inquam, umeris ego corpus Achillis / etsimularma tuli (284-85), an exhibition of brute strength surely more appropriate for the giant Ajax. Weis has more confidence than I do in the logical conformism of ancient sculptors when confronted with a mythical account they felt like varying: comparisons with the way playwrights manipulated their basic material do not inspire confidence. But for the purposes of my present argument I'm prepared to accept her findings. Nevertheless, Andreae did raise a point of considerable significance: What in fact was the Pasquino group doing in such company at all, unless it could somehow be assimilated to the general message of this early sculptural theme park? I now would like to consider Weis's own proposal against the background we have established. She asks us to believe that the Pasquino group at Sperlonga portrayed none of the above, indeed no Greek, much less a pair of Homeric heroes, but rather Trojan against Rutulian in Italy: specifically, Aeneas supporting the body of Mezentius's son Laususjust after killing him in battle (Aen. 10.814-32). To do Weis justice, she is only too well aware of the difficulties involved. Lausus, as she admits herself (n. 87) "appears only rarely in Latin literature before the Aeneid and does not appear elsewhere, to my knowledge, in ancient art." (This, of course, can be turned into an advantage by providing, as she suggests, a welcome terminus post quern of 19 B.C. for the original composition, thus at one stroke countermanding all the stylistic analysis that dated the latter to the second century B.C.) Further, though

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

183

the three Odyssean episodes do all turn u p in the Aeneid, they have n o functional relation whatsoever to Lausus (a minor character anyway), so that one begins, unavoidably, to suspect that the reason Lausus himself plays the lead in Weis's reconstruction is because he's the only victim w h o can be made to fit her bill. What is more, neither he nor, indeed, Aeneas himself rates a mention in the Faustinus epigram: to argue that "this may have been too obvious for Roman elites" is really, I feel, a counsel of despair. It makes n o substantive difference whether dolos Ithaci refers to the theft of the Palladion or the blinding of Polyphemos; and indeed, since dolos is plural, why not both? Weis does her best to suggest parallel Trojan and Italian episodes, and her analysis of the symbolic decoration on the rescuer's helmet is n o more strained than previous attempts to link it to Menelaos or Ajax; but neither of these arguments could exactly be called clinching. Aeneas and Lausus remain an even greater anomaly at Sperlonga than Menelaos and Patroklos. T h e r e are also (as in Homer) awkward differences between text and sculpture. Virgil's Aeneas ( 1 0 . 8 1 5 - 1 9 ) drives his sword clean through shield, tunic, and the midparts of his victim: even if we allow the artist to dispose of shield and sword, n o version of the Pasquino g r o u p that I have had the opportunity to study is wearing a tunic, or, indeed, reveals so centrally frontal a wound. Had the artist intended Lausus to be recognized, this would have b e e n one obvious way of achieving that end. Despite her wide-ranging researches, Weis has failed to persuade m e that there is any compelling reason why Lausus—or, indeed, A e n e a s — s h o u l d be presented in the context of the Sperlonga grotto: which leaves us, once again, with the baffling problem of what the Pasquino g r o u p represents, how old the original may be, and what it's doing in a group of Odysseus-related happenings. So far my arguments have been largely reductive. Let me c o n c l u d e — and, I would hope, provide f o o d for d e b a t e — b y venturing an alternative scenario, which Weis and others are welcome to demolish in turn. I would like to begin with two interesting facts about Tiberius. T h e first is that he was an unusually tall, powerful man: Suetonius (Tib. 68) so describes him, adding that his fingerjoints were strong e n o u g h to bore through a fresh, sound apple (articulis itafirmis, ut recens et integrum malum digito terebraret). Perhaps on this account, perhaps also because of his reputation for mental instability, he acquired the nickname "Ajax" (Juv. Sat. 10.84). T h e second fact, rather better known, is his passion for the more recondite byways of mythology, usque ad ineptias atque derisum, Suetonius informs us (Tib. 70.3). His testing of scholars on such points (ibid.) was what stirred Sir T h o m a s Browne to one of his more famous apothegms: "What songs the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself a m o n g women, though puzzling questions, are not beyond all conjecture" (Urn Burial, ch. 5). Here was a man w h o would appreciate, indeed seek out, recon-

184

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

dite variant traditions behind the great epic cycles, not least those to do with the Matter of Troy. Now one significant fact, of which Frederic Ahl and Hanna Roisman have recently reminded us,26 is just how rich, varied, and complex, from the very beginning, such alternative versions were. Homer, far from being in some mysterious way canonical, simply chose one version out of many. Further, there was more in his choices than met the eye. As Gilbert Murray long ago realized, 27 the author of the Iliad systematically bowdlerized the tradition, from poisoned arrows to instances of batdefield cannibalism. (Some nice examples of the latter, by Tydeus in particular, have been collected by Emily Vermeule.) 28 One name Homer conspicuously never mentions throughout is that of Priam's daughter Polyxena, and for a good and compelling reason: because she was intimately involved with an ancient, circumstantial, and far from heroic alternative version of the death of Achilles. As early as the Iliou Persis we find a curious tradition that the ghost of Achilles demanded the sacrifice of Polyxena on his tomb (cf. Eur. Hec. 35-44, Ovid Met. 13.445-48, Tzetz. adLykophr. 323, Serv. adAen. 3.322), and that the request was duly carried out. A Tyrrhenian amphora of about 570 B.C. and an Archaic relief sarcophagus from the Troad illustrate the sacrifice: Achilles' son, Neoptolemos, cuts her throat over the burial mound. 29 What was the reason for this? To satisfy the hero's honor, we are told; as a blood offering to the dead. But in what respect had Achilles' honor been offended, and why did Polyxena have to be the victim? There is one necessary answer to this, and one only: the mention of the sacrifice in the Iliou Persis (followed by that Tyrrhenian vase painting and the Trojan sarcophagus relief) offers sufficient guarantee of its antiquity. I mention this because the account that I am about to give is regularly dismissed as late, and therefore negligible. As we shall see, it not only explains, but gives a rather grisly twist to, the iconography of the Pasquino group. The details have to be put together from a number of sources, but together they provide a grim and consistent picture. In this version of events, Achilles fell in love with Polyxena when Hector's body was ransomed by Priam (Philostr. Her. 19.11; cf. Vit. Apollon. 4.16). He was, in fact, prepared to stop fighting, even to negotiate a peace settlement, if Priam would give him Polyxena in marriage. He received the old man's consent, but on coming to the precinct of Thymbraian Apollo to meet with the herald Idaios and discuss terms, was treacherously killed there by Paris and Deiphobos (schol. Eur. Hec. 41, Serv. adAen. 3.322, Hygin. Fab. 110, Diet. Cret. 4.10-11), either from ambush, or run through by the one while the other held him. His body was removed from the precinct by Ajax, with Odysseus. The tradition that it was Odysseus who carried the corpse goes back well beyond Ovid (LittleIliadfr. 32, pap. dub.; cf. schol. Od. 5.310). 30 The motive for Achilles demanding Polyxena's sacrifice now becomes all too clear. Let me suggest, therefore, that the identification of the Pasquino group

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

185

as Ajax and Achilles is, after all, correct, just as Hausmann, Himmelmann, Wünsche, and Ridgway have argued. The main objections brought to this identification can now be dismissed. A sculptor who followed the version of events I have described would not have to worry about Achilles' armor, because he naturally went to his meeting with the herald Idaios unarmed. He was stabbed in the side, not shot in the ankle. It is this victim of Trojan bad faith, the young warrior betrayed in honor as in love, whom the tall, powerful Ajax cradles in his arms. Tiberius, the man who could bore through an apple with one finger, and who did not get the nickname "Ajax" by accident, the savant who relished odd or disconcerting versions of the great myths, could not fail to appreciate the irony of this insertion into the Odyssean scenario occupying the Sperlonga grotto. And of course, perhaps it hadheen Odysseus who rescued the body: the grammaticivtere divided, very satisfyingly, on that point. All this, of course, lends exquisite point to the anonymous bystander's comment in Juvenal's tenth Satire: "I'm scared that 'Ajax' will hand out punishment for the bad way he was protected" (10.84-85). So he did—perhaps with a grim reminiscent smile at the thought of that ambivalent AjaxOdysseus, that less than heroic Achilles, who still stood guard in a grotto where Sejanus, now dragged naked on a hook for the crowd's abuse, had once crouched over his body as the rocks came crashing down.

Was there ever a true "Rhodian School" of sculpture, influential in the development of that baroque quality which we associate with Pergamon? Or is the whole idea one of those seductive archäologische Märchen (Carl Robert's characterization), the pervasiveness and seductiveness of which seem stronger in classical art history than almost anywhere else? It was certainly an article of faith early in this century: Guy Dickins devoted an entire chapter of his Hellenistic Sculpture (ig2o) to "The Rhodian School," seeing it as the virtual culmination of Greek sculpture. Professor Pollitt, who reminds us of this oddity, adds, demurely, that "many of the works attributed by Dickins to Rhodes would not be accepted as Rhodian today, however, even by advocates of a Rhodian school." Considerable skepticism has developed about such a school's very existence: notable critics have been Gloria Merker, Jacob Isager, and Ellen Rice. Yet for Paolo Moreno, 31 as for Margarete Bieber over thirty years earlier,32 the "Rhodian School" forms the key element in an elaborate hypothesis of Hellenistic sculptural development. In a well-balanced and admirably dispassionate paper, Pollitt scrutinizes the plausibility of this persistent belief, concluding that only by a "visionary scenario" can it be sustained, and that anyone who studies the evidence "in a rational and objective way" will probably dismiss it. I must say at once that there have been very few occasions in the past when I have felt the need to chal-

i86

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

lenge Pollitt's findings head-on, and this is emphatically not one of them. There are, it seems to me, two fundamental historiographical problems involved here. T h e first—already mentioned more than o n c e — i s that powerful instinct, when faced with a fragmentary and lacunose record, to connect all surviving points, to assume, by definition, a significant and integral relationship between sources widely scattered in both space and time through the simple fact of their existence in the oikoumene. Hence the Pergamon-RhodesSperlonga nexus. T h e trouble with theories of this sort is that there always may be something in them, and they are therefore extremely difficult to disprove. Conclusive dismissal is rendered even harder by the second problem involved, that of what I suppose we may term, in the broadest sense, ideological faith. Pollitt, with his usual acumen, pinpoints this p h e n o m e n o n concisely (n. 34) w h e n discussing "Andreae's grand edifice of interlocking archaeological hypotheses" concerning the nexus. His c o m m e n t on this has a general validity that extends far beyond his immediate concern: "It resembles a theological system in that its vision can be inspiring and its arguments internally logical, but like a theological system, if one does not accept on faith its premises, it collapses." This kind of system building, with its own doctrines and dogma, is very far from being a monopoly of competing religious creeds. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. Politics, psychology, the social sciences, literary criticism, linguistics, p h i l o l o g y — e x a m p l e s today abound in virtually every academic field. Historiography is n o more i m m u n e than any other discipline, and the resultant damage can be severe: Keith Windschuttle's The Killing of History (1997) should be required reading for every professional in the humanities. Pollitt understands these dangers very well, not least the temptation merely to answer d o g m a with dogma. Further, as noted above, he believes in the virtues of rational discourse and objectivity, which (as he must well know) too many of his colleagues have trashed, forever they hope, as self-serving idealist fantasies. In the circumstances his examination of the "Rhodian School" theory is a model of careful and dispassionate exegesis. That Rhodes was a flourishing and congenial center for sculptors he concedes ab initio. T h e island's wealth, and its liberal yet aristocratic government, are matters of documented fact. 33 Thus the potential for solid p a t r o n a g e — o n e prerequisite for the emergence of a "school"—certainly existed. T h a t government completely rebuilt Rhodes from the ground up; it then supported the creation of the Colossus for twelve long years, applying to its cost the three hundred talents obtained by resale of Demetrios Poliorketes' siege m a c h i n e r y — appropriately enough, since this towering icon was to commemorate Rhodes having stood o f f the Besieger. But was such patronage directed toward artistic innovation as well as the subsidization of self-congratulatory civic projects? Also, Pollitt asks, can we identify a leader (such as Pheidias in Periclean Athens) w h o has a clear vi-

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

187

sion to which other artists could attach themselves? T h e answers to these questions are far less certain. Gloria Merker went looking for a distinctive Rhodian stamp in the surviving sculpture on the island, 34 and failed to find it. Jacob Isager is even more uncompromising: 3 5 neither literary, epigraphic, nor archaeological evidence can suffice to argue any longer for the Rhodian School's existence. Is he right? We begin, as we must, with the Colossus, that gigantic portrayal of Helios the Sun God, the city's protector. T h o u g h today n o trace of it survives in situ, it would be hard to argue that this early (?2g2 B.C.) tribute to Hellenistic gigantism (and thus a shoo-in for inclusion a m o n g the Seven Wonders, along with Pheidias's Zeus at Olympia) was a literary fiction: it is simply too well documented. A t over 120 feet in height, and commandingly situated on the low akropolis beside the harbor, it demanded, and got, the visitor's awed attention. Brought down at the knees by a violent earthquake in 228/7, it continued, even when prostrate, as a tourist attraction for close on nine hundred years. N o t till the Saracen conquest in A.D. 653 was the fallen giant finally broken up, and the bronze sold for scrap. Pollitt's claim that we have no reliable evidence for this overwhelming Helios's appearance is, I think, unduly pessimistic. T h e testimony assembled by Herbert Maryon (himself a sculptor), in a landmark article not cited by Pollitt, 36 argues strongly for an erect figure looking out to sea, right hand shading its eyes, head radiate as in contemporary Rhodian coins, and with a garment draped over its left lower arm to conceal a very necessary extra support. Maryon also provides a highly convincing technical analysis of just how the Colossus was put together and erected. What we have to ask, in the present context, is whether the Colossus established a detectable pattern in Rhodian sculpture, and if so, whether this was of the sort to promote the kind of Rhodian School postulated by art historians from Dickins to Moreno. "Dramatic originality" is the keyword. Was not the Colossus the work of Lysippos's pupil Chares? Bieber, on the basis of one "Helios metope" in Troy, argued for Rhodes as the source, before Pergamon, of the baroque style (a case, o n e might say, of ex capite Herculem). Moreno, more persuasively, suggested that the Colossus (which had used well over twelve tons of bronze) ushered in a notable tradition in bronze casting: this at least is confirmed by the archaeological evidence for bronze-working sites on the island. Unfortunately, his further speculation concerning largescale bronze figures designed for Rhodian grottoes was undercut by Ellen Rice, w h o (as Ridgway reminds us) pointed out that the Rhodian grottoes in question were too small for such use, and that the "park" he involved in this sculpture-exhibition scenario was in fact a cemetery. 3 7 Pollitt makes what allowances he can for the Colossus, even suggesting that since Chares was a disciple of Lysippos, his statue might have had torsion of the neck and a yearning expression (pothos)! Also, might not visitors to the

188

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

fallen figure, sculptors perhaps included, have confused mere hugeness (the thumb had too great a girth to be embraced) with dramatic exaggeration, and applied the notion on a smaller scale before Pergamon got the idea? What seems to me far more important is Pliny's statement (NH 34.42) that there were no less than one hundred and five other colossal statues on the island, "each of which would have brought renown to any place where it might have stood individually" (ubicumque singulifuissent, nobilitaturi locum). In other words, the Rhodians, in their official capacity (who else would have had the funds to pay for colossi?) wanted gigantism rather than style, a highly typical Hellenistic trait, as I have argued elsewhere.38 The large number of normal-sized bronze statues (3,000, if Licinius Mucianus is to be trusted) to be seen on Rhodes in the first century A.c. were virtually all private commissioned work, designed, as Pollitt correcdy asserts, on the basis of dedicatory inscriptions, "to honor and commemorate the virtues and benefactions of distinguished citizens." That kind of private trade in art hints at great individual wealth, but does not (an understatement) tend to promote innovative originality. The government, at least until the period of decline after 167, seems to have gone for big foreign names rather than local talent: five of the colossi were designed by Bryaxis, and Pollitt is surely right in his suggestion that the attraction of Chares lay in his having been trained by Lysippos. The lack of progressive work noted by Gloria Merker is perfectly consonant with this evidence. I have very litde to say about the other points Pollitt raises except by way of endorsement. Possibly the best argument in favor of Rhodian influence on baroque bronze statuary is the Neapolitan "Farnese Bull" g r o u p — i f its identification as a copy of the Rhodian group described by Pliny (NH 36.33-34), and known as "Zethos, Amphion, Dirke, and the Bull," holds good, since every theory about the former depends, in varying degrees, on Pliny's statements concerning the latter. If all we had was the Pliny passage, it would still be possible to claim, as has been done, that the Dirke group was well known before its removal to Rome, and possibly inspired imitation in later sculptors. But one group does not a movement make. There is also, as we have seen, the Winged Victory of Samothrake to consider. It would be pleasant to regard this as the work of Pythokritos the Rhodian, and Pollitt is tempted to do so; but the evidence is even shakier than he supposes, since the ship-prow base is not, as was once commonly thought, a Rhodian triemiolia after all.39 Once again we are left with stylistic influence alone, for the dating and everything else: guesses at the historical occasion commemorated range from Antigonos Gonatas's defeat of a Ptolemaic fleet off Kos about 250 B.C. 4 0 to the Rhodian admiral Eudamos's twin victories in 190 at Side and Myonnesos.41 Pollitt is, I think, very shrewd in his hunch that what, consciously or not, drew most theorists to identify Hellenistic baroque as a Rhodian creation was the Laokoon. Here, fortunately, is one of the very few places where someone has come up with hard evidence that can be used to challenge such a view.

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

189

No one doubted that this most famous of all Hellenistic sculpture groups was the work of three Rhodian sculptors, Hagesandros, Athanadoros, and Polydoros. But what was its date? Athanadoros in particular was a common name on Rhodes, used by other sculptors (to make things more difficult) at various periods. (See above, p. 172.) Thus Gisela Richter's determination, in 1951, to push the Laokoon back into the second century B.C., and to use it as a powerful argument in favor of Rhodian baroque, was perfecdy plausible. But then came the discovery of the Sperlonga cave, and firm patronymics for all three sculptors. Using these, and comparing them with available inscriptions, Ellen Rice was able to place their activities in Italy within the period 40-20 B.C., and enhance the creative status of Athanadoros in particular: no run-of-the-mill copyist he. 42 (Without in anyway impugning Professor Kunze's recent detailed confirmation, on stylistic grounds, of Rice's findings, 43 I do feel that it would have carried much more weight had it been published first.) The new date also, of course, as Pollitt sees, removes any direct creative link between the three sculptors and the establishment of Hellenistic baroque. It also opens up a new and exciting possibility. The Sperlonga group has always been regarded as an imperial undertaking, probably at the instigation of Tiberius, whose fascination with the byways of myths was well known. We also know that when Pliny saw the Laokoon it, too, was an imperial appanage, in the possession of Titus. The creative period spent by the three sculptors in Italy falls precisely within the initial period of Octavian's regime. Might they not have been commissioned by him? Like Pollitt, I do not propose here to enter the Sargasso Sea of possible symbolic religious or political implications in the various groups (Rome's foundation? the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra? internecine struggles in the late Republic?), but the mere possibility of such a genesis at once adds a fresh dimension of historical interest to these figures that makes earlier theorizing look not only chancy but decidedly dull by comparison. If we are now offered the opportunity to interpret the Laokoon and the various items making up the Sperlonga collection as, in the first instance, instruments of early Augustan propaganda (whatever they meant to, or however they were later rearranged by, Tiberius or Titus), then I for one will be well content.

NOTES Like every other member of the Langford Conference that gave rise to the present volume, I am extremely grateful to Nancy de Grummond, Brunilde Ridgway, and their fellow organizers for providing so stimulating an occasion and such congenial company. In my own case, I also owe them considerable gratitude—after the event—for so firmly enrolling me, willy-nilly, in a project that lay well outside my normal range. Thanks to them, I have gained experience (and, I hope, some wisdom) in an area of Hellenistic studies which I might never otherwise have explored in such detail.

igo

PERGAMON AND SPERLONGA

1. Smith 1991a, 158. 2. Allen 1983, 79. 3. Callaghan 1981. 4. Rotroff 1996. 5. Hansen 1 9 7 1 , 94. 6. Allen 1 9 8 3 , 7 9 - 8 0 . 7. Bieber 1961b, 114. 8. Richter 1 9 5 1 , 66-70. 9. Pollitt 1986, 124. 10. Rice 1986. 1 1 . See now Gabrielsen 1997. 12. Allen 1983, app. iv, nos. 5 - 2 3 . 13. Cf. Allen 1983, app. iv, no. 13; and Burstein 1985, no. 88. 14. Kalinka 1926, cols. 1 5 1 - 5 2 , no. 87. 15. Segré 1 9 3 2 , 4 4 6 - 5 2 . 16. Smith 1991a, 158. 17. Allen 1 9 8 3 , 7 9 . 18. Smith 1991a, 158. 19. Callaghan 1981. 20. Rotroff 1996. 21. Pollitt 1986, 97, 309. 22. Ibid. 122. 23. Cf. Sullivan 1991, 18 and n. 34. 24. Pollitt 1986, 124. 25. Andreae 1974, 9 0 - 9 5 . 26. A h l and Roisman 1996. 27. Murray 1907, 1 1 0 - 1 3 . 28. E. Vermeule 1979, 9 1 - 9 4 , 133. 29. Gantz 1993, 658; Sevinf 1996. 30. Bernabé 1987. 3 1 . Moreno 1994. 32. Bieber 1961b, chap. 9, 1 2 3 - 3 5 . 33. See now Gabrielsen 1997, largely based on a thorough examination of the copious epigraphical evidence. 34. Merker 1973. 35. Isager 1995. 36. Maryon 1956. 37. Rice 1995. 38. Green 1993, 33, 9 5 - 9 6 , 98, and elsewhere. 39. Gabrielsen 1997, 88-89. 40. Smith 1991a, 7 7 - 7 9 . 41. Pollitt 1986, 1 1 6 - 1 7 . 42. Rice 1986. 43. C. Kunze 1996.

Ubiquitous Barbarians Representations of the Gauls at Pergamon and Elsewhere John R. Marszal

The situation of the Gaul monuments at Pergamon presents a striking parallel to that of the Great Altar, both artistically and historiographically.1 The attributed statues represent the other most frequently discussed sculptures associated with Pergamon, and with the Sperlonga material the other most frequently discussed examples of the Hellenistic Baroque style; they not only define Pergamene developments but set the standard for the Hellenistic world in general. The Gauls confront us as a core set of images, most notably the well-known Ludovisi and Capitoline statues (Figs. 69, 70), which, like the Altar, have served as iconographic and stylistic anchors. Many other works have been compared to them and thus attributed to the school of Pergamon, and wide-ranging conclusions about the innovative tendencies and influence of the sculptors and sculptures of Pergamon result from the analysis of the expanded set. Nearly every representation of a Gaul has at some time been linked to Pergamon, as an original, a copy, or a work under the influence of this one major art center. Unlike the sculpture of the Great Altar, the Gauls are not known through Pergamene originals; rather they have been identified from statues of the Roman Imperial period, the so-called copies, and are thus only attributed. Despite the intensive scholarly effort of the past century and a half, and the discovery at Pergamon of statuary bases that should pertain to the monuments in question, there is still no consensus concerning the setting of even the best-known of the figures at the site. Many questions remain wide open, and even the attribution of the figures that stand at the core of our understanding should be reviewed. In order to assess the Pergamene contribution to the representation of the Gauls and the subsequent influence, we need to consider the three aspects of the question: first, the depiction of the Gauls before the Pergamene dedications; second, the appearance of the Perga191

192

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

mene monuments, determined at first instance by material actually from the site, or from the consistent presentation of features among the reasonably attributed images; and third, the specific reflection of those monuments in the subsequent tradition of barbarian representation. In the process, we shall need also to review the previous scholarship on the subject. SCHOLARLY QUESTIONS, PART 1 T h e scholarship on the arts of Pergamon began even before the excavation of the site, by the careful culling of literary references, the most important of which are still the following: Text i: Diodoros 5.28.1—3. 01 Se TaXarai rdiz /nev aoip-aalv elatv evfiijiceis'... rats' Se KOfxcUS' ov p.ovov ¿k i!aeu)i ijavOoi, aXXa... Tiravov yap dnOTrXv/jLari a/j.wvrei ra? rpi'^a? (rwe^iif dno tow fxeromajv... ware riyv irpdooi/jiv avrwv aiveodai 2arvpoii xal Ildaiv ¿oiKvlav, . . . t o Se yeveta rives' f^ev £vpwvTai, rives' Se ¡xerpiwz virorpdovaiv o! 8' evyevels raz p.ev napeiaz drroXeiaivovai, ras1 S' vnrivas avei/xevag ecoaiv, ware ra aTOfxara avrwv eiriKaXvTneoBai. The Gauls are tall of b o d y . . . their hair is not only blond by nature, b u t . . . they wash it with lime and comb it back from the forehead . . . so that their appearance is like to Satyrs and P a n s , . . . some shave their beards, some let them grow a litde, the nobles shave their cheeks but let their mustaches grow until they cover their mouths. Text 2 a: Pliny N H 34.84. Plures artifices fecere Attali et Eumenis adversus Gallos proelia, Isigonus Pyromachus Stratonicus Antigonus qui volumina condidit de sua arte. The batdes of Attalos and Eumenes were made by several artists: Isigonos [= Epigonos?], P[h]yromachos, Stratonikos, Antigonos, who wrote books about his art. Text 2b: Pliny N H 34.88. Epigonus omnia fere praedicta imitatus praecessit in tubicine et matri interfectae infante miserabiliter blandiente. Epigonos made nearly all the subjects mentioned above [kings, philosophers, athletes, etc.] and surpassed them in his trumpeter and child piteously caressing its slain mother. Text 3: Pausanias 1.25.2. IIpos Se ™ rei^ei rw Norlw yiydvrwv... rovtojv rov Aeyojuevov noXefiov xal ¡xdxrjv npof 'Afj.a£ovaZ AOr/vaicuv kcu to Mapaddwi TTpof MrjSovi epyov Kal TaXardyv rrjv ev Mvoia 0opdv avedrjKfv "ArraXoS, oaov re Si>0 Trrix&v eKaarov. Toward the south wall, Attalos dedicated the famous War of the Giants, and the Batde of the Athenians against the Amazons, and the Deed at Ma-

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

795

rathon against the Persians, and the destruction of the Gauls in Mysia; each [figure] being about two cubits. Text 4: Livy 38.16.14. Primus Asiam incolentium abnuit Attalus, pater regis Eumenis. First of the residents of Asia to refuse [to pay tribute to the Gauls] was Attalos, father of King Eumenes. Text 5: Polybios 18.41.7 (cf. Livy 33.21.3). NIK-rjoas yap fJ-axv TaXaras, o fiapurarov Kal fj,axL/j,C0TaT0V £6vo? ~qv Tore Kara RQV 'Aaiav, ravrrjv apyrjv 'aaro KCU rort npwrov avrov iSei£e flaaiAe'a. Having defeated in batde the Gauls, then the most formidable and warlike people in Asia [Minor], he achieved this beginning and then first showed himself to be a king.

A most important name in the early scholarship is that of Heinrich Brunn. In 1853, he attributed the two best-known representations of the Gauls, the Ludovisi group in the Terme Museum (Fig. 69) and the Dying Trumpeter in the Capitoline (Fig. 70), to the school of Pergamon. The statues had only recendy been identified as Gauls, on the basis of their physiognomic features. (Cf. Diodoros 5.28.1-3; above, Text 1.) In his day, they were often labeled Greek originals, and their marble was (and still is) generally considered Asiatic, as it may well be. The "Asiatic" stone, and the presumed originality, led Brunn to focus his search for a pertinent history in the Hellenistic East. He argued that the record of monuments celebrating the defense of Delphi included no mention of barbarian images, and that after the victory (or victories) of the Pergamene Attalos I (r. 241-197 B.C.), Gallic power in the East was largely broken. Citing the dedications mentioned by Pliny, NH 34.84 (above, Text 2a), he asserted that Pergamon was the only center likely to have produced such works, although he recognized that the statues could never have belonged to the cited monuments, because Pliny had noted them among the works of bronze casters. Since the statues characterized the Gauls in a manner different from the Greek ideal of the beautiful, Brunn also posited that the artists of Pergamon were leading masters of naturalistic representation, and were thus the true successors of Lysippos. The statues had perhaps been brought from Pergamon when the last Attalid king, Attalos III (r. 138-133 B.C.), willed his city to the Romans. 2 In 1865, Brunn further attributed to the school of Pergamon a set of nine smaller figures: five Gauls, two Persians, an Amazon, and a Giant, all approximately two-thirds life-size (e.g., Figs. 1 1 , 7 1 ) . He assessed the stone and the quality of the carving as most similar to that of the two larger figures. His interpretation of the range of subjects, reduced scale, marble type, and crafts-

¿TTOIT)-

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

manship led him to interpret the nine as originals from a dedication by Attalos I on the Akropolis of Athens mentioned by Pausanias, 1.25.2 (above, Text 3). The dedication presented a sequence of four great mythological and historical battles that culminated in the Pergamene victory over the Gauls. Attalos was clearly equating his own achievement to the great ones of the past. Presumably, the figures had been carved at Pergamon and shipped to Athens, only to be taken to Rome sometime after Pausanias had visited.3 Very shortly after Brunn announced the conclusions of his philologically inspired studies, tremendous excitement was generated by the first spectacular finds of the German excavations on the Pergamene citadel, especially by the Gigantomachy reliefs of the Great Altar. Pergamon suddenly became, and continues to be, the best-known of Hellenistic capital cities. The rich finds confirmed the status of the city as a msyor art center, which greatly supported the credibility of the attributions. Two key sets of inscribed bases permitted a more specific link of the statues to the site: the first comprises the bronze statuary dedications erected in the Athena sanctuary of the Pergamene akropolis by or for Attalos I to celebrate his victories over the Gauls (and other opponents); the second provides the signatures of the Pergamene artist Epigonos. Brunn suggested that the inscribed Epigonos was the very artist mentioned by Pliny, TV//34.88 (above, Text 2b), just a few paragraphs after the notice of the victory dedications, and Fabricius, who had assisted in the publication of the inscriptions, restored the partially preserved signatures of two victory dedications with his name.4 Subsequent scholarship has built extensively on the core provided by the excavated remains and Brunn's original hypotheses. A Pergamene connection was quickly and widely accepted for the statues, although their status as Greek originals was soon refuted.5 The attributions have been gready increased; over twenty figures have been matched to Brunn's two large statues, and over forty have been suggested for the smaller group.6 Similarities of style, scale, battle motifs, especially the positions of fallen barbarian warriors, and the highly agitated baroque manner of presentation have been cited to support the connections. Yet more important than the individual attributions are the contributions of four scholars whose comments, augmenting Brunn's, stand at the core of the current understanding. Three dealt with questions specifically pertinent to the well-known statues. Even before the end of the nineteenth century Michaelis suggested that the name of the otherwise unknown Isigonos (Pliny, NH34.84; above, Text 2a) be corrected to read "Epigonos." He also proposed that the two most famous statues of this native Pergamene artist (MZ 34.88; above, Text 2b) were to be identified among the barbarian figures associated with the dedications. His recognition of the slain mother piteously caressed by her child in the Amazon of the Naples group has not met with general approval, but his identification of the Trumpeter with the Dying Gaul in the

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

195

Capitoline is among the most successful, at least most frequently recurring, hypotheses on Hellenistic sculpture.7 Shortly after the turn of the century, Lippold offered a very close stylistic reading of the statues and suggested (although he later recanted) that the smaller figures should be dated to the middle of the second century B.C. and thus associated with Attalos II (r. 1 5 8 - 1 3 8 B.C.). He also proposed reduplicating the smaller figures for a second dedication at Pergamon, matching the one known at Athens, because the marble was deemed Asiatic.8 And Schober, who devoted much of his research to Pergamene matters, set Brunn's larger figures on the large round base in the Athena precinct, with the Ludovisi Gaul group at the center. Since no images of the victors had been clearly identified, he proposed the novel concept of a victory monument without victors, and the reconstruction was broadly reproduced for the next thirty-five years.9 The fourth scholar, Bienkowski, expanded considerably the range of material to be included, and he emphasized the priority and thus influence of Pergamon in the representation of this barbarian type. In his two magisterial studies on the Gauls in ancient art, he arranged the then known depictions of the Gauls into a sequence after the Pergamene dedications, adding numerous Etruscan urns and sarcophagi to the corpus of works produced in imitation of the Attalid monuments. 10 Recent scholarship on the Gauls at Pergamon and elsewhere in the ancient world is copious and often subtly varied, yet it is highly predictable. Most scholars today begin with the cited literary references, accept the pertinence of Brunn's statues,11 although still rejecting their status as Hellenistic originals, 12 and then strive to find a novel balance among the suggestions just noted. The placement of the statues on the victory monuments has been among the more contentious of issues. Künzl pointedly critiqued Schober's reconstruction and suggested moving the figures to the long base of the Batde Monument, retaining, however, the victorless appearance. 13 Following Künzl, Schober's reconstruction has been several times rejected and reasserted (with minor variations); the statues have been made repeatedly to wander over the various bases of the Athena precinct, but most frequently they have gone without victors.14 Only Ozgan and Stewart have objected to the victorless dedications, but Ozgan's reconstruction impossibly combines two distinct bases, and Stewart offers no alternative. 15 From the victorless reconstructions of this monument, on whichever base, has grown a literature on the concept of victory dedications without victors—at times suggesting that the artists offered a treatment of the defeated that was strangely sympathetic, at times maintaining that sympathy is seen only by modern eyes. 16 The concept of the victorless dedication has trickled down into the reconstruction hypotheses of the "Lesser" Attalid monument—the small figures on the Athenian Akropolis—most recently and eloquently presented by Hölscher. 17 As for the large figures, no secure images of the victors have

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

been identified, and the mention by Plutarch (Antonius 60.2) of a Dionysos from a Gigantomachy hardly provides irrefutable evidence for the presence of victor statues in the four battle groupings. 18 Yet most scholars assume victors, and indeed the terms used by Pausanias to describe the dedication— war, battle, deed, and destruction (irá\e¡xo?, fiáxV' epyov, and 6opá; above, Text 3)—imply the presence of both victor and defeated. Of the several attempts to locate the figures near (or on) the south wall, none is fully satisfactory, and this monument, which contained perhaps over a hundred figures, has been the most difficult of the Attalid dedications to visualize. The very recent discovery of blocks from the base of this work, including capping stones with many small footprints, will now finally provide a sound basis for reconstructing the figural display, exactly as Pausanias implies, as conflicts including both victors and vanquished. 19 Lippold's two suggestions concerning the Lesser Attalid dedication in Athens have been received differently. That on the duplicate set of figures at Pergamon, although rarely explicitly challenged, has not been frequently repeated. It resurfaces, however, whenever necessary to explain apparent contradictions in the marble or style of the associated statues.20 The statues have also recently reappeared at Pergamon on the finally "completed" Great Altar.21 The much more commonly discussed aspect of this dedication is its chronology. The second-century date and association with Attalos II were greatly elaborated by Schober and have become standard in German-language scholarship (more recently also Italian).22 The chronological aspect of this argument is based on the assumption of a Krahmer-like sequence of Stilphasen, a far greater problem in Hellenistic sculpture than the issue of the Gauls and one certainly much too large to discuss in any detail here. Yet the retrospective nature of Hellenistic art should suggest that the multiplicity of styles available to the artists in any phase of the period would render all attempts at a stylistic dating futile, and I would point to Lippold's subsequent change of heart and reliance on the historical evidence.23 In English-language scholarship a historical approach to the problem is also employed, and a date around 200 B.C., when Attalos I visited Athens (cf. Polybios 5.106.2), is preferred. 24 Although I too favor the earlier date, about 200, and association with Attalos I, it must be admitted that certainty is not possible. The location of the encounter in Mysia, close to the Pergamene capital, should refer to one of the early defensive battles of Attalos I, rather than the final conquest of Galatia in the 160s by Attalos II (not yet king but serving as general for Eumenes II). 25 Yet the event does not necessarily date the monument, for the Pergamenes may have celebrated the achievement that defined the kingdom again in later years, in the same way that the victory at Marathon was commemorated by the Athenians generations after the affair. The acceptance or rejection of the emendation to the Plinian passage, reading "Epigonos" for "Isigonos," seems often related to the placement of

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

197

the Dying Trumpeter on the bases. It is generally accepted by those who would place the statue on the long, low base of the Battle Monument, where the broken horn may readily be seen and the signature of Epígonos has been reasonably restored, 26 and rejected by those who would set the figure on the monumental round base, where it certainly would have been out of sight and no artist's signature is to be found. 2 7 Whether accepted or not, Pliny seems unaware of any connection between the artists cited in his two passages. EARLY REPRESENTATIONS (PRE-PERGAMENE) The priority of Pergamon in the representation of the Gauls is no longer maintained. Since Bienkowski's studies, several depictions have been discovered or recognized in both the Greek East and Italy, some of which must predate the Attalid dedications. T h e earliest datable image from the Greek East is found on a stele from Kyzikos (Fig. 72), which celebrates that city's successful resistance to the Gauls certainly within a very few years of their crossing into Anatolia in 278 B.C. 2 8 T h e Kyzikene achievement against the barbarians is thrown into the realm of the mythological, for on the stele Herakles leaps onto the back of a fallen Gaul and, grabbing the barbarian by the hair, prepares to deliver a final blow. T h e Gaul is clearly portrayed as foreign by his unusual armament and manner of dress: a short cloth is wrapped around his hips, his sword is hung at his right-hand side, and a large oval shield leans against a nearby tree. Unfortunately, it cannot be known if a characteristic hairstyle and facial rendering were employed, for the head of the barbarian has been lost. Kyzikos had very close ties to Pergamon and frequendy received gifts from the Pergamene rulers, yet the stele predates any other Attalid depiction by many years. More problematic is the image of a Gaul trampled by an elephant, which appears on several small terracottas from Myrina (second or first century B.C.). 2 9 These figurines have been tentatively connected to a victory of Antiochos I, the so-called Elephant Battle, which was fought presumably somewhere in central Anatolia sometime within the 270s or 260s B.C. The large oval shield secures the identification, and here the Gaul is shown with long hair, but it is not certain whether the original monument included the defeated barbarian or just the elephant. Most impressive and most important is the massive head (height 0.37 m), currendy in Cairo and presumably discovered in the Fayum (Fig. 73), which is the only preserved monumental image of a Gaul from the Hellenistic East. T h e figure is characterized as a Gaul by the wild hairstyle: the hair rises in thick tufts, suggesting the lime treatment mentioned by Diodoros 5.28 (above, Text 1). T h e bony structure of the face is clearly presented, yet the transitions between the several broad surfaces of the head are gentle, producing a rather soft effect. 30 Bienkowski acknowledged the stylistic differences between this head and those associated with the Pergamene dedica-

198

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

tions, and dated the piece in the third or second century B . C . 3 1 Most scholars, following him, have set it after the Attalid monuments in the later third or second century. But recently, Laubscher dated the piece in the first half of the third century, and linked it to the only known historical conflict with the Gauls in Egypt, the annihilation of the four thousand rebellious mercenaries by Ptolemy II, around 275 B.C. Although the stylistic dating cannot be considered absolute, it is certainly possible, and if the historical connection is true, it offers the best prospect for dating the work. The event can hardly have been of great significance for the kingdom, yet it may have been lavishly commemorated. So soon after the Gauls' attack on Delphi, a great reputation was to be gained by defeating them in any manner; Ptolemy's achievement was compared to the divine victory over the Titans by Kallimachos. Laubscher, curiously, reconstructs the figure as suicidal, after the model of the Ludovisi chieftain, but there is no evidence of a sword passing so closely beside the hair and face; the original composition cannot be known.32 Although Egypt may seem rather out of the way for Gallic affairs, the country has yielded more representations of Gauls than any other Greek Hellenistic state, and many of the images are unusually favorable. Ptolemy may have slaughtered four thousand rebels in 275, but other Gauls continued to serve the Egyptian monarchs, as they did many Hellenistic kings, even the Attalids. Some may have served with great distinction; they continued to be employed both externally, in the battles against other Hellenistic kings, and internally, to quell the revolts of the local population, as perhaps at Abydos in the 1 8 0 s B.C.33

From the cemeteries of Alexandria come seven limestone stelai with painted images, very poorly preserved, of the deceased and inscriptions explicidy identifying them as Gauls. Three have been dated by context to the third quarter of the third century; the others are similar and may be contemporary.34 One figure wears a tunic, the others are naked but for a chlamys or long mantle. The armor, if shown at all, comprises only the great oval shield and a spear. The Gauls apparently kept their native dress and armaments, continuing to serve as light-armed troops, but two of the seven have Greek names (Isidoros and Pyrrhos), and a third mentions a Greek wife (Phileista), suggesting that they were mixing with the local Greek setders, or perhaps with the Greek mercenaries. Egyptian terracottas reflect both sides of the Gallic presence. A head now in Alexandria is dramatically rendered, seemingly suffering, and may be connected with an action against the Gauls, such as the destruction of 275. 3 5 Others show the loyal soldiers: a figurine from the Fayum now in Munster presents a very powerfully built and fiercely determined soldier, and one newly acquired by the British Museum might best be described as swaggering; neither shows signs of suffering. 36 Given the positive treatment that can be found in Egyptian renderings, one might wonder whether the massive

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

199

marble head in Cairo, which is dramatic but not obviously pained, might reflect a loyal Gallic victor rather than the suffering rebel. From Italy, where the Gauls had settled centuries before they entered Greece, come even earlier representations. Etruscan stelai from Felsina, the prosperous Etruscan colony in the hills overlooking the Po valley, present the earliest images identified as Gauls. Two examples, now in Bologna, are noteworthy: one (Fig. 74) shows an armed but helmetless rider charging a naked and very tall foot soldier; the other, a warrior largely hidden by an enormous shield. 37 They were initially published as examples of fourth-century Etruscan art, connected with the decline of Felsina under Gallic pressure in the 390S-350S B.C. Bienkowski considered the combat scene, the more commonly illustrated example, to bear unmistakable indications of having been inspired, albeit poorly, by a Greek prototype. 38 Recent analysis of the associated grave goods by Sassatelli now suggests a date in the fifth century, but a reassessment of the images may cast some doubt on the identification of the figures as Gauls. The large shield in Italy is not a distinctively identifying feature, for the Etruscans and Romans used similar shields. Rather than a combat, the horseman and soldier maybe participants in Etruscan funerary games, and the soldier seems tall only because he has been made to fill the register.39 A combat or contest between a rider and a foot soldier may certainly be inspired, as is so much of Etruscan art, ultimately from a Greek model, but the motif was long established in the Etruscan world by this time, so that it would have been unnecessary for the Etruscan sculptor to seek a specific Greek source for the rendering. Whatever the correct interpretation of the confrontation, and whoever stands with the outsized shield, the renderings cannot reflect a Pergamene original, and they make sense in the fifth century only in the context of an Etruscan experience. A fourth-century Faliscan vase (Fig. 75) provides a more securely recognizable representation, the meeting of seven combatants in a spatially complex landscape. (The three to the right are not well preserved and do not appear in the illustration.) Warriors with curly hair and cloaks marked with a heavy black border confront and will apparently soon be victorious against their opponents, who are characterized as Gauls by their oudandish appearance and dress.40 Again, many features of the representations may ultimately derive from Greek art, but the details of the armaments and the character of the presentations clearly reflect a Western reality. The Gauls were known and represented even in the southern parts of Italy. Two reasonably certain identifications can be made of figures once attached to Canosan vases of the later fourth or early third century B.C. A figure in Paris wears a torque, a belt holding the scabbard at the right, and a long cloak; one in Naples wears only the belt and scabbard at the right thigh; both have long hair, and the Naples figure has the characteristic mustache. 41 The figures march menacingly around the vases, but no narrative is presented,

200

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

and no specific event need have inspired the decision to include them. Several other Canosan figures have been identified as Gauls, including one in London with the sword also at the right, but the ethnic character of these other figures is not so specifically rendered, and several Italic peoples carried the sword at the right; perhaps the Canosan coroplasts had an interest in the exotic, and showed a number of diverse ethnic types. A limestone relief from Lecce, now in Budapest, presents a difficult but intriguing image. The block seems architectural, a carved Ionic frieze over fasciae, and may have come from a funerary naiskos on the Tarantine model; the arts of Lecce seem strongly influenced by that nearby center in the later fourth and early third centuries B.C.42 The most noteworthy figure is a foot soldier, to the left, who defends himself by holding a shield over his head, as he plunges his sword into the belly of the attacking rider's horse. He has no unmistakably Gallic characteristics—his shield is round, and a sword hung at the right was not unusual in Italy—but the battle motif was used extensively for the Galatomachy on late Etruscan urns. If truly a Gaul, his position is an unlikely reflection of an actual event; Gallic swords with their great length were not designed for the thrust, but for slashing. The motif was derived ultimately from classical Greek models, although in Greece an underhand thrust into an equine belly is used only as a defense against a Centaur. The batde motif may have been adapted to the Galatomachy locally, where the Gauls and their characteristic weapons were not known so well, perhaps under the influence of a Tarantine model. To sum up the early representations: the Gauls were presented in the arts as soon as they made their appearance in the Mediterranean world. Immediately we note an important difference between East and West. In the East, they often appeared on official monuments that commemorated specific achievements against them; after their attack on Delphi any victory over them, no matter its true significance, could be hailed as the defense of civilization. In the West, their depiction was generally more personal, on vases or in a funerary context, but cannot be related to a specific event. Stylistically, the renderings are as diverse as their geographic distribution, suggesting that every center produced its own reaction to this new foreign people. Largescale, high-quality works, such as the Cairo head, may present striking ethnic portrayals. Smaller, simpler pieces rely on a selection of easily communicated features that quickly come to stereotype the foreigner: the large oval shield, long sword hung at the right, long or limed hair, mustache, and nudity but for torque, belt, and scabbard. SCHOLARLY Q U E S T I O N S , PART 2

Despite the recognition of the several earlier representations, the perceived influence of the Attalid dedications seems only to have grown in the most

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

201

recent scholarship, especially in the discussion of later Hellenistic and Imperial works found in Italy. Bienkowski assumed Pergamene influence only on those pieces that show figures similar to the statues commonly attributed to the dedications, and several modern scholars have held to his precise criterion. 43 Others have cited the agitated, baroque style as demonstrating a reliance on Pergamene models. 44 Influence has even been asserted from unattested, hypothetical Pergamene Galatomachies, such as a massive statuary dedication commonly presumed to have stood on the terrace before the Attalid stoa at Delphi, or the monumental painting of unknown subject that once adorned its walls. 45 T h e practice of attribution has clearly become a self-referential, self-perpetuating phenomenon. Every additional representation linked to Pergamon justifies the system and thus all the previous attributions, and the practice of bringing the many works into the circle of this one Hellenistic art center supports, by providing parallel examples and a methodological model, the attribution of the additional pieces. T h e result is the seemingly logical and happy marriage between the literary sources and actual finds. T h e most frequently cited literature points direcdy to Pergamon, and virtually every image of a Gaul produced in Italy, as well as most from the Hellenistic East, has at some time been discussed as an original, a copy, or a work produced under the influence of this one major center. But the system that ascribes these many pieces to Pergamon, or to any one center, is either impossible or irrelevant. T h e renderings are too varied, stylistically and conceptually, to be accurate copies of a single set of originals. If, on the other hand, they are only vague reflections, then their value as keys to the reconstruction of the original dedications is nil. T h e practice of attribution is potentially deceptive, because it distorts our view of Pergamon by focusing too much attention on the Gauls and (other than the Great Altar) not enough on the more commonly produced subjects (i.e., the omnia fere praedicta imitatus of Epigonos, Pliny NH 34.88, Text 2b above). 46 It also stands in the way of seeing the works as products of their own times; whether the statues are copies and variants of lost Hellenistic originals, or new works on the theme of the Galatomachy, they were intended for display in a different context. O n Etruscan urns and Roman sarcophagi we find a consistent repertoire of batde motifs, the essential starting point for a sound copy critique, but many batde groupings are too common to be of use; others are f o u n d only in the West and are likely local variants (the warrior plunging his sword into the belly of a horse), and in every rendering the motifs are freely recombined (except those with only a single battle group). T h e most impressive and finest of the works need not be the most accurate, for a sculptor capable of working the stone to such a degree is also certainly capable of introducing variations onto the theme. T h e most impressive and finest of the works linked

202

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

to the school of Pergamon are those originally attributed by Brunn. Even these statues are singletons;47 a reconsideration of the criteria cited for the attribution would seem in order. Brunn's argument was based on the relevant history, the originality and marble type of the statues, and, for the figures linked to the Lesser Dedication, the scale. History has already been mentioned, and Attalos was neither the first nor the last leader to score a victory over the Gauls. Throughout the Mediterranean, in both East and West, even in Anatolia, others had successfully resisted Gallic violence. It should no longer be acceptable to discuss the statues with a history of the Gauls only or primarily as it relates to Pergamon. 48 It is perhaps surprising that the argument was deemed acceptable by Brunn's nineteenth-century contemporaries, because the passage cited to demonstrate the primacy of Attalos against the Gauls, Livy 38.16.14 (above, Text 4), appears in the context of a speech delivered by Gn. Manlius Vulso, just before that Roman general took arms against the Gauls of central Anatolia in 189 B.C. and effected the greatest slaughter of them known in the historical record. 49 The Pergamenes had certainly confronted the Gauls, and emphasized their achievement. They raised monuments both at home and abroad, celebrating their success against the new universal barbarian and thus presenting themselves as saviors of civilization. But they were neither the first nor the last to depict this foreign people; the representations noted above demonstrate that several centers had confronted the problem long before the Attalids had reason to do so. Originality is no longer a relevant issue, for the statues are now generally identified as copies of the Roman Imperial period. The identification as copies has permitted a direct association with the monuments mentioned by Pliny, NH 34.84 (above, Text 2a), the bases of which were revealed in the excavation of the site. But the discovery of the Pergamene citadel, which had initially lent such credibility to the attributions, actually makes the prospect of seeing them as copies of lost Pergamene originals more difficult. The problem is quite simply that the statues do not fit where they should. Several scholars have attempted to set them on one of the relevant bases, either on the Round Monument or on the Battle Monument, and in the process they have presented good arguments against the other reconstruction hypothesis. Those in favor of the round base have shown well that the statues do not fit into the individual sections of the Battle Monument. Those preferring a position on the long base have noted that the Round Monument is inappropriate, for in the ancient world such monumental bases always support monumental (colossal) figures.50 Yet the obvious conclusion that the statues do not fit on either base, and thus cannot be copies of the lost Pergamene dedications, has curiously escaped attention, I suspect, only because the general assumption of pertinence does not permit it.51 The marble has been commonly labeled Asiatic. The initial identification

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

203

was based on a simple negative observation. Already in the nineteenth century Nibby noted that its appearance was different from that of Carraran, Pentelic, Hymettian, and especially Parian stone. 52 Later, circularly, the link with Pergamon suggested specific Anatolian quarries. 53 A l t h o u g h n o scientific examination has yet been published, the Eastern identification may be correct, for the stone closely resembles that from the Dokimeion quarries in the Anatolian highlands. 5 4 But again the results of the excavation create difficulties for the connection, because the marble also seems different from any yet discovered at Pergamon. 5 5 It is light gray with a slight yellowish tint and very finely grained; the marble of the Altar sculpture is also light gray, but it is clearer and has a larger crystalline structure, and the freestanding sculptures from Pergamon seem to be made of a whiter stone. T h e approximately two-thirds life-size representations of Giants, Amazons, Persians, and Gauls would certainly seem inspired from the Lesser Dedication of Attalos on the Akropolis at Athens. T h e reduced scale and the range of subjects should be too specific to permit any other interpretation, although the Romans probably cast themselves, replacing the Pergamenes, in the role of the victors in the final battle against the Gauls. But a number of the attributed figures cannot be accurate reproductions of the original dedication. Specifically, the Amazon riders attacking Gauls, although at the proper scale and in g o o d Hellenistic style, conflate two separate conflicts, pitting two of the antagonistic forces against one another. T h e combination of subject, scale, and Hellenistic style does not suffice to link a statue to the dedication. T h e situation does not seem so curious when one notes that the scale is not so u n c o m m o n as it is often said to be, and the subjects are a m o n g the most popular of the ancient world; the questionable pieces are reworkings on the theme made at a later period. T h e problem with these figures thus becomes to define which, if any, of the many that have been attributed reproduce the original statues with a fidelity sufficient to be useful for a reconstruction. O f over forty statues that have been attributed, only ten are now generally considered reasonable: Brunn's original nine plus a so-called Persian in Aix. 5 6 T h e core of this reduced set are the four in Naples, one figure of each subject (Fig. 11), and the Gaul in Paris, which were presumably discovered together. 5 7 Even within the set of ten, there are problems. T h e marble has been said to be the same "Asiatic" type as that of the large figures, which, if true, is difficult to reconcile with location of the originals o n the Athenian Akropolis at least until the time of Pausanias. But the entire question of the material will now need fresh study, in light of recent assertions that some of the statues are made of alabaster. (Cf. the Postscript by Steingraber, infra p. 250 and n. 101, but also the comments by Stewart, supra p. 47 and n. 74.) Stylistic and iconographic incongruities are even more disconcerting. T h e Amazon in Naples has a hairstyle that does not generally appear on Amazons

204

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

until Roman times, and her hair does not respond to the effect of gravity.58 The bearded Gaul in Venice (Fig. 71) is dressed not as a Gaul, but in a Greek garment, the exomis, open at the right shoulder and curiously knotted at the hip. Of the three so-called Persians, not one is appropriately attired. Only the Vatican figure wears any garment that is recognizably Persian, a tiara, but he is naked. The other two have sleeveless garments that open at the right shoulder and wear soft caps without the long ends typical of the Persian headdress. The figure in Naples has a curved sword. The statues in their present form show the influence of Roman renderings of the Dacians, or other later barbarian types. The Naples figure may still be identified as a Persian, by the context of his companions, but the figure in Aix, in isolation, may equally be a Dacian, a Thracian, or some unspecified barbarian. A certain selectivity can be ascribed to the Roman copyist or patron, but even the reduced set presents an excess of dead and dying figures for a monument that showed the action still in progress.59 The most important figures, the four in Naples, present intriguing temporal variants of the same position. The most recent, historically speaking, the Gaul, is not yet dead but has fallen to the side and holds his torso upright only with great effort. The Persian had been in the same position before he died and collapsed to the ground. The two figures of the distant mythological past, the Giant and the Amazon, had been lying in that position until someone gave them a nudge, to make sure they were dead, and they then rolled onto their backs. The temporal quality makes these figures a brilliant presentation of historical sequence, but again it should not reflect a monument on which the battles were still raging. It seems unlikely that any of the attributed works accurately reproduces the originals of the lost dedication. Of course, the problems with the history, fit, stone type, and style cannot disprove the connection of the attributed statues with Pergamon; scenarios that explain away the problems can easily be invented. But the statues are merely attributed, and there is nothing to tie them absolutely to the site. It is perhaps time finally to leave the philological positivism aside and to approach the Pergamene dedications archaeologically. It is certainly necessary to consider the tremendous gaps in the preservation of the material record, in order to avoid an archaeological positivism, but it should be useful at least to begin from the reality of what has been discovered at Pergamon, and what has been discovered elsewhere. PERGAMENE REPRESENTATIONS

The Attalids were neither the first nor the last to confront the Gauls, but with this newly arrived northern people setded just beyond the borders of their territory they did have to fight, and on several occasions. 60 They erected dedications both at home on the Pergamene akropolis and abroad,

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

205

at Athens, Delos, and Delphi. The most important dedications, those for which representations of the defeated barbarians have been proposed, are the following: At Pergamon • Three statuary dedications commemorating the victories of Attalos I in the Athena temenos (cf. Pliny, AT/34.84; above, Text 2a): the Round Monument (IvP 20), the Epigenes Monument (IvP 29), and the Batde Monument (IvP 21-28). • A painting of a batde against the Gauls (Pausanias 1.4.6). • A painting of the battle of Magnesia, where the Gauls fought as mercenaries for Antiochos III (cf. Livy 37.40-41). • Statuary dedications in the extramural Nikephorion (cf. Polybios 16.1.5-6; Diodoros 28.5, 31.35). At Athens • The Lesser Dedication on the Akropolis, showing the War against the Giants, the Athenian Batde against the Amazons, the Deed at Marathon against the Persians, and the destruction of the Gauls in Mysia (Pausanias 1.25.2; above, Text 3). At Delphi • A massive statuary dedication on the terrace in front of the Stoa of Attalos and the large panel paintings of the stoa (cf. SIG3 682). At Delos • A statuary monument celebrating a Philetairos (IG XI.4, 1105). • A statuary monument of Epigenes, general of Attalos I (/GXI.4,1109), at the south end of the south stoa (which was given by Attalos I?). • A statuary monument of Attalos I for a victory over all the Gauls (IG XI.4, 1110) at the north end of the south stoa. The monuments seem primarily to celebrate the early batdes of Attalos I, especially his victory at the sources of the Kalkos against an invading Gallic army, which were of such importance for the establishment of Pergamon as an independent political entity. The Attalids certainly made use of their successes to promote the new kingdom on the world stage, but not every dedication needed to present the image of the defeated enemy (such was hardly a universal Hellenistic practice); from the above list, several should be eliminated from consideration.

2o6

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

The Philetairos base at Delos, probably referring to the founder of the dynasty, commemorated an otherwise unattested victory, but the attachment traces demonstrate that only Philetairos and his fellow Pergamenes were shown and that they were standing quietly before the viewer.61 The Epigenes base showed only the Pergamene general on horseback.62 The third Pergamene base at Delos is too poorly preserved to permit comment, but the simplicity of the other Attalid monuments here could again suggest a simple presentation of the victor (or victors).63 At Delphi, the subject of the painting is not known, and the suggestion of a Galatomachy, whether the destruction of the invading army at Delphi or at Pergamon, has never been fully articulated.64 The massive (27 x 3.65 m) statuary base, once proposed for the foundations on the open terrace, and reconstructed with various Galatomachies, has been eliminated from the most recent reconstruction; now a large altar is set in its place.65 Even at Pergamon, not every dedication would have included representations of the defeated barbarians, and several of the above-listed proposals run contrary to the evidence. Little can be said about the dedications once erected in the yet-to-be-identified extramural Nikephorion, but with the destruction of that sanctuary in 201 B.C. by Philip V of Macedon and again in 156 B.C. by Prousias II of Bithynia, the prospect is faint indeed that the figural display of the dedications, if figures were at all included, would be reflected in the preserved images.66 Of the three sculptural dedications in the Pergamene Athena temenos, it is likely that only the long Battle Monument included representations of the defeated foes. As noted above, the large round base with the dedication of Attalos for his Kaikos victory (IvP 20) would not be appropriate for figures on such an ordinary scale; all such monumental bases known in the ancient world supported figures on a colossal scale. The often suggested colossal statue of Athena, which would recall the colossal bronze Athena of Pheidias, erected on the Athenian Akropolis to celebrate the victory over the Persians, the former barbarian threat, is the most reasonable reconstruction of the figural display.67 Images of defeated Gauls would also be out of place on the dedication raised by Epigenes and his comrades to Attalos (IvP 29), for the monument celebrated victories over both the Gauls and Antiochos Hierax. The monument, which cannot be reconstructed as if it were a section of the Battle Monument, certainly held a portrait of Attalos and may have shown him being crowned by Nike or some other divine figure.68 Attalos I raised the Batde Monument (IvP21-28) to celebrate a series of victories, each in its own section, against the Gauls, Antiochos Hierax, and a Seleukos (probably Seleukos III, r. 226-23); the events probably occurred in the first eighteen years of his rule (i.e., between 241 and 223 B.C.), and his success permitted him to claim the tide of king.69 The original bronze figures have, of course, completely disappeared, and even the base is only

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

207

fragmentarily preserved. Although the base has been well studied and seems well understood, it will be useful to review its principal features, because they are essential for the reconstruction of the figural display, and they demonstrate how truly unusually this monument was conceived. From the base are preserved eight inscribed and possibly four uninscribed orthostats, and two fragments of the capping blocks, showing one and a half attachment traces for the now lost figures. All the blocks are cut of the dark blue-gray marble so commonly used at Pergamon. The size and style of the blocks, and the letter style, format, and nature of the inscriptions, link the orthostats. The capping blocks can be related by technical and stylistic features, including scale, doweling to the orthostats only at the (viewer's) right side, and the presence on both orthostats and capping blocks of carved stripes, 2.9 cm broad and 0.4 cm deep, that divide the monument into the sections.70 One inscription provides the dedication of Attalos to Athena for the entire display (IvP 21). It stood originally at one end, providing the full dimension for the depth of the base, 1.03 m, and tells us that several victories, parts of a greater success, were being celebrated. The other inscriptions, along the length, refer to six battles (two fragments should probably be joined), of which only two mention the Gauls, once alone and once with Antiochos. The suggested order leaves the artist's signature at the center. Schober proposed adding two other sections, one before and one after the signature, including another against the Gauls and Antiochos. The sections were ca. 2.30 m in length, and so a six-sectioned monument would have measured ca. 13.80 m, and an eight-sectioned version ca. 18.40 m. 71 The capping blocks show the attachment traces for bronze sculpture: an oval cutting for a horse's hoof (12.5 X 11.0 cm, 9 cm deep), and a half-preserved oblong for a human foot (8 cm wide, 6.5 cm deep). It has long been recognized that the dedication should have stood near the south wall of the temenos, just to the left as one entered through the propylon. The short side with the total dedication of Attalos would then have been visible first, and the various batties stood before the viewer in the order they had been fought. The remains of long and narrow foundations were uncovered that run parallel to the south wall and were respected when the area was paved in the reign of Eumenes II.72 Already at the level of the base, it is clear that the dedication was highly unusual, in that it included a number of victories, parts of a larger achievement, and that it was very specific about each of those victories. Although the evidence is meager, conclusions can be drawn about the figural decoration of this monument. The continuation of the division stripes indicates that each section was conceived independently. The attachment cutting for the human foot shows that men (soldiers) on foot were included, and the hoof demands horses and thus riders. The setting of the hoof so close (ca. 18 cm) to the division stripe indicates that the sections were filled to their limits, but the space (ca. 31 cm) from the nearest pre-

2o8

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

served foot to the front or back may permit only a shallow, relief-like field of action. The sum of the evidence suggests that the Battle Monument contained multifigured renderings of batdes with both victors and defeated in each section. The victors were certainly shown on horseback, which put them in a visually superior position and conforms to the reputation of the Pergamene cavalry. Each Pergamene rider was probably confronted by one or two opponents. The placing of two opponents per section may be preferable, for one inscription (IvP 23) mentions two types of adversaries, both Gauls and Antiochos Hierax, although the renderings need not have reflected the events so precisely. An eight-sectioned monument could have contained up to twenty-four figures (counting horse and rider as one). The composition of any single section might best be visualized from funerary stelai, which show a victorious rider over still-fighting foes. The horses probably reared or leapt, which would create more space in each section and enliven the presentation of a battle in progress. Given the number of figures required in each section of ca. 2.30 m, as well as the dimension of the horse's hoof, the figures would have been about life-size.73 A reconstruction drawing is offered to illustrate the compositional principles (Fig. 76). It is based on the eight-sectioned monument, and Gauls are shown only in the first three battle groupings; in the second and third, where the inscription mentions (or may have mentioned) both Gauls and Antiochos Hierax, both a Gallic and a Greek opponent are set before the Pergamene rider. Riders are placed in each section, so that a victorious Pergamene is present in each batde. The figural positions are drawn from funerary stelai or the batde panels of the Alexander Sarcophagus. Variations in the positions of the opponents and direction of the riders are introduced to enliven the composition, giving a less regular appearance suited to the tumult of battle. Unfortunately nothing can be said about the characterization of the Gauls on the monument, because no figures are preserved. It should be emphasized that both the Ludovisi group and the Capitoline Gaul (Figs. 69, 70) have been excluded, for they do not fit at full scale on a section of the base together with other figures. Even if these statues were reduced to life size (the Romans did not always copy at the exact scale), they would not suit the dedication. The dead wife of the Ludovisi group is inappropriate to the monument, and the arguments put forward for her inclusion are unconvincing. A battle at a Gallic setdement, where wives would be present, may certainly have been won by the Pergamenes, but the two batdes actually mentioned in the inscriptions (IvP 23, 24) were defensive, and the proposed third was also in response to an invasion of Pergamene territory. The presence of wives and children on the batdefield, to encourage the men to fight all the more bravely, was not a common Gallic practice. They would be present when the

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

209

tribe was migrating, but were otherwise sent away from the conflict into areas protected by thick forests and difficult terrain.74 The Capitoline Gaul is also difficult to place on the base because the warrior, already dying, is too selfcontained. Many figure types could be included in an active battle composition, but the very limited number of participants possible in each section should not allow the inclusion of those who no longer play an active role in the batde. Seen as a whole, especially from a distance, the monument would seem to illustrate a single great conflict. The battle would appear in progress, still undecided, although with the Pergamenes on horseback the outcome would be obvious. The Gauls would appear only on the flank, the place they usually took in the batde line, beside the phalanx, when they fought together with Greeks as allies or mercenaries. When viewed more closely, the division stripes and individual battle inscriptions would show clearly that several victories in a long struggle were being celebrated. This unusual figural composition would thus exacdy parallel the unusual features of the base, the celebration in detail of the many specific parts of a much larger overall achievement. The "apparent" realism of the war (batdes) in progress could have been inspired by monumental paintings, which had long presented complex batde scenes, but the composition, lacking illusionistic depth, is best understood sculpturally, and the layering of the batdes as parts of the war is specific to this dedication. 75 One painting of a battle against the Gauls is attested at Pergamon (Pausanias 1.4.6); although the setting of the deed is not specified, it again was probably the victory of Attalos I at the sources of the Kalkos.76 Other paintings of other battles against the Gauls, whether acting independendy or together with a Greek army, may be postulated. All traces of such paintings have disappeared with the destruction of the buildings they once adorned, so that possible reflections in smaller-scale works must be considered. Most important of these smaller pieces is a bronze plaque (Fig. 77), now lost, that provides the only Hellenistic representation of the Gauls actually discovered at Pergamon. 77 Here, they are characterized by their traditional large oval shields with heavy central spine; their hair seems short, but the scale of the representation is too small to permit more specific comment; the one at the far right wears a short cloth and carries an outsized sword; the one on the ground may wear only a helmet and a belt. Callaghan proposed that the bronze plaque represents the attack of the Pergamene cavalry on the forces of Antiochos III in the batde of Magnesia, where the Gauls fought alongside the Seleukid phalanx.78 But the Gauls seem actually to move with the riders against the phalanx. Gauls accompanied the Pergamene cavalry to Macedonia in 1 7 1 B.C., when Attalos II, acting for his brother Eumenes II, participated in the Roman alliance in the action against Perseus of Macedon. (Cf. Livy 42.57.7.) A representation of the Gauls as al-

2io

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

lies seems most out of place at Pergamon, since the Attalids so stressed their achievements against this barbarian people; the plaque is small, the rendering complex, and perhaps an alternative event can be found for it. Yet it remains most important as the only Hellenistic representation of the Gauls actually discovered at Pergamon; the characterization of the barbarian type, as well as can be discerned, matches that of the Kyzikos stele. A Roman (late second- or early third-century A.c.) terracotta cantharus, presently at Mainz, was allegedly discovered in the vicinity of Pergamon and provides another intriguing image. 79 The same scene, with minor variations, is presented on both sides. Two Gauls attack from the right with short swords raised high over their heads; each wears a simple hemispherical helmet and an exomis made of coarse material or animal skin, and carries the characteristic shield. Behind, an all-but-hidden figure falls face-first off a stumbling horse. At the center, a figure with a round shield moves toward the two barbarians but turns back to strike at two other figures, a helper group, who complete the scene at the left. A male with a garment wrapped only about his legs reclines in a rocky landscape at the far left; he does not participate in the conflict and seems more likely an allegoric reference to the landscape, probably a river god. Koeppel identifies the central figure as a Pergamene, the others as Gauls, and the river god as the Kaikos; the scene would present a late and rather corrupt copy of the painting of the famous victory at the Kaikos.80 The hypothesis has a certain attractiveness; the observation of historical events by allegorical personifications of the landscape is a well-precedented ancient practice, such as the hero Marathon witnessing Athenian victory in the Stoa Poikile. (Cf. Pausanias 1.15.4, and here, Fig. 12.) But it seems unusual that the "Pergamene" warrior stands in the midst of the barbarian host, rather than rising above them on a horse. The Gauls are characterized in a manner quite different from the scene on the small bronze plaque or the Kyzikos stele, and the identification of the two figures of the helper group as Gauls is questionable. The coarse garments and the confusingly fragmented composition do not seem appropriate for a Hellenistic painting, but rather these features should belong to the time of the manufacture of the cup in the Roman period. Even if the victory of Attalos was intended, unfortunately little remains of the original painting. Andreae cited batde motifs found on four Roman battle sarcophagi to reconstruct the lost Pergamene painting. Although this theory is the most elaborately argued, it is the least compelling, and curiously Andreae provides one of the strongest arguments against his own hypothesis. The four sarcophagi were carved in Rome in the second century a.c., and include the well-known Ammendola Sarcophagus (Fig. 78). Initially, Andreae presented them together; he later isolated one as noticeably different both from the others and from the proposed original painting. 81 But if motifs can be so

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

2II

freely recombined to form new compositions, there can be no guarantee that any of the sarcophagi accurately reproduces the lost original. The painting noted by Pausanias was still in Pergamon when the sarcophagi were carved. Pattern books could communicate individual motifs, the general composition, and potentially a wealth of detail, but the three accepted sarcophagi vary considerably in their arrangements and details, and the proposed reconstruction bears little semblance to a monumental painting, looking more like a line drawing of an elaborate sarcophagus. Although the individual battle motifs may derive ultimately from Greek sources, they had long been widely known, and most can be found on earlier relief carvings in the city of Rome; the immediate sources for the battle panels are better sought locally. The text of Pausanias (1.25.2; above, Text 3) only hints at the unusual and impressive nature of the Attalid dedication on the Athenian Akropolis. Even with figures at a reduced scale, the monument certainly stretched for a considerable length along the south wall of the Akropolis. The four conflicts—against the Giants, Amazons, Persians, and Gauls—appeared in sequence and in a relief-like manner; the figural placement was dense and complex, but the action occurred largely on one plane, confined by the rather shallow stage of the base (with more figures but otherwise similar to the composition proposed above for the Battle Monument at Pergamon). Victories over the Gauls had been celebrated as the salvation of civilization against the barbarian and cast into the realm of the mythological, being compared to divine accomplishments since the rout of the Gallic invaders from Delphi. The Pergamenes developed the theme in a strikingly erudite manner, for they extended the sequence of myth and history that the Athenians had created to celebrate their own victory over the Persians at Marathon. By setting his dedication on the Athenian Akropolis, indeed immediately beside the Parthenon, where so many references to that Athenian victory were to be found, Attalos flattered his Athenian hosts as much as he lauded his own achievement. The dedication stood on the Akropolis at least until the time of Pausanias. As noted above, the four figures in Naples (Fig. 1 1 ) would seem to be inspired by it. But as the dead and dying can represent only a small and insignificant selection from the four battles, and the curious stylistic and iconographic features make the figures unreliable as copies of the lost original statues, they cannot help us envision the lost original composition and do not permit comment on the characterization of the Gauls on this monument. To sum up the Pergamene representations: the Attalids, specifically Attalos I, took advantage of an already developing theme of victory over the Gauls as the salvation of civilization, and repeatedly commemorated his achievements. Although not every monument included representations of the defeated opponents, two impressive statuary dedications and at least one

212

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

monumental painting certainly did. The painting may have included allegorical reference to the Pergamene landscape. The statuary dedications were examples of a type of m o n u m e n t that developed in early Hellenistic times, the tableau vivant;82 they showed large, multifigured, in-the-round representations of the events; each made its special contribution to the type. The dedication at Pergamon operated at two levels, celebrating a series of victories over the Gauls (and other opponents) as parts of a greater accomplishment. The one at Athens contributed to the iconography by building on the mythologizing tendency of the earlier Hellenistic monuments, and made an erudite reference to Athenian history. The small bronze plaque, possibly a reflection of a monumental painting, gives the only clue to the characterization of the barbarian type at Pergamon. As on the Kyzikos stele, the Gauls are shown by means of their unusual armor and dress, especially the large shield and long sword. A naturalistic portrayal of the ethnic type, as was shown in Egypt, with a distinctive treatment of the hair, mustache, and lean features, is certainly possible, but it is unattested. LATER REPRESENTATIONS ELSEWHERE (POST-PERGAMENE)

The majority of later representations (the majority, in fact, of all representations) of the Gauls are products of the West, being of Etruscan, Italic, or Roman manufacture. These later pieces are generally well known, for they have been often catalogued, by Bienkowski and others, although primarily as copies or variants of lost Hellenistic originals and not as works characteristic of their own times. 83 They are far too numerous to be considered in full, and such a discussion would distract from the principal question, which is whether to view them as reflections of a potential Pergamene influence. Attention must thus focus on the pieces that are most commonly viewed as closely inspired by Pergamon, although a few general comments on the nature and range of the Western productions would seem in order. The quantity of the pertinent material allows for considerable variation of the form and function, yet a few mjyor trends may be discerned. Most of the pieces were produced in three partially overlapping periods: the later third and second centuries B.C. for Etruscan and Italic works; late Republican and early Imperial times for works relating possibly to the final Roman conflicts with the Gauls, including Caesar's conquest; and the second and third centuries A.C. for the examples of Roman Idealplastik, which include many of the most often discussed figures, the ones most often linked to Pergamon. The quantity of these later representations may be explained in part by their function. Most were not immediate and official responses to specific events but were created for personal use, often funerary, and on a small scale. Even the few large-scale, state-sanctioned monuments were not intended to recall a specific battle, quite unlike the victory dedications of the Hellenis-

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

2/3

tic East. Official dedications tend to be singular monuments (the Attalids were exceptional in this regard, returning several times to the same event, but even their presentation was limited to the few dedications), but when the subject enters the realm of popular myth or mythologized history, it can be repeated with great frequency. Many present minor variations on the theme of the Galatomachy, and their numbers may be deceiving. Both the Etruscan urns and Roman ideal statuary were produced in vast quantities; although the Gauls may seem unusually popular in the arts of the time, they in fact constitute only a very small part of the total production. The quantity is also explained, in part, by the intensity of contact with the Gauls, who had far more densely setded in the West than in the Greek East. Representations of the later third and second centuries B.C. appear on Calene cups (Fig. 79), Etruscan urns (Fig. 80) and sarcophagi, and the terracotta frieze from Civitalba (Fig. 81). The three categories differ in style, scale, and function, yet the unity of the subject matter and approximate contemporaneity lead them often to be discussed together. Two distinctive subjects are shown: divine opponents rout the Gauls from a sanctuary, forcing them to drop the sacred plunder (primarily vases, phialai, and thymiateria), on all three categories; and human warriors, usually not in a sanctuary setting, confront and defeat the Gauls, only on the urns and sarcophagi. The earliest, smallest, and simplest are the reliefs on the cups from the Latin colony of Cales.84 These vessels were presumably for private use, yet the designs seem the most classical, especially those from the shop of the Gabinii, with carefully proportioned figures. Four of the five with a Gaul show only the single figure, who appears naked but for the characteristic belt and maybe a cloak, making off with the plunder, although he may look about, implying the presence of unseen defenders. One of the finest, from the shop of the Gabinii, shows a Gaul, sword hung at the right, making off with a thymiaterion, as he steps onto a fallen capital and looks back; his twisted, strongly three-dimensional position will appear in several contexts on the Etruscan urns. 85 On another relief, from the shop of Anicius, a robustly built barbarian mounts a step, oblivious to any defender, to grab a tripod, the only clear reference to a sanctuary of Apollo. 86 Artemis appears once, on a cup of the Gabinii (Fig. 79), but she acts more like an Etruscan demon, for she has uncharacteristically laid down her bow and attempts to wresde a vase from the Gaul.87 The composition is the most complex from this site; the principal actors tugging at the vase form a V-shaped pattern. The urns are next in scale and complexity, showing at least one full battle motif and often several; they are next in date and again were for private use.88 Of the approximately thirty urns showing the Gauls, no two are exactly alike; the Etruscans freely reinterpreted the subject every time, adopting and adapting battle motifs and attributes from a variety of sources. Whether the Gauls face human or divine opponents, the batde motifs are

214

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

similar; human opponents are more frequent. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate the compositional principles. A Chiusine urn, from Città della Pieve and now in Florence, is among the most commonly illustrated of Etruscan Galatomachies (Fig. 80).89 The central attacking figure is strongly contorted as he prepares to deliver a slashing backhand blow. The twisting batde motif may be originally Greek, or Oriental, occurring several times for Orientals with axes in the lion hunt of the Alexander Sarcophagus, but a variant had appeared already on the fourthcentury-B.c. vase in Bonn, for a barbarian (Fig. 75), and the motif was especially favored in Etruria for a variety of figures. The figurai style on this urn, also said to be influenced by Eastern models, is simply the style of the master, or shop, for very similar figures appear on related pieces that show Etruscan legends. 90 A second Chiusine urn, from the Tomba della Pellegrina, combines two motifs of diverse origin. 91 A cuirassed but helmetless rider spears a crouching barbarian who holds an oval shield over his head as he thrusts his sword into the belly of the horse. The motif has been seen at Lecce, where it may have reflected a limited knowledge of the Gauls (certainly not the case in Etruria), and may be of south Italian origin. A second barbarian, recognizable as a Gaul because he wears only a belt, is stabbed in the chest, as he falls to the right, by a warrior who reaches over from behind. This rather brutal attack, grabbing the victim by the hair and plunging a sword into his throat, is employed in several contexts in Etruria, but it is originally Greek, appearing, for example, on the Alexander Sarcophagus. On an urn of Volterran manufacture a rider, seemingly oblivious to the threat of three other Gauls, spears a naked barbarian, who grabs at the spear and arches back in response to the blow in the manner of the Persian opponent on the Alexander Mosaic.92 Urns showing the defense of a sanctuary against Gallic plundering similarly recombine and adapt various battle motifs. On an urn from San Proto, near Perugia, a Gaul holds aloft a plundered vase at the center.93 To the left a male demon, resembling Charu(n), with curly hair and beard and wearing a pilos, grabs a kneeling Gaul from behind by the hair and plunges a sword into his throat. The motif is less three-dimensional here than on the urn in Chiusi noted above, but the concept is the same. To the right a female divinity twists to deliver a slashing backhand blow against another kneeling barbarian. The gesture is most appropriate for a sword, but the weapon is now lost, and she may have wielded a torch, for a flame appears just behind her head. Another urn in Volterra shows two Gauls in a sanctuary in positions that recall the Calene cups;94 one like the robust figure on the Anicius cup approaches a statue, a xoanon; a second flees with a thymiaterion like the elegant figure of the Gabinian cup. The two genres become conflated, as human defenders rout the Gauls from their plundering. An urn from Chiusi, now in Florence, shows an armed rider spearing a Gaul, who

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

2/5

sits, curiously relaxed, as he stabs into the belly of the horse. 95 A second Gaul, wearing only a belt, has fallen, already dead, across the back of the horse, while a third escapes to the right with a sacred vessel. The largest and most complex representation is the frieze from Civitalba (Fig. 81), presendy in Ancona, which seems intended for public display, perhaps on a temple. It seems also the latest, perhaps datable in the later second century B.C., but no certainty is possible.96 The Romans would have been settled in the area by this time, yet the frieze seems characteristic of Etruscan or Italic manufacture, and so is best discussed here. The figures stand 40-45 cm tall, and with thirteen human figures and two horses, the frieze must extend for at least 4 meters. As currently reconstructed the figures rush toward the center, toward a chieftain's chariot, which appears to be a Western type, with soft material hung from the corner poles. 97 Two female divinities attack from the flanks, one in a long garment, possibly Athena, one dressed in a short chiton and tall boots, probably Artemis. Several Gauls wear torques, several have belts, a few wear loose-fitting garments, and one has a coarsely textured, presumably furry tunic and a cloak; all have long hair, mature ones sport mustaches, and the man in fur has a goatee. Despite the violent subject, the style is classicizing. The muscularity is not overblown, and the facial expressions of the barbarians, while suggesting their plight, are not pathetic. Only the tips of the garments show any movement. The composition of the frieze is conceived differently from those of the other two categories. The Gauls are being driven, en masse, before the divinities, but most do not have direct contact with their attackers. They are not arranged in the usual battle groups, as on the urns, and do not gesture toward unseen opponents, in the manner of the figures on the Calene vases. Only two are wounded: one stumbles before Athena and reaches back, obviously struck from behind; one seemingly already dead is supported by a companion. The plunder is different: numerous phialai and a few vases, but no thymiateria and no tripods. There is no clear reference to sanctuary architecture, such as the altars on the Calene cups; the Gauls seem already to have been chased from the sacred space. A popular legend of divine intervention turning back the (attempted) Gallic sack of Delphi had grown soon after the event. The Western images of the Gauls plundering a sacred space are frequently considered to illustrate the Delphic legend, or even to reflect a lost monumental work at Delphi that depicted it.98 Differences in style and conception show that they cannot copy a single visual prototype, and the paucity of clear references to Apollo demonstrate that they cannot even reproduce the legend with fidelity.99 Yet the reputation of the sanctuary and the fame of that event do leave the Delphic sack as the most likely ultimate source of inspiration; the growth of tales of resistance in popular mythical history is suggested by the considerable variations in the written sources of the affair. 100 All three cate-

216

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

gories, and especially the Etruscan, reinterpret the legend, casting it in their own local style. Perhaps they were intended to make some local Gallic depredation (and the local resistance) seem all the greater, by showing it as a reflection of the more famous event at Delphi. Whatever the ultimate source, each of the three centers produced a striking variation on the theme that reflects the respective forms of production. The Galatomachies with human opponents on the Etruscan urns may be similarly local reflections of local events, which are made to seem greater as reflections of more famous conflicts, whether in the East or in the West. 101 Late Republican and early Imperial representations are among the most varied of all, for they show not only the usual image of the Gauls still fighting, but also their assimilation as subjects and citizens of the Roman state. Influence from Pergamon has been at times seen to stand behind the individual motifs, but the new subject matter has in several cases demanded a considerable reworking of the theme. The so-called Wounded Warrior from Delos, now in Athens, may be identified as a Gaul only by the horned helmet that rests on the plinth beside him; the characterization is otherwise quite classical, lacking even the most obvious features of the barbarian, the mustache and wild hair. The figure has been labeled a Pergamene original and linked to one of the Attalid dedications on the island, but its discovery in the Agora of the Italians makes a Roman connection more likely.102 A second figure from that agora, only the head remaining, is certainly a barbarian, although the thick hair and rather brutal expression are not typical for the depiction of the Gauls, and the intended ethnic cannot be determined. 103 Unfortunately neither can be linked to a specific dedication (the connection of the first with the socalled Marius Base is not possible), 104 but both should be dated between n o and 88 B.C, a time when the Romans were still active against at least some of their northern barbarian neighbors. The statues may come from a celebration of a victory over the Gauls or some other barbarian people that was intended to show the Romans in the role, established by the Pergamenes and other Hellenistic centers, as defenders of civilization. Caesar issued a denarius in 4 8 B.C. with his own name instead of the mint master's; it shows on the obverse a female personification, possibly Italia, and on the reverse a Gaul, defeated and bound beneath a trophy of Gallic weapons. 105 The coin commemorated the total victory in Gaul, rather than any single batde, and it appeared somewhat after the fact, for Caesar had to wait for the death of Pompey before installing his partisans at the mint of Rome. The barbarian wears breeches but is bare-chested and has long hair and a beard; the image is easily understood as a symbol of the subjugation of the Gallic nation, and it is also noteworthy as the first attested depiction of the defeated shown without a victor. The better-known denarius minted in 4 8 B.C. by L. Hostilius Saserna, who may have served with Caesar in Gaul,

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

2IJ

is somewhat more difficult to understand, for Gauls appear on both sides and are not obviously defeated. 106 On the obverse a Gallic chieftain, with a mustache and lime-stiffened hair, takes the place usually reserved for gods, personifications, or ancestors; and on the reverse a warrior in a biga gives no clue that he belongs to a subject people. Perhaps the images celebrate Gallic allies of Caesar (see below), yet the coin is peculiar. Triumphal arches of the southernmost part of Gaul often present the scene found on Caesar's coin, bound barbarians. As the area had been a Roman province long before Caesar's conquest, none of them is likely to stand on the actual site of a battle. Also, most seem to be of Augustan date, well after the events. The scene with prisoners symbolizes the subjugation of the still barbarian part of the Gallic nation without making specific reference to any one battle; it may have been chosen by the "civilized" Gauls of the province to demonstrate their loyalty to Rome. The arch at St. Rémy, the ancient Glanum, is of better quality and somewhat more varied than the rest, even in the generic scenes; it is also somewhat more complex, presenting images not otherwise seen on arches. 107 Sculpted panels flank the single fornix on both façades. Each panel of the eastern façade sets a Gallic man and woman beneath a trophy. The positions and garments are slighdy varied; both men have their hands held behind, seemingly bound, and one is fastened to the trophy by a chain around his neck. The arches are the earliest well-dated monuments that include women among the captives of the war. On the western façade iconographie variations are introduced; the bound men are joined once by a female figure in a long fringed cloak seated atop a pile of weapons, and once by a man, in a fringed cloak draped like a toga, not bound, certainly a victor. The female figure seems a personification of Gallia, but she is here not downcast, as would be suited to a newly conquered territory; rather she is likely the old province, the good Gallia, that participated in the victory over the new lands. The victor may also be a Gaul, one allied with Rome from the old province. 108 A similar distinction between the Romanized Gaul and the barbarian can be seen on the so-called Mausoleum of the Julii, which stands close beside the Glanum arch and is nearly contemporaneous. 109 The multitiered structure is of a type generally used as a funerary dedication, although no grave is evident and this example is particularly elaborate. The Julii were probably a family of Gauls who had served Caesar in some fashion and in return had been sponsored to citizenship by that general. They are presented as Roman citizens, togate, as they stand within a monopteros near the top, and are recognizable as Gauls only from the context. Unfortunately, the heads are missing, and so no comment may be ventured concerning their characterization. They must represent for us the probably very large class of works that show Gauls as citizens, who are unrecognizable as such, although most were not as wealthy as the Julii.

218

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

The Julii seem fully to have accepted not only a classical appearance for themselves, but also a classical iconography for their monument. On the large square socle are shown four mythological and historical conflicts, including a cavalry engagement against the Gauls. The battle is a wild affair as all the combatants move at an angle to the picture plane, implying a three-dimensional space; Hellenistic prototypes have been proposed. 110 But the rendering is unlike any seen thus far, for both sides are heavily armed and distinguished only by the decoration of their helmets: the Romans have crests; the Gauls, hornlike projections. Whatever the ultimate source for the battle motifs, the rendering may reflect a local reality, for the Gauls of the old province, as well as those just beyond the borders, had long adapted the classical armaments of their Greek and Roman neighbors. Of similar nature but very different in scale and form are the grave stelai of Gallic soldiers who served in the Roman army. From the time of Caesar, Gauls filled the ranks of the Roman cavalry, generally as auxiliaries; service was a way for natives of the provinces to gain full enfranchisement as citizens. The inscriptions record the names, ages, lengths of service, and troop names (alae)\ Gauls can be identified by their distinctively ethnic names or from the troop names, for these were often recruited in a single locality and remained unmixed. The images are generic, but specific details may be included. One example will serve for this class of monuments: Vonatorix, aged forty-five, served seventeen years in the alaLonginiana, a Gallic cavalry troop that took its name from its commander, Longinus, and seems to have been active near midcentury. 111 Vonatorix is shown in the proper armament of a Roman auxiliary—cuirass, spear, and broadsword hung at the right. (The auxiliaries seem to have maintained this fashion.) He wears no helmet, perhaps better to reveal the face, although the rendering can hardly be labeled a portrait; he has no ethnically identifying trait and would not be recognizable as a Gaul were it not for the inscription. Vonatorix rides with his spear raised against an unseen enemy, but other examples show the ethnic auxiliary confronting some unspecified barbarian type. Rather sympathetic images of the northern barbarians appear on two Augustan monuments, the Ara Pacis and a silver cup from Boscoreale, that show hostage children being surrendered to the emperor or already in Rome, presumably taken to be educated in a manner favorable to the Romans. Both respond directly to current events; the renderings seem unusual because the events are not military conquest or defense against attack, but relate to the consolidation of Roman rule in an already established province. Augustus spent three years in Gaul, 1 5 - 1 3 B.C., securing the borders and organizing the administration, including the establishment of the mint at Lugdunum. Drusus the Elder was engaged to continue the work in Gaul, to take a census and organize the new cult of Roma and Augustus, in preparation for expansion into Germany. The silver cup from Boscoreale shows three barbar-

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

219

ian chieftains delivering their children to Augustus, who sits on a field chair on a raised platform, flanked by soldiers and a lictor. The Gauls had long been part of the empire; the sympathetic images are thus likely accurate to the ethnic type. The three elders wear breeches, long tunics, and cloaks, and all are bearded; the children may wear tunics and breeches or appear naked. The cup probably dates to 8/7 B.C., to celebrate Drusus posthumously, who had continued the efforts of Augustus in Gaul. 112 On the Ara Pacis, two children are distinguished as foreign by their short tunics and torques. One maybe an Easterner, perhaps a Bosporan, who came to Rome with Agrippa, whose cloak he clutches; the other may be a Gaul who came with Augustus from his tour in the West.113 The torques designate the children simply as foreign, rather than specify an ethnic identity; torques were in fact not exclusive to the Gauls. The Romans confronted a number of northern peoples, whose appearance did not differ gready or consistendy; the conflation of traits perhaps should be expected. The nature of this monument, however, makes the rendering exceptional, and the torque, especially when combined with nudity, seems still valid as an ethnic signifier for the Gauls. 114 A relief now in Mantua (Fig. 82), probably of Augustan date, with carefully sculpted figures in a series of receding planes, presents the more typical rendering of a meeting with the Gauls, a batde and victory. 115 Well-armed Roman cavalry and infantry inflict a total rout on the lightly clad Gauls, including one with only the characteristic belt, and one nude but for a helmet. Although the figures are classically proportioned, recalling Greek models, the arrangement of the figures in a series of planes is typical of other Augustan relief carving, and the totality of the victory is more commonly a Roman conception. Augustus did not usually record his own military achievements so graphically on his monuments; the relief more likely presents an event from the Roman past. The relief was once connected to the Temple of Castor in the Forum, rebuilt in a.d. 6 by Tiberius, suggesting the batde as that against the northern Cimbri, at which the Dioscuri made an appearance, but recent studies of that temple no longer mention the relief, and other legendary battles, such as the victory of Camillus, could be postulated. 116 Representations of the second and third centuries a.c. include the most famous statues, the Ludovisi group (Fig. 69) and the Capitoline Gaul (Fig. 70), the figures generally linked to the Lesser Attalid Dedication (Figs. 1 1 , 71), and the Galatomachies on sarcophagi (Fig. 78). Although often large and very finely carved, these figures cannot be connected to any official monument and certainly did not respond to recent events; by this time batdes against the Gauls were affairs of the distant past. The number of such figures so long after the end of hostilities seems exceptional, but it may be explained, in part, by the vast statuary production of the times. It may also be explained, in part, by the special role the Gauls had played in Roman history. The Gauls were the only foreign people ever

22o

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

to capture and sack the city of Rome. Although their threat, the Gallic tumultus, had long passed, the tales of resistance had become part of legend, and the Gauls were perhaps better suited to symbolic displays, conveying the sense of the eventual total victory, than were images of the peoples still pressing at the borders. The statues are best viewed as parts of elaborate displays of an idealized past in which the Romans were always victorious, whether ranging back into the legendary achievements of such a figure as Camillus, or to more historical victories at Sentinum or Telamon, or even those of Caesar. The original setting of the statues is crucial for understanding their intended context and function. Unfortunately, most do not have a precise provenance, but can be traced only as far as a Renaissance or later collection. Yet the few for which a findspot is recorded or can be reasonably inferred show a clear pattern. They were discovered in or around the city of Rome and so should have a meaning suited to the capital. Many come from the sites of former luxury villas, whether on the hills overlooking the city, such as on the property of the Villa Ludovisi on the Quirinal, or from the even larger estates of the countryside, such as the so-called Villa of Nero at Antium or that of Hadrian at Tivoli. 117 Others come from the city proper, found in contexts that could suggest a display originally in a public bath. 118 The luxury of the settings communicated the power of the empire, which in turn justified the position of the leaders in such luxurious settings. The baths were especially useful to impress the common citizens with their lavish displays of polished marble and statuary decoration. Whether in villa garden or bath complex, the statues contributed to the presentation of power and the display of wealth. 119 The sarcophagi may be similarly viewed, although any reflection of the former glories would be for the individual entombed. Stylistically the statues are a diverse lot. Some differences are easily explained: the figures already dead or dying are shown in a classicizing manner or with a refined naturalism, while those still fighting are presented in a more baroque, even pathetic, style. Other features suggest that the works were likely inspired from a wide range of sources. Yet the several curious renderings and the conflation of traits from various ethnic groups especially in the smaller figures, as noted above, should suggest a filtering of the potential sources through early Imperial representation. A reduced-scale helper group of one barbarian supporting another, now in the Vatican and sometimes linked to the Pergamene dedications, closely resembles the group of the Mantua relief; although such compositions are common in ancient art, the similarities are too striking to be accidental. 120 The strong emphasis on the dead and dying, and the desperate plight of those still putting up their futile resistance, would also best reflect the Roman sentiment of total victory. When the sarcophagi are considered (e.g., Fig. 78), the Roman character of the depictions becomes clearer still. The scenes as a whole do not present a balance between the two sides, in the more

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

221

typically Greek manner, but the situation has progressed to the slaughter of the enemy. The plight of the barbarians is so hopeless that the centrally placed chieftain is driven to suicide. His position reflects that of Decebalus on Trajan's Column, falling back from the advance of the imminently victorious rider. 121 Although the suicides of several defeated Gallic leaders are recorded in the literary sources, they generally occur in a quiet place, away from the battle, and do not seem to have been presented visually. This brief survey of the Gauls best ends where it began, with the two most famous statues, the Ludovisi group (Fig. 69) and the Capitoline Gaul (Fig. 70), because their situation so effectively summarizes this final section on the later Roman representations. Both first appeared in the collection of the Ludovisi in 1623, when the family villa was being laid out on the Quirinal. Size, marble, and details of the carving style suggest the two were made in the same shop, and may have been intended for display together. 122 Both have the most stereotypical attribute of the Gauls, the large oval shield, yet the two are very different. The Ludovisi group is the more easily analyzed. The figures are best labeled baroque, as is appropriate to the dramatic situation, although the stylization of the face and especially the musculature of the chieftain are somewhat bland; he is massive, but the carving does not penetrate into the stone. The ethnicity is worn primarily on the surface; without the mustache and long hair (if he has a torque, it is hidden by the cloak) he would not be identifiable as a barbarian. The chieftain kills himself to avoid the horrors and shame of capture, and he thus presents a greatly elaborated variation on the suicide motif that appears first with Decebalus on Trajan's Column. 123 Although the dead woman has no specific artistic prototype (barbarian women in the time of Caesar or Augustus were presented as still-living captives), the best models for understanding her presence may again be Roman historical reliefs of the second century A. c., which graphically depict the terrors of war as experienced also by noncombatants. Although the group presents the theme in a manner more restrained than the historical reliefs, perhaps because it does not commemorate a specific event, its composition seems new to the time, and the statue is likely an original. The Capitoline Gaul, in contrast, seems timeless; the warrior dying but not yet dead has a long history in battle scenes, and the broken horn on the plinth adds a special poignancy, as a symbol of the now silenced valor. The stylization is quiet, appropriate to the imminent death. The figure shows a thorough characterization of the ethnic type; in addition to the requisite torque, mustache and limed hair, he has a lean, even sinewy, rendering of face and body, quite distinct from any classical norm. The representation is respectful, although not sympathetic, for by showing the enemy as formidable, the magnitude of the achievement becomes all the greater. The strong ethnic characterization is clearly a direct response to the Gallic presence,

222

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

but as such it cannot be localized. Inspiration for the stylization of the Capitoline figure could have come from anywhere in the Hellenistic or Roman world. (A very similar rendering was seen in the head now in Cairo, here Fig. 73.) The horn, however, which lends the Roman figure its special significance and which has so often led to the attribution to the Pergamene artist Epigonos, may point to a Western origin, or at least a Western modification of the statue. The horn is not the Gallic carnyx, which was held vertically from the mouth and terminated with a bell shaped as an animal head. 124 The curved form was not common in the Greek East, but was very widely used among the Etruscans and Romans. The differing characterization of the ethnic type remains a problem for understanding the statues as parts of a single display. It may perhaps be explained, in part, by the very different actions of the two barbarian warriors, but even more by the range of material available to the Imperial sculptors. To sum up the later representations: the characterization of the Gauls varies greatly, just as had been the case on the earlier representations. Highquality works on a large scale may include specific ethnic details, such as the mustache, the lime hair treatment, and the lean physique and facial rendering. Most, however, rely on the easily rendered, stereotyped traits of the large oval shield, long sword hung at the right (even though these features do not necessarily distinguish the Gauls from their Italian neighbors), and nudity but for torque and belt. The traits are not employed consistently; they are often merely sufficient to distinguish the figures as foreign. CONCLUSION The representation of the Gauls in antiquity is a complex affair. From the time they entered the Mediterranean world, whether in the East or in the West, their impression on the local society was strong, and they were soon depicted. The nature of their renderings differed from East to West, largely because of the very differing function of the images. In the Greek East they appeared often on large official monuments that celebrated specific victories. After their attempt on Delphi they were recognized as the new universal barbarian, and so a victory over them could be hailed as the defense of civilization, which was a useful political ploy since the Greeks of the Macedonian Successor states actually spent much time fighting other Greeks. Even a number of the Greek works at a smaller scale, albeit to a lesser degree, reflect the same sense. The Gauls appeared also as loyal mercenaries, especially in Egypt, which should emphasize this important role and modify the modern tendency to see them primarily as the enemy, but such works are generally small and private, marking the graves of those loyal soldiers. The Pergamene kings fully employed the developing iconography of the Gauls as the new barbarian enemy. It was not necessary to depict the Gauls

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

223

on every monument, and the Pergamenes did not show them as often as is commonly believed; the Philetairos base at Delos refers clearly to the action but showed only the victor. But a few large and lavish dedications certainly included representations of the Gauls, and added a special Pergamene twist to the symbolism. The base of the long Battle Monument at Pergamon shows that this monument was original in the ancient world, specifying the several individual batdes as parts of a larger whole, combining the parts into a grand display. The display at Athens extended the sequence of mythological and historical events that the Athenians had developed to celebrate their own victory against an earlier barbarian threat. Unfortunately there remains no trace of the original figures (save the two vague footprints at Pergamon), and not one of the commonly attributed figures seems secure. The many identified "copies" vary too gready in style and concept to have been inspired by the monuments of any single art center, and even the figures most likely inspired by Pergamon, the four in Naples (Fig. 11), show characteristics of the time of their manufacture in the second century a.c. Although the monuments were certainly once impressive, their commonly supposed influence cannot be demonstrated. In the West the Gauls appear on small private works, often funerary, and the character is correspondingly simple. Despite the simplicity, these works are greatly varied in style and in the selection of the battle motifs, reflecting the vibrancy and independence of the local art traditions. The Romans eventually become the most frequent representers of the Gauls, and for good reason. Rome was the only major Mediterranean city ever to be captured and sacked by the Gauls, but in the end the Romans were very successful against them, conquering and incorporating most of the Gallic nation into their empire. Given the ubiquity of the Gauls in the Mediterranean world and their various functions in society, friend and foe, the number and range of representations should not be surprising. NOTES 1. T h i s p a p e r was n o t r e a d at t h e L a n g f o r d C o n f e r e n c e in Tallahassee, b u t was a d d e d later to c o m p l e m e n t t h e p r i n c i p a l t o p i c o f t h e g a t h e r i n g , t h e discussion o f issues r e l a t e d to t h e G r e a t A l t a r o f P e r g a m o n a n d its i n f l u e n c e . I t h a n k Professors d e G r u m m o n d a n d R i d g w a y f o r t h e invitation to p u b l i s h m y study with t h e c o n f e r e n c e . T h e t e x t is drawn, with c o n s i d e r a b l e revision, f r o m m y B r y n M a w r C o l l e g e dissertation, " T h e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e G a u l s in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n I m p e r i a l P e riods" ( 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e study was initially u n d e r t a k e n to investigate q u e s t i o n s o f t h e c o p y i n g a n d i n f l u e n c e o f t h e P e r g a m e n e G a u l m o n u m e n t s , b u t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in t h e p u b l i s h e d a r g u m e n t s a n d p r o b l e m s setting t h e statues o n t h e bases actually discove r e d at P e r g a m o n l e d m e to t h e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e . 2. B r u n n 1 8 5 3 , 4 4 2 - 5 9 . R o m e , M u s e o N a z i o n a l e R o m a n o 8608 (Ludovisi g r o u p ) , C a p i t o l i n e M u s e u m 7 4 7 ( D y i n g G a u l ) : t h e two are i n c l u d e d in e v e r y t e x t o n H e l -

224

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

lenistic art or sculpture, e.g., Bienkowski 1908, 2-4, 6 - 1 2 , nos. 1, 3, figs. 1 - 4 , 6 - 1 1 ; Pollitt 1986,85-90, figs. 85-87; Ridgway 1990, 284-90, pis. 140,141; Moreno 1994, 285-87, figs. 349, 351. On the marble, see infra, pp. 202-203 and n. 54; on the discovery of the statues, infra, n. 122. 3. Brunn 1870, 292-323; the text had been read five years earlier at the feast of the Palilia, 21 April 1865. The statues: a set of four in Naples, no. 6013 (Giant), 6012 (Amazon), 6014 (Persian), 6015 (Gaul); three Gauls in Venice, no. 55 (youthful, falling), no. 56 (dead), no. 57 (bearded, falling); a Gaul in Paris, Louvre 324; and a Persian in the Vatican, inv. 2794: Palma 1981, 56-66, nos. 1 - 4 , 6 - 1 0 . O n the discovery of the statues, infra, n. 57. Although Pausanias does not specify which Attalos erected the dedication, and although the date of this monument is now controversial (time of Attalos I or Attalos II, infra, p. 196 and nn. 8, 22-25), Brunn set the figures, as he had the larger ones, in the time of the earlier Attalos, in the floruit of Pergamene art, in the latter half of the third century B.C. 4. Brunn 1880, 485-86; IvP 29. Attalos sponsored two dedications: the large Round Monument (IvP 20) and the long Batde Monument (IvP 21-28); a third was raised in his honor by the Pergamene general Epigenes and his comrades (IvP 29). Three fully preserved signatures were quickly made known, IvP 1 2 , 3 1 , and 32, which served as the model for restoring the partially preserved signatures of the Batde Monument (IvP22b, 21-28) and the Epigenes Monument (IvP29). Two additional fully preserved signatures, providing the patronymic (son of Charias) and ethnic (Pergamene) of Epígonos were discovered later, and the partially preserved IvP 307 should also be included in the list. For a discussion of the signatures, see Schober 1938, 131. 5. Brunn 1870, 299, noted that he never presented the full argument for the attribution; his 1853 text was too broadly conceived to provide such detail about any one part, and by 1870 the attribution had already been generally accepted. Furtwángler is often credited with recognizing the statues as copies (cf. Bienkowski 1908,1-2), but in 1853 Brunn clearly perceived the need to defend their originality, suggesting that it was in question even then. 6. Wenning 1978,1-36, discusses the attributed large Gauls; see 6 4 - 6 5 for a table. Palma 1981 discusses the attributed small Gauls (et al.); see 5 4 - 5 5 for a table. 7. Michaelis 1893, 1 1 9 - 3 4 , suggested (following Urlichs) that the cited statues should be barbarians; the Amazon of the Naples group had been described by Filippo Lippi in a letter of 1 5 1 4 and drawn by Heemskerck with another figure, a child, lying across the breast. Despite the often suggested reworking of the surface of the Amazon, the drapery pattern makes it clear that the child could not have been part of the composition and must have been a fortuitous assemblage of nonrelated fragments. Schober (1938, 141; 1 9 5 1 , 6 8 - 6 9 , figs- 3 1 . 3 2 ) suggested a barbarian woman in the Terme Museum, but Wenning (1978, 60) pointed out that she was not yet dead. On the Trumpeter, infra, nn. 26, 27, 122. 8. Lippold 1923, 1 1 1 - 1 3 ; a n t * recanting, 1950, 353, but without stating his reasons. 9. Schober 1936, 112-24, figs- 4> 5'< repeated 1951, 5 3 - 5 5 , figs. 20, 21. 10. Bienkowski 1908, 1928. 11. Concerning the pertinence of the statues to Pergamon, there are but few opposing voices: Ridgway 1984, 102-104; 1990, 284-96; Marszal 1998, 120-21.

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

225

12. The originality has been recently reasserted by Mattei 1991, 71, who seems (her statement is hesitant in the original Italian, but clear in the English translation) to view the statues as the originals of the Attalid monuments, curiously ignoring the context of Pliny's Book 34, dealing with bronze. 13. Künzl 1971, 1 8 - 2 1 , critiqued Schober, especially for citing the seventeenthcentury fountains of Bernini in the Piazza Navona, the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi and the Fontana del Moro, as models for the ancient monument; ibid. 24-30, pi. 21.1, proposed the Long Monument reconstruction. 14. On the Round Base: Coarelli 1978, 231-34, figs. 10-12, provided detailed arrangements of the figures, again about the centrally placed Ludovisi group; Andreae 1991a, 63-66, and Hannestad 1993, 22-24, would also set the figures here, but have not suggested specific compositions. O n the Battle Monument: Künzl 1 9 7 1 , 2 4 - 3 0 , pi. 21.1, sets Gauls only in the first sections, where they are named as opponents; Wenning 1978,47-48, would set Gauls in every section, even where they are not mentioned; Schalles 1985, 69-76, returns to Künzl's more sober suggestion. 15. Ozgan 1981, 498, joins together the bases of the Battle Monument and Epigenes Monument, acknowledging the doubled signatures, but not mentioning the differing dedications (to Athena alone or to Zeus and Athena) and different dedicators (Attalos or Epigenes and his comrades). Stewart 1990, 206, discusses the figures but does not set them on any of the known bases; in conversation he noted that he could not fit the figures on the bases and suggested that they might have been located elsewhere at Pergamon, such as in the yet to be discovered Nikephorion. 16. Sympathy as ancient intent: Momigliano 1975, 62-63. Sympathy as modern reading: Hölscher 1985,128-30, speaks of an abstracted but still unsympathetic presentation; Schalles 1985, 80-87, emphasizes the inappropriateness of the concept of "tragic history writing" applied to this or any barbarian people; La Rocca 1994, 24-25, addresses the development of the modern sensibility. 17. Hölscher 1985, 123-28. 18. Plutarch describes the fall of a statue of Dionysos from the Gigantomachy into the theater, as well as other portents, as a sign that Antony is about to meet his doom at Actium; cf. Dio Cassius 50.15, who refers to the suspiciously similar fall of statues of Antony and Kleopatra from the Akropolis into the theater; all such foreboding references in ancient literature should be considered suspect. 19. If the twelve major gods and Herakles were included and faced an equal number of Giants, plus a few fallen figures, the Gigantomachy would require thirty figures; if the four battles were similarly presented, as seems reasonable, 120 figures would be a minimum number. Andreae 1993, 97-98, pis. 16.1, 16.2, lined up cutouts of the attributed statues along the south wall of the Akropolis, although it cannot be known if the figures would have been visible from below. (I thank Judith Binder for reminding me that the height of the south wall is an unknown factor.) Korres 1994, 10, very briefly mentions the blocks, and will provide a full treatment of them as an appendix to Stewart, forthcoming. (I have not seen the blocks and thank Prof. Stewart for bringing them to my attention.) 20. E.g., Stewart 1990, 210, asserts the early date and association with Attalos I, but keeps a second set at Pergamon to explain the classicistic style of the smaller figures; cf. infra, nn. 23-24.

226

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

21. Hoepfner 1996a, 1 2 5 - 3 1 , fig. 14. 22. Schober 1938/39, and 1951, 121-34; Schalles 1985, 136 n. 785; Hölscher 1985, 123; Andreae 1993, 98; Palma 1981, 5 0 - 5 1 ; Moreno 1994, 586-93. 33. Krahmer 1923-24 is most commonly cited as the source of the Stilphasen, but such concepts were clearly established earlier; already Bienkowski 1908, 86-120, seems to have a clear understanding of the various styles by century. But the traditional, at times consciously retrospective nature of Hellenistic art would permit such styles at any time. Cf. Ridgway 1990, 5 - 6 , for sensible comments on the chronology problem. Lippold 1950, 353, for his final assessment. 24. E.g., Pollitt 1986, 91; Stewart 1990, 210; Smith 1991a, 103-104; Gruen, in this volume. 25. Andreae 1993, 98, denies that the battle was that of Attalos I, arguing the term "destruction," 6opa, would be inappropriate, as the Gauls were not totally destroyed. But 6opcL need refer only to the invading army, not the entire population (with that interpretation it would be equally inappropriate for the victory of Attalos II), and Andreae fails to mention the location in Mysia. (Attalos II must have carried the battle forward into Galatia.) Also, a defensive victory against an invading and arrogant (hybristic) foe fits better into the sequence with the other battles. 26. Künzl 1971, 6 - 7 , 33-39; Wenning 1978, 1 - 5 . 27. Schober 1938, 137; 1951, 67-68. 28. Launey (1944) and Mitchell (1993, 16) date the attack on Kyzikos exactly to the year of the Gallic crossing to Asia, 278/7, but the cited evidence does not allow for such precision, and a date more generally in the 270s seems justified. 29. Two examples are known: Paris, Louvre Myr 284 (131), and Athens, National Museum, Misthos Collection 5017. See Besques 1963, 125, pi. i s o d ; Bienkowski 1928, 1 4 1 - 4 2 , nos. 1-2, figs. 2 1 2 - 1 3 . Lucian, Zeuxis 9 - 1 1 , gives a fantastic account, in which Antiochos is uncertain how to employ the elephants in battle. The date of the battle is controversial, and its long-term effect seemingly negligible; cf. Mitchell 1993. 18-19. 30. Cairo, Egyptian Museum C.G. 27475 (^i® head, once thought to have been discovered at Gizah, is commonly called the "Gizah Gaul"): Bienkowski 1908, 35-36, fig. 49; Laubscher 1987, pi. 20. 31. Bienkowski 1908, 35-36. 32. Laubscher 1987, 138-42, for the early third-century date; nn. 56-59, for a list of scholars suggesting a later date; 144-46, figs. 1 and 2, for the reconstruction. Kallimachos, Hymn toDelos 185-87; the event is also mentioned by Pausanias 1.7.2. 33. The Gauls appear in their usual place, beside the phalanx at the second battle of Raphia, 217 B.C., Polybios 5.82; four of the Gauls sent to Abydos took some time off to go hunting and recorded their catch of a fox, or more likely a jackal, in good Greek, on an ancient monument, OG/S757; Momigliano 1975, 5334. Brown 1957 remains the essential corpus. Three from the Soldiers' Tomb, which contains four burial vases dated by the name of the interring official between 250 and 239, are presently located at St. Germain-en-Laye; three from a tomb discovered in 1884 are now in New York, Metropolitan Museum; and one from the Meks district, west of the city, is now in the Louvre. 35. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 9862: Laubscher 1987,149,pi. 21.^Bienkowski 1928, 135, fig. 202.

UBIQUITOUS BARBARIANS

227

36. Münster, Archäologisches Museum des Wilhelms-Universitäts 3 8 7 : Laubscher 1 9 8 7 , 1 4 9 - 5 0 , pl. 2 i . 2 . L o n d o n , British Museum, G R . 1 9 9 4 . 1 0 - 1 . 2 : Bailey 1 9 9 5 , fig. 1. 3 7 . Both stelai now in Bologna, Museo Civico, n u m b e r e d after Ducati 1 9 1 0 , w h o remains the essential catalogue f o r the over two h u n d r e d stelai f r o m the site, 3 8 4 - 8 6 , no. 4 2 , fig. 79 (the figure with the outsized shield); 4 3 9 - 4 1 , no. i 6 8 , p l . 4 (the confrontation, which occupies only a register below the principal scene of a deceased being led by a winged d e m o n to the netherworld). This second stele is now commonly illustrated as the earliest Western Celtomachy: e.g., S p r e n g e r and Bartolom 1 9 8 3 , 1 3 7 , pl. 206; A n d r e a e 1 9 9 1 a , 60. 3 8 . Bienkowski 1 9 0 8 , 1 3 5 , with references to earlier publications. 39. Similar shields are held by R o m a n soldiers o n the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus. Sassatelli 1 9 8 3 suggests the f u n e r a r y games. 40. B o n n , Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1 5 6 9 : Beazley 1 9 4 7 , 9 6 - 9 8 , pis. 2 0 . 3 , 2 4 . 1 , 24.2, illustrates six of the seven figures (Beazley mentions only the six figures and may have known the vase solely f r o m pictures); A n d r e a e 1 9 9 1 a , 6 1 - 6 2 . T h e scenes may be described further: f r o m the left a mature, b e a r d e d foot soldier, standing on a higher (visually superior) groundline, attacks a warrior carrying a seemingly oval shield and wearing in Gallic fashion only a belt, f r o m which a long scabbard hangs at the right-hand side. This figure, stepping also toward the right, turns to confront his assailant; in response to the attack f r o m behind, he appears in a spirally twisted position, very much favored in Etruscan art, with the right arm drawn across the body and set to deliver a slashing backhand blow. His hair is shown with thin and spiky tufts. At the center a rider gallops over a fallen and already dead barbarian. A carrion bird, so popular in Etruscan art, tears at the a b d o m e n of the naked corpse, which is again characterized by thin and spiky hair. T h e three figures to the right were probably the horseman's opponent, wearing a cloak not marked with the black border, and another fighting pair. A figure with an outsized shield on a fourth-century Etruscan red-figure krater, (Leipzig, Universität Antikenmuseum T 9 5 2 ) was tentatively identified as a Gaul by Beazley 1 9 4 7 , 4 9 - 5 0 , 9 8 - 9 9 , pl. 6.5; but again large shields are not sufficient to specify the ethnic in Italy, cf. Szabo 1 9 9 5 , 1 5 9 , fig. 79. 4 1 . Oliver 1 9 6 8 , 3 - 1 6 , pis. 1 , 2, discusses an Apulian tomb that held a well-known Celtic helmet, now in Berlin, as well as Gallic horse bits and spear points. Whether the Gaul was in the south as a captain of the guard or the pieces were brought by a local resident returning f r o m the conflicts farther north, the Gauls were in some fashion known. Paris, Louvre D 4 1 3 3 , Collection Campana 5 5 2 0 : Bienkowski 1 9 2 8 , 8 3 - 8 4 , no. 5, figs. 1 3 5 a , b; Oliver 1 9 6 8 , 1 7 , no. 1 ; Besques 1 9 8 6 , 1 4 7 , pl. 1 6 0 . 4 2 . Bienkowski 1 9 2 8 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 , fig. 1 7 5 ; Kähler 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 - 2 0 , pl. 2 3 . T h e date of the relief is controversial, early or late in the third century, but generally b e f o r e the Etruscan urns that show the same battle motif. 4 3 . Bienkowski 1 9 0 8 , 7 9 - 8 5 ; D o h r n 1 9 6 1 cites the position of the fallen Persian in the Vatican; Queyrel 1 9 8 9 , the position of the so-called Persian at Aix. (On the nationality of this figure, infra, p. 204.) 44. Verzar and Massa-Pairault 1 9 7 8 , 200, cite the rider over a fallen warrior as repeating a motif that must have b e e n current also at Pergamon, and Massa-Pairault ( 1 9 8 5 , passim) refers to the style of the Great Altar. H ö c k m a n n 1 9 9 1 , 200, notes the topicality of the Galatomachy in the area of Chiusi, but begins f r o m the assumption

228

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

of a Pergamene influence on the Etruscan renderings. See Steingrâber, in this volume, for a good summary of the issue. 45. O n the various hypotheses and current reconstruction of the space, infra, nn. 64, 65. 46. Other production at Pergamon included gods, portraits of kings, athletes, and philosophers; cf. Marszal 1998 for a more reserved sense of early Pergamon. 47. The torso in Dresden is often called a copy, or even the original (Ozgan), of the Capitoline type, but the arm is raised, and, again, if the two statues are derived from the same original, they demonstrate the ease of variation, and thus creation of new types: Bienkowski 1908, 4 - 6 , no. 2, fig. 5; Ozgan 1981, 4 9 1 - 9 7 . 48. Wenning 1978, 37, and Stewart 1990, 205, are particularly succinct. Hannestad 1993, 15-25, gives a fuller account but maintains a focus on the East. 49. Manlius attacked ostensibly to punish the Gauls for siding with Antiochos III at the batde of Magnesia in 190, but more likely to win glory, so necessary in Roman Republican politics, and to refer to past achievements of his own family members against the Gauls, especially of T. Manlius Torquatus. Schalles 1985, 96, n. 590, curiously cites the destruction of the Gauls by Manlius as evidence that the Ludovisi Gaul group should be placed on the monuments of Attalos. 50. Schober 1936, 1 1 1 - 1 7 , notes that the statues are too large to be placed on the long base with the other figures demanded by the attachment traces: cf. infra, n. 73. Kûnzl 1971, 1 9 - 2 1 , argues against placement on the large Round Monument, and to his argument should be added the note that even the seventeenth-century fountains of Bernini, cited by Schober, show figures either at eye level or on a colossal scale. 51. Stewart 1990, 205-207, discusses the statues as Pergamene, but does not place them on either base; Pollitt ig86, 89-90, and Smith 1991a, 100-102, discuss the reconstruction hypotheses but avoid explicitly endorsing either. 52. Nibby 1821, 53. 53. Bienkowski 1908, 2-3, mentions several of the hypothetical identifications current in his day, including Thasian and Koressian. 54. Mattei (1987, 149-50) reported that samples had been taken for analysis, and (1991, 71) that the material was Anatolian, although she did not provide the details of the analysis. I thank Amanda Claridge, who pointed out to me the characteristics of Dokimeion-type marble evident in the stone of the Capitoline Gaul, during a discussion in the Capitoline Museum. 55. Bienkowski 1908, 2-3, makes the observation, which has never yet been contradicted. 56. The nine: supra, n. 3. The so-called Persian in Aix-en-Provence, Musée Granet, inv. 246: Palma 1981, 77, no. 23; Queyrel 1993, figs. 1-10. 57. Palma 1984,774-75, cites a letter of Filippo Strozzi, September 1514, describing the five statues that had been built into a wall of a monastery; these five seem to have been found together, in the northern Campus region, and are perhaps from the Baths of Nero. Although the other five were also found in Rome, they come from different parts of the city: the three Gauls in Venice most likely come from the grounds of the Villa Grimani (Grimani specified when pieces came from elsewhere); the figure in Aix has a provenance on the Palatine; and the Persian in the Vatican came from the Collection Giustiniani, but there is no evidence of its original findspot: Palma 1984,773-75. 58. Two strands of the hair are drawn up and tied into a topknot; the style ap-

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

229

pears by the mid- to late fourth century on divine figures, especially Artemis and Apollo, the Muses, Dionysos, and Aphrodite. No other Hellenistic Amazons show the topknot; even on the long Amazonomachy of the Temple of Artemis at Magnesia the coiffure does not appear. 59. Holscher 1985, 123-24, noted the problem, concluding that only the defeated were presented. 60. The Gauls crossed into Asia in 278/7 B.C., but the date of their setdement in the highlands of Phrygia, thereafter called Galatia, is a contentious issue; whether it occurred immediately, after the Elephant Batde (supra, n. 29), or after the victory of Attalos at the Kaikos, the Gauls were in the area and the Pergamenes had often to contend with them. Cf. Allen 1983, 28-36, 138; Mitchell 1993, 19-20. 61. Marcade 1957, 81, illustrates the attachment traces on the upper surface. 62. Schober 1951, 69, suggested a fallen warrior before the rider, but the only attachment traces are for the feet of the horse. 63. The base is sufficiendy large to hold two equestrian statues, possibly Attalos together with Philetairos, or his intended heir, or the victorious general. Schalles 1985, 6 1 - 6 4 , reconstructs a battle group, citing the Epigenes Monument at Pergamon as a parallel, but the dimensions of that monument are not known, and his reconstructed version must be rotated by 90 degrees in order to match. Moreno 1994, 302-305, fig. 386, suggests the marble Wounded Warrior from Delos (infra, n. 102) as a Pergamene original for this base, but the findspot makes the connection unlikely, and this dedication, like all other Attalid ones on the island, is probably best envisioned with bronze figures. 64. Roux 1952, 184, for a brief reference to the painting, and 1987, 6 3 - 6 7 , for a detailed account of the evidence for panel paintings; Schalles 1985, 108 n. 651, with a summary of the issue. 65. Roux 1987, 1 1 5 - 2 4 , for the statuary base and a reconstruction, including the Capitoline and Ludovisi statues; Verzar and Massa-Pairault, 1978, 1 9 7 - 9 9 , f ° r the prototype of the terracotta frieze from Civitalba; Schalles 1 9 8 5 , 1 1 7 - 2 2, proposes dividing the single massive base into two; Hannestad 1993, again incorporating the Ludovisi statue. Jacquemin and Laroche 1992 have shown that the "monumental base" is more likely an altar and that the inscribed blocks formerly associated with the base should be built into the architecture. 66. YFantidis 1993 acknowledges the difficulties with the Nikephorion, but hints at locating two heads, now in the Schloss Fasanerie near Fulda, in that sanctuary; Stewart 1990 (supra, n. 15). 67. First suggested by Ussing 1899, 12; more recendy also Kunzl 1971, 22;Wenning 1978, 38; Schalles 1985, 53. The hypothesis has been rejected by those preferring to see the Gaul statues on the round base, most recently and elegantly by Hannestad 1993, 23, but, as noted, such a reconstruction is not credible. 68. The dimension is calculated by measuring from the axis of the inscription to the edge of the block, adding the average thickness, and doubling the total; the process yields a base ca. 2 . 1 0 m long, ca. 20 cm shorter than the sections of the Battle Monument. Wenning 1978, 38, pi. 9.1, sees Attalos crowned by Nike on the basis of a Pompeian painting, Naples 8843. 69. Allen 1983, 28-39, 195-99, o n history and assumption of the royal tide. 70. Inscribed blocks: IvP21-28, which also mentions (p. 24) the uninscribed block

230

U B I Q U I T O U S BARBARIANS

with a division stripe; three other uninscribed orthostats, pertinent either here or to the Epigenes base, are in the architectural magazine of the Pergamonmuseum. Capping blocks: Schober 1938, 133, figs. 4, 5. The division stripes were originally published (IvPz 1-28) as 2.6 cm on orthostats and 3.2 cm on capping blocks, but all measure ca. 2.9 cm. I thank Prof. Dr. W.-D. Heilmeyer, Director of the Pergamon Museum, and Dr. V. Kastner, and S. Brehme for access to and assistance in the architectural and epigraphic magazines. Wenning 1978, 39 n. 256, rejects the capping blocks, because the division stripe was reported to be different; Schalles 1985, 78 n. 484, attempts to ignore the blocks, mentioning only in a note to the Dresden torso that, should they be pertinent, they would indicate that the original statues were of bronze. 71. IvP 21: BaoihtvS "ArraXoi rcbv Kara mXejxov ayoivuw xaPLGTVPLa ASRJVAJL ("King Attalos [gives] thanks-offerings to Athena from the contest throughout the war"). The remaining blocks are usually ordered as follows. IvP 24: A-n-O RRJS nepl irqyfdz] KCUKOV •norafiov I irpos TJoXiaJroayiovs /aAarar p-ax^i ("From the battle at the sources of the Kaikos against the Tolistoagian Gauls"). IvP 23: Am rrjz -rrapa TO]'ApoSCmov irpoi ToAioroayiovz I Kal TzKroody/aAaras' Kal'Avrloxov paxyf ("From the battle at the Aphrodision against the Tolistoagian and Tektosagan Gauls and Antiochos"). IvP 22a: Am T-RJZ i/x !39)54. Esposito 1985, 138-39, figs. 163-72. Cf. supra, n. 9. 55. Romualdi 1992, esp. 279, pi. 9. The direct quotations on that page read: "espressione patetica e carica di drammaticità" and "tendenze dinamico-patetiche di ascendenza microasiatica." 56. See Brown, Richardson, and Richardson i960, and Scott 1992. 57. Freytag 1986, 223-35. 58. Zuffa 1956; Verzar and Massa-Pairault 1978; Andrén 1940, 297-308, pis. 98-101. 59. Moreno 1994, 496 and fig. 626. 60. Moreno 1994, 495-99, figs. 621, 623, 625. Höckmann 1991, 2 1 2 - 1 6 . See also Sprenger and Bartolom 1983, 159, pis. 280-83, where a date shortly after the middle of the second century is suggested. 61. See Mansuelli 1950, 4 9 - 5 1 , 9 1 - 9 7 . 62. See, e.g., Coarelli 1970, esp. 86-87. 63. Strazzulla 1992, 172-83, pis. 1 - 7 . See also Massa-Pairault 1985, 146-47. 64. Andrén 1940, 2 0 9 - 1 1 , pi. 78.266, and 269-70. 65. Buranelli 1992, 1 5 1 - 5 2 , pis. 4 - 1 9 (esp. 15, 16). 66. Helbig 4 ,1 (1963) 593-94, no. 807 (T. Dohm); Sprenger and Bartolom 1983, ! 5 7 pl- 27367. The main study is Hus 1961, esp. 36-53, 135-234 for Vulci. 68. Giglioli 1935, 67 pl. 363.2; Helbig 4 , 2 (1966) 617 no. 1850 (T. Dohrn). 69. Moltesen and Nielsen 1996, 40-41, no. 5, with illustrations. 70. Moltesen and Nielsen 1996 (supra, n. 69), with references. 71. Santoro 1978, 256-58, nos. 597-600 with figures (F. Coarelli). 72. Von Gerkan and Messerschmidt 1942, fig. 10; Steingräber 1993, 177, pis. 10, 11. 73. Dohrn 1961. 74. Torelli 1976. 75. See, e.g., Bianchi Bandinelli and Giuliano 1973, 308-309, figs. 357, 358. 76. Laviosa 1964, 16; the Italian quotation reads: "Si ritrovano nei rilievi delle urne etrusche i gruppi drammatici e la tensione dinamica del primo periodo pergameno, le grandi figure ad Eili distese del fregio dell'altare di Pergamo, i ritmi tortili, i panneggi chiaroscurali delle sculture rodie, il verticalismo e la disposizione paratattica del fregio di Lagina."

254

PERGAMENE INFLUENCES

77. The importance of painted models is also emphasized by Bianchi Bandinelli and Giuliano 1973, 307-308. 78. Moreno 1994, 5 7 0 - 7 1 , figs. 6go, 6 g i on p. 562; Ulisse 1996, 180, entry 3.14 (G. Camporeale), and cf. p. 371, entry 5.20 (Ninfeo Bergantino; C. Parisi Presicce). 79. Dohrn 1961, 1 - 4 , pi. 1.1. 80. Dohrn 1961, 6. 81. Bienkowski 1908, 79-85. 82. Dohrn 1961, 8, pis. 1.2, 2.1. 83. Hanfmann 1945, 5 0 - 5 1 , pi. 10. Freytag 1986, 238-41, prefers a later date, around 80 b.c. 84. For discussion of this monument, see, most recendy, Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1996, 1997. 85. See, e.g., Ulisse 1996, 181-82; Hanfmann 1945, 53-54, fig- 1. 86. Schober 1933; Osada 1993, 64-90; Webb 1996, 108-15. F ° r influence on Etruscan urns, see, e.g., Laviosa 1964, 16; Hanfmann 1945, 54-56, figs. 7, 8. 87. Hanfmann 1945, 56. 88. Dohrn 1961, 6 - 7 ; Moreno 1994, 372, 569. 89. The importance of Rome as mediator is emphasized by many scholars: e.g., Bianchi Bandinelli and Giuliano 1973, 308. 90. Bertoldi 1967. 91. Cristofani 1970, 243-44; a n t ^ !973' 62. 92. Torelli 1976, 113. 93. Oleson 1982, 102, 106, 108-112. 94. Oleson 1982, 108. 95. Oleson 1982, 1 1 1 - 1 2 . 96. Oleson 1982, 97-106. 97. See my review of Oleson's book, Gnomon 55 (1983), 725-32. 98. Oleson 1982, 30-39, 71-88. 99. On the origin and distribution of this "Macedonian" tomb type, see, e.g., Steingraber 1991, 10, 14; and Mazzei 1995, 1 7 1 - 7 3 . 100. Oleson 1982, 63-66, 88-96; Steingraber 1996, 94. W. Hoepfner, in a very original article, has tried to prove an opposite influence, from Etruria to Pergamon ("Hermogenes und Epigonos,"/ 3 2 - 33> e s P- n - 57 a n d fig- l o a ; a n d C. Kunze 1996, 191. 70. Tuchelt 1967, 186. 71. Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 10. 72. Andreae and Conticello 1987a, 18. 73. Weis, supra, p. 112 and n. 10. 74. Weis, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 , supra-, Himmelmann 1995, 24-25. 75. Hampe 1972, 35. 76. Weis, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 4 supra; Himmelmann 1995, 24; Andreae 1996, 352. Conticello 1974, 39-40, argued that the left hand clutched a sheath with the sword in it, but the position of the fingers, in which the index and middle fingers are extended and the thumb and other two fingers are curled up, could scarcely support a sheath with a sword in it. 77. Hampe 1972, 36 and pis. 24, 25. 78. Galinsky 1969, 6, with bibliography; Zanker 1988, 36. 79. Hampe 1972, 35 and 39, noted that the wrapping of the arm was a ritual act, but argued that this figure was then Diomedes. For images of the wrapping of the arm, see Boardman and Vafopoulou-Richardson 1986, 402-403, nos. 42, 43, 49, 50, etc. 80. See esp. Apollonios Rhodios, Argonautika 4.655-981. They had other ad-

GAULS, GIANTS, SKYLLA, AND THE PALLADION

277

ventures along the "Tyrrhenian" coast, including passing Skylla and Charybdis. (But since Skylla is so closely connected with Odysseus at Sperlonga, it is not likely that the Argonauts had a separate episode with her.) 81. M. Thompson 1960-1961,46. The Theban room featured Dirce and the Bull, Hercules Strangling Serpents, and the Death of Pentheus, while the Cretan room had Daedalus and Pasiphae, and Bacchus and Ariadne (no longer on Crete, it is true). 82. Barberini Mosaic: Vos 1980, esp. 78, 87. House of Livia: Ling 1991, 37, 142-43. Vos 1980 is the best guide to the many Egyptianizing decorations during this period. 83. Lehmann 1941, 41; M. Thompson 1960-1961, 62. 84. M. Thompson 1960-1961, 69. 85. Bartman 1991. 86. Bartman 1991. 87. Helbig 4 , 1 (1963), 338-39; EHCA 2, 806-807, s v- " N i l e a n d Tiber." For the Nile and Tiber at Tivoli, see further the text below. 88. Boatwright 1987, 140: "By the first century B.C. at the latest, owners had been giving the peristyles, oeci and watercourses in their villas exotic and pretentious names." She does not discuss the possibility that there may have been a genuine effort to recreate the setting of faraway localities. I thank Kimberley Christensen for pointing out this reference. 89. Cited in Boatwright 1987, 139-40, with translation: "He built up the Tiber villa wonderfully, in such a way that he could apply to it the names of provinces and places most renowned and could call (parts of it), for example, the Lycaeum, the Prytany, the Canopus, the Poecile, Tempe. And so that he might omit nothing, he even fashioned a Hades." 90. MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 85-88. 91. MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 7 and 1 4 1 - 4 5 for the sculpture found in this area. See also C. Vermeule 1977, 70-72. 92. It is surprising that Neudecker 1988 does not recognize this category in his classification of sculptural decoration in Italian villas. His categories are: Gods; Myths; Dionysos and Sea Revels; Human and Animal Representations; Athletes; Famous Men and Muses; Roman Portraits; and Art Works. Among the subjects that might fall under a category of locality are Skylla, Polyphemos, Karyatids, river gods, Tyche, Ariadne, Sarapis, and other Egyptian themes. It would be worthwhile to study various categories to see whether they were chosen by villa owners because of what they would suggest about the place where they were situated: Athletes for the Gymnasium, Philosophers for the Academy or Lyceum, Muses for a grove or Mt. Helicon, etc. Perhaps even copies of famous sculptures were meant to allude to localities (as did the Karyatids); the Aphrodite of Praxiteles alludes to Knidos, for example. The topic is vast, and cannot be treated properly here. MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 142, recognize a category of "historical and territorial references" (from which, however, they exclude Skylla, Isis, and Ptah).

APPENDIX: LITERARY SOURCES FOR SPERLONGA

SUETONIUS, TIBERIUS 39

Sed orbatus utroque filio, quorum Germanicus in Syria, Drusus Romae obierat, secessum Campaniae petit; constanti et opinione et sermone paene omnium quasi neque rediturus umquam et cito mortem etiam obiturus. Quod paulo minus utrumque evenit; nam neque Roraam amplius rediit et paucos post dies iuxta Tarracinam in praetorio, cui Speluncae nomen est, incenante eo complura et ingentia saxa fortuito superne dilapsa sunt, multisque convivarum et ministrorum elisis praeter spem evasit. But having suffered the loss of both his sons, of whom Germanicus died in Syria and Drusus in Rome, [Tiberius] sought the seclusion of Campania; whereupon almost everyone consistently thought and said that he would never come back, and even that he would soon die there. Which, shordy after, almost happened; for he did not return again to Rome for any length of time, and a few days later, while he was dining near Tarracina in a garrisoned villa called Spelunca, many huge rocks happened to break loose from above. Many of his fellow diners and attendants perished, and the emperor himself had a narrow escape. TACITUS, ANNALS 4.59

Ac forte illis diebus oblatum Caesari anceps periculum auxit vana rumoris praebuitque ipsi materiem, cur amicitiae constantiaeque Seiani magis fideret. Vescebantur in villa, cui vocabulum Speluncae, mare Amunclanum inter et Fundanos montes, nativo in specu. Eius os lapsis repente saxis obruit quosdam ministros; hinc metus in omnis et fuga eorum, qui convivium celebrabant. Seianus genu vultuque et manibus super Caesarem suspensus oppo279

28o

LITERARY SOURCES

suit sese incidentibus, atque habitu tali repertus est a militibus, qui subsidio venerant. Maior ex eo, et quamquam exitiosa suaderet, ut non sui anxius, cum fide audiebatur. And in those days it happened that a critical danger posed to [Tiberius] Caesar added force to the empty rumors and provided grounds for him to believe even more in the friendship and constancy of Sejanus. They were dining at a villa named Spelunca, located between the Bay of Amyclae and the Fundi Mountains, in a natural cavern. A sudden collapse of rocks at the mouth of the cave buried some of [Caesar's] servants; from there fear spread to everyone and put to flight those who were attending the banquet. Sejanus, suspending himself over Caesar with his knee and head and hands, made a barrier to the falling stones, and he was found in this position by the soldiers who had come to aid. On account of this he became more powerful, and although he gave pernicious advice, he was listened to with confidence as someone who was not self-serving.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agostinetti, P. P. 1989-90. "Torques d'oro e monete come offerte votive dei celti cisalpini." Scienze dell'Antichità 3 - 4 , 437-64. Ahl, F., and H. Roisman. 1996. The Odyssey Reformed. Ithaca. Alföldi, A. 1957. Die trojanischen Urahnen der Römer. Basel. Allan, D. 1987-95. Catalogue of Celtic Coins in the British Museum. Ed. J. Kent and M. Mays. London. Allen, R. E. 1983. The Attalid Kingdom: A Constitutional History. Oxford. Alscher, L. 1957. Griechische Plastik. Volume 4. Berlin. Alvino, G. 1996. "Il IX libro dell' Odissea: L'offerta della coppa di vino. Il gruppo fittile di Colle Cesarano e il gruppo scultoreo di Efeso." In Ulisse 1996, 200-209. Amberger-Lahrmann, M. 1996. Anatomie und Physiognomie in der hellenistischen Plastik. Dargestellt am Pergamonaltar. Stuttgart. Anderson, J. C. 1987. "The Date of the Arch at Orange." Bfb 187, 1 5 9 - 9 2 . Andreae, B. 1956. Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den römischen Schlachtsarkophagen. Berlin. (Reprint: Rome, 1973.) . 1967. Review of Säflund 1966. Gnomon 3g, 82-88. . 1968-69. "Imitazione e originalità nei sarcofagi romani." RendPontAcc 41, 145-66. . 1969. Review of Säflund 1967a and 1967b. Gnomon 41, 8 1 1 - 1 5 . . 1974. "Die römischen Repliken der mythologischen Skulpturengruppen von Sperlonga." In Conticello and Andreae 1974, 6 1 - 1 0 5 . . 1976. "Schmuck eines Wasserbeckens in Sperlonga: Zum Typus des sitzenden Knäbleins aus dem Schiffsfund von Mahdia." RM83, 287-309. . 1982. Odysseus: Archciologie des europäischen Menschenbildes. Frankfurt. . 1988. Laokoon und die Gründung Roms. Mainz. . 1990a. "Der Asklepios des Phyromachos." In Andreae 1990b, 45-100. . 1990b. Phyromachosprobleme. (ÄM-EH 25.) Berlin. . 1991a. "The Image of the Celts in Etruscan, Greek and Roman Art." In Moscati et al. 1991, 6 1 - 6 9 . 281

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. 1991 b. Laokoon und die Kunst von Pergamon: Die Hybris der Giganten. Frankfurt am Main. . 1993. "Laurea coronatur: Der Lorbeerkranz des Asklepios und die Attaliden von Pergamon." RM 100, 83-106. . 1994. Praetorium Speluncae: Tiberius und Ovid in Sperlonga. (AbhMainz.) Mainz. . 1996. "L'immagine di Ulisse nell'arte antica." In Ulisse 1996, 4 2 - 7 1 . . 1997. "Dating and Significance of the Telephos Frieze in Relation to the Other Dedications of the Attalids at Pergamon." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, l a 1-26; also in La Rocca 1996b, 118-22 (Italian); Heilmeyer 1 9 9 7 b , 6 7 - 7 0 (German). Andreae, B., and S. Bertolin. 1996. "Scilla: Schede tecniche." In illuse 1996, 298-307. Andreae, B., and B. Conticello. 1987a. "Scilla e Cariddi: Il gruppo di Scilla a Sperlonga trent'anni dopo la scoperta." PP242, 343-94. . 1987b. Sky Ila und Charybdis: Zur Skylla-Gruppe von Sperlonga. {AbhMainz.). Mainz. Andrén, A. 1940. Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples. Lund. (Plate vol.: 1 939-)

Artigianato. 1985. Artigianato artistico inEtruria: L'Etruria settentrionale interna in età ellenistica. (Catalogo della Mostra Voi terra/Chiusi.) Milan. Atti Chiusi-Chianciano. 1993. La civiltà di Chiusi e del suo territorio. (Atti del XVII Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici a Chiusi-Chianciano 1989.) Florence. Atti Orbetello. 1992. La coroplastica templare etrusco fra ilTV e illl secolo a.C. (Atti del XVI Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici a Orbetello 1988.) Florence. Baia. 1983. Baia: Il ninfeo imperiale sommerso di Punta Epitaffio. Naples. Bailey, D. 1995. "A Gaul from Egypt." In B. Raftery et al., eds., Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays Presented to Ian Mathieson Stead. Oxford. Pp. 1-3. Baiensiefen, L. 1996. "Achills verwundbare Ferse: Zum Wandel der Gestalt des Achill in nacharchaischer Z e i t f d l 1 1 1 , 7 5 - 1 0 3 . Ban ti, L. 1968. Il mondo degli Etruschi. Rome. Barrett, A. A. 1978. "Knowledge of the Literary Classics in Roman Britain." Britannia 9, 307-13. Bartman, E. 1991. "Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm." In E. K. Gazda, ed., Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Ann Arbor. Pp. 71-88. Bauchhenss-Thüriedl, Ch. 1971. Der Mythos von Telephos in der antiken Bildkunst. Würzburg. Bayet,J. 1926. Les origins de l'Hercule romain. {BEFAR 132.) Paris. Beazley,J. D. 1947. Etruscan Vase Painting. Oxford. . 1949. "The World of the Etruscan Mirror."///S 69, 1 - 1 7 . Becatti, G. i960. La colonna coclide istoriata. Rome. Bendz, G. 1969. "Vergil in Sperlonga." OpRom 7, 53-63. Benndorf, O., and G. Niemann. 1889. Das Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa. Vienna. Berger, E. 1967. "Der neue Amazonenkopf im Basler Antikenmuseum—Ein Beitrag zur hellenistischen Achill-Penthesileagruppe." In M. Rohde-Liegle, H. A. Cahn, and H. C. Ackermann, eds., Gestalt und Geschichte: Festschrift K. Schefold zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag. Bern. Pp. 6 1 - 7 5 . Bernabé, A. 1987. PoetaeEpici Graeci. Volume 1. Leipzig.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 83

Berthold, R. 1984. Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age. Ithaca and London. Bertoldi, M. E. 1967. "Un monumento commemorativo sul Campidoglio." QITA 5,

39-53Besques, S. 1963, ig86. Musée du Louvre: Catalogue raisonné desfigurineset reliefs enterrecuite. Vols. 2, 4. Paris. Bianchi Bandinelli, R., and A. Giuliano. 1973. Etruschi e italici prima del dominio di Roma. Milan. Bieber, M. 1961a. The History of the Greek and Roman Theater. Princeton. . 1961b. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. Rev. ed. New York. Bienkowski, P. R. von. 1908. Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst. Vienna. . 1928. Les Celtes dans les arts mineurs gréco-romains. Krakow. Birchler, P., a n d j . Chamay. 1995. "Hésioné en Apulie: Un chef-d'oeuvre de la peinture apulienne." AntK 38, 50-57. Blanckenhagen, P. von. 1969. "Laokoon, Sperlonga, und Vergil." AA 84, 256-75. Blinkenberg, C. 1941. Lindos: Fouilles de l'acropole, 1902—1914. Voi. 2, Inscriptions. Berlin and Copenhagen. Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. Eni. ed. London. . 1993. The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. (A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, Bollingen Series, 25.) Princeton. Boardman, J., and C. E. Vafopoulou-Richardson. 1986. "Diomedes I." In UMC 3, 395-409. Boatwright, M. T. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. Boehringer, C. 1972. Zur Chronologe mittelhellenistischer Münzserien, 220—160 v. Chr. (AMUGS 5.) Berlin. Boi, P. C. 1972. Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfunds von Antikythera. (AM-BII 2.) Berlin. Börner, F. 1964. "Kybele in Rom." RM 71, 130-51. Bonacasa, N., and A. Di Vita, eds. 1984. Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: Studi in onore di Achille Adriani. Volume 3. (Studi e materiali, Istituto di Archeologia, Università di Palermo, 6.) Rome. Bonfante, L. 1975. Etruscan Dress. Baltimore. Boosen, M. 1986. Etruskische Meeresmischwesen: Untersuchungen zu Typologie und Bedeutung. Rome. Borchhardt, J. 1976. Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra, Das Grabmal des lykischen Königs Perikles. (IstForsch 32.) Berlin. . 1990. "Das Heroon von Limyra." In Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien. Vienna and Munich. Pp. 75-78. Bordenache Battaglia, G. 1979. Le ciste prenestine, I. Corpus. 2 vols. Florence. Börker, Ch. 1990. "Zur Datierung des Pergamonaltares." In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz. Pp. 5 9 1 - 9 2 . Böschung, D. 1989. Die Bildnisse des Caligula. (Das römische Herrscherbild I.4.) Berlin. Bosworth.A. B. 1988. Conquest and Empire: TheReign ofAlexander the Great. Cambridge. Bourguet, E. 1929. Inscriptions de l'entrée du sanctuaire au trèsordesAthéniens. (FdDIII. 1.) Paris. Brendel, O. 1995. Etruscan Art. 2d ed. With bibliography by F. R. S. Ridgway. New Haven. Brilliant, R. 1979. "Mythology." In K. Weitzmann, ed., Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. Princeton. Pp. 1 2 6 - 3 1 .

2 84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. 1984. Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art. Ithaca and London. Brommer, F. 1983. Odysseus: Die Taten und Leiden des Helden in antiker Kunst und Literatur. Darmstadt. Brown, B. R. 1957. Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics in the Alexandrian Style. Cambridge. Brown, F. E., E. H. Richardson, and L. Richardson, Jr. i960. Cosa. Vol. 2, The Temples oftheArx. (MAAR 26). Brown, R 1992. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Madison. Brückner, A. 1904. "Wann ist der Altar von Pergamon errichtet worden?" AA, 218-25. Brunn, H. 1853. Geschichte der griechischen Künstler. Vol. 1. Braunschweig. . 1870. "I doni di Attalo." Annali dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 46, 292-323. (Reprinted in id., Kleine Schriften, vol. 2 [Leipzig and Berlin, 1905], 411-30.) . 1880. "Zur griechischen Künstlergeschichte." SbBayrAkad, 4 3 5 - 8 6 . Bruns, G. i960. "Umbaute Götterfelsen als kultische Zentren in Kulträumen und Altären."/rf/75, 1 0 0 - 1 1 1 . Buchwald, W. 1964. "Das Faustinus-Epigram von S p e r l o n g a , " Philologus 108, 287-92. Buranelli, F. 1992. "Divagazioni vulcenti." In Atti Orbetello 1992, 1 4 3 - 5 3 . Burke, R 1974. " T h e Role of Mezenüus in the Aeneid." CJ69, 202-209. Burstein, S. M. 1985. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Vol. 3, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII. Cambridge. Burton, R J. 1996. " T h e Summoning of the Magna Mater to Rome (205 b c ) . " Historia 45, 3 6 - 6 3 . Cairns, F. 1989. Virgil's Augustan Epic. Cambridge. Callaghan, R J . 1 9 8 1 . "On the Date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon." BICS 28, 1 1 5 - 2 1 . Camp, J. M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London. Camporeale, G. 1981. "Akrathe." In LIMC 1, 4 4 7 - 4 8 . Camps, W. A. 1969. An Introduction to Vergil's Aeneid. Oxford. Canciani, F. 1981. "Aineias." In LIMC 1, 3 8 1 - 9 6 . Carter,J. C. 1970. "Relief Sculpture from the Necropolis ofTaranto." A/A 74, 1 2 5 - 3 7 . . 1974. " T h e Tomb of the Siren." AfA 78, 1 3 1 - 3 9 . . 1975. The Sculpture of Taras. ( TAPS 65.7.) Philadelphia. . 1983. The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene. London. . 1990. "Pytheos." In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz. Pp. 1 2 9 - 3 6 . Cassieri, N. 1996. "Il complesso archeologico della villa di Tiberio a Sperlonga." In Ulisse 1996, 2 7 0 - 7 9 . Celti ed Etruschi. 1987. Celti ed Etruschi nell'Italia centro-settentrionale dal V secolo a.C. alla romanizzazione. (Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Bologna 1985.) Imola. Chevallier, B. 1969. "Note sur une bague d'Izernore (Ain)." In Hommages à Marcel Renard, voi. 3. Brussels. Pp. 1 2 4 - 4 5 . Childs, W. A. P., and P. Demargne. 1989. Fouilles de Xanthos. Vol. 8, Le monument des Néréides: Le décor sculpté. Paris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

Classical Marble. 1988. N. Herz and M. Waelkens, eds., Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. Dordrecht. Coarelli, F. 1970. "Polycles." In Omaggio a R. Bianchi Bandinelli, (StMisc 15.) 75-89. . 1977a. "La cultura ellenistica, 10: Le arti figurative." In R. Bianchi Bandinelli, ed., Storia e civiltà dei Greci, voi. 5. Milan. . 1977b. "Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla." ÄSÄ45, 1-23. . 1978. "Il grande donano di Attalo I." In Santoro 1978, 231-55. . 1995. Da Pergamo a Roma: I Calati nella città degli Attalidi. Rome. Coleman, J. E., and A. Walz. 1997. Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the Interactions between Greeks and non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequencesfor Eurocentrism. Bethesda. Coleman, K. M., ed. 1988. Statins, Silvae TV. Oxford. Colonna, G. 1984. "Per una cronologia della pittura etrusca di età ellenistica." DialArch, 3d ser., 2, 1-24. . 1992. "Altari e sacelli: L'area sud di Pyrgi dopo otto anni di ricerche." RendPontAcc 64, 6 3 - 1 1 5 . . 1996. "L'Apollo di Pyrgi." In Magna Grecia, Etruschi, Fenici. (Atti del XXXIII convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia). Naples. Pp. 345-75. Conticello, B. 1973a. Review of Hampe 1972. BdA 58, 1 7 1 - 7 6 . . 1973b. "Sperlonga." In EAA, Suppl. 1. Rome. Pp. 7 5 1 - 5 4 . . 1974. "I gruppi scultorei di soggetto mitologico a Sperlonga." In Conticello and Andreae, 1974, 7-58. . 1984. "Sul gruppo di Scilla e della nave nel Museo di Sperlonga." In Bonacasa and Di Vita 1984, 6 1 1 - 2 3 . . 1995. "Spigolature sperlongane fra i musei di Roma e Napoli." RM 102, 295-309. 1996. "Il gruppo di Scilla e della nave." In Ulisse 1996, 280-97. Conticello, B., and B. Andreae. 1974. Die Skulpturen von Sperlonga. (AntP 14.) Conze, A., et al. 1913. Stadt und Landschaft. (AvP I.) Berlin. Corrocher, J. 1994. "Un vase à médaillons d'applique trouvé à Vichy." RA, 85-93. Courtney, E. 1995. Musa Lapidaria: A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions. Atlanta. Cristofani, M. 1970. "La Tomba del Tifone: Cultura e società di Tarquinia in età tardoetrusca." MemLinc 8.14, 213-56. . 1971. Tarquinia. Voi. 5, Le pitture della Tomba del Tifone: Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia. Rome. . 1973. Volterra: Scavi, 1969-19ji (Suppl. to NSc 13.) 13-63. . 1977. Urne volterrane. Voi. 2, Il Museo Guarnacci. Florence. Cunliffe, B. 1988. Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: Spheres of Interaction. London. . 1997. The Ancient Celts. Oxford. Cüppers, H. 1963. "Vorformen des Ciboriums." BJb 163, 2 1 - 7 5 . Curty, O. 1995. Les parentis légendaires entre cités grecques. Geneva. D'Andria, F., and T. Ritti. 1985. Hierapolis. Vol. 2, Le sculture del teatro: Irilievi con il ciclo di Apollo e Artemide. Rome. de Grummond, N. T. 1982. A Guide to Etruscan Mirrors. Tallahassee. de Grummond, W. W. 1967. "Virgil's Diomedes." Phoenix 21, 40-43. De Luca, G., andW. Radt. 1999. Sondagen im Fundament des Grossen Altäres. (PergForsch 12.) Berlin and New York.

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

De Puma, R. D. 1980. "A Fourth-Century Praenestine Mirror with Telephos and Orestes." RM87, 5 - 2 8 . Dickins, G. 1920. Hellenistic Sculpture. Oxford. Dintsis, P. 1986. Hellenistische Helme. Volume 1. Rome. Dobbins, J. J. 1994. "Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii." AJA 98, 6 2 9 - 9 4 . Dohan, K. E. 1979. "Head of Menelaos from an Epic Group." In G. F. Pinney and B. S. Ridgway, eds., Aspects of Ancient Greece. Allentown. Pp. 1 7 4 - 7 5 . Dohrn, T. 1961. "Pergamenisches in Etrurien." RM 68, 1 - 8 . Dreyfus, R., and E. Schraudolph, eds. 1996. Pergamon: The Telephos Friezefrom the Great Altar. Volume 1. San Francisco. . 1997. Pergamon: The Telephos Friezefrom the Great Altar. Volume 2. San Francisco. Ducati, P. 1910. "Le pietre funerarie felsinee." MonAnt 20, 3 6 1 - 7 2 4 . Ducci, E. 1987. "Le terrecotte architettoniche della Catona." StEtr 55, 1 3 1 - 5 2 . . 1992. "Le terrecotte architettoniche della Catona." In Atti (Metello 1992, 3 2 5 - 3 1 . pls- 1-6Dumézil, G. 1996. Archaic Roman Religion. Baltimore. Dunbabin, K. 1996. "Convivial Spaces: Dining and Entertainment in the Roman Villa."yRA 9, 66-80. Durrbach, F. 1912, 1914. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin. . 1921. Choix (¡'inscriptions deDélos. Paris. Edwards, M. W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 5, Books iy—20. Cambridge. Eichler, F. 1950. Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjolbaschi-Trysa. Vienna. Elftmann, G. 1979. "Aeneas in His Prime: Distinctions in Age and the Loneliness of Adulthood in Vergil's Aeneid." Arethusa 12, 1 7 5 - 2 0 2 . Enciclopedia virgiliana. 1 9 8 4 - 8 8 . 4 vols. Rome. Enea nel Lazio: Archeologia e mito. 1981. Exhibition catalogue. Rome. Erim, K. T., and R. R. R. Smith. 1991. "Sculpture from the Theatre: A Preliminary Report." AphrodisiasPapers 2. (JRA Suppl. 2.) A n n Arbor. Pp. 6 7 - 9 8 . Esposito, A. M. 1985. "Le terrecotte architettoniche." In Artigianato 1985, 1 3 8 - 4 7 . Etienne, R., and M.-T. Le Dinahet, eds. 1991. L'espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l'antiquité. Paris. Etruskische Spiegel. 1 8 4 0 - 9 7 . Ed. E. Gerhard, A. Klugmann, and G. Kòrte. Berlin. Evans,J. D. 1995. The Art ofPersuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. A n n Arbor. Faedo, L. 1994. "Le muse in età ellenistica." In LIMC'j, 9 9 1 - 1 0 1 3 . Fant, J. C. ig88. "The Roman Emperors in the Marble Business: Capitalists, Middlemen, or Philanthropists?" In Classical Marble 1988, 147-58. Fears, J. R. 1975. "Cumae in the Imperial Age." Vergilius 21, 1 - 2 1 . Fehr, B. 1997. "Society, Consanguinity, and the Fertility of Women: T h e Community of Deities on the Great Frieze of the Pergamum Altar as a Paradigm of CrossCultural Ideas." In P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, eds., Conventional Values of the Hellenistic Greeks. (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 8.) Aarhus. Pp. 4 8 - 6 6 . Filgis, M. N., and W. Radt. 1986. DieStadtgrabung. Vol. 1 ,DasHeroon. (AvPXV.) Berlin. Fink, J. 1964. "Ein Kopf fur Viele." RM 7 1 , 1 5 2 - 5 7 . Fischer-Hansen, T. 1993. "Apulia and Etruria in the Early Hellenistic Period." In Ai-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 87

pects ofHellenism in Italy: Towards a Cultural Unity?Ed. P. Guldager Bilde, I. Nielsen, and M. Nielsen. (Acta Hyperborea 5.) Copenhagen. Pp. 5 3 - 9 0 . Flacelière, R. 1954. Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et delà région nord du sanctuaire. (FdD III.4.) Paris. Formigé,J. 1949. Le trophée des Alpes. ( Gallia Suppl. 2.) Paris. Fraser, P. M. 1952. "Dédicaces attalides en Béotie." REA 74, 2 3 3 - 4 5 . Freytag, B. von. 1986. Das Giebelrelief von Telamon und seine Stellung innerhalb der Ikonographie der "Sieben gegen Theben. "Mainz. Fuchs, M. 1984. "Zu einigen Relieffragmenten aus dem Balbus-Theater und dem Nachleben des grossen Frieses von Pergamon/'/d/gg, 2 1 5 - 5 3 . . ig87. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater in Italien undden Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz. Gabelmann, H. 1965. Studien zum frühgriechischen Löwenbild. Berlin. Gabrielsen, V. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes. Aarhus. Gaehtgens, T. W. i g g 6 . " T h e Museum Island in Berlin." In Gwendolyn Wright, ed., The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology. (National Gallery of Art, Washington, Studies in the History of Art, 47.) Washington, D.C. Pp. 5 3 - 7 8 . Galinsky, G. K. i g 6 g . Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton. . 1972. The Herakles Theme. Oxford. . 1981. "Vergil's Romanitas and His Adaptation of Greek Heroes." ANRW II.31.2, 9 8 5 - 1 0 1 0 . . 1992. "Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augustae." AfA 96, 4 5 7 - 7 5 . . 1996. Augustan Culture. Princeton. Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore. Garbsch,J. 1978. Römische Paraderüstung. Munich. Gerkan, A. von, and F. Messerschmidt. 1942. "Das Grab der Volumnier bei Perugia. " Ä M 5 7 , 122-235. Giglioli, G. Q. 1935. L'arte etrusca. Milan. Goodlett, V. 1989. "Collaboration in Greek Sculpture: T h e Literary and Epigraphic Evidence." Dissertation, New York University, Institute of Fine Arts. . 1991. "Rhodian Sculpture Workshops." AJA 95, 6 6 9 - 8 1 . Gorman,V. B. 1995. "Vergilian Models for the Characterization of Scylla in the Ciris." Vergilius 4 1 , 3 5 - 4 8 . Granino Cecere, M. G. 1988. "Sperlonga: L'iscrizione di Faustino." In Enciclopedia virgiliana 4, 9 9 2 - 9 4 . Gransden, K W. 1984. Virgil's Iliad. Cambridge. Gras, P. 1985. Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques. Rome. Grassi, M. T. 1 9 9 1 . / Celli in Italia. Milan. Green, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley and Los Angeles. (Rev. ed. 1993.) Greifenhagen, A. 1963. "Hellenistischer Reliefbechern aus Rhodes in süddeutschen Privatbesitz." In Beiträge zur antiken Relief-Keramik. (/ä/-EH 21.) Berlin. Pp. 5 2 - 6 5 . Griffith, M. 1985. "What Does Aeneas Look Like?" CP 80, 3 0 9 - 1 9 . Gros, P. 1979. "Pour une chronologie des arcs de triomphe de Gaule narbonnaise (A propos de l'arc de Glanum)." Gallia 37, 5 5 - 8 3 . . 1981. "Note sur deux reliefs 'antiques' de Glanum: Le problème de la romanisation." RANarb 14, 1 5 9 - 7 2 .

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G r u e n , E. S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley and Los Angeles. . 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden. . 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca. Gualandi, G. 1976. "Sculture di Rodi." ASAtene 54 (n.s. 38, publ. 1979), 7 - 2 5 9 . Guberti Bassett, S. 1996. Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos." AJA 100, 4 9 1 - 5 0 6 . Guidobaldi, F., and A. Salvatori. 1988. " T h e Introduction of Polychrome Marbles in Late Republican Rome: T h e Evidence from Mosaic Pavements with Marble Insertions." In Classical Marble 1988, 1 7 1 - 7 5 . Habicht, C. 1997. Athens from Alexander to Antony. London. Hafner, G. 1996. "Das 'Praetorium Speluncae' bei Terracina und die Höhle bei Sperlonga." RdA 20, 7 5 - 7 8 . Hampe, R. 1972. Sperlonga und Vergil. Mainz. . 1976. Review of Conticello and Andreae 1974. GGA 228, 2 1 7 - 3 7 . Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1937. "Studies in Etruscan Bronze Reliefs: T h e Gigantomachy." ArtB 19, 4 6 3 - 8 4 . . 1945. "Etruscan Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period. "yKS'65, 4 5 - 5 7 . Hannestad, L. 1993. "Greeks and Celts: T h e Creation of a Myth." In P. Bilde et al., eds., Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4.) Aarhus. Pp. 1 5 - 5 2 . Hansen, E. V. 1 9 7 1 . The Attalids ofPergamon. 2d ed. Ithaca and London. Hardie, P. 1986. Virgil's Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford. Harrison,E. B. 1972. " T h e South Frieze of the Nike Temple and the Marathon Painting in the Painted Stoa." AJA 76, 3 5 3 - 7 8 . . 1992. "New Light on a Nereid M o n u m e n t Akroterion." In H. Froning et al., eds., Kotinos: Festschrift für Erika Simon. Mainz. Pp. 2 0 4 - 1 0 . Hartswick, K.J. 1990. "The Ares Borghese Reconsidered." RA, 2 2 7 - 8 3 . . 1995. "Head Types of the Doryphoros." In W. G. Moon, ed., Polykleitos, The Doryphoros, and Tradition. Madison. Pp. 1 6 1 - 7 6 . Haskell, F., and N. Penny. 1981. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500—1900. New Haven. Hausmann, U. 1984. "Aias mit dem Leichnam Achills: Zur Deutung des Originals der Pasquino-Gruppe." AM 99, 291-300. Hautecoeur, L. 1957. Histoire de I'architecture classique en France. Vol. 7, La fin de I'architecture classique. Paris. Havelock, C. 1 9 7 1 . Hellenistic Art. New York. Haynes, D. E. L. 1963. " T h e Worksop Relief." Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 5, 1 - 1 3 . . 1972. "Alte Funde neu entdeckt." AA, 7 3 1 - 4 2 . Head, B. V. 1 9 1 1 . Historia Nummorum. London. Hees-Landwehr, C. 1985. Die antiken Gipsabgüsse aus Baiae. Berlin. Heilmeyer, W.-D. 1994. "QEOIE 11AZI—Rhodos, Pergamon und Rom." In La ciutat en el mön romä, vol. 2. (XIV International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Tarragona 1993.) Tarragona. Pp. 201-203. . 1997a. "New Arrangement and Interpretation of the Telephos Frieze from the Pergamon Altar." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1 9 9 7 , 1 2 7 - 2 8 ; also in La Rocca 1996b, 222-24 (Italian); and Heilmeyer 1997b, 1 9 4 - 9 5 (German).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

. ed. 1997b. Der Pergamonaltar: Die neue Präsentation nach Restaurierung des Telephosfrieses. Tübingen and Berlin. Herdejürgen, H. 1972. "Archaistische Skulpturen aus frührömischer Zeit." Jdl 87, 299-313Heres, H. 1997. "The Myth of Telephos in Pergamon." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 83-108; also in La Rocca 1996b, 85-106 (Italian); and Heilmeyer 1997b, 9 9 - 1 2 0 (German). Hierapolis di Frigia, 195J—198J. Turin 1987. Hiller, F. 1979. "Wieder einmal Laokoon." RM 86, 2 7 1 - 9 5 . Himmelmann, N. 1991. "Laokoon." AntK34, 9 7 - 1 1 5 . .1995. Sperlonga: Die homerischen Gruppen und ihre Bildquellen. Opladen. (Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vorträge, G 340.) .1996a. "Anmerkungen zum Torso vom Belvedere." AA, 475-83. . 1996b. "Ansichten von Sperlonga." Gymnasium 103, 3 2 - 4 1 . Hintzen-Bohlen, B. 1990. "Die Familiengruppe—Ein Mittel der Selbstdarstellung hellenistischer Herrscher, "/d/105, 129-54. . 1992. Herrscherrepräsentation im Hellenismus. Köln. Höckmann, U. 1991. "Gallierdarstellungen in der etruskischen Grabkunst des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Cht." Jdl 106, 199-230. Hoepfner, W. 1989. "Zu den grossen Altären von Magnesia und Pergamon." AA, 601-34. . 1990. "Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach Nikopolis: Städtebau und Stadtbilder hellenistischer Zeit." In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, 274-85. Mainz. . 1991. "Bauliche Details am Pergamonaltar." AA, 189-202. . 1993a. "Siegestempel und Siegesaltäre: Der Pergamonaltar als Siegesmonument." In W. Hoepfner and G. Zimmer, eds., Die griechische Polis: Architektur und Politik. Tübingen. Pp. 1 1 1 - 2 5 . . 1993b. "Zum Mausoleum von Belevi." AA, 1 1 1 - 2 3 . . 1996a. "Der vollendete Pergamonaltar." AA, 1 1 5 - 3 4 . . 1996b. "Zum Mausolleion von Halikarnassos." AA, 9 5 - 1 1 4 . . 1996c. "Zum Typus der Basileia und der königlichen Andrones." In W. Hoepfner and G. Brands, eds. Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige. Mainz. Pp. 1-43. . 1997a. "The Architectureof Pergamon." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 23-58; also in La Rocca 1996b, 42-73 (Italian); and Heilmeyer 1997b, 2 4 - 5 5 (German). . 1997b. "Model of the Pergamon Altar (1:20)."In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 5 9 - 6 7 ; also in La Rocca 1996b, 2 1 1 - 1 6 (Italian); and Heilmeyer 1997b, 1 7 1 - 7 6 (German). Hofter, M. 1988. "Augustusforum und Mars-Ultor-Tempel: Die Statuen der Summi Viri von Augustusforum." In Kaiser Augustus 1988, 194-200. Hölscher, T. 1973. Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 6.) Würzburg. . 1985. "Die Geschlagenen und Ausgelieferten in der Kunst des Hellenismus." AntK 28, 120-36. Hübner, G. 1993a. "'CalicesPergami' und Scherbenfunde aus dem Grossen Altar." In 5. Epistemonike synantesegia ten Hellenistike keramike. Athens. Pp. 282-93.

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. 1993b. Die Applikenkeramik von Pergamon: Eine Bildersprache im Dienst des Herrscherkultes. (PergForsch 7.) Berlin and New York. Pp. 4 1 - 4 3 . Hus, A. 1961. Recherches sur la statuaire en pierre étrusque archaïque. Paris. Isager, J. 1995. " T h e Lack of Evidence for a Rhodian School." RM 102, 1 1 5 - 3 1 . Jacopi, G. 1932. ClaraRhodos. Vol. 5, pt. 2, Monumenti di scultura del Museo Archeologico di Rodi. Rhodes. . 1963. L'antro di Tiberio a Sperlonga. Rome. Jacquemin, A., and D. Laroche. 1990. "Les piliers d'Attale et la terrasse pergaménienne à Delphes." RA, 2 1 5 - 2 1 . . 1992. "La terrasse d'Attale I er revisitée." BCH116, 229-58. Jentel, M.-O. 1997. "Skylla I." In LIMC8, 1 1 3 7 - 4 5 . Jeppesen, K. 1989. "What Did the Maussolleion Look Like?" In T. Linders and P. Hellström, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria. (Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium, 1989.) Uppsala. Pp. 1 5 - 2 2 . . 1992. "Tot operum opus: Ergebnisse der dänische Forschungen z u m Maussolleion von Halikarnass seit 1 9 6 6 . " J d l 107, 5 9 - 1 0 2 . Johnson, W. R. 1976. Darkness Visible. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Jones, C. P. 1991. " D i n n e r T h e a t e r . " I n Slater 1991, 1 8 5 - 9 8 . Jurgeit, F. 1986. Le ciste prenestine. Vol. 2, Studi e contributi. Part 1, "Cistenfüsse": Etruskische und praenestiner Bronzewerkstätten. Viterbo. Kahler, H. 1948. Der grosse Fries von Pergamon. Berlin. . 1965. Der Fries des Reiterdenkmals des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi. {Monumenta Artis Romanae 5.) Berlin. Kaiser Augustus. 1988. M. Hofter, ed., Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Exhibition, Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, 7 J u n e - 1 4 August 1988. Berlin. Kaiinka, E. 1926. "Altes und Neues aus Thrakien." OJh 23, cols. 1 1 7 - 2 0 8 . Kästner, V. 1986. "Der Pergamonaltar als Bauwerk." In M. Kunze 1986b, 22-33. . 1997. "The Architecture of the Great Altar and the Telephos Frieze." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 68-82; also in La Rocca 1996b, 7 4 - 8 4 (Italian); and Heilmeyer 1997b, 5 6 - 6 6 (German). Kearns, E. 1989. The Heroes of Attica. (BICS Suppl. 57.) L o n d o n . Kell, K. 1988. Formuntersuchungen zu spät- und nachhellenistischen Gruppen. Saarbrücken. Kellum, B. 1994. " T h e Construction of Landscape in Augustan Rome: T h e Garden Room at the Villa ad Gallinas." ArtB 76, 2 1 1 - 2 4 . Kleiner, D. E. E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven. Knauer, G . N . 1981. "Vergil and Homer." ANRWII.31.2, 8 7 1 - 9 1 8 . Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. Römische Sarkophage. Munich. Koeppel, G. 1972. "A Roman Terracotta Cantharus with Batde Scenes in Mainz." JRGZM 19, 1 8 8 - 2 0 1 . Kokkorou-Alewras, G. 1990. "Herakles." In LIMC5, 3 5 - 4 1 . Korres, M. 1994. MeXerrj RRJS ATTOKATAAARDIAEUIS TOV f[apôei>Â>voi, 4. Athens. Kosmetatou, E. 1995. "The Legend of the Hero Pergamus." Ancient Society 2 6 , 1 3 3 - 4 4 . Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 1981. "Achilleus." In LIMC 1, 37-200. Krahmer, G. 1923-24. "Stilphasen der hellenistischen Plastik." RM38-39, 138-84. Krarup, P. 1 9 7 1 . "Faustinus-Inscription from Sperlonga." In Acta of theFiflh International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967. Oxford. Pp. 2 1 5 - 1 8 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Kunze, C. 1991. "Dall'originale greco alla copia romana." In E. Pozzi, ed., Il Toro Farnese: La 'montagna di marmo ' tra Roma e Napoli. Naples. Pp. 13-42. . 1996. "Zur Datierung des Laokoon und der Skyllagruppe aus Sperlonga." Jdl i n , 139-223. Kunze, M., ed. 1986a. "Der grosse Fries des Pergamonaltars: Zur Geschichte seiner Rekonstruktion." In M. Kunze 1986b, 3 4 - 4 7 . . 1986b. "Wir haben eine ganze Kunstepoche gefunden!" Ein Jahrhundert Forschungen zum Pergamonaltar, Katalog der Sonderausstellung in Pergamonmuseum. Berlin. . 1990. "Neue Beobachtungen zum Pergamonaltar." In Andreae 1990b, 123-39. 1991. "Neue Forschungen zum Pergamonaltar." In Etienne and Le Dinahet Ì99 1 » 135-4°Künzl, E. 1968. Frühhellenistische Gruppen. Cologne. : — . 1971. Die Kelten des Epigonos von Pergamon. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 4.) Würzburg. Kuttner, A. L. 1995a. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley and Los Angeles. . 1995b. "Republican Rome Looks at Pergamon." HSCPg'j, 157-78. Lambrechts, R. 1978. Les miroirs étrusques etprénestins des Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire à Bruxelles. Brussels. Lands of the Scythians. 1975. From the Lands of the Scythians: Ancient Treasures from the Museums of the U.S.S.R., 3000 B.C.-IOO B.C. New York and Los Angeles. La Rocca, E. 1984. "Philiskos a Roma: Una testa di Musa dal tempio di Apollo Sosiano." In Bonacasa and Di Vita 1984, 629-43. . 1986. "Il lusso come espressione di potere." In Le tranquille dimore degli dei: La residenza imperiale degli Horti Lamiani. Venice. Pp. 3-35. . 1994. "Ferocia barbarica. " Jdl 109, 1-40. . 1996a. "La discesa di Ulisse negli inferi in una interpretazione di età giulioclaudia." In Ulisse 1996, 72-95. , ed. 1996b. L'altare di Pergamo: Il fregio di Telefo. Rome. Laubscher, H. P. 1987. "Ein ptolemäisches Gallierdenkmal." AntK^o, 131-54. Launey, M. 1944. "Études d'histoire hellénistique: Un épisode oublié de l'invasion galate en Asie Mineur (278/7 av. J.-C.)." REA 46, 217-36. . 1950/1987. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. 2 vols. (Mélanges des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 169.) Paris. Laurenzi, L. 1965. "Philiskos 1." EAA 6, 122-23. Lauter, H. 1965. "Der Odysseus der Polyphemgruppe von Sperlonga." RM 72, 226-29. . 1969. "Zur Datierung der Skulpturen von Sperlonga." Ä M 7 6 , 162-73. . 1972. "Kunst und Landschaft: Ein Beitrag zum rhodischen Hellenismus." AntK 15, 49-59. Lavagne, H. 1988. Operosa Antra: Recherches sur la grotte à Rome de Sylla à Hadrien. (BEFAR 272.) Paris. Laviosa, C. 1964. Scultura tardo-etrusca di Volterra. Florence. Lee, M. O. 1979. Fathers and Sons in Virgil's Aeneid. Albany. Lehmann, K 1941. "The Imagines of the Elder Philostratos." ArtB 23, 16-44. . 1973. "The Ship Fountain, from the Victory of Samothrace to the Galera."

292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In Samothracian Reflections: Aspects of the Revival of the Antique. (Bollingen Series, 92.) Princeton. Pp. 179-259. Leppert, M. 1978. "Domina nympha: Überlegungen zum Faustinus-Epigramm von Sperlonga." AA, 554-73Liampi, K. 1990. "Der makedonische Schild als propagandistischer Mittel in der hellenistische Zeit." Meletemata 10 (Kentron Hellenikes kai Romaikes Archaiotetos), 157-71Linfert, A. 1976. Kunstzentren hellenistischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. . 1995. "Prunkaltäre." In M. Worrle and P. Zanker, eds., Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. ( Vestigia 47). Munich. Pp. 131-46. Ling, R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge. Lippold, G. 1923. Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen. Munich. . 1950. Die griechische Plastik. (HdA 5.3.1.) Munich. Liverani, P. 1996. "L'antro del ciclope a Castel Gandolfo: Ninfeo Bergantino." In Ulisse !99 6 > 332-4 1 Loewy, E. 1885. Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer. Leipzig. Luschey, H. 1962. Funde zu dem grossen Fries von Pergamon. (Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm, 116.) Berlin. Maaskant-Kleibrink, M. 1992. "The Arrival of the Aeneas Family, a Sixth-Century Sculpture-Group." In Caeculus, vol. 1, Images of Ancient Latin Culture. Groningen. Pp. 125-54. MacDonald, W., and J. Pinto. 1995. Hadrian's Villa and Its Legacy. New Haven and London. Mackie, C.J. 1988. The Characterisation ofAeneas. Edinburgh. Maderna, C. 1988. Iuppiter, Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder für römischen Bildnisstatuen. (Archäologie und Geschichte 1.) Heidelberg. Maggiani, A. 1984. "Il pensiero scientifico e religioso." In M. Cristofani, ed., GliEtruschi: Una nuova immagine. Florence. Pp. 1 3 6 - 5 1 . . 1992. "Terrecotte architettoniche da Sovana." In Atti (Metello 1992, 253-72. Manconi, D. 1996 "Mosaico con Scilla da Gubbio." In Ulisse 1996, 188-93. Manderscheid, H. 1981. Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen. (Monumenta Artis Romanae 15.) Berlin. Mansuelli, G. A. 1950. Ricerche sulla pittura ellenistica: Riflessi della pittura ellenistica nelle arti minori. (Studi e Ricerche, Università di Bologna, 4.) . 1968. "Individuazione e rappresentazione storica nell'arte etrusca." StEtr 36, 3-19Marcadé, J. 1953, 1957. Recueil de signatures des sculpteurs grecs. 2 vols. Paris. . 1969. Au Musée de Délos: Etude sur la sculpture hellénistique en ronde bosse découverte dans l'ile. (BEFAR 215.) Paris. Maréchal, A. 1940. "Sur la mort de Lausus (Virgile, Aen. X 811-32)." In Melanges de Philologie, de littérature et d'histoire ancienne offerts à Alfred Ernout. Paris. Pp. 2 5 1 - 5 7 . Marszal, J. R. 1994. "The Death of Decebalus and the Motif of Barbarian Suicide (Abstract). "A/A 98, 335. . 1998. "Tradition and Innovation in Early Pergamene Sculpture." In O. Palagia and W. D. E. Coulson, eds., Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture. Oxford. Pp. 1 1 7 - 2 7 . Martin, H.-G. 1988. "Die Tempelkultbilder." In Kaiser Augustus 1988, 2 5 1 - 6 3 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Martin, R. 1976. "Bathyclès de Magnèsie et le 'Tròne' d'Apollon à Amyklae." RA (Festschrift P. Demargne), 2 0 5 - 1 8 . Marvin, M. 1993. "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series." In E. D'Ambra, ed., Roman Art in Context. Englewood Cliffs. Pp. 1 6 1 - 8 8 . Maryon, H. 1956. "The Colossus of Rhodes."yH576, 68-86. Massa-Pairault, E H. 1985. Recherches sur l'art et l'artisanat étrusco-italique à l'epoque hellénistique. (BEFAR 257.) Rome. Mattei, M. 1987. Il Galata Capitolino: Uno splendido dono di Aitalo. Rome. . 1991. "The Dying Gaul." In Moscati et al. 1991, 70-71. Mazzei, M., ed. 1995. Arpi: L'ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli. Bari. Megaw, M. R. 1989. Celtic Art. New York. Merker, G. 1973. The Hellenistic Sculpture of Rhodes. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 40.) Göteborg. Michaelis, A. 1893. "Der Schöpfer der attalischen Kampfgruppen." Jdl 8, 1 1 9 - 3 4 . Miliar, F. 1 9 7 7 . The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC-AD 3 3 7 . Ithaca. Mitchell, S. 1990. "Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor. " fliS 80, 183-93.

. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Oxford. Moltesen M., and M. Nielsen. 1996. Etruria and Central Italy 450—30 BC: Catalogue, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Momigliano, A. 1975. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge. Moon, W. G. 1983. "The Priam Painter: Some Iconographic and Stylistic Considerations." In W. G. Moon, ed., Ancient Greek Art and Iconography. Madison. Pp. 97-118.

Moormann, E. M. 1988. La pittura parietale romana come fonte di conoscenza per la scultura antica. Assen. Moreno, P. 1994. Scultura ellenistica. 2 vols. Rome. Moret, J.-M. 1997. Les pierres gravees antiques représentant le rapt du Palladion. Mainz. Morricone Matini, M. L. 1980. Scutulata pavimenta: Ipavimenti con inserti di marmo 0 di pietra trovati a Roma e nei dintorni. Rome. Moscati, S., et al., eds. 1991. The Celts. New York. Murray, G. 1907. The Rise of the Greek Epic. Oxford. Nachtergael, G. 1975. Les galates en Grece et les Sótéria deDelphes. Brussels. Nagy, G. 1998. "The Library of Pergamon as a Classical Model." In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods. Harrisburg. Pp. 1 8 5 - 2 3 2 . Neudecker, R. 1988. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen in Italien. Mainz. Neumer-Pfau, W. 1983. "Die kämpfenden Göttinnen vom grossen Fries des Pergamonaltars." Visible Religion 2, 7 5 - 9 4 . Neverov, O. 1988. "Etruskische Funden aus dem Schwarzemeergebiet." In Die Welt der Etrusker: Archäologische Denkmäler aus Museen der sozialistischen Länder. Berlin. P P- 3 8 9 - 9 ° Nibby, A. 1821. "Osservazioni artistico-antiquarie sopra la statua volgarmente appellata il Gladiatore Moribondo." Effemeridi Letterarie di Roma 3, 49-79. Nitsche, A. 1981. "Zur Datierung des Originals der Pasquinogruppe." AA, 7 6 - 8 5 . Oberleitner, W. 1990. "Das Heröon von Trysa." In Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien. Vienna and Munich. Pp. 7 1 - 7 4 and catalogue entries. . 1994. "Das Heröon von Trysa." AntW2§, Sondernummer, 1-68.

294

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ohlemutz, E. 1940. Die Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon. Würzburg. Oleson, J. P. 1982. The Sources of Innovation in Later Etruscan Tomb Design. Rome. Oliver, A., Jr. 1968. The Reconstruction of Two Apulian Tomb Groups. (AntK- B H 5 . ) Basel. Osada, T. 1993. Stilentwicklung hellenistischer Relieffriese. {Europäische Hochschulschriften, ser. 28, Kunstgeschichte, 185.) Frankfurt, Bern, and New York. Ozgan, R. 1981. "Bermerkungen zum grossen Gallieranathem." AA, 4 8 9 - 5 1 0 . Pagenstecher, R. 1909. Die calenische Reliefkeramik. (/¿/-EH 8.) Berlin. Pallottino, M. 1984. Etruscologia. 7th ed. Milan. Palma, B. 1981. "II piccolo d o n a n o pergameno." Xenia 1, 4 5 - 8 4 . . 1983. Museo Nazionale Romano: Le sculture. Vol. 1, pt. 4,1Marmi Ludovisi: Storia della collezione. Rome. . 1984. "Appunti preliminari ad u n o studio sul piccolo d o n a n o pergameno." In Bonacasa and Di Vita 1984, 7 7 2 - 8 2 . Paolucci, G., ed. 1997. Museo Archeologico delle Acque di Chianciano Terme. Siena. Paribeni, E. 1963. "Palladio." In EAA 5, 8 9 3 - 9 6 . Pertschi, C. 1990. "Grottenarchitektur und Licht: Überlegungen zu Sperlonga." In W.-D. Heilmeyer and W. Hoepfner, eds., Licht und Architektur. Tübingen. Pp. 7 9 - 8 5 . Pfanner, M. 1979. "Bemerkungen zur Komposition und Interpretation des Grossen Frieses von Pergamon." AA, 4 6 - 5 7 . Pfuhl, E., and H. Möbius. 1977. Die östgriechischen Grabreliefs. Vol. 1. Mainz. Polenz, H. 1978. "Gedanken zu einer Fibel vom Mittellatèneschema aus Käyseri in Anatolien." BJb 178, 1 8 1 - 2 1 6 . Pollitt, J. J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge. Posner, E. 1972. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Mass. Pouilloux, F. i960. La région nord du sanctuaire. (FdD II. 10.) Paris. Poulsen, V. H. 1968. "Die Silberbecher von Hoby." AntP 8, 6 9 - 8 3 . Praschniker, C., and M. Theuer. 1979. Das Mausoleum von Belevi. (Forschungen in Ephesos 6.) Vienna. Preuner, E. 1920. "Honestos." Hermes 55, 388-426. Price, M. J., and B. Trell. 1977. Coins and Their Cities. L o n d o n and Detroit. Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Prima Italia. 1981. Prima Italia: L'arte italica del I millennio a. C. Rome. Pritchett, W. K. 1979. The Greek State at War. Part 3, Religion. Berkeley and Los Angeles. . 1991. The Greek State at War. Part 5. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Putnam, M.J. 1981. "Pius Aeneas and the Metamorphoses of Lausus." Arethusa 14, 139-56. . 1985. "Possessiveness, Sexuality and Heroism in the Aeneid. " Vergilius 3 1 , 1 - 2 1 . . 1995. "Ganymede and Vergilian Ekphrasis." A / P 1 1 6 , 4 1 9 - 4 0 . Queyrel, F. 1989. "Art pergaménien, histoire, collections: L e Perse du Musée d'Aix et le petit ex-voto attalide." RA, 2 5 3 - 9 6 . Radt, W. 1981. "Der ' A l e x a n d e r k o p f in Istanbul: Ein Kopf aus dem Grossen Fries des Pergamon-Altars." AA, 5 8 3 - 9 6 . . 1988. Pergamon: Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erforschung einer antiken Metropole. Cologne. . 1993. "Pergamon: Vorbericht über die Kampagne 1992." AA, 3 4 7 - 7 9 . . 1995. "Pergamon: Vorbericht über die Kampagne 1994." AA, 5 7 5 - 9 5 . Raeck, W. 1993. "Zeus Philios in Pergamon." AA, 3 8 1 - 8 7 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Raeder.J. 1983. Die statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli. Frankfurt and Bern. Ramminger, J. 1991. "Imitation and Allusion in the Achaemenides Scene (VeTg.Aeneid 3 . 5 8 8 - 6 9 1 ) . " AJP112,

53-71.

Rasmussen, T. 1985. "Etruscan Shapes in Attic Pottery." AntK28, 3 3 - 4 0 . Rastrelli, A. 1992. "Santuari suburbani e di campagna nell'agro chiusino." In Atti Orbetello 1992, 3 0 1 - 1 7 . . 1993. "Chianciano Terme: L'edificio sacro dei Fucoli." In Atti Chiusi-Chianciano 1 9 9 3 , 4 6 3 - 7 6 . Rice, E. 1986. "Prosopographika Rhodiaka." BSR 81, 2 3 3 - 5 0 . . 1993. "The Glorious Dead: Commemoration of the Fallen and Portrayal of Victory in the Hellenistic World." I n j . Rich and G. Shipley, eds., War and Society in the Greek World. London and New York. Pp. 2 2 4 - 5 7 . . 1 9 9 5 . "Grottoes on the Acropolis of Hellenistic Rhodes." BSA 90, 3 8 3 - 4 0 4 . Richter, G. M. A. 1951. Three Critical Periods in Greek Sculpture. Oxford. Ridgway, B. S. 1981. "Greek Antecedents of Garden Sculpture." In E. B. MacDougall and W. F. Jashemski, eds., Ancient Roman Gardens. (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 8.) Washington, D.C. Pp. 9-28. . 1982. "Court Art and Hellenistic Art: The Role of Alexander the Great. " ArchNews i l , 43-58.

. 1984. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals. Ann Arbor. . 1989. "Laokoon and the Foundation of Rome." fRA 2, 1 7 1 - 8 1 . (Review of A n d r e a e 1988.)

. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331—200 B.C. Madison. . 1995. "The wreck off Mahdia, Tunisia, and the art-market in early ist c. B.c." JRA 8, 3 4 0 - 4 7 . (Review of G. Hellenkemper Salies et al., eds., Das Wrack: Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia [Bonn, 1994] ). . 1997. Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Madison. . 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca. 200—100 B.C. Madison. Ridgway, F. 1998. "Etruscan Bronzes from Tarquinia."JRA 11, 4 0 4 - 4 0 7 . Riemann, H. 1980. "Sperlongaprobleme." In F. Krinzinger, B. Otto, and E. WaldePsenner, eds., Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernard Neutsch. Innsbruck. Pp. 371-83.

Ritti, T. 1985. Hierapolis: Scavi ericerche.Vol. 1, Fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche. (Archaeologica 53.) Rome. Robert L. 1973. "Sur les inscriptions de Délos." In Etudes déliennes. (fiCi/Suppl. 1.) Paris. Pp. 4 3 5 - 8 9 . Robinson, H. S. 1969. "Chiron at Corinth." AJA 7 3 , 1 9 3 - 9 7 . Rogers, G. M. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London. Roland, H. 1969. Le mausolée de Glanum. ( Gallia Suppl. 21.) Paris. . 1977. L'are de Glanum. ( Gallia Suppl. 31.) Paris. Roma medio^repubblicana. 1973. Exhibition catalogue. Rome. Romualdi, A. 1992. "Terrecotte di Populonia." In Atti Orbetello 1 9 9 2 , 2 7 3 - 8 0 . Roncalli, F. 1985. Scrivere etrusco. Milan. . 1986. "L'arte." In G. Pugliese Carratelli, ed., Rasenna: Storia e ciwlità degli Etruschi. Milan. Pp. 5 3 3 - 6 7 6 .

2 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ros, K. E. 1996. "The Roman Theater at Carthage." AJA 100, 449-89. Rose, C. B. 1990. "Princes and Barbarians on the Ara Paris." AJA 94, 453-67. . 1994. "The 1993 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troy." Studia Troica 4, 75-104. Rossi ter, J. 1991. "Convivium and Villa in Late Antiquity." In Slater 1991, 199-214. Rotroff, S. 1996. Review of Hübner 1993b. Gnomon 68, 358-59. Roux, G. 1952. "La terrasse d'Attale I à Delphes." BCH76, 141-96. . 1987. La terrasse dAttale I. (FdD II.6.) Paris. Rupp, D. W. 1975. "Greek Altars of the Northeastern Peloponnese, ca. 750/725 B.c. to 300/275 B.C." Ph. D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1974. (University Microfilms 1975.) . 1980. "Altars as Funerary Monuments on Attic White Lekythoi." AJA 84, 534-27Säflund, G. 1966. Fynden i Tiberiusgrottan. Stockholm. . 1967a. "Das Faustinusepigram von Sperlonga." OpRom 7, 9-23. . 1967b. "Sulla ricostruzione dei gruppi di Polifemo e di Scilla a Sperlonga." OpRom 7, 25-52. . 1972. The Polyphemus and Scylla Groups at Sperlonga. Stockholm. . 1976. "The Belvedere Torso." OpRom 11, 63-84. Sagui, L. 1980. "Ceramica africana dalla 'villa di Tiberio' a Sperlonga." MEFR 92, 471-544Salis, A. von. 1912. Der Altar von Pergamon. Berlin. Sande, S., andj. Zahle. 1988. "Der Tempel der Dioskuren auf dem Forum Romanum." In Kaiser Augustus 1988, 213-24. Sannibale, M. 1994. Le urne cinerarie di età ellenistica, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco. Rome. Santoro, P., ed. 1978.1 Galli e l'Italia. Rome. Sanzi Di Mino, M. R. 1996. '"L'uomo ricco d'astuzie raccontami, o Musa,' (Odissea 1.1 ): Il complesso di statue fittili del ninfeo di Tortoreto." In Ulisse 1996, 210-19. Sassatelli, G. 1983. "Le stele felsinee con 'Celtomachie.'" In Popoli e facies culturali celtiche a nord e sud delle Alpi dal Val I secolo a.C. Milan. Pp. 167-77. Sauron, G. 1991. "De Buthrote à Sperlonga: A propos d'une étude recente sur le thème de la grotte dans les decors romains." RA, 3-42. Schachermeyr, F. 1929. "Telephos und die Etrusker." WS 47, 154-60. Schäfer, J. 1968. Hellenistische Keramik von Pergamon. (PergForsch 2.) Berlin. Schalles, H.-J. 1985. Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im dritten Jahrhundert vor Christus. (IstForsch 36.) Tübingen. Schleiermacher, M. 1984. Römische Reitergrabsteine: Die kaiserzeitlichen Reliefs des triumphierenden Reiters. Bonn. Schmidt, T.-M. 1990. "Der späte Beginn und der vorzeitige Abbruch der Arbeiten am Pergamonaltar." In Andreae 1990, 142-62. . 1994. "Der Pergamonaltar: Weltwunder oder Investitionsruine?" Gymnasium 101, 1-6. Schmidt-Dounas, B. 1993. "Anklänge an altorientalische Mischwesen im Gigantomachiefries des Pergamonaltars." Boreas 16, 5-17. Schneider, R. 1992. "Orientalische Tischdiener als römische Tischfüsse." AA, 295305Schober, A. 1933. Der Fries des Hekateion von Lagina. Vienna.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

. 1936. "Das Gallierdenkmal Attalos I. in Pergamon." RM 51, 104-24. . 1938. "Epigonos von Pergamon und die frühpergamenische Kunst."yd/53, 126-49. . 1938/39. "Zur Geschichte pergamenischer Künstler." OJh 31, 142-49. . 1941. "Zu den Siegesanathemen Attalos I." AnzWien 78, 1 - 1 4 . . 1951. Die Kunst von Pergamon. Vienna. Scholl, A. 1995. "X0H4>0P0I: Zur Deutung der Korenhalle des Erechtheion."/d/ 110, 1 7 9 - 2 1 2 . Schrammen, J. 1906. Der Grosze Altar. (AvPIII.i.) Berlin. Schulte, E., ed. 1963. Chronik der Ausgrabung von Pergamon 1871—1886 aus Berichten und Briefen des Humann-Kreises. Dortmund. Schürmann, W. 1985. Typologie und Bedeutung der stadtrömischen Minerva-kultbilder. Rome. Schweitzer, B. 1936. Das Original der sogenannten Pasquino-Oruppe. (AbhLeip 43.3.) . 1955. "Zum Krater des Aristonothos." RM62, 78-106. Schwingenstein, C. 1977. Die Figurenausstattung des griechischen Theatergebäudes. Munich. Scott, R. T. 1992. "The Decorations in Terracotta from the Temples of Cosa." In Atti Orbetello 1992, 9 1 - 9 8 . Sear, F. B. 1977. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics. (RM-EH 23.) Berlin. Segré, M. 1932. "Due nuovi testi storici." RivFìl60, 4 4 6 - 6 1 . Seiterle, G. 1997. "Ruckgabe des Zeusaltars—an Athena." AniW28, 201-208. Select Papyri. 1959-63. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, eds., Select Papyri: Non-Literary Papyri. 2 vols. London and Cambridge. Sena Chiesa, G. 1978. Gemme di Luni. Rome. Seving, N. 1996. "A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the Salvage Excavations at Gümü§fay." Studia Troica 6, 251-64. Shchukin, M. B. 1989. Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe, ist Century B.C.—ist Century A.D. (BAR) Oxford. Shear, T. L. 1926. "Excavations in the Theatre District of Corinth in 1926." AJA 30, 13-20. . 1929. "Excavations in the Theatre District and Tombs of Corinth in 1929." A J A 33.529-36Sichtermann, H. 1966. "Das veröffentlichte Sperlonga." Gymnasium 73, 220-39. Simon, E. 1975. Pergamon undHesiod. Mainz. . 1984. "Ares/Laran." In LIMC 2, 498-505. Slater, W. J., ed. 1991. Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor. Slayman, A. L. 1997. "The New Pompeii." Archaeology 50, 26-36. Smith, R. R. R. 1988a. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford. . 1988b. "Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias." yRS78> 50-77. 1991a. Hellenistic Sculpture. London and New York. . 1991b. Review of Andreae 1988. Gnomon 63, 351-58. Sordi, M. i960.1rapporti romano-ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio. Rome. . 1989. Il mito troiano e l'eredità di Roma. Milan. Sprenger, M., and G. Bartolom. 1983. The Etruscans: Their History, Art, and Architecture. New York.

2g8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stähler, K 1978. "Überlegungen zur architektonischen Gestalt des Pergamonaltares." In Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für F. K. Dörner. (Etudes préliminaires sur les religions orientales dans l'empire romain, LXI.2.) Leiden. Pp. 838-67. Stampolidis, N. 1985. "BiìMOI—&PONOI;" AAA 18, 2 3 1 - 4 5 . . 1987/0 BWFLÒZ TOV ALOUVOOV OTTI» KÒX. Athens. . 1991. "Altar, Krateutes, and Acroteria: A Contribution to the Study of IIShaped Altars." In Etienne and Le Dinahet 1991, 291-301. Stanford, W. B. 1968. The Ulysses Theme. 2d ed. Ann Arbor. Stead, I. M. 1965. "The Celtic Chariot." Antiquity 39, 259-65. Steingräber, S., ed. 1986. Etruscan Painting. New York. . 1991. "Zu Entstehung, Verbreitung und architektonischem Kontext der unteritalischen Grabmalerei. 106, 1-36. . 1993. "L'architettura funeraria chiusina." In Atti Chiusi-Chianciano 1993, 171-82. . S. 1996. "New Discoveries and Research in the Field of Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs." Etruscan Studies 3, 7 5 - 1 0 4 . STEFANOS. 1998. K.J. Hartswick and M. C. Sturgeon, eds., STEFANOS: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway. Philadelphia. Stewart, A. 1977a. Skopas ofParos. Park Ridge. . 1977b. "To Entertain an Emperor: Laokoon and Tiberius at the DinnerT a b l e . " / ? ? ^ , 76-90. . 1979. Attika: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. (fliS Suppl. 14.) London. . 1982. Review of Praschniker and Theuer 1 9 7 9 - ß J S 102, 282-83. . 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New Haven. . 1993a. Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley and Los Angeles. . 1993b. "Narration and Allusion in the Hellenistic Baroque." In P.J. Holliday, ed., Narrative and Event in Ancient Art. Cambridge. Pp. 130-74. . 1993c. Review of Andreae 1990b. Gnomon 65, 7 1 0 - 1 6 . . 1996a. "The Alexandrian Style: A Mirage?" In K Hamma, ed., Alexandria and Alexandrianism. Malibu. Pp. 231-46. . 1996b. Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. . 1996c. "A Hero's Quest: Narrative and the Telephos Frieze." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1996, 31-52; also in La Rocca 1996b, 1 0 7 - 1 7 (Italian). . 1997. "Telephos/Telepinu and Dionysos: A Distant Light on an Ancient Myth." In Dreyfus and Schraudolph 1997, 109-20. . 1998. "Nuggets: Mining the Texts Again." AJA 102, 271-82. . Forthcoming. Little Barbarians: A Tale of Ten Statues. Strazzulla, M.J. 1977. "Le terrecotte architettoniche nell'Italia centrale." In Caratteri dell'ellenismo nelle urne etrusche. Florence. Pp. 4 1 - 9 9 . . 1992. "Le terrecotte architettoniche frontonali di Luni nel problema della coroplastica templare nelle colonie in territorio etrusco." In Atti Orbetetto 1 9 9 2 , 1 6 1 - 8 3 . Stroll, M. 1991. Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest. Leiden. Strong, D. E., a n d j . B. Ward-Perkins. 1962. "The Temple of Castor in the Forum Romanum." BSR 30, 1-30.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Stupperich, R. 1990. "Zu den Stylopinakia am Tempel der Apollonis in Kyzikos." In E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien, (Asia Minor Studien 1.) Bonn. Pp. 101-10. Sturgeon, M. C. 1977. Corinth. Vol. 9, pt. 2, Sculpture: The Reliefs from the Theater. Princeton. . 1989. "Roman Sculptures from Corinth and Isthmia: A Case for a Local " 'Workshop.' " In S. Walker and A. Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire. (BICS Suppl. 55.) London. Pp. 1 1 4 - 2 1 . . 1998. "A Peloponnesian Aphrodite: T h e Corinth Theater Type." In ZTE&ANOZ 1998, 223-34. Sullivan, J. P. 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic. Cambridge and New York. Sutherland, C. H. V. 1974. Roman Coins. New York. Szabó, M. 1995. "Umbro-Celtica." In B. Raftery et al., eds., Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays Presented to Ian Mathieson Stead. Oxford. Pp. 157—62. Thébert, Y. 1993. "Slaves." In A. Giardina, ed., The Romans. Chicago. Pp. 138-74. Theodorescu, D. 1996. "La frons scaenae du théâtre: Innovations et pecularités à l'époque de Zoïlos." In C. Roueche and R. R. R. Smith, eds., Aphrodisias Papers, vol. 3, The Setting and Quarries, Mythological and Other Sculptural Decoration, Architectural Development, Portico of Tiberius, andTetrapyhn. (/RASuppl. 20.) Pp. 127-48. Thiersch, H. 1931. "Die Nike von Samothrake, ein rhodisches Werk und Anathem." GöttNachr, 337-78. Thimme, J. 1957. "Chiusinische Aschenkisten und Sarkophage der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie der etruskischen Kunst, 2." StEtr 25, 87-160. Thompson, H. A., and R. E.Wycherley. 1972. The Agora ofAthens. (The Athenian Agora 14.) Princeton. Thompson, M. L. 1960-1961. "The Monumental and Literary Evidence for Programmatic Painting in Pompeii." Marsyas g, 36-77. Torelli, M. 1976. "La situazione in Etruria." In P. Zanker, ed., Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (Kolloquium Göttingen 1974). Göttingen. Pp. 9 7 - 1 1 5 . . 1980. "Innovazioni nelle tecniche edilizie romane tra il I sec. a.C. e il I sec. d.C. " In Tecnologia, economia, e società nel mondo romano. (Atti del Convegno di Como, 27-29 Sept. 1979.) Como. Pp. 139-59. Touchefeu, O. 1981. "Aias I." In LIMC 1, 312-36. Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1992. "Odysseus." In LIMC6, 943-70. Touchefeu-Meynier, O., and I. Krauskopf. 1997. "Typhon." In LIMC8, 1 4 7 - 5 1 ; with appendix on Typhon and Etruscan demons (I. Krauskopf), 1 5 1 - 5 2 . Treggiari, S. 1973. "Domestic Staff at Rome in theJulio-Claudian Period. " Histoire sociale/Social History 6, 241-55. . 1975. "Jobs in the Household of Livia." BSR 43, 48-77. Tuchelt, K 1967. "Skylla: Zu einem neugefundenen Tonmodel aus D i d y m a I s t M i t t 17. 173-94Turfa, J. M. 1986. "International Contacts: Commerce, Trade and Foreign Affairs." In L. Bonfante, ed., Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies. Detroit. Pp. 6 6 - 9 1 . Ulisse. 1996. Ulisse: Il mito e la memoria. Catalogue of an exhibition held in Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Feb. 22-Sept. 2, 1996. Rome. Ussing, J. L. 1899. Pergamos: Seine Geschichte und Monumente. Berlin. Vacano, O. W. von. i960. "Studien an volterraner Urnenreliefs." RM67, 4 8 - 9 7 .

JOO

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Valeva, J. 1995. "The Sveshtari Figures (an Attempt to Specify Several Hypotheses)." In Studia in Honorem AlexandriFol. ( Thracia 11.) Sofia. Pp. 3 3 7 - 5 2 . Van der Meer, L. B. 1987. The Bronze Liver of Piacenza: Analysis of a Polytheistic Structure. Amsterdam. Vermeule, C. C. 1977. Greek Sculpture and Roman Taste: The Purpose and Setting of GraecoRoman Art in Italy and the Greek Imperial East. A n n Arbor. Vermeule, E. T. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Verzar, M., and F.-H. Massa-Pairault. 1978. "Civitalba: Il fregio fittile. Problemi iconografici e stilistici." In Santoro 1978, 196-203. Vian, F. 1988. "Gigantes." In LIMC3, 1 9 1 - 2 7 0 . Vickers, M. 1985. "The Thunderbolt of Zeus: Yet More Fragments of the Pergamon Altar in the Arundel Collection." AJA 89, 5 1 6 - 1 9 . Viscogliosi, A. 1996. "Antra Cyclopis: Osservazioni su una tipologia di coenatio. " In Ulisse 1 9 9 6 . 252-69. Vitali, D. 1991. " T h e Celts in Italy." In Moscati et al. 1 9 9 1 , 220-35. Vos, M. de. 1980. L'egittomania in pitture e mosaici romano-campani della prima età imperiale. Leiden. Walter, H. 1961. "Zur späthellenistischen Plastik." A M 76, 1 4 9 - 5 4 . Walter-Karydi, E. 1997. "Skylla-Bilder u n d Aspekte des Mischwesens." Jdl 1 1 2 , 167-89. Waywell, G. B. 1978. Free-Standing Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum. London. . 1989. "Further Thoughts on the Placing and Interpretation of the Free-Standing Sculptures from the Mausoleum." In T. Linders and P. Hellstrom, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria. (Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1 9 8 9 ) Uppsala. Pp. 23-30. . 1996a. "Scilla nell'arte antica." In Ulisse 1996, 1 0 8 - 1 1 9 . . 1996b. " T h e Scylla M o n u m e n t from Bargylia." AntP 25, 7 5 - 1 0 0 . Webb, P. A. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figurai Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands. Madison. . 1998. "The Functions of the Sanctuary of Athena and the Pergamon Altar (the Heroon of Telephos) in the Attalid Building Program." In STEFANOS 1998, 241-54. Weber, M. 1990. Baldachine und Statuenschreine. Rome. Weber-Lehmann, C. 1995. "Polyphem in der Unterwelt? Zur Tomba dell'Orco II in Tarquinia." RM 102, 7 1 - 1 0 0 . . 1996. "Ulisse nella Tomba dell'Orco II a Tarquinia." In Ulisse 1996, 1 6 0 - 7 3 . . 1997. "Vanth." In LIMC 8, 1 7 3 - 8 3 . Weis, A. 1992. The HangingMarsyas and Its Copies. Rome. . 1998a. "Pasquino and Sperlonga: Menelaos and Patroklos or Aeneas and Lausus {Aeri. 1 0 . 7 9 1 - 8 3 2 ) ? " In STEFANOS 1998, 2 5 5 - 8 6 . . 1998b. "Sperlonga and Hellenistic S c u l p t u r e . " ß l A 1 1 , 4 1 2 - 2 0 . (Review of Himmelmann 1995.) Weitzmann, K. 1959. Ancient Book Illumination. Cambridge, Mass. Wenning, R. 1978. Die Galateranatheme Attalos I.: Eine Untersuchung zum Bestand und zur Nachwirkung pergamenischer Skulptur. (PergForsch 4.) Berlin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

50J

West, G. S. 1985. "Chloreus and Camilla." Vergilius 3 1 , 22-29. Wiegand, T., ed. 1958. Didyma. Vol. 2, Die Inschriften. Berlin. Wilhelm, A. 1 9 1 4 . "Pergamena." A M 3 9 , 148-60. Williams, M. F. 1993. "Turnus, the Chimaera, and Aeetes: A Note on Aeneid 7 . 7 8 5 88." Vergilius 39, 3 1 - 3 6 . Williams, P. L. 1945. "Amykos and the Dioskouroi." AJA 49, 3 3 0 - 4 7 . Windschuttie, K. 1997. The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Killing Our Past. New York. Winter, F. 1908. Die Skulpturen mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs. (AvPVÌl.) Berlin. Wiseman, T. P. 1984. "Cybele, Virgil and Augustus." In T. Woodmann and D. West, eds., Poetry and Politics in the Age ofAugustus. Cambridge. Pp. 1 1 7 - 2 8 . Wit, J . de. 1959. Die Miniaturen des Vergilius Vaticanus. Amsterdam. Wörrle, M. 1986. "Die Inschriften auf dem Architravblock von der Ostwand des Marmorsaales." In AvP XV. 1, 157-60. . ig88. Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oenoanda. Munich. Wrede, H. 1986. "Zu Antinous, Hermaphrodit, und Odysseus." Boreas g, 1 3 0 - 3 5 . Wright, D. 1984. Vergilius Vaticanus. Graz. Wünsche, R. 1991. "Pasquino." Müjb42, 7-38. Yavis, C. G. 1949. Greek Altars: Origins and Typology. St. Louis. Yfan tidis, K 1993. "Beobachtungen an zwei pergamenischen Köpfen in Schloss Fasanerie bei Fulda." AM 108, 225-38. Zanker, P. 1974. Klassizistische Statuen. Mainz. . 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor. Zevi, F. 1996. "Claudio e Nerone: Ulisse a Baia e nella Domus Aurea. " In Ulisse 1996, 316-31. Ziegenaus, O. 1966. "Hallenstrasse." (In report on 1965 campaign, Pergamon.) AA,

448-55Zuffa, M. 1956. "Il frontone e il fregio di Civitalba nel Museo Civico di Bologna." In E. Paribeni, ed., Scritti in onore di A. Calderini. Milan. Pp. 267-88. Zwierlein-Diehl, E. 1986. Glaßpasten im Martin v. Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg. Volume 1. Munich.

CONTRIBUTORS

Nancy T. de Grummond is the M. Lynette Thompson Professor of Classics at The Florida State University. She is author and editor of a number of articles on Etruscan and Roman art and archaeology, and of A Guide to Etruscan Mirrors (1982) and An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology (1996). Peter Green is Dougherty Centennial Professor Emeritus of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. Among his more recent publications are Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (rev. ed., 1993) and a new translation, with commentary, of The Argonautika by Apollonios Rhodios (1997). Erich S. Gruen is Gladys Rehard Wood Professor of History and Classics at the University of California, Berkeley. Among the many books on Greek and Roman history he has authored or edited are The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (1984), Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (1990), and Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World (1993). John R. Marszal received the Ph.D. from Bryn Mawr College, with his dissertation "The Representation of the Gauls in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial Periods" (1991). His article "Tradition and Innovation in Early Pergamene Sculpture" has been published in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, edited by W. D. E. Coulson and O. Palagia (1998). J. J. Pollitt is Sterling Professor (Emeritus) of Classical Archaeology and History of Art at Yale University. He is the author of a number of books on Greek art, including Art and Experience in Classical Greece (1972), The Ancient View of Greek Art (1974), Art in the Hellenistic Age (1986), and The Art ofAncient Greece: Sources and Documents (1990). 303

304

CONTRIBUTORS

Brunilde S. Ridgway is Rhys Carpenter Professor Emerita of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College and served as the Langford Family Eminent Scholar in Classics at T h e Florida State University (1997). She is author of many publications on Greek and Roman sculpture, including Roman Copies of Greek Sculptures: The Problem of the Originals (1984), Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331—200 B.C. (1990), The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (2d ed., 1993), Fourth-Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (1997), and Prayers in Stone: Greek Architectural Sculpture ca. 6OO—IOOB.C.E. (1999). Stephan Steingräber has served as Professor of Archaeology at the University of Tokyo and as the Samuel H. Kress Lecturer for the Archaeological Institute of America (1997) and is currently an associate of T h e University Museum of the University of Tokyo. H e is the author of Etruskische Möbel (1979), Etrurien: Städte, Heiligtümer, Nekropolen (1981), and Etruscan Painting (1986). Andrew Stewart is Chancellor's Research Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Art and Archaeology at the University of California, Berkeley. His many publications on Greek sculpture include Skopas ofParos(ig'j'j), Attika: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (1979), Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (1990), Faces ofPower: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (1993), and Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece (1997). Mary C. Sturgeon is Professor and Chair of the Department of Art at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her publications include Corinth, vol. 9, part 2, Sculpture: The Reliefs from the Theater ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; Isthmia, vol. 4, Sculpture, part 1, J 952—1967 (1987); and STEFANO!!'. Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway (1998), which she coedited with K T. Hartswick. H. Anne Weis is Associate Professor in the H e n r y C. Frick Department of the History of Art and Architecture, University of Pittsburgh. She is the author of The Hanging Marsyas and Its Copies: Roman Innovations in a Hellenistic Sculptural Tradition (1992).

INDEX

Aachen, Museum, head of Odysseus, (fig. 85), 238 Abydos, 198 Achaemenides, 1 2 7 - 2 8 , 1 3 4 Achaian League, 1 7 1 Achaios, 19 Achilles, 1 1 , 151110, 22, 23-24, 28, 60, 85, 1 1 2 ; with Cheiron, 70; as Doryphoros, 70; and Penthesileia, 1 8 1 ; and Polyxena, 184. See also Pasquino group Actium (Antony and Cleopatra's defeat), 68, 100, 189, 2 2 5 n i 8 Aeneas, 1 1 , 26-27, 1 1 9 - 2 3 , 126, 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 182, 237, 270 (fig. 125). See also Pasquino group Aeneid, 100, 1 1 9 , 120, 1 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 1 3 1 ' 1 33> 137> 1 4 ° . ! 5 5 n l l 2 . 15811135, 167, 182 Agathe Tyche (Good Fortune), 34, 35, 178 Agathosdaimon, 35 Aigai, 20 Aigina, 18, 26, 263 Aischylos, 259 Aita. See Hades Aitolia, Aitolian Confederacy (League), 2 4 - 2 5 , 28, 168, 245 Aix-en-Provence, statue of Persian, 57n74, 203-204, 240 Ajax, 1 1 , 1 1 2 , 120. See also Pasquino group Akragas, coins with Skylla, 263; Temple of Zeus, 275n32 Akrathe, (fig. 106), 259, 260

alabaster. See marble: of Attalid monuments Alexander I of Macedon, 168 Alexander Balas, 1 7 1 Alexander the Great, 4, 3on47, 43, 54n44, 65, 95, 97, 168, 1 7 5 ; and Peukestas, 182 Alexander the Molossian, 249 Alexander Mosaic, 2 1 4 Alexander Sarcophagus, 208, 2 1 4 Alexandra. SeeLykophron Alexandria, 86, 168; Gaulish gravestones from cemeteries, 198; terracotta head of Gaul, 198 Alkaios, 22 Alliba, 263 Amazonomachy, 60, 6 1 , 68, 243 (fig. 92), 244 (figs. 93, 94). See also Attalid Dedications: Lesser (Amazons, Celts, Giants, Persians) Ammendola sarcophagus, (fig. 78), 2 1 0 Amnisos (Samsun), 266 Ampelius, 32, 34, 1 7 4 Amphitrite, 247 Amsterdam, Tarentine relief, 263 Amyklai Throne, 8, 74 Anchises, 270 Ancona, 258; museum, terracottas from Civitalba (seeCivitalba) Andreae, Bernard, 6, 78, 8 1 , 82-84, 1 0 1 , io8-iogn34, 1 1 3 , 119, 125-26, I44ni2, i 5 4 n i o 3 , i 5 4 n i o 6 , 182, 186 Andromache, 66, 82 Andromeda, 1 3 2

305

jo6

INDEX

anguiped creatures, 241, 259 (figs. 1 0 2 105), 268. See also Giants Antigonos Gonatas, 188 Antikythera wreck, 4, 85 Antinous, 272 Antiochos 1 , 1 9 7 Antiochos II, 21,62 Antiochos III, 19, 34, 169, 209 Antiochos IV, 40, 171 Antiochos V, 40 Antiochos Hierax, 19, 206, 208 Antium, Villa of Nero, 220 Antoninus Pius, (fig. 41), 70 Apameia, Peace (Treaty) of, 27, 2 g n i 7 , 39, 4 1 - 4 2 , 169, 170, 1 7 1 Aphrodisias, 57n74; Sebasteion, 72, I4gn64; theater, (fig. 38), 67-68, 71, 75, 176 Aphrodite, 69 Apollo, 24-25, 46, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 168, 2 1 5 , 243 (fig. 90), 258, 260 Apollonios and Tauriskos (of Tralleis), 97-98, 103, 106 Apollonios Rhodios, 42, 81 Apollonis (Attalid Queen), 33, 34, 3 5 - 3 7 , 38, 42,98, 170, 177 "Apotheosis of Homer" relief (by Archelaos of Priene), i s n i o Apulia, contacts with Etruria, 262 Apulian vases, 242, 260, 2 7 5 ^ 1 Aratos of Soloi, 42 Arbinas (Lykian ruler), 59-60 Ares, 38, 44, 65 Arezzo, 236, 242, 248. See also Catona Argo, ship (and mosaic inscription), (fig. 66), 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 271 Ariadne, 244 Aristeas and Papias, 57n74 Aristonothos Krater, 237 Aristode, 22 Arkadia, 23, 24, 27, 28, 168 Arkesilaos (head of Plato's Academy), 21 Arkesilaos (sculptor), 102, 103 Arpi (Apulia), 270 Artemis, 65, 70, 215, 245, 258 Ascanius,Julus, 1 1 9 , 125, 126 Asinius Pollio, 86, 102 Asklepios, 65 Athanadoros (Athanodoros), Hagesandros, Polydoros (Rhodian sculptors), 78, 80, 94, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 103, 106, 125, 137, 172, 189

Athena, 34, 37-38, 4 1 , 46, 7 1 , 73, 99, 178, 2 1 5 , 245, 258 (fig. 95), 259 (fig. 106), 260 (figs. 107-110), 262 Athens, 70, 85, 86, 93, 96, 168, 248; Akropolis, blocks from Attalid Dedication, ig6; Athena Promachos statue, 206; and Attalids, 1 8 - 1 9 , 24> 72> 2 1 1 ; emulation of, 2; Erechtheion (and Karyatids), 64, 272; Kerameikos, 174; Nike Temple, 64; Parthenon, 2, 17, 37, 93, 169, 2 1 1 ; Propylaia, 1 7 1 ; Stoa of Attalos, 28, 34, 169; Stoa of Zeus, 49; Stoa Poikile (Painted), 46, 49, 210; theater, 68; Theseion, 63 Atlantis, 272 Attaleia, 66 Attalid Dedications: Greater (Larger), 13, 124, 240, 247 (see also Dying Trumpeter [Capitoline]; Ludovisi [Suicidal] Gaul); Lesser (Amazons, Celts, Giants, Persians), (figs. 1 1 , 71), 13, 18, 25, 34, 46, 47-48, 57 n 77- l6 9> 1 9 2 ~ 9 4 ' !9 6 > 203-204, 205, 2 1 1 , 219-20, 223, 240, 243, 247, 248, 250 Attalid Queen, statue of (from Altar?), 42 Attalids, 17-28, 42, 96, 106, 168, 237; as defendants of civilization and Greek culture, 7, 17, 168, 175, 180, 202, 2 1 1 ; family solidarity, 40, 1 7 1 , 174, 179; relationship with Gauls, 7, 12, 1 8 - 1 9 , 34,41, 168, 180, 191; relationship with Rhodes, 171,174; relationship with Rome, 17-20, 26, 34, 4 0 - 4 1 , 54n39, 170-71 Attalos I, 18, 2 1 , 24-27, 36, 70, 73, 169, 177« 193-94. 196. 2°5. 2°6. S l l , 254m 00 Attalos II, 27, 2gng, 33, 36, 39, 49, 98, 169, 1 7 1 , 174, 195, ig6, 2og, 247 Attalos III, 34, 49, 66, 193, 248; honors to, 38,178 Auge, 22-23, 35. 36> 43. 6o < 6 6 Augustus (Octavian), 67, 68, 69, 70, 80, 93, 100, 1 1 2 , 167, 218, 219, 2 2 1 , 272; statue from Primaporta, 125, 1 3 3 Ausonius, 98, 172 Baiae, Punta Epitaffio complex, 8 1 , 88n7, i44ni4, i6oni50 banquet scenes, 60 (fig. 21), 63, 64, 176 Barberini Nilotic mosaic, 271

INDEX Bargylia, Skylla Monument, 90n20, 265-66 Bathykles of Magnesia, 74 battle motifs, 199, 200, 201, 2 1 1 , 213, 218 Belevi, Mausoleum, (figs. 27-29), 44, 49, 59, 62-63, 74 Bellerophon, 64 (fig. 33), 65 Belvedere Torso, 124 Berlin, Pergamon Museum, torso of "Pergamene" Gaul, 240 Bes, 64 (fig. 31), 271, 272 Bologna, Museo Civico: stelai from Felsina depicting Gauls, (fig. 74), 199, 239; stelai with Skylla, (figs. 112, 113), 263; stele with bearded anguiped, 259 Bolsena, limestone head from, (fig. 97), 246; terracottas from, (fig. 95), 245, 262 Bonn Museum, vase with Gauls. See Faliscan vase with Gauls Boscoreale cup, 2 1 8 - 1 9 Boscotrecase, painting, 1 5 7 m 21 Britomartis, 65 Brussels, Musées Royaux, Etruscan relief mirror, (fig. 115), 263 Bryaxis (sculptor), 9 6 - 9 7 , 105, 188 Budapest, frieze from Lecce. See Lecce Caere (Cerveteri), 237, 258 Caeretan hydriai, 237, 2 7 6 ^ 1 Caesar, 67, 212, 217, 220, 221; denarii of, 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 270 (fig. 125) Cairo Museum, head of Gaul, (fig. 73), 197, 198, 200, 222 Calene bowls, 901119, 213, 214, 258 ( f i g- 79)» 2 6 7 (fig- " 9 ) Cales, 258, 268 Caligula, portraits, 138 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Praenestine cista, (fig. 107), 260 Camillus, 220 Canosan vases with Gaul figurines, 199-21 o Capitoline Gaul. See Dying Trumpeter Carthage, Skylla depictions, 265; theater, 67 Cassius, 96 Castelgandolfo (Castel Gandolfo), I47n42, i6oni4Ô, i 6 2 n i 6 2 , 247 Catania sarcophagus, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 1 6 Catona: terracotta frieze, 240, 243; terracotta pediment, (figs. 91, 92), 243, 244 Catullus, 122 Cavtha, 258

307

Celsclan, 259 Celts. See Gauls Centaur, Centaurs, 4 4 - 4 5 (figs.i, 3), 72, 242 (fig. 89) Centauromachy, 6 1 , 63, 120, 200 centones, 140 Cerveteri. See Caere Chares of Lindos, 94, 95, 97, 101, 103, 105, 187-88 Charlemagne, 93 Charu(n), 214, 258 Charybdis, 1 1 7 , 129, 181 Chianciano, 242, 243 Chieti, signed sculptures from, 244 Chiusi, 239-40, 248, 262; Tomba della Pellegrina, 214; urns from, 2 1 4 - 1 5 (fig. 80), 238, 239, 247 (fig. 100). See also Pania (cemetery), pyxis from chronology (Hellenistic), fixed points, 3, I 5 i - 5 2 n 8 8 , 173 Cicero, 141, 249 Circe. See Kirke Ciris, 123 Città della Pieve. See Chiusi city-siege motif, 5g, 64 (fig. 32), 176 Civita Castellana (Falerii Veteres), 242 (fig. 89), 243 (fig. 90); Tomba del Peccato, 2 5 i n 2 0 Civitalba: terracotta frieze, (fig. 81), 213, 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 22gn65, 240, 242, 245, 257-58; terracotta pediment, 2 4 4 - 4 5 Civitavecchia, Apollo/Helios from, 95 Claudius, 81, 138 Colle Cesarano, terracotta sculptures, 85, I44ni4 Colossus of Rhodes, g, 81, 94, 9 5 - 9 6 , 103, 105, 173, 186-88 Constantinople, Hippodrome group, 1 1 7 continuous narrative, 60, i 5 6 - 5 7 n i 2 i Copenhagen, National Museum, foot of Praenestine cista, (fig. 103), 259 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek: inv. 637a, Caligula portrait, 138; nenfro sculpture, (fig. 98), 246 copies (vs. originals), 4 - 5 , 74, 80-83, 85> 101, 114, 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 140, 191, 193, 201, 202, 223 Corinth, theater, g, 68-70 (fig. 39), 7 1 , 75, 176 Cortona, 237 Cosa, terracottas, 242, 244

3O8

INDEX

Daidalos, 172 Decebalus, 221 Delos, 82, 86, g2, 248, 249, 265; Attalid dedications and festivals, 18, 20, 21, 66, 72, 168, 205-206, 223; barbarian's head from Agora of the Italians, 216; stamped clay sealings, 265; Wounded Warrior from Agora of the Italians, 216, 2291163, 240 Delphi, 20, 21, 2 4 - 2 5 , 26-27, 28, 72, 168; Athenian Stoa, 49; Attalid Stoa and offerings, 21, 201, 205, 206; Celtic attack, 193, 198, 200, 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 222, 2 3 i n 7 6 , 245, 257; Temple of Apollo, pediment, 244 Demeter, 69 Demetrios Poliorketes, 95, 168, 186 Didyma, seal impression from, (fig. 121), 266-68 Diodoros (historian), 43, 192, 197, 205 Diodoros Pasparos, 66 Diomedes, 7g, 83 (fig. 48), 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 116, 127-28, 138, 238, 2 6 9 - 7 0 Dionysios Coloponios (sculptor's signature), 244 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, 270 Dionysios of Syracuse, 258 Dionysos, 44, 46, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 196, 244, 247 Dirae, 1 2 0 - 2 1 Dirke, Punishment of. See Farnese Bull Dokimeion quarries, 83, 203 Doris, 241 Dresden, torso (Gaul?), 228n47, 2 3 4 m 17 Drusus the Elder, 2 1 8 - 1 9 Dying Adonis, (fig. 96), 245, 262 Dying Trumpeter (Capitoline), (fig. 70), 12, 169, 191, 193, 1 9 4 - 9 5 , !97> 208-209, 219, 2 2 1 - 2 2 . See also Attalid Dedications: Greater (Larger) Egyptian motifs, 64, 2 7 1 - 7 2 Elephant Batde, 197 Ephesos, 86, 172; Polyphemos group, 88n8, I 4 4 n i 4 ; theater, 67, 70 Epigenes (general), 205, 206 Epigonos (sculptor), 21, 192, 194, 1 9 6 - 9 7 , 201, 222 Epiros, 23-24, 27, 28, 168 Eretria, mirror cover from, 263 Eridanos, 271

Erotes, 245 Etruscan art, 4, 10, 12, 85, 235-36, 248, 2 5 5 - 7 3 , 261; architectural terracottas, 242-45; architecture, 249-50; bronzes, 242; depicting Gauls, 199; influencing Pergamon, 2 5 4 n i o o , 258-59, 261; influencing Sperlonga, 267-68; painting, 237, 2 4 0 - 4 1 , 261; Pergamene influence on, 6, 10, 12, 195, 201, 214, 235-50, 261; stone sculpture in the round, 238, 2 4 5 - 4 6 Etruscan mirrors. See mirrors Etruscans, in Asia Minor, 240, 249-50; on Delos, 249 Etruscan urns, 85, 200, 201, 2 1 3 - 1 5 , 216, 237, 238, 242, 2 4 6 - 4 7 , 258. See also Chiusi; Perugia; Volterra Eudamos (admiral), 188 Eumeneia, 66 Eumenes I, 19, 20 Eumenes II, 19, 20, 33, 34, 36, 39-40, 49, 70, 72, 73, 83, 98, 1 6 9 - 7 1 , 174, 1 7 8 - 8 0 , 196, 2og; honors to, 175, 1 7 7 Euryalus, 121, 122 Falerii Veteres. See Civita Castellana Faliscan vase with Gauls, (fig. 75), i g g , 2 1 4 Farnese Bull (Punishment of Dirke), 86, 88n7, g4, g 7 - g g , 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 , 188 Faustinus Felix, epigram, (fig. 65), 1 1 , 1 2 6 - 3 1 , 1 4 0 - 4 2 , 181, 183 Felsina, stelai: with Gauls, (fig. 74), i g g , 239; with Odysseus, 237; with Skylla, 238 Ferento, 238; head from, (fig. 84), 85, 238 Florence, Archaeological Museum: Chiusine urn, (fig. 80), 214; Pania pyxis (seePania [cemetery], pyxis from); terracottas from Arezzo-Catona (seeCatena); terracottas from Bolsena (see Bolsena) Fucoli. See Chianciano Galatomachy, 200, 201, 206, 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 216, 2 1 9 (fig. 82), 235, 237, 239, 255, 2 5 7 58, 268 Ganymede, (fig. 63), 1 1 , 80, 82, 84, 125, 132. ! 3 3 Gauls (Celts), 2, 4, 7, 18, 28, 34, 40, 170, 1 7 8 - 7 9 , i g i - 2 2 3 , 2 5 6 - 5 7 ; coinage of, (fig. 101), 257; depictions of (general), 200, 202, 2og, 2 1 1 - 1 3 , 222-23, 256-58; in Egypt, 12, i g 7 - g 8 , 222; with families,

INDEX 208-209; as friends of Attalids, 19, 291116, 170, 198; in Greece, 24-25, 28; in Italy, 4, 199-200, 212, 216, 2 1 9 20, 223, 239, 258; as mercenaries, 19, 180, 198, 209, 222, 258; in Roman army (as allies), 218, 239, 240; terracotta figurines, 197, 198 Ge (Mother Earth), 259, 260 gems, glass pastes, rings, and scarabs, 118 (fig- 55)» !3 6 > 1521192, 2 3 4 m 14, 237, 238» 259 geographic references, 237, 265, 2 7 0 - 7 1 . See also Sperlonga Geryon (Kerun), 264 Giants, 263; anguiped, 259-60 (figs. 102, 110), 268; fighting with boulders, 259 (fig. 10a) Gigantomachy, 68, 235, 255, 2 5 8 - 6 1 , 268. See also Pergamon, Great Altar (of Zeus); vulcanism Giovancorso (near Chiusi), male head, 253n5° Gjölbaschi-Trysa, heroön, (figs. 30-33), 6 3 - 6 4 , 74, 176 Glanum, Mausoleum of thejulii, 2 1 7 - 1 8 ; Roman Arch, 217 gorgon, 64. See also Medousa/Medusa griffins, 4 4 - 4 5 , 63 (fig. 29), 69 Grynos (grandson of Telephos), 24, 59 Gubbio, mosaic, 83, 1 1 6 Gytheion, theater, 67 Hades (Aita), 37, 60, 237, 239, 258, 2 6 4 - 6 5 (fig. 118), 272 Hadra vases, 242 Hadrian, 69 Halikarnassos, Mausoleum, (figs. 4, 24, 25), 12, 4 1 , 44, 49, 6 1 - 6 2 (fig. 26), 63, 71, 72, 74- 175 Hannibalic War, 26 Hannover, bone mirror handle, (fig. 105), 259 Helen, 60, 248 Helenus, 127, 134 Helios, 44, 69, 95, 96, 106. See also Colossus of Rhodes Hephaistos, 260 Hera (Basileia), 36, 40, 44, 54n39 Herakles, 22, 24, 27, 42, 6o, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 97, 120, 141, 197 (fig. 72), 236, 260 (fig. 107)

309

Herculaneum, Villa of the Papyri, 84, 139 Hercules, Alexicacus, Epitrapezius, Invictus. See Herakles Hermaphroditos, 244 Herodium, 272 Herodotos, 22 heroization (of ruler), 5g, 60, 61, 63, 176, 249 Hesiod, 42, 260 Hesione, 132, 133 Hierapolis, theater, (figs. 42, 43), 7 0 - 7 1 , 75, 176 Hieron (sculptor's signature), 244 Hippodameia, 247 Horace, 168 horses, 4 4 - 4 5 (figs. 1, 2), 63 (fig. 27), 72 hunt scenes, 6o, 61, 64, 65, 70, 176 Hydra, 264 Iapygia, 260 Iberian sculpture, 246 Iktinos, 172 Iliad, 4, 1 1 7 - 1 9 , 167, 184 Ilion (Troy), 26, 27, 28; Athenaion metopes, 3 , 9 4 , 95, 187 IliouPersis, 184 Inachos, 271 Io, 271 Isigonos. See Epigonos (sculptor) Isis, 271, 272 Island of the Sun, 134 Isles of the Blest (Islands of the Blessed), 44, 60, 176 Jigma-Tepe, tumulus, 33, 36, 44 Julii, Monument of. See Glanum Julus. SeeAscanius Juturna, 121 Juvenal, 181, 183, 185 Kaikos River, Batde of (historical), 205, 206, 209, 210, 22gn6o Kaikos River, Batde of (legendary), 46, 180 Kallimachos, 42, 198 Kallippos, 2 3 i n 7 6 , 232n8i Kalypso, 263 Kaphisias (sculptor), 43 Karyatids, 64 Kerberos, 68 Kikones, 134 Kirke (Circe), 84, 237, 263, 271

3io

INDEX

Kleomenes, 102 Kos, naval battle, 188 Kyme (Aiolia), coins with Skylla, 263 Kyzikos, 36, 37, g8; Attalid benefactions, 18, 20; stater with Skylla, 263; stele with defeated Gaul, (fig. 72), 1 9 7 , 210, 212

Macrobius, 140 Magna Mater, 2 6 - 2 7 , 28, 120, 169 Magnesia, 86, 169, 236; Altar o f Artemis L e u k o p h r y e n e , (fig. 37), 6 5 - 6 6 ; Battle of, 209 Mahdia shipwreck, g i n 2 2 Mainz, R o m a n kantharos, 2 1 0

Lagina, 236, 247, 248

Manchester Museum, mirror, (fig. 104),

Laistrygonians, 1 3 4 L a n g f o r d C o n f e r e n c e (IV), xv; Italian essays, summaries, 1 0 - 1 3 ; Pergamene essays, summaries, 7 - 1 0 ; premises, 1 - 6 , 1 1 ; procedure, 6 - 7 , 235, 2 5 5 - 5 6 Laodike, 62

259 Manlius Vulso (Gn.), i g , 40, 5 3 - 5 4 0 3 5 , 202,

L a o k o ô n group, 9, 50, 78, 79, 82, 88n7, 9 9 - 1 0 2 , 104, 1 2 4 - 2 5 (fig. 60), 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 , 140, 172, 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 2 43> 2 4 4 - See also Athanadoros (Athanodoros), Hagesandros, Polydoros (Rhodian sculptors) L a o m e d o n , 132 Laran, 259 Laurentum, 271 Lausus, 1 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 3 , 1 3 1 , 132, 1 8 2 - 8 3 . See also Pasquino g r o u p Lavinium, 270, 271 Lecce, limestone frieze, 200, 2 1 4 Leto, 245, 247 Letoon, 5 9 Licinius Mucianus, 96, 188 Limyra, h e r e o n , 63, 6 4 - 6 5 , 74, 86 Lindos, rock-cut (ship) relief, 88n7, 8 8 m o , 9 o n i g , 9 9 , 1 7 3 ; statue bases on, I 0 7 n i 2 , I07ni3 lions, 4 4 - 4 5 , 62, 83, 246 Little Iliad, 1 1 8 , 184 Livia, 67, 6g, 70, 167 Livy, 193, 202, 205, 209, 239, 265 Lucretius, 265 Ludovisi (Suicidal) Gaul, (fig. 69), 12, 124, 1461129, 169, 1 8 1 , 1 9 1 , 193, 195, 198, 208, 2 1 9 , 221. See also Attalid Dedications: Greater (Larger) Ludovisi Sarcophagus, 231— 3 2 n 8 i Luni, pedimental terracottas, 237, 245 Lykon (Peripatetic philosopher), 21 L y k o p h r o n (author of Alexandra), 27, 81 Lysimachos, 17, 62 Lysippos, 94, 95, 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 Macedonia, Macedonian Wars, 2, 1 9 - 2 0 , 26, 40, 1 7 1 , 209, 249

23on74, 240 Mantua, relief with Galatomachy, (fig. 82), 2 1 g , 220 Marathon, Batde of, 18, 46 (fig. 12), i g 6 , 210, 2 1 1 marble: o f Attalid monuments, 48, 5 7 ^ 4 , i g 3 , i g 5 , 202-203, 250; Larthian, gg; of Sperlonga sculptures, 80, 8 1 , 83, i6oni45 Marc (Mark) Antony, 22, g8. See also Actium Marcellus, 131 Mars Ultor, statue f r o m F o r u m Augusti, (fig. 61), 125 Marsyas, 70 Martial, 1 4 1 , i 6 3 n i 8 i , 181 Massalia, 257 Maussollos, 6 1 - 6 2 Medici family, Florence, g 3 Medousa/Medusa, 65, 246 (fig. 99) Megiste casket (osteotheke), (fig. 47), 8 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 , 26g, 270 Meleager, 64 Melian relief with Skylla, 263 Menekrates, g8, 101, 172 Menelaos. See Pasquino g r o u p Menerva (Mnerva, Mera). See A t h e n a Metris (priestess of A t h e n a Nikephoros), h o n o r e d by Pergamene demos, 38, 178 Micali Painter, black-figure vase in L o n d o n , (fig. 102), 25g Minerva. See A t h e n a mirrors, 237, 238, 25g (fig. 104), 2 5 g (figs. 105, 106), 2 6 0 - 6 1 (figs. 109, 110), 263 (figs. 114, 115) Moreno, Paolo, 6, 80-82, 9 3 - 9 4 , 185, 243, 248 M o u n t Aitna, 25g, 260 M o u n t Helikon (Boiotia). See Thespiai M o u n t Ida, 25, 26, 120

INDEX Mount Olympos (in Asia), Battle of. See ManliusVulso (Gn.) Munich, Praenestine cista, (fig. 108), 260 Muses, 8, 20, 42 (fig. 7), 55n46, 65 (figs. 35, 36), 68, 72; of Philiskos (seePhiliskos [sculptor] ) Myonnesos, naval battle, 1071122, 173, 188 Myrina terracotta figurines (Gaul trampled by elephant), 197 Nabis of Sparta, 171 Naples, National Museum: Amazon, 2 0 3 204; Gaul, 204; Giant, 204; Persian, 204. See also Attalid Dedications: Lesser (Amazons, Celts, Giants, Persians); Farnese Bull (Punishment of Dirke) Neoptolemos, 23, 82, 184 Neptune. See Poseidon Nereids, 44, 60, 69. See also Xanthos Nereus, 241 Nicetas Choniates, 1 1 7 Nike, 37, 38, 4 1 , 60, 68, 70, 99, 206 Nike of Samothrake, 3, 5, 82, 86, 88n7, 8 8 n i o , 8 8 n i 2 , g o m 8 , 94, 99, 104, 173, 188 Nikephoria, 40, 168, 170, 178, 17g Nikeratos of Athens (sculptor), 21, 8 g n i 6 , 10

9n39

Nikomedes (Monodous) of Bithynia, 36 Nile, 271, 272 Ninfeo Bergantino. See Castelgandolfo (Castel Gandolfo) Niobids, 70 Norchia, Tomba Lattanzi, 249 Odysseus, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 100, 1 1 1 - 3 4 , 237-38, 248, 262, 265, 267, 269-70. See also Palladion (Theft of); Pasquino group; Polyphemos; Sperlonga Odyssey, 4, 80, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 123, 128-29, 131, 133, 15511111, i 5 5 - 5 6 n i i 3 , 1 5 6 m 18, 167, 181, 237-38, 263, 2 6 4 - 6 5 Odyssey Landscapes, painting, 1 5 7 m 21 Oinoanda, theater, 67, 70 Oinomaos, 247 Olympia, 20, 168 Olympias of Macedon, 30n47 Omphale, 43 Orvieto, Cannicella necropolis, inscribed tomb façade, 239

57/

Ovid, 42, 80, 112, 126, 127, 167, 182, 270 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Tarentine mirror handle with Skylla, (fig. 114), 263 Palladion (Theft of), (figs. 47-49, 122-24), 11, 79, 81, 82, 83, 112, 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 125, 127, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 135-36, 181, 183, 238, 269-70 (fig. 125) Pallas, 121, 122-23 Panaitios, priest of Poseidon (Lindos), 82 Pania (cemetery), pyxis from, (fig. 111), 262-63, 267, 268, 276n52 Panion (Thrace), inscription, 177 Paris, Louvre, Gaul (inv. 324), 47, 224n3, 240 Pasiteles, 101, 124 Pasquino group, (figs. 53-54, 55, 56-57, 59), 11, 50, 79, 8 1 , 8 2 , 112, 1 1 7 - 2 4 , 125, 131, 132, 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 140, 167, 180-81, 182-83, 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 268; date of, 123-25, 136, I52ng2; viewing point, 118, 1 3 5 - 3 6 Patroklos. See Pasquino group pattern books, 211 Pausanias, 35, 4 3 , 4 g , 66, 6g, i g 2 - 9 3 , 194, 196, 205, 209, 211 Pegasos, 65 Peirithoos, 265 Peleus, 60 Pelops, 247 Penelope, 237 Pergamon, Asklepieion, 35, 3g Pergamon, Athena Nikephoros Sanctuary and Temple, 37-38, 40, 46 (fig. 15), i g 4 , 241 Pergamon, bronze plaque from, (fig. 77), 2 o g - i o , 212, 256 Pergamon, Great Altar (of Zeus), 1 - 3 , 13, 17, 20, 24, 28, 32-50, 65, 6 6 - 6 7 , 7 1 75, 82, 84, 85, g4, g s , 168, 172; akroteria (Centaurs, griffins, horses, lion, Olympians, Tritons),(figs. 1, 8, 9), 33, 4 3 - 4 6 , 4 g , 63, 72, 73, 180; apsidal building in foundations, 33, 35, 36, 6 6 67; baldacchino, (fig. xo), 47, 5 i n i o ; chronology, 32-33, 3 g - 4 i , 82, 170, 1 7 1 , 1 7 g - 8 o ; dedicatory inscription, (fig. 2), 34-3g, i 6 g , 177~7g; function, 33. 35. 7 3 - 7 5 . 86, 1 7 5 - 7 6 , i 7 g - 8 o ; Gigantomachy, 2, 5, 10, 17, 33, 36, 40, 4 1 , 42, 46, 7 1 , 73, 81, 83, g2, 99, 124, 170, 175, 177, 194, 241, 243, 245,

JI2

INDEX

Pergamon, Great Altar (of Zeus) (continued) 247; Macedonian allusions, 40 (fig. 6); plan, 32; reconstructions, (figs. 1, 3, 9)> 8. 3 3 - 3 4 . 196; sacrificial (central) altar, (figs. 9, 13, 16), 34, 46-49, 7 2 73; on Severan coin, (fig. 10), 46, 47, 5 i n i o ; statues in colonnade, (figs. 7, 9), 4 1 - 4 3 , 72, 73; s t e P s > 32. 47; T e l e " phos frieze, 2 , 1 3 , 23, 3 3 - 3 4 , 36, 42, 44, 46, 49, 60, 63, 65, 73, 85, 176, 243. 245. 247; war spoils, 48-49, 73 Pergamon, heroa, 66 Pergamon, Library, 22, 168 Pergamon, Nikephorion outside the walls, 39. 205, 206 Pergamon, Palace V, 39, 73, 2 5 2 ^ 8 Pergamon, Upper Agora, Temple of Zeus, 2 5 4 m 00 Pergamon, victory monuments, 11, 18, 19. 34. 4 8 - 4 9 ( fi g- >5)» !94. 205, 206, 211-12; long (Batde) base, 195, ig7, 202, 205, 206-209 (fig. 76), 2 1 1 , 223; round base, 195, 197, 202, 206 Pergamos (hero), 2 3 - 2 4 , 82 Perikle (Lykian ruler), 64 Perikles (Athenian statesman), 93 Persephone/Kore (Phersipnei), 60, 258, 264 (fig. 1 1 8 ) Persepolis, 62, 63 Perseus (hero), 65 Perseus of Macedon, 34, 171, 209 Perugia, 236, 262; Hypogaeum of Volumnii, (fig. gg), 246; mirror from, (fig. 106), 259; urns from, 2 1 4 , 239, 247 Pessinous, 29m 6, 3 i n 6 5 Petronius, 1 3 1 Pharnakes of Pontos, 19, 20, 34, 40 Pheidias, 93, 186, 187 Phersipnei. See Persephone/Kore Philetaireia, 20 Philetairos of Pergamon, 17, 18, 20-21, 36, 43, 205, 206, 223 Philip II of Macedon, 67 Philip V of Macedon, 18, 26, 206 Philiskos (architect), iogn3g Philiskos (painter), iogn3g Philiskos (sculptor), g4, 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 104 Philoktetes, i 5 4 n i o 3 , i 5 8 - 5 g n i 3 6 , 238 Philostratos, 271 Phlegraian fields, 260

Phoibe, 247 Phyromachos, 2 1 , ig2, 232n8i piglets, 1 3 2 Pindar, Pindaric, 168, 176, 25g pisciped creatures, 23g, 260 (figs. 107, 108), 263 Pitane, 20 Pithekoussai, 260 Planctae (clashing rocks), 271 Plato, 272 Pliny, 2, 50, 67, 95, 102, 166, 174, i g 2 , 193, 194, 197, 202; on Rhodes, g 6 - g 7 , 105, 188 Plutarch, ig6 Polybios, 4 1 , i6g, 174, i7g, 180, ig3, ig6, 205 Polycharmos (sculptor), 103 Polykleitos, g3 Polyphemos: Blinding of, 11, 7g, 82, 1121 3 , 1 1 6 , 127, 1 3 3 , I 4 4 n i 2 , 1 8 1 , 183, 235. 237 (fig- 8 3 ) . 244. 247. 264-65, 269, 2 7 2 - 7 3 ; escape from, 262, 268; and Galatea, I 5 7 n i 2 i , 2 7 1 ; Offering of the cup to, 80, 8 1 , 87n4, 88n7, 8 8 n i 3 , 237 Polyxena, sarcophagus, 184. See also Achilles Pompeii: Domus Cornelia, 2 7 1 ; House of Loreius Tiburtinus, 2 7 1 ; House of the Vettii, 271 Populonia, 242, 244; mirror from, 259 Porphyrion, 247 Poseidon, 37, 44, 46 (fig. 8), 69, 237, 260 (fig. 108) Praeneste (Palestrina), 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 265, 268 Praenestine, cistae, 259 (fig. 103), 260 (figs. 107, 108), 263; mirror, 260 (fig. iog) Priam, 1 1 9 Priene, Altar of Athena, (figs. 34-36), 65; Athenaion, 3, 2 4 1 , 261 propaganda, 5 - 6 , 19, 25, 28, i 6 8 - 6 g , 1 7 1 , 189 Prousias of Bithynia, ig, 20, 34, 3g, 40, 178, 206 Ptah, 272 Ptolemies of Egypt, 22, 54n44, 188, ig8 putto with theatrical mask, (fig. 67), 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 140 Pydna, Batde of, 1 7 1 , 1 7 3 Pyrgi, 258 Pythokritos of Rhodes, 88n7, 88nio, gonig, gg, 1 0 1 , 104, 188

INDEX Rhodes, i o , 67, 81-82, 85, 86, 92, 95, 9 6 - 9 7 , 104-105, 167, 1 7 1 , 172, 173, 186, 246, 266; nymph statuettes, 98, 106; and the pirates, 82, 84, 8 g n i 4 , io8n33, 266; sculpture in landscape, 81, 84, 94, i o g n 3 5 , 1 6 2 m 63, 187 Rhodian relief bowls, (fig. 120), 83, 265-66, 267-68 Rhodian School, 2, 3, 6 - 7 , 9 - 1 0 , 13, 80, 81, 84, 86, 92-106, 172, 185-89, 244, 245, 247, 262. See also Colossus of Rhodes; Nike of Samothrake Rimini (Ariminum), cast bronze coin, (fig. 101), 257; signed sculptures from, 244 Rome, Barracco Museum. See Bolsena, limestone head from Rome, Capitoline Museum, monument with Nikai, 248. See also Dying Trumpeter (Capitoline) Rome, as mediator of artistic influences, 242, 246, 248, 249; relations with Attalids, 1 7 - 1 9 Rome, monuments: Ara Pacis, 2 1 8 - 1 9 ; Campus Martius, 271; Column of Trajan, 221; Curia in Pompey's theater, 67; Forum Augusti, 125; Forum Trajanum, 69; House of Livia on Palatine, 271; Monument to Vittorio Emanuele II (Altare della Patria), (fig. 17), 50; Porticus Octaviae, 102, 103; Temple of Apollo Sosianus, 102; Tempie ofVesta, 270; theater of Scaurus, 67; Tomb of the Scipiones, 246; Via Tiburtina, funerary monument, 246 Romulus, (fig. 62), 125 royal cult, 66 sacrifice scenes, 60, 6 1 , 62, 176 sarcophagi: at Belevi, (fig. 28), 63; Etruscan, 238, 239-40; Greek, wooden, 242; Roman, depicting Gauls, (fig. 78), 201, 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 219, 220-21; with Sacrifice of Polyxena, 184 Sarno, 271 Schloss Fasanerie (by Fulda), heads in, 22gn66 Scipio Aemilianus, 82 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 272 Sejanus (L. Aelius), 78, 181, 185 Seleukids, 2, 40, 1 7 1 , 173, 206

j j j

Seleukos I, 168 Sentinum, Batde of, 220, 245, 257 Septimius Severus, at Hierapolis, (fig. 43), 70 Servius, 140 Seven against Thebes, 244, 248 Side, naval batde, i o 7 n 2 2 , 173, 188 Sikyon, 72 Silenoi, 68 Silius Italicus, 270 Sinon, 127-28, 1 3 1 - 3 2 sirens, 63, 237, 248, 271 Sisyphos, 264 Skamandros, 271 Skepsis, 22 Skopas, 243 Skylla, 9, 11, 79, 82, 83, 1 1 7 , 125, 127, 128, 133. 134< 173> 181, 255, 267-68, 269, 272-73; in Etruria, 235, 237, 238-39, 262-64; and ship/pilot, (figs. 50-52), 83, 84, 1 1 4 - 1 7 , 128-30, 138, 140, I 5 7 n i 2 i , 173, 262 (fig. 111), 266-67 (figs. 119, 120, 121); in Taras, 85, 263 Sovana: terracotta fragments, 240; Tomba dellaSirena, (fig. 116), 239, 263-64; Tomba Ildebranda, 249 Sperlonga: cave, (fig. 45), 78-79, 1 1 1 , 133, I43n2, 181; date of sculptures, 7 8 - 7 9 , 80-82, 84, 87n3, g o n i 8 , 100, i o 8 n 3 i , 133, 137-39; geographic allusions, 85, 100, 271, 273; masonry structures, 79, 138-39; meaning and program, 81, 84, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 119, 131-34, 135, 140-42, 272-73; ownership, 911122, 1 3 4 - 3 5 , 137; sculptures,(figs. 46, 48-52, 56, 57» 63> 6 4. 67, 68, 122-24), 6, 7 - 8 , 1 1 , 1 3 » 5 ° . 75. 78-86, 99-102, 1 1 1 - 4 2 , I 5 g n i 3 8 , 167, 172, 238, 266, 2 6 8 - 7 1 ; viewing point, 1 1 5 (fig. 46), 135. See also Achilles; Aeneas; Ajax; Argo, ship (and mosaic inscription); Ascanius; Athanadoros (Athanodoros), Hagesandros, Polydoros (Rhodian sculptors); Diomedes; Faustinus Felix, epigram; Ganymede; Hesione; Odysseus; Palladion (theft o f ) ; Pasquinogroup; Philoktetes; piglets; Polyphemos; putto with theatrical mask; Skylla; Tetrarchic portrait; Venus Genetrix, relief sphinx, 271

314

INDEX

starburst, in Gigantomachy, 40 (fig. 6), 54038, 260 (figs. 108, 109) Statius, 141 Stephanos (sculptor), 102, 103; Stephanos Athlete, (fig. 58), 124 Strabo, 169, 179, 265 Stratonike (Attalid Queen), 37, 42, 177 St. Rémy. See Glanum style, styles: archaistic, 94, 138, 242; baroque, 1 - 3 , 9, 12, 49-50, 85, 94, 95, 98, 103, 187, 189, 221, 242-43; classicizing, 2 1 5 , 2 25n20, 245; Flavian illusionism, 86; Hellenistic, 3, 68, 86, 94, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 , 105, 124, I 5 i - 5 2 n 8 8 , 196; rococo, 102, 103 Suetonius, 6 7 , 7 8 , 8 5 , 111, 134, 138, 1 8 1 , 183, 272 Suri, 258 tableaux vivants, 212 Tacitus, 78, 85, 111, 134, 1 8 1 Talamone (Telamon), battle of, 220, 239, 244; terracottas from, 242, 244 Taras, Tarentine, 12, 200, 236, 243, 244, 260-61, 262, 268; mirrors, 260 (fig. 110), 261, 263 (fig. 114); sculptures, 3, 85, 1 0 1 , 243, 263 Tarchon (son of Telephos), 27, 237 Tarchuna. See Tarquinia Tarquinia, 237, 240-41; Praenestine cista foot from, (fig. 103), 259; relief mirror, (fig. 115), 263; Tomba del Tifone (figs. 87, 88), 2 4 1 - 4 2 , 248, 261, 263; Tomba delle Sculture, (fig. 86), 239, 263; Tomba dell'Orco, (figs. 83, 1 1 7 , 118), 237, 264, 268, 271 Tegea, 22-23 Teithras, 42 Telamon (hero), 120 Telamon (location). See Telamones (architectural supports) Telamones (architectural supports), 241 Telegonos, 84, 126 Telephos, 34, 36, 42; heroón of, 35, 66; myth of, 22-24, 27, 28, 43, 73, 168, 175, 180, 236-37, 244; statue atThespiai, 43. See also Pergamon, Great Altar (of Zeus) Telmessos, decree, 39, 46, 177, 1 7 8 - 7 9 Tensa Capitolina, 118 Tetrarchie portrait, 79, i 6 4 m 8 7 Teuthras (king of Mysia), 8, 22-23, 4 2 Thamyris, statue of, 43

Thasos, 266; inscription, 103 Theodoras of Gadara, 82 Theokritos, 42 Thermopylai, Gaulish attack, 2 3 1 ^ 6 Theseus, 60, 6 1 , 264-65 Thespiai (Boiotia), 20, 42, 43 Thespios, 42 Thetis, 60 throne (of Satan), 7 3 - 7 4 Tiber, 271, 272 Tiberius, 8, 67, 78-79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 , 125, 138, 1 4 1 , 167, 1 8 1 , 189; nicknamed Ajax, 183, 185 Timarchides, Dionysios, Polykles (sculptors), 103 Tinia, 259 Tiphys, 132 Titus, 100, 189 Tityos, 247 Tivoli, Hadrian's Villa, I47n42, i 6 o n i 4 6 , i62ni62, 220-21 topographic program. See geographic references Tortoreto, terracotta sculptures, 85, 1441114 Trajan, (fig. 40), 69 Tralleis, 86 trihemiolia (triemiolia), 83, 84, 173, 188 Triton, 44, 68-69. See also Pergamon, Great Altar (of Zeus), akroteria (Centaurs, griffins, horses, lion, Olympians, Tritons) Triumph-of-Death motif, (fig. 98), 246 Trojan (Homeric) subjects, 4, 1 1 , i 5 n i o , 26, 28, 80, 82-83, 86, 1 1 2 , 120, 167, 255, 272 Tros, 1 3 2 Troy, 22, 25-26, 168. See alsoIlion Trysa. See Gjolbaschi-Trysa, heroon Tuchulcha, 265 Turnus, 1 2 1 , 122 Tuscania: funerary monument from, (fig. 96), 245; nenfro sculpture from, (fig. 98), 246. See alsoVal Vidone Tydeus, 184 Typhon, 241 (fig. 87), 259, 261 Tyrsenos/Tyrrhenos (son of Telephos), 27, 237 Underworld. See Hades (Aita) Uni/Astarte, 258

INDEX Val Vidone (Tuscania), funerary groups, 246 Vanth, 258 Varro, 172 Vatican Museums: Dying Adonis, (fig. 96), 245, 262; Gaul, 47, 240; Helper group, 220; Persian (inv. 2794), 204, 224n3, 247 vegetation goddess (Rankmgottin), (fig. 88), 241-42 Venice, Archaeological Museum: inv. 55-57, Gauls, 47, 204 (fig. 71), 223n3; inv. 142, Caligula portrait, 138 Venus Genetrix, relief, (fig. 64), 125, 132, 140 Vetulonia, frieze from, 237, 244 Victory. See Nike of Samothrake victory monuments without victors, 195—96 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, bronze Centaur, (fig. 89), 242 Virgil/Vergil, 11, 120, 123, 126-28, 129, 132-33, 140, 181, 265, 272. See also Aeneid Viterbo, Museo Civico. See Ferento Vitruvius, 166

3/5

Volterra, 236, 242, 243, 248, 250; terracotta sculpture from, (figs. 93, 94), 243-44; urns from, 214, 237-38, 239, 243, 247, 248 vulcanism, 260 Vulci, 12, 242, 245, 262, 268; antefixes from, 245; black-figure vase from, (fig. 102), 259; frieze from, 237 Worcester Museum of Art: Etruscan terracotta urn, (fig. 100), 247; inv. 1914.23, Caligula portrait, 138 Wurzburg, Martin von Wagner-Museum, glass paste, (fig. 55), 125 Xanthos: Inscribed Pillar, 59; Nereid Monument, (figs. 18-23), 9> 44> 5 9 - 6 o , 61-62, 63.64.71.72.74. 175_76 Zeus, 34, 37, 65, 71, 74 (fig. 44), 120, 257, 259, 260; Ammon, 41, 43, 72; Keraunios, (fig. 5), 37, 178; Philios, 77 n 35See also Tinia Zoilos, 68

Figure ì. Model of the Great Altar (scale 1:20, after Hoepfner 1997b). Western side. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (Photo the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Kellen, The Photograph Studio)

Figure 2. Two architrave fragments from the Great Altar, with dedicatory inscription. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (After AvPVIII.i, no. 69)

Figure 3. Drawing of the Great Altar, east side. (Scale 1:20, after Hoepfner; courtesy of W. Hoepfner)

Figure 4. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos. (Drawing by Candace Smith)

Figure 5. Dedication to Zeus Keraunios from the Great Altar terrace. (After AvP VIII.2, no. 232)

Figure 6. Dead Giant from the east frieze of the Great Altar. (After AvPVIII. 2, pi. 10)

Figure 7. Personification of Tragedy (Melpomene) found on the north side of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (After AvPVII, pi. 14)

Figure 8. Striding divinity, probably Poseidon, found on the Altar terrace, probably an akroterion from the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (After AvPVll, pi. 36)

Figure 9. Model of the Great Altar (scale 1:20, after Hoepfner 1997b). Interior court, with the so-called Lesser Attalid Dedication (cf. Fig. 11) restored on the sacrificial altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (Photo the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Kellen, The Photograph Studio)

Figure 10. Bronze coin of Pergamon showing the Great Altar, minted under the emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 198-217). London, British Museum. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 11. Dying Celt, dead Giant, dead Amazon, and dying Persian, copied probably from an Attalid monument on the Athenian Akropolis (the so-called Lesser Attalid Dedication). Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 6012-6015. (Photo Brogi 5370; Alinari/Art Resource, New York)

HERA

ATHENA

THESEUS

HERAKLES MARATHON

DEMETER

KORE

K A

L L

FIGHT

M

I T

I

A D E S

EOU/U.

TERMS

ON

lil A C

as PERSIANS IN THE MARSH

PERSIANS SLAUGHTERED

N E

ARTAPHERNES

PERSIAN

Figure 12. The Battle of Marathon: painting at Athens as reconstructed by Evelyn B. Harrison. (After Harrison 1972, 364, ill. 1)

SHIPS

Figure 13. Cornice blocks from the sacrificial altar in the interior court of the Great Altar. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (After Hoepfner 1996a, 127, fig. 12)

Figure 14. Dedication of spoils from the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon. (After A v P V I I I . i , no. 38)

Figure 1 5 . Balustrade relief from the stoa of the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. (After Ai^PVII, pi. 4 3 )

Figure 16. Reconstruction of the sacrificial altar in the interior court of the Great Altar, with spoils superimposed. (Drawing by Chris Link)

Figure 17. The Altare della Patria (monument to Vittorio Emanuele II), Rome, by Giuseppe Sacconi. (University of California, Berkeley Photo Archive)

Figure 18. Nereid Monument from Xanthos, as in London, British Museum, reconstruction since 1976. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 19. Nereid Monument from Xanthos: model by F. N. Pryce, ca. 1929. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure ao. Nereid Monument from Xanthos. London, British Museum, frieze slab no. 879. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 2 1 . Nereid Monument from Xanthos: Arbinas reclining. London, British Museum, frieze slab no. 903. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 22. Nereid Monument from Xanthos. London, British Museum, no. 924. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 23. Nereid Monument from Xanthos: reconstruction of east façade. (Courtesy of P. Demargne)

Figure 24. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: reconstruction by G. Waywell. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 25. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: reconstruction by K. Jeppesen. (Courtesy of K. Jeppesen)

Figure 26. Mausoleum of Halikarnassos: seated figure, frontal view. London, British Museum, no. 1047. (Photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 27. Mausoleum of Belevi: reconstruction by W. Hoepfner. (Courtesy of W. Hoepfner)

Figure 29. Mausoleum of Belevi: lion-griffins flanking marble vase. Selfuk Museum. (Copyright Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Vienna)

Figure 30. Heroon of Gjolbaschi-Trysa: drawing of exterior. (After Benndorf and Niemann i88g, pi. 2)

Figure 3 1 . Heroon of Gjolbaschi-Trysa: inside of entrance. (After Benndorf and Niemann 1889, pi. 2)

Figure 32. Heroon of Gjolbaschi-Trysa: detail of city siege. (After Benndorf and Niemann 1889, pi. 12)

Figure 33. Heroon of Gjolbaschi-Trysa: Bellerophon and the Chimaira. (After Benndorf and Niemann 1889, pi. 22)

Figure 34. Altar of Athena, Priene: reconstruction by J . C. Carter. (Drawing by Susan Bird; photo courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 35. Altar of Athena, Priene: standing figure in Berlin, Staatliche Museen. (Photo courtesy of J . C. Carter) Figure 36. Altar of Athena, Priene: seated Muse in Istanbul, Archaeological Museum. (Photo courtesy of J . C. Carter)

Figure 37. Altar of Artemis Leukophryene, Magnesia: reconstruction. (Courtesy of W. Hoepfner)

Figure 38. View of theater, Aphrodisias. (New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias)

rt

u

c 5 a .